<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<comments>
  <row Id="1" PostId="1" Score="4" Text="[Here's what Wiktionary thinks](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-que)." CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:17:11.923" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2" PostId="1" Score="3" Text="see [my answer](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/6988/445)" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:34:55.037" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10" PostId="1" Score="1" Text="@AlexB.: I felt compelled to vote for your excellent reference there. But I've also added my own answer, which I think simplifies the question." CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:51:38.423" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15439" PostId="1" Score="1" Text="Note that, in terms of *-que* being used for related items, it causes the nouns to be adjacent, rather than separated by *et*. I believe that Latin writers were more aware of word order and physical relationship than we in English are." CreationDate="2018-08-24T13:05:09.843" UserId="2864" />
  <row Id="15440" PostId="1" Score="0" Text="@Mainlinebrat: Welcome to the site! Your contribution was a bit more like a comment, so I've converted it into one. Do keep posting your answers and comments on the site!" CreationDate="2018-08-24T21:52:30.390" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38316" PostId="1" Score="0" Text="The syntatic term for -que in Classical Latin is enclitic. It is very similar to affixes, but with less frequency on certain features." CreationDate="2022-05-12T21:06:16.047" UserId="11108" />
  <row Id="47736" PostId="3" Score="0" Text="Another example from Classical Latin: [*Antipater ille Sidonius*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0120%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D194) (Cicero)." CreationDate="2024-03-15T14:08:30.193" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="11313" PostId="4" Score="0" Text="I think &quot;are visited&quot; should be *visitantur*, whereas *visitata sunt* (or with any other gender) is &quot;were visited&quot;. But I guess &quot;replace *visitat__ sunt* with *visitantur*&quot; would not answer your actual question." CreationDate="2017-11-09T18:08:13.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15" PostId="5" Score="4" Text="One minor benefit is that a macron indicates that the affected vowel isn't part of a diphthong; cf &quot;*āeris*&quot; (&quot;of air&quot;, trisyllabic) and &quot;aeris&quot; (&quot;of copper/bronze&quot;, disyllabic).  Without this, you need to either use a diaeresis or be ambiguous." CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:58:33.390" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="28" PostId="6" Score="0" Text="This rule, if true, requires a lot of caveats. It doesn't make sense, for instance, of such phrases as &quot;Eum occidit seque in desertum retulit.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:14:35.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="46" PostId="6" Score="0" Text="@brianpck - this is the case for many rules in Latin :P" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:58:26.000" UserId="86" />
  <row Id="51" PostId="6" Score="0" Text="Haha, definitely. Honestly I think it would be generous to even call this a rule: a quick scan of Plautus reveals such phrases as &quot;confidentes garrulique et malevoli supera lacum&quot;, &quot;cimices pedesque pulicesque&quot;, &quot;eum rem fidemque perdere aiunt&quot;, etc. And yes, those were the first three I found with nothing omitted :) Maybe a coincidence, but still." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:05:30.623" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9" PostId="7" Score="9" Text="Elementary prepositions are rarely borrowed from another language." CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:44:43.520" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="329" PostId="7" Score="3" Text="That quotation does not say that latin *ad* originates from Semetic *I.* In fact, it implies that it does not. It says it might &quot;correspond&quot; to it in this one expression. A [*calque*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque) is when an expression is translated &quot;literally&quot; from one language to another, resulting in a parallel formation. For example, French &quot;gratte-ciel&quot; literally &quot;scrape-sky&quot; is a calque of English &quot;skyscraper.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:46:06.920" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="3" PostId="8" Score="6" Text="This answer would benefit from a source =)" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:36:55.747" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="5" PostId="8" Score="4" Text="@Nathaniel: Fair enough, I'll go and find my Van der Heyde..." CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:40:32.807" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11314" PostId="8" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus Did you find the book yet? :P" CreationDate="2017-11-09T18:09:44.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11317" PostId="8" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Err I'm getting closer, I can feel it! Seriously, there are some boxes I could rummage through to find it." CreationDate="2017-11-09T22:45:06.343" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7" PostId="11" Score="1" Text="Other syllables (or at least the word as a whole) *can* be affected, as a long ultima can take emphasis away from the penult." CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:43:04.160" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="12" PostId="11" Score="3" Text="@jwodder: Oh, in that way. Well, that is the addition of a syllable affecting another syllable; but a macron is just a diacritic, it doesn't actually change anything. But I see what you mean." CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:54:04.183" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14" PostId="17" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! About &quot;hidden quantity&quot;: I thought there was no difference in the pronunciation of a vowel if its syllable is closed, i.e. that no distinction between long and short could be heard?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:58:01.747" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24" PostId="17" Score="5" Text="@Cerberus: no, there were phonetic differences. It's just harder to find evidence for them, since we can't use metrical evidence from poetry, or the position of the stress in descended Romance words. But often, the Romance vowel quality can indicate the Classical vowel length. One distinction that was clearly mentioned by ancient grammarians is between the long vowel in past participles like *lēctus* and the short vowel in ones like *vectus*..." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:09:28.643" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="25" PostId="17" Score="2" Text="It's called &quot;Lachmann's Law&quot;: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA69&amp;lpg=PA69&amp;dq=lectus+past+participle+vowel+length&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TwUCgj2z_X&amp;sig=MOLsUgENWypHP-_JFE70o8_KA1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjg9c3Qyo7LAhWEw4MKHXEeADEQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:09:35.017" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="27" PostId="17" Score="0" Text="Wow, somehow I totally missed this! Very good to know." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:14:27.790" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6830" PostId="17" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/251/79)" CreationDate="2017-02-17T21:46:45.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18" PostId="19" Score="1" Text="[wikitionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vault#Etymology_2) suggests the &quot;jump&quot; sense of this word comes from **middle** French *volter*, which had a notion of “to turn or spin around; to frolic”; separately from the evolution of the noun sense of &quot;vault&quot; which comes from **old** French *volte* &lt; vulgar Latin volvitare. So I'm not entirely sure that *volvitare has anything to do with jumping. But this is a comment and not an answer because I don't really know." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:04:35.750" UserId="60" />
  <row Id="29" PostId="19" Score="2" Text="It should be remembered that the frequentative suffix *-(V?)t(a)-* often indicates not only frequency, but also intensity. But perhaps that has nothing to do with it, as Calchas suggests." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:19:06.153" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4269" PostId="19" Score="0" Text="La Volta ( a dance in which the male assists his partner to leap in very much the same ways as a line-out forward ) was a favourite of Elizabeth I." CreationDate="2016-09-06T18:39:17.347" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16" PostId="20" Score="3" Text="And as a quick aside: yes, recast the sentence! &quot;Pueri visitant...&quot; is much more fluent and avoids the dissonance altogether, much as an English sentence like &quot;Tommy's and your baseball bats&quot; is correct (I think) but not good writing." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:00:28.703" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37" PostId="20" Score="5" Text="For what it's worth, I'd vote against recasting the sentence. The passive voice was much more common and acceptable in Classical Latin than in modern English, and your casting connotes an emphasis on the cities visited that &quot;Pueri visitant. . . .&quot; doesn't." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:40:11.173" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="58" PostId="20" Score="1" Text="Agreed that the passive--especially in impersonal constructions--is much more common in Latin. My point was not about the passive but about the gender dissonance which results from any of the options available as the sentence stands. Perhaps a better recasting option would be to use &quot;urbes + genitive visitatae sunt&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:19:36.767" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11315" PostId="20" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I took the liberty to add &quot;in both gender and number&quot; (as mentioned in the linked grammar) to your case 1, since there was other mention of agreement in number there. Feel free to re-edit, of course." CreationDate="2017-11-09T18:14:12.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="138" PostId="22" Score="1" Text="Right.  Does it affect the sound of the letter too?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:23:13.977" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="17" PostId="23" Score="13" Text="Sources for this statement (which I believe is correct) would be helpful." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:04:06.780" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12382" PostId="23" Score="1" Text="@aper I rejected your edit because it was in conflict with what TKR wrote. Disagreement is allowed and even encouraged, but your opinion should not appear with someone else's name. Please write your answer as a separate answer. That way people can vote and comment on various different answers. Yours looked very interesting, and I have an upvote waiting with your name on it. You can access what you wrote [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/2222) if you want to copy and paste it to a new one." CreationDate="2018-03-12T11:16:35.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12400" PostId="23" Score="3" Text="This is wrong. Hittite is an indo-european language for which the rule of neuters doesn't hold: the nominative of a neuter noun for a transitive verb is different from the accusative. The source given 'Archaic Syntax in Indo-European' by Brigitte Bauer refers to proto-indo-european, not to its derivatives, latin, russian, hittite, etc" CreationDate="2018-03-13T07:32:55.233" UserId="2461" />
  <row Id="19" PostId="25" Score="2" Text="What era?  Classical only, or broader?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:04:40.617" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="21" PostId="25" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel No preference; please feel free to decide (personally, I am interested in Vulgar Latin too, but it may be impertinent to my question)." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:05:41.080" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="26" PostId="25" Score="1" Text="This [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dexigo) is a good place to start for usage examples." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:09:56.437" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10335" PostId="26" Score="3" Text="*atque* is yet another word different from both *et* and *-que*." CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:33:37.483" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="6123" PostId="27" Score="4" Text="There is a singular exception  to the rule that nom. and acc. neuter plurals in Latin end in -a. The relative pronoun _qui, quae, quod_ has _quae_ — but it is NOT an exception to the rule under discussion!" CreationDate="2017-01-15T16:25:14.627" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6128" PostId="27" Score="5" Text="@TomCotton: Ah, good point. And *haec*. It could be argued that those are contractions of qua and ha with deictic particles -e [i] and -c(ce), which would not be part of the ending. Cf. Greek -i after some forms of *houtos*." CreationDate="2017-01-15T17:43:46.660" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43543" PostId="27" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Those neuter plurals don't end in -a, yet they still follow the pattern of &quot;nominaccusative neuter plural = nominative feminine singular&quot; of first/second declension." CreationDate="2023-06-12T13:40:01.493" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="33" PostId="28" Score="7" Text="I seem to recall a story involving &quot;figs&quot; (cauneas) being confused for &quot;beware of leaving&quot; (cave ne eas)." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:38:42.460" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="539" PostId="28" Score="1" Text="@brianpck You recall your Cicero well." CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:10:58.327" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="17866" PostId="28" Score="1" Text="&quot;I saw some people challenging this view&quot; - whom did you have in mind? imho most Latinists agree on this." CreationDate="2018-12-27T03:11:46.867" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34744" PostId="28" Score="1" Text="Actually the letter V stands for three phonemes: /w/, /u/. and /u:/." CreationDate="2021-08-26T08:53:41.887" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="43" PostId="31" Score="2" Text="This is an example of phonological dissimilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissimilation)—in this case, the dental consonant [n] dissimilating from the dental consonant [d] to become the labial consonant [m]. But I don't know the answer to your question, and I can't even think of an example in English, so I'm leaving this as a comment rather than an answer. :)" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:55:18.360" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="56" PostId="31" Score="1" Text="Another keyword is [*sandhi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhi). A classical example being words like *symbiont (syn-biont).*" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:18:16.610" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="77" PostId="31" Score="2" Text="@Joel Derfner: I’d rather say _eundem_ is an example of assimilation, because the “expected” form would indeed be _eumdem_ (compare _eum_). There was lots of variation in whether this assimilation appeared in writing or not, especially visible with the prefix _in-_ (_im-_, _ir-_, _il-_, _i-_)" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:50:38.377" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="111" PostId="31" Score="0" Text="@chirlu Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. If it were &quot;eunbem,&quot; then &quot;eumbem&quot; would be the expected form. but [d] and [n] are both dentals, whereas [m] is labial." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:23:29.093" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="112" PostId="31" Score="2" Text="@Joel Derfner: Are you aware that the first part of _eundem_ is _eum_, with the _-m_ being the accusative ending?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:26:20.257" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="160" PostId="31" Score="0" Text="@chirlu OH CRAP I'M A MORON. Sorry. I wasn't thinking. Bleah." CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:39:59.050" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="364" PostId="31" Score="0" Text="@chirlu No more than I deserve for privileging phonology over morphology. :)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:04:18.740" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="9009" PostId="32" Score="1" Text="Regarding &quot;ch&quot;, I believe unetymological spellings with &quot;h&quot; are often observed before &quot;r&quot;, which some like Allen seem to have explained as due to sound shifts that occured in Latin. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/647/were-th-and-ch-aspirated-in-classical-latin/648#648" CreationDate="2017-05-23T13:39:28.537" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="12071" PostId="32" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: Great reference, now that I see it!" CreationDate="2018-02-01T21:12:06.003" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35" PostId="36" Score="6" Text="Note that the Lewis &amp; Short entry says “kindred with Gr. δάκρυ”, not _borrowed_ or similar. _Kindred_ means related; the words are cognates, but the Latin word does not “come from” the Greek one – at least not according to L&amp;S." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:39:29.153" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="48" PostId="37" Score="2" Text="If I’m running _towards_ you, brandishing a sword in my hand, would you think I’m being friendly? :-)" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:01:53.137" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="50" PostId="37" Score="1" Text="What Chirlu says. Cf. also English *leaning against the wall / fighting against the city*." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:05:17.313" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="55" PostId="37" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Thanks. Were you referencing the English ['without'](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=without&amp; allowed_in_frame=0) ? Otherwise, how does 'in' connect to 'against' in `leaning against the wall / fighting against the city`?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:14:01.250" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="59" PostId="37" Score="0" Text="@LePressentiment: I was talking about *against*. It was just another example of how a neutral physical position can somehow become connected with a battle attitude." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:25:34.760" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="458" PostId="37" Score="0" Text="@chirlu On a second reading, I do not understand your analogy, sorry. Why did you italicise *towards*; how does it connect with the Latin *in-*?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T06:22:16.933" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="460" PostId="37" Score="0" Text="@LePressentiment: See the answer (*&quot;In&quot; plus the accusative, however, …*)." CreationDate="2016-02-27T07:01:33.417" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="2536" PostId="40" Score="3" Text="When I read the title I kept thinking that there is a big difference between aut, vel, and -ve versus et cetera." CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:21:51.940" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="34" PostId="42" Score="1" Text="Are you asking specifically about these two, or all of them?  It might be better to ask about one at a time." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:39:28.443" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="36" PostId="42" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel Ok, let me ask about boron, then. I was thinking there might be a trend, i.e. one historical name and one Latinized name from the modern name." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:39:52.580" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="156" PostId="42" Score="2" Text="Many elements (including boron) weren’t known before modern times, because they don’t appear in elementary form in nature." CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:01:54.793" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="174" PostId="42" Score="0" Text="@chirlu Even more reason that they should have one name and not several." CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:02:32.093" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="39" PostId="44" Score="0" Text="As a quick aside, the current Ecclesiastical pronunciation of c before &quot;e&quot;, &quot;i&quot;, &quot;ae&quot;, and &quot;oe&quot; (at least of the Italian flavor) is [ʧ]" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:44:29.253" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="42" PostId="44" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: the most common one, though there are regional differences. For example, in  (most?) Slavic countries its pronuntiation is the same as in Renaissance Latin, though some priests prefer the Italian pronuntiation. Or even switch the two, which is quite irritating, especially when using both ways in a single sentence." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:52:02.550" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="47" PostId="44" Score="0" Text="It's been a while since I've listened through the whole talk, but [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyhWKTmJBo) by Luigi Miraglia includes a humorous &quot;confession&quot; at the beginning concerning this pronunciation. The whole thing is worth listening to if you understand spoken Latin." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:59:47.983" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40" PostId="46" Score="4" Text="If anyone has better sources for the above, I'd much appreciate it. I remember reading this in a far more reputable place, but I can't find it now. Of course, if anyone has sources *denying* the above, that'd be even better." CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:44:30.003" UserDisplayName="user11" />
  <row Id="53" PostId="46" Score="0" Text="Because of your answer I got another question. You might know the answer to this or be intrested in it: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/58/why-did-the-letters-in-the-alphabet-shift-position" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:11:21.843" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="72" PostId="46" Score="1" Text="Between our two answers, that new question is already answered..." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:44:34.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="103" PostId="46" Score="0" Text="I see now, silly me." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:06:14.553" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="956" PostId="46" Score="0" Text="Oh, I'm tearing my hair out, because I'm sure I read recently Cicero bemoaning the replacement of &quot;z&quot;  - or zeta&quot; with &quot;s&quot;   -   but can't for the life of me remember where!" CreationDate="2016-03-16T20:49:55.853" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="49" PostId="47" Score="3" Text="That center point is called an [interpunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct)." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:04:41.697" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="136" PostId="47" Score="3" Text="If you have sources for this, that'd be helpful." CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:21:58.487" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2334" PostId="48" Score="0" Text="Yes, British is more correct, purer vowels, amenable to better enunciation ☺" CreationDate="2016-06-29T17:38:12.210" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="10357" PostId="48" Score="1" Text="@Geremia, you just triggered every American on the planet. :D And purer vowels? Words like &quot;drama&quot; are often spoken like &quot;dramer&quot; in a British accent (not to mention Australian), and I would hardly call that pure! But we could argue about this all day... :)" CreationDate="2017-08-11T22:53:52.723" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="24065" PostId="49" Score="0" Text="So is it enough in Latin to look at the declension of the verb to form a question or is it necessary to use words such as &quot;what&quot;, &quot;where&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-01-22T12:34:15.123" UserId="6480" />
  <row Id="24099" PostId="49" Score="0" Text="@basilikode You should make that it's own question! But in short, yes, you need what (quid) where (ubi) etc. to ask those questions. Sometimes the enclitic -ne will be added to the first word to invert it: &quot;Puer est&quot; (he is a boy) &quot;Estne puer&quot; (Is he a boy?)" CreationDate="2020-01-26T15:47:54.003" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="849" PostId="50" Score="1" Text="Related meta discussion: [Can “explain this etymology” questions be answered well?](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/122/12)" CreationDate="2016-03-09T21:14:58.830" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="14529" PostId="55" Score="0" Text="Various regional dialects of Ecclestiastical Latin may be funny even now, and I would suppose them to be even more different in Middle Ages. A reference (mostly in various dialects of Ecclesiastical Latin): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjh0LtUP0r4" CreationDate="2018-06-15T14:53:21.417" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="16281" PostId="55" Score="1" Text="Maybe you could mark the answer as accepted? It seems it deserves that! :)" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:34:10.203" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="61" PostId="56" Score="0" Text="&quot;Cicero's Preemptive Strike on Catiline&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:27:11.400" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="57" PostId="57" Score="3" Text="I am not sure how they make them up, though some are logical, but you can find all the new words in the lexicon recentis latinitatis, which is a dictionary made by the vatican for modern words like sport, technology and new ideas." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:19:34.870" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="60" PostId="57" Score="3" Text="@Yadeses So you're saying there's is a governing body for Contemporary Latin, which is (connected to) the Vatican. I think you should post this as an answer." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:26:22.193" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="2066" PostId="57" Score="1" Text="The rule for the Latin Wikipedia is _noli fingere_: Don't make stuff up. And so, if something is published in dead tree edition or from a website (not Wikipedia) apparently written by Latinists, it is taken as canonical Latin. This is where _sophophonum_ and other neologisms came from. Alternatively, a word that can come from generative prefixes and suffixes can be formed, and it would be acceptable. For example, _stultus sophophonifer_ (a cellphone-carrying idiot) might be accepted." CreationDate="2016-06-02T03:27:03.030" UserId="459" />
  <row Id="81" PostId="61" Score="5" Text="I'm not sure I'd call that a mnemonic, but I suspect the Romans didn't need mnemonics for such basic elements of grammar?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:54:28.057" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="91" PostId="61" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I'm not sure it qualifies either. It was listed as one on Wikipedia and it's the most well-known memory aid I know, hence why I used it as an example. The [wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_mnemonics#Examples_and_analysis) has more complex examples but none that I've ever used. My first language has some well-known phrases and rhymes which were taught all the way through high school so I figured they'd have been used in ancient times as well." CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:17:17.623" UserId="89" />
  <row Id="4618" PostId="61" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, Quintilian wrote for 'foreigners' in the Roman Empire who needed to polish up their Latin for political careers and Legal work. That must have been a big clientèle." CreationDate="2016-09-30T01:43:05.877" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4621" PostId="61" Score="0" Text="I don't think so but we should ask Professor Dicky (Reading U) or Bruno Rochette (U de Liege). If they don't know, then no one else does." CreationDate="2016-09-30T03:56:44.213" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4622" PostId="61" Score="2" Text="Incidentally, I would like to draw your attention to a fantastic book by Professor Dicky, *Learning Latin the Ancient Way* (CUP, 2016). I couldn't put it down. You've been warned! :)" CreationDate="2016-09-30T04:00:34.097" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="79" PostId="62" Score="1" Text="A casual search only reveals postclassical examples." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:53:13.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19546" PostId="62" Score="0" Text="I think there is also the issue with the infinitivus pro imperativo: the infinitive can be used for commands in Latin (and also Greek, I believe). That makes the (formally identical) passive imperative potentially quite confusing. I wonder in how many languages the i.p.i. exists, by the way; it is common enough in Dutch and German as well." CreationDate="2019-05-04T21:15:34.287" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="88" PostId="63" Score="5" Text="Fwiw: A Hebrew verb is typically listed under its third-person masculine singular past (or perfect). An Hungarian verb is (I think) typically listed under its third-person singular present. A Welsh verb is (I think) typically listed under its participle (or whatever it's called)." CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:08:02.960" UserId="93" />
  <row Id="97" PostId="63" Score="2" Text="There is no compelling reason that infinitive should be chosen as the &quot;representative form&quot; of a verb to be used in a dictionary. The choice is somewhat arbitrary, although I admit that infinitive feels quite natural." CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:36:14.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28709" PostId="63" Score="3" Text="I believe the tradition/convention of using the 1st p.sg.ind.actv form as the citation form of a Greek or Latin verb probably goes back to ancient times, but I haven't been able to confirm this yet - beyond the fact that a 4th c. AD grammarian Flavius Sospiater Charisius appears to treat it as such. E.g. he gives an example of a first-conjugation verb as &quot;amo amas&quot;, and second-conjugation &quot;teneo tenes&quot;.  In his description of all the various forms (declination) of a Latin verb, &quot;amo&quot; starts off the list, and the infinitive &quot;amare&quot; comes right at the end, after the subjunctives and imperatives." CreationDate="2020-08-20T22:43:02.043" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="63" PostId="66" Score="1" Text="I've always had this question. The best explanation I once got was, that they had pronunciations examples with greek words in their grammarians. I'm not sure whether this person made this just up..." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:32:45.077" UserId="98" />
  <row Id="90" PostId="66" Score="8" Text="I first read this title as &quot;How do we know the Romans spoke Latin?&quot; and *had* to click through to read the question. `:-)`" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:14:20.463" UserId="93" />
  <row Id="62" PostId="68" Score="2" Text="But then the first person present can't distinguish between III-io and IV!" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:30:06.190" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="65" PostId="68" Score="5" Text="No, because dictionaries give four principle parts, so the difference between III-io and IV is immediately clear in the form following the first person present." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:36:28.083" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1436" PostId="68" Score="0" Text="By that logic, the difference between III and III-io would also be immediately clear with an infinitive lemma, as the first person present would be the next principal part." CreationDate="2016-04-17T10:26:43.710" UserId="395" />
  <row Id="1437" PostId="68" Score="0" Text="@LeifWillerts The dictionaries I've seen where the infinitive is listed first do not then list the first-person present singular." CreationDate="2016-04-17T12:59:49.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="64" PostId="71" Score="1" Text="&quot;_puns, plays on words, ancient etymologies, and imitations of natural sounds;_&quot; Interesting, and entirely sensible. Does the author go on to specify how narrow those limits are? (I'd read your link but I'm on mobile ATM and Google Books seems to be optimized for being bad on mobile)" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:35:51.850" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="67" PostId="71" Score="3" Text="@QPaysTaxes This particular book doesn't get into the details too often, except where there is significant disagreement; he points readers to less accessible scholarly works on the respective points." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:39:05.987" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="116" PostId="71" Score="1" Text="It's been a while since I've read Allen, but does he include misspelled graffiti in &quot;epigraphic variations&quot;? That's my favorite source." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:57:27.727" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="158" PostId="71" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I haven't found any specific examples of that yet, but I wouldn't be surprised." CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:08:15.357" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="883" PostId="71" Score="0" Text="I find this fascinating, as I was taught &quot;Church&quot;  Latin at school. I can just about cope with *Kikero* for Cicero etc, but, starting again 50 years later, still struggle with *weeny, weedy, weeky* for *veni, vidi, vici*!  ;)" CreationDate="2016-03-12T00:51:33.160" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4903" PostId="71" Score="0" Text="@TheHonRose I'm pretty sure it's &quot;Wheny weedy weeky&quot; -- it's not &quot;vini&quot;, but &quot;veni&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-19T23:47:03.153" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="4910" PostId="71" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes Well, according to *1066 and All That* (an excellent history reference book, btw) when the Ancient Britons heard Caesar say &quot;weeny, weedy, weeky&quot;, they thought he was describing them and gave up in despair.  :(" CreationDate="2016-10-20T21:01:56.830" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="66" PostId="74" Score="5" Text="Oh, that makes sense, but it raises another question: How do we know how Ancient Greek is pronounced? I'd assume that's mostly by parallel with modern Greek. (Please don't answer that particular question; this feels like it's a rabbit hole with fewer answers than questions for a while, and comments aren't for more questions anyway)" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:38:01.673" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="69" PostId="74" Score="2" Text="@QPaysTaxes, if we have theories for how Greek and Latin were pronounced at the time, the spelling of the name gives a consistency condition between them. The two theories are consistent if c and kappa behave similarly (at least in this word). If we are more certain about Greek than Latin, we can use this consistency condition to infer ancient Roman pronunciation, but it could also be used the other way around." CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:41:17.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="250" PostId="74" Score="5" Text="There is actually suspicion that German _Kaiser_ may be based on a so-called spelling pronunciation, i.e. based on someone trying to make sense of the written form _Caesar_; this is because other evidence suggests that _ae_ no longer was a diphthong already in Caesar’s time." CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:46:04.820" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="251" PostId="74" Score="1" Text="Plutarch in his _Parallel Lives_ uses Κικέρων (adding the -ν for names of the type _-o_, _-onis_ was common, as was conversely dropping it when Greek names were used in Latin)." CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:53:30.763" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="258" PostId="74" Score="0" Text="@chirlu, thanks for your comments! I edited the post slightly regarding the Greek spelling of Cicero." CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:24:54.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11483" PostId="77" Score="1" Text="I think with just a few tweaks, even this notorious question can work just fine." CreationDate="2017-11-26T04:03:25.807" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="3909" PostId="79" Score="0" Text="The two prefixes in- are cognate with English &quot;un-&quot; and &quot;in&quot; respectively." CreationDate="2016-08-04T23:51:22.767" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="117" PostId="81" Score="1" Text="In my browser, the symbol between &quot;written&quot; and &quot;and was&quot; in the first sentence does not render." CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:01:23.727" UserId="21" />
  <row Id="118" PostId="81" Score="1" Text="@Brian That's because it is U+10302 OLD ITALIC LETTER KE. It looks like く or &lt;." CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:03:20.480" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="119" PostId="81" Score="1" Text="Figured it was Unicode. Annoying that character support is often so flakey. :-/" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:04:18.540" UserId="21" />
  <row Id="149" PostId="81" Score="1" Text="@Brian: you probably just have to download a font that includes the characters: http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/Fonts_OldItalic.html" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:48:22.437" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="92" PostId="83" Score="0" Text="Thanks, but how did 'pasture' evolve to mean the Latin adjective 'pravus' (which has nothing to do with pastures)? I would conjecture that 'inclined land' =&gt; 'land bad for farming' =&gt; 'defected land' =&gt; 'defects' in general?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:23:35.297" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="105" PostId="83" Score="0" Text="@LePressentiment: Can you be more precise about which exact step you don't understand? I don't understand your question." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:16:03.197" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="120" PostId="83" Score="0" Text="@LePressentiment: But...according to that etymology, it's the other way around: *pratum* would be from *pravus*." CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:12:13.473" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="547" PostId="83" Score="0" Text="You are correct; sorry for my neglect. This step confuses me: _*pra_ → *pravus*? How did 'inclined' shift semantically? Did you mean: 'inclined land' ⟹ 'land bad for farming' ⟹ 'defected land'  ⟹ 'defects'?" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:02:20.330" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="7802" PostId="84" Score="1" Text="Breton is  not actually related to the pre-Roman Gaulish languages spoken in that region, but is a language brought in by British settlers around the fall of the Empire; the closest language to Breton is Cornish formerly spoken in the Southwesternmost edge of England. This is not to say that Gaulish did not survive probably into Late Antiquity in isolated parts of France; but Breton isn't it." CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:17:52.253" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="94" PostId="85" Score="1" Text="You might want to read the [Wikipedia entry for ampersand (&amp;)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand), especially regarding history. Ampersand was only used in cursive, so you should not expect to find it carved in a stone." CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:25:41.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="96" PostId="85" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I didn't know that, cool. I didn't have any expectations regarding how the phrase was abbreviated, so I just gave the examples to show that there are many variants today." CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:28:58.603" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="304" PostId="85" Score="0" Text="I remember there was a [Tironian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes) abbreviation for &quot;et&quot; that looked like 7, but I don't know the specifics about how it was used. Wikipedia says the &quot;z&quot; in *viz.* (&quot;videlicet&quot;) is descended from it." CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:08:50.147" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15882" PostId="86" Score="0" Text="How often is *et* used as an adverb instead of as a conjunction?" CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:46:36.267" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15883" PostId="86" Score="1" Text="@EthanBierlein That would actually make a very nice separate question!" CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:47:48.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="312" PostId="87" Score="1" Text="@Wrzlprmft: thanks for the formatting help. I accepted your edits, but as a quick aside quotations always outside the period are standard U.S. usage :)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T13:39:52.180" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="98" PostId="88" Score="5" Text="Do you have a better source than a Wiki with no sources?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:38:43.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="100" PostId="88" Score="6" Text="https://xkcd.com/978/ -not that that is what is happening now :P" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:42:13.917" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="106" PostId="88" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I did find other books citing ZC and ZE as abbreviations of _et cetera_, but so far I haven't been able to find any primary source with these abbreviations. Let me dig around a little further." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:17:40.027" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="107" PostId="88" Score="5" Text="I second @C.M.Weimer. It's especially concerning that neither ZC nor ZE is recorded in the [ASGLE list](http://classics.case.edu/asgle/bookshelf/abbreviations-in-latin-inscriptions/norefz/)." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:18:11.920" UserId="113" />
  <row Id="101" PostId="89" Score="4" Text="-1 - this doesn't seem much better than ordinary translation question, which IMHO should be accepted, but shouldn't flag what is considered good manners here, which is the purpose of private beta questions/answers." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:00:51.977" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="104" PostId="89" Score="1" Text="@PavelV. Seems like the historical context and semantics aspect to the question makes it a good one.  Just needs improved formatting.  Those tags are no good, though." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:14:07.650" UserId="21" />
  <row Id="132" PostId="89" Score="4" Text="On meta: [What do we do with translation requests?](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/25/12)" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:13:59.693" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="40456" PostId="89" Score="0" Text="@geomars It might be helpful to specify whether you want a &quot;better translation or meaning&quot; in the sense of present-day usage, or instead as it would have been used back in ancient Rome. Or both, in case you want answers to compare/contrast." CreationDate="2022-11-14T16:06:02.377" UserId="11795" />
  <row Id="108" PostId="90" Score="3" Text="Literally, it means &quot;remember dying&quot; or &quot;remember to die&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:20:12.987" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="110" PostId="90" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: you're right, editted." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:22:06.777" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="113" PostId="90" Score="3" Text="Memento mori in Latin, regardless of religious beliefs of Christians or pagans, has the force of &quot;remember that you are mortal&quot;. The infinitive is flexible like that. The mortality of the triumphant general (all of this is later legends, btw) was a given in Republican Rome (and even under the empire with the sole exceptions of the emperors)." CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:37:21.077" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="134" PostId="90" Score="3" Text="One final note, memento + acc. + inf. could also be an indirect statement. Since te is often dropped, it can also simply mean, &quot;remember that you can die.&quot; Same force, slightly different grammatical approach." CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:19:05.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="159" PostId="90" Score="0" Text="@cerberus yes that's the literal meaning I'm searching for." CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:11:13.957" UserId="107" />
  <row Id="161" PostId="90" Score="3" Text="@ C. M. Weimer can you give another example for memento + acc. + inf which sometime cause ambiguity?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:48:31.933" UserId="107" />
  <row Id="1223" PostId="90" Score="1" Text="@geomars You need to drop the spaces when you tag someone. I never saw this. Anyway: *dextram cohibere memento* from Juvenal 5.71 &quot;Remember to restrain your right hand;&quot; his injunction is in advice on preparing food. He's not ordering someone to do it, rather it's more hortatory." CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:13:38.043" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="22693" PostId="90" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: If &quot;memento mori&quot; is an example of indirect speech, is a third party required e.g. the gods? The man, in the chariot, whispering to the all-conquering hero says &quot;dei monent memento te mori&quot; = &quot;The gods warn remember you are dying&quot;? In Seneca's interpretation of Roman theology (Epistle 1) the wise use of time, as it passes; only, to be scooped-up by Death, in His unrelenting approach to the individual: &quot;...qui intelligat se cotidie mori.&quot; = &quot;...he, who may understand that every day he is dying&quot;; present tense, indirect statement." CreationDate="2019-10-03T09:42:11.877" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="139" PostId="91" Score="3" Text="Another note: The _i_ in _Maius_ (the month) is not a separate vowel, either; the pronunciation could be the same as _maius_, or possibly _ai_ could be a diphthong here. There is metrical evidence for this in Ovid’s _Fasti_, book 5, where the origins of the name are discussed: *hinc sua maiores tribuisse vocabula Maio* (v. 73); *quarum Maia suas forma superasse sorores* (v. 85)." CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:28:13.417" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="271" PostId="93" Score="0" Text="complexor tibi for this great answer :D" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:09:12.587" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="406" PostId="93" Score="0" Text="Gaudeó tuá in complexú!" CreationDate="2016-02-26T10:57:46.080" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="828" PostId="94" Score="0" Text="I hope your terminology of &quot;Ciceronian&quot; vs. &quot;Erasmian&quot; sticks." CreationDate="2016-03-07T23:38:52.200" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="831" PostId="94" Score="1" Text="I'm not happy with it, as both Cicero and Erasmus were firmly on the side of neologisms; it's just that the folks who are anti-neologistic take Cicero as their model. Probably &quot;Vatican&quot; and &quot;Erasmian&quot; would be more appropriate. But I see your point; my original coining does have a certain something." CreationDate="2016-03-08T03:15:26.313" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2041" PostId="94" Score="1" Text="What was the name of the guy that Erasmus was making fun of in _The Ciceronian_? Maybe you could name the Vatican-like approach after him." CreationDate="2016-05-30T22:52:08.100" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2042" PostId="94" Score="3" Text="@BenKovitz D'oh! I forgot that was the name of the screed—no wonder I called it Ciceronian! That's it—I'm renaming them Nosoponian and Erasmian." CreationDate="2016-05-30T23:10:14.363" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="24544" PostId="94" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, they were both firmly in favor of neologisms because Latin was a living breathing language in their times. The main reason, I imagine, people are nowadays so rigid about neologisms and pronunciation is probably because of how irrelevant Latin has become for day-to-day mainstream use. It is one of the reasons I am in general against the Reconstructed Pronunciation (I personally prefer Ecclesiastical, but any national pronunciation is valid) because it is so stale and smells of antiquarianism, not proper of a living practical language. I love your posts, they are very helpful!" CreationDate="2020-03-16T02:22:03.653" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="152" PostId="97" Score="2" Text="Well, that clears it up: &quot;the fires of the nearby Sun&quot; rather than &quot;the nearby fires of the Sun&quot;. I was thrown by the way _-is_ is both nominative and genitive. Does resolving this kind of ambiguity ever get easy enough that you don't have to think about it?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:09:46.840" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2278" PostId="97" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, yes, it actually does!" CreationDate="2016-06-20T19:59:12.030" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="124" PostId="99" Score="2" Text="This is correct. On top of which, in English inverting the noun and modifier makes it clear what's going on. It's not 'one day,' but rather 'day one.'" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:26:28.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="126" PostId="99" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Wouldn't &quot;day one&quot; in English be equivalent to &quot;the first day&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:32:56.457" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="130" PostId="99" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer I'm not sure that's actually true because the following days are given ordinals in the Hebrew: *yom sheni* &quot;second day&quot;, etc. If the intended sense was &quot;day one&quot;, you'd probably get cardinals across the board for &quot;day two&quot; etc." CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:37:29.140" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="172" PostId="100" Score="0" Text="I was with you save for the expression &quot;between this world and the next.&quot; This seems infelicitous at best. Bridge between heaven and earth would be  better." CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:17:08.013" UserId="150" />
  <row Id="201" PostId="100" Score="0" Text="The Catholic tradition actually grew out of the Latin for priest, *pontifex*, which is still preserved in their nomenclature today. The pope, for example, is still called Pontifex Maximus. &quot;Bridge-building&quot; is actually just a conjecture." CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:20:23.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="131" PostId="103" Score="0" Text="I was always under the impression that it was Philosophical Doctor, not Doctor of Philosophy (which, though it makes little sense in English, might be fine in Latin)" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:11:21.063" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="143" PostId="103" Score="1" Text="In the German-speaking countries, the usual form is _Dr. phil._ (and _Dr. med._, _Dr. iur._ etc.)." CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:16:09.537" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="146" PostId="103" Score="3" Text="Isn't this question about English rather than Latin? As far as I know, Ph.D. is an English phrase, not a Latin phrase. It's based on Latin words, but these words were assembled to fit English speakers, not by Latin speakers." CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:29:37.887" UserId="132" />
  <row Id="151" PostId="103" Score="1" Text="@Gilles I see it as a Latin word order question that later has an impact on English.  Why does &quot;Philosophiae Doctor&quot; exist in the first place?  There's nothing &quot;more English&quot; about Ph.D. than D.Ph. or D.P., so where did it come from?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:01:49.753" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="593" PostId="103" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel I'll keep looking for the exact dates these came into being. Also, note that in Oxford and other places, M.Phil. and D.Phil. are standard, not unlike the German abbreviation." CreationDate="2016-02-29T21:18:46.233" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="133" PostId="104" Score="3" Text="As a single datapoint, Caesar doesn't shy from using ā in *De bello Gallico* - it's used in [the first paragraph of the first chapter of the first book.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Caes.+Gal.+1.1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002)" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:14:11.990" UserDisplayName="user11" />
  <row Id="6163" PostId="104" Score="0" Text="Related: [Why “ex nihilo” instead of “e nihilo”?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2430/12)" CreationDate="2017-01-17T12:19:04.113" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="140" PostId="105" Score="3" Text="Interesting. Even *ab b-* gets a total of only two matches, and it looks like *ab p-*, *ab m-*, *ab g-* are all disfavored relative to the alternatives with *a*." CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:31:47.330" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="141" PostId="105" Score="1" Text="@TKR: Yeah, somehow they really didn't like *ab* before certain letters or letter combinations. Cf. also *a n-* versus *ab n-*." CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:33:42.687" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="41448" PostId="105" Score="0" Text="Avoiding a double &quot;b&quot; makes perfect sense. Much like English only uses &quot;an&quot; before vowels, otherwise &quot;a&quot;." CreationDate="2023-02-28T10:15:18.903" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="144" PostId="106" Score="2" Text="Sanskrit also has a dual (in addition to singular and plural) and a locative that Latin doesn't (really) have, and Greek doesn't even have an ablative.  I would guess that it's just another example of syntaxes simplifying, and the meanings of more specialized cases got lumped together with other cases." CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:28:49.420" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="145" PostId="106" Score="1" Text="Side note: if you Google &quot;PIE cases&quot;, you might not get what you expect." CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:29:24.593" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="147" PostId="106" Score="3" Text="@MarJohnson: Bookcases with lots of volumes by Pokorny, I presume?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:35:59.903" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="148" PostId="106" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus Wouldn't that be fun?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:37:40.767" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="171" PostId="106" Score="0" Text="@MarJohnson isn't there a locative species of the dative in classical latin which periodically declines slightly differently (e.g. in the word locus)?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:09:45.097" UserId="150" />
  <row Id="173" PostId="106" Score="0" Text="@virmaior Sure, and that's why I hedged with 'really', but at least in my (limited) experience, those few words are just considered historical oddities." CreationDate="2016-02-24T09:11:45.413" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="150" PostId="107" Score="5" Text="This is just a guess, but regarding the evidence portion: Rolling &quot;r&quot;s is common in Romance languages, which can be traced back to Latin. It would make sense that there is a common tradition there." CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:50:49.710" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="47688" PostId="107" Score="0" Text="A fruitless discussion. Classical Latin was a language for the educated, perhaps less than 1/10000 of the population, scattered about an area of the Chinese  empire. As Koine and Mandarin, it was a mean of communication between people, that couldn't understand their local dialects, especially in the military corps. A situation, that persisted e.g. in th German empire from Luther' creation of High German, until radio and TV equalized standard pronounciation for all classes between Saxonia, Bavaria, Allemania, and Frisia in the 1960ties." CreationDate="2024-03-06T10:26:32.913" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="186" PostId="108" Score="1" Text="I think it's not a good idea to write a whole question in Latin. If someone doesn't know it very well the full question is unintelligible, maybe it's better writing the first part in a language and then make a summary in the another one." CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:49:41.577" UserId="164" />
  <row Id="213" PostId="108" Score="2" Text="@Eithne See [Should all-Latin questions be permitted?](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/5/12) and [Should site policy require that all-Latin questions also include an English translation?](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/22/12) on meta." CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:36:11.237" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="215" PostId="108" Score="0" Text="Ok, thanks, I didn't see them." CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:50:42.720" UserId="164" />
  <row Id="232" PostId="108" Score="0" Text="Cerberus, could you edit your question to provide an English summary? Even just the main question would suffice. See the most upvoted answer on [this question](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/5/71)" CreationDate="2016-02-24T17:33:23.963" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="509" PostId="108" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes: I have belatedly done so." CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:09:18.880" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="196" PostId="112" Score="4" Text="Not to be pedantic, but the second translation of Lucilius is a bit off. I would translate: &quot;An irritated bitch which a man pronounces as clearly as possible.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:15:04.183" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="268" PostId="112" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I had stuck with the author's translations, which are not as literal. I've kept the last one as-is, but I've added a note containing your translation." CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:00:59.740" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="311" PostId="112" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the note! As an aside, I was actually being a little too kind (because I thought you translated!), because the translation in question is actually dead wrong: the first &quot;quam&quot; is a relative pronoun (&quot;which&quot;), not a conjunction (&quot;than&quot;) and the second use of quam (&quot;quam + comparative adverb) is an idiomatic expression that means &quot;as X as possible&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-25T13:36:18.383" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4202" PostId="112" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Actually you're wrong – even if grammatically it could be possible, your translation doesn't make sense semantically. The first quam is a comparative conjunction, without any doubts; the second is most probably a relative pronoun referred to &quot;r&quot;." CreationDate="2016-09-01T09:25:34.780" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4203" PostId="112" Score="0" Text="You must keep in mind that this is just a fragment, and from poetry; also there are [different readings](https://books.google.it/books?id=VVFce6XF0zkC&amp;pg=PA18&amp;lpg=PA18&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yew36iLWSj&amp;sig=mx9TKH-ZLt0VZH6q_HGJOSfyIUk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). Also, in Latin &quot;canis&quot; didn't have our secondary meaning of &quot;bitch&quot; = whore, despicable person" CreationDate="2016-09-01T09:26:33.487" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4209" PostId="112" Score="1" Text="@mus_siluanus I looked at it again and agree with you: I wasn't aware of the poetic nature of this piece, which justifies the strange word order of placing the relative pronoun in such a strange spot. FWIW, my translation wasn't availing itself of this secondary meaning: in a context like this a bitch can be understood as a...female dog." CreationDate="2016-09-01T13:19:54.013" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29387" PostId="112" Score="0" Text="The sound of a dog growling reminds me more of a German R, not a trill." CreationDate="2020-10-16T17:34:35.823" UserId="8488" />
  <row Id="47653" PostId="112" Score="0" Text="I don't think Spanish and Italian rolling their Rs in the modern day can be considered even partial evidence, since both countries have been since in part conquered by Arabic people and the influence of the Arabic language could have led them to roll their Rs. So, it seems like the written references are the only substantive evidence." CreationDate="2024-03-03T00:15:16.683" UserId="14826" />
  <row Id="47654" PostId="112" Score="0" Text="@curiousgeorge Welcome to StackExchange! New users typically have to either ask well-received questions or provide well-received answers (or perform a series of well-received edits) before the site allows them to comment on a post. It's chiefly done to keep out spam or irrelevant comments. I'll move it over now, but I think it'll still not allow you to respond without gaining some &quot;reputation points&quot; in the form of an answer (etc.)." CreationDate="2024-03-03T02:20:41.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="157" PostId="116" Score="6" Text="My Latin is so terribly rusty, but the examples with translations make your detailed answer easy to follow. Great job!" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:03:57.517" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="7227" PostId="116" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/251/79)" CreationDate="2017-03-10T08:15:04.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="294" PostId="119" Score="0" Text="(Cavē Latīnitātem tīrōnis.) Intellegisne quōmodo cochleāris forma adiūvit cochleam ex conchā carptus esse? Diū imāginem spectāvī tamen nōn intellegō, sed numquam conātus sum ex conchā cochleam carpere." CreationDate="2016-02-25T04:04:48.483" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="295" PostId="119" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but if I understood it right, no, I don't know how the spoon was used to extract snails." CreationDate="2016-02-25T04:41:01.767" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="169" PostId="121" Score="4" Text="...to whom you seem brilliant while they have not tried you. = ...to whom you seem extremely attractive as long as they have not been intimate with you (because afterwards they will have realised how fickle and difficult you are)." CreationDate="2016-02-24T05:29:15.007" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="168" PostId="123" Score="12" Text="Why do you say that there is a difference of opinion as to the translation? A reference to the actual people who hold these opinions would be helpful. As it is, I'm wondering why you haven't just looked up each individual word in a dictionary if you only want the literal meaning." CreationDate="2016-02-24T05:15:39.710" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="182" PostId="123" Score="5" Text="I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a translation question that doesn't show any research effort." CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:44:00.110" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="7402" PostId="123" Score="2" Text="I'm voting to reopen as, I believe, we've come a long way in treating questions like these. It's not a perfect question, but it didn't deserve the treatment it got, in my opinion (though I am aware of the context in which it did get this treatment)." CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:15:58.743" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7478" PostId="123" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: I think I might agree. Finding a good, step-by-step translation, with alternative translations, too, could be useful to future readers at large. While the question itself is perhaps too simple for a Latinist, I think there is room for more interesting information in a future answer, such as about the historic background or the context. But it's still not a very good question, without mentioning what the &quot;different opinions&quot; are that the OP says exist. Still, I think it's on topic, but just not very high quality. A low score but an open state might be the most appropriate?" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:22:03.467" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7479" PostId="123" Score="4" Text="In general, I think &quot;low quality&quot; should generally be indicated by a low score, not by a closing—unless the quality is really too low to lead to anything useful or interesting." CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:23:09.200" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7481" PostId="123" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus My thoughts exactly." CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:48:42.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7510" PostId="123" Score="0" Text="For those downvoting now - is it possible to get a reason why this is a bad question? Let's pretend the OP included two different translations, what else would need fixing?" CreationDate="2017-03-17T23:53:00.740" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7513" PostId="123" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Well, thanks; I agree. And no, it's not a perfect question, nor am I a perfect person. Sometimes I would struggle to communicate, articulate, or otherwise express a particular thought or idea; as well as I might like. To answer some criticisms: Yes, I have used a dictionary. Yes, there seem to be a myriad of different interpretations, that I've encountered over the years, before I even developed an interest in etymology and ancient languages. No, I haven't prepared a collection, or list of sources to provide you with. It's simply something I have noticed/observed over the years." CreationDate="2017-03-18T11:04:52.677" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="7514" PostId="123" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus *• &quot;..a good, step-by-step translation, with alternative translations, too, could be useful to future readers at large.&quot;* *• &quot;..there is room for more interesting information in a future answer, such as about the historic background or the context.&quot;* My thoughts exactly." CreationDate="2017-03-18T11:11:24.463" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="7515" PostId="123" Score="1" Text="@Everybody If you see a question that could be improved; you're more than welcome to do so. In fact, please do. If you make an edit, and it's no good, the worst that can happen is: ¹It won't get approved, ²it will get rolled back, ³it will get re-edited.. Or: *You could improve the question, and contribute to the collective quality of the site's content. Or: †You can down-vote, or ‡Vote to close; make no improvements." CreationDate="2017-03-18T11:31:22.787" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="7520" PostId="123" Score="2" Text="@tjt263 I fully understand all that. And posting a question shouldn't be made into a lot of work. This website is supposed to be fun! However, when a question immediately calls up another question, one which only the original poster could answer, that is unfortunate. I don't think you would be expected to produce a list or investigate the issue yourself. But you say &quot;there seems to be a difference of opinion&quot;. Don't you have a vague recollection of this difference, which you could write down in one or two sentences? No need for quotations or sources (although they would most welcome)." CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:02:51.897" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7522" PostId="123" Score="0" Text="I don't know, It comes up fairly frequently in movies and television, etc. Also in general conversation, and so on. Check Nick's answer for some of the more prevalent, basic variations that I'm sure I've seen. He's also provided the literal translation for each individual word. Although, direct translation like that rarely captures the entire essence, context, or subtle nuances of what's been said. But then again, it's likely pure fiction in this instance anyway. And while Shakespeare was evidently well versed in English, I don't actually know how proficient he was with Latin, if at all." CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:46:15.950" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="7534" PostId="123" Score="0" Text="I think Shakespeare had enough Latin to understand the thrust (pun intended) of Caesar's words, in &quot;*Et tu, Brute?* Then fall, Caesar.&quot; which I would give the quick lit crit gloss of meaning - **If even Brutus, whom I love as a son, has turned against me, then it is time to die! &quot;**" CreationDate="2017-03-20T04:36:05.147" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="1644" PostId="126" Score="0" Text="To my knowledge, the pre-1910 spelling of the German word is not Diſziplin, but Disciplin, e.g. here, 4 lines from the bottom: http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/view/haeckel_weltraethsel_1899?p=45" CreationDate="2016-04-28T23:26:10.487" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1649" PostId="126" Score="0" Text="@fdb: That you find examples with *s* instead of *ſ* does not surprise me and happened often in these borderline cases. Nonetheless, my three dictionaries from the beginning of the 20th century all give *Diſziplin.* The change from *c* to *z* happened [around the beginning of the 20th century](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Disziplin%2CDisciplin&amp;corpus=20) and was in accordance with a general change of “Germanising” *c*s (e.g., *Concern* to *Konzern).*" CreationDate="2016-04-29T04:50:07.973" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="175" PostId="131" Score="3" Text="Thank you. That makes things clear. Even your side note is functional (if it is not accusative then what is it?...). I can drop this questioning now. A soon acceptance might cause less attention of others, so I postpone that. I allready know you from [Maths](http://math.stackexchange.com/)." CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:23:07.680" UserId="41" />
  <row Id="7516" PostId="131" Score="1" Text="Only a side note: a better translation of _supplicium_ in this context is _torture._" CreationDate="2017-03-18T11:35:05.213" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="36621" PostId="131" Score="1" Text="Tibi gratulor, quod iam &gt;centum milia punctorum tulisti! :)" CreationDate="2022-01-12T14:51:52.443" UserId="41" />
  <row Id="177" PostId="133" Score="0" Text="To anyone looking at William Whitaker's Words: I just checked another couple sources online, and it appears that, in this case, it's wrong." CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:13:04.293" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="222" PostId="133" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes: What do you mean by that? Is *Words* a book?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:17:41.060" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="227" PostId="133" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus It's an online dictionary that's popular, at least in my school. I was about to use it as a source but decided to double-check with another one and it was wrong, so I figured it would be worth making a note." CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:23:30.407" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="179" PostId="139" Score="5" Text="It's not medieval Latin, it's still Classical. Pliny the Elder wrote 'a priori parte' in his *Naturalis Historia*. But you're otherwise correct about the shift." CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:39:24.587" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="184" PostId="139" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer, thanks! I didn't know it was already a classical phenomenon." CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:45:08.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="188" PostId="139" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer [Mehercule](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;hl=en&amp;q=pliny+%22a+priori+parte%22+%22a+priore+parte%22)! Why does Pliny use both forms? Or is that a transcription error?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:58:04.703" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="189" PostId="139" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz As Joonas mentioned, the -ī is for adjectives. *Pars* would never have an -ī for its ablative." CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:05:47.303" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="276" PostId="139" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Just to be sure I understand, do you mean that Pliny made a mistake, or that the _-ī/-e_ convention is not as clear-cut as suggested by grammatical tables?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:08:00.020" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="281" PostId="139" Score="0" Text="I understand it to be that by Pliny's time the _-ī/-e_ convention isn't as rigorous as 150 years prior." CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:48:05.750" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="531" PostId="144" Score="0" Text="Is there any verb with two objects that can be passivized with respect to either one? If not, is there a verb that can only be passivized with respect to the &quot;inanimate object&quot;? Your answer gives me the impression that if there are two objects, one of which is typically a person and the other something else, I can typically passivize with respect to the &quot;person object&quot;. You don't mention explicitly whether the other passivization is ever correct." CreationDate="2016-02-28T19:22:00.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="533" PostId="144" Score="1" Text="According to the grammar I referenced, &quot;In the Passive construction the Accusative of the Person becomes the Subject, and the Accusative of the Thing is retained.&quot; In addition, only some verbs admit this construction. I have never seen an example of the inanimate object being made the (nominative) subject, but then again--never say never in Latin!" CreationDate="2016-02-28T19:52:36.543" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1294" PostId="144" Score="0" Text="I haven't seen any previous answers but you are confusing the direct and indirect object. **The difference between DO and IO is semantic**: DO is the patient (person or thing directly affected or controlled by the agent), whereas IO is the recipient (indirectly affected or partially controlled by the agent)." CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:41:25.847" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1295" PostId="144" Score="0" Text="Not sure I understand your comment--are you saying that I am confusing the DO and IO? My point in quoting the (since deleted) answer was simply that the IO is a non-factor in the OP's question." CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:48:26.793" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="275" PostId="145" Score="0" Text="Fantastic!! How did you find these?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:06:27.230" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="277" PostId="145" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz: I just searched a Latin corpus, this time that of the Hewlett–Packard foundation (or what is it?): http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=priori%23 The hash signifies a word boundary. There are better corpora, such as the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina, but that isn't available online, and I don't have it installed at the moment." CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:31:53.203" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="230" PostId="146" Score="1" Text="+1 I believe English *are* is another example? There are plenty of examples in Dutch, such as *vriezen, gevroren* and *kiezen, uitverkoren*." CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:56:17.410" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="231" PostId="146" Score="0" Text="1. so where exactly did you address the &quot;Why did rhotacism happen?&quot;-part? 2. Did it influence all words containing s? (any exceptions, like miser, basis or rosa?) and why?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T17:23:07.387" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="233" PostId="146" Score="0" Text="also, with due respect, did you read that Gorman's paper? His proposal is that &quot;[t]here is no motivation for a phonologically-general RHOTACISM: much of its apparent coverage is due to PRE-/s/ DELETION, and what remains is just as well regarded as exceptional.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-24T17:41:20.107" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="237" PostId="146" Score="3" Text="Rhotacism also occurred in intervocalic -sw- clusters: Minerva &lt; *Menes-wa, caterva &lt; *kates-wa." CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:18:56.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="238" PostId="146" Score="7" Text="The Gorman article, as far as I understand it, argues again rhotacism as a *synchronic* phonological rule of Latin -- not against its historical reality as a sound change (which would be ridiculous). I don't think it's relevant at all." CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:25:07.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="246" PostId="146" Score="1" Text="@TKR: thanks, I have incorporated that information into the answer. I want to add more information about the timeframe when rhotacism was active, so I am planning to do some more research. I cited the Gorman article because it contained relevant historical information (for example, it also mentions pre-s deletion). Of course, Gorman does not dispute that the historical sound change s &gt; r existed at one point." CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:10:05.940" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="240" PostId="148" Score="3" Text="It’s generally assumed that the subordinate clause in this type of sentences developed from independent optative clauses, where the negation does make sense: _May I not be killed by a dragon!_ I’m not sure if there is direct historical evidence for this change." CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:47:43.313" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="363" PostId="148" Score="3" Text="For what it's worth, it becomes a lot easier if in situations like these you go back into the past a couple hundred years and translate &quot;ne&quot; as &quot;lest&quot;: &quot;I fear lest I be killed by a dragon.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:03:19.047" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="247" PostId="150" Score="2" Text="This is the explanation I've heard bounced around, but it sounds like something that someone thought up, rather than discovered through examination of evidence. Do you know of any paper, book, whatever that supports this claim?" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:26:38.297" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="248" PostId="150" Score="2" Text="@QPaysTaxes, I don't have any solid references. I have seen this mentioned in several sources, but never with justification. I fear that ancient writers might not have commented on this because the construction was so natural to them. Latin subordinate clauses of fear have an opposite convention to many modern languages, but I don't know the origin of either choice." CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:15:00.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="270" PostId="150" Score="3" Text="@QPaysTaxes: ancient Latin writers didn't comment on this because the English fear/hope sentence structure wasn't invented then. See my answer for details." CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:07:12.010" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="263" PostId="151" Score="2" Text="Cf. *cum*, which means different things based on whether it governs a subjective or an indicative. By the way, youre terminology is a bit mixed up: an *ut* clause with an indicative meaning &quot;as&quot; is still an *ut* clause." CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:29:11.040" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="259" PostId="152" Score="1" Text="Possible duplicate of [How do we know how the Romans pronounced Latin?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/66/how-do-we-know-how-the-romans-pronounced-latin)" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:24:54.887" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="264" PostId="152" Score="9" Text="I disagree. The proposed duplicate cannot be answered with more than a broad overview of the evidence available.  This question can be answered, as it has been, with very specific details about this particular sound." CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:30:15.700" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16045" PostId="154" Score="1" Text="*Sompnium* came back into use c.1350. But possibly as a deliberately antique form in a legend (Harley 2253)" CreationDate="2018-10-22T01:18:09.407" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16046" PostId="154" Score="1" Text="@Hugh: *sompnium* looks to me like it might potentially be a spelling with silent *p,* but I don't know about the context, so I can't be sure." CreationDate="2018-10-22T01:23:35.343" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16059" PostId="154" Score="2" Text="@Hugh I recently came across *sompnium* in a c. 1220 manuscript, so you can bring that estimate down!" CreationDate="2018-10-22T12:58:45.197" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9503" PostId="155" Score="4" Text="_Tutamen_ would also be suitable — as a blanket term as requested, perhaps even better." CreationDate="2017-06-26T08:47:51.760" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="569" PostId="157" Score="4" Text="I don't know very many languages that don't indicate, in some way, a question, an exclamation, etc. &quot;Surely&quot; and &quot;doesn't&quot; or &quot;How!&quot; or &quot;in the following&quot; or pausing and rising or falling intonations—English has it all. I don't think this should be classified together with &quot;punctuation&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-29T06:00:48.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="571" PostId="157" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer But English is a modern language (by now). I guess the point of the paper is to suggest that punctuation could be a modern phenomenon that goes together with typeset books. Punctuation exists to structure our sentences and make them easier to read. In the case of Classical Latin, this was done systematically not with symbols, but with keywords. You may not call it punctuation, but I think it's still relevant to the question &quot;what punctuation was used in Classical Latin?&quot; and &quot;what, if not punctuation, was used instead?&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-29T07:07:48.747" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="260" PostId="158" Score="0" Text="Makes perfect sense. The author of the litanies liked rare symbols and even though he (or she? It might have been composed by a nun) was able of composing beautiful poetry, Latin wasn't his native language. Both explain why I didn't find it anywhere else." CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:25:08.490" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="261" PostId="158" Score="0" Text="@PavelV.: Ah, I see. Well, it is kind of nice when you think about it." CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:25:41.227" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="272" PostId="158" Score="0" Text="Even better reason for the dative - the whole strophe ends -ini, so the genitive &quot;agminis&quot; would break the rhyme. The &quot;mistake&quot; might be voluntary." CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:33:06.523" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="279" PostId="158" Score="0" Text="@PavelV.: Ahh that would make sense." CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:35:10.530" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="764" PostId="160" Score="0" Text="But it's not the vertebrae that are called *spinae*, only the spine. There's nothing about vertebrae in Lewis &amp; Short (nor in English): http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=spina&amp;filter=CUTF8" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:22:34.920" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="789" PostId="160" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus &quot;not the vertebrae [...] only the spine&quot;: What do you mean? The vertebrae _are_ the spine. (E.g. from oxforddictionaries.com &quot;spine: a series of vertebrae [...]&quot;) I was thinking that if _spina_ meant &quot;thorn&quot; initially, it could have come to mean &quot;spine&quot;, because the spine is a long thorny thing. (The &quot;thorns&quot; are called processes now—from Latin _processus_, of course, but in the sense of &quot;outgrowth of tissue from a larger body&quot; this word is bound to have a shorter etymology, at least shorter than something as simple as &quot;spine/backbone&quot;.)" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:03:29.830" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="793" PostId="160" Score="0" Text="Very well: a vertebra is not a spine, and a vertebra is never called a *spina*, only the spine is. A vertebra may contain processes, but containing x is not the same as being x. A spina may have a thorny shape and thus be called a thorn, but not because it contains thorns, or it'd be a pars pro toto. But the dictionaries do not mention any pars pro toto, they just say a spine is called a *spina*, the most obvious conexion (x=y because x resembles y, not p=q because p contains things that resemble q)." CreationDate="2016-03-05T17:12:48.913" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="794" PostId="160" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus OK, I agree with you and as you can tell from my 7-word answer, I didn't intend it to be more than a guess." CreationDate="2016-03-05T17:37:16.897" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="795" PostId="160" Score="0" Text="Sure, nothing wrong with guesses! I was just expressing a bit of scepsis." CreationDate="2016-03-05T17:45:33.887" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="269" PostId="162" Score="1" Text="Yeah, I feel bad for English speakers, too. That's why I'm glad my first language isn't English! Technically. It's the only language I've spoken a lot in the past few years." CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:05:52.570" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="449" PostId="162" Score="1" Text="Well, for what it's worth, we didn't come from Latin . . . English is a Germanic language. It just *seems* like we came from Latin because when the Normans took over England in 1166 they brought all their Latinate vocabulary with them. :)" CreationDate="2016-02-27T02:01:52.730" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4732" PostId="162" Score="2" Text="Nor did Czech descend from Latin..." CreationDate="2016-10-06T23:40:32.760" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="22456" PostId="163" Score="0" Text="Wouldn't ihsu xρisto be in fact Iesu Christo, using the Greek chi and ro?" CreationDate="2019-09-15T15:15:21.670" UserId="409" />
  <row Id="22457" PostId="163" Score="0" Text="@JDF: Yes, indeed. But isn't that what I supplied?" CreationDate="2019-09-15T15:30:32.093" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22480" PostId="163" Score="0" Text="You wrote Xpisto. I'm just saying that that is still abbreviated (sort of)." CreationDate="2019-09-17T06:20:57.117" UserId="409" />
  <row Id="282" PostId="173" Score="0" Text="Interesting!  I'm not sure, though, that I follow your point regarding Quintilian. He doesn't see an issue with &quot;inharmonious&quot; speech?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:48:58.070" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="283" PostId="173" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel It's more that he regarded harmony as extra fluff, not necessarily that inharmonious phrases are much more desirable. He puts other things first." CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:51:21.330" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="286" PostId="173" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure I'm following the argument correctly. Is it something along the lines of, &quot;speak swiftly and confidently and pause when you need to, because the only way to give one continuous thread of speech is to speak deliberately and hesitantly&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:24:20.313" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="287" PostId="173" Score="3" Text="@MarJohnson As I understand it, that's it - at least, as Cicero advises. He wants speakers to be bold. Aristotle, on the other hand, wants people to choose their words carefully, and if that means pausing a little, then so be it. But both imply that stumbling is not something to be desired." CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:27:45.210" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="288" PostId="173" Score="0" Text="Ahh, I see.  So we just avoid stumbling altogether, not just wrt words like 'um'." CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:31:49.723" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="289" PostId="173" Score="0" Text="@MarJohnson Exactly. It comes across as inelegant and unconfident." CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:32:21.810" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="310" PostId="173" Score="2" Text="While I agree with the substance of this answer (&quot;classical rhetorical training highly discouraged filler words&quot;), I'm not sure if it addresses the question about what words *were* used as fillers. Just because the Emancipation Proclamation and most reference books don't contain them does not mean that English does not use them." CreationDate="2016-02-25T13:32:37.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="358" PostId="173" Score="1" Text="@brianpck That's true, but given that these authors were *the* major authority on speaking and some of the most well-known writers of the time - and thus some of the best recorded - it makes sense that if there was the presence of these words, they should be included in their works somewhere, especially given the points of their writings. Records of &quot;everyday&quot; Latin aren't existent to the point that these records are; we don't have a large supply to choose from." CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:39:26.120" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="291" PostId="174" Score="0" Text="I don't know enough for a definite answer, but I do know that in homosexual relationships, the passive partner was considered to be feminine. Therefore, the actions of a passive male/male partner could be the same as of a female." CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:55:44.753" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="407" PostId="175" Score="2" Text="It seems to me that Adams outranks Wikipedia by a great deal. Rather than reconciling the definitions, my impulse is just to go with Adams. (Though &quot;to think of the *cēvére* to mean passive actions&quot; is odd syntax, so perhaps you've left out a word or something.)" CreationDate="2016-02-26T12:21:51.713" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="735" PostId="175" Score="0" Text="So is there a difference between criso ceueo and the passive form of futuo (futuor)?" CreationDate="2016-03-04T01:21:04.943" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="297" PostId="177" Score="0" Text="Could you explain why you chose &quot;lustra&quot; over &quot;stabulo&quot;? I was trying to find the closest equivalent to &quot;strip club&quot;, as I... didn't say in my original question. Oops.(also, whoops, I'm good at remembering &quot;ad&quot; I promise)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:41:33.780" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="298" PostId="177" Score="0" Text="Stabulum is a euphemism for the *lustra*. Actually, thinking about it, *lupanar* might be even better. However, *stabulum* does not per se mean brothel." CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:48:53.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="299" PostId="177" Score="0" Text="Oh, fair enough. Like I said, though, my question was originally wrong -- I'm looking for something more like &quot;strip club&quot;, which, as far as I can tell, &quot;stabulum&quot; is at least similar to." CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:50:24.390" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="301" PostId="177" Score="0" Text="Hm, I think I'll go with &quot;taberna&quot; instead then. Many thanks for the extra help!" CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:52:51.610" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="303" PostId="177" Score="0" Text="I'd like to continue this discussion (ideally in chat -- the magic blue link is appearing now) but it's late, and I ought to sleep. If you'd like we can continue tomorrow." CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:55:55.517" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="362" PostId="177" Score="1" Text="I'll just add that *ergó* is used to indicate logical results—if this, then that. So if you were aiming for e.g. &quot;You said [yesterday] that I could do anything, so you can't have been in Carthage,&quot; then *ergó* would be exactly right." CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:59:45.577" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="387" PostId="177" Score="0" Text="Good answer! Small suggestion: use *quicquam* or *quidquid* rather than *aliquid*. Oh, and *ivi* is extremely rare." CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:05:53.533" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38777" PostId="178" Score="0" Text="Not so relevant to the meat of your question, but I checked and both Oxford (https://gazette.web.ox.ac.uk/files/encaenia2022-1tono5355pdf) and my copy of *Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis* use masculine *professor* for women professors." CreationDate="2022-07-04T12:19:06.693" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38788" PostId="178" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 That would actually make a nice answer to [this related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/831/79)." CreationDate="2022-07-05T13:19:49.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38789" PostId="178" Score="0" Text="It turns out I checked the Encaenia speeches last year in my answer to that question (they are an absolute pleasure to skim through); the Harry Potter part hadn't occurred to me then." CreationDate="2022-07-05T13:30:50.087" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="305" PostId="179" Score="2" Text="Where would you like to use this phrase? If the context is scientific, I would put precision before elegance (and probably choose an English expression instead of a Latin one if you are writing in English). The preposition *in* is not such a good fit here, so I would use pure ablative, eg. *simulacro mathematico*, if I had to make the choice." CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:47:09.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="306" PostId="179" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Precision is not everything in a scientific context. If I describe my studies in detail, I would not use a Latin phrase. But if I have to put studies in context, using a Latin phrase may underline the level or perspective I am talking about, in particular if I use the numerous existing parallels. The term *in silico* was established for a reason." CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:55:39.230" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="330" PostId="179" Score="0" Text="I was about to suggest &quot;simulatio&quot;, but no, wait, that also means &quot;deception&quot; and &quot;scam&quot; -- probably not what you want." CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:08:23.910" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="14905" PostId="179" Score="0" Text="*in silico* apparently took hold in English, but the correct L. would be *in silice*." CreationDate="2018-07-22T02:00:10.880" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="309" PostId="183" Score="5" Text="Many thanks! This is an excellent answer. I had not realized that *claustrum* and *rostrum* were derived this way, but it makes sense now." CreationDate="2016-02-25T10:56:26.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="316" PostId="185" Score="2" Text="I'm not particularly interested in whether or not a valediction is native Latin, just that it was used in Rome. Thanks for the great answer!" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:19:38.697" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="667" PostId="185" Score="1" Text="One of my favorites is *Vive valeque!* (Horace *Satires* II.5.110 — not a letter, but in his Epistle I.6 he uses the similar *Vive, vale!*)" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:48:18.757" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="670" PostId="185" Score="1" Text="@fvogel Well, *epistula* literally means letter!" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:44:54.240" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="671" PostId="185" Score="1" Text="@cmw I was unclear: I meant that although the Satire isn't a letter, he uses almost the same essentially the same valediction in one of his Epistulae. To what extent these letters-in-verse are comparable to Cicero's letters, I don't know enough about the genre to say." CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:53:36.173" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="4226" PostId="185" Score="1" Text="is *mea desideria* really to be translated as a bland *my loves*? it seems to me that it means *my coveted ones* (he's currently exiled and expressing his yearning to see them again). It's really a strong word in this context." CreationDate="2016-09-02T14:25:55.213" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4410" PostId="185" Score="0" Text="@mus_siluanus For the purposes of instruction StackExchange, you mean? I can't see how that would improve the answer at all." CreationDate="2016-09-20T07:44:51.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4517" PostId="185" Score="1" Text="@cmw I think it's important because it means that expression was not a *standard formula* used in letters (what OP requested, if I understand well), it was a one-time highly meaningful expression from Cicero and Cicero only. Even if your focus was on &quot;vale&quot;, there could be misunderstandings" CreationDate="2016-09-23T19:21:05.563" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="315" PostId="186" Score="0" Text="Oh, this is cool. +1 for making it real Latin. Also, didn't know that you could omit the conjunction. As a side note, I made it past to make it sound like I was explaining after the fact – it's after Valentine's after all." CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:18:04.577" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="317" PostId="186" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes Definitely the past tense makes more sense—in English. In Latin, though, I think it's quite common for the present tense to refer to any time, especially in a story. We do this in English, too: &quot;It was 1969. I heard a knock. Well, I go to the door, and Jimi Hendrix is there!&quot; I hear that Vergil does that a lot. In the couplet above, hopefully _protinus_ makes clear that as soon as you were given permission, you went and abused it. :)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:23:27.110" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="318" PostId="186" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes BTW, have you said it aloud yet? If you practice the rhythm, it should be entertaining to your girlfriend even if she doesn't know Latin. _And_ you'll start developing a feel for the rhythm of Latin." CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:26:47.643" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="319" PostId="186" Score="1" Text="Ah, fair enough. I keep forgetting that tenses have different connotations. No, I haven't; I'm still in school and saying random things in Latin would get be branded as &quot;possessed kid&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:27:17.177" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="429" PostId="186" Score="0" Text="I wonder whether switching the hemiepes in the second line would be appropriate. It's a less natural word order, but it's elegy, so that doesn't really matter. And putting sáltátrícés last saves the punchline for the end! There may be some metrical principle that violates, though." CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:34:08.753" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="431" PostId="186" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner My understanding is that [spondees are not allowed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_pentameter) in the second hemiepes. My feeling from saying elegies out loud is that ending with two dactyls followed by a longum provides much of the comical &quot;zing&quot;. Have you tried saying it out loud?" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:49:25.737" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="324" PostId="189" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the info about the relation between the spelling and everyday speech! I'd been wondering a long time how strong was the pressure to smear the vowels into a diphthong. Apparently, not strong until that _iii_ faded. Does the long version say anything about the common use of the first syllable of _ait_ in poetry where a light syllable is needed?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:58:04.983" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="326" PostId="189" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Unfortunately, it doesn't.  The amount of the long version that directly addresses *ait* and *reicit* is unfortunately not all that long; he prefers to examine a number of different types of *i*-consonant behavior, of which this is only one." CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:03:55.203" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="323" PostId="190" Score="0" Text="Thanks, +1.  But what makes you think that that's the usage in mind here?  Is there some reason for excluding your source's first meaning?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:56:48.683" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="332" PostId="190" Score="1" Text="That seems like an appropriate meaning based on the theological context - the Catholic church, when it agrees to something in its dogma, does not consider it to be a &quot;vote,&quot; one equal voice among many, it is making a judgement or decision. Given that Calvin is objecting to (what he perceives) as the Catholic church making arbitrary declarations unrelated to scripture, this seems to match the sense that Calvin is objecting to." CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:14:11.980" UserId="20" />
  <row Id="343" PostId="192" Score="0" Text="I don't have a source for this, or even a place where I learned it, but I'm fairly certain it relates to the pause after the word -- if it's treated as though the word would have ended there, if it's a slightly longer pause, etc. (like the difference between , and ;)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:19:13.923" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2604" PostId="194" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure I follow the last paragraph. If 'support' can't be connected in sense to 'vote', what else possibly could?" CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:47:57.313" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="342" PostId="195" Score="0" Text="Before I try answering, I'd like to confirm that your question is &quot;why is this singular? Isn't the subject 'vepsere et mane', and aren't they plural?&quot;, because I'm a dirty non-Latin-fluent peasant or somesuch." CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:17:33.550" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="344" PostId="195" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes Ita. Anglice dicitur &quot;Evening and morning **are** done&quot;. Duo nomini unum subjectum pluralem faciunt." CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:32:57.923" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="371" PostId="195" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Gratias tibi ago pro correctionis dono! :)" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:08:46.227" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="334" PostId="196" Score="4" Text="Unum locum bonum ad quærere incipiendum est [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmatura_computatralis)." CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:42:51.230" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="339" PostId="196" Score="0" Text="You have corrected *opo* to *ope* after recalling that *opus* is 3rd declension. But is that really how do you decline *opus*?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:01:37.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="340" PostId="196" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta By typo. Oops. (I've been using a new phone keyboard and the &quot;e&quot; is right next to the backspace, for some reason)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:14:12.600" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="341" PostId="196" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz It took me too long to realize that's just &quot;Wikipedia&quot; but spelling like it's Latin. Thanks for the new resource!" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:15:19.967" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="346" PostId="196" Score="1" Text="You really ought to hold off before accepting an answer. A one point answer doesn't have the stamp of approval from the community yet, which is mostly needed to accept. What if, for example, they're wrong? Or incomplete? Check out the [meta](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/questions/19/wait-few-days-before-accepting-answers) thread on why." CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:54:52.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="347" PostId="196" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer It answers my question, so I accepted it. If someone proves it wrong, I can always unaccept -- unlike votes, it's not locked in after a certain amount of time -- and considering how specific this question is, I doubt it'll ever get very many votes." CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:57:09.880" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="348" PostId="196" Score="1" Text="Please read the linked thread. It goes without saying that you can do what you want, but there are good reasons not to accept straightaway the first answer that you think answers your question. (Note, this isn't just about this thread, it's just good practice across stacks.)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:59:50.933" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="349" PostId="196" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I did. In fact, I read it before you linked it. I read it when the answer was posted, give or take, because I keep up with meta. I don't see how leaving a question marked as unanswered when it is answered is a good thing. Could we discuss it in chat? (I'm not in there ATM but I will be shortly)" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:02:50.543" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="577" PostId="196" Score="1" Text="For what it's worth, &quot;homework&quot; is probably more appropriately rendered *pēnsum* than *opus*. It's what a lot of Latin textbooks seem to use, and it comes from the past participle of *pendere*, to weigh. http://www.locutio.net/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&amp;op=content&amp;tid=6507 is in French but begins: &quot;A Latin word that described the weight of wool that a slave had to spin in a day.&quot; (The word &quot;pensum&quot; is also used in English—and I believe in French—to describe homework as punishment, but that sense was absent from the Latin.)" CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:50:54.870" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="337" PostId="197" Score="2" Text="What dictionary are you using?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:53:54.490" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="338" PostId="197" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes, it is a Finnish-Latin-Finnish dictionary by Reijo Pitkäranta. I typically use that or a Latin-Finnish dictionary by Adolf Streng. I don't have any dictionaries between Latin and English. If you study Latin in Finnish, you already know these books, and if not, you have probably no use for them..." CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:59:01.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="351" PostId="197" Score="0" Text="Apologies, but I'm unaccepting this answer, because the other one provides a reference [that I can read]" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:04:34.373" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="391" PostId="198" Score="0" Text="I see a few leaps of faith in this question. First, although there may be little semantic shift in these verbs, language idiom is different between English and Latin: *IS composes DO* is English, but may un-Latin, as in the Latin language IS assume much less agency. Second of all, the argument between (2) and (3) is doubtful at the least: if we assume that IS cannot *compose*, due to its  inanimacy, then we should also take it cannot *cause*. I believe you could better elaborate especially the later argument, viz the principal difference between *composing* and *causing*." CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:34:11.287" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="398" PostId="198" Score="0" Text="@kkm Thanks. Allow me to remove any reference to English then." CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:21:59.027" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="493" PostId="198" Score="0" Text="I see a bigger problem with the second argument though. You say that “IS (assumed inanimate) cannot act or [a]ffect anything itself,” and then conclude that therefore IS *causes* something (I think you meant *affect*, because the verb *effect* is synonymous with *cause*, and the statement contradicts itself). It requires a better elaboration, methinks. Why IS cannot *act*, cannot *affect* but can *cause*?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T21:26:00.010" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="551" PostId="198" Score="0" Text="@kkm Thanks. Sorry for neglecting your second argument in your paragraph above; I would have responded otherwise. I did mean 'effect', but you are correct that I should have written 'affect', and have just edited my post. Is it better now? Though IS lacks consciousness for causation. I wrote 'effect' originally because I meant IS to cause and effect events randomly (ie: the Big Bang effect)." CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:41:17.467" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="552" PostId="198" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Sorry for neglecting your second argument in your paragraph above; I would have responded otherwise. I did mean 'effect', but you are correct that I contradicted myself because IS's cannot act or effect iff IS cannot cause. I should have distinguished the two modes of causation (conscious, direct vs indirect). Better now?" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:47:53.470" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="352" PostId="199" Score="0" Text="Itaque &quot;dies secundus&quot; sit subjectum sententiæ? Sed &quot;dies&quot; nomen masculinum, &quot;factum&quot; neuter est. Verum est?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:16:03.477" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="422" PostId="199" Score="0" Text="In re &quot;duobus casibus ablativis&quot;, si te placet [hanc quæstionem novam](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/244/118) vide. Fortassis rectum responsum tenes." CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:00:08.067" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="374" PostId="200" Score="0" Text="Vide notas sub [responso a cjmcnamara](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/199/118)." CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:16:36.827" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="375" PostId="200" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Probably should be &quot;responso cjmcnamarae&quot;, and I have. I'm fairly sure I've seen &quot;dies&quot; used as neuter though." CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:17:42.157" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="378" PostId="200" Score="0" Text="Re genere &quot;diei&quot;, vide [Wiktionariam](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dies#Inflection)." CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:40:34.547" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="380" PostId="200" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Hm, seems I was wrong. Fair enough! I'm not sure what it could mean, then, though." CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:42:28.623" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="350" PostId="201" Score="0" Text="+1 for providing a source as well as the definition, and proving my point that if a better answer comes along I can move the accept." CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:04:01.703" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="13681" PostId="201" Score="1" Text="It seems the *Vocabula Computatralia* link is no longer active.  I was able to locate a PDF at http://www.culturaclasica.com/lingualatina/vocabula_computatralia.pdf." CreationDate="2018-04-06T19:27:10.320" UserId="1996" />
  <row Id="28776" PostId="201" Score="1" Text="@pglezen The link still works for me." CreationDate="2020-08-27T13:55:42.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="28779" PostId="201" Score="0" Text="Indeed, @C.M.Weimer, it's working for me, now, also.  I'm not sure what the problem was back in 2018.  But I'm glad it's back." CreationDate="2020-08-27T17:36:40.583" UserId="1996" />
  <row Id="357" PostId="203" Score="1" Text="You have the uses of nominative and accusative switched." CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:28:57.280" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="359" PostId="204" Score="0" Text="So as a complete sentence, is this well-formed Latin? Does it make sense?" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:39:39.047" UserId="189" />
  <row Id="385" PostId="204" Score="1" Text="Isn't the order of _sola_ and _dea_ needed to make a play on the [Three Solas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae#The_Three_Solas) of Protestant Christianity? Or is no reference intended?" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:49:21.980" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="1094" PostId="204" Score="1" Text="That's a very good point to bring up; it's not something I had considered before. It could very well be the case that it's mimicking the same order as the Three Solas. That casts the phrase in a whole new light." CreationDate="2016-03-22T13:33:34.130" UserId="189" />
  <row Id="23386" PostId="206" Score="0" Text="Could you add &quot;at&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-11-23T10:24:45.960" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="370" PostId="210" Score="0" Text="WRT context clues -- That's why I assumed it was a metaphor, but I didn't see how it related to anything in the poem." CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:14:21.617" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="381" PostId="212" Score="0" Text="When it just means 'but', though, it still retains the stronger sense, doesn't it? Or is that just something I've picked up from that it's used as 'in truth' more often?" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:44:10.190" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="384" PostId="212" Score="0" Text="Well, I believe your gut more than my own.  I'll edit, unless you'd prefer to answer." CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:47:03.660" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="393" PostId="212" Score="1" Text="I want to encourage anybody reading this answer to look also at @C.M.Weimer's answer, which expands on and helps clarify this." CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:43:55.773" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="396" PostId="215" Score="1" Text="This is an amazingly good metaphor, really profound! I am wondering if *harena* is really idiomatic for the writing sand, which would more commonly be *pulvis*. Cf famous Cicero story of Archimedes (*pulvis et radius*), Persius *secto in pulvere metas*, Livy *in pulvere describere*. I do not recall any Classical use of *harena* in this sense, though." CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:55:10.887" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="399" PostId="215" Score="1" Text="There is a nice hidden feature here if you consider what sand is made of chemically." CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:49:02.447" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="394" PostId="216" Score="0" Text="I'm trying to see whether there were other cases of similar word choices from significantly different times, which might bolster the case that there was more than editorial choice going on." CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:44:27.713" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="395" PostId="216" Score="1" Text="And I've just come across a few instances of *effuso* in the sense I'd expect to see *profuso* in. It does seem to be mainly *profuso* though, at least throughout the 20th century." CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:51:36.633" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="392" PostId="219" Score="1" Text="Ah, but the fact that *vérum* stands for *vérum est* clarifies a great deal for me. If *sed* is &quot;but,&quot; then *véró* is &quot;(but) in truth&quot; (almost an ablative of *vérum*) and *vérum* is &quot;(but) the truth is.&quot; I find this much more helpful, in fact, than &quot;but, butter, buttest.&quot; This is a question that has plagued me for years. Thank you. (I want to accept both answers, but I can't, so I just went with the earliest one.)" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:43:03.737" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="388" PostId="221" Score="3" Text="For Cicero alone, two hands plus both feet wouldn’t be enough, so your teacher did exaggerate a bit. :-)" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:26:08.857" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="576" PostId="230" Score="0" Text="I'm embarrassed to say that I can't quite make sense of your first paragraph. Would you mind giving an example (preferably either an English word or a common Latin word) to illustrate?" CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:42:27.783" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="578" PostId="230" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner: How's this?" CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:37:40.467" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="408" PostId="234" Score="2" Text="Why did you include everything in `&lt;sub&gt;` tags? I find it harder to read this way. Do you mind if I suggest an edit with different formatting?" CreationDate="2016-02-26T12:30:04.707" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="409" PostId="234" Score="0" Text="@Earthliŋ Please do." CreationDate="2016-02-26T13:16:54.150" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="809" PostId="236" Score="0" Text="It should be noted that not all of those are future passive infinitives." CreationDate="2016-03-06T04:29:35.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="810" PostId="236" Score="0" Text="Exactly -- those are the &quot;false positives,&quot; but it will have a lot of examples of the construction the OP is looking for, too." CreationDate="2016-03-06T12:02:53.313" UserId="33" />
  <row Id="401" PostId="237" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. I answer some of your implicit questions: `I don't understand why it isn't in any Latin textbook I've ever seen` 1. You have correctly exposed my problem: I have not read Latin grammar yet, but wish to per [this](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/34/37) 2. `I'm assuming that this will work for you` : Yes, thanks; analogy to English verbs does aid me." CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:24:54.280" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="418" PostId="237" Score="0" Text="Excellent! It occurs to me that native or fluent German speakers would probably have an easy time understanding this as well, since it's essentially about separable/inseparable (trennbar/untrennbar) verbs." CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:44:12.027" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="548" PostId="237" Score="0" Text="+1. Please allow me to postpone acceptance to allow time for other responses." CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:03:25.603" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="550" PostId="237" Score="0" Text="But of course—absolutely!" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:33:47.853" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="439" PostId="239" Score="2" Text="Isn't *again* seen in *repeated action*? By the way, I wonder how the OLD would group *reddo* &quot;pay&quot; and &quot;deliver; I was taught that *re-* can mean not only &quot;restore to its previous state&quot;, but also &quot;bring into [its proper state]&quot;. And even &quot;bring into [any state]&quot;. Cf. also *redigo* &quot;collect [money]&quot; and &quot;bring into [a certain state]&quot;, such as *redigo aliquem ad inopiam* &quot;reduce someone to poverty&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:54:31.027" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="440" PostId="239" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus You are undoubtedly correct about the flexible nature of *re-*. As for *reddo* meaning &quot;pay&quot;, it seems clear that it means rather &quot;give back&quot;, but again, flexible verbs. I probably should emend my last statement (and so I have)." CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:00:02.573" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="444" PostId="239" Score="1" Text="*Reddo* can mean &quot;pay/give back&quot;, but also just &quot;pay&quot; or &quot;give&quot;. Example: Georgics 2, 194: *lancibus et pandis fumantia reddimus exta* &quot;on the crooked dishes we offer smoking/steaming entrails&quot; (to Bacchus). You could say any normal payment is done in return for some thing or service, so perhaps that lies behind the shift from &quot;pay back&quot; to &quot;pay (one's due)&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:21:54.013" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="445" PostId="239" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus I should have been clearer (it's difficult to do so in these small comments), but I meant it originated as &quot;give back&quot; or &quot;give in return&quot;, but of course flexibility of use means it can turn into all sorts of things." CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:24:11.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="447" PostId="239" Score="0" Text="Ah OK, then we are probably in agreement." CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:43:15.107" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="402" PostId="241" Score="6" Text="+1 just for reading Astérix in Latin." CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:03:52.740" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="1822" PostId="241" Score="1" Text="The New Testament uses *tertia die* to refer to the Resurrection of Christ, counting the day He died as the first one. Since they did not know zero as a number, I think it was just the natural thing to do when Jerome translated it from Greek." CreationDate="2016-05-10T23:41:47.843" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1823" PostId="241" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, I converted your answer into a comment as you intended. Moderators can do that, and you can ask moderators for help by raising a flag. About the content matter: It is indeed this way of counting that underlies this question. The question really is whether that kind of counting should be used for frequencies as well. For one time events the case is clearer, to me at least." CreationDate="2016-05-10T23:48:05.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1824" PostId="241" Score="0" Text="Might not &quot;every fourth year&quot; in English be &quot;every fifth year in Latin&quot;, if you count inclusively?" CreationDate="2016-05-11T02:25:30.873" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1825" PostId="241" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, whether or not to count inclusively in this situation is the key problem here. It seems that *quarto quoque anno* could be read as &quot;every fourth year&quot; or &quot;every third year&quot; in Caesar's time. See the quote above. I'm looking for a way around this ambiguity." CreationDate="2016-05-11T06:48:51.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="420" PostId="245" Score="0" Text="Do you know what words Romans used to describe intonation? It would be easy (in principle at least) to search a digital corpus for an ancient text on the topic if one just has some keywords (if the keywords are not too common otherwise)." CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:50:18.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="421" PostId="245" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Unfortunately I don't." CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:51:31.387" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="427" PostId="245" Score="2" Text="I don't have time at the moment to do a full search, but I think *vox* can be used this way (Lewis and Short gives one example from Cicero, it seems to me from first glance)." CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:13:41.373" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="424" PostId="247" Score="0" Text="I still haven't figured out how to format questions/answers beyond a basic level, so if anybody feels the impulse to do so here, please be my guest." CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:02:19.427" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="425" PostId="247" Score="0" Text="&quot;about discourse&quot; = [*discursive* (definition 3)](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discursive)?" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:03:27.433" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="430" PostId="247" Score="1" Text="Hmm. That makes me think &quot;rambling&quot; or &quot;roundabout.&quot; The two terms I'm thinking of are &quot;pragmatic&quot; and &quot;illocutionary,&quot; but both of them have specific linguistic meanings and I don't understand them well enough to know which, if either, is more appropriate." CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:36:31.030" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2707" PostId="247" Score="0" Text="Should the second speaker in &quot;the speaker is indicating that he thinks the speaker is on the same page as he is&quot; be listening instead of speaking?" CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:40:16.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2708" PostId="247" Score="0" Text="Indeed it should, and now it does!" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:07:20.990" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2737" PostId="247" Score="0" Text="&quot;Discourse-pragmatic&quot;, though clunky, is a term that used in linguistics for &quot;about discourse&quot; in this sense." CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:46:06.263" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="435" PostId="252" Score="1" Text="AH! So a clunky, literal translation would be something like, &quot;because they believed it had been haughtily and greedily commanded to them having been conquered&quot; —&gt; &quot;because they believed they had been commanded haughtily and greedily once they were conquered.&quot; *Imperitátum* is like Cæsar's *ventum est* or *pugnátum est*. There's an implied *esse* here, so *imperitátum* is the accusative infinitive—it's just being used impersonally." CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:44:40.707" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="436" PostId="253" Score="1" Text="Will you marry me? Also, the first two musicals I ever wrote used the Furies as a (literally) Greek chorus, and now I'm thinking I might have to cast you in a revival." CreationDate="2016-02-26T21:33:09.507" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="437" PostId="253" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner: That's cool, the chorus actually sang in Greek? As to marriage, thank you for the offer, but there might be mythological problems." CreationDate="2016-02-26T21:55:08.560" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="438" PostId="253" Score="1" Text="Ah, no, they did not, alas, sing in Greek. I just meant that, as the Eumenides, they were plucked from Greek myth.&#xA;&#xA;As for mythological problems, remember: amor vincit omnia." CreationDate="2016-02-26T22:45:03.150" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="18247" PostId="253" Score="1" Text="Gorgeous pictures!!" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:42:00.127" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18256" PostId="253" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: *&lt;blushes&gt;*" CreationDate="2019-01-23T17:06:52.773" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="448" PostId="258" Score="2" Text="It seems almost like a really deformed and hollow [hedera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleuron_(typography)), but the use of paragraph breaks would make it redundant." CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:49:26.157" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="451" PostId="260" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel: I've fleshed it out a bit more, explaining what I've done to 'research' it. Although unless someone finds this exact abbreviation with the exact same shape somewhere, I doubt whether much will come up... I could transcribe the whole text, but that would seem superfluous, since Harry is already doing that." CreationDate="2016-02-27T02:56:58.087" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="466" PostId="260" Score="0" Text="Ah, you could be right, I should have thought of that! Though why they thought it was necessary to add every time is beyond me. It might be abbreviated &quot;[&amp;c](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%26c.)&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:26:22.840" UserId="19" />
  <row Id="478" PostId="260" Score="0" Text="@HarryVervet: It sure might be: is that curl at the beginning how your scribe write the &amp; sign? The scribe is probably adding *etc.* to abbreviate certain standard formulae? The entries in this document are rather standardised." CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:48:30.263" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="492" PostId="260" Score="0" Text="I can't specifically see any other use of &amp; in the document, the scribe always seems to use &quot;et&quot; instead. Anyway I am confident your answer is correct, I have now found a couple of examples that have the same format with &amp;c. at the end - e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=8FQMAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA195" CreationDate="2016-02-27T20:24:27.880" UserId="19" />
  <row Id="575" PostId="261" Score="0" Text="I wonder whether this should be considered a duplicate of http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/51/when-can-i-perform-an-elision ? Obviously synizesis is a particular type of elision, so maybe the answer is &quot;no.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:29:50.363" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="580" PostId="261" Score="2" Text="@JoelDerfner: I see your point in that there are similarities between elision and synizesis. However, they are considered two distinct phenomena. Elision happens by default and is hence very frequent. It happens between words. Synizesis does not normally happen and it is rare. It happens within words." CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:46:43.323" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="581" PostId="261" Score="0" Text="Yes, I see. Perhaps what's wanting is a more thorough answer to the elision question." CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:55:21.813" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="582" PostId="261" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner: I'd say they are distinct phenomena: what rule applies to elision will not apply to synizesis and vice versa, so..." CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:00:59.893" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="781" PostId="261" Score="0" Text="Answer: When the line doesn't scan!" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:54:47.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="782" PostId="261" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Hah tsk." CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:58:53.833" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="457" PostId="262" Score="0" Text="For the first part, I’d say it’s just poorly worded. Since metrical feet in a verse are adjacent to each other, the end of each foot is also the beginning of the next one." CreationDate="2016-02-27T05:15:52.337" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="496" PostId="262" Score="0" Text="@chirlu: Yeah, it certainly is poorly worded. The end of a word can coincide with the end of a foot, but how can it coincide with the beginning of a foot? Presumably the author meant &quot;with the end of the first syllable of a foot&quot;, or something—at least then it would be meaningful." CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:27:19.463" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="499" PostId="262" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I take &quot;coincide with the beginning or end&quot; to mean &quot;between&quot;, following the metaphor of &quot;cut&quot;—that is, at a caesura, a foot is &quot;cut&quot; by the end of a word." CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:04:28.870" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="500" PostId="262" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: But...then why not say &quot;coincide with the end&quot;? Why add &quot;or beginning&quot;? Besides, saying that the end of a word coincides with an infinitely narrow space between an end and a beginning is imo. strictly incorrect: an end coincides with an end. So your interpretation is probably right, but...I still think the wording is odd." CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:15:28.843" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="501" PostId="262" Score="0" Text="If you think of one foot ending where the next begins, sort of like bricks laid end-to-end, you can see how, when a word ends at the end of a foot, it also ends at the beginning of a foot: the next foot (except at the end of the last foot, of course). No infinitely narrow space between need be postulated. I'm only guessing at how the speaker was trying to deal with different ways that people can think about this, of course. The notion of boundaries has tripped up philosophers and mathematicians at least since Aristotle tried to sort this out." CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:22:15.883" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="502" PostId="262" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: I know, I know, you're probably right." CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:34:25.187" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="453" PostId="265" Score="0" Text="Fascinating—especially because, in Italian at least, *minacciare* (&quot;to threaten&quot;), which I have to assume comes from minárí, definitely has that sense of menace." CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:16:12.650" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="455" PostId="265" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner Indeed, they're related! *Minacciare* comes from *minax* via Vulgar Latin \**minaciae*, which in turn comes from *minae*, the very origin of *minari*." CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:28:19.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="454" PostId="266" Score="0" Text="All of the etymologies on the linked page are related to lifting / carrying, I'm particularly interested in where the &quot;to destroy&quot; came from." CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:16:41.973" UserId="56" />
  <row Id="456" PostId="267" Score="1" Text="Excellent. I had thought it would be something simple, but I have never been able to reconcile the visual metaphor. Unlike _altus_ where it's both high and deep because it's conveying a meaure of &quot;great vertical distance&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-27T05:03:43.860" UserId="56" />
  <row Id="574" PostId="267" Score="0" Text="I watched *San Andreas* yesterday (for those of you not in the US or not familiar with pop culture, it was a terrible disaster movie that came out last year) and was reminded that buildings can often survive earthquakes that cause them to sway from side to side, but that when they get tossed 10 feet up in the air only to drop to earth again, they're basically toast." CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:24:35.200" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4368" PostId="269" Score="3" Text="Dr. Christine Mohrmann's [_Liturgical Latin: Its Origins and Character_](http://www.churchlatin.com/Books.aspx?AuthorID=3) is worth checking out." CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:53:47.360" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="467" PostId="271" Score="3" Text="According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudian_letters in all sorts of words. Are you looking for something more specific than what's written on Wikipedia?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:34:50.943" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="487" PostId="271" Score="0" Text="Yes, I'd like to see more examples, e.g., does the letter Ⱶ occur in other environments than the ending -umus/-imus?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:25:46.123" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="573" PostId="271" Score="1" Text="I wonder whether this question might benefit from greater detail?" CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:20:52.307" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="470" PostId="272" Score="0" Text="These are all great suggestions, but I'm not sure I buy them. For &quot;in respect of which,&quot; latinlexicon.org (I love them, by the way!) gives two Terence examples, &quot;quod me accusat, sum extra noxiam&quot; and &quot;siquid est Quod meā operā opus sit vobis,&quot; in which *quod* seems to be operating as a relative in a way that I don't think works here. Hyginus was a contemporary of Augustine, and I don't *think* inanimate objects were taking neuter pronouns in Latin at that time. A scribal error seems possible, but it's such an obvious one, wouldn't it have been corrected by now?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T13:39:56.413" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="471" PostId="275" Score="2" Text="[This](http://www.bio.utk.edu/mycology/Color/color-Fries.htm) isn't too detailed, but it gives some better descriptions for certain colors than other dictionaries I've seen. For example, *fulvus* is defined as &quot;tawny, lion-colored&quot; - meaning that it would be used to describe a lion." CreationDate="2016-02-27T13:57:02.187" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="494" PostId="275" Score="0" Text="The source given by @HDE226868 list colours in Modern Latin (and specifically in the dialect of biologists. Is there an overview of the colour in Classical Latin as well?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:23:20.760" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="609" PostId="275" Score="2" Text="I would like to add something to @HDE226868 : William T. Stearn's book *Botanical Latin* contains an extensive treatment of Latin colour terms – there's a dedicated 24-page chapter for describing subtle colour distinctions for use in botanical taxonomy. This is not „classical Latin“ in the strict sense; it builds on classical Latin to provide better-defined colour distinctions. This chapter also contains references to classical Latin colour surveys." CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:30:32.703" UserId="223" />
  <row Id="24086" PostId="275" Score="1" Text="There is interesting chapter in The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (Loeb) Book II. XXVI - &quot;Discourse of Marcus Fronto and the philosopher Favorinus on the varieties of colours and their Greek and Latin names: and incidentally, the nature of the colour &quot;spadix&quot;.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-01-25T13:49:18.710" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="21263" PostId="277" Score="0" Text="Ecclesiastical pronunciation is probably closer to classical Latin than Late Latin was in some aspects. Late Latin has &quot;radius&quot; as &quot;radzius&quot; (then Romanian &quot;rază&quot;), or even &quot;raius&quot; (Spanish &quot;rayo&quot;) or &quot;ragius&quot; (Italian &quot;raggio&quot;). There were dialects and stuff. Ecclesiastical &quot;unmade&quot; some mergers of Late Latin (v and b did merge like in Spanish for example, dzi, gi, and consonantal i merged in various ways, ti and ci merged in Western Romance, etc.)." CreationDate="2019-09-03T09:44:04.710" UserId="5002" />
  <row Id="22894" PostId="277" Score="0" Text="Do you mean rather &quot;Ecclesiastical pronunciation is probably closer to Latin than Classical Latin? Because I don't understand how Ecclesiastical pronunciation is closer to classical Latin, than to Late Latin." CreationDate="2019-10-23T14:35:55.593" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="24112" PostId="277" Score="1" Text="I mean the differences between the Ecclesiastical pronunciation and the Classical pronunciation are smaller than the differences between that Classical pronunciation and a Late Latin one. That is, the Ecclesiastical pronunciation incorporates some Classical features that were lost in Late Latin, such as:" CreationDate="2020-01-28T11:49:20.987" UserId="5002" />
  <row Id="24113" PostId="277" Score="0" Text="- *Distinguishing gi/di/j/zi*, they merged in Late Latin in different ways depending on dialect (that's how **diurnum** in Latin became **giorno** in Italian: it was already pronounced /ˈʝorno/ in Late Latin, and not /diˈurnu(m)/ as in Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin).&#xA; - *Having a 5 vowel system*, Late Latin had 7, /e/ and /o/ often replaced Classical or Ecclesiastical /i/ and /u/ and accent rules were often different as well (so Late Latin had *integrum* as /enˈtegro/ and that explains the Spanish word **entero**, while both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin have /ˈintegru(m)/." CreationDate="2020-01-28T11:53:28.953" UserId="5002" />
  <row Id="4039" PostId="278" Score="2" Text="_sive_, a contraction of _si_ and _vi_, means &quot;or if&quot;. It's not really synonymous with _vel_." CreationDate="2016-08-14T21:20:51.213" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="4041" PostId="278" Score="1" Text="I'm confused—isn't that exactly what this answer says?" CreationDate="2016-08-14T21:37:29.977" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4042" PostId="278" Score="0" Text="&quot;*media nox*&quot; isn't another word for &quot;*prima vespera*&quot;. I don't see how you could use &quot;*vel*&quot; in your example." CreationDate="2016-08-14T22:03:29.140" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="7670" PostId="278" Score="0" Text="@Geremia *Sive* often means simply &quot;or&quot; in Late Latin texts, especially to indicate a subtitle of a book or another name for something. See section C under Lewis and Short." CreationDate="2017-03-28T23:40:21.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7674" PostId="278" Score="0" Text="@cmw Yes, L&amp;S §C of &quot;[_sive_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sive&amp;la=la#lexicon)&quot; says it's disjunctive, but interestingly it says _vel_ was sometimes used in a &quot;purely disjunctive sense,&quot; so there is some evolution in these &quot;or&quot; words." CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:04:11.887" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="7695" PostId="278" Score="0" Text="@Geremia Yep, very true." CreationDate="2017-03-29T18:48:32.853" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="472" PostId="280" Score="2" Text="Though I would assume you've already seen it [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/106/why-does-latin-not-have-an-instrumental-case) is realted." CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:48:30.773" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="476" PostId="282" Score="3" Text="It'd be helpful if you provided some context.  The relationship between *interesting* and a Latin word may not be one-to-one, so (for example) providing some example sentences might be helpful." CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:55:14.393" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="586" PostId="282" Score="0" Text="From Strunk and White: &quot;An unconvincing word; avoid it as a means of introduction. Instead of announcing that what you are about to tell is interesting, make it so.&quot; The solution is probably to be more specific about what's meant by &quot;interesting&quot; in that context." CreationDate="2016-02-29T18:23:54.917" UserId="20" />
  <row Id="495" PostId="283" Score="2" Text="Good answer, gratias! As you say, when we speak of caesurae, we're talking about a phenomenon that occurs once or twice per verse, not the first definition. Wikipaedia suggests that the Romans did use it in that now unused way, but I don't know. // I usually have a feeling about where I pause for a caesura in Homer/Virgil, but I'm never entirely sure why, nor am I sure my pauses are in the &quot;accepted&quot; positions." CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:25:43.660" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="514" PostId="284" Score="2" Text="This is a good answer, except that the classical Latin locative is not mentioned; although it is a defective case, it is still productive for cities and small islands, and there are a fair number of other, non-productive locative nouns left, like *domi*." CreationDate="2016-02-28T02:09:34.007" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22636" PostId="284" Score="1" Text="The Slavic ablative merged with the genitive." CreationDate="2019-09-28T21:59:01.980" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="515" PostId="287" Score="0" Text="The verb _interest_ + pronoun is a good choice, I think, but you'll want to make sure that you use the ablative feminine possessive adjective (e.g., _mea_, _tua_) since _interest_ borrows its construction from _refert_. See Lewis and Short _intersum_ section III:Esp.: intĕrest, impers., it makes a difference, interests, concerns, imports; is of interest, importance; constr. with gen. pers. or meā, tuā, suā, and with a subj. or rel. clause," CreationDate="2016-02-28T03:55:35.523" UserId="33" />
  <row Id="4334" PostId="290" Score="2" Text="I agree, this is not an accusative of exclamation; it's just an exclamation that happens to contain a normal accusative object." CreationDate="2016-09-13T23:44:17.137" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32622" PostId="290" Score="1" Text="Would natalis laetus be ok as well?" CreationDate="2021-04-15T16:10:42.533" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34609" PostId="290" Score="1" Text="@JohhanSantana That would be unidiomatic." CreationDate="2021-08-19T02:46:30.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4333" PostId="291" Score="1" Text="This reminds me of one of my [previous question about the difference in usages between vocatives and accusatives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1016/difference-between-vocative-and-accusative-usage)..." CreationDate="2016-09-13T22:10:51.393" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="486" PostId="293" Score="1" Text="This answer has been flagged as low-quality... is there anything else you could add to back up this interpretation?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:08:53.973" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="508" PostId="293" Score="0" Text="Strangely, my original link to Lewis and Short disappeared (was edited away?), so I've added the link again. The reading &quot;but&quot; seems to make good sense in this context -- certainly more than any other sense of *quod* that I know of. &quot;Before, people sought fire from the immortals... but afterward, Prometheus brought it down to earth&quot;." CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:01:07.760" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="491" PostId="294" Score="4" Text="Tangentially, I wonder whether Horatius in *Maecenas atavis edite regibus* means great-great-great-grandparents or ancestry in general. I'm not even sure how many Romans even knew the difference between *atavus* and *tritavus*." CreationDate="2016-02-27T20:12:38.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26620" PostId="294" Score="0" Text="It is not so absurd. William I of England was the tritavus of Edward I, who was the tritavus of Henry VI. David I of Scotland was the tritavus of Robert I, who was the tritavus of James III (https://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.asp)." CreationDate="2020-05-30T13:50:52.080" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="6856" PostId="295" Score="2" Text="Praemium quinquaginta punctorum praebui, sed nemo respondit. Hoc interrogatum difficillimum est!" CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:45:11.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="497" PostId="296" Score="0" Text="Studium excitat. Sed nonne **regimen** abstractum est, ut _Regimen Sanitatis Salernitanum_ —aut hoc est sensus extensus? Et suntne **putamen**, **foramen**, **purgamentum** exceptiones?" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:36:29.640" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="498" PostId="296" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz, usus abstractus vocabuli *regimen* sensum extensum habet. *Foramen* venit de vocabulo *foras* (per foramine foras ire possumus), non de ullo verbo. Crediderim vocabulum *putamen* sensum multo extensum habere, sed nescio qualis sit historia etymologica eius." CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:45:21.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="507" PostId="301" Score="0" Text="Hi, Tim. This is cool; I didn't know Romans used olive oil in the baths. Do you have a source for further reading?" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:31:34.537" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="527" PostId="301" Score="0" Text="@HDE226868: Few of my references are online, I am afraid, even those that are not written on papyrus rolls. But the Wikipedia entry for [strigil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigil) is a good start (assuming that 'dirt and perspiration' were not applied before bathing)." CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:56:07.090" UserId="116" />
  <row Id="504" PostId="302" Score="0" Text="Regarding tritavus, it's with the others under the section of &quot;Prenominal Pro-&quot; with the others, on page 50. Interesting answer, though; I was aware of similar structures on other languages (Old English, too, I believe), but I didn't know if it was also the case with Latin." CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:04:28.043" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="506" PostId="302" Score="0" Text="Ah, okay—I was reading too quickly and missed it. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:16:47.503" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="505" PostId="303" Score="5" Text="Well, the reason the the word défació doesn't exist in Latin is that, as in many verbs with prefixes, the vowel changes, and défació becomes défició. I'm not an expert on these vowel changes, so I can't usefully opine on them, but perhaps somebody else can.&#xA;&#xA;That said, however, it's not clear to me that &quot;undo&quot; is a recognized meaning of défició. So I don't actually know the answer to your question." CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:14:38.320" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="510" PostId="305" Score="2" Text="Oooh, I vote for retexo, since its literal meaning is &quot;unweave.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:09:22.370" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="511" PostId="305" Score="1" Text="Nice list. Another possibility is &quot;abrogo.&quot; Beyond the dictionary usages, I've heard &quot;Scholae abrogatae sunt&quot; (e.g. on a snow day)." CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:10:21.643" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="512" PostId="305" Score="0" Text="@fvogel: Excellent, I've added it." CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:12:00.317" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="542" PostId="306" Score="2" Text="Consider that a Norman knight named Guillaume might be as insulted to have his name Latinized in the same form as that of his Saxon villein Willem (not to mention his German squire Wilhelm) as a Harry would be to be called Henri. (Yes, it is grammatical, but it's not substantial enough for an answer)" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:40:42.730" UserId="116" />
  <row Id="2517" PostId="306" Score="0" Text="Consider: (1) 'W' was a late addition to the Latin alphabet, and it was likely 'accepted' as a letter at different times in different places. (2) In Italian, the sound of 'gli' (a definite article, but also common in Italian words) sounds much like 'li' to English ears (though not identical); indeed, in the writings of Peter of John Olivi (d. 1298; s. France), he uses 'li' as a definite article. (3) Modern European languages have their own form of 'William' today (William vs Guillaume vs Wilhelm), so you may well be witnessing the ways it was evolving in different language regions." CreationDate="2016-07-10T19:38:25.360" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="5515" PostId="306" Score="1" Text="@jon You should post your comments as full answers. Even if a fuller one comes along later, it's still acceptable as an answer in and of itself." CreationDate="2016-12-01T23:27:08.347" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="530" PostId="308" Score="1" Text="Interesting theory—I never thought about the idea of contracting alternative endings, but it certainly is a compelling narrative of the rise of the historical infinitive." CreationDate="2016-02-28T18:03:00.130" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2515" PostId="308" Score="2" Text="An interseting idea worth exploring further. However, I would expect to read *amavere* for the syncopated form of *amaverunt*. See, e.g., A&amp;G § 181 b.: 'Perfects in **-ivi** regularly omit **v**, but rarely contract the vowels except before **st** and **ss**, *and very rarely in the third person perfect*' (italics added).  See also the corresponding verb tables in § 184.  It is also worth nothing that the historical infinitive 'is often used for the Imperfect Indicative in narration', and is used descriptively rather than to state historical facts (ibid., § 463)." CreationDate="2016-07-10T19:18:43.257" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="558" PostId="310" Score="6" Text="There are many times when some words immediately force a translation. Adding *publica* to *res* gives us the standard phrase *res publica* meaning 'Republic', while 'public thing' would not even get close to translating the sentiment behind the Latin." CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:15:31.910" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="517" PostId="311" Score="7" Text="Strongly related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/280/ablative-case-and-its-counterparts." CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:21:22.340" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="518" PostId="311" Score="0" Text="I didn't notice that - should I delete this question?" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:22:44.987" UserId="215" />
  <row Id="519" PostId="311" Score="3" Text="If you think this is already answered well enough. It's up to you." CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:23:35.170" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="23364" PostId="311" Score="0" Text="It's related, but not the same question. Personally, I'd like a focus on the &quot;why&quot;, not &quot;when&quot;." CreationDate="2019-11-22T13:41:54.757" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="528" PostId="312" Score="3" Text="+1 for gorgeous Latin." CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:59:17.077" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="529" PostId="312" Score="1" Text="Thx @Joel. Being Italian helps a tiny bit, I guess :)." CreationDate="2016-02-28T18:02:40.153" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="532" PostId="312" Score="0" Text="Btw I was lucky with _Bart_ which is an abbreviation for _Bartholomew_ hence _Bartholomæus_, but can you think of any sensible way to latinize _Simpson_?" CreationDate="2016-02-28T19:43:52.600" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="723" PostId="312" Score="1" Text="de Vaan mentions two hypotheses: 1. The original meaning might have been &quot;water&quot; cf. urinari 'dive' 2. The original meaning might have been urine, because divers produce a lot of urine. **To conclude, we don't know for sure** if Latin urina and other IE words meaning water are cognates (originate from the same root)." CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:47:24.810" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15469" PostId="312" Score="0" Text="Simpson = filius Symeonis" CreationDate="2018-08-26T23:37:39.373" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="41070" PostId="312" Score="1" Text="I don't think &quot;drasticum mutamentum&quot; is good Latin, it sounds like Italian with a Latin swing on it" CreationDate="2023-01-21T16:25:39.863" UserId="5004" />
  <row Id="41080" PostId="312" Score="0" Text="@rearThing it's entirely possible that I macaronicked my way into that :). Mutamentum doesn't show up on Wiktionary, but drastikos is Greek, so maybe drastica mutatio? Then again, clickavi isn't much less macaronic :)." CreationDate="2023-01-22T01:20:36.783" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="526" PostId="317" Score="1" Text="Well, now you know how a native Latin speaker feels about learning English: On oxforddictionaries.com [run](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/run) has 15 main meanings with 30 submeanings =)" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:06:57.167" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="538" PostId="317" Score="0" Text="Yeah, but that's different. *Run* just means, well, *run*. :)" CreationDate="2016-02-28T21:31:36.393" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="559" PostId="318" Score="0" Text="It should be noted that the third one has to have *ne* prior to the word it is emphasizing. You have that correctly placed in your translation, but it's essential to the construction." CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:20:08.570" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="560" PostId="318" Score="0" Text="Wait—do you mean that it should be &quot;nē Mārcus Aurēlius quidem,&quot; or just that for what it's worth you can't say &quot;nē quidem Mārcus Aurēlius&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:21:28.453" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="561" PostId="318" Score="1" Text="There is some room for both, I believe. Generally, if they are close together, they belong together between *ne*...*quidem*. For example, in *De Lege Agraria* II.78 Cicero writes *ne per Corneliam quidem*, and in fact we almost never see *quidem* intervening between a preposition and the noun it goes with." CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:43:55.673" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="562" PostId="318" Score="0" Text="However, in *Brutus* 54, Cicero writes *ne L. Valerium quidem Potitum*. While the praenomen and nomen are between *ne...quidem*, the cognomen is outside. Yet further down at 269, he write *Ne T. quidem Postumius*." CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:46:53.360" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="563" PostId="318" Score="0" Text="Grátiás plúrimás agó! Adeo imperítus sum ut mé jactáre soleam, nec semper récté." CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:49:52.953" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="572" PostId="318" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Perhaps it's a clausula thing." CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:10:44.267" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="29145" PostId="318" Score="0" Text="How about this?&#xA;&#xA;_Mea quidem sententia [est] Marcum īnsānīre._&#xA;&#xA;or&#xA;&#xA;_Meā quidem sententiā Marcus īnsānit._" CreationDate="2020-09-30T07:04:40.180" UserId="4814" />
  <row Id="540" PostId="320" Score="1" Text="Hi and welcome!  Can we presume that you would you like to pronounce it as Luther would have pronounced it, or are you looking for the way the Romans of classical times (first few centuries AD) would have pronounced it?" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:18:03.640" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="541" PostId="320" Score="3" Text="Also, to help limit this question (it's currently quite broad), are there any particular words that you are struggling with?" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:20:18.353" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="546" PostId="320" Score="0" Text="Hi Nathaniel! Pronouncing it in the way that Luther would have is probably better suited to the piece. As for particular words I need help with, I think it would be easier to list the words I don't need help with: 'Cur Papa Crassis crassiores fidelium Basilicam sancti Petri'. If you can help me with the remainder of the words, I would be much obliged!" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:58:10.113" UserId="220" />
  <row Id="7503" PostId="320" Score="0" Text="Another closed topic I'm revisiting for reopening. Thoughts?" CreationDate="2017-03-17T17:12:49.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7504" PostId="320" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I agree. I edited and reopened. Please re-edit if you see room for improvement." CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:46:27.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7511" PostId="320" Score="0" Text="I think an IPA rendering would be most accurate, and of course, more difficult." CreationDate="2017-03-17T23:56:07.757" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="557" PostId="321" Score="2" Text="Please don't ask multiple nearly-identical questions. Also, stems can include things that look like prefixes. That's good Latin." CreationDate="2016-02-29T03:32:09.833" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="650" PostId="321" Score="2" Text="Actually, *operīre* and *perīre* aren't related, at least not in the way this question assumes. The former is a fourth-conjugation verb (*operiō*) and the latter is an irregular verb in the same pattern as *īre* (*pereō*)." CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:21:19.827" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1938" PostId="321" Score="0" Text="It seems that _aperio_ is the anthonym by means of _a+operio_, where either the _o_ was elided in the process, or was undergoing aphaeresis at the time _aperio_ formed. The corresponding [Proto-IE root](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_lat=operio&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on) lists an initial vowel as optional. If that is true, there would be no prefixes." CreationDate="2016-05-20T17:41:03.747" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1945" PostId="321" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Thanks. Please feel free to edit my question if the quote is wrong." CreationDate="2016-05-22T03:17:07.683" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="1950" PostId="321" Score="0" Text="The quote seems right. It is just that when there is disagreement between _wiktionary_ and a primary source, I think the primary is preferable" CreationDate="2016-05-22T12:41:46.883" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="553" PostId="322" Score="1" Text="I'm a little confused—I can't find *defallere* in any of the dictionaries I have at hand. (Though the OLD is not among them.)" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:21:41.190" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="554" PostId="322" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Sorry for any confusion; the Etymonline does list it with an asterisk (as indicated above) and so it may be attested, if not in Classical Latin, in Vulgar Latin? [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/default#Etymology) asserts it too, but Wiktionary can err." CreationDate="2016-02-29T01:42:39.987" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="555" PostId="322" Score="1" Text="Ah, okay, so listings of a word with an asterisk mean that it isn't actually attested. I'm not experienced enough in either Vulgar Latin or in lexicography to explain why the etymonline.com entry contains it, but if it's got an asterisk, we don't have an example of it. So it may be that those who spoke Latin saw the same redundancy you do!" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:43:44.687" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="565" PostId="322" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel I asked it because its derivatives exist in English (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/default#Etymology) and French; so it interests me. Does this clarify?" CreationDate="2016-02-29T05:11:46.843" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="566" PostId="322" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Thank you for your thoughts! I welcome your positive attitude!" CreationDate="2016-02-29T05:12:07.797" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20219" PostId="326" Score="0" Text="Cool answer! Do any of these arguments make a distinction between the bilabial fricative [β] and the labiodental fricative [v]? [β] is also intermediate between [b] and [w] (in fact, more so than [v]), and is also a fricative, so Velius Longus might have easily been referring to it rather than [v]. Is there any evidence as to the shift from [β] to [v]?" CreationDate="2019-06-19T09:16:10.210" UserId="3095" />
  <row Id="28724" PostId="326" Score="0" Text="@SimonKorneev Indeed, Allen mentions that the sound to which Velius Longus referred was more likely [β] than [v].  (I am not certain of his grounds for this: is it simply that a [v] would have been less plausible than [β]  as a source for inscription errors with &quot;b&quot; - a [v] might have led to misspelling as &quot;f&quot; instead, I'd think?).  He doesn't discuss its subsequent transition (if any) to [v]." CreationDate="2020-08-22T23:32:05.153" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="588" PostId="327" Score="1" Text="Minor niggle about vowel length: according to Allen, words like &quot;cuius&quot; actually had a *short* vowel and long middle consonant in Classical Latin (ie cŭjjus). And according to this [Wikipedia article](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Aussprache_des_Lateinischen), in German pronunciation of Latin vowels are lengthened in stressed open syllables, so &quot;Magis&quot; for example would apparently be pronounced /maːgɪs/." CreationDate="2016-02-29T20:00:55.500" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="592" PostId="327" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Thanks. I think I knew that, but Lewis and Short led me astray when I checked it." CreationDate="2016-02-29T21:16:50.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9212" PostId="327" Score="2" Text="This concern with vowel length is misplaced.  Distinctive vowel length had disappeared long before Luther's time, so should simply be ignored for this context." CreationDate="2017-06-11T17:59:30.213" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9216" PostId="327" Score="2" Text="Germans would say /ba-ZI-li-kam/, with voiced /z/." CreationDate="2017-06-11T22:33:43.477" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="596" PostId="329" Score="4" Text="OMG I love *Smith's Copious and Critical Dictionary*!" CreationDate="2016-02-29T23:36:14.827" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="597" PostId="329" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner It's good, isn't it? It's imperfect, as I'm finding out, and needs to be rigorously updated, but it's solid nonetheless." CreationDate="2016-02-29T23:58:49.043" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="598" PostId="329" Score="0" Text="Yeah. It's great as far as it goes, but the degree to which English has changed since its publication makes it maddening you unhelpful for some things." CreationDate="2016-03-01T00:31:20.373" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="599" PostId="329" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner The solution is to read older English works! :)" CreationDate="2016-03-01T00:33:49.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="600" PostId="329" Score="1" Text="Yes, but there's only so much Bulwer-Lytton one can read...." CreationDate="2016-03-01T00:44:44.473" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1829" PostId="331" Score="2" Text="Spanish also has separate tenses seemingly deriving from each form: &#xA;&#xA;amavi, amavisti, amavit --&gt; amé, amaste, amó (past indefinite, similar to Greek's supine) // amatum habeo, habes, habet --&gt; he, has, ha amado (present perfect).&#xA;&#xA;I don't know whether the origin is Medieval Latin or some later mutual influence with Italian when a part of southern Italy was under Spanish rule, though" CreationDate="2016-05-11T18:11:41.810" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2414" PostId="331" Score="2" Text="French has the same distinction -- *j'aimai* vs. *j'ai aimé* -- though the former tense is only used in literary language." CreationDate="2016-07-06T23:29:38.067" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="587" PostId="333" Score="2" Text="I've been told that it's masculine in Classical Latin and feminine in Ecclesiastical Latin at least since Middle Ages. But I don't know why (and when exactly) the shift occured." CreationDate="2016-02-29T18:51:18.600" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="40491" PostId="333" Score="1" Text="Haec dies, quam fecit Dominus, exultemus..." CreationDate="2022-11-17T17:18:02.350" UserId="11810" />
  <row Id="40500" PostId="335" Score="0" Text="What is DMLBS? Thanks." CreationDate="2022-11-19T06:04:20.137" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40547" PostId="335" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Hi! DMLBS is the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, which you can view in the &quot;DMLBS&quot; lexicon tab at Logeion: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/dies. (The lexicon tabs are not at the top of the page, but partway down.)" CreationDate="2022-12-05T14:50:13.250" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="2388" PostId="336" Score="2" Text="Thanks for posting this. I didn't know that passage and the original Latin is truly enjoyable with its rhythm." CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:10:36.730" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="7208" PostId="336" Score="2" Text="What a lovely passage. I think *avia sectantem* means &quot;frequenting pathless regions&quot;, from *avius -a -um* (since the plant name *avia* is feminine)." CreationDate="2017-03-09T21:39:39.540" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="589" PostId="337" Score="2" Text="This is essentially a summary of what is written [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/285/66). If this answers your question, we should close this question as duplicate after all. The point of closing a question is that all answers are collected in one place and answers *don't* have to be copied over..." CreationDate="2016-02-29T20:24:17.520" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="590" PostId="339" Score="5" Text="Fantastic! I thought this question was probably too obscure to get an answer anytime soon, but you just provided a very convincing and informative answer less than two hours after I posted it. Hooray for latin.stackexchange.com!" CreationDate="2016-02-29T20:32:56.590" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="601" PostId="341" Score="0" Text="Thanks – it was with all these words for poor I wondered if &quot;mendicus&quot; had any specific connotations, but it seems not" CreationDate="2016-03-01T00:56:48.303" UserId="19" />
  <row Id="662" PostId="343" Score="1" Text="Hmm. I like Döderlein but I'm always hesitant to take him as the last word. For example, in *Letters to Atticus* 47 (III.1), Cicero writes *Intellexi ad iter id quod constitui nihil mihi optius cadere posse quam ut tu me quam primum consequare,* and neither he nor Atticus is a multitude." CreationDate="2016-03-02T12:26:17.607" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="664" PostId="343" Score="0" Text="Good point. Neither does his note on *decernere* seem to apply to uses of that word referring to a simple decision by one person, e.g. Liv. 2.45 &quot;reliquam aetatem a republica procul habendam decrevi.&quot;&#xA;Perhaps, then, we should take these distinctions as applying *only* where these words differ in meaning from the rest. (And unfortunately no clues are given as to how often they differ.)" CreationDate="2016-03-02T15:25:38.227" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="676" PostId="343" Score="0" Text="After poking around Smith's Copious and Critical (*man* does Google books suck on a phone) I'm beginning to suspect that statuo has a sense of putting something down and constituo has a sense of putting something down and fixing it in place. This would certainly fit with the way prefixes work in Latin verbs, and with the meanings of &quot;con-&quot;.  However this is at the moment pure conjecture.   Will add citations when am home." CreationDate="2016-03-03T00:10:18.840" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="602" PostId="345" Score="0" Text="Regarding (2), how about plain ol' _venit?_" CreationDate="2016-03-01T04:40:03.970" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="604" PostId="345" Score="0" Text="I once wrote a paper about relative clauses in indirect speech. I'll try and find it. I believe my conclusion was that it depends: they can be found in either mood. As to indefinite relative clauses in general, they're normally in the indicative in Latin (unlike Greek), so I suspect them to behave like normal relative clauses in this case. Ad  1: I think an explicit antecedent is possible, but you'd normally leave it out: *quisquis as nos venerit accipiemus*. Ad 2: Future perfect + simple future is a common combination: it'd say it is good. P.S. Perhaps this should be split into 3 questions..." CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:25:02.497" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="643" PostId="345" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I think *venit* would require a present in the main clause/apodosis as well, *accipimus*, and this would mean something different: &quot;We receive whoever comes to us&quot;, a general statement rather than specifically about the future." CreationDate="2016-03-01T21:46:27.573" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="607" PostId="346" Score="6" Text="Funny—I've always used the Dies Iræ: *Diés íræ, diés illa solvet sæclum in favilla...*" CreationDate="2016-03-01T07:02:08.240" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="24008" PostId="346" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner Just don't use the Sign of the Cross to remember the classical genitive singular of *filius*." CreationDate="2020-01-14T08:03:18.283" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24279" PostId="346" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour Oh, dear—I'm afraid that went over my head. Can you give me a hint?" CreationDate="2020-02-22T21:18:52.983" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="24280" PostId="346" Score="2" Text="@JoelDerfner The classical form is *fili*, but the Sign of the Cross is post-classical and uses *filii*." CreationDate="2020-02-22T21:26:29.597" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="603" PostId="347" Score="0" Text="I had a very long answer all but finished addressing all your questions. But then my computer shut itself off, as it is programmed to do near bedtime, but it neglected to warn me 5 minutes before doing so, as it is also programmed to do. And somehow my browser could not restore the previous session properly including text-field data, so now I have nothing. *flet*" CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:19:58.787" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="606" PostId="347" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Oh no! Well, I hope you can rewrite it. I've had a number of experiences losing data, where after I got over the pain, my rewrite from scratch was better than the original. On the other hand, StackExchange normally saves what you're working on to protect against just this sort of catastrophe. You should be able to hit Reply and get the last version saved on the server." CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:55:15.183" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="608" PostId="347" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer How do _hīc_ (here) and _munus_ (purpose) fit into the context, especially that long parenthetical comment listing other things that living organisms do? I'm currently thinking, probably wrongly, that _quo tendat?_ already covers purpose, so taking _quo munere_ as &quot;toward what purpose?&quot; would be redundant." CreationDate="2016-03-01T07:02:31.393" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="610" PostId="347" Score="0" Text="kmlyvens answered it well enough—*munere fungere* is the idiom used in Classical times. Re: *hic* for &quot;that&quot;, you'd have the neuter instead. Otherwise you just have the subject and object without a verb, and that would make no sense here." CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:04:51.510" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="617" PostId="347" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Alas, neither SE nor Firefox saved my answer in this case, alas except the first couple of lines. But I see Lyvens has given you a long answer, which I will peruse momentarily." CreationDate="2016-03-01T16:03:31.363" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="687" PostId="347" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Good point! Now I'm wondering, though, if the gender should be feminine to agree with _vitam._ Joel Derfner made the same suggestion in his answer. Should it really be neuter, and if so, should I post a question about why? :)" CreationDate="2016-03-03T09:56:52.697" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="692" PostId="347" Score="0" Text="[munus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=munus&amp;la=la#lexicon) is neuter, why should it be feminine?" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:46:35.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10199" PostId="349" Score="0" Text="[This](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_2-Subjunctive_Use#Indirect_Commands) seems helpful - about use of subjunctive for indirect commands." CreationDate="2017-08-02T20:25:12.697" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="620" PostId="351" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, as a native English speaker I hear &quot;I think you knew what my name is&quot; as ungrammatical. (You may also be a native English speaker, and we may just have different idiolects.)" CreationDate="2016-03-01T17:30:55.580" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="630" PostId="351" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I'm not a native English speaker, so I might get my English *consecutio temporum* wrong occasionally. The sentence sounds fine to me, but did also think about &quot;I think you knew what my name was&quot;. I assume the name has always been the same so present tense should work, but I'm not familiar with the finest points of English grammar. Anyway, I hope I got my message across. Maybe I should ask about this subtlety at one of the English language SE sites..." CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:58:28.977" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="631" PostId="351" Score="0" Text="Sequence of tenses often trips up English speakers (myself included), so you're in excellent company. I also don't hear this as hugely wrong—it just sounds a little weird. I suppose the logic would be that there was no way anybody could have known for certain *then* what my name would be *now*—what if I changed it five minutes ago?—but logic doesn't often take one very far where language is concerned." CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:03:31.887" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="619" PostId="352" Score="0" Text="How about if you have a subordinate clause that depends on a past participle (not an a.c.i.)? Does the same rule applies as for perfect infinitives?" CreationDate="2016-03-01T17:12:30.670" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="628" PostId="352" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, the grammar says that this applies to all nominal forms. That includes participles, but the exception is only for perfect infinitives, not perfect participles. I expanded my answer." CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:50:37.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="629" PostId="352" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel, I added the grammar book and two quotes from Cicero. (And I removed an obsolete comment.) I also expanded a bit to answer another comment." CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:51:58.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="686" PostId="359" Score="0" Text="Fantastic answer! I would never have thought of the little interview at customs, but now that you spell it out, it completely makes sense. Now Linnaeus sounds like a little like Ingmar Bergman! I also wouldn't have had the courage to supply so many elided words, but clearly they make the _perventuros_ sentence make sense." CreationDate="2016-03-03T09:55:12.173" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="611" PostId="361" Score="0" Text="Ah, so in both case *falsis nominibus* stands for *under false pretenses*. That would indeed make sense. It's a bit outside the scope of the question but then in that interpretation what's common to both propositions is not just *appellant* but in fact *falsis nominibus appellant*, in which case: isn't it a bit unusual to split this and put one part in the second proposition and one in the first?" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:36:45.203" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="612" PostId="361" Score="0" Text="@plannapus Unusual? Perhaps, but it's not unheard of for the same verb to be used for two different subjects; in English we place the verb in the first, but in Latin at the end of the second." CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:46:01.963" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="613" PostId="361" Score="0" Text="Yes I know it's not unusual to put the verb at the end of the second proposition, what I was wondering about is the *falsis nominibus* being separated from it and put in the first proposition despite it being common to both propositions as well." CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:54:27.343" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="616" PostId="361" Score="0" Text="Oh, I see. I don't think it's that unusual, but I'm not so sure that *falsis nominibus* goes with *pacem* grammatically. Neither the Oxford nor Loeb translator indicated it should." CreationDate="2016-03-01T15:47:49.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="618" PostId="362" Score="0" Text="I have understood that they are two names for the same thing, but I have no sources to back this up now. If I find something, I'll post an answer." CreationDate="2016-03-01T16:42:35.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="646" PostId="362" Score="1" Text="Relevant: [Is the German “conjunctive” the same as the “subjunctive” of other languages? If so why the different name?](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/908/82)" CreationDate="2016-03-01T23:30:24.930" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2401" PostId="362" Score="0" Text="This reminds me of German which refers to the “subjunctive” mood as „Konjunktiv.“" CreationDate="2016-07-06T04:43:51.087" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="7335" PostId="362" Score="0" Text="I've heard somewhere that the conjunctive mood has different &quot;sub-moods (I guess)&quot;, but since Latin only has one &quot;sub mood,&quot; subjunctive, subiunctivus and coniunctivus were interchangeable." CreationDate="2017-03-14T14:13:59.250" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="641" PostId="364" Score="2" Text="*Constituent Syntax*, by Philip Baldi, seems to answer this question in an extended passage beginning on pp. 105, but unfortunately pp. 106-7 and 113-4, so I'm not able to use it to answer your question." CreationDate="2016-03-01T20:41:52.327" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="642" PostId="364" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Thanks. Baldi does say (105) that traditional grammars claim that *quisquis* is generally substantival, *quicumque* adjectival (which has been my assumption too), but then goes on to say that things are more complicated... (Btw I think your comment is missing something like &quot;are not available for Google preview&quot;.) From reading around the hidden pages my guess is that Baldi thinks *quisquis* is about irrelevance/free choice of referent while *quicumque* is about universality (all things such that...), but that the uses start to merge already in Cicero's time." CreationDate="2016-03-01T21:32:32.790" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="644" PostId="364" Score="0" Text="Okay, it turns out it's a chapter in volume 3 of *Constituent Syntax*, which is a collection *edited* by Philip Baldi. The article itself is called &quot;Quantification&quot; and is by Alessandra Bertocchi, Mirka Maraldi, and Anna Orlandini. Unfortunately, I can't make hide or hair of it. I'll email it to you if you like." CreationDate="2016-03-01T22:23:59.027" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="651" PostId="364" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Actually I would like to read that! My email is tkrstackexchange at gmail.com. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:22:51.080" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="857" PostId="364" Score="0" Text="Okay, after taking some time away and coming back to it, I get a pretty clear understanding that [Bertocchi, Maraldi, and Orlandini](https://books.google.com/books?id=6ClqWu9CMQ0C&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109&amp;dq=cicero+quisquis+quicumque&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=J75f0P01IN&amp;sig=ajlo0BcxHRMqv8MoIiFzccH3mzs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVsJrij7bLAhUEPD4KHbB-DzcQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=cicero%20quisquis%20quicumque&amp;f=false) say that before Cicero, &quot;quicumque&quot; usually means &quot;all, every,&quot; but that in Cicero it begins to overlap with &quot;quisquis&quot; in meaning &quot;whoever.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:36:36.987" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="637" PostId="365" Score="0" Text="Thanks!  It might be helpful to translate the distinctions that Martianus and Diomedes make: I think I get it, that the horatory subjunctive is distinguished from the conjunctive, but the details are fuzzy." CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:23:26.417" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="638" PostId="365" Score="0" Text="I think you mean the so called optativus rather than conjunctive/subjunctive distinction. Diomedes: sequitur optatiuus modus, quem tum demum usurpamus, cum |precibus exposcimus a dis. &lt;..&gt; utinam legam. I don't see where this „hortative subjunctive“ appears." CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:37:46.877" UserId="223" />
  <row Id="639" PostId="365" Score="0" Text="I mean &quot;qui decem, hortativum adscribunt&quot; and &quot;qui decem, etiam |adhortatiuum adscribunt&quot; and the surrounding context.  Perhaps I'm misinterpreting these." CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:40:33.947" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="640" PostId="365" Score="0" Text="You're right. But it is a separation from both subjunctive/conjunctive, so it doesn't distinguish between conjunctive/subjunctive. But I see why it was invented by some grammarians. It seems that the problem for the grammarians was the definition of conjunctive/subjunctive – the term itself implies that it is used only in clauses and not as a principal verb (this is elaborated in cited works), so they had to invent such optatives and adhortatives, etc. for different usage cases." CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:58:21.373" UserId="223" />
  <row Id="645" PostId="365" Score="0" Text="It looks like it's &quot;conjunctive&quot; when it's a *cum* clause. From your examples, that's lacking in the subjunctive passages. That may be worth digging for further information." CreationDate="2016-03-01T22:55:16.367" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="656" PostId="365" Score="1" Text="That's identical for subiunctive too: si prima est coniugatio, optatiuum et subiunctiuum in em syllabam |terminatum debet habere, sicut est utinam amem (*opt.*) uel cum amem (*subi.*)." CreationDate="2016-03-02T09:09:06.063" UserId="223" />
  <row Id="649" PostId="366" Score="0" Text="In the Plautus, it seems to me &quot;beyond a doubt&quot; is translating *profecto*. Is the future perfect in protasei really more emphatic than the future? According to Allen and Greenough it just expresses that the protasis action will be complete before the apodosis action occurs." CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:13:23.367" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="653" PostId="366" Score="0" Text="@TKR You're right about *profecto*, but Allen and Greenough are wrong, and the Plautus example demonstrates it cannot be right. I updated it with a blurb from Moreland and Fleischer's Latin: An Intensive Course." CreationDate="2016-03-02T04:18:32.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="654" PostId="366" Score="0" Text="Why does the Plautus example show A&amp;G are wrong? I know some textbooks call the future perfect construction &quot;emphatic&quot;, but I've never seen evidence that that's the case. Good topic for a question..." CreationDate="2016-03-02T04:41:42.883" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="655" PostId="366" Score="0" Text="@TKR Yes, I agree, this particular point probably deserves a question of its own." CreationDate="2016-03-02T04:48:10.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="661" PostId="366" Score="0" Text="It seems to me that the best way to translate *Quisquis ad nos venerit accipiemus*, in order to show the emphatic aspect of the future perfect in the protasis, is &quot;Whoever *does* come to us, we'll accept him/her.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-02T12:13:05.030" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="688" PostId="367" Score="0" Text="Indeed! Clearly the phenomenon of gender agreement hasn't yet become a habit (especially with _hic_)." CreationDate="2016-03-03T09:58:03.483" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="674" PostId="368" Score="1" Text="[Here's some more discussion](https://books.google.com/books?id=1YoAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA195&amp;lpg=PA195&amp;dq=quisquis+vs.+quicumque&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QC7aPY31_-&amp;sig=gx1_8Zr5GKOljuDvw2WvMMsxV3g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqy-Xp66LLAhWogYMKHQw_Bh4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=quisquis%20vs.%20quicumque&amp;f=false) backing this up more explicitly." CreationDate="2016-03-02T20:31:38.190" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="657" PostId="371" Score="2" Text="It might be interesting to note here that technically scientific names of species do not need to be really in latin, they just need to be &quot;latinized&quot; (see articles 11, 26 and 30 of the [zoological nomenclature code](http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/) and article 60 and recommandation 23A for the [botanical nomenclature code](http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=title))." CreationDate="2016-03-02T10:45:52.973" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="658" PostId="371" Score="2" Text="Additionally (and just to nitpick), the original scientific name of the dog is *Canis familiaris*. It so happened that we discovered it was the same species as the wolf (*Canis lupus*) whose name had precedence." CreationDate="2016-03-02T10:49:07.613" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="659" PostId="371" Score="0" Text="@plannapus, I'm aware that some names are just latinized, not properly in Latin. I believe, however, that the species known to non-biologists in ancient and medieval times have more properly Latin scientific names. I chose to leave out some details on taxonomic naming to make the question more focused and easier to read, but you are right, of course. I was unaware of that history of the dog." CreationDate="2016-03-02T10:56:35.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="660" PostId="371" Score="1" Text="Yes you're right: most species known to europeans prior to Middle Ages were described and named by Linnaeus and his contemporaries and they (at the time) used proper latin (and very occasionally greek) so for the sake of your question we can indeed consider that species name are in Latin. It's just the taxonomist in me that needed to express this caveat when reading &quot;these names are in Latin&quot; :)" CreationDate="2016-03-02T11:43:49.417" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="11398" PostId="371" Score="1" Text="To be exact, that probably extends to families, not only species, so e. g. *formica* would not count? *Formica* is only one genus of *Formicida*, but to a non-biologists and Romans equally, any of the Formicida is an ant." CreationDate="2017-11-19T02:01:13.870" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11408" PostId="371" Score="0" Text="@kkm Good point, the phenomenon certainly extends to families and other groups. I wanted to restrict the question to species because the name has two parts (genus and species), and if neither matches a Latin word for the species, it makes a particularly strong case for the claim I wanted to make: &quot;Scientific name&quot; is not synonymous with &quot;Latin name&quot;. However, I find exploring the names of various taxonomic groups in relation to Latin interesting and I would gladly welcome more questions around the topic." CreationDate="2017-11-20T05:51:28.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36394" PostId="371" Score="0" Text="&quot;Garlic leek&quot; is equally silly in English because &quot;garlic&quot; means &quot;spear-leek&quot;. (From Old English *gār*+*lēac*)." CreationDate="2021-12-23T23:35:39.807" UserId="9680" />
  <row Id="668" PostId="376" Score="0" Text="Very interesting. I wonder why this should be the case." CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:07:34.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="757" PostId="382" Score="1" Text="Thanks! A few of the cited pages: Baldi - https://books.google.com/books?id=5iP7F7isnA8C&amp;pg=313. Sihler - https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT159. And another source (Hale &amp; Buck 1903): https://books.google.com/books?id=g49fAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA21." CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:56:42.273" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="673" PostId="385" Score="1" Text="Ah, that must be it! I hadn't been thinking of the directional use of *qua*." CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:38:44.873" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="675" PostId="387" Score="0" Text="+1, but it'd be interesting to know if any classical authors actually define the word or make the meaning clear in context, or if all we have to go on is the structure of the word." CreationDate="2016-03-02T21:58:00.800" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="679" PostId="387" Score="1" Text="It should also be noted that the Romans often counted dates inclusively, so the day after tomorrow would be the third day from now (today is 1, tomorrow is 2, the day after is 3). So that may explain why it is translated as &quot;adjourn for three days&quot;." CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:27:06.600" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1773" PostId="390" Score="1" Text="Wasn't the silk road around during this time? Surely jade would have been traded too?" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:28:54.780" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="698" PostId="391" Score="1" Text="Pinkster 2015 writes that ab+ablativus is also used for “an inanimate cause, **a phenomenon not uncommon in didactic prose**” (p. 245; emphasis mine - A.B.), see his examples on p. 246." CreationDate="2016-03-03T18:24:45.367" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="681" PostId="392" Score="0" Text="+1 (although I'd prefer to emphasise that a person with a bare ablative is very rare in prose, and/but that it is not uncommon in verse; and I wonder why you translated *iacent* as &quot;be cast&quot; rather than &quot;be disproved&quot; or something similar)." CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:46:41.240" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="689" PostId="392" Score="0" Text="The translation of *iacent* is actually straight from Gildersleeve.  As for prose vs. verse, I suspected that might be the case, but didn't have a good way to back it up.  If you were to write a nice answer hitting the same high points as mine, but using examples of prose and verse to back it up (instead of grammars), I'd upvote and accept yours." CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:10:04.810" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="678" PostId="393" Score="0" Text="There's no future subjunctive, either -- it's not just the future perfect. You might get better answers if you edited the question to be about the lack of future subjunctive forms generally." CreationDate="2016-03-03T03:34:20.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="682" PostId="393" Score="0" Text="You could periphrase it with a future participle (like *?si fuerit facturus*), but I don't know whether Latin actually does that. It would interfere with the potentialis, methinks." CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:55:16.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="683" PostId="394" Score="0" Text="A Greek loan word into Latin is fine, as long as it was used by Latin-speaking people or is otherwise standard somehow." CreationDate="2016-03-03T06:05:28.080" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="11121" PostId="397" Score="1" Text="Portuguese has a future subjunctive (similar to Spanish) and it is alive and well. Actually, it is often used when translating the future perfect from Latin to Portuguese." CreationDate="2017-10-21T00:15:42.297" UserId="2079" />
  <row Id="19673" PostId="397" Score="0" Text="Puzzlingly, Alexander Gil felt a need to invent a &quot;future subjunctive&quot; for English in his _Logonomia Anglica_ of 1616. It reads &quot;that I may be hereafter&quot;, &quot;that thou mayst be hereafter&quot; etc." CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:49:00.603" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="46899" PostId="399" Score="0" Text="What do you mean &quot;Future should be indicated by adverbs to make it clear&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Like if I were to try to say something like &quot;I was wondering when you would come back&quot;, how would I say that? &quot;Demirabar quando redires&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-12-16T00:12:12.893" UserId="13674" />
  <row Id="46901" PostId="399" Score="0" Text="@Nomad1004 I mean that my last and third last bullet points are the same, so you need to add something if you need the distinction. That problem only arises with the passive voice; the corresponding points in the previous list don't coincide. Your example is active." CreationDate="2023-12-16T05:42:13.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="697" PostId="400" Score="0" Text="Boethius translated many Greek texts (mathematical and otherwise) into Latin, but I can't track down any of them." CreationDate="2016-03-03T18:10:54.057" UserId="20" />
  <row Id="2626" PostId="400" Score="1" Text="The question &quot;where to find modern mathematics in Latin&quot; also has an interesting answer:  Riemann's prize submission to the Paris Academy, from 1861!" CreationDate="2016-07-16T20:23:35.610" UserId="660" />
  <row Id="2627" PostId="400" Score="0" Text="@MattF., that looks interesting as well. That is actually not far from what I work on as a mathematician, so I will certainly take a look. (For anyone curious: The Latin text can be found [here](http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Paris/) in various formats.)" CreationDate="2016-07-16T20:46:24.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="684" PostId="401" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Those look like useful resources. This does not really answer my question about ancient sources, but I appreciate the answer anyway." CreationDate="2016-03-03T08:33:01.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="685" PostId="401" Score="0" Text="And even if they do not have at this point any ancient sources, they might one day, when and if such a source (if it exists) is scanned." CreationDate="2016-03-03T08:38:49.087" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="1197" PostId="401" Score="1" Text="I think the question was about &quot;ancient&quot; sources, not mediaeval or early modern ones. Anyway, the corpus of ancient Latin literature is very well known and thoroughly researched and catalogued. Scanning a few more copies is not going to reveal any unknown works." CreationDate="2016-03-28T22:56:19.787" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="768" PostId="402" Score="1" Text="My issue with &quot;Petra nephretica&quot; is that it sounds like &quot;kidney stone&quot;, and (Imo at least) jade is prettier than kidney stones." CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:43:08.120" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="770" PostId="402" Score="3" Text="@QPaysTaxes Indeed _petra nephritica_ seems like a [horrible](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Lenticular_kidney_stone.jpg) name. With that kind of semantic cloggage, how would one say &quot;kidney stone&quot; in Latin? And _merdacas_ sounds too much like _[merda](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/merda#Latin)._ Perhaps some other lapidary has a good answer, one that can be verified through usage in a variety of books." CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:25:52.977" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="771" PostId="402" Score="1" Text="I ended up writing &quot;petra iliata&quot; and adding a footnote that there's no Latin word for &quot;jade&quot;. Thanks a ton! (And wrt your last comment, yeah, I picked the nicest-sounding one.)" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:26:54.013" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1772" PostId="402" Score="2" Text="but then what did the romans call kidney stones?" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:27:35.717" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="7153" PostId="402" Score="4" Text="I was just glancing at this and noticed &quot;You sure picked a hard stone!&quot; -- Gave me a nice laugh. (it's between 6 and 7 on the Mohs scale, depending on if you mean nephrite or jadeite and certain chemical properties of each, according to Wikipedia. For comparison, diamonds are 10, and talc is a 1)" CreationDate="2017-03-06T17:21:09.367" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="696" PostId="403" Score="2" Text="I'd say &quot;man of the world&quot; is an idiomatic expression that was most probably not used in classical Latin, but, if it existed the Latin of Linnaei age, then it is possible to read it that way. Or, if it existed in Linnaei Swedish, then it is possible that he committed a Suedism(?)." CreationDate="2016-03-03T18:07:32.580" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="739" PostId="403" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I don't actually mean to ask about the expression &quot;man of the world&quot;. I'm wondering about the general problem of how Latin indicates which noun a genitive modifies." CreationDate="2016-03-04T04:30:31.230" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="740" PostId="403" Score="0" Text="Right, then I think the answers are probably quite helpful?" CreationDate="2016-03-04T05:07:11.860" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="741" PostId="403" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yes, definitely. I'm still absorbing cmw's (and your link about _theatrum mundi_)." CreationDate="2016-03-04T05:23:39.550" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="742" PostId="403" Score="0" Text="Benissime! I need 15 characters." CreationDate="2016-03-04T05:25:28.683" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4153" PostId="403" Score="1" Text="@Hugh kmylvens discovered that indeed the word is indeed _sit_ in this answer [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/359/118). I'll update it in this question right now." CreationDate="2016-08-29T02:18:45.857" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4155" PostId="403" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, in that case would it be a deliberative subjunctive?" CreationDate="2016-08-29T02:55:53.217" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="745" PostId="405" Score="1" Text="While I applaud the effort, I really do not think that the Latin title of this question is clear (I had no idea what I was going to see when I clicked on it) and, for what it's worth, I don't think a Roman would understand the sentence without extra context. My suggestion: &quot;Does de- prefix always have an implied spatial connotation in Latin verbs?&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:19:14.190" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="756" PostId="405" Score="0" Text="Given that the question is in English, I don't think it makes sense for the title to be in Latin." CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:51:08.367" UserId="132" />
  <row Id="765" PostId="405" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Could you suggest a Latin version? It's OK if an ancient Roman wouldn't understand it if the concepts of &quot;living&quot; and &quot;dead&quot; metaphors were unknown at that time. BTW, my question is specifically about _demonstro,_ not about _de-_ words in general. I don't think that _demonstro_ is spatial; I'm asking if the metaphor with the spatial meaning of _de-_ is understood—enough to be evoked in _Lucem demonstrat umbra._ (There may be no way to state the question clearly without additional context, in any language; I took three paragraphs to explain it.)" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:25:16.447" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="787" PostId="405" Score="1" Text="@Gilles I'm learning Latin, so I'm using it whenever I can. I couldn't write the whole question in Latin, but I thought I could get the main idea across in Latin in the title. I welcome corrections. If you could rewrite the question entirely in Latin, I'd be delighted!" CreationDate="2016-03-05T03:06:24.423" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="769" PostId="406" Score="0" Text="Hmm, to me it seems that the &quot;out&quot; in &quot;point out&quot; is still a living metaphor, suggesting that pointing makes the thing pointed to emerge (in perception) from its surroundings, the same as when something &quot;stands out&quot;. The latent spatial sense of &quot;out&quot; is usually dormant but can be evoked in a sentence like &quot;Elgar's jokes lay hidden in subtext until pointed out by my learnèd friend.&quot; Now that I've, uh, pointed it out, is it now sussed out for you—does it seem that you had only tuned out the metaphor—now does it practically [jump out](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/point_out) at you?" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:17:32.097" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="773" PostId="406" Score="1" Text="I'm afraid you're out of luck. For me even Elgar's jokes don't evoke the spatial sense of &quot;out.&quot; I am, however, not a visual thinker at all, so perhaps this isn't the case for others. I'm sure I'm missing out." CreationDate="2016-03-05T00:33:31.957" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="26172" PostId="406" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! I understand that your important point (&quot;to think of them as analogous to English verbs that contain **pronouns** (&quot;sit out,&quot; &quot;shut down&quot;)&quot;) should be replaced by the following one: &quot;to think of them as analogous to English verbs that contain **particles** (&quot;sit out,&quot; &quot;shut down&quot;)&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-05T16:00:35.870" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26198" PostId="406" Score="1" Text="Ack! Of course it should say &quot;prepositions,&quot; not &quot;pronouns.&quot; I'll fix that." CreationDate="2020-05-06T17:11:34.020" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="693" PostId="408" Score="0" Text="Great examples. Have you run across any indications as to the facility with which Latin was spoken extemporaneously in these contexts? I don't have a clear idea, but see Evans (2010) Ch. 2 (https://books.google.com/books?id=x6D3AgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT114), and Horobin (2012) Ch. 2 (https://books.google.com/books?id=aJ74CgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT27). Horobin comments Latin was &quot;primarily an ecclesiastical, learned and administrative tongue rather than a spoken language ... meant that it became highly formulaic, as is true of most official documents in this period,&quot; but that was much later, in Chaucer's England." CreationDate="2016-03-03T15:42:29.813" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="16377" PostId="408" Score="0" Text="Basic understanding is one thing and whether they did sound funny or not is another one. My main concern in the question was pronunciation (written letters are off topic for me) and something more exact than &quot;no big problems in understanding each other&quot;. &quot;Everyone would understand each other quite well&quot; could mean anything between &quot;they could understand each other after few hours of accommodation at most&quot; and &quot;it was hard to spot any difference in dialect&quot;. I'll clarify it in an edit of my question." CreationDate="2018-11-12T19:13:43.110" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="22994" PostId="410" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Please see comment to Mitomino, below. To use &quot;serpens victa&quot; = &quot;the serpent, having been defeated&quot; or &quot;victa sepente&quot; = &quot;with the serpent having been defeated&quot; makes only a fine point of difference. Both work for me; but, am happy to be educated." CreationDate="2019-11-01T11:32:25.823" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24308" PostId="410" Score="0" Text="You say &quot;_serpens victa_ does not only mean &quot;the defeated serpent&quot; but also &quot;victory over the serpent&quot;.  Yeah, that's what makes this construction very interesting (and in fact very difficult to analyze...). An interesting question is why Romance languages lost this construction. By the way, do you have AUC constructions in Finnish?" CreationDate="2020-02-25T20:00:01.267" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="24311" PostId="410" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino Indeed, this kind of semantic flexibility seems common in Latin and I find it quite interesting. Finnish doesn't have it; we would use expressions corresponding structurally to &quot;from the founding of Rome&quot; but our numerous participles and infinitives also allow constructions that no other language I know can do. (I mean things like &quot;peseydyttyämme&quot; = &quot;after we have washed ourselves&quot;.)" CreationDate="2020-02-25T20:30:49.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="707" PostId="413" Score="0" Text="First thing that comes to mind is that the cartographer hoped to sell his map in both England and France, or other countries.  It'd be interesting to know if any worked in Latin who didn't have much reason to expect an international audience." CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:55:18.743" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="708" PostId="413" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel Yeah, I could see that working for maps on large scales. On small scales, it wouldn't work so well." CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:57:59.127" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="709" PostId="413" Score="1" Text="Would this be better suited to history.SE?" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:00:19.430" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="710" PostId="413" Score="3" Text="@C.M.Weimer I don't know. More importantly, is it okay here?" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:03:26.450" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="711" PostId="413" Score="1" Text="Possibly. This sort of thing seems like it requires a Medievalist, though. I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but I'd guess it'd have something to do with the socio-economic levels of Medieval England, and therefore is more about history than the language properly. I'm not voting down, but I'd like others to chime in on whether it's an appropriate question for this stack." CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:12:08.790" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="719" PostId="413" Score="2" Text="I like the question, though it does seem like an edge case.  It is more history than the language itself, but it's also the *usage* of the language, which inclines me toward keeping it open." CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:59:29.007" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1830" PostId="413" Score="3" Text="Wasn't it just because Latin was still the language of science/knowledge at the time?" CreationDate="2016-05-11T18:21:38.147" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7394" PostId="413" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, that might be why. Scientific works were most commonly written in Latin in Medieval and Renaissance times, such as Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. It's also possible for local languages, especially English, were persistently thought to be less poetic. This was why, in earlier Medieval times, tales like Canterbury Tales were impressive to have been written in English. So, perhaps the reason for this is, simply, it looks fancy. But, still, that could also be because of many languages at the time branching directly from Latin, unlike English, which was more (continued)" CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:42:29.317" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7396" PostId="413" Score="1" Text="(continued) Germanic. So, speakers of Spanish, French (far more common), or any similar tongue could certainly be expected to discover familiar-looking words. At the time, professional documents were sometimes written in Latin. It was like the writing system of China, sure it's pronounced differently and has different rules, but it's otherwise &quot;universal.&quot; Man, that was a long comment." CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:45:39.367" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7399" PostId="413" Score="0" Text="@MiddleSchoolHistorian The point of different vernaculars having different self-images is very interesting, in fact. That explains a lot of *current* choices of languages for *universal* communication..." CreationDate="2017-03-15T16:41:19.880" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="713" PostId="414" Score="1" Text="I don't know. It makes just as much sense to me as using the to-infinitive the way we do in English: &quot;the boy has a book to read.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:27:44.820" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="714" PostId="414" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I was taught that the Latin oddity is where the English one came from." CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:30:08.033" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="715" PostId="414" Score="0" Text="Is it? Hmm. I don't see why that would happen, but I guess it is possible." CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:30:53.850" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="716" PostId="414" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Admittedly I don't know for a fact, but again, that's what I was taught. Or at least that's what my annoyed teacher said when I kept bugging him about it." CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:31:32.787" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="717" PostId="414" Score="1" Text="It's an interesting idea anyway. I just don't know anything about it, and it seems odd to me. While looking for more information, I found a source that mentions a hypothesis that the English progressive came from Latin influence which I never heard of before: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-lamont.htm" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:37:25.787" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="736" PostId="414" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: This paper suggests that the English progressive came from Celtic: https://andrsei.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/what-really-happened-to-english-examining-the-celtic-hypothesis/" CreationDate="2016-03-04T01:26:55.133" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="718" PostId="415" Score="1" Text="I like this explanation, but it seems to me that the periphrastic would have grown out of the participle, not the other way around. Then again, I have no idea either way, so no complaint from me." CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:59:14.317" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="720" PostId="415" Score="0" Text="Well yeah, I was thinking the same thing - either one could've come first" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:09:58.657" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1037" PostId="415" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, your Latin should probably be *Puer librum legendum habet* and *Puer librum quem legendum est habet*. But I like your thinking!" CreationDate="2016-03-20T01:04:16.150" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1038" PostId="415" Score="0" Text="Oops - managed to forget the gender. Thanks for pointing it out." CreationDate="2016-03-20T01:31:59.340" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="726" PostId="416" Score="0" Text="As a side note, I'd say that it's a *prerequisite* for the &quot;necessity for cancer&quot; meaning, not a possibility" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:54:51.210" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="728" PostId="416" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Why do you call it passive? *&quot;I punish the boys&quot;*: agent = *I*; patient = *the boys*. *&quot;There were many boys to punish&quot;*: the phrase *to punish* modifies *many boys*, but the agent is not the boys: no agent is mentioned. It is the other way around: the boys are the patient. So the predicate frame is reversed between subject and object, as it happens with passive verbs. That's why *&quot;there were many boys to punish&quot;* means the same thing as *&quot;there were many boys to be punished&quot;*. In the construction *&quot;I was to punish the boys&quot;*, the phrase *to punish* is active (different predicate frame)." CreationDate="2016-03-04T01:00:22.363" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="729" PostId="416" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes: But it has to do with probability, rather than desirability, right?" CreationDate="2016-03-04T01:01:04.337" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="732" PostId="416" Score="0" Text="@cmw Wait for the magic blue link to appear, or a magic blue diamond" CreationDate="2016-03-04T01:05:03.583" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="738" PostId="417" Score="1" Text="I don't know, it wasn't ambiguous to me when I first read it. Although it is still not impossible that Linnaeus committed a modernism, the *[theatrum mundi](https://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&amp;UID=5777)* is a famous concept. *Mundi* didn't fit *homo* semantically, so I just connected it with *theatrum*, which made sense semantically. It is true that this is not the standard word order, but I didn't experience it as extremely unusual either. The expression &quot;a man of the world&quot; is used in Dutch, English, and French, but I wouldn't have assumed it to be proper Latin." CreationDate="2016-03-04T03:18:53.110" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="752" PostId="417" Score="1" Text="Sure, the grammar is ambiguous. But it's Latin!" CreationDate="2016-03-04T17:42:25.207" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="750" PostId="418" Score="2" Text="I'd say adjectival *quis/quid* is uncommon, and I think it can often be explained away as a different construction: *quis [est] homo?* = &quot;who is that person?&quot;; *quis dies fuit?* = &quot;what was that day?&quot;. It would be interesting to look at some real examples. As to a distinction in meaning, I don't think there is be any. Two real examples: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23quis%20dies Note also that *quis* can be short for *quibus*. More examples, mostly from comedy: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23quis+homo&amp;first=21 Note that many of those passages are different constructions." CreationDate="2016-03-04T16:21:39.213" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="744" PostId="420" Score="0" Text="I started a [meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/109/79) about the tag [tag:horatius]." CreationDate="2016-03-04T11:06:52.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="746" PostId="423" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! I was under the impression that Tarquinius Superbus was not the most beloved of all Roman kings, but views of Etruscan kingship and royalty may have changed by the time of Augustus. Nevertheless, your answer makes perfect sense." CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:35:56.750" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="747" PostId="423" Score="1" Text="*Superbus* was still not loved (properly hated), but the association is unavoidable. That's not to say that Horace is negative here, just that it would have reminded Romans of their own ancestry. However, during this time claims to divine and kingly parentage became important as the Republic dissolved and great men vied for power; cf. Caesar and Augustus' claim to Iulus and Venus or M. Antonius' claim to Heracles." CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:40:32.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="814" PostId="423" Score="2" Text="Extremely interesting! I believe Tarquinius (like Tanaquil) is a very Etruscan name, isn't it? @JoonasIlmavirta Think of it as the way Americans feel towards the English monarchy: with lingering resentment but great fascination. And then double the time since they were last under its rule. Who doesn't want to be of royal blood?" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:46:13.517" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="815" PostId="423" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus You are correct! It's a Romanized Etruscan name." CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:46:59.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="816" PostId="423" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Right, and how about Greek Turrhenos?: somehow a substratish smell seems to hang about it. *sniffs*" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:50:22.320" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="817" PostId="423" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus You're not thinking of the Anatolian-Etruscan theory, are you?" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:57:15.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="820" PostId="423" Score="0" Text="Am I ever not? But I think you don't even need that theory, since the Greeks could have picked it up around Italy. I don't know what the Etruscans called themselves and their language." CreationDate="2016-03-07T04:57:21.027" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4611" PostId="423" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Turrhenos and Etruscan are probably the same word, both from an original Turs- or Trus-." CreationDate="2016-09-29T16:21:00.287" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4614" PostId="423" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I see, that does make sense!" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:54:38.657" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="755" PostId="425" Score="0" Text="OMG you're absolutely right. I don't know how I didn't get that." CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:42:30.867" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="832" PostId="428" Score="1" Text="Jerome's estote is translating the Greek γίνεσθε (ginesthe), which indeed is the 2nd person plural imperative of γίγνομαι (gignomai)." CreationDate="2016-03-08T13:06:27.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="779" PostId="429" Score="0" Text="Thanks especially for the detailed and example-filled explanation of _novi_!" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:48:18.083" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="772" PostId="430" Score="2" Text="Ernout and Meillet 2001 basically say the same thing: &quot;sur la racine on ne peut proposer que des hypothèses peu consistantes. Souvent rapproché de &quot;infléchir, assouplir les members&quot;; c'aurait été d'abord un term du gymnase.&quot; I assume LePressentiment understands French, so no English translation." CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:33:47.140" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="780" PostId="430" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. +1. No need for Eng translation as presaged. Thank you for introducing me to http://www.amazon.com/Dictionnaire-%C3%A9tymologique-langue-latine-Collection/dp/2252033592." CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:51:25.093" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="783" PostId="430" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: By the way, De Vaan always also takes E–M and W–H into account." CreationDate="2016-03-05T03:00:34.437" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="818" PostId="432" Score="1" Text="While *estote* is indeed used in Latin, and your examples aren't wrong *per se*, I feel that it's cheating a bit to use a textbook for examples answering if the future imperative was used. Moreover, the Matthew example is a translation, so it too isn't best as an example, although in this case it's seems a good example of a vulgar translation since neither *constantes estote* or *habete fiduciam* translate θαρσεῖτε well, but Jerome's feels more Classical (disclaimer: I haven't done the research on either phrase)." CreationDate="2016-03-07T04:35:08.963" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="822" PostId="432" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I wouldn't call this a definitive answer, but it's suggestive indirect evidence. It's my understanding that Ørberg took historical accuracy very seriously in LLPSI; I'm just going on Ørberg's authority." CreationDate="2016-03-07T05:20:55.733" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="788" PostId="434" Score="2" Text="I wonder if Lucretius's use could possibly be an imitation of Homer's first-person plural pronoun in the proem of the Odyssey: τῶν ἁμόθεν γε, θεά, θύγατερ Διός, εἰπὲ καὶ ἡμῖν (l. 10)." CreationDate="2016-03-05T04:04:40.113" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29508" PostId="435" Score="0" Text="I known this doesn’t really help the issue but apparently some Indian tribes in Canada for quite a long time have been calling the stars of the Gemini constellation the beaver stars." CreationDate="2020-10-24T17:57:42.857" UserId="8512" />
  <row Id="29517" PostId="435" Score="0" Text="@Beaver Welcome to the site! As you point out yourself, that's not an answer but interesting additional information nevertheless. That's why your answer was converted into a comment." CreationDate="2020-10-25T11:17:24.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="796" PostId="438" Score="0" Text="Nice, +1. I'll wait a day or two before accepting it. Btw. I remember seeing &quot;eumdem&quot; somewhere in Aquinas, but I don't remember where - but it might have been a &quot;correction&quot; by some later scribe, or even in his homilies, that were only translated to Latin." CreationDate="2016-03-05T19:06:34.530" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="797" PostId="438" Score="0" Text="@PavelV. [Here's the Google search](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=site:www.thelatinlibrary.com+aquinas+eumdem) of Latin library for Aquinas: it finds nothing for eumdem and 8 results for eundem.  So yes, perhaps a transcription error or scribal modification took place.  Unfortunately a really definitive answer would require a corpus of carefully transcribed Medieval manuscripts, and if one of those exists I'm not aware of it." CreationDate="2016-03-05T19:15:00.323" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="798" PostId="438" Score="1" Text="For the most comprehensive online collection of Aquinas' works, http://dhspriory.org/thomas/, I found 65 times &quot;eumdem&quot; and [94 times &quot;eundem&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.thelatinlibrary.com%20aquinas%20eumdem&amp;rct=j#q=site:http:%2F%2Fdhspriory.org%2Fthomas%2F+eundem). The Latin Library is good, perhaps the best single site for discerning long-time trends, but they don't have everything." CreationDate="2016-03-05T19:31:38.057" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="26281" PostId="438" Score="0" Text="for future reference the dhspriory.org content has been taken down but I believe [corpusthomisticum.org](http://corpusthomisticum.org/) is entirely comprehensive in any case." CreationDate="2020-05-13T11:55:42.867" UserId="2796" />
  <row Id="10465" PostId="440" Score="2" Text="The explanation given in “etymonline” goes back to Kretschmer 1909, but it is rejected by Beekes 2010, who argues that the primary meaning of kastōr is indeed “beaver”, possibly a borrowing from some Asiatic language." CreationDate="2017-08-22T10:25:36.073" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="801" PostId="441" Score="0" Text="Tragedies uniformly use Doric for the choral passages; might that be the case for the references? (Thinking aloud, here, since I haven't looked it up myself.)" CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:38:02.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="802" PostId="441" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: I don't know: LSJ call it Attic, and I would call the typical choral passages in Attic plays &quot;Doric&quot;? Then again, I believe they are somewhat of a mixture, like Attic grammar with some Doric words and sounds thrown is, or am I underestimating their doricity?" CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:40:19.250" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="804" PostId="441" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I wouldn't go so far as to call it Attic with Greek forms, but the syntax of Attic and Doric isn't so great anyway. It is regarded as an artificial type of Doric, though, which makes sense since it's written by Athenians (i.e. of the tragedies we have)." CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:43:24.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="805" PostId="441" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: I would guess there are a few more borrowings from Doric or Aeolic, but I can't think of any off the tops of my heads. And their should be various Ionic borrowings." CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:45:22.977" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="806" PostId="441" Score="0" Text="@sumelic In fact, most of the early borrowings from Greek are Doric or Aeolic. Attic stuff didn't really pick up until Cicero's coinages. Edited: Looks like Cerberus beat me to it." CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:46:03.597" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="807" PostId="441" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Ah OK, so then the question is, would LSJ call the chorals Attic? By the way, their examples are from more obscure sources: &quot;Att. ποῶ (EM 679.24), etc., is guaranteed by metre in Trag. and Com., as ποῶ S. OT918, ποεῖν Id.Tr.385, ποεῖς Ar.Ach.410, etc., and found in cod. Laur. of S., cod. Rav. of Ar., also IG12.39.6 (ποήσω), 82.9 (ποεῖ), 154.7 (ἐποησάτην), etc.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:46:26.607" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="808" PostId="441" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Time for research!" CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:46:49.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="811" PostId="442" Score="2" Text="Fantastic answer; thank you. I didn't think I'd get one this straightforward." CreationDate="2016-03-06T21:35:13.263" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="813" PostId="443" Score="2" Text="As far as I know, the translitteration ng for Greek γγ was chosen because it resembles the Greek pronunciation most, as it was usually the case. That's why gg was not chosen. So I think ng is always pronounced more or less the same in Latin (/ŋg/), regardless of etymology. That is also how I learned it at university, although I don't remember a specific source. Cf. γκ → nc (ancon/anceps), γχ → nch." CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:29:34.293" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="821" PostId="443" Score="0" Text="+1 for the last sentence." CreationDate="2016-03-07T05:16:17.743" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="824" PostId="443" Score="1" Text="@sumelic Voiceless stops in Latin were probably aspirated to some excent. There are cases where Greek words with an unaspirated voiceless stop were rendered in Latin with a voiced stop. That would suggest that Romans chose their voiced stop, having no aspiration, (contrary to the voiceless) to reflect the unaspirated Greek stop better." CreationDate="2016-03-07T10:04:43.990" UserId="194" />
  <row Id="826" PostId="443" Score="1" Text="@czypsu: That, or hypercorrection." CreationDate="2016-03-07T18:08:36.107" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="889" PostId="447" Score="1" Text="You know what, somehow I didn't think of *quod* being used as a conjunction. I have to admit it would solve any syntactic issues! So this is at least more than acceptable. However, I still think the paradox is nicer (more poignant?) if it's &quot;they forbade what they could not forbid&quot;, in the same sentence..." CreationDate="2016-03-13T02:13:43.107" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="895" PostId="447" Score="0" Text="I agree with you. :)" CreationDate="2016-03-13T02:49:58.010" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="20025" PostId="449" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure whether Carolingian was the first bicameral script; see, for example, this Merovingian manuscript: https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/medieval%20england%20and%20france/collection%20items/add_ms_31031_f055v.jpg From [here](https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/merovingian-copy-of-st-gregory-the-great-moralia-in-iob) (second half of the eighth century)." CreationDate="2019-06-04T21:01:49.670" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20061" PostId="449" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Nice find! Thank you for the correction, which I've now noted in my answer." CreationDate="2019-06-08T02:11:57.757" UserId="213" />
  <row Id="20064" PostId="449" Score="0" Text="Great!  &lt;filler text to dazzle the minimum character count in comments&gt;" CreationDate="2019-06-08T15:34:30.780" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="890" PostId="453" Score="0" Text="That is an interesting approach. I certainly agree about the position of the main caesura. But isn't the end of a clause a good position for the main caesura anyway, even if it isn't is the end of an independent *sentence*? Do we really need a full stop or a semicolon to motivate (is that the right term?) the caesura?" CreationDate="2016-03-13T02:19:10.730" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="829" PostId="455" Score="5" Text="Irony comes mainly from context. In speech prosody makes a big difference. To get a good suggestion an ironic idiom in Latin, you should give an example situation where you want to use it. There is no guarantee of a one-to-one correspondence to English idioms." CreationDate="2016-03-08T02:51:57.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="836" PostId="455" Score="4" Text="I'd be *particularly* interested in knowing if Latin ever adopted any form of **[irony punctuation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation)**." CreationDate="2016-03-08T19:39:57.107" UserId="16" />
  <row Id="833" PostId="457" Score="0" Text="*O me miserum* is also typically ironic when used." CreationDate="2016-03-08T15:47:05.320" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="834" PostId="457" Score="0" Text="Hmm. I'm not sure I buy the Plautus example, though here we're entering a wider territory in which there's *dramatic* irony as well as *rhetorical* irony. But to me Phaedrus means the superlatives in his speech earnestly, which is of course why they're funny. As for &quot;good for you,&quot; I'd just go with *Euge!* or *Eugepæ!* but in a sarcastic tone." CreationDate="2016-03-08T18:30:06.693" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="835" PostId="457" Score="1" Text="Actually, I was referring to Palindromus's &quot;echoing&quot; comments as being ironic." CreationDate="2016-03-08T18:33:45.913" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="844" PostId="457" Score="0" Text="Ah, then yes, absolutely! Sorry to misunderstand." CreationDate="2016-03-08T21:05:05.517" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="843" PostId="459" Score="0" Text="A good start: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperpendiculum" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:42:38.063" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="846" PostId="467" Score="1" Text="Thanks! In your first example, *Latina* is a neuter plural, but I meant *Latina* as a feminine singular. It makes sense to use the neuter adjective for the language, either singular or plural." CreationDate="2016-03-09T19:28:31.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21333" PostId="467" Score="0" Text="This form (*Latīna, Graeca*) is not being used to refer to the language, but contextually to *poetry*, less plausibly to writings in general, in Latin and Greek." CreationDate="2019-09-07T16:07:54.013" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="848" PostId="469" Score="5" Text="&quot;... to speak Latinly.&quot; :-)" CreationDate="2016-03-09T19:57:15.850" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="28734" PostId="470" Score="1" Text="just to add a beautiful known example of &quot;eo magis&quot; (without an introductory phrase):  &quot;quod, ut dicitur, si est homo bulla, **eo magis** senex&quot; (Varro)" CreationDate="2020-08-24T10:01:36.903" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="851" PostId="473" Score="2" Text="See a discussion in chat, starting from [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/27883398#27883398)." CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:17:08.037" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="852" PostId="473" Score="2" Text="Aemilia seems to be the equivalent of &quot;Emily,&quot; not &quot;Amelia.&quot; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_(given_name)" CreationDate="2016-03-10T00:54:39.977" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="858" PostId="473" Score="0" Text="I happen to know an Amelia--but yes, I think you're right. &quot;Maria&quot; or &quot;Marie&quot; or also common English renderings of the Latin name &quot;Maria&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-10T13:57:34.560" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="859" PostId="473" Score="2" Text="@HDE226868: Very helpful! It would be great if C.M. Weimer or Ben Kovitz could distill the major points in an answer with citations" CreationDate="2016-03-10T14:00:42.280" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="871" PostId="473" Score="0" Text="Working on something." CreationDate="2016-03-11T00:53:35.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2189" PostId="473" Score="0" Text="The Roman Martyrology in Latin lists hundreds of names, For some reason, the Vatican has decided only to Latinize first names only, Family names remain unchanged regardless of nationality.." CreationDate="2016-06-13T11:37:19.403" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="854" PostId="479" Score="2" Text="As @Joonas Ilmavirta suggests, this question would be more likely to get an answer if you showed that you had looked in an online dictionary or made an effort beyond just Google Translate. (Online Latin dictionaries can often be frustrating! But just for future reference, the good-faith effort helps.)" CreationDate="2016-03-10T09:39:24.013" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="872" PostId="479" Score="0" Text="Have you tried translating it yourself, instead of just coming here to ask?" CreationDate="2016-03-11T03:13:47.143" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="853" PostId="481" Score="2" Text="*Nihil* is often used adverbially for &quot;not at all&quot;. As a side not, Lewis and Short state that *non omnino* means &quot;not at all.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-10T04:31:41.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="855" PostId="481" Score="0" Text="See, I should have checked Lewis &amp; Short, not just Lewis Elementary. Lewis &amp; Short also provide two examples from Cicero that clearly mean &quot;not at all,&quot; which in addition to your example from Brutus, @Joonas Ilmavirta, suggest that it really can mean both and that the thing to do is to put it in an unambiguous context." CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:28:45.633" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="935" PostId="482" Score="4" Text="Hanks 2013 writes that &quot;**works of classical Latin lexicography have been partly or wholly lost**. It is known, too, that the Romans created bilingual Greek-Latin word lists, but these have likewise not survived&quot; (p. 507)." CreationDate="2016-03-16T02:43:29.793" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="936" PostId="482" Score="2" Text="@AlexB., can you make that into an answer? That would be a good answer with a clear reference. It would of course be nice to know how Hanks deduces this, but a published (and hopefully justified) educated guess is worth an answer anyway." CreationDate="2016-03-16T02:46:55.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="862" PostId="484" Score="1" Text="Off the top of my head, those with u, v, or x in the present stem include abluere, induere, salvere, exere, and mixere, while many perfect stems do not include those, such as bibi, feci, egi, arsi, cecini." CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:53:14.677" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="863" PostId="484" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Changed it to &quot;rule of thumb&quot;, and added a note about how the only real way to tell is to know the word or have a dictionary." CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:57:13.963" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="864" PostId="485" Score="1" Text="I'd like to quibble at (sic) your second point: In plenty of writing, the macron isn't provided over the e." CreationDate="2016-03-10T18:00:36.027" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="865" PostId="485" Score="1" Text="The rule at work here is the *length* of the vowel, which is there regardless of whether a macron makes it explicit or not. Granted though that this only helps if you hear the words (well) pronounced or happen to know the length." CreationDate="2016-03-10T18:38:38.560" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="866" PostId="485" Score="1" Text="That's what I mean. I imagine most people are reading Latin, and many sources don't have macrons. It's still worth mentioning, of course; I just wanted to point out the obvious pitfall of that -- i.e. that no macron doesn't mean it's an infinitive." CreationDate="2016-03-10T19:18:35.790" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="867" PostId="485" Score="2" Text="@QPaysTaxes, if it's verse, you know can often tell the length of the vowel by the metre. In prose you can't, so you'll have to rely on something else." CreationDate="2016-03-10T19:21:32.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="868" PostId="487" Score="0" Text="That's why I said looks like, not is identical to. They look similar." CreationDate="2016-03-10T19:59:06.143" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="6885" PostId="488" Score="0" Text="https://archive.org/stream/deverborumsignif00festuoft - A digitized version is available at this page." CreationDate="2017-02-22T18:56:25.523" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="873" PostId="490" Score="0" Text="+400 for thoroughness. Also, what does the cross symbol before e.g. &quot;Marius Victorinus&quot; and &quot;('episynaliphe'&quot; mean?" CreationDate="2016-03-11T14:09:24.590" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="874" PostId="490" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I should have just removed those, but they're to indicate supplemental notes at the back of the book. In particular, he goes into prodelision with the copula, e.g. *sub imost* or *probatumst*, and notes that it also occurs with an 's' in inscriptions, e.g. *Romanust*." CreationDate="2016-03-11T14:35:50.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="875" PostId="490" Score="2" Text="+1 Great answer. I recommend looking at Plautus, where orthography seems to mimic the conventions of everyday speech. My brief search shows these phrases: *adligatumst* = *adligatum est*, *adgressu's* = *adgressus es*, *sis* = *si vis*, etc. Interestingly, Plautus also has some good examples of *adding* a consonant to avoid elision, e.g. *ted obtestor* = *te obtestor*" CreationDate="2016-03-11T14:43:43.363" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="876" PostId="490" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yep! Plautus and the archaic inscriptions are chock full of these examples. I skipped over it to focus on prose per se, but you're not wrong at all. Also, something interesting about that last example, the *d* was the old ablative ending (e.g. *aevod* for *aevo*). I wonder if there's some mangling going on there. I don't see that *obtestor* can take an ablative, though that ending was disappearing as Plautus was beginning to write." CreationDate="2016-03-11T14:50:20.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="877" PostId="490" Score="2" Text="Interesting--Plautus seems to use *ted* and *med* as simple accusatives with no hint of an ablative meaning, such as in acc+inf constructions. Just search for &quot;med&quot; or &quot;ted&quot; in the *[Asinaria](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/asinaria.shtml)* for many examples." CreationDate="2016-03-11T14:56:48.397" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="882" PostId="490" Score="1" Text="*mēd, tēd, sēd* are the regular accusatives, as well as ablatives, of these pronouns in Old Latin (not just in metrical works like Plautus, but in inscriptions as well); the origin of the -d in accusative forms is unclear." CreationDate="2016-03-12T00:11:57.300" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="884" PostId="490" Score="1" Text="@TKR You're right, I have seen this in dedicatory inscriptions before. I should have remembered the Praeneste fibula. It's only for those three words, though, right? Very strange." CreationDate="2016-03-12T02:27:44.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="885" PostId="490" Score="2" Text="Yes, just those three pronouns (AFAIK). It is strange, but then personal pronouns across IE often show difficult-to-explain irregularities." CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:04:36.693" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="879" PostId="491" Score="3" Text="It seems that the original form of at least some of these words did have &quot;x,&quot; which was dropped before a consonant but not before the diminutive suffix *-ill-* which started with a vowel. So &quot;axla&quot; etc. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ala#Latin But the x was dropped in the normal word, similar to how *iumentum* comes from  [Old Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Consonants) *jouxmentom*. I would guess this is the case for *māla* as well (i.e. it was earlier *maxla*). Posting this as a comment because it is just a guess." CreationDate="2016-03-11T16:03:59.593" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="880" PostId="492" Score="4" Text="The same change occurs in all clusters of the form -Csl-, -Csn-, -Csm-: the first two consonants are lost with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. Weiss *Hist. Gramm. Latin* 177-9 gives many examples." CreationDate="2016-03-11T19:20:10.983" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="898" PostId="493" Score="3" Text="In Plauti *[Amphitruo](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/amphitruo.shtml)*, the (probably fake) slave Sosia does not address a merchant with any specific term or terms. Then again, this Sosia is rather insolent." CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:15:03.337" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="891" PostId="495" Score="1" Text="Good question: why is the same word used for &quot;inside&quot; and &quot;into&quot;? There is some shared notion of insideness, but still. It may be interesting to know that *in* can also be used both to indicate &quot;inside&quot; and &quot;into&quot; in Dutch. And also in German, where &quot;inside&quot; takes the dative case and &quot;into&quot; the accusative. (In Dutch, cases have mostly died, but they are still used in idiom.)" CreationDate="2016-03-13T02:35:06.473" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="892" PostId="496" Score="2" Text="I do wonder whether boustrophedon was more common in poetry than prose (probably not)." CreationDate="2016-03-13T02:37:22.670" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="903" PostId="500" Score="2" Text="The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, known as CIL, is online http://cil.bbaw.de/cil_en/index_en.html This is the ultimate collection of inscriptions in Latin (not completely digitized though, there are 30 volumes). Caveat: it needs some training how to use it." CreationDate="2016-03-13T13:03:36.657" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="904" PostId="500" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., thanks! I had heard of CIL but had never seen it online. Is it possible to search it for boustrophedon inscriptions? I can't see how to do that." CreationDate="2016-03-13T13:21:37.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26122" PostId="500" Score="0" Text="I thought to remember my teacher mention that TETEROROMAMANUNUDADATETELALATETE was not only confusing (ore more elaboratela: onomatopoetic representation of barbaric language) by its lack of white space or letter case or interpunction in its original, but additionally confusing when written as boustrophedron. But perhaps this does not imply that the origianl *was* written that way ..." CreationDate="2020-05-01T10:28:15.960" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="899" PostId="501" Score="3" Text="relevant: [Why is “ille” used in Winnie ille Pu and Hobbitus Ille?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2/why-is-ille-used-in-winnie-ille-pu-and-hobbitus-ille)" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:52:47.540" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7206" PostId="502" Score="0" Text="So, could it be that this is a possible origin of the French &quot;vous&quot;, the more formal way of addressing one?" CreationDate="2017-03-09T18:45:37.017" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="907" PostId="504" Score="2" Text="StackExchange allows html formatting for superscripts and subscripts. `&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and &lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;` gives you superscript 1 and subscript 2 but it doesn't seem to work in comments. (@C.M.Weimer, you may also want to know this.) Does Wallace's article contain photographs or drawings of the inscriptions so that one could actually see the boustrophedon in action? I can't access it now; I'll see if I have better luck tomorrow when I'm on campus. And thanks, this is a good answer, and so is the other one!" CreationDate="2016-03-14T00:21:51.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="911" PostId="511" Score="0" Text="Why do you like fistula better?" CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:47:18.687" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="912" PostId="511" Score="2" Text="Because a teacher of mine once presented a very convincing argument that &quot;pistola&quot; was derived from &quot;fistula.&quot; Unfortunately, all I have in my notes is &quot;pistola&lt;—fistula,&quot; so I can't share it here." CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:49:26.873" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="913" PostId="511" Score="4" Text="Okay, fair enough.  Thanks for the distinction on silva vs. adumbratio; that's very helpful." CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:54:16.750" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="914" PostId="511" Score="2" Text="No problem. I actually only learned about it a month ago, at the Paideia Institute Living Latin in NYC conference." CreationDate="2016-03-14T22:00:43.533" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="915" PostId="511" Score="3" Text="The nice thing about &quot;pistola&quot; is that it's the same in Italian, which provides a nice bit of credibility." CreationDate="2016-03-15T18:48:17.440" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="6546" PostId="511" Score="1" Text="Francis William Newman's translation of Robinson Crusoe into Classical Latin uses &quot;ignipulta&quot; for a gun, but it's definitely not official, and very old. In fact, the book was published in the 1800s." CreationDate="2017-02-07T01:29:32.750" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="916" PostId="512" Score="3" Text="See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_populi#Proverbial_use." CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:39:36.620" UserId="73" />
  <row Id="920" PostId="513" Score="3" Text="Welcome! I agree that this seems like a reasonable assumption.  Do you know of any sources that make this argument, for further reading?  Including them here would improve this answer." CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:13:06.993" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="921" PostId="513" Score="0" Text="No, not really, but I would say it's simply probable. Let's imagine young educated Romans who start with Greek (since that was like the goal of the highest education possible): they can already, of course, read well and I assume that not everybody had an access to a Greek teacher/slave and even if they had, they would probably have to memorize the most common words first before they would be able to study it further monolingually - directly by conversation in Greek. And we also know that even common people in Rome wrote a lot (given the graffiti), so I assume they would do something like that." CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:21:49.450" UserId="260" />
  <row Id="937" PostId="513" Score="1" Text="Welcome and thanks for the answer! It is indeed reasonable to assume that there were dictionaries of some kind, and that assumption lead to my asking the question. Your answer does not provide any citations or other evidence, so it does not quite give what I was looking for." CreationDate="2016-03-16T02:52:30.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="950" PostId="513" Score="1" Text="Hello, Joonas. It doesn't provide any citations or other evidence because it is only an assumption. There are none citations and evidence, since nothing of the sort was retained. But I personally don't find any flaws in the kind of reasoning I conducted here and hence I would say that this scenario is rather probable than improbable.That's a kind of judgement we can make. It's a viable hypothesis, that's all." CreationDate="2016-03-16T14:55:00.370" UserId="260" />
  <row Id="976" PostId="513" Score="1" Text="@Godmy I think what Joonas is trying to explain is the fact that we tend to receive well researched answers better here on StackExchange." CreationDate="2016-03-17T06:16:26.803" UserId="131" />
  <row Id="1032" PostId="513" Score="0" Text="@ws04 Did my answer offend anybody because it was openly a hypothesis? Again, I think there are no flaws on the reasoning per se and the hypothesis is very interesting and hence should at least entertain anyone's mind who wants to speak on this subject. So why shouldn't it be here? I didn't lie about my resources or intentions. But if such posts offend you and do not serve any good purpose (e.g. reasoning about the subject), then ok." CreationDate="2016-03-19T18:38:18.460" UserId="260" />
  <row Id="1039" PostId="513" Score="0" Text="&quot;be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!&quot; - from the help blurb that pops up when you click the &quot;Your answer&quot; box" CreationDate="2016-03-20T02:29:00.400" UserId="131" />
  <row Id="1040" PostId="513" Score="1" Text="&quot;But avoid ... making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.&quot; - ditto as the one above" CreationDate="2016-03-20T02:32:38.620" UserId="131" />
  <row Id="1092" PostId="513" Score="0" Text="But I didn't make a statement based on an opinion: I provided a model based on the known facts about the Roman society and assigned it a probability. History works with probabilities, however low. Your rebuke is just misplaced." CreationDate="2016-03-22T01:28:25.117" UserId="260" />
  <row Id="1093" PostId="513" Score="0" Text="But, if nothing, you've surely persuaded me that I will have certainly other things to do than to contribute here. Maybe we'll see each other (and other readers) some other  time in the future on the latind.com" CreationDate="2016-03-22T01:31:10.237" UserId="260" />
  <row Id="1095" PostId="513" Score="2" Text="@Godmy Stack Exchange sites do take a bit of getting used to, especially when comparing them to forums.  Here we emphasize sources because we want to have definitive, easy-to-find answers for every question.  Forums are great for sharing thoughts and experiences, but later readers often have to expend a lot of effort to find the *best* answer given to a question.  So while there's certainly a place for forums, we feel that the stricter guidelines here allow us to deliver high-quality content to readers more easily than can be done in a forum." CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:35:47.297" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1096" PostId="513" Score="0" Text="If the difference in goals makes sense to you, then I hope you'll stick around!  But if it's not your cup of tea, that's fine too.  Best wishes!" CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:38:25.593" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="938" PostId="516" Score="3" Text="I don't think I know of one, but this is perhaps because discussion of the subject was avoided in formal writings, and toilets [weren't really private affairs](http://visitingtheancients.com/blog/2010/12/public-restrooms-in-the-ancient-roman-world/)." CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:01:16.113" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="958" PostId="516" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Bit of a side issue, but did this apply to women? Can't see a modest Roman matron doing her business in public!" CreationDate="2016-03-16T21:19:22.323" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="987" PostId="516" Score="1" Text="@andy256, do you want to convert that to an answer? Saying that one shouldn't use a euphemism is a decent answer even if it does not give me a way to excuse myself politely if I ever want to." CreationDate="2016-03-17T22:47:16.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34067" PostId="516" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In Roman society the same toilets were used by both sexes (evidence from Pompeii and Ephesus). No segregation indicates that the Romans did not care about such things--their liberal attitudes to sex are part-&amp;-parcel of this. Euphemisms not required; for a Roman it would be like saying, &quot;I'm going to breathe today.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-07-10T14:09:00.793" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="925" PostId="517" Score="0" Text="The Hesiod reference is probably to this: Ἥφαιστον δ᾽ ἐκέλευσε περικλυτὸν ὅττι τάχιστα / γαῖαν ὕδει φύρειν, ἐν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπου θέμεν αὐδὴν /&#xA;καὶ σθένος (Hes. W&amp;D 60-62), which I translate as: &quot;[Zeus] ordered renowned Hephaestus to as quickly as possible mix earth with water and place voice and strength in man.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:46:01.170" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="966" PostId="522" Score="0" Text="Perfect! There's one thing missing, though...(hint: it ends on *-pices*)." CreationDate="2016-03-17T00:40:43.743" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="967" PostId="522" Score="2" Text="Spices? Auspices? Precipices? Haruspices? :)" CreationDate="2016-03-17T00:51:46.597" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="929" PostId="523" Score="1" Text="Welcome!  Thanks for contributing.  One way to improve your answer would be to include a source for this phrasing: perhaps one of your textbooks recommends this construction?" CreationDate="2016-03-16T01:16:53.367" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="930" PostId="523" Score="3" Text="That sounds to me like a very direct way of putting it, not a euphemism." CreationDate="2016-03-16T01:33:48.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="977" PostId="523" Score="1" Text="@Joonas it may be. There aren't many other phrases that would be used." CreationDate="2016-03-17T11:06:39.780" UserId="197" />
  <row Id="939" PostId="525" Score="0" Text="just to clarify, I didn't mean that cogito ergo sum is translated as &quot;seeing is believing&quot;." CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:59:38.997" UserId="131" />
  <row Id="944" PostId="525" Score="2" Text="Apparently the Crash Course Philosophy video is incorrect! From the Wikipedia entry on Berkeley: &quot;In Principles #3, he wrote, using a combination of Latin and English, esse is percipi (to be is to be perceived), most often if slightly inaccurately attributed to Berkeley as the pure Latin phrase esse est percipi. The phrase appears associated with him in authoritative philosophical sources, e.g., 'Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) – to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).'&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-16T05:43:06.597" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="40192" PostId="525" Score="0" Text="Concerning the gerunds, I will quote from a grammar text: &quot;The Substantival Infinitive is rarely found except as either subject or object in a sentence the Gerund is used neither as subject nor object.&quot; The author then goes on to cite &quot;seeing is believing&quot; as an example of how English gerunds can be subjects and objects (as opposed to Latin gerunds which are rarely used that way)." CreationDate="2022-10-29T03:12:27.073" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="940" PostId="526" Score="2" Text="Are there any examples in classical latin in which the infinitive is used for the nominative form of the gerund?" CreationDate="2016-03-16T04:00:53.753" UserId="131" />
  <row Id="942" PostId="526" Score="9" Text="@ws04 Yes, it's all over the place. The most famous, perhaps, is Seneca's maxim *Errare humanum est*, &quot;To err is human.&quot; [Publius Syrus](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/syrus.html)' *Sententiae* contain a number of them." CreationDate="2016-03-16T04:07:06.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="955" PostId="526" Score="0" Text="@Publius Syrius *Errare humanum est*, I feel so good to know that Portuguese Spanish and Italian are so close to latin :), &quot;Errar é Humano&quot; but in this case it's kind of like &quot;Errar Humano é&quot;, in English it might not have a closer translation due to the germanic roots, different structure, it's kind of listening to Yoda, &quot;To err human is&quot; - see, weird" CreationDate="2016-03-16T19:43:33.787" UserId="272" />
  <row Id="6708" PostId="526" Score="3" Text="Not only _can_ that case be made; it frequently _is_ made. My high school Latin books all defined the use of the gerund as something like ‘supplying the non-nominative case forms of the infinitive’, which is the same thing as what you say, only seen from the opposite angle." CreationDate="2017-02-12T09:50:09.503" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="943" PostId="527" Score="1" Text="Now this is the kind of race I want to see on all questions!" CreationDate="2016-03-16T04:16:03.103" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="949" PostId="527" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer, it good to have people racing to answer a new question, but I hope racing doesn't come a priority. I do like an occasional race though, despite you beating me to it by 22 seconds this time..." CreationDate="2016-03-16T14:16:47.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="964" PostId="531" Score="0" Text="I realize that it's just one meaning -- that's why I asked what the connecting concept is. That was badly phrased. Aside from that, &quot;we dunno&quot; or &quot;it's pointless to ask&quot; is a good answer in my book, so +1!" CreationDate="2016-03-17T00:24:04.780" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="965" PostId="531" Score="0" Text="Ha! Well, strictly speaking, this is &quot;I dunno&quot; or perhaps &quot;most of us dunno.&quot; Find a historical linguist and you may get an answer!" CreationDate="2016-03-17T00:26:13.847" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5567" PostId="534" Score="0" Text="I just asked [a new question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2128/79) and this looks like a good answer to it. I wonder if my question should be closed as a duplicate or if this answer should be adapted there. (I prefer the latter, but I'm partial.)" CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:05:45.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8790" PostId="535" Score="0" Text="The Ovid quotes are from the Apollo and Daphne story in Metamorphoses 1 (I think you might have gotten it confused with Longus' Daphnis and Chloe)." CreationDate="2017-05-12T20:14:39.330" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1003" PostId="536" Score="0" Text="I've just encountered *simultas* in another passage of Hygin in a similar context: *[Sphinx] regi Creontem simultatem constituit, si carmen, quod posuisset, aliquis interpretatus esset, se inde abire*. So perhaps &quot;challenge&quot; would be a good translation as well, at least for cases in which there isn't another contestant." CreationDate="2016-03-18T21:36:41.223" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="978" PostId="537" Score="2" Text="I'm not completely sure what &quot;writings without any stylistic aspirations&quot; means. Would Cicero's letters, for example, be included? Would you mind giving a few examples of the kind of writing you mean?" CreationDate="2016-03-17T14:43:13.113" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="981" PostId="537" Score="3" Text="@JoelDerfner Contracts, personal letters not meant to be published (so not Pliny's letters), and graffiti that isn't a literary echo (arguably hard to detect at times) could all count." CreationDate="2016-03-17T17:41:15.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33467" PostId="537" Score="1" Text="Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/124869/discussion-on-question-by-wrzlprmft-did-word-order-have-any-function-in-colloqui)." CreationDate="2021-05-30T15:55:29.163" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4395" PostId="539" Score="3" Text="I read this old post again now, and I realize that I see no difference between the 'ng' in &quot;finger&quot; and &quot;singer&quot;. I'm not confident that those pronunciation guides are well suited to non-native English speakers (or speakers of some dialects). This does not undermine your answer, though." CreationDate="2016-09-18T18:59:00.927" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16058" PostId="539" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: There is in fact difference: /ˈfɪŋɡə/ vs /ˈsɪŋə/ (UK Received Pronunciation)." CreationDate="2018-10-22T12:03:38.227" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="5449" PostId="542" Score="0" Text="I would as well argue for the meaning of inside. Anybody can come towards, but for inside, you need to give them the permission." CreationDate="2016-11-27T12:51:44.940" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="996" PostId="543" Score="5" Text="Welcome and thanks for contributing!  As you note, one way to improve this answer would be to cite references that both back up your &quot;Latin doesn't use circumlocutions&quot; point and provide examples of what Romans would have said.  Thanks, and we're looking forward to hearing from you again!" CreationDate="2016-03-18T12:40:14.233" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="15913" PostId="543" Score="1" Text="Do you have the books available now? Adding the details would help, even though it's a good answer even in its current state." CreationDate="2018-10-11T07:29:52.837" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="997" PostId="544" Score="0" Text="Interesting. I am not familiar with the *Mammal Species of the World* database, but almost all the &quot;synonyms&quot; strike me as tenuous: a *dromedarius* is very clearly a camel and a *vicunia* (Spanish: vicuña) is related, but distinct, from a llama." CreationDate="2016-03-18T13:18:51.603" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="998" PostId="544" Score="0" Text="There are synonyms of the genus *Lama*, not of the species *Lama glama*. *Dromedarius* and *Vicunia* were used as genus name for a group of species having (I assume, because it's usually the reason why genera are considered synonyms) the same type-species as *Lama* or the same set of species as *Lama* making them synonyms of *Lama*." CreationDate="2016-03-18T13:41:07.757" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="1000" PostId="545" Score="1" Text="Just to offer another possibility, I myself would go with &quot;the one swollen with clouds, the other...&quot; This preserves a little more of the parallel between *hic* and *ille* than simply &quot;one&quot;/&quot;the other.&quot; But as this is a question about use and meaning, not translation, I'm just leaving this as a comment. Thanks for a thorough answer, and welcome!" CreationDate="2016-03-18T15:38:17.827" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1002" PostId="546" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, my sense agrees with yours here. I doubt you'd find such a cumbersome string of relative clauses in any of the more canonical Classical prose writers." CreationDate="2016-03-18T18:16:15.610" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1004" PostId="547" Score="2" Text="Hmm... I wonder if *eo* is doing anything. Wouldn't the passage make perfect sense without it? One could see it as a causal ablative, so that *eo quod* would mean *for the reason that*. It feels redundant with *quod*." CreationDate="2016-03-18T21:54:13.833" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1005" PostId="547" Score="0" Text="Yes, I think causal ablative must be right. &quot;For that (reason), (namely) because...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-18T23:41:21.097" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1006" PostId="547" Score="1" Text="I'd buy that. Interestingly, however, I find that a poster at http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=1591642.0 offers this advice (about a different passage): &quot;'Eo quod' is a rather rare construction. It is a causal clause that is usually employed with the subjunctive to introduce a hypothetical reason.&quot; However, I have no idea who s/he is or whether this is right!" CreationDate="2016-03-18T23:45:58.877" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1007" PostId="549" Score="0" Text="Thanks. So your thought is that *eo quod* is working sort of like e.g. *propterea quod*. I'll buy that, though I too find it an odd construction." CreationDate="2016-03-19T00:38:59.607" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1009" PostId="549" Score="1" Text="Pseudo-Hyginus!" CreationDate="2016-03-19T00:47:02.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1010" PostId="549" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, yes, *eo* seems to do the same as *propterea* here. I can't tell if there is something else behind it since it feels weird, but I don't know how else to make sense of it." CreationDate="2016-03-19T00:47:31.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1011" PostId="549" Score="0" Text="+1 for Pseudo-Hyginus. I've got dissertation material right here! I also find the phrase in a set of responses at http://www.divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/Pofficium.pl?date1=02-10-2013&amp;command=prayMatutinum&amp;version=Reduced%201955&amp;testmode=seasonal&amp;lang2=Latin&amp;votive= : &quot;Angelus Domini vocavit Abraham, dicens:&#xA;* Ne extendas manum tuam super puerum, eo quod timeas Dominum.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-19T00:57:09.363" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1015" PostId="550" Score="0" Text="Do you want both long and short vowels to be in the phrase?  Or just the letters?  How about *j* and *v*?" CreationDate="2016-03-19T02:52:28.133" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1016" PostId="550" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel I thought about mentioning the vowels. Your and Joonas' conversation on macrons is what actually inspired me to write this. On j/v I'm not too concerned, but of course, if it can be added, too, the better?" CreationDate="2016-03-19T02:58:34.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1021" PostId="550" Score="0" Text="What would make something impure/non-Classical Latin?" CreationDate="2016-03-19T15:41:14.100" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1035" PostId="550" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Post-classical constructions and vocabulary, new coinages, etc. When I asked for something Classical, I was thinking of something that could have been penned by Cicero or Ovid." CreationDate="2016-03-19T19:23:21.077" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1055" PostId="557" Score="0" Text="+1 Thanks for this detailed explanation! I just wanted to point out however that since this manuscript have been copied, modified and probably a bit shuffled during all middle-ages the fact that it is &quot;currently&quot; in the vegetables section could be an error. But indeed if the recipes match the ones for the carrots and parsnips it would indeed confirm that this part is at its rightful place." CreationDate="2016-03-21T08:17:27.480" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="1045" PostId="560" Score="0" Text="I get it now. I wish my textbook would have explained it as simply as you did. +1 &amp; accept. Gratias, amice!" CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:06:44.123" UserId="289" />
  <row Id="1047" PostId="562" Score="1" Text="Could it be a Swedish thing? Lots of Swedish speakers in and around Turku, if I'm not mistaken. How do Swedes pronounce those Latin diphthongs?" CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:24:18.907" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1051" PostId="562" Score="1" Text="Pronouncing *ae* and *oe* as /e:/ is characteristic of Ecclesiastical pronunciation (at least the kind I am familiar with). Do you think this question could be rephrased to have more general interest? I doubt that there is anything *unique* about the situation of Turku in adopting this usage over the classical." CreationDate="2016-03-20T18:08:26.497" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1058" PostId="562" Score="0" Text="@TKR, it could be a Swedish thing, but the majority speaks Finnish in Turku. Swedish is as common in Helsinki as in Turku and the University of Helsinki (originally Royal Academy of Turku) was moved from Turku to Helsinki after a fire in 1827. Despite these connections the pronunciation of Turku is not used in Helsinki. I don't know how the Swedes pronounce diphthongs." CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:07:24.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1059" PostId="562" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, I want to keep this question specific. Understanding this narrow phenomenon is likely to lead to a broader understanding on the side, but I don't want to generalize the question at the risk of missing my initial problem. I have nothing against a more general question, but it should be asked separately from this one." CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:15:05.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1060" PostId="562" Score="2" Text="Out of curiosity--what exactly do you mean when you say this is localized in Turku? As far as I am aware, there is not a large Latin-speaking community in Finland. Might it just be as simple as asking what professor(s) are teaching in the local university?" CreationDate="2016-03-21T14:09:57.043" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1068" PostId="562" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, this pronunciation is used in the universities in Turku but not in other Finnish universities, and I am under the impression that this is so for highschools as well. I am not aware of differences in topics studied that would explain this. I don't really know what kind of a reason is behind all this. There is no significant community using Latin as everyday language." CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:35:33.010" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1110" PostId="562" Score="0" Text="Perhaps [Antti Ijäs](https://www.facebook.com/antti.ijas.7) might know. He is/was legatus epistularius of the Nuntii Latini, a Finnish radio programme in Latin. I once figured in a Dutch radio programme in which I asked a certain woman from Nuntii Latini a question that she answered asynchronously...but I don't remember her name. She worked at a Finnish university, like Ijäs." CreationDate="2016-03-23T04:35:23.570" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1113" PostId="562" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, he might indeed know. Several Finns who work with Latin at universities should be able to answer, and I hope we can attract some of them to help us out. I don't use Facebook so I can't contact him directly with that link, but I was thinking of sending messages to some Finnish Latin-oriented mailing lists." CreationDate="2016-03-23T08:24:20.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5517" PostId="562" Score="1" Text="Since this has gone unanswered for so long, I think it's time to consider sending it to linguistics.SE, which may give an answer based on phonology and dialect." CreationDate="2016-12-01T23:34:15.880" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1042" PostId="564" Score="2" Text="Interesting. I wonder if this was done on purpose. I also wonder if there are any single lines (since these aren't couplets in the technical sense), and what would happen if you we remove the Greek y. This has potential." CreationDate="2016-03-20T14:15:02.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1044" PostId="564" Score="1" Text="I am in love with you. I wonder whether pangrammic couplets could be constructed from non-adjacent lines one of which included Karthago." CreationDate="2016-03-20T14:37:24.747" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1048" PostId="564" Score="1" Text="I added some more findings: if I exclude *y*, there actually was one &quot;couplet&quot; that included *Karthago*, though it unfortunately lacks one key verb which is in the next line." CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:36:21.573" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1049" PostId="564" Score="1" Text="As to whether this was done on purpose: the *63* figure seems rather high to me out of *9900* lines (.636% by my count), but then I checked Ovid's *Metamorphoses* for the same criteria and found 76/12000 (.633%), which is almost identical. Unless they both were aiming at the same effect (very possible), I'm inclined to think this aligns with natural letter frequency in Latin." CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:42:24.187" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1050" PostId="564" Score="4" Text="Fun fact I just learned: there is not even one *k* in the [whole text of the *Metamorphoses*](http://ovid.lib.virginia.edu/metamorphoseonUVA.html)" CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:52:01.293" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6237" PostId="564" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks for link to the machine-readable Metamorphoses. Where do you typically get these texts from?" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:36:06.727" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6238" PostId="564" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I don't have a go-to place: I just searched for that one. Perseus has a raw file download utility, but I've never used it." CreationDate="2017-01-19T23:12:49.747" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1052" PostId="566" Score="1" Text="You see *sunto* all over legal documents, like the [Twelve Tables](http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Texts/01_Preliterary_period/12_Tables.htm)." CreationDate="2016-03-20T21:48:13.257" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4608" PostId="573" Score="1" Text="I've only just come across this question, but as the translator himself I think I should defend my use of subiicio. In fact, C.M. Weimer has it right. I defence I quote Cicero Acad 2.23, 74: ea quae sub sensus subiecta sunt." CreationDate="2016-09-29T15:03:17.077" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10830" PostId="573" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton Just saw this comment: I didn't mean my question as a criticism! My Latin is pretty basic, so there's a lot about nuance that I don't understand, and this was an attempt at chipping away at that lack of understanding." CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:25:38.090" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1063" PostId="574" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much! I'm glad to see my instincts weren't off-base." CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:46:48.400" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1062" PostId="575" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you want an example of the irregular imperative *duc* or any example whatsoever with that verb?" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:45:27.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1064" PostId="575" Score="0" Text="Any example with the verb 'Duco' would be very much appreciated. I'm not a linguist, just considering the word duco with the 'o' ending for use in the name of an art project. Wanted to verify my basic understanding of what it meant." CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:51:02.683" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1066" PostId="575" Score="0" Text="But also—if the examples the answers offer you *don't* fit with your basic understanding, leave a comment to that effect. *Duco* is a word that can be used in a lot of different ways to mean a lot of different things, so there may still be hope." CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:16:52.517" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1071" PostId="575" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the welcome and for the great feedback, very helpful. I read that 'duco' may refer more to the leadership of an army rather than the 'art of leadership'. What are your thoughts on this? The word 'educo' was put forward as an alternative meaning I teach or I stimulate mental growth; would you agree?" CreationDate="2016-03-21T20:57:02.433" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1078" PostId="575" Score="0" Text="For a short answer, &quot;educo&quot; means something like &quot;bring up,&quot; as in &quot;bring up children.&quot; It sounds a little bit like you're looking for something that has more to do with inspiration or charisma. Why don't you tell us (in a separate question) about your project in a little more detail and we'll see how we can help?" CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:43:59.470" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1090" PostId="575" Score="0" Text="Thanks, new question posted: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/581/does-duco-refer-to-the-art-of-leadership" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:41:02.667" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1072" PostId="577" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the welcome and for the great feedback, very helpful. I read that 'duco' may refer more to the leadership of an army rather than the 'art of leadership'. What are your thoughts on this? The word 'educo' was put forward as an alternative meaning I teach or I stimulate mental growth; would you agree?" CreationDate="2016-03-21T20:58:12.093" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1073" PostId="577" Score="1" Text="@Pete those are two separate questions. Ask them as two separate questions, and you'll get a better answer." CreationDate="2016-03-21T21:04:30.673" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1074" PostId="577" Score="1" Text="@Pete, you are welcome! I wrote an answer to your follow-up question, but it's too long for a comment. As QPaysTaxes suggests, it is better to ask new questions as separate questions. Also, since you have already received several answers, please do not edit this question too much to invalidate them. It often works best to ask a separate follow-up separately, unless it can be answered in a comment (in a couple of sentences)." CreationDate="2016-03-21T21:23:29.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1091" PostId="577" Score="0" Text="New question posted: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/581/does-duco-refer-to-the-art-of-leadership" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:41:30.183" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1069" PostId="579" Score="0" Text="Welcome!  Thanks for making an effort to translate this yourself.  For more tips, see [How can I ask a translation or homework question?](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/a/144/12)." CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:54:47.783" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1085" PostId="579" Score="1" Text="I think the Dutch should read &quot;...die nu ... doorsien, van nieus ondeckt is&quot;, where *doorsien* and *ontdeckt* are both participles: &quot;which has been surveyed and discovered&quot;." CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:54:14.597" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1088" PostId="579" Score="0" Text="oh good, thanks! I'm just in language-decoding-mode so any actual knowledge of Dutch is an improvement." CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:39:05.673" UserId="296" />
  <row Id="1089" PostId="579" Score="0" Text="where does the *van nieus ... is* fit into *van nieus ondeckt is*?" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:40:35.283" UserId="296" />
  <row Id="1100" PostId="579" Score="0" Text="*van nieus* = &quot;recently&quot;, I believe. And *veel gevaers* = &quot;much danger&quot; (not plural, contra my previous comment)." CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:59:39.887" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1075" PostId="580" Score="0" Text="Maybe &quot;surveyed&quot; for *lustrata*? As for &quot;exquisita&quot;, I think it does have the &quot;sought out&quot; meaning here, since the three participles express a chronological process of discovery -- first the layout of the straits was &quot;sought after&quot;, then it was &quot;surveyed&quot;, finally it has been &quot;laid bare&quot; or &quot;discovered&quot;." CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:13:25.090" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1076" PostId="580" Score="1" Text="As an even more minor quibble, I'm not sure *aliquot mensium* should be taken as referring to *certain* particularly dangerous months of the year, since *aliquot* is just about number. I understand it as simply meaning that mapping out the straits required several months of dangerous work." CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:14:47.187" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1077" PostId="580" Score="0" Text="@TKR You're probably right, but if so, I would have expected it to be accusative, not an embedded genitive. Bad late Latin! (Now just find me a Classical counterexample so I can arbitrarily decry it as poor wording, too! :P)" CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:26:23.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1079" PostId="580" Score="0" Text="Interesting -- perhaps it is the same text as the Dutch text that follows? This would give a couple of useful clues." CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:55:07.097" UserId="296" />
  <row Id="1080" PostId="580" Score="0" Text="(I know German grammar enough to infer some information; my knowledge of Latin declension is nonexistent)" CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:10:22.033" UserId="296" />
  <row Id="1082" PostId="580" Score="0" Text="My German is very rusty, but from what I can tell, it looks like &quot;authentic&quot; is a better translation for &quot;eigentlich&quot; than &quot;accurate&quot;." CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:27:12.993" UserId="296" />
  <row Id="1083" PostId="580" Score="0" Text="@JasonS Thing is, that doesn't make sense with *exquire*, but then again, late Latin and all (and translationese, too, from the looks of it). I bet you could take it some Dutch site and get a decent reading out of it." CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:32:02.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1084" PostId="580" Score="1" Text="This is like a mini-Rosetta stone." CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:33:20.047" UserId="296" />
  <row Id="1086" PostId="580" Score="1" Text="I think a genitive is what's expected for *aliquot mensium* simply because it's dependent on *magno periculo*, regardless of what particular type of temporal expression it may be." CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:56:18.110" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2506" PostId="581" Score="0" Text="There is the noun *ducatus*, which can mean leadership. However, I prefer the answer of @BenKovitz for the reasons stated in my comment there." CreationDate="2016-07-10T07:13:51.993" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="1218" PostId="586" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIImavirta would my grammar be correct if I swapped out duco for ducitis to get 'you all lead the pursuit of fostering health of mind and body'? Studium sanitatis animi corporisque fovendae ducitis?" CreationDate="2016-03-29T23:24:32.540" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1220" PostId="586" Score="1" Text="@Pete, yes, the sentence remains grammatical if you make that change." CreationDate="2016-03-30T06:49:15.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1097" PostId="587" Score="1" Text="New tag for patristic-latin? That was my field of study, but I do not want to create a tag that most people would just use ecclesiastical-latin for." CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:21:54.713" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1098" PostId="587" Score="1" Text="I have been using `late-latin` for Augustine, but perhaps that scheme can be supplemented.  Do you see a bright dividing line between patristic and ecclesiastical, perhaps a particular year?" CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:28:49.993" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1099" PostId="587" Score="3" Text="Well, &quot;ecclesiastical-latin&quot; for me is like talking about &quot;juridicial English&quot; without specifying old-, middle-, or contemporary. Are we really willing to lump Tertullian, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Boethius, Aquinas, and renaissance moral manuals in the same category? (I'll motivate myself to write a meta post at some point--no real need to continue the discussion here.)" CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:32:38.233" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1101" PostId="589" Score="0" Text="Oh, I like your suggestions." CreationDate="2016-03-22T18:47:54.000" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1102" PostId="589" Score="0" Text="Is that the origin of &quot;to gird one's loins&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-03-22T19:31:20.320" UserId="301" />
  <row Id="1103" PostId="589" Score="0" Text="@JAB: &quot;gird your loins&quot; (=accingere lumbos) is a Biblical expression: for example, Jer 1:17, 2 Kings 4:29, Prov 31:17, and (NT) Eph 16:14" CreationDate="2016-03-22T19:51:11.087" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1112" PostId="589" Score="0" Text="This is an excellent suggestion, thank you! It also has a similar tone with the English expression, since both have to do with adapting one's clothing to work." CreationDate="2016-03-23T07:14:01.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1105" PostId="591" Score="0" Text="Caesar is easy, but not a paragon of Latin style (imo). Vergil is hard but a much more accomplished writer. If 4th c. N. Africa is at all an example, many of these learners already spoke Latin as a second language and had no difficulty studying Vergil as schoolboys: Augustine's tragi-comical reflections on Vergil (c.f. Conf 1.44)--and griping about Homer--make this evident." CreationDate="2016-03-22T21:55:53.020" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1109" PostId="591" Score="0" Text="Good question. Presumably &quot;the East&quot; is the Byzantine Empire?" CreationDate="2016-03-23T02:27:54.970" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1119" PostId="591" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yes, that's how I understood it." CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:30:10.227" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1106" PostId="592" Score="0" Text="*Integritas* by itself is a nice name for something." CreationDate="2016-03-22T22:46:06.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1107" PostId="592" Score="1" Text="Véní lupanar meum ad visitátum, nomine &quot;Integritátem.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-22T23:08:10.780" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1217" PostId="592" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner would my grammar be correct if I swapped out duco for ducitis to get 'you all lead in health'? In sanitatem ducitis?" CreationDate="2016-03-29T23:22:35.557" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1219" PostId="592" Score="1" Text="Well, it would be &quot;You all lead into health&quot; rather than &quot;lead in health,&quot; but yes, the grammar would be absolutely correct!" CreationDate="2016-03-29T23:33:35.967" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1125" PostId="593" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the clarification. From ACR's answer I was able to look up the source and the context seems to refer to capital-L Fate, as either a personified deity or the concept of Fate. However, the lyrics [here](http://www.squareenixmusic.com/lyrics/ff7/divinity.shtml) translate it as *&quot;Only the Goddess knows their fate&quot;*, so although it is a mistranslation it seems that *scit* is the correct word as opposed to *novit*, as in *&quot;Only the Goddess has knowledge of [their] fate&quot;*." CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:31:55.870" UserId="189" />
  <row Id="1111" PostId="594" Score="0" Text="I still don't like the fact that &quot;for several months&quot; is temporal and not a genitive proper in its use here." CreationDate="2016-03-23T05:42:42.140" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1118" PostId="594" Score="0" Text="@cmw: I'm not exactly jubilant about it either. It is odd to say &quot;the danger of several months&quot; in Latin. But the Dutch seems clear enough, and it uses a different construction, where I think *ettelijke maanden doorzien* can only mean &quot;surveyed over several months&quot;. *Ettelijke* must mean &quot;several&quot;, not &quot;certain specific months&quot;: the WNT gives no other options." CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:08:54.233" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1497" PostId="594" Score="0" Text="could you comment on &quot;with great danger&quot; vs. &quot;with many dangers&quot;? I have a colleague from South Africa (his native language is Afrikaans) and his best guess on the Dutch was something like &quot;...the latest, with many dangers, only months after discovered&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-20T16:46:13.243" UserId="296" />
  <row Id="1501" PostId="594" Score="0" Text="@JasonS: *Veel* means &quot;much&quot; when it modifies a singular uncountable word, &quot;many&quot; with a plural word. If we take *gevaers* to be plural, as I think we should, it would mean &quot;with many dangers&quot;." CreationDate="2016-04-20T23:21:55.577" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1115" PostId="596" Score="2" Text="A fascinating thought and question! I can't wait to see the answer...." CreationDate="2016-03-23T13:15:38.437" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1116" PostId="597" Score="0" Text="I wanted to add--but just didn't have the sources to back up--that the host of relative pronouns ending in -que,, e.g. *quicumque* and *quisque*, are related to the ending -que. Anyone know if this is the case?" CreationDate="2016-03-23T13:29:58.960" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1117" PostId="597" Score="6" Text="OMG *jamjamqueque* makes me incredibly happy. It's like when I had to go to the hospital and they told me I had a jejunojejunal intussusception." CreationDate="2016-03-23T13:49:57.853" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1120" PostId="597" Score="1" Text="Thanks! It should be noted, though, that the word you propose ends in *-quēque*, not a *-queque* with two short 'e's. My original intention was in the doubly short version (where dissonance seems worse), which I should have spelled out. The list does not include inflected forms, so verbs ending in *-quere* and adjectives ending in *-quus* are absent. Anyhow, your finding is interesting (and of course worth my +1)." CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:30:30.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1121" PostId="597" Score="4" Text="Good answer. If you simply search for `queque` (no word boundaries enforced) in the HP corpus, you find only 2 results, both *aequeque*. http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=queque" CreationDate="2016-03-23T15:53:53.647" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1122" PostId="597" Score="1" Text="Cool--and I didn't even know about that tool! I ended up going with intuition because I couldn't find a way to search Google without word boundaries, e.g. *queque" CreationDate="2016-03-23T16:16:25.910" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8992" PostId="597" Score="2" Text="Going back a bit further, pre-Latin _quīquomqueque_ would be fantastic, but utterly unpronounceable." CreationDate="2017-05-21T09:35:50.467" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="1123" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="Thank you! What would be the difference between your first sentence and *Amicus meus non cantat, quod ne loqui quidem potest*? I guess I'm having trouble understanding what &quot;strengthening the relative pronoun&quot; means." CreationDate="2016-03-23T19:17:21.767" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1124" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="Or is it the addition of &quot;in fact&quot; that makes it? &quot;My friend doesn't sing, for in fact he can't even speak.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-23T19:21:43.853" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1128" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I see quite little difference between *quod* and *quippe qui* in this case. However, with *qui* the subordinate clause is in fact a relative one. In English you can't express the same idea with a relative clause, so the translation works better with some other appropriate structure. Adding &quot;in fact&quot; seems like a reasonable choice, and (to me) that seems to clarify the difference between *quod* and *quippe qui*." CreationDate="2016-03-23T22:12:07.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1320" PostId="599" Score="1" Text="Okay, so I think that, after some more reading experience, I'm coming to the conclusion that in fact the difference between &quot;...cantat, quippe qui ne loqui...&quot; and &quot;...cantat, quod ne loqui...&quot; is that when the subject of the second clause can be expressed with a relative pronoun, Latin simply *wouldn't use* quod—that it's a question not of grammar but of style. Or, put another way, if a &quot;quod/quia&quot; clause can be replaced with a &quot;quippe qui/quem/whatever&quot; clause, it should be; if not, it should stay quod." CreationDate="2016-04-10T10:18:17.900" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1322" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I think that's a good way of putting it. I have the same feeling that *quippe qui* is stylistically preferable to *quia*, but I'm not sure if that is actually true. It would make a nice separate question..." CreationDate="2016-04-10T13:48:28.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2755" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I'm no longer sure that I should have used the indicative in my examples. [I asked a question about it](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1252/79) and I may have to update this answer accordingly." CreationDate="2016-07-22T20:20:58.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2758" PostId="599" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I was just looking over this answer, and I think it could be expanded to address other uses of *quippe*. *quippe* + relative is only one meaning in the [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquippe) (5. a + b). A search of a [Latin corpus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quippe), by my rough count, shows only about half being used with relative pronouns." CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:16:35.530" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2759" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I am not familiar with the other uses myself, so I would much prefer if someone else wrote about them. It would be such a major addition that it would work better as a separate answer. (I can try to do it myself as an expansion to this one, but that will take a considerable amount of time since I first need to convince myself that I understand the other uses.)" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:22:54.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2762" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I wish I was comfortable enough...as with many words/constructions, this falls in the &quot;I read it all the time but have never written it&quot; category." CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:29:44.987" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2763" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I fully understand. Unfortunately I don't even recall ever reading *quippe* without a relative pronoun before looking at the examples behind your link." CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:31:48.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2764" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta My understanding is that the subjunctive is the officially correct mood used with *quippe* but that many writers used the indicative (though I can't remember whether any writers used both)." CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:32:35.083" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2765" PostId="599" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, Cerberus' answer to my new question gives examples of writes who use both. (And what is official depends on which official you ask...)" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:35:38.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1126" PostId="600" Score="1" Text="Welcome! It may not be feasible for answers here to provide a complete list of such exceptions, if there are many of them.  If so, hopefully an overview of them would suffice for you." CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:18:55.173" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1127" PostId="600" Score="4" Text="Yeah, I'm definitely not after an exhaustive list. What I was looking for when I originally posted on Linguistics.SE was an answer that would be a starting point for learners and people studying Latin linguistics. I only got a cursory list and a set of Russian-language references, an effort which I believe could be improved upon here." CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:21:30.557" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="1129" PostId="600" Score="0" Text="May I suggest adding a note to the question at linguistics pointing to this question here?" CreationDate="2016-03-23T22:17:33.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1130" PostId="600" Score="0" Text="Sounds reasonable to me. Done." CreationDate="2016-03-23T22:17:57.693" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="4561" PostId="600" Score="0" Text="Do exceptions apply to proclitics/ **inhibeo** stressed on 2nd 'i' ; but **inhibet?**  and **per-** compounds: 'mora percoquit uvas.' =delay ripens the grapes" CreationDate="2016-09-26T16:43:44.157" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="1131" PostId="601" Score="1" Text="I think I remember reading the stress of words with -que was controversial; do you know what the evidence is for this pattern (and what evidence there might be against a stress shift)?" CreationDate="2016-03-23T23:56:52.750" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="1132" PostId="601" Score="3" Text="@sumelic Allen, *Vox Latina* 87-88, discusses the -que question briefly. Apparently the ancient grammarians do state that the accent of -que words was always penultimate, but some modern scholars have questioned that this really applied in the case of a short penult based on analysis of metrical evidence." CreationDate="2016-03-24T00:25:31.050" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1133" PostId="601" Score="4" Text="It's not just the loss of final short -e that results in stress exceptions; final-syllable syncope (i.e. non-final vowel loss in a final syllable) gives the same result. Allen again (p. 87): &quot;In some words, originally accented on the penultimate, the vowel of the final syllable has been lost; and the accent then remains on what is now the final syllable. Thus, for example, nostras, illic, adhuc, adduc, tanton (from nostratis, illice, adhuce, adduce, tantone). The same applies to contracted perfect forms in -at, -it, from -auit, -iuit.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-03-24T00:30:58.050" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1136" PostId="604" Score="0" Text="Alex B: Thanks for elaborating on the question here. To be clear, are there works arguing that the words in group a) carry oxytone stress? If so, what are the reconstructed full words without the apocope?" CreationDate="2016-03-24T04:14:09.533" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="1138" PostId="604" Score="0" Text="@jogloran I accidentally misplaced the first group, please re-read." CreationDate="2016-03-24T04:26:30.820" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11737" PostId="604" Score="2" Text="I see why compounds and contractions are oxytonic, but not why 'pone', 'sine', or 'falso' might be.  I posted a question directly about 'pone' [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5508/why-do-some-latin-adverbs-have-accent-on-the-last-syllable).  Could we maybe get some excerpts of the &quot;ancient grammarians&quot; to see what they say, and where they got their ideas?" CreationDate="2017-12-21T04:50:36.817" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="1139" PostId="606" Score="0" Text="Interesting question! It seems that in the Praeneste fibula the reduplicated part is written as a separate word: *Manios med fhe fhaked Numasioi*." CreationDate="2016-03-24T07:17:16.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1140" PostId="606" Score="2" Text="I don't have a sourced answer: but I believe reduplication originated in PIE: Greek uses reduplication for almost all perfect tenses (luo -&gt; leluka). It would be interesting to know why only a limited subset of Latin words does this." CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:19:35.290" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1148" PostId="606" Score="1" Text="I also know of *mordeo*, *momordi*; *posco*, *poposci*. If I had to advance a hypothesis, it would be that all these actions which preserved a reduplicated perfect are quite energetic or vivid by nature." CreationDate="2016-03-24T19:21:52.653" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="1155" PostId="606" Score="1" Text="I wouldn't call this &quot;paradigm leveling&quot;, since even after the loss of reduplication the perfect stem remains unpredictable and different from the present stem. &quot;Inflection-class transfer&quot; would be more accurate." CreationDate="2016-03-25T16:55:21.520" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1156" PostId="606" Score="1" Text="Further: *disco*, *didisci*; *tango*, *tetigi*; *pello*, *pepuli*; *cado*, *cecidi*; *pango*, *pepigi*." CreationDate="2016-03-25T21:48:23.240" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="4648" PostId="606" Score="2" Text="The Latin perfect is an amalgamation of two IE tenses: perfect and aorist. Perfect uses reduplication, aorist does not." CreationDate="2016-10-01T18:57:28.143" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1142" PostId="607" Score="1" Text="These feel like accusatives to me, like the comparative ones clearly are. In my experience such accusative adverbs are typically used to denote direction. I sense a preference of accusative over *-e* and *-iter* endings for direction. Another remark: At least some of the adverbs on your list come from comparatives, for example *prius*, *potius* and *exterius*. Some comparatives come from adverbs or prepositions (*prae*, *extra*; the corresponding adjectives lack positive form) rather than adjectives (*potis*)." CreationDate="2016-03-24T15:39:51.533" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1143" PostId="607" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Why do words like *hactenus* and *penitus* feel like accusatives to you? Of fourth-declension masculine plural nouns? Or of third-declension neuter singular nouns? If so, how come no corresponding nouns exist for those adverbs? // You second remark is obviously correct." CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:01:24.737" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1145" PostId="607" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, I can't tell exactly why many of these adverbs feel like accusatives to me. It might be partly a false analogy: ones are accusatives and others feel similar. Those adverbs feel much more like third declension neuters, but I know it makes little sense that there seems to be no corresponding noun. (Finnish does have postpositions that were originally cases of nouns but the connection has been lost in today's language.)" CreationDate="2016-03-24T18:19:33.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1144" PostId="611" Score="0" Text="Would one use the ablative of accompaniment to say &quot;fight with someone&quot; in the sense of *against*?  Seems like *contra*, not a direct translation of *with*, would make more sense for the first image in the question." CreationDate="2016-03-24T17:57:26.140" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1147" PostId="611" Score="0" Text="See [L&amp;S](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/608/understanding-the-different-uses-of-with) for possible pairings with *pugnare*: *cum*, by my reading, is the most common." CreationDate="2016-03-24T19:03:50.513" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1149" PostId="611" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Looking through different verbs, I wonder if it comes down to specific usage. Caesar battling the Gauls is *advorsum Gallos*, but in the army, entering into direct combat with another is *cum hoste in acie*. I wonder too if because of their root nouns (*bellum*, *proelium*, *pugna*) they gained the sense of &quot;go into *X* with.&quot; The Sallust passage mentioned in L&amp;S perhaps indicates this: *contra imperium in hostem pugnare*." CreationDate="2016-03-24T19:34:48.617" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2380" PostId="612" Score="1" Text="I've heard the Church helped standardize Latin spelling. Could spelling be considered another difference between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin?" CreationDate="2016-07-05T01:56:58.440" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="2384" PostId="612" Score="1" Text="@Geremia I didn't find anything to that effect, though perhaps something along those lines happened with respect to the new vocabulary?  In any case, this sounds like an interesting question to ask, especially if you can remember where you heard that." CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:28:51.437" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4367" PostId="612" Score="0" Text="I heard it from a Latin professor at a state university." CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:52:36.887" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="1163" PostId="615" Score="4" Text="+1 for use of pluralis, sive societatis sive modestiæ sive majestatis." CreationDate="2016-03-26T14:59:17.550" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1157" PostId="619" Score="0" Text="Nice!  I know others here can easily read this as is, but I know I at least would benefit from translation and/or summary of the content of these sources.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-03-25T22:39:00.760" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1159" PostId="619" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel I added English translation by Garstad; if you want to read more about it, click on the link (to Harvard U Press)." CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:20:29.053" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23056" PostId="619" Score="0" Text="@Alex Just out of curiosity, what kind of institution has this subscription? Are you from an university? (So I could know which university subscribed)" CreationDate="2019-11-03T09:49:46.643" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="1158" PostId="621" Score="1" Text="I have only seen these forms when the participle is taken as an adjective. *perditus,* for instance, is the past participle of *perdo* but also has come to be used as an adjective. Have you ever actually seen the more clear cut, participles like *amatus* in your example, used in this way?" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:14:44.183" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1160" PostId="621" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I can't give specific examples, but yes, participles are sometimes used in this way. [Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA97&amp;lpg=PA97&amp;dq=%22amatus+fuit%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Qz_9g9Iq3r&amp;sig=mI0uRlooMEgQn9y3IKc8GiSpX5o&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi6ufjQot3LAhUKwmMKHdyGA2sQ6AEINzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=%22amatus%20fuit%22&amp;f=false) is a link to a grammar that mentions this usage." CreationDate="2016-03-26T02:10:55.777" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1161" PostId="622" Score="6" Text="Welcome!  This question doesn't show research effort, which is something we like to see, particularly in translation questions.  See [How can I ask a translation or homework question?](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/12).  Please provide the context in which you use the word, as well as the words you have discovered in your own searches (and why you are unsure about them)." CreationDate="2016-03-26T13:13:45.413" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1162" PostId="622" Score="1" Text="It might well be that there is no Latin word or short expression for &quot;showcase&quot;, but you have to explain it with several words. If that is indeed the case, the best translation probably depends on context. Can you add where you would like to use this expression? (Also, the suggestions @Nathaniel gave are good ones.)" CreationDate="2016-03-26T14:56:03.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1169" PostId="624" Score="0" Text="Wait—if you wouldn't go with *conlectio*, *conceptus*, or *conlatus*, then what would you suggest if &quot;best selections,&quot; extra-fancy, or Medieval wasn't appropriate?" CreationDate="2016-03-26T20:47:52.100" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1173" PostId="624" Score="0" Text="Ah, of course. I have a very good friend writing a book about display in natural history museums in the 19th century, so I went to a different place." CreationDate="2016-03-27T01:35:34.140" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1175" PostId="624" Score="0" Text="Way out of my depth here, but would just throw in *thesaurus* - treasure, treasury?" CreationDate="2016-03-27T03:57:03.817" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="1177" PostId="624" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer They are now, but, fascinatingly, in the 19th century, especially early on, people basically just threw things in cases with little regard to what they were. It was like, here's a bunch of stuff you can look at, whatever, we don't care. (My friend might very well say that's completely the wrong way to look at it, but that's my impression after reading her work-in-progress.)" CreationDate="2016-03-27T10:04:11.480" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1171" PostId="625" Score="2" Text="I feel like this is too broad – there are a lot of possibilities, and none are strictly better than any other, aside from maybe &quot;how many cases does it satisfy&quot;, and plenty satisfy five. Probably." CreationDate="2016-03-26T23:28:23.450" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1180" PostId="625" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Because in programming, there are several objectives, determined by the project – typically, you're going for efficiency and readability, but with a focus on one specific trait. The best of several solutions is the one which meets those criteria the best – so if for example you're looking for readability, the one which matches your project's style best. Therefore, there can be one solution out of many which is, objectively, the best, for every given project." CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:43:33.490" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1182" PostId="625" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer And if there are multiple answers which give 7/7? The reason I said &quot;feel like&quot; is because I don't know enough Latin to be sure. That's also why I didn't cast a CV. Are there multiple valid, significantly different sentences which provide all seven cases? If so, this question is too broad, because there's no way to pick between them. If not, it isn't. However, my gut feeling is that there are." CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:56:10.403" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1183" PostId="625" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer As an additional note, in programming, the multiple possible solutions always have different levels of various things, and the best is the one which maximizes desired traits. There aren't many such traits in Latin; in fact, I can think of only one: Vocabulary. And that's negated by using a dictionary." CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:58:11.197" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1184" PostId="625" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your comments! (I don't know which one of you this will ping.) There may be thousands of valid examples, but I am not looking for all of them. I just wanted a single illuminating example. I think our scope should allow asking for examples of certain kinds of structures. Perhaps I should make a meta question out of this. If I see an answer that matches my needs, I will accept it and consider my curiosity satisfied; it is irrelevant for me if there are still more valid examples out there." CreationDate="2016-03-27T16:50:25.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1192" PostId="625" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer, I was under the impression that a comment would automatically ping the previous commenter. Anyhow, I asked a meta question about questions of this type: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/167/79" CreationDate="2016-03-28T20:30:29.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1210" PostId="626" Score="1" Text="Perhaps you could do something with *donare*, which can take an accusative performing the role of a recipient and an ablative as the theme: *Marcum servo dono* = &quot;I present Marcus with a slave&quot;, but it can also be constructed with a dative + accusative: *Marco servum dono* = &quot;I give Marcus a slave&quot;. Or you could be giving Marcus to the slave..." CreationDate="2016-03-29T16:59:41.797" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30529" PostId="627" Score="1" Text="B: The answer from cnread to Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5315/1982 is worth looking at: &quot;The perfect passive can be formed by using either the present tense of &quot;esse&quot;, or when one wants to stress the completedness of the action, the perfect tense." CreationDate="2021-01-25T13:25:19.970" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="1178" PostId="628" Score="0" Text="Locative—fancy! You left out vocative, however, though that's an easy enough fix to make." CreationDate="2016-03-27T10:51:16.057" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1207" PostId="628" Score="0" Text="Nice! The commonest dative ending is I believe *-domui*." CreationDate="2016-03-29T16:57:38.950" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1188" PostId="632" Score="1" Text="+1, Very good answer!" CreationDate="2016-03-28T08:37:05.670" UserId="164" />
  <row Id="1201" PostId="632" Score="1" Text="I've added what I know, which isn't much, alas." CreationDate="2016-03-29T02:25:47.270" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="39395" PostId="632" Score="0" Text="The concept of Old Latin (Prisca Latinitas) is as old as the concept of Classical Latin – both labels date to at least as early as the late Roman Republic. In that period Cicero, along with others, noted that the language he used every day, presumably upper-class city Latin, included lexical items and phrases that were heirlooms from a previous time, which he called verborum vetustas prisca, translated as &quot;the old age/time of language&quot;. The classical Romans distinguished Old Latin as prisca Latinitas and not sermo vulgaris." CreationDate="2022-09-03T12:39:46.407" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="1203" PostId="634" Score="1" Text="Is there actually any strong evidence for a long u in nuntius? French annoncer suggests a short vowel." CreationDate="2016-03-29T10:29:25.173" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1196" PostId="635" Score="0" Text="If you look more carefully at the entry in Lewis and Short you will see that it actually says &quot;perh. contr. from noventius&quot;; NB: &quot;perhaps&quot;. In any case, this etymology is not universally accepted in more recent literature, e.g. not by de Vaan." CreationDate="2016-03-28T22:43:50.920" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1199" PostId="635" Score="0" Text="Edited accordingly. Are you aware of a plausible alternative etymology proposed by other scholars?" CreationDate="2016-03-29T00:05:28.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1190" PostId="636" Score="2" Text="Good answer, +1. BTW you are impressively ahead on your reading: &quot;Weiss 2099&quot;. :-)" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:11:13.787" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="1195" PostId="636" Score="3" Text="Great and well-researched answer, +1. Any way you can edit this for readability? There's an impressive array of information here, but it could be more cohesive. I love 6-syllable words, but I like them even better when they're defined so that a 6-year-old can understand them (as monophthongization certainly can be)." CreationDate="2016-03-28T21:09:28.937" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1216" PostId="636" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the excellent answer which you have provided! Of course, I cannot deny that brianpck's was useful, too." CreationDate="2016-03-29T19:03:46.540" UserId="292" />
  <row Id="1193" PostId="637" Score="3" Text="I cannot resist mentioning [Catullus' poem to Harrius](http://thelatinlibrary.com/catullus.shtml#84) in this context. The word *chommoda* makes no sense if the 'c' in *commoda* were strongly aspirated." CreationDate="2016-03-28T20:37:10.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1194" PostId="637" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Definitely.  Catullus and Cicero both (and probably others) can be seen to address this question; I'd love to see an answer based on these writings." CreationDate="2016-03-28T20:43:56.547" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="20493" PostId="638" Score="0" Text="The usage of ph, th, ch in Latin for words of Greek origin with φ, θ, χ, further strenghtens the assumption that they indeed did differentiate aspirated from unaspirated. Further evidence for this, is found in poetry: ph/th/ch do not count as long syllables; sometimes, it is contrasted, e.g. Tib.1.5 ‘sulphure puro’." CreationDate="2019-07-09T06:59:04.427" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="23403" PostId="638" Score="0" Text="What does &quot;tolerated&quot; mean? (I know the word, but in this context, what does he mean by &quot;tolerated&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-11-23T23:11:01.243" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="1202" PostId="640" Score="0" Text="Thanks! *Adamussim* is a new word for me. I can't tell if it's appropriate for a temporal expression like this, but it's a good word to know. I like *ad cuiusque horae initium* for the second one." CreationDate="2016-03-29T08:15:14.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1204" PostId="640" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I don't know whether *adamussim* (also *ad amussim* — from *amussis*, rule, level) can be used temporally, but then again since we're talking about hours in a way the Romans wouldn't have, perhaps we can have some latitude? @C.M.Weimer probably knows." CreationDate="2016-03-29T13:05:44.177" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1840" PostId="640" Score="2" Text="As @joonas points, *hora* names seem to refer to both the whole period of an hour, and its very beginning. Another example is when Saint John uses *hora quasi decima* in his Gospel, which I've seen translated as *about 4 o'clock*. I wonder whether *ipsissima hora quarta* or *hora quarta ipsissima* also does the trick" CreationDate="2016-05-12T19:01:28.930" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9467" PostId="640" Score="0" Text="Following @Rafael’s suggestion - apparently, _ipsum_ can be used with adv. of time: _nunc ipsum_ / just now, at this very time; _tum ipsum_ / just then, at that very time.  I've also read _nascentis tempus ad ipsum_  / the precise time of birth (Manilius, _Astronomica_, 224).  It can also be used with numerals to mean exactly, precisely.  So perhaps _hora quarta ipsa_?" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:18:00.557" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="1221" PostId="648" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! The fact that you also list 'ph' as an aspirated voiceless plosive as opposed to a fricative led me to ask a [follow-up question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/649/79). Perhaps I should acquire a copy of *Vox Latina* myself..." CreationDate="2016-03-31T11:50:20.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1222" PostId="648" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, I found that interesting as well.  But *Vox Latina* won't help us on the new question, as it's limited to Classical Latin.  I'll see what else I can turn up, however." CreationDate="2016-03-31T12:35:59.653" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="15345" PostId="649" Score="4" Text="This is not only the question of time; a location is important as well. While most Pompeiians spoke Latin natively, Egyptian and Jewish inscriptions are more likely to be left by second language speakers. There is certainly some truth to this episode from *The Life Of Brian*: https://youtu.be/0lczHvB3Y9s" CreationDate="2018-08-20T06:51:34.560" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="1224" PostId="650" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! I understand that it's impossible to give an exact date, but can you give some bounds? One can probably say something like &quot;in X essentially every 'ph' was an aspirated stop but the transition to fricatives was complete by Y&quot;, where X and Y are suitable centuries or other times. That would give a clearer answer to the question &quot;when?&quot;." CreationDate="2016-03-31T14:33:54.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47273" PostId="650" Score="0" Text="Do you know which second-century grammarians comment on this? The closest I could find was Flavius Caper, but it looks like our access to what he wrote is pretty indirect." CreationDate="2024-01-16T01:17:22.020" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47274" PostId="650" Score="1" Text="I'll look into this. Honestly, I haven't the foggiest idea to whom I was referring...8 years ago!" CreationDate="2024-01-16T01:57:15.803" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1226" PostId="653" Score="1" Text="I'm the opposite of an expert, but looks odd to me! *Nosce* relates to the Greek *gnosis* -  knowledge, as you indicated - I would  think *to **know** oneself* would be more accurate." CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:43:59.010" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="1227" PostId="654" Score="2" Text="Still, he did take you back - how is life in the Underworld? ;)" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:50:19.307" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="1228" PostId="654" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose: Fair enough! He probably missed me. Being back is a dark and infernal blessing!" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:55:06.820" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1261" PostId="654" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus I think you fully answered my question. Thanks for your helpful words and delightful humor." CreationDate="2016-04-03T00:15:49.597" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="1262" PostId="654" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124: Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-04-03T12:01:36.527" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1239" PostId="656" Score="1" Text="Re your last paragraph, if one understands it as a statement of confident individuality, like &quot;be true to yourself&quot; &quot;know your passions and act on them&quot; etc. you can see how it could be seen as encouraging a kind of over-confidence in ones, perhaps illegitimate, actions." CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:49:11.730" UserId="337" />
  <row Id="1245" PostId="656" Score="0" Text="Right. Something much more like what a self-help book of today might prescribe." CreationDate="2016-04-01T17:53:00.563" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1269" PostId="657" Score="0" Text="But gnôthi is an aorist, which ordinarily indicates that it is not a process but something short and non-terminative. The inchoative suffix *-sk-* from the present stem, indicating that one begins an action, is not used in the aorist, so &quot;get to know&quot; doesn't seem right. // At any rate, it is probably a **gnomic aorist**, which means it is to be considered a timeless truth, something that is is the case in general. // Latin *nosco* has the inchaotive suffix, but it can also be used more freely as simply &quot;know&quot;. // @Torin Gnôthi is the normal active aorist imperative singular of gignôskô." CreationDate="2016-04-03T23:05:49.890" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15186" PostId="657" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I agree with the rest of your comment (especially that γνῶθι doesn't necessarily indicate a process), but I've never heard of an imperative, or any other non-indicative, described as a gnomic aorist. Gnomic aorists are statements about the world rather than commands/wishes/etc., which pretty much by definition confines them to the indicative." CreationDate="2018-08-12T21:24:45.423" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15188" PostId="657" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Hmm, ahh, I should have read up on the gnomic aorist before posting that. At least I added &quot;probably&quot;... it has a gnomic sense to it, but it is nothing like the gnomic aorist." CreationDate="2018-08-12T22:02:13.107" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1238" PostId="658" Score="4" Text="I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;in the chronological order they would have been used.&quot; Do you mean how the Romans would have spelled it in (for example) 100 B.C. vs. how they would have spelled it later vs. how we spell it? (The answer, unfortunately, isn't a simple one in any case, but further clarity will help us figure out how to help you.)" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:43:06.430" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1240" PostId="658" Score="0" Text="Exact dates aside, I had assumed the spelling changed as the language became more sophisticated over time (as it was developed by the Romans - yes). For example: only writing V for both V and U to start with followed by distinguishing U &amp; V in writing, followed by the macron over the U to show length and distinguish OO versus uh pronunciation." CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:51:06.867" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1241" PostId="658" Score="0" Text="The most important thing I was hoping to take away from this question was confirmation that the dvcitis spelling was valid at some stage in the development of Latin" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:53:40.087" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1242" PostId="658" Score="0" Text="Apologies for the confusion, and thanks again for discussing!!!" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:54:15.933" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="1248" PostId="659" Score="1" Text="This is a good answer. I had almost finished writing mine when you posted this, so I decided not to discard it. I don't know if it is of much use now, but I'll leave that for others to decide." CreationDate="2016-04-01T19:20:40.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1250" PostId="659" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I think the more answers, the merrier." CreationDate="2016-04-01T19:26:18.540" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1253" PostId="662" Score="0" Text="Excellent point, thanks for helping a novice out!" CreationDate="2016-04-02T03:59:14.303" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="33926" PostId="662" Score="1" Text="+1 for this. I recall once seeing a statement to the effect of &quot;The history of a language is altogether separate from that of any alphabet used to write it&quot; (my poor paraphrase). This surprised me when I first saw it because I hadn't thought about it that way before. Now it seems obvious." CreationDate="2021-06-30T14:46:33.037" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="33928" PostId="662" Score="0" Text="@MPW Thanks! Things, especially those that felt weird or surprising, becoming obvious is a sign of learning. I don't think many teachers ever take a minute to stress that writing is much younger than speaking and that therefore language is primarily spoken and secondarily written." CreationDate="2021-06-30T14:54:12.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1256" PostId="663" Score="2" Text="Very interesting!  Is this graph used to argue that the Latin *ph* was pronounced as a fricative?  Incorporating how this graph is used to make that argument would be helpful.  Without it, it seems that this data could also indicate that Greek's pronunciation of φ changed during this period, or that the pronunciation of *ph* became *less* fricative (it was replaced by *f*, after all)." CreationDate="2016-04-02T13:03:28.690" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="34718" PostId="663" Score="0" Text="What do you think, why isn't transliterating &quot;phi&quot; as &quot;p&quot; more common? Why were Romans who did not speak Greek able to hear the difference between 'ph' and 'p', when modern English speakers are not?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T20:02:05.800" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="47241" PostId="663" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler Plenty of languages *today* distinguish between ph and p, Thai being one. [Here's a list of them.](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/6600/languages-with-a-three-way-distinction-between-voiced-aspirated-and-unaspirate)" CreationDate="2024-01-14T21:38:54.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1252" PostId="664" Score="0" Text="Brilliant explanation for a tiro  like me - thank you!" CreationDate="2016-04-01T23:55:14.710" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="1257" PostId="664" Score="2" Text="Just wanted to add that Clackson and Horrocks reject the Italo-Celtic hypothesis and, grounding their analysis on most recent research, explain the Latin-Celtic isoglosses with contact (see pp. 32-34)." CreationDate="2016-04-02T16:33:50.080" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1254" PostId="665" Score="0" Text="http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test1materials/Signs_handout.htm" CreationDate="2016-04-02T04:45:18.893" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1258" PostId="667" Score="1" Text="I don't quite know if this should be here, at history se or at hsm se" CreationDate="2016-04-02T19:52:58.393" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="1260" PostId="667" Score="3" Text="I'd say this is on-topic here, and it's probably on-topic at HSE as well." CreationDate="2016-04-02T20:59:08.407" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="14021" PostId="668" Score="0" Text="Honestly when I read this answer I felt so stupid." CreationDate="2018-05-05T02:40:07.333" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="1263" PostId="669" Score="3" Text="Good question! One small thing: *esse* is a copula, which takes a subject and a subject complement, not an object. It is the same in most other languages I know. In English, too, the subject complement is traditionally in the nominative: *It is I, Cerberus*. Other copulae are verbs like *seem, become, remain*, etc." CreationDate="2016-04-03T12:08:22.483" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1278" PostId="670" Score="3" Text="I think the central point is that inflected language removes *much*, but certainly not *all*, ambiguity. Unless you write your thoughts in symbolic logic (or [Lojban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban)), you will never escape ambiguity that must be resolved by context." CreationDate="2016-04-05T14:57:12.133" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1270" PostId="672" Score="2" Text="What does *attribut* signify in the last structure listed?" CreationDate="2016-04-04T04:07:46.570" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="1271" PostId="672" Score="2" Text="Is it just me or is this sample size woefully inadequate? Since many readers don't have access to the linked subscription site, can you provide more context for this table? Your comments suggest it is taken from (parts of?) Cicero." CreationDate="2016-04-04T13:42:37.910" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1275" PostId="672" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Spevak 2010 used **a tagged corpus** that contained around 21,000 words - not bad for Latin. Tagged Latin corpora are very limited in size, between 53,000 and 120,000 tokens (McGillivray and Kilgarriff 2013). I checked her results using another partially tagged Latin corpus, LatinISE (around 11 million tokens). Even though there was a lot of noise, it seems (*preliminary*) **n.NOM n.NOM est is the most frequent word order** (7380 occurrences) whereas n.NOM est n.NOM gave me 5649." CreationDate="2016-04-05T02:48:15.857" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1276" PostId="672" Score="0" Text="Spevak 2010 writes: Corpus 1 includes: Cicero, Tusculan Disputations (books 1 and 3) speeches “On His House” and “Philippics” (1 and 4) correspondence (Letters to Atticus, 13.50-16); Caesar, The Civil War (1-3.30); Sallust, the Jugurthine War. Obviously, she analyzed and (manually tagged??) texts in Latin." CreationDate="2016-04-05T02:57:07.640" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1277" PostId="672" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that is useful. I suppose I would just advocate an explicit caveat that the percentages in the table apply to a small sub-corpus of one author. Even your own preliminary results from another corpus (7380:5649 ~ 4:3) is appreciably different from these results (4:1)." CreationDate="2016-04-05T14:52:31.820" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1289" PostId="672" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Well, Spevak (manually) analyzed her data and made sure that  n.NOM n.NOM esse.IND is syntactically Subj Predic esse.IND (hence her corpus is small), whereas I just found all occurrences of n.NOM n.NOM esse.IND and didn't actually analyze the data syntactically (that's why I cautiously said preliminary, a lot of noise). But imho we got sidetracked; the main argument Spevak made was that **context and not word order helps us resolve the ambiguity in such cases**." CreationDate="2016-04-06T14:45:10.393" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1272" PostId="673" Score="5" Text="Can you add some sources to your answer? This seems pretty opinion-based to me." CreationDate="2016-04-04T21:13:58.197" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31119" PostId="673" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer. I do not quite understand what your objection to this answer might be. I am (since you ask) a retired university professor." CreationDate="2021-03-17T14:47:31.750" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="31120" PostId="673" Score="0" Text="I have no objection to this answer. There was no other way to message you, so I thought I'd just comment on your oldest answer." CreationDate="2021-03-17T15:15:10.840" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1273" PostId="674" Score="0" Text="I think the question was about using Caesar to teach Latin, not about reading Caesar for his content." CreationDate="2016-04-04T22:57:17.487" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1274" PostId="674" Score="1" Text="Right. At that time, Caesar was read in Latin primarily (not in translation), so it was read for both." CreationDate="2016-04-04T22:59:23.737" UserId="20" />
  <row Id="1290" PostId="676" Score="4" Text="Excellent answer! This probably explains all that is known about the ablative singular of consonant stems." CreationDate="2016-04-06T17:18:41.510" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6842" PostId="676" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/251/79)" CreationDate="2017-02-19T20:08:11.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1280" PostId="678" Score="2" Text="I would definitely go with &quot;agitur&quot; and its forms: it's very similar to French &quot;il s'agit&quot; and Spanish &quot;se trata de&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-06T01:06:46.900" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1281" PostId="678" Score="1" Text="Living Latin folks seem to use *tractátur dé (aliquó)* (as in @brianpck's &quot;se trata de&quot;), but as I can't provide you with any classical examples I won't post that as an answer." CreationDate="2016-04-06T02:14:34.700" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2501" PostId="681" Score="1" Text="The 'proper' meaning refers to place: *to this place*. The other meanings are derivative. It can be used in a temporal sense (e.g., until now; yet, still; still in existence). In later Latin, it is used rather like *etiam* (and also). But it is not through the 'compounding' that those derivative meanings came about. If you are interested, look at the *Lewis and Short* entry: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=adhuc&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" CreationDate="2016-07-10T04:55:25.543" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="7591" PostId="681" Score="0" Text="Perhaps compare it to similar English constructions. In somewhat older English, we had *hither* 'to this place' (i.e., *huc*) and *hitherto* 'to this time' (i.e., *adhuc*). It follows the same pattern of *locative adverb + preposition = temporal adverb*." CreationDate="2017-03-22T23:17:09.993" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="1306" PostId="682" Score="2" Text="I added a couple uses from actual Romans to my answer." CreationDate="2016-04-08T06:01:10.103" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1285" PostId="683" Score="0" Text="Totally unrelated, but it takes a lot of hubris for your private correspondent to suggest that the Vulgate's use of *manducare* as *to eat* is an example of *sermo vilissimus*" CreationDate="2016-04-06T14:17:06.007" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1286" PostId="683" Score="1" Text="My private correspondent is sort of the dictionary definition of hubris." CreationDate="2016-04-06T14:17:56.017" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1287" PostId="683" Score="0" Text="Though for what it's worth he wasn't talking about the Vulgate—he was talking about some modern Latin guy who was trying to base his Latin on classical models. I don't know about *manducare* as *to eat* during classical times; perhaps there's graffiti or something." CreationDate="2016-04-06T14:20:50.530" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1288" PostId="683" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is a good verb to know (I have never seen it used this way). I hope someone can provide classical use examples for this verb or some other construction." CreationDate="2016-04-06T14:28:26.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1292" PostId="685" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Hello! Why not?" CreationDate="2016-04-07T00:52:51.737" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1293" PostId="685" Score="3" Text="@C.M.Weimer Semantically that's arguable, but morphologically *futurum* is an active form; the OP was parsing it as a perfect passive, so I thought it was important to correct." CreationDate="2016-04-07T02:49:41.040" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1311" PostId="685" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thank you for the concise and helpful answer." CreationDate="2016-04-09T18:44:10.793" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="1324" PostId="685" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I suspect that what C.M. Weimer means is that *esse* is neither active nor passive but copulative." CreationDate="2016-04-10T16:57:54.147" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1331" PostId="685" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner: But copulae are active..." CreationDate="2016-04-10T20:21:14.947" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1333" PostId="685" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yes—that's what I took C.M. Weimer's &quot;really&quot; to mean." CreationDate="2016-04-10T21:34:58.750" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1337" PostId="685" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner: Well, I think I disagree with him here. I don't see why it shouldn't be active. Its morphology is active. What would semantics have to do with it?" CreationDate="2016-04-10T23:20:03.053" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1342" PostId="685" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer: It has no passive form, like several other intransitive verbs? Just as some other verbs have practically no active forms." CreationDate="2016-04-12T02:01:20.073" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1296" PostId="686" Score="0" Text="Why is it not a possible interpretation? It's just a syntactic recasting: &quot;Herod is going to...&quot; --&gt; &quot;It is going to happen that Herod...&quot; In Classical Greek μέλλει cannot, I believe, be used impersonally with an acc.+inf. construction, though I don't know about the Greek of the Septuagint." CreationDate="2016-04-07T17:27:56.577" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1297" PostId="686" Score="0" Text="@TKR. The subject of the infinitive ζητεῖν would need to be in the accusative, not the nominative, even in koine." CreationDate="2016-04-07T17:34:20.413" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1298" PostId="686" Score="0" Text="Right, but Ἡρῴδης is the subject of μέλλει, not of ζητεῖν. I'm not sure why you see a problem with Jerome's translation." CreationDate="2016-04-07T17:40:15.817" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1299" PostId="686" Score="0" Text="I do not see how μέλλει Ἡρῴδης can mean &quot;futurum est ut Herodes...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-07T17:42:55.540" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1300" PostId="686" Score="0" Text="The syntax is different but the meaning is the same. Greek: &quot;Herod is going to / will seek the child.&quot; Latin: &quot;It will happen / is going to happen that Herod seeks the child.&quot; μέλλει does not necessarily mean &quot;be on the point of&quot; -- it can have a broader meaning of &quot;be going to (at some unspecified point in the future)&quot;." CreationDate="2016-04-07T17:45:04.483" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1301" PostId="686" Score="0" Text="Fair enough. It is just that Bible translations are normally as literal as possible." CreationDate="2016-04-07T17:46:42.060" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1302" PostId="686" Score="0" Text="That's true. Maybe Jerome just didn't have a better option -- I don't think there's a common Latin verb that works exactly like μέλλω, and using a plain future wouldn't have been any more faithful to the original." CreationDate="2016-04-07T18:02:00.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1303" PostId="686" Score="1" Text="I [can't find a reading with accusative Ἡρῴδην](http://greeknewtestament.net/mt2-13): I checked a few places where μέλλει occurs in the NT and most times μέλλει + infinitive is translated into Latin as fut. act. part. + est. &quot;mellei paschein&quot; = &quot;passurus est&quot;. One possible reason for this translation is that *quaesiturus* sounds awkward, but maybe that's just my ear." CreationDate="2016-04-07T18:11:33.403" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1307" PostId="687" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site! I have checked a couple of printed and online dictionaries and found no trace of *cepeo*, but Google Translate does indeed translate it to onions. There are similar words meaning &quot;onion&quot;, for example *cepa*, *cepe*, and *caepe*. Have you seen *cepeo* in other places? It seems wrong to me, but I could be mistaken. Context (where you found the word originally or where you want to use it) will help answering your question." CreationDate="2016-04-08T20:36:19.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1308" PostId="687" Score="8" Text="The Latin word for onion is cepa or caepa (feminine) or else cepe or caepe (neuter). Google translate is rubbish." CreationDate="2016-04-08T20:53:48.947" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1327" PostId="687" Score="0" Text="A list of onion words, mostly from Whitaker's compilation of sources: http://latin-english.com/english/onion/" CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:56:30.110" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1312" PostId="690" Score="1" Text="Putting the verb last is common, but certainly not obligatory--most often for emphasis." CreationDate="2016-04-10T03:12:47.547" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1313" PostId="690" Score="3" Text="That said, I did a quick 1-minute look-over of the site you're using and found it to be pretty wanting: it seems to take a boiler-plate approach to learning a language and forces a lot of (imo) unnatural-sounding phrases. I also noticed some grammatical errors, like &quot;quod est modus vivendi tuus&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-10T03:14:27.837" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1314" PostId="690" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, thanks for the heads-up about the grammar on that website. I don't yet have a proper book explaining Latin grammar. I'm considering buying Wheelock's Latin or the first of the Cambridge books. In the mean time I've only got Minimus the Mouse and various things I find online." CreationDate="2016-04-10T04:33:37.280" UserId="358" />
  <row Id="1315" PostId="691" Score="1" Text="I've also been using this site: http://learnlangs.com/latin/. It seems a little more serious." CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:24:21.937" UserId="358" />
  <row Id="1316" PostId="691" Score="0" Text="@LukeSheppard, yes, that other site looks much better. I believe the content is pedagogically better organized in some printed books (this is partly a matter of taste), but that site looks like a reasonable start." CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:32:57.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1323" PostId="692" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure synezesis is really as infrequent &quot;per possibility&quot; (as opposed to &quot;per verse&quot;) as you suggest. This could be an illusion caused by the fact that in Latin there are many fewer opportunities for synezesis to start with than in Greek (because many fewer allowable vowel+vowel combinations), so it's encountered less frequently when reading, so that we tend to think of it as a rare phenomenon. (Of course this goes to your other question about frequency, which I have no numerical data for answering.) One could start to answer this by doing a search for e.g. *ea* or *fui* in e.g. Vergil." CreationDate="2016-04-10T16:32:39.523" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1325" PostId="692" Score="1" Text="@TKR, thank you for the comment! I might indeed be mistaken about the difference in frequencies. If that is the case, I would be happy to be corrected." CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:15:34.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6968" PostId="692" Score="2" Text="@TKR I researched something similar once as a side-track of something else, and I found that &lt;ui&gt; could only be used as a monosyllable in *cui* in classical Latin poetry. Since it was a side-track, I don't have any raw data left. I do note in that research that &lt;ui&gt; must be a diphthong in monosyllabic *cui*, not synizesis, because synizesis would tend to make the previous syllable heavy e.g. Aen. V, 663: abiete = a̱b-i̥e̯-te̯, but abies = a̯-bi̯-e̱s" CreationDate="2017-02-27T13:03:03.983" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="6969" PostId="692" Score="1" Text="Not complete without source: Allen 1973: 146" CreationDate="2017-02-27T13:05:37.823" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="21211" PostId="692" Score="1" Text="It is worth noting that synizesis did happen almost universally in Vulgar Latin, with eV, iV &gt; jV and oV, uV &gt; vV. I can't think of any instance of aV happening within a word in Latin and I'd expect it to just get simplified to V (like amā-ō &gt; amō)." CreationDate="2019-08-30T18:21:02.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="1335" PostId="697" Score="2" Text="Though see @C.M. Weimer's point about *gaudium* and *laetitia* becoming synonymous in later Latin prose." CreationDate="2016-04-10T21:38:42.337" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="34007" PostId="697" Score="1" Text="Given your explanation for *exsultātiō*, note the connection *saltō* &gt; *saltātiō*. The short vowel of *saltō* became *sult-* (fronting and backing of short, unstressed vowels being commonplace). Using the frequentative (form meaning repeated action) of *saliō* means that *exsultātiō* quite literally means to be ‘jumping from’, I would assume hence ‘around’, presumably in joy." CreationDate="2021-07-07T16:02:55.563" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="1328" PostId="698" Score="6" Text="Good answer: for those interested in Thomistic usage,  *beatitudo* = &quot;happiness&quot; (Aristotelian sense), *gaudium* = &quot;joy&quot; (passion of the soul), and *laetitia* is seen as equivalent to *gaudium*, but is mostly used with reference to older texts like those of Augustine." CreationDate="2016-04-10T19:09:13.257" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1334" PostId="698" Score="1" Text="I would suggest that the emotional state accompanying the beaming smile on customer service's face is almost certainly not *hilaritas*." CreationDate="2016-04-10T21:37:59.737" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1338" PostId="700" Score="2" Text="The question was: &quot;How were years before founding Rome expressed?&quot; I do not see that you have addressed this question at all." CreationDate="2016-04-12T00:09:54.647" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1339" PostId="700" Score="3" Text="I guess the OP is the ultimate arbiter of what his question meant, but I don't see how Cicero's &quot;multis saeculis...ante urbem conditam&quot; *entirely* misses the mark, as you suggest..." CreationDate="2016-04-12T00:14:46.997" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1346" PostId="700" Score="2" Text="Thanks! One of the difficulties I had searching for examples was that there can well be other words in the middle of the expression *ante urbem conditam*, so I am grateful for the examples. My question was indeed about expressing years before founding Rome (as @fdb wrote), so this does not fully answer the question. The example from Cicero is the only one that actually expresses what I want, but finding that example alone is well worth my upvote." CreationDate="2016-04-12T06:53:32.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1356" PostId="700" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta see my update for a more exact example." CreationDate="2016-04-12T14:07:51.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1374" PostId="700" Score="3" Text="Another example, although it is not used to indicate a specific date or year:  Sextus Pompeius Festus, *De Verborum Significatione* 134.13, 134.14:&#xA;&#xA;*Maius&#xA;&#xA;mensis in compluribus civitatibus Latinis **ante Urbem&#xA;&#xA;conditam** fuisse videtur. Qua ex causa, utrum a ma-&#xA;&#xA;ioribus, ut Iunius a iunioribus, dictus sit; an a Maia, &#xA;quod Mercurio filio eius res divinae &lt;idibus&gt; fiant sollemnes; 	&#xA;an quod ipsi deae in multis Latinis civitatibus sacrificia fiebant . . .*" CreationDate="2016-04-13T14:59:00.693" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1340" PostId="701" Score="6" Text="I know it's hard to back-up a negative claim, but a few sources for your (fairly strong) claims would be helpful? One elementary point is that years before =/= negative numbers. &quot;tribus ante annis&quot; does not mean &quot;after negative three years&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-12T00:19:44.790" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1347" PostId="701" Score="2" Text="This is an interesting answer, but it would greatly benefit from a source or two. The idea that years before is the same as negative years after is hardly an ancient way of thinking." CreationDate="2016-04-12T08:14:49.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1348" PostId="701" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. As you say, it is difficult to give sources for the statement that something did not happen. The burden of proof is on those who claim that it did happen. I think that if you read through the whole corpus of Roman literature you will not find any dating of an event to a specified number of years ante urb. cond." CreationDate="2016-04-12T08:46:13.633" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1354" PostId="701" Score="3" Text="@fdb: I suspect the absence of *ante urbem conditam* dates has little if anything to do with there being &quot;no concept of negative numbers&quot;, and much more with the fact that there was little if any *Roman* history (at least of the kind that could be accurately dated) prior to the founding of the city. Thus, the only reason to discuss earlier dates would be when referring to events from other, older civilizations, in which case it would be natural to use the local calendar system those events were originally recorded in, rather than translating them to some &quot;proleptic Roman calendar&quot;." CreationDate="2016-04-12T13:03:44.210" UserId="57" />
  <row Id="1355" PostId="701" Score="1" Text="@fdb, see my update for a concrete example from the first century AD. As I searched for that specific example, I came across innumerable phrases like &quot;abhinc annos ferme octingentos septuaginta&quot; which seem to contradict your statement." CreationDate="2016-04-12T14:03:09.163" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1371" PostId="701" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Thank you for this. I have added something to my answer as well." CreationDate="2016-04-13T08:21:25.343" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1350" PostId="702" Score="3" Text="This *does* seem a strange one. I hope somebody knows and can answer, 'cause now I'm curious." CreationDate="2016-04-12T10:14:06.747" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5545" PostId="702" Score="1" Text="A possible clue is English *hardly*, which shows a semantic shift from &quot;with difficulty&quot; to &quot;almost&quot;. &quot;With difficulty&quot; and &quot;with pain&quot; aren't far apart." CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:33:50.817" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5551" PostId="702" Score="0" Text="Possible duplicate of [Why is &quot;paeniteo&quot; considered more correct than &quot;poeniteo&quot;?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/714/why-is-paeniteo-considered-more-correct-than-poeniteo)" CreationDate="2016-12-04T21:04:29.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5560" PostId="702" Score="1" Text="The etymology of paene is unknown and contested. de Vaan summarizes the suggestions on record (including the derivation from  *piH-) and shows that they are all untenable." CreationDate="2016-12-04T23:39:28.470" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1366" PostId="705" Score="5" Text="-um (the older ending) and –orum (a Latin innovation) are discussed in detail in Sihler, “A new comparative Greek and Latin grammar”, pp. 264 sqq." CreationDate="2016-04-12T22:26:13.957" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1357" PostId="706" Score="2" Text="&quot;deum&quot; is commonly presented as an alternative genitive plural for &quot;deus,&quot; e.g. [at the end of this document](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Declension2.pdf)" CreationDate="2016-04-12T18:30:14.150" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1358" PostId="706" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I don't really see the point of pasting some anonymous &quot;document&quot;. There are plenty of reputable Latin grammars in circulation." CreationDate="2016-04-12T20:02:06.537" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1359" PostId="706" Score="5" Text="@fdb: the link was meant as an easy reference (I originally wrote the declension out in the comment), not a source: I didn't think my comment merited any corroboration." CreationDate="2016-04-12T21:01:08.483" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1360" PostId="706" Score="1" Text="@brianpck: The link implies that the -um ending is specific to deus. That is wrong." CreationDate="2016-04-12T22:04:42.857" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1361" PostId="706" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Well, *deus* has it far more often than the average word on -us of the 2nd declension. So in that way it is kind of specific to deus that it has this ending relatively often." CreationDate="2016-04-12T22:33:58.043" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1376" PostId="709" Score="2" Text="Perhaps: &quot;The girls tell a tale by means of a poet&quot; :D" CreationDate="2016-04-13T18:01:58.320" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1377" PostId="709" Score="3" Text="@brianpck, I imagine the girls operating a large poet puppet to tell a story, but I somehow doubt that is the case. :D But that would not change the answer significantly." CreationDate="2016-04-13T18:11:06.443" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1388" PostId="711" Score="0" Text="I agree with *me pænitet*. But I'll also add that I'm fairly certain *doleo* + infinitive isn't a valid Latin construction. Others who know better may disagree! Also, my sense is that Latin prefers verbal constructions to nominal, so *de morte magistri nostri veteris* doesn't feel as Latinate as, say, *magistrum veterum mortuum esse*." CreationDate="2016-04-14T05:08:03.487" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1391" PostId="711" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I'm also uncertain if that is a valid construction. It will certainly be understood, but I don't think it's very good style. As for choosing between verbal and nominal constructions, it depends on the verb &quot;inform&quot; you pick. Some verbs might prefer *de*, some an ACI, some a subordinate clause, some an accusative object with a participle. I don't recall seeing *certiorem facere* without *de*." CreationDate="2016-04-14T08:58:25.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1395" PostId="711" Score="0" Text="Another suggestion might be: *de magistro nostro mortuo* I really don't think that *morte magistri* sounds contrived, though." CreationDate="2016-04-14T13:51:01.320" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1379" PostId="712" Score="2" Text="Traupman, in the Bantam dictionary, recommends this as well." CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:53:18.823" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2834" PostId="713" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S prefers *pæniet* (as I would), although *œ* is certainly attested. Just wondering, is there anything in particular that makes you prefer it?" CreationDate="2016-07-28T04:27:54.030" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="2836" PostId="713" Score="0" Text="@kkm, You're right about that--actually, the linked entry also uses *ae*. I use ecclesiastical pronunciation, which pronounces both the same, so I never paid too much attention to the variance in spelling." CreationDate="2016-07-28T13:26:14.107" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1380" PostId="714" Score="1" Text="I wondered the exact same thing when reading the answer. The dictionary entry relates it to *poena* and [the entry for *poena*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpoena) mentions the word *poenitet*, not *paenitet*. Confusing..." CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:58:23.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1382" PostId="714" Score="1" Text="It's funny how pronunciation affects perception: I generally use Ecclesiastical pronunciation, in which both *oe* and *ae* are more or less *e*, so the difference didn't jump out to me as it did to others." CreationDate="2016-04-13T20:54:05.287" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1389" PostId="715" Score="0" Text="So you're suggesting that *pœnitere* is a misspelling?" CreationDate="2016-04-14T05:26:47.967" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5497" PostId="715" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Yes, which was very common in Medieval Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-30T20:42:11.673" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1397" PostId="718" Score="0" Text="So the general principle would be to add either *vox* or a kind of pseudo-article *ille* before the inflected word?" CreationDate="2016-04-14T13:56:43.887" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1398" PostId="718" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure it's an either/or thing (it might be), but yeah. (Out of curiosity: why a pseudo-article rather than just an article? We have the same thing—&quot;In 'I hate the man who assassinated my dog,' should I replace the 'who' with 'whom'?&quot;—not the most usual way of phrasing it, perhaps, but certainly a possibility.)" CreationDate="2016-04-14T14:17:24.327" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1403" PostId="721" Score="1" Text="Fascinating! I wonder whether this is related to the use of *ille* that I discussed in my answer." CreationDate="2016-04-15T05:07:23.250" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1404" PostId="721" Score="2" Text="This is really cool--any idea how common this is? I've read a lot of Aquinas (though no, not the *Commentary on the Sentences*) and never came across this." CreationDate="2016-04-15T13:17:33.367" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1412" PostId="721" Score="1" Text="@brianpck It seems to have been generally adopted by the scholastics; see [this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=jJnyxg3xxTEC&amp;pg=PA104&amp;dq=%22ly%22+romance+article&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjU2a2sjZHMAhVLrB4KHZuSCbsQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ly%22%20romance%20article&amp;f=false)." CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:24:30.137" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1413" PostId="721" Score="1" Text="I got my laugh for the day: &quot;Tantum cuiuslibet hominis praeter Sortem quilibet non asinum *c* et alterum *c* ipsiusmet hominis nigrum contingenter incipit esse&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:38:38.057" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1458" PostId="721" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Using this [search engine](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age) reveals that the Commentary on the Sentences contains the most instances, followed by the Lectura on the Gospel of John.  To see the breakdown of instances across works, enter &quot;ly&quot; into the search box and click &quot;works.&quot;  Note that some works by authors besides Aquinas are also included in the search." CreationDate="2016-04-19T04:28:25.577" UserId="253" />
  <row Id="1405" PostId="724" Score="1" Text="It strikes me that a discussion of plural *Jesoi* (if the analogy to the Greek second declension that C. M. Weimer sets out holds) (in which case the rest of the declension would be genitive *Jeson*, accusative *Jesus*, dative *Jesois*, vocative *Jesoi*) would be pretty heretical, no? Perhaps that's why we don't see it." CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:18:02.940" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1406" PostId="724" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I have never seen the Greek plural genitive ending -ων borrowed in Latin as *-on*. It should probably be Latinized to *-um*. If you want to go this way (which does not sound like an unreasonable analogy), some of the endings should be Latinized. But then again, the singular forms are not very Latin, either. Your idea makes me think of *Iesoi, Iesus, Iesum, Iesis, Iesis*, but it doesn't quite sound natural to me." CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:46:21.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1407" PostId="724" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I'm not great with Latinization of Greek, and given that in the linked answer it's declined in Greek rather than Latin I was just sort of winging it. But it *would* be a Greek declension, I think." CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:50:57.573" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1408" PostId="724" Score="1" Text="Iesus is Ιησούς in Greek and is definitely not 2nd-declension (which ends in -ος)." CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:03:30.223" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1409" PostId="724" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, it could be seen as contracted 2nd declension with omicron stem. The answer in the linked question uses that analogy." CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:10:27.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1410" PostId="724" Score="0" Text="I was just editing my comment but couldn't: I was definitely simplifying, because &quot;ou&quot; can also be the result of two vowels. The point is that it is not as simple as appending the standard 2nd declension Greek plural." CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:11:27.193" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1411" PostId="724" Score="1" Text="For reference, here is an example of contracted second declension. Singular: νοῦς, νοῦ, νῷ, νοῦν. Plural: νοῖ, νῶν, νοῖς, νοῦς." CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:18:44.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1415" PostId="724" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: How about the *Satyricon*? As to *Iesus* in Latin, I've never seen it pluralised." CreationDate="2016-04-15T18:33:26.680" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1416" PostId="724" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I didn't realize that *Satyricon* was a plural genitive. That makes sense. I had never really thought about it carefully, but I took it as a singular nominative (neuter). I stand corrected." CreationDate="2016-04-15T18:38:17.547" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1417" PostId="724" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I didn't know that either at the time when I read it, and I believe there is some dispute about it. But a Greek genitive plural seems to be the most likely hypothesis." CreationDate="2016-04-15T18:41:31.553" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1424" PostId="724" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I figured that Ιησοῦς was a contraction of Ιησέος (which seems possible given that the Hebrew—I won't try the alphabet—is *Yeshua*), which would mean that the plural nominative would contract to Ιησοῖ. But I still maintain that a discussion of more than one Jesus would be heretical and merit burning at the stake." CreationDate="2016-04-15T21:11:16.717" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1459" PostId="725" Score="3" Text="Thanks for the info.  Do you have any idea how early &quot;ly&quot; appears?  I spoke with a medievalist the other day who says he has seen it as early as Abelard, but it would be interesting to see whether earlier uses can be found." CreationDate="2016-04-19T04:32:32.797" UserId="253" />
  <row Id="1418" PostId="727" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you know any sources that justify it belonging to fourth declension? Wiktionary says so but no citation is given. It also seems possible to think of it as second declension (from contracted Greek second declension) or just a completely irregular word (coming almost directly from an unusual Greek declension)." CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:29:20.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1421" PostId="727" Score="1" Text="It certainly looks like fourth declension, but I'm not fully convinced. It seems to me that it was borrowed quite directly from Greek and similarity to fourth declension is coincidental. Anyhow, the plural is clearly very rare if it exists, but there are situations where one might want to use it." CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:40:17.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1435" PostId="730" Score="1" Text="+1 Yes, the dictionaries certainly self censor such entries. Rhetorically, if they aren't going to publish a faithful translation why list the headword in the first place? Pun intended. Btw, while it's not of high quality, see the [Wikipedia article on latin profanity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity)." CreationDate="2016-04-17T02:48:23.357" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="1434" PostId="731" Score="0" Text="Interesting anecdote!  That graphic is particularly helpful." CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:46:54.617" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="19151" PostId="733" Score="1" Text="That's pretty the same as the current German names of the letters." CreationDate="2019-04-08T14:56:51.853" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="19548" PostId="733" Score="0" Text="@K-HB: And as Dutch, too1" CreationDate="2019-05-04T22:56:32.920" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20342" PostId="733" Score="0" Text="I have two objections to the names of each letter: 1. It doesn’t show the names of 3 letters, J, V and W. 2. In my opinion, each of the names don’t really look like the right way of spelling them." CreationDate="2019-06-29T19:56:39.067" UserId="4899" />
  <row Id="20344" PostId="733" Score="5" Text="@CraigLungren To answer your objection: J, V, and W didn't exist during Classical times. Why do you think it's not the right way of writing them?" CreationDate="2019-06-29T20:20:14.757" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20345" PostId="733" Score="3" Text="@CraigLungren A couple or remarks: 1. If you want to figure out why those three letters are missing, you can ask a separate question. If you want to know why the names of the letters are that way, please ask another new question. 2. I converted your answer into a comment, as it was a comment to the answer by Nathaniel. If you ask some well phrased questions, you should soon enough &#xA;earn the reputation to leave comments. 3. As a Finn, I see that also the letters Å, Ä, Ö are missing from the list. I believe most Finns are easily convinced that those were not used in Latin." CreationDate="2019-06-29T20:59:40.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29103" PostId="733" Score="0" Text="@K-HB And other Central European as well, I believe (Czech and Slovak for sure)." CreationDate="2020-09-26T17:50:11.977" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="47554" PostId="733" Score="0" Text="V existed, U did not" CreationDate="2024-02-18T21:15:45.010" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="1438" PostId="735" Score="0" Text="Thanks! My dictionary also hints at *bibere*, but it's quite vague with connotations. I think I'll go with *bibere* when I need it." CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:31:25.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1440" PostId="735" Score="2" Text="+1 for the Isidore quote! I would probably agree with this 100% if you amended it to say that an alcoholic connotation in *bibere* &quot;doesn't seem to be *as* common&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:36:44.023" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1442" PostId="735" Score="0" Text="I adjusted. Since I can't really speak about frequency/commonness, I reframed it." CreationDate="2016-04-17T19:04:59.477" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1443" PostId="735" Score="3" Text="That's interesting, since in English the connotations of those two roots seem to have reversed. &quot;Bibulous&quot; refers definitely to drinking alcohol, while &quot;potable&quot; is usually about water." CreationDate="2016-04-17T19:25:36.477" UserId="396" />
  <row Id="1444" PostId="735" Score="0" Text="@kundor, that's an interesting observation! And it's nice to see that I'm not the only mathematician here." CreationDate="2016-04-17T19:30:22.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1445" PostId="735" Score="0" Text="I think you should look at the citations in L/S and not just at the English definitions. Almost all of the citations refer to wine." CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:53:37.190" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1447" PostId="735" Score="0" Text="Ah, I thought I was saying that in my answer—the proportion of non-alcohol-to-alcohol citations for *bibo* seemed higher than the proportion for *poto*." CreationDate="2016-04-18T00:19:11.827" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1439" PostId="736" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I feared this might be the case. All drinking verbs might well be related to alcohol to some extent, but I still believe this extent varies between verbs. Joel suggests that *bibere* might be the least alcoholic verb, although not exclusive to soft drinks." CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:33:50.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1441" PostId="736" Score="0" Text="I can definitely agree with that. btw, one of the adjectives I recall reading and really wanted to add at the end of my answer was *multibibus*, but I can't find it anywhere now...." CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:38:49.943" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1448" PostId="742" Score="0" Text="What a fascinating question! I suspect that the Latinate answer is to do something verbal or participial — *res gestæ usóre* or something like that." CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:44:49.807" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1449" PostId="743" Score="2" Text="Have you read the [Wikipedia article about this phrase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ite,_missa_est)?" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:56:52.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1450" PostId="743" Score="0" Text="I read another (somewhat similar) article at the [Catholic Encyclopedia](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08253a.htm)--I was struck by the wide range of interpretations and (apparent) lack of consensus for something that seems rather simple" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:59:54.223" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1451" PostId="743" Score="2" Text="The elliptic interpretation as *Ite, missa est congregatio* (or with some other feminine noun) is most appealing to me, but I have nothing but classically oriented taste to back this up with." CreationDate="2016-04-18T20:02:59.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23856" PostId="743" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Assuming your interpretation is correct (which I don't know), I think that in Classical Latin it would be better to say: _Ite, **di**missa est **con**gregatio_." CreationDate="2019-12-28T06:46:37.033" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="1452" PostId="744" Score="0" Text="Interesting--if that is the case, do you know if there are any previous examples of &quot;missa&quot; being used as a substantive? I always assumed collecta = oratio collecta, or something similar." CreationDate="2016-04-19T00:16:30.407" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1455" PostId="744" Score="1" Text="I don't know of any examples of *missa* as dismissal (prior the phrase being used in the mass) off the top of my head. In English, &quot;collected&quot; and &quot;collection&quot; are not exact synonyms, but they have an overlap in meaning. &quot;Collection&quot; can be not just the act of collecting, but also what is collected. You can see how in Latin a word like *missa* could take on the action-meaning of *missio*.&#xA;&#xA;Your interpretation of &quot;collecta&quot; as &quot;oratio collecta&quot; works grammatically, so a clearer parallel example might be the use of the phrase *Ascensa Domini* for *Ascensio Domini.*" CreationDate="2016-04-19T01:11:35.610" UserId="44" />
  <row Id="1456" PostId="744" Score="2" Text="That sparked a pretty interesting find which you might want to incorporate in your answer: [footnote e of pg. 1353 of S. Benedicti Abbatis Anianensis *Concordia Regularum*](https://books.google.com/books?id=aJRBAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PT552&amp;lpg=RA1-PT552&amp;dq=ascensa+domini&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-G7tqbNNV9&amp;sig=aPyskaWMo0ScsaD9eW1IoLD4Wa4&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwintPfDy5nMAhVBkYMKHVG1BckQ6AEIMTAG#v=onepage&amp;q=ascensa%20domini&amp;f=false) has some cool examples of this transformation from early authors like Tertullian and Cyprian." CreationDate="2016-04-19T01:56:01.250" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1457" PostId="744" Score="0" Text="Most of the examples in the footnote are of *remissa* meaning *remissio*" CreationDate="2016-04-19T01:56:39.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7546" PostId="745" Score="1" Text="I seem to remember an example from Cicero, where he uses a personal name turned into a verb. But I don't remember anything else, sorry." CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:14:29.287" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1460" PostId="746" Score="0" Text="Thanks! *Breviarium* (or *summarium*) sounds good. However, I would prefer to have some noun for &quot;user&quot;. It's a bit too complicated to speak about a user signing in, getting reputation, gaining privileges and so forth (and to relate these things to the corresponding English expressions) without such a word. *Interretiarius* is not related to a specific site, so it's misleading. Perhaps *membrum* or *particeps* would be better." CreationDate="2016-04-19T14:20:40.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1461" PostId="746" Score="1" Text="Or perhaps *sodalis*?" CreationDate="2016-04-19T15:41:58.757" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1616" PostId="746" Score="2" Text="Why not use the present participle *utens* substantively? I would recommend *breviarium utentis* 'user account, lit. user's summary', whose plural would be *breviaria utentium*. 'users' summaries'." CreationDate="2016-04-26T04:16:20.123" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="1462" PostId="747" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! This is an interesting question. Here are some words to add to your list: *caedere*, *occidere*, *trucidare*, *iugulare*, *concidere*, *effligere*, *mactare*, *letare*. (These are not all equivalent, though.)" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:32:28.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1518" PostId="747" Score="0" Text="Hi Distjubo!  Since I hadn't seen you make any edits to your question, and because it's a good one that we'd like to answer, I've gone ahead and edited it to ask for an overview of the key differences between these words.  Such a question works better here, but if you'd like to know something more specific about some of these words, or a particular context, please let us know!" CreationDate="2016-04-21T13:01:28.580" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1519" PostId="747" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot @Nathaniel. I don't really have much time atm, especially not for latin. So thank you for helping me with this, greatly appreciated" CreationDate="2016-04-21T13:03:26.933" UserId="399" />
  <row Id="1468" PostId="748" Score="0" Text="*Tabula* and *sodalis* are excellent ideas, thanks! The word *sodalis* also conveys an idea of friendliness and togetherness." CreationDate="2016-04-19T17:48:49.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1469" PostId="748" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Right—there's a connotation of membership in a community, which even if it's not the case on every website is certainly a feeling we want to encourage here." CreationDate="2016-04-19T17:53:53.600" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1476" PostId="751" Score="3" Text="Welcome! Can you explain more what you want to say with your original English phrases? I have difficulties parsing them, especially the second one. You might also want to have a look at [these instructions for asking a translation question](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79)." CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:20:33.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1478" PostId="751" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-04-19T23:21:54.663" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="8784" PostId="753" Score="2" Text="For poetic flair, very little beats _vespertina_ (although it may be hard to fit it into the metre)..." CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:15:14.820" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="1477" PostId="754" Score="0" Text="I considered *ad* as well, but I don't really know if *in* is any better. Or if either should be considered grammatical here, for that matter. Let's wait and see what others have to say." CreationDate="2016-04-19T23:20:49.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1480" PostId="755" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, and thanks for the helpful answer!" CreationDate="2016-04-20T05:24:44.497" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1481" PostId="756" Score="3" Text="Have you seen PHI's concordance?  [Proving non-existence](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=izo%23) is (sort of) possible." CreationDate="2016-04-20T05:27:46.393" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1482" PostId="756" Score="0" Text="Thank you! *Latinificare* indeed sounds more Latin than *latinizare*. But do you know if the Romans ever attached *-ficare* to names? The name need not be *Latium* or the adjective *Latinus* derived from it." CreationDate="2016-04-20T06:39:50.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1540" PostId="756" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta and Draconis: rather that guessing you could use the &quot;words ending with&quot; option on Perseus." CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:21:51.580" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8539" PostId="756" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel: Thanks for the link to the PHI on the Web, really appreciated!" CreationDate="2017-05-04T04:37:34.350" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="1483" PostId="757" Score="3" Text="And what do you do with adjectives and participles? They also tell the reader or listener the gender of the person you are talking about." CreationDate="2016-04-20T10:09:17.970" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="1484" PostId="757" Score="0" Text="@jknappen, I wanted to make this question more focused and chose to discuss only pronouns. Adjectives, participles and nouns are also an issue. To some extent one can prefer words in the third declension to remain neutral, but avoiding pronouns is harder. If I know a suitable pronoun, I can work myself around revealing the gender in many situations. That's why I started with pronouns." CreationDate="2016-04-20T10:40:53.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1509" PostId="757" Score="2" Text="Is it really on-topic to ask for made up words? I think that will lead to all sorts of problems. It's one thing to ask for a tweaking of Classical and Medieval models, but it's something entirely different to suggest *new pronouns*. My 2¢." CreationDate="2016-04-21T02:17:41.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1514" PostId="757" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer, I should have phrased that more carefully. My idea was to ask for previously made up, attested new words, in case there are any. I imagined someone might have come up with a pronoun in the last two millennia. And my main question really is which pronoun to use in this case, be it neuter, a new word, or something else. I edited my question a bit." CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:39:43.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1485" PostId="758" Score="3" Text="Thanks! If someone speaks to me about a specific person and uses a masculine pronoun, I deduce that a male is in question (whether or not it's meant so). It is true that masculine pronouns can also be semantically neutral, but in this case there is a serious risk of misinterpretation in using a masculine pronoun. If I want to hide the gender of someone that I want to talk about in English, I refer to them with the pronoun &quot;they&quot; and its forms, never &quot;he&quot;. (In Finnish there is no gender whatsoever.) But it might well be that there is no better option in Latin, no matter how much I wanted one." CreationDate="2016-04-20T13:26:01.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1486" PostId="758" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I don't know: is there a real risk of misinterpretation? I use *he/hij/er/is/il* for people of unknown or unmentioned gender in English/Dutch/German/Latin/French, and it is completely natural to me? I suppose your experience may be different if you're coming from a genderless language! P.S. I've added the feminine word *virtus* as a nice example." CreationDate="2016-04-20T13:51:08.003" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1487" PostId="758" Score="2" Text="I would say there is, but I acknowledge that it is a matter of opinion. At least I would misinterpret you if you used a masculine pronoun in a neutral sense of a specific person. It is important that the person is specified. If someone says &quot;If someone comes to my office, I will sing him a song&quot;, I understand that it doesn't have to be a man. But if I hear &quot;My spouse has his own business&quot;, I assume the spouse is male." CreationDate="2016-04-20T13:58:13.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1488" PostId="758" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Fair enough: in that case, the masculine sense of the pronoun takes over. I suppose trying to *hide* gender is not something the language was made for! This wouldn't be possible in Dutch either. And in Latin it's even harder, because there are so many more words you'd have to avoid, as we discussed earlier (adjectives i.a.). A fun game, though." CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:09:22.553" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1489" PostId="758" Score="3" Text="The million dollar question: can anyone find an example of a Latin singular *they*" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:46:59.877" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1495" PostId="758" Score="4" Text="@brianpck: Hah, yuck! (As you may know, there is the general plural 3rd person as used in verbs, like *ferunt Caesarem occisum esse* &quot;they say Caesar has been killed&quot;, which is aequivalent to *dicitur* and is used when you don't know or don't want to specify who said it. And there are of course pluralia tantum. And there is the constructio ad sententiam, à la *populus sunt*. But otherwise I don't think it's possible to syntactically refer to something singular by a plural word—which wouldn't make sense anyway, so no loss there, I'd say.)" CreationDate="2016-04-20T15:02:24.350" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1628" PostId="758" Score="0" Text="Re: &quot;das Mädchen&quot;. I just thought about this yesterday and many people give this as the first example of semantic gender not matching syntactic gender in German. But *Mädchen* is neuter not &quot;randomly&quot;; it's neuter because all diminutives are neuter. I don't think this should count as a surprising mismatch of semantic vs. syntactic gender." CreationDate="2016-04-26T21:46:59.063" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="1629" PostId="758" Score="0" Text="@Earthliŋ But virtus has a specific feminine suffix too, and so do femina and civitas. And Mannschaft. That applies to the gender of most words, I believe, once you know where to look. It does not, however, mean that there should always be a meaningful and necessary correspondence between semantic gender and morpho-syntactic gender." CreationDate="2016-04-26T22:50:46.580" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1630" PostId="758" Score="0" Text="Oh, no, I only objected to using *Mädchen* as an example =)" CreationDate="2016-04-26T22:52:29.917" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="1631" PostId="758" Score="0" Text="@Earthliŋ Oh, phew!" CreationDate="2016-04-26T22:54:13.853" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14944" PostId="758" Score="5" Text="@brianpck A Latin singular *they* would not sidestep the gender issue, since Latin plurals still have three distinct genders." CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:17:14.977" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="32559" PostId="758" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In English ignorance of sex means &quot;he&quot; is used e.g. &quot;He (the burglar) must have left some clues.&quot; If a policeman (they no longer turn out for burglaries) asks how you know it's a man, the reply is--figure-of-speech. The only people referred to as &quot;it&quot; are babies: &quot;What is its name?&quot;. Some mothers object and snap &quot;HE or SHE is called...!!&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-13T15:40:04.547" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32560" PostId="758" Score="0" Text="@tony That practice with &quot;he&quot; is common but not universal in English." CreationDate="2021-04-13T16:06:54.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32573" PostId="758" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: The alternative is to preface every sentence with &quot;he or she&quot;; which someone may do once, before they get fed-up with it." CreationDate="2021-04-14T11:52:05.460" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32577" PostId="758" Score="0" Text="@tony Notice that the question is about speaking of a specific person whose gender is not to be revealed. In that case &quot;he or she&quot; doesn't really work, but &quot;they&quot; does. Speaking of a general person is a different matter, but in the case of a specific person &quot;he&quot; can't really be parsed as gender neutral." CreationDate="2021-04-14T13:10:48.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39311" PostId="758" Score="1" Text="To the best of my knowledge, the Latin grammatical gender system’s Indo-European origin is gender-not-specified (m), gender-specified-as-feminine (f) and gender-specified-as-non-gendered (n). This then was the root of the Latin gender system. That did not take away from the fact that some would make fun of _poētae_ being feminine, but then again, would anyone dare do the same when meeting a thick-armed heavy-built _nauta_? I dare say not. My point, in any case, is that grammatical gender is strictly speaking not a thing for masculine nouns. Pronouns, on the other hand, are more complicated." CreationDate="2022-08-26T22:58:31.573" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="1490" PostId="759" Score="8" Text="Not sure if i'm alone here...but your suggestions are pretty painful to look at, much less use :)" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:53:05.000" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1491" PostId="759" Score="2" Text="Well, I myself find them pretty painful to look at, much less use, but I also find *ze/zir/mer* and *hu/hus/hum* pretty painful and impossible to use. Answer updated to indicate same." CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:54:35.030" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1492" PostId="759" Score="0" Text="Try parsing: &quot;es melior est he&quot;" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:56:18.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1493" PostId="759" Score="0" Text="Well, if one is determined to use them as words, then *es melior est he* would make perfect sense." CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:56:57.863" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1494" PostId="759" Score="0" Text="However, I really have no attachment to them. They were just what first came to mind. There may very well be better alternatives—in which case please propose them!" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:57:49.360" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1498" PostId="759" Score="4" Text="You may as well retain the existing gen. and dat. forms which are already epicene (*eius, ei, huius, huic*, etc.): so something like *es, eius, ei, em...*?" CreationDate="2016-04-20T17:05:31.360" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1500" PostId="759" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answer! Perhaps contrary to what you intended, you managed to convince me against coining an epicene pronoun. The point @TKR makes is an excellent one: in some cases the pronouns are already epicene. If you want to come up with new pronouns, incorporating these forms is a good idea." CreationDate="2016-04-20T19:48:29.407" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1513" PostId="759" Score="1" Text="I'm glad you came to that decision; if it seemed that I wanted you to coin a new pronoun, then it's evidence that my effort to bend over backwards in the interest of impartiality was successful. I have mixed feelings about epicene pronouns in English as it is." CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:05:13.503" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="14945" PostId="759" Score="0" Text="It's worth noting that *ou* and *a* are just reduced forms of *one* (another English epicene pronoun) and *thon* is just a contraction of *that one.*" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:19:26.777" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="34787" PostId="759" Score="0" Text="As a native English-speaker, I've never heard ze/hir/mer used to refer to a person of unknown gender. Some people use various neopronouns for themselves, but by far the most common construction for a person of unknown/unspecified gender is singular &quot;they&quot; (followed by the more old-fashioned options like generic &quot;he&quot;, &quot;he/she&quot;, &quot;he or she&quot;, etc)." CreationDate="2021-08-29T17:29:34.003" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="1502" PostId="760" Score="1" Text="Is there a particular context in which you want to use one of these verbs?  Or are you looking for a separate resource (book, article, etc.) that analyzes them comprehensively?  Or are you looking for a brief overview of the key differences between the major options?  We can answer those questions.  But this platform isn't particularly well-suited for providing a comprehensive analysis of all the possible usages of all the Latin verbs that could be translated &quot;to think&quot; in English." CreationDate="2016-04-21T00:33:22.530" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1524" PostId="760" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel: I'm not expecting anyone to come up with a comprehensive analysis, but a pointer to an existing one would be helpful, as would partial answers discussing some smaller subset of these verbs." CreationDate="2016-04-21T16:34:40.913" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1505" PostId="763" Score="2" Text="My problem with *ratio* as a translation is that its range of meanings is ridiculously broad: the first thing it makes me think of is &quot;reason&quot; (the human faculty). *ratio sodalis* would only make sense to me with a *lot* of context." CreationDate="2016-04-21T01:50:08.047" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1507" PostId="763" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Doesn't the English *account* mean the do the same thing? An account could be something like what the OP wants, or a record of expenses/credits (a sales account), an &quot;arrangement by which a body holds funds on behalf of a client&quot; (bank account), a recollection of events (his account of the experience, Herodotus' account of Xerxes' invasion), or even just importance/significance (It was of no account that). Many Latin words have ridiculously broad meanings, that doesn't mean that they can't be used in precise ways as well." CreationDate="2016-04-21T02:14:47.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1512" PostId="763" Score="1" Text="So you're saying that *tabula* is, at least in this case, short for *tabula rationis* (or *rationum*)?" CreationDate="2016-04-21T04:32:48.547" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1520" PostId="768" Score="0" Text="I formatted your citations to be a little more readable--it's a great list!" CreationDate="2016-04-21T14:09:21.167" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1521" PostId="768" Score="0" Text="Ah, thanks for the formatting—that makes it a lot more helpful." CreationDate="2016-04-21T14:11:21.463" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1522" PostId="768" Score="0" Text="Really nice. I mean our latin teacher only taught us &quot;to kill&quot; for all of those words.  Really helpful." CreationDate="2016-04-21T14:36:07.887" UserId="399" />
  <row Id="1523" PostId="768" Score="0" Text="Oh, I'm glad! Why don't you wait a few days to see whether somebody else comes up with an even better answer and then accept the one you find the most helpful?" CreationDate="2016-04-21T14:47:08.607" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1550" PostId="768" Score="0" Text="Looks like theres no one who wants to compete with this answer :D" CreationDate="2016-04-23T11:44:12.270" UserId="399" />
  <row Id="1555" PostId="768" Score="0" Text="Ah, well. Usually it's other folks who post the answers with which I don't want to compete, so this is a nice change of pace for me. :)" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:15:32.653" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1525" PostId="769" Score="0" Text="Mea hoc interest rogatum, nec ullum reperire responsum possum. Neologismum proponerem ut e.g. &quot;instultabilis, -e,&quot; non vero exstat scilicet in corpore ubique." CreationDate="2016-04-21T20:02:57.473" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1526" PostId="769" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, nescio an inveniri possit idioma Latinum aptum ad stultitiam ullo modo attinens. In lingua Finnica expressio similis est, Anglice fere est &quot;idiot safe&quot; (idioottivarma), sed nolo nimis extrapolare e duobus punctis datis." CreationDate="2016-04-21T20:07:50.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1527" PostId="770" Score="0" Text="Me festinante errata permulta abundare haud dubium est, nec invitus vos ad corrigendum exoro!" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:20:40.287" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1536" PostId="770" Score="1" Text="Hem. Mihi illud perplacet *etiam stultis idoneum*. Quod ad systemam securitatis tamen vox &quot;fidum&quot; aliam significationem tenet, nempe &quot;hæc systema a furis insuperabilis est&quot;—id quod aliud diversum significat." CreationDate="2016-04-22T17:01:08.550" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1554" PostId="770" Score="0" Text="Nonne &quot;insuperabilis&quot;  (vel sicut dixi &quot;absentia defectuum&quot;) in sensibus vocis &quot;foolproof&quot; inest?" CreationDate="2016-04-23T15:41:38.843" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1560" PostId="770" Score="1" Text="Hmm. Rogatum, respectum, contortulius fit. Mihi vox &quot;foolproof&quot; duos habere sensus videtur: quod est &quot;foolproof&quot; vel I) et stulto tractari quit, vel II) fraudari haud potest. Systema quidem securitatis fortis non fraudari potest sed fortasse stulto tractari nequit. Clostellum tamen stulto tractari quit sed fortasse fraudari potest. @JoonasIlmavirta sensum alterum in animo habere videtur, quali in casu recte dicis, &quot;insuperabilis&quot; quidem inest!" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:38:56.737" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="8712" PostId="770" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Interpretor vocem &quot;foolproof&quot; non fraudari haud posse significare (cum &quot;fool&quot;=fallere) sed contra stulta _probatum esse._  Vide [etymologiam](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=&amp;search=foolproof)." CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:44:45.070" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="1528" PostId="771" Score="2" Text="I took the liberty of formatting your question so that it is a little clearer. Any particular reason why in this question and many others you indent and number your lists in a different way?" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:28:55.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1529" PostId="771" Score="0" Text="I'm guessing *pro* means &quot;forward in time; into the future&quot;. So you're asking for something to happen in the future. But the details remain misty." CreationDate="2016-04-22T00:22:34.717" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1530" PostId="771" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Sorry for the confusion, but I have reverted most of the edits because: #1 was added by me and is not part of the original quote; I use only one digit once to prevent ambiguity. However, what else can I change to improve my post?" CreationDate="2016-04-22T02:36:15.560" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="1551" PostId="772" Score="3" Text="I can eventually expand this into an answer, but two observations are telling: (1) the large amount of *hapax legomena* in the Latin corpus, and (2) the large amount of words that are only present in &quot;lighter&quot; works like those of Plautus and Terence. I would infer from this that many words have been lost." CreationDate="2016-04-23T14:27:25.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1552" PostId="772" Score="1" Text="While searching for *sic-* verbs, I stumbled across a great answer to [Joonas's question about deriving verbs from proper names](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/745/did-the-romans-derive-verbs-from-names/776#776)" CreationDate="2016-04-23T14:43:32.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1531" PostId="773" Score="1" Text="Are you interested in attested words (i.e. dictionary entries, including hapax legomena) or words that were in common usage?" CreationDate="2016-04-22T13:07:30.140" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1532" PostId="773" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Both numbers are interesting. It will be good to have them separated from each other." CreationDate="2016-04-22T13:09:04.413" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="1533" PostId="773" Score="2" Text="And how would you define a unit of such calculation? A word form? A lexeme? Anything else?" CreationDate="2016-04-22T14:41:47.403" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1534" PostId="773" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I'd say &quot;lemma&quot;. I'm not interested in counts of all the inflected forms of a verb." CreationDate="2016-04-22T14:51:44.487" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="1535" PostId="773" Score="2" Text="OUP lists over 40,000 headwords in the OLD, while you're free to manually count them in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059)." CreationDate="2016-04-22T16:41:44.897" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1570" PostId="773" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: And the OLD lists words from the archaic, classical, and late periods..." CreationDate="2016-04-24T12:24:01.660" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2543" PostId="773" Score="0" Text="Du Cange's [*Glossarium mediæ et infimæ latinitatis*](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/) runs to over six massive volumes.  I'd hate to count everything in there...." CreationDate="2016-07-11T04:08:52.953" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="5225" PostId="773" Score="0" Text="And the *Thesaurus Linguæ Latinæ* has currently 11 volumes from A to P (not finished yet…)." CreationDate="2016-11-13T23:45:27.113" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="1537" PostId="774" Score="0" Text="Hmm. I think I have a better way to frame this question. I'm going to edit." CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:04:33.957" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1538" PostId="774" Score="1" Text="It is better not to change the question after it has been answered." CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:06:00.510" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1539" PostId="774" Score="1" Text="Okay, I'll leave as is." CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:07:03.067" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1542" PostId="774" Score="2" Text="@JoelDerfner, it's up to you to decide what to do with your question. If you feel that this answer mostly misses your original point, it's ok to reformulate slightly to clarify your point. If this is a good answer (to something you think your question asks as written), it is better to ask a separate, more specific question. One option is to change this question to match this answer and make a new one that clearly asks for something else. Even if a reformulation makes an answer a non-answer, the answer might still remain a remark well worth keeping as an answer." CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:31:23.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1544" PostId="774" Score="3" Text="I'll upvote if you provide examples of some hypothetical reconstructions :)" CreationDate="2016-04-22T21:19:58.727" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1545" PostId="774" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Open any page of this book at random: https://archive.org/stream/romanischesetymo00meyeuoft#page/n5/mode/2up" CreationDate="2016-04-22T23:17:21.380" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1546" PostId="774" Score="2" Text="I think &quot;perhaps half&quot; is probably an exaggeration, but the point stands, of course. There's also the question of what period the OP is referring to: presumably many of these reconstructed forms existed in Late Latin but not in the classical period." CreationDate="2016-04-22T23:58:41.293" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1547" PostId="774" Score="1" Text="This feels more like a comment than an answer..." CreationDate="2016-04-23T00:01:14.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1548" PostId="774" Score="2" Text="@fdb my point wasn't that you were wrong, but that you should include these examples *in your answer* (with citations)." CreationDate="2016-04-23T00:19:47.010" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1541" PostId="775" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is a bit of a stretch for me, but still worth recording here. I (apparently correctly) assumed such a construction would appear in Christian Latin, but I was much less sure about Augustan or earlier language." CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:23:07.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1556" PostId="776" Score="1" Text="So then rather than *Latinificare* or *Latinizare* we'd have *Latinissare*?" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:17:21.990" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1557" PostId="776" Score="2" Text="My experience is that Plautus reflects spoken patterns and often diverges from standard orthography: if you're writing  in good ol' Ciceronian style, I'd recommend using -izo while knowing that such words were probably spoken by the masses as -isso. Just a conjecture, though." CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:19:51.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1558" PostId="776" Score="1" Text="I imagine the -dz sound of a Greek zeta would be difficult for someone who never uses that sound otherwise" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:20:40.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1559" PostId="777" Score="1" Text="Are you looking for a *classical* Latin translation of a Greek work? As worded, this question can be answered by any of those fine green tomes of [Migne's *Patrologia Graeca*](http://patristica.net/graeca/#t103)" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:35:26.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1561" PostId="777" Score="1" Text="I assume you're excluding the Greek New Testament and the Vulgate?" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:41:40.907" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1562" PostId="777" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yes, sorry to be unclear -- I'm mostly interested in translations made in antiquity." CreationDate="2016-04-23T21:46:28.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1563" PostId="777" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I actually had not thought of the Scriptures, good point. But I was thinking more of the standard genres of classical literature (historiography, philosophy etc.)." CreationDate="2016-04-23T21:47:32.223" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1564" PostId="778" Score="3" Text="I did mean a translation made in antiquity (edited the question now to clarify that), but nevertheless, thanks for posting these beautiful scans!" CreationDate="2016-04-23T21:55:08.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1565" PostId="779" Score="1" Text="What do you mean by irregular? In *lavisti, adiuvisti* the difference is that the *v* is part of the verb stem, rather than part of the perfect suffix. I doubt that such a *v* could be elided, but I don't actually have any evidence." CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:49:33.620" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1566" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="Good question! Do you consider *-ere* to be something other than a contraction? If so, you might want to exclude that in the title, because *-ere* is not what you're after. @TKR Vide infra! Or do you think *consuesti* is something else?" CreationDate="2016-04-24T01:29:31.190" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1567" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="@TKR, by irregular I mean any verb whose perfect stem is formed differently than those of *amare* or *audire*. I know that the 'v' is stronger in irregular perfects in the sense that is indeed (typically, at least) part of the stem, not just a perfect suffix." CreationDate="2016-04-24T08:53:30.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1568" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I edited the question slightly to emphasize that I'm interesting in contract the 'v' away, not other kinds of contractions. (If this is what you asked.)" CreationDate="2016-04-24T08:55:24.203" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1569" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Perfect!" CreationDate="2016-04-24T12:22:36.533" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1571" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I don't see how *consuesti* is any different, as there too the elided *v* is part of the perfect suffix, not the stem. (Btw 3pl. *-ere* is not a contraction of anything, just an alternate personal ending.)" CreationDate="2016-04-24T16:14:13.313" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1572" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="@TKR: OK but is the -v- in *iuvi* part of the root or is it the perfect -v-? Considering *iutum*, I would be inclined to say it is the perfect -v-. As to -ere, I tried to find more information about its origin, and it seems it isn't a contraction of -erunt, as you say. But I still don't understand how it came to be. This source says it contains the &quot;impersonal&quot; r also found in the infinitive and the passive forms:" CreationDate="2016-04-24T19:12:02.967" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1573" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="https://books.google.nl/books?id=O7z4Sl-SgFEC&amp;pg=PA275&amp;lpg=PA275&amp;dq=latin+ere+erunt+origin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=rMJkZtZCbs&amp;sig=ucQuBQ1mNBKmszhFVIkB5A8_Wp0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2eKX8afMAhVElxoKHeW3AzIQ6AEIKDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2016-04-24T19:12:36.420" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1576" PostId="779" Score="1" Text="@TKR: I've turned this into a question: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/781/what-is-the-origin-of-the-3rd-person-plural-perfect-ending-%C4%93re" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:16:32.913" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1579" PostId="779" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, the *v* of *iuvi* appears in the present stem *iuvo*, so it must be part of the root. Consonantal *v* can be lost between a rounded vowel and another consonant, which is why it doesn't appear in *iutum*: cf. *motum* from *moveo*." CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:48:37.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1615" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Okay, I believe you. (But the question did not explicit say the -v- could not be the perfect -v-, as long as the result is irregular, so I think my answer is still not disqualified by this.)" CreationDate="2016-04-25T23:34:57.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1617" PostId="779" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, you understood the question correctly." CreationDate="2016-04-26T06:21:46.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1575" PostId="781" Score="0" Text="Interesting question! I can't wait to see an answer. (Side note: Pings in comments don't reach anyone who has not edited or commented this very post.)" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:16:07.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1577" PostId="781" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Oh, I see. Good to know." CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:29:24.717" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1578" PostId="781" Score="1" Text="The IE primary suffixes are –mi, -si, -ti etc. The secondary suffixes are –m, -s, -t etc. That is why i is called a primary marker." CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:43:49.103" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1580" PostId="781" Score="2" Text="The &quot;primary&quot; -i is misnamed, as the endings that contain it are historically secondary: the original personal endings are *-m, -s, -t...*, but in the present tense the so-called &quot;hic et nunc&quot; deictic marker *-i* was added to these, giving *-mi, -si, -ti...*. (At least, this is the case with the singulars and the 3pl., though apparently not with the 1pl. and 2pl.) This pattern is still clearly visible in Greek, but in the Italic languages the *-i* was either lost or perhaps was never added in the first place." CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:52:44.677" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1581" PostId="781" Score="1" Text="Btw your &quot;Bauer&quot; link actually goes to Palmer's *The Latin Language*." CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:56:48.260" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1583" PostId="781" Score="0" Text="Interesting! I don't know anything about this. All of the sources I can find say that the *r* is original and not from *s,* giving as evidence a Hittite third plural ending -er. http://languagehat.com/imitere/, http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Tenses%20of%20the%20Latin%20perfect%20system.pdf Wouldn't the vowel length be a problem for deriving it from *-is-*?" CreationDate="2016-04-24T21:25:35.723" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="1584" PostId="781" Score="1" Text="@TKR. In this context &quot;primary&quot; means &quot;used in primary tenses&quot; (e.g. Greek present indicative) and &quot;secondary&quot; means &quot;used in secondary tenses&quot; (e.g. imperfect). This is standard terminology in IE studies." CreationDate="2016-04-24T22:44:16.030" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1585" PostId="781" Score="0" Text="@fdb Yes, I'm aware of that. Diachronically it's a misnomer nevertheless." CreationDate="2016-04-24T23:06:52.003" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1586" PostId="781" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Oops, I must have mislooked. I could have sworn Goole Books said Bauer! Corrected." CreationDate="2016-04-25T01:44:01.157" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1590" PostId="781" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: You were apparently correct! I couldn't even begin to comment on vowel lengths myself, as I know little about them." CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:02:27.440" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1591" PostId="782" Score="0" Text="Good find, now you're on top." CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:46:53.223" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1587" PostId="783" Score="0" Text="This is exactly what I was looking for, and no doubt worded better than its basis (although I have never seen Weiss). It's very interesting that the deictic i should be used in so many present endings. I may have known this, but I sure didn't remember. I remember it only from Latin haec and Greek touti. I presume imperatives on -i in Greek also display the deictic i, like gnôthi and...I think there were even imperatives on -ti?" CreationDate="2016-04-25T01:59:29.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1588" PostId="783" Score="0" Text="Like you, I am surprised that a present ending should end up in a perfect. But classical Greek perfect endings are often the same as present endings, like -mai. Did the Greek and/or Latin perfect originally have primary endings, perhaps? I should ask a separate question about these alternative active personal endings including the -r- forms." CreationDate="2016-04-25T01:59:53.660" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1589" PostId="783" Score="1" Text="Do you have any idea why -m remained -m while -mi vocalised into -o, even though -mi doesn't seem any more likely than -m to result in an 'unpronounceable' consonant cluster, in neither Greek nor Latin?" CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:00:13.097" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1594" PostId="783" Score="3" Text="@Cerberus.The standard view is that IE had two different and unrelated endings for 1st person sing. primary: -ō for thematic stems and –mi for athematic stems. In Sanskrit and Avestan the thematic verbs combine both endings as *-ō-mi &gt; āmi." CreationDate="2016-04-25T08:24:24.670" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1599" PostId="783" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: It's actually not just the 3pl Latin perfect ending that has this -i, but all the sg. endings as well. Weiss comments (p. 392), &quot;This extension is not surprising given the essential non-past meaning of the old perfect. A similar process happened in Old Church Slavonic...&quot; (where also the original perfect ending was augmented with -i). On -ō, there have been attempts to derive it from an earlier *-om, but these are not generally accepted." CreationDate="2016-04-25T16:15:10.580" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1613" PostId="783" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Oh, interesting, I had somehow assumed that -o was a vocalisation of -m." CreationDate="2016-04-25T23:29:54.203" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1614" PostId="783" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Ah, I suppose that makes sense, that the -i should be present in most perfect endings, the perfect often being considered present-like." CreationDate="2016-04-25T23:31:58.140" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1592" PostId="784" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-04-25T04:34:41.693" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1595" PostId="784" Score="0" Text="You have already been very helpful! This is an interesting answer. Can you give an example or two in Cicero's (or someone else's) work that uses this construction?" CreationDate="2016-04-25T09:01:48.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1596" PostId="784" Score="0" Text="Well, for example, Quintilian VII, 3 et al. sees the similar construction _quaestio est an..._ But since Cicero is more involved in legal issues than other authors, _quaestio_ in his work has more to share with _controversia_ than simply &quot;matter&quot; as in &quot;a matter of&quot;. The word itself could be generally translated as &quot;disputed point&quot;, which is not quite what you asked for, but I bet you could turn it around to mean what you want it to mean :D Glad this helped you" CreationDate="2016-04-25T09:38:40.373" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="1597" PostId="784" Score="0" Text="@giobrach Do you know if *quaestio* here is mostly a judicial term? I know that *quaestio* is must more like English *investigation* than *question*" CreationDate="2016-04-25T13:21:13.217" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1598" PostId="784" Score="0" Text="It has been used with either meaning of &quot;question/matter/subject (of any debate)&quot; and &quot;legal dispute/trial/investigation&quot;, depending on the context, although the latter one is more frequent due to (a) an abundance of writings concerning trials and the law in general (by Cicero foremost) and (b) the fact that the word comes from _quaero_ &quot;to seek&quot; — at least these are my educated guesses. The first meaning is more frequently found in treatises about philosophy or oratory, also in Medieval Latin: cf. _Naturales Quaestiones_ by Seneca the Younger, and _Quaestio de aqua et terra_ by Dante, etc." CreationDate="2016-04-25T16:08:25.497" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="1620" PostId="784" Score="1" Text="Your answer and comments have been very enlightening. I will accept your answer now. If someone comes along with an answer that more directly addresses my question, I might move my acceptance there." CreationDate="2016-04-26T09:17:20.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1600" PostId="787" Score="1" Text="I think it is really boring when people pose a so-called “question” and then “answer” it themselves." CreationDate="2016-04-25T20:57:57.757" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1602" PostId="787" Score="5" Text="@fdb Sorry it bothers you!  For what it's worth, I don't see it as a &quot;so-called&quot; question; it's something that I came across while reading and wanted to know more about it.  I decided to research it, and found a satisfactory answer, so I thought I would share my findings." CreationDate="2016-04-25T21:00:33.300" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1604" PostId="787" Score="3" Text="Also, for reference: [&quot;Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions.&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer)  Of course, you are free to disagree!" CreationDate="2016-04-25T21:04:44.693" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1605" PostId="787" Score="4" Text="@fdb, what Nathaniel explains is precisely the reason why self-answering is allowed in the SE network. This is a repository of interesting questions and answers. It is somewhat irrelevant who the authors are. Sometimes it happens that a user asks a colleague about a problem and the colleague can help. If the colleague is not a user and unwilling to become one, it is an excellent idea to share the new knowledge via our site (with proper acknowledgement in such case)." CreationDate="2016-04-25T21:06:39.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1606" PostId="787" Score="2" Text="But it does become rather stupid when people are allowed to up- and down-vote their own questions and answers." CreationDate="2016-04-25T22:09:30.677" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1607" PostId="787" Score="0" Text="@fdb Not sure what you mean: I can't vote on my own question or answer here." CreationDate="2016-04-25T22:11:11.100" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1608" PostId="787" Score="0" Text="Good. Some of the other forums on here do explicitly allow it." CreationDate="2016-04-25T22:12:17.677" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1609" PostId="787" Score="3" Text="@fdb Maybe Reddit or other forums, but not Stack Exchange; voting on your own content is not possible on any SE site.  And I agree, that's a very good thing." CreationDate="2016-04-25T22:14:09.400" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1621" PostId="787" Score="0" Text="Even though this thread of comments really belongs on meta, I'll add this: I feel its better to allow a day or two between question and answer to give other users the chance to produce their own worthwhile answers." CreationDate="2016-04-26T09:48:06.473" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="1622" PostId="787" Score="2" Text="@andy256 I've considered that option as well, but I usually don't do that because a) I might be wasting other people's time if I have an answer ready to go and they, not knowing that, put effort into an answer of their own, and b) there's always the option of answering *after* my answer.  If the other answer is good, I'll upvote it, and if it's better than mine, I'll accept it." CreationDate="2016-04-26T11:28:32.823" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1610" PostId="788" Score="2" Text="Interesting question. I'd think the fact that only adjectives, and not nouns, can take adverbial endings is an argument for not treating them as case endings." CreationDate="2016-04-25T22:30:33.867" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1611" PostId="788" Score="2" Text="@TKR: That, and the fact that they have neither number nor gender, which sets them even farther apart from nomina." CreationDate="2016-04-25T23:23:55.953" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1612" PostId="788" Score="0" Text="@Joonas: I understand your reasoning, but I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate here: what about verbs? If I turn *flamma* into a verb by adding the suffix *-o*, would that make *flammo* a casus obliquus of *flamma*, the verb case?" CreationDate="2016-04-25T23:28:24.593" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1618" PostId="788" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I know this theory is not particularly good with Latin for reasons you and Cerberus give, but I would assume someone has discussed this idea at some point. I agree that they are not case endings, but it is enlightening to think why this is so." CreationDate="2016-04-26T06:28:20.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1619" PostId="788" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, that's a good point. In the end we could call all different forms of all words &quot;cases&quot; if we wanted to... Anyway, I think playing with such ideas is useful for developing an understanding of grammar, and I wonder when such playing started." CreationDate="2016-04-26T06:31:32.927" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1624" PostId="788" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Absolutely! Especially since case endings are speculated to originate in adverbs themselves." CreationDate="2016-04-26T13:10:24.687" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1623" PostId="790" Score="1" Text="Is *hominem ex hominibus auferre* a common expression in Christian Latin? I have never seen it, and understanding its connotations seems important here." CreationDate="2016-04-26T12:52:33.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1625" PostId="790" Score="1" Text="Words meaning *remove* often mean &quot;kill&quot; in Latin, like *tollo*. Lewis &amp; Short say *aufero* is synonymous with *tollo* and a few similar words. They also offer &quot;kill&quot; as a subsense. So I think the connotation of murder is probably present—or at least it would be in classical Latin." CreationDate="2016-04-26T14:07:19.520" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2509" PostId="790" Score="0" Text="(Caveat: Long time since I read the Confessions.) Isn't the context of this passage more about the wrongheadedness of  worrying about making grammatical errors by speaking incorrectly (as, say, a rhetorician would, or an orator) even though the force of the words may be meant to convict someone who faced the death penalty. That is, Augustine suggests that worrying about what the words are used for is more important than worrying about using them in a grammatically correct fashion. I think I prefer Chadwick because it captures the idea that the speaker's words may bring about the execution." CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:52:02.793" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2510" PostId="790" Score="0" Text="See also O'Donnell's summary of this portion of the *Confessions* ([1.18.29](http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/conf/comm1.html)): 'Two patterns of order are superimposed on each other here, with their similarities drawn out to contrast the values they represent. Order and law exist in human language as it is used here, but it is all shown to be a fraud, and a killing one at that, by the hidden order and law of God that works in and through even the deeds of his most perverse opponents.'" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:56:05.907" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="1627" PostId="792" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks! I added a little section at the end concerning *quadrivial*, since I forgot to address that." CreationDate="2016-04-26T15:58:03.573" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1635" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="Grammatically you're right of course (and this reading occurred to me too), but taking the phrase as an appositive nominative feels to me like a very unnatural reading. But maybe I'm wrong. I wonder if there any extant Roman orations which begin in a comparable way." CreationDate="2016-04-27T16:52:54.533" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1636" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="@TKR, it feels unusual but not unnatural to me, but I don't recall ever seeing such a long apposition before. I don't know if this meaning was intended, but I wanted to record this possibility here. Your last sentence would make a good question." CreationDate="2016-04-27T17:30:12.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1637" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="But an appositive takes the case of the word it is apposed to—doesn't it?—, which would be an elliptical vocative here, so even in apposition I'd expect a vocative. However, I seem to remember that a &quot;nominativus pro vocativo&quot; was possible...not 100% sure, though, nor in which language this should be possible." CreationDate="2016-04-28T01:04:02.160" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1638" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, my understanding is that an apposition never takes vocative; if it modifies a vocative, it is in nominative. I could be mistaken, though." CreationDate="2016-04-28T06:44:17.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1640" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I made that into a [new question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/798/79) to ask if my interpretation of such use of vocative is correct." CreationDate="2016-04-28T10:32:48.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1641" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Hmm interesting. I'm looking forward to the answers..." CreationDate="2016-04-28T13:49:32.517" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1651" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, the question got a nice answer. You should see it. :P" CreationDate="2016-04-29T07:17:12.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40548" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In the Denison translation, &quot;Amici, Cives, Quirities...&quot;, &quot;Quirities&quot; described the Romans in normal, peaceful circumstances. Therefore, why use both &quot;Cives&quot; and &quot;Quirities&quot;? Mark-Antony's speech (Act III, Scene II) was made after the assassination of JC; therefore, the peace of Rome was already dying in front of MA's audience. A second reason to question the use of &quot;Quirities&quot;. Of course, I may be mixing-up drama with history, but the Latin is equally interesting." CreationDate="2022-12-05T15:46:07.923" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40549" PostId="794" Score="0" Text="@tony I recommend asking a separate question comparing *cives* and *quirites* (not *quirities*). It's a very interesting one, and I'd hate to see a discussion on it buried in the comments of an only tangentially related other question." CreationDate="2022-12-05T15:52:32.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1634" PostId="795" Score="0" Text="The same exact phrase as in English is attested in Italian, so I wouldn't totally exclude your tentative translation." CreationDate="2016-04-27T11:20:02.003" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="1639" PostId="797" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I will wait to see if others have ideas to offer before accepting an answer, but this is excellent. Is your *Georgics* an intentional English plural of a Latin word or a typo?" CreationDate="2016-04-28T06:47:30.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1643" PostId="797" Score="0" Text="The latter! It no longer exists!" CreationDate="2016-04-28T16:45:49.877" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1642" PostId="798" Score="4" Text="Though 2 and 4 are presumably grammatically correct, I don't think I've ever actually seen such a construction in a Latin text. I have a feeling Roman authors would use some other way of expressing the &quot;as&quot; (e.g. *quippe qui amicus sis* or the like)." CreationDate="2016-04-28T16:00:18.417" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1646" PostId="799" Score="0" Text="Very interesting, and this would also make a good answer to my [previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/793/populus-romanus-quiritium-as-vocative). But it's incorrect that &quot;The vocative on -e only came to Latin relatively late ... Latin had no separate vocative at first&quot;. The Latin vocative in *-e* is a direct descendant of the PIE vocative of thematic masculines, just like the same ending in Greek, and is not a borrowing or an innovation." CreationDate="2016-04-29T04:34:01.130" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1648" PostId="799" Score="0" Text="I think the Vergil and Horace examples are better explained as apposition, but the Livy and Lucan examples are clearly vocative in function -- and both of them have *populus*, which suggests that this is an irregularity of that specific noun." CreationDate="2016-04-29T04:48:04.157" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1650" PostId="799" Score="0" Text="I never thought I would get such an elaborate answer. This is brilliant. One note, though: *habeto* is for both second and third person singular, so you can't judge it third person by form alone." CreationDate="2016-04-29T07:15:56.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1654" PostId="805" Score="3" Text="Weiss (Hist. Gramm. Latin 299) says &quot;The suffix perhaps originated by misanalysis of *sec-undus* as *se-cundus*&quot; (which strikes me as a little desperate). The fact that there are several disparate recent proposals suggests that there's no single widely accepted explanation. Btw, the etymology you give from Garnier's paper is for *facundus*, not *fecundus*." CreationDate="2016-04-30T16:04:34.543" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1655" PostId="805" Score="0" Text="Interesting. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives no etymology; it merely says the suffix is used to indicate &quot;capacity or inclination&quot;." CreationDate="2016-05-01T01:37:53.113" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7704" PostId="805" Score="1" Text="[What's a cundus with you?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDJehCXMKwI&amp;t=3m8s)" CreationDate="2017-03-29T22:42:15.683" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1656" PostId="808" Score="2" Text="I don't know if anyone knows the exact answer, and I generally suggest against literal reading of prefixes, especially when a word has been borrowed (many times) between languages. I can offer some ideas, though: If someone is lured to something, then they are lured away from something else. You can also read *de-* as &quot;down&quot; or &quot;from above&quot;, implying that someone is lured to do something below their values or standards." CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:43:10.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1657" PostId="810" Score="1" Text="Regarding &quot;farris,&quot; in modern Italian, &quot;farro grande&quot; is spelt." CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:42:24.540" UserId="439" />
  <row Id="1658" PostId="810" Score="0" Text="Hunh—I thought it was just *farro*. Shows you what I know! (Though of course *farina* is &quot;flour*, so I wonder whether etymologically at some point they were just like, oh, let's just call all grains &quot;far-something&quot; and be done with it." CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:47:25.357" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1659" PostId="810" Score="1" Text="It usually is just called farro in the U.S., but &quot;farro&quot; can be any one of three related grains: einkorn, emmer, or spelt, which are, respectively, known as farro piccolo, medio, and grande, in Italian (though I don't know if Italians typically make the distinction either)." CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:54:48.593" UserId="439" />
  <row Id="1660" PostId="810" Score="1" Text="I think *far* is the best: '*farris seges*' occurs in Livy, so it's not just 'corn'" CreationDate="2016-05-01T20:33:27.017" UserId="116" />
  <row Id="1662" PostId="810" Score="0" Text="Actually, bizarrely, in the version I'm looking at, Lewis Elementary has *fār*, but Lewis &amp; Short has *far*. (I go back and forth between both, hence my mixed transcription.) I've removed it so that at least the answer is using one dictionary instead of two, but more than that I don't know." CreationDate="2016-05-02T00:40:04.767" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1664" PostId="810" Score="0" Text="Ah. I use latinlexicon.org, where they don't seem to mark short vowels." CreationDate="2016-05-02T00:43:41.000" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1666" PostId="810" Score="0" Text="That would make sense, given the double r in the other cases." CreationDate="2016-05-02T03:12:13.167" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4891" PostId="812" Score="2" Text="Just for context. In french weekly is said hebdomadaire, which (obviously) comes from hebdomas. While in italian week is said septimana. In Spanish is semana." CreationDate="2016-10-19T06:07:48.593" UserDisplayName="user923" />
  <row Id="4892" PostId="812" Score="1" Text="@Velvet, welcome to the site! I converted your answer to a comment because it does not really answer the question. It is a good comment, though. French has also the word &quot;semaine&quot; coming from *septimana*." CreationDate="2016-10-19T07:27:13.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1682" PostId="813" Score="1" Text="None of the authors cited here uses &quot;septimana&quot; to mean &quot;week&quot;. The question was explicitly about &quot;translations of week&quot;. It is ony Chirstian authors who use it in this meaning." CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:28:36.783" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1683" PostId="813" Score="0" Text="Ah! What do these authors mean when they say *septimana*?" CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:30:15.933" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1684" PostId="813" Score="1" Text="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseptimanus" CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:33:38.213" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1687" PostId="813" Score="0" Text="I have always thought that Romans never quite entertained structuring their time into seven-day weeks, the more common (and original) concept being an eight-day week (A-H), although the idea of a seven-day week was borrowed from Greece. Salzman 2013 argues that &quot;the seven-day week with its day of rest did not become the basis for the Roman structuring of time&quot; (p. 483)." CreationDate="2016-05-02T23:40:25.470" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1689" PostId="813" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. What word did they use to describe it (if they did)?" CreationDate="2016-05-02T23:51:31.833" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1692" PostId="813" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I'm not an expert on the Roman calendar but I suspect they didn't have such a word. The days were marked with letters, A through H, and the last day (8th or 9th) was called nundinae (a market day). I strongly recommend Rüpke 2011, [The Roman Calendar from Numa to Constantine: Time, History, and the Fasti](http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1444396528.html)" CreationDate="2016-05-03T02:48:54.423" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1704" PostId="813" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I agree with your assessment of Rüpke's excellent book. But I am sure he does not say that &quot;the idea of a seven-day week was borrowed from Greece&quot;, as this is not true. The speakers at the UCL colloquium (mentioned in my answer) emphasised that there are two different forms of the seven-day week: a Roman form, where the days are associated with planets, and a Jewish form where they are numbered from 1 (Sunday) to 7 (Saturday)." CreationDate="2016-05-03T14:31:29.217" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1675" PostId="814" Score="4" Text="*Water* doesn't actually come from German; *water* and *Wasser* are cognates, meaning they both come from the same parent word, but neither is derived from the other. There are relatively few German-origin words in English, and they're mostly obvious recent loanwords (e.g. *schadenfreude*)." CreationDate="2016-05-02T17:10:57.897" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1678" PostId="814" Score="0" Text="@TKR I'm a little confused then. I thought that Saxon tribes brought the Germanic language to modern-day England. This would lead me to think that the word *Wasser* got morphed into *water* over time. In which case, I would feel comfortable saying that *water* comes from *Wasser*." CreationDate="2016-05-02T18:53:02.953" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="1679" PostId="814" Score="6" Text="Don't be misled by the term &quot;Germanic&quot; into thinking that this language (the ancestor of English, German, Dutch, Swedish, etc.) was any closer to modern German than to modern English. In this particular case, the form *water* is actually closer to the Proto-Germanic word than the form *Wasser*, since the change of *t* to *ss* is specific to German." CreationDate="2016-05-02T19:27:54.690" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1694" PostId="814" Score="3" Text="Wouldn't this question be better asked on [Linguistics Stack Exchange](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com) or perhaps [English Language &amp; Usage](http://english.stackexchange.com)?" CreationDate="2016-05-03T03:35:39.473" UserId="159" />
  <row Id="1702" PostId="814" Score="0" Text="@TRiG It's probably better suited for those sites, particularly Linguistics, but to me it's sufficiently related to Latin to be on-topic here as well." CreationDate="2016-05-03T13:40:23.877" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1667" PostId="815" Score="0" Text="I had just written an answer when you posted yours. I decided to let the people choose not to discard mine although yours is more thorough." CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:13:09.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1671" PostId="815" Score="0" Text="Glad I could help! I KNEW that linguistics degree would come in handy one day!" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:20:06.633" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1674" PostId="815" Score="0" Text="This is mostly right, but a couple of corrections: (1) English is not German's daughter but German's sister. They're both Germanic languages, descending from Proto-Germanic which descends from PIE. (2) *Wasser/water* actually do go all the way back to PIE (and are cognate with Greek ὕδωρ), though Latin happens to have a different word for water." CreationDate="2016-05-02T17:09:29.210" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1669" PostId="816" Score="1" Text="It's neat that the words &quot;mother&quot; and &quot;father&quot; are so ancient, and that so many people throughout history have referred to their parents in a similar way." CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:14:15.757" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="1670" PostId="816" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124, it is indeed neat, but I wonder if it's coincidental. It might be that important words like these are less likely to be replaced than some other ones." CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:18:15.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1672" PostId="816" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: one major theory is that it’s not coincidental at all, but that it’s because these words are replaced *more* often than most others!  That is: any time they drift too far away from simple forms based on the first syllables that infants can speak, they get replaced by new versions formed form these syllables.  Here’s a nice essay on it: [Trask, *Where do *mama/papa* words come from?*](http://wayback.archive.org/web/20051128091658/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/where_do_mama2.pdf).  I’m not a linguist, but I believe this represents the mainstream consensus." CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:35:38.337" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="1673" PostId="816" Score="1" Text="@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine, that is very interesting, thanks! I only hope I could give your comment more than just an upvote." CreationDate="2016-05-02T17:00:42.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1680" PostId="818" Score="1" Text="It's actually very hard to say &quot;monts&quot; naturally in such a way that you actually hear the 't' :)" CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:24:04.387" UserId="278" />
  <row Id="1688" PostId="818" Score="3" Text="@CompuChip Not THAT hard. You say &quot;pants&quot; and &quot;dents,&quot; right?" CreationDate="2016-05-02T23:45:55.657" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1707" PostId="818" Score="2" Text="&quot;Latin does not allow the sequence ts&quot;. What about etsi?" CreationDate="2016-05-03T14:38:19.530" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1709" PostId="818" Score="2" Text="Sadly, I am a noob and cannot comment nor upvote, but I am compelled to point out that [Joel Derfner's](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/68/joel-derfner) retort is not quite applicable, for example what is the pronunciation difference between: CHANTS and CHANCE or DENTS and DENSE" CreationDate="2016-05-03T00:39:31.913" UserId="446" />
  <row Id="1711" PostId="818" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree—if you told me you were going to Target and asked me if I wanted anything and I said, &quot;Can you bring me back a pair of pants?&quot; you'd be unlikely to bring me back two Bundt cake tins (and vice versa). Certainly the difference is small, but if it leans one way or the other, I'd say that epenthesis is far more likely to add a t to &quot;chance&quot; so that it's pronounced &quot;chants&quot; than remove one from &quot;chants&quot; so it's pronounce &quot;chance.&quot; (Of course, I'd appreciate Bundt cake tins OR clothing, either way. :) )" CreationDate="2016-05-03T03:22:19.220" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1717" PostId="818" Score="1" Text="@fdb: Fair enough, but that's a transparent compound of *et si*, so is a somewhat different case. (Who knows if the Romans would have written it *etsi* or *et si*?)" CreationDate="2016-05-03T16:20:32.310" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1719" PostId="818" Score="3" Text="@fdb I've added &quot;except in compound words&quot; to the answer." CreationDate="2016-05-03T16:49:49.703" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1733" PostId="818" Score="5" Text="There are only [7 words](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=ts&amp;lang=la) in L&amp;S that have the *ts* combination, all of which are compounds." CreationDate="2016-05-04T14:55:24.553" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1681" PostId="819" Score="1" Text="Alvum exonerat! That's amazing!" CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:28:09.750" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1691" PostId="821" Score="0" Text="Welcome!  This is an interesting graphic, but it doesn't really answer the question asked.  Stack Exchange is a bit more structured than a typical forum, to help ensure that questions and answers are directly related, for the benefit of future readers.  I hope you'll stick around, review [how to answer a question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer), and post again in the future!" CreationDate="2016-05-03T02:13:13.653" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1698" PostId="821" Score="1" Text="Welcome! I took the liberty to edit your answer a little. Feel free to re-edit or undo my edits if they feel wrong. Answers here are supposed to answer the question, so I tried to relate your answer more closely to the question itself. The image is interesting and illuminates a phenomenon that is the key to this question, so don't want to remove it." CreationDate="2016-05-03T07:03:45.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9174" PostId="821" Score="0" Text="That graph gives an idea of how it works, but it's unfortunately overly simplified. Polish and Czech, for example, come from a common source *after* Proto-Slavic, and there are quite a few steps in between each arrow as they appear. But it's, overall, the gist of the idea." CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:56:23.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1705" PostId="822" Score="1" Text="I think Lucretius is a very clear writer." CreationDate="2016-05-03T14:35:42.987" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1706" PostId="822" Score="2" Text="What kind of philosophy are you interested in? Stoicism? Seneca's *Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium* are written in plain speech and easier than Cicero (I think). Scholastic Latin is a beast of its own, but once you get beyond vocabulary it is remarkably easy." CreationDate="2016-05-03T14:37:26.543" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1714" PostId="822" Score="0" Text="@fdb I'll check him out, though the fact that it's poetry makes me a little nervous. (If you want to make this an answer, by the way, I'll upvote.)" CreationDate="2016-05-03T15:51:54.500" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1715" PostId="822" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yeah, I think my regular vocabulary still needs work, so I'll leave Scholastic Latin for later, but I'll check out Seneca. If you want to make this an answer I'll upvote." CreationDate="2016-05-03T15:52:44.643" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1695" PostId="825" Score="0" Text="Good answer! We seem to be developing a habit of answering simultaneously..." CreationDate="2016-05-03T06:24:22.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1696" PostId="825" Score="0" Text="Great minds think alike. And so do ours! (Ba DUM bum.)" CreationDate="2016-05-03T06:25:37.790" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1697" PostId="825" Score="1" Text="So then if English dictionaries listed verbs this way then we'd see entries like the following? &quot;eat, ate, eaten: to consume.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-03T06:59:51.137" UserId="358" />
  <row Id="1699" PostId="825" Score="0" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_parts" CreationDate="2016-05-03T07:05:04.717" UserId="358" />
  <row Id="1701" PostId="825" Score="0" Text="In re &quot;eat, ate, eaten: to consume,&quot; yes, exactly!" CreationDate="2016-05-03T11:00:28.367" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1703" PostId="825" Score="4" Text="@LukeSheppard I don't know what dictionaries you're using, but the one I have in Kindle does a similar thing, explaining the irregularities - e.g. &quot;**car.ry** *v.* (**-ries**, **-ried**)&quot; or &quot;**buy** *v.* (**buys**, **buy.ing**; *past* and *past part.* **bought**). I've seen similar approaches in many different English (and otherwise) dictionaries." CreationDate="2016-05-03T14:17:09.600" UserId="449" />
  <row Id="18980" PostId="825" Score="0" Text="@LukeSheppard Late, but: in my experience, English dictionaries for foreigners do in fact list those three principal parts! &quot;Walk, walked, walked&quot;, &quot;give, gave, given&quot;, &quot;sleep, slept, slept&quot;, etc." CreationDate="2019-03-22T16:21:20.910" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="1700" PostId="826" Score="1" Text="Is there a difference between these two words after Christian authors introduced them in the sense of a week? (The question did not ask about classical usage.)" CreationDate="2016-05-03T08:46:56.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1712" PostId="827" Score="3" Text="I didn't know that this loss of *t* is a more common Indo-European trait. But being Indo-European does not make it non-Latin; if Latin inherited a phonetic rule from PIE, it is still a rule in Latin. Some study Latin without a wider IE linguistic context, and for them this point of view is natural." CreationDate="2016-05-03T15:09:40.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1713" PostId="827" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. I contest that &quot;it is still a rule in Latin&quot;. Witness etsi, postsum, postscribo etc." CreationDate="2016-05-03T15:32:36.530" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1716" PostId="827" Score="1" Text="One could view those as compound words (*et-si*, *post-sum*, *post-scribo*) and consider *-ts-* to be preserved in such situations against the general rule. Whether or not it was ever an active rule in Latin, I still find the rule useful for understanding Latin declension. It may have exceptions, but it isn't pointless. Nevertheless, it is interesting to know the origin of this sound change." CreationDate="2016-05-03T16:12:42.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1718" PostId="827" Score="3" Text="If this is intended as a correction of my answer (in which case I think it would be better as a comment), I don't see the contradiction. Synchronic phonotactic constraints often have diachronic origins." CreationDate="2016-05-03T16:47:10.410" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1720" PostId="827" Score="2" Text="Btw, the fact that this is still an active rule in Latin can be seen from its application in words that were not t-stems in PIE, which is the case of *mons* itself: it's a *-ti-* stem, whose PIE nominative would have been *montis*, but became *mons* by a Latin-specific syncope change." CreationDate="2016-05-03T17:17:53.947" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1722" PostId="827" Score="0" Text="@TKR. Yes, mons is historically an IE -i stem, *mnti-. But in Latin its paradigm has been completely revamped by analogy to -t stems like nepot-, nom. sing. nepos. From a purely Latin synchronic point of view there is no reason to regard mons as an -i stem." CreationDate="2016-05-03T22:08:01.273" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1724" PostId="827" Score="1" Text="@fdb Agreed; my point was that the t-loss rule, though originating in PIE, is still fully synchronically productive in Latin." CreationDate="2016-05-03T22:37:07.110" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1728" PostId="827" Score="1" Text="@sumelic: Maybe not *montis*, but we do have *sortis* in Plautus for later *sors*." CreationDate="2016-05-04T03:23:17.867" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1729" PostId="827" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. The etymology of nox is actually hotly contested. Have a look at the entry in de Vaan." CreationDate="2016-05-04T09:21:12.293" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1730" PostId="827" Score="3" Text="@fdb references? examples?" CreationDate="2016-05-04T14:15:12.913" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1732" PostId="827" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I have added an example in Indo-Iranian, and a reference." CreationDate="2016-05-04T14:40:56.587" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1734" PostId="827" Score="0" Text="@fdb And? The reference you mentioned is slightly tangential to our discussion here. What evidence can you share with us that regressive assimilation ts&gt;ss&gt;s happened already in PIE (**viz. nom.sg.!**) and not in individual languages?" CreationDate="2016-05-04T15:48:55.490" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1736" PostId="827" Score="0" Text="@AlexB: I just found a paper that seems to argue against dating this change to PIE, while acknowledging that some scholars do so: &quot;[The Proto-Indo-European *-VTs# clusters and the formulation of Szemerényi’s Law](http://www.academia.edu/18765354/The_Proto-Indo-European_-VTs_clusters_and_the_formulation_of_Szemerényi_s_Law)&quot;, by Dariusz Piwowarczyk" CreationDate="2016-05-04T15:54:02.473" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="1737" PostId="827" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Thanks, I'll read it later today with all the references mentioned. So far, I'd stick to &quot;the minimal account&quot; of Szemerényi's law." CreationDate="2016-05-04T15:58:52.830" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1742" PostId="827" Score="0" Text="Hittite t-stems have a nom. sg. in -z(a) [ts], which argues against t-loss in PIE (unless you want to say that these forms are analogical from the oblique cases)." CreationDate="2016-05-04T20:20:05.960" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1723" PostId="829" Score="2" Text="Welcome!  Thanks for your answer.  I hope you'll register for an account and stick around!  By the way, the translation in a comment above was actually referring to a previous version of the question, which had &quot;narrant&quot; instead of &quot;narrat.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-03T22:32:59.410" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1740" PostId="830" Score="0" Text="a side note. &quot;According to Piwowarczyk, Oswald Szemerényi thinks&quot; - 1. Oswald Szemerényi passed away in 1996. 2. Even Piwowarczyk clearly writes that Szemerényi seems to have changed his mind about Auslaut ts&gt;s happening in PIE." CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:55:57.833" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1738" PostId="833" Score="0" Text="I recall seeing *dominus* as well--do you know if it is ever contracted, e.g. *Dn.*?" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:33:10.513" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1739" PostId="833" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I don't recall ever seeing it contracted. If the contraction should distinguish *dominus* and *domina*, perhaps *D:us* and *D:a* would be more likely than *Dn.* or *D.*, but this is just a guess." CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:42:48.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1745" PostId="833" Score="2" Text="I recently got an email from Terence Tunberg, who runs the living Latin program at the University of Kentucky, that opened with &quot;Terentius Dno. Derfner spd.&quot; So I'd say abbreviations are possible." CreationDate="2016-05-05T00:37:27.257" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="44654" PostId="833" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Weren't &quot;dominus&quot; &amp; &quot;domina&quot; terms of address for high-ranking Romans--&quot;Lord&quot; &amp; &quot;Lady&quot;? The Emperor's wife might be called, &quot;Domina&quot;, and ladies of a slightly-lesser ilk. At street level? In Roman-epic movies even people like Senators refer to each-other by their surnames: &quot;Greetings Crassus.&quot;; &quot;Are you well, Caesar?&quot;." CreationDate="2023-09-02T09:03:06.217" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44798" PostId="833" Score="1" Text="@tony As acknowledged in the question, there is no exact classical equivalent to the modern Mr/Mrs, so none of the offered translations will be a perfect match. How to address people above you in ancient Rome is an entirely different question, but a good one." CreationDate="2023-09-11T09:50:24.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1743" PostId="834" Score="2" Text=". &quot;At the University of Cambridge, the honorific 'Domina' (abbreviated as Dna) is given to women who hold a Bachelor of Arts degree, but not a master's degree. From mea domina, &quot;my lady,&quot; through French &quot;madame,&quot; comes &quot;madam&quot;, and the contracted form &quot;ma'am.&quot; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_(title)" CreationDate="2016-05-04T23:05:00.700" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="1744" PostId="834" Score="1" Text="@KenGraham Oh, nice find.  Sounds like a good answer, especially if you can find a source better than WP." CreationDate="2016-05-04T23:06:03.837" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="43263" PostId="836" Score="0" Text="We were doing a test in latin and i put ambulabat as past continuous but it was marked wrong. Was this a mistake from the teacher?" CreationDate="2023-05-20T13:19:57.987" UserId="13481" />
  <row Id="1746" PostId="837" Score="0" Text="Thank you. This seems clear now. I guess this means that I need to gain a clearer understanding of participals too." CreationDate="2016-05-05T04:21:05.333" UserId="358" />
  <row Id="1747" PostId="837" Score="0" Text="Yeah, if it were a participle, it would decline like an adjective -- so nominative would be *ambulans*, genitive *ambulantis*, etc." CreationDate="2016-05-05T04:25:03.223" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1748" PostId="837" Score="1" Text="*ambulabat* could also just be translated as simple past, *walked* ( https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_8-Imperfect_and_Future#Imperfect_Active_Indicative )" CreationDate="2016-05-05T07:21:42.510" UserId="454" />
  <row Id="1750" PostId="838" Score="0" Text="Interesting...any idea why [this version of Cotton's translation](http://www.alcuinus.net/ephemeris/superbia.php?id=242) seems to use &quot;Honestus&quot;, not &quot;Hera&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-05-05T16:52:49.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1751" PostId="838" Score="0" Text="As I understand it, the book version wasn't published until after he'd finished the online version, so one assumes that in between the two he decided that *Honestior* was better than *Honestus*, and also came up with the abbreviation *Hr*. (He uses *Hera* for &quot;Miss,&quot; not for &quot;Mister.&quot;)" CreationDate="2016-05-05T21:44:01.640" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1754" PostId="839" Score="1" Text="I found a 14th century reference to it from [Ibn Khaldun](http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter1/Ch_1_04.htm), but no luck with classical sources so far..." CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:22:52.973" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1753" PostId="840" Score="3" Text="Related: [Can the ablative take a non-human agent or a human instrument?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/391/12)" CreationDate="2016-05-06T13:10:33.600" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1752" PostId="841" Score="0" Text="My grammar specifically mentions &quot;human&quot;, not &quot;animate&quot;, but it could be an error. (I double checked my book and it indeed says so.) It also lists agent as a special case of instrumental ablative, so the border between an instrument and an inanimate agent becomes fussy (as it semantically is)." CreationDate="2016-05-06T11:37:35.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1797" PostId="842" Score="0" Text="That quote from Harkness seems to take *qui* awfully close to *qualis*. Does he make a difference between these two?" CreationDate="2016-05-09T08:28:37.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1801" PostId="842" Score="0" Text="He doesn't seem to. On the other hand, I haven't read the whole thing. If I do (and if he does) I'll update." CreationDate="2016-05-09T10:45:25.527" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1755" PostId="843" Score="0" Text="Brilliant! This may well be the passage I originally heard of." CreationDate="2016-05-06T20:03:30.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1756" PostId="845" Score="0" Text="Interesting! But, I still find this a bit confusing: what nouns are these ablatives of? And is it known why the feminine form ended up being more commonly used? Wiktionary lists nouns that seem to correspond to some of them, but not all ([exter](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exter#Latin), [ulter](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ulter), [citer](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/citer)). Surprisingly to me, &quot;exter&quot; seems to have the stem &quot;exter-&quot; rather than &quot;extr-.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-06T22:18:54.607" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="1758" PostId="845" Score="1" Text="@sumelic They're ablatives of &quot;comparatives&quot; in _*-tero-_. Scare quotes because these aren't normal comparatives of adjectives, but have the older PIE function of specifying &quot;one of a pair&quot; (inner as opposed to outer, etc.). Presumably the feminine forms imply some understood feminine noun that is being modified -- *pars*, maybe?" CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:22:52.473" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1757" PostId="846" Score="2" Text="Interesting. Do you happen to know if there is any difference in tone between using a preposition and using a plain ablative? Perhaps a preposition emphasizes control of the situation as opposed to being just a reason or a tool?" CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:21:56.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1759" PostId="846" Score="4" Text="I think that's exactly it. The preposition emphasizes an *exercise of will*. The dog desires to hold the boar, and the villainous pleasure desires to break a man. Similarly, though one presumes that when the actual event occurred the young patricians had a say in where they stood, Livy is emphasizing their use as tools by the decemvirs: in this sentence their only existence is as physical objects, not as actors." CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:45:49.987" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1760" PostId="846" Score="0" Text="It all makes sense that way, and it also explains why the preposition usually comes with humans but usually not with inanimate objects. Could you add that to your answer in some form?" CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:49:45.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1761" PostId="846" Score="0" Text="Dicto audiens sum." CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:52:13.160" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="44437" PostId="846" Score="0" Text="It's somewhat ironic that in Spanish, it is the _accusative_ that takes a preposition (_a_, descended from Latin _ad_) only with animate _objects_, kind of exactly &quot;mirror-reversing&quot; what happens in Latin with the (arguably &quot;opposite&quot; case) **ablative**, the agent/instrument, and _a/ab_." CreationDate="2023-08-13T13:12:15.447" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="1762" PostId="848" Score="0" Text="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-latin-grammar-9780198602774?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;" CreationDate="2016-05-07T06:10:46.457" UserId="358" />
  <row Id="1768" PostId="848" Score="0" Text="The first step to learning Latin is to realise that cases are important." CreationDate="2016-05-07T18:49:48.363" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1767" PostId="849" Score="0" Text="This answer is correct, apart from the fact that in ENGLISH we do not use commas around restrictive relative clauses. It should read &quot;A wife who is good...&quot; In German, and I suspect in Finnish, it works differently." CreationDate="2016-05-07T18:44:47.420" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1769" PostId="849" Score="0" Text="@fdb, I know. I added the commas for clarity to emphasize the limits of the relative clause and make it easier to compare the structures in the two languages." CreationDate="2016-05-07T18:58:18.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1765" PostId="850" Score="0" Text="I agree the sentence might have been easier to parse with the word order you propose, but it does feel less natural to me. It also occurs to me now that one could read the original as *Uxor, quae bona est uno viro, est contenta* &quot;A wife, who is good to one man, is content&quot;. The word order restricts what can be included in the subordinate clause." CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:51:07.353" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1766" PostId="850" Score="0" Text="Oh, yes, the order I suggested is very unnatural and un-Latin. I'll add that to my answer." CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:52:19.423" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1776" PostId="851" Score="2" Text="That conjugation table seems to be of very low quality, and I advice against trusting it at all. In addition to the errors others have mentioned, let me point out that the future participle is not *esurus* but *futurus*." CreationDate="2016-05-08T04:49:12.993" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1781" PostId="851" Score="0" Text="The passive forms of esse on that website are crossed out - it means they don't exist." CreationDate="2016-05-08T15:37:11.100" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1771" PostId="852" Score="3" Text="You are right: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?T1=notawordio&amp;Submit=Go&amp;D1=9&amp;H1=109" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:11:20.030" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="15574" PostId="852" Score="1" Text="I don't find the *intransitive therefore unable to be passive* argument convincing. How then do you explain such forms as *itur, potestur, nequitur, statur,* etc.?" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:21:23.893" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="1770" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="Random side question: what is the deal with II imperative and II future, do they refer to future imperative and future perfect respectively?" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:09:09.107" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="1774" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@tox123 Looks like it, yes. It's not a terminology I've seen used elsewhere." CreationDate="2016-05-08T01:03:32.690" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1775" PostId="853" Score="1" Text="The reason supplied in this answer (and the below) is incorrect: *plenty* of intransitive verbs can be used impersonally with 3rd person passive forms, e.g. *itur*: &quot;via qua itur ad Deum&quot; = &quot;the way by which it is gone [*or*: one goes] to God&quot;." CreationDate="2016-05-08T01:14:59.063" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1777" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, can you turn that into an answer? If you happen to know why *esse* does not have an impersonal passive like that, it would be great. (For comparison: In Finnish we do have a regular (impersonal) passive for the verb *olla* &quot;to be&quot;.)" CreationDate="2016-05-08T04:56:29.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1779" PostId="853" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. ire can be a transitive verb, with direct object viam. Active: viam it, passive: via itur." CreationDate="2016-05-08T10:08:29.673" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1780" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@tox123 future perfect is also known as futurum exactum or futurum secundum - hence Futurum II, as opposed to futurum simplex (Futurum I). This terminology was (and still is?) pretty common in German and Russian Altertumswissenschaft." CreationDate="2016-05-08T15:30:12.903" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1782" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="For instance, one of the best Latin grammars, Lateinische Grammatik by Leumann, Hofmann and Szantyr (1977), talks about Futurum exactum (Futurum II) on pp. 609-610." CreationDate="2016-05-08T15:49:40.213" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1783" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Fair enough, but only in the 3sg. Intransitives certainly don't have a whole passive paradigm like this website gives." CreationDate="2016-05-08T16:35:53.570" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1787" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta My guess is that the reason *esse* isn't used in the impersonal passive is this: the impers. pass. is an extension of the normal passive based on the fact that even mostly-intransitive verbs can often take a small, semantically restricted set of objects (cf. the Greek internal accusative). *Esse* is not such a verb and can never take any type of object at all, so it can't be passivized even impersonally. (The Finnish &quot;passive&quot; is really more of an impersonal/generic active form, witness the fact that its &quot;subject&quot; can be in the accusative!)" CreationDate="2016-05-08T16:59:01.883" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1788" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@fdb, I've never seen *ire* used transitively like in your example...perhaps you're thinking of constructions like *it Romam*, which is not a direct object? If not, can you cite an author? Anyway, that was just the first example that came to mind--others include *sedetur*, *venitur*, *statur*, etc." CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:29:18.657" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1789" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@TKR, Agreed: my point was that *almost all* transitive verbs have this passive form while *esse* does not. If you could addressed this difference, I would gladly upvote!" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:32:26.093" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1790" PostId="853" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Edited to add a reference to the impersonal passive." CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:38:56.930" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1791" PostId="853" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. “ire vias,” Prop. 1, 1, 17: “exsequias,” Ter. Ph. 5, 8, 37: “pompam funeris,” Ov. F. 6, 663 et saep." CreationDate="2016-05-08T19:47:40.683" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1795" PostId="853" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Ire viam, vivere vitam etc. are examples of the internal accusative mentioned by TKR in his or her comment; I believe it is usually a stylistic or rhetorical embellishment, and it is uncommon, as you say. I agree with you that with most intransitive verbs this is not done, while they still allow the impersonal passive; so I don't think that should be considered a determining factor." CreationDate="2016-05-09T01:40:26.687" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1796" PostId="859" Score="4" Text="Or, similarly, &quot;Salutes Plurimas Dico&quot;, I send many greetings (also I'm pretty sure those endings have to be plural, unless that's an idiomatic thing)" CreationDate="2016-05-09T03:54:47.213" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1799" PostId="862" Score="0" Text="Thank you! If I understand you correctly, you're siding more with me than with the translations—the difference between the two positions being that you and I take the subject of the implied *ratiócinárí* to be Cicero's audience, and the translations I quote take it to be Catiline. This would certainly do less violence to my understanding of the basic meaning of *ratió*." CreationDate="2016-05-09T10:14:38.650" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1802" PostId="862" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, that is indeed the case. I can't wrap my head around the *ratio* belonging to Catilina instead of Cicero's audience. If *ratio* referred to Catilina's *studia*, I would expect it to be in plural. The translations seem ir**ratio**nal to me if you permit the pun." CreationDate="2016-05-09T12:11:31.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1804" PostId="862" Score="0" Text="I permit it, though reluctantly." CreationDate="2016-05-09T14:44:58.770" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1805" PostId="862" Score="0" Text="Scholastic Latin uses *ratio* in many ways: for instance, *omnia appetimus sub ratione boni* means something like &quot;we desire all things insofar as we see them as good.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:05:11.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1806" PostId="862" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, interesting. I would probably have misinterpreted that. Do you know if such use of *ratio* originates in antiquity? That sounds a bit wrong to my classically trained ear." CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:08:59.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16373" PostId="863" Score="1" Text="It seems Laura Bassi [was not](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_education) the first ever female professor. Also, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7516/is-the-phrase-professor-emerita-grammatically-correct)." CreationDate="2018-11-12T16:17:21.990" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="1810" PostId="866" Score="4" Text="Even though *Gnaee* appears to be absent in extant classical literature, the analogy with the attested vocatives from *-aeus* makes a very strong case. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-05-09T16:38:26.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23022" PostId="867" Score="1" Text="Very interesting question and answers, but if someone could add a Latin/Latin dictionary, because the only one given above doesn't work." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:07:39.600" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="8641" PostId="868" Score="1" Text="Well, I've come from the future to confirm that conjugation-and-declension-related errors are everywhere. But, this is still really cool." CreationDate="2017-05-08T13:46:50.290" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="23018" PostId="869" Score="0" Text="It's not my favorite, but it gives very nicely and quickly the inflections!" CreationDate="2019-11-02T01:53:15.663" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="1812" PostId="870" Score="5" Text="Welcome, and nice answer!  I hope you'll stick around and check out some of our other questions and answers.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:36:19.987" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1813" PostId="870" Score="1" Text="This is indeed a nice answer! Do you happen to know what *Loxodonta* is supposed to mean? It sounds like a Greek &quot;slant-tooth&quot; to me, but I'm not entirely sure." CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:57:17.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1816" PostId="870" Score="0" Text="aparently crosswise toothed (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Loxodonta), with the tooth pointing sideways (http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.43:10:45.LSJ). And it's Greek" CreationDate="2016-05-10T20:41:49.473" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1827" PostId="872" Score="4" Text="Latin cyma (also written cuma) is a loan from Greek κῦμα. It is a neuter t-stem in both languages, so the correct Latin plural is cymata; cymae is presumably an inner-Latin corruption. I do not see why Wiktionary needs to invent a fictitious Greek antecedent." CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:10:08.930" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1836" PostId="874" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I understand your two last points: please feel free to question them separately, if you are interesteD?" CreationDate="2016-05-12T00:44:56.447" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="1837" PostId="874" Score="1" Text="@LePressentiment, you are welcome. I have other questions queued up to be asked, so I don't think I will ask those two. The question about ancient cabbages is more about history and biology than Latin, so I wouldn't ask it here. The second one would make a reasonable question, but I don't know if it would be answerable. Feel free to ask those if you want; I don't reserve them to myself." CreationDate="2016-05-12T11:48:59.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1828" PostId="877" Score="0" Text="A problem I'd list as a con of Words is it accepts unattested, regular (even illegal) inflections of words as valid. Does that still hold for your project?" CreationDate="2016-05-11T17:45:33.927" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2584" PostId="877" Score="3" Text="For the record, William Whitaker's Words [is available online](http://archives.nd.edu/words.html), too." CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:05:14.313" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="10755" PostId="877" Score="0" Text="For Mac users, there is Interpres, a Mac OS Whitaker's Word Wrapper: https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/17852/interpres." CreationDate="2017-09-19T19:30:53.797" UserId="1996" />
  <row Id="1831" PostId="878" Score="1" Text="The question pushes my English beyond my knowledge, but as far as I understand it, the word *eventually* has both functions at a time: to mark the end of something, and to point that there was an underterminate wait, am I wrong?" CreationDate="2016-05-11T18:36:25.750" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1832" PostId="878" Score="2" Text="Ah, interesting. You can't say &quot;eventually&quot; about something in the present tense—only past or future—but you could approximate it with something like, &quot;Finally, after God knows how long, we've kicked Catiline out.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-11T20:19:36.847" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1833" PostId="878" Score="0" Text="FWIW, my sense of what *aliquando* is doing is the same as Rafael's." CreationDate="2016-05-11T20:28:26.723" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1834" PostId="878" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner not even in present perfect like in *ejecimus*? I mean, present perfect happens in the past: it is only *from* the present that it is reported" CreationDate="2016-05-11T20:30:45.930" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1835" PostId="878" Score="2" Text="Hmm. &quot;We have eventually kicked him out&quot; sounds weird to me." CreationDate="2016-05-11T20:36:41.467" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1838" PostId="878" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, do you want to turn this into an answer? I feel like it makes a lot of sense, and even if you don't have rock-solid evidence I'm inclined to accept it if nobody else comes along with a more informed opinion." CreationDate="2016-05-12T12:59:12.787" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1839" PostId="878" Score="0" Text="Ok. I'll give it a try as soon as I can" CreationDate="2016-05-12T14:48:56.997" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1841" PostId="879" Score="1" Text="I (and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daliquando)) agree that *tandem* adds an exasperated &quot;finally&quot;, e.g. &quot;After all this time--*finally*--etc.&quot; Note that this is kind of similar to the beginning of the First Cataline Oration: *usque tandem*" CreationDate="2016-05-12T21:38:45.693" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30278" PostId="880" Score="0" Text="There was a suggested edit: &quot;Didn’t see a reply button so I’m just doing this, sorry about that, but the meaning behind it is “ Prodigies bewailed, please reign destruction” and the rest of the song talks about the destruction of earth and the darkest lord.&quot; (There is a text box below all the other answers where you can write a new one. If you do so, please see the other answers and explain how you ended up with your answer. I declined the suggested edit as it was an answer, not an improvement on the question.)" CreationDate="2020-12-31T13:51:12.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1844" PostId="881" Score="0" Text="It looks like someone fed an English sentence into an automated &quot;translator&quot; and the machine spewed out this gibberish. Maybe someone might feel like repeating the exercise in the opposite direction." CreationDate="2016-05-13T10:17:02.097" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1845" PostId="881" Score="0" Text="Well, http://translate.google.com gives me, &quot;Prodigies bewailed Silent, please reign destruction.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-13T10:19:50.683" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1846" PostId="881" Score="0" Text="The &quot;English&quot; and the &quot;Latin&quot; seem to be of similar quality." CreationDate="2016-05-13T10:21:46.530" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1856" PostId="883" Score="3" Text="It seems that you could make the argument that &quot;causa,&quot; &quot;gratia,&quot; and &quot;ergo&quot; when preceded by the genitive act as prepostions." CreationDate="2016-05-14T04:16:04.653" UserId="253" />
  <row Id="1859" PostId="883" Score="0" Text="Honestly, I'm not sure there are any pure prepositions that take the genitive other than *tenus*..." CreationDate="2016-05-14T15:14:15.230" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1862" PostId="883" Score="0" Text="@nick do you know during which period(s) was *tenus* used and how frequent was its use?" CreationDate="2016-05-14T20:42:41.950" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1992" PostId="883" Score="0" Text="Wait, now I'm dying to know what linguistics fiction is." CreationDate="2016-05-27T15:25:59.027" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1993" PostId="883" Score="1" Text="But...can *tenus* be used as a preposition? I've only ever seen it used as a postposition." CreationDate="2016-05-27T16:00:56.117" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1994" PostId="883" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, which makes it even weirder. Anyway, I was asking for in a broad sense of _preposition_ by the function of modifying the grammatical function (hence it doesn't matter to me whether the word goes before or after the noun/adjective/pronoun being modified)" CreationDate="2016-05-27T16:58:07.113" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1995" PostId="883" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: Okay, and does a noun in the ablative that has a genitive with it have the appropriate function, like *ope* + gen.? Both have 1 dependent noun, and both can function externally as an adverbial phrase. At any rate, then you should probably change *preposition* into some other term. And *causa* and *gratia* would probably qualify." CreationDate="2016-05-27T16:59:38.353" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1996" PostId="883" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, hahaha, it is just a wordplay with science-fiction, where linguistics is the science. I mean to conjecture what in some hypothetical parallel universe could have happened." CreationDate="2016-05-27T17:01:50.893" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1997" PostId="883" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, interesting. I rather look for an authoritative ruling, like a grammar textbook or an academic paper saying they are/aren't prepositions -postpositions [included](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apreposition&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b)-. I haven't heard the case of _tenus_ before, and I don't think _gratia_ or _causa_ qualify, because they are obviously nouns." CreationDate="2016-05-27T17:10:56.180" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1998" PostId="883" Score="2" Text="Or, if most people agree, I can change the word _preposition_ for the more proper _adposition_, of which I wasn't aware up to 1 min ago O:)" CreationDate="2016-05-27T17:19:19.123" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1999" PostId="883" Score="2" Text="Considering what you're after, I think adposition would be better." CreationDate="2016-05-27T17:48:17.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1850" PostId="884" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Where did you come across the expression *eadem mutata resurgo*? Any additional information might help put the phrase in context and give a more reasonable translation." CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:25:03.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1852" PostId="885" Score="0" Text="Totally OT, but once I read there were such disagreements between local variants of 1st century Hebrew." CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:51:52.753" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2023" PostId="885" Score="0" Text="Legendum, &quot;something to be read.&quot; became the title of various collections, Legenda &quot;things to be read.&quot;  By 1200 this was commonly treated as a Feminine nominative singular, &quot;a legend.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-29T16:19:36.817" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2124" PostId="885" Score="2" Text="It's late (3/4C), but are you familiar with the [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi)?" CreationDate="2016-06-09T18:35:15.023" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2126" PostId="885" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I had never heard of that, but that Wikipedia article was an interesting read. I suppose that counts as a written record of some kind of grammatical disagreement. That would make a nice answer, even if it doesn't hit the nail exactly on the head." CreationDate="2016-06-09T19:05:46.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1851" PostId="886" Score="1" Text="The origin is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadem_mutata_resurgo). It says it was intended to mean *Although changed, I arise the same*. Mutata would be just a feminine participle: The subject being feminine" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:45:13.513" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1853" PostId="886" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, thanks! I updated my answer to include that reading." CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:53:03.533" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1854" PostId="886" Score="1" Text="I think the nominative reading is more likely than an ablative absolute, especially because it sounds like the end of a hexameter line." CreationDate="2016-05-13T22:03:05.723" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1855" PostId="886" Score="0" Text="@TKR, good point! It never occurred to me that it could come from verse, but it sounds likely now that you mention it. In that case it is indeed nominative, not ablative." CreationDate="2016-05-13T22:18:29.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1860" PostId="886" Score="0" Text="I'm confused: how can we read this as feminine nominative if the phrase originated with a man, and what he had inscribed on his tombstone? Or perhaps the word for &quot;similarity transformation&quot; is feminine (in which case I'm confused by the use of the first person)? It seems a more appropriate version would be &quot;Isdem mutatus resurgo&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-14T16:36:32.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1861" PostId="886" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, I don't think the *ego* of the inscription is the person buried. The Wikipedia article suggests that the subject is the logarithmic spiral (I don't know if it's feminine). It would also make sense for the subject to be mathematics (which is feminine)." CreationDate="2016-05-14T16:39:53.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1871" PostId="886" Score="1" Text="To me it almost looks like a cryptic double reference to the spiral (_spira_, feminine) _and_ the Phoenix, who &quot;rises the same&quot; after burning up. Back in Bernoulli's time, mathematics was much closer to numerology and mystic knowledge than it is in our day." CreationDate="2016-05-16T05:38:25.970" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="1857" PostId="887" Score="2" Text="*Singulis quadrienniis* is a good one! The structure *singulis* + time in plural ablative is attested in ancient literature, so your suggestion is also valid classical Latin. This is the best idea so far." CreationDate="2016-05-14T10:37:16.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23021" PostId="888" Score="0" Text="What make you say it's the best (not saying it's not, but why?)" CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:05:46.110" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23034" PostId="888" Score="0" Text="@Quidam Because I haven't seen better. I'd be happy to learn of an even better dictionary that is freely available online. That said, what makes a good dictionary depends on the exact task at hand; different goals call for different focuses in a dictionary." CreationDate="2019-11-02T10:38:17.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23039" PostId="888" Score="0" Text="I'm not saying it's not the best one. It's not about whether it's not the best or the best, but rather the argument. What *makes* a good Latin dictionary for you? (For instance, for me, a good dictionary has to give the examples of the use of the word in contexts.)" CreationDate="2019-11-02T13:22:53.887" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="30653" PostId="888" Score="0" Text="I found a mistake in the morhological service where it calls 'brachium' to be forearm while it should be just an arm, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=brachium&amp;la=la. Is there a way to do a bug report or request for correction?" CreationDate="2021-02-04T10:29:32.583" UserId="8945" />
  <row Id="30657" PostId="888" Score="0" Text="@hhh The entries in that online dictionary are lifted from a printed book, and they are extremely unlikely to make any changes against the book. The best bug report I can think of is to ask the question &quot;Isn't *brachium* supposed to be just an arm and not a forearm like L&amp;S claim?&quot; on this site. The answers can elaborate on the matter and the question will be well documented here in case anyone else has the same question. (I'd be happy to see that question!)" CreationDate="2021-02-04T11:20:45.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1863" PostId="892" Score="0" Text="Ramshorn (1841) is of course wrong to say that these words are &quot;derived from the supine&quot; (see my answer)." CreationDate="2016-05-15T09:49:04.560" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1867" PostId="893" Score="2" Text="Does Buck say anything about the difference in meaning between the endings *-us* and *-io*, which seems to me to be at the bottom of @JoonasIlmavirta's question?" CreationDate="2016-05-15T15:19:35.520" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1869" PostId="893" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner. I think the main semantic difference is between m. and f. stems in -iōn-. The difference between f. -iōn- stems and m. -tu- stems is very slight." CreationDate="2016-05-15T18:29:53.907" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1878" PostId="893" Score="0" Text="Are you suggesting that the t's in -tu- and -to- have different origins?" CreationDate="2016-05-17T01:16:50.987" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1886" PostId="893" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus. Exactly." CreationDate="2016-05-17T08:14:06.193" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1891" PostId="893" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Perhaps I shall ask a Question about this, then! For I always thought they both used the supine stem and that the latter was an actual historico-phonological thing (and the supine stem conventionally excludes the -u- bit)." CreationDate="2016-05-17T11:36:32.210" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5690" PostId="893" Score="0" Text="Interesting, but what about forms like casus, -ūs or lapsus, -ūs that don't have a t in Classical Latin?" CreationDate="2016-12-16T15:54:42.817" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="8280" PostId="893" Score="1" Text="@jknappen: &quot;casus&quot; shows the usual [assibilation of a stem-final PIE dental followed by a suffix-initial PIE dental](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology#Phonological_rules). This was a general sound law, not restricted to perfect participle stems. &quot;Lapsus&quot; looks irregular to me, but probably is due to something similar." CreationDate="2017-04-24T03:32:26.430" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="1868" PostId="894" Score="0" Text="While there are languages where possessives, other adjectives or even nouns give information about a counterpart (like the owner, for example), it is not the case of Latin" CreationDate="2016-05-15T15:46:28.400" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16212" PostId="897" Score="0" Text="This question has, by now, been viewed 290 times, but has not yet had the asker select the preferred answer, @Joonas Ilmavirta." CreationDate="2018-11-02T08:57:46.940" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16216" PostId="897" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Thanks for the reminder! There are a couple of typical reasons I don't accept an answer: (1) I forget. (2) I'm not sufficiently satisfied with the answers. (3) I'm waiting for an answerer to respond to comments or otherwise expand. (4) I want to give time for others to answer. // It used to be something else, but this has been a case of (1) for a while." CreationDate="2018-11-02T15:47:49.010" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1877" PostId="898" Score="0" Text="This is a good find! I won't object to having more examples, of course, but this already satisfies my main curiosity." CreationDate="2016-05-16T19:46:19.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1892" PostId="898" Score="0" Text="Though in this case it seems like *quidem* is focused on *ulla* rather than *epistula* —which in a weird way makes this seem not quite like an occurrence of *ne...quidem* (in the sense that *ne...quidem* applies as a rule to the word between the two elements)." CreationDate="2016-05-17T14:51:07.600" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2178" PostId="898" Score="1" Text="Excellent find. It's worth pointing out, though, that Old Latin syntax isn't necessarily the same as Classical Latin syntax; many usages that are found in Plautus aren't found in later writers, and this may or may not be one such." CreationDate="2016-06-12T23:36:12.757" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1882" PostId="899" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: Yes, exactly, standard would be -u- (cf. Poenus, Punicus). But I thought it was just regional, not originally from Rome (so I was probably wrong). I know *one/an* was something with oin- in Proto-Indo-European: so you're saying pre-classical Latin also had this oi- in what would become unus? If so, that would be the stub of an answer to my two bonus questions..." CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:50:50.727" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1884" PostId="899" Score="1" Text="Rudolf Walter (Walter 1987, *Altlateinische Inschriften*) writes that **oe &quot;was nichts anderes ist als eine graphische Neuerung für altes oi** und in der Kaiserzeit /e/ ausgesprochen wurde&quot; (p. 316). He also argues that when and how this &quot;archaizing&quot; spelling innovation became regular &quot;ist nicht feststellbar.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-17T05:04:28.150" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1887" PostId="899" Score="0" Text="Which for those who don't know German means &quot;impossible to determine.&quot; :) @AlexB, any chance you could convert this into an answer?" CreationDate="2016-05-17T09:14:01.230" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1888" PostId="899" Score="0" Text="Sihler par. 59 discusses the origin of Latin oe in detail. The question is debated." CreationDate="2016-05-17T09:21:37.643" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1889" PostId="899" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: Oh, that's interesting. But he doesn't say whether there used to be any -oi- words (before this innovation) that were neither Greek nor dialectical. Or are we to interpret him thus?" CreationDate="2016-05-17T11:33:53.037" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1890" PostId="899" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Hmm an answer based on Sihler would be interesting..." CreationDate="2016-05-17T11:36:01.180" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1893" PostId="899" Score="0" Text="Sorry, very busy at work this week, so can't write a real answer now. Weiss 2009/2011 gives a very good summary (in English), see p. 102." CreationDate="2016-05-17T15:19:15.380" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="1880" PostId="900" Score="2" Text="Do you have any additional context? Like the subject of the play or something else? Latin *calumnia* in Roman law means a false accusation" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:40:46.873" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1881" PostId="900" Score="0" Text="No. I am afraid I don't" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:43:39.920" UserId="483" />
  <row Id="1883" PostId="900" Score="0" Text="Guy! Calumnae was the word I was looking for." CreationDate="2016-05-17T03:09:00.720" UserId="483" />
  <row Id="1885" PostId="900" Score="0" Text="Just posted it as an answer. Happy to help" CreationDate="2016-05-17T06:52:16.547" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1894" PostId="903" Score="0" Text="Welcome!  Thanks for contributing.  If you have a particular context in mind, of how you would use this expression, that might be worth including in your question as well." CreationDate="2016-05-18T02:07:37.817" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1897" PostId="903" Score="4" Text="Just making sure: *de jure* vs. *de facto* aren't what you're looking for, are they? The difference between something being official on paper and something being true in fact (e.g. &quot;In many places in America there's still *de facto* segregation even if there's no *de jure* segregation any more&quot;)?" CreationDate="2016-05-18T11:23:03.513" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1900" PostId="903" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner no, that is not what I am looking for. *De jure* and *de facto* draw a similar distinction but they do not communicate this particular one, which is closer to the distinction between stress tested vs. non-stress tested, rather than &quot;on the books&quot;  vs. in reality. I will add this to my quesiton.&#xA;&#xA;The English phrases that I have in mind have a flexibility that I'm hoping to capture. I could be asking for too much. Otherwise your answer is acceptable for many uses." CreationDate="2016-05-18T13:47:21.323" UserId="485" />
  <row Id="1901" PostId="903" Score="1" Text="The closest I can find so far is *exercitatio, -onis* and *usus, -us* (as in *usus est magister optimus*, practice is the best teacher)" CreationDate="2016-05-18T13:58:38.840" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1906" PostId="903" Score="6" Text="Can you refine your question? A couple ambiguities: 1) *under fire/duress* (title) is not the same as *tested and refined* (example), 2) do you want a Latin translation or some Latin phrase that is preserved in current English usage?" CreationDate="2016-05-18T15:30:36.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1903" PostId="904" Score="0" Text="I'd bet it's nothing but a typo (or a modern wordplay with *mass media*). a Google search of *&quot;in medio stat virtus&quot;* gives ten times as many results as *&quot;in media stat virtus&quot;*. Should it not be, *media* may be either a feminine ablative (changing the gender of medius) or a plural neuter accusative (adding movement, which is strange)." CreationDate="2016-05-18T14:15:09.657" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1904" PostId="904" Score="0" Text="After some research, the phrase seems to come from Medieval scholastics. Not sure if the very origin, but I found this: &quot;In nobis peccatum voluntatis accidit ex superabundantia vel defectu, **in** quorum **medio virtus** consistit.&quot; (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Contra Gentiles, lib. 3 cap. 108 n. 7.*)" CreationDate="2016-05-18T14:36:59.987" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1896" PostId="906" Score="0" Text="Although I think I understand your question (see answer below), it might be worth formulating it more specifically." CreationDate="2016-05-18T11:13:56.107" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1913" PostId="906" Score="0" Text="Please try to do some research of your own. This is not &quot;translate my Latin for me&quot;, it's &quot;I have a question about Latin, please answer&quot;. This one is a superset of that one, which makes the line blurry, but in this case it seems like you haven't even looked up &quot;How to say doctor in Latin.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-18T19:37:49.570" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="1917" PostId="906" Score="0" Text="If there is no need to use the same root for both words (_care_ and _care_-givers) AND you value using an attested sentence or a cliche, it is worth noting that _medice, cura te ipsum_ is in Lc 4,23. It excludes family (_stricto sensu_) but encompasses a broader kind of care." CreationDate="2016-05-19T13:39:24.053" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1918" PostId="906" Score="0" Text="How about &quot;those who give solace&quot; as in &quot;quis solatus ipsos solatores&quot; .. apologies I never got further than &quot;Cacelius est in horto&quot; at school!" CreationDate="2016-05-19T18:28:40.190" UserId="487" />
  <row Id="1922" PostId="906" Score="0" Text="That would work, though this word is more commonly found with the prefix *con*: *Quis consolabitur ipsos consolatores?*." CreationDate="2016-05-20T00:55:19.447" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1899" PostId="907" Score="0" Text="Might be worth expanding on the limited sense of *medicus* in Latin, since that seems to be closest to what the OP is asking about?" CreationDate="2016-05-18T11:35:49.483" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1948" PostId="907" Score="0" Text="I went with Quis curabit ipsos curatores? as the closest I could get, thanks brianpck" CreationDate="2016-05-22T08:52:30.597" UserId="487" />
  <row Id="41425" PostId="907" Score="0" Text="Quis servabit ipsos servatores?" CreationDate="2023-02-24T01:15:46.980" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="1902" PostId="909" Score="0" Text="And, that doesn't rule out a former common origin: the horse as a flat surface to sit on? Actually Spanish *caballo* (horse) comes from a Medieval Latin root meaning *table* (but that is no more than linguistics-fiction)" CreationDate="2016-05-18T14:00:58.797" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1905" PostId="909" Score="2" Text="Not sure where you got that fact about *caballo*: what about Latin [caballus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaballus1)? Also, out of curiosity, it baffles me (with no formal linguistics training) how *hippos* could come from **ek'w*, as you mention. Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2016-05-18T15:21:22.413" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1908" PostId="909" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Actually my memory betrayed me. Shall I delete the comment? However there is the fact that PIE rooting does not rule out a previous common origin. Regarding the development of *hippos*, sound changes may be surprising. See the last one in [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language#Proto-Greek_changes) (*merging sequences of velar + ...*)" CreationDate="2016-05-18T18:36:55.093" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1914" PostId="909" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: while it doesn't rule out a previous common origin, we won't know it without a time engine, for sure. That's beyond the domain of viable theoretical reconstruction. That's guessing, and not even particularly informed guessing." CreationDate="2016-05-18T19:55:05.517" UserId="486" />
  <row Id="1915" PostId="909" Score="0" Text="@SF Sure, that's why I put it that way, and in a comment ;)" CreationDate="2016-05-18T19:57:35.917" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1947" PostId="909" Score="1" Text="The PIE forms do rule out a common origin, since they don't have a single sound in common (*kʷ is not the same as *k'w)." CreationDate="2016-05-22T07:02:42.867" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2021" PostId="909" Score="3" Text="@TKR. aequus does not have any generally accepted cognates outside of Italic (the Lithuanian parallel suggested in the “Starling” link is questionable). But this means that we do not know whether it goes back to a form with kʷ or with ḱw, as these would have an identical outcome in Latin. The “horse” word definitely has ḱw (cf Sanskrit aśva-)." CreationDate="2016-05-29T10:25:00.747" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2024" PostId="909" Score="2" Text="@fdb Good point. Still, even if *aequus* reflects PIE *ḱw, I don't see any obvious PIE morphological process that could relate its ancestor to that of *equus*." CreationDate="2016-05-29T16:44:12.310" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2029" PostId="909" Score="0" Text="@TKR. I agree completely." CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:35:32.937" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="1909" PostId="911" Score="2" Text="FWIW the camel through the eye of a needle is *camelum per foramen acus*. And *to put it* could be *camelum per foramen acus ducere*" CreationDate="2016-05-18T18:52:37.340" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1910" PostId="912" Score="2" Text="How about *instringibilia interstringere* to make it more of a wordplay? [_Interstringo_ is attested](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=interstringo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059); _*instringibilis_ seems like a natural construction" CreationDate="2016-05-18T18:55:06.747" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1911" PostId="912" Score="0" Text="Well, it's attested, but it means &quot;strangle&quot; or &quot;throttle,&quot; so I'm not sure it's what the OP is looking for. :)" CreationDate="2016-05-18T19:04:17.657" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1912" PostId="912" Score="0" Text="It also means _to squeeze tight_, or am I reading it wrong?" CreationDate="2016-05-18T19:06:31.610" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1916" PostId="912" Score="1" Text="Hmm. Possibly it means that post-classically. I looked in a few places and found it in contexts where &quot;squeeze tight&quot; didn't make sense as a translation, but that doesn't mean it's not an option. I think, though, that even if it does mean that, *inter* probably indicates &quot;between two hands&quot; rather than &quot;into something.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-19T01:53:02.417" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11266" PostId="912" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I know it's been about a year and a half, but your suggestion would still make a fine answer." CreationDate="2017-11-03T18:18:35.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34469" PostId="912" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Four years later, I know, but you still should make that an answer." CreationDate="2021-08-10T14:58:49.130" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39153" PostId="913" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I believe Joel deliberately chose to use apices instead of macrons. Maybe he'll weigh in when he logs back in." CreationDate="2022-08-08T00:51:23.347" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39225" PostId="913" Score="1" Text="@cmw Yeah, I was using apices when I posted this question; I preferred them to macrons because, unlike macrons, they are 1) attested in epigraphy and 2) not ambiguous in that they are used to represent both vowel length and syllable length. However, what started out as a one-man crusade managed not to attract any followers, and eventually I gave them up, figuring there were more important battles to wage. TL;DR: I'm fine with the macrons." CreationDate="2022-08-18T13:27:23.313" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="39226" PostId="913" Score="0" Text="I'm there with you on that. I never liked the macron either. We can revert if you like, but it's your call. Good to see you around again." CreationDate="2022-08-18T14:16:49.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="1936" PostId="915" Score="0" Text="Not sure if I understand the question, but I've been doing some research: the noun _mensa_ matches the pasive participle of the verb _metior_ (to meassure). That seems to confirm the idea of a link between both. (And may be the reason why scholars mention such a link)." CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:47:11.160" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1931" PostId="917" Score="0" Text="I wonder why we so often answer essentially simultaneously... Anyhow, a nice answer. One question though: couldn't the *cum* be temporal (&quot;when&quot; instead of &quot;since&quot; or &quot;although&quot;)? That would make most sense to me." CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:50:50.927" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1932" PostId="917" Score="0" Text="If the *cum* were temporal, wouldn't the verb then be in the indicative mood?" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:58:00.897" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1934" PostId="917" Score="0" Text="I faintly recall that conjunctive is possible in a temporal construction, but I admit it's been a while since I have read through the syntax of Latin subordinate clauses. (That would make good reading for the coming summer, would it not?)" CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:01:48.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1935" PostId="917" Score="0" Text="A look around the internet suggests that you are correct and that I was dealing with a false positive (or false negative—I always get those confused). *Cum* + subjunctive can be either circumstantial or temporal, but *Cum* circumstantial is always subjunctive. (Apparently, temporal *cum* clauses in the past are more often subjunctive than indicative.) I've edited my answer accordingly; feel free to delete this whole comment thread. But I worry that you and I are on the same sleep schedule, which given that we live in different hemispheres is a little worrisome." CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:17:52.017" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1937" PostId="917" Score="0" Text="Thank you everybody! The exercise was about temporal clauses, so the use of _cum_ as when is correct. I actually worked this one out for  myself, I couldn't see it for about an hour, so I stopped frying my head and played chess. I went back to it and it made sense. However, thanks for explaining the ablative _in_ for me, that _really_ confused me!" CreationDate="2016-05-20T16:19:35.220" UserId="496" />
  <row Id="1939" PostId="917" Score="0" Text="I'm glad! Congratulations!" CreationDate="2016-05-20T18:24:16.250" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11308" PostId="922" Score="1" Text="Participles can also take comparative and superlative form when their force is more adjectival (e. g., A&amp;G §124.a), but there, I believe, a line between participles and adjectives may become blurred. I vaguely remember superlative participles used for a rather comical effect, as I perceived it, but cannot point at any *loci*, unfortunately." CreationDate="2017-11-09T00:05:50.140" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="1940" PostId="923" Score="1" Text="Poetic meters used in antiquity have stressed syllables. The stress coming from the poetic rhythm need not coincide with the prose stress. This phenomenon seems related to the one you ask about." CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:33:29.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1957" PostId="923" Score="1" Text="[This recording](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOSFPyuD7LY) changes the syllabification considerably--presumably because it *does* sound unnatural." CreationDate="2016-05-23T16:59:31.583" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1952" PostId="924" Score="0" Text="It occurs to me now that another possibility would be to repunctuate the line (since Vergil's original had no punctuation) and put a period after *tenebant*. That way *inde* starts the next sentence and becomes a simple adverb." CreationDate="2016-05-23T01:00:46.637" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1953" PostId="925" Score="2" Text="`there is no similar list in the linked English Wikipedia page` Not sure where you looked, but there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_placeholder_names_by_language#Latin" CreationDate="2016-05-23T11:18:44.567" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="1954" PostId="925" Score="1" Text="@Earthliŋ, thanks! I hadn't found that page, but it looks useful. That Latin part of the Wikipedia entry together with some citations and use examples would make a great answer." CreationDate="2016-05-23T11:38:17.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1944" PostId="927" Score="0" Text="Possibly not the same, but I understood that *Gaius* was used as a  &quot;universal&quot; name. For instance, when a couple married, the bride would say &quot;*Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia *&quot;  and the groom would respond &quot;*Where you are Gaia, I am Gaius*&quot;." CreationDate="2016-05-22T02:00:42.927" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="1956" PostId="927" Score="1" Text="I have read a footnote stating that Aulus Agerius.and  Numerius Negidius were the John Doe and Richard Doe of Roman Law!" CreationDate="2016-05-23T16:31:51.640" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="5218" PostId="927" Score="4" Text="I read only yesterday (in Ostler, 'Ad Infinitum') that the Latin &quot;gaiusque luciusque&quot; was the equivalent of the English placeholder &quot;Tom, Dick and Harry&quot; - see Martial V.14 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0506%3Abook%3D5%3Apoem%3D14" CreationDate="2016-11-13T01:25:53.163" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="1955" PostId="928" Score="0" Text="Is there a digital version of this text, or a version available online? There are many categories of words for which I'd find such a table very helpful." CreationDate="2016-05-23T14:29:55.687" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1972" PostId="928" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I don't really know. I've never seen it online but who knows?" CreationDate="2016-05-26T04:17:10.533" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="2605" PostId="929" Score="1" Text="'Kept their mouths stretched'? Is that an idiom? I think it is &quot;omnes conticuere&quot; et &quot;intenti, tenebant ora&quot; (They all fell silent, and, rapt, they held their tongues / Thereupon, ...)." CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:58:18.557" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="1958" PostId="931" Score="3" Text="Is *re* usually meant to stand in for *reply* in emails?" CreationDate="2016-05-23T22:36:37.457" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1959" PostId="931" Score="2" Text="Cause if it is, then I somewhat doubt Romans (back when letters were of course written and could have taken days to deliver) would have had a need to clarify that their letters were responses to an original letter - it would have been obvious that certain letters came in a certain temporal order, or at least easier to keep track of than nowadays, when we receive hundreds of emails a week and can't possibly keep a mental ordering of all our correspondences. (But that's still all speculation on my part - they could have used *re* for all I know)..." CreationDate="2016-05-23T22:41:05.680" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1964" PostId="931" Score="5" Text="@Nick, I have been informed that the *re* is not short for &quot;reply&quot; or &quot;response&quot;, but really is the word *re*. It practically means &quot;reply to&quot; in email titles, however." CreationDate="2016-05-24T05:56:41.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1966" PostId="931" Score="1" Text="I actually think the *Re:* in e-mails (like *Fw:*) is of a different origin than the *re* used outside e-mail, in formal English." CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:02:12.687" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2255" PostId="931" Score="5" Text="@Nick In the 1970s, I was first told that &quot;Re&quot; on (paper, carbon copy, and mimeograph) letters was the Latin word, meaning &quot;the matter&quot;. I read the same thing in many places before email began. The contemporary understanding as an abbreviation of &quot;Reply&quot; is a misunderstanding, though today it prevails. Before the switch, you would not see &quot;Re&quot; and &quot;Subject&quot; at the top of the same letter, since that would be redundant." CreationDate="2016-06-20T00:22:48.207" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2258" PostId="931" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz oh wow, didn't know that -- latin's everywhere!" CreationDate="2016-06-20T01:05:31.530" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1961" PostId="934" Score="2" Text="I'd say that *ero deus* means &quot;I will be god&quot; and *fiam deus* &quot;I will become god&quot;. Choosing between these two is choosing emphasis between the process and the resulting state." CreationDate="2016-05-24T04:26:40.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="1962" PostId="934" Score="1" Text="Yes. I intended my answer to make that distinction clear but I see that it did a half-assed job of doing so. I've edited so it does a full-assed job." CreationDate="2016-05-24T04:28:07.060" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1963" PostId="934" Score="1" Text="Now that you put it that way, I wonder if an *autem* fits there, like *Homo sum, ero autem deus* (or *deus autem ero*). I'd also add that an important proportion of Latin speakers (i.e., most of them since the IV century AD) would have been horrified by the idea of a man claiming to be able to become God." CreationDate="2016-05-24T04:43:43.420" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1965" PostId="934" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: Barbarians!" CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:00:40.437" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1967" PostId="934" Score="3" Text="I think that rhetorically *autem* is overkill. (Also *verum* would probably be a better way to say &quot;but&quot; in this circumstance—autem is usually used to change the subject or to resume an interrupted narrative.)" CreationDate="2016-05-24T10:39:24.583" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="37195" PostId="935" Score="0" Text="Cato's using a spelling that resembled *DIEE* has nothing to do with lengthening, as it seems he used this spelling for every final -E, including in words like *DICAE* and *FACIAE.* The accepted explanation is that it originated as a form of M turned 90 degrees to the left. Later grammarians clearly state that vowels before final -M were always short, and the normal absence of apices on these vowels confirms this as do romance forms like *quien, rien*." CreationDate="2022-02-13T14:05:20.100" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="1968" PostId="936" Score="1" Text="Incidentally, &quot;novamente&quot; means &quot;new, anew, again&quot; in Portuguese." CreationDate="2016-05-25T08:48:13.197" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="1976" PostId="938" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer! You're right about the broader meaning that I'm looking for, although I don't really like the long sound of ''novus animus''. Would maybe something with visio (as in vision/perspective) be a good option?" CreationDate="2016-05-26T08:29:19.463" UserId="505" />
  <row Id="1977" PostId="938" Score="1" Text="I believe that would be fine." CreationDate="2016-05-26T11:01:32.230" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2835" PostId="940" Score="2" Text="It's also worth noting that the parent speech provenance reflects in the short *i* in *lĭber* the child (*u &gt; proto-Italic *i) but long *i* in *līber* the book (from the diphthong *eu &gt; *ī). These were simply two different sounds for a pre-classical and classical Latin speaker, not quite as similar as they are to the modern ear!" CreationDate="2016-07-28T04:37:26.107" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="9548" PostId="940" Score="1" Text="And it is almost worth noting that the English have always been famous for teaching wrong quantities. With the result that **Liber** (book) with a short **i** gives us Library with a long **i.** But **Līber** (free/child) with a long *ee* sound gives English 'liberty' with short **i**" CreationDate="2017-06-28T04:48:50.753" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10435" PostId="940" Score="1" Text="@kkm. It is actually the other way around. &quot;Child&quot; has a long i, &quot;book&quot; has a short i." CreationDate="2017-08-17T22:57:51.377" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10751" PostId="940" Score="0" Text="@fdb Better later than never. Thanks, of course I switched them around." CreationDate="2017-09-19T07:14:31.387" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="1974" PostId="941" Score="2" Text="As for *et*, I'd take it as &quot;also&quot;: &quot;which the mage, too, ...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-05-26T07:39:15.143" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2020" PostId="941" Score="0" Text="Tali e tanti is idiomatic Italian so &quot;tali tantaque&quot; sounds as the natural latin basis for it to my  ears." CreationDate="2016-05-29T07:29:14.160" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="1978" PostId="942" Score="3" Text="Since _visio_ is feminine, _nova_ fits while _novus_ does not. Remember also that in Latin word endings change according to the grammatical function of the word: depending on the use you want to give the name, you might want to add some &quot;_flavor/movement_&quot;: _visione nova_, _novae visionis_, etc." CreationDate="2016-05-26T13:33:59.753" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1979" PostId="942" Score="2" Text="Rafael is right, we need a bit more context here. As a title, *Visio Nova* is probably what you want (the nominative case)." CreationDate="2016-05-26T15:20:02.110" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="1981" PostId="942" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your replies guys! I would like the words (or combination) to mean something as: ''a new vision/perspective''. This can be in a broader sense." CreationDate="2016-05-26T15:58:14.317" UserId="505" />
  <row Id="1982" PostId="942" Score="0" Text="@rbirrus May I asume you want neither to say nor imply anything of the kind of _towards a new vision_, _about the (our) new vision_, _meet the new vision_ or _let us introduce you to this new vision_?" CreationDate="2016-05-26T17:32:09.443" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="1983" PostId="942" Score="0" Text="Exactly, I would not want to indoctrinate someone into ''my new vision'' but the idea is to lead them towards a new vision/perspective that could be the start of a behavioural change.&#xA;It's for a personal training/health intervention (focus on long-term behaviour changes)." CreationDate="2016-05-26T18:27:06.783" UserId="505" />
  <row Id="2000" PostId="942" Score="0" Text="@rbirrus I've updated your question to include the information you provided in comments: feel free to make further edits if you'd like.  Just so you know, it's a good idea to include explanatory information like this in the question itself, as comments are more transitory and are often cleaned up when they are no longer needed.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:23:18.533" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="1988" PostId="943" Score="4" Text="Thank you so much—this answers my questions completely! I'm good with things like *enim* and *autem*, but I didn't realize that *et* could also be used postpositively—that was the missing piece there for me. As for the rest—erga tale tantumque responsum, quid multa? :)" CreationDate="2016-05-26T21:38:23.700" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="1989" PostId="943" Score="1" Text="On second thought--perhaps my example from Varro isn't good, since it is probably an *et...et* construction..." CreationDate="2016-05-26T22:05:18.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="1990" PostId="943" Score="0" Text="Hmm. I'll keep an eye out for examples, but if you come across any in the meantime, I'd love it if you could add them (and maybe ping me in a comment so I know to look)." CreationDate="2016-05-27T00:27:27.633" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2007" PostId="943" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner *Et* can (I believe) be used postpositively in verse, but that's not that case here -- it's going with *magus*." CreationDate="2016-05-27T22:36:15.287" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2008" PostId="943" Score="0" Text="@TKR, usually *et* in this case would mean something like *even*, but if you read the passage in context that doesn't make much sense. What is your suggested reading?" CreationDate="2016-05-28T00:05:58.753" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2009" PostId="943" Score="0" Text="@brianpck In this case I think it's not &quot;even&quot; but just &quot;also&quot;: &quot;which the magician, too...&quot; I don't see another available reading -- certainly not postpositive because *et quam* wouldn't make any sense here." CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:26:25.923" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2014" PostId="943" Score="0" Text="My guess, after some consideration, is that *et* as &quot;too&quot; means that, just as the princess thought it a good idea to trade the lamps, the sorcerer **too** was happy to trade them." CreationDate="2016-05-28T19:38:24.387" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2018" PostId="943" Score="1" Text="Must by my ear, but I definitely read it as postpositive: &quot;quam et magus&quot; = &quot;et magus hanc&quot; for me..." CreationDate="2016-05-28T23:53:11.303" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2025" PostId="943" Score="0" Text="@brianpck *Quam magus* by itself is equivalent to *et magus hanc*, so the *et* must be doing something else." CreationDate="2016-05-29T17:03:42.193" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="1991" PostId="945" Score="1" Text="Thanks, but this does not exactly answer my question. I wanted to know if the word *re* (with or without preposition) was used in a similar meaning in ancient times. To me at least *re* makes sense without a preposition as well, but I would rather let attested ancient usage be the judge of that." CreationDate="2016-05-27T12:35:29.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2249" PostId="945" Score="3" Text="Interesting! I always thought *Re:* was from *Reply*, just as *Fwd:* is from *Forward*, but apparently not." CreationDate="2016-06-19T14:25:51.483" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4553" PostId="945" Score="1" Text="Huh, I thought it meant &quot;Regarding&quot;, since I've also seen it used in memo titles (&quot;Re: The bicycle shed&quot;)" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:20:35.537" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="18305" PostId="945" Score="1" Text="I never would have guessed that there is actually an RFC for that!" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:41:28.793" UserId="3346" />
  <row Id="39931" PostId="945" Score="0" Text="I've never imagined *re* in emails stood for *reply*.! I used it in business all my life, in the sense of *in reference to your complaint /request /question* etc. **Never** thought it meant *reply*. Never too old to learn ;-)" CreationDate="2022-10-12T19:17:46.787" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="2001" PostId="947" Score="0" Text="Welcome!  If you'd like, it may be worth including more context to clarify the type of &quot;work&quot; that the students are attempting to convey in the subtitle.  Work can obviously refer to many things, from physical labor to the step-by-step process for solving a problem (&quot;show your work!&quot;) to artistic masterpieces, and this may impact the Latin translation." CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:47:27.790" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2002" PostId="947" Score="2" Text="_Scholaris_ [actually means](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscholaris) _Of or belonging to a school_. If you intend to mean specifically _student_, then _discipulorum opus, discipulorum vox_ may be a better title. _Discipulorum_ means _of the students_. I'm not sure if _student_ in English is working as an adjective? Because in Latin I don't think a singular noun fits too well here." CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:49:21.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2003" PostId="947" Score="0" Text="Thanks @Nathaniel, I've updated the question.  Rafael, I like scholaris even more now!  &quot;Scholaris&quot; should be a noun acting as an adjective here, as it is describing the work and the voice." CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:56:55.453" UserId="515" />
  <row Id="2004" PostId="947" Score="0" Text="I think it is actually an adjective ;)" CreationDate="2016-05-27T19:53:04.693" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2005" PostId="948" Score="1" Text="+1, but some comments: 1) I think a better (not perfect) analogy is acta -&gt; done things // facta -&gt; made things, 2) [studeo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dstudeo) does mean only tangentially to study, more properly to pay attention, take pains, be diligent 3) you may want to put **scholare** in bold: that's one important thing that wasn't mentioned in the previous comments" CreationDate="2016-05-27T21:07:14.267" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2006" PostId="948" Score="2" Text="@Rafael, thanks! I updated it. 1) *Acta* is indeed a good choice to list here. 2) *Studere* means many things indeed, but the participle *studens* seems to have a slightly narrower connotation. It is listed separately in some dictionaries. I find it important that the Jed (the OP) looks at dictionary entries to see more details that should not be listed here. 3) I have a separate sentence about having *scholare* instead of *scholaris*. That is not the key point of my answer, though, so I prefer not to bold it." CreationDate="2016-05-27T21:20:53.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2012" PostId="949" Score="4" Text="On the other hand, Greek adjectives on -eios, feminine -eia, are not uncommon. Is it possible that someone in the 17th century formed it as a feminine adjective? Cf. [paideios](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=pai%2fdeios&amp;filter=CUTF8) (adj.) and [paideia](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=paidei%2fa&amp;filter=CUTF8) (subst.)." CreationDate="2016-05-28T16:48:50.730" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2019" PostId="949" Score="3" Text="This answer seems too speculative to merit an upvote...what sources did you consult? Medieval Latinists can be clumsy, but it strikes me as a little presumptuous to dismiss this usage without at least trying to find some parallels elsewhere..." CreationDate="2016-05-29T02:57:49.760" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2022" PostId="949" Score="1" Text="Some loan words are indeclinable: see Amadel in Sumelic's comment, also Israel." CreationDate="2016-05-29T16:08:21.130" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2030" PostId="949" Score="5" Text="@Hugh. Not loan words from Greek." CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:37:24.027" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2035" PostId="952" Score="0" Text="Hi ChemSniper, and welcome!  This is a good question, but it's pretty broad for this format.  A huge number of resources could be used to accomplish what you are looking for, and providing and maintaining a comprehensive list is quite difficult.  This was previously discussed here: [How to list resources?](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/177/12)" CreationDate="2016-05-30T03:31:04.867" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2036" PostId="952" Score="0" Text="To all: If there is a &quot;big resource list question&quot; like this that you want to ask, please do not ask right away. Instead, post your suggestion in [this meta thread](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or upvote existing ones. Most popular suggestions will be implemented. Only [one such question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) has been asked so far." CreationDate="2016-05-30T08:04:32.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2040" PostId="952" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, @ChemSniper! As the other comments have noted, we've been talking about putting up a general question of this kind, and your question has led us to action! Take a look at http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own . There's one answer there so far, but I'm confident others will join it soon. Good luck in your search!" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:22:02.567" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2028" PostId="953" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your contribution! I think the OP is asking about the best strategy for getting back into Latin after a hiatus, so it might not be an appropriate answer to point him to the study of medieval Latin (which I love, btw)." CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:10:08.617" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2033" PostId="953" Score="0" Text="@ChemSniper, I hope you find the process as rewarding as I have" CreationDate="2016-05-29T20:36:59.827" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2026" PostId="954" Score="3" Text="Do you intend to mean 1) your family is the reason of your life, or 2) you live to feed/provide them/give then a better future, or 3) you are a slave of your family? When it comes to prepositions, translations tend to become tricky..." CreationDate="2016-05-29T18:58:11.277" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2027" PostId="954" Score="1" Text="Throughout the Aeneid the hero is called *'pius Aeneas,'* which means just that: 'loyal to his family.'  But at school we were only taught to die for our country, so I'd have to start from 'Pro patria mori.' Pro with the ablative." CreationDate="2016-05-29T18:59:25.283" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2037" PostId="954" Score="2" Text="On-line translators are rubbish, especially for Latin." CreationDate="2016-05-30T10:20:23.107" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2039" PostId="954" Score="0" Text="Thank you for responses!&#xA;Rafael, the second option suits best for what she wants it to be meant." CreationDate="2016-05-30T15:39:06.627" UserId="523" />
  <row Id="2031" PostId="955" Score="0" Text="Good suggestions. For 3, the Loeb Classical Library is especially useful -- it gives original Latin texts with a facing-page English translation, which considerably lessens the pain level." CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:57:02.327" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2034" PostId="955" Score="2" Text="I second the suggestion of *Lingua Latina*, which I used to return to Latin after several years away. Depending on how much you've retained, you may get through the first book rather quickly, but the second book is all about taking the reader from an understanding of textbook Latin to an understanding of actual Latin." CreationDate="2016-05-30T00:17:05.463" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2047" PostId="957" Score="3" Text="May I just point out that most UK grammars follow Kennedy in declining nouns etc in the form - Nom, Voc Acc, Gen, Dat, Abl, whilst US  and others  follow a different format. It need not be a major problem, but can be disconcerting switching from one to another, especially for beginners." CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:10:35.733" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="2049" PostId="957" Score="1" Text="An important point to keep track of! I'm something of a mutt in these matters, having learned Latin from an American text but Greek from a British one, so my tables tend to be patchworks that madden others." CreationDate="2016-06-01T02:12:31.360" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4643" PostId="957" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Instead of requesting one resource per question, it is also possible to turn an answer into a community wiki where everyone can contribute. See my [suggestion on Meta](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/a/215/840)." CreationDate="2016-09-30T20:27:30.597" UserId="840" />
  <row Id="6703" PostId="957" Score="4" Text="After you're somewhat proficient in Latin, I strongly recommend Orbis Sensualium Pictus, a textbook with about seven thousand vocabulary terms, neatly divided into sections. It was originally intended for young students to acquire a much more adept vocabularies; It'll work miracles for fluency and general knowledge in the language." CreationDate="2017-02-12T03:23:24.977" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="12391" PostId="957" Score="0" Text="though not for studying latin on one's own, at least not from the start, the ualerii maximi factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri nouem deserves a note as having been the textbook of choice for the learning of latin since it first appeared in the first century ce throughout the middle ages and beyond. for near 2000 years learning latin was getting a teacher, a grammar and valerius' book" CreationDate="2018-03-12T20:35:11.427" UserId="2461" />
  <row Id="12374" PostId="958" Score="1" Text="I want to add that this course is especially good for kids, who absorb foreign languages like squeegees! My daughter is a bilingual with 2 languages in the family from her birth (native speaker of both, not a trace of accent, except a local accent of course). With this course, that she started at 6, she read and spoke Latin quite freely. No more in her 20s, as she's now, but she still can open and read a Latin book with no trouble, and can write and speak, though not perfectly, rather a well developed 2nd-language level. Absent native Latin speakers to talk to,the best level one can get up to!" CreationDate="2018-03-12T01:04:07.853" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="12376" PostId="958" Score="3" Text="A bonus is Ørberg's native Danish distinguishes long and short vowels, so his own reading very naturally highlights this concept, not common in major modern languages, speaking about the the audio companion to these books." CreationDate="2018-03-12T01:09:31.050" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="29506" PostId="958" Score="2" Text="I've had the most success with Ørberg's books, and I also recommend getting the companion books mentioned as well (particularly if you are learning on your own). The forward for the first mentions different learning styles &amp; when to read; my personal preference is after I finish a chapter I read the companion to reinforce what I just read. There are companion books for both Pars I and Pars 2" CreationDate="2020-10-24T14:08:57.793" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30688" PostId="958" Score="0" Text="I love the *Lingua Latina* method, and may I also recommend *Companion to Familia Romana*: by Jeanne Neumann https://www.amazon.co.uk/Companion-Familia-Romana-Orbergs-Vocabulary/dp/158510809X/ref=mp_s_a_1_15?dchild=1&amp;keywords=lingua+latina+per+se+illustrata&amp;qid=1612658559&amp;sprefix=Lingua&amp;sr=8-15] which appears to be an accessible, 'cut down' version of the official companion books.-and considerably cheaper!)" CreationDate="2021-02-07T00:46:48.913" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="39563" PostId="959" Score="1" Text="This book (by Gavin Betts) got me started. That, a good dictionary, and a few texts (Vulgate, Aeneid) took me a long way. I followed it up with Woodcock's *A New Latin Syntax* for intermediate grammar. I bought lots of beginner and intermediate text books, but in retrospect Betts (this book) and Woodcock were all I needed." CreationDate="2022-09-16T00:39:52.600" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="2044" PostId="960" Score="0" Text="I'd add the more literal alternative, *Pro mea familia vivo*, in case they want to preserve the original flavor" CreationDate="2016-05-30T23:36:57.343" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2228" PostId="961" Score="2" Text="It's a bit of a classic now, but I found Wheelock's Latin (3rd Edition) to be a great book with which to teach yourself Latin.  It contains many exercises and brief literature readings to help the student exercise his skill at reading and understanding Latin.  The chapters on grammar are typically brief, so that the student is not overwhelmed with a lot of information all at once.  I found the early Wheelock editions to be much better than more recent versions which are labeled Wheelock." CreationDate="2016-06-17T13:52:16.123" UserId="557" />
  <row Id="34457" PostId="961" Score="0" Text="@user16622 This should really be its own answer." CreationDate="2021-08-09T23:30:20.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2046" PostId="962" Score="1" Text="I am tempted to start from recognizing the origin of *principium* as *primus* + *capere*. Therefore I see *principia* in this context as &quot;things to be taken first&quot;, which is well translated as &quot;premises&quot; or &quot;principles&quot;. In any case, I think it is best to look for a description of *principia*, possibly a verbose one, rather than an English translation. A mere one-word translation is not as enlightening and useful, especially to people whose first language is not English." CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:58:25.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2048" PostId="962" Score="1" Text="I'd say you're right: principium also means _premise_ or _axiom_. Although L&amp;S [does not mention](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprincipium) the word _premise_, it cites examples of that sense in the definition of _pricipium_: principia ducere ab aliquo, _to derive, deduce_. See also [this dictionary](http://latin.campus.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=principium&amp;ending=)" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:19:29.133" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2050" PostId="965" Score="0" Text="My guess is that your example sentence is more likely to be rendered *Vexatio est scelus privatum, cædes publicum* or something of the sort rather then using *res*." CreationDate="2016-06-01T02:33:25.043" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2051" PostId="965" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I agree. The example may not be optimal, but I hope it gets my point across. If you have good artificial examples, I would be happy to add them. (Attested examples, if any, belong to answers.)" CreationDate="2016-06-01T06:39:10.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2052" PostId="965" Score="0" Text="Ah, yes, it definitely gets your point across! I didn't mean to be critical—I was intending more to muse." CreationDate="2016-06-01T11:20:42.813" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2053" PostId="965" Score="0" Text="I'm pretty sure res publica also applies to a wider range of related meanings such as politics, public welfare, etc. in Ecclesiastical Latin. I'll do some research. Would that be what you are looking for?" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:25:53.860" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2054" PostId="965" Score="0" Text="Here you are! [_Rerum Novarum_](https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html), 8: saying that there's no opposition between private ownership and _public goods_ (given by God to the whole human race): _Neque est, cur providentia introducatur reipublicae: est enim homo, quam respublica, senior_. Note that it is written as one word, even when declined as two. The expression _respublica, reipublicae_ is repeated several times along the document." CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:48:40.137" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2055" PostId="965" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, I'm not sure that qualifies. (1) I was looking for classical examples, although later ones are interesting as well. (2) Spelling *respublica* together indicates (to me at least) that it not meant as the adjective *publica* modifying the noun *res*, but something more special. (3) It is not clear to me that something other than &quot;state&quot; is meant in the text you cite. (4) I was looking for something more like &quot;public thing&quot; than &quot;society&quot; or &quot;public welfare&quot;." CreationDate="2016-06-01T14:20:20.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2056" PostId="965" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I think in that case the issue becomes a little more slippery. If one sticks strictly to the scheptic's role, it is even difficult to imagine an example in English where any confrontation between private and public stuff cannot be interpreted as confrontation between private stuff and the state w/o asking the writer's intention. FWIW, official translations or _Rerum Novarum_ do not use _republic_ or _state_ to translate every occurrence of _respublica_." CreationDate="2016-06-01T14:27:45.167" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2057" PostId="966" Score="1" Text="That quote from Cicero is close to what I was after. The translations in your first blockquote are not; I wanted something much closer to &quot;public thing&quot; than &quot;society&quot;, &quot;state&quot;, &quot;administration&quot; or the like. (I had difficulties articulating this clearly in my question.) This is a very useful answer." CreationDate="2016-06-01T14:35:29.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2060" PostId="967" Score="0" Text="Don't you mean &quot;if it appears in hexameter then the *a* is long&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:44:31.993" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2061" PostId="967" Score="0" Text="@TKR, yes indeed. Corrected. (I was about to eat dinner, but I suddenly realized that I might have written that the wrong way and came back. Now I'll go and eat.)" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:49:20.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2062" PostId="967" Score="2" Text="Cursory googling suggests that the earliest use of the phrase is as a motto of Queen Elizabeth I, which would imply a nominative feminine reading." CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:49:30.167" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2063" PostId="967" Score="3" Text="Some interesting info here: http://www.thefleece.org/semper.html" CreationDate="2016-06-01T20:08:14.633" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2064" PostId="967" Score="0" Text="@TKR, that would mean that *eadem* refers to the queen herself. For some reason I never considered that option. If that is the case, I would expect to find the motto *semper idem* for some male rulers." CreationDate="2016-06-01T20:08:25.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2067" PostId="968" Score="0" Text="This is a wonderful, wonderful answer and gives me a lot to think about—I really appreciate it. I'll wait a day or two to accept and award the bounty in case anybody else comes along and gives an even fuller answer, but I doubt that will happen." CreationDate="2016-06-02T14:50:40.073" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2068" PostId="968" Score="0" Text="What difference does it make if I use *sane* rather than *quamquam* or *cum* in a concession? (I can make this into a separate question if there is an elaborate answer that shouldn't be given in comments.)" CreationDate="2016-06-02T14:52:26.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2069" PostId="968" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Well, there's the syntactic difference that *sane* isn't a conjunction. The English translation above doesn't reflect the Latin structure, which is something like &quot;But let's say it does; nevertheless...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-06-02T15:29:22.977" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2070" PostId="968" Score="1" Text="I'd say there's a propitiating, defensive quality in concessive *sane* that isn't there in *quamquam* or *cum*. A sense of &quot;Don't get me wrong!&quot; or &quot;No, no, your objection absolutely has merit!&quot;" CreationDate="2016-06-02T15:53:41.653" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2071" PostId="968" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks in particular, by the way, for Walter. English has changed so much since the early 19th century that I often find Döderlein and Ramshorn unhelpful, but Walter, though limited in scope, I'm finding much clearer." CreationDate="2016-06-02T15:54:54.347" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2072" PostId="969" Score="1" Text="Many thanks! I never expected to receive such a thorough answer." CreationDate="2016-06-02T16:32:16.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2073" PostId="969" Score="1" Text="Pinkster did all the work!" CreationDate="2016-06-02T16:33:46.720" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2232" PostId="969" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer! I use Pinkster's Latin-Dutch electronic dictionary, but unfortunately he was no longer teaching at the University of Amsterdam when I arrived there. And the project of the Oxford Latin Syntax is very interesting. Will it replace Kühner–Stegmann? Time will tell..." CreationDate="2016-06-18T00:36:06.470" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30417" PostId="969" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus and the second volume, &quot;The Complex Sentence and Discourse&quot;, will be available in March! https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-latin-syntax-9780199230563?q=*&amp;resultsPerPage=100&amp;lang=en&amp;cc=gb" CreationDate="2021-01-12T16:23:24.930" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30418" PostId="969" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: Great! Have you been using Pinkster I instead of K–S now, or do they complement each other?" CreationDate="2021-01-12T17:34:56.927" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30426" PostId="969" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I feel like I'm gradually switching to Pinkster, party because it's in English and partly because he uses a lot of more modern research, including corpus studies" CreationDate="2021-01-12T21:32:10.213" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30429" PostId="969" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: Good to know." CreationDate="2021-01-12T23:04:48.947" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2074" PostId="970" Score="0" Text="I think the issue with translation has a lot to do with the complexity allowed by Latin grammar, not always paralelled by modern languages. Being no grammar expert, I see quite a complex relative clause, with two (arguabliy three) verbs: you either translate it as more than one sentence, or agree to loose meaning." CreationDate="2016-06-02T17:34:35.633" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2075" PostId="970" Score="2" Text="I think *obtinuit* isn't part of this phrase at all, but is the main verb of the sentence (taking the various kings as subjects and *imperium* as object). Colgrave's translation makes sense to me; Jane's doesn't, because it overlooks *etiam* and because while Athelbert reigned it would not make sense for anyone to &quot;offer/provide the leadership&quot; to him." CreationDate="2016-06-02T18:44:47.830" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2077" PostId="970" Score="0" Text="I see it like this: Reduald obtained something -what? -Ducatum -which one? -the same one he was pursuing for his people (eidem suae genti) -when was he pursuing it? -of course at the time he obtained it, but also he was already pursuing it when Aedilberct was alive." CreationDate="2016-06-02T19:00:43.663" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2076" PostId="971" Score="2" Text="*Eidem suae genti* going together makes good sense to me. *Eidem* here would mean &quot;the same one just mentioned&quot;: &quot;the king of the East Angles, who was acquiring the primacy *for that same people* even while A. was alive...&quot; As for *obtinuit*, I think it's outside the clause -- see my comment above." CreationDate="2016-06-02T18:47:52.490" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2078" PostId="971" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I now see what *obtinuit* does, and things make more sense. Regarding *eidem*, do you mean that *suae* means Aedilberct's? I originally read it as referring to Reduald, but the other people makes more sense after a fresh reading." CreationDate="2016-06-02T20:10:55.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2079" PostId="971" Score="0" Text="No, I think it does mean &quot;Reduald's own people&quot;. I don't see how it can refer to Aedilberct, since it's reflexive." CreationDate="2016-06-02T21:19:39.090" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2080" PostId="971" Score="0" Text="@TKR, hmm... Does *eidem* add anything to *suae*, then? I'm ok with redundancy in general, but this feels somehow wrong to me. (Side note: Did you really mean West Angles instead of East Angles in your first comment? I can edit old comments if needed.)" CreationDate="2016-06-02T21:31:41.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2081" PostId="971" Score="1" Text="Oops, I did mean East Angles, you're right. I think *eidem* adds the sense &quot;the same one that was just mentioned&quot; -- it's not strictly necessary from an informational standpoint, but I don't think it's unusual from a narrative one." CreationDate="2016-06-02T21:57:22.100" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2082" PostId="971" Score="1" Text="@TKR, ok, now I think I fully understand what you are saying. I will try to remember to work these new insights into the answer tomorrow. Thanks! (I edited the first comment.)" CreationDate="2016-06-02T22:02:18.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2084" PostId="976" Score="0" Text="Oops, TKR's [comment elsewhere](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/970/what-does-bedes-phrase-suae-genti-ducatum-praebebat-obtinuit-mean#comment2079_971) just reminded me that _suae_ is only reflexive. That pretty well knocks out my first translation. Now my only doubt about the second translation (which is about the same as Colgrave's) is whether there is precedent for _praebeo_ meaning &quot;demonstrates a quality&quot;. Or perhaps the meaning is comparable to &quot;won independence for his people&quot;." CreationDate="2016-06-03T17:09:07.713" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2087" PostId="976" Score="0" Text="Well, after thinking and browsing Google Scholar some more, I think it's not out of the question that _suae_ refers to Æthelberht. I've updated the answer with more tidbits." CreationDate="2016-06-03T23:48:05.050" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2093" PostId="978" Score="0" Text="The same thing is going on here with *eidem suae* as in the Bede example: *eidem* means &quot;the one just mentioned&quot;, in this case the diocese, in that case the nation." CreationDate="2016-06-04T16:29:29.693" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2094" PostId="978" Score="0" Text="And likewise with *eandem virginem*: &quot;the same/aforementioned Virgin of Fatima&quot; (who is mentioned in the preceding sentence of the epistle)." CreationDate="2016-06-04T16:47:29.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2088" PostId="979" Score="0" Text="It may be worth pointing out explicitly that *suae* refers to the subject of the independent clause (predicate *postulavit*), not the subject of the subordinate clause (predicate *dignaremus*), although the word itself is in the subordinate clause." CreationDate="2016-06-04T06:23:26.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2089" PostId="979" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Is that a general rule? What about in, say, _Quintum postulavi suo fratri librum dare_? Whose brother am I referring to, mine or Quintus's?" CreationDate="2016-06-04T06:58:08.940" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2090" PostId="979" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, it's not a general rule. In a subordinate clause *suus* can refer to either subject as far as I know. But *suus* is only used for the third person; for other persons (as in your example and in your question) one expects *meus*, *tuus*, *noster* or *vester* instead. If both clauses have third person subjects, this may leave ambiguity." CreationDate="2016-06-04T07:03:24.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2091" PostId="979" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta OK, I'd previously thought that when both subjects are in the 3rd person, _se_ is ambiguous. I'll see if I can find an example where both are in the 3rd person and update the question." CreationDate="2016-06-04T07:07:34.133" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2092" PostId="979" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Good point, I have added that. I believe *se* normally refers to the subject of the main clause, but can sometimes refer to that of the subordinate clause, but I would have to look it up for the detailed rules..." CreationDate="2016-06-04T14:53:59.967" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2095" PostId="980" Score="1" Text="Thanks! If someone miraculously finds examples of the ending *-i*, I will have to unaccept this, but that seems unlikely." CreationDate="2016-06-04T19:21:52.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2096" PostId="981" Score="0" Text="One option would be *repetitio est mater studiorum*. This appears to be postclassical, and is of unknown origin according to my dictionary. Let's hope someone finds a suitable phrase in the classical literature." CreationDate="2016-06-06T07:34:27.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2102" PostId="988" Score="0" Text="I think the whole passage Nathaniel quotes is one huge sentence. There is a list of subjects, different kings, separated by semicolons. They all share the same predicate *obtinuit*. However, this explanation admittedly (which I only now realize!) has the weak point that the list continues after Reduald. Hmm... (I made some small grammar edits to your answer. Feel free to roll back or re-edit.)" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:26:20.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2103" PostId="988" Score="0" Text="I see it just as a list of kings, separated by semicolons. The fourth one happens to have a relative clause needing a full sentence. I don't see a contradiction for _obtinuit_ to be linked to Redwald only." CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:33:12.080" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2105" PostId="988" Score="0" Text="The beginning &quot;*Nam primus imperium huiusmodi Aelli rex Australium Saxonum*&quot; does not have a predicate if the sentence terminates at the semicolon. The predicate could semantically well be *obtinuit*, but it comes so much later that I'm inclined to believe that the kings in between are all intended as subjects. This is why I find having Reduald as the only subject unlikely. The listed subjects can well come with relative clauses. The passage is tricky and ambiguous, so I can't say I'm sure of anything, though." CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:37:22.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2108" PostId="988" Score="0" Text="Remember that in Latin you can sometimes omit the verb: the first leader was Aellus, the second one was Caelin, the third one was Aedilberct, the fourth one Redwald, etc. Maybe my mother language is biasing me, but I see the semicolons as pretty clear separators in an enumeration. Besides, why would _obtinuit_ be in such a weird location? Which would be its singular subject?" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:50:14.730" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2109" PostId="988" Score="3" Text="It is not uncommon to omit *esse*, but the sentence has an accusative object (*imperium*) requiring a transitive predicate. Use of punctuation was not always the same it is today. With this in mind, I mentally modernize the semicolons into commas. For some reason I find &quot;*Imperium primus Aelli, secundus Caelin, tertius Aedilberct, quartus Reduald obtinuit.*&quot; quite natural elliptic structure. That said, I just want us to understand each other's readings, not argue that mine is any better." CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:59:24.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2110" PostId="988" Score="0" Text="Hahaha, ok, sorry. I naturally tend to feel the urge to defend my point when questioned. I also find strange -though not totally wrong- to omit a verb other than _esse_. Another possible explanation is Imperium is treated as _leader_ rather than _leadership_: there is [_some_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dimperium) evidence of this being likely in L&amp;S." CreationDate="2016-06-07T21:04:54.297" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2127" PostId="988" Score="0" Text="Fantastic! I'm glad to see another answer to this: more food for thought. I had not even considered many of the possibilities you raise here, like two verbs sharing _ducatum_ as an object, and the dative meaning &quot;for the sake of&quot;. I'm currently thinking that L&amp;S might be a little misleading here, since they're focused on classical Latin, and that the best way to sort this out is to look specifically at other histories written around Bede's time, and especially elsewhere in Bede's own writing. Nailing down usage of _præbere_ in this kind of context might help a lot." CreationDate="2016-06-09T21:26:53.577" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2135" PostId="988" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, the more I think about it, the more I like the _shared object_: I can think of a couple of constructions in romance languages where an object is shared by more than one verb. In turn, it doesn't sound wrong to me at all to omit an _illum_ when unambiguous, although I admit it needs more evidence to be affirmed with certainty." CreationDate="2016-06-10T17:27:59.383" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2104" PostId="989" Score="0" Text="(1) So, is miserere an intransitive verb?  (2) After reading your answer, the genitive feels to me like, &quot;have mercy *concerning/about* me/us&quot;, while the dative feels like, &quot;have mercy *for (the benefit of)* me/us&quot;." CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:35:48.433" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2106" PostId="989" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles (1) *Miserere* (infinitive) is transitive, but the accusative object in *me miseret Marci* is *me*, not *Marci*. If you consider *misereri* deponent, it is intransitive. The word *miserere* (imperative) is a passive form. The active infinitive and the passive imperative look exactly alike. I hope this is not too confusing. (2) I never thought of it that way. I am not sure if such difference in meaning is intended when choosing dative instead of genitive, but it makes perfect sense." CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:43:28.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2107" PostId="990" Score="0" Text="In that context (and in general) *fama* sounds more like &quot;rumor&quot; than &quot;news&quot;. But I do like the phrase nevertheless. I actually begin to like the expression *tristis nuntius* quite a bit, attested or not." CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:46:27.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41346" PostId="990" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I suppose that depends on what you mean by &quot;news&quot;. Rumors often get reported on by the &quot;news&quot;, but the Romans didn't have &quot;news&quot; in the same way we moderns do." CreationDate="2023-02-13T02:39:32.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2153" PostId="991" Score="0" Text="Are you asking how _sic_ is used in English? [Here](http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/47815/6700) is an answer on English Language Learners. It doesn't directly address quoting speech rather than writing, but yes, you would use _sic_ for both. That answer does suggest, though, that you correct minor speech errors when quoting, rather than transcribe them precisely with a _[sic]._" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:40:34.160" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2117" PostId="994" Score="1" Text="Thanks a lot! Now I understood the structure of the sentence." CreationDate="2016-06-09T14:32:06.373" UserId="538" />
  <row Id="2119" PostId="995" Score="1" Text="To me *Vivo mea familia* sounds more like &quot;I live with the help of or because of my family&quot;, the ablative being instrumental or causal. Using dative to indicate purpose sounds ok to me, but I'm not familiar with the use of ablative you propose. (Or I'm overlooking something simple.) Can you explain this ablative better, perhaps with other examples or by comparing it to other uses? (Welcome to the site!)" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:17:27.107" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2121" PostId="997" Score="1" Text="Welcome!  I've edited your question to ask for a Latin idiom equivalent to the English one, as I imagine you are more interested in what Latin speakers might say to express this idea, rather than a direct translation of the phrase." CreationDate="2016-06-09T17:13:38.350" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2122" PostId="997" Score="5" Text="Now I'm noticing your mention of Juvenal, which suggests that you are familiar with *Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*  Are you actually asking here for a translation of &quot;watchdog&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-06-09T17:16:44.303" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2123" PostId="997" Score="0" Text="Sort of. But I can Google for that. Woudl it still have the same &quot;feel&quot;? I _think_ so, but am not not confident enough to say for sure." CreationDate="2016-06-09T17:56:31.253" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="2140" PostId="1000" Score="5" Text="That pronunciation is for the English word &quot;Latium,&quot; not the Latin word &quot;Latium.&quot;  Hence the difference in the T." CreationDate="2016-06-10T21:41:26.163" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="9138" PostId="1000" Score="2" Text="English pronunciation of anything foreign is so messed up it's hardly believable anymore." CreationDate="2017-06-07T07:21:53.787" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="11971" PostId="1002" Score="2" Text="Your blurb on the Ecclesiastical gives the impression that 'tsi' dates to the 1800s.  Actually the sequence is [t + i + vowel] and it dates back to Medieval Latin, as evidenced in the frequent interchange of -cia and -tia spellings in Early and High Medieval literature (c + i was &quot;tsee&quot; in Medieval Latin since perhaps around the 6th century), as well as in their being rhymed in contemporary poetry such as Thomas Aquinas' hymn &quot;Adore Te Devote&quot;." CreationDate="2018-01-23T18:17:43.150" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="11972" PostId="1002" Score="2" Text="@Coemgenus better now? See also: [this question about the timing of palatalization](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/44/when-did-c-before-e-or-i-start-to-be-pronounced-as-ts-in-contrast-to-cl/117#117)" CreationDate="2018-01-23T18:43:36.637" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12006" PostId="1002" Score="0" Text="Yes, much better. Good link too." CreationDate="2018-01-27T03:37:46.410" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="22571" PostId="1002" Score="0" Text="I am surprised you say that Germans prefer the classical way as the traditional German regional pronunciation uses /tsi/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation" CreationDate="2019-09-24T13:16:50.380" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22576" PostId="1002" Score="1" Text="@VladimirF: I think that the traditional German pronunciation of Latin, like the traditional English pronunciation of Latin, has become unpopular among German scholars and students of Latin (despite having a continued influence on the pronunciation of Latin-derived terms in German)." CreationDate="2019-09-24T16:07:25.980" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22577" PostId="1002" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I wouldn't have expected that. Here in the Czech Republic the local pronunciation, almost identical to the German one, appears to be very common. At least among non-specialists (history, medicine, biology...). I even went to check some lecture notes for history courses and that is what is generally taught." CreationDate="2019-09-24T16:45:40.097" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="30758" PostId="1002" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides A good example of an exception to this, is the explicit instructions on the pronunciation of the Latin in _Carmina Burana_: The composer states that it shall be performed with German pronunciation, _not_ Italian – and it definitely works brilliantly with the feel of the piece." CreationDate="2021-02-16T18:43:56.167" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="2145" PostId="1003" Score="2" Text="You're right that &quot;on command&quot; would be more idiomatic, at least in American English." CreationDate="2016-06-11T15:43:24.947" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2146" PostId="1003" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, thanks! It's good to have native speakers here. I wish we had native speakers of Latin, too..." CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:11:48.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2155" PostId="1006" Score="2" Text="I'm sure you're right that it's a gerund, but the sentence looks ungrammatical. What verb is *dominus* the subject of?" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:48:07.430" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2156" PostId="1006" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Yes, it's not proper Latin. The author clearly didn't know some of the basic rules of Latin. Such things happened in the Middle Ages..." CreationDate="2016-06-11T17:45:20.167" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2157" PostId="1006" Score="0" Text="[The Vulgate has](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+125&amp;version=VULGATE) &quot;in convertendo Dominum captivitatem Sion facti sumus sicut consolati&quot;. That seems no better, but St. Jerome knew Latin. What gives? I wonder if it's supposed to be a super-literal translation of the Hebrew, to the extent of flouting actual Latin grammar rules." CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:07:53.327" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2158" PostId="1006" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I agree, the sentence looks ungrammatical. I wanted to focus on interpreting *in convertendo* in my answer, so I decided to exclude this discussion. I suppose it's enough to have this issue mentioned in the comments. An overly literal translation from Hebrew sounds possible, but I can't really tell since I know so little of the language." CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:16:21.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2160" PostId="1006" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Completely agreed that it's tangential -- I simply found it weird enough to be worth wondering about in comments. [Looks like](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Psalters#Versio_Gallicana) this is indeed an extreme Hebraism (this specific phrase is mentioned toward the bottom of the Wiiki section)." CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:23:59.160" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2203" PostId="1006" Score="0" Text="@TKR, notice that your source says this 'dangling nominative' occurs in Classical Latin as well." CreationDate="2016-06-13T16:42:27.873" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2205" PostId="1006" Score="1" Text="@DavidCharles This doesn't look to me like an example of what's usually called &quot;dangling nominative&quot; -- those tend to be sentence-initial topical nominatives as in the first Wiki example *Deus meus, impolluta via ejus*, but this is something more unusual." CreationDate="2016-06-13T17:32:12.693" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2151" PostId="1007" Score="0" Text="Btw since you're marking vowel lengths: velit has short e, and sic and sive have long i." CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:36:29.643" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2152" PostId="1007" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks yet again! I've fixed *velit* and *sive*. *Sic,* unless I'm mistaken (I may be), is usually marked long because it used to be *sicce* and long not by nature but by position." CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:39:38.297" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2154" PostId="1007" Score="1" Text="I think the vowel of *sic* is long. There are alternative spellings *seic* and *sīce* (the latter marked with long i in L&amp;S), and it's derived from *sī*." CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:47:01.943" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2147" PostId="1008" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I intended the last sentence to mean (clunkily translated), &quot;This question having been written in Latin, I realize too late that an English rather than a Latin answer would suit me better.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:23:12.413" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2148" PostId="1008" Score="0" Text="(Please suggest improvements if any occur to you!)" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:23:47.237" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2149" PostId="1008" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner In that case I think you need either scripto or rogato but not both, and an infinitive instead of conveniat." CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:32:00.717" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2150" PostId="1008" Score="0" Text="D'oh! I'll correct." CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:32:45.420" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2171" PostId="1008" Score="0" Text="I agree. Cf. Greek *dokei moi*." CreationDate="2016-06-11T22:48:14.050" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2159" PostId="1009" Score="0" Text="Are you using Cassell's? If so, what is says is &quot;used to strengthen a superlative&quot;, not just any adjective; it gives the example *rerum pulcherrima Roma* &quot;Rome, most beautiful of all things&quot;, where you can probably see how this phrasing is &quot;stronger&quot; than just saying &quot;Rome, most beautiful&quot;." CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:18:27.430" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2161" PostId="1009" Score="0" Text="(Btw in the last sentence did you mean &quot;adjective&quot; instead of &quot;adverb&quot;?)" CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:32:12.230" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2163" PostId="1010" Score="0" Text="In my latin class, we translate superlatives to 'very adjective' more than 'most adjective' so valde peritissimus would mean very very experinced." CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:36:24.340" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="2164" PostId="1010" Score="2" Text="@tox123, it is indeed often more idiomatic English to translate Latin superlatives to &quot;very&quot;. Nevertheless, I see the underlying meaning of superlatives same in both English and Latin; superlatives are just used much more absolutely (independently) in Latin. I find *valde peritissimus* to be weird to the point of being ungrammatical, but I am ready to change my mind of someone can offer a classical use example. (Asking for such would make a decent question here.)" CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:50:34.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2165" PostId="1010" Score="1" Text="@tox123 This is probably a good illustration of how translating leads one astray when learning a language. Often, a good translation of one word and a good translation of another word don't combine to form a good translation of a phrase, because words combine differently in the two languages." CreationDate="2016-06-11T20:16:49.500" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2166" PostId="1010" Score="1" Text="@tox123 BTW, 'very adjective' is sometimes a false translation of the Latin superlative. For example, it would be quite wrong in translating _Omnium montium Terrae altissimus est [Everestius](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everestius_mons)._ The precise meaning has to be understood from context, using common sense; a rule that ignores context can't do the job." CreationDate="2016-06-11T20:39:20.540" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2172" PostId="1017" Score="0" Text="That is a very interesting example! It does seem to be a contraction of *co-apio*, often read as two syllables (*coëpi*) in older Latin, but perhaps that doesn't disqualify it: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=coepio&amp;filter=CUTF8 I'm having trouble deciphering Lewis &amp; Short's &quot;*v.a.* and *n.*&quot;, though. Verbum activum and noun? Vide ante and neuter? Vox activa? The abbreviations: http://latinlexicon.org/LNS_abbreviations.php" CreationDate="2016-06-11T22:54:48.720" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2173" PostId="1017" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I'm also having issues with those abbreviations... It can't be noun or neuter because those refer to nouns and this is a verb. It also can't be vide ante as that means &quot;see before&quot; which makes little sense in context. Interesting..." CreationDate="2016-06-11T23:24:14.497" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2174" PostId="1017" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I believe they mean &quot;verb active and neuter&quot;, which are old-fashioned terms for transitive and intransitive." CreationDate="2016-06-12T05:04:37.613" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2208" PostId="1017" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Ahh that does make sense! I should have looked it up." CreationDate="2016-06-14T02:39:50.180" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40232" PostId="1020" Score="0" Text="In Plutarch’s Lives, page 676, Tiberius “took with him a sword-staff, such as robbers use called in Latin a “dolo.”&#xA;Can anyone describe this in more detail?" CreationDate="2022-10-27T02:31:04.500" UserId="11695" />
  <row Id="3951" PostId="1023" Score="0" Text="If *gladius* is the usual and *ensis* the select and poetical name for a sword, I am inclined towards *ensis*. This inclination is supported by the fact that *ensis* is longer and therefore closer in shape to the doctoral sword. They are both well known general words for a sword, so one of them is probably a good choice. *Lingula* (or *spatha*) are otherwise good ideas, but they might be too hard to recognize. I will accept this answer since it has contributed the most to my increase in understanding. (Apologies for being stubborn and choosing what I started with.)" CreationDate="2016-08-07T21:49:23.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3955" PostId="1023" Score="0" Text="Nihil ad ignoscendum est!" CreationDate="2016-08-07T23:06:44.107" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2176" PostId="1024" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the great answer! I'll wait a little before accepting so I don't discourage other answers." CreationDate="2016-06-12T18:06:04.837" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="2177" PostId="1024" Score="0" Text="You're welcome—and that's always a wise policy!" CreationDate="2016-06-12T18:19:25.450" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2191" PostId="1028" Score="1" Text="Fantastic—I wasn't even looking at the tense! My sense of *obtinere*, though, is that it means more usually &quot;hold (against any possible attackers/rivals).&quot; Is that wrong?" CreationDate="2016-06-13T14:10:50.673" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2206" PostId="1028" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner L&amp;S list &quot;take hold of&quot; and &quot;get possession of, gain acquire obtain&quot; as possible meanings; you're certainly right that it can have the imperfective sense of &quot;hold&quot;, but I think that here the tense suggests a perfective sense." CreationDate="2016-06-13T17:34:12.743" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2183" PostId="1029" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Some remarks: (1) I'm not convinced that &quot;don't even&quot; is an English construction. It has a perfect translation in Finnish (&quot;älä edes&quot; as opposed to &quot;älä&quot;) despite the languages not being related. (2) In the second attempt, I was trying to say &quot;don't move yourself&quot; (using passive reflexively), since *movere* is transitive. Perhaps *ne te moveris* would be better than *ne motus sis*, but that's tangential to the real question. (3) Indeed, I am looking for &quot;not even&quot;. I know *ne...quidem* is good, but the question is whether it works for orders." CreationDate="2016-06-13T01:38:33.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2184" PostId="1029" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta (1) Well then I must have misspoke about the English construction thing. I just don't think it is native to Latin in the same sense that other languages have it. (2) The reflexive you are looking for is *tui*. (3) I don't think *ne...quidem* works as *ne* is the negatuve of *ut*, which makes it a dependent clause. An order is inherently not a dependent clause so it really can't be used here." CreationDate="2016-06-13T02:26:39.723" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2192" PostId="1029" Score="0" Text="This is a valid English construction, but it has a fairly specific meaning—there's an implied more extreme action that is also forbidden. If I'm watching TV with my husband and I know he wants to change the channel, I might say &quot;Don't even move!&quot; meaning something like &quot;Don't change the channel. Don't touch the remote. In fact, don't even move.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-06-13T14:17:34.703" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2193" PostId="1029" Score="1" Text="@SamK *Tui* surprises me—I thought *movere* took the accusative." CreationDate="2016-06-13T14:19:18.703" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2194" PostId="1029" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I apologize, I do mean *te* instead of *tui*. As for your second comment, what exactly are you trying to say (what point are you trying to make)?" CreationDate="2016-06-13T14:31:23.303" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2196" PostId="1029" Score="0" Text="@SamK If you mean my comment about &quot;don't even move,&quot; my point was to clarify for Joonas the meaning of English &quot;don't even&quot; plus an imperative. I don't speak Finnish, so it could very well be that in Finnish the phrase has a broader meaning (like that it can be used to intensify any negative imperative or something). So I guess my comment is really in response to Joonas's first point in his first comment on your answer, not on your answer itself! I'm sorry for not making that clear." CreationDate="2016-06-13T14:56:01.917" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2197" PostId="1029" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Okay, thanks for clarifying that!" CreationDate="2016-06-13T15:19:33.223" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2180" PostId="1030" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer, merci! I have heard someone say the oe in some words has a dialectical origin, but I don't remember who. It must have been a professor or other university teacher. As to &quot;this cannot be the whole story since evidently oe did monophthongize in this environment in some words&quot;, cf. *Poenus, Punicus* and *moenia, munio*: in both cases, we have oe and u from the same root. Only dialect and accentuation come to mind as potentially differentiating factors, besides—don't make me say it—chance." CreationDate="2016-06-13T00:38:41.623" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2181" PostId="1030" Score="0" Text="Oh, of course you're right about *Pūnicus, mūnīre* being among the exceptions -- Weiss actually mentions these; don't know how I missed it. Editing the answer accordingly." CreationDate="2016-06-13T00:55:09.623" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2186" PostId="1030" Score="0" Text="Perfect! An *punio*. I'm still thinking of either archaicisms or dialecticisms. Or perhaps those are the same thing in this case. Incidentally, L&amp;S has a few tantalizing bits of information: *foedus, ĕris (for foedus, Ennius wrote fidus, acc. to Varr. L. L. 5, 86 Müll.* — *foedus, a, um, adj. [Sanscr. dhūmas, smoke; cf.: fumus, fīmus, feteo]*. Ablaut?" CreationDate="2016-06-13T02:34:49.347" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2187" PostId="1030" Score="0" Text="*Foedus~fidus* looks like it could easily be an ablaut alternation. The connection with Skt. *dhūmas* seems less clear (etymological notes in L&amp;S are generally not very reliable, likewise for LSJ etc.)." CreationDate="2016-06-13T02:44:59.193" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2204" PostId="1030" Score="0" Text="I was too lazy to get De Vaan..." CreationDate="2016-06-13T16:49:53.110" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2185" PostId="1031" Score="3" Text="This is about the customs for when and where Latin is spoken, so I believe it's on topic." CreationDate="2016-06-13T02:29:28.200" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2188" PostId="1031" Score="1" Text="Erkki Palmén's dissertation *De adverbiis pronominalibus localibus Latinis studia semantica et syntactica* about Latin was defended in Latin on November 28, 1998, at the University of Jyväskylä. As far as I know, this was the last Latin dissertation in Finland and the first one for almost 70 years. I believe Latin is still allowed in dissertations in Finland if there are people to do it. There are not pontifical universities in Finland." CreationDate="2016-06-13T04:51:50.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2215" PostId="1031" Score="0" Text="Do you mean dissertation or disputation?" CreationDate="2016-06-16T23:24:07.220" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2216" PostId="1031" Score="0" Text="@fdb I am interested  in the dissertation or thesis at the academic level and not the disputation of the thesis involved, although that would be an interesting point to know also!" CreationDate="2016-06-17T00:24:15.603" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="2221" PostId="1031" Score="0" Text="A &quot;dissertation&quot; is a written thesis. A &quot;disputation&quot; is the oral defense of the thesis. In Britain we call it a &quot;viva&quot;." CreationDate="2016-06-17T09:00:00.413" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2223" PostId="1031" Score="0" Text="@fdb That is my understanding of the question also." CreationDate="2016-06-17T12:51:28.830" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="2198" PostId="1032" Score="1" Text="Wouldn't that be similar to my fifth point? Suggestions like these should be comments, not answers, because they don't answer the whole question but rather add on to another answer." CreationDate="2016-06-13T15:57:10.997" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2201" PostId="1032" Score="1" Text="@SamK: This is an answer to brianpck's question where only Hacon, Haconis—a masculine name—is mentioned as an example for the third declension. It is not a comment to your answer." CreationDate="2016-06-13T16:20:49.280" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="2202" PostId="1032" Score="0" Text="But it still does not answer the entire question of how to Latinize non-Latin names..." CreationDate="2016-06-13T16:22:18.473" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2210" PostId="1032" Score="1" Text="@SamK This isn't a complete answer, but it does address the question.  Supplemental answers like this usually won't get as many votes as more complete answers, but they're still worth having here." CreationDate="2016-06-14T16:32:20.203" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2190" PostId="1033" Score="1" Text="This is an interesting set of questions, but it feels a bit too broad. Asking all those questions in one question makes this difficult to answer. Is your last paragraph your main question? Consider separating your question into several questions or emphasizing what is your main question you actually want answered." CreationDate="2016-06-13T12:24:34.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2199" PostId="1034" Score="2" Text="&quot;Pre-Augustus the word primarily meant astrology, but post-Augustus other words were used instead, with mathematics becoming the primary definition&quot;. I think the citation in Lewis and Short says exactly the opposite." CreationDate="2016-06-13T16:06:51.223" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2200" PostId="1034" Score="0" Text="@fdb I apologize about that. I guess I misinterpreted the definition. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! I'll change that..." CreationDate="2016-06-13T16:11:34.730" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2212" PostId="1036" Score="1" Text="For what it's worth, the example you cite contains not rhymes but identities—simply put, the rhyming parts of the words start with the same sound. Rhyme would be something like *retentum* or *centum*." CreationDate="2016-06-16T14:49:35.677" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2217" PostId="1036" Score="0" Text="Well, if you want to be pedantic... :) The B rhyme isn't an identity though." CreationDate="2016-06-17T04:03:37.647" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2218" PostId="1036" Score="3" Text="&quot;If you want to be pedantic&quot; . . . as if there were ever any question! I cede the point as far as *cernui* and the other two, but as far as *ritui* and *defectui* I stand my ground." CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:17:47.963" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2229" PostId="1036" Score="2" Text="This question deserves a more thorough answer, but rhyme is a Medieval invention which only arose with the shift to stress-based prosody rather than the quantity-based prosody of Classical Latin (and Greek). The authors of those ecclesiastical rhymes would have natively spoken a language where vowel quantity was not distinctive, so quantitative meter made no sense to them. For the Romans, stress was unimportant compared with quantity, so rhyme would not have made sense. (I'm not even sure it's true that &quot;obviously, rhyme existed at this time&quot;, as a recognized effect.)" CreationDate="2016-06-17T16:16:26.480" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2230" PostId="1036" Score="0" Text="@TKR- I think it's a bit of a *non sequitur* to suggest that if someone natively speaks a stress-based language, &quot;quantitative meter makes no sense to them.&quot; What about...(almost) everyone who can speak Latin now? Perhaps it is more accurate to point to the *intended audience* of the hymns rather than the ignorance of the composers." CreationDate="2016-06-17T18:19:16.130" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2231" PostId="1036" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I was being a little over-succinct to accommodate the character count, but still, students of Latin today have to be explicitly taught how to scan quantitative meter -- I think it's fair to say that this type of prosody is not intuitively understandable if your native language lacks distinctive vowel quantity. I don't mean the composers were necessarily ignorant, but that it wasn't a natural way to write poetry for them." CreationDate="2016-06-17T19:12:03.433" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30537" PostId="1036" Score="0" Text="To the best of my knowledge, there is ample evidence to suggest that mediaeval latinists were well aware of Latin’s original quantitative nature. ¶ A side note: I believe I read at some point that Classical Latin poets considered rhymes, if not bad taste, then at least a mark of simple-mindedness" CreationDate="2021-01-27T20:13:47.383" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="43827" PostId="1036" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Didn’t Quintilianus talk about rhymes? I remember he explaining the Greek word &quot;homoeoptoton&quot;. It had to do with the cases and the declensions in Latin having a similar ending. But I'm not sure if he was talking about our modern rhyme." CreationDate="2023-06-26T02:23:14.083" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="2309" PostId="1037" Score="0" Text="+1. Thanks. About your two last questions: Now they do; I could not determine which meanings were apt for 'mitto' and 'praeter'." CreationDate="2016-06-25T03:43:32.983" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="2317" PostId="1037" Score="1" Text="@LePressentiment: Cool, great!" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:18:40.730" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6629" PostId="1038" Score="0" Text="I was taught &quot;cities, towns, *domus*, *rus*, and islands smaller than Rhodes&quot;. No source or evidence though, and I doubt the Romans thought about it in these terms." CreationDate="2017-02-10T04:19:57.717" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19456" PostId="1038" Score="0" Text="I suppose that in the wholly artificial nature of Classical Latin, such a complicated and sharp criterion is imaginable. But that's not the way that real language works. If the locative survived for some words, that is because people continued to use it for those words. Any rule represents an attempt to describe how people use the language, not an _a priori_ defintiion, and looking for hidden pecision in it is a fool's errand" CreationDate="2019-04-30T15:47:12.050" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="2213" PostId="1039" Score="1" Text="I just checked the [Magna Carta](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/magnacarta.html). Alas, I don't think it has a word for jury. Article 39 has &quot;…nisi per legale **judicium** parium suorum&quot;, which I believe means &quot;except by the lawful **judgement** of his peers&quot;." CreationDate="2016-06-16T22:30:38.483" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2214" PostId="1040" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I generally find *Vikipædia* untrustworthy, but from http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx I see that &quot;jury selection&quot; is *júrátórum éléctió*." CreationDate="2016-06-16T22:58:36.037" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2219" PostId="1040" Score="0" Text="About your edit—what difficulty do you see in Du Cange's *juratorum electio* (from the noun *jurator, juratoris*)?" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:39:32.907" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2235" PostId="1040" Score="0" Text="Unless it's from *juratus*, which maybe makes more sense." CreationDate="2016-06-18T16:04:56.830" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2236" PostId="1040" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Maybe I'm answering a different question than you meant to ask. I understand _juratorum electio_ to mean the process of choosing the jurors (and it sounds pretty good to me!). I was trying to translate &quot;jury duty&quot;, which can be understood two ways in English: (1) the obligation of citizens to serve on juries; (2) the service performed by jurors. Jury selection is something you're involved with as a juror, but it's not equivalent to jury duty. Did I misunderstand your question (or your comment)?" CreationDate="2016-06-18T19:25:00.760" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2237" PostId="1040" Score="0" Text="Ah! I think we have slightly different understandings of the term. When I said &quot;I have jury duty today&quot; I meant that I went down to the courthouse to be a member of the pool of potential jurors, from among whom several juries would be selected. I wasn't chosen. I suppose that if I had been, I'd say &quot;I'm serving on a jury&quot; rather than &quot;I'm on jury duty.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-06-18T20:05:39.430" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2238" PostId="1040" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner Interesting. I've never seen &quot;jury duty&quot; used to mean only the selection process, but I just looked at [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jury_duty) and it gives _only_ that meaning! That strikes me as weird usage, since it excludes actually serving on a jury. [Books](https://www.google.com/#q=%22jury+duty%22&amp;tbm=bks) and laws, AFAIK, mean by &quot;jury duty&quot; serving as a juror, the selection process being only the first step. But, clearly you're not alone. Maybe this is the result of most people's experience: not getting selected, so &quot;jury duty&quot; = waiting in the pool. :)" CreationDate="2016-06-18T20:43:14.187" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2239" PostId="1040" Score="0" Text="Well, most people are called upon to show up and not called upon to serve. That's the duty I have in mind. (Am on phone so terse.)" CreationDate="2016-06-18T21:26:00.897" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2241" PostId="1041" Score="1" Text="Interesting -- looks like there's more variation in usage than I'd thought. I agree that your examples of *Cretae* all look like locatives." CreationDate="2016-06-19T02:10:52.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2220" PostId="1043" Score="0" Text="I guess that wrapped it up pretty clearly. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-06-17T08:52:54.243" UserId="555" />
  <row Id="2222" PostId="1043" Score="0" Text="Oh, I'm so very glad!" CreationDate="2016-06-17T09:46:05.870" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2225" PostId="1043" Score="0" Text="Latin digests a lot better if you know how to parse words in a sentence.  For substantives (i.e., nouns, pronouns,and adjectives), number and case give important clues on the function of a word in a sentence.  For verbs, number, voice, tense, and mood are key indicators." CreationDate="2016-06-17T13:29:19.100" UserId="557" />
  <row Id="2224" PostId="1045" Score="0" Text="Interesting--so you think that rhyming wasn't &quot;a thing&quot; in Latin because it was just too easy? I'm curious now if there is an established way of measuring how easy it is to rhyme in a given language..." CreationDate="2016-06-17T13:24:44.157" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2233" PostId="1045" Score="0" Text="That was something I heard from one of my professors while I was in university, which I agree with.  I suppose the case could also be made that the Romans had inherited a long tradition of metered, non-rhyming poetry from the Greeks, so they were keeping true to that.  I think that's true, but I also think the Roman poets had high opinions of themselves, and needed a sufficiently challenging way of showing off their chops.  I would say that any inflected language, especially one that puts little emphasis on word order, would be the easiest ones to rhyme in." CreationDate="2016-06-18T06:56:01.800" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="2242" PostId="1045" Score="4" Text="I don't think &quot;rhyme is too easy&quot; is the explanation -- if so, you'd expect popular verse at least (i.e. verse not written by poets in high language) to occasionally be rhymed rather than quantitative, which AFAIK is not the case. Even lowbrow stuff like the bawdy lines shouted by Caesar's soldiers at his triumph is in quantitative meter, not rhyme. Btw the native Roman meter (Saturnian) is also quantitative and unrhymed." CreationDate="2016-06-19T02:37:12.553" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2244" PostId="1045" Score="0" Text="@TKR, that's a really interesting point.  Perhaps we've only scratched the surface here, and there's a much deeper reason.  Could it also be, though, that the tradition of metered, non-rhyming poetry was so strongly ingrained in the culture that even the `plebes` understood it, or perhaps that rhyming didn't really even enter their minds?  I was also told by some professors that the poetry was sung, not merely recited.  Although I have never heard any details about how it sounded (if such info even survives), perhaps that tradition also pushed toward meter." CreationDate="2016-06-19T07:36:31.243" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="2250" PostId="1045" Score="0" Text="@coralv *Could it also be, though, that the tradition of metered, non-rhyming poetry was so strongly ingrained in the culture that even the plebes understood it, or perhaps that rhyming didn't really even enter their minds?* I think that's basically right. We only think of rhyme as a basic feature of poetry because we're modern Westerners raised in that tradition. There's no reason to think it would even have occurred to the Romans." CreationDate="2016-06-19T15:42:37.133" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4276" PostId="1046" Score="0" Text="I decided to accept your answer, although it's not exactly what I ended up choosing (see my answer below). Your answer was useful, though, and the best choice depends on exact context which I admittedly didn't provide in my question." CreationDate="2016-09-07T17:34:27.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2234" PostId="1048" Score="2" Text="I am tempted to read *pridie* and *postridie* as temporal ablatives of a noun that is rarely used in other cases. In this reading genitive is natural: *pridie eius diei* is &quot;on the preceding day of that day&quot;. The line between a declined noun requiring a genitive attribute and a preposition requiring genitive is thin." CreationDate="2016-06-18T10:18:59.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2270" PostId="1048" Score="1" Text="@coralv Lewis and Short list _pridie_, _postridie_ and _ergo_ as _adverbs_ (the first two derived in fact from abl. _die_). Can you confirm there is a dictionary listing them as prepositions or other type of adpositions?" CreationDate="2016-06-20T13:26:59.523" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2276" PostId="1048" Score="0" Text="That's a good point, the grammar book doesn't say that they're prepositions, it just gives them in reference to using the genitive.  `Tenus` and `ergo` are listed in my dictionary as prepositions but, indeed, `pridei` and `postridie` are adverbs." CreationDate="2016-06-20T16:47:51.903" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="8215" PostId="1048" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Prepositions are just adverbs that lost independent adverbial usage." CreationDate="2017-04-21T00:59:19.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31246" PostId="1048" Score="0" Text="Would it be possible for you to add references to where this is found in these grammars? I am desperately searching for adpositions that take the genitive." CreationDate="2021-03-23T18:25:17.317" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="31265" PostId="1048" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan see section 359b." CreationDate="2021-03-25T01:08:13.403" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="2243" PostId="1050" Score="3" Text="To support this, L&amp;S don't mention such a phrase under either word, and searching PHI for [in fossa](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in+fossa) yields nothing relevant either." CreationDate="2016-06-19T02:50:47.737" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2245" PostId="1050" Score="0" Text="Thanks, @JoelDerfner!  Also, thanks to @TKR for the additional lack of references." CreationDate="2016-06-19T07:37:30.107" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="2246" PostId="1051" Score="3" Text="Can you give some ancient examples where *re* means &quot;in the matter of&quot;? With such examples this answer would be great." CreationDate="2016-06-19T12:00:39.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2247" PostId="1051" Score="1" Text="I have an immediately available snippet of a quote here in my dictionary that shows `ea re` from Cicero and gives the translation as &quot;on that account,&quot; which I think fits the bill here.  I'll spend a little more time today and tomorrow to see if I can dig up any other examples." CreationDate="2016-06-19T13:55:52.207" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="2248" PostId="1051" Score="2" Text="Ok, good. In questions like this it really makes a difference to give explicit quotes with links to some online text corpus (some include English translations) for wider context. I'll wait and see what you found." CreationDate="2016-06-19T14:05:17.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2267" PostId="1051" Score="0" Text="Added an edit with another example." CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:38:47.690" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="2268" PostId="1051" Score="2" Text="Thanks. (+1) I still wonder if *re* (or *ea re* or *hac re*) occurs without prepositions. It can be grammatically valid without a preposition, and it seems that in modern usage a preposition is never used." CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:51:53.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2252" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I stand corrected. The phrase *locum Caeriolensem appellatum* in your examples is analogous to *aedificio Taberna appellato*, so apparently even having a noun like *aedificium* or *locum* does not turn the name into nominative." CreationDate="2016-06-19T22:42:37.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2253" PostId="1053" Score="1" Text="I agree with your conclusion: names normally take the same case as any other nomen would in a sentence. Those are some very interesting quotations, especially the one about the Subura! As to Joonas's example, it is about an **appositive noun** used as a name, *Taberna*. I think it would be less likely for adjectives to be in the nominative when the syntax requires some other case, because adjectives really always have to agree with whatever noun they modify. That is less obvious for (substantive) nouns, so I think you need examples of (substantive) nouns to prove our hypothesis." CreationDate="2016-06-20T00:17:12.907" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2254" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="Many of the examples from Varro are adjectives, or may be adjectives, like *Tarpeius, Succusam*, etc. And many other examples are nominatives because normal syntax demands them to be nominatives; they can therefore not confirm our hypothesis either, since we're trying to prove that names are not in the nominative when normal syntax calls for another case. So I think we could use more examples." CreationDate="2016-06-20T00:20:40.810" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2256" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus An unexpected delight of finding these quotations was reading not only Varro's debunking of his predecessors' etymologies, but Kent's debunking, in the footnotes, of Varro's—sometimes with little remarks like &quot;not quite&quot;. Anyway, I think you have an excellent point about substantives vs. adjectives. Later in the same book, Varro explains the basis of many common nouns (he explains &quot;rana&quot; as onomatopoeia!), so there ought to be a satisfying example there. My Latin brain is exhausted for today, though." CreationDate="2016-06-20T00:46:06.947" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2257" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta In light of Cerberus's comments, how'd you like to unaccept my answer in the hope of encouraging someone else to post another attempt?" CreationDate="2016-06-20T00:48:21.710" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2259" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="I truly hope &quot;rana&quot; is onomatopoeic! — To summarise: I think names work just like other appositives. A few examples.  Hyginus, Astronomica 2.2.1.6:&#xA;&#xA;*et sodalibus eius constitutam, et portum qui ibi est, //&#xA;&#xA;et agri maiorem partem Cynosuram appellatam;*  Ennius, tragoediae 211: &#xA;&#xA;*neue inde nauis inchoandi exordium // &#xA;&#xA;cepisset, quae nunc nominatur nomine&#xA;&#xA;Argo;*  Caesar, De Bello Gallico 5.45.2.2:&#xA;&#xA;*militum cum cruciatu necabatur. erat unus intus Nervius nomine Vertico;*  Nepos, Vitae Cim.1.2.2:&#xA;&#xA;*habebat autem in&#xA;&#xA;matrimonio sororem germanam suam, nomine Elpinicen.*" CreationDate="2016-06-20T01:23:34.997" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2260" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="You could just add those examples to your answer (or find better ones)." CreationDate="2016-06-20T01:26:34.107" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2261" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Go ahead and put those quotations in a new answer. They're way better than what I could find if I spent days on it. This one's yours. I only picked _De Lingua Latina_ because I figured it would have the highest concentration of _appellatus_-like participles in all of classical literature. (Hey! _Elpinicen_ sounds like the accusative. Why is it paired with _nomine_? Well, that's something to answer in your answer… :))" CreationDate="2016-06-20T04:34:18.753" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2262" PostId="1053" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, I agree with Ben. You should make those examples into a separate answer. Your remarks and examples are worth more than being hidden in comments." CreationDate="2016-06-20T06:23:44.360" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2277" PostId="1053" Score="0" Text="Actually, @BenKovitz, my understanding (at least in re *Elpinicen*) is that it's basically &quot;but he married his step-sister, Elpinice by name&quot;, so *Elpinicen* is in the same case as *sororem germanam*, and *nomine* is an ablative of description." CreationDate="2016-06-20T19:57:26.620" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2263" PostId="1054" Score="2" Text="Actually, *Patriæ Legio Defensoria Nova* would work fine. It means &quot;new defensive legion of the fatherland.&quot; It's not the most elegant Latin, perhaps, but it's grammatically correct and gives you what you need." CreationDate="2016-06-20T09:41:51.467" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2271" PostId="1054" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Sounds and looks nice except for the *nova* part. Would *nostris* from Joonas' answer fit instead? And please see Edited question - maybe there will be something better still? Thank you." CreationDate="2016-06-20T13:56:36.550" UserId="563" />
  <row Id="2274" PostId="1054" Score="1" Text="*Nostrae* and *nostra* would both work (*nostrae* would give you &quot;our fatherland's defensive legion&quot;; *nostra*, &quot;our defensive legion of the fatherland.&quot; The suggestions in Joonas's edited answer are also good." CreationDate="2016-06-20T15:37:20.233" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2275" PostId="1054" Score="0" Text="One thing that should make your job easier is that word order is very free in Latin—not infinitely so, but if you need to put a word in a particular position, chances are good you'll be able to." CreationDate="2016-06-20T15:38:28.327" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="42597" PostId="1054" Score="0" Text="You can also insert an *abscondita* (not *absconditus*) into Joel's answer if you want an *A* and you want to say hidden away." CreationDate="2023-03-17T20:56:47.560" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="2272" PostId="1055" Score="0" Text="Thank you for really nice answer. It definitely gives me a lot of options and wiggle room. But if you see my edited question to try and narrow down or modify it to better fit into requirements? Thank you." CreationDate="2016-06-20T13:59:42.097" UserId="563" />
  <row Id="2273" PostId="1055" Score="0" Text="@AcePL, I edited the answer." CreationDate="2016-06-20T15:00:12.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2279" PostId="1055" Score="2" Text="I'm going with slightly modified version of your answer (*patriae legio defensoria nostrae*), so this will be the one marked as accepted. Point of order though: @JoelDerfner was closer to my choice the first time he answered in comment (but not quite what I wanted yet) and him being slower than you whopping 40 seconds you get ticked. ;)" CreationDate="2016-06-20T22:20:57.953" UserId="563" />
  <row Id="2280" PostId="1055" Score="0" Text="It's okay, @JoonasIlmavirta's Latin is better than mine anyway (AND I left my response as a comment, not an answer), so he deserves it more than me." CreationDate="2016-06-20T23:46:22.683" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2283" PostId="1063" Score="1" Text="Thanks! It would make some sense to combine the first two rows to *diploma, quod Deus optime vertat*, but it's probably not intended. (How do I even express a wish in a relative clause in English? &quot;Diploma, may God turn which to good&quot;?) Searching for an alternative *quod Deus bene vertat* may or may not produce deeper enlightenment, but I guess a detached &quot;may God bring success&quot; is a decent translation." CreationDate="2016-06-21T16:38:27.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2284" PostId="1063" Score="0" Text="I think &quot;May God bring success&quot; is just right. I suspect you're right that a combination of the first two lines isn't what was intended; otherwise, the material I quoted would read ***quam** Deus optime vertat*, no?" CreationDate="2016-06-21T16:58:54.550" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2285" PostId="1063" Score="0" Text="(And, alas, there's no way to express a wish in a relative clause in English. You'd have to say &quot;Diploma; may God turn it to good.&quot;)" CreationDate="2016-06-21T17:04:53.370" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2286" PostId="1063" Score="0" Text="I believe *diploma* is one of those Greek neuters in the third declension, not a first declension feminine. (Good to know that about English relative clauses. I sometimes end up wanting unusual constructions.)" CreationDate="2016-06-21T17:12:32.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2287" PostId="1063" Score="0" Text="Right. I was figuring *quam* would go not with *diploma* on the degree but with *profectio* in the 1520 letter." CreationDate="2016-06-21T17:34:38.427" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2288" PostId="1063" Score="0" Text="Ah, I see. In the letter it makes sense both grammatically and semantically that *quod* refers to the whole preceding sentence." CreationDate="2016-06-21T17:49:13.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9104" PostId="1063" Score="0" Text="Joel Derfner, the second line of &quot;For He's a Jolly Good Fellow,&quot; seems to me a an English optative following a relative pronoun: &quot;Which nobody can deny.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-02T15:33:01.260" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9117" PostId="1063" Score="0" Text="Hmm. I'm having trouble reading it that way. To me it seems an indicative claim about the obviousness of the preceding statement: &quot;For he's a jolly good fellow, which [assertion] nobody can deny [since it's so clearly true that everybody sees it].&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-03T14:25:06.200" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2289" PostId="1064" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I don't think the question is too elementary. Explaining Latin tenses and *consecutio temporum* is one thing, but relating the choices to the original Hebrew text requires more. I hope someone who reads both Hebrew and Latin can answer you. (You might want to juxtapose the Hebrew version of that passage with Hieronymus' translation for easier comparison.)" CreationDate="2016-06-22T09:34:44.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2290" PostId="1064" Score="1" Text="Very interesting question! It might help if you added more context to this quotation; I don't know the story, but, if it makes sense to use the future perfect in that passage, then it is less surprising." CreationDate="2016-06-22T13:10:13.497" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2291" PostId="1064" Score="0" Text="As a general comment (I barely know any Hebrew), when one translates and speaks fluently the destination language, **the context** in the original gives clues of the need of such nonexistent tense. For example, when translating if-clauses from English to Spanish or other romance languages, -say _if I went_-, you often have the need to use past subjunctive -si yo _fuera/hubiera ido_-, even though the original formulation uses just the past." CreationDate="2016-06-22T13:52:15.873" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2292" PostId="1064" Score="0" Text="Psalm numbering is confusing because Jerome followed the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.  See [Why are the Psalms numbered this way in some Catholic Bibles?](http://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/36615/21576)" CreationDate="2016-06-22T17:45:55.710" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2423" PostId="1065" Score="2" Text="Nice answer. But in addition there already existed a translation into Greek, **LXX,** and other versions in Latin, and he would not have wanted to invent a translationese which nobody else was happy with. His introduction mentions the editing work as much as the translation." CreationDate="2016-07-07T08:31:37.787" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2426" PostId="1065" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Ah—very interesting!" CreationDate="2016-07-07T10:38:03.867" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="18830" PostId="1065" Score="3" Text="@JoelDerfner When we apply your &quot;different languages use different tenses differently&quot; to Hebrew, we see: Hebrew has no tenses in our sense at all, only aspects ([source](https://hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Ten/Introduction/introduction.html))" CreationDate="2019-03-10T14:24:19.773" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="2295" PostId="1066" Score="2" Text="May I ask who told you that this is a forced interpretation? More background might help understand it better." CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:32:21.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2296" PostId="1066" Score="2" Text="Someone who had studied latin at university. I did not provide context, though, as - as far as I know - there isn't any." CreationDate="2016-06-22T20:35:05.430" UserId="570" />
  <row Id="23866" PostId="1066" Score="0" Text="V is the Roman numeral for 5, also the 5th last letter of the alphabet. Vi veritatis vniversum vivus vici is clearly 5 words starting with “V”. However let’s not hide behind these details until we can properly define what it is to conquer the universe. Understanding what is truly meant by the phrase could help determine how the words are used, and therefore the need for each word to be spelled and used in a specific way." CreationDate="2019-12-25T05:46:46.277" UserId="6405" />
  <row Id="30207" PostId="1066" Score="0" Text="It was Aleister Crowley's motto (shortened to V.V.V.V.V.). Alan Moore is also a magician and admirer of Crowley." CreationDate="2020-12-19T11:04:39.003" UserId="8743" />
  <row Id="2297" PostId="1067" Score="0" Text="By the way, *hoc* &quot;with this, by this way&quot; also works as an ablative..." CreationDate="2016-06-22T22:05:29.853" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2298" PostId="1067" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I know. This question comes from idle curiosity rather than trying to decipher a Latin text with *hoc auxiliari*. I thought of using *id* or some other such word, but *hoc* felt best." CreationDate="2016-06-22T22:10:04.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2299" PostId="1067" Score="0" Text="OK just wanted to be sure! L&amp;S give no examples with an accusative." CreationDate="2016-06-22T22:18:34.053" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2300" PostId="1067" Score="1" Text="I don't have an example, but pronominal internal accusatives are productive enough in Latin (examples in [A&amp;G](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.390.html)) that I'd guess this would probably be grammatical." CreationDate="2016-06-22T23:24:16.350" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2301" PostId="1068" Score="4" Text="How about some form of _mortalis,_ like _Vi veritatis universum ego mortalis vici_? That drops the conceit of starting every word with _v,_ but does it seem like clearer and/or more forceful Latin?" CreationDate="2016-06-23T01:32:29.573" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2302" PostId="1068" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz, that is a good option. Using *vivus* instead of *mortalis* gives a different tone, more &quot;alive&quot; than &quot;mortal&quot;. I don't know which nuance would be most suitable. Starting every letter with 'v' gives certain forcefulness but your translation is forceful in a different way." CreationDate="2016-06-23T09:02:09.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2304" PostId="1068" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta (Felt this didn't deserve a new question) If you wanted to substitute 'truth' for 'knowledge', would 'scientiae' be an adequate choice?" CreationDate="2016-06-23T20:12:02.433" UserId="570" />
  <row Id="2305" PostId="1068" Score="0" Text="*Scientiæ* would be a terrific choice. Alas, there is, at least as far as I know, no Latin word for &quot;knowledge&quot; that begins with the letter *v*." CreationDate="2016-06-24T02:54:24.493" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2306" PostId="1068" Score="1" Text="@AvidScifiReader, *scientiae* would be a good choice. My understanding is that it is a relatively recent word so it might not be perfectly classical Latin. But I can be mistaken and not all Latin needs to be classical." CreationDate="2016-06-24T20:57:41.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15147" PostId="1068" Score="0" Text="Could you perhaps elaborate on the use of *vivus* to mean &quot;mortal&quot;? I would perhaps not be shocked to see it so used in poetry, but it would sound metaphorical to me, not the normal use of the word *vivus*?" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:18:57.867" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15181" PostId="1068" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I did take some artistic licence in translating *vivus* as &quot;mortal&quot;. The question has &quot;mortal [/while living]&quot;, and I think more direct translations of *vivus* are somewhat heavy, so I ended up giving &quot;mortal&quot;. It is a somewhat forced translation, but not horribly so. If there's a more accurate and fluent translation, I'd be happy to update my suggestion." CreationDate="2018-08-12T10:13:56.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2307" PostId="1069" Score="0" Text="Are you familiar with the concept of an internal object or an internal accusative? It is about verbs that do not usually take objects taking objects, like *vitam vivere*. The question is about this kind of an internal object, especially a pronominal one. I agree that *auxiliari* almost never takes an accusative object, I am not yet convinced that it never does so. See TKR's comment above." CreationDate="2016-06-24T21:14:18.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2310" PostId="1069" Score="0" Text="I haven't heard it called that, but Allen and Greensborough give the exact quote, `vitam vivere` under &quot;cognate accusative.&quot;  It says that an intransitive verb may often take an acc. of a noun of kindred meaning.  It gives a couple of deponent verb examples under one section, saying that neuter pronouns or an adjective of indefinite meaning is common as cognate accusative, but the examples don't make me think that this use would apply here.  The example of `hoc tibi auxilior` strikes me as too much an abl. of means.  Mine is not a final answer, but my educated opinion is still that it cannot." CreationDate="2016-06-25T07:58:28.047" UserId="556" />
  <row Id="2333" PostId="1070" Score="1" Text="cf. [this pronunciation guide](http://la.raycui.com/)" CreationDate="2016-06-29T17:34:31.850" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="2308" PostId="1071" Score="1" Text="From what I understand, Ancient Greek η is generally thought to have been pronounced with a vowel closer in quality to the one in &quot;bed&quot; than the one in &quot;bay.&quot; I've usually seen eta transcribed as /ɛː/, in contrast to epsilon, which was short /e/. (It is odd that the Greek letter ε is used in the IPA to transcribe the vowel quality of η)." CreationDate="2016-06-25T00:04:51.177" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="2311" PostId="1071" Score="0" Text="Ah—interesting! I'm remembering from the Greek I did in college &amp;**^^&amp;** years ago. . . . So then I assume that ει was pronounced &quot;ay&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-06-25T08:57:15.960" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2313" PostId="1071" Score="0" Text="Yeah, what I remember reading is that η = /ɛː/,  ε = /e/, and ει = /eː/. (And on the other side, ω = /ɔː/, ο = /o/, and ου = /uː/). Interestingly, the Greek vowels eventually shifted in a similar way to the English great vowel shift, so in modern Greek both η and ει are pronounced as /i/." CreationDate="2016-06-25T17:08:17.393" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="2314" PostId="1071" Score="0" Text="This may force me to rethink completely the way I conceive of contract verbs. I have this whole scheme in my head about different contractions resulting in higher/lower and fronter/backer (ut ita dicam) vowels. Damn you! (I say this with fondness.) In the meantime, have edited my answer to reflect our discussion here." CreationDate="2016-06-25T17:11:51.857" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2315" PostId="1071" Score="1" Text="ει has a complicated history: originally, as would be expected, it stood for /ei/, but in 5th-century Attic this diphthong had monophthongized and merged with the long vowel /e:/ (distinct from /ɛː/ = η). At this point the spelling ει was adopted for the long vowel (originally spelled ε). The same thing, mutatis mutandis, happened with ου. People sometimes distinguish between &quot;genuine diphthongs&quot; and &quot;spurious diphthongs&quot;, the former meaning ει ου that etymologically represent the diphthongs /ei ou/, the latter those that don't." CreationDate="2016-06-25T18:25:54.687" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2320" PostId="1075" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the reminder about the Greek accusative (or *accusativus respectus*). I was actually thinking about an actual object like *illud* in *illud ei consentio*, but this answer is interesting. The Greek accusative appears to be narrower in scope than the corresponding ablative, so I wonder if the use you suggest would be idiomatic classical Latin." CreationDate="2016-06-26T19:50:30.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2324" PostId="1082" Score="0" Text="WHOOPS. Have deleted my incorrect answer, which wouldn't have been incorrect if I'd given it two seconds' thought." CreationDate="2016-06-28T04:24:36.110" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2322" PostId="1086" Score="1" Text="Often a prefix changes the tone of the verb in a different way than the preposition suggests. For example, *invenire aliquid* is very different from *venire in aliquid*. Therefore the preposition and the prefix contribute to the meaning in different ways. In your examples this difference seems slight, though; the repetition is just for emphasis and redundancy." CreationDate="2016-06-27T14:37:00.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23020" PostId="1087" Score="0" Text="It has old French, which really help for English words etymology from Latin roots." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:03:29.770" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="2326" PostId="1089" Score="1" Text="I've come across 'aetatem.' i.e. the accusative form of *AETAS.*   In the dictionaries it is described as an 'adverb,' with the meaning 'over a long period of time,' -as it were 'ages and ages.'  Is that the same construction under another name? *[Stellas] aetatem mensuro*" CreationDate="2016-06-28T19:27:46.710" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2327" PostId="1089" Score="2" Text="@Hugh, that is a different use of the accusative, unrelated to the accusative of respect (as far as I know). Accusative is used to indicate length of time. In comparison, ablative is used to indicate when something happened or how much time was used. (You can ask that as a separate question if you want. New questions like that are always welcome. It's up to you.)" CreationDate="2016-06-28T20:07:06.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5409" PostId="1089" Score="2" Text="I seem to recall something about accusative of respect being more common in poetry... did you come across that while researching an answer?" CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:42:55.897" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41220" PostId="1089" Score="1" Text="@brianpck It's noted in the link to Gildersleeve and Lodge. Apparently Sallust uses it, but it's otherwise rare in prose." CreationDate="2023-02-05T16:10:39.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2331" PostId="1091" Score="7" Text="There's a little more to the story. In the Etruscan alphabet, which is the source of the Roman alphabet, the letters C K Q were used for [k] depending on the following vowel: C before E and I, K before A, and Q before U (Etrsucan had no O). The Romans originally adhered to this system, which is why practically all instances of K in Latin are followed by A. But eventually they very reasonably decided to scrap the distinctions and use C for [k] regardless of the following vowel." CreationDate="2016-06-29T02:03:37.650" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="44441" PostId="1091" Score="0" Text="But why did the Etruscans have that convention? That's the odd thing: why borrow three letters for one sound?  In Latin there was a distinction between &lt;QV&gt; /kw/ and &lt;CV&gt; /ku/; perhaps Etruscan had the same thing. Any surviving examples of Etruscan CV? Even if so, that doesn't explain the use of K before A." CreationDate="2023-08-13T16:20:01.180" UserId="13884" />
  <row Id="47345" PostId="1091" Score="0" Text="@TKR: This. The letter G was introduced in Latin to represent [g] and C, K, and Q were all used for [k] until later when C was used for the sound almost exclusively most likely because it was more common. Also the letter Q is completely useless. No idea why it exists." CreationDate="2024-01-21T01:45:02.453" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="2330" PostId="1093" Score="1" Text="Great! Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but I'm confident somebody on the site will! (Also, welcome!)" CreationDate="2016-06-29T00:02:29.403" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2357" PostId="1093" Score="0" Text="Related: [Were comma splices avoided in Modern Latin?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/680/12)" CreationDate="2016-07-03T13:26:21.643" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2516" PostId="1093" Score="1" Text="In my (impressionistic) experience, modern 'critical' editions of classical and medieval texts use commas with different degrees of frequency. German editors, perhaps, punctuate more because German has a stricter need to mark off subordinate clauses (because, say, they also suspend verbs to the ends of clauses). What is 'New Latin', though?" CreationDate="2016-07-10T19:26:14.137" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="5323" PostId="1093" Score="1" Text="@jon New Latin is, according to this site, &quot;Latin in the modern era, approximately 1400–1900.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-11-19T17:39:07.287" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="2332" PostId="1095" Score="3" Text="Regarding word order, the answer to this question may be helpful: [What word order resolves the ambiguity of two nominative nouns in a sentence?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/669/what-word-order-resolves-the-ambiguity-of-two-nominative-nouns-in-a-sentence) It supports my intuition that &quot;esse&quot; normally comes after the complement in a sentence of this structure." CreationDate="2016-06-29T06:39:46.380" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="2338" PostId="1095" Score="3" Text="&quot;Minerva dea sapientiae et lanae est&quot; would be better" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:34:12.763" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="2337" PostId="1096" Score="1" Text="I made a small edit, which I'll mention because I know correct English is important to you. You &quot;put&quot; *est* &quot;at&quot; the end, while you &quot;move&quot; it &quot;to&quot; the end (just as you can &quot;move&quot; something &quot;from&quot; somewhere but you can't &quot;put&quot; something &quot;from&quot; somewhere)." CreationDate="2016-06-30T04:35:18.747" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2339" PostId="1096" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, thanks! Things like this are always a source of confusion, especially since in Finnish things are different." CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:40:30.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4092" PostId="1096" Score="0" Text="How about _Minerva sapientiae et lanae est dea_?" CreationDate="2016-08-23T01:45:51.553" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4097" PostId="1096" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, that is also possible. I have a feeling that that word order is somewhat less idiomatic than *Minerva dea sapientiae et lanae est*. My gut feeling has failed me before in Latin word order, though." CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:22:13.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7524" PostId="1097" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Is this to a close friend, an acquaintance, or something more formal?" CreationDate="2017-03-18T14:42:10.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7525" PostId="1097" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer What I had in mind is something like a hobby-related acquaintance or a distant colleague. For example, consider sending an email to a Latinist you met a year ago in an event, telling them about this site." CreationDate="2017-03-18T15:33:46.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2335" PostId="1099" Score="1" Text="This is interesting. My Latin grammar (a Finnish one) does not mention these adjectives at all. My dictionary gives the adjective *frugalis* (for which *frugalior* and *frugalissimus* are regular), so one might also argue that *frugi* has no comparative or superlative at all. Nevertheless, those three adjectives you list are useful to keep in mind, including the peculiar comparison." CreationDate="2016-06-29T19:37:31.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2342" PostId="1106" Score="1" Text="There can be more to it here, but I cannot resist making this comment: Fitting context is more important than translating every sentence exactly as such. When translating text, a story is read in one language, understood, and retold in another language. If the desire or deprivation are understood to be there from context and English offers a simple way to convey it, why not? Justification need not be within the sentence itself." CreationDate="2016-06-30T17:37:50.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2343" PostId="1107" Score="0" Text="Ah, that seems to make my question off-topic? Shall I delete it?" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:24:58.843" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2344" PostId="1107" Score="4" Text="@DavidCharles, I'm in favor of keeping it. It was a question about translating from Latin, although the answer turned out to be less related to Latin. (And I think the system won't allow you to delete a question with an answer with positive score.)" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:32:41.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2345" PostId="1107" Score="1" Text="Yeah, since the *question* is about Latin, I'd say it should stay. You're safe!" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:46:16.933" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2346" PostId="1109" Score="8" Text="You must have a very large desk." CreationDate="2016-06-30T20:04:17.323" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2347" PostId="1111" Score="0" Text="Thanks! *Suffragiis* or *per suffragia* and *suffragium ferre* sound good. *Quire* is indeed a little problematic, but perhaps *licere* would indeed be a good substitute for *posse* in some cases. Regarding the last paragraph, I wanted to keep things simple. The words &quot;question&quot; and &quot;answer&quot; with their corresponding verbs are used so often in the surrounding text that a more general word for content is good (also in English, I suppose)." CreationDate="2016-06-30T20:40:06.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2348" PostId="1111" Score="0" Text="Maybe then I'd go with *verba*? But as I say I'm biased against things like *substantia(m)*." CreationDate="2016-06-30T20:49:43.663" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2349" PostId="1111" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yeah, looking at the L&amp;S definition for *substantia* (&quot;that of which a thing consists, the being, essence, contents, material, substance; fortune, substance, property; worldly goods&quot;) I think it's probably not the way to go. Maybe *Scripta aliorum quæ suffragia accipiunt promota sunt.*" CreationDate="2016-07-01T02:36:09.577" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2350" PostId="1111" Score="0" Text="Hmm... I looked at the very same definition and decided that it is the way to go. I was looking for a word for &quot;content&quot;, and that seemed to match it better than others. The point of voting is to promote the best content. But *scripta* is a good option, too." CreationDate="2016-07-01T08:05:32.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2351" PostId="1111" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yeah, I think here &quot;content&quot; is another idea for which we use an abstraction when Latin would use a concrete word." CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:31:17.360" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2505" PostId="1113" Score="0" Text="I agree that one should not use a verb itself to indicate the *art* of the verb. Also, classical Latin does not enjoy the English love of abstract nouns, so the gerund seems appropriate. And of course there's a million *ars + gerund* out there, so I don't see anything wrong with *ars ducendi*." CreationDate="2016-07-10T07:13:42.433" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2360" PostId="1114" Score="1" Text="I will accept this answer for now. If someone hits the nail with an attested classical idiom, I will have to unaccept." CreationDate="2016-07-03T22:38:00.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2361" PostId="1114" Score="0" Text="I will brace myself for the possibility. :)" CreationDate="2016-07-03T22:56:29.937" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2375" PostId="1114" Score="0" Text="By the way, I'm going here on Wednesday, so if I learn anything new I'll update or post a new answer. http://www.latin.org/programs/rusticatio/tironum/" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:49:09.733" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2382" PostId="1114" Score="0" Text="That looks interesting. I might consider attending one of those if they were closer to me." CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:06:38.160" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2383" PostId="1114" Score="1" Text="Oh, and please remember to tell about our site there!" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:14:11.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2354" PostId="1115" Score="0" Text="Perhaps it should be mentioned that the article concerns only classical Latin. The meanings may have shifted over the post-classical centuries towards what they mean in today's English. It is not clear how much of the shift happened in English (and in borrowing to English) and how much in Latin." CreationDate="2016-07-02T14:14:13.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2355" PostId="1115" Score="0" Text="Do you think it would be an oversimplification to say that *scilicet* assumed shared thoughts and *videlicet* shared observations? This simple description of the difference fits the difference between *scire* and *videre*, but I wonder if it is too coarse." CreationDate="2016-07-02T14:16:50.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2356" PostId="1115" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I've made the wise edit you suggest. I don't think your shared thoughts/observations distinction is oversimplified, though I might change &quot;thoughts&quot; to &quot;opinions.&quot; (I haven't thought through it extensively, though, so I might not.) I'd also add an overarching theme for both words of shared level of commitment to truth: *scilicet* makes a greater commitment than *videlicet*." CreationDate="2016-07-02T15:04:00.047" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2358" PostId="1116" Score="1" Text="I think a Roman author would probably say something like *sub facie* or, why not, *cognomen*?" CreationDate="2016-07-03T21:14:09.827" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2359" PostId="1116" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I thought *cognomen* is more &quot;additional name&quot; than &quot;false name&quot;. An expression like *sub facie* sounds like a decent translation in many contexts, but I don't see how to use it to refer to the concept of a pseudonym itself." CreationDate="2016-07-03T21:30:42.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2363" PostId="1118" Score="6" Text="*Pelagus* is a Greek borrowing (τὸ πέλαγος, -εος) which retained its neuter gender; the Greek nom./acc. plural *pelage* does occur. *Vulgus* and *virus* are probably (thus Weiss) each a conflation of two nouns, a masculine and a neuter from the same stem and with the same meaning: in the case of *vulgus*, probably an s-stem neuter and an o-stem masculine; in that of *virus*, probably both o-stems (cognates: Gk. ἰός m., Ved. viṣam n.). Acc. *vulgum* occurs rarely." CreationDate="2016-07-04T01:10:45.993" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2367" PostId="1118" Score="1" Text="@TKR, thanks! I asked [a separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1122/79) about the plurals. You can answer about the plural declension of *pelagus* there if you want. You should also consider turning your comment into another answer here, but it's your call." CreationDate="2016-07-04T12:47:32.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2376" PostId="1118" Score="1" Text="There's also *cetus*, which is another word from Greek (where it's neuter); my understanding is that the OLD calls it masculine in the singular and neuter in the plural (*cete*) but I don't have my OLD near me now to check." CreationDate="2016-07-04T23:48:06.000" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2387" PostId="1118" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner: Cf. *locus*, sometimes plural *loca*." CreationDate="2016-07-05T16:44:55.263" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2393" PostId="1118" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, masculine and neuter plurals of *locus* have a different meaning." CreationDate="2016-07-05T20:10:00.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2362" PostId="1120" Score="1" Text="Excellent question! All three translations look equally correct to me. Usually relative or other subordinate clauses are a good way around ambiguities, but I don't see how to make them work here." CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:55:54.830" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2364" PostId="1120" Score="0" Text="I agree that all three are possible translations. For the third meaning, you could disambiguate by saying e.g. *sine magistro*." CreationDate="2016-07-04T01:13:48.793" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2365" PostId="1120" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I was thinking that _sōlus_ was only an adjective, so the meaning is the first choice, since in the second two a verb is being modified. No? I thought of the question because I couldn't think of an adverb for &quot;doing something all by yourself&quot;. I'm not sure that _sōlum_ fits, since (I think) it usually carries a meaning like &quot;merely&quot; or &quot;barely&quot;." CreationDate="2016-07-04T01:43:20.263" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2366" PostId="1120" Score="0" Text="I think *solus* can modify the implicit subject of *volare* (though it would be good to see some classical parallels to this construction)." CreationDate="2016-07-04T02:28:56.747" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2449" PostId="1121" Score="1" Text="Actually, I was indeed wondering if _Dædalus se volare docuit_ was the natural way to say this. I wasn't sure if _se docere_ makes sense in Latin the way &quot;teach yourself&quot; does in English. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:16:33.150" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="44467" PostId="1121" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I think that's right. There's nothing wrong with Joel's, but *se docere* is just also a natural way of putting it. There aren't too many hits for *se docere* side by side, but there is enough, and more, I'm sure, if you put a few words betwixt." CreationDate="2023-08-14T23:31:32.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2371" PostId="1122" Score="1" Text="Since they're traditionally regarded as second-declension neuters, they would be *vira, vulga,* and *pelaga*; but their meanings don't really lend themselves to plurality, and there are other words that fill those voids." CreationDate="2016-07-04T19:21:56.007" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="2372" PostId="1122" Score="0" Text="@Anonym, why do the meanings not allow plurality?" CreationDate="2016-07-04T19:26:50.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2373" PostId="1122" Score="0" Text="Because they're mass nouns. *Pelagus amo* means 'I love the sea (in general)', whereas *mare amo* means 'I love a certain sea/the specified sea'" CreationDate="2016-07-04T19:30:52.720" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="2374" PostId="1122" Score="0" Text="@Anonym, mass nouns can be pluralized, although it is not very common. See TKR's answer for an attested example of a plural of *pelagus*." CreationDate="2016-07-04T19:34:53.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2369" PostId="1124" Score="2" Text="That first article seems a bit silly to me. *Virus* does indeed look a bit like *vir* when declined, but the length of the *-i-* is different. And sometimes different words become the same when suitably declined. Declined forms are attested, so guessing whether it should be fourth or third declension has little support. The second article looks much more credible." CreationDate="2016-07-04T15:07:01.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2370" PostId="1124" Score="0" Text="Yeah, that was my sense, too." CreationDate="2016-07-04T15:11:30.537" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2450" PostId="1125" Score="0" Text="Looking up the context of that line led me to ask [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1149/118)." CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:18:19.880" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2447" PostId="1127" Score="1" Text="You might want to look at this too: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/22338/in-colossians-116-what-is-the-meaning-of-the-phrase-in-him-%e1%bc%90%ce%bd-%ce%b1%e1%bd%90%cf%84%e1%bf%b7?rq=1" CreationDate="2016-07-08T11:56:35.893" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5110" PostId="1129" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much for your answer, TKR (+1). If you don't mind, do you know what _intra/introrsum deo_ &amp; _trans deo/deum_ would translate to? (Are all these combinations even correct?) Would they be &quot;within/inside God&quot; and &quot;across God&quot; respectively? Or not really anything like that? [Hopefully it's appropriate for me to ask this in a comment like this.]" CreationDate="2016-11-05T19:26:19.863" UserId="589" />
  <row Id="5113" PostId="1129" Score="1" Text="@Adinkra, the correct forms would be *trans deum* and *intra deum*, which would mean &quot;across God&quot; and &quot;within God&quot;. They both sound strange to me, though, especially the latter, because *intra* generally refers to enclosed spaces or regions." CreationDate="2016-11-05T21:05:21.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7255" PostId="1129" Score="0" Text="These are precisely the senses of the respective expressions that I'm looking for. If you incorporate your Comment items into your Answer, then this here'll certainly be _my_ Answer to the Question." CreationDate="2017-03-11T12:15:16.487" UserId="589" />
  <row Id="2385" PostId="1131" Score="2" Text="Neuter plural words take singular verbs in Greek, but I have never seen an example of a singular pronoun (αὐτῷ) referring to it antecedently... Do you know of any reputable source that disputes the most obvious interpretation?" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:58:17.710" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2386" PostId="1131" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. I do not have an exact parallel, but even in classical authors the neuter sing. of αὐτός can be used with reference to nouns of all genders, e.g. Plato Prt. 360e: τί ποτ' ἐστὶν αὐτὸ ἡ ἀρετή. Anyway, I mentioned this only a remote grammatical possibility. If you read the verse in Colossians in its context it does become clear that αὐτός actually refers to Jesus, “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως), as he is called in the immediately preceding verse. It is “in him” that “all things were created”." CreationDate="2016-07-05T15:58:11.803" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2390" PostId="1131" Score="2" Text="thanks for the clarification. Given that, don't you think your &quot;it could be debated...&quot; point is unnecessary noise? (+1 for everything else, btw)" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:43:38.700" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2416" PostId="1131" Score="2" Text="I agree with @brianpck (both on the +1 and) on αὐτῷ -- if referring to τὰ πάντα it would have to be not only plural, but reflexive, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς/αὑτοῖς." CreationDate="2016-07-07T01:02:03.963" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5111" PostId="1131" Score="1" Text="I really appreciate the response, fdb, &amp; it gets my +1 because I genuinely enjoy all the thoughts [including the stuff about what's apparently debatable regarding 1 of the Bible quotes] that you've offered regarding the question, even though I notice that it doesn't really answer the question. Even in light of your misgivings about Biblical authority, I would still be interested in how you would translate the main query (which the Bible refs were merely for the sake of framing in a certain context, &amp; had been placed there more so because it was originally a Christianity.SE question)." CreationDate="2016-11-05T20:41:49.037" UserId="589" />
  <row Id="5112" PostId="1131" Score="0" Text="I'm also basing the contextual framework for the question on the admittedly philosophical starting-point that God is infinite in size, &amp; therefore omnipresent, while the universe is finite, and therefore fixed in a particular location at any one time (unless we get into the physics of super-positions or stuff like that), which can only mean that every- and anything that exists can only exist inside God, and thus _inside himself_ must be &quot;the place&quot; in which he created everything. This seems to be the logical conclusion also of other Bible passages like Psalm 139.7-12 &amp; Jeremiah 23.24." CreationDate="2016-11-05T20:51:31.690" UserId="589" />
  <row Id="5116" PostId="1131" Score="0" Text="For me the strongest support for this perspective has always been Acts 17.28, which is even more interesting considering, as I recently discovered, that it comes from a speech in which Paul is quoting the Stoic Aratus, who himself is here explicitly praising Zeus in that stanza of his poem _Phaenomena_(!)... But anyway, do you perceive the same (mis?)translation issue in that Scripture ref. as there might be in Colossians 1.16? (In that verse of Acts the KJV translates ἐν αὐτῷ as &quot;in him&quot;.) I'm just curious, as I'm several levels below novice when it comes to Ancient Greek &amp; Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-05T23:01:23.877" UserId="589" />
  <row Id="2398" PostId="1133" Score="17" Text="&quot;Nearly every human language....&quot; In Iran they speak Persian. In Austria they speak German. In Afghanistan they speak Pashto. In Egypt they speak Arabic. In Mexico they speak Spanish. In Cambodia they speak Khmer. Need I go on?" CreationDate="2016-07-05T22:19:43.303" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2399" PostId="1133" Score="9" Text="@fdb : maybe because Iran is the modern name of Persia? And Austrians are ethnic Germans? And people who speak Pashto are specifically Pashtuns and not Afghanistanis, and... etc." CreationDate="2016-07-06T04:19:03.477" UserId="322" />
  <row Id="2406" PostId="1133" Score="2" Text="@fdb: Country names are far from being the same as people (ethnic group) names. Granted, language names are not the same as people group names either, but the correspondence is closer." CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:10:53.327" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="2424" PostId="1133" Score="10" Text="Everyone, please keep the comments on topic. The question makes a reasonable point that many languages are called the same as the (or a) corresponding country, but in the language of Rome (Roman kingdom or republic or empire) is not Roman but Latin. Although &quot;nearly every&quot; might be wrong, the point is very clear. Extended discussion about this is beside the point and should rather be taken to chat than this comment section." CreationDate="2016-07-07T10:12:11.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2400" PostId="1135" Score="10" Text="Another way to say it : we say French, not Parisian ; English, not Londoner, Chinese, not Pekinese, ... and similarly Latin, not Roman." CreationDate="2016-07-06T04:23:51.147" UserId="322" />
  <row Id="2418" PostId="1135" Score="4" Text="Just like in the United States we speak &quot;English&quot;, and not &quot;United Station&quot;, because the language developed in England, not here." CreationDate="2016-07-07T05:32:10.053" UserId="626" />
  <row Id="2422" PostId="1135" Score="2" Text="Not to mention that today, &quot;latin&quot; doesn't really mean the language the Romans spoke. It's a rather broad term that may mean all the languages with strong latin influences, *cultures* with roman influences, the medieval &quot;lingua franca&quot; which was &quot;latin, but kind of germanish&quot;... When talking about the language the romans spoke, we usually use &quot;roman latin&quot; specifically - and even that does a poor job of capturing the development of a language that has been spoken by hundreds of millions over a period of more than a thousand years." CreationDate="2016-07-07T08:14:24.570" UserId="449" />
  <row Id="2432" PostId="1135" Score="1" Text="@Shautieh I don't think that any of those analogies works. The analogous situation would be if the people of France spoke a language called Lyonnaise, instead of Parisian, and so on." CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:04:20.597" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="2403" PostId="1139" Score="1" Text="Hmm. While that's *true* of something recycled (if I put a soda can into the recycling bin, it does get adapted for new use), it's also true of lots of *other* things one could do with it (put it as the crowning glory atop one's Saturnalia tree). I *think* I'm looking for something a little more specific." CreationDate="2016-07-06T09:46:35.103" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2405" PostId="1140" Score="0" Text="Oh, I DO like that. I also learned the word *quisquilia* last week and am delighted to see it used." CreationDate="2016-07-06T13:33:27.763" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="24129" PostId="1142" Score="0" Text="Hi Hugh. I am Alexander Whiteheart, Managing Director of a Hong Kong based Art and Design company. Your mastery of the Latin language is astounding. Would you be interested in being a company translator? We haven't worked out the pay scheme, but we're in discussions with other members of Stack Exchange trying to work that out. Please contact me at sovereygne@gmail.com if you're interested." CreationDate="2020-02-01T04:27:07.910" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="2425" PostId="1143" Score="3" Text="Perhaps not exactly what you asked for, but these two verses from Ennius might be interesting: &quot;*At tuba terribili sonitu taratantara dixit*&quot; and &quot;*O Tite tute Tati tibi tanta tyranne tulisti*&quot;. Are these close to what you are looking for?" CreationDate="2016-07-07T10:23:22.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2430" PostId="1143" Score="0" Text="Many thanks @Joonas Ilmavirta, Good for the changing aesthetic; really good. But in the end I'm hoping for some  Carolingian courtier or Knight Templar who has collected jingles, the way the Exeter Book collects riddles." CreationDate="2016-07-07T13:05:56.790" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2434" PostId="1143" Score="3" Text="There's *malo malo malo malo*  (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_mnemonics#Examples_and_analysis), though I don't know its origin and it's probably post-Classical." CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:28:48.703" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2445" PostId="1143" Score="0" Text="@TKR - that citation led indirectly to 500 images on Google for the minimal pair from Tacitus *Amantes amentes* (=Lovers are insane). Very useful: loads of thanks." CreationDate="2016-07-08T06:28:41.403" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2518" PostId="1143" Score="1" Text="I've never heard of such a thing, but here's [an anecdote](http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000687.html?pageNo=59&amp;sortIndex=010%3A060%3A0007%3A010%3A00%3A00) about what the jurist Bulgarus said after he denied that Frederick Barbarossa was *dominus mundi* 'quantum ad proprietatem'. Another jurist, Martinus, said that he was, and was awarded a horse. Bulgarus (reportedly) declaimed: 'Amisi equum, quia dixi equum, quod non fuit equum.' If the above link rots, see F. Güterbock, ed., *Das Geschichtswerk des Otto Morena und seiner Fortsetzer über*... (SS rer. Germ.; Berlin 1930), 59." CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:03:06.987" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2428" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="Good question. But I believe a gerund is not used in the nominative or in the accusative without a preposition (the infinitive is used instead), so *\*aquam bibendum est* shouldn't be possible regardless." CreationDate="2016-07-07T11:53:06.640" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2429" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, good point. In *bibendum est* the *bibendum* is always a gerundive, never gerund, even when there is no object like water. It's not hard to confuse me with these..." CreationDate="2016-07-07T12:19:04.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2438" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="Exactly. A gerund never has the modal (&quot;ought to be drunk&quot;) sense that a non-dominant gerundive has." CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:43:45.217" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2592" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="My understanding is that part of the reason the genitive/direct object is allowed is to avoid things like *discipulorum docendorum*, which the Romans found supremely inharmonious. This doesn't, however, actually answer your question." CreationDate="2016-07-13T07:44:30.873" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="26868" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Bamboozled with these, perhaps unnecessary, gerund-gerundive conflicts? I know exactly how you feel! Following on from Joel: to avoid ugly-sounding jingles e.g. &quot;ars oppidorum oppugnandorum&quot; the Romans allowed a gerund to govern a direct object &quot;ars oppugnandi (genitive) oppida&quot;. Mitomino states that &quot;aquam Bibendum est&quot; &amp; &quot;mihi epistulam scribendum est&quot; are attested. For me, if these two are translated as gerunds, the nouns return to the nominative case e.g. &quot;the writing (verbal noun) is the letter (epistula) to me&quot;. Therefore, &quot;gerund + accusative direct-object&quot; fails?" CreationDate="2020-06-16T12:04:08.950" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26869" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="@tony It sounds like you are adhering to a narrow interpretation of gerunds, and that misguides the translation you offer. If *mihi scribendum est* is &quot;I have to write&quot;, why should adding an object make it so different? My question here was whether such objects are allowed in Latin, and now I'm convinced that they indeed sometimes are." CreationDate="2020-06-16T13:09:33.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26870" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: For me it's a gerundive-of-obligation: &quot;the letter (nominative) it-ought-to-be-written-by-me&quot;. It cannot be a gerund + (accusative) direct object (epistulam). In the other oblique cases, e.g.  genitive &quot;oppugnandi&quot; (above) this is possible." CreationDate="2020-06-16T13:39:31.413" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26871" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="@tony I agree that it's a gerund(ive) of obligation, but I think that forcing that translation obfuscates the structure unnecessarily. Whether the thing in *mihi bibendum est* is called a gerund or a gerundive is a matter of taste. While opinions differ on that (and it doesn't mean much), the important observation is that you can indeed add a direct object to it. So you can say *aqua bibenda est* or *aquam bibendum est*." CreationDate="2020-06-16T13:54:14.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26877" PostId="1144" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: You have changed your mind since 2016--&quot;in Bibendum est Bibendum is always a gerundive, never a gerund...&quot;; in the light of new evidence e.g. &quot;aquam Bibendum est&quot;? An alternative translation: &quot;one must drink the water&quot;--this use of an accusative direct-object (aquam) negates the passive nature of the gerundive. Similarly, &quot;mihi epistulam scribendum est&quot;--&quot;one must write the letter to me&quot;; therefore, why use the  gerundive in these non-passive circumstances?" CreationDate="2020-06-17T08:02:39.553" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26878" PostId="1144" Score="1" Text="@tony The fact that there can be objects leads to one of two conclusions:  (1) It's a gerund or (2) the gerundive is not strictly passive. I would perhaps like to deny both, but I can't. I am open to interpretations, but I think strict passiveness of the gerundive is not a viable view. // It's not unusual for me to change opinions; new evidence and insight from this site leads my thought to new directions." CreationDate="2020-06-17T08:51:11.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2842" PostId="1146" Score="0" Text="Could you format this so it's more readable?" CreationDate="2016-07-30T02:51:09.687" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2433" PostId="1147" Score="0" Text="I think this is more than just a matter of spaces: *magna cum laude* is natural word order whereas *tecum* reverses it. It would be more like saying *laude cum*..." CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:28:23.963" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2435" PostId="1147" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I don't see how one is more natural than the other -- &quot;logical&quot; word order would be *cum magna laude* and *cum te*. In both cases *cum* becomes enclitic instead of proclitic." CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:34:01.443" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2436" PostId="1147" Score="1" Text="sorry--I was unclear. My point was the presence of spaces isn't material: I could just as easily ey asking why the Romans write *te cum* or *qua cum*. The point is not that they are combined into one word, but that the preposition *follows* the (pro-)noun it modifies." CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:38:33.727" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2439" PostId="1147" Score="0" Text="@brianpck OK, thanks for clarifying. I think they're still underlyingly the same thing, though -- postposing of *cum* isn't really a syntactic phenomenon (preposition follows the head of the noun phrase it governs) but a phonological one (preposition becomes enclitic and follows the first word in the phrase it governs). At least, that's how linguists think of it these days; it's a common phenomenon in Indo-European generally." CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:46:57.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2446" PostId="1147" Score="0" Text="**Spaces** In Oxford CCC ms122 (Corpus Gospels) Irish Eleventh Century, some proclitics are written as one word with their nouns. So you have *amatheo,* (from Matthew) on the Alia Ev. pages. You expect that with verb prefixes, as *consurgere,* but there are several with nouns." CreationDate="2016-07-08T07:06:48.277" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2448" PostId="1147" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I believe the same is true of Roman inscriptions that use interpuncts. I wonder if there are any cases of the *magna cum laude* construction in those." CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:11:08.343" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2437" PostId="1148" Score="0" Text="Good examples. I think Joonas meant to say that a gerund can only take a direct object if the gerund itself is not in the accusative. (I wouldn't call ablative and genitive complements 'objects'.)" CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:41:37.827" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2440" PostId="1148" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus is right, I meant that the gerund itself needs to be in genitive or ablative (with the parenthetical restrictions). I updated the question to clarify. I think your examples fall in the category where Pekkanen allows objects. Nevertheless, the examples are good." CreationDate="2016-07-07T17:06:31.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2441" PostId="1148" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oh, I misunderstood. I'll edit the answer accordingly." CreationDate="2016-07-07T18:06:45.973" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2442" PostId="1148" Score="0" Text="Good. I believe different grammarians phrase the rule differently, and I'm glad to see different formulations. Can you give those examples from Plautus (or some coordinates so one can find them)?" CreationDate="2016-07-07T20:47:42.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2443" PostId="1148" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Unfortunately A&amp;G simply say &quot;there are two examples in Plautus&quot; but don't specify what or where they are." CreationDate="2016-07-07T23:22:43.413" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2444" PostId="1148" Score="0" Text="Oh, I see. No need to go through the works of Plautus to satisfy my curiosity." CreationDate="2016-07-07T23:37:27.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8973" PostId="1148" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Here you go: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0070%3Achapter%3D5%3Apara%3D43" CreationDate="2017-05-20T04:46:15.720" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="2453" PostId="1150" Score="2" Text="I think your third interpretation is correct." CreationDate="2016-07-08T17:15:58.647" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2542" PostId="1150" Score="0" Text="I think you have it, but what about 'over so great an expanse, it still takes...'" CreationDate="2016-07-11T02:25:20.500" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2451" PostId="1151" Score="1" Text="Many thanks for the tip about the cæsura! I will keep that in mind the next time I come across one of these. About _proinde,_ is the first syllable made into a diphthong to save the meter, as if it were spelled _proende_?" CreationDate="2016-07-08T17:07:55.243" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2452" PostId="1151" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz, I am not sure how *proinde* is pronounced in prose. It might be that it always has two syllables or that synizesis is used here. I wonder if there are examples where scansion forces *proinde* to have three syllables and which is more common in poetry. I can't judge by this one example." CreationDate="2016-07-08T17:11:56.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2459" PostId="1151" Score="0" Text="Is there any agreement about the pronunciation of elided vowels? Pr[o]inde, may have been pronounced **preende,** or **prweende.** But it was scanned *long-short* either way." CreationDate="2016-07-08T21:59:49.467" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2460" PostId="1151" Score="1" Text="@Hugh, I think 'oi' is a diphthong (by synizesis) rather than the 'o' being elided. (Although scansion does no rule out elision.) I don't quite understand what you mean by pronunciation of elided vowels. If you can elaborate, it might make a good separate question." CreationDate="2016-07-08T22:25:50.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2454" PostId="1153" Score="2" Text="Welcome!  You may find this related (but not duplicate) question helpful – [When is an I not an I?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14/12)" CreationDate="2016-07-08T18:35:54.597" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2458" PostId="1153" Score="3" Text="Oddments: i, ij iij, iv. v. vi or vj, vij viij etc. and also for y: ijmago, mijrrho." CreationDate="2016-07-08T21:41:01.847" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2503" PostId="1153" Score="1" Text="For most scripts, there were not two different letters. In the later middle ages, some scripts start to have an 'i' and a 'j', but they were often used to for things like making it easier to see that (say) 'iij' is 3. When you really start seeing a 'consistent' orthographical distinction between the 'i' letter form and the 'j' letter form is in printing. But I'd say that that distinction was more akin to the 's' vs 'long-s' letter forms than anything else." CreationDate="2016-07-10T05:13:47.897" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2455" PostId="1154" Score="6" Text="Welcome!  This is a good start to an answer, but the issue is more complicated than this.  Often in Medieval Latin *i* was used as a consonant, not *j*.  An explanation of this behavior, citing Medieval authors or studies of Medieval writings, is needed to fully address this question." CreationDate="2016-07-08T21:24:04.600" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2467" PostId="1155" Score="0" Text="«still hasn't been resolved» = «hasn't been resolved yet», and there goes 4 :)." CreationDate="2016-07-09T11:45:26.783" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2468" PostId="1155" Score="0" Text="Btw, same question applies to &quot;ancora&quot; in Italian." CreationDate="2016-07-09T11:46:08.350" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2469" PostId="1155" Score="0" Text="Also, notice how «even better», for example, can be phrased as «better still»." CreationDate="2016-07-09T11:50:36.497" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2461" PostId="1156" Score="2" Text="Why three separate questions on the semantics of *ad huc*? These would best be combined into a single question." CreationDate="2016-07-09T01:04:37.400" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2465" PostId="1156" Score="0" Text="@TKR Sorry for the multiplicity, I was incertain whether I should question separately the three different sets of meaning. I feared questioning too much in 1 post." CreationDate="2016-07-09T02:41:35.883" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="7418" PostId="1156" Score="0" Text="You can ask several questions about the same narrow topic, but then please explain why the answer you got previously does not answer the new question and how your new (remaining) question differs from the old one. This requires also waiting (about a week?) between the different questions. If the addition is a small one, you can ask it as a comment to an answer. This question and [the other duplicate](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1157/79) could work if you elaborate." CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:20:48.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2502" PostId="1157" Score="0" Text="See my other comment to your similar question. But consider: *to this point* is similar to 2.2-2.4.  Viz, 'Therefore, X. Furthermore [or: moreover], consider Y' vs 'Therefore, X. To this point, consider Y'.  The 'besides' is mean in the sense of 'in addition', which also works just fine." CreationDate="2016-07-10T04:58:02.873" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2464" PostId="1158" Score="2" Text="Welcome Dan!  You've asked a basic translation question, which is fine, but we'd appreciate it if you put a bit more effort into it first.  Doing so not only encourages others to answer, but also helps ensure that the answers you get are useful to you.  [Here are some tips](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/12) – English-Latin dictionaries will provide helpful insight into the meaning of various translations of the key words in your phrase (&quot;life&quot; and &quot;mine&quot;), and you don't need to speak any Latin to use them.  Tell us which word(s) you think fit, to help improve the translation." CreationDate="2016-07-09T02:31:03.820" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2489" PostId="1159" Score="0" Text="Looking at the evolution of Latin into (western?) romance languages, I think that a valid way to force the feeling of an indeterminate article where there is space for ambiguity (like here) is using the numeral _one_, as in _vita una, mea_." CreationDate="2016-07-09T21:22:29.403" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2535" PostId="1159" Score="0" Text="@Rafael &quot;Unus&quot; doesn't have quite the same meaning. It usually means &quot;one, a single, or some.&quot; It certainly sounds like &quot;a/an,&quot; but it is grammatically different. &quot;A/An&quot; is an article, while &quot;unus&quot; is an adjective, and doesn't serve the same purpose." CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:15:03.917" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2555" PostId="1159" Score="0" Text="@SamK I know. My _guess_ is, given that many romance languages evolved the indet. article _from_ the number one, maybe either 1) the link has some (Medieval) Latin ground (in the same sense that _illa_ evolved into _la_ etc.) or 2) the association wouldn't sound _so_ forced to a native Latin speaker." CreationDate="2016-07-11T16:08:55.957" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2556" PostId="1159" Score="0" Text="@Rafael You're probably right. I'm guessing that Medieval Latin merged gave &quot;unus&quot; an indefinite article purpose because of the similarities between the meanings. Medieval and Church Latin are always messing everything up..." CreationDate="2016-07-11T16:40:29.960" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2557" PostId="1159" Score="0" Text="@TKR, perhaps &quot;mi&quot; was meant to be an abbreviated form of *mihi*?" CreationDate="2016-07-11T17:02:44.617" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5478" PostId="1159" Score="0" Text="*Vita Mea* or more appropriately *Vita Sua* have the best Latinitas compared to your other suggestions, though there is nothing technically wrong with *Mea Vita*. The title would have been something like, *Dan de Vita Sua* (Eng: Dan on His Own Life)." CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:29:35.333" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2476" PostId="1161" Score="1" Text="A relatively common construction in Latin is to use the verb *curare*. If &quot;I do this&quot; is *hoc facio*, then &quot;I have someone do this&quot; is &quot;hoc faciendum curo&quot;. To my knowledge this construction is impersonal in the sense that you cannot indicate who you make do the job. (If you think that this answers your question to some extent, I can convert this to an answer.)" CreationDate="2016-07-09T18:30:02.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2477" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="@Joonas I seem to remember the agent of a gerundive (is that the name?) can be expressed via the dative case. I guess it is a bit rare so I am not sure if I remember correctly, since my last contact with a Latin text not written by me dates back some 4 years. Do yoi remember such a thing? If so, one could do that here, e.g. &quot;Hoc tibi faciendum curo&quot; ~ &quot;I make you do this&quot;." CreationDate="2016-07-09T18:41:35.707" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2478" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="PS I think that, while this certainly is a partial answer (agent missing), it would be better to postpone the conversion till we clear this memory of mine out." CreationDate="2016-07-09T18:42:33.787" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2479" PostId="1161" Score="1" Text="In addition to *hoc faciendum curo* (I have someone do this) we have *hoc tibi faciendum est* (you have to do this). Both are relatively common, but I have never seen these structures combined into *hoc tibi faciendum curo* and I am not convinced that it would be grammatical. Perhaps you are confusing these two structures?" CreationDate="2016-07-09T18:44:27.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2480" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="The so-called _passive periphrastic_, as we name it in Italian -- as opposed to the _active periphrastic_, which, IIRC, is _hoc facturus sum_. That might well be." CreationDate="2016-07-09T18:47:21.270" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2481" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="Btw 《 The topic of causatives has not been studied much for Latin, primarily due to its lack ofproductive morphological causative.》, says Wikipedia." CreationDate="2016-07-09T18:50:20.447" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2482" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="Related but somewhat messy: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=5990" CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:03:01.323" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2483" PostId="1161" Score="1" Text="That link suggests *efficere* with a final *ut* clause. This sounds like a good idea. Would using a subordinate clause be tolerable for you? The structures you have in English (or Finnish for that matter) do not need an additional clause and are therefore &quot;lighter&quot; than an *ut* clause." CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:07:06.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2485" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="[This](http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/latin_causativization.pdf) also seems good." CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:16:59.353" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2486" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="I guess I could tolerate a clause. Though it might be more of a last option if I have no &quot;lighter&quot; construction." CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:17:55.640" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2487" PostId="1161" Score="0" Text="I collected my suggestions into an answer. They should work better that way." CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:30:19.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2492" PostId="1161" Score="2" Text="I wonder why that article doesn't mention *fugio/fugĕre* &quot;to flee&quot; and *fugo/fugare* &quot;to cause to flee&quot;." CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:29:20.867" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18908" PostId="1161" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus: I guess because it's an isolated case, like English _fall/fell_, _lie/lay_ and _rise/raise_." CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:55:52.437" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="2471" PostId="1162" Score="1" Text="From what I know, word transformations usually went the other way, from verb to noun. I might want to look into this... Interesting..." CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:36:02.323" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2472" PostId="1162" Score="0" Text="To be entirely clear: I made the suffix use up for the diary." CreationDate="2016-07-09T14:20:37.443" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="2473" PostId="1162" Score="0" Text="Oh I understood. -izo is very rare in Latin and it was apparent in your question." CreationDate="2016-07-09T14:47:32.417" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2475" PostId="1162" Score="1" Text="@SamK Noun-&gt;verb derivation is very common (in languages generally and Latin specifically)." CreationDate="2016-07-09T16:42:30.787" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2484" PostId="1162" Score="5" Text="Two notes: (1) It would actually sound more natural to me to use deponent verbs: *graecizari* and *clavizari*. Unfortunately I have no better reference than discussions with old Finnish Latinists. (2) *Facere* is not as generic as *fare* is, but *agere* is pretty broad. The best single Latin verb I know to translate the Italian generic *fare* is *agere*. Probably not as idiomatic in Latin as *fare* is in Italian, though." CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:14:19.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2491" PostId="1162" Score="0" Text="@TKR Really? Could you give some examples?" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:27:13.680" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2493" PostId="1162" Score="0" Text="@SamK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denominal_verb" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:50:47.823" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2494" PostId="1162" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks! It doesn't sound like it's THAT common, as the fourth declension isn't as common as the 1st-3rd. But it's interesting to know that it does exist." CreationDate="2016-07-10T01:02:32.420" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2474" PostId="1163" Score="2" Text="I think your translation is correct. A couple of notes: (1) already in Classical Latin there is confusion between -erĭs and -erīs in the pf. subj., so even if vowel quantity mattered for medieval verse (which it doesn't) that might not tell us anything. (2) The syntax here is non-Classical. CL would use an indirect statement construction after *memento*, rather than *quod* + subj. as here. (I'm assuming *sumpseris* is subj. because fut. pf. makes no sense.) Maybe someone who knows more about Ecclesiastical Latin can tell us if this construction is regular." CreationDate="2016-07-09T16:40:31.620" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2488" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@TKR, would the classical analogue of *memento quod sumpseris* be *memento te sumpsisse*?" CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:41:46.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2490" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, I believe so." CreationDate="2016-07-09T21:24:36.813" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2499" PostId="1163" Score="1" Text="@Joonaslimavirta -- medieval and ecclesiastical Latin often 'introduce' indirect speech with a *quod*, *quia*, or *quoniam* (where *quia* and *quoniam* sometimes indicate the indirect speech is directly related speech). When indirect speech is constructed this way, the mood of the (as it were) 'main verb of the indirect speech clause' is often indicative (while subordinate clauses therein are usually still subjuntive).  Needless to say, these sorts of 'object clauses' with *quod*, etc., can mess up the sequence of tenses." CreationDate="2016-07-10T04:07:35.957" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2525" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="Thanks for taking the time to produce this answer. How do you know nascendo is a gerund and not a gerundive? (I was following this: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascendus#Latin)" CreationDate="2016-07-10T22:15:49.497" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2530" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles I just expanded the answer to explain why I was led to think **nascendo** is a gerund here and not a gerundive. Notice also that **nascendo** is listed here under &quot;gerund&quot;: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor#Inflection The gerundive is also listed there, but the ablative only implicitly: it's a form of the future participle **nascendus**." CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:07:53.660" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2531" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@jon, in this case the main verb of the indirect speech is *sumpseris*, which must be perfect subjunctive -- any thoughts on why it's subjunctive rather than indicative?" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:29:34.427" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2537" PostId="1163" Score="1" Text="@TKR -- In Collins, ed., *A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin* (Washington, 1985), § 135, it says that the normal situation is the 'retained indicative', but that *quod*, *quia*, and *quoniam* may be followed by the subjunctive when the clause 'emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement'. (Compare Greek's [`ὅτι`](http://biblehub.com/greek/3754.htm).)  ... Now, is that what is 'really' going on here, or are there metrical reasons at play that helped push us to the subjunctive ..?" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:26:16.990" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2538" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@jon I've been wondering if the subjunctive was called upon just to make a rhyme! One other hypothesis: a subjunctive in **memento quod …** might &quot;agree&quot; with holding something in your mind; the subjunctive might psychologically place the remembered fact at a distance. I haven't checked anything to confirm or refute this, though." CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:34:46.130" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2539" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@jon -- Interesting, thanks. Not sure what to make of &quot;emphasizes the grammatical subordination&quot;. Very likely you're right that the subjunctive here is metri (or rimae) causa." CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:39:54.917" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2540" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@TKR -- Indeed. The two (fake) examples given are not very enlightening. (1) *Invenimus quod Paulus Romam iam isset.* (2) *Credunt quia Christus sit Dominus.* However, you will find the Vulgate full of indirect discourse introduced by those three words, so there would be plenty of examples to work your way through." CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:52:38.277" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2541" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz -- Yes, I wondered the very same thing about the rhyme...." CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:53:05.153" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2544" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="One need not look far into the Vulgate to find an example of this use of the subjunctive: &quot;et vidit Deus lucem quod *esset* bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras&quot;." CreationDate="2016-07-11T06:48:56.230" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2560" PostId="1163" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles I've asked a [new question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/118) specifically about the use of subjunctive mood here." CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:35:04.617" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2498" PostId="1164" Score="2" Text="I think the last suggestion is the most direct parallel of the English in the OP's question. Note that this also can work with just *facio*, e.g.: &quot;Faciam ut hic senex . . . sibi uxorem poscat.&quot; (Plautus)" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:57:11.217" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26060" PostId="1164" Score="0" Text="According to you, Joonas, &quot;this construction _hoc faciendum curo_ is impersonal in the sense that you cannot indicate who you make do the job&quot;. I (tend to) agree with you. However, since the verb _curo_ can also be found as taking an Acc+infinitive clause (interestingly, typically with a passive infinitive), I was wondering if this construction can also (i.e., additionally) be understood/analyzed as _hoc faciendum (esse) curo_ with the ellipsis of _esse_. In this case (and only in this case!), i.e., assuming that there is an ellipsis of _esse_, would a &quot;dative of agent&quot; be possible?" CreationDate="2020-04-27T01:11:52.050" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26063" PostId="1164" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Sounds possible, but I have never seen it. I think I would actually be likely to misread the dative for a dative of benefit. See the added paragraph &quot;I have never...&quot;. That ACI reading of *hoc faciendum curo* had not occurred to me before, but it makes sense. The only way out of these speculations would be to find attested Roman causatives." CreationDate="2020-04-27T06:40:21.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26079" PostId="1164" Score="1" Text="It seems that the more idiomatic (and more frequent) construction _hoc faciendum curo_ (where _faciendum_ is just a predicative adjective, whereby a &quot;dative of agent&quot; is impossible there) somewhat &quot;preempts&quot; the possible but, probably, unattested Acc+infinitive construction _hoc faciendum (esse) curo_ (only the latter could allow a dative of agent). The &quot;sounds-possible-but-is-probably-unattested&quot; can sometimes be a bit frustrating but such is life when dealing with a textual language like Latin. Pace Chomsky, when dealing with Latin, &quot;nihil est in lingua quod not prius fuerit in oratione&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-27T23:50:01.097" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22530" PostId="1165" Score="0" Text="No &quot;narrower&quot; a view than to suggest CAP &amp; CAPE, COP &amp; COPE, MAT &amp; MATE, are related: vowel sounds are meaningful." CreationDate="2019-09-21T02:18:16.793" UserId="981" />
  <row Id="2495" PostId="1166" Score="1" Text="I think, it's an interesting phenomenon that langages build nearly identical word-stems without any relation in their meaning. Like the word 'malum', which has (I think) at least 3 different meanings (bad, apple and mast of a boat). Is there a linguistic term for such words?" CreationDate="2016-07-10T01:35:39.190" UserId="290" />
  <row Id="2496" PostId="1166" Score="0" Text="You could call them homonyms or false cognates? The process is convergence, as in convergent evolution. Mast is *mālus, -i*, so most forms are identical." CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:12:32.887" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2546" PostId="1166" Score="1" Text="mălus “bad” is not a homonym either of mālus f. “apple” or of mālus m. “mast”, though the three words are homographs." CreationDate="2016-07-11T10:17:56.100" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2549" PostId="1166" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Oh, well, if you use the narrow definition, then, yes." CreationDate="2016-07-11T13:03:27.383" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2532" PostId="1168" Score="0" Text="This isn't a causative usage, though -- it's not &quot;whom do we cause to hate?&quot; but &quot;whom do we have to hate?&quot;" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:30:47.950" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2533" PostId="1168" Score="0" Text="Indeed, which is why I wrote of obligation, and did not say it was a 'causative clause'. However, by implication, the 'whom must we hate' is 'caused' by God's order. The idea is clearly: if we are ordered to love our enemies, then whom are we ordered to hate? I think the idea is analogous; and I do not think Latin has a (special) 'causative clause', though that does not mean it cannot express it in various ways.  I'll add some other examples...." CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:54:36.243" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2507" PostId="1169" Score="0" Text="Would you describe these &quot;medieval&quot; passive forms as the norm for medieval writing? The headings seem potentially misleading, given that my experience with medieval writers shows most of them using &quot;classical&quot; forms." CreationDate="2016-07-10T14:41:11.483" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2508" PostId="1169" Score="0" Text="No, I'll edit to put 'Medieval'. However, they do become quite common in scholastic texts in the high/late middle ages, at least in legal and philosophical texts (which is what I'm most familiar with). As I said, however, the same author, in the same text, can use both the classical and 'medieval' forms." CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:57:53.017" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2565" PostId="1169" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is an illuminating answer. However, it does not exactly answer my original question, so I will not accept it. I hope the bounty you are likely to get will compensate for that." CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:54:57.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2568" PostId="1169" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta -- Yeah, I kinda figured this wasn't precisely what you were looking for. But it seemed close enough to mention it, and it was hard to squeeze it all into a comment!" CreationDate="2016-07-12T00:46:55.013" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2504" PostId="1172" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the pointer to the possibly analogous case of *victor* being used like an adjective." CreationDate="2016-07-10T06:39:07.010" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="2513" PostId="1173" Score="1" Text="I'm afraid that is not how either word is used; nor should they be translated that way. Furthermore, 'licet' (*qua* 3rd person, present, active indicative, and impersonal) means 'it is permitted; it is allowed; one may; lawful' and so on. Thus, one is 'able' only in the sense of being allowed ('one may'), not in the sense of ability ('one can')." CreationDate="2016-07-10T18:17:00.470" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2519" PostId="1173" Score="0" Text="@jon: I added a qualifier to &quot;able&quot; to make the sense &quot;allowed.&quot; I stand by the rest of my post." CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:03:41.643" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="2520" PostId="1173" Score="0" Text="It still doesn't work. Consider, e.g., Cicero, de finibus [2.31](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/fin2.shtml#31): 'si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus'. How would *videlicet* work here as 'seeable'? It is clearly a commitment marker as described by Joel above: 'if static, then, clearly [seeable?], nature wishes this -- to preserve itself --, which we grant'. It is not merely 'able to be seen', it is dead-obvious." CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:16:56.857" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2521" PostId="1173" Score="0" Text="@According to Joel's answer above, if it's &quot;dead obvious,&quot; it's scilicet.&quot; On the other hand videlicit means: &quot;I am allowed to see it this way, (it's not crazy), but you are allowed to see it another way." CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:23:59.657" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="2522" PostId="1173" Score="0" Text="For *scilicet*: Cicero, *de finibus* [1.28](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/fin1.shtml#28): 'nunc dicam de voluptate, nihil scilicet novi, ea tamen, quae te ipsum probaturum esse confidam'. I would not use 'knowable' or 'self-evident', but translate: 'Now I shall speak about pleasure -- certainly nothing new --, but I am confident that they will be something you yourself will agree with.'" CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:28:25.447" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2523" PostId="1173" Score="0" Text="In the first passage, especially if you read it in context, you will see that Cicero is suggesting there will be no debate about whether nature seeks its own self-preservation. It is not a point any of the disputants would dispute." CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:34:14.477" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2511" PostId="1175" Score="2" Text="Can you give me a Latin text written in the classical period that uses names of three or more letters? One might be a discussion of alternative spellings of a word or a discussion of abbreviations." CreationDate="2016-07-10T18:08:37.333" UserId="643" />
  <row Id="2514" PostId="1175" Score="0" Text="@JOHNCORCORAN As the Wikipedia article says, the names of letters weren't used very often, and aren't official (like the Greek letters). This is partially because Latin was a spoken language before a written one, so letters were an afterthought. I'll look around a bit more to see if I can find anything, but I think it will be difficult." CreationDate="2016-07-10T19:16:45.247" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2529" PostId="1175" Score="3" Text="@SamK. All languages are spoken languages before they become written languages." CreationDate="2016-07-10T23:37:07.003" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2534" PostId="1175" Score="0" Text="@fdb Of course they are, but Latin is unique in that it took a lot longer than most for a written form to be created. This made written Latin seem more of an afterthought, and also explains the regularity of pronounciation (unlike English). There are countless languages in similar situations, but it was just an attempt to explain why the Latin alphabet isn't quite official." CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:55:31.107" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2545" PostId="1175" Score="2" Text="I am sorry, I do not follow your argument. &quot;A lot longer&quot; counting from when?" CreationDate="2016-07-11T08:33:42.267" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2550" PostId="1175" Score="0" Text="@fdb According to Leonard Palmer in _The Latin Language_, Latin was a dialect spoken by the Latini people (who settled Latium around the same time) starting in the 10th century. The earliest known inscription of Latin dates back to the 6th century, according to Timothy Pulju of Rice University. This is compared to English, which became a written language almost immediately during the 6th century, and to German, which has numerous written texts associated with its start in the 8th century. I hope that cleared it up for you." CreationDate="2016-07-11T14:27:47.067" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2551" PostId="1175" Score="0" Text="What did the Latini speak before they settled in Latium?" CreationDate="2016-07-11T14:33:41.873" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2552" PostId="1175" Score="0" Text="@fdb Some form of proto-Italic, and before that, Indo-European" CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:39:55.483" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2553" PostId="1175" Score="0" Text="You are confusing two totally separate issues: history of settlement in any particular region, and linguistic history." CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:49:52.777" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2554" PostId="1175" Score="0" Text="@fdb No, I am not. Proto-Italic and Indo-European are languages that gave birth to Latin. Latin was originally a dialect of Italic, which was a member of the Indo-European family. Before the Latini became the Latini (i.e. before they separated from other Italic peoples), they would have spoken a proto-Italic language closely descended from Indo-European. [Here](http://goo.gl/QgLbJT) is a diagram of this &quot;family tree.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:57:30.777" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2547" PostId="1177" Score="2" Text="Welcome!  Good question.  So that you and others are aware, though, answers to a broad question like this should at least attempt to answer the entire question (&quot;all of Europe&quot;), not just one country per answer." CreationDate="2016-07-11T10:59:48.100" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2591" PostId="1177" Score="1" Text="In Italy, some 25 years ago, I was taught &quot;gn&quot; as a single,  sweet sound, like in Italian and unlike &quot;gh-n&quot;. And &quot;C&quot; was K or CH like in Caesar and Cicero. I don't know  how do you call this pronunciation. (Please be kind and don't say &quot;wrong &quot;! :-) )" CreationDate="2016-07-13T06:01:09.090" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="2773" PostId="1177" Score="2" Text="@Francesco You're basically pronouncing Latin like Italian, then." CreationDate="2016-07-23T04:25:29.667" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2776" PostId="1177" Score="0" Text="@Qpaystaxes that is a way to put it. Basically, living in Rome, one is probably biased to feel a continuity which maybe is not actually present." CreationDate="2016-07-23T12:33:01.370" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="2575" PostId="1178" Score="2" Text="An interesting medieval Franciscan (though one not well known to non-specialists) by the name of Angelo Clareno has a work titled *Apologia pro vita sua*. (Edited in Victorin Doucet, “Angelus Clarinus ad Alvarum Pelagium Apologia pro vita sua,” *Archivum franciscanum historicum* 39 (1948): 63–200.) I wonder if Newman knew of this work..?  Also +1 for the *de*, but you might want to explain to the OP why the *de* makes sense since he professes not to know the language at all." CreationDate="2016-07-12T02:24:38.897" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2563" PostId="1179" Score="1" Text="I am currently working through the Collins book and this is **exactly** what he calls 'indirect discourse'.  What do you understand 'indirect discourse' to mean?" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:02:58.350" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2564" PostId="1179" Score="0" Text="Staring at this is causing it to start harmonizing with other uses of the subjunctive: (1) for desires or wishes, and (2) for hypotheticals.  In those cases, as in this one, there is a shift from the world of concrete realities to the world of speech and thought." CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:17:15.240" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2569" PostId="1179" Score="0" Text="Be careful with Jerome. He took a more reverential approach to translating scripture than with other works; see his [*Ep*. 57.5](http://archive.org/stream/corpusscriptorum54stuoft#page/502/mode/2up) (or in [English](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LVII.html)). However, later writers were influenced by Jerome's decisions even if they did not understand the underlying 'language reasons' for his decision." CreationDate="2016-07-12T01:05:25.930" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2571" PostId="1179" Score="0" Text="I'd add that the 'tends' in Elliot's Grammatical intro. (in Harrington) should be emphasized heavily. I'd say (unscientifically) that the 'tends' is more like a 60-40 ratio at best, not (say) an 80-20.  However, I'd add two points: (1) using the indicative could be meant to lend an extra air of reality to the clause (it really happened; I know it; etc.), while the subjunctive was a way of distancing oneself from the reported speech; (2) *quia* and *quoniam*, in this context, come closer to being a direct translation of ὅτι, hence the indicative (usually). But later mdvl authors didnt know this" CreationDate="2016-07-12T01:15:43.303" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2572" PostId="1179" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles I had understood 'indirect discourse' to mean reported speech, in which the meaning but not the exact words are reported. But now that you bring it up, many examples of indirect discourse in Latin grammar books do not involve reporting on what someone said. I'm going to have to look into this. Thanks for pointing it out." CreationDate="2016-07-12T01:33:41.273" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2573" PostId="1179" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles What confuses me is that (I think) the assumption of human form is taken as accomplished fact, not as a hypothesis or desire. Deuteronomy 15:15 really has me wondering: aren't both the servitude and the liberation accomplished facts? &quot;Remember that I did X and Y for you&quot; seems like it would call for the factual character of the indicative." CreationDate="2016-07-12T01:54:22.317" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2574" PostId="1179" Score="0" Text="@jon That sounds like the beginnings of an answer. I'm particularly interested in the idea that the subjunctive can mean that something is factual but hold it at a psychological distance." CreationDate="2016-07-12T01:58:27.777" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2576" PostId="1179" Score="0" Text="I just remembered another, similar use of the subjunctive, and that is to mean &quot;when&quot; when paired with *cum*. For example, *Cum irasceretur furor eorum in nos...*. Here too there is a 'distance' as the psalmist (of cxxiii) recounts &quot;when their anger burned among us...&quot;. You can almost see him closing his eyes to see more clearly his mental images of the insurgency he describes." CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:44:49.943" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2562" PostId="1180" Score="5" Text="Can you give an example, maybe from some other language or an artificial example in Latin, of using diacritics in naming letters? I want to make sure I understand the last part of your question." CreationDate="2016-07-11T20:55:22.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2566" PostId="1184" Score="3" Text="I don't know how _much_ the Romans used them, but I've seen long vowels marked with [apices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)) on Roman inscriptions. Apices tend to be very thin, though, and people today often don't notice them. I don't know much about [Roman cursive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive) except that it's universally deplored as ugly and illegible, but the little I've seen also appears to have apices." CreationDate="2016-07-12T00:23:11.683" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2567" PostId="1184" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Thanks for bringing that up! I'll edit my post to include that." CreationDate="2016-07-12T00:44:37.897" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2577" PostId="1185" Score="2" Text="Why do you not accept the quoted explanation?  Incidentally, de Vaan connects *fustis* with *futare* (&quot;to strike&quot;), not Greek xylinon." CreationDate="2016-07-12T14:50:27.000" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2581" PostId="1185" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel, as I understand it, the idea is not that *fustis* is cognate with *xylinon* but that the &quot;cotton&quot; sense of *fustaneum* is a loan-translation of that Greek word." CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:33:23.430" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2589" PostId="1185" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel The problem is not my refusal to `accept the quoted explanation`; the problem is the citation's lack of explanation of the underlying semantic notions." CreationDate="2016-07-13T05:46:25.723" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="2578" PostId="1186" Score="1" Text="I've read that the two senses of _cum_ converged from two unrelated Proto-Indo-European roots, the conjunction being a frozen accusative relative/interrogative pronoun and spelled _quom_ in Old Latin; its feminine sibling is _quam._ Hopefully this comment provides from useful search terms for someone who wants to dig deeper. [This](https://books.google.com/books?id=_q0AAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA203&amp;dq=latin+cum+quom+proto-indo-european&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwixiLjjqe7NAhXBOSYKHfO9AYQQuwUIQzAG#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20cum%20quom%20proto-indo-european&amp;f=false) looks like a good start." CreationDate="2016-07-12T16:29:22.650" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2585" PostId="1186" Score="8" Text="I'm wondering how many people came through HNQ not realising this is a question about latin." CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:19:17.730" UserId="611" />
  <row Id="2586" PostId="1186" Score="1" Text="@JanDvorak, I know the title is easy to misunderstand, but I chose it because it asks my question concisely. And if that HNQ listing brings more people to the site for whatever reason, I'm happy. The end justifies the means, I guess." CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:28:25.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2587" PostId="1186" Score="11" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Indeed, what counts is a happy ending." CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:15:11.573" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2582" PostId="1188" Score="4" Text="The wood-cotton connection isn't so strange if you think of cotton being introduced to a culture which is only familiar with wool. &quot;This cotton stuff, it's like wool, but from a tree/from wood! Let's call it wood-wool.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:36:18.807" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2583" PostId="1188" Score="0" Text="@TKR You must be a native speaker of German. :) Just kidding; that sounds very likely indeed. I hadn't thought of the plant that makes cotton for clothes as a tree, but I just did some googling and indeed it is. (I think of &quot;cottonwood trees&quot; only as the bane of air conditioners.) Sadly, I've never seen commercial cotton plants in person." CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:50:49.037" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2590" PostId="1188" Score="1" Text="+1. Thank you as always for your insight and aid. Please allow me to postpone acceptance to allow time for (changes to) other responses." CreationDate="2016-07-13T05:48:32.890" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="4345" PostId="1188" Score="1" Text="Good explanation. Let me add that in Finnish we call cotton &quot;puuvilla&quot;; &quot;puu&quot; means tree or wood and &quot;villa&quot; means wool. It might be a translated loan from German. (@Timere, it seems other answers might not be coming.)" CreationDate="2016-09-14T22:57:42.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9333" PostId="1188" Score="0" Text="Isn't it ξύλινον with an omicron, not an omega? The omega would anyway shift the stress on the iota, at least in Ancient Greek, so either ξύλινον or ξυλίνων. In fact, I would expect a stress on the last syllable, i.e. ξυλινός, ξυλινή, ξυλινόν, but that may just be me :)." CreationDate="2017-06-17T22:15:16.397" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9334" PostId="1188" Score="0" Text="From what I see on [Greek Wiktionary](https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BE%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82), the stress is on the first syllable in Modern Greek, but the form with the omega is a genitive plural, so it's better to use a nominative singular for citation, isn't it? It seems Modern Greek has shifted the stress to the first syllables in all forms, but Ancient Greek would have had ξυλίνων." CreationDate="2017-06-17T22:20:37.153" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9339" PostId="1188" Score="0" Text="@MickG I haven't studied Ancient Greek in any serious way, and indeed I pasted ξύλινων out of the modern Greek Wiktionary entry. Thanks for catching that! As for the genitive plural, I hazily recall having a reason for that. I'll have to dig around a bit to see why I chose it—or else abandon it and change it to the nominative singular. Also, I hazily recall deliberately choosing Modern rather than Ancient Greek for some reason. Now seeing if I can reconstruct my reasoning from last year…" CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:35:54.930" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2588" PostId="1191" Score="0" Text="I would just like to point out that English letters do have names like the ones i gave in my answer, but this is a really good point." CreationDate="2016-07-13T03:53:58.120" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15939" PostId="1191" Score="0" Text="@SamK indeed they do, as I found out this week (e.g. _wye_ for Y). The fact that I have a PhD in linguistics but just found out this week could prove several things, but I like to think it proves that those names have long fallen out of fashion." CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:31:49.150" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="28728" PostId="1191" Score="1" Text="@NickNicholas Perhaps they have never been in common use.  The full OED (whose print version is 20 volumes and is now updated online) contains 'wye' in the sense of Y-shaped device, but doesn't contain 'wye' meaning the letter.  On the other hand, 'aitch' and 'zed' are still in use.  But that's about it." CreationDate="2020-08-23T16:19:45.253" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="2593" PostId="1193" Score="0" Text="Shouldn't that be *munifunx* or something, if it comes from *fungi* instead of *facere*?" CreationDate="2016-07-13T08:15:42.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2594" PostId="1193" Score="1" Text="One would think so, but munifex seems to be the attested word: http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2037239 — it was the lowest rank in the Roman army. The entry also mentions a verb *muniafacio*, but there's no entry for it." CreationDate="2016-07-13T11:43:36.667" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2612" PostId="1194" Score="1" Text="The verse appears most prominently in the liturgy at the end of the prayers at the foot of the altar (after the *confiteor* and *misereatur* of the people)." CreationDate="2016-07-14T13:49:32.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2613" PostId="1194" Score="1" Text="Ah, yes, right after the absolution." CreationDate="2016-07-14T15:20:53.153" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="24385" PostId="1194" Score="0" Text="&quot;A participle is a noun&quot;  -  like in Iolanthe, this can be put right by inserting the word 'not' :-).  It is an adjective.&#xA;&#xA;But often used to form a past tense, e.g. 'sepultus est'  =  'was buried'." CreationDate="2020-03-02T05:48:41.883" UserId="1970" />
  <row Id="2595" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="And the simultaneous commenters strike again!" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:49:21.593" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2596" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, fortunately our strikes have a slightly different point of view in spite of being simultaneous. It remains a mystery to me how we coordinate such simultaneity." CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:53:46.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2598" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles, the site strives for exactly that kind of content. I'm glad it's working!" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:59:22.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2599" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="it makes me worry that you are a vampire, because the difference in hemispheres means that you seem never to sleep at night. (Also, may I suggest &quot;having been turned&quot; rather than &quot;having turned&quot; for the first in your set of alternatives?)" CreationDate="2016-07-13T22:03:45.140" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2601" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="Ok, I see now that *conversus* is an adjective, and that it is being used *attributively*. That helps a lot. Thanks." CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:36:20.973" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2607" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, good idea. I wasn't sure if I wanted to translate it in active or passive voice, but perhaps passive is more natural. (I often go to bed and wake up late. If you compare my activity to usual waking hours, consider my time zone being somewhere in eastern Atlantic.)" CreationDate="2016-07-14T11:57:04.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24384" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="'Having been turned' won't really do. Who could turn God? The perceptive earlier note of the 'middle' voice is key here.  It is close to the passive, stuff is done to you, but done by you yourself. It is not at all uncommon in classical Latin, and thus naturally in 'liturgical Latin'. Greek had a huge influence on Latin, which simplified the syntax, as here, and also merging the simple past (aorist) into the 'perfect'.  You have to decide  which is which from the context." CreationDate="2020-03-02T05:39:43.653" UserId="1970" />
  <row Id="24386" PostId="1195" Score="0" Text="@JohnWhite My translations only attempted to clarify the grammar. Whether an individual translation works is a matter of context and opinion. I did indeed vote up the other two answers, and I agree that a middle reading is an excellent choice." CreationDate="2020-03-02T06:29:25.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2600" PostId="1196" Score="0" Text="+1, especially for the middle voice, though I think the 'again' can be explained more easily if we look at the entire psalm." CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:18:39.410" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="2602" PostId="1196" Score="0" Text="I have three different dictionaries that confirm that *conversus* itself carries the notion of turning *again*. Not in the sense of repetition, but in the sense of return to a former state." CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:43:22.100" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2609" PostId="1196" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles Thanks for the edit—perhaps I ought to stick to what I know. . . ." CreationDate="2016-07-14T12:01:55.190" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2611" PostId="1196" Score="0" Text="I found a quote from Cicero that says &quot;nam quocumque te animo et cogitatione converteris...&quot;--is that middle voice too?" CreationDate="2016-07-14T13:48:19.617" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2615" PostId="1196" Score="0" Text="@brianpck It certainly looks like it, though the complete sentence/paragraph may tell a different story." CreationDate="2016-07-14T18:10:47.350" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2610" PostId="1199" Score="0" Text="+1 for the excellent thoughts." CreationDate="2016-07-14T12:03:42.170" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2614" PostId="1199" Score="0" Text="Minor correction: as mentioned in my comment on Joel's answer, the idea of turning *again* is definitely one possible shade of meaning for the word *conversus*." CreationDate="2016-07-14T16:31:48.103" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="2620" PostId="1199" Score="0" Text="@DavidCharles -- That is a fair point, but I don't think that's why -- or at least not the main reason why -- the 'again' is included in the translation. (Hence my weasel words 'in the strict sense'.)" CreationDate="2016-07-16T04:43:48.173" UserId="641" />
  <row Id="9172" PostId="1200" Score="0" Text="Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus is available online http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/niermeyer (subscription only)." CreationDate="2017-06-09T20:48:10.357" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="2616" PostId="1201" Score="6" Text="Let me check that I understand: Are you asking for a recorded piece of conversation based on our knowledge of the kind of Latin spoken in the Roman Republic and Empire? To a large extent this sounds like &quot;What is the most credible reconstruction of colloquial classical Latin?&quot;, which is interesting. Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-07-14T21:42:45.910" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2617" PostId="1201" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site. There are a lot of resources about Latin pronunciation in other places; I'm sure you've seen some. Can you explain in more detail what you want that those resources do not cover? You might be interested in the answers to the following question: [How do we know how the Romans pronounced Latin?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/66)" CreationDate="2016-07-14T22:46:23.657" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="2618" PostId="1201" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Whoah, it's a question of mine. That's freaky." CreationDate="2016-07-15T00:52:51.290" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2619" PostId="1201" Score="1" Text="I just want to hear it, to get the feeling of it. Is just a curiosity." CreationDate="2016-07-16T00:01:09.360" UserId="654" />
  <row Id="2621" PostId="1201" Score="0" Text="I would hypothesize that `normal Latin dialog sounded` then just like like it does now..." CreationDate="2016-07-16T07:16:59.123" UserId="658" />
  <row Id="4063" PostId="1201" Score="0" Text="I found a video that treats the same question.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_enn7NIo-S0" CreationDate="2016-08-18T07:10:28.297" UserId="654" />
  <row Id="2622" PostId="1204" Score="0" Text="Interesting question! I edited it slightly; feel free to re-edit or roll back. I don't think [transliteration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration) makes sense here, so I removed the word. And welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-07-16T12:50:26.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2636" PostId="1205" Score="0" Text="I've accepted this because it's a great answer. Perhaps this saying is a tad more extreme in its intent than &quot;don't rock the boat&quot;, but it's pretty damn close." CreationDate="2016-07-17T18:50:04.093" UserId="659" />
  <row Id="2663" PostId="1205" Score="0" Text="Yeah, this saying seems more akin to &quot;let sleeping dogs lie.&quot; But I'm glad it suits your purpose!" CreationDate="2016-07-18T11:11:38.043" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2624" PostId="1206" Score="12" Text="I cannot tell you how THRILLED I am to have you on the site with us! For those who don't know, Mr. Cotton is an extraordinary translator, who has given us, inter alia, *Superbia et Odium* (Pride and Prejudice), *Fundus Animalium* (Animal Farm), and *Auræ Inter Salices* (The Wind in the Willows). My Latin is nowhere near good enough yet to appreciate these translations fully, but as I work my way through them I find over and over again that their Latinity feels incredibly genuine. Welcome, Mr. Cotton! Floreat, vigeat, valeat, et crescat!" CreationDate="2016-07-16T17:44:32.280" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2623" PostId="1207" Score="0" Text="This is very interesting, thank you. I will try to find the time to look deeper into this." CreationDate="2016-07-16T16:38:56.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2625" PostId="1208" Score="0" Text="AH! So it's the punctuation in my edition that's screwing me up—it should be not &quot;pro imperio vobis quod dictum foret, scibat facturos&quot; but something like &quot;pro imperio vobis, quod dictum foret scibat facturos&quot;! Of course punctuation in millennia-old literature is a dicey thing to talk about, but thinking about it that way makes it much clearer for me. Thank you!" CreationDate="2016-07-16T20:12:14.330" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2628" PostId="1208" Score="0" Text="I think the punctuation makes sense, actually -- &quot;that which will be said to you (vobis) in command (pro imperio), [that] he knows you will do&quot;. My answer was a little unclear as to the syntactic structure of the second line -- editing to hopefully make it clearer." CreationDate="2016-07-16T21:53:24.947" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2629" PostId="1208" Score="0" Text="Oh, interesting. I was taking *pro imperio* as &quot;instead of a command&quot;—so with the parsing you offered, something like &quot;instead of a command, which thing he knew you would do, he ordered [to be offered] lightly, in good words.&quot; In any case, punctuation aside, you have helped immensely." CreationDate="2016-07-16T22:12:05.407" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2630" PostId="1209" Score="5" Text="Interesting question! As a comment on the second question in your list -- in official ideology, the republic did not become an empire until about three hundred years after the accession of Augustus. All during the [Principate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principate) (i.e. up until the late 3C!) republican forms continued, with the election of consuls etc., and with everyone pretending that the emperor was merely a &quot;first citizen&quot; (princeps) who had acquired specific powers through his personal merit, rather than an autocratic ruler." CreationDate="2016-07-17T17:08:00.197" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2631" PostId="1209" Score="0" Text="@TKR, thank you for pointing this out! I guessed the transition would not be complete before the dominate. I chose not to specify an exact era or point in time so that I could gain some insight from any answers to this question and then ask for more specific details in follow-up questions as needed. I am interested in the whole transition process, and I thought it's better to start with a big picture question." CreationDate="2016-07-17T17:18:28.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2633" PostId="1210" Score="2" Text="I think Per Dormire is Italian. In Latin, I believe it would be Pro Dormiendo. (Per Dormiendum would be &quot;through sleeping&quot;, &quot;by sleeping&quot;, or &quot;while sleeping&quot;. As one word, _perdormire_ sounds like &quot;missleeping&quot; or &quot;oversleeping&quot;!) Regardless, naming a podiatry practice in Latin sounds wonderfully classy!" CreationDate="2016-07-17T18:11:37.037" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2632" PostId="1211" Score="0" Text="Doesn't _pes dexter_ also mean &quot;right foot&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-07-17T17:50:47.630" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2634" PostId="1211" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz, it does. That is one of the reasons I urged ohaleck to check the dictionaries himself. All the adjectives I propose have several meanings although I only gave one translation per word. I intentionally left out other translations because I couldn't include them all." CreationDate="2016-07-17T18:15:42.117" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2638" PostId="1211" Score="1" Text="I'd be inclined to make it oblique: _Pedibus Sanīs_, ‘for (or toward) healthy feet’." CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:22:52.397" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="2640" PostId="1211" Score="0" Text="@AntonSherwood, that is a good alternative. There are no strict grammatical rules for forming company names, so it is up to ohaleck to decide what fits his need best." CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:33:55.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2653" PostId="1211" Score="0" Text="@AntonSherwood That leads me to ask a [new question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1220/118)." CreationDate="2016-07-17T23:31:50.573" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2639" PostId="1212" Score="0" Text="Nice and sophisticated. Unfortunately, just as I wrote in my comment above,  these names don't sound nice to a Polish mass consumer. I realise, these are the answers to the question I asked, but no I see it's not the way to go.&#xA;BTW: There is a (German, I guess) insurance company Gothaer on Polish market. Its name was so confusing, they even made a TV ad explaining how to pronounce it." CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:24:08.443" UserId="661" />
  <row Id="2646" PostId="1212" Score="0" Text="@ohaleck Oh well, I guess the proverb &quot;Everything sounds better in Latin&quot; doesn't hold good in Polish. :) Happily, the Polish pronunciation of _ae_ is the same as the Ecclesiastical pronunciation, so that's not a problem, but I just read your comment to Joonas that the main problem is _pes._ You _can_ rearrange Latin very easily. I'll add a variant without _pes_ or _pedes_ to my answer right now." CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:21:41.580" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2690" PostId="1212" Score="0" Text="thanks! I decided to mark your answer as accepted as I really liked your suggestion 'Gratia pedum'. We decided to use another name though. It is also Latin, but I'd rather not disclose it yet, as my paranoid competition may come across this discussion before we manage to register the new trademark. I'll share it when we do." CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:18:00.697" UserId="661" />
  <row Id="2642" PostId="1213" Score="1" Text="In English I would be inclined to say &quot;midscript&quot; to refer to normal text as opposed to &quot;subscript&quot; and &quot;superscript&quot;. For a more Latin prefix (that could be used in Latin), perhaps *inter-* or *medio-*, but I don't have any examples to show how appropriate these are." CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:44:32.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2648" PostId="1213" Score="1" Text="This probably belongs on ELU, as it's asking about English words, which happen to use borrowed Latin." CreationDate="2016-07-17T22:26:22.780" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2649" PostId="1213" Score="3" Text="@QPaysTaxes I originally asked this question there, but then a commenter said that I should post it *here* instead..." CreationDate="2016-07-17T22:29:03.937" UserId="663" />
  <row Id="2650" PostId="1213" Score="1" Text="That commenter likely didn't know what they were talking about, then. It's far from uncommon for people to recommend posting a question on another site when they know nothing about that site but its title" CreationDate="2016-07-17T22:30:19.263" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2651" PostId="1213" Score="5" Text="Welcome! Most SE are unreasonably exclusive. We're still young and naïve and we're trying to be open and welcoming. I think this question is perfectly fine either on English.SE or here." CreationDate="2016-07-17T22:36:04.497" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2657" PostId="1213" Score="1" Text="When cross posting, please link to the original question (if you haven't deleted it)." CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:02:38.670" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="2658" PostId="1213" Score="0" Text="@Earthliŋ I did delete it. Last I heard duplicate questions were disallowed." CreationDate="2016-07-18T08:27:36.593" UserId="663" />
  <row Id="2661" PostId="1213" Score="0" Text="Discouraged, yes, but in case it's not clear on which site the question belongs, it is sometimes helpful to have both versions live (with the appropriate links) until it has become clear (looking at the comments of both communities) which question should be deleted." CreationDate="2016-07-18T09:00:01.593" UserId="66" />
  <row Id="2662" PostId="1213" Score="1" Text="@Earthliŋ is correct. In some cases it might be good to have the question on different SE sites (but not twice on the same site). You can find some discussion and guidelines in [this meta question](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/159/79)." CreationDate="2016-07-18T09:07:32.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7018" PostId="1213" Score="1" Text="I'm surprised no one mentioned [inscript](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inscript)." CreationDate="2017-03-02T02:21:41.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43621" PostId="1213" Score="0" Text="@cmw, no, OP was right that the level between _super-_ and _sub-_ is just no prefix at all, at least in the case of script. _In_-scription is going along the wrong axis (−Z) to be appropriate here." CreationDate="2023-06-16T04:30:36.880" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="2643" PostId="1215" Score="4" Text="Google Translate is notoriously awful.  Consider checking [one of these dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/12) to help identify the right words." CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:57:13.987" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="8153" PostId="1215" Score="0" Text="I'm guessing the wedding already happened, but a Classics prof would surely have appreciated *Musica Vinumque* &quot;Music and Wine&quot;, instead of beer." CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:51:54.467" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="2655" PostId="1216" Score="0" Text="Why do you include &quot;quippe quae&quot;? I am not familiar with that phrase..." CreationDate="2016-07-18T00:53:33.417" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2659" PostId="1216" Score="1" Text="@SamK, a relative clause can be causal in Latin, and this causal nature can be emphasized by *quippe*. See [this question about *quippe*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/598/79) for details. I think my translation is more idiomatic Latin than a more direct translation would have been. I think a combination of relativity and causality also fits the context. You can translate *quippe quae ... erat* as &quot;because it was ...&quot;." CreationDate="2016-07-18T08:47:25.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2665" PostId="1216" Score="0" Text="Okay, I think I understand. So &quot;quae&quot; should match the subject of the sentence, correct? And how would one translate it? (I'm assuming not the normal who/whom/which). Sorry to bug you with questions, I just want to understand the grammar correctly." CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:39:10.563" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2666" PostId="1216" Score="0" Text="@SamK, *quae* should match *terra* here. A relative clause can modify any noun, independent of its role in the governing clause. The *quae* is a relative pronoun and it can be translated by the usual &quot;which&quot; or the like. But causal relative clauses are not as idiomatic in English, so I would restructure the subordinate clause to use &quot;because&quot; or something similar. I might translate my Latin back to English as &quot;the land called Columba, for it was as holy as a pigeon&quot;. (And don't be sorry. Understanding grammar is what the site is for.)" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:53:33.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2729" PostId="1216" Score="0" Text="So what would the literal translation be? I like literal translations over idiomatic ones a) because it reinforces the meanings of the grammar and words, and b) it is often more robotic, and thus, in my opinion, more funny." CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:13:29.053" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2730" PostId="1216" Score="0" Text="@SamK, I'm afraid there is no literal translation of *quippe* in a relative clause. It's one of those language specific little things that you really can't transfer as such. It's a particle that adds a causal tone to a relative clause; without *quippe* literal translation as a relative clause is simple. (Perhaps a native speaker of English might find a literal translation, but I doubt.)" CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:24:30.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2733" PostId="1216" Score="0" Text="Ok, thanks for the help though! I'll have to see if I can find anything. If I do, I'll let you know." CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:05:48.017" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2734" PostId="1216" Score="0" Text="@SamK, you are welcome! *Quippe* can be a tricky word, and I'd like to see more questions about it. I might ask some myself, too..." CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:14:34.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2741" PostId="1216" Score="1" Text="So here's what I found: _Quippe_ is actually a shortening of _quid pe_, which means &quot;why&quot;. So by saying _quippe quae_, you say &quot;which is why.&quot; This is is basically the inverse of &quot;because&quot;, as exemplified by the sentence &quot;It was as holy as a pigeon, which is why it was the land called Columba.&quot; This may just be speculation, but I think it is something interesting to think about..." CreationDate="2016-07-21T00:22:39.440" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="30469" PostId="1217" Score="2" Text="Did I ever thank you for this? If not, please accept my gratitude now!!" CreationDate="2021-01-17T02:56:12.437" UserId="665" />
  <row Id="2652" PostId="1219" Score="3" Text="I think you're right, though this answer would be better as a comment." CreationDate="2016-07-17T23:09:15.100" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2675" PostId="1219" Score="1" Text="I read this as an incomplete infinitive, not as a prohibition, viz. &quot;[Opportet te] quieta non movere&quot; or &quot;[melius est] quieta non movere.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-07-18T18:05:51.523" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2656" PostId="1220" Score="0" Text="The second question also arises in French, where names of the form _Au Bon Pain_ (at/with the good bread) seem to be common." CreationDate="2016-07-18T04:08:53.517" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="2673" PostId="1220" Score="0" Text="Are you asking about using Latin phrases in an English context or in a Latin context?" CreationDate="2016-07-18T17:23:17.060" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2682" PostId="1220" Score="0" Text="@fdb In a Latin context." CreationDate="2016-07-19T03:06:41.883" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2660" PostId="1222" Score="0" Text="This is a good direct translation of &quot;Don't rock the boat&quot; (although I would have chosen the more typical accusative *scapham*), but I don't know if this ever was a saying in Latin. A direct translation of a saying does not always produce a saying. Can you add some details as to where this phrase comes from? If it's just your translation without precedent, tell that that's the case. And welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-07-18T08:55:25.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2669" PostId="1222" Score="0" Text="Sure, scapham. I simply mistyped **accusativus**. Unfortunately, nowadays no one can surely say, if such a phrase were spelled ever in Latin. All the inheritance of Latin texts we got from antiquity is very short and doesn't allow us to retrieve overall diversity of the language. Besides, any language is a living systems that develops in time. Nobody knows what would be Latin today given it didn't disappear about 1.5 thousands of year ago. Maybe the phrases  we write out today would become norms of the Latin." CreationDate="2016-07-18T16:31:47.683" UserId="667" />
  <row Id="2670" PostId="1222" Score="0" Text="True, our knowledge of classical Latin is partial. But there are numerous preserved sayings from many eras of Latin, and goofballLogic did not specify any era. An answer that is simply a translation (not a saying attested in extant Latin literature) is fine if the voters decide so. I strongly suggest adding the source to your answer, be it some Latin text or your own translation. It is often not enough to give a good answer; one also has to justify why the answer is good." CreationDate="2016-07-18T16:41:22.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2678" PostId="1222" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I'd say that even adding your comment (&quot;Unfortunately, nowadays no one can surely say. . . .&quot;) would improve this answer. In any case, I'm appalled to realize that none of us has previously used the word *labefactare* on this site, and I appreciate your doing so!" CreationDate="2016-07-18T18:53:23.110" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2679" PostId="1222" Score="0" Text="Well, friends, I'm glad to meet here true fans of Latin." CreationDate="2016-07-18T19:01:05.307" UserId="667" />
  <row Id="2664" PostId="1224" Score="2" Text="Does your school have a canonical English translation of the motto? I think it always denotes constancy, but that still leaves room for different grammatical interpretations. With a long 'a' I think something like &quot;always along the same path&quot; is a likely reading, but not the only option." CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:28:26.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2676" PostId="1224" Score="1" Text="Yes, a source would be nice for this. This does make sense as a counterpart to &quot;qua&quot; (long a) and &quot;hac&quot; (= by which/this way)." CreationDate="2016-07-18T18:08:32.163" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2697" PostId="1224" Score="0" Text="Joonas, I don't think the school had anything that you could call a canonical English translation. The motto would have originated with the coat of arms devised for Elizabeth I by the College of Heralds at her accession. The quantity of the 'a' when the pronoun is used adverbially is long; in scansion it may, of course, be either, according to the intended meaning" CreationDate="2016-07-20T10:14:48.427" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="2668" PostId="1225" Score="1" Text="You're right that I should have used plupf. *accidisset* -- thanks! (I actually realized this a little after posting the question -- the version I had meant &quot;He has related to me what happened&quot;.) But what I'm asking is when/whether a relative clause can be used *instead of* an indirect question." CreationDate="2016-07-18T16:24:20.487" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2674" PostId="1225" Score="0" Text="Then, to answer your real question, the &quot;better&quot; Latin would be the subjunctive. A relative clause would be translated as &quot;he related to me that which had happened.&quot; This could work if you really wanted to, but it is a bit of a stretch. Subjunctive is the way to go. @TKR" CreationDate="2016-07-18T17:42:58.980" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2677" PostId="1225" Score="1" Text="@SamK, why so? Your argument seems to rely greatly on what is natural in English. The two options have the grammatical difference you describe, but they are semantically essentially equivalent. It is really a question of what is idiomatic Latin, and can only be definitively answered by analyzing examples from Latin literature. An indirect question sounds more natural than a relative clause to me, too, but I am not convinced yet." CreationDate="2016-07-18T18:46:48.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2680" PostId="1225" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I first learned how to write indirect questions from my high school Latin teacher, who had a doctorate in classical studies and was incredibly well versed in various Latin texts. He taught us to use the subjunctive, which appears to be the consensus amongst other sources as well. I'm guessing that the subjunctive is the more idiomatic way, and my explanation, although probably highly influenced by English, isn't entirely correct. It is also important to note that many English grammar rules came from Latin, so it could have been the same (but that's just speculation)." CreationDate="2016-07-18T19:45:01.607" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2681" PostId="1225" Score="0" Text="@SamK, that makes your point stronger. I won't consider the question fully answered until an ancient grammarian or a quantitative study of the relative frequency of the two options shows which one is preferred, but I know well that full answers are hard to give. I'm starting to realize that a short and very convincing answer is impossible here unless someone has already figured this out and written it up." CreationDate="2016-07-18T20:12:26.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2683" PostId="1226" Score="0" Text="I look forward to hearing what you hear from the other living Latinists! The comparison with English is an interesting line of thought. Suppose that a business was named I'm Fine. Would you say &quot;I'm on the phone with someone from Me'm Fine&quot;? That's how I understand declining the subject of a business name that is a Latin sentence, but I'm also thinking that grammatical inflection plays a much larger role in Latin, so maybe there's some other way to resolve this. Well, hopefully you'll hear about a precedent shortly!" CreationDate="2016-07-19T11:20:46.607" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2684" PostId="1226" Score="0" Text="Actually, here's a possible source of precedent: how do you decline a Latin sentence when the sentence is itself the object of another sentence? For example, how do you say &quot;People have remembered 'Veni, Vedi, Vici' for more than 2,000 years&quot; in speech so that a listener doesn't get confused?" CreationDate="2016-07-19T11:23:34.620" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2685" PostId="1226" Score="1" Text="Interesting—and of course now I want to open a business called Me'm Fine. Ultimately I feel like anything we come up with is going to be artificial (though maybe there's something to look at in late 19th/early 20th century Latin usage?). I suppose I'd render the sentence in your second comment, &quot;Verborum 'Veni, vidi, vici' plus quam duo milia annorum memoratum est&quot; but I feel like by the late 19th century people were saying things like that so you're probably right that there's precedent somewhere." CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:01:31.147" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2686" PostId="1226" Score="3" Text="I'm afraid I have to disagree on *In institutum nomine &quot;Pedes Integros Sit&quot; eo.* The plural sounds weird, but even the singular *Pedem Integrum Sit* sounds very unnatural to me. I understand that this is a matter of taste, though. My opinion is probably influenced by what I'd do in Finnish where we have over a dozen cases. I actually had a hard time parsing your sentence because you declined the name. Also, I'm against declining, but strongly for prepositions; the analogy with &quot;going Feet-B-Whole&quot; doesn't seem to fully work. (If you open Me'm Fine, be prepared for the name becoming a meme.)" CreationDate="2016-07-19T13:39:00.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2687" PostId="1226" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yeah, I think &quot;I'm going Feet-B-Whole&quot; isn't the right analogy with English, because English uses a preposition for that: &quot;I'm going to Feet-B-Whole&quot;. In Latin, a case marker alone can suffice: _Eo Romam._ But looking at how other languages handle this sounds like it ought to yield insight. How do you handle a business whose name is a sentence in Finnish?" CreationDate="2016-07-19T14:03:00.240" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2688" PostId="1226" Score="0" Text="Yeah I think I'm changing my mind, though I'll leave this answer up as a spur to thought. I have a sneaking suspicion the Latin way to say this is *Medicum ad pedalem eo, nomine Marcum*." CreationDate="2016-07-19T14:11:26.767" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2689" PostId="1226" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, business names that are Finnish sentences are quite rare (more so than in the English speaking world, I think), probably because of this issue. If they do appear, many use an auxiliary word like *institutum* or treat the last word as a declinable Finnish word, appending case endings to it (even if it's a verb). The second option is rarer and considered worse grammar, and people are often audibly puzzled when they try to speak of companies with such names. In Finnish we use far, far less prepositions than in English, so we need a declinable word to play with." CreationDate="2016-07-19T15:02:40.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2693" PostId="1228" Score="1" Text="Thanks! This is very interesting data, and a neat entrance to the site. It seems that there is a vowel change in class 3: *faciliter* and *similiter* become *faculter* and *simulter*. Otherwise adverb formation doesn't seem to change vowels. (Side note: When you write &quot;the ones that form their adverbs with -limus&quot;, do you mean superlatives instead of adverbs?)" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:07:23.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2694" PostId="1228" Score="0" Text="Perhaps I should add that not all adjectives with superlative *-limus* have an adverb without the *-i-* in front of *-ter*. For example *gracilis* becomes *gracillimus* and *graciliter*. (I only just learned this myself. I wouldn't have looked at this thing in detail without your answer.)" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:14:14.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2695" PostId="1228" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, yes! Superlatives, not adverbs. Corrected." CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:57:52.203" UserId="672" />
  <row Id="2752" PostId="1228" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. Here's an example that doesn't fit your question but is interesting nonetheless: amiciter. There are a few 2-1-2 adjectives that form -iter adverbs (in addition to long -e adverbs)." CreationDate="2016-07-22T11:31:29.177" UserId="672" />
  <row Id="2696" PostId="1229" Score="1" Text="Good question. I think there is considerable overlap, as the examples in L&amp;S after &quot;At, in = in with abl. or gen. or abl. of place&quot; suggest. So it can mean simply *at*, but also *near*. Perhaps the amphitheatre was normally outside the city walls, so it was technically not in between the houses?" CreationDate="2016-07-20T02:49:36.137" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2699" PostId="1229" Score="0" Text="Speculation: Could *apud Fidenas* mean more &quot;among the people of Findenae&quot; than &quot;in Fidenae&quot;? I read this tone in it, but I'm not sure if it's supposed to be there." CreationDate="2016-07-20T11:52:05.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2723" PostId="1229" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, surely that would be *apud Fidenates*?" CreationDate="2016-07-20T17:53:09.213" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2724" PostId="1229" Score="0" Text="@TKR, that would be a more literal way to say so. But somehow I read that tone in *apud Fidenas* as well. It might be because I'm more used to seeing *apud* with people or groups of people." CreationDate="2016-07-20T18:00:55.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4723" PostId="1230" Score="5" Text="I don't think the numbering is very important. It is hard to see what the listed meanings mean exactly, because no examples are given. I am not sure if there has ever been a shift from 1&amp;4 to 2&amp;3; it may just be that they are independent developments. It seems that many uses of *qua* can be explained by assuming an implicit feminine noun in the ablative, like *via*. I see *qua* mainly as an ablative of a pronoun being reanalyzed as an adverb." CreationDate="2016-10-06T14:47:22.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2698" PostId="1231" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Online translators are very unreliable. I suggest using an online dictionary ([see a list here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)) to find the most suitable Latin words. Check the dictionary entries for *optimus, vir, verus, amicus, malus, auctoritas* and see if they match your intentions. If not, try to find other words. We can help combining those words for you. Are you happy with those words you have chosen? Also, beware that combining the words &quot;best&quot; and &quot;man&quot; in Latin probably won't give a translation of &quot;best man&quot; (person in a wedding)." CreationDate="2016-07-20T11:39:40.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2743" PostId="1231" Score="0" Text="You should check the comments on my answer—there's a grammatical subtlety (not so subtle) I missed that means the words should be spelled slightly differently." CreationDate="2016-07-21T00:58:51.840" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2700" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="Good suggestion! I guess you have effectively given an answer to my [follow-up question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1233/79), too." CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:41:26.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2701" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="Thanks - both for the answer and the felicitations. Whilst I appreciate the translation into 'more correct' latin, it feels like it's lost some of my originally intended meaning with the word pair phrasing  - &lt;edited to add&gt; &quot;The man who is [next] best, a true friend (rather than a generic friend) and a significantly bad influence - G translate (swearing in these parts, I know) suggested translation of &quot;Authority of evil&quot; seems closer to the guy in question than &quot;Seducer into vice&quot;" CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:06:29.060" UserId="675" />
  <row Id="2705" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="Could it possibly be expressed as &quot;Pronubus Prima&quot; to indicate his primacy amongst the groomsmen?" CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:18:53.183" UserId="675" />
  <row Id="2709" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="@joonas-Ilmavirta expanding on my previous comment, a colleague has suggested &quot;praefectum prōnŭbus&quot; for the best man as 'Commander of the Wedding-Attendants' - obviously it moves away from the one-word approach but seems to provide my desired emphasis, assuming appropriate tensing and phrasing etc." CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:22:10.337" UserId="675" />
  <row Id="2710" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="I've just edited my answer to offer an alternative close to what you may be looking for." CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:23:51.220" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2711" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="@AlanS, you should post that as an answer to the question. It's hard to find it it here in the comments." CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:24:00.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2712" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="Thanks both - I wasn't sure about giving it as an answer to your question as it didn't have any specific research backing. Will do so now though." CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:26:41.403" UserId="675" />
  <row Id="2714" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, do you want to post *pronubus* as an answer to the linked question? My dictionary doesn't have it and I couldn't find it by using L&amp;S from English to Latin but it looks like a good word, so it would make a good answer." CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:08:26.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2718" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Since *præfectus pronuborum* has already been offered as an (adjusted) answer to that question, do you still want me to do this?" CreationDate="2016-07-20T16:36:40.980" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2720" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, I think I still do. The simple answer *pronubus* has not been offered yet. (I learned that word from this answer of yours!) Especially if you can give some background or use examples of the word, it would be very well worth an answer." CreationDate="2016-07-20T17:11:19.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2735" PostId="1235" Score="2" Text="Good suggestions in this answer. To complicate matters further, though: if this is a gift inscription, you probably want to put these words in the dative case. This is the form that means &quot;to / for...&quot; and is what you would usually use in a gift inscription. The forms in the answer are nominatives, which is the form used for the subject of a sentence; if this is to be the complete text of the inscription, then that's not grammatically appropriate here. Dative versions: &quot;Pronubo, amico, corruptori&quot;; &quot;Pronubo primo, amico vero, auctoritati malae&quot;. (Personally I'd go for the single-word version.)" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:25:53.527" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2744" PostId="1235" Score="0" Text="@TKR Damn! I should have thought of that! I'll edit my answer accordingly." CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:06:37.973" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2706" PostId="1236" Score="1" Text="Another quick comment: usually &quot;familia&quot; in a liturgical context refers to the &quot;faithful&quot;, e.g. &quot;benedic hanc familiam tuam&quot; or &quot;concede nos famulos tuos, etc.&quot; I think the &quot;meam&quot; makes this sufficiently clear though." CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:19:24.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2789" PostId="1236" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The Litaniae Lauretanae for Queen of the family, pray for us reads [Regina familiae, ora pro nobis.](http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Laurentanae.html)" CreationDate="2016-07-24T21:03:00.967" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="4285" PostId="1236" Score="0" Text="Idiot (beginner's) question - shouldn't it be subjunctive rather than imperative - *that the Lord may bless etc*  Does one give orders to a deity? I'm prepared to be shot down *in flammis*!" CreationDate="2016-09-08T11:04:08.307" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4287" PostId="1236" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose, I assume you mean the second person option. (For the third person, I suggested conjunctive, also known as subjunctive. The third person imperative doesn't feel like an order the same way second person does.) I don't think it's unusual to give orders in Christian prayers. One example that comes to mind is the Latin *Ave Maria*, where orders are given in imperative. If you want to be more polite, you could go for &quot;I beg that you bless&quot; or something similar. *Rogata tironis* are always welcome." CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:26:51.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4294" PostId="1236" Score="2" Text="@TheHonRose I read somewhere (maybe on this site) that the imperative was considered weaker/more polite than the subjunctive in some instances, the reverse of what we think of today. That is why prayers (&quot;_ora pro nobis_&quot;) often use the imperative instead of the subjunctive. Don't quote me on this, however." CreationDate="2016-09-08T19:24:33.040" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2713" PostId="1239" Score="3" Text="Thanks! I think it should be *praefectus* instead of *praefectum*. And perhaps *pronuborum* instead of *pronubus* (master of attendants instead of master attendant), but that's a matter of taste." CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:36:23.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2722" PostId="1239" Score="1" Text="Two dictionaries give the event organizer as *Auspex pronuptus,* His first job was to choose the best day by bird-watching," CreationDate="2016-07-20T17:18:45.003" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2738" PostId="1239" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Praefectus should probably go with a dative..." CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:48:26.933" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2740" PostId="1239" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, dative does indeed sound a bit better. The genitive would surely be understood, though, but *praefectus pronubis* might be the way to go." CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:51:22.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2715" PostId="1240" Score="1" Text="Welcome! I edited your question slightly; feel free to re-edit or roll back. Asking for translations is on-topic. See [these guidelines](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) about asking such questions for details." CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:21:04.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2746" PostId="1240" Score="1" Text="What's *automatize*? Do you mean *automate*?" CreationDate="2016-07-21T03:31:38.903" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="2747" PostId="1240" Score="1" Text="@andy256 Look at this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/automatize" CreationDate="2016-07-21T11:32:13.750" UserId="679" />
  <row Id="2748" PostId="1240" Score="1" Text="Why add an extra syllable to a word, and then say it had the same meaning as the old word?" CreationDate="2016-07-22T00:38:23.913" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="2749" PostId="1240" Score="2" Text="@andy256 I didn't invent the word as you can see in the dictionary entry. Feel free to edit the question and chance it to automate, though." CreationDate="2016-07-22T00:41:32.367" UserId="679" />
  <row Id="2716" PostId="1241" Score="0" Text="How about *&quot;an automaton cannot help you do your work when things are in disarray&quot;*?" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:42:36.313" UserId="679" />
  <row Id="2717" PostId="1241" Score="0" Text="@user679 Perhaps *automaton in confusione non fungitur*, &quot;an automaton doesn't work in disorder&quot;? Or *automaton in confusione opus non facit*, &quot;an automaton doesn't do work in disorder&quot;? Or if you want it longer, perhaps *automaton in operando auxiliari non potest cum res in confusione sint*, &quot;an automaton cannot help in working when things are in disorder&quot;." CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:51:28.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2719" PostId="1241" Score="0" Text="How about (going off your last comment) *Automaton ex confusione non oritur* (or *non factum est* or something of the sort)?" CreationDate="2016-07-20T16:41:44.067" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2721" PostId="1241" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, good idea. Maybe we could go as far as *confusio automaton non fit*, &quot;disorder does not become an automaton&quot;." CreationDate="2016-07-20T17:17:05.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2725" PostId="1243" Score="1" Text="Well, the counterpart is actually called the &quot;maid of honor&quot; (or &quot;matron of honor&quot;, depending on her own marital status), at least in the US... I'm not sure where the tradition of them being part of each spouse-to-be's wedding party, and of the defined same gender as them, came from." CreationDate="2016-07-20T18:38:25.763" UserId="681" />
  <row Id="2726" PostId="1243" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I should mention that by &quot;ancient wedding ceremonies&quot; I referred to those used in ancient Rome before Christianity came around. Therefore I don't quite see the connection you make. The document you link to is interesting, though." CreationDate="2016-07-20T18:45:48.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2745" PostId="1243" Score="3" Text="Thanks! My only quibble is that I'm not entirely sure the concept of a &quot;best man&quot; existed in pre-Christian Rome. (Hence, the Jerome comment made above.) Of course there were wedding attendants, sure, and indeed promoters of the wedding, and of course head servants to attend to service of the guests. While the origin of &quot;best man&quot; as a term referring to the &quot;main witness&quot; seems shrouded in the middle ages, the Christian Weddings (at least as of Jerome above) do require a witness. In Italian, for example, (arguably the closest descendant of Latin) the term is Il Testimone dello Sposo." CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:55:21.957" UserId="680" />
  <row Id="2731" PostId="1246" Score="0" Text="I think the structure people would use in Latin is *nihil nisi*. For example, &quot;I eat nothing but cheese&quot; is *nihil edo nisi caseum*. Would that be &quot;je ne mange que du fromage&quot; in French? My French is rusty, so I want to check that I understand the &quot;ne-que&quot; correctly." CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:38:33.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2732" PostId="1246" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Yup, *nisi* is a good translation. But the Romans could also express *nothing but* as *nothing other than*: *nihil aliud quam*." CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:58:40.523" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2739" PostId="1246" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes: your French translation is correct! I defer to others though for the Latin." CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:50:39.150" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="2751" PostId="1249" Score="2" Text="I'm not quite clear on what you're asking for—is it a classical statement that it IS okay to say negative things about the dead as long as one does so in a spirit of generosity? Or would a simple statement that it's okay to say negative things about the dead suffice? In either case, welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-07-22T10:54:27.240" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="8460" PostId="1249" Score="0" Text="You are giving the translation for bonum and not for bene." CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:11:01.897" UserId="1507" />
  <row Id="2754" PostId="1251" Score="2" Text="Interesting question. I'm not sure L&amp;S's &quot;consequently&quot; is meant to suggest that Cicero's change of style had an effect on other authors -- it may just mean &quot;subsequently&quot;. It seems likely that the usage was changing in Cicero's time, and that his preferences reflected that change (rather than causing it)." CreationDate="2016-07-22T19:06:26.183" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2756" PostId="1251" Score="2" Text="@TKR I don't think that's what the question is about, but it would make for a fantastic new one (&quot;did Cicero's switch from abs to a have an effect on the writing style of Roman authors&quot; or the like)" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:04:12.417" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2760" PostId="1252" Score="1" Text="This may be a dumb question, but the conjunctive and subjunctive are the same thing, right? Is there a difference in the choice of word?" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:24:04.600" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2761" PostId="1252" Score="1" Text="@SamK, they are the same thing. Some make a distinction between the two as you can read in [this separate thread about just that](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/362/79), but generally they are synonymous. I always call the thing &quot;conjunctive&quot;, but others have other habits." CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:28:04.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2767" PostId="1252" Score="1" Text="@SamK, my sense (though I could be wrong) is that Latin teachers in some countries tend to teach one and in other countries tend to teach the other." CreationDate="2016-07-22T23:13:22.440" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2757" PostId="1253" Score="1" Text="Interesting! It seems that Caesar doesn't use *quippe qui* at all. Judging by this data, perhaps I should prefer the conjunctive for classical style, but it probably isn't a major crime to use the indicative, either." CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:14:07.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2766" PostId="1253" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I agree! P.S. On this site, I would say *these data*!" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:56:09.530" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43320" PostId="1254" Score="0" Text="I may be wrong, but the Finish accent is heavy there! What do you think about [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/20964/3284) question?" CreationDate="2023-05-30T11:02:57.353" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="2768" PostId="1256" Score="0" Text="Why do I [keep](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1190/71) [asking](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/389/71) for words that Classical Latin doesn't have :( Aside from that, though, nice answer! The two extra suggestions don't really fit, since the wolves in this story are more mysterious and elusive than evil, but they'd be good to keep in mind for other uses." CreationDate="2016-07-23T00:35:45.660" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2769" PostId="1256" Score="0" Text="Another word for this list is *latebra* &quot;hiding place, den&quot;, which is often used for the dens of wild animals (including but not limited to wolves)." CreationDate="2016-07-23T01:06:06.480" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2771" PostId="1256" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes I feel like _Latibulum_ could still be applicable, but again, it's up to you! Also, you could consider _secessus_ or _secretum_, which means &quot;hiding place&quot; which could make sense for the elusiveness and mystery." CreationDate="2016-07-23T01:21:50.567" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2772" PostId="1256" Score="0" Text="@SamK You should add those to the answer! And yeah, I misread lustrum's definition for latibulum; the latter would still work pretty well. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2016-07-23T01:22:52.383" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2783" PostId="1260" Score="0" Text="I like this for the mythical aspect, and I'm going to use it for the biggest of them where the legendary something or other does whatever legendary beasts do, but the other answer answers my actual question (what's *a* wolf den called). Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-07-23T16:57:36.780" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2884" PostId="1260" Score="0" Text="If I wanted to use this as a fancy name for a wolf den in English, would I call the den &quot;the Lupercal&quot; or just &quot;Lupercal&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-08-02T23:03:12.013" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2886" PostId="1260" Score="1" Text="@QPaysTaxes, I don't know. I suppose it's your call, since you are not trying to refer to the Roman cave but to recycle the prestigious name. The BBC article seems to use &quot;the Lupercal&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-03T05:43:09.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2784" PostId="1261" Score="0" Text="This is an interesting question but I'm not sure it can be answered in this form -- both types of construction are common, so it's hard to say that one is preferred to the other. It might make more sense to ask e.g. what differentiates the various constructions (really more than two -- *cum aegrotaret* and *quia aegrotabat* aren't identical either) or what contexts each tends to be used in." CreationDate="2016-07-23T19:27:57.033" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2785" PostId="1261" Score="0" Text="@TKR, you are right, it may not be easy to answer. I added a paragraph at the end that hopefully makes it more answerable. Does it look better now? I didn't know there is any difference between *cum aegrotaret* and *quia aegrotabat*, but figuring that out should probably be done in a separate question." CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:07:22.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2786" PostId="1261" Score="0" Text="Yes, I think putting in terms of &quot;difference in tone&quot; may be a more fruitful way to frame the question." CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:28:14.740" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2787" PostId="1265" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, my comment wasn't intended to suggest that there was a specific definable difference between *cum*, *quia*, and *quod*, but that they are not identical constructions and therefore the same question you asked about *quippe* can be extended to them. But I'm glad it prompted this question... *Quia* and *quod* are not exactly equivalent in that *quia*, unlike *quod*, is generally used to express a reason that the writer vouches for, as opposed to one ascribed to someone else. (Don't have time to post an answer on that just now but will do so later unless someone beats me to it.)" CreationDate="2016-07-24T16:51:56.660" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2788" PostId="1265" Score="1" Text="@TKR, what I understood from your comment that there is *some* difference, whatever it means. I thought it is worth figuring out separately without comparison to *quippe*. I'd be glad if you could write a full answer when you find the time." CreationDate="2016-07-24T17:45:13.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2790" PostId="1266" Score="1" Text="Hanc phrasem verbatim non invenio, sed forsitan paulis mutationibus huic libro adaptata est." CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:08:59.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2792" PostId="1266" Score="0" Text="Equidem mihi non videtur haec sententia esse quae in pagana saltem antiquitate scripta fuerit: illo enim tempore di corpora habere plerumque credebantur sicut homines, ut causam non videam quin vidi audirive possent. Ergo si antiqua est, in Christianis scriptoribus petenda." CreationDate="2016-07-25T00:20:59.450" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2801" PostId="1266" Score="0" Text="[Hic](https://books.google.com/books?id=MFowBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA132) videri licet, in fine paragraphae voce &quot;nauta&quot; incipientis" CreationDate="2016-07-25T22:01:48.403" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13503" PostId="1266" Score="1" Text="Sorry, are you surprised by the use of the passive voice, or by the use of this sentence to teach passive voice? It looks a lot like a paraphrasing of the New Testament: Deum nemo vidit umquam / Quod oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit, quae praeparavit Deus his, qui diligunt illum" CreationDate="2018-03-20T15:15:29.667" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13509" PostId="1266" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That might be the answer! I wasn't surprised by the passive voice, but that this sentence is written in the (omniscient) narrator's voice. Paganism, Christianity, and atheism all come up in the book, treated (I think) as seen in Ancient Rome, and Ørberg avoids taking any side, though poking a little fun at all of them. So, I'm wondering if the sentence reflects a common understanding of gods at the time—maybe as expressed in some well-known poem or writing. But TKR and brianpck suggest otherwise." CreationDate="2018-03-20T19:14:39.330" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13511" PostId="1266" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Latin pun: _phrasem Pauli mutationibus huic libro adaptata mihi videtur_. In fact, that's what I thought your comment was about at the beginning." CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:00:07.033" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13513" PostId="1266" Score="1" Text="@Rafael My comment was meant literally. I had no intention of having pun in the comments. :)" CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:06:37.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13515" PostId="1266" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I thought so. But it seemed funny to me anyway." CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:11:05.007" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13516" PostId="1266" Score="0" Text="I've edited the question to (hopefully!) make clear why it seems surprising to me that the book would say this in the narrator's voice (merely illustrating grammar) if it were not a commonly accepted view at the time. (My longest sentence in Latin yet!)" CreationDate="2018-03-20T21:38:39.493" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4766" PostId="1267" Score="0" Text="I retagged your question, since the only tag it had was only found in this particular question and it was not very descriptive. Feel free to edit if you find better tags. I will go and write a tag wiki excerpt for the &quot;bacon&quot; tag before anyone gets the wrong idea about it..." CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:30:12.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2796" PostId="1268" Score="2" Text="There was a suggested edit to replace &quot;possessive pronoun&quot; with &quot;personal pronoun&quot;, but I rejected it to let you keep your original voice in the question. The word *eius* is not a standalone pronoun, but the genitive (and therefore possessive) form of the pronoun *is, ea, id*. Especially when it comes to pronouns, translations to English or any other language can be misleading." CreationDate="2016-07-25T14:33:31.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2803" PostId="1268" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta What I meant is that in the genitive case it acts like a possessive pronoun." CreationDate="2016-07-26T02:28:37.390" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="2800" PostId="1270" Score="1" Text="Without the &quot;_Sextus Tarquinius crudelis est._&quot; context, could &quot;_Lucretia prævidet mortem suam._&quot; have the same meaning as &quot;_Lucretia prævidet mortem eius._&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-07-25T18:38:58.440" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="2802" PostId="1270" Score="4" Text="@Geremia: I would say no: if it referred to Lucretia, the writer would have written *suam*. So not writing *suam* means the writer is denying that conexion." CreationDate="2016-07-25T22:38:50.623" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2797" PostId="1271" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I think a better fit with those dictionary entries (and my sense of style, admittedly) would be *studium speciale*. It also has the benefit of relating it more clearly to the context of studying than *specializatio* would. I was unaware of that dictionary, but it looks useful." CreationDate="2016-07-25T15:01:31.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2798" PostId="1271" Score="0" Text="It's worth noting that this definition comes from the *silva*, not the *adumbratio*. See [this answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/511/12) for an explanation of the difference." CreationDate="2016-07-25T15:03:43.803" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2799" PostId="1271" Score="2" Text="@Nathaniel Oh, I'm well aware of the difference. As it says in the definition, it comes, in part, from _Latinitas Recens_, which is a somewhat credible source for modern Latin. I feel like the _silva_ is still useful, especially since there was no ancient equivalent, and there is nothing in the _adumbratio_ for this word." CreationDate="2016-07-25T17:39:06.220" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2832" PostId="1272" Score="0" Text="Much gratitude! You have sent me to exactly the book that I need to read to address the topic that led me to this question. I'd seen it referenced in a couple places but I had no idea what a gold mine it is." CreationDate="2016-07-28T02:05:45.767" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4026" PostId="1272" Score="0" Text="Obiter [hic](http://history.stackexchange.com/q/31143/5011) est quæstio prosequens." CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:18:30.380" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2831" PostId="1273" Score="0" Text="1. Mihi videtur &quot;insolitam&quot; quia pronuntiat rem religionis et in libro semper nullius partis stante inter religionum disputantes.&#xA;2. Conicio &quot;scientiam communem&quot; fuisset deos invisibiles esse. Nam sententia prior videtur illustrant quod etiamsi Neptunus precationem meam respondat, etiamsi adsit, eum videre audireque non potero. Improbabilisne?" CreationDate="2016-07-28T02:00:22.513" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13519" PostId="1273" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I think I wrongly picked up a meaning or connotation of _insolitus_ as awkward or somewhat inappropriate beyond just being not customary (maybe from some medieval writing). I'll think of a different word and then edit the question." CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:48:53.043" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="2804" PostId="1276" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I think I'll go with &quot;A great drama has been acted out in this family&quot;. The phrase refers to a single series of dramatic events, not an overall dramatic nature of the family." CreationDate="2016-07-26T12:20:14.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2806" PostId="1278" Score="1" Text="Welcome! Have you tried translating the phrase yourself? You might want to consult [this guide](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) for asking translation questions. Online dictionaries listed in [our dictionary question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) might also be useful." CreationDate="2016-07-26T21:09:47.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2807" PostId="1278" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta  Tried without much success.  Admittedly I tried using a book rather than the net, but what stomped me were the subtleties of Latin - is &quot;Winter is Coming&quot; here a general observation, an exclamation, a warning, more of a command...?  As I understand it, suffixes are real important in Latin (jfr. Monty Pythons: Life of Brian famous discussion about &quot;Romans Go Home!&quot;)" CreationDate="2016-07-26T21:27:08.900" UserId="274" />
  <row Id="2810" PostId="1278" Score="0" Text="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI   (Sort of scared me... ;-)" CreationDate="2016-07-26T23:20:41.367" UserId="274" />
  <row Id="7780" PostId="1278" Score="0" Text="*Immineo* can mean &quot;to be near at hand, to impend, to threaten by nearness, to be imminent&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-01T15:22:39.270" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2805" PostId="1279" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! *Hiems venit* is indeed a good translation. It should be noted that it means more &quot;winter comes&quot; than &quot;winter is coming&quot;. I am not sure if this tone is a problem." CreationDate="2016-07-26T21:04:11.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2808" PostId="1279" Score="0" Text="This answer could be improved if you added some more information, like the dictionary entries for the words." CreationDate="2016-07-26T21:30:29.997" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="2809" PostId="1279" Score="3" Text="Intuitively, the reverse order *Venit hiems* sounds more natural to my ears, though I can't quite explain why. (Btw *venire* is not &quot;to go&quot;, but only &quot;to come&quot;.)" CreationDate="2016-07-26T22:51:18.203" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2811" PostId="1279" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta There is technically no difference between the two when going from English to Latin. You could do _hiems est veniens_, but that is more using _venio_ as an adjective to describe winter, and doesn't truly mean the same thing deep down." CreationDate="2016-07-27T00:09:26.833" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2846" PostId="1279" Score="2" Text="@SamK, *hiems est veniens* is not good, but *hiems est ventura* is more idiomatic Latin. I would suggest using it if one wants to make the distinction between &quot;comes&quot; and &quot;is coming&quot; in Latin. If there's no need for the distinction, *venit* is good. It's just a matter of getting the tone right." CreationDate="2016-07-31T20:30:55.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2850" PostId="1279" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It's always about the tone... :)" CreationDate="2016-08-01T00:33:07.160" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="2812" PostId="1281" Score="5" Text="I like this suggestion. The *Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary* also suggests *instat* and *appetit*, which (for me) are slightly more evocative." CreationDate="2016-07-27T03:04:02.233" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2813" PostId="1281" Score="3" Text="Add a touch of the medieval with &quot;hiemps&quot; for Winter." CreationDate="2016-07-27T03:36:56.997" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="2852" PostId="1281" Score="5" Text="@brianpck I think you should offer these as an answer. In particular *instat* evokes the threat that always underlies that sentence in *Solium Ludus*." CreationDate="2016-08-01T04:21:48.830" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2817" PostId="1283" Score="6" Text="It is interesting that the [Vulgate](https://www.blueletterbible.org/vul/gen/8/4/t_conc_8004) does not have *ararat* but instead *super montes Armeniae* (“on the mountains of Armenia”). Also, there appear to be a [few scholarly journal articles](https://www.google.com/search?q=Ovid+ararat&amp;rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS701US701&amp;oq=Ovid+ararat&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.1983j0j8&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8) on the subject." CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:39:56.827" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="2829" PostId="1284" Score="1" Text="It's hard to prove a negative, but I don't think I've ever seen a gerundive construction (as distinct from a future passive participle) used in the nominative." CreationDate="2016-07-27T22:51:20.223" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2818" PostId="1288" Score="1" Text="Welcome Josh!  Could you explain why you think this is the best way to understand the phrase?  Citing sources, such as dictionaries, is often helpful as well." CreationDate="2016-07-27T15:56:58.763" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2819" PostId="1288" Score="0" Text="I like to translate terms as literally as possible into English maintaining an improper English word order. This phrase &quot;communium studiorum commercio&quot; translates most directly to &quot;common study commerce&quot; from there of course we have only a rough meaning that can change dramatically depending on inflection and altered definitions of each idea(word). This particular phrase appears to be in regard to an individual from an envoy who spoke two languages and apparently impressed a politician. Like minded in commerce, both speaking the same tongue, both politicians, it appears to be a compliment to t" CreationDate="2016-07-27T16:58:12.110" UserId="710" />
  <row Id="2820" PostId="1288" Score="2" Text="@Josh, although that is a way of getting a rough meaning, the case endings provide indispensable information about how the words interact: *communium studiorum* is genitive and *commercio* is ablative." CreationDate="2016-07-27T17:08:31.783" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2821" PostId="1288" Score="0" Text="I agree @brianpck, however, there were no case endings that indicated change of meaning in that phrase to me. Context should be enough with the  ideas provided by the root words. Did I miss something? I'm not a genius of Latin declensions." CreationDate="2016-07-27T17:25:14.380" UserId="710" />
  <row Id="22732" PostId="1291" Score="0" Text="You can also drop the est and make it &quot;Sic vita.&quot; It gives that pithy feeling which I love." CreationDate="2019-10-07T04:14:47.223" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="2833" PostId="1293" Score="0" Text="Yes, I suspected that. On various plans the rooms are designated dining rooms (5 of them - the Romans did like their food!) ." CreationDate="2016-07-28T02:29:49.297" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="2838" PostId="1295" Score="2" Text="Can you include some references to corroborate this?" CreationDate="2016-07-29T01:30:15.157" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2839" PostId="1295" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I added links to the Google searches." CreationDate="2016-07-29T03:00:27.827" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2840" PostId="1297" Score="0" Text="I had trouble quickly finding where Aristotle uses the term &quot;zoon logikon.&quot; If anyone has that, I can add the reference." CreationDate="2016-07-29T21:05:31.367" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2841" PostId="1297" Score="3" Text="This is an excellent answer! And I'm not just saying that because of the beer. Good quotations, too! I believe Aristotle mentioned the zoon logicon in his Metaphysica, but I don't know the exact place." CreationDate="2016-07-30T00:30:21.300" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11674" PostId="1297" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus A bit late, but it turns out Aristotle doesn't really say it explicitly: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/42206/does-aristotle-ever-explicitly-refer-to-man-as-a-rational-animal" CreationDate="2017-12-12T20:20:12.490" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11675" PostId="1297" Score="0" Text="Ah, excellent! So it is a common misconception, although it's not extremely far from the truth." CreationDate="2017-12-12T23:35:33.220" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2843" PostId="1298" Score="0" Text="I think the problem with *?Studere linguae Latinae permanet* is that infinitive subjects rarely take any verb other than *esse* and its compounds." CreationDate="2016-07-31T17:16:01.237" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2845" PostId="1298" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Hmm you may be right; I can't think of any counter-examples. But how about as a subject complement?: *? lingua Latina permanet legi*. I don't think that works either. That construction only works with copulae, I suppose, and *permaneo* isn't a proper copula." CreationDate="2016-07-31T17:35:58.893" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2848" PostId="1298" Score="0" Text="I think you're right -- that doesn't sound correct to me either. The issue there seems to be that *permaneo* doesn't take an infinitive complement, active or passive." CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:50:31.447" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="2849" PostId="1298" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Yes, I think so too. And, while some other verbs do take an infinitive as a complement, like *persto*, it won't be in the proper thematic role." CreationDate="2016-07-31T23:18:01.223" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2853" PostId="1298" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I mistook *studere* for a transitive verb. It's good to have this misconception corrected, but the main question is about using gerundive with *pergere*. I have seen *pergere* with infinitive to mean &quot;to continue to do something&quot;, and my dictionary also gives this use. You have convinced me that I shouldn't use gerundive even if I change to a transitive verb." CreationDate="2016-08-01T05:20:00.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2854" PostId="1299" Score="0" Text="I don't think the number four is so arbitrary. After all, it's quite natural to cut things (like land) into rectangular pieces or to split something in two halves twice, leaving four parts. But it's true that the choice of the number doesn't bear a deep meaning in this context." CreationDate="2016-08-01T05:45:19.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2858" PostId="1299" Score="0" Text="I haven't studied etymology formally, but isn't it likely that &quot;cart&quot; here comes from the word for card--carte? It seems a pretty perfect parallel to English [discard](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discard), which comes from card, not &quot;quartus.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-01T16:48:37.127" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2877" PostId="1299" Score="1" Text="@brianpck: Not knowing the etymology, that might have been possible, why not (although I suspect French é- is normally from Latin e(x)- or s- ?). At any rate, the etymology has been studied, and Timere shows in his quotation from the *Trésor de la langue fançaise*, a respectable source, that it comes from *exquartare. There are often several paths to the same sound; that is, the same syllable in two French words can come from two entirely unrelated Latin roots (or even from a Latin root and a Greek root, as in -cart-). Cf. English discard, cardiology (two unrelated Greek roots)." CreationDate="2016-08-02T00:40:21.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4599" PostId="1299" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, there are two tabs for écarter in the link and the second one has exactly that meaning and etymology!  Not to mention a wonderful quote from Balzac: &quot;Ma belle dame, vous avez écarté le roi de cœur, j'ai gagné&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-29T05:50:56.847" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="4616" PostId="1299" Score="1" Text="@Penelope: Ah, I hadn't noticed, excellent!" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:58:46.850" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2844" PostId="1300" Score="2" Text="I would like that, but I've tried to find passive finite forms of *studeo* in the HP corpus, and there are hardly any.  *Studetur* gives one result, from Iustianiaus, and *studentur* zero results. The word doesn't seem to be used in the passive in the classical age? Still, I think you can make a case for it, as a late form." CreationDate="2016-07-31T17:27:47.563" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2851" PostId="1300" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yeah, my position on such matters seems to be in a state of constant flux, but at the moment I don't find a lack of attestation in such a case persuasive as a guide to modern usage." CreationDate="2016-08-01T03:05:28.690" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2857" PostId="1301" Score="1" Text="I don't time now to answer, but this isn't a uniquely Latin problem. French doesn't use the article for a profession either, e.g. &quot;Je suis forgeron [de mon métier]&quot; vs. &quot;Je suis [&quot;m'appelle&quot;] Forgeron.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-01T16:43:59.250" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2875" PostId="1301" Score="2" Text="The same in German. “Ich bin Müller“ means “my name is Müller“ or “I am a miller“." CreationDate="2016-08-01T22:44:49.833" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="2887" PostId="1301" Score="0" Text="I think it's the same in almost any language that has professions as names and uses the verb &quot;to be&quot; when referring to one's name" CreationDate="2016-08-03T10:50:11.540" UserId="386" />
  <row Id="3903" PostId="1301" Score="0" Text="@boban. But not (for example) in English, where you must say: &quot;I am a miller&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-04T14:51:11.840" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="3904" PostId="1301" Score="0" Text="@fdb touché, you're right" CreationDate="2016-08-04T14:52:34.440" UserId="386" />
  <row Id="2876" PostId="1302" Score="1" Text="It is true that Faber is not a Roman name. But there is the renaissance writer Jacobus Faber (alias Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples)." CreationDate="2016-08-01T22:56:17.780" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="3908" PostId="1302" Score="0" Text="@fdb That's true—I didn't think about post-classical names. Though it doesn't change my suggestion to use *nomen mihi* or *vocant*." CreationDate="2016-08-04T21:58:43.110" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2859" PostId="1303" Score="1" Text="This topic gets me excited: there is a *huge* swath of Latin literature that is not translated. Not even the complete works of Augustine is fully translated!" CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:51:52.777" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2860" PostId="1303" Score="0" Text="I would be happy to translate any of church fathers, including Augustine. If You know some untranslated work exactly I would be happy to hear. I hope that Latin version of those texts is available on Internet (they should be copyright-free)." CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:55:26.607" UserId="725" />
  <row Id="2861" PostId="1303" Score="0" Text="I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that last year Oxford started to put out a new grammar. They've only released one volume (*Oxford Latin Syntax, volume 1: The Simple Clause*) and I haven't seen it yet but at almost 1,500 pages it has to be, I suspect, fairly comprehensive. :) https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Latin-Syntax-Simple-Clause/dp/0199283613/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1470075412&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=harm+pinkster" CreationDate="2016-08-01T18:19:21.240" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2862" PostId="1303" Score="0" Text="@TomR, Yes, I'd be happy to draft up a quick reply, although I have trouble understanding what you mean by something having &quot;only historical importance.&quot; (The *Sentences of Peter Lombard* are not fully translated, I believe, and yet were the textbook of all scholastics...I *hope* that makes them important.)" CreationDate="2016-08-01T18:26:07.823" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2863" PostId="1303" Score="1" Text="Also, would you mind cleaning up your question a little bit? I am not sure what the question is about *Latinitas*, and the question about grammar should probably be separated from your first query. Check out the [site tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) for more info." CreationDate="2016-08-01T18:27:19.480" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2864" PostId="1303" Score="0" Text="In my opinion - anything written by Church fathers is important. Scientific texts (physics, math, botany, medicine) of 15th-18th centuries can be qualified as unimportant texts, because exact sciences have different opninion what is important and what is not (what is relevant for the advancement of Science here and now). OK, I will have a look on Sentences, that can be sufficient for me." CreationDate="2016-08-01T18:32:49.713" UserId="725" />
  <row Id="2865" PostId="1303" Score="1" Text="Right now this question is extremely broad, as comments have suggested.  It's impossible to list all the Latin texts that fit your definition of &quot;important&quot; that haven't been translated into English here.  Thus, you should divide the question into several questions, asked separately.  For example, 1) untranslated church fathers, 2) untranslated scholastics, 3) untranslated contemporary poetry, etc." CreationDate="2016-08-01T19:16:21.817" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2866" PostId="1303" Score="0" Text="The question about grammars should also be separate, but as it would be a resource recommendation-type question, it would need to be brought up at [Request for most-needed resource questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/12)." CreationDate="2016-08-01T19:18:13.943" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2867" PostId="1303" Score="0" Text="I've put your question &quot;on hold&quot; until you get a chance to narrow/clarify it, at which point it can be easily reopened." CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:20:28.450" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2869" PostId="1303" Score="1" Text="This is a very interesting question, and it will surely be reopened once you narrow it down. I suggest asking for a specific kind of text (your favorite topic, era or author, for example). You can always ask a separate question about some other kind of text later, so making the question more specific doesn't permanently restrict you." CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:47:07.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2868" PostId="1304" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! Have you read somewhere that there was a person with this duty? Any indication of the origin of this idea might help find a word in the literature." CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:41:16.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2873" PostId="1304" Score="2" Text="@Joonas - It was actually information that a professor provided during a lecture years ago, and my brain was itching to recall the term. They correlated it with a modern bartender." CreationDate="2016-08-01T21:54:37.647" UserId="726" />
  <row Id="2871" PostId="1305" Score="2" Text="As a supplement to this, the Vulgate uses the Greek term to refer to the &quot;master of the feast&quot;: [architriclinus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darchitriclinus)" CreationDate="2016-08-01T21:24:12.053" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2872" PostId="1305" Score="0" Text="Interesting!  I wonder what the difference is between that and *symposiarchos*, which is what I found corresponding in Greek." CreationDate="2016-08-01T21:45:32.630" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2874" PostId="1305" Score="0" Text="Wonderful, the sources for context makes it all the more interesting and helpful!" CreationDate="2016-08-01T21:56:43.313" UserId="726" />
  <row Id="2878" PostId="1305" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel I've just spent 30 miins looking this up before I saw your excellent answer! ؛-)" CreationDate="2016-08-02T01:02:18.650" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="2888" PostId="1305" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel I don't know about the magister bibendi, but the symposiarch had charge of a number of aspects of the evening: not just the water-to-wine ratio and how many cups were to be drunk, but also things like what the entertainment/activity was to be to accompany each round of drinking (riddles? word-play? quoting?) and so on." CreationDate="2016-08-03T14:33:30.610" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2879" PostId="1306" Score="0" Text="I just realized after posting that the &quot;son of mine&quot; phrases would probably be best translated with dative *mihi*, but I think it is still a useful example." CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:29:01.743" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2880" PostId="1306" Score="1" Text="Interesting question. I have never seen such use and I guess the answer is &quot;no&quot;, but, as always, proving non-existence is difficult. Would it be a sufficient answer to quote a comprehensive grammar that does not mention that possibility?" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:32:50.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2881" PostId="1306" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, that might work, though it would be nice if there is a grammar that distinctly rejects the construction. I just found [this resource](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_6-Pronouns) that rejects it explicitly, albeit perfunctorily." CreationDate="2016-08-02T14:38:06.460" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2899" PostId="1306" Score="1" Text="I share Joonas's expectation. Another situation where I would expect a genitive, though, is as a genitivus objectivus: *metus tui* &quot;fear of you&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-03T23:46:55.337" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="3912" PostId="1306" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, thoughts on [this quote from Priscian](https://books.google.com/books?id=jm9oAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA213&amp;q=%22mei%20nata%2C%20Lavinia%20est%22)?" CreationDate="2016-08-05T13:27:40.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3913" PostId="1306" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, perplexing. I would read *mei nata* as &quot;the daughter of my son/brother/father/other male related to me&quot;. It seems to me that the verse in the quote speaks about a daughter of some man who is related to the one who speaks. I would need more context (and time) to form a more solid opinion." CreationDate="2016-08-05T13:47:54.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2882" PostId="1307" Score="3" Text="Genitive seems to me like the right choice. See [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DM%3Aentry+group%3D35%3Aentry%3Dminister): there is a number of examples both clasical and ecclesiastical." CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:42:38.967" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="3911" PostId="1307" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, do you want to post that comment as an answer? (Including a couple of relevant examples from L&amp;S or elsewhere would be nice.)" CreationDate="2016-08-05T09:41:15.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3945" PostId="1307" Score="1" Text="Hmm, it turned out to be a little more complex than I thought. A _minister_ is one who assists. The person, institution, etc. being assisted goes in genitive, hence *minister regni*, *minister altaris* and possibly *minister regis*. I can't find a clear link to *minister culturae*, besides the apparent analogy or modern usage." CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:48:15.453" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2898" PostId="1308" Score="1" Text="Good example! As in the example Ben gave, it is easy to parse here because the subject of the main close is not in the third person; *sibi* could not in any sentence refer to *vos*, so one is easily forced into the correct reference (*M. Favonio*). P.S. Are we 100% sure that Clodius had not been overheard talking to *himself*?" CreationDate="2016-08-03T23:26:07.100" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="2883" PostId="1309" Score="4" Text="[L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dipse), meaning F.2, says _Ipse defines the subject of a reflexive pronoun_. It seems you are right. Wouldn't it be disambiguated in the opposite direction by using a third-person pers. pronoun instead of the reflexive? Like in _Dixit Marcum illum odisse_" CreationDate="2016-08-02T16:00:42.523" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5343" PostId="1309" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, I think *Dixit Marcum illum odisse* can only mean &quot;He(1) says that Marcus hates him(2)&quot;, i.e. *illum* would not be the speaker." CreationDate="2016-11-19T23:27:33.597" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8538" PostId="1309" Score="2" Text="Alessandra Bertocchi discussed your Q1 in her 1989 paper &quot;The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors&quot; (in https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.17/main)" CreationDate="2017-05-04T04:36:25.547" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8542" PostId="1309" Score="1" Text="The following [corpus search for &quot;eum se&quot;](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23eum+se%23) includes (amongst &gt;75% false positives) several examples. My quick reading shows the *se* always refers to *eum*, not the other subject." CreationDate="2017-05-04T14:38:00.817" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2897" PostId="1310" Score="6" Text="Will you marry me?" CreationDate="2016-08-03T18:16:09.507" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2889" PostId="1311" Score="1" Text="Surprising finding! Two ideas: 1) conquest is often followed by subjugation, enslavement, binding (especially in ancient times): both could be close, war-related analogies 2) [Col 3,14](http://biblehub.com/colossians/3-14.htm) is at times translated as &quot;Love binds everything together in perfect harmony&quot;, whereas both the Vulgate and the [New Vulgate](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-colossenses_lt.html#3) use the noun *vinculum*." CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:46:59.423" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="2894" PostId="1311" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: I don't understand your second point. *Vinculum* translates (quite literally) *sundesmos*, and I don't see how there is any ambiguity like in the OP's phrase." CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:55:05.240" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="2895" PostId="1311" Score="0" Text="@brianpck no ambiguity in the question: it was just a side comment. I looked up &quot;love binds everything&quot; in search for clues to answer and found that. I thought it was interesting to mention in the comments. The point was partly to point there was no _vincit_ behind that _binds_ too (FWIW)" CreationDate="2016-08-03T17:10:58.057" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14886" PostId="1311" Score="0" Text="One possible source for anyone who wants to write a new answer: Lawrence Durrell, &quot;Tunc&quot; page 21, &quot;Vagina Vinctrix&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-17T18:08:52.683" UserId="2768" />
  <row Id="30615" PostId="1311" Score="0" Text="On a similar note, for a long time I assumed that 'province' came from 'vincere', but today discovered that in fact it is related to 'vincire'." CreationDate="2021-02-02T15:29:47.290" UserId="8937" />
  <row Id="2890" PostId="1312" Score="2" Text="It's probably possible for someone to give an overview of Classical pronunciation in an answer here. That is, explaining how the various letters and syllables are pronounced. Is that what you are looking for?  Or are you looking for some other type of resource?" CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:13:45.657" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2891" PostId="1312" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel Thanks - I'm actually looking for some spoken/audio examples. Back in the 60s, I was taught &quot;v&quot; was pronounced as in &quot;Valley&quot;,  &quot;Caesar&quot; as in &quot;seize 'er&quot;  ;)  etc so I'm going to struggle with modern thoughts on pronunciation!" CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:26:43.240" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="2892" PostId="1312" Score="1" Text="That's tricky, then, because there are so many resources available.  [Here's a passage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#From_Classical_Latin) on Wikipedia, for example, and [here's a guy](http://www.gettingstartedwithlatin.com/) with a free online course offering classical Latin recordings.  There are probably dozens of other examples.  Thus this seems more appropriate as a &quot;big-list&quot; resource question.  See: [Request for most-needed resource questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/12)" CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:38:10.227" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="2896" PostId="1313" Score="3" Text="I was convinced that I was not the first one to observe the double meaning. That quote from Varro is surprising. Isn't the perfect participle of *vincire* actually *vinctus*, not *victus*? I would expect *vinctrix* to be distinguishable from *victrix*." CreationDate="2016-08-03T17:44:41.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3901" PostId="1313" Score="3" Text="I agree: given that L&amp;S does not mention any classical usage of *vinctor*, I would hazard to guess that the average Roman ear wouldn't have too much trouble associating *victrix* and *vinctrix*. Shakespeare is rife with examples in English of similar puns." CreationDate="2016-08-04T14:22:54.030" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3900" PostId="1317" Score="4" Text="Or of course you could include it in metered verse: at the end of a line of dactylic hexameter, for instance, *vox populi* could *only* refer to a poplar without doing violence to the meter (unless there's some obscure rule I'm missing)." CreationDate="2016-08-04T14:12:05.530" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3902" PostId="1317" Score="9" Text="@brianpck, using a metric verse is a good idea! You can fit both meanings in hexameter with elision: *Vox populi statuit sic nunc: vox populi abesto!* &quot;The voice of the people has decided this now: the poplar shall have no voice!&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-04T14:36:07.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3905" PostId="1318" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Some comments: (1) I asked how to use *minister*, not whether I should use it. Your answer is a most welcome comment, though. (2) I understand that ministers serve a people or a monarch, whence subservience is actually natural. (3) In English, ministers are also called secretaries in some contexts. This title also heavily hints at subservience. (4) It probably varies from country to country, but typically the parliament and the government are separate entities and the prime minister does not lead both. The prime minister might not even need to be an MP (this is the case in Finland)." CreationDate="2016-08-04T15:19:40.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3906" PostId="1318" Score="0" Text="[Sorry about the slip -that should have been praepositus.] My own instinct is not to" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:52:15.500" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="3907" PostId="1318" Score="0" Text="[Sorry about the slip -that should have been praepositus.] Whenever this kind of thing crops up, my own instinct is to formulate something that  simply feels sensible. Here, I would have in mind the titles (or job descriptions, if you like) used in classical times - but I see no objection to putting modern idiom into Latin: it seems pointless to strive for an exact equivalence. For instance, I have used the phrase _ad aram ducere_, which is most certainly not classical but turns out to be quite acceptable to all but the narrowest of critics." CreationDate="2016-08-04T19:04:30.403" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="3918" PostId="1318" Score="1" Text="Tom, this actually sounds like an answer to the question I've just asked: [What's the the Latin word for a government minister / secretary?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1324/12)  Since your post doesn't actually address the question asked here, it would get better visibility, and probably more votes, if you posted it there instead." CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:50:09.913" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="3914" PostId="1320" Score="3" Text="I always thought of *quaestio* as a false friend... it's more like an &quot;investigation&quot; than a &quot;question.&quot; I think a Roman would be somewhat surprised if you referred to &quot;what do you want to eat for breakfast?&quot; as a *quaestio*." CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:06:21.653" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3915" PostId="1320" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I agree; the Latin *quaestio* has a much broader meaning than the English &quot;question&quot;. I think the English one is contained in the Latin one, but *quaestio* is probably not the best translation of &quot;question&quot;. The choice of a question word shouldn't matter for the syntax required by *respondere*, though." CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:11:59.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3910" PostId="1321" Score="0" Text="Thanks! *Responsum dare* is indeed a good idea. Do you think it's the only option, or could *respondere* work as well?" CreationDate="2016-08-05T09:30:32.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3916" PostId="1323" Score="1" Text="Many thanks! Perhaps the quote from Plautus could be read as an internal object (like &quot;hoc respondeo&quot;) which often replaces other syntax with a plain accusative." CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:28:41.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3917" PostId="1323" Score="0" Text="A technical note: @-pings don't work in answers. It's not against any rule, of course, but it doesn't do anything." CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:31:37.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3919" PostId="1323" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, actually I'm not familiar with what you mean by &quot;internal object.&quot; What's an example?" CreationDate="2016-08-05T23:36:01.543" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3921" PostId="1323" Score="0" Text="The construction has many names, including &quot;cognate accusative&quot;. [Here](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.390.html) are several examples. Simple examples: *id laetor*, *hoc assentior*, *pugnam pugnare*, *vitam vivere*. The object is typically a pronoun or a noun related to the verb." CreationDate="2016-08-06T07:48:20.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3994" PostId="1326" Score="0" Text="Note that this version of the Confiteor is missing the &quot;omissione&quot; after verbo et opere. This is striking to modern ears, for whom &quot;deeds and omissions&quot; had become sort of idiomatic. Of course it was a modern addition." CreationDate="2016-08-10T06:18:19.290" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="3996" PostId="1326" Score="1" Text="@Francesco: Yes, the 1970 version begins: &quot;Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, et vobis fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-10T13:16:19.113" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3997" PostId="1326" Score="0" Text="that's exact the wording. I had already up voted your answer :-)" CreationDate="2016-08-10T13:19:04.357" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="3920" PostId="1327" Score="0" Text="+1. Wouldn't *princeps* be a literal translation of *archon*?" CreationDate="2016-08-06T01:58:46.983" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3922" PostId="1327" Score="1" Text="+1. My understanding is that ministers are indeed subordinates. They serve the people/president/king/parliament/whatever; I believe that's why the Latin word *minister* was adapted to English and other languages in this sense. But this doesn't imply that *minister* is the best translation of &quot;minister&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-06T07:59:41.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3923" PostId="1329" Score="2" Text="Good question. Does *interim* contain the same suffix?" CreationDate="2016-08-06T13:23:31.673" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="3924" PostId="1329" Score="1" Text="If you want to sidestep the problem *facultates seriatim* conveys one-by-one. Or, a word for randomly occurs in the Evangelium board-game; I think it's *sparsim.*" CreationDate="2016-08-06T13:49:44.700" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="3925" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I'm not sure. Not all words ending in *-im* have a similar meaning, so I suspect there are at least two suffices. I guess that *interim* has a (semantically) different suffix (*-im*?), but it's just a guess." CreationDate="2016-08-06T14:23:21.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3926" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="@Hugh, *sparsim* means &quot;scatteredly&quot; or &quot;here and there&quot;, so it doesn't really fit the sequential nature. But *facultates seriatim* is a good idea! I added an example sentence in my question so that any suggested phrase can be adapted to a full sentence. I don't know how to use *seriatim* in that sentence, but there must be a way..." CreationDate="2016-08-06T14:29:11.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3929" PostId="1329" Score="1" Text="Seems like *facultatim* would be using the suffix *-im*, not *-tim*, since the stem of the noun is *facultat-*." CreationDate="2016-08-06T19:33:55.293" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="3930" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="A possible workaround would be something like *singuli e facultatibus*." CreationDate="2016-08-06T19:35:12.183" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="3931" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="@TKR, true, but *facultatatim* sounds bad. Perhaps one could argue *facultattim &gt; facultatim*. I am admittedly puzzled about this suffix, and that's why I ask. Perhaps *e singulis facultatibus* would emphasize that it's one faculty at a time, not just one doctor at a time (which is more obvious in the context)." CreationDate="2016-08-06T20:18:21.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3933" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="I'd be a little suspicious of a form like *facultatim* because there don't seem to be any attested words with *-tim* or *-im* formed from a noun in *-tat-* (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=tatim&amp;lang=la). *E singulis facultatibus* works well, I think." CreationDate="2016-08-06T20:29:25.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="3936" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="@TKR, the lack of sufficient precedent is actually what drove me to ask this question. My attempt is indeed suspicious, but it is the best one-word translation I know and will probably be understood correctly. *E singulis facultatibus* is certainly a much safer choice." CreationDate="2016-08-06T22:04:32.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3938" PostId="1329" Score="1" Text="The Oxford English Dictionary lists only the suffix *-im*, not *\*-tim*. It says *interim, partim, ceterim, paulatim* contain this suffix *-im*, which probably originates in an old accusative form of a nominative ending *-is*. It seems the *-t-* before it is a separate suffix, possibly related to the *-t-* in supine stems." CreationDate="2016-08-07T01:10:53.170" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="3939" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, interesting! Perhaps that makes *facultatim* a bit more credible, given that the stem is *facultat-*. Do you want to give that dictionary entry as a (partial) answer?" CreationDate="2016-08-07T11:03:43.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3952" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I'm not sure: it seems relevant, but doesn't answer your question directly (it doesn't say anything about productivity or about *facultatim*). I do think *facultatim* is all right, though." CreationDate="2016-08-07T21:59:21.583" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="3953" PostId="1329" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I'm not sure I can get a full direct answer at all; there might be too little evidence to judge productivity. Therefore details about the suffix *-im/-tim* would make a welcome partial answer." CreationDate="2016-08-07T22:11:12.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3940" PostId="1330" Score="1" Text="This is pretty good for most major modern countries, but is there some compendium and/or convention for the names of other, smaller countries?" CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:01:40.577" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="3941" PostId="1330" Score="0" Text="@SamK, not that I know of, alas. Vicipaedia is not always that reliable and not all countries are mentioned in Latin news. I hope someone finds a more complete list somewhere." CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:08:53.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3974" PostId="1330" Score="2" Text="I have always heard *Civitates Foederatae Americae* for the USA." CreationDate="2016-08-08T21:27:49.277" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3976" PostId="1330" Score="0" Text="When I was in Luxembourg I recall seeing a sign along the lines of &quot;Lucem&quot; with a c rather than a x. Maybe I am misremembering." CreationDate="2016-08-09T09:32:11.277" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="13907" PostId="1330" Score="2" Text="Several of these have ancient names, e.g. Hibernia (Ireland), or Illyria (Albania) and of course Persia (Iran)." CreationDate="2018-04-30T23:26:49.093" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23057" PostId="1330" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the macrons! I appreciate that. And the apices?" CreationDate="2019-11-03T11:10:02.290" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23066" PostId="1330" Score="0" Text="@Quidam [Apices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)) were used to mark vowel lengths, but the moderns standard is to use the macron. If you are asking about stress (the acute accent does indeed look like an apex), it follows the regular stress rules." CreationDate="2019-11-03T17:49:28.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23074" PostId="1330" Score="0" Text="I see both, macrons and apices in some texts and dictionaries." CreationDate="2019-11-04T13:18:26.707" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23076" PostId="1330" Score="0" Text="@Quidam If you're puzzled, I recommend asking a question about their difference. If you do so, please include a screenshot of such texts and dictionaries, so we can really judge what is meant in that context. And see if the used symbols are explained." CreationDate="2019-11-04T15:47:23.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23092" PostId="1330" Score="0" Text="I'm not really puzzled, but thanks." CreationDate="2019-11-06T21:56:07.117" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="3928" PostId="1331" Score="0" Text="The choice of *facultas* as &quot;faculty&quot; is already given to me, so the question is really whether *facultatim* is a correct form. Thanks for the confirmation! The general question about *-tim* remains open, but help with my special case is much appreciated." CreationDate="2016-08-06T18:51:26.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3932" PostId="1332" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Formatting hint: You can break a row by adding two spaces at the end of a line. Paragraph change (leaving an empty row) might not be what you want. I added a tag, but I'll leave the formatting for you to decide." CreationDate="2016-08-06T20:23:30.977" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3934" PostId="1332" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks a lot I didn't know that! :)" CreationDate="2016-08-06T21:05:12.293" UserId="740" />
  <row Id="14844" PostId="1332" Score="0" Text="Congrats. I've added your answer to the question." CreationDate="2018-07-15T20:29:06.480" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18235" PostId="1332" Score="0" Text="I have an idea for rest in serenity, for my deceased son. I was looking up Latin and found this. Looks good Bud " CreationDate="2019-01-21T05:33:11.607" UserId="3305" />
  <row Id="18240" PostId="1332" Score="0" Text="@KathleenSmith I'm sorry to hear about your son; if you want any translation help, feel free to ask a question here." CreationDate="2019-01-22T14:55:15.413" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="3935" PostId="1333" Score="0" Text="Wow, thanks for the details response! I was pretty sure the Wiki translation would be bad, bu tbh I don't know anything about latin, and as I want to tattoo this prayer on my skin, it's important that the translation is correct! :D Concerning the order of sentences, I'd keep the original one, as it's in that particular order this prayer helped me change my life: first I learned to stop worrying about things I can't change, which allowed me to focus more on things I can! :)" CreationDate="2016-08-06T21:20:49.610" UserId="740" />
  <row Id="3937" PostId="1333" Score="0" Text="Precision: are the commas and their position important?" CreationDate="2016-08-07T00:44:02.253" UserId="740" />
  <row Id="3949" PostId="1333" Score="0" Text="@rAthus: Well, the Romans didn't use commas at all (or spaces, or lowercase letters...). In modernly punctuated texts the above would probably be the most likely punctuation, but you could get away with eliminating all the commas except the first and/or changing the semicolons to commas." CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:52:39.500" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="14816" PostId="1333" Score="0" Text="TKR I encourage you to have a look at the answer I just posted to myself if you want to see the result of your help :)" CreationDate="2018-07-13T13:32:06.663" UserId="740" />
  <row Id="3957" PostId="1334" Score="8" Text="I think they're in the fish tank at a dentist's office in Sydney." CreationDate="2016-08-08T00:44:41.527" UserId="745" />
  <row Id="3947" PostId="1335" Score="0" Text="Interesting! The linked translation has a footnote citing some other source. Can you (or someone else) find what is said there?" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:33:43.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3948" PostId="1335" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I found it on p. 166 of this German book (warning, large PDF): https://ia902606.us.archive.org/13/items/kritikundhermene00birtuoft/kritikundhermene00birtuoft.pdf. It seems to be supporting the &quot;lascivious&quot; reading but I don't find it terribly helpful (though I may be missing some nuances of the German)." CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:49:11.380" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="3961" PostId="1335" Score="4" Text="Can't *purus* also mean &quot;unmixed&quot; or &quot;unadulterated&quot;? In which case maybe it's &quot;he's a total penis&quot; or &quot;he's all penis [and nothing else]&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:20:57.807" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3963" PostId="1335" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Oh, I like that interpretation! It hadn't occurred to me." CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:31:49.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="3950" PostId="1337" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the answer and welcome to the site! I don't see a problem with these forms either, and I wonder why they are so often excluded. And for the record, it doesn't sound goofy to me in Finnish. (I suggest taking a look at our [tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) and registering your account; it makes using the site easier for you in the future.) Hic certe licet et Latine scribere. Si rogata vel responsa dare voles, utravis lingua uti poteris." CreationDate="2016-08-07T20:14:11.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3956" PostId="1337" Score="0" Text="Salvus sis, Mentifex!" CreationDate="2016-08-07T23:08:59.323" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3965" PostId="1337" Score="2" Text="I'm no expert, but the lack of plurals strikes me as entirely logical - we have the same in English. The British Royal Family are famous for using &quot;one&quot; to refer to themselves, but it does not exist in the plural.  And - if **no one** came, then, logically,  6, 12, 100 didn't! As for your last point, the natural (if rude!)  answer to &quot;Whom were you speaking to?&quot; would be &quot;**No-one** important.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-08T12:24:44.123" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="3969" PostId="1337" Score="3" Text="Can you provide a source for *nemine contradicente*? I can only find legal references. The other part of your answer seems pretty opinion-based--I think the underlying question is whether these forms &quot;disappeared&quot; or just never existed." CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:59:26.420" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="38842" PostId="1337" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I know *nem. con.* as a standard phrase in committee meeting minutes, so you might find references in Robert's Rules of Order or other similar texts." CreationDate="2022-07-11T13:24:31.997" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="3967" PostId="1338" Score="0" Text="The current answers provide the source of the phrase you are using, but are you also looking for earlier, native formulations of the same idea in Latin?" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:26:36.080" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4029" PostId="1338" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yes, I'd like to have such formulations as well." CreationDate="2016-08-13T17:15:35.433" UserId="744" />
  <row Id="3958" PostId="1339" Score="0" Text="The quote from Epictetus is ἀρχὴ παιδεύσεως ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίσκεψις, Discourses 1.17.12, where it is ascribed to Antisthenes: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0235%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D17." CreationDate="2016-08-08T00:56:30.457" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="3960" PostId="1339" Score="0" Text="@TKR Do you want to write your own answer to this question? I could go back and edit mine to be correct but it would be completely based on the information you gave, and I'm loath to take the credit for your knowledge!" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:10:12.437" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3962" PostId="1339" Score="0" Text="I've posted an answer, but I was led to the Greek original by your reference to Epictetus, so I think you deserve as much credit here as I do!" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:31:06.323" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37101" PostId="1341" Score="0" Text="It was interesting re-reading the etymology of mêlée, and learning that its Latin origin (mêlée &lt; meslee ≡ medley &lt; medlee (variant of meslee); meslee &lt; *misculāre) suggests how chaotic battle mêlée presumably was – quite far removed from the macro-level skirmish or battle." CreationDate="2022-02-09T12:42:58.527" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="3970" PostId="1343" Score="1" Text="I had never heard of *comminus* before, but it looks very suitable for my purpose. I'm sure I can figure out a way to use it to express what I want." CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:17:09.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3993" PostId="1343" Score="1" Text="Hmm. The problem is that in the Roman period almost all combat was up close and personal. It's the norm, whereas fighting via the available distance weapons was not even considered to be *combat*." CreationDate="2016-08-10T02:23:35.280" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="3995" PostId="1343" Score="2" Text="@andy256, I can get on board with that, but I'm not sure how that bears on the current question, which has to do with explicitly stating that a conflict/weapon is for close combat. Romans also had projectiles, and the quote from Cicero demonstrates that there certainly is an explicit distinction to be made." CreationDate="2016-08-10T13:13:32.330" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3998" PostId="1343" Score="2" Text="@andy256, and now that I think of it, I strongly disagree that projectile fighting was not considered combat: consider Achilles vs Hector or Aeneas vs Turnus, who each began their duels with spear-throwing. This was undoubtedly a big part of their *combat*." CreationDate="2016-08-10T13:21:15.503" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4001" PostId="1343" Score="1" Text="@brianpck You make telling points!" CreationDate="2016-08-10T14:20:28.887" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="3977" PostId="1346" Score="0" Text="I wonder whether this is a calque on &quot;Anschrift&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-09T11:53:00.200" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="3979" PostId="1346" Score="1" Text="@fdb That would make sense—the Germans are particularly involved in the living Latin movement." CreationDate="2016-08-09T12:06:55.727" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3981" PostId="1346" Score="1" Text="If I am speaking English I might say “my address in Paris is 2, rue des Tuileries”. I would not translate the street name (unless for comic effect). The same is surely true for Latin." CreationDate="2016-08-09T12:46:41.633" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="3982" PostId="1346" Score="1" Text="I was going for comic effect. :)" CreationDate="2016-08-09T12:47:37.907" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3980" PostId="1349" Score="0" Text="Probably it would. I, however, am not going to risk my neck by using it. Living Latinists can be VERY firm in their opinions. . . ." CreationDate="2016-08-09T12:09:32.147" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3984" PostId="1350" Score="1" Text="It's a shame that &quot;Quirites&quot; won't really do. :)" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:27:34.393" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3985" PostId="1350" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner, *Quirites* does &quot;comment the circumstances&quot; a bit too much. :o) But there are situations for that one as well..." CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:39:01.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3987" PostId="1350" Score="2" Text="For what it's worth, I have always used either _dominae dominique_ or _feminae virique_, though I can't back that up with any sources. It's just what I use." CreationDate="2016-08-09T20:08:19.380" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="3988" PostId="1350" Score="1" Text="@SamK, I quite like *dominae dominique*. You can write that as an answer. I didn't demand authentic expressions, so it should be fine." CreationDate="2016-08-09T20:31:50.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3990" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="Do you mean that the subjunctive mood here might actually be a form of politeness, since the sentence actually gives a command to the deity?" CreationDate="2016-08-09T22:58:36.790" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="3991" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="Thanks for running down so many examples from such authoritative and influential sources! It is quite interesting and informative that _dico, scio,_ etc. always take the indicative, while _cogito, videtur,_ and the like predominantly but not exclusively take the subjunctive." CreationDate="2016-08-09T23:02:16.477" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="3992" PostId="1352" Score="1" Text="No, I really don't think politeness is involved: *cogitavit quod Albertus tecum esset* uses the subjunctive because of the subjectivity of *cogitare* (though perhaps that is a bad example, since this implies that the opposite is true, which is not the case for *memini*)" CreationDate="2016-08-09T23:58:59.967" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4021" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="Would the shade of meaning then be emphasis on the Redeemer's _mind_ rather than on the act of taking human form? Indeed, the translation I linked to renders it as &quot;Be mindful, creator…&quot; In other words, &quot;Keep in mind that…&quot; rather than simply &quot;Recall that…&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-08-12T22:48:02.587" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4025" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="Actually, rereading and noting the italics in the last sentence of your answer has finally gotten the point to sink in: the subjunctive emphasizes the person doing the remembering, holding the _quod_ proposition in relation to that person. Can you add to your answer one of the examples you found of _meminisse quod_ with an indicative verb? The contrast with a subjunctive example might bring out the difference in meaning or emphasis especially clearly (similarly to the very enlightening contrast between _dico, scio_ and _cogito, videtur_)." CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:11:15.177" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="24577" PostId="1352" Score="1" Text="The subjunctive emphasizes what is going on in someone's mind, whether true or not. It does not by itself imply counterfactual propositions (even though counterfactuals obviously exist only in someone's mind). For instance the sentence, &quot;Scio qui sis&quot; (I know who you are) does not imply that &quot;who you are&quot; is counterfactual, it just means that the sentence is mostly about what I know, and only secondarily about who you are. &quot;Scio qui es&quot; would mean something quite different, something almost nonsensical, &quot;I know you, who are&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-19T16:03:04.593" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24578" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="Lewis and Short have several instances of Classical Latin using the subjunctive with &quot;memento&quot;: [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmemini]." CreationDate="2020-03-19T16:11:43.947" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26227" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: In &quot;Pater Omnipotens&quot;: &quot;...mandatum fideliter impleverunt quod Filius tuus Iesus Christus suis crediderat Apostolis&quot; = &quot;...faithfully fulfilled the command that your son Jesus Christ had entrusted to his Apostles;&quot; there is &quot;memento quod + indicative, &quot;crediderat&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-08T10:07:16.493" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26318" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: A further example of the &quot;memento quod + perfect subjunctive&quot; from the Vulgate (Job 10.9): &quot;memento quaeso quod sicut lutum me feceris et in pulverem me reduces?&quot; = &quot;Remember that you have made me of clay and will you turn me to dust again?&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-15T12:57:37.473" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26463" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="@Figulus I was just about to suggest that you post that as an answer, and then saw that you posted it and deleted it. How'd you like to undelete it and see what comments it gets from others? If emphasizing what is in the mind is the reason why _memento quod_ usually takes the subjunctive, I'd like to know!" CreationDate="2020-05-22T17:56:06.143" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="26466" PostId="1352" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Did it. Thanks for the feedback!" CreationDate="2020-05-23T00:21:55.800" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="4002" PostId="1354" Score="0" Text="I hadn't realized that there is a difference in stem. Do you know how to find the stem for the derivative? (If there is an answer but it doesn't fit in a comment, let me know and I'll ask it as a separate question.)" CreationDate="2016-08-10T16:03:51.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4016" PostId="1354" Score="0" Text="Honestly, I am not sure--Miller is my authority here. Vowel quantities were never my strong suit :)" CreationDate="2016-08-12T01:21:57.490" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4018" PostId="1354" Score="0" Text="I asked it as [a separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1363/79) in case someone knows." CreationDate="2016-08-12T07:37:52.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4012" PostId="1356" Score="3" Text="Grammatical genders are &quot;masculine&quot; and &quot;feminine&quot;. Natural sexes are &quot;male&quot; and &quot;female&quot;. These terms are not interchangeable." CreationDate="2016-08-10T23:42:45.157" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4009" PostId="1357" Score="0" Text="Thanks. That was a stupid question though. Sorry. I was just so confused by _[Patriarchatus Venetiarum](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1355/in-what-case-is-venetiarum-in-patriarchatus-venetiarum)_ that I started to look up the Latin names of different dioceses and while still trying to figure out if _Venetiarum_ is a noun or an adjective I noticed that _Mediolanensis_ is not inflected either and started to wonder if this couldn't also be some kind of weird noun." CreationDate="2016-08-10T21:08:01.683" UserId="750" />
  <row Id="4010" PostId="1357" Score="2" Text="@PatVen, no problem. Many questions turn out to be silly in retrospect, but that only shows that something became clear or certain and asking the question was a good idea. The question might be at an elementary level, but it doesn't make it stupid or useless." CreationDate="2016-08-10T21:23:48.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4011" PostId="1357" Score="3" Text="+1, as a quick supplement for the curious: *Mediolanensis* means &quot;Milanese&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-10T21:54:50.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4006" PostId="1358" Score="0" Text="Ah, thanks, that clears it up. I thought it looks like a plural genetive but since I don't really master the declensions yet and because other dioceses use adjectives I was left totally confused. Obviously didn't know that Venice is plural in Latin. Should have checked [here](http://www.nihilscio.it/Manuali/Lingua%20latina/Verbi/Coniugazione_latino.asp?verbo=venetia%20&amp;lang=EN_) instead of [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Venetia#Latin)." CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:46:10.340" UserId="750" />
  <row Id="15250" PostId="1358" Score="0" Text="There are numerous city names that are plural not only in Latin and Greek, but even in English, e.g. Athenae Athens, Thebae Thebes etc." CreationDate="2018-08-15T10:28:22.920" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4013" PostId="1360" Score="0" Text="This is yet another case where my intuition fights against Latin grammar, but I will have to accept attested classical guidelines. I hope my recent email with *fieri potest, quod* was understood without confusion..." CreationDate="2016-08-11T18:29:51.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4015" PostId="1360" Score="0" Text="Does it help at all to think of Greek ὡς?" CreationDate="2016-08-12T01:17:15.980" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4017" PostId="1360" Score="0" Text="Not really. I am such a barbarian that I don't know much about Greek syntax." CreationDate="2016-08-12T07:08:14.977" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4023" PostId="1362" Score="0" Text="It's funny—I've read Zumpt about 400 times, and neither this nor practically any of the other stuff on conjunctions ever made any sense to me. It still kind of doesn't—I'm delighted that there are others for whom that isn't the case!" CreationDate="2016-08-13T02:29:23.463" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4024" PostId="1362" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner, Did I say I wasn't confused? :)" CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:05:11.940" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4019" PostId="1363" Score="0" Text="I can't find *partitura* on the Perseus dictionary tool, nor *paritura* (which is the form mentioned in the previous question)." CreationDate="2016-08-12T18:11:47.273" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4020" PostId="1363" Score="0" Text="(I mean that I can't find *paritura* as a noun, rather than a fut. ppl.)" CreationDate="2016-08-12T18:23:46.970" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4022" PostId="1365" Score="1" Text="I think your analysis makes sense, and it fits with the way I've always translated the two expressions—*argumentum ad* is &quot;appeal to&quot; and *argumentum a* is &quot;argument [derived] from.&quot; The *argumentum a cohærentia* isn't really an appeal TO coherence, which is located in the listener—it's an appeal whose BAISIS IS (putative) coherence located in the argument. (Of course the *baculum* isn't located in the listener but it pertains more to the listener than to the argument!)" CreationDate="2016-08-12T23:34:56.973" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4030" PostId="1365" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner That's an interesting way to translate _argumentum._ I've never been sure whether to think of it as &quot;appeal&quot; or &quot;argument&quot;; apparently it really is both, with the preposition clarifying as needed. BTW, what led me to this question was finding that Wikipedia had [renamed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argumentum_a_fortiori#Move_request) its article &quot;_A fortiori_ argument&quot; to &quot;_Argumentum a fortiori_&quot;, apparently by analogy with the _argumentum ad_ phrases. Have you found the _argumentum a_ phrases in actual use?" CreationDate="2016-08-13T19:00:30.697" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4031" PostId="1365" Score="0" Text="I haven't, but I've also never read logic in Latin, so that's hardly a surprise." CreationDate="2016-08-13T19:17:36.993" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4032" PostId="1367" Score="1" Text="It's vice versā; &quot;vice&quot; is the ablative of &quot;vicis.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-13T21:35:57.423" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4034" PostId="1367" Score="1" Text="Is the neuter nominative or accusative ever confusing? And how about past simple *read* and past participle *read* in English? I think they can occasionally be confusing, but mostly it depends on how easy it is for you, as a reader, to keep both possibilities in your mind. If the sentence is long, or if you're less experienced and need a lot of brain capacity dealing with other aspects of the sentence, then it becomes harder." CreationDate="2016-08-13T22:44:20.127" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4043" PostId="1367" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus I do often misread present-tense and past-participle _read,_ and I almost never misread noun and verb _suspect._ If I was learning English as a second language, I think I'd find it useful to know that about native speakers. So far, I'm confused by nominative and accusative neuters much more often than by unmarked 1st-decl. ablatives, but the latter is all I'm asking about here. I'm actually motivated half by learning Latin and half by curiosity about what useful role, if any, the case markers are fulfilling if they're not needed." CreationDate="2016-08-14T22:17:47.053" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="19160" PostId="1367" Score="0" Text="Learned long after posting this question: The existence of [Humanistic Latin Orthography](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6157/118) (and note Quintilian's remark) suggests that some people wanted it clarified; its demise suggests that the clarification wasn't so important." CreationDate="2019-04-08T17:39:44.920" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4033" PostId="1370" Score="0" Text="I share this experience." CreationDate="2016-08-13T22:20:06.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4044" PostId="1370" Score="0" Text="English is arguably even more confusing - you can catch a ball, catch a train, catch a cold! *Catch* means something different in each case (pardon the pun), it depends on context." CreationDate="2016-08-15T00:16:30.890" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4065" PostId="1370" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose Indeed English is way, way more confusing—or rather, in English, determining a word's part of speech or a noun's &quot;case&quot; depends much more on context than in &quot;fusional&quot; languages like Latin. This is a big obstacle for non-natives learning English. Many think they go by rules one word at a time but really English doesn't work that way. Latin seems at first glance to let you parse each word independently of the sentence, but after a while you see that you need context for at least some parsing. In this question, I'm focusing on just one specific form of context-dependence in Latin." CreationDate="2016-08-19T12:07:33.077" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4066" PostId="1370" Score="0" Text="Joel, thanks for letting me know about holding multiple options in your head until disambiguation comes. I've been wondering about this for a l-o-n-g time! So…if you were reading aloud, _and_ you lengthened that ablative final _-ā_ (speaking [hypothetically](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1369/118), of course), would you have to backtrack fairly often? _Exempli gratia profecto omnium est optima gratiarum._ OK, that's a ridiculous example, but hopefully it illustrates what I'm asking (or at least made you laugh)." CreationDate="2016-08-19T12:32:29.853" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4067" PostId="1370" Score="0" Text="I suppose I might. Then again, word order gives hints in prose, and scansion of course in poetry. So maybe *sometimes* rather than *fairly often*. :)" CreationDate="2016-08-19T14:20:37.333" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4045" PostId="1375" Score="0" Text="Euclid and Archimedes are surely &quot;real science&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-15T11:33:45.907" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4046" PostId="1375" Score="0" Text="Yeah, it's unbelievably anachronistic to talk about &quot;real science&quot; in this context... sorry :) Sweeping more than a thousand years under the rug is just uncalled for (@fdb was rightly referring to Greco-Roman achievements--I am also including medieval achievements)" CreationDate="2016-08-15T12:19:45.150" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4058" PostId="1375" Score="1" Text="Re your edit, perhaps if you said &quot;modern science&quot; instead of &quot;real science&quot; I would be more comfortable with this. I subconsciously read &quot;real&quot; as belittling all precedent as &quot;fake.&quot; Ironically enough, many more &quot;philosophical&quot; writers would probably belittle modern quantitative science as overly superficial: true *scientia* for them would be knowledge of causes, not phenomena." CreationDate="2016-08-16T20:56:35.530" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4059" PostId="1375" Score="0" Text="Well, I'd call alchemy and astrology fake. The former still lingered, even with Newton, its last famous (if secretive) proponent. After that, we got the founding discoveries: basic laws (Boyle, Hooke) leading over a long period to understanding of, say, thermodynamics, reaction kinetics and the periodic table. Superficial indeed!." CreationDate="2016-08-17T09:30:16.590" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4060" PostId="1375" Score="0" Text="My point was simply that the (probable) medieval view of modern science is just as short-sighted as your dismissal of medieval achievements. By implicitly reducing medieval science to &quot;alchemy and astrology,&quot; you are ignoring the logical, philosophical, and scientific achievements of luminaries like Bonaventure, Boethius, Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas, and *many* more." CreationDate="2016-08-17T12:33:42.473" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4061" PostId="1375" Score="0" Text="If you really think that is my position, I doubt I’ll ever persuade you otherwise. As Galileo showed by dropping weights from the Leaning Tower, supposed logical deduction might be useful, but was no substitute for experiment in practical matters. That was not to rubbish those whom you mention, but to extend philosophy into a practical field - a step-change, in the modern idiom. It is this new &quot;natural philosophy&quot; that grew into modern science (as it wasn't called until the 19th century).  As Newton pointed out,it did not discredit earlier thinkers' efforts, which were natural precursors." CreationDate="2016-08-17T20:39:33.957" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4062" PostId="1375" Score="0" Text="We're obviously talking over each other, and I don't think we really disagree all that much--but I won't pursue the matter :)" CreationDate="2016-08-17T20:42:46.520" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4036" PostId="1376" Score="1" Text="Correction: Allen's can be downloaded at https://archive.org/details/doctrinacopularu00alle" CreationDate="2016-08-14T16:44:50.780" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4037" PostId="1376" Score="12" Text="can you try to distill that explanation into an answer?" CreationDate="2016-08-14T19:13:43.863" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4038" PostId="1376" Score="0" Text="_Doctrina copularum linguæ latinæ_: very neat. I didn't know a whole book was written on the subject. thank you" CreationDate="2016-08-14T20:54:16.277" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="39318" PostId="1376" Score="1" Text="Smith and Hall's explanation can be found online on Latinitium: https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh962" CreationDate="2022-08-28T03:39:23.740" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="4048" PostId="1381" Score="2" Text="Welcome!  These sorts of questions can be pretty easily answered with online tools like etymonline.com – see, for example, their entry on [*imperative*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=imperative&amp;allowed_in_frame=0).  Is that what you are looking for?  Or is there something more specific about your question?" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:54:46.563" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4051" PostId="1384" Score="1" Text="This usage is mentioned in the [Wikipedia article for *eszett*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F#Other_languages). It doesn't have any sources, though, so I don't want to post that as an answer." CreationDate="2016-08-16T14:02:31.997" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4052" PostId="1384" Score="1" Text="Yes, I saw the wikipedia entry, but I wondered if light could be shed on the difference in uses because I cannot find any pattern to when &quot;ß&quot; and &quot;ss&quot; are applied: in the wikipedia entry, it gives &quot;eße&quot; as an example, but in my text, two esses are used for the same word." CreationDate="2016-08-16T14:12:43.303" UserId="763" />
  <row Id="4053" PostId="1384" Score="3" Text="My suspicion is that this was more of a typographical decision than an orthographical one, and that there were no firm rules in place about which to use. The eszett is just a combination of the long and short s. Again, though, that's just my hunch." CreationDate="2016-08-16T14:24:55.290" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4056" PostId="1384" Score="4" Text="The word in your first example is consessui. The &quot;n&quot; is indicated by the squiggle over the &quot;o&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-16T17:35:16.247" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4069" PostId="1386" Score="1" Text="The Catholic Church used sign language almost exclusively in her monastic institutions, notably in the Benedictine and Trappist monasteries and was adopted to local traditions and languages. Watch Thomas Merton’s Sense of Humor and the Use of Trappist Sign Language on [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8dO8o_f4qM)" CreationDate="2016-08-21T02:02:46.517" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="4070" PostId="1386" Score="0" Text="@KenGraham That's extremely interesting... so I guess the question there is, were they all based on local languages?  Seems like Latin would have been a good candidate for one..." CreationDate="2016-08-21T02:07:49.757" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4071" PostId="1386" Score="0" Text="The more intellectual houses of formation would certainly be based on Latin, especially the ones in which Latin was used as the spoken language within the cloister. ." CreationDate="2016-08-21T02:13:40.430" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="4064" PostId="1388" Score="2" Text="I'm now imagining the phrase *tunc . . . cunc . . .* :)" CreationDate="2016-08-18T20:13:15.097" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4072" PostId="1388" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S has this to say: &quot;Undue weight has been given by some critics to opposition to nunc and connection with cum; cf. Kritz ad Sall. J. 5, 1; Zumpt ad Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 64, § 142; 2, 5, 10, § 27. Both tum and tunc are freq. opposed to nunc, and connected with cum. &quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-21T10:00:05.673" UserId="113" />
  <row Id="4081" PostId="1388" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton, great answer. Do you know what &quot;stronger&quot; means in this case? Does *tunc* suggest that X is no longer the case?" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:53:35.067" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4068" PostId="1389" Score="3" Text="Quite a lot of info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_finger#Classical_era" CreationDate="2016-08-20T20:41:02.293" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4080" PostId="1393" Score="2" Text="As an interesting aside, the neuter article in Spanish is *only* used for this kind of substantivizing, e.g. *lo bueno*, *lo posible*" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:45:13.407" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4073" PostId="1395" Score="2" Text="The Latin word *mensa* means a table. Are you asking whether the Latin words *mens* and *mensa* are related or whether the name of the club is related to the word *mens*? Either way, the question is interesting, but I want to make sure I understand your goal." CreationDate="2016-08-22T02:40:02.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4074" PostId="1395" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Are mens and mensa related, or is it just a coincidence that mensa, the table, is the same word as mensa the genius club? Were there, by chance, even two different derivations?" CreationDate="2016-08-22T02:42:32.967" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="4075" PostId="1395" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Here's an example (from Chinese SE), where a &quot;bench&quot; refers to a (legal) &quot;case.&quot;http://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/5623/%E6%A1%88-why-is-a-bench-also-a-case/5744#5744 I was wondering if there might be a similar connection." CreationDate="2016-08-22T09:46:03.607" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="4090" PostId="1395" Score="0" Text="Incidentally, I believe Mensa was actually originally supposed to be called Mens, but that name was too similar to the English word *men's*." CreationDate="2016-08-22T23:44:03.120" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4091" PostId="1395" Score="0" Text="@TKR: It is sometimes &quot;accidents&quot; like this that make for great literature and good questions. For instance, &quot;Enron&quot; was originally &quot;Enteron,&quot; until somebody realized it meant &quot;intestine.&quot; They should have stuck with that name." CreationDate="2016-08-22T23:45:28.250" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="23657" PostId="1395" Score="0" Text="*Mensa* also means Dining Hall in the German accademic environment, where the sharp minds meet after work, so to speak." CreationDate="2019-12-12T13:16:40.710" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="18837" PostId="1396" Score="0" Text="Just interested: What does your friend mean with &quot;Turner of Hearts&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-03-11T11:01:11.433" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="4077" PostId="1397" Score="2" Text="For the record, I don't think your definition (&quot;served, returned to civilian life, can be called back&quot;) fits the typical American idea of a [military reserve force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserve_force)." CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:09:34.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4085" PostId="1397" Score="2" Text="@brianpck, my starting point was in the Finnish military reserve force. I can imagine there are and have been various ways to organize reserve forces, and therefore I asked for a description with a translation. I want to find a Latin expression for troops that have been trained but are not in active duty but can be called back to it, whatever the details may be." CreationDate="2016-08-22T17:31:29.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4078" PostId="1398" Score="3" Text="Thanks for the contribution! For those who don't have access to an academic library, can you perhaps provide a little more details of your paper thesis, or the location of your citation from Varro?" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:14:57.080" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4087" PostId="1398" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! I will try to see if I can find that article somewhere. Meanwhile, as @brianpck mentions, it would be good if you could add some more details for the benefit of those users without access to your article." CreationDate="2016-08-22T17:44:41.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4124" PostId="1398" Score="0" Text="I can privately provide an offprint of the paper. Just send me an email to juria@unizar.es" CreationDate="2016-08-24T16:03:08.233" UserId="769" />
  <row Id="4179" PostId="1398" Score="0" Text="I found the time to give your paper a quick read (I hope to read it more carefully in the future), and it was illuminating. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-08-31T08:59:22.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4076" PostId="1399" Score="2" Text="Can you provide some sources? [*veteranus militiae*](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22veteranus%20militiae%22) returns almost no hits (mostly false positives) and, to the best of my knowledge, *veteranus* is an adjective..." CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:03:37.647" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4086" PostId="1399" Score="0" Text="There is a difference between veterans and reservists. Anyone who has served (especially in wartime) can be called a veteran. A reservist is someone who has been trained, is not in active duty and can be called to arms. It is the training (whatever it may mean in practice) that differentiates a reservist from a potential conscript." CreationDate="2016-08-22T17:35:43.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4098" PostId="1399" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, Caesar, de Bell Afric 23, *qua necessitate coacti veteran milites equitesque, qui . . .  * Or try any good dictionary." CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:30:00.227" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4099" PostId="1399" Score="0" Text="Unlike the US Military, The British Army post WW2 used to recruit for a fixed period of active service, followed by a period in reserve. I was myself a conscripted man, but still had to spend time in the reserves." CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:35:54.963" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4102" PostId="1399" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton, that source is for *veteranus miles*, which isn't in your answer...was *veteranus militiae* a typo? Either way, this answer would be great if you provide examples/sources for your different suggestions in the body of the answer." CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:01:37.970" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4106" PostId="1399" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, no, not a typo: see Cicero, Phil.3, 2, 3:veterani milites. Without re-reading the whole book, from memory I construe veterani to be used substantively: Forced by necessity, the veterans, the soldiers and the cavalry, etc. - implying that the force had both veterans  and 'regular' soldiers along with the cavalry. Doesn't the suggestion that it means 'experienced soldiers and cavalry' beg quite another question?" CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:25:16.837" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4107" PostId="1399" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton, veteranus miles =/= veteranus militiae: that is the typo I was referring to." CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:32:46.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8998" PostId="1399" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The veterans were the ones that were trained and could be called back. There were no special reserve forces in ancient Rome, but veterans often fought in multiple wars and during a threat, any citizen could be called to fight. You go back early enough, and the concept of &quot;citizen-soldier&quot; was the standard." CreationDate="2017-05-22T12:28:22.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4079" PostId="1400" Score="1" Text="+1 for the etymological track." CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:25:49.667" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4088" PostId="1400" Score="2" Text="On the other hand, it is just possible that mensa and mensis are related, going back to the IE word for &quot;measure&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-22T19:02:27.600" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4089" PostId="1400" Score="1" Text="De Vaan further equates *mensa* with the p.p.p. of *metior* &quot;measure&quot;, from PIE meh1-; this may make it cognate with *mos* and *mensis*, but probably not *mens* which doesn't seem to have had a laryngeal." CreationDate="2016-08-22T23:40:51.380" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4083" PostId="1401" Score="0" Text="Ok, so the club was named after &quot;table,&quot; and not after &quot;mind;&quot; at least officially." CreationDate="2016-08-22T14:05:51.803" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="23658" PostId="1401" Score="0" Text="Given *ratio-* I would expect *mental* and measure* (cf [what semantic notions connect *mensa* to the PIE \*me-](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/915/what-underlying-semantic-notions-connect-m%c4%93nsa-to-the-pie-me)) could have some analogical connection." CreationDate="2019-12-12T13:19:17.613" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23659" PostId="1401" Score="0" Text="The logo clearly depicts a winged angel--Is this a Rorschach test?" CreationDate="2019-12-12T13:23:09.660" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="27035" PostId="1403" Score="0" Text="(1) and (2) are not contradictory if it's possible to have psalms outside of the Psalter which are still in other parts of the Old or New Testament. Such singable parts of the bible are usually called &quot;canticles&quot; today, but it is far from uncommon to use &quot;psalms&quot; in an inclusive sense to include canticles." CreationDate="2020-06-30T15:28:53.037" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="4104" PostId="1404" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel, I looked at the document a little more closely, and it turns out that Harper quotes the Latin text *twice*: once with the genitive *canonicarum* and once with the accusative *canonicas*. He obviously isn't being a sensitive translator if he didn't notice the difference. Now I'm just super curious to see the original manuscript(s)." CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:02:04.373" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4108" PostId="1404" Score="0" Text="It sure seems like at least all the reprints use *canonicarum* – take a look at [this search of Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22item+placuit%2C+ut+extra+psalmos+vel%22&amp;btnG=Search+Books&amp;tbm=bks&amp;tbo=1#q=%22item+placuit,+ut+extra+psalmos+vel%22&amp;tbm=bks)." CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:18:50.897" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4109" PostId="1404" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel, I think I've got it! Edit coming." CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:29:01.040" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4110" PostId="1404" Score="0" Text="Beautiful!  This indeed makes sense, and the reference to Laodicea is very helpful as well.  Does this impact your original conclusions? (perhaps, as the dust settles, I could persuade you to combine the important parts of each of the three versions into one?)" CreationDate="2016-08-23T16:45:46.833" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4093" PostId="1405" Score="2" Text="*Lectulus* means a little bed.  Make it a bigger bed, for starters." CreationDate="2016-08-23T02:49:49.830" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4094" PostId="1405" Score="0" Text="@Hugh It's a couch. They aren't big." CreationDate="2016-08-23T04:07:59.627" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="4096" PostId="1405" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes -That's not the problem. It's impossible to form an adjective from lectulus." CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:17:41.117" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4100" PostId="1405" Score="0" Text="How about adding ''-alis,'' so ''lectulalis''?" CreationDate="2016-08-23T11:33:49.240" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4137" PostId="1405" Score="2" Text="Well, if you want to use a Greek root and completely confuse modern readers, just write &quot;clinicalis&quot;!" CreationDate="2016-08-26T12:22:50.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14555" PostId="1405" Score="1" Text="Wouldn't we expect to see a simple genitive of description in Latin? That is to say, isn't hospes lectuli idiomatically correct?" CreationDate="2016-08-26T04:23:28.190" UserId="777" />
  <row Id="4103" PostId="1406" Score="1" Text="Can you provide an example where *vel* means *scilicet*, as in your suggestion here? The L&amp;S entry for *vel* says that this usage &quot;implies an alternative the first member of which is omitted, something else or even this.&quot; I've read a lot of Latin and I simply can't force myself to read this as just &quot;indeed.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:23:52.030" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4105" PostId="1408" Score="0" Text="Perhaps you could find a Mithraic reference somewhere." CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:08:49.300" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5224" PostId="1408" Score="0" Text="Note found in PHI at least: http://latin.packhum.org/concordance but why not…" CreationDate="2016-11-13T23:18:21.883" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="4118" PostId="1410" Score="1" Text="Very interesting question, I guess I've just never thought about it as systematically as you have. It's also interesting how the Germanic system works for comparison: a cow is always feminine and a bull always masculine, but a dog can be either. But then there is bitch..." CreationDate="2016-08-24T02:30:02.853" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4232" PostId="1410" Score="0" Text="Luraghi 2013 observes that &quot;[n]ouns that refer to non-breeding animals often do not have variable gender: hēkhelidṓn ‘the swallow (fem.)’ usually also refers to the male, in spite of some sporadic masculine forms; ho bátrakhos ‘the frog (masc.)’, with no sex-specific reference.&quot; **She did say this about Greek but we can apply this to Latin too.** To use her terminology, non-breeding animals often have a fixed grammatical gender." CreationDate="2016-09-02T18:21:30.320" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4112" PostId="1411" Score="4" Text="Welcome! I suggest taking a look at [these instructions about posting translation questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79). In which context do you want to use the phrase? Have you consulted online Latin dictionaries to find words that mean the right thing? We can help with finding the correct forms." CreationDate="2016-08-23T19:22:14.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4115" PostId="1411" Score="3" Text="For those who don't speak Polish, can you explain what nuance the phrase has that you don't think is captured by &quot;great work/act/art&quot;? Until that is clarified, *magnum opus* is going to be the standing recommendation :)" CreationDate="2016-08-23T23:27:53.317" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4113" PostId="1412" Score="0" Text="+1. Yet another option for &quot;creation&quot; would be *creatura*. I would go with *magnum opus creationis* (if it refers to a single piece of work) or *ars magna creationis* (if it refers to the art of creation as a whole). If the OP wants to avoid a Christian tone, then *genesis* (not *genisis* if my memory serves me well) might be a bad word." CreationDate="2016-08-23T22:01:33.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4114" PostId="1412" Score="3" Text="*genesis* is a Greek word which is not even the typical way of saying &quot;creation&quot; (ktisis, v. ktizo). Genesis is more like &quot;origin.&quot; Either way, I think *creatio* is better." CreationDate="2016-08-23T23:26:31.093" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4116" PostId="1412" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you for catching that! I'll add _creatura_ as an option." CreationDate="2016-08-23T23:35:36.313" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4117" PostId="1412" Score="0" Text="@brianpck According to L&amp;S, it can mean &quot;creation.&quot; I chose _genesis_ for my examples because it was the only one that came up from L&amp;S through the website I used. The other options were from another site that doesn't cite/define as well." CreationDate="2016-08-23T23:39:36.013" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4120" PostId="1412" Score="0" Text="@SamK, Fair enough! BTW, the &quot;Christian undertones&quot; only applies to *genesis*, not to the three Latin suggestions." CreationDate="2016-08-24T12:17:32.217" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4121" PostId="1412" Score="0" Text="@brianpck They actually might. In the definition, the source I used gives the area/context the words were used in. Both ones given are labelled as &quot;Ecclesiastic, Biblical, Religious.&quot; They might also have non-religious uses, but that's what I found." CreationDate="2016-08-24T14:12:27.393" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4123" PostId="1412" Score="3" Text="First of all, it is genesis, not &quot;genisis&quot;. Genesis means &quot;creation&quot; in Christian Latin. In classical Latin it means &quot;birth, coming into being of a particular thing&quot;, not the &quot;creation&quot; of the world as a whole." CreationDate="2016-08-24T15:29:51.273" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4135" PostId="1412" Score="0" Text="@fdb Sorry, as I said in another comment I realized that I had made an error. It is now corrected." CreationDate="2016-08-25T22:07:03.290" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4353" PostId="1412" Score="0" Text="OP here: you guys totally and absolutely nailed it! I am proud of &quot;Magnum Opus Creatum&quot; - you did what I asked for.I am very glad you dared to help me. I hope some day someone will help you like you did to me and I wish it would be me. I am complete now! Biggest thank you!" CreationDate="2016-09-15T22:34:29.963" UserId="772" />
  <row Id="4119" PostId="1413" Score="2" Text="A quick and dirty search of the [PHI Corpus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=victorum) shows that all occurrences of *victorum* are for *victor*, while the opposite is indicated by *devictorum*." CreationDate="2016-08-24T12:13:48.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4122" PostId="1414" Score="1" Text="I have heard of this before when I was digging into languages like Latin and Esperanto. It appears to be extremely uncommon, but I know it does happen." CreationDate="2016-08-24T14:13:59.207" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4779" PostId="1414" Score="1" Text="I know it happens for Esperanto quite a lot: I myself speak Esperanto to my children, and we regularly attend international gatherings of families that speak Esperanto to their children. I'm pretty sure no such gatherings exist for Latin-as-a-native-language families, and with some googling I haven't managed to find any evidence that there is even a single family where Latin is spoken to children from birth. So now I'm trying to find out through this forum if such a family is known to anyone. [Comment was from Aug 24. I had to correct a major mistake in it, so I had to delete and repost it.]" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:50:19.777" UserId="773" />
  <row Id="4129" PostId="1415" Score="2" Text="Thanks for the useful information. Note however that according to a message by Josiah's father Scott that I just found in the Ancient Greek Best Practices Google Group, Josiah started learning Latin with an immersion method at age 9. Even then, it seems it wasn't the main language of communication between the Scott and Josiah. Even thuogh this might be ebough to get a level of fluency similar to that of a native, I wouldn't call this a native speaker in the normal sense of the word." CreationDate="2016-08-25T14:20:01.140" UserId="773" />
  <row Id="4130" PostId="1415" Score="2" Text="On the other hand, the 2-year-old that you mention would certainly qualify, at least if one of his parents continually speaks Latin with him. Do you know if that is the case?" CreationDate="2016-08-25T14:20:04.417" UserId="773" />
  <row Id="4131" PostId="1415" Score="3" Text="That's fair. I think of any language acquired before 12 as native, so I can see where we'd differ on that. The guy in Rome told me last year that he only spoke to his son in Latin." CreationDate="2016-08-25T14:40:27.160" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4126" PostId="1416" Score="1" Text="A typical Latin verb has one gerundive and several participles. Do you only want to compare *amandus* and *amans*, or should *amatus* and *amaturus* be included, too?" CreationDate="2016-08-25T05:43:35.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4127" PostId="1417" Score="6" Text="In Christian times, (Greek) &quot;ichthus&quot; (Iesus Christos Theou Huios Soter) comes to mind, as well as Latin &quot;INRI&quot; (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum)." CreationDate="2016-08-25T12:22:56.947" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4134" PostId="1417" Score="3" Text="@brianpck, I had forgotten about the Greek fish. Do we have a reason to believe that INRI was pronounced as a two-syllable word rather than expanding all the words or reading the letters one by one? If yes, that would make a good answer." CreationDate="2016-08-25T20:30:24.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4133" PostId="1418" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I actually wanted to know about this particular type of homonymy (masculine plural genitive of perfect participle vs. plural genitive of the derived agent noun), but this broader view is also interesting." CreationDate="2016-08-25T20:23:25.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4128" PostId="1419" Score="2" Text="As an interesting aside, the absence of a perfect active participle (as there is in Greek) often forces such thoughts to be translated using ablative absolute + perfect passive participle, e.g. &quot;having visited the store&quot; becomes &quot;the store having been visited...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-25T12:38:47.167" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6009" PostId="1419" Score="0" Text="I didn't know &quot;**the gerundive is a participle**: specifically, it is the **future passive participle**.&quot; Thank you. Also, are the 4 tenses/voices you enumerate all there are for Latin participles?" CreationDate="2017-01-07T15:03:13.620" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="4132" PostId="1420" Score="1" Text="OMG it was staring me right in the face—we say it in English too: higher office." CreationDate="2016-08-25T15:43:44.633" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4149" PostId="1421" Score="2" Text="(just a footnote) **Exocentum** is probably the contrary (or contradictory) of **Innocentum.**" CreationDate="2016-08-28T19:37:49.310" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4216" PostId="1421" Score="0" Text="Hi Robert – was there a reason you rolled back the edit from earlier today?" CreationDate="2016-09-02T02:16:56.180" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4217" PostId="1421" Score="0" Text="i didn't like it.  i guess that's obvious.  but i didn't like being so explicit in the title and, when i posted it, i wasn't sure that it was pseudo-Latin and i wouldn't have originally posted it if i **knew** it was pseudo-Latin." CreationDate="2016-09-02T02:49:29.520" UserId="776" />
  <row Id="4222" PostId="1421" Score="2" Text="@robertbristow-johnson Okay, that's fair.  It's still valuable, though, to include more details in the title, so that's it's easy to distinguish the many questions asking for translation of a short phrase.  See what you think of the edit I'm making now." CreationDate="2016-09-02T12:00:40.363" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4139" PostId="1426" Score="0" Text="In case it isn't clear: this list is *not* exhaustive :)" CreationDate="2016-08-27T01:59:27.860" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4140" PostId="1426" Score="0" Text="&quot;Good to eat&quot; can (also) be rendered with a different case of the supine, the ablative: *bonum esu*. (I'm not sure about *Aliquid boni edendum volo* -- it strikes me as somehow off, but I may well be wrong.)" CreationDate="2016-08-27T02:25:07.503" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4141" PostId="1426" Score="1" Text="Excellent overview! One more thing: in poetry, the infinitive can be used." CreationDate="2016-08-27T04:08:07.113" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4142" PostId="1427" Score="1" Text="Valuable information! Perhaps it isn't wholly in the format of an answer, but it wouldn't fit in a comment anyway, so I think this is the right format for now (of course you could edit it a bit and add more information flesh it out, but that's up to you). One little thing: you seem to have misread Brian's &quot;gerundive&quot; for &quot;gerund&quot;: he isn't talking about gerunds. What you call the &quot;future passive participle&quot; is usually called &quot;gerundive&quot;, but it is the same thing." CreationDate="2016-08-27T04:11:49.967" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4143" PostId="1427" Score="0" Text="Yes, I mentioned it in passing but it's worth emphasizing that the supine only works with motion verbs. You can't say *cano laudatum* for &quot;I sing to praise&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-27T16:42:56.817" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4146" PostId="1427" Score="0" Text="Cerberus, I was taught to think of the future passive participle as something distinct from the gerundive — that may, however, be a quirk of the teachers I studied with." CreationDate="2016-08-28T02:39:56.703" UserId="777" />
  <row Id="4148" PostId="1427" Score="0" Text="Some textbooks (e.g. Keller and Russell) distinguish the gerundive from the future passive participle, others use the terms synonymously." CreationDate="2016-08-28T17:01:30.303" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4145" PostId="1429" Score="3" Text="Welcome!  If you have a specific type of change in mind, that'd be useful information to include here.  Another way to improve the accuracy of any answer you get here would be to [consult a dictionary](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/12) and choose the word for &quot;change&quot; that you think fits your context best.  Then we can put it into the right form.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-08-27T20:12:41.220" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4147" PostId="1430" Score="1" Text="Yet another reason why I want to learn Old English..." CreationDate="2016-08-28T13:26:49.110" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4150" PostId="1430" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. Sadly, the texts are rather dreary compared with those in Latin." CreationDate="2016-08-28T20:24:32.157" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4154" PostId="1432" Score="2" Text="Does _annus mutabilis_ have a better or different connotation than _annus mutationis?_ Or does the latter actually not make sense? Or how about _annus mutationum?_" CreationDate="2016-08-29T02:21:56.020" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4260" PostId="1432" Score="1" Text="*mutabilis* mean &quot;changeable&quot;, so I think it is too much of a stretch to have *annus mutabilis* mean &quot;a year in which many changes have occurred.&quot; *Mutabilis* was common in literature, an aspect of the &quot;sublunar realm,&quot; and has a much different connotation than just &quot;major life events occurred.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-06T14:49:10.153" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4156" PostId="1435" Score="2" Text="Just to be completely sure, then: _cum_ does _not_ have an instrumental meaning like English _with_ in &quot;Hit the ball with the bat&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:49:49.613" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4157" PostId="1435" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz: Not usually in Classical prose, anyway. L&amp;S gives a few such examples (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcum1, section I.D) but qualifies this usage as &quot;most freq. anteclass., or in the poets and scientific writers&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:58:49.283" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4158" PostId="1435" Score="1" Text="With that link to **cum, II** A,5 &quot;strive with&quot; suggests a neat pair. 'Pulsa cum agno flore.' strike against the lamb by means of a flower, and 'Pulsa agnum cum flore,' Hey you with a flower, strike the lamb." CreationDate="2016-08-29T04:13:42.090" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4196" PostId="1436" Score="1" Text="*Florifere* should be *florifer*, I believe." CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:30:21.497" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4198" PostId="1436" Score="0" Text="@TKR Ah, yes. I had assumed that both forms were found as with *mortifer,* and *mortiferus,* I'll change *florifer* to *florigerus.* which has the distinctive vocative." CreationDate="2016-09-01T06:38:14.427" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4176" PostId="1437" Score="1" Text="This answer is incorrect as it stands: there is no gaping chasm between adverbs and nouns, and many adverbs come from ablative forms. In this case, L&amp;S [explicitly states](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=noctu&amp;la=la&amp;can=noctu0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=noctu&amp;i=1#lexicon) (see I.β) that *noctu* is ablative and gives many examples of it being modified by adjectives like *hac* and *concubia* or even participles, like *noctu futura*." CreationDate="2016-08-30T20:49:06.213" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4339" PostId="1437" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, do you want to add that as an answer? That *noctu* is considered a real ablative and in particular that it can be modified by ablatives like *futura*, *hac* or *tertia* would make a good answer. I can do that myself if you prefer, but I want to give you the opportunity. There is no hurry. (I didn't notice your comment until now.)" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:03:13.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4159" PostId="1439" Score="0" Text="+1. Interesting (especially since I'm a mathematician)! Can you cite or quote some mathematical texts for early uses &quot;positive&quot; and &quot;negative&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:21:33.560" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4160" PostId="1439" Score="0" Text="According to [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpositivus), the original opposition was between *positivus* and *naturalis*. My suspicion is that the opposition of positive/negative comes from logic: a positive proposition *posits* something, a negative one *negates* something." CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:33:01.133" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4161" PostId="1439" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. I have added some quotations. The one from 1704 is especially interesting, as the author explicitly defines &quot;positive&quot; as &quot;real and affirmative&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:46:12.900" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4162" PostId="1439" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. I think that there is actually a direct reversal of meaning: positivus starts off meaning &quot;artificial&quot; and ends up meaning &quot;real&quot;." CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:50:58.697" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4165" PostId="1441" Score="1" Text="I see no alternative to them comming from Christian liturgy, thus Lent--&gt;Quadragessima, Easter--&gt;Pascha/tempus paschale. The connection is more _loose_ with Michaelmas ([ethymologically](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Michaelmas), Mass of [Saint] Michael), since it corresponds to a single day: Festus Sancti Michaelis. The names seem to be previous to the Reformation. See also [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas_term)." CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:14:56.697" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4166" PostId="1441" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, I agree now that they probably have Christian origin. Before googling in preparation of this question I didn't know that Lent and Michaelmas meant something. However, it is not clear what the exact Latin names are, and how one might say &quot;I took an algebra class in the Michaelmas/Lent/Easter term&quot; in Latin." CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:25:11.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4167" PostId="1441" Score="0" Text="In the _societas christiana_ of the High Middle Ages it was very common to divide the year (and day) according to liturgy. Education was broadly in charge of monks and priests. While I write this, @fdb posted an answer regarding the word for _term_ which I didn't know (I would have chosen something like bimensis in the lack of a sourced expression)." CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:35:06.890" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4168" PostId="1442" Score="0" Text="Great! Can you add any sources?" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:35:42.077" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4169" PostId="1442" Score="0" Text="Just to be sure: Would Lent be called *Terminus Sancti Hilarii*? The connection to the English version is much less obvious than for the other two." CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:39:38.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4170" PostId="1442" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. Yes exactly. In what we in Cambridge call “the other place” (i.e., Oxford) the three academic terms are called Michaelmas, Hilary, Trinity." CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:43:09.657" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4171" PostId="1442" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It seems that the choice for names is not uniform and universal: as you see in the source, they connect T. S. Hilarii to a _Hilary Term_, while wikipedia has separate articles for [it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_term) and [Lent Term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent_term)" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:44:43.900" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4172" PostId="1442" Score="0" Text="@fdb, excellent, thank you! (I'm much more familiar with Cambridge than the other place, so the Oxford term names were news to me.)" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:46:01.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4173" PostId="1443" Score="2" Text="The second conjugation *iacēre* is kind of a passive of the third conjugation *iacĕre*. It's more like &quot;to be in a thrown state, to have been thrown&quot; than &quot;to be thrown&quot;. Would you count this as a passive meaning? Second conjugation verbs seem to describe states rather than actions." CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:46:58.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4174" PostId="1443" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That might work, though I guess &quot;lie&quot; is a pretty good English translation in most cases. Your remark about the 2nd conjugation is interesting--I remember noticing the same thing about French (*blanchir*, *rougir*, *blêmir*). It's not universal, though: we certainly have verbs like *moneo* and *video* that are transitive." CreationDate="2016-08-30T17:06:38.377" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4175" PostId="1444" Score="2" Text="I just found an interesting quote from Quintilian: (*Inst. Orat.* 9.2.12.3-4: &quot;...tum augendi criminis gratia, ut testis in reum, rogatus an **ab reo fustibus uapulasset**, 'innocens', inquit...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-08-30T19:55:47.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4178" PostId="1444" Score="0" Text="Interresting..." CreationDate="2016-08-30T20:53:06.863" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4185" PostId="1445" Score="0" Text="I've heard deponent perfect participles described as &quot;active&quot; before (like *locutus* or *hortatus*), but that doesn't seem relevant to the PIE question." CreationDate="2016-08-31T14:51:37.663" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4177" PostId="1446" Score="0" Text="Are there any Latin words that do contain the perfect participle suffix?" CreationDate="2016-08-30T20:52:59.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4184" PostId="1446" Score="1" Text="Can this be extended generally to say, then, that no form of Latin ever had a present active participle?" CreationDate="2016-08-31T13:55:55.410" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4186" PostId="1446" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Not to my knowledge; I can't think of any likely candidates, anyway." CreationDate="2016-08-31T16:44:24.483" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4187" PostId="1446" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel I believe so. I don't think the other Italic languages have any vestige of such a form either, though I could be wrong about that." CreationDate="2016-08-31T16:45:22.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4270" PostId="1446" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I should have said &quot;perfect&quot; rather than &quot;present&quot; in my Aug 31 comment for consistency.  My understanding is that they are related, but I shouldn't have confused things here." CreationDate="2016-09-06T19:23:04.933" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4218" PostId="1450" Score="0" Text="Thanks, interesting, you've got me thinking. My theory was Cicero did in fact assume the ignorance of the provincial nobility, and dumbed himself down somewhat not to look a young (was he only 24?) smart ass before the conservative parochial gentry. This is close indeed to your bullet point 3." CreationDate="2016-09-02T04:20:25.920" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="4225" PostId="1450" Score="0" Text="Again, though, this is not a necessary reading: if he said *artificis* instead of *artificum* you could make a stronger case, but with the plural it's a very plausible reading that he &quot;found out which artists made the statues in the *sacrarium*.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-02T13:18:37.407" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4236" PostId="1450" Score="0" Text="True, and I have read your thoughtful answer thoroughly. I am just noting where my original theory parallels your analysis." CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:34:40.807" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="4190" PostId="1451" Score="1" Text="Welcome, and thanks for the interesting answer!" CreationDate="2016-08-31T22:24:21.933" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4215" PostId="1451" Score="3" Text="+1 Great answer. I skimmed through the article you posted and it has quite a few more...perhaps you can include? *abbo* = *basio*, *ninna* = *cuna*, *totto* = *noli facere*, *siare* = *miare*, *cacare* = ...well, we all know..." CreationDate="2016-09-01T19:43:11.087" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4219" PostId="1451" Score="1" Text="@brianpck done! also I skimmed through it too and added some words more... now it should be more or less complete" CreationDate="2016-09-02T09:09:27.257" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4221" PostId="1451" Score="2" Text="Awesome, thanks! As a quick aside, some of the words you included (like *inbulbitare*) are classified as &quot;words used by caretakers for children&quot;--still relevant, but slightly different" CreationDate="2016-09-02T10:26:22.300" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4194" PostId="1453" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Very interesting question. First, I think you mean &quot;if there are two or more consonants&quot;. Secondly, I think the question that must be answered first is this: can a syllable in ancipital position (denoted by a cross: &quot;can be either long or short&quot;) be long or short at all? Or does it have no decided length?" CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:08:09.310" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4195" PostId="1453" Score="0" Text="In general, though, what makes a syllable long is either a long vowel, or closure by means of a consonant. When you see *rex et*, the syllables are *rek-set*, and that's why the first syllable is long. In *cor et*, the syllables are *co-ret*; and the o itself is short, so the first syllable is short, because it is open and it doesn't contain a long vowel. Because *rex* can never use all of its ending consonants, it must always contain a long syllable." CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:14:32.237" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4197" PostId="1454" Score="2" Text="...And additionally, &quot;rex&quot; had an actually long vowel, so the syllable would be heavy even without the final consonants." CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:50:45.420" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="4200" PostId="1454" Score="0" Text="Do you mean that a syllable ending in a (single) consonant is always heavy? I wouldn't scan so at the end of a word if the next one starts with a vowel. Consider the (mock-up) pentameter: *Illud abest mihi nunc excruciorque ab eo.* Or would you say that the second and third syllables are *lu* and *da* instead of *lud* and *a* (and similarly in *ab eo*)? *Rex* has a double consonant so it's different." CreationDate="2016-09-01T08:24:21.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4201" PostId="1454" Score="0" Text="The last syllable of a verse is ALWAYS metrically long. This is true not only for hexameter, but for all metres." CreationDate="2016-09-01T09:02:53.190" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4211" PostId="1454" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta In such cases, syllabification in verse crosses word boundaries. So yes: *il-lu-da-best*." CreationDate="2016-09-01T16:54:44.217" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4212" PostId="1454" Score="0" Text="@fdb That was actually the way I initially phrased it. But since the long/short contrast is neutralized in that position, I wonder if there's any good basis for calling such syllables &quot;long&quot; (rather than simply saying that the meter allows any syllable to stand in that position)." CreationDate="2016-09-01T17:00:09.743" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4220" PostId="1454" Score="0" Text="@TKR. Risking the danger of excessive pedanticism I would suggest that if the hexameter verse is analysed as six dactylic “feet”, then the last foot of the line must be analysed as long+long, not as long+short, as the latter would not be a complete foot. You will find that the same is true of the other metres." CreationDate="2016-09-02T09:34:34.287" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4204" PostId="1457" Score="1" Text="Can you give more precise references and quote or summarize some examples? Examples (in addition to *assentio(r)*) of actual disagreements would make this answer great." CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:22:44.547" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4206" PostId="1457" Score="0" Text="I added some more examples, but I don't have anything as spicy as assentior at hand... you should find something good in Quintilian, maybe also Gellius." CreationDate="2016-09-01T12:13:34.467" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4248" PostId="1457" Score="0" Text="Just one example, but in this letter, Cicero criticises Tiro's (apparent)  use of *faithfully* (*fideliter*) - so, yes, there were disagreements. http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Cic.%20Fam.%2016.17" CreationDate="2016-09-04T23:40:42.803" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4259" PostId="1457" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose thank'you! I'll add it in the answer" CreationDate="2016-09-06T14:46:20.877" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4205" PostId="1458" Score="6" Text="Welcome to the site! Interesting question; I want to see a thorough answer to this one." CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:49:48.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4210" PostId="1458" Score="2" Text="Random hypothesis (in case it is worth as a lead for anyone's research): it might have to do with them being applicable to different categories of places, like in Italian _in_ vs _a_, or (arguably) in Englis _in_, _on_, _at_." CreationDate="2016-09-01T16:06:57.827" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4246" PostId="1458" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Interesting... I don't know any Italian - what's the difference between _in_ and _a_?" CreationDate="2016-09-03T18:24:59.893" UserId="198" />
  <row Id="4247" PostId="1458" Score="1" Text="@LJD200 Not an expert, but you use _in_ for countries and rooms, while _a_ for (specific) cities and buildings. (natural question: what happens with city-states?---I don't know)" CreationDate="2016-09-04T20:13:12.790" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4249" PostId="1458" Score="0" Text="@Rafael.Italian a is from ad, not ab, so it is not relevant to this question." CreationDate="2016-09-05T13:48:47.980" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4250" PostId="1458" Score="1" Text="@fdb It doesn't have to come from the same word - it just illustrates that the Latin words could be applicable to different categories of places like words in some other languages." CreationDate="2016-09-05T14:23:56.647" UserId="198" />
  <row Id="4223" PostId="1459" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!  This is certainly interesting – do you happen to remember where you learned it?  A source showing that this comes from the period of the Romans would be a great addition to this answer." CreationDate="2016-09-02T12:45:35.820" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4224" PostId="1459" Score="0" Text="I have read it in book (on paper) many years ago. I think it was for latin sentences - with corresponding translation and explanation. But if you search for the phrase you will find it many times, e.g. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090804071628AAzGPMY" CreationDate="2016-09-02T13:00:55.713" UserId="793" />
  <row Id="4538" PostId="1459" Score="3" Text="That's not a closing, though. That's usually at the very start of a letter." CreationDate="2016-09-25T15:48:07.817" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4227" PostId="1460" Score="4" Text="Would it be a sufficient explanation that the endings in Latin and Greek are cognate (as must have been observed in antiquity), and therefore changing between them is a natural adaptation when changing languages?" CreationDate="2016-09-02T14:33:30.443" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4229" PostId="1460" Score="0" Text="See my comment on the below answer: given that many writers were comfortable navigating Greek inflections, I think some more explanation (if there is one) could be warranted. As far as I am aware, for instance, the Greek 3rd declension is not similarly adapted in all cases: I've seen an &quot;-a&quot; accusative many times in Latin." CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:06:18.913" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20957" PostId="1460" Score="1" Text="*aedon* is not a good example, since it looks like it is a third-declension feminine from Greek ἀηδών, which doesn't end in -ον." CreationDate="2019-08-12T20:03:44.400" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="4228" PostId="1461" Score="1" Text="Concerning your first and third points--this whole question is about *Latin* transliteration. All the words I mentioned are in L&amp;S and were used by classical speakers (okay, maybe *evangelium* is a little later). As for the second, that's definitely the most plausible explanation, but it doesn't explain the many cases (such as Greek names) where no attempt at morphological adaptation is made, especially in Latin poetry." CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:02:45.330" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4230" PostId="1461" Score="0" Text="Personal names are a different thing too; in grammar books we actually find a section on names that are inflected using greek suffixes... I think it's a matter of taste (exoticism) and/or metric problems." CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:06:22.770" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4231" PostId="1461" Score="0" Text="About the point on the question being about Latin transliteration: it's followed inside the word, while it doesn't apply to the suffix because the suffix isn't being transliterated, it's just being swapped" CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:07:34.387" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="18131" PostId="1463" Score="1" Text="A closer look at the original revealed the correct transcription: &quot;qui disserunt&quot;, which is then clearly the subject of &quot;existimant.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-01-12T22:30:24.620" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18135" PostId="1463" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey I updated my answer." CreationDate="2019-01-13T11:45:07.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4240" PostId="1464" Score="2" Text="On rereading the piece, *&quot;qui differunt&quot;* could mean : colours &quot;which are distinguishable.&quot;  This would lay the ground for the discussion a couple of page later of three sorts of purple, a rich imperial, a reddish, and a sombre blackish purple." CreationDate="2016-09-02T23:25:19.963" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4245" PostId="1465" Score="2" Text="If your opinion carries weight &quot;Fiat.&quot; 'let it be so.'" CreationDate="2016-09-03T16:53:23.483" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18239" PostId="1466" Score="0" Text="I hope it was a happy reunion, you and the trophy." CreationDate="2019-01-22T12:38:34.367" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18313" PostId="1466" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Sport and I have always been polar opposites I am afraid" CreationDate="2019-01-29T17:31:12.193" UserId="712" />
  <row Id="4243" PostId="1467" Score="1" Text="That seems good, it is possible that I was mistaken with the '-um' ending. When you talk about the plural, is it known whether, classically, the Romans would have used both the gendered plurals or simply the masculine plural for a multi-gender group like most Romance languages?" CreationDate="2016-09-03T16:27:58.457" UserId="712" />
  <row Id="4244" PostId="1467" Score="1" Text="@BladorthinTheGrey, for a multi-gender group of humans or animals Latin uses masculine. Therefore *victores et victrices adornati* is also correct, but sometimes you might want to include both genders fully just to emphasize that females are wholly included." CreationDate="2016-09-03T16:42:17.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18238" PostId="1468" Score="1" Text="2 and a half years down the line and I have just seen the trophy from that time, it turns out it was *Victor/Victrix Ludorum*!" CreationDate="2019-01-22T08:50:43.803" UserId="712" />
  <row Id="4251" PostId="1471" Score="0" Text="Neat sentence 'with all three.' Clearly, *post partum.* (the supine), and *pariturus* (irreg.) 'about to bring forth,' are active; but strange that the past participle, *partus, parta, partum* means (active) 'having had children,' as well as passive,  'having been born.'" CreationDate="2016-09-05T15:24:11.273" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4380" PostId="1471" Score="0" Text="For *partus* as &quot;having had children&quot; I imagine something like &quot;having been delivered of children.&quot; I have no idea whether that's just coincidence, though, or whether there's actually some linguistic relation between the two." CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:06:44.503" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4273" PostId="1472" Score="2" Text="Concerning *argumenti causa*, a [Google search](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22argumenti+causa%22&amp;start=10) suggests that it is (incorrectly?) used as a calque to mean &quot;for the sake of argument.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-07T15:25:55.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4257" PostId="1473" Score="0" Text="How close to 'in respect to' is the legal expression **in rem** +genitive?" CreationDate="2016-09-06T03:00:38.480" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4258" PostId="1473" Score="1" Text="@Hugh, I'm not familiar with that legal expression, so I can't tell. Quick searches suggest that not very close." CreationDate="2016-09-06T03:23:48.327" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4261" PostId="1473" Score="1" Text="*quoad* is my first-draw reaction, but I can't back that up with actual Latin mathematical texts." CreationDate="2016-09-06T14:50:57.753" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4263" PostId="1473" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, how would you use that in a sentence? For example, what would be &quot;reflection with respect to a line&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-09-06T14:58:12.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4264" PostId="1473" Score="2" Text="A quick Google search seems to suggest I'm right: [*Principia calculi differentialis*](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pBmvAWJpGAC&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=%22quoad+x%22) or just search for &quot;quoad x.&quot; I'll try to turn that into an answer when I have time." CreationDate="2016-09-06T15:03:11.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4265" PostId="1473" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, that would be great. Take your time. (Indeed, *quoad x* seems mean what I want.)" CreationDate="2016-09-06T15:06:27.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4262" PostId="1474" Score="2" Text="My understanding of *deus ex machina* is that it was a contrived way of *resolving* a hopelessly complicated mess. I don't that quite fits with the OP's question about something that is &quot;purely to advance to plot and poorly motivated.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-06T14:55:34.807" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4271" PostId="1474" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Why else would you contrive a &quot;forced, poorly motivated,&quot;  incident except to resolve a 'hopelessly complicated mess' in the plot. Same difference. You're looking at it from the audience view; Au101 from the writer's." CreationDate="2016-09-07T12:38:58.650" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4272" PostId="1474" Score="2" Text="I disagree: *deus ex machina* is a type of contrivance, but does not include many more, e.g. &quot;coincidence contrivances&quot; (think Dickens). Often such devices are meant to advance or complicate the plot--not resolve it." CreationDate="2016-09-07T13:22:41.910" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4274" PostId="1474" Score="1" Text="I actually really like this angle. While I agree with the other commenters that a deus ex machina seems more like an example of what I'm looking for, than a phrase for the thing itself, I still appreciate the approach and the fact that it is an established Latin phrase. It's unlikely to get the tick, but I've already upvoted :)" CreationDate="2016-09-07T15:28:42.293" UserId="803" />
  <row Id="4277" PostId="1477" Score="0" Text="Yes, _informatica_ is what Italians say." CreationDate="2016-09-07T21:40:28.177" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="4384" PostId="1477" Score="2" Text="Communicating what one actually means in a way that one's reader understands it is far more important than elegance or naturalness." CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:18:57.667" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4386" PostId="1477" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner Well said. That statement is based on the premise that Latin is used to communicate like any other language, not just to show off. I share the premise but not everyone will..." CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:27:04.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4390" PostId="1477" Score="0" Text="They are assholes." CreationDate="2016-09-18T18:12:48.563" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="24543" PostId="1477" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I agree entirely. The timeframe when Latin was most relevant was also the one in which it was most fluid. Latin must be clear and practical. If you can choose to write in a practical and beautiful manner, choose that, but if it is a question between practicality/clarity and elegance, I'll choose practicality. Because after all, a language's main function is to be understood. I do not really care if the &quot;Romans don't have a concept for X&quot;, I care if X can be expressed in any understandable way in Latin, since I am not a reenactor but someone who wants to actually use Latin." CreationDate="2020-03-16T01:54:11.990" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="4278" PostId="1479" Score="0" Text="That's interesting. So do you think the Romans adopted their peristylia entirely from the Greeks and that structure and name arrived together?" CreationDate="2016-09-08T01:48:35.877" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4279" PostId="1479" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus - that's always been my understanding, although I'm afraid I can't give dates/references. In the work quoted, The House of the Surgeon, Pompeii, is offered as an example of an early Roman house, with a simple, asymmetrical,   *hortus* at the back. But I'm no expert!" CreationDate="2016-09-08T01:56:43.107" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4280" PostId="1479" Score="1" Text="OK I'll keep that theory in mind. Some magnificent mosaics in that house, incidentally!" CreationDate="2016-09-08T02:01:44.960" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4281" PostId="1479" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I suspect the process was gradual, in fact, a bit like showing off your new smart watch, to show you're a) fashionable and b) can afford it!  ;)" CreationDate="2016-09-08T02:09:54.627" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4282" PostId="1479" Score="1" Text="Hah, how common! *sniffs*" CreationDate="2016-09-08T02:15:19.793" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4356" PostId="1479" Score="1" Text="Good addition! It does suggest that it was only introduced by the Greeks and it did not have a name in Latin before (nor after). I do wonder whether the Romans used some other kind of colonnade in their houses, before the adoption of the Greek peristylum?" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:27:41.780" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4357" PostId="1479" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus It appears not, the various &quot;orders&quot; were borrowed (and adapted) by the Romans from the Greeks. AFAIK, the iconic Roman structure is the arch, resting on a fairly basic (non-columnar) pier.  PS thanks for tidying up my answer!  See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_order" CreationDate="2016-09-16T03:06:04.793" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4291" PostId="1480" Score="0" Text="It would seem division or cutting (_secare_) would be related to a number, as numbers are formed by dividing a whole or unit." CreationDate="2016-09-08T15:11:46.937" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="4293" PostId="1480" Score="2" Text="@Geremia well fractions are, if you want to think about them like that, but integers aren't. They were just phonetically similar words way back when in PIE, but establishing an etymological link takes a lot more than that" CreationDate="2016-09-08T18:32:50.863" UserId="803" />
  <row Id="4552" PostId="1480" Score="0" Text="@Geremia Furthermore, there's no real reason why the number six in particular would be chosen." CreationDate="2016-09-26T01:56:11.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33072" PostId="1480" Score="0" Text="Six is half of a dozen." CreationDate="2021-05-09T00:35:29.347" UserId="9401" />
  <row Id="37833" PostId="1480" Score="0" Text="@AsimJalis Your logic is not entirely impossible, but requires a base-12 counting system with 6 serving as a divider. But the PIE counting system was 4-base, and that's why the number 8 is grammatically the dual of 4. As it switched to a 10-base, the divider became the number 5, meaning &quot;a full fist or hand&quot;. There is clearly a -w- in the first syllable of 6, which might have been original (*weḱs*), with *s-* introduced by analogy from 7. Moreover the second consonant in 6 is the front *ḱ* (affricated to *ts~s* in Satem), while in &quot;cut&quot; it's the back *k* (in Satem as *k*)." CreationDate="2022-04-05T13:57:30.587" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="4290" PostId="1481" Score="0" Text="It would seem division or cutting (_secare_) would be related to a number, as numbers are formed by dividing a whole or unit." CreationDate="2016-09-08T15:11:43.287" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="4292" PostId="1481" Score="5" Text="@Geremia Semantics is very tricky in etymological research and **any two words could be hypothetically &quot;linked&quot;, depending on the researcher's imagination and resourcefulness**. Nathaniel didn't tell us why there's *u (or *w) in PIE*(s)ueks &quot;six&quot;, PIE *uks-o &quot;sixth&quot; - and that's why de Vaan mentions that &quot;The PIt form *seks has analogically dropped *-w- from *sweks by analogy with *septm 'seven'.&quot; The presence of this *w in PIE 6 and its absence in &quot;divide&quot; is a big deal." CreationDate="2016-09-08T17:43:20.680" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4288" PostId="1482" Score="0" Text="Good answer! I assume the mathematical &quot;with respect to&quot; in the modern sense as an idea did not exist in antiquity, so attested classical examples are too much to ask for. If I had a declinable word instead of a variable name, would *quoad* take a nominative or an accusative?" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:31:17.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4289" PostId="1482" Score="1" Text="The examples given in L&amp;S use the accusative. I also remembered why I remembered the word so quickly: it's very common in Scholastic Latin. Just try searching for *quoad* in the [*Corpus Thomisticum*](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age)" CreationDate="2016-09-08T15:10:52.157" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32910" PostId="1482" Score="0" Text="What about [_erga_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&amp;l=erga#lexicon)?" CreationDate="2021-04-28T03:42:25.893" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="4286" PostId="1483" Score="0" Text="NB : My goal is to find a relevant flag or symbol which could be associated to the proverb in order to identify the culture from which it comes, for a children book." CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:16:30.990" UserId="808" />
  <row Id="4300" PostId="1483" Score="0" Text="If you are looking for a Latin quote, is this any use?: 'Faster than asparagus cooks.' *velocius quam asparagi coquuntur.' Lit: 'Faster than Asparagusses are being cooked;' the plural and passive prevent this being read as Faster than asparagus sprouts; metaph. use *coquo.*" CreationDate="2016-09-09T12:33:50.723" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4302" PostId="1483" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Thanks, but actually the constraint is not on being in Latin, but on involving a dolphin.  Therefore for my project I'll just switch to Greek." CreationDate="2016-09-09T14:57:29.260" UserId="808" />
  <row Id="4299" PostId="1484" Score="0" Text="Thanks.  As far as I'm concerned, there is no need to trace it further, and anyway it would be off-topic since latin is not relevant anymore." CreationDate="2016-09-09T08:02:47.487" UserId="808" />
  <row Id="4295" PostId="1485" Score="4" Text="I... Don't see how this answers my question. If you want to leave a comment on another post, you'll be able to do that once you have 50 reputation." CreationDate="2016-09-08T22:35:59.853" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="4296" PostId="1485" Score="3" Text="I agree with @QPaysTaxes that this does not exactly answer the question. Perhaps you could edit your answer to include only the answer to the question presented at the top of this page? Asking about &quot;open source&quot; is a good idea, but that should be done by asking a separate question. Yes, programma is of Greek origin. (Perhaps that leads to a Greek verb for programming, like *programmatizein*, which could then be Latinized?) And welcome to the site! May I suggest that you take a look at our [tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)?" CreationDate="2016-09-08T22:42:04.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4385" PostId="1485" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:22:49.263" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="8904" PostId="1485" Score="0" Text="Umm. Zero came to Western Europe *through* the Arabs, but they got it from trade with India. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=who+invented+zero *In fine*, it appears to have been invented independently several times." CreationDate="2017-05-17T00:21:06.230" UserId="1630" />
  <row Id="4305" PostId="1487" Score="0" Text="Have you seen this? http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/119269" CreationDate="2016-09-09T17:23:05.730" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4306" PostId="1487" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. No, I haven't. Does it answer my question in the preface?" CreationDate="2016-09-09T21:23:02.090" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4307" PostId="1487" Score="0" Text="Well, there are lots of unfinished lines... It seems unlikely they were intended to remain that way." CreationDate="2016-09-09T23:56:46.767" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4369" PostId="1487" Score="0" Text="@brianpck This edition is a treasure trove and a must-have - it's Teubner after all! Incidentally, James O'Hara (O'Hara 2010) specifically addresses your question. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444318050.ch7/summary" CreationDate="2016-09-17T00:04:22.110" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4309" PostId="1488" Score="0" Text="I assumed *sal* was neuter because *sal volatile* was used for first aid in some novel or other. If I met Salem, something else altogether." CreationDate="2016-09-11T14:06:17.297" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4320" PostId="1488" Score="1" Text="In case it needs to be said concerning Matt 5:13: &quot;τὸ ἅλας&quot; is neuter in Greek, but there is no ambiguity with the verb &quot;ἐστὲ.&quot; The parallelism with the subsequent &quot;vos estis lux mundi&quot; also precludes this interpretation." CreationDate="2016-09-12T14:28:09.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4321" PostId="1488" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, it needs to be said. To be honest, comparing with the Greek never crossed my mind. That only confirms further my feeling that the interpretation is grammatically valid but the context rules it out for several reasons." CreationDate="2016-09-12T19:07:20.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5040" PostId="1488" Score="1" Text="see note 1 in https://www.academia.edu/23859307/Latin_s%C4%81l_p%C4%81r_m%C4%81s_and_l%C4%81r" CreationDate="2016-10-31T03:59:16.077" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5041" PostId="1488" Score="0" Text="In the King James version, the Bible has 'Ye are the salt of the earth'. This became a popular colloquial compliment in England, still sometimes used, to praise someone for a decent act. [We also say that an idle or incompetent employee is 'not worth his salt', i.e pay.]" CreationDate="2016-10-31T06:30:21.553" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5044" PostId="1488" Score="2" Text="Yes, sal is usually masculinum and occasionally neutrum. And no, there seems to be no difference." CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:03:19.560" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4310" PostId="1490" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answer! I guess I was looking for more concrete details: you mention &quot;obvious gaps&quot; and &quot;bridging structures&quot;, but that's precisely what I'm curious about: can you provide examples? I mentioned a few examples of what I'm looking for in my question, but feel free to comment if you think it's unclear what I'm asking for." CreationDate="2016-09-11T18:17:28.407" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4311" PostId="1490" Score="0" Text="Offhand, there's a gap in XII, which I've just looked at and is after 218. Looking at some ancient notes (in pencil, so nearly illegible now), I see that there seems to be a 'bridge' at X  727-8." CreationDate="2016-09-11T19:11:57.383" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4313" PostId="1491" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I made minor edits to your question, but feel free to undo them. I hope my answer is at least somewhat in the direction you wanted." CreationDate="2016-09-12T05:00:26.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4314" PostId="1491" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you for the welcome and the edit! It is, but I had read the Perseus translation, but consider the one on [Gutenberg](http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9175/pg9175-images.html), it seems to struggle and mentions a _filthy tail_. I'm trying to keep this as far as possible from translation and really about differentiating between morphology and the beauty of the face of the fish. I prefer the Perseus translation but I lack the expertise to really appreciate. I also haven't looked at the Virgil or Seneca text, it's mostly beyond me to try to figure out a pattern in it." CreationDate="2016-09-12T05:11:24.813" UserDisplayName="user425" />
  <row Id="4323" PostId="1491" Score="2" Text="Vergil and Seneca don't actually use the phrase *desinat in piscem* -- they use *desino in* with other objects, which the Gaffiot dictionary considers a similar usage to Horace's." CreationDate="2016-09-12T21:03:33.527" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4327" PostId="1491" Score="0" Text="@TKR Do any of those uses involve an animal, a shape or appearance? Don't hesitate to provide an answer formally excluding the 2 other authors for the reason you mention and expanding on the use of the verb _desino_ per se. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-09-13T05:44:19.487" UserDisplayName="user425" />
  <row Id="37931" PostId="1491" Score="0" Text="It is strange; but we all end up in the end of a worm, eventually, unless we are consumed first by fishes.&#xA;I could not help but think of Polonius “at dinner”. It appears as an attempt of humour. Perhaps the most difficult part of translation is to put ones self in the Ancient or Antiquity, and not read too much into, nor simply just “not get it”." CreationDate="2022-04-12T19:51:32.377" UserId="10994" />
  <row Id="4316" PostId="1492" Score="1" Text="@Faʁdɔʃɔtɔmatabaʁwɛt, I don't know of other uses of *in piscem*. It strikes me as an unusual construction, but a valid one. I suppose Horatius could have written &quot;ends like a fish&quot; or &quot;has the behind of a fish&quot; instead of &quot;ends in a fish&quot;, but my Latin is not strong enough to judge what would be the most natural expression for this situation. (Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion of that in any language.) I have no preference for one translation over the other. Each has its merits. I hope to find the time to look into Vergilius and Seneca for comparison later on." CreationDate="2016-09-12T05:24:58.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4319" PostId="1494" Score="0" Text="I am now convinced that *collaborare* (or *conlaborare*) is good, but *collega* might not be what I'm looking for. My understanding is that it is closer to &quot;colleague&quot; than &quot;collaborators&quot;. For example, all mathematicians are my colleagues, but only few of them my collaborators." CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:05:13.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4325" PostId="1494" Score="1" Text="Finding a fitting word, good classical style but not prone to misunderstandings in modern use, is not easy. I'm hesitant with &quot;associate&quot; as well, since it is not clear (to me) if working together is involved. But if *collaborare* is fine, one should be able to derive *collaborator*, attested by itself or not. I'm not sure there is a better choice." CreationDate="2016-09-13T04:33:12.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4326" PostId="1494" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It exists later [it seems](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/LIBELLIFIUS), but _duCange_ is completely obscure to me. It is indeed not easy. The _association_ (adsocietas) may be too tight a partnership to describe what you mean..." CreationDate="2016-09-13T05:31:44.560" UserDisplayName="user425" />
  <row Id="4322" PostId="1496" Score="0" Text="This is more in the spirit of a student-advisor collaboration than collaboration between peers. Not exactly what I looked for, but still useful." CreationDate="2016-09-12T19:08:26.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4387" PostId="1497" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xA;&#xA;I'll add to Joonas's answer that, though it's true that you have to learn them by word, there are certain patterns that recur. Any vowel before *nf* or *ns*, for example, is long, as is any vowel before the noun ending *mentum*. There are lots and lots of other patterns like this that you end up sort of gleaning as you go." CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:27:05.533" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4785" PostId="1497" Score="2" Text="@JoelDerfner, there are indeed patterns. I should mention that at least the last one on your list has exceptions: consider *alimentum*." CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:19:28.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20062" PostId="1498" Score="0" Text="Just to add: macrons were about as uninteresting to Latin readers as vowel-signs usually are to readers of Hebrew and Arabic. You will only find them in paedagogical contexts. In actual MSS, decorations such as lines (straight or wavy) and hooks are used as abbreviations - for instance u with ~ over it is a very standard way of writing “-um”." CreationDate="2019-06-08T08:47:45.173" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="4329" PostId="1499" Score="0" Text="FWIW, Church Latin uses _ac_ to conjunctively join possessives: _[orate frates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orate_fratres) ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem_." CreationDate="2016-09-13T14:29:39.110" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4330" PostId="1499" Score="0" Text="Nearby in the order of the Mass there is also a decliend construction _quoque_ poss + poss _-que_, that sounds to me like English _as well as_: _ad utilitatem quoque nostram totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae_." CreationDate="2016-09-13T14:35:27.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4328" PostId="1500" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I think *socius* is an excellent word. It might be good to work around *collaborare*, but having such a verb available just in case is useful." CreationDate="2016-09-13T14:26:41.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4331" PostId="1503" Score="3" Text="Tibi gratulor, quod iam mille puncta tulisti!" CreationDate="2016-09-13T16:02:03.130" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4335" PostId="1503" Score="2" Text="Gratias tibi do, care conlocutor! Dolet mihi frequentius hic scribere non posse" CreationDate="2016-09-14T14:03:27.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5715" PostId="1504" Score="0" Text="A good answer, except for the last paragraph. The use of &quot;Augustus&quot; for the emperor and &quot;Caesar&quot; for the heir apparent was established by the end of the first century, not at the time or the tetrarchy." CreationDate="2016-12-18T12:41:59.837" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5722" PostId="1504" Score="0" Text="@fdb Sort of. &quot;Caesar&quot; was adopted by the heir apparent, and then &quot;Augustus&quot; was added on upon accession of the new emperor. They didn't lose &quot;Caesar.&quot; This makes sense, as Octavian was C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus before becoming princeps and C. Iulius Caesar Augustus afterward. You are right about the time period, though." CreationDate="2016-12-18T15:31:09.640" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5724" PostId="1504" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer. Yes, it is true that they did not lose &quot;Caesar&quot;. But &quot;Caesar&quot; alone (not combined with &quot;Augustus&quot;) always means &quot;crown prince&quot;, not &quot;emperor&quot;, from about the end of the 1st century onwards." CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:21:53.767" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5725" PostId="1504" Score="0" Text="@fdb Right, which is why I said &quot;sort of.&quot; As far as I know, though, that distinction disappeared with the Tetrarchy, as Diocletian did not adopt the *Caesar* appellation like he did the *Augustus* one. It was the next step in titular evolution." CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:53:37.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5726" PostId="1504" Score="0" Text="I didn't put it very well in the last paragraph, did I? I only wanted to draw attention to the arrangement of the formal titles when the Tetrarchy was formed, not to suggest that they were anything new." CreationDate="2016-12-18T19:15:30.847" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4336" PostId="1506" Score="0" Text="I think they pronounced elided vowels as &quot;vocales elisus&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-14T14:24:10.830" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="4337" PostId="1506" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes: Hmm I can't Google that, do you have more information? And hello!" CreationDate="2016-09-14T14:35:02.190" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4338" PostId="1506" Score="0" Text="It was a joke; as far as I can tell, that's the Latin phrase meaning &quot;elided bowels&quot;. Also, hi!" CreationDate="2016-09-14T14:50:27.390" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="4355" PostId="1507" Score="0" Text="Good answer! I have heard of *Vox Latina*, although I've never used it. Would you consider it authoritative? And did Allen seem certain about this, or was it more like an hypothesis?" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:23:36.690" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4358" PostId="1507" Score="1" Text="Let us say that it has still not been replaced." CreationDate="2016-09-16T08:02:54.837" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4388" PostId="1507" Score="0" Text="I'd agree with that. I've met experts who believe it's not right about everything, but as none of them has yet written a correction, he's the best to go with." CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:34:07.427" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4344" PostId="1508" Score="2" Text="Risking to repeat myself and TKR's good answer, I have to say: To translate well is not to translate words and structures one by one, but to read a story in a language, understand it, and retell it in another language." CreationDate="2016-09-14T22:21:18.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4342" PostId="1510" Score="2" Text="The original has Καὶ ἰδοὺ νομικός τις ἀνέστη ἐκπειράζων αὐτὸν καὶ λέγων διδάσκαλε, τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; Can anyone explain why the Vulgata translates the present participle ἐκπειράζων as a Latin participle, but the aorist participle ποιήσας as an Latin ablative gerund?" CreationDate="2016-09-14T22:00:12.043" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4343" PostId="1510" Score="3" Text="@fdb Presumably because Latin lacks a perfect active participle, which would be the equivalent of the Greek aorist participle. A present participle *faciens* would probably be unsuitable because it would imply that the doing and the obtaining are contemporaneous." CreationDate="2016-09-14T22:02:27.260" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4346" PostId="1510" Score="2" Text="I see. So it's idiomatic Latin. Interesting how the same problem occurred in the Greek to Latin translation. St. Jerome had to use the ablative gerund in place of the aorist participle. Similar to how we must use a different English construction to account for the ablative gerund. (I guess this is just a feature of translating, as Joonas pointed out.)" CreationDate="2016-09-15T03:09:24.350" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4349" PostId="1512" Score="1" Text="Great answer! Out of curiosity, has anyone ever held (or refuted) that the genitive singular form arose out of the adjective form?" CreationDate="2016-09-15T13:24:10.457" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4351" PostId="1512" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: Apparently yes: Weiss cites Untermann (2003), &quot;Quoius und Valesiosio: zum pronominalen Genitiv im Lateinischen&quot;, as making this argument. It strikes me as a less plausible change prima facie than the other way around, but I haven't read the article." CreationDate="2016-09-15T15:51:56.957" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4347" PostId="1513" Score="2" Text="Three comments: (1) You have a [previous unregistered account with the same name](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/823/landon). Should we merge that old account to this new one? (2) The question is interesting, but the connection to Latin language is not clear. It also contains two different questions. Could you formulate it into a single question, related to the language? Perhaps something like &quot;How did Romans describe sundial readings in Latin?&quot; – the formulation is up to you. Separate questions should be asked separately. (3) Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-09-15T04:51:58.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4348" PostId="1513" Score="2" Text="I think you might get a better answer on the &quot;History of science and mathematics&quot; site. It is a somewhat complicated business (seasonal hours vs equinoctial hours...)" CreationDate="2016-09-15T08:09:49.017" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4375" PostId="1513" Score="0" Text="The clepsydra, originating in Egypt or Athens, measured time from the falling water-level in a jug with a controlled leak.  Alfred the Great measured time from marks on a candle. However Cicero does have a word for sun-dial ***'solarium',*** and Censor, ***'horarium.'***" CreationDate="2016-09-17T23:35:01.503" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4350" PostId="1514" Score="1" Text="Welcome, and thanks for the answer!  If you'd like to improve it, you might consider mentioning references or supplementary reading that supports your conclusions.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-09-15T15:16:43.130" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="20495" PostId="1514" Score="0" Text="This is an interesting answer, which provides new insight into the subject at hand. As @Nathaniel says, adding references would improve your answer’s credibility." CreationDate="2019-07-09T09:17:51.963" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="4352" PostId="1515" Score="0" Text="I'm not quite sure how to tag this. Any ideas are welcome, either here or in the [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm)." CreationDate="2016-09-15T16:54:41.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4354" PostId="1516" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the extra info! Although this doesn't answer the concrete aspect of my question, it's definitely a great supplement to have here." CreationDate="2016-09-15T23:59:14.023" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4362" PostId="1516" Score="0" Text="@brianpck  Specifics:The epic style is relentless:Page, on  I.702:&quot;...when a poet attempts to describe getting a dinner ready in heroic verse, he is apt to become obscure.&quot;  Secondly *Augustus*  When Virgil started the project, the new Aeneas was heroic and faultless. But no individual can stand that sort of adulation and the Aeneid turns into sycophancy." CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:04:05.437" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4477" PostId="1517" Score="0" Text="@quid I rejected your edit by mistake, my apologies. If you would resuggest it, I will accept it." CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:13:56.807" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4361" PostId="1518" Score="0" Text="Bennett (of Cornell) indeed observes that [alterius] &quot;is practically always used instead of 'alius' in the genitive&quot;. In the UK our standard grammar is that of Kennedy, who gives only 'alius'. Strictly, alter(ius) refers solely to one of two and its substitution for alius is technically illiterate: however, this is often excused on the grounds that nominative alius is frequently, if inelegantly, used where a stylist would opt for alter. The alternative usages seldom cause confusion." CreationDate="2016-09-16T10:45:07.963" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4365" PostId="1518" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton, &quot;technically illiterate&quot; is a little harsh I think... It's a standard usage in Cicero for example, and I wouldn't want to call him illiterate." CreationDate="2016-09-16T15:41:38.903" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4366" PostId="1518" Score="0" Text="yes, I agree, though 'technically' was intended to exonerate the (putative?) illiteracy. This is the kind of thing that just happens in everyday usage and is scarcely to be condemned." CreationDate="2016-09-16T16:52:31.667" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4363" PostId="1520" Score="1" Text="Welcome! I've taken the liberty of linking to an online edition of this grammar.  Thanks for this answer!" CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:32:17.750" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4364" PostId="1520" Score="0" Text="I should have realised that there was one around – thank you for the improvement!" CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:42:09.943" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="4371" PostId="1524" Score="0" Text="It is often used in Genitive: I saw Augustus and his dog: *Augustum et canem eius vidi.* Not just any dog, or my dog, but A,'s dog." CreationDate="2016-09-17T00:52:51.417" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4370" PostId="1526" Score="0" Text="This is great; thanks. I'm sure I'll be referring back to this fantastic explanation as I learn more. The first translation you provide seem to be the most likely based on content. I think you mean to put the apostrophe after the *s* though, not before, in *Christian's*." CreationDate="2016-09-17T00:50:15.990" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4372" PostId="1526" Score="1" Text="One further thing to note is that the use of *suae* here is somewhat anomalous -- as a reflexive adjective, it generally refers back to the subject of the clause, but it has it has to be taken as referring to &quot;the Christians&quot;. Such technically non-reflexive uses do occur occasionally in Classical Latin, I believe, but they are rare. I don't know if they're more common in Medieval/Ecclesiastical Latin." CreationDate="2016-09-17T02:47:39.573" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4373" PostId="1526" Score="0" Text="@TKR, good point. I added a note. I don't know if this &quot;non-reflexive use&quot; is more common in some eras or writers than others. That would actually make a nice question..." CreationDate="2016-09-17T03:36:25.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4374" PostId="1526" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel, you are welcome! I have practically no prior exposure to Christian Latin, so I always learn by answering these questions." CreationDate="2016-09-17T03:41:23.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4400" PostId="1529" Score="0" Text="I accept this answer for now, but I will gladly unaccept if someone can give a more thorough answer." CreationDate="2016-09-19T10:22:31.277" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4396" PostId="1530" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I'm now convinced that *laganum* is an excellent translation. I added a second answer about crêperies, although your words for &quot;general bakery&quot; are also often valid." CreationDate="2016-09-18T19:36:39.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4376" PostId="1531" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure I understand the dictionary question. Dictionaries don't usually list conjugated forms, so I would expect to find neither *mutavistis* nor *mutastis*. But there can be other kinds of sources (including grammars) which do list such things. Otherwise the question is good." CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:26:21.173" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4377" PostId="1531" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I tend to use online dictionaries, like Wiktionary or Perseus, which often give the conjugations. I suppose that online dictionaries sometimes go above and beyond the expectations of a normal dictionary. They might be doubling as grammar references. In which case, I'll edit my post to be more specific." CreationDate="2016-09-18T16:49:23.850" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4389" PostId="1531" Score="2" Text="This is actually a much-debated line, and it's worth mentioning that there is an alternate reading *illa* (n. pl.), which could refer to the *coepta*, &quot;for you have changed my undertakings too&quot; -- though to be sure, it's not totally clear what that would mean, either... As for *mutastis*, it is a syncopated form of *mutavistis*." CreationDate="2016-09-18T18:12:14.273" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4417" PostId="1532" Score="0" Text="It doesn't always work:  ***Vir viret,*** means &quot;The man is green.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-20T14:37:38.467" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6243" PostId="1532" Score="0" Text="How can you *conjugate* a noun into a verb? I think you meant [conversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(word_formation))." CreationDate="2017-01-20T04:42:00.517" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4381" PostId="1533" Score="0" Text="I would have guessed verb to be *verbam actionis*" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:09:11.727" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="4402" PostId="1533" Score="1" Text="@tox123 It can't be _verbam actionis_ because _verbum_ is neuter, and would never have a -am ending." CreationDate="2016-09-19T16:28:00.230" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4379" PostId="1534" Score="1" Text="I can't just decide to make any verb a noun, can I? No &quot;Grumio, Grumere, Grumivi, Grumitus&quot; for me?" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:06:29.727" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="4382" PostId="1534" Score="0" Text="@tox123, do you mean making any noun a verb? Typically these derivations are first conjugation and regular. I see no problem with *grumo, grumare, grumavi, grumatus*, although you may need to explain what you mean by it if you use it. You can apply this to any noun I guess, although some of the new verbs will be more natural than others." CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:10:31.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4397" PostId="1534" Score="3" Text="I believe tox123 is referring to the famous Grumio from the Cambridge Latin Course... Presumably &quot;to behave in a Grumio-like fashion&quot;? :)" CreationDate="2016-09-18T22:04:56.033" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="4398" PostId="1534" Score="0" Text="@jogloran, I didn't realize that. I'm not familiar with that course or Grumio." CreationDate="2016-09-19T09:19:50.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4399" PostId="1534" Score="1" Text="@tox123, I misinterpreted your comment, not knowing Grumio before another comment corrected me. If it's third declension (*Grumio*, *Grumionis*), I'd be tempted to use the verb *Grumionizari*. I've seen this *-izari* suffix to mean acting like someone." CreationDate="2016-09-19T09:24:06.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4401" PostId="1534" Score="1" Text="@tox123 All hail the glorious Grumio! In our Latin class, we have declared Grumio a god, and have this whole religion and communist manifesto for him. It's pretty great. See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1214/comparison-of-adjective-to-noun)  for a passage from His holy scripture." CreationDate="2016-09-19T16:26:14.297" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4378" PostId="1535" Score="0" Text="Good point. I'm not sure if there's a way to say both &quot;it's possible&quot; and &quot;I approve&quot; in a couple of words in Latin, so I may have to choose which side to emphasize." CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:05:34.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4411" PostId="1535" Score="2" Text="*Quidni* lacks any sense of authority on the part of the granter, though." CreationDate="2016-09-20T07:51:09.240" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4414" PostId="1535" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer OMG! I want to say &quot;welcome back&quot; but I'm worried it would jinx it. You're right about *quidni*. I suspect that Latin, being a deeply concrete language, simply doesn't have a way to get all the nuances of the original in one straightforward phrase or sentence." CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:44:11.867" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="7706" PostId="1535" Score="0" Text="Well, now look who's gone..." CreationDate="2017-03-30T01:59:45.270" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4391" PostId="1537" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Joel. Wonderful response. I'll have to spend some time thinking about these ideas. I'm glad you introduced me to syncopated perfects, as it will be easy to learn about now." CreationDate="2016-09-18T18:14:37.650" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4407" PostId="1543" Score="3" Text="10K years ago would be *really* ancient Greek! Pre PIE, even :-)" CreationDate="2016-09-19T23:05:45.763" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="4413" PostId="1543" Score="1" Text="Yeah, she was a REALLY forward-thinking teacher." CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:41:02.617" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6252" PostId="1543" Score="0" Text="&quot;My understanding is that this tendency is more common in ancient Greek than in Latin, but that's just from something my first Greek teacher said (...).&quot; --- I heard this too." CreationDate="2017-01-20T09:58:45.517" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="4403" PostId="1544" Score="0" Text="If I'm not mistaken, Iulus is always trisyllabic." CreationDate="2016-09-19T21:55:43.953" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4404" PostId="1544" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I didn't know that. I took considerable amount of time for that option to cross my mind, and I still found it unlikely. If you can find support for three syllables (elsewhere in the epic, perhaps), that would make a good answer." CreationDate="2016-09-19T22:03:24.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4405" PostId="1545" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! It added to my confusion that in Finnish Iulus is often called &quot;Julus&quot;. It's also good to know that *Iulius* is different from *Iulus* in that respect." CreationDate="2016-09-19T22:46:33.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4406" PostId="1545" Score="0" Text="Let me add that the name is &quot;Julus&quot; (with a consonantal J) also in the metric Finnish translation by Alpo Rönty. I just checked my copy. I found no comment about changing the name." CreationDate="2016-09-19T23:03:47.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4427" PostId="1545" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: I've always pronounced it *Julus* in my head as well, but perhaps that pronunciation, and the ensuing spelling with a j, is just a postclassical error?" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:49:50.497" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4428" PostId="1545" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, could be. And one could insist on using the consonantal pronunciation at the cost or producing spondees, although I don't find it very convincing." CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:56:18.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4429" PostId="1545" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Another thought: could it be that *Iulus* is entirely unrelated to *Iulius*, the former Trojan, the latter Roman, only conexed artificially by Virgil for obvious reasons?" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:59:38.007" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4430" PostId="1545" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, an excellent question which should be asked separately. I don't think that should be buried in a comment thread." CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:06:05.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4431" PostId="1545" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Done! I even found some information in Pauly, but I didn't want to overdocument my question." CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:07:54.867" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4415" PostId="1546" Score="2" Text="L&amp;S says *puro* might be a *hapax legomenon*: I think it's worth noting that *purifico* is a much more standard way of saying &quot;purify&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-20T13:07:38.083" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4416" PostId="1546" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yet, there are a few noun /verb switches similar to English &quot;I face book;&quot; &quot;You stackexchange;&quot; &quot;He googles.&quot;  ***dominus*** (or indeed domina) ***dominat*** is another." CreationDate="2016-09-20T14:31:27.720" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4412" PostId="1547" Score="0" Text="Thank you! And welcome back to the site; I haven't seen you for a while." CreationDate="2016-09-20T09:24:24.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6970" PostId="1547" Score="1" Text="This isn't at a normal caesura point, which may come after IIa, IIIa, or IVa, but after IVb2. I usually interpret this specific instance as Vergilius saying rather forcefully that &quot;the current sentence ends right here&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-27T13:34:33.037" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="4434" PostId="1549" Score="2" Text="In classical verse, the lament for a pet sparrow is neatly incongruous: ***'Lugete, o Veneres Cupidinesque, // Passer mortuus est ...meae puellae.'***" CreationDate="2016-09-20T22:26:04.907" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4439" PostId="1549" Score="0" Text="@Hugh, in what sense is that incongruous? I can guess, but I want to make sure I understand." CreationDate="2016-09-21T07:40:57.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4443" PostId="1549" Score="1" Text="Of course when a family pet dies there is real grief. This little songbird's death is being marked by a a full OTT Threnody, a poetic masterpiece, which is an invocation to all Venuses and all cupids to come and mourn. What gives the game away is that also (et) all lovers are called to share in the event,  *'et quant' est hominum venustiorum.'*" CreationDate="2016-09-21T14:21:49.357" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4426" PostId="1552" Score="0" Text="Mehercle, quid desideravi istud *qui*?" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:37:48.340" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4432" PostId="1554" Score="0" Text="In which context have you seen that? Is it a classical thing? If you have a use example, that would help me understand what the phrase might do." CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:13:51.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4433" PostId="1554" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Ah, I came across it in the article about *Iulus*, but I didn't want to spoil my other question...but I suppose you're right: I've added the context to my question." CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:20:01.360" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4437" PostId="1554" Score="1" Text="Wikipedia says the following &quot;Such was the fame of the Epic Cycle in Roman and Medieval times that it was built upon to provide a starting point for **various founding myths of national origins**. The most influential, Virgil's Aeneid, traces the journeys of the Trojan prince Aeneas, supposed ancestor of the founders of Rome and the Julio-Claudian dynasty. [...] a Trojan pedigree was both gloriously ancient and established an equality with the ruling class of Rome.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-21T02:02:20.223" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4435" PostId="1555" Score="6" Text="&quot;Take&quot; is a very demure translation for *moechor* :)" CreationDate="2016-09-21T00:43:25.233" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4442" PostId="1556" Score="0" Text="Actually I find these speculative etymologies fairly convincing!" CreationDate="2016-09-21T14:08:03.897" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4441" PostId="1557" Score="2" Text="How does this fit with *Iulus* beginning with a vocalic I and *Iulius* a consonantal one? Either way, this pattern must have helped Vergilius make the connection he wanted." CreationDate="2016-09-21T13:07:38.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4551" PostId="1557" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Iulus would need three vowels because in Greek initial I- is a vowel. It would be strange if Vergil wrote about someone involved with the Trojan War who had a clearly Roman-style name." CreationDate="2016-09-26T00:55:19.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4450" PostId="1561" Score="0" Text="This is a very thorough answer. Many thanks!" CreationDate="2016-09-21T21:06:13.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4465" PostId="1561" Score="0" Text="Not sure I understand why ὀνομάσῐ(ν) is more difficult to transcribe into Latin than the other forms -- what's wrong with *onomasi(n)*?" CreationDate="2016-09-22T17:20:39.233" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4469" PostId="1561" Score="1" Text="@TKR I shouldn't have said &quot;transcribe&quot;: While Latin preserves the Greek forms of some rare words (often for exotic/poetic effect), it mostly adapts them to its own paradigms. (See [related discussion](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1460/why-are-greek-nouns-in-%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%BF%CF%82-transliterated-in-latin-as-um-us)) All these forms fit pretty neatly into the neuter 3rd declension forms, like *flumen*, except for the dative plural, which doesn't &quot;sound&quot; Latin." CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:08:00.690" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4481" PostId="1561" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I don't think I agree there's anything special about the dative plural in this regard -- does *onomaton* &quot;sound Latin&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:22:12.823" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4453" PostId="1564" Score="1" Text="Hm. I thought that *habere* takes the accusative case. But I can see a case for making it neuter, in which case it would be *llludne*." CreationDate="2016-09-22T05:12:43.633" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4454" PostId="1564" Score="0" Text="Touché;  Illumne, illamne, illudne" CreationDate="2016-09-22T06:02:59.677" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4455" PostId="1564" Score="0" Text="I have never seen *quaeso* used like in your example translations. It could be completely fine, I'm just not sure. I would like to know if that is indeed idiomatic classical Latin. (I gave some other ways in my answer, but they are in a sense further away from the English &quot;please&quot;.)" CreationDate="2016-09-22T07:11:12.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4456" PostId="1564" Score="0" Text="FWIW, _Ecclesiastical_ Latin is full of prayers with _quaesumus_. So much, that I'd bet it was completely idiomatic at least in post-classical times" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:26:01.333" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4475" PostId="1564" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I've seen this done by speakers, and [L&amp;S confirms it](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso), saying it can be used with ut/ne/quin, subjunctive, accusative, or as a standalone, e.g. Cicero: &quot;tu, quaeso, crebro ad me scribe&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:10:21.440" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4591" PostId="1564" Score="1" Text="Dicky 2012 mentions that &quot;**Quaeso** was elegant and **belonged to a high register**, so that many Romans refrained from using it in letters.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-28T16:34:41.733" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4457" PostId="1566" Score="2" Text="1. *Touché* - because it's already loan word." CreationDate="2016-09-22T11:42:02.287" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="4458" PostId="1566" Score="4" Text="2. I would analyze what it's original meaning was, before it was borrowed. It comes from fencing, where a touch by the sword was counted as a point. It has come to mean *a telling blow* or *a telling point*, an acknowledgement of an opponent's argument." CreationDate="2016-09-22T11:46:24.210" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="4461" PostId="1566" Score="1" Text="@andy256. Touché is the perf. pass. part. of toucher, like Italian toccare, Spanish tocar etc., all from “Vulgar” Latin *toccare “to knock into”, originally “to the make the sound ‘toc’”." CreationDate="2016-09-22T14:19:56.710" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4462" PostId="1566" Score="1" Text=".....Hence I could well imagine a mediaeval swordsman shouting &quot;toccatus!&quot;, but I think Joonas is looking for something classical." CreationDate="2016-09-22T14:32:56.717" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4463" PostId="1566" Score="0" Text="@fdb, I would indeed prefer something classical, but I will accept any era. What I most want is attested use in a similar meaning. *Tactus*, *toccatus* and *touché* are all fine, if they have been used that way. And I'm interested in discussions or arguments, not fencing." CreationDate="2016-09-22T14:38:29.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8844" PostId="1566" Score="0" Text="Check under [granted](https://archive.org/stream/copiouscriticale00smit#page/348/mode/2up)." CreationDate="2017-05-15T04:02:53.723" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8846" PostId="1566" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I hope that ends up extended to an answer. Having more views on this issue is welcome." CreationDate="2017-05-15T04:12:01.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8847" PostId="1566" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm pressed for time, and since it's an old question, I won't hurry, but if it goes too long (&gt; month), do feel free to remind me." CreationDate="2017-05-15T04:18:42.030" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4459" PostId="1567" Score="11" Text="Just trying to shed a bit more light on the subject: saying  please is nearly always colloquial rather than formal, so you would expect not only informality but a variety of ways to express the idea. They do indeed occur, and can indicate various levels of politeness.&#xA;I wouldn’t reject most of the suggestions above, but if you want to be a little more fulsome, there are such expressions as amabo te si . . . ; si placeat, . . . followed by a verb of permitting (sino, patior, permitto). Sis, a contraction of si vis, has the sense of “if you would be so kind” and can often be used for quaeso." CreationDate="2016-09-22T13:27:40.797" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4460" PostId="1567" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton, excellent points!" CreationDate="2016-09-22T13:32:19.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4478" PostId="1567" Score="0" Text="Great answer: to nitpick, *te auxilium rogo* just doesn't sound right to me. I would say something like *rogo, auxilium ut feras* or something similar." CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:15:09.943" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4480" PostId="1567" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I think *rogare* can go with two accusatives like that. Google &quot;rogavi te Deum, auxilium&quot;, for example. I couldn't find classical examples quickly." CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:19:48.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4486" PostId="1567" Score="2" Text="I was always taught the phrase __si (tibi) placet__, or &quot;if it is pleasing to you&quot; (&quot;if it pleases you&quot;). Which seems more direct than any of those other ways. I don't know how idiomatic it is, but I was just surprised no one else had this in their answer..." CreationDate="2016-09-23T01:13:51.573" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4487" PostId="1567" Score="0" Text="@SamK, *si tibi/vobis placet* is indeed a possibility that I forgot. I'm not sure how idiomatic it is. I wonder if it is related to the French &quot;s'il te/vous plaît&quot;, one being derived from the other." CreationDate="2016-09-23T07:12:33.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19906" PostId="1567" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: and English &quot;if you please&quot;, where originally &quot;you&quot; was not the subject but the indirect (dative) object." CreationDate="2019-05-25T20:53:12.367" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="23339" PostId="1567" Score="0" Text="And also &quot;Si vis&quot;." CreationDate="2019-11-21T16:23:58.880" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23340" PostId="1567" Score="0" Text="&quot;si (tibi) placet&quot; is where &quot;s'il te plaît&quot; comes from. Same meaning, same connotations." CreationDate="2019-11-21T16:24:35.767" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23341" PostId="1567" Score="0" Text="@Quidam Those are both addressed in other answers. Please take a look below, and see also the comments." CreationDate="2019-11-21T16:41:59.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4464" PostId="1568" Score="1" Text="That's a very clever word for this purpose! Do you know if it has been ever used in Latin?" CreationDate="2016-09-22T15:48:45.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4470" PostId="1568" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately I have not found any confirmation of Latin use." CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:42:46.200" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8850" PostId="1568" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure I agree with this translation: [*συγχωρέω*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dsugxwre%2Fw) is actually a pretty vanilla way of saying, &quot;I agree&quot; in Greek. The distinctive nuance of &quot;touché&quot; is &quot;you're right--my argument was bad.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:18:57.873" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4467" PostId="1570" Score="2" Text="I'm no expert, so not offering this as an answer, but think they would have to agree in number. Eg,  *servi dominorum* would mean more than one master and more than one slave, whilst *servi domini* would be the slave's of one master. Conversely, *servus dominorum* would mean many masters owned one slave.  But I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong!" CreationDate="2016-09-22T17:32:39.203" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="4468" PostId="1571" Score="0" Text="That's definitely helpful. Thanks. I would be interested in any other feedback as well." CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:03:03.310" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4479" PostId="1571" Score="3" Text="Agreed that you should start with the beginning of *BG* if you haven't read it already: *Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres* is a rite of passage for Latin learners :)" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:17:38.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4499" PostId="1571" Score="1" Text="Another section that might interest you is B.Civ Vi, the short chapter where Caesar crosses the Adriatic in pursuit of Pompey. It contains a sentence which some have seen as the origin of the saying &quot;between a rock and a hard place&quot;." CreationDate="2016-09-23T15:58:15.990" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4488" PostId="1572" Score="1" Text="I'd add that the habit of attaching “please” to all imperatives is a phenomenon of some languages like English or German where the imperative without &quot;please&quot; implies and order and would be seen as rude in most contexts. Although a lot of languages have idioms more or less equivalent to &quot;please&quot;, in some of them (for example Catalan or Spanish) we can use the imperative to adres somebody (even a customer, a boss or a professor) while not being rude nor implying the speaker is in a commanding position. I don't know how it worked in Latin,  but we shouldn't expect a parallel to English." CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:09:15.890" UserId="851" />
  <row Id="4598" PostId="1572" Score="2" Text="The cultural relevancy of the word “please” is interesting. Carl Darling Buck in his “A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages” (University of Chicago Press, 1949) states that while this formula is common in English, Italian and French, “more widespread is the use of the first person singular of a verb for ‘ask, request’”, going on to cite Greek, German, Lithuanian, and Polish, among others (p. 1101).  Which is indeed what Latin seems to do, looking at Joonas Ilmavirta’s answer above." CreationDate="2016-09-29T03:24:47.560" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="4474" PostId="1573" Score="1" Text="*misere* can also mean 'violently'  [L&amp;S]" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:50:59.823" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7234" PostId="1573" Score="1" Text="Any question which details the inquirer using Google Translate doesn't show that the one asking thinks that Google can understand Latin perfectly, but rather believes that it might help them. If they were truly ignorant of the imperfections of it, they wouldn't come to this website." CreationDate="2017-03-10T14:30:52.777" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="4483" PostId="1575" Score="2" Text="I think 1 is definitely a genitive, specifically a &quot;geographic&quot; or &quot;chorographic&quot; genitive as this usage is sometimes known." CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:23:18.270" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4476" PostId="1576" Score="0" Text="Just realized that TomCotton mentioned this in his comment :)" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:13:38.903" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4589" PostId="1576" Score="2" Text="Dicky 2012 writes that &quot;when asked to give the Latin for ‘please’, Classicists have a tendency to think first of the Plautine terms sis and amabo, **both of which are rare** in the works of Cicero and indeed **everywhere except in early Latin**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.]" CreationDate="2016-09-28T16:29:26.157" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4590" PostId="1576" Score="4" Text="@AlexB. A valid point, though I think it also worth considering that the context in which we use &quot;please&quot; is often much closer to the colloquial setting of Plautus than that of, say, Cicero or Virgil. It's interesting that the cases where Cicero *does* use *sis* are in...less formal dialogues!" CreationDate="2016-09-28T16:33:50.777" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4491" PostId="1579" Score="0" Text="I like your 'memorandum.' *&quot;Memoranda,&quot;* = things which should be remembered; though the Romans meant great deeds and worthy achievements." CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:31:56.813" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4502" PostId="1579" Score="1" Text="A plug for the Morgan Lexicon—it's true that they're not classical idioms, but it's not so much that the lexicon attempts to find Latin words for modern concepts as that by going through the entire history of Latin it often finds words in late Latin that fit modern concepts much better than words in classical Latin. *Adversaria*, for example, is from a 1794 use, in which year our modern concept of &quot;taking notes&quot; was much more in the public consciousness. http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx" CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:19:53.997" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4520" PostId="1579" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Thank you! See, I knew that they found words throughout history and all of that, I just couldn't figure out the right way to word it..." CreationDate="2016-09-24T00:39:27.333" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4489" PostId="1580" Score="0" Text="*&quot;incognito&quot;* ?" CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:14:46.380" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4490" PostId="1580" Score="3" Text="*'potes'* means you have the technique to transform into a dog. *'licet'* lets you do so." CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:20:23.490" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4492" PostId="1580" Score="1" Text="Some comments: 1) Your translation would mean _you can be a dog on the internet_, which is not quite the meaning of the original English wording, 2) I think _Interrete_ is generally agreed to be the most accepted neologism to mean _the Internet_ (although there are people with good reasons to disagree with its form), 3) That said, I would go with Joonas variant of Sam's translation" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:19:46.067" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4521" PostId="1580" Score="1" Text="A few years ago the expression &quot;tela totius terrae&quot; was in vogue, conveniently shortened to &quot;ttt&quot; to represent &quot;www&quot;." CreationDate="2016-09-24T10:21:11.117" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4494" PostId="1581" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, the same happens in every language I guess. That is why I wanted to make it clear that I'm looking for the actual animal sounds (like *mur*, *grr* and *räyh* for a lion in Finnish) instead of verbs." CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:27:16.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4519" PostId="1581" Score="0" Text="Norwegian: Brøl! (or if you like: Brøøøl!).  It's also the verb: &quot;Løven brøler.&quot; (The lion roars)" CreationDate="2016-09-23T23:28:44.087" UserId="274" />
  <row Id="4752" PostId="1581" Score="2" Text="On pages 3 and 4 (= folio 2) of the *Orbis Sensualium Pictus* by Comenius, he gives sounds for animals that appear to be Latin (because the English sounds that we know are quite different), though not classical. Unless they're Czech. https://archive.org/stream/johamoscommeniio00come#page/2/mode/2up" CreationDate="2016-10-09T23:38:54.027" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4496" PostId="1582" Score="0" Text="I thought of proposing *canis non cognosceris* (being a dog, you would not be recognized) but it struck me as a little off. Thoughts?" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:53:37.423" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4497" PostId="1582" Score="0" Text="*Canis non cognosceris* sounds fine to me. *Canis non cognoscitur* can also be read as &quot;no one looks what a dog looks like&quot;. I would prefer the original ACI structure or *nemo te canem scit/cognoscit* if that's grammatical. (+1 of course)" CreationDate="2016-09-23T14:10:07.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4534" PostId="1582" Score="1" Text="I love the last one. I'd also offer *In interrete canis ab homine non internoscitur* or *canis et homo non internoscuntur*." CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:06:52.180" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5974" PostId="1582" Score="0" Text="One of the issues with your suggestions is that element of surprise in the original is missing. It's the unexpected punchline to a straight-faced joke. I think normal idioms wouldn't work, as they seem too much like a proverb, losing the humor in translation—as translation is wont to do!" CreationDate="2017-01-04T00:52:04.003" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4500" PostId="1583" Score="0" Text="This question asks about the interpretation of an (reconstructed) Indo-European root, not about Latin language. My best guess is that the reconstruction isn't clear whether the o should be long or short and this uncertainty is expressed by displaying both diacritics." CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:10:40.977" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="4501" PostId="1583" Score="0" Text="Yes, macron and breve means &quot;this vowel may be short or long&quot; -- either because we don't know which, or because both variants appeared in different forms of the word." CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:15:57.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4503" PostId="1583" Score="0" Text="@jknappen and TKR, Thank you for teaching me the meaning. I want to hear that. Sorry for posting the question to the wrong category." CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:30:14.913" UserId="853" />
  <row Id="4505" PostId="1583" Score="0" Text="I think the question could be on topic--it's obviously the root of Latin *nomen*, which has a long *-o*..." CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:42:29.480" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4506" PostId="1584" Score="0" Text="Would you mind giving a better idea of the sources you use for this?  Definitely sounds plausible." CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:45:11.123" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4510" PostId="1584" Score="0" Text="Added more links. Should have done that at the beginning!" CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:18:07.643" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="4511" PostId="1584" Score="3" Text="Is it true that _βῆ_ was the only/main clue to tell which e (eta, epsilon) was long and short in classic Greek?" CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:19:52.337" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4512" PostId="1584" Score="7" Text="@Rafael I haven't heard that one; I believe the pronunciations were guessed at first based on poetic meters and Attic vowel contractions (ε+ε=ει, ε+α=η).&#xA;&#xA;However, βῆ was important in tracing the history of β: in later Greek beta was (and is) pronounced more like English &quot;v&quot;, but Aristophanes uses *βῆ βῆ* extensively for the sound of sheep. So we know that when Aristophanes' plays were being transcribed, β was more like a &quot;b&quot; than a &quot;v&quot;." CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:27:58.837" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="4515" PostId="1584" Score="0" Text="Good answer! Are you sure *hinni* is what a horse says? It's only an unsourced Wikipedia mention. The other link, the dictionary entry on *hinnire*, says nothing about transcribing horse sounds although the verb is onomatopoetic." CreationDate="2016-09-23T18:04:43.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4516" PostId="1584" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Unfortunately I have no solid source for that one. I was taught that the word *hinnus* (mule) was derived from the sound, but if so it was likely through *hinnio*." CreationDate="2016-09-23T18:31:29.913" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="4546" PostId="1584" Score="6" Text="Came just for Βρεκεκεκὲξ κοὰξ κοάξ and was not disappointed." CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:05:52.917" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5927" PostId="1584" Score="2" Text="Da hell! _brekekeke_ is what a frog says when it speaks Czech! I had no idea our frogs learnt it in Greece! Now, my life is complete." CreationDate="2017-01-01T10:41:14.060" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="4518" PostId="1585" Score="3" Text="Two very interesting articles." CreationDate="2016-09-23T19:47:21.707" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4592" PostId="1585" Score="2" Text="Fantastic articles - just read them. It'd be better if you could summarize her research in your post." CreationDate="2016-09-28T16:36:01.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4504" PostId="1586" Score="0" Text="Thank you for teaching me the meaning of the diacritics. And sorry for posting the question to the wrong category. I didn't notice the difference between roots and Latin words." CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:40:39.340" UserId="853" />
  <row Id="4507" PostId="1586" Score="0" Text="Maybe I should ask this question in http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ instead of here." CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:54:20.647" UserId="853" />
  <row Id="4508" PostId="1586" Score="2" Text="@nekketsuuu, if you think your question would be better at Linguistics (and if the people there agree), it can be migrated there. The question can be related to Latin as well: macron and breve together sometimes mark ambiguity, and the root is related to the Latin word *nomen*. If you could edit the question a bit to relate it to Latin somehow, it would certainly be on-topic." CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:06:29.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4513" PostId="1586" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you for the advice! I edited my question." CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:28:30.890" UserId="853" />
  <row Id="4727" PostId="1586" Score="0" Text="Isn't it simply PIE ablaut? Zero-grade *h3 gives short o, e-grade *eh3 gives long o, and different languages generalized different grades." CreationDate="2016-10-06T20:53:32.363" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4730" PostId="1586" Score="1" Text="Btw I was surprised by the statement that Brugmann's Law is controversial, so I posted a [question](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/19902/is-brugmanns-law-controversial) about it on Linguistics SE." CreationDate="2016-10-06T23:14:25.693" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4527" PostId="1590" Score="1" Text="How do you think this applies to physical objects, like *caput equi*? I'm inclined to say *capita equorum*, and I'm pretty sure *caput equorum* would sound strange to a Latin speaker, so perhaps you could incorporate that into your answer." CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:17:50.537" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4545" PostId="1590" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Actually, it's an unusual feature of Latin idiom that singular for plural isn't unheard of. Gildersleeve notes it in 204 n. 8, but I seem to recall things like &quot;the soldiers lost their life.&quot; I encountered it not infrequently in the *Aeneid*, and I believe in Caesar as well, whereupon it stopped standing out." CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:01:39.903" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4596" PostId="1590" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer. I upvoted it right away, but did not notice until now the latter addition." CreationDate="2016-09-28T21:51:22.240" UserId="847" />
  <row Id="4526" PostId="1591" Score="2" Text="+1 When you say to &quot;increase precision,&quot; do you mean to distinguish ablative from locative or to make their syntactical function clearer (e.g. not confuse accusative of motion for D.O.)?" CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:15:39.613" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4529" PostId="1591" Score="2" Text="@brianpck I expanded my answer: hopefully it's clearer now; thank'you for asking" CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:45:48.867" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4524" PostId="1592" Score="2" Text="@Rafael I have rarely seen *non* written alone to mean &quot;no.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:09:42.417" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4532" PostId="1592" Score="1" Text="A very useful paper by Rolando Ferri, &quot;How to say no in Latin&quot; https://www.academia.edu/2026111/How_to_say_No_in_Latin" CreationDate="2016-09-25T01:39:07.563" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8199" PostId="1592" Score="1" Text="Related thread: [Why doesn't Latin have words for &quot;Yes&quot; and &quot;No&quot;?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/3016/why-doesnt-latin-have-words-for-yes-and-no)" CreationDate="2017-04-20T03:23:04.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4525" PostId="1593" Score="5" Text="*immo* is also a great way to oppose the speaker's statement if it is not a question. &quot;Fortis sum! --Immo ignavus es!&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:12:47.640" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4528" PostId="1593" Score="1" Text="*Immo* is an interesting case, and I've never really been sure if I'm using it correctly. My understanding is that it introduces further information about the previous statement, but could either strengthen or refute it: &quot;Vivitne Caesar?&quot; &quot;Immo Dictator est.&quot; (&quot;Is Caesar alive?&quot; &quot;Not only alive, he's the Dictator!&quot;)." CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:23:27.790" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="4531" PostId="1593" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, *immo* is indeed a good word, but after all the years with Latin I'm still confused about it. [I decided to ask about it in a separate question.](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1595/79)" CreationDate="2016-09-24T21:17:22.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7427" PostId="1593" Score="1" Text="If I ever deny or approve of something in Latin, I say, type, or write &quot;sic est&quot; and &quot;sic non est.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:04:08.823" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="28714" PostId="1593" Score="0" Text="There was a suggested edit saying that it should be *ita est* instead, as *ita* on its own only means &quot;thus&quot; and so needs to be combined with *est*. I declined it. If the anonymous user wants to bring that view forward, they should add a new answer. (I would disagree with it.)" CreationDate="2020-08-21T21:03:16.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4536" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="I believe that some commentators suggest an alternative reading as universim, which would make some sort of sense." CreationDate="2016-09-25T11:21:29.773" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4537" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="Ah—that would at the very least offer a way to parse the sentence grammatically." CreationDate="2016-09-25T12:39:15.390" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4539" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="[This translation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+33+32&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0164) has &quot;joy greater than men could grasp in its entirety&quot;." CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:24:00.517" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4540" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="That would fit with *universim*." CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:32:31.303" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4542" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="Could be &quot;as a whole.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:49:31.040" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4547" PostId="1596" Score="1" Text="I can see it working as an adjective: &quot;maius gaudium fuit quam quod universum [gaudium] homines acciperent.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-25T19:47:03.843" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4548" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="Yes, pretty sure that translation is reading *universum*." CreationDate="2016-09-25T19:48:33.813" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4550" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="Right. But that's what I don't get: putting an adjective in a clause subordinate to the clause in which its noun appears seems very strange. Am I wrong about that?" CreationDate="2016-09-25T23:07:32.453" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4555" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Would it be an adverb in this case then?" CreationDate="2016-09-26T07:36:01.323" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4583" PostId="1596" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Only in the English. It's not at all uncommon for Latin to use adjectives where we would place the emphasis on the verb. *Marcus iratus clamavit* = lit. Marcus, angry, shouted; but better in English &quot;Marcus angrily shouted.&quot; I don't have any exact references offhand, but I see nothing strange about an adjective in the subordinate modifying a noun in the primary." CreationDate="2016-09-27T21:13:02.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4543" PostId="1599" Score="2" Text="Slight quibble: *accendere* isn't directly derived from *candēre* -- which would yield *accendēre* -- but is probably from the same Indo-European root (thus de Vaan, at least)." CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:50:35.383" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4544" PostId="1599" Score="0" Text="Good point. Edited for accuracy." CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:53:05.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4556" PostId="1600" Score="0" Text="You tagged your question &quot;classical/medieval Latin&quot; but mention &quot;tech.&quot; Are you looking for a cultural equivalent from that period or for a term for the current phenomenon?" CreationDate="2016-09-26T13:03:25.920" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4557" PostId="1600" Score="3" Text="Also, since it's bound to come up: https://xkcd.com/747/" CreationDate="2016-09-26T13:03:37.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4558" PostId="1600" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The cultural equivalent." CreationDate="2016-09-26T13:31:34.710" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="35225" PostId="1600" Score="0" Text="The sociological side just doesn't match up between our culture and theirs. This is one of the reasons that we know so little about Greco-Roman practical technology -- the kind of people who knew about water wheels, tanning, or metallurgy were slaves or plebeian laborers. The kind of people whose ideas are recorded by history are aristocrats who wouldn't have dirtied their hands with such matters. It's the complete cultural opposite of the Steve Wozniak/Elon Musk thing." CreationDate="2021-09-23T20:13:01.303" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="4560" PostId="1601" Score="2" Text="I like &quot;corrective adverb.&quot; I never was confused by *immo*, but maybe that's because I'm not aware of all the uses: I read it as mostly being to contradict a previous statement, and I guess I always saw the &quot;supplemental&quot; use as somewhat hyperbolic, like &quot;You have NO idea...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-26T16:35:52.507" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4777" PostId="1601" Score="5" Text="This is a good answer and I am willing to accept it, but I was waiting for the examples. Are you still going to add them? (No hurry, just reminding you.)" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:35:11.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37934" PostId="1602" Score="0" Text="How often in Petrarca or Boccaccio do we see these “odd” uses that may be of era or locale?" CreationDate="2022-04-12T20:07:41.887" UserId="10994" />
  <row Id="4562" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="For the record: [Fr. Daniel Gallagher](http://www.npr.org/2014/03/28/295851405/monsignor-brings-pope-s-tweets-to-the-world-in-latin) is generally responsible for these translations and is (otherwise...?) an excellent Latinist." CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:28:11.717" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4563" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="I guess that this is medieval Latin, which so often ignores classical syntax, just so long as the meaning is clear. Indicative &quot;agnosco&quot; then would not be unexpected, but I don't think we can demand the same standards here as we would do of Cicero or Caesar !" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:42:20.807" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4565" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="Great points — it does make sense that *tunc* is not being used as an adverb (as it is joining two clauses) in which case it is peculiar." CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:52:33.500" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4566" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="I'm not too familiar with restrictive particles, but to me the part of speech for *tunc* seems to be a conjunction. Can a particle be a conjunction? Is that the case here?" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:55:46.640" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4567" PostId="1603" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton I've read a lot of medieval Latin and this still strikes me as off: Medieval Latin has idiosyncracies that are well-studied, but it isn't a catch-all umbrella for solecisms. Also, since Erasmus the growing trend of Latinists of this kind is to consciously emulate classical patterns wherever possible: the acc. + inf. construction (instead of *quia*) seems to confirm that." CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:57:28.277" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4568" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 I just blindly used L&amp;S's [&quot;restrictive particle&quot; phrase](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddum), but yes I would have said &quot;conjunction.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:59:01.390" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4569" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="It strikes me as &quot;off&quot;, too. In addition to that, I hope you'd agree with me that we shouldn't accept every old text as unimpeachable (as so many people seem to do) but ought to strive for the real  meaning without getting upset by any less-than-perfect grammar." CreationDate="2016-09-26T21:18:53.087" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4571" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I see, thanks. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds it strange." CreationDate="2016-09-26T21:31:02.153" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4572" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="I agree. And I have seen other errors in publications from the Vatican. It appears the Pope is not quite infallible." CreationDate="2016-09-26T21:58:33.183" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4575" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Well, if you call this a formally defined matter of faith and morals, then sure :) ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility))" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:06:32.243" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4586" PostId="1603" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I should think it a deterioration of morals when his Latin falters!" CreationDate="2016-09-27T21:38:06.890" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4564" PostId="1604" Score="0" Text="I don't think it's terribly meaningful to talk about a grammatical *hapax legomenon* in the context of something that was just written on Twitter... :)" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:51:09.627" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4570" PostId="1604" Score="0" Text="I think you have misunderstood. I wasn't referring to the tweet but wished to suggest that the compilers of dictionaries, for reasons of space, are liable to exclude a hapax legomenon that they consider of little significance." CreationDate="2016-09-26T21:22:58.550" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4576" PostId="1604" Score="0" Text="Got it. I still think you are extending a little too much latitude to a Latin tweet by suggesting that he is using a construction that has never been recorded before." CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:08:27.500" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6559" PostId="1604" Score="0" Text="*Cringes and backs into corner slowly* I think this might be a duplicate ...*closes eyes*" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:22:31.270" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="4573" PostId="1605" Score="1" Text="Ooh, I like this answer -- but being an *ineptus* or *inconcinnus* doesn't seem like something that could be seen as both an insult and praise, which is basically the whole thing I'm trying to get at." CreationDate="2016-09-27T03:27:15.573" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="4584" PostId="1605" Score="0" Text="@QPaysTaxes Bear in mind that for many of us, when we were kids, nerd was definitely not praise, nor was geek, dork, and dweeb. It'd be like Roman kids going around saying, &quot;Tam stultus sum!&quot; Especially when you consider the etymology." CreationDate="2016-09-27T21:16:39.513" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4585" PostId="1605" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer you're right. I don't think &quot;praise&quot; is the right word -- it's more of an insulting word intentionally repurposed to mean something good to the insulted people, as they decided not to shy away from but accept and be proud of their label." CreationDate="2016-09-27T21:31:42.793" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="4623" PostId="1605" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, I find a lot of Traupman highly suspect. The stuff in chapter 12—everyday locutions—is great, but the rest is a crap shoot." CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:16:32.030" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4577" PostId="1606" Score="0" Text="In an ecumenical spirit, how 'bout *artifex inconcinnus* :)" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:10:40.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4574" PostId="1608" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the interesting answer!" CreationDate="2016-09-27T10:16:42.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4578" PostId="1608" Score="2" Text="I think I like this the best: it's a great cultural parallel!" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:14:24.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4587" PostId="1608" Score="1" Text="The other words are great for general put-downs as nerd was back in the day, but only this one I think really captures the cultural parallel." CreationDate="2016-09-27T21:50:09.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4600" PostId="1612" Score="0" Text="I’m not a native French speaker but my interpretation of that entry is that plaire could derive from placere.  Two options are given: that it comes from an etymological doublet placere/placire (the OED suggests a post-classical variant plácĕre of Classical placēre); or that it is a réfection –  the reconfiguring of an irregular word into the form of more regular words – here, the alteration of plaisir, an infinitive until the 13th cent., into plaire, probably because il plaît appeared to conjugate like faire, traire etc.  The CNRTL entry for plaisir unequivocally gives placere as its etymon." CreationDate="2016-09-29T10:03:41.383" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="4602" PostId="1612" Score="0" Text="@Penelope. I am not sure that we disagree about anything. plaîre implies a 3rd-conj. verb *placĕre, like faîre from facĕre. Classical placēre is a 2nd-conj. verb." CreationDate="2016-09-29T12:00:14.207" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4604" PostId="1612" Score="0" Text="Sorry, I may have misunderstood you.  I think the point I was trying to clarify was that plaire does seem to derive from the Latin verb to please, find agreeable.  I think I must have overlooked your point that it wasn't a &quot;direct&quot; continuation.  All the rest, the doublet and the réfection, happened between placere and plaire!" CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:46:09.233" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="23015" PostId="1612" Score="0" Text="Why is it not the direct continuation, what are the sources?" CreationDate="2019-11-01T22:34:35.990" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="4603" PostId="1614" Score="0" Text="My (idiomatically translated) understanding of the phrase is different: &quot;The joy was too great for men to accept it entirely.&quot; A subtle but important difference, since you seem to imply that no man can accept it..." CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:35:05.787" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4605" PostId="1614" Score="0" Text="But @brianpck, now we're back to square one! :)  I guess universum could be an adverb but using Occam's razor, I reasoned thus: an adverbial accusative is more likely to be found in poetry (Kennedy); my dictionary didn't list universum as an adverb; there are adverbial forms, universe and universim, but they mean &quot;in general&quot;; &quot;entirety&quot; might be better rendered with totus; there could be a textual variant but who knows; while the explanation for the placement of universum was simple; moreover, it's a common, well-documented Latin construction." CreationDate="2016-09-29T14:21:41.137" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="4606" PostId="1614" Score="0" Text="No, I agree it's an adjective, but I was translating it as an adverb. To preserve the awkward structure in English: &quot;The joy was greater than that men could receive it whole.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-09-29T14:23:08.873" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4607" PostId="1614" Score="1" Text="How about &quot;there was complete joy, more than the men could possibly take on board&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-09-29T14:29:17.557" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="23014" PostId="1617" Score="0" Text="I do agree, but you have to consider the meaning of the word &quot;plaire&quot; in old French, not modern French." CreationDate="2019-11-01T22:34:04.943" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="4609" PostId="1618" Score="0" Text="The du Pontet (OUP) edition of Caesar's Gallic wars opens with &quot; Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tris&quot;, which comes as a shock to some traditionalists. Elsewhere in that edition we find the -es ending where -is might have been used. I can only regard the use of one ending or the other as idiosyncrasy on the part of whoever might be the editor." CreationDate="2016-09-29T16:06:32.780" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4610" PostId="1618" Score="1" Text="partis tris? God forbid. :) I will always remember it as &quot;Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres&quot; (e.g. Hering)." CreationDate="2016-09-29T16:12:58.993" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4617" PostId="1618" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure &quot;superheavy&quot; is a meaningful term in Latin prosody -- is there any evidence that such syllables were treated differently from other heavy syllables?" CreationDate="2016-09-29T20:51:11.817" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4620" PostId="1618" Score="1" Text="@TKR well, it depends. If you're interested solely in Latin prosody (synchronic) then the term &quot;superheavy&quot; isn't that useful. If, however, you're more interested in comparative historical research, then yes, it is quite important." CreationDate="2016-09-30T03:14:21.560" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33432" PostId="1618" Score="0" Text="I also learned it &quot;in partes tres,&quot; and I will catch myself writing that from time to time, but I favor Du Pontet's OCT reading as well." CreationDate="2021-05-29T03:39:19.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4613" PostId="1620" Score="4" Text="It is indeed not required in Latin. You could call it an asyndeton. Incidentally, you can even omit the conjunction in English, but it will have something of a rhetorical or stylistic effect, right?" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:52:57.047" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4619" PostId="1620" Score="1" Text="In fact it's pretty common in lists of more than two items (whatever the size of the items themselves -- single words, phrases) to leave out all the &quot;and&quot;s." CreationDate="2016-09-30T02:10:09.440" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4624" PostId="1621" Score="0" Text="I don't know but I've corresponded with Keller about their *Learn to Read Greek* and he's fairly quick to reply. You might write him and ask." CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:20:09.497" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="4625" PostId="1621" Score="0" Text="If anyone writes the authors and asks, please post the result here if it is not too confidential. We want the solution here, not just in a couple inboxes. (@JoelDerfner)" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:24:09.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4629" PostId="1622" Score="2" Text="Interesting find but keep in mind that my question was mainly about the time when Latin was still a living language, not after its resurrection." CreationDate="2016-09-30T10:36:35.433" UserId="89" />
  <row Id="4630" PostId="1622" Score="0" Text="@Lilienthal Yes, only getting as far as the reviews of Professor Dicky's 2016 (Eastrn Empire) It looks as though the teaching used examples, quotes, proverbs, set pieces to show how grammar worked, This is the case with Quintilian(in Archive)(Western Empire), and Fecunda Ratis (in Archive) so, as i said, I think Donatus is your best bet, and that is a disappointment." CreationDate="2016-09-30T10:49:28.707" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4631" PostId="1622" Score="2" Text="Could you clarify why you bring up Donatus (= Aelis Donatus' Ars Minor?)? And I assume that you're suggesting the Doctrinale as the first purposefully constructud mnemonic while no such memory devices are known from older times (which would answer the bolded question)?" CreationDate="2016-09-30T12:49:36.093" UserId="89" />
  <row Id="4626" PostId="1623" Score="2" Text="I added some tags and slightly redid formatting. Did you know that you can break a row with two spaces at the end of a line?" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:47:28.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4627" PostId="1624" Score="0" Text="Oh! I think I get it now. Thank you. By the way, do you think these kinds of questions are okay? (Where the author requests a pointer or a hint, but not the full translation?)" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:51:01.763" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4628" PostId="1624" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124, I think questions like this are perfectly fine. At [our mathematical cousin site](http://math.stackexchange.com/) asking for hints is encouraged and sometimes apparently preferred to asking for full answers." CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:56:05.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4638" PostId="1624" Score="0" Text="I think *fecisse* is actually governed by *mirata*; *sensit* is in the next clause." CreationDate="2016-09-30T16:30:06.050" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4639" PostId="1624" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's interesting. How does a past participle govern an infinitive? Could you possibly explain this idea in a separate answer?" CreationDate="2016-09-30T16:41:52.087" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4642" PostId="1624" Score="0" Text="@TKR, that does indeed feel more likely now that I read the passage again. I'll make a small edit, but feel free to add your own answer, too." CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:25:54.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4654" PostId="1624" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124, if the verb *mirari* can govern an infinitive, so can its participles. Compare these: *Scio te cecinisse et cano. Sciens te cecinisse cano.*" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:10:25.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4644" PostId="1625" Score="3" Text="Good question: French has a funny rule for the *passé composé* where it agrees with the object if it is *before* *avoir*, e.g. *je les ai vu**es*** As a side note, this form is *medieval* in the sense that it is certainly wasn't classical, but there are many medieval writers who avoid or don't use this form." CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:41:10.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4645" PostId="1625" Score="2" Text="@brianpck, it's similar (not identical?) in Italian. &quot;Hai mangiato la pizza?&quot; &quot;Sì, l'ho mangiata.&quot; If it happens in several Romance languages, one would expect to see something in Latin. (I call the thing medieval for the lack of a better term. I didn't mean to imply it was universally adopted at any point.)" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:48:07.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19721" PostId="1625" Score="0" Text="I'd call it the &quot;Romance perfect&quot; since that's where I most often see it." CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:26:07.723" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19722" PostId="1625" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That'd make some sense, but the same construction is also found in Germanic languages (e.g. English *I have read*, Swedish *jag har läst*) and the Romance languages I know have [two perfects](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/331/79), so I'd find that name confusing." CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:31:29.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4637" PostId="1626" Score="1" Text="I don't think adding &quot;and&quot; between the last two elements of a list is standard Latin: my impression is that you either leave out the &quot;and&quot;s completely, or use them with each item (X and Y and Z), rather than just the last one." CreationDate="2016-09-30T16:27:29.807" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4633" PostId="1627" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! This is an interesting question. If you join this SE site, you will have a better access to this question and will gain reputation from it. For the record: Translation requests are considered off-topic unless they show your own attempts, but your attempts are very good. See [this meta page](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) for a guide to asking such questions." CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:24:53.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4634" PostId="1628" Score="5" Text="Since we are speaking about a religious concept, I don't see any harm in using church Latin. In it, the proper noun _Nativitas, -atis_ (without modifiers) has the specialized meaning of Christmas. Hence: aurora nativitatis." CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:45:45.673" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4635" PostId="1628" Score="2" Text="@Rafael, I must confess I had never heard of *Nativitas* before. While I agree that it would probably be a good translation, I think it would not be understood by as many Latinists. (But I have been wrong before...) You can also make that into a separate answer. A church Latin point of view would be nice." CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:52:58.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4636" PostId="1628" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you, that is extremely helpful. One last question, am I correct it would be pronounced roughly nah-tah-li-chi-ah?" CreationDate="2016-09-30T15:55:08.293" UserId="877" />
  <row Id="4641" PostId="1628" Score="2" Text="@RuckusT-Boom, you are welcome! That is one possible pronunciation. Latin pronunciation varies greatly between different times and places, and there is no single correct way. (If you want more details on pronunciation options, I suggest asking a separate question.)" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:23:42.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4668" PostId="1629" Score="3" Text="I immediately thought of *nativitas* too. This is used throughout the Middle Ages to refer to the birth of Christ in dates, as in *anno MCXXo post nativitatem (Domini)* in secular documents, and also to refer to days before or after Christmas, as in *feria secunda post nativitatem Domini*. If *aurora* can be used with a genitive to indicate &quot;the morning after&quot;, then I agree with Rafael. Otherwise I would use *post nativitatem*. At any rate, I would certainly use this word." CreationDate="2016-10-03T00:56:34.393" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4650" PostId="1655" Score="1" Text="Possible duplicate of [What do animals say in classical Latin?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1581/what-do-animals-say-in-classical-latin)" CreationDate="2016-10-01T20:51:38.417" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4665" PostId="1655" Score="2" Text="Since this is a more specific question, asking for details that we wouldn't expect to be covered in answers to the other question, I don't think this is a duplicate." CreationDate="2016-10-02T18:50:52.770" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4652" PostId="1658" Score="1" Text="Hello, and welcome to the site! [Here is a relevant question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1016/difference-between-vocative-and-accusative-usage) that has an answer that may, in turn, answer your question." CreationDate="2016-10-02T02:07:24.050" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="4653" PostId="1658" Score="0" Text="Thank you, I missed that as I was searching for nominative and accusative. I forgot that nominative and vocative are the same in all but 2nd declension." CreationDate="2016-10-02T02:12:49.450" UserId="878" />
  <row Id="4660" PostId="1661" Score="1" Text="If you read German and can access Leumann, *Lateinische Grammatik:  Laut- und Formenlehre*, there may be some information about this suffix there." CreationDate="2016-10-02T16:26:04.313" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4661" PostId="1661" Score="2" Text="@TKR Indeed, they do discuss it in in section 304 (pp. 339-340). More examples: caducus, manducus, fiducia; sambucus, albucus; aeruca, verruca; fistuca; curruca, eruca, festuca, ulucus. As for lactuca, LHS say it's &quot;latinisiert aus gr. γλαϰτοũχοσ&quot; [sic - Alex B.], which I assume should be **γᾰλαϰτοῦχοσ** &quot;having milk&quot; - at least, this is the form given in my copy of Montanari (The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek)." CreationDate="2016-10-02T17:25:41.603" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4662" PostId="1661" Score="0" Text="Greek isn't my forte, I can't comment on that though." CreationDate="2016-10-02T17:30:58.683" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="4664" PostId="1661" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., my university library does have a copy of the book but unfortunately I do not read German. Could you turn that comment into an answer? Those examples and any additional discussion would be great. (My Greek is not strong enough to guess whether the alpha could be lost in derivatives.)" CreationDate="2016-10-02T18:38:01.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4666" PostId="1661" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. LSJ also list γαλακτοῦχος and not γλακτοῦχος. But the latter could be an unattested variant, as there are other compounds in γλακτο-, e.g. γλακτοφάγος 'subsisting on milk'. Not sure why the Greek derivation is needed though, given all those native Latin words in *-ucus*." CreationDate="2016-10-02T22:48:23.097" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4670" PostId="1661" Score="0" Text="I expanded my answer after reading Leumann.  Now somebody should find the article by Szemerenyi he cites as source. I'll look in Walde's etymological dictionary too, as it usually provides more (often creative) hypotheses than Ernout" CreationDate="2016-10-03T09:42:31.710" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4671" PostId="1661" Score="0" Text="All done; updated the answer" CreationDate="2016-10-03T10:18:16.720" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4659" PostId="1662" Score="2" Text="Another example is *fīdūcia*, nominalized from an implied but unattested *fīdūcus*. (Btw the suffix is not added to the first person singular, but to the stem.)" CreationDate="2016-10-02T16:25:16.280" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4667" PostId="1663" Score="0" Text="*Res* can specifically mean a court case or lawsuit, which would make the connection a natural one. That said, apparently there is not a consensus that *reus* dervies from *res* (de Vaan implies that Ernout-Meillet reject the connection)." CreationDate="2016-10-02T22:53:15.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4681" PostId="1663" Score="1" Text="Note that [_reus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dreus) means _accused_ rather than (or prior to) _guilty_." CreationDate="2016-10-03T16:31:49.603" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4669" PostId="1664" Score="0" Text="Good answer! You can break a row with two spaces at the end of a line, Did you want to leave the vertical spaces between the lines in your first quote box? Also, this looks like a typo: &quot;That's why participles have the same endings as participles.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-10-03T04:54:34.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4688" PostId="1668" Score="1" Text="The suggested edit you posted to the answer is useful information, but I don't think it's suitable as a part of that answer. Perhaps that could be given as a separate answer or as an addition to the question itself or a comment to the answer. I rejected the edit but I wanted to let you know of the reason. (Unrelated: Your two accounts can be [merged together](http://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts).)" CreationDate="2016-10-04T11:38:35.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4672" PostId="1669" Score="2" Text="Can you add a few lines that more explicitly address the OP's question? Your first line says &quot;No, there is no difference in meaning,&quot; but &quot;Yes, one means state and ones means motion.&quot; But the information you provide doesn't unequivocally support either claim: your ditty shows, for instance, that *super* can mean both." CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:27:22.743" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4673" PostId="1669" Score="0" Text="Seems perfectly clear to me. Maybe the English idiom with which I began isn't familiar to you?" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:38:04.427" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4674" PostId="1669" Score="1" Text="I am aware of what &quot;respectively&quot; means and think I demonstrated that in my paraphrasing. How am I misunderstanding you?" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:40:03.017" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4676" PostId="1669" Score="0" Text="1. There is no difference in meaning when either is used with the accusative." CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:56:24.030" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4677" PostId="1669" Score="0" Text="Sorry, ran out of time! 1. There is no difference in meaning when either is used with the accusative.  2. From the memorial lines for the ablative, you will see that only super is used with this case, and indicates &quot;state, not motion&quot;. To spell it out for you, supera does not take an ablative, since it is really only used as an adverb when state is indicated, rather than motion. Clear enough? (btw the idiom is in the phrase &quot;short answer&quot;.)" CreationDate="2016-10-03T15:05:35.857" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4679" PostId="1669" Score="1" Text="The first ditty seems to imply that all of those prepositions (save for super, etc.) are indicators of state, whereas super and the remaining three are indicators of motion, all when taking the accusative. But this did take me a while to understand, and I am still not confident in my interpretation. Perhaps you could add a couple sentences to the end of your post explaining the ditties? I must add that it's a very informative answer and I learned a lot from reading it." CreationDate="2016-10-03T15:27:40.853" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4680" PostId="1669" Score="0" Text="They are taken from heading 511 in the syntax section of Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer, Mountford's 1962 edition. 'Kennedy' like 'Bradley's Arnold', was one of the basic tools in England for teaching Latin when I was at school. Back in the 1940s we had to learn about both accidence and syntax in depth. Unhappily, this has now been usurped by modern, 'make it easy' methods." CreationDate="2016-10-03T16:01:38.760" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4682" PostId="1669" Score="1" Text="I too found this answer hard to understand. It would be more helpful if you spelled out more clearly what each of the two prepositions means with the case(s) it can take." CreationDate="2016-10-03T17:05:02.880" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4683" PostId="1669" Score="0" Text="@TKR If you want it spelled out in every detail with illustrating examples, you can do no better than look up each of the pair in a comprehensive lexicon. I recommend Sir Wm. Smith's Latin-English Dictionary, widely available on the 'net." CreationDate="2016-10-03T18:19:51.563" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4685" PostId="1672" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Please let me know when you add the comments so I don't miss them." CreationDate="2016-10-03T19:52:53.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4684" PostId="1673" Score="3" Text="This is excellent--many thanks" CreationDate="2016-10-03T19:50:49.213" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4686" PostId="1674" Score="0" Text="It's a little hard to be sure from what's viewable of the Thompson book, but I think the Greek construction isn't actually ἔρχεται + verb in the sense of &quot;be going to (verb)&quot;, but is just the use of the specific verb ἔρχεται (and a few others) in the present with an immediate future sense -- i.e saying &quot;he goes&quot; to mean &quot;he's about to go&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:47:02.947" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4687" PostId="1674" Score="0" Text="@TKR You're right--I assumed that and revised my opinion after reading through some of Thompson. I just forgot to read through what I wrote :)" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:48:46.397" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4693" PostId="1675" Score="2" Text="Not an answer to your question, but it's not too often you come across a good Latin pun: apparently there is a food quality company called [Cibus Sapiens](http://www.cibusapiens.com/)." CreationDate="2016-10-04T16:54:00.507" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25644" PostId="1675" Score="0" Text="Perhaps ‘ taste ‘ can also mean ‘ discerning’ in that by taste we discern the experience of things directly, and therefore wisely, at a different level of knowing , bypassing conceptual thinking . Is this perhaps wisdom or emotional intelligence, really ‘ knowing’" CreationDate="2020-03-27T22:12:41.427" UserId="6725" />
  <row Id="4689" PostId="1676" Score="2" Text="Looking at L&amp;S entry for [_libero_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlibero) I found this, missing the imperative but including reflexive+compl. with the meaning you ask for: [Cic. Q. fr. 3.I](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistulae_(Marcus_Tullius_Cicero)/Epistulae_ad_Quintum_Fratrem/III#I).iii.9: &quot;teque item ab eo vindico et libero&quot; (as you see, it uses _ab_)" CreationDate="2016-10-04T12:14:53.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4690" PostId="1676" Score="1" Text="FWIW, the *temet ipsum* phrasing sounds more idiomatic to me too." CreationDate="2016-10-04T15:58:41.997" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4699" PostId="1676" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Thank you! But the same entry you propose has with _ex_ too, including the example I presented, _multos ex incommodis pecuniā_,” Cic. _Verr._ 2, 5, 9, § 23. I fail to see why one should take precedence over the other, which is why I would like an explanation. In further questions I may also provide a _Lewis_ cross-reference to make sure we're all on the same page with examples..." CreationDate="2016-10-04T19:40:30.397" UserDisplayName="user425" />
  <row Id="4700" PostId="1676" Score="0" Text="@TKR Why though? What difference does _ipsum_ make; is it required to make a reflexive verbal meaning? Without _ipsum_ do you prefer _temet_ or _tutemet_ or _te tutemet_; and again, why? Thanks." CreationDate="2016-10-04T19:46:14.663" UserDisplayName="user425" />
  <row Id="4701" PostId="1676" Score="0" Text="*Ipsum* isn't required (and is strictly speaking redundant), but is commonly used to emphasize a reflexive meaning. I'm not sure what would be the most idiomatic phrasing without *ipsum*, because *temet ipsum* or *te ipsum* sound most natural to me. *Libera te tutemet* is slightly different in that the added emphatic is nominative rather than accusative, so it might imply something more like &quot;liberate yourself *by yourself/by your own means*&quot; (rather than relying on someone else)." CreationDate="2016-10-04T20:41:34.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6069" PostId="1676" Score="0" Text="More discussion: http://blogicaster.blogspot.com.es/2009/11/bad-movie-latin.html." CreationDate="2017-01-12T09:55:34.393" UserId="1135" />
  <row Id="4692" PostId="1678" Score="3" Text="saporatus is a post-classical adjective from sapor, which in turn is a nominal derivative of sapio." CreationDate="2016-10-04T16:38:55.223" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4694" PostId="1678" Score="0" Text="@fdb Yes, that's certainly what my dictionaries all have: but I think it may be no more than a quite plausible, generally accepted opinion — just like my own, worth anything or nothing!" CreationDate="2016-10-04T16:56:26.610" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4695" PostId="1678" Score="1" Text="Which dictionary is this?  Also, could you use markup to indicate what is a quote from the dictionary and what isn't?  Quotes are indicated with a &quot;&gt;&quot; at the beginning of a paragraph." CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:05:50.860" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4696" PostId="1678" Score="0" Text="Wm. Smith's Latin-English, 17th ed. 1881. It was based largely on Riddle's dictionary of 1849 (?), and claims to have had every reference checked. Both owe much of their content to Freund's German-Latin Dictionaries. Every subsequent dictionary owes something to these, including Lewis &amp; Short." CreationDate="2016-10-04T18:15:19.027" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4697" PostId="1678" Score="0" Text="Seems OT to me.. could you elaborate on why the existence of *saporatus* is relevant to *sapiens*?" CreationDate="2016-10-04T18:40:59.173" UserDisplayName="user786" />
  <row Id="4702" PostId="1678" Score="2" Text="There are lots of *-atus* derivatives from nouns (*barbatus, togatus*, etc.); in Classical Latin they all come from first-declension nouns but the suffix later became productive with other nouns too. I don't think we want to posit unattested first-conjugation verbs behind all of them." CreationDate="2016-10-04T20:46:12.140" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4698" PostId="1679" Score="2" Text="Thank you! Knowledge of the [movie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_(film)) is irrelevant but suffice it to say it's one of those rare sci-fi/horror movie and the crew finds a recording from another crew's captain and the doctor tries the guess the Latin he's hearing and comes up with _save me_, thinking it's a call for help, until he realizes it's rather a warning... So Latin might make a difference! Why do you say that _ex_ wouldn't sound particularly good in such a context? How do you perceive the difference between _libera: te tutemet/tutemet/temet/te_ ?" CreationDate="2016-10-04T19:32:27.643" UserDisplayName="user425" />
  <row Id="44724" PostId="1679" Score="0" Text="@user425 The litany has *ab omni malo libera not Domine*, from every evil free us O Lord. Then later, *ab omni peccato...*, from every sin; *A corde perverso...*, from a perverse heart. The litany uses *ab* and *a* a lot, not so much *ex*." CreationDate="2023-09-08T02:56:23.073" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="4703" PostId="1681" Score="0" Text="What about a subjunctive?" CreationDate="2016-10-04T22:54:20.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4704" PostId="1681" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Can you illustrate? I wouldn't want to say &quot;May you divide and be conquered&quot; (at least not unintentionally). :)" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:03:58.877" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4705" PostId="1681" Score="1" Text="&quot;Mickey Mouse in Fantasia&quot; &gt; &quot;the sorcerer's apprentice in Goethe&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:07:13.923" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="4711" PostId="1681" Score="1" Text="*Divide et vincaris*, &quot;Divide and may you be conquered,&quot; which really expands to, &quot;If you divide, you may be conquered.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-10-05T19:32:27.160" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4706" PostId="1682" Score="0" Text="Of course—*vinceris*! Thanks. I haven't touched Latin in a couple months and looked at [a grammar table](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vinco#Inflection), and _vincere_ caught my eye first. Wow, I'd even forgotten that after reading questions like [this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/781/118) and [this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/483/118) I had resolved to just avoid those alternate _-ere_ forms!" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:14:28.417" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4707" PostId="1683" Score="0" Text="Might be worth expanding this to include a related idiom: &quot;Do X or you will Y&quot; = &quot;If you don't do X, you will Y&quot;" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:42:29.230" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4708" PostId="1683" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Interesting -- I've edited to include that." CreationDate="2016-10-05T00:22:36.233" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4710" PostId="1685" Score="0" Text="When did these distinctions arise? Was it with the first universities or later? Anyway, I guess if there is such a distinction, it is undoubtedly Medieval Latin. **update:** What if it has to do with the origin of degrees? Both _doctor_ and _magister_ are basicaly persons that teach." CreationDate="2016-10-05T19:12:55.523" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4712" PostId="1685" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, I know nothing about the history of this distinction. That would be very relevant. I know of no similar distinction in continental Europe. Nowadays both positions require a doctor's degree, so it would be best not to refer to these positions by either *doctor* or *magister* (of any kind)." CreationDate="2016-10-05T19:56:57.143" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4713" PostId="1685" Score="0" Text="another difficulty may arise from the fact that _professor_ in Latin does not overlap exactly in meaning with the use they give to it in the UK." CreationDate="2016-10-05T20:02:01.503" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4709" PostId="1686" Score="7" Text="It belongs to the third conjugation. Most verbs in the 3rd conjugation form the different persons of the present tense the same: -o, -is, -it, -imus, -itis, -unt. Thus lego-legis, scribo-scribis, etc. Or do you mean how did the 3rd conjugation evolve to get to that?" CreationDate="2016-10-05T19:10:29.247" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4714" PostId="1686" Score="2" Text="@Rafael, I think the question is why the third declension uses *-i-* (and *-u-*!) or how things evolved that way. A simple answer is &quot;to avoid consonants in the endings colliding with consonants in the stem&quot;, but I doubt that would be satisfying." CreationDate="2016-10-05T21:02:06.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47505" PostId="1686" Score="1" Text="To keep it simple, 3rd conjugation is ALMOST* always: {an O, 4 I's, and a U}. Hope this helps" CreationDate="2024-02-12T02:52:54.360" UserId="14741" />
  <row Id="4721" PostId="1688" Score="0" Text="While I doubt that this what the OP was wondering about, this is too great not to upvote :)" CreationDate="2016-10-06T13:26:46.893" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4735" PostId="1688" Score="1" Text="@TKR, Although it doesn't help me conjugate the verb, I can now understand why in the world it would suddenly conjugate to something like 'agit'. (I know I will learn to conjugate more effectively later on, so that is not really a big deal!) Thanks so much for the input - I truly appreciate it." CreationDate="2016-10-07T13:11:49.227" UserId="380" />
  <row Id="10421" PostId="1690" Score="1" Text="(1) _decipulum_ / _decipula_ is a snare in a metaphysical sense, I think seldom used for the physical device used for catching either hare (_lepus_) or rabbit (_cuniculus_). (2) Why the fem. _cervas_, when the masc. includes both genders? (3) And a bit too pedantic, maybe, but isn't it the _sagitta_ that brings down the prey, not the _arcus_? But yes, the translation with these provisos is perfectly good." CreationDate="2017-08-15T09:09:13.693" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4736" PostId="1695" Score="0" Text="Outside of clauses -- generally no, I believe." CreationDate="2016-10-07T17:10:01.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="14250" PostId="1700" Score="0" Text="The handout seems to have moved: perhaps the link could be changed to http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Observations_on_the_littera_rule.pdf or http://www.academia.edu/1709398/Observations_on_the_Littera_Rule? I didn't edit it myself because I'm not entirely sure if it's the right handout, although I assume it is." CreationDate="2018-05-17T23:25:39.917" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="4741" PostId="1701" Score="0" Text="Scipio's dream (drawing on Plato) implies we all arrived here *via* the seven planets, picking up wisdom as we journeyed." CreationDate="2016-10-09T01:01:03.433" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4742" PostId="1738" Score="0" Text="I too was going to say *scilicet* -- seems like a close parallel, except that it can also have non-ironic uses (which I take it *muka* can't)." CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:21:48.620" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4743" PostId="1738" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is indeed a good fit. @TKR, muka doesn't have to be ironic, but it always expresses disagreement. Irony is typical, though." CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:51:43.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4745" PostId="1739" Score="1" Text="Depending on what level of syntax and grammar is meant, your test will be on all **verb forms** for perfect pluperfect imperfect (including subjunctives) or on **when to use** aorist/perfect; how to form past conditionals, and optatives such as &quot;If only I had known this yesterday.&quot;*  You could start by googling **preterite tense**" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:38:13.630" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4747" PostId="1739" Score="2" Text="Did you mean *tempus praeteritum* with the added T? Literally it means &quot;passed time&quot;. Is the test on Latin grammar or something else? More details are needed to put it in context and interpret it. I have never seen that concept in Latin grammar, but my guess is that it means all tenses referring to the past." CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:46:29.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4748" PostId="1739" Score="0" Text="See Quintilian I .4. 29." CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:38:36.730" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4756" PostId="1739" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yeah I mean the tempus praeterium with the added T. Just the form with the past. My test is going to be a lot of sentences and I got to translate them. But how should I translate a sentences with the  tempus praeterium? Just with the imperfect in english?" CreationDate="2016-10-10T13:40:38.937" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="4758" PostId="1739" Score="3" Text="I edited in the *t*, but I think this question needs to be focused before it can fit in our format: *tempus praeteritum* means past tense, and I don't see what else can be said without more context." CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:19:39.397" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4803" PostId="1764" Score="1" Text="Advise the Anglophones to learn IPA, and then transcribe the Latin into IPA?" CreationDate="2016-10-12T18:51:22.403" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="4805" PostId="1764" Score="0" Text="@Timere, that would be good, but it is often unreasonable to assume people know IPA. Especially if it's a Latin song for a choir, I cannot expect everyone to be even remotely willing to learn IPA. I often have to give quick instructions that are easy to absorb, as much as I'd like a more systematic approach." CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:31:47.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4749" PostId="1765" Score="0" Text="Very closely related: [Is there a way to make a sentence ironic in Latin?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/455/12)  Could you explain what you'd like to know that isn't covered there?" CreationDate="2016-10-09T20:11:48.510" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4750" PostId="1765" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel Huh. Should I delete the question or just let it stand?" CreationDate="2016-10-09T20:16:26.563" UserId="778" />
  <row Id="4751" PostId="1765" Score="1" Text="It's a good question, so we can close it as a duplicate of the one I've linked.  If you later think of a way to differentiate this one from that one, we can always reopen it." CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:44:27.287" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4759" PostId="1766" Score="3" Text="Is this any different from 'Heliopolis,' or Hierusalem' ?" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:23:02.797" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4760" PostId="1766" Score="2" Text="@Hugh, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Do you mean that there was something comparable to *-landia* in antiquity?" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:37:37.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4761" PostId="1766" Score="2" Text="Just that, although -opolis is a convenient 3rd decl. ending, its not very Latin, And there are several foreign names which are simply accepted as indeclinable Latin nouns." CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:46:28.857" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4755" PostId="1767" Score="1" Text="Good to know that there are no known Italic cognates of *land*. Using the Latin *terra* would probably be silly: *Isterra, Nederterra, Thaiterra*." CreationDate="2016-10-10T12:05:34.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4765" PostId="1767" Score="4" Text="According to Philippa (2003-2009), there are cognates in Slavic and Celtic languages: http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/land (They do not mention that those languages should have borrowed the word from Germanic.) They do agree that its ultimate root is quite possibly pre-Indo-European." CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:29:19.150" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4780" PostId="1767" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Interesting. Grimm (see: http://woerterbuchnetz.de/cgi-bin/WBNetz/wbgui_py?sigle=DWB&amp;lemid=GL00653 ) explicitly discards the Celtic forms because of a different meaning, and says nothing about the Balto-Slavic ones." CreationDate="2016-10-11T13:42:28.080" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="4781" PostId="1767" Score="1" Text="Regarding my previous comment, I just remembered that England in Italian is &quot;Inghilterra&quot;. Perhaps it's not that silly, after all. (Anyhow, I accepted the answer. Other answers are still welcome!)" CreationDate="2016-10-11T14:46:33.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31003" PostId="1767" Score="0" Text="The Latin name for the Netherlands is Batavia. Nederlandia is a modern invention." CreationDate="2021-03-06T22:01:12.730" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="31004" PostId="1767" Score="0" Text="As I understand it, Batavia in Roman times was only a part of the Netherlands, now known as *Betuwe* in Dutch." CreationDate="2021-03-06T23:13:10.403" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="31010" PostId="1767" Score="0" Text="@jk-ReinstateMonica. It is pars pro toto. &quot;Holland&quot; is strictly speaking also only a part of the Netherlands." CreationDate="2021-03-07T12:44:32.070" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="31018" PostId="1767" Score="0" Text="... and Holland is Hollandia in Latin." CreationDate="2021-03-07T16:09:45.963" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="43447" PostId="1767" Score="0" Text="@SirCornflakes Well, in whose Latin? Not native speakers'." CreationDate="2023-06-06T16:57:13.237" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4757" PostId="1768" Score="3" Text="Would it be better to ask for good practices and things to remember, both with justification, instead of opinions? Asking for opinions is typically considered off-topic and can be difficult to answer well, so I suggest rephrasing the questions in the title and the last sentence." CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:39:20.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4789" PostId="1769" Score="0" Text="I questioned the reason for the hostility towards my invention of place-names, which is sometimes quite vicious, though I don't know why: and I gave the background to my query. It really has nothing to do with being able to compose Latin prose (which I have been doing for 70 years!)." CreationDate="2016-10-12T00:25:59.947" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4793" PostId="1769" Score="0" Text="@tomcotton, I hope I did not come across as hostile; it was certainly not my intention. Perhaps some people feel that translating names is showing off and adds no value. It might also be a matter of identity to see names in the form they know and love. It's not about ability to write Latin (which I would not question), but making choices that readers will value. But I don't have strong feelings about translating names so I can only guess why some react strongly to your choices." CreationDate="2016-10-12T05:26:56.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4804" PostId="1769" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton The main question I took from your post was, &quot;What are your views on inventing place names?&quot; I think Joonas is merely stating his view, which is to aim for the middle of two goal posts. Or, to use a classical analogy, to take the middle path. I personally don't see any valid reason for your correspondents' hostility, as you are doing them a service by translating these stories to Latin. They might just be trying to puff up their egos. I think hostility in and of itself is almost always wrong." CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:10:15.157" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4767" PostId="1770" Score="1" Text="The tag says that questions on the interaction between Greek and Latin are allowed, which this is not... in any case, make sure you're [following the Greek site proposal](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language?referrer=yRzQoZHRmyGzfFj03568GA2)" CreationDate="2016-10-11T00:44:31.887" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="4782" PostId="1770" Score="0" Text="Thanks for sharing the Greek site proposal. I signed up as a follower. Regarding relevance, we have had several discussions about this question, and I feel like there has been no definitive answer. It would be nice to have a provisional home for Greek questions, until the topic receives its own beta forum. By posting this question, I thought it would do no harm and be a good way to test the waters." CreationDate="2016-10-11T16:28:43.417" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4786" PostId="1770" Score="2" Text="[There is now a meta discussion about Greek.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/218/79)" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:08:26.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4763" PostId="1771" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Great explanation. It ties into what I learned about the attributive position. The phrase &quot;to the country&quot; is an attribute of &quot;road&quot;, and is placed in the attributive position by the second τη." CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:19:04.323" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4764" PostId="1771" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124: I agree!" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:20:29.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4768" PostId="1771" Score="3" Text="@Cerberus I love Greek and don't mind Greek questions, but I was under the impression that the last discussion determined that these kind of questions are off-topic. Thoughts?" CreationDate="2016-10-11T00:55:23.273" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4769" PostId="1771" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: Well, that's sort of true: there was a Meta question about allowing Greek questions, and the answer with the most votes was against it. But answers to (partly or entirely) allow Greek also received quite a few votes. What does that mean? Should we follow the majority? I'm not sure, but in general I'm somewhat less inclined to align with a majority when it wants to restrict what the minority can do, if there is nothing like a consensus. On the other hand, I'm biased because I like Greek. And ultimately the community decides, of course. ..." CreationDate="2016-10-11T01:51:14.070" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4770" PostId="1771" Score="0" Text="But is the community the majority? Joonas and Nathaniel and I were in fact just discussing what to do with Greek. My suggestion was, since we get hardly any Greek questions of acceptable quality, that perhaps we could just do nothing for the time being, see how it goes, see whether the occasional Greek question bothers people, and come up with a policy as the need arises. ..." CreationDate="2016-10-11T01:52:22.653" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4771" PostId="1771" Score="0" Text="But some are more inclined to establish a semi-definite policy now, by opening another Meta-question to let people form a (renewed) consensus or majority. What do you think, should we open the Meta-question now, or only when Greek becomes an issue? Or is it already enough of an issue now?" CreationDate="2016-10-11T01:52:27.767" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4778" PostId="1771" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, we are currently inclined to start a meta discussion about Greek. It will take some time to prepare the discussion well, but I hope it will be up soon. I think it's for the best if we reach a clearer conclusion with Greek." CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:43:10.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4776" PostId="1772" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if there will be a more complete answer. (If there is, I will have to unaccept this one.)" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:29:06.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25892" PostId="1772" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Oh, no, I'm scared!" CreationDate="2020-04-19T16:45:56.543" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25894" PostId="1772" Score="0" Text="I hope this hasn't kept you awake for three years." CreationDate="2020-04-19T17:14:30.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25898" PostId="1772" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: One head always had to stay awake." CreationDate="2020-04-19T18:12:25.943" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4792" PostId="1783" Score="4" Text="I look at the material, to what extent the stone is worn down...other things to look for are any Christian references, such as IHS, XPO, AMEN, AD, DOM (perhaps this was used by the Romans too, but I've only seen it in Christian inscriptions). And years... But anyway, when you read the transcription, even if there are many abbreviations you don't know, the content will usually give you an idea of what period it is from?" CreationDate="2016-10-12T03:14:33.177" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4794" PostId="1783" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus, are Christian sign common enough that one should suspect that the inscription is pre-Christian if no such sign is found? Years are certainly a good thing to look for. Maybe I can make guesses based on the content, but I'm rarely confident with my conclusions. How did materials change with eras? It could be a useful sign, but I don't know how to interpret it. By wear alone, I can't tell 200 AD and 800 AD apart." CreationDate="2016-10-12T07:58:47.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4787" PostId="1791" Score="3" Text="That's very interesting. Could you show us one or more of those exhibits? It should also be noted that *et alii* as used in your example is not about &quot;things&quot;, nor is it used substantively at the end of a sentence. An example of a Greek aequivalent in classical literature would also be useful. (I do remember seeing *ta loipa* used, but I only seem to recall seeing it used adverbally.)" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:41:53.593" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4790" PostId="1791" Score="1" Text="There's some kind of typo in καιὶτα τέρα." CreationDate="2016-10-12T00:51:10.253" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20223" PostId="1791" Score="1" Text="This example of *et aliī* has nothing to do with the idiomatic meaning in question, that is &quot;and so on, und so weiter, enzovoorts&quot;. It's a plain combination of the adverb *et* &quot;also&quot; and the adjective *aliī* headed by *virī*, so &quot;as many other good men do&quot;. Besides, a standalone *aliī*, being masculine, cannot refer to things - for that you need *alia*." CreationDate="2019-06-19T20:48:54.477" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="4788" PostId="1792" Score="5" Text="Can you explain why you chose *pappa* as a potential alternative? And although you are writing in English, what language *pappa* is from? I'm hoping that by answering these questions you'll straighten out the thinking that's behind your question." CreationDate="2016-10-11T23:37:42.767" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="5720" PostId="1792" Score="1" Text="Relevant: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/865/why-do-most-words-for-mother-across-languages-start-with-an-m-and-for-fa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa" CreationDate="2016-12-18T14:15:50.347" UserId="57" />
  <row Id="37336" PostId="1792" Score="0" Text="Tata is the only one word for father in Romanian. &quot;Parinte&quot; is parent meaning mother or father. So, strangely enough, tata and mama are the first words we learn :). I checked and in Latin, Greek or Czech this is not the main word for father. In Romanian it is not just main but the only one." CreationDate="2022-02-21T00:28:31.673" UserId="10832" />
  <row Id="37346" PostId="1792" Score="0" Text="@user10832 Considering that Romanian is a daughter language of Latin, that makes a lot of sense. The formal word *pater* was forgotten and the common word *tata* was used instead. You get that in Russian, too, where *mama* is used regularly, and *mat'* sounds weird." CreationDate="2022-02-21T14:24:34.413" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37360" PostId="1792" Score="0" Text="I thought &quot;mamma&quot; did not mean &quot;mother&quot;, but &quot;breast&quot;, whence &quot;mammalia&quot; (animals that have breasts, mammals)." CreationDate="2022-02-22T08:26:40.627" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="4796" PostId="1803" Score="1" Text="Is this Latin? It looks more like a mixture of Latin and French. Please add the book's title, author and publication date." CreationDate="2016-10-12T11:02:06.670" UserId="840" />
  <row Id="4797" PostId="1803" Score="0" Text="Like @ChristopheStrobbe said, this looks like a mix of Latin and French. It should be easier to answer your question if you give the whole Latin translation, the name of the book and the author." CreationDate="2016-10-12T12:46:05.340" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="4798" PostId="1803" Score="2" Text="Hi xbmono and welcome to the site! I suggest taking a look at [our guide for asking translation questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) and [our tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). Additional context and your own thoughts would be helpful, as others have commented. The text is more French than Latin, and it is not clear to me if it is supposed to be bilingual or if it is the result of a Google translation gone awry. Can you edit your question to explain more?" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:01:57.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4808" PostId="1803" Score="2" Text="Let me add to my previous comment that improving your question will also improve its score. I believe many are willing to retract their downvotes and many will vote up. I have refrained from voting so far to give you a chance to edit." CreationDate="2016-10-12T22:46:49.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4799" PostId="1804" Score="3" Text="Note that this is *old* French: A modern French speaker could easily understand it (though my mind is blanking on *foulz*--transcription error?) but the orthography has notable differences." CreationDate="2016-10-12T14:10:39.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4810" PostId="1804" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your reply. I have edited to separate the text into 2 as they are from different time apparently. Do you think I should ask this in French site for translation?" CreationDate="2016-10-13T01:47:07.730" UserId="898" />
  <row Id="4811" PostId="1804" Score="0" Text="I believe I should pick your comment as the right answer... but just keen to know your idea after editing the question.. maybe you have more to say. Thanks again" CreationDate="2016-10-13T01:55:14.967" UserId="898" />
  <row Id="4816" PostId="1804" Score="1" Text="@xbmono unfortunately I don't speak French. The only thing I get (based on the text and the essay) is a general idea that I've already put in the answer." CreationDate="2016-10-13T12:39:56.303" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4817" PostId="1804" Score="0" Text="Perhaps @brianpck can help with the French text?" CreationDate="2016-10-13T12:43:29.347" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4829" PostId="1804" Score="0" Text="Maybe foulz = faux?" CreationDate="2016-10-13T20:56:43.803" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4830" PostId="1804" Score="0" Text="Foulz = fou (cf. femimine *folle*)." CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:13:16.157" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4800" PostId="1805" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Can I run that SQL query somewhere in the web UI or is it something only you can do at this point?" CreationDate="2016-10-12T14:12:41.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4801" PostId="1805" Score="0" Text="No, it's not exposed unfortunately, so it's not really an answer to your question of &quot;how&quot; to do this--just an answer to the specific question." CreationDate="2016-10-12T14:13:52.193" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4802" PostId="1805" Score="0" Text="Ok. Good to know. You answered my specific question and gave hope for answering the general question in the future, so I will accept this answer. Please let me know when such searches become possible!" CreationDate="2016-10-12T14:16:37.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5404" PostId="1806" Score="0" Text="[There is a meta discussion about this question.](http://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/227/79)" CreationDate="2016-11-25T08:27:47.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5617" PostId="1806" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you for your edit. Please do not mind mine; I tried to shorten the text even more." CreationDate="2016-12-08T15:31:18.130" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="4806" PostId="1807" Score="1" Text="Good question! I think it would be clearer to write &quot;had been named a friend of the Roman people by the senate&quot;. The long description of the father is part of the governing clause with the indicative predicate *persuadet*, while the last relative clause is subordinate to the subordinate clause with the conjunctive predicate *occuparet*. I don't understand why everything is just the way it is, but that might play a role." CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:45:26.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4807" PostId="1809" Score="0" Text="Welcome! I suggest taking a look at some [online dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and trying to find good words. For example, you can check if *magnus* and *frux* mean the thing you want. We can maybe suggest some words and help combine the words together, but your input helps us help you." CreationDate="2016-10-12T21:40:57.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4812" PostId="1810" Score="1" Text="Interesting. I would have thought that the subordinate clause could take the present tense as well. But I guess you're saying that's not the case, correct? Regardless, I never thought that *habuerit* might be perfect subjunctive. I assumed it was a future perfect indicative. That was the source of my confusion. Looks like I should read up on subordinate clauses." CreationDate="2016-10-13T03:16:36.197" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4813" PostId="1810" Score="0" Text="Regarding the first point, with Orgetorix, I wasn't aware that the possessive pronoun *suus* always refers to the subject. That clears up a lot. Thanks for your answer." CreationDate="2016-10-13T03:26:24.627" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4814" PostId="1810" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Doesn't *consecutio temporum* allow only present and perfect conjunctive when governed by present tense? Since *occuparet* doesn't follow this rule, it might be an irreal conjunctive or something. Anyway, good answer." CreationDate="2016-10-13T06:56:04.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4815" PostId="1810" Score="2" Text="You're right and that makes me realize I subconsciously glossed over the &quot;historical present.&quot; _persuadet_ is present tense but is narrating something that really happened in the past so, as a historical present, and can be treated _either_ as primary sequence (following its form) _or_ as secondary sequence (following its sense). The _ut_ clause here is following secondary sequence." CreationDate="2016-10-13T12:25:15.553" UserId="444" />
  <row Id="4823" PostId="1810" Score="1" Text="Right, historical present is the crux here. You might consider editing the answer to address that." CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:15:02.363" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4832" PostId="1810" Score="1" Text="Edited to clarify that point." CreationDate="2016-10-14T02:58:07.600" UserId="444" />
  <row Id="4818" PostId="1811" Score="0" Text="I can't find any occurrences of *frugerrimus* as the superlative...do you have any examples?" CreationDate="2016-10-13T13:42:40.173" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4819" PostId="1811" Score="0" Text="Thanks — it should, of course, be frugiferrimus, formed regularly as in celer, celerrimus." CreationDate="2016-10-13T14:40:28.317" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4820" PostId="1812" Score="0" Text="almus, uber, fecundus seem to me to describe only the source (e.g. ager) or provider (e.g. Ceres) of the fructus (or fruges — the sing. frux is not often seen). I think we need a more precise input from the questioner — does he want to describe the source, or the product?" CreationDate="2016-10-13T15:20:14.617" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4821" PostId="1812" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Yeah, I can see that, but then again it's the *tree*, not the *fruit*, that is *fruitful* :)" CreationDate="2016-10-13T15:21:58.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4822" PostId="1812" Score="0" Text="I could suggest that he has strawberries in mind! We really ought to have a bit more information from him." CreationDate="2016-10-13T15:31:51.820" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4827" PostId="1816" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, thank you making corpus searches to find a better word order! I had ignored the issue myself. I updated my answer." CreationDate="2016-10-13T18:59:52.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4824" PostId="1817" Score="2" Text="Great job pointing out the goddess Gaea. That was my first thought as well, in the cultural context of ancient Rome." CreationDate="2016-10-13T18:41:10.343" UserId="903" />
  <row Id="14846" PostId="1817" Score="1" Text="Māter Terra, while not incorrect, immediately makes me think of the word mātertera &quot;aunt&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-16T15:48:51.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="4826" PostId="1818" Score="0" Text="Good findings! I wondered which word order to take, but I ended up not discussing it since I had nothing to say about it. I will add a note to my answer." CreationDate="2016-10-13T18:56:14.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4828" PostId="1818" Score="2" Text="The name Iuppiter itself is also relevant: It's Iu-piter, not *Pater Iu. (Likewise the rarer Marspiter.)" CreationDate="2016-10-13T20:54:15.237" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4861" PostId="1825" Score="1" Text="Why would passages / prayers be written in interlaced tongues like this?" CreationDate="2016-10-16T02:41:31.193" UserId="915" />
  <row Id="5325" PostId="1825" Score="1" Text="@cat: The first one might be for educational purposes, as both original and translation are presented in succession. The second one is probably for no reason in particular, just as we now often intermingle foreign expression when we write and speak, most especially in informal and comedic utterances/genres." CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:26:25.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5349" PostId="1825" Score="0" Text="I'd guess that in this milieu, most anyone who could read and write French could also read and write Latin. There was no need to attend to which language you were using, since you could pick the expression you like (from either language) and expect to be fully understood. Here's a random passage from a court opinion from 1544: *Et lou ill apiert un parcell de tiell mesme, per que ilz agarderont quod hoc habeatur pro scripto.* The latin is likely a routine expression used by judges." CreationDate="2016-11-20T01:38:51.403" UserDisplayName="user1002" />
  <row Id="14772" PostId="1825" Score="0" Text="@cat, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaronic_language" CreationDate="2018-07-09T22:35:59.337" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="4831" PostId="1827" Score="1" Text="I agree 100% with everything in this answer (although I'm not 100% sure of my own intuition/experience). One other option, which I think I should prefer, is to link the two closely linked nominal phrases with *τε καί* (or even with poetic, double pospositional *τε*...). Then it would be *δία τῶν ποταμῶν τε καὶ λιμνῶν* (or Homeric *ποταμῶν τε λιμνῶν τε*, although I'm not sure whether that would fit the stylistic register)." CreationDate="2016-10-14T02:41:30.630" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4843" PostId="1827" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks! Good to know that I don't need the double και...και construction, as that probably does solve the problem all on its own." CreationDate="2016-10-14T17:18:17.413" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4844" PostId="1827" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Thanks for the tip. I haven't learned the word τε yet but I'll keep it in mind when I do." CreationDate="2016-10-14T17:19:54.833" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4834" PostId="1828" Score="3" Text="Welcome to [latin.SE]! By reading your question I see a couple of different ways to answer it. My first thought is it's about English language, and thus you may want to ask at [english.SE] to get a better answer. As far as I know, there is no such word in English. A close miss may be _omnibenevolent_ (i.e., all-good willing, 69k results in Google: not a too common word, but with some usage). _Thelogical_ Latin for _to forgive_ is _dimitto_, so if you want to make an English word up, it could be omnidimittent (although I'm not sure if there is any other word in English derived from that verb)." CreationDate="2016-10-14T12:41:13.690" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4835" PostId="1828" Score="1" Text="If you want to know how to say it in Latin, with quotes to attested examples and links to dictionary entries, then this is the place. Please make us know." CreationDate="2016-10-14T12:44:33.420" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4839" PostId="1828" Score="2" Text="I have edited the question to explain a little better." CreationDate="2016-10-14T14:35:33.623" UserId="909" />
  <row Id="4840" PostId="1828" Score="0" Text="Thanks Andrew, this is helpful.  It looks like you've created two accounts, however – I'd recommend [merging them following these instructions](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts), to more easily track your question." CreationDate="2016-10-14T14:53:12.630" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4846" PostId="1828" Score="1" Text="@AndrewWoods Although _dimitto_ has different meanings in Classical Latin, it is _the_ (overwhelmingly preferred) word both the Vulgate and Theologians use to mean _to forgive_. E.g. _dimittuntur peccata tua_ (Mc 2,5), _dimittuntur_ tibi _peccata tua_ (Lc 5, 23), _dimittite et dimittemini_ (Lc 6, 37). _Remitto_ is also used." CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:00:52.583" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32332" PostId="1828" Score="0" Text="*Omniclement* is the short and simple answer." CreationDate="2021-03-28T14:00:07.920" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="4833" PostId="1829" Score="3" Text="Just to make sure, the _too_ here intends to mean there is someone else who can write in Latin, or that you can either write in other languages or speak Latin? The word order makes me think it is the first one. Am I right?" CreationDate="2016-10-14T12:00:59.173" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4836" PostId="1829" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Your translation is correct, but I think this question would be much better if you asked a *specific* question rather than &quot;is it correct?&quot; What parts of your translation are you unsure about?" CreationDate="2016-10-14T13:14:53.317" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4837" PostId="1829" Score="3" Text="@Rafael Yes the first one is correct. There is someone else who can write Latin." CreationDate="2016-10-14T13:25:37.433" UserId="907" />
  <row Id="4838" PostId="1829" Score="3" Text="I took the liberty to polish your question a bit. Can you add some details about what makes you doubt your own translation? It's good to know if it's something specific like word order, choice of words or correct forms, or just a general unsure feeling. I'm sure you will get answers if you edit to add some detail. Oh, and welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-10-14T13:49:07.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4851" PostId="1830" Score="0" Text="I find euphemisms don't usually translate well to other languages." CreationDate="2016-10-14T19:39:05.780" UserId="106" />
  <row Id="4842" PostId="1832" Score="2" Text="A note on *peto te*: *peto* &quot;ask&quot; with accusative is marked as &quot;ante- and post-classical&quot; in Lewis and Short; standard classical usage would be *peto a(bs) te*, and with an *ut* clause rather than an infinitive, as in your second example. A more colloquial phrasing might be something like *Itera, amabo te*." CreationDate="2016-10-14T16:54:40.877" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4845" PostId="1832" Score="1" Text="Thanks!  Do you have sources for these showing their use in Classical Latin?" CreationDate="2016-10-14T17:43:40.733" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4847" PostId="1832" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel You can easily find them in any comprehensive lexicon. I prefer Smith's which, though 140 years old, is very reliable" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:17:17.797" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4848" PostId="1832" Score="0" Text="@TKR I wouldn't argue with your comments, but are we looking for standard classical usage? We shouldn't expect too much precision and formality in a (necessarily) spoken question, but should tailor it to the context." CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:21:18.293" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4849" PostId="1832" Score="1" Text="Hmm, okay. I don't really even know where to begin looking there.  Including links to the relevant page numbers would be really helpful.  For example, https://books.google.com/books?id=jeQIAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA536 points to page 536 of Smith's English-Latin dictionary (the page number is indicated in the &quot;PA536&quot; part at the end)." CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:27:13.507" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4850" PostId="1832" Score="2" Text="The desired register/variant is a question for the OP of course, but the question does ask &quot;what was used in Classical Latin&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:49:21.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4852" PostId="1833" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you tell a little where you would like to use these words? The context makes a difference, especially for choosing the most suitable forms. Do you want to use the two words separately (if so, how?) or together somehow?" CreationDate="2016-10-14T20:18:15.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4853" PostId="1833" Score="0" Text="Separately, as two wireless network names." CreationDate="2016-10-14T20:29:30.880" UserId="912" />
  <row Id="4854" PostId="1833" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the extra details. I gave an answer and edited your question a bit. Feel free to re-edit." CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:02:17.533" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23409" PostId="1833" Score="0" Text="It depends what you mean by &quot;machines&quot;. It's a word with a lot of meanings, and they are not translated the same way in neo-Latin IT vocabulary." CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:54:51.390" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="4856" PostId="1834" Score="0" Text="For the people translation, I mean to say &quot;for everyone&quot; or &quot;for everyone who isn't a machine.&quot; Would I still use *homines&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:04:56.160" UserId="912" />
  <row Id="4857" PostId="1834" Score="1" Text="@AdamF, you can say *omnibus*, but that means both &quot;for everyone&quot; and &quot;for everything&quot;. I think using the word *homo* is a good choice. If you want to say &quot;**for** people/humans&quot;, then it is *hominibus*, and similarly &quot;**for** machines&quot; is *machinis*. In Latin one uses the dative case instead of a preposition here. But when it's used as a name, the context makes the intention clear, so I would say *homines* and *hominibus* work equally fine. Just use *machinae/homines* or *machinis/hominibus* without mixing the two options, for consistency." CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:10:48.547" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4858" PostId="1834" Score="0" Text="How about _machinis_ (for machines) and _hominibus_ (for people)?" CreationDate="2016-10-14T22:24:52.917" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="4859" PostId="1834" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, I suggested the datives in my comment. I'll edit to add the option to my answer, too." CreationDate="2016-10-15T16:21:57.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4860" PostId="1836" Score="1" Text="Related: [Happy Birthday and the accusative of exclamation](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/286/12)" CreationDate="2016-10-15T21:26:58.703" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4944" PostId="1837" Score="0" Text="Regarding Perseus: Are you familiar enough with it to give an answer about it in [the text corpus question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79)?" CreationDate="2016-10-24T12:23:14.993" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4962" PostId="1837" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That's a good idea." CreationDate="2016-10-24T20:30:44.700" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="4866" PostId="1838" Score="0" Text="Since it doesn't seem self-evident to me: why are we calling this first sample &quot;woeful&quot; and &quot;doggerel&quot;? This seems pretty strident criticism, coming from a relatively unknown journal published in 2001..." CreationDate="2016-10-16T18:49:32.363" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4867" PostId="1838" Score="0" Text="@brianpck For prose Cicero is taken as a master, as exemplary. This fragment only survives as a joke. It is self aggrandising, empty, and in this sample has the '-natam natam' jangle." CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:35:20.077" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4881" PostId="1838" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Mary Beard and The London Review of Books are impeccable sources. Can it be their names that have attracted this spike in 'views'?" CreationDate="2016-10-18T15:17:04.900" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4863" PostId="1840" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you say something about what software you would like to use? The answers are going to be different for HTML, LaTeX and Word, for example. Or do you just want an overall Unicode solution?" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:21:22.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4864" PostId="1840" Score="2" Text="I'm specifically interested in a generic Unicode solution. This is just a side-project on the way to actually understanding the text and the challenge tickled my fancy! I edited the question to make that clear. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:26:17.737" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="4865" PostId="1840" Score="2" Text="It might require a specialized font, rather than a different type of encoding. Unicode doesn't provide the tools to specify that everything looks right in any general Unicode-compliant font." CreationDate="2016-10-16T15:41:42.567" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="4998" PostId="1840" Score="1" Text="A good synthesis on the subject is given here: http://www.menestrel.fr/spip.php?rubrique738 (in French)." CreationDate="2016-10-26T11:48:54.687" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5017" PostId="1840" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I installed Junicode, Kelvinch, Andika and Charis SIL fonts (I can't remember what problems each fixed) and removed Code2003 font, which seems to have some confusing bugs." CreationDate="2016-10-27T12:02:54.327" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="5019" PostId="1840" Score="0" Text="There is an interesting and informative discussion on precomposed letters and combining diacriticals in a long thread at http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2003-m01/0059.html" CreationDate="2016-10-27T17:02:09.060" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="4868" PostId="1843" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! I had to add and remove a variety of fonts on my mac before all those characters worked properly, but it is becoming clearer. I added a putative transcription to the question. Am I on the right lines, do you think?" CreationDate="2016-10-17T10:15:48.620" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="4889" PostId="1843" Score="0" Text="I think so. Unfortunately I'm as lost as you are on that one character; I don't recall seeing it before." CreationDate="2016-10-18T22:35:29.410" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29448" PostId="1843" Score="0" Text="@Draconis You can find the character (if I understand correctly which one do you mean) in [The record interpreter](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t6f18w19d) e.g. on page iv." CreationDate="2020-10-20T06:52:06.313" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="4869" PostId="1846" Score="0" Text="I should guess that 'quaerit, quae causa sit' translates as 'he asked 'what might the reason be?' and 'quae causa esset' as 'what might the reason have been?'" CreationDate="2016-10-17T19:58:26.643" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4871" PostId="1846" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton, the grammar states that both mean the same thing: &quot;he asked what the reason was&quot;. Therefore I would expect &quot;he asked what the reason might have been&quot; would have either *fuerit* or *fuisset*. I tend to agree with the grammar, but I don't have a strong opinion; I'm mainly reproducing its statement here." CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:04:38.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4872" PostId="1846" Score="0" Text="There's no problem. Each of my translations, in effect, means the same thing, too. They are just a matter of style and personal preference, unless we are being very, very picky!" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:25:07.273" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4874" PostId="1846" Score="1" Text="I seem to have seen past tenses used in this case, i.e. in my experience the praesens historicum normally counts as a past tense as regards the consecutio temporum. Wherever a full shift to an all-present account is possible, I'd expect *all* verbs in that part of the story to reflect this—no mixing. So in your example I would most definitely expect *esset* because of *videret*. But perhaps we should do some corporeal research first..." CreationDate="2016-10-18T02:03:16.033" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="4870" PostId="1847" Score="0" Text="Thank you! The sources you suggest look promising. I know mastery takes time and is impossible at the level of some authors, but good study material can significantly increase my fluency. Hexameter and a couple of other meters feel very natural to me, and I read and write with relative ease. (I mean that I can intuitively write technically correct verse that sounds good enough to me.) I hope to achieve something similar with other meters, but learning new ones has been surprisingly difficult. I think and hope your suggestions will help me." CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:00:08.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4873" PostId="1847" Score="0" Text="For the digitally inclined Gradus ad Parnassum is freely available through Google Books: https://books.google.com/books/about/Gradus_Ad_Parnassum_sive_novus_Synonymor.html?id=nINEAAAAcAAJ" CreationDate="2016-10-17T21:28:00.133" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6837" PostId="1847" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/251/79)" CreationDate="2017-02-18T20:17:34.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19376" PostId="1848" Score="0" Text="Thanks @Glorfindel for restoring the link, etc." CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:42:04.837" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4876" PostId="1849" Score="4" Text="I was very interested in your question and looked it up online. Professor Carl W. Conrad from Washington University wrote an answer to this very question: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-September/026415.html. Looks like ἀπαιτοῦσιν is a case of the **impersonal third-person plural.** The English translation you cite simply substitutes the passive for the impersonal plural. It's not surprising that the Vulgate retains the same choice as the Greek." CreationDate="2016-10-18T04:13:48.607" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4879" PostId="1849" Score="1" Text="Welcome sixty4bit, and thanks for the question.  @ktm5124 That sounds like a great answer!" CreationDate="2016-10-18T11:07:07.593" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4877" PostId="1850" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Our policy on broad resource request questions is that they should first be proposed at [this meta question](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead of asking directly. See the banner in the [dictionary question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79), for example. Latin pronunciation is a broad topic, and &quot;correct&quot; pronunciation depends on time, place, and context. If you only want comments on Google's pronunciation, the question is fine. If you want online tools for pronunciation, I think it should go through the meta page." CreationDate="2016-10-18T07:28:50.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4878" PostId="1850" Score="1" Text="You may know this already, but there are several options for pronouncing Latin phrases in English: pronouncing them in a rough approximation of Classical Latin pronunciation is only one of them. There are different arguments for each one; for example, I tend to value consistency over phonetic closeness to classical pronunciation, so I'd rather pronounce the &quot;c&quot; in *ceteris paribus* as /s/ to match the established English pronunciations of *et cetera* and *Caesar.* You're unlikely to hear that in any website for Latin-language pronunciation, though." CreationDate="2016-10-18T07:51:30.273" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="4884" PostId="1850" Score="1" Text="Hi Kenny!  As Joonas mentioned, this question is too broad to work well in a Q&amp;A like this one.  As a result, I've just put it on hold – but that's not permanent.  Here are ways you could get it reopened: 1) Narrow the question to ask for reviews of Google Translate only, or more specifically tell us what *kind* of website you are looking for, with details.  2) Propose a pronunciation website question on [the resource meta question](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/12).  Hope this makes sense – feel free to add any questions or comments you have in a new comment here.  Thanks." CreationDate="2016-10-18T17:49:22.720" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4914" PostId="1854" Score="0" Text="related http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/807/39" CreationDate="2016-10-21T13:34:37.133" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5042" PostId="1854" Score="1" Text="There should be an answer about Perseus. I hope someone knowledgeable enough about it will give an answer before long." CreationDate="2016-10-31T08:37:17.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15647" PostId="1854" Score="1" Text="The Latin Library makes it easy for those on unix to download all of their files in clean plaintext: https://gist.github.com/duhaime/8ac0a27f7a8c05b7e07c9bd62231bf4a" CreationDate="2018-09-06T15:52:10.667" UserId="2908" />
  <row Id="4886" PostId="1855" Score="1" Text="Good answer! Let me check that I got the conclusion right: Here *repetunt* means *Deus repetit*, and the impersonal third person plural was chosen to avoid the D-word. It does not mean *homines repetunt* or similar as the impersonal third person plural usually would. Right?" CreationDate="2016-10-18T19:38:56.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4887" PostId="1855" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the comment! I substantially edited the post to make my conclusion clearer and more accurate. To answer your question, I think the subject of *repetunt* is probably either God or his angels — depends on your interpretation." CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:30:29.277" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4888" PostId="1855" Score="2" Text="I'd say it's impersonal even under Alford's reading, at least under one plausible definition of the term: impersonal doesn't necessarily mean no one is performing the action, it can simply mean that the agent is not explicitly expressed, which is definitely the case here." CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:32:40.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4893" PostId="1859" Score="0" Text="Great answer! Thanks. It seems likely that my initial guess was wrong, and it's in fact the opposite. Also, I should have done a better job of separating the case of et ... et ... from a single et, as style may differ for these cases." CreationDate="2016-10-19T18:16:34.817" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="4894" PostId="1859" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124, thanks! I only realized the difference between double *et* and single *et* when I had worked through the book. I would not have made the distinction myself, either, without already knowing the answer. (It's also possible that my list contains some errors, but I think my conclusion is fairly well supported.)" CreationDate="2016-10-19T18:23:13.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4900" PostId="1859" Score="2" Text="This actually lines up well with the Greek pattern we discussed in the other question: when there is *et ... et* / καί ... καί you get the repeated preposition, but not when there's a single *et*/καί. (Btw, Joonas, did you automate this search in some way? Or did you actually read through the book?)" CreationDate="2016-10-19T21:46:36.020" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4905" PostId="1859" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I used the linked HTML page which contains the entire book, and searched for all instances of &quot;et &quot; (including the space to reduce noise) with the browser's search. The method may not be optimal, but it's simple and fast enough. I hope to learn more about search possibilities [in the corpus question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79)." CreationDate="2016-10-20T05:53:15.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10365" PostId="1859" Score="1" Text="@TKR: I would say repeating the preposition can have two different purposes: one, for emphasis, which goes well with *et...et*; two, to mark the parallel in a very long constituent, such as we have not seen here." CreationDate="2017-08-12T05:15:45.400" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10367" PostId="1859" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Good point! Very long constituents can be rare (in Caesar?) and my manual search may have missed them if there were any." CreationDate="2017-08-12T10:20:38.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4904" PostId="1862" Score="1" Text="*Pro patria* is **'On behalf of** one's Country.'  Perhaps the scholar was thinking of  *pro* + ablative., in this Centenary year." CreationDate="2016-10-20T01:20:48.743" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4906" PostId="1862" Score="0" Text="@Hugh, perhaps they indeed meant *scientia pro omnibus* (knowledge on behalf of everyone). I suppose this could also be translated as &quot;knowledge for all&quot;, but the meaning is quite far from the OP's intention if I understand it correctly." CreationDate="2016-10-20T06:00:10.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4895" PostId="1863" Score="1" Text="Thank you! This is a great explanation, but it makes me wonder how sure we really are about all the lengths. They are always presented as facts to students..." CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:00:21.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4901" PostId="1863" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer. Btw, another source of uncertainty in the last category is that sometimes different IE languages show different ablaut grades in the same word." CreationDate="2016-10-19T21:50:26.670" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5862" PostId="1863" Score="0" Text="Relevant Latin discussions forum post: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/determining-vowel-length-in-latin.8087/" CreationDate="2016-12-27T01:01:25.470" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="6816" PostId="1863" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/a/253/12)." CreationDate="2017-02-17T14:46:29.773" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="4907" PostId="1865" Score="1" Text="A very interesting question, but it may not be answerable, unfortunately -- very little is known about the original forms of Latin poetry, to the extent that people can't even agree on the basic principles of the Saturnian meter." CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:50:42.363" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4911" PostId="1865" Score="1" Text="@TKR, I feared that might be the case. But even if people have only a vague idea of how the Saturnian works, it might be enough for a rough comparison. If people are still unsure of the basic details of the Saturnian, perhaps it was less rigid than hexameter, which would be an interesting observation. I'm not sure if scholarly disagreement is sufficient evidence of that, though. I hope someone has more insight on this than I do..." CreationDate="2016-10-20T21:14:08.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4913" PostId="1865" Score="2" Text="The earliest surviving piece of Latin verse was written boustrophedon, and the rhythm may have been similar with an iambic beat on the first line and trochaic on the second. My informant compared it to the Nursery rhyme &gt;The king &gt;was in the &gt;counting &gt;house// &lt;eating &lt;bread and &lt;honey. This accentual rhythm survived in extempore verse into 20th Century, for funerals. This element dictates the mood, the dance, the intonation of the verse even when metre (longs and shorts) were added." CreationDate="2016-10-21T03:13:55.817" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5209" PostId="1869" Score="0" Text="Not exactly an answer but there are references to Caesar Augustus: *Augustus Caesar, divi genus, aurea condet* (VI, 792), to *Tarquino Reges* (VI, 816)..." CreationDate="2016-11-12T17:14:04.467" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="4916" PostId="1872" Score="3" Text="It should be quod sine dicto, and it means &quot;don't wait to be told&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:49:23.223" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4919" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Would &quot;it goes without saying&quot; also be reasonable?" CreationDate="2016-10-23T16:34:22.697" UserId="931" />
  <row Id="4920" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton =Isn't the Supine 4th Declension.? as in *&quot;mirabile dictu&quot;*" CreationDate="2016-10-23T16:51:26.147" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4922" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Yes, but this isn't a supine. The noun is dictum (as in obiter dicta, etc.), which sometimes serves as &quot;command&quot; or &quot;order&quot;" CreationDate="2016-10-23T18:16:38.430" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4923" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="Mick — in a word, yes, but it depends on context." CreationDate="2016-10-23T18:18:21.550" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4924" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="I hate to say this, but my colleagues in EL&amp;U are wondering if *qsd* is simply a nonce-abbreviation for *questioned*. It wouldn't explain the alleged macron, though. We have asked for more context." CreationDate="2016-10-23T18:37:41.420" UserId="931" />
  <row Id="4925" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I have added what context we have so far." CreationDate="2016-10-23T18:53:43.977" UserId="931" />
  <row Id="4926" PostId="1872" Score="4" Text="QS is a standard abbreviation for QUASI, &quot;sort of&quot;. But Q.S. is a standard abbreviation for QVOD SUPRA &quot;as above (previously)&quot; And Q.S.S standard abbreviation for QUOD (QUAE) SUPRA SCRIPSI: &quot;Which thing(s) I have previously written.&quot; The Bar over the S may be a differentiation between *Supra* previously and *Sub* below (later). ***Unless this is a private code,*** it would be understood to mean &quot;As I said before,&quot; QUAE SUPRA DIXI. This is based on a dictionary which devoted 20 pages to Latin abbreviations  Ainsworth revised Morrell 1783" CreationDate="2016-10-23T18:58:14.857" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="4927" PostId="1872" Score="3" Text="This is an interesting question. (+1) I am not very familiar with the Latin of that era, so I can only guess. It would be extremely helpful to see that abbreviation in action. The context from a passage or two would really help. Perhaps someone can answer without further details, but I hope the asker at ELU can provide examples where the abbreviation is used." CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:17:42.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4928" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Yes, that's more sensible." CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:19:24.780" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4929" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@Mick, I should ignore quod supra dixi, if you follow me!" CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:19:42.433" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4930" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="Would you guys be prepared to deal with the original question if I can get it transferred?" CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:23:07.853" UserId="931" />
  <row Id="4931" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@Mick, it depends on some details of the original question. I believe the letters were written in English. (If it was in Latin, ELU is definitely a bad choice.) Is there a reason to believe the abbreviation is in Latin? I have no definitive opinion before the OP supplies an example containing the abbreviation." CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:28:30.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4932" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="We are waiting on the OP. All that we have is what I quoted. The OP states that there's always a horizontal bar over the *s*, which makes me think that it's not an abbreviation of an English word or phrase." CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:31:40.100" UserId="931" />
  <row Id="4939" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@Mick An image of the abbreviation would *definitely* be helpful. If you don't know Latin, a naive transcription can often be very deceiving in these cases." CreationDate="2016-10-24T10:57:00.653" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4941" PostId="1872" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I've passed on your request. However, I have a feeling that the OP has lost interest in the question since she has made no further contact with us." CreationDate="2016-10-24T11:28:27.647" UserId="931" />
  <row Id="5550" PostId="1872" Score="1" Text="Our OP has come back to us. Hopefully, she will be uploading screenshots of the original text, once we have shown her how to do it." CreationDate="2016-12-04T21:00:43.497" UserId="931" />
  <row Id="5005" PostId="1873" Score="1" Text="A better answer has been added to the discussion on English Language and Usage, listing abbreviations for various Quarter Sessions. The third letter identifies specialities.  So, English after all." CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:40:47.947" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26989" PostId="1873" Score="0" Text="Where is that answer listing abbreviations for various Quarter Sessions? I can't find it at https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter." CreationDate="2020-06-27T10:07:39.597" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="4933" PostId="1874" Score="0" Text="Reminder to all: [There is a meta discussion about the role of Greek on the site.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/218/79)" CreationDate="2016-10-23T20:51:03.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4956" PostId="1874" Score="0" Text="Another reminder: There is a proposal for a separate Greek Language stackexchange here: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language" CreationDate="2016-10-24T17:10:28.197" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="4934" PostId="1875" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer!" CreationDate="2016-10-23T21:14:48.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4974" PostId="1875" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Please excuse me for this off-topic comment, but it seems I currently have only one reputation point : according to [the documentation of this forum](http://latin.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation), I thought it would increase : am I doing something wrong?&#xA;&#xA;(I'll delete this comment when I'll have an answer to avoid the mess, but I currently haven't the right to write in the IRC)." CreationDate="2016-10-25T15:04:12.820" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="4978" PostId="1875" Score="1" Text="This particular question is community wiki (CW). That means that anyone can edit the question and answers easily, and that no one gets reputation. You would deserve the points, but unfortunately CW questions do not give them. Non-CW questions and answers to them will grant reputation. (I understand that this is confusing at first! And it's ok to ask for technical clarification.)" CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:24:38.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4988" PostId="1875" Score="0" Text="Let's put it this way: Normal questions grant reputation. This question is not normal, this is CW. Most questions are normal." CreationDate="2016-10-26T05:10:56.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4990" PostId="1875" Score="1" Text="All is fine now, as I've finally earned the right to use all functionnalities. Sorry for the mess and many thanks for the help!" CreationDate="2016-10-26T08:22:34.980" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="4936" PostId="1877" Score="1" Text="By *nominativus cum infinitivo* do you mean things like *Caesar dictator esse dicitur*? If so, in that construction *Caesar* is the subject of the finite verb, not the infinitive. I don't think a nominative can ever directly be the subject of an infinitive." CreationDate="2016-10-23T23:21:31.953" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4937" PostId="1877" Score="0" Text="@TKR, yes, that is what I mean. I had never heard before that a nominative could not be the subject of an infinitive. If that is indeed the case, it would make an excellent answer – with some evidence, of course." CreationDate="2016-10-24T07:34:48.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4942" PostId="1877" Score="1" Text="Interesting discussion: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/to-be-yourself-is-not-a-crime.11748/" CreationDate="2016-10-24T11:42:19.243" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4943" PostId="1877" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, interesting. It seems that I am not alone in my confusion." CreationDate="2016-10-24T12:09:24.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4979" PostId="1877" Score="0" Text="You might consider changing the first &quot;subject&quot; in the question title to &quot;complement&quot; or &quot;predicate&quot;, since that's what the question is really about (as @sumelic pointed out)." CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:28:49.327" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4980" PostId="1877" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I corrected the title." CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:51:08.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4940" PostId="1878" Score="4" Text="My first guess is that this would be highly irregular:  Here are some [examples to look at](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=si+etiam)," CreationDate="2016-10-24T11:01:37.803" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23016" PostId="1880" Score="0" Text="It's very interesting, but only the meaning in old French is relevant." CreationDate="2019-11-01T22:35:21.543" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="4948" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I thought that the whole NCI is the subject of a passive verb. Perhaps this is part of a larger idea that, in some sense, *Marcus canere* (NCI) and *Marcum canere* (ACI) are the nominative and accusative of *Marcus canit*, and can be used as the subject and object: *Marcus canere videtur* and *Marcum canere video*. But this idea breaks down since it would not allow ACI to be the subject. I really need to find some intuition to this thing..." CreationDate="2016-10-24T14:01:09.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4949" PostId="1881" Score="2" Text="I don't think it's correct to think of *Marcus canere* as nominative: it makes more sense to think of Marcus (alone) as the subject of *videtur*. As for the NcI without passive, I was going out on a limb: If you read German, this is the most in-depth discussion I could find, even though it has a few errors: http://www.latein-imperium.de/include.php?path=content&amp;type=&amp;contentid=84" CreationDate="2016-10-24T14:03:57.547" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4950" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="Despite all the foregoing, I would think that, the verb 'esse' being intransitive, the only option is 'homo esse me delectat'." CreationDate="2016-10-24T14:27:15.333" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4951" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, unfortunately I don't read any German, but I can figure out much of the meaning from the Latin passages and some recognizable German keywords. It just seems that I need to forget some old ideas and start thinking of ACI and NCI and subjects of infinitives in general in a new way. This answer is very helpful for that." CreationDate="2016-10-24T14:29:53.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4952" PostId="1881" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton, the evidence provided in this answer suggests that while *homo sum* is &quot;I am human&quot;, *hominem esse* is &quot;to be a human&quot; (in many cases at least). Why exactly this happens is very unclear and unintuitive to me, but I cannot really argue against attested classical usage. This may change if someone provides evidence for the contrary. My intuition suggest exactly the same as yours, but I do not feel so confident about my intuition on this one." CreationDate="2016-10-24T14:38:52.327" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4953" PostId="1881" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton I tried to address that precise objection in my &quot;non est igitur amici talem esse in eum&quot; quote from Cicero: thoughts?" CreationDate="2016-10-24T14:47:32.547" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4954" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="@Brianpck Frankly, I'm struggling with both Cicero's prose and the translation that you offer for it. I shall continue to think about it." CreationDate="2016-10-24T15:06:08.987" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4955" PostId="1881" Score="2" Text="That Cicero example is an excellent parallel. Unrelatedly to the syntactic point, though, I think your translation is a little off: *in eum* isn't &quot;within him&quot; (which would be ablative) but &quot;towards him&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-24T16:42:47.000" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="4957" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="@TKR You're right: I missed the preceding context where he was talking about a friend's outlook." CreationDate="2016-10-24T17:29:49.067" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4960" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta After a good deal of thought, I believe that the question is illogical (if that's the right word). Esse, being intransitive, cannot have an object in the accusative, so something else must be going on. Perhaps the best thing would be to abandon what you have (sorry!) in favour of a straightforward  final clause, e.g. delectat quod homo sum." CreationDate="2016-10-24T18:52:38.483" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4961" PostId="1881" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton I don't understand what intransitivity has to do with it really. *habitare* is intransitive as well (I believe), and we are not talking about objects: what is so different about *me habitasse* as subject and *me esse* as verb?" CreationDate="2016-10-24T18:57:37.323" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4975" PostId="1881" Score="1" Text="I know the question uses the same wording, but isn't &quot;talem&quot; the complement of the infinitive, not the subject? &quot;talem esse&quot; means &quot;to be such,&quot; right, not &quot;for such to be.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-10-25T15:37:44.053" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37288" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In your last comment, to Tom (24/10/2016), you are clearly not satisfied. Having read the erudition, here, from top contributors, this may just be a matter of instinct. A simple state-of-affairs; no action from the verb (esse)--which would demand an accusative--the nominative feels good: &quot;homo esse me delectat&quot;. If it was the accusative; then, wouldn't it also be things like: &quot;ego sum Romanum&quot; instead of, &quot;....Romanus&quot;? Some clearly feel that the accusative feels right, supported by argument. Did you have a final thought on this Q?" CreationDate="2022-02-19T12:29:35.890" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37296" PostId="1881" Score="0" Text="@tony The key thing here is that nobody really gets to decide what's valid Latin and Latin is under no obligation to make sense to us. The usage *homo esse me delectat* sounds good to me and Tom but turns out to be invalid. That's just not how evidence tells Latin worked. The correct usage appears to be *Romanus sum* (not *Romanum*) and *Romanum esse me delectat* (not *Romanus*), whether intuitive or not. I'm perfectly happy with the outcome of this question, as I did learn that a bit of intuition I had was wrong and now I have set that straight." CreationDate="2022-02-19T21:07:54.077" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4963" PostId="1882" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Online translators are indeed very unreliable. There are many Latin verbs you could use to translate &quot;share&quot; and &quot;care&quot;. Can you take a look at [some online Latin dictionary](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and see if you find verbs that match your intentions? That would help us help you. To do so, first translate &quot;share&quot; from English to Latin. You will get several options. Then see how these options translate back to English. You will notice differences in meaning or nuance. Repeat for &quot;care&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-24T21:38:16.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5026" PostId="1882" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your helpful suggestions. I did indeed notice that issue as I tested different translators, going back and forth." CreationDate="2016-10-28T14:01:52.620" UserId="933" />
  <row Id="21320" PostId="1882" Score="0" Text="An infinitive is a gerund in Latin so it has to equal something, like an adjective which describes it. To share is (to be) good. To share is one who cares." CreationDate="2019-08-31T23:35:38.957" UserId="5045" />
  <row Id="4967" PostId="1883" Score="0" Text="This is just a side note, but I would guess the transcription with a macron on the second syllable reflects a pronunciation where the syllable was closed by the &quot;b&quot; (i.e. /luːcub.randoː/) rather than a variant with a true &quot;long by nature&quot; vowel /uː/. What I've read is that clusters of mute + r generally could be syllabified either way in poetry, depending on the needs of the meter." CreationDate="2016-10-25T05:24:16.053" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="4994" PostId="1883" Score="2" Text="@sumelic. In L/S (and all good dictionaries) macron and breve indicate vowel quantity, not syllable length." CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:41:48.673" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5008" PostId="1883" Score="0" Text="@fdb: That may be true in general, but I don't know if L/S are always reliable for vowel quantity in closed syllables; they give a long vowel in  [major](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor) even though Allen says the &quot;a&quot; was short." CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:37:02.377" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="4966" PostId="1884" Score="0" Text="Not bad! I was just trying to stay away from specifically philosophical jargon." CreationDate="2016-10-25T02:59:50.917" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="4968" PostId="1886" Score="1" Text="It is interesting to hear that there is indeed something special about the gerund. Did Adam have examples of classical poets where the gerund ablative is short? I just went through *Metamorphoses* and there were only long ones. Perhaps it is a post-classical thing." CreationDate="2016-10-25T07:15:08.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4969" PostId="1887" Score="1" Text="Since it seems relevant to me, I believe [this Google book](https://books.google.com/books?id=QpNaAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA47&amp;lpg=RA1-PA47) has the full poem. I read *qua* with *qua meta*, as in: &quot;from what extremity/pole the stars rise and depart&quot; (or similar): how do you read it if it is neuter plural?" CreationDate="2016-10-25T10:05:36.523" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4970" PostId="1887" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, the other reading was roughly &quot;stars which come and go through the extremity&quot;. In this context I would read *dabas nobis astra* roughly as &quot;you taught us astronomy&quot;. I agree that *qua* makes more sense, but I want to explore all options to make my interpretation as reliable as possible. To that end I'd like to know if I can read *quâ* as *quae* from the orthographic point of view. The full poem is longer, but the book you cite contains the relevant stanzas." CreationDate="2016-10-25T10:30:08.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15346" PostId="1887" Score="0" Text="But what about [this page](http://www.latin.it/autore/quintiliano/istitutiones/!01!liber_i/05.lat)&#xA;about circumflex?" CreationDate="2018-08-19T23:47:01.423" UserId="2855" />
  <row Id="15347" PostId="1887" Score="0" Text="@andrea What about it? Quintilian doesn't specifically talk about circumflexes anywhere; the only diacritic used in his time (for Latin) was the *apex*." CreationDate="2018-08-20T01:44:59.713" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="4971" PostId="1888" Score="3" Text="I could definitely get behind this as a viable alternative if you are able to locate some examples of nom. + inf. as subject of a sentence." CreationDate="2016-10-25T10:36:55.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4981" PostId="1888" Score="0" Text="An infinitive used as a noun is neuter and can be only either nominative or accusative, but it can be qualified by an adjective — which must, of course, agree in case and gender. If the verb is to be used in this way (which I regard as clumsy), you can easily imagine examples which appear to be either nominative or accusative , whichever floats your boat. I hope that removes your difficulty." CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:00:56.913" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4983" PostId="1888" Score="2" Text="If it's only possible to point to cases where an adjective *could* be nominative, and everything else is accusative, then isn't it the likelier hypothesis that accusative is the correct form?" CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:21:51.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4984" PostId="1888" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't argue with that, but does it really matter very much?" CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:48:49.897" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="4996" PostId="1888" Score="3" Text="Of course the *arcana* and *minutiae* of Latin grammar matter! ;)" CreationDate="2016-10-26T11:17:37.620" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4997" PostId="1888" Score="0" Text="de minissimis non curet redactor — Tom Cotton 2016" CreationDate="2016-10-26T11:22:15.140" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20814" PostId="1888" Score="2" Text="There might not be one single way of saying this, but there's definitely one which is plainly ungrammatical - *homo esse me delectat* - and one which is conceivable - *libet mihi qui homo sum* - but, as far as I can see in PHI, isn't attested in this usage, and in the meantime must be understood to mean &quot;I, who am a man, fancy this&quot;. Also, *parvus* &gt; *minimus*." CreationDate="2019-08-06T03:57:42.750" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="40827" PostId="1889" Score="0" Text="I just posted [a question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/19336/118) about the example from Robin Meyer." CreationDate="2023-01-05T18:41:25.687" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="4985" PostId="1891" Score="0" Text="For me respectively: *ieientaculum*, *prandium*, and *cena*. Don't have the time to back that up though :)" CreationDate="2016-10-25T23:11:50.527" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5036" PostId="1891" Score="1" Text="In Catholic monasteries that are still attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, breakfast on fast days is known as &quot;jejunium&quot;." CreationDate="2016-10-30T14:37:41.607" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="5012" PostId="1892" Score="1" Text="I think the infinitive is prandere, not prandeo (tried to edit but edits have to be at least 6 chars)" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:57:04.760" UserId="386" />
  <row Id="5029" PostId="1894" Score="2" Text="I don't think it's a good idea to omit the *copula* in this case: it reads like two juxtaposed infinitives" CreationDate="2016-10-28T17:14:18.973" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="4992" PostId="1895" Score="3" Text="It's explained on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake" CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:03:36.037" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="4993" PostId="1895" Score="1" Text="Can you please provide a word per word translation in an answer. I have no clue about Latin declensions. Thanks." CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:07:27.713" UserId="738" />
  <row Id="4995" PostId="1895" Score="0" Text="Please try by yourself! You can use [collatinus](http://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/collatinus-web/): copy paste your text in the section `Traiter un texte latin`, choose the `langue cible` and click on `Analyser`." CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:59:18.717" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5001" PostId="1895" Score="0" Text="I tried it, but it doesn't give me any result, just says &quot;Erreur&quot;, not even sure if I'm looking in the right place. Any ideas what I've five wrong, I posted the text five and pushed the button, the page related and the text disappeared." CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:07:35.077" UserId="738" />
  <row Id="5006" PostId="1895" Score="1" Text="@JackMaddington Try with the English version of the website: http://outils.biblissima.fr/en/collatinus-web/index.php ? (Sorry I gave you the French version). The text is displayed below the boxes.&#xA;--- --- &#xA;By the way, I give you an hand: *ars* and *artis* are the same noun. *Gratia* followed by the gen. has the meaning of *in favor of, on account of, for the sake of*." CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:57:19.993" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5007" PostId="1895" Score="2" Text="Thank you. You might want to make that Ann answer. Thanks." CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:01:10.007" UserId="738" />
  <row Id="28981" PostId="1895" Score="0" Text="So, the Latin &quot;Ars Gratis Artis&quot;, MGM's motto, means, &quot;For the sake of Art&quot;. Right?" CreationDate="2020-09-13T05:36:42.803" UserId="7382" />
  <row Id="28982" PostId="1895" Score="0" Text="@LisaBertash No, it means &quot;art for the sake of art&quot; instead. The word &quot;art&quot; is in there twice. Please see the accepted answer for details and ask a follow-up question if you want further clarification." CreationDate="2020-09-13T18:56:59.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23017" PostId="1896" Score="0" Text="This one is really the best, as it gives very quickly the definition of Lewis &amp; Short, Gaffiot, etc... Thank you! I love meta-dictionaries." CreationDate="2019-11-02T01:51:48.253" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23327" PostId="1899" Score="2" Text="But when we say Quanti... constant? It's a genitive, for a price?" CreationDate="2019-11-21T05:01:52.197" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="19072" PostId="1900" Score="0" Text="Now it's freely available! See [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9392/1459)." CreationDate="2019-04-01T10:53:12.890" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19080" PostId="1900" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I would consider that a separate online (and downloadable!) dictionary which therefore merits a separate answer." CreationDate="2019-04-01T15:22:54.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23032" PostId="1900" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho It has been removed." CreationDate="2019-11-02T03:46:37.390" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="5014" PostId="1903" Score="1" Text="Relevant: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/how-is-latium-pronounced I presume you are primarily interested by *ti + V*, which is a special case in Ecclesiastical pronuncation?" CreationDate="2016-10-27T10:11:09.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5016" PostId="1903" Score="0" Text="Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation" CreationDate="2016-10-27T10:16:49.647" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5024" PostId="1906" Score="0" Text="I assume you want something more accurate than [this](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpastillus), right?" CreationDate="2016-10-28T13:28:21.397" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5030" PostId="1906" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, yes, I would like something more accurate. But Tom Cotton's answer below suggests that that might be the best level of accuracy available." CreationDate="2016-10-28T18:44:24.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5022" PostId="1907" Score="2" Text="There is at least one noun that varies between *-eris* and *-oris*, though it's not an *-us* noun: *iecur*, gen. *iecinoris / iocineris / iecoris*." CreationDate="2016-10-28T01:32:37.803" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15458" PostId="1908" Score="1" Text="Holt Parker (in Parker 1988) offers a more nuanced explanation: 1. medial weakening (no exceptions); 2. rhotacism; 3. R-lowering. V̌s  &gt; ǐs &gt; ǐr &gt; ěr; cf. NVMISIOS" CreationDate="2018-08-26T02:14:38.507" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15459" PostId="1908" Score="1" Text="As a matter of fact, Tronskii 1960 proposed the same analysis (§117, on page 79), even though Parker 1988 does not mention Tronskii. As the saying goes, everything new is well-forgotten old." CreationDate="2018-08-26T02:24:03.137" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5023" PostId="1909" Score="2" Text="My intuition is that the verb _fio_ (to become) is needed anyway. In that case, _nunc_ could even be omitted. Can anyone confirm?" CreationDate="2016-10-28T13:25:56.310" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5025" PostId="1909" Score="1" Text="*nunc cum/quoniam* is used much like English to mean &quot;now that...&quot;, but in this case I definitely want to add a *facta*. It's a great question though" CreationDate="2016-10-28T13:31:14.630" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5028" PostId="1909" Score="2" Text="The origin is Ovid  Met. II.ca.495, mens antiqua tamen facta quoque mansit in ursa." CreationDate="2016-10-28T16:11:10.630" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5712" PostId="1912" Score="1" Text="The others aren't bad, but this is my pick." CreationDate="2016-12-18T05:03:29.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5031" PostId="1913" Score="0" Text="Nunc is never anything but an adverb, with only adverbial uses. In your example &quot;nunc (noun), nunc (noun)&quot;, it is still an adverb, used with ellipsis of an actual verb, i.e. one which is necessary to the meaning but is understood." CreationDate="2016-10-29T08:09:27.040" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5033" PostId="1913" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I wasn't sure about that, because I didn't find any examples with elided verb except in that particular construction. My English analogy from the answer is not good here: the Latin examples I found did include an actual verb with the *nunc X nunc Y* as its subject or object." CreationDate="2016-10-29T18:33:43.330" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20224" PostId="1915" Score="1" Text="*Optime nātālis!* is quite evidently an address to the birthday itself, not a wish." CreationDate="2019-06-19T22:54:35.267" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="5043" PostId="1921" Score="1" Text="Thank you! (+1) I don't think that's a good description of what happened in Finland, but it is a good option to keep in mind. When Finland went from Swedish rule to Russian in 1809, Finnish sovereignty actually increased. Under Russian rule we got our own currency, ministries, parliament, head of state, and possibilities to higher education in Finnish. The Russian era was not without oppression, though, especially towards the end. I am not sure how outsiders view it, but in Finland 1917 is seen as the birth, not revival, of freedom. *Finnia liberanda/liberata* is a good fit anyway." CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:54:28.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5045" PostId="1921" Score="2" Text="Thank you, in turn, for your explanation. I don't recall that Finland came into the reckoning at all when I was studying 19th C. European history — probably because of our British self-importance! I wonder if Finnia Constituta might be the correct way to express it?" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:54:03.323" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5046" PostId="1921" Score="0" Text="*Finnia constituta* is a good expression. It's good to have various phrases available, for both variation and the ability to emphasize different aspects. I like these different suggestions. (Finland never had independent foreign relations before 1917, so I assume Finland would be somewhat irrelevant for 19th century history unless the focus is on this area.)" CreationDate="2016-10-31T21:01:00.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5047" PostId="1923" Score="0" Text="You say this as if it was instinctive, which of course it is after a time. But did you have to look it up at all?" CreationDate="2016-11-01T15:23:31.927" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5048" PostId="1923" Score="0" Text="And speaking *meta,* this is a really useful set of misc information to have all in one place. Ideal SE." CreationDate="2016-11-01T15:27:36.377" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5049" PostId="1923" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I'm not sure that 'instinctive' is the right word, but I simply wrote it as I remember after years of translating from and into Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-01T15:48:48.937" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5050" PostId="1924" Score="0" Text="Thank you for reminding me of fero, which I'd quite overlooked. I wonder how many other, similar cases there are!" CreationDate="2016-11-01T15:51:21.420" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5056" PostId="1924" Score="2" Text="Expanded. Hopefully this is more helpful." CreationDate="2016-11-01T18:34:03.850" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5057" PostId="1924" Score="1" Text="Thanks, this is great! One small comment: The noun *dux* has a short U in all forms, so *dŭce* (ablative) and *dūce* (imperative) are distinguishable if quantity is known." CreationDate="2016-11-02T08:53:07.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5060" PostId="1924" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ah, how I wish now for a corpus with macrons! That would be a much easier way to distinguish the two; my strategy here was eyeballing the context to see if it was verb-like or noun-like. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:10:32.527" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5051" PostId="1925" Score="2" Text="Re archaic: PHI lists 121 instances of *dīc* in Plautus's work, compared with 12 of *dīce*. So the apocopated form was already preferred for the uncompounded verbs." CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:28:34.327" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5052" PostId="1925" Score="0" Text="@Draconis let's not get sidetracked here. The OP is about **imperatives of compound verbs**. But thanks, I'll look into this later." CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:35:56.840" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5053" PostId="1925" Score="3" Text="Indeed. I just find it interesting (and relevant) that Plautus **preferred *-e* for compounds but no *-e* for the base words**, which might indicate how the apocopated imperatives evolved or show some sort of hypercorrection; unfortunately, I don't know enough about the historical context to do more than speculate on that front." CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:42:15.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5055" PostId="1925" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Sorry, cannot comment on that. Need time and more data. So far, I'll stick to &quot;seem&quot;. Willing to make changes later." CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:56:57.310" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="37843" PostId="1925" Score="0" Text="BTW do you know the source for the oxytone accentuation of *educ* etc.? I'm guessing this is mentioned by some ancient author, but don't know which one." CreationDate="2022-04-06T08:36:33.600" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37859" PostId="1925" Score="0" Text="Does Weiss not consider [Petronius](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=maledic%23) a Classical author?" CreationDate="2022-04-07T17:33:13.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37864" PostId="1925" Score="0" Text="@TKR I'll do some research and will update my answer if I find anything. So far, I have seen the apocopated forms with a circumflex, see Probert 2019: 226-228, she quotes some relevant passages from Paperinus and Priscian." CreationDate="2022-04-07T21:54:37.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="37866" PostId="1925" Score="0" Text="@cmw my guess is that because, unlike the other compound dico verbs, maledico could be rather tricky, it could be either a compound verb maledico or male dico (a simplex verb), there are some interesting examples in the TLL entry, &quot;Ante hos sex menses **male**” ait “**dixisti** mihi.”' or male non dicas etc. But this is just my guess." CreationDate="2022-04-07T22:18:03.587" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="37867" PostId="1925" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. You beat me to it. I was just going to suggest that maybe it's not supposed to be read together in Petronius. But the Phaedrus example could also be tmesis. I do find it odd though that it's so prevalent in Plautus and then stops for a couple hundred years (or else is just by chance not represented in literature from the Classical period)." CreationDate="2022-04-08T00:04:53.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23388" PostId="1926" Score="1" Text="Not only Italian, but other descend languages, in their very early forms, are very close from Vulgar Latin. For instance very old French is really like a deformed Vulgar Latin, with declension, etc. You should mention all the daughter-languages in their very early form. Very old French is as Latin as very old Italian." CreationDate="2019-11-23T10:59:43.670" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="5058" PostId="1927" Score="0" Text="It seems you could find more details in *[Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction](https://books.google.fr/books?id=9P3Ifze8gUQC)*." CreationDate="2016-11-02T13:26:56.687" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5059" PostId="1927" Score="5" Text="By far the best modern book on this sort of thing is &quot;Ad Infinitum&quot;, by Nicholas Ostler. It had excellent reviews and is (in my opinion) much superior to Tore Janson's 'A Natural History of Latin'. Ostler displays the history of Latin as it was adopted, adapted and modified through time and throughout the world, right up to today, while in two or three sections covering the very matter in which you are interested. It's available in Kindle, hardback and paperback. On the cover of my own copy is written, with every justification, &quot;Lector intende: laetaberis&quot;." CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:48:27.923" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5063" PostId="1928" Score="0" Text="The description of the image in Wikicommons gives the solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Latin-breve.svg ; it's: ꝕᵭoꝝ" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:40:44.140" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5065" PostId="1928" Score="0" Text="That doesn't seem right. The description there uses the precomposed character ꝕ LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH SQUIRREL TAIL U+A755 which doesn't look anything like the picture. And a breve doesn't look like the picture either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breve" CreationDate="2016-11-02T18:32:39.463" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="5066" PostId="1928" Score="0" Text="Perhaps &quot;p&quot; + U+1DCE Combining Ogonek Above, or &quot;p&quot; + U+1DE3 Combining Latin Small Letter R Rotunda?" CreationDate="2016-11-02T18:57:27.210" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5067" PostId="1928" Score="1" Text="U+1DCE is more like it, thanks! p᷎ But still tiny, in all the fonts I have, compared to the bold flourish in the original. It doesn't really do the job." CreationDate="2016-11-02T19:06:10.853" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="5248" PostId="1928" Score="0" Text="@emrys57 However, according to [French Wikipedia](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%9D%94), ꝕ corresponds to the medieval abbreviation of *prae*. Perhaps the image has been made with some special font? *Unfortunately, the user doesn't remember [which](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:DerSpezialist#How_did_you_creat_Latin-breve.svg.3F).*" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:40:56.183" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5268" PostId="1928" Score="0" Text="Maybe. But that doesn't apply to the same mark as used in 'itinis' above. There isn't an n-with-squirrel-tail." CreationDate="2016-11-16T18:12:52.467" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="5272" PostId="1928" Score="0" Text="You're right, I think your solution with U+1DD2 is the good one." CreationDate="2016-11-16T22:51:10.607" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5069" PostId="1930" Score="1" Text="I think this book may be of some interest to your question: *Bilingualism and the Latin Language*, James Noel Adams, 2003, &lt;https://books.google.fr/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&gt;." CreationDate="2016-11-03T10:53:18.223" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5070" PostId="1930" Score="0" Text="A better link https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/1977D30B88BA060AA02ED9BF4DACE354" CreationDate="2016-11-03T17:21:52.433" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5071" PostId="1931" Score="1" Text="I think the term you are looking for is [Eye dialect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_dialect): imitating accents using non-standard spelling." CreationDate="2016-11-03T20:31:45.143" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5072" PostId="1931" Score="1" Text="@brianpck My understanding was that &quot;eye dialect&quot; referred to misspellings which don't change pronunciation (such as &quot;wuz&quot; and &quot;sed&quot; for &quot;was&quot; and &quot;said&quot;) used to indicate a character's lack of education. In other words, a character's spoken dialogue is spelled the way they might spell it. Whereas what I'm going for here is spelling changes which actually reflect the accent. Is the term generally used differently?" CreationDate="2016-11-03T20:52:23.667" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5073" PostId="1931" Score="0" Text="You're right...my mistake!" CreationDate="2016-11-03T20:53:58.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5076" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Three remarks: (1) Both readings *quae* and *qua* are long; the latter is singular feminine ablative *qua meta*. It's *ablativus viae*, a plain ablative indicating path. There's no difference in scansion. (2) I might have missed something, but did you find evidence that *â* could stand for *ae*? I don't know if the circumflex was ever used that way. (3) Doesn't the Adler quote support reading as *qua* rather than *quae*?" CreationDate="2016-11-04T08:11:36.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5077" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="Argh! No, you didn't miss anything - I did!  I think I was so focused on proving my misguided point that I lost sight of the facts.  I'll edit my answer.  I think the stuff about the documented use of the circumflex is still useful?" CreationDate="2016-11-04T08:22:11.950" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="5078" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="Oh yes, information about the use of circumflex in general is useful. It is relevant background (and new information to me), although it alone doesn't answer the question." CreationDate="2016-11-04T08:29:10.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5079" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="You're after something more specific to the orthographic custom of the era? The Wikipedia entry for &quot;New Latin: diacritics&quot; states: “The circumflex accent … was chiefly found over an a representing an ablative singular case”. Sadly, this has no supporting citations. However, I did find this facsimile of a 1689 book that uses quâ liberally, including in its title, and apparently always as an ablative, which goes some way to corroborating the Wikipedia claim: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8BJmAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=qu%C3%A2&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2016-11-04T10:33:42.687" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="5080" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="The orthographic customs of the era are what I'm after. I want to know how reasonable it is to interpret *quâ* as *quā* or *quae* from an orthographic point of view. A citation for that Wikipedia mention would make a great answer." CreationDate="2016-11-04T10:47:33.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5082" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="I have found three scholarly sources that do indeed back up the Wikipedia mention. So I've had to edit my answer ... again.  Is this allowed or should I post an entirely new answer?" CreationDate="2016-11-04T12:11:43.700" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="5083" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="That is perfectly fine. The fact that the listed uses of circumflex match *quā* perfectly but not *quae* at all makes the answer convincing. I will consider accepting this, but I'll wait to see if others have something to add." CreationDate="2016-11-04T13:11:26.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6843" PostId="1936" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/251/79)" CreationDate="2017-02-19T20:08:37.793" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5084" PostId="1938" Score="3" Text="For clarification: this is in [Book 1 of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met1.shtml)" CreationDate="2016-11-04T16:28:58.190" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5085" PostId="1939" Score="0" Text="Some good info here: &quot;Harley MS 2610, and OVID, *Met.* I 544-546&quot; ([*The Classical Review*](https://books.google.com/books?id=u-onAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA140&amp;lpg=RA1-PA140) It's a good start to mention that there are other renderings of the line (obviously--the one in the OP's edition is a nonsensical repetition), but some reference to an authoritative critical edition would probably be needed to settle what exactly causes these discrepancies" CreationDate="2016-11-04T18:16:12.907" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5087" PostId="1939" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The Teubner is usually considered an &quot;authoritative critical edition&quot; on a par with, say, the Oxford Classical Texts. Isn't the discrepancy merely the result of different attempts at interpolating a missing portion — as I was taught? It would, naturally, be good to know how much authority is accorded to the interpolating editors (whoever they were)." CreationDate="2016-11-04T19:50:00.677" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5088" PostId="1939" Score="0" Text="Take a look at the first page of the article I cited: it proposes a different text (as well as alternate MSS readings) with what seems like good authority, though it *was* written in 1919 (old, but still newer than Teubner)" CreationDate="2016-11-04T19:54:25.383" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5089" PostId="1939" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately, I can only access a few brief lines from the article, which isn't much use. In any event, to look for the &quot;cause of these discrepancies&quot; outwith what I suggested doesn't to me seem likely to give as strong an answer as either of us might wish." CreationDate="2016-11-04T20:05:02.960" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5091" PostId="1939" Score="1" Text="The latest Teubner edition of Metamorphoses was in 1998, by William Anderson https://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/33013 imho nothing can beat Teubner" CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:30:51.160" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5086" PostId="1940" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Those are nice passages, although they don't exactly tell how to read formulas of any kind out loud (instead of describing their content in words). Ancient mathematicians didn't have notation like we do. I believe Vitruvius can be useful for writing more verbal mathematics, but perhaps not with reading symbolic mathematics." CreationDate="2016-11-04T18:26:42.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19613" PostId="1940" Score="1" Text="I am so using this for my math students--especially the one explaining the Pythagorean theorem." CreationDate="2019-05-09T01:49:29.840" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19661" PostId="1940" Score="0" Text="ªJoonas llmavirta: interesting as this material is, why would Latin mathematical terms be pronounced any differently from other Latin words--letter-by-letter; syllable-by-syllable; sound-by-sound?" CreationDate="2019-05-11T09:35:53.060" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="5094" PostId="1941" Score="2" Text="At least [one book](https://books.google.com/books?id=8YK9BAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=decem+septies&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9x67PhVhly&amp;sig=rYyHCjU8asdLRQoWD5x7CJnRe5Q&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjcyK23wpDQAhWEyoMKHcSmCNgQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&amp;q=decem%20septies&amp;f=false) seems to use &quot;tres multiplicata in quattuor&quot; to mean &quot;4 * 3&quot;, which seems a *much* better approach when you get to bigger numbers like &quot;quintagies semel duodeviginti&quot; = &quot;51 * 18&quot;" CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:03:47.153" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5117" PostId="1941" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, good find! That becomes even more useful with variables. Translating &quot;x times y&quot; or &quot;a times b times c&quot; by something analogous to &quot;ter sena&quot; or &quot;ter sex&quot; seems impossible. However, fluent and flexible reading seems to call for a translation for &quot;times&quot;. I don't know any language uses a different construction for modern mathematics." CreationDate="2016-11-05T23:04:15.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5136" PostId="1941" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I've added your solution for the multiplication and others I've found *via* dictionnaries and *via* Google Books." CreationDate="2016-11-07T13:52:43.290" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="42751" PostId="1941" Score="0" Text="Why wouldn't *tres multiplicata in quattuor sunt duodecim* be *tria multiplicata in quattuor sunt duodecim* or *(numerus) tres multiplicatus in quattuor est duodecim*?" CreationDate="2023-03-30T04:56:59.797" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="5090" PostId="1942" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! I assume a big role was played by the overall decrease in Latin literacy, but I don't know details. Latin lost two positions: that of the preferred means of international communication in general and that of scientific communication. I have no idea whether these two happened at the same time or one happened before the other." CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:26:25.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5092" PostId="1942" Score="2" Text="That’s right, but with a difference: there still remained an international language for diplomacy (French), whereas after the disappearance of Latin in their papers, scientists wrote their publications in their own languages." CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:32:27.870" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5093" PostId="1942" Score="4" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Right, but then the question arises: why did Latin literacy decrease? (I think the rise of nationalism is one cause, but I think there is more to it.)" CreationDate="2016-11-05T00:47:33.717" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5103" PostId="1942" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, my point was indeed that the present question is closely related to the one you pose. They are not the same question, though, and I would much like to compare the answers to these two questions." CreationDate="2016-11-05T13:24:45.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5106" PostId="1942" Score="0" Text="Interessant French article linked to this subject: http://dhfles.revues.org/815 (criticism against Latin in the 16th-17th centuries)" CreationDate="2016-11-05T15:49:57.663" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5115" PostId="1942" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: True: the two questions, though conexed, are different." CreationDate="2016-11-05T22:57:37.520" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5137" PostId="1942" Score="0" Text="Related question: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/what-is-the-history-of-scientific-latin" CreationDate="2016-11-07T14:05:52.020" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5352" PostId="1942" Score="2" Text="On a related note, English is now the *lingua franca* of scientific publications." CreationDate="2016-11-20T17:07:39.967" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5095" PostId="1943" Score="1" Text="[Here is a good website for finding any date in the Roman style.](http://www.latin.org/datecalculator.php) I think it uses the modern calendar so it could be a good starting point." CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:39:57.603" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="5096" PostId="1943" Score="0" Text="@Sam K Thanks for sharing, that's an interesting site. I think an explanation of the logic behind it could make for a good answer." CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:42:11.417" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5097" PostId="1943" Score="0" Text="See that's the thing. I understand Roman dates, I just think that someone more qualified could write a well-done answer better than I can. That link is just a good reference." CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:46:03.960" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="5098" PostId="1943" Score="0" Text="Oh, that's fine. I'm glad you posted the link." CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:49:14.287" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5104" PostId="1943" Score="2" Text="To answer your first question: the Gregorian calendar uses exactly the same month names as the Julian." CreationDate="2016-11-05T13:30:56.280" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10318" PostId="1943" Score="0" Text="As a side note, month names September through December come from numeral roots for 7 through 10. Note the systematic offset of 2: these used to simply mean &quot;seventh&quot; through &quot;tenth month.&quot; These hark back to the time when there were only 10 months in the calendar. January and February are a later addition (also, February initially followed December, IIRC, but I may be wrong)." CreationDate="2017-08-09T23:32:02.113" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="5099" PostId="1944" Score="0" Text="As a notification about Greek questions, here is the [Meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/questions/218/what-should-we-do-with-greek-questions &quot;What should we do with Greek questions?&quot;)." CreationDate="2016-11-05T03:47:05.603" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5105" PostId="1944" Score="3" Text="Out of curiosity, are you omitting accent diacritical marks because of keyboard issues? As for the q, this definitely seems like a situation for the imperfect, but I don't have time to back that up now" CreationDate="2016-11-05T14:31:06.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5108" PostId="1944" Score="2" Text="Btw the best way to find out the answer to questions like the one in your last sentence about πολλάκις is to search the TLG (stephanus.tlg.uci.edu), if you happen to have access to that. I might do that if I have time, since it would be interesting to see how frequently, if at all, πολλάκις occurs with an aorist." CreationDate="2016-11-05T16:30:51.767" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5109" PostId="1944" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Since accent marks are a lot to remember, I currently only include breathing marks and iota subscripts. I would be interested in others' feedback on this system. I think that I could switch to using accent marks, but I wonder if I should spend my time memorizing other things first." CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:23:04.847" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5114" PostId="1944" Score="0" Text="I definitely recommending learning the accent system. It's not really that complicated, and accents can make a difference in translation more often than you might think." CreationDate="2016-11-05T21:16:01.077" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5118" PostId="1944" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 Yes, I would second TKR that accents are important: they're like French in the sense that they are constitutive of the word, unlike Latin macrons. Besides which, learning these kinds of things *after* is a laborious affair...I'm still kicking myself for not paying attention to vowel length when I first started learning Latin in highschool, and that's *less* important I would argue" CreationDate="2016-11-06T02:38:32.853" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5327" PostId="1944" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'd argue that in translating poetry Latin vowel length is even more crucial than prose accents in Greek. Or, to misquote a Texan parody, &quot;If no accents are good enough for Herodotus, not having them is good enough for me!&quot;" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:02:14.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5121" PostId="1947" Score="1" Text="There is an adverb: *expeditiose.*" CreationDate="2016-11-06T03:47:45.890" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5123" PostId="1947" Score="0" Text="I wonder where you got the word 'tramen'? I can't find a classical origin for it. There has been something of a vogue for 'hamaxostichus', which I personally think clumsy and abhorrent, preferring to adopt the modern Italian 'trena'. You might consider 'trena finite destinata'." CreationDate="2016-11-06T09:35:42.747" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5125" PostId="1947" Score="2" Text="@Hugh, I couldn't find that adverb in my dictionaries. Did you mean *expedite*? Searching for your adverb lead me to the adjective *expeditus* which is the best fit I have found so far. *Tramen expeditum* sounds like a reasonable option." CreationDate="2016-11-06T10:53:31.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5126" PostId="1947" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton, *tramen* (*traminis*, neuter) is the only Latin word for a train I know. It's in my Finnish–Latin–Finnish dictionary and I'm sure it has occurred in my Latin correspondence and the news Nuntii Latini. Vicipaedia uses it, too. I think it is a combination of *tra-* (=*trans-*) or *trahere* and the instrumental derivative *-men* (=*-mentum*). I am not sure, though. I agree on *hamaxostichus*. Analogy to the Italian 'treno' is a good option, and so is your &quot;train with a goal&quot; translation." CreationDate="2016-11-06T11:05:23.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5128" PostId="1947" Score="2" Text="You're right, the Italian is 'treno'. I've used 'trena' in my own translations to make for convenient inflection, and suggested it here unthinkingly. 'Finite' is a soundly classical adverbial usage, meaning 'with restriction(s)' (Cic. de Fin. 2.9.27), and my 'destinata' (p.p. from destino) was adjectival, to produce 'train intended/ designed/planned with restrictions' — or in other words, an express train." CreationDate="2016-11-06T12:01:21.853" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5151" PostId="1947" Score="0" Text="Traupman proposes ***tramen, inis, n rapidissimum*** in his *Conversational Latin*, but this isn’t very imaginative :)" CreationDate="2016-11-08T23:15:41.863" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="7308" PostId="1947" Score="0" Text="I wonder/can't recall what was the Hogwarts Express called in [Harrius Potter et Philosopi Lapis](https://www.amazon.com/Harrius-Potter-Philosophi-Lapis-Philosophers/dp/1582348251). FWIW, jet is [aërināvis celérrima](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html) in the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:10:42.647" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5119" PostId="1948" Score="2" Text="Excellent answer. For my Latin correspondence, I err on the side of familiarity and use the second method in your conclusion: &quot;die 4&lt;sup&gt;o&lt;/sup&gt; mensis Novembris anno 2016.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-11-06T03:12:16.607" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5147" PostId="1948" Score="1" Text="Great answer! An example of Erasmes to illustrate what you say about Kalendae: &lt; https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost16/Erasmus/era_ep09.html &gt; He signed: *Bononiae. V. Cal. Novembr. [1507]//&#xA;Aldo Manutio Romano, viro undecunque doctissimo. Venetiis.* (the year is inferred from details of the letter)" CreationDate="2016-11-08T15:15:37.887" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5161" PostId="1948" Score="1" Text="I'm glad you explained the traditional Roman calendar, as I prefer that form of expression. I never knew about the special days. I find the abbreviations to be quite elegant, e.g. *prid. Id. Aug.* or *Kal. Nov.* Look forward to using them myself." CreationDate="2016-11-10T03:13:06.160" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6841" PostId="1948" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/251/79)" CreationDate="2017-02-19T20:07:25.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10310" PostId="1948" Score="0" Text="why in the first line, november 4 is Nonas novembres?&#xA;Should it be quartus like the second line?&#xA;Confused" CreationDate="2017-08-09T15:28:33.317" UserId="1892" />
  <row Id="10311" PostId="1948" Score="0" Text="@Marie &quot;On November 4&quot; is indeed *pridie Nonas Novembres*. Here *Nonae* is not the numeral &quot;ninth&quot;, but a special name for the fifth or seventh day of a month. The other two special days are *Kalendae* and *Idus*; see the first paragraph after the first title. The word *pridie* means &quot;on the day before&quot;, so *pridie Nonas Novembres* is literally &quot;on the day before the Novemberly Nonae-day&quot;. Notice how *Nonas/Nonae* is spelled with a capital N (it's a name), whereas &quot;ninth&quot; would be with a lowercase N (and in a different form). Did this clear your confusion, or add to it?" CreationDate="2017-08-09T17:17:33.327" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14850" PostId="1948" Score="1" Text="Wow Joonas. I wish you'd been my Latin teacher at high school back in the day." CreationDate="2018-07-16T23:29:20.650" UserId="2765" />
  <row Id="45674" PostId="1948" Score="0" Text="Wow, with your fictional example *hodie sunt Nonae Augustae* you got soooo close to reality! *Nonae sunt hodie Sextiles* (Cic. Verr. 1, 10). You only called the month a strange name :-)" CreationDate="2023-11-27T12:14:57.540" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45675" PostId="1948" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That's a good find! I edited it in. // Yes, my month names are from the modern Roman Empire rather than the ancient Roman Republic. I keep up with the times!" CreationDate="2023-11-27T12:54:30.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45687" PostId="1948" Score="0" Text="Awesome answer! I'm going to make a codegolf challenge inspired by it: [Codegolf sandbox: Write the date in abbreviated Latin](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2140/sandbox-for-proposed-challenges/26140#26140)" CreationDate="2023-11-28T11:42:01.320" UserId="13202" />
  <row Id="45690" PostId="1948" Score="1" Text="@Stef I recommend answering the question you got there in the comments with this: &quot;The Roman counting system is oddly inclusive to modern taste. Whenever we would say that something is n days earlier, the Romans would have said n+1. The day just before the special day is two days before it (we'd say one day) and has a special name, so the unnamed days start their numbering at 3.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-29T09:24:27.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45764" PostId="1948" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I included your paragraph and posted the challenge: [codegolf: Write the date in abbreviated latin](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/267257/write-the-date-in-abbreviated-latin)" CreationDate="2023-12-03T18:02:26.193" UserId="13202" />
  <row Id="5132" PostId="1952" Score="3" Text="Alcaeus was a Greek poet and didn't know Latin. Wiki says the first word-for-word use of the phrase is by Erasmus." CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:27:52.550" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5134" PostId="1952" Score="1" Text="@TKR Primary sources would certainly be interessting to read!" CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:56:55.740" UserId="386" />
  <row Id="5133" PostId="1953" Score="0" Text="Can esse also be left out if it's used in the subjunctive? What about the temporal aspects; is the left out esse always in the present or could it be for example in its imperfect?" CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:52:15.873" UserId="386" />
  <row Id="5135" PostId="1953" Score="0" Text="@stendarr it could be, as long as it's clear — which it usually isn't, since you mark the verb to change tense or mood, and you can't do that with the verb missing. Still I can imagine scenarios where it would probably work." CreationDate="2016-11-06T18:34:24.663" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="5138" PostId="1956" Score="2" Text="Thomas of Aquinas, based in Aristotle, writes _in extenso_ about species and their members. He uses _species, -ei_. A closely related term is _natura, -ae_, which comprises what is proper to individuals of a species for belonging to that species (as in _human nature_). I might be oversimplifying. I wish I had the time to do some research and write a proper answer (which I haven't)" CreationDate="2016-11-07T20:01:53.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5139" PostId="1956" Score="2" Text="Also related: _forma_, and _genus_. Look at L&amp;S's entry for [_species_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dspecies), meaning II.C.3" CreationDate="2016-11-07T20:11:45.357" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5140" PostId="1956" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, Aquinas is later than what I'm looking for, but his discussion and commentary on Aristotle's view would be interesting. I imagine someone would have looked into it in the Roman antiquity, too. I hope your findings help someone write an answer." CreationDate="2016-11-07T20:19:21.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5148" PostId="1956" Score="2" Text="The cited wiki-nonsense seems to claim that Aristotle wrote in Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-08T18:05:56.737" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5149" PostId="1956" Score="1" Text="@fdb, it indeed does so. That was one of the reasons I did not want to trust it." CreationDate="2016-11-08T18:08:57.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5141" PostId="1957" Score="1" Text="I wouldn't cite without fact-checking Etymonline or Wiktionary in an answer, but I figure they count for a quesiton's due diligence." CreationDate="2016-11-07T22:38:20.450" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5142" PostId="1957" Score="1" Text="Could you add why you say that Noe refers to a person in that song? I don't know anything about Christmas carols or psalms, but the lines work for me if I simply read Noe as &quot;birth&quot;." CreationDate="2016-11-07T23:55:18.550" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5143" PostId="1957" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Now I feel stupid, but I think you're right that it's just a kind of exclamation. I guess I saw &quot;Noe, iacet in praesepio&quot; but it's clear that the other Noe's are just interjections. Most of the question still stands, even if that seems to heavily favor the first interpretation" CreationDate="2016-11-08T01:35:36.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5144" PostId="1957" Score="0" Text="Absolutely, the question stands and I'm interested in whatever answer people come up with. Perhaps an answerer could look at one or more other carols to confirm whether or not Noe is aequivalent to Noel. An explanation of the spelling Noe would also be interesting." CreationDate="2016-11-08T01:41:26.367" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5145" PostId="1957" Score="0" Text="In French, noël is an exclamation: http://www.littre.org/definition/no%C3%ABl It comes from *natalis*.&#xA;&#xA;I suppose this *noe* is the same?" CreationDate="2016-11-08T10:03:29.073" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5146" PostId="1957" Score="0" Text="I think your speculation about &quot;Noel&quot; being a shortening of &quot;Emmanuel&quot; may well be correct. A long time ago, I heard Bishop Barry of Southwell, in a Christmas sermon, tell the congregation that &quot;Nowell&quot; (the spelling in the carol) was exactly that, the angel addressing the shepherds indicating &quot;God is with us&quot;, meaning that the Messiah had been born." CreationDate="2016-11-08T14:37:57.707" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5150" PostId="1957" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton. Noel comes from natalis, not from Emmanuel. Your Bishop was engaging in folk etymology." CreationDate="2016-11-08T18:22:12.967" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30716" PostId="1957" Score="0" Text="Just a side note: “Noel” was also used at least once for the name of Noah in a now lost mosaic at the Notre Dame de la Daraude church at Toulouse (southern France), likely due to Gothic influence, since the Goths used  (pronounced “Noël”) for the name of Noah. See: https://brill.com/view/journals/abag/80/1-2/article-p5_2.xml" CreationDate="2021-02-10T08:08:51.300" UserId="8969" />
  <row Id="5153" PostId="1958" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Can you provide English translations or links to them for the Aristotle quotes? That would make this answer more accessible to many; currently the quotes lead to no conclusion for a reader who knows only English and Latin. My Greek is not fluent enough. I could read most of the French version, though." CreationDate="2016-11-09T07:41:24.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5154" PostId="1958" Score="0" Text="This is great (+1), but I echo the above comment that we should try to offer translations of Greek. In addition, I think some point should be added that links Aristotle's view to that of Roman naturalists, since that *is* the point of the question." CreationDate="2016-11-09T14:18:55.980" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5155" PostId="1958" Score="0" Text="You're right, I add the translations now, and I'll see later for the Romans (I took literally *or other ancients, for that matter* :) )." CreationDate="2016-11-09T16:07:00.897" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5159" PostId="1958" Score="1" Text="This is a very good answer. Perhaps I might underline (especially as this is not entirely clear from the pasted English translations) that, in their technical sense, genus is a calque on γένος and species on εἴδος." CreationDate="2016-11-09T21:34:02.573" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5152" PostId="1959" Score="2" Text="I don't think this answers the question, which explicitly asks how to *distinguish* these two positions in Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-09T03:05:24.243" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5156" PostId="1959" Score="0" Text="*scholasticus/professor* seems to be more a *lecturer* than a *reader*." CreationDate="2016-11-09T16:28:57.550" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="10201" PostId="1959" Score="2" Text="Here in Cambridge a praelector is something totally different from a lecturer and from a reader. http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/glossary/term/198" CreationDate="2017-08-02T22:48:29.247" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10306" PostId="1959" Score="0" Text="Indeed, my answer was only the result of search in dictionaries, so the question still awaits more precise answers…" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:44:01.380" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5157" PostId="1960" Score="0" Text="Quibus non patet: coniunctivus = subiunctivus" CreationDate="2016-11-09T20:59:11.723" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5160" PostId="1960" Score="2" Text="Interesting question. I'm assuming you mean the optative *in Latin*? Or are you also interested in the optative in Proto-Indo-European? I have to admit I know very little about the optative as a Latin mood, not even whether it still existed by the time Latin began to be written." CreationDate="2016-11-10T00:06:56.710" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5162" PostId="1960" Score="0" Text="@TKR, good catch! Corrected." CreationDate="2016-11-10T06:57:18.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5163" PostId="1960" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, yes, in Latin. I added a note: If it never existed in Latin, I'm interested in tracing it back to PIE. If possible, I want to stay with Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-10T06:57:53.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5164" PostId="1960" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Excellent! This is a subject that interests me very much." CreationDate="2016-11-10T11:04:15.893" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5169" PostId="1960" Score="4" Text="You won't get an answer about the optative in Latin because there never was one -- the PIE optative became the Latin subjunctive before the earliest recorded Latin. (The PIE subjunctive, on the other hand, turned into the 3rd/4th conjugation future.)" CreationDate="2016-11-10T17:44:19.187" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5172" PostId="1960" Score="1" Text="@TKR, if that is indeed the case, then an answer explaining that situation and discussing the PIE (or Proto-Italic or early Latin or some other reconstructed language) optative would be great." CreationDate="2016-11-10T19:24:24.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5177" PostId="1960" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I won't have internet access for the next few days, but I'll try to write one after that if I have time and no one else has done so." CreationDate="2016-11-10T23:12:00.357" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5210" PostId="1960" Score="2" Text="Related: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Origin%20of%20Italic%20imperfect%20subjunctive.pdf" CreationDate="2016-11-12T17:50:21.510" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5235" PostId="1960" Score="0" Text="@TKR: That's interesting. Are you suggesting that the Latin -i- forms Joonas mentions are not at all from the Proto-Indo-European optative? And that none of the Latin subjunctive forms are from the Proto-Indo-European subjunctive, but that they are all from the Proto-Indo-European optative? Or only partly? P.S. &quot;Because there never was one&quot;: who knows, there may have been an optative in prehistoric Latin?" CreationDate="2016-11-15T00:00:50.940" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5236" PostId="1960" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: *sim* etc. are from the PIE optative, yes. The 1st conj. subjunctive in *-e-* is also thought to be from the PIE optative; the 2-4 conj. subjunctive in *-a-* is of unclear origin; same for non-present subjunctive forms. To your last question, AFAIK none of the Italic languages have an optative distinct from the subjunctive, so probably not." CreationDate="2016-11-15T00:20:22.187" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5237" PostId="1960" Score="0" Text="@TKR Ah, that's more like I remembered it, gratias! Good point about the other Italic languages, makes it less likely." CreationDate="2016-11-15T01:55:00.177" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5249" PostId="1960" Score="2" Text="Rix writes that **in Proto-Italic &quot;the optative and subjunctive were in principle still different moods&quot;** and &quot;the total syncretism of optative and subjunctive, present in Latin and in Sabellian, is Post-PIt.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:47:44.960" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5255" PostId="1960" Score="1" Text="@AlexB., interesting! That would make an interesting answer, whether partial or complete, especially if Rix has a good reason to think so. (I have nothing against having contradictory answers as long as each gives sufficient reasoning and citations. Reading arguments for different views is likely to be illuminating.)" CreationDate="2016-11-15T21:48:43.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5273" PostId="1960" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., what is the specific work by Rix?" CreationDate="2016-11-16T23:43:08.913" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5185" PostId="1962" Score="1" Text="Astronomers say Rupes Recta is a fault, possibly 5 faults, rising about 300 meters, running over 100 kilometers. It is not a sharp cliff, but a shallow slope. However, the name is now official." CreationDate="2016-11-11T04:22:00.247" UserId="962" />
  <row Id="5186" PostId="1962" Score="4" Text="I mean, early astronomers couldn't see the steepness...so the ambiguity isn't their *fault*. (Ba-dum *tsss*)" CreationDate="2016-11-11T04:42:16.040" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5187" PostId="1962" Score="4" Text="Sorry. I couldn't resist." CreationDate="2016-11-11T04:42:30.453" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5165" PostId="1964" Score="0" Text="Not sure if I am correctly identifying the source of your confusion, so feel free to comment if anything is unclear" CreationDate="2016-11-10T15:11:29.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5166" PostId="1964" Score="0" Text="I have the same impression on the source of confusion and was planning to write a similar answer. Your rule &quot;both compared (pro)nouns need to be in the same case&quot; is much better than the simplistic one given in the book. +1." CreationDate="2016-11-10T16:13:05.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5167" PostId="1964" Score="2" Text="Thanks for the quick answer! Looking at your explanation, I definitely ought to have known the sentence structure already (maybe I shouldn't be teaching this stuff).&#xA;&#xA;I didn't know that similis takes the genitive and that was throwing me off. Would a raw translation of &quot;similis eius&quot; be &quot;similar of him,&quot; but the more conversational meaning be &quot;similiar to him?&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Also, does there exist a set category of adjectives that will take a case like this, or maybe should I be able to determine it intuitively from the definition?" CreationDate="2016-11-10T16:59:48.393" UserId="721" />
  <row Id="5168" PostId="1964" Score="0" Text="@BrennickC I don't think it's very useful to think of a &quot;raw translation,&quot; but yes that works, just as you *could* think of &quot;memini tui&quot; as &quot;I remember of you.&quot; [Here are some more examples of adjectives with the genitive](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.349.html)." CreationDate="2016-11-10T17:03:09.237" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5178" PostId="1964" Score="0" Text="@brianpck It could be my non-expertise speaking, but I've found that using intermediate &quot;raw&quot; translations can help to highlight and explain the uses of cases to students who aren't used to having the idea of cases.&#xA;&#xA;For example, saying &quot;nomen mihi est Fred&quot; means &quot;my name is Fred&quot; could be misleading for those learning a language. Conversationally, that's what you mean, but using &quot;the name to me is Fred&quot; as an intermediary helps to point out how different cases can convey a meaning that wouldn't be intuitive to English-speakers." CreationDate="2016-11-11T00:08:15.070" UserId="721" />
  <row Id="5179" PostId="1964" Score="0" Text="It could also be that I don't know what I'm talking about at all, and that I've been teaching hogwash to students. I guess that's why I joined this website, to learn more." CreationDate="2016-11-11T00:09:21.223" UserId="721" />
  <row Id="5193" PostId="1964" Score="0" Text="@BrennickC No, I actually agree with you: I think it's a useful way to show students how syntax differs in different languages. I remember the passive periphrastic being &quot;literally&quot; translated as: &quot;This is to be done to me.&quot; A big part of language acquisition, though, is *getting past* the strangeness and processing it as *normal.*" CreationDate="2016-11-11T14:48:25.063" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5256" PostId="1964" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Absolutely. It's the difference between study and fluency, yes?&#xA;Thank you very much for all your help!" CreationDate="2016-11-16T04:06:29.300" UserId="721" />
  <row Id="5170" PostId="1965" Score="0" Text="For the first point, do you mean &quot;ablative of comparison is *more common*&quot;? I've definitely seen quam + nom/acc with an adjective." CreationDate="2016-11-10T17:53:54.640" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5171" PostId="1965" Score="1" Text="I should have said, not 'instead', but 'as well as'." CreationDate="2016-11-10T18:02:32.603" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5173" PostId="1966" Score="3" Text="Researching a tentative answer I came across [this discussion](http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%82.3203403/), which seems to feature our very own @fdb" CreationDate="2016-11-10T20:26:52.403" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5174" PostId="1967" Score="1" Text="Interesting. Aren't there other violations to this rule though, like &quot;φιλόσοφος&quot; which doesn't mean &quot;wise one of love,&quot; but &quot;lover of wisdom&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-11-10T22:12:08.767" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="5175" PostId="1967" Score="3" Text="@sumelic Good point: &quot;philo&quot; can be either a prefix or a suffix and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, e.g. &quot;philology&quot; and &quot;bibliophile&quot; I don't really have a good answer to that besides supposing that it too is irregular." CreationDate="2016-11-10T22:34:07.550" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5176" PostId="1967" Score="4" Text="@sumelic, compounds like *philosophos* are regarded as having a verbal first member and are therefore in a different class. brianpck is correct that *hippopotamos* is a univerbation of *hippos potamios*; it's not an error and there are parallel examples like *aksiologos* &quot;worthy of speaking.&quot; The French author is wrong about this (and I'd say his quote should be deleted so as not to mislead)." CreationDate="2016-11-10T23:02:48.363" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5180" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="φιλόεργος etc. do not drop the thematic vowel before a vowel." CreationDate="2016-11-11T00:42:50.393" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5181" PostId="1967" Score="3" Text="@fdb, that's because of digamma (*wergos*), which wouldn't be the case with ἵππος." CreationDate="2016-11-11T00:45:30.683" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5182" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="What about φῐλοεθνής?" CreationDate="2016-11-11T00:46:56.077" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5183" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="@fdb, ἔθνος is also thought to have had an initial digamma (thus Chantraine), though the etymology isn't clear." CreationDate="2016-11-11T00:51:02.453" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5188" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="Thank you! This is a great answer. I thought elision *potamohippus &gt; potamippus* would be likely, and it's good to have that confirmed, too." CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:14:07.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5189" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="&quot;est&quot; → &quot;is&quot; in the last citation." CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:26:47.413" UserId="964" />
  <row Id="5190" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="When you say the word occurs in Pliny, Discorides, and Galen, do you mean in Latin? The latter two were Greek, does that mean they wrote ἱπποπόταμος or were you referring to Latin texts? Excuse my ignorance, my 2 second Wikipedia search suggests that both were in the Roman world and likely to write in either language. I ask because the word ιπποπόταμος exists in modern Greek and having read your answer I'm confused about whether it actually existed in ancient Greek or if it came into the language through Latin by way of ἵππος ὁ ποτάμιος." CreationDate="2016-11-11T08:35:05.200" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="5191" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="@terdon I was being a little sloppy: I edited to make it clearer." CreationDate="2016-11-11T14:28:16.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5192" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="@TKR I made some edits incorporating some of your thoughts, but I'm curious: do you think that a word like ἀξιόλογος or φιλόσοφος represents an *exception* or *another pattern*?" CreationDate="2016-11-11T14:28:19.583" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5198" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="@brianpck why would it be another pattern? It's the same form as the standard: ἀξιόλογος is *deserving **of** mention*; φιλόσοφος : *lover **of** wisdom*. These also seem, to my untrained eye, to be cases where the attribute precedes the primary noun. Thanks for the edit, by the way, I get it now." CreationDate="2016-11-11T16:26:22.960" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="5203" PostId="1967" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Tribulato discusses it in her 2015 book https://books.google.com/books?id=_n3yCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;ots=h0sybP43OU&amp;dq=%E1%BC%B1%CF%80%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82%20compound&amp;pg=PA46#v=onepage&amp;q=%E1%BC%B1%CF%80%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82%20compound&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2016-11-11T21:46:14.930" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5204" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="@terdon: I can't agree with you here. The primary semantic pattern is as in *homophile* &quot;loving the same&quot;; the secondary as in *philosopher* &quot;loving wisdom&quot;. If we were to read ἀξιόλογος as if it contained the primary/standard pattern, it would be an adjective meaning &quot;choosing value&quot; or &quot;speaking (of) value&quot;, and φιλόσοφος &quot;wise in love&quot;. More primary examples: αἱμοφόβος &quot;fearful of blood&quot;, or οἰκόβῐος &quot;living at home&quot;. However, as you say, the secondary pattern exists and is by no means rare. Example: μῑσογύναιος &quot;hating women&quot; (rather than &quot;feminine out of hatred&quot;), English *misogynous*." CreationDate="2016-11-11T23:03:39.747" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5208" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="There are three different patterns here. In standard N+N compounds, the head is the second member. In univerbated N+N compounds like *hippopotamos, aksiologos* (from *aksios logou*), it's the first. Then there are V+N compounds, in which the first member is a verbal root and is the head, like *philosophos*." CreationDate="2016-11-12T16:24:39.593" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6814" PostId="1967" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2016.](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/251/79)" CreationDate="2017-02-17T14:26:26.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6820" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="@TKR And then there are also N+V compounds where the verb is the head, as in *sarcophagos, lotophagos.* Perhaps you didn't mention them because they are common. (I may ask a Question about the deifnition of univerbation and its practical application.)" CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:49:39.877" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6831" PostId="1967" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, yes, certainly! I wasn't intending a full taxonomy of compounds in Greek, only discussing the types that had been mentioned." CreationDate="2017-02-18T00:23:26.103" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5194" PostId="1968" Score="0" Text="I think you are not denying that chronologically kalendae januarii is the same day that we would now call the 1st of January (Julian). You are asking whether the Romans actually considered the kalendae to mark the beginning of the month. Am I right? In this case, jknappen's answer is not relevant." CreationDate="2016-11-11T15:22:09.363" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5195" PostId="1968" Score="0" Text="@fdb, you are right. I agree that Kal. Jan. was what we know as January the first. The question is whether the boundaries between different months have moved." CreationDate="2016-11-11T15:29:45.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5197" PostId="1968" Score="0" Text="@fdb May I point out that the names of months are adjectives? So we have mensis ianuarius, kalendae ianuariae and so on." CreationDate="2016-11-11T16:24:55.370" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5200" PostId="1968" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton. I think Januarius is used both as an adjective and as a noun. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DJanuarius" CreationDate="2016-11-11T17:01:38.807" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5196" PostId="1969" Score="0" Text="I did not actually ask whether *Kalendae Ianuariae* were on the same day as January 1. (That confirmation is interesting though. +1.) The questions is whether *Kalendae* marked the beginning of the month, or in other words, whether boundaries between different months have moved since antiquity." CreationDate="2016-11-11T15:32:45.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5201" PostId="1969" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta To clarify, your question is why (and whether) &quot;a.d.XIX.Kal.Ian.&quot; was regarded by the Romans as part of December rather than January, right?" CreationDate="2016-11-11T21:12:17.713" UserId="681" />
  <row Id="5202" PostId="1969" Score="0" Text="@Random832, yes, that is one way to phrase it. (Or perhaps it was not regarded part of either month.)" CreationDate="2016-11-11T21:46:04.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5199" PostId="1970" Score="1" Text="I agree. Ovid's Fasti is decisive." CreationDate="2016-11-11T16:56:07.160" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5205" PostId="1971" Score="2" Text="Wow--I'm really impressed by your research into this. I think one of the most important points is that Latin *Noe* appeared only shortly after Old French *Noel* in the *exact same context.* The only part that strikes me as tenuous is your speculation that *Noel* was stigmatized as &quot;lascivious&quot; because of its use in Chaucer/Christmas carols." CreationDate="2016-11-12T14:45:50.233" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5219" PostId="1971" Score="0" Text="Thanks!  It was a great question.  &quot;Lascivious&quot; isn't my word, that's a quote from the Council of Trent itself!  Although they weren't speaking specifically of Noel, they were speaking of any secular influence on the sacred.  But it's true, the second part of my answer is out on a limb somewhat.  When all is said and done, noe is clearly noel for all intents and purposes." CreationDate="2016-11-13T01:42:01.273" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="5206" PostId="1972" Score="2" Text="It's funny, a friend asked me the same thing about how *natalis* could possible change to *noel*. I muttered something about how maybe there's a rule that let's a dental disappear between two vowels, but I've never studied linguistics formally, so it was just speculation." CreationDate="2016-11-12T15:03:24.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5207" PostId="1972" Score="3" Text="etymonline and other on-line English dictionaries are all copied (or rather pasted) from other dictionaries. The CNRTL by contrast is a serious academic source. Please note that Old French nael is not &quot;postulated&quot; but attested (see the first quotation in the CNRTL entry)." CreationDate="2016-11-12T15:50:01.433" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5211" PostId="1973" Score="0" Text="Thank you. That seems to settle it. However, I think there may be another origin for Nowell in the English carol, which is possibly 14th C — but we'll let it pass!" CreationDate="2016-11-12T19:49:17.813" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5213" PostId="1973" Score="0" Text="*The alternative form noël implies natalis &gt; *notalis*: more likely the dissimilation followed the consonant loss, given the attested form *nael*." CreationDate="2016-11-12T22:28:21.930" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5217" PostId="1973" Score="2" Text="@TKR. That is the part I am not sure about. You cannot very well argue that nael &gt; noel is the result of dissimilation. It is more likely that natalis &gt; naël and natalis &gt; *notalis &gt; noël are two different dialect forms, of which the latter prevailed." CreationDate="2016-11-13T00:45:01.813" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5231" PostId="1973" Score="0" Text="*You cannot very well argue that nael &gt; noel is the result of dissimilation* -- why not?" CreationDate="2016-11-14T18:34:49.190" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5233" PostId="1973" Score="1" Text="@TKR. Because the vowels in naël are not similar." CreationDate="2016-11-14T19:48:12.560" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5234" PostId="1973" Score="1" Text="Dissimilation just means segments become less similar -- they don't have to start out identical." CreationDate="2016-11-14T19:49:42.607" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5240" PostId="1973" Score="0" Text="To echo another of your comments, _DHLF/Rey_ says around 1112, with an explanation similar to the one from the _Trésor_. Here's a [link](https://books.google.com/books?id=yqM-AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=comput%20thaon%20Eduard%20Mall&amp;pg=PA119#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) to the 1119 _Comput_ reprod. edited by Eduard Mall referenced in your quote. Also, always interesting, the [_FEW_](https://apps.atilf.fr/lecteurFEW/index.php/page/lire/e/179479)..." CreationDate="2016-11-15T06:05:33.367" UserDisplayName="user425" />
  <row Id="5220" PostId="1974" Score="0" Text="The first example that comes to mind is &quot;consul&quot; abbreviated &quot;COS&quot;, but that's an N. Would you consider it relevant to the question?" CreationDate="2016-11-13T04:20:28.357" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5222" PostId="1974" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, that is an N, but it's still relevant. If word-internal nasalization did happen and M causes word-final nasalization, we have a good reason to believe that M might cause internal nasalization as well." CreationDate="2016-11-13T08:42:38.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5228" PostId="1974" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Even though the answer is most likely yes, Allen writes about word-final m." CreationDate="2016-11-14T05:15:38.927" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5214" PostId="1975" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the Site, Ross. Your answer could be greatly improved if you could add a few links to reinforce the points you have demonstrated." CreationDate="2016-11-12T23:05:02.787" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="5215" PostId="1975" Score="0" Text="For example, Ross, including at least the reference to which of Horace's works you are quoting would be worthwhile." CreationDate="2016-11-12T23:37:45.153" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="9044" PostId="1976" Score="0" Text="If you go with the genitive, I would say dies patrium, because it is a day for all fathers." CreationDate="2017-05-28T10:15:10.953" UserId="1578" />
  <row Id="9046" PostId="1976" Score="0" Text="@BenjaminMcAvoy-Bickford Weirdly enough, in Finnish we have father's day (singular) and mothers' day (plural). I can understand both singular and plural, but perhaps plural is indeed a little more natural." CreationDate="2017-05-28T14:16:33.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5226" PostId="1978" Score="3" Text="How is it any different, really, from English? Your newest child is the last child born, not the first. Is there a language in which &quot;newest&quot; = &quot;first&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-11-14T02:01:06.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5229" PostId="1980" Score="1" Text="Ingenious! Presumably for a rite dedicated to a god Patuta?" CreationDate="2016-11-14T15:16:36.360" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5251" PostId="1983" Score="2" Text="*all we can assume is that vowels before a nasal stop were most likely nasalized* -- but only before a coda nasal, right? I don't think there's any evidence for nasalization before a nasal that's the onset of the following syllable, as in *sumus*." CreationDate="2016-11-15T18:22:43.700" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5252" PostId="1983" Score="0" Text="@TKR my gut reaction (and experience) is to agree with you. But I just looked it up and saw cases of regressive nasalization (?). In particular, one paper mentioned that in Brazilian Portuguese banana, the first syllable can be bã or ba." CreationDate="2016-11-15T19:05:30.637" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5253" PostId="1983" Score="1" Text="I don't mean such nasalization is impossible, only that it would be surprising if there was evidence for it in Latin (what would such evidence look like?)." CreationDate="2016-11-15T19:11:16.817" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5239" PostId="1984" Score="1" Text="I know my old Latin Prose Composition book had a list of the most commonly confused ones (*vilis*, *mortalis*, etc). I'll see if I can find it tomorrow." CreationDate="2016-11-15T04:52:34.187" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5244" PostId="1984" Score="0" Text="@Draconis - wait, how is *mortalis* a false friend...?" CreationDate="2016-11-15T14:06:03.727" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5246" PostId="1984" Score="0" Text="There is a *Vicipaedia* article on this subject: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_amicus" CreationDate="2016-11-15T15:56:36.290" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5247" PostId="1984" Score="0" Text="@brianpck When it's used as a synonym of &quot;lethal&quot; (e.g. a mortal wound). I should have specified that." CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:17:34.357" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5250" PostId="1984" Score="0" Text="@Luc I think Latin Vicipaedia has a real credibility issue: a lot of these articles read like high-school research projects. Even the title &quot;Falsus Amicus&quot; rings bad in my ears." CreationDate="2016-11-15T17:50:34.590" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5254" PostId="1984" Score="0" Text="“*Falsus amicus*” isn’t very imaginative indeed, but there are some false friends examples in the article." CreationDate="2016-11-15T19:54:54.393" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5328" PostId="1984" Score="0" Text="Even the English Wikipedia page on false friends is terrible. It seems some people do not like the idea of separating false friends from false cognates." CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:05:54.560" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5241" PostId="1985" Score="0" Text="Guess: Perhaps he formally sold the slave to his friend and had the friend free the slave." CreationDate="2016-11-15T13:43:33.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5245" PostId="1985" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta  Done. As for the sale you suggest, I doubt it.  From one of Cicero's letters http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;query=Cic.%20Att.%204.8   to Atticus it appears that Dionysius belonged to the latter, and may have been given/loaned to Cicero by his richer friend, which might explain it?" CreationDate="2016-11-15T15:22:36.487" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="5264" PostId="1991" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much brianpck. I have a question about clitellariis. is it clitellariis means in English &quot;bearing a pack-saddle&quot; ? or is it pack animals true ? thank you" CreationDate="2016-11-16T14:45:20.900" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5265" PostId="1991" Score="1" Text="@user992 Yes, *clitellae, -arum* is a (plural) word for a pack saddle, and *clitellarius* means &quot;bearing a pack-saddle.&quot; Here, the adjective is used as a noun, so &quot;pack animals&quot; would be the best translation: I guess you could call it metonymy." CreationDate="2016-11-16T14:51:51.993" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5266" PostId="1991" Score="0" Text="thank you thank you so much for your help. it is very good translation." CreationDate="2016-11-16T14:56:30.193" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5267" PostId="1991" Score="1" Text="@user992, if you think an answer (or a question) is good, please click the little up arrow to give a vote. I liked this answer and I voted for it, and I did the same for your question. Since you have asked this question yourself, you can choose your favorite answer by clicking the v-like button under the arrows. Voting in all forms is always useful." CreationDate="2016-11-16T15:10:12.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5269" PostId="1992" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I should mention, though, that the question was not about spelling variations, but syntax: How did *mille/milia* develop to be an adjective in singular and a noun in plural? Your answer is an interesting and useful remark, though. (+1)" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:38:20.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5270" PostId="1992" Score="0" Text="I take your point, and have amplified my answer." CreationDate="2016-11-16T22:07:57.220" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5271" PostId="1993" Score="6" Text="[*primus inter pares*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_inter_pares) is actually an established idiom with its own Wiki page! As for *hic fortissimus*, it seems more like &quot;this [man is the] strongest&quot; to me. +1 for *potens*" CreationDate="2016-11-16T22:10:30.180" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5293" PostId="1993" Score="0" Text="Thank you both very much.&#xA;But, @brianpck , could _&quot;Hic potentissimus&quot;_ be understood as _&quot;This [men who is the] most powerful&quot;_? I don't know whether this was apparent or not, but I am trying to translate an English text to Latin, in a more _poetical_ manner ‒ some sort of motto, if you wish." CreationDate="2016-11-18T02:26:21.680" UserId="993" />
  <row Id="5294" PostId="1993" Score="0" Text="@SuperSoldier It certainly could mean that, in a certain context. As a standalone sentence, without further context, I think my interpretation would definitely be more natural." CreationDate="2016-11-18T03:31:01.047" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11526" PostId="1993" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Could you avoid the ambiguity by writing *Hic fortissimus (vir) est primus inter pares*? Would that be a more natural way of communicating the OP's intention? Or would *et* be a better choice than *est*?" CreationDate="2017-11-29T08:46:00.583" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11527" PostId="1993" Score="0" Text="I guess the question, more generally, is whether Latin has an analog to the English appositive construction that the OP would like to translate." CreationDate="2017-11-29T08:52:20.010" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5274" PostId="1996" Score="0" Text="Rix 2002 was published here http://www.jies.org/docs/monojpgs/Mon47.html" CreationDate="2016-11-17T04:24:25.693" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5275" PostId="1996" Score="1" Text="This is a nice answer. I have little knowledge of how Latin became what it was in the classical period, so I enjoy reading this. // Are *faxim* and *dixim* alternative to *faciam* and *dicam*? I have never seen them before. // It would be nice to see Rix's point of view, if @AlexB. or anyone can turn it into an answer. I don't expect there to be a single correct truth in this matter (due to lack of prehistoric written material), only different views, arguments and evidence." CreationDate="2016-11-17T09:13:16.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5282" PostId="1996" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, *faxim, dixim* are Old Latin present subjunctive forms, found in Plautus." CreationDate="2016-11-17T17:15:10.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5283" PostId="1996" Score="0" Text="There's what seems to be an abstract of Rix 2002 here: http://www.pies.ucla.edu/WeCIEC/Rix_H_2002.pdf. It doesn't go into much detail on the Proto-Italic optative-subjunctive question, though." CreationDate="2016-11-17T17:38:58.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5277" PostId="1997" Score="4" Text="Great question: note that there are [at least 20 occurrences](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ius+fasque) of &quot;ius fasque,&quot; almost half from Livy, so the two certainly have an intersection of *reference*, if not meaning." CreationDate="2016-11-17T12:54:54.140" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5299" PostId="1997" Score="0" Text="Related publication (Fr): http://www.jstor.org/stable/43844186?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" CreationDate="2016-11-18T11:37:09.217" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6528" PostId="1997" Score="0" Text="It seems as if &quot;ius&quot; refers to a law, described by &quot;sacram&quot; to be sacred, but &quot;fas&quot; can also mean what is moral or allowed. I would answer this, but I'm not too sure about how the Latins would ever use the two or if they are interchangeable." CreationDate="2017-02-06T15:31:41.500" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="8133" PostId="1997" Score="1" Text="Great question! This distinction was good to learn." CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:06:00.403" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5287" PostId="2000" Score="2" Text="Latin has many words for all of those things. have you [used a dictionary](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why)? As it stands, this question is just much too broad." CreationDate="2016-11-17T21:58:43.727" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5288" PostId="2000" Score="2" Text="I'd recommend that you start doing some research on your own - e.g. translating &quot;greatest&quot; or &quot;best&quot; in a dictionary, and then if you're not satisfied with that you can come here and ask what works best. However questions that can be answered with a simple Google search." CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:01:02.497" UserId="778" />
  <row Id="5289" PostId="2000" Score="1" Text="I had use google translate. for example &quot;godlike powers&quot; translated to &quot;divina potentia&quot; but when I translate it back to English, it become &quot;divine power&quot;. It's similar but not what I'm looking for" CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:05:27.320" UserId="996" />
  <row Id="5290" PostId="2000" Score="0" Text="also I don't have any experience in latin words. Is godlike =  divine in latin?" CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:07:59.553" UserId="996" />
  <row Id="5291" PostId="2000" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This question has some potential, but also problems as others have noted. Doing some of your own research and including the result in your question would greatly improve it. Redoing what you did with Google translate with an online Latin dictionary is a good start. Being more specific about what you want to express will also help. The question will be put on hold for now, but it can (and will) be reopened if you improve it." CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:11:28.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5292" PostId="2000" Score="2" Text="Hi Shota!  Please look up the specific words you want to translate [in a dictionary](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/12) and share your findings in your question, along with any concerns you have with each of the translations.  Google Translate is notoriously terrible at translating Latin, so it's important to begin with a real dictionary like one of those found at the link above." CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:11:33.780" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="5300" PostId="2001" Score="2" Text="Interesting: this [concordance search from Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?all_words=polla/kis&amp;all_words_expand=yes&amp;la=greek) (available without a subscription) seems to have the imperfect a bit more often than that, but the aorist is definitely there, but I only glanced at the first page." CreationDate="2016-11-18T14:44:19.173" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5305" PostId="2001" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I wonder if it's partly a matter of authorial preference... Worth investigating further." CreationDate="2016-11-18T17:03:28.707" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5441" PostId="2001" Score="0" Text="Thanks for researching this question and coming up with an answer." CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:42:14.580" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5295" PostId="2003" Score="1" Text="Can you describe what the site is and what it's based on? To me that looks like a link to an executable file on a site I don't recognize, causing me not to even consider opening it." CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:23:07.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5296" PostId="2003" Score="0" Text="Name of the this site is William Whitaker's Words.  it is very useful, especially translate from English to Latin or latin English words. Belonging to http://archives.nd.edu/. That means University of Notre dome arvhives.Please write on Google William Whitaker's words." CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:30:05.577" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5297" PostId="2003" Score="4" Text="Can you add more details to your answer? The question asks for details, pros and cons. It should make sense for users who have not heard of Whitaker's Words before. (Personally, I would prefer a link to the html page of the dictionary, which contains a browser UI and a link to the same file you link to: http://archives.nd.edu/words.html)" CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:36:50.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5304" PostId="2006" Score="0" Text="Other possible terms for _power_: potestas (as in _faculty_ or _capability_, virtus." CreationDate="2016-11-18T16:32:42.817" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5317" PostId="2009" Score="0" Text="@Shota, note that in addition to accepting, you can also vote. Voting on questions and answers you find useful serves the site well. In case you haven't already, I suggest taking a look at the [tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). I agree: this answer is excellent." CreationDate="2016-11-18T20:35:19.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5318" PostId="2009" Score="0" Text="Comment on *velox/celer*. I don't know if the actual/potential distinction is true, but based on that I would choose *velox*. Light is unable to be still or move slower than what is known as lightspeed." CreationDate="2016-11-18T20:37:57.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5319" PostId="2009" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Very true. I'll add a note giving the forms for *vēlōcitās* also." CreationDate="2016-11-18T20:39:06.187" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5312" PostId="2012" Score="0" Text="Do you want one canonical answer, or list-style examples? (Perhaps the mods have an opinion on what works best for this site)" CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:50:23.483" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5313" PostId="2012" Score="1" Text="Also: your title and first paragraph speak about stupid puns, but your actual question in the second seems to ask for humorous one-liners, whether or not they are cringe-inducing. Perhaps you could clarify?" CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:51:41.873" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5314" PostId="2012" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Edited, thanks. And I'm not sure, but I'm leaning toward list-style, since I haven't heard of any actual collections/anthologies of jokes like the *Philogelos* existing in Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:54:14.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5316" PostId="2012" Score="0" Text="Interesting question! I was planning to ask this myself soon. I imagine there is little information available on ancient jokes, so there is no need to specify the question further. I see no reason to restrict those who might have something to share. (Other triumviri might disagree, of course.)" CreationDate="2016-11-18T20:32:29.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5355" PostId="2012" Score="0" Text="Why only one-liners without context? Does Truc. 262–264 not count, punning *eiram* (=*iram* in Classical) and *eram*?" CreationDate="2016-11-20T21:59:59.683" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5357" PostId="2012" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I'm mostly trying to limit the definition of a joke, so that the question doesn't become too broad (&quot;Plautus' *Miles Gloriosus* is pretty humorous&quot;). But I'll look into that snippet, thanks!" CreationDate="2016-11-20T23:07:47.900" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5359" PostId="2012" Score="0" Text="Jokes abound, including 1-2 liners. You have for example the &quot;consulship of Julius and Caesar&quot; quip, and even a context-question-response 3-liner in texts of Macrobius and Gellius. Interestingly, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_jokes) has a couple famous ones, and Mary Beard's *[Laughter in Ancient Rome](https://books.google.com/books?id=pMNhAwAAQBAJ)* is full of them." CreationDate="2016-11-21T03:06:54.633" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5339" PostId="2015" Score="0" Text="Great question! Out of curiosity, are you translating that as an isolated phrase or in connection to something else? There is also a [nice song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipvGD-LCjU) by that name. // For those not in the know: A &quot;finite simple group of order two&quot; is something of a running joke, a very complicated way of saying a simple thing. It is a good exercise in algebra to figure out what the group is." CreationDate="2016-11-19T22:38:03.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5576" PostId="2015" Score="0" Text="It is simply an isolated phrase. I'm studying Latin, and I heard that song, and it inspired me to attempt a translation." CreationDate="2016-12-05T20:50:50.677" UserId="1000" />
  <row Id="5338" PostId="2017" Score="1" Text="I agree that *ordo* is a good choice here. I might add that it sounds better to me to translate from &quot;second order&quot; than &quot;order two&quot;. But as far as I know, there is no canonical modern mathematical Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-19T22:29:51.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5340" PostId="2017" Score="1" Text="I'll second *ordo secundus*." CreationDate="2016-11-19T22:43:37.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5342" PostId="2019" Score="2" Text="*Therefore, the &quot;se&quot; refers to Marcus and not the speaker*: not neccesarily, because *se* can be an indirect reflexive: dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html" CreationDate="2016-11-19T23:26:19.920" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8581" PostId="2019" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., I don't understand your comment -- the question is about ambiguity that can arise &quot;when both the independent clause and the clause with the reflexive pronoun have third-person subjects&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:34:29.973" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8583" PostId="2019" Score="0" Text="@TKR sorry! Didn't read it carefully enough." CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:52:41.930" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5326" PostId="2021" Score="1" Text="I would discessu interpret here as a participle, and part of an ablativus absolutus with me -&gt;  because I left.  Your question is still valid though." CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:30:44.380" UserId="986" />
  <row Id="5331" PostId="2024" Score="0" Text="Great to share interpretations here, thanks! me as an accusative in an indirect statement is possible from a grammatical perspective, but the positioning of the words (me discessu) as a group are in favor of an ablativus absolutus. You translate me discessu as my departure. How is this possessive aspect shown in the Latin? If me is an accusative, I would translate discessu as &quot;by going away&quot;. But it would seem farfetched to me." CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:15:39.550" UserId="986" />
  <row Id="5332" PostId="2024" Score="0" Text="@piscator No, I translate *discessu* as &quot;in my departure&quot; with *me* being &quot;I&quot;. That part has to be the case, otherwise there is no subject of *ferre*.  *me* as an ablative also cannot be apposite to *hunc*, as they're different cases." CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:20:19.473" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5333" PostId="2024" Score="0" Text="I think *hunc* is the subject of *ferre*. My translation would be &quot;and I could not believe that this caused so much pain to you, after / because I left.&quot; How do you translate *hunc*? I must admit it is a difficult choice." CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:27:45.740" UserId="986" />
  <row Id="5334" PostId="2024" Score="0" Text="@piscator I will say that word order has something to recommend your interpretation—strongly, even—but grammatically *me discessu* would be an anomaly if it were a supine clause. I added two other translations to mine above which should clarify usage." CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:36:13.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5335" PostId="2024" Score="0" Text="Do you mean ablative clause (ablativus absolutus) by a supine clause? I could be missing the meaning of supine clause in English. I thought the supine is only referring to the first and second supine, certain verbs ending with -um and -u. I don't think there is a supine in this line of Vergilius." CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:41:40.347" UserId="986" />
  <row Id="5336" PostId="2024" Score="1" Text="@piscator Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your post then. The problem becomes another, then, as *discessu* (with a **-u**) cannot be a regular perfect participle. This is going off your comment that &quot;*me discessu* is an ablative clause.&quot; Were that the case, you would have seen *me discesso* along with a very different (sc. passive) meaning!" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:49:50.503" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5337" PostId="2024" Score="1" Text="You are right, it can not be an ablative absoute, &quot;by going away&quot; is correct. Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:59:01.490" UserId="986" />
  <row Id="5346" PostId="2024" Score="0" Text="This makes sense: I am seeing that **me** is at once the object of **credere** and the subject of **ferre**. It's in its accusative form because the embedded clause is a complement of **credere** (whence the infinitive form for **ferre**). I am seeing that with Vergil, the word order is calculated to throw off a learner! Thanks." CreationDate="2016-11-20T00:40:15.990" UserDisplayName="user1002" />
  <row Id="5353" PostId="2024" Score="1" Text="@jlovegren: It may help to keep in mind that the supine is (from) a kind of substantive noun: it's not an adjective and it cannot agree with a noun. It is its case that conexes it with other nouns or adjectives, not agreement. (I agree with Weimer.)" CreationDate="2016-11-20T17:48:40.887" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5344" PostId="2025" Score="0" Text="My &quot;back-of-the-envelope&quot; thought is that Latin *proprius* might be good for Greek *idios*, giving something like *propriamen*, but that feels artificial." CreationDate="2016-11-20T00:01:22.757" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5360" PostId="2025" Score="0" Text="In French, *gallicisme* means an idiomatic French form, I don't know if there is an equivalent for Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-21T10:42:40.643" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5507" PostId="2026" Score="1" Text="&quot;*Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced)*&quot; In fact the most currently used ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin is the Roman one, but there are many others pronunciations (in the Catholic Church, the replacement has mostly occurred during the 20th century, Huysmans speaks of it in his novel *En route*)." CreationDate="2016-12-01T16:39:55.670" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5367" PostId="2027" Score="4" Text="Interesting question! And I see you have already received some interesting answers. But the question is rather subjective as it is worded now. You might get a list of equally relevant opinions that it would be hard to compare with each each other. Would you consider changing the the title to make it more like &quot;could you give me an overview&quot; rather than &quot;how can I learn to speak Latin&quot;? A good title would be e.g. **Learning to speak Latin: what are the advantages and disadvantages of the most commonly used methods?**" CreationDate="2016-11-21T23:41:22.967" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5442" PostId="2027" Score="1" Text="A good French method is the Latin Assimil method (with audio and text): http://fr.assimil.com/choisir-une-langue/apprendre-le-latin" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:45:12.473" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5354" PostId="2030" Score="3" Text="You should really use a Latin dictionary for this stuff. It would answer 99% of your questions of this sort." CreationDate="2016-11-20T19:49:35.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5358" PostId="2035" Score="0" Text="You can also see the 4th volume of Keil’s grammars: https://archive.org/stream/grammaticilatini04keil#page/602/mode/2up" CreationDate="2016-11-21T00:02:07.440" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5370" PostId="2035" Score="0" Text="Thanks! The second word you suggest makes me think more of idiotic than idiomatic use of language, but perhaps the ancients would not have thought so. (I wrote this comment yesterday but forgot to send it. Oh, well...)" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:43:22.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10585" PostId="2035" Score="0" Text="`idiotikon` is a technical term in (Belgian) Dutch, used specifically for dictionaries of regional idiom. I can imagine there are similar words for similar concepts in other Western languages." CreationDate="2017-09-05T13:15:13.143" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="30240" PostId="2035" Score="0" Text="Our word &quot;idiot&quot; derives from a Greek word meaning roughly, vulgar, unskilled, ignorant. I guess &quot;yokel&quot; would be a good translation. So &quot;ĭdĭōtismus&quot; would presumably have meant the kind of language used by such a person: yokel-speak." CreationDate="2020-12-24T20:12:04.470" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="5361" PostId="2036" Score="2" Text="I'm still having trouble cutting through the thicket here, but this definitely gets my vote for sources. I still see some conflict between the accepted answer's contention (-ii used in Augustan period) and this one: are you sure (in context) that &quot;spaeterer&quot; refers to &quot;Classical Latin&quot; and not, say, Silver Age Latin? Also, do you know anything about the relative distribution of usage in classical authors?" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:24:31.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5364" PostId="2036" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I tried to answer some of your questions. Something to remember: not all classicists use such terms as Silver Latin etc." CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:14:16.970" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5365" PostId="2036" Score="1" Text="@brianpck To pick up on what Alex B. said, Classical Latin encompasses both Golden Age and Silver Age Latin, to the former of which I think you were referring." CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:40:04.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5368" PostId="2038" Score="0" Text="Isn't the &quot;-itas&quot; suffix where we get common English suffix &quot;-ity&quot;? I don't see why it _wouldn't_ apply to languages any more than it applies anywhere else." CreationDate="2016-11-22T04:57:18.067" UserId="111" />
  <row Id="43321" PostId="2041" Score="0" Text="How can Latin poetry be studied without understanding the proper accents?" CreationDate="2023-05-30T11:35:23.400" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="5377" PostId="2042" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Terri! And thanks for the edit, @brianpck (+1). (I deleted old comments as obsolete.)" CreationDate="2016-11-22T15:53:20.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5374" PostId="2043" Score="0" Text="Thank you, this is a nice answer! Perhaps *numen* is indeed a useful word in relation to the Force, but not a good translation of the word itself. *Numen cuiusque Jedi de Vi fluit* or something." CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:57:39.793" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5375" PostId="2043" Score="0" Text="I think you should opt to remove the &quot;crap&quot; posts altogether: &quot;vis vobiscum in aeternam&quot; is just manifestly wrong, and if anything it just weakens your case." CreationDate="2016-11-22T15:25:39.920" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5376" PostId="2043" Score="2" Text="@brianpck The crap posts are merely there to show its ubiquity.  Feel free to edit in better ones if you know of them." CreationDate="2016-11-22T15:26:57.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5378" PostId="2043" Score="0" Text="The crap posts indeed show that *Vis* is ubiquitous, and that is one reason to favor it as a translation. I agree with @brianpck that there is some bad Latin behind some links, and that makes me think that perhaps not much thought went into choosing *Vis*. (Google Translate?) If there is no official Star Wars material in Latin, there is not going to be a canonical answer to my question. As most answers on the site, this one has room for improvement, but I still find it very valuable." CreationDate="2016-11-22T16:03:19.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5379" PostId="2043" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta As far as I know, there were no official translations of the books or movies or anything to Latin. It also was not Google translated, since I remember the phrase back when Google was just getting out of beta, and [this Usenet thread](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc/_pNUgengcCU) from 1998 had one person say they've been doing it a certain way for years." CreationDate="2016-11-22T17:11:10.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5391" PostId="2043" Score="3" Text="@cmw Another good point: *vis* is the word that Newton used for &quot;force&quot; (physics)" CreationDate="2016-11-23T16:49:25.100" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5380" PostId="2044" Score="0" Text="Possible duplicate of [Is &quot;ergo&quot; an appropriate word for this context?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/176/is-ergo-an-appropriate-word-for-this-context)" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:22:34.607" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5382" PostId="2046" Score="2" Text="Worth mentioning a concrete case in which they are completely different: *itaque* can be *ita + que*, as in *itaque fecit*: &quot;And he did thus.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-11-22T22:04:18.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5383" PostId="2046" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that's a very clean example. I've updated and added some examples from Livy." CreationDate="2016-11-22T22:28:20.663" UserId="986" />
  <row Id="5384" PostId="2050" Score="1" Text="Welcome Ronen!  It sounds like you are asking a few different questions here, so I'd suggest asking them separately: the c/k/q pronunciation, the origin of x, and perhaps a resource for Latin pronunciation.  The last of these is quite broad, but something similar has already been asked here: http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1201/12.  I hope you'll clarify specifically which of these you'd like to ask in this question, and then (if you want) ask separate questions for other things.  If you have questions feel free to ask!  Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:24:41.023" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="5386" PostId="2050" Score="1" Text="I mean the usual pronunciation associated with the letters inside of words." CreationDate="2016-11-23T03:11:11.987" UserId="1011" />
  <row Id="5387" PostId="2050" Score="1" Text="Hearing the original pronunciation actually wouldn't answer your specific questions, since *c, k, q* were all pronounced the same and *x* was pronounced like *ks*." CreationDate="2016-11-23T03:53:52.367" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5388" PostId="2050" Score="0" Text="So what was their reason of having 4 letters with the same sound?" CreationDate="2016-11-23T04:06:20.990" UserId="1011" />
  <row Id="5389" PostId="2050" Score="0" Text="Welcome Ronen! I took the liberty to edit your question. I am not sure if the x thing should be asked separately, though, so I am tempted to remove the last sentence. Feel free to re-edit the question. The question is interesting (+1)!" CreationDate="2016-11-23T07:47:46.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5390" PostId="2054" Score="0" Text="Thanks! (+1) It's good to know that the forms exist. I wonder if they are safe to use in the sense that readers would actually understand." CreationDate="2016-11-23T12:28:05.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5393" PostId="2054" Score="1" Text="Interesting how L/S and Gaffiot have exactly the same citations, quoted in exactly the same order (though with different sigla). These old dictionaries are obviously all copied from each other." CreationDate="2016-11-23T23:51:30.750" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5395" PostId="2054" Score="1" Text="@fdb Is this not more a consequence of the rarity of the singular genitive and dative forms of *vis*?" CreationDate="2016-11-24T10:09:43.133" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5400" PostId="2054" Score="1" Text="I'm having one of those senior moments. What do you call a non-existent word put in a dictionary on purpose to track possible copyright infringement?" CreationDate="2016-11-24T17:32:38.110" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5405" PostId="2054" Score="0" Text="Both Gaffiot and Calonghi refer to the words   . . . 'animum advertit,equitibus suis hostium vi oppositis sarcinas legionarios in acervum iubet comportare . . .  '   — 'opposed by the force of the enemy' (b. afr. 69, period 2). Surely not dative, but ablative?" CreationDate="2016-11-25T10:40:09.050" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="25793" PostId="2054" Score="1" Text="@AlexB.: Wikipedia just calls it a [fictitious entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry)." CreationDate="2020-04-07T20:10:42.230" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="25796" PostId="2054" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I've heard it called a Mountweazel." CreationDate="2020-04-07T23:50:36.240" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5392" PostId="2056" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! Any insight here is likely to bring us closer to an answer to the [*ius sacrum* vs. *fas* question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1997/79), but this question of great independent interest. I came across two instances of *ius est* in Ovidius: [Metamorphoses 8.733](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D8%3Acard%3D728) and [Fasti 1.53](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0547). It seems they are more about right than duty, contrary to my intuition..." CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:54:37.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43456" PostId="2058" Score="0" Text="See also [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14175/what-does-the-abbreviation-h-l-or-h-1-stand-for?rq=1)." CreationDate="2023-06-06T23:53:39.663" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="5397" PostId="2059" Score="1" Text="Is this a commonly accepted abbreviation? Do you know when it started?" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:25:52.480" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5398" PostId="2059" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. I must admit to never have seen them before, but they are quite obvious from the context, don't you think? &quot;NN ad locum&quot; is common in scholastic Latin for &quot;NN, in his commentary on this passage&quot;." CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:36:16.800" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5399" PostId="2059" Score="1" Text="I agree, but presumably he's following some kind of convention? I was thrown off by *h.e.*, especially because *i.e. * is far more common" CreationDate="2016-11-24T17:28:38.293" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5402" PostId="2059" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. The Germans say &quot;zu dieser Stelle&quot; with the same technical meaning. I wonder whether the German is a calque on the Latin, or the other way round." CreationDate="2016-11-24T20:35:57.433" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5967" PostId="2059" Score="1" Text="I know at least one living Latinist (that is, a Latinist who treats the language as a living one, not who is alive, though he is) who, when writing Latin, uses &quot;h.e.&quot; where we today use &quot;i.e.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-03T19:23:22.993" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="14445" PostId="2059" Score="0" Text="Both seem to be found in many texts ([former](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22h.%20e.%22%20hoc%20est;a=srchls) and [later](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22ad%20h.%20l.%22;a=srchls))." CreationDate="2018-06-04T09:35:21.023" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="5396" PostId="2060" Score="1" Text="My Greek is rusty, but shouldn't that be &quot;hos&quot; not &quot;hoti&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:23:27.977" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5401" PostId="2060" Score="1" Text="According to my textbook, both words can be used interchangeably. See the second definition at Wiktionary: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ὅτι." CreationDate="2016-11-24T18:30:36.513" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5403" PostId="2060" Score="1" Text="Not an answer because I don't have any evidence, but my sense is that you wouldn't want a definite article here. The enemies aren't definite, as far as I can see. In any case ὑφ΄ ὅτι τῶν ὀλιγίστων πολεμίων is definitely wrong; the position of τῶν looks ungrammatical to me." CreationDate="2016-11-25T02:42:08.413" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5406" PostId="2060" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. ὅ τι is correct. See my answer." CreationDate="2016-11-25T12:49:58.490" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5407" PostId="2060" Score="0" Text="@fdb Do you know if they are strictly interchangeable, if used in this way? I seem to recall &quot;hos&quot; being more frequent, but that's just anecdotal." CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:15:23.940" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5408" PostId="2060" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. ὠς seems to be used in this meaning only with sup. adverbs, not with adjectives." CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:31:35.560" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5411" PostId="2060" Score="1" Text="@fdb, ὡς is used in this sense with adjectives too: LSJ gives e.g. ὅπως ὡς βέλτισται ἔσονται (Plato)." CreationDate="2016-11-25T16:55:23.053" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5413" PostId="2060" Score="2" Text="By the way, since the enemies are countable, a better choice in this context might be ὅσος, which can be used with a superlative like ὅτι / ὡς: &quot;... ὑπὸ πολεμίων ὅσων ὀλιγίστων&quot;. Also ἐθέλω (in Attic prose anyway) is more about &quot;being willing&quot; or &quot;consenting&quot; than more active &quot;wanting&quot;, so I'd use βουλόμεθα here instead." CreationDate="2016-11-25T17:29:36.647" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5539" PostId="2060" Score="0" Text="@TKR Interesting! That word hasn't appeared in my textbook, though. If I must use οτι, would my example be the best way? (i.e., with the noun after οτι)." CreationDate="2016-12-04T04:41:41.323" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5544" PostId="2060" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 I'm not sure I've ever seen ὅτι/ὡς/ὅσος + adj. appearing between a preposition and its noun, which is why I went for the opposite order, but it may well be fine; only a corpus search would tell." CreationDate="2016-12-04T18:53:01.057" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5434" PostId="2063" Score="1" Text="Can you elaborate on how this &quot;depends on context&quot;? Can you give some examples where one should be preferred over the other?" CreationDate="2016-11-26T03:20:39.397" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5438" PostId="2063" Score="0" Text="Yours is such a large question that there's not enough space here for a proper answer. In the UK at any rate, prose composition is (or used to be) studied deeply and was never a matter of merely learning the basic rules of syntax. Latin is like any other language: there are different ways of expressing yourself on any topic. If you seriously want this to be explained, I suggest that you look for books instructing in a more sophisticated approach than elementary treatises on prose-writing in Latin — or ask a specific question, if you are in difficulty." CreationDate="2016-11-26T14:46:51.630" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5439" PostId="2063" Score="1" Text="This is a link to a free-to-download PDF: http://6shared.xyz/ebook/383048-Latin-prose-composition (Hardie's Latin Prose Composition) which may be of interest to you." CreationDate="2016-11-26T15:03:39.930" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5432" PostId="2064" Score="1" Text="And pre-Classical Latin (i.e. Roman comedy), to which stratum it originated." CreationDate="2016-11-25T23:18:20.043" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5412" PostId="2065" Score="1" Text="&quot;I do not recall ever seeing such a thing, and it feels a bit weird&quot; -- my feelings exactly." CreationDate="2016-11-25T17:04:45.523" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33178" PostId="2065" Score="0" Text="related (IMO): https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13016/middle-constructions-in-latin" CreationDate="2021-05-15T15:07:09.703" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="5410" PostId="2069" Score="0" Text="Thanks! The examples are indeed my own constructions. I used *robur* merely as a placeholder for *vis* to make the sentences clear. I tried to go through uses of genitive and dative that are hard to express with other cases." CreationDate="2016-11-25T15:46:39.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5414" PostId="2070" Score="2" Text="Where is this from? Do you have any context?" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:32:05.813" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5415" PostId="2070" Score="0" Text="I study on this text : Baldricus Dolensis (c.1050–1130), Historia Hierosolymitana" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:43:27.577" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5416" PostId="2070" Score="3" Text="Can you add that information to the question? Your own thoughts on translating would be good to have, too, whatever they are. That helps write an answer that helps you." CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:49:57.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5417" PostId="2070" Score="0" Text="How does the English sentence &quot;The narrowest road prevent/hinder to all men&quot; relate to the Latin one? Is it a translation (by you, Google or something else) or some kind of context?" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:55:42.243" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5418" PostId="2070" Score="0" Text="happen by mistake sorry." CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:58:50.627" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5419" PostId="2070" Score="0" Text="It's hard to translate a short sentence without context -- can you post some of the surrounding text?" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:59:21.833" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5420" PostId="2070" Score="0" Text="ok thank you.Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant. Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat omnibus dehiscens offendiculum. &#xA;Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:00:32.053" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5421" PostId="2070" Score="1" Text="Thank you for providing more context! I reformatted your question. Feel free to edit again if you want." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:28:34.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5422" PostId="2071" Score="1" Text="Thank you Mr Joonas IImavirta for your help. I can translate other sentences but &quot;omnibus dehiscens offendiculum&quot;  is very troublesome. Thank you again" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:31:52.850" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5423" PostId="2071" Score="2" Text="Artissimus = extremely narrow (artus)." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:34:46.047" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5424" PostId="2071" Score="2" Text="@turuncu, I'm glad if I could help. For future questions like this (and why not this one, too), I suggest adding your own translations of the surrounding text. That would achieve two things: Answering becomes easier and people see that you genuinely want to solve the problem but could not make it yourself." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:36:00.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5425" PostId="2071" Score="1" Text="@TKR, thanks! Will edit. I wonder why I missed that word in two dictionaries." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:36:47.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5426" PostId="2071" Score="1" Text="I wonder if there are many other situations where both *altissimus* and *artissimus* would make sense. (And not only to Elmer Fudd.)" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:39:12.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5427" PostId="2071" Score="1" Text="I don't think *dehiscens offendiculum* is a reference to the path collapsing, but a description of the path itself, which is an &quot;obstacle&quot; in the sense that it's too narrow for the large number of people (*omnibus*), and is &quot;opening downward&quot; because it's leading down the mountain. At least, that's my best guess -- *dehiscens* is a little puzzling." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:42:03.080" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5428" PostId="2071" Score="0" Text="Yes it's true, dehiscens very puzzling. Dehiscens means in English gape/yawn/split open; part/divide, develop/leave a gap/leak; be/become apart. Thank you." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:45:53.580" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5429" PostId="2071" Score="1" Text="@TKR, that is one option. In that reading *offendiculum* would mean a narrow path, not a particular difficult spot on it, and *dehiscens* would refer to the overall location of the path, not a hole in it. That leaves room for interpretation. I don't fully understand how the path can be too narrow to a large number of people, though. If there is no compelling reason to go side by side, a queue can go where a single person can." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:47:35.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5430" PostId="2071" Score="1" Text="Maybe there's a large number of people and they're in a hurry? We don't know what's going on in this passage." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:48:30.220" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5431" PostId="2071" Score="1" Text="@TKR, that is possible. But true, we can only guess. It would make sense to explore more options to give a fuller answer, but I have to call it a day." CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:58:31.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5436" PostId="2072" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! In what kind of a context would you like to use what you are looking for? I think there is no one opposite, but it depends on the situation. One option is *solitus*, &quot;usual&quot;." CreationDate="2016-11-26T13:02:51.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5645" PostId="2072" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I was actually wondering if there was a technical term used in academic circles like *sui generis* - for a paper I was writing." CreationDate="2016-12-11T19:55:58.753" UserId="1018" />
  <row Id="8259" PostId="2072" Score="1" Text="Also [_communis_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcommunis), common, universal, public. But I wouldn't use the Latin term in a paper." CreationDate="2017-04-22T15:45:14.780" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12300" PostId="2072" Score="0" Text="There was a [suggested edit](https://latin.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/2203) to add: &quot;I would try to stick to the two-word Latin and say generis omnium, meaning the gender of us all, as opposed of one single entity.&quot; I rejected it, as it seemed to come from someone other than you, but I wrote this comment in case you want to add it after all. (To the anonymous user who suggested the edit (assuming it wasn't the OP): You should post a separate follow-up question instead of editing an old one. Registering an account also helps.)" CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:19:16.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5437" PostId="2073" Score="1" Text="My dictionary suggests *ingeniarius*, but I think it was coined by analogy to the words in other languages." CreationDate="2016-11-26T13:55:13.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5440" PostId="2074" Score="1" Text="Thx, that’s interesting. I’ve found this article about *architectus* https://www.jstor.org/stable/2856447?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:27:17.440" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5447" PostId="2077" Score="2" Text="I'd be surprised if there weren't some relevant examples in Petronius or Apuleius. J. N. Adams' *The Latin Sexual Vocabulary* might have some info, too." CreationDate="2016-11-27T04:11:43.933" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5476" PostId="2077" Score="1" Text="@TKR Seconding Adams' *LSV*. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity) actually has a good overview." CreationDate="2016-11-29T02:09:49.153" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29720" PostId="2077" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Where did you learn these horrible English words &amp; expressions?Latin does not appear to have expletive intensifiers e.g. &quot;The ****ing waiter dropped the plate!&quot;. This was explored in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10608/1982. As this is an old Q., you probably already know this." CreationDate="2020-11-12T09:42:21.613" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="5445" PostId="2078" Score="2" Text="in- also has an accusative sense which is motion into or onto, which better fits the meaning here." CreationDate="2016-11-26T20:46:36.413" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5506" PostId="2078" Score="2" Text="Possible duplicate of [What underlying semantic notions explain the meaning of 'against' for the preposition 'in'?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/37/what-underlying-semantic-notions-explain-the-meaning-of-against-for-the-prepos)" CreationDate="2016-12-01T16:18:08.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5448" PostId="2080" Score="2" Text="Delenda est Carthago." CreationDate="2016-11-27T12:21:43.120" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5450" PostId="2080" Score="2" Text="Can't improve on Cato! It's got all the qualifications. As to anything else, it's as well to remember the Royal Society's motto, 'Nullius in verba' or 'take nobody's word for it'." CreationDate="2016-11-27T17:39:36.447" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5474" PostId="2080" Score="0" Text="This question was posed too close to Christmas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_cracker &#xA;**Christmas Crackers:**&#xA;Typically the... contents are a ... paper hat; a small ... trinket and **a motto,** a joke, a riddle on a small strip of paper" CreationDate="2016-11-28T23:58:28.353" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5475" PostId="2080" Score="0" Text="...and too soon after a pursuit of *mottoes* carved  onto timber buildings. Many such aphorisms were taken from these collections: http://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk/french/index.php" CreationDate="2016-11-29T00:03:43.230" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5452" PostId="2083" Score="6" Text="This shows minimal research, as demonstrated by the very first link of Googling [Latin numbers](https://www.google.com/search?q=latin+numbers)." CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:36:12.347" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5455" PostId="2083" Score="3" Text="I can see a more interesting question (&quot;How did they speak of their arcane numerology?&quot;) lurking behind the obvious one (&quot;How did Romans pronounce 43?&quot;). A written record describing Roman numerals and their use would be *very* interesting." CreationDate="2016-11-28T13:46:27.827" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5459" PostId="2083" Score="1" Text="I agree with @brianpck: a Roman description of the Roman numerals would be very interesting, and asking for such would make a good question. (If you want to ask such a question, do not edit this one, but ask a new one. You can of course make an edit to link the questions to each other.)" CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:30:30.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5460" PostId="2083" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Admittedly, yes, but I thought it was worth adding to StackExchange somewhere. Besides, the results I found just gave a list of numbers. Seeing as my ability to read Latin is limited, interpreting a simple list would probably have been a pain. ...Ok, scratch that, these search terms you used gets a much more useful resource than what I'd found... Regardless, a written analysis would make a great companion to that list." CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:39:37.983" UserId="1024" />
  <row Id="5461" PostId="2083" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The numerals and their use? You mean like, its practical uses in engineering and how advanced their mathematics were? Stuff like whether they used negative numbers?" CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:49:07.510" UserId="1024" />
  <row Id="5451" PostId="2084" Score="9" Text="Actually ancient Romans were far more liberal about the rules of number writing - you will find IIXX for 18 aplenty (and by aplenty, I mean fairly seldom but much more frequently than you average math textbook would let you believe) as well as subtracting with V or expressing 4 without subtracting (e.g. 54 as LIIII)." CreationDate="2016-11-26T13:47:39.387" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="5453" PostId="2085" Score="0" Text="In the language of modern mathematics XLIII could be analysed digit for digit as -10+50+1+1+1 =43." CreationDate="2016-11-28T11:23:50.053" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5454" PostId="2085" Score="0" Text="@fdb, true. One can analyze XLIII as five digits that form two digit groups (-10+50 and 1+1+1)." CreationDate="2016-11-28T13:00:53.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5457" PostId="2086" Score="0" Text="The Eton College (arms granted in1449) website has 'floreat Etona', but suggests that 'Esto perpetua' may be earlier." CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:30:53.660" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5458" PostId="2086" Score="0" Text="An insightful line of poem or prose that becomes famous is not necessarily a motto. It can become a motto if some person or institution adopts it as their motto. **Whose mottoes were the ones you propose?** A single instance does not qualify something as a motto, unless stated very clearly as a motto. How often were the mottoes repeated? I understand the last one as the elder Cato's motto (+1), but the others do not look like mottoes (unless further context is given). Perhaps I could rephrase the question: When did someone first adopt a motto?" CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:48:04.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5487" PostId="2086" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Actually, that likely wasn't Cato's motto after all. See Charles Little's &quot;The Authenticity and Form of Cato's Saying &quot;Carthago Delenda Est&quot; in *CJ* 29.6 (1934): 429–435." CreationDate="2016-11-29T23:27:29.877" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5488" PostId="2086" Score="1" Text="&quot;Traditionally ended with a motto.&quot; Surely you mean aphorism or proverb, not motto?" CreationDate="2016-11-29T23:28:25.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5462" PostId="2089" Score="0" Text="Thank you! It seems to me that *ventio* derives directly from the verb *venire*, not from the participle *veniens*, and *scriptio/scriptus/scriptura* come from *scribere*, so they seem tangential to deriving nouns from adjectives." CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:34:08.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5463" PostId="2089" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta They all come from the perfect passive participle. I know it's stretching &quot;adjective&quot; a bit, but as far as I can tell, there's no 100% solid method for determining which form an adjective will take." CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:40:49.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5468" PostId="2089" Score="1" Text="L&amp;S define *scriptus* as &quot;the office of a scribe or secretary, a clerkship, secretaryship&quot; rather than &quot;scribe&quot;. I don't think such 4th-decl. nouns in -us ever refer to a single person." CreationDate="2016-11-28T23:12:11.563" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5469" PostId="2089" Score="0" Text="@TKR You're right that they don't. Fixed, thanks." CreationDate="2016-11-28T23:14:21.680" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5472" PostId="2089" Score="0" Text="I asked [a question about comparing *scriptio* and *scriptus*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/891/79) some time ago. This example of *scribere* would be nice added insight there." CreationDate="2016-11-28T23:48:06.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5477" PostId="2090" Score="2" Text="Worth mentioning (as you implicitly do here) that the ablative supine is really only common with certain words." CreationDate="2016-11-29T03:06:48.237" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5466" PostId="2091" Score="0" Text="I have one question, which might be nitpicking, but will help it make more sense to me. Since the past participle (supine) is passive, would it technically be &quot;This answer is easy with respect to being written&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:46:56.370" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5467" PostId="2091" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124, the perfect participle is not the supine. They are two different things. I will add this to the answer." CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:47:39.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5716" PostId="2092" Score="1" Text="Is it safe to assume that Vatican leader's name is related to greek or latin word too? Curiously  today slavic languages use  papa as affection of child to father, while at least in case of Ukrainian and Russian just a hundred years ago &quot;tyatya&quot; or &quot;tata&quot; was a child  word. Contrary, in Japanese &quot;tata&quot; is mother" CreationDate="2016-12-18T13:32:06.987" UserId="1074" />
  <row Id="5717" PostId="2092" Score="1" Text="@Swift Yep, &quot;pope&quot; descends from &quot;papa.&quot; Which is actually too bad because there's a pretty cool Latin word, [*popa*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/popa#Latin)." CreationDate="2016-12-18T13:35:45.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5718" PostId="2092" Score="1" Text="Explains  why in Russian pope is called papa to advantage of being used for puns, while second word, popa..  is.. &quot;cushioning&quot; word that means butt (well, like English &quot;rump&quot;)" CreationDate="2016-12-18T13:38:03.453" UserId="1074" />
  <row Id="8120" PostId="2092" Score="1" Text="@Swift: In Japanese, &quot;mother&quot; is _haha_, for earlier (8th–16th Century, at least) _fafa_, and **possibly** pre-historic (as in, before any written records) _papa_. &quot;Father&quot; is _chichi_, which at some point in the past must have been _titi_. But _tata_ is not a kinship term in Japanese." CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:41:23.090" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="5479" PostId="2096" Score="0" Text="Then, is 'Via Galactea' an ancient Greek word? Oh no" CreationDate="2016-11-29T16:46:28.800" UserId="1001" />
  <row Id="5481" PostId="2096" Score="0" Text="The Greek for Milky Way is *galaxias* (which gives our word *galaxy*). *Galactea* doesn't seem to be a Latin word -- at least, it's not in L&amp;S." CreationDate="2016-11-29T16:58:30.527" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5490" PostId="2096" Score="3" Text="The Greek name for the Milky Way is γαλαξίας κύκλος." CreationDate="2016-11-30T00:04:56.033" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5492" PostId="2096" Score="1" Text="In Italian it is vía láttea, with the stress on the same syllables as in Latin." CreationDate="2016-11-30T09:46:35.727" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5496" PostId="2096" Score="2" Text="@fdb Thanks! Altered the answer accordingly." CreationDate="2016-11-30T16:51:43.827" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5498" PostId="2096" Score="0" Text="@fdb Note that the *via lactea* is also called the *circulus lacteus*, nearer from the Greek…" CreationDate="2016-11-30T22:29:20.793" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="5494" PostId="2099" Score="2" Text="Interesting! Out of curiosity, how would the singulars be spelled in Latin? (There was a mention in Vicipaedia, but it would be a nice addition to the answer.) Judging by the example, it seems that there was no case inflection, only number inflection." CreationDate="2016-11-30T11:51:51.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5495" PostId="2099" Score="6" Text="Yes, these are Hebrew plurals, but they were borrowed not directly from Hebrew, but from the Greek of the LXX and the NT." CreationDate="2016-11-30T12:46:04.297" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5784" PostId="2099" Score="3" Text="@fdb They feel Hebrew and not Greek, no matter how they arrived in the Latin Language. And at least Hieronymus used also the Hebrew Bible as a source for the Vulgata translation." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:42:26.167" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="5503" PostId="2101" Score="0" Text="I am really grateful you translated this last part, too, @brianpck , as there is this word ' concludendum' which I think might be gerundive, I wonder does it belongs to 'omne'? &quot;...et propterea absolute concludendum omne... &quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-01T14:39:20.357" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5504" PostId="2101" Score="0" Text="@AiliJ. Yes *concludendum* is gerundive, and is used with acc + inf: *concludendum omne id cuius ... debere ...* = &quot;it must be concluded that everything whose ... must be ...&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-01T15:05:30.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5505" PostId="2101" Score="0" Text="Thank you, @brianpck, I didn't even notice that 'debere ' belongs to this construction with gerundive!" CreationDate="2016-12-01T15:17:11.327" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="36936" PostId="2102" Score="0" Text="Does my answer not satisfy your question?" CreationDate="2022-01-31T07:52:27.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5502" PostId="2103" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Dina! I reformatted your post slightly; it seemed that you intended to have row breaks. Can you explain your answer more? The question asked about duplication of the article. It is unclear (to me) what you are exactly trying to say. You can edit your post by clicking the &quot;edit&quot; button below it." CreationDate="2016-12-01T09:23:19.423" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5509" PostId="2103" Score="2" Text="@DinaGiaprou Thanks for the contribution, but please note that this question specifically asks about a construction in *Attic Greek*, whereas your answer seems only to offer a paraphrase in modern Greek." CreationDate="2016-12-01T17:16:13.057" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30452" PostId="2103" Score="1" Text="@MickG I rolled back your edit, since it introduces a few errors (like the masculine article for feminine *hodos*) and seems to add a bit of material that wasn't in the original answer." CreationDate="2021-01-15T17:08:11.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5500" PostId="2104" Score="2" Text="I learned a lot! +1" CreationDate="2016-12-01T07:26:46.657" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5508" PostId="2104" Score="2" Text="A lot of early / medieval works also use *liber* as a subdivision, e.g. the *Confessions* of Augustine is actually *Confessionum libri XIII*. This corresponds to English usage, though, where one &quot;book&quot; like *Lord of the Rings* can contain six &quot;books.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-01T17:11:11.147" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5510" PostId="2104" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yep, and I don't think it's purely medieval, as I point out in my penultimate paragraph. The way we think about &quot;books&quot; just completely changed after the printing press was invented. Now people write books, but before, people wrote works." CreationDate="2016-12-01T18:04:20.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23174" PostId="2104" Score="1" Text="Studied Latin way back in antiquity, the early fifties. I remembered the word for book being libra...not liber. Guess I have spent almost 70 years using the wrong word." CreationDate="2019-11-09T22:57:11.633" UserId="6277" />
  <row Id="5511" PostId="2106" Score="0" Text="Thanks! These are good examples, just in the spirit I was after." CreationDate="2016-12-01T19:38:04.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5525" PostId="2106" Score="0" Text="And apparently 15th March was not greeted with *&quot;Cavete Idibus Martiis,&quot;* but with the sacrifice of a sheep followed by picnics and revelry in honour of Anna Perenna. No need for a Greeting, just bring a bottle." CreationDate="2016-12-02T16:45:45.710" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5513" PostId="2107" Score="0" Text="Nice find on Eton. It beats Oxford's *Dominus Illuminatio Meus* by a century. I'd say *Semper Eadem* should count, too." CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:19:32.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5526" PostId="2110" Score="2" Text="Well-asked question. Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:48:25.750" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5540" PostId="2110" Score="1" Text="I wonder about the text if this didn't come up until Chapter 6. I admire any effort to learn any language, but you might want to do a rolling review of the material covered so far." CreationDate="2016-12-03T00:59:08.563" UserId="1038" />
  <row Id="5541" PostId="2110" Score="1" Text="@user3131341, I converted your answer into a comment because it did not answer the question. I suggest you take a look at [our tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). Welcome to the site! If you have questions about Latin or answers to existing questions, go ahead and post them." CreationDate="2016-12-04T11:00:33.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5542" PostId="2110" Score="2" Text="@user3131341 - Lingua Latina is a particular textbook designed for total language emersion (no 'support' language), and the 'chapters' are rather short latin texts meant to introduce grammar and vocabulary. The passages (at least in the first part of the book) consist of 3 - 4 pages. As you can imagine, 'Chapter 6' is still very basic language, just touching on passive voice for the first time, etc." CreationDate="2016-12-04T16:26:57.883" UserId="1036" />
  <row Id="5602" PostId="2110" Score="1" Text="@user3131341 Part of the glory of _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ is that it doesn't explain very much about this kind of thing. The book is written entirely in Latin; you infer both vocabulary and grammar from context. So, it is only natural, and indeed an essential part of the learning process, to occasionally find yourself puzzled about things like this. Usually the answer dawns on you after a while, but it's wise to ask a question when you're stuck, too. (FWIW, I recommend completely eschewing all the English-language supplementary materials.)" CreationDate="2016-12-07T06:53:22.577" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="5528" PostId="2111" Score="0" Text="Good question and good answer! Welcome to the site! If you haven't already, I suggest taking a look at our [introductory tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2016-12-02T21:40:08.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5543" PostId="2113" Score="0" Text="thank you so much for the comprehensive coverage. This kind of help is really appreciated - I feel like I've gotten a much better grasp on the concept. Thank you for taking the time to write this up!" CreationDate="2016-12-04T16:29:51.703" UserId="1036" />
  <row Id="5623" PostId="2114" Score="0" Text="I do not understand this sentence completely? could you explain this little bit? thank you.     Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus" CreationDate="2016-12-09T20:11:51.917" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5624" PostId="2114" Score="1" Text="Please see the separate answer posted by @turuncu. The passage starting &quot;Quippe ibi nullus...&quot; and the following discussion could use some elaboration. Maybe you could make it clearer that the English quote is a translation of the Latin one." CreationDate="2016-12-09T20:12:20.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5625" PostId="2114" Score="1" Text="@turuncu Are you having trouble with my English translation, or with the Latin itself? Can you elaborate what part you don't understand?" CreationDate="2016-12-09T20:16:24.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5627" PostId="2114" Score="0" Text="Thank you brianpack, I do not get in touch with &quot; could be without occupation&quot; and &quot;to lead on their own bodies&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-09T20:22:26.997" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5628" PostId="2114" Score="1" Text="@turuncu &quot;could be without occupation&quot; = &quot;could be doing nothing.&quot; The idea is, I think, that it was extremely hard to move even without armor. &quot;lead on their own bodies&quot; = &quot;drag themselves forward&quot; It's a colorful way of saying &quot;move themselves&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-09T20:27:33.873" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5629" PostId="2114" Score="0" Text="brianpck  thank you  for this explanatory information :)" CreationDate="2016-12-09T20:30:22.440" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5630" PostId="2114" Score="2" Text="@turuncu Now that you got the additional explanation, I will delete the other answer. I'm glad that you asked for clarification, since that was a tricky part!" CreationDate="2016-12-09T22:45:08.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5532" PostId="2118" Score="2" Text="How far are you willing to go to indicate the gender? Would a relative clause work? *Modo eos amicos, quas ea habet, diligo.*" CreationDate="2016-12-03T19:46:11.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5535" PostId="2118" Score="0" Text="Use a noun, an adjective, or a relative clause." CreationDate="2016-12-03T21:17:59.697" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5558" PostId="2118" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answers so far: based on comments, it looks like there *isn't* a way (like in French) to specify the gender of a genitive pronoun without recasting?" CreationDate="2016-12-04T23:03:04.247" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5565" PostId="2118" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, that indeed seems to be the case. Without recasting I see no way to work around the gender neutral singular genitive of Latin pronouns. (I'm happy to be corrected if someone can propose a way!) Not all languages can do that anyway, but it is a bit surprising that Latin can't." CreationDate="2016-12-05T06:18:26.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23307" PostId="2118" Score="0" Text="There's nothing like &quot;ses... à elle&quot; in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-11-18T08:51:54.110" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="5536" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="It is indeed true that the colors are in a continuous spectrum in a rainbow. The exact hues are not known, but it still gives some insight. I'm only interested in the Latin ones here, but Greek is a nice addition. That table is great! The only thing I miss is a more precise citation of Seneca." CreationDate="2016-12-03T21:53:38.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5537" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="Perhaps 3,12 in [*Naturales Quaestiones* 1](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/sen.qn1.shtml)." CreationDate="2016-12-03T22:05:05.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5538" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="I agree: the Greek is a big mess and I am disinclined to trust the Latin either. Always better to go back to the primary sources." CreationDate="2016-12-03T23:00:04.080" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5548" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That's exactly where he's getting it from. It starts from 3.11. Notice that the word for rainbow is *arcus* here. In case you don't have access to the Loeb, you can read [here online](http://www.loebclassics.com/view/seneca_younger-natural_questions/1971/pb_LCL450.41.xml) the relevant paragraph." CreationDate="2016-12-04T20:18:17.117" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5553" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I'm not sure what I should be looking for behind that Lucretius link; he is not in the table. Can you give more precise coordinates?" CreationDate="2016-12-04T21:43:14.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5555" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Scratch Lucretius, that was faulty memory. He mentions colors coming off colorful objects, but in book 6 when he discusses rainbows, he leaves the colors out. The two cannot be connected." CreationDate="2016-12-04T22:12:16.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5557" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Yeah, I was gaping in disbelief at &quot;αλονρλεσ&quot; for  a while before reading your comments below. How does a serious scholar make an error like that?" CreationDate="2016-12-04T23:00:58.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5559" PostId="2119" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Medievalists, bah! I think it might have something to do with how Classicists have a focus on language that is absent from Medievalist programs." CreationDate="2016-12-04T23:12:21.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5561" PostId="2119" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer &quot;Absent&quot; is apparently right: this isn't just bad vocabulary or syntax, which is impardonable enough, but an apparently complete lack of understanding even of the alphabet." CreationDate="2016-12-04T23:42:28.293" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5546" PostId="2122" Score="1" Text="Surely you want *-ne* here rather than *an*, since this is a simple direct question?" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:46:36.377" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5554" PostId="2122" Score="0" Text="I wrote _an_ as beginning a single direct question, but I'd have no objection to _-ne_." CreationDate="2016-12-04T22:10:39.540" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5556" PostId="2122" Score="1" Text="As far as I know, *an* does not begin a single direct question, but introduces either an indirect question or the second alternative of a direct question (whose first alternative is either stated or implied)." CreationDate="2016-12-04T22:42:43.600" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5566" PostId="2122" Score="0" Text="I suppose that it depends on how the conversation has been going — as it were, as inferring from something preceding. If not, then _-ne_; or end with _annon_.  It's not an end-of-the-world matter!" CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:02:21.770" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5574" PostId="2122" Score="0" Text="Oh, certainly not! Just a point of clarification." CreationDate="2016-12-05T17:04:31.707" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5547" PostId="2124" Score="3" Text="This is a great example. His characterization of Catiline—perhaps the technique he is best known for throughout both his Asianist- and Atticist-leaning days—is in full bloom here." CreationDate="2016-12-04T20:05:04.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5569" PostId="2124" Score="2" Text="Brilliant, isn't it?  In the mind's eye, one can just imagine Cicero standing there in his full consular dignity and rolling it out. It has made me recall his brutal _Vixerunt!_ to the mob after the executions that he'd just witnessed." CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:11:57.947" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5552" PostId="2126" Score="2" Text="Quality answer, and welcome to our little nook on SE!" CreationDate="2016-12-04T21:26:21.903" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5563" PostId="2126" Score="0" Text="This does not directly affect your answer, but the book by Menocal is full of nonsense, especially what she says about the (non-existent) &quot;Arabic word taraba&quot;. But maybe we can discuss that somewhere else." CreationDate="2016-12-05T01:32:11.350" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5564" PostId="2126" Score="0" Text="@fdb That book does seem to have a political agenda in mind. I'm incompetent to judge that particular point as I know nothing about Arabic. I did find some other uses of the word (or *[tarab](http://oudman586.blogspot.fr/2010/02/what-is-tarab.html)*?) that don't seem to come from the same original source, so *taraba* does seem to exist (but possibly badly transliterated). I welcome any clarification or correction." CreationDate="2016-12-05T01:32:54.743" UserId="132" />
  <row Id="5571" PostId="2126" Score="1" Text="There is a noun ṭarab طرب (with emphatic ṭ) meaning “joy, pleasure, rapture” and (post-classically) also “music”, and an intransitive verb ṭariba “to be moved (by joy or grief)”. There is no verb “ṭaraba” “to sing” (as Menocal claims, not once, but several times). In theory one could imagine ṭarab &gt; *tarabāre &gt; *tarabā-tor- &gt; trobador “joy maker”, but one would then have to explain the loss of the vowel in the first syllable and (more crucially) the change of the vowel in the second syllable from /a/ to /o/. The classic etymology tropos &gt; *tropare &gt; troba-dor at least works phonologically." CreationDate="2016-12-05T10:10:36.147" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5568" PostId="2127" Score="0" Text="Nice explanation! Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:08:27.353" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5570" PostId="2128" Score="1" Text="[Linking my previous answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/534/78). I'm refraining from voting for the time being, but I do think it should be closed as redundant unless you were to demonstrate your speculation, i.e. what gives you the impression that you can substitute *is* for *ille* in this construction." CreationDate="2016-12-05T08:03:42.997" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5572" PostId="2128" Score="3" Text="I'm with @C.M.Weimer: *hic/ille* is a pretty established construction, and I think it might be better to ask &quot;is it possible?&quot; rather than &quot;what's the difference?&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-05T16:29:47.583" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5573" PostId="2128" Score="1" Text="From the intro of *Captivi*, *is* is used immediately after *hic* with the same antecedent and no kind of opposition: &quot;senex qui hic habitat Hegio est **huius** pater. / sed **is** quo pacto serviat suo sibi patri, / id ego hic apud vos proloquar&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-05T16:52:51.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5575" PostId="2128" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, at the time of asking I was unsure whether the correct pair of *hic* is *ille* or *is*. I reformulated the question somewhat, and I hope it is better. (In fact, C. M. Weimer's answer to the other question lists a third pronoun to refer further back than *hic* and *ille*, and I am tempted to make a separate question about that. We already have an answer, but I would much like to have a specific question about just that extension.)" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:18:47.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23305" PostId="2128" Score="0" Text="I was searching this site to find the difference between &quot;is&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; when meaning &quot;he&quot;, I stumbled upon your question by chance, but its title doesn't help. Could you reformulate the title to show the &quot;is/ille/hic&quot; difference for &quot;he&quot; (connotations), so we could find it when wondering this same question?" CreationDate="2019-11-18T08:44:05.370" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23308" PostId="2128" Score="1" Text="@Quidam This question is not quite about *is/ille/hic* as &quot;he&quot;, but about the reference to a number of previously mentioned things which may or may not be people. A separate question &quot;What is the difference between is, ille, and hic as 'he'?&quot; would be nice to have. It could of course link here. This question is only about multiple references, but most uses of these pronouns only have a single reference and the game is different." CreationDate="2019-11-18T09:35:43.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5577" PostId="2130" Score="2" Text="Great answer. The first word that came to my mind for &quot;take away&quot; is &quot;aliquid ab aliquo **auferre**.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-06T15:06:54.543" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5578" PostId="2132" Score="1" Text="De Vaan is silent on the plural, but LSJ does mention an inscription (Inscr. ap. Grut. 129, 14) which has a singular *locum*. I suppose it's possible that an old neuter existed that was lost. The inscription is probably a back-formation, though." CreationDate="2016-12-06T15:20:40.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5588" PostId="2133" Score="1" Text="I think I have just one minor question about this answer. In the last section, you say that πολύ is paired with the prepositional phrase. In grammatical terms, would you say that πολύ modifies the prepositional phrase, i.e, ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας [γῆς] αὐτῶν? Or would you instead say that πολύ modifies the clause, namely, ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας [γῆς] αὐτῶν εἶναι. I ask because I am mostly familiar with adverbs modifying verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. Having an adverb modify a prepositional phrase would seem strange to me, although having one modify a clause would seem more natural." CreationDate="2016-12-07T01:22:41.973" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5605" PostId="2133" Score="2" Text="Downvoter care to comment? @ktm5124, I believe that πολύ modifies the subsequent preposition, not εἶναι. Here's a similar example from Aristotle's *Metaphysics*:  &quot;εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ καὶ τοὺς παμπαλαίους καὶ **πολὺ πρὸ τῆς νῦν** γενέσεως...οἴονται&quot;: &quot;There are some who think that men of ancient times, born **long before the present** etc.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-07T15:30:23.193" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5580" PostId="2134" Score="1" Text="One little question: Does the difference between the origins of *loci* and *loca* explain the difference in meanings in Latin? Or is it just coincidental that some meanings are plural and some collective?" CreationDate="2016-12-06T18:51:38.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5581" PostId="2134" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, there's probably more to it than this, but L&amp;S describes the difference in meaning as follows: &quot;plur. loci, single places; loca, places connected with each other, a region&quot; -- where the plural vs. collective meanings are clear." CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:11:54.283" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5963" PostId="2134" Score="0" Text="@TKR, does this mean that if I'm talking about places *unconnected* with each other (&quot;He has friends in many places&quot;) the plural is *loci*?" CreationDate="2017-01-03T13:00:59.870" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5975" PostId="2134" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner, L&amp;S seem to imply such a difference, but I don't know whether usage bears this out." CreationDate="2017-01-04T03:06:08.257" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5583" PostId="2137" Score="1" Text="If the ō-sound is enough, then *Cicero* must mean &quot;two chickpeas&quot;. I hope the sound and eight being an even number were not his only reasons to propose this." CreationDate="2016-12-06T21:57:34.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5584" PostId="2137" Score="8" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. IE *oḱtō is the dual of a noun the singular of which survives as Avestan ašti- “span, four-fingers length”, as was pointed out by W.B. Henning, Transactions of the Philological Society 1948, p. 69. (Yes, this brilliant article is exactly one page long)." CreationDate="2016-12-06T23:16:45.393" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5592" PostId="2139" Score="1" Text="@SimplyaChristian *Mandatum Evangelii* is literally &quot;the mandate of the Gospel&quot;, hence the genitive. The genitive case is often used in Latin as a generic way to conex two nouns, when no other type of conexion is warranted (such as a preposition or some other case). The genitive expresses no more than &quot;this word belongs to that other word&quot;. The same applies to the way the preposition *of* is used in English." CreationDate="2016-12-07T02:10:34.967" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5593" PostId="2139" Score="2" Text="Now the gerundive is added. Because it is an adjective, it provides information about the noun (the noun that it agrees with in case, number, and gender); just as *mandatum Evangelii novi* would tell us that the Gospel was &quot;new&quot; (&quot;the mandate of the new Gospel&quot;), so *nuntiandi* informs us that the Gospel is &quot;to be announced&quot;. It's just that a gerundive cannot be translated in one word in English, and that it often has to come after its noun in English." CreationDate="2016-12-07T02:10:42.013" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5595" PostId="2139" Score="1" Text="@SimplyaChristian You are too kind! By the way, a gerundive construction (though not other gerundives) is a type of dominant construction, like the ablative absolute. A bit more info, in this somewhat unrelated answer: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/110/why-do-we-say-that-an-ablative-absolute-has-a-participle/116#116" CreationDate="2016-12-07T02:15:17.573" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5608" PostId="2139" Score="0" Text="Great answer. Out of curiosity, is it *strictly* correctly to say that the &quot;gerundive is an adjective&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-12-07T15:48:42.400" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6183" PostId="2139" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Belatedly: I suppose it depends on your definition. But I would call an adjective any word that normally agrees with a substantive (pro)noun and that does not stand on its own. I find that the most thorough, principal, and useful definition. But others might use different definitions." CreationDate="2017-01-18T01:54:56.463" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23306" PostId="2140" Score="0" Text="I still have troubles to summarize the difference between &quot;is&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; to mean &quot;he&quot;. Can you be less implicit with the &quot;as you can see&quot;. It's not so obvious for a beginner like me." CreationDate="2019-11-18T08:47:17.777" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23325" PostId="2140" Score="0" Text="@Quidam This question doesn't directly look at that specific difference. Which part are you confused on, and I can clear that up." CreationDate="2019-11-21T04:15:06.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5599" PostId="2143" Score="0" Text="Silly me!!! I assumed because *ipsi* was dative that *Christi* was also dative; I translated it as “in Christ himself.” Obviously, that is not the case. My translation of “in Christ” would not be most accurate since *Christi* is declined in the genitive (as you stated correctly)." CreationDate="2016-12-07T05:02:00.893" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="5601" PostId="2143" Score="0" Text="How is *et ipsi* to be understood then? Does it mean “**they themselves** are **also** impelled,” whereby *ipsi* is declined in the nominative, plural, matching *impulsi*?" CreationDate="2016-12-07T05:16:09.117" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="5606" PostId="2143" Score="0" Text="@SimplyaChristian *ipsi* here is nominative masculine plural, modifying *illi*. You're right that it *could* be singular dative, but in this case that wouldn't make sense." CreationDate="2016-12-07T15:42:15.187" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5607" PostId="2143" Score="1" Text="I tend to lean toward the objective genitive in this context (*their love of Christ*), but the ambiguity is present in every language: the point is that the Latin really doesn't shed light on which is meant here. (For the record, the French and English editions were promulgated *before* the Latin one, even though the latter is now considered the *editio typica*.)" CreationDate="2016-12-07T15:44:43.673" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5610" PostId="2143" Score="1" Text="@SimplyaChristian Yes, you (and brianpck) have it right. It's intensifying *illi* &quot;they themselves&quot;, separated a bit. *et* seems to me to mean &quot;also&quot; here, too. It actually seems to me to be an example of unnecessary words creeping into what should be tight prose." CreationDate="2016-12-07T17:02:41.337" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="14605" PostId="2143" Score="0" Text="I find your note about purposeful ambiguity salient.  It seems to me that loving Christ and Christ's love can be synonymous, theologically speaking." CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:17:25.647" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="5613" PostId="2144" Score="0" Text="Thanks, this makes sense. Typologically, copula verbs tend to have only two arguments: the subject and the complement, so that's I parsed it that way by default. But your &quot;raising&quot; of the dative phrase sounds like the better analysis." CreationDate="2016-12-08T00:42:44.007" UserDisplayName="user1002" />
  <row Id="5614" PostId="2144" Score="0" Text="@jlovegren: Ah, fancy Anglo-Saxon terms! The phaenomenon of raising is interesting. I suppose if you 'dropped' the dative, it would become part of an a.c.i., and it would become an accusative. // As to typology, how about *the news was too much for him, it seemed impossible to him*, Dutch *het is mij te veel, een aanval leek de koning onverstandig*? Similar constructions are possible in many languages—constructions in which copulae have additional constituents (i.e. additional to subject and subject complement)." CreationDate="2016-12-08T01:30:37.550" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5615" PostId="2144" Score="0" Text="well, typology is not universals, it is tendencies. so it is a good starting point in an unfamiliar language (like latin is for me). obviously, if the language doesn't follow the pattern, you go with what works for the language. so for example, you see a sentence with the object before the verb and subject. you guess that the language is not object-initial, and then from there assume that either the word order is flexible, or the object-initial construction is marked (e.g., for focus). you  might be wrong (the language could be truly object-initial), but you still made a good starting guess." CreationDate="2016-12-08T03:22:59.383" UserDisplayName="user1002" />
  <row Id="5616" PostId="2144" Score="0" Text="@jlovegren: Ah, I see what you mean, then." CreationDate="2016-12-08T04:14:53.230" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5603" PostId="2145" Score="0" Text="Great answer! It contains (but does not consist in) a little typo: &quot;The author is summarize the amendment&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-07T08:35:13.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5604" PostId="2145" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Gratias! Articulum de emendatione emendo." CreationDate="2016-12-07T08:44:41.027" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="5609" PostId="2148" Score="3" Text="&quot;Expeditious&quot; strikes me as a pretty creative translation of *celer*, but I think especially the Horace example (*oderunt sedatum celeres*) shows an example where *velox* could not be substituted. There's an inherent danger to coming up with &quot;rules&quot; (like &quot;potential speed&quot;) for words that differ more in *nuance* than *meaning*, like English &quot;swift&quot; and &quot;fast.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-07T15:53:09.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5611" PostId="2150" Score="0" Text="You can add *procurator* and, getting a little metaphorical, *arbiter*, too." CreationDate="2016-12-07T17:06:04.953" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5612" PostId="2150" Score="0" Text="Quite! and others, I should think." CreationDate="2016-12-07T17:07:37.587" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5640" PostId="2152" Score="3" Text="The question title is pretty different from the body: I think it's a pretty obvious *no* that -c cannot replace -que &quot;in general.&quot; I would be surprised if there were even a couple more examples of this, much less a codified rule." CreationDate="2016-12-10T22:42:32.623" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5642" PostId="2152" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Good point. I edited the title. I suspect that it cannot happen in general. My question is whether there is any amount of productivity or whether the phenomenon is found at all outside *ac* and *nec*." CreationDate="2016-12-11T12:57:16.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5644" PostId="2152" Score="2" Text="I've seen a lot of these questions here: When the question is &quot;are there more examples of this&quot;, and yet there are no more examples of this, what's a good answer? A simple &quot;No, I haven't found any and no one mentions it&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-12-11T17:28:12.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5646" PostId="2152" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Questions of that kind are indeed tricky. I think &quot;No, I looked up this and this source and no one that I remember mentions it&quot; is a good answer. A very definitive negative answer is hard to give, but I am willing to accept a &quot;no&quot; and change my mind if someone comes with positive evidence later on. While &quot;no&quot; can be a good answer (and probably the correct one here), it does call for some justification." CreationDate="2016-12-11T21:06:07.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5647" PostId="2152" Score="0" Text="@brianpck You commented first, you want the first go for the (tentative) negative answer?" CreationDate="2016-12-11T21:33:06.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5661" PostId="2152" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Perhaps I was mistaken in my original answer!" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:36:39.750" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5618" PostId="2154" Score="3" Text="+1, especially for mentioning *terraeque*. It's a common pitfall when reading verse to stop reading too soon, whereas the best poets often used enjambment." CreationDate="2016-12-09T16:48:23.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5632" PostId="2155" Score="5" Text="Interesting question! It is possible, by the way -- though this is a debated point -- that the difference between (at least some) short and long vowels was not solely one of quantity but also of quality: e.g. that short *i* was [ɪ] while long *i* was [i:]" CreationDate="2016-12-10T20:50:59.427" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5633" PostId="2155" Score="0" Text="@TKR, interesting. Then the question arises whether or not the difference in quality helped make the distinction between a long and a double short vowel." CreationDate="2016-12-10T20:53:31.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5619" PostId="2156" Score="2" Text="Interestingly, your answer is a good description what a moderator does on SE. Their main duty is to make sure that behavior stays within certain limits, not so much to lead into any particular direction." CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:15:33.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5620" PostId="2156" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I thought they were more of a caretaker than a true, [internet-]forum-style moderator." CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:24:09.333" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5621" PostId="2156" Score="1" Text="@cmw It's true that all users can participate in the traditional internet-forum-moderator duties and the moderators just make sure things work as they should. Taking care and setting boundaries is essentially the same thing here, since the SE team is responsible for all things technical. Aspects and viewpoints change, but it seems most online moderators do what a Roman *moderator* would." CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:30:37.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5634" PostId="2158" Score="1" Text="*sūs and suus sound quite different* -- what makes you say that? It seems to me that they would most likely be phonetically identical in normal speech, unless there was an inserted glide between the two vowels of *suus* (I don't know if there's any evidence for or against that possibility)." CreationDate="2016-12-10T20:54:03.213" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5635" PostId="2158" Score="0" Text="@TKR To me *sūs* and *sŭŭs* sound different, but it might be something inherited from Finnish. The sounds are pretty close and especially in quick speech there is a risk of confusion. My question, however, was not whether the sounds were different but about the distinction or confusion between the two among Romans (and written evidence of it)." CreationDate="2016-12-10T21:01:53.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5636" PostId="2158" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, does Finnish allow a disyllabic sequence of identical short vowels like in *suus*?" CreationDate="2016-12-10T21:17:34.897" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5637" PostId="2158" Score="0" Text="@TKR. In Finnish the long vowels /i:/, /u:/ etc. are represented orthographically as doubled vowels &lt;ii&gt;, &lt;uu&gt; etc. They are, however, not articulated as two separate vowels." CreationDate="2016-12-10T21:30:01.203" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5638" PostId="2158" Score="2" Text="@TKR Finnish allows that in compound words and otherwise at word boundaries, and the distinction is clear and easy for a Finn. However, Finnish does not have truly word-internal double shot vowels. As fdb writes, long vowels are written as two vowels but articulated as a single long one." CreationDate="2016-12-10T21:35:12.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5639" PostId="2158" Score="4" Text="As in &quot;Joonas&quot; (for Ιωνας) of course." CreationDate="2016-12-10T21:54:05.760" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5641" PostId="2158" Score="3" Text="@TKR I have a contrast of /kre:/ /kre.e/ and /kre.e:/ in my native language (créent/craie, créé and créée), as well as /ni.il/ and /ni:l/ (nihil and the Nile). Glide insertion is possible but rare and stigmatized (at least in sequences of identical vowels) and I've never heard even a sign of ongoing merger." CreationDate="2016-12-11T12:33:02.450" UserId="526" />
  <row Id="5648" PostId="2158" Score="0" Text="@Eauquidort, do you really distinguish /e/ and /e:/? What variety of French do you speak? My point about *sūs / sŭŭs* is not that they wouldn't be phonologically distinct, which of course they are, but that assuming a normal degree of variation in production, many tokens would very likely be phonetically indistinguishable." CreationDate="2016-12-12T01:34:16.263" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5650" PostId="2158" Score="0" Text="@TKR. The retention of the historic distinction between final [e] and [e:] is a feature of Belgian French." CreationDate="2016-12-12T09:47:18.390" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5671" PostId="2158" Score="3" Text="@TKR I'm Belgian, yes. Your initial statement was a bit stronger than that, so I wanted to offer an example of a similar contrast that was synchronically stable. Based on my experience, I don't think the number of ambiguous tokens would be that high, although there's always the danger I might hear what I'm expecting to hear rather than what's actually being said" CreationDate="2016-12-13T21:35:29.697" UserId="526" />
  <row Id="5672" PostId="2158" Score="0" Text="@Eauquidort, the way to test this would be to have native speakers try to identify tokens of /kre:/ and /kre.e/ in isolation. My sense is that such studies usually show a high rate of confusion, though I don't have a directly relevant example to cite." CreationDate="2016-12-13T21:39:15.807" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5666" PostId="2159" Score="0" Text="Now that I reread your answer, I realize I have never seen *īt*. Can you give an example? I am familiar with *nīl*." CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:37:34.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5667" PostId="2159" Score="1" Text="Check [Lindsay §152](https://books.google.com/books?id=zEBHglB7zOIC&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) for more examples of vowel-contraction. This does not mean they were confused, though." CreationDate="2016-12-13T16:46:18.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5668" PostId="2159" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, examples of *it*: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23it%23" CreationDate="2016-12-13T17:55:41.213" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5643" PostId="2160" Score="1" Text="This might be a good place to begin (it has a lot of free download possibilities): https://archive.org/details/latinprosody00ramsuoft . Ramsay's Latin Prosody is a couple of hundred years old, but contains a comprehensive review of Latin metres and something of their history and reliability, running to 360 pages.." CreationDate="2016-12-11T17:12:30.407" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5683" PostId="2160" Score="0" Text="There is a [meta discussion related to this post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/236/79)." CreationDate="2016-12-14T20:56:38.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5651" PostId="2162" Score="2" Text="Can you please use your phrase in a full example sentence? Context is key." CreationDate="2016-12-12T16:44:31.377" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5653" PostId="2162" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, and thanks for both showing your work and updating to provide additional context!" CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:21:11.147" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="5654" PostId="2162" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Please refer to the newly appended &quot;Context&quot; section of my question as per your request." CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:22:46.550" UserId="1049" />
  <row Id="5655" PostId="2162" Score="1" Text="@ClarusDignus Out of curiosity, *why* exactly are you translating this into Latin? This is definitely &quot;up there&quot; in terms of translation difficulty to an ancient language." CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:25:23.370" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5660" PostId="2162" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thank you for qualifying the (in)feasibility of my translation request. I'm as of yet ignorant to what expectation of limitation I should have. I was expecting an easy melding of pre-baked idiomatic Latin expressions for &quot;will repurpose x&quot; and &quot;will depend on production of x&quot;. The reason for my opting for Latin is but an attempt to standardise miscellaneous conventions within a flow-chart I'm editing." CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:49:03.243" UserId="1049" />
  <row Id="5652" PostId="2163" Score="0" Text="Shouldn't it be *de proferendo + abl*, e.g. *de proferendo vino*?" CreationDate="2016-12-12T16:45:44.877" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5656" PostId="2163" Score="0" Text="It would be easier if we knew where he wanted an emphasis. What you suggest is an example of gerundive attraction, which is perfectly all right. Silver Latin writers might use an accusative." CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:25:25.047" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5657" PostId="2163" Score="0" Text="I've added further context to my question (sentence example and diagrammatic example of specific use)." CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:26:31.077" UserId="1049" />
  <row Id="5658" PostId="2163" Score="1" Text="I guess my comment was more about whether the genitive is permitted at all. I've never seen the objective genitive used with a gerund in this way..." CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:26:33.950" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5664" PostId="2163" Score="0" Text="Not sure about that one. I can't think of an example off-hand, though I've a dim memory about it being possible with gen. plurals. Whatever: the gerundive is much more attractive." CreationDate="2016-12-12T19:23:02.720" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5662" PostId="2164" Score="1" Text="I am unclear on whether *donec* &lt; *donique* is a false etymology or not. L&amp;S's &quot;donique = donicum&quot; seems pretty cryptic..." CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:42:14.757" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5663" PostId="2164" Score="0" Text="I looked up *donec* in de Vaan but he doesn't list it at all, unless I somehow missed it." CreationDate="2016-12-12T19:00:41.540" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5665" PostId="2164" Score="5" Text="Oh, it's under a different heading (p. 161). He derives *dōnec* from a form * dō-ne-kwe, and *dōnicum* from * dō-ne-kwom, but then says in the next sentence that &quot;Lat. *dōni/eque* is probably a recent remake on the model of *nec/neque*&quot;. Not sure why the latter statement, but it does look like the *-c* of *dōnec* is from *-que*." CreationDate="2016-12-12T19:43:25.103" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5669" PostId="2167" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, where would &quot;regina&quot; (*queen*) go in the translation?" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:02:11.800" UserId="952" />
  <row Id="5670" PostId="2167" Score="0" Text="@Sapphira Added: it's vocative, addressed to Dido. It's interesting how he changes from 2nd to 3rd person in the middle of his &quot;short&quot; speech!" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:05:58.330" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5673" PostId="2170" Score="0" Text="I removed your &quot;gloss&quot; on &quot;I don't care&quot; since it didn't really add anything to your translation request. If you are looking for something specifically vulgar, you should specify that in the question." CreationDate="2016-12-14T14:53:06.757" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5676" PostId="2170" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Instead of the edit, perhaps a request for clarification should have been in order?" CreationDate="2016-12-14T15:21:55.950" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5677" PostId="2170" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Feel free to roll back: I have no problem with a vulgar translation request *per se*, but the use of &quot;like in&quot; implied an example, which in this case was totally unnecessary. If it was the other way around I would have interpreted it differently." CreationDate="2016-12-14T15:29:12.300" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5674" PostId="2172" Score="1" Text="*floccus* means a lock / flock: why do you think a &quot;rat's ass&quot; is a closer rendition than &quot;straw&quot;? The phrase never struck me as particularly crass." CreationDate="2016-12-14T14:55:43.487" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5675" PostId="2172" Score="1" Text="I didn't say it literally meant that, but that's the feeling behind it. Yes, perhaps &quot;rat's ass&quot; is a bit too crude, but it's the closer in sentiment, whereas &quot;I care not a lock of&quot; is absolutely meaningless in English. Even phrases like &quot;I don't care one whit for&quot; are too lofty for it." CreationDate="2016-12-14T15:19:15.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5678" PostId="2173" Score="0" Text="Ista non curo seems adequate for my purpose :) thank you." CreationDate="2016-12-14T15:40:33.783" UserId="1054" />
  <row Id="5682" PostId="2173" Score="1" Text="Next you should get together all phrases like the last ones but in Greek, e.g. ἐς κόρακας!" CreationDate="2016-12-14T17:21:53.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5684" PostId="2174" Score="2" Text="Does Finnish Radio have listener numbers? And The Times might be able to estimate response to their Latin Crossword, which appears on Saturdays (main section, penultimate page)." CreationDate="2016-12-14T22:22:22.467" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5685" PostId="2175" Score="3" Text="*Quid me vis facere* means &quot;What do you want me to do?&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-15T01:50:04.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5686" PostId="2176" Score="0" Text="To me *agō* sounds more poetic than *faciō*, so perhaps better for a slogan." CreationDate="2016-12-15T07:50:54.813" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5687" PostId="2176" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I don't think *ago* would be appropriate in this context, but I could be wrong." CreationDate="2016-12-15T15:16:03.847" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5689" PostId="2179" Score="0" Text="I actually don't think the subjunctive is needed here. In your Cicero examples the verb depends on another subjunctive, so is necessarily subjunctive (&quot;subjunctive by attraction&quot;). But see [A&amp;G](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-519.html) on &quot;conditional relative clauses&quot; -- it seems to me that this would be equivalent to a simple present *Si quid volo, id facio*, and thus indicative." CreationDate="2016-12-15T18:58:16.277" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5703" PostId="2179" Score="0" Text="I don't have anything particular backing me up at the very moment, but I will say that *velim* also sounds more natural to my ears. I'll look around and maybe delete this comment if I can't find anything to support that." CreationDate="2016-12-17T19:37:19.587" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5709" PostId="2179" Score="0" Text="I think the choice is between *Faciam quod velim* (equivalent of a future less vivid condition, &quot;I would do what I wanted&quot;) and *Facio quod volo* (equivalent of a simple present, &quot;I do what I want&quot;). The fact that *quod* is translatable as &quot;whatever&quot; doesn't in itself trigger a subjunctive -- see the examples in A&amp;G, or the famous line *Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes* (not *Quidquid id sit*)." CreationDate="2016-12-17T23:13:24.810" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5710" PostId="2179" Score="1" Text="@TKR Great points...let me do some further digging when I have time (i.e. not now) and defend/amend as appropriate." CreationDate="2016-12-17T23:27:17.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5714" PostId="2179" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Did you really mean to write _prosody_? I wouldn't have said that your examples are exactly metrical!" CreationDate="2016-12-18T12:18:02.400" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5727" PostId="2179" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Long day: I meant &quot;prose.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-18T19:27:41.050" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5694" PostId="2183" Score="6" Text="Latin translations have frequently been &quot;bowdlerized&quot; to remove &quot;bad language&quot;, sometimes to the great detriment of accuracy." CreationDate="2016-12-16T20:28:03.877" UserId="1060" />
  <row Id="5733" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="This is a vague memory from years ago, I had a good friend who was a pro at Latin and had me read a book written by an aristocrat of the time, language of which was Super vulgar - pretty much 50 shades of grey multiplied by Nero. You'll really have to dig into the subject." CreationDate="2016-12-17T16:59:32.177" UserId="1067" />
  <row Id="5734" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="@seems I'm guessing this is either Petronius's Satyricon or Apuleius's Metamorphoses." CreationDate="2016-12-17T19:18:05.357" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5736" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="@seems Maybe you could give some more information? Like sources, (if possible) more memories, etc." CreationDate="2016-12-17T21:47:18.400" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="5737" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="@seems That sounds like the Satyricon, but there's also the Priapeia which is the most &quot;vulgar&quot; Latin I know of (in the sense of obscene, not the dialect which became Romance)." CreationDate="2016-12-17T21:51:08.590" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5739" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="@seems: If you remember anything more, please edit your answer. It can be undeleted. Others: If you think that Satyricon, Metamorphoses, or Priapeia would be good examples of vulgar language, please post them as answers! Each one is worth a mention in an answer." CreationDate="2016-12-18T21:46:35.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7333" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="Oh, good old Internet. One previously normal user suddenly becomes famous when they ask about swearing Romans. The world is so mature. Still, it's an interesting question and was destined to be asked." CreationDate="2017-03-14T13:57:46.277" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="11914" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="Martial's &quot;Epigrams&quot; are also worth a look for the more 'agricultural' language but worth reading more for their biting wit and scathing attacks but he does have a wonderful turn of phrase. &#xA;A Roman Oscar Wilde... or maybe Oscar was a Victorian Martial." CreationDate="2018-01-16T14:36:52.447" UserId="2320" />
  <row Id="35053" PostId="2183" Score="0" Text="I remember the edition of Catullus I used while at school (this side of the millennium) which glossed the dirty Latin into more Latin (*irrumare = mentulam in os inserere* and so on). I think this was fairly common until quite recently." CreationDate="2021-09-11T16:03:36.890" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="5693" PostId="2184" Score="5" Text="The poem also has its own [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16)." CreationDate="2016-12-16T19:49:42.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11929" PostId="2184" Score="0" Text="&quot;Passer deliciae meae puellae&quot; *(Great translations, btw;)*" CreationDate="2018-01-18T21:44:24.240" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14444" PostId="2184" Score="0" Text="Latin _cunnus_ derived directly into Spanish _coño_ 'cunt', quite a dirty word. Interestingly enough, it also derived into _cunnilingus_, a very polite word today for 'oral sex applied to a woman' even though its dirty origins." CreationDate="2018-06-04T09:09:00.440" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="23494" PostId="2184" Score="0" Text="French con, conne, connard, connasse." CreationDate="2019-11-28T17:56:22.330" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="5691" PostId="2185" Score="1" Text="Your translation is exactly what I thought the first time I read the motto, and I can't help thinking the book's is but a _free_ translation." CreationDate="2016-12-16T19:16:19.363" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5692" PostId="2185" Score="0" Text="Well spotted.  Isn't the supine used for negative commands? *Numquam titillatum est* +Accusative." CreationDate="2016-12-16T19:21:19.027" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5697" PostId="2185" Score="1" Text="The translation is syntactically free, but many translations are to some extent. As long as it preserves the meaning (which it does) it seems unobjectionable." CreationDate="2016-12-16T22:20:09.600" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5696" PostId="2188" Score="2" Text="I think that the fact that there was a lack of &quot;to&quot; is what was confusing me. But I totally forgot to check the other possible cases that could be tried, I'm not sure why I was so fixed on the genitive singular only. Anyway, I understood that it was an indirect object, thank you !" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:45:49.783" UserId="230" />
  <row Id="5698" PostId="2188" Score="5" Text="It's worth adding that Latin will usually omit possessives that can be assumed from context: here, the most natural assumption is that it's the farmer's own daughter, so *suae* would most likely be omitted." CreationDate="2016-12-16T22:22:38.833" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5699" PostId="2190" Score="1" Text="Grumio est in culina!" CreationDate="2016-12-17T02:52:53.987" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="5700" PostId="2190" Score="0" Text="They're the same word (and it really exists),  but it is not really passive," CreationDate="2016-12-17T14:07:50.380" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="16077" PostId="2194" Score="1" Text="Cf. the common combination *ius iurandum*, often even written attached." CreationDate="2018-10-23T01:19:58.067" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5728" PostId="2195" Score="0" Text="+1. Reddit doesn't sound like a very reliable source, but I agree with the content and conclusion here: *ago* is at least a very good alternative to *facio*. And it's important to notice that the English &quot;to do&quot; and the Latin *facere* seem to have slightly different tones. With *agere* I would consider using *(sic)ut* instead of *quod*: &quot;I do as I want!&quot; *Ago ut velim!*" CreationDate="2016-12-18T21:38:23.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5731" PostId="2195" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for the info Joonas, I optimised my answer." CreationDate="2016-12-18T23:26:23.530" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="5732" PostId="2195" Score="0" Text="I've never seen *sicut* used with the subjunctive in this way. Do you have examples of this?" CreationDate="2016-12-19T02:23:19.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5744" PostId="2195" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I used it with its meaning as (so I do as I want). Par exemple: _Sicut piscis natat_ (he swims like a fish). or: _Ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos_. (Love one another, as I have loved you)." CreationDate="2016-12-19T16:36:30.337" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="5746" PostId="2195" Score="0" Text="@L.Peters Exactly, but my point was that I've only seen *sicut* used with the indicative, e.g. *ago sicut volo*." CreationDate="2016-12-19T16:48:00.143" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5730" PostId="2199" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I like this explanation. Perhaps someone finds some contemporary descriptions of the transition later and I will have to consider moving acceptance, but this answer satisfies my curiosity well for now." CreationDate="2016-12-18T21:52:52.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5740" PostId="2202" Score="2" Text="Can you explain what it is about that sentence you want examined?" CreationDate="2016-12-19T15:34:43.677" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5747" PostId="2202" Score="0" Text="It would be easier for us to help you if you clarified your question. Are you looking for a translation, an analysis, a gloss, or something else?" CreationDate="2016-12-19T17:02:06.443" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5748" PostId="2202" Score="0" Text="especially &quot; Erat autem praedicta civitas Christianos habens habitatores, paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro libero detractantes arbitrio.&quot;  this sentence translate from Latin to English: With a few exceptions, the inhabitants of this city were Christians. The infidels were in possession of the citadel, however, treated the rest of population according to THEİR OWN GOOD PLEASURE.  Question: Have the same meaning especially &quot;their own good pleasure&quot; with &quot;pro libero detractantes arbitrio&quot;?" CreationDate="2016-12-19T18:06:07.047" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5749" PostId="2202" Score="0" Text="in this sentence &quot;their own good pleasure&quot; what is the meaning of? positive or negative means? thank you for your help" CreationDate="2016-12-20T10:14:53.740" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="5741" PostId="2203" Score="0" Text="Interesting information! Maybe you could be more specific in your answer, because you're giving a lot of useful info, but the question was: is the sentence _Facio quod volo_ right and if not, what's wrong with it? You are giving a lot of info, but not a concrete answer." CreationDate="2016-12-19T16:08:59.580" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="5745" PostId="2203" Score="0" Text="@:L. Peters : I have added three paragraphs, including comment on the original question. Hope this is more helpful." CreationDate="2016-12-19T16:47:19.180" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5850" PostId="2205" Score="0" Text="Many thanks :) I see now 'competit' can take Dative; Is it possible this 'habere' there might be actually Gerund and not infinitive? @Joonas Ilmavirta" CreationDate="2016-12-26T11:19:16.567" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5853" PostId="2205" Score="0" Text="@AiliJ You are welcome! It cannot be a gerund. Infinitive is the only option, but there are some weird uses. I'm not sure if the infinitive would be idiomatic in classical Latin, but I might miss something." CreationDate="2016-12-26T14:17:39.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5854" PostId="2205" Score="0" Text="perhaps it is then 'The Infinitive as an Object' - &quot;used as the Object of Verbs of Creation, commonly known as Auxiliary Verbs&quot; which one would be this 'Auxiliary Verb' then here, I wonder, could this 'existo' be used this way?" CreationDate="2016-12-26T15:00:02.103" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5855" PostId="2205" Score="0" Text="But as 'existere' is not given there as principial verbs construed this way(Gildersleeve) I must be mistaken again @Joonas Ilmavirta" CreationDate="2016-12-26T15:16:22.517" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="18951" PostId="2205" Score="0" Text="Habere is the kernel of a subject clause. It is the subject of sequitur. &quot;It follows that something has the power to be self-existing in proportion to...&quot;" CreationDate="2019-03-18T23:42:14.300" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="5759" PostId="2208" Score="1" Text="The verb seems to be quite rare. I found [14 hits](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=titill*), and Seneca seems to be the most likely source of physical tickling. I couldn't find online English translations of Seneca to help deciphering the passages. For example,  [opposing *titillare* to *vulnerare*](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/1/1/18209-18215@1#1) might fit the bill, or perhaps [*titillatio corporis*](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1017/15/91/2602-2608@1#91)." CreationDate="2016-12-20T21:46:35.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5751" PostId="2210" Score="2" Text="A great example from the *Georgica* uses *tenuis* along with *volucris* as an adjective: &quot;Quae tenuem exhalat nebulam fumosque volucris&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:20:56.217" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5766" PostId="2210" Score="1" Text="'presserat ora vapour' - Ovid II 283 - the hot smoke was choking her;" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:35:31.193" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5767" PostId="2210" Score="2" Text="and another passage from Ovid Metamorphoses IV ,434- 'Styx nebulas exhalat iners '- &quot;The sluggish Styx there exhales its vaporous breath&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:39:55.240" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5768" PostId="2210" Score="2" Text="and slightly different option - 'largis satiantur odoribus ignes' - &quot;the fires are fed full with incense rich and fragrant&quot; Ovid IV 759; so perhaps 'odoro' is suitable for incense" CreationDate="2016-12-21T10:21:42.003" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5752" PostId="2212" Score="0" Text="Could you specify which of these examples are not figurative?" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:36:40.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5753" PostId="2212" Score="0" Text="To be clear: I see that it's divided into two numerals, but the first division seems to exclude uses that I am not interested in. By &quot;literal&quot; I meant &quot;the physical action of tickling.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:39:35.007" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5754" PostId="2212" Score="0" Text="Not sure I understand your second comment. Otherwise, I think that _carnem_ and _med_ might be clues. And what does Cicero mean by _quasi titillantes_ if not something physical?" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:41:37.100" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5755" PostId="2212" Score="2" Text="Cicero: &quot;as if tickling (?) with pleasure the shallowness of the multitude&quot; Tertullian: &quot;subduing the tickled (?) flesh&quot; Neither fits the bill." CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:49:29.680" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5756" PostId="2212" Score="0" Text="Then we shall have to leave it at that, because I can't follow you." CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:56:41.503" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5757" PostId="2212" Score="1" Text="&quot;Physical action of tickling&quot;: I really don't know how much further I can clarify. &quot;The mother tickled her child&quot; NOT: &quot;This tickled my fancy.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:58:15.737" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5758" PostId="2212" Score="0" Text="Well, one last try. [btw  The Latin Library version has _titillantium_, not _titillantes_ Smith's error, not mine, I think]. Cicero surely is suggesting that the multitude is being amused as if they were being physically tickled? And that really is all I have to say. You can lead a horse to water . . . . !" CreationDate="2016-12-20T21:40:40.777" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5760" PostId="2213" Score="0" Text="Interesting: so the &quot;titillate&quot; sense of English &quot;tickle&quot; was added afterwards by analogy to Latin *titillare*? In which case, the answer to my question is that *titillare* cannot in fact refer to the physical action of &quot;tickling&quot;? As for Rowling, *non flocci facio*--it just inspired the thought :)" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:13:04.870" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5762" PostId="2213" Score="0" Text="@brianpck There might be confluence. Look at Penelope's recent answer. I'd say that the physical action is the extended meaning, though." CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:44:37.830" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5761" PostId="2215" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! It might be useful to search a text corpus for patterns like &quot;in X et per X&quot; (with any two prepositions), where the X's are the same. If this is common, then one could argue that it is the idiomatic option for &quot;in et per X&quot;. I lack the aptitude to make such searches." CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:29:40.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5769" PostId="2215" Score="1" Text="The Vulgate is full of &quot;in X et per X&quot;. Post-classical, though" CreationDate="2016-12-21T13:31:13.670" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5823" PostId="2215" Score="1" Text="Dubious: *DRN* 2.393: *aut quia ni mirum maioribus est elementis /&#xA;aut magis hamatis inter se perque plicatis*. This could be analysed as an adverb. I think the problem is that prepositions and adverbs are not entirely separate in Latin/Greek, and I think *in* in your example could be analysed as an adverb as well, if we should ignore traditional terminology for English momentarily and analyse it with the same lack of separation in mind." CreationDate="2016-12-24T05:48:49.767" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5824" PostId="2215" Score="0" Text="*Aeneid* 4.671: *Karthago aut antiqua Tyros, flammaeque furentes / culmina perque hominum uoluantur perque deorum.* You might call this simple ellipsis, because only the head of the object of the two prepositions is absent after the second preposition—but, then, isn't what you're after really ellipsis of a prepositional object?" CreationDate="2016-12-24T05:57:54.293" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5825" PostId="2215" Score="0" Text="Cicero, *Rhet. Her.* [sp.], 4.68.16: *Id fieri poterit, si, quae ante et post et in ipsa re facta erunt, conprehendemus*. Here the same applies as in my quotation from Lucretius above." CreationDate="2016-12-24T06:12:44.233" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5826" PostId="2215" Score="3" Text="Varro, *Res Rusticae*, 1.35.2.5: *dum in xv diebus ante et post brumam, ut pleraque, ne facias.* I think this one is incontrovertible [strange how we spell this word with a -t-, incidentally]. It seems necessary to interpret *ante* as *ante brumam*, or it wouldn't make sense to me." CreationDate="2016-12-24T06:17:30.047" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5829" PostId="2215" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Great examples. I'd accept an answer, especially with that last example." CreationDate="2016-12-24T15:47:57.440" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5882" PostId="2215" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus 's Varro example is the only example of this phenomenon in the Oxford Latin Syntax, which calls it &quot;very rarely attested&quot;: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA891&amp;lpg=PA891&amp;dq=dum+in+xv+diebus+ante+et+post+brumam,+ut+pleraque,+ne+facias&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hQojIWr8bz&amp;sig=SskzFHNIN5PszmCDV7rwXRCtwws&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqwLy6jJjRAhUnwlQKHfhbA4kQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=dum%20in%20xv%20diebus%20ante%20et%20post%20brumam%2C%20ut%20pleraque%2C%20ne%20facias&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2016-12-29T00:02:14.820" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5888" PostId="2215" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Interesting. What does the OLS call the phaenomenon? (I can't access it on Books.)" CreationDate="2016-12-29T12:02:04.263" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5897" PostId="2215" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, it's not labeled -- just a paragraph at the end of the prepositions section (p. 1228)." CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:13:49.933" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5763" PostId="2217" Score="0" Text="Let me remind everyone that accepting Greek questions [is our present policy](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/218/79), and it is also reflected in our help pages and tour." CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:52:44.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5929" PostId="2217" Score="2" Text="As a general (though not strict) rule, the verb in a relative clause goes at the end: *qui parvior es*. Latin tends to use fewer words when it can, so in this case I'd leave out *quam is*, or at the very least use the ablative instead of *quam*: *qui eo parvior es*." CreationDate="2017-01-01T14:39:04.787" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5938" PostId="2217" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Thanks, Joel. That's great advice." CreationDate="2017-01-01T19:21:16.023" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5788" PostId="2218" Score="0" Text="Just wonderful!" CreationDate="2016-12-22T11:27:33.160" UserId="1077" />
  <row Id="5941" PostId="2218" Score="0" Text="I posted about this passage!" CreationDate="2017-01-02T08:00:02.627" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5765" PostId="2219" Score="6" Text="De Vaan indeed connects *fessus, fatisco, fatigo* (the headword is the last of these, p. 204-5). The vowel of *fessus* is odd -- he derives it by analogy from the compound form *defessus*." CreationDate="2016-12-21T04:06:52.083" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5764" PostId="2220" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer, and for your comments about my translations." CreationDate="2016-12-21T03:34:40.663" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5770" PostId="2220" Score="0" Text="+1 for &quot;μικρότερος ὢν.&quot; I have never seen &quot;σὺ ὅς εἶ&quot; and would even venture to call it incorrect." CreationDate="2016-12-21T16:02:01.927" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5771" PostId="2220" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The phrase &quot;σὺ ὅς εἶ&quot; looked funny to me as well. How would you improve it? One idea is omitting σὺ and letting it be the implied antecedent. Another idea would be changing the word order of the clause, without removing any words, e.g. moving εἶ to the end of the relative clause." CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:22:37.747" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5773" PostId="2220" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124 I would do precisely what TKR suggested, i.e. replace with a participle." CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:51:30.157" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5775" PostId="2221" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you please specify what exactly you are not sure about in the above phrases? Our site format works best with specific questions." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:11:02.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5777" PostId="2221" Score="0" Text="brianpck, I'm a novice to Latin translation, so I'm looking for any and all commentary, but my primary question is about the conjugation. Thanks." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:15:18.193" UserId="1080" />
  <row Id="5774" PostId="2222" Score="2" Text="*evolvo* and *refello* are actually both 3rd conjugation, so they should be *evolvunt* and *refellit*. In addition, I do not think *confirmo* can be used intransitively in this way." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:07:19.030" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5776" PostId="2222" Score="1" Text="Ah yes, my apologies, I overlooked the conjugation of *evolvo* and *refello*. *Evolvant* would be a subjunctive meaning &quot;they should evolve&quot; as opposed to &quot;they evolve&quot;, likewise with *refellat*. If you intend to use the present active forms, then the correct translations would be *evolvunt* and *refellit* as @brianpck mentioned." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:11:59.623" UserId="952" />
  <row Id="5778" PostId="2222" Score="0" Text="This is valuable feedback, especially the conjugation help." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:16:23.257" UserId="1080" />
  <row Id="5779" PostId="2222" Score="0" Text="I have also received the suggestion that &quot;Deus frustrat&quot; should actually be &quot;Deus frustratur&quot; because &quot;frustror&quot; is a deponent verb. Thoughts?" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:19:19.933" UserId="1080" />
  <row Id="5780" PostId="2222" Score="0" Text="According to Whitaker's Words, *frustrat* comes from *frustro, frustrare, frustravi, frustratus* which is active. Thus, *deus frustrat* would be correct." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:20:53.217" UserId="952" />
  <row Id="5781" PostId="2222" Score="0" Text="@C.Torres-George It can be deponent and non-deponent, though Lewis &amp; Short lists the deponent form as the &quot;main&quot; entry." CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:35:31.077" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5782" PostId="2222" Score="1" Text="Holy moly! There is so much to learn about this language!" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:40:34.933" UserId="1080" />
  <row Id="5783" PostId="2222" Score="0" Text="So, if it were deponent, would that make &quot;Deus frustratur&quot; the best translation?" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:42:04.310" UserId="1080" />
  <row Id="5789" PostId="2222" Score="0" Text="@Sapphira Perhaps you can amend your answer with some of the suggestions here: as it stands I unfortunately can't upvote because it contains some erroneous forms." CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:47:24.037" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5791" PostId="2222" Score="0" Text="I have used the suggestions to amend my answer, please let me know if there is anything else I need to mention! @brianpck" CreationDate="2016-12-22T16:46:35.160" UserId="952" />
  <row Id="5785" PostId="2223" Score="1" Text="&quot;People [themselves] evolve&quot; is definitely the sense I intend, rather than &quot;people develop/evolve [something].&quot; &quot;Fallere&quot; is good to know, though the tone is probably not quite right for my current needs. And &quot;Ratio refellit&quot; seems to be have a consensus, so far. Thank you, Joonas Ilmavirta!" CreationDate="2016-12-21T22:09:54.503" UserId="1080" />
  <row Id="5786" PostId="2223" Score="1" Text="Great suggestions: *homo* (in the singular) might also be a good substitute for *genus humanum*, e.g. one of my favorite quotes: &quot;homo sum et nihil humanum alienum a me esse puto&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-21T22:17:13.040" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5795" PostId="2224" Score="2" Text="To add to the good answers: You can say &quot;The little daughter carries my beautiful wreaths.&quot; by changing *mea* to *meas*. It might be more natural to start the sentence with *meas*." CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:14:30.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5790" PostId="2225" Score="2" Text="Would you mind providing a gloss of what this saying is getting at?" CreationDate="2016-12-22T15:08:35.597" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5792" PostId="2225" Score="3" Text="@brianpck It's a tounge-in-cheek sort of thing. Coal was/is used as a fuel for heating and has a high calorific value. And so what the saying is getting at is that while love surely is nice and heartwarming, it's fleeting and unreliable in comparison with the solidness of a coal-based heating. Yes, we have a weird sense of humour where I come from." CreationDate="2016-12-22T17:09:35.820" UserId="1079" />
  <row Id="5793" PostId="2225" Score="2" Text="No reason for an imperfect. This is a &quot;gnomic&quot; saying, i.e. true regardless of time, so the present is appropriate." CreationDate="2016-12-22T19:07:35.830" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5794" PostId="2225" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks. So, the first form would be more correct then, are there any other problems with it?" CreationDate="2016-12-22T20:11:38.873" UserId="1079" />
  <row Id="5796" PostId="2225" Score="2" Text="I don't see any grammatical problems with it, but I'm not sure how idiomatic is it -- I don't know there are any attested instances of &quot;X est X&quot; with this kind of meaning. Btw the untranslatable particle *quidem* would very likely be used in the first part (*Amor quidem calefacit*), but this is optional." CreationDate="2016-12-23T01:59:27.140" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5804" PostId="2225" Score="0" Text="@TKR Yup, the &quot;X is X&quot; thing is highly culturaly dependent, it probably doesn't even make as much sense in English as in my native language (Czech). The closest thing I know of in English is _&quot;men will be men&quot;_ and the like..." CreationDate="2016-12-23T17:55:28.110" UserId="1079" />
  <row Id="5797" PostId="2227" Score="0" Text="Ok, I understand my error now. For some reason I assumed that &quot;mea&quot; wasn't a word you could decline. But why do you call it an adjective ? In my book &quot;mea&quot; is refered to as a pronoun. My guess is that &quot;mea&quot; (that which replaces a noun) is acting as an adjective in this specific sentence, right ? Does this make sense grammaticaly speaking ? Thanks" CreationDate="2016-12-23T03:45:02.137" UserId="230" />
  <row Id="5800" PostId="2227" Score="1" Text="@copper *meus* is indeed a *possessive pronoun*, but it is an adjective too. Pronouns can be &quot;like&quot; nouns (ego, tu, nos) or &quot;like&quot; adjectives (meus, tuus, noster)" CreationDate="2016-12-23T14:01:41.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5934" PostId="2228" Score="1" Text="More answers are always welcome, but I accepted the current one since it gave a crucial insight: *plus* is &quot;more in quantity&quot; and *magis* is &quot;to a greater extent&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-01T16:36:52.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5798" PostId="2229" Score="5" Text="Welcome!  I hope you'll consider adding sources to this answer to back up your analysis; doing so would significantly improve it.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:01:08.273" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="5799" PostId="2230" Score="0" Text="I have seen many unusual constructions with the infinitive in poetry, ones that seem as free as the Greek infinitive. So perhaps a similar construction could be found in poetry. In classical prose, I would indeed be surprised to find it." CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:14:20.853" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11297" PostId="2231" Score="0" Text="Lemma, interesting! Gr lemma, -atos, from the root of lambanein, to take. As a fairly new and slightly overwhelmed, though determined, Latinist, it is good to hear from like minds." CreationDate="2017-11-04T17:41:46.000" UserId="2101" />
  <row Id="5806" PostId="2236" Score="0" Text="Oh, I like the reading with implied *hominem* -- that hadn't occurred to me." CreationDate="2016-12-23T18:08:08.737" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5838" PostId="2237" Score="0" Text="By the way, here is the full page (584) - here: http://www.manuscriptorium.com/apps/index.php?direct=record&amp;pid=UCM___-UCM___X53189771X__2N0OUS5-ru#search" CreationDate="2016-12-25T05:51:17.760" UserId="1087" />
  <row Id="26214" PostId="2237" Score="0" Text="It is a passage describing the miraculous properties of the hoopoe. The preen secretions of hoopoes have strong antimicrobial qualities and were used extensively in medieval medicine. As the bird has a noxious reputation for defecating in its nest to avoid predators, this is probably the origin of its antibiotic properties. Although there are numerous quackeries that originate in Pliny's Historia Naturalis, in this case there may be some truth to this remedy, as crab bites are prone to infection. Antibiotics were rare and precious in the ancient world. The tounge of the hoopoe was valued ..." CreationDate="2020-04-28T04:38:14.180" UserId="6883" />
  <row Id="26215" PostId="2237" Score="0" Text="[Continued, by Abdias] ... for this bird emanates stunning vocalizations that add to its reputation as a messenger, it is known for its cleverness. In the bible it told Soloman of the queen of Sheba's coming. Medieval Doctors believed in hidden sympathies between like substances, and many the uses described in the passage, such as the use of its tounge to bring back lost memeories have this origin.The flesh as described in the bible tastes terrible which is why it is forbidden for jews to consume. To add to what has been said above, also remember that ligatures are common in blackletter. ..." CreationDate="2020-05-07T17:25:27.227" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26216" PostId="2237" Score="0" Text="[Idem] ... Ligatures link letters together that have similar strokes, and can confuse orthography." CreationDate="2020-05-07T17:25:46.980" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5819" PostId="2238" Score="1" Text="Great answer! you really have an impressing knowledge of medieval Latin literature. Actually I'm in Latin course which for now focuses more on grammar rather than vocabulary, but the important thing that I concluded from your things is that **there are differences between the Latin letters of the medival time and the later Latin**. i.e. 1) the letter V in Latin is U 2) the letter S was written in different day than in our days in Latin. (all of these things we didn't study...) 3) they use &amp; for &quot;et&quot;." CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:36:28.347" UserId="1087" />
  <row Id="5820" PostId="2238" Score="0" Text="Thanks to your link to the better photocopy I can see the slightly differences between the U and V. it's almost invisible... and If you didn't say it to me I would not be aware of that. Regarding to the big initial big U (that actually written as V) I attentively omitted it because it didn't make sense to me to think that it belongs to the word Pupae which starts with a capital letter by itself." CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:46:31.053" UserId="1087" />
  <row Id="5821" PostId="2238" Score="0" Text="@Industrious: there aren't actually any differences between &quot;u/v&quot; as a consonant and as a vowel at this time... if you see slight differences, they are just random, not meaningful." CreationDate="2016-12-24T04:54:06.070" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="5822" PostId="2238" Score="0" Text="Really? so then the use both of them randomly?" CreationDate="2016-12-24T04:58:22.570" UserId="1087" />
  <row Id="5828" PostId="2238" Score="2" Text="@Industrious Note that is *not* &quot;medieval Latin&quot;: this is a Renaissance reprinting and is *very* tame compared to actual paleography. English text printed at the same time would be similar. Concering your points: (1) The u/v distinction is not observed in Latin at all: some texts print the consonantal &quot;u&quot; as &quot;v,&quot; but the letter is the same, (2) (3) Yes, this is often the case." CreationDate="2016-12-24T15:45:26.420" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26116" PostId="2238" Score="0" Text="Have a look at my answer. &quot;Pseudo-medical&quot; is an epithet that one could apply to all pre-modern medical works, not least those of Galen or of the Corpus Hippocrateum." CreationDate="2020-04-29T23:07:26.663" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5808" PostId="2240" Score="0" Text="Great answer! One question. In your examples, you put the gerund quaeritando in what I assume is the ablative case. Do the adjectives fessus and defessus take the ablative in this construction? e.g. Defessus sum eos pugnando. (I am tired of fighting them.)" CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:14:46.873" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5809" PostId="2240" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 Yes, L&amp;S says that it can take the infinitive or ablative (gerund or noun). That quote is actually from Plautus." CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:19:42.220" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5814" PostId="2240" Score="4" Text="For the semantic contribution of *de-*, compare *out* in *worn out*." CreationDate="2016-12-24T00:18:52.900" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5816" PostId="2240" Score="1" Text="@TKR Interesting!" CreationDate="2016-12-24T01:04:45.877" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7949" PostId="2241" Score="0" Text="As an afterword, did you refer to the rule being broken by the authority or by the actor? (My opinion is that if it's the former then it's  επιείκια. If the latter, then probably επιορκία.)" CreationDate="2017-04-10T14:56:32.450" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7997" PostId="2241" Score="1" Text="@Helen I couldn't say. The conversation in which this word arose happened last year, and I don't remember the context. But the distinction you raise is interesting to consider." CreationDate="2017-04-13T06:40:28.193" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5811" PostId="2242" Score="0" Text="σωφροσύνη is an interesting concept, although I'm not sure if it's exactly what I'm looking for. +1 for that word, though." CreationDate="2016-12-23T23:59:35.410" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5813" PostId="2242" Score="0" Text="Hm, unfortunately no. I figured it must have been a prominent idea in Greek philosophy. But perhaps it is not, in which case I would need more clues." CreationDate="2016-12-24T00:08:41.270" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5817" PostId="2242" Score="2" Text="The canonical Latin translation of *phronesis* is *prudentia*, &quot;practical wisdom.&quot; Although it could deal with &quot;rule-breaking,&quot; that would only be a concrete example of its general function." CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:10:31.583" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5818" PostId="2242" Score="0" Text="@brianpck – htm5124 was not concerned with rule-breaking itself, but rather “knowing when it is okay to break rules.” That is where φρόνησις comes into play." CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:29:31.713" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="5840" PostId="2246" Score="0" Text="There are also some present active forms ending in *-bundus,* like *moribundus,* which co-exist with more typical forms, like *moriens.*" CreationDate="2016-12-25T07:22:21.173" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="6185" PostId="2246" Score="2" Text="@Anonym: Indeed, but I'm not sure I'd call that a participle. Its meaning is somewhat similar to that of the present particle, but it is not identical, and many verbs do have such forms." CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:06:55.463" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7770" PostId="2248" Score="0" Text="This is very helpful and informative. Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-03-31T15:38:40.280" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5830" PostId="2249" Score="1" Text="&gt; Doesn't mean that a characteristic of &quot;love&quot; is &quot;being warm&quot;, it means that &quot;Love(subject) warms (something)&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Well, in the original form (in Czech), it's literally &quot;love warms [one]&quot;, wherein the [one] is implied the same way it would be implied in _&quot;love hurts&quot;_ ... I had a hard time translating that into English." CreationDate="2016-12-24T16:07:25.530" UserId="1079" />
  <row Id="5831" PostId="2249" Score="1" Text="Okay I didn't know this sentence, but if the meaning in Czech is &quot;love warms (someone)&quot; yeah I would go with &quot;Amor calefacit (nos/te/ego)&quot; or with the absolut ablative &quot;Amore calefacente&quot; that exactly translates &quot;Love is warming&quot;." CreationDate="2016-12-24T16:17:14.177" UserDisplayName="user1052" />
  <row Id="5851" PostId="2249" Score="2" Text="The meaning here is definitely that &quot;love makes people warm&quot; and it is eternal present, so I would say &quot;Amor calefacit&quot; (without any object as it describes the property of love) works pretty well." CreationDate="2016-12-26T13:50:39.490" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="5852" PostId="2250" Score="0" Text="The OP's  saying is basically an exact subversion of this but in any case this is a very good starting point for vocabulary." CreationDate="2016-12-26T13:53:56.840" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="5834" PostId="2252" Score="1" Text="I don't know when in modern times they adopted them, but I do remembering hearing, even in my lifetime, some teachers still saying things like &quot;one and one make two; two less one make one&quot; or &quot;two take away one make one&quot;." CreationDate="2016-12-24T20:54:43.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5835" PostId="2252" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Now that you mention it, I recall an old Finnish word for &quot;plus&quot;: &quot;ynnä&quot;. I don't know at all when the Latin words became mainstream or first appeared here." CreationDate="2016-12-24T21:46:50.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5839" PostId="2254" Score="0" Text="*Cubiculum* can indeed mean any room, but it most commonly refers to the bedroom. You might say *e cubiculo exire volo*." CreationDate="2016-12-25T07:05:03.910" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="40915" PostId="2254" Score="0" Text="It might help if the context suggests some reason for wanting to leave the room (e.g. to relieve yourself, or to consult your lawyer), or says something about the nature of the room you are wanting to leave." CreationDate="2023-01-10T15:08:23.780" UserId="2362" />
  <row Id="18233" PostId="2255" Score="0" Text="I like this answer best, although the others work well too. One word I don't see mentioned yet is abire. That's usually my goto word for translating &quot;leave&quot;" CreationDate="2019-01-20T22:16:03.920" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="5841" PostId="2256" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I think you are right about conclavi. I just learned that 3rd declension i-stem neuters have -i for the ablative. Do you think that conclave, conclavis would best describe a living room?" CreationDate="2016-12-25T17:03:19.557" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5842" PostId="2256" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 The more I think of it, the more important it seems to ask a separate question about translating &quot;living room&quot; to Latin. (I think I'll ask it soon, but I don't mind at all if you make it before me.) It's complicated, and many words have their pros: *atrium*, *conclave*, *cella*, *habitatio*, *aula*... There is a sense of &quot;something that can be locked up&quot; in *con-clave*, but that might still be my word of choice. If the living room is larger, I would go with *aula*." CreationDate="2016-12-25T18:58:49.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5843" PostId="2256" Score="1" Text="That list of possibilities is quite helpful. I would be interested in finding the optimal choice. Maybe it does deserve a separate question. After all, it would be easier for someone to find the word for living room if it had its own question - it would be more searchable." CreationDate="2016-12-25T19:03:01.477" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5871" PostId="2256" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 [I asked the question.](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2272/79)" CreationDate="2016-12-27T21:25:45.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5844" PostId="2257" Score="1" Text="Just to clarify, nouns have inherent gender, adjectives don't--an adjective takes the gender of the noun it's modifying. So an adjective modifying a feminine noun will take a feminine form, and an adjective modifying a masculine noun will take a masculine form. Is this what you're asking about? Or do you mean how to figure out whether a given form is masculine or feminine just by looking at it (which is sometimes easy, sometimes impossible)?" CreationDate="2016-12-26T07:05:41.477" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5845" PostId="2257" Score="0" Text="I'm asking spec. about what is considered a feminine form. (or a masculine one) Is it the declension that indicates it ?" CreationDate="2016-12-26T07:08:26.550" UserId="230" />
  <row Id="5848" PostId="2257" Score="2" Text="I don't think you understand what Draconis is saying - adjectives can have different endings in masculine, feminine and neuter regardless of declension, and the gender that matches the gender of the noun is used. Adjectives have seperate endings for these genders, cases and numbers, and you can derive these endings from noun endings. If you're wondering how to do that, edit your question" CreationDate="2016-12-26T09:31:31.880" UserId="1063" />
  <row Id="5849" PostId="2257" Score="1" Text="For example, 1/2 declension adjective (group 1) would have feminine endings equivalent to noun 1st declension, masculine endings to second declension nouns, neuter endings to second declension neuter nouns" CreationDate="2016-12-26T09:33:04.290" UserId="1063" />
  <row Id="5856" PostId="2258" Score="5" Text="There are several 2nd decl. feminines in -us not from Greek, e.g. *humus, alvus, domus* (partly 4th decl.), and many tree names (*fagus* etc.)." CreationDate="2016-12-26T18:29:54.553" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5857" PostId="2258" Score="0" Text="OMG, *domus*... how could I have forgotten." CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:29:20.693" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="5858" PostId="2260" Score="1" Text="+1 for *gnome*. See [*ST* II-II, q. 48, a. 1 c.](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth3047.html): &quot;ponuntur partes prudentiae eubulia, quae est circa consilium; et synesis, quae est circa iudicium eorum quae communiter accidunt; et **gnome, quae est circa iudicium eorum in quibus oportet quandoque a communi lege recedere**.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:52:47.957" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5859" PostId="2260" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Yes and there is an even fuller discussion in ST II-II, q. 51, a. 4.  Aquinas's commentary on the noted passage in *Nicomachean Ethics* is also helpful." CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:58:14.353" UserId="253" />
  <row Id="7792" PostId="2260" Score="1" Text="After adding my answer and reading once more through everything, I tend to think that ἐπιείκεια is most probably the one. Correction to a law according to the case *is* knowing when to break the rules, plus the sound is similar to [what the OP's friend remembered](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2301/are-you-familiar-with-the-greek-word-epicharia-or-epikaria).&#xA;&#xA;Perhaps interestingly, επιείκεια today means mildness in one's judgment. If such a subjective quality evolved out of an actual term, then by asking for it today you are begging while in the past you were asking for a pardon." CreationDate="2017-04-02T18:45:47.010" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="5864" PostId="2262" Score="1" Text="Thus also in the LXX: καὶ ἔσται Iσραηλ εἰς ἀφανισμὸν καὶ εἰς λάλημα εἰς πάντας τοὺς λαούς. A calque on the Hebrew." CreationDate="2016-12-27T13:30:52.610" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="27366" PostId="2262" Score="0" Text="@TKR, interesting observation. I arrive at this question reflecting on &quot;double dative&quot; in Hebrew, the verse from Numbers 33:55 came to mind (והיו לצנינים בעינייך) -  which I view as pretty close &quot;double dative&quot;(DD); but  here, too, Vulgate is not using double dative construction ( erunt vobis quasi clavi in oculis). However, the selection of &quot;quasi&quot; might (maybe?) give us a hint as to* why* DD is not used. Which that DD can't be used with concrete nouns (as [A&amp;G](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-purpose) mentions &quot;abstract nouns&quot;) or rather the entire usage of DD is quite limited." CreationDate="2020-07-25T08:27:18.243" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="27367" PostId="2262" Score="0" Text="that being said, the usage of *cordi* is an example that in theory the dative of purpose can be used with concrete verbs figuratively - but this seems to be extremely limited" CreationDate="2020-07-25T08:46:02.177" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="5863" PostId="2263" Score="0" Text="Good question! This truly puzzled me when I answered the [earlier question on the same phrase](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2204/79)." CreationDate="2016-12-27T12:48:22.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5866" PostId="2264" Score="0" Text="That makes a lot of sense. So you think that vertum, or something like it, might be implied here. Why do you think the translator (St. Jerome, I assume) chose to leave it out? Is it because he wanted to be more faithful to the Hebrew?" CreationDate="2016-12-27T16:06:00.397" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5868" PostId="2264" Score="0" Text="The problem with this suggestion is that there is nothing corresponding to &quot;vertum&quot; in the Hebrew original." CreationDate="2016-12-27T17:15:50.107" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5870" PostId="2264" Score="0" Text="_vertum_ is nothing more than my own suggestion to make the intention clearer, for which I claim no authority whatever! (I know nothing of the Hebrew OT). So far as I know, Jerome's actual sources can't be identified, but possibly were the codices in Greek commissioned by the Council of Nicaea. Cranmer, in reviewing the Vulgate, appears to have looked at the Greek and been horrified to find _metanoia_ translated to Latin as _poenitentia_ — a famous example of the supposed inaccuracies in Jerome's translation." CreationDate="2016-12-27T20:26:53.433" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="5867" PostId="2265" Score="2" Text="I haven't seen *solummodo* before, but *modo* is an adverb meaning &quot;only&quot; and *sōlus* is an adjective meaning &quot;alone&quot;, so my guess would be an intensified version of *modo* (&quot;really only&quot;)." CreationDate="2016-12-27T16:11:02.327" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5865" PostId="2266" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the great answer!" CreationDate="2016-12-27T13:54:56.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5879" PostId="2268" Score="0" Text="But how does 'competit',then fits in, why not 'competere' in it's place? @cnread" CreationDate="2016-12-28T21:47:22.980" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5880" PostId="2268" Score="1" Text="@aili-j It's not infinitive because quo...competit is a subordinate clause within the ACI construction, triggered by eo. Main idea: 'it follows that it has from itself more strength for existing to that degree'; subordinate ([cor]relative) clause: '(to the degree) that more reality belongs to the nature of some thing.'" CreationDate="2016-12-28T23:52:23.027" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="5887" PostId="2271" Score="0" Text="@TKR. Gesenius 1860 was wrong to describe the complement of הָיָה in Gen. 19,26 and Gen. 4,20-21 as “accusative”." CreationDate="2016-12-29T11:24:07.670" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5898" PostId="2271" Score="0" Text="@fdb -- I agree." CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:16:52.350" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5873" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="Have you tried looking at modern Latin dictionaries already?" CreationDate="2016-12-27T22:54:48.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5874" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="perhaps atrium, or cubiculum , and I wonder what was this 'testudo' for, looks to be some room, too  -  Quo loco in porticu te scribere aiunt ut atriolum fiat, mihi ut est magis placebat. neque enim satis loci videbatur esse &#xA;atriolo neque fere solet nisi in iis aedificiis fieri in quibus est &#xA;atrium maius nec habere poterat adiuncta cubicula et eius &#xA;modi membra. nunc hoc vel honestae testudinis vel valde &#xA;boni aestivi locum obtinebit. tu tamen si aliter sentis, &#xA;rescribe quam primum.(Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem 3.1.1.1) Cicero" CreationDate="2016-12-27T23:03:42.807" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5875" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="and here is another - thalamus" CreationDate="2016-12-27T23:04:52.843" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5876" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="@AiliJ. I always think of a *thalamus* as a bedroom specifically, a place for sleeping rather than for interacting. L&amp;S suggest that *testūdō* referred less to the room and more to the construction, like *camera* or *fornix*." CreationDate="2016-12-28T01:40:27.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5877" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="It should further be mentioned that *thalamus* is Greek and isn't common (at all?) until the Augustan period." CreationDate="2016-12-28T06:53:16.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5878" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I haven't tried other modern Latin dictionaries than my Finnish all-era Latin dictionary. I don't really know which dictionaries to check for words like this. It would be good to have modern Latin dictionaries in the [dictionary question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) or to have a separate question for such dictionaries." CreationDate="2016-12-28T14:28:14.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8020" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="Isn't the entrance of a _domus_ called _vestibulum_ rather than _atrium_?" CreationDate="2017-04-14T13:41:35.497" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="8030" PostId="2272" Score="0" Text="@Wtrmute Both *vestibulum* and *atrium* can be used for an entrance. It would make an interesting question to compare the two words for &quot;entrance&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-14T19:54:45.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5886" PostId="2274" Score="0" Text="Yes, the punctuation is unusual as far as classical texts go, but the second sentence is indeed an indirect statement coming off of *dixit*." CreationDate="2016-12-29T03:09:32.350" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5889" PostId="2274" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: I've actually seen that not infrequently, a new sentence that is really just an a.c.i. I don't know what printing tradition that is." CreationDate="2016-12-29T12:06:07.447" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5891" PostId="2275" Score="1" Text="It's worth pointing out that if one wants to say &quot;one&quot; instead of &quot;together&quot; as in the OP's translation, it should be *unam* in accusative due to the ACI structure." CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:14:45.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5894" PostId="2275" Score="2" Text="Worth noting also that *una cum* is a pretty common pair: &quot;together with&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-29T18:25:31.197" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5900" PostId="2275" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I did not know that about *una*. Also good to know that it commonly pairs with *cum*." CreationDate="2016-12-30T01:02:22.563" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5893" PostId="2276" Score="1" Text="Perhaps you should indicate your textbook too. It's pretty subjective, but perhaps this book has a specific definition for what it means by &quot;emphatic.&quot;" CreationDate="2016-12-29T18:23:52.100" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5901" PostId="2279" Score="0" Text="Ah, right! It should be &quot;Even on this most difficult hour&quot;. It's good to know about the standard translation of *nobis invenienda est*. Although it helps to think of it in terms of &quot;must be found by us&quot;, as it helps a beginning student (myself) learn the grammar of gerundives." CreationDate="2016-12-30T01:05:00.687" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5931" PostId="2285" Score="1" Text="Good analysis. It might help to explain the meaning of this line, which is a paradox: why or how does Juno help people by harming them? The answer is that she tried to harm the nymph Callisto by turning her into a bear, but in turned out her attempt only helped Callisto in the end (because it made Jupiter turn Callisto into a heavenly bear when the nymph's son was about to slay her). That's why Juno is complaining about her powerlessness here." CreationDate="2017-01-01T16:00:17.257" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5896" PostId="2286" Score="2" Text="So is this something that someone like me should bother about at this level ? I'm not even to the point where I read any text or anything.... Just basic sentences. My guess is that this is something I'll learn by reading lots of texts over time, right ?" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:36:11.280" UserId="230" />
  <row Id="5902" PostId="2286" Score="2" Text="Yes, it comes from experience as you read more. Frankly, I've never heard of a basic textbook that bothered much with the subject of emphasis, particularly a textbook that's just giving you made-up sentences (i.e., not from ancient authors) in isolation, without context. Still, it's never too early to be aware of first and last words, and anything that's not where you expect it to be." CreationDate="2016-12-30T01:26:19.403" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="5903" PostId="2286" Score="0" Text="Looking back over your original question, I take it that your key indicates that pulchra is one of the emphatic words. Indeed, the fact that clarae and pulchra are next to each other forms a chiasmus (ABBA arrangement: here, noun-adj,-adj.-noun); so, yeah, I suppose there's a bit of 'extra something' because of the figure of speech, though I'm not sure that it's affecting pulchra more than clarae. I guess I would tend to use the term 'marked' rather than 'emphatic' to describe such instances, especially since, absent context, it's not clear what's gained from emphasizing those adjectives." CreationDate="2016-12-30T01:38:30.007" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="5904" PostId="2286" Score="0" Text="I agree. I see *lunae clarae pulchra dea* as chiastic word order used for style, not as putting *pulchra* before the noun for emphasis." CreationDate="2016-12-30T08:45:54.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5906" PostId="2296" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! The question is good, but it would benefit from some details. How did you come up with that translation? What makes you suspicious about it? // Translating a motto is notoriously difficult. Explaining the intention behind it can help greatly. // We have a [guide for asking translation questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79)." CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:35:02.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5907" PostId="2296" Score="0" Text="Hi! I'm using it as a company slogan. I got it from Google Translate and based on Spanish-English translations from that site, I trust it for single words but not always for phrases." CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:39:19.910" UserId="1109" />
  <row Id="5912" PostId="2297" Score="1" Text="Latin doesn't seem to have an Abstract noun for &quot;the Future.&quot;  *Futurum* (the participle) is a good substitute. Caesar uses *futurum,* but Terence has *futura* (plural) &quot;future things,&quot;  &quot;things about to exist,&quot; which seems neater." CreationDate="2016-12-31T02:13:59.780" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="5916" PostId="2297" Score="2" Text="I'd second *futura* specifically because of the *semper*, since it sounds like this seizing is happening multiple times." CreationDate="2016-12-31T05:16:17.567" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5914" PostId="2298" Score="5" Text="*Capere* (from *capio*) is definitely a real word, and significantly closer to &quot;seize&quot; than *carpere* is. The latter is better translated &quot;harvest&quot; or &quot;gather&quot; (or sometimes even &quot;destroy&quot;); Horace's famous *carpe diem* exhorts his listener to harvest the day's opportunities while they're ripe, rather than letting them fall to the ground by waiting too long." CreationDate="2016-12-31T05:13:47.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5915" PostId="2298" Score="2" Text="(Of course in this case I agree that *carpo* is a perfectly fine verb to use. Just wanted to clarify that &quot;seize&quot; is not its literal meaning.)" CreationDate="2016-12-31T05:14:36.460" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5917" PostId="2298" Score="1" Text="@Draconis—Interesting! Thank you for the education. I honestly thought he meant *carpere* rather than *capere* (I assumed *capere* was a typo)." CreationDate="2016-12-31T05:21:33.250" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="5921" PostId="2298" Score="2" Text="This is a good and well explained suggestion. (+1) I expanded my answer before reading yours, and tried to explain the differences between *carpe* and *carpito* and between *futura* and *futurum*." CreationDate="2016-12-31T11:57:21.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9893" PostId="2298" Score="1" Text="I think *carpere* is actually not a very suitable choice (also in the answer by @JoonasIlmavirta) because as Draconis says, it means &quot;pluck, harvest, gather&quot;; the usual translation of *carpe diem* as &quot;seize the day&quot; is inaccurate. &quot;Pluck/harvest the future&quot; doesn't make much sense to me." CreationDate="2017-07-17T23:34:32.547" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5922" PostId="2299" Score="0" Text="Consentio et faustissimum annum novum tibi exopto!" CreationDate="2016-12-31T16:37:38.260" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5923" PostId="2299" Score="1" Text="Et tibi! Spero me hoc ad forum revenisse—non, proh dolor, tam implicari possum quam antea, nam munus officiumque instant, hunc vero gregem desideravi." CreationDate="2016-12-31T17:11:47.820" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5925" PostId="2299" Score="0" Text="Agreed. This is exactly the point that I made at the end of the answer that I submitted." CreationDate="2016-12-31T21:26:12.107" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="5924" PostId="2300" Score="0" Text="Calendae Ianuarii/Martii don't seem to fit your definition. Am I right?" CreationDate="2016-12-31T18:01:55.030" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5926" PostId="2300" Score="0" Text="@Rafael You are right. Comparing to English, I am not looking for &quot;first of January&quot; or &quot;31st of December&quot; but for &quot;New Year's Day&quot; or &quot;New Year's Eve&quot;." CreationDate="2016-12-31T21:42:49.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5930" PostId="2300" Score="2" Text="May I point out that _ianuarius, martius_ and the rest are adjectives? Thus _kalendae ianuariae, martius mensis_ etc?" CreationDate="2017-01-01T15:45:09.283" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7771" PostId="2301" Score="2" Text="Could have it been [epikeia](http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/epikeia), by any chance? (See also [this](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epikeia) definition.)" CreationDate="2017-03-31T16:16:39.143" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7775" PostId="2301" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Thanks, Rafael! I'll look over that one closely." CreationDate="2017-03-31T19:08:14.523" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7793" PostId="2301" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Επιείκεια was actually already suggested in the original question. As I wrote there as well, I eventually think that this is indeed the term." CreationDate="2017-04-02T18:48:11.860" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7796" PostId="2301" Score="1" Text="@Helen I'm pretty close to accepting that answer in my original question. Thanks a lot for your helpful feedback." CreationDate="2017-04-02T19:07:08.293" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7805" PostId="2301" Score="1" Text="Sorry, it seems my brain keeps undigging possible candidates... Επιορκία - oathbreaking." CreationDate="2017-04-03T17:03:10.530" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="5928" PostId="2305" Score="2" Text="Are his works available online somewhere?" CreationDate="2017-01-01T11:33:50.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6030" PostId="2305" Score="1" Text="Awesome, thanks for the suggestion, I'll check his writing out! (I ended up doing a bit of Ovid's Metamorphoses for my first presentation, but I plan on going for a more modern text in my next)." CreationDate="2017-01-09T05:48:03.430" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5935" PostId="2306" Score="2" Text="https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Quaestiones_Naturales_-_Liber_I (14)" CreationDate="2017-01-01T17:15:31.620" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="5932" PostId="2307" Score="2" Text="Hmm... I wonder if *emonstrare* is &quot;to show off&quot;. :)" CreationDate="2017-01-01T16:26:01.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5933" PostId="2308" Score="1" Text="The verb *meminisse* is irregular, and this is the only imperative it has. I don't know if it has the tone of a future imperative even if it has its form." CreationDate="2017-01-01T16:29:45.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5936" PostId="2308" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I didn't think of that. I suppose the answer could be found by searching the corpus for instances of *memento* used as a present v. a future imperative. If overwhelmingly one or the other is found then we have a clue. If not, then we're screwed." CreationDate="2017-01-01T17:39:39.890" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5937" PostId="2308" Score="0" Text="If the two types are tied, that's still useful information. I fear that most instances are ambiguous like the one here. But it's worth a separate question. At least we could learn that no one here knows." CreationDate="2017-01-01T18:49:06.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5962" PostId="2311" Score="0" Text="On the case ending -abus rather than -ī for first-declension nouns in the dative and ablative plural declensions, see (for example) Hiley, *The Elements of Latin Grammar*, p. [6](https://books.google.com/books?id=LXkBAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA6#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true), §4." CreationDate="2017-01-03T07:37:03.917" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="5970" PostId="2312" Score="0" Text="Thank you! This is a great answer! I enjoyed reading it. An aurora can indeed seem broken, unless you view the light show as a set of several auroras. Perhaps authors have idealized the descriptions they have read in earlier records. Making theories without strong reliance on first-hand observations is dangerous." CreationDate="2017-01-03T20:21:00.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5943" PostId="2315" Score="4" Text="*Sumere* is indeed correct, as we see in Martial 13.31.1: *Si sine carne voles **ientacula sumere** frugi,/Haec tibi Vestino de grege massa venit.*" CreationDate="2017-01-02T17:08:02.447" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5942" PostId="2318" Score="2" Text="Off the top of my head I'd immediately say dative. Very few verbs take ablative objects compared to dative, and ablative on its own tends to indicate a source, not a destination." CreationDate="2017-01-02T15:22:34.057" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="5947" PostId="2320" Score="0" Text="This is a good idea. If anyone contacts any one of these and obtains useful insight, I hope it ends up in an answer here." CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:39:03.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5948" PostId="2320" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oh, I thought you were asking for yourself!" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:51:59.443" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5949" PostId="2320" Score="0" Text="As always, I ask for myself and for everyone who might be interested. But this time it wasn't originally my idea. I was asked if I know any hard data on the matter, and this question is the result." CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:55:55.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5944" PostId="2321" Score="0" Text="Thank you! Would you say then, that this con-preposition doesn't matter here, but what matters is 'concrescere' being intransitive verb (there is a chapter in Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, called &quot;Dative with Intransitive verbs&quot;, but 'concrescere' is not mentioned under that list there)?" CreationDate="2017-01-02T17:37:47.980" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="5945" PostId="2321" Score="1" Text="*crescere*, the base verb, means &quot;come forth&quot; or &quot;increase&quot; and is also intransitive. Thus, I believe it is not the preposition that matters, but the verb itself. The preposition just makes *concrescere* a compound verb of *crescere*." CreationDate="2017-01-02T17:40:00.440" UserId="952" />
  <row Id="5950" PostId="2321" Score="1" Text="This [Latin-German Dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=t6coBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA227) lists *concrescere + dat.* as a &quot;poetic&quot; construction, and *in + acc.* as more common. I think it's a little over-generalizing to say that &quot;most intransitive verbs take dative indirect objects [to signify what it] is directed at.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-02T20:17:59.013" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5946" PostId="2322" Score="2" Text="In current ecclesiastical pronunciation, *c* before e-i-oe-ae becomes /tʃ/ while *t* before *i* + vowel (e.g. -tio, -tium, -tia) becomes /ts/." CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:30:34.427" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6040" PostId="2322" Score="0" Text="In Italian the word is *enunciato* (with /tʃ/, means ‘statement’); similarly, *renuntiare* gave *rinunziare* (with /ts/, formal written language, not used any longer in speech) and the more common *rinunciare*. To the contrary, *vitium* gave *vizio* (with /ts/) and *ratio/rationem* gave *ragione*." CreationDate="2017-01-10T09:35:03.200" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="5958" PostId="2323" Score="0" Text="Nice find. I wonder if it's because of the Hebrew, though that it's found in Hebrews is surprising (Mark not so much). Is it found in pre-Vulgate vulgar Latin?" CreationDate="2017-01-03T03:41:32.603" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5960" PostId="2323" Score="1" Text="Not sure about vulgar Latin, but now that I think of it, there is something similar in classical Latin, where an oath or asseveration + _si_ effectively represents a negative – for example, _moriar si magis gauderem si id mihi accidisset_ (Cic. _Att._ 8.6.3), 'May I die if I could be more glad if that had happened to me' = 'I couldn't be more glad if that had happened to me.'" CreationDate="2017-01-03T05:38:08.853" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="5961" PostId="2323" Score="0" Text="The negative implicitness of the clause never clicked in my head before. It's not quite the same construction, but it's an interesting parallel. Neat!" CreationDate="2017-01-03T05:49:37.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23221" PostId="2323" Score="0" Text="I've understood the oath to have an implied curse clause: &quot;may God curse me.&quot; So, &quot;iuravi ... si Dauid mentiar&quot; = &quot;I swore an oath, that if I should lie to David, may God curse me&quot; = I swore not to lie to David." CreationDate="2019-11-13T18:05:45.410" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="5952" PostId="2324" Score="0" Text="Neat question. I did not know that there is (or might be) a Latin parallel to the two sigmas found in Greek." CreationDate="2017-01-02T22:54:29.280" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="5953" PostId="2324" Score="3" Text="&quot;[long s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s)&quot; is indeed the usual term. In my experience the other one is most often called &quot;round s&quot;. An article that has a lot of information about long s in general: http://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/07/long-and-short-of-letter-s.html (As shown there, in Latin-era cursive, where it originated, it was used in all positions; the semantic differentiation of long and round s only occurred later.) I don't know what the specific rules are for Latin though!" CreationDate="2017-01-02T23:17:03.910" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="5954" PostId="2324" Score="1" Text="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s" CreationDate="2017-01-02T23:28:06.610" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5955" PostId="2324" Score="2" Text="Normal s is also called _terminal_. It seems that long s is preferred when standard ligatures are suitable." CreationDate="2017-01-02T23:29:42.813" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="5959" PostId="2324" Score="4" Text="FWIW, I've seen sS before in prefixes. This is not a Latin thing at all, though, as it's applicable to English and other languages." CreationDate="2017-01-03T03:44:02.073" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="5976" PostId="2324" Score="3" Text="A wild guess: long S is avoided before J because of the odd appearance of *ſj*. I have absolutely nothing to back this up with, though." CreationDate="2017-01-04T03:11:05.913" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="5978" PostId="2324" Score="1" Text="In my experience, long and terminal s are often not used consistently in manuscript nor in print. In fact, spelling and letter shapes become all the more variable as one goes back farther in time. @sumelic Would you call the distinction semantic?" CreationDate="2017-01-04T12:45:11.723" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5985" PostId="2324" Score="0" Text="@TKR It is indeed possible that the &quot;sj&quot; ligature was avoided. On the other hand, &quot;si&quot; is clearly not avoided and they are not that different. It would be interesting to know if avoiding &quot;sj&quot; with long S is a common thing." CreationDate="2017-01-04T23:04:48.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9854" PostId="2324" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: I referred to the later typographical distinction as &quot;semantic&quot; just because in most traditions, it's not entirely predictable if you only know the sequence of characters. E.g. in German typography, there is the &quot;Wachstube&quot; example where you need to know what it means (or hear it pronounced) to know how to spell it." CreationDate="2017-07-15T15:25:37.780" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9857" PostId="2324" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Ah, that's a clever use of &quot;semantic&quot;!" CreationDate="2017-07-15T17:57:10.447" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5957" PostId="2326" Score="0" Text="Thanks very much! I worded my question badly—the translation I attributed to Holland isn't actually his. I've added his, which came out a couple years ago. I assume that in his version, τά...ἄλλα corresponds to &quot;additionally, and most importantly,&quot; which seems a very different but perhaps more satisfying interpretation than *ceteris de rebus*." CreationDate="2017-01-03T02:49:00.017" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5965" PostId="2328" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much for this! It also makes clear why *ceteris de rebus* comes first, which I was wondering about." CreationDate="2017-01-03T16:34:31.843" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5983" PostId="2333" Score="2" Text="While useful in this case, I don't think your test works as a general rule. Consider the objective (*timor domini*) or partitive (*unus vestrum*) genitives, where there is no possession." CreationDate="2017-01-04T17:57:25.170" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7305" PostId="2334" Score="0" Text="So, the genitive infers a literal relationship. To further expand the depth of your answer, I would also provide some extra perspective. In Latin, if you literally say &quot;the island of Sicily,&quot; is it the island which Sicily owns? Sicily's island? This was a great question with a great answer. It's something I've never thought about as a native English speaker, prone to saying things like &quot;how come&quot; and &quot;I am saying,&quot; and having to &quot;convert&quot; them to actual logic, which can be expressed more easily in Latin, or any other language that doesn't share the oddities of modern English." CreationDate="2017-03-13T14:29:29.083" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="37298" PostId="2334" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately this answer is incorrect - the defining (appositional) genitive exists in Latin both with [personal nouns](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=flagitium+hominis) as well as [with geographic locales etc.](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=lacum+averni) - even Servius [comments on this.](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=urbem+patavi)" CreationDate="2022-02-19T21:27:41.443" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37311" PostId="2334" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian - The answer is not incorrect. Note the word 'typically' in the 4th sentence of the 1st paragraph, the phrase 'tends to' in the 6th, the phrase 'in general' in 6th, and the entire last paragraph. I wasn't presenting this as a hard and fast rule; however, it's certainly true that the appositive in the same case is much more common in classical Latin" CreationDate="2022-02-20T06:19:53.677" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="37315" PostId="2334" Score="0" Text="Yes, sorry, it was the sentence &quot;To say insula Siciliae...&quot; that struck me as plainly incorrect because I once said the same thing only to find out that the construction wasn't unknown classically and very widespread in Late Latin. My reaction was so immediate that I didn't even read the last paragraph." CreationDate="2022-02-20T14:48:44.193" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="5979" PostId="2335" Score="2" Text="You certainly raise a plausible objection re: Samaria. However, see Flavius Josephus, *Jewish Antiquities* ([13.10.2](https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQk-AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA326#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true)): “So he made an expedition against Samaria, which was a very strong city; of whose present name Sebaste, and its rebuilding by Herod, we shall speak at a proper time” («Καὶ στρατεύει μὲν ἐπὶ Σαμάρειαν πόλιν ὀχυρωτάτην, περὶ ἧς, ὅτι καλεῖται νῦν Σεβαστὴ κτισθεῖσα ὑπὸ Ἡρώδου, κατὰ χώραν δηλώσομεν.»)." CreationDate="2017-01-04T14:43:10.443" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="5980" PostId="2335" Score="1" Text="Acts 8:1 mentions “the lands of Judaea and Samaria” (κατὰ τὰς χώρας τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας; per regiones Iudææ et Samariæ). Here too the genitive is unexpected." CreationDate="2017-01-04T14:45:55.593" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="5982" PostId="2335" Score="1" Text="@fdb A few NT grammars talk about the &quot;epexegetic / appositional genitive,&quot; e.g. *semeion peritomes*" CreationDate="2017-01-04T15:07:14.150" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5993" PostId="2336" Score="1" Text="The structure is *credo {quod attendenti perspicuum fore}*: *credo* has only one complement, which is the entire accusativus cum infinitivo,  *quod attendenti perspicuum fore*. The dative is no immediate complement to *credo*. Inside the a.c.i., the verb *fore* has three complements: 1. the 'subject' accusative *quod*; 2. the 'subject complement' accusative *perspicuum*; and 3. the indirect object *mediocriter attendenti*. All three are complements to *fore*. Translation: &quot;...which I believe to be clear to [anyone] paying [even] mediocre attention&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:10:33.523" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5991" PostId="2337" Score="3" Text="I think your answer is good, but I have one small remark. &quot;Transitive&quot; merely means that a verb has or normally has a direct object. That doesn't mean it can't have additional complements at the same time, such as an indirect object or yet another kind of complement. A verb can therefore not be both transitive and intransitive at the same time. In your example *omnia tibi credo*, the verb is transitive because it has a direct object." CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:01:44.723" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5992" PostId="2337" Score="0" Text="Oh, and subject, direct object, indirect object, and ablative phrase are examples of common complements (not &quot;objects&quot;) that verbs may have. Without specification, the term &quot;object&quot; alone normally refers only to direct objects, but it is always wise to specify the term if possible (i.e. direct object or object of a preposition)." CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:03:13.620" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5998" PostId="2337" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Of course, the verb is actually transitive in _omnia tibi credo_, because it does actually have a direct obj. But one doesn't typically also find an indir. obj. with _credo_ when it has a direct obj. – that's typically a separate, intrans. use of the verb, a separate idiom. That was my point: these two, usually-separate idioms are being activated at the same time. Readers need to be aware of, and juggle, both idioms to make good sense of the text. So I can qualify my answer, I suppose, by saying that, _in effect_, it's _as if_ the verb were both trans. and intrans. at the same time." CreationDate="2017-01-05T18:22:13.747" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="5999" PostId="2337" Score="1" Text="@cnread: OK I understand your point; it is probably unusual for the two praedicate frames to be mixed like this. The example from Seneca is nice, and I agree with everything after the first sentence of the update. But I still wouldn't call the praedicate frame of *credo* + dativus &quot;intransitive&quot; in instances where the verb is used with a direct object: it is only intransitive to the extent that it doesn't have an object, and that ends at the moment it gets an object. Of course I understand that you're trying to humour the asker, and you wanted a name for that praedicate frame." CreationDate="2017-01-05T18:37:06.757" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6000" PostId="2337" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Your point is well-taken. I guess I approach this with an eye more on _effect_; so the fact that it's so unusual for the 2 frames to be mixed is exactly the point for me. It's as though Seneca in his phrase and I in mine want both frames to apply—and to be activated in the reader's mind—simultaneously. What we need is a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty principle: you can measure strict transitivity or the types of objects that _credo_ has, but not both. Okay, that's a bit sloppy, but space is limited. Still, I'll see if I can tighten up my response in light of your helpful comments." CreationDate="2017-01-05T20:42:42.010" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6001" PostId="2337" Score="0" Text="I'll also add, as a general comment, that some speakers of languages other than English probably wouldn't find the double object with _credo_ difficult or surprising at all, but perfectly natural. Example: German _Das_ (accusative) _glaube ich dir_ (dative), 'I believe you (in) this' or 'I believe what you're saying.'" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:00:49.983" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6002" PostId="2337" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus - there is really no need to humour me - &quot;humour, verb - comply with the wishes of (someone) in order to keep them content, however unreasonable such wishes might be&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-05T22:58:39.043" UserId="1003" />
  <row Id="6003" PostId="2337" Score="0" Text="@AiliJ.: Oh, I did not mean it in such a negative way. I meant &quot;follow someone's train of thought as a nice gesture&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-05T23:52:19.847" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="5987" PostId="2338" Score="0" Text="http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/954/how-to-say-i-live-for-my-family-in-latin" CreationDate="2017-01-05T01:12:27.177" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="5990" PostId="2338" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Where did you find this translation? Some more details would improve the question and help us help you." CreationDate="2017-01-05T10:23:51.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="5994" PostId="2338" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Unfortunately I've downvoted your question; if you edit it to give a little more context and especially to show us what work you've done on your own I'll remove my downvote." CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:34:46.247" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="5995" PostId="2340" Score="0" Text="I think there actually *is* an ambiguity here: whether *tumida* modifies *corda* or *ira*!" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:42:20.883" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="5996" PostId="2340" Score="0" Text="Oops, that's a typo on my part. It should be *irā* instead of *ira*, while *tumida* and *corda* are neuter plurals. I will add in the long marks!" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:45:59.860" UserId="952" />
  <row Id="5997" PostId="2340" Score="0" Text="@Brianpck is saying that it's metrically ambiguous. Because the a elides with *ex*, it could be long, modifying *ira*, or short, modifying *corda*. It of course makes better sense for *ex ira* to be dependent off *tumida*, but it's theoretically possible to go the other way." CreationDate="2017-01-05T17:05:28.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6004" PostId="2345" Score="0" Text="Grammatically it is a future imperative. Semantically, the answer is in the question of Sapphira : http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2343/negative-future-imperatives&#xA;&#xA;&gt;future imperatives are used when the command is given for some point in the future" CreationDate="2017-01-06T10:47:51.657" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6007" PostId="2347" Score="1" Text="Off the top of my hat, I'd say number one. It is more musical and syntactically consistent – more Attic-sounding, in a way. The translator of number two must have preferred conveying the harsher sonorities of Herodotus' Greek." CreationDate="2017-01-06T21:11:46.003" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="6010" PostId="2348" Score="0" Text="This was enlightening. Thank you! I had considered *-to* to be a future imperative ending, not a general imperative ending. (This is a side effect of not having a wider IE background to Latin.) I asked a [separate question about perfect imperatives](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2349/79) because it made me curious." CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:00:35.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6013" PostId="2348" Score="0" Text="To complicate matters, though, the PIE ending * -tōd does seem to have been specifically a future imperative -- at least, its reflexes in both Latin and Vedic function as such (though not in Greek, where the 3sg pres. meaning appears to be innovative). In which case *mementō* might be described as a future imperative built on the perfect stem (which in this verb has a quasi-present meaning)." CreationDate="2017-01-08T03:01:09.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6014" PostId="2348" Score="0" Text="@TKR. The Vedic &quot;imperative II&quot; in -tāt is not exclusively future in meaning according to current indological thinking. The score is thus 2 (Greek and Vedic) to 1 (Latin). There is of course something intrinsically futuristic about any imperative (you are ordering someone to do something that has not yet happened)." CreationDate="2017-01-08T09:51:43.680" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6018" PostId="2348" Score="1" Text="I don't know enough about Vedic usage to know how well the two languages compare, but the same could be said of Latin -- e.g. *scito* normally means &quot;know (right now)&quot;, not &quot;know (at some future time)&quot;. But as you say, it's difficult to draw clear boundaries given the nature of imperatives." CreationDate="2017-01-08T22:05:20.353" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6011" PostId="2350" Score="0" Text="I'm not surprised to hear it. The first is from 1822, the second an edited version of a 1465 (or thereabouts) original. Since one of my goals is to get good enough in Latin that I can read your SUPERBIA ET ODIUM, I'd love a little more detail if you were inclined to give it." CreationDate="2017-01-07T22:41:20.697" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6012" PostId="2350" Score="0" Text="Okay, I checked. The second is an 1820 edition of a translation that first appeared around 1475." CreationDate="2017-01-07T23:14:07.300" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6107" PostId="2352" Score="2" Text="Cicero makes a passing remark about punctuation in &quot;Orator&quot;, LXVIII, 228: to paraphrase, a sentence shouldn't end because of a mere &quot;interpunctuation&quot; inserted by a copyist but rather because of its own inherent rhythm (&quot;interpunctuation&quot; being the translation of &quot;interductus&quot;).  Clearly not a fan of punctuation! http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Orat.%2068.228&amp;lang=original" CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:31:54.697" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6108" PostId="2352" Score="0" Text="@Penelope Interesting! Can you turn that into an answer? I don't know if there is anything better than a passing remark, so that wouldn't make a bad answer." CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:39:29.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6109" PostId="2352" Score="1" Text="I don't think I can do much more with that, unfortunately.  But I have come across a couple of references that might be of interest for further reading: &quot;Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age&quot;, E. O. Wingo (1972) and &quot;Rhetorische und syntaktische Interpunktion&quot;, R. W. Müller (1964). Sorry I can't be of more help!" CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:56:29.033" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6110" PostId="2352" Score="0" Text="@Penelope No problem! The comments are already valuable. Perhaps someone can make use of those resources and write up an answer." CreationDate="2017-01-15T10:19:14.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6022" PostId="2353" Score="1" Text="Marcus Aurelius still uses *ou* for Latin v. I think I've seen it later." CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:48:57.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6048" PostId="2353" Score="0" Text="Also related: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/28/non-typographical-evidence-of-v-being-pronounced-as-w/" CreationDate="2017-01-11T01:22:11.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6019" PostId="2354" Score="2" Text="*Forum* is a close equivalent of ἀγορά." CreationDate="2017-01-08T22:43:49.690" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6024" PostId="2354" Score="2" Text="@TKR: That was also Jerome’s preference in the Vulgate." CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:32:28.303" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="6021" PostId="2355" Score="3" Text="Meat is not a grocery, at least not on this side of the Atlantic." CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:48:55.117" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6023" PostId="2355" Score="6" Text="Interesting. On the west side of the Atlantic it is—&quot;flesh, fish, and vegetables&quot; are all sold in the same place." CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:02:52.167" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6036" PostId="2355" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I found it helpful to learn that obsono comes from the Greek ὀψωνέω. Before this, the word looked very strange to me. It's easy to presume that it's a compound verb with the prefix *ob-* and the root *sono*. But I guess this is one of those cases where you can't break a word down into its parts and get a sense of its meaning. On another topic, I find it interesting that this happens to be a loanword. I wonder whether the Greeks had more of a shopping culture than the Romans at the time this word was introduced." CreationDate="2017-01-09T20:17:51.703" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6029" PostId="2356" Score="0" Text="This is great, but I was hoping for a little more detail, if this has ever been studied!" CreationDate="2017-01-09T04:43:04.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6038" PostId="2356" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, Sturtevant cites an article which he implies does go into more detail, but I haven't tried to dig it up: &quot;G. B. Grundy, JPhS 1907.1-56&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-10T04:06:40.777" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6020" PostId="2357" Score="2" Text="Another place to look might be the perfect system of *nosco*, with its present sense &quot;know&quot;; but here too searching for *noto* turns up lots of false positives." CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:38:21.143" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6028" PostId="2360" Score="3" Text="My Colunga-Turrado edition of the *Vulgata Clementina* has &quot;Ave&quot; here." CreationDate="2017-01-09T04:38:52.390" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6033" PostId="2360" Score="0" Text="Possibly assimilation to a 'hard H' pronunciation of *Haire* / Χαῖρε." CreationDate="2017-01-09T14:03:17.553" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="42503" PostId="2360" Score="0" Text="See also: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15836/was-av%C4%93-truly-pronounced-with-an-unspelled-h" CreationDate="2023-03-06T01:49:46.747" UserId="2662" />
  <row Id="6031" PostId="2361" Score="7" Text="I prefer to call him *Harrius*." CreationDate="2017-01-09T11:39:28.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39315" PostId="2361" Score="0" Text="Et vīvēbat in aedibus Gestātiōnis Ligustrōrum numerō quattuor signātis." CreationDate="2022-08-27T11:12:07.317" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="6035" PostId="2362" Score="0" Text="I have never seen such an expression. We English also say 'fit as a butcher's dog', maybe _validus sicut lanii catellus_" CreationDate="2017-01-09T17:08:22.980" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6037" PostId="2362" Score="0" Text="Hmm. Latin tends toward the concrete rather than the metaphoric, so my guess is that unfortunately *optimæ valetudinis* is probably the best choice." CreationDate="2017-01-09T22:23:47.600" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6054" PostId="2363" Score="1" Text="Perhaps there was no perfectly matching idiom in Latin, but &quot;as strong or ferocious as a wolf&quot; is close enough for now. Thanks! (I will have to unaccept if someone finds a better fit later. I don't want to keep anyone from giving another answer.)" CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:50:32.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6039" PostId="2368" Score="3" Text="+1. Should note that even in English, &quot;ought&quot; and &quot;should&quot; care often epistemic, so it isn't necessary to translate them in Latin as &quot;must&quot; every time." CreationDate="2017-01-10T05:30:18.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6041" PostId="2368" Score="1" Text="I'm curious about Joel's example sentence: would you write *eam legisse opportet* or *legere debebat*, or something else?" CreationDate="2017-01-10T18:28:20.513" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6042" PostId="2368" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, the former seems more likely as, in all these examples at least, the main verb is in the present tense while the time of the event itself is expressed by the tense of the infinitive." CreationDate="2017-01-10T18:59:11.490" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6044" PostId="2369" Score="2" Text="I would venture to say that &quot;want&quot; lacks an imperative in English, too, but I think it's the better choice here, since &quot;have the desire!&quot; is easily translated &quot;Studium habe(te)!&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-10T20:36:12.837" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6045" PostId="2369" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Writing that order in English was not exactly within my comfort zone, so I won't oppose to a native speaker editing it into something more idiomatic and intuitive – while keeping an imperative verb in a similar manner. There's no issue in Finnish, though..." CreationDate="2017-01-10T21:52:16.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6046" PostId="2369" Score="0" Text="Okay, I've edited. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. The Finnish verb for &quot;want&quot; has an imperative? Fascinating! I wonder how many other languages there are like this." CreationDate="2017-01-10T22:23:02.483" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6047" PostId="2369" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Aeschylus uses the aorist imperative of &quot;ἐθέλω&quot;: &quot;θέλησον&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-10T22:44:56.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36940" PostId="2370" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Couldn't this whole thing have been simplified: &quot;scripseris&quot;, perfect (subjunctive) tense, without &quot;have&quot;, is an historic (secondary) tense; therefore, by the sequence-of-tense rule, it must link to another secondary tense e.g. &quot;esses&quot; and not &quot;sis&quot; (primary)?" CreationDate="2022-01-31T14:31:37.560" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36941" PostId="2370" Score="0" Text="@tony Whether that's the way it is was the whole question. If the main clause is present but a subordinate clause is past, does the tense of the subsubordinate clause depend on the closest dominant clause or the one at the top of the hierarchy? Indeed the natural expectation is that it is the hierarchically closest clause that matters, but it is not obvious that it must go so." CreationDate="2022-01-31T14:36:25.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6049" PostId="2373" Score="1" Text="*Vel* looks like a singular. Does Lewis and Short give a plural? *Velte*?" CreationDate="2017-01-11T06:36:32.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6050" PostId="2373" Score="2" Text="Current etymological thinking (e.g. de Vaan) is that “vel” is not an imperative, but the old form of the 2nd sing. *wel-si &gt; *well &gt; *vel “if you wish”." CreationDate="2017-01-11T11:09:17.910" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6051" PostId="2373" Score="0" Text="In any event, whatever the etymology, the Romans did not perceive &quot;vel&quot; as a verbal form, but as a conjunction." CreationDate="2017-01-11T11:14:14.957" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6052" PostId="2373" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I should have made that clearer. When I said &quot;you cannot use it for your purpose,&quot; I meant that it cannot be used in Latin as an imperative. I was merely mentioning its origins, not its function. There *is* no imperative for *velle* in use in ancient Latin." CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:43:11.713" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6053" PostId="2373" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the clarification! If the conclusion is that there never really was an imperative, could you make it more explicit in your answer? It makes sense that *vel* is the closest thing to an imperative there ever was, but I did misinterpret at first." CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:47:21.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23469" PostId="2373" Score="0" Text="I think I disagree, the imperative for &quot;velle&quot; is noli/nolite. Noli implies the contracted form of &quot;velle&quot;. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4889/what-does-noli-really-mean" CreationDate="2019-11-26T17:01:07.987" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="6055" PostId="2376" Score="0" Text="The example was not perfect, but the point was that someone might want to give an order to want. I tried to clarify the question a bit. Are all of these verbs used with an infinitive like *sic facere desiderate/cupite/gestite*?" CreationDate="2017-01-11T14:18:03.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6060" PostId="2376" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Typically they would take an *ut* clause." CreationDate="2017-01-11T17:15:28.543" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6056" PostId="2377" Score="0" Text="I like these suggestions. I am not sure if *volendum* is attested, but it is easy enough to understand if one is willing to depart from classical style. Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-01-11T14:21:08.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6062" PostId="2382" Score="0" Text="So, you read &quot;illos&quot; and &quot;ipsorum&quot; as referring to &quot;optimi&quot;, and &quot;desidera illos&quot; as &quot;feel the loss of them&quot;? *Desidero* definitely has extended senses that might permit that, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly." CreationDate="2017-01-11T22:21:54.937" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6063" PostId="2382" Score="1" Text="Yes, that's right. Ultimately, I take the pronouns as referring to _optimi_ (or at least those among the _optimi_ who were _fortes_)." CreationDate="2017-01-11T22:34:29.177" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="7631" PostId="2383" Score="0" Text="Alias Latine rogavisti, sed &quot;Letter&quot; et &quot;Section&quot; Anglice scripsisti. Visne has voces Latine reddere? Nescio an &quot;littera&quot; et &quot;sectio&quot; idem significent ac illae voces Anglicae. (Fac novum interrogatum scribas si redditiones optimas invenire vis!)" CreationDate="2017-03-25T13:50:32.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6064" PostId="2384" Score="0" Text="Do you think *opus est* is intended to be understood as “need” or “necessary” in the *Symbolum Apostolorum*?" CreationDate="2017-01-12T02:21:23.247" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="6065" PostId="2384" Score="0" Text="Well, I might be wrong I hadn't read Latin texts for years, but for me it's pretty straightforward, it sort of Anyone who want to be saved first of all needs to be a catholic." CreationDate="2017-01-12T02:38:18.963" UserId="112" />
  <row Id="6071" PostId="2384" Score="4" Text="Am I the only one who doesn't have luminously distinct categories for &quot;need&quot; and &quot;necessary&quot;? In fact, I would consider the latter just the adjective form of the former...." CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:38:50.170" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6066" PostId="2385" Score="0" Text="For what reason are you distinguishing them? I'd consider *honor* an R-stem for pretty much all intents and purposes, even though it started out S-stem, because its declension has been entirely regularized." CreationDate="2017-01-12T04:03:05.767" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6067" PostId="2385" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I am a beginner in Latin and don't want to lose sight of some distinction that may later become important. For example, I found that it was sometimes difficult to make sense of Greek noun declensions without knowing their earlier forms (e.g. the accent on the antepenult of πόλεως, from πόλῐος). I suppose you are telling me that the r/s will not have that sort of importance?" CreationDate="2017-01-12T04:19:16.910" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6068" PostId="2385" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I agree that the distinction will not be important in Latin. Elaborating on that would make a good answer. I would still like to know the answer to the question, not out of practical need but curiosity." CreationDate="2017-01-12T06:49:39.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6070" PostId="2385" Score="2" Text="Yeah, I think it was smart to do Greek first and then Latin. I did it the other way around and going from a deeply regular language to a deeply irregular one really did a number on me. There are a VERY few words in Latin whose original forms it's helpful to keep in mind, but if I count them off the top of my head I still have fingers left over." CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:34:54.420" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6072" PostId="2386" Score="2" Text="**However:** There is another quotation you may come across: ***Mundis omnia munda,***  **'To the pure, all things are pure.'** This *mundus* is a homonym, meaning 'innocent/ untainted.' Cf. the tag Burton places on page one of his 'Arabian Nights.'" CreationDate="2017-01-12T15:01:38.380" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6073" PostId="2386" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I've always known it as *Omnia munda mundis*. But, is *Mundis omnia munda* also acceptable?" CreationDate="2017-01-12T15:20:05.983" UserId="1071" />
  <row Id="6074" PostId="2386" Score="5" Text="@paracresol : Latin is quite forgiving with regard to word order. These mean the same thing, perhaps with a slight shift in emphasis." CreationDate="2017-01-12T18:03:59.770" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="6078" PostId="2386" Score="1" Text="My search engine is equally forgiving with respect to word order: so Wiki p and five other sites; both versions found." CreationDate="2017-01-13T03:10:00.047" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16764" PostId="2386" Score="0" Text="Your essay is faultless. I am telling you so in order to pass muster and be cleared for this well-informed group" CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:35:34.290" UserId="3193" />
  <row Id="16765" PostId="2386" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Edward! What essay are you referring to? If this is a comment on C. M. Weimer's answer (or mine for some reason), it can be converted to an actual comment. Answers on this site are supposed to be used only for answering the original question, in this case roughly &quot;are *mundum* and *mundi* different things?&quot;. I recommend taking a look at our [tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:49:57.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16766" PostId="2386" Score="0" Text="In addition, you do not need clearance for the basic functions of this site, like posing and answering questions. Only commenting and other function do require a (low) number of reputation points that you will quickly accumulate!" CreationDate="2018-12-13T02:13:58.710" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6081" PostId="2391" Score="1" Text="A very good summary here http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/case-ptosis-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000051?s.num=2&amp;s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&amp;s.q=Case" CreationDate="2017-01-13T03:27:53.017" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6084" PostId="2391" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: Good link. Too bad Scihub doesn't work there, but perhaps I should consult Pauly: it might contain information that is similar." CreationDate="2017-01-13T14:25:02.407" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6086" PostId="2391" Score="0" Text="a similar article by Pagani 2013, freely available https://www.academia.edu/10538100/Declension_Conjugation_kl%C3%ADsis_Ancient_Theories_of" CreationDate="2017-01-13T16:14:15.800" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6087" PostId="2391" Score="0" Text="So, **according to Aristotle, both nouns and verbs had &quot;cases&quot;**; Pagani also writes that Aristotle didn't consider &quot;oblique&quot; case forms to be nouns. Note that he viewed gender or number to be manifestations of case too." CreationDate="2017-01-13T16:23:36.407" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6088" PostId="2391" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: Right, I know the word was also used more freely for other kinds of endings in Greek, more like *inflexion*." CreationDate="2017-01-13T16:35:54.213" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6076" PostId="2393" Score="2" Text="Those are great passages! I see now that Greek plagios is also used to describe the oblique cases, and it, too, means something like &quot;sideways, athwart, at the flank&quot;. So the metaphor probably originated in Greece. // It is true that the metaphors *rectus* and *obliquus* may have ossified before they were used with *casus*. That would make the conflict less pressing. And the *rectus* may not have been considered a *casus* at all at the time in which the latter word was conceived." CreationDate="2017-01-12T19:57:28.813" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6080" PostId="2393" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus not probably, we know all the terms you mentioned in the OP are calques from Greek." CreationDate="2017-01-13T03:22:32.440" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6082" PostId="2393" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: I was taught using the same diagram! Are you saying it was already in use in Antiquity?" CreationDate="2017-01-13T14:21:23.847" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6083" PostId="2393" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: OK, my doubt was but philosophical! One never knows anything for certain, especially not in historical linguistics..." CreationDate="2017-01-13T14:22:23.780" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24238" PostId="2393" Score="0" Text="In Old French, which kept the nom. and acc. separate for a long time after they had fallen together in the rest of Western Romance, the acc. is usually called &quot;oblique&quot;. Modern French nouns descend from the oblique; the exceptions are *sœur, peintre, traître, Charles, Georges* and a few nom./obl. doublets: *sire/seigneur, prêtre/Provoire, copain/compagnon, pâtre/pasteur, chantre/chanteur, maire/majeur, on/homme (!)* of obvious Latin origin, plus, *gars/garçon* &lt; Frankish **wrakjo* (cf. English *wretch*) by metathesis.&#xA;&#xA;Certainty is for mathematicians and crackpots" CreationDate="2020-02-17T01:16:34.090" UserId="3228" />
  <row Id="39834" PostId="2393" Score="0" Text="@JohnCowan: Good examples. See also this post: [Which Romance languages have reflexes of the Latin nominative in nouns?](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/167/which-romance-languages-have-reflexes-of-the-latin-nominative-in-nouns/207#207)" CreationDate="2022-10-06T01:00:08.473" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6091" PostId="2395" Score="0" Text="Great answer! Sometimes the truth is &quot;we don't know&quot; (although we can always speculate...). One wonders, though, what names, if any, Aristotle used for the casus rectus and obliquus." CreationDate="2017-01-13T23:51:57.313" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6092" PostId="2397" Score="1" Text="Very interesting! But is it really synizesis? Perfect stem *i-* seems to be an existing alternative to *ii/ivi-*, also used in prose, or so I interpret L&amp;S: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=eo%232&amp;filter=CUTF8" CreationDate="2017-01-14T03:42:49.390" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6093" PostId="2397" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus No, I don't think it actually does qualify as synizesis. I've merely provided the example that Joonas asked for in the last paragraph of his question." CreationDate="2017-01-14T04:38:32.867" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6094" PostId="2397" Score="0" Text="Ahh, OK, I understand." CreationDate="2017-01-14T14:27:16.710" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6101" PostId="2397" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I am not sure if this is really synizesis, but at least it provides an example of a very similar phenomenon. I will wait and see if others have other examples before I accept, but I do like this one." CreationDate="2017-01-14T20:04:53.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6095" PostId="2398" Score="2" Text="So are you sure about &quot;always&quot;? How can you know?" CreationDate="2017-01-14T14:41:06.803" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6096" PostId="2398" Score="0" Text="You can verify by yourself with the search engine of http://www.pedecerto.eu/ricerca/forma: just type &quot;suus&quot; in the &quot;key&quot; field and then click search" CreationDate="2017-01-14T14:49:52.900" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6097" PostId="2398" Score="2" Text="Ah! That is very cool! So you have gone through all the entires of [suu?] to check that they were all bisyllabic? // I saw somewhere that the scansion was done by a computer: are we sure it is reliable?" CreationDate="2017-01-14T16:26:23.947" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6098" PostId="2398" Score="0" Text="Yes I have checked all the entries given by the search engine, considering the metrical pattern only after reading each verse." CreationDate="2017-01-14T16:29:54.067" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6099" PostId="2398" Score="0" Text="Great! By &quot;considering&quot; you mean confirming? And you found the scansion to be correct in all cases? Or perhaps I should ask a full Question about is, &quot;How is the scansion constructed in Pede Certo, and how reliable is it?&quot;. I haven't found any errors either. // I've tried to search for all occurrences of [*uu*], but I got 15.000 results, most of which have a consonantal u. At any rate, that is an excellent search engine and research project." CreationDate="2017-01-14T17:01:00.917" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6100" PostId="2398" Score="0" Text="From the home page of the site: &lt;&lt;The Free scansions page offers a simplified but immediately usable demo version of the scanning program&gt;&gt;: you can try with the verse of the OP to see that the engine recognizes the error. If you go to the page of the state of the art (http://www.pedecerto.eu/pagine/arte) you can see that only a small percentage (1.23%) of the 244008 registered verses needed an individual mark." CreationDate="2017-01-14T17:14:29.323" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6105" PostId="2398" Score="0" Text="Just to play devil's advocate, the first two of your examples would scan correctly if the two short u's were read as a single long u, in the manner that Joonas has asked about. A quick glance at the results in the pede certo tool shows that the same is true of several others too." CreationDate="2017-01-14T22:43:48.523" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6106" PostId="2398" Score="0" Text="To prove that this word could be subject to a synizesis there must be at least one occurrence of the word as an *elementum longum* of one of the *metra* of the hexameter. The fact that the word occurs almost always as *elementum biceps* which could - of course - be replaced by an *elementum longum*, doesn't have revelance. This is indubitable in the case of *suus*, but if you want to search if exists an example of synizesis for the -uu- sequence, you can search *uu* in the &quot;key&quot; field of Pede certo." CreationDate="2017-01-14T23:05:23.987" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6132" PostId="2398" Score="0" Text="&quot;sŭūs rector&quot; is wrong. You should use a macron only for vowels long by nature, not for syllables long by position." CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:37:50.227" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6161" PostId="2398" Score="3" Text="@fdb But it is difficult, if not impossible, to place the line above the syllable rather than the vowel. And it is clear from context that it is about the syllable here. So I think this is a good alternative. Wouldn't you agree?" CreationDate="2017-01-16T23:26:06.107" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6102" PostId="2402" Score="0" Text="I would be interested in relative frequency, but as I recall *procerus* is the most standard way of saying &quot;tall.&quot; *Altus* is a much more generic term, like English &quot;high/deep,&quot; and I have a feeling that *longus* is more frequently used to indicate other things." CreationDate="2017-01-14T21:14:27.977" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6103" PostId="2402" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is great. (I originally meant to use accusative instead of ablative, and I made the edit to my question.) Use with exact measures is not that important. I believe &quot;Marcus is taller than Gaius&quot; or &quot;Gnaeus is very tall&quot; is enough to indicate the correct adjective(s) to be used with measures when needed." CreationDate="2017-01-14T21:21:43.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6104" PostId="2402" Score="0" Text="@brianpck In Finnish a tall building is &quot;korkea&quot; (roughly *altus*) and a tall person is &quot;pitkä&quot; (roughly *longus*), and I suspected there might be a similar difference in Latin. Relative frequency or differences in connotation would be very interesting." CreationDate="2017-01-14T21:23:26.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6119" PostId="2407" Score="0" Text="*collo tenus supereminet omnes* means &quot;she rises above all as far as the neck&quot;, which doesnt' express properly an *ablativus mensurae*." CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:33:24.833" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6121" PostId="2407" Score="1" Text="@Alessio, I would say that 'as far as [her, the] neck she overtops all', is equivalent to 'even at neck-height she is taller than all', or 'head and shoulders above all the others'. Translated more fully, _[the nymphs, seeing a man’s face], . . . cluster round Diana to hide her with their bodies. But the goddess stood head and shoulders above all the others._" CreationDate="2017-01-15T16:02:38.373" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6122" PostId="2408" Score="4" Text="To be helpful, an undoubted comparison of _procerus_ occurs at Suet. Aug. 73, _usus est calceamentis altiusculis, ut procerior videretur._" CreationDate="2017-01-15T16:10:45.440" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6124" PostId="2409" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer!" CreationDate="2017-01-15T16:37:53.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6131" PostId="2410" Score="3" Text="genus (thus, with two short vowels) is nominative/accusative singular neuter and it means &quot;birth, descent&quot;. Want to try again?" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:33:50.227" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6133" PostId="2411" Score="1" Text="thanks... I guess there was a long mark typo in my book.  I was thinking that there was some mythology story I missed out on of Augustus being born in Zeus's knee or something..." CreationDate="2017-01-16T05:25:22.500" UserId="1152" />
  <row Id="6153" PostId="2411" Score="1" Text="@user062295 There probably was. :)" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:54:29.750" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10034" PostId="2411" Score="2" Text="@user062295 Knowing what I do about mythology, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that was actually a story. Sure sounds like one!" CreationDate="2017-07-26T01:37:56.703" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="6134" PostId="2414" Score="3" Text="The lack of spacing doesn't seem to bother some present day people either. Try to find a passage in Thai language, for example. Would a comparative study of spacing differences (from the point of view of your questions) today be a reasonable answer? I assume this has been studied." CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:49:38.443" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6135" PostId="2414" Score="0" Text="I think any answer would be welcome. The more viewpoints the better. What you say is interesting. Perhaps I am biased since English is my first language, and I became accustomed to word spacing at a young age." CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:51:59.330" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6136" PostId="2414" Score="1" Text="I am biased as well, and I believe most users of the site grew up with this bias. I have only ever really studied languages with word spacing in their script. // I am not familiar with studies of this kind. I hope someone can find an answer. The present day comparison could be asked at Linguistics.SE, if you want that point of view." CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:55:18.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6137" PostId="2414" Score="0" Text="That's an idea. I'll see how this question fares here first. I would also be interested to know whether synthetic languages like Latin are more easily readable in *scriptio continua* than analytical languages like English, seeing how inflection often gives each word a more predictable ending. That may even be one of the reasons why word spacing came about. Although this is wild speculation!" CreationDate="2017-01-16T09:31:21.627" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6138" PostId="2414" Score="1" Text="I would say that spacing takes space!" CreationDate="2017-01-16T12:50:00.423" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6159" PostId="2414" Score="2" Text="@Luc That's a very good point which I overlooked. It might be as simple as that—economy. Especially since inscriptions were laborious, and both papyrus and parchment were expensive." CreationDate="2017-01-16T22:00:37.687" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6165" PostId="2414" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 Yes, and saving space was a reason for the invention of gothic script too. That's also the cause of the many abbreviations there are." CreationDate="2017-01-17T12:45:21.147" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6139" PostId="2415" Score="2" Text="&quot;Marcus, **gubernator quidem,** quaestiones clamavit.&quot; Is that too understated?" CreationDate="2017-01-16T13:52:31.700" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6140" PostId="2415" Score="0" Text="@Hugh I didn't know you could use *quidem* that way. Sounds promising. If you have examples to demonstrate such use, I would much appreciate it as an answer. It might not be as strong as &quot;in the capacity of&quot;, but it matches my intention quite well." CreationDate="2017-01-16T13:55:45.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6147" PostId="2415" Score="3" Text="@Hugh, This strikes me as an odd usage of _quidem_. Maybe it's just because of all the Pliny the Younger that I've been reading lately, but if I saw _Marcus, gubernator quidem..._, my first thought would be something like, 'Marcus – true, he's (just) a manager – but....' It may finally be time for me to dive into that copy of Joseph Solodow's book, _The Latin particle quidem_." CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:19:37.720" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6194" PostId="2416" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if the Italian represents a parallel case (though judging by your name you might be a better judge!): isn't *dicendo* a present participle, e.g. &quot;respondeo dicens&quot;? If so, that is a different construction that may well be influenced by the Vulgate." CreationDate="2017-01-18T12:05:49.497" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6195" PostId="2416" Score="0" Text="I'm having trouble distinguishing the &quot;predicative gerundive&quot; with verbs of saying from a normal acc + inf construction. If I understand your interpretation correctly, isn't this basically the same as, &quot;respondeo dicendum [esse] quod...&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-01-18T12:07:14.143" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6202" PostId="2416" Score="0" Text="(1) The Italian phrase quoted is just a mere example of a similar use of this word sequence which, as you said, may be influenced by the vulgate. (2) In the normal acc + inf construction the verb of the subordinate clause isn't necessairily a predicative of the governing verb, while in the case of predicative gerundive one verb expresses the other (Sen. *contr.* 10,2,4: *pugnandum habebam ... patri*)" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:52:32.630" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6166" PostId="2417" Score="1" Text="There are a number of errors here, I'm afraid: e.g. ὅπου is &quot;where&quot; (location), not &quot;whither&quot; (direction); the subjunctive would only be appropriate with present reference, not past reference; and the position of γάρ is incorrect (it would be ὅπου γὰρ ἂν ἕτερος.)" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:41:59.017" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6168" PostId="2417" Score="0" Text="ὅπου as a relative indefinite could be translated as &quot;whithersoever&quot;, see e.g.  Archim. *Aeq.* 2.10 ὅπου ἂν ἔρχηται τὸ ἕτερον σαμεῖον. In that case the subjunctive could be appropriate with past reference (e.g. D.L. 5,16 ἀναθεῖναι εἰς Νεμέαν ἢ ὅπου ἂν δοκῇ; Demosth. 35,13: ἐξελόμενοι ὅπου ἂν μὴ σῦλαι ὦσιν Ἀθηναίοις). For the position of γάρ, I agree with you." CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:35:13.330" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6170" PostId="2417" Score="0" Text="I think the directional use of ὅπου is marginal at best; LSJ (ἔρχομαι) translate that Archimedes quote as &quot;wherever the other point falls&quot;, and give no directional sense in their definition of ὅπου. Your quotes with the subjunctive both have future reference in context (the Demosthenes is a decree, the Diogenes is a will)." CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:15:29.350" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6179" PostId="2417" Score="0" Text="The revised version looks better. But I still have reservations: 1. ἄν is inappropriate here (past general). 2. &quot;one ... the other&quot; is generally ὁ ἕτερος ... ὁ ἕτερος. 3. δέ is unnecessary in the last clause (no connective needed and &quot;apodotic δέ&quot; is unusual). 4. ἴσως in Attic prose most often means &quot;maybe&quot;, which isn't to say it can't be used to mean &quot;equally&quot;, but I don't think it's the most natural choice for &quot;also&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:19:11.963" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6189" PostId="2417" Score="2" Text="@Alessio Thanks for the feedback! It's good to know of the expressions πιστὸς φίλος and πιστὸς ἑταῖρος. Those are some great alternatives. Interesting to consider ἴσως as an alternative to καί. Welcome to the forum. Hope to see more answers from you." CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:38:04.730" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6141" PostId="2418" Score="2" Text="Gratias maximas tibi ago simulque gratulor, quod decem milia punctorum tulisti!" CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:18:16.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6143" PostId="2418" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer, though I would prefer *procurator* (in that sense see the meaning of *procuro*) as translation of &quot;manager&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-16T17:32:53.017" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6142" PostId="2419" Score="2" Text="The first thing that comes to my mind is *sine nictando*, but I don't know if this use of the gerund is idiomatic." CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:38:36.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47110" PostId="2419" Score="0" Text="Regarding #1 in the text of the new bounty notice, I'm inclined to believe that something like 'Go ahead without looking back' and 'Now do it without looking' would be expressed as 'Go ahead, and don't look back' and 'Now do it, and [but] don't look', using a positive command and then a negative command (prohibition) connected to it by neve/neu. Further, if, as Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge state, *sine* + gerund(ive) is rare, it may well be that a non-negative declarative statement such as 'He does it without looking' would likewise be expressed as simply, 'He does it but doesn't look.'" CreationDate="2024-01-08T02:14:45.617" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47111" PostId="2419" Score="0" Text="In short, I suspect that there's no single idiomatic translation of 'without -ing' in (classical) Latin; rather, the proper translation will very much depend on the context/structure of the sentence (command, negative sentence, etc.)" CreationDate="2024-01-08T02:15:14.090" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6145" PostId="2420" Score="4" Text="Yes, I agree. I'll just add that, not only is the gerund of _nicto_ very rare, but so is the use of the gerund with _sine_. According to Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge' grammar (§433), _sine_ + gerund(ive) is used once in Varro (_LL_ 6.75) and in Donatus (Ter. _And._ 391)." CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:08:21.583" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6146" PostId="2420" Score="4" Text="Thanks for the samples: to be clear, my question was more about a general approach to translating &quot;without + verb&quot; rather than that particular sentence. I would consider an ablative absolute an excellent way of recasting in many cases, but I was hoping something closer to English syntax could be proposed." CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:08:27.130" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6150" PostId="2421" Score="2" Text="I don't think either of these two examples shows a use of *qua* meaning &quot;as&quot;: *qua ... qua* in both of them seems to mean &quot;both ... and&quot; or &quot;now X, now Y&quot;. In any case, in *Marcus qua procuratore locutus est* surely it should be *procurator*, nominative." CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:38:27.873" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6152" PostId="2421" Score="0" Text="@TKR Of course it should be procurator — that was careless of me. But I would defend the use of _qua_ : certainly, both... and... if you like (but you might equally say whether ... or). The point is that status is being shown, even if (as I concede) less exactly than it might be." CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:48:51.663" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6157" PostId="2421" Score="1" Text="I think you're right that *qua* can mean &quot;as&quot; (it can even be used in that sense in English), though I don't actually know if this sense is found in classical Latin. But I don't think it means that in these examples: it doesn't seem right to translate &quot;as women, as men&quot; or &quot;as the master, as the patrons&quot; (or whatever the *advocati* are in this case). This usage looks more similar to things like *pars ... pars* or *partim ... partim* or *cum ... tum*, which isn't really what the OP is asking about." CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:07:34.153" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6148" PostId="2422" Score="0" Text="A good suggestion. Caesar would have approved!" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:10:55.397" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6151" PostId="2422" Score="0" Text="I like this best of all the answers." CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:47:45.663" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6160" PostId="2422" Score="0" Text="Yes, the best. Latin is always better for a simple and direct structure." CreationDate="2017-01-16T22:02:40.253" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6169" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="4. As I pointed out in my answer, &quot;good friends&quot; should not be translated using ἀγαθός, which in your example doesn't mean &quot;good friend&quot; in the same sense in which two people could be good friends each other. 5. ὅποι, as you said, means &quot;whither, to where&quot; and not &quot;whithersoever&quot;, which is the intended translation" CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:40:15.187" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6171" PostId="2423" Score="1" Text="@Alessio: 4. Why do you think ἀγαθός in the Xenophon quote doesn't mean &quot;good friend&quot;? ἐσθλός is a highly poetic word and rare in prose. 5. The &quot;-soever&quot; meaning is, as is normal, conveyed by the construction (optative, or subjunctive with ἄν) -- see LSJ on ὅποι." CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:20:40.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6172" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="Although your translation of Xenophon is good, I don't think that here ἀγαθός means other than &quot;good&quot; in a moralistic sense, and isn't therefore referred to his friend as &quot;loyal&quot; or &quot;true&quot;. In that sense I would rather prefer πιστὸς ἑταῖρος, which is largely attested (Homer, Theognis, Plato and others). I checked the LSJ and I agree with you on ὅποι (writing my answer I look up only the GI)" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:43:35.547" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6174" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="@Alessio, I agree that πιστός could be an appropriate choice here. I don't have access to the TLG at the moment, but it would be interesting to check on the usage of these and other adjectives with φίλος, ἑταῖρος, etc." CreationDate="2017-01-17T22:58:07.297" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6175" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="TKR I searched with TLG and I found many examples. I also added some of your suggestions, as you can see in the last edit of my answer." CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:37:55.673" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6176" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="I agree on most points; the others I am too ignorant to judge. // I feel that perhaps πιστός would indeed be an improvement. // I agree with the optative: the oblique optative replaces a subjunctive where the main clause is in the past. But wouldn't you add *an* to mark the generalis? Or is that not possible with an oblique optative? I think it is? E.g. *hotan* is used with the obl. opt. // Somehow I feel like replacing *aei* with *entha(de)* in the apodosis. What do you think? Better, worse, optional? &quot;Whithersoever one went, thither the other.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:44:13.847" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6177" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="@Alessio, I revised #4 with comments on πιστός and other possibilities." CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:11:25.993" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6178" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, no ἄν is needed or, I believe, possible: this is an indefinite relative clause equivalent to a past general condition. ἐνθάδε (or ἐκεῖσε) seem possible, but I don't think they're necessary; ἐπακολουθέω already gives the meaning of going to the same place." CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:14:25.033" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6180" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Not needed, I don't know about that; but not possible? This is a typical iterative clause, and iterative clauses often have *an*, don't they?" CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:46:18.180" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6181" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, more generally, subordinate optatives almost never have ἄν. There are infrequent exceptions of &quot;retained ἄν&quot; when a subjunctive becomes optative by sequences of tenses, but as a rule the ἄν is lost. See e.g. Goodwin *Moods and Tenses* 57: &quot;The optative with ἄν *always* forms an apodosis, to which a protasis must be either expressed or implied&quot; (his italics). The iterative use you mention is a main-clause use, not a subordinate clause, and uses the indicative, not the optative." CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:46:56.563" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6182" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Ah, I see. I have found two more sources that seem to confirm what you are saying." CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:52:20.860" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6186" PostId="2423" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks for the excellent points! I have one follow-up question. Suppose the verb were &quot;judge&quot; and not &quot;believe&quot;, as in, &quot;We judged that that they were good friends&quot;. In this case, I would use κρίνω instead of νομίζω. Would you advise that I use the imperfect with κρίνω, as you advised me to do with νομίζω? Would you say that both κρίνω and νομίζω are verbs of thinking or believing, and that all verbs of thinking or believing are better suited to the imperfect than the aorist? Or would this be an oversimplification?" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:29:09.220" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6188" PostId="2423" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 This is a complicated question, but I would say that as a rule, both imperfect and aorist (or present and aorist, if we're outside the indicative) tend to be possible with verbs of all sorts of meanings, but they force different readings or express different presentations of the event: in this case, for example, using an aorist with either of the verbs you mention might mean &quot;we came to the conclusion that...&quot;, versus an imperfect which could mean &quot;we were of the opinion that...&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:37:19.753" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6190" PostId="2423" Score="1" Text="@TKR Ah, I see, so I guess it depends on the English sentence that I am translating. &quot;We believed they were good friends&quot; is more suggestive of the imperfect. But &quot;We judged they were good friends&quot; could possibly go both ways, aorist or imperfect. Perhaps it leans more toward the imperfect. I assume that context can change things as well." CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:48:04.507" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="24564" PostId="2424" Score="1" Text="A popular paper on this topic is Miller's [The Formation of Latin Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323534846_The_Formation_of_Latin_Diminutives_of_Nouns_and_Adjectives), which points out that there's not really an upper limit on how many diminutives you can stack onto a single word but two is not uncommon." CreationDate="2020-03-17T18:32:18.697" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="6274" PostId="2425" Score="0" Text="All the answers are excellent, and I had great difficulties choosing the one to accept. This feels like the best fit for my idea, but only by a narrow margin; different answers have different strengths. **Many thanks to all who answered!**" CreationDate="2017-01-22T19:29:01.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6156" PostId="2428" Score="1" Text="Many more examples (with some false positives) are available here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=llul&amp;lang=la" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:06:36.247" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6167" PostId="2428" Score="0" Text="So apparently the answer is YES! Very interesting, and great examples." CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:58:08.430" UserId="1156" />
  <row Id="6162" PostId="2430" Score="2" Text="On personalised book-plates ***Ex Libris*** is more usual than *E Libris,* even when the name of the owner is not in Latin ( **L** of course is a semi-vowel )" CreationDate="2017-01-17T02:05:44.923" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6164" PostId="2430" Score="2" Text="Related: [Would it be good Classical Latin style to always use the preposition “ab” and never “ā”?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/104/12)" CreationDate="2017-01-17T12:19:28.437" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="8931" PostId="2431" Score="1" Text="I have also seen the usage controlled that way in text where a distinction is made between _&quot;from&quot;_ and _&quot;out of&quot;_ (as in exited from, or brought out of; similar to &quot;from&quot; I know but different enough to be distinct): from my experience contextually `e nihilo` would be likely to be from nothing and `ex nihilo` would be &quot;out of nothing&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-18T10:05:08.203" UserId="596" />
  <row Id="6192" PostId="2436" Score="0" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus Interesting. But what if the noun is derived from the verb? Would the name still apply? If so, would it be misleading?" CreationDate="2017-01-18T07:23:45.130" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6201" PostId="2437" Score="0" Text="I think these examples are slightly misleading as direct parallels of the OP's quote: &quot;amore illo tuo&quot; = &quot;with that love of yours&quot; is a rhetorical flourish much like we would do in English. &quot;odissem te odio&quot; is meant to parallel the previous verse (&quot;oculis amarem&quot;). &quot;Mori sua morte&quot; appears to be a spurious quote: I cannot find it at the location cited or anywhere else that is authoritative. Only the first, as in English, is an established idiom." CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:49:16.317" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6205" PostId="2437" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Google books has a copy of Seneca's Epistles; the quote is highlighted in the exact location and manner as cnread cited here: https://books.google.com/books?id=E65EAQAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA54&amp;ots=tnZXF-TqOz&amp;dq=bella%20res%20est%20mori%20sua%20morte&amp;pg=PA54#v=onepage&amp;q=bella%20res%20est%20mori%20sua%20morte&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:44:33.507" UserId="1166" />
  <row Id="6206" PostId="2437" Score="0" Text="@brianpck However, as the editor mentions in the footnote on that page, it may be a reference to the first quote, an established idiom." CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:50:04.973" UserId="1166" />
  <row Id="6209" PostId="2437" Score="0" Text="@T.C.Proctor You're right--my mistake!" CreationDate="2017-01-18T16:26:44.767" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6218" PostId="2437" Score="0" Text="Ah, your update beats me to it. You make the same point which I commented on in my comment (see what I did there?) to fdb's answer, about figura etymologica not being as rare in English as I had thought. I appreciate your examples." CreationDate="2017-01-18T21:09:54.260" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6219" PostId="2437" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I'm sorry, but don't understand how my examples are in any way misleading. They all show instances in classical Latin where 'a verb shares the same root as its object or modifier,' per the original question. I don't see how being a 'rhetorical flourish,' being used to parallel a previous verse, or being from an uncertain source in any way invalidates them. And I'm not sure why it matters whether a particular example reflects an established idiom. What am I missing?" CreationDate="2017-01-18T21:42:15.920" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6228" PostId="2437" Score="0" Text="@cnread &quot;Misleading&quot; was a strong term and was in no way meant as an accusation. Your point that *figurae etymologicae* appear in classical Latin is important (although I have doubts that it is any more common than in English), but I think it misses an important point: the OP's sample sentences are imitating semitic structures and are not Latinate formations. The Vulgate and LXX are replete with such constructions, not because of Latin style, but because of the source text's style. fdb's answer explains why." CreationDate="2017-01-19T03:16:32.773" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6234" PostId="2437" Score="0" Text="While it's certainly interesting that the formations in the Vulgate capture structures that are already present in the semitic source (i.e., they don't reflect the translator's own Latin style), I'm not sure this fact is so important for the purpose of the original question. Whatever the origin of the exx. from the Vulgate, the relevant point is that classical Latin did indeed use such formations. The fact that it did so in such a way that the language could later be used to render the corresponding semitic structures in a natural and reasonably faithful way is, as I see it, a side note." CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:28:49.107" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6196" PostId="2438" Score="2" Text="Excellent answer, +1. Some comments: 1. &quot;[If Latin literacy had declined], why would smaller, less influential countries continue to publish in it?&quot; -Perhaps because it was still better understood than, say, Norwegian? 2. **Persistence in science**: Isn't it likely that science had to wait for vernacular technical vocabulary to catch up to Latin, which had a rich classical and medieval underpinning? 3. I am fascinated/puzzled by Pike's idea that &quot;modern thought expresses itself [best] in analytic language.&quot; Surely this is a result, not cause, of the decline of Latin literacy?" CreationDate="2017-01-18T12:57:48.137" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6198" PostId="2438" Score="2" Text="+1 for the thoroughness of the answer!" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:31:47.740" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6223" PostId="2438" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Thought-provoking questions.  My responses in brief: 1. Exactly. 2. I hadn't thought of that.  It's hard to know what the relationship would've been.  Sometimes, new ideas must have shot ahead of classical languages; other times, well-established classical language must have been the only vocabulary available (and often even in modern times, scientists have had to turn to classical languages; consider lepton or meson for example). 3. Pike's dichotomy seems a little English-centric to me!  Not all modern languages are analytic, are they?  (Or are they?)" CreationDate="2017-01-19T01:17:01.110" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6232" PostId="2438" Score="0" Text="@Penelope Isn't German a non-analytic language for instance?" CreationDate="2017-01-19T14:16:12.820" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6260" PostId="2438" Score="1" Text="@Luc I had to do some research on it - linguistics not being my strong point!  It seems that the terms analytic and synthetic lie on a continuum rather than being polar opposites.  But German is definitely more synthetic than, say, English.  Which at least supports my comment that Pike may be a little English-centric in his claims!" CreationDate="2017-01-21T07:04:18.073" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="30832" PostId="2438" Score="1" Text="Kajanto's  1970 article 'The Classics in Finland' notes that &quot;Because Finnish was not yet a recognized official language, and Swedish not one of the great languages of Europe, Latin remained in use at the university of Helsinki much longer than in most other European centers of learning. Down to 1852 all dissertations had to be written in Latin.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-23T16:39:58.337" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="38050" PostId="2438" Score="0" Text="Yo, is this you, or is someone copying your work without attribution? https://medium.com/@danielhanson529/early-science-books-were-written-in-latin-why-did-this-change-54951ed734c4" CreationDate="2022-04-19T18:50:34.797" UserId="11026" />
  <row Id="38428" PostId="2438" Score="2" Text="@JordiGutiérrezHermoso Wow! That is most definitely NOT me! The cheek of it, I'm absolutely gobsmacked. Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention!" CreationDate="2022-05-29T10:57:15.757" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38469" PostId="2438" Score="1" Text="@Penelope, so do you want to do this, or do you prefer to authorise me to do it on your behalf? Note that while we contribute answers to Stack Exchange under a free license (people are allowed to copy them), they cannot do so without attribution.&#xA;&#xA;https://help.medium.com/hc/en-us/articles/200737695-Report-copyright-infringement-or-plagiarism" CreationDate="2022-05-31T15:21:30.373" UserId="11026" />
  <row Id="38471" PostId="2438" Score="1" Text="@JordiGutiérrezHermoso You should do it regardless, because it's actually violating StackExchange's licenses in addition to Penelope's copyright." CreationDate="2022-05-31T17:07:41.193" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38477" PostId="2438" Score="1" Text="@JordiGutiérrezHermoso Thanks, I wasn't sure how best to proceed so I did leave a comment on the article, asking the guy to remove it. I gave him a week's grace to do the right thing. Then I was going to formally lodge a complaint. But you are more than welcome to wade in before the week is up! You might be doing me a favour actually because the suspense is killing me but I feel I have to stick to my word and wait out the week." CreationDate="2022-06-01T00:41:59.410" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38487" PostId="2438" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I think it's just a repost bot on Medium. I looked at a couple of other posts and they're also plagiarised." CreationDate="2022-06-01T18:15:20.690" UserId="11026" />
  <row Id="38507" PostId="2438" Score="2" Text="Excellent answer! The only gripe I have is with the last paragraph. Latin taxonomy is so precise *because* it was tailor-made! And the makers were non-native speakers who treated it as a scientific code. Latin is very imprecise as a whole by the standards of modern European languages, and was pretty imprecise even by Greek standards except where precision was purposefully developed, e.g. in law. I felt the need to comment on this becase &quot;Latin is a supremely precise and logical language&quot; is a notorious language myth that even among the latter stands out as being especially far from the truth." CreationDate="2022-06-03T10:42:39.910" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38538" PostId="2438" Score="0" Text="@JordiGutiérrezHermoso I lodged a formal complaint and the entire account has been found in breach of Medium's rules and has been suspended. Thank you again for bringing it to my attention, I'm very grateful." CreationDate="2022-06-07T00:22:16.407" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6193" PostId="2439" Score="1" Text="Great find about the parallel construction! I've seen some editions punctuated to favor this approach, e.g. &quot;Respondeo: dicendum, quod...&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-18T12:04:06.213" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6203" PostId="2439" Score="1" Text="Without the ellipsis of *est* and with this kind of punctuation your analysis is correct. I also found it searching in the Corpus Thomisticum and I wonder why the punctuation differs according to the various cases: I therefore preferred to focus on the syntactical value of the phrase without punctuation quoted by brianpck." CreationDate="2017-01-18T14:00:00.140" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6199" PostId="2440" Score="1" Text="Although both answers are correct, I think this captures the underlying issue, which is that the Latin phrases in question are all translated as faithfully as possible from a Semitic source text." CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:36:39.683" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6216" PostId="2440" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Your answer is really helpful. The Wikipedia page on figura etymologica is also quite useful. Quick question. How do you pronounce figura etymologica? Do you pronounce it according to Classical Latin, with hard g's? Is there a macron over the second o? Perhaps a presentation of this phrase with the appropriate macrons (macra?) would help guide me." CreationDate="2017-01-18T21:00:08.807" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6217" PostId="2440" Score="0" Text="Also worth mentioning, I may have been wrong in assuming that cognate object construction is rare in English. The Wikipedia page on figura etymologica offers a few examples: &quot;live a good life, sing a long song, die a quiet death&quot;. It looks like it also serves the function of intensifying the statement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figura_etymologica." CreationDate="2017-01-18T21:06:00.000" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6200" PostId="2441" Score="5" Text="A look at the dictionary reveals *coimbibo*, *condecerno*, *condeclino*, *condeliquesco*, *indeclinatus*, and *indefessus*, among others. (Not left as an answer because it's so brief.)" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:41:03.153" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6204" PostId="2441" Score="3" Text="Great examples! As a minor quibble, the last two examples are privative *-in*, not prepositions." CreationDate="2017-01-18T14:07:35.043" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6211" PostId="2441" Score="2" Text="It must be said that *condecerno* and *condeclino* are only found in medieval authors, while the only attestation of *coimbibo* is on Arnob. *nat.* 5,30 (*si aperte hoc facere confessis maledictionibus coinbibissetis*)" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:16:07.830" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6212" PostId="2441" Score="0" Text="Hmm. So that would really leave only *condeliquesco*. The exception that proves the rule? (I'll admit I didn't make a thorough search.)" CreationDate="2017-01-18T18:17:38.900" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6197" PostId="2442" Score="4" Text="Sorry, I didn't make it explicit in my original question, but I was referring to **double prefix chaining.** :)" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:28:23.180" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14124" PostId="2442" Score="0" Text="Couldn't &quot;circumdatur auro&quot; literally mean &quot;gone round with gold&quot; as in the gold goes around it? That's cool -- I've gotta use that one instead of &quot;est circum...&quot;" CreationDate="2018-05-09T18:14:34.717" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="6220" PostId="2444" Score="5" Text="I wonder if &quot;haplogy&quot; would be a more descriptive word than &quot;haplology&quot;... (+1 and apologies for the pun)" CreationDate="2017-01-19T00:27:17.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6225" PostId="2444" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You might have to issue a hapology for that. You are approaching the hapogee of inconsiderateness!" CreationDate="2017-01-19T01:48:27.817" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6263" PostId="2444" Score="0" Text="@fdb Great--&quot;haplology&quot; was the phenomenon I was looking for. Do you know how common this was for Greek-&gt;Latin words?" CreationDate="2017-01-21T20:23:55.807" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6265" PostId="2444" Score="2" Text="@brianpck. It is actually very rare. But see (Homer etc.) ἀμφιφορεύς &gt; later ἀμφορεύς." CreationDate="2017-01-21T21:53:09.140" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6413" PostId="2444" Score="2" Text="@brianpck. Another (Latin/Romance) example is late Latin carnelevare &gt; Old Italian carnelevale (assimilation) &gt; Tuscan carnevale (haplology) &gt; English etc.  carnival. All the stages are really attested." CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:06:24.077" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9029" PostId="2444" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Vide _Studies out in Left Field: Defamatory essays presented to James D. McCawley on his 33rd or 34th birthday,_ [p. 125](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDDyZJWheHsC&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=haplogy). (My favorite is &quot;haspiration&quot;.)" CreationDate="2017-05-25T12:41:45.120" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6207" PostId="2445" Score="3" Text="+1. The latter ones definitely count, but *per* is a bit tricky, since in these cases it doesn't retain the meaning of the preposition, but rather it's used for emphasis. To me it seems of a different kind than συγκαταβαίνειν." CreationDate="2017-01-18T16:09:15.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6208" PostId="2445" Score="1" Text="Great examples! I've never studied linguistics, as others here have, but am I correct in distinguishing prepositional prefixes from privative ones, like *dis-* and *in-*?" CreationDate="2017-01-18T16:23:26.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6210" PostId="2445" Score="0" Text="Yes, *ante-*, *con-* and *circum-* are  praepositional praefixes, while, as C.M. Weimer properly pointed out, here *per-* has an emphatic function." CreationDate="2017-01-18T16:33:42.803" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6213" PostId="2445" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I did study linguistics and I don't understand what you mean by &quot;prepositional&quot; or &quot;privative&quot; prefixes. These are not the terms used in contemporary morphological research." CreationDate="2017-01-18T19:34:04.960" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6214" PostId="2445" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. [Privative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privative) (dis- doesn't make it to this list, though...) prefixes mean &quot;not,&quot; whereas a prepositional one is what it sounds like. There's obviously some kind of difference between the *in-* in *incestum* and in *incedo*. I'd be happy to learn their real names!" CreationDate="2017-01-18T19:38:53.127" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6215" PostId="2445" Score="1" Text="@Alex B. Both terms are currently used in contemporary morphological research: https://books.google.it/books?id=2I5yCwAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA38&amp;ots=fG_QYlBbqL&amp;dq=latin%20prepositional%20prefixes&amp;hl=it&amp;pg=PA38#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20prepositional%20prefixes&amp;f=false; https://books.google.it/books?id=V4ylHBrzTQsC&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;dq=latin%20prepositional%20prefixes&amp;hl=it&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20prepositional%20prefixes&amp;f=false; https://books.google.it/books?id=IX32D9sK0x0C&amp;lpg=PA137&amp;ots=Z3P1Hba3cp&amp;dq=latin%20privative%20prefixes&amp;hl=it&amp;pg=PA137#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20privative%20prefixes&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-01-18T20:24:51.967" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6222" PostId="2445" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I see. My bad. Privative means negative (semantics). As for prepositional prefixes, it is *occasionally* used - note how hard Alessio is trying to find rare examples. All prefixes are grammaticalized &quot;former&quot; standalone words, e.g. prepositions. Now, we may talk about privative or iterative or even diminutive prefixes - **this classification is based on semantics.** If you really must talk about prepositional prefixes, this is not semantics. In this case, you could juxtapose them with e.g. adverbial prefixes. **This classification would be historical (based on origin).**" CreationDate="2017-01-19T01:06:40.457" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6224" PostId="2445" Score="0" Text="@brianpck [And Alex B., but I can only tag one person at a time.] The same thing occurs in English. Download, Upload, Overload, all fine. You can add a privative un- to them - undownloadable, for example, and it &quot;makes sense&quot;, but you cannot add two &quot;prepositional prefixes&quot; to them - overdownloadable hardly makes sense." CreationDate="2017-01-19T01:24:19.347" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6226" PostId="2445" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer doing research on affix stacking now - turns out a lot has been published on this topic in the last ten-fifteen years. What about overdownloaded? Sounds legitimate to me and some people use it." CreationDate="2017-01-19T02:45:11.203" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6227" PostId="2445" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. 380 results compared to the tens of thousands for &quot;undownloaded&quot; or &quot;undownloadable&quot; doesn't inspire confidence. I suppose it does make sense, though, if you take it as an intensifier: &quot;downloaded too much,&quot; whereas &quot;down&quot; has a directional sense. I think that might be at the heart of the question, since συγκατα- (or ἀντικατα-) are not prefixed with an intensifier. I don't know if it's a good distinction to make, and it may break down with more examples, but to my ears, at this time, they do seem different." CreationDate="2017-01-19T02:52:58.487" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6253" PostId="2445" Score="1" Text="I agree with @AlexB. These are not prepositions, but prefixes (or preverbs), a category that embraces negative prefixes." CreationDate="2017-01-20T12:54:16.233" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6221" PostId="2446" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer!" CreationDate="2017-01-19T00:29:16.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6229" PostId="2447" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure I understand this question. Do you want a Latin idiom to translate a Finnish idiom? Do you want a Classical Latin word or phrase, or can it be from any era?" CreationDate="2017-01-19T06:07:11.490" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6230" PostId="2447" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I edited the question slightly in an attempt to clarify. I prefer the classical era, but good suggestions from other eras are welcome. I am looking for something similar to the Finnish idiom if any such thing exists in Latin. So yes, I am looking for a translation of the Finnish idiom, but I hope I explained my intentions clearly in English, too." CreationDate="2017-01-19T13:09:46.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6231" PostId="2447" Score="0" Text="In English, we sometimes call a bad joke a lame joke.  Is this the sense behind a peg leg joke?  Because someone with a peg leg would be lame!" CreationDate="2017-01-19T13:24:51.133" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6240" PostId="2447" Score="0" Text="@Penelope I think that's pretty close to the Finnish idiom, and certainly good for the purposes of this question. I think the point of a peg leg joke is that it limps; limping is a common figure of speech in Finnish for any kind of badly working narrative." CreationDate="2017-01-20T00:16:47.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22744" PostId="2447" Score="1" Text="The best translation into English for this Finnish word is a &quot;Dad Joke.&quot; It refers to the tendency of Dads to tell terrible corny jokes." CreationDate="2019-10-07T18:55:50.487" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="33760" PostId="2449" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Japanese has a similar idea, where a bad joke is called 寒い _samui_, meaning &quot;cold&quot;." CreationDate="2021-06-20T08:21:14.013" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="6241" PostId="2451" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and +1 for a good question!" CreationDate="2017-01-20T03:14:02.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6235" PostId="2452" Score="2" Text="Thank you for your quick and very helpful answer! (The first link in particular will certainly prove very useful next time I need to check a citation.)" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:31:12.260" UserId="1171" />
  <row Id="6236" PostId="2452" Score="0" Text="@FlorentMichel You're very welcome! PHI is an absolute godsend." CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:32:09.833" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6239" PostId="2452" Score="0" Text="That is really nice to learn about. Thanks." CreationDate="2017-01-19T23:48:31.177" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6244" PostId="2453" Score="0" Text="Possible duplicate of [Latin word for &quot;code&quot; or &quot;program&quot; (the verb)](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/196/latin-word-for-code-or-program-the-verb)" CreationDate="2017-01-20T04:53:29.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6245" PostId="2453" Score="0" Text="To further clarify, in the answer is also the noun &quot;program,&quot; which is synonymous with application, i.e. a compiled executable. I know that on other stacks even if the question is different, if the answer is the same, they're usually redirected. In any case, you can find your answer in the link provided there, too." CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:19:58.153" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6246" PostId="2453" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer There is a difference between a program and an application. A slight one, perhaps, but the two English words are not exactly synonymous to many people. If this is not the case in Latin and the best word is indeed *programma (telephonulare?)*, then explaining that would make a good answer. I read through the other question, but I did not find an answer to my question." CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:24:34.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6251" PostId="2453" Score="2" Text="Are you going along this route? http://stackoverflow.com/a/4433145/4117603" CreationDate="2017-01-20T07:55:48.130" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6254" PostId="2453" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer That looks like an excellent definition to me. A word for an application in that sense would be perfect." CreationDate="2017-01-20T12:57:57.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6275" PostId="2453" Score="3" Text="Timeo ne hoc rogatum aptum accipere responsum nequeat, cum sensus verborum latinorum circa res informaticas nec antiqua auctoritate nec usu moderno confirmetur, ita ut voces inter se tam paulum differentes capere non possit. Si &quot;programma&quot; respuimus, opportebit, ut mihi videtur, optimum responsum quemdam neologismum esse, fortasse quo intellegi possit sensus vocis anglicae &quot;interface.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-22T19:50:15.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6247" PostId="2454" Score="2" Text="It might be an intensifying prefix. Also, it could mean breaking something several times, as in, breaking something to pieces. These are just guesses, though! (I hesitate to even state these.)" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:44:47.107" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6255" PostId="2454" Score="6" Text="The particle &quot;up&quot; in &quot;break up&quot; does not mean &quot;up.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-20T15:41:33.663" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6256" PostId="2456" Score="1" Text="In case it isn't clear: *βλέπω* can be used transitively, though using a preposition seems much more frequent." CreationDate="2017-01-20T18:13:30.000" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6258" PostId="2456" Score="3" Text="+1. A couple additional details: the &quot;see&quot; sense of βλέπω is, I think, mainly found in verse -- in prose, it generally means &quot;look&quot;; and ὁράω too can sometimes mean &quot;have sight&quot; (LSJ I.2). (Btw I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;the abstract meaning of 'see'&quot;.)" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:20:25.823" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6259" PostId="2459" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is pretty convincing. I hadn't seen an interrogative pulled out of a subordinate clause before. (The ambiguity can be strengthened by context. For example: *&quot;Telephonulo uti nolo. Quo modo me hortaris, ut utar?&quot;* Now *utar* can refer to either *telephonulo* or *modo*.)" CreationDate="2017-01-21T02:52:56.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6261" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="I like these suggestions: you have one typo at the end though (*utendae* -&gt; *utenda*)" CreationDate="2017-01-21T19:42:16.603" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6262" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="Thanks. You are right, and I've removed the surplus 'e'." CreationDate="2017-01-21T19:59:19.277" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6264" PostId="2460" Score="1" Text="*Utor* doesn't take accusative, so *quae verba sint utenda* isn't a possible construction, I believe -- it needs to be impersonal, *quibus verbis sit utendum* (as with other pseudo-transitive verbs like *credo*)." CreationDate="2017-01-21T21:11:49.963" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6266" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="Quite :, it doesn't — but _quae verba_ is here the object of _subiice_, not of _utar_. 'Suggest what words might be useful to me.'" CreationDate="2017-01-21T21:54:52.663" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6267" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="I like these suggestions, too. Thanks! Suggestions like this help me make my Latin more idiomatic bit by bit." CreationDate="2017-01-21T22:32:57.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6268" PostId="2460" Score="1" Text="The point is that a verb that isn't transitive can't be passivized -- since you can't say *utor haec verba*, you can't make that into *haec verba utenda sunt*. Just like you can say *Credit mihi* &quot;He believes me&quot;, but not *Credor ab eo &quot;I am believed by him&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-22T01:07:59.833" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6269" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="See Woodcock p. 164: https://books.google.com/books?id=WmT6mS5v4dAC&amp;lpg=PA164&amp;vq=utendam&amp;pg=PA164#v=snippet&amp;q=utendam&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-01-22T01:32:12.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6271" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="I think you overlook the point that _utenda_ is adjectival (a gerundive) and therefore has to agree with _verba_. The question of an ablative to follow some part of _utor_ does not arise — which does actually happen. in my first example." CreationDate="2017-01-22T09:26:08.613" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6273" PostId="2460" Score="1" Text="My point is that *utenda* is impossible in the first place because an intransitive verb can't be passivized (except impersonally). Woodcock addresses this exact issue, see the Note in the middle of the linked page: &quot;one can say *ad hanc rem utendam* ... but not *haec res utenda est*. For the latter one must say *hac re utendum est*.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-22T18:21:46.230" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6278" PostId="2460" Score="2" Text="@TKR I'm sorry to say that the link to Woodcock shows only a blank page. I have addressed your objection by editing the answer." CreationDate="2017-01-23T11:17:11.297" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6282" PostId="2460" Score="2" Text="Hmm, I'm getting a blank page too but if I click the X next to &quot;Clear search&quot;, the page shows up. Another quote relevant to the examples you cite is &quot;These [gerundives of *utor* etc.] can be used predicatively ... but they are never predicated with *esse* to form the periphrastic construction&quot;. That is, things like *filiam utendam* are an exception to the  usual rule that intransitives can't passivize, but the exception does not extent to the construction with *sum*, as in *verba utenda sint*." CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:07:03.143" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6331" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="Finally got there by a new search. I've not come across this restriction before and wonder why it should exist? My guess is that a preference for direct expression to subordinate clauses may have made it (if _esse_ was ever actually allowed in such cases) too rare for examples to have survived. Instead of giving a 'more polite'  suggestion I would better have left it as_subiice verba mihi utenda_. Thank you!" CreationDate="2017-01-26T06:44:42.327" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6349" PostId="2460" Score="0" Text="To me it's the *filiam utendam do* type that needs explanation, as the *res utenda est* type seems to be ruled out by normal grammatical logic. Anyway, it's an odd little corner of Latin grammar. Not sure why the link didn't work correctly -- sorry about that!" CreationDate="2017-01-26T18:43:37.747" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6272" PostId="2463" Score="0" Text="I'm very glad to see your references to Smith's Dictionary of Greek &amp; Roman Antiquities. It's a remarkable source, one which unfortunately seems to have fallen into disregard, and a compilation undertaken by a truly remarkable scholar." CreationDate="2017-01-22T11:21:45.673" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6276" PostId="2465" Score="2" Text="How about *veritas varia*? It's not exactly the same thing, but it sounds good and it's not that far off. If this is not a good match, what feels wrong? (I can write it into an answer if I know if it's in the right direction.)" CreationDate="2017-01-23T01:07:59.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6277" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="I prefer to use *mendacia*." CreationDate="2017-01-23T01:51:41.937" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6279" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="Or _verum variatum_?" CreationDate="2017-01-23T11:34:50.517" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6280" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer That's what an honest person would call them. To put my question another way, I'm wondering how a Kellyanne Conway would, in Latin, make the equivalent appeal to treat lies as equivalent to truth." CreationDate="2017-01-23T22:54:58.190" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6281" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta +TomCotton Go for it! The phrase should raise eyebrows as obvious nonsense, but it should also have the easily seen-through _prima facie_ plausibility of &quot;alternative facts&quot;. This probably depends a lot on familiar phrases or patterns of use of the words involved. Anything you could say about that would help. It should clearly not mean the same as English &quot;other facts&quot;, which just means additional information, or &quot;contested facts&quot;, &quot;disputed facts&quot;, etc." CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:04:06.753" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6284" PostId="2465" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz That was tongue-in-cheek." CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:44:56.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6291" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="Ecce pipiatum: https://twitter.com/querulus/status/823390170565251074" CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:30:41.427" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6294" PostId="2465" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Sicne tweet Latine vocatur? Forsitan rogatum habere debemus de &quot;Twitter&quot; et &quot;tweet&quot;..." CreationDate="2017-01-24T03:26:16.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6393" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think it's gotten considerable debate in contemporary usage, with _pipiatum_ and _breviloquarius_ the apparent winners, but—eum habeamus!" CreationDate="2017-01-30T01:43:06.973" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6479" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="I've seen *breviloquium* used for &quot;text message&quot; far more than *breviloquarius* for &quot;tweet.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:50:31.370" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6480" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton +1 for *verum*. Why do you prefer *variatum*, though, to *varium*? *Vera varia* has a particularly nice ring." CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:53:30.717" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6484" PostId="2465" Score="0" Text="@Joel Derfner  A marginally more precise translation? Or _Chacun a son gout?_. You're right about the sound, though." CreationDate="2017-02-02T20:08:51.140" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6283" PostId="2466" Score="2" Text="Related question about the prepositions rather than the prefixes: [Why “ex nihilo” instead of “e nihilo”?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2430)" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:20:40.330" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="6481" PostId="2466" Score="1" Text="I suspect it has to do with whether the consonant following is voiced or unvoiced (we have *enervo, emendo, egredior* but *exsorbeo, expendo, extero*)." CreationDate="2017-02-02T18:02:44.643" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6483" PostId="2466" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner Good theory! I'll go through the consonants and see if it's true. If you have any ideas as to *why* it should be that way, please write an answer. I have no clue, other than it sounds better that way." CreationDate="2017-02-02T19:28:14.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6285" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="Does analyze count? It only became a verb after being imported from Latin as a noun (analysis &lt; αναλυσις &lt; αναλυειν)" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:45:51.523" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6286" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That's very interesting! Unfortunately, I don't think so; what I'm looking for here are words being borrowed directly from Greek verbs, without -sis or -m(a) or similar noun-deriving morphemes attached." CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:52:33.757" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6287" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="N.B. Almost all Latin verbs in English are from suffixed (or suffigated) forms too, mostly supine stems. Cf. also how the Latin suffix -*io* was hardly ever attached to the plain verbal stem in Latin, but almost always to the supine stem. Although the supine stem is in some relevant aspects different from Greek verbal -iz- stems." CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:12:47.693" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6288" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Very true. But some English verbs from Latin present stems immediately come to mind, such as *descend* and *confer*; I can't think of any from Greek. Forms from the supine stem are also often borrowed as verbs, especially Latin first conjugation → English verbs in *-ate*; Greek forms like *thesis* and *schism* are fundamentally nouns in Latin and English." CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:18:38.890" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6289" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: To your first point, yes, it would be interesting find Greek counter-examples. To your second point, the supine suffix is also a nominal suffix, so I'm not entirely sure the two are so very different." CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:22:17.410" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6290" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus A valid point. To rephrase, what I'm interested in is the borrowing of a Greek verb as a Latin or English verb, regardless of its origin. If Greek had developed a verb * _analyso_ &lt; _analysis_, and that were borrowed into Latin as * _analysāre_, I'd consider that a valid example even though there was a noun involved in the process. Like how Latin verbs from supine stems (vulgar *dictātō* &lt; *dictātus* &lt; *dictō* &lt; *dictus* &lt; *dīcō*) have been borrowed into English as verbs (dictate)." CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:29:07.693" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6292" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Oh, I understood your question and upvoted it. I was just trying to implicate Latin in the crime a little bit. I suppose, if at least Vulgar Latin had actual verbs like dictato, indicto, validato, and if no such media can be found between Ancient Greek and English/Latin, that provides a decent alibi for Latin. Although I have to say I find the use of suffixless stems most interesting—of which there are many more from Latin, as you say." CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:37:15.780" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6293" PostId="2468" Score="2" Text="*Encrypt* comes to mind." CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:38:42.777" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6296" PostId="2468" Score="0" Text="This is a very thought-provoking question. +1" CreationDate="2017-01-24T20:46:51.963" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6297" PostId="2471" Score="0" Text="The idea is that the Greek word from which it is derived was also a verb, and the Latin/English verb should not contain nominal suffixes. Chalo qualifies. Bacchor, contechnor, gyro, moechor may qualify." CreationDate="2017-01-25T00:08:05.417" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6299" PostId="2472" Score="3" Text="A couple of accent corrections: τὸν παλαι**ὸ**ν διδάσκαλ**ό**ν σου (second accent because of the enclitic). (τὸν σὸν παλαιὸν διδάσκαλον sounds better to me, btw.)" CreationDate="2017-01-25T03:29:25.807" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6298" PostId="2473" Score="1" Text="+1. A couple small spelling corrections: ἡ ἐμ**ὴ** σκηνή, Σ**ω**κράτης, παλαι**ὸ**ς διδάσκαλος. Btw, though the definite article with proper names is common, it isn't obligatory -- Σωκράτης without ὁ is also correct." CreationDate="2017-01-25T03:27:23.043" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6300" PostId="2473" Score="0" Text="@TKR Fixed, thanks! (And added a note about proper names without articles.)" CreationDate="2017-01-25T04:11:09.587" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6328" PostId="2475" Score="0" Text="Great answer! Thanks. Could you explain why δόξαι is best translated as impersonal? I assumed that θεωρίᾱ was the subject since it's in the nominative." CreationDate="2017-01-25T21:25:26.000" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6333" PostId="2475" Score="1" Text="I thought about this quite a bit, and asked for a second opinion. I think the verb δοκέω is a little tricky. It can be an impersonal verb meaning &quot;it seems (good) (to)&quot;, and take a subject infinitive, or it can mean &quot;seem&quot; and take a complementary infinitive. I wasn't sure which use was intended in the text. But I do think our translations are practically the same." CreationDate="2017-01-26T07:12:48.113" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6350" PostId="2475" Score="2" Text="I'd say ἄν has to be taken with δόξαι, as potential optatives always have ἄν  in Attic prose. Without ἄν pretty much the only reading for a main-clause optative is as a wish, which doesn't work here." CreationDate="2017-01-26T18:46:52.153" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6302" PostId="2476" Score="2" Text="Good question! Shouldn't it be *deletur* instead of *delitur*?" CreationDate="2017-01-25T16:48:49.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6306" PostId="2476" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oops, fixed. I really need a Latin spell-checker." CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:13:19.227" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26926" PostId="2477" Score="0" Text="Let me make a couple of remarks on your answer: (i) against the traditional claim that the gerundive _patiendus_ can be analyzed as a &quot;**future passive participle**&quot;, Pinkster (2015: 59) says: &quot;two types of adjectival verb forms must be distinguished: participles, which take part in the morphosemantic category of tense, and gerundives, which do not (until in Late Latin, when they come to be used as substitutes for the lacking future passive participle)&quot;&quot;.  So, according to Harm Pinkster, the gerundive functions as a (true) &quot;future passive participle&quot; in Late Latin but not in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2020-06-23T18:33:56.173" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26928" PostId="2477" Score="0" Text="(ii) as for A&amp;G's traditional claim above that the gerundive is &quot;passive in meaning&quot;, one can wonder to what extent it holds when dealing with examples like _moriendum est omnibus_. It is not clear (at least to me) to what extent a(n already) &quot;lexically passive&quot; verb like _mori_ can (additionally/syntactically) be said to be understood as &quot;passive&quot; in _moriendum est omnibus_. For some discussion on this point, please see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9379/on-the-absence-of-impersonal-passives-of-deponent-verbs" CreationDate="2020-06-23T19:06:38.713" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26935" PostId="2477" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: For &quot;moriendum est omnibus&quot; = &quot;all must die&quot;; literally: &quot;for all it-ought-to-be-(must  be)-death&quot;. Alternatively, &quot;moriendum erit....&quot; = &quot;....-it-will-be-...&quot;. Axiomatic; the ultimate obligation; expressed passively, in the literal translation." CreationDate="2020-06-24T08:42:11.410" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33944" PostId="2477" Score="0" Text="If this is true, that is, that the deponents can be used in the gerundive then why did Allen not include a conjugation for it in paragraph 190 found here https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/deponent-verbs" CreationDate="2021-07-02T09:19:22.547" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="6482" PostId="2478" Score="0" Text="Some living Latinists also say *susque deque*, but I don't know whether this is attested or synthetic." CreationDate="2017-02-02T18:04:50.930" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6308" PostId="2479" Score="1" Text="what about [equinumerous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinumerosity)? I also thought of _batch average_: it is neither Latin, nor necessarily constant in number, but at least in simulation is used exactly in the sense you explain" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:22:28.073" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="6309" PostId="2479" Score="1" Text="Can you clarify how this word would be used? I'm imagining something like the &quot;The equicopian averages of X are 3, 4, and 3.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:31:13.520" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6311" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Hmm, equinumerous sounds good. Except, the wikipedia definition says that their has to be a bijection between both. Their is no relation between the sets in my case, but I guess it is always possible to define a bijection. Are every two finite sets with the same number of elements equinumerous?" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:53:29.827" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6312" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Concerning the _batch average_, could you give some example where this is explained. Also, is this for sorted data? In my case it concerns data (say _y_ dependent on _x_) which is not ordered but I then want to sort according to _x_, and take the averages of y. This sorting doesn't have to be in the name (it will be clear from my plot), but if _batch average_ exists and does not have this, then it does not make sense." CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:57:30.810" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6313" PostId="2479" Score="1" Text="In similar cases, words like *percentile* and *quartile*, etc. are in common use. Would they fit your case?" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:58:13.020" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6314" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="For example, you could say the second decile of the European population earns €15,000/year, with which you would mean the average income among the second poorest 1/10th of the population (it is usually assumed that the data points are ordered)." CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:59:54.210" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6315" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yes, that's how I would use it (although in my case it would be on a figure). I would of course first define it exactly, but then later I could just refer to it with the word. And the fact that you give 3 values would imply that the number of points per group is equal to the total amount of datapoints divided by 3." CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:01:28.700" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6316" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus No. sorry, that's my bad. I should perhaps have specified better. It would be for some data _y_ dependent on a variable _x_. And so I want to order the data according to _x_, but take the average of _y_. I'll edit my question accordingly." CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:04:19.137" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6318" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Also, quantiles or percentiles are not averages but real values occuring in the dataset" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:18:24.287" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6319" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@LuKas: Ah, because they are on the boundary between, say, the poorest and second poorest 1/10th of the population? Or because they are the median of the poorest 1/10th? I'm afraid I have never learned statistics..." CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:22:39.923" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6320" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I think, quantiles are defined such that if you were to have, say, 100 people and rank them according to their wealth, the, say 0.9th, quantile would be the wealth of the 90th person. I think similar with percentile, in this case the 90th (since it uses percent). Percentile might also mean the 90th person in that case, not sure." CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:35:37.083" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6322" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@LuKas 1) if you can number them, and they are the same number, then there is an implicit biyection Xi&lt;--&gt;Yi 2) look for &quot;batch mean&quot; (sorry, not average) in [Banks et al.](https://cs313pnu.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/discrete-event_system_simulation_by_jerry_banks.pdf)" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:38:44.103" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="6324" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@LuKas: OK I see." CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:49:11.937" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6327" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@LuKas The bijection thing is especially needed when you want to know whether two _infinite_ sets are the same number, this being but a so-to-say _trivial_ case. See also [this](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equinumerous)" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:57:04.117" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="6340" PostId="2479" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Yes, that's what I thought. Good to know. Only thing is, the average is not really equinumerous, the sets over which the averages are taken are." CreationDate="2017-01-26T12:45:39.350" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6342" PostId="2479" Score="0" Text="@LuKas have you considered submitting this question to [stats.SE]?" CreationDate="2017-01-26T13:00:02.070" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="6347" PostId="2479" Score="1" Text="@Rafael [I actually already did](http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/258099/is-there-a-term-for-an-average-per-equal-amount-of-data) before i posted here, but with the idea of asking if there already existed a word. It seems like none exists, but a recent answer did also give a good suggestion for a new word." CreationDate="2017-01-26T16:09:50.610" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6321" PostId="2481" Score="1" Text="I think there's a common construction that your answer could be expanded to explain, e.g. Cicero: &quot;Omnia utenda ac possidenda tradiderat.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:36:47.100" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6323" PostId="2481" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Mmm wouldn't that be an exception to my rule? I thought that was uncommon?" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:44:10.113" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6325" PostId="2481" Score="0" Text="Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to your rule the neuter singular nominative would be the only gerundive form for non-transitive verbs. The Packhum corpus has 302 results for &quot;#utendum#&quot; and 388 for &quot;#utend&quot;, which means *at least* 86 results for that one verb, unless I'm missing something obvious" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:54:40.253" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6326" PostId="2481" Score="0" Text="Take a look at the [results for &quot;#utenda&quot;](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23utenda) for a few examples. &quot;Ad haec utenda&quot; for instance occurs..." CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:55:21.433" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6329" PostId="2481" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, on the Cicero type of construction, see the discussion in comments to Tom Cottons' answer to this [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2458/composing-a-question-with-hortari-and-an-ut-clause), and especially the page of Woodcock I linked to there." CreationDate="2017-01-25T22:07:12.480" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6341" PostId="2481" Score="0" Text="Re my earlier comment, there was &quot;something obvious&quot; I was missing: gerunds, e.g. &quot;utendi gratia.&quot; I still think a significant proportion were gerundives though." CreationDate="2017-01-26T12:59:27.810" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6346" PostId="2483" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I like your approach. _Quantile average_, is the obvious and perfect word for the averages of the _x_ variable. Then in analogy with domain and co-domain, **co-quantile average** (I would use a hyphen to make the word look less exotic) would be a logical counterpart for the averages of the corresponding _y_ values (which is the one I'm looking for). I'm thinking about marking this as solution. I'll definitely upvote." CreationDate="2017-01-26T16:06:21.253" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6352" PostId="2483" Score="0" Text="@LuKas Bear in mind that &quot;quantile&quot; implies (in my experience at least) that the division is based on and ordering. If the division of the data into the different bins is completely independent of the data values, I would be confused. I would expect both a &quot;co(-)quantile average&quot; and a &quot;quantile average&quot; to bin the data in a specific order." CreationDate="2017-01-27T04:52:58.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6353" PostId="2483" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, that is also what I mean. I have data which consists of a variable _x_ with a corresponding variable _y_. I want the averages of _y_ of the sets of equal amount of data, but ordered according to _x_. So then co-quantile average seems good fitting." CreationDate="2017-01-27T11:25:51.423" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6354" PostId="2483" Score="0" Text="I marked your answer as correct, but I would suggest adding the hyphen, because without it I find one interprets it as coquan-tility or so, if you understand what I mean. That is also why your answer didn't really appeal to me immediately." CreationDate="2017-01-27T11:31:02.347" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6355" PostId="2483" Score="0" Text="@LuKas Then I agree that this is a good word. I didn't know any ordering was involved." CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:37:27.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6339" PostId="2484" Score="0" Text="Sounds good, but I'm a bit reluctant of using a term that already exists for something different(?)." CreationDate="2017-01-26T12:44:20.883" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6348" PostId="2484" Score="0" Text="ok, sorry, I guess I read/reacted a bit too fast. But so isopleth seems to refer to the same _measurable quantity_, which in this case would thus refer to the same values of _x_, rather than the amount of measurements ...&#xA;Concerning the mixing of Latin and Greek, do people Latinists and Greekists(?) usually not laugh at that (though I don't know if that would matter)." CreationDate="2017-01-26T16:20:00.527" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6343" PostId="2485" Score="0" Text="I like this, and agree that it's dangerous (albeit fun) to coin a neologism for a concept that probably already exists. One possible objection: [equipartition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem) already has an established meaning that uses a different meaning of *partire*. It refers to kinetic energy being *shared equally*, not *divided equally*." CreationDate="2017-01-26T13:05:11.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6345" PostId="2485" Score="1" Text="I also like this suggestion. Somehow it does feel a bit better than equinumerous. I don't think the concept already has a name, although I'm sure it is already used. I also posted the question at stats.stackexchange, and it seems like there is no name for it (although I got a good suggestion for a new name also). But I really do need a shorthand to refer to it. @brianpck I think the _shared equally_ in the equipartition theorem is also meant as the energy is _split or divided equally_. Does not really make sense otherwise." CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:45:16.920" UserId="1178" />
  <row Id="6465" PostId="2486" Score="0" Text="I found [this old related question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1390/79) today. I had forgotten I had asked it, but it's not a duplicate." CreationDate="2017-02-01T12:00:44.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6338" PostId="2487" Score="1" Text="Great answer, +1. For what it's worth, one argument for their &quot;functional equivalency,&quot; at least with the vernacular counterpart, is that many birth records were written in Latin. Shakespeare's baptismal record has &quot;Gulielmus.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-26T12:07:16.347" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6344" PostId="2487" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site; thanks for contributing!" CreationDate="2017-01-26T13:18:16.767" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6357" PostId="2489" Score="0" Text="You may find this interesting: http://www.carmentablog.com/2014/08/20/translate-english-songs-latin/" CreationDate="2017-01-27T16:10:01.363" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6358" PostId="2489" Score="0" Text="Is your goal to have a literal translation, or something that fits the original rhythm?" CreationDate="2017-01-27T18:44:40.777" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6359" PostId="2489" Score="0" Text="@Draconis literal translation." CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:08:10.443" UserId="1184" />
  <row Id="6360" PostId="2491" Score="0" Text="These are good suggestions! Can you compile a translation suggestion of the (part of the) original song so show how things might look?" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:59:41.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6361" PostId="2493" Score="1" Text="I'm glad you asked!" CreationDate="2017-01-28T05:49:48.137" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6362" PostId="2494" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I did wonder if I should include *ad* in the list but decided to leave it out. Do you happen to know which of these words are most common?" CreationDate="2017-01-28T05:59:19.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6363" PostId="2494" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I don't know 100%, but from my overall impression, *circa* is most common." CreationDate="2017-01-28T06:13:14.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6364" PostId="2494" Score="2" Text="*Circa* is certainly the one which survived with that meaning, though whether that says anything about classical usage is debatable." CreationDate="2017-01-28T07:15:19.513" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6470" PostId="2495" Score="2" Text="I don't think there's anything else to be said!" CreationDate="2017-02-01T22:11:06.000" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6365" PostId="2496" Score="2" Text="Welcome, and nice question!" CreationDate="2017-01-28T13:05:00.290" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="47738" PostId="2496" Score="0" Text="then is there a Latin phrase that... **expresses the speaker's suspicion that something pertinent is being maliciously concealed from him?**" CreationDate="2024-03-15T15:18:46.347" UserId="14864" />
  <row Id="47739" PostId="2496" Score="0" Text="@DirectorKelsey If you have a new question, please ask it by clicking the [Ask Question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) button. Include a link to this question if it helps provide context. - [From Review](/review/late-answers/9634)" CreationDate="2024-03-15T16:23:38.247" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="6366" PostId="2497" Score="4" Text="For what it's worth, the derived verb [subodorare](http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/subodorare/) is currently used with the same meaning in Italian." CreationDate="2017-01-28T19:33:10.710" UserId="1186" />
  <row Id="6368" PostId="2499" Score="0" Text="I never knew that &quot;qui&quot; could be used demonstratively. When you say this, do you mean that &quot;qui&quot; is functioning as an adjective—either a relative adjective or a interrogative adjective? Or do you mean something else?" CreationDate="2017-01-28T22:50:51.860" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6371" PostId="2499" Score="0" Text="As you thinking of connective relatives? If so, this isn't an example of that, but a normal relative clause -- see my answer. (Unrelatedly, it's far from certain that the Latin use of *qui* as relative pronoun is a recent Latin-specific development -- it may already have been such in PIE; this is a long debated question.)" CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:02:32.220" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6375" PostId="2499" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124: TKR is right; I have updated the answer. But anyway, a connective relative functions like a coördinate conjunction + a form of *ille* or *hic*. It can be adjective or substantive, as all pronouns of the third person can." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:11:14.277" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6369" PostId="2500" Score="3" Text="I don't know if the punctuation is your own, but it's misleading -- there's a clause break after *probat*, and *nec non* connects that clause with the following one (whose verb is *quaerit*): *speciam probat, nec non (=et) quaerit*." CreationDate="2017-01-28T22:53:58.460" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6382" PostId="2500" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good point. I was using thelatinlibrary.com as my source. But I just checked Perseus and it punctuates the clause differently. It encloses &quot;probat&quot; in commas." CreationDate="2017-01-29T01:17:47.010" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6367" PostId="2501" Score="1" Text="Thanks! One question. In my translation, it wouldn't make sense to translate &quot;necnon&quot; as &quot;and yet&quot; or &quot;and in fact&quot;, since you would end up with: &quot;Juno, although unwilling, and in fact approves the appearance of the cow...&quot; How would you put the whole thing together?" CreationDate="2017-01-28T22:48:03.537" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6370" PostId="2501" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124: I think you've misread your own translation: *nec non* comes after *probat*. She approves and in fact inquires (if &quot;in fact&quot; is appropriate here)." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:00:33.803" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6372" PostId="2501" Score="0" Text="Oh, thanks! That answers it." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:02:53.413" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6374" PostId="2501" Score="0" Text="One more minor point of confusion. As you see, I translated the enclitic -ve as &quot;and&quot; instead of &quot;or&quot;. But given the fact that two et's precede the -ve, how would you translate the clause? Would it be: &quot;and asks to whom, and from where or which herd it belongs&quot;? Sounds a little awkward." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:06:19.193" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6376" PostId="2501" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124: The enclitic *-ve* is normally translated as &quot;or&quot;, but, in questions and negations, the words &quot;and&quot; and &quot;or&quot; are often similar, so you can translate it as &quot;and&quot; if that fits the sentence." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:14:09.913" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6377" PostId="2501" Score="1" Text="See here under the first &quot;2&quot;: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=ve%231&amp;filter=CUTF8" CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:14:29.850" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6380" PostId="2501" Score="0" Text="Thanks! That helps. I will probably translate it as &quot;and&quot; then." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:19:24.290" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6373" PostId="2502" Score="0" Text="Oh, you're right, I misread the passage." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:03:23.660" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6378" PostId="2502" Score="0" Text="Oh, I see. Would the relative clause introduced by quam be the accusative subject of esse? (As opposed to the object.) That would make more sense to me in an a.c.i. (Although perhaps with linking verbs, the distinction is not important.)" CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:16:01.427" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6379" PostId="2502" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124, you're right, sorry! It's the subject of the ACI construction -- corrected." CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:17:08.953" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6383" PostId="2504" Score="0" Text="Your explanation is terrific! Just a subquestion though - google translated the second part of the sentence as &quot;Indeed, it labored.&quot; Is there any way of saying skipping &quot;Immo&quot; and using a form closer to my original English quote? Thanks again" CreationDate="2017-01-29T17:58:37.100" UserId="1190" />
  <row Id="6384" PostId="2504" Score="4" Text="@LeoNapoleon Google is simply wrong there. The second part of CM's quote means &quot;I worked for it&quot;; *eō* is the object, the *-ī* in *laborāvī* specifies that &quot;I&quot; is the subject. *Immo* is an intensifier without a perfect English equivalent, making the contrast between the two parts more emphatic." CreationDate="2017-01-29T18:39:01.103" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6385" PostId="2504" Score="0" Text="By 1200 **'somnium'** became **'sompnium'** and I would like the added emphasis of **sompniavi.**" CreationDate="2017-01-29T18:49:38.483" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6387" PostId="2505" Score="2" Text="@sumelic No, I think that &quot;corpora&quot; means &quot;forms&quot;, here, since it agrees in gender and number with &quot;nova&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:27:06.807" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6389" PostId="2505" Score="0" Text="That seems to be correct. Found a book that just says &quot;they're synonyms.&quot; https://books.google.com/books?id=31sEAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA1&amp;lpg=PA1&amp;dq=%22in+nova+corpora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=V4VwCw07N9&amp;sig=ddFX3YOxtuYVNOd2-Za52s9bhsw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjI06aOqejRAhXs5YMKHfjtAKE4ChDoAQgiMAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22in%20nova%20corpora%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:43:04.790" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="6392" PostId="2506" Score="0" Text="Good point. It does come to the same thing." CreationDate="2017-01-30T01:02:11.527" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6394" PostId="2506" Score="0" Text="Could Ovid be playing with or referring to Aristotelian philosophy, sc. form and matter?" CreationDate="2017-01-30T02:11:20.213" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6395" PostId="2508" Score="5" Text="I would suggest offering some commentary on your translation choices" CreationDate="2017-01-30T03:00:22.197" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6417" PostId="2508" Score="2" Text="*Omni* should be *omnibus*, to agree with *nobis*." CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:27:21.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6662" PostId="2508" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Will do! I haven't read the other answer yet, so this will reflect my naïve thinking. (I read TKR's comment, but I'll leave my mistake so that others can learn from it.)" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:16:56.057" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6664" PostId="2508" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Done! Now to read the other answer…" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:34:56.080" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6665" PostId="2508" Score="0" Text="Now I just added some comments to explain some more of the intended rhetorical effect, now that I've read Draconis's excellent answer." CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:55:20.060" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6396" PostId="2509" Score="6" Text="For future reference: Google Translate is notoriously bad with Latin. It's helpful only as the roughest of guides." CreationDate="2017-01-30T15:35:27.537" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6415" PostId="2509" Score="0" Text="Make is such an ambiguous word in English, meaning many things, can you specify a little more what type of &quot;make&quot; you have in mind?" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:22:05.303" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6419" PostId="2509" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer - I mean make as in the &quot;Maker Movement&quot;. To make art, electronics, music, etc." CreationDate="2017-01-31T02:03:24.680" UserId="1195" />
  <row Id="6397" PostId="2511" Score="5" Text="Regarding &quot;ego&quot;: I would definitely leave it out, especially since the Latin phrase it is parodying (*cogito ergo sum*) does not include it." CreationDate="2017-01-30T17:32:12.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6403" PostId="2511" Score="0" Text="Quick thought... would the inverse (I am, therefore I make) be &quot;Sum Ergo Facio&quot; ?" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:57:22.157" UserId="1195" />
  <row Id="6406" PostId="2511" Score="0" Text="@AdamHaile It would, though it sounds a bit more strained. (I'd say something like &quot;I live, therefore I make&quot; instead; using *sum* for &quot;I exist&quot; isn't really a common thing.)" CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:05:59.847" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6408" PostId="2511" Score="0" Text="hmmm... Is there another option for &quot;I exist&quot;? Not a fan of &quot;I live&quot;.  What would &quot;I exist, therefore I make&quot; actually be in latin?" CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:14:31.610" UserId="1195" />
  <row Id="6409" PostId="2511" Score="0" Text="@AdamHaile You should probably ask another question about that. There are a few options, none quite equivalent to English &quot;exist&quot;." CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:16:23.830" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6398" PostId="2512" Score="1" Text="Since _repremo_ is not found, why not use _retrorsus ago_, 'drive backwards' ?" CreationDate="2017-01-30T19:55:27.557" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6399" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="The Morgan lexicon allows for *bomba/us* and *pyrobolus*: for the verb, it recommends *pyrobolis concutere/verberare* and *pyrobolos deicere*" CreationDate="2017-01-30T20:14:32.623" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6400" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thank you for the Morgan lexicon! I didn't know about that. Is there an easily-searchable form online?" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:45:50.517" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6401" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Good thought, I'll note that." CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:46:02.310" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6411" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Not that I'm aware of, actually. I have a local copy saved to my computer that I search with find and replace (or regex for trickier cases)" CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:40:55.243" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6412" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="Good answer! Two ideas: (1) How about *saecula prisca* in plural to indicate an era rather than a specific time? (2) The prefix weakens the vowel in the stem: *re+premere=reprimere*. This verb is attested." CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:53:31.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6416" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="*Reprimo* exists, as @JoonasIlmavirta says. But the meaning of *re*- there (as often) seems to be not &quot;back again to where one formerly was&quot; but &quot;in restraint&quot;, as in &quot;hold back&quot;, so it may not be suitable." CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:26:37.433" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6667" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="Fantastic answer! So many rhetorical choices here that never crossed my mind. The use of future indicative vs. present subjunctive is something I'll be on the lookout for as I get more experience reading Latin—yes, a subtle distinction that English lacks. Good point about repeating *nos*. *Omnibus Latine loqui necesse erit* is much more elegant and straightforward than my _noscere._" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:04:26.290" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6668" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I definitely like _retrorsus ago_! As I understand that, it connotes both that we would be driven like animals and that the change is for the worse, regressive, a loss of what we've achieved." CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:09:15.343" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6669" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="I also really like _deicio_. It's got the downward suggestion of _de-_, perfect for bombs, and [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&amp;l=deicio#lexicon) even mention a sense of driving someone out militarily. I'm thinking that I came across this word recently in connection with smashing statues or idols by knocking them down—or am I thinking of a different word?" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:20:40.750" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11569" PostId="2512" Score="0" Text="The Morgan/Owens lexicon (David Morgan died, alas, in 2009, and the lexicon is today maintained by his former student Patrick Owens) is online in several places, including http://www.josephsusanka.com/adumbratio/ and I believe (my computer is being particularly obstreperous at the moment so I'm having trouble checking) at http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx ." CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:58:41.680" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6402" PostId="2515" Score="0" Text="In between Durobrivae and Roffensis was Hrofescester, which could be used." CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:56:02.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6407" PostId="2515" Score="0" Text="@cmw — the bishop of Rochester signs as 'James Roffensis'. He is not Roman Catholic, but Anglican, which I should, perhaps, have pointed out." CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:07:39.643" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6410" PostId="2515" Score="2" Text="Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester [(Dioecesis Roffensis)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Rochester)" CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:24:05.137" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="6428" PostId="2515" Score="0" Text="@Ken Graham  Oh dear! I think you ought to look at this: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/structures/member-churches/member-church/diocese.aspx?church=england&amp;dio=rochester" CreationDate="2017-01-31T06:39:10.957" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6437" PostId="2515" Score="0" Text="I think *scholae* is must better than *ludi* in this context: see the [*Codex Iuris Canonici*](http://www.codex-iuris-canonici.de/liber3.htm). The term &quot;Catholic schools&quot; almost always includes K-12, at least in the US, and *ludus* evokes grade school and below." CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:48:43.897" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6414" PostId="2516" Score="1" Text="I think *sum ergo facio* is perfectly fine, especially as it keeps the parallel with Descartes' original." CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:21:20.077" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6418" PostId="2516" Score="0" Text="Cool. This got me thinking that I kind like using both: Facio Ergo Sum, Sum Ergo Facio - I make, therefore I exist. I exist, therefore I make.  &#xA;Was using this for something else, but I think this may become a tattoo :P" CreationDate="2017-01-31T00:12:01.870" UserId="1195" />
  <row Id="6442" PostId="2519" Score="1" Text="I’d like to note that _pando_ is present tense, not past tense; although in its original context in the Aeneid, it is used as a dramatic present (historic present) and does refer to the past." CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:58:48.750" UserId="17" />
  <row Id="6423" PostId="2522" Score="7" Text="First declension masculines: nauta, incola, a few other -colas, Greek agentives (poeta, athletēs) and borrowed names (Aeneas)." CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:38:05.683" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6424" PostId="2522" Score="2" Text="There are also some second-declension feminines, including *alvus, humus, domus* (partly 4th-decl.), and many tree names." CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:43:07.900" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6425" PostId="2522" Score="3" Text="And the third-declension has two other variants, the i-stems (with -im) and half i-stems (with -ium). And diēs sometimes goes feminine also because, in Latin, even the exceptions have to have exceptions." CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:58:00.140" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6432" PostId="2522" Score="2" Text="Endings for nominative and accusative of plural forms are wrong, I'm afraid: the nominative and accusative plural of *bellum* is *bella*. Similarly for the third and fourth declensions: *opus* gives *opera* and *cornu* gives *cornua*. In all declensions, the accusative of neuter names is the same as the nominative." CreationDate="2017-01-31T12:32:01.503" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="6434" PostId="2522" Score="2" Text="@egreg You're right: given that most Latin grammars dedicate dozens of pages to the various permutations of Latin declensions, it's a little too ambitious for the OP to try to summarize them in this way." CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:11:22.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6426" PostId="2525" Score="0" Text="Haha that's a bummer. I was hoping there would be some pattern. It would certainly help with learning the language faster! oh well" CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:58:47.520" UserId="1202" />
  <row Id="6441" PostId="2525" Score="0" Text="Is *circus* more like fourth, or third? If it were fourth, it'd just be *circūs*, right?" CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:48:07.627" UserId="21" />
  <row Id="6444" PostId="2525" Score="1" Text="@hBy2Py Actually it's 2nd declension...that's more a vagary of English word adoption than an indication of the declension." CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:32:59.687" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6445" PostId="2525" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Mm, hah. Originally 2nd declension, but coincidentally pluralizes in English like 3rd?" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:33:56.253" UserId="21" />
  <row Id="6448" PostId="2525" Score="1" Text="@hBy2Py No need to complicate it: -es is just a standard English plural :) There are just a few cases where nouns accept Latin/Greek plurals (*cacti*, *automata*, and--if you want to be cheeky--*octopodes*), but even those words have standard English plurals." CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:47:39.617" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40219" PostId="2525" Score="0" Text="Alienigena, erigena, lanista,…" CreationDate="2022-10-30T11:49:02.800" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="6431" PostId="2526" Score="0" Text="Since we all love pedantry here: I think *trabs* for ship is better described as *metonymy* rather than *metaphor*." CreationDate="2017-01-31T12:29:25.103" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6433" PostId="2526" Score="0" Text="Pleased to accommodate you." CreationDate="2017-01-31T12:33:54.517" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6435" PostId="2527" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much for this wonderful answer!  Thank you for the grammar references.   I think taking celerrimus outside of the indirect statement, translating it as a noun, and then putting it in apposition with cellerimus would make the beginning sound like&#xA;&#xA;The phaeselus, the vessel you guests(vocative) all see, the quickest of the ships, said that... ?" CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:26:40.643" UserId="1152" />
  <row Id="6436" PostId="2527" Score="0" Text="@user062295 That unfortunately wouldn't work because it doesn't make sense of *fuisse*: you have to translate the *fuisse* and the *nequisse* clauses as *two things* that the *phasellus* said." CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:34:41.203" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6438" PostId="2527" Score="0" Text="@brianpck  Being a reference back to _phaselus_, I don't think it could be _celerrimam_, even if _navis_ is feminine. To make this clearer, in straight prose it might have been _phaselus navium celerrimus _." CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:03:59.177" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6446" PostId="2527" Score="0" Text="Does the following translation read literally?:&#xA;Phaeselus, the ship you guests all saw said that&#xA;1) she was the fastest of all the ships&#xA;and neither the attack of any of the timber nor (of anything else) had been able to pass(her), and (the attack) would have to fly by means of palm leaves and a cloth( in order to overtake her)." CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:34:33.310" UserId="1152" />
  <row Id="6450" PostId="2527" Score="0" Text="@user062295  That's pretty much all right, except that the tense is actually the present," CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:59:34.667" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6451" PostId="2527" Score="0" Text="Oh, and _palmula_ is here (by metonymy) an oar." CreationDate="2017-01-31T17:21:28.150" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6439" PostId="2528" Score="0" Text="It's simply a demonstrative pronoun, nothing to do with 'second person'. The adverbs might sometimes carry the implication _that (place, etc.) rather than some other_, but it's not very strong." CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:15:52.417" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6440" PostId="2528" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton At least [Lewis Elementary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diste) and the material I studied from indicate that it is indeed second person. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DI%3Aentry+group%3D77%3Aentry%3Diste) hints at this at I.A.2. Perhaps I should ask a separate question about the second person character of *iste*." CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:26:09.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6443" PostId="2528" Score="1" Text="Those examples only refer the object to a second person. The first instance of your first reference, _tu tibi istas comprimite manus_  (which is a bit strange, having _tu_ followed by a plural imperative),  means 'you keep those hands to yourself', where 'those hands' certainly belong to a second person (_tibi_) but are not themselves being addressed." CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:28:53.007" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6447" PostId="2528" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton By &quot;second person demonstrative pronoun&quot; I meant a demonstrative pronoun that refers to something possessed by or close to the addressee. I did not mean that that it refers to the addressee. In a same way *hic* refers to something close to the speaker, and I might call it a first person pronoun in a similar fashion. I'll edit the question to clarify." CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:43:50.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6449" PostId="2528" Score="1" Text="I see exactly what you are getting at, but the terminology is quite unfamiliar to me! Let's hope that the revised question draws a good answer." CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:56:27.887" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6452" PostId="2530" Score="1" Text="Actually, *Roffensis* is an adjective and the town is *Roffa, -ae*: compare to *Archidioecesis Neo-Eboracensis* (not Neo-Eboracae) or *Universitas Oxoniensis* (not *Oxoniae*)." CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:59:01.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6453" PostId="2530" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer! This is valuable insight, but there is a little grammar error. As @brianpck mentions, *Roffensis* is an adjective. For use with *scholae*, it should be in feminine plural nominative: *Roffenses*." CreationDate="2017-01-31T20:49:49.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6455" PostId="2530" Score="0" Text="Are we all at cross purposes here? Being English, I simply (and lazily, I suppose) assumed that the place was Rochester in the UK. Now it seems that the questioner may have been referring to Rochester NY, which seems to be a Catholic diocese. If that's right, I suggest Scholae Catholicae Roffae (not really genitive, but locative, which is identical in form)." CreationDate="2017-01-31T21:46:22.740" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6460" PostId="2530" Score="0" Text="Interesting. I assumed it was genitive because I already knew the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is _Archidioecesis Angelorum in California_, which translates literally as &quot;Archdiocese of the Angels.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-01T00:21:00.853" UserId="1209" />
  <row Id="6469" PostId="2530" Score="0" Text="Hey all, thanks so much for the feedback. The Rochester I'm referring to is in Rochester, Minnesota (which was named after Rochester, NY....go figure)  - Would you agree 'Roffenses' is the proper word choice for Rochester?" CreationDate="2017-02-01T19:29:20.537" UserId="1200" />
  <row Id="6454" PostId="2531" Score="0" Text="Thanks! The second example is great, but it seems that the first one has the declinable pronoun *istic* (emphasized *iste*) whereas my question was about the non-declinable adverb *istic* (roughly &quot;there&quot;) and its companions. I believe the two words are separate. However, I consider this as good evidence of pejorative nuance; if it is found in a derived pronoun, it makes all the more sense in a derived adverb." CreationDate="2017-01-31T20:56:33.547" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6456" PostId="2531" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Obviously my reading comprehension skills are lacking :) I'm pretty sure the second *istuc* is a pronoun as well: the *qui* means &quot;why.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-01-31T22:55:22.300" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6457" PostId="2533" Score="1" Text="Strange that a past participle for a verb became the stem for another verb." CreationDate="2017-01-31T23:10:13.970" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6458" PostId="2533" Score="7" Text="Etymonline is better than Wiktionary because it is mainly plagiarized from the OED, minus diacritics and minus citations. But  of course you could go straight to the OED." CreationDate="2017-01-31T23:17:52.493" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6459" PostId="2533" Score="6" Text="@ktm5124 That's actually very common, even in Classical Latin, e.g. *cantare* from *canere*." CreationDate="2017-01-31T23:35:13.463" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6462" PostId="2533" Score="2" Text="Just as a minor observation, I think the term _literally_ in the quote is quite inaccurate; while the Italian _andante_ might translate to _walking_ in some cases, such translation is highly context-dependent, and certainly not literal (and of very uncommon use, the only use I'm aware of being the musical term). Literally _andante_ means _going_ (present participle) and it carries no reference to _walking_ (_camminare_) or to any other specific way of going or mean of transportation. It's just the present participle of _andare_ (_to go_)." CreationDate="2017-02-01T09:24:57.177" UserId="1212" />
  <row Id="6463" PostId="2533" Score="0" Text="Errata corrige: I wanted to mean that _andante_ itself is very uncommon, not its meaning as _walking_ (which by the way is even more uncommon, if used at all)." CreationDate="2017-02-01T11:24:13.377" UserId="1212" />
  <row Id="6473" PostId="2537" Score="0" Text="Interesting! I didn't know that *hoc* scans long in verse, and that lead me to ask [a follow-up question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2538/79)." CreationDate="2017-02-02T10:01:38.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8214" PostId="2537" Score="1" Text="Happy to see you to 10k." CreationDate="2017-04-21T00:53:29.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8217" PostId="2537" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer, gratias tibi ago!" CreationDate="2017-04-21T01:28:42.590" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6474" PostId="2538" Score="3" Text="I found a relevant passage in Bennett (1907) that I summarize in my answer to [What effect should a macron have on the sound of a letter and its word?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word/17#17). He thinks it is likely that a long final consonant occured in some nominative forms where original -s was assimilated to a preceding s, l, or r, as in *far, farris.* I'm unsure about the extent to which this is supported by metrical evidence." CreationDate="2017-02-02T10:08:38.317" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="6476" PostId="2538" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Interesting! It could be that dictionaries mark some vowels length due to metric evidence but the authors have misinterpreted a long consonant for a long vowel. A short study of words of this kind would constitute a nice answer." CreationDate="2017-02-02T10:12:04.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6495" PostId="2538" Score="0" Text="Is **far** long from Synizesis?" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:53:45.130" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6497" PostId="2538" Score="0" Text="@Hugh I don't know about *far*. That's a potential answer word. By *hic* I mean the one with short vowel, hence the word &quot;masculine&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:08:23.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8527" PostId="2538" Score="0" Text="Not an easy one to diagnose, because by default a heavy syllable preceding a single consonant is grounds to just classify the vowel as long." CreationDate="2017-05-03T12:51:25.440" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="6485" PostId="2540" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! The question is good, but unfortunately the answer depends on how you want to pronounce Latin. It's not uniform." CreationDate="2017-02-02T20:25:44.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6492" PostId="2540" Score="0" Text="The Roman ecclesiastical pronunciation of *mihi* is [miki]." CreationDate="2017-02-03T09:32:10.827" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6478" PostId="2541" Score="6" Text="In Gregorian chant, no question you should use /'mi.ki/, e.g. [this recording from Fontgombault (France)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDBX7oTOaCA) at 2:09. Many church choirs will use this pronunciation regardless of origin, whereas some will use regional accents for their respective composers, such as German Latin for [Bach's *Magnificat*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZEUjC53upA), which has /'mi.hi/. Ultimately it's the choir's decision and consistency is key: classical restored pronunciation is probably never a good idea for period pieces though." CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:12:00.593" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11615" PostId="2541" Score="0" Text="I'll add that in English Latin pronunciation—that is, as Latin was pronounced on the British isles—from the 19th and 20th centuries, and perhaps before, it was /ˈmi.ki/." CreationDate="2017-12-05T11:56:43.800" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="14379" PostId="2541" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, that's a sound explanation, and could be a good example of an early _artificial sound change_. In Spanish there is actually a derived verb _aniquilar_ [aniki'lar] (to destroy). Do you know any documentation on this (I'm not challenging the answer, it's just it is so good that It would be nice to have it sourced to make it even better)" CreationDate="2018-05-28T20:49:38.730" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="6486" PostId="2542" Score="0" Text="If the question is about the coat of arms, the pope's view is the correct one. If it's about Venerable Bede's intended meaning or Latin grammar, it's debatable. In any case, I'm happy that we have a pope who puts genuine thought into Latin." CreationDate="2017-02-02T20:33:45.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6494" PostId="2542" Score="1" Text="To clarify: do you know if the brackets represent the pope's own translation? His gloss in the second paragraph implies the ablative gerund (which, as I mentioned, is really the only viable possibility). @JoonasIlmavirta Reminder that this is Venerable Bede's commentary, not Matthew :)" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:17:11.783" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6498" PostId="2542" Score="0" Text="I don't know. In context it seems more likely that it's the translators' translation rather than the Pope's, but I'm not certain of that." CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:37:58.407" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="6487" PostId="2543" Score="3" Text="This rule is part of a larger pattern: Latin generally disallows *s* before a voiced consonant, and historically such an *s* was lost, along with any consonant that immediately preceded it, and with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. For example, *vēlum* 'sail' &lt; *wekslom, *āla* 'wing' &lt; *aksla, *trēdecim* '13' &lt; *trēsdekim. It's thought that in such cases the [s] first became [z] by voicing assimilation and later was lost." CreationDate="2017-02-03T00:57:08.697" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6488" PostId="2544" Score="3" Text="One practical consideration that might sway a speaker one way or another is the fact that subjunctive of hesitation is common in the first person singular. In the 3rd and 4th conjugations, the present subjunctive is indistinguishable from the future indicative (credam, capiam, audiam), which might lead one to favor the perfect subjunctive to avoid confusion (I will vs. I might)." CreationDate="2017-02-03T03:53:36.377" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26724" PostId="2544" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: The perfect-subjunctive concession: &quot;fueris prudens, pius non fuisti&quot; = &quot;You might have become wise, you were not devout.&quot; is understood. The perf.-subj. wish does not include a perf. subj., but present subj. &quot;sit&quot;. And &quot;sit ita factum&quot; = &quot;thus it may have been done&quot;, the wish is getting &quot;it&quot; done?" CreationDate="2020-06-05T12:41:45.213" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26728" PostId="2544" Score="0" Text="@tony The form *sit factum* is a passive perfect conjunctive form formed with the help of (the present group of) *esse*, much like *amati sumus*. I'd translate *sit ita factum* as &quot;may it be done so&quot;. I'm not sure if the perfect refers to the past here. That's worth exploring in a separate question; there's so much to figure out about conjunctives." CreationDate="2020-06-05T14:28:14.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6499" PostId="2546" Score="1" Text="Good point; also, in Italian there is the adjective _immondo_ (from which I'm sure _immondizia_ comes) to describe something as very very dirty." CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:52:14.693" UserId="1212" />
  <row Id="6502" PostId="2550" Score="1" Text="When a reform claims to bring about fairness and equality, when in fact it will destroy the best without improving the situation for those who are not able to have the best, then the argument may be 'driven by envy.' It is still fairly usual in logic and Law to use Latin. Cf 'ad hominem argument;' –" CreationDate="2017-02-04T03:08:11.633" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6503" PostId="2550" Score="1" Text="You have got a couple of downvotes in addition to some upvotes. I believe the negative feedback is due to lack of research. Have you tried translating the phrase yourself? Was something difficult or uncertain? I suggest taking a look at [this guide for asking translation questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) and editing your question." CreationDate="2017-02-04T22:13:17.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6505" PostId="2552" Score="0" Text="It's a minor point, but I think *ab* is better understood as meaning &quot;from&quot; in this case, since normally it's only personal agents that take *ab* in the meaning &quot;by&quot; (for entities that aren't persons the ablative by itself is used)." CreationDate="2017-02-05T03:23:11.783" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6504" PostId="2553" Score="0" Text="*Nostalgia* seems to be Late Latin at the earliest, from a post-Classical Greek compound, from the attested Classical νόστος &quot;return home&quot; + ἄλγος &quot;suffering&quot;. Haven't found any relevant use of the full word in either Latin or Greek." CreationDate="2017-02-04T23:20:21.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6506" PostId="2554" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! These are excellent examples." CreationDate="2017-02-05T11:50:55.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6550" PostId="2555" Score="2" Text="FWIW, Gildersleeve and Lodge say the plural of *quisque* is &quot;rare until post-classical times&quot;. I'm not sure I've ever seen it." CreationDate="2017-02-07T05:39:46.140" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7956" PostId="2556" Score="1" Text="Is _fluentus_ right? I would expect _fluens, -tis_ instead..." CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:42:38.640" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="6514" PostId="2557" Score="4" Text="   is what you can find in the actual Etruscan texts but since it is time-consuming and typographically challenging, they are transliterated as Greek θ φ χ - cf. &quot;Etruskische Buchstaben, die im lateinischen Alphabet fehlen, aber im griechischen Musteralphabet vorhanden waren, naemlich Theta, Chi und Phi transkribiert man griechlich&quot; (Etruskische Texte, v. 1, p. 20)." CreationDate="2017-02-05T23:11:24.987" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6515" PostId="2557" Score="0" Text="a nice table https://books.google.com/books?id=aPEENAEp938C&amp;lpg=PA229&amp;dq=cambridge%20encyclopedia%20of%20ancient%20languages&amp;pg=PA143#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-02-05T23:22:54.707" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6513" PostId="2560" Score="3" Text="*Gradatio* seems not to mean the climax of a plot but a specific rhetorical device in which successive clauses linked by shared vocabulary ascend in importance by degrees: e.g. (quoted in L&amp;S s.v.) *Nam quae reliqua spes manet libertatis, si illis et quod libet, licet; et quod licet, possunt; et quod possunt, audent; et quod audent, faciunt; et quod faciunt, vobis molestum non est?*" CreationDate="2017-02-05T22:36:12.593" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6520" PostId="2560" Score="0" Text="(Btw the quote seems to be from Quintilian, not Cicero)" CreationDate="2017-02-06T00:27:43.087" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6523" PostId="2560" Score="0" Text="@TKR I think you'll find that Quintilian at _Inst. III 36_ indicates that he is quoting from that passage by Cicero, at some length. I spent some time on the word about thirty years ago: Vitruvius uses it not rhetorically, but to describe something like a rising set of tiers : all in all, the word seems appropriate to answer the question, as I hope you might agree?" CreationDate="2017-02-06T06:30:24.347" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6527" PostId="2560" Score="3" Text="Agreed with @TKR. [Climax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climax_(rhetoric)) here refers to a rhetorical device, with an example given in [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgradatio). It has a different meaning in the context of literary progression: in fact &quot;gradatio&quot; seems a good word for &quot;rising action,&quot; which *precedes* the climax." CreationDate="2017-02-06T15:11:21.833" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6533" PostId="2560" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Well of course Cicero is using it as a rhetorical device. Would you say the same of Vitruvius, who uses it for physical description (V. 3, _passim_) ? If you are able to provide something better, please feel to do so : I shan't be offended! Otherwise, I should be satisfied to call it a metonym for climax in the meaning asked for. _hoc gradatione perfecta, . . ._, etc., 'having got to a climax . . .'" CreationDate="2017-02-06T17:13:23.000" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6541" PostId="2560" Score="0" Text="Tom Cotton, you're right about Quintilian -- sorry, of course I should have noticed he was quoting! I still think *gradatio* is not really suitable as a general word for &quot;climax&quot; (though it may be so in specific contexts) -- especially since etymologically it transparently refers to an &quot;ascent&quot;, which precedes a climax, as @brianpck says -- but I confess I don't have a better suggestion at the moment." CreationDate="2017-02-06T22:12:21.840" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6519" PostId="2564" Score="1" Text="A third possibility for the first member is locative *hoi (thus Meiser, cited in de Vaan s.v., who adds &quot;I see no way to decide this point&quot;)." CreationDate="2017-02-06T00:17:09.610" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6524" PostId="2564" Score="2" Text="[One fragment from Varro](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.frag.html) (yes, not to be wholly trusted for his etymological scholarship) has &quot;cum hodie dicimus, nihil aliud quam hoc die intelligitur.&quot; Given that this is the &quot;obvious&quot; etymology, could you explain why exactly this is considered problematic?" CreationDate="2017-02-06T14:58:13.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6529" PostId="2564" Score="2" Text="@brianpck. It would involve the development of -ōcd- to -ŏd-. I do not think there is any parallel for this." CreationDate="2017-02-06T16:20:05.613" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6530" PostId="2564" Score="0" Text="@fdb I'm not a linguist, but wouldn't that be as simple as dropping the -ce? *hic* is a compound after all." CreationDate="2017-02-06T16:43:09.927" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6531" PostId="2564" Score="1" Text="Pg. 23 of [this article](https://books.google.com/books?id=SIoNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23) argues for this etymology. Also: how does this explain the parallel terms *pridie* and *postridie*?" CreationDate="2017-02-06T16:54:39.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6536" PostId="2564" Score="3" Text="@Alex B.I also wonder why it was deleted. Never mind 'hotly', why on Earth should the origin of _hodie_ be contested at all? The simple explanation can be applied not only in Latin (and English) but in the Russian _сегодня_, German _heute_,  and, no doubt, in others too." CreationDate="2017-02-06T17:19:33.673" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6538" PostId="2564" Score="5" Text="@TomCotton. Nobody is denying that &quot;hodie&quot; means &quot;this day&quot;. The issue is only the case form (nominative, ablative, locative, bare root?) of the first component, and the mysterious disappearance of any consonants at the end of the first component." CreationDate="2017-02-06T19:43:35.150" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6540" PostId="2564" Score="0" Text="@fdb the Russian сегодня is much clearer in this regard - this.GEN day. At least, it looks like genitive." CreationDate="2017-02-06T20:30:15.317" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6543" PostId="2564" Score="0" Text="An additional bit of evidence cited in the article @brianpck linked to (p. 25) is an Old Latin form *hocedie* cited by the grammarian Victorinus, which for whatever it's worth weighs against the bare-stem etymology." CreationDate="2017-02-06T22:33:09.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6507" PostId="2565" Score="1" Text="Where have you seen *Numidius*? What makes you ask this? The question is interesting, I'd just like to know where it comes from." CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:40:02.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6508" PostId="2565" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I found the name in my memory and put it into some search engines, giving results like a redirect to Ummidius on the English wikipedia." CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:41:58.523" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="6510" PostId="2565" Score="1" Text="It sounds remotely familiar to me, too, but I can't remember where I would have seen it. Idle curiosity is always sufficient motivation for a question; I merely wondered if there was more behind this one." CreationDate="2017-02-05T21:56:58.423" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6526" PostId="2568" Score="1" Text="Can you explain your comment about *fui* and *fueram*? I've never come across *esse* as a defective verb in the medieval Latin I have read." CreationDate="2017-02-06T15:04:23.980" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6545" PostId="2568" Score="1" Text="I suppose that the usage of fui and fueram may have simply been a common occurrence in Medieval texts, along with the addition of several new words and spellings which lead to the confusing and sometimes nonexistent spelling rules of languages like Middle English and extinct Germanic tongues of various sorts. Some Medieval dictionaries may insist that fui and fueram were defective." CreationDate="2017-02-07T00:34:40.350" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="6535" PostId="2573" Score="0" Text="I also saw that an online dictionary defined citrus as a term for an African citrus tree." CreationDate="2017-02-06T17:18:13.210" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="6570" PostId="2573" Score="1" Text="In Classical Latin there were no oranges. The Citron, a large, knobbly, bitter lemon for medicine must have existed in Africa. Mala Aurea are Quinces." CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:25:22.093" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24157" PostId="2573" Score="1" Text="Apparently in ancient Pompeii there are frescoes depicting both oranges and lemons so those two fruits had already been imported in Italy before the eruption of Mount Vesusius in AD 79." CreationDate="2020-02-02T18:48:37.957" UserId="6502" />
  <row Id="24158" PostId="2573" Score="0" Text="@Maria Welcome to the site and thanks for sharing! That's a good find. (Consider registering your account if you want to be able to use the site more efficiently.)" CreationDate="2020-02-03T14:25:14.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24164" PostId="2573" Score="0" Text="@Middle School Historian: What about the colour, orange? It seems to be the same adjective for both orange &amp; yellow-luteus. Students of biology will be familiar with the &quot;corpus luteum&quot;, &quot;the yellow body&quot;. Lewis &amp; Short give &quot;golden-yellow, saffron-yellow, orange-yellow&quot;. Continuing the drift to the &quot;orange&quot; side, egg-yolks (Plin. 30.15.49): &quot;lutea ex ovis quinque columbarum&quot; = &quot;orange from the eggs of five doves/ pigeons&quot;. L &amp; S continue the confusion by adding &quot;flame-coloured&quot; &amp; &quot;rose-coloured&quot;." CreationDate="2020-02-04T10:27:43.060" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="6539" PostId="2574" Score="5" Text="1907 is hardly &quot;modern&quot;. Anyway, as I said above: Nobody is denying that &quot;hodie&quot; means &quot;this day&quot;. The issue is only the case form (nominative, ablative, locative, bare root?) of the first component, and the mysterious disappearance of any consonants at the end of the first component." CreationDate="2017-02-06T19:45:55.020" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6542" PostId="2574" Score="2" Text="Ancient etymologies like Varro's aren't evidence for anything except ancient beliefs about etymology (which are no more reliable than their beliefs about any other science)." CreationDate="2017-02-06T22:22:53.037" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6544" PostId="2574" Score="0" Text="I don't disagree; folk etymology is amusing but fairly useless. Just wanted to bring up the other common explanation with what evidence I've seen for it, which happens to not be very much: I have no good explanation for *od &lt; ōcd* either. (And it's significantly less clear than the derivation of any of those other words.)" CreationDate="2017-02-06T22:41:57.077" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6569" PostId="2575" Score="1" Text="Relevant article on the [Fenni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni) and, as mentioned by Ptolemy, [Φίννοι](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinnoi)." CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:22:44.913" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6571" PostId="2575" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I noticed that one, and I assume Ptolemy took the word from (the same source as?) Tacitus. An explanation of either of these words would be good." CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:37:11.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6563" PostId="2576" Score="1" Text="I would side with M. Gallesio in this discussion. Quinces are golden, are vaguely apples, have a scent to suit paradise, and come from the Middle East. For a reliable History of Oranges try Helena Attlee. Edible lemons and oranges were first brought to Italy by the Arabs." CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:35:34.520" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6564" PostId="2576" Score="2" Text="&quot;The citron is the oldest Italian inhabitant among the citrus trees; its fruit is larger than a lemon, with very thick, knobbly skin. It was brought to Italy from Assam at the beginning of the second century AD. &quot; Quoted from a review of Helena Attlee's book in The Telegraph.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10741327/The-Land-Where-Lemons-Grow-by-Helena-Attlee-review.html" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:38:25.480" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6547" PostId="2577" Score="2" Text="You're missing a verb for πιστεύων. Also, I think the question could really benefit from explaining certain word and grammatical choices, especially where they diverge from the Vulgate." CreationDate="2017-02-07T01:38:24.863" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6548" PostId="2578" Score="1" Text="I personally would prefer *tam* for &quot;so&quot;: to me, it's more emphatic about the quantity. (God loved the world *so much* that...) But *sīc* certainly isn't wrong." CreationDate="2017-02-07T05:02:19.823" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6549" PostId="2578" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That's interesting. Thanks! I'm not familiar enough with the difference that I would have a clear preference myself." CreationDate="2017-02-07T05:05:00.100" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6553" PostId="2578" Score="0" Text="Lewis &amp; Short on *sic*: “With a clause expressing intensity (so both with adjj. and verbs; but far less freq. than ita, tam, adeo), to such a degree, so, so far, etc.”" CreationDate="2017-02-07T08:16:32.400" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="6554" PostId="2578" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This will definitely improve my Latin; thank you for explaining." CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:06:38.253" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="6572" PostId="2578" Score="3" Text="Three brief comments/criticisms: (1) ἠγάπησεν is aorist, so I think a perfect would be better than an imperfect, (2) &quot;unum et solum&quot; is pleonastic and doesn't quite capture &quot;μονογενῆ&quot;, (3) the imperfect subjunctive of *offero* should be *offerret* (with two r's)" CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:41:45.940" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6573" PostId="2578" Score="3" Text="Concerning *tam*, I disagree: It is almost always used with an adjective/adverb and/or correlated with *quam*: I have never seen it correlated with *ut* in this way." CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:50:50.483" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6701" PostId="2578" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Thanks for your critique. I stuck with the imperfect since that's what the OP chose, and I didn't want to change his translation too much. I used the same reasoning with the pleonasm. Thanks for pointing it out, though, as I didn't know what a pleonasm was, and learned something new. I edited my answer to use two r's in *offerret*." CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:54:41.193" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6551" PostId="2579" Score="4" Text="I don't think I see the distinction -- doesn't &quot;every one&quot; necessarily imply some group? It would be good to cite some examples that show the difference." CreationDate="2017-02-07T05:44:02.590" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6557" PostId="2580" Score="0" Text="I had difficulties finding descriptive tags. Suggestions or edits are welcome if anyone has ideas." CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:16:47.927" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6558" PostId="2580" Score="1" Text="There are many treaties just about this particular matter! For example, *[De l'usage de saluer et d'adresser des souhaits à ceux qui éternuent](http://www.bmlisieux.com/curiosa/delusage.htm)* by Théodore de Jolimont, or in the *Proclusiones academicæ, seu Orationes variæ* by the Jesuit Father Strada (1625), a speech entitled *A quo tempore, cur sternutentes salutantur* (if anyone find it I would be grateful!)." CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:19:30.193" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6561" PostId="2580" Score="0" Text="@Luc I had no idea it was so broadly studied! Citing such sources (or even one) and mentioning their key results would make a good answer, if anyone has the time (and aptitude with French)." CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:27:58.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6565" PostId="2580" Score="0" Text="Neither do I :D" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:46:45.967" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6556" PostId="2581" Score="1" Text="I thought this practice would be younger, but I'm glad to be corrected!" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:16:12.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6560" PostId="2581" Score="4" Text="The *iubet* part is merely part of the indirect phrase: &quot;He ordered Giton to be well.&quot; If he ordered someone to be well, it's likely what he just said to him was a command: &quot;Salve!&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:27:05.100" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6562" PostId="2581" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Ah, makes sense.  Updated." CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:29:53.510" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6576" PostId="2581" Score="0" Text="The translation of the Satyricon by Heseltine is a catastrophe" CreationDate="2017-02-07T17:54:30.487" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="31295" PostId="2581" Score="0" Text="Do elaborate, @fdb." CreationDate="2021-03-26T20:25:01.533" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="31297" PostId="2581" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan. The main problem is that he has left a significant portion in Latin." CreationDate="2021-03-26T21:40:03.770" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="32298" PostId="2581" Score="0" Text="Ah, yes, the Catullus 16 problem?" CreationDate="2021-03-27T01:28:27.167" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="6577" PostId="2582" Score="1" Text="Were the horsemen auxiliaries, like the peltasts (from the Balearic Islands)? If so 'Parthians' would be the word. Parthians fought with Pompey against Caesar at Philippi." CreationDate="2017-02-07T18:14:58.760" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6574" PostId="2583" Score="3" Text="Also worth noting a derived word: [*equitatus, -us*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dequitatus1) = &quot;cavalry&quot; as a body" CreationDate="2017-02-07T17:11:21.917" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6567" PostId="2584" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer I think you beat me to it by about a minute! The more answers and explanations, the merrier." CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:59:21.173" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6568" PostId="2584" Score="0" Text="Ah, oops, you're right. And agreed." CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:12:27.077" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6584" PostId="2587" Score="0" Text="Thank you @cnread! Before I accept the answer, can you provide a full translation? Or at least explain what is meant by &quot;sed theriaca quadam magis perniciosa&quot;? I don't think &quot;theriac&quot; refers to just any antidote, in this case, but to the timeless one with 64-odd ingredients and opium, of semi-mythical origin from King Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus. It sounds like Garth held a low opinion of it, but I want to be sure. ..." CreationDate="2017-02-09T02:07:52.157" UserId="1235" />
  <row Id="6585" PostId="2587" Score="0" Text="Based on your suggestions I'm parsing it something like this: &quot;This cesspool of vagabonds wounds not with weapons, but with theriac, which is more pernicious; they fight not with fire but with powders, I don't know how exotic; they murder not with lead shot but with pills just as deadly.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-09T02:08:34.797" UserId="1235" />
  <row Id="6586" PostId="2587" Score="1" Text="@Metamorphic, _Theriaca quadam magis perniciosa_ means 'by some more deadly antidote/theriac.' _Quadam_ is an indefinite adj., which makes me think the more general meaning, 'antidote,' is intended. But _quidam_ can also be used to soften/qualify a strong expression or metaphorical language; so even if Garth was alluding to _the_ theriac, he might be backing off it somewhat: 'by a more deadly what-one-might-call theriac. Also note that _nescio quo_ in _pulvere nescio quo exotico_ functions as an indefinite adj., often with dismissive force; so the phrase means 'by some exotic powder or other'." CreationDate="2017-02-09T05:42:19.220" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6587" PostId="2587" Score="0" Text="@Metamorphic, As you requested, I've provided a full translation in my original answer, replacing the summary that was there before." CreationDate="2017-02-09T06:01:06.063" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6596" PostId="2587" Score="0" Text="Thank you indeed, for the helpful elaboration regarding theriac (which must have been often counterfeited). Also for &quot;nescio quo&quot; - not sure why I had mixed up &quot;what&quot; and &quot;how&quot;. But your edit introduces a new question - why did you translate &quot;pyrio&quot; as &quot;by arsenic&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-02-09T20:30:32.327" UserId="1235" />
  <row Id="6601" PostId="2587" Score="0" Text="I got 'arsenic' from the Greek lexicon (Liddell-Scott-Jones, LSJ) when I looked up πύρι(ν)ον. Possibly, one of the other definitions offered there would work better." CreationDate="2017-02-09T22:35:36.427" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6605" PostId="2587" Score="1" Text="@Metamorphic, In fact, I think it's quite likely that _pyrio_ = _pulvere pyrio_ ('gunpowder') here, which works a bit better with the other 2 weapon terms (spear and lead shot)." CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:19:51.003" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6580" PostId="2589" Score="2" Text="I edited your question quite a bit in an attempt to clarify it. Feel free to edit it again or undo my edits!" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:17:27.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6661" PostId="2589" Score="1" Text="I suspect &quot;Marafim&quot; is actually a misreading of the long &quot;s&quot; for &quot;f&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-10T22:54:01.607" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6578" PostId="2590" Score="3" Text="I would suggest splitting this into two questions: (1) translating &quot;wanted dead or alive&quot; and (2) money symbols." CreationDate="2017-02-08T18:53:32.287" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6588" PostId="2590" Score="0" Text="Maybe &quot;referre honoro&quot; or &quot;return for a reward&quot;. &quot;Referre honoro si vivus sive mortuus erit&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-09T14:18:49.357" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="6579" PostId="2592" Score="1" Text="Re *Jerusalem*, it also had a faux Greek-Latin name by analogy with *hieros*: [*Hierosolyma, -orum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Hierosolyma)" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:47:48.070" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6647" PostId="2593" Score="0" Text="&quot;Marasim, Mariscum, Marasiam, Maresiam, Maresc, Maresch, Maresch, Marafim&quot; why are there different variety name city of Marash? for example city of Antioch is always &quot;Antioch&quot; in Medieval Latin sources. What is your opinion about this? Thank you for your help." CreationDate="2017-02-10T17:37:59.910" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="6666" PostId="2593" Score="1" Text="It depends on the sources where they are attested, which could be written in one language or another over times. Mariscum is the latinized form of the name, just like Constantinople is the anglicized form of Constantinoupolis" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:58:41.950" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6582" PostId="2596" Score="1" Text="I apologize because my question title was not clear: I am primarily curious about whether it can be correlated *alone*, I.e. without an adverb or adjective" CreationDate="2017-02-09T00:30:36.593" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6583" PostId="2596" Score="0" Text="Sorry, it was my fault. I realized the point of your question just after have posted the answer. However, tomorrow I will look if I could find some examples of the use you are looking for" CreationDate="2017-02-09T00:33:45.983" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6611" PostId="2597" Score="2" Text="Nice question. I'd be interested to know whether *homo* really is common gender. L&amp;S and Cassell's both seem to imply so by not stating a gender, but I wonder if there are any examples of a feminine adjective or participle agreeing with *homo*." CreationDate="2017-02-10T00:59:32.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6654" PostId="2597" Score="1" Text="There's an extremely interesting book on this (and much more) by Francesca Santoro L'Hoir (1992) http://www.brill.com/rhetoric-gender-terms" CreationDate="2017-02-10T19:51:59.210" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6655" PostId="2597" Score="0" Text="For some reason, Adams 1972 didn't discuss this use of homo in *Latin Words for 'Woman' and 'Wife'* http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266240 But OLD clearly states 1. a human being (of either sex). We'll have to look it up in TLL and study the examples there. https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/6-3-16/6_3_16_homo_v2007.xml?" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:07:52.140" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6599" PostId="2598" Score="1" Text="This is great--*homines feminae* is so odd to my ears!" CreationDate="2017-02-09T21:22:55.987" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6600" PostId="2598" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'll second that. It's not a huge selection of examples, and I've rarely seen them, so your intuition isn't unfounded." CreationDate="2017-02-09T21:39:50.287" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6604" PostId="2598" Score="1" Text="Would it not be possible for &quot;ebrius&quot; to be used in reference to a female simply because of the grammatical gender of &quot;homo&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:16:27.023" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="6606" PostId="2598" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides I assume it's possible that when applied to a woman it could take on the feminine gender, like *miles* does (cf. Ovid *Heroides* 11.48). Unfortunately, the Augustine reference is in the dative." CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:25:20.997" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6602" PostId="2601" Score="2" Text="Both are perfectly correct, but might be used in different types of contexts. Latin word order is relatively free, so questions about word order are generally not answerable without a specific context." CreationDate="2017-02-09T22:52:38.967" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6612" PostId="2602" Score="2" Text="A tiny improvement on your (otherwise perfectly correct) translation might be to place &quot;in the city&quot; after &quot;that&quot;: the point is not that Lycrugus accomplished this in Sparta, but that in Sparta a noble death is preferable to a shameful life. (FWIW, I've encountered before the misconception that all words belonging with an articular infinitive must appear between the article and the verb -- it isn't true, but I wonder if it can be traced to some specific textbook.)" CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:03:44.460" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6593" PostId="2603" Score="2" Text="+1 I agree with your clear explanation. I would only suggest a little change in the translation, according to the tense of the phrase: *... to have accomplished that in the city a noble death is preferable to a disgraceful life*" CreationDate="2017-02-09T18:19:38.503" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6594" PostId="2603" Score="0" Text="@Alessio: Agreed!" CreationDate="2017-02-09T18:38:21.003" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6595" PostId="2603" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Great answer. Just to be clear, there is no indirect statement in the passage I quoted, right? I typically look for ACIs with indirect statement, but I understand that certain words can introduce them, as well." CreationDate="2017-02-09T19:08:33.547" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6597" PostId="2603" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124: I would not call that a statement, as you say. A.c.i. can be used in most places where an English or Latin gerund can, e.g. also after prepositions, which commonly do not introduce indirect speech. They can also be used in most places where English uses the conjunction *that*, and where Latin has *ut* (though probably with something like *hôs(te)*)." CreationDate="2017-02-09T20:56:46.367" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6656" PostId="2604" Score="1" Text="I was confused about 'praemissis' versus 'premissis' because I've seen both used. For example, in &quot;Summule Logicales&quot; by Petrus Hispanus, 'premisses' is used frequently, yet I don't recall ever seeing &quot;praemissis'. That being said, I've seen praemissis used a lot in other texts and, apart from in &quot;Summule Logicales&quot;, haven't seen premissis used. What do you make of that?&#xA;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=Qi8QAQAAIAAJ&amp;vq=figura&amp;dq=subalterne+universalis+affirmativa+particularis+affirmativa&amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:20:44.307" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="6660" PostId="2604" Score="1" Text="The ancient latin form is praemissis: the passage from the diphtong -ae- to -e- is a typical trait of the medieval latin by means of his pronunciation in the late imperial period, which gradually gains ground. In the manuscripts, the ligature æ was simplified in ę and then became the simple e." CreationDate="2017-02-10T22:04:02.400" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6671" PostId="2604" Score="0" Text="Does the historical context matter? For example, if the relevant context is the Roman Republic then one would use ancient Latin and if the relevant context is medieval Scholasticism then one would use medieval Latin?&#xA;&#xA;Also, if I am to understand the above translations correctly, would it be correct to say &quot;sequitur conclusio ex propositio&quot; if I wanted to use 'propositio' in place of 'praemissa'?" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:51:31.760" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="6672" PostId="2604" Score="0" Text="You could do it, but you have to write &quot;ex propositione&quot;, in ablative. It is better to use always the classical forms writing in Latin today" CreationDate="2017-02-11T07:24:36.083" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6603" PostId="2605" Score="2" Text="Thanks for your comments! You seem to be confirming my starting premise, that *homines* wouldn't usually refer to a group of women as such, but my question is about whether it *can be* done, not whether there are more common ways to do this." CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:10:04.940" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6714" PostId="2605" Score="0" Text="made some edits pointing out that:&#xA;a) It's gramatically correct to treat a female as homo&#xA;and b) but only if the gender of a female homo is clearly readable within the context. otherwise, it is recommended to use a gender specific femina or mulier.&#xA;That is mainly because declination and adjectivization of homo is always masculine, so when referring to homo as &quot;one female&quot; it needs to be fully clear within the rest of the phrase, for example by a name or a woman-specific attribute, what gender we're referring to. If unclear within the context, it's assumed to be male." CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:43:37.330" UserId="1241" />
  <row Id="6615" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="Do you really think θαυμάσῃ could be an indicative outside of Doric? Whence, then, the lengthened vowel?" CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:34:29.403" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6616" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, it's a regular 2sg. fut. mid., just like λύσῃ (also spelled λύσει)." CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:36:23.063" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6619" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="Gosh, I always assumed that the lengthened forms from the future stem were all subjunctive. But it seems there is one and only one exception, that of the **2nd person singular middle** future indicative. Apparently, the other future indicative endings never have the lengthened vowel, nor does the *active 3rd* person λύσει have this alternative form λύσῃ. Very interesting! I wonder how that came about." CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:45:04.063" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6621" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, as usual, it's the fault of a sound change, in this cause the loss of intervocalic *s*: the ending was originally *-e-sai* (parallel with *-e-tai*), but when *s* dropped out the resulting *-eai* contracted into -ῃ. The fact that this later changed to -ει suggests that the Greeks shared your dismay." CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:48:50.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6622" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="So you're saying that the middle ending *-e-sai* originally contracted to -ῃ even in, say, the forms from the present stem? Incidentally, I tried searching the [Perseus corpus for λύσῃ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=greek&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;all_words=lu%2Fsh|&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search) but at first glance seemed to get subjunctive instances. Perhaps I should ask a Question about this!" CreationDate="2017-02-10T02:00:55.303" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6624" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, yes, it happens in the present too -- see [Smyth](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s628) for discussion." CreationDate="2017-02-10T02:07:25.363" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6625" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the link! To quote from it: *ῃ ... is usually given as the proper spelling in the texts of the tragic poets, whereas ει is printed in the texts of prose and comedy. ... -ει is sometimes called Attic and Ionic in contrast to -ῃ of the other dialects, including the Koiné.* This might explain why I don't remember seeing it in &quot;normal&quot; Greek: wheverer I saw it, I must have either assumed that it was subjunctive or assumed that it was dialectical (tragedy often uses (artificial) Doric forms, I believe, or at least the choir does?). That said, wouldn't you expect -ει in an exercise?" CreationDate="2017-02-10T02:15:45.927" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6626" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, yes, the choruses of Attic tragedy are in Doric (or pseudo-Doric). I agree that in an exercise you'd most naturally expect Attic prose forms -- but that's not the only strange choice the composer of this exercise made (εἰ + fut.)..." CreationDate="2017-02-10T02:35:29.260" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6700" PostId="2609" Score="0" Text="Hey @TKR, thanks for your answer. The textbook is &quot;From Alpha to Omega&quot;, Third Edition, by Groton." CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:11:02.137" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6614" PostId="2610" Score="1" Text="The Perseus word study tool is wrong to say θαυμάσῃ is Doric only: if you go to the LSJ entry you'll find that the middle future θαυμάσομαι (of which this would be a 2sg. form) is attested in Plato and the tragedians." CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:33:45.127" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6702" PostId="2610" Score="0" Text="Looking through the Perseus results, the Euthyphro θαυμάσῃ looks to be indicative; why it isn't spelled -ει, I don't know. I'm inclined to think the exercise intended indicative, because a subjunctive doesn't seem to make sense here." CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:58:19.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6634" PostId="2612" Score="1" Text="Since I've read the Vulgate so much, a phrase came immediately to mind for both cases: &quot;ecce homo&quot; and &quot;ecce sponsus venit&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-10T14:31:42.177" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6639" PostId="2612" Score="1" Text="*Ecce leo edens* would draw attention to the fact that there is an eating lion nearby. *Ecce leo est* (which I think is more common than *edit*) would draw attention to the fact that a lion is eating something. It all depends on what is being emphasized, and in fact works as *behold* would in English." CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:02:49.267" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6640" PostId="2612" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer That's a good summary. I considered using *est*, but decided against it to avoid confusion with the other *est*." CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:21:34.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6642" PostId="2612" Score="0" Text="There's no good alternative there, since *edit* could also come from the other *edo* meaning &quot;to bring forth&quot;!" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:44:52.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6643" PostId="2612" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer True! It should be *ĕdit* or *ēst* (as opposed to *ēdit* and *ĕst*), but I don't usually like using brevia and macra (or breves and macrons?). Oh, well..." CreationDate="2017-02-10T17:00:49.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6650" PostId="2616" Score="1" Text="Thanks! This whole question seems to have been side-tracked by the question of whether *homo* is epicene or common, but that's really only tangential to my actual question, which is whether *homo* can be used of a single woman, regardless of its grammatical gender." CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:21:59.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6651" PostId="2616" Score="0" Text="Epicene nouns can be used for masc. and fem. referents and the biological sex of the referent cannot overwrite the grammatical gender of the noun." CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:26:20.170" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6652" PostId="2616" Score="2" Text="Exactly: so my question is not whether I need to write &quot;Aemilia est homo bonus&quot; or &quot;...bona&quot; but rather whether *homo* is an appropriate choice at all. (Assuming the answer to the second question is &quot;yes,&quot; the first question immediately becomes interesting.)" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:28:12.237" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6653" PostId="2616" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Perhaps you could add that remark to your question. It would help to further clarify that you are not interested in the gender of the word *homo*, but in whether it is appropriate for a woman." CreationDate="2017-02-10T19:02:54.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6673" PostId="2618" Score="3" Text="And since it's not a ligature, the relevant Wikipedia article is not [Typographic ligature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature), but [Scribal abbreviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation), which includes this: &quot;…the Arabic numeral 3-like mark ꝫ [was] generally at the end of a word on the baseline…. After q, [it] form[s] the conjunction -que…&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-11T09:33:33.847" UserId="1248" />
  <row Id="6670" PostId="2620" Score="1" Text="Can you explain a little more of your intended meaning in English?" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:14:08.617" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6733" PostId="2620" Score="0" Text="I have a table of syllogisms wherein each is labeled by number, but I don't know how to refer, in Latin, to &quot;the first, second, and third syllogisms&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-13T18:59:38.147" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="6676" PostId="2630" Score="1" Text="I can't help but read *nullo* as &quot;no one&quot; instead of &quot;nothing,&quot; which makes it hard to see the ablative of means. Do you know if &quot;nullum&quot; alone can mean the same as &quot;nihil&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-02-11T15:52:24.357" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6677" PostId="2630" Score="0" Text="@brianpck True, *nullo* looks more like *nemo* than *nihil* here. Perhaps I should have used *nulla re* instead. I thought I could use *nullo* as the ablative of *nihil*, but it doesn't seem to work well here." CreationDate="2017-02-11T15:57:07.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6685" PostId="2630" Score="1" Text="*Nihil/nihilum* does have a regular ablative *nihilo*, btw." CreationDate="2017-02-11T18:53:27.973" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6686" PostId="2630" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good point! I have only rarely come across that form, so I tend to forget it. I added a remark." CreationDate="2017-02-11T19:08:24.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6691" PostId="2630" Score="2" Text="Changing the structure is good! A big part of learning another language is letting your thoughts form within the natural structures of that language rather than trying to map grammatical structures directly from one's own." CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:18:38.000" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6681" PostId="2631" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I added some tags to your question. Feel free to retag if you feel like it." CreationDate="2017-02-11T16:07:41.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6684" PostId="2633" Score="2" Text="Do you know how universal this rule is? Lewis and Short [cites a few examples](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfilius) of *filii* being used for children of both sexes, cf. Spanish *hijos*" CreationDate="2017-02-11T18:02:29.763" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6688" PostId="2633" Score="1" Text="Latin is an extremely flexible language that had (has) a long living history. Always possible to find examples and most dictionnairies will give those exceptional examples. However, the general rules is that of filius - liberi I outlined above. You also have &quot;pueri&quot;. And as the roman society is very preoccupied with the households, personal status' and family, you'll find an impressive amount of words describing all that." CreationDate="2017-02-11T19:34:23.587" UserId="1955" />
  <row Id="6690" PostId="2633" Score="2" Text="*Fīlius* singular can't be a daughter (that would be *fīlia*), but *fīliī* plural can sometimes include daughters as well: a group of males and females generally takes a masculine plural. But this is dependent on context, and the more common meaning is &quot;sons&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-11T20:16:01.823" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6694" PostId="2633" Score="3" Text="Can you support the claim that liberi is &quot;more precisely children of free people, i.e. not slaves&quot;? Current view among etymologists is that liberi &quot;children&quot; and liber &quot;free&quot; are two unrelated words." CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:55:18.420" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6697" PostId="2633" Score="0" Text="@fdb: De Vaan s.v. agrees with Thiebo's etymology." CreationDate="2017-02-11T23:50:08.340" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6713" PostId="2633" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. Yes, you are right. That is the majority view. But my objection was to the supposition that “liberi” must always have its etymological meaning. Plautus uses it for the offspring of sheep." CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:02:09.063" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6723" PostId="2633" Score="0" Text="@fdb Oh, hah. That might actually be an interesting question. Can it ever be used for non-free humans? And is this usage Plauti for lambs metaphorical/ironic or normal?" CreationDate="2017-02-12T23:09:49.643" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6724" PostId="2633" Score="1" Text="More here: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/does-liberi-only-refer-to-free-children" CreationDate="2017-02-12T23:50:24.153" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6678" PostId="2634" Score="0" Text="This takes several steps away from the original structure and is closer to &quot;laziness of the good means victory for the bad&quot;, but in some situations it's for the best." CreationDate="2017-02-11T16:04:22.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6687" PostId="2634" Score="0" Text="Nice! I like the second option better as the order of phrases reflects the causal relationship." CreationDate="2017-02-11T19:19:35.320" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6692" PostId="2634" Score="1" Text="These are my favorite so far. Unlike my feeble attempt, they actually sound like something one would come across in an ancient work – one of Seneca's tragedies, perhaps. If I had to change one thing about each, I'd reverse the order of the phrases in the first and _possibly_ use _ex_/_e_ instead of _in_ in the second (but I think I see why you've chosen _in_)." CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:25:45.853" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="6693" PostId="2634" Score="0" Text="Pile away! I especially like the radical change in structure, making strong use of Latin's grammar and vocabulary." CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:27:20.847" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="6695" PostId="2634" Score="1" Text="@cnread Thanks! I like your suggestion for the first one and agree that *ex* also works well in the second. There are some cool opportunities for chiasma as well, e.g. &quot;bonorum desidia victoria malorum&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-11T22:06:00.177" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6709" PostId="2636" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, Cicero Fin V. 23. 65, _Quae nata a primo satu, quod a procreatoribus nati  diliguntur et tota domus coniugio et stirpe coniungitur, serpit sensim foras,  cognationibus primum, tum affinitatibus, deinde amicitiis, post vicinitatibus, tum civibus . . . ._ distinguishes _affinitas_ from _cognatio_." CreationDate="2017-02-12T09:52:52.633" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6704" PostId="2638" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Even though the participial phrase might be clearer, is it still correct to use a dative of means here? Also, wouldn't the original wording (i.e. the preposition &quot;by&quot;) be lost if I were to use a participial phrase? Would a dative of means be preferable, if only to preserve the original wording?" CreationDate="2017-02-12T04:28:21.050" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6705" PostId="2638" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124, the dative isn't incorrect, but it doesn't strike me as a very idiomatic choice. Participial phrases can have a broad range of semantics, including &quot;means&quot;-like senses; in this context this would be a natural reading of the participial phrase." CreationDate="2017-02-12T04:31:21.343" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6711" PostId="2638" Score="1" Text="One little remark: given that the phrase begins with &quot;**there is** great danger ...&quot; wouldn't be more appropriate to use κίνδυνος ἔστι instead of κίνδυνός ἐστι? Otherwise it will mean &quot;a great danger is ...&quot; with the following clause as a predicative complement of the subject" CreationDate="2017-02-12T12:00:19.823" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6718" PostId="2638" Score="0" Text="@Alessio, my sense is that existential ἔστι is only accented when it precedes the subject, but I can't find corroboration for that at the moment and you may be right." CreationDate="2017-02-12T19:05:55.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6725" PostId="2638" Score="1" Text="@Alessio, cf. Thucydides 1.24 Ἑπίδαμνός ἐστι πόλις, probably to be translated &quot;There is a city E.&quot; rather than &quot;E. is a city&quot;. (Though thinking about it some more, this strikes me as a classic environment for hyperbaton -- a Greek writer might well have gone with μέγας ἐστὶ κίνδυνος.)" CreationDate="2017-02-12T23:54:17.927" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6719" PostId="2639" Score="3" Text="Doing some rudimentary research (like looking up the definition in Lewis and Short) would go a long way in making this a more solid question (and would save answers an extra step)." CreationDate="2017-02-12T20:26:12.633" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6726" PostId="2639" Score="1" Text="I looked it up in a couple of books and it looks like *liberi* implies legal descent (Treggiari 2005; cf. liberi naturales) and their place in the wider community (Wiedemann 1989), as opposed to *pueri*, where the focus is on the household/family. Will write more later - there's a lot of research on this." CreationDate="2017-02-13T05:56:45.663" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6727" PostId="2639" Score="0" Text="So far, feel free to look it up in Gray-Fow 1985 *The Nomenclature and Stages of Roman Childhood*" CreationDate="2017-02-13T06:09:06.230" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6728" PostId="2639" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Agreed. I could have done my homework better. It's just that I prefer to use my Latin–Finnish dictionaries (I prefer printed and Finnish sources), and they don't give nearly as much background as some English ones." CreationDate="2017-02-13T07:54:02.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43080" PostId="2640" Score="0" Text="Interesting that Cicero's definition seems to differ from Plautus's usage." CreationDate="2023-05-06T03:12:04.573" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="6720" PostId="2641" Score="2" Text="I don't understand the assumption in the last sentence -- why would the word's use in Plautus imply that it's inherited from Italic?" CreationDate="2017-02-12T20:31:12.457" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6721" PostId="2641" Score="0" Text="@TKR. It suggests that it is old, and raises the query of whether the legal sense (“legitimate freeborn children”)  is not the result of a re-etymologisation in the classical period." CreationDate="2017-02-12T21:23:43.070" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6722" PostId="2641" Score="3" Text="Old relative to what? Plautus and Proto-Italic (if PI really existed) were probably a couple of millennia apart in time -- it's hardly significant from that perspective whether a word appears in Plautus or, say, in Cicero. That said, there does seem to be some comparative evidence as de Vaan cites a Venetic form **louderai** &quot;?for a daughter&quot; (but the position of Venetic is disputed)." CreationDate="2017-02-12T22:37:32.590" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6730" PostId="2641" Score="3" Text="+1, especially for mentioning the etymological fallacy." CreationDate="2017-02-13T16:11:05.750" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6732" PostId="2642" Score="2" Text="Do you know if it was more common to see *uxor* rather than *mater* in this context? It would be interesting if all relations were defined relative to the *paterfamilias*." CreationDate="2017-02-13T17:28:25.413" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6755" PostId="2642" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That would make a great question! That kind of naming convention would make sense, but I've never heard of anything about the topic." CreationDate="2017-02-15T20:21:52.243" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6761" PostId="2642" Score="0" Text="@brianpck It certainly wouldn't be *mater*, since it's not the tomb of the underage son. That said, daughters, mothers, and wives are frequently mentioned, but unless they share their husband's tomb, they have their own epitaph. [See here e.g](http://www.vroma.org/images/raia_images/cippus_papinia.jpg). This is largely my impression from seeing hundreds of epitaphs in Rome, so it might be different outside the *urbs*." CreationDate="2017-02-16T02:49:11.337" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23628" PostId="2642" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I just added another example." CreationDate="2019-12-11T04:22:27.773" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6736" PostId="2645" Score="3" Text="Nice question! A big welcome to this warm-hearted community." CreationDate="2017-02-13T20:29:45.460" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6741" PostId="2647" Score="1" Text="Thanks, that makes sense. I'd say the difference is both of accidence and syntax -- *nihil*'s lack of oblique cases means it's ruled out in certain syntactic environments. Although I'm actually not convinced that the usual dictionary approach of listing *nihil* and *nihilum* as two separate nouns, one indeclinable and one regular, is sensible; it might be better to say that there is just a regular noun *nihilum*, which has an alternate case form *nihil* for the nominative and accusative." CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:26:06.777" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6743" PostId="2647" Score="1" Text="I agree especially with your last suggestion. I often think that dictionary compilers are rather too anxious to cover every possibility — just as grammarians are rather too eager to pursue the slightest of nuances that might have baffled even Quintilian and the others in antiquity." CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:44:48.990" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7338" PostId="2648" Score="0" Text="In most translations of Letters to Atticus: Volume 4 by Cicero, diligere is used as like, compared amongst persons, most likely of friendship." CreationDate="2017-03-14T14:35:49.490" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="6737" PostId="2649" Score="3" Text="Thanks for the answer! Do you have sources or quotes you can add to support your points?" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:18:06.120" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6740" PostId="2652" Score="3" Text="+1 Great answer. A small note, *ob* is universally used for prefixes." CreationDate="2017-02-14T20:21:20.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6742" PostId="2653" Score="0" Text="I realize this one has two questions in one, but I thought the two are closely related. If you disagree, I can divide it in two separate questions." CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:35:38.010" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6744" PostId="2653" Score="4" Text="I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Roman festival that celebrates erotic love without some connection to fertility..." CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:57:51.713" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6745" PostId="2653" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I feared that might be the case. The Romans were always so... practical?" CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:59:01.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38994" PostId="2653" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I see it rather as a difference in cultural views on sex in particular. Valentine's Day, after all, is a Christian holiday, and Christianity has some weird views about sex. The Romans had no such hang-ups." CreationDate="2022-07-23T14:01:26.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6765" PostId="2655" Score="0" Text="[The well defined borders between Europe and Asia.](http://geo-evropa.upol.cz/soubory/temata/poloha/hranice-evropa-asie.png)" CreationDate="2017-02-16T10:20:24.323" UserId="258" />
  <row Id="6748" PostId="2656" Score="2" Text="Do you know when the Anatolian Peninsula began to be called &quot;Asia Minor&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-02-15T14:40:10.253" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6749" PostId="2656" Score="4" Text="I don't think Cyprus is normally considered part of Egypt, but it certainly is an interesting case.  Much of modern Egypt is east of the Nile, though, so based on this all of that would have been in Asia, right?  Did Latin authors also use the Nile as the dividing line?" CreationDate="2017-02-15T14:51:26.740" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6752" PostId="2656" Score="0" Text="@brianpck New Advent says Orosius. I thought it had been earlier, but maybe that was due to anachronistic maps." CreationDate="2017-02-15T19:53:55.780" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6753" PostId="2656" Score="0" Text="&quot;Was any part of modern-day Egypt part of Asia?&quot;&#xA;&#xA;The Sinai Peninsula would have been considered part of Asia by the more expansive definition, from what it sounds.  That is definitely part of modern-day Egypt." CreationDate="2017-02-15T19:55:13.290" UserId="1091" />
  <row Id="6785" PostId="2656" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel Pliny, at least, [quotes Timotheus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D9) who thought so: Joining on to Africa is Asia, the extent of which, according to Timosthenes, from the Canopic mouth of the Nile to the mouth of the Euxine, is 2639 miles." CreationDate="2017-02-16T19:32:56.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6751" PostId="2658" Score="2" Text="Unfortunately it doesn't look like any of these links work if one doesn't have an account." CreationDate="2017-02-15T19:39:05.210" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6758" PostId="2658" Score="0" Text="That is: for readers without access it'd be great if you were able to explain what the maps show (using the links as supplemental for those with access), as you mention.  And of course, if other out-of-copyright maps exist, they'd be great to see as well!" CreationDate="2017-02-16T00:33:02.957" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6760" PostId="2658" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel well, I'll see what I can do. Meanwhile, I strongly recommend visiting a library to explore the treasures of *Brill's New Pauly*, **a must for anyone seriously interested in Classical Studies** http://www.worldcat.org/title/brills-new-pauly-encyclopaedia-of-the-ancient-world/oclc/927377315" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:10:55.003" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6763" PostId="2658" Score="1" Text="If people search the internet hard enough, they can find the Pauly-Wissowa easily enough. Granted, it's the old version and in German, but it more than suffices." CreationDate="2017-02-16T04:19:43.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6762" PostId="2659" Score="0" Text="It's consistent with the Latin writer's native language." CreationDate="2017-02-16T03:47:06.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6764" PostId="2659" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Sounds likely. That would mean that Latin doesn't have its own convention." CreationDate="2017-02-16T06:56:32.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7391" PostId="2659" Score="0" Text="Also note that Vicipaedia uses spaces in the place of a mark, but sometimes, there are exceptions. See either it's own Vicipaedia page or the image celebrating what I would translate as &quot;100 000 of the pages.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:05:49.687" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="6776" PostId="2660" Score="0" Text="Tribunus, the title has a wide range, as the Wikipedia article shows in the opening sentence, The Latin dictionary(Smith) says it can mean chieftain, too." CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:00:33.013" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6784" PostId="2661" Score="0" Text="I wonder if *te ipsum* (or maybe *te ipse*) would be more idiomatic than just *te*? (Also I feel the imperatives might be better placed first, but that's very debatable.)" CreationDate="2017-02-16T19:29:02.097" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6787" PostId="2661" Score="0" Text="@TKR There's no real rule on placement - there are examples of both (cf. Cicero's *iustitiam cole et pietatem*). To my ears, *lauda te* sounds too close to *laudate*, so I inverted them, but very little thought was otherwise given to the order." CreationDate="2017-02-16T19:59:46.193" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6770" PostId="2662" Score="1" Text="Three minutes later than you; trying to track Dagis or Dagistheos the tribune's name." CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:13:07.430" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6772" PostId="2662" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer. Especially for transcripting from Uncial, &quot;ou&quot; ligature and Kai conjunction.&#xA;I supposed προσδέξε is προσδέξει (as in &lt;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%AD%CF%87%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9 &gt;). I know that last _iota_ was often shortened to subscript. And after all, this is not a manuscript but a mosaic which could allow for more simplifications. Does this make sense?" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:37:14.870" UserId="1263" />
  <row Id="6773" PostId="2662" Score="1" Text="&quot;δέξει&quot; as in the future 2nd person singular? It seems strange to say &quot;You will receive his gift&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:40:47.387" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6777" PostId="2662" Score="3" Text="If you want to use the real character in your answer, here it is, so you can copy and paste: `U+03F9 ‹Ϲ› \N{GREEK CAPITAL LUNATE SIGMA SYMBOL}`" CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:04:13.467" UserId="159" />
  <row Id="6779" PostId="2662" Score="1" Text="I decided that Dagistheos was definitely a proper name when found _Bath of Dagistheos_ mentioned in this book https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=ycf9fopn6V8C" CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:24:59.463" UserId="1263" />
  <row Id="6783" PostId="2662" Score="4" Text="I'm guessing you're right that ΠΡΟΣΔΕΞΕ is for impv. πρόσδεξαι, since αι merged into ε in Koine." CreationDate="2017-02-16T19:21:43.960" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6796" PostId="2662" Score="3" Text="For completeness, you could find the text of this inscription here: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/305238?hs=200-209, from C.H. Kraeling, *Gerasa: City of the Decapolis. An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale University and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928-1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930-1931, 1933-1934)*, New Haven [Conn.] 1938, n. 311." CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:26:47.523" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6797" PostId="2662" Score="1" Text="@TKR you're right in guessing that it must be intended as πρόσδεξαι. Please note that πρόσδεξε is only attested in later imperial and Byzantine times, mainly in Arabia and Palestina: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/search?patt=%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BE%CE%B5%CE%BE%CE%B5" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:35:41.957" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="6809" PostId="2662" Score="1" Text="@Alessio, thanks for a link to a great resource. I was able to find other inscriptions from the same bigger image there. Do you know if the site or the book itself holds some kind of translation or comments to these inscriptions? Cheers." CreationDate="2017-02-17T07:47:27.480" UserId="1263" />
  <row Id="6812" PostId="2662" Score="1" Text="@Alessio Thank you for the references and edit: extremely helpful!" CreationDate="2017-02-17T13:42:20.390" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6767" PostId="2663" Score="2" Text="Great answer--I think you're right that it's a ξ, not a χ: any idea why it's not προσδέξαι?" CreationDate="2017-02-16T14:55:31.870" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6771" PostId="2663" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. Especially for the hint on tribunus from Latin. Did you mean this kind of [Tribune] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune) ? If we assume it was build in the end of 3rd - beginning of 4th century AD, does it make sense for this context?" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:21:18.923" UserId="1263" />
  <row Id="6774" PostId="2663" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The loanword Tribounon, and the Genitive Kosma from Cosmas and the Name Dagistheos (Dagon is God?) suggest a polyglot, multiracial, mixed culture.  IMO  prosdexe sounds like a Latin imperative, or less probably a Greek active aorist pl. imperative ending, tacked onto the Greek verb stem &quot;graciously receive.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:41:28.653" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6775" PostId="2663" Score="2" Text="Such loanwords were actually very common in the Byzantine empire, and I don't see anything outlandish with leaving a foreign name undeclined: Jerash was almost definitely polyglot, but not with Latin. It was introduced to Greek with the conquest of Alexander the Great. I would be pretty surprised if this was hybrid &quot;Latin-Greek&quot; speak, especially since in all likelihood this area did not speak Latin at all." CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:53:46.440" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6786" PostId="2663" Score="2" Text="@Hugh I think TKR is on the right track in his comment to my answer, that this is a result of Koine pronunciation." CreationDate="2017-02-16T19:55:09.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6788" PostId="2666" Score="1" Text="A good parallel, but I think it's a pretty different idea: &quot;accept the praise, divide the work&quot; (not the &quot;blame&quot;)" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:01:22.883" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6811" PostId="2666" Score="0" Text="Is it possible that you have misread _onera_ as _opera_? Colloquially, 'Take the praise, but let others carry the can'." CreationDate="2017-02-17T10:03:14.157" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6789" PostId="2667" Score="0" Text="The 'e' following the cluster of letters is the first letter of 'eternum.'" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:15:08.607" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6790" PostId="2667" Score="2" Text="I'll leave the answer to an expert, but my guess is &quot;qui vivit in,&quot; cf. [Eccl 18:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiasticus+18%3A1&amp;version=VULGATE). Not sure about the &quot;Vn&quot; before it." CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:27:23.077" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6791" PostId="2667" Score="1" Text="The other garbled part is probably &quot;sed notae&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:28:53.597" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6793" PostId="2667" Score="0" Text="Sirach 18Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)&#xA;&#xA;18 He that liveth for ever created all things together." CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:47:25.543" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6794" PostId="2667" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Is correct. It's in vivit in -- I is another one of those strokes that, like M, N, U, and V, is pretty difficult to distinguish written out side-by-side." CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:02:09.703" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6795" PostId="2667" Score="2" Text="I think it's noble that you asked two things in two questions, you were trying not to have people &quot;proofread&quot; your work. But in this case, perhaps the two questions could be merged? http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/another-z-siglum-abbreviation-not-que P.S. I've posted a transcription with the other one." CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:09:30.207" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6800" PostId="2668" Score="2" Text="Is there any way we could make the title of this question better?  As it is, it doesn't help anyone who's searching for this information in the future." CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:14:00.183" UserId="340" />
  <row Id="6801" PostId="2668" Score="1" Text="@Joe The page has been useful to me for the two resources that C.M.Weimer has contributed. I was intending to add another list of earlier sigla, when I could remember the link. The page contains an **r** siglum, **m, it,** There are also (not asked) four examples of numerals marked out by full-stop each side. And Cerberus links to a source, which is a good trick to know when transcribing. So what would be useful? **&quot; Medieval sigla; *'z'* symbol&quot;** Would that have been useful?" CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:34:50.610" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6806" PostId="2669" Score="0" Text="Two very useful resources.  Thanks, also for your solution." CreationDate="2017-02-17T03:36:26.520" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6807" PostId="2669" Score="0" Text="The book I've been using up until now for earlier MSS has been &quot;Notae Latinae&quot; by Lindsay  https://archive.org/details/notaelatinaeacco00lindrich. Have you come across it? Has it been reliable?" CreationDate="2017-02-17T04:03:31.697" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6808" PostId="2669" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Lindsay was top notch in the field. Unfortunately, I'm not a palaeographer, and I haven't kept up with advances. Are you looking to get something more recent?" CreationDate="2017-02-17T04:12:34.577" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6815" PostId="2669" Score="0" Text="I thought the site here ought to have a pit-stop for Siglum hunters. But Lindsay covers the &quot;Athelstan&quot; Evangelia chessgame. And the pdf in your link is more than enough for the 13th C. Arundel 83 and Harley 2253 which link to local history." CreationDate="2017-02-17T14:34:24.067" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6819" PostId="2669" Score="2" Text="@Hugh: I recommend consulting Cappelli here, for Mediaeval and Latin paleography: http://www.adfontes.uzh.ch/5231.php When you fill in &quot;vn&quot;, you will find *unde*. Cappelli is the best in the field, so far as I know, and that website has a great search function of the book." CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:39:06.187" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6799" PostId="2670" Score="1" Text="This agrees substantially with [this transcription I found](https://books.google.com/books?id=GqYNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA67)" CreationDate="2017-02-16T23:18:39.573" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6805" PostId="2670" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I'm afraid that page won't show me the transcription." CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:57:24.297" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6813" PostId="2670" Score="0" Text="Not sure why--it's just a Google Book's reference. The relevant passage is towards the bottom of pg. 67." CreationDate="2017-02-17T13:50:39.567" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6818" PostId="2670" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I can see no way at all for me to view pages in that book, in neither browser. It may be a geoblock of sorts." CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:35:01.073" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6802" PostId="2671" Score="2" Text="English didn't have the word *menu* before 1836. Ainsworth Eng.-Lat. (1780), suggests *tabula cibariorum.*  'Menu' is a diminutive, so perhaps *tabella* (a little page) *cibariorum* (of various foods).' Ainsworth Lat.-Eng. doesn't confirm. In fact *tabula* and *tabella* could be biscuits, or serving dishes, or the bill to be paid." CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:37:56.727" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6798" PostId="2674" Score="0" Text="Throughout this gloss numbers are picked out by double stops:  .ii.  .tertio. .vi. .quarto. For this reason I have come to think .Vii. or .Vn. with a bar(m,n) must be another number. So perhaps &quot;Vnum&quot; as a cognomen of the the Divine, hencealso the capital V." CreationDate="2017-02-16T23:01:48.707" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6803" PostId="2674" Score="1" Text="@Hugh: In theory, you could read it as vii. But that wouldn't make sense in the enumeration, which goes up regularly. As to *unum*, when the bar stands for n/m, normally no other letter is left out. So the bar would have to be a general mark of abbreviation. But then the abbreviation *un.* would have to be common, which I believe it is not. And it would have to be a nominative to fit the context, *unus*, which is even less likely. I don't know whether *Unus* would be used to refer to God; probably not? Lastly, I believe *unde* can be used to introduce quotations in Mediaeval Latin." CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:43:10.027" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6804" PostId="2674" Score="1" Text="@Hugh: Please find in my answer above a very similar text using *unde* in the same way." CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:56:32.997" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6810" PostId="2676" Score="1" Text="For some reason I read &quot;so that others may live&quot; more like *ut alii vivere possint* than *ut alii vivant*. Do you think *posse* would be an idiomatic addition?" CreationDate="2017-02-17T08:56:41.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6817" PostId="2676" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I don't think there's any need for that at all. It depends on what you're emphasizing. See Allen and Greenough § 531.1: &quot;ab arātrō abdūxērunt Cincinnātum, ut dictātor esset (Fin. 2.12), they brought Cincinnatus from the plough that he might be dictator.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-17T15:09:58.287" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6821" PostId="2678" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I wouldn't have thought I'd be so close. My Latin is very rusty. So I would go for &quot;non semper mihi ipsi assentio&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:15:46.247" UserId="1269" />
  <row Id="6829" PostId="2678" Score="0" Text="@GéraudBenazet You're welcome! This site is just the place to get the rust off of one's Latin." CreationDate="2017-02-17T20:47:22.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6822" PostId="2679" Score="0" Text="Thanks, it's indeed shorter, but conveys a slightly different meaning." CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:16:24.897" UserId="1269" />
  <row Id="6824" PostId="2680" Score="0" Text="Aren't short and narrow rivers (and conversely long and wide) usually correlated anyway?" CreationDate="2017-02-17T18:52:00.807" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6825" PostId="2680" Score="0" Text="@cmw There is correlation.  But if I'm looking at [this river](http://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/560x560p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/154/32/78479955.jpg) in person, I'd call it a much smaller river than the one near my previous home, even though the pictured one is many times longer and in other places is wider (it's the Mississippi).  The picture just happens to be taken near the source of the river." CreationDate="2017-02-17T19:00:25.453" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6826" PostId="2680" Score="0" Text="Put another way, here's what I'd call a [small river](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Missrivermpls.jpg) and here's what I'd call a [large river](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Memphis_Bridge.jpg).  But it's the same river." CreationDate="2017-02-17T19:11:09.577" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6827" PostId="2680" Score="0" Text="Ha, funny seeing a picture of my old city. I'm not sure the Romans---or we, even---would make that distinction. The Mississippi is a big river, even if it's narrow in certain places. They'd probably use [angustus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23flum+~+%23angust)." CreationDate="2017-02-17T19:35:13.397" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6828" PostId="2680" Score="0" Text="I think you're right when we we know the full scope of the Mississippi's size/length.  But if you just look at those last two pictures, or if you stand on the bank at those two locations, without knowing anything more about the river, you'd be justified (I think) in saying &quot;river B is bigger than river A.&quot;  On the other hand you wouldn't say &quot;river B is longer than river A&quot; because you wouldn't know – you could guess, but it'd be more speculative than a statement about size." CreationDate="2017-02-17T19:49:33.847" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="6832" PostId="2682" Score="2" Text="P.S. I think it is good that you mentioned &quot;Greek&quot; in the title. This may be helpful to people who go through the list of questions and who aren't interested in Greek." CreationDate="2017-02-18T15:40:22.273" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6871" PostId="2683" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. That makes sense. I'm glad to know that my intuition was correct: that there is an implied &quot;we&quot; as a subject." CreationDate="2017-02-21T20:14:38.823" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6833" PostId="2684" Score="1" Text="What is the difference between flumen and fluvius?" CreationDate="2017-02-18T16:42:39.820" UserId="1249" />
  <row Id="6834" PostId="2684" Score="2" Text="I think it's a matter of personal preference in use. Caesar never uses either _fluvius_ or _amnis_, but other authors including Cicero seem to choose whatever fits their current style. Maybe you should ask a separate question?" CreationDate="2017-02-18T17:09:23.587" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6835" PostId="2684" Score="0" Text="You could also do *rivulus* for a small river." CreationDate="2017-02-18T17:27:59.717" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6836" PostId="2684" Score="0" Text="A little _rivus_, I presume?" CreationDate="2017-02-18T17:49:40.870" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6840" PostId="2684" Score="0" Text="And for a very little river: &quot;O **fons** Bandusiae, splendidior vitro...&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-19T17:25:07.790" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6838" PostId="2685" Score="5" Text="A fantastic post!" CreationDate="2017-02-19T13:34:25.913" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7804" PostId="2685" Score="4" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the first quarter of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/269/79)" CreationDate="2017-04-03T17:02:29.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6845" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="*Tiberis* just doesn't have any long vowels in it. No idea why they didn't write *Ītalia* though, since the long *ī* seems pretty much universal. (The noun *Italus* &quot;Italian person&quot; has a short *i* but other forms like *Ītalis*, *Ītalicus*, etc share the long *ī*.)" CreationDate="2017-02-20T02:37:52.533" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6846" PostId="2687" Score="1" Text="Also, if you want to learn with macrons (which I wholeheartedly recommend), *prīmum* should have a long *ī* also." CreationDate="2017-02-20T02:40:27.757" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6847" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Could you expand on that a bit further? And I added that macron on *prīmum*." CreationDate="2017-02-20T03:15:45.093" UserId="1249" />
  <row Id="6848" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="I'm not quite sure what you'd like expanded? Length is an intrinsic part of each vowel, and the difference between ē and e could be more prominent than between (say) e and i. *Ītalia* has one, as does *Eurōpa* and *Dānuvius*, but *Tiberis* doesn't. (Some words also have more than one, like *fīliī*.) Is this what you're asking about?" CreationDate="2017-02-20T05:52:59.300" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6850" PostId="2687" Score="1" Text="@PabloIvan You might be interested in this earlier question: [How do I use macrons?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1497/79)" CreationDate="2017-02-20T08:41:11.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6851" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="@Draconis If my memory serves me wll, the word *Italia* typically has no macron. The first I is long in Vergilius to fit hexameter. In prose I would write and pronounce *Italia* with short vowels." CreationDate="2017-02-20T08:44:03.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6854" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta What do you mean, &quot;I would **pronounce** *Italia* with short vowels*&quot;? [emphasis mine]" CreationDate="2017-02-20T16:32:06.457" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6855" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. The word *Italia* (or a variant of it) has only short vowels, and I would reflect this in pronunciation. I'd pronounce all four vowels short, the stressed one only slightly longer (as is natural with stress). The pronunciation would be the same as in Finnish, apart from the location of stress. (I'm slightly confused about what exactly confuses you, so I may or may not have answered your question.)" CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:42:52.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6857" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Making an effort to pronounce short and long vowels distinctly in Latin - this surprised me a lot." CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:50:13.420" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6858" PostId="2687" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. Oh! I had assumed everyone would do that all the time... Many Finns pronounce every single vowel with the correct length, but our native language must help with this distinction." CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:06:28.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6861" PostId="2687" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta In my experience Americans try, but don't always succeed, especially on *ā* versus *a* (since English has rough equivalents to all the others). It's just the quality difference at best though." CreationDate="2017-02-21T00:03:59.083" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6849" PostId="2688" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I have to remark that I would never use first person singular in mathematics in any language. Either passive *demonstretur* or first person plural *demonstremus*, even if I'm the sole author. But that's just a quirk of mathematical writing." CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:40:06.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6883" PostId="2689" Score="0" Text="what about Italia?" CreationDate="2017-02-22T16:39:29.657" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6891" PostId="2689" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., I meant that the OP's examples of words containing macrons all contain exactly one." CreationDate="2017-02-22T23:41:56.343" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6852" PostId="2691" Score="1" Text="Great question: you're right that there are a whole ton of sources that seem to think that they can declare that &quot;Caesar/Marcus Aurelius/etc. used war dogs in X war&quot; without citation and that we should just &quot;take their word for it.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-20T15:47:20.247" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6853" PostId="2691" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thank you! It's a relief to find I'm not going deolali." CreationDate="2017-02-20T15:49:10.057" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6944" PostId="2691" Score="0" Text="The OCD3 doesn't mention war at all in its articles on dogs." CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:45:02.480" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6868" PostId="2694" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Do you think it works to extend *profecti sunt* to the second clause? Doesn't the *ubi* introduce a new clause that requires a verb? (Obviously there turns out there is a verb, but I'm curious if it's possible to parse the sentence as-is.)" CreationDate="2017-02-21T13:42:37.090" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6869" PostId="2694" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The way I saw it, *ubi* modifies only the absolute ablative *mora et quiete facta* (&quot;after resting there&quot;). If you read *ubi* to modify the whole second half of the sentence, it gets stuck (or I get stuck)." CreationDate="2017-02-21T14:08:35.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6865" PostId="2695" Score="2" Text="This makes a lot of sense. The sign in the previous sentence, the predicate at the end, and the genitive *Syriae* make the pieces fit together. I gave (and now updated) my answer to be based on what was given in the question, so I had to assume an implicit repetition of *profecti sunt*." CreationDate="2017-02-21T07:13:31.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6867" PostId="2697" Score="1" Text="That's an excellent response! It is actually the acronym of a repository for researchers to share computer generated music, so I think the meaning may be perfect :)" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:47:02.417" UserId="1274" />
  <row Id="6875" PostId="2698" Score="3" Text="English borrowed the French *menu* and gave it a more specific meaning; you might do the same and take *grammātīdium, -ī* from the Greek." CreationDate="2017-02-21T23:53:30.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="6870" PostId="2699" Score="1" Text="What is *scacula*? I can't find it in L&amp;S." CreationDate="2017-02-21T18:41:46.990" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6876" PostId="2699" Score="0" Text="@TKR appears to be a misprint for *cacula* !st m. a military page; a soldier’s servant or slave. (Plautus)" CreationDate="2017-02-22T04:10:23.567" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6874" PostId="2700" Score="0" Text="I'm told Modern Greek uses a derivative of *aster-* but that might be calquing back from English." CreationDate="2017-02-21T23:47:45.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35707" PostId="2700" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Oxford offers, &quot;celebrity&quot; = &quot;fama&quot;, &quot;celebritas&quot;, both feminine nouns." CreationDate="2021-11-08T09:29:15.633" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35708" PostId="2700" Score="0" Text="@tony Perhaps those offers are for &quot;celebrity&quot; in the sense of &quot;fame&quot; rather than &quot;famous person&quot;, although that meaning seems to have become rarer in English. Of course it could stand for the other one by metonymy, but it'd be good to know if there is a further discussion in addition to a mere translation." CreationDate="2021-11-08T09:47:41.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35715" PostId="2700" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I realise that &quot;fama&quot; isn't quite what you are looking for. In contemporary English, &quot;star&quot; &amp; &quot;celebrity&quot; are used almost interchangeably. Newspapers talk of &quot;the cult-of-celebrity&quot; to describe adherents who hang on the every word of &quot;stars&quot;. Lewis &amp; Short offer exs. of uses of &quot;fama&quot; = &quot;renown&quot;--still skirting around the edges. I'm not sure that Latin has what you seek; but, I'm happy to be educated." CreationDate="2021-11-08T12:35:29.363" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="6872" PostId="2701" Score="3" Text="This particular Socrates doesn't really speak Greek. But I hope he doesn't have to be poisoned, either." CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:09:57.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6880" PostId="2701" Score="1" Text="Out of curiosity, are you looking for &quot;I see&quot; in the sense &quot;I agree&quot;? Or with the possibility of some arch comment like, &quot;I see--how stupid!&quot; I ask because the Socratic dialogues which you reference basically contain a thousand variations of &quot;Wow, you are so smart and that is so true!&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:50:41.207" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6886" PostId="2701" Score="0" Text="I mean the simple definition, &quot;I agree&quot; or &quot;that seems right&quot;. I wasn't aware of the other meaning - thanks for alerting me to it." CreationDate="2017-02-22T19:22:39.747" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6892" PostId="2701" Score="0" Text="@brianpck 90% of those, when arguing with opponents, are sarcastic to boot." CreationDate="2017-02-23T00:53:21.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6882" PostId="2702" Score="3" Text="I don't have time to write up an answer, but [this article](http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15699846-01601003) looks pretty exhaustive." CreationDate="2017-02-22T16:02:30.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6877" PostId="2704" Score="0" Text="right the abl. is omni" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:38:05.897" UserId="1152" />
  <row Id="6878" PostId="2706" Score="0" Text="Great find. So should you translate it, then, &quot;if they will be done as they are said&quot;? I assume that πολλὰ carries over as the subject (for both verbs)." CreationDate="2017-02-22T09:05:42.253" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6879" PostId="2706" Score="2" Text="This sounds analogous to the Latin feminine ablative *qua*." CreationDate="2017-02-22T10:28:41.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6881" PostId="2706" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You're right! The LSJ entry gives the following quote from Aristotle:  &quot;ᾗ ἄνθρωπος&quot; =  &quot;*qua* man&quot; (Arist. *EN* 1096b2)" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:29:43.730" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6921" PostId="2710" Score="0" Text="There's a theorem in Euclid called *'pons asinorum.'* Does that word only come into use in after 1130 with the two Latin translations of Euclid?" CreationDate="2017-02-23T22:28:23.973" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10503" PostId="2713" Score="0" Text="correct me if I'm wrong but caudex meant blockhead as well, right?" CreationDate="2017-08-27T17:28:11.627" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="6906" PostId="2715" Score="1" Text="If the pronoun is attached to a verb, as in &quot; Intrat locum et effugit.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:34:47.137" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="6916" PostId="2715" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer This is not a duplicate. I saw that question and it did not address what one would do if the prepositions take different grammatical questions. Thank you for the suggestion, though!" CreationDate="2017-02-23T19:26:22.887" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11545" PostId="2715" Score="0" Text="I just stumbled upon this question again after a long time. If you indeed think that this is not a duplicate, can you add a link to the other question and describe how it fails to address your question? Then I'd be more than happy to reopen." CreationDate="2017-11-30T23:50:06.440" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11548" PostId="2715" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Well, the question that apparently that apparently already has the answer to this question does not address what occurs when the two prepositions take different noun cases, which was the main substance of my question. I suppose the title was a bit misleading, as if one were to just look at that, the question has already been answered. But, when you look at the nuance in my question, it really addresses a separate issue." CreationDate="2017-12-01T02:17:03.150" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11549" PostId="2715" Score="0" Text="I can see that now, but it would be worth highlighting the difference to the other question, for example by mentioning that the case of repeating the same case after two prepositions was covered in another question. I find it useful to explicitly differentiate a question from old ones. It will help future readers, since there can easily be a great number of very useful but quite similar questions." CreationDate="2017-12-01T05:20:05.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11553" PostId="2715" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I see your point, but I do not see the worth at this point, as I have already received a satisfactory answer." CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:36:16.980" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="6894" PostId="2718" Score="1" Text="If it's a separate phrase without more context, can you really use *quid* for &quot;something&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-02-23T05:55:32.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6895" PostId="2718" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Hm, I don't know. Do you think aliquid would be better? Or does it run into the same problem?" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:00:21.617" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6896" PostId="2718" Score="0" Text="*Aliquid* is good here. The *quid* sounds wrong to me, but I may be mistaken." CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:04:59.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6897" PostId="2718" Score="1" Text="I think you are right. I looked it up somewhere, and it says that the indefinite pronoun &quot;quid&quot; is used after certain words, like si, nisi, ne, and num. I'm assuming that in other contexts it should be &quot;aliquid&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:06:16.823" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6898" PostId="2718" Score="0" Text="That's exactly what I had in mind!" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:07:58.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6901" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="Are you interested in classical pronunciation or some later variant? I can tell you where my stress is, but Cicero might disagree." CreationDate="2017-02-23T10:39:47.497" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6902" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="Yes, I am thinking classical--insofar as we know what that was like. Thank you for pointing out this ambiguity." CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:05:49.243" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6903" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I edited your question a bit to include that, but feel free to edit further. And a +1 for an interesting question!" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:09:20.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6907" PostId="2720" Score="1" Text="imho in *dīcō* the first mora is stressed (C**V**V.CVV), whereas in *coepiō*  the second mora is stressed (CV**V**.CV.VV)." CreationDate="2017-02-23T16:31:57.623" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6915" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure this is a meaningful question to ask about a language that doesn't distinguish the between the possibilities phonologically, as Greek does. Latin doesn't make a grammatical distinction equivalent to e.g. ῶ vs. ώ, so this is a bit like asking where the stress falls in a language that lacks phonological stress." CreationDate="2017-02-23T18:39:49.833" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6925" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. I am glad I happen to light on that 'confusing' example because  that's just the sort of thing I want to be on the look out for. From the other post you link, it seems however that the irregularity is confined to that word?" CreationDate="2017-02-24T01:12:55.130" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6926" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="@TKR. Saying that there is no distinction--is this a way of saying that the emphasis consistently falls one way or another, that the answer is consistently one of 1 through 3? If so, I would like to know which. / I am not sure what is being excluded by 'phonological' stress; that is, what other kind of stress do we have in mind?" CreationDate="2017-02-24T01:17:01.653" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6928" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="@Catomic: A language lacks &quot;phonological&quot; stress if stress is entirely predicatable from the form of a word. An example of such a language is modern French (as long as word-final &quot;mute e&quot; is treated as a different vowel from /œ/ or /ø/). So TKR is saying that it would either be consistent (and based purely on the form of the word in which the diphthong occurs), or consistently inconsistent." CreationDate="2017-02-24T01:44:48.137" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="6929" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. Thank you. I thought I followed you until I saw 'consistently inconsistent.' If stress is merely 'inconsistent' (and thus unpredictable) in a language, I presume we want to say it *has* phonological stress? But when stress is 'consistently inconsistent' we are back to *lacking* it? Can you kindly point me to some further resource e.g. a Web page on 'phonological stress'? (I tried, but could not turn up anything helpful.)" CreationDate="2017-02-24T02:29:24.470" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6931" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. Thanks again. Is there a term for stress predictable from from? E.g. Latin only has (random guess) *morphological* stress. Also, a term for shifting stress?  In language X, stress is only (random guess) *incidental*. / On shifting stress, see entry by 'pktopp' in this on Korean (maybe it qualifies, I don't know): https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/korean-stress.1947298/" CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:07:03.490" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6932" PostId="2720" Score="1" Text="What I mean is that in Greek, a long vowel or diphthong always has one of two possible pitch contours, and the difference is grammatically significant. In other words, accent (phonetically expressed by high pitch) is linked to individual moras. In Latin, this isn't the case -- accent (expressed most probably by a combination of volume and pitch prominence) is only linked to syllables, so it doesn't make sense to ask the question &quot;which mora is accented?&quot;. Latin doesn't have a distinction of the kind you describe in the last part of the question." CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:22:47.207" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6933" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="As an analogue, imagine asking the same question for English: which part of an English long vowel or diphthong does the &quot;emphasis&quot; fall on? That doesn't seem to me to be a meaningful question, because English doesn't have a phonological contrast of the Greek variety." CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:29:07.433" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6934" PostId="2720" Score="1" Text="@TKR. That was the sort of thing I wanted to find out; that some distinction I neglected was not going to rear its head later and bite me. Thanks." CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:53:25.013" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6935" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="@TKR with all due respect, have you read anything written after Allen 1973, especially accentologogical research critical of his accentual matrix theory?" CreationDate="2017-02-24T04:09:34.367" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6936" PostId="2720" Score="1" Text="@AlexB., not with specific reference to Latin accentuation, I don't think. But I'd certainly be interested in hearing more if you know of recent work that contradicts what I said above." CreationDate="2017-02-24T04:14:14.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6937" PostId="2720" Score="0" Text="@TKR Ok, I'll try to summarize what I know already." CreationDate="2017-02-24T04:25:51.253" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6918" PostId="2721" Score="1" Text="+1, but [apparently](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Latin_proverbs#Ex_Africa_semper_aliquid_novi) Pliny actually didn't say *ex Africa semper aliquid novi*, he said &quot;Semper aliquid novi Africam adferre&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:14:57.180" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="6938" PostId="2721" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the +1 and your reminder that it's not original to Pliny. It's an ancient aphorism, still commonly used, and so a useful pattern here." CreationDate="2017-02-24T06:26:48.283" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7628" PostId="2721" Score="0" Text="If I wanted to say it as a question, would it be grammatical to ask, &quot;Ex nihilo aliquid?&quot; That is, 'something from nothing?'" CreationDate="2017-03-25T02:03:49.483" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="6909" PostId="2722" Score="0" Text="That answers both my questions. Thanks. One point I should make: I neglected to turn the passage into a question, as it ends with a semi-colon. According to my textbook, φῶμεν is a deliberative subjunctive, and I think this makes more sense in a question." CreationDate="2017-02-23T17:36:28.100" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6911" PostId="2722" Score="0" Text="It's weird to see a dative of possession without a form of εἰμί. But I'm grateful for your research showing that it's common." CreationDate="2017-02-23T17:46:53.427" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6912" PostId="2722" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 You're right about it being a question: I noticed it after starting the translation and then forgot to make adjustments. It probably is as simple as switching &quot;let us say&quot; to &quot;might we say...?&quot; As for the dative of possession, I suppose it's possible to construe some kind of understood ὄντας...perhaps someone more experienced than me can comment on that. The dative strikes me as strange here--but I think it's the only explanation." CreationDate="2017-02-23T18:05:02.887" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6913" PostId="2722" Score="2" Text="Another possibility is to take ἡμῖν as an ethical dative and translate &quot;for us&quot; (as in the Lucian). Its placement inside the τε-καί structure would be a little unusual, but such unstressed pronouns tend to float around the sentence." CreationDate="2017-02-23T18:34:17.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6914" PostId="2722" Score="0" Text="@TKR Interesting - I had never heard of the ethical dative. But this Wiktionary page gives a helpful description: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethical_dative. I just added &quot;dativus ethicus&quot; as a tag." CreationDate="2017-02-23T18:37:42.527" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6917" PostId="2722" Score="1" Text="@TKR—Is that another name for *dativus commodi* or are they different?" CreationDate="2017-02-23T19:57:25.287" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="6919" PostId="2722" Score="2" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus, *dativus commodi* is known in English as dative of advantage, but frankly I'm not sure there's a clear difference between that and the ethical dative (and in this case you could just as well say ἡμῖν is a dative of advantage)." CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:27:55.193" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6923" PostId="2724" Score="3" Text="And more generally, the &quot;direct&quot; interrogatives are often used in indirect questions too, e.g. τί for ὅτι and so on." CreationDate="2017-02-23T22:50:01.733" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6940" PostId="2725" Score="2" Text="Well, I think it is important to keep in mind that &quot;slippery when wet&quot; is merely a shortening of the full sentence &quot;This surface is slippery when it is wet,&quot; which you kind of alluded to in your question. When one thinks about other Latin phrases and mottoes in the modern world, they too are often shortened forms of more elaborate sentences. So, I think it is perfectly apt to say something along the lines of _lubrica cum madida_, as compared to the implied, full sentence (_Haec cutis est lubrica cum madida sit._). At least, that's the way I look at it. (Sorry for the long comment...)" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:03:56.053" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="6941" PostId="2725" Score="0" Text="@SamK That's a good way of looking at it. Can you write that as an answer? Seeing the short expression as a shortening of a full sentence and forming it accordingly makes a good answer." CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:26:51.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6947" PostId="2728" Score="0" Text="It's good to know a verb can agree with its nearest subject. That was really counter-intuitive to me as a native English speaker. Thanks for your answer." CreationDate="2017-02-24T22:22:44.717" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6955" PostId="2728" Score="0" Text="Wow, I got a down vote on this.  That's harsh :(  Would the down-voter like to leave a comment explaining their reasons?" CreationDate="2017-02-26T04:04:44.723" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6958" PostId="2728" Score="0" Text="There's a serial down voter who down votes any and all Greek questions - has been plaguing me for months, like a thorn in my flesh. Perhaps it was this mystery person. *Ahem* Greek proposal. *Ahem* Sour grapes." CreationDate="2017-02-26T04:33:59.383" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6959" PostId="2728" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I see.  I won't take it personally then!  Thanks for letting me know :)" CreationDate="2017-02-26T05:05:36.807" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6960" PostId="2728" Score="1" Text="Ohhh, I've just been reading all the previous Meta discussions re: Latin vs Greek.  I had no idea it was such a hotly-debated issue!  As a classicist, reading and answering a Greek question seemed totally natural." CreationDate="2017-02-26T05:33:26.370" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="6949" PostId="2731" Score="1" Text="To be honest, I think your current &quot;system&quot; is pretty much what most everyone does: emphasize the primary stressed syllable, pronounce long vowels as long (though many people even neglect that!), and basically not worry about the rest. Which may be the best we can do -- it seems plausible that Latin had rules for secondary stress placement, but if so, I'm not sure there's any basis for guessing at what they were." CreationDate="2017-02-25T02:27:57.187" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6950" PostId="2731" Score="0" Text="@TKR. Thanks for telling me there is nothing more definite. That is valuable information. | I have a mental metronome going and try to see 'poēma' and 'πρᾶγμα' as four things rather than three, or three instead of two." CreationDate="2017-02-25T03:22:51.300" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6942" PostId="2732" Score="0" Text="+1 for &quot;a number of conventional rules&quot; - it's very important to remember that those are just conventions, not physical laws." CreationDate="2017-02-24T18:52:45.020" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6948" PostId="2732" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Could you however extend your answer by applying one system of pronunciation (stress placement), the one you use perhaps, to 'comperiēbātur'? I need a rough and ready guide to get started." CreationDate="2017-02-25T01:43:39.600" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="6952" PostId="2732" Score="0" Text="My instinct is to stress the syllable which follows the prefix in a compound verb like _comperio_ . It then seems to need a further natural stress on the _a_ of the ending -_batur_. I find that others tend to follow their instinct, too. Other  differences in pronunciation are idiosyncratic, for instance in the ways in which the letters c and g are hardened or softened, rather as in modern Italian. As TKR implies in his comment on your question, we mainly muddle along comfortably, and in the end it doesn't seem to matter too much." CreationDate="2017-02-25T12:53:08.883" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="6946" PostId="2734" Score="0" Text="Really great to learn about particles. Thanks. I never thought of them that way... I was much more likely to adhere to a strict translation. I think this will help me going forward." CreationDate="2017-02-24T21:14:20.583" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="6982" PostId="2735" Score="1" Text="I tend to disagree that &quot;lubrica cum madida&quot; works in this context. Although ellipsis is certainly common in Latin, I have never seen *cum* used alone with an adjective or noun." CreationDate="2017-02-28T00:44:03.393" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6999" PostId="2735" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Well, this isn't exactly a true Latin idiom. And there are a few different ways to translate it, I am just most familiar with the using _cum_ clauses. Do you have a suggestion to improve it so that it would be more in line with traditional Latin form?" CreationDate="2017-02-28T23:44:42.247" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="6988" PostId="2736" Score="1" Text="This is an excellent answer: thanks especially for the Cicero quotes. I'll hold off on the bounty for a couple more days in case someone contributes another answer." CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:00:40.787" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6989" PostId="2736" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks! I feel that my answer was only partial, but the thing turned out to be much more complicated than I had expected. I wonder if someone has written a thesis on different forms of love in Cicero's work..." CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:24:58.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7036" PostId="2736" Score="2" Text="I let this slip by me, but I should note that *amare* has a political connotation that is absolutely devoid of passion. Cf. Cicero's way of saying &quot;please&quot; in his letters, &quot;si me amas...&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-02T21:43:57.003" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6953" PostId="2738" Score="2" Text="I don't know what either of these terms mean or whether there is a canonical translation, but I would render the first one like you did and the second one as *argumenta Eleatistica*." CreationDate="2017-02-25T13:05:59.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6951" PostId="2740" Score="0" Text="&quot;Quod ceteros celavi, hoc est; est autem simplicissimum: animo tantum bene cernimus. Quae plurimi sunt, oculis cerni non possunt.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-25T07:27:56.583" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6957" PostId="2741" Score="3" Text="The body of your question seems to be asking about why intension/extension are used. In that case, you should ask in one of the two English Stacks." CreationDate="2017-02-26T04:11:08.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6961" PostId="2741" Score="2" Text="I must concur with @cmw. I am pretty sure (although I have no references at hand) that *in/extensionality* was first used as a term of the art of logic in English-language writings of R. Carnap, and this would set the *terminus post quem* for the term usage to 1935. If that's the case, the *in-/ex-* distinction is pretty much the same as that in the modern English language, and has probably nothing to do with its original nuances significant to the Roman mind." CreationDate="2017-02-27T03:58:31.907" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="7300" PostId="2741" Score="3" Text="This question seems to be about intension and extension, not about *intensio* and *extensio*. Therefore I agree with the others that it is off topic. Nevertheless, the question could be interesting for this site if you asked it from a Latin point of view (eg. comparing the English pair intension-extension with the Latin one *intensio-extensio*)." CreationDate="2017-03-13T07:33:46.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20614" PostId="2741" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks! Do you mind editing my question please? This was your brilliant idea, so you  ought get the credit!" CreationDate="2019-07-18T23:18:22.830" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20619" PostId="2741" Score="1" Text="@Greek-Area51Proposal How does it look now? Questions often work best when kept concise and to the point. It would help if you could look into the dictionary definitions of these two Latin verbs yourself and specify what puzzles you. You can write a new paragraph of three sentences explaining that, but probably not more. The Etymonline quotes are mostly distracting; a simple link is enough." CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:31:59.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20623" PostId="2741" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I've created a new question with your edit: thanks! Meanwhile, I've tried to edit this to clarify it. Is it on-topic now?" CreationDate="2019-07-19T09:03:03.980" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20624" PostId="2741" Score="1" Text="@Greek-Area51Proposal I think it's on topic now, as it is about Latin, at least mainly. But it's of course not my decision; everyone here is free to vote as they please and decide what they like." CreationDate="2019-07-19T09:49:42.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20632" PostId="2741" Score="1" Text="It is clear and legible now! +1" CreationDate="2019-07-19T21:42:27.917" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="6956" PostId="2742" Score="2" Text="Can you explain exactly what you find confusing?" CreationDate="2017-02-26T04:04:58.540" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6962" PostId="2744" Score="2" Text="I think further explanation is required: Christianity reached Rome very quickly, and Greek was the spoken language (cf. Epistle to the Romans). It's curious that a word with such an obvious translation &quot;became a proper name&quot; even though it was itself a translation of a Hebrew term." CreationDate="2017-02-27T03:58:46.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6963" PostId="2744" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Couple notes: 1. While Greek was indeed the spoken language, it was unlikely the first language. Paul himself must have known Hebrew or Aramaic (or both), as did the first Christian communities, and an underlying Aramaic substrate for Q is often put forward (though this is contentious). This means that the earliest Greek-speaking Christians likely understood the relationship between *moshiah* and *christos*, but by the time is got to Rome, that was one step too removed. 2. Quite a few Greek terms remained entirely untranslated in Latin, despite Cicero's best efforts." CreationDate="2017-02-27T04:12:37.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6964" PostId="2744" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'm not sure if the above is satisfying and whether you'd like a) additional explication or b) it moved to the body of the answer." CreationDate="2017-02-27T04:13:08.207" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6972" PostId="2744" Score="0" Text="I don't think the explanation lies in a misunderstanding of the link between Messias and Christus, which is explicit in the Gospels (e.g. Jn 4:25). More than likely this springs from the translation choices of the *Vetus Latina*, often followed by Jerome, but the &quot;why&quot; still remains opaque to me, beyond saying that &quot;Greek terms were often untranslated.&quot; Why, for instance, was &quot;Golgotha&quot; translated as &quot;Calvariae Locus&quot;, not transliterated as &quot;Kraniou Topos&quot;? (I don't know the answer, but it's food for thought.)" CreationDate="2017-02-27T15:00:10.223" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6973" PostId="2744" Score="0" Text="Look at this interesting text search for [*interpretatum* in the Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=interpretatum&amp;qs_version=VULGATE): 6 out of 7 are Hebrew/Aramic -&gt; Latin, but only one (Messias) is left as Greek." CreationDate="2017-02-27T15:02:41.187" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6976" PostId="2744" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Actually, in the 1st and 2nd centuries there were rival Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking Christian communities in the capital. At one stage they even had two rival popes." CreationDate="2017-02-27T20:16:52.773" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6977" PostId="2744" Score="0" Text="@fdb Can you provide a source for that? I always thought of Hippolytus (3rd c.) as the first anti-pope, because of his opinions about second penance." CreationDate="2017-02-27T21:02:28.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6978" PostId="2744" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. Yes, I was thinking precisely of Hippolytus, as leader of the Greek-speaking faction, who has the unique honour of being (according to the Roman Church) both a Saint and an &quot;anti&quot;-pope." CreationDate="2017-02-27T21:52:27.637" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6979" PostId="2744" Score="0" Text=".... and of course I meant &quot;2nd and 3rd centuries&quot;." CreationDate="2017-02-27T22:59:22.283" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6974" PostId="2747" Score="1" Text="After these quotes there is no doubt that *Unctus* would be the correct Latin translation of *Χριστός* although it was not used to replace the Greek and Hebrew terms. Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-02-27T15:51:25.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6984" PostId="2748" Score="2" Text="Does Miller mean &quot;from Greek as opposed to Etruscan&quot; or some other specific language that has been proposed? (Btw, the order of &quot;Gk. olaiwom &lt; Gk. olēwom&quot; should be the other way around -- and neither form is Greek; the *el &gt; ol* change is Latin. The same intermediate steps could be added for *olīva*; its Greek source is *elaíwā*, note accent and vowel length.)" CreationDate="2017-02-28T04:11:46.183" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7000" PostId="2748" Score="0" Text="Any particular reason for &quot;cf. ἐλαιόω&quot; rather than ἔλαιον, which is surely the source? Btw, the change *ai &gt; ei* isn't clear to me (and I can't find a relevant discussion in Weiss) -- wouldn't it normally show up as *ae*?" CreationDate="2017-03-01T03:02:11.337" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7001" PostId="2748" Score="1" Text="@TKR it's funny - i just noticed it five min ago on my iPad and just turned on my laptop to fix it, thinking how you're going to mention this. :) Fixing it right now. In the future, feel free to fix obvious typos!" CreationDate="2017-03-01T03:07:09.597" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7002" PostId="2748" Score="0" Text="Will do! I assumed it was a typo but didn't change it because I can't access the Brill dictionary from home (which may be a reason to link to open-access sites like Perseus, btw)." CreationDate="2017-03-01T03:28:32.277" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7003" PostId="2748" Score="0" Text="@TKR ok, will link to open-access dictionaries next time. Re: ai &gt; ei see the updated answer." CreationDate="2017-03-01T03:43:26.343" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7004" PostId="2748" Score="2" Text="Oh, of course -- it's just regular weakening. Should have thought of that. Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-03-01T03:50:53.920" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="6992" PostId="2749" Score="0" Text="What specifically are you unsure about? It seems to me like you answer your own question--the only missing piece was &quot;et&quot; = &quot;and&quot;" CreationDate="2017-02-28T19:23:50.073" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6987" PostId="2750" Score="2" Text="Gaudeo et congratulor, quod decem milia punctorum tulisti!" CreationDate="2017-02-28T07:15:36.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6991" PostId="2752" Score="0" Text="To avoid possible confusion, I ought to add that this is Ps. 100 in the _Book of Divine Worship_. In the Vulgate it is no. 99." CreationDate="2017-02-28T16:43:35.460" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7027" PostId="2752" Score="0" Text="It is numbered as &quot;100&quot; in the Hebrew Bible and the English KJV; in the LXX and Vulgata it is numbered as &quot;99&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:20:01.040" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="6990" PostId="2753" Score="0" Text="BTW, I'm aware that the *Vetus Latina* is not a monolithic translation, and my statement about its relation to the LXX is based on vague memories. I appreciate any corrections/clarifications!" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:28:43.630" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7008" PostId="2753" Score="0" Text="Your speculation looks well-based and convincing to me. But though I take the point that you find no other examples of _jubilo_ governing a dative or ablative, can you explain why _Jubilate Deo_ itself, certainly familiar since the mid-fourth century, cannot provide an adequate precedent for anyone who wishes to use the verb?" CreationDate="2017-03-01T15:41:48.270" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7009" PostId="2753" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I didn't quite say that: the fact that it isn't &quot;classically attested&quot; is a big deal to some, a non-issue for others. In fact, many of the &quot;idiosyncracies&quot; of medieval Latin are direct results of translation choices like these, to a much greater extent than how many phrases in modern English are influenced by the KJV." CreationDate="2017-03-01T16:52:08.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7026" PostId="2753" Score="0" Text="Jerome’s “iubilate Deo” could however also be seen as a perfectly literal translation of הָרִיעוּ לַיהוָה “make a joyful noise unto the LORD”, with the preposition “la” rendered (as usual) by the Latin dative." CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:18:57.960" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7028" PostId="2753" Score="0" Text="@fdb That sounds about right, though the *Vetus Latina* primarily was translated from the Septuagint, which itself was a pretty literal translation from the Hebrew. Jerome followed the *Vetus Latina* very closely for the Psalms, since they were already so well known." CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:59:38.017" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6993" PostId="2755" Score="0" Text="For Modern Latin, this is undoubtedly correct, but have you checked out the textual issues with the ancient evidence? The passages referring to the Eleatics in Cicero appear corrupt." CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:18:25.490" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6994" PostId="2755" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Even without the Cicero reference, the two others in this classical [corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23eleatic) seem to support it. Either way, it would be a question of whether that word was used, not how it should be formed." CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:38:10.217" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="6996" PostId="2755" Score="0" Text="I'm not disputing the formation, I just found the confusion fascinating. I know at least the passage in *Academica* was corrected, I wonder if others show sign of corruption in the manuscripts." CreationDate="2017-02-28T22:10:06.267" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="6995" PostId="2756" Score="4" Text="This may be broad, but I would much like to see an overview of this topic. Deeper details can be discussed in follow-up questions." CreationDate="2017-02-28T22:08:45.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6998" PostId="2756" Score="0" Text="I would need a lot of time to look up specific instances, but I remember from a linguistics course that Greek words containing &lt;Υ&gt; were often transcribed with a &lt;u&gt; in preclassical Latin (inscriptions, Plautus, ...) and with an &lt;i&gt; in classical transliterated words and in semi-literate postclassical writings such as Pompeii's graffiti. With some good will, one could suppose that the sensitivity to the foreign sound /y/ (closed front rounded vowel) improved over time ? I realize it's a threadbare argument btw, but I think it might be interesting if backed by actual data." CreationDate="2017-02-28T23:36:20.170" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7005" PostId="2756" Score="3" Text="@blagae I believe much of the data is already found in J. N. Adams' [Bilingualism and the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books/about/Bilingualism_and_the_Latin_Language.html?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC). I think the question as it stands is too large, and even to summarize Adams' tome would make for a too hefty a post, especially if those further questions were added." CreationDate="2017-03-01T05:13:45.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7007" PostId="2756" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Could you suggest an appropriate narrowing of the topic?" CreationDate="2017-03-01T14:09:20.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7012" PostId="2756" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Honestly, I think the three questions you have would each be excellent questions on their own. The types of evidence for each is very different, so it would make the answers whole, contained, and manageable, imo." CreationDate="2017-03-01T21:43:22.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7862" PostId="2756" Score="3" Text="@blagae: AFAICR, iotacism begun in certain Greek dialects as early as 2nd c. B. C. The change is likely caused by a phonetic shift in Greek rather than the development of the Roman ear." CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:23:45.420" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="8262" PostId="2756" Score="0" Text="Not an answer,  but Plautus was writing Greek-based plays in Latin at the turn of the 3/2 C BCE. His settings and characters, probably plots, are adaptations of Greek comedies - at the end of *Captiui* he complains that there aren't many &quot;models&quot; - presumably originals - that don't deal with young men trying to buy their whores out of brothels, or similar &quot;low&quot; topics. So Greek literature was known then, but had to be adapted/translated for the Roman *hoi polloi*." CreationDate="2017-04-23T02:25:12.467" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="7010" PostId="2757" Score="1" Text="As far as I know, it doesn't come from *tuli* but from *re(d)-*. Compare with *redire*. I hope someone can give more detail and explain why the D was lost in the other forms." CreationDate="2017-03-01T21:10:43.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7011" PostId="2757" Score="6" Text="Sihler's _New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin_ (§523) suggests that it's actually because of the loss of vowel from what was originally a reduplicated perfect form (*retetuli &gt; rettuli; cf. *repeperi &gt; repperi)." CreationDate="2017-03-01T21:18:19.367" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="7013" PostId="2757" Score="0" Text="*Red-* assimilated in some other verbs as well; compare *relligio*, *reccido*. Don't know why this happened only sometimes though." CreationDate="2017-03-01T22:50:26.707" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7014" PostId="2757" Score="0" Text="Cf. *reddo*. &lt;filler text&gt;" CreationDate="2017-03-01T23:07:34.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7047" PostId="2757" Score="1" Text="related http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/618/39" CreationDate="2017-03-03T05:32:10.783" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7019" PostId="2758" Score="2" Text="I've been looking around, and I can't seem to find any such usage either.  The more I think about it, though, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there wasn't really a set expression.  By the time mathematics started to become set-theoretically rigorous, Latin wasn't really being used any more, and while it was, mathematics was mostly concerned with polynomials and things you would do with them when you got your hands on them, which doesn't really lend itself to 'if and only if' theorems.  By no means am I trying to suggest that these guys didn't understand logic, but since it wasn't (cont.)" CreationDate="2017-03-02T04:34:51.843" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="7020" PostId="2758" Score="3" Text="(cont.) the case that they had occasion to say 'if and only if' all the time, it wouldn't necessarily have coalesced into a set phrase like it has in modern mathematics." CreationDate="2017-03-02T04:34:58.300" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="7118" PostId="2758" Score="2" Text="_Vicipaedia_ uses _si et tantum si_ consistently, along with other modern practitioners. @MarJohnson is right: ancient mathematicians understood logic perfectly (actually, they invented it) but had no set phrase for “iff”, either in Greek, Arabic or Latin. In modern mathematics, “if and only if” appeared in the 19th Century. Give me some time to source this." CreationDate="2017-03-05T01:18:08.910" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="7438" PostId="2758" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, German uses another phrasing, instead of the archaic *dann und nur dann, wenn* we say *genau dann, wenn* (maybe translatable as &quot;exactly if&quot;)" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:31:45.677" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="7015" PostId="2759" Score="4" Text="AFAIK, *red-* is only prevocalic; *rettuli, reccidi, reddo* all reflect original reduplicated forms with vowel loss. Not sure about *relligio*, but it was explained as metrical lengthening already in antiquity (see Servius Honoratus quote [here](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=relligi)). De Vaan thinks the *d* of *red-* is not inherited but secondary, based on an analogy like *pro(d)*-. For *rellatus/rēlatus*, I suppose they may be etymologically explicable, from *re-tlatus*" CreationDate="2017-03-01T23:25:14.077" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7016" PostId="2760" Score="2" Text="This makes sense, but why does it only happen in the prefixed form? We don't see *_tutulī_, for example, even though the initial stress would have preserved the first vowel." CreationDate="2017-03-02T00:09:14.053" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7017" PostId="2760" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, that's quite true -- most perfects that were reduplicated in PIE lost their reduplication in Latin. I don't know of any good explanation for why the handful of verbs that retained it did so (which is often the case with morphological change)." CreationDate="2017-03-02T00:53:45.360" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7023" PostId="2760" Score="0" Text="Interesting answer. There are a few things I still don't understand: 1. why no *dettuli, praettuli, prottuli*? Does it have something to do with vowel length? 2. Why do you think *reddo* is reduplication, too, rather than the *-d* that is often part of the prefix *re(d)-*?" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:04:40.407" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7024" PostId="2760" Score="0" Text="The Latin perfect continues both the IE perfect and the IE aorist. That is why it has lots of different forms." CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:07:50.627" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7038" PostId="2760" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, 1 is hard to answer because (so to speak) regularization is irregular -- in the course of language change some forms get regularized and others don't; that said, it's possible vowel length was relevant -- Latin does have something of an aversion to superlong syllables (long vowel + coda consonant), though not an absolute one. (Note that the *red-* account runs into the same problem -- why *red-* in this form but *re-* normally?) 2. This verb shows reduplication in the present in other IE languages; and *red-* is a prevocalic alternant of *re-*, like *prod-* for *pro-*." CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:43:27.537" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7022" PostId="2765" Score="10" Text="Are you aware that the English suffix -able is borrowed directly from the Latin -abilis, with the same meaning?" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:03:13.420" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7045" PostId="2765" Score="2" Text="Related question on Linguistics SE: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3235/is-the-word-e-able-related-to-the-suffix-e-able" CreationDate="2017-03-02T23:08:17.140" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7025" PostId="2767" Score="0" Text="Would you consider *facilis* from *facere* the same derivative, even though there is no B (not *facibilis*)?" CreationDate="2017-03-02T16:13:03.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7030" PostId="2767" Score="1" Text="I think you're right: Priscian has a [discussion about it](https://books.google.com/books?id=H-gxoTF2Oz4C&amp;pg=PA132&amp;lpg=PA132), also citing the examples *docilis* and *utilis*. Interestingly, *utibilis* is also attested: I'm not sure if this was just to avoid the perceived dissonance (if that's the word) of -ibili- or if there is some other rule at work." CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:11:43.787" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7044" PostId="2767" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, semantically the two are close or maybe even indistinguishable, but technically they're not the same suffix, since they are two different forms and are not allomorphs. Another such pair are *flexilis / flexibilis*." CreationDate="2017-03-02T23:03:59.600" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7029" PostId="2768" Score="4" Text="Good answer! Two comments: (1) Are there exceptions to your rule? *Facilis* = &quot;doable&quot;? (2) Is &quot;haplogy&quot; an intentional pun?" CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:11:00.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7031" PostId="2768" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I was going to ask about exceptions too: I can think of a few. For instance, by these rules, it would be *utor* -&gt; *usibilis*." CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:17:20.970" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7032" PostId="2768" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Hmm... Does *fertilis* come from *ferre* this way or is it a different derivative altogether? I'm trying to figure out if one should use the present stem as suggested by *utilis* (not *usi(bi)lis*)." CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:21:02.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7033" PostId="2768" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta (2) is intentional, though I can change it if it's actually confusing. (1) probably though I can't think of many (brianpck's *ūtibilis* is a good catch); I feel like present stem + *-ilis* has a slightly different meaning than supine stem + *-ibilis* though I'm not sure exactly how or why (need to search more)." CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:24:56.430" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7034" PostId="2768" Score="0" Text="(2) It's not confusing. I was just curious. (1) It could be that different stems and slightly different suffixes have a difference in meaning, but I'm not sure if that's meaningful. Your rule is an excellent rule of thumb, but I'm not sure how far its validity extends. (3) It'd be interesting to know what grammars say about this." CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:32:00.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7035" PostId="2768" Score="2" Text="@Draconis I got a good chuckle out of &quot;haplogy,&quot; too, so no need to change it in my opinion." CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:38:05.937" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7040" PostId="2771" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the website! You are most completely correct in not trusting Google Translate. Frankly, they are awful at translating Latin. Sometimes, in my free time, I go on Google Translate Community and do some translating and quality control for them. :) It's quite entertaining sometimes..." CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:53:14.123" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="7069" PostId="2772" Score="2" Text="&quot;Veritas&quot; alone, btw, is the motto of Harvard. Doesn't seem a stretch to put &quot;semper&quot; next to it." CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:20:19.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7063" PostId="2775" Score="0" Text="Is your verse scanner open source? Now I'm curious to have a look :)" CreationDate="2017-03-03T14:48:12.793" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7065" PostId="2775" Score="4" Text="https://github.com/blagae/elisio" CreationDate="2017-03-03T14:49:18.683" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7053" PostId="2776" Score="0" Text="So you're thinking that at some point a copying monk or editor said &quot;well, this is awkward, there's no conjunction between adgnovit and inquit&quot; and decided that what first looks like nĕc must be nē + c, with the -c a sort of -que (but not used as a suffix to the last verb) ?" CreationDate="2017-03-03T10:53:55.310" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7054" PostId="2776" Score="0" Text="I must admit that it sounds plausible, given that editors sometimes shoehorn their own linguistic instincts into thoroughly weird 'solutions' for things that I don't find awkward at all" CreationDate="2017-03-03T10:58:35.060" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7055" PostId="2776" Score="0" Text="@blagae That's exactly how I see it. And it's not unusual to have words inside quotes like: *Marcus &quot;ille&quot;, inquit, &quot;est Gaius&quot;* (instead of *Marcus inquit: &quot;ille est Gaius&quot;*). It's just orthographically awkward that such an inserted word is a suffix." CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:10:28.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7060" PostId="2776" Score="0" Text="do you know of any other instances, besides atque/ac, neque/nec, etc where -c counts as the shortened version of -que ? I don't remember ever seeing this phenomenon, especially with lexical items. If there are more instances, then it becomes a more likely explanation." CreationDate="2017-03-03T13:29:17.780" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7061" PostId="2776" Score="1" Text="FYI I *am* aware of other instances where -que is not used as a strict enclitic (e.g. Ov. Met. I, 735, `finiat ut poenas tandem, rogat 'in' que 'futurum`), so that is not the issue here." CreationDate="2017-03-03T13:33:45.207" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7062" PostId="2776" Score="1" Text="@blagae See [this question about replacing *-que* with *-c*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2152/79). I would always consider the *-que* a strict enclitic, so to me *in que futurum* looks as odd as *ne c longius*. But it is true that *-que* makes up a syllable on its own, unlike *-c*." CreationDate="2017-03-03T14:28:41.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7064" PostId="2776" Score="4" Text="*-que* is not a strict enclitic in Ovidius. It seems like he really liked isolating it in quotations: I have found 9 instances in the first 5 books of the Metamorphoses where he does the exact same thing as `'in' que 'futurum` (while Vergilius doesn't isolate *-que* at all in the Aeneis)." CreationDate="2017-03-03T14:48:16.353" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7078" PostId="2777" Score="0" Text="I think your translation is basically right except that *cuius* is a relative, not an interrogative: &quot;from whose tears a wet substance comes forth...&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-03T20:09:54.207" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7079" PostId="2777" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the translation, it makes more sense with &quot;prodeo&quot;, and thanks for the other clarifications. @TKR: I think you're right, I will update my question with the context which makes it more clear that &quot;cuius&quot; is a relative." CreationDate="2017-03-03T20:20:38.690" UserId="1235" />
  <row Id="7090" PostId="2777" Score="0" Text="Edited.  @TKR, it's clear now, but is there any reason to think relative rather than interrogative without context?" CreationDate="2017-03-04T03:54:39.597" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="7092" PostId="2777" Score="1" Text="Grammatically no. But the interrogative reading hadn't even occurred to me before reading your answer -- &quot;From whose tears does a wet substance come forth...?&quot; is a pretty strange thing to ask! (And if you did want to ask that, my sense is that Latin idiom would recast the question to make the person the subject, along the lines of  &quot;Who is it who emits a wet substance...?&quot;)" CreationDate="2017-03-04T04:09:26.657" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7093" PostId="2777" Score="0" Text="Ah yes, that does sound better. I wasn't really sure about the meaning in either case, so I just went with the question because that was the attempt in the original post." CreationDate="2017-03-04T04:25:10.597" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="7231" PostId="2777" Score="0" Text="I just found an &quot;official&quot; translation, in the Cambridge Edition of the Works of Jonathan Swift. It's pretty much the same as yours, but I felt I should link it here: &quot;For from [Acamoth's] tears all that is liquid was formed; from her smile all that is bright, from her sadness all that is corporeal, from her perplexity all that is mobile&quot; [Google books link](https://books.google.com/books?id=jNJ0T3RaxHEC&amp;lpg=PA121&amp;dq=%22A%20cujus%20lacrymis%20humecta%20prodit%22&amp;pg=PA450#v=snippet&amp;q=Acamoth&amp;f=false)" CreationDate="2017-03-10T10:34:11.013" UserId="1235" />
  <row Id="7056" PostId="2778" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! A suggestion: Have you looked at any [Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to see how well the Latin word *genius* matches the English (or German) one? You could look up some potential words and comment on them if you want to get the nuance right. The question is answerable as is, but if you want specific kind of answer, you should show your own thoughts." CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:39:01.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7058" PostId="2778" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for pointing that out. I've tried to improve the question." CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:53:38.783" UserId="1301" />
  <row Id="7059" PostId="2778" Score="1" Text="Excellent! I hope you get a good answer." CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:58:04.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7068" PostId="2778" Score="0" Text="I'm curious about the German epithet: I can't find a single G-hit for &quot;Genie ohne Nachweis&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:17:36.640" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7072" PostId="2778" Score="1" Text="@brianpck In fact the term is used in the (German) book called &quot;Wittgenstein's nephew&quot; written by Thomas Bernhard. He wanted to point out that Paul Wittgenstein was a true Genius - like his uncle Ludwig as a philosopher and his father Paul as a one-handed pianist - but unlike his uncle and father had no evidence whatsoever for it." CreationDate="2017-03-03T17:38:46.580" UserId="1301" />
  <row Id="7066" PostId="2780" Score="2" Text="Good question! I don't know a suitable adverb or adjective either, but I would use *credo* or *fieri potest* in some way. There's also the potential conjunctive, but it doesn't get the tone right either." CreationDate="2017-03-03T15:18:22.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7067" PostId="2781" Score="0" Text="I think you're right, though &quot;cum Marcone...?&quot; strikes me as awkward." CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:15:26.687" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7071" PostId="2781" Score="0" Text="I can only think of examples where _-ne_ is attached to the first word, either a verb, or the adverb _non_ (as in _nonne_)." CreationDate="2017-03-03T17:00:38.197" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7083" PostId="2781" Score="0" Text="Pinkster 2015 addresses this question on pp. 323-326, with lots of examples." CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:34:07.493" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7097" PostId="2781" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. A summary of those pages would be great. The grammars I have access to don't discuss this at all." CreationDate="2017-03-04T09:32:30.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7073" PostId="2782" Score="1" Text="These are great options, though I still think they don't quite capture &quot;probably.&quot; *Visne mecum ire? --Probabiliter* doesn't sound quite write to me, almost like, &quot;It could be demonstrated!&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-03T17:47:28.723" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7076" PostId="2782" Score="1" Text="If you are asking for an improved translation we should need a bit of background before choosing an appropriate Latin idiom. You may find it more polite to use _comitari_ for _mecum ire_, and _velis_ rather than _vis_; to reply 'probably' in your example I'd use _veri simile [est]_; and so on, trying to temper the style of your translation to the circumstances. Would that make it any easier?" CreationDate="2017-03-03T19:31:26.237" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10822" PostId="2782" Score="1" Text="Two of these options are also given by Cassell, viz. *probabiliter* and *veri simile est*." CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:20:47.827" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="7307" PostId="2784" Score="1" Text="I have always read &quot;fortasse&quot; as &quot;maybe, maybe not.&quot; Do you think it refers to something more likely?" CreationDate="2017-03-13T18:54:17.937" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7323" PostId="2784" Score="0" Text="@brianpck—Honestly, I do not know. :|" CreationDate="2017-03-14T01:14:42.497" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="10821" PostId="2784" Score="0" Text="I am no expert, but the Oxford Latin Dictionary has &quot;fortasse&quot; as &quot;it may be, perhaps, possibly (sts. iron.)&quot;.  (Is &quot;probably&quot; an ironical use of &quot;fortasse&quot;?) Even the L&amp;S definition is hardly encouraging: I suspect people want to use a word for &quot;probably&quot; that will actually be interpreted as meaning &quot;probably&quot;, rather than one as vague as to be translated &quot;perhaps, peradventure, probably, possibly&quot;.  Though Döderlein and Ramshorn give *some* support to &quot;probably&quot; (see Joef Derfner's answer), descriptions like &quot;approaching to probability&quot; possibly fall short of the usual meaning of &quot;probably&quot;." CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:19:03.757" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="7081" PostId="2786" Score="1" Text="Where are you getting this data from? You probably have access to more sophisticated tools, but a naive corpus search shows 628 hits for #rettul and 148 hits for #retul, which is certainly less conclusive than this chart." CreationDate="2017-03-03T22:49:18.107" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7082" PostId="2786" Score="0" Text="@brianpck the corpus is called Opera Latina (University of Liege), http://web.philo.ulg.ac.be/lasla/ It lets you search for specific morphological forms, so I got data for perfectum only." CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:15:49.800" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7095" PostId="2786" Score="1" Text="The discrepancy between these numbers and those from PHI (@brianpck) is strange -- I wonder what accounts for it." CreationDate="2017-03-04T05:31:41.407" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7125" PostId="2786" Score="0" Text="@TKR I just searched another POS tagged corpus (LatinISE historical corpus v2), and I got this: Query rettuli.*, Romana Antiqua, Romana Classica  163 (12.54 per million); Query retuli.*, Romana Antiqua, Romana Classica  12 (0.92 per million)." CreationDate="2017-03-05T04:16:44.917" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7126" PostId="2786" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I just looked more closely at your data. 47 occurrences of retul# (out of 148) come from the 4-5 century AD grammarian Maurus Servius Honoratus." CreationDate="2017-03-05T04:59:23.797" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7136" PostId="2786" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I saw a few discrepancies like that, but (if I'm not mistaken) there were almost 10 just from Livy, which by itself is more than what is included in this chart." CreationDate="2017-03-05T14:18:21.080" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7080" PostId="2787" Score="2" Text="Great answer, +1. In the Ionic dialect (e.g. Herodotus), &quot;οἱ&quot; is *very* commonly used in this way." CreationDate="2017-03-03T22:36:11.627" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7109" PostId="2787" Score="0" Text="Yes, thanks for the answer! I will take some time to go over this and make sense of your points. Then I will accept." CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:52:48.580" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7098" PostId="2790" Score="0" Text="It’s probably worth mentioning that in the case of _agō_, it is the _a_ that is secondary in PIE, not the _e_. The underlying root is [_*h₂eĝ-_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂eǵ-), and PIE /e/ was phonetically lowered to something like [ɐ ~ a] after /h₂/ (phonetically probably [x] or similar). In the Narten imperfect (let's assume that's what it is for simplicity), however, the vowel was /eː/, which was not lowered after /h₂/. So phonetically it would have been something like [xɐɡʲ-] in the present, [xeːɡʲ-] in the preterite." CreationDate="2017-03-04T10:33:06.800" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="7099" PostId="2790" Score="0" Text="Also, if it were an actual augment, I believe it would indeed yield _ēgī_ without the need for an Attic-Ionic-style change of _ā_ to _ē_, since _*e+a_ in Latin regularly yields _ē_, not _ā_. If the augment was indeed a (Late) PIE thing, it was likely—at least going by available evidence—considered separate enough that it did not lower to [a] in the vicinity of /h₂/." CreationDate="2017-03-04T10:38:12.447" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="7107" PostId="2790" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet, that's a valid point about *e+a* contraction; I was addressing the specific question about a temporal augment, i.e. vowel lengthening rather than *e-* prefixing. (Of course, Latin has no temporal augment, so there's not much point in speculating about what it would have looked like.)" CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:07:32.510" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7108" PostId="2790" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet, by the way, what evidence do we have for whether the augment was colored by laryngeals?" CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:30:38.330" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7157" PostId="2790" Score="1" Text="Precious little, if any at all. I thought I remembered that there was some evidence, but I can’t find what it was I was thinking about now. Greek isn’t worth much here, of course, since the contractions are later (so even where PIE would have had an actual consonant between the augment and the root, e.g., _*e-seĝʰ-_, Greek contracts into _εἴχ-_). There are some marginal cases like Skt. यभति _yábhati_, impf. अयभत् _áyabhat_, where the root is _*h₃i̯ebʰ-_. If regular, you’d expect PIE _*e-h₃i̯ebʰ-_ &gt; _*o-h₃i̯ebʰ-_ &gt; IIr./Skt. _*ā-yabʰ-_. But that could so easily be analogically levelled." CreationDate="2017-03-06T18:20:41.263" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="7158" PostId="2790" Score="0" Text="If we happen to know what augmented forms of verbs like _ἀμέλγω_ (&lt; _*h₂melĝ-_) looked like in Aeolic or Doric, we might get a hint: if they’re _ἤμελγον_, that would be a fairly good indication that the augment was _not_ lowered; if they’re _ᾱ̓́μελγον_ (I’m sure that looks awful), that might be an indication that it was. But my Doric/Aeolic isn’t quite good enough to know offhand how such forms looked." CreationDate="2017-03-06T18:37:33.587" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="7164" PostId="2790" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet, Smyth (435 D) does say &quot;Initial α becomes ᾱ in Doric and Aeolic&quot;, but he doesn't give examples. Of course, even if there are examples from verbs with *h₂, they could easily be analogical too." CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:25:26.350" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7087" PostId="2793" Score="4" Text="The list of locative forms on this chart isn't complete; *mare* does have a locative, used in the phrase *terra marique* &quot;by land and sea&quot; (both locative). But I don't know if that locative *mari* is used by itself outside of that fixed expression." CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:41:52.333" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7088" PostId="2793" Score="0" Text="@TKR I meant in the case of the particular place construction in this context -- should have been more specific, sorry!" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:43:15.453" UserId="952" />
  <row Id="7089" PostId="2794" Score="4" Text="Besides *ruri* and *domi*, you also have *humi* &quot;on the ground.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:57:00.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7134" PostId="2794" Score="2" Text="Why do your feel that terra and mari are in the locative case? Aren't those regular ablatives of location?" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:04:39.753" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7138" PostId="2794" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, you're quite right about *terrā* -- not sure why I was thinking of it as a locative (except that the phrase reminded me of *domī mīlitiaeque*!) *Marī* could formally be a locative, but I suppose it's better seen as an ablative too. Editing the question..." CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:29:17.240" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7101" PostId="2795" Score="0" Text="Nice answer! +1" CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:23:34.457" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7091" PostId="2797" Score="0" Text="Thank you--particularly as I even looked in Internet Archive and couldn't find it." CreationDate="2017-03-04T04:08:25.317" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="7096" PostId="2797" Score="0" Text="@Catomic My pleasure. Sometimes one just needs a second pair of eyes—it happens!" CreationDate="2017-03-04T07:29:32.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7100" PostId="2798" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Is any Latin forum or chat good for you, or are there some restrictions?" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:20:44.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7106" PostId="2798" Score="3" Text="One tip to improve your question: the question in the title (&quot;largest community&quot;) is pretty different from the two questions in the body (&quot;active community&quot; and &quot;where can I practice?&quot;). I assume you are asking for any good online Latin-speaking communities?" CreationDate="2017-03-04T21:45:54.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7165" PostId="2798" Score="0" Text="reddit.com/r/latin is always open to communicating in Latin. We actually have two weekly Latin-only topics, the one for casual conversation and the other for more advanced composition." CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:29:23.517" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="7170" PostId="2798" Score="0" Text="The old places closed down or are inactive, and as of now, I don't know of very many communities I would recommend that still uses forum or chat technology, though you must be able to find something on Facebook (I assume, I don't have it myself)." CreationDate="2017-03-07T02:03:59.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7216" PostId="2798" Score="0" Text="I second @JoonasIlmavirta. Why don't you try using our chat room? It's quite accessible - you could be there in two minutes - and a good bet for practicing Latin." CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:24:53.420" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7217" PostId="2798" Score="1" Text="As for finding an active forum: I think one exists right under your nose ;)" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:27:22.953" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="47083" PostId="2798" Score="0" Text="I'm new to this site and am unsure if this is allowed based on the wording of the do's and don'ts below, but this post is what prompted me to make an account on this site. I was hoping a new comment would bring this thread back up so we could see if anyone had anything to add in 2024. It was an older question and in case anything new has gotten started since the last answer. I've been looking for a place to learn to/practice speaking latin myself and found help in the answers others had previously left so worth a shot." CreationDate="2024-01-04T14:56:07.713" UserId="14554" />
  <row Id="47084" PostId="2798" Score="1" Text="@Nimuey I moved your comment to the comment section, but because of the actions, the question will stay bumped. Cheers." CreationDate="2024-01-04T21:00:57.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7102" PostId="2800" Score="0" Text="Great answer! Thanks! Good to know that I should use ordinals for this example." CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:37:08.040" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7103" PostId="2800" Score="0" Text="I was beaten by about a minute again... Good answer!" CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:37:52.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7104" PostId="2800" Score="1" Text="Haha. But two answers are better than one." CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:39:27.523" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7105" PostId="2800" Score="2" Text="+1, especially for the interesting point about ordinal numerals. It seemed strange to me at first, but [a corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23iam+%7E+annum) shows that it is quite common!" CreationDate="2017-03-04T21:43:40.393" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7110" PostId="2802" Score="1" Text="The Doric and Aeolic dialects kept the original first-declension ending *-ᾱ*; Attic and especially Ionic tended to turn *ᾱ* to *η*. If the temple was in Delphi, my money would be on Doric." CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:13:27.590" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7111" PostId="2802" Score="1" Text="And hence *ἄτη* is not a noun (because of the eta), but a verb: while Attic contracted αε to ᾱ, Doric contracted it to η. So this is the present 2sg of *ἀτάομαι* &quot;to suffer&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:20:41.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7112" PostId="2802" Score="0" Text="...this is turning into an answer, just a moment" CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:23:56.650" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7113" PostId="2802" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Interesting. What about πάρα? Is not a preposition, as I assumed?" CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:24:24.140" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7114" PostId="2802" Score="2" Text="When para comes after its object, the accent moves backward. And when it &quot;takes&quot; the nominative it's more like an adverb, meaning &quot;together with&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:25:44.403" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7115" PostId="2802" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Oh! Then, &quot;together with a pledge and suffer&quot;? Still sounds a little awkward. What would be the best literal rendering? Feel free to provide this in an answer." CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:27:20.317" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7116" PostId="2802" Score="0" Text="I'm writing an answer now, but I'd say it as &quot;[make] a pledge and you will suffer&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:30:49.907" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7135" PostId="2804" Score="0" Text="Excellent, thank you very much!" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:29:58.983" UserId="1301" />
  <row Id="7127" PostId="2808" Score="0" Text="The root *necro-* means &quot;corpse&quot; or &quot;dead&quot;, rather than &quot;death&quot;. How do you feel about *mortiferum* (&quot;death-bearing&quot;)?" CreationDate="2017-03-05T05:37:25.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7128" PostId="2808" Score="0" Text="Also, you don't need to worry too much about proper Latin in a species name: most biologists don't!" CreationDate="2017-03-05T05:37:51.513" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7132" PostId="2808" Score="0" Text="@Draconis They probably didn't have the advantage of help from the friendly folk on stackexchange." CreationDate="2017-03-05T07:33:40.503" UserId="1305" />
  <row Id="7129" PostId="2809" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! Thanatodon sounds like an excellent idea for the genus. If I add on a species identifier that means &quot;tail-less&quot;, will &quot;ecaudata&quot; fit correctly with Thanatodon, or does it need to be inflected differently?" CreationDate="2017-03-05T06:11:33.913" UserId="1305" />
  <row Id="7130" PostId="2809" Score="0" Text="@user02814 For -don, use -us ending instead of -a. In your hypothetical species, *Thanatodon ecaudatus*. Sometimes you'll see them ending in -i or -is, and both of those won't change." CreationDate="2017-03-05T06:33:38.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7137" PostId="2810" Score="2" Text="A &quot;literal&quot; translation would be *ad dentem*, not *denti*, since *al* ultimately derives from *ad* (plus *ille*)." CreationDate="2017-03-05T15:26:00.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7139" PostId="2810" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer You are right. I added *ad dentem*. These two are the obvious first candidates but neither sounds good or familiar to me." CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:36:27.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7152" PostId="2811" Score="3" Text="According to the (uncited) [Online Etymology Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=toothsome), the metaphorical use of &quot;tooth&quot; is first attested in the 14th century." CreationDate="2017-03-06T17:20:11.877" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7141" PostId="2813" Score="2" Text="Reminds me of the song [Gaudeamus igitur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudeamus_igitur)" CreationDate="2017-03-06T02:36:39.370" UserId="1309" />
  <row Id="7147" PostId="2813" Score="1" Text="There is an overlap of social use and literal use: e.g. *infans* in law means under 18; *infans* in daily use means younger than *puer.*  Hence a king with a white beard is *&quot;Iuvenis&quot;* in the spandrel of MS Arundel 83 126v; juxtaposed with *iuvenis* in sequence between *adolescens* and *vir quasi rex* (circa 1310)" CreationDate="2017-03-06T14:57:41.067" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7140" PostId="2814" Score="4" Text="I'm glad to hear I'm still in my youth. I was starting to think otherwise." CreationDate="2017-03-05T23:05:05.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7142" PostId="2814" Score="1" Text="Well, I'm definitely *senex*, but 'prime of life', as I read L&amp;S *flower* seems more reasonable!" CreationDate="2017-03-06T03:40:24.480" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="7143" PostId="2817" Score="1" Text="I think it would be really helpful to find a classical usage of *iuvenis* for someone on the higher end of that spectrum." CreationDate="2017-03-06T04:36:27.120" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7144" PostId="2817" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Done." CreationDate="2017-03-06T05:30:01.350" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7146" PostId="2818" Score="2" Text="Excellent! This addresses the point that is actually contentious." CreationDate="2017-03-06T14:27:55.123" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7149" PostId="2818" Score="0" Text="@CMWeimer Thank you for that. I suspect the problem lies in the etymological link between *iuvenis* and the English *juvenile* which is actually closer to *adulescens* - English at least does not have a word for someone in the &quot;prime of life&quot;. And if, as Cerberus suggests,it was mainly applied to men,   may it not have had connotations of strength, experience etc, rather than simply &quot;youth&quot;? Or am I barking up the wrong etymological tree?" CreationDate="2017-03-06T16:24:48.607" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="7151" PostId="2818" Score="1" Text="Good find! One thing to consider is that Livy wrote several centuries after Hero's birth. Did he know how old Hiero was exactly at the time in question?" CreationDate="2017-03-06T17:18:29.503" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7156" PostId="2818" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose There's also the adjective *iuvenis*, which really does mean &quot;youth,&quot; but from what I understand the noun had become codified as a particular age set." CreationDate="2017-03-06T18:17:27.870" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7159" PostId="2818" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus Good point! He does, and I added a paragraph to address that." CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:02:08.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7160" PostId="2818" Score="1" Text="Excellent! No doubt the Oxford and others base their age ranges on sources such as this." CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:09:14.880" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7161" PostId="2818" Score="1" Text="One slight doubt: does *iuvenis* only work here because it is juxtaposed with *senis*, almost like &quot;younger&quot; vs. &quot;older&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:11:36.987" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7162" PostId="2818" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Undoubtedly more sources are needed, and I can keep gathering sources when I have more time, but were it simply the case of contrast, I suspect we would have seen *iunior*. Note that in Polybius, Hiero in his thirties is called *neon*." CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:55:19.573" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7148" PostId="2820" Score="4" Text="In Attic ο+α=ω, not η. You get η primarily by lengthening α (which gave ᾱ in other dialects)." CreationDate="2017-03-06T15:59:55.497" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7150" PostId="2820" Score="3" Text="Same goes for ὄμνυμι, since ο + ο = ου. I have a *lot* of sympathy for your  desire to reduce the arcane ramifications of Greek grammar into a few easily understood axioms, but unfortunately--it's not always possible!" CreationDate="2017-03-06T16:33:11.973" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7154" PostId="2820" Score="2" Text="Cf. also the perfect ὄπωπα, stem ὄπ-, from the suppletive verb ὁράω. I have to agree with the others: the vowels η (from α or ε), ω (from ο), and ει (from ε (from ι is not lengthening)) at the beginning of a past verbal stem are commonly a form lengthening of the initial vowel, rather than contractions." CreationDate="2017-03-06T18:06:35.147" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7163" PostId="2822" Score="0" Text="Google Translate is horrible with Latin. I suggest taking a look at [any of the proper online Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to find the words you like. We can help with composing the sentence. For example, does [*delinquentia*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2016132) look like a good word for this purpose?" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:29:21.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7166" PostId="2822" Score="0" Text="Do other Latin-speakers (or non-Latin-speakers) need to guess this sentence for the puzzle?" CreationDate="2017-03-07T00:01:00.067" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7176" PostId="2823" Score="0" Text="Thanks, this is very useful. The Finnish *-ko/-kö* is not always used in a strictly binary manner, but some argue that any deviation is ungrammatical. For example, &quot;paljon&quot; (much) in questions often becomes &quot;paljonko&quot; instead of &quot;kuinka/miten paljon&quot; (how much) and &quot;kauan&quot; (for a long time) is similar. The Latin analogue of this phenomenon would be replacing *quam diu* with *diune*. It is true that *-ko/-kö* is flexible and can be attached almost anywhere, so it is good to know that *-ne* is more restricted." CreationDate="2017-03-07T11:02:50.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7167" PostId="2825" Score="0" Text="Very interetsing. And do laryngals also explain the augmental lengthening, as in ὤμνῠον, εἶπον, which doesn't look like ordinary contraction (or does it?)? I thought the augment was hypothesised to be from an adverb &quot;then&quot; that looked like *he* and was related to Germanic *ge-*, but perhaps I misremember and it was in fact a laryngal? Incidentally, now I wonder why those different verbs used different laryngals in your examples. Assimilation?" CreationDate="2017-03-07T00:30:30.027" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7168" PostId="2825" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, the PIE augment is reconstructed as *(h₁)e-, but is not related to Germanic ge-, which is most likely from PIE *ḱóm. εἶπον is actually not an augmented form at all but a reduplicated aorist, *we-wkʷ-. As for the temporal augment (ὤμνῠον), laryngeals may be part of its explanation (see comments to [this answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2790/40)) but there's certainly some analogy involved too since it also appears in verbs that did not begin with a laryngeal." CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:15:01.113" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7169" PostId="2825" Score="1" Text="As for why different verbs have different laryngeals, they're just part of those roots. Laryngeals are consonants like any others -- some roots happen to begin with *h₁ just like some roots happen to begin with *s." CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:55:50.487" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7171" PostId="2825" Score="0" Text="As to *ge-*, I heard that somewhere, but it must be an outdated theory (although it seems that the relation with *con-* is not yet consensual). And εἶ- in perfect forms, is that still a lengthening of the vowel, or is it an effect of reduplication, too? Analogy is always a strong factor indeed. About those laryngals, I assumed they only appeared in the perfect forms that were mentioned, not in the roots; that what confused me. But if they are in the roots, then it makes sense." CreationDate="2017-03-07T02:05:15.677" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7172" PostId="2825" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, the ge- : ḱóm connection is somewhat problematic because PIE ḱ regularly gives Germanic *h*. But none of the laryngeals should give Germanic *g*, either. By &quot;εἶ- in perfect forms&quot; do you mean e.g. εἴληφα? If so, I believe that's something else again: that root had *sl-, and the form seems to be from *se-sl- with the first *s lost by Grassmann's Law (because of the φ later in the root) and the second by the First Compensatory Lengthening. Other perfects in εἰ- are thought to be analogous to εἴληφα." CreationDate="2017-03-07T02:19:28.407" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7173" PostId="2825" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Am I right to understand as follows, where brackets represent an operation?  `*h₂ke-h₂kows-h₂e` =[initial `*h₂` becomes `a`]=&gt; `ake-h₂kows-h₂e` =[*eh₂ &gt; ā &gt; Attic-Ionic η]=&gt; `akηkows-h₂e` =[intervocalics lost]=&gt;`akηko-h₂e` =[`*h₂e &gt; a`]=&gt; `akηkoa`? (The sequence of operations not meant to represent order of historical development.)" CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:35:08.060" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="7174" PostId="2825" Score="0" Text="If so, was my guess right to the extent it consisted of (1) a reduplication of 'three things' (`*h₂`, `k`, and `e`) and (2) a subsequent merger between the last of them (`e`) and the initial thing in the stem (`h₂`), but wrong in thinking (3) these operations might have taken place 'in Greek' when in truth (or probability) they had happened prior to Greek and the results were inherited by Greek? | I just don't understand why the last of the three duplicated elements, viz. `e`, is represented as `*e` in one of your lines, viz. '`*eh₂` &gt; `ā` &gt; Attic-Ionic `η`'." CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:37:53.227" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="7184" PostId="2825" Score="0" Text="@Catomic, yes, that's all correct. I'm not sure I understand your last question -- if it's about the asterisk, that's meant to show that the sequence *eh₂ is all part of reconstructed PIE rather than attested anywhere." CreationDate="2017-03-07T22:19:10.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7191" PostId="2825" Score="0" Text="Thanks for that confirmation. (About the asterisk, I'd never seen PIE notations before and simply didn't know what it meant.)" CreationDate="2017-03-08T01:54:56.347" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="7175" PostId="2826" Score="1" Text="A question like this points to a familiar problem when translating English idiom within an established text into Latin. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what to do, and when (as often happens) there is no direct equivalent, an acceptable solution can be tricky. I'm hard put to choose between any of the suggestions made here!" CreationDate="2017-03-07T10:04:45.583" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7185" PostId="2828" Score="2" Text="This is a fair caveat. To me, the laryngeal account works too neatly to be accidental, and I don't know of a better theory. Initial preconsonantal laryngeals are not preserved in most IE languages, so you wouldn't expect to see Attic reduplication in the other languages you mention; one might still expect a reflex of the post-reduplicant, root-initial laryngeal (e.g. *h₂keh₂- &gt; kā-) and I don't know if that's found anywhere, but it could easily be analogically leveled out in any case." CreationDate="2017-03-07T22:37:48.043" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7186" PostId="2828" Score="2" Text="As for reduplication of initial clusters, it's notoriously inconsistent (e.g. tiṣṭhati vs. ἵστημι vs. steti; the first shows it's not the case that in Sanskrit only the first consonant is reduplicated), but the view that the whole cluster was reduplicated in the PIE perfect is not uncommon -- this seems necessary for sT clusters to explain e.g. Latin *steti, scicidi*, and it's plausible that HT clusters would have behaved the same." CreationDate="2017-03-07T22:39:21.450" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7188" PostId="2828" Score="2" Text="Looking into the Indo-Iranian evidence, consider Vedic *jāgāra* (:Gk. ἐγείρω, with h₁), which shows the *ā* I speculated about in my first comment above -- this would be the regular outcome of *h₁ge-h₁gor-, same pattern as for ἁκήκοα. The only other option is to say that only the second consonant was reduplicated (ge-h₁gor-), which is unlikely." CreationDate="2017-03-07T23:07:27.643" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7190" PostId="2828" Score="2" Text="And note Armenian *arari* &quot;I made&quot; : ἄρηρα, which shows the &quot;Attic&quot; pattern including the reflex of an initial laryngeal. I'll shut up now." CreationDate="2017-03-07T23:23:21.813" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7177" PostId="2829" Score="3" Text="Root of the 4th principal part of the verb (root of participle, so-to-speak) followed by _-or_ (-rix for feminine). Facere --&gt; factus --&gt; **factor** (factrix); dare --&gt; datus --&gt; **dator**. Is that what you are looking for?" CreationDate="2017-03-07T14:58:34.827" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7178" PostId="2829" Score="1" Text="You might be interested in [this old question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79)." CreationDate="2017-03-07T15:32:11.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7180" PostId="2830" Score="1" Text="+1. Since OP specified &quot;person or thing&quot;, you might mention neuter *-rum* also." CreationDate="2017-03-07T18:25:49.217" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7181" PostId="2830" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Done." CreationDate="2017-03-07T19:13:18.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7194" PostId="2830" Score="0" Text="Thanks! So lover would be amator/amatrix, speaker as dicitor/dicitrix, and hater would become irator/iratrix?" CreationDate="2017-03-08T14:40:58.740" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7196" PostId="2830" Score="1" Text="@MiddleSchoolHistorian The fourth principal part of *dicere* is *dictus*, but yeah, you have the principle down." CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:05:08.487" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7182" PostId="2831" Score="1" Text="Is this supposed to be a reference to the American motto, *e pluribus unum*? The sentence structure is different." CreationDate="2017-03-07T21:27:54.903" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7183" PostId="2831" Score="0" Text="It's not meant to be a reference to that motto. I'm curious as to how to say, &quot;Many are not one.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-07T21:28:56.847" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="7187" PostId="2831" Score="5" Text="In what sense do you mean it? They're not unified? They're literally not &quot;one&quot;? Can you break it down more. You tagged it as &quot;philosophy&quot;, but you've given zero context to help with translation." CreationDate="2017-03-07T22:50:20.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7189" PostId="2831" Score="4" Text="This sounds like google-translate Latin." CreationDate="2017-03-07T23:08:01.913" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7192" PostId="2832" Score="0" Text="Can you add at least a summary of the text as plain text to make it more searchable and accessible?" CreationDate="2017-03-08T04:26:57.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7193" PostId="2832" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta can do on the weekend though" CreationDate="2017-03-08T05:16:09.110" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7195" PostId="2833" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer! If you haven't already, I suggest taking a look at our [tour](http://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2017-03-08T14:46:54.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7197" PostId="2833" Score="2" Text="I think the first part (&quot;ex falso quodlibet&quot;) should be the recommended course here: *principium abundantiae* suggests a very different meaning to me. Also, I did a slight edit since *crepitus* is 4th declension." CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:22:01.577" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7200" PostId="2833" Score="0" Text="I think you've accurately identified the complication: &quot;explosion&quot; is a metaphor for what is meant by &quot;anything follows from contradiction&quot; (ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet). My aim is to reduce the Latin phrase into a concise term like principium contradictionis" CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:32:21.080" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="7199" PostId="2834" Score="0" Text="Maybe it's just me, but I disagree pretty strongly with this translation pattern: it has led to some genuinely frightening neologisms." CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:29:40.860" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7201" PostId="2834" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for your comment. I agree that _Astronautae in statione spatiali_ is somewhat troubling. However, following the opposite approach, you risk translating “netizen” with _retiarius,_ which is even more troubling... All approaches can generate monsters when pushed to the extreme" CreationDate="2017-03-08T22:32:03.777" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="7204" PostId="2835" Score="1" Text="If I wanted to say it in a way that means &quot;many things are not one thing&quot; would it be &quot;plura non (sunt) unum&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-03-09T07:16:28.673" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="7303" PostId="2835" Score="0" Text="@אהרןרובין As far as my knowledge of Latin allows, yes: that is the right way to put it." CreationDate="2017-03-13T13:14:30.543" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16332" PostId="2835" Score="0" Text="As @Rafael points out in the fifth bullet point, if you would like to make the statement about people, rather than things, _Plūrēs nōn ūnus sunt_ would work (and _sunt_ could be removed; cf. Tacitus’ many unspoken _esse_-s)." CreationDate="2018-11-09T17:35:04.053" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="7202" PostId="2836" Score="0" Text="All the sources I've found so far refer to this as a &quot;probable speculative etymology.&quot; I cannot find any classical sources attributing this name to Caesar." CreationDate="2017-03-08T22:52:42.940" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7203" PostId="2837" Score="3" Text="Walde-Hofmann reject the connection with *salīva* (&quot;hat nichts für sich&quot;). They also reject the &quot;jump&quot; derivation, but without explaining why: the suffix could be the same as in *pulmō, sermō* (and Greek τλήμων, etc.). Then again a connection with *sal* &quot;salt, sea&quot; comes to mind... And salmon are not native to the Mediterranean so it could easily be a loanword after all." CreationDate="2017-03-09T00:50:04.260" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7205" PostId="2837" Score="2" Text="@TKR. Thanks for this. I only had access to Walde 1910, not Hoffmann's improved edition. Of the various suggestions in circulation the best is surely to connect it with the river Salm(ona), which, apparently, was at one stage rich in salmon. In this case it is likely to be Celtic, or indeed pre-Celtic." CreationDate="2017-03-09T08:58:40.987" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7207" PostId="2837" Score="1" Text="Though of course the river name could come from the fish word, rather than the other way around..." CreationDate="2017-03-09T21:33:26.547" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7211" PostId="2840" Score="0" Text="This would explain much of my confusion with such phrases. I usually write down and study a word with one definition that I heard, assuming all usages are identical, forgetting to ever look it up. I first encountered &quot;rectus&quot; a long while ago, when I, intrigued, decided to watch Evan der Millner's video on the types of paths. Among these was &quot;via recta,&quot; described as &quot;direct path&quot;. Now, I'll be careful to examine alternative definitions." CreationDate="2017-03-10T00:06:58.680" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7209" PostId="2841" Score="2" Text="When you say &quot;question,&quot; do you mean a &quot;formal distinction between a declarative and interrogative sentence&quot;? I assume so, because the idea of a &quot;question&quot; *per se* is as primitive as it gets." CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:11:38.863" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7215" PostId="2841" Score="0" Text="In line with @brianpck I find it difficult to prove what seems most plausible: nearly as soon as there were grammarians, there must have been questions classed as such, because 1) there is an apparent difference in grammatical structure and 2) there is common vocabulary to name questions ([inter]rog-)" CreationDate="2017-03-10T02:08:49.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7226" PostId="2841" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That is exactly what I'm after. I'll edit it in." CreationDate="2017-03-10T07:54:41.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7228" PostId="2841" Score="1" Text="I don't think I have enough information to make this into a full-fledged answer, but have you read this ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws#History" CreationDate="2017-03-10T08:39:06.827" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7229" PostId="2841" Score="0" Text="@blagae No, I had never seen that. Thanks for pointing it out!" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:03:46.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7249" PostId="2841" Score="2" Text="@Rafael, though that assumption does seem plausible, it's possible that the earliest classical grammars were concerned with morphology to the exclusion of other areas like syntax; the grammar of Dionysius Thrax, which if genuine (there is much debate on this point) is our earliest extant grammar, from the second century BC, says nothing about sentence types, as far as I can find." CreationDate="2017-03-11T01:16:20.560" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7272" PostId="2841" Score="0" Text="Wouldn't the Greek words for &quot;question&quot; suffice? Plato, Xenophon, and Thucydides all use a noun formed from ἐρωτάω." CreationDate="2017-03-12T00:50:39.403" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7279" PostId="2841" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Yes if those words are used to classify sentence types in some way." CreationDate="2017-03-12T10:57:16.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7381" PostId="2841" Score="1" Text="&quot;He asked a question.&quot; Is that not implicitly and inherently classifying types of sentences? You don't ask a command, right? Unless you're looking for a grammatical treatise on the subject..." CreationDate="2017-03-15T01:03:06.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7397" PostId="2841" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I am looking for something in the direction of a grammatical treatise. For example, any mention along these lines would be great: &quot;There are three types of sentences: statements, questions, and orders.&quot; (I don't know what early classifications looked like.) I would like to see some kind of classification, discussing questions as opposed to other sentences." CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:45:54.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7210" PostId="2842" Score="2" Text="Interestingly, I couldn't find any words at all to describe the modern definitions morbid, unless one substituted it with obscene, gross, or creepy." CreationDate="2017-03-09T23:58:59.337" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7212" PostId="2842" Score="0" Text="I'd go for the gender of an underlying noun: _quam horrida [scripta]_" CreationDate="2017-03-10T00:37:46.660" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7214" PostId="2842" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That seems safe. But I would also be interested to know if there is an established expression for this in classical Latin. It's something we say frequently in English, so I wonder if the Romans ever expressed the thought." CreationDate="2017-03-10T01:57:07.800" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7230" PostId="2842" Score="2" Text="The closest exclamation in classical sources that I found with a quick search was Seneca, De Ira, 3.28.1: *O quam bonum tempus in re mala perdis!* I expected to find something in Plautus, but after five plays there is no sign of *quam* exclamations." CreationDate="2017-03-10T10:14:31.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7233" PostId="2842" Score="2" Text="On the lines of _agis quam pessime_ (you couldn't do worse), _vale quam optime!_ (all the best to you!), why not _quam morbose_ ?" CreationDate="2017-03-10T13:51:47.723" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7236" PostId="2842" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I like *quam morbose*. Is there an implied verb in there, e.g., *quam morbose (dicis)*?" CreationDate="2017-03-10T19:24:56.970" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7238" PostId="2842" Score="3" Text="@ktm5124 A verb here is no more necessary than in English, but adding _dicis_ is fine." CreationDate="2017-03-10T20:17:56.420" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="40733" PostId="2842" Score="0" Text="The problem is that most people are using *morbid* incorrectly. It isn't synonymous with macabre, grotesque, gross, obscene, etc. It means &quot;unhealthy.&quot; A *morbid sense of humor* is just another way of saying a *sick sense of humor*. And it's productive in this sense, too, as we saw during COVID when everyone was talking about *co-* ***morbid*** *ities*." CreationDate="2022-12-25T21:21:46.243" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7241" PostId="2845" Score="1" Text="I wonder if a chiastic word order would work here. It often does in comparisons like this. For example: *Nolite quaerere quid facere possit pro vobis vestra patria, sed quid pro patria vestra vos possitis facere.*" CreationDate="2017-03-10T22:31:23.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7242" PostId="2845" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I like that idea! I love chiasmus. I might edit the answer to use it." CreationDate="2017-03-10T22:33:25.137" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="18136" PostId="2845" Score="0" Text="Just another version, trying for ellipsis: Nolite quaerere quod beneficium vobis patria sed vos patriae conferre debeatis." CreationDate="2019-01-13T13:27:49.077" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="7232" PostId="2847" Score="3" Text="Thanks! *Copia verborum* might indeed work. There is a broad problem that no Latin word seems to mean exactly &quot;word&quot;, but they all have other tones (modern or ancient): *verbum* (also &quot;verb&quot;), *vox* (also &quot;voice&quot;), *dictum/scriptum* (only refers to one medium), *vocabulum* (as you mention). There is a danger of confusion if used on this site (the tag is not only for verbs), but in other contexts *copia verborum* is now my first option." CreationDate="2017-03-10T11:52:45.173" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7237" PostId="2848" Score="0" Text="Interesting that the only single-word choices come from Greek. @JoonasIlmavirta, this connects with our discussion about choosing between Greek words and Latin words." CreationDate="2017-03-10T19:48:53.920" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7243" PostId="2848" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 I'm not 100% sure, but I think tagging people who haven't responded yet aren't pinged." CreationDate="2017-03-10T23:30:37.753" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7244" PostId="2848" Score="0" Text="Ah, good to know." CreationDate="2017-03-10T23:47:41.723" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7286" PostId="2848" Score="1" Text="This answer best addresses the specific question about the tag, so I will accept this one. I too now find it best not to translate the tag to Latin. If someone creates such tags, they should be synonymized and we should leave [tag:vocabulary] as the main tag name. The others are useful, too. (I didn't see @ktm5124's ping.)" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:38:16.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7245" PostId="2849" Score="1" Text="Vocabulary in what sense? A person's command of language, or a lexicon (which is, of course, Greek)?" CreationDate="2017-03-11T00:15:57.737" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7246" PostId="2849" Score="0" Text="Good question. I would be interested in knowing both senses, but allow me to add a third. In my textbook, there is a &quot;Vocabulary&quot; section in every chapter, and also a &quot;Vocabulary&quot; section beneath every reading. I would be interested in knowing what Attic Greek word best describes this: a list of key vocabulary for a chapter or a reading, or for any subject really. Hope I'm being clear." CreationDate="2017-03-11T00:20:54.597" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7250" PostId="2851" Score="0" Text="Interesting. I would expect to see the 3rd sg verb *prosit* in the first clause. Is it okay to omit this, considering that the verb from the second clause is in a different person? Are such choices common, when the subjects of different clauses require the same verb, but in a different person or number?" CreationDate="2017-03-11T01:24:28.083" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7251" PostId="2851" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124, yes, cf. *neque Caesar neque ego habitī essēmus* in [A&amp;G 317b](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-317.html)." CreationDate="2017-03-11T01:30:20.990" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7254" PostId="2852" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Sounds like I should probably use λέξεις to mean &quot;vocabulary&quot;, and  γλῶσσαι to mean &quot;glossary&quot;. I'm accepting this answer, but I welcome any other answers that come as well." CreationDate="2017-03-11T08:08:35.160" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7252" PostId="2853" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Great to learn about the accusative of exclamation." CreationDate="2017-03-11T03:10:41.910" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7447" PostId="2853" Score="3" Text="@ktm5124 We have the same in English, too. It's &quot;O poor me!&quot; and not &quot;O poor I!&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:41:17.120" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7253" PostId="2854" Score="2" Text="I suspect doing that would lead to confusion if &quot;verbs&quot; ever became a tag: *Aristoteles orationis duas partes esse dicit, vocabula et verba, ut homo et equus, et legit et currit...* This is one of the many problems in using the long dormant Latin for tags." CreationDate="2017-03-11T04:05:28.677" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7256" PostId="2854" Score="1" Text="@cmw We already have the tag [tag:verbs]. But I would not translate that as *verba* either to avoid confusion." CreationDate="2017-03-11T12:54:11.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7258" PostId="2855" Score="0" Text="I like that option. I'm having just a little trouble parsing the LSJ entry. I'm assuming the sc. means scilicet and the v. means vox. That's fine. But what exactly does the = sign mean? Does it mean they were used interchangeably in a particular text?" CreationDate="2017-03-11T19:47:39.980" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7265" PostId="2855" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124: &quot;v.&quot; means &quot;vide&quot; = &quot;see the entry λέξις in this dictionary&quot;. The whole thing means that the two mentioned sources (AB = Bekker's Anecdota Graeca and Photius) use λεξικόν to mean λέξεις" CreationDate="2017-03-11T21:12:19.450" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7264" PostId="2856" Score="2" Text="You can choose whether to have the subordinate clause inside or outside indirect speech. Imperavit militi in horto ambukanti ut (iste) colligeret flores. /or/ Imperavit ut miles in horto ambulans colligeret flores. The first would surely be indicative (qui ambulabat); the second possibly subjunctive." CreationDate="2017-03-11T21:11:10.800" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7266" PostId="2857" Score="1" Text="*Quid* is neuter, so I'd use a neuter demonstrative. Not sure if this is attested but it makes sense." CreationDate="2017-03-11T21:29:16.870" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7281" PostId="2857" Score="0" Text="It seems logic to me to use the _neuter_ as demonstrative." CreationDate="2017-03-12T12:49:18.660" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="7282" PostId="2857" Score="2" Text="Indeed, the neuter is used when nothing is known at all about a thing in Latin and Greek. If it is known to be a person but of unknown sex, the masculine is used. In this case, you have already answered your own question: you've chosen the neuter word *quid*. To agree with that, you would use neuter *hoc* or similar." CreationDate="2017-03-12T15:32:18.447" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7259" PostId="2858" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the response. I meant indirect object in that the object of 'imperare' will be in the dative case. I would have gone about it by saying 'militi imperavi, qui in horto ambulabat/ambularet, ut flores colligeret'. In addition, is there a grammatical reson for the choice of tenses or is that a question of style?" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:33:21.463" UserId="243" />
  <row Id="7261" PostId="2858" Score="1" Text="@Cataline The tenses follow secondary sequence, and therefore take the imperfect subjunctive since the main verb is a perfect with a past tense aspect (I ordered v. I have ordered)." CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:52:33.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7267" PostId="2858" Score="0" Text="@Cataline Last time! Found an indicative for ya." CreationDate="2017-03-11T21:29:29.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7270" PostId="2858" Score="1" Text="I wouldn't say the relative clause is part of the indirect command here at all -- it's modifying *militi*, but the indirect command begins with *ut*. Indicative seems to me to be the only option, as in the G&amp;L examples involving &quot;explanations of the narrator&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-11T23:17:42.817" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7271" PostId="2858" Score="0" Text="@TKR I guess it depends on how dependent the actions of walking were to the choosing and soldier's life. It's difficult to tease that out of sample sentences. If it truly was only an aside, I'd say it'd be difficult to see even attraction taking place, but it's possible---so we'd be in agreement." CreationDate="2017-03-12T00:24:32.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7273" PostId="2858" Score="1" Text="It's a difficult thing to search for, but it isn't at all clear to me that the subjunctive is possible here -- I can't find any examples in either G&amp;L or A&amp;G where a relative clause modifying a noun that isn't syntactically part of an indirect construction takes a subjunctive because of an indirect construction that follows later, which would be the case here." CreationDate="2017-03-12T01:36:54.677" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7274" PostId="2858" Score="0" Text="@TKR At the turn of the twentieth century, there was a flurry of activity relating to attraction. That might be the best bet to search for examples. I don't have time for that at the moment, but it certainly would be my first bet to search the literature to see what they all had to say about it. I might very well be wrong here." CreationDate="2017-03-12T02:55:53.713" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7278" PostId="2858" Score="0" Text="I wonder if it's a lapse by the textbook author? I'm assuming that this is a textbook composition exercise." CreationDate="2017-03-12T06:52:25.143" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7304" PostId="2859" Score="2" Text="Thanks, I thought that demonstratives in latin could only be adjectives, for whatever reason. But now I understand. Thank you also for including examples and further explanation!" CreationDate="2017-03-13T13:27:20.117" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7277" PostId="2860" Score="2" Text="“Suppose I'd like to invoke a deity for mild profanity.”—Ancient people did such a thing?" CreationDate="2017-03-12T06:23:49.953" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="7283" PostId="2860" Score="0" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus It's common in Aristophanes; I'm not sure how well that reflects actual parlance, but it's the best I have." CreationDate="2017-03-12T18:27:51.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7292" PostId="2862" Score="5" Text="Perhaps of interest: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/15233/the-origin-of-the-term-verb/15237#15237" CreationDate="2017-03-12T22:48:33.873" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23297" PostId="2862" Score="0" Text="I went here to ask exactly the same question!" CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:03:35.937" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="7293" PostId="2864" Score="2" Text="Any insight into why the Greeks did that? Certainly seems odd to my (modern, natively-English-speaking) ear..." CreationDate="2017-03-13T03:34:02.043" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="7297" PostId="2864" Score="2" Text="Regarding Athens, etymonline.com says that Athens is &quot;plural because the city had several distinct parts&quot;. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Athens." CreationDate="2017-03-13T03:55:21.837" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7299" PostId="2864" Score="2" Text="I wonder if the -s in the English &quot;Athens&quot; and &quot;Thebes&quot; is a plural. Just one Athen or Thebe doesn't make a city?" CreationDate="2017-03-13T06:55:01.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7314" PostId="2864" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think so! That would be my guess. But I have no sources to back me up." CreationDate="2017-03-13T20:21:49.183" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7341" PostId="2864" Score="0" Text="@KRyan &gt;Certainly seems odd to my (modern, natively-English-speaking) ear... Remember that when you happen to be in Pacific Palisades, Cal." CreationDate="2017-03-14T16:31:44.973" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="7342" PostId="2864" Score="0" Text="@Dario Well, OK, except a *palisade* is a noun in English, and that area (presumably) has a number of them. Is an *athen* or a *thebe* something in Greek?" CreationDate="2017-03-14T16:36:46.393" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="7343" PostId="2864" Score="1" Text="@KRyan Not in the known variants of Greek, but a widespread opinion is that those words had a meaning in some ancient language, possibly pre-Greek, from which the plural comes (to stay in the Pac Pal area, Los Angeles is an example of a plural taken over from another language. Los Alamos too). In any case, Athens switched between singular and plural many times in history (in current modern Greek it is singular) so it probably seemed odd to them too..." CreationDate="2017-03-14T17:02:08.083" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="7301" PostId="2865" Score="2" Text="_Si ... deinde_ looks perfectly all right to me. I would certainly use 'then' in conversation, though not on every occasion. Perhaps _igitur_ would suit? Or possibly _ipso facto_? — a [prime number is] ipso facto [squarefree]." CreationDate="2017-03-13T11:08:23.247" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7302" PostId="2865" Score="4" Text="It seems that [Newton](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica_-_SECT._I._DE_Methodo_rationum_primarum_%26_ultima_rum.) uses (from time to time) [dein](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddein) and [ergo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dergo). If anyone wants to write the answer, be my guest: I can't do more research for some hours yet." CreationDate="2017-03-13T12:53:14.480" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7306" PostId="2865" Score="1" Text="Adelard of Bath (1080-1152) has a parenthetical *'necesse est'* ( once with *igitur,*) to indicate certainty. For a confident opinion, he finishes the clause with *'non dubitas.'*" CreationDate="2017-03-13T14:39:14.330" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7309" PostId="2866" Score="3" Text="Another related word is *forsitan* or (shortened) *forsan*" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:42:47.380" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7310" PostId="2866" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks for the addition. I added *forsitan* to my question." CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:44:24.963" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7311" PostId="2866" Score="3" Text="I think both fortasse and forsitan are right. If you are also expressing desire, there is [_utinam_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dutinam)" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:49:57.070" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7315" PostId="2867" Score="1" Text="All the time - one example that comes to mind (I read it this morning) Horace odes 1.18.7: *ac ne quis modici transiliat munera Liberi*: we're more accustomed to leaping over *moenia* than *munera*. Word play and etymologizing show off the poet's skill and knowledge. You're going to need to narrow it down; are you looking for a specific kind of pun?" CreationDate="2017-03-13T21:00:42.690" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="7316" PostId="2867" Score="1" Text="Actually, I was looking for any pun. If nobody can give an answer other than this, you could vote to close this question. I never thought that they would be rather common." CreationDate="2017-03-13T21:24:46.187" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7317" PostId="2867" Score="0" Text="Puns are not rare. If you are looking for anything whatsoever to get a concrete example, please indicate that in the question. Of course you can also narrow it down if you want." CreationDate="2017-03-13T21:54:53.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7318" PostId="2867" Score="1" Text="Alright, let's wait for someone with more Latin experience (and reputation (: ) to weigh in then  - there might be some general principles that can be put down, or a natural modification to make this more answerable." CreationDate="2017-03-13T22:06:26.517" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="7319" PostId="2867" Score="2" Text="Puns are certainly not rare in Latin! Pompeii graffiti preserves the oldest known advertising pun, for instance, one of my favorite random facts. Many of the poets enjoyed using wordplay in their work, and some of Plautus's verge on &quot;dad jokes&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-13T22:48:23.353" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7321" PostId="2867" Score="0" Text="Oh! Nero was also (allegedly) known for his bad puns. According to Suetonius, he came up with a terrible pun on *morior/moror/mōrós* after Claudius's death, and repeated it over and over to anyone who would listen. As Prince he always had a captive audience." CreationDate="2017-03-14T00:55:42.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7322" PostId="2867" Score="0" Text="And there's a famous (but very post-classical) elegiac poem about *omnia vincit Amor*, punning on the ambiguity between *vincit* &quot;conquers&quot; and *vincit* &quot;restrains&quot;. I have plenty of these examples if this is what you want, but it can be nowhere near exhaustive." CreationDate="2017-03-14T00:58:41.843" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7328" PostId="2867" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Did you forget your earlier question? It at least contains examples of puns already." CreationDate="2017-03-14T02:09:40.980" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7329" PostId="2867" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Indeed! Just trying to help narrow down this question in a way that's different from the earlier one (puns rather than jokes)." CreationDate="2017-03-14T04:41:39.747" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7332" PostId="2867" Score="0" Text="Not sure if I agree with the duplicate vote: my answer to the other question doesn't really include strict &quot;puns.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-14T13:03:01.240" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7320" PostId="2868" Score="2" Text="Is *forte an sit* &gt; *fortasse* / *fortassis* following a standard pattern? It seems pretty non-intuitive to me." CreationDate="2017-03-13T23:50:05.167" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7324" PostId="2868" Score="3" Text="@ktm5124 *forte* &quot;by chance&quot; means &quot;maybe&quot; in the following way: &quot;Do you maybe have a second?&quot; = &quot;Do you by chance/perhaps have a second?&quot; Use *fortasse* like, &quot;Perhaps they will still come.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-14T01:38:11.887" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7326" PostId="2868" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124 But for *fortasse* and *forsitan*, I don't believe there is a real difference. Also, *fortasse* probably is not from *forte an sit*, but no one really knows what it should be. (Personally, I think there's an element of *esse* in there, but who knows.) Otherwise, Tom's right, it's largely a matter of style." CreationDate="2017-03-14T02:04:52.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7330" PostId="2870" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Should I think that 'αι' is short in both 'ἁρπᾰ́ξαι' and 'ᾰ̓κοῦσαι'?  Or should I think it is long in 'ἁρπᾰ́ξαι' and short in 'ᾰ̓κοῦσαι'. (Actually, once the question of accenting is answered, I don't really have any other use for the length of the vowel for the present. But if facts about it exist, I would like to know them.)" CreationDate="2017-03-14T07:57:35.463" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="7340" PostId="2870" Score="1" Text="@Catomic The -αι in ἀκοῦσαι must be short, because a properispomenon can only have a short final vowel (or, if you follow the moraic interpretation, a high pitch on the last-but-three mora is only possible if no consonant divides the last-but-one and the last-but-two). The -αι in ὀλέσαι could theoretically be long, but it is the same -αι as above, and it must be short as well." CreationDate="2017-03-14T16:13:37.530" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="7331" PostId="2871" Score="1" Text="Maybe we should just turn this answer into a community wiki ? That way, as far as I understand the concept, anyone can edit and there's no huge rep advantage to the original post." CreationDate="2017-03-14T08:10:09.847" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7334" PostId="2871" Score="0" Text="If you want to turn your answer into CW, flag it and write a custom message &quot;Please make this CW.&quot; or something." CreationDate="2017-03-14T14:13:54.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7336" PostId="2871" Score="0" Text="@blagae I didn't think this was necessary. It was a short and simple but entirely sufficient answer to a question, no need to turn it into CW, I think." CreationDate="2017-03-14T14:21:39.277" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7337" PostId="2871" Score="0" Text="I would like to avoid that this kind of question is 'answered' by a hundred comments with separate examples, so it seems logical to me to pool them in a CW. I don't mind the rep anyway :)" CreationDate="2017-03-14T14:27:07.290" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7346" PostId="2873" Score="1" Text="Not ἀποδοκέω but ἀποδίδωμι, I believe (aor. ἀπέδωκε). As for *au-*, it's not at all clear that it's related to *abs-*." CreationDate="2017-03-14T19:57:39.803" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7347" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Ah, that's alos possible. But why do you think it isn't from ἀποδοκέω?" CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:12:05.410" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7349" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="Because (a) I seem to remember those particular forms, (b) ἀποδοκέω is much less common than ἀποδίδωμι, (c) the Linear B tablets are mostly about transactions, and (d) impf. ἁπεδόκεε would not have been contracted so should be spelled *-ke-e*." CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:15:25.790" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7350" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Ah, I seemed to remember all of those words were all related, but then L&amp;S mention only ὐπό, not ἀπο, under &quot;ab&quot;. // All excellent points a–d. Any one is enough to convince me. As to d), are you sure? I can think of two questions that would have to be answered by &quot;yes&quot;: was the -e- always part of the stem of δοκέω in earlier Greek such as Mycenaean? Did the Mycenaeans always write Ce-e out in full, did they never omit a (final) repeated vowel in writing?" CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:23:27.240" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7351" PostId="2873" Score="1" Text="Somewhat related old question on Linguistics SE: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3405/why-does-b-differ-between-l-offero-and-l-aufero" CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:28:21.233" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7352" PostId="2873" Score="2" Text="All that Greek shows up as just empty boxes in my browser, both here and in Wikipedia. I assume you didn't mean to have eight identical boxes (but I never was strong with Greek so it's hard to judge). Could you add them as images?" CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:32:05.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7355" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="I believe the answer to both your (d) questions is yes. δοκέω is an -eie- verb formed on the o-grade, like e.g. φορέω; these always have the -ε-, which is part of the formation going back to PIE. As for whether there are examples of a repeated vowel being omitted in Linear B, I can't say for certain that this doesn't happen, but it isn't usual: e.g. we have e-ke-e for later ἔχειν, and other such examples." CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:54:41.373" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7365" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="@TKR OK that all makes sense!" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:55:02.200" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7366" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I see Linear B in Firefox, although I now see that the characters won't show up in Chrome. Do you have a Linear B font installed? You could get the Aegean fonts here: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:02:36.843" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7398" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus None of Chrome, Firefox or IE shows the characters. Firefox has numbers in the boxes, but that's of little help. Perhaps I don't have a font, and actually I couldn't even have the fonts on all devices I use. It'd be better if viewing the content didn't depend on having exotic fonts. (I might install those fonts at some point for fun. But not all will.)" CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:59:09.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7400" PostId="2873" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, if you don't have the font installed, it won't show up anywhere on your system. It took me a while and it looks somewhat ugly, but I have added inline images. I also recommend the Egyptian and cuneiform fonts." CreationDate="2017-03-15T17:35:43.350" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7463" PostId="2873" Score="1" Text="There was a flag to close this as off-topic. Although the site name is Latin, [we have decided to allow questions about some forms of Greek](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/218/79), and this question is therefore on topic. This might be on-topic on some other SE sites as well, but it does not make it off-topic here." CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:16:40.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7358" PostId="2875" Score="4" Text="Google Translate is really bad when it comes to English to Latin translations, so I would strongly advise that you not use it. Better to ask questions here!" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:15:50.780" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7361" PostId="2875" Score="1" Text="What do you mean by &quot;No word from the King of Kings&quot;?&#xA;What is the context?" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:24:54.883" UserId="1330" />
  <row Id="7362" PostId="2875" Score="1" Text="In context, God has not spoken to us.  We have not received word from the King of kings." CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:28:56.840" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7367" PostId="2877" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure *sermo* is the ideal word here." CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:12:08.890" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7368" PostId="2877" Score="2" Text="&quot;Non sermo ab&quot; unfortunately doesn't translate the English idiom &quot;no word from&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:12:28.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7372" PostId="2877" Score="3" Text="*sponde -&gt; sponte*" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:50:16.710" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7374" PostId="2877" Score="2" Text="Perhaps emphatic nosmet could be incorporated to give the end rhyme that the original poster wants." CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:23:11.370" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="7380" PostId="2877" Score="1" Text="@C. M. Weimer I actually would like to use a conj of sermo here, as earlier in the poem I am quoting 1 Kings, &quot;addiditque sermo mihi est ad te cui ait loquere et ille&quot; which means something along the lines of &quot;He added 'Let me tell you something' to which she replied him 'Do tell'&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-15T01:02:53.197" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7382" PostId="2877" Score="0" Text="I'm more concerned about the form and iambic than about a literal or exact translation of that english phrase." CreationDate="2017-03-15T01:08:21.593" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7375" PostId="2880" Score="1" Text="+1. One thing to note though is that *fortior* is masculine singular, and if the phrase isn't referring to a single male person it may not be suitable. (&quot;substitute vis for potestas&quot; --&gt; &quot;substitute potestas for vis&quot;?) Btw I think the &quot;physical strength&quot; sense of *vis* is mainly in the plural -- the singular for more abstract &quot;force&quot; seems fine to me." CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:49:51.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7376" PostId="2880" Score="1" Text="@TKR *Fortior* is both masculine and feminine." CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:51:03.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7377" PostId="2880" Score="0" Text="Oops, you're right of course. But still referring to a single person, or at least a single entity -- if the referent is a family, I would think *fortiores* is better." CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:52:22.043" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7378" PostId="2880" Score="1" Text="@TKR True, *fortiores* would be good if there is an implied *nos*, i.e. if the family is working together, though there could also be an implied &quot;each,&quot; which would also work for multiple people and keep the singular. I'd chalk it up to style. Interestingly, the Romans often used a collective singular where we would often use a plural. And then there is the poetic plural, where we would use a singular!" CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:55:21.983" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23298" PostId="2881" Score="0" Text="But, is it only in a grammar context? Because &quot;word&quot; (any grammar role) and &quot;noun&quot; are quite different." CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:06:10.573" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23326" PostId="2881" Score="0" Text="@Quidam *Verbum* can mean any word at all, verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. When used in grammar, *verbum* is &quot;verb&quot; and *nomen* is &quot;noun.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-21T04:17:35.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7387" PostId="2883" Score="0" Text="My impression was that the OP was asking about contemporaneity, not correlation, which is slightly different." CreationDate="2017-03-15T11:54:03.913" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7388" PostId="2883" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Can you explain further? I got correlation from &quot;related to/caused by Event B&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:00:00.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7392" PostId="2883" Score="0" Text="The two are really related, but distinct in my mind. A &quot;correlation&quot; fallacy would say something like, &quot;Everyone with blond hair is kind, *ergo*&quot; whereas a &quot;contemporary&quot; fallacy would say, &quot;I choked while eating steak, *ergo*.&quot; Not sure if I am grasping at straws here..." CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:12:43.387" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7393" PostId="2883" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I'm no expert in logical fallacies, but the latter would sound like a post hoc fallacy, no? &quot;I choked on eating steak, ergo steak causes choking.&quot; At least, that's how I would interpret it. I could very well be wrong, though." CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:15:49.790" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7395" PostId="2884" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This satisfies my curiosity and confirms my suspicion. If someone finds a guideline (perhaps the Vatican has one, for example?), that would make a good additional answer." CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:42:47.977" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7405" PostId="2890" Score="2" Text="unde unde? Where are these waves coming from?&#xA;oleo oleo, I smell of olive oil." CreationDate="2017-03-16T00:41:18.197" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="7406" PostId="2890" Score="1" Text="@cnread *oleo oleo* surely, but I think *unde unde* is disqualified by not actually being a complete sentence (even if it's perfectly acceptable in Latin, true). Hugh's fine with Medieval ae -&gt; e, but I could never get over it!" CreationDate="2017-03-16T00:49:47.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7407" PostId="2890" Score="2" Text="Wonderful.  I had *regulo regulo* 'I rule by principle;and *abeo  ab eo* which fits Quintilian's criteria, but not the OP." CreationDate="2017-03-16T00:57:54.777" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7519" PostId="2890" Score="2" Text="Laude doesn't work: it's first conjugation" CreationDate="2017-03-18T12:22:31.393" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7535" PostId="2890" Score="0" Text="@cnread _servio_ means “to serve”, but [_servo, as, āvi, ātum, āre_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dservo) means “to preserve”. _Servo servo_ means “I save for the servant.”" CreationDate="2017-03-20T07:15:04.567" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="7537" PostId="2890" Score="0" Text="@cnread We probably should delete these comments. Typical SE policy is to delete comments like these when they are no longer necessary. I'll start (and delete this one, too, in a couple days)." CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:30:16.350" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7403" PostId="2891" Score="0" Text="Do you want a word that literally means &quot;sprint&quot;? Obviously, that verb in Latin wouldn't contain the meanings that the word has in the software industry." CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:48:52.060" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7404" PostId="2891" Score="0" Text="@brianpck &quot;sprint&quot;, &quot;scramble&quot;, ...something that indicates effort and drive,.." CreationDate="2017-03-16T00:17:17.230" UserId="1334" />
  <row Id="7417" PostId="2891" Score="0" Text="To indicate 'strive', why not use _nitor_ (future participle _nisurus_ or _nixurus_)? And I don't think that _vilicus_ is quite right (unless you have a freedman in charge of you wage-slaves!)." CreationDate="2017-03-16T06:35:26.920" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7420" PostId="2891" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure there is a good Latin word for &quot;sprint&quot; in this meaning (which I had never seen before!). I would suggest something as dull as *laboraturi te salutant*, &quot;those about to work salute you&quot;. If you go with *vilicus*, it should be in the [vocative case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case) here: *vilice*. Perhaps: *Ave, vilice, laboraturi te salutant.*" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:53:50.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7423" PostId="2891" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Do you think *cursuri* works?" CreationDate="2017-03-16T11:58:13.480" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7425" PostId="2891" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'm not sure. If I read *currere* as &quot;hurry&quot;, it makes sense, but it's pretty ambiguous. It's close to &quot;sprint&quot; literally, but the match looks much poorer at the level of idioms. At least *laboraturi* is safer than *cursuri*, but I'm not sure if it's better. Of course one could explain: *Ita facturi/acturi/gesturi, ut ..., te salutant.* But that kills all fun." CreationDate="2017-03-16T12:14:53.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7411" PostId="2893" Score="2" Text="OT: There seems to be a [strange bug with the editor in this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/292415/230261) (was attempting to change an HTTP image to HTTPS)." CreationDate="2017-03-16T03:35:11.337" UserId="857" />
  <row Id="7441" PostId="2893" Score="0" Text="@DavidRicherby I too think this is best on Linguistics, but I don't think, given the way this forum has been evolving, that it's off topic here. Given that ancient Greek is acceptable, I can't see why questions on Linear B would be unacceptable." CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:15:06.417" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7444" PostId="2893" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Ah, that seems reasonable. I checked [the help centre](http://latin.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) but I missed the part at the bottom about ancient Greek being OK. Thanks for taking the time to explain to a drive-by association-bonus noob who only saw the question because of HNQ." CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:30:30.867" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="7445" PostId="2893" Score="0" Text="@DavidRicherby No worries! The &quot;help center&quot; could certainly be clearer!" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:33:06.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7462" PostId="2893" Score="1" Text="There was a flag to close this as off-topic. Although the site name is Latin, [we have decided to allow questions about some forms of Greek](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/218/79), and this question is therefore on topic. This might be on-topic on some other SE sites as well, but it does not make it off-topic here." CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:16:30.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7464" PostId="2893" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I agree. Unfortunately moderators have very little access to edit the help center. You can see the editable content and comment on it [in this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/181/79)." CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:18:08.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7486" PostId="2893" Score="0" Text="Linear B and Mykenian Greek is yet another extension of the scope of this site (well, it is covered by formulations like &quot;any Greek before date XY&quot;, but driving this to the extreme, Proto-Indogermanic would be on-topic as well)." CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:25:42.297" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="7487" PostId="2893" Score="0" Text="BTW, this question would make a nice defining question to the Greek language proposal here http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language — this time stage is currently not covered by the proposed questions." CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:29:21.123" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="7667" PostId="2893" Score="1" Text="@jknappen Done!" CreationDate="2017-03-28T19:17:21.040" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7408" PostId="2894" Score="2" Text="Outside of rhetorical treatises, J. N. Adams [mentions](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA80#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) a bunch in relation to obscenity." CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:57:09.560" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7419" PostId="2894" Score="2" Text="Coincidentally, I mentioned one here a few days ago: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2871/1289" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:46:21.697" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7528" PostId="2894" Score="0" Text="@blagae -valued quotation of &quot;invita remansit in vita&quot; = She remained unwillingly alive   (Apuleius, Met. VIII, 6) pending complete answer." CreationDate="2017-03-18T20:55:09.330" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7410" PostId="2895" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, *ko-no-so* is Knossos -- that isn't the final *s* but the one in the preceding syllable." CreationDate="2017-03-16T02:10:18.560" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="12105" PostId="2895" Score="0" Text="By the way, reading back, I can't help but admire the clarity and (so it appears to me) erudition in this answer again." CreationDate="2018-02-09T04:31:26.477" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7412" PostId="2896" Score="0" Text="Do you need any particular stress pattern? Rhyming with &quot;attack&quot; also requires a bit of distorted pronunciation, since Classical Latin had no /æ/." CreationDate="2017-03-16T03:37:01.363" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7416" PostId="2896" Score="0" Text="Iambic pentameter.  How do you pronounce &quot;illac&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-03-16T04:05:05.053" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7424" PostId="2896" Score="2" Text="A little unsolicited advice: This is probably an XY problem. It seems a bit rigid to request Latin verse in iambic-pentameter (though some Church hymns do use such schemes) and especially to require that it rhyme with &quot;attack&quot;: don't you have more control over what the previous line is? One does not simply write a line ending in orange and expect the next rhyming line to be easy :)" CreationDate="2017-03-16T12:02:34.680" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7435" PostId="2896" Score="0" Text="If you know IPA, *illāc* is something like /ˈɪlː.ɑːk/. In other words, the first vowel is like in English &quot;ill&quot;, the second vowel as in &quot;father&quot;. And the stress is on the first syllable." CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:49.457" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7442" PostId="2896" Score="0" Text="@brianpck You're right, I do have complete control over the poem.  I haven't edited the question because I find the near-rhyme of attack and (pronounced) &quot;ill-lock&quot; to be acceptable.  I found what I think is probably a good verbal pronunciation of the word [here](http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/how-do-you-pronounce-the/latin-word-2dbc0dad454fea252272d8cf73c0d739a04f8581.html).  I also understand that it will be hard to follow iambic in latin due to the fact that no 2+ syllable words end on a stressed syllable.  In this case, I am not averse to rhyming 'orange' with 'porridge', so to speak." CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:26:04.797" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7421" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="You're saying the 'lac' in illac is pronounced more like 'luck' in English?  Because I pronounce bath and attack with the same sound on the a." CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:42:30.740" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7422" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Bango Yes, &quot;luck&quot; is a much better (less dialect-dependent) example word. I edited the answer. The second syllable of *illac* is otherwise like *luck*, but the vowel is longer." CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:59:16.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7434" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="For me &quot;luck&quot; has a /ʌ/; *illac* is like the first vowel in &quot;father&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:00:10.277" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7436" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Oh. I see no difference between the vowels of &quot;luck&quot; and &quot;father&quot;, but I'm not native. If you know a good English word with sufficiently uniform pronunciation across dialects, please let me know or edit it in." CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:05:51.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7437" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The best I can think of is &quot;ah&quot; for consistency. In my dialect of English &quot;luck&quot; is distinct, but &quot;father&quot; and &quot;bother&quot; (and &quot;cot&quot; and &quot;caught&quot;) have all merged into a single vowel; someone from England would have all of those separate." CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:59:00.620" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7443" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Draconis does [this](http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/how-do-you-pronounce-the/latin-word-2dbc0dad454fea252272d8cf73c0d739a04f8581.html) sound like the right pronunciation?  If so, I would say that &quot;lock&quot; is the perfect example for my midwestern American dialect.  &quot;EEL-lock&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:30:11.617" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7446" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Joonas when you said my verse is mostly grammatical, did you mean it makes sense grammatically, but not practically?  Or more along the lines of, there is a bunch of superfluous grammar which detracts from the meaning?  Or both?" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:33:15.103" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7448" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="Thanks for all the commentary.  I've learned from my last 2 questions that I definitely need to be asking around on here before crafting a nightmarish latin verse using google translate and latin verb conj charts." CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:43:06.867" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7461" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Bango In the Midwest, &quot;EEL-lock&quot; is right. (This is the &quot;cot-caught merger&quot; I mentioned which affects most of America.)" CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:14:19.647" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7465" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Bango The linked pronunciation sounds surprisingly different from how I'd pronounce it. I'm not good at [pronunciation guides through English](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1764/79), but I'd say *illac* is like &quot;ill-ah-k&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:31:36.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7492" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Bango I forgot to respond to your other comment: The first part *sic este mei memores* is grammatical and makes sense. I would prefer *mementote* to *este memores*, but neither is wrong. I don't see the purpose or meaning of *hec illac*. It seems to be for the purpose of forcing a rhyme, but it doesn't make enough sense (to me at least)." CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:57:52.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7505" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta One more comment then I'll leave it I promise.  You mentioned illac means 'along that road.'  Such as, 'If you keep going you'll see a petrol station illac.'  Assuming hec can translate to something along the lines of 'this', could my original phrase me moderately stretched to give the notion of &quot;So remember me in this way, as traveling along this road&quot; ?  Or just, nah not so much?  Also, does the word 'sic' have multivariate meaning, to convey 'Therefore'/'So' and also 'In this manner' ?  If yes, I see why 'hec illac' is obscure and redundant." CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:53:09.097" UserId="1329" />
  <row Id="7506" PostId="2898" Score="0" Text="@Bango Those questions are good ones, but you should ask a new question if you have more. Yes, *sic* already means &quot;in this manner&quot; ([and other similar things](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sic&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)). I would say *illac* means &quot;along that road&quot; as a path of movement, not as location. Therefore it makes sense to walk *illac* but not to see a petrol station *illac*. But my intuition can fail me. As *sic* already contains &quot;this way&quot; and *illac* &quot;along that way/road/...&quot;, the pronoun *haec* (in any form) is superfluous." CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:59:16.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7430" PostId="2900" Score="2" Text="There is also [-culus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-culus#Latin), and -unculus (where _c_ and _unc_ do not add anything, but are consistently used to form diminutives. [This page](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-lus#Latin) also says -lus itself is used. Sorry for the lame sources, but I think they might add something to the discussion" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:24:21.453" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7432" PostId="2900" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I know that *-ulus* is not the only diminutive suffix. I just wanted to focus the question on comparing *-ulus* and *-olus*. I would certainly want to know more about the *-(un)c-* before *-ulus*, but that should go to another question. (Feel free to ask!) I'm not sure I buy the *-lus* suffix, especially if the only example is *porc-ulus*." CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:36:57.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33348" PostId="2900" Score="0" Text="Gobius can be named &quot;Gōbulus&quot; (Name of a gobie native to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Americas), &quot;Gobiusculus&quot;, the two-spotted goby. And perhaps, for sure, &quot;Gobiōlus&quot;. I think the preference is 'flattering' towards -olus, in words finished in -is/ -es (iolus, eolus), being overwhelming in popular latin" CreationDate="2021-05-23T08:52:38.387" UserId="9507" />
  <row Id="7429" PostId="2902" Score="0" Text="Let me know if you want more examples. I can extend the list." CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:59:34.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7431" PostId="2902" Score="2" Text="Note that [Priscian considers](https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA80&amp;lpg=PA80) -aster to be a diminutive too." CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:32:36.720" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7433" PostId="2902" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Interesting! That fits pretty well with my answer. That would make the &quot;Latin -ish&quot; more uniformly similar to the familiar diminutive of nouns." CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:40:56.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7468" PostId="2904" Score="1" Text="Alex B's post in the Rhotacism thread was linked, but check out sumelic's, too: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/146/78" CreationDate="2017-03-17T00:03:43.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7440" PostId="2905" Score="1" Text="Are there really early uses of Z for [z] in Latin? From the discussion in Weiss, it looks like the only such use in an Italic language is in the Oscan Tabula Bantina (2/1 cent. BC), but maybe I've missed something." CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:11:57.693" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7454" PostId="2905" Score="0" Text="@TKR I assume that the letter Z was used, because one can only officially remove something from an alphabet that was there before. I am not aware of any surviving Latin inscription or other document containing the old Etruscan letter Z." CreationDate="2017-03-16T19:06:58.753" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="7455" PostId="2905" Score="3" Text="I'm doubtful if it was ever used outside of abecedaria, since pre-rhotacism inscriptions use S (IOVESAT, VALESIOSIO). (Also, the equivalent Etruscan letter is thought to have stood for [ts], so couldn't have been a model for using Z as [z].)" CreationDate="2017-03-16T19:27:15.103" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7458" PostId="2905" Score="0" Text="To make sure I understand the phenomenon correctly: *all* intervocalic s's in pre-classical Latin were voiced and were rhotacized by the time of classical Latin?" CreationDate="2017-03-16T20:57:23.820" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7459" PostId="2905" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: not all. Most, but there were exceptions that are well explained by Alex B in the following post: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:01:14.167" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7480" PostId="2905" Score="3" Text="re: Z in Latin http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/39" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:34:21.593" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7439" PostId="2906" Score="0" Text="Did you mean the *Gloria in Excelsis* (Glory to God in the Highest) instead of Kyrie?" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:06:41.877" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7456" PostId="2910" Score="0" Text="Spanish actually did devoice previously voiced fricatives fairly recently. That's why it has the unusual spelling correspondence &lt;j&gt; = /x/: &lt;j&gt; started out representing [ʒ] (which IIRC is mostly from palatalized /l/ in native Castilian words) which was later devoiced to [ʃ] and backed to [x]. So in fact, using Occam's razor probably leads to an inaccurate conclusion in the case of Spanish." CreationDate="2017-03-16T20:30:22.550" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7457" PostId="2910" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, you're right, thanks -- editing..." CreationDate="2017-03-16T20:32:37.240" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7460" PostId="2910" Score="0" Text="This is great: do you have any idea if and when this unvoiced &quot;s&quot; started to be voiced? Andreas Scholl, for one (surely not by accident), clearly voices the &quot;s&quot; in &quot;miserere&quot; in the [Agnus Dei from Bach's Mass in B minor (1m 55s)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLCcQixNvg#t=1m55s)" CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:05:03.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7466" PostId="2910" Score="0" Text="Some intervocalic &lt;s&gt;s also appeared in loanwords, like *pausa* from Greek. These may or may not have kept their original voicing (since Latin had no native way to represent /z/)." CreationDate="2017-03-16T22:14:46.980" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7467" PostId="2910" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I don't know the exact origin of s-voicing in modern Latin pronunciation traditions -- I assume that, like many other such features, it's carried over from some specific modern language(s)." CreationDate="2017-03-16T23:33:43.367" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7496" PostId="2910" Score="2" Text="@TKR Last question: According to [Alex B's answer to another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/9), *miserere* probably wasn't rhotacized because the next syllable begins with an *r*: do we know if such exceptions retain their voicing? ...or would the same phonetic phenomenon that causes rhotacization of intervocallic s's cause the Romans to make the *s* voiceless in such cases?" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:37:23.440" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7507" PostId="2910" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, that's an interesting question. I'm not sure if there's much evidence either way given the paucity of examples, but note from C. M. Weimer's answer that the *s* of *Caesar* seems to have been voiceless." CreationDate="2017-03-17T21:23:09.627" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7482" PostId="2911" Score="1" Text="Gothic &quot;Kaisar&quot; seems like strong evidence since Gothic has contrasting /s/ and /z/, but Wiktionary says it might be from Greek rather than directly from Latin. What does the asterisk after &quot;zeta&quot; signify? I know zeta has the value of /z/ in modern Greek, but it is thought to have earlier had the value of /zd/ or /dz/: how certain are we about the time of the transition? I know in loanwords into Latin from Greek, intervocalic /z/ does scan long; it seems like this would suggest that in Roman times the original Greek sound was distinct from simple /z/ in some way." CreationDate="2017-03-17T04:37:57.797" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7483" PostId="2911" Score="1" Text="@sumelic I think the asterisk was a typo. Allen in *Vox Graeca* thinks that the shift was already underway possibly as early as the 4th century BCE due to confusion between zeta and sigma in some Greek inscriptions and transliterations of Persian names (p. 55-56). He also notes that zeta was sometimes in early Latin transliterated as 'ss', which would still necessitate a long vowel, so no problem there, especially if they continued to understand it as a double consonant for historical reasons." CreationDate="2017-03-17T04:53:39.800" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7473" PostId="2912" Score="1" Text="De Vaan unfortunately excludes loanwords entirely, if I'm not mistaken." CreationDate="2017-03-17T02:19:48.623" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7474" PostId="2912" Score="0" Text="@TKR No, I think you're right. I couldn't remember if he included some or not, but thinking about it now, I don't think he does. What a bummer." CreationDate="2017-03-17T02:22:49.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7489" PostId="2912" Score="1" Text="Beekes does have an index of non-IE words." CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:52:32.203" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7497" PostId="2912" Score="0" Text="@fdb Beekes has that wonderful section in the beginning on the Pre-Greek substrate, but I don't see anywhere here where he has a separate section on all Greek words of non-IE descent, even if the Pre-Greek substrate was non-IE. I am thankful though that he mentions whenever someone has a plausible (even if unlikely) derivation from another language." CreationDate="2017-03-17T14:45:18.117" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7470" PostId="2915" Score="2" Text="That has a nice ring to it!" CreationDate="2017-03-17T02:03:52.527" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="7472" PostId="2915" Score="0" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus Well, *obscurus* was already taken! I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with for *project*, though." CreationDate="2017-03-17T02:11:27.790" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7475" PostId="2915" Score="0" Text="I think your answer is perfect, and *opus* would certainly be a synonym of our English “project.” :) The only other one I would offer is (based on your adjective *arcanus*) *conatus*, as in *conatus arcanus*. But yours certainly has a better ring to it. I like that adjective, *arcanus*." CreationDate="2017-03-17T02:35:51.747" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="7476" PostId="2915" Score="1" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus I wouldn't delete your answer though! The more the merrier, and you say things that I don't." CreationDate="2017-03-17T02:47:34.003" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7477" PostId="2915" Score="0" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus While Weimer's answer is good, yours is good, too. What yours has is an explanation of how the most obvious word, *proiectus*, probably did not have the desired meaning in classical Latin. I think it could be very helpful to (future) readers; it's such a pity that you deleted it!" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:14:14.033" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7508" PostId="2915" Score="0" Text="Thanks everybody! What would &quot;opus tenebris&quot; mean then? A project conducted in the dark, literally?" CreationDate="2017-03-17T23:37:01.127" UserId="1341" />
  <row Id="7509" PostId="2915" Score="0" Text="@JonathanYandel That's a possible meaning, yes. Or one conducted for the dark. Or one conducted under the cover of darkness." CreationDate="2017-03-17T23:51:45.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7484" PostId="2917" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This makes sense. It's fairly common to see short vowel +ss or long vowel +s in Latin. Do you happen to know how recent the donkey is?" CreationDate="2017-03-17T08:42:20.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7485" PostId="2917" Score="2" Text="There's a strict *terminus ante quem* of 184BC, because then is when Plautus, the writer of the *Asinaria*, died. For a *terminus post quem*, an acceptable ballpark figure for the end of productive application of the rhotacism rule seems to be about 350BC. But since the source language seems to be unknown, the loanword theory may have to be considered speculative." CreationDate="2017-03-17T08:54:28.853" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7488" PostId="2918" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you give more details? If there is a webpage that discusses the name, even a little bit, a link would help. Do you know the name is in Latin? The ending *-as* can have several different origins." CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:33:39.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7490" PostId="2919" Score="0" Text="Is the name first declension in Latin and Greek?" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:55:16.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7493" PostId="2919" Score="3" Text="Modified first (as with most masculine Greek names ending in -as: n. *-as*, v. *-a*, acc. *-am*, etc.) In Greek it is masculine first, if I am not mistaken." CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:01:32.920" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7494" PostId="2919" Score="6" Text="If I am not mistaken, שָּׂטָן literally means &quot;adversary,&quot; translated into Greek as &quot;διάβολος,&quot; from which Latin gets &quot;diabolus&quot; and English &quot;devil.&quot; It's a similar case with &quot;Messias,&quot; which is sometimes transliterated into Greek and other times translated as &quot;Christus.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:31:30.903" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10586" PostId="2919" Score="1" Text="Satan originally doesn’t mean *enemy* but *accuser*. This is particularly clear in the book of Iob." CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:09:03.670" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="7500" PostId="2920" Score="4" Text="Can you give a brief description of the book and maybe give a link to additional information (or even a freely available version if there is one)? Also, a couple of example words would be great. This source sounds promising, but it would be good to give an idea of what to expect from the book." CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:12:14.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7502" PostId="2920" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. Masson's book does not seem to be on the internet, but I have added a link to the more recent study by Bourguignon." CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:38:12.290" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7512" PostId="2923" Score="2" Text="That passage is indeed confusing. I don't know what it's trying to say, but I would add that the voice of the perfect participle can be closer to middle than active or passive; see 190e." CreationDate="2017-03-18T07:26:10.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7517" PostId="2923" Score="1" Text="Here's a simmilarly relaxed attitude in a non-deponent, Notus =well known: well aware. Ignotus = unknown: unaware." CreationDate="2017-03-18T12:10:38.923" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7518" PostId="2923" Score="5" Text="I think it's just an unclear way of saying, &quot;Here are some exceptions&quot; without compiling a complete list." CreationDate="2017-03-18T12:14:33.897" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7530" PostId="2926" Score="0" Text="Part of this is done with *quam*, which [brianpck](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1963/jenneys-first-year-latin-lesson-37-comparatives-with-quam?rq=1) and Tom Cotton explain nicely." CreationDate="2017-03-18T23:27:00.733" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7531" PostId="2928" Score="2" Text="Good answer! Two remarks: (1) There is a [difference between *plus* and *magis*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2228/79). Maybe both are fine in 4, but there's a difference in nuance. (2) The partitive genitive is good to know in this context. *Plus sacchari* is an option." CreationDate="2017-03-19T08:45:22.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7533" PostId="2930" Score="0" Text="Magnificent.  Would it be churlish to suggest that your source should have written &quot;Au Soleil de la seule Terre&quot;? perhaps even, 'la Terre isolée' in reference to our lonely planet." CreationDate="2017-03-19T17:34:31.490" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7538" PostId="2931" Score="3" Text="Glad you made it. I'm sure you'll find people here more welcoming than the other two sites." CreationDate="2017-03-20T19:39:16.240" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7539" PostId="2931" Score="0" Text="I think such question should better be in Mythology stack. Not sure " CreationDate="2017-03-20T20:02:59.173" UserId="1355" />
  <row Id="7540" PostId="2931" Score="2" Text="We do handle Greek questions, so it might be on-topic here. A moderator would know best." CreationDate="2017-03-20T20:04:12.003" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7541" PostId="2931" Score="2" Text="@Leb_Broth As an once-avid member of Mythology.SE, it would be deleted instantaneously." CreationDate="2017-03-20T20:19:18.833" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7542" PostId="2931" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124 This question is clearly on-topic here. I'd like to know the answer to the corresponding question about Latin, too. I hope someone asks it." CreationDate="2017-03-20T22:21:42.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7547" PostId="2931" Score="0" Text="Can you give a complete sentence in which you want to use this expression in Greek? Context is always helpful for this type of question." CreationDate="2017-03-21T03:02:12.647" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7544" PostId="2933" Score="3" Text="+1 for the picture. I hear so much about de Vaan, that it's nice to finally see a page of his!" CreationDate="2017-03-20T23:06:09.170" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7545" PostId="2933" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124: You can find it on-line, it is...around. If not, I could help you." CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:12:13.330" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7553" PostId="2933" Score="0" Text="Thanks! A general remark: Text in images is not searchable and therefore not as useful as plain text, so I suggest transcribing such texts whenever possible." CreationDate="2017-03-21T06:02:41.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7624" PostId="2933" Score="1" Text="Attentive readers will have noticed that de Vaan actually offers two opposing hypotheses. One is that nemo is ne + hemo, the other that nemo is ne + homo and that hemon(em) is a back-formation from nemo." CreationDate="2017-03-24T19:50:06.907" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7548" PostId="2936" Score="2" Text="Indeed, I had searched for s and wau in the etymology of μᾰλᾰκός but found none. I am glad to have learned of this (possibly analogical) rule! Do you happen to know of a good place online (or elsewhere) to find more information about specific rules of Homeric metre? We learned a couple of rules at university, like disappeared s/wau and disyllabic words like eu, but I don't remember whence those came." CreationDate="2017-03-21T03:27:59.503" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7549" PostId="2936" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus, there are probably better references I'm not thinking of, but [here](http://www.aoidoi.org/articles/meter/intro.pdf) is a page you might find useful. If you want to dig deeper, M. L. West's *Greek Metre* is worth reading, though he devotes more space to dramatic meters than to Homer." CreationDate="2017-03-21T03:42:12.690" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7550" PostId="2936" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I saw West mentioned somewhere else; I'll see whether I can find it somewhere. (As you suggested, the link told me nothing new.)" CreationDate="2017-03-21T04:02:44.097" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7565" PostId="2937" Score="0" Text="Neat. But we've both of us left out relative clauses!  Are they Explicative now?" CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:02:54.140" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7575" PostId="2937" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Mm but those aren't conjunctions! You might call relative pronouns explicative." CreationDate="2017-03-22T01:35:59.323" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7576" PostId="2937" Score="0" Text="You're right of course; they're introduced by pronouns. Then, what sort of clauses are introduced by quippe, quin, and quo; they're all listed as conjunctions? Aren't they relative clauses?" CreationDate="2017-03-22T02:23:19.400" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7577" PostId="2937" Score="1" Text="@Hugh You're right: the boundary is not always clear. It could be argued that a relative that does not refer to another word or phrase has become more like a conjunction. Indeed, both conjunctions and relatives conjoin clauses. It could even be argued that relative pronouns are a type of conjunction... look only at *quod* and *that*, which are called conjunctions and relative pronouns depending on context." CreationDate="2017-03-22T04:05:20.313" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7590" PostId="2937" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus I'd argue that relative pronouns are a blend of pronoun and conjunction. After all, conjunctions like *ubi* and *ut* are pronominal in origin (*quobi -&gt; cubi -&gt; ubi* and *quoti -&gt; cuti -&gt; uti -&gt; ut*). Even more transparent are *qui, quin,* and *quominus*." CreationDate="2017-03-22T22:59:23.103" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="7592" PostId="2937" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Indeed, you could say that. But I stayed with conventional terminology here." CreationDate="2017-03-22T23:50:11.000" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7555" PostId="2940" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! The title and the text ask different questions. Can you elaborate on what you really want to know and (which is very important) what your own thoughts are?" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:33:09.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7556" PostId="2943" Score="5" Text="What about doing it the other way around? *Fames egestatem sequitur*. Also, the word for poverty here you want is probably *egestas*, *inopia*, or *penuria*." CreationDate="2017-03-21T12:54:08.927" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7557" PostId="2943" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer *Sequitur* sounds good. Thanks for the suggestions for &quot;poverty&quot;, too." CreationDate="2017-03-21T13:05:54.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7558" PostId="2943" Score="0" Text="I also thought of _sequitur_. I'd swear it is a common construction. I hadn't found any examples yet" CreationDate="2017-03-21T13:54:21.077" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7559" PostId="2943" Score="1" Text="Look! [L&amp;S for sequor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D35%3Aentry%3Dsequor). Meaning I.B.2: _aestatem auctumnus sequitur_; II.A: _dispares mores disparia studia sequuntur_" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:00:00.563" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7560" PostId="2943" Score="1" Text="And meaning II.B.4 might be an answer for **if..then**: _si haec enuntiatio vera non est, sequitur, ut falsa sit_" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:01:12.277" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7561" PostId="2943" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Looks promising. Can you write those ideas into answers?" CreationDate="2017-03-21T17:33:47.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7568" PostId="2943" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer, do you want to write the answer and take the credit?" CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:53:23.097" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7569" PostId="2943" Score="0" Text="@Rafael It's all you." CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:56:51.933" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7570" PostId="2943" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I will say that *sequitur* would be weird for some of follow-up examples. *Adduco* also works." CreationDate="2017-03-21T19:08:10.680" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7603" PostId="2943" Score="0" Text="I think all of verbs mentioned above can work, including the simplex *duco*, which has many different uses." CreationDate="2017-03-23T13:13:29.947" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7574" PostId="2944" Score="0" Text="To add to this, the two things being compared with *quam* always take the same case; ergo, *gloria melior est quam fama* but *puto gloriam meliorem esse quam famam.*" CreationDate="2017-03-21T22:21:16.040" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="7567" PostId="2945" Score="0" Text="I'm still not sure whether it does the trick, it seems that may also be used to introduce a consequent in a separate sentence." CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:52:34.460" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7702" PostId="2945" Score="1" Text="Newton's use of *dein* is the kind of thing I was after, and I accept this answer because of that. I consider *ergo* to be more &quot;therefore&quot;, and *ex A sequitur, ut B* more &quot;it follows from A that B&quot;. Although these are logically equivalent to &quot;then&quot; in some sense, they would not be used in the exact same way. I know I might be stubborn, but I look at it from the perspective of what I would like to express as a mathematician: &quot;if A, then B&quot;. I did not expect the Romans to use modern style mathematical language, but it is interesting to see how close they got." CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:16:11.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7578" PostId="2947" Score="2" Text="What do you mean by Latin original for the KJV? Though it sometimes fell back on the Vulgate, the KJV was primarily translated from the original Hebrew." CreationDate="2017-03-22T12:44:51.517" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7579" PostId="2947" Score="8" Text="This springs from a different interpretation of the Hebrew: the relevant word (וּבְנֵי־רֶ֝֗שֶׁף) apparently has a few interpretations, on whose merits I can't comment: one interpretation is &quot;sons of burning coals&quot; (=sparks) and another is &quot;sons of vultures&quot;--which is rendered as such in the LXX (νεοσσοὶ δὲ γυπὸς) and Vulgate (simply avis). I would make this an answer, but my Hebrew is too rudimentary for me to pretend I know what I'm talking about." CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:02:59.077" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7580" PostId="2947" Score="3" Text="Ditto @C.M.Weimer, though: the KJV used the Hebrew original (probably compared to the LXX and Vulgate). If you want a (sometimes painfully) literal translation from the Vulgate, check out the [Douay Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/20005.htm)." CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:05:42.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7581" PostId="2947" Score="4" Text="[This Language Hat thread](http://languagehat.com/bene-reshep/) has some discussion of the &quot;sparks&quot; phrase, its Hebrew original, and various possible interpretations." CreationDate="2017-03-22T16:59:13.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7582" PostId="2947" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, or Tom might be somehow satisfied by knowing that no one can direct him to a Latin original for the KJB? Tom?" CreationDate="2017-03-22T17:00:03.113" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7583" PostId="2947" Score="1" Text="@Rafael  When I asked this, I merely wanted to put an acknowledgement of the original reference into my translation. I didn't expect any difficulty, but I've been rather taken aback by the helpful responses: I seem to have stumbled on a real curiosity. TKR's very useful Language Hat thread link is enormously entertaining, but it's persuaded me to let sleeping dogs lie." CreationDate="2017-03-22T20:25:06.107" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7585" PostId="2949" Score="2" Text="I would use *notus* for &quot;known&quot;. My first guess is *notus est pro X*, but it sounds fishy." CreationDate="2017-03-22T21:52:34.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7588" PostId="2949" Score="1" Text="My guess would be something like *Gallos vicisse notus est* 'he is known to have defeated the Gauls'." CreationDate="2017-03-22T22:51:18.750" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="7589" PostId="2949" Score="1" Text="Perhaps *notus* + ablative of respect, rather than *pro*? Not sure if that's attested but I know *clarus* can take it." CreationDate="2017-03-22T22:56:59.370" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7594" PostId="2949" Score="0" Text="My uninformed guess is that there is an appropriate idiom using &quot;fama&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-23T01:07:02.580" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7593" PostId="2951" Score="0" Text="I disagree that volgo means &quot;generally&quot;: it has more the ring of &quot;in common parlance&quot; with the strong suggestion that there is a more accurate way of speaking" CreationDate="2017-03-23T01:04:19.100" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7595" PostId="2951" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I agree with you. _vulgo_ is a very specific term, referring to the everyday speech of the illitterates." CreationDate="2017-03-23T01:36:49.203" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="7600" PostId="2951" Score="2" Text="Words take on new, extended meanings quite often. Look at Cicero's &quot;quas (litteras) vulgo ad te mitto.&quot; That clearly does not mean &quot;in common parlance.&quot; The real problem with drawing a distinction though is that &quot;generally&quot; also has that meaning. &quot;We generally say &quot;I ain't,&quot; but I recognize that in school they want me to say &quot;I'm not.&quot; Accuracy too has to be qualified, as you're conflating &quot;correct usage&quot; with &quot;technical usage.&quot; I see nothing wrong with having &quot;generally&quot; (or, as the original translator did, usually), and it's crystal clear from context what's meant." CreationDate="2017-03-23T06:34:20.683" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7604" PostId="2951" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Your points are well taken. In this particular case, I read &quot;vulgo&quot; as correlating with &quot;tamen&quot; in this passage, but you're right that it can be used in a more extended sense." CreationDate="2017-03-23T13:29:01.657" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7606" PostId="2951" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I think there is supposed to be a contrast--no disagreement there!--I just also think too that &quot;generally&quot; works as well." CreationDate="2017-03-23T13:50:28.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="12208" PostId="2952" Score="0" Text="What about something in the line of *ille victor gallicorum*. Not sure if idiomatic, but the point is ille+title" CreationDate="2018-02-22T14:06:58.190" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12285" PostId="2952" Score="0" Text="Not exactly what I thought, but _ille_ arguably works. See [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2/why-is-ille-used-in-winnie-ille-pu-and-hobbitus-ille) question and answer." CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:26:02.237" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7609" PostId="2953" Score="1" Text="Latin and Greek (even English) poetry and even prose will quite often employ [transferred epithets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypallage)." CreationDate="2017-03-23T14:52:38.113" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7618" PostId="2959" Score="0" Text="If anyone has suggestions for potential expansion, I'd be happy to mark as community wiki." CreationDate="2017-03-23T16:34:09.777" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7622" PostId="2961" Score="0" Text="Interesting question, may take some mulling over to reply well. My first intuitive interpretation of the phrase, a long time ago, was something like &quot;don't forget to die&quot;, in the vein of &quot;don't forget to go to the dry-cleaner&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-24T13:35:22.580" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7623" PostId="2962" Score="1" Text="I like the suggestions with *licere*!" CreationDate="2017-03-24T14:17:02.520" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7627" PostId="2962" Score="1" Text="I've always assumed that *memento mori* is essentially an *accusativus cum infinitivo,* with the accusative omitted since the subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject of the finite verb." CreationDate="2017-03-25T00:50:07.587" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="7629" PostId="2962" Score="0" Text="@Anonym That's a very good way to read it. Perhaps we ought to call it *infinitivus sine accusativo*..." CreationDate="2017-03-25T08:34:34.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7632" PostId="2965" Score="1" Text="I assume you are purposely restricting this to the &quot;classical Latin language&quot;? I'm sure a *lot* could be said about progress in understanding pre-Latin influences. Also, when you say &quot;understanding,&quot; are you referring to the literal meaning of a text or other things, e.g. cultural context?" CreationDate="2017-03-25T15:44:14.003" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7633" PostId="2965" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Any kind of understanding. I restricted to classical Latin on purpose, but I can't give other restrictions since I don't know where progress has focused. (I might ask more questions like this with different focus later if this one works out.)" CreationDate="2017-03-25T16:22:27.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7634" PostId="2966" Score="2" Text="@brianpck thank you for editing. Sometimes I just don't realize how bad is my English" CreationDate="2017-03-25T17:39:06.677" UserId="1372" />
  <row Id="7641" PostId="2966" Score="2" Text="Many thanks for the answer and welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-03-26T02:04:42.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7642" PostId="2966" Score="4" Text="And it is such an honor to have Professor Keidan from Rome here." CreationDate="2017-03-26T02:56:18.430" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7779" PostId="2966" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the first quarter of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/269/79)" CreationDate="2017-04-01T05:59:38.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7648" PostId="2967" Score="0" Text="There are some rules but you won't find them in the old grammars like Allen and Greenbough. Michele Fruyt has written extensively on Latin diminutives." CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:34:56.727" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7647" PostId="2968" Score="3" Text="For those who are attempting to answer this question, there is a term _veri similis_ which means probable or plausable. In addition, I personally did not find any word directly meaning &quot;deniability,&quot; so I made one up based on _nego, negare, negavi, negatus_, which is _negabilitas_. Do with that what you will!" CreationDate="2017-03-26T22:05:55.637" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="7664" PostId="2968" Score="6" Text="The Italian translation of the term is *negazione plausibile*, which makes me want to favor a simple *negatio credibilis / veri similis*" CreationDate="2017-03-28T16:32:06.377" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7665" PostId="2968" Score="3" Text="@brianpck My vote would definitely be for *negatio probabilis / credibilis*." CreationDate="2017-03-28T18:55:51.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7669" PostId="2968" Score="2" Text="Though thinking about it now, the former might mean &quot;a denial is likely [forthcoming].&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-28T22:16:50.737" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7688" PostId="2968" Score="1" Text="When was the concept coined?" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:22:06.243" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7910" PostId="2968" Score="1" Text="@Rafael It seems to derive from [John Dulles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#History) and the CIA (which is consistent with my understanding of the history of term.)" CreationDate="2017-04-07T23:56:17.127" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="7635" PostId="2969" Score="1" Text="Searching Perseus, I didn't find any other diminutives ending in &quot;-mullus,&quot; but I did find a couple others ending in &quot;[-munculus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=munculus&amp;lang=la)&quot;: *pulmunculus* and *sermunculus.* Both end in -mo rather than -men in the nominative, though, so they aren't perfectly analogous to &quot;abdomen&quot; (I don't know if that's relevant though)." CreationDate="2017-03-25T22:35:59.330" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7636" PostId="2969" Score="2" Text="I just thought of something: wouldn't a diminutive of &quot;abdomen&quot; be expected to be neuter, since &quot;abdomen&quot; is a neuter word?" CreationDate="2017-03-25T22:59:30.053" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7637" PostId="2969" Score="1" Text="@sumelic Not always - e.g., *puella* is a diminutive of *puer* - but here I think it'd be better." CreationDate="2017-03-25T23:29:26.997" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="7639" PostId="2969" Score="4" Text="@Anonym, I'd say the proper diminutive of *puer* is *puellus*, from which *puella* is derived." CreationDate="2017-03-26T00:01:28.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7640" PostId="2969" Score="4" Text="@TKR You are correct, and note that there's also [*puera*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=puera). (Edited: [Lewis &amp; Short definition](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=puera&amp;la=la#lexicon))" CreationDate="2017-03-26T00:33:46.830" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7645" PostId="2970" Score="0" Text="So... My first guess of _abdom**i**nculus_ is incorrect?" CreationDate="2017-03-26T20:19:19.780" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="7646" PostId="2970" Score="1" Text="@MarqFJA87: I don't know enough to say it is &quot;incorrect,&quot; but I haven't found any concrete examples of diminutives ending in &quot;-incul-&quot;." CreationDate="2017-03-26T20:20:50.973" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7649" PostId="2971" Score="2" Text="Not exactly what you need but worth taking a look at http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/learning-latin-and-greek-antiquity-present?format=HB&amp;isbn=9781107051645" CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:51:37.040" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7650" PostId="2972" Score="1" Text="In Dutch, you can easily contrast &quot;summer time&quot; and &quot;winter time&quot; (or, where I'm from, people say &quot;summer hour&quot; and &quot;winter hour&quot;). Same thing in French, apparently: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heure_d%27hiver&#xA;So I would go for *tempus aestivum/hiemale* for more correctness and clarity, but I think I'd take *semel/bis* if I wanted to sound more idiomatic." CreationDate="2017-03-27T10:15:40.523" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7644" PostId="2973" Score="1" Text="Now that you mention it, I, too, wonder why *appropinquare* had not been suggested. Thanks for bringing it up and elaborating on nuance and classical precedent!" CreationDate="2017-03-26T19:03:13.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7656" PostId="2973" Score="2" Text="Thank you, that verb did not come into my mind when I remembered the *subest* paradigm. To me *appropinquo* sounds more immediate and more effectful if not threatening than rather stative *subest*" CreationDate="2017-03-27T23:13:07.540" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="7659" PostId="2973" Score="0" Text="@kkm It does have a menacing feel to it, doesn't it? &quot;Death approaches&quot; v. &quot;death is near&quot; sort of distinction, it seems." CreationDate="2017-03-28T01:44:04.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7660" PostId="2973" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Exactly! *Menacing* was the word I was in a loss for!" CreationDate="2017-03-28T01:51:08.633" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="7778" PostId="2973" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the first quarter of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/269/79)" CreationDate="2017-04-01T05:59:05.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28993" PostId="2973" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I believe to answer your first question the reason is because too often in a language people will not actually translate meaning, but words. But words cannot ever be translated in isolation, as they lack meaning without context. It's the difference between connotation and denotation. To make matters worse, often people will look for what's possible, rather than what's likely, as if no usage could be idiomatic or awkward." CreationDate="2020-09-15T03:38:54.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="28998" PostId="2973" Score="1" Text="@cmw Indeed. If only we found a way to communicate that to all new users about to ask their first translation question... The way I've described translation to many is that you read a story in one language, understand it, and then retell it in another. That usually brings about the right mindset. [Near-synonyms that technically work are often weird or unsettling.](https://xkcd.com/2352/)" CreationDate="2020-09-15T06:32:48.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29044" PostId="2973" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That's a great XKCD, and how very apropos that it was released shortly before I found this question again!" CreationDate="2020-09-18T20:55:33.237" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7651" PostId="2974" Score="0" Text="My understanding was something like &quot;result of ____&quot;, somewhat similar to -menon." CreationDate="2017-03-27T15:22:58.587" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7652" PostId="2974" Score="3" Text="To add somewhat to what Draconis has said, my understanding has always been that -mentum shows either instrument (by which the verb that serves as the root is done) or the results of activity (denoted by root). Instrument: a pigmentum is used for painting (pingo), an argumentum is used for proving something (arguo), etc. Result: a fragmentum is the result of breaking (frango), etc." CreationDate="2017-03-27T17:05:13.797" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="7653" PostId="2974" Score="0" Text="All those you've chosen take **-atio** which intuitively would be the *contrasting* abstract form: fraction, in-doctrination," CreationDate="2017-03-27T19:23:03.147" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7654" PostId="2974" Score="4" Text="WIktionary's statement makes no sense to me. Weiss (2011:313-4) says &quot;*-mentum* looks like the neuter substantivization of a possessive derivative in *-to-* derived from neuters in *-men*&quot;, adducing parallels in Indo-Iranian and Germanic." CreationDate="2017-03-27T20:30:52.260" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7655" PostId="2974" Score="2" Text="On the suggested relationship with Gk. -μενος, it's not impossible, but would have to be posited at a &quot;deep&quot; stage of (pre-)PIE, since both the suffixes (*-men* [n.] and *-meno-*) already existed in PIE. There are some Latin forms which have been proposed as possibly cognate with -μενος, though: *alu-mnus*, *fē-mina*, and the 2pl. pass. ending *-minī*." CreationDate="2017-03-27T21:07:30.647" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7657" PostId="2974" Score="3" Text="I do not have an answer, but it is interesting that many of the words in *-mentum* have a mostly synonymous counterpart in *-men*, e. g. *fragmen-fragmentum, docimen-documentum*. Looks like both these forms coexisted in many cases I just looked up; for one, per L&amp;S, *doci/umen* was being used by Ter and Lucr and documentum by Cic." CreationDate="2017-03-27T23:26:42.593" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="7658" PostId="2974" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I would second that there is probably no close (Latin timeframe) connection with the middle participle PIE ending and our *-men/-mentum*. For one, Beekes believes *femina* and *alumnus* are the only two surviving Latin examples of (lexicalized) PIE middle participle." CreationDate="2017-03-27T23:50:09.223" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="7661" PostId="2977" Score="0" Text="The finite verb in question, in case the OP is unsure, is at the beginning of the chapter: &quot;Contra ea Titurius clamitabat...&quot; Thus: &quot;Titurius exclaimed that the advice of Cotta...etc.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-28T13:44:46.590" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7662" PostId="2977" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Yeah I had also looked it up. The problem is that the construction is still pretty untranslatable!" CreationDate="2017-03-28T14:32:04.850" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7663" PostId="2978" Score="7" Text="This is quite common in the Vulgate: &quot;erat praedicans&quot; &lt; &quot;ἦλθεν κηρύσσων&quot;,  &quot;erat docens&quot; &lt; &quot;ἦν διδάσκων&quot;. The Latin is probably just imitating a Greek construction, which is talked about in [this article](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-review/article/participial-periphrasis-bjorckgudmund-die-periphrastischen-konstruktionen-im-griechischen-skrifter-utgivna-av-k-humanistiska-vetenskapssamfundet-i-uppsala-32-2-pp-140-uppsala-almqvist-wiksell-leipzig-harrassowitz-1940-paper-6kr/F2416D647AC83EFC0A4A50A6C23EF3A5)" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:09:37.983" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7698" PostId="2978" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That comment would work well as an answer, too." CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:26:03.443" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33542" PostId="2978" Score="0" Text="It worth to mention a frequent classical phrase: *audiens esse dicto alicui*. but it might be *audiens* is considered to be a substantive ." CreationDate="2021-06-05T11:04:23.810" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="7728" PostId="2981" Score="0" Text="Thanks! But, I have another question. How is Elias declined? Online, I was able to find an entry for Elias as the name for Elijah. It's declined differently. Genitive: Eliae, Dative: Eliae, Accusative:Elian/Eliam, Ablative: Elia, and the vocative is Elia. What is Elias as a feminine name declined? Is it the same, just with feminine adjectives? My definition was from the Online Latin Dictionary site. Lewis and Short shows both Elijah and Eliade, but gives no information other than the genitive." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:36:52.790" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="16252" PostId="2981" Score="0" Text="@MiddleSchoolHistorian I recommend asking that as a separate question. I think I wasn't the only one to never see that question because it was in a comment. I would also rather see answers to that question listed separately to make them easier to find." CreationDate="2018-11-04T01:24:53.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7666" PostId="2982" Score="0" Text="Good suggestion! I like the direct use of adjectives. (Minor note: wouldn't the ablative be *hiemali*?) I wouldn't use the abbreviations, though, since they are not (?) standard." CreationDate="2017-03-28T19:01:46.433" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7668" PostId="2982" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: You're right, of course. 2nd Class Adjectives are I-stem. Fixed in the answer" CreationDate="2017-03-28T19:23:02.487" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7672" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="There are a lot of individual complexities with the names in your bullet list (e.g. I'd love to see how Latin would render *el dorado*): are you asking about those items, or just a good translation of &quot;state&quot; and &quot;land&quot; as used in these phrases?" CreationDate="2017-03-29T13:57:54.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7677" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="Mainly just referring to *state*.  I'm guessing *El Dorado* would remain in Spanish since it is proper name that was never translated into English." CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:43:29.543" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7678" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="Though I suppose since another one of Minnesota's mottos is *L'Etoile du Nord*, which translates word-for-word from French as *The Star of the North*, the word *state* could be dropped from some of them." CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:45:51.163" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7679" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="But yeah I did see a lot of complexity when I was compiling the list.  For something like *The State of Hockey*, that seems more like a community thing since there is no government office that specifically manages the various hockey organizations within the state borders and its' more about the culture of kids growing up playing the sport on frozen ponds, so would *Civitas Pilamallei Super Glaciem* be the right translation here or would *Res Publica Pilamallei Super Glaciem* be better given that it is also about how much Minnesota does for hockey compared to other states like Texas?" CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:04:34.090" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7680" PostId="2983" Score="1" Text="Though I just realized that Wikipedia does have a Latin version.  Apparently the Latin name for the US is [*Civitates Foederatae Americae*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitates_Foederatae_Americae#Civitates), which makes me start leaning towards *civitas* for a lot of these bullet points." CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:10:36.667" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7681" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="Good fine, but remember that Latin Wikipedia should be taken with a very large grain of salt. I've seen some atrocious stuff there." CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:46:18.687" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7684" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="True.  I used to frequently edit for the English Wikipedia and ran into a lot of copyedit problems, so I can imagine the issues for a language that sees limited contemporary use." CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:55:58.463" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7687" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="I would also suggest provincia and diœcesis as a possible translation of &quot;state.&quot; But, the definitions are a bit ambiguous outside of the context of your project." CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:21:58.543" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7726" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="You may want to make the evaluation of the translations a separate answer. Just one comment: I'd use **Terra** for _land_ in _The Land of Lincoln_: I'm pretty sure that is what is usually written on maps (e.g. _Terra Australis_)" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:25:50.523" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7729" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="@IanBui regarding El Dorado, some names of former Spanish colonies that are current US cities have been translated into Latin (e.g. Los Angeles=[Angeli](http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dlosa.html), San Bernardino=[Bernardinópolis](http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dsnbe.html)) while others have adapted names (e.g. El Paso, Latin demonym [_elpasensis_](http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/delpa.html) hence _Elpasus_ or _Elpaso_)" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:41:48.533" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7733" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="What's the difference between *terra* and *tellus*?  Like I said from what I was reading, *terra* seemed to be more about land/earth/ground while *tellus* seemed more about land/country/community, so in absence of any immediately available translation for *The Land of Lincoln*, I thought *tellus* made more sense since it is about Lincoln personally and not the geography.  Did I misunderstand?" CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:07:15.583" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7735" PostId="2983" Score="0" Text="And I did see Latinized names for some Spanish named cities, including the ones you mentioned.  The trouble I ran into was that I couldn't find anything other than [the California county](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado_Comitatus) on Vicipaedia and that page only uses the Spanish name whereas Los Angeles county is referred to as Angelopolis Comitatus." CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:12:46.760" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7736" PostId="2983" Score="1" Text="Though using the El Paso example, I did a quick Google search for *eldoradensis* and it returned *Disholcaspis eldoradensis*, the scientific name for the honey dew gall wasp, so I'm guessing *civitas eldoradensis* might work." CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:18:08.757" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7671" PostId="2984" Score="1" Text="According to [this list](http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/categories/state-seal), Connecticut also uses *reipublicae*. All the other seals are in English." CreationDate="2017-03-29T13:45:38.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7673" PostId="2984" Score="0" Text="One point to consider, though, is that *respublica* also refers to the whole country. Without context, it is definitely ambiguous." CreationDate="2017-03-29T13:59:25.563" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7675" PostId="2984" Score="1" Text="That and since both Massachusetts and Connecticut were among the original 13 states, the context becomes even more ambiguous when we consider that the original idea of American Independence was to create 13 separate countries, so would *reipublicae* be referring more to a nation-state in that context?" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:10:04.590" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7692" PostId="2984" Score="0" Text="@IanBui yes. Some states keep words like *Republic* or *Commonwealth* in official use for historic reasons while they still define themselves as states." CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:37:45.413" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7960" PostId="2984" Score="0" Text="Note, as well, that &quot;Commonwealth&quot; is an English glossing of Latin _Res publica_, so any states that call themselves &quot;Commonwealths&quot; should probably be styled &quot;Rei publicae&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-10T18:21:29.367" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7676" PostId="2985" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I never considered *regio*.  Though looking up the etymology of that word, wouldn't that refer more to counties, townships, and smaller cities?" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:21:45.937" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7683" PostId="2985" Score="0" Text="@Ian Bui  You can take your pick from ten or so plausible words. It's a matter of style as much as anything. If would help you, I could expand my answer to include the likeliest." CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:54:12.617" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7686" PostId="2985" Score="0" Text="Sure, that would be helpful.  Though I guess it might be more helpful to break down the style/context of each word so I would understand why I might pick one word versus another." CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:14:10.483" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7696" PostId="2985" Score="0" Text="Done. I hope it helps!" CreationDate="2017-03-29T19:07:16.223" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7682" PostId="2986" Score="0" Text="&quot;Status&quot; seems incorrect to me. Compare [14 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22status+foederati%22&amp;oq=%22status+foederati%22&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.3231j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on#q=%22statibus+foederatis%22+site:vatican.va&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on&amp;*) for &quot;statibus&quot; and [64 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22status+foederati%22&amp;oq=%22status+foederati%22&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.3231j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on#safe=active&amp;q=%22civitatibus+foederatis%22+site:vatican.va&amp;*) for &quot;civitatibus&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:51:27.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7685" PostId="2986" Score="0" Text="@brianpck it sounds weird to me too, and I confess I'm hesitant to keep it, but I thought: 1) low frequency does not imply error, 2) there were priests-to-be (and their teachers) in Rome following their full studies in Latin as late as the 1950's, 3) S. Pius X was concerned about the unity in the use of Latin in the Church. It is difficult to me to think the letter was written carelessly." CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:12:23.607" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7689" PostId="2986" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That, of course, doesn't imply it is correct in Classical Latin, but at least in Modern-day Church Latin. I don't know whether we can find an unambiguously correct, Classical-Latin answer, I can only think of older examples of *federations* but not of federated *states*. (Not my area of expertise, but didn't the U.S take the idea from the concept of state in modern political philosophy?)" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:26:59.720" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7690" PostId="2986" Score="1" Text="Yeah, Brian and I were discussing the issues with Latin Wikipedia in other comments." CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:29:31.063" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7691" PostId="2986" Score="1" Text="That is an interesting point about the Catholic Church.  The only reason that I know that *ice hockey* translates as *pilamalleus super glaciem* is because of Vatican publications about the Olympics and that obviously is a modern Latin term with no real classical equivalent.  As a Catholic myself, I have been trying to track down somebody I could talk to who does know Latin well, but all of the seminarians, priests, and nuns who I would have talked to have passed away." CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:34:21.863" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7700" PostId="2986" Score="1" Text="The whole concept of (National) State is a Modern phenomenon, so seeking for a Classical rendering of it is a bit of a fool's errand. One might as well ask what Quintillian would have called &quot;Instant Runoff Voting&quot;: He wouldn't, the concept was foreign to him. Any instances of an equivalent have to be sought in the Modern Era's Neolatin publications, or more recent ones like documents from the Holy See." CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:42:31.787" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7713" PostId="2986" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I just added my first pass of translating my list to my question, but some of it comes from what I was able to find in Latin Wikipedia.  Do you see any issues?" CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:30:52.150" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7714" PostId="2986" Score="0" Text="@Rafael likewise." CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:31:06.563" UserId="1381" />
  <row Id="7693" PostId="2987" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/267/near-duplicate-worth-making-separate-question?cb=1. Also related: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1570/how-to-form-the-plural-of-noun-plus-noun-in-possessive-case" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:58:37.490" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7694" PostId="2987" Score="2" Text="Are we looking for a Latin or an English plural? *Curriculums* is certainly not a Latin plural, but is arguably a valid English one." CreationDate="2017-03-29T18:36:31.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7697" PostId="2987" Score="1" Text="@brianpck The Latin one, certainly" CreationDate="2017-03-29T19:58:28.157" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7699" PostId="2987" Score="4" Text="One might argue that there are several kinds of plurals in Latin. If several people each have their own CV, I agree with cmw's answer below that they together have *curricula vitae*. But if the merits of several people are combined into a single document, I would say that there is a single *curriculum vitarum*." CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:41:00.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7701" PostId="2987" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That's true, but whoever heard of such a thing?" CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:12:41.740" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7703" PostId="2987" Score="1" Text="@cmw In joint grant applications one has to prove that all the principal investigators are sufficiently qualified. If those qualifications and personal histories are presented in a single document, it would be exactly that kind of thing. But I agree, it's rare. Usually separate CVs would be used." CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:18:57.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38325" PostId="2987" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta On second thought, I wonder if that's true. I think it would be more accurate to say &quot;packet of CVs&quot; or some other synonym of &quot;packet&quot; to make it clear it's not a singular document, but a collection of them." CreationDate="2022-05-15T23:30:03.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7705" PostId="2988" Score="2" Text="I really laud the effort, but unfortunately many of these claims are unsourced or dubious. Perhaps you can add a source showing that &quot;j&quot; began in middle high German texts? That would be a great point to make--though it contradicts your later point about old English writers." CreationDate="2017-03-29T23:02:43.780" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7709" PostId="2990" Score="4" Text="Can you explain what the &quot;interrogative mood&quot; is? The current answer translates that literally, but there may be a better translation for the concept." CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:59:02.460" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7738" PostId="2990" Score="1" Text="According to Wikipedia, [_&quot; Most (...) languages do not have a special mood for asking questions, but exceptions include Welsh, Nenets and Eskimo languages such as Greenlandic.&quot;_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood#Interrogative) So this might be a term one could use in a grammar of those languages, if it were written in Latin (as the old Jesuit Fathers used to do)." CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:26:54.120" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7909" PostId="2991" Score="0" Text="I wonder if the questioner is confusing the concept of interrogative sentences with mood?  (I found [this link](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:part=4:chapter=56) which might help clarify, at least in regards to Greek)" CreationDate="2017-04-07T23:46:02.460" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="7707" PostId="2992" Score="1" Text="It's not that important, but the Avestan script is not visible to me (unless they used empty boxes). If you want exotic scripts to be visible, it's best to include them as images, but it's your call to decide if it's worth the trouble." CreationDate="2017-03-30T07:11:32.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7708" PostId="2992" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good to know! I think I can read the Avestan script owing to some fonts that Cerberus recommended in the chat room." CreationDate="2017-03-30T07:21:34.243" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7712" PostId="2992" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I am reading the question from my iPhone and the Avestan script is correctly visualized. Perhaps you should upgrade your system or simply install a good Unicode-savvy font (you can try Google Noto that has special fonts for many ancient languages)." CreationDate="2017-03-30T15:17:17.950" UserId="1372" />
  <row Id="7734" PostId="2992" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Not to rub it in... But the Avestan script is the most elegant. You are missing out!" CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:12:01.840" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7717" PostId="2994" Score="0" Text="Infinitives of purpose were a later development, weren't they? I remember my high school Latin teacher pointing out that &quot;quo vadis?&quot; &quot;redeo Romam **crucifigi**&quot; was not good style at the time." CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:50:41.483" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7722" PostId="2994" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yes, that is my understanding, though I think some poets will use it for a purpose clause." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:09:18.723" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7750" PostId="2994" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I agree, that's a later development. In classical Latin I would expect a future participle, a gerundive, a supine accusative or an *ut* clause. (I ended up asking [a comparative question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/3003/79).)" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:39:50.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7715" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="Are the two quoted parts from a source?" CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:48:57.823" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7716" PostId="2996" Score="1" Text="Also: do you know of a good resource that explains the conventions of written PIE forms? It's something I've wanted to learn more about for a long time." CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:49:35.810" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7718" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'll clarify that! The quotes are just for grouping; I wanted to keep the Greek and Latin derivations visibly separate. (And sadly I do not, though something like that would be very useful...my first paragraph is just from the bits and pieces I've picked up.)" CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:52:28.380" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7719" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="How interesting. The most striking detail in this story is the evolution of the PIE consonant gʷʰ. In Latin it retains voicing and loses aspiration, i.e. gʷʰ becomes v. But in Greek it retains aspiration and loses voicing, i.e. gʷʰ becomes χ." CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:54:58.653" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7720" PostId="2996" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 The voiced aspirates are quite diverse like that! In Latin a whole bunch of them became *f*, while in Greek they mostly turned into phi, theta, chi. Also if there weren't metathesis we might see a tau in the Greek: labialized consonants (kw, gw) tended to become taus, as in *tis* ~ Latin *quis* and friends." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:00:07.670" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7721" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I edited a bit for formatting--feel free to roll back if you prefer the other format." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:03:43.487" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7723" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="I understand from your explanation that the Greek and Latin words derive from different forms of the same stem (*h₁ewgʰ- and *h₁wogʷʰ-éye- respectively). These forms differ in their vowel sounds, which seems to be an example of the Indo-European ablaut." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:10:17.137" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7724" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="I suppose the ablaut, then, explains why εὔχομαι and voveo are related in spite of their very different vowel sounds." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:11:25.423" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7725" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 Indeed! Ablaut is a strange and unpredictable thing, but cases like this are good evidence for it existing." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:15:20.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7727" PostId="2996" Score="3" Text="Beekes argues that the Greek word is from the reduplicated stem *h₁e-h₁ugʷʰ-e-. This accounts for the initial diphthong." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:30:28.633" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7732" PostId="2996" Score="2" Text="@fdb, that does seem potentially a better theory than unexplained metathesis / Schwebeablaut. The problem, though, is that reduplicated presents in Greek have Ci-, not Ce-." CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:01:34.827" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7737" PostId="2996" Score="1" Text="I don't know that there's a reason to think that gʷʰ merged into gʷ in Italic before becoming Latin w -- the PIE voiced aspirates didn't deaspirate in Italic, they spirantized (and later re-hardened intervocalically into stops -- at least this seems to be the most common theory). (Btw, yes, the Boukolos rule is what explains the loss of labialization in Greek.)" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:04:37.863" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7739" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="Does the w superscript mean voicing or labialization (or both)? A little confused on that point." CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:36:41.160" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7740" PostId="2996" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 The w superscript is labialization, similar to a /w/ after the consonant. Voicing is just written using different letters for voiced/voiceless." CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:43:13.177" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23656" PostId="2996" Score="0" Text="&quot;a not unheared of process called metathesis&quot;. This incorrect, the term only describes the symptoms, a phenomenon, not the causes and process. In that sense, it does not stand in contradistinction with e.g. reduplication. Spontanious metathesis as a process must be dismissed as unsufficiently explained, though." CreationDate="2019-12-12T13:08:57.897" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="7730" PostId="2997" Score="2" Text="+1 Good thinking! It didn't even occur to me to list the ancient precedents." CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:58:48.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9200" PostId="2998" Score="0" Text="Something to consider: Latin doesn't have just &quot;wen&quot; pronunciation. As Latin is an international language, every nation/language has its own pronunciation of Latin; and there is also a reconstructed classical pronunciation—a scholarly guess about Ancient Roman pronunciation. The pronunciations are not very different, though, as you can see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation)." CreationDate="2017-06-11T11:59:51.070" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="7746" PostId="2999" Score="2" Text="It might be worth looking at how medieval travelers represented Chinese names and sounds." CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:16:08.243" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7751" PostId="2999" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Medieval Latin definitely had the appropriate sounds, but the texts aren't very accessible. I've seen China and Sina both in Matthew Ricci's book on China, so I assume you could probably find something more comparable. My answer was strictly for Classical Latin, though I see now I should make that clear." CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:03:20.877" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7752" PostId="2999" Score="3" Text="@brianpck or for anyone else: [De christiana expeditione apud Sinas](https://archive.org/details/ita-bnc-mag-00002831-001)" CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:07:22.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7741" PostId="3001" Score="0" Text="I would have thought it would be punctuated &quot;Utinam, etiam in conferta turba **,** clamet **,**&quot; ?" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:58:45.700" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="7742" PostId="3001" Score="0" Text="And I don't know how I translated &quot;ostiarius&quot; as if it were &quot;ostium&quot;. Hmf." CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:59:54.510" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="7743" PostId="3001" Score="0" Text="@MattGutting Now I think I understand what you meant about the comma. I originally used reading 1, but you apparently used 2. Or something yet different?" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:08:43.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7745" PostId="3001" Score="0" Text="Yes, I used 2. &quot;If only he [the spiritual advisor] would cry out, even in a dense crowd, that ...&quot; Perhaps this would be better as *Utinam clamet, etiam in conferta turba*, ...&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:15:55.967" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="7748" PostId="3001" Score="3" Text="Fun fact: *ostiarius* can be a technical term for one of the four minor orders (porter): the other 3 are *lector*, *exorcista*, and *acolyta*." CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:24:03.110" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7749" PostId="3001" Score="0" Text="@MattGutting I agree, that would make more sense. The punctuation is curious." CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:26:44.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7763" PostId="3003" Score="2" Text="There's also the gerund/gerundive: ad + accusative, or genitive + causā/gratiā." CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:47:02.730" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="7755" PostId="3004" Score="7" Text="&quot;A Roman might transcribe this as....&quot; - but only if this old Roman miraculously foresaw how it would be pronounced in 2000 years' time. But what if he was transcribing the then current Old Chinese pronunciation?" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:54:10.167" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7756" PostId="3004" Score="3" Text="@fdb A very good point. I figured Lun was working from present Chinese pronunciation since 2000 years ago they might be considered different words. (And also since I have no idea how to pronounce Old Chinese.)" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:55:50.080" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7758" PostId="3004" Score="0" Text="+1 good points! Two ideas: 1) ung is not too far from nasalised u, which is (probably) -um (!) 2) since the question doesn't specify, I feel urged to say that c before e and i had a sound pretty close to zh in early medieval and maybe even post classical times" CreationDate="2017-03-31T00:33:34.160" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7759" PostId="3004" Score="0" Text="I thought ŋ was clear from -ng-, such as *angelos* for the Greek ἄγγελος? And listening to the pronunciation of 中文, to me the vowel in 文 was clearly an E, less so a schwa, but maybe the person pronouncing it really emphasized the vowel." CreationDate="2017-03-31T00:49:12.943" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7760" PostId="3004" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Excellent points! Would you like to write that as another answer? I'd be interested in seeing how a Mediaeval traveller might have transcribed this, as opposed to an Augustan-age Roman." CreationDate="2017-03-31T01:57:19.567" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7761" PostId="3004" Score="0" Text="@cmw I took that as just an allophone of /n/ before velar consonants, since it never stands on its own. Thus N /n/ seemed closer than NG /ng/ &gt; [ŋg]. But that is a good point." CreationDate="2017-03-31T01:58:34.307" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7959" PostId="3004" Score="0" Text="@fdb: According to Baxter and Sagart (via Wiktionary), [中](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD) is pronounced /*truŋ/ and [文](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%96%87) is /*mə[n]/, so the compound is /*truŋmə[n]/. TRVNGMEN? TRVMEN?" CreationDate="2017-04-10T18:06:57.273" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7969" PostId="3004" Score="0" Text="@Wtrmute Please feel free to post that as an answer! Perhaps TRÚNMEN?" CreationDate="2017-04-10T23:24:18.720" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7973" PostId="3004" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I would, but the OP very specifically asked for a transliteration _in Mandarin pronunciation_, so I would be answering a different question." CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:59:34.730" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7757" PostId="3005" Score="6" Text="In both Greek and Latin you can usually leave out your copulas (forms of eimi/esse) when they're inferrable from context" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:10:56.623" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7766" PostId="3007" Score="3" Text="I think the OP's question is about differences in *meaning*. Obviously, I can't use the supine after a non-motion verb and I can't use a future participle if it's grammatically allowed. Your final sentence, though, seems to say that there is no distinction in meaning, assuming that they are permitted by the grammatical context. Is that right?" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:51:54.033" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7767" PostId="3007" Score="2" Text="Also: can't you use a future participle for something other than the subject? For instance: *Mitto eum nuntiaturum hoc Caesari.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:53:04.010" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7772" PostId="3007" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I meant not merely the grammatical, but the whole context in which the sentence appears. This doesn't seem the right place to discuss styles of translation, but the choice of a construction isn't subject to iron rules in Latin any more than in English, giving the writer a certain freedom of choice in expressing intention." CreationDate="2017-03-31T16:21:21.620" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7773" PostId="3007" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I've edited the line about the future participle. Obviously, it can be used in other cases when the situation allows, as in your example (which, if you'll forgive me for saying so, isn't exactly elegant but serves the purpose!)." CreationDate="2017-03-31T16:22:01.120" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7764" PostId="3008" Score="0" Text="It would be interesting to know if the same word existed in older Greek. Perhaps some of our experts know?" CreationDate="2017-03-31T11:05:45.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7765" PostId="3009" Score="0" Text="What is your opinion of the other proposed answer: &quot;ἐπίκαιρα&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:46:43.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7776" PostId="3009" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I think there is a point there, but couldn't think/find a word with the OP meaning." CreationDate="2017-04-01T04:13:16.293" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7794" PostId="3009" Score="0" Text="@brianpck For the record, I think that επιείκεια is most probably the word (wrote so at the original question as well)." CreationDate="2017-04-02T18:49:14.153" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7828" PostId="3009" Score="0" Text="I was surprised to see many down votes, so I edit this to keep only the strict answer to OP's question." CreationDate="2017-04-04T18:25:13.560" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7777" PostId="3011" Score="1" Text="You are right, a question is often marked with *-ne* or a question word of some kind. But this is not what I asked about; I wanted to know if the Romans made a distinction between questions and statements (and maybe something else) at the level of grammatical theory." CreationDate="2017-04-01T05:42:01.533" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7781" PostId="3014" Score="1" Text="Just to be clear: Are you looking for a version of &amp; meaning &quot;and&quot; in English? Or any other language than Latin? In Latin there seems to be no real difference between a ligature for *et* at a symbol meaning *et*." CreationDate="2017-04-01T22:46:37.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7782" PostId="3014" Score="0" Text="Orbis Sensualium Pictus was published in 1658 and contains many ampersands." CreationDate="2017-04-01T23:32:31.957" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7785" PostId="3014" Score="3" Text="Is there a clear delineation between the et-ligature and the ampersand? I thought that the et-ligature just gradually came to be written like &quot;&amp;&quot;, and also gradually came to be considered its own separate symbol." CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:46:02.737" UserId="1394" />
  <row Id="7806" PostId="3014" Score="0" Text="As a continuation of my previous comment, I would also point out that translations of the Orbis Pictus translate &amp; as and, spelled out. This might imply that it wasn't used often in English at the time. This doesn't really add anything to the post, but I just thought it might be interesting." CreationDate="2017-04-03T17:55:58.697" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7783" PostId="3016" Score="5" Text="It doesn't? :) ...or do you mean &quot;exact parallels of English 'yes' and 'no'&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:22:51.073" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7784" PostId="3016" Score="2" Text="I would like to know what you think about _sic_, _vero_, _ita vero_, _minime_, _ne_, and _haud_ then, if these words do not mean &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; as I was taught. I mean, if you look at the definition, very few of them are specifically defined as &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot;, but the definitions certainly indicate an affirmative or negative respectively." CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:24:30.243" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="7786" PostId="3016" Score="4" Text="I don't know, I'm a learner. That's what I read so I'm in no position to judge." CreationDate="2017-04-02T04:03:29.087" UserId="230" />
  <row Id="8200" PostId="3016" Score="2" Text="Related thread: [How do you say &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; in Classical Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1592/how-do-you-say-yes-and-no-in-classical-latin)" CreationDate="2017-04-20T03:23:15.710" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7788" PostId="3017" Score="3" Text="I have seen _etiam_ in Post Classical to mean &quot;(of course) yes!,&quot; too" CreationDate="2017-04-02T16:49:53.777" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7789" PostId="3017" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Post-classical Latin isn't my strong suit, but I can think of a couple others that can be included. For anyone, feel free to continue suggesting and I can add them into the answer in a bit." CreationDate="2017-04-02T17:03:53.927" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7790" PostId="3017" Score="3" Text="Fascinating from beginning to end! +1" CreationDate="2017-04-02T17:48:43.207" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7795" PostId="3017" Score="1" Text="Not forgetting σὺ λέγεις (tu dicis) in Mt 27:11." CreationDate="2017-04-02T18:54:49.147" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7797" PostId="3017" Score="1" Text="@fdb I was tempted to include Greek ones, but I figured I'd save that for its own question, as the ones we get from Plato alone would have doubled this post in size!" CreationDate="2017-04-02T19:07:34.950" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7800" PostId="3017" Score="0" Text="@fdb Interesting: I never viewed that as just a simple affirmation, though it's probably not on-topic to debate the point here." CreationDate="2017-04-03T01:10:46.233" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23230" PostId="3017" Score="0" Text="&quot;si&quot; is not &quot;yes&quot; in modern French, but a &quot;not no&quot;, to negate a negative sentence = make it positive." CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:21:22.140" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="31109" PostId="3017" Score="1" Text="Etiam is in Plliny the Younger (he asks the kid if he goes to school; &quot;Etiam!&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-03-17T02:51:20.943" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="7803" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="Imho this is not a matter of context. A language lacking a straightforward word for general negation or confirmation *is* something strange." CreationDate="2017-04-03T17:00:32.293" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7811" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="@Helen: “A language lacking a straightforward word for general negation or confirmation”: interesting. Are there languages like this?" CreationDate="2017-04-03T21:04:08.643" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="7812" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="@DaG What about [Chinese](http://shawnpowrie.com/chinese/yes-no/)? (Caveat: I don't actually know Chinese.)" CreationDate="2017-04-03T21:42:24.067" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7814" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="@DaG I understand that this is what Sam K and the OP says about Latin." CreationDate="2017-04-04T07:20:41.967" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7816" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Afaik *shi* and *bushi*, mentioned in the link, do correspond to *yes* and *no*. *Shi* might literally mean *to be* and *bushi* literally mean *not yes*, but this doesn't change the fact. At least it doesn't change it totally :))" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:57:03.890" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7817" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="@Helen I guess I don't understand the complaint, then, since *ita* and *non [est]* are straightforward and fine for &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; in Latin." CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:16:26.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7827" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Sam K's point was that some languages might lack a straightforward word etc, but this is not something to surprise us, it's only a matter of context. To which I replied that something so weird is not simply a matter of context. (Actually I'm little surprised right now, because from the OP and your answer I inferred that Latin falls in that weird case.)" CreationDate="2017-04-04T18:01:21.687" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="25962" PostId="3018" Score="1" Text="All the Celtic languages (except Breton) lack a specific word for 'yes' and 'no', so in Welsh if asked &quot;is he here?&quot; (ydy e yma?) you would answer &quot;is&quot; or &quot;is not&quot; (ydy/nac ydy), if asked &quot;was he here?&quot; (oedd e yma?) you would answer &quot;was&quot; or &quot;was not&quot; (oedd/nac oedd).  So not having one word for 'yes' and 'no' is not uncommon.  I assume that the latin spoken by Celtic peoples may well have used the verb to answer in the Celtic manner, as some English speakers still do today." CreationDate="2020-04-23T10:32:24.270" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="31110" PostId="3018" Score="0" Text="&quot;Translate literally to those definitions&quot; strikes me as a problematic view in understanding of languages." CreationDate="2021-03-17T02:55:30.447" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="7798" PostId="3019" Score="0" Text="See [the meta discussion about tagging translation questions](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/266/79)." CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:35:12.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7799" PostId="3019" Score="0" Text="Ancilla ? for waitress. Was it a dapifer who swopped accounts of dreams with Joseph in prison?" CreationDate="2017-04-03T00:53:57.913" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7801" PostId="3019" Score="0" Text="in Romanian we use _servitor_ in a similar sense." CreationDate="2017-04-03T08:54:50.760" UserId="654" />
  <row Id="7813" PostId="3025" Score="3" Text="I'm no Latin expert by any means, but perhaps it might not hurt to have a look at liturgical Latin?  I didn't turn up any direct references to skeletons during a brief biblical word search (else we could reference the corresponding verse in the Vulgate), but I'd be surprised if there weren't some publication from the Vatican that addressed the issue, especially with regard to publications on either anatomical research or the handling of remains." CreationDate="2017-04-04T04:33:40.047" UserId="1401" />
  <row Id="7815" PostId="3025" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, Cassell's suggested &quot;ossea,&quot; a word not in the Latin-English section. I couldn't find anything about it online, other than the feminine singular nominative adjective." CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:03:17.250" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="7809" PostId="3026" Score="0" Text="Google Translate also gives *[monogrammus](https://translate.google.com/#auto/la/skeleton)* as a translation of *skeleton*." CreationDate="2017-04-03T20:20:35.593" UserId="1400" />
  <row Id="7810" PostId="3026" Score="4" Text="@AndersonGreen It seems that [*monogrammus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=monogrammus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means &quot;sceleton&quot; in a very different sense, closer to &quot;sketchy&quot;. [Google Translate is not reliable with such details (or Latin in general).](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)" CreationDate="2017-04-03T20:33:15.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7819" PostId="3033" Score="0" Text="Would you really classify *aliquis* as an adjective? To me it's a pronoun, not an adjective of any kind, but I don't claim that this is the only possible opinion. I'm just wondering if there's anything I would classify as an adjective that could not take *per-*." CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:29:55.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7865" PostId="3033" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta *peraliqui* is an indefinite adjective. It's used to modify nouns." CreationDate="2017-04-05T23:53:44.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7883" PostId="3033" Score="1" Text="I was going to comment that certain adjectives are intensified by convention with other prefixes, e.g. *defessus*, and thus could not take per-. But then I found [*perdefessus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperdefessus)" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:13:36.163" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7884" PostId="3033" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Late Christian Latin, though, and a single citation at that. I think it's still a fair observation to make. (Would a Roman in Quintilian's time think it strange or of a lower register? I think so.)" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:23:41.597" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7885" PostId="3033" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Might also have to do with how *defessus* replaced *fessus* as 'tired' in common speech (*fessus* seems entirely absent from the comic poets, interestingly enough)." CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:25:57.560" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7822" PostId="3034" Score="3" Text="I love how many of the quoted people opine with good-natured head-shaking, &quot;Only in Cambridge!&quot; when in fact even a basic understanding of Latin shows even less knowledge than Monty Python's satirical &quot;Romanes eunt domus&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:35:40.333" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7861" PostId="3034" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: Perhaps the idea was to echo Monty Python's style and produce corrupted Latin on purpose..." CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:22:17.913" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7863" PostId="3034" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus Perhaps, though I would have expected the process to have involved more than a blind copy of Google Translate if that were the case" CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:42:54.690" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7864" PostId="3034" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Hmm I see, that is true." CreationDate="2017-04-05T23:51:29.213" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7818" PostId="3035" Score="0" Text="The plural nominative of *domus* is *domus* (long u), while *localis* doesn't really mean &quot;local&quot; in Classical usage (as far as I can tell). Smith gives plenty of examples of *in loc-* meaning &quot;local&quot;, though." CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:27:36.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7820" PostId="3035" Score="0" Text="I like that you consider graffiti a &quot;matter of importance&quot;! Your third translation seems to the one that was meant, except perhaps changing to  &quot;*You* should offer...&quot;. Can the translation be made &quot;snappier&quot;, since the original isn't a complete sentence, to render &quot;Local homes for local people&quot; in a phrase suitable for daubing?" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:31:42.833" UserId="1256" />
  <row Id="7821" PostId="3035" Score="1" Text="@cmw Thanks! I corrected the plural *domus*. I didn't know that about *localis*. Perhaps *huius loci* would be a good replacement." CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:32:15.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7823" PostId="3035" Score="1" Text="@JamesK If you want &quot;**you** should offer...&quot; instead, change *debemus* to *debes* (singular you) or *debetis* (plural you). For something snappier, I would use my second translation with accusative: *Domos locales homibus localibus.* Or if you want to be more classical: *Domos huius loci hominibus huius loci*." CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:37:38.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7825" PostId="3035" Score="2" Text="Re: *localis*, Ammianus Marcellinus uses it as such, so depending on what @JamesK  defines as &quot;Classical,&quot; it's not necessarily wrong." CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:39:05.670" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7831" PostId="3035" Score="1" Text="Given some non-zero probability that the OP's spray-painters used Google Translate in order to create the slogan in the first place, it's hard to agree that people shouldn't use it, especially for cases like this one." CreationDate="2017-04-04T22:49:00.970" UserId="1403" />
  <row Id="7824" PostId="3036" Score="5" Text="Not sure if I can get behind your proposed translation: it's tough to translate &quot;local&quot; though. Maybe &quot;Tecta vicina vicino populo&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:38:56.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7826" PostId="3036" Score="0" Text="@brianpck It faces a hurdle as a general idea (i.e. 'all local homes for all local people' would demand a different translation), but in this particular instance I think it works, and is what Smith suggests at any rate. *Vicinus* means more &quot;neighboring&quot;. I'm not so sure that fits, either, though the chiasm is pleasing." CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:45:06.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7948" PostId="3037" Score="0" Text="As an afterword, regardless of my previous opinion (and of the fact that I've given multiple answers myself :), I finally believe this to be the word you were looking for. If I may ask, did you refer to the rule being broken by the authority or by the actor? If it's the former, then it's  επιείκια. If the latter, then probably επιορκία." CreationDate="2017-04-10T14:55:41.230" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7830" PostId="3038" Score="0" Text="How about *Per-Finnī*?" CreationDate="2017-04-04T22:40:59.933" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7832" PostId="3038" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That's a possibility. It does sound a little like &quot;Finns called Per&quot; (it's a first name), though..." CreationDate="2017-04-04T22:53:26.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7833" PostId="3038" Score="2" Text="Didn't you already answer your question with *Cisalpinus*?" CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:13:19.887" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7834" PostId="3038" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Perhaps I did. If *Cisalpinus* is always spelled this way, that'd be a sufficient answer. I was just looking for confirmation." CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:18:48.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7835" PostId="3038" Score="0" Text="I've never seen it otherwise." CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:19:22.643" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7836" PostId="3038" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Do you want to post that as an answer? It would be sufficient for me." CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:22:45.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7837" PostId="3038" Score="0" Text="But MegaWatts and microNewtons encourage me to hope for perFinni. Together with subFahrenheit temperatures and nonEuclidian geometry." CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:39:32.247" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7838" PostId="3038" Score="0" Text="@Hugh The conventions vary between different languages. // Mathematicians mostly write &quot;non-Euclidean&quot;, sometimes &quot;non Euclidean&quot;, but I don't recall ever seeing &quot;nonEuclidean&quot;. But again, this is just the convention I have seen. // Aren't SI unit spelled lowercase in English: newton, watt, ...?" CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:52:10.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7839" PostId="3038" Score="3" Text="@Hugh In American English I've seen those with hyphens rather than camelcase: non-Euclidean, sub-Fahrenheit, non-Newtonian, hyper-Gaussian. (And I think they're supposed to be lowercase but I usually see those unit names capitalized.)" CreationDate="2017-04-05T00:35:50.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7840" PostId="3038" Score="1" Text="I think the version with the capital immediately after a lower-case letter is unacceptable in any language I know. The one with the hyphen looks decidedly Unlatin: it's English. I like Weimer's answer about the attached versions." CreationDate="2017-04-05T02:26:07.987" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7859" PostId="3039" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure that ethnic adjectives like _Graecus_ and _Romanus_ must necessarily be capitalised; certainly they need not be in Neolatin languages like Spanish ([example](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribus_griegas)). Of course, mixed case is a late Mediaeval invention, so it is hard to say there is even a proper capitalisation strategy in Latin." CreationDate="2017-04-05T17:46:00.900" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7860" PostId="3039" Score="0" Text="@Wtrmute French too doesn't capitalize those adjectives. Buy all that is why I pointed out that it comes down to editorial strategies. I don't think the original question meant to imply this was ancient." CreationDate="2017-04-05T20:04:19.320" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7841" PostId="3040" Score="0" Text="Do you know how to phrase such past dilemmas in Latin? That would make an interesting question, too." CreationDate="2017-04-05T03:51:07.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7842" PostId="3040" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, my guess would be imperfect subjunctive, but I don't know for sure." CreationDate="2017-04-05T03:56:19.540" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7843" PostId="3040" Score="0" Text="Then we agree perfectly. :) I would like to be more sure." CreationDate="2017-04-05T03:58:30.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7846" PostId="3040" Score="0" Text="Interesting! Is it possible that this type of condition does not exist in Classical Greek? Or can we reasonably assume that it does?" CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:42:04.430" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="7847" PostId="3040" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124, that's part of what I want to find out... We can't necessarily assume it exists -- it's possible that Greek writers would always have put in the implied verb of thinking in such contexts (*What was I to do, knowing that if I remained...*). This is a type of [free indirect speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_speech), and maybe Greek simply didn't have that." CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:49:12.677" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7851" PostId="3040" Score="1" Text="It's funny, because the archetypal &quot;dilemma&quot; comes to us from Homer: Scylla and Charybdis. I'll have to check to see if the scenario is ever described in this precise way!" CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:53:35.107" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7886" PostId="3040" Score="0" Text="@TKR I'm only managing to find dilemmas like the following: &quot;They gave him money. If he became a philosopher, he would return the money, but if not he would keep it.&quot; Does that fit the pattern you're describing?" CreationDate="2017-04-06T20:04:50.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7887" PostId="3040" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, it might -- can you post/link to the Greek?" CreationDate="2017-04-06T21:04:51.563" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7844" PostId="3041" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, what does *viskurilaki* mean? *Laki* is law, but I'm finding several possible translations for *viskuri*, none of which seem relevant." CreationDate="2017-04-05T03:59:49.593" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7845" PostId="3041" Score="0" Text="@TKR *Viskuri* comes from the verb *viskata*, a derivative similar to the Latin *-trum* or *-men(tum)*. So perhaps &quot;throwing law&quot;, as the words are being thrown within a line. (I'm not sure if some other English verb would be best here: toss, hurl, cast...)" CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:07:07.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7848" PostId="3041" Score="0" Text="This basically screams for a corpus analysis. I'll see what I can do :)" CreationDate="2017-04-05T07:13:10.830" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7850" PostId="3041" Score="0" Text="@blagae A corpus analysis would be wonderful. If you can do or find one, please share." CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:51:20.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7852" PostId="3041" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta When you say &quot;length,&quot; are you referring to syllable count or strict length?" CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:56:27.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7853" PostId="3041" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I mean syllable count. I'll edit that in. (In contexts outside the Kalevala meter *viskurilaki* deals with many kinds of length or weight, including syllable count, length (syllables, words, sentences, ...) and vowel quality.)" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:34:51.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7858" PostId="3042" Score="1" Text="To some extent, this could be done using the subjunctive in Latin, as e.g. it is often used after *quod* to indicate that the argument used is of a character in the story, not of the author.  But you might feel that the subjunctive is just the kind of grammatical indication that you don't want. // Perhaps you might find some information in articles about the indirectly related figure apostrophe. // Perhaps it would be useful too look at some questions embedded in historical accounts; they might be used in this way: *He found Claudius dead, poisoned. But who could have done it?*" CreationDate="2017-04-05T16:57:44.813" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7889" PostId="3042" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, indeed, the subjunctive after *quod* and the like doesn't qualify in my eyes because it's an explicit marker of viewpoint shift, which is just what FID lacks. Things like your Claudius example would fit the bill, if they exist..." CreationDate="2017-04-06T21:47:38.210" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7908" PostId="3042" Score="0" Text="(@TKR I edited your comment. If there are typos or anything you want edited after 5 minutes, flag the comment and we'll edit for you.)" CreationDate="2017-04-07T23:08:10.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7849" PostId="3043" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is useful, but I think I will wait for something better sourced before accepting. The Kalevala meter also has a caesura, and it limits long words in the middle of a line." CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:49:25.353" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7854" PostId="3044" Score="0" Text="+1 Thanks! This is very interesting. Verses have varying amounts of words, so the way you quantify position does not allow to see if words at the end of a verse tend to be short or long. Would it be possible to add another table with position measured from the end of the verse? (Something that might be interesting but I don't want to push you into: Perhaps one could scale the position so that 0 is always at the beginning and 1 always at the end by dividing by word count. Then one could see how many words of different lengths appear in a given bin of width 0.1 or so.)" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:44:32.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7855" PostId="3044" Score="0" Text="Added with just the last word, which confirms the general hypothesis." CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:47:32.393" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7856" PostId="3044" Score="0" Text="Great! This is very convincing. Something is slightly off, but it's not important: There are 9896-9892=4 verses with only one word, but they can only have up to 7 syllables each. These are either Virgil's incomplete verses or some noise like headings. (There are only 9896-9813=83 verses with four words or less, so it doesn't really affect the averages.)" CreationDate="2017-04-05T16:00:18.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7857" PostId="3044" Score="1" Text="Those are incomplete verses: &quot;Dardanidae&quot; (1.560), &quot;audierit&quot; (2.346), &quot;abluero&quot; (2.720), and &quot;rumpite&quot; (3.640)" CreationDate="2017-04-05T16:08:11.747" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7867" PostId="3045" Score="6" Text="Would Plautine contractions like &quot;sis&quot; for &quot;sI vis&quot; and &quot;potin&quot; for &quot;potesne&quot; count?" CreationDate="2017-04-06T03:01:42.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7871" PostId="3045" Score="3" Text="@brianpck Ah, so like amatumst v. amatum est? Btw, Catullus, Cato, and Caesar all use *sis*, so going by your criteria found on my reply, that's also ruled out." CreationDate="2017-04-06T03:08:45.887" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7879" PostId="3045" Score="0" Text="I rewrote the whole thing. I hope it is clearer now that I am looking for spelling variants of some kind so that there is a difference in the level of formality involved. Thanks for the comments, everyone!" CreationDate="2017-04-06T05:30:23.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7881" PostId="3045" Score="1" Text="@brianpck That kind of contraction is exactly the kind of thing I'm after, if you can argue why they are less formal. I suppose Plautus represents more informal Latin than many other authors, so it sounds promising." CreationDate="2017-04-06T05:32:57.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7882" PostId="3045" Score="1" Text="@cmw It does not matter if the sense of informality developed later. Any examples where we have a good reason to suspect informality in some sense would make good answers. It is a good question if the Plautine variants are more colloquialisms than archaisms. If the informal status is uncertain, examples with the appropriate caveats would be good." CreationDate="2017-04-06T05:37:09.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7888" PostId="3047" Score="0" Text="Thanks for posting this. It strikes me as different from the type of construction I'm asking about, though -- the conditions here are in subordinate clauses in secondary sequence (with συνθέμενον acting as a verb of speech), so they're simply Future More Vivids made optative by sequence of moods. What I'm wondering is what happens when such conditions are expressed as main clauses, if they ever are." CreationDate="2017-04-06T21:25:23.850" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7890" PostId="3048" Score="1" Text="One way to examine this is in line with the previous question to look at the choice between *e* and *ex* (the preposition, not the prefix) before a voiced consonant. A quick PHI search finds lots of examples of *ex* before a voiced consonant, which would be evidence that the s-loss rule did not apply across even weak phonological boundaries." CreationDate="2017-04-07T01:48:15.347" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7891" PostId="3048" Score="2" Text="[Why “ex nihilo” instead of “e nihilo”?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2430) is relevant to this question as well, I think." CreationDate="2017-04-07T04:14:37.857" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7899" PostId="3048" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's a good observation. Would you like to add it as an answer?" CreationDate="2017-04-07T15:44:01.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7893" PostId="3049" Score="4" Text="Support the creation of a Greek language stack exchange http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language (this time, we are  doing really good and the next phase of the proposal is in reach. Vote there!)" CreationDate="2017-04-07T12:11:26.440" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="7894" PostId="3049" Score="0" Text="As a general comment, note that diacritics aren't optional in Greek. It may be that you just don't have the keyboard for it though." CreationDate="2017-04-07T12:53:05.970" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7896" PostId="3049" Score="1" Text="@brianpck While I 100% agree with you that diacritics ought not be optional, I've come across some instructors, particularly of NT Greek but not limited to it, who teach without them. I think a case could be made to do without, as diacritics were only invented with the Alexandrians and didn't even catch on right away, but I would only advocate such a thing well after the grammar was already learned as a useful tool in deciphering inscriptions or weighing on problematic words whose meanings hinge on the placement of an acute." CreationDate="2017-04-07T14:55:01.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7900" PostId="3049" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer I agree, except that the spiritus should always be written." CreationDate="2017-04-07T15:45:04.417" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7911" PostId="3049" Score="0" Text="Another thing, polytonic accents don't show up on my phone. That might have been an issue." CreationDate="2017-04-08T04:26:48.203" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7913" PostId="3049" Score="1" Text="Yeah I type Greek using the Greek keyboard provided on an ipad. It doesn't allow for accents and Iota subscripts unfortunately" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:35:42.713" UserId="1202" />
  <row Id="7897" PostId="3050" Score="0" Text="+1 Thanks! Within a word the loss of S would be compensated by vowel length. I don't know if this shoul be expected across word boundaries." CreationDate="2017-04-07T15:01:49.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7904" PostId="3050" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I hadn't thought of the linguistic implications of this, I was just trying to corroborate your guess with some attested data. But it is a very good point that this may be at odds with moraic theory - although I do mention, coincidentally really, that the moraic process Brevis Brevians may have an inflluence on the occurrence of the phenomenon." CreationDate="2017-04-07T18:08:45.160" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="7898" PostId="3051" Score="1" Text="Do you think it would be preferable to include or exclude the dual here? The question specified koinē, which doesn't really use it." CreationDate="2017-04-07T15:05:40.787" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7902" PostId="3051" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I added it for the sake of completeness. Who knows, maybe TheIronKnuckle will move onto Homeric next." CreationDate="2017-04-07T16:30:35.357" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7903" PostId="3051" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer I took a class on Homer and still never bothered to learn the dual formally...&quot;Wow, that's weird...must be dual!&quot; Not that I recommend that approach :)" CreationDate="2017-04-07T16:49:50.247" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7906" PostId="3052" Score="0" Text="Great work, +1. Much more sophisticated than what I did. Perhaps for completeness you could check for any significant differences between Vergil and Ovid. The point, though, seems overwhelmingly clear." CreationDate="2017-04-07T21:14:17.773" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7907" PostId="3052" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is very convincing evidence. The fact that the first word of a 11-word verse is always monosyllabic is not surprising even if it does not match the calculated expectation. But such edge cases are not really important for the overall conclusion." CreationDate="2017-04-07T21:14:46.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7912" PostId="3053" Score="0" Text="Probably *ius* with whatever term Modern Latin has designated for an intransitive &quot;drive.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:31:04.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7920" PostId="3053" Score="1" Text="In the sport of fencing, there is also a term &quot;right of way.&quot; I wonder if there is also translation for this that may be similar. Probably not, but this question reminded me of that phrase." CreationDate="2017-04-09T01:50:49.840" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="7921" PostId="3053" Score="1" Text="Terms for 'give way' are easier to find; e.g. *cedere viam.* Perhaps *tenere viam,* or *viam jure tenere;* 'to hold the way by right.'" CreationDate="2017-04-09T02:22:25.580" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="7943" PostId="3053" Score="0" Text="@SamK The term has several different uses. That's why I was specific about what I want to translate. I don't think any single phrase can (or should) capture them all." CreationDate="2017-04-10T03:02:26.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7950" PostId="3053" Score="0" Text="Nor do I! I was just thinking about a definition I knew of that phrase, so I was just making an only somewhat related comment. :)" CreationDate="2017-04-10T15:28:42.267" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="7953" PostId="3053" Score="0" Text="Roman Law knows of _ius eundi_ and _ius agendi_, which are more like a guarantee of the right of free passage (if necessary, through somebody's land). This is not, of course, the same as having precedence in traffic." CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:01:38.697" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7914" PostId="3054" Score="2" Text="&quot;Equus&quot; might be an interesting one to compare against." CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:47:09.627" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="7915" PostId="3055" Score="7" Text="Some more examples (from Weiss 297-8) supporting this pattern: *salvus, clīvus, rāvus, rīvus, fulvus, furvus, helvus, arvus* vs. *caeduus, continuus, dīviduus, exiguus, irriguus, pāscuus, praecipuus*." CreationDate="2017-04-08T16:38:52.033" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7919" PostId="3055" Score="4" Text="@AlexB. I think Yellow Sky is using the &quot;v&quot; and &quot;u&quot; to differentiate between the one syllable and two syllable forms. The Romans would not have differentiated the symbols, but we, in the modern day, do so that is what he is getting at (1 syllable following vowels and liquids, 2 syllables after consonants)." CreationDate="2017-04-09T01:44:36.077" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="7926" PostId="4057" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer, but I would very much prefer to keep the _format/structure_ of the phrase, since it'll be part of a series. Is there any way to write it as `[Former state], [current state].` (i.e. `Then lost, now found.`)? Also, I understand the nuance of _perdo_ and I believe it would be suitable for this (or maybe it doesn't work with _invenio_?). About that passive dilemma; I am not that well acquainted with English grammar in detail, since I'm not a native speaker, and my language only deals with one type of participle. Could you please lend me a hand just a bit further on this?" CreationDate="2017-04-09T10:15:09.790" UserId="993" />
  <row Id="7927" PostId="4057" Score="0" Text="I didn't realize you were not a native English speaker. I think you could have figured it out very easily, but since you asked, there's the answer. You can remove the *quae* without losing very much: *omnia amissa/perdita iam reperta/inventa sunt*: All lost things are now found." CreationDate="2017-04-09T13:28:51.160" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7947" PostId="4059" Score="0" Text="There was a popular book called *De Rerum Naturae*..." CreationDate="2017-04-10T12:39:51.610" UserId="116" />
  <row Id="7958" PostId="4059" Score="0" Text="@TimLymington I believe it was *De rerum natura*. The preposition *de* forces *natura* into ablative." CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:44:27.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7931" PostId="4060" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Do you happen to have any evidence that *dii* and *di* were or are considered more informal than *dei*? I was not aware of any formality difference between *et* and *-que* ([there is a difference in meaning](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79)), but I would be very much interested in it if it exists." CreationDate="2017-04-09T17:47:34.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7968" PostId="4060" Score="4" Text="The derivation of *Roma* from *Romulus* is a folk etymology, by the way." CreationDate="2017-04-10T23:10:52.030" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7932" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="I don’t see any evidence for *sala-wus, with or without syncopation. The cognates (e.g. Skt sarva-, Gk. *holwos &gt; holos) point to *salw-us." CreationDate="2017-04-09T17:57:31.553" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7933" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="@fdb in Latin *-lu̯- develops to -ll- (hence, sollus). But salvus is usually explained with syncope (thus,*-lu̯- remains). See Leumann para 60 or Weiss (p. 162, point 9). NB: Unable to fix formatting/italics/reconstructed forms." CreationDate="2017-04-09T18:19:07.780" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7934" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="@fdb I assume you've looked it up in Beekes or de Vaan? Because they do address the point you raised. (Beekes: *slh2-eu-)" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:22:58.657" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7935" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="de Vaan actually writes *slH-u- with unidentified laryngeal. The laryngeal is posited to explain the /a/ in the first syllable." CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:32:20.190" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7936" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="And you've read Nussbaum 1997? It's on academia.edu" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:34:16.553" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7937" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="Yes, but you need to read de Vaan with caution. Incidentally, he did mention two hypotheses on p. 572." CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:40:42.177" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7938" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="Link to the [Nussbaum paper](https://www.academia.edu/1209517/The_Saussure_Effect_in_Latin_and_Italic). The laryngeal in the root is apparently posited on the basis of evidence from Irish and Luvian. The Greek and Sanskrit forms by themselves would suggest *solwo-*, which wouldn't account for the Latin *a*. I'm not sure where *salau̯os* is supposed to come from -- shouldn't *sl̩h₂u̯os* give *slāvus*?" CreationDate="2017-04-10T00:10:38.233" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7941" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="PIE *CRHC has been argued to give Latin CaRaC instead of the usual CRāC, but only when the R was accented; some recent proposed examples [here](http://www.academia.edu/15713840/Observations_on_the_palma_rule_handout_). But I don't see why it would be accented in *sl̩h₂u̯os, an adjective, which unlike those examples -- all nouns -- could not show nominal accent retraction." CreationDate="2017-04-10T02:49:23.643" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7970" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="@TKR Weiss puts it very nicely, &quot;There is only one sound change that **may** require the conditioning factor of the PIE accent&quot; (p. 110), &quot;**It is thought by some** that this is the treatment when the resonant was accented&quot; and &quot;This conditioning factor ... **could well have been true** for Latin also, although the evidence is difficult to deal with and far from conclusive.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-11T03:48:03.283" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7986" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="But if the *palma* rule is wrong, then *sl̩h₂u̯os* should definitely give *slāvus* rather than *salau̯os* &gt; *salvus*, no? I don't think it's debated that the usual reflex of *CRHC* is *CRāC*." CreationDate="2017-04-11T20:34:30.353" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7988" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="@TKR I did *not* say it was wrong (what you call the palma rule - one specific application, in Latin, of what is usually known as the Saussure effect). As for salvus and its IE comparanda: there have been lots of proposals, for example, Lucien van Beek https://www.academia.edu/5945722/The_Saussure_effect_in_Greek_a_reinterpretation_of_the_evidence (esp. pp. 155-157) and Pronk 2011 https://www.academia.edu/1000907/The_Saussure_effect_in_Indo-European_Languages_Other_Than_Greek (pp. 188-189 are very important!) Let me know what you think." CreationDate="2017-04-12T04:07:11.217" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7990" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="I may be misunderstanding you, but the Saussure effect is not the same as the *palma* rule -- the former is loss of a laryngeal next to a resonant in an o-grade form, the latter is PIE *CRHC* &gt; Lat. *CaRaC* when R is accented. Thanks for the links! I'm looking at Pronk's discussion of *salvus*, but I still don't understand his derivation. He derives it from *slh₂eu-m* &gt; Italic *salavem* (which bypasses the *palma* question), but shouldn't that rather give *solau-*, with *ol* as the normal reflex of syllabic *l*?" CreationDate="2017-04-12T22:54:11.593" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7994" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="@TKR, no, because **PIE *CR̥HV &gt; Italic *CaRV** (Weiss, p. 104, VII.A)" CreationDate="2017-04-13T02:27:26.497" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7995" PostId="4063" Score="0" Text="@TKR Beekes 2011 also reminds that in such cases (CR̥HV), the vowel was colored by h2, so PIE *h2e &gt; Latin *a (p. 152) - that's how you get the second a. I think it's pretty neat and everything should be clear by now?" CreationDate="2017-04-13T02:37:18.653" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8004" PostId="4063" Score="1" Text="Ah, that's the sound change I was missing! That makes sense, thanks." CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:15:41.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7945" PostId="4064" Score="2" Text="John Ruskin coined the term &quot;pathetic fallacy&quot; to describe this.  Not an ancient term, I know, but it is the technical term we would always use when analysing classical texts in class.   https://www.britannica.com/art/pathetic-fallacy" CreationDate="2017-04-10T11:08:41.867" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="7942" PostId="4066" Score="3" Text="The initial E is short for &quot;be&quot; and long for &quot;eat&quot; in *esse*, *es*, *est*, *estis*... (Or at least so I have been told repeatedly.) But the quantity is often hidden, so it doesn't help distinguishing the two." CreationDate="2017-04-10T03:00:51.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7944" PostId="4066" Score="3" Text="Hence _ĕs quod ēs_ ‘you are what you eat’." CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:14:26.797" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="7946" PostId="4066" Score="3" Text="I think most etymologists would agree that the &quot;contracted&quot; forms are historically primary and that the &quot;regular&quot; forms are analogical." CreationDate="2017-04-10T11:10:37.227" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8110" PostId="4066" Score="0" Text="Is this the same as in Russian есть (to eat) vs. есть (is)?" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:17:03.657" UserId="142" />
  <row Id="14776" PostId="4066" Score="1" Text="@Anixx You could ask that as a separate question. It'd be interesting to know how the ambiguities in the two languages are related. (I only saw your comment now.)" CreationDate="2018-07-10T18:08:10.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7939" PostId="4067" Score="1" Text="Thanks -- Lausberg is precisely where I would have looked, but I don't have access to it at the moment! Does he say whether *fictio personae* is an attested ancient term, and if so is it distinct from *prosopopoeia* (which as I mentioned is not quite the same as personification)?" CreationDate="2017-04-10T00:16:41.550" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7951" PostId="4068" Score="1" Text="I just did a quick search on the _Adumbratio Lexici Anglico-Latini_, which returned the result ius eundi, as well as ius itineris, so that is also a possibility." CreationDate="2017-04-10T15:32:53.387" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="7952" PostId="4068" Score="0" Text="The Livy and Caesar examples furnished here make *ius transitum* very attractive. Tough to choose which is better." CreationDate="2017-04-10T16:23:00.200" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7954" PostId="4068" Score="1" Text="For myself, I think I'd pick _ius itineris_, 'right to follow the route'. _Ius transitus_ might better be the 'right to cross', as on a pedestrian crossing." CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:09:10.753" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7957" PostId="4068" Score="0" Text="Those are good suggestions! I especially like *ius transitus*, especially when one has the right of way to cross a lane or something else. It's good to know that *ius* is the right &quot;right&quot; word." CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:43:35.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7964" PostId="4068" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weiner  Yes, so it is, but _transitus_ is here a 4th declension genitive." CreationDate="2017-04-10T20:55:00.227" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7975" PostId="4068" Score="0" Text="Ah OK, I was thinking participle on analogy with ius naturale." CreationDate="2017-04-11T14:58:45.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7976" PostId="4068" Score="0" Text="@C. M. Weiner Everybody does it at some time or other. Remember Horace : _et idem / indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus_ (AP l. 358) and laugh it off!" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:05:19.007" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="7987" PostId="4068" Score="0" Text="Everybody makes mistakes, for sure (relook at my name, for example), but I'd actually make the argument that the preferable usage is with an adjective or participle. Consider the *ius publicum*, *ius civile*, *ius praediatorium*, *iura communia*, *iura coniugialia* (Ov. Met. 6). Where you have a noun in the genitive, e.g. *ius gentium* or *ius adoptionis* either it's of the group (the former) or doesn't have a great adjective (the latter). This isn't to say that *ius transitus* is wrong, no, not saying that, but I think were it coined by a Roman, it probably would have been *ius transitum*." CreationDate="2017-04-11T23:10:54.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="7963" PostId="4069" Score="3" Text="&quot;Kellner&quot; is from mediaeval Latin cellenarius. https://www.dwds.de/wb/Kellner" CreationDate="2017-04-10T20:54:03.443" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="7974" PostId="4069" Score="0" Text="@fdb I prefer looking up the word in Grimm's Wörterbuch, it seems that medieval Latin cellenarius is a back-loan from Old High German (note the hedging language used by Grimm): http://woerterbuchnetz.de/cgi-bin/WBNetz/wbgui_py?sigle=DWB&amp;lemid=GK03468" CreationDate="2017-04-11T14:33:08.167" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="7955" PostId="4070" Score="1" Text="Exactly; as the linguists say, it's a difference of _aspect_. The perfect implies an &quot;atomic&quot; event, while the imperfect implies an &quot;internal structure&quot;: thus _esurivi_ and _sitivi_ are isolated events, while _hospes esse_ displays a beginning and an end outside of the _collectio_. EDIT: we might add that this distinction was originally the main distinction between _perfectum_ and _infectum_." CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:28:06.240" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="7971" PostId="4072" Score="1" Text="It seems that it comes from [Greek _genos_](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=genocide) and the 'correct' construction (with both roots in Latin) would have been _genticide_. **Robotum** is attested (see. e.g. _Pons Wörterbuch des neuen Lateins_.) Hence _roboticide_ (but probably works better for one robot.)" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:01:36.047" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7972" PostId="4072" Score="0" Text="Since _genocide_ does not specify the race (but suggests humanity,) it seems logical to use a more general term that you can later specify, like [_classicide_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicide) of robots. (Here, _class_ is applied to classes of beings rather than social classes.)" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:07:57.800" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="7981" PostId="4072" Score="1" Text="&quot;robocide&quot; perhaps, like English &quot;robopsychology&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:25:29.390" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7982" PostId="4072" Score="2" Text="Rafael is probably right that a compound with *-i-* rather than *-o-* would be better as that type is more standard, but &quot;mixed&quot; compounds do have a long history (e.g. *[protosedeo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprotosedeo)*)." CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:31:19.877" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8057" PostId="4072" Score="0" Text="What's wrong with &quot;robot genocide&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-04-15T14:57:10.990" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8067" PostId="4072" Score="0" Text="Historically there have been anti-technology movements named after people: *luddism* (after Ned Lud) or after methods of attack: *sabotage* (after the *sabot*, the clogs said to have been thrown into machines to break them). If the story you're writing features this wiping-out as a single movement/event (rather than you wanting to talk about robot-wipings-out generally) then it may be more realistic to come up with a one-time name rather than a *-cide* word." CreationDate="2017-04-15T21:41:27.500" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="8169" PostId="4072" Score="0" Text="Does it have to be Latin?  I'd say _cybercide_ myself." CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:28:43.447" UserId="849" />
  <row Id="26807" PostId="4072" Score="0" Text="Cybercide sounds a bit like &quot;killing someone via the Internet&quot;." CreationDate="2020-06-09T22:58:21.277" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="7977" PostId="4073" Score="0" Text="This isn't directly related, but I remember reading somewhere that compound words were more common and productive in Greek than in Latin, and compound words in Latin(at least, the recent, transparent ones) were mainly concentrated in the higher registers of the language, and possibly used in part due to influence from Greek. There is some mention of it in post #5 here: [Compound words in classical Latin - Latin Discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/compound-words-in-classical-latin.23883/)" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:09:36.917" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7978" PostId="4073" Score="0" Text="Also here if you have access to JSTOR: [The Form of Nominal Compounds in Latin](https://www.jstor.org/stable/310363?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents),&#xA;George D. Chase, &#xA;*Harvard Studies in Classical Philology*&#xA;Vol. 11 (1900), pp. 61-72" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:12:32.260" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7979" PostId="4073" Score="0" Text="No, I don't have access, but thanks anyway. BTW, I've slightly edited the original post to clarify the context." CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:20:16.970" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="7980" PostId="4073" Score="0" Text="More context is always good. It looks like my comment about the frequency of compounds in Classical Latin is not very relevant for your purposes, since you are forming a &quot;scientific Latin&quot; name." CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:22:10.013" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7983" PostId="4073" Score="0" Text="A linguistically trained user can certainly comment, but I'm pretty sure that your example *-i-* is not an interfix." CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:37:47.773" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7984" PostId="4073" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Not a linguistically trained user, but I think &quot;[interfix](http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Interfix)&quot; is a fair description of *-i-* in Latin, insofar as the word &quot;interfix&quot; is useful at all. Chase says the *-i-* was analogical in a number of environments, rather than just being a phonetically regular development of the final vowel of the first stem in word-internal positions, so it seems to be the result of some degree of morphologization." CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:42:26.683" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="7993" PostId="4073" Score="0" Text="I created the tag for you. However, unless there are more questions with the tag or someone writes a [short tag description (use guidance)](http://latin.stackexchange.com/edit-tag-wiki/384), the tag will be automatically deleted after some time." CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:56:52.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="7989" PostId="4074" Score="2" Text="Ah, excellent! I knew questions would be where it's at!" CreationDate="2017-04-12T12:11:54.133" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="7991" PostId="4074" Score="1" Text="Very interesting, thanks! The first two examples (which are a familiar type, of course) do look like clear cases of FID. The last two, as you say, are dubious, which leads me to wonder further whether FID in Latin is restricted to such deliberative questions. (Maybe there's an answer in that dissertation, which I've only started looking through.)" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:22:19.917" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="7992" PostId="4074" Score="1" Text="@TKR Yeah, I'm not 100% satisfied on that score either and only had a chance to skim parts of the dissertation. Doing a text search for &quot;f.i.d.&quot; leads you to the (many) relevant parts that discuss it, but--unsurprisingly--I didn't find any exact classical parallels of Joyce :)" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:32:18.803" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="7996" PostId="4075" Score="0" Text="I see. So... on a side note, would I be correct in assuming that the &quot;c&quot; in _rapacatrox_ is pronounced as a hard C (i.e. &quot;k&quot;), even if the compound is used in modern scientific vocabulary (e.g. binomial nomenclature)?" CreationDate="2017-04-13T03:34:22.703" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="8003" PostId="4075" Score="0" Text="@MarqFJA87, yes, it would be pronounced [k] -- in modern pronunciations of Latin some C's are soft, but only those that precede E/I/Y." CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:13:45.530" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8018" PostId="4077" Score="0" Text="This answer is excellent. It leaves me wondering one thing, though: is there a quote confirming that the Romans viewed the Greek language consisting of different dialects? I would be interested in seeing how such thing would be expressed in Latin." CreationDate="2017-04-14T06:46:15.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8019" PostId="4077" Score="2" Text="That there is: [Quint. 12.10.34](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Quint.%20Inst.%2012.10.34&amp;lang=original)." CreationDate="2017-04-14T11:56:20.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8025" PostId="4077" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Quintilian's choice of words was surprising to me. To paraphrase: *In sermone Graeco linguae inter se differentes sunt.* I would have rather expected *lingua* for &quot;language&quot; and *sermo* for &quot;dialect&quot; than vice versa." CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:04:12.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8026" PostId="4077" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm not sure that distinction is warranted. Both commonly mean &quot;language of a people,&quot; so I would caution against assuming either is &quot;technical language.&quot; I took it more as &quot;Greek differs depending on where it's spoken.&quot; But it's all Greek to Quintilian." CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:18:27.073" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8027" PostId="4077" Score="0" Text="I didn't take them as exact technical terms. I assume the Romans did no have canonized words for distinguishing a language from a dialect. I was just surprised that Quintilian happened to choose words the way he did." CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:28:00.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8028" PostId="4077" Score="4" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Quintilian 11.3.50 mentions Crassus The Rich, governor of Asia, who &quot;**quinque Graeci sermonis** differentias sic tenuit ut qua quisque apud eum lingua postulasset eadem ius sibi redditum ferret.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-14T19:06:57.700" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="7998" PostId="4080" Score="1" Text="Doubling a letter just to fill the array? Imho surely there were other ways or types for this..." CreationDate="2017-04-13T15:00:24.993" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="7999" PostId="4080" Score="3" Text="(E.g. the Greek table on the opposite page has one letter less on the last row but looks neat.)" CreationDate="2017-04-13T15:06:18.667" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="8001" PostId="4080" Score="1" Text="@Helen and on p. 72 a second &quot;R&quot; is used to fill the page beautifully." CreationDate="2017-04-13T15:13:16.283" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="8015" PostId="4080" Score="0" Text="And some other tables have some more random repeated letters, it looks like. Hm..." CreationDate="2017-04-14T05:08:10.000" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="11299" PostId="4084" Score="0" Text="But it is *unae litterae* for one such a thing, is not it?" CreationDate="2017-11-07T03:36:34.307" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11302" PostId="4084" Score="0" Text="@kkm No;  _unus_ is a cardinal. The appropriate distributive isn't _unus_, but _singuli_: _singulae litterrae_." CreationDate="2017-11-07T10:01:23.567" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11304" PostId="4084" Score="0" Text="Maybe I got this pattern wrong, thanks. But then it seems that I am completely lost in (Caes. B.G., 1, 74): *adeo ut una castra iam facta ex binis viderentur*. Or is it better to ask this a separate question?" CreationDate="2017-11-08T00:17:57.277" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11342" PostId="4084" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the clarification! The English example in your point 1 is clearly distributive, “set one camp each,” so it seems that *una castra* is an unmarked cardinal use. But the waters are certainly muddy! :)" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:58:16.070" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="8012" PostId="4086" Score="1" Text="Thanks! It's nice to learn that word, and it does seem like the proper word to use judging from its root, μνη-. Especially comforting that Plato himself used the word in this sense." CreationDate="2017-04-14T02:30:07.047" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8013" PostId="4088" Score="0" Text="On your last sentence: sort of. There's a perfect active, and *esse* has the lonesome honor of a future active (*fore*), but all the other infinitives are periphrastic." CreationDate="2017-04-14T04:32:52.493" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8014" PostId="4088" Score="1" Text="@Anonym True, many of the infinitives are periphrastic (*visurum esse, videre, vidisse, visum iri, videri, visum esse* and similarly for other verbs), but they are there nevertheless. They are indeed morphologically different, but it has little effect on their use (gender and number for the ones with *esse*)." CreationDate="2017-04-14T04:56:27.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8016" PostId="4088" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think one could take exception to the use of the word *forms*." CreationDate="2017-04-14T05:53:39.617" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8017" PostId="4088" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I expanded a little. I wanted to keep the mention of other infinitives shallow; the details are beside the point here but I thought the OP should be aware of their existence." CreationDate="2017-04-14T05:59:05.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8021" PostId="4089" Score="5" Text="Lindsay's [*Early Latin Verse*](https://archive.org/stream/earlylatinverse00linduoft#page/36/mode/2up) gives a ton of examples." CreationDate="2017-04-14T14:20:25.517" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8054" PostId="4089" Score="1" Text="One interesting feature of brevis brevians that confuses me a little is that it could apparently make syllables that were heavy due to the presence of a final consonant (so-called &quot;long by position) become light, just as well as it caused the shortening of long vowels. The long-to-short vowel conversion has clear implications for pronunciation, but it's hard for me to imagine how the heavy-to-light closed syllable conversion would be realized phonetically." CreationDate="2017-04-15T02:28:22.763" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8055" PostId="4089" Score="0" Text="Relevant Google Books passage I found: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA215&amp;lpg=PA215&amp;dq=brevis+brevians+closed+syllables&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xlM7UFW5Zf&amp;sig=GBFUvBgeNC86SsxVr1LzEI3MfgA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiFhtrFs6XTAhUn54MKHS6BAYM4ChDoAQgjMAA#v=onepage&amp;q=brevis%20brevians%20closed%20syllables&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-04-15T02:28:24.813" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39224" PostId="4089" Score="4" Text="There is a new article called on Wikipedia which should answer a lot of these questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevis_brevians" CreationDate="2022-08-17T19:25:10.287" UserId="11402" />
  <row Id="8009" PostId="4090" Score="0" Text="Your question was slightly open-ended. If you provide more context for the phrase (what do you exactly want to say with it?), please edit your question or leave a comment, so you can get a better translation. Also, I suggest going through [our tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) to get an overview of this site. For example, it seems that you have never voted on any SE sites. You must have seen some good questions or answers. (It might be better not to accept too soon. Someone might have a better answer if you wait for a day or two.) Anyway, welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-04-14T01:31:55.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8008" PostId="4091" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I suppose what I am trying to say matches the meaning of this sentence: &quot;One can find privacy in anonymity&quot;. That is to say, if no one knows who you are (or who an item of yours belongs to), you maintain your privacy to some degree. I'll be writing it on the inside cover of a journal in lieu of my name." CreationDate="2017-04-14T01:31:08.057" UserId="1429" />
  <row Id="8010" PostId="4091" Score="2" Text="@JohnLeSaint Would &quot;privacy through anonymity&quot; (*privatum per anonymitatem*) be a good option, then? Perhaps it would be better to use something other than *privatum* for &quot;privacy&quot; for the risk of misinterpretation, but I don't recall seeing *-itas* with participles and *privatitas* sounds fishy." CreationDate="2017-04-14T01:35:10.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8011" PostId="4091" Score="0" Text="I would defer to your best judgement here! This is more for personal fulfillment than anything; if my journal ever is found by someone else down the road who takes interest in this phrase, I'll just have to hope that they can deduce the intended meaning! Thanks again." CreationDate="2017-04-14T01:41:54.043" UserId="1429" />
  <row Id="8022" PostId="4092" Score="4" Text="Neither a neologism nor Latin, but the verb [hill](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/86993) has pretty much this meaning (“to form into a hill or heap”)." CreationDate="2017-04-14T14:34:35.437" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="8023" PostId="4093" Score="0" Text="A reference to a famous Biblical passage would be a great way to explain a neologism at a scientific conference on evolution! And thanks for ''lenify'' and ''levigate'': possibilities with already existing English usage." CreationDate="2017-04-14T17:24:09.783" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8024" PostId="4093" Score="0" Text="Re your last paragraph: I want to avoid bringing to mind smoothing a data set, since that's approximation, a subtly different idea. In [this topic](http://bit.ly/2ozn781), [&quot;hill-shaped&quot;](http://bit.ly/2ov2lFc) has a very salient meaning: you'll find the peak by always crawling in the direction that locally appears &quot;up&quot;. The concept I have in mind is imposing a new topology onto a rough landscape, sort of like corrective lenses, so it &quot;looks&quot; more hill-shaped—_is_ more hill-shaped for purposes of climbing it. IOW, not pretending data is smooth, but finding smooth paths through rough reality." CreationDate="2017-04-14T17:52:45.363" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8029" PostId="4093" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I hope you are modifying topography, not topology. It sounds to me like you want to exaggerate some features so that the algorithm can see them. // Would something like &quot;montify&quot; or &quot;(ac)clivate&quot; sound good to you?" CreationDate="2017-04-14T19:51:14.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8031" PostId="4093" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I suppose one could say that an imposed topology makes the topography more hill-shaped. The idea is not to exaggerate features but to change the paths along which an algorithm searches for the peak—&quot;jumping around&quot; in the original topology but climbing along a smooth path in the imposed topology. &quot;Montify&quot; and &quot;acclivate&quot; both sound good! &quot;Acclivate&quot; is probably better. Post an answer!" CreationDate="2017-04-14T19:58:43.373" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8032" PostId="4093" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta &quot;Acclivate&quot; appears to have established usage, even! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acclivated" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:11:58.880" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8033" PostId="4093" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I posted the suggestions as an answer. // What do you exactly mean by topology? I understand that it means introducing a [topological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology) difference, which is a very drastic change of data (eg. adding holes or loops in a structure)." CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:19:45.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8036" PostId="4093" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta By &quot;topology&quot; I mean the &quot;neighborhoods&quot; in some space: what points are defined as &quot;near&quot; any given point. Indeed imposing a new topology on a fitness landscape is a drastic change. The one I'm proposing creats paths between points that, in the original topology, are inaccessible or hard to reach from one another. It's a bizarre distortion, but the result should &quot;look&quot; like a hill (in, er, many dimensions)." CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:27:56.660" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8034" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="Say, is there any relation between _clivus_ and _clino_ (suggested at [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clivus#Latin)? The latter is echoed in English &quot;inclination&quot; and similar words. If that connection is real, pointing it out to my audience might help &quot;acclivate&quot; activate the &quot;hill-shaped&quot; or &quot;sloping&quot; concept in their minds." CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:24:18.730" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8035" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I don't know, but that would make an interesting etymological question." CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:27:02.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8037" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="[Good idea.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4095/is-there-a-connection-between-clivus-and-clinatus)" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:37:11.897" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8038" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="I found a reasonably well-known English cognate: [declivity](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/declivity#English). (I'm still not sure what is the difference between a downward slope and an upward slope. But the notion of &quot;slope&quot; is perfect for the concept I'm trying to name.)" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:40:09.493" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8039" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Perhaps &quot;declivate&quot; or &quot;declinate&quot; could work as well. But since you are not making an uphill or a downhill but a hill that goes both ways (this does not sound entirely sane, does it?), how about just &quot;clivate&quot; without the ac-? Perhaps &quot;montify&quot; would be clearer even if it focuses more on the mountain rather than the slopes at its sides." CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:46:16.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8050" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="From [a book on agriculture](https://books.google.com/books?id=gwoHAAAAQAAJ&amp;dq=acclivate&amp;pg=PA411#v=onepage&amp;q=acclivate&amp;f=false) written in 1799: &quot;To acclivate: To ridge up; to make acclivous; to raise the soil from level to sloping; so as to shed off superfluous rain water.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-15T01:06:36.380" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8051" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="The OED has no &quot;acclivate&quot; but it does have [&quot;acclivous&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=gwoHAAAAQAAJ&amp;dq=acclivate&amp;pg=PA411#v=onepage&amp;q=acclivate&amp;f=false). Generally, the &quot;-cliv-&quot; words seem to suggest a steep slope, not a gentle one, which is a mark against them." CreationDate="2017-04-15T01:07:44.737" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8052" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="&quot;Clivate&quot; might be good, but &quot;acclivate&quot; and similiar words seem to have pretty decent precedent, whereas I haven't yet seen &quot;clivate&quot;. The &quot;ac-&quot; part suggests going higher (uphill), which is exactly the right meaning for search by hill-climbing." CreationDate="2017-04-15T01:11:47.357" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8053" PostId="4094" Score="0" Text="Another live cognate: [&quot;acclivity&quot;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1108#eid38951290): an upward slope of a hill." CreationDate="2017-04-15T01:12:47.707" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8040" PostId="4096" Score="0" Text="Duplicate of this: https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/2505/is-it-lady-chaos-or-lord-chaos/2509?noredirect=1#comment7422_2509" CreationDate="2017-04-14T21:43:21.847" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8044" PostId="4098" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your clarification.  I hope you don't mind if I reference this is my amended (corrected) answer." CreationDate="2017-04-14T22:01:18.833" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="8045" PostId="4098" Score="0" Text="PS The comments on the original answer weren't very helpful, but I'm glad I finally thought to bring it over here where the experts could address it in the proper detail." CreationDate="2017-04-14T22:01:52.323" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="8046" PostId="4098" Score="0" Text="@DukeZhou Not at all, please feel free to do so. You may want to wait in case someone has some more information. I didn't do an exhaustive search of every instance, but I know more than a couple here have the time and inclination to do so, leading to even more accurate responses!" CreationDate="2017-04-14T22:07:05.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8058" PostId="4100" Score="2" Text="Cf. &quot;[la-la](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=la-la&amp;allowed_in_frame=0).&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-15T16:40:13.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8059" PostId="4100" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This answers all my questions. It was really interesting to learn how λέγω and lego may have gotten their meanings." CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:26:12.420" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8060" PostId="4100" Score="0" Text="@cmw Ah, that's so cool!" CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:27:46.657" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8088" PostId="4101" Score="0" Text="Automatocide also has gravitas. Chalkicide would be too obscure without readers looking it up." CreationDate="2017-04-16T15:34:35.587" UserId="1418" />
  <row Id="8063" PostId="4102" Score="18" Text="_&quot;Anyone who served in the military in Iraq (and probably anyone who has done business in the Gulf)&quot;_ Or maybe people who, y'know, live there. This is an extremely US-centric introduction to your question. Did you think that only Americans are on the internet? I recommend editing your question to remove this bias." CreationDate="2017-04-15T20:26:12.250" UserId="615" />
  <row Id="8064" PostId="4102" Score="5" Text="Please be aware that DuffelBlog is a satirical publication. That doesn't mean their characterization of &quot;inshallah&quot; is _false_ - as satire is about highlighting the truth through absurdity - but I wouldn't say it's academic." CreationDate="2017-04-15T20:39:31.330" UserId="1437" />
  <row Id="8070" PostId="4102" Score="2" Text="@undine_centimeter You were able to determine that DuffelBlog is satirical, but not that my quoting them was satirical?" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:01:35.310" UserId="1432" />
  <row Id="8071" PostId="4102" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 From a certain perspective (an extremely US-centric one), what I say is absolutely true. If you want to be offended, that is fine, but what I find much more interesting, and what I was asking about, is that the same root words 'god' and 'willing' are conjugated in such a way that their meaning is almost completely opposite in two different cultures. Fascinating!" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:04:05.713" UserId="1432" />
  <row Id="8072" PostId="4102" Score="2" Text="I wouldn't worry too much about it. No one yet who's actually a contributor here said anything about your wording." CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:16:19.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8073" PostId="4102" Score="0" Text="@kingledion Your quoting does not appear &quot;satirical&quot; (in the loose sense of the word it seems you are using), in part due to the way you provided a source link in citation format without acknowledging the nature of the source as satire, and in part due to the fact that your question is inherently focused on the characterization used in the source, again without acknowledging its nature as satire." CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:22:37.230" UserId="1437" />
  <row Id="8074" PostId="4102" Score="10" Text="@BoundaryImposition I believe the introduction is US-centric because the one to ask it is from the US. Introducing a question from one's own point of view is what makes it real. I see why some might be offended, but to me this is a genuine question about Latin based on someone's own experience without an intention to hurt. Pointing out the bias in a comment is fair, but let us now focus on the question: how should this phrase be translated into Latin and how does it compare to *Deus velit/vult*?" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:29:04.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8077" PostId="4102" Score="2" Text="The most recent edit made the beginning sentence ungrammatical, so I reverted it while fixing the capitalization in the title. If you wish to word it still, might I suggest something broader, like, &quot;The Arabic *inshallah* is become more well-known in the West...&quot; Or something along those lines, though personally, as @JoonasIlmavirta mentions, it's your question from your perspective, there's nothing wrong with the wording." CreationDate="2017-04-16T01:08:58.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8078" PostId="4102" Score="7" Text="For what it's worth, _in sha'a Allah_ is three words - literally &quot;if God wills it&quot;.  Having said that, I feel that _Deo volente_ is exactly the correct answer.  As far as I know, Arabic doesn't have anything like the ablative absolute." CreationDate="2017-04-16T03:24:35.723" UserId="849" />
  <row Id="8083" PostId="4102" Score="0" Text="@kingledion What do you mean by the meaning being almost completely opposite in two different cultures?" CreationDate="2017-04-16T06:02:27.887" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="8091" PostId="4102" Score="3" Text="The Spanish got there quicker with a word transliterated directly from the Arabic: &quot;Ojalá&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-16T13:54:59.200" UserId="1444" />
  <row Id="8097" PostId="4102" Score="0" Text="@Ian Just as [the Portuguese have *oxalá*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMWq4l_UWvk) (link to lovely rendition by Madredeus), again from the same &quot;inch Alá&quot; Arabic origin as one commenter observes." CreationDate="2017-04-16T21:37:04.300" UserId="875" />
  <row Id="8117" PostId="4102" Score="2" Text="insh'allah is not an abdication of responsibility, but a humble acknowledgement of man's role in things. As Thomas a Kempis said, &quot;homo proponit, sed Deus disponit&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-17T05:55:48.647" UserId="1447" />
  <row Id="8122" PostId="4102" Score="3" Text="@JavaLatte With all due respect, words can mean whatever the speaker means with them. I do not pretend to know all the ways 'inshallah' is used among speakers of different languages, but I can tell you with great certainty that Iraqi army officers have used the term to evade responsibility. Its not like there aren't phrases that Americans or anyone else commonly use to evade responsibility." CreationDate="2017-04-17T13:26:01.973" UserId="1432" />
  <row Id="8062" PostId="4103" Score="2" Text="Not quite sure how the second paragraph is related to the first, but FWIW current coins have the abbreviations DEI.GRA.REG.FID.DEF, since Elizabeth still is Queen by the grace of God, and Defender of the Faith." CreationDate="2017-04-15T19:21:37.017" UserId="116" />
  <row Id="8065" PostId="4103" Score="3" Text="I've never seen *Dei Gratia* used with promises or statements in the future tense, though. AFAIK the idea behind this phrase was that the monarch reigned as a sort of a feudal vassal of God, and the rite of coronation (which was considered almost an eighth sacrament) corresponded to the granting of Divine Grace to the new monarch." CreationDate="2017-04-15T21:15:47.583" UserId="1438" />
  <row Id="8092" PostId="4103" Score="2" Text="I feel that these senses of _Dei Gratia_ might be better rendered in Arabic as _bismillah_, or _bi ismi Allahi_ (Arabic has lots of rules around silent vowels), which literally means &quot;in God's name&quot;, but is commonly used the way _Dei Gratia_ is used here." CreationDate="2017-04-16T19:02:56.113" UserId="849" />
  <row Id="8119" PostId="4103" Score="0" Text="@DavidWallace: a closer approximation to Dei Gratia would be حمد  الله hamdulillah, which means &quot;thanks to God&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-17T11:22:32.147" UserId="1447" />
  <row Id="8061" PostId="4104" Score="4" Text="Aristophanes, in [*Birds ln. 698*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0019.tlg006.perseus-eng1:685-707) says that Eros (m.) mated with Chaos: &quot;οὗτος δὲ Χάει πτερόεντι μιγεὶς νυχίῳ κατὰ Τάρταρον εὐρὺν / ἐνεόττευσεν γένος ἡμέτερον...&quot; So maybe it's not that far-fetched after all." CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:55:20.663" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8068" PostId="4104" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Unfortunately, in Greek mythology, being female is not a strict requirement in producing offspring (Zeus re: Athena and Dionysus) and there is a very famous case of sex fluidity in [Tiresias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiresias#Overview). Thus, while I strongly agree with Beekes' speculation and the implications, I still have trouble conceiving Chaos as strictly female.  The fundamental conception of chaos may be said to be a state of continual, unpredictable change." CreationDate="2017-04-15T23:04:50.327" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="8069" PostId="4104" Score="0" Text="@Alex B.  Thank you for this excellent answer!" CreationDate="2017-04-15T23:07:07.663" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="8082" PostId="4107" Score="2" Text="Does casting lots (sortēs) qualify? I seem to remember the gods selecting Palinurus to die this way." CreationDate="2017-04-16T05:57:47.127" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8084" PostId="4107" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yes, that should qualify." CreationDate="2017-04-16T06:02:46.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8085" PostId="4107" Score="0" Text="Excellent. In that case I'll write it up in the morning unless someone beats me to it." CreationDate="2017-04-16T06:03:57.917" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8089" PostId="4107" Score="0" Text="Casting lots was common not just among the Romans, but [throughout the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy). It's mentioned throughout the Bible, for instance, both the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian ones." CreationDate="2017-04-16T16:24:28.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8079" PostId="4108" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer!" CreationDate="2017-04-16T04:03:04.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8123" PostId="4108" Score="1" Text="Curiosity mostly, but what is the meaning of the `ṣ` character?" CreationDate="2017-04-17T17:06:10.833" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="8126" PostId="4108" Score="0" Text="@KRyan—The ṣ grapheme is used to transliterate the Arabic letter ص, which represents the phoneme /sˤ/. English has no equivalent." CreationDate="2017-04-18T01:59:54.103" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="8138" PostId="4108" Score="0" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus thanks for that.  I was going to write a long paragraph about the differences between ص and س and now I don't have to.  Incidentally, I am firmly of the opinion that the sound of ص in Qur'anic Arabic is better represented by /sˠ/ than by /sˤ/, but that's just me." CreationDate="2017-04-18T07:22:30.383" UserId="849" />
  <row Id="8080" PostId="4109" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I would have thought the genitive to be *r(h)eumatis*, not *reumae*. Or is it really a first declension feminine instead of a Greek style third declension neuter in *-ma(t)*?" CreationDate="2017-04-16T04:05:40.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8081" PostId="4109" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Hypothesem responso modo addidi." CreationDate="2017-04-16T04:09:01.573" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8086" PostId="4110" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! I did not expect such a thorough answer about overflowing bodily fluids. It will take a while to absorb all this vocabulary (and snot)." CreationDate="2017-04-16T06:55:19.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8101" PostId="4114" Score="4" Text="To have a glimpse of what _micatio_ was like, watch [these kids from Sardinia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmL4SyRDtPU), [these](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OzvoeQr_Ew), and [these](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HHUx6vuz50). You can also check the variants of continental Italy, from [the South](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIOIYhOCrCo) (15 clips!) to [the North](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIg4SIx34GE), or [among Italian Americans](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQBRMUFp9q4). Search youtube for more. Only local dialects are allowed in the game, no standard language." CreationDate="2017-04-16T23:20:08.053" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="8096" PostId="4115" Score="0" Text="Interesting, I did not know that. Do you perchance know the verse number?" CreationDate="2017-04-16T21:33:56.640" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8098" PostId="4115" Score="4" Text="@C.M.Weimer. 18:23" CreationDate="2017-04-16T21:47:26.883" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8099" PostId="4115" Score="9" Text="...echoing very closely James 4:13-16. (ἐὰν ὁ Κύριος θελήσῃ; Si Dominus voluerit)." CreationDate="2017-04-16T21:53:46.720" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8100" PostId="4115" Score="6" Text="@fdb Those comments would make an excellent addition to the answer, since James 4:13-6 provides a phrase with the same religious meaning." CreationDate="2017-04-16T22:41:48.643" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8118" PostId="4115" Score="0" Text="One English translation of these verses of the Epistle of James, chapter 4, is: _(13) Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” (14) Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. (15) Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” (16) As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil._ (New International Version)" CreationDate="2017-04-17T10:27:38.623" UserId="1451" />
  <row Id="33294" PostId="4115" Score="1" Text="Out of curiosity, I just checked two Arabic translations of James 4:15.  Both contain the phrase &quot;in sha'a ar-Rabbu&quot; (if the Lord wills), which of course has the same verb as &quot;in sha'a Allahu&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-19T19:47:37.777" UserId="849" />
  <row Id="8102" PostId="4116" Score="3" Text="Ovid’s link points to _cur navalis in aere altera signata est, altera forma biceps?_ “why is the figure of a ship stamped on one side of the copper coin, and a two-headed figure on the other?”, proving coinage imagery. The most interesting reference is not linked by L&amp;S, but it is from [_Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1,VII_](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/l/roman/texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/1*.html). Search for _capita aut navia._  (Also watch the youtube links I commented Draconis’ answer with)." CreationDate="2017-04-16T23:36:41.230" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="8103" PostId="4116" Score="1" Text="[Here's a PDF](http://www.roman-emperors.org/origogentis.pdf) with a translation of Aurelius Victor's *Origo*. Search for *navis*." CreationDate="2017-04-16T23:40:41.853" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8104" PostId="4116" Score="0" Text="@Dario and cmw: Thanks! I edit my answer. I (mis)understood from L&amp;S that Ovid was supposed to discuss the game, not just coinage." CreationDate="2017-04-17T00:13:52.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8105" PostId="4117" Score="0" Text="Do you have any idea why *status* became nominative? To me *status in quo* or *in statu quo* would make more sense, but perhaps it was streamlined by analogy to the familiar form *status*." CreationDate="2017-04-17T00:44:47.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8106" PostId="4117" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I imagine from normal use. *The status quo is...* preserves the correct Latin and still makes perfect sense. I think making *in statu quo* a noun would be weird." CreationDate="2017-04-17T01:18:38.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8107" PostId="4117" Score="0" Text="@cmw I've posted an answer which should really be a comment on Status Quo / In Statu Quo. They seem to have different meanings and usage." CreationDate="2017-04-17T01:39:11.543" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8108" PostId="4118" Score="1" Text="Do you have citation for the *bellum* part? After the 1719 attestation and one other, the earliest the OED gives is &quot;1833  Edinb. Rev. 56 436 The status quo was to be maintained in Luxemburg during negotiations respecting that duchy.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-17T01:52:55.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8109" PostId="4118" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks: I'll change it; In Shorter OED under **&quot;in&quot;** 16, a date -1602 - but no ref." CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:08:22.350" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8111" PostId="4118" Score="1" Text="The 1602 reference is the same one, I believe, that I included in my answer, and *bellum* is not in the passage." CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:40:44.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33292" PostId="4122" Score="2" Text="All this is true, but &quot;in sha'a Allah&quot; actually means &quot;if God wills&quot; or &quot;God willing&quot;.  It doesn't mean &quot;God helping&quot; or anything to do with God's help.  So this is a correct answer to a different question, not this one." CreationDate="2021-05-19T19:38:22.107" UserId="849" />
  <row Id="8121" PostId="4123" Score="3" Text="Excellent answer! This covers pretty much [every mention of a *cellarius*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23cellari) in the classical corpus." CreationDate="2017-04-17T13:04:15.457" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9659" PostId="4123" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the second quarter of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/303/79)" CreationDate="2017-07-04T13:34:30.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8125" PostId="4126" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answers. That's pretty much the conclusion I reached, but the automatic translators often respond also to human feedback which led me to wonder if there was something obscure missing." CreationDate="2017-04-17T21:02:57.423" UserId="1455" />
  <row Id="8124" PostId="4128" Score="1" Text="Good answer! (I'm glad that I'm the one to beat someone else by 14 seconds this time.)" CreationDate="2017-04-17T19:05:16.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8127" PostId="4129" Score="1" Text="Many thanks! It seems that I wasn't completely off the mark (especially with *fas*), but this answer really changes the way I see these concepts. It starts making sense." CreationDate="2017-04-18T04:11:15.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8132" PostId="4129" Score="0" Text="Ah, so that's where we get *nefarious*. I was trying to think of English derivatives of *fas*. Any others?" CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:03:42.330" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8134" PostId="4129" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 Not directly, but it's related to *fare*, so words like *infant* are related." CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:09:35.963" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30239" PostId="4129" Score="0" Text="I know it's been a while since you posted this! I'm deeply curious what the Met reference is, though - which book? And which story?" CreationDate="2020-12-24T02:16:48.683" UserId="7211" />
  <row Id="30252" PostId="4129" Score="1" Text="@ariadnep I edited it to add the book in. It's book 6, the story of Procne, Philomela, and Tereus." CreationDate="2020-12-27T00:02:47.727" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8128" PostId="4130" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I like these suggestions. Would it make sense to use *fames ex inopia sequitur* as an alternative to *fames inopiam sequitur*? In English X can follow Y or X can follow from Y." CreationDate="2017-04-18T04:22:45.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8129" PostId="4130" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You would probably want a different verb, like [*nasci*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=nasci&amp;la=la#lexicon)." CreationDate="2017-04-18T04:33:29.567" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44677" PostId="4130" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Therefore, &quot;fames ex inopia nascitur&quot;, in order to deploy &quot;ex&quot;? Why is &quot;ex&quot; appropriate with &quot;nasci&quot; and not &quot;sequi&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-09-06T12:34:51.850" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="8130" PostId="4131" Score="0" Text="In English, it's usually *toot your own horn* these days, as &quot;blowing your own horn/trumpet&quot; has unintended (or sometimes intended) comical connotations." CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:10:33.990" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8131" PostId="4131" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Good to know. I added a note in the question. Asking about idioms through a foreign language has its risks..." CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:14:51.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8136" PostId="4132" Score="2" Text="If you make your anecdotes any more meta, they have to be taken to [the meta site](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/). Seriously, though, the question is interesting! But you should not be fooled by the first person singular ending *-o*; the Latin stem seems to be *da-*." CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:24:51.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8139" PostId="4132" Score="6" Text="`meh₃` does not necessarily rhyme with `meh`, in fact, nobody knows (so it might actually rhyme anyways !). `h₃` is basically a hypothetical unknown phoneme that influences vowel quality in PIE. It explains a lot of exceptions to sound change laws from the reconstructed PIE language to the attested ancient IE languages. If you've got time to kill, you can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory" CreationDate="2017-04-18T11:34:08.480" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8137" PostId="4134" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure who you are referring to. *Ionas*, perhaps? :-) (And, to toot my own horn, it's almost 22 by now!)" CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:28:49.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8151" PostId="4135" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This helps a lot. So the full grade of *deh3 is dō. It sounds like PIE roots often underwent full-grade vowel changes? Was there a tendency for vowels to either become full-grade or zero-grade?" CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:22:33.677" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8212" PostId="4135" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124, vowel grade variation (aka ablaut) was an integral part of PIE grammar, so there's no general answer to your question -- the grade depends on the specific grammatical form (and isn't always predictable even then). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:16:45.410" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8140" PostId="4136" Score="0" Text="Why not both? As a Spanish speaker, I can say there are very good books and dictionaries in Spanish (to be found in specialized bookstores), like the one by [VOX](https://clasesparticularesenlima.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/diccionario-de-latin-vox-en-pdf-555-paginas-descarga-gratuita/), which you can complement with readily-available online material in English. Spanish is a good advantage for you to understand most verb tenses and many roots." CreationDate="2017-04-18T12:00:01.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8143" PostId="4136" Score="5" Text="But Lingua Latina is not in English... or in Spanish. The whole book is written in Latin. And the Exercitia Latina is written in Latin as well." CreationDate="2017-04-18T14:33:14.087" UserId="1249" />
  <row Id="8144" PostId="4136" Score="0" Text="@PabloIvan It has commentary in English? Maybe there are different versions?" CreationDate="2017-04-18T14:47:12.317" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8155" PostId="4136" Score="0" Text="Yes, there is an additional book with commentaries, but the main one, that is Lingua Latina, is written in pure Latin so the whole world can read it no matter what their mother tongue is." CreationDate="2017-04-18T20:29:12.480" UserId="1249" />
  <row Id="12454" PostId="4136" Score="2" Text="For me, Latin comes much easier when I'm analyzing it from a Spanish mindset.&#xA;&#xA;Another point in favor of Spanish is that native English speakers tend to bring their pronunciation habits into Latin. The Spanish way of pronouncing the sounds is much closer to what Latin is thought to have sounded like." CreationDate="2018-03-16T06:43:30.630" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="8148" PostId="4137" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the explanation. Interesting to learn how the laryngeals affect their neighbors. I don't think I have seen you here before, so allow me to say, welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:01:09.160" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8149" PostId="4138" Score="1" Text="That's a wonderful English translation! For once, the translated idiom competes with the original." CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:21:59.633" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8165" PostId="4138" Score="0" Text="Nice one. I might start using that myself." CreationDate="2017-04-19T04:16:51.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8150" PostId="4139" Score="0" Text="Could you explain why you want to translate such an apparently nonsensical statement? I don't exactly feel compelled to make the effort..." CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:21:51.027" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8152" PostId="4139" Score="2" Text="In addition, take a look at [this meta question](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25/what-do-we-do-with-translation-requests): it's great that you showed your translation attempt, but you should still point to actual issues you are wondering about." CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:30:50.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8154" PostId="4139" Score="1" Text="I agree with @brianpck: The question would be better if you could tell what you are unsure about in your translation and what the context of the sentence is. Context really has an effect on translation, so it makes a difference whether or not it's in the context of mathematical logic or not, for example." CreationDate="2017-04-18T20:18:53.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8162" PostId="4139" Score="1" Text="One small thing jumps out at me right away: _circulus_ should be in the accusative case: _per circulu**m** in demonstrando._ [Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=6SUozv6nVT4C&amp;pg=PA211&amp;lpg=PA211&amp;dq=%22per+circulum+in+demonstrando%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=piO_P1BVtw&amp;sig=gbjnQSYFxgo_-M87FtHVxz-CDv8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiG6rmdha_TAhUP8WMKHf6IB60Q6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22per%20circulum%20in%20demonstrando%22&amp;f=false) an example. If you tell us some more about the context of the statement, someone here can probably figure out a good way to put it in Latin." CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:25:47.927" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8164" PostId="4139" Score="0" Text="I'm writing (in English) about paralogisms and sophistical arguments. About half of my bibliography is comprised of Medieval logic books written in Latin and, although I can read Latin decently, I don't actually know how to speak/write Latin without it being obvious that I never studied the language. Yet, I frequently find myself wondering, &quot;How would that be said in Latin?&quot; This is the context that led me to wonder how, in Latin, to say, &quot;Thus, by circular reasoning, contradiction follows from the premises.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-19T04:16:27.193" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="8242" PostId="4139" Score="0" Text="Do you mean that a specific contradiction follows from certain premises, or a new contradiction, or a previously mentioned contradiction, or contradiction in general, or the essence of contradiction, or cosmic pandemonium, follows from the premises? The difference might matter more in English than in Latin: I'm asking because there's no article before &quot;contradiction&quot; in your question. Some context that could that clarify it might be the specific premises and contradiction that you have in mind—or, if you're speaking generally, then a made-up example or two." CreationDate="2017-04-22T03:23:06.377" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8264" PostId="4139" Score="0" Text="A particular contradiction previously mentioned." CreationDate="2017-04-23T02:49:36.830" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="8156" PostId="4140" Score="0" Text="What's a &quot;soft question?&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:24:09.210" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8157" PostId="4140" Score="2" Text="I think latin.stackexchange.com is the most appropriate forum on the Internet to ask this question." CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:24:16.867" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8158" PostId="4140" Score="1" Text="I think the question is very appropriate. I think we should have a tag that for questions like &quot;has this thing been translated?&quot;, but I'm not sure what to call it. Perhaps &quot;has-it-been-translated&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:24:57.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8159" PostId="4140" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer A soft question is a meta question of some kind, not about the subject matter itself (answering requires no knowledge of Latin language) but something related. Some sites have a &quot;big-picture&quot; tag in addition to &quot;soft-question&quot;, and it has a similar spirit. Perhaps we ought to have [a tag description](https://latin.stackexchange.com/edit-tag-wiki/276)..." CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:27:49.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8160" PostId="4140" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta My instincts are saying that there is a more appropriate tag for questions like these, perhaps [tag:resource-request]? To answer your meta-question, brianpck, I do wholly support questions like these on this site, though I worry about the potential for silly questions like &quot;Is Ovid translated into English?&quot; We can take them on a case-by-case basis, though." CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:43:35.547" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8163" PostId="4140" Score="2" Text="The quote you give—&quot;No complete English translation has ever been achieved of all his works.&quot;—makes me wonder whether *no single author* has ever translated all of his works. Is it possible that this is meant instead? It's hard to imagine that one of his works has not been translated, considering all the Latinists and theologians who have translated him over the years." CreationDate="2017-04-19T03:22:17.110" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8168" PostId="4142" Score="0" Text="I guess the θ is harder to pronounce in that place, and s is an easier alternative." CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:21:46.777" UserId="258" />
  <row Id="8167" PostId="4143" Score="0" Text="/boʊˈiʃəs/? Where did the &quot;-iu-&quot; go?" CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:17:06.890" UserId="258" />
  <row Id="8170" PostId="4143" Score="1" Text="@IllidanS4 The *i* softened the *t*, and thus lost a distinct pronunciation on its own." CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:38:17.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8172" PostId="4143" Score="1" Text="ʃəs is closer to &quot;shuss&quot; than &quot;shiss&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:17:23.207" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="9179" PostId="4143" Score="1" Text="@OrangeDog: It depends on if one has the weak vowel merger. For speakers who do, non-word-final /ə/ is often realized with greater vowel height than the phoneme /ʌ/. For me, /ʌ/, /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ all seem approximately equally close to non-final /ə/." CreationDate="2017-06-10T18:57:23.813" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="34043" PostId="4144" Score="0" Text="I just added a link for &quot;vacuus&quot;. Will you please check that it goes to the correct question?" CreationDate="2021-07-09T01:49:41.727" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8175" PostId="4148" Score="1" Text="Here's a datum: Honorius Augustodunensis (1080–1154) uses _firmamentum_ in his [_Imago Mundi_](http://12koerbe.de/arche/imago-1.htm) to mean the postulated solid thing _above_ the sky, which the stars are stuck to." CreationDate="2017-04-19T16:22:29.617" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8176" PostId="4148" Score="1" Text="[Du Cange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/FIRMAMENTUM#FIRMAMENTUM1) quotes an &quot;Eccardus&quot; (Meister Eckhart?) as saying that a _firmamentum_ is a roof, which by analogical extension is used in common speech to refer to the sky." CreationDate="2017-04-19T16:26:55.347" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="14106" PostId="4148" Score="0" Text="What dictionaries are you using?  Internet can be unreliable, but I've found the Online Etymology Dictionary to be a good starting point for research. https://www.etymonline.com/word/firmament" CreationDate="2018-05-08T20:10:52.203" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14107" PostId="4149" Score="0" Text="Nice answer!  Why don't we ever see you on SE:Mythology? :)" CreationDate="2018-05-08T20:12:23.003" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="8178" PostId="4150" Score="0" Text="This depends on what the context is. Can you give an example? *Gratias tibi quoque* doesn't mean &quot;thanks, you too&quot;, it would &quot;thanks to you, too.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:59:33.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8180" PostId="4150" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer You're right! I removed that example and added some context. *Clarior est?*" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:03:01.360" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8184" PostId="4152" Score="0" Text="Your breakup of the sentences clarifies the meaning significantly!" CreationDate="2017-04-19T19:29:09.740" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="8185" PostId="4152" Score="2" Text="&quot;Calculated&quot; suggests a person who did the calculating, and since _reor_ is deponent, would _ratos_ suggest that the planets themselves calculated their orbits? Or could _ratos_ here just mean &quot;fixed, established&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:08:09.030" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8186" PostId="4152" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dreor) gives for this meaning: &quot;reckoned, calculated, fixed by calculation; hence, fixed, settled, established, firm, unalterable, sure, certain, valid.&quot; The meanings are all related, but I think you're right that &quot;fixed&quot; is better." CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:12:49.387" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8187" PostId="4152" Score="3" Text="OK, I'm guess on track with the planets, then. :) Say, why does Cicero write _constantis_ rather than _constantes_ here?" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:15:27.987" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8188" PostId="4152" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz -is can be an alternative form for m/f acc plural, see [this Wiktionary table](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Third_declension_adjectives_with_three_endings). It would make a good question if you ask when/why this is allowed!" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:21:14.943" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8189" PostId="4152" Score="0" Text="Good idea. [Done!](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4153/118)" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:43:22.893" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8190" PostId="4152" Score="3" Text="One more: By its typography, the [Perseus page](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0037%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D53) suggests that Hesperos is the Greek name for Venus when it follows the Sun. Is this just an ambiguity of Latin grammar, to be resolved by hints like typography and reasonableness, or is there some convention that suggests that Cicero meant that in Latin, they use the Greek name Hesperos?" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:47:30.947" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8191" PostId="4152" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Great comment--I was wrong about the meaning here! Amending now..." CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:50:36.563" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8193" PostId="4152" Score="0" Text="Wow, so the chiasma functions as a sort of grammatical unit, not just a rhetorical nicety. I have to let that sink in. :)" CreationDate="2017-04-19T22:06:36.343" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="16486" PostId="4152" Score="0" Text="Why does Cicero say that Venus is the planet closest to the Earth? All ancient astronomers say that Mercury is the lowest of the planets?" CreationDate="2018-11-23T12:07:46.390" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8192" PostId="4153" Score="3" Text="[This old question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1615/79) about *timeo Danaos et dona ferent**i**s* is related." CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:51:34.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8195" PostId="4153" Score="0" Text="It's usually clear from context which is which, and even if not, it's no different than ambiguities in other languages. It wouldn't have been spoken, for sure. As for the rest of the questions, the one @JoonasIlmavirta linked to should cover them well enough." CreationDate="2017-04-19T22:58:27.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8238" PostId="4154" Score="0" Text="Yes, that ought to clarify it. A verb for this has simply got to appear in a Roman comedy somewhere. Even the medievals must have had a need for a verb for this. Maybe remove the vita-hodierna tag?" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:44:45.243" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8246" PostId="4154" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I would assume there was a word for it. But it could be that there was nothing more specific than what the two answers below suggest. I see it mainly as a modern term and I would like it to use it the same way I would use &quot;networking&quot; in modern English, so I kind of prefer the tag. But the tag doesn't rule out older precedent by any means." CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:59:14.260" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8196" PostId="4155" Score="0" Text="That's a good verb, thanks. I might want to use it in passive (*co(n)necti*) since I am being connected rather than connecting, but the choice between active and passive isn't as crucial as finding a good verb." CreationDate="2017-04-20T01:23:44.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8210" PostId="4155" Score="2" Text="I like conectere, too. For a more direct suggestion of a network, _tela_ means anything woven, including a web — figuratively, too. I'd even consider something like telamovere!" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:58:02.217" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8201" PostId="4156" Score="1" Text="One caveat: &quot;et tu&quot; only works if the recipient of the previous compliment was the subject of the sentence. You would have to rephrase if someone said: &quot;I enjoyed your speech&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-20T03:33:57.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8202" PostId="4156" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I can't see myself naturally replying to &quot;I enjoyed your speech&quot; with a &quot;Thanks, you too!&quot; It would be &quot;Yours too&quot; no?" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:30:58.657" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8209" PostId="4156" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Sorry about the spaces and punctuation. My phone is not always cooperative when I'm on StackExchange." CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:33:15.807" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34372" PostId="4156" Score="0" Text="brianpck: A wall-inscription in Pompeii reads: &quot;phoenix felix et tu&quot;, lterally,, &quot;the happy phoenix and you&quot;; rendered in guidebooks to, &quot;be as happy as the phoenix&quot;. I've never been happy with this. Is the Latin saying; &quot;happy is the phoenix and you (be so) as well&quot;? The &quot;et tu&quot; giving the &quot;as well&quot; part. Is that correct?" CreationDate="2021-08-05T08:54:09.147" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34375" PostId="4156" Score="0" Text="@tony You might get a better response if you ask that as a separate question." CreationDate="2021-08-05T21:45:19.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11174" PostId="4157" Score="2" Text="See this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/the-latin-word-have-rather-than-ave-as-a-translation-of-the-greek-word-%ce%a7%ce%b1%e1%bf%96%cf%81%ce%b5" CreationDate="2017-10-24T14:39:40.053" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14742" PostId="4157" Score="2" Text="For people too busy to click through, fdb's point is that some argue that *(h)ave* is a Carthaginian loanword and a false cognate of *aveo*." CreationDate="2018-07-07T10:58:16.273" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="8203" PostId="4158" Score="2" Text="I know of some traditional Catholic monasteries that use the traditional Tridentine Mass in Latin. As well as Latin being used in the Mass, their liturgical calendar and rubrics are also in Latin. Many of their signs are also in Latin on their bulletin board. Needless to say they teach Latin not only as a language but many of their theological classes use books  that are in Latin only, regardless if there are vernacular translations available. Latin is such a big part of their lives that it is like living in the Middle Ages when you visit them." CreationDate="2017-04-20T12:57:26.723" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="8204" PostId="4158" Score="0" Text="@KenGraham besides of that, i) the _modern_ Mass is also celebrated in Latin (e.g. sometimes by the Pope when the attendants are international enough) ii) [ATMs in the Vatican](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ATM-in-Latin-language.jpg) are in Latin iii) there are current news sources in Latin, including the Vatican's iv) there are examples of bishops in recent synods delivering their talk in Latin. Even if none of these are what you are looking for, you may also want to know." CreationDate="2017-04-20T13:34:53.267" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8207" PostId="4158" Score="0" Text="@KenGraham Oh, I see. So you could basically go there, and have a normal chat in Latin. Can you refer me to one of them? Just out of curiosity." CreationDate="2017-04-20T15:00:08.397" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8221" PostId="4158" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho You can visit them anytime. I know one in the US and several in France." CreationDate="2017-04-21T11:11:28.853" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="8298" PostId="4158" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho, you might especially like this story of &quot;The Latin Speakers of West Virginia&quot;.  https://eidolon.pub/the-latin-speakers-of-west-virginia-8581835549d3 It's a summer program, not a town, but you can chat in Latin  or have deeper discourse. See also my answer below." CreationDate="2017-04-25T04:32:50.263" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8222" PostId="4162" Score="0" Text="Can you explain in more detail what's going on with the flash animation, or else point to the page that uses it? It doesn't seem cooperative with my system (using VLC on Linux)." CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:28:55.030" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8223" PostId="4162" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Agreed: Please link to either a GIF or include a description of the animation. .swf files are not considered safe and are blocked by default on many modern browsers." CreationDate="2017-04-21T14:30:00.833" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8227" PostId="4163" Score="0" Text="But what in the example indicates that remansit is not/less appropriate? Is this something particularly relevant on verbs related to movement? Say &quot;oro&quot;. Orabat versus oravit. There is perhaps less &quot;ambiguity&quot; here, because it is not a movement? When would you use the perfect past tense then?" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:22:59.967" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8229" PostId="4163" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I added a bit to the answer. See if that covers your concerns." CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:58:24.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8258" PostId="4163" Score="0" Text="Of course! I missed the bit that the question was providing the tense for the answer. Clear now. In any case, I think this is an example of an expression or usage of words that is not literal or easy to translate to other languages. I think you clarify this in the answer. Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-04-22T15:40:38.050" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8228" PostId="4164" Score="1" Text="There's also *gratulor* + dative." CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:45:11.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8239" PostId="4169" Score="0" Text="Was *pro* originally a pronoun? I can't seem to find a source for it." CreationDate="2017-04-22T01:47:57.853" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8240" PostId="4169" Score="0" Text="@Anonym No, not at all. An exhausted brain wrote pronoun but meant preposition. Fixed, and thanks for the catch." CreationDate="2017-04-22T01:50:40.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8241" PostId="4169" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, Lewis &amp; Short lists it as perhaps originally being ablative, with *prae* being the locative. So it could've come from a noun, if not a pronoun." CreationDate="2017-04-22T02:09:05.143" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8263" PostId="4169" Score="0" Text="But _proconsul_, for instance, is not what we would think of when we say vice-consul. A _proconsul_ (or _propraetor_, etc) was a person (usually an _ex-_ consul, praetor, etc) who was appointed _instead_ of a properly elected magistrate. Vice-magistrates (except for a viceroy) aren't appointed &quot;instead&quot; of their ordinary counterparts." CreationDate="2017-04-23T02:44:45.747" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="8299" PostId="4169" Score="0" Text="Question: does the OED say it was a preposition? It looked more like dative/ablative of [vicis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvicis) to me." CreationDate="2017-04-25T13:46:40.373" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8243" PostId="4170" Score="0" Text="I always assumed it originated in something like *a priori tempore* and *tempore* disappeared though ordinary ellipsis. But I can't prove it. // As to adverbialism: most prepositional phrases are adverbial, such as *she was in town, she stood behind him*, etc. But they can often also be used attributively, as in *the tavern in town is ugly, the house behind him is ugly*. I think this is what Kant's translators meant: at the higher (phrase) level, it can be used adverbially or attributively. But this is about the structure of the German language; not about the potentially omitted Latin word." CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:04:42.593" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8244" PostId="4170" Score="0" Text="So I don't think the translators' comments are relevant to your question. // It is possible that *priori* is an undefined, neuter, substantively used adjective à la *concreto*, as you say. Let's hope someone comes up with something." CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:08:04.317" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8245" PostId="4170" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Indeed I just meant that the paragraph from Guyer and Woods gave me a new hypothesis: that _a priori_ isn't short for anything after all. I'll edit the question to clarify that this hypothesis doesn't limit the phrase to adverbial use (though I may have to kill my darling &quot;beforely&quot;)." CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:26:48.983" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8247" PostId="4171" Score="0" Text="Actually, my closing hypothesis is that _priori_ in this phrase is not functioning as a substantivized adjective and also doesn't have an implicit noun as its object. It's functioning by analogy with similar phrases with nouns, like _in actu, in potentia, ab initio,_ etc. If this hypothesis is true, then you should be able to do it with other adjectives, too. _In concreto_ is the only other example I can think of right now. I'll post a separate question specifically about this element of grammar." CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:03:06.263" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8248" PostId="4171" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I would see those phrases you list as substantivized adjectives with a preposition. But, as usual, it depends on the point of view, and mine might be different tomorrow." CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:05:07.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8250" PostId="4171" Score="0" Text="About _priori_ rather than _priore_, yes, this is a medieval development (or degradation); we looked at it a bit [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/133/118). If the phrase existed in Classical times, I'd expect it to be _a priore_. So far, though, I'm assuming that _a priori_ as a sort of technical term in itself originated in the Middle Ages, so I'm using the medieval (and modern) spelling (and cringing)." CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:11:22.083" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8251" PostId="4171" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz It takes an effort not to cringe when using *a priori* and the like in English. But too few people would appreciate changing it to *a priore*... Agreed, as the technical term in the modern sense *a priori* appears to be younger than classical." CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:15:28.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8256" PostId="4171" Score="1" Text="Btw, regarding Ben's rule, even today in English Benedictine monks have a &quot;prior.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-22T11:56:50.753" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8253" PostId="4174" Score="1" Text="Latine scribens potes forma Latina et declinabili nominis mei uti: &quot;Ionas Ilmavirta&quot;. Necesse autem haud est; forma solita enim semper adhiberi potest." CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:41:11.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8265" PostId="4177" Score="1" Text="Allen and Greenough doesn't list anything, but I'm curious to see what answers you get. (Also, is the supine formally a verb? I've always taken it to be a verbal noun.)" CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:02:37.390" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8266" PostId="4177" Score="0" Text="@Anonym I would consider verbal nouns and adjectives (infinitives, supine, gerund(ive), participles) forms of the verb. But one of the things behind this question is that I have trouble differentiating forms of the derived fourth declension noun from those of the supine. Any clarification on that would be great." CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:10:13.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8267" PostId="4177" Score="0" Text="Ah, they're definitely forms of the verb, but I wouldn't really call them verbs on their own. // I think we ought to consider whether a Roman would've considered the supine distinct from its corresponding fourth-declension noun. After all, there's very little semantic difference between *venatum eo* 'I'm going to hunt' and *ad venatum eo* 'I'm going to the hunt'." CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:34:54.247" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8268" PostId="4177" Score="0" Text="@Anonym I did refer to it as &quot;a verb form&quot;, but perhaps I should clarify it to &quot;a form of a verb&quot;. It would be good to have a question directly about the difference between the supine and the derived noun (as observed by ancient grammarians?). I would much like to see a good answer to that, not only this more specific question." CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:38:51.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8269" PostId="4177" Score="0" Text="Why do you believe that it'a a supine at all? I think that it's simply the noun _venatus_ (4th decl.), commonly used for the act of hunting, or simply 'the hunt'. or 'the chase'. Dictionaries give plenty of examples from the best classical writers. The authors could have used instead _venati_,  the perf. part of _venor_, with the meaning 'having been hunting, A. and O. went home'." CreationDate="2017-04-23T06:21:11.193" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8270" PostId="4177" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I'm not sure whether it was a supine or the noun. I know I can read it as a noun, but I can't help wondering if I can parse it as a supine and if it would make any difference." CreationDate="2017-04-23T06:40:18.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8273" PostId="4177" Score="1" Text="You're right to doubt there's a difference between the supine and the verbal noun in *-tu*-, because historically there isn't; the Latin &quot;supine&quot; is simply a specific usage (or two specific usages) of the IE noun in *-tu-*, with parallels in other languages (e.g. Vedic acc. *-tum*, which has come to be used as an infinitive). Btw what we think of as the ablative of the supine may originally have been a dative: Plautus has *lepora memoratui* &quot;pleasant to relate&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-23T17:57:01.780" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8274" PostId="4177" Score="0" Text="@TKR That is very interesting! There should be a separate question about the difference in addition to this specific one. That difference has been bugging me for some time." CreationDate="2017-04-23T18:08:50.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8278" PostId="4177" Score="0" Text="It is best to think of the supinum I as an accusative of direction (cf. *domum*) and the supinum II as an ablative of respect (cf. *terribilis facie*)." CreationDate="2017-04-24T02:04:06.110" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8277" PostId="4178" Score="2" Text="To be explicit: it must be a plain ablativus separationis in this case, because the supinum I cannot be used to express this function of the ablative." CreationDate="2017-04-24T01:57:55.817" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8284" PostId="4178" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus  Exactly so.  I think the _venatu_ of the original would usually be called 'ablative of attendant circumstances' in England." CreationDate="2017-04-24T09:29:21.480" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8285" PostId="4178" Score="0" Text="Oh, really? You don't classify ablatives translated as &quot;from&quot; as a separate category having to do with separation? &quot;Attendant circumstances&quot; sounds more like *magno fremitu turris ruit* to me, translated as &quot;with&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-04-24T14:24:10.023" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8287" PostId="4178" Score="0" Text="Yes, inasmuch as it refers to the circumstances which preceded _redeunt_. Mind you, I've always been a bit sceptical of some of the labels, such as this one, invented by [English] grammarians : some seem to have been invented merely to avoid having to give a more reasoned explication to the innocent scholars being taught!" CreationDate="2017-04-24T16:39:34.347" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8272" PostId="4179" Score="0" Text="Good question! I don't know of a colorful Latin idiom for that purpose, but you can use the adjective *perfacilis* before you find one." CreationDate="2017-04-23T16:50:55.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8286" PostId="4179" Score="0" Text="There's a good expression for the opposite: *Facilius sit Nili caput invenire.* = &quot;It would be easier to find the source of the Nile.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-24T14:29:54.083" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8288" PostId="4180" Score="0" Text="Could you specify what dictionary you are citing? Also: I think it's worth noting that the bolded part is an (antiquated) **English** idiom which is translated by pretty vanilla Latin equivalents. While useful, I don't think these quite qualify as idioms." CreationDate="2017-04-24T18:29:53.847" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8289" PostId="4180" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, Ainsworth *Latin-English Dictionary* (Rivington, London) archive.org/details/ainsworthslatind00ains  Negotium commonly means *business affairs;* so *nullo negotio* is as close to an idiom as I could get.  &quot;No hassle.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-24T20:58:43.863" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8276" PostId="4181" Score="2" Text="Good find! About the feminine: *una multorum* is one feminine thing from a mixed or undetermined group (example: one woman among all the people), *una multarum* is one feminine thing from a completely feminine group (example: one woman among all women)." CreationDate="2017-04-24T01:03:22.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8290" PostId="4184" Score="1" Text="One other possibility is that somehow *δοκοῦσα* introduces an acc + sing., but my (bad) ear has trouble hearing that without a person. This would make it something like: &quot;seeming like [its] artistry and power have a likeness to everyday speech.&quot; Do you think that could work?" CreationDate="2017-04-25T00:02:20.133" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8291" PostId="4184" Score="1" Text="On second thought, I realize that this second reading (in the comments) only works without a *καὶ*...which explains the excision!" CreationDate="2017-04-25T00:04:16.080" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8292" PostId="4184" Score="1" Text="Taking ἰδιώτην as an adjective does seem to work -- I think that must be it! Just to clarify, the καί still has to go, right? A more English-like order would be δοκοῦσα ἔχειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην λόγον (as its) κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν -- if I'm understanding your reading correctly. (The word order stills seems incredibly convoluted to me, so much so that I wonder if there's some (other) corruption in the passage.)" CreationDate="2017-04-25T01:23:11.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8296" PostId="4184" Score="0" Text="Also I'm not sure if πρὸς ἰδιώτην λόγον works without an article -- it seems to me it would more likely be πρὸς τὸν ἰδιώτην λόγον if this is the sense." CreationDate="2017-04-25T04:00:02.197" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8302" PostId="4184" Score="0" Text="@TKR My reading was more that κατασκευήν, ἰσχὺν, and ὁμοιότητα are all the objects of ἔχειν--I'm not sure if the kind of double direct object you suggest would be permitted. My bolded translation shows how I construe it, but I should emphasize that my Greek knowledge is very passive." CreationDate="2017-04-25T18:12:11.130" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8303" PostId="4184" Score="0" Text="[This 1899 Teubner edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=3bpfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA130&amp;lpg=PA130) also confirms in the apparatus: &quot;iunge ἰδιώτην...λόγον&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-25T18:17:22.207" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8304" PostId="4184" Score="0" Text="Yet another reading! [This Latin translation](https://books.google.com/books?id=B6xoAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA956&amp;lpg=PA956) translates as &quot;quod et compositione et robore communi et vulgari loquendi modo persimile apparet&quot;, suggesting (I guess) that &quot;κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν&quot; is an accusative of respect." CreationDate="2017-04-25T18:19:18.027" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8329" PostId="4184" Score="0" Text="Oh, I see -- so taking τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην λόγον as elaborating on ἰσχὺν, and καὶ ὁμοιότητα as a third coordinand. That's certainly syntactically possible. But the position of καὶ ὁμοιότητα seems weird, as does its meaning -- the ἰδιότης λόγος can have artistry and power, but it can't have &quot;similarity&quot; on its own. And ὁμοιότης πρός... is a natural collocation, so I lean more toward the reading with no καί and with implied &quot;as&quot; (or double direct object, which is a normal construction)." CreationDate="2017-04-25T22:12:20.137" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8300" PostId="4187" Score="1" Text="Can you provide a little more context for this usage? Is this just your translation attempt of &quot;I go to Iosephat for shelter&quot;, or are you seeing it in some work?" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:59:16.203" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8301" PostId="4187" Score="1" Text="It is an adaption of the Sanskrit phrase &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot; (Buddha+accusative, shelter+accusative, then &quot;I go&quot; (gacchāmi) , I am trying to explain declension to someone and I was wondering if I could make the same grammatical construction in Latin so that is was less confusing." CreationDate="2017-04-25T18:08:43.970" UserId="1477" />
  <row Id="8319" PostId="4187" Score="0" Text="It seems that you have not yet taken [the site tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). I warmly recommend that you go all the way through it. It will only take a minute." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:20:15.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8330" PostId="4187" Score="0" Text="Say, does the Sanskrit verb _gacchāmi_ take two accusatives? The [Wiktionary entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/गच्छति#Sanskrit) doesn't mention anything, but of course they might have omitted that or it might be a common feature of Sanskrit verbs. If not, though, then _śaraṇaṃ_ might be an appositive (explained further in my answer)." CreationDate="2017-04-25T23:12:05.123" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8331" PostId="4187" Score="0" Text="Answering my own question, from p. 27 of [this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=pj5IAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA81&amp;ots=8XMqULFns3&amp;dq=gacch%C4%81mi&amp;pg=PA27#v=onepage&amp;q=gacch%C4%81mi&amp;f=false), it appears that _gacchāmi_ does have a sense of going to _X_ to ask for or to receive _Y_, where _X_ and _Y_ are both in the accusative—analogous to some Latin verbs, but not (AFAIK) _ire._" CreationDate="2017-04-25T23:28:10.557" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8320" PostId="4188" Score="0" Text="Do you know of any examples where *ire* is used transitively like that? I don't recall ever seeing it used with a pure accusative of a person. (Also: *salus* is a state, *perfugium* is a place. Especially if it's something spiritual, I would vote for *salus*.)" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:23:48.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8322" PostId="4188" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Indeed _ire_ is a choice I'm doubtful about, both because it usually takes a preposition and because I'm not sure how well it agrees with the notion of seeking aid. I'd suggest _petere,_ but that verb definitely wants a preposition. I'm checking further into this right now." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:33:15.323" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8323" PostId="4188" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz *Petere* also changes the meaning quite a bit. It's a different thing to go to someone for something than to ask someone for something. As always, the best choice of words depends on context and precise meaning, more than can be conveyed with a simple English translation &quot;I go to him for shelter&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:38:56.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8324" PostId="4188" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=eo1) mention some examples where _ire_ is used transitively, like _i domum_ (repeatedly in [this scene](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0031:act=5:scene=2&amp;highlight=i+domum%2C)), and mention that in poetry it occurs &quot;with the acc. of the terminus&quot;." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:44:00.160" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8325" PostId="4188" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I'm still in doubt about using it with people. Indeed *ire domum/Romam/viam* is fine. That use in Plautus sounds weird to me. I wonder if there are any examples in prose or classical Latin." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:48:03.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8326" PostId="4188" Score="1" Text="Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this isn't a well-formed construction: the dative of purpose is almost always in the context of a double dative and usually is with a form of *esse*. Furthermore, the &quot;purpose&quot; in such a sentence would be what a thing is for, not what my intention is. It would have to be: &quot;Sit mihi saluti Iosaphatus&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:50:28.737" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8335" PostId="4188" Score="0" Text="@brianpck JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for the better-informed confirmation of my doubts. I deleted the attempt to use the dative." CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:41:16.423" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8307" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="&quot;Refuge/safety&quot; is the Sanskrit original that I was trying to replace with &quot;salutem&quot;, is this incorrect?" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:00:31.430" UserId="1477" />
  <row Id="8308" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="@Caoimhghin For that purpose [*salus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2052513) is indeed a good word. I would just use it in genitive (*salutis*) to go with the ablative *causa*." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:03:37.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8309" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="Prompted by C.M. Weimer, I just learned that what I also misread as _Iosephatum_ is actually the accusative of _Iosaphatus_, commonly called in English &quot;[Jehosaphat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoshaphat)&quot;, an oft-referenced Biblical king of Judah." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:04:51.480" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8310" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="It is also a name for the Buddha in Latin! History is a strange thing." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:06:19.477" UserId="1477" />
  <row Id="8311" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="Is Latin able to form grammatically sound sentences using two accusatives and a verb at all then? Or is this a particular feature of Sanskrit?" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:07:20.607" UserId="1477" />
  <row Id="8312" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="@Caoimhghin What?? I had no idea. _Salus_ might be a better word choice than I thought, then—_if,_ that is, you want to echo the Christian notion of salvation. If not, then another synonym is probably better." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:09:29.030" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8313" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="@Caoimhghin It is possible, but relatively few verbs allow it. For example: *Te rem doceo*, &quot;I teach you the thing&quot;. Often at least one of the two accusatives in another language have to be replaced by a preposition (with suitable case) or a dative. And sometimes it's more natural to use a verb instead." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:10:04.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8314" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I would not automatically connect *salus* with the Christian notion of salvation. Nothing keeps us (at least nothing keeps me) from using the word in its classical meaning." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:11:30.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8315" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="@Caoimhghin Yes: &quot;[Two Accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false)&quot;. Hopefully there's a nice way to render this in three Latin words, nicely corresponding to the Sanskrit; it might work best with a verb other than _ire._" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:13:16.263" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8316" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="Can vādō be used in a double-accusative construction instead of ire?" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:14:41.907" UserId="1477" />
  <row Id="8317" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz There are ways like *salvandus Iosaphatum adeo* in three words, but the tone is easily distorted." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:15:05.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8318" PostId="4189" Score="0" Text="@Caoimhghin No verb of motion can use a double accusative to my knowledge. But you might want to ask a separate question about this point if you want to be sure." CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:16:05.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8332" PostId="4191" Score="0" Text="About _ire_ being intransitive, how do sentences like _I domum_ or _Romam eunt_ accord with that? Are they just peculiar exceptions or part of a more general pattern?" CreationDate="2017-04-25T23:59:04.040" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8333" PostId="4191" Score="1" Text="That is accusative of motion, used only with certain place names. I believe it's a residue of older forms" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:13:14.873" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8337" PostId="4191" Score="0" Text="What you labelled as &quot;Accusative of Motion&quot; is very similar to what I am trying to render into Latin, which is a Sankrit phrase that uses the accusative case to denote the object towards which motion occurs." CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:53:15.267" UserId="1477" />
  <row Id="8340" PostId="4191" Score="0" Text="@Caoimhghin Take a look at #182 in the grammar I linked above: it explains the (very limited) cases where you can use the accusative alone in this way. Otherwise, Latin requires a preposition like *ad* or *in*." CreationDate="2017-04-26T02:01:41.723" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8328" PostId="4192" Score="2" Text="[Here's an edition with *majus* instead](https://books.google.com/books?id=KKryMF12p7YC&amp;pg=PA1). I suspect this was either an editorial error or emendation... *majus* definitely seems better." CreationDate="2017-04-25T22:10:22.663" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8351" PostId="4192" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Correcting him, then. :) (Or quoting a later edition.)" CreationDate="2017-04-27T05:37:26.037" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8334" PostId="4193" Score="1" Text="Total speculation: perhaps a tyro would sometimes use the dative instead of the ablative (which doesn't exist in Greek) or substitute an ablative absolute with a genitive absolute" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:21:09.367" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8339" PostId="4193" Score="2" Text="Or overuse demonstrative adjective pronouns..." CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:58:35.563" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8342" PostId="4193" Score="1" Text="You could show that he is Greek by having him swear his oaths in Greek. I think we have a question on here about Greek and Latin oaths. Or he could utter his oaths in Latin but using the Greek names for the gods. He could also use Greek swear words." CreationDate="2017-04-26T14:30:14.430" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8344" PostId="4193" Score="0" Text="Style rather than Grammar: previous answers on this site (based on Quintilian's advice to student orators) mention wild gesticulation and emotional reactions; and over-use of witticisms and hidden meanings." CreationDate="2017-04-26T17:03:18.380" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8350" PostId="4193" Score="4" Text="See: J. N. Adams, Mark Janse, and Simon Swain, eds. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 &amp; Bilingualism and the Latin Language&#xA;James Noel Adams, Cambridge University Press, 2003 .  You can find the 2nd one on Google books and do a search . Interesting stuff - mostly about upper class speakers with references to Quintilian et al. about Latin pronounication mistakes by Greeks inter alia." CreationDate="2017-04-27T01:49:31.540" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="9213" PostId="4193" Score="2" Text="I'll bet mispronouncing a Latin F as Φ would be a common giveaway." CreationDate="2017-06-11T18:03:31.647" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="39382" PostId="4193" Score="0" Text="An absolute tiros guess, but would a Greek speaker get the stress on the wrong syllable? And vice versa." CreationDate="2022-09-01T20:24:42.343" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="8336" PostId="4194" Score="2" Text="The [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *supinus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsupinus) has some relevant info under II.B." CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:42:48.727" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8338" PostId="4194" Score="0" Text="@brianpck So it seems. Looking at those passages should give a good starting point for an answer, if anyone feels like it. (I might give it a shot myself, but not too soon, so I'll be happy if someone beats me to it.)" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:54:44.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8345" PostId="4196" Score="1" Text="I've mentioned before the National Archive on-line Latin Course. It isn't interactive; but there is immediate feed-back on exercises, and original documents are digitised for teaching material and tests, At two levels - absolute beginners and advanced." CreationDate="2017-04-26T17:09:28.900" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21246" PostId="4197" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, Latin was used in the Eastern portion of the Empire as the language of law.  Thus, the *Corpus Iuris Civilis* was written in *Latin* in the early Byzantine Empire.  It was translated later when legal Latin fell into disuse, possibly accelerated by the earthquake and tsunami that destroyed the law school at Beirut in 551." CreationDate="2019-09-02T18:03:31.597" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21253" PostId="4197" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: Yes! But only for a relatively short period of time, I believe? That is, I don't think local government in the East worked in Latin before Constantine, or did it? What Imperial bureaucracy there was in the East probably did use Latin at least in official proclamations?" CreationDate="2019-09-02T23:46:18.510" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21254" PostId="4197" Score="1" Text="From Constantine's accession to Justinian's death is roughly the same amount of time the United States has existed.  It's not a short period." CreationDate="2019-09-03T00:36:25.250" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21255" PostId="4197" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: Well, it is not short, but is it enough to gain true cultural respectability, enough to stand the test of time?" CreationDate="2019-09-03T01:04:51.633" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8343" PostId="4199" Score="4" Text="I like this suggestion I also think you're selling yourself short by saying &quot;this is not a classical construction&quot;: of course it is! Just because no author has put certain words together doesn't mean it's dubious--that would more apply to an unattested grammatical form or a neologism." CreationDate="2017-04-26T16:55:44.093" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8346" PostId="4200" Score="0" Text="Do you want percentage counted by dictionary entries or by occurrence in some classical work or corpus? The latter will give more weight to more common words, the former will not. Or would you be happy with any kind of information, as long as it's clear what is meant? I'm not sure if this would work better as separate questions for English and Spanish; let's see what others think." CreationDate="2017-04-26T19:58:59.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8347" PostId="4200" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good points. To be fair, I thought such analysis might no exist, or be very restricted, and as such, I am in principle open to anything, as long as it is clear what represents. I guess the use of corpus might be a better approach, but I do not know enough to judge that myself." CreationDate="2017-04-26T20:08:42.870" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8348" PostId="4200" Score="0" Text="Are you differentiating between borrowed and inherited words?" CreationDate="2017-04-26T20:42:43.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8349" PostId="4200" Score="2" Text="All of your questions are answered in *Borrowed Words&quot; by Philip Durkin (OUP, 2014). https://global.oup.com/academic/product/borrowed-words-9780199574995?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;" CreationDate="2017-04-26T23:49:49.843" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8353" PostId="4203" Score="1" Text="Let me see if I understand. Any noun ending in -tio can be intepreted as the -ción equivalent in Spanish? So say, for instance, the noun elección, related to the verb elegir. Perhaps a deeper question. Is every noun derived from a verb ending in -tio (nominative)? Or is it the other way around, such that any noun ending in -tio (nominative) derives from a verb? As per your translation, I see now how your translation works. Could it also be Domine, illumina me? (more in the spirit of Spanish)." CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:32:38.380" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8354" PostId="4203" Score="0" Text="1) Some verbs, like the *sentio* one I gave, should not be seen as *sen-* + *-tio*, but rather *senti-* + *-o*. There are not very many of those, though. 2) The *-tio* ending is indeed nominative, and the stem contains the *-n-*, so gen. *illuminationis*, acc. *illuminationem*. 3) Latin word is fairly free, and nothing prevents you from putting *me* second." CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:36:46.190" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8355" PostId="4203" Score="1" Text="Ok. Thanks. Finally, how would you differentiate between &quot;The Lord is my light&quot; and &quot;The Lord, my light&quot;? Is the latter unusual? Would it be a comma, as in the English case?" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:48:51.017" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8356" PostId="4203" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho Latin doesn't really distinguish between those two. You could use a comma or add *est* if you really needed to though." CreationDate="2017-04-27T16:17:34.593" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8362" PostId="4205" Score="3" Text="The Romans seem to have considered an attack on all sides to be akin to flooding.  The verb used is circumfundo -ere. See Lewis &amp; Short. L.: circumfunduntur hostes, Cs.: equites ab lateribus circumfusi, L.: hostes undique circumfusi erant. Does this give you any ideas?" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:25:29.747" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="14108" PostId="4205" Score="0" Text="Modern usage of [The Gauntlet](http://www.historyadventuring.com/2015/04/the-gauntlet-clint-eastwood-in-phoenix.html), just for fun!" CreationDate="2018-05-08T20:17:53.750" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="8357" PostId="4208" Score="3" Text="I can confirm this being used in post-classical too. E.g. [Vg. Gen. 18, 28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A28-30&amp;version=VULGATE)" CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:03:32.610" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8358" PostId="4208" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Great example! It's even got a couple more if you go to verse 32, and a _sin autem_ thrown in for variety. [This web site](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/gen018.htm) has punctuation." CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:27:40.943" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8361" PostId="4209" Score="3" Text="I must have read both Cicero's Philippics and Livy book 5 combined a dozen times, but this word, and what it actually means, never really stuck out. What an interesting (and gruesome) image!" CreationDate="2017-04-27T20:47:49.560" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8359" PostId="4210" Score="0" Text="This certainly works for &quot;from all sides,&quot; but I don't think it can be plugged into the OP's use case. Part of the confusion is that a &quot;gauntlet&quot; is pretty different from an &quot;attack from all sides.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-27T20:13:22.413" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8360" PostId="4210" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yeah, I'm interpreting his want creatively. I think *undique* appropriately gets the idea of &quot;from all sides&quot; down with an implicit &quot;attack&quot; making sense in the book, though it's not a gauntlet per se. Gauntlet's also can mean &quot;extreme trial,&quot; though, and if MSH is as young as I suspect he is, he might have Harry Potter on his mind." CreationDate="2017-04-27T20:46:09.953" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8363" PostId="4210" Score="1" Text="I put a comment up above before I saw this answer.  In Livy &amp; other authors there are constructions like this ablative absolute: &quot;circumfuso undique equitatu&quot; -- having been flooded on all sides by the cavalry. I wonder if something about this idea of flooding would be useful for the questioner's purpose.  It's not a gauntlet idea at all, but these overwhelming attacks were the reason the army formed an &quot;orbis&quot; or a &quot;testudo&quot; for protection." CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:40:06.190" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8593" PostId="4210" Score="0" Text="It's a good answer, @Palizsche, and I recommend turning it into a full answer instead of a comment." CreationDate="2017-05-06T15:43:23.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8365" PostId="4212" Score="2" Text="This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure what would constitute an answer. Perhaps a comparison between related languages to see if five declensions was a Proto-Italic thing, comes all the way from PIE, or something else?" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:00:53.407" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8367" PostId="4212" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, One possible answer that occurs to me is: There is no evidence that allows us to know anything.  Another possible answer might be: We find similar endings in other, seemingly related languages.  Another possible answer might be: We find exactly those endings in other languages that are not Latin---they were directly imported." CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:16:54.877" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="8378" PostId="4212" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta And I've wondered if the five noun declensions might have resulted from five tribes, all with their own languages, mixing and merging over centuries. I don't think there's any way to know [_a priori_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4170/118) what would constitute an answer. I think the only thing to do is look into it and see what one finds (or what other people have found)." CreationDate="2017-04-28T08:19:04.613" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="28985" PostId="4213" Score="2" Text="Suetonius tells a similar anecdote about Tiberius, but unfortunately doesn't say what the solecism was: *M. Pomponius Marcellus ... cum ex oratione Tiberii verbum reprehendisset, adfirmante Ateio Capitone et esse illud Latinum et si non esset futurum certe iam inde, 'Mentitur,' inquit, 'Capito. tu enim, Caesar, civitatem dare potes hominibus, verbo non potes.'*" CreationDate="2020-09-13T21:10:40.083" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8371" PostId="4214" Score="1" Text="I love these funky PIE symbols.  Perhaps because I don't understand them.  Do they bear any resemblance to noun the declensions of Latin?  Or does the resemblance lie in the fact that PIE and Latin have the same *number* of noun cases?" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:09:31.567" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="8373" PostId="4214" Score="1" Text="@DavidCharles There is indeed a connection. I'll try to tidy up this post and add additional information later tonight, and hopefully someone else can chime, too." CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:18:02.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8374" PostId="4214" Score="2" Text="@DavidCharles There's also not universal agreement on the number of noun-classes in PIE: much like how -um neuters and -us masculines could be either separated or combined in Latin." CreationDate="2017-04-28T01:20:46.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8375" PostId="4215" Score="2" Text="There is no &quot;native&quot; Latin word for philosophy for the same reason that there is no native English word for it: it was imported from the Greeks. At best, you can get a calque, but it would post-date *philosophia*." CreationDate="2017-04-28T02:52:09.997" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8377" PostId="4215" Score="2" Text="@C.M.Weimer That would make a nice answer. &quot;There is no good translation other than *philosophia*&quot; is not what I expected, but it certainly won't make me object to it." CreationDate="2017-04-28T05:09:17.017" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8376" PostId="4216" Score="2" Text="Excellent answer." CreationDate="2017-04-28T04:24:21.430" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8382" PostId="4216" Score="1" Text="bit of trivia on the lack of distinction between v and u in Latin: there are quite many Latin professors (at least in Italy) that won't tolerate the pronunciation of a modern v, but will pretend the u sound any time a u/v is encountered in a Latin text" CreationDate="2017-04-28T14:54:22.520" UserId="1492" />
  <row Id="8387" PostId="4216" Score="2" Text="@Federico Are you referring to the [classical pronunciation of v as /w/](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/28/non-typographical-evidence-of-v-being-pronounced-as-w)? If so, that's actually pretty universal among classics who use restored pronunciation." CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:43:58.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8394" PostId="4216" Score="0" Text="But why five and not six or four?" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:00:31.283" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8396" PostId="4216" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Because PIE stems reacted in six different ways with the consonants of noun endings. (And then two of them looked really similar and got merged into the third declension. In Greek that happened with pretty much everything except -o and -eh₂.)" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:07:22.537" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8409" PostId="4216" Score="1" Text="Nice answer. On the fifth declension, its origin is a bit unclear, but it doesn't seem to have to do with laryngeals. Rather, it probably has to do with the two words *dies* and *res*, which underwent some specific changes from PIE to Latin that made them look different from the other four declensions, and later other nouns were drawn into that new class too. (This is based on the admittedly brief discussion in Weiss.)" CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:41:35.003" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8410" PostId="4216" Score="0" Text="@Draconis but I thought we inherited this way of viewing the nominal declension types in Latin (five types) from the ancient Roman grammarians, who obviously knew nothing about PIE, laryngeals etc. Please note that I'm not disputing your summary here (which is more or less correct), but this is how we analyze it now. Basically, those five types have been in use for a long time and they have been explained differently, at different times." CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:54:43.847" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8412" PostId="4216" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Indeed! The Romans just knew that nouns fit into patterns, and arbitrarily gave them numbers. These categories are descriptive." CreationDate="2017-04-28T21:35:59.050" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12179" PostId="4216" Score="1" Text="@Draconis: so Latin has actually simplified something?! There's a first--what was it like prior this miracle?" CreationDate="2018-02-20T09:50:03.680" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="12184" PostId="4216" Score="0" Text="@tony Heh, if you want to see Latin simplifying something, look at the verbs. Latin's grouped them all into five nice conjugations, and the first, second, and fourth follow nice regular patterns. Whereas in Ancient Greek every verb has six principal parts which might look completely different, and the majority of verbs don't follow a consistent pattern that could be called a conjugation. (The contract verbs, which are consistent like Latin's first declension, are the minority in Greek.)" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:46:38.953" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8383" PostId="4217" Score="0" Text="Oh, I feel like I know this passage also...but can't quite place it! This is going to irritate me now..." CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:02:23.357" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8521" PostId="4217" Score="0" Text="I know the feeling very well, I looked for it for hours when I needed it, because it could really have strengthened and diversified the argument I was trying to make. 7 years later, and still no dice :)" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:46:11.877" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9385" PostId="4217" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: was Penelope's answer also the one you were looking for ?" CreationDate="2017-06-20T10:21:44.843" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9394" PostId="4217" Score="0" Text="I believe so! Upvoted." CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:56:26.677" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8380" PostId="4219" Score="0" Text="That passage was part of the same argument I was trying to make at the time, so I was already aware of it. Juvenalis is indeed a likely candidate, I'll see if I can reread some of his works." CreationDate="2017-04-28T11:47:30.303" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8388" PostId="4219" Score="0" Text="@blagae It might help your search if you remember that the Roman way of exaggerating was to use *sescenti* where in English we say 'millions'. *Sescentiens monui ne nimium augeas.*" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:53:18.037" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8384" PostId="4220" Score="0" Text="BTW, that whole section 11 is an amazing repudiation of the gospel of prosperity :)" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:24:17.063" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8385" PostId="4220" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I know, it's excellent!  I was pleasantly surprised to find it when looking for material on prosperity theology in the early church, and it [makes me wonder if there might be more](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/56561/21576)." CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:31:49.047" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="8403" PostId="4221" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I guess I can parse that Cicero quote as an answer: &quot;The translation would be *studium sapientiae*, but we use the Greek word *philosophia* in Latin.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:09:02.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8386" PostId="4222" Score="0" Text="The problem I have with this is that it doesn't fit the context, at least, the way I'm seeing it.  Augustine is quoting false teachers who promise the moon.  If you're poor now, you'll be rich if you obey God.  Thus, &quot;If you don't have children, you'll adopt some&quot; sounds out of place compared to &quot;If you don't have children, you'll have [give birth to] some.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:35:30.833" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="8391" PostId="4222" Score="0" Text="That's not to say you're wrong: just that I'd benefit from understanding how this interpretation fits into the general context of what he's saying (which I may be reading into incorrectly)." CreationDate="2017-04-28T16:00:08.653" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="8393" PostId="4222" Score="0" Text="I'll need to look up more context on this; I've never read the sermon in question so there's probably an alternative meaning." CreationDate="2017-04-28T16:59:59.577" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8395" PostId="4222" Score="1" Text="(Suscipiō can sometimes refer to having natural children, but I went with &quot;adopt&quot; because it seemed to fit the sentence. It sounds like &quot;sire&quot; might work better in surrounding context.)" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:04:06.923" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="8392" PostId="4223" Score="1" Text="Related post on Linguistics SE: [What is the approximate time of the loss of the intervocalic /s/ in Greek?](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/13097/what-is-the-approximate-time-of-the-loss-of-the-intervocalic-s-in-greek/13119#comment34849_13119)" CreationDate="2017-04-28T16:14:16.410" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8411" PostId="4226" Score="5" Text="For what it's worth, [this page](https://www.behindthename.com/name/aloysius) derives the Latin form from an Occitan version *Aloys*. (I don't know how to explain the initial *A-*.)" CreationDate="2017-04-28T21:12:29.017" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8525" PostId="4226" Score="2" Text="@TKR A or no A, I am fairly certain that you are correct. If there's any answer at all, that should be it. That said, I do wonder about that initial A. Perhaps it was assimilated to a similar-sounding name from the region. Très étrange." CreationDate="2017-05-03T04:35:53.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8401" PostId="4227" Score="5" Text="If you read carefully, the only mention of Latin is for the verb _nominare_, which is not in _mesnomer_. Apparently _nomer_ is Old French for Latin _nominare_." CreationDate="2017-04-28T18:47:47.383" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8405" PostId="4227" Score="1" Text="The prefix _mes_/_mis_ is, as I understand, from Latin _minus_ (in the sense 'not fully, perfectly, or adequately'); so etymologically, the Latin equivalent – at least for the French verb that is the source of the English noun _misnomer_ – would be the phrase _minus nominare_." CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:17:06.857" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8406" PostId="4227" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Very true." CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:18:01.193" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8407" PostId="4227" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thanks. Can you put this as an answer?" CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:18:20.047" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8415" PostId="4227" Score="0" Text="But if _minus nominare_ is a verb, then what is the noun misnomer? Some quick digging reveals the non-classical _transnominatio_ might work. It usually means &quot;metonymy,&quot; which in turn means referring to one object though the use of one of its qualities. This makes sense for a misnomer. Take, for instance, oxidation. Oxidation was given that name because it was originally thought to occur only with respect to oxygen (named because of quality), but we now know that it applies to more scenarios than that (a misnomer). Of course, not all metonymies are misnomers, so do with that what you will." CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:15:35.487" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="8416" PostId="4227" Score="0" Text="@cnread The sources I looked at seem to think it comes from Frankish&lt;Proto-Germanic&lt;PIE, not from *minus*." CreationDate="2017-04-29T03:33:52.550" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8417" PostId="4227" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Interesting. My dictionary tells me that there are 2 _mis_ prefixes, one from OTeut and one from Latin _minus_ via OF. Their meanings even overlap somewhat. It is quite an old dictionary, though (1955). Still, if it's accurate, I'm inclined to think that, because the _nomer_ part of _misnomer_ is from French, the _mis_ prefix is, in this instance, the latter." CreationDate="2017-04-29T04:23:39.483" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8427" PostId="4227" Score="1" Text="@SamK: In Sallust's _Bellum Catilinae_, Cato says 'iam pridem equidem nos vera vocabula rerum amisimus'; so perhaps something like _falsum vocabulum_ would work. Or, Cicero speaks in multiple places of _certa et/ac propria vocabula_ (e.g., _Pro Caecina_ 51: 'an hoc dubium est quin neque verborum tanta copia sit...res ut omnes suis certis ac propriis vocabulis nominentur...'); so perhaps _incertum atque alienum_ [= _non proprium_] _vocabulum_ is another possibility. I myself like the simple phrase _vocabulum alienum_ ('a term that [really, properly] belongs to something else')." CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:56:36.390" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15595" PostId="4227" Score="1" Text="@cnread I think your comments are for a good answer here." CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:34:36.563" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8423" PostId="4230" Score="0" Text="Would it work to say &quot;to each his own&quot; work in place of &quot;suit yourself&quot; for your purposes?  if so, I would use &quot;suum cuique&quot; .  Or I might quote the Latin maxim &quot;de gustibus non est disputandum&quot;.  &quot;There's no arguing about tastes.&quot; Neither would be rude to say." CreationDate="2017-04-29T22:38:43.110" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="41250" PostId="4231" Score="0" Text="In Portuguese(I guess in Spanish, too)we use the preposition &quot;de&quot; Any example &quot;C de casa&quot; I wondered if I could just translate this way. The reason I wondered: When we say &quot;de&quot; it suggests the letter came from that word, We take the letter &quot;d&quot; out of word &quot;casa&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-07T13:50:01.740" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="8418" PostId="4235" Score="3" Text="Can you think of a classical parallel for this? It seems strange to see *quam bene ambulas* treated as a subject of a verb." CreationDate="2017-04-29T15:01:52.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8438" PostId="4235" Score="0" Text="I mean one could change it to &quot;the way in which&quot; as the other answer did, but that would change the meaning significantly..." CreationDate="2017-04-30T11:42:09.130" UserId="1500" />
  <row Id="8466" PostId="4235" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Good point - I have since fixed it." CreationDate="2017-05-01T10:10:47.343" UserId="1500" />
  <row Id="8419" PostId="4236" Score="2" Text="This question is a little bit unclear to me. Obviously &quot;VIIth&quot; is impossible if you are writing in the Latin language. The suffix &quot;-th&quot; is English, not Latin. But when you say &quot;the convention of the language,&quot; are you talking about using Roman numerals in a language other than Latin? If so, each language will have its own conventions, I assume." CreationDate="2017-04-29T16:46:12.770" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8420" PostId="4236" Score="2" Text="You may want to reword the question for clarity. In a number of languages (English included,) you can use Roman numerals for ordinal numbers: [VII=7th](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_century). The Roman numeral in itself is not implying you are using a Latin word or way of saying, so it is most probably up to the rules of the language you are using whether to add a suffix/superscript, e.g. in French, you say [VIIᵉ](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIIe_si%C3%A8cle)" CreationDate="2017-04-29T19:54:59.597" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8428" PostId="4238" Score="2" Text="As implied by Hugh’s comment, the French translations you’ve found likely do not say “Virtue doesn’t learn anything”, but “Virtue doesn’t fear anything”. Certainly in your link I see a few that translate it as _la vertu **n’appréhende** rien_, in which the verb is _appréhendre_ ‘fear’ (cf. _apprehensive_ in English), not _apprendre_ ‘learn’." CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:21:11.420" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="8422" PostId="4240" Score="0" Text="Even in printed texts, you don't always get the period afterward." CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:48:46.390" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8426" PostId="4240" Score="2" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Very true; that's why I was careful to qualify my answer with an 'often.' Still, a quick (and hardly scientific) sampling of just the texts on my bookshelves, from Italian, German, British, American, and French publishers, from the mid-1800s through the present, _seemed_ to show a slight preference for the period over nothing at all. Interestingly, all the Teubner texts that I glanced at write out all ordinals in full. Perhaps that's a coincidence, or perhaps it reflects actual Teubner editorial policy. I don't think a single American text that I looked at used the periods." CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:08:28.810" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8421" PostId="4241" Score="4" Text="Apprendre *disco.* Appréhendre *timeo.*" CreationDate="2017-04-29T20:46:01.740" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8425" PostId="4241" Score="1" Text="@Hugh nice! I didn't know that. Do you mind me adding that into the answer?" CreationDate="2017-04-29T22:52:53.663" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8429" PostId="4241" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Comments on StackExchange are meant to be suggestions for how to improve the answer." CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:21:54.913" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8445" PostId="4241" Score="1" Text="(It's _appréhender_, not _appréhendre_.)" CreationDate="2017-04-30T21:24:54.160" UserId="1505" />
  <row Id="8424" PostId="4242" Score="0" Text="Can you elaborate a little on your question? Are you asking how *volutus* can come from *volvere*, given the meanings listed at Etymonline?" CreationDate="2017-04-29T22:43:33.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8444" PostId="4242" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The latter: yes. The former: I accepted the helpful answer below, but please feel free to change my question." CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:12:55.750" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="8430" PostId="4244" Score="0" Text="Great answer! I might replace &quot;gentlemanly&quot; with &quot;noble&quot;. Tangentially, I wonder if the phrase *nil virtus generosa timet* is a part of a hexameter verse; I have trouble scanning it as prose." CreationDate="2017-04-30T01:11:22.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8432" PostId="4244" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Wouldn't 'noble' promote the gallant French Knight to a peerage." CreationDate="2017-04-30T01:27:10.617" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8435" PostId="4244" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Hmm... That wasn't my intention. I meant &quot;noble&quot; in the sense of fine, unselfish, high-minded, well-behaved, or something in that direction rather than in the sense of peerage. But I'll leave native English speakers judge whether it makes sense." CreationDate="2017-04-30T04:53:53.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8436" PostId="4244" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Line 496 of [this 5th-century poem](http://www.mqdq.it/public/testo/testo/codice/CYPR_GAL%7Ciudi%7C001) has the phrase inside a hexameter. It's part of a verse retelling of the birth of Samson in the Book of Judges." CreationDate="2017-04-30T05:05:34.430" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8437" PostId="4244" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Are you sure the link is right? It reads *Nam uirtus generosa fiet, nullique licebit*, which is similar but different. And weirdly, the *fiet* has a short *i*; I thought it was always supposed to be long." CreationDate="2017-04-30T05:58:56.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8439" PostId="4244" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oops, you meant the whole sentence; I had just been searching for _virtus generosa._ Oh well, it's still interesting to see that _virtus generosa_ is being used for Samson's strength (if I understand it correctly). I'm not sure what to make of the short _i._" CreationDate="2017-04-30T13:47:22.887" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8441" PostId="4244" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Indeed I'm avoiding &quot;noble&quot; advisedly even though it carries much of the meaning—because it also carries the unwanted meaning of having a title. I might add this to the answer…" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:22:36.540" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8481" PostId="4244" Score="0" Text="This is really fun and edifying answer to read.  I like the illustration of the gentleman and his virtues.  My favorite part is the caption, &quot;Pes in Terris&quot;.  Nice find on Cicero's use of &quot;generosa virtus&quot;!  It's quite compelling to think about the difference in meaning across time." CreationDate="2017-05-02T01:35:51.200" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="29147" PostId="4246" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: What exactly does &quot;constabat&quot; mean here--&quot;neque satis Bruto&quot; = &quot;nor is it (clear) enough to Brutus&quot;; &quot;....constabat quid agerent [indirect question]&quot; = &quot;(he, Brutus) standing firm/ deciding what they should do&quot;; &quot;quam rationem pugnae insisterent [indirect question]&quot; = &quot;what method of fighting (tactics) they should adopt&quot;? If &quot;constabat&quot; is the progenitor of the indirect questions, then the indirect Qs., are the subjects of &quot;constabat&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-09-30T13:41:56.107" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29148" PostId="4246" Score="0" Text="@tony The indirect questions here are indeed subjects of *constabat*. You could translate the bold part roughly as: &quot;It was not clear enough to Brutus what they should do.&quot; In this context *constare* means &quot;to be clear/evident&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-30T13:50:14.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29104" PostId="4248" Score="0" Text="cnread: In the quote from Livy (AUC 1.16) is &quot;illi viro nuntianti (haec) fidei&quot; an example of the dative of purpose/ double dative? Giving: &quot;it is marvellous how much was made (mirum est quantum fuerit) for the narrating credit (nuntianti fidei) to this man (illi viro)? The use of perfect subjunctive, indicates the subordinate clause; and, &quot;haec&quot; is nominative, feminine singular = this (story, &quot;fabula&quot;, is understood). I would have expected an accusative after the present participle &quot;nuntianti&quot; i.e. hanc (fabulam)? Finally, &quot;facta fide&quot; is an ablative absolute =" CreationDate="2020-09-27T11:59:21.833" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29105" PostId="4248" Score="0" Text="&quot;with the fact having been established&quot;. Thank you." CreationDate="2020-09-27T12:00:24.323" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29108" PostId="4248" Score="0" Text="I'd call illi viro nuntianti a dative of possession. I'd find it very strange here to have to supply fabula as the noun that haec modifies, and I'm not sure what 'the narrating credit' would mean. The subject of the indirect question is quantum, which has the partitive genitive fidei, and haec is the neuter plural accusative direct object of nuntianti: 'how much (of) credibility there was to that man [i.e., how much credibility he had] (as he was) narrating these things.' I too would take facta fide as ablative absolute, though the translation I used appears to have taken it as abl. of means." CreationDate="2020-09-27T19:06:18.280" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29109" PostId="4248" Score="0" Text="@tony (continued) You're right that, form-wise, fidei could be dative, and illi viro is also dative. However, I'm not sure quantum by itself (without, e.g., a partitive genitive or some noun to modify) would work as the subject of a double dative. When I teach double dative, I give as a (mostly reliable) translation formula, 'X [nominative noun] is a source of y [more abstract of the 2 dative nouns] for z [2nd dative noun, often denoting a person].' So the Livy would mean '...what a great quantity was a source of credibility for that man.' It doesn't really work." CreationDate="2020-09-27T19:16:36.373" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29182" PostId="4248" Score="0" Text="Thank you. In the same quote there is the second indirect question: &quot;...quamque...lenitum sit.&quot; = &quot;...and how...it was soothed.&quot;; using the perfect passive subjunctive. This given as &quot;lenitum sit&quot;, not &quot;lenitus sit&quot;, must the supine agree with &quot;plebem&quot; &amp; &quot;exercitumque&quot;--both taking accusative after &quot;apud&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-10-03T11:42:44.117" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29183" PostId="4248" Score="0" Text="@tony, The neuter form of the participle is used because the subject of lenitum sit is desiderium: '...and how the longing...was soothed.'" CreationDate="2020-10-03T18:55:54.440" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8440" PostId="4249" Score="0" Text="How does _dum_ figure into the sentence? Also, do you know of a good classical sentence with _primum ducitur,_ from which to get a feel for its ordinary usage? I'm not finding anything [here](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=primum+ducitur)." CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:15:38.240" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8442" PostId="4249" Score="0" Text="I've changed the last sentence to clarify the use of _dum_, but you may well feel that _dum_ is redundant. Sall. Iug. 41 has _. . . abundantia earum rerum, quae prima mortales ducunt_, which I feel is a valid basis for _primum ducitur_." CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:56:46.993" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8443" PostId="4249" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Now I get it. I especially appreciate the approach of starting in Latin and working back to English, rather than the other way around." CreationDate="2017-04-30T18:00:34.393" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8458" PostId="4250" Score="0" Text="You make a good case for &quot;perambulare&quot;.  I do think there may be more a sense of life being a kind of wandering around through fire rather than crossing through fire.  The poem has that sense." CreationDate="2017-05-01T05:48:20.013" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8473" PostId="4251" Score="1" Text="[Virtus Virginiensis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_and_seal_of_Virginia#/media/File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg)?" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:20:01.027" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8484" PostId="4251" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz, euge!  You made me laugh.  And yet, despite having written that post, until just now I had never thought about whether &quot;virgo&quot; derives from &quot;vir&quot;.  As the Italians say, figurati!" CreationDate="2017-05-02T01:51:46.497" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8486" PostId="4251" Score="0" Text="I hadn't thought there might be an etymological connection, either, until you just pointed it out! Might be worth posting a question." CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:04:15.413" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8446" PostId="4252" Score="0" Text="Hi emilw, please take a look at [this question about how to ask translation questions](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25/what-do-we-do-with-translation-requests): since this isn't just a translation service, you need to show at least some evidence of effort (online dictionaries, etc.), which should be accessible even to someone who has never studied Latin. (Pro tip: don't use Google Translate!)" CreationDate="2017-04-30T23:53:56.520" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8447" PostId="4252" Score="0" Text="We'd be more than happy to answer more specific questions, such as &quot;Is X or Y a better word for 'to hunt'&quot; or &quot;What is the best way to say 'to X is to Y' in Latin?&quot;" CreationDate="2017-04-30T23:55:16.700" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8448" PostId="4252" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your prompt reply, brianpck. Please forgive my brief, &quot;translation service&quot; style question. I've tried my hand with the translation myself, however, I have very little experience with translating latin.&#xA;&#xA;The translation I have arrived at is: 'Venari est vivere'. It seems simple, but I know how difficult translating English into Latin can be! Does this seem like a correct translation?" CreationDate="2017-05-01T00:01:23.277" UserId="1506" />
  <row Id="8449" PostId="4252" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I took the liberty of editing your question a little (a more specific tag and including the English motto in the text body), but feel free to re-edit. You might also want to take a look at [an older question about a similar phrase](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/479/79)." CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:07:10.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8459" PostId="4253" Score="2" Text="Could not the verb go at the end, to make *&quot;venari vivere est&quot;*? Is there a reason to prefer placing verb in the middle?" CreationDate="2017-05-01T06:53:17.950" UserId="1256" />
  <row Id="8464" PostId="4253" Score="2" Text="@JamesK Both positions are possible. I don't know if there is a reason to prefer one over the other. That would make an interesting question." CreationDate="2017-05-01T08:12:40.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8465" PostId="4253" Score="0" Text="Other mottoes of a similar form have the verb in the middle, e.g. *laborare est orare* (the motto of Benedictine monks). This doesn't make it correct, of course, but it might be a nice reference to make." CreationDate="2017-05-01T10:10:26.510" UserId="1509" />
  <row Id="8470" PostId="4253" Score="3" Text="@lonesomeday The more common phrase is *ora et labora*--I couldn't find an original Benedictine document that has *orare est laborare*, though I agree with your point. Note a similar counter-example, though, from St. Paul: *vivere Christus est.*" CreationDate="2017-05-01T13:50:10.413" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8450" PostId="4254" Score="1" Text="Fantastic! The first approach I tried was with *transire,* but I gave up, not sure of what I was coming up with. I was hoping someone would show how to do it! The quotations from Thomas à Kempis and Jerome (which I'd never heard of) are excellent: they show that this is not mere &quot;writing English in Latin&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-01T04:08:43.470" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8454" PostId="4254" Score="0" Text="Oops -- yes, I did mean bene ambula et redambula. And perhaps not all my examples support what I'm after. Ben, thanks for your comments.  I'm rusty, but enthusiastic." CreationDate="2017-05-01T04:53:42.590" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8501" PostId="4256" Score="1" Text="FYI https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2978/can-esse-be-used-with-a-present-participle" CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:49:26.980" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8461" PostId="4257" Score="0" Text="In what sense are NYC and London lonely? I'm not sure I understand what you are after." CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:18:06.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8462" PostId="4257" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Here's a use of the phrase: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-London-such-a-lonely-city-to-some-and-such-an-amazing-place-to-others. I think the sense is this: the cities are so fast-paced and competitive that people have a hard time forming real, lasting friendships. But I'm not 100% sure of my take." CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:28:19.127" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8463" PostId="4257" Score="0" Text="Fortunately the word I ended up suggesting seems general enough to cover that. But of course there might another idiomatic choice of words one should know." CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:46:04.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16198" PostId="4258" Score="1" Text="Related, unanswered question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1249/counterpoint-to-de-mortuis-nil-nisi-bene-dicendum" CreationDate="2018-10-31T12:36:35.467" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45188" PostId="4258" Score="0" Text="The Hungarian claims in your 2nd paragraph are wrong. It doesn't have that meaning at all." CreationDate="2023-10-21T21:18:25.513" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8468" PostId="4261" Score="3" Text="In the linked question, the OP says it &quot;sounds like that&quot; and the answer finds no reference to it. It's also fairly obvious from the context that this could only be a flippant perversion of Latin, so I think I would challenge the premise of the question." CreationDate="2017-05-01T12:11:56.183" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8493" PostId="4261" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I am 100% sure from personal experience that the expression was in wide use and is at least pronounced as I have written it. It is possible that the &quot;de&quot; is just a meaningless addition but that would be interesting in itself." CreationDate="2017-05-02T08:23:33.973" UserId="1508" />
  <row Id="8533" PostId="4261" Score="1" Text="Suggestion: 'dâto my liking' could be an ablative absolute in Macaroni Latin with conditional force.  'Subject to my approval' 'Given that I like it' This long â survives in English pronunciation of 'dative' and Cato, Plato." CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:24:53.053" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="28699" PostId="4261" Score="0" Text="Perhaps some form of wordplay.  Possibly &quot;ego de&quot; is meant to sound like &quot;a goody&quot;." CreationDate="2020-08-19T22:16:45.810" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="8467" PostId="4262" Score="5" Text="As a supplementary note, the idiosyncrasies of the Vulgate are more often a conscious effort to imitate the Semitic or Greek source material than a conscious emulation of Ciceronian prose." CreationDate="2017-05-01T12:02:18.520" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8471" PostId="4262" Score="1" Text="I've given you a point for that, but I hardly think that anybody would mistake the language of the Vulgate for an attempt to emulate Cicero!" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:42:31.347" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8469" PostId="4263" Score="3" Text="[*praedor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpraedor) usually translates as &quot;to make booty, to plunder, spoil, rob&quot;: do you have a particular reason for suggesting it as &quot;to hunt&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-05-01T13:46:30.593" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8472" PostId="4264" Score="0" Text="Here's [a related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/832/how-to-say-mister-mrs-miss-etc-in-latin) that doesn't address how to distinguish specifically between a &quot;lord&quot; and a &quot;mister.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:43:54.850" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8495" PostId="4264" Score="0" Text="Both _mister_ and _master_ come from _magister_, while _dominus_ means _lord_. Why not use **magister**? There is also Medieval Latin [domnus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/domnus) as a short form of dominus, abbreviated _dnus._ (that was used pretty much the same way as today's mister, Mr. at some point in history)." CreationDate="2017-05-02T12:05:44.003" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8475" PostId="4265" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz To me &quot;numeral&quot; means a number word such as &quot;three&quot; or &quot;quattuor&quot;, whereas &quot;number&quot; means something like &quot;214&quot; or &quot;CCXIV&quot;. Are you sure your edit to reverse this is correct?" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:54:28.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8478" PostId="4265" Score="0" Text="Numerals are the symbols (1, 2, 3 .... I, II, III ....) which represent numbers (one, two, three ...)" CreationDate="2017-05-01T21:58:51.190" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8479" PostId="4265" Score="4" Text="I've seen the numerals used to represent both cardinals and ordinals, but never things like distributives (singuli, deni) or adverbs (semel, decies). I'll be interested to see whether others have encountered those uses. There's also the use of numerals as a prefix in terms like Xvir (decemvir), VIvir (sevir), IIIvir (triumvir)." CreationDate="2017-05-01T23:04:20.700" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8480" PostId="4265" Score="0" Text="Yes. Numbers are abstract quantities, numerals are specific representations thereof. See [Numeral system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system), [Arabic numerals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals), [Roman numerals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals), [Church numerals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding#Church_numerals), [this](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=number+vs.+numeral&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=ssl), [this](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numeral#English), etc. English vocabulary finds a way to distinguish almost anything!" CreationDate="2017-05-02T00:44:21.760" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8487" PostId="4265" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I don't mind being corrected; I'm happy to learn. It's not important for the question itself, but I can't resist commenting. // Aren't both *tres* and **III** representations of an abstract quantity? By your definition they'd both be numerals. I could accept that. I view the Roman number **CL** the same way as the (Arabic) decimal number 150. And also [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics)) (not a good authority, I know) seems to agree with me that numerals are number words." CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:07:30.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8488" PostId="4265" Score="0" Text="In ordinary formal English, words are normally exempted from being called numerals; see [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numeral#English). The use of &quot;numeral&quot; for a number word is a specialized term of art in linguistics, not in common use. In ordinary language, numerals are _figures,_ i.e. little shapes that you can draw, that stand for numbers in a compact way. If you start with Roman numerals and Arabic numerals and generalize from there, you'll have the idea. The term is naturally extended to Church numerals, which are themselves mathematical abstractions in need of a representation." CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:33:05.987" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8485" PostId="4266" Score="0" Text="Brathwaite, Richard, 1588?–1673, English poet. His Barnabae Itinerarium, a doggerel travelogue of provincial England, was written first in Latin (1636) and later published with an English translation ( Barnabee's Journal, 1638). Because the book was published under the pseudonym Corymbaeus, its true authorship was not discovered until 1818. His other works include The English Gentleman (1630) and The English Gentlewoman (1631), books that emphasized the honorable and generous behavior of the landed gentry. &#xA;-- Columbia Encyclopedia (accessed via https://www.factmonster.com)" CreationDate="2017-05-02T02:57:34.630" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8494" PostId="4266" Score="0" Text="The Recreation motto about Apollo is from Horace 2,10 -- the ode that begins, &quot;Rectius viives, Licini&quot;. I'll see if I have time later to do a real answer." CreationDate="2017-05-02T11:42:47.700" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8506" PostId="4266" Score="1" Text="I'm liking @sumelic's approach of answering this as community wikis. Considering that this is a thirty-part (or ten-part) question, it makes sense to do it collaboratively. A separate answer for each box ought to keep the collaboration manageable." CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:15:53.570" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8510" PostId="4266" Score="1" Text="[Here's](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n9/mode/1up) an explanation by Braithwait himself of a smaller version of the picture, included in a double book with _The English Gentlewoman._ I believe he also provided an explanation with the original picture. If you can find it, please post the URL in a comment!" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:53:57.363" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8512" PostId="4266" Score="1" Text="Perhaps a moderator can comment, but I get the feeling that this topic is getting out of hand: I don't see how it's easier to track five separate answers. Isn't this just as simple as &quot;Latin text-&gt;English translation-&gt;possible interpretation,&quot; which could easily be accomplished in one canonical answer?" CreationDate="2017-05-02T16:08:36.950" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8514" PostId="4266" Score="1" Text="@brianpck We might well remove the &quot;Latin text&quot; and &quot;Literal meaning&quot; answers once the other answers are done. For now, though, they're a handy place to record what we've learned about those two things, along the way to understanding the allusions and intended non-literal meanings." CreationDate="2017-05-02T16:15:44.400" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8476" PostId="4267" Score="0" Text="The post at the bottom seems spot on, especially considering the higher-res image linked there (which I've used to update the OP)." CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:57:33.067" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8503" PostId="4267" Score="0" Text="[Ian Green](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;dq=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;pg=PA332#v=onepage&amp;q=vox%20laeta&amp;f=false) confirms _vox læta._" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:01:37.023" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8534" PostId="4267" Score="0" Text="'Vox laeta sed anxia lethi,' The sweet but doom-laden Siren voice is here pictured in Homer's landscape, (seascape)  Distracting voices luring scholars from their books are attacked in Boethius, opening lines of *Consolation*; and in Adelard's early work on life choices." CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:41:50.593" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8536" PostId="4267" Score="1" Text="@Hugh That sounds like it belongs in an answer. Where did you find it?" CreationDate="2017-05-04T02:28:48.220" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8489" PostId="4269" Score="2" Text="[Here](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#procer) are some dictionary definitions. Do you have any info on whether _procer_ was used as a term of address?" CreationDate="2017-05-02T05:34:24.683" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8490" PostId="4269" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, riekes! The word might indeed be good, but it would be better to explain it more. Can you tell what it means, or even better, give some use examples? If you can find a passage where it is used in the way the original poster (OP) wants, this would be a great answer!" CreationDate="2017-05-02T05:42:07.130" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8491" PostId="4269" Score="2" Text="There is another page with more information [here](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/PROCER). I'm commenting it because I still can't put more than 2 links on an answer." CreationDate="2017-05-02T06:26:00.753" UserId="1516" />
  <row Id="8516" PostId="4272" Score="4" Text="It's also worth mentioning that the neuter can be used to express abstract concepts: *bona mea* = &quot;my goods&quot; or *quid novi* (&lt; *novum*) = &quot;what's new?&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-02T17:10:40.433" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8496" PostId="4273" Score="0" Text="Would the acronym have only the initial or the letter name, as I think the Greek version has?" CreationDate="2017-05-02T13:34:45.097" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8497" PostId="4273" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho The Greek is just the initial letters. Romans weren't too big on acronyms, but a good comparison might be the Late Latin [*abecedarium*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abecedarium)." CreationDate="2017-05-02T13:48:41.487" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8498" PostId="4273" Score="0" Text="Ok, thanks. Well, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_abbreviations) list a lot of Latin acronyms. [This page](http://www.abbreviations.com/acronyms/latin) lists 323, whereas it only lists 303 in Greek. In any case, this is for another discussion." CreationDate="2017-05-02T13:57:02.280" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8499" PostId="4273" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Many of those are modern or perhaps Medieval acronyms of Latin phrases." CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:00:50.680" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8500" PostId="4273" Score="4" Text="One similar, post-constructed acronym is IHS (first three letters of Ἰησοῦς) = &quot;Iesus Hominum Salvator&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:17:07.357" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8517" PostId="4273" Score="0" Text="It conveys completely different information, but isn't there already a 'standard' Latin acronym for referring to him: INRI (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum)? Or is that used only on things such as crucifixes?" CreationDate="2017-05-02T17:12:57.387" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8505" PostId="4274" Score="1" Text="+1 for the examples, but I think the question being set in the XVI century allows for the existence of an actual _true_ answer (whether we have the means to actually reach it is another question: probably a historian would be closer than me to it). It is not unlikely that the distinction Mr/Mylord actually existed at the time AND it had an accepted (late) Latin counterpart" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:15:20.230" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8508" PostId="4274" Score="2" Text="@Rafael  I guess that the actual Latin titles of the English nobility might be obtained from the College of Heralds, but the manner in which they would have been addressed in speech may, as you say, be beyond reach. It doesn't seem very likely to me that any documentary evidence of it will have survived. _Optime Vir_ to a Roman would show sufficient respect to high rank, but to me doesn't quite sound plausible in the questioner's context." CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:40:33.670" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8515" PostId="4274" Score="1" Text="It might be worth some research, though. E.g. the scope and extent of the use of Domnus. I've seen often used the abbreviation [&quot;Dnus. Dr.&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dnus+dr%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8)." CreationDate="2017-05-02T16:34:11.190" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10410" PostId="4274" Score="0" Text="In the 16th century the law in England was written in Latin and a combination of French and English. If you look at the reports of decisions published by the Selden Society you might find an answer to this question, since the judges in identifying the parties would use formal descriptive forms." CreationDate="2017-08-14T17:37:19.087" UserId="1916" />
  <row Id="8504" PostId="4275" Score="1" Text="Can you explain the construction's significance in Greek and Hebrew?" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:04:23.447" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8677" PostId="4275" Score="0" Text="Both the Hebrew and the Greek use an active participle, like English &quot;standing&quot;. @BenKovitz" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:19:18.320" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8502" PostId="4276" Score="0" Text="I'm following sumelic's lead and making a community wiki for the explanation of the deeper meaning that the literal meaning is intended to suggest, and why. There is surely more to the motto of _ubera et verbera_ than I've collected so far. I'm pretty sure I've seen that motto elsewhere; it might be much older than Braithwait." CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:59:04.950" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8513" PostId="4277" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Fantastic! Explaining the reference to Ovid is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for. I concur that Masten's translations are too far-fetched to stay. Masten does have a couple interesting observations about the double cartoon &quot;bubble&quot; and Braithwait's use of the singular in English. Maybe we can include something of that." CreationDate="2017-05-02T16:12:27.653" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8537" PostId="4277" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That's no &quot;rough&quot; translation—that's really good! Ovid-like in English, even. I just edited to remove the first-person wording." CreationDate="2017-05-04T02:33:23.670" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8519" PostId="4278" Score="2" Text="Good question! Notice the use of accusative instead of ablative: it is &quot;into&quot; rather than &quot;in&quot;. I suspect a Hebraism (or Grecism). I reformatted your question a little. If you prefer the original, feel free to roll back." CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:39:49.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8520" PostId="4278" Score="1" Text="For reference: the Vulgate has &quot;esto mihi in **lapidem fortissimum** et in domum munitam ut salves me&quot; and the LXX has &quot;γενοῦ μοι εἰς θεὸν ὑπερασπιστὴν καὶ εἰς οἶκον καταφυγῆς τοῦ σῶσαί με.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:45:29.707" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8522" PostId="4278" Score="0" Text="'**In** the rock of refuge/mighty stronghold' would be _in_ + ablative case. _In_ + accusative is here used to show purpose. I'd translate as 'Serve as a rock of refuge/a might stronghold for me' or 'Serve as my rock of refuge....'" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:52:00.497" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8523" PostId="4278" Score="0" Text="I appear to have the Nova Vulgata text, which is slightly different from @brianpck's Vulgate, which is slightly different from the text that appears in the Douay Rheims.  However, in all three texts we have the pattern of **in** followed by accusatives." CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:52:06.933" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="8524" PostId="4280" Score="1" Text="Thank you, especially, for finding another example of it.  So, it seems the *esse + in + accusative* construct (directly imported from Hebrew) falls short of the sense of full identification that comes with the *esse + nominative* construct, and carries more of a *functional* or *effective* or *analogous* meaning." CreationDate="2017-05-02T22:27:18.487" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="8526" PostId="4281" Score="6" Text="Welcome to the site! Have you tried translating it yourself? Or if you don't know any Latin, have you looked at dictionaries to see which words might be suitable? I suggest taking a look at [this guide for asking translation questions](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) and [this list of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79). I also suggest going through [our introduction tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2017-05-03T10:16:15.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8529" PostId="4282" Score="1" Text="I assume you mean &quot;pertaining to the **bee's knees**&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-05-03T14:08:41.780" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8532" PostId="4282" Score="0" Text="Oops, yes!  I'll edit." CreationDate="2017-05-03T17:41:04.223" UserId="1521" />
  <row Id="8531" PostId="4284" Score="3" Text="Also the gender of _this_ needs some _caveat_." CreationDate="2017-05-03T17:15:28.040" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8541" PostId="4285" Score="0" Text="Perhaps you can include a brief overview of some of your translation choices? I'm particularly interested in the use of *desiderium* and *Eleutheria*." CreationDate="2017-05-04T14:22:21.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8535" PostId="4287" Score="1" Text="The latter question might get a good answer in Linguistics.SE or even French.SE." CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:44:22.430" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8697" PostId="4288" Score="0" Text="This is a great answer--I wish I could accept it as well! I'm curious: are these different &quot;pressures&quot; coming from your own observations or are you following a source?" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:15:26.920" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8698" PostId="4288" Score="0" Text="@brianpck No problem! :) I was glad to be triggered into following this line of thought to see where it led. It's entirely my own observations and speculations. I got started thinking about &quot;pressures&quot; in English many years ago when I read Fowler. It seems to me that English grammar works mainly by flexible pressures and analogies with competing precedents, not by rules—hence the [failure (IMO)](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/51285/6700) of things like CGEL that try to capture English grammar by adding ever more rules. I've been wondering if similar looseness occurs in Latin grammar." CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:36:48.483" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8717" PostId="4288" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I'm not really a confrontational type, but with all due respect, what is your opinion based on? CGELis an excellent grammar written by professional, serious linguists and it adequately describes English." CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:24:51.643" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8763" PostId="4288" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. No offense taken. My opinion is largely based on interaction with the many CGEL fans on [ELL](https://ell.stackexchange.com/search?q=cgel), primed/biased by earlier looks at other rule-based approaches, especially Chomsky's. A classmate of mine and [StoneyB](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/51608/6700) have called the CGEL/Chomsky approach &quot;Ptolemaic&quot;—a beautifully apt analogy IMO. Ptolemaic astronomy does make accurate predictions; it _is_ useful. But it's based on a false premise: uniform circular motion. CGEL etc. seem that way to me. I could be wrong, of course; only time will tell." CreationDate="2017-05-12T04:59:22.317" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8544" PostId="4289" Score="0" Text="Could you provide some comments about why you think this is a valid translation? I don't think I've seen the dative used alone like this with a spatial meaning: don't you think ἐν would be required for this reading?" CreationDate="2017-05-04T16:41:10.403" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8545" PostId="4289" Score="0" Text="@brianpck If indeed the absence of preposition cannot be used for spatial meaning, then this kind of closes it; I chose it because of the meaning making more sense under this possible use of the dative. *However* googling a little after your comment I read that the use of dative without a preposition shows the cause of the subject - which would make it &quot;are the signs of gods [made] by men?&quot;. (Sorry, not a philologist so my expression might be blurry.)" CreationDate="2017-05-04T16:57:44.200" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="8546" PostId="4289" Score="0" Text="That is possible, though it's rare to have a personal noun used as a dative of instrument or with forms of &quot;to be.&quot; The most likely reading is in the accepted answer: dative of possession." CreationDate="2017-05-04T17:23:54.640" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8565" PostId="4292" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity--is that the first known mention of the saying, &quot;We stand on the shoulders of giants&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-05-05T14:24:45.960" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8569" PostId="4292" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That is at least what claims [related Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants)." CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:09:40.360" UserId="1527" />
  <row Id="8551" PostId="4294" Score="0" Text="I wondered if this could be it. It seems odd to use space before the commas for this though rather than adjusting the inter-word spacing, which seems like it is less likely to be stand out." CreationDate="2017-05-05T01:19:03.910" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8552" PostId="4294" Score="0" Text="When interword spacing is used for justification, one of the standard principles is that you want to avoid having the large white spaces form a noticeable path or 'river' down the page; as I look at the occurrences of \[space\],\[space\] in the example, it looks to me that the space is being put in front of the comma rather than after it precisely to prevent such rivers." CreationDate="2017-05-05T01:42:10.530" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8553" PostId="4294" Score="0" Text="@cnread That's a good observation. Can you add it to your answer? Also note that there is a large gap between `corporis,` and `sed` but the comma is not in the middle. This seems to indicate that not all stretching leads to space before a comma, and the location is consistent with avoiding rivers." CreationDate="2017-05-05T01:53:32.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8554" PostId="4294" Score="0" Text="Yes, but I don't see that the large space after 'corporis' particularly forms a river with the spaces in the lines above and below it – the large spaces those three lines are offset enough to prevent one. By contrast, imagine that we had 'videre,[big space]' in line 3 and 'acquieverim,[big space]' in the last line; in that case, there would be a 4-line river running to the right of 'videre,' – 'eminentia' – 'extollimur' – 'acquieverim,'." CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:40:01.067" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8555" PostId="4294" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Just to follow up on your question (and I just noticed that I forgot to add your name to the beginning of my last comment), the stretching of the space after the comma and the addition of space before seem to be separate operations here – and, I would say, mutually exclusive. Just based on the short example, the principle that I glean is: stretch the space after when this can be done without leading to rivers; otherwise, add space before the comma instead. It would be interesting to look at more of the text to see how consistently this principle is applied." CreationDate="2017-05-05T03:15:09.363" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8556" PostId="4294" Score="0" Text="@cnread The current theory sounds very plausible, but there's no way to be confident with that amount of source text. A quick glance at the text linked to by the OP suggests that the guideline is mostly followed, but maybe not exactly. Hmm..." CreationDate="2017-05-05T03:42:47.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8557" PostId="4294" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. Yes, it is a woefully small sample to derive certain principles from; I should probably qualify my answer a bit more or add a caveat. And it doesn't surprise me that you found that things start to look inconsistent in a larger sample from the book, because, from what I know about the subject, it's quite likely that different pages of the book were set by different people, each of whom could have applied a somewhat different set of principles." CreationDate="2017-05-05T04:06:28.457" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8558" PostId="4295" Score="0" Text="Can you remember the whole inscription?" CreationDate="2017-05-05T08:14:07.353" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8559" PostId="4295" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz No, alas. I clearly remember wondering about the problem, but I don't remember the inscription, any dates, or the church. It was six years ago. Because of this leaky memory I wanted to ask the question so that it doesn't matter." CreationDate="2017-05-05T08:46:38.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8561" PostId="4295" Score="2" Text="FWIW, Caesar reportedly called Brutus [_fili mi_](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque,_Brute,_fili_mi!) regardless of being his adopted son. In the Vulgate (and also in Ecclesiastical Latin) there are also many examples of _filii_ by adoption: [example](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+Ioannis+3%3A2&amp;version=VULGATE)." CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:11:50.700" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8562" PostId="4295" Score="0" Text="Also not necessarily in a legal sense: _Timotheo germano filio in fide_ ([1 Tim 1,2](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-timotheum_lt.html).)" CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:17:56.023" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8564" PostId="4295" Score="0" Text="Alexander VI was famously debauched as pope, and there are many other examples, including widowed popes. I doubt, though, that such extraordinary circumstances would have been commemorated in a monument." CreationDate="2017-05-05T13:34:36.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8567" PostId="4295" Score="3" Text="All language is so steeped in metaphor I'd be very surprised if there's a language in which *son* cannot be figurative." CreationDate="2017-05-05T14:28:53.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8560" PostId="4297" Score="5" Text="The Passion of the Christ uses a mostly-Ecclesiastical pronunciation: [example 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssO-k4_BQrU), [ex. 2 with lots of swearing during the flagellation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUKllT8eclc), but with some concessions to reconstructed, like aspirated [h]s in [_huc_, _mihi_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJffBsSg1kU). I don't know whether scholars agree on an approximate date for the 'c/g' and other sound changes, so I don't know if that pronunciation is likely for the 1st century. Regarding vocabulary or grammar, I can't tell." CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:02:44.160" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8563" PostId="4297" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Thanks. +20 for the amazing revelation that &quot;idiota&quot; is actually a Latin word! Love it!! (stupid also comes from Latin!) :o" CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:39:30.027" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8566" PostId="4297" Score="1" Text="[_idiota_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idiota#Latin) is a Latin borrowing of Greek [ἰδιώτης](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἰδιώτης#Ancient_Greek). But see [_stultus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stultus#Latin), [_stupidus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stupidus#Latin). :)" CreationDate="2017-05-05T14:24:54.537" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8580" PostId="4297" Score="1" Text="It's not quite what you're looking for, but someone has translated the script to Ridley Scott's big-budget film _Gladiator_ into Latin and posted it online (https://www.krescendo.com/gladiatorlatin/). Some enterprising students I know used it to add Latin subtitles to the film, though I'm not sure how they did it. The only 'real' film I've seen that's in Latin is Derek Jarman's _Sebastiane_, which you've referred/linked to. I don't think I even made it through the whole film because it was so laborious." CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:04:06.487" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8585" PostId="4297" Score="0" Text="@cnread Amazing. It is not timed though, so they are not actually subtitles. If ever Latin gets popular, I imagine more and more subtitles in Latin would appear." CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:04:56.223" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8587" PostId="4297" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho. No, as I said, it's just the script and therefore not really what you're looking for; but it can be turned into subtitles with some effort." CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:31:09.080" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="28762" PostId="4297" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I suspect the Latin-language scenes in Passion of the Christ were conducted in Greek in real life.  The early years of the first century AD are solidly within the period of Classical Latin and afaik it's generally believed that c and g softening came much later." CreationDate="2020-08-26T17:43:24.987" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28763" PostId="4297" Score="0" Text="@rjpond thank you! Since the time I wrote that comment I've learnt in this site that palatalization was a process, and that it probably started earlier in the less cultured. Regarding Greek vs Latin, it is very likely, as you say, that some of the scenes took place in Greek (cultured, lingua franca), yet I guess some were in Latin as well (e.g. between soldiers?). Recall that the titulus was, per available evidence, tri-lingual" CreationDate="2020-08-26T17:56:43.357" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28828" PostId="4297" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: What did you type in to link the clip from &quot;The Passion of the Christ&quot;? In CHAT, with Joonas, I tried to link this for him, and failed." CreationDate="2020-08-31T16:05:25.537" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28830" PostId="4297" Score="0" Text="@tony Hmm, it seems that the videos are no longer available :( One has become private and the other two were removed on copyright grounds." CreationDate="2020-08-31T18:07:50.073" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8592" PostId="4301" Score="0" Text="I took the liberty to reformat your question a bit. Feel free to re-edit or roll back. You can change row without changing paragraph by adding two spaces at the end of a line. It's quite useful for lyrics, poetry, and such." CreationDate="2017-05-05T19:24:09.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8570" PostId="4302" Score="1" Text="Nice job getting there so quickly! You're correct at that the first rubric reads *ad tertiam*." CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:37:12.983" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8573" PostId="4302" Score="0" Text="I'm puzzled by the ʒ-like character in what seems to be _ad tertiãʒ_" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:22:22.207" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8575" PostId="4302" Score="3" Text="@Rafael Take a look at pg. 22 (&amp;sect;4.281) of [this book on Latin paleography](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf): &quot;When the 3-mark occurs at the end of a word and is preceded by the vowel a, e, or u, it generally does not stand for -us or -et, but rather for m.&quot; Perhaps it is considered a flourish, since the rest of the work either uses a typical m or a bar over the preceding vowel." CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:27:48.457" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8577" PostId="4302" Score="1" Text="@brianpck So the second rubric reads _hymnus_? Does the symbol that resembles a v stand for h or y?" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:36:15.783" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8578" PostId="4302" Score="2" Text="@Rafael I think in context it's evident that it means *hymnus.* (In Terce, the hymn follows immediately after the introduction.) I'm not sure about the &quot;v&quot; character, though: perhaps it's based off the Greek upsilon and the h, being unaspirated, is skipped. That's just speculation, though" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:42:17.907" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8623" PostId="4302" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Y/V confusion is ancient (cf. *Sulla* and *Sylla* or *silva* and *sylva*), though I do not know enough about Medieval Latin to state whether that or something else is going on here." CreationDate="2017-05-07T17:08:30.563" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8586" PostId="4305" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Some comments: (1) The first quote is referring to a joke a boy plays on his mother, lying about what the Senate was deliberating about. I suppose that still fits the idea of an &quot;anecdote&quot; in my question. (2) The second quote comes from a life of Euripides, and the parenthetical remark gives reason to think that from a Roman's perspective it was not allowed." CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:30:53.903" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8588" PostId="4305" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Indeed, &quot;marriage&quot; to multiple wives was not normally legal in either Greek or Roman societies. There is some debate, if I recall correctly, about whether the decrees counted as true marriage or not, but Gellius uses the term here nonetheless." CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:36:02.190" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8589" PostId="4305" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Are you instead looking for whether there were any laws allowed for *matrimonium* to multiple partners/of the same sex? I'm sure there is something somewhere referring to &quot;barbarian *matrimonium*&quot; that must reference multiple wives." CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:37:20.927" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8590" PostId="4305" Score="0" Text="That's definitely an interesting, tangential question--would you mind if I edited it into the scope? As stated, this answers my question at least from a &quot;yes/no&quot; perspective." CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:38:17.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8591" PostId="4305" Score="0" Text="@brianpck By all means!" CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:39:51.453" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11531" PostId="4306" Score="0" Text="I wonder if this also exists for the iPhone iOS and Windows, as that would be really interesting..." CreationDate="2017-11-30T00:16:43.393" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11532" PostId="4306" Score="0" Text="@SamK Those two questions would be very good to have here. I'd be happy to see more questions around these topics." CreationDate="2017-11-30T01:36:10.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8612" PostId="4307" Score="0" Text="This looked promising, and I ended up downloading it. It has worked well so far, and adding Latin worked well." CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:27:48.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8613" PostId="4308" Score="0" Text="For some reason this app looked slightly less appealing to me than the other suggestion, but this one looks good too. Thanks for the answer! I'm glad that we have resources like this on this site now." CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:28:56.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8619" PostId="4308" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You are welcome! Btw, did you try it out? My phone is a bit too old for these stuff, and not that I would be using Latin anyway (not yet)." CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:25:25.713" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8625" PostId="4308" Score="0" Text="No, I didn't try it out. I looked at screenshots, descriptions, and user comments for both apps and decided to try the one that looked (slightly) better. I might try it out later. I hope someone tries this one out, too, and shares the experiences." CreationDate="2017-05-07T19:12:12.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18307" PostId="4308" Score="0" Text="Not that the plugin is only necessary for the spellcheck (which is of course what Joonas is asking about in the end, although the title did confuse me). For really just *writing* Latin you just select the Latīna layout very easily in a second. And then you can write laudāmus, cœruleus or fēminæ." CreationDate="2019-01-29T12:08:14.077" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="8608" PostId="4310" Score="5" Text="I, for one, would be very interested in knowing more about the specific context in which your book is using the term _spiritus lenis_. Can you update your original question to provide more details? Perhaps quote the sentence that includes the term?" CreationDate="2017-05-06T20:41:34.817" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8964" PostId="4310" Score="2" Text="@cnread I've quoted the specific passage of the book." CreationDate="2017-05-19T19:20:03.383" UserDisplayName="user761" />
  <row Id="8965" PostId="4310" Score="0" Text="@Mikail: Thanks for updating the question. But what does 'it' in the quoted sentence refer to? hamza?" CreationDate="2017-05-19T19:29:54.713" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8966" PostId="4310" Score="0" Text="@cnread it refers to lam-elif." CreationDate="2017-05-19T20:41:08.627" UserDisplayName="user761" />
  <row Id="8600" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="I see what you're saying but, although I'm hardly an expert in Arabic, I don't believe it's quite correct, technically. My grammars are emphatic that no Arabic word begins with a vowel. A word such as the definite article ال that seems to us to begin with a vowel really begins with hamza, which is the initial consonant and, in formal writing, has a vowel sign (fatḥah, in the case of the definite article) to indicate the vowel sound. Initial alif in these cases merely carries the hamza (which is then followed by the vowel indicated by the vowel sign) and has no actual pronunciation of its own." CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:22:58.560" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8601" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="(continued) (Of course, in writing, the definite article isn't typically written with either hamza or fatḥah, which makes it seem as though the word begins with alif.) Maybe change 'when a vowel begins a word' to 'when a vowel sound seems to begin a word' or the like?" CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:23:09.027" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8602" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="@cnread I'll just remove it. I do not know Arabic, so I'm not confident in making accurate changes. Maybe someone who actually knows Arabic can chime in." CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:30:16.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8604" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="@cnread: My impression is that it depends on what you mean by &quot;begins with a vowel&quot;. Whenever someone pronounces a vowel, obviously it has to start with some kind of phonetic transition from the previous sound. This phonetic transition may or may not be identified with a consonant phoneme depending on the language. For example, in standard German, all words that start with a vowel letter in writing are pronounced with a &quot;[glottal stop](http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/general/Dissertations/Garellek_dissertation.pdf)&quot; or &quot;hard attack&quot;, but this is usually not listed as a consonant of German." CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:38:23.810" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8605" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="@cnread: I'm not an expert about Arabic, but my impression is that the definite article will be pronounced with a glottal stop after a pause, but not if it comes after another vowel in the same spoken phrase (which is why e.g. &quot;عبد ال‎‎&quot; is generally transcribed in English as &quot;Abdul&quot;, not &quot;Abdu'l&quot;). Wikipedia talks about a distinction between &quot;[hamzat waṣl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza#Hamzat_wa.E1.B9.A3l)&quot; and &quot;hamzat qaṭ‘&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:40:43.980" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8606" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Can you weigh in on what I removed from my answer?" CreationDate="2017-05-06T20:11:33.950" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8607" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. Yes, there are two varieties of hamza, and a sort of ellision occurs _in pronunciation_ when the previous word ends in a vowel. But, technically speaking, the article still starts with hamza, which is a consonant (in this case, written as a sort of sideways teardrop shape). It's not really the same at all, but think of the ellision that occurs in the Latin phrase _locum amoenum_. We wouldn't say that the form _locum_ ends in 'c' just because the _um_ isn't pronounced in poetry." CreationDate="2017-05-06T20:12:49.943" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8967" PostId="4311" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I agree with your answer. The elif with the hamza is pronounced with a short sound without any exhalation of air." CreationDate="2017-05-19T21:37:06.790" UserDisplayName="user761" />
  <row Id="8594" PostId="4312" Score="0" Text="No comma after immo?" CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:31:53.830" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8595" PostId="4312" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Commas are modern, so I don't really pay attention to them. Some editors would put a comma there, some might not." CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:56:27.903" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8596" PostId="4312" Score="2" Text="Wouldn't the Latin form of **Luke** be **Lucius**?" CreationDate="2017-05-06T17:47:16.467" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="8597" PostId="4312" Score="0" Text="I agree that *Immo ego pater tuus (sum)* is very fitting. It matches the nuance and rhythm of Dad Vader's line well. @TheHonRose I believe Luke comes from Lucas, which in turn comes from Lucius." CreationDate="2017-05-06T18:39:32.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8598" PostId="4312" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose It's been established since at least the Vulgate that Lucas is the translation of Λουκας, from which we get the name Luke." CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:21:03.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8599" PostId="4312" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Etymonline derives it otherwise: `Luke, from Latin Lucas (Greek Loukas), contraction of Lucanus literally &quot;of Lucania.&quot;`" CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:21:38.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8609" PostId="4312" Score="0" Text="You need the &quot;sum&quot; (=am) but the &quot;ego&quot; = &quot;I&quot; is optional; you get that from the verb form.  Without the &quot;sum&quot; there's no verb, so you get &quot;No, I  ??? your father&quot;, which is an incomplete sentence." CreationDate="2017-05-06T22:29:02.213" UserId="1534" />
  <row Id="8610" PostId="4312" Score="0" Text="@JerryTheC Incomplete sentences in both English and Latin are permissible if the verb is understood from context. For a Latin example, see Plautus *Truculentus* 5.957: `Immo ego vero, qui dedi.`" CreationDate="2017-05-06T22:40:08.130" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8603" PostId="4313" Score="7" Text="Love the *eheu*s!" CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:31:25.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8620" PostId="4313" Score="1" Text="Both answers were great, but I feel oblige to accept the first one. It would be great to be able to accept two answers!" CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:28:02.977" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8611" PostId="4314" Score="1" Text="Based on this, would you say that the example sentence is truly ambiguous?" CreationDate="2017-05-06T22:50:21.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8695" PostId="4314" Score="0" Text="Really tough to choose which answer to award the bounty to, but this answer does a great job of citing authoritative scholarly sources." CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:08:30.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8696" PostId="4314" Score="1" Text="I did some formatting changes, mostly to make it clearer where the quotes are: feel free to roll back if any of the changes compete with your intentions." CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:12:49.167" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8615" PostId="4315" Score="0" Text="How is this question really different from [this one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2978/can-esse-be-used-with-a-present-participle), and per that question, are you looking at Classical, endorsed Latin, the sheer possibility of it, or developments from Late, Medieval, and post-Medieval Latin?" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:12:55.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8616" PostId="4315" Score="0" Text="Can you also specify what you want to say in English?" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:14:44.187" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8617" PostId="4315" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I added a remark about the eras and an example sentence. I can give an extended example if needed. I'm interested in this one case specifically, so it could be different from the general case. Perhaps one can read this question as &quot;Did the participle *aequivalens* lose its verbal meaning?&quot;. But if you think (or anyone thinks) this question is fully answered by the older one, I have nothing against votes to close as duplicate." CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:19:48.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8621" PostId="4315" Score="1" Text="Have you not thought of using _tantusdem_? It seems to have exactly the quality that you are looking for." CreationDate="2017-05-07T09:51:20.090" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8622" PostId="4315" Score="3" Text="A quick google has found Quint. Inst. I, 5: _idem significant et tantundem valent_." CreationDate="2017-05-07T10:02:55.047" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8626" PostId="4315" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton Good finds, thanks! I had not heard of *tantusdem* before. I think it will help most modern mathematical readers if I use a phrase etymologically related to &quot;equivalent&quot;, but *tantusdem* is indeed a good option to keep in mind." CreationDate="2017-05-07T20:52:38.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8627" PostId="4315" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The word is rare enough that you should be able to do as you please. My only suggestion is to find what other mathematicians writing in Latin use and go with that." CreationDate="2017-05-07T21:04:48.680" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8646" PostId="4315" Score="2" Text="I don't think this question is a duplicate of [the one about _esse_ + pres. partic.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2978/can-esse-be-used-with-a-present-participle). This one is more specific, seeking an idiom for logic or mathematics." CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:15:01.620" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8624" PostId="4316" Score="2" Text="Well, to answer such a question we would need native speakers of Latin, record them, analyze their speech samples with Praat etc. **So we can only hypothesize whether there was allophonic accentual lengthening or not.**" CreationDate="2017-05-07T17:28:06.600" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8631" PostId="4319" Score="1" Text="Since you're working on it, have this as something that is potentially useful: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/550/is-there-a-latin-version-of-quick-brown-fox" CreationDate="2017-05-07T22:40:23.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="12305" PostId="4319" Score="1" Text="Here's the translation link for [Ubuntu 18.04](https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+lang/la). Currently 311,887 strings to go, but, to be fair, many of them are repeats. If we got all 123 Latin SE users in the reputation leagues to participate, the translation would probably get done reasonably soon" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:50:26.540" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="8632" PostId="4321" Score="1" Text="I would be inlined towards a gerund or an adhorative: *progrediamur!* It also depends on which possible context of the phrase you want to capture." CreationDate="2017-05-07T22:59:58.040" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8633" PostId="4321" Score="1" Text="Bearing in mind how the optative ***andiamo*** fills all sorts of needs in Italian, perhaps the 1st pl. present of the Latin etymons would work. ***ambulamus*** or the vulgar Latin ***ambitamus,*** &quot;We are on our way.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-07T23:03:14.317" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8634" PostId="4321" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Post that as an answer!" CreationDate="2017-05-07T23:29:38.077" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8635" PostId="4321" Score="0" Text="&quot;En marche&quot; can also mean &quot;working&quot; (as opposed to broken), but I doubt you want to include this second meaning." CreationDate="2017-05-08T00:08:44.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8636" PostId="4321" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That might be an interesting angle in the answer, but yes, I agree, it would be impossible to try to fit all nuances in any translation." CreationDate="2017-05-08T00:17:37.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8639" PostId="4321" Score="2" Text="The slogan is &quot;En marche !&quot; with the exclamation point. This punctuation gives more hints at what it conveys. The meaning is when you're on the verge to start walking in a group and everybody is waiting for the &quot;let's go&quot; signal. &quot;En marche !&quot; is one of those possible signals, such as &quot;let's go&quot; could be. The exclamation point is a very important part of the slogan." CreationDate="2017-05-08T08:16:14.487" UserId="906" />
  <row Id="8640" PostId="4321" Score="1" Text="Does [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339) have an opinion on this?" CreationDate="2017-05-08T09:01:08.347" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="8651" PostId="4321" Score="3" Text="Plus ultra? It's been used for centuries." CreationDate="2017-05-08T20:38:45.290" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8652" PostId="4321" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. That's a good suggestion. Please post it as an answer!" CreationDate="2017-05-08T20:45:11.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8653" PostId="4321" Score="2" Text="**Everyone, please stop answering in the comments. Write your answers as answers.** An answer does not have to be wonderful to be useful. Posting an imperfect answers is far better than commenting, and it helps the site." CreationDate="2017-05-08T20:47:15.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8794" PostId="4321" Score="1" Text="@DavidRicherby, see 5/12/17 Nuntill Latinii.  &quot;Quo munere relicto (2016) motum politicum nomine “En marche” condidit.&quot;  http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339" CreationDate="2017-05-12T21:13:35.870" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8638" PostId="4322" Score="4" Text="The main connotation of &quot;En marche&quot; in French is indeed &quot;let's go&quot;, i.e., &quot;let's get started on our way&quot;, but there is also another nuance because saying that a device is &quot;en marche&quot; means that it is &quot;operational&quot;. See for instance https://en-marche.fr/emmanuel-macron/le-programme which talks about &quot;mettre la France en marche&quot; which I understand as &quot;to start France&quot; (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mettre_en_marche)" CreationDate="2017-05-08T02:00:39.600" UserId="1537" />
  <row Id="8644" PostId="4322" Score="1" Text="@a3nm I wonder if a gerund(ive) can be read as having both connotations. My Spanish-biased intuition says it can, as in _andando!_" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:03:28.167" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8655" PostId="4322" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, I agreed with you and went looking for an answer that had precedent in Latin usage. Thanks for your comment." CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:50:52.930" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8656" PostId="4322" Score="0" Text="@a3nm, thanks for your comment.  It helped me search for a more nuanced Latin translation. &quot;Eundum est&quot; introduces the idea of necessity, rightness and movement in a very compact way." CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:59:13.540" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8643" PostId="4325" Score="1" Text="Is the _os_ at the end of _zelotypos_ meant to represent the Greek adverbial ending -ως? I've also seen versions of this line where the word is given as _zelotypus_ (m. nom. sg.). Either way, perhaps _tam_ has been ellipsed before _zelotypos/zelotypus_? Ellipsis of the demonstrative member of a correlative pair is pretty common. In that case, the line could mean 'you're regarded with as much jealousy [_zelotypos_] as Karus' or 'you're considered as jealous [_zelotypus_] as Karus')." CreationDate="2017-05-08T16:57:23.430" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8645" PostId="4325" Score="0" Text="@cnread Fairly certain it's a Greek nominative. I'm also fairly certain you're right, so you should turn that into an answer (with examples, if you can)." CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:04:25.623" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8649" PostId="4325" Score="0" Text="Ah well, Joonas has beaten me to it. It's strange though: 'with jealousy' in the translation that you quoted does seem to point to an adverb (i.e., zelotypos = ζηλοτύπως) rather than a nom.sg. adjective, don't you think? (I just checked LSJ, and the Greek adverb is attested.)" CreationDate="2017-05-08T20:15:05.870" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8650" PostId="4325" Score="1" Text="@cnread Do you have stats on how often the Greek adverb is used? Even as it stands, you have enough for an answer (at least in my opinion). I had guessed at tam...quam, but I didn't consider the Greek adverb at all!" CreationDate="2017-05-08T20:36:21.303" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8654" PostId="4325" Score="0" Text="@cnread I had meant to write that answer for a while, but I was distracted by work. I didn't realize the possibility to parse it as a Greek adverb. That would make an interesting answer. There is nothing wrong with having several answers even if they are similar (quite the opposite, really), and in this case you have something crucial to add." CreationDate="2017-05-08T20:56:59.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8663" PostId="4331" Score="1" Text="Can progredi(u/e)ndo also have a connotation close to exhortative? Perhaps _progredientes_? This is the answer I like the most so far. What about the verb _adeo_?" CreationDate="2017-05-09T10:02:49.480" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8657" PostId="4332" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is a good option to keep in mind. In Finland the English word &quot;faculty&quot; is used in a yet different meaning. It does not refer to the personnel or the subject, but the university is divided into faculties and faculties into departments. A faculty is lead by a dean. I believe the typical corresponding term in the US would be &quot;school&quot;. Do you know if *facultas* refers more to the institution teaching law, medicine, or theology, or to the subjects themselves?" CreationDate="2017-05-08T23:06:50.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8659" PostId="4332" Score="1" Text="The institution was only one; it was called either _studium particulare_, if only local students were admissible, or otherwise _studium generale_. The guilds of the teachers and of the students were called _universitas_ (the former _u. magistrum_; the latter _u. scholarium_). Within the _universitas magistrum_, there was a subset which taught Law, for instance, and those could be referred as the _facultas legis_, though the course (the &quot;major&quot;) they taught was also the _facultas legis_. There wasn't then a clear distinction between the two." CreationDate="2017-05-09T01:55:31.967" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="8661" PostId="4332" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! Could you add that comment into your answer? That is very interesting, at least to me." CreationDate="2017-05-09T03:07:29.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8660" PostId="4333" Score="2" Text="I just looked through Whitaker's Words and the closest I found was [QUADRIIUGUS](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#quadriiugus), a four-horse team. Classically attested, but possibly not found in barnyards. (Thanks to a couple helpful folks on [CONLOQVIVM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/37266019#37266019).)" CreationDate="2017-05-09T02:48:26.057" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8662" PostId="4333" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz If we go that route, *quadrupes* would work, too." CreationDate="2017-05-09T03:09:43.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8664" PostId="4333" Score="0" Text="I assume scientific names w/o an ancient origin don't count" CreationDate="2017-05-09T10:09:27.247" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8667" PostId="4333" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I was really hoping for an actual ancient word." CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:03:06.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40869" PostId="4335" Score="1" Text="Plautus does not always shorten the vowel before *-t*.&#xA;&#xA;Here are examples from the *Miles Gloriosus* that arguably involve a long vowel:&#xA;&#xA;*abducat* (770), *abduceret* (1208), *potuit* (1076), *segregat* (1232), *desideret* (1244), *exeat* (1249), *fecit* (1257), *careat* (1033)." CreationDate="2023-01-08T02:51:06.720" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40872" PostId="4335" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs Very interesting! That suggests either poetic liberty or that the vowels were shortened only after or around Plautus' time. That should probably be explored in a separate question; I don't recall this topic being covered here before." CreationDate="2023-01-08T14:08:27.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40874" PostId="4335" Score="1" Text="It is both. To make it short, Plautus uses those forms to produce a &quot;formal&quot; effect, which creates a contrast with respect to the oral language that is expected from the characters.  I addressed this subject personally, back in 2005. I found the examples, analyzing the metrics and deducing the prosody, and I put forward the hypothesis. Do you read French?" CreationDate="2023-01-08T14:38:05.560" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40875" PostId="4335" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs I would be happy know some details, and I went ahead and asked [a separate question about this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/19350/79). I do read a bit of French, and I imagine many users would be quite happy with a link to the French original and a brief summary of the key findings." CreationDate="2023-01-08T14:49:39.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8690" PostId="4339" Score="0" Text="Did it include something else in Latin, other than that message?" CreationDate="2017-05-10T06:37:17.097" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="8692" PostId="4339" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho: I am not aware of more Latin in Multics, but I do not have in-depth knowledge of the Multics internals." CreationDate="2017-05-10T08:30:37.397" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="8713" PostId="4340" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the research! In the absence of any hint of antiquity for qualea (in any of its forms), I'll have to go with querquedula, no matter how strange that sounds. I am filing away the Medieval words for quail for later, though, so it's much appreciated." CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:02:43.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8668" PostId="4341" Score="1" Text="Two factoids learned during my own recent googling (which you're welcome to include in your answer if you see fit): (1) _Quelea quelea_ is the most numerous bird species in the world—and the most destructive. (2) Linnaeus used _quelea_ as the specific difference, not the genus (i.e. as a modifier, not the noun), and it's not clear if he was likening _Q. quelea_ to a Bible story involving numerous and destructive quail or drawing upon an African word—or at least that's what I read in [these two paragraphs](https://books.google.com/books?id=-RfSBAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA328&amp;pg=PA328#v=onepage&amp;q=quelea)." CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:12:03.330" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8670" PostId="4341" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Yeah, Wikipedia's vague on the etymology, too. I love the way it discusses the etymology of &quot;quelea&quot; and then, in the very next section, says that the bird is called a &quot;kwelea domo-jekundu&quot; in Swahili without any mention of which name came first." CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:18:30.060" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="8683" PostId="4341" Score="0" Text="Some more amateur but fanatic googling reveals… The genus was named in 1850 by H.G. Reichenbach, according to [this](http://www.ubio.org/NZ/detail.php?uid=172507&amp;d=1) and other sources; depicted [here](https://archive.org/stream/dievollstandig211836reic#page/n175/mode/2up), defined [here](https://archive.org/stream/conspectusg1218501865bona#page/444/mode/2up/search/quelea). Linnaeus named the species _Emberiza quelea_ [here](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/727083#page/196/mode/1up). _Emberiza_ apparently means &quot;[bunting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunting_(bird))&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:19:07.730" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8714" PostId="4341" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the research! I am planning on doing something with trees soon, but *quercus* is already known. If you find any direct evidence for *quelea* before the Medieval period, though, that would be a more desirable word than *querquedulea*." CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:04:23.147" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8669" PostId="4342" Score="3" Text="Can you explain what you mean by &quot;my gracious mistake&quot;? What's a context where you would say that?" CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:14:40.090" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8671" PostId="4342" Score="1" Text="Are you trying to refer to or play off of the phrase _mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa_ (&quot;through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault&quot;), formerly used in the Catholic mass? (Explanation [here](https://liturgyguy.com/2013/07/30/mea-culpa-mea-culpa-mea-maxima-culpa/).)" CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:20:32.453" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8672" PostId="4342" Score="2" Text="BTW, _mei misereatur error_ would mean something like &quot;May the wandering of me be lamented.&quot; Google Translate is usually a disaster." CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:45:06.513" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8673" PostId="4342" Score="3" Text="@BenKovitz the context is a little strange I suppose and you'd never probably use it in a sentence as such.  Its a phrase a my best friend uses to describe his kid as he was a mistake but he loves him. so for their birthday I was going to get something made up for them with the phrase but wanted to do it in a nicer sounding language than English if that makes sense.  In relation to mea culpa that wasn't the intention as to me the meaning or intent of the phrase would be different." CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:46:19.557" UserId="1541" />
  <row Id="8674" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="Ah, that clarifies it. My first thought is _meus lapsus gratiosus_ (using the root of &quot;gracious&quot;, which might have just the connotation you want), but I'm only a beginner with Latin. Someone with more of a feel for the language will probably have something spot-on." CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:56:50.020" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8675" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@Dave Welcome to the site! Can you edit your question and put that context in, so others have easier time figuring out a suitable translation?" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:03:30.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8678" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz the phrase is still used in the Mass, though" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:27:59.603" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8679" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@Dave is any form of longer sentence usually implied? Like _that was_ my gracious mistake, or _it happened because of_ my gracious mistake?" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:29:52.137" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8680" PostId="4342" Score="2" Text="Felix culpa? Happy fault  -but it comes with connotations and backstory." CreationDate="2017-05-09T18:59:55.187" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8681" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta yeah i've updated the question thanks" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:16:14.623" UserId="1541" />
  <row Id="8682" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@Rafael usually no he just calls him &quot;my gracious mistake&quot; I always take his usage of it to mean he's thankfull for the result of the mistake.  I suppose you could infer the &quot;that was&quot; part though." CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:17:29.200" UserId="1541" />
  <row Id="8689" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="Please give this a couple days before accepting an answer. That will allow time for people to comment, fix problems, and sort out the most appropriate translation." CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:46:50.230" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8691" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz normally I would but I have to get this to the printers in an hour and the current answer was to me sufficient to cover all the possibilities." CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:51:22.793" UserId="1541" />
  <row Id="8693" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="Ack! I have doubts about _propitius_ but I can't say for sure that it's wrong. I'll post a quick explanation of _lapsus meus gratiosus_ right now (though I'm groggy from just waking up…). (_Felix culpa_ might be better still.)" CreationDate="2017-05-10T08:52:20.427" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8707" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@Palizsche I agree that it would not be a good idea to call a child a mistake. In this particular case I would say that they turned out not to be a mistake despite being unplanned. However, I don't think we should filter posts on that basis, apart from very extreme circumstances. Commenting about the consequences of using some expressions is welcome, even if our main focus is on language itself. But others might disagree with me; ask at meta if you want a more definitive answer." CreationDate="2017-05-10T17:39:53.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8708" PostId="4342" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Please post that *felix culpa* as an answer! It really is an answer, so it does not belong in the comment section. Less than perfect answers are more than welcome, so don't set your bar too high." CreationDate="2017-05-10T17:41:32.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8709" PostId="4342" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, thanks for your reply.  I thought about posting in meta and maybe I still will, though it seems my concern was not shared by others." CreationDate="2017-05-10T22:17:28.240" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8685" PostId="4345" Score="1" Text="In classical, post-Plautine Latin, would this be _Age ut libet?_" CreationDate="2017-05-09T20:09:55.897" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8687" PostId="4345" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Added: Cicero uses *ut lubet* once and *ut libet* various times: I included an example of the latter case." CreationDate="2017-05-09T20:54:45.693" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8694" PostId="4346" Score="0" Text="Are you sure _propitius_ is right? I'm not 100% sure, but from the linked definition, it appears to mean something like &quot;in a good/favorable mood&quot; as in &quot;the boss is in a good mood, i.e. now is a good time to ask the boss for a raise.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-10T08:58:15.887" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8699" PostId="4346" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Although a most prominent meaning of **propitius** applies to well-disposed _people_ as you point, the entry starts with a meaning that applies to things (i.e. application to things is not just by analogy). Since _gratious_ and _propicious_ are listed among the general meanings, I see no harm. _Pax propitia_ is translated as _favoring kindness_ [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0110%3Aact%3D4%3Ascene%3D1) (currently looking for more examples)" CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:06:23.733" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8701" PostId="4346" Score="0" Text="The use of **propitius** for things may be seen as just a transfer of qualities from people: (pax tua propitia, auribus propitiis), that is a valid, yet arguably free, way of reading _my gracious mistake_. In the opinion of L&amp;S it is used for the ocean (_propitius et tranquillus Oceanus_) in the sense of the sea itself rather than the deity. Thus _propitius error_ could also be _gratious mistake_ as in the mistake itself being a personification." CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:35:19.847" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8702" PostId="4346" Score="1" Text="Here's a possibility (I'm not experienced enough to judge if this is right): _propitius_ might be understood as an adjective for _pro_ in the sense of &quot;on behalf of&quot;, adding the meaning of &quot;disposed to be that way&quot;—in other words, _primed to take your side._ Hence the primary use of _propitius_ for gods, authority figures, and elements/forces of nature that can either foil or favor your efforts—and the verb [_propitio_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=propitio) to mainly mean appeasing/wheedling such people or things." CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:41:20.653" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8703" PostId="4346" Score="1" Text="There's even a word [_propitiatrix_](https://books.google.com/books?id=TfQIVjnlFxwC&amp;lpg=PA552&amp;ots=W6IeBZkalJ&amp;dq=propitiatrix&amp;pg=PA552#v=onepage&amp;q=propitiatrix&amp;f=false)—apparently a woman who will help appease an authority to make them propitious to you (maybe Mary could sweet-talk the big guys into going easy on your sins). Notice that _tua pax propitia_ is in a prayer of gratitude to Neptune, for his willingness to calm the winds that had just torn the sails, etc. So I guess my concern boils down to whether _propitius_ strongly invokes a connotation of appeasement and side-taking." CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:57:06.423" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8704" PostId="4346" Score="0" Text="Although some of the examples cited use _iratus_ and _propitius_ in the same sentence. They do not always oppose both: [propitious vs angered](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0099%3Aact%3D4%3Ascene%3D4). Other cited sources (not in said seeming opposition) are translated as  [favorable](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0018%3Atext%3DDiv.%20Caec.%3Achapter%3D13%3Asection%3D41), [fond](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0112%3Aact%3D1%3Ascene%3D1), etc." CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:59:35.340" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8705" PostId="4346" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/58512/discussion-between-rafael-and-ben-kovitz)." CreationDate="2017-05-10T15:02:32.830" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8735" PostId="4348" Score="0" Text="I wonder if the current English ambassador to Europe, or even the Low Countries, writes Latin science-fiction in their spare time." CreationDate="2017-05-11T11:50:55.177" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8716" PostId="4349" Score="9" Text="I actually find it is a fun study/practice tool, as there is a part of Google Translate called Google Translate Community that lets you translate phrases they give you to or from Latin, and it lets you check other people's translations. In addition, it helps improve Google Translate, so that's a plus!" CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:21:48.343" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="8728" PostId="4349" Score="4" Text="@SamK Hmm... You could actually add that as an answer. If Google Translate comes with a tool for practicing and it (slowly!) helps improve the system, it is indeed interesting." CreationDate="2017-05-11T06:58:07.533" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8731" PostId="4349" Score="10" Text="I think that Latin, being inflected and syncretic and having no fixed word order, is one of those languages where anything corpus-related is doomed to fail. In order to translate from Latin, a system will actually have to &quot;know&quot; Latin. Especially texts emulating so-called Ciceronian diction will need more than just a Markov chain and/or crowd-sourced user input." CreationDate="2017-05-11T10:20:02.373" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8746" PostId="4349" Score="2" Text="@blagae I fully agree. Google Translate does not seem to have a good (any?) structural understanding of Latin, and without that it's pretty hopeless." CreationDate="2017-05-11T17:28:19.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8750" PostId="4349" Score="2" Text="Amusingly, I was just playing around with Google Translate for Latin and found this gem: *dolor*: pain - *sit amet*: a lot - *dolor sit amet*: carrots. (All three also have the &quot;community checked&quot; shield as well.)" CreationDate="2017-05-11T17:53:25.007" UserId="1574" />
  <row Id="8765" PostId="4349" Score="0" Text="I've been using Google Translate recently because of working on software that was originally written in France. As I don't read French, Google Translate has been useful for getting some sense out of the comments." CreationDate="2017-05-11T23:36:25.310" UserId="1581" />
  <row Id="8885" PostId="4349" Score="0" Text="The simple answer is:&#xA;It's good for translating movie and tv subtitles to English. And, at times, newspaper articles.&#xA;Don't try to use it for translating a non-English language to a non-English language, because that is pretty useless." CreationDate="2017-05-13T13:41:55.803" UserId="1607" />
  <row Id="9566" PostId="4349" Score="0" Text="My experience with non-English languages is that Google Translator does a pretty good work that just needs a revision, provided that the corpus is big enough. I often use it to translate Catalan to Spanish and Spanish to Catalan and it helps me to save a lot of work. I suppose the Latin-English corpus is just to small to provide a useful translation beyond grasping the meaning." CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:05:41.170" UserId="851" />
  <row Id="9645" PostId="4349" Score="0" Text="I just tried all 8 of the Latin→English examples in the question. Google Translate gives correct results for 1–6 without the trailing `.` and for 7 and 8 with the trailing `.` so I was able to get successful translations of all 8 sentences out of it." CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:51:37.803" UserId="1118" />
  <row Id="9647" PostId="4349" Score="0" Text="@ShreevatsaR Interesting! I'm not sure if it's learning over time or depends on the user's translation history. Dependence on trailing punctuation is weird, but I have seen that before. Perhaps you can indeed squeeze the right translation out of it, but not consistently, and not easily if you don't know Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-03T18:02:20.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27307" PostId="4349" Score="0" Text="Btw, Google translator translates “google” to “google“, haha." CreationDate="2020-07-22T06:13:34.017" UserId="7172" />
  <row Id="8767" PostId="4350" Score="1" Text="My first thought is that if I ever meet a _verum corpus_ or a _Maria,_ I'll say _ave,_ otherwise _salve._ ;)" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:35:42.490" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8736" PostId="4351" Score="0" Text="Do you prefer original Latin names rather than Greek names adopted in Latin?" CreationDate="2017-05-11T12:16:20.187" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8740" PostId="4351" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That would be preferable, but I'll take common but from Greek over rare but native Latin if it came down to it. Thanks for looking so far!" CreationDate="2017-05-11T13:52:38.440" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8723" PostId="4352" Score="10" Text="Thank you! This was insightful, and the translations were hilarious. This really helps me understand how and why Google Translate fails, and that's what I was after." CreationDate="2017-05-11T05:41:07.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8724" PostId="4352" Score="0" Text="Or, as Google Translate helps me put it: *Gratias tibi! Hoc est prudentissimus, qua translationes sint praeditae sunt, et hilares. Realiter intelligere quomodo et cur hoc adjuvat me: Google Translate Caelata lex, ut 'quid esset post. (Quintilianus exponentia es certus vos volo ut Sic latine?)*" CreationDate="2017-05-11T05:41:25.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8726" PostId="4352" Score="32" Text="I joined just to upvote this. I think such an explanation would have its place on non-specific sites too, like linguistics.se or even cs.se" CreationDate="2017-05-11T06:09:31.957" UserId="1549" />
  <row Id="8727" PostId="4352" Score="10" Text="This is the single best explanation of why and how Google Translate does what it does. The example sentences show exactly where the pitfalls are and how it's possible that's where it's going wrong. Great answer!" CreationDate="2017-05-11T06:20:35.400" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="8733" PostId="4352" Score="15" Text="I think this description is out of date. In November 2016 Google changed how their algorithm works to use neural nets rather than statistical methods. It is now apparently significantly more accurate. https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/" CreationDate="2017-05-11T11:13:13.010" UserId="1554" />
  <row Id="8734" PostId="4352" Score="2" Text="@PeterCollingridge Thanks—I was not aware of that. From that blog post, a [blog post from March](https://blog.google/products/translate/higher-quality-neural-translations-bunch-more-languages/), and the look of the translations, it appears that Latin is still on the old system. We'll see what happens when they switch it to neural machine translation." CreationDate="2017-05-11T11:44:30.660" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8738" PostId="4352" Score="0" Text="For some languages Google uses a machine learning approach: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-translate-uses-machine-learning-for-its-cool-new-trick/ (also there exists an official blog post. List of languages outdated)" CreationDate="2017-05-11T12:36:22.757" UserId="1558" />
  <row Id="8743" PostId="4352" Score="1" Text="@Peter Even before that date it’s unfortunately **not an accurate description** of how Google Translate worked. HMMs are powerful but — on their own — completely inadequate for translation. It’s true that Google used a statistical model of language, but it’s rather more complex. Why is this relevant? Because it gives a wrong impression of what Google Translate would be in principle capable of." CreationDate="2017-05-11T15:55:08.153" UserId="1570" />
  <row Id="8744" PostId="4352" Score="11" Text="Neural nets are also &quot;statistical&quot;. The difference is in the mechanics of calculation and in how the statistics is collected. As for translation quality, the new algorithm produces more grammatical output but seems prone to dropping words or whole clauses, not infrequently completely changing the meaning (and since the output is grammatical the poor user won't notice unless the user knows both languages). Some examples from Google: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4-Ig7UAZe3BSUYweVo3eVhNY3c/view" CreationDate="2017-05-11T16:02:43.807" UserId="1438" />
  <row Id="8748" PostId="4352" Score="1" Text="@PeterCollingridge A more up-to-date description of Google's translation algorithm would make a nice answer. It would be highly relevant and interesting, so I would gladly see it here even if it does not precisely answer my question as stated. Do you want to write up a description?" CreationDate="2017-05-11T17:47:50.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8749" PostId="4352" Score="3" Text="In fact, if anyone at all has recent and accurate information about how Google Translate work, I invite you to write it up as an answer." CreationDate="2017-05-11T17:49:07.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8751" PostId="4352" Score="3" Text="@PeterCollingridge From that article I get the impression that the new method is not implemented for Latin yet. If you can find the current status of Latin translation methodology somewhere, that would make a nice answer." CreationDate="2017-05-11T18:26:33.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8766" PostId="4352" Score="0" Text="This is a great answer. I joined just to vote it up. And now I am learning more about HMMs because it will be useful for one of my projects." CreationDate="2017-05-12T06:45:03.600" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="8806" PostId="4352" Score="1" Text="Even if it's not 100%, I still give you props for a &quot;close enough&quot; description." CreationDate="2017-05-13T05:54:28.780" UserDisplayName="user1602" />
  <row Id="9673" PostId="4352" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the second quarter of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/303/79)" CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:28:05.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12068" PostId="4352" Score="0" Text="Congratulations for the first answer on the site to score a hundred votes!" CreationDate="2018-01-31T21:17:59.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33153" PostId="4352" Score="0" Text="@AntonTykhyy I've noticed this in Chinese translations lately. I would paste a paragraph, and only the initial sentence would be translated. It's very strange!" CreationDate="2021-05-15T02:32:46.747" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8719" PostId="4353" Score="6" Text="This is half intended as a joke, but...it's really all that needs to be said to a Latin learner who is contemplating this abyss." CreationDate="2017-05-11T03:24:31.560" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8721" PostId="4353" Score="7" Text="[Good god yall! Say it again!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpWmlRNfLck)" CreationDate="2017-05-11T03:35:55.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8725" PostId="4353" Score="6" Text="I agree, this really has to be said directly. Ben's answer explains how and why it fails, but it's also good to state clearly and concisely that Google Translate is not to be trusted." CreationDate="2017-05-11T05:46:15.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9711" PostId="4353" Score="3" Text="I was going to say that it's good for translating Latin phrases you found in someone's signature somewhere, but throwing a selection from [List of Latin phrases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases) at it only got good translations for the *really* famous ones, like *sic semper tyrannis*." CreationDate="2017-07-06T23:36:03.040" UserId="1797" />
  <row Id="14563" PostId="4354" Score="0" Text="http://hellenisteukontos.opoudjis.net/2016-01-13-how-was-the-term-utopia-coined-and-by-whom/" CreationDate="2018-06-21T10:51:24.870" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="8739" PostId="4357" Score="1" Text="Hi, and welcome to the site. For your question to be on-topic, you need to show an effort to translate it yourself (preferably more than just Google Translate, usually not very good) and ask for corrections/suggestions. Many of us are eager to help!" CreationDate="2017-05-11T13:25:52.340" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8742" PostId="4357" Score="0" Text="Hi @Rafael - I have tried searching Google (not Translate, which I have read on here is pretty much no use whatsoever) but have found zero answers; I have no Latin myself so I'm a bit adrift here. If I am off-topic (for which I apologize), please just have a mod close the question; I admit it is a bit of an odd one. I can edit in my last couple of searches if that will help." CreationDate="2017-05-11T14:13:22.280" UserId="1560" />
  <row Id="8745" PostId="4357" Score="0" Text="Give [this](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) a try before you give up ;)" CreationDate="2017-05-11T16:29:13.700" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8747" PostId="4357" Score="0" Text="@Spratty Welcome to the site! It's perfectly fine if you don't know any Latin, and I can blame no one for [steering clear of Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), but I do suggest editing in what you could figure out yourself, no matter how little it is. Looking at [any of the many online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) (Rafael linked to one) might help you find the kind of word for &quot;work&quot; you want. I will put this on hold now, but I will immediately reopen once you edit to add details. (The closure reason is not descriptive.)" CreationDate="2017-05-11T17:42:58.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8809" PostId="4357" Score="0" Text="[This clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX9c-k53ksA) might provide more context for the precise nuance of &quot;Let's go to work.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-13T07:39:25.247" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8762" PostId="4358" Score="5" Text="Excellent point about translating only _to_ a language that you already know! It's easy to ridicule Google Translate because the results come out sounding so laughable, but it _is_ useful as a quick way to get the gist of an article—when supplemented with some common sense on the part of the user. It's probably much less helpful for learning a language, which is what most of us do with Latin; but I'm going to keep this in mind the next time I simply want to understand what a medieval document says." CreationDate="2017-05-12T04:38:04.197" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8752" PostId="4359" Score="0" Text="Salve! And welcome to the site! My experience coincides with yours: *salve* seems to be much more common as a greeting in modern spoken Latin than *ave*. Do you know if there's a difference in meaning or nuance, or does *salve* just happen to be the more common one?" CreationDate="2017-05-11T21:17:57.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8753" PostId="4359" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure @JoonasIlmavirta" CreationDate="2017-05-11T21:51:14.567" UserId="1578" />
  <row Id="8761" PostId="4360" Score="2" Text="The examples from Ben Kovitz aren't exactly relevant to this use case: they are contrived to show context sensitivity--in this case they are one-word variations from something we know is in the corpus. The question is: *have you come across a semi-useful translation &quot;in the wild&quot;?* I would argue that you'd get a *better* result by using the first dictionary entry for every word in a sentence and putting it into a blender." CreationDate="2017-05-12T00:15:19.967" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12275" PostId="4360" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Actually, “using the first dictionary entry for every word in a sentence and putting it into a blender” might be useful as well, if it had a convenient “just type your full text here” interface like Google Translate does." CreationDate="2018-03-01T03:07:56.027" UserId="1118" />
  <row Id="8769" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="Are you looking for modern Latin conventions? A Roman certainly would not have thought to make 1992 = 19 + 92, as it would have been written MCMXCII, with little room for redivision." CreationDate="2017-05-12T14:01:12.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8771" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Yes, a modern convention—though any old precedents would be good to learn about in an answer. Interesting point about Roman numerals. Indeed I'm thinking of a world dominated by Arabic numerals, but Arabic numerals don't necessarily have to inspire the convention. Even counting years _ab urbe condita_ must have gotten to be a mouthful before Romulus Augustulus." CreationDate="2017-05-12T14:46:33.390" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8772" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="Does omitting part of the number count? (As in ninenty-two or _novecento_)" CreationDate="2017-05-12T14:56:29.023" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8773" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Whatever the custom is, I'd like to hear about it." CreationDate="2017-05-12T14:58:23.063" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8775" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="[Page of some interest](https://books.google.cl/books?id=aJuO3sbKOkEC&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;ots=rtQ4gLZ_SL&amp;dq=vitae%20anno%20septuagesimo%20tertio&amp;pg=PA50#v=onepage&amp;q=vitae%20anno%20septuagesimo%20tertio&amp;f=false). Also the ancient custom of counting regnal years." CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:04:17.810" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8776" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="The book is from 1625 and gets to omit the century when it is clear enough: _ipso anno septuages[s]imo tertio_ (previously mentioned as _eius seculi_)." CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:15:48.873" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8777" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I'm not sure if Roman numerals are a conclusive argument. They are certainly base-10 (I, X, C, M), but otherwise don't have much relation to the spoken language: XC -&gt; *nonaginta*, XIX -&gt; *undeviginti* (not *decem-un-de-decem*)" CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:27:15.307" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8778" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="I agree with @brianpck. In French too you write &quot;90&quot; but you say quatre-vingt-dix." CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:06:29.363" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8779" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I didn't say it was a conclusive argument, but the premise is off. In English, 1992 is analyzed as 19 + 92 because of the way it was written, though that is compounded by shortening of hundred after 1900. So really it's nineteen [hundred] ninety-two, but because of the way it's written, that hundred is all but forgotten. The two work in tandem. You can test this by seeing phone numbers. 1-800-555-7324 (one, eight-hundred, five five five, seventy-three twenty-four)." CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:15:09.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8780" PostId="4363" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Re: Roman numbers v. spoken language, the point I'm making is that the visual word doesn't lend itself to reanalysis, which wouldn't necessarily impede a spoken reanalysis, but it wouldn't help it along either." CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:18:39.530" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8781" PostId="4363" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Thinking about it, I agree with your point. To take the phone number example: many European numbers are split into two digits and thus are &quot;spoken&quot; that way, even if they have the same amount of digits. I guess it's a separate, strange point how you could have a writing system that diverges so much from the spoken system: the Arabic system almost seems *necessary* to me, but that is probably cultural prejudice." CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:24:39.327" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8782" PostId="4364" Score="0" Text="I would guess that interpretation should default to SOV. If you wanted to refer back to them without repeating the words, you'd use *illud* 'the former (the further)' and *hoc* 'the latter (the nearer)'. You could also avoid ambiguity by using the passive with an ablative of means." CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:01:25.950" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8783" PostId="4365" Score="2" Text="One thing: I'd expect to see *pergamenum cisorio vincitur* (i.e. the ablative of means without *ab* rather than the ablative of agent with it)." CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:06:54.920" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8785" PostId="4365" Score="1" Text="@Anonym: I guess; I may be personifying the scissors and the paper far too much :-) Edited." CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:34:11.130" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="8786" PostId="4368" Score="0" Text="Are you sure the more-than-nine hundreds work in French and German? I thought it was an English-only feature..." CreationDate="2017-05-12T19:48:58.880" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8787" PostId="4368" Score="0" Text="You can check out the link for German. When I speak French I almost always use the first way, but I've been told (and [this site confirms](https://www.thoughtco.com/years-in-french-1368976)) that the second is also readily understood." CreationDate="2017-05-12T19:52:07.440" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8788" PostId="4368" Score="0" Text="Wow! BTW in Spanish you can say _mil_ nueve _noventa y nueve_. It is NOT common to all the Spanish-speaking world, though, and it's informal, but it works." CreationDate="2017-05-12T19:54:08.107" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8789" PostId="4368" Score="0" Text="How is English *unique* if you then show the exact same thing in your more colloquial German example ? Dutch behaves exactly like German, by the way." CreationDate="2017-05-12T20:06:57.023" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8791" PostId="4368" Score="2" Text="@blage &quot;fairly&quot; unique, though based on Dutch perhaps it's more &quot;unique&quot; to Germanic languages." CreationDate="2017-05-12T20:18:42.003" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8792" PostId="4368" Score="1" Text="Note that English uses cardinals and Latin uses ordinals for years. *Mille nongenti nonaginta novem* is shorter than *millesimus nongentesimus nonagesimus nonus*. In Finnish we fortunately use cardinals (&quot;[vuonna] tuhat yhdeksänsataayhdeksänkymmentäyhdeksän&quot;) instead of ordinals (&quot;tuhannentena yhdeksäntenäsadantenayhdeksäntenäkymmenentenäyhdeksäntenä vuonna&quot; – very few will agree with me that this is easy to pronounce)." CreationDate="2017-05-12T20:42:10.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26879" PostId="4368" Score="0" Text="The year 1999 in Welsh is four syllables!  &quot;Mil naw naw naw&quot;." CreationDate="2020-06-17T17:28:23.603" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="8799" PostId="4369" Score="0" Text="Is &quot;cisorium vincit&quot; unambiguous? I wonder if it would in principle be the subject to the same kind of ambiguity, since my impression is that Latin generally does not require an overt subject to be present in a clause." CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:54:12.957" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8800" PostId="4369" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I think there is still a slight ambiguity, but far weaker than in *cisorium pergamenum vincit*. Leaving out the object looks more probable than leaving out the subject in this case. Having an overt object but leaving out the subject would strike me as odd here. Given the whole sentence, I have trouble parsing *cisorium* as an object." CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:59:01.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8795" PostId="4370" Score="0" Text="Note that most of the figurative uses actually are closer to English &quot;divert&quot; than &quot;derive.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-12T21:36:49.817" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8796" PostId="4370" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Good point! I added a little clarification to the question." CreationDate="2017-05-12T21:42:11.360" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8817" PostId="4370" Score="1" Text="We'll never know who was the first to make it figurative, because there is always the possibility that some lost work did it first. Only a tiny fraction of ancient works survive, many of them by top tier authors, so it's not a stretch to think any given metaphor has a longer history than is evident." CreationDate="2017-05-13T17:51:19.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8801" PostId="4371" Score="1" Text="*nihil est* 'it's nothing'" CreationDate="2017-05-13T01:57:13.197" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8802" PostId="4371" Score="1" Text="@Anonym That could work! Have you actually seen or heard it in use? I haven't, but that just proves my limited experience. If you can give a source for that option (your own experience is a source, too!), then I invite you to write that as an answer." CreationDate="2017-05-13T02:11:55.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8804" PostId="4372" Score="1" Text="I second @sumelic's comment: Can you elaborate on the question? To mark a short vowel, you can add `&amp;#x306;` after it. For example, `u&amp;#x306;` is rendered as u with a breve (which does not work in comments)." CreationDate="2017-05-13T04:53:23.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8813" PostId="4372" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You can also just look up `breve` in Wikipedia to get a list." CreationDate="2017-05-13T14:46:25.797" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8805" PostId="4373" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you give a link (or other reference) to where you found this? The line number might also help. I assume there are differences between editions, and some sources may even contain typos. This looks interesting, but a little more context would help." CreationDate="2017-05-13T05:36:42.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8807" PostId="4373" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It does look like a typo, after I've checked more sources." CreationDate="2017-05-13T06:13:59.393" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="8808" PostId="4373" Score="0" Text="I'm glad you could solve the problem yourself! +2 for that." CreationDate="2017-05-13T06:49:30.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8811" PostId="4374" Score="2" Text="FYI it could also be an OCR error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition" CreationDate="2017-05-13T09:34:28.057" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8810" PostId="4375" Score="5" Text="My guess is *formavit*, but I don't know the process of making such a medal well enough to guess what it means. Judging by the word alone, it could be &quot;shaped&quot;, &quot;formed&quot;, &quot;prepared&quot;, or something similar." CreationDate="2017-05-13T07:54:49.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8812" PostId="4375" Score="4" Text="Traditionally the die was 'sculpted' with chisels and punches. It probably means that this artist shaped the design in wax or clay and the die was cast from that. *Sculpsit* and *scripsit* are in the perfect tense: So Joonas is certainly right that **FORM** stands for the perfect *formavit,*" CreationDate="2017-05-13T11:58:15.120" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8815" PostId="4375" Score="1" Text="So Ericsson 'sculpted' the die from a shaped clay or wax design that Ovarnstrom 'formed'?" CreationDate="2017-05-13T16:28:09.010" UserId="1393" />
  <row Id="8821" PostId="4375" Score="3" Text="If the artist forms a wax or clay original, a craftsman could sculpt the die to match. Or, if the clay original is full-size, the die itself can be cast, or (on clay or wax) built up with layers of electroplating, using the artist's original work directly. The die is then used to strike the medal/coin." CreationDate="2017-05-13T18:42:31.550" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11327" PostId="4375" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Can you turn your comments into an answer? There hasn't been a single answer so far, and what you have would already make a nice one." CreationDate="2017-11-11T00:34:00.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12072" PostId="4375" Score="0" Text="Or, _formavit_ could mean _coined_ (just guessing.) The original was sculpted, a mould was made from it, and someone else minted the medals using the mould?" CreationDate="2018-02-02T15:58:32.313" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12074" PostId="4375" Score="0" Text="[This dictionary](https://books.google.cl/books?id=2l5gAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PT733&amp;ots=Djudcm2uY0&amp;dq=formare%20latin%20coin&amp;pg=PT733#v=onepage&amp;q=formare%20latin%20coin&amp;f=false) says _formare_ can mean _to mould_. If my English doesn't treason me, it could be closer to coin/mint or even cast a mould than _sculpsit_ @JoonasIlmavirta" CreationDate="2018-02-02T16:14:33.100" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12077" PostId="4375" Score="0" Text="@Rafael If *formare* can mean &quot;to mould&quot;, that would make the meaning very explicit. A mere &quot;to form&quot; is quite vague here. Would you like to add that as an answer? That dictionary entry is very useful for this question." CreationDate="2018-02-02T17:39:48.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8848" PostId="4376" Score="0" Text="&quot;Ad laborem eamus&quot; it is then - thank you for your help, @Leaky Nun - super code-golfer _and_ Latin expert :-)" CreationDate="2017-05-15T11:11:54.347" UserId="1560" />
  <row Id="8849" PostId="4376" Score="0" Text="@Spratty Far from an expert." CreationDate="2017-05-15T11:46:57.603" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="16698" PostId="4378" Score="0" Text="Only Americans say &quot;you're welcome&quot;." CreationDate="2018-12-09T17:14:25.013" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35489" PostId="4378" Score="0" Text="@fdb And not all of us. It's also situational, but I think the younger crowd is largely abandoning the term." CreationDate="2021-10-18T14:27:27.060" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44110" PostId="4378" Score="0" Text="@cmw says &quot;*the younger crowd is largely abandoning the term*&quot;, and using something far worse. I've stopped saying &quot;thanks&quot; to waiters, etc., because the &quot;No problem&quot; response is so annoying. I thank them to recognize them as people and show appreciation that they are there doing something I wouldn't want to do; but It never even occurred to me that my expecting them to do the job they are paid for could have been a problem. &quot;No problem&quot; should be reserved for when one has gone out of their way to do something that they were under no obligation to do (e.g. push a stranger's car stuck in snow)." CreationDate="2023-07-16T13:55:35.410" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44112" PostId="4378" Score="1" Text="@RayButterworth I think you're reading that &quot;no problem&quot; too literally. I can guarantee that the majority are *not* thinking that deeply into their word choice. Just like no one is actually wishing &quot;god be with ye!&quot; when they say &quot;good-bye.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-16T14:10:45.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44116" PostId="4378" Score="0" Text="@cmw, yes, I realize that to the speaker it means the same thing, but for people of my generation, it's still annoying. (We'll all die off soon, so it really will become no problem :-).  See [All Things Linguistic](https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/124189121619/no-problem-vs-youre-welcome), where one person hears it as I do, and another responds with the opposite view." CreationDate="2023-07-16T14:32:18.257" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44117" PostId="4378" Score="1" Text="@RayButterworth Interestingly, I've actually read that before. I'm no stranger to bristling at new lingo, though I try to keep myself grounded: all languages change. I like the note that &quot;you're welcome&quot; itself only dates to the 20th century. It probably also would have been rude to someone who came of age in the late 19th century, let alone their parents!" CreationDate="2023-07-16T15:48:09.967" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8828" PostId="4380" Score="0" Text="@Palizsche Good! Can you (or someone else) pick suggestions in the Lexicon for an answer? That'd be great. I can give it a shot later if no one else wants to do it, but I don't have time soon." CreationDate="2017-05-14T07:12:59.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8829" PostId="4380" Score="3" Text="You can see several  suggestions for income tax in David Morgan's Lexicon (https://archive.org/stream/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon_djvu.txt)" CreationDate="2017-05-14T07:13:32.257" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8830" PostId="4380" Score="1" Text="sorry i deleted my original comment by mistake. I was going to add the suggestions there.  Here they are: &quot;tributum generale redituum&quot;, &quot;tributum manupretii&quot; and &quot;vectigal pro reditu&quot;.  Maybe someone else can do the official answer." CreationDate="2017-05-14T07:18:24.750" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8834" PostId="4382" Score="0" Text="Good suggestion! Do you want to include the picture here in the answer or just give the link?" CreationDate="2017-05-14T21:39:38.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8835" PostId="4382" Score="0" Text="Oh, I am not good with technology.  If you know how to put the picture in, please edit it for me!" CreationDate="2017-05-14T21:42:43.747" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8836" PostId="4382" Score="0" Text="I put it in. Feel free to re-edit to format to your liking!" CreationDate="2017-05-14T21:49:12.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8838" PostId="4382" Score="0" Text="Gratias tibi ago, @JoonasIlmavirta! I also figured out how to add a photo. I just needed a little push in that direction. I am interested in the connection between Tellus Mater and Alma Mater (with regard to education) and may post a question about that." CreationDate="2017-05-14T23:16:12.400" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8840" PostId="4383" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for the detailed discussion! Based on this, I would call salary or income *manupretium*, income tax *tributum manupretii*, and tax when income context is clear simply *tributum*. For other forms of taxation I might have to use a different word, apparently." CreationDate="2017-05-15T01:46:18.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8843" PostId="4383" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That would be correct! And I also forgot to draw the connection between the roots of _manupretium_ (_manu_ = hand and _pretium_ = price), which basically means &quot;the price of hands,&quot; i.e. the price of labor, or wages!" CreationDate="2017-05-15T02:33:16.790" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="8879" PostId="4388" Score="0" Text=",I think &quot;pluricorn&quot; is the best answer here.  It would be short for &quot;Equus pluricornus&quot;, a many-horned horse.  See my comment to cnread under Joonas's answer." CreationDate="2017-05-16T14:02:13.450" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8856" PostId="4389" Score="3" Text="Good question! It's not obvious at all. At least some of the Roman numeral system seems to have been borrowed from Etruscans (at least there is some similarity), so the origins might not be in Latin. Also, some of the system might be graphical in some way: maybe **I** is originally just a simple stroke instead of the letter, and maybe **X** is just two copies of **V**, one of them inverted." CreationDate="2017-05-15T19:04:32.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8854" PostId="4390" Score="3" Text="Rarity of OSV I had not observed before. But agree with you I do: a Yoda-like effect created has been." CreationDate="2017-05-15T16:22:22.993" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8859" PostId="4390" Score="1" Text="This is consistent with my intuitions. I always interpreted Yoda as being a non-native speaker of 'English', using his native language's patterns and transliterating words with their original order, rather than doing a full translation. This is preserved beautifully by the pronouns in Latin, which are superfluous in Latin but are a mandatory feature in many other languages." CreationDate="2017-05-16T08:45:40.773" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8851" PostId="4391" Score="1" Text="This means &quot;you're right on the mark&quot;--isn't that quite a different idea from &quot;touché&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-05-15T15:24:40.667" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8853" PostId="4391" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I see your point.  	&quot;Acu tactus&quot; might work. I think saying rem acu (tetigisti) can be a way of condeding a point. Joonas said he would prefer an alternative to &quot;bene&quot; or &quot;ita&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-15T16:02:22.567" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8855" PostId="4391" Score="1" Text="It might be too much to expect a perfectly matching idiom in Latin. This is certainly a related phrase that one should keep in mind. Thanks for the suggestion!" CreationDate="2017-05-15T16:26:44.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8858" PostId="4392" Score="2" Text="As further support for deriving superlative-prefixed words from words that have the multi- prefix, a small number of multi- words already have related comparative-prefixed words (multifariam &gt; plurifariam, multiformis &gt; pluriformis; also plurilaterus for unattested multilaterus) – granted that the comparative words seem to be late, based on attestations in OLD. At that point, superlative words fall easily into place (plurimifariam, plurimiformis, plurimilaterus). Once we can derive multicornis (on the model of unicornis/bicornis/etc.), it's easy to get to plurimicornis &gt; English plurimicorn." CreationDate="2017-05-16T01:17:09.753" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8878" PostId="4392" Score="0" Text="@cnread, I think it would actually be &quot;pluricorn&quot;.  I'm familiar with botanical Latin and the nomenclature norms for specific epithets.  &quot;Erigeron plurifolius&quot; (a type of aster) show how &quot;plurimi folii&quot;  (many leaves) becomes &quot;plurifolius&quot; (having many leaves) in the adjectival form.  Zoological Latin works  the same way." CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:56:47.993" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8880" PostId="4393" Score="0" Text="Could you give an example of a similarly-formed Latin word with a &quot;myria-&quot; prefix like this?" CreationDate="2017-05-16T14:13:19.353" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8882" PostId="4393" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: I know of no English word that uses myria specifically as a prefix added to a Latin stem, though of course such hybrid words aren't hard to find in general (television, automobile, hetero/homosexual, astronaut, hexadecimal, genocide, neonatal,...). The only word I know in English that uses myria as a prefix and has gained any currency is myriapod, which has a Greek stem." CreationDate="2017-05-16T17:09:31.563" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="8860" PostId="4396" Score="4" Text="Although this is very insightful, it merely challenges the OP's premise instead of attempting to give an answer. On the contrary, I think a statistical analysis is possible and useful (not, of course, as a guide for our own composition), and the objections brought up here (sample size, bad data, presentation) are readily answered with some knowledge of statistics." CreationDate="2017-05-16T11:52:13.677" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8861" PostId="4396" Score="1" Text="As one useful example, consider my unsupported statement in another question that OSV is rare in Latin: I would love to have empirical data for or against this, even if it has little bearing on whether I should use that order in a particular instance." CreationDate="2017-05-16T11:54:41.097" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8881" PostId="4396" Score="0" Text="While I appreciate this as s comment, it does not even begin to answer the question. I'm sorry, but I have no option but to vote down. I am interested in word order statistics out of curiosity. I would certainly not deduce any hard rules from the information. The result may indeed depend greatly on the source material chosen, but I would like to see anything since I honestly have no idea what the statistics could look like at all. Making such an analysis is not such a formidable task if one happens to have a suitably structured corpus. Technology can do wonders." CreationDate="2017-05-16T16:45:39.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8884" PostId="4396" Score="0" Text="@ Joonas Ilmavirta I think that's a fair enough judgment. I intended my answer to be helpful, but obviously misjudged the intention of your question. I can only add that, as it read to me, you seemed to be looking for statistical evidence on the occurrence of the [SOV] order with a deeper purpose in mind, while I wasn't sure myself that there's any real value in acquiring the data without relating it to something else — as I was trying (rather obscurely?) to indicate." CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:00:37.973" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="8862" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="Where do you see &quot;Orderici Vitalis&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:33:40.177" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="8863" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="&quot;Ekkehardus Uraguensis&quot; doesn't hit anything on Google." CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:34:17.560" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="8864" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="They are medieval historian" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:40:07.523" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="8865" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="Could you give a reference where they appear?" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:41:32.893" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="8866" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="https://archive.org/details/ordericivitalish05ordeuoft" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:42:53.987" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="8867" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalhi03orde" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:43:31.113" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="8868" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="Could you give me the page numbers?" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:43:31.673" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="8869" PostId="4397" Score="0" Text="@LeakyNun title/author" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:50:11.320" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8870" PostId="4397" Score="1" Text="This is just Latin grammar. The name is probably rendered Odericus. Oderici is the genitive case, which means the book is a work _of Odericus's_" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:51:42.610" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="8876" PostId="4397" Score="1" Text="@turuncu I added your links to the main body of the question, since they are why the question even arose." CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:44:26.057" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8871" PostId="4398" Score="0" Text="51 seconds ...." CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:52:12.477" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="8872" PostId="4398" Score="0" Text="@LeakyNun The more answers, the merrier!" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:53:44.573" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8873" PostId="4398" Score="3" Text="I think it's worth mentioning the obvious point that **the nominative is the correct form** in an English sentence, if you are using the Latin version of the name. It's a pet peeve of mine when people quote Latin words and leave it in a non-nominative case." CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:23:32.963" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8877" PostId="4398" Score="0" Text="@brianpck In the comments of the original post, he links to an English translation that uses the nominative, so that's what I'm referring to in the last paragraph of this answer. I added them to the body of the question now, though, so hopefully it's clearer what I mean." CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:45:23.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8888" PostId="4398" Score="0" Text="Contrary to brianpck, it grates on me to see a plural or possessive suffix appended to an explicit nominative-singular ending." CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:08:22.537" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="8889" PostId="4398" Score="0" Text="@AntonSherwood Not a fan of `Marcus'`?" CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:35:43.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8890" PostId="4398" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I'd be happier with _Marc's_." CreationDate="2017-05-16T20:01:01.063" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="8901" PostId="4398" Score="0" Text="@AntonSherwood Good luck talking about *cactis* and *cactorum* properties! :)" CreationDate="2017-05-17T00:04:17.883" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34098" PostId="4403" Score="1" Text="Great in that it offers much more value per word than a dictionary, a well rounded educational tool." CreationDate="2021-07-11T17:14:15.513" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="8900" PostId="4404" Score="3" Text="Continuation of the story: [Why is Lucifer Morningstar's new bar called “Ex Lux”?](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/159635/70236)" CreationDate="2017-05-17T00:02:59.893" UserId="1629" />
  <row Id="8905" PostId="4404" Score="3" Text="As others have said, this is not real Latin, but English influenced by Latin with some attempt at mimicking real Latin construction.  You probably understand that study of Latin is a labor of love and a longterm project.  It can be hard to see one's beloved language chopped up in this way.  I happen to think it's clever and &quot;punny&quot;, but I can identify with other reactions." CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:24:46.503" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8914" PostId="4404" Score="0" Text="Because he used to have a bar called &quot;Lux&quot;, this is something like &quot;previously at Lux&quot;, like &quot;ex-partner&quot;. An apostrophe would have helped (but it would not have looked as nice)." CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:04:39.243" UserId="1211" />
  <row Id="22777" PostId="4404" Score="0" Text="This should be a comment rather than an answer as my Latin is terrible However in England we have an off the shelf laxative called ExLax it is a chocolate based laxative that helps you go when you're struggling If the bar being called ExLux isn't a play on that I'd be very surprised. It's stated that he hired the dregs of society, the detritus. The same things that a laxative brings out of your body, all contained in the club of the same (or very similar) name" CreationDate="2017-05-26T14:39:57.690" UserId="1660" />
  <row Id="8886" PostId="4405" Score="2" Text="I guess they left the &quot;Lux&quot; part as symbolic. Or maybe it's in the English sense, i.e. &quot;former Lux&quot;, which would be appropriate given context. In any case, thank for answering :) And thanks for the Internet resouce, looks like it might be useful." CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:01:16.477" UserId="1629" />
  <row Id="8887" PostId="4405" Score="0" Text="@Gallifreyan: Who knows! In that case, though, shouldn't there be a hyphen?" CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:02:11.100" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8891" PostId="4406" Score="3" Text="That rule isn't so strong; see [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2431/78)." CreationDate="2017-05-16T20:19:34.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8892" PostId="4406" Score="0" Text="Yes, but it is generally applicable" CreationDate="2017-05-16T21:51:48.930" UserId="1578" />
  <row Id="8893" PostId="4406" Score="1" Text="Can you cite a source? The dictionary entries I have checked so far all say that either &quot;ex&quot; or &quot;e&quot; can be used before a consonant, with no general rule (certainly not a general rule favoring &quot;e&quot; in this position)." CreationDate="2017-05-16T22:39:15.860" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8897" PostId="4406" Score="0" Text="It is what I learned in Latin class. Online, when to use it seems to be a topic of debate." CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:29:50.077" UserId="1578" />
  <row Id="8899" PostId="4406" Score="1" Text="The Romans would happily use *ex* before both vowels and consonants. There are some tendencies, but in classical Latin it is certainly *not* a rule that one must have *e* if the word starts with a consonant. (The preposition *abs/ab/a* is similar.) If you want to know more, please ask separate questions! This is interesting stuff, and I think many have been mislead to too simplified rules." CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:54:50.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8919" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="I would use the imperfect, but I'm having trouble finding an exact parallel.  &quot;ἤθελον Σωκράτη ζῶν τυχεῖν&quot; maybe?" CreationDate="2017-05-17T21:50:34.210" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8920" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="Not sure if the above is even grammatical--do you know if the participle in that case should be accusative?" CreationDate="2017-05-17T21:53:49.677" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8921" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, the participle should definitely agree with Σωκράτη (otherwise it refers to the &quot;I&quot;). Btw, for &quot;meet&quot; the usual phrasing is ἐντυγχάνω + dat. or τυγχάνω + gen." CreationDate="2017-05-17T22:13:59.450" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8922" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="I was actually using a different sense of the word: τυγχάνω + participle = &quot;I happen to be + participle&quot;: my sentence was supposed to mean &quot;I wish that Socrates happened to be alive.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-17T22:22:14.300" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8923" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="My Greek knowledge is lamentably passive, though: please correct it! :)" CreationDate="2017-05-17T22:22:57.410" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8945" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="@brianpck -- I misunderstood your intended meaning -- τυγχάνω in the sense &quot;happen to&quot; does actually seem to be appropriate in this context. (I think what misled me what the aorist τυχεῖν -- present τυγχάνειν would be more suitable.) The participle would still agree with Σωκράτη, though." CreationDate="2017-05-18T21:12:18.240" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34760" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="I cannot see a real difference grammatically between the sentence you want translated and the examples you give below it." CreationDate="2021-08-26T23:34:52.950" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34767" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="@cmw Do you mean the examples with imperfect, or the one with present?" CreationDate="2021-08-27T16:15:03.180" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34769" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="Sorry, I meant the imperfect ones. I'm not quite seeing the objection. Could you elaborate a bit more on it? (Or do you even still feel the same as 4 (!) years ago?)" CreationDate="2021-08-27T16:19:21.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34770" PostId="4407" Score="0" Text="@cmw I think the first of those is a true preterite (&quot;I wanted not to be contending here, but here I am&quot;). The second is counterfactual, but it seems odd to precede it with a temporal clause, just as you wouldn't say &quot;Whenever I think of Socrates, I would have liked him to be alive&quot;." CreationDate="2021-08-27T17:04:18.637" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8894" PostId="4408" Score="0" Text="That's an interesting perspective about &quot;deluxe&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-16T22:56:03.920" UserId="1629" />
  <row Id="8906" PostId="4408" Score="1" Text="@Galliftreyan, now that I've read more about the character and the story, I think Ex Lux also is a reference to his fallen status as an angel -- an ex-angel, so to speak.   I also didn't know that Satan is called the &quot;morning star &quot;in Hebrew in the Bible.  Consider me slightly more educated after reading and answering your question." CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:34:06.233" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8912" PostId="4408" Score="3" Text="Since you're collecting subtexts, here's another.  'Ex' has an occasional meaning of 'more than' (mentioned in *Etymologies* ). Extra, Extreme, Exceptional, Ex Lux." CreationDate="2017-05-17T11:30:16.677" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8913" PostId="4408" Score="2" Text="...and of course exterminate, which is extreme termination." CreationDate="2017-05-17T11:45:54.763" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="8895" PostId="4409" Score="1" Text="If, indeed, the English prefix *ex-* is intended, then why didn't they use a hyphen?" CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:19:31.140" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8896" PostId="4409" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I'd consider that a spelling variant, possibly to give a more Latinate feel to it. I think it looks better without the hyphen, grammatical or not. Business names and proper spelling don't always go together." CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:21:28.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8903" PostId="4409" Score="0" Text="I didn't read the original post carefully.  I totally agree that it's Lux and Ex Lux instead of Lux Duo.  The whole thing is very &quot;punny&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:18:13.020" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8910" PostId="4412" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! In English you could imagine that Lux is a nickname for Lucifer, but it does make sense (from linguistic and story points of view) that Lucifer carries Lux. But I don't know what the author intended. Otherwise I agree – after all, my answer reached essentially the same conclusion." CreationDate="2017-05-17T06:21:38.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8977" PostId="4413" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! To my surprise, the answer seems to be &quot;no, there's no ancient mention of the nature of the relief&quot;. I have accepted this answer, but I will accept another one if someone happens to find a suitable Latin description of the relief." CreationDate="2017-05-20T07:27:36.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8915" PostId="4414" Score="3" Text="Hi, Toothrot. Can you explain the reasoning behind the edit reversals? I'm not quite sure why they seemed controversial to you. Cheers." CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:41:57.717" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="8916" PostId="4414" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer, rolling back your edit was unintended, sorry." CreationDate="2017-05-17T17:02:34.083" UserId="1051" />
  <row Id="8917" PostId="4414" Score="2" Text="Can you please explain why you are using the abbreviation? It is less clear and I'm genuinely confused why you are making an issue of it." CreationDate="2017-05-17T17:05:19.540" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8928" PostId="4417" Score="0" Text="My legal name is Zeus, not my choice, and I want to make sure that what I get permanently inked on my body is grammatically correct in latin. I know that english to spanish does not translate literally and am sure latin is the same." CreationDate="2017-05-18T07:01:06.907" UserId="1638" />
  <row Id="8930" PostId="4417" Score="1" Text="PS, for context's sake, my brother is Ulysses, my daughter is Athena, and my son is Apollo. You might say, I'm Greeking out!" CreationDate="2017-05-18T07:16:26.337" UserId="1638" />
  <row Id="8937" PostId="4418" Score="1" Text="Do you think _Alat me mutatio_ might put the emphasis more strongly and evocatively?" CreationDate="2017-05-18T16:33:53.033" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8943" PostId="4418" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Sure, I put them in the standard grammatical order, but there's tons of room for poetic manipulation!" CreationDate="2017-05-18T18:56:33.200" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="8933" PostId="4421" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, I need information about &quot;habere&quot; specifically, not synonyms like &quot;debere.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:57:00.807" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="8935" PostId="4421" Score="5" Text="As a start, take a look at Lewis and Short at the end of I.A  for habeo: &quot;with inf. or with the part. fut. pass. (ante-class. and post-Aug.), to have or be obliged to do something, I must do something.&quot;  There are some examples that should be of interest to you.  :http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhabeo" CreationDate="2017-05-18T14:30:13.923" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8939" PostId="4421" Score="1" Text="You could always do a &quot;or shall I say *corpum*?&quot; and we could do a &quot;no!&quot;. // I added some tags. Do you think the new tag [tag:time-periods] is included in the existing [tag:language-evolution]? I'm not sure if both are needed." CreationDate="2017-05-18T17:02:44.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8944" PostId="4421" Score="0" Text="I know of a construction that was probably more common than the use of _habere_: _necesse est_, so that may or may not be relevant." CreationDate="2017-05-18T18:59:30.577" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="8956" PostId="4421" Score="1" Text="Necesse est is the most common thing to say, but I'm interested in its formality and the scenes in which one would use habere. Necesse est quod donatis mihi cogitationes scriptorum mediaevalium et rogationem meam respondetis. Sciebam bene de &quot;necesse,&quot; sed gratias tibi ago certe. (Finaliter scribebam aliquid quod rectum est sine glossario!)" CreationDate="2017-05-19T02:32:42.390" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="8960" PostId="4421" Score="0" Text="The word *corpus* always reminds me of a friend of mine, with only knowledge of a few years of high school Latin, who tried to pluralize the word and said *corpi*, after which he was immediately 'corrected' by another friend who very adamantly said &quot;no, it's *corpūs*&quot;. That second friend had at that time just achieved his Bachelor's degree, majoring in Latin." CreationDate="2017-05-19T09:19:38.520" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="8950" PostId="4422" Score="2" Text="The dative example appears to be a sort *acc. + inf.* (i.e., 'you hold that I destroy and plunder'), which might well make sense, since the inf. is in origin also a verbal noun in the dative." CreationDate="2017-05-19T00:01:28.697" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="8951" PostId="4422" Score="1" Text="@Anonym: Possibly, although probably closer to &quot;you hold ... me in order to despoil and plunder&quot;... The full fragment is (_Senex_ is talking to _Gymnasium Meretrix_): _&quot;Volo ex te scire quidquid est quid ego usquam male feci tibi aut meus quisquam, id edisserta, &#xA;quam ob rem **me** meumque filium quom matre remque nostram **habes perditui et praedatui**?&quot;_ Possibly something like, &quot;tell me what I or my son have done to you that you try to ruin and plunder me and my son (something something mother)&quot;..." CreationDate="2017-05-19T01:15:55.220" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="8952" PostId="4422" Score="1" Text="@Wtrmute, something along those lines seems right to me too. *Quom* = *cum*, so &quot;me and my son with (his) mother and our property&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-19T01:30:26.950" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8953" PostId="4422" Score="2" Text="@Wtrmute That makes more sense - almost like a dative of purpose, lit. 'you hold me for [the sake of] ruining and plundering', rather like the English inf. as in *I have some books to read.*" CreationDate="2017-05-19T01:32:54.717" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33246" PostId="4422" Score="0" Text="Dative of purpose. Plautus: *Istaec lepida sunt memoratui.* (These stones are for remembering.) (These stones are intended as a memorial.)" CreationDate="2021-05-17T20:51:13.053" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="8959" PostId="4424" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a nice question. I made some formatting edits, but feel free to undo or redo any of them." CreationDate="2017-05-19T04:17:05.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8961" PostId="4425" Score="1" Text="Alternatively to _futurorum_ might be _futurarum … absconditarum_, with an implied _rerum_." CreationDate="2017-05-19T10:58:57.477" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="8962" PostId="4425" Score="1" Text="Alternatively:  hominem super hominem efferens could mean &quot;elevating one man over another&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-19T11:36:17.237" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="8969" PostId="4425" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much indeed, Brian! Yes, I'm working on the same text that Nicholas Whyte did (and we're in touch with each other). He did his MPhil 25 years ago, and transcribed (but didn't translate) some of the prologue, from which this is taken. And you're absolutely right about it being futurorum - Whyte gives it as &quot;futuraram&quot; as it's very unclear in one manuscript, but it's very clearly &quot;futurorum&quot; in another (I'm fortunate enough to have three different copies of the text in three manuscripts)." CreationDate="2017-05-19T22:06:40.780" UserId="1639" />
  <row Id="8970" PostId="4425" Score="0" Text="I had sort of assumed an implied &quot;rerum&quot; (which I rather clumsily put as &quot;[events of the]&quot; in my attempted translation. Your explanations - and translation - make perfect sense, so thank you so much for replying." CreationDate="2017-05-19T22:07:52.053" UserId="1639" />
  <row Id="8971" PostId="4427" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It helps to know the basic meaning of the word. I agree that &quot;protector&quot; is a good choice after all." CreationDate="2017-05-20T01:55:57.793" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8972" PostId="4428" Score="4" Text="Can you add an example where a Latin perfect can be replaced with an imperfect, and an example where someone rendered an English imperfect with a Latin perfect or pluperfect?" CreationDate="2017-05-20T03:43:46.540" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8979" PostId="4428" Score="2" Text="Yes, give an example sentence or two. Also, say what dictionary site you are using. There's a lot of misinformation and inaccurate translation out there." CreationDate="2017-05-20T14:32:47.173" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="8980" PostId="4428" Score="1" Text="You know, my teacher a while back would often do this while translating poetry. We'd encounter an imperfect tense in Latin and then translate it into a perfect tense. This may be poetic license, but it was also done during the translation of prose, so I'm interested to see if there is some sort of reason, or if it is merely a mistake." CreationDate="2017-05-20T15:09:22.933" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="8982" PostId="4428" Score="0" Text="I don't know of any construction in English called the &quot;English imperfect&quot;. The English &quot;simple past&quot; tense (like &quot;I walked&quot;) can be used to convey either an imperfective or perfective meaning. Is that what you are talking about in the last paragraph?" CreationDate="2017-05-20T18:06:33.937" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8988" PostId="4428" Score="0" Text="@sumelic The English imperfect (one form of it, anyway) is _used to,_ as in &quot;We used to learn Latin by the grammar-translation method, before we wised up.&quot; Regardless, we need an example or two or three to be clear on what this question is asking about." CreationDate="2017-05-21T02:36:47.673" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="8995" PostId="4428" Score="0" Text="@MiddleSchoolHistorian Can you add some examples in your question and try to explain it more? This sounds like an interesting question, but unclear and therefore unanswerable without some elaboration." CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:18:34.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8999" PostId="4428" Score="0" Text="Thanks to my horrible luck, I can't find any examples, but I remember finding quite a bit of these instances on en.glosbe.com. If anybody luckier than I can encounter some of them, please comment! They were rather frequent, and were very simple; I'm not talking about lengthy passages loosely translated." CreationDate="2017-05-22T13:36:40.057" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="8974" PostId="4430" Score="0" Text="Wonderful how you built up your answer. Thanks! I will take some time to digest it now." CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:32:54.483" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8975" PostId="4430" Score="0" Text="*suis* was really confusing me. For good reason. I also had a hard time figuring out that *caesa* modified *pinus*, and *peregrinum* modified *orbem*." CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:37:31.850" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="8976" PostId="4430" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 No wonder *suis* was confusing. I came up with three readings. All the readings lead to essentially the same story, though. This method of trying to identify the core clause and expanding little by little has proven quite useful. Trees are less confusing if you remember that they pretty consistently look like masculines but are feminines. If anything requires further explanation, let me know." CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:42:15.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8978" PostId="4430" Score="2" Text="Great answer! I strongly feel that *suis* should be taken to agree with *montibus*." CreationDate="2017-05-20T12:47:30.087" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="8983" PostId="4430" Score="2" Text="I too feel that *suis montibus* certainly goes together. The hyperbaton here is striking and in a way iconic -- the sailing tree travels far from the mountains it belongs with, just as the adjective *suis* ends up far from its noun *montibus*. I wonder if the phrase should be taken with *caesa*, something like &quot;cut away from its (native) mountains&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-20T19:45:54.167" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="8981" PostId="4431" Score="8" Text="Great question: my intuition says that Latin discourages (forbids?) prepositions as attributive adjectives, but I'm not sure. In this particular case, I would probably say &quot;oppidum monti vicinum&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-20T17:56:25.743" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="8994" PostId="4431" Score="2" Text="@brianpck That would make a good answer. Can you post it as one?" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:15:16.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="8985" PostId="4434" Score="0" Text="Thank you. So if I've understood correctly, the &quot;ui&quot; supines you mention are also derived from a dative of the u-stem verbal noun, using a later  inflection pattern for the dative?" CreationDate="2017-05-20T21:24:39.013" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="8987" PostId="4434" Score="1" Text="@sumelic yes, it used to be called dativus finalis." CreationDate="2017-05-20T21:31:28.020" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="8996" PostId="4441" Score="1" Text="Looking at how long my answer is (yikes!), I realise that that last quotation is quite apt really ... :)" CreationDate="2017-05-22T07:53:12.110" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="8997" PostId="4441" Score="2" Text="Fantastic answer, and no need to apologize for the length! It's great to have all these collected in one place. _Tuum mihi responsum longum videri non potest. Optime!_" CreationDate="2017-05-22T09:01:56.643" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9001" PostId="4441" Score="1" Text="Bene facis, habeo gratiam!" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:15:11.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9008" PostId="4442" Score="0" Text="I like your question. You might like to consult a book called Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration by Olivia F. Robinson. Her scholarly work comes up on searches of articles about aqueducts and other public works." CreationDate="2017-05-23T01:42:07.340" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="9000" PostId="4443" Score="4" Text="Presumably because they sound similar and wells require digging (=striking)...? I'm really not sure what else can be said" CreationDate="2017-05-22T14:48:26.623" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9002" PostId="4444" Score="0" Text="I'm not familiar with the reference...I assume you mean, &quot;Everything will turn out well&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:19:34.760" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9003" PostId="4444" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the interesting question! I hope someone knows a good Latin idiom for that purpose. Meanwhile, I suggest taking a look at [our site tour (this is a link)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:19:36.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9005" PostId="4446" Score="1" Text="Reading through 1.6.12 gave me an interesting word: _vicus_. Apparently it technically means quarter, neighborhood, row of houses, municipal section, or ward, which, while not exactly the same thing, is certainly a bit more convenient than _angiportorum divisiones_. I think its close enough to use for grid, as it has the municipal nature missing from the words I listed in my question. Perhaps used exclusively in the plural, so as to refer to the collection of wards. Insofar as urban planning goes, I think your suggested _designatio urbis_ is suitable. Thanks for the source!" CreationDate="2017-05-22T21:51:00.873" UserId="1518" />
  <row Id="9006" PostId="4446" Score="0" Text="@James You are welcome! [*Vicus* (L&amp;S link)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=vicus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a good word, but it can mean a number of things. If there is a risk of confusion, something more concrete like *rete viarum* (road network) might be better." CreationDate="2017-05-22T22:42:10.107" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9004" PostId="4447" Score="0" Text="I had considered *auxilia*, too, but only with your reasoning do I now buy it as the best translation. That said, it can't be emphasized enough that neither *auxilia* nor *veterani* adequately capture what *reservist* means, and that to my knowledge there isn't a term for *reservist* in antiquity." CreationDate="2017-05-22T21:06:10.880" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9020" PostId="4447" Score="0" Text="The problem with _auxilia_ is that they were often contrasted to _legiones_ as being composed of non-Roman citizens (even if, in some eras, they came to have mostly the same equipment as the citizen legions)." CreationDate="2017-05-24T02:47:50.470" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="9032" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot! Thanks a lot! (15 characters at least, that's why I insist :) )" CreationDate="2017-05-25T13:27:07.343" UserId="1645" />
  <row Id="20082" PostId="4448" Score="1" Text="In these quotations *futūrum* is a noun &quot;the future&quot;, so your suggestion is an infelicitous mix of the form's two grammatical functions - I read it as a single *benefutūrum* &quot;the good-things-to-come&quot;. As for *omnia bene erunt*, I've only found *bene est/erit* as an impersonal construction meaning &quot;you will have a good time, won't have any discomfort&quot;. Plautus has *dē eō nunc bene sunt* meaning, per Loeb, &quot;they’re now having a good time from it&quot;, and there's a possible CABALLI BELLE SVNT in a *tabula Vindolandensis* - the usage of *bene* as subject compliment (to *omnia*) doesn't seem to exist." CreationDate="2019-06-10T22:12:47.250" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20188" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: It may not exist because if &quot;things&quot; is understood, &quot;(all) things&quot;, &quot;omnia&quot; requires an adjective &quot;bona&quot;; not, adverb &quot;bene&quot;. This expression appears to work, in English, because adverb &quot;well&quot; is irregular--not ending -ly." CreationDate="2019-06-17T12:13:52.507" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20189" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: That Latin uses fewer words than English; things being understood, can be seen from your &quot;Plautus&quot;-quote." CreationDate="2019-06-17T12:16:33.207" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20201" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="@tony:Taking some more time with that Plautus quote will let you see that it implies *illī* &quot;they&quot;, and yet has the adverb *bene* &quot;well&quot;, not the adjective *bonī* &quot;good&quot;. Look at my reply below will let you see examples such as *omnia rēctē*, where an overt noun *omnia* &quot;everything&quot; has the adverb *rēctē* &quot;right&quot; as its predicate, not the adjective *rēcta* &quot;right&quot;. This is because Latin allows certain adverbs to serve as subject compliments, and has nothing to do with which type of adverbs English allows to fulfill this function. Different languages have different grammars." CreationDate="2019-06-18T01:17:15.873" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20210" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: Thank you: is &quot;benefuturum&quot; one word--can't find it--possibly, a contraction of; &quot;bene futurum esse&quot; literally; &quot;the-future-is-to-be-good&quot;; which , may provide the OP with an &quot;ideal&quot; answer? Joonas's: &quot;omne bene futurum&quot;; taking &quot;futurum&quot; as a noun; &quot;every future is good&quot;; but, if &quot;bene&quot; is not a subject- compliment of &quot;omne&quot;, this translation fails?" CreationDate="2019-06-18T11:35:14.653" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20215" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="I don't see it as an attested word, but it seems to be a perfectly possible nominalisation of *&quot;id quod bene erit&quot;*. No, an infinitive clause on its own doesn't make for a sentence, it can serve as its member, but considering *futūrum* is already a noun, making a clause becomes redundant. To say &quot;future is good&quot; one needs an adjective; the adverb describes not the future itself, but the manner in which it happens and is perceived - &quot;well&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-19T04:53:13.033" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20218" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal Russian and tony: Consider asking a follow-up question or taking the discussion to [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm). The comment chain is getting pretty long." CreationDate="2019-06-19T08:36:19.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20220" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Been meaning to contact yourself, given that your suggestions have been called into question; but, did not want Unbrutal_Russian to think that I had gone &quot;behind his back&quot;, as it were. If yourself could comment on &quot;omnia bene erunt&quot; &amp; &quot;omne bene futurum&quot;, we could put this excellent Q to bed, hopefully. Thank you." CreationDate="2019-06-19T12:02:35.233" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20221" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm sorry for being so silent on this matter. I added a note to my answer. I was hesitant to do anything, as I have nothing to say; I don't know enough to settle the matter in a reasonable way. All I could do is to acknowledge the controversy. (And challenging my answers is indeed welcome!) I can't judge how good my answer is nor can I answer the follow-up questions. Exploring the use of *bene* like this would make an interesting new question. I'd be happy to read an answer but unable to give one." CreationDate="2019-06-19T17:47:09.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20229" PostId="4448" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Given cnread's astute adaption of a phrase of Cicero (&quot;quod male cecidit&quot; to &quot;res bene cadent&quot;) which appears to support the research of Unbrutal_Russian, on this use of the adverb, not sure that a new Q is necessary." CreationDate="2019-06-20T07:53:10.357" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="9010" PostId="4451" Score="4" Text="Can you specify the context, and what you have tried so far?" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:57:00.853" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9012" PostId="4452" Score="3" Text="If this is a Christian context, the stock phrase is definitely [*a mortuis*](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=mortuis&amp;qs_version=VULGATE): there's a subtle distinction between &quot;the dead&quot; and &quot;death.&quot; I also don't think *ascendo* would be appropriate in this context." CreationDate="2017-05-23T16:11:44.840" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9013" PostId="4454" Score="1" Text="The -on/-onis ending seems off to me too. I'd have thought electrum, protum, etc. would be the most obvious Latin forms. Perhaps it's merely to distinguish the word for electron from the word for amber, and then the other particles are named by analogy. I'm not sure that's a very compelling reason though; after all, how often does the word amber really come up? On a whim, I checked what the modern Greek words for electron and proton are, to see whether they've also been distinguished from the words for amber and first. Sure enough: ηλεκτρόνιο and πρωτόνιο, which I assume are diminutive forms." CreationDate="2017-05-23T21:48:20.517" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9014" PostId="4454" Score="2" Text="@cnread Vicipaedia also gives the alternative *electronium* (which I only now remembered to add to the question). Many words have several different meanings, and the risk of confusing electrons with amber is minimal. If it seems to be a problem in some situation, one can always add words to clarify. I wonder if the suggestions in Vicipaedia are borrowed from (written by native speakers of?) Italian or Greek. I feel it's best to go directly from the Greek origin to Latin without passing through modern languages, but others might disagree." CreationDate="2017-05-23T21:57:18.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9015" PostId="4454" Score="2" Text="Based on cursory (*cough* Etymonline *cough*) research, the &quot;-on&quot; in electron is by analogy with &quot;ion,&quot; which itself is merely a transliteration ἰών, the present participle of Greek &quot;to go.&quot; In that case, it would be misguided to act as if -on was a neuter 2nd declension ending. I found an old book called *De iontum migrationibus electrolyticis* to confirm that at least one person thought that way..." CreationDate="2017-05-24T00:47:08.547" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9016" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="The rule on Vicipædia is &quot;[noli fingere](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicipaedia:Noli_fingere)&quot;: they want a source or precedent for every word. Are you able to check the sources given in the Vicipædia article? (They're at the bottom in small type under Notae.)" CreationDate="2017-05-24T00:48:07.773" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9017" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz It's good to know they have that guideline; I hope they adhere to it, too. Having the different variations in dictionaries is indeed evidence to support them, but it would be good to know (and that would constitute an answer here) on what grounds the particular version was chosen for a dictionary. I can check the cited Finnish dictionary, but not soon." CreationDate="2017-05-24T01:40:25.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9018" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh, I didn't know that electron was modeled on ion. (I assumed &quot;electron&quot; was a direct Greek loan without any analogy to other words, whence the second declension seemed most natural.) If that is indeed the case, that would make a good answer. I'm not sure at all how to most fluently latinize the Greek participle. Perhaps *-ōn*, *-ōns*, *-ō*, or *-ēns*? One complication is that if I remember correctly, it took some time to settle on a single variant of the particle names in the original language(s) too." CreationDate="2017-05-24T01:47:45.130" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9019" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="Based on @brianpck's book title, the particle names would be Greek active participles, which in Latin would probably be rendered with _-on, -ontis_ (as in _Xenophon_)" CreationDate="2017-05-24T02:05:19.373" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="9021" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="...or the Latin suffix aequivalent to Greek *-iont-* is in fact the common suffix *-ion-*. // As to the origin of modern *electron*, I would expect it to be derived from the word(s) *electricity* and *electric(al)* — which are no doubt older — and then modelled on the modern word *ion* by analogy. I would not expect a direct derivation from Greek *elektron*." CreationDate="2017-05-24T03:40:36.183" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9022" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="-on (-ον) termination in Ancient Greek (not Modern) refers to the neuter of second declination, so it would be appropriate to translate it with the neuter of Latin's second declination. Said this you would be right translating &quot;proton&quot; as &quot;protum&quot;, &quot;electron&quot; as &quot;electrum&quot; and so on. It is also right keeping Greek names not declinable like &quot;fas&quot;, &quot;nefas&quot;, &quot;instar&quot;,...&#xA;I wouldn't track the word till Italian language because since it's vulgar and romance language is different from Latin: for example the word &quot;electron&quot; in Italian is &quot;elettrone&quot;, but the word &quot;apeiron&quot; is still &quot;apeiron&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-24T03:59:57.337" UserDisplayName="user1052" />
  <row Id="9023" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I had imagined &quot;electricity&quot; was derived from &quot;electron&quot;, but perhaps that's indeed false. But it could have been that by the time the &quot;electricity particle&quot; needed to be named, people looked into the etymology and went with the underlying Greek word directly. [The Wikipedia page on the etymology of electricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_electricity) doesn't really tell about electrons at all. I'm more and more puzzled, but also happier and happier that I asked this question..." CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:15:42.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9024" PostId="4454" Score="0" Text="@dulindraxe The question seems to be, to some extent at least, whether we should treat the word &quot;electron&quot; as coming from the Greek *ἤλεκτρον* directly or if there was something else." CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:18:12.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9025" PostId="4454" Score="1" Text="**Everyone:** There are very good observations and nice ideas in the comments. **Please write your ideas into answers.** An answer does not have to be perfect to be useful. I would much like to have the different ideas posted as answers, so that people can vote, comment, and develop the ideas further." CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:20:03.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9026" PostId="4456" Score="0" Text="Recycling my answer to a similar question in the &quot;History of Science&quot; forum: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/643/where-did-the-naming-structure-of-particles-come-from-suffix-on/646#646" CreationDate="2017-05-24T10:21:59.710" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9027" PostId="4456" Score="3" Text="Interesting (albeit noisy) discussion: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Particula_elementaria" CreationDate="2017-05-24T13:31:47.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9030" PostId="4458" Score="0" Text="FWIW, in Spanish it's _googlear_, -ear being the most common way (though not the only one) of regularly verbalizing a substantive. This, despite -ar being enough for a verb ending (from Latin -are)" CreationDate="2017-05-25T12:57:20.847" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9031" PostId="4458" Score="0" Text="I wonder if that mechanism has its roots in Latin" CreationDate="2017-05-25T13:04:46.957" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="26211" PostId="4459" Score="0" Text="Do Spanish, Portuguese and Italian pronounce the 'goog' bit like English?  In Welsh, the verb is &quot;gwglo&quot;, -o/-io normal verbal ending, 'w' = [u/u:].  So would &quot;gūglare&quot; be better in Latin?  Wouldn't Romans read &quot;Googlare&quot; as &quot;Gōglare&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-05-07T12:42:07.950" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="43524" PostId="4459" Score="0" Text="It depends on how rigorously phonetic they were with their spellings for loanwords. Most actual Romans weren't proscriptivist Latin teachers. I agree, though: _gōglō_ or _gūglō_." CreationDate="2023-06-11T12:36:48.863" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43637" PostId="4459" Score="1" Text="&quot;googler&quot; is very common in French" CreationDate="2023-06-17T11:39:27.060" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="45680" PostId="4459" Score="0" Text="[googlear](https://www.rae.es/observatorio-de-palabras/googlear) is non even a Spanish word, like it is not in english." CreationDate="2023-11-27T16:03:06.347" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="9036" PostId="4461" Score="2" Text="@Hugh Good catch, thanks! I made the edit. For simple errors like this, you can always just edit my posts, but commenting is also fine." CreationDate="2017-05-26T16:33:26.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9039" PostId="4461" Score="0" Text="Solid advice! Thank you very much! I feel so happy for consulting here. I might just go with `Memento Clementiam` to mean *Indulgent, forbearing conduct towards the errors and faults of others, moderation, mildness, humanity*. That should remind me to stay calm and keep my temper at check! I'll consult the opinion of others, but this stands as the best pick. Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2017-05-27T16:08:47.340" UserId="1657" />
  <row Id="9040" PostId="4461" Score="0" Text="A follow up question, if I may? Not sure if it belongs in a comment or in a separate question, but another person I consulted recommended using *Clementiae* instead of *Clementiam*, I was curious to know what the differences are." CreationDate="2017-05-27T17:07:10.690" UserId="1657" />
  <row Id="9041" PostId="4461" Score="1" Text="@brain56 *Memento clementiam* or *Memento clementiae* sounds good to me. I actually [just asked a question about the difference between accusative and genitive objects for *meminisse*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4466/79). *Memento* is an imperative form of this verb, so it's directly related to choosing between *clementiam* and *clementiae*. I hope someone has insight to share there!" CreationDate="2017-05-27T19:21:50.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9042" PostId="4461" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if this contributes to the discussion, but someone on [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6doi7y/seeking_consultation_for_a_tattoo_memento/di47tye/?st=j37u48ra&amp;sh=9f89a655) pointed out that *Memento clementiam* = &quot;Remember clemency&quot; and *Memento clementiae* = &quot;Remember of clemency&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-27T22:16:24.433" UserId="1657" />
  <row Id="9047" PostId="4461" Score="0" Text="@brain56 You should post that as a comment to the linked question. Perhaps someone can verify or falsify that claim. (Personally, I'm not sure I understand the meaning of &quot;of&quot; in that context.)" CreationDate="2017-05-28T14:18:04.533" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9043" PostId="4463" Score="0" Text="I believe that English phrase comes from a Greek voting procedure, so I'd be surprised if it was never mentioned by some Roman historian or author." CreationDate="2017-05-27T22:49:49.657" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9045" PostId="4463" Score="1" Text="@Sam K I really, really wanted to find evidence of this!  But in vain :(" CreationDate="2017-05-28T10:47:07.693" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="9037" PostId="4465" Score="2" Text="+1 --&gt; Memento famulorum tuorum. Can you provide more details? Perhaps it was accusative in classical times and genitive thereafter? Welcome to the site, BTW" CreationDate="2017-05-26T23:05:19.040" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9038" PostId="4465" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and +1! If my memory serves me well, L&amp;S tells that the accusative is also classically possible. I faintly recall that *meminisse* prefers a genitive when the object is a person, but is more ambivalent with inanimate things. Either way, the genitive is indeed a possible choice." CreationDate="2017-05-26T23:54:36.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9048" PostId="4466" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if this contributes to the discussion, but someone on [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6doi7y/seeking_consultation_for_a_tattoo_memento/di47tye/?st=j37u48ra&amp;sh=9f89a655) pointed out that *memento clementiam* = &quot;Remember clemency&quot; and *memento clementiae* = &quot;Remember of clemency&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-28T16:08:58.100" UserId="1657" />
  <row Id="9053" PostId="4466" Score="0" Text="Interesting question. My gut feeling tells me that the genitive is standard in classical prose, and that the accusative is just a minor alternative form with the same meaning. But I'm not sure." CreationDate="2017-05-29T03:02:55.813" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14208" PostId="4466" Score="0" Text="(Bringing this back after seeing it in Unanswered) Are you also interested in the other constructions L&amp;S list, such as with *de*+abl?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T05:16:48.800" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14210" PostId="4466" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I'm mainly interested in accusative and genitive here, but there's nothing wrong with mentioning and comparing other options as well. If it gets too long, it should be taken to a new question." CreationDate="2018-05-17T07:28:14.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9049" PostId="4469" Score="3" Text="It might be worthwhile looking at Aristotle or other Greek writers on botany -- though this wouldn't directly tell you what the Romans thought, it could be relevant as much or most Roman science was taken from the Greeks." CreationDate="2017-05-28T17:20:59.757" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9054" PostId="4470" Score="4" Text="Good idea! Using original classical text, especially poetry, gives a tattoo much more gravity, if any existing quote only matches the intention well enough." CreationDate="2017-05-29T06:19:22.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9058" PostId="4474" Score="2" Text="Cf. Benjamin Franklin's &quot;join or die&quot; -- or in Latin &quot;iungite aut perite&quot;-- along with the image of a cut up rattlesnake to emphasize the dangers disunity among the American colonies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die" CreationDate="2017-05-29T20:13:33.920" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="9059" PostId="4475" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the response. I didn't really make it clear, but I was referring to uniting the enemy. As in, &quot;let's help out enemies unite and then go about conquering them&quot;. I know this is nonsensical, but the absurdity is precisely what I wanted to bring out." CreationDate="2017-05-29T20:22:47.330" UserId="1664" />
  <row Id="9062" PostId="4475" Score="1" Text="Yes, that still works. Unlike the English *unite*, *conducere* is transitive, so it has to have an object. &quot;Unite [them] and conquer.&quot; It's going to be ambiguous either way, though, so perhaps you could make the object explicit: *Conduc hostes et supera*, &quot;unite the enemies and conquer.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-05-29T22:19:44.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9060" PostId="4476" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! To clarify your question, is there any specific meaning you like best for which you'd like the translation, or are you merely confirming the translations you found?" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:21:47.150" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9065" PostId="4476" Score="1" Text="&quot;Deo vindice&quot; with God as avenger/protector was the motto of the Confederate States of America.  The verb &quot;vindico&quot; carries both meanings: protect and punish or avenge.  There are several bible verses that refer to God's vengeance, e.g. Romans 12: 19-21.  See https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Vengeance/" CreationDate="2017-05-29T23:48:55.963" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="9073" PostId="4476" Score="0" Text="@Palizsche Hey, you might be able to shed some light on [this question about _vindice_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4426/118) (including whether my answer, pieced together from various sources, was on track). The OP might want to have a look at that question, too." CreationDate="2017-05-31T01:41:27.300" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9074" PostId="4476" Score="0" Text="[This answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4122/118) doesn't give you the word you're looking for, but the examples might shed some light on the meaning of the ablative case—especially the names of the Dutch ships. (All of your phrases above are in the ablative case.) Latin's ablative case is usually perfect for this sort of thing: terse, epigrammatic, and echoing lots of prior poetic usage and mottos." CreationDate="2017-05-31T01:54:19.360" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9078" PostId="4476" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, thanks for asking -- I'll have a look, when I get a chance.  I still keep meaning to get back to your Gentleman and the Horace ode about &quot;aurea mediocritas&quot; too.  Latinitas longa, vita brevis." CreationDate="2017-05-31T03:08:54.223" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="9063" PostId="4478" Score="3" Text="Good answer. Two comments: 1. *Ultrix* is feminine, *ultor* is masculine. 2. I suspect it's supposed to be *praeside* from *praeses*, with D instead of T." CreationDate="2017-05-29T23:19:54.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9064" PostId="4478" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ultrix is a 1 termination adjective according to William Whitaker's Words, so I don't know if that changes anything. And I suspect you're right about _praeside_, I'll update my answer to reflect that." CreationDate="2017-05-29T23:27:20.017" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9066" PostId="4478" Score="0" Text="@Sam K Yes I am just looking for clarification. But If you could put me in touch with the literal quote of 'God is vengeful' that would be great! Many thanks." CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:27:04.423" UserId="1666" />
  <row Id="9067" PostId="4478" Score="0" Text="@BlakeWebb I converted the answer into an actual comment. The question was asked from an unregistered account. Do you want to merge the two accounts? That would allow you to comment freely on answers to your own question." CreationDate="2017-05-30T06:45:58.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11733" PostId="4478" Score="1" Text="Is [*ultrix*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dultrix) ever used to describe a masculine noun (or a singular neuter one)? The more common idiom indeed is [*deus ultor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ultor&amp;la=la&amp;can=ultor0#lexicon), &quot;God the avenger.&quot; For the double nouns above, I'd also suggest using &quot;as&quot;; e.g. *Deo Aegis*, &quot;With God as [My] Shield.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-12-20T21:18:31.613" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11734" PostId="4478" Score="0" Text="@cmw That is an interesting question about _ultrix_, as it doesn't appear that there are any examples. Perhaps this is a more uncommon construction, even limited in its uses, but I have found nothing to suggest it cannot be used in such a way." CreationDate="2017-12-20T23:44:13.670" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11735" PostId="4478" Score="1" Text="@SamK I think the issue is that though it's an adjective, it's a feminine construction. The feminine form of the *-tor* suffix is *-trix*. There's even an [answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/183/78) about it. I would avoid." CreationDate="2017-12-21T00:52:21.490" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11736" PostId="4478" Score="0" Text="@cmw But do these endings still apply for adjectives? Wouldn't the respective dictionary entry read _ultor_, _ultrix_, _ultrum_(?), instead of just _ultrix_, gen. _ultricis_? I have never heard of a gender-specific adjective, so maybe I am just misinterpreting your point?" CreationDate="2017-12-21T01:52:06.803" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11740" PostId="4478" Score="1" Text="It's an anomaly, for sure. I think it was at some point reclassified as an adjective based on its modifying a neuter plural noun, but it's morphologically similar to other feminine nouns of its type, like *nurtrix*, *matrix*, and *meretrix*. Using it with *deus* sounds highly unusual to my (admittedly imperfect and certainly not natural) ears." CreationDate="2017-12-21T07:15:36.543" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11747" PostId="4478" Score="0" Text="@cmw Very interesting... I agree it does look a bit odd, and the trouble is that we can only guess at this point..." CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:39:26.127" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9070" PostId="4480" Score="1" Text="I think there's more to this than that it was &quot;derived&quot; from this passage." CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:39:15.150" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9072" PostId="4480" Score="4" Text="I believe the prevailing theory is that some printer back in the 1500s who wanted to produce a type specimen book took existing page galleys and scrambled them a bit. More information here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2290/what-does-the-filler-text-lorem-ipsum-mean." CreationDate="2017-05-30T17:13:55.833" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9084" PostId="4480" Score="1" Text="One piece of real Latin in the jumble is from Horace: &quot;parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus&quot;. The mountains are in labor (and) a ridiculous mouse wiil be born&quot;." CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:52:02.483" UserDisplayName="user1466" />
  <row Id="30594" PostId="4480" Score="0" Text="&quot;The text is not a coherent passage&quot; Google translate concurs (although I wasn't sure if that was by accident until I read your answer)" CreationDate="2021-01-31T15:46:13.457" UserId="7415" />
  <row Id="30600" PostId="4480" Score="4" Text="@stevec Google Translate is very poor for Latin, so I would expect even meaningful texts to produce garbage outputs (and some meaningless texts to produce coherent outputs). See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for for more information." CreationDate="2021-01-31T18:58:06.123" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="9071" PostId="4481" Score="0" Text="You could use something on the lines of _libellus pro forma_." CreationDate="2017-05-30T17:01:01.987" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9075" PostId="4484" Score="0" Text="I think this answer is good. Continuing on the final suggestion, what do you mean exactly by &quot;technically correct&quot;? Acceptable but ugly? And how about *ab anno MCMLXVII*?" CreationDate="2017-05-31T02:13:08.953" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9076" PostId="4484" Score="0" Text="I personally dislike it because it's not the way dates, as far as I know, were written. I, however, don't know of any examples where that construction was used. And your suggestion could also work, translating as &quot;since the 1967th year,&quot; but again, usually this is accompanied by some form of AD or AUC to show the perspective. With just _ab anno MCMLXVII_, we don't know whether this is the 1967th year of the Lord or since the founding of the city. I mean, it can probably be assumed from context, but that's my nitpicky opinion." CreationDate="2017-05-31T02:32:47.047" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9077" PostId="4484" Score="0" Text="OK I see your point. How about *ab anno Domini MCMLXVII*, then?" CreationDate="2017-05-31T03:07:54.547" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9079" PostId="4484" Score="1" Text="I think the analogy with *ab urbe condita* is a great angle, but I think it's one step too far to propose *nuptias condere*, unless you're going for a comical effect." CreationDate="2017-05-31T03:27:49.927" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9080" PostId="4484" Score="0" Text="I do need something that's very short for it to work. I certainly wouldn't include the &quot;anno&quot; without the &quot;domini&quot;, and I'd therefore abbreviate that to A.D. The whole thing is a kind of abbreviation, and since we don't commonly use any epoch reference in contemporary dates, I think it makes sense to leave it as implied in the inscription, and read &quot;ab MCMLXVII&quot; as &quot;ab anno domini milia nongenti sexaginta septem&quot;. Any comment on the use of &quot;ex&quot; instead?" CreationDate="2017-05-31T03:47:26.627" UserId="1668" />
  <row Id="9085" PostId="4484" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yep, that looks fine to me!" CreationDate="2017-05-31T19:14:55.340" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9086" PostId="4484" Score="2" Text="@Mike So if you want something short, I would go with ab _MCMLXVII AD_. As for the use of _ex_, if you prefer that instead of _ab_, then I do not see why you can't use it instead. To me, it seems as though _ab_ was used more frequently with the meaning of &quot;since,&quot; but _ex_ also has considerable proof of it being used in the same context. I focused on _ab_ primarily because there was proof of its usage in AUC." CreationDate="2017-05-31T19:21:35.460" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9093" PostId="4484" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Sam, et al. I'm satisfied that I've got at least a good enough translation, and learned a bit in the process." CreationDate="2017-06-01T02:18:39.707" UserId="1668" />
  <row Id="9083" PostId="4485" Score="0" Text="Nice! In Medieval Latin the same problem (if it is a problem) arises in most 3rd declension nouns: dative, -i; ablative -i." CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:41:51.293" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9089" PostId="4486" Score="3" Text="*The ablative without a preposition is not normally used with a person* -- except of course in an ablative absolute." CreationDate="2017-05-31T21:47:42.440" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9123" PostId="4486" Score="1" Text="Regarding agents and the preposition *a*, these might be relevant: [Which agents are human?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/840/79) and [Can the ablative take a non-human agent or a human instrument?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/391/79)." CreationDate="2017-06-05T14:44:09.010" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44605" PostId="4487" Score="1" Text="From the point of view of a chemist, this would be somewhat confusing. The &quot;ium&quot; ending is associated with elements, not particles." CreationDate="2023-08-29T13:39:36.427" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44610" PostId="4487" Score="0" Text="@RayButterworth No reason it couldn't be both? This is Latin, after all, not English. There are plenty of Latin nouns ending in -ium that aren't elements." CreationDate="2023-08-29T19:01:06.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44612" PostId="4487" Score="0" Text="@cmw, it *can* be whatever it is. I'm just saying that chemistry has a naming convention, and this eliminates it. It's like &quot;-ase&quot; means enzyme, &quot;-ose&quot; means sugar, &quot;-ol&quot; means alcohol, &quot;-ic acid&quot; means fatty acid, etc. The conventions aren't necessary, but they *are* convenient." CreationDate="2023-08-29T20:59:42.643" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="9087" PostId="4488" Score="0" Text="This is not a great recording, it almost sounds as if this person is speaking underwater to me." CreationDate="2017-05-31T21:43:43.423" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9088" PostId="4488" Score="0" Text="I know it's not the best but it was sent to me and I would really like to know what it means." CreationDate="2017-05-31T21:45:58.100" UserId="1671" />
  <row Id="9090" PostId="4488" Score="0" Text="I tried cleaning it up here is the link to the slightly cleaner version. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8JFmkDe6fX_cFlwcXFFVDBDVWM/view?usp=drivesdk" CreationDate="2017-05-31T21:49:50.357" UserId="1671" />
  <row Id="9091" PostId="4488" Score="0" Text="I can't quite make it out, but for others who are attempting, the first words sounds to me like _militaribus_." CreationDate="2017-05-31T22:00:35.157" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9092" PostId="4488" Score="0" Text="Interesting question! A request: Please do not remove the file so that the link remains accessible for future readers. If you think long term storage of the file is hard, let us know and we'll try to figure something out." CreationDate="2017-06-01T00:46:47.497" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11259" PostId="4489" Score="0" Text="Edit: on second listening, I do hear the *viris*. Not the best recording." CreationDate="2017-11-02T13:42:07.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9096" PostId="4490" Score="1" Text="Do you mean it in a strictly logical context? FWIW, double negation does **not** mean affirmation in every language, despite logics. E.g. in French negation is sometimes compulsorily double, and in Spanish double negation just adds emphasis. Not sure how it works in Latin, though" CreationDate="2017-06-01T20:22:10.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9099" PostId="4490" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: In Latin too, double negation sometimes adds emphasis (retaining the overall negation). A 'general negative' such as _non_, _numquam_, or _nihil_ isn't 'destroyed' (_Allen &amp; Greenough_'s term) but is merely 'subdivided' (_Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge_'s term) by succeeding negatives such as _neque_, _neque...neque_, _non solum/tantum...sed etiam_, and _ne...quidem_." CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:56:45.370" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9105" PostId="4490" Score="0" Text="Are you sure you want to say &quot;by accident&quot;? I have never heard the philosophical *per accidens* translated that way, because it's highly misleading to a modern English speaker." CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:13:34.673" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16331" PostId="4490" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I disagree. This is a part of the formal language of the discipline, which has some words that in common English are interpreted differently. A good example of this is Socrates’ _Apology_ (Apología) by Plato; here ‘apology’ clearly has a different meaning than the common meaning of a begging of pardon, or German _Bedauern_ (in this context, an apology is a defence)." CreationDate="2018-11-09T17:26:44.713" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16337" PostId="4490" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan It is much more common to translate Latin *per accidens* or Greek *κατὰ συμβεβηκός* as &quot;accidentally,&quot; not &quot;by accident.&quot; I'm sure you could find scattered examples of the latter, but it seems needlessly misleading." CreationDate="2018-11-09T19:57:34.140" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16348" PostId="4490" Score="0" Text="You have a fair point, though I am not sure it is relevant in the case of discipline-specific terminology. It is, of course, highly important that when using words commonly used (with its common definition) in a discipline specific context (and its specialised definition), one is intellectually honest and declares what the meaning of the word is in its new context. Otherwise, one ends up doing as Jordan Peterson, using words such as ‘religion’ with a meaning undeclared to the audience our opponent, destroying the foundations needed for an intellectually honest discussion." CreationDate="2018-11-10T13:03:14.933" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16349" PostId="4490" Score="0" Text="To give a well-known example from philosophy: ‘thing’. Philosophical ‘thing’ and vulgar ‘thing’ are usually not the same at all, spanning all the way from the ancient Greeks to our age’s noumenal ‘Ding an sich’." CreationDate="2018-11-10T13:05:26.750" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="9094" PostId="4491" Score="0" Text="I'm sorry, but where does _viris_ fit into that example sentence?" CreationDate="2017-06-01T18:56:50.060" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9095" PostId="4491" Score="0" Text="@SamK A *militaris vir* is a soldier or, if you prefer, a &quot;military man.&quot; It's a combination [noted in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmilitaris)" CreationDate="2017-06-01T19:02:21.133" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9097" PostId="4491" Score="0" Text="Ah, thank you for that clarification. I was not aware of that, but the more you know I suppose." CreationDate="2017-06-01T21:23:48.243" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9098" PostId="4492" Score="2" Text="According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Plants), *De Plantis* was probably written in the 1st c. BC by [Nicolaus of Damascus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_of_Damascus), which supports your conclusion." CreationDate="2017-06-01T21:37:35.627" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9100" PostId="4494" Score="4" Text="Your answer got me Googling which led me to this earlier post about Q.D.O.V so I leave it here for those interested: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1062/parsing-quod-deus-optime-vertat" CreationDate="2017-06-02T07:03:02.490" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="9101" PostId="4495" Score="2" Text="A nice encapsulation. I recently got around to reading the copy of Solodow's book that had been lying on my shelves for ever, and I liked it very much. As perhaps you can confirm, it's surprisingly readable. I had developed my own ways of handling quidem over the years, mainly through repeated readings of Pliny the Younger, and Solodow provided backup for much of what I was doing. I especially like your point about function vs. dictionary translation. But perhaps you would consider adding some real (i.e., Latin) examples to your answer, showing how one might translate them in light of Solodow?" CreationDate="2017-06-02T07:04:02.680" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9103" PostId="4495" Score="1" Text="Welcome to Latin SE, and thanks for the answer!" CreationDate="2017-06-02T12:40:26.573" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="9113" PostId="4496" Score="3" Text="&quot;Alea&quot; is not the object, it is the subject. The verb is a perfect passive form (literally, &quot;The die has been cast&quot;). So the plural would be &quot;The dice have been cast&quot;, &quot;Aleae iactae sunt&quot;." CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:40:45.683" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="9106" PostId="4498" Score="3" Text="I’ve checked several online Latin dictionaries, and while all of them give *dice game* and/or *game of chance* as possible definitions, all of them give *die* as the primary definition. Moreover, it seems very likely to me that Caesar meant *die* when he said *alea iacta est* simply because one throws dice; one doesn’t throw games. *To throw a game* means to lose in English, but I doubt that the idiom was the same for Romans. So can we get more evidence than an assertion that it’s on the German wikipedia (without even having a link, so we cannot even investigate that article’s sources)?" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:19:56.160" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="9107" PostId="4498" Score="1" Text="@KRyan Thanks for your comment. I've edited my answer to include the link and quote. However, I must say that I don't find it appropriate to immediately downvote my answer. I was just trying to shed some additional light on the subject." CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:44:04.210" UserId="1677" />
  <row Id="9108" PostId="4498" Score="1" Text="It’s not additional light if it’s not actually true; including false statements is actually distinctly unhelpful, and that’s literally the definition of something appropriate to downvote. The burden of proof is on you to back up your answer; if you do not do so sufficiently and people think your answer is incorrect, you will and should be downvoted. The wikipedia article you reference does not cite any of its own sources behind its claim, so I still find it unlikely to be true. And the Wiktionary quote, while interesting, neither backs up your primary claim nor really relates to the question." CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:57:28.133" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="9109" PostId="4498" Score="2" Text="The key information is that there are resources stating there is no plural *aleae* because *alea* is a *Plurale tantum* which cannot be put into the grammatical plural. However, for some strange reason, I can find only German quotes for this. Giving up." CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:26:48.693" UserId="1677" />
  <row Id="9110" PostId="4498" Score="3" Text="@KRyan I actually agree with this answer. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dalea) translates *alea* as a &quot;game of dice&quot;, and only mentions *tessera* or *talus* as an actual &quot;die.&quot; As further evidence, I did a corpus search and did not find a *single* example of *alea* in the plural (surely that is significant!). Can you propose a single example where *alea* can only refer to a physical die, not the game itself?" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:03:01.853" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9111" PostId="4498" Score="1" Text="@brianpck See, *your comment* is a good answer. *This answer* is not. Because your comment backs up its claims, while the answer does not. I would happily upvote your comment as an answer, whether that be incorporated into this answer or put up as a separate answer." CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:11:02.080" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="9112" PostId="4498" Score="2" Text="@KRyan You're welcome to think so, though he did link to the same L&amp;S entry. The German Wiki entry, though unsourced, is not worthless. I decided to ask the question more explicitly elsewhere: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4499/can-alea-refer-to-a-physical-die-or-only-the-game-of-dice" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:18:54.947" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9116" PostId="4498" Score="2" Text="Interesting discussion. As a side point, Wiktionary is slightly wrong to translate the Greek ἀνερρίφθω κύβος as “let the die be cast!” or “let the game be ventured!”: ἀνερρίφθω is a perfect imperative, so the literal meaning is &quot;let the die have been cast&quot;. Latin can convey this with *alea iacta esto*, which seems to be a variant of the phrase. The Greek κύβος, btw, does mean a single physical die, not a game of dice." CreationDate="2017-06-03T00:29:23.197" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9549" PostId="4498" Score="0" Text="@TKR Isn't &quot;be cast&quot; the infinitive form of the perfect tense while &quot;have been cast&quot; would actually be present perfect continuous?" CreationDate="2017-06-28T12:48:11.293" UserId="1677" />
  <row Id="9554" PostId="4498" Score="0" Text="@not2savvy *To be cast* is a present passive infinitive, *to have been cast* is a perfect (aka present perfect) passive infinitive. Present perfect continuous would be *to have been casting*." CreationDate="2017-06-28T16:54:38.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9114" PostId="4499" Score="1" Text="Firstly, I'd have said that, to us as to Caesar, the words are normally understood as a metaphor for initiating an irrevocable action : certainly not to the throwing of a physical die. Secondly, your being unable to find an example using _alea_ in the plural is, to me at least, a case of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence — though I wish that here were otherwise. In fact, the whole thing is pretty obscure, but you might get something from a glance at Smith's Antiquities under the heading 'Alea'(p.74 in the first edition)." CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:45:58.890" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9115" PostId="4499" Score="0" Text="I edited the post to clarify the first point. As for absence of evidence, the point was not intended to be conclusive, but I certainly think it is relevant, considering that words like *tessera* have many recorded plurals." CreationDate="2017-06-02T20:45:26.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9234" PostId="4501" Score="1" Text="Rather like English *barracks,* I'd say." CreationDate="2017-06-12T19:57:03.673" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11271" PostId="4501" Score="0" Text="That is one horrible sentence. I lack the stamina to make it through the whole thing, but doesn't *charitate* have one H too many?" CreationDate="2017-11-03T22:26:35.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11272" PostId="4501" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Hmm, after a quick search, I'm not sure when or why people started spelling it _charitas,_ but the the _h_ does seem more faithful to [its Greek origin](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charitas#Latin)." CreationDate="2017-11-04T10:56:21.163" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11306" PostId="4501" Score="0" Text="Oh, then it must be a different thing. I take it that *caritas* comes from *carus*, whereas *charitas* comes from *χάρις*. The two meanings are curiously similar, and I wonder if there is a connection..." CreationDate="2017-11-08T12:46:00.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42743" PostId="4501" Score="0" Text="P.S. The main verb is _concedimus,_ about ¾ of the way down." CreationDate="2023-03-29T19:46:02.990" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9121" PostId="4504" Score="1" Text="We'd have to look it up in the TLL, to be certain. Btw, do you know that **nom. Iuppiter is derived from voc.** and the original nom. (unattested) was very similar to dius? Cf. its Old Latin paradigm gen. DIOVOS, dat. DIOVE, acc. DIOVEM (Weiss, p. 248). Also, regularization led to another nom. Iovis." CreationDate="2017-06-05T03:08:49.327" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9118" PostId="4505" Score="0" Text="Looks promising! Let me know when you have updated this, so I don't miss it. (I know the trouble of traveling all too well. My 10-week trip to three continents ends in about an hour.)" CreationDate="2017-06-04T12:38:31.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9119" PostId="4505" Score="4" Text="Interesting find. It's worth pointing out that Varro here seems to be arguing for the &quot;analogist&quot; side of the so-called analogist-anomalist controvery, i.e. the position that language is inherently regular, so his assertion that these regular forms exist in Latin should probably be taken with some caution." CreationDate="2017-06-04T23:24:17.487" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9120" PostId="4505" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you! It was only two continents for me, but a long journey regardless. I added a bit more, but sadly though it's only 9pm here, it's really &quot;4am&quot; to my body." CreationDate="2017-06-05T01:08:23.070" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9122" PostId="4505" Score="0" Text="Diespiter (nom.) is used twice in Plautus, once in Captivi and the second one in Poenulus." CreationDate="2017-06-05T03:53:51.983" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9139" PostId="4507" Score="0" Text="I had hard time deciding which answer to accept. This answer is very useful, too. That the only attestations are in grammarians is a strong sign of the theoretical nature of such forms." CreationDate="2017-06-07T10:00:26.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9124" PostId="4510" Score="2" Text="Unfortunately, I think it will be almost impossible to give a good answer without more background: surely you have some more details to give than just &quot;I have this stone&quot;? The only positive thing I can say is that I don't know any Latin words that begin with IH. IHS is a solid guess, though I see no reason to exclude that this is a Greek inscription." CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:08:31.660" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9125" PostId="4510" Score="0" Text="@brianpck You're right! I add all the info that I have. Thank you." CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:15:42.740" UserId="1680" />
  <row Id="9126" PostId="4510" Score="2" Text="GNOCCHI, perhaps. Or GRACCHI; now that would be fun if you found his brother too." CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:52:54.457" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9127" PostId="4510" Score="1" Text="@Hugh interesting alternative! Even if I did not understand the joke (?)." CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:36:20.393" UserId="1680" />
  <row Id="9132" PostId="4510" Score="6" Text="@AlessandroJacopson It's certainly not Gnocchi or Gracchi - so that's the joke - but it could end in -hi. It could well be Italian just as much as Latin or Greek." CreationDate="2017-06-06T13:30:55.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9129" PostId="4511" Score="1" Text="I wonder if this is why L&amp;S offers the translation, &quot;Let the game be ventured.&quot; I agree, though, that this does seem to refer to a physical die." CreationDate="2017-06-06T02:23:16.330" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9130" PostId="4511" Score="3" Text="This is supported by the fact that the Latin phrase seems to be a translation of ἀνερρίφθω κύβος, which definitely refers to the physical object. It is a little odd if this is the only attestation of that sense, though." CreationDate="2017-06-06T02:55:30.393" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9131" PostId="4511" Score="1" Text="For the record, I agree that alea must mean the physical object in Caesar's line. My answer was merely to provide other words that denote dice and that have attested plural forms. I also agree, though, that it's odd that this use of alea seems pretty much to start and end with Caesar – at least in the literary evidence. I can't help wondering why he would use alea rather than tessera. Perhaps he just liked the sound of 'alea iacta est' better than 'tessera iacta est.'" CreationDate="2017-06-06T03:47:50.200" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9133" PostId="4511" Score="1" Text="As a brief aside: the phrase from Suetonius is actually &quot;iacta alea est.&quot; I'm curious why it has come down in the canon in a different order." CreationDate="2017-06-06T16:03:15.140" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9136" PostId="4511" Score="0" Text="**It is very possible that Caesar never said &quot;Iacta alea est&quot;** - just like he never said &quot;Et tu, Brute&quot;. The most feasible explanation is that this is how Suetonius translated the Greek phrase he found in Plutarch, Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος." CreationDate="2017-06-07T01:07:54.380" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10322" PostId="4511" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. It has been suggested that &quot;est&quot; is a scribal error for &quot;esto&quot;." CreationDate="2017-08-10T10:41:19.927" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9206" PostId="4513" Score="0" Text="Random fun fact: palatalization is the reason we have soft c and soft g. In the case of soft c, the &quot;k sound&quot; became a &quot;ch sound&quot; which simplified to an &quot;s sound.&quot; Italian is more conservative than Spanish, English, and French in this regard when it comes to the soft c. In the case of the soft g, this is why Mandarin speakers pronounced &quot;Beijing&quot; more like &quot;Peking&quot; before the early 20th century (it remains unpalatalized in the more conservative Chinese dialects as well as in Japanese and Korean since the word was borrowed much earlier in time)." CreationDate="2017-06-11T15:07:15.060" UserId="1681" />
  <row Id="9209" PostId="4513" Score="0" Text="It also appears that another round of palatalization in English called &quot;yod-coalescence&quot; was the reason for the final sound change to -shion after the -sion pronunciation for -tion was borrowed from French." CreationDate="2017-06-11T15:37:31.107" UserId="1681" />
  <row Id="9140" PostId="4514" Score="1" Text="What do other languages do? Are you asking about how to translate English call signs, or how a Latin-speaking person would label a military vehicle? For simple translation, I cannot see why the cardinal isn't preferred. It's not like &quot;red 5&quot; means anything grammatically in English anyway." CreationDate="2017-06-07T14:47:05.250" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9141" PostId="4514" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I would prefer ordinal, since *red 5* presumably comes after *red 4* and before *red 6,* and that's practically the definition of ordinal." CreationDate="2017-06-07T17:44:33.540" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9142" PostId="4514" Score="1" Text="@Anonym I do not understand. Are you saying that the cardinal number 5 doesn't come after 4 and before 6?" CreationDate="2017-06-07T18:50:42.217" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9143" PostId="4514" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I added a new paragraph (third). I don't know what other languages do, and it seems to be hard to search. I have no feeling as to whether one should prefer cardinals or ordinals in call signs or any kind of codes in Latin. Any kind of insight would be a useful answer." CreationDate="2017-06-07T19:49:43.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9144" PostId="4514" Score="0" Text="@Anonym By that reasoning I would expect that &quot;red 5&quot; is read as &quot;red fifth&quot; in English, but it isn't. Nevertheless, Latin does have a slight tendency to prefer ordinals where English would use cardinals and I might use an ordinal too." CreationDate="2017-06-07T19:53:38.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9145" PostId="4514" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta English often uses cardinals as ordinals - i.e., *chapter one* is just an idiomatic way to say *the first chapter* - but Latin doesn't." CreationDate="2017-06-07T20:24:57.740" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9151" PostId="4514" Score="0" Text="Just a note on this. In English, callsigns typically have reserved meaning. The numbers aren't intended as ordinals but rather signifiers. In Afghanistan I was &quot;Demon 4 Bravo Delta&quot;. Demon was our unit ID, 4 was our squad ID, B was our team ID, and D because I drove our HMMWV. In the US, 6 typically identifies a leader - Demon 6 was our platoon leader. The number can be replaced with the word &quot;Actual&quot; which is typically a commander, thus Demon Actual was our commanding officer. If calling a military vehicle, you typically call the unit ID. Naval ships and aircraft can differ slightly." CreationDate="2017-06-08T05:28:14.860" UserId="1683" />
  <row Id="9146" PostId="4515" Score="0" Text="Excellent question! This might include the pronunciation of the rho." CreationDate="2017-06-07T21:11:45.577" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9147" PostId="4515" Score="1" Text="There is evidence from Latin transliterations that the *h* was pronounced (e.g. in names like Euhemerus). But I don't have access to any relevant reference works at the moment so will leave it to someone who does to post an answer." CreationDate="2017-06-08T03:22:27.163" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9155" PostId="4515" Score="1" Text="@TKR: It seems possible though that the &quot;h&quot; in Latin could be a learned insertion that doesn't accurately indicate the Greek pronunciation. The OED indicates that in English, the spelling &quot;polyaemia&quot; seems to have been used earlier than the spelling &quot;polyhaemia&quot;, which seems like an example of how knowledge of etymology can cause people to adopt a different spelling." CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:02:01.440" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9156" PostId="4515" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, you're right of course, especially given that Latin H probably wasn't normally pronounced anyway. IIRC there are discussions of this in both Allen and Sturtevant (neither of which I have handy)." CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:43:43.300" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19248" PostId="4515" Score="1" Text="@sumelic But note Hebrew *sanhedrin* &lt; συνέδριον, where the learned-insertion idea seems less likely." CreationDate="2019-04-13T19:47:48.747" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9148" PostId="4517" Score="0" Text="This is a great start! I'd be really interested in seeing the last two references which note the smooth breathing. It must have been a grammatical curiosity that merited at least some justification, especially in a book dedicated (!) to breathings." CreationDate="2017-06-08T03:44:28.643" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35337" PostId="4517" Score="1" Text="Lexicon de spiritu digitized mss. https://portail.biblissima.fr/fr/ark:/43093/tdatab4d77ec4194a69c3f6d021b663eb4e392285348f" CreationDate="2021-10-03T03:35:05.820" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35338" PostId="4517" Score="1" Text="also see pp. 188-215 in Valckenaer 1822 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ammoniou_Peri_homoion_kai_diaphoron_lexe/IfZA-yS7UpAC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA274&amp;printsec=frontcover - you might want to take a look at page 215" CreationDate="2021-10-03T04:20:33.690" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35339" PostId="4517" Score="1" Text="Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem grammaticam (GG I.3) https://archive.org/details/scholiaindionys00hilggoog/page/n198/mode/2up" CreationDate="2021-10-03T18:12:15.077" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9154" PostId="4518" Score="1" Text="Very interesting. This raises the probably unanswerable question of whether initial /r-/ really was voiced in Aeolic and other psilotic dialects, or whether the grammarian were simply extending the spelling rule &quot;no rough breathings in Aeolic&quot; to rho." CreationDate="2017-06-08T16:30:12.010" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9152" PostId="4519" Score="0" Text="Not sure why the picture did not show, here it is: http://imgur.com/a/Xl4JS" CreationDate="2017-06-08T13:39:25.697" UserId="1686" />
  <row Id="9153" PostId="4519" Score="0" Text="I understand now that Vergilius is a journal. But does the 1940 refer to the edition date? If so, does anyone know where I can access 1940 Vergilius? From JSTOR I only have 1959 -" CreationDate="2017-06-08T13:50:02.433" UserId="1686" />
  <row Id="9204" PostId="4519" Score="0" Text="Perhaps you could contact the Vergilian Society itself? They may have the early editions of Vergilius in their archives: http://www.vergiliansociety.org/" CreationDate="2017-06-11T13:24:26.247" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="15107" PostId="4519" Score="0" Text="If you belong to a university or educational institution, check if you have access to [this file](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556008356859). Its the online version of the text in question." CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:06:50.080" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="9161" PostId="4520" Score="1" Text="seems it's tricky to find it. Duckworth taught at Princeton and surely Princeton has it. Classics Collection (Clas). Firestone Call number: PA6825.A2 V4743" CreationDate="2017-06-08T21:40:25.260" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15106" PostId="4520" Score="0" Text="The text is available online [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556008356859), but only for members. Chances are that universities with strong classics departments might be members." CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:05:51.660" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="9169" PostId="4524" Score="0" Text="Would a Thomistic explanation of the term be sufficient? Though he wrote in the 13th century, Aquinas had a considerable influence on discourse in Calvin's day (and even now)." CreationDate="2017-06-09T13:16:46.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9170" PostId="4524" Score="0" Text="@Brian I don't know if it will be sufficient, but it would undoubtedly help a lot!" CreationDate="2017-06-09T14:07:00.090" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="9171" PostId="4524" Score="0" Text="I can tell you that Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) used *motus* in the 18th century to speak of &quot;motions of mind,&quot; i.e., emotions. Example: *primus* motus, *qui est misericordia Domini . . .* (*Arcana Coelestia* #7): &quot;The first *stirring,* which is the Lord's mercy . . .&quot; So the use of *motus* to refer to emotions, including emotions in God, definitely predates the 19th century." CreationDate="2017-06-09T15:46:56.370" UserId="535" />
  <row Id="9173" PostId="4524" Score="0" Text="@LeeWoofenden That does sound like [the original sense (according to Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Etymology.2C_definitions.2C_and_differentiation), which also says it was used as a replacement for passions. I'm not sure how exactly the ODO is differentiating the current sense. I'm not even sure for how long passions and emotions have been distinguished in the context of divine impassibility." CreationDate="2017-06-09T23:35:53.533" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="9175" PostId="4525" Score="3" Text="The softening of g, c, etc. before e and i is not universal. Pronounce the γ hard as in get." CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:57:34.467" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9194" PostId="4525" Score="2" Text="Depends if you are asking about modern or classical Greek." CreationDate="2017-06-11T00:07:10.733" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="9244" PostId="4525" Score="2" Text="@SimpliciterChristianus Modern Greek is off-topic, so I took the liberty to restrict the question to older Greek." CreationDate="2017-06-13T18:09:19.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9180" PostId="4526" Score="1" Text="Gamma is thought to have been nasal (*ng*) also before nu and mu, either always or at least in some words." CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:05:34.627" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9186" PostId="4526" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Added! &lt;filler tex&gt;" CreationDate="2017-06-10T21:41:48.277" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9282" PostId="4526" Score="0" Text="I like how &quot;stop&quot; ends with a stop consonant, and &quot;voiced&quot; ends with a voiced consonant. If only &quot;velar&quot; ended with a velar." CreationDate="2017-06-16T08:17:55.257" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="9320" PostId="4526" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124: That would be quite the coincidence!" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:55:18.010" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34046" PostId="4526" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 Actually, voiced ends with a voiced consonant in writing, but usually not in pronunciation, due to the unvoiced /s/ preceding it." CreationDate="2021-07-09T13:55:24.683" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34049" PostId="4526" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan: Right, that is true." CreationDate="2021-07-09T14:12:39.090" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9201" PostId="4527" Score="0" Text="Keep in mind that spoken Latin and written Latin had diverged even before the Empire, and what someone *says* might not be the same as what someone might *write*. (That said, I have no idea if the acc-inf would be specific to the written form, but I suppose it is possible.)" CreationDate="2017-06-11T13:00:14.837" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="9176" PostId="4529" Score="1" Text="FWIW, the [Lexicon of Greek Personal Names](http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/database/lgpn.php) gives only one hit for Ὄθων (in volume 3A -- maybe this is the emperor). It certainly wasn't a common Greek name." CreationDate="2017-06-10T16:02:57.073" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9177" PostId="4529" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good catch. There were a couple of Othones, so my bets are on this fellow being a Roman, not a Greek, though I don't have immediate access to the Lexicon." CreationDate="2017-06-10T16:05:21.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9222" PostId="4529" Score="2" Text="Lewis and Short do not actually say that Latin Otho &quot;comes from&quot; the Greek Ὄθων, but rather that it &quot;= Ὄθων&quot;, that is to say, that Ὄθων is the Greek spelling of this Roman name. It is a Latin cognomen." CreationDate="2017-06-10T22:46:29.277" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9225" PostId="4529" Score="2" Text="The Wikipaedia article on Otho says that he came from an old Etruscan family, so perhaps the name is Etruscan in origin?  Hard to say, considering our lack of knowledge of Etruscan." CreationDate="2017-06-12T00:02:29.170" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9181" PostId="4532" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you be a little more specific? Most importantly, I would like to know what kind of Greek this answer applies to (modern?) and what it is based on (personal experience?)." CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:26:45.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9183" PostId="4532" Score="0" Text="I don't think anyone can know how the ancients pronounced it...But when a greek today pronounces these words (in modern or ancient greek) they pronounce &quot;γ&quot; as &quot;y&quot; in &quot;year&quot; and not any &quot;g&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-10T20:02:33.810" UserId="1695" />
  <row Id="9184" PostId="4532" Score="5" Text="I edited your answer to give the context. Feel free to re-edit. // In fact, we do have knowledge of how things were pronounced two millennia ago. In fact, &quot;How can we know how ancient Greek was pronounced?&quot; would make a nice question if we don't have it already." CreationDate="2017-06-10T20:10:02.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9185" PostId="4532" Score="0" Text="we only have assumptions... this applies to ancient greek music to.If you don't hear a song (since they were not written down) or hear a person speak, you can't know" CreationDate="2017-06-10T20:16:48.923" UserId="1695" />
  <row Id="9189" PostId="4532" Score="4" Text="This is true before front vowels only. Modern Greek γ followed by back vowels is IPA [γ], a voiced guttural fricative." CreationDate="2017-06-10T22:28:56.277" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34047" PostId="4532" Score="0" Text="@ZaMoC Your comments reflect a lack of familiarity with comparative linguistics. We actually know quite a lot about how it was pronounced, not only from their own writings about it, but also from inscriptions in the various dialects of Greek, such inscriptions translated to other languages (maybe not as common as for Latin), and how non-Greeks discussed Greek. And this is only the tip of the iceberg; when you add comparative linguistics, you can include studies of how different sounds developed to modern languages, informing with reasonable certainty how they must have been pronounced earlier." CreationDate="2021-07-09T13:58:19.427" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34051" PostId="4532" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan do you also have an opinion about the main question? The accepted answer is wrong. When we (modern greeks)  read modern or ancient greek, we do not pronounce γ as english people say gamma. So, &quot;get&quot; is wrong.  γ is &quot;γαμμα&quot; and not &quot;γκαμα&quot; as you pronounce it. Just use google translate and hear it. here is the link: https://translate.google.gr/?sl=el&amp;tl=en&amp;text=%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B3%CE%BD%CF%89%CF%83%CE%BA%CF%89%0A%0A&amp;op=translate" CreationDate="2021-07-09T15:02:02.317" UserId="1695" />
  <row Id="34052" PostId="4532" Score="0" Text="I do, but it would take more research for me to provide a quality answer. As far as I know, Modern Greek pronounces γ as /ɣ/, which as it happens to be is the same as in Dutch, e.g. the initial G of van Gogh. Ancient Greek as altogether a different beast, but I think I have enough knowledge to write up an answer over the weekend or late next week." CreationDate="2021-07-09T15:19:38.073" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="9197" PostId="4537" Score="4" Text="I looked it up myself in the most recent, authoritative and critical edition by Robert Kaster (2016), in the OCT series. He traces the reading with &quot;ut&quot; to a fifteenth century manuscript (Toledo) and **he clearly marks ut false reading**." CreationDate="2017-06-11T00:44:05.920" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9230" PostId="4537" Score="3" Text="I was lazy and copied it out of L/S. Proves you should never trust a dictionary. @AlexB." CreationDate="2017-06-12T15:45:52.513" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9241" PostId="4537" Score="1" Text="No problem - I guess I should say something like, Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus." CreationDate="2017-06-13T04:44:22.133" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9214" PostId="4539" Score="4" Text="I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about Modern Greek; the current site policy is that only Ancient Greek questions are on-topic." CreationDate="2017-06-11T18:20:58.613" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9215" PostId="4539" Score="0" Text="... unless you recognize the very interesting fact that the regressive-accent-for-verbs rule is still in action after all these thousands of years. @TKR." CreationDate="2017-06-11T21:30:07.527" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9219" PostId="4539" Score="0" Text="@fdb, it is certainly interesting, but is not a fact about Ancient Greek, so IMO this is not the place for it (as per our [Meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/218/what-should-we-do-with-greek-questions))." CreationDate="2017-06-11T23:46:51.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9221" PostId="4539" Score="0" Text="@TKR Seconded: An interesting question, but one which our current policy specifically excludes." CreationDate="2017-06-12T00:17:40.260" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9205" PostId="4541" Score="1" Text="Sorry, of course it's potes!!  But &quot;Exta praegusto deum&quot; which to me sounds like &quot; I have a foretaste of the gods intestines lol" CreationDate="2017-06-11T13:31:13.567" UserId="1699" />
  <row Id="9207" PostId="4541" Score="1" Text="Where is this quote from? It often helps parsing it if we know exactly where it came from." CreationDate="2017-06-11T15:09:24.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9208" PostId="4541" Score="0" Text="http://aesopus.pbworks.com/w/page/1472846/phaedrus081" CreationDate="2017-06-11T15:26:56.230" UserId="1699" />
  <row Id="9210" PostId="4544" Score="0" Text="The good thing is that I did understand the whole thing correctly, as you were so kind to point out. Latina facilis est!" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:48:06.270" UserId="1692" />
  <row Id="9211" PostId="4544" Score="1" Text="@User26328 I'm glad I could be of help! This is one of those cases where a mere translation does not convey the structure of the original, and an additional commentary would be useful for learning Latin. Et consentio; quandoquidem multo Anglica facilior est lingua Latina, quippe quae tanta verba declinabilia habeat." CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:54:05.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9226" PostId="4544" Score="2" Text="If it helps, this sort of phrase is called an &quot;appositive&quot;." CreationDate="2017-06-12T02:07:28.023" UserId="1702" />
  <row Id="9228" PostId="4544" Score="0" Text="@SamuelEdwinWard That is indeed useful, but I had forgotten the name. Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-06-12T10:35:48.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9231" PostId="4546" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, he doesn't say; I was assuming prepositional too. It seems a little ad hoc to me, to be honest, but there doesn't appear to be a better explanation." CreationDate="2017-06-12T15:52:48.263" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9232" PostId="4546" Score="0" Text="And Weiss also mentions quite interesting examples (with medial f) on pp 474-475." CreationDate="2017-06-12T16:08:16.693" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9233" PostId="4546" Score="1" Text="de Vaan clearly says that &quot;because *en was metanalysed as the preposition 'in'. As for a possible dialectal and other hypotheses (de Vaan cites Giacomelli 1963 but Leumann mentions Meillet), Leumann dismissed those as &quot; entbehrlich und meist sehr kuenstlich.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-12T16:29:17.047" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9229" PostId="4547" Score="0" Text="Just so you know, there are a couple issues with your starting sentence. Perhaps you should also phrase that part as a question." CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:55:35.233" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9238" PostId="4549" Score="0" Text="_Annos habere_ came to my mind, but I'm not sure it is old enough." CreationDate="2017-06-12T20:57:18.350" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9240" PostId="4550" Score="0" Text="@brianpck's suggestion is definitely the more common way of saying that. Speed reading, I had to do a double take because I thought *facilis est* was a mistake here." CreationDate="2017-06-13T01:03:11.990" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9237" PostId="4552" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It makes sense to always use a participle of a verb describing creation, whatever it may mean for the entity in question." CreationDate="2017-06-12T20:47:59.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9239" PostId="4553" Score="1" Text="That's a nice translation, but I'm not sure I understand the dog comment. Anyway, welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:22:24.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9273" PostId="4553" Score="1" Text="Could you explain how you arrived that this translation?" CreationDate="2017-06-15T15:04:26.957" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="9354" PostId="4555" Score="0" Text="Genitive of quality, I'd say." CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:37:35.697" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9254" PostId="4556" Score="0" Text="Notice in the previous line two elisions, used by Virgil to intensify the *effugia, culpa, miser, morte.* *Quod* is resumptive; it gives the reader time to draw breath after the turmoil. On the radio interviewees start: **&quot;So...&quot;**" CreationDate="2017-06-14T09:27:00.207" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9265" PostId="4556" Score="0" Text="I suggest taking a look at [Bennet's Latin Grammar 176.3](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect176), as it looks promising, but I do not know enough to elaborate on the topic." CreationDate="2017-06-14T20:11:16.150" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9266" PostId="4556" Score="0" Text="Here's another example (which works in English and Latin.) &gt; I've been doing sums ages &gt; ***Etatem mensuro.*** *Aetas* -age; *aetatem* for a long time.&#xA;Date 1300, spoken by *puer,* colloquial, deliberately ambiguous." CreationDate="2017-06-14T09:15:40.697" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9267" PostId="4556" Score="0" Text="Unless I am missing something, this doesn't seem like an adverbial accusative, but rather an Accusative Duration of Time." CreationDate="2017-06-14T20:00:19.940" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9242" PostId="4557" Score="4" Text="Great question! Note that the same cases are used in the Greek original." CreationDate="2017-06-13T16:55:00.477" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9249" PostId="4557" Score="4" Text="@brianpck I get the impression that the answer to &quot;Why is this thing weirdly in the Latin New Testament?&quot; is &quot;Because it was that way in Greek.&quot;, no matter what the details are." CreationDate="2017-06-13T20:12:01.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9253" PostId="4561" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! I suggest taking a look at the earlier color questions ([this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2116/79) and [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/275/79)). They don't contain an answer to your question, but I thought you might be interested. I also added the color tag to your question." CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:57:26.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9255" PostId="4561" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'd say that the second link in particular completely answers this question. It links to a book which not only describes their color system, but discusses both black and blue as distinct colors." CreationDate="2017-06-14T11:15:56.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9257" PostId="4561" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Yes, the linked material gives an answer, but the answer itself doesn't. Finding and explaining the relevant points would make a good answer here." CreationDate="2017-06-14T12:07:27.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9258" PostId="4561" Score="1" Text="To start, the word 'ater, atra, atrum' is the most common word for black, also meaning dark. The adjective 'caeruleus, caerulea, caeruleum' comes from the word 'caelum' meaning sky, and it describes the blue colour of the sea or the sky." CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:21:30.613" UserId="243" />
  <row Id="9261" PostId="4561" Score="1" Text="It's a very complicated question - it has generated a lot of research - and in very broad terms, it depends on your theory of color. I personally recommend Mark Bradley's *Colour and Meaning in Ancient Rome* (Bradley 2009)." CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:18:28.183" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9269" PostId="4561" Score="0" Text="@Cataline Do you want to write that up as an answer? Those are indeed the basic words I'd suggest. Maybe I'd add *niger*." CreationDate="2017-06-15T05:58:17.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9259" PostId="4565" Score="2" Text="Just a couple of thoughts. (i) _Una_ means 'in unison', 'acting as one' and is a good choice here. (ii) In what sense  is 'dangerous' intended? Adding water to concentrated sulphuric acid is dangerous (or perilous), but I suspect that the real intention might be 'threatening' which, if so, you could better express by _minaces_." CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:49:21.903" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9260" PostId="4565" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Good thoughts! For some reason I prefer a participle, but *una* is indeed a good choice. I don't know what sense of &quot;dangerous&quot; was intended. If it was more threatening that perilous, I agree that *minaces* is a better choice." CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:57:00.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9270" PostId="4566" Score="0" Text="_uniti_ ? Where did you find that?" CreationDate="2017-06-15T13:08:55.333" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9271" PostId="4566" Score="1" Text="Looks like it's post-Augustinian: [*unio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dunio1)" CreationDate="2017-06-15T13:36:25.677" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9272" PostId="4566" Score="0" Text="Apuleius uses it [once](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23uniti%23), though." CreationDate="2017-06-15T13:41:56.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9275" PostId="4568" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the explanation! (I took the liberty to reformat your list a little. Feel free to re-edit or roll back.)" CreationDate="2017-06-15T15:52:18.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9293" PostId="4568" Score="1" Text="The argument of this post is that it means, &quot;miserere quia te oro...&quot; (=&quot;have mercy because I beg you...&quot;). I'm genuinely surprised this reading is getting traction: I haven't found a single source that supports it." CreationDate="2017-06-16T13:39:02.970" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9278" PostId="4569" Score="1" Text="There is [a related question about translating &quot;user account&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/742/79) to Latin." CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:27:38.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9279" PostId="4569" Score="0" Text="χρήστης is the modern Greek word, but in ancient Greek it meant an oracle-giver or a creditor." CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:37:50.973" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9281" PostId="4570" Score="2" Text="Would the downvoter care to comment why they disagree?" CreationDate="2017-06-15T20:59:55.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9295" PostId="4570" Score="0" Text="It seems that both your answer and Maria's were downvoted. I too would like to know why. (Anyone is of course free to vote down if they want and to remain anonymous if they prefer, but it would be more useful to get some feedback.)" CreationDate="2017-06-16T13:58:48.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9318" PostId="4570" Score="0" Text="I've decided to accept your answer since it's the translation that fits in best, as well as the one which my notes agree with, so thank you." CreationDate="2017-06-17T09:22:54.093" UserId="243" />
  <row Id="9310" PostId="4571" Score="0" Text="I remember reading that *ater* is shiny and *niger* matte, but I will need to find the source." CreationDate="2017-06-16T19:55:35.960" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9311" PostId="4571" Score="0" Text="@Draconis A source for that distinction would be very interesting. I don't recall ever reading on the matter." CreationDate="2017-06-16T20:26:12.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9319" PostId="4571" Score="2" Text="@Draconis. The link to L/S says exactly the opposite:  ater is &quot;black; and specif., coalblack, lustreless-black, sable, dark (opp. albus, lustreless-white, and diff. from niger, glossy black,&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:14:44.560" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="32650" PostId="4571" Score="1" Text="the issue of color is dealt on [*Be Not Afraid of the Dark* by Shelley P. Haley](https://ms.fortresspress.com/downloads/0800663403_Chapter%20one.pdf) pages 31-33.  Not sure I can see clear examples, but it reads: &quot;*Albus and ater connote a matte-like quality, whereas candidus and niger imply luster and brightness*&quot;. This seems to be in line with L/S as @fdb writes above." CreationDate="2021-04-16T21:25:28.137" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32654" PostId="4571" Score="0" Text="@d_e Would you like to write that up into an answer? Citation of that chapter and L&amp;S would make a strong point." CreationDate="2021-04-17T12:53:52.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9284" PostId="4573" Score="0" Text="I would be very grateful if you could translate the German into English! Thanks! :)" CreationDate="2017-06-16T10:47:51.280" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="9294" PostId="4573" Score="2" Text="@Penelope I added a translation based on my limited German (I'm not sure if &quot;einmal&quot; means &quot;one time&quot; or &quot;a while ago&quot;)." CreationDate="2017-06-16T13:55:33.487" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9296" PostId="4573" Score="1" Text="This is a well-researched and valid interpretation, so +1, but I still have qualms. The force of &quot;quod&quot; seems very clearly &quot;therefore&quot; (as Honoratus and many translators have seen), and these abjurations all have the same formula: [Explanation of bad situation] + quod + [te oro...]. The &quot;quod&quot; clearly seems to say &quot;given this&quot; and hence is glossed by Honoratus as &quot;propter quod.&quot; If we say that &quot;quod&quot; is an &quot;urspr. Akkusativ,&quot; I really don't think there's much difference between my answer and yours." CreationDate="2017-06-16T14:04:19.630" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9297" PostId="4573" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Thanks for translating the German!" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:17:45.080" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9285" PostId="4574" Score="0" Text="You have noticed, presumably, that the editor lists the manuscripts and justifies his editorial method in the Appendix (pp. 163 sqq.)" CreationDate="2017-06-16T11:00:34.723" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9286" PostId="4574" Score="1" Text="And specifically to the poem by Sappho pp. 172-3." CreationDate="2017-06-16T11:08:42.873" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9287" PostId="4574" Score="0" Text="@fdb actually I hadn't noticed that. So we have 11 or maybe 12 manuscripts. The question is: what does each of these have for that line? The critical note says one of the Paris codes has ὠς γὰρ σ' ἴδω, but I can't tell which of the four, or if any of the others differ." CreationDate="2017-06-16T11:21:24.503" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9288" PostId="4574" Score="1" Text="I think you need to look out for the more modern editions of Sappho’s poems, notably: Lobel, E.; Page, D. L., eds. (1955). Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta. Oxford: Clarendon Press, and Voigt, Eva-Maria (1971). Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta. Amsterdam: Polak &amp; van Gennep." CreationDate="2017-06-16T11:32:52.103" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9289" PostId="4574" Score="0" Text="@fdb Are any of those available online? I cannot seem to find Lobel-Page or Voigt. Except as Google books which do not even automatically preview. Time to look for Polak and Van Gennep." CreationDate="2017-06-16T12:16:43.833" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9290" PostId="4574" Score="0" Text="Nope, same result." CreationDate="2017-06-16T12:24:46.023" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9291" PostId="4574" Score="2" Text="I think you need to go to a university library." CreationDate="2017-06-16T12:29:49.597" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9314" PostId="4574" Score="0" Text="@fdb My situation prevents that. I mean, I have a muscle problem so I cannot walk long distances, which means the only accessible uni libraries for me are those of my own uni, and I wouldn't really expect Milan-Bicocca University to have that in their libraries, seen as there is no course in Classical stuff that I am aware of. Maybe I can have a look at their online catalog, but I'm pretty skeptical. I take it they cannot be found online..." CreationDate="2017-06-16T22:16:26.743" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9472" PostId="4574" Score="0" Text="I do not believe Lobel-Page is online. If you don't mind waiting a bit for answers, I can snag one and try to answer your questions for you, but if your university library subscribes to InterLibraryLoan or some other shared service, I recommend getting L-P yourself and going from there." CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:17:57.243" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9473" PostId="4574" Score="0" Text="@CMWeimer I honestly have no idea what my Uni library is subscribed to :). I never used it except as a studying place, and even that I only did some time ago. No I don't mind, and thanks. The only &quot;deadlines&quot; I have for getting answers are the dates I post on my blog, and even those posts can just be edited afterwards to include the info (or I just link the SE posts)." CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:20:13.037" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9724" PostId="4574" Score="1" Text="I'll try to stop by the library tomorrow and check out Voigt, will post then." CreationDate="2017-07-07T22:41:07.880" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9298" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="What is the book about? Any description might help parse the title." CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:21:54.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9299" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="Three masses by Pierre Certon,for the boys choir  of the holy shrine of Paris, newly published, in four voices, imitating (something)" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:39:43.460" UserId="1699" />
  <row Id="9300" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="The chap is Pierre Certon" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:40:05.300" UserId="1699" />
  <row Id="9301" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="@Ceruusdemens I'm confused: you just answered your own question." CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:40:47.677" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9302" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="I'm sorry,I'm pretty much a newcomer to Latin and writing it down sometimes helps to answer my own question. Do you think my understanding of the phrase is correct?" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:44:27.563" UserId="1699" />
  <row Id="9303" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="@Ceruusdemens Yes: it's actually a much more serviceable translation than mine, which was intended to show the literal meaning." CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:46:22.347" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9306" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="@Ceruusdemens I edited your own translation into the question. Feel free to re-edit. Showing your own attempt is generally a very good idea." CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:55:36.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9307" PostId="4575" Score="0" Text="@Ceruusdemens It seems that you have not gone through [our site tour (link)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) yet. I warmly recommend doing so!" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:52:05.583" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9315" PostId="4576" Score="1" Text="I think you've got it exactly right. Such masses are commonly known as 'parody masses' -- or, as the term that's used here suggests, 'imitation masses'." CreationDate="2017-06-16T22:46:54.397" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9322" PostId="4576" Score="0" Text="@cnread Interesting: they were still sung at actual ceremonies though, right? I once sang a Lassus mass of this kind." CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:16:23.763" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9519" PostId="4578" Score="1" Text="Are you still planning to update this answer? No hurry or pressure." CreationDate="2017-06-27T14:22:23.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9312" PostId="4579" Score="0" Text="I want to keep *oblivio* as the subject, so these suggestions don't help towards my eventual goal, but the general reminder of workarounds is a welcome one. (+1!) I'm not convinced about the gerundive and the supine (might be fine, but they sound weird to me), but the first and last ones look good to me." CreationDate="2017-06-16T21:39:51.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9313" PostId="4579" Score="0" Text="Yes, I'm becoming less and less sure of their value myself - and their grammaticality, for that matter" CreationDate="2017-06-16T21:41:17.773" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9317" PostId="4579" Score="2" Text="I think examples (2) and (3) change the meaning pretty drastically. I would translate: (2) &quot;you will sing about yourself needing to be...&quot; (3) this wouldn't be a supine but rather a past participle: &quot;you will sing about how you were taken..." CreationDate="2017-06-17T03:50:19.707" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9326" PostId="4580" Score="2" Text="There is a vote to close as off-topic. I think that the use of text corpora is important in the study of Latin and Greek (both of which are currently on-topic) and questions about them are therefore welcome here. Others are free to disagree, of course, through voting, at [meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/) or in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm)." CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:50:22.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9328" PostId="4580" Score="1" Text="@Joonas Just to clarify: I think you are referring to a close vote, not a down vote. There is no reason to downvote this well thought-out question." CreationDate="2017-06-17T18:19:44.153" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9329" PostId="4580" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh yes, I meant disagreeing by voting to close, not down. But as undeserving of a downvote as this question is, people are free to vote as they please – although an explanation of such a vote is always appreciated." CreationDate="2017-06-17T18:35:09.077" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9330" PostId="4580" Score="1" Text="To better answer your questions, it'd be good to know how much you know already. In other words, do you have any background in linguistics?" CreationDate="2017-06-17T18:43:59.113" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9331" PostId="4580" Score="1" Text="@Alex no. Unless you count occasionally looking at etmologies on Wiktionary as such background :). I did ask a couple questions about inconsistencies of those etymologies at the Wiktionary Tea Room, and even one on a semantic change from PIE to PG [on Linguistics SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/23131/how-did-h%e2%82%81l%cc%a5h%e2%82%81onb%ca%b0os-shift-from-deer-to-lamb). I also asked about Perfect Imperative [over at Ling](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/23146/what-languages-have-a-perfect-imperative-and-what-is-the-meaning-of-such-a-tense), but that's it." CreationDate="2017-06-17T19:04:56.750" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9323" PostId="4581" Score="1" Text="A quick classical corpus search only shows *praeparatio ad + acc.*" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:21:25.513" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9332" PostId="4581" Score="1" Text="I've found &quot;carnis praeparatio in cura primae materiae Tartarae&quot; and &quot;praeparatio in calidam natura&quot; used by Paracelsus and &quot;praeparatio in homine&quot; used by St. Thomas Aquinas. Unfortunately, I do not understand those quotes, so I cannot judge what is right, wrong or maybe simply Medieval Latin. This is the corresponding Google search to find those quotes: http://bit.ly/2rHPa3u" CreationDate="2017-06-17T20:06:04.767" UserId="1715" />
  <row Id="9321" PostId="4583" Score="1" Text="I really don't want to elicit opinions (&quot;right on!&quot; &quot;seriously?&quot;), but some objective reasons, especially confirmed by the translator himself, in favor of the chosen route." CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:02:44.317" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24484" PostId="4583" Score="1" Text="Lectio difficilior potior. &quot;The more difficult reading [is] the stronger.&quot; We gotta give those little kiddos a challenge." CreationDate="2020-03-06T19:22:52.717" UserId="6637" />
  <row Id="9324" PostId="4584" Score="1" Text="Should we have a tag [tag:did-the-romans-have] if this genre of questions is so popular?" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:43:16.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9325" PostId="4584" Score="0" Text="I was thinking that, but I'm not sure what it adds to roman-culture" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:47:57.993" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9327" PostId="4584" Score="0" Text="Perhaps not all &quot;did the Romans have&quot; questions are cultural in nature. Anyone is free to add tags that are potentially more useful than misleading; tags can be synonymized or merged if needed. I'm not sure about this one, but it's worth a thought." CreationDate="2017-06-17T16:03:49.407" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13474" PostId="4584" Score="0" Text="I've come across some nice material about resources for children used in Greek education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt - would that be of interest to you (before I spend time on writing an answer based on it)? Or is it too Greek/too late?" CreationDate="2018-03-18T02:22:27.343" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="9438" PostId="4585" Score="0" Text="[Here](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH011f/ee301502.dir/POxy.v0017.n2076.a.01.hires.jpg) is the full scrap." CreationDate="2017-06-21T22:20:18.343" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9741" PostId="4585" Score="0" Text="William Johnson (Johnson 2004, *Bookrolls and scribes in Oxyrhynchus*) refers to the scribe who added these marginal scholia as scribe A6 (late 1st or early 2nd century AD). Other papyri by the same scribe - 1809 and 2288. In any case, this is irrelevant to the task of translating Sappho." CreationDate="2017-07-09T04:45:13.050" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20394" PostId="4587" Score="1" Text="Related, but broader (and unfortunately also unanswered): [What governed or influenced or selected which prefix is used to intensify a verb?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/231/what-governed-or-influenced-or-selected-which-prefix-is-used-to-intensify-a-verb)" CreationDate="2019-07-04T02:20:42.057" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9335" PostId="4588" Score="5" Text="I don't see any relationship here. Heracles also wrestled. Doesn't mean he's connected to discord. The etymology of both are well-attested. At best you might find a pun, but in Roman religion, there's no connection between the Dioskouroi and discord." CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:05:57.613" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9336" PostId="4588" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Thanks for commenting.  Puns definitely qualify, although I'm more familiar with this aspect in Greek drama, and haven't found anything in Latin to indicate use as a pun.  (The idea of a pun was partly what prompted the question.)" CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:08:47.757" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9337" PostId="4588" Score="3" Text="You should also look further at – or 'drill down into' – the results for dis and deus that you linked to. There's no relationship between the prefix dis and the noun deus, and nothing in those results actually indicates that there is. Deus just happens to use the same 3 letters (but with a long i) in some forms." CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:22:58.187" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9338" PostId="4588" Score="0" Text="@cnread I beg to differ on two counts: &quot;dis&quot; us a form of deus, so cognate, regardless of it's use as a prefix.  Secondly, in the meaning of the prefix dis as &quot;apart&quot;, which may be applied to the idea of the deity as separate from man.  [Here they relate &quot;dis&quot; to &quot;bis&quot; through the PIE root](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dis-), which is also conceptually consistent. Thus &quot;two boys&quot; instead of &quot;heavenly boys&quot;." CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:34:17.623" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9340" PostId="4588" Score="4" Text="I'm sorry, but words are cognate only if they share a common origin. Accidents of spelling, and fanciful explanations for why they _could_ be related, don't make words cognates. The prefix dis and the noun deus (in any of its forms) simply do not to my knowledge – or according to the sources that I've consulted – share a common origin; and nothing on the page that you linked to establishes such as a link. It's just giving the etymology of the prefix dis." CreationDate="2017-06-18T03:08:31.833" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9341" PostId="4588" Score="4" Text="+1 because, while I think some of the premises guiding this line of thought are mistaken, latin.stackexchange.com is a good place to get disabused of them, and the OP's research is shown, enabling us to fruitfully &quot;root&quot; out the errors." CreationDate="2017-06-18T04:07:02.613" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9342" PostId="4588" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: Nicely stated. At the very least, I think this has the makings of a very interesting answer about real etymologies vs. folk etymologies, and the way that folk etymologies can take on a life of their own and, in the case of names, inform the development of a storyline around the individual. Because what I think DukeZhou has is a folk etymology – probably one of his own devising, though it's possible someone will unearth a passage from antiquity (or later) where such a connection between the Dioscuri and discord is suggested." CreationDate="2017-06-18T04:19:30.030" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9343" PostId="4588" Score="0" Text="@cnread The Lewis&amp;Short entry for [deus lists dis it as a dative form](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dis&amp;la=la#lexicon).  The word is also used to connote deity, initially Jupiter, and subsequently [Dis as in the inverse of Jupiter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%ABs_Pater), or god of the underworld." CreationDate="2017-06-18T04:37:32.877" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9344" PostId="4588" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Thank you for making that point. I posted on Latin for either support or critique, as an element of a mythology answer related to the brothers.  I've had this association as long as I can remember (my obsession with Greek mythology started when I was five) but I can't recall if the brothers fighting was something I'd read, or the idea of a linguistic link was something I was taught, or if the association arises purely from esoteric medieval interpretations of the twins as a symbol." CreationDate="2017-06-18T04:43:45.253" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9346" PostId="4591" Score="1" Text="As a beginner student in Latin, I'm only too pleased to learn that both word orders are correct as I have actually suspected them to be. Your answer is very enlightening as far as I'm concerned." CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:58:32.203" UserId="1692" />
  <row Id="9347" PostId="4591" Score="1" Text="@User26328 I'm glad I could help! I hope you'll continue to find this site useful for learning Latin." CreationDate="2017-06-18T11:00:38.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9380" PostId="4592" Score="5" Text="I believe the point of explaining modern origins is to challenge the premise of your question, which assumes there is a &quot;definitive/canonical translation.&quot; A good translation =/= a canonical translation." CreationDate="2017-06-19T17:12:30.323" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9382" PostId="4592" Score="1" Text="Then (plus one), I will settle for a good - grammatically correct - translation. It need not be word for word, so long as it conveys the meaning." CreationDate="2017-06-20T08:05:56.963" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="22949" PostId="4592" Score="0" Text="Does “Ne spurios permittere atterere te” work?" CreationDate="2019-10-24T20:43:41.327" UserId="6207" />
  <row Id="41090" PostId="4592" Score="0" Text="@GrahamDavies It does not quite work. Change *permittere* to *permitte* or *permittas*, then it will work." CreationDate="2023-01-23T03:22:58.160" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="9348" PostId="4593" Score="2" Text="Once again I feel compelled to express such mottoes in verse. Here's a pentameter verse: *Ne te perturbent neve terant spurii.* Depending on broader context, one should add a hexameter verse to complete the elegiac couplet and maybe change the first verb in my suggestion." CreationDate="2017-06-18T13:19:55.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9359" PostId="4593" Score="2" Text="Also, it's worth noting that Beard's version is beautifully alliterative. It sounds really cool when spoken aloud." CreationDate="2017-06-18T17:54:38.270" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9391" PostId="4596" Score="0" Text="Relevant comic: https://xkcd.com/1602/" CreationDate="2017-06-20T14:01:23.233" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9392" PostId="4596" Score="0" Text="@blagae This site will soon complete its first sesquiennium. Does it mean we should meet up to celebrate?" CreationDate="2017-06-20T14:07:46.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9383" PostId="4597" Score="0" Text="I very much like the defiance in the echos of &quot;wha daur meddle wi' me?&quot; (+1)" CreationDate="2017-06-20T08:08:17.030" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="9364" PostId="4598" Score="0" Text="Thanks for taking the time to post such a thorough answer.  At the most fundamental level, *dis* or *bis* is a factor in the basic difference between the brothers.  The symbol of the brothers represents a binary and has implications.  It's true that this type of analysis comes from the Jungian school, which is regarded differently in different quarters, but has value from a narrative perspective. The larger, personal question I'm trying to answer is &quot;why do I have this association?&quot;  All the evidence currently suggests conflation! :)" CreationDate="2017-06-18T19:41:38.380" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9367" PostId="4598" Score="2" Text="@DukeZhou, Perhaps some part of your mind is conflating Castor &amp; Pollux and Romulus &amp; Remus. So perhaps you'd also want to see whether R&amp;R are ever identified (in literature, art) with C&amp;P; and, if they are, what is made of that identification? Or perhaps you could ground your investigation by first doing research in the general subject of twins in antiquity. I'm sure someone must have written such a study." CreationDate="2017-06-18T20:15:29.180" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9368" PostId="4598" Score="0" Text="haha. That's where my mind was going. I suspect Campbell would absolutely link the Dioskouri with R&amp;R, and likely point back to Cain and Able and Gilgamesh and Enkidu.  Wikipedia lists a theory from Anglo Saxon England conflating the pairs per a runic inscription, but I'm still trying to track down the citation: &quot;The Travelling Twins: Romulus and Remus in Anglo-Saxon England&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-18T20:27:53.140" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9369" PostId="4600" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Perhaps we should ask from another angle. Italia exists for the land, so was there Italii? If so, what was the singular?" CreationDate="2017-06-18T22:45:07.243" UserId="1719" />
  <row Id="9370" PostId="4600" Score="1" Text="@DrZ214 If you want to go the analogy route, think *Gallia* &gt; *Gallus, -i*." CreationDate="2017-06-18T23:45:21.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9371" PostId="4600" Score="3" Text="Tacitus has &quot;primo statim congressu ostendamus, quos sibi Caledonia viros seposuerit&quot; (Tac. Agr. 31.4)" CreationDate="2017-06-19T02:00:05.700" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9372" PostId="4600" Score="0" Text="@brianpck So it's Gallia the land, Gallus (singular) and Gallusi (plural)? Shouldn't it be Gallii?" CreationDate="2017-06-19T04:41:54.507" UserId="1719" />
  <row Id="9373" PostId="4600" Score="3" Text="@DrZ214 The singular genitive and plural nominative of *Gallus* is *Galli*. When a word ends in *-us*, the *-i* (usually the genitive is given for declension) is implicitly assumed to replace *-us*. Similarly, we have *Italus* and *Itali*." CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:38:13.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9390" PostId="4600" Score="1" Text="FWIW, I found &quot;vir [Macedo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DMacedones)&quot; in [Horace](https://books.google.cl/books?id=5NMGmoC94-0C&amp;lpg=PA224&amp;ots=WbE4tuVzNr&amp;dq=vir%20macedonius&amp;pg=PA224#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) (I cent. BC), and the [Acts of the Apostles 16](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_actus-apostolorum_lt.html#16),9-12 (Greek I cent. AD/transl. IV AD)" CreationDate="2017-06-20T13:08:41.200" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9376" PostId="4602" Score="0" Text="Is there a particular verb used for &quot;fermenting&quot; wine?" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:39:37.493" UserId="1574" />
  <row Id="9377" PostId="4602" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I'm actually quite surprised that Cato uses simply *facere* for making wine. This might be his simplification, but I guess we have to look at other authors to figure it out." CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:43:11.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9378" PostId="4602" Score="1" Text="@R.M. yes, there seems to be: you can check the English version on the same website as the Latin text, and it translates the verbs *effervere* (115) and *fervere* (125) to ferment. Both instances are closely tied to the word *mustum*, which exists as an English loanword: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:49:47.153" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9379" PostId="4602" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Cato uses the word *facere* hundreds of times in the course of *De Agri Cultura*, for all kinds of things" CreationDate="2017-06-19T15:11:58.427" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9631" PostId="4604" Score="0" Text="Voigt 1971 (the book) is available at the Biblioteca di Brera: Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, T.71. B. 0121, 000611071 http://opac.braidense.it/bid/SBL0710188" CreationDate="2017-07-03T00:43:50.323" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13647" PostId="4604" Score="1" Text="No, Voigt gives &quot;]ψοφοϲ&quot; and all the sources are explained on pp 1-13, including Edm. '27 (on page 4), i.e. &quot;Some New Fragments of Sappho, Alcaeus, and Anacreon,&quot; *Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society* 136/138." CreationDate="2018-04-04T01:43:45.407" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13648" PostId="4604" Score="1" Text="Dl.2 is the second edition, published in 1936, and again Voigt explains it on page 3." CreationDate="2018-04-04T01:47:36.220" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13649" PostId="4604" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the source references @AlexB - I expected the bibliography to be at the end, rather than the beginning, hence I couldn't find it. As for ψοφοϲ, are we talking about the same line? I know there is a line ending with that word, but it's the second line of the following (and last) stanza, and it is not in a lacuna... I am talking about the line before that of the Edmonds rhoa suggestion, where IIRC choros is given as a Dl. 2 suggestion (l. 24 IIRC)." CreationDate="2018-04-04T04:27:25.270" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9387" PostId="4607" Score="0" Text="Does Vergilius use *vir Dana(or)um/Teucr(or)um*? That would be interesting to see." CreationDate="2017-06-20T11:23:53.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9388" PostId="4607" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I don't think so; Vergilius often used the name of a Greek tribe as a pars pro toto adjective to describe the Greeks. Unfortunately I don't have time to look for any now, but I might if I have time later. But one example I know he uses is 'miles Dolopum', a soldier of the Dolopians which gives some support to my 'vir Caledonium' and his use of tribal names." CreationDate="2017-06-20T11:39:49.970" UserId="243" />
  <row Id="9389" PostId="4607" Score="0" Text="Can you add that to your answer? It'd make your point stronger." CreationDate="2017-06-20T11:59:59.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9499" PostId="4607" Score="0" Text="While Vergil might not have referred to a single Greek with *Graecus*, Cicero, Livy, and Pliny all have." CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:20:26.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9395" PostId="4610" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I won't load the file on my phone, but I'll take a look later on. Looks convincing. Credibility of Vicipaedia is further reduced by *Eura* not appearing in a dedicated article." CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:46:02.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9396" PostId="4612" Score="2" Text="Good question! This phenomenon is not specific to *habere*, but happens for many Latin verbs. For example, *ex* + *facere* = *efficere*." CreationDate="2017-06-20T17:52:16.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9403" PostId="4612" Score="1" Text="Related: [Why is there an exception when forming 3rd conjugation imperatives?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2049)" CreationDate="2017-06-20T20:31:35.470" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9401" PostId="4613" Score="2" Text="Hint: Non curamus quid sit humus !" CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:47:08.490" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="37335" PostId="4613" Score="0" Text="I would add that some render coffee as cáf(f)ea, whereas others, such as L. Ranieri, prefers caffḗa (https://youtu.be/rWj77VoWVgo?t=392)." CreationDate="2022-02-21T00:33:01.753" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="9397" PostId="4614" Score="1" Text="So is that kind of like how someone might say &quot;int'rest&quot; instead of &quot;in-ter-est&quot;, or &quot;re-uh-bilitate&quot; instead of &quot;re-ha-bilitate&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:18:17.927" UserId="1724" />
  <row Id="9398" PostId="4614" Score="5" Text="Yes, something quite similar happens in English where unaccented vowels get reduced to shwas." CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:20:37.557" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9399" PostId="4614" Score="1" Text="This is essentially correct, but it might be interesting to add that the hypothetical &quot;strong stress accent on the first syllable&quot; was replaced by the classical accent type before most of our written sources were initially written down, i.e. 3rd century BC at the very latest." CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:33:42.987" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9400" PostId="4614" Score="1" Text="I don't know about the time frame, but it's interesting to note that it occurred in the transformation of the Doric Greek loanword μαχανά to machina." CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:39:49.233" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9402" PostId="4614" Score="3" Text="Another possible outcome of vowel reduction was &quot;e&quot;, in certain contexts." CreationDate="2017-06-20T20:30:28.803" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9404" PostId="4614" Score="4" Text="Right, in particular when the interior syllable was closed rather than open, e.g, _infectus_." CreationDate="2017-06-20T20:35:18.457" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9405" PostId="4614" Score="1" Text="Yes, or before &quot;r&quot; (or sometimes before a consonant cluster ending in r). Regarding vowel quality, as far as I know it is disputed whether short /i/ was [ɪ] in Old Latin; people agree that the realization [ɪ] existed eventually, as a precursor to Proto West Romance *e, but some people like Andrea Calabrese (mentioned in my post [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1072/9)) argue that this was a later development from [i]. I doubt there is any way to know for sure. Calabrese also argues that /eː/ was originally [ɛː], which seems plausible based on comparison with other IE languages." CreationDate="2017-06-20T20:40:08.520" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9406" PostId="4614" Score="2" Text="You are correct about the environment before [r].  As far as to the quality of short _i_, while I agree that there is no way to be sure, I would argue that the phenomenon discussed above is _prima_ _facie_ evidence this short vowel **was** lax in Old Latin, on the grounds that &quot;weakening&quot; an unaccented [ɑ] to  a tense [i] seems phonetically implausible." CreationDate="2017-06-20T20:52:24.857" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9407" PostId="4614" Score="0" Text="@varro: As far as I know, no one proposes a single-step change of [ɑ] to [i]. All the accounts I have looked at consider Latin reduced vowels to have passed through a centralized stage like [ə]; however, this evidently moved in different directions in different contexts, and may have raised to [i]. There are languages where high [i] is the least marked vowel: this seems to be the case for e.g. Yoruba, for which [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_language#Vowels) says &quot;oral /i/ is close front [i] [...] nasal /ĩ/ varies between close front [ĩ] and near-close front [ĩ̞]&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-20T21:30:25.333" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9408" PostId="4614" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: Of course one can posit all sorts of possible developments.  I don't want to get into a long discussion on this, but a development path something like [ɑ] -&gt; [ɨ] -&gt; [ɪ] -&gt; [i] seems simpler (and therefore more likely) than something like [ɑ] -&gt; [ɨ] -&gt; [i] -&gt; [ɪ] -&gt; [i] (and I haven't seen any cogent reason to suspect the latter)." CreationDate="2017-06-20T21:54:06.350" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9409" PostId="4615" Score="1" Text="Yes, but the Romans did not know about coffee. Coffee did not reach Europe until the 17th century." CreationDate="2017-06-20T21:56:48.710" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9410" PostId="4615" Score="0" Text="@fdb: The OP wanted a reasonable term for &quot;cafe&quot;.  I'm sure he/she knows (just like we do) that the Romans didn't have coffee." CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:05:51.493" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9411" PostId="4615" Score="0" Text="If you had written: &quot;If the Romans had known about coffee, it would most likely have come...&quot; I would not have objected. It is about English grammar." CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:21:43.013" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9413" PostId="4615" Score="0" Text="@fdb:  OK - fair enough.  I did hesitate about the grammar, but thought it was clear the way it was written." CreationDate="2017-06-20T23:05:57.883" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9444" PostId="4615" Score="0" Text="“...the Romans did not know about coffee.” — Ay, what a pitiful life." CreationDate="2017-06-22T01:28:43.183" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="22980" PostId="4615" Score="0" Text="The fact that Romans didn't know about coffee is independent from the fact that Latin, with its 1500 year post-Roman history, already has several words for it. Coining yet another one, on a pseudo-historical premise is not the way to go when it comes to modern vocabulary, because if everyone did that, it would result in innumerous alternative translations based on each person's imaginative powers. There are cases where none of the existing words seem to be right, but in order to conclude that one needs to at least find out what these existing words are - by consulting the dictionaries." CreationDate="2019-10-31T16:01:23.413" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="9412" PostId="4617" Score="0" Text="A translation would be great for future reference (as I can't read French), but no hurry on that." CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:22:57.543" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9421" PostId="4617" Score="0" Text="Nice find. Not that Plato is any less capable of falling into the trap of folk etymologies :) Ultimately the stem of both Greek words is simply &quot;to think&quot;, and one might not have needed to pass through the other. Unfortunately I'm no student of Greek etymology. :/" CreationDate="2017-06-21T04:22:35.313" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="9422" PostId="4617" Score="1" Text="The French reads: &quot;The masculine suffice in *τι* is an uncomfortable feature: we can hardly relate it to anything but *μάρπτις* &quot;ravager&quot;, a hapax in Aesch. *Suppl.* 826; πόρτις is not an agentive noun and the name of the Είντιες tribe in Lemnos is not necessarily derived from σίνομαι. The hypothesis that in μάντις we have the fem. suffix of an action noun -τις / σις is improbable; E. Benveniste, *Origines* 83, proposes an original neutral form *μαντι which would be recognizable in the compound μαντιπδλος. It would be affected by a lengthening (technical term?) τ with ι for a suffix. ..." CreationDate="2017-06-21T04:34:28.533" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="9423" PostId="4617" Score="1" Text="... The root is the same as that in the verb ὲμάνην, cf. ύπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ μαίνεται (Hdt. 4.79); despite Wilamowitz, *Glaube der Hellenen* 1.40, the prophet is possessed by divinity. The term is thus linked with all the words evoked in connection with μαίνομαι. Following an entirely different reconstruction of vocalization (technical term?) and suffixation, it has also been connected to the Sanskrit *múni-* (m.) &quot;possessed person, prophet&quot;, but this connection is rightly set aside by Mayrhofer, *Etym. Wb. des Allind.*, 2.654. ..." CreationDate="2017-06-21T04:44:12.700" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="9424" PostId="4617" Score="1" Text="... By way of μαίνομαι, μάντις therefore arises from the root **men-*, without any direct relation to the theme en *-ti-* of the Latin *mens.* // Provisional translator's note: The French punctuation does not make it clear whether Wilamowitz's opinion stands in contrast to the assertion that the root is the same as in ὲμάνην, or to the prophet's being possessed by divinity, but it seems more likely that he would venture an opinion on the latter, since his book title means &quot;Hellenic Beliefs.&quot; (It doesn't make much difference either way, of course.)" CreationDate="2017-06-21T04:46:11.013" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="9418" PostId="4618" Score="4" Text="I think what you're missing is that *quaerere a* means &quot;ask of&quot;. The *cum* clause has Sella as subject and *quaereret* as verb." CreationDate="2017-06-21T01:49:34.470" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9487" PostId="4618" Score="1" Text="@TKR It appears that the main lesson here for me is to stop using *ab aliquo* before the verb as a cheap clue that the verb is passive, and practice some more with subjunctive tenses. ;)" CreationDate="2017-06-24T19:50:06.830" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9416" PostId="4619" Score="3" Text="Different cases may have been used in manuscript, but most probably not in print, where I have only ever seen both elements in the same case. // An interesting comparison provides Dutch IJ, which is always written as and considered to be one letter in manuscript still, but always as two separate letters in modern print; and yet they always have to be in the same case in print as well." CreationDate="2017-06-21T01:34:35.313" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9429" PostId="4619" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus By contrast, Welsh digraphs are not necessarily written in the same case. http://www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.co.uk/" CreationDate="2017-06-21T15:17:10.763" UserId="159" />
  <row Id="9431" PostId="4619" Score="0" Text="@TRiG: Oh, interesting. I'm also wondering about Spanish ll, which I believe to be treated as a separate, single letter in phone books." CreationDate="2017-06-21T17:06:59.077" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9432" PostId="4619" Score="0" Text="@TRiG FWIW, digraphs in Spanish (there are two: ll and ch) are affected by uppercase in the first letter only. (and were dropped as independent letters of dictionaries, phonebooks or the alphabet in the nineties.) The same uppercase treatment applies to Italian (e.g. _gl_) and Portuguese. (and I think French too.)" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:43:39.003" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9433" PostId="4619" Score="0" Text="Also tagging @Cerberus for the last comment" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:43:56.813" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9439" PostId="4619" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: OK interesting. And how about before the nineties? Was LL ever so capitalised? // Another interesting, but unrelated, phaenomenon is the old English method of capitalisation by doubling a minuscule letter, as in *Audrey fforbes-Hamilton* (television series *To the Manor Born*). I don't believe this was ever common outside England, and I don't know when and to what extent it was common in England." CreationDate="2017-06-21T22:43:38.147" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9451" PostId="4619" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus at the best of my knowledge, Ll and Ch were always capitalized like that, unless by mistake (it is so in English too, think of Chile, China). The most common mistake I can recall is the abbreviation of family names down to initials: _Llanos_ and _Llona_ should be abbreviated as Ll. or L. but it's not uncommon to see them as *LL. Ll and Ch _used to have_ separate entries in dictionaries after L and C (and so was the rule for alphabetical order), just as Ñ still goes after N." CreationDate="2017-06-22T12:55:43.737" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9464" PostId="4619" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus: I don't think the &quot;English method of capitalisation by doubling a minuscule letter, as in Audrey fforbes-Hamilton&quot; really exists, except in the single case of &quot;ff&quot;.  The explanation as I understand it is that it's a byproduct of going from a (presumably handwritten) blackletter style, where the capital F had two parallel downstrokes  to the modern &quot;antiqua&quot; typefaces, with old capital F being (mis)interpreted as &quot;ff&quot;." CreationDate="2017-06-23T00:04:49.730" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9466" PostId="4619" Score="0" Text="@varro: I've heard that theory, but I have never seen actual academic confirmation of this. The other theory is that it does, indeed, originate in a method of indicating certain &quot;capitals&quot; that were otherwise hard to distinguish from minuscles in the script of that time. But I haven't seen this confirmed either." CreationDate="2017-06-23T02:46:28.850" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21316" PostId="4619" Score="0" Text="you only need to oversize the downwards hanging serif of the upper horizontal stroke of the E to close that thing like a rectangular e. In effect that's where the cursive lower case e sigil comes from, in my humble opinion. A minuscule e at half lineheight next to O i find implausible. For G &lt; C+j is what I think we see, though there's no dot on the j so it's rather a small caps majuscel J. For J in turn consider i+u, T+u/j. Probs not the place for this comment and not totally correct either (as Tullius Cicero and Iulius Cesar do contrast)" CreationDate="2019-09-06T13:39:56.930" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="9414" PostId="4620" Score="1" Text="&quot;1 CANCANER v. intr. (1654) semble avoir été créé, non pas d’après cancan, mais d’après une onomatopée homonyme évoquant le cri du canard et de certaines volailles (→ canard) et d’après cane, cancan, nom enfantin du canard. Il s’est surtout répandu à partir du xixe s. avec l’idée de « médire » (1829)&quot; ( Dictionnaire historique de la langue française 2017)" CreationDate="2017-06-21T01:05:49.333" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9419" PostId="4620" Score="1" Text="If the debate is a free-for-all, *quamquam* has three advantages for the student thinking on his/her feet: it takes the indicative not the subjunctive; it starts with a good strong plosive; and it signals a disagreement, counter-argument without the offensiveness of *haudquaquam,* or an absolute rebuttal.  The English equivalent is *Surely, ...*" CreationDate="2017-06-21T01:49:55.343" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9430" PostId="4620" Score="1" Text="For those of us who don't speak French, could you provide a translation into English?" CreationDate="2017-06-21T16:57:33.523" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9440" PostId="4620" Score="2" Text="Can you explain why you think *quamquam* would be &quot;special&quot; and not just part of a historical accident?" CreationDate="2017-06-21T23:37:31.043" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9577" PostId="4620" Score="0" Text="because quamquam has a funnier sound than the other conjunctions" CreationDate="2017-06-30T21:11:49.847" UserId="1768" />
  <row Id="47055" PostId="4620" Score="0" Text="Maybe related: [the kiskis and kankan debate: primary sources](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16910)" CreationDate="2024-01-01T14:59:22.097" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9420" PostId="4621" Score="0" Text="Nice discovery!" CreationDate="2017-06-21T02:25:22.123" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="9425" PostId="4622" Score="1" Text="If you want to emphasize the connection to coffee or other hot drinks (café as opposed to a bar), you might want to add an adjective. I know, *thermopolium cafearium* is clumsy, but depending context, you might want to avoid ambiguity." CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:39:02.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9488" PostId="4623" Score="0" Text="In addition to sorting this out, thanks also for pointing me to these other senses of _quaero_ and _volo._ Especially, I had misunderstood the antecedent of _sibi_ as the student rather than the cape and letters." CreationDate="2017-06-24T20:06:12.533" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9426" PostId="4624" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! (+1) This is an interesting find, although I'm unsure how many modern Latinists would understand these words." CreationDate="2017-06-21T12:13:45.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9479" PostId="4624" Score="1" Text="You're welcome. I'll add a link to the book. (I am lucky enough to have a physical copy of the first edition, found in a second hand bookshop.)" CreationDate="2017-06-23T17:44:22.110" UserId="1731" />
  <row Id="9427" PostId="4625" Score="2" Text="Good question! Some quick thoughts without sources to back them up: If something first appears in Cicero's text, it is likely to be attributed to Cicero today even if he drew it from a long and foggy oral tradition. Also, ancient tradition was mostly transferred to us in written form, not oral." CreationDate="2017-06-21T13:07:04.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9428" PostId="4625" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta♦ Good point, as always. Do you like philosophy, too? I would be very interesting what a contemporary professional mathematician such as yourself thinks of the science that has given us all the other sciences through and by virtue of Aristotle and his science-minded philosophical followers?" CreationDate="2017-06-21T13:14:16.447" UserId="1692" />
  <row Id="9450" PostId="4625" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if my ping reached you, but since your question was tangential to the question itself, I decided to answer in our [chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) instead." CreationDate="2017-06-22T08:18:39.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9434" PostId="4627" Score="3" Text="Sorry, but where is Draconis confusing anything? Most certainly you can have *Romae*, &quot;at Rome.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-21T20:52:29.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9435" PostId="4627" Score="0" Text="@cmw The mnemonics are simply for memorising which nouns are exempt from being preceded by _ad_  when 'motion to' is indicated. Surely nothing to do with use of the locative? (And _Romae_ is there in the second paragraph)." CreationDate="2017-06-21T20:57:38.047" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9436" PostId="4627" Score="7" Text="@TomCotton I learned the mnemonic as &quot;nouns that take the locative&quot;, since to the best of my knowledge the locative is only used for such nouns (the same nouns which use bare accusative for motion toward, and bare ablative for motion from). For e.g. &quot;Italia&quot; I would use *ad* for motion toward, *ab* for motion from, and *in* for place where, never a locative. I may very well be wrong on this, in which case that would make a good answer." CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:30:07.160" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9437" PostId="4627" Score="3" Text="@TomCotton I don't think that's accurate. The nouns he listed are ones that take a locative: *domi*, *ruri*, *Romae*, and *Rhodi* all are locatives, with few others (*foci* and *humi* as his acquaintance mentioned, *militiae* as you did) not part of his mnemonic. I don't think the accusative of motion is so limited." CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:43:56.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9448" PostId="4627" Score="0" Text="I'm quite baffled by these responses. No noun &quot;takes&quot; a locative, but can adopt a locative form, where appropriate, to indicate a &quot;place where&quot; — including those on your list. Motion towards a place is quite a different thing, usually indicated by _ad_ + accusative, but there are exceptions where the preposition is omitted, listed in (and the purpose of) Draconis's mnemonic, and in these cases the preposition, if used, indicates proximity: _ad Romam_, for instance, means 'near Rome'." CreationDate="2017-06-22T06:17:42.480" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9452" PostId="4627" Score="1" Text="You've been misinformed. The locative case was a real case that just happened to stop being productive. See Sihler §255 and 256.11. This is entirely unrelated to motion towards with *ad*. It's specifically &quot;place where,&quot; and no, those aren't genitives or ablatives you're encountering, they're remnants of an unproductive case called the &quot;locative.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-22T13:18:17.923" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9453" PostId="4627" Score="0" Text="This is becoming tiresome. Of course the locative was a real case!. It remained so, and in use, but was excluded from the set of cases that are recognised in standard tables of accidence. There are rules for its formation if its use is required.  It's my point _exactly_ that it's unrelated to motion towards with _ad_. I'll say it just once more, and then I'll stop : Draconis's lists are merely of nouns that aren't preceded by _ad_ when motion to them is indicated. This has _nothing to do with the locative case!_" CreationDate="2017-06-22T14:28:15.987" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9454" PostId="4627" Score="3" Text="@TomCotton While that may be the case, *it is also the case that Draconis' list is for nouns that take the locative (place which) in addition to *in + abl*. You are simply mistaken that this thread has *anything* to do with motion at all." CreationDate="2017-06-22T15:20:40.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9455" PostId="4627" Score="0" Text="To show you where your confusion lies, see [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=Vw49AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA29#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)." CreationDate="2017-06-22T15:29:44.360" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9458" PostId="4627" Score="6" Text="Correct me if I'm wrong (@Draconis), but I thought the question was &quot;**What nouns other than some place names have attested locatives?**&quot; and any discussion of motion is a sidetrack." CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:13:34.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9460" PostId="4627" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta (wearily) I don't question the use of locatives. For one last time, Draconis's list is simply of situations in which no preposition precedes the accusative when motion is indicated. As a teaching aid, that is what it was intended for. They are, certainly, which I have said more than once, also nouns which have useful locative forms. TAGB." CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:37:11.973" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9441" PostId="4630" Score="2" Text="The common words for remembering and forgetting are actually quite weird in Latin, so the grammar here won't be straightforward: I wouldn't trust Google Translate at all on this." CreationDate="2017-06-22T00:11:08.030" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9446" PostId="4633" Score="3" Text="(You might add the literal translation, if you can come up with a good English adjective for &quot;memor&quot;.)" CreationDate="2017-06-22T02:28:15.973" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9447" PostId="4634" Score="1" Text="One theory is it comes from the ablative of *egō*, which was originally *mēt/mēd*." CreationDate="2017-06-22T02:39:49.033" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9480" PostId="4635" Score="1" Text="It might be worth to note that Greek has an analogous construct involving the ubiquitous clitic γε: the form ἔγωγε is used as an intensified version of ἐγώ. Frequently, one also sees the forms ἔμοιγε for ἐμοί, σύγε for σύ, and sometimes ἐμοῦγε and ἐμέγε. Notice the recessive accent on ἔγωγε and ἔμοιγε. (vide Smyth 325 d)" CreationDate="2017-06-23T18:46:26.290" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="9462" PostId="4637" Score="1" Text="So you are telling us that Chilean shouldn't be _chilensis_? Now that's huge. As a Chilean myself I have never heard other forms. Ofc, any Chile-related name in Latin is necessarily modern, yet there are many examples of scientific and Ecclesiastical (and a few civil) names with chilensis on them" CreationDate="2017-06-22T21:37:15.327" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9463" PostId="4637" Score="4" Text="I feel this does not answer the OP's questions completely. Yes -ānus and -ēnsis are appended to place names, but he was asking how to *choose* one or the other. Made me wondering too!" CreationDate="2017-06-22T22:02:44.287" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="9481" PostId="4637" Score="1" Text="Many thanks! Although you don't give a comparison of *-anus* and *-ensis* (as @kkm points out), this answer is very useful and interesting, and thus greatly appreciated. +1! (I meant to write this yesterday, but the Finnish midsummer caused some delays.)" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:38:42.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9459" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! I've never thought of *ubi* and *ibi* as having cases; what distinguishes a locative *ubi* from a non-locative *ubi*? (Or is it the locative case of some other pronoun?)" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:31:15.340" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9562" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="Old Latin also had *senati* 'in the senate', whether that's relevant or not." CreationDate="2017-06-30T05:32:01.877" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="30086" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="You missed a i in &quot;militae&quot;, it has to be &quot;militiae&quot;. What about the following words in the article: noctu, lucu, die? Are they not important here?" CreationDate="2020-12-08T17:20:13.090" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30259" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="Or are those words just never used?" CreationDate="2020-12-28T12:45:33.377" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30274" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="@Cyb3rKo I always took those to be ablative of time rather than a proper locative. For comparison, *domus*'s locative is *domi* or rarely (per A&amp;G) *domui*, but as far as I can tell isn't *domo* or *domu*, though at some point it becomes difficult for them to be distinguished." CreationDate="2020-12-31T03:21:31.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30285" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="Hmm. i just realized e.g. &quot;noctu and locu&quot; don't even match the genitive or ablative, so I also wouldn't add it. And &quot;die&quot; is already there in connection to crastini...&#xA;I think I found another one while doing further research, what about &quot;animi&quot; (from animus)." CreationDate="2021-01-01T10:34:53.260" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30303" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="@Cyb3rKo Do you have a citation for a locative use of animus? Makes sense, but I can't remember if I ever saw it." CreationDate="2021-01-02T18:04:09.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30304" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="@cmw No, sorry. I haven't ever seen it, but I found it online somewhere in a latin wiki or something." CreationDate="2021-01-02T18:25:10.950" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30414" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="@cmw I found an example in Vergils Aeneis (Verse 529): `At non infelix animi Phoenissa, [...].` Our school book says it's an locative and it actually also makes sense to translate it with that." CreationDate="2021-01-12T14:07:13.077" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30432" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="@Cyb3rKo I doubt that. It's actually a regular genitive, and there are other examples of felix/infelix taking a genitive in poetry. Look at section II beta here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfelix1" CreationDate="2021-01-13T05:36:00.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30433" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="@cmw Oh ok, but our book says that and I was fine with that." CreationDate="2021-01-13T07:48:38.340" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="40655" PostId="4638" Score="0" Text="@Cyb3rKo Validation for you!" CreationDate="2022-12-15T22:08:26.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9650" PostId="4639" Score="0" Text="@AlexB didn't even look at who the author was, so it's definitely a &quot;this guy&quot; to me :). Let's see that name… Just edited to put it in. Never heard of him before. I'm afraid I do not have time to read whole books about this subject. After all, I have to graduate in Maths next February." CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:06:45.600" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9651" PostId="4639" Score="0" Text="Buona fortuna! " CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:29:14.543" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9652" PostId="4639" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Grazie. Luckily I have some time on my hands now because only one exam is missing and for the thesis I have tons of time, so I've been Sappho-ing these days to get ready for my blog posts. For now, I have posted [Sappho Campbell 31 / Edmonds 2](http://michelegorini.blogspot.it/2017/06/catullus-and-sappho-ode-to-anactoria.html), which I plan to update by a little extension to the critical note, [Hector and Andromacha](http://michelegorini.blogspot.it/2017/06/hector-and-andromacha.html) and [cont…]" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:32:28.953" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9653" PostId="4639" Score="0" Text="[…cont] [&quot;three epigrams and a mourning song&quot;](http://michelegorini.blogspot.it/2017/06/sappho-three-epigrams-and-mourning-song.html), but I plan to post basically all of Sappho, with due critical notes, because a long time ago I translated basically all of Sappho's poems into poems in Latin, English and Italian (I had _way_ more time back in High School :) ), and that will definitely be part of «Artistic Translations of Poetry and Songs». That is what spawned a ton of recent questions by me. I have some time, but definitely not enough to read whole books for this blog :)." CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:34:56.907" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9654" PostId="4639" Score="0" Text="Enjoy those posts btw!" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:35:53.783" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9656" PostId="4639" Score="0" Text="Oh, I didn't know he passed away in July 2015. What a loss." CreationDate="2017-07-03T23:37:16.000" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9470" PostId="4642" Score="3" Text="Don't forget *res publica*." CreationDate="2017-06-23T11:23:43.120" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9474" PostId="4642" Score="1" Text="I was under the impression that &quot;government&quot; was just an example of the more general question: &quot;How do I go about distinguishing between translations?&quot; It's possible that question is too broad, but I think this answer isn't addressing the OP's actual issue." CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:46:23.563" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9475" PostId="4642" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, yes (I thought it might be a useful stalking horse) and the other question (how a prefix can affect a word) is even broader. I was thinking of trying to answer that by giving examples of **de-** as 'down from,' (descendere) 'non-,' (decrescendo?) 'away' (decapitate?) etc. And how does devolution fit? Give me time." CreationDate="2017-06-23T14:40:52.327" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9469" PostId="4644" Score="0" Text="Maybe _horis singulis postea_ to be a bit more clear if it's something that starts at 4, then continues hourly after that." CreationDate="2017-06-23T10:57:44.367" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="9471" PostId="4644" Score="2" Text="Aren't *inita hieme* and *inita secunda vigilia* ablative absolutes? &quot;With winter having entered&quot; is awkward in English, but I think that's what the grammar is doing. Not that that *should* change its use here, but it's good to note." CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:10:54.287" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9484" PostId="4644" Score="0" Text="Oh, you're absolutely right (no pun intended), @C.M.Weimer, thanks for pointing it out.  It was sloppy of me to overlook it (and the misspelling of _hieme_ (thank you, Joonas Ilmavirta)).  I've edited my answer a bit to make it more explicit.  But it does still work, doesn't it?  To be honest, prose comp was never my strong suit! :)" CreationDate="2017-06-24T02:50:09.613" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="9485" PostId="4644" Score="1" Text="Yep, it works, just nitpicking! :)" CreationDate="2017-06-24T02:59:35.360" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9482" PostId="4648" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I made some slight edits to your question (feel free to roll back or re-edit) and tried to provide an answer. I'm glad to see mathematically oriented questions here; in fact, you could consider adding the tag [tag:mathematics] to the question." CreationDate="2017-06-23T20:02:07.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9486" PostId="4651" Score="1" Text="Illuminating answer, many thanks. Will accept the one of Joonas Ilmavirta, for technical reasons. In particular, the fact that _horror aequi_ is used as a technical term in liguistics for this particular avoidance seems rather a reason not to use it for the abstract avoidance of equality, like you already pointed out." CreationDate="2017-06-24T04:38:19.783" UserId="1743" />
  <row Id="9492" PostId="4653" Score="1" Text="Fantastic source!! And to think I held back on asking this because I thought the answer would probably be _Partes est partes!_ I'm still digesting the article, but would you say that calling these things _partes_ suggests the [Principle of Compositionality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality) (at least implicitly) and hence that _Partes orationis quot sunt?_ is a meaningful, substantive question—not just a matter of convention? (Well, I just [googled](https://www.google.com/search?rls=la&amp;q=%22Partes+orationis+quot+sunt%3F%22) found that exact sentence in Donatus.)" CreationDate="2017-06-25T02:29:05.010" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9495" PostId="4654" Score="0" Text="I've mostly heard them called the &quot;first, second, and third&quot; stems, or the &quot;present, perfect, and participle&quot; stems" CreationDate="2017-06-25T04:13:42.967" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9493" PostId="4656" Score="0" Text="A side note. We know that **eu &gt; ū**, so it's not quite clear why some (who?) speculate there was shortening in struxi or structum." CreationDate="2017-06-25T03:18:20.533" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9494" PostId="4656" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: I'm also confused by the statement in Wikipedia. But perhaps the thought is that, since it was an analogical form, it might have assimilated to the form of words like *ductus* with short &quot;u&quot; before &quot;ct&quot;. Or maybe there is unconclusive evidence from other authors or from Romance reflexes" CreationDate="2017-06-25T03:25:27.740" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9496" PostId="4656" Score="0" Text="let's see if TKR or fdb adds anything." CreationDate="2017-06-25T04:43:55.863" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9497" PostId="4659" Score="2" Text="As @Joonas Ilmavirta suggests in his example, it's usual to invert the sentence for such usages. If you were looking to represent the unpleasant modern crime of 'stalking', you might use _insidior_, meaning to lie in wait, or wait for an opportunity. Martial XII, 14, 10 has _Tuscis . . . insidiemur apris_, 'let's stalk wild boars'." CreationDate="2017-06-25T16:42:16.787" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22437" PostId="4659" Score="0" Text="Hmm, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insisto#Latin) says that _insisto_ is &quot;impersonal in the passive&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-14T01:08:46.143" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22444" PostId="4659" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Have you checked whether [more reliable dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) insist that it's impersonal?" CreationDate="2019-09-14T12:13:34.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22570" PostId="4659" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Not yet…" CreationDate="2019-09-24T12:32:01.553" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9501" PostId="4660" Score="2" Text="@sumelic Indeed, I thought it came from the accusative." CreationDate="2017-06-26T06:24:23.280" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9502" PostId="4660" Score="1" Text="Interesting point. There are indeed Portuguese &quot;-idade&quot; and Spanish &quot;-idad&quot;. It's more logical that they evolved from Latin &quot;-itatem&quot;. And Romance nouns do derive from non-&quot;straightforward&quot; (non-nominative) case forms of Latin nouns. French &quot;-t/-n&quot;, Italian &quot;-to/-no&quot;, Portuguese/Spanish &quot;-do/-no&quot; could be the results of Latin &quot;-tum/-num&quot; rather than &quot;-tus/-nus&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-26T08:42:42.533" UserId="1750" />
  <row Id="9504" PostId="4660" Score="3" Text="The identified pattern of deriving Romance substantives from oblique cases is correct, and is especially obvious in Lat. -tio, which regularly turns into endings like Fr. -tion, Sp. -ción, It. -zione, Po. -ção (nasalisation !)" CreationDate="2017-06-26T12:27:48.950" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9526" PostId="4660" Score="0" Text="-1 for heavy cross-posting. See this answer on [french.se]: https://french.stackexchange.com/questions/26289/how-did-the-latin-past-participle-suffix-atus-develop-into-modern-french-%c3%a9/26305#26305" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:48:59.257" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="9543" PostId="4660" Score="0" Text="@jknappen There are literally posts there recommending me to ask here bruh." CreationDate="2017-06-28T01:30:55.560" UserId="1750" />
  <row Id="35056" PostId="4660" Score="0" Text="If question has been sufficiently answered, don't forget to upvote and accept to mark it complete." CreationDate="2021-09-11T20:18:34.207" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9506" PostId="4662" Score="0" Text="This is great! I'll wait to see if someone finds a classical example or other similar passages, but I'll be happy to accept this one." CreationDate="2017-06-26T16:01:27.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9514" PostId="4662" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'd argue that Apuleius is early enough and his style is good enough to be considered Classical Latin." CreationDate="2017-06-27T12:47:46.233" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9517" PostId="4662" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I trust your judgement on that. My fortunate problem is having to choose between two good answers. I'd give precedence to Ovidius, but on the other hand Apuleius speaks more about Roman culture instead of Egyptian. But perhaps it's safe to assume brianpck or cnread won't be upset by my accepting one instead of the other." CreationDate="2017-06-27T13:31:25.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9518" PostId="4662" Score="1" Text="@Joonas Ovid is definitely the better answer! It's earlier and shows that Romans not only knew the gesture but were familiar with a god who had that posture." CreationDate="2017-06-27T13:56:59.713" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9544" PostId="4663" Score="0" Text="Oh, so they're later borrowings, hence their minor nativization. It makes sense now." CreationDate="2017-06-28T01:32:46.663" UserId="1750" />
  <row Id="9507" PostId="4665" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you provide some more background information? That would help us answer you. (At least I have some difficulties understanding your goal.) Some example questions to help you clarify the question: Where did you find the words *exitium* and *malus* you want to use for translating &quot;destroy the bad&quot;? What is the translation for (a Latin course you are taking, perhaps)? Is *exitium* supposed to stand for &quot;destroy&quot;? What is the context of the sentence?" CreationDate="2017-06-26T17:56:29.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9508" PostId="4665" Score="0" Text="Thank you! It's not for any course it's for a tattoo idea and I'm not gonna trust google. I've learned phrases but nothing grammatical in Latin. My idea was to say &quot;destroy the bad/evil&quot; as in &quot;get rid of the evil.&quot; What I got from looking online was Exitium for destroy and Malus for bad, that said there could be a better fit. I'm hoping just to have the minimal wording do to space constraints." CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:03:35.283" UserId="1753" />
  <row Id="9509" PostId="4665" Score="0" Text="I edited your question based on your comment. Please edit it again to adjust it to your liking. A +1 for putting in your own thoughts on the translation and going through our [site tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)!" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:17:55.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9510" PostId="4665" Score="0" Text="Another relevant question: do you mean &quot;destroy what is bad&quot; or &quot;destroy bad people&quot;? The English is ambiguous, but Latin can't be." CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:33:34.657" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9511" PostId="4665" Score="0" Text="I was intending on &quot;bad/evil&quot; as what is bad, like a biblical sense." CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:44:27.847" UserId="1753" />
  <row Id="9515" PostId="4667" Score="0" Text="I thought of the imperative too, but after re-reading the whole thing, I wonder if another form (e.g. infinitive) is valid as an answer too..." CreationDate="2017-06-27T13:21:06.940" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9516" PostId="4667" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That was the purpose of my last sentence. Infinitives, gerundives, result clauses --- but ultimately, it's for a tattoo, so what it says in English is where I took it." CreationDate="2017-06-27T13:29:51.803" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9528" PostId="4667" Score="0" Text="Ignoring the imperative, the future tense sounds best to me. *Perdam Malum* or *Delebo Malum*." CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:45:20.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9520" PostId="4670" Score="0" Text="I know, but what is the literally translation of the saying?" CreationDate="2017-06-27T14:26:15.307" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="9521" PostId="4671" Score="2" Text="Can you give examples of what *futurm exaxtum* and *futurum simplex* mean? I have never come across those terms, and I assume I know them by some other name." CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:17:58.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9522" PostId="4671" Score="0" Text="This is also the terminology I was taught, and I wasn't aware this terminology was local: *futurum simplex* is amabo, *futurum exactum* is amavero" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:21:28.437" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9523" PostId="4671" Score="1" Text="It does appear to be a [Dutch thing](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurum_exactum). *Exactus* can mean &quot;concluded,&quot; so in that sense it is a synonym of *perfectus*." CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:42:13.240" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9525" PostId="4671" Score="0" Text="That's possible, because I'm Dutch, but I didn't learn other terms for it then those" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:45:04.113" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="9527" PostId="4671" Score="1" Text="Using the terminology you've learned is fine. Can you add some example words to your question so it's easier to parse for those who know the forms by another name? (Side note: This came up in [our chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) a moment ago.)" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:55:49.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9541" PostId="4671" Score="0" Text="Related https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/8426/445" CreationDate="2017-06-27T23:32:38.263" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9542" PostId="4671" Score="0" Text="And no, these terms are very common; it's not just a Dutch thing." CreationDate="2017-06-27T23:33:48.520" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9529" PostId="4674" Score="2" Text="Future perfect is a normal part of English, at least for us non-native learners. They are teaching it in English courses." CreationDate="2017-06-27T18:52:39.067" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="9530" PostId="4674" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF Huh, really? As a native speaker I was taught in school that there were only three tenses, past, present, and future. Forms like &quot;will have gone&quot; weren't brought up (and still sound stilted to me). When the future perfect is taught, do they mean &quot;will have gone&quot;, or the present form with a future perfect meaning?" CreationDate="2017-06-27T18:54:51.807" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9531" PostId="4674" Score="1" Text="&quot;The train will have left by the time we get there.&quot; or &quot;In five minutes I'll have been waiting for an hour.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-27T19:01:21.123" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="9532" PostId="4674" Score="2" Text="As a native speaker, I agree with @VladimirF. Usually grammars teach three &quot;times&quot; (past/present/future), which each admit of different [aspects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect), such as progressive (&quot;I am going&quot;), perfect (&quot;I will have gone&quot;), and simple (&quot;I went&quot;)." CreationDate="2017-06-27T20:31:51.763" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9535" PostId="4674" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Huh, very interesting. And much more accurate than what I learned! I didn't learn what the &quot;progressive&quot; was until I started studying linguistics specifically." CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:08:19.553" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9533" PostId="4675" Score="1" Text="Great question! It's worth noting that even the first two phrases, though understandable, are garbled Latin. (&quot;Piva&quot; is obviously a poor calque of the Slavic word for beer, &quot;volete&quot; should be &quot;vultis&quot;, etc.) The literal translation is &quot;with sick gourds from water,&quot; but I can't make much sense of it." CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:20:34.907" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9540" PostId="4675" Score="1" Text="The gourd most often pickled (*id est* fermented in brine until it develops lactic acid) is the cucumber, often called 'dill cucumbers;' and the tiny cucumbers called gherkins. A cheaper way to preserve them and create the 'sharp' taste is to pasteurise them in vinegar (French aigre =sick wine)." CreationDate="2017-06-27T23:05:37.723" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9547" PostId="4675" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: isn't &quot;aigre&quot; from &quot;acer&quot; (&quot;sour&quot;)? On the other hand, this makes sense, as the doctors were apparently not the best Latin speakers out there and could have back-formed the term incorrectly indeed. Anyway, good catch!" CreationDate="2017-06-28T04:09:44.500" UserId="1760" />
  <row Id="33234" PostId="4675" Score="0" Text="I read the book in my native Bulgarian (long ago) and the third doctor's sentence was translated to a complete (intentional) nonsense involving pumpkins. 30 years later, it makes sense pretty much." CreationDate="2021-05-17T10:03:28.557" UserId="6954" />
  <row Id="33235" PostId="4675" Score="0" Text="@fraxinus: I've read it in Russian, also some 30 years ago (although I purchased the book in a Bulgarian book store in Velingrad). In the Russian translation, it said _бессмысленный набор слов (букв. &quot;с плохими тыквами из воды&quot;)_" CreationDate="2021-05-17T11:33:01.897" UserId="1760" />
  <row Id="33236" PostId="4675" Score="0" Text="ditto in Bulgarian, it probably was translated in Bulgarian from Russian (pretty much normal for the epoch)" CreationDate="2021-05-17T11:58:31.753" UserId="6954" />
  <row Id="9534" PostId="4676" Score="1" Text="I have the impression (which may well be wrong!) that the modern taxonomy of diets is, well, modern, and there are no exactly corresponding words in any language from centuries ago. However, there might be some related and useful diet words in Latin. One could pretty easily coin Latin translations for &quot;vegetarian&quot;, &quot;vegan&quot; and the like, and I assume this has already been done recently. So: **Are you looking for attested words from some (or any) era, or are modern coinages (perhaps coined by users here) appropriate?**" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:35:10.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9536" PostId="4676" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm not interested in modern coinages of the words." CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:10:34.783" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="9539" PostId="4676" Score="0" Text="*dentur nobis legumina ad vescendum*  (Daniel 1:12) Let vegetables be given us to nibble at." CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:53:34.700" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9557" PostId="4676" Score="0" Text="According to Wikipedia, the Stoics were anti-vegetarianism except for the Roman Seneca. I'll look into it myself soon enough when I have the time, but if anyone wants to search the writings of Seneca on this issue, this might be a good place to find vocabulary relating to vegetarianism." CreationDate="2017-06-29T00:51:52.080" UserId="243" />
  <row Id="9545" PostId="4678" Score="3" Text="Is herbivorus earlier than Linnaeus?" CreationDate="2017-06-28T02:52:48.897" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9546" PostId="4678" Score="8" Text="Could you elaborate on this answer a bit? Maybe cite some instances where this was used classically, as you have said several times that you don't want &quot;modern coinages.&quot; A link is useful, but the whole point of the answer is to explain, if only in summary, what you wish to reference from the link. I think this answer is in some real need of improvement." CreationDate="2017-06-28T03:17:03.910" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9550" PostId="4678" Score="0" Text="The L&amp;S entry says it is said &quot;of animals&quot; and the two citations from Pliny are in the same context that English uses &quot;carnivore.&quot; I don't think it's a good substitute." CreationDate="2017-06-28T13:35:09.603" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33237" PostId="4679" Score="1" Text="Pickled cornichons go well with plum brandy and are traditionally consumed together in Serbia and around." CreationDate="2021-05-17T12:13:21.463" UserId="6954" />
  <row Id="9555" PostId="4680" Score="0" Text="Note: for any Americans around here, [tag:metre] should have a synonym of [tag:meter]. I mean, I typed `mete` and nothing popped up, and I almost thought there was no such tag!" CreationDate="2017-06-28T20:54:45.177" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9556" PostId="4680" Score="2" Text="You have the [privilege to create new tags](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/create-tags). If you want to have a tag called &quot;meter&quot;, go ahead and create it by adding it to your question. It can then be synonymized (or probably merged) with the older tag. // Added later: I merged the two tags right away since they are so obviously identical. This caused the new tag to disappear from your question. Now if you type &quot;mete&quot;, the tag &quot;metre&quot; will be suggested via the alternate name &quot;meter&quot;." CreationDate="2017-06-28T20:58:05.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9558" PostId="4680" Score="1" Text="Sappho frag. 98 has been extensively discussed, as pretty much everything    written by Sappho. One of the most recent serious articles is by Professor Camillo Neri (Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Italianistica, Università di Bologna) - see **Neri 2012**, *Non c’è mitra per Cleide (Sapph. fr. 98 V.)*" CreationDate="2017-06-29T02:58:58.553" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9560" PostId="4681" Score="1" Text="The linked Wiki clearly says &quot;Usage notes: Affixed primarily to verbs. **Not to be confused with in- (“not”).**&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-29T23:01:13.160" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14509" PostId="4682" Score="0" Text="Sincere question: is this on-topic?" CreationDate="2018-06-12T08:20:45.673" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14512" PostId="4682" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I dont know, I was really interested into that question, and didn't knew a better place to ask it... You could argue that the question deals with the historical context of a very important text, but I apologize, if I missed the aimed purpose of this Stackexchange" CreationDate="2018-06-13T21:26:37.633" UserId="1763" />
  <row Id="14514" PostId="4682" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I think so. Just about anything related to the Aeneid is on topic. If you are unsure, you can always ask on meta for more opinions and arguments." CreationDate="2018-06-14T01:37:45.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13491" PostId="4683" Score="0" Text="Although there is an accepted answer, more suggestions are of course welcome!" CreationDate="2018-03-19T12:05:07.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9561" PostId="4684" Score="1" Text="Interesting -- I'd never heard this called &quot;lilies prolepsis&quot;. In case it's useful, in transformational syntactic terms this is an instance of subject-to-object raising." CreationDate="2017-06-30T02:36:06.327" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9563" PostId="4692" Score="0" Text="I could be wrong, but I think Lanet Rino means &quot;translate it as a Roman would.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-30T15:43:02.457" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9564" PostId="4695" Score="0" Text="I agree that *suus/eius* is the best way to go here. (I had the feeling someone else might be typing up an answer, too. A whopping difference of 19 seconds...)" CreationDate="2017-06-30T16:56:54.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9565" PostId="4695" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta 19 seconds is too funny! How odd that we both must have seen it at the same time, yet it had already been on the site for 30 minutes." CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:07:31.267" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9568" PostId="4697" Score="1" Text="As David brings up in his answer, I think the wording is flawed. &quot;Where&quot; is an adverb, not a pronoun: in this case I believe the term is a &quot;relative adverb&quot;" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:16:40.383" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9572" PostId="4697" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I changed the wording. Both *ubi* nor *in quo* are indeed relative adverbs (although *ubi* is perhaps more commonly interrogative when referring to place). Does the question make more sense now?" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:31:48.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9574" PostId="4697" Score="1" Text="I'm not good enough with the technical terms: I think *ubi* is a relative adverb, *quo* is a relative pronoun, and *in quo* is a relative adverbial prepositional phrase...so I guess the current wording works :)" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:36:38.690" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9575" PostId="4697" Score="2" Text="@brianpck I just hope it's clear enough now, whether or not it triggers hair-splitting terminological remarks. :) The original wording was indeed flawed." CreationDate="2017-06-30T20:04:53.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9578" PostId="4697" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I don't think the line is so clear. *Ubi* often behaves more like a locative pronoun than as a pure adverb; e.g. in something like *Q. Ubi est? A. Est domi.* it literally stands in for a locative noun. Either way, it is in origin a pronoun (*quo + bi*)." CreationDate="2017-06-30T22:13:25.347" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="13836" PostId="4697" Score="0" Text="@Anonym: Yeah, I would say *where* is adverbial, pronominal, and relative. It belongs to several categories at once. In those case where it cannot refer to a noun (or adjective), nor to a clause or thought, but rather to a specific adverb, you could call it an anaphoric adverbial? Much terminology!" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:35:16.973" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25985" PostId="4697" Score="1" Text="*Quo* asks the question where to? For example, Quo it Medus? means: Where is Medus going? *Unde* asks the question of where? for example Unde venit Medus? or Where is Medus coming from? *Ubi* asks the question Where( location)? For example Ubi habitat Medus? or Where does Medus live?" CreationDate="2018-04-23T16:56:41.750" UserId="2582" />
  <row Id="17849" PostId="4700" Score="1" Text="Minerals, semi-precious stones, also crystals. Sometimes there is an indication of colour or suitability for paint, seal-stones, bracelets." CreationDate="2018-12-22T19:34:43.267" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9567" PostId="4701" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Do you know in which contexts I can use both *in quo* and *ubi*? (I think it's a fairly universal phenomenon to sometimes use interrogative pronouns as relative ones, and perhaps this can be seen as a case of that. Unfortunately the amount of attestations of *ubi* was prohibitively large and I couldn't see how common the relative use is.) Also, good point about *ecce*." CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:11:21.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9569" PostId="4701" Score="0" Text="When you say &quot;you will never be wrong if you simply use the actual relative pronoun,&quot; you seem to be implying that *in quo* is **always correct**, even in cases where *ubi* is not. Am I understanding you correctly? It's not clear to me if you think they are always interchangeable." CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:18:38.037" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9570" PostId="4701" Score="0" Text="As far as I know, you can use it in any case where 'in quo' is also appropriate. I haven't combed through several texts looking for this particular thing, so I cannot attest to the frequency of either, but I have seen both be used. In terms of translation, they have the same function, although one is a relative pronoun, and the other is simply an adverb." CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:19:50.747" UserId="1752" />
  <row Id="9571" PostId="4701" Score="0" Text="@David If that is your contention, why don't you just say &quot;they are interchangeable&quot;? Your answer says &quot;they are interchangeable here, but...&quot;, which obscures the point. I'm not sure I agree with that, but for now I can bring up a quibble: the relative pronoun obviously has to be changed to agree in gender/number with its antecedent." CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:23:36.917" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9573" PostId="4701" Score="1" Text="@brianpck To clarify: I am 80% sure that they are entirely interchangeable and I am sure that the relative is always going to be, at the very least, grammatically correct. Therefore, I added a caveat to my answer to account for the small amount of doubt I have, lest the grammar gods smite me for my lapse of judgment. For all intents and purposes, you may take my answer as &quot;They are interchangeable, as long as you use the correct relative pronoun&quot;. Sorry about the confusion. And if you have a different opinion, I would love to hear it...I am certainly not the world's foremost expert on this." CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:32:44.200" UserId="1752" />
  <row Id="9576" PostId="4702" Score="2" Text="This is a good choice, especially if one wants to refer to the graduation ceremony. At my university, the &quot;conferment of degrees ceremony&quot; (as it's called in English) is called &quot;promootio&quot; in Finnish and *promotio* in Latin. However, this celebration is not obligatory; one will graduate whether or not one attends a &quot;promotion&quot; in any way (even *in absentia*)." CreationDate="2017-06-30T20:08:47.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47689" PostId="4703" Score="2" Text="I'd recommend *conferendi* over *conferentis*." CreationDate="2024-03-06T17:09:22.313" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="9592" PostId="4704" Score="0" Text="Hmm... Aren't *baccalaureus* and *magister* people who hold the degrees, not the degrees themselves?" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:27:20.130" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9637" PostId="4704" Score="0" Text="I think that there's some [metonymy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy) in play for that kind of usage, but yes, formally they're the titles for the holders of the degrees." CreationDate="2017-07-03T12:20:53.960" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="9585" PostId="4705" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It appears that the preclassical (mostly Plautus') supine is quite different from the classical one. The use in Asterix can well be adapted directly from Plautus." CreationDate="2017-07-01T07:53:10.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9596" PostId="4705" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'd say the biggest difference is that the Plautine supine is both productive and indistinguishable from the verbal noun in *-tus,* so anything that goes for a regular ablative noun also goes for the ablative supine." CreationDate="2017-07-01T16:27:05.623" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9597" PostId="4705" Score="0" Text="Well said. In case you haven't seen it, there's a [related question about the relationship between the supine and the fourth declension verbal noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4182/79), and unsurprisingly Plautus came up." CreationDate="2017-07-01T16:40:03.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33238" PostId="4705" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Concluding, &quot;Asterix atque Obelix venatu redeunt.&quot;; &quot;venatu&quot; is definitely the ablative of the noun, &quot;venatus&quot;, giving,  &quot;from the hunt&quot;, and nothing else. Please confirm." CreationDate="2021-05-17T13:13:22.370" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33239" PostId="4705" Score="1" Text="@tony You can think of it that way or choose not to. The line between supines and the fourth declension nouns [is not clear](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4182/79), and one has the freedom to analyze one way or the other. If you think of supines as frozen forms of the said derived noun, the distinction isn't all that meaningful. This is particularly true in Plautine Latin. Classification is not a realm of hard truths." CreationDate="2021-05-17T13:21:44.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9583" PostId="4706" Score="2" Text="Maybe it would be interesting if you could tell us the context: what would be the purpose of this sentence? Is it some sort of oriental religious text?" CreationDate="2017-07-01T04:18:42.673" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9579" PostId="4707" Score="0" Text="So, &quot;omnis res esse&quot; is grammatical but &quot;omnis res est&quot; is not?" CreationDate="2017-07-01T03:21:10.067" UserId="1239" />
  <row Id="9580" PostId="4707" Score="0" Text="@אהרןרובין &quot;esse&quot; is the stem of the verb, &quot;est&quot; is a conjugated form. It's like &quot;to be&quot; versus &quot;is&quot;, literally. &quot;Est&quot; is the one you'd want." CreationDate="2017-07-01T03:24:48.783" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9581" PostId="4707" Score="2" Text="Perhaps translate *omnis res* as &quot;each thing&quot;, to emphasize the slight weirdness in English? Great answer regardless, +1." CreationDate="2017-07-01T03:25:12.867" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9582" PostId="4707" Score="4" Text="I think you meant omnia sunt instead of omnia est?" CreationDate="2017-07-01T03:58:40.480" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9584" PostId="4707" Score="2" Text="A transitive verb takes a direct object, whereas *esse* takes a complement. Verbs like *esse* (and *fieri*) don't fit into the transitive-intransitive dichotomy and are usually called copular or 'linking' verbs instead. (A case may be made that English *to be* is sometimes transitive, but that's beside the point.)" CreationDate="2017-07-01T04:44:05.130" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9588" PostId="4707" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thank you, good catch! I've made an edit to fix that." CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:23:31.363" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9589" PostId="4707" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Okay, I see what you are saying. What words should I use instead of transitive and intransitive to retain the same meaning?" CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:24:25.823" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9590" PostId="4707" Score="0" Text="@cnread &amp; SamK: I figured you were employing a [Graecism](https://books.google.com/books?id=TK9MAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA264#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)!" CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:27:07.177" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9615" PostId="4707" Score="0" Text="@SamK Hmm, I'd probably use the terms *existential* (e.g. *est vir* 'there is a man') and *copular* or *complementary* (e.g. *vir bonus est* 'he is a good man', *vir est bonus* 'the man is good'), albeit I'm not 100% on the second term." CreationDate="2017-07-02T05:27:59.070" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9586" PostId="4709" Score="5" Text="Are you sure about the second one? I don't recall seeing that. I would perhaps write ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φῠ́σῐς." CreationDate="2017-07-01T13:00:33.893" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9587" PostId="4709" Score="2" Text="Agreed, ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φῠ́σῐς is also possible, but not ἡ τοῦ φῠ́σῐς ἀνθρώπου. TLG is down for me right now but I'll check it later and see which was more common, though I suspect the first." CreationDate="2017-07-01T13:20:22.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9604" PostId="4709" Score="0" Text="And in .1. isn't the definite article repeated? ἡ φῠ́σῐς ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου." CreationDate="2017-07-01T20:20:49.963" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9601" PostId="4711" Score="0" Text="I think this question needs a bit of reworking. You mean &quot;lexemes&quot; not &quot;morphemes&quot;. And tele- is not a prefix." CreationDate="2017-07-01T18:58:50.557" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9606" PostId="4711" Score="1" Text="@fdb: Morpheme is the correct term. That would encompass both roots and affixes. A lexeme, on the other hand, is an abstraction, meaning “any inflected form of the same word,” but at the same time a distinct entity from all of these forms. When you see something like KING.PL.ABL written under a word in an example language phrase in a book or a paper, KING would be the lexeme. And you are entirely correct about *tele-*!" CreationDate="2017-07-01T23:11:07.260" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="9607" PostId="4711" Score="0" Text="@kkm Are you saying it's a prefix or not? I don't know it's function in Greek (mine is quite weak), but I was referring to English, where 'tele-' is most definitely a prefix." CreationDate="2017-07-01T23:17:57.967" UserId="243" />
  <row Id="9608" PostId="4711" Score="4" Text="I do not know what would *tele-* “most definitely” a prefix; *tele-* is non-productive in English. We usually regard the class of affixes as closed. Is *-scope* a suffix in *oscilloscope*? Is *oscillo-* a prefix? Is *tele-* a prefix in *telescope*? What is the prefix in *gastroenterology*? I'd say, when your particular approach to a linguistic analysis for any reason calls for *tele-* be operationally regarded as prefix, go for it, but it should be elaborated. In the context of your question, however, it does not matter, so it'd be better to stick to conventional terms." CreationDate="2017-07-02T00:10:07.287" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="9593" PostId="4714" Score="0" Text="I believe you mean _aliqua_ instead of _aliquae_, which is plural." CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:48:41.463" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9594" PostId="4714" Score="0" Text="@SamK I believe both can be used. Cambridge Latin Grammar uses 'aliquae', but I've definitely seen 'aliqua' used before." CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:54:12.293" UserId="243" />
  <row Id="9595" PostId="4714" Score="0" Text="That's interesting. Bennett's Latin Grammar lists only _aliqua_, but it lists both _qua_ and _quae_ as nominative feminine, which is an interesting difference." CreationDate="2017-07-01T16:00:17.777" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="9598" PostId="4715" Score="0" Text="There are a couple of typos in the Greek: πανά**ρ**ιστον in the last line; περσκέθοισᾱ should have short -α; definite article ᾱ is conventionally written with rough breathing (though in Aeolic, which is psilotic, that's actually a misleading convention)." CreationDate="2017-07-01T17:30:22.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9599" PostId="4715" Score="0" Text="@TKR Fixed the rho, thank you! Leaving the long alpha as it is because that's the word under consideration, and it's how my source listed it (whether or not it's correct)." CreationDate="2017-07-01T17:47:41.740" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9609" PostId="4715" Score="0" Text="@Draconis What's your source of ᾱ?" CreationDate="2017-07-02T00:51:04.290" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9610" PostId="4715" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. http://www.ancientgreekonline.com/Sappho/Sappho16.htm which was linked to me in chat as an answer" CreationDate="2017-07-02T01:01:49.183" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9611" PostId="4715" Score="1" Text="There's at least one other quantity error in that source, μελαινᾱν in line two (for μέλαινᾰν). Both are in line-final syllables, and the description of the Sapphic stanza in the same page wrongly says that the last syllable of the first three lines must be long, which may explain the errors: actually the last syllable is anceps." CreationDate="2017-07-02T02:01:58.323" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9612" PostId="4715" Score="0" Text="@TKR Makes sense. In that case I'll change the quote." CreationDate="2017-07-02T03:21:43.463" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9600" PostId="4716" Score="2" Text="περσκεθοισα = περισχουσα &lt; περιεχω&#xA;as explained here: http://www.ancientgreekonline.com/Sappho/Sappho16.htm" CreationDate="2017-07-01T18:36:20.930" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9613" PostId="4716" Score="0" Text="A side note. Holt Parker (in Parker 2009) writes that Lesbian has &quot;[a] limited number of cases of ri &gt; ry &gt; rr&quot;, &quot;[o]ne is by late syncope in the preverb περί-, so περί-οχος &gt; πέρροχος, *περ&lt;ρ&gt;έχοισ᾽ (= Att. περι-έχουσα); the inscriptional form, however, is always περί&quot; (p. 456). So, I was wondering why there's no gemination in περσκέθοισα. I should mention that Parker does say that the change *CriV &gt; CerrV is only &quot;a possible rule&quot; though." CreationDate="2017-07-02T03:43:28.467" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9614" PostId="4716" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., but here the environment would be *VriC, περισχ-." CreationDate="2017-07-02T04:25:10.487" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9617" PostId="4716" Score="0" Text="@TKR I will admit - Greek is not my forte. The verb is **περιέχω** (present indicative 1sg), its aorist form is **περιέσχον**, the aorist participle would  be περιέχών and - all of those are unsyncopated forms. But in our case, since a rare, poetic aorist form was used, ἔσχεθον, whose aorist participle would be σχεθών, the aorist participle would be περισχών/περισχοῦσα? Why is the vowel syncopated in the participle? Why not περιέσχεθών?&#xA; Incidentally, Montanari also mentions geminated forms - Aeol. pres. **περρέχει** and Aeol. fem. **περρέχοισ(α)** - hence my question and some confusion." CreationDate="2017-07-02T15:16:13.177" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9619" PostId="4716" Score="0" Text="Correction: Is ἔσχεθών a valid form or does it have to be σχεθών?" CreationDate="2017-07-02T15:51:44.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9620" PostId="4716" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., there's no augment in the participle; the forms are περισχών, περισχοῦσα, or περισχεθών, περισχεθοῦσα. The geminated Aeolic forms are present, so correspond to περιέχει, περιέχουσα." CreationDate="2017-07-02T16:29:31.727" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9622" PostId="4716" Score="0" Text="@TKR I see. Just checking if I understand this correctly - participles in Greek (or at least aorist participles) do not have the augment at all?" CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:23:45.420" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9623" PostId="4716" Score="1" Text="@AlexB., that's correct -- only finite indicative forms (of the aorist, imperfect, and pluperfect) get the augment." CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:27:14.380" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9624" PostId="4716" Score="0" Text="@TKR I see - I didn't know it had to be a finite form. Now everything's clear - thanks!" CreationDate="2017-07-02T18:00:59.020" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9602" PostId="4718" Score="4" Text="I think it's called the *senatus*." CreationDate="2017-07-01T19:42:42.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9605" PostId="4718" Score="1" Text="FWIW, in the US English probably the closest concepts would be, respectively, the *assisted living [facility]* and the *nursing home.*" CreationDate="2017-07-01T22:59:04.920" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14869" PostId="4718" Score="0" Text="Modern Greek uses γεροκομείο, and the concern about tone and avoiding words for &quot;old&quot; does look anachronistic to me. (The Modern Greek Wiktionary partakes of that euphemism: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/γηροκομείο, &quot;an institution which permanently hosts persons in the Third Age&quot;.) κομέω does refer to caring rather than locking away (so the &quot;service&quot; notion is explicit), and, well, they *are* old people: would these institutions admit someone under 40? (There are instances in Australia where that happens, with mental handicap, but it's not the norm, and is not seen as desirable.)" CreationDate="2018-07-19T01:26:30.683" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="9634" PostId="4723" Score="0" Text="Is it wrong to use a connecting vowel? I checked the OED entry for English &quot;melano-&quot;, and it says &quot;ancient Greek μελανο-, combining form (in e.g. μελανοδέρματος dark-skinned) of μελαν-, μέλας black [...]&#xA;Ancient Greek also has an athematic combining form μελαν-, without the thematic vowel -ο- [...], as in μελάνδετος bound or mounted with black (and note the existence of both μελάγχροος and μελανόχροος dark-skinned). This occurs in the forms μελαμ- before β, π, ϕ, and ψ (as in Hellenistic Greek μελάμπυρον melampyre n.) and μελαγ- before γ, κ, and χ (as in μελαγχολία melancholy n.1).&quot;" CreationDate="2017-07-03T03:49:44.920" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9643" PostId="4723" Score="1" Text="I'll have to admit, leafing around L&amp;S, I found more words beginning μελανο‐ than I anticipated, though still outnumbered by those in μελαν/μ/γ‐.  So, I can't say the ‐μελανο‐ is *wrong*, exactly, but I still think the one without the -ο‐ is more natural, for reasons that I will explain in another comment." CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:43:44.893" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9644" PostId="4723" Score="1" Text="In English, when we see such forms as &quot;philosophy&quot;,&#xA;we are likely to analyse it as phil-o-sophy, with a connecting vowel -o-, but it really should be analysed philo-sophy (φιλο‐σοφία) the _o_ is actually part of the stem of the first element.  The stem of μέλας is μελαν‐, not μελανο‐, hence my reasoning.  Apparently the Greeks did sometimes add the omicron by analogy, though, so we even have both μελάγχροος and μελανόχροος." CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:44:56.030" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="12205" PostId="4723" Score="1" Text="It is actually quite common for the first member of a Greek compound to be thematicised, that is: to take the suffix -o-." CreationDate="2018-02-22T11:19:44.040" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9627" PostId="4725" Score="0" Text="[This](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb) is where I can view it. Loeb library? IIRC when I bump into that website I only get partial views of pages." CreationDate="2017-07-02T22:21:31.980" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9628" PostId="4725" Score="0" Text="I wonder if there is a scan of that papyrus online, and above all, how did I find my semi-complete, critical notation free version. But I fear the last question cannot be answered." CreationDate="2017-07-02T22:23:34.730" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9629" PostId="4725" Score="0" Text="@MickG I'm not sure if there's a picture online anywhere. LoebClassics.com hosts legal digitized Loeb volumes, the same series that you linked in the first comment, but actually published by Harvard. That Campbell Loeb is up to date, though, so you can see it on p. 454. I don't know how Scribd hasn't been taken down yet." CreationDate="2017-07-02T22:29:33.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9630" PostId="4725" Score="3" Text="The scans of the papyrus are available online - http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00008466" CreationDate="2017-07-02T23:32:54.853" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9633" PostId="4725" Score="0" Text="@MickG The scans AlexB. linked to also show for sure that πόλλ is only a suggestion, though the third line in the picture is too faint to really read (to me at least)." CreationDate="2017-07-03T01:39:42.343" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9635" PostId="4725" Score="0" Text="Papyrus transcribed in answer below." CreationDate="2017-07-03T08:31:55.790" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9625" PostId="4726" Score="0" Text="Actually, I am not mistaken, only ambiguous: I meant Campbell didn't have it in the Sappho section. Since I had it as Sappho, I only looked there, because, if it's not Sappho, I couldn't be sure it would be found in Alcaeus or in that document at all. Indeed, after the other answer, I was looking through Alcaeus, with no success." CreationDate="2017-07-02T21:40:38.983" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9636" PostId="4728" Score="1" Text="And *status* (not *stātus*)." CreationDate="2017-07-03T10:09:24.320" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="9641" PostId="4728" Score="2" Text="Closely related: [How do the verbs do and δίδωμι come from *deh₃-?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4132)" CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:08:44.830" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14165" PostId="4728" Score="0" Text="Actually, a few sources seem to say that the vowel is short in &quot;status&quot;, but long in &quot;stātūrus&quot;. See [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:22:09.443" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9638" PostId="4729" Score="0" Text="Welcome and thanks for a good question! I'd be very much interested in any such dictionary, but I have been unable to find any kind of decent dictionary or word list. For what it's worth, I've also written [a (soft) mathematical article in Latin](http://users.jyu.fi/~jojapeil/pub/problemata-inversa-melissa.pdf) but I haven't found a way to [read formulas out loud](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1937/79) yet." CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:29:50.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9784" PostId="4729" Score="0" Text="Google, dictionaries (there are some online), you can purchase books of terms in latin for a specific scientific area or you can continue to ask in this site." CreationDate="2017-07-12T13:37:12.153" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="15748" PostId="4729" Score="0" Text="Hi there - my background's mathematics (only pre-college greek and latin so not won't be able to help you on that!), and late to this question, however for what it's worth, and forgive if stating the obvious but for standard undergraduate level terminology as such as you mention, especially if compound, suspect you'll have to deconstruct the greek-'english' etymology and reconstruct for yourself. Many concepts will be straightforward given the prevalence of both greek (homo-auto-isomorphism/orthogonal/topos, the list could go on....) and latin (convolution etc..) for that matter" CreationDate="2018-09-23T16:57:20.693" UserId="2935" />
  <row Id="15749" PostId="4729" Score="0" Text="(in-/convolution/convergence etc etc) suspect you'll have to write a lot of the dictionary yourself! Good luck if you do see this and if so would love to see the paper!" CreationDate="2018-09-23T16:58:20.290" UserId="2935" />
  <row Id="19583" PostId="4729" Score="4" Text="Wouldn't a good translation of  Newton's *Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica* (&quot;*Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy*&quot;) have what you need? I would try that first." CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:48:54.773" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="9640" PostId="4731" Score="0" Text="@FelixGoldberg There are many ways to phrase a motto like that in Latin, but these suggestions are great if you don't have more specific context or meaning in mind. When you update your status, feel free to ask another question. I'd much rather see translations and explanations given on this site than have any more people unknowingly spreading the [horror of Google's Latin translations](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)." CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:04:28.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9642" PostId="4731" Score="6" Text="@FelixGoldberg You could do it in the plural, *semper optiones* &quot;always options&quot;, similar to *semper fidelis*, the motto of the US Marines." CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:27:00.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9672" PostId="4733" Score="0" Text="I think your *spinning of the years* is a typo for *ears*." CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:27:27.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9674" PostId="4733" Score="0" Text="@TKR Absolutely. Correcting immediately." CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:34:48.230" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9670" PostId="4740" Score="1" Text="One other thing I don't understand about the quotation is if the author thinks ἱδρώς is feminine, how can he report κακός (instead of κακή)? Btw &#xA; LSJ also says it's feminine in Aeolic, citing this line: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Di(drw%2Fs" CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:12:06.920" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9671" PostId="4740" Score="0" Text="@TKR Yeah I noticed that too. Author or copyist overlooking the gender and making kakós agree with the gender they used for hidróós, maybe? Copyist seeing an alpha (kaká), misinterpreting as omicron (kakó) and then saying &quot;that must be an error, let me correct it real quick&quot; and dumping the sigma in? Just guessing :)." CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:15:36.463" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9680" PostId="4740" Score="1" Text="There is some more information in the Latin prefatory note: the text, though edited by Cramer, is that of a manuscript of &quot;Homeric parses&quot; (Ὁμήρου ἐπιμερισμοί), whose author or collator is unknown but is conjectured by Cramer to have been a Byzantine scholar." CreationDate="2017-07-04T23:01:20.857" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9663" PostId="4741" Score="0" Text="If you would prefer a more formal title for this question, please let me know in a comment or in [the chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm)." CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:40:54.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9664" PostId="4741" Score="2" Text="FWIW, [septem planetae](http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=87164001&amp;objectId=1452048&amp;partId=1) is a common cultural reference, from which the names of week days in some languages come. It includes the Moon and the Sun, besides the 5 -non-Earth- planets known from antiquity. The seven-day week with planets in their names seems to be [post-classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_days_of_the_week#Days_named_after_planets)." CreationDate="2017-07-04T19:33:30.417" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9667" PostId="4741" Score="0" Text="For anyone willing to do more research, see also [this](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:id=planetae-cn): the concept seems to be classical, although I'm hesitant to accept that the word was specifically *planeta* in Classical Latin. Looking for [septem planetae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=septem%20planetae&amp;inContent=true&amp;language=Latin) in Perseus gives results from the IV century onwards." CreationDate="2017-07-04T19:55:34.850" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9727" PostId="4741" Score="2" Text="@Rafael. Pace &quot;Wikipedia&quot;, the &quot;planetary&quot; week is alluded to by Tibullus in the first century BC, so it is classical, not post-classical." CreationDate="2017-07-08T09:11:47.780" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="47740" PostId="4741" Score="0" Text="Are you interested in any possible differences between the Latin and Greek ideas? &quot;Erro&quot; is just a literal Latin translation of &quot;πλανάω,&quot; so I don't think an educated Roman would have had any trouble distinguishing a transliteration from the &quot;native&quot; Latin term." CreationDate="2024-03-15T16:49:14.983" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47741" PostId="4741" Score="0" Text="@brianpck A description of the term in either language would be great. Is it just a moving bright spot in the sky, or is there more to it? Given how long this question has remained unanswered, any pointers to a relevant direction would be welcome." CreationDate="2024-03-15T19:45:08.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9676" PostId="4742" Score="1" Text="This raises the question how much these verbs were regularized to conform with the first conjugation as well as they do. Based on this background story, I could well believe there having been bigger differences than vowel length in early Latin or Proto-Italian." CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:51:11.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9681" PostId="4742" Score="1" Text="I'm sure you're right - there has been a major re-adjustment of originally athematic verbs to conform the later Latin conjugational system. The short _a_ in _stare_ is ultimately traceable to a zero-grade *sth₂-. from a PIE stem *steh₂-, but the original athematic conjugation has been largely assimilated to the historical Latin conjugational system." CreationDate="2017-07-05T00:10:33.247" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="9685" PostId="4744" Score="2" Text="Surely this word must already exist. Latin texts describing steam ships must be out there somewhere." CreationDate="2017-07-05T11:48:02.137" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9688" PostId="4744" Score="3" Text="@C. M. Weimer I tend to agree, but am blessed if I can find much. _Vaporella_, which I use for steam-launch, turns out to be a steam-iron in Italian, but 40 years ago my usage gained approval from a senior Latin don. Now, having settled for _vaporatorium_, I see that it is in widespread use as the modern place for supplying or using smoking substitutes. It's impossible to win!" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:58:18.410" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9683" PostId="4745" Score="2" Text="Thank you! for removing my mental block. The boiler in this case (from the comic novel 'Three Men In A Boat', or _Tres Viri in Scapha_) drives a 19thC steam-launch, which I have been translating as _vaporella_. I think I'll settle for _vaporatorium_." CreationDate="2017-07-05T10:52:56.080" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9684" PostId="4745" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton You are welcome! *Vaporatorium* sounds good, too." CreationDate="2017-07-05T11:12:29.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9702" PostId="4746" Score="0" Text="In English **caldera** is the word for the collapsed volcano that destroyed Santorini.  Overkill for a little steam launch." CreationDate="2017-07-06T12:54:32.790" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9690" PostId="4749" Score="2" Text="Interesting. In modern English &quot;[aeolipile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile)&quot; seems to refer to a specific design of steam engine." CreationDate="2017-07-06T01:57:02.127" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9710" PostId="4749" Score="0" Text="@sumelic A couple paragraphs in it says: _&quot;Pre-dating Heron's writings, a device called an aeolipile was described in the 1st century BC by Vitruvi in his treatise De architectura; however, it is unclear if it is the same device or a predecessor, as he does not mention rotating parts.&quot;_" CreationDate="2017-07-06T20:33:13.737" UserId="1795" />
  <row Id="9706" PostId="4751" Score="1" Text="Thank you. I did in fact consider _cisterna vaporifer_, which might be a reasonable physical description of a ship's boiler, but have settled for _vaporatorium_ as better fitting into both context and translation (but see also my comment beneath the original question!). [The 'Copious &amp; Critical' is indeed a useful source of suggestions in cases like this, and, unsurprisingly, often gives matches for 19thC English better than more modern works.]" CreationDate="2017-07-06T14:33:06.193" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9707" PostId="4751" Score="0" Text="Note that in the Mass Effect community (Mass Effect is a sci-fi video game), there is a seedy magazine aimed at xenophiles called Fornax (named after the constellation with the same name, most likely). This probably won't confuse people who haven't played the game, but it's just something to keep in mind when choosing words. Unfortunate implications and all that." CreationDate="2017-07-06T14:42:17.943" UserId="1794" />
  <row Id="9696" PostId="4752" Score="4" Text="FYI excelsis is an ablative, ruled by *in*" CreationDate="2017-07-06T10:16:30.423" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9697" PostId="4752" Score="5" Text="The Italian translation of that sentence used by the catholic church in its rites is &quot;gloria a Dio nell'alto dei cieli&quot;, which literally means &quot;glory to God in the high of skies&quot;. This supports the interpretations in the existing answers." CreationDate="2017-07-06T12:02:51.110" UserId="1793" />
  <row Id="9693" PostId="4753" Score="0" Text="Thanks Joonas for such informative answer! For clarification: If read as a whole with the next sentence: &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominids bonae voluntatis&quot;, would it be clearer whether this expresses a fact or a wish?" CreationDate="2017-07-06T09:56:38.937" UserId="1791" />
  <row Id="9694" PostId="4753" Score="1" Text="@SunnyPun You are welcome! No, the same ambiguity persists. The second part has the same structure as the first one and suffers from exactly the same lack of clarity." CreationDate="2017-07-06T09:58:24.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9698" PostId="4753" Score="0" Text="@Joonas In the context of the narrative--it's very clear that this is a &quot;sit.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-07-06T12:05:14.443" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9699" PostId="4753" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Is there a reason to believe it's *sit* instead of *esto* or *est*? It might be my being slow, but I didn't see a clear hint in what I looked at." CreationDate="2017-07-06T12:08:10.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9695" PostId="4754" Score="1" Text="Thanks Hugh for pointing me to the source! Since there isn't much that can be interpreted from the phrase itself, the source contributes to showing the original meaning. I accepted Joonas' answer as my 2 main questions are addressed. Please accept my appreciation for your input helping me understand the sentence!" CreationDate="2017-07-06T10:10:51.623" UserId="1791" />
  <row Id="9700" PostId="4754" Score="1" Text="The angel army *(multitudo militiae)* are praising and saying *(laudantium et dicentem).*  You can get a pretty good idea of the *Gloria to God,&quot; part if you can understand the easy half of the quote which describes &quot;the multitude of the heavenly militia praising and saying [ **...** ] and on earth *(et in terra)* peace *(pax)* to men of good will.*(hominibus bonae voluntatis)*" CreationDate="2017-07-06T12:29:19.727" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9703" PostId="4754" Score="2" Text="I'd check with a biblical scholar, but &quot;Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας&quot; would be the original source. For the form used in the Mass (i.e. &quot;the Gloria&quot;), the Catholic Church is the authority on its intended meaning." CreationDate="2017-07-06T13:09:49.370" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="9705" PostId="4754" Score="0" Text="I should've thought of that, OrangeDog. Yes, Δόξα is glory and worship, isn't it? It's the introduction to the Sanctus in the Mass that refers to the multitude of the heavenly host evermore praising thee and saying...  I forget the introduction to the Gloria." CreationDate="2017-07-06T14:21:25.327" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9708" PostId="4755" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I hope you will stay around and get all of those questions asked; we are really into getting a lot of questions about Latin. While you wait for someone to explain the origins of the ablative, please consider taking a look at our [tour] and browsing questions already asked. (I will make small polishing edits on your question. Feel free to edit again or undo my edit if you want to.)" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:41:45.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9714" PostId="4755" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks. I’ve been checking this site weekly for a while now, and I know how the concept works from sites like Superuser, where I’m active on too. And also important: everyone here is very kind :)" CreationDate="2017-07-07T12:03:24.287" UserId="1415" />
  <row Id="9721" PostId="4755" Score="0" Text="@Thijs365 I'm glad to hear you like it here. Although some user edits have streamlined your question to focus more on the actual question, the words aimed at the community have not been ignored. If you prefer some earlier version of the question, you can click the &quot;edited X time ago&quot; link and roll back to a good old version; the wording is ultimately your choice." CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:29:38.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9712" PostId="4756" Score="2" Text="I marked the other answer because it was longer and explained more, but this answer is a very good summary from what I’ve read about in the other answer." CreationDate="2017-07-07T05:51:09.063" UserId="1415" />
  <row Id="9713" PostId="4757" Score="0" Text="But which words use the locative?" CreationDate="2017-07-07T11:58:15.037" UserId="1415" />
  <row Id="9715" PostId="4757" Score="0" Text="@Thijs365 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Latin" CreationDate="2017-07-07T12:39:08.817" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="9720" PostId="4757" Score="4" Text="&quot;kept its name&quot; is a bit anachronistic, don't you think? The name came long after the (pre-historic) merger of the three cases." CreationDate="2017-07-07T18:52:53.223" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9732" PostId="4757" Score="0" Text="@fdb: True. But I think he meant that in a slightly figurative way." CreationDate="2017-07-08T16:03:26.103" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44666" PostId="4758" Score="0" Text="I notice that in Aristoteles Latinus, one of the volumes listed is discribed as being in the *Bloomingtonensis* library. I would think it would be spelt *Bloomingtonienses* if the name of the town were Bloomingtonia. So that leaves Bloomingtona, or Bloomingtonum, or indeclinable Bloomington, or something. I guess Bloomingtona strikes me as most likely, with an indeclinable name as next most likely." CreationDate="2023-09-04T04:41:57.070" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="9717" PostId="4759" Score="2" Text="-ing, -ton, are first wave Anglo-Saxon; -ingham, -ington, second wave. Invasions which quarried Roman buildings, overran settlements, but later adopted Latin as officialese." CreationDate="2017-07-07T13:14:08.100" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9718" PostId="4760" Score="1" Text="Ha! _Hepatopolis_ is great! I look forward to the day when your work containing it enters the [_disputatio_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Liverpolium) on Vicipædia as another precedent that they must cite. For taking Bloomington straight into Latin, any thought on _Bloomingtonia_ vs. _Bloomingtona?_ Are there other cities where English _-ton_ became Latin _tona?_" CreationDate="2017-07-07T13:56:44.697" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9719" PostId="4760" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I've never discovered a rule — I don't think one exists — but a plain _-ona_ is probably best: Kingstona, etc. The _-onia_ ending is used, I think, mostly for botanical names like _Wellingtonia_." CreationDate="2017-07-07T14:33:27.793" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9722" PostId="4764" Score="0" Text="So there is no record of a saying like &quot;help your friends, harm your enemies&quot;? Polemarchus says something like &quot;give good to friends and evil to enemies&quot; and I have always heard that this was the common sense notion of justice in the Classical world. There is nothing in Latin with the same sense?" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:40:22.850" UserId="1803" />
  <row Id="9723" PostId="4764" Score="0" Text="@user3426752 The phrase exists in different forms, but if you're citing one thing in particular, the above is where you can cite the epitaph in question. brianpck has given you one example of a similarly worded saying." CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:51:27.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9726" PostId="4770" Score="0" Text="Now that's what I call precedents!! Very informative. Your idea that _-ia_ is a customary way to make a place name from a person's name sounds very plausible. [Vasingtonia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Vasingtonia) (also Vasintonia) seems to fit this. Or even Washingtonia, as suggested by [this diploma](https://commencement.wustl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/diploma-latin.jpg)." CreationDate="2017-07-08T05:05:00.283" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9735" PostId="4772" Score="2" Text="What makes you say it can be reconstructed as a word on its own? Forms found in compounds are often different from free-standing forms from the same root. Latin *-mentus* isn't an independent word, either." CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:03:20.070" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9730" PostId="4773" Score="0" Text="I think the clue is in the word Automata. The Byzantine toys which seemed to have a mind were definitely *things,* hence the Greek neuter plural (or singular automaton)." CreationDate="2017-07-08T12:50:31.010" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9739" PostId="4774" Score="1" Text="If the source is manuscript or facsimile, the circumflex indicates, &quot;is the siglum for,&quot; an ***m.***  The accusative *unam horam* would then be adverbial, giving the time during which the stone continued to fall. If the source is print, Draconis  and sumelic have your answer." CreationDate="2017-07-08T22:14:38.770" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9737" PostId="4779" Score="0" Text="+1 for underlining diacritical marks can be omitted (thus _hora_ could be ambiguous)" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:41:01.813" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9738" PostId="4779" Score="2" Text="Just to point out that the occasional circumflex shows up even in some 'scholarly' editions of texts, especially to distinguish perfect tense forms that look like present tense forms. Just the other day, I came across abît in Mynors's 1963 Oxford Classical Text edition of Pliny the Younger's Letters (letter 2.1.7). I had to triple-check and even take out a magnifying glass to make sure it wasn't just a stray bit of ink." CreationDate="2017-07-08T21:43:46.517" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9740" PostId="4781" Score="1" Text="To me, this seems like a bit of a contrived explanation considering that many other words show variation between spellings with &quot;i&quot; and &quot;y&quot; in later periods of written Latin" CreationDate="2017-07-09T02:31:45.503" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="9742" PostId="4781" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, well there you go. I have obviously been reading too much Isidore of Seville. Style is contagious." CreationDate="2017-07-09T12:36:27.383" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9743" PostId="4781" Score="0" Text="I thought it was &quot;la-a-cri-mo-sa&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-07-09T21:38:21.737" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9744" PostId="4781" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, must be why they dropped me from the choir." CreationDate="2017-07-10T01:13:20.063" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9745" PostId="4784" Score="0" Text="I am wholly unsure whether this is correct, but I always analyzed it as is canonically done with *eius*, namely containing a consonantal geminated *i* which may make the preceding vowel heavy regardless of its quantity. The consonantal *i* would then not be written to avoid *fiio*, which looks like an awkward double *i* before another vowel." CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:54:59.487" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9746" PostId="4784" Score="0" Text="@blagae I had never thought of that option. So you would pronounce it as *fijjō* instead of *fīō*? It would be interesting to know if anyone can verify or falsify that idea." CreationDate="2017-07-10T10:09:36.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9747" PostId="4784" Score="0" Text="I don't consciously pronounce *eius* as *ejjus* either, so no, but I would probably try to build the habit of extending the analogy to *fijjo* if I did." CreationDate="2017-07-10T10:24:21.603" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="9748" PostId="4784" Score="0" Text="'Fio', 'fias', and 'fiet' are two-syllable words, therefore the first syllable needs the accent.  Trying to make the 'i' short in *quality* but long in *quantity* actually kinds of hurts my English-formed throat.  'F-iiiihhh-o'.  Oww." CreationDate="2017-07-10T17:40:49.320" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="9773" PostId="4786" Score="0" Text="Re Safarewicz: why doesn't this happen to *capiō* or other i-stem thirds?" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:27:29.727" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9774" PostId="4786" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Safarewicz proposed his (ad-hoc) explanation only for fio; at least, in Weiss' summary. I haven't checked it de visu yet." CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:39:43.943" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9754" PostId="4787" Score="1" Text="FYI, Shipley is extremely unreliable as an etymological source (despite its title)." CreationDate="2017-07-11T02:56:30.143" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9755" PostId="4787" Score="0" Text="@TKR thus my frustration. &quot;Burner of Ships&quot; seems to have taken root in the popular imagination, but I can't find corroboration or alternate sources.  It seems that short of writing an essay on the subject, and submitting for peer review, I can't insert my proposed interpretation in Wiki.  Nevertheless, it might be useful to cast some doubt on Shipley's interpretation by noting it is an hypothesis as opposed to a hard fact." CreationDate="2017-07-11T03:20:32.237" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9766" PostId="4787" Score="1" Text="I'll write a longer answer if I have time, but Wiki is certainly overstating the case in confidently giving &quot;burner of ships&quot; as the etymology -- especially citing Shipley which is not a scholarly source at all. You'd be justified in editing the page to reflect that." CreationDate="2017-07-11T16:37:06.053" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9769" PostId="4787" Score="0" Text="@TKR that would be great.  I'm definitely interested in what scholars think of the κάω derivation, other potentially supportable roots, and the name in general." CreationDate="2017-07-11T19:02:14.233" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9901" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="So book V would be a sort of &quot;miscellanea&quot; from a metrical point of view, right? ἀσυνάρτητα = incoherent, or miscellanea, I'd guess. Are there other &quot;conspectus metrum&quot; in Voigt's edition for the other books? And why does [this person](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) say that «Ridotto l'intero frammento a due asclepiadei maggiori, esso può essere tolto  dalla  sezione «incerti  libri» e collocato nel V libro dell'edizione alessandrina, nella quale, per tesdmonianza  di Atílio Fortunaziano, erano compresi i carmi in   metro asclepiadeo» […]" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:21:13.963" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9903" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="[…] («Having reduced the whole fragment to two greater asclepiads, it can be taken out of the «incerti libri» section and placed in book V of the alexandrian edition, in which, by testimony of Atilius Fortunantianus, the poems in asclepiad meter were included», we are talking about Campbell 121 on p. 142), if book V was a miscellanea?" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:49:13.983" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9904" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="Also, the ones I quoted do not seem to fit into any scheme in that conspectus. Why are they in book V according to B.A.? Could you match those Voigt numbers in the conspectus to Campbell numbers so I can find the fragments? Or are these actually Campbell numbers? Nr. 127 seems to match Campbell 127 «δεῦρο δεῦτε, Μοῖσαι, χρύσιον λίποισαι»." CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:04:13.690" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9905" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="But 168C in Campbell is «ποικίλλεται μὲν / γαῖα πολυστέφανος», which definitely seems not to match the given meter. Campbell 124 is αὔτα δὲ σὺ Καλλιόπα», matching the first half of the given meter, the second half being lost as marked by lacuna signs on the length patterns." CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:10:09.697" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9906" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="Campbell 112 is οὐ γὰρ ἐτέρα νῦν πάϊς ὦ γάμβρε τοαύτα, and the scheme, besides not matching this apparent single line, mentions (if I read it right) l. 5 and l. 3, so no match here." CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:13:56.253" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9907" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="Campbell 158 is σκιδναμένας ἐν στήθεσιν ὄργας / μαψυλάκαν γλῶσσαν πεφύλαχθαι, perfectly matching the given meter. So I guess 127, 124 and 158 are also Campbell numbers, whereas the other two aren't." CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:15:27.940" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9908" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="And it is very interesting how none of those put [here](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me05.html) match that conspectus, and those I just found matching it are not there!" CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:19:58.323" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9909" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="Lastly, did you mean &quot;adonius&quot; or the &quot;adonis&quot; you wrote?" CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:20:38.247" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9910" PostId="4788" Score="0" Text="Oh, and [this](http://aoidoi.org/articles/meter/intro.pdf) is also a good reference for meter, I guess, with the advantage of being online." CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:23:30.413" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9770" PostId="4789" Score="0" Text="The Graves commentaries are definitely imaginative, but he's part of a strong literary tradition, and his ideas tend to catch on, an indicator of &quot;poetic truth.&quot;  I like the Ναυσικάστη (&quot;excelling in ships&quot;), especially per her mother's name Ἀρήτη, but is καίνυμαι a better guess than κάω?  It makes sense for the [Phaeacian nation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheria#The_Phaeacian_ships), but doesn't really apply to Nausicaa's story per se." CreationDate="2017-07-11T19:11:24.867" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9771" PostId="4789" Score="0" Text="PS do you have a reference for the Chantraîne?  *(I'm trying to run it down, but with a citation, I could add his hypothesis to the Wiki.)*" CreationDate="2017-07-11T19:26:28.253" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9790" PostId="4789" Score="1" Text="@DukeZhou https://archive.org/stream/Dictionnaire-Etymologique-Grec/Chantraiine-DictionnaireEtymologiqueGrec#page/n753/mode/2up" CreationDate="2017-07-12T19:20:56.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9791" PostId="4789" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks, as always.  *(Although my French is quite poor;)*" CreationDate="2017-07-12T19:24:18.453" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9762" PostId="4791" Score="0" Text="Makes better sense now! You might also want to add in that the expression your looking for is an idiom. Even though it's tagged as such, people might miss that. Re: *adversus ego*, that's not the correct grammar. You could theoretically see *adversus me*, since *adversus* is a preposition that takes an accusative. Someone else can chime in with an actual answer to your question, though." CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:11:27.313" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9780" PostId="4794" Score="0" Text="So would it be &quot;Jeffersonian Democracy is the _res contraria_ of British political system&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-07-12T11:24:36.860" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="9782" PostId="4794" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho Exactly! It's not an established expression, but I hope it has the right kind of feeling to it." CreationDate="2017-07-12T11:51:37.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9783" PostId="4794" Score="0" Text="Not sure which one to pick. _res contraria_ or _locus contrarius_..." CreationDate="2017-07-12T11:53:36.197" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="9763" PostId="4795" Score="1" Text="There's nothing incorrect about the English sentence -- it's perfectly good standard English. You're right, though, that there's an ambiguity between (in Latin terms) taking *writing* as a gerund or a participle. Since Latin uses different forms for those two functions, that ambiguity can't be reproduced in Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-11T16:21:55.300" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9922" PostId="4795" Score="0" Text="@TRK: well, I'll take your word for it, as they say. I am not a native English speaker. Thanks for pointing out. Interestingly (for me), it keeps sounding wrong, even when repeated, and even after having been attested to as right by you. If &quot;writing&quot; is replaced with other English infinitives, I tend to be with you. For example, &quot;You can learn fencing.&quot; seems less wrong to me." CreationDate="2017-07-20T19:36:45.003" UserId="1743" />
  <row Id="9772" PostId="4799" Score="0" Text="The gerundive grew out of the gerund. The passive periphrastic (gerundive + *esse*) used to have a gerund governing the accusative instead, e.g. *agitandum est vigilias* instead of *agitandae sunt vigiliae.* EDIT: A similar thing happened with the future active participle, which was often used like a future active infinitive, e.g. Cas. 693 *te occisurum ait* 'she says she will kill you'." CreationDate="2017-07-11T23:36:48.413" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9779" PostId="4799" Score="1" Text="@Anonym That's really an answer, so can you post it as one? It would benefit from some references (or corpus excerpts showing the development), but it's interesting already." CreationDate="2017-07-12T09:33:52.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9786" PostId="4802" Score="4" Text="I think you've basically got it. Greek verbs in -άω have infinitives in -ᾶν. For φθειρίᾱσις, I assume it's analogical, in other words the suffix compound -ίᾱσις got reanalyzed as a single suffix indicating diseases. (I wonder what L&amp;S's evidence for the Latin vowel length is -- these aren't words that are likely either to appear in verse or to be inherited into Romance.)" CreationDate="2017-07-12T16:25:47.793" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9805" PostId="4803" Score="1" Text="Very nice examples! I am not sure, though, about how to interpret them and how they answer the initial question. Being derived from caelum (sky) the adjective caeruleus may as well have meant any color the sky takes on (from bright blue to black). This may then support the hypothesis that the Romans did not distinguish between black and blue as our current color systems does." CreationDate="2017-07-13T14:01:30.297" UserId="1710" />
  <row Id="9808" PostId="4803" Score="0" Text="1) I assure you that the perception of color in the present moment and in the antiquity, for colors such as blue and black, are exactly the same. 2) There is an incorrect belief about the impossibility of differentiating colors, based on differentiating the words sea and sky (caerula verrunt - caerula caeli) whose translation must be based on the context (I believe that this generates your error and the error of question quoted in comments). It Is incorrect because ambiguity refers not to color but to the noun or substantive sea or sky." CreationDate="2017-07-13T15:02:56.827" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="9823" PostId="4803" Score="1" Text="Now I understand the misunderstanding. You're right, of course, Romans were able distinguish a blue sky from a black sky. The question was whether they had two distinctive words for blue and black as we do." CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:01:56.803" UserId="1710" />
  <row Id="9825" PostId="4803" Score="0" Text="We might comment that in many languages different adjectives appear for black (and similar), and different lexemes may exist for different colors (such as blue). Anyway I do not understand this error, if you ask any child will say that the sky and sea are blue ... and on the other hand should not become confusing words for blue derived from the lexeme sea or sky . This seems a common mistake, which my teacher told me a long time ago, if someone can provide me with a text source or an appointment we could analyze it in more detail." CreationDate="2017-07-14T09:46:29.030" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="9826" PostId="4803" Score="0" Text="Ok, let's see, Michel Pastoureau comments that while the beliefs or even theories that Greeks and Romans were &quot;blind&quot; to blue are erroneous if there was some ambiguity when designating dark colors using words derived from a certain lexeme for blue (as it happens with the lexemes of sea and sky). I have not yet been able to access the direct source, I will continue searching." CreationDate="2017-07-14T10:15:51.143" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="9827" PostId="4803" Score="0" Text="Anyway these errors seem to be based on the &quot;chromatic theory&quot; of the time, ie not that they did not differentiate the colors (your question) but could consider the blue related to &quot;dark&quot; ranges of different colors (not a primary color)." CreationDate="2017-07-14T10:16:24.177" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="9828" PostId="4803" Score="0" Text="From my point of view if they could establish a perceptive and linguistic differentiation for the ranges of blue and black is that they CAN DIFFERENTIATE, another topic is the idiomatic twist to take into account for translation." CreationDate="2017-07-14T10:19:13.690" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="9787" PostId="4804" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I made some edits to your question, but feel free to edit it further or undo the edits if you want to. I warmly recommend taking a look at our [tour] and registering your account, so that you get better access to your question, including editing, commenting, and voting on answers." CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:08:28.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9788" PostId="4806" Score="3" Text="Can you explain how well *caritas* corresponds to (loving) kindness? I think it's a good fit, but elaborating on it might be useful for the OP." CreationDate="2017-07-12T18:24:44.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9792" PostId="4806" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta charity is definitely associated with Agape: &quot;love; the highest form of love, charity&quot; LSJ: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)ga%2Fph, Middle Liddell: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Da)ga%2Fph" CreationDate="2017-07-12T22:25:54.633" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9797" PostId="4806" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It's such a good fit the Church frequently translates *caritas* as 'lovingkindness' rather than charity when creating English texts.  It would be hard to do better." CreationDate="2017-07-13T01:39:21.160" UserId="1816" />
  <row Id="9807" PostId="4806" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I see what you mean by invoking Augustine : as a whole, it captures the intention nicely and, in spite of the several meanings which can be given to _caritas_ according to context, I certainly wouldn't argue against that. But do you suggest using only the three emphasised words? That would surely be to ignore the questioner's 'trials/struggles' — or am I mistaken?" CreationDate="2017-07-13T14:50:14.413" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9793" PostId="4807" Score="0" Text="It's the older form. Consider also the old present passive participle *alumnus* (from *alo, alere*), which would've probably been *alemnus* had it been formed in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-12T23:52:59.233" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9794" PostId="4807" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Somehow I suspected that might be the case, but I had no evidence for it. Can you post that as an answer?" CreationDate="2017-07-12T23:59:17.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9796" PostId="4807" Score="0" Text="Possibly relevant: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/present-stem a page from Allen and Greenough that mentions that e/i/u in this kind of context generally comes from a Proto-Indo-European &quot;thematic vowel&quot; which apparently had ablaut variants \*e (&gt; Latin *e, i*) and \*o (&gt; Latin *u*)" CreationDate="2017-07-13T00:26:20.107" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21201" PostId="4807" Score="0" Text="Gerends? Gerendives?" CreationDate="2019-08-29T16:28:56.780" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21202" PostId="4807" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I'm sure such forms would make many furibend if not moribend." CreationDate="2019-08-29T16:49:53.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9802" PostId="4810" Score="0" Text="I agree that there are problems. However, the attempt inspired me to try a little something myself in hexameter, and the original idea is good." CreationDate="2017-07-13T12:54:10.497" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9803" PostId="4811" Score="1" Text="Thanks a lot. This wasn't supposed to be prose, just a farewell text to a high school teacher. Thus, my knowledge is quite limited. I simply didn't know that one would put an elision between qui and ab. &quot;quab&quot; sounded so silly I dismissed that idea quickly." CreationDate="2017-07-13T13:25:19.573" UserId="1818" />
  <row Id="9806" PostId="4811" Score="2" Text="Nice elision: Aeneid often uses elision to create jostling in the crowd." CreationDate="2017-07-13T14:23:58.537" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9809" PostId="4811" Score="2" Text="@Hugh In addition to following metric requirements, I was trying to get a certain feeling of congestion to the uneducated crowd with elisions. I'm glad if it actually worked!" CreationDate="2017-07-13T16:26:52.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9848" PostId="4812" Score="0" Text="The &quot;English&quot; equivalent of ἐπιχαιρεκακία is the loan word &quot;Schadenfreude&quot;." CreationDate="2017-07-15T09:18:05.533" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9814" PostId="4813" Score="3" Text="Tom, I believe the answer misses the OP's point. I think the question is about the process where a substantivized (as it always happen with adjectival signifiers of groups, like *the rich* etc.) adjective is applied metaphorically and euphemically (like *gay*), and then later loses its original meaning, and likely even turns into a noun (so we can say *a gay* or *gays* now). So this is not about the driver behind the euphemization (like the sex taboo in the *gay* example), rather whether such development is attested is Latin. Can you think of such examples?" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:52:05.140" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="9822" PostId="4813" Score="0" Text="@kkm, I agree. It's not answering the question (as it now stands after a deal of editing). I am tempted to withdraw it immediately, but will first consider if I can modify it suitably." CreationDate="2017-07-14T06:13:56.377" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9824" PostId="4813" Score="0" Text="I did rewrite the title (and made minor edits to the question body), but the question was always about the general phenomenon @kkm describes. The original title may have been somewhat misleading, and I apologize for that." CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:48:01.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28698" PostId="4813" Score="0" Text="At the risk of veering off topic, I'd quibble with a lot of this. (1) The use of &quot;queer&quot; to mean &quot;strange, odd&quot; is substantially less common than it used to be. (2) &quot;Queer&quot; in the sexual sense is no longer solely a pejorative but has been reclaimed. (3) &quot;Gay&quot; was actually a sexual pejorative when it was chosen by the gay community: the OED shows that in the 15th century the word &quot;gay&quot; acquired senses such as &quot;wanton, lewd&quot; and later &quot;dissolute, promiscuous&quot; and then in the 18th c. &quot;living off prostitution&quot;." CreationDate="2020-08-19T22:12:23.523" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="9811" PostId="4814" Score="2" Text="Much the same question here: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9894/two-questions-about-sapphos-name" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:26:50.307" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9869" PostId="4814" Score="0" Text="@fdb Would you like to summarize the sources in that question and its answers? Otherwise I'm happy to do so." CreationDate="2017-07-16T16:56:43.250" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9831" PostId="4815" Score="0" Text="https://www.amazon.com/Cattus-Petasatus-Cat-Hat-Latin/dp/0865164711" CreationDate="2017-07-14T15:55:55.350" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="9816" PostId="4816" Score="0" Text="&quot;Gaudium bono est&quot; appears quite serviceable. Google translate renders it: &quot;The joy is good&quot;, which I feel is **very much in the spirit of the original.**  *(Although unreliable, GT is likely the first stop for those without Latin trying to get at the meaning.)*  It seems the real problem is that &quot;fun&quot; is a squarely English word with no precedents prior to Middle English." CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:18:49.793" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9817" PostId="4816" Score="1" Text="@DukeZhou Google is often bad at interpreting cases, but the translation you got is good. // I decided to add a little note to my answer about translating &quot;joy&quot;. Maybe I should also add that the [L&amp;S entry for *gaudium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gaudium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) states that it can be used like &quot;joy&quot;." CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:54:17.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9832" PostId="4817" Score="0" Text="A recent British Library 'Medieval and Earlier' blog showed a Psappho fragment. Post a comment with your question; give it a try." CreationDate="2017-07-14T16:53:06.220" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="9833" PostId="4817" Score="1" Text="@Hugh for the record, if you were referring to [this](http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-of-sappho.html?_ga=2.96396572.1848882319.1500051613-1192927162.1500051613), the scan there is already in my possession, and is [P.Oxy. 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_7)." CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:05:57.790" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9834" PostId="4817" Score="1" Text="Also, according to [here](http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4----de0--0-1l--1-en-50---20-help-sappho--00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&amp;a=d&amp;c=POxy&amp;cl=search&amp;d=HASH018aae9e7b7dc65ae8f99ba9), the P.Oxy. I'm after is at the Bodleian library, Oxford, whereas [here](http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-en-50---20-about-0007--00031-001-0-0utfZz-8-00&amp;a=d&amp;c=POxy&amp;cl=search&amp;d=HASH66d2209e4ce504d692ae08) it says P.Oxy. 7 is at the British Library, London, so I guess there is no point trying the comment route: [cont.]" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:08:02.033" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9835" PostId="4817" Score="0" Text="[cont.] wrong institution. Is there any Bodleian library blog I can try to comment on?" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:08:26.663" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9836" PostId="4817" Score="1" Text="Maybe I should wait till [this](http://status.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/digital/) is back online and then have a look at it." CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:10:24.270" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9837" PostId="4817" Score="0" Text="Apparently there is a scan [online](http://clp.classics.ox.ac.uk/v0010/1231.htm), but accessing it requires credentials I do not have and have no idea how to get ahold of." CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:13:19.263" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9838" PostId="4819" Score="4" Text="This is indeed the classical way to write the date, and I would recommend the classicla form. If anyone wants more details, [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) might be interesting. I would add that if Iveta ever needs to read the date out loud, it's *ante diem sextum Idus Iunias anno Domini bis millesimo decimo*." CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:09:49.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9839" PostId="4819" Score="2" Text="Good, but (I must have said this before sometime) if you are using the Roman style you ought to use the Julian (not Gregorian) calendar, where the equivalent is a.d. VII Kal. Iun.(26 May)." CreationDate="2017-07-14T19:48:43.677" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9846" PostId="4819" Score="1" Text="@fdb, that's too pedantic for words! How would anyone know whether it was Julian or Gregorian?  Anyway, it wasn't until 525 that Dionysius Exiguus ('Little Denis') worked out the now-accepted year in which the Christian Era should be considered to have begun. We might, of course, be really classical (and in the absence of consuls) write AUC MMDCCLXIII." CreationDate="2017-07-15T08:28:20.590" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10299" PostId="4820" Score="0" Text="So I take it that this is open for debate, because the letter is uncertain and both completions are supportable. But there is still an uncertain alpha vanishing into a lacuna, perhaps it was half cut away? And finally, the fragments were put together on the basis of λίμενος joining together, but already L-P showed that this way the ἄμ of ἄμβροτε would not fit the lacuna between the two papyrus fragments, so in the end the two should probably _not_ be put together, right?" CreationDate="2017-08-08T22:10:14.063" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9845" PostId="4824" Score="1" Text="I would add that Greek tends to favor compound words far more than Latin, so it is not surprising that an idiomatic Latin expression takes up several words." CreationDate="2017-07-15T07:45:02.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9849" PostId="4824" Score="2" Text="I think Aquinas used an Arabic-derived translation of Aristotle. So he would not have translated this word directly from Greek." CreationDate="2017-07-15T10:19:26.010" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9847" PostId="4825" Score="1" Text="Compounds are very abundant in Sanskrit, and also in Persian." CreationDate="2017-07-15T09:00:16.670" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9860" PostId="4825" Score="1" Text="What you're talking about is compounding, not agglutination (which is a type of inflectional strategy; IE languages aren't particularly agglutinating)." CreationDate="2017-07-15T19:48:36.373" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9894" PostId="4825" Score="2" Text="I doubt there's a significant connection, because Greek philosophical terminology isn't actually very compounding. The common philosophical terms I can think of aren't compounds (nous, noumenon, phainomenon, telos, arete, nomos, physis) or at best are compounds formed with a prefix, which is something that Latin and other IE languages do equally commonly (entelecheia, episteme, anamnesis, hypokeimenon)." CreationDate="2017-07-17T23:42:50.757" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9916" PostId="4825" Score="0" Text="I would suggest this might fit better on https://linguistics.stackexchange.com because it invites comparison with other languages." CreationDate="2017-07-19T21:34:19.523" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9850" PostId="4826" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! If you haven't already, I warmly suggest taking a look at our [tour]. I made some edits to your question, but feel free to edit it further if you want to. And please leave a comment if something needs more clarification." CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:23:00.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9852" PostId="4827" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot Joonas. This did clarify it and I will indeed look at the site you linked." CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:56:18.677" UserId="1823" />
  <row Id="9863" PostId="4831" Score="0" Text="I am glad to learn that it is *medium*. I thought the word's primary meaning might have interfered with a secondary meaning of this sort. (The reason we don't say that water is the *middle* of sound propagation because *middle* too strongly suggests a position.)" CreationDate="2017-07-16T06:28:47.110" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="9856" PostId="4832" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you know if there is an older variant (classical, Koine, or some such Greek) of that word used similarly? Although not stated explicitly, the question is about older Greek, since modern Greek questions are actually off topic." CreationDate="2017-07-15T17:56:34.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9858" PostId="4832" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta to my (personal) knowledge, the word is not necessarily a modern one (except for modern greek dropping the final «ν»). Sources to support this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%83%CE%BF#Greek , http://foundalis.com/lan/grkn_neu.htm#patt_on" CreationDate="2017-07-15T18:23:05.897" UserId="1824" />
  <row Id="9859" PostId="4832" Score="0" Text="The word certainly existed in ancient Greek, but at least according to [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dme%2Fsos) it doesn't seem to have been used in the OP's specific sense." CreationDate="2017-07-15T19:38:55.980" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9887" PostId="4832" Score="0" Text="@TKR I can neither confirm nor deny :) To my knowledge it's at least &quot;katharevousa&quot; Greek. It's also worth noting that the latin word &quot;medium&quot;, or even the translation &quot;the _means_ by which&quot;, also derive from words implying 'halfness' or 'averageness', implying it's the right translation and has evolved alongside. But, yes, I cannot confirm that the _concept_ of &quot;medium&quot; was expressed by that word in latin / ancient greek times." CreationDate="2017-07-16T20:57:30.907" UserId="1824" />
  <row Id="9861" PostId="4834" Score="0" Text="Perhaps *occidens, occidentis*." CreationDate="2017-07-15T23:40:40.313" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9868" PostId="4834" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Declining? That's a good suggestion; consider expanding it into an answer." CreationDate="2017-07-16T16:55:33.950" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9877" PostId="4834" Score="0" Text="My sense is that at least Greek (less sure about Latin) wouldn't use the same word for literal fading away (e.g. sunlight) and metaphorical decline. English metaphors rarely translate well into Greek." CreationDate="2017-07-16T18:40:30.157" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9878" PostId="4834" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's fair, and to be expected. Either one (or better yet both) would make a good answer." CreationDate="2017-07-16T18:58:13.743" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9880" PostId="4834" Score="0" Text="Are you familiar with [Woodhouse's English-Greek dictionary](https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/Woodhouse/)? Looking up &quot;fade&quot;, &quot;decline&quot; etc. there will give you some Greek options." CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:16:22.423" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9864" PostId="4836" Score="0" Text="Thanks. That makes perfect sense. What threw me off was &quot;κεῖμαι (Contracted)&quot; shown in the Wiktionary page (kindly follow the link for κεῖμαι at the top of the question). Is that simply an error?" CreationDate="2017-07-16T09:21:34.183" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="9865" PostId="4836" Score="1" Text="@Catomic Looks like it." CreationDate="2017-07-16T16:45:16.360" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9882" PostId="4836" Score="0" Text="@Catomic. I'm not sure what the wiktionary page is basing that claim on. Perhaps it simply means that the ει in the verb's root itself is the result of earlier contraction. I don't know whether that's the case, though. Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this." CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:26:15.377" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="9889" PostId="4836" Score="1" Text="@Catomic you may want to check out the lexical tools at the Perseus Project: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kei%3Dmai&amp;la=greek&amp;can=kei%3Dmai0  (Wiki is convenient and often useful, but not entirely reliable. By contrast, Perseus gives you access to multiple lexicons, which include various forms and usages.)" CreationDate="2017-07-16T22:30:06.353" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9867" PostId="4837" Score="0" Text="*-tia* tended to be changed to *-cy* in English: compare *necromancy*, *clemency*. In recent borrowings the spelling remains but the pronunciation shifts, as in *dementia*. *-ti-* was generally not a stable sound." CreationDate="2017-07-16T16:53:39.377" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9879" PostId="4838" Score="1" Text="Btw παντί is &quot;to everyone&quot; (not &quot;everywhere&quot;); που here means something like &quot;I suppose&quot;." CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:12:47.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9881" PostId="4838" Score="0" Text="@TKR I was reading &quot;pantí -&gt; every&quot; and &quot;pou -&gt; (some)where&quot;, so &quot;pantí pou&quot; -&gt; &quot;everywhere&quot;." CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:24:23.323" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9883" PostId="4838" Score="0" Text="You're mistaken - it's in Campbell, p. 11" CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:31:10.553" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9884" PostId="4838" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. No I'm not: just imprecise. [Campbell](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb) p. 11 is in the &quot;life of Sappho&quot; section, which I didn't look in. Maybe Edmonds also put it in his &quot;life&quot; section? Let me look." CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:39:50.490" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="9886" PostId="4838" Score="1" Text="παντί is dative, so that reading is impossible. που is usually an epistemic hedge word rather than a literal locative; &quot;everywhere&quot; is πανταχοῦ." CreationDate="2017-07-16T20:56:35.840" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9890" PostId="4838" Score="0" Text="@TKR you may want to post your first comment as an answer - imho it's spot on." CreationDate="2017-07-16T23:12:44.843" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="9888" PostId="4840" Score="2" Text="The gerund of the Italian verb *morire* (from Latin *mori*) is indeed *morendo*. [This verb is somewhat irregular in Italian](http://www.italian-verbs.com/italian-verbs/conjugation.php?parola=morire), unlike in Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-16T21:56:28.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9891" PostId="4840" Score="0" Text="+1! Where are the *cadentia verba* from, for reference?" CreationDate="2017-07-17T02:58:01.733" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9892" PostId="4847" Score="1" Text="This looks like an interesting source. Do I understand the linked page correctly if I interpret that the audio has to be ordered on CDs and there are no free samples? It might be good to add such practical details in the answer." CreationDate="2017-07-17T20:03:15.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9896" PostId="4847" Score="0" Text="Or, you know, go to a Catholic service in Latin and listen." CreationDate="2017-07-18T09:12:35.830" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="9897" PostId="4847" Score="1" Text="@OrangeDog, if you attend an extraordinary form mass, you will hear relatively little Latin for your efforts, as the priest is under no obligation to be heard and nearly half of the prayers are intentionally spoken in a low voice.  An ordinary form mass in Latin, if you can find it, will likely be said by a priest who has very little training in Latin.  I would still go, but not for the sake of hearing Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-18T13:42:30.590" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="9898" PostId="4847" Score="0" Text="All priests should have equivalent Latin training, and those that say Mass in Latin have the most practice. If you want to hear how Ecclesiastical Latin is spoken in your country, a Latin ordinary form Mass is the best place." CreationDate="2017-07-18T13:45:14.170" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="10864" PostId="4847" Score="0" Text="http://wheelockslatin.com/chapters/introduction/introduction.html" CreationDate="2017-09-29T18:24:03.047" UserId="1348" />
  <row Id="9900" PostId="4848" Score="0" Text="Thanks for tracking that down.  It quickly led me to a link with the Greek. *(I took the liberty of adding it to your prompt answer;)*" CreationDate="2017-07-18T20:19:19.727" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="13784" PostId="4851" Score="0" Text="Since that latest debacle, Key bank officers have been personae non gratae at headquarters. -or- Due to what we perceive as a fundamental lack of reliability and responsibility your agents should consider themselves personae non gratae effective immediately. It's really the maneuvering in the English sentence structure that can reduce the issue to simple pluralization." CreationDate="2018-04-16T12:18:46.937" UserId="2566" />
  <row Id="9899" PostId="4852" Score="0" Text="I'm not very easy about using _firma_. I'd much prefer _negotium_ (_negotium non gratum_), which I think would indicate directly that [I] didn't want to do business." CreationDate="2017-07-18T16:52:41.100" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22633" PostId="4853" Score="4" Text="I think you may have the wrong idea here. The [English] saying is based on the idea that a horse's age can be judged by its teeth. If you are given a horse, it's very impolite to look in its mouth to see the value of your gift. A closely related saying is _take what you're given, and be glad of it._" CreationDate="2019-09-28T11:51:30.093" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9911" PostId="4854" Score="0" Text="See also: [Quomodo in Latinum vertitur “alternative facts”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2465/118)" CreationDate="2017-07-19T19:24:45.423" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9902" PostId="4855" Score="0" Text="There is a related older question about [bad news](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/982/79)." CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:35:37.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9912" PostId="4864" Score="1" Text="If you want to complain to a community manager about someone downvoting your answer, I recommend against using a fragmentary Latin text on a lead tablet. Other aspects of the method might work, though... (Joking aside, thanks!)" CreationDate="2017-07-19T21:01:28.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9914" PostId="4865" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this answer.  I am quite attracted to the idea that there could be a link between &quot;steely eyed&quot; in the sense of canniness derived from experience and analysis, and the steely eyed, armed and armored goddess of wisdom." CreationDate="2017-07-19T21:28:02.473" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="9917" PostId="4865" Score="1" Text="Btw, the &quot;owls&quot; in γλαῦκ᾽ Ἀθήναζε are [Athenian drachmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owl_of_Athena), which were engraved with the likeness of an owl." CreationDate="2017-07-19T22:38:38.273" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="9918" PostId="4865" Score="1" Text="Can you add specific references to &quot;steely&quot;, considered that [steely-eyed](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steely-eyed) doesn't have to do with color?" CreationDate="2017-07-20T01:04:15.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10010" PostId="4865" Score="0" Text="@cmw I suspect Draconis was referencing that steel, particularly as used in weapons, has a blue-gray color." CreationDate="2017-07-24T23:26:07.950" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="10017" PostId="4865" Score="0" Text="@cmw That is indeed my mistake; I've always thought &quot;steely-eyed&quot; referred to a blue-gray color. I'll look into the origin of the English term more." CreationDate="2017-07-25T02:28:16.927" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9921" PostId="4867" Score="2" Text="This looks a little ungrammatical to me. I would either use *debere* instead of *debet* (as an ACI, the accusative being *removeri*) or add *ut* between the first two words and separate the parenthetical *ut credo* with commas from both sides. Perhaps a conjunction like *quod* after *credo* could also work, but then I'd be inclined to change *debet* to conjunctive." CreationDate="2017-07-20T17:22:19.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9930" PostId="4867" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Much to learn yet. :)" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:00:44.710" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="9932" PostId="4867" Score="1" Text="So have we all, and that's why we're here. :)" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:44:41.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9923" PostId="4868" Score="0" Text="So is *abi in malem crucem* somewhat equivalent to Greek *βαλλ' εις κορακας* &quot;throw yourself to the crows&quot; or *εις κακιστον* &quot;go to the worst place/go to hell&quot;? Those two are quite familiar from Aristophanes but I didn't know similar phrases appeared in Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-20T19:39:18.893" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9929" PostId="4868" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I am entirely ignorant on Greek, so I cannot help you with that. :(" CreationDate="2017-07-21T10:59:10.027" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="34091" PostId="4869" Score="2" Text="I think it's important to keep in mind any date given by Roman historians that predates ~390 BCE, when Brennus destroyed most of Rome's historical records, is likely to be made up by Varro." CreationDate="2021-07-11T13:20:59.733" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34092" PostId="4869" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon Good point! And years weren't named with global and consistent numbers like today, so it might be hard to observe any simultaneity. Perhaps we should have a separate question: &quot;What is the earliest pair of events (that are not causally connected) in the ancient world whose simultaneity was observed by the ancient Romans or Greeks?&quot;" CreationDate="2021-07-11T13:27:30.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9924" PostId="4870" Score="2" Text="Interesting question! If the list has only two names, the situation is easier in both languages. I assume you mean something like this? &quot;He read the poems of Catullus, Juvenal, Horace, and Virgil. He liked the poems of the latter two better than Juvenal's.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-07-20T20:25:08.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9925" PostId="4870" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure I get your example. &quot;Latter two&quot; must refer to a group consisting of more than two, whereas you only have two. You would say &quot;He liked *their* poetry better than Juvenal's.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-07-21T00:20:11.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9926" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="You could also say, &quot;He did not like Juvenal's poetry, but did like *theirs*,&quot; which would refer to the set-group you outlined in the original sentence. There is no word in Latin that specifically refers to the latter *two*." CreationDate="2017-07-21T01:29:47.413" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9927" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="I might say *horum amborum* 'of both the latter', but I've no idea what a Roman'd say." CreationDate="2017-07-21T03:19:52.137" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9931" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Right, *amborum* would also work, but not if you're giving a a list of ten and trying to specify just the last two. You would need more than one word there." CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:43:33.937" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9936" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer That's why I said *horum amborum.* The *horum* is there to distinguish 'both **the closest**'." CreationDate="2017-07-21T17:23:38.677" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9962" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Right, right. I was commenting on that because OP had asked for a single word." CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:36:17.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="9964" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Ah, yeah, I missed your *also.* Makes sense!" CreationDate="2017-07-22T23:24:55.420" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9965" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="@Anonym All good! Turns out that 590 characters is hardly conducive to clarity online! :)" CreationDate="2017-07-22T23:43:54.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10082" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the comments. I made quite substantial changes to the question, distorting it a bit." CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:50:29.083" UserId="1743" />
  <row Id="10087" PostId="4870" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta  Your proposed word _twatter_, though offered with excellent intentions, is — how shall I put it? — in rather unfortunate coincidence with an English vulgarity." CreationDate="2017-07-27T18:29:47.740" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9928" PostId="4871" Score="1" Text="Are you sure that the phrase doesn't actually refer to a donkey (ass) rather than buttocks (ass [Am.Eng.]/arse [Br.Eng.])? Honestly, I have no idea. A [question about the origin of the phrase](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/17728/what-is-the-etymology-of-kick-ass-and-take-names) on English Language &amp; Usage claims the phrase dates to the 1940s; but the phrase given there ('having as much chance as a one-legged man in a mule/butt/ass-kicking contest') is a bit problematic: the fact that it can use 'mule,' 'butt,' or 'ass' suggests some earlier confusion of 'ass' vs. 'ass'/'arse.'" CreationDate="2017-07-21T06:43:41.097" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38873" PostId="4871" Score="0" Text="&quot;I came, I saw, I kicked ass&quot;.. is from the classic game Duke Nukem 3D.." CreationDate="2022-07-14T20:33:59.927" UserId="11290" />
  <row Id="38874" PostId="4871" Score="0" Text="@Ramdileo.sys, it's a fair bit older than that." CreationDate="2022-07-14T21:10:50.090" UserId="1797" />
  <row Id="10476" PostId="4872" Score="2" Text="Not sure British *&quot;kick up the backside&quot;* has quite the same sense as the American *&quot;kick ass&quot;*. Eg &quot;I'm going to kick ass with my presentation!&quot; would mean overawe, succeed brilliantly, **not** chastise someone, physically or verbally. Not sure there is a true British English equivalent." CreationDate="2017-08-23T13:15:31.820" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="9934" PostId="4873" Score="0" Text="Seconding *veni, vidi, verberavi*." CreationDate="2017-07-21T16:08:18.463" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9937" PostId="4873" Score="0" Text="Definitely in the spirit of the original quote.  (Very Hans and Franz;)  Nice work!" CreationDate="2017-07-21T18:48:15.883" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11667" PostId="4873" Score="2" Text="A fun version that reverses the meaning: *veni, vidi, vapulavi*" CreationDate="2017-12-11T20:47:06.210" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="9938" PostId="4874" Score="0" Text="A good survey of this debated question: https://www.dwds.de/wb/Violine" CreationDate="2017-07-21T22:03:27.217" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="9939" PostId="4874" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Very Interesting! So Pfeifer (whom I did not know) thinks the relation to vitula is unlikely. But he doesn't go any farther back than Old Provençal. I'm sure there are more etymological dictionaries that have some idea about this, though. Edit: I see Philippa's entry is more elaborate, and mentions more sources: http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/viool1" CreationDate="2017-07-21T23:03:29.590" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="9940" PostId="4875" Score="1" Text="Hmm, I think your second example is a bit different, since *the last time* seems more like a quasi-conjunction. I'd probably translate it with a construction mirroring English *I can't remember when last I was here.*" CreationDate="2017-07-21T23:25:44.017" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9950" PostId="4875" Score="0" Text="Greek *καιρός* was borrowed into French, but unfortunately I see no attestation of *_caerus_ in Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-22T15:02:13.883" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9980" PostId="4875" Score="0" Text="I assume you are aware of the suffix in _septies_, seven times?" CreationDate="2017-07-24T16:10:04.543" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9981" PostId="4875" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That was implicit in the list of numerals. *Septie(n)s* comes further down the list. There are also *quotie(n)s* and *totie(n)s*." CreationDate="2017-07-24T17:11:08.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10025" PostId="4875" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta  When dealing with idiom, it's sometimes possible to find almost literally the same phrase in another language, or something obviously close in meaning and intent: e.g. *rem acu tetigisti*, a well-known adaptation from Plautus. However, difficulty very often  arises in transforming idiom into something suitable (for instance, without context, your second example is ambiguous), a fact illustrated by the answers given." CreationDate="2017-07-25T08:58:56.640" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9960" PostId="4876" Score="1" Text="Thanks! The word is broad, but the meaning I.B.1 looks like an excellent fit." CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:29:43.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9968" PostId="4876" Score="2" Text="@Rafael  I don't follow this: maybe I'm missing something essential. Can you show us by example just how _vicis_ can be used in each of Joonas's two examples?" CreationDate="2017-07-23T05:52:03.273" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="9976" PostId="4876" Score="1" Text="What would I do if I needed a nominative singular?" CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:18:25.893" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9979" PostId="4876" Score="1" Text="Sorry not to give a longer answer at first: I was in my phone. I'll try to expand a bit, though I'm not certain I'll be able to address the question completely. I'm working on it." CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:16:20.937" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="9982" PostId="4876" Score="1" Text="Suomi24 is a discussion forum where opinions are often more strong than well argued. In this discussion someone asks what *prima vice* means in old church documents and others answer, offering &quot;rich&quot; and &quot;first time (of Holy Communion)&quot;." CreationDate="2017-07-24T17:16:33.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9942" PostId="4878" Score="1" Text="Fantastic that you tracked down the original Latin inscription! The whole approach is great." CreationDate="2017-07-22T03:32:46.887" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="9958" PostId="4878" Score="0" Text="I don't know how to look deep into someone's eyes in Latin either; this would make a good question here. I'd phrase that as  *aspice vultum pulchrum et oculos eius profundos* instead to work around the dubious part. I've used this as a Latin translation before, but there might be something better." CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:16:41.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10021" PostId="4880" Score="4" Text="@hexadecimal Let me try to clarify the point Alex B. and sumelic are making. The stem in *oriundus* is *ori-*, and it ends in *i*. However, if the stem ends in *u*, *u̯*, or *qu*, then *-undus* is not possible; *-endus* is the only option. The only exception to this rule is *secundus* (&lt; *sequundus*?). Here the stem ends in *qu*. The rule only concerns verbs with stem ending in *u*, *u̯*, or *qu*, so *oriri* (like most other verbs) is not covered by this rule. For example, this rule prohibits *loquundum* but not *trahundum*. Is this clearer?" CreationDate="2017-07-25T05:23:48.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9963" PostId="4884" Score="1" Text="For reference, the [Apostles' Creed developed over the course of centuries](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/46371/21576), and the &quot;conceptus est&quot; part was incorporated rather late ([according to Schaff](https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXlTAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA53), about AD 550).  But this language is similar to that found in Jerome's Vulgate (Luke 1:31, Matthew 1:18)." CreationDate="2017-07-22T22:01:22.497" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="9959" PostId="4886" Score="0" Text="perhaps something like *cum oculos imos video*" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:44:52.307" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="9966" PostId="4889" Score="2" Text="Curiously, *nōlī* has been semantically bleached to the point that *nōlī velle* is attested for the actual &quot;be unwilling&quot; meaning." CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:36:49.517" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9967" PostId="4889" Score="1" Text="And even more curiously, the only &quot;imperative&quot; uses I've found use the second person subjunctive *velīs* rather than *_volī_…" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:42:32.857" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10044" PostId="4889" Score="0" Text="Related question: [What is the imperative of velle?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2369/79)" CreationDate="2017-07-26T14:10:48.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23467" PostId="4889" Score="0" Text="&quot;nōlī velle&quot; would be redundant, like &quot;non veli velle&quot;." CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:57:28.690" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="10000" PostId="4892" Score="0" Text="For the verb root of alex-, see the LSJ entries for ἀλέξω and then ἄλαλκε." CreationDate="2017-07-24T21:50:34.893" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="10002" PostId="4892" Score="1" Text="Also, according to the StarLing PIE database, [the root *alek- is found only in Greek, Indo-Iranian and Germanic](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&amp;basename=%2fdata%2fie%2fpiet&amp;text_number=1293&amp;root=config). Unfortunately for little Alexander, there is no direct descendant in Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-24T22:04:15.480" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="9975" PostId="4893" Score="1" Text="[Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=a&amp;p=65&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) gives different PIE roots for these two words." CreationDate="2017-07-24T00:29:42.087" UserDisplayName="ab2" />
  <row Id="9977" PostId="4895" Score="0" Text="Is *vicissitas* attested? I'm only familiar with *vicissitudo*. (Though both of those do feel extremely clunky, and I agree with your suggestion to avoid them.)" CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:19:56.763" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="9978" PostId="4895" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I couldn't find _vicissitas_ [on Perseus](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/search3t?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;word=vicissitas&amp;OUTPUT=conc&amp;CONJUNCT=PHRASE&amp;DISTANCE=3&amp;author=&amp;title=&amp;POLESPAN=5&amp;THMPRTLIMIT=1&amp;KWSS=1&amp;KWSSPRLIM=500&amp;trsortorder=author%2C+title&amp;editor=&amp;pubdate=&amp;language=&amp;shrtcite=&amp;filename=&amp;genre=&amp;sortorder=author%2C+title&amp;dgdivhead=&amp;dgdivtype=&amp;dgsubdivwho=&amp;dgsubdivn=&amp;dgsubdivtag=&amp;dgsubdivtype=). It does get some hits [on Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vicissitas&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=bks&amp;biw=1005&amp;bih=735), though." CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:23:52.297" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="10018" PostId="4898" Score="1" Text="That is extraordinarily helpful Hugh and certainly seems to fit the events of that time. Duncan was raised from birth in the court of Edward I of England.  He would have had little control over his location but Robert the Bruce would have been very keen to persuade him to return to Scotland as the Fife's held a particularly important place in tradition there.  Around 1314 Duncan secretly travels to Scotland and Robert restores him his title and lands. Would you be able to translate the long preamble you refer to. I would be happy to credit you in any publication that may result." CreationDate="2017-07-25T04:04:24.340" UserId="1842" />
  <row Id="10152" PostId="4898" Score="0" Text="The nearest word that fits the context for *Tenandriis* is *Teinlanda, -ae.* Also, I read *Wardagia* for *warda,* because the other two are financial matters. Both are given in an Index of Latin  law terms by Thomas Morell 1783." CreationDate="2017-07-30T18:30:42.723" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10164" PostId="4898" Score="0" Text="Du Cange suggests *'Villicus'* -owner of a *'Villa'* for ^Tenandria.* See http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/TENANDRIUS" CreationDate="2017-07-31T15:50:50.100" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10024" PostId="4899" Score="3" Text="No time for a full answer now (or anytime soon), but a quick scan of my corpus, consisting of Vergilius, Ovidius, and Catullus, reveals that (1) hoc is always heavy, regardless of case and (2) nobis/vobis are always heavy. My corpus doesn't cover those, but the interesting thing would be to scan authors from other time periods: my guess is that pre-classical texts will show comparable consistency to the classical period and that at some point in the post-classical texts, opinions will start to shift." CreationDate="2017-07-25T08:57:00.763" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="10035" PostId="4901" Score="1" Text="The rule is qu (effectively kʷ) lost it labialization before u/o, so secundus is a regular development. Re: equus see the link from Allen" CreationDate="2017-07-26T02:37:40.490" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10047" PostId="4901" Score="0" Text="Interestingly enough, this was the continuation of a rule from PIE (the &quot;boukólos rule&quot;), which also remained productive for quite some time in Germanic." CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:50:38.183" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10036" PostId="4902" Score="2" Text="A very interesting question, but I'd add a caveat. When doing comparisons like this, please check that the English version contains the same text as the Latin original. If it also has an introduction, references, and an extensive critical commentary, that will multiply the length." CreationDate="2017-07-26T10:03:30.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10037" PostId="4902" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I removed that bit of course (although I cannot be sure I did it correctly)." CreationDate="2017-07-26T11:59:05.097" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10042" PostId="4902" Score="4" Text="It's not classical Latin, but take a look at [this analysis of the many translations of Augustine's *Confessions*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52656/21576) – it includes a side-by-side comparison of a passage, showing that the length in the English translation is highly dependent on the translator's style." CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:51:54.327" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="10576" PostId="4902" Score="0" Text="Even at a basic level, it should be expected to grow by quite a bit if we're only looking at words, but problems arise if we look at actual length: &quot;I have&quot; is twice the number of words as *habeo* but only a single character longer (including the space); *we have* has the same number of characters as *habemus*." CreationDate="2017-09-04T21:26:28.563" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10038" PostId="4903" Score="0" Text="Another quote favoring the _assumption_ hypothesis: *ubi eum crucifixerunt et cum eo alios duos **hinc et hinc**, medium autem Iesum* (Ioh 19,18) - one at each side" CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:16:14.030" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10040" PostId="4903" Score="0" Text="*Seriatim* ? that means 'in single file,'  'one after another.'" CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:41:41.193" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10039" PostId="4904" Score="1" Text="Good question! Regarding the _Sanctus_ the liturgic prayer is a mosaic of quotes from different sources in the Scripture, not intended to form a grammatical unit. Note that the following verses _Hosanna in excelsis/benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini_, don't match either. There is an _est_ implied: the Lord, God Sabaoth (of the armies) _is_ three times Saint. As for the _agnus Dei_, I'm certain there must be a good reason: the texts come from a time when Latin was still alive! Just an idea (incomplete if at all true): perhaps it is seen as a title, since John the Baptist called him that." CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:22:21.173" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10050" PostId="4904" Score="0" Text="The vocative is used when talking about God because it is an appeal or exhortation to the person or entity who can understands us (review use of vocative) (talking about of God can also use the nominative if those words have no appealing function). Agnus Dei: Depends on what is meant by Lamb of God but this was often referred to as sacramental bread (I suppose it can refer to other things), therefore in many cases does not refer to an entity that we appeal." CreationDate="2017-07-26T16:19:02.357" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="10051" PostId="4904" Score="4" Text="Interesting to note is that the Greek text has the same vacillation between nominative and vocative: &quot;Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πατρός, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.&quot; This is especially noteworthy since the nominative was just used for &quot;son&quot;: &quot;Κύριε Υἱὲ μονογενές.&quot; Latin too, switches from &quot;fili&quot; first to &quot;filius&quot; afterwards..." CreationDate="2017-07-26T16:21:45.023" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10052" PostId="4904" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Regarding the edit, I appreciate the thought, but the last line is a joke at my own expense: of course it's absurd to think that a grammatical error like this could have persisted for well over a millenium, in text written by native speakers." CreationDate="2017-07-26T17:39:08.937" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="10053" PostId="4904" Score="1" Text="@hexadecimal the Lamb of God is Jesus. But the sacramental bread (after consecration) is Jesus too. See my edit." CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:06:34.777" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10058" PostId="4904" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Ok mainly refers to Jesus, because in the original sacrifices of lambs ... sacrifice of Jesus ... sacramental bread. Okay. I said it because this words of the question seem to me to be said when blessing the bread. Anyway, I do not see anything irregular or that requires explanation in those words beyond clarifying the functions of the vocative that does not have to be used obligatorily in those words or in the second part of the question." CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:50:09.120" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="18074" PostId="4904" Score="1" Text="The Hebrew version of the Sanctus (_qadosh, qadosh, qadosh, adonai tz'va'ot; m'lo kol ha'aretz k'vodo_) has the third person suffix _-o_ on _k'vod_ ('glory') not the second. So it means &quot;The whole world is full of **his** glory." CreationDate="2019-01-09T00:25:02.320" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="10062" PostId="4906" Score="3" Text="I support the &quot;nominative used as a vocative&quot; view.  I think &quot;Agne Dei&quot; would have sounded a bit strange since, unlike &quot;Domine&quot;, people are not accustomed to addressing lambs.  (The same applies to the Greek.)" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:29:57.807" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10063" PostId="4906" Score="1" Text="@varro: I'm not sure people would have any trouble using the vocative for lambs since it's [well documented](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_%28Alice's_Adventures_in_Wonderland%29) that it was standard practice to use it for mice ;-)" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:46:29.677" UserId="1756" />
  <row Id="10065" PostId="4906" Score="0" Text="@psmears: point taken :)" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:54:05.137" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10066" PostId="4906" Score="0" Text="So does the example of the Gloria suggest that the titles *Agnus Dei* and *Filius Patris* are essentially used as set phrases?" CreationDate="2017-07-26T22:10:55.810" UserId="602" />
  <row Id="10069" PostId="4906" Score="0" Text="@chrylis: I don't think either one is a &quot;set phrase&quot; in the sense that they are indeclinable.  Given a suitable context (and I admit, examples do not come immediately to mind), they could be declined, but &quot;Filius Patris&quot; was enough of a set phrase that it sounded better that &quot;Fili Patris&quot; as a form of address (especially, as here, it immediately followed &quot;Agus Dei&quot;)." CreationDate="2017-07-26T23:49:05.003" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10070" PostId="4906" Score="1" Text="@chrylis:addendum:  looking on the whole phrase quoted above, *Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, ...*, I think the juxtaposition of *Agnus Dei* with *Filius Patris* was the deciding factor on the preference for *Filius Patris* over *Fili Patris*." CreationDate="2017-07-27T00:04:57.833" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14686" PostId="4906" Score="1" Text="The nominative in apposition is supported by the Greek equivalent which @brianpck cited above." CreationDate="2018-07-01T10:54:28.100" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="10045" PostId="4907" Score="3" Text="It should be _silvae_ and _exercituum_ (in plural,) if I am not mistaken" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:36:01.310" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10046" PostId="4907" Score="1" Text="In your first example *exercitus* is the correct  4thConj. genitive singular, If you decide the second example should be singular keep that same gen sing. *Silve* is the medieval nom pl of *silva.* As Rafael says, it would be *silvae* in classical Latin, He's right about *exercituum* too, for 4th gen. pl." CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:49:18.223" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10048" PostId="4907" Score="0" Text="@Rafael @Hugh Thank you for comments. Should translation for `army` be `exercitus` in plural or in singular however?:-)" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:54:59.930" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10049" PostId="4907" Score="1" Text="@PrzemysławP I think _army_ as uncountable is an English-specific idiom. Just from intuition, it makes more sense to me to use the plural." CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:57:29.057" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10054" PostId="4908" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer. It seems however *silve* is acceptable, according to Hugh's comment under question and [this](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/advanced/popup/grammar-table.htm): singular: *carta*, plural: *carte*" CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:36:06.440" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10055" PostId="4908" Score="0" Text="I can't give a technical argument, but it just doesn't sound right to me to use _exercitus_ as a singular noun unless the sentence is referred to a specific army." CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:38:32.217" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10056" PostId="4908" Score="0" Text="@PrzemysławP The form *silve* might indeed be possible in later Latin, but certainly not in classical Latin. Unfortunately I'm quite ignorant of post-classical developments, so I can't comment much. I don't know if *silve* ever became the only option. But this is a minor detail, and depends on the Latin course you are taking or other material you are using." CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:39:34.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10057" PostId="4908" Score="0" Text="@Rafael In Finnish I would certainly use the singular in this situation (when referring to armies in general), although the plural would be possible too. It's no proof that it should be the same way in Latin, of course. I don't know what's idiomatic in Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:42:08.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10059" PostId="4909" Score="3" Text="I'd say that's fine (except that the perfect of *conspicio* is *conspexi*), but there's no reason not to mirror the English; i.e., *sub arboribus ambulans, id conspexi.*" CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:59:03.670" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10064" PostId="4911" Score="2" Text="Why not use the feminine, as in _rogatio_ apta?" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:49:08.647" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10072" PostId="4911" Score="0" Text="@Rafael The adjective *aptus/ineptus* with a [question word](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1320/79) sounds like a good idea. Can you give that suggestion as an answer?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T03:52:55.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10074" PostId="4911" Score="0" Text="I'm still hesitant about _aptus_. It is good, but I wonder if there is something better. Would a Roman understand what we mean by _ad hoc_?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T12:46:34.173" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10076" PostId="4911" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I think using *ad hoc* in this meaning would be a little... *ad hoc*. I don't think a Roman would understand it in its modern (English) meaning. It could work with some other words to support it. I'm hesitant about *aptus* too, and that's why I asked. Perhaps *gratus* would work?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:08:15.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10079" PostId="4911" Score="1" Text="I decided to collect the suggestions from the comments into a CW answer. Feel free to edit it if something new comes to your mind." CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:32:16.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10067" PostId="4912" Score="2" Text="Hmmm? *Ambulam?*" CreationDate="2017-07-26T22:17:01.630" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10073" PostId="4912" Score="0" Text="Oops! That was neither _ambulo_ nor _ambulabam_.  Edited." CreationDate="2017-07-27T05:37:46.467" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10071" PostId="4914" Score="3" Text="The Otho/Utho ambiguity fits with an Etruscan origin, as the Etruscan language didn't distinguish those sounds." CreationDate="2017-07-27T02:00:48.193" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10110" PostId="4914" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Ah, I'm not surprised!" CreationDate="2017-07-28T15:19:45.453" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10171" PostId="4914" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the run-down. Without a definite etymology, I'm going to keep this open for a bit longer, though, hoping someone will know something further." CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:39:10.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10174" PostId="4914" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Naturally! It's not exactly an answer." CreationDate="2017-07-31T20:18:03.707" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10176" PostId="4914" Score="1" Text="Well, sometimes &quot;we don't know&quot; is an acceptable answer!" CreationDate="2017-07-31T22:33:34.480" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10187" PostId="4914" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Fair enough!" CreationDate="2017-08-01T11:50:20.973" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10094" PostId="4916" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! One thing though: according accepted answer for question in second link and material linked there your point 5. would be true for predicative adjectives. Here however it seems like adjectives used are attributive and gender should match gender of closest noun? Or am I mistaken?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T21:08:06.397" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10095" PostId="4916" Score="1" Text="@PrzemysławP You are right! I get confused with this repeatedly. I'll try to remember to edit it tomorrow; now I should go to bed instead." CreationDate="2017-07-27T21:09:53.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10106" PostId="4916" Score="1" Text="@PrzemysławP I updated the fifth point. I realized that *ille* is not an adjective at all. I'm actually not sure what the rule would be here, but this case is simple." CreationDate="2017-07-28T11:36:42.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10075" PostId="4917" Score="0" Text="This is a fun one! It's a little difficult to make the distinction between *nĭtens* and *nītens* in writing, but not impossible." CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:02:19.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10080" PostId="4917" Score="1" Text="This is the best thing" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:46:19.507" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="10081" PostId="4917" Score="3" Text="I was going to post a finger-wagging about how far-fetched the &quot;off-topic&quot; meaning was, but then I saw [meaning I.B.3 of *nitor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnitor1) and lost all composure :)" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:49:16.197" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10085" PostId="4917" Score="1" Text="I added macrons to show that the two are indeed marginally distinct; feel free to roll back if you don't like them." CreationDate="2017-07-27T17:46:47.070" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10107" PostId="4917" Score="1" Text="@brianpck To help (?) you get your composure back together, I decided to ask [a question about the meaning I.B.3 of *niiti*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4931/79)." CreationDate="2017-07-28T12:56:12.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10100" PostId="4918" Score="1" Text="Since Edmonds translates &quot;womb&quot;, he must take δολοφυν to be related to δελφύς. I think you're right about ποήσει ἀρμένα as &quot;suitable for the making&quot; (of children)." CreationDate="2017-07-28T04:12:35.333" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10084" PostId="4922" Score="8" Text="To add to this, Old Latin *du-* regularly changes to Classical Latin *b-;* e.g. *duellum* -&gt; *bellum* 'war'. This is why we have both *duo* 'two' (disyllabic) and *bis* 'twice', the latter from *duis* (monosyllabic)." CreationDate="2017-07-27T17:23:10.520" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10105" PostId="4922" Score="3" Text="@Anonym. To be more precise: IE *dw becomes Latin b in initial position only. IE *du remains du in Latin in all positions." CreationDate="2017-07-28T10:59:49.750" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10083" PostId="4924" Score="0" Text="Oh, I was far off. Thanks. Some points. Do you mean &quot;who in his...&quot;? Also, why is oxoniensibus translated as just Oxford? That is the dative, plural? So, in effect, the stone does not state why the commemoration. Maybe they run out of space and though it fairly obvious?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T17:12:40.653" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10089" PostId="4924" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho *ononiensibus* is an adjective agreeing with *lecturis*: it literally means &quot;Oxonian lectures.&quot; As for the &quot;why,&quot; the relative clause with *qui* seems representative enough, no?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T18:54:28.477" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10091" PostId="4924" Score="0" Text="I think OFM should be read in genitive here: _ordinis_, John Duns Scotus, _of the order of the lesser brothers_, who..." CreationDate="2017-07-27T19:11:55.507" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10093" PostId="4925" Score="3" Text="Perhaps a better known pair of Latin and Greek prefixes is super- and hyper-. Combining the two is a form of exaggeration." CreationDate="2017-07-27T20:46:00.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10098" PostId="4925" Score="2" Text="The reason *u* was kept in *duo* isn't frequency, but that this *u* was a vowel [u] rather than the consonant [w] as in *duellum*. Similarly for Greek δύο  vs. δι-." CreationDate="2017-07-28T03:58:34.930" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10101" PostId="4925" Score="0" Text="@TKR I thought it was analyzed as a vowel in *duellum* also (making the word trisyllabic)?" CreationDate="2017-07-28T04:50:10.957" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10103" PostId="4925" Score="1" Text="It's such a shame that the modern greek word for biscuit/cookie is &quot;μπισκότο&quot; (biscotto), not διμαγειρεμένος or something." CreationDate="2017-07-28T09:07:19.393" UserId="1854" />
  <row Id="10104" PostId="4925" Score="1" Text="duo is from the bisyllabic *duwo-. bis is from the monosyllabic *dwi-. These two forms both go back to proto-Indo-European. It is not about the relative frequency of the two words in Latin." CreationDate="2017-07-28T10:57:09.073" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10108" PostId="4925" Score="1" Text="It's hemidemisemiquaver, not hemisemidemiquaver." CreationDate="2017-07-28T14:01:17.350" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="10120" PostId="4925" Score="0" Text="*Duellum* is assumed to be bisyllabic; a change [dw] &gt; [b] is much more plausible than [du] &gt; [b]." CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:20:34.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10086" PostId="4926" Score="4" Text="The Egyptians and a plate bearing 'Cave Canem' have nothing to do with the question. Can you provide the reference from Pliny the Younger?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T18:25:26.640" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10088" PostId="4926" Score="0" Text="Are two jokes???" CreationDate="2017-07-27T18:43:52.300" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="10090" PostId="4926" Score="3" Text="Although Egyptian usage and the presence of guard dogs is somewhat related to the question (&quot;Did Romans use dogs in war?&quot;), I think @TomCotton is looking for an *explicit testimony* of their presence. Could you add the quotes from the sources you've indicated (especially Pliny!) that answer this question?" CreationDate="2017-07-27T19:03:11.173" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10132" PostId="4927" Score="1" Text="I'm accepting your answer of NO. Surely Livy, Caesar, Sallust and the rest would have mentioned them somewhere? Personally, I agree with my English teacher of years ago, that Shakespeare's _dogs of war_ is just a convenient metaphor." CreationDate="2017-07-29T15:31:06.230" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18803" PostId="4928" Score="0" Text="Nice puzzle: In Insular Latin *porro* (next, straightaway) was often used for Q.2 (alternative for post.) but that means the structure needs to be rejigged." CreationDate="2019-03-06T01:29:34.123" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10097" PostId="4929" Score="3" Text="The Latin change is similar to the boukolos rule but not quite the same: it's not limited to labiovelars, but includes deletion of other [w] before [u] , e.g. *parum* from *parvum*. Also, it doesn't operate when a labiovelar follows [u], as in *boukolos* itself." CreationDate="2017-07-28T03:55:47.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10102" PostId="4929" Score="1" Text="@TKR Was *parvum* pronounced *parum*? I did not know that; I'll do more research and edit accordingly." CreationDate="2017-07-28T04:50:57.377" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10119" PostId="4929" Score="1" Text="I meant the adverb *parum* &quot;too little&quot;, which is etymologically the same as the neuter adjective *parvum*." CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:18:28.123" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="11907" PostId="4929" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the second half of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/322/79)" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:57:39.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10122" PostId="4930" Score="1" Text="The vowel change is not quite that fantastic since (a) for the first ο there is a Hesychean gloss δολφός = δελφύς and an inscriptional variant Δολφοί = Δελφοί, and (b) for the second ο there are occasional, though rare, examples of anaptyctic vowels in similar environments, e.g. Τολοφώνιος = Τολφώνιος, Σαλαμόνα = Σαλμόνη. I'm actually more skeptical about the alleged -ν in the nom. sg.; for the alleged κίνδυν and Φόρκυν it seems we only have oblique cases attested, and as third-declension animates the nom. should end in -ς (or so I'd assume)." CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:45:40.930" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10123" PostId="4930" Score="0" Text="Do you happen to have a link to a scan of the papyrus, btw? I'm curious how secure the reading δολοφυν is." CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:46:58.910" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10125" PostId="4930" Score="0" Text="@TKR This should be P.Oxy. 1231 IIRC, meaning no scan online but archive.org has Grenfell-Hunt P.Oxy. vol. X including this." CreationDate="2017-07-29T07:34:43.413" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="10126" PostId="4930" Score="0" Text="@TKR The quotation on kindyn reads more or less &quot;kindyn, kindynos, kindyna, hoytô Sapphõ ton kindunon&quot;, IIRC. Will soon post the accurate quotation, but that looks like a list of nom., gen., acc. to me, so that would give the -n nominative." CreationDate="2017-07-29T07:38:29.683" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="10131" PostId="4930" Score="0" Text="@TKR Updated answer to reflect your comments and my replies to them." CreationDate="2017-07-29T14:23:34.577" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="10141" PostId="4930" Score="1" Text="Interesting. Campbell seems to be quoting a gloss, but it's possible that the author of the gloss reconstructed what they thought the nominative should be; LSJ [says](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dki%2Fndunos) &quot;dat. κίνδυ_νι (as if from κίνδυν)&quot;, implying the nominative is unattested." CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:11:32.603" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10143" PostId="4930" Score="0" Text="@TKR added source of quotation to answer. Couldn't find that book online, or rather couldn't find the author's name spelt that way, nor a Greek guessed χοιροβοαιος." CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:33:22.833" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="10145" PostId="4930" Score="0" Text="Choeroboscus, maybe?" CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:35:15.883" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10146" PostId="4930" Score="0" Text="Yep, reading with small font is not a good idea :). Fixing in a sec." CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:36:26.187" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20318" PostId="4931" Score="0" Text="I would just like to point out that this is not the only meaning of *nitens.* *Vita nitens,* in the context I found it, meant 'a life of chores.'" CreationDate="2019-06-27T14:12:11.300" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10109" PostId="4932" Score="1" Text="Thanks! This confirms what I thought. I had never heard of &quot;straining for a stool&quot; before so it was very confusing at first. The inference of that particular meaning is clear, but if someone says &quot;he was laughing and it looked as if he was singing&quot;, that would not make me say that &quot;to sing&quot; can mean &quot;to laugh&quot;. It looks like a minor misjudgement in L&amp;S to me, and now it all makes sense." CreationDate="2017-07-28T14:16:32.017" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10117" PostId="4932" Score="0" Text="Thanks from me too!  The strained face of Vespasian in stone leaves such an enduring impression, I wonder if it became a schoolboy joke. Vita nitens was dropped from a song in 1300; although they retained the other *double entendre* about an old man complaining that he is 'a hostage to old age':*&quot;De-crepitate deditus,&quot;*  The onlooker, laughing, hears him say he's preoccupied with wind." CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:52:29.240" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10121" PostId="4932" Score="1" Text="I agree with &quot;overly generous&quot;. In the Suetonius passage *urbanus* presumably means &quot;witty&quot; rather than &quot;city dweller&quot;: Vespasian wants the man to say something funny about himself because he's a known wit. (A less scatological parallel: the English wit Theodore Hook boasted that he could make a pun on any subject; asked by the king to make a pun about him, Hook replied that he couldn't do that, &quot;for the king is no subject&quot;.)" CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:24:08.300" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10139" PostId="4932" Score="2" Text="There is an actual word for 'straining for a (or at) stool' — _tenesmus_ (from Gr. _tenesmon_). According to Smith's, Pliny uses it at 28.14.59 (which I have not verified). Nepos on the death of Atticus (Vit. 24, 21) has _putarunt esse tenesmon, cui remedia celeria faciliaque proponebantur_." CreationDate="2017-07-29T18:48:52.677" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11895" PostId="4932" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I love LSJ's definition of τεινεσμός - 'a vain endeavour to evacuate'.  Straining at stool indeed!" CreationDate="2018-01-13T04:47:10.860" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="10112" PostId="4933" Score="3" Text="Here's a [related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2353/when-did-consonantal-v-start-being-transcribed-as-%CE%B2) dealing with the transcription of Latin &quot;v&quot; to &quot;β.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:34:22.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10114" PostId="4933" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:41:03.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28487" PostId="4933" Score="0" Text="Well, the lenition of β is not complete, even today, whenever β is protected by μ, so in ἐμβαίνω, γαμβρός, κόμβος, ... today, in *informal* speech, they still retain the ancient **mb** sound. Similar phenomena are still at work in most Iberian languages and dialects." CreationDate="2020-08-04T12:25:12.773" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="10130" PostId="4934" Score="1" Text="&quot;deka glossai&quot;, the person who makes these YouTube videos, says yes. Have a look, they're quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AelM2zyv5Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xy7WahsS7I" CreationDate="2017-07-29T11:35:59.547" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="10181" PostId="4934" Score="0" Text="Besides the proposal for a Greek language site (now in commitment phase: https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language) there is also [languagelearning.se] where this question might be on-topic." CreationDate="2017-08-01T10:00:38.270" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="10182" PostId="4934" Score="2" Text="@jknappen True, this question would probably be on-topic at Language Learning. But it's also perfectly on-topic here; I would say that learning and teaching Latin and Greek is within our scope." CreationDate="2017-08-01T10:30:03.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10183" PostId="4934" Score="0" Text="I voted for closing because it seems to stretch the range of question concerning Greek once again." CreationDate="2017-08-01T10:32:14.280" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="10116" PostId="4935" Score="1" Text="@Rafael updated with answer to your comment, thank you." CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:17:43.617" UserId="1851" />
  <row Id="10118" PostId="4935" Score="1" Text="There is even a good, ready-made, back story to this: According to Timaeus (by Plato), Stars are indeed immortal Spirits. Some survive severe tests and find their way back to the Empyrean ('Dream of Scipio,' Cicero)." CreationDate="2017-07-28T23:10:28.450" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10127" PostId="4936" Score="0" Text="There is the alternative short plural genitive ending *-um* (instead of *-orum*), but I don't know when it can be used. I guess *astrum* is valid too." CreationDate="2017-07-29T09:07:16.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10138" PostId="4936" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta True, that might give a bit of a poetic sound to it. I'll edit." CreationDate="2017-07-29T17:35:27.253" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10454" PostId="4936" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I'm not sure I've ever seen it before, but it's mentioned here: *The genitive singular sometimes ends in āī in poetry; the genitive plural sometimes takes the form um instead of ārum.* - https://www.bolchazy.com/Assets/Bolchazy/extras/vergilgrammaticalappendix.pdf" CreationDate="2017-08-20T18:58:56.437" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10455" PostId="4936" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Interesting! That's new to me." CreationDate="2017-08-20T19:15:49.913" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10124" PostId="4937" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your feedback. NT Greek is quite important to me, so that would be a good reason to learn Modern." CreationDate="2017-07-29T06:10:04.310" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10128" PostId="4938" Score="0" Text="The traditional Finnish translation is &quot;tartu hetkeen&quot; (&quot;take hold of the moment&quot;), and I wonder if it belongs to the same translation tradition as the English one or if it's an independent interpretation." CreationDate="2017-07-29T09:21:10.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10129" PostId="4938" Score="1" Text="Data point: Dutch has *pluk de dag*, quite obviously cognate to what would have been *pluck the day* in English" CreationDate="2017-07-29T10:12:49.140" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="10148" PostId="4938" Score="0" Text="I agree with Tom Cotton. I assume you've studied the linked LS entry: carpo **IIA.** to pluck, **snatch** etc. IIB. **to enjoy**, use, make use (of)." CreationDate="2017-07-29T23:43:02.893" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10149" PostId="4938" Score="0" Text="@AlexB., still, those are not the same as &quot;seize&quot;, and it's not obvious to me why &quot;seize&quot; should have become the default popular translation when many more accurate verbs come to mind." CreationDate="2017-07-30T00:41:39.390" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10190" PostId="4938" Score="0" Text="@TKR Am I correct in deducing that (as is the modern fashion in English education) you are not teaching your students to compose Latin, but simply to read it? If that is so, then I can readily sympathise with your wanting to persuade them that _carpe_ does not mean 'seize', or that 'seize' is only a secondary meaning!" CreationDate="2017-08-01T14:29:57.870" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10192" PostId="4938" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton, I actually teach composition too, though there's less demand for that. But &quot;seize&quot; *is* a secondary meaning, at best, in that (unless I'm mistaken) it's never a literal sense of *carpo*: you can't say that the criminal *carpitur*, for instance." CreationDate="2017-08-01T16:07:08.027" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10150" PostId="4939" Score="0" Text="The original question is &quot;Shall I read a book, or shall I go for a walk.&quot; I think that is usually *&quot;utrum, an ...&quot;* + future indicative.  *Rogo, rogabo,* and *rogavi* will take the future subjunctive.  *Deambulo* (1st) is simpler than *deambulationem ire.*" CreationDate="2017-07-30T17:26:40.357" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10133" PostId="4940" Score="0" Text="I am not aware that either Milton or Dryden translated I, 11. Can you give us a reference?" CreationDate="2017-07-29T15:31:40.547" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10134" PostId="4940" Score="0" Text="I haven't the time to track precise references, but you might find this a useful place to begin looking for older translations: https://archive.org/stream/translationsofod00horaiala/translationsofod00horaiala_djvu.txt" CreationDate="2017-07-29T15:44:29.127" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10136" PostId="4940" Score="0" Text="I have looked there already. It has only Hawkins' rendering of this poem." CreationDate="2017-07-29T15:54:06.043" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10137" PostId="4940" Score="5" Text="Not to be cheeky, but I'll have to echo your comment to fdb's answer: This doesn't answer the question at all! :)" CreationDate="2017-07-29T16:31:31.370" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10140" PostId="4940" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks and+1 for that! — I missed the first words during C&amp;P and have restored them, and have emphasised to make my opinion clearer." CreationDate="2017-07-29T19:52:03.180" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10142" PostId="4940" Score="1" Text="We can argue about whether &quot;mistranslation&quot; is too strong a term, but I've occasionally had to disabuse students of the idea that the verb *carpo* means &quot;seize&quot;; the reason they think they know this is because they've been told that *carpe diem* literally means &quot;seize the day&quot;. I'm curious to find out where that misconception arose." CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:26:32.533" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10156" PostId="4943" Score="0" Text="Something like: *Utrum librum lecturum sim an deambulaturum sim me commendes si te ut consilium quaeram*? Can first *sim* be deleted?" CreationDate="2017-07-31T08:48:01.200" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10158" PostId="4943" Score="0" Text="Great: you've sorted the indirect part. The next problem to solve is *commendes.* At present it is a statement. Somehow you have to turn it into a question.  'If I  asked, you would recommend,' into 'If I asked, would you recommend?'" CreationDate="2017-07-31T11:01:14.977" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10159" PostId="4943" Score="0" Text="Isn't it so that at least some questions in Latin can be formed simply by putting a question mark at the end of a statement?" CreationDate="2017-07-31T11:17:10.917" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10160" PostId="4943" Score="0" Text="If you say so. And in French all the time. But the enclitic interrogative particle would settle the matter." CreationDate="2017-07-31T11:26:06.930" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10161" PostId="4943" Score="0" Text="I may be wrong about this. You mean ***-ne***? Isn't it used purely for yes/no questions? To clarify - here I want to ask what the answer would be if I asked the question and not whether the answer would be given if I asked." CreationDate="2017-07-31T11:31:57.457" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10163" PostId="4943" Score="0" Text="So, are you interpreting it as  distancing or a polite circumlocution? &quot;Would you mind if ....&quot;  or &quot;Would you care to tell me the way to,,,&quot;" CreationDate="2017-07-31T15:42:48.857" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10165" PostId="4943" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/63108/discussion-between-przemyslawp-and-hugh)." CreationDate="2017-07-31T16:10:53.047" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10166" PostId="4944" Score="0" Text="That's a very interesting article! Not only because of the suggested etymology and the calf guts, but also more generally because of the history of stringed instruments. // I share your scepsis about *vitula → fides*: Latin dictionaries mention no conexion between the two words. Lewis &amp; Short say *fides* is cognate with Greek σφίδη, about which I can only find information in New Greek dictionaries: http://greek_greek.enacademic.com/167885/%CF%83%CF%86%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7 It seems to come from a word meaning &quot;nerve, tendon&quot;, possibly from a non-Indo-European word." CreationDate="2017-07-31T16:11:32.040" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10155" PostId="4946" Score="3" Text="It should probably be noted that the more regular word is *occipitium*. Weird that that wasn't chosen for clarity's sake." CreationDate="2017-07-31T04:12:01.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10167" PostId="4946" Score="5" Text="Lenard was a (medical) doctor, who would use _occiput_ professionally." CreationDate="2017-07-31T16:40:41.040" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10191" PostId="4946" Score="0" Text="Thank you all! 'Occipitium' is in my Latin dictionary and not 'occiput'. I appreciate all your clarifications. &lt;3" CreationDate="2017-08-01T15:34:42.963" UserId="1862" />
  <row Id="11557" PostId="4946" Score="3" Text="Can't resist observing that _occiput_ is probably just as acceptable as _occipitium_, Persius I, 61-2 : _vos, o patricius sanguis, quos vivere fas est  occipiti caeco, posticae occurrite sannae._" CreationDate="2017-12-01T20:33:38.350" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11561" PostId="4946" Score="3" Text="The answer &quot;So occipite gradus pulsante is ablative absolute&quot; turned on a light for me, a Latin dilettante, and it also answered other snippets that I was struggling to understand. The secret was in finding out what the ablative absolute is and what it does; until I looked that up, I was still in mystery. Thanks very much." CreationDate="2017-12-01T18:50:28.073" UserId="2180" />
  <row Id="10153" PostId="4947" Score="1" Text="Thanks -- though this doesn't answer my question about the specific origin of &quot;seize the day&quot;, it does suggest that calling it a mistranslation was a little too strong. Editing the question accordingly." CreationDate="2017-07-30T22:31:27.923" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10154" PostId="4947" Score="0" Text="Thinking about it some more, it still strikes me as a little misleading (*pace* the OLD) to say that *carpo* &quot;means&quot; *seize*, given that it never seems to be used in that sense literally. Rather, Latin and English have different conventional metaphors for &quot;enjoying&quot; time: in Latin you pluck an enjoyable moment, in English you seize it. Those words are different in their literal meanings and thus their connotations: in the context of Horace's ode &quot;seize&quot; loses the sense of something beautiful and evanescent (since you &quot;pluck&quot; a flower) and instead introduces an unsuitable sense of forcefulness." CreationDate="2017-07-31T01:27:41.883" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10157" PostId="4947" Score="0" Text="carpo is etymologically “to pick, to cut off”. It is cognate with – among other things – the “harv-“ part of English “harvest”. I wonder whether “harvest the day” might not work very well in English." CreationDate="2017-07-31T10:02:57.447" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10168" PostId="4948" Score="1" Text="Immediate thought: *(ali)quis*." CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:07:46.380" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10169" PostId="4948" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Thank you, I will edit question using your comment." CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:22:16.583" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10170" PostId="4948" Score="0" Text="No need to edit, just leaving this here as a note (for others answering or for me to do more research)." CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:32:37.637" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10172" PostId="4948" Score="0" Text="@Draconis the question answered, I will not make edit:-)" CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:41:15.260" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10177" PostId="4952" Score="2" Text="I tend to think of subjunctive as more polite or gentle, while imperative is direct and a bit rude—but on the other hand, *Domine, dona eis requiem*. Good question." CreationDate="2017-07-31T22:54:08.383" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10186" PostId="4952" Score="0" Text="Take a look at this older question: [The difference between coninuctivus and imperativus when expressing commands](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/349/79). If you think it answers your question, we can turn this into a duplicate (permanent link) to make the other question easier to find. If it doesn't, can you explain what's missing? It's your call." CreationDate="2017-08-01T11:35:43.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10188" PostId="4952" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta My question should be turned into a duplicate. Joel's answer on the other question helps a bit but the difference seems not so easy to undestand especially considering Draconis's comment." CreationDate="2017-08-01T13:37:37.637" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10189" PostId="4952" Score="1" Text="I turned it into a duplicate. If a specific question about the difference in tone (or something else) arises, you can always ask a new, more specific question. It may also depend on era and other factors, but I don't know how." CreationDate="2017-08-01T13:51:19.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10193" PostId="4958" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Where did you come across this phrase? The translation (of any absolute ablative like this one) depends greatly on context, so you will get more useful answers if you can give more background. There is no single universal translation." CreationDate="2017-08-02T12:20:07.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10195" PostId="4958" Score="1" Text="I totally agree with the earlier comment. I can think of six. Here's one. ***&quot;If God is the giver, ...&quot;*** If that doesn't fit, be a bit more precise, and ask again. Or ***&quot;When God gives, ...&quot;***" CreationDate="2017-08-02T12:48:51.990" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10196" PostId="4958" Score="0" Text="I want to write the words 'God's blessing' but in the Latin language and want to double check if 'Deo donante' means God's blessing?" CreationDate="2017-08-02T13:43:02.557" UserId="1868" />
  <row Id="10197" PostId="4958" Score="0" Text="@Lynette Thanks for the comment! I edited your question accordingly. One thing still puzzles me: Where did you find *Deo donante* as a translation of &quot;God's blessing&quot;? Is it your own attempt or did you find it in a book or online? Please edit your question if you have anything to add, and also feel free to undo (rollback) my edit if you want to." CreationDate="2017-08-02T14:02:12.160" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10198" PostId="4958" Score="0" Text="Thank you Joonas for your input so much appreciated.  I have done a google search by typing the question:  &quot;What is God's blessing in the Latin language?  The direct translation 'Deo donante ' came-up.  I want to use this name on a business card but needs to ensure this is the meaning." CreationDate="2017-08-02T14:13:08.547" UserId="1868" />
  <row Id="14164" PostId="4958" Score="0" Text="If Ben's answer satisfies your needs, can you tick the green check mark next to his answer to accept it? You have earned enough reputation with this question to be able to vote. You can go around the site and vote on any questions and answers you like." CreationDate="2018-05-12T11:52:36.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40043" PostId="4958" Score="0" Text="Ego accipio benedictionem Dei&#xA;I am receiving God's blessings" CreationDate="2022-09-24T17:03:52.367" UserId="11569" />
  <row Id="10202" PostId="4963" Score="5" Text="An unserious answer: yes, all of Homer." CreationDate="2017-08-02T23:45:59.663" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10204" PostId="4963" Score="0" Text="The collection known as the Carmina Burana is mostly anonymous. Slightly earlier are the graduals in rhymed prose. A number of saints' Lives from the time of King Edgar are also written in rhymed prose. DWRollason has published some of these." CreationDate="2017-08-03T03:11:46.943" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10210" PostId="4963" Score="0" Text="Not classical, but has been called a masterpiece of Koine Greek: The authorship of the [Epistle to the Hebrews](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm) has been contested since antiquity. Traditionally attributed to Saint Paul, current scholars' opinions range from denying it altogether, to attributing him intellectual authorship (in the same way politicians' speeches are usually written by assistants based on a set of more or less detailed ideas,) to even giving him full authorship and justifying stylistic differences as a result of translation." CreationDate="2017-08-03T13:20:42.703" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10200" PostId="4964" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! However, in last translation: does ***oblatum*** carry meaning that it was *you* who gave help or sentence is something more like *Thank you [very much] for the help that was given to me*?" CreationDate="2017-08-02T22:33:12.867" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10209" PostId="4964" Score="0" Text="Is _gratias dare_ (as opposed to _agere_) classical too?" CreationDate="2017-08-03T12:45:51.680" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10211" PostId="4964" Score="0" Text="@PrzemysławP It literally means &quot;the help offered to me&quot; (offero &gt; oblatus). It's impossible to construe this without &quot;you&quot; because of the later &quot;tibi.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-08-03T13:41:52.500" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10212" PostId="4964" Score="0" Text="@Rafae; I've never heard *gratias dare*: pretty sure that would just be an English/Spanish calque!" CreationDate="2017-08-03T13:43:03.910" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10213" PostId="4964" Score="0" Text="@brianpck *It's impossible to construe this without &quot;you&quot; because of the later &quot;tibi.&quot;* You could theoretically thank someone for help that was given to you by someone else ;)" CreationDate="2017-08-03T13:59:09.377" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10242" PostId="4967" Score="0" Text="I don't know if it counts, but there is a lot of [_enim_](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch?searchtext=enim) and [_autem_](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch?searchtext=autem) working as connectors (as the *second* word in the sentence) in the Vulgate. _Autem_ is adversative." CreationDate="2017-08-04T20:34:42.507" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10215" PostId="4968" Score="3" Text="A great many written Latin texts are anything *but* formal! Do you have any reason for suggesting *enim*?" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:11:01.363" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10216" PostId="4969" Score="0" Text="I'm actually pretty sure that *ita* can't be used in this way. You'd get my upvote if you can find an example though!" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:27:07.987" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10217" PostId="4969" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Well, I can use it in this way. :) I couldn't find any examples of anything (my personal Latin correspondence won't count), so the idiomatic thing seems to be to say nothing. The suggested word is nothing but a personal preference. I clarified the answer a little regarding that point. I'll add more if I find something, but my hopes aren't high." CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:32:45.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10219" PostId="4969" Score="0" Text="I'm going with _Et ubi convenire vis?_ in the text message I'm about to send, unless someone tells me that's wrong _quam primum._ :)" CreationDate="2017-08-03T16:09:42.350" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="10220" PostId="4969" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I won't oppose to *et* here. I have a feeling that the Romans did have some introductory or softening sounds, but perhaps not proper words (like my *hmm...*) and therefore not indicated in writing. (I'd be happy if there was any evidence regarding these aspects of classical speech.)" CreationDate="2017-08-03T16:32:33.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10221" PostId="4970" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is concise, complete, and well sourced answer to a list-like question, and that's a rare find at this site. (I took the liberty to reformat slightly; feel free to re-edit or rollback.)" CreationDate="2017-08-03T16:36:36.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10229" PostId="4970" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I took the liberty to reformat quite a bit for easy reference...again feel free to roll-back!" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:32:37.777" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10230" PostId="4970" Score="0" Text="Now I'm curious to know why the &quot;ring finger&quot; was referred to as the &quot;medicinal finger&quot;!" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:33:21.113" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10231" PostId="4970" Score="0" Text="@brianpck It's a pity, but Smith's 'Pliny' reference to _digitus medicus_ seems to be wrong." CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:08:14.757" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10233" PostId="4970" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton Could this be what he meant? http://latin.packhum.org/loc/978/1/2289/417-422,424-429@1#2289" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:10:13.383" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10236" PostId="4970" Score="1" Text="@brianpck That's probably the one. I shudder to even look at some of the remedies that he gives!" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:13:37.547" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10463" PostId="4976" Score="0" Text="Thank you! (Sorry for the late response, I had stopped checking for answers.)" CreationDate="2017-08-22T08:18:04.787" UserId="1373" />
  <row Id="10464" PostId="4976" Score="0" Text="@Awn No problem! It was a late answer, and there was no hurry. I'm glad to be able to help." CreationDate="2017-08-22T08:47:17.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24090" PostId="4978" Score="0" Text="What about “virtus est medium vitiorum” Horace Epistle I, 18 Si bene te novi ?" CreationDate="2020-01-23T15:21:37.070" UserId="6485" />
  <row Id="10222" PostId="4979" Score="0" Text="Thank you! *mellae* is a typo indeed. Your answer leads to answer of [my another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4978/why-in-medias-res-and-not-in-media-res) I think." CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:12:30.830" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="10223" PostId="4979" Score="1" Text="@PrzemysławP You are welcome! I just happened to finish typing a separate answer to the other question. :) I hope someone can comment on your first sentence in another answer; I'd much like to learn how it goes." CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:13:49.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10224" PostId="4982" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Are you looking for some specific kind of pronunciation (classical, ecclesiastic, modern, ...)? Latin pronunciation depends on time and place; there is no single correct one. The answer here might not depend that much on the choice, but it's good to be aware." CreationDate="2017-08-04T07:19:26.020" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27152" PostId="4982" Score="3" Text="I assume this is a question about how *Shakespeare* might have pronounced it. I was just wondering why in some editions (e.g. Norton) it is &quot;Et tu, Brutè?&quot; What would that grave accent mean? Incidentally, David Crystal (Crystal 2016, The Oxford Dictionary of Classical Shakespearean Pronunciation) gives ˈbruːˌtɛ (he argues it didn't become a diphthong yet then, so it's **not** ay). I also listened to the way Crystal pronounces it - it's clearly not ay. https://global.oup.com/booksites/content/9780199668427/" CreationDate="2020-07-12T13:23:51.383" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27156" PostId="4982" Score="4" Text="@AlexB. I assume the accent is simply a reminder that the e is not silent, contrary to the Anglophone intuition. I wouldn't read more into it unless there is an explanation for the choice. (I'd be happy to vote up if you convert your comment into an answer. Taking a Shakespearean point of view explicitly is something missing from the current answers.)" CreationDate="2020-07-12T19:02:19.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10225" PostId="4983" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I agree that the adjective *medius* is a far more idiomatic choice here." CreationDate="2017-08-04T07:21:35.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24091" PostId="4983" Score="0" Text="Good answer. The construction is indeed common in Latin, but less common in English or various other modern languages. We call this figure of speech **enallage**, &quot;interchange, transposition&quot;, or **hypallage**: it applies when an adjective is made to agree syntactically with a certain substantive (pro)noun, while semantically it belongs with another one. Dutch Wikipedia explains it well enough (the English one is i.m.o. strange or less accurate): https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enallage English Wikipaedia explains it under *hypallage*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypallage" CreationDate="2020-01-26T03:16:31.350" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10232" PostId="4985" Score="0" Text="I don't know why you would think they wouldn't be the same.  If the words *digitus* and *pollex* could apply to both, I don't see why the rest of terms wouldn't be the same, especially considering people have more occasion to refer to their fingers than their toes," CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:08:51.443" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10234" PostId="4985" Score="0" Text="Addendum:  I take that back in the case of *index*; I don't think many people point with their toes." CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:10:43.910" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10235" PostId="4985" Score="1" Text="@varro I doubt people would point or salute with their toes, or consider it obscene to show the middle toe. Some of the names may be same, but some are clearly not applicable, or I have a huge hole in my understanding of Roman manners." CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:12:47.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10239" PostId="4985" Score="0" Text="Yes, I'll concede the point as far as the *digitus* *index* goes, but not as far as the others (at least the purely descriptive ones).  Why *wouldn't* the term *digitus* *medius* be appropriate for a toe?  The fact that the corresponding finger is used in making a rude gesture seems irrelevant." CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:38:54.947" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10240" PostId="4985" Score="1" Text="@varro The middle finger is also known as *digitus impudicus*. Many fingers have several names as listed in the [finger name question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4965/79). I agree that *digitus medius* is probably valid. But I wonder if there's any evidence for Latin toe names, whether the same as finger names or not." CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:44:35.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10241" PostId="4985" Score="1" Text="FWIW in [English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe#Structure) all of them admit the corresponding name of the finger in the same position, even the index (although some have a more common name specific to the toe). The same applies (colloquially at least) to Spanish" CreationDate="2017-08-04T19:36:12.107" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="27153" PostId="4989" Score="1" Text="just curious: How would say - in English obviously - jus**t t**ea or an ol**d d**og?" CreationDate="2020-07-12T15:14:15.913" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34117" PostId="4989" Score="0" Text="Your anglophonic transcription does not match your IPA; the anglophone transcription should be something like ‘et too brooteh’ to somewhat be the same as what you generously offer by IPA." CreationDate="2021-07-12T13:08:14.367" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34118" PostId="4989" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I would assume something along the lines of /dʒasˑ tiː, əʊl dɔg/; I am almost tempted to add a glottal stop to the first one as well (/dʒasˑʔ tiː/) – almost, but not quite." CreationDate="2021-07-12T13:11:07.730" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="10243" PostId="4996" Score="0" Text="On the phone/quick stop on a busy Saturday morning/quis scit seems promising (although no divinity for the hyperbolic effect/not sure if it is just _that_ idiomatic)... and attested. _solus Deus scit_: first Google results seem like modern philosophy, but can't rule it out just yet" CreationDate="2017-08-05T14:29:44.277" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10244" PostId="4996" Score="1" Text="Lots of examples in [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnescio) for *nescio quis* in the similar meaning &quot;I don't know who&quot;, so I'd guess *nescio quam* is right." CreationDate="2017-08-05T22:21:20.013" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10245" PostId="4996" Score="0" Text="@TKR That looks very promising! It never occurred to me that I could find so good examples there. By analogy, *nescio quam* is reasonable. That'd make a good answer even if no attestation of *nescio quam* is found. (I can write it up in the coming days, but I'll be happy if someone beats me to it.)" CreationDate="2017-08-05T22:55:30.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10246" PostId="4996" Score="1" Text="Turns out there are examples of *nescio quam* in this sense on PHI: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nescio+quam" CreationDate="2017-08-05T23:23:30.733" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10247" PostId="4997" Score="2" Text="I don't see the objection to Murray's 'knows the depths of every sea'; that's a very accurate translation of θαλάσσης πάσης βένθεα οἶδεν, whereas one could argue that you've changed the meaning of the Greek text somewhat. In fact, the whole Murray translation for the passage that your link opens looks perfectly serviceable to me, if a bit colorless in places (e.g., 'tall' for μακράς instead of your 'towering')." CreationDate="2017-08-06T06:47:17.223" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="10270" PostId="4997" Score="0" Text="@cnread Yeah, I like Murray quite a bit, and find his translations excellent and precise.  Although the Fagles is prized for its contemporary readability, less precision is a tradeoff.  Nevertheless, we think of Atlas as stationary, holding up the vault of heaven, as opposed to walking around all the oceans, and I felt restricting the scope might be more useful, if it is supportable." CreationDate="2017-08-07T18:13:54.517" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="10313" PostId="4997" Score="0" Text="If people could let me know why they downvoted the question, it would be helpful is posting better questions in future.  As there is a tag for &quot;translation-check&quot;, I thought the current structure of the post would be sufficient--possibly my assumption is incorrect.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:09:56.330" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="10283" PostId="4998" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for the detailed answer and welcome to the site! I have accepted the answer as the most historical character, but if someone finds something more historical than Dido, I may have to unaccept. And let me repeat that I'm very glad to see new users like you on the site." CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:11:37.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10279" PostId="5002" Score="0" Text="I did some search for academic titles and rankings in traditionally Latin speaking medieval universities (Oxford and Cambridge) but could not find anything meaningful. I suggest that route to search for a term, in case you know better what to look for." CreationDate="2017-08-08T08:53:52.177" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10280" PostId="5002" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Thanks! I don't know if a comparable title ever (including today) existed in Oxbridge. In this particular case there is unlikely to be a canonical translation or a perfect fit, so one just needs to look for analogies and argue what would be most suitable." CreationDate="2017-08-08T08:57:51.117" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10526" PostId="5003" Score="0" Text="I will accept my own answer for now. If anyone has something more to offer, I'll be glad to accept a different answer." CreationDate="2017-08-29T17:31:06.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11783" PostId="5006" Score="0" Text="As a long-time fan of ancient music, I would love to take a look at the score!" CreationDate="2017-12-30T21:06:19.877" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="29986" PostId="5006" Score="0" Text="This is incorporated in the English carol &quot;It Came Upon the Midnight Clear&quot;. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Came_Upon_the_Midnight_Clear &quot;Peace on the earth, goodwill to men, From heaven's all-gracious King.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-12-03T15:48:53.193" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="30011" PostId="5006" Score="1" Text="For Germans the thing is quite easy: it was Luther's preferred translation, partly because it sounds so good in German: &quot;Und Frieden auf Erden, und den Menschen ein Wohlgefallen&quot; - and as we have heard above the King James Bible took the same approach with &quot;and on earth peace, good will toward men&quot;." CreationDate="2020-12-02T15:52:27.903" UserId="8665" />
  <row Id="10252" PostId="5007" Score="0" Text="I like this one too. I wonder what the difference between *de coelis* and *de excelsis* would be. Presumably there is a difference in nuance, but I can't tell what it is." CreationDate="2017-08-06T20:56:03.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10253" PostId="5008" Score="2" Text="The whole quote is an obvious reference to Luke AND the liturgical chant derived from it (_Gloria en excelsis Deo_). Both have been uninterruptedly phrased as _bonae voluntatis_. The use here of _bona voluntas_ is most likely a musical concession but can have a number of different (even complementary) explanations as the ones you cite. Coming from a German author, I also doubt the mistake as the most likely hypothesis." CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:26:43.220" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10255" PostId="5008" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Good point, I did not mean to have the article &quot;the&quot; in the first line. Edited. The biggest thing that makes me think this might not be a mistake is correct inflection. If someone not fluent in Latin makes such changes, I expect inflection to become inconsistent. I assume the reason was rhythmic/metric restrictions, making the author want to drop a syllable." CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:34:21.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10263" PostId="5008" Score="1" Text="Just one question to Luke: I've seen the translation of 'hominibus' as dative many times. You claim that this was clear by context. But I don't see this. Of course, dative is a possible translation. But to my eye ablativus instrumentalis suits very well into the context, too. Are there some theological (or other) arguments for dative excluding ablative?" CreationDate="2017-08-07T07:15:29.413" UserId="1879" />
  <row Id="10264" PostId="5008" Score="2" Text="@jonathan.scholbach I don't think I've ever seen an instrumental ablative used in that manner. If you consider *hominibus* the agent of an implicit verb (&quot;peace [is given] on Earth by people&quot;), then it should have the preposition *ab*. If there is no preposition, then it seems like the God is using humans as a tool, but I see no support for such an interpretation. All ablative readings I can come up with sound somewhat unnatural. Reading it as an ablative is not strictly ungrammatical, but the dative seems far more reasonable." CreationDate="2017-08-07T07:33:29.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18211" PostId="5008" Score="1" Text="@Rafael You are certainly right that most editions of the Vulgate have &quot;bonae voluntatis&quot;. However, the Wittemberg edition of 1529 does have &quot;bona voluntas&quot;. So far as I know, this is the only edition which has this. The Wittemberg edition was, I understand, the most popular edition of the Vulgate among Protestants before the renaissance of Vulgate studies in the 19th century. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this hymn was written by or for Protestants." CreationDate="2019-01-19T04:37:02.350" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="18212" PostId="5008" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta You are certainly right that translating &quot;hominibus&quot; as a dative is more natural, since it compares and contrasts nicely with &quot;Deo&quot; which is obviously dative. However, it could also complement the ablative &quot;in excelsis&quot;. If I may paraphrase, &quot;The glory among the angels (in excelsis) belongs to God, and so too does the peace on earth among men of goodwill.&quot; This is a minority interpretation, of course, but it is one I've always been attached to." CreationDate="2019-01-19T05:01:13.193" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="10256" PostId="5009" Score="1" Text="I first assumed that the phrasing in the title was simply an error, but you have convinced me otherwise.  This is a great answer!  (You have my upvote.)" CreationDate="2017-08-06T22:31:56.240" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10258" PostId="5009" Score="4" Text="ευδοκιας (genitive) is the reading in most of the oldest Greek manuscripts and in most of the old translations (including the Vulgate's bonae voluntatis). ευδοκια (nominative) is the minority reading." CreationDate="2017-08-06T23:52:42.330" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10259" PostId="5009" Score="2" Text="Hmm... I'll admit I didn't check my Greek NT's as I should have.  I will (slightly) pull back, but what I see from the _apparatus criticus_ of one of them is that the wording εὐδοκίας is supported by the original texts of Codex (or &quot;Codices&quot;? - I'm unsure of what the proper English usage is here)  Sinaïticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Bezae,Washingtoniensis, &amp;c.)  That's pretty impressive, all right.  But the εὐδοκία reading is supported by correctors to both Sinaïticus and Vaticanus, and also by K, L, P,  Δ, &amp;c.  (continuation in following comment)" CreationDate="2017-08-07T01:04:43.270" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10260" PostId="5009" Score="3" Text="(continuation) That's enough to make it at least *doubtful* of what the correct reading is, and to support the thesis that &quot;bona voluntas&quot; might be regarded as a legitimate reading." CreationDate="2017-08-07T01:05:25.110" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10262" PostId="5009" Score="2" Text="Ah, I oversaw that possibility, because my mind was stuck at the genitive! Just a sidenote to J.S. Bach: In the b-minor-Mass he uses the (canonic) mass text: &quot;bonae voluntatis&quot;, while in the Christmas Oratorio he has &quot;und den Menschen ein Wohlgefallen&quot; which translates into English as 'and pleasure to humans&quot; and seems a direct translation of &quot;bona voluntas&quot; since &quot;wohl-&quot; literally means 'bona' and &quot;-gefallen&quot; ('pleasure') might be a rather free translation of &quot;voluntas&quot;." CreationDate="2017-08-07T06:31:20.937" UserId="1879" />
  <row Id="10265" PostId="5009" Score="1" Text="On J S Bach, according to Albert Schweitzer, in additional texts associated with one version of his Magnificat, Bach set the &quot;bona voluntas&quot; version of this verse from the Luke Gospel. See pages 166 and 167 (including footnote) of 'J S Bach' by Albert Schweitzer, volume 2, translated by Ernest Newman, Dover Publications 1966, which I consulted at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KZGOV-UnY-0C&amp;pg=PA167&amp;lpg=PA167&amp;dq=bach+bona+voluntas&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=NIzX5LXQPP&amp;sig=6T3ru_2gNUC8wn5GvthKoZRLUIU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiWq5211cTVAhXDZ1AKHWSWBwcQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=bach%20bona%20voluntas&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-08-07T08:20:34.117" UserDisplayName="user1861" />
  <row Id="10267" PostId="5009" Score="2" Text="I regret to downvote this as it currently stands. As @fdb stated, εὐδοκία is an *alternative* reading which most modern critical editions reject in favor of εὐδοκίας. It's very misleading to say that the Vulgate *mistranslated* the Greek." CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:13:00.593" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10268" PostId="5009" Score="5" Text="I have amended my answer to reflect information in the exchanges in the preceding comments. Just goes to show it is dangerous for someone who is not a biblical scholar to venture into remarks on the text of Greek manuscripts! Thanks for all the input." CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:41:11.630" UserDisplayName="user1861" />
  <row Id="10269" PostId="5015" Score="2" Text="There is a decent chance that there is no such prefix at all. After all, we are extremely unlikely to have a separate prefix for 13½ times or the like, so the prefix sequence (*semi-*, *sesqui-*, ...) has to terminate somewhere. Whether 2½ is included is a good question." CreationDate="2017-08-07T18:01:48.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10276" PostId="5015" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for the answers. There was a precise motivation for this: it can be *useful*, to give structure to investigations, to have words for the *number of syllables in (the usual spoken rendition of) a word*, and yes, **half-syllables** [are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_syllable) [on](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sesquisyllabic)  the radar of science, and yet I do not know of any usual term for 2½-syllabic. In particular &quot;sestersyllabic&quot; is (probably not for long because of this thread) currently an example of the rare species of reasonable words with **0** hits on G." CreationDate="2017-08-08T06:56:35.740" UserId="1743" />
  <row Id="10271" PostId="5017" Score="0" Text="Hmm...my reservation is that *optimum* means &quot;the best [thing]&quot; whereas *septimum* doesn't lend itself to that kind of abstraction. Do you know of any examples where ordinal numbers stand for &quot;X place&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-08-07T19:24:42.070" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10273" PostId="5018" Score="2" Text="+1 for completeness" CreationDate="2017-08-07T21:02:45.153" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10277" PostId="5018" Score="1" Text="Many thanks for this. For motivation, see my comment under the OP. Do you agree that, when used with care, **sestersyllabic** is a reasonable coinage? (&quot;semiquinsyllabic&quot; seems not as good, both because first going to 5 and the halving is an overcomplication, and because it is longer.)" CreationDate="2017-08-08T07:00:33.843" UserId="1743" />
  <row Id="10281" PostId="5018" Score="1" Text="@guest I suppose it is reasonable. Out of curiosity, what could you possibly be referring to? Isn't syllable count discrete?" CreationDate="2017-08-08T13:22:10.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10315" PostId="5018" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: for 1½ times this is already [in](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sesquisyllabic) [use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_syllable), and I need to use it for words with 2½ syllables." CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:53:14.870" UserId="1743" />
  <row Id="43619" PostId="5018" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, _sesqui-_ and the other prefixes are literal and additive (&quot;½ and a ~&quot;) so _sester-_ would more likely be something like &quot;½ less than 3&quot; in the manner of Latin's 18 and 19 rather than &quot;half the distance from 2 to 3&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-16T04:19:45.437" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43620" PostId="5018" Score="0" Text="Personally, I think the answer would benefit from avoiding the commentary on the appropriateness of the question. OP already gave their (admittedly bizarre) usage case and the &quot;so much easier&quot; version is (of course) to _just use English_. English only needs Latin precisely for these prefixed versions." CreationDate="2023-06-16T04:22:49.697" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44643" PostId="5018" Score="0" Text="This question has come up in the context of wanting an &quot;X-centennial&quot; word for the upcoming 250th anniversary of United States independence.  It seems that the official term is &quot;semiquincentennial&quot;, but that just seems sesquipedalian to me." CreationDate="2023-08-31T20:40:17.630" UserId="13975" />
  <row Id="10278" PostId="5020" Score="0" Text="Why could the _me_ not be implied? That's what happens e.g. in the prayer *&quot;Angele Dei, qui custos es mei, tibi commissum pietate superna illumina custodi rege et guberna&quot;*, where _commissum_ is referres to an implied _me_. Could this hymn not be similarly implying the pronoun? Or perhaps implying it is possible in the prayer because of the _mei_ but not in the hymn because there is no form of _ego_ anywhere?" CreationDate="2017-08-08T07:29:36.270" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="10284" PostId="5020" Score="0" Text="@MickG: Hmm good example, it makes me slightly uncomfortable... But I think I would (literally) translate that as *enlighten him who is committed to thee*, not *me who is...*? As you suggest, the person committed is obviously the same person as *mei*, namely, the singer; but I would say this person is presented first in the first person, and then in the third person, in the absence of *me*. But in a liberal translation, that distinction will disappear. So is this the same as the example in question? As you say, there is no *mei* there, which I think matters, while there is *nos*. Hmm..." CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:13:43.253" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10282" PostId="5021" Score="4" Text="Related: [Why “ex nihilo” instead of “e nihilo”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2430/12)" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:01:20.760" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="10285" PostId="5021" Score="2" Text="Also related: [How to say, “Many are not one?”](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2831/how-to-say-many-are-not-one-pluribus-non-paribus-unum/2835#2835)" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:56:30.307" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10287" PostId="5022" Score="0" Text="Google's ngram viewer appears to disagree (at least in regards to usage post 1800)" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:46:27.153" UserId="1887" />
  <row Id="10288" PostId="5022" Score="1" Text="@Strawberry That would be greatly biased by it being the motto of the USA, though." CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:56:36.013" UserId="1206" />
  <row Id="10289" PostId="5022" Score="0" Text="@Graipher Yes - but zero hits?" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:57:51.787" UserId="1887" />
  <row Id="10290" PostId="5022" Score="0" Text="@Strawberry Ah, I did not actually check how large the difference was..." CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:58:32.330" UserId="1206" />
  <row Id="10291" PostId="5022" Score="0" Text="@Graipher But you're probably correct in a way. I suspect that prior to its adoption as the US motto (1782), both spellings were used." CreationDate="2017-08-08T17:02:43.823" UserId="1887" />
  <row Id="10293" PostId="5022" Score="3" Text="A 1923 article in The Classical Journal gives the first proven use of the phrase &quot;e pluribus unum&quot; as 1692 and suggests it is an adaptation of a slightly different phrase - de pluribus una - in Horace. [link](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/CJ/18/7/E_Pluribus_Unum*.html) As stated in another answer, in classical Latin ex pluribus seems to be much more common than e pluribus, though both are good Latin." CreationDate="2017-08-08T19:43:08.270" UserDisplayName="user1861" />
  <row Id="10302" PostId="5024" Score="1" Text="In Spanish you &quot;kill two birds with one shot&quot; :)" CreationDate="2017-08-09T11:56:34.100" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10292" PostId="5026" Score="0" Text="Ah, I like these much better!" CreationDate="2017-08-08T17:46:35.780" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="10294" PostId="5026" Score="3" Text="These are excellent suggestions, thanks! And fortunately these are far less counteraviary than the English idiom. I had no intention to kill birds with stones..." CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:08:55.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10296" PostId="5026" Score="3" Text="@Joonas Yes, they are definitely less av-ersarial :)" CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:12:38.867" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10295" PostId="5027" Score="3" Text="Could this word be used when things go south with the euro? :)" CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:12:30.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10300" PostId="5030" Score="2" Text="I would only add that _optimum_ could be substituted for _unum_ to suggest 'the best'. Otherwise, this to me seems a model answer. +1" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:20:29.257" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10301" PostId="5030" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton many thanks for your input too, ex pluribus optimum sounds great as well." CreationDate="2017-08-09T11:29:13.523" UserId="1886" />
  <row Id="10303" PostId="5031" Score="0" Text="Please advice on proper tags. I had to create two :/" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:12:56.867" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10305" PostId="5031" Score="1" Text="Not just Latin, but English too. See for example editions of Jane Austen in the 19th century." CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:01:08.607" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10307" PostId="5031" Score="0" Text="Just a heads up, that's not Quif-, but Quis-. The latter isn't an `f` but a medial `s`. First line on the verso e.g. isn't `fignum` but `signum`." CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:11:37.443" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10308" PostId="5031" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer :o so this is always written with s when using (modern) Latin alphabet?" CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:15:59.450" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10312" PostId="5031" Score="0" Text="Some tags to consider: [tag:orthography], [tag:typography], [tag:new-latin]. Perhaps &quot;print&quot; could be renamed &quot;printing&quot;? [This older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2324/79) is related to the two types of S." CreationDate="2017-08-09T17:49:01.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10316" PostId="5031" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho It has nothing to do with Latin itself. This was nearly a pan-European thing that died out in the early 19th century. I've seen it in Latin, English, Spanish, and French. Compare the Greek σ vs. ς." CreationDate="2017-08-09T20:41:35.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10319" PostId="5031" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho See the Wikipedia article on [long s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s), and especially Andrew West's superb articles [The Rules for Long S](https://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/06/rules-for-long-s.html) and [The Long and the Short of the Letter S](https://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/07/long-and-short-of-letter-s.html)." CreationDate="2017-08-10T01:11:16.550" UserId="1118" />
  <row Id="10320" PostId="5031" Score="0" Text="This would be much better placed at graphics.sx" CreationDate="2017-08-10T05:40:28.677" UserId="1203" />
  <row Id="10314" PostId="5033" Score="4" Text="My understanding is that it was not *only* for the purpose of checking the page order, but also to help the reader make the transition from page to page in reading (which would make it desirable for the recto as well as the verso)." CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:30:59.860" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10317" PostId="5033" Score="0" Text="@varro, especially in music." CreationDate="2017-08-09T21:58:15.387" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10321" PostId="5036" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! I believe the question was about the meaning of the phrase in Latin from a more syntactical point of view. Nevertheless, this answer is a good reminder of one of the modern-day uses and meanings." CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:44:43.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40455" PostId="5036" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Given that the questioner asked if there was &quot;a better translation or meaning for it&quot;, without specifying whether they wanted the current or original meaning, I think this was a reasonable answer to give, though perhaps it would have been better to first ask the questioner which they meant." CreationDate="2022-11-14T16:03:12.767" UserId="11795" />
  <row Id="10323" PostId="5037" Score="0" Text="Could you try to gear your answer more specifically to the OP's three questions? It's definitely interesting information to know that this is not restricted to Latin." CreationDate="2017-08-10T13:32:07.550" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10325" PostId="5037" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Honestly, I think the other answers cover the remaining angles pretty well. Rehashing the same information again wouldn't do much good. Do you have anything specific in mind which would improve this answer?" CreationDate="2017-08-10T16:00:58.777" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="10324" PostId="5038" Score="1" Text="Joonas's answer seems to me a good start, but I think the question of *the same; too; just as much* comes to mean *contrary to expectations; going so and so far* is deeper than that. I wonder if the semantic overlap is cross-linguistic? It may be that *mepitsimus* = &quot;the same&quot; is as far as one can go for Latin in particular, unless one can show that it had a similar development." CreationDate="2017-08-10T14:17:21.467" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="10326" PostId="5039" Score="6" Text="Doesn't the leading * mean that the word is unattested?" CreationDate="2017-08-10T20:47:44.853" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11258" PostId="5039" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Yes, but the unattested adjective shouldn't affect this question's soundness because it did generate attested cognates." CreationDate="2017-11-02T09:09:17.533" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20392" PostId="5039" Score="2" Text="@Rafael spot on! Because the question is really about the etymology of French même, which would be considered off-topic here." CreationDate="2019-07-04T00:13:22.783" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10327" PostId="5042" Score="0" Text="If anyone has any better tags, feel free to add them!" CreationDate="2017-08-10T23:49:52.253" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10329" PostId="5042" Score="0" Text="Duplicate? [What were used as “filler” words in Classical Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/12)" CreationDate="2017-08-11T10:21:01.120" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="10347" PostId="5042" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel I can see where you are coming from, but to me the answer found there doesn't really answer the question of what equivalent interjections would be present, only that they were noted in treatises on rhetoric, which is hardly the type of informal speech in which these are found. EDIT: Also, my question also pertains to interjections that are also stand-ins for sentences in their own right (&quot;huh,&quot; &quot;hmm,&quot; etc.) that are not just what happens when your thought trails off. To me, this provides the question with individual merit, but you are free to close it if you believe that to be best." CreationDate="2017-08-11T17:41:52.093" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10349" PostId="5042" Score="0" Text="[See this comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/168/what-were-used-as-filler-words-in-classical-latin#comment310_173), which kind of reflects my view of that answer, as well." CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:10:28.487" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10403" PostId="5042" Score="0" Text="You can't assume that sounds alone, in contradistinction to complete words, were used as filler. The fact that English sometimes does (ya know) is hardly a universal rule. In Arabic, the word &quot;yani&quot; is used. In Spanish, you can use the whole word, &quot;este&quot; as well as fillers (uuuy). These words--again, in Spanish--are referred to as &quot;muletillas&quot; (small crutches). Perhaps Latin used whole words like Spanish tends to do, and that is why there is no  'expected' answer to this question. (I.e., English has this, so therefore Latin did, so what is the expression in Latin?)" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:01:49.697" UserId="1916" />
  <row Id="10418" PostId="5042" Score="1" Text="@user26732 Then pointing out which muletillas were used in Latin would be a great answer! I find it difficult to believe that there is no equivalent of a sound of hesitation like &quot;uhhh&quot; in most, if not all languages, as it is more of a lapse in mind to speech continuity than a filler word. And I am hardly suggesting English is the end all be all in grammar and language. So when you make that little analogy at the end, an answer I would accept would be one were you could refute the idea Latin does have it in the form English has it, and then provide the nearest Latin equivalent. That is what" CreationDate="2017-08-15T01:58:07.920" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10419" PostId="5042" Score="1" Text="these questions are for! So, in summary, what would be the Latin equivalents? They don't have to be just sounds and I wasn't necessarily limiting it to just that, but it is not a completely terrible question to ask whether or not Latin had something similar, seeing as interjections like &quot;uhhh&quot; are just sounds rather than words that express intent in a crude vocal form. In addition, according to your expressed logic, any translation question will not have an &quot;expected&quot; answer as the whole point of different languages is that they are all different in some discernible fashion. I don't understand" CreationDate="2017-08-15T02:01:06.867" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10420" PostId="5042" Score="1" Text="how this question could be any different from any other. In fact, according to the translation question meta rules, you should show attempt to come up with your own solution, and is it completely out of left field for me to suggest that they also used sounds? I don't think so! Gosh, this ended up being longer than I expected... :D" CreationDate="2017-08-15T02:06:28.983" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10340" PostId="5045" Score="9" Text="It would be just as logical for the acronym to be **S&amp;PR** in English, which is exactly equivalent to the Latin, allowing for the different word order." CreationDate="2017-08-11T14:11:06.200" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="10343" PostId="5045" Score="1" Text="@alephzero It is an interesting hypothesis, but I think the evidence is very much in favour of English acronyms omitting the &amp; (I can only think of S&amp;P and AT&amp;T). The key evidence would be to find other examples using the same approach but Joonas's answer might indicate there is not another." CreationDate="2017-08-11T14:18:03.433" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10369" PostId="5045" Score="5" Text="@luchonacho check out historic British railway companies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_British_railway_companies&#xA;&#xA;A quick skim of just the Caledonian railway artices for &quot;&amp;&quot; gives:&#xA;&#xA;A&amp;FR&#xA;B&amp;EDR&#xA;C&amp;DJR&#xA;C&amp;OR&#xA;D&amp;AR&#xA;DD&amp;CR&#xA;D&amp;PR&#xA;E&amp;GR&#xA;F&amp;BR&#xA;G&amp;AR&#xA;G&amp;DJR&#xA;G&amp;GR&#xA;G&amp;SWR&#xA;GB&amp;KJR&#xA;GBH&amp;CR&#xA;GD&amp;HR&#xA;GG&amp;CR&#xA;GP&amp;GR&#xA;GPK&amp;AR&#xA;GY&amp;CR&#xA;L&amp;DR&#xA;M&amp;GN&#xA;M&amp;KR&#xA;R&amp;CR&#xA;W&amp;CR" CreationDate="2017-08-12T15:42:42.777" UserId="1909" />
  <row Id="10379" PostId="5045" Score="0" Text="@alephzero Interested in converting the comment to an answer?" CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:33:21.183" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10401" PostId="5045" Score="3" Text="Spanish is a dialect of Latin. SPR: senado popular revolucionario." CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:46:06.820" UserId="1916" />
  <row Id="10402" PostId="5045" Score="5" Text="@user26732 Senado Popular Quasi Revolucionario?" CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:54:07.097" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="17787" PostId="5045" Score="0" Text="By the way, **originally** it was *pop(u)lus senatusque romanus*, cf. &quot;Before this [1st century BC - Alex B.], the populus was in first place (first evidence in the decree of Aemilius [I 32] Paullus for Lascuta, early 2nd cent. BC: ILS 15; cf. Pol. 21,10,8)&quot; (Brill's New Pauly)." CreationDate="2018-12-18T15:33:16.540" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17880" PostId="5045" Score="0" Text="The acronym is SPQR in order that Marcello Marchesi's joke could work in the Italian versions of Astérix, where the Gauls always say “Sono Pazzi Questi Romani” (ils sont fous ces Romains)." CreationDate="2018-12-28T14:51:12.050" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="24027" PostId="5045" Score="0" Text="My father who grew up in Tuscany in the early 20th Century (and Tuscans have no love for Romans), told me that school kids in Tuscany joked that SPQR stands for&#xA;&quot;Sonno Porci, Questi Romani&quot; (They are pigs, these Romans)" CreationDate="2020-01-15T15:35:45.347" UserId="6463" />
  <row Id="10334" PostId="5047" Score="0" Text="It looks as if the question was altered while I was answering it (including a part about using _que_ as a separate word, which explains why my second paragraph is there). Ought the answer to be deleted, or shall I allow it to stay?" CreationDate="2017-08-11T12:52:13.953" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10337" PostId="5047" Score="1" Text="From what I've seen on other sites, there's no reason to delete a correct answer, even if the question is a duplicate (or bad, or whatever). I say leave it." CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:47:58.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10336" PostId="5048" Score="0" Text="There are plenty of modern examples of acronyms or initialisms where letters are included from the inner part of a word, although usually this is in the case of acronyms for the sake of pronunciation or making a better pun.  I also can't come up with a single example at the moment." CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:41:49.257" UserId="1898" />
  <row Id="10339" PostId="5048" Score="1" Text="@Darren I can't imagine how pronouncing SPQR is easier than SPR, but I do not know enough Latin to say so." CreationDate="2017-08-11T14:02:58.650" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10342" PostId="5048" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I would never suggest that it is, I was just commenting on modern practices regarding acronyms (of which SPQR is not).  But, there is no hard requirement for the letters in an abbreviation to all be the first letter of each word." CreationDate="2017-08-11T14:17:27.467" UserId="1898" />
  <row Id="10344" PostId="5048" Score="0" Text="@Darren Yes, modern abbreviations and acronyms can be pretty much anything. My answer concerns ancient abbreviations, and I wouldn't argue too much by analogy to modern use." CreationDate="2017-08-11T14:38:57.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10396" PostId="5048" Score="5" Text="@luchonacho at my grandparets' home there was a picture of Romulus, Remus and the wolf with SPQR on it. The joke was it meant _SPera Que Ruja_ (wait till the wolf roars). I was like 5 y/o and couldn't stop laughing" CreationDate="2017-08-14T07:15:13.693" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10397" PostId="5048" Score="0" Text="@Rafael which language is that? Does not sound Latin. Spanish?" CreationDate="2017-08-14T07:53:41.660" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10398" PostId="5048" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho sí. I can't find a match in Spanish either, but you just made me remember that joke. The initial _e_ in _espera_ is omitted to force the joke." CreationDate="2017-08-14T08:00:02.537" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24050" PostId="5048" Score="0" Text="@vectory I'm not sure if I understand your comment. The point was that we don't know why there's a Q in the abbreviation, not why there's one in the word *-que*. Etymology seems to have nothing to do with this question unless someone finds a link." CreationDate="2020-01-19T10:08:15.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10346" PostId="5050" Score="5" Text="If you can read German there is a much superior account of this here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briefwechsel_zwischen_Seneca_und_Paulus with references to modern secondary literature." CreationDate="2017-08-11T17:37:10.373" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10348" PostId="5050" Score="1" Text="@fdb Extremely helpful! The fact that Lactantius never mentions the correspondence is a very strong point by itself." CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:03:09.593" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10350" PostId="5051" Score="1" Text="[Google n-grams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tychonoff%2CTikhonov&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2CTychonoff%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CTikhonov%3B%2Cc0) suggests &quot;Tikhonov&quot; is much more common. I have rarely seen Russian &quot;и&quot; transliterated with &quot;y&quot;: usually &quot;ы&quot; is treated that way." CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:32:36.827" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10351" PostId="5051" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks! My experience is from reading the mathematical literature, and that must be a biased sample spellingwise. (I'm not always sure whether to count mathematical English as English in the first place.) It doesn't have much of an effect on my point, but I'll edit that in." CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:35:36.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10385" PostId="5051" Score="1" Text="Non-serious answer: given the way Latin treated the Greek letters Υ and Ζ, the two Ancient Greek sounds not found in Latin, one might transcribe Ж, Ш, Ч as Ж, Ш, Ч." CreationDate="2017-08-13T18:36:13.780" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10353" PostId="5052" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! If you (or anyone else) happen to recall details on this, that would be very interesting to see." CreationDate="2017-08-11T19:27:33.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10356" PostId="5052" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: thanks for the welcome! I saw a link to this post and was curious to see what the question was about (.. I am living in the old Sabines' land..)." CreationDate="2017-08-11T21:54:04.747" UserId="1904" />
  <row Id="10354" PostId="5053" Score="2" Text="It's hard to find in the Latin edition I cited, but I can confirm it says *sophista* in Latin! *&quot;Nec enim hoc diceres, censor sophista magister tanti principis etiam omnium, nisi quia vere dicis.&quot;*" CreationDate="2017-08-11T20:42:51.900" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28591" PostId="5053" Score="1" Text="The letters are probably motivated by the same sort of pious Christian imagination that interpreted Virgil's Fourth Eclogue as foretelling Christ's birth." CreationDate="2020-08-12T06:51:06.343" UserId="7234" />
  <row Id="10355" PostId="5054" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Should it be *Senatus Populus Quiritesque Romani*? It would make sense to have an *et* or *-que*, although asyndeton is not unheard of." CreationDate="2017-08-11T21:03:20.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10375" PostId="5054" Score="4" Text="The only problem I see with this answer is that the only inscription I have found that has the expression written in full is the [Arch of Titus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus#Inscription) (@JoonasIlmavirta maybe you know of more?). And that inscription uses the &quot;populusque&quot; version. However, that arch was built around 82 AD, which is when there was already the Roman Empire (it seems the SPQR expression referred to the Roman Republic, which ended in 27 BC). So if the Q has a different meaning, it might need to imply the Arch of Titus did not meant to use SPQR as used earlier." CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:59:21.247" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10358" PostId="5055" Score="1" Text="Why wouldn't there a standard, from the High Middle Age or the Renaissance?" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:39:39.147" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10359" PostId="5055" Score="1" Text="Apparently, there was [Russian scientific literature in Latin](https://books.google.cl/books?id=bWEjAAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA384&amp;ots=wawDyDZJnI&amp;dq=russian%20scientific%20works%20in%20latin&amp;pg=PA384#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)." CreationDate="2017-08-12T01:13:57.590" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10360" PostId="5055" Score="0" Text="To pile on: the inventors of the Cyrillic alphabet at least spoke Greek. To discard a priori the possibility that they or any successors would have been concerned with transliteration seems unwarranted." CreationDate="2017-08-12T01:43:48.300" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10361" PostId="5055" Score="0" Text="@ Rafael: perhaps there was, but if you think the link you referenced shows that, then I'm not looking at the right place.  I see in the link *no* examples of Russian names in Latin.  If I'm not looking in the right place, please point me to where such forms are referenced." CreationDate="2017-08-12T02:12:27.067" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10362" PostId="5055" Score="0" Text="@ brianpck:  Yes.  The inventors of the Cyrillic alphabet knew Greek, and I'm sure that there arose at least of an informal system of representing (**not** transliterating) Slavic/Slavonic names in Greek.  And what does that have to do with Latin?" CreationDate="2017-08-12T02:16:48.167" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10363" PostId="5055" Score="2" Text="@ brianpck:  I'll admit that a de facto representation of Slavonic names *could* have lead to a more-or-less consistent representation in Latin, via Greek, but did it?  (And keep in mind that we're talking about *Slavonic* names, not Russian.)" CreationDate="2017-08-12T02:19:36.253" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10364" PostId="5055" Score="0" Text="@varro I didn't intend to offer examples, but to support that there was Russian literature in Latin. Actually since the XVIII century and not as isolated cases. I guess this can probably lead to currents of transliterations for names, or at least to alternatives of rules as suggested in Alex B's answer" CreationDate="2017-08-12T03:09:07.727" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10368" PostId="5055" Score="0" Text="+1 for Tichonof. This is the most appropriate transliteration from a classical point of view. But was this transliteration ever actually used in Latin?" CreationDate="2017-08-12T10:27:02.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10370" PostId="5055" Score="2" Text="@varro Your last remark is quite correct. Everyone transliterating Russian into English has his own version. Publishers (including newspapers, etc) have some quite bizarre differences.  Where I would myself write Mendeleyev, I have seen Mendelejeff, Mendeléev, Mendelyeff and so on — which I think try too hard — and it would be preposterous to use any as a basis for Latin. Fifty years ago it was customary to find in the English press the title 'M.' for 'Mr.' on the principle that all educated Russians used to speak French: imagine the trouble that might cause!" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:17:09.910" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10372" PostId="5056" Score="1" Text="This is very interesting. but it doesn't support that there is a&#xA;*standard* way of transliterating Russian into Latin, which is the&#xA;primary question as I understand it.  E.g., in the&#xA;names you have cited:&#xA;&#xA;ц is transliterated both as &quot;tz&quot; and &quot;c&quot;, and on the contents page you&#xA;cite, &quot;ts&quot;;&#xA;&#xA;в is transliterated as both &quot;v&quot; and &quot;w&quot;;&#xA;&#xA;ий is transliterated variously as &quot;y&quot;, &quot;i&quot;, and &quot;ij&quot; (and also&#xA;Latinized as &quot;-ius&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;These are all reasonable, but do not support a *standard*." CreationDate="2017-08-12T17:58:46.280" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10373" PostId="5056" Score="2" Text="@varro but I've never said there was a standard. :)" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:09:22.313" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10376" PostId="5057" Score="2" Text="The only problem I see with this answer is that the only inscription I have found that has the expression written in full is the [Arch of Titus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus#Inscription) (@JoonasIlmavirta maybe you know of more?). And that inscription uses the &quot;populusque&quot; version. However, that arch was built around 82 AD, which is when there was already the Roman Empire (it seems the SPQR expression referred to the Roman Republic, which ended in 27 BC). So if the Q has a different meaning, it might need to imply the Arch of Titus did not meant to use SPQR as used earlier." CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:00:18.773" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10377" PostId="5057" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I'm not familiar enough with the Roman inscriptions to say which readings of SPQR have been found in full and which have not. I mentioned the temple of Saturn in my answer, so with that triumph arch it makes a score 2 for *Senatus populusque Romanus*. It is of course good to be aware that this reading might not be the only one, but attestations of any alternative in literature or inscriptions would make the point far stronger. (Still, this answer got my upvote for presenting numerous options.)" CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:06:10.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10378" PostId="5057" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Mmm, interesting to see that apparently the final version of the inscription in the Temple of Saturn dates from around the 3rd century, which is also after the Roman Republic. It would be very interesting to find such inscription dating from the actual Roman Republic. This must have been studied by someone! Maybe there is somewhere an explanation in a book or paper." CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:25:40.300" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10381" PostId="5057" Score="0" Text="The original source was said to come from &quot;&quot;Geschichte der Römer&quot; - (eng. tranlation: History of the Romans) by Oskar Jäger&quot;, and the Wikipedia user said about him: &quot;and he is very thourough in his facts&quot;. You can read the discussion yourself, but due to lack of clear evidence the theory was removed from Wikipedia." CreationDate="2017-08-12T23:08:03.603" UserId="1903" />
  <row Id="10371" PostId="5059" Score="1" Text="The issue is that the same Latin alphabet is given different sounds depending on the language, so the case might be &quot;spelling Russian names the way their bearers did themselves when they used Latin&quot;, (and maybe infer a set of rules from recurring patterns if there isn't one.)" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:52:25.727" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10374" PostId="5059" Score="1" Text="Both “Saytzeff” and “Tschaïkowsky” reflect German spelling&#xA;conventions.  Presumably they would have spelt their names differently had they written them in a Latin context.  At any rate, any system that depends on the vagaries of which European language someone first wrote their name is too capricious to be used in the general case," CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:20:38.933" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10383" PostId="5059" Score="1" Text="@varro. Saytzeff used this spelling also in the papers that he published in French." CreationDate="2017-08-13T13:35:35.720" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10390" PostId="5060" Score="0" Text="If possible be specific; call it the dative. Otherwise, I think I'd go for 'endings.' After all the rhetorical ornament which uses the repeated sounds of inflexions, *homoioteleuton,* is just posh (id est: Greek) for 'similar ending.'" CreationDate="2017-08-14T02:38:14.867" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10380" PostId="5062" Score="0" Text="I feared this might be the case. A proposed new solution from five years ago is hardly consensus. I had not heard of that book before. It may end up being commonly accepted, but, as you write, only time will tell." CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:59:24.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10423" PostId="5062" Score="0" Text="The solution is not new, only Mercado's scholarship to support and develop it. James Howarth, fifty years ago described the earliest surviving 'Latin' poetry as accentual and trochaic, and compared it to the English nursery rhyme &quot;Sing a song of sixpence.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-08-16T02:57:27.647" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10387" PostId="5063" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Latin originally developed as an oral language, so I'm not sure what it would mean that *-que* started as a separate word as opposed to a suffix. However, drawing attention to the Roman definition of a word (or lack thereof!) is a good point to make. The effect of enclitics on stress was mentioned [in an older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/600/79) if you are interested." CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:54:31.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10393" PostId="5064" Score="1" Text="Perhaps http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi.php?s_sprache=en (publication: CIL)?" CreationDate="2017-08-14T04:20:52.900" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10406" PostId="5064" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. That looks very promising after a quick trial! Can you post it as an answer?" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:21:04.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10407" PostId="5064" Score="0" Text="Did you just create two tags for that? Hahaha" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:53:39.173" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10408" PostId="5064" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I did, and I synonymized them immediately. I thought it would make future use easier. We haven't had many inscription questions yet, but I hope there will be more." CreationDate="2017-08-14T14:06:46.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10426" PostId="5064" Score="1" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta I don't believe that it's possible to search yet, but digitization seems to be under development. This might help in assessing the situation: http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/drupal/?q=en/node/291" CreationDate="2017-08-16T16:58:32.763" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10388" PostId="5065" Score="1" Text="Are there more examples of the same (or similar) abbreviation? That would help judge how era-, location- or author-specific it is." CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:57:15.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10389" PostId="5065" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: I've managed to find one other example, but that's all Google could do for me. It may very well be very specific, but it seems impossible to search Google for such abbreviations, for it tends to find only wrongly recognised text, e.g. Hewbrew or manuscript that doesn't have *J.S.J.P.* at all." CreationDate="2017-08-14T00:28:23.837" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10391" PostId="5065" Score="1" Text="Suggestion: S and P are the Senate and President; JJ are legal terms, Jus, Jussus, Judex, Judicans." CreationDate="2017-08-14T03:24:01.777" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10395" PostId="5065" Score="1" Text="@Hugh That makes me guess *iussu senatus, iussu praesidentis*, &quot;by the order of the senate and the president&quot;. I might extend this to an answer when I get to a computer. [Edit: I did.]" CreationDate="2017-08-14T05:40:14.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10399" PostId="5065" Score="4" Text="Perhaps: juris sacri et juris profani" CreationDate="2017-08-14T08:34:37.587" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10417" PostId="5065" Score="1" Text="@Hugh: So did mine. There is the *Constitutio Carolina*, an important (body of?) law of the Holy Roman Empire that this &quot;disputation&quot; might relate to. Or it might have something to do with the Gustavo-Caroline University, as the university of Tartu was called at the time. Or it may be a kind of oration held in honour of Charles XII of Sweden; I have another title page with a dissertation exhibited during festivities celebrating Charles's birthday." CreationDate="2017-08-15T01:57:37.117" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10436" PostId="5065" Score="0" Text="@fdb: I meant to reply to your comment earlier. I think it's a very interesting suggestion. It might fit the context. The only thing is that I would expect something else there, a kind of benediction or blessing. And neither the Caroline Constitution, about which I now suspect these disputations to be, nor the specific topics appear to be related to the *jus sacri* at all. Then again, a *juris sacri et juris profani disputatio* may be an established academic formula...I just don't know!" CreationDate="2017-08-17T23:58:14.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10400" PostId="5066" Score="2" Text="I think you'll find that it's _praesidii_ rather than _praesidentis_, referring to the General Council rather than the President (who in classical Latin would more likely precede the Senate, as _ego_ precedes _ille_, for instance)." CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:16:38.770" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10404" PostId="5066" Score="1" Text="The first initialism also looks like a motto. _Dominus ... gratiae_ or something like that?" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:40:00.847" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10409" PostId="5066" Score="1" Text="How about &quot;Judicis Universitatis, Doctoris Philosophiae, Publici Oratoris,&quot; A description of the Assessor, Joh. Schack in the Genitive is needed but my commas suggest that this suggestion is not right." CreationDate="2017-08-14T15:12:00.737" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10414" PostId="5066" Score="2" Text="Very interesting suggestion. It is possible! On the other hand, I would expect a kind of benediction in that position rather than &quot;on the order of the senate&quot;. The university and functionaries are mentioned below the introduction of the subject in all such title pages I have seen. My guess for DFG would be something like *Dei Faventis Gratia*, similar in function to *Quod Deus Bene Vertat* from the other title page. // I believe JUDPPO stands for *Juris Utriusque Doctor Professor Publicus Ordinarius*, because both JUD and POP (though not in the order PPO) are common academic titles." CreationDate="2017-08-15T01:46:08.800" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10411" PostId="5067" Score="0" Text="J for _in_ doesn't sound right to me (but I can't rule it out either.)" CreationDate="2017-08-14T17:41:12.740" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10412" PostId="5067" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I thought that capital i is J. Or that is not always the case?" CreationDate="2017-08-14T17:43:54.207" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10413" PostId="5067" Score="1" Text="as far a I know, j is a late, non-universal addition to Latin to mark consonantal i. Hence you can see jam (whenever j is used) for iam, but rarely, if at all, jn (here, i acts as a vowel)." CreationDate="2017-08-14T19:26:57.480" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10416" PostId="5067" Score="0" Text="I agree with you in that I would expect a kind of blessing or motto. (But what?) You say it could be a personal motto, i.e. not used anywhere else. But the one you mention is written in full: wouldn't it be odd to abbreviate an expression that was not widely known? On the other hand, I've not been able to find *JSJP* anywhere outside Greifswald. // Your missing letter must be a J. Also visible two pages later." CreationDate="2017-08-15T01:53:50.490" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10422" PostId="5069" Score="0" Text="My old Rosetta Stone Latin course had *te non intellexi; repete, quaeso,* but that *was* Rosetta Stone." CreationDate="2017-08-16T01:44:40.440" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10433" PostId="5069" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure if you're thinking specifically of those times when you didn't quite catch what someone said but I thought this question might naturally link to a previous question about saying &quot;pardon, I didn't quite hear/understand what you said&quot;: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1830/how-would-one-say-pardon-me-in-the-sense-of-not-understanding-or-hearing-in/4437#4437" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:37:58.753" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="10434" PostId="5069" Score="0" Text="@Penelope I was thinking of a general verb (or several) to be used in all kinds of conversational situations. I faintly remembered we had had something similar, but couldn't quite remember what it was. That question is certainly relevant. Thanks for the reminder and the link!" CreationDate="2017-08-17T11:56:52.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10424" PostId="5071" Score="0" Text="I’m quite sure that it is not the case of the Latin." CreationDate="2017-08-16T12:45:08.570" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="10425" PostId="5071" Score="3" Text="Very few languages have flags per se. For example, the Finnish flag stands for Finland, a constitutionally bilingual country, not the Finnish language, which is also spoken outside Finland to some extent. It might be better to ask which flag Latin is most (easily/strongly/other) associated with. Can you specify where you would want to use such a flag? For changing the language of a web page, or something else?" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:03:04.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10427" PostId="5071" Score="2" Text="The closest you could ever get to that is probably, depending on your purpose is the [vexilloid of the Roman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#/media/File:Vexilloid_of_the_Roman_Empire.svg) or maybe that of the [Vatican](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Vatican_City)." CreationDate="2017-08-16T17:47:31.893" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10466" PostId="5071" Score="0" Text="Another suggestion could be this combo-flag: http://zebratigerfish.blogspot.dk/2016/01/flag-for-latin-language.html" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:24:56.697" UserId="584" />
  <row Id="10467" PostId="5071" Score="0" Text="A possible use of the flag could be at language learning sites like Duolingo, where other languages are represented by country flags." CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:26:46.003" UserId="584" />
  <row Id="10468" PostId="5071" Score="1" Text="A special debate regarding languages and flags: http://www.flagsarenotlanguages.com/blog/" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:30:58.997" UserId="584" />
  <row Id="10480" PostId="5071" Score="0" Text="@MOLAP I would doubt that combo-flag would catch on, as it is just looks like [neoplastic art](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=images&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.artsy.net%2Fartist%2Fpiet-mondrian&amp;psig=AFQjCNEPQH5iJ7fx-b8ol-e49MY3gOgAuA&amp;ust=1503612011145989), rather than anything meaningful or recognizable as associated with Latin." CreationDate="2017-08-23T22:04:52.070" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10428" PostId="5073" Score="0" Text="Does a private grave inscription count, or do you have something more official in mind (from a business, gov't officials, etc.)? My sense is that 'official' prohibitions that were posted tended to be phrased not as simple 'Don't x' statements but in the form 'Whoever does x will face punishment y' – e.g., Petronius _Sat._ 28: 'quisquis servus sine dominio iussu foras exierit accipiet plagas centum.' Or, although the meaning is uncertain, the inscription on the [Lapis Niger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_Niger) is generally believed to start with some sort of prohibition in this same form." CreationDate="2017-08-16T18:28:07.513" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="10429" PostId="5073" Score="0" Text="@cnread It doesn't have to be official. I was just curious about how a prohibition sign would be worded in Rome. A grave inscription would make a good answer, and so would pointing out that prohibitions were often worded as threats instead if that is indeed the case." CreationDate="2017-08-16T18:33:41.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10430" PostId="5073" Score="0" Text="The Twelve Tables contained some, if that counts." CreationDate="2017-08-16T19:03:21.477" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="10431" PostId="5073" Score="1" Text="@kkm Perhaps the Twelve Tables are more of a written form of legislation than prohibition signs like my two examples, but it's difficult to draw an exact line. In the end, I will have to leave it to the answerer's (and voters') judgement to decide what a sign is." CreationDate="2017-08-16T19:19:20.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10487" PostId="5075" Score="0" Text="That's a very good point, thank you. I certainly agree that the Greek names really were treated specially, because of the Greek cultural influence, perhaps to the point of not even sounding entirely foreign anymore--or, at the very least, un-Roman. I am more interested in understanding the process of adaptation of entirely alien names. For one, I would be very surprised if actual native names of Brennus and Arminius were, respectively, Brennus and Arminius! :)" CreationDate="2017-08-25T03:10:37.290" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="10437" PostId="5080" Score="1" Text="The LSJ entry for ὀκτώπους does point to another variant ὀκτάπους, one of whose meanings is given as &quot;octopus&quot;: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%29kta%2Fpous&amp;la=greek&amp;can=o%29kta%2Fpous0&amp;prior=oun&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ktw/pous&amp;i=1#lexicon" CreationDate="2017-08-18T00:19:41.137" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10438" PostId="5080" Score="0" Text="relevant elu answer &amp; comments at https://english.stackexchange.com/a/138236/77227" CreationDate="2017-08-18T00:43:27.570" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10439" PostId="5080" Score="1" Text="@sumelic. With the false claim that &quot;the word octopus was coined by Linnaeus (the biologist) in the 18th century&quot;, and other factual errors." CreationDate="2017-08-18T08:26:29.703" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10440" PostId="5080" Score="0" Text="@TKR. Yes, with ὀκτα- as the regular compositional stem of ὀκτω." CreationDate="2017-08-18T08:30:53.653" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10442" PostId="5080" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Why don't you post an answer here with the Alexander Trallianus example?" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:10:03.053" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10444" PostId="5080" Score="0" Text="@sumelic thanks for linking the Stack English question.  I'm glad to see the debate is still raging." CreationDate="2017-08-18T15:29:48.273" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="10443" PostId="5084" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Where can I find about such meaning of _competo_? Or what is the same, do you have some references that support that statement?" CreationDate="2017-08-18T14:43:43.997" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10445" PostId="5084" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho. A proper dictionary is a good place to begin, e.g. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcompeto" CreationDate="2017-08-18T18:54:11.207" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10446" PostId="5084" Score="0" Text="Most Latin dictionaries are based on Freund's Latin-German *Wörterbuch*, and have much the same attestations (but not to say an exact correspondence). Any will provide exemplary usages, and the better ones are on line. I prefer Smith's, but Lewis and Short's is popular. Smith gives two sources for *competitor*, to correspond with the English meaning 'rival', 'competitor': Cic. Off 1.12.38  _si est inimicus, aliter si competitor (cum altero certamen honoris et dignitatis est, cum altero capitis et famae)_ and Liv. 6.41 _qui certos sibi uni honores inter dimicantes competitores aequum censeat_." CreationDate="2017-08-18T19:51:56.093" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10450" PostId="5086" Score="1" Text="I've been browsing the Loeb library and it seems that πολύπους is the most common way to refer to what we now call octopus." CreationDate="2017-08-19T17:57:12.037" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="44949" PostId="5088" Score="0" Text="Thats only a problem in English. In German Luther writes &quot;Am Anfang&quot; and not &quot;An dem Anfang&quot;, because there is only this one. The same differentiation is central for the Greeks with &quot;God&quot; and &quot;The God as on of the many. The first sentence is a philosophical beat of drum, see eg Goethes Faust I, who in his monologue tries to find the complete content of  λογος  between &quot;word&quot; and &quot;common sense&quot; or &quot;plan&quot; or even a materialized order of state in the sense of Aristoteles politeia." CreationDate="2023-09-27T19:44:53.947" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="10452" PostId="5090" Score="0" Text="Ah, that makes sense. Especially it being a calque on the Hebrew phrase. Thanks." CreationDate="2017-08-19T21:05:44.933" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10449" PostId="5092" Score="1" Text="This is a good answer, but I would change the initial wording: &quot;*edax* doesn't **literally** mean...&quot; L&amp;S lists &quot;devouring&quot; as a poetic meaning of *edax* and &quot;time the devourer&quot; captures the spirit of Ovid much better than your helpful literal translation." CreationDate="2017-08-19T17:24:01.250" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10451" PostId="5092" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Changed" CreationDate="2017-08-19T20:31:24.077" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10869" PostId="5092" Score="0" Text="&quot;...we generally don't form adjectives from nouns.&quot; What do you mean by this?" CreationDate="2017-09-30T22:26:07.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10870" PostId="5092" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer To me, adjective-deriving suffixes like -osus, -alis, etc tend to feel much more natural in Latin than in English." CreationDate="2017-10-01T04:56:43.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10872" PostId="5092" Score="0" Text="I see what you mean. Indeed, in English very often the noun and adjective are identical (e.g. brick house). I just wasn't sure if you meant the forms or something else." CreationDate="2017-10-01T11:49:15.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="13521" PostId="5095" Score="0" Text="Incidentally, what software is that you're using? It doesn't look like any site I know." CreationDate="2018-03-21T03:49:56.673" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13522" PostId="5095" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus TLG http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/" CreationDate="2018-03-21T13:04:07.980" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10456" PostId="5097" Score="0" Text="Hmm interesting, good examples. So the *-cola* words seem to be of Latin descent. And the others all look Greek? Unless the *-gena* suffix is Latin? At any rate, there seems to be a conexion with Greek (and masculinity), as you say. By the way, *agricolum* gives me only a single hit by Lucretius in the HP corpus, which one might explain away as adjectival (non-classical or poetic) *agricolus*: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=agricolum%23 Of *incolum*, HP has no instances—oh, but that word has only 3 syllables." CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:12:39.417" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30862" PostId="5097" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus and the TLL also adds another attestation of gen. pl. *agricolum*, a fifth century Christian poet Dracontius, Romul. 7:99 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dracontii_Carmina_minora/AlsKUJlYaRIC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;bsq=agricolum" CreationDate="2021-02-25T18:28:06.133" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10457" PostId="5098" Score="5" Text="At a glance, I'd say the answer is yes, but the question in the title seems to ask something different." CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:37:53.483" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10462" PostId="5098" Score="5" Text="In the case of *sagittarius, -ii,* that's just an adjective used substantively; i.e., *sagitta, -ae* 'arrow' -&gt; *sagittarius, -ia, -ium* 'pertaining to arrows' -&gt; *sagittarius, -ii* 'man who shoots arrows, archer'. *Sagittaria, -iae* would be the natural choice for 'woman who shoots arrows'." CreationDate="2017-08-21T19:04:26.843" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="18703" PostId="5098" Score="1" Text="Related: [Is the phrase professor emerita grammatically correct?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7516), [Can masculine 1st-decl. nouns be feminine? (e.g. “Nauta perita”?)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/379)" CreationDate="2019-02-26T00:20:26.603" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10458" PostId="5099" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and very interesting question! But I'm afraid the answer has more to do with the philosophical meaning of _to be_ (and the distinction made between _being_ and _existence_) rather than with Latin language." CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:18:58.943" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10459" PostId="5099" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I don't really think this question is purely philosophical. They could be asking whether or not one can substitute _existo_ in where _sum_ is used, and vice-versa (i.e. are the definitions similar enough where they can be interchanged, or do they have different connotations)." CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:36:19.327" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10460" PostId="5099" Score="0" Text="Agreed. The _cogito ergo sum_ only makes philosophy more likely to be involved. Let's see what the OP has to say. Note that in philosophical terms the parallel sum/existo is the same as English to be/exist. I don't know if a more general context (classical Latin or daily English usage) gives additional insights" CreationDate="2017-08-21T01:04:58.377" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10477" PostId="5102" Score="0" Text="It is &quot;Latinitatis&quot;, of course." CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:05:44.600" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10482" PostId="5102" Score="0" Text="Okay, but could you elaborate on this?" CreationDate="2017-08-24T06:31:40.693" UserId="584" />
  <row Id="10485" PostId="5102" Score="1" Text="Genitive case latinitatis &quot;of Latin&quot;." CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:22:00.153" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10508" PostId="5102" Score="0" Text="I was more looking for answers from people who have been on his famous Latin courses or have read his latest book. And on that basis give some answers/comments about his method in more details." CreationDate="2017-08-28T09:54:30.370" UserId="584" />
  <row Id="10469" PostId="5104" Score="1" Text="I remember hearing that *cuncti* meant *omnes* but with a stated or implied exception, though I can't remember where I heard it." CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:42:33.587" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11906" PostId="5105" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the second half of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/322/79)" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:57:27.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10471" PostId="5106" Score="2" Text="Great answer, and very well justified. Note that many languages have no central authority, yet they are more or less universally identified by flags of countries associated with them." CreationDate="2017-08-22T21:50:33.450" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10470" PostId="5107" Score="1" Text="Welcome! While the Latin translation of Winnie the Pooh is not an original classical piece of work, this is a good answer. (+1!) I hope you stay on the site for some more questions ans answers, and take a look at our [tour]." CreationDate="2017-08-22T20:39:40.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10473" PostId="5108" Score="2" Text="I'd use *o* + accusative of exclamation: *o pulchrum!*" CreationDate="2017-08-23T05:39:23.667" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10479" PostId="5111" Score="0" Text="According to Weiss, the laryngeal was specifically the *h2 of the neuter plural ending." CreationDate="2017-08-23T22:03:01.067" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10484" PostId="5111" Score="0" Text="Does r + h2 = rā? de Vaan says that “the long ā in quadrāginta (sic) must be phonetic”, which seems to be a way of saying that he has no explanation for it. @TKR" CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:19:49.207" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10486" PostId="5111" Score="0" Text="PIE *rH (when r is syllabic) gives Lat. rā for all laryngeals. &quot;Must be phonetic&quot; seems completely meaningless, I agree." CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:37:23.717" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10478" PostId="5112" Score="1" Text="_Quam_ + adj. is quite normal. _Vale quam optime!_ is an accepted way of saying an informal good-bye." CreationDate="2017-08-23T21:02:10.457" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10481" PostId="5112" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton sure, what I was looking for is verbless or copulative exclamations" CreationDate="2017-08-23T22:43:21.443" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39121" PostId="5112" Score="0" Text="[Fronto](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1248/3/4/3001-3013@1#4) also uses *quam pulchra*." CreationDate="2022-08-04T20:34:15.193" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10483" PostId="5115" Score="0" Text="I've never come across this, and wonder if there was need enough for standard phrases? For what it's worth in interest, in English contemporary with the change the two systems were simply referred to by, for example, the historian of Rome Edward Gibbon, as 'O.S.' (_Old Style_, i.e. Julian) and 'N.S.' (_New Style_)." CreationDate="2017-08-24T08:42:38.520" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10489" PostId="5116" Score="0" Text="It might be because Google personalizes search results, but I could not find a single hit for &quot;stylus novus&quot; used in a Latin text to refer to the choice of calendar. I found [one hit](http://pau.krakow.pl/Elementa/tomy/Elementa_IV_1961.pdf) for &quot;stylus vetus&quot;. It is reasonable to expect that if these Latin phrases are used with German and some other languages, then it would be applicable in Latin as well. There were very few hits with *stilus*, too. Did you mean these Latin phrases used within other languages, or actual fully Latin documents using these phrases?" CreationDate="2017-08-25T22:16:37.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10492" PostId="5116" Score="2" Text="Here is an example in a Latin context. The author is a well-known astronomer, so someone who knows what he is talking about: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6k73c__jWo0C&amp;pg=PA4&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;dq=%22stylus+vetus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kI_QmPCACK&amp;sig=7cb3AdySe5AIBuJIUwgbT98pVuU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTipr-1_TVAhXFB8AKHSYuDUUQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22stylus%20vetus%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-08-26T10:30:05.293" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10493" PostId="5116" Score="1" Text="Thanks! For the benefit of those who cannot or do not want to follow the link, here is a telling passage: *Notandum quod stylus vetus idem fit ac priscum Calendarium Julianum: sed stylus novus vel Gregorianus ante annum 1700. currentem, dies decem plus plusquam vetus numerabat...*" CreationDate="2017-08-26T13:05:10.107" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10488" PostId="5118" Score="0" Text="Loss of a coda consonant doesn't always result in compensatory lengthening; in fact I believe (though don't have a reference) that this is less common with plosives like *d* than with continuants." CreationDate="2017-08-25T19:39:17.007" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10529" PostId="5118" Score="0" Text="Because iddem &gt; ĭdem is incorrect. According to one hypothesis,  n. ĭdem, with the enclitic -em,  was reanalyzed as *iddem and that gave rise to a new enclitic -dem; hence, e.g. m. isdem &gt; īdem." CreationDate="2017-08-30T00:28:55.850" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10531" PostId="5118" Score="0" Text="Either of the comments would make a fine answer." CreationDate="2017-08-30T05:02:50.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10490" PostId="5119" Score="2" Text="I'm guessing the phrase is Dedekind's own. &quot;Formed after a well-known saying&quot; implies as much, though this English translation is a bit unclear." CreationDate="2017-08-26T01:49:37.810" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10491" PostId="5121" Score="2" Text="&quot;Man always counts&quot; has a nice double-entendre in that &quot;man is the measure of all things&quot;, although I might favor &quot;man always calculates&quot;, because Dedekind comes after Laplace, who developed a fully formed theory of probability, thus a different, &quot;game theoretic&quot; double-entendre.  *(I'm a little surprised &quot;[mathematize](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mathematize)&quot; turns out to be actual word—I suspect I may have chosen it because of the zeta;)*  Wonderful answer.  Thank you so much!" CreationDate="2017-08-26T02:28:12.507" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="10494" PostId="5123" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you add a description of *effundere* too? The question was about comparing the two. And if you have some sources (like a specific dictionary), it would be nice to mention." CreationDate="2017-08-26T13:13:42.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10518" PostId="5126" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Unfortunately, it appears I wasn't clear. The sense of the phrase I intend is that every second of the day is productively employed. It seems to me that what you propose suggests something more like &quot;no delay&quot;." CreationDate="2017-08-28T21:13:06.400" UserId="1943" />
  <row Id="10519" PostId="5126" Score="0" Text="@u1f47e Actually, I did intend my suggestion to be read as &quot;no procrastination&quot; rather than &quot;no delay&quot;. I think it would convey the same idea as a motto. I can try to figure out other options tomorrow." CreationDate="2017-08-28T21:34:31.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10521" PostId="5126" Score="0" Text="@u1f47e I added the last paragraph. Is it better now?" CreationDate="2017-08-29T06:55:22.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10527" PostId="5126" Score="0" Text="Perhaps I've chosen my English version poorly. Penelope's &quot;no moment neglected&quot; may be closer to the mark, and also your &quot;with no moment thrown away&quot;. I see these as different from &quot;no procrastination&quot;. For the first two, I imagine filling up all of the minutes on a clock face, and for the last I imagine filling the smallest sliver of space between now and when work begins, saying nothing of when work will stop. &quot;Nulla hora amissa&quot; sounds like a good option, but I'm having trouble weighing it against all the others." CreationDate="2017-08-29T22:10:05.467" UserId="1943" />
  <row Id="11335" PostId="5127" Score="1" Text="On a tangential point, your “occasionally odd” comment invoked my reading of the Lomonosov's 18th c. grammar of Russian, one of those first describing the modern language. If I understand him, a distributive numeral is used for people, unless the whole group is all-female. But it gets worse than that. He notes it would be &quot;impolite&quot; to use a distributive when referring to (male) persons of noble status, so &quot;two dukes&quot; or &quot;three archbishops&quot; call for a cardinal, not a distributive. And Arabic inverses numeral's *gender* in some cases. Latin is *amazingly* regular compared to these!" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:25:46.507" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="10524" PostId="5129" Score="0" Text="Thanks. According to the Middle Liddell entry on this page http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=turannos&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=tu/rannos-contents, the word 'soon came to imply reproach' in Greek too. But was there no word whose primary meaning was 'bad ruler' so you wouldn't have to add, 'And I don't mean like Pisistratus'?" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:41:17.707" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="10593" PostId="5130" Score="1" Text="There is a wikipedia article about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone_naming#History" CreationDate="2017-09-05T19:27:05.200" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="10594" PostId="5130" Score="0" Text="@Luc Good find! That indicates that the naming scheme we use today is far too young. If there was an older analogous thing further back in history, I would assume it to be mentioned. The remaining question is whether the Romans gave any names for their natural disasters. Since it is hard to prove negatives, a &quot;I've never seen it so it probably doesn't exist&quot; would make a valid answer, especially together with that bit of history you linked to." CreationDate="2017-09-05T19:48:50.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10595" PostId="5130" Score="0" Text="Indeed :) However, before starting to search, I was pretty convinced this wasn’t that old, so this result can be biased. By the way, it was a lot older than I thought." CreationDate="2017-09-05T20:32:40.030" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="10496" PostId="5131" Score="2" Text="It should be short in maximus and maxime but then there's some evidence that it could be long. See e.g. footnote 32 on p. 175 in Weiss *Outline.*" CreationDate="2017-08-27T01:33:15.283" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10497" PostId="5131" Score="1" Text="Good to see you around." CreationDate="2017-08-27T04:22:11.113" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10498" PostId="5131" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Good to be around! And thanks for emailing a while ago—I'm sorry for not responding (it's still in my inbox, so at SOME point I will!), but I appreciated it." CreationDate="2017-08-27T07:07:34.537" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10499" PostId="5133" Score="2" Text="A very thorough answer." CreationDate="2017-08-27T11:29:42.260" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10504" PostId="5133" Score="1" Text="Plus much better sources." CreationDate="2017-08-27T23:01:46.870" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10501" PostId="5135" Score="1" Text="Whenever I listen to _Nuntii Latini_, I notice that they seem to occasionally slip into more ecclesiastical pronunciations of certain sounds, especially &quot;v&quot; (using hard v instead of soft). Is this really how the imperial Romans would have spoken, or is it merely a modern regional accent so to speak?" CreationDate="2017-08-27T16:23:08.157" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10502" PostId="5135" Score="3" Text="@SamK It attempts to be close to imperial pronunciation, but of course it is affected by how Finnish is pronounced. And I believe much has been learned about classical pronunciation after the Finnish pronunciation system has been established. I lack the sufficient expertise to comment on the details such as V. The picture of Roman pronunciation given by the broadcast is certainly not perfect, but I do think it's a good start." CreationDate="2017-08-27T16:28:24.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10621" PostId="5135" Score="2" Text="Thank you, I listened to the podcast, and I don't know because the creators of the podcast are Finnish, but I didn't think it sounded that... high. Now that I think about it, it sounded much like modern day Italian. Thanks for the answer." CreationDate="2017-09-07T21:11:52.547" UserId="1415" />
  <row Id="10505" PostId="5136" Score="0" Text="I tagged this only *terentius* because I couldn't find anything like &quot;editions.&quot; If there's something appropriate to add, please let me know and I'll do so." CreationDate="2017-08-27T23:35:43.773" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10506" PostId="5136" Score="0" Text="Was *just* about to suggest some green &amp; yellows..." CreationDate="2017-08-28T00:13:19.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10507" PostId="5136" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner You can always create new tags like `editions` or `textbook-recommendations`. They might work well. And there's the old [tag:resource-request]." CreationDate="2017-08-28T06:08:05.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10513" PostId="5136" Score="0" Text="I think all the plays are available in the Loeb series." CreationDate="2017-08-28T12:06:57.383" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10515" PostId="5136" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Added *resource-request* tag." CreationDate="2017-08-28T12:37:40.197" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10516" PostId="5136" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer That might be where I end up." CreationDate="2017-08-28T12:37:56.620" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10514" PostId="5137" Score="1" Text="Just unsourced opinion:1) I think there's no special word for $f(43)=7$ before the X cent.: the positional system (and no. 0) become [known in Europe by that time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals#Adoption_in_Europe) 2) You could add the IV in XL with the III, but I don't think it is intuitive. 3) Some Mediterranean numerical systems used letters w/values as well, and there are examples of numerology (adding the letters in a name to form a number, etc. e.g. Sixtus=i+x+v=16) 4) I think _littera_ could be understandable even if not optimal, as in _summa literarum (nominis/numeris)_" CreationDate="2017-08-28T12:11:01.727" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="26481" PostId="5138" Score="0" Text="Can you give us the actual numbers, how many occurrences is Ngram showing for 1730-1760 of Sapphus and Sapphonis in English texts?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T12:52:37.910" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10509" PostId="5139" Score="1" Text="How come the Greek style dative is not &quot;Dīdŏĭ&quot; (or &quot;Dīdœ&quot; to match the Greek diphthong) but &quot;Dīdō&quot;? Just wondering. So should we add a Latin-style inflection table to the Wiktionary and a usage note explaining that in Classical Latin there is only one attestation of _Sapphus_ and zero of _Sapphonis_, whereas in more recent Latin one can find both, with the Greek form prevailing (at least according to Ngram)?" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:59:50.053" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="10510" PostId="5139" Score="2" Text="@MickG The Greek version is Latinized to some extent but not fully. I don't know why the final *-i* in dative was dropped. If the Wiktionary article is supposed to describe the name through the ages, then both Latin and Greek declension options should be included. I would also add a notice about other words with similar dual declension; *Sappho* is not unique." CreationDate="2017-08-28T11:10:01.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10511" PostId="5139" Score="1" Text="The entry for [Dido](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dido) gives two declensions, with the Greek-style giving Accusatives Dīdō, Dīdūn and Dīdōn. How were the last two formed? I thought the Greek was Διδώ Διδοῦς Διδοῖ Διδώ Διδοῖ… was there an alternate Greek Διδών? EDIT Just found the answer: Ionic declension Δῑδοῦν ([says Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Διδοῦν))." CreationDate="2017-08-28T11:27:18.407" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="10512" PostId="5139" Score="1" Text="@MickG I'm glad you answered your own question; I couldn't have. :) I have never seen accusatives like *Didon* and *Didun* in Latin. It would be interesting to know what era and author they are from. Perhaps someone could ask a separate question about them? It might be that *Dido* was borrowed as an undeclinable word and only the genitive was adopted separately. To me that looks like a plausible option to nominative, accusative, and dative (and ablative) having been separately Latinized to *Dido*." CreationDate="2017-08-28T11:35:21.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10522" PostId="5139" Score="2" Text="I suspect, that the word &quot;Didus&quot; in the Google n-grams is the latin name of the extinct bird called dodo in English. Such are the joys of Google n-grams." CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:21:54.083" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="10523" PostId="5139" Score="0" Text="@jknappen Good point! It never crossed my mind, but there might indeed be false positives from birds or other sources. Apparently Linné didn't think too highly of it if he called it *Didus ineptus*." CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:27:46.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10525" PostId="5139" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: ineptus is quite appropriate, because the giant dove was unable to fly (not really unusual for insular bird species, but still remarkable)" CreationDate="2017-08-29T14:07:57.970" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="33543" PostId="5139" Score="1" Text="*How come the Greek style dative is not &quot;Dīdŏĭ&quot; (or &quot;Dīdœ&quot; to match the Greek diphthong) but &quot;Dīdō&quot;?* I could be wrong, but I think the genitive is Διδώι, but the iota got absorbed and was no longer pronounced, so it ended up being spelled by medieval scribes with the iota subscript instead, Διδῷ. When the word came to the Romans, I suppose they didn't know/care about archaic pronunciations." CreationDate="2021-06-05T13:23:48.293" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="10528" PostId="5146" Score="0" Text="The gloss &quot;no moment neglected&quot; sounds exactly like what I want, and &quot;nullum momentum praeteriit&quot; is both short and pretty. Can anyone weigh in on which version of those offered is (most) correct?" CreationDate="2017-08-29T22:19:55.550" UserId="1943" />
  <row Id="10540" PostId="5148" Score="1" Text="Thanks for locating the phrase. Your suggestion has a nice sound to it and is easily understandable." CreationDate="2017-08-31T02:22:17.947" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10536" PostId="5149" Score="0" Text="I have no idea, really. But if mus+ur=mur, then tis+ur is likely to have led to tur, thus converging with t+ur=tur. This could explain the need for a different ending." CreationDate="2017-08-30T17:51:55.340" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10534" PostId="5150" Score="0" Text="Maybe the same kind of apophony that gave us *-cidere* from *cadere* when a preverb is attached? Although it seemed to leave short *e* unchanged: cfr. *perlegere*, *subvenire*..." CreationDate="2017-08-30T17:17:13.000" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="10535" PostId="5150" Score="0" Text="@giobrach Possibly. Weakening of a stem vowel before a prefix is not unusual, but I failed to locate more analogous cases (short E to short I, or in the last syllable). I do think this is a part of the same general phenomenon, but I don't see enough context to put it in." CreationDate="2017-08-30T17:35:02.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10549" PostId="5150" Score="1" Text="The *i* seems more common: *ūndecim*, *duodecim*, but also *decimus*; the latter is also attested with *u* &gt; *decumanus*." CreationDate="2017-09-01T00:40:04.390" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10537" PostId="5151" Score="2" Text="Have a look at Heiberg's critical edition p. 4 (with critical apparatus) and his Latin translation on the following page. http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/Archimedes_VOL_II.pdf" CreationDate="2017-08-30T23:31:34.370" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10542" PostId="5151" Score="2" Text="Support the proposal for creating a Greek language stackexchange, now in the commitment phase: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:19:58.867" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="10543" PostId="5151" Score="0" Text="@fdb Thank you for the link, I will look into it when I have better connection." CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:24:24.473" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="10544" PostId="5151" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I always wondered why there wasn't already one, or why they hadn't changed this one's name to &quot;Ancient Language&quot; or something." CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:24:51.120" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="10541" PostId="5154" Score="3" Text="If they're one letter too long, you could get rid of the space; Latin was conventionally written without those." CreationDate="2017-08-31T05:06:39.933" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10538" PostId="5155" Score="3" Text="I can understand why Bopp thought that *-minī* was connected with Greek ‐μένοι - the phonetic resemblance is striking.  But, as both you and Sihler point out, there's a serious problem with the motivation for coming up with such a paradigm that includes the result of a paraphrasis for *only* the 2nd ppl.  I'm more persuaded by Sihler's explanation than Bopp's, but, admittedly, there is likely no definitive answer possible." CreationDate="2017-08-30T23:34:18.780" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10548" PostId="5155" Score="1" Text="@varro, it is a serious objection, but not an insurmountable one; such replacements tend to happen when there's something &quot;faulty&quot; about an inherited form (e.g. sound change has made it too similar to another form). Not knowing what the exact shape of the ending would have been pre-replacement, of course, we can't say whether that was the case, but it can't be ruled out, either. Maybe the inherited ending, which might have been something like *-bi, simply didn't fit into the pattern &quot;middle ~= active + *r*&quot; (as described in the question) so didn't make sense to speakers as a middle ending." CreationDate="2017-09-01T00:13:17.157" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10665" PostId="5155" Score="1" Text="One thing that makes -mini special is that it's also the imperative ending. Perhaps an historical comparison with the singular imperative could be interesting, but I'm not aware of which scholars would have looked into that." CreationDate="2017-09-12T15:46:40.243" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10546" PostId="5156" Score="2" Text="Moreover, both pro and ab require a noun in the ablative, not the accusative." CreationDate="2017-08-31T13:36:12.687" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="44809" PostId="5158" Score="0" Text="Note that the line you quoted in the title, and in the question, does not stand alone, so it's not possible to say just what &quot;ANGLORVM REGIS QVI COR LEONIS DICTVS&quot; means. It's not grammatically valid without the preceding line." CreationDate="2023-09-11T21:07:44.223" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="10560" PostId="5159" Score="0" Text="Do note that the inscription has &quot;Anglorum&quot; (of the English), not &quot;angelorum&quot; (of the angels)." CreationDate="2017-09-01T22:16:11.503" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10614" PostId="5159" Score="1" Text="@fdb You evoke the shade of Gregory the Great : _non angli, sed angeli!_" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:25:51.047" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="44810" PostId="5159" Score="0" Text="Note that this is the translation of the whole inscription, not just the part quoted in the question." CreationDate="2023-09-11T21:08:44.480" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="10547" PostId="5162" Score="2" Text="Interestingly, most word processors for Roman-alphabet languages have a setting letting you see whitespace as symbols, and interpuncts are typically used for spaces." CreationDate="2017-08-31T14:30:52.287" UserId="301" />
  <row Id="10550" PostId="5166" Score="1" Text="I think you're quite a ways towards a full answer! Especially the part about how what we call novels of Antiquity are (somewhat) less salacious than the Milesiae. I do seem to remember that the novel was among the first  (and few) Antique genres that were (or began to be) read in silence. But I'm not even sure whether this applied to Latin or Greek or both." CreationDate="2017-09-01T04:09:10.510" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10556" PostId="5167" Score="1" Text="*Blowing your own trumpet* means *too proud* or *praising oneself (too much)* in English, too. It really is not the same thing as *all talk but no action*. The former emphasizes that the person gives himself praise rather than either allowing his accomplishments to speak for themselves or others to praise him—but it says nothing about whether or not the accomplishments are worthy of praise, just that his self-praise is unseemly. The latter emphasizes the lack of action as the problem—the talk may be very well and good but without action it is meaningless." CreationDate="2017-09-01T18:12:15.183" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="10561" PostId="5167" Score="2" Text="Maybe this answer can help those who know latin. In Portuguese, language with latin roots, we say *«É só garganta»* or *«Isso é só garganta»* which literally translates to *«That's only throat»* with that exact meaning of much talking, but no action." CreationDate="2017-09-01T15:23:32.090" UserId="1960" />
  <row Id="10562" PostId="5167" Score="2" Text="@Edu Welcome to the site! I think your comment may be quite helpful. The reason we converted it into a comment is that the question above is &quot;is there a Latin equivalent...?&quot; (as this site is about Latin). So your reply falls into the category of comments: it does not directly answer the exact question, but it is useful in other ways, which is the purpose of comments." CreationDate="2017-09-01T22:19:51.517" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10579" PostId="5172" Score="1" Text="Thanks! Do you have a reference for your figures?" CreationDate="2017-09-05T06:02:30.070" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10582" PostId="5172" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I didn't enquire as to the original source of statistics, but presumed at the time that they were reliable enough to provide a basis for estimating translation and printing costs. The figures were supplied by a professional translation agency ca. 1992, and proved accurate in practice; for example, the text portions of versions in Finnish (the shortest) had about half the number of words of those in German." CreationDate="2017-09-05T09:16:33.597" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10565" PostId="5174" Score="1" Text="Thank you! On 'any vowel is long before &quot;ns&quot; or &quot;nf&quot;'--would that apply to 'mānsūrus'? (Obviously it must.) Wiktionary's inflection table for the verb (see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maneo#Inflection) gives 'mānsūrus', but the entry for the participle itself (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mansurus#Inflection) gives 'mansūrus' etc. I believe this is what Wiktionary does for many similarly formed participles." CreationDate="2017-09-02T01:29:00.293" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="10567" PostId="5176" Score="2" Text="If you look at the apparatus in the Cambridge edition you will see that the text has been heavily emended. The Loeb editor has kept the manuscript reading. Just so we know what we are discussing." CreationDate="2017-09-02T09:59:53.973" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10568" PostId="5176" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Good point and good to know (I figured the Loeb translation must be some kind of tour de force). I was going to go back and find the apparatus criticus, but the Google decided that I couldn't view that page any more..." CreationDate="2017-09-02T13:40:37.630" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10569" PostId="5178" Score="4" Text="Related: [How is the supine related to the derived fourth declension noun?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4182) The answers there talk about the origin, but it's not clear to me if there were ever any other forms used" CreationDate="2017-09-02T19:16:57.347" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10570" PostId="5178" Score="3" Text="@sumelic The supine is a specialized use of the fourth-declension verbal noun. In old Latin the two are essentially indistinguishable, and in addition to the accusative and ablative we also see the dative used in verbal constructions. My answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4177/can-the-supine-ablative-be-used-for-motion) covers the topic." CreationDate="2017-09-02T20:28:50.580" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10572" PostId="5178" Score="0" Text="&quot;a verbal noun with only accusative and ablative forms&quot; - that's incorrect." CreationDate="2017-09-02T21:42:01.987" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10573" PostId="5178" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. how so? That's what my teacher taught us." CreationDate="2017-09-02T21:44:38.177" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="10574" PostId="5178" Score="0" Text="Have you read this? https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4434/39" CreationDate="2017-09-02T21:51:48.453" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10575" PostId="5180" Score="0" Text="Metathesis never crossed my mind, but it makes sense. To me *decem &gt; dicem &gt; decim* sounds more plausible than a direct *decem &gt; decim*." CreationDate="2017-09-03T10:16:52.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10590" PostId="5182" Score="0" Text="*Redemptor* is indeed the translation given by all dictionaries I checked." CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:23:42.767" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="10591" PostId="5182" Score="0" Text="@Luc Interesting. I wonder if it has the sense I'm looking for after all... Was it *redemptor* alone or with something else? My dictionary only gave it as *redemptor operis*." CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:27:45.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10592" PostId="5182" Score="0" Text="In French-Latin dictionaries, I’ve generally found *redemptor*. I’ve also found *operis conductor* but I think it is more related to a *maître d’œuvre*, a *project manager*?" CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:41:51.350" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="10610" PostId="5182" Score="0" Text="As far as I know history, in antiquity, most _businesses_ (apart, perhaps, from agriculture, were small) were formed by a master (the entrepreneur, self employed) and a small number of apprentices: smiths, carpenters, shoemakers, saddlers. So having a profession/craft must have meant by default that you were self-employed." CreationDate="2017-09-06T21:12:53.390" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10611" PostId="5182" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I agree, entrepreneurial status came automatically with many professions. It is still true today, but with a far smaller fraction of all professions. The phenomenon did exist, but it is not clear (from what I had seen before Tom's answer) whether there was a word for it." CreationDate="2017-09-06T21:27:00.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10613" PostId="5182" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I agree. I don't know the answer, but maybe in the pre-industrial era it was so obvious that most people were self-employed/entrepreneurs, that there was no need for a specific term for such a broad concept." CreationDate="2017-09-07T01:13:37.960" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10577" PostId="5183" Score="4" Text="I can't be bothered to seek out a citation right now, but when this conundrum occurred the Romans would sometimes put the agent into the ablative + *a(b)*." CreationDate="2017-09-04T22:54:02.680" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10578" PostId="5183" Score="0" Text="@Anonym: Indeed, that is what I was taught as a rule. And I don't remember ever writing it off as a fiction when reading, so I suspect it's reasonably accurate. You can always find a citation later and turn it into an answer." CreationDate="2017-09-05T00:01:21.627" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10965" PostId="5183" Score="1" Text="@Anonym Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge 355: &quot;To avoid ambiguity, especially when the verb itself take a the Dat., the Abl. with ab (a) is employed for the sake of clearness...When there is no ambiguity, there is no need of ab. [then he gives the example] Linguae moderandum est mihi, *I must put bounds to my tongue*." CreationDate="2017-10-08T20:41:47.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="12464" PostId="5184" Score="0" Text="I can't find any evidence of shortened names in the corpus but I did stumble upon a longstanding academic debate about the name _ipsitilla_ in Catullus 32, a probable diminutive superlative of _ipsa_ and, therefore, a term of endearment (albeit facetious in tone).  Is this sort of what you're after?  Or do you only want shortened names?" CreationDate="2018-03-17T09:26:57.753" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="10583" PostId="5185" Score="6" Text="Can you cite the article?" CreationDate="2017-09-05T10:16:37.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10588" PostId="5185" Score="0" Text="I agree with @C.M.Weimer: It would be very useful to cite the source of the translation &quot;sense of the way of man&quot;. That would also help us give a more tailored answer." CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:15:36.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10612" PostId="5185" Score="0" Text="Apart from the fact that &quot;sense of the way of man&quot; is meaningless in English." CreationDate="2017-09-06T22:28:11.327" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30917" PostId="5185" Score="0" Text="@fdb It could have been a mistaken reading, but of course given this was a drive-by question, it's probably some nonsense article read by someone without any real interest in the topic." CreationDate="2021-02-28T22:08:41.517" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10580" PostId="5187" Score="1" Text="Isn't it `lapsus (plumæ/calami)`?" CreationDate="2017-09-05T08:26:56.170" UserId="1969" />
  <row Id="10581" PostId="5187" Score="0" Text="@user28434 I don't know. If you do, please write it as an answer!" CreationDate="2017-09-05T08:28:09.433" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10596" PostId="5188" Score="0" Text="It's almost amazing to me that we have no record of this. With human nature being what it is, you'd think there'd be *some* form of pet names. Possibly in the vulgar, which we have so few records of? But I don't recall anything in Petronius either, who used a few snippets." CreationDate="2017-09-06T09:40:54.743" UserDisplayName="user1968" />
  <row Id="10598" PostId="5188" Score="1" Text="@Marakai Affectionate address need not have anything to do with the names. For example, you could call William &quot;honey&quot; instead of &quot;Bill&quot;. Our written evidence is limited, but as far as I know, it contains no hints at affectionate variants of Roman names." CreationDate="2017-09-06T10:14:03.910" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10599" PostId="5188" Score="0" Text="You misunderstand me when using &quot;pet names&quot;. In this case I was simply too lazy to write *hypocorism* and just used *pet names* instead, not implying whether they were addresses of affection. Of course, now you made we write hypocorism. Twice!" CreationDate="2017-09-06T10:15:36.397" UserDisplayName="user1968" />
  <row Id="10779" PostId="5188" Score="2" Text="@Marakai Unless I'm mistaken, all pet-names, regardless of shortening or not, are hypocorism. &quot;Sweetie-pie&quot; is hypocorism. See the &quot;Did you know?&quot; section on [M-W](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocorism)." CreationDate="2017-09-21T15:58:03.270" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="14248" PostId="5188" Score="1" Text="After long last decided to accept this one as at least an explanation of why we do NOT see this." CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:39:28.613" UserDisplayName="user1968" />
  <row Id="14249" PostId="5188" Score="1" Text="@Marakai Questions like this are tricky in that respect. If the answer is that something doesn't exist, it's very hard to prove it conclusively." CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:49:29.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34331" PostId="5190" Score="0" Text="&quot;worterbuch&quot; is also a typo. Yours." CreationDate="2021-08-02T20:29:00.650" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10587" PostId="5191" Score="0" Text="Great answer, thank you! I thought of _ora et labora_ little after posting the question, but never imagined there was a longer version or that it was precisely its original sense" CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:14:10.883" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10589" PostId="5191" Score="1" Text="You’re welcome! I don’t think this is exactly the same sense, but indeed it is very near :)&#xA;&#xA;(In fact, it is not just for one time when a problem occurs: Benedictines actually *must* pray and work each day of their lives)." CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:16:33.483" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="10604" PostId="5194" Score="0" Text="Just for inspiration to the last part about: A Greater Good.&#xA;I came across and old speech by pope BENEDICT, where he uses the phrase:&#xA;&#xA;&quot;in a search for the true good of mankind and of society.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;and the Latin version:&#xA;&#xA;&quot;dum verum quaeritur hominis ac societatis bonum.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Link to document: https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/urbi/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20050420_missa-pro-ecclesia.html&#xA;&#xA;Link to a short audio discussion of this part with Reginald Foster:&#xA;http://frcoulter.com/latin/latinlover/latin_07_11_07.mp3" CreationDate="2017-09-06T11:20:02.553" UserId="584" />
  <row Id="10600" PostId="5195" Score="0" Text="Is this a &quot;fair&quot; question, in light of our modern concept of linguistics being a mere couple hundred years (give or take, if Wiki can be trusted) old?" CreationDate="2017-09-06T10:59:21.063" UserDisplayName="user1968" />
  <row Id="10601" PostId="5195" Score="0" Text="@Marakai I am not sure what you mean by fair. The Romans did not have the theoretical framework we do and therefore were likely to misunderstand something. My purpose is not to mock any Roman grammarian, but to see what misunderstandings they might have had." CreationDate="2017-09-06T11:04:24.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10602" PostId="5195" Score="1" Text="That's pretty much what I meant, hence putting &quot;fair&quot; in quotes. Couldn't think of a better term. My meaning was whether it was &quot;possible&quot; (quotes again) for the Romans to misunderstand something about their language when they lacked the systemic ability for analysis as we do today (or since the days when it was still called philology). It's actually an interesting question." CreationDate="2017-09-06T11:06:33.357" UserDisplayName="user1968" />
  <row Id="10619" PostId="5195" Score="3" Text="Off the top of my head, they thought Greek and Latin were much more closely related than they actually were. This involved e.g. suggesting that the contracted third person perfect was a remnant of the dual number." CreationDate="2017-09-07T20:21:48.557" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10620" PostId="5195" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That would make an interesting answer! Relations with Greek or other languages sound like a fruitful way to approach this." CreationDate="2017-09-07T20:24:29.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10623" PostId="5195" Score="1" Text="@Draconis, what's the source for the statement about the perfect/dual?" CreationDate="2017-09-07T22:43:09.013" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10624" PostId="5195" Score="0" Text="@TKR I'm afraid I don't know, this is just going off a vague recollection" CreationDate="2017-09-07T23:47:50.557" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10733" PostId="5197" Score="0" Text="I believe that &quot;tiro&quot; is spelled &quot;tyro.&quot; I don't have enough reputation to edit it, and you may want to &quot;double check&quot; in any event before making any changes." CreationDate="2017-09-18T18:53:56.717" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="10752" PostId="5197" Score="0" Text="@TomAu It's spelt with an &quot;i&quot; in my Latin dictionary - there may be a Greek variation, but I'm too much of a tiro to know! ;)" CreationDate="2017-09-19T13:11:22.190" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="10753" PostId="5197" Score="1" Text="And for all I know, it could be the difference between British and American spelling. I'll continue to use &quot;y&quot; but am glad to know that &quot;i&quot; is also correct." CreationDate="2017-09-19T16:15:20.687" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="15204" PostId="5197" Score="1" Text="Why do you think it is strange? What is more &quot;natural&quot; about the current convention?" CreationDate="2018-08-13T20:08:12.343" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15210" PostId="5197" Score="0" Text="Re: boustrophedon in Latin https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/500/are-there-any-complete-latin-inscriptions-written-in-boustrophedon" CreationDate="2018-08-14T00:01:55.250" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10607" PostId="5198" Score="2" Text="Thanks, I wasn't clear enough, I know what the word means, I just don't understand why people wrote in this way. Wikipedia isn't much help." CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:43:56.027" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="10615" PostId="5201" Score="0" Text="Good question! As a Finn, I don't find the glottal stop artificial, but as a Finn I might also argue that voiced stops are artificial, so take it with a bigger-than-average grain of salt... I wonder if there is any evidence left to differentiate between, say, /uʔu/ and /uwu/ for the third case in classical pronunciation." CreationDate="2017-09-07T15:49:32.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10616" PostId="5201" Score="1" Text="Regarding the glottal stop, two (possibly contradicting) ideas: i) Romance languages are not fans of it (like I think Germanic languages are), although it happens, ii) I wonder how _mihi_ and _nihil_ got to be pronounced ['mi.ki] and ['ni.kil] at some point in Ecclesiastical Latin, and whether the glottal position of the /h/ (nonexistent in Italian) was involved at some stage of the sound change. FWIW, I pronounce vocalic uu as [u.u] (separate syllables), but even if it is right, it would most probably be so in Ecclesiastical." CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:19:23.023" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10617" PostId="5201" Score="2" Text="As far as the glottal stop, I agree with Rafael - there's a tendency with English (and probably other Germanic speakers - and I gather Finnish) to break the hiatus with a glottal stop, but I know of no reason to suspect that was done by Latin speakers, and evidence of the Romance languages argues against this.  (I've heard English speakers do the same thing in Greek, referring e.g. to &quot;the verb ποιέω&quot; as [poɪˈɛʔoː], which I believe is equally wrong.)" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:44:19.460" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10618" PostId="5201" Score="2" Text="@Rafael: As far ['mi.ki] and ['ni.kil] for _mihi_ and _nihil_, I have a theory (but no more than a theory) about this, but I don't think it will fit into a comment.  (Fermat strikes again!)" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:58:07.600" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10800" PostId="5204" Score="1" Text="It's absolutely fine to say &quot;Mārcus sī nōn fēlīx fuisset, non inter vīvōs versārētur&quot; or whatever. I'm leaving this as a comment because I don't know the answer to the first part of your question—that is, I've seen BOTH the present subjunctive and the imperfect subjunctive in Latin used for &quot;I would do that,&quot; and I have yet to figure out what the difference is." CreationDate="2017-09-22T06:17:38.353" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="23216" PostId="5204" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12814/subjunctive-mood-in-latin" CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:57:29.150" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="10663" PostId="5205" Score="0" Text="Analogy of inflected forms like *equis* reinforces the second u at any time; is there good evidence that it was ever lost?" CreationDate="2017-09-12T09:57:17.173" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="10664" PostId="5205" Score="0" Text="@jknappen The answer to the linked question argues that *equus* was pronounced as if it were *ecus* (as mentioned by a Roman, too), so the first U was lost by the classical era. The spelling was maintained by analogy to oblique cases, but pronunciation was not. I was surprised!" CreationDate="2017-09-12T10:09:04.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10622" PostId="5206" Score="0" Text="Enter CIL in the &quot;publication&quot; field to limit the search to CIL." CreationDate="2017-09-07T22:42:54.357" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="10633" PostId="5208" Score="1" Text="It seems to correspond in this text to a Hebrew preposition _ʿal_ whose primary meaning is along the lines of &quot;over&quot;/&quot;on top of&quot;, so it looks like a Hebraism to me.  (I notice the Greek text uses ἐπὶ, which may have something to do with it.)" CreationDate="2017-09-09T17:54:51.887" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10660" PostId="5208" Score="2" Text="Another reading is _leads me to the waters... and beyond_ (see. L&amp;S sv [_super_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuper2), meaning II. A. b.)" CreationDate="2017-09-11T19:57:45.223" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10628" PostId="5209" Score="0" Text="The line between &quot;compulsory&quot; and &quot;voluntary&quot; is rather blurry... I doubt there are many schools where a) attendance is legally required and b) foreign language study is required and c) Latin is the only language offered.  Other than that scenario, basically everything is optional... high school students might be required to take a foreign language, but get to pick which one. University students in certain majors could be required to take Latin, but they could choose a different major or university to avoid it.  So perhaps the reasons that people *do* study Latin will be enlightening as well." CreationDate="2017-09-08T20:18:17.740" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="10629" PostId="5209" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel Agreed. I do see a difference between wanting to study Latin per se and accepting some compulsory Latin to get a degree in French, but it is true that most can avoid Latin entirely if they are willing to change their school or major. I just didn't want the data to be dominated by answers like &quot;Latin was a compulsory part of the degree program&quot;, but I'm not sure if that is an issue." CreationDate="2017-09-09T08:44:34.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10630" PostId="5209" Score="2" Text="I would be interested to hear how many people chose Latin because they didn't want to take a different language. That's my original reason! I chose Latin in high school because I had been forced to take Spanish for eight years previously, and having learned nothing whatsoever, I decided it was time to move on to something better. I do not regret that decision!" CreationDate="2017-09-09T16:25:35.923" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10631" PostId="5209" Score="0" Text="@SamK Good point! I added that to my list. I hope there is some data out there on this." CreationDate="2017-09-09T16:59:48.407" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10632" PostId="5209" Score="0" Text="@SamK My experience is similar - I started to take Latin in Junior high school because it was either that or French, and I did't want French.  In High School, they offered Latin, French, and Spanish, so I took Latin and Spanish, because I *still* didn't want to take French.  (In subsequent years, I finally got over my foolish prejudice against French.)  Latin has stayed with me though, unlike Spanish (even though I had four years of Spanish)." CreationDate="2017-09-09T17:11:21.750" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="10666" PostId="5209" Score="1" Text="To read the Gallic Wars by JC and the poetry of Catullus..." CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:12:06.897" UserId="758" />
  <row Id="10773" PostId="5209" Score="1" Text="@R.Skeeter pretty much the same here, I used the Gallic Wars of JC as lorem ipsum for a long time and finally wanted to be able to read what they actually said. Thankfully I now know that Gaul, as a whole, is divided into 3 parts..." CreationDate="2017-09-21T13:22:59.777" UserId="1961" />
  <row Id="19612" PostId="5209" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel The school where I went, three years of Latin was mandatory for all those who entered in the seventh grade (it was a 7-12 college prep high school). They then had the choice to continue onto more Latin (AP or IV) or go onto another modern language. Our school emphasized a Classical education, which I found was most useful." CreationDate="2019-05-09T01:33:24.757" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="10772" PostId="5211" Score="0" Text="In this scenario, when referring to quantities of items, if we were talking about 2 pairs of shoes and a single item such as a table, and since Latin has no articles, would it be more natural to phrase it as '...duas soleas et mensam.' or should we still specify a quantity of 'one' for the single item?" CreationDate="2017-09-21T13:17:55.800" UserId="1961" />
  <row Id="10774" PostId="5211" Score="0" Text="@NeilHibbert You can always use the number for emphasis. It's not used like an article, but when listing amounts, it does make sense to mention &quot;one&quot; explicitly." CreationDate="2017-09-21T13:55:37.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10639" PostId="5217" Score="2" Text="In English &quot;stoutness exercises&quot; can mean either &quot;exercises to increase stoutness&quot; or &quot;exercises to reduce stoutness&quot;." CreationDate="2017-09-10T12:50:49.787" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10634" PostId="5218" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This might be just my being slow, but can you explain what &quot;continued&quot; is supposed to mean? Do you use it to denote page changes (&quot;this is where page 46 starts in the book&quot;) or something else? It looks more like &quot;this text (on page 57) continues a story that was interrupted on page 46 of this document&quot;, but your description points in a different direction. If you can show an example of this English usage of &quot;p. 46 (continued)&quot;, that would help." CreationDate="2017-09-09T20:26:09.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10636" PostId="5218" Score="1" Text="It's for the header at the top of each letter. For example, Pliny's Epistles Book II Letter XVII is very long (&gt;1100 words) and thus, it crosses several pages in Whitton's edition of Book II. When I'm making my version, I want to be able to know what page of Whitton each passage is on, so I might label a section of Letter XVII as &quot;p. 61 - XVII (continued)&quot; to show that XVII began several pages ago." CreationDate="2017-09-09T21:38:05.807" UserId="1416" />
  <row Id="10637" PostId="5218" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the explanation! Now I understand what you're after. I took the liberty to edit that into your question. Feel free to re-edit if you want to." CreationDate="2017-09-09T21:55:08.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10661" PostId="5218" Score="1" Text="Seems this question is pertinent: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5220/reading-a-snippet-of-15th-century-handwriting-in-latin" CreationDate="2017-09-12T02:15:35.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10635" PostId="5219" Score="5" Text="To me, this sounds like something you would put on a page to indicate that it represents notes for page 46 and several other pages, whereas the question sounds like taking page 46 of the original text and spreading the notes for said page over several pages, if that makes any sense." CreationDate="2017-09-09T21:31:29.700" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10640" PostId="5220" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Two remarks: (1) Do you mean 53 and 54 instead of 43 and 44? (2) Margins are too narrow for many interesting things. I'm glad to see other mathematicians here." CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:39:53.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10642" PostId="5220" Score="4" Text="**Hic co^tinua^^** Here continu..    It seems to be a rubric put in for use during a Service." CreationDate="2017-09-10T20:28:46.090" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10643" PostId="5220" Score="0" Text="It looks like the pre-Vatican II reading for the Wednesday of Holy Week ends at verse 53!  http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Roman_Missal.htm" CreationDate="2017-09-10T21:40:02.817" UserId="1980" />
  <row Id="10645" PostId="5220" Score="0" Text="There's also a marginal comment at the beginning of Chapter 22, which is the beginning of that reading (it's all of Luke 22 and then Luke 23:1-53).  So that comment may also be relevant (though perhaps harder to read since I don't have a photo and the beginnings of the lines are missing)." CreationDate="2017-09-10T22:08:36.570" UserId="1980" />
  <row Id="10646" PostId="5220" Score="2" Text="The prior margin comment is on page 98 of the scan, and the relevant text of the Roman Missal is [here](http://www.archive.org/stream/missaleromanumm01churgoog#page/n185/mode/2up)" CreationDate="2017-09-10T22:14:59.957" UserId="1980" />
  <row Id="10647" PostId="5220" Score="2" Text="In a later margin: p125 (Ca 18 St John) The departure to Gethsemane: &#xA;“Hec cum dixisset ihesus: egressus est cum discipulis suis tra^s (trans) torrentem cedron ubi erat ort^^^: in quem introivit ip^e &amp; discipuli eius.”&#xA;It says  **‘Huiusque legitur in refectorio.’** “And of this let it be read in the refectory.” or is that ‘of each.’?" CreationDate="2017-09-10T22:33:00.520" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10648" PostId="5220" Score="2" Text="The note on page 125 also appears to have a paired note telling the reader where to stop on page 127.  That portion of John covers roughly the same material as the portion of Luke we're discussing, and it is exactly the Gospel portion of the Missal for Good Friday." CreationDate="2017-09-10T22:52:34.280" UserId="1980" />
  <row Id="10649" PostId="5220" Score="2" Text="Also one in Matthew 26 (which is again the death/burial portion read during holy week) on page 42, but no ending comment there.  Also analogous spot in Mark 14 page 63, no ending comment but some pages are missing in the scan.  That's a pretty clear pattern!" CreationDate="2017-09-10T23:04:31.877" UserId="1980" />
  <row Id="10654" PostId="5222" Score="0" Text="Have you seen [this](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=menus&amp;lang=la)?" CreationDate="2017-09-11T01:08:52.133" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10657" PostId="5222" Score="0" Text="@Rafael No, I had not seen that. I suspected that there might be sound changes making suitable words hard to find. The common property is M and N which may or may not have a vowel in between." CreationDate="2017-09-11T10:46:39.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10662" PostId="5222" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5149/latin-passive-endings-why-is-mini-sticking-out" CreationDate="2017-09-12T09:43:18.563" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="10650" PostId="5224" Score="1" Text="If these are all inherited from PIE instead of derived from the roots within Latin, I take it that the suffix was never productive in Latin." CreationDate="2017-09-10T23:04:48.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10651" PostId="5224" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I meant that they're native rather than loanwords; I don't know when those particular forms were produced. Editing for clarity. Pretty clearly the suffix isn't productive in any stage of Latin as we know it." CreationDate="2017-09-10T23:08:41.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10653" PostId="5224" Score="0" Text="What about _autumnus_?" CreationDate="2017-09-11T01:07:01.320" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10655" PostId="5224" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, *autumnus* has no accepted etymology; some think it's an Etruscan loan." CreationDate="2017-09-11T01:22:19.570" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10659" PostId="5225" Score="1" Text="refectori[o] of course." CreationDate="2017-09-11T19:21:08.557" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10658" PostId="5228" Score="0" Text="I don't understand your question. Perhaps you can explain why you think first person verbs and indirect speech are incompatible." CreationDate="2017-09-11T17:14:23.347" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="18194" PostId="5229" Score="0" Text="Could you tell me what texts you used? I am a Latin teacher from Belgium and i am supposed to introduce the theme (school) bullying in Latin texts but it's hard to find appropriate material. Greetings&#xA;david" CreationDate="2019-01-16T10:47:46.703" UserId="3291" />
  <row Id="18196" PostId="5229" Score="0" Text="@DavidJanssens For this question I didn't use any texts, really. I tried searching online to little avail, and then I looked up possible words in [some online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79). If you want to find Latin texts on a specific topic, I recommend asking a new question. Just click the [&quot;ask question&quot; button](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) and ask away!" CreationDate="2019-01-17T04:06:33.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10687" PostId="5237" Score="2" Text="+1. Saying that Catholics translate it like that seems a little far-fetched, though. I've seen better Catholic translations of the passage, like the one offered by luchonacho, which is pretty much how it is used in liturgy (at least in Masses in the US.)" CreationDate="2017-09-13T22:38:04.827" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10689" PostId="5237" Score="2" Text="@Rafael, the difference - or so I read - arises from a difference in the Greek Manuscripts, and the difference is a single sigma, a single 's'. One manuscript reads &quot;en anthropois eudokia&quot; while the other reads &quot;eudokias&quot;, which changes the grammatical tone of the sentence. 'Eudokia' is nominative, thus &quot;good will towards men&quot;, whereas 'Eudokias' is genitive, which puts the emphasis on those with whom God is pleased. Thus the translations are different between Bibles, such as NKJV and NASV, which *I read* has historical, sectarian overtones." CreationDate="2017-09-14T13:40:26.477" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10690" PostId="5237" Score="2" Text="But maybe the variant translations being sectarian are coincidental, based more on the individual who translated it rather then difference of doctrine, so that it could have just as easily been the Protestants using 'Eudokias' and the Catholics using 'Eudokia'. Either way it's 'ouch', a huge limiting of the good will from what I myself was raised with. And my concern *here* is more for my ring's engraving then the history of theology (though it is a subject I find interesting). Thanks for the input though" CreationDate="2017-09-14T13:58:18.797" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10694" PostId="5237" Score="2" Text="The problem is, as always, human nature. The solution is grace (and _bona voluntas_)." CreationDate="2017-09-14T14:58:28.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10695" PostId="5237" Score="2" Text="How beautiful good will is, and the nature of those we have it. And how ugly is malice, and the nature of those who have it. You say 'human nature'.. Well, the doctrine of original sin is disputed in different Christian denominations (and that goes far beyond just the 'Catholic Protestant' divide), but it doesn't exist in every religion. Each person's soul is something he himself can work on, try to improve, and guard from corrupting. Something some believe it is his duty to work on. But it is also something each person can neglect, spoil, and corrupt. Thank you again @Rafael for all input !" CreationDate="2017-09-14T15:12:00.310" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10696" PostId="5237" Score="1" Text="I believe in God and certainly agree with you on Grace, and consider it the Grace of God upon a person if his heart has good will and thus earns God's good favor with deeds of good, even if he doesn't believe in God. But that's my religion. Other people don't believe in God or His grace. But we stray from linguistics into philosophy.." CreationDate="2017-09-14T15:18:43.700" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10686" PostId="5238" Score="7" Text="I'd prefer _pax et benevolentia_" CreationDate="2017-09-13T21:10:28.807" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10688" PostId="5238" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton I agree, that would be a very good choice. Do you want to write it as a separate answer?" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:29:25.497" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10711" PostId="5238" Score="1" Text="@Joonasilmavitra and Tomcotton, why would u guys prefer 'benevolentia'? I prefer Luchonacho's use of 'bona voluntas' because it captures the heart of the Biblical verse this phrase and sentiment originate from, and I see 'benevolentia' as a manifestion of good will, and not vice versa. And because I prefer 'bona voluntas' may I please ask u guys if u would consider it good, even if you'd prefer 'benevolentia'? Thanks for all your input." CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:56:36.707" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10675" PostId="5240" Score="0" Text="Would prefer to not have Cor in it, to make it shorter and more general" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:30:19.083" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10676" PostId="5240" Score="2" Text="What meaning are you going for exactly? If you want &quot;whiteheart&quot; to be in there you're probably going to need *cor*." CreationDate="2017-09-13T16:50:59.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10677" PostId="5240" Score="0" Text="Not Whiteheart. Just a general statement &quot;Bright and without malice&quot; that could be applied to a heart or a spirit or anything" CreationDate="2017-09-13T16:53:24.093" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10678" PostId="5240" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you add a more detailed description of your intended meaning in the question itself by editing it? Currently your question is a little hard to parse." CreationDate="2017-09-13T17:27:40.750" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10679" PostId="5240" Score="0" Text="Good idea @Joonas Ilmavirta. Thanks. Post edited :) and thanks for the welcome" CreationDate="2017-09-13T17:41:00.397" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10684" PostId="5240" Score="1" Text="*Absit invidia* does not literally mean 'without malice' but rather 'malice begone'. To maintain parallel structure, perhaps *adsit candor et absit invidia* 'brightness/beauty/purity/kindness be near and malice begone'." CreationDate="2017-09-13T18:32:25.247" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10685" PostId="5240" Score="1" Text="Cor is neuter: and in any case the nominative is at a loose end (nominativus pendens). *'Corde mundo,'* would add 'from a pure heart let...' or  'the heart being pure, let malice be gone.'" CreationDate="2017-09-13T20:44:45.517" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10697" PostId="5240" Score="0" Text="@Hugh, your name means Heart, via the ancient Germanic 'Hug'. Just thought I'd add that. And thank you all for your input. Wow." CreationDate="2017-09-14T15:24:39.430" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10698" PostId="5241" Score="0" Text="My mouth waters, gaping wipe. My eyes widen, and my tongue goes silent as I marvel at your wisdom and genuflect. You blow me away with your genius. Thank you so much for your input. So I think I'll use &quot;CANDIDUS SIM ET ABSIT INVIDIA&quot; for the men of that family I buy the necklace for, and &quot;CANDIDA&quot; for the women. I'm a bit iffy on ABSITQUE, because no matter how much I ogle at it with my eyes I simply cannot figure out how to pronounce it, and it looks French (a language I don't love, for the same ogle-pronunciation reasons), and it doesn't have its own page on Wiktionary." CreationDate="2017-09-14T15:43:16.410" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10699" PostId="5241" Score="0" Text="Also, ABSIT INVIDIA appears on both Wiktionary AND Wikipedia, so is a better known formula. And I delight in the way ET ABSIT sounds. Mmmmmmm... Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum... Mmmmmmm... Thank you SO MUCH for your input marvelous @Joonas Ilmavirta !" CreationDate="2017-09-14T15:47:37.850" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10701" PostId="5241" Score="1" Text="@user1988 I'm glad to hear that the answer was useful! :) Your choice *candidus/candida sim et absit invidia* sounds good." CreationDate="2017-09-14T20:47:26.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10771" PostId="5241" Score="2" Text="@user1988 it's common in Latin for the word 'que' to be attached to the end of the last word in a list to mean 'and' (such as in SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romanus / The Senate and People of Rome) in your phrase, absitque can be read as 'absit que (rough phonetics, ab-sit-qwey)' i.e. 'and be far away / gone'" CreationDate="2017-09-21T12:31:44.953" UserId="1961" />
  <row Id="10702" PostId="5244" Score="3" Text="De Vaan (unfortunately) excludes loanwords completely, so his lack of an entry for *ave* may actually mean he accepts the Phoenician etymology. The connection with the verb meaning &quot;long for&quot; does seem semantically difficult; L&amp;S list the words separately. Weiss lists *ave* as a Phoenician loanword, without discussion." CreationDate="2017-09-15T02:05:04.273" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10703" PostId="5245" Score="2" Text="**Ei** here is nom. pl. (translating 'those' which is an emphatic 'they') rather than the dative, I would think." CreationDate="2017-09-15T10:03:24.277" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10710" PostId="5245" Score="3" Text="As Hugh notes, ei is nom.pl. Although I wouldn't say it's strictly mandatory here, I personally would put it in just to break up that string of 5 consecutive verb forms: qui imperare volunt, ei parere discere debent." CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:55:19.670" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="18949" PostId="5245" Score="1" Text="_eī_ (the later form of *iī*) is indeed completely superfluous there." CreationDate="2019-03-18T22:11:43.810" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="10704" PostId="5247" Score="0" Text="Hmm, interesting.  If I'm reading the abbreviations correctly the earliest examples then are ~300." CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:29:55.393" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="10705" PostId="5247" Score="1" Text="+1. I think the non-Jew/non-Christian nuance depends on the context. Also VG uses [_ethnicus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dethnicus) for the concept (e.g. [Mt 18](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#18), 17.)" CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:34:00.117" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10706" PostId="5247" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel It's all over the place in Tertullian's *Adversus Iudaeos*." CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:36:18.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10707" PostId="5247" Score="0" Text="Admittedly I haven't checked many of them, but those that I did seemed to be of the more general &quot;peoples&quot; meaning, not clearly excluding some groups." CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:38:14.660" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="10708" PostId="5247" Score="1" Text="@Nathaniel I bolded a part above which to me is an unambiguous example of the gens v. Iudaeus opposition." CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:43:47.927" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10718" PostId="5251" Score="0" Text="Is there any way you could check that ***Rustia*** is not a misprint for ***Rustica***  ?" CreationDate="2017-09-16T13:02:43.940" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10719" PostId="5251" Score="1" Text="Are the 5 spots on the wings (areolis) usually called 'spots,' or 'eyes,' or 'nipples' ?  Also, ***rostro brevi,*** is the conventional term &quot;short beak,&quot; or &quot;short mouthparts,&quot; &quot;proboscis&quot; ? This is the main problem for the non-specialist." CreationDate="2017-09-16T13:15:00.600" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10727" PostId="5251" Score="0" Text="***Rustia*** is probably right after all. [Carl Stål](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Stål) (21 March 1833 – 13 June 1878) was a Swedish entomologist specialising in Hemiptera. In 1866 he was describing so many new species he must have run out of names." CreationDate="2017-09-17T11:42:14.907" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10802" PostId="5251" Score="1" Text="Sorry for the delay in responding. It is Rustia for sure. This transcript is basically describing the genus." CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:19:27.073" UserId="1994" />
  <row Id="10810" PostId="5251" Score="0" Text="Is there a broader description which introduces group? Or, is there a description which precedes '1' in this sequence? The taxonomy seems to have changed since  Stål discovered this single example of ***Rustia.***" CreationDate="2017-09-22T15:52:00.123" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10907" PostId="5251" Score="0" Text="I have been hoping to see more about the cicadas.  Did you find the answer? Can you scan for **'venter, ventrum,'** or **'abdomen** ?" CreationDate="2017-10-03T13:11:20.873" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10714" PostId="5254" Score="0" Text="I kind of understand where you're coming from, but it would be interesting if you could provide a few sentence where *posse* won't do. Perhaps a Roman would use a different construction altogether." CreationDate="2017-09-15T21:02:59.990" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10715" PostId="5254" Score="0" Text="Not sure if I get the sense of the question, but in Church Latin you have [_habilis esse ad_](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22habilis+est+ad%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8) + (noun or verb-ndum): _habilis est ad bonum_, _habilis es ad faciendum_ whatever. I tried to look it up on Perseus for instances in Classical Latin, but I only found clues, nothing conclusive." CreationDate="2017-09-15T23:28:24.280" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10721" PostId="5254" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus If someone asks whether I can do something, &quot;I can do that&quot; sounds like a throwaway comment which doesn't even imply that I'm paying attention, whereas &quot;I am capable of that&quot; sounds way more emphatic and tells that I have the capability to do the thing. Of course, one can always use a plain &quot;I can&quot; (or a plain *posse*), but sometimes I would like to have some more gravity to it; it is a matter of nuance. It's indeed possible that the Romans would use something entirely different." CreationDate="2017-09-16T20:21:44.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10768" PostId="5256" Score="0" Text="I have accepted this as the bets answer so far. I have a faint feeling that there is something better out there that what has been suggested here, but perhaps this is indeed all there is to it." CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:39:29.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10720" PostId="5258" Score="2" Text="Perhaps *semper prorsus.*" CreationDate="2017-09-16T17:26:54.543" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10723" PostId="5258" Score="0" Text="[This old question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2296/79) might contain some useful ideas." CreationDate="2017-09-16T20:58:39.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10724" PostId="5258" Score="1" Text="What about [plus ultra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus_ultra), meaning _further beyond_?" CreationDate="2017-09-16T21:00:30.330" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10743" PostId="5258" Score="0" Text="Would an &quot;actual&quot; motto with that translation be suitable or do you prefer a &quot;hypothetical,&quot; one translated from scratch?" CreationDate="2017-09-18T22:58:30.130" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="10745" PostId="5258" Score="0" Text="@TomAu I am not sure I know the difference between your choices. I am sure someone has already uttered what I choose." CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:22:47.650" UserId="1997" />
  <row Id="10746" PostId="5258" Score="0" Text="I am the only one so far to propose &quot;semper anticus, which is the motto of the U.S. 45th Infantry Division (now combat brigade).&quot; The rest of my work were &quot;examples,&quot; not additional choices." CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:25:34.477" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="10748" PostId="5258" Score="0" Text="@TomAu I meant I don't know the difference between &quot;actual&quot; and &quot;hypothetical&quot;" CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:27:17.850" UserId="1997" />
  <row Id="10750" PostId="5258" Score="1" Text="&quot;Semper anticus&quot; is a motto &quot;actually&quot; being used by someone (the 45th U.S. infantry). The other answers were created &quot;hypothetically&quot; in response to your question.." CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:30:10.003" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="10725" PostId="5259" Score="2" Text="Thank you everyone who has contributed to my thread. Joonas, whose opinion is to be highly regarded, says it's a matter of personal preference, so I an going with PAX ET BONA VOLUNTAS, and - credit where credit is due - giving Luchonacho the green tick since it was originally his suggestion. Excellent points raised by all. Fantastic suggestions by Joonas. Pax et Bona Voluntas et Benevolentia et genuflection to you all. Thank you." CreationDate="2017-09-17T02:18:11.077" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="10804" PostId="5260" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot for the translation. This makes sense. Does he mention anything about abdomen?" CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:22:22.570" UserId="1994" />
  <row Id="10805" PostId="5260" Score="0" Text="if not, would you help me with one more transcript? The description of the ventral side of the abdomen is what I am looking for!" CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:24:10.803" UserId="1994" />
  <row Id="10726" PostId="5261" Score="1" Text="I think it's *ablativus qualitatis*, as in: *Haec est cicada capite (...) equali, margine antico (...) inciso...* Perhaps you could also read it as a comitative ablative. Either way, this can translated by adding &quot;with&quot;s." CreationDate="2017-09-17T07:25:19.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10803" PostId="5261" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot for the translation. This makes sense. Does he mention anything about abdomen especially of the ventral side?" CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:22:02.637" UserId="1994" />
  <row Id="10806" PostId="5261" Score="1" Text="if not, would you help me with one more transcript? The description of the ventral side of the abdomen is what I am looking for!" CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:24:20.917" UserId="1994" />
  <row Id="10808" PostId="5261" Score="1" Text="@KiranMarathe Certainly, if you have an image or a transcription of it." CreationDate="2017-09-22T15:30:27.437" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10728" PostId="5262" Score="0" Text="Very nice. Stan Lee has a patent on &quot;Excelsior!&quot; so I think I'll have to leave it to him :-D  Will you help this non-Latin speaker with the difference between your phrases (-sum versus -sus) ?" CreationDate="2017-09-17T14:40:48.273" UserId="1997" />
  <row Id="10729" PostId="5262" Score="2" Text="@C. M. Weimer _rem acu tetigisti!_" CreationDate="2017-09-17T16:23:10.700" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10731" PostId="5262" Score="0" Text="@TonyEnnis Essentially nothing. In this context, they're identical. For whatever reason, *semper prorsum* is the more common phrase, so anyone coming across it as your motto will more likely recognize that form than the other." CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:58:15.803" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10730" PostId="5265" Score="1" Text="Great question! Lucretius has an elaborate account of how man may have acquired the skill of language naturally, somewhere in the second half of DRN V, probably inspired by Epicurus as usual. In general, the there was debate among the Greeks (and hence the Romans) as to whether language was 'invented' *nomôi* or *phusei* (by convention or naturally). As to Latin specifically, I am unaware of any specific classification or account of the position of the Latin language in the development and branching of historical phonology." CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:54:55.493" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10732" PostId="5265" Score="5" Text="Related: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/6675/what-did-the-greeks-and-romans-believe-about-language-relationships" CreationDate="2017-09-18T03:52:13.680" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16494" PostId="5265" Score="0" Text="Well, Stevens 2006/7 seems to be the most comprehensive account on this - thanks to Nick Nicholas for drawing our attention to this paper." CreationDate="2018-11-24T13:55:37.353" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16495" PostId="5265" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. It would be good if someone could post a summary, even a short one, of that as an answer. The answers on Linguistics do offer useful insight, but the question has a different focus." CreationDate="2018-11-24T19:46:32.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19401" PostId="5265" Score="1" Text="I've added the three sources I could find (thanks Cerberus for the mention of Lucretius!) as separate answers, so they can be upvoted or downvoted separately. If you have other sources, please do feel free to do the same!" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:59:11.170" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19402" PostId="5265" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Amazing job!" CreationDate="2019-04-26T13:05:55.257" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="10734" PostId="5268" Score="0" Text="First, *anticus* is a rarely used adjective, meaning &quot;being up front,&quot; but not connoting a movement forward. It also has a very frequent homonym *antiquus* (that was too spelled *anticus* sometimes) meaning &quot;former, previously existing,&quot; like maybe &quot;old&quot; but not implying *how exactly* old. It might not be the best choice of a word for a concise motto (although the U.S. 45th Infantry Division would likely disagreee with me on that). Second, this is probably not the sense the OP wanted--if I understand, a meaning that would invoke *moving* forward." CreationDate="2017-09-18T19:24:59.913" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="10744" PostId="5268" Score="0" Text="@kkm: I decided to ask the OP directly, commenting under his question." CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:10:36.960" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="10747" PostId="5268" Score="0" Text="@kkm You're correct in that I am not looking for &quot;being in a forward position&quot; but indeed &quot;moving forward&quot; but in a metaphorical sense." CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:26:12.860" UserId="1997" />
  <row Id="10749" PostId="5268" Score="0" Text="@TonyEnnis: I don't know a better group for &quot;moving forward in a metaphorical sense&quot; than a U.S. combat group." CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:28:03.000" UserId="642" />
  <row Id="11053" PostId="5270" Score="0" Text="It's funny that they get this stuff wrong but I'm pretty sure they we're going for something like &quot;speed kills&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-14T16:06:33.590" UserId="2064" />
  <row Id="23622" PostId="5270" Score="0" Text="Once they fix the grammar, there's a good reason to have the motto in Latin. &quot;Speed&quot; is ambiguous (since it could refer to a drug) in a way that *velocitas* is not." CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:29:47.057" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="10735" PostId="5271" Score="4" Text="Leave it to the US government &amp; military to not actually consult with an expert on something this simple." CreationDate="2017-09-18T20:55:08.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11055" PostId="5271" Score="0" Text="@C. M. Weimer It's not only the US government and military. Some years ago, I managed to embarrass the San Diego PD by pointing out that their motto was incorrect Latin!" CreationDate="2017-10-14T21:21:15.120" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10737" PostId="5272" Score="1" Text="Maybe the real translation is a hidden message: &quot;This device was built by a bunch of clueless know-nothings&quot; ;)" CreationDate="2017-09-18T21:45:01.047" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="10738" PostId="5272" Score="2" Text="@alephzero I will leave any such conclusions to be drawn by readers. (And in their defense, my experience suggests that operating weapons and writing Latin are rather independent skill sets.)" CreationDate="2017-09-18T21:47:59.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10740" PostId="5272" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta What if the weapon was a pilum or gladius?" CreationDate="2017-09-18T22:35:43.487" UserId="2002" />
  <row Id="10741" PostId="5272" Score="1" Text="I selected this as the Accepted answer despite fewer votes because of the extra detail you provided. Thank you!" CreationDate="2017-09-18T22:39:10.060" UserId="2002" />
  <row Id="10766" PostId="5272" Score="0" Text="@alephzero at risk of being off-topic, when it comes to railguns that is a horrifying thought." CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:02:34.193" UserId="1961" />
  <row Id="10769" PostId="5283" Score="0" Text="So would you say that Latin favors constructs with a non-linking verb, thus `Captivus in fuga` would probably not be preferred?" CreationDate="2017-09-21T12:02:31.500" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="10770" PostId="5283" Score="0" Text="@jpyams I'm not sure if it's a general tendency, but using *ille in fuga est* sounds weird, as opposed to *ille fugit*. I would say that &quot;to be on the run&quot; is best translated without *in fuga*, but it's safer not to draw too strong conclusions from it." CreationDate="2017-09-21T12:09:06.793" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20226" PostId="5283" Score="0" Text="*mactāre* is a religious word, and the only way to understand it in this context is &quot;sacrificed&quot;. You probably want the simplest option, which is *necāvit*. *in fugā* is a good suggestion, however - it's found repeatedly in Justinian's *Dīgesta* (*&quot;aut sī servus in fugā est&quot;*), and *&quot;quī in fugā esse dīcitur&quot;* confirms it's an established legal term." CreationDate="2019-06-20T00:29:15.970" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20228" PostId="5283" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I changed the verb as you suggested. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-06-20T06:40:05.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10759" PostId="5284" Score="1" Text="Two remarks: (1) In Italian we have *avere raggione* for the French *avoir raison*. I wonder if other Romance languages share the idiom. (2) The word *sapientia* comes to mind for &quot;reason&quot;. Perhaps also *mens* or *animus* could work, but I'm not familiar with philosophical use. I can write up a partial answer later, but I'm happy if someone beats me to it – especially since I can only answer partially." CreationDate="2017-09-20T22:15:40.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10760" PostId="5284" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Interesting! That begs the question of whether there was a similar Latin idiom for &quot;I am right&quot;, but since you did not mention it I doubt there is one (or maybe it developed in later Latin). I just found on Wikipedia that ratio was indeed used to translate λόγος, but I still wonder if this was universal to all translations and whether it has the same resonance in Roman culture that it had in Greek culture." CreationDate="2017-09-20T22:19:04.600" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10761" PostId="5284" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I would give you +2 if I could for the chiasmus which ends your comment." CreationDate="2017-09-20T22:21:09.697" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10762" PostId="5284" Score="4" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta 1) Spanish _razón_ works like _raggione_ and _raison_: _tener razón=to be right_. 2) _ratio_ is what philosophers use for _reason_ AFAIK. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas use it that way, as well as translations from Aristotle. As for the classics, judging from [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dratio), meaning II.B.2 ss., Cicero and Seneca use it, but I can't rule out alternative terms." CreationDate="2017-09-21T01:10:08.737" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10763" PostId="5284" Score="0" Text="I wonder if the Romance idiom comes from Latin at all? Perhaps late Latin, if not classical Latin." CreationDate="2017-09-21T02:38:32.790" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10765" PostId="5284" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That would make a good answer, whether you can rule out alternatives or not." CreationDate="2017-09-21T04:30:12.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10767" PostId="5286" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a welcome reminder, as it is often better to use a completely different expression when emphasis is needed. I was looking for more general (and classically attested) emphatic versions of *posse* so I won't accept this one, but it certainly deserves my upvote." CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:34:45.077" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10780" PostId="5287" Score="0" Text="When you say that *musculus* and *minusculus* are formed from the nominative, do you mean just synchronically, or also diachronically? The words *mus* and *minus* do seem to have historically had /s/ in their stems, although by the time of Classical Latin this had been rhotacized to /r/. So it seems hard to me to tell if the *s* in the diminutive forms was originally from the nominative" CreationDate="2017-09-21T17:37:23.690" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10782" PostId="5287" Score="1" Text="@sumelic I am under the impression that it's historical. *Paterculus* would be a more solid example. I cannot speak to why it's *Agricola* or *iunonicola*, though, and I hope that others could fill in gaps there. Alas, my Sihler is packed away and out of reach." CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:13:22.007" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10783" PostId="5287" Score="0" Text="With &quot;agricola&quot;, I think it's related to what AlexB says in the following answer about &quot;ager&quot; originally having agr- in all forms (with the nominative form &quot;agros&quot;) https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/382/9 while &quot;pater&quot; had a vowel between the &quot;t&quot; and &quot;r&quot; in at least some forms in PIE" CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:29:02.850" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10784" PostId="5287" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Ah, that does make sense. None of that would be helpful, though, without some sense of when these words formed. More research is needed." CreationDate="2017-09-21T19:09:40.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10775" PostId="5288" Score="1" Text="Can you explain your example?" CreationDate="2017-09-21T15:19:02.567" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10776" PostId="5288" Score="0" Text="The poet Gaius Valerius Catullus wrote a number of poems in which he refers to a women named &quot;Lesbia&quot; (thought to be Clodia Metelli his lover and a married woman). The name Lesbia roughly translates as 'Women from Lesbos' which is an affectionate name typical of hypocorism considering he could have picked any other name to use in his poems if he simply wanted to just distance himself from her..." CreationDate="2017-09-21T15:39:23.960" UserId="1961" />
  <row Id="10778" PostId="5288" Score="2" Text="So, a couple things. I believe the OP is specifically looking for shortening, for which this would not fit. Also, Lesbia is certainly not a &quot;pet-name.&quot; One, he uses the name all throughout the Lesbia cycle, even when he's bad-mouthing or slandering her. There's no way we can conclude that it's anything more than an allusion to Sappho (who was a woman from Lesbos) working as a pseudonym for Clodia. Following your logic, we would have to conclude that Lesbius from [c. 79](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_79) is also a pet-name for Clodius Pulcher, which cannot be right." CreationDate="2017-09-21T15:55:46.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10801" PostId="5288" Score="2" Text="I appreciate the answer, but it does seem a bit speculative and based on opinion. In your example my first though would have been &quot;alias&quot; to protect the identity of the woman in question. Not what you would associate with a pet name." CreationDate="2017-09-22T09:37:29.703" UserDisplayName="user1968" />
  <row Id="10789" PostId="5289" Score="0" Text="Thanks for asking this question. It was the first time I read this Jefferson quote, and I found it really prophetic." CreationDate="2017-09-21T20:07:53.460" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10796" PostId="5289" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 Yeah. Alas." CreationDate="2017-09-21T21:54:33.647" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10786" PostId="5290" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I do like grave. And how silly of me to forget the linking relative. I was thinking about using &quot;clamor&quot; instead of &quot;campana,&quot; since the way I did it eliminates the sonic connection between &quot;fire bell&quot; and &quot;knell,&quot; but that's more a question of taste probably than of Latinity." CreationDate="2017-09-21T19:34:02.707" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10787" PostId="5290" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner I'm not sure if there's a good word for &quot;fire bell&quot;, so decided to look for a way around it. (See the added option.) It certainly allows condensing the message. Does it take us too far from the original?" CreationDate="2017-09-21T19:49:11.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10788" PostId="5290" Score="0" Text="Hmm. Well, THAT leads me to want to replace &quot;neniam&quot; with &quot;exitium.&quot; The resulting sentence is probably better Latin than what I first had, but it does feel a bit far from the original." CreationDate="2017-09-21T20:07:15.540" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10791" PostId="5290" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner Changing *neniam* to *exitium* sounds good. Another option would be to replace *habui* with *sensi*; it'd go better with *nenia*." CreationDate="2017-09-21T20:18:24.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10794" PostId="5290" Score="0" Text="Ooh—though now I'm thinking &quot;Ut incendium nocturnum...conflagrationem habui.&quot; Or something similar." CreationDate="2017-09-21T21:53:16.293" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10795" PostId="5290" Score="1" Text="SO MANY OPTIONS!" CreationDate="2017-09-21T21:53:41.127" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10797" PostId="5290" Score="2" Text="@JoelDerfner Yes, the possibilities are endless. I added a third idea. It takes another step away from the original, but I quite like it." CreationDate="2017-09-21T22:52:17.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10798" PostId="5290" Score="0" Text="Your latest seems the most Latinate, though I'm not sure I buy &quot;par&quot; here. I think in the end I'm going to use a version of your first suggestion. I missed &quot;canere&quot; the first time I read it, and I think that's a very elegant and unobtrusive way to preserve the sonic connection." CreationDate="2017-09-22T02:09:03.917" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10807" PostId="5290" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I oscillated between *par* and *similis*. I'm not sure which one is better, so [I asked a new question about it](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5292/79)." CreationDate="2017-09-22T12:35:58.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29928" PostId="5293" Score="0" Text="True. However, in Scholastic Latin, &quot;similis&quot; as a technical term means &quot;having the same quality as&quot; -- e.g. two white things or two wise men are are &quot;similes&quot;. So in this technical sense, it is not mere resemblance but sameness." CreationDate="2020-11-30T22:59:30.103" UserId="2922" />
  <row Id="10812" PostId="5296" Score="6" Text="*Quō* originated as the ablative of *quī* but it ended up taking on a life of its own as an adverb. One of the meanings it gained was &quot;whither&quot;." CreationDate="2017-09-22T19:12:49.327" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10815" PostId="5296" Score="2" Text="Thank you for your explanation. Why don't you add it as an answer, so I could accept it?" CreationDate="2017-09-22T20:34:00.673" UserId="610" />
  <row Id="10816" PostId="5296" Score="2" Text="It's a bit too short for the answer atm but I'll flesh it out tomorrow and provide some sources." CreationDate="2017-09-22T20:44:58.343" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13554" PostId="5296" Score="0" Text="@Draconis no you won't." CreationDate="2018-03-26T10:12:12.140" UserId="2501" />
  <row Id="10827" PostId="5298" Score="0" Text="Thank you! My interaction with the language is such that I don't really need a better answer than &quot;nobody really knows.&quot; I'll wait to accept just in case but this is great." CreationDate="2017-09-23T21:48:04.283" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10828" PostId="5298" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner: Ah, I don't think it's really necessary for every question to have an accepted answer. And this is more of a &quot;partial answer&quot; in its current state: even if the answer is &quot;nobody knows&quot;, I think it would require more work than I've done so far to demonstrate that satisfactorily. Some more answers may show up with more information that takes more time to collect and organize, so I definitely agree about waiting at least a few more days" CreationDate="2017-09-23T22:25:47.040" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10817" PostId="5299" Score="1" Text="All three are totally fine." CreationDate="2017-09-23T03:08:32.483" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10818" PostId="5299" Score="1" Text="@cmw Well, that was easy enough. Thanks! Is there any difference in nuance between them, or period? Or they're really just interchangeable?" CreationDate="2017-09-23T03:14:24.287" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10824" PostId="5299" Score="0" Text="You could add a [link](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dadeo2) to a definition of adeo, for clarity. Sorry, I'm on the phone right now" CreationDate="2017-09-23T21:25:56.790" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10825" PostId="5299" Score="0" Text="FWIW, Ita... ut is attested in the VG, [Mt 5, 7](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html#5)" CreationDate="2017-09-23T21:31:22.600" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39898" PostId="5299" Score="0" Text="Did you end up finishing this translation? I started reading Robinson Crusoe recently and by coincidence came across this post." CreationDate="2022-10-09T22:18:58.033" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39906" PostId="5299" Score="0" Text="@cmw I did! I enjoyed it a lot. Are you reading in English or Latin?" CreationDate="2022-10-10T23:11:22.367" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="39909" PostId="5299" Score="0" Text="English. I used a bit of it in my dissertation, and decided to go back and read it properly. Perhaps I'll do Latin afterwards. How was the Latin in it? Worth at least sampling?" CreationDate="2022-10-11T00:42:21.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39929" PostId="5299" Score="0" Text="Yeah. I went back to reread it a few months ago and found that my Latin had improved enough to the point at which I was noticing an error here and there but on the whole it's elegantly done." CreationDate="2022-10-12T13:52:26.963" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10831" PostId="5300" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I don't understand how zero-grade \*rh¹ǵ- could become *reg-* rather than \*rag- in Latin; I thought syllabic laryngeals were supposed to all become short &quot;a&quot; in Latin." CreationDate="2017-09-24T22:53:54.050" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10840" PostId="5303" Score="1" Text="Thanks! The same Vicipaedia page also tells that *Platea Sancti Petri* is attested. This is good evidence that both *forum* and *platea* are good choices." CreationDate="2017-09-26T08:13:42.423" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10837" PostId="5306" Score="1" Text="Might one read this as &quot;I almost forgot about my own position&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-09-25T06:53:29.783" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10838" PostId="5306" Score="0" Text="Oh, that makes a lot of sense—like, I almost forgot I was sitting in a courtroom on trial for my life." CreationDate="2017-09-25T09:08:28.727" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10839" PostId="5306" Score="0" Text="This question was flagged as off-topic. I remind everyone that our [tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour), [topic help page](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) and [meta discussions](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/greek) indicate that Greek is on-topic." CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:36:00.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10834" PostId="5307" Score="1" Text="Thanks so much. Where do you get the &quot;really&quot; from?" CreationDate="2017-09-25T01:34:14.467" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10835" PostId="5307" Score="2" Text="@JoelDerfner When a prefix doesn't seem to change the meaning of a word at all, I tend to treat it as intensive." CreationDate="2017-09-25T01:40:09.660" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15247" PostId="5307" Score="0" Text="LSJ does have an entry, but it's under ἐπιλήθω. For the middle they give the translation &quot;let a thing escape one, forget, lose thought of&quot;, citing this Plato passage for this sense. (It doesn't seem to have an intensive sense -- it's just the normal way of saying &quot;forget&quot;.)" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:06:13.363" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="10832" PostId="5308" Score="0" Text="Montanari has an English translation now published by Brill (just a couple years ago)." CreationDate="2017-09-24T23:46:07.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10833" PostId="5308" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I know! I have both the hardcover and the online version." CreationDate="2017-09-25T00:17:26.300" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="10860" PostId="5309" Score="2" Text="Is this &quot;tautology&quot; in the sense of a logical truth? Or the more liberal usage where, e.g., analytic truths such as &quot;All bachelors are unmarried&quot; are tautologies?" CreationDate="2017-09-28T16:12:00.397" UserId="2026" />
  <row Id="10847" PostId="5311" Score="0" Text="I'm not happy with this. _iteratio/repetitio verborum/sermonis_ isn't really an explanation. I have expanded my answer in clarification." CreationDate="2017-09-27T15:16:05.547" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="10844" PostId="5312" Score="2" Text="Another Latin word for 'subjects' is parentes (always plural). In Bellum Iugurthinum 3.2, Sallust uses the phrase vi quidem regere patriam aut parentis, and so contrasts one's homeland and one's subjects – not exactly citizens and subjects, but pretty close. I've only really seen parentes in this sense in Sallust (in BI 102.7, Sulla contrasts parentes and amici) – and of course it's a nightmare to sift through search results to find other instances, because it's identical to the word for 'parent' (except, I think, in the genitive). Still, that might be a fruitful, if time-consuming, avenue." CreationDate="2017-09-27T01:30:42.233" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="10849" PostId="5312" Score="1" Text="It also occurs to me that when Roman citizens themselves feel that they have been made subjects (for example, under one of the 'bad' emperors), they try to capture the enormity of the situation by talking about it in the strongest possible terms -- that is, in terms of slavery, using words such as servitus. For example, in letter 3.5, Pliny says that his uncle wrote his 8 books Dubii sermonis 'sub Nerone novissimis annis, cum omne studiorum genus paulo liberius et erectius periculosum servitus fecisset.'" CreationDate="2017-09-27T18:37:50.753" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="10863" PostId="5312" Score="1" Text="To me, this is just an amazing question, thank you. I do not claim to possess a deep knowledge on this point, so I waited for a week to see if anyone with more expertise answers. But, since no answers materialized, I'll develop my take on it. A TL;DR answer is that *subiectus* in the modern sense is indeed a Medieval coinage, and an encompassing, hyperonymic concept of the royal subject did not exist in the Roman mind, probably not even in the late Empire. Time allowing, I'll try to elaborate on this in the coming couple days." CreationDate="2017-09-29T18:18:36.967" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="10865" PostId="5312" Score="1" Text="@kkm Thank you! I look forward to your answer. (Please share it even if it only ends up being partial or otherwise imperfect. What you have discovered is already worth an answer.)" CreationDate="2017-09-29T18:32:25.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20089" PostId="5313" Score="1" Text="I'm afraid both of these citations are in their literal meaning &quot;I know not how&quot;, not in the &quot;some&quot; meaning of *nescioquis* and certainly not &quot;very&quot;: Cicero's is translated in the Loeb as &quot;how well I cannot say&quot;, (Pseudo-)Quintilian's one is translated in a paper as &quot;I have no idea how far I can drive my hand because of the pain as my life leaves me&quot;. There don't seem to be any other candidates for either of these specialised meanings in the instances of *nescio quam* that I can see on PHI." CreationDate="2019-06-11T18:48:27.807" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20090" PostId="5313" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I added a sentence to the end of the answer. This is indeed not a perfect hit, but it is the best one I found. Frankly, I don't find it too much of a stretch to use it in the sense of the question, although that would not count as an attested idiom. Unless there are other suggestions, I'm tempted to believe that this is the best choice, even if not quite what I originally wanted in nuance." CreationDate="2019-06-11T19:46:01.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20107" PostId="5313" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Nescio + adverbial quam won't work, but nescio quis modifying an adjective is definitely sometimes used as an intensifier. The model to be followed is the one provided by *istam nescio quam innumerabilem pecuniam* = &quot;this ungodly sum.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-06-12T12:38:45.490" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20222" PostId="5313" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey You know, I seem to have missed it before, but *nescio quam innumerābilem pecūniam* is precisely such an example of adverbial *quam* modified by *nescio* - *nescio quam innūmerābilis pecūnia* (&quot;a very large sum&quot;) - and not adjectival *nescio qua innumerābilis pecūnia* (&quot;**I don't know which/some** large sum of money&quot;). So Joonas' suggestion seems to be spot on." CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:16:29.467" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="10842" PostId="5314" Score="2" Text="*Nemo sumus* doesn't feel right to me at all. Most Classical authors avoided the oblique forms of *nemo,* for whatever reason, and the plural is exceptionally rare. Perhaps *nulli sumus?*" CreationDate="2017-09-26T23:16:15.450" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10841" PostId="5315" Score="0" Text="It may be as simple as the author thinking &quot;this participle is perfect and this verb is perfect; why not put them together?&quot;" CreationDate="2017-09-26T23:12:07.700" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10851" PostId="5316" Score="0" Text="Wow, thank you!&#xA;So this is not a subjunctive form?" CreationDate="2017-09-28T00:20:28.300" UserId="721" />
  <row Id="10852" PostId="5316" Score="0" Text="The excerpt from Gildersleeve and Lodge mentions only indicatives, but it applies also to subjunctives. So inebriati fuerint, natus fuerit, and renatus fuerit could very well be perfect subjunctive instead of future perfect indicative." CreationDate="2017-09-28T01:33:48.820" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="10843" PostId="5319" Score="2" Text="Hi, Phillip! Generally with translation questions we ask that you provide some context to the question, and show a reasonable attempt at translating it yourself. Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-09-27T01:29:55.813" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10845" PostId="5319" Score="0" Text="As @SamK comments, you should show what you have been able to do yourself and ask specific questions. For example, are you in doubt about a specific feature in all those sentences? Currently your question comes across as &quot;please do my homework for me&quot;, which I'm sure you didn't intend. I put your question on hold, but it can be reopened if you can elaborate on it. Do ask for help if you are unsure about how to improve the question." CreationDate="2017-09-27T05:55:19.433" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10878" PostId="5322" Score="0" Text="I don't read German, but does the page you linked contain the Latin text? I cannot find it." CreationDate="2017-10-01T18:37:53.283" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="10905" PostId="5322" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho: thanks for the comment, though I do not understand why you did not find it. Granted, I linked (intentionally, since this sees the 'right' and more 'stable; 'level' between the whole project and the 'Inaugural dissertation' proper) to a higher level, but *it takes 1 click on the link I gave and then 1 'Ctrl+F' keystroke and then 4 keystrokes to enter 'prin' in the search box to be unambiguously directed to [the relevant subsection containing the Latin original](https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa02/385.html)*." CreationDate="2017-10-03T10:50:35.920" UserId="1743" />
  <row Id="11071" PostId="5323" Score="0" Text="Given the many senses of the English word information, I doubt that one Latin word fits them all." CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:45:19.543" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="10853" PostId="5324" Score="4" Text="You've somewhat misread Allen &amp; Greenough. That section is talking about verbs that have ex as a prefix (e.g., extorqueri). As a preposition, ex always has an ablative with it." CreationDate="2017-09-28T01:45:34.033" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="10854" PostId="5324" Score="0" Text="@cnread Ah, I see, I saw the &quot;ex periculo&quot; below and sloppily thought that was &quot;ex&quot;+dative -- missing completely the sentence that precedes (that explicitly notes it's an ablative construction). Thanks for correcting my confusion!" CreationDate="2017-09-28T01:46:53.333" UserId="2026" />
  <row Id="10855" PostId="5324" Score="1" Text="I checked _The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British sources_ (DMLBS) via the [ΛΟΓΕΙΟΝ website](http://logeion.uchicago.edu). It too gives 'effect' as one definition (#10) of _operatio_. However, I'll leave it to others here to chime in about whether it's the best, most philosophically sound definition in this passage, and whether you're right to read a reference to efficient causes. In the meantime, it might be worth your while to take a look at the other 9 definitions that DMLBS gives, and the definitions from other sources that the ΛΟΓΕΙΟΝ site uses." CreationDate="2017-09-28T04:38:03.657" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="10856" PostId="5324" Score="0" Text="Interesting question. I don't think this is about efficient causes: those are, I believe, distinguished from forms as a different kind of cause. The artisan is an efficient cause of a statue of Athena; but its form is the (generalised) form of (the goddess) Athena. They're in different categories. And yet a (casual) translation &quot;through its operations&quot; would seem to make sense." CreationDate="2017-09-28T05:10:15.543" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10857" PostId="5324" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I think that on the Aristotelian _in re_ conception of forms we gain knowledge of them through their realizations (as opposed to a Platonic _ante rem_ conception where we have direct access to the forms through a sort of intuition). So, my thought was that this might be saying that the efficient cause of our _knowledge_ of the forms is through the things that possess them. Something like a process abstraction from their instantiations. But this isn't really my area, so I'm not sure all that's correct." CreationDate="2017-09-28T08:54:12.780" UserId="2026" />
  <row Id="10858" PostId="5324" Score="0" Text="@Dennis: Oh, a meta-cause. That would indeed not be inconsistent; but I'm not sure I would read that into it. Your term *realizations* might be more neutral." CreationDate="2017-09-28T12:45:56.210" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10861" PostId="5325" Score="2" Text="I don't have the time to track this down now, but the etymology accepted by Pinto (referenced in the first wiki page) is that &quot;Trevi&quot; comes from &quot;tre vie&quot; (three roads). &quot;Fons trivii&quot; in quotes produces a few hits on Google, some of which are from older works; &quot;Fons trium viarum&quot; has one result from a Latin textbook that even includes a picture of the Trevi fountain!" CreationDate="2017-09-28T21:29:38.063" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="10866" PostId="5329" Score="0" Text="Thanks, is there a way to use the ablative (or the accusative) to emphasize not so much the endpoint, but how far away the endpoint is (see my update)?" CreationDate="2017-09-30T13:11:09.037" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="10867" PostId="5329" Score="0" Text="@jpyams The ablative gives emphasis to the endpoint, so I recommend the accusative." CreationDate="2017-09-30T13:55:56.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10868" PostId="5329" Score="0" Text="This is a special use of the accusative of extent, also used for distance: e.g., *we walked two miles.*" CreationDate="2017-09-30T17:14:05.483" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="10896" PostId="5329" Score="0" Text="Is there a way to use this more as a negative? _Cenabimus alteram horam_ sounds rather neutral; would _Cena non finet alteram horam_ make sense in Latin?" CreationDate="2017-10-02T02:03:20.343" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="10937" PostId="5329" Score="0" Text="@jpyams The verb (which would be *finiet*) is usually transitive, though it can be intransitive in late poetry. I would recommend *manere*, &quot;to remain.&quot; *Cena alteram horam manebit.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-10-06T17:24:19.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="17898" PostId="5333" Score="1" Text="I'm sorry but I disagree with you when saying that these examples (e.g., &quot;Caesare Romae&quot;) are &quot;quite legitimate usage&quot;. What do you mean by that? In my opinion, &quot;Caesare Romae&quot; or &quot;Caesare in Hispania&quot; cannot be interpreted in the sense intended by Joonas, both forming a syntactic constituent. Notice that the intended reading of &quot;Caesare Romae, id fecimus&quot; would be &quot;With Caesar in Rome, we did it&quot;. So Joonas is right (don't say he is &quot;confounding&quot; the terms!) since that would be an Ablative Absolute. In any case, as he says, could you give non-invented examples of that alleged use?" CreationDate="2018-12-30T04:50:18.737" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17901" PostId="5333" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino What 'alleged use' do you have in mind? Perhaps you misunderstand my particular use of the word _confound_? The difference is in defining 'attendant circumstances', and I'd agree that the point is a narrow one, but surely you agree that the abl. absolute defines a circumstance connected with the action of the main sentence? I offer this as an example of 'attendant circumstances' : _nil desperandum Teucro duce et auspice Teucro_ (Hor. Odes 1, 7, 27), which is also an abl. absolute." CreationDate="2018-12-30T18:19:16.643" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="17902" PostId="5333" Score="2" Text="Joonas' question was very clear: can the predicate of an Ablative Absolute construction be categorically realized as a prepositional phrase (e.g., Caesare in Hispania) or as a locative-marked nominal (e.g., Caesare Romae)? We know that the predicate of an Ablative Absolute construction can be a participle (Caesare mortuo), a noun (Caesare duce) or an adjective (Caesare vivo). Why NOT a prepositional phrase (Caesare in Hispania)? E.g., &quot;Caesare in Hispania, id fecerunt&quot;. The attested example you've just given is a typical one (cf. &quot;Caesare duce&quot;) but it is not the one Joonas was asking for." CreationDate="2018-12-31T01:53:54.777" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="10887" PostId="5334" Score="1" Text="Just as an aside, reduplicated perfects were somewhat more common in old Latin; e.g., *fefeci* becomes Classical *feci.*" CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:22:23.563" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="23655" PostId="5334" Score="0" Text="No word about *scire, ego scio*? Surely the comparison is not very doubtful? More challenging and out of *scope* for this question, would be comparison with *nactu*, ablative supine of *nanciscor*, from *h₂eh₂nóḱe &quot;has reached, attained&quot;, perfective of *h₂neḱ- &quot;to reach&quot;" CreationDate="2019-12-12T12:45:42.057" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23663" PostId="5334" Score="1" Text="@vectory If _sciō_ and the inchoative _-sḱ-_ are related, it's farther back than PIE can be reconstructed with any certainty." CreationDate="2019-12-12T16:39:38.523" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10880" PostId="5337" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this. After reading this answer, I did a quick search and found the phrase *quōmodo et quā ratiōne* seems to be all over the literature. I agree that in this case they're both intended to mean &quot;how,&quot; but I'm trying to figure out, as you say, the difference in tone. I've edited the question to make it (I hope) clearer." CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:04:04.937" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10881" PostId="5337" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner I'm sure there is a difference in nuance, but I'm not sure what it is and, perhaps more importantly, how big it is. I hope someone can give a more detailed comparison, but I felt I had to get this naive answer out there as a starting point." CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:05:35.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10883" PostId="5338" Score="0" Text="+1: Thanks a lot for your answer. Would you mind sharing the link of your search?" CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:07:10.467" UserId="1818" />
  <row Id="10885" PostId="5338" Score="0" Text="I just added a link to the corpus I searched. Under &quot;about&quot; there are instructions on how to search in various ways." CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:13:56.827" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10886" PostId="5338" Score="0" Text="Thanks for sharing. Maybe I'm using it wrongly, but I've only found [Seneca](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/1/0/11671-11681#0) and [Zeno](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/2150/1/3/12677-12687#3) using *novus homo* and [Cicero](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/73/80/570-580), [Tacitus](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1351/3/6/139-149) and [Sallust](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/631/8/0/2793-2803) using *homo novus*. It seems to me that the latter has a higher &quot;impact factor&quot;, or however one might call it." CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:19:21.617" UserId="1818" />
  <row Id="10888" PostId="5338" Score="5" Text="@Narusan I see a Plautus reference to *novi homines* and a *novi hominis* in Terence *Hecyra* 439, several forms in Cicero, as well as *novis rebus* in Caesar and other instances where *novus* precedes the noun, all by page 6. You have to play around with the searches a little bit to see the full range. I don't know, though, when the internet decided the standard *homo novus* ought to be written *novus homo*, as you're right that the &quot;term&quot; is the former, even if technically the latter is grammatically correct." CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:33:37.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10889" PostId="5338" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I see, I am new to the database. The German books I have list homo novus as the term, which is why I was so surprised." CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:50:10.997" UserId="1818" />
  <row Id="10890" PostId="5338" Score="0" Text="Ah, sorry. Yeah, if you check the &quot;About&quot; page there are instructions on how to search. I searched for &quot;novus homō&quot; and &quot;homō novus&quot; in all the singular cases." CreationDate="2017-10-01T21:31:47.483" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10891" PostId="5338" Score="3" Text="@Narusan The English textbooks do, too. As did Colleen McCullough's novels. I really don't know when people started using it the other way around. Very interesting." CreationDate="2017-10-01T21:48:59.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10893" PostId="5338" Score="2" Text="You can also search for all combinations and cases at once using `#hom ~ #nov`, but you will have to weed out a number of false positives. It also catches things like *novi quidam homines* (Cicero) since the two words don't have to be adjacent when you use `~`. (@C.M.Weimer I corrected your typo.)" CreationDate="2017-10-01T23:32:02.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10892" PostId="5339" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! This is an interesting question. If you happen to have a photo of the inscriptions, that would be helpful. You can add pictures to your question. There might be some useful little details and context there." CreationDate="2017-10-01T22:23:37.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10897" PostId="5339" Score="3" Text="CD is an alternative for M:  I would guess the A.S. would be Year of our Salvation ; Anno Salvationis or of our Saviour; Salvatoris." CreationDate="2017-10-02T02:40:55.097" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10899" PostId="5339" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Would you (or anyone else) like to post that as an answer? It answers the question, so it doesn't really belong in the comments." CreationDate="2017-10-02T05:33:59.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10901" PostId="5339" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Thank you! As for the picture, I would've added one, but it was fairly dark and hard to read" CreationDate="2017-10-02T18:31:49.700" UserId="2033" />
  <row Id="10906" PostId="5339" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Good idea! _Anno salutis_, or maybe _salutaris_ makes more sense to me." CreationDate="2017-10-03T12:09:00.377" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10902" PostId="5341" Score="0" Text="Thank you! &quot;A.S.&quot; = &quot;anno Salvatoris&quot; makes sense. Also the year being 1771 is possible (the building is loosely neoclassical in style). Unfortunately I don't have a picture as it was too dark to take one (and the inscription was high up). Do you have a reference or other instances for &quot;CǀƆǀƆ&quot;? I distinctly recall the second letter being &quot;D&quot;, not &quot;ǀƆ&quot;. (to clarify, the year was the lowest line, so easiest to read)" CreationDate="2017-10-02T18:37:28.343" UserId="2033" />
  <row Id="10903" PostId="5341" Score="3" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#/media/File:Westerkerk_MDCXXX.jpg" CreationDate="2017-10-02T18:44:11.350" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10909" PostId="5341" Score="0" Text="@JohnDonne I've seen CǀƆD before, in a book from the eighteenth century, actually." CreationDate="2017-10-03T13:14:51.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10911" PostId="5343" Score="0" Text="I am not a native English speaker, but I think the best way to say it in English is &quot;she showed it to him *through* the window&quot;. Therefore I would say the best choice would be *per fenestram*. Maybe *transfenestra* could work? I do not know if my ideas are idiomatic, so please take them with a pinch of salt." CreationDate="2017-10-03T20:47:27.143" UserId="2031" />
  <row Id="10918" PostId="5343" Score="0" Text="@loading... I'm not a native speaker either, so I may have gotten my idiom wrong. That's why I added the little story, to avoid misunderstandings." CreationDate="2017-10-04T05:11:11.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10925" PostId="5345" Score="2" Text="It could be of the consecutive/defining type, &quot;this, I say, is such that it fights against me...&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-10-04T22:46:39.370" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="10926" PostId="5345" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Definitely a possibility, if not a deeply satisfying one. :)" CreationDate="2017-10-04T23:02:44.973" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10941" PostId="5345" Score="0" Text="Always love reading your questions." CreationDate="2017-10-07T01:06:39.737" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10942" PostId="5345" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 I'm glad my puzzlement is good for something! :)" CreationDate="2017-10-07T02:35:12.987" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="10914" PostId="5347" Score="0" Text="But doesn't defenestration come from _de fenestra_? Does _per fenestram_ mean a similar thing?" CreationDate="2017-10-04T03:05:05.700" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10915" PostId="5347" Score="0" Text="That's my understanding of the etymology too.  However, trawling through a lot of texts, _per fenestram_ is the most used and includes people looking out of, speaking from, dangling ropes from, throwing things out of, and climbing in through windows." CreationDate="2017-10-04T03:18:34.917" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="10916" PostId="5347" Score="0" Text="It would seem that the word was invented for a particular incident in 1618: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=defenestration" CreationDate="2017-10-04T03:24:37.530" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="10917" PostId="5347" Score="0" Text="Thanks, this is great! @SamK The preposition *de* is good for throwing something down from somewhere, but I have doubts for its suitability here when nothing is thrown to the street." CreationDate="2017-10-04T05:08:59.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10924" PostId="5347" Score="0" Text="Interesting to hear that defenestration was so specific in origin! Usually words just kind of evolve their meaning and form over time." CreationDate="2017-10-04T21:19:01.603" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10929" PostId="5349" Score="4" Text="Actually, Varro does mention a &quot;night owl&quot; (as in the bird), the _noctua_, which got its name &quot;_quod noctu canit et vigilat_ / because it sings 'noctu' ('at night') and stays up overnight&quot;.  Which doesn't answer your question about the idiom but I thought it was a lovely piece of Latin onomatopoeic etymology :) (_On the Latin language_, 5.11.76)" CreationDate="2017-10-05T04:55:17.133" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="10930" PostId="5349" Score="1" Text="@Penelope That could have been a good answer!" CreationDate="2017-10-05T17:29:10.667" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10931" PostId="5349" Score="1" Text="@Penelope That would make a nice answer! It is not unreasonable to use the name of an animal to describe a person with similar behavior, and that one fits so well." CreationDate="2017-10-05T20:56:54.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10933" PostId="5349" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the feedback but I can't find anywhere that _noctua_ was ever applied to a person to describe their habits so I really don't think it answers the question, especially when &quot;attested examples of the concept&quot; were asked for.  On another note, it's great to see how many views this question is getting!" CreationDate="2017-10-06T06:18:44.857" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="16428" PostId="5349" Score="0" Text="Changed my mind - see below :)" CreationDate="2018-11-17T10:58:20.540" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="10922" PostId="5350" Score="0" Text="Gratias! I'm glad you posted this answer because indeed, nocticola is a natural choice, and the natural choices are good to know. It's also a cool example (along with monticola) of how the Romans would use compound words." CreationDate="2017-10-04T18:24:00.483" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="10936" PostId="5356" Score="1" Text="You might want to be aware of the origin of &quot;park&quot;: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=park&amp;allowed_in_frame=0" CreationDate="2017-10-06T15:51:40.250" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10944" PostId="5356" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer. The new version of the Oxford English Dictionary argues that it is more likely to be a borrowing from Romance to Germanic rather than the other way around. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/137946?rskey=7PxySm&amp;result=1#eid" CreationDate="2017-10-07T11:24:01.977" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="10945" PostId="5356" Score="0" Text="@fdb Interesting, though even so, it seems the development in meaning is nearly the same." CreationDate="2017-10-07T13:02:21.007" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10934" PostId="5359" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-10-06T08:13:30.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10938" PostId="5362" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you explain what you want to mean by &quot;seize the loyal&quot;? The best translation will depend on context, so any kind of explanation or back story will help you get more appropriate answers. For example, [*carpere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=carpo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a very broad word, but I guess it's not the optimal choice for you." CreationDate="2017-10-06T22:04:25.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10939" PostId="5362" Score="0" Text="I think you're on the right track, but honestly, &quot;seize the loyal&quot; in English means &quot;capture anyone who is loyal.&quot; That can't be what you want to say." CreationDate="2017-10-06T22:05:48.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10940" PostId="5362" Score="1" Text="I am trying to get at something like &quot;keep the loyal close&quot; but it can be a very loose translation. I was also trying for something like *Carpe diem*, where it has a meaning beyond its literal translation." CreationDate="2017-10-06T22:12:26.820" UserId="2045" />
  <row Id="10943" PostId="5362" Score="0" Text="For comparison: I Thes 5.21 &quot;omnia autem probate ***quod bonum est tenete*** &quot; hold fast what is good." CreationDate="2017-10-07T03:06:23.637" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10946" PostId="5364" Score="3" Text="*Cole fidos*  for the imperative." CreationDate="2017-10-07T16:04:05.127" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10950" PostId="5365" Score="0" Text="Why is the possessive pronoun omitted (&quot;Christus Deus&quot;)?" CreationDate="2017-10-07T22:44:38.177" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="10969" PostId="5365" Score="0" Text="I do understand the translations necessarily need to accomodate, but what of the omission of the possessive pronoun, which seems to be in both Greek and Latin? Can you speak to why that is the case?" CreationDate="2017-10-08T22:00:43.290" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="10976" PostId="5365" Score="0" Text="@Sola Gratia,  Would it be better to write &quot;In the midst of us&quot; ? Is that better than &quot;in our midst&quot; ? I thought they were equivalent." CreationDate="2017-10-09T02:09:17.027" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10954" PostId="5369" Score="1" Text="Hello, and welcome to the site! Generally, when asking a translation question, you should provide at least an attempt of doing it yourself, even if you plug it into Google translate." CreationDate="2017-10-08T02:40:06.403" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="10952" PostId="5370" Score="5" Text="Do you want to know how she would have pronounced it, or how English-speakers pronounce it nowadays? The two are quite different." CreationDate="2017-10-08T02:24:48.680" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10957" PostId="5376" Score="0" Text="You may want to address why parvis rather than parva" CreationDate="2017-10-08T14:51:28.377" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="10958" PostId="5376" Score="0" Text="It is the dative, if I am not mistaken. That is why you translate it as &quot;**from** small&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-08T16:19:28.590" UserId="2046" />
  <row Id="10963" PostId="5376" Score="3" Text="@FusRoDah I would guess it to be ablative, with the usual construction being something along the lines of *ex parvis magna* (cf. *ex oriente lux* or *e pluribus unum*). A dative is possible, though." CreationDate="2017-10-08T20:31:48.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10960" PostId="5377" Score="1" Text="Related question with answers that describe some word order frequencies: [What word order resolves the ambiguity of two nominative nouns in a sentence?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/669/what-word-order-resolves-the-ambiguity-of-two-nominative-nouns-in-a-sentence)" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:35:23.337" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10959" PostId="5378" Score="2" Text="The answer to [Where can I hear the original pronunciation of the Latin alphabet?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2055/9) has some relevant information" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:31:13.047" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10962" PostId="5378" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Thanks for pointing that out! I had forgotten about it. It is certainly relevant." CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:48:23.927" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10964" PostId="5378" Score="0" Text="I'd almost want to say that that answer makes this redundant." CreationDate="2017-10-08T20:33:10.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="10966" PostId="5378" Score="0" Text="@cmw The answer to this question might be contained there, but the questions are very different. An abridged version of that other answer focusing on Q would be good here. But this is just my opinion; I will leave it for others to vote and decide whether this question is a duplicate." CreationDate="2017-10-08T21:03:44.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="10972" PostId="5378" Score="1" Text="My understanding: originally the letters C, K, Q all stood for either /k/ or /g/. C was used before I E O, K was used before A, and Q was used before U. Eventually K was dropped except in a few particular words." CreationDate="2017-10-09T01:03:43.480" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="10978" PostId="5378" Score="1" Text="Related (including the comments) https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/6767/strange-latin-spelling-karissime" CreationDate="2017-10-09T03:14:35.390" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="40532" PostId="5378" Score="1" Text="That's because, Q wants to sound different from C and K but I propose that Q should make the kwuh sound alone, then it would be better." CreationDate="2022-12-01T03:53:54.330" UserId="11853" />
  <row Id="10986" PostId="5381" Score="0" Text="The root **cleps** is found in English &quot;clepsydra&quot; a water clock; and in Greek **clepsiphron** dissembling, untruthful; and **clepsicholos** pretending to be lame.  But the word for 'thievery' is not  *clepsis; instead it is  **cleptosune** so it doesn't form the obvious suffix '-clepsy.'" CreationDate="2017-10-09T05:06:50.403" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="10991" PostId="5381" Score="2" Text="A suffix used with several dinosaur species is `-raptor` for &quot;thief&quot; or &quot;taker&quot;, which may or may not serve depending on your needs, though not related to `klepto-`." CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:04:55.277" UserId="2055" />
  <row Id="10995" PostId="5381" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: I cannot find anything about &quot;cleptosune&quot; besides this page." CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:50:21.947" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="10996" PostId="5381" Score="0" Text="@JonHanna: That's Latin, not Greek." CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:50:49.187" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="11004" PostId="5381" Score="2" Text="@MarqFJA87: I believe Hugh is referring to [κλεπτοσύνη](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkleptosu%2Fnh)." CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:56:26.153" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="10990" PostId="5384" Score="7" Text="Are you limiting this to Ancient Greek? The suffixes *-κλοπή*, *-κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* are common enough in Modern Greek. Or, at the very least, clearly understandable to any native speaker and would be immediately understood if added to a new word. PS. The difference between *κλεψιά* and *κλοπή* are akin to the difference between *theft* and *robbery* with the addition that *κλεψιά* also tends to be more colloquial." CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:01:16.800" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="10993" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="Fair enough, I was wondering because you'd linked to a Modern Greek definition for *κλεψιά*, a word I'd be surprised to learn existed in Ancient." CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:42:20.690" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="10997" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="I specifically ignored Modern Greek because AFAIK, scientists do so as well when coming up with new technical terms that are at least partially Greek. Otherwise, you'd be seeing them using &quot;viology&quot; instead of &quot;biology&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:57:11.867" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="10999" PostId="5384" Score="2" Text="@sumelic I'm a native speaker; I just know how to speak the thing, not the whys ;) In other words, yes there is absolutely a rule but I don't know it. As I recall it has something to do with the syllable that carries the stress, but I really can't tell you anything reliable." CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:32:26.510" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="11002" PostId="5384" Score="4" Text="If you're arguing semantics, the &quot;clepto&quot; in &quot;cleptomaniac&quot; implies &quot;stealing&quot; (i.e. verb form) not &quot;theft&quot; (i.e. noun form). The noun form would have been &quot;clopemaniac&quot; or something like that. Therefore, for an equivalent suffix I would go for the &quot;klepty&quot; (or &quot;klepsy&quot;) instead, which is the equivalent 'verb' suffix. As for 'clopy', I would be a bit hesitant. Even if it appears in ancient texts as referenced above, the more typical ending should be 'clope' (κλοπή). I would assume that the 'y' ending refers to the «-ία» Greek ending equivalent." CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:42:05.317" UserId="1824" />
  <row Id="11003" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="@TasosPapastylianou: Thanks for the information about the meaning. Despite the title, I am not sure if MarqFJA87 actually wants an exact equivalent to klepto-, since the body of the question also says &quot;related to theft&quot; rather than &quot;related to stealing&quot;. I think it might depend on the specific word that is being formed. As I don't know any Greek, I can't explain the use of ία in λογοκλοπία and πυροκλοπία. My impression is that it is similar to ὑδροϕοβία from φόβος; it looks like sometimes abstract compound nouns can get this suffix even it doesn't appear on the independent word" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:47:23.377" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11008" PostId="5384" Score="3" Text="@sumelic I don't have a reference to back this up, and it's a subtle disctinction, but my intuitive feeling as a native speaker is that the ending «-ια» in such cases, denotes &quot;a state of / tendency to&quot;, and that this tends to be transliterated as &quot;-y&quot;. Hydrophobia is an interesting exception (in that it is not written &quot;hydrophoby&quot;) but it is a good example nonetheless in that it denotes &quot;a state of fear (of water)&quot;, as opposed to &quot;Water-related fear&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-09T16:34:07.217" UserId="1824" />
  <row Id="11009" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="@TasosPapastylianou: ... You do know that &quot;stealing&quot; can also be used as a noun rather than a verb, right? As for the &quot;y&quot; ending, I already gave an example in the OP where said ending represents ή (suffix -trophy derives from τροφή)." CreationDate="2017-10-09T19:34:50.550" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="11010" PostId="5384" Score="2" Text="@MarqFJA87: while &quot;-trophy&quot; is derived from τροφή, the &quot;-y&quot; in the English word doesn't represent -ή directly: it represents the suffix -ία. E.g. &quot;atrophy&quot; comes from Greek *ἀτροϕία.*" CreationDate="2017-10-09T19:37:05.063" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11011" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that it's also used in the way I mentioned." CreationDate="2017-10-09T19:41:10.340" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="11012" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="@MarqFJA87 no that's my point, and &quot;-trophy&quot; vs &quot;-trophe&quot; is another good example, from the greek word meaning &quot;to feed / nourish / make grow&quot;. &quot;Trophia&quot; is a noun denoting the state of being fed, whereas &quot;Trophe&quot; is just the noun meaning &quot;food&quot;. &quot;Hypertrophy&quot; refers to the state of being over-nourished. Similarly &quot;Atrophy&quot; is the state of lacking nourishment. Compare this with &quot;Hypertrophe&quot; (υπερτροφή) -- to a greek person this reads like &quot;Superfood&quot;. Not like &quot;overnourishment&quot;. Unfortunately this still doesn't shed any light as to whether the 'noun' form or the 'verb' form should be used." CreationDate="2017-10-09T22:55:00.717" UserId="1824" />
  <row Id="11026" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="As I point in my answer, klepsi- is absolutely an ancient root. I can't figure out why you'd caution against it." CreationDate="2017-10-12T05:16:10.083" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11034" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Because I don't understand the formation of compounds ending with &quot;klepsia&quot;. My advice is, as I state at the start of the post, the advice of someone who doesn't know any Greek. So the only things I feel comfortable advising are things that I can see precedent for in Ancient Greek. I'm not trying to imply that I am actually qualified to judge that a certain formation is &quot;incorrect&quot;; but I can hardly recommend it if I don't know if it is correct." CreationDate="2017-10-12T13:57:53.373" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11035" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: I might remove that sentence if you're sure &quot;-klepsia&quot; works in Ancient Greek; I added it in partly based on terdon's comment &quot;κλεψιά, a word I'd be surprised to learn existed in Ancient.&quot; It's a bit hard for me to tell from your answer how -klepsia/-klepsy is formed from κλεψί-; as I said, I'm not at all qualified to say that it's wrong in Ancient Greek, but I'd feel more comfortable if I could see examples of parallel formations, or some reference to rules of compound formation that describe how it works. Is it a verb-final compound?" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:00:44.550" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11036" PostId="5384" Score="0" Text="@sumelic That's a good point. I'll try to beef that up a bit." CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:06:49.343" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11013" PostId="5385" Score="1" Text="You literally just edited an answer six hours ago &quot;A few of these are fairly clearly based on the sound: [...] , ululo 'howl'&quot; Or was that the root cause of asking this question?" CreationDate="2017-10-09T23:39:29.760" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="11016" PostId="5385" Score="1" Text="@tox123 When I came up with this question, I searched for relevant older ones. I ended up editing one. It's fairly clear that there is an onomatopoetic aspect to it, but I began to wonder if diminutive is involved too." CreationDate="2017-10-10T04:45:28.497" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11015" PostId="5387" Score="3" Text="I'm not quite sure what you mean by diminutive, because, according to my prior knowledge (which may be flawed, who knows? :) ) the diminutive of _ululatus_ would be _ululatulus_, which makes little sense. Also, _ululatus_ could be a substantive (I believe that's the term for it) of the verb _ululare_, rather than the origin of all related terms." CreationDate="2017-10-10T01:38:56.567" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11312" PostId="5387" Score="0" Text="*Ululatus* is the past participle of *ululare*." CreationDate="2017-11-09T14:09:24.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11018" PostId="5388" Score="3" Text="If you want to see it as a command, how would you phrase it in English or some other language? I imagine &quot;may malice be gone&quot; and &quot;go away, you malicious one&quot; can have the same effect in some situations, but the nuance is different." CreationDate="2017-10-10T19:00:49.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11022" PostId="5388" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I edited that explanation into your question. Feel free to re-edit." CreationDate="2017-10-11T05:49:08.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11023" PostId="5388" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks Joonas, as always. Joonas and CMW, the usual suspects! :) Much obliged." CreationDate="2017-10-11T05:52:51.913" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11024" PostId="5389" Score="0" Text="In the Semitic languages which Greek was derived from, K and Q had (and still have!) different pronunciations, and neither is necessarily followed by U - for example the names of the letters themselves as &quot;kaaf&quot; and &quot;qaaf&quot;. Somewhere along the line, things got simplified. FWIW the modern English &quot;q&quot; and &quot;k&quot; sounds both correspond to modern Arabic &quot;k&quot; and not to &quot;q&quot; which doesn't have an equivalent sound in English" CreationDate="2017-10-12T04:33:29.677" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="11025" PostId="5389" Score="0" Text="... and also, a single Arabic letter (&quot;waaw&quot;) is used both for the English &quot;w&quot; and long &quot;u&quot; (or &quot;oo&quot;) sounds." CreationDate="2017-10-12T04:40:58.453" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="11052" PostId="5389" Score="3" Text="@alephzero. I think you are confusing languages and scripts. Greek is not derived from &quot;Semitic languages&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-14T15:05:45.050" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11073" PostId="5389" Score="1" Text="Can you add a screenshot of those three archaic Latin letters? On some computers they show up as boxes. (I doubt all three letters were denoted by a box.)" CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:55:54.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40536" PostId="5389" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, you can see them [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_scripts#Latin_alphabet)." CreationDate="2022-12-02T14:04:41.813" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="11021" PostId="5390" Score="0" Text="Thanks alot. That answers my question and addresses both circumstances (when they're there, and when they've left). Fantastic." CreationDate="2017-10-11T03:04:21.130" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11027" PostId="5392" Score="0" Text="Would _ultimatum_ do? Or a phrase with something like _ne plus ultra_ ?" CreationDate="2017-10-12T10:39:47.443" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11028" PostId="5392" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I prefer to have a noun, so the phrase *ne plus ultra* does not qualify. It's a good phrase though, thanks for reminding me! I edited for clarity. *Ultimatum* might work, but I'm not familiar with that as a Latin word." CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:05:20.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11029" PostId="5392" Score="2" Text="There is a verb _ultimare_, 'to come to an end', from which [English] ultimatum is derived." CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:21:56.303" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11030" PostId="5392" Score="0" Text="How about [terminus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dterminus)? If time is implied by the context, I think it would suffice" CreationDate="2017-10-12T12:42:41.033" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11031" PostId="5392" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Sounds promising. It's one of the options I had in mind and therefore listed in the question. Explaining why that (or any other) word is suitable would make a nice answer." CreationDate="2017-10-12T12:56:40.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11037" PostId="5392" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Hahaha, I'm sorry. Why did I miss that?" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:28:17.177" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11084" PostId="5392" Score="1" Text="Hmm. As I look through the literature, I see that *diēs indictus* seems to occur not as a *terminus* but as a single appointed date, which would suggest its &quot;proper&quot; use would be not for a deadline by which something was due but for a date *on* which it was due, neither before nor after being suitable. (Then of course there's the fact that it always seems to be a date set for a meeting.) So perhaps not." CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:02:03.480" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11042" PostId="5393" Score="0" Text="The circumflex is not particularly non-standard in this context. Macrons belong to one tradition of writing Latin; the circumflex to another. See [Interpretation of circumflex in a poem from 1621](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1887/interpretation-of-circumflex-in-a-poem-from-1621?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1), [Use of circumflex in Latin: Is there a difference between “hora” and “horâ”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4774)" CreationDate="2017-10-12T21:05:53.457" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11051" PostId="5393" Score="0" Text="With &quot;the cover&quot; I think you mean &quot;the title-page&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-14T15:02:04.213" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11054" PostId="5393" Score="1" Text="In this particular case, the grave accents instruct he reader to lower their voice. The reader or listener then hears the inclusive correlatives &quot;cum....tum&quot; as parenthetic. (Try it!)  An unsuspecting reader would voice the 'cum' as the start of a descriptive clause &quot;...when it is sacred then...&quot; resulting in a 'garden path' ambiguity." CreationDate="2017-10-14T20:28:03.323" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11039" PostId="5398" Score="1" Text="I wonder if you could do something with the goddess names *Mater Matuta* or *Aurora*." CreationDate="2017-10-12T16:12:55.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11045" PostId="5398" Score="1" Text="Well *matutinus* would mean exactly that. It has given *matineux* or *matinal* in French by the way." CreationDate="2017-10-12T22:53:16.593" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="11050" PostId="5398" Score="1" Text="In *Etymologies* XII.7.37, it is the Nightingale *Lucinia,* or *Credula,* which is the 'early bird' and welcomes the sun as it rises. Just in case you need a symbolic early bird." CreationDate="2017-10-13T21:30:16.833" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14199" PostId="5398" Score="0" Text="@luc _matutino_ is a valid word in Spanish, translatable as the English adjective 'morning'" CreationDate="2018-05-15T23:57:45.603" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11043" PostId="5399" Score="0" Text="«Represent the text as it is»: would that mean keeping any ſ's?" CreationDate="2017-10-12T21:06:58.663" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11044" PostId="5399" Score="1" Text="I would regard that as a typographical detail, so I would feel free to use the modern form of the &quot;s&quot; instead." CreationDate="2017-10-12T21:12:45.860" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11046" PostId="5399" Score="0" Text="While this position is arguable, it could benefit from some more concrete evidence. There's an easy *reductio ad absurdum* if you applied this method to a medieval manuscript, for instance. What about the frequent custom of using a bar to indicate an m or n, e.g. &quot;magnā&quot; for &quot;magnam&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-10-13T02:16:36.657" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11047" PostId="5399" Score="2" Text="Point being: I don't see a clear dividing line beyond which everything is just a &quot;typographical detail.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-10-13T02:19:17.837" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11049" PostId="5399" Score="1" Text="@brianpck: The crucial difference is that this is *not* the case of mediaeval manuscript with lots of (obsolete) scribal abbreviations, but a printed, typeset text.  The long &quot;s&quot; is obsolete in contemporary typefaces, but the accents and ampersand are definitely *not* obsolete.  The ampersand may have its *origin* in a mediaeval ligature, but it's still very much in use and part of contemporary typefaces (in fact, I use it all the time when writing English)." CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:17:49.447" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11101" PostId="5399" Score="0" Text="Keeping the text &quot;as it is&quot; involves maintaining the distinction between long  and short &quot;s&quot;. Until recently this was not always easy, but now &quot;long s&quot; is available in Unicode, so there is no excuse for not using it." CreationDate="2017-10-18T23:04:10.243" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11048" PostId="5401" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I agree that *constitutio* (nominative of a third declension noun) comes from the verb *constituere*, but I don't think it's related to the dative or ablative *constituto*. However, I'm not surprised if *constitutio* and *constitutum* have similar meanings, and it certainly makes sense to explore both in this context." CreationDate="2017-10-13T17:16:12.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32915" PostId="5402" Score="1" Text="SVBEEQV (Si vales bene est, ego quoque valeo) is another form for this, used by Marcus Tullius Cicero amongst others (&quot;if you are ok, good. I am also ok&quot;)" CreationDate="2021-04-28T12:01:42.677" UserId="9363" />
  <row Id="40537" PostId="5404" Score="2" Text="Do we know whether or not they were homophones?" CreationDate="2022-12-02T14:05:25.257" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="11060" PostId="5408" Score="0" Text="I would add that there appear to be [no classical attestations](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=herculae) of anything containing *Herculae-*." CreationDate="2017-10-16T06:45:21.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11056" PostId="5410" Score="0" Text="Two Lives, of Saint Mildryth, and of S. Etfridus,  ascribed to Goscelin, have rhymed couplets in rhythmic prose. ?900." CreationDate="2017-10-16T04:48:39.807" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11058" PostId="5411" Score="1" Text="Thanks for bringing this theory up! I have hard time believing it, especially since it seems that *-mens* comes from *_-ments_ just like the participles, judging by inflection. But I agree that sharing this point of view is valuable. (+1)" CreationDate="2017-10-16T06:04:30.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11059" PostId="5412" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you give some more context? Do you want to use this phrase as a title or for something else? What do you want to mean by the expression? Translating short phrases well is often difficult if not impossible without context. (I can see why Google (Translate) is not very helpful with this. It is always [unreliable](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and with anything non-trivial such as this one I really doubt its prowess.)" CreationDate="2017-10-16T06:42:38.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11063" PostId="5413" Score="0" Text="Can I use “incendia favilla” for effect? Does it make it a pleonasm?" CreationDate="2017-10-16T09:51:13.917" UserId="2067" />
  <row Id="11064" PostId="5413" Score="0" Text="_favilla suscitanda_ would be better." CreationDate="2017-10-16T09:54:28.627" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11072" PostId="5415" Score="1" Text="Thanks! Although it's a bit of a hack, you can indent a line by adding `&amp;nbsp;`s before it if you want." CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:48:48.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11082" PostId="5416" Score="3" Text="To my knowledge *quod si* just means 'but if, and if', *quod nisi* 'but if not, and if not'." CreationDate="2017-10-16T22:58:42.917" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11074" PostId="5417" Score="0" Text="Just stylistically, I'd write it like this: *In secretum virtas / in verum libertas // Libido pro tempore [est], / amor ad infinitum*. That way, the parallelisms do come out better. The poem doesn't really have metric, but nonetheless you could include the &quot;est&quot; and it would be elided into &quot;temporest&quot;, I think, so it wouldn't mess up your syllable count." CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:33:41.947" UserId="1818" />
  <row Id="11075" PostId="5418" Score="2" Text="Is there a specific question here? From what I gather in the question, you are asking about either the validity of these theories or where you might find commentaries on these ideas, but there is no explicit question, so that clarification would be greatly appreciated." CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:19:07.740" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11076" PostId="5418" Score="0" Text="@SamK I’m looking for the idea as such. I remember a bit of it but I couldn’t find published information on Holzberg’s idea anywhere. I’m looking for a summary of the theory either by the author himself or a secondary source. That might not have been clear and I’ve updated my question." CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:50:30.593" UserId="1818" />
  <row Id="11077" PostId="5419" Score="0" Text="[Here you have the structuring into 3 parts](http://www.gottwein.de/Lat/verg_komp/verg_aen00.php). German only, sorry for that. I want to know the reasons for splitting it into 3 parts." CreationDate="2017-10-16T19:02:31.440" UserId="1818" />
  <row Id="11079" PostId="5420" Score="1" Text="1. I think I may go with secreta for secrets. 2. Doing more research, I have determined virtus is too 'good' of a word to use, as I am referring to the powers obtained from keeping secret; something a bit more sinister. 3. Thank you for your comments on the implicit est. 4. I used pro tempore and ad infininum, because they appear to be common Latin phrases, and so I knew that their structure would prove effective. 5. Thank you for your help! I am extremely grateful." CreationDate="2017-10-16T21:44:20.097" UserId="2069" />
  <row Id="11091" PostId="5430" Score="0" Text="I was thinking he meant the &quot;About...&quot; page." CreationDate="2017-10-18T18:40:54.550" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11092" PostId="5430" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer That crossed my mind, but since he also included &quot;welcome page&quot; in the description, I thought it was more of a home page than a separate &quot;about&quot; page. (I doubt it would work well to translate the page title &quot;About&quot; as &quot;De&quot;...) We'll have to wait for Lypyrhythm to comment on the matter to be sure." CreationDate="2017-10-18T18:44:04.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11110" PostId="5430" Score="1" Text="No, it should be more like a “welcome page”. Marked as most helpful post." CreationDate="2017-10-19T10:19:44.343" UserId="2025" />
  <row Id="11095" PostId="5432" Score="0" Text="Hope you don't mind me editing to include a link to the relevant page of A&amp;G!" CreationDate="2017-10-18T20:57:36.373" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="11096" PostId="5433" Score="0" Text="When I hear *vindex* I always think of an avenger rather than a defender, meaning II in L&amp;S." CreationDate="2017-10-18T22:13:41.787" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11116" PostId="5434" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for taking out time to answer so thoughtfully; it is much appreciated.  The motto is for a project of my brother's, and we were initially leaning toward &quot;Denfensor Hominis&quot; before I posted the question.  I think I will now advise him to use &quot;Defensor Populi.&quot;  Thanks again!" CreationDate="2017-10-20T01:09:42.347" UserId="2074" />
  <row Id="11093" PostId="5435" Score="0" Text="The [Claudian letters](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/271/examples-of-the-use-of-claudian-letters-Ⅎ-Ↄ-Ⱶ/454#454) may be relevant data on the pronunciation of &quot;bs&quot;, although Ↄ apparently wasn't used in any real inscriptions, it was just proposed" CreationDate="2017-10-18T19:14:24.480" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11108" PostId="5436" Score="0" Text="The is quite common. Another example would be the spelling *equus* for *ecus,* to maintain conformity with *equi, equo* et al., or *coquus* for *cocus.*" CreationDate="2017-10-19T04:09:25.993" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11097" PostId="5438" Score="0" Text="....but it refers only to male men (viri not homines)." CreationDate="2017-10-18T22:23:14.770" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11098" PostId="5438" Score="0" Text="@fdb True. I've heard the divine epithet usage translated as &quot;defender of humans&quot; but I've never seen anēr used to mean humans in general; might be an epic thing?" CreationDate="2017-10-18T22:25:02.760" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11099" PostId="5438" Score="1" Text="@fdb ἀνήρ, especially in compounds, can include women; e.g. see [ἀνδροφάγος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=androfagos&amp;la=greek#lexicon)." CreationDate="2017-10-18T22:39:34.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11100" PostId="5438" Score="0" Text="@cmw Maybe. But I don't think that either the quotation from Homer or that from Herodotus is unambiguous. The Cyclops at least is only explicitly described as eating men. *Hner- in the meaning &quot;male&quot; is in any event inherited from IE; cf Skt nar- vs. manuṣa-." CreationDate="2017-10-18T22:56:57.867" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11105" PostId="5438" Score="0" Text="@fdb Albanian *njeri* was generalized to refer to &quot;human, person.&quot; I deleted the earlier comment and transferred it to Draconis' new question." CreationDate="2017-10-19T01:13:05.683" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11102" PostId="5439" Score="0" Text="Seems not: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Da)nh%2Fr" CreationDate="2017-10-19T00:51:54.163" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11115" PostId="5439" Score="0" Text="Whoever downvoted: suggestions for improvement?" CreationDate="2017-10-19T19:10:17.337" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11106" PostId="5440" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer! Would you be interested in adding brief quotations from the cited sources, for reference? (I can look them up on Perseus later if you like.)" CreationDate="2017-10-19T02:46:17.280" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11107" PostId="5440" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Done." CreationDate="2017-10-19T03:19:46.000" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11109" PostId="5440" Score="2" Text="It's worth noting that all these examples refer to people in general: *all men, every man, mankind,* etc. I'm doubtful we could find an example of *aner* in reference to a single specific woman or a group only of women." CreationDate="2017-10-19T04:25:00.100" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11111" PostId="5440" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Agreed. No one could call eg Penelope an  ἀνήρ." CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:07:53.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11112" PostId="5440" Score="2" Text="Also interesting to note: the Acts passage is translated as *viri*. Definitely jarring, at least to my ear." CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:09:41.020" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11113" PostId="5440" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Jarring indeed. I think it says much about how in antiquity women were an afterthought." CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:14:48.597" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11118" PostId="5445" Score="1" Text="[This review at goodreads of the sequel, 'Ultima'](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1139276339?book_show_action=true) - spoiler warning! - explains this. Don't read that if you think you might want to read Ultima yourself!" CreationDate="2017-10-20T07:56:17.450" UserId="652" />
  <row Id="11114" PostId="5446" Score="0" Text="I believe the author had someone supposidly knowledgeable in Latin provide him with the basics, although he did say he took responsibility for any errors himself (I suspect he altered it). Thanks for the translation, at least it was Latin enough to be translated and it makes a lot more sense now." CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:15:01.370" UserId="2077" />
  <row Id="11383" PostId="5447" Score="0" Text="I think that this question would be more at home in https://history.stackexchange.com/" CreationDate="2017-11-17T16:23:00.297" UserId="2098" />
  <row Id="11394" PostId="5447" Score="0" Text="You may be right, though I've little hope. I'm still trying a few other possible sources." CreationDate="2017-11-18T17:21:28.490" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11119" PostId="5448" Score="0" Text="I think that's a pretty charitable interpretation: it's obvious, though, that some effort was made to inflect, but that it failed, and in inconsistent ways." CreationDate="2017-10-20T15:05:59.817" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11120" PostId="5448" Score="2" Text="Could you explain your remark about double negatives? Not sure what you're referring to" CreationDate="2017-10-20T15:06:17.037" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11152" PostId="5448" Score="0" Text="Sorry, Brian, one of my hangups creeping in.  3 most common mistakes in English:" CreationDate="2017-10-23T11:31:10.893" UserId="2078" />
  <row Id="11153" PostId="5448" Score="0" Text="Sorry, Brian, one of my hangups creeping in.  You'll have to look them up, I started explaining and ran out of space.  Wikipedia has lovely examples and a cartoon.&#xA;In English, generally, double negatives are meaningless, ambiguous  or contradict themselves.  &#xA;In music and poetry, they can be used for emphasis, but still may make  sense: &quot;Ain't no sunshine when she's gone&quot; (Bill Withers) or no sense &quot;There will never be no love at all.&quot; (Bob Marley)" CreationDate="2017-10-23T11:53:52.377" UserId="2078" />
  <row Id="11154" PostId="5448" Score="0" Text="I know what a double negative is: I just don't see a single use of it in this thread." CreationDate="2017-10-23T12:21:44.417" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11188" PostId="5448" Score="0" Text="Sorry, as I say, it's just a hangup.  I write this stuff late at night! &#xA;The relevance for me was only in the idea that Germanic languages include English, as Quintus refers to &quot;your mixed language&quot; and guesses it to be German in his brief speech.  &#xA;&#xA;I wasn't expecting a kind of Spanish inquisition!" CreationDate="2017-10-24T21:55:32.660" UserId="2078" />
  <row Id="11200" PostId="5450" Score="1" Text="I seem to recall the flamen Dialis being unable to touch iron, but a quick search turned up no primary sources. Might be worth digging deeper into." CreationDate="2017-10-26T18:25:57.240" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11201" PostId="5450" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Fascinating...Google turned up Wikipedia but no sources are cited. I'll dig into that." CreationDate="2017-10-26T20:13:03.873" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11122" PostId="5451" Score="0" Text="Have a look here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IU_zCQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA278&amp;lpg=PA278&amp;dq=%22bene+venisti%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PT0aCmMfiJ&amp;sig=S3wIcEADdDVrVBF40nKG1yPKx6o&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi5r6nehYLXAhUMU1AKHdryB-YQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22bene%20venisti%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2017-10-21T15:39:53.060" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11124" PostId="5455" Score="4" Text="@sumelic I'm not claiming he's the definitive authority; I would like to know what others think, hence why I ask." CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:31:21.810" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="11125" PostId="5457" Score="3" Text="Latin nouns are inflected, i.e. they take certain endings that show what they're doing in a sentence. English pronouns do the same thing (e.g. *he, him, his*), so *Amadeus* is equivalent to *he, Amadeo* to *him,* and *Amadei* to *his.* They don't actually have different definitions." CreationDate="2017-10-22T03:16:20.280" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11137" PostId="5457" Score="3" Text="@Anonym Can you post that as an answer? It's not a comment but an answer, even if it happens to be short or simple." CreationDate="2017-10-22T11:46:31.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11127" PostId="5458" Score="0" Text="Thanks alot KTM! Thats alot if really good information, and yes, Mozart is exactly where I first heard this name from. But what I'm curious about is Deus being Nominative, Dei being genitive, Deo being dative/ablative, and Dee being Vocative, and whether or not that affects the meaning of the name." CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:25:17.527" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11128" PostId="5458" Score="0" Text="I read Mozart preferred the Latin Amadeus to his Greek Theophilus, but I had no idea he translated his name into 4 other languages. Fascinating ! Thank you ! I also love the name Gottlieb (which I got from Beloved Wikipedia), but having absolutely no connection with Germany myself I'm pretty sure everyone would from upon my using that name, even (or especially) my own family, which is a bummer because it's such a profound and delicious name." CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:31:02.517" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11129" PostId="5458" Score="1" Text="The inflections (nominative/genitive/dative/ablative/vocative) do affect the meaning. The genitive shows possession, so it might be translated &quot;of Amadeus&quot;. The dative is often translated with the preposition &quot;to&quot; or &quot;for&quot;, so it might be translated &quot;to Amadeus&quot; or &quot;for Amadeus&quot;. The ablative is often translated with the prepositions &quot;in, on, about, concerning&quot;. The vocative is the case used in address, e.g. &quot;O Amadeus!&quot;. I personally would stick with the nominative (Amadeus) if you want to use the Latin name. This is the name we use for Mozart, after all." CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:32:29.463" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11130" PostId="5458" Score="1" Text="@user1988 Happy to answer!" CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:33:47.077" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11131" PostId="5458" Score="0" Text="I am honestly a bit confused. So Amadeus means &quot;love God&quot;, but the others mean &quot;to/for/concerning/etc Amadeus&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:39:36.323" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11132" PostId="5458" Score="2" Text="Amadeus means love of God when you translate the Latin roots. But it's also the name of a person. Much like Alexander means &quot;defender of men&quot; when you translate the roots, but it's also the name of a person. Thus Amadeo could be translated as &quot;to/for Amadeus&quot; **or** &quot;to/for the love of God,&quot; depending on whether you replace the name with its meaning. That's for the dative case. The ablative would be &quot;from/concerning Amadeus&quot; **or** &quot;from/concerning the love of God&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:43:32.050" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11136" PostId="5458" Score="1" Text="A lot of this is simply wrong. Theophilus does not mean &quot;love of God&quot;, it means &quot;lover/friend of God&quot;. Amadeus is not a &quot;translation&quot; of Theophilus, nor is Gottlieb." CreationDate="2017-10-22T10:30:55.663" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11138" PostId="5458" Score="0" Text="@fdb You're correct, Amadeus is not a translation of Theophilus, but it's what Mozart used, and he too must've known it was not a literal translation but it sounds good, maybe had some historical precedent of use, and the meaning comes close enough." CreationDate="2017-10-22T13:27:03.390" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11141" PostId="5458" Score="0" Text="@fdb Thanks for pointing that out. I just took some time to correct the meanings of each of Mozart's names. Feel free to bring up any other errors." CreationDate="2017-10-22T18:11:32.717" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="37903" PostId="5458" Score="1" Text="Some corrections to this answer and the discussion 1) the original is Greek, the Latin name a poor translation attempt, the German a good one; —2) the Greek means &quot;dear to (the) god(s)&quot; - corresponding to the German translation - but also &quot;god-loving&quot;—3) *Amadeus* doesn't mean &quot;love of God&quot; and *Amadeo* most certainly doesn't mean &quot;for the love of God&quot; which is an English exclamation; the word isnt formed to any Latin pattern and no definite meaning can be assigned to it, it loosely reads like &quot;Love-god&quot;, and *Amadeo* as &quot;to Love-god&quot;, with &quot;god&quot; being the main part, clearly unintentionally" CreationDate="2022-04-10T19:20:35.260" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="11135" PostId="5459" Score="1" Text="Wow wow wow wow. That is a WEALTH of information. Thank you so much. If only I could give two green ticks.. but I can't. Thats amazing. Thanks. I do indeed plan to give my son a name in Latin. His middle name. Amadeus -- and not any of its variants it seems since they merely seem to be inflections from what have just said. I can't get away with German because I'm not German, and even using French would be pushing it, and I'm certainly no fan of the Greek Theophilus, so that leaves me with Latin, which I'm perfectly happy using and thrilled to do so. Thanks so much for your fantastic help." CreationDate="2017-10-22T08:14:47.070" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11142" PostId="5463" Score="1" Text="What word is &quot;Tempii&quot;? As far as I know, the genitive of &quot;tempus&quot; is &quot;temporis&quot;" CreationDate="2017-10-22T22:43:14.487" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11143" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="It's a variant, I think. Click on &quot;tempus&quot; in the following link. https://glosbe.com/en/la/time" CreationDate="2017-10-22T22:47:01.697" UserId="2081" />
  <row Id="11145" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="Thanks. But at the moment I'm more interested in a translation for formlessness." CreationDate="2017-10-22T23:00:54.313" UserId="2081" />
  <row Id="11151" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="Plato's &quot;form&quot; is not &quot;forma&quot;, but &quot;idea&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-23T10:49:11.270" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11158" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="@fdb, *forma* (*rerum*) is used as the Latin translation of ἰδέα by both Cicero (*Orator* 10: has **rerum formas** appellat ἰδέας ... Plato) and Apuleius (*De Platone et eius dogmate* 1.5: initia rerum esse tria arbitratur Plato: deum et materiam inabsolutam, informem ... **rerumque formas**, quas ἰδέας idem uocat)." CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:12:00.803" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11159" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="@cnread. Thanks. I had overlooked those important references." CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:36:36.240" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11160" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="The Cicero quotation in fact gives us the correct answer to the original question: &quot;formlessness&quot; is materia inabsoluta informis." CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:42:01.693" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30385" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="I thought of Genesis 1 - 'the earth was formless and empty' but I see the Vulgate gives 'inanis et vacua', which I don't think helps us." CreationDate="2021-01-07T11:59:23.187" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30386" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="Like wise with Jeremiah 4: 23 'I looked at the earth and it was formless and empty' is given as 'vacua erat et nihili.'" CreationDate="2021-01-07T12:07:59.173" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="43497" PostId="5463" Score="0" Text="*Forma informis* - just make it an adjective, not a noun." CreationDate="2023-06-09T18:34:58.340" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11146" PostId="5464" Score="2" Text="&quot;[informitas](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/23683/informitas-informitatis)&quot; does seem to be attested (or at least listed in some dictionaries), but it apparently has been used at times to mean &quot;unshapeliness&quot;, i.e. &quot;having an unpleasing physical form&quot; rather than &quot;lacking any physical form&quot;. It seems it *can* have the latter meaning, but it might be ambiguous" CreationDate="2017-10-22T23:48:23.547" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11149" PostId="5464" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. Thanks for alerting me to the late existence/usage of the noun informitas. Given the proliferation of such abstract nouns in late Latin, I should have known to check Lewis &amp; Short and/or a medieval lexicon in addition to OLD. I've updated my answer." CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:30:33.320" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11150" PostId="5464" Score="0" Text="Since *chaos* comes from Greek you could also use the Greek form of the genitive. Sounds a bit unnatural to me but I know straight-up Greek declension is attested in Latin." CreationDate="2017-10-23T03:11:13.267" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43496" PostId="5464" Score="0" Text="I think the idea is similar to how &quot;lack of beauty&quot; in English means &quot;ugly.&quot; While *forma* can mean &quot;shape,&quot; *formosus* indicates physical beauty." CreationDate="2023-06-09T18:33:46.750" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11157" PostId="5465" Score="0" Text="Maybe *Fortes custodiunt infirmi* for the second part?" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:16:45.503" UserId="1496" />
  <row Id="11164" PostId="5466" Score="0" Text="Another interesting example might be *[benefacio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=benefacio),* which LSJ says is &quot;better written as two words&quot;" CreationDate="2017-10-23T22:19:04.610" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11165" PostId="5466" Score="0" Text="Hmm. Though whether written as two words or one, the stressed syllables are the same: BE-ne[-]FAC-io." CreationDate="2017-10-23T22:27:10.397" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11166" PostId="5466" Score="0" Text="In the first-person present singular, but it seems like the second and third person singular would have the same uncertainty as your examples" CreationDate="2017-10-23T22:33:05.577" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11167" PostId="5466" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Ah yes!" CreationDate="2017-10-24T00:25:31.873" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11203" PostId="5466" Score="2" Text="I just saw the &quot;-facere&quot; compounds mentioned in the following [answer by C. M. Weimer to &quot;Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) Apparently, they are stressed like the independent verb &quot;facere&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-27T05:56:18.387" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11163" PostId="5467" Score="2" Text="Great work, Joonas. But now that you've done all the hard work (and since brevity is the soul of wit) you could save a word. *Vivat fax libertas,* 'Long live the liberty torch.'" CreationDate="2017-10-23T20:31:49.127" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11168" PostId="5467" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Thanks! True, I could do that. I just felt that it worked best that the whole thing is a single clause with only one predicate, but it's certainly not the only option." CreationDate="2017-10-24T04:22:17.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11171" PostId="5467" Score="1" Text="Really appreciate your suggestions, so the inscription on the patch would go something like this: Vivat fax libertas - Fortes infirmos tuentor.... ?" CreationDate="2017-10-24T13:51:24.300" UserId="2082" />
  <row Id="11173" PostId="5467" Score="0" Text="Would work quite well with 3 words on top arch and 3 words on lower arc - Will be creating a round arm-patch from the finally distilled version" CreationDate="2017-10-24T13:53:43.123" UserId="2082" />
  <row Id="11175" PostId="5467" Score="0" Text="@EinarPetersen If you want three plus three words, I suggest *vivat fax libertatis — fortes infirmos tuentur*. I will update the answer with some details later today, I hope." CreationDate="2017-10-24T14:56:07.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11176" PostId="5467" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta that sounds absolutely awesome - I hope you make sure to let me have some contact info so I can get a postal address at a later stage in order to send you guys a patch each for services rendered to the Terran Defense Force :)  as a thank you, once the project get's that far." CreationDate="2017-10-24T15:52:42.643" UserId="2082" />
  <row Id="11178" PostId="5467" Score="0" Text="@EinarPetersen I updated the answer. I'm glad I could be of service! :) If you (or anyone) wants to send me something, my profile has a link to my homepage, and my work address can be found there. I will not share my private address here." CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:22:15.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11205" PostId="5467" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta - perfectly understandable and that is how we shall proceed" CreationDate="2017-10-27T08:50:57.003" UserId="2082" />
  <row Id="11161" PostId="5468" Score="0" Text="@Philppe Damerval - I sound point out that I did not provide any translation other thna copying the text from a book..." CreationDate="2017-10-23T18:38:47.840" UserId="2077" />
  <row Id="11170" PostId="5468" Score="0" Text="@Slarty I believe Philippe refers to the translation provided by brianpck in an answer. Whatever the original text is, I agree that it is extremely likely to be a machine translation from English text." CreationDate="2017-10-24T07:10:39.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11186" PostId="5468" Score="0" Text="I do apologize for misidentifying the author of the first translation. It was a newbie's faux pas. Slarty and Brianpck, I am sorry for my mistake." CreationDate="2017-10-24T19:20:16.837" UserId="2083" />
  <row Id="11169" PostId="5470" Score="1" Text="Looking at stress patterns in poetry is a clever idea! Whether the prefix and the plain verb work as one or two words from the point of view of stress, the biggest difference is when the verb has two syllables, first of them short, as in Joel's examples. The only such prefixed word appears to be *immemor*. This suggests that the prefix can take the main stress." CreationDate="2017-10-24T04:31:13.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16352" PostId="5470" Score="0" Text="@sumelic has an excellent answer explaining the difference between prepositional prefix _in_ and the negating prefix _in-_ here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7468/2532" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:34:30.897" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="11179" PostId="5471" Score="1" Text="I never knew the roots of the word infant. Thanks! Also, it's hard to define what it means to &quot;start speaking&quot;. Are they speaking when they babble? When they have a limited vocabulary of say ten or so words? Or is it only when they possess a degree of proficiency that you would say they have started speaking?" CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:26:17.757" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11180" PostId="5471" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124 It's vague, and I don't see any way around it. The question is whether speaking is really used to define what being an *infans* means, whatever that might mean in practice. I was initially going to write &quot;mute&quot; instead of &quot;non-speaking&quot;, but then I realized that the typical child produces sound at all ages, it's just the genre that changes gradually." CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:28:57.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11181" PostId="5471" Score="0" Text="I see. I don't see it as a problem at all. I think it makes the question more interesting, as a good answer will likely address that point. I would also be curious to know whether Romans considered babble words or single-word sentences an example of  *fari*." CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:39:22.273" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11183" PostId="5471" Score="3" Text="[Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/word/infant) says, without reference, says that the &quot;Romans extended the sense of Latin infans to include older children,&quot; leading to such words as French *enfant* (=child). It would be nice to see a concrete passage and a more accurate timeline, though!" CreationDate="2017-10-24T17:25:56.957" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11184" PostId="5471" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Interesting! I suspected there could have been such an extension, but I had nothing at all to support it. Etymonline is some evidence, but it would indeed be nice to have that corroborated with classical passages (assuming &quot;Romans&quot; means classical)." CreationDate="2017-10-24T17:33:17.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11189" PostId="5471" Score="0" Text="In European legal Latin it could mean: Not entitled to speak in a court of law on their own behalf; someone for whom the court must provide a voice. Wards of court might be infants until they came 'of age' at 21.&quot;IINFANT, in a *law sense,* a person under the age of one-and-twenty years...&quot; At the same time there were other rules for an  infant *infra annos infantiae* which was taken as 7 years old. (1815)" CreationDate="2017-10-24T23:15:59.783" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11190" PostId="5471" Score="0" Text="To return to classical Latin, There are versions of the Ages of Man: Infans, Juvenis, Senex. When would the division be?" CreationDate="2017-10-24T23:34:00.443" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23473" PostId="5472" Score="0" Text="Would it be necessary to add the 'by name': &quot;a nomine&quot; by &quot;Malleo Jesus.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-27T06:09:11.140" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="11187" PostId="5474" Score="2" Text="Nice answer. Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2017-10-24T20:42:46.957" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11191" PostId="5475" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! The dash is called a macron. Does [this old question and its answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1497/79) answer your question? If yes, we can link your question to it (as a duplicate) and make the answer easier to find. If no, can you elaborate on what is missing?" CreationDate="2017-10-25T10:18:04.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11192" PostId="5475" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the response. Although the other question begs the question from the point of writing, I asked it from the point of pronouncing. But it answered my question. As I understand, I have to learn it word by word. If my understanding of the answer is right, let this be marked as a duplicate." CreationDate="2017-10-25T10:32:21.563" UserId="2086" />
  <row Id="11193" PostId="5475" Score="0" Text="I marked this question as duplicate. It is indeed the case that you have to learn it word by word and ending by ending. You will get better at guessing as you progress, but there are very few hard rules." CreationDate="2017-10-25T10:42:47.627" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11194" PostId="5475" Score="1" Text="@Joonas To be fair to the OP, the title of the duplicate question is quite different from what's being asked here, even though the answer to the one ends up covering the same material." CreationDate="2017-10-25T14:43:11.870" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11195" PostId="5475" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I agree! I'm not blaming Mainul Islam for not finding it. I happened to remember it, but that was just lucky. But that's what duplicates are good for: Now that two different titles lead to the same knowledge, it has become easier to find. Frankly, I think this one has a more descriptive title, and in any case this is a good question and earned my vote." CreationDate="2017-10-25T14:55:17.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29929" PostId="5482" Score="0" Text="Primarily, &quot;Ira&quot; is an emotion whereas &quot;furor&quot; is a behaviour. However, figuratively, you can, by metonymy, speak of a &quot;furor&quot; raging in your heart, or describe a storm as &quot;ira Deorum&quot;, or whatever." CreationDate="2020-11-30T23:09:03.677" UserId="2922" />
  <row Id="11321" PostId="5483" Score="0" Text="I thought this was a different question from the newer one. If they are the same, they should be marked duplicate, not deleted. I was just about to give a *different* answer to the other question... Are the two questions about the same thing?" CreationDate="2017-11-10T15:08:08.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11322" PostId="5483" Score="0" Text="I took the liberty to add more context from the other question. Feel free to re-edit." CreationDate="2017-11-10T15:20:31.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11207" PostId="5484" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much. That's exactly what I searched for and couldn't find: a past example of the name in ancient Latin books, hence my mistaken assumption I was inventing a new name. It did actually strike me as odd that someone hadn't coined the name already, since it seems quite an obvious name to coin, but as you have shown they already have. Thank you so much. Good day and green tick to you, kind fellow !" CreationDate="2017-10-28T02:38:41.887" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11208" PostId="5487" Score="2" Text="Related https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2974/39" CreationDate="2017-10-29T12:41:11.227" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11209" PostId="5487" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Thanks! I had forgotten about that one. The question only asks about *-mentum*, but the answer does indeed compare the two. In theory, duplicates are for the same questions, not for questions that happen to have the same answer, but it's debatable. At any rate, I will leave it for others to vote whether this is a duplicate. (I will refrain from voting, but I have nothing against others voting to close as duplicate if they feel so.)" CreationDate="2017-10-29T17:18:05.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11221" PostId="5489" Score="2" Text="If you look at the scans of the whole MS at www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=7796&amp;CollID=9&amp;NStart=4016 (as I just spent far too long doing), indications of 'by another name' or 'which some people call' are frequent. The other names are a mishmash of Latin, transliterated Greek and Arabic, and what I presume is regional dialect(s) (e.g., folio 62r. gives mus, sorices[?], ratus, and topus [cf. Italian topo] in the caption for a mouse). Since the MS is from Lombardy, perhaps asustilbar is in Lombardic – or something else entirely (Arabic?)." CreationDate="2017-10-30T09:44:39.543" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11246" PostId="5490" Score="4" Text="You should change the question to get rid of *amare* and instead talk about the *root* of *amare*, *ama*-." CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:26:23.667" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11247" PostId="5490" Score="0" Text="@cmw That's an interesting suggestion. I'll think about it and perhaps revise when I have time." CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:46:08.717" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11218" PostId="5491" Score="1" Text="So, you're saying &quot;asus-&quot; is from &quot;assus&quot; and &quot;-(i)lbar&quot; is from &quot;libarius&quot;, but what about the &quot;t&quot; in the middle of the word?" CreationDate="2017-10-30T05:09:39.713" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11219" PostId="5491" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, what I've come to think (after spending too much time on this) is these three words have nothing to do with Castor or bollocks, but might possibly have a connection with delicious hot chestnuts, bursting open from the heat." CreationDate="2017-10-30T05:43:16.133" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11225" PostId="5492" Score="2" Text="&quot;Touch&quot; as in &quot;to touch upon&quot;. Read L&amp;S more carefully at § A.III. It doesn't refer to mere touching, but *handling*, and at that point it's a metaphorical usage, not one to illustrate touching literally. Same with the &quot;touch&quot; in A.III.8: that's geometrical touching. But it's touching in English, not necessarily in Greek." CreationDate="2017-10-30T18:26:40.900" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34208" PostId="5492" Score="1" Text="[Linked](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/57189/what-does-μή-μου-ἅπτου-mean-in-john-2017). Are you interested in the Greek of the Old Testament exemplars quoted there?" CreationDate="2021-07-23T20:57:18.427" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="34209" PostId="5492" Score="3" Text="fwiw, The Greek Septuagint Ruth 2:9, οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν, οὗ ἐὰν θερίζωσιν, καὶ πορεύσῃ κατόπισθεν αὐτῶν· ἰδοὺ ἐνετειλάμην τοῖς παιδαρίοις τοῦ μὴ ἅψασθαί σου· καὶ ὅ τι διψήσεις, καὶ πορευθήσῃ εἰς τὰ σκεύη καὶ πίεσαι ὅθεν ἂν ὑδρεύωνται τὰ παιδάρια.  rendered as:&#xA;Let your eyes be on the field they are harvesting, and follow along after these girls. Indeed, I have ordered - the young men not to touch you. And when you are thirsty, go ... and drink from the jars the young men have filled.       But, to my ear, it's really &quot;cling&quot;: you join them for water  still not clinging to them." CreationDate="2021-07-23T21:28:52.127" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="11231" PostId="5494" Score="0" Text="Thank you all for the input ! Splendid ! It would be a motto regarding a male person, set apart (from from family, friends, regular life, etc) for God. So that would be Segregatus in Deo?" CreationDate="2017-10-31T02:42:19.273" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11233" PostId="5494" Score="0" Text="Or just Segregatus Deo as suggested by Tom Cotton?" CreationDate="2017-10-31T02:48:21.047" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11235" PostId="5494" Score="1" Text="@user1988 The latter: *Segregatus Deo*." CreationDate="2017-10-31T03:56:04.367" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11237" PostId="5494" Score="1" Text="You are close to 20k, sir. Congratulations!" CreationDate="2017-10-31T07:23:10.440" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11229" PostId="5495" Score="1" Text="I just assumed it was Vulgate wonkery." CreationDate="2017-10-30T22:46:51.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11230" PostId="5495" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer. Well, I wouldn't rule that out completely..." CreationDate="2017-10-30T23:02:55.207" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11232" PostId="5495" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer hahaha. I wouldn't know. Were they wonky translators ?" CreationDate="2017-10-31T02:45:47.277" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11236" PostId="5495" Score="1" Text="@user1988 As I pointed out, it's probably strictly adhering to the Greek here. cnread is right on the money, though, that because it's a bit weird, reverting to the dative case is more likely, so as he suggests (and I guess you accepted) *segregatus deo*. Tom Cotton's alternative is also viable, though I at first would have read it as &quot;set apart on behalf of god.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-10-31T03:57:43.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11234" PostId="5496" Score="0" Text="Pro Segregatus Deo. That's a marvelous suggestion, and is mighty sonorous. In this particular case I have to keep as close to the Vulgate as possible **and** I'm pressed for space, so as good as it sounds I'll go without the Pro if I possibly can - as much as I like it. Thanks so much for a fantastic suggestion !" CreationDate="2017-10-31T02:57:03.310" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11240" PostId="5498" Score="5" Text="Thanks for your answer. I think I might disagree with your grounds for ruling out the conjecture. I believe the word would have evolved to take on the &quot;r&quot; sound in Latin. After all, -are is an infinitival suffix, not a root, and the root would have existed long before Latin came about, i.e. in Proto-Indo-European." CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:08:48.707" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11241" PostId="5498" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 It's an interesting idea in that an infant's first love might be thought of as for the one who suckles the child, but as you note, it would have to originate from &quot;ama&quot; only." CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:11:38.010" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11242" PostId="5498" Score="0" Text="Indeed! But I find it plausible that this happened. Because de Vaan gives a root very similar to the am- sound... he gives a laryngeal followed by the consonant &quot;m&quot;, which seems consistent with am- or ama-." CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:13:12.637" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11243" PostId="5498" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amah_(term)" CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:13:26.473" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11245" PostId="5498" Score="3" Text="If I have understood correctly, an older form of the infinitive is *amase* which became the classical one we know by rhotacism. And more importantly, the infinitive is quite irrelevant for simple use, and a child using forms like *amo*, *amas*, and *amat* would have no need to fight with the R." CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:22:01.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11248" PostId="5498" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I was thrown off by the use of &quot;amare&quot; as opposed to &quot;amo&quot; in the question *(didn't check the actual link until just now, and the wiki is for amo;)*  &quot;Oh&quot; is a much more accessible sound for babies, as you can see the shape of the mouth, although it's still a more difficult sound than &quot;ah&quot;." CreationDate="2017-10-31T21:52:39.383" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11620" PostId="5498" Score="0" Text="@DukeZhou It would still be *ama*. The &quot;o&quot; is just when it's conjugated. It's the difference between &quot;Google&quot; and &quot;googled.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-12-06T01:21:56.380" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11249" PostId="5499" Score="1" Text="Unfortunately, all the research I've seen speak to an American's (or sometimes a Brit's) experience. The same results would not necessarily apply to a Finn." CreationDate="2017-11-01T02:42:02.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11253" PostId="5499" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer I would be interested in seeing that. I did not put any geographic restrictions and I don't expect to find much about Finland specifically. I imagine at least some of the benefits are global (within western countries, perhaps)." CreationDate="2017-11-01T08:34:37.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11318" PostId="5499" Score="1" Text="This is a very interesting feature of modern thinking, that pure reasoning is not sufficient evidence to act on, and that we need &quot;quantifiable&quot; evidence to make any authoritative decisions. Most of the classical Greek and Latin authors would disagree vehemently, and quite a few (Plato springs to mind first) would say that your rational arguments bear far greater weight than any fallible &quot;modern scientific&quot; study, not the least of which is because there are [three kinds of lies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics)" CreationDate="2017-11-10T04:30:10.410" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="11257" PostId="5500" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answer and the update! Neutrality is a good starting point here, so *crepido* and *spatium* are perhaps the best words (unless someone else finds something more suitable). Imagine if they said &quot;Mind the abyss!&quot; in English... I reformatted your answer slightly. If I seem to have misinterpreted your intention or you don't otherwise like it, feel free to roll back or re-edit." CreationDate="2017-11-01T20:55:29.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11267" PostId="5501" Score="1" Text="This is almost more of a mythology or history question, related to civic ideals in the Roman Republic and Empire.  *The Golden Ass* is partly about the decline in morals, so Apuleius might have been trying to reinforce the civic institution of marriage, which maintains society.  A clue may be found in that the statement is addressed to Venus, whose domain is unrestrained desire.  Jupiter is casting the matrimony as in the mortal, as opposed to divine, domain, lest Eros' being bound to a single woman diminish Venus' stature or power of erotic desire." CreationDate="2017-11-03T20:49:36.163" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11268" PostId="5501" Score="1" Text="Although Apuleius' *Metamorphosis* is intensely satirical, he does become earnest and sincere at the end of the work, when Lucius is returned to human form.  Likewise, this passage comes at the end of the story-within-the-story that is a sort of centerpiece to the work overall." CreationDate="2017-11-03T20:53:34.673" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11468" PostId="5501" Score="1" Text="@DukeZhou Hey, some interesting ideas, food for thought!" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:42:50.597" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11263" PostId="5502" Score="3" Text="Thanks! This is already useful, but of course studies supporting the conclusion would be a great addition." CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:13:10.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11292" PostId="5502" Score="0" Text="One improvement I might make would be to mention medieval and renaissance literature in addition to the classical." CreationDate="2017-11-06T14:26:25.530" UserId="1559" />
  <row Id="11330" PostId="5502" Score="0" Text="Prestige. Very good point. It would be worth looking at how other universities around the world 'market' their Latin course, especially elite universities. If the purpose is to convince your own university then prestige can be a powerful argument if it translates into money, as it must for those elite universities. One cannot separate prestige and money in this age of marketing. http://theconversation.com/difficult-latin-risks-remaining-a-qualification-for-elite-pupils-49987" CreationDate="2017-11-11T14:53:10.913" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11264" PostId="5503" Score="2" Text="Thanks! Comparing *hiare* and *fodere*, I find *hiatus* to be more appropriate than *fossa*. You make a strong case for *agger*, and I'm now leaning towards it." CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:15:04.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11265" PostId="5504" Score="0" Text="I added some tags to your question and then answered it, but it occurred to me right before posting the answer that I may have misunderstood your question. This might render the new tags and my answer irrelevant. Can you give an example or two of what you mean?" CreationDate="2017-11-03T16:11:26.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11275" PostId="5513" Score="0" Text="Growing spirituality and/or in knowledge. Is Augeo only for physical growth?" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:39:05.620" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11276" PostId="5513" Score="2" Text="@user1988 In either case, it's chiefly transitive, whereas you want an intransitive verb. Try the others I suggested, and yes, they would all work for physical growth." CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:45:21.510" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11280" PostId="5513" Score="0" Text="so is &quot;Augeo et Gaudeo&quot; grammatically correct?" CreationDate="2017-11-05T16:27:26.097" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11281" PostId="5513" Score="0" Text="and Augeo can *only* refer to physical growth, but *cannot* figuratively refer to spiritual/intellectual growth?" CreationDate="2017-11-05T16:28:51.397" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11282" PostId="5513" Score="0" Text="Logeion has, for example, &quot;periculum in dies augetur, danger is increased day by day&quot;. So could it not refer *figuratively* to, for example, knowledge growing - without actually specifying *what* is growing?" CreationDate="2017-11-05T16:31:58.193" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11283" PostId="5513" Score="2" Text="Hi @user1988. Sorry, in my comment I meant to say &quot;Yes it would work for spiritual growth.&quot; That is fine. The problem isn't the translation, it's what you think the English words mean." CreationDate="2017-11-05T18:08:27.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11284" PostId="5513" Score="2" Text="@user1988 *Augetur* is passive. That doesn't actually say &quot;danger grows&quot; but &quot;danger *is increased*&quot;. Something else made the *periculum* to be increased. That's a fine distinction to make. If you must keep *augeo*, then the form would be *Augeor et Gaudeo*." CreationDate="2017-11-05T18:10:22.597" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11286" PostId="5513" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much Mr @C.M.Weimer. Always a pleasure to hear your input ! Danke vielmals !" CreationDate="2017-11-05T18:19:41.230" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11287" PostId="5513" Score="1" Text="@user1988 Mit Vergnügen !" CreationDate="2017-11-05T19:18:49.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23837" PostId="5513" Score="0" Text="@Johan88 How do I get in touch with you outside SE?" CreationDate="2019-12-27T02:28:17.467" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11285" PostId="5514" Score="0" Text="Good catch with the participle." CreationDate="2017-11-05T18:11:50.870" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11294" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much. I updated my question after your advice. Choosing words was not hard for me in this exercise, but choosing the right *inflection/conjugation* of those words is what I struggle with, so I need to verify everything with those who are familiar with linguistics and the nuances of Latin/Greek. Thanks so much. :)" CreationDate="2017-11-06T15:32:42.397" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11296" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="@user1988 I added a little something to the answer." CreationDate="2017-11-06T20:11:28.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11301" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much Mr Joonas. A very informative answer. Much obliged. :)" CreationDate="2017-11-07T07:04:25.423" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11369" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="a final note: is *Caesus Claususque* grammatically correct?" CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:12:45.207" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11370" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="@user1988 Yes, *caesus claususque* is grammatically correct and means (more or less) the same as *caesus et clausus*." CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:23:36.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11371" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="'more or less'? If you were to give an English translation if *Caesus Claususque* may I please ask what it would be Mr Joonas?" CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:33:06.143" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11372" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="@user1988 I would translate both the same way. There is a difference in nuance between *et* and *-que*, and it was addressed [in the first question on this site](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79) (also linked in my answer above). In this case I see no big difference, so it's mostly a matter of taste. If you want more details than the linked question gives, you can ask a separate question about comparing *caesus et clausus* to *caesus claususque*." CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:38:23.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11373" PostId="5516" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much Mr @JoonasIlmavirta . Once again you've made my day ." CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:45:37.990" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11305" PostId="5522" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! These are all great suggestions. I will do some research on them tonight." CreationDate="2017-11-08T09:57:34.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11904" PostId="5522" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the second half of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/322/79)" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:56:34.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11316" PostId="5523" Score="0" Text="This is a frustrating problem now that you bring it up!" CreationDate="2017-11-09T20:56:58.477" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11309" PostId="5525" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Could you add a note on using *impluere*? Judging by the examples in L&amp;S, it looks like it needs a dative, not an accusative or a preposition." CreationDate="2017-11-09T09:32:00.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11310" PostId="5525" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I tried!  Hope it helps." CreationDate="2017-11-09T10:41:05.013" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11324" PostId="5529" Score="0" Text="Ah, thanks for pointing that out. It escaped my attention. One question about your answer, though. Was acer, aceris n. (with short a) the only well-known word in the Latin lexicon for describing maple trees? It would be interesting but unsurprising if they had one name whereas we have many." CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:36:47.320" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11323" PostId="5531" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the lightning fast answer and for sharing a link to dictionary. Distinguisher vs Analyst direct vs implied ability to differentiate/discriminate." CreationDate="2017-11-10T15:43:16.890" UserId="2088" />
  <row Id="11328" PostId="5533" Score="0" Text="The phrase I'm familiar with for this practice is &quot;pro-rating&quot;, which seems to come from the Latin expression?" CreationDate="2017-11-11T01:14:38.310" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11329" PostId="5533" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Apparently so, although it sounds more like &quot;professional rating&quot; to me at first." CreationDate="2017-11-11T14:37:52.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11331" PostId="5535" Score="0" Text="Have you seen [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5127/79)? It's certainly related, but I'm not sure if it's a duplicate." CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:00:31.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11332" PostId="5535" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: The very same Tom Cotton responded to my comment: “The appropriate distributive isn't unus, but singuli: singulae litterrae.” I perceive a contradiction here. Of course, in &quot;one letter from each applicant&quot; would use *singulae*, but I mean just the normal cardinal, non-distributive case “Alice wrote three letters, Bob one, and Charlie five.”" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:06:36.260" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11333" PostId="5535" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta so strictly speaking yes, it looks like a duplicate (and I missed the question you are referring to), but I believe the question would certainly benefit from some additional clarification. Up to you, indeed. :)" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:13:25.230" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11334" PostId="5535" Score="0" Text="I'm still somewhat confused myself, too. Perhaps it's just that the distributive has more roles than usual with *plurale tantum* words. I hope to see more explanations on the matter. This question might benefit from clarifying what is confusing in relation to earlier questions, but I'm genuinely not sure. I just wanted to make sure you knew of the older question. (I'm not going to close this as duplicate unless you ask for it, but someone else might.)" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:15:10.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11336" PostId="5535" Score="0" Text="@joonasIlmavirta Did you notice that I expanded my original answer tokkm's question?" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:30:55.160" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11341" PostId="5535" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I just now read your update to your answer to [the question linked in the question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4083/79) (which was asked by brianpck). It's a useful one, thanks! Unfortunately I can't upvote the same answer twice." CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:57:53.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11337" PostId="5536" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I would disagree a little bit on the reading of A&amp;G; when the book says nothing about the rule, I can assume a more general rule applies, but in this case it is not that obvious what *is* the more general rule.&#xA;&#xA;Oh, an is it too much to ask to elaborate a bit on the exceptions that you are mentioning in the last sentence?" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:32:48.803" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11338" PostId="5536" Score="0" Text="@kkm Please look at my expanded answer to your original question." CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:34:07.543" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11339" PostId="5536" Score="1" Text="@kkm, When A&amp;G is silent on something, I usually take that as a sign that I should look in Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge. And, in fact, G&amp;L §97, Remark 3 makes explicit what is left implicit in the A&amp;G rule: 'The Distributives are used with **pluralia tantum**: **binae litterae**, *two epistles*. But with these **uni** is used for *one*, **trini** for *three*; **unae litterae**, **trinae litterae**.' As to exceptions, I don't have anything specific in mind, but they may exist; confirming this would require a corpus search. In the meantime, I'm just leaving the possibility of such exceptions open." CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:47:19.840" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11340" PostId="5536" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the reference to G&amp;L! I was sticking so much to my A&amp;G (they always worked for me) that I dropped other great references from my radar! I'll try to work on exceptions. This is an interesting topic, especially if looked at diachronically (this sometimes gives an answer *why* they exist)." CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:52:35.860" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11343" PostId="5537" Score="1" Text="At first glance, mutuari/mutuare would seem to be correct. OLD gives as the definition 'To borrow (money, commodities). b (trans., e.g. words, ideas).' However, when I look at the 3 attestations that involve words (Cic. Orat. 211: 'aut novum facere verbum aut a simili mutuari'; Cic. Tusc. 2.43: 'a viris virtus nomen est mutuata'; and Quint. Inst. 10.1.13: 'ex proximo [i.e. a wd. cognate in meaning] mutuari'), all appear to be talking about 'deriving' words rather than 'borrowing' them in the sense that you're asking about." CreationDate="2017-11-11T22:40:19.757" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11352" PostId="5539" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! You have asked two unrelated questions in one. It's better to ask only one at a time, so the system works as intended. You can ask separate questions separately, but in this case you can probably just edit your question to delete the second part as it has already been answered. I don't have the time for it now, but I can try to answer your remaining question tomorrow." CreationDate="2017-11-13T21:54:40.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11355" PostId="5539" Score="0" Text="Joonas Ilmavirta, I edited out the second question. Thanks for the heads up. If you can answer my first question when you get a chance, it will be super appreciated. Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-11-14T05:32:20.230" UserId="2114" />
  <row Id="11359" PostId="5539" Score="0" Text="I cleaned up comments related to the now-deleted second part of the question. If anyone thinks the comments should be restored, just let me know or raise a flag. BRNDO: I hope you stick around and ask more questions (and take a look at our [tour]). We're always glad to have new people with an interest in Latin." CreationDate="2017-11-14T09:40:09.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11351" PostId="5540" Score="0" Text="It is interesting if the Romans used the same word for borrowing and deriving in this context. Perhaps that distinction should be explored in another question..." CreationDate="2017-11-13T20:59:36.353" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11357" PostId="5541" Score="1" Text="It depends on the noun, I think. The phrase rex Romae works because, I would maintain, Romae is an example of a so-called objective genitive; it really means 'king over Rome.' The same doesn't, however, work for other nouns, like civis. 'Citizen of Rome' is always (at least in classical Latin) civis Romanus, never civis Romae, unless Romae is in apposition to urbis (civis urbis Romae)." CreationDate="2017-11-14T06:53:29.717" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11358" PostId="5541" Score="0" Text="@cnread It never occurred to me that it might make a difference. They eventual goal is an understanding of *Academia Finlandiae/Fennica*. I would very much like to read more on that if you can write up (or link to) something. That the nature of the noun makes a difference would be a very interesting answer." CreationDate="2017-11-14T08:33:31.277" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29512" PostId="5541" Score="0" Text="I would supply &quot;rex romanae (urbis)&quot;  if I were reading this on my own." CreationDate="2020-10-25T04:23:52.027" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29516" PostId="5541" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite That's a natural reading if it's *rex Romanae*, but now with either of *rex Romanus &amp; rex Romae*. Or did you mean *rex urbis Romae*?" CreationDate="2020-10-25T08:48:18.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29525" PostId="5541" Score="0" Text="Either way -- I just meant that I would supply a noun for the adjective 'Romanus-a-um' to modify. I wouldn't use the objective genitive as cnread does." CreationDate="2020-10-25T19:22:29.777" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="11353" PostId="5542" Score="0" Text="In the case of rex Romae, I don't think it's at all clear from your 2 passages that Romae is genitive rather than locative. In fact, the verb constitueretur in the first passage seems (to me, at least) to make Romae pretty definitively a locative: 'so that a king might be installed in Rome.'" CreationDate="2017-11-14T01:40:24.710" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11354" PostId="5542" Score="1" Text="@cnread On that particular case, it's fully ambiguous. &quot;So that a king of Rome might be installed&quot; is possible, though certainly it could be locative. I wouldn't call it definitive, though. Still, the other two examples sets of examples are highly unlikely to be locative, and are bolstered by the phrase [rex Romanorum](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=rex+romanorum)." CreationDate="2017-11-14T03:04:42.147" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11365" PostId="5542" Score="3" Text="&quot;Romulus, primus Rex Romae, bene regnabat.&quot; Also from Livy. Dunno if that helps." CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:44:12.997" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11360" PostId="5543" Score="1" Text="Joonas, Thank you! Much appreciated. &quot;AURIS AD TERRAM&quot; it is." CreationDate="2017-11-14T18:00:30.393" UserId="2114" />
  <row Id="11363" PostId="5545" Score="0" Text="Interesting, thanks! I am trying to wrap my head around the tool. Do you find it useful? I tried *una*; as the numeral it was not found, and the tool did not seem very precise distinguishing the adverb from the adjective. But tagging Latin should be quite hard." CreationDate="2017-11-14T22:50:20.010" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11364" PostId="5545" Score="0" Text="For some reason, it doesn't work for unus but it does for duo, tres, quattuor etc." CreationDate="2017-11-15T04:44:13.743" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23878" PostId="5547" Score="1" Text="You might want to specify whether you want this answered with respect to the Latin of the era of St. Jerome or of some other era.  You might also modify the title to specify the Latin words the question is about" CreationDate="2019-12-29T20:46:23.877" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="11412" PostId="5549" Score="0" Text="I think you're missing the point of my reply to the other question here. 'Loan word' is an English expression for a word taken from another language. Strictly, a _loan_ is something _lent_ in expectation of its return and the term _loan word_, is widely accepted, but used inaccurately — just as it is 'inaccurate' to 'borrow' a word that you can't give back!" CreationDate="2017-11-21T18:04:36.180" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11366" PostId="5553" Score="0" Text="Can you give a link to a source? Someone might want to take a look at the broader context of the passage." CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:30:25.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20203" PostId="5553" Score="0" Text="If you saw an author date it to the 12th century, you must be very old.  Perhaps you meant &quot;editor&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-06-18T01:50:00.513" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20397" PostId="5553" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour &quot;Commenter&quot;. I've reworded it. It was dated to circa 12th century by S. A. van Dijk, &quot;Saint Bernard and the Instituta Patrum of Saint Gall,&quot; Musica disciplina 4 (1950): 99-109, 109.; by virtue of parts of the text being found in another document from St. Bernard. I've seen websites like the Dutch Wikipedia date it to the 9th or 10th century, but without citation." CreationDate="2019-07-04T13:14:56.457" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="11367" PostId="5555" Score="0" Text="Thanks!  Your first reading might be a good clue if only there was another verb here, but there isn't.  The sentence before isn't connect at all.  Plus this author is not shy to run-ons, as is clear from the document's first two sentences.  I added a link to the full text, in case you want to add to your answer." CreationDate="2017-11-15T22:37:54.310" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="11374" PostId="5558" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much Mr Joonas. Hats off to you again, Sir." CreationDate="2017-11-17T02:31:26.393" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11375" PostId="5559" Score="4" Text="That literally means 'a rapacious man [is doing something to] the summit'. :p" CreationDate="2017-11-17T04:19:10.720" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="25805" PostId="5559" Score="0" Text="Does the person who asked this question work for 5.11 tactical? I made a purchase several months ago that came with a patch of a saber tooth tiger skeleton that’s says “apicem rapax” underneath.." CreationDate="2020-04-09T00:49:23.707" UserId="6793" />
  <row Id="11376" PostId="5563" Score="1" Text="Oh, that makes a lot of sense! I was actually wondering how the Greek prefix made sense semantically. But the Latin prefix *ante-* explains it. I suppose I am too quick to assume what is Greek, what is Latin!" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:05:53.133" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11377" PostId="5563" Score="1" Text="Oddly enough, ἀντί and ante are cognates. They both come from *h₂énti, which has multiple senses, including &quot;opposite&quot; and &quot;before&quot;. Thus Greek conserved one of these senses, whereas Latin conserved the other." CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:11:00.283" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11378" PostId="5563" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124 I always assumed they were cognates, as they are so similar in many respects. Sometimes *ante* means &quot;in front of&quot; (cf. *Hannibal ante/ad portas*), which is not that far from &quot;opposite&quot;. Now that I think of it, a comparison of *ante* and *ἀντί* would make an interesting question." CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:18:13.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11380" PostId="5563" Score="0" Text="Yes, it might! Interesting that the two senses are related." CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:42:20.403" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11388" PostId="5563" Score="4" Text="It seems that *millipeda* &quot;millipede&quot; was a variant form of *[millepeda](https://books.google.com/books?id=oQ3gAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA16-IA365&amp;lpg=PA16-IA365&amp;dq=%22millipeda%22+Latin+%22millepeda%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gK5lq8jsMj&amp;sig=8tifatneH47U_zybNRXGrwkgkRw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjPo7nmscbXAhWKy4MKHfP5DW0Q6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22millipeda%22%20Latin%20%22millepeda%22&amp;f=false).* That's not quite the same, but maybe a bit similar." CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:55:55.017" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11389" PostId="5563" Score="0" Text="@sumelic It's certainly more similar than anything I could think of. A short *e* at the end of a prefix turning to an *i* sounds right. I'll see if I can think of something more..." CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:58:02.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13798" PostId="5563" Score="0" Text="@sumelic You answer looks very interesting! I will give it a closer look later. You should ask a separate question about translating Lundström's quote; that has proven to be an efficient way to figure out what exactly a Latin quote says." CreationDate="2018-04-18T10:06:22.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11391" PostId="5564" Score="1" Text="It's worth noting that Aristotle takes this idea and runs with it in the *Politics*. Whether a ruler pursues the common good (*koinon sympheron*) or his own proper good is precisely what distinguishes good and bad regimes." CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:16:55.623" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29049" PostId="5565" Score="0" Text="A less exact translation using current practice might be &quot;Rest In Peace&quot; Often abbreviated to &quot;RIP&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-18T15:11:33.360" UserId="7400" />
  <row Id="11399" PostId="5566" Score="1" Text="A statement that A. H. M. Jones was plain “not accurate” on a certain Roman matter requires much more serious elaboration than a reference to L&amp;S, I believe. Do you maybe have more references handy? Pierre Grimal wrote about the concept of *imperium* at some length (not the word, which can mean many things, but the heart of the concept), in his *La civilisation* IIRC, in an earlier Roman period than Jones would normally be assumed to focus on, and I do not remember Grimal landing very far away from him. I need to comb through the book now, however." CreationDate="2017-11-19T02:46:48.707" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11407" PostId="5566" Score="0" Text="@kkm I don't have more references handy (and I am currently travelling and thus less able to access some sources). I wouldn't base the criticism solely on L&amp;S, but the quotes from Caesar and Cicero corroborate the observation that *imperium* can mean many kinds of power, not all covered by Jones' definition. The definition can be very accurate for **a** meaning of *imperium*, but I can't see how it could be **the** meaning. But as always, it is certainly possible that I am mistaken (or unable to identify the relevant use of *imperium*), and I would like seeing (and upvoting) other answers." CreationDate="2017-11-20T05:43:46.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11409" PostId="5566" Score="1" Text="In a context, *the* meaning can exist, and I think I understand what is the context in the question. I'll try to write an answer, but this is one of the questions that are hard to answer in the SO context (it is easier addressed in a monograph). The answer is yes, the definition is rather accurate, yes, Romans wound kill (and did many times) for it, and its origins predate Plato's lifetime. But it's hard to expose concisely. I'll try my best." CreationDate="2017-11-20T06:55:02.793" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11458" PostId="5566" Score="1" Text="@kkm I look forward to an answer, if you so choose. If not, the comment itself is useful." CreationDate="2017-11-25T06:09:56.047" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11506" PostId="5566" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124: Sorry about sitting on it for so long, but I will!" CreationDate="2017-11-27T09:53:45.387" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="11507" PostId="5566" Score="0" Text="@kkm There's no rush at all!" CreationDate="2017-11-27T09:54:55.480" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11384" PostId="5567" Score="0" Text="Thanks! To clarify: Are you saying that the text on the tombstone is addressed to the Manes? It looks reasonable to me, but it is worth noting that the name of the deceased is also in dative." CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:05:06.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11385" PostId="5567" Score="1" Text="I think the double dative might be understood as a *dativus finalis* and a *dativus commodi*. I'm inclined to say that &quot;Dis Manibus&quot; would be the *dativus commodi*." CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:26:28.523" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11386" PostId="5567" Score="0" Text="Hmm... So it would be something like &quot;This person made for that person for the benefit of the Manes&quot;? The L is probably the name Lucius, and I think it's the name of the *alumnus* (probably foster son rather than student)." CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:42:21.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11387" PostId="5567" Score="0" Text="Ah, thanks! I corrected that translation. Feel free to point out any other problems, with that one or others. Regarding your question, that's how I understand it." CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:48:21.370" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11390" PostId="5567" Score="4" Text="Sandys, Latin epigraphy, takes the dative DM to be in apposition to the dative name of the deceased. Another, more general-interest book that I looked in, Keppie's Understanding Latin inscriptions, says we're meant to understand 'et' between the 2 datives. Cooley, The Cambridge manual of Latin epigraphy, always treats DM as a separate, standalone invocation. There's also the fact that sometimes DM = DMS (dis manibus sacrum), where the dative is dependent on the adj. Plus, sometimes the person's name isn't dative at all, though DM still is. The matter is, in short, very complicated." CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:11:49.717" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11392" PostId="5567" Score="4" Text="I should also add that the 3 examples given here aren't necessarily very representative. Not all have the verb fecit and, as I indicate in my previous comment, the person's name isn't always in the dative. In some, it's in the genitive and depends on DM ('to the spirits of the departed of so-and-so'), in others it's nominative, and I'm sure I've seen accusatives too. So, either the meaning/syntax of DM is highly flexible (a definite possibility) or Cooley is right always to take it as a standalone invocation (though there may well be instances where that approach doesn't work)." CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:24:28.110" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11393" PostId="5567" Score="1" Text="@cnread Can you post those comments as an answer? I had no idea the matter was so complicated and unclear. Unfortunately I lack the insight to pick representative examples from CIL." CreationDate="2017-11-18T09:54:06.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11395" PostId="5569" Score="3" Text="*OLD* agrees, saying that it's 'prob[ably]' from the Latin adjective *simus* (Greek σιμός), 'having a flattened nose.'" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:03:52.473" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11396" PostId="5569" Score="1" Text="Tacet *De Vaan.*" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:09:32.643" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11397" PostId="5569" Score="2" Text=". ...implying that he accepts that it is a loan word." CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:11:44.663" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11400" PostId="5570" Score="1" Text="See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/745/did-the-romans-derive-verbs-from-names/776#776 for a few early examples, which romanized zeta as -ss-" CreationDate="2017-11-19T03:37:09.380" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11401" PostId="5572" Score="1" Text="Surely ψυχην rather than τυχην ?" CreationDate="2017-11-19T16:24:49.393" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11402" PostId="5572" Score="0" Text="Thanks alot, :) Because that alpha in the bottom right of the first photo is just waaaayyy wacky.." CreationDate="2017-11-19T16:25:46.997" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="11403" PostId="5572" Score="1" Text="How do you explain, in the third picture, what looks like &quot;ao&quot; for the omega in &quot;σωφροσύνη&quot;? And also what looks like aretaōn? (I don't have time to look through it carefully, so I might be splitting the words wrong)" CreationDate="2017-11-19T17:13:41.187" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11404" PostId="5572" Score="3" Text="@brianpck: Looks like contracted vowels are being resolved - historically the forms *were* σαοφροσύνη and ἀρετάων, before contraction." CreationDate="2017-11-19T17:21:53.567" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11405" PostId="5572" Score="1" Text="@varro. Yes L/S have: &quot; Ep. and poet. σᾰοφροσύνη (as in Hom. and in later poetry, IG22.3632.11, 3753)&quot;." CreationDate="2017-11-19T17:36:10.837" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11406" PostId="5572" Score="0" Text="@varro. And yes, it must be ψυχην, as now emended." CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:14:25.600" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11410" PostId="5575" Score="1" Text="You can use indirect speech here, but using *ut ferunt* (vel sim.) is a good way of stating the facts while marking them as rumor. Both are common." CreationDate="2017-11-21T15:29:27.840" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11411" PostId="5575" Score="3" Text="I may be a little dense...but could you try to rephrase your question? It feels like you're picking up on an earlier conversation that most of us never had, but it would be really helpful if you added more context before going straight to examples" CreationDate="2017-11-21T16:05:55.223" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11418" PostId="5575" Score="1" Text="For this type of book, the answer key doesn't necessarily give the only answer, just the author's/authors' preferred answer, as determined by any number of factors (incl. taste). For the first example, maybe N&amp;H used praestitisse instead of, e.g., fecisse because they have in mind a specific passage where praesto or mirifica praesto is used in a similar context. So, okay, that might be an allusion. For the 2nd example, I myself would likely say something like ferunt Ephoros decrevisse or Ephori traduntur decrevisse; and the result would, no doubt, be as utterly unremarkable as N&amp;H's version." CreationDate="2017-11-21T23:04:15.663" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11419" PostId="5575" Score="1" Text="With regard to epistemic modality, I think the only really interesting thing in your examples is one that you haven't mentioned: the 'obiecerat (obiecisset)' alternative that the answer key gives for the 2nd example. Depending on the form that a given student uses, the reason may be attributed either to the Ephori (obiecisset) or to the speaker (obiecerat)." CreationDate="2017-11-21T23:49:10.870" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11413" PostId="5577" Score="0" Text="I don't think my question was clear enough. In other instances I find a similar phrase without any of those words such as in  CIL 02-14, 02126.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Bon(a)e memoriae Leucadius / primicerius domesti/corum qui vixit cum / comparem(!) suam(!) Non/nitam(!) annis XXV / depositus pridie / Kalendas Ianuarias / vixit autem omnibus / diebus suis quibus / vix(it) annis plus / minus sexaginta&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I thought these would be the same phrases. Also, my reasoning for it being a dative, was that the inscription had been dedicated to history, however I myself did not find that very convincing." CreationDate="2017-11-21T21:10:50.103" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="11414" PostId="5577" Score="0" Text="@Yadeses Can you edit your question to clarify it? I answered it as I understood it, but it is well possible that I misinterpreted. I'm no longer sure at all what the question is about, but I'll consider updating my answer if I get a better idea of what is sought for." CreationDate="2017-11-21T21:16:36.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11415" PostId="5577" Score="0" Text="Hopefully, it is clearer now. I have rephrased the question." CreationDate="2017-11-21T21:27:26.940" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="11416" PostId="5578" Score="0" Text="Could you explain what the writer would have meant by that?" CreationDate="2017-11-21T22:54:34.707" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="11417" PostId="5578" Score="1" Text="&quot;So-and-so of blessed memory&quot; is a standard way of referring to dead people, in English, and most other languages." CreationDate="2017-11-21T23:01:12.043" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11426" PostId="5580" Score="1" Text="Not really an answer, but a starker choice would be [*gelidum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgelidus)." CreationDate="2017-11-23T01:13:49.547" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11520" PostId="5584" Score="3" Text="I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs in World Building stack." CreationDate="2017-11-28T14:41:09.970" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11429" PostId="5585" Score="0" Text="I guess it does make sense that numbers would be abandoned altogether, seeing as there are far more permutations available with letters than numbers. Adding additional characters (such as AAA-ZZZ) would provide an incredibly large amount of unique plates (nearly 150 million)." CreationDate="2017-11-23T16:59:43.553" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11602" PostId="5585" Score="0" Text="As there are seven numeral letters and seven hills in Rome, it might be that they also adopted a pattern where by each plate strictly began one of the numeral letters, indicating which of the seven hills the plate was originally registered at (e.g. I for Palatine, C for Capitoline etc)" CreationDate="2017-12-04T11:49:50.283" UserId="1961" />
  <row Id="11435" PostId="5587" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.I feel like there's a question lurking somewhere but I just haven't found it yet. I've re-worded the question several times and hopefully it will end up decent :)" CreationDate="2017-11-24T01:08:31.940" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="38572" PostId="5587" Score="0" Text="This word translated as excellence (RAE) and now here as superbia - English superb -Spanish soberbia, orgullo... orgueil... Now I'm associating with Arrogance. https://www.etymonline.com/word/arrogance" CreationDate="2022-06-11T14:00:22.303" UserDisplayName="user11188" />
  <row Id="11431" PostId="5588" Score="0" Text="Do you want it to be the infinitive &quot;to promise&quot;, an order &quot;promise&quot;, a participle &quot;the one(s) who promise&quot;, or perhaps a &quot;we promise&quot;? I guess the infinitive is the best choice for impersonality, but it'd be good to know if you have an opinion. I can elaborate in an answer later, but now I have some Thanksgiving to attend to." CreationDate="2017-11-23T17:27:46.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11438" PostId="5588" Score="0" Text="I think it should be infinitive. Though I'd like to compare. :D" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:12:52.260" UserId="2129" />
  <row Id="11442" PostId="5588" Score="0" Text="This brings to mind the Greek maxim which was written on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: Ἐγγύα πάρα δ'ἄτη. (Make a promise, and destruction is nearby.)" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:10:29.390" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11437" PostId="5590" Score="0" Text="Oh. I see the asterisk used with proto-languages all the time, but its denotation that a word is unattested simply escaped me. Thanks for the good answer. The history was enlightening." CreationDate="2017-11-24T02:47:45.187" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11444" PostId="5592" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the comprehensive analysis! I think I will go with *Numquam spondens* as it seems to be the closest both grammatically and lexically to what I originally meant." CreationDate="2017-11-24T08:15:41.720" UserId="2129" />
  <row Id="11447" PostId="5592" Score="0" Text="@Taosique I'm glad to be of service! *Numquam spondens* sounds good for a coat of arms." CreationDate="2017-11-24T15:10:06.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11761" PostId="5592" Score="0" Text="A bit late for clarification, but does *Nihil umquam spondens* construction make sense?" CreationDate="2017-12-26T11:13:14.260" UserId="2129" />
  <row Id="11762" PostId="5592" Score="0" Text="@Taosique It does. *Nihil umquam* means &quot;nothing ever&quot;, and it's perfectly fine if you want the added emphasis." CreationDate="2017-12-26T11:27:18.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11445" PostId="5595" Score="1" Text="Good question! I'd note that while *fortasse/fortassis* tends to take the indicative, *forsitan/forsan* (probably a contraction of *fors sit an*) tends to take the subjunctive, so I wouldn't be so sure of your conjecture, though it makes sense at first glance." CreationDate="2017-11-24T09:29:34.750" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11446" PostId="5595" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Ah, that's interesting. I would be interested to know why the indicative should be used in &quot;Fortasse rogabo cras&quot;. Perhaps it's wrong of me to attribute all clauses of uncertainty to the subjunctive." CreationDate="2017-11-24T09:34:34.883" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="42627" PostId="5595" Score="0" Text="You could also have written *rogabo* and it would have been right, too. But they mean something different. *Fortasse* does not necessarily make the verb subjunctive." CreationDate="2023-03-20T05:50:24.427" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11443" PostId="5596" Score="1" Text="I think you posted at the right place!" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:17:29.433" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11448" PostId="5600" Score="1" Text="Or perhaps just closely associated with?  I wonder if an English parallel might be &quot;Lawrence of Arabia&quot;, where there is no suggestion that T. E. Lawrence actually came from Arabia.  (Then there's &quot;Chinese Gordon&quot;, also known as &quot;Gordon of Khartoum.)" CreationDate="2017-11-24T17:54:14.670" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11462" PostId="5600" Score="0" Text="Certainly informative, but am I wrong to wonder what this has to do with the actual question?" CreationDate="2017-11-25T14:37:21.880" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11463" PostId="5600" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton The last paragraph of the question asks how &quot;conquerors of&quot; is achieved, and that is what I answered. I may have misunderstood something, of course." CreationDate="2017-11-25T14:42:50.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11588" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="I think I my library has that POxy volume in the stacks. I can stop by and take a look sometime, perhaps Monday." CreationDate="2017-12-03T19:08:23.137" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11594" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="@CMWeimer that'd be great. Apparently there's something on p. 122 that relates to either this poem or the Gongyla one or both, could you look at that page and at P.Oxy. 2292-2293? And do you mean like, tomorrow (Mon Dec 3)?" CreationDate="2017-12-03T22:45:48.933" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11595" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="More precisely, for Gongyla, Sean B. Palmer in his &quot;The Complete Poems of Sappho&quot; online references `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11`." CreationDate="2017-12-03T23:02:31.387" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11596" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="As for the poem at hand, the link in the update references &quot;P. Oxy. vol. 21, p. 122 [additional fragment of π2a]&quot;, π2a being P.Oxy. 1231, which I have in vol. X of P.Oxy. which is on archive.org." CreationDate="2017-12-03T23:05:22.623" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11597" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="If you do look at those and find something relevant, please notify me either by posting an answer or commenting on my own answer to which I'll add the info from your comment." CreationDate="2017-12-03T23:06:47.400" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11683" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="@CMWeimer What became of your offer to check out P.Oxy. XXI at your library?" CreationDate="2017-12-14T09:06:43.547" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11703" PostId="5601" Score="2" Text="The offer is of course still good. Finding the time to make the trip is what's trickier, but now that the semester is winding down and all I have left to do is grading, it will be easier to do so." CreationDate="2017-12-15T23:26:23.727" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11763" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="@CMWeimer Any news :)? These P.Oxy. 2166 from volume XXI come up in loads of Sappho fragments..." CreationDate="2017-12-26T23:07:49.230" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11851" PostId="5601" Score="0" Text="I haven't been on lately, but it looks like you got that taken care of. Happy holidays." CreationDate="2018-01-06T05:28:48.343" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11449" PostId="5602" Score="0" Text="What about words like [_trypophobia_](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/413092/77227) though? At the end of his post, @sumelic references _genealogy_ as well. I personally think rules might be different depending on whether the first word ends in a vowel or a diphthong, as languages sometimes treat those differently when it comes to augmentations/diminutions." CreationDate="2017-11-24T22:13:27.327" UserId="2131" />
  <row Id="11451" PostId="5602" Score="0" Text="What of it?  In general, the combining forms of first-declension nouns (&quot;a&quot; stems) use a thematic form (with a thematic vowel -o-).  So, I agree with the OP's statement above, that: &quot;linking O&quot; (though I think that that term is misleading) should be used (resulting in &quot;my(i)ophagy&quot;).  I would agree, barring other considerations, that myiophagy&quot; is the natural choice.  **But**, as the OP stated, there are possible confusions involved in that choice.  I was merely pointing out that a form like &quot;myiaphagy&quot; avoids the possible confusion and can justified on precedent." CreationDate="2017-11-25T00:24:53.487" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11460" PostId="5602" Score="1" Text="Myiophagy's potential for confusion is easily overstated; after all, it has the i to differentiate the root from the my of myopia and myophagy. (The fact those words seem to have the same root has much more potential for confusion.) On the other hand, because bioscientific terms not uncommonly consist of subcompounds that might have their own prefixes/suffixes, myiaphagy has real potential for confusion. Aphagy is an actual condition, and if I saw myiaphagy, with an a instead of the expected o, I'd assume this word means inability to feed in flies, due to loss of functional mouthparts." CreationDate="2017-11-25T06:57:04.127" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11450" PostId="5603" Score="0" Text="I really like your take on the _γενεά_ challenge, and you are most likely right. I have not been successful in finding too many similar words to analyse though. I've looked at [Buck’s “Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin”](https://ia902507.us.archive.org/21/items/BuckComparativeGrammer/CGL.pdf) and [Hoblyn's &quot;A Dictionary of Terms Used in Medicine and the Collateral Sciences&quot;](https://ia600506.us.archive.org/6/items/b21443002/b21443002.pdf), but most compounds come from nouns ending in _-ός_, with obvious results." CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:28:02.080" UserId="2131" />
  <row Id="11452" PostId="5603" Score="0" Text="I seriously doubt that the length of the alpha has anything to do with it.  The term &quot;connecting vowel&quot; is misleading.  The general pattern is: stem of first component (substituting -o for -a) with second component.  (This needs more explanation, but I'm being called to supper just now.)" CreationDate="2017-11-25T00:33:51.247" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11453" PostId="5603" Score="0" Text="@varro. I agree that 'connecting vowel' isn't a very accurate term; however, that's how modern books on 'word building' that I've seen describe such vowels (as does the original question). I would definitely be interested in other explanations for the retention of a in genealogy; it seems to me that the fact that the alpha is long in the root word is *precisely* the sort of thing that would account for this, since, as you say, the usual pattern is to use o instead of a, as in the other myi- compounds that I found." CreationDate="2017-11-25T01:47:52.697" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11464" PostId="5605" Score="2" Text="Off the top of my head, my guess would be metered poetry. That's our best source for vowel lengths in general." CreationDate="2017-11-25T18:37:41.080" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11466" PostId="5605" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That would make a good answer. Even just the two sentences." CreationDate="2017-11-25T20:01:04.310" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11556" PostId="5606" Score="1" Text="Note that what you've quoted is a sentence fragment. The sentence begins (on the previous Stephanus page) ἃ μὲν τοίνυν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ζῶντι τῷ δικαίῳ παρὰ θεῶν τε..." CreationDate="2017-12-01T18:36:56.317" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="11455" PostId="5607" Score="0" Text="i've often wondered if you there was a rule about mixing greek and latin. are you aware of any convention]?" CreationDate="2017-11-25T05:21:23.647" UserId="2132" />
  <row Id="11456" PostId="5607" Score="0" Text="@faustus I don't think there are formal rules, it happens all the time, television, for example (I can't think of the term for those kind of words, at the moment ... hybrid?) but some purists think it should be avoided :)" CreationDate="2017-11-25T05:31:15.253" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11461" PostId="5607" Score="0" Text="Should it be *cryptodynamia* instead of *cryptodynamis*?" CreationDate="2017-11-25T14:09:49.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11467" PostId="5607" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good question! _dunamis_ is the actual Greek word and so I left it as is but _dunamia_ certainly flows better and since _adunamia_ is legitimate, why not _cryptodunamia_? Also, re: the _u_ vs _y_ - I think _dynamia_ looks better and is in line with the change from _krupto_ to _crypto_ so _cryptodynamia_ would be my final answer! I'm not sure what my thought-process was at the time that made me keep the _u_ - perhaps to make it quite clear that it is _the_ philosophical concept of _dunamis_." CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:05:52.217" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11469" PostId="5608" Score="2" Text="Very interesting question! I am wondering, though, to what extent this is about Latin. Wouldn't be better to ask this question on History.SE?" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:48:07.597" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11470" PostId="5608" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yeah, to repeat what I said on chat, I'm not sure myself but I fully defer to you guys. It does seem more appropriate to History although admittedly I have an affinity for this forum." CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:53:34.670" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11471" PostId="5608" Score="3" Text="All you need to do is ask what the Roman sources have to say about it, and *voilà*, it's on topic here." CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:15:26.910" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11472" PostId="5608" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer That's a mighty good suggestion! Gets me out of the dilemma of being off-topic here and being attacked for lack of research on History.SE #scylla #charybdis" CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:18:25.513" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11473" PostId="5608" Score="2" Text="Were it up to me, all ancient questions would be here rather than there." CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:20:09.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11479" PostId="5608" Score="1" Text="Good solution! I've added an extra line that points even more towards literature." CreationDate="2017-11-26T02:26:47.193" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11481" PostId="5608" Score="0" Text="**Gibbon** does explain it in the same paragraph." CreationDate="2017-11-26T02:46:43.933" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11482" PostId="5608" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I think, as it stands now, an answer should give ancient sources for the idea." CreationDate="2017-11-26T04:02:13.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11484" PostId="5609" Score="0" Text="I see what you're saying. So Greek words with oxytone accents tend to have a final long vowel (at least with the alpha, but I'm assuming this generalizes). It basically amounts to a rule of thumb." CreationDate="2017-11-26T06:32:03.393" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11485" PostId="5609" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124: I wouldn't put it that broadly - I can think of plenty of oxytone words in general with a short vowel, but 1st declension nouns with the short version of alpha are not (or, to put it another way, first declension nouns with an oxytone accent will have a long vowel in the stem. Note that there are forms like κριτά (with short alpha, vocative of κριτής), but I don't regard these as real exceptions, since the stem vowel is still long.  I don't know if this &quot;rule&quot; as I have stated it is without exceptions, but I can't think of any exceptions just now." CreationDate="2017-11-26T17:15:51.230" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11486" PostId="5609" Score="0" Text="After re-examining my answer above, I see that I misstated it by making it appear that it applied to *all* words ending in final alpha.  I have edited it accordingly," CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:31:30.450" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11476" PostId="5610" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: The comparison of Ionic γενεή with Attic γενεά is suggestive, but not conclusive.  Compare, e.g. Ionic κοῦρος with Attic κόρος,or (more to the point) Ionic καλός (with a long alpha) with Attic καλός (with a short alpha)." CreationDate="2017-11-26T02:09:04.100" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11477" PostId="5610" Score="0" Text="@varro: I tried to leave room for unexpected correspondences with my last sentence, but maybe I didn't phrase it very well. Nothing can be completely conclusive, of course. The two examples you give of vowel length differences between Greek dialects look like they may be based on variation in the development of consonant clusters involving digamma." CreationDate="2017-11-26T02:16:00.357" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11478" PostId="5610" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: Point taken.  I don't think we actually disagree on facts here." CreationDate="2017-11-26T02:25:02.897" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11499" PostId="5610" Score="0" Text="I think the one remaining step, before I'm totally convinced, would be to show that γενεά and γενεή are not just cognate, but derive from a Proto-Greek word with a final long ā. Then the claim by Wikipedia would kick in about the evolution of the Proto-Greek ā. But I'm not sure we've established that as the ancestor yet. Perhaps a good etymological dictionary could help." CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:05:55.180" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11501" PostId="5610" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124: Well, since Proto-Greek is a reconstruction, the only way to show that a word had *ā in Proto-Greek is by comparison of the extant forms in different dialects (which of course may include archaic dialects that we have records of). That's what I attempted to do by bringing in the Ionic forms with ή, but I don't know enough about Greek historical linguistics to know if there is any other evidence that would support or undermine the reconstruction of Proto-Greek *ā in this word. I agree with you that an etymological dictionary might have this kind of information." CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:17:42.183" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11502" PostId="5610" Score="0" Text="That's logical. It's exactly the approach that an etymological dictionary would take (as you point out)." CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:22:03.640" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11487" PostId="5612" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your points. Genius, civilis, and senex are all good suggestions. Especially genius. And I agree, I did suspect that tamen autem was overkill. I guess that spending so much time with the Vulgate, I wanted to translate a particle with a particle. I still do, if possible. I should look into how St. Jerome translates *eti de*." CreationDate="2017-11-26T22:08:31.053" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11517" PostId="5612" Score="0" Text="**Follow-up:** I'm accepting this answer for now because it is very good. But if a new answer shows up that adds new information I'll reconsider my choice." CreationDate="2017-11-28T05:02:02.053" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11494" PostId="5615" Score="1" Text="That's a lot of genitives! I was thinking that it's still disambiguated by number and gender (the *-orum* adjectives can't modify *civitatis*), but wait—isn't there a third layer of nesting here? That is, does _unius aetatis_ modify _virorum_ (as genitive of genitive, not adjective modifying genitive)?" CreationDate="2017-11-27T03:31:29.487" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11495" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="I'm still thinking this through. Indeed _usque_ is an adverb, and I was using it as a preposition. So, I'm giving up on _usque;_ I simply want to denote a range. Questions: (1) Does your first version have implied nouns like this: *…capitula a primo capitulo ad decimum capitulum*? (2) In the last version (not denoting a range), don't the ordinal-number adjectives need to agree with the noun they modify, _capitula,_ rather than the number of chapters that each denotes (i.e. one)?" CreationDate="2017-11-27T03:44:18.917" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11496" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz *Usque* cannot be used as a preposition as far as I know, but can be used with one. (1) There are implied nouns the same way in the Latin (*a primo capitulo ad decimum capitulum*) and English (&quot;from the first chapter to the tenth chapter&quot;) versions. I would argue there is no implied noun, some might disagree, but the two languages are similar here. (2) If there are many things but only one of each kind, it is possible (necessary, I think) to have the noun in plural but each adjective in singular. Ordinals are essentially adjectives. This point is worth a separate question, though." CreationDate="2017-11-27T03:56:36.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11497" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="(1) In English, one can say &quot;the first through tenth chapters&quot;. I suppose it's debatable, but I understand _first_ and _tenth_ to directly modify _chapters_ with no additional implied nouns. I was thinking that Latin could do this, too, but your answer has (so far) swayed me to think that it can't, because the prepositions put the adjectives into a different case than the noun being modified. Am I mistaken? (2) [Alia quaestio](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5620/118) facta est." CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:40:17.303" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11498" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz (1) I find it somewhat irrelevant that the case is different. In any case, the noun is semantically implied in any language, and I'm not even sure what it would meant for it to be grammatically implied. I find the question of implied nouns to be one of points of view, not one of grammatical rules. (2) Good! There is a chance that it turns out to be a duplicate, but it's an important question nevertheless." CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:53:22.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11500" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="Regarding (1), the grammatical difference that I have in mind is what noun is modified by each adjective. In English, lacking noun-adjective agreement, the adjectives _first_ and _tenth_ can directly modify _chapters_ even though one of the adjectives is the object of a preposition. But in Lat㏌, it appears that _primo_ and _decimum_ can't modify _capitula._ No? Or are there circumstances in Latin where an adjective and the noun that it modifies can disagree in case, number, or person? (Perhaps one could avoid the theoretical implied nouns by saying that the adjectives are being used as nouns.)" CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:08:51.410" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11503" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I have to disagree. *Primo* and *decimum* can modify an implicit *capitulum* without problems. (The same happens in Finnish if that's relevant.) The noun *capitulum* can be implicitly understood in the required case. The gender of the numeral or adjective agrees with the relevant noun, but there is no need to repeat the noun when a new case is used. That would be horribly clumsy. I see no problem with this: *Duos canes habeo. Unus est filius alterius.* The words *unus* (nom.) and *alterius* (gen.) refer to *canes* (acc.). If you're not convinced, I can look for examples later." CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:28:21.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11509" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I updated the answer with a link to the other question about agreement and a citation of a similar range expression by Livius." CreationDate="2017-11-27T14:47:58.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11511" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="Thanks—I'm convinced. I just updated [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5614/118) with the correct declensions. (And thanks for letting me know about Finnish. Indeed I was curious.)" CreationDate="2017-11-27T15:49:14.250" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11512" PostId="5617" Score="2" Text="I would probably amend to &quot;a primo capítulo usque ad decimum.&quot; But I can't elaborate now :)" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:42:21.577" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11513" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That might be an option. Would you not have the accusative *capitula* at all to act as an object, or would you just have only one *capitulum* in the sentence?" CreationDate="2017-11-27T21:32:20.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11524" PostId="5617" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Echoing brianpck, Latin often elides one word if it's used again in the same way, though I typically have seen it leave off the first, not second, word. So my very minor variation would be &quot;a primo usque ad decimum capitulum.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-11-29T03:15:38.183" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11525" PostId="5617" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I still feel that the plural accusative *capitula* is useful, as nothing else indicates the grammatical role of the chapters as clearly. I may of course be mistaken (and it wouldn't be the first time), but a range expression with a suitable accusative noun in that sentence sounds weird to me. I would be interested to know whether it would be idiomatic or grammatical to leave the *capitula* out. Or did you mean *capitula a primo ad decimum capitulum* with the same noun twice?" CreationDate="2017-11-29T03:58:33.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11601" PostId="5618" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta do you think that, had audio recordings been around at the time, nota, -ae might have been used in conjunction with vox? to produce something along the lines of 'voice note'? Similar to your suggestion of vox conservata above..." CreationDate="2017-12-04T11:34:00.000" UserId="1961" />
  <row Id="11608" PostId="5618" Score="0" Text="@NeilHibbert That's a possibility. You'd probably want to use the noun *nota* with an adjective related to sound or *vox* with an adjective derived from *nota*. I prefer the former." CreationDate="2017-12-04T13:26:34.360" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11515" PostId="5625" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! Now, in your last example with _quid_, what construes it as &quot;eh&quot; rather than a repetition of &quot;what?&quot; for emphasis?" CreationDate="2017-11-28T01:56:59.710" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11516" PostId="5625" Score="1" Text="@SamK Well, I think it's in the tone somehow.  Both examples are dialogue of a very smarmy or sleazy kind and the &quot;quid&quot; is not seeking a genuine explanation or even an answer.  It's there to insinuate something (unsavoury) unsaid but expected to be understood, hence &quot;eh&quot;.  I did write &quot;could be construed&quot; because I realise that the interpretation is subjective." CreationDate="2017-11-28T02:02:44.420" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12086" PostId="5625" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the second half of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/322/79) (Sorry for being late with this note!)" CreationDate="2018-02-03T20:38:25.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11522" PostId="5630" Score="1" Text="Thanks so much. Your explanation really illuminates all the little details I was unsure about. It makes these details very clear as well. I guess I was wrong to sense an articular infinitive, then — as you point out it's quite simply an adjective (a rather elegant adjectival phrase). Also, I'm glad you clarified the other clause (ἀνδριάντων...κόμπου) as I was confused by this and even considered asking about it in a separate question. +1" CreationDate="2017-11-28T20:40:07.413" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11603" PostId="5631" Score="0" Text="Perhaps also the possibility of using the greek *aperantologia*, but it certainly sounds a bit too *[précieux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A9cieuses)*, affected…" CreationDate="2017-12-04T12:17:44.543" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="11606" PostId="5631" Score="0" Text="@Luc That's an interesting idea, and certainly worth exploring in an answer. With a bit of etymology and other history (if applicable) I would be happy to vote it up. I am looking for different ideas here, not a specific correct answer." CreationDate="2017-12-04T13:22:49.187" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11530" PostId="5633" Score="1" Text="The question which preceeds this is &quot;Quid portat Jacōbus?&quot;." CreationDate="2017-11-30T00:06:48.007" UserId="2126" />
  <row Id="11528" PostId="5634" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I made slight edits to your question; feel free to undo them or re-edit. I'm sure someone can give you an answer if you wait a day or two. Meanwhile, please consider taking a look at our [tour]." CreationDate="2017-11-29T19:55:33.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11529" PostId="5634" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you! Much appreciated." CreationDate="2017-11-29T22:30:17.373" UserId="2157" />
  <row Id="11538" PostId="5635" Score="0" Text="Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! Just to clarify, would *Mens deses officina diaboli est.* and *Mentes desides officina diaboli sunt.* be better then? :)" CreationDate="2017-11-30T08:46:38.740" UserId="2157" />
  <row Id="11539" PostId="5635" Score="0" Text="@AlexD *ignavus* means lazy and *otiosus* means &quot;leisurely&quot;, as if having extra time not occupied by work. The other two are rare, so I'd go with one of these. The latter, I think, gets to the heart of the quote." CreationDate="2017-11-30T14:46:36.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11541" PostId="5635" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer so *“Mens otiosa...”*, and *“Mentes otiosae...”*?" CreationDate="2017-11-30T16:54:23.853" UserId="2157" />
  <row Id="11533" PostId="5636" Score="1" Text="Would it be better to separate the two systems in different questions? Or do you expect that the same answers will be typically equally valid for both?" CreationDate="2017-11-30T02:25:47.010" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11534" PostId="5636" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I am just not expecting much of a response for the Apple side of things, and I don't want to clutter up the questions with a bunch of these types, so we will see what happens." CreationDate="2017-11-30T02:36:33.617" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11535" PostId="5636" Score="0" Text="True, it might be too much to ask many questions of this kind in one or two days. I sometimes plan questions in advance and spread the possibly controversial ones out. While there might not be many answers for Apple, it would still make sense as a separate question. Having a clear but unanswered question might attract the right kind of attention at some point. // I think we should really have a question about Latin spellcheckers for computers, including Word. I'm more satisfied with Latin on my phone than on my computer." CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:27:14.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11536" PostId="5636" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I agree that this should be split up in two: Word and iOS are different cans of worms!" CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:51:13.803" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11537" PostId="5636" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I will limit the question to just Windows then, as that is more pressing of the two in my opinion" CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:56:19.270" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11568" PostId="5636" Score="0" Text="I know how to deal with this on the Mac, if that's helpful." CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:35:23.387" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11604" PostId="5636" Score="0" Text="Shoudn’t the question be : *Writing in Latin on MS Word*, or better in *MS Word or LibreOffice* in order to have a more general question?" CreationDate="2017-12-04T12:20:36.183" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="11605" PostId="5636" Score="0" Text="Furthermore, concerning the question, I just founded this with a simple search: http://drouizig.org/index.php/en/binviou-en/correttore-ortografico-di-latino/250-en-col-latin-spellchecker&#xA;&#xA;However I haven’t tested it as I don’t own any MS Word license." CreationDate="2017-12-04T12:22:12.630" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="11550" PostId="5637" Score="1" Text="Thanks, Penelope! That line in 613a really does clarify the context.  I guess you could think of τοιαῦτ᾽ referring to either the prizes in the preceding clause, or even ἄριστα (the best possible things) in 613a. Perhaps it's ambiguous and inconsequential. You've made the general sense of the clause very clear: &quot;would [the prizes] be such as these [the best possible things]&quot;. +1" CreationDate="2017-12-01T05:47:48.003" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11582" PostId="5637" Score="0" Text="You're welcome, @ktm5124    It was fun to tackle a Greek problem.  Nice to see it's back on the menu :)" CreationDate="2017-12-03T01:13:52.783" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11566" PostId="5638" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer! I am completely convinced. I guess the unusual look of it threw me off and made me doubt that it was an ACI. Indeed it's both clearly and logically the case. Thanks for sharing your examples and your methodology. Both are very helpful. Also, it occurred to me just now that its prevalence in Plato might be owing to the dialogue form. In a dialogue or dialectic, it's very natural to use an expression like &quot;you must see that...&quot; as you phrased it yourself." CreationDate="2017-12-02T01:47:22.637" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11583" PostId="5638" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the feedback @ktm5124  I thought the dialogue format was a key factor in its interpretation, too." CreationDate="2017-12-03T01:14:20.520" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11540" PostId="5639" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Looks like our edits collided: I rolled back and added the tags" CreationDate="2017-11-30T16:03:08.820" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11544" PostId="5639" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks! Dealing with and even detecting edit collisions on the phone is confusing." CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:47:18.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11542" PostId="5640" Score="0" Text="Thank you C.M. Weimer; thought of perf. subj., but, without ut/ne present dismissed this." CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:43:01.793" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="11543" PostId="5640" Score="1" Text="@tony The perfect subjunctive (conjunctive) does not require any particular conjunctions, so even adding *quin* and *quominus* to your list is not really sufficient." CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:46:05.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11564" PostId="5645" Score="1" Text="If the verb has a fourth principal part, then you can probably use the fourth-declension verbal noun ending in *-tus;* e.g., *venatus bonus fuit* 'the hunt was good', but I don't think this can be pluralized. Note that in my dialect I don't often here the English version pluralized either." CreationDate="2017-12-02T00:22:56.013" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="11565" PostId="5645" Score="0" Text="Visus (seen) and visus est (he seemed, was seen) exist alongside Visus (4) appearance, visage (also plural.). And Liquor *n,* // Liqueo, make liquid. But generally it needs -esco, -ficio, as a conjugating suffix.  Vis (strength), viresco (strengthen)." CreationDate="2017-12-02T00:58:37.933" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11562" PostId="5648" Score="1" Text="But an 'and' doesn't actually make sense here, because there's nothing for it to connect this purpose clause to. The sentence has a main clause + single purpose clause. Although neque/nec is sometimes used instead of neve/neu to add a **second** purpose clause, I know of know place where it's used instead of simple ne, and I don't see any way to make this reading work. All I can think is that, when the line was taken out of context for use as an epigraph, the fact that it was originally part of a purpose clause became obscured, and therefore the erroneous 'correction' of ne to nec crept in." CreationDate="2017-12-01T22:58:16.207" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11563" PostId="5648" Score="1" Text="@cnread Yeah, it's possible if not likely that *nec* is simply an error. I only deduced that if it were to work, then it would have the meaning of *et ne* in a purpose clause; that this would be the most appropriate meaning of *nec*, although *nec* itself might not be appropriate." CreationDate="2017-12-01T23:08:20.807" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11555" PostId="5652" Score="6" Text="This is a perfect find, but could you expand your answer so it is a little less elliptical?" CreationDate="2017-12-01T18:06:16.490" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11560" PostId="5652" Score="3" Text="I second @brianpck: Those two words from Ovidius might be what lead to the mistranslation in the question, and it would be nice to flesh that story out a little. But this is indeed a great find!" CreationDate="2017-12-01T22:10:08.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11558" PostId="5653" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and many thanks for the answer! Judging by this answer, perhaps it could be that a *constitutio* is a fundamental law given by the emperor, but the details would have to be worked out by lower judges. That corresponds well to the difference between constitution and law today. Does this sound plausible?" CreationDate="2017-12-01T21:26:01.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11567" PostId="5656" Score="1" Text="Great answer! The Etymonline page gives a helpful comment: *from Latin preposition sub &quot;under, below, beneath, at the foot of,&quot; also &quot;close to, up to, towards;* The sense of *up to* really hits the mark in my two examples, sufficio and suppleo - easy to see how it means &quot;enough&quot;. This is also exactly what you say throughout your answer. I am making my own educated guess that yours is correct, or at least, truthful. +1" CreationDate="2017-12-02T02:28:10.450" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11571" PostId="5658" Score="0" Text="If the relative pronoun is a so-called connecting relative, so that it's equivalent to a form of is/ea/id and therefore, conceptually, the relative clause constitutes a coordinate clause to the main part of the indirect statement, you do sometimes find that the relative clause also has accusative subject + infinitive verb. Maybe that's what you're thinking? I have to confess, though, that I don't understand what you're trying to express in your Latin sentences, so I can't tell whether this 'rule' applies enough for this to be an answer rather than a comment." CreationDate="2017-12-02T10:01:58.457" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11572" PostId="5658" Score="0" Text="Follow-up: I just dug out Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge and found this ex. of the 'rule' that I mention above (= Cicero, De finibus 3.19.64): (Philosophi censent) unum quemque nostrum mundi esse partem, ex quo illud natura consequi ut communem utilitatem nostrae anteponamus, 'philosophers hold that every one of us is a part of the universe, and that the natural consequence of this is for us to prefer the common welfare to our own.' Here, quo is a connecting relative (ex quo = et ex eo); therefore, the rel. clause uses acc. + inf. (illud consequi) instead of nom. + finite verb (illud consequatur)." CreationDate="2017-12-02T10:14:58.317" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11574" PostId="5658" Score="0" Text="@cnread Oh, God. I'm a moron. I just edited the question to make it clear what I was trying to say, to punctuate more clearly, and to correct an error in the Latin, though there may be more. I begin to suspect the answer to this question is, &quot;Neither; you just wouldn't write it like an idiot to begin with.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-12-02T13:55:54.660" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11575" PostId="5659" Score="0" Text="Is that verb used for &quot;to record&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-12-02T15:07:38.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11576" PostId="5659" Score="0" Text="Yeah, as in &quot;cut in&quot; (to an LP). Out of date but." CreationDate="2017-12-02T15:22:41.970" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11578" PostId="5659" Score="0" Text="Oh, right. It was probably my being dense, but I wasn't sure what you meant. I also first thought you meant *incidere* instead of *incīdere*... Can you add that extra description in?" CreationDate="2017-12-02T16:48:18.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11579" PostId="5659" Score="1" Text="Done! (I was on my phone, which I haven't yet figured out how to force to produce macrons.)" CreationDate="2017-12-02T16:50:45.530" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11581" PostId="5659" Score="0" Text="There are still some who say that the entire Latin language is out of date. All the more reason to use _incīdere_ the way people say &quot;dial&quot; in English to mean &quot;place a telephone call&quot;." CreationDate="2017-12-02T21:24:56.737" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11607" PostId="5659" Score="0" Text="Hmm... *Incisio* or *incisum* needs context to work. Nothing in it says &quot;audio&quot;. How would you render it so that it means &quot;audio recording&quot; instead of a general &quot;recording&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-12-04T13:25:09.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11611" PostId="5659" Score="0" Text="Hmm. I'm not sure, but you're right that it just means &quot;Recording.&quot; Usually it's clear from context. I haven't heard a more specific term but I'll keep my ears open." CreationDate="2017-12-04T17:33:21.740" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11587" PostId="5660" Score="1" Text="[Res publica, 2.18:](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/43/2/10455-10459,10472-10480@1#2) *minus eruditis hominum saeculis fuerunt*" CreationDate="2017-12-03T18:21:27.583" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11580" PostId="5663" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this clear and thorough answer! I considered faceret but factura esset felt better, though I'm not sure I could say why. My instinct us actually not to put any commas in the sentence at all, which is how I'd do it in English, but given the looseness I tend to see in Latin punctuation I figured I'd go for clarity. I'll give quid some thought instead of ejus quod; it appears Caesar uses it exactly this way." CreationDate="2017-12-02T18:33:35.293" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11585" PostId="5663" Score="1" Text="@JoelDerfner You're welcome! I added a remark about Caesar. I originally had only intuition, but now I have Caesar, too." CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:30:12.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11600" PostId="5669" Score="0" Text="TY, that's what I was looking for. I think you're correct regarding #2. My interpretation was derived from the use of this phrase in a paper arguing against genetic enhancement due to the value of hard work." CreationDate="2017-12-04T10:47:42.517" UserId="2132" />
  <row Id="23561" PostId="5669" Score="0" Text="&quot;In the example of Kansas, only through terrible struggle and loss were they able to achieve the great state that they are in today (pun not intended)&quot;: What pun? There is no pun in that statement." CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:45:53.920" UserId="6345" />
  <row Id="23562" PostId="5669" Score="1" Text="@TraceyCombs There is a pun! &quot;State&quot; in that sentence was meant to mean the same as &quot;state of being,&quot; but Kansas is also, of course, a state in the United States, hence the pun." CreationDate="2019-12-04T06:42:53.450" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11589" PostId="5670" Score="3" Text="I offer deep and heartfelt support for your proposal to stop trying to classify all subordinate clauses. Arguments abound about this, reminding me of the supposed dispute about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin!" CreationDate="2017-12-03T20:32:49.960" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11590" PostId="5670" Score="0" Text="This is great, because that's what I actually meant. I hate this kind of classification. I'll repost. Not sure what to do about this question, bc I agree that these things are totally unhelpful, but you've already answered, so I can't delete it." CreationDate="2017-12-03T20:38:26.967" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11591" PostId="5670" Score="0" Text="@JoelDerfner I think your question asks what's on many people's minds when they read those grammatical classifications—so it's good to have both the question posted and an answer saying &quot;Don't worry about it.&quot; I'd _also_ love to see an answer that explains the distinction as the author(s) of [this](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/cumclauses.pdf) might." CreationDate="2017-12-03T20:44:45.097" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11592" PostId="5670" Score="0" Text="Okay, great. I'll accept the answer—maybe we can get everybody to upvote!—and ask a new question." CreationDate="2017-12-03T20:55:52.333" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11593" PostId="5670" Score="1" Text="*'The only really relevant classification to me is what kinds of cum clauses take indicative and which ones conjunctive.'* Sorry, but if you look at the exx. in Joel's question, isn't this exactly what he was asking about? Why cum Romae estis vs. sitis, cum Caesar loqueretur vs. loquebatur? This is different from asking how to sub-classify the various types of cum clauses that use subjunctive (which I learned by the names circumstantial, causal, and concessive, as opposed to temporal for cum + indicative); because, as you indicate, that type of distinction is often incomplete or misleading." CreationDate="2017-12-03T21:20:03.273" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11598" PostId="5670" Score="0" Text="@cnread The way the question was phrased made me think that it was not primarily about mood but about semantically distinguishing between causal, temporal, and circumstantial. I may have misunderstood; only Joel can confirm what was meant. I'll edit to clarify later." CreationDate="2017-12-04T08:29:09.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11609" PostId="5670" Score="1" Text="I was indeed asking about when to use the subjunctive and when to use the indicative, but given that the question was unclear enough to be susceptible of this reading, I accepted this excellent answer and asked a new question." CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:24:51.980" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11627" PostId="5675" Score="0" Text="I suspect there may not be a definite separation between the two semantically, but rather a lot of overlap with some different but indistinct tendencies?" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:59:18.023" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11628" PostId="5675" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus That would certainly explain the mushiness is the explanations." CreationDate="2017-12-06T23:13:08.570" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11657" PostId="5675" Score="0" Text="Pinkster 2015 explains it very succinctly and - imho - very clearly, pp. 641-645." CreationDate="2017-12-10T22:13:25.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11782" PostId="5675" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Not sure how I missed this but thanks—this isn't entirely clear to me on a first read (it would be if I were smarter) but it's definitely helpful." CreationDate="2017-12-30T07:32:31.653" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11836" PostId="5675" Score="0" Text="Do you find Wheelock's Latin Chapter XXXI (Cum Clauses; Fero) useful?" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:51:11.380" UserId="1348" />
  <row Id="34672" PostId="5675" Score="0" Text="[There's a newer question on indicative with *cum*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16674/79). I'm not sure if it counts as a duplicate, but anyone willing to look deeper into this probably wants to read that one too." CreationDate="2021-08-21T15:48:07.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11610" PostId="5676" Score="0" Text="This looks interesting. Are you sure you want to delete it? Podcasts are useful, especially when [the Finnish broadcasting company is exterminating its Latin news](https://www.petitions24.com/save_nuntii_latini_the_worlds_only_weekly_latin_language_news_bro)." CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:55:26.077" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11612" PostId="5676" Score="0" Text="I undeleted it. I deleted it in the first place because, while these resources have been very helpful to me, they're not really &quot;courses&quot; or &quot;textbooks,&quot; so I wasn't sure they were relevant to the question actually asked. But if you think it's okay, who am I to disagree?" CreationDate="2017-12-04T17:35:30.297" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11613" PostId="5676" Score="1" Text="I'm a triumvir, not a dictator. :) It's up to the people to decide by voting. My vote goes up. Perhaps it would be useful to have a separate resource request for supporting material. I think it hasn't been proposed in the meta list yet." CreationDate="2017-12-04T18:01:09.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11700" PostId="5677" Score="0" Text="I am not aware of digitised onomastic databases for Ancient Rome, but there are some in print, e.g., Der kleine Pauly https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Kleine_Pauly" CreationDate="2017-12-15T17:31:19.483" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="11616" PostId="5678" Score="1" Text="BTW, a Google reverse image search is usually a good way to go for this kind of thing" CreationDate="2017-12-05T13:13:41.963" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11617" PostId="5678" Score="0" Text="@brianpick That's a useful piece of info. Never heard of that, just learnt how to by reading [this](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808?hl=en) :)." CreationDate="2017-12-05T13:49:43.970" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11618" PostId="5679" Score="0" Text="Well done......" CreationDate="2017-12-05T18:11:03.160" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30392" PostId="5679" Score="0" Text="The link currently gives an error." CreationDate="2021-01-08T13:23:18.320" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30431" PostId="5679" Score="1" Text="@MickG Worked fine for me. Try it more than once." CreationDate="2021-01-13T05:35:02.353" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30434" PostId="5679" Score="0" Text="Idk what my computer was smoking when I commented, but now the link works for me too :)." CreationDate="2021-01-13T12:36:54.357" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30449" PostId="5679" Score="1" Text="@MickG It also gave me an error at one point. I don't think it was your computer, but the website instability." CreationDate="2021-01-15T03:46:58.237" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11619" PostId="5680" Score="4" Text="Have you seen [this old question about *-us* and *-io*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/891/79)? It might be relevant to you." CreationDate="2017-12-05T22:12:04.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11655" PostId="5680" Score="0" Text="i have copied this to https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/26584" CreationDate="2017-12-10T11:49:46.683" UserId="2211" />
  <row Id="11659" PostId="5680" Score="0" Text="Too many unnecessary details. It could be analyzed synchronically (and based on Latin data only) or diachronically (by also drawing on data from other IE languages)." CreationDate="2017-12-11T14:22:14.897" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11660" PostId="5680" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. i do not know latin language. i think only based on this pages/links. so, any visitor of this site can easily understand my question, if he reads them. so, that details brings my question to other level of accessibility, capability to be understood." CreationDate="2017-12-11T15:06:07.093" UserId="2211" />
  <row Id="11622" PostId="5682" Score="0" Text="What is the context of this sentence? It might be that the translator was not working sentence by sentence, but took some structural freedom. It looks like an adapted [quote from Apuleius](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=generum+mortali+stirpe+creatum)." CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:30:14.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11623" PostId="5682" Score="2" Text="As Joonas said, some context would be helpful. But *generum* does indeed mean son-in-law (from gener, -ī)." CreationDate="2017-12-06T17:06:15.357" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11634" PostId="5686" Score="0" Text="I clarified my title. I had added a description of &quot;national day&quot; earlier in the form of two examples." CreationDate="2017-12-07T22:11:50.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11635" PostId="5686" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta English lacks an expression for a national day, but that didn't stop you from asking if the Romans had one. :) In the U.S., we might reach for &quot;independence day&quot; to stand for the generic concept, but that would be wrong. Many countries have independence days—days celebrating the country's transition from a colony or province to a sovereign nation—but of course not all countries have such an event in their history. &quot;Independence day&quot; is properly a species of national day. This makes me wonder: can you just use the phrase _feriæ patriæ_ and reasonably expect to be understood?" CreationDate="2017-12-08T03:42:30.993" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11636" PostId="5686" Score="1" Text="I'm an Englishman and, despite what has been said in other comments, we have four national days in the UK. They celebrate the separate identities of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the days of our national saints — respectively George, David, Andrew and Patrick. We celebrate more modestly in England, but just try telling the others that they have no national day, and they'll soon put you right!" CreationDate="2017-12-08T06:41:59.887" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11637" PostId="5686" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I indeed thought that an independence day is a subclass of national days. I find &quot;national day&quot; to be the best generic term, but I'm open to suggestions. (For the record, I've heard Americans refer to a national day of any country as a &quot;fourth of July&quot;.) National histories are vastly different and the types and numbers of national days vary greatly, as Tom Cotton reminded. You could suggest *feriae patriae* in another answer to see how it would work." CreationDate="2017-12-08T14:19:45.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11638" PostId="5689" Score="2" Text="Agreed. I would add that the dative and accusative can refer to other things as well. For example, *difficile mihi est* is &quot;it is difficult to me&quot;, unrelated to the dative used with *credere*. (Or, in another reading, it is the other way around: not &quot;it is hard for me to believe this&quot; but &quot;it is hard to believe this from me&quot;.) I don't have the time to write this up to a proper answer now, so feel free to use it – you or anyone else." CreationDate="2017-12-08T22:17:07.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11652" PostId="5691" Score="2" Text="Thanks, this is great! I transliterated some of the image so as to make it searchable and accessible." CreationDate="2017-12-09T23:00:07.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23212" PostId="5693" Score="0" Text="The French equivalent is &quot;voudrait&quot; in French for &quot;would&quot;. They use the conditional here, like in your example Si Marc aimait Julie, elle l'aimerait. But French use the potential subjonctive too. It's a common structure in Spanish and French." CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:44:42.463" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23213" PostId="5693" Score="0" Text="Potential subjonctive: https://www.lawlessfrench.com/grammar/subjunctive/" CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:48:11.733" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23214" PostId="5693" Score="0" Text="So, to sum up, in your example, the present subjonctive won't be used in French, as it has been replaced by another tense, the conditional, because of the &quot;if&quot; here; But without the &quot;if&quot; if something is potential, the subjonctive present is used." CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:50:06.267" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23215" PostId="5693" Score="0" Text="Lawless' page: &quot;The French subjunctive is a special verb form, called a mood, that is used in dependent clauses to indicate some sort of subjectivity, uncertainty, or unreality in the mind of the speaker. In French, feelings like doubt and desire require the subjunctive, as do expressions of necessity, possibility, and judgment.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:56:01.240" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="11639" PostId="5695" Score="0" Text="Thanks for pointing me at *positio* gender, totally missed that. But what you propose reads too much as if the team just won the last match, not that it's now in the first place in league - probably I should have added the &quot;in league&quot; part." CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:07:15.383" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="11640" PostId="5695" Score="1" Text="Then you want not _vincit_ but _primarium cursum ducit_. I'll modify the answer accordingly." CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:12:23.467" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11641" PostId="5695" Score="0" Text="Thanks again, and excuse my ignorance but, does *primarium cursum* mean &quot;Premier League&quot;? I hope so, this made me laugh so much :)" CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:40:07.760" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="11643" PostId="5695" Score="1" Text="@Rodia In a word, yes." CreationDate="2017-12-09T17:01:34.840" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11646" PostId="5695" Score="0" Text="Is _Mancuniae_ right? I figure that _Mancunium_ might be feminine, but wouldn't it still decline like any other 2nd-declension noun? Also, wouldn't it be better to use an adjective: _Urbis Mancuniensis?_" CreationDate="2017-12-09T18:38:32.027" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11648" PostId="5695" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz You can take your pick with this one. Of all the variations I've seen here and elsewhere, I like _Urbs Mancunia_ best,(_cf Urbs Roma_), but I'm happy enough with _Mancuniana_. If you google either 'mancunium' or 'mancunia' you'll see what I mean — especially when it comes to City vs. United!" CreationDate="2017-12-09T19:53:02.750" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11649" PostId="5695" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Thanks! It looks like I was quite wrong about _Urbs Mancuniensis._ In fact, now I'm going to remove that from my answer just so it doesn't spread…" CreationDate="2017-12-09T20:02:35.260" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11647" PostId="5697" Score="0" Text="This is very useful too, thank you. Taking note of adjective place in *Positionem primam*, sounds way better than what I was using." CreationDate="2017-12-09T19:43:33.197" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="11651" PostId="5697" Score="0" Text="_pace_ Wikipedia, &quot;urbs mancunii&quot; strikes me as much more idiomatic than &quot;mancunium urbs&quot;" CreationDate="2017-12-09T22:31:35.207" UserId="2246" />
  <row Id="11653" PostId="5698" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for your answer! It was very useful for me." CreationDate="2017-12-10T06:54:40.887" UserId="2244" />
  <row Id="11654" PostId="5698" Score="0" Text="@Christina I'm glad it was useful. I just added a second overall translation suggestion which I had forgotten originally." CreationDate="2017-12-10T10:05:48.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11656" PostId="5699" Score="0" Text="And now I'm curious about its translations in *modern* languages, some of which might suggest calques, particularly from languages where declension is important." CreationDate="2017-12-10T21:28:01.393" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="15698" PostId="5702" Score="2" Text="Most likely it never materialized. Just to be on the safe side, you could email the principal researcher(s)." CreationDate="2018-09-14T00:51:00.137" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11661" PostId="5705" Score="3" Text="Do you know of any examples of alpha privative being used to mean &quot;doesn't believe in X&quot;?" CreationDate="2017-12-11T15:24:43.827" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11662" PostId="5705" Score="3" Text="@brianpck You mean besides *atheos*?" CreationDate="2017-12-11T16:53:30.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11663" PostId="5705" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Also, I don't think you parsed it right. It's not that the alpha privative means that, but rather it's the conjunction of the alpha and the ending that does it. This word is based on the exact same coinage as &quot;atheist.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-12-11T17:00:56.817" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11665" PostId="5705" Score="1" Text="Can you add that explanation to the answer itself? Explicit comparison with &quot;atheist&quot; and other attested derivations would make the case stronger. As it stands, it's all too easy to parse it as @brianpck and I did." CreationDate="2017-12-11T18:04:58.020" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11666" PostId="5705" Score="0" Text="*atheos* is a great parallel, though I wonder how much the point can be generalized, especially to Latin. The problem is that that example doesn't support your a-X-ista construction: neither Greek nor Latin uses atheista. So, I think you'd either have to propose a-monoceros or find another parallel. (At least on the evidence proposed so far--my gut agrees with your proposal.)" CreationDate="2017-12-11T19:48:00.353" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11669" PostId="5705" Score="1" Text="@brianpck The OP never asked for *Classical* Latin. I assumed, since they mentioned modern coinages, that Neo-Latin, which used and still uses the suffix in abundance [[proof](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/5319/atheista-atheistae)], suffices." CreationDate="2017-12-12T01:00:27.780" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11670" PostId="5705" Score="1" Text="I also don't think we can take from *atheos* and make *amonoceros*, since in Classical Greek *atheos* is less &quot;atheist&quot; and more &quot;godless.&quot; It made better sense in a pre-Christian religious context where &quot;belief&quot; isn't a talking point." CreationDate="2017-12-12T01:01:49.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11671" PostId="5705" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I think that's right about *atheos* being particular--so I guess I'm just returning to my original question of whether you have a good a-X-ista example. &quot;Atheist&quot; seems to come pretty clearly to neo-Latin via French/English." CreationDate="2017-12-12T04:11:26.027" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11672" PostId="5705" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I can't see the issue. Since this is not Classical Latin, and Neo-Latin admits this construction, then it should work. Plenty of words in Neo-Latin defy Classical construction. The type of question OP is asking suggests he is not looking to see what Cicero would have written." CreationDate="2017-12-12T13:12:52.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11673" PostId="5708" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I never knew *madidus* is strong enough for this use." CreationDate="2017-12-12T13:16:51.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11792" PostId="5709" Score="0" Text="More translation ideas are still welcome! I will be happy to unaccept the currently accepted answer if there are better suggestions." CreationDate="2018-01-01T10:01:34.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11678" PostId="5710" Score="1" Text="&quot;Saturnalia pilleata&quot;--I find that very appealing in a &quot;Royale with Cheese&quot; kind of way *(this should be taken as the highest praise)*" CreationDate="2017-12-13T22:15:39.613" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11676" PostId="5711" Score="2" Text="I highly doubt that this exists, since Latin is a phonetic language, unlike French and English." CreationDate="2017-12-13T18:09:04.607" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13809" PostId="5711" Score="2" Text="You can use https://forvo.com/ It has pronounced words not only for Latin, but also for many other languages. I have not tested whether it is abundant in Latin words, but you could check it. It may be useful." CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:26:48.120" UserId="1348" />
  <row Id="11729" PostId="5714" Score="2" Text="«ABRIER v. tr. est issu (xiiie s.) du latin apricare « réchauffer au soleil », de apricus « ensoleillé », rapproché de apertus « ouvert », mais sans rapport réel, et donc d’origine obscure» (Dictionnaire historique de la langue française 2017)." CreationDate="2017-12-20T16:29:29.720" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11687" PostId="5718" Score="0" Text="Indeed English does allow this sort of second-person relative clause, though it's not common; examples [here](https://www.google.com/search?biw=952&amp;bih=671&amp;tbm=bks&amp;ei=XuIyWuyBCYvfmwHC8qOIBw&amp;q=%22come+you+who%22&amp;oq=%22come+you+who%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0.0.21277.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.dLJZc4VX_0Y) and [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=jQA6wVLCINUC&amp;pg=PA224&amp;dq=%22come+here+you+who%22&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiFuZPcr4rYAhWBOiYKHQMKB2gQuwUIOTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22come%20here%20you%20who%22&amp;f=false)." CreationDate="2017-12-14T20:50:00.567" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11688" PostId="5718" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I don't recall ever coming across that before, but I'm glad to hear it's possible. I'll try to get the time to update the answer tomorrow. Using the phone on a long and late bus ride is not the optimal circumstance for polishing an answer... Thanks!" CreationDate="2017-12-14T20:55:34.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11689" PostId="5718" Score="0" Text="I don't think there's any need to update the answer. It's good that you who answered the question answered it slightly differently even while agreeing, reflecting different native languages. :)" CreationDate="2017-12-14T21:00:45.247" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11716" PostId="5721" Score="3" Text="Seconding *auctōritās*" CreationDate="2017-12-18T04:19:01.507" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26496" PostId="5721" Score="0" Text="Would *innuo* be a better choice for *non affirmo*? Why or why not?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T20:40:18.157" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="11704" PostId="5726" Score="1" Text="I don't know the answer, but as a data point, I have a Clementine Vulgate printed in 1956 that has the J spellings." CreationDate="2017-12-16T18:03:13.133" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11705" PostId="5726" Score="0" Text="@varro That's not an official *liturgical* book. Even liturgical music books (graduals, antiphonals, usuals) were being reprinted with the old orthography up to the sixties, probably because of the costs of new typesetting. Regarding liturgical books in the strictest sense, I have a 1953 breviary with old orthography and 1956 Ordo hebdomadae sanctae with new orthography. But I have been unsuccessful searching for the very document saying &quot;from now on no more j in liturgical books ... Contrariis minime obstantibus.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-12-16T18:29:51.640" UserId="2261" />
  <row Id="11706" PostId="5726" Score="0" Text="I tried to locate the point of turn using the AAS, whose archive is available [online](http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm), but it seems that AAS either started to use the &quot;new&quot; orthography long before the liturgical books, or the orthography was &quot;modernized&quot; as the volumes went through OCR." CreationDate="2017-12-16T18:32:14.050" UserId="2261" />
  <row Id="11707" PostId="5726" Score="1" Text="I have a 1954 breviary with J." CreationDate="2017-12-17T17:04:24.510" UserId="1497" />
  <row Id="11723" PostId="5729" Score="1" Text="I just now came upon _notus mihi nomine tantum_, known to me by name only, in Horace, _Satires_, 1.9.3 (to save you finding at least one attestation :) )" CreationDate="2017-12-19T05:35:37.983" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11727" PostId="5729" Score="0" Text="@Penelope. Thanks! That was on my list to add to the expanded answer that I was working on (and have now completed)." CreationDate="2017-12-20T05:54:29.167" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11739" PostId="5729" Score="1" Text="Love the expanded answer!" CreationDate="2017-12-21T05:09:53.647" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11905" PostId="5729" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of the second half of 2017.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/322/79)" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:57:09.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11714" PostId="5732" Score="0" Text="Titled &quot;The Newest Sappho: Text, Apparatus Criticus, and Translation&quot;. That is part 1 of the ahem-b-ok-ahem finding I took my image of the P.GC.s from as mentioned in the other answer. However, it does not tell me exactly what is read in the mysterious &quot;Π&lt;sup&gt;2c&lt;/sup&gt;&quot; (which is what he calls the extra source I cannot find a transcription or image of online) except for the last line of stanza 3, so it doesn't answer my question: it only reposes it with a bunch more possible supplements." CreationDate="2017-12-17T23:39:33.093" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11715" PostId="5732" Score="1" Text="@MickG There is nothing mysterious about the sources (Obbink is a very serious scholar) and Π&lt;sup&gt;2c&lt;/sup&gt; is not an exception. You just need to read it." CreationDate="2017-12-18T01:52:26.877" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11717" PostId="5732" Score="0" Text="Mysterious in the sense that a) I don't have an image or transcription of just that source, and b) someone calls it P.Oxy. 2166(a) fragment something and someone else P.Oxy. XXI add. p. 122." CreationDate="2017-12-18T09:09:00.817" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11718" PostId="5732" Score="0" Text="I agreee that Obbink is serious, but I looked at the apparatus and it doesn't tell me what comes from that siurce and what doesn't, except for telling me that source preserves a mere grave accent in l. 12, and I don't think such info should be elsewhere in that text. I also don't see any discussion of why that source goes with the others for this poem. All of that info is probably found in P.Oxy. XXI, so Obbink doesn't feel any need to report it in his text, but I have no access to that volume and I'd like to know that, hence this question. Am I missing something in the Obbink text?" CreationDate="2017-12-18T09:15:20.270" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11719" PostId="5734" Score="2" Text="Using the interwiki links on wikipedia you arrive at https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_programmatum" CreationDate="2017-12-18T13:37:37.977" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="11720" PostId="5734" Score="3" Text="I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this question lacks basic research." CreationDate="2017-12-18T13:38:11.520" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="11722" PostId="5734" Score="1" Text="@jknappen It's not clear that the translation in Vicipaedia is the optimal one, so it makes sense to ask for a good translation here. But I agree that it would be good to acknowledge it and formulate the question accordingly." CreationDate="2017-12-18T22:48:00.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38218" PostId="5734" Score="2" Text="As in french *logiciel*, and spanish *logicial*, I would propose a latin *logicialis*" CreationDate="2022-05-03T14:43:18.460" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="38816" PostId="5734" Score="1" Text="I thought it was COBOL. Unless there's another." CreationDate="2022-07-08T21:18:40.810" UserId="11276" />
  <row Id="38846" PostId="5734" Score="0" Text="Possible duplicate of https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/196/latin-word-for-code-or-program-the-verb" CreationDate="2022-07-11T18:40:28.737" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11753" PostId="5737" Score="0" Text="I had to unaccept this one, since there was a more colorful suggestion in another answer. I hope you don't mind. ;)" CreationDate="2017-12-24T09:52:23.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11754" PostId="5737" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Not at all ;)" CreationDate="2017-12-24T10:00:01.147" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11724" PostId="5738" Score="3" Text="+1 for mentioning the *Alwis* etymology." CreationDate="2017-12-19T15:29:12.153" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="18213" PostId="5740" Score="0" Text="Curiously, the interpretation of hominibus as an ablative seems to have been endorsed by the editors of the Nova Vulgata, who have made it explicit by repeating the &quot;in&quot;. Thus, &quot;Gloria in altissimis Deo, et super terram pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis&quot;. http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html#2 ." CreationDate="2019-01-19T05:04:31.110" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="11741" PostId="5746" Score="0" Text="Side note: φίλαθλος is a modern Greek translation for fan according to Wiktionary. [Greek Wiktionary](https://el.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%AF%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82) gives the obvious etymology. Not sure if Ancient Greek had it too." CreationDate="2017-12-21T16:35:02.483" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="11742" PostId="5746" Score="0" Text="φῐλ-αθλος, ον, &quot;fond of games (i e. as a competitor)&quot; according to L/S, with citations from fairly late authors. But this is not really what is meant by &quot;fan&quot;. @MickG." CreationDate="2017-12-21T18:02:56.770" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11743" PostId="5746" Score="0" Text="http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.79:4:173.LSJ" CreationDate="2017-12-21T18:04:50.650" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11746" PostId="5746" Score="0" Text="@fdb Ditto on the thanks! I will update my answer with this information." CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:35:29.150" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11748" PostId="5746" Score="2" Text="I think fautor is good, because Pliny (whom I seem to cite endlessly these days) has a letter (9.6) where he describes, in a very disdainful way, the fans of races in the Circus; although he doesn't use fautor itself, he uses both favor and faveo to talk about the blind, irrational mania for the various teams in the event, and their 'jerseys.'" CreationDate="2017-12-22T02:25:11.483" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11738" PostId="5747" Score="1" Text="Since Augustine's treatise here is specifically on rhythm, I don't think we can boil it down to just pitch accent. However, I see what you're saying about the pitch accent being a factor in the rhythmic stress placement, but could you give some Latin examples? Perhaps the stress placement could at least be intuited from sentence placement, if not cited with quotes from grammarians." CreationDate="2017-12-21T04:59:03.923" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="11744" PostId="5749" Score="0" Text="Kiitos vastauksesta ja tervetuloa sivustolle! These are interesting ideas, and it would be great if anyone found support for any of the theories. It would be very interesting if Tacitus really used a word of Nordic origin." CreationDate="2017-12-21T20:36:02.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11749" PostId="5750" Score="0" Text="For 4, would it help at all to give occurrences of a passive perfect participle and a gerundive used together but not in an absolute ablative? I'm not sure if occurrences like *tunica inuiolata seruanda est* (Celsus, De Medicina 7.6.4.1) make a difference here." CreationDate="2017-12-22T10:43:02.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40107" PostId="5751" Score="0" Text="How do you call this construction (out of XX) in linguistics?" CreationDate="2022-10-18T09:27:40.473" UserId="11663" />
  <row Id="40141" PostId="5751" Score="0" Text="@Pablo I don't know. Perhaps the linguistics site can help more than the Latin site. I'm not sure there is a name." CreationDate="2022-10-25T20:31:32.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11750" PostId="5752" Score="0" Text="If *mutatis* is the substantive, wouldn't *mutatis mutandis* look like *Caesare cōnsule*? This latter I want to see as *Caesar being consul*. On this model, we'd get *what-has-been-changed being what-needs-to-be-changed*. As if our attention were first directed to the existence of *changed objects* and only then to the fact that these *changed objects* were *those (formerly) needing change*. This seems to me decidedly less intuitive than *mutandis* serving as the substantive.  This way, we are told that there were *things needing change* and next that they *have been changed*." CreationDate="2017-12-24T07:44:29.147" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="11751" PostId="5752" Score="0" Text="I seem to be arguing that if it is not clear which of *mutatis* and *mutandis* is the substantive, that is from a syntactical consideration only; but that when one considers the semantics, one cannot help having a preference. I have only very limited Latin, and am writing out my thoughts in the hope that someone may point out any glaring error in them. Thanks." CreationDate="2017-12-24T07:50:50.347" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="11752" PostId="5752" Score="0" Text="@Catomic I agree that semantically the standard reading is the most sensible one. However, the other one is not utterly unreasonable and especially syntax gives no strong preference. Sometimes unintuitive things happen in Latin, and I wanted to warn people away from narrow-mindedly accepting the first reading that comes to mind without consideration of alternatives." CreationDate="2017-12-24T08:44:45.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11765" PostId="5754" Score="0" Text="Superb!  Funny how one letter difference can so drastically affect one's web searches.  Your link to that translation of Isidore gives &quot;delightful, tender, ingratiating&quot;.  I wonder if &quot;vinnus&quot; is perhaps a misunderstanding of &quot;Venus&quot;, the alleged origin of &quot;vinnulus&quot;.  In any case, &quot;soft, tender, delicate&quot; fits in line with my musical reading of the term.  If Isidore means a vocal style, the general idea is obvious.  If he means a musical ornament like Aurelian and Adhemar, namely a grace note or acciaccatura, then the correctly-spelled word &quot;vinnula&quot; makes perfect sense here." CreationDate="2017-12-27T00:36:43.870" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="15074" PostId="5755" Score="0" Text="As the song is talking about armies defeating the 3rd Reich, the meaning is quite easy..." CreationDate="2018-08-04T19:56:37.893" UserId="2810" />
  <row Id="15075" PostId="5755" Score="2" Text="@sabaton, which is what?" CreationDate="2018-08-05T11:41:11.060" UserId="2278" />
  <row Id="43081" PostId="5760" Score="1" Text="And I found in both &quot;conicio&quot; &quot;eicio&quot; entries, &quot;-jicio&quot; form is listed without &quot;less correctly&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-06T04:58:55.603" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="11758" PostId="5765" Score="0" Text="Huh, that's funny about &quot;Amazōn&quot;; I'd always thought it had a short &quot;ă&quot; because of the folk etymology connecting it to &quot;mă[z|st]os&quot;." CreationDate="2017-12-25T21:41:31.803" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11759" PostId="5765" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: As far as I know, it does have a short a. I think Wiktionary’s transcription is incorrect" CreationDate="2017-12-25T22:58:47.833" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11767" PostId="5765" Score="0" Text="This answer still contains useful insight not included in the other answer, especially examples and discussion on the macron indicating syllable length instead of vowel length. But of course deletion or undeletion is up to you." CreationDate="2017-12-27T07:25:50.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11757" PostId="5766" Score="0" Text="Great answer! It appears that the living conditions in Finland have somewhat improved since that description..." CreationDate="2017-12-25T12:02:04.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11769" PostId="5769" Score="0" Text="For some more options, see _[Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=jeQIAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA664)_ (section II, starting near bottom of middle column)." CreationDate="2017-12-27T21:29:17.537" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11778" PostId="5769" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz You could list those options in an answer. Google Books links are not equally accessible to everyone." CreationDate="2017-12-28T18:53:00.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11760" PostId="5770" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! This is a very thorough and useful answer. (I agree with your parenthetical final paragraph, but I wanted to include a concrete example in the question to avoid misunderstandings.)" CreationDate="2017-12-26T07:58:45.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27243" PostId="5770" Score="0" Text="It is not an ancient source, but in the Book &quot;Julia&quot; by Reed, he seem to use plural verb with familia  (or I'm missing something): &quot;Sed fleverunt familia et flevit Triptolemus&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-19T18:28:09.427" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="11764" PostId="5772" Score="1" Text="Why not say *sine aliqua carne*?" CreationDate="2017-12-26T23:33:57.870" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11766" PostId="5772" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Hmm... That's a possibility, but I'd still like to know if there's an adjective. A prepositional phrase and an adjective are not identical to use." CreationDate="2017-12-27T06:56:36.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11770" PostId="5772" Score="4" Text="I wonder whether holitorius could be used for this? Otherwise, I'd just say hodie holus tantum cenamus, 'today we dine only on vegatables' (on the model of Horace, Epistles 2.2.168)." CreationDate="2017-12-27T23:02:37.767" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11773" PostId="5772" Score="0" Text="herba, ae = plant; cibus, i = food" CreationDate="2017-12-27T22:34:47.820" UserId="2286" />
  <row Id="11779" PostId="5772" Score="0" Text="@cnread Sounds promising. Do you want to post that as an answer? It's the best idea so far, I think." CreationDate="2017-12-28T19:13:40.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11772" PostId="5774" Score="2" Text="Again, welcome to the site! Could you expand on this answer, perhaps including a quote or two where these adjectives are used if they are from actual sources?" CreationDate="2017-12-27T23:10:21.143" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11775" PostId="5774" Score="0" Text="I placed a sentence in my answer.  I don't have a Roman text to quote where herbifer is used, if that is what you mean by 'actual source'.  I am only a student of Latin, not an authority, but I did check my work with hard copy texts. Pls correct where needed." CreationDate="2017-12-28T02:01:07.247" UserId="2286" />
  <row Id="11776" PostId="5774" Score="1" Text="It appears that your sentence would actually mean something more like 'our dinner today is covered with grass,' since the adj. herbifer is used to describe hills, mountains, and river banks in the extant classical literature (as is herbidus). However, there's a similar adj, herbosus, meaning 'full of greenstuff, herbs, etc.,' and there's ancient precedent for using it to talk about a dish. Ovid, Fasti 4.367–8 has '&quot;non pudet herbosum&quot; dixi &quot;posuisse moretum / in dominae mensis...&quot;' That's still not quite the same as 'vegetarian,' but it's a bit closer." CreationDate="2017-12-28T04:36:58.703" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11777" PostId="5774" Score="0" Text="well, we probably would not want to say 'our dinner today is covered with grass', unless we were feeding livestock. My dictionary has herbidous and herbosus both=grassy. Herbifer = full of grass or herbs, bearing magical or medicinal plants. However, it does not say whether it is referring to a hillside or a salad. I will defer, especially since you have a reference. Please translate the quote, I got as far as 'he is not ashamed .....' I said, ' ...../ in the master's meal.'" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:23:33.747" UserId="2286" />
  <row Id="11780" PostId="5774" Score="0" Text="@aquarius The quote says, &quot;'one does not feel ashamed,' I said, 'to have placed a grassy dish on the mistress' tables ...'&quot; :)" CreationDate="2017-12-29T06:10:22.327" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11781" PostId="5774" Score="0" Text="@cnread As good as your answer (_hortulanus_) is, I think _herbosus_ as used in Ovid works well too!" CreationDate="2017-12-29T06:11:51.493" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11793" PostId="5779" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It seems to be a similar case like with the abovementioned AAS, though: in *liturgical books* even Cistercians (of both &quot;old&quot; and strict observance) used the orthography with &quot;j&quot;. See e.g. this [1954 OCist diurnale](http://splendorveritatis.org/diurnale/large-2.html) and other books on the same website." CreationDate="2018-01-01T15:10:11.573" UserId="2261" />
  <row Id="34691" PostId="5783" Score="2" Text="This is the kind of answer that StackExchange was made for—not just a couple definitions, but the cultural context in which they have meaning. This answer really shows how learning a language is much more than learning words and grammar." CreationDate="2021-08-22T20:41:40.717" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11784" PostId="5784" Score="2" Text="They surely did mix up those animals quite commonly, *kaɸrāxs also seems to be a cognate, meaning &quot;sheep&quot; in Proto-Celtic." CreationDate="2017-12-31T01:53:59.357" UserId="258" />
  <row Id="11799" PostId="5785" Score="1" Text="This sounds good: despite the likeness, Latin didn't take it from Greek, but both took it from Proto-Indo-European, which was long enough ago that such a change in meaning can occur." CreationDate="2018-01-02T03:39:34.687" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11825" PostId="5785" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. Not &quot;took&quot;, but &quot;inherited&quot; from PIE. (If indeed these words are from IE, rather than from a European substrate, as has also been suggested)." CreationDate="2018-01-03T15:28:10.953" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11828" PostId="5785" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Yes, I know. One can take things from one's parents and other ancestors." CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:12:25.517" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20767" PostId="5785" Score="0" Text="Elephant = Gothic ulbandus, Polish wielbłąd (camel). Turkish arslan (lion) = Polish słoń (elephant). So this is indeed a widespread pattern." CreationDate="2019-07-31T13:09:44.523" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="11785" PostId="5787" Score="4" Text="I believe this originated from stage directions: in fact,.when multiple characters leave, the direction changes to &quot;exeunt.&quot;" CreationDate="2017-12-31T19:50:37.210" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11786" PostId="5787" Score="1" Text="(Exeunt = &quot;they leave&quot;, multiple people)" CreationDate="2017-12-31T20:50:45.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11787" PostId="5790" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This sounds very promising. (Side note: In Finland we have four major events with an eve: Christmas, New Year, first of May, and Midsummer. There must be several local variants out there.)" CreationDate="2017-12-31T22:52:30.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11788" PostId="5790" Score="0" Text="John Keats poem 'St Agnes Eve.' (figurative use)" CreationDate="2018-01-01T03:06:54.887" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11790" PostId="5790" Score="1" Text="The French for 'eve' is 'veille' which also means 'vigil' (as in watching through the night) and it would appear that 'veille' derives from 'vigilia'  (https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/veille)" CreationDate="2018-01-01T08:29:35.230" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11791" PostId="5790" Score="0" Text="Which is really just to say that, in the French mind, an 'eve' and a 'vigil' share the same conceptual basis (keeping watch throughout the night before), which I thought might give further ballast to your argument :)" CreationDate="2018-01-01T08:36:22.623" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11794" PostId="5792" Score="2" Text="For one thing, there are nouns that are (probably) from nominatives, like *uomo*. For various French examples, see my answer here: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/167/which-romance-languages-have-reflexes-of-nouns-in-the-latin-nominative But I'd like to see some evidence and intermediate forms too." CreationDate="2018-01-01T17:24:17.943" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11795" PostId="5792" Score="1" Text="I don't have the evidence available right now, but, from what I know, at some point all oblique cases had merged into one (the objective case), opposing the remaining nominative (subjective case); and then finally objective and subjective merged into the one remaining form that we have now. It makes sense for the objective case to win out morphologically, because it must have been far more frequent than the subjective case in nouns. And perhaps the accusative had come to dominate the objective case also because it was the most frequent of the oblique cases?" CreationDate="2018-01-01T17:25:02.197" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11797" PostId="5792" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The objective case arising from accusative and then winning over the subjective case would make sense, and it would be nice to see some evidence. The intermediate step of objective case clears some of the mystery, but still the question remains: why accusative over ablative? Or was it really just a merge?" CreationDate="2018-01-01T20:32:12.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11798" PostId="5792" Score="0" Text="Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's because long and short vowels have different reflexes. Second and fourth declension nouns both took -o, the expected reflex of -ŭ(m), while -ō and -ū would have given different results." CreationDate="2018-01-02T02:23:44.780" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11860" PostId="5796" Score="0" Text="Very interesting answer. Two questions: 1. what do you mean by _# ? 2. *The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;.* : why does it seem that way to you? Why couldn't there be some other origin involved?" CreationDate="2018-01-07T00:18:38.420" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11861" PostId="5796" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: The # stands for a word boundary-- &quot;am&quot; in other positions in Latin words did not develop to &quot;a&quot; in Romance (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). The plural ending &quot;-i&quot; just seems to be from Latin &quot;-i&quot; to me because of the obvious similarity in form and because of what the linked Wikipedia article says. I can't see any other plausible source for the ending and I don't know of any alternative proposals that have been made by linguists" CreationDate="2018-01-07T01:19:03.560" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11801" PostId="5797" Score="1" Text="I think this is a really helpful answer. However, I'd like to point out that 'vigil' and 'eve' are not really synonymous, at least in modern English usage. The former is an intentional action; the latter is merely a period of time, in the sense of the original enquiry." CreationDate="2018-01-02T12:40:49.043" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11812" PostId="5797" Score="0" Text="I understand &quot;eve&quot; in the sense of the period before something, as in &quot;the eve of war&quot;, to be an extended sense of &quot;eve&quot; meaning the day before. And I understand &quot;eve&quot; in the sense of the day before something, as in &quot;New Year's Eve&quot;, to be an extended sense of &quot;eve&quot; meaning the evening before. Notice that &quot;New Year's Eve&quot; primarily evokes parties running late into the night, and secondarily means the whole day. When Santa Claus is said to deliver presents on Christmas Eve, this means during the night, etc. …" CreationDate="2018-01-02T22:39:29.077" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11813" PostId="5797" Score="0" Text="… Not that any of that should distract from your main, insightful point, which is that &quot;eve&quot; in English does not carry any suggestion of a &quot;watch&quot;, nor does _pridie_ carry any suggestion of evening, so Latin doesn't have an exact equivalent to &quot;eve&quot; (unless someone else can think of one)." CreationDate="2018-01-02T22:43:42.793" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="11814" PostId="5797" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton What I was trying to say is exactly that, ‘eve’ and ‘vigil’ aren’t synonymous in English and yet capital E-Eve is used typically for days that were traditionally vigils on the small e-eve of a feast day in the Christian church.  Thus, to me, ‘Christmas Eve’ (an intentional action, to use your definition) is not the same as ‘the eve of Christmas [day]’ (merely a period of time).  Similarly, All Hallows’ Eve." CreationDate="2018-01-02T23:30:52.733" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11815" PostId="5797" Score="0" Text="@Tom Cotton (cont'd) New Year’s Eve is a sort of hybrid; in some Christian denominations, it is marked by a Watchnight service, which is a vigil; in the secular world, it is just the eve of the new year but of course people intentionally stay up to see in the new year and, in this way, it is a sort of vigil." CreationDate="2018-01-02T23:31:07.813" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11817" PostId="5797" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I distinguish between small-e eve and capital-E Eve in my comment above to Tom Cotton and I think it goes some way to answering your comment. I hope it explains why I would say that Santa Claus delivers presents on the eve of Christmas and I go to Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve! My answer was trying to claim that _pridie_ captures the idea of small-e eve but that _pervigilium_ would be a better choice for capital-E Eve, should you wish to make the distinction." CreationDate="2018-01-02T23:43:06.563" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11803" PostId="5798" Score="0" Text="Should I delete the old question? You will be able to comment and edit, and you will be notified of any comments if you register your account. Unregistered accounts have limited functionality. (If you register your account, I can also merge the previous one to it.)" CreationDate="2018-01-02T14:59:11.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11804" PostId="5799" Score="2" Text="I would also venture to say that &quot;Integrity&quot; was misspelled seeing as there is no crossbar on the t, making it integrily." CreationDate="2018-01-02T16:14:01.747" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="11807" PostId="5799" Score="2" Text="It looks to me like a Greek nu (ν) instead of an &quot;n.&quot; It must be some kind of confusion, though, since the rest is transliterated." CreationDate="2018-01-02T17:16:01.493" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11808" PostId="5799" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. Could be, but it looks to me as though there's a mole or something that got in the tattoo artist's way; so he/she skipped over it and then resumed to ink in the bottom of the 'n' and the connector to the 'o'. I'd say there's an actual 'n' there." CreationDate="2018-01-02T19:29:33.340" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11809" PostId="5800" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Would it make sense to reformulate the question as asking for a good Latin translation for the concept of &quot;wildcard&quot;? My point is that the best Latin translation might well be two or more words spelled separately (like *carta fera* if that is indeed the optimal choice), and it might be more interesting to others in that form. You could then spell the whole thing together to form a name in the end. (This is just an idea; it's your call.)" CreationDate="2018-01-02T21:25:06.017" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11810" PostId="5800" Score="3" Text="The *-fer, -ferus,* or *-fera* endings imply 'carrier' or 'bearer'. *-fera* would be misleading, I think." CreationDate="2018-01-02T22:15:17.480" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11811" PostId="5800" Score="1" Text="Yes, *Cartafera* would likely be taken as meaning something like &quot;bearing a card&quot;.  I suspect we need something other than a calque on &quot;wild+card&quot; here, but I have no good suggestions." CreationDate="2018-01-02T22:36:43.557" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11819" PostId="5800" Score="0" Text="*Ne gry* is rare Latin for 'not a hint,' 'not a jot.' *Gry* is a non-committal grunt. How about *Grycarta* ?" CreationDate="2018-01-03T00:01:18.717" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11823" PostId="5800" Score="1" Text="For questions of this type, it's sometimes instructive to look at what the modern descendants of Latin do. In French, 'wildcard' in the context of both cards and computing can be joker; in Italian, it can be jolly (from jolly joker) for cards and carattere jolly for computing; in Spanish, it seems to be comodín (= 'joker') in both contexts; so, to avoid a calque, if that's important, one option would be to use something like joculator (m.)/joculatrix (f.), or scurra. Unfortunately, these don't at all capture what you seem to want for your name (hence this is a comment instead of an answer)." CreationDate="2018-01-03T08:40:31.847" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12332" PostId="5800" Score="0" Text="Have you considered [_factotum_](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factotum)? Its use as a single word is medieval Latin and conveys your meaning at least in part." CreationDate="2018-03-05T20:16:29.780" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11826" PostId="5801" Score="2" Text="Can you explain &quot;*Ne gry* is 'rare' Latin&quot;? I've never seen &quot;gry&quot; used as a grunt before, the &quot;ne&quot; seems ungrammatical, and I don't see the connection with hint/jot." CreationDate="2018-01-03T16:59:52.520" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11829" PostId="5801" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, Hugh is shortening it from *ne gry quidem* (in a way that I'm not sure quite works). The phrase is from somewhere in Plautus and possibly other places." CreationDate="2018-01-04T01:28:11.667" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11830" PostId="5801" Score="0" Text="It may only exist in dictionaries. The link gives one of the two entries I've seen. Yet another entry gave *Ne gry quidem* translating 'Not a whit,' and led to the Greek stems, and mentioned the literal translation, not even an unrecognisable sound, not even a grunt." CreationDate="2018-01-04T01:48:48.387" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11832" PostId="5801" Score="0" Text="@cnread Degrees of awfulness: in your opinion which is worse in citation, Plautus, or Erasmus?" CreationDate="2018-01-04T12:35:19.957" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="11822" PostId="5803" Score="0" Text="Thank you!  So...I'm sorry to be dense - I keep expecting it to translate to &quot;is made.&quot;  I can't understand the &quot;was.&quot;   I'm familiar with the legal term non est factum which translates to &quot;it is not my deed&quot; -  Is there a rule governing related to word order?" CreationDate="2018-01-03T08:14:24.370" UserId="2299" />
  <row Id="11824" PostId="5803" Score="1" Text="@D.D. I'm not familiar with that legal term, but factum can also be a noun meaning 'deed'; so it could very well be that est isn't meant to combine with factum in that instance and really does mean 'is'." CreationDate="2018-01-03T08:44:05.630" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11827" PostId="5803" Score="2" Text="@D.D., As follow-up, since I didn't address all the questions in your previous comment: Although it's tempting to translate something like factum est as 'is made,' because it uses a present tense form, that's just not how Latin works. Latin 'factum est' is no more present tense than English 'has fallen' is, even though that expression also uses a present tense form. In Latin 'nothing is made' is facitur (or fit), never factum est. Many students make this mistake at first. And word order makes no difference: factum est and est factum can both mean 'was made.'" CreationDate="2018-01-03T20:58:45.233" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14129" PostId="5803" Score="0" Text="Why does this question have so few views? I find it to be a very common issue! Your answer solved this longstanding issue I had." CreationDate="2018-05-10T16:56:22.487" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="11898" PostId="5805" Score="1" Text="This is very helpful. I have one question—I can't find a citation for &quot;cum Ariovistus in Galliam vēnit,&quot; so I assume it's your inventions, but (and please forgive me for not understanding) unless what follows is something like &quot;hiems erat,&quot; how is Ariovistus's entry into Gaul NOT a condition for whatever follows?" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:20:05.523" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="11899" PostId="5805" Score="1" Text="@Joel Derfner I'm pleased that you find it helpful. Yes, it's my invention, to mean something like _on the occasion of Ariovistus' entry into Gaul_, which simply expresses the time when something else happened — e.g. _Caesar aberat_ — and is not a precondition." CreationDate="2018-01-13T15:14:49.123" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18948" PostId="5806" Score="0" Text="It may be from French _libre_ rather than Latin _libera_ - or at least, influenced by the French." CreationDate="2019-03-18T21:14:47.247" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="11841" PostId="5807" Score="0" Text="Right - doing my own research lead me to a similar understanding. I guess the company &quot;Libratone&quot; just wanted to be a bit creative or simple with their naming convention." CreationDate="2018-01-05T08:54:05.787" UserId="2287" />
  <row Id="11849" PostId="5807" Score="1" Text="It could presumably mean &quot;the noise of scales&quot;." CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:05:51.647" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11857" PostId="5807" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Hah true. Or it could simply be an error..." CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:34:57.020" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11831" PostId="5809" Score="0" Text="Thank you. If I thought of ἀπορίᾱ (ἀπορίαι) and βιβλιοθήκη (βιβλιοθῆκαι) too, I would have seen there was no recession to speak of in nouns--even if persistence had not occurred to me.  Or if I had a teacher he would have stopped me at the first few stammered words." CreationDate="2018-01-04T09:03:52.330" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="11833" PostId="5809" Score="2" Text="+1; you might add also that the position of the accent in these words is quite arbitrary and often goes back to PIE. There's not going to be any phonetic explanation." CreationDate="2018-01-04T17:17:11.147" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11835" PostId="5811" Score="0" Text="It have been shown for cows that they love and care for each other. They have friends and feel way more anxious without them." CreationDate="2018-01-04T21:35:02.420" UserId="1315" />
  <row Id="11852" PostId="5811" Score="0" Text="@Winter There are several social or selfless animals out there. I don't think humans really stand out in that respect, but fortunately the question itself works well without that premise." CreationDate="2018-01-06T10:14:23.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11840" PostId="5812" Score="0" Text="Perhaps &quot;benevolens&quot; also?" CreationDate="2018-01-05T04:08:52.360" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11842" PostId="5812" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I added that and *benevolus*. The three adjectives seem essentially equivalent here." CreationDate="2018-01-05T11:50:56.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11837" PostId="5814" Score="2" Text="... Is it my imagination, or does this imply that the feminine patronymic is the origin of the masculine one? Because the similarity between -ίδης and -ίδος is way too convenient." CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:52:10.893" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="11838" PostId="5814" Score="3" Text="@MarqFJA87 The similarity is because they're both δ-stem nouns. Ancient Greek doesn't allow the cluster -δς, so the nominative *Άλκείδς becomes Άλκείς. But the -δ is still part of the stem and appears whenever the ending contains a vowel, including the masculine nominative -ης and the feminine genitive -ος." CreationDate="2018-01-05T03:36:12.307" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11839" PostId="5814" Score="3" Text="It does seem strange, doesn't it?  Essentially the basic suffix is ‐ιδ/‐αδ, which remains in the feminine (nominative ις/ας), while the masculine forms shift to the first declension a-stems, thus: ‐ιδ‐ᾱ/‐αδ‐ᾱ (nominative ‐ιδης/‐αδης" CreationDate="2018-01-05T03:45:34.853" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="20257" PostId="5815" Score="0" Text="Related (on a different site): https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/2526/how-does-the-initial-consonant-in-jupiter-and-zeus-come-from-the-d-in-pie" CreationDate="2019-06-24T03:28:37.680" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11844" PostId="5818" Score="0" Text="The nymph is called Διώνη, not Διόνη. Anyway, how do you explain -νη?" CreationDate="2018-01-05T17:46:07.603" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11845" PostId="5818" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Whoops - you're right about the spelling.  I'll correct the answer and add a remark about the eta." CreationDate="2018-01-05T17:50:45.953" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11846" PostId="5818" Score="0" Text="I still don't see where the -ν- comes from." CreationDate="2018-01-05T18:25:21.500" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11847" PostId="5818" Score="0" Text="@fdb: I thought that that might be going a little far afield from the original question, but since you ask, I shall add an explanation of that to the answer." CreationDate="2018-01-05T18:51:20.370" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11848" PostId="5818" Score="1" Text="@fdb: I think I may have misunderstood your question, but if you're asking about where the -ν- in Διώνη comes from, it's just another afix to form nouns/adjectives." CreationDate="2018-01-05T19:20:07.163" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11855" PostId="5818" Score="1" Text="&quot;Just another affix&quot; is a bad answer." CreationDate="2018-01-06T17:59:55.947" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11856" PostId="5818" Score="2" Text="Excellent answer! Fun fact: Latin *dies* is related. The original word in Proto-Indo-European is thought to have meant something like &quot;bright sky&quot;, from which &quot;day&quot; (Latin *dies*) and &quot;sky-god&quot; (Greek *Zeus*) are derived. @fdb While it might be nice if the nature of the affix could be explained as well, the phrase &quot;some affix&quot; was just used in a comment, so no need to panic." CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:23:53.443" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11863" PostId="5818" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Moreover, *day* in English is entirely unrelated, as the *y* was actually the Old English *yogh*, and thus is related to the German *Tag*, and neither *dies* nor *Zeus*." CreationDate="2018-01-07T08:24:00.463" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="11864" PostId="5818" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Indeed! It seems the Germanic words (day/Tag/dag) may be from some root related to &quot;burning&quot;. Still remarkably close in meaning, but I trust the dictionaries, of course." CreationDate="2018-01-07T08:45:40.323" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15246" PostId="5818" Score="1" Text="@fdb -ώνη is the feminine equivalent of the masculine nominal suffix -ών, e.g. Ἀκρισιώνη &quot;daughter of Ἀκρίσιος&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-15T03:52:32.337" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40865" PostId="5819" Score="0" Text="With you. Well it makes huge sense: being stuck to a view (a pledge) despite contrary evidence certainly goes against logic. This relates to all manner of problems including: aligning with a tribe / country / religion etc" CreationDate="2023-01-08T01:40:55.933" UserId="11992" />
  <row Id="14128" PostId="5821" Score="1" Text="I should point out that Spanish is like English, in that you do not say &quot;El **es** visto ...&quot; but &quot;El **fue** visto ...&quot;. This might be why I have such a trouble interpreting &quot;est&quot; as past, since in both English and Spanish, the only languages I fluently speak, use the past rather than the present &quot;to be&quot; particle." CreationDate="2018-05-10T16:53:57.193" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14131" PostId="5821" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho visus est is perfect tense, passive voice, hence _ha sido visto_ (presente perfecto or pretérito perfecto compuesto). But the meaning of the perfect tense also matches with pretérito indefinido, a.k.a. pretérito perfecto simple partly, so _fue visto_. In turn, the passive voice of hacer in Spanish is weird: _fue hecho_ doesn't sound right: you use the pronominal _se hizo_ or _se ha hecho_ instead. (48th meaning of [hacer](http://dle.rae.es/?id=Jwhmcap) in the DLE.)" CreationDate="2018-05-10T20:40:10.927" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14132" PostId="5821" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho in turn, which sounds better, _sin él nada se ha hecho_, _... nada se hizo_, _... nada ha sido hecho_ or _nada fue hecho_? I think it also depends on the dialect (acento/variante regional)" CreationDate="2018-05-10T21:16:25.950" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11858" PostId="5823" Score="0" Text="That was also my reading. But I'm wondering whether some 'official' explanation or a source outside of L&amp;S exists." CreationDate="2018-01-06T21:09:46.833" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11859" PostId="5823" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I would like to see something more official as well. The conclusion seems fairly evident, but a reliable description of the word or use in other dictionaries would make the case much stronger." CreationDate="2018-01-06T21:12:11.750" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11862" PostId="5825" Score="0" Text="Interesting, is the supposed Latin shift of &quot;der&quot; to &quot;ter&quot; related to some sound change like dr &gt; tr? I think I remember seeing that mentioned somewhere as a Latin sound change (e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=s7LuNvgfv0IC&amp;pg=PA113&amp;lpg=PA113&amp;dq=Latin+sound+change+dr+tr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FSzNYttnDI&amp;sig=gvI64cYoXf4Mwq-1kG-ENzP4scQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUruiLlcXYAhUd24MKHQuJDaYQ6AEIRDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20sound%20change%20dr%20tr&amp;f=false) , but I didn't realize it could happen even with an intermediate vowel between the d and r." CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:54:31.957" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11865" PostId="5825" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. The etymological dictionaries (Walde, de Vaan) offer different versions of the idea that the voiceless -t- in uterus developed by analogy to a (hypothetical) syncopated stem *uderV &gt; *udrV &gt; *utrV ." CreationDate="2018-01-07T10:30:19.540" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11868" PostId="5826" Score="0" Text="As phrased, this question is primarily opinion-based. I've voted to close. If you can rephrase, I'll remove the 'close' vote." CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:32:24.430" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11869" PostId="5830" Score="0" Text="A question: do you understand why the accusative is Περικλέᾱ rather than Περικλέη given the historical presence of digamma after the epsilon? [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_Greek#Long_a) suggests that Proto-Greek *ā was usually raised after digamma, e.g. in Attic korē &lt; korwā, but maybe the situation is more variable than mentioned there" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:07:28.527" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15238" PostId="5830" Score="0" Text="The nom. sg. isn't necessarily irregular, but could be due to a different vowel grade (e-grade rather than o-grade) -- ablaut in compounds isn't always the same as in the simplex. @sumelic, the uncontracted form of the acc. would be -kle(w)ea, and εα (in Attic anyway) sometimes contracts to η and sometimes to ᾱ -- I don't know what determines the choice." CreationDate="2018-08-14T22:32:28.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="11870" PostId="5832" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if I should ask for different registers separately or have a single big list question like this. Ideas are welcome." CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:19:15.560" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11871" PostId="5832" Score="0" Text="I know that J.N. Adams, *The Latin sexual vocabulary*, has a whole section about urination/urine and the various terms." CreationDate="2018-01-08T22:01:05.593" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11872" PostId="5832" Score="0" Text="@cnread I never thought that would be covered there. It's certainly worth looking into here." CreationDate="2018-01-08T22:19:57.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11873" PostId="5832" Score="0" Text="Yes, I only knew about it because I happened to be looking up something in the index not too long ago and saw the 'urination' entry. As I recall from my quick glance, it makes sense because some of the words for urination were also used for ejaculation. I'll pull out my copy later and compile a summary in the form of an answer, unless someone else has a chance to do it before me." CreationDate="2018-01-08T22:23:53.927" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12370" PostId="5834" Score="2" Text="“There is no Greek or Latin term to be found in ancient literature corresponding to the modern 'volcano'; nevertheless, individual volcanic phenomena are identified, such as lava-flow: Greek ῥύαξ/rhýax (&lt; ῥέω/rhéō, 'to flow'; cf. also Theophrastus's Perì rhýakos toû en Sikelíai mentioned in Diog. Laert. 5,49), Lat. Vulcanius amnis ('Vulcanic stream', Claud. Rapt. Pros. 172; from Latin Vulcanius, 'pertaining to Vulcan and his works'), saxa liquefacta 'liquified rocks' (Verg. Aen. 3,576) or massa ardens 'blazing mass' (Iuv. 10,130)” (Sonnabend, Holger (Stuttgart), “Volcanoes”, Brill’s New Pauly)" CreationDate="2018-03-11T12:45:39.847" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11876" PostId="5836" Score="0" Text="It turns out I don't know how to tag this. Ideas or edits for better tags are welcome." CreationDate="2018-01-10T09:59:34.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11877" PostId="5839" Score="0" Text="Can you cite some sentences where sui etc. are grammatically genitive plural?" CreationDate="2018-01-10T14:16:13.033" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11878" PostId="5839" Score="1" Text="Sure: Cic *In Verrem* 2.3: &quot;quod illi semper **sui causa fecerant**, cum eos nemo rogaret, quam diu intellegebant sese sibi et populo Romano, non Verri et Apronio serere, impendere, laborare.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-01-10T14:41:10.000" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11879" PostId="5839" Score="4" Text="Thanks, I see what you mean. I think this is not about morphology, but about syntax. se, sibi and sui are morphologically singular, but they can all be used with a plural referent." CreationDate="2018-01-10T15:04:01.223" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11880" PostId="5839" Score="1" Text="Sihler's *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin* isn't much help at all. It merely notes (section 369.B) that *nostrum/vestrum* 'are in origin gen.pl. forms of the possessives *noster*, *vester*,' and that nostri/vestri 'are the gen.sg. forms of the same' – an explanation that raises more questions than it answers, I think. Still, at least it confirms that you're correct in thinking that the forms that end in i look singular." CreationDate="2018-01-10T20:12:11.080" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11889" PostId="5839" Score="3" Text="Some pronouns (*ego, tu, nos, vos, se*) have an associated possessive pronoun (*meus, tuus, noster, vester, suus*) that takes some of the functions of the genitive. Therefore the role of the genitive is not directly comparable to nouns and most pronouns. My intuition has always been that *sui, nostri, vestri* and the like are singular genitives of the substantivized neuter adjective *suum/nostrum/vestrum* and therefore forms of the related possessive pronoun, not the personal pronoun itself. I have nothing substantial to back this up with, but I can write it up as an answer if you want." CreationDate="2018-01-12T12:09:20.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11890" PostId="5839" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It's certainly an interesting theory! It sounds a bit unlikely, but it would be good to have on the table. I'm sure some of the competent linguists on this board could strengthen or weaken your case in the comments." CreationDate="2018-01-12T13:42:05.713" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="11913" PostId="5839" Score="0" Text="By the way, there is a nice example of &quot;memoriam vestri faciens&quot; in the NT passage discussed here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5858/is-there-such-a-thing-as-the-accusativus-cum-participium-a-c-p-if-not-what-i" CreationDate="2018-01-16T10:55:29.283" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11885" PostId="5840" Score="0" Text="I don't know of any such word, but I'd be very interested in the answer if there is." CreationDate="2018-01-11T16:56:20.147" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11886" PostId="5840" Score="1" Text="Not in the Indo-European languages. Nominative-accusative syncretism is **absolute** for neuter nominal classes (nouns, adjectives, pronouns)." CreationDate="2018-01-12T05:12:41.617" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11891" PostId="5840" Score="0" Text="This is a great question, but turns out it has been asked before. That's not an issue; having this question around makes it easier for future readers to find the answer to this question. I hope you will stick around and ask more questions!" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:53:03.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11888" PostId="5842" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I imagine Vitruvius was after a neutral tone, so this is good support for *mulier* and *muliebris*." CreationDate="2018-01-12T08:36:29.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11930" PostId="5843" Score="0" Text="If not, I sense an opportunity for a wonderful invented word!" CreationDate="2018-01-18T22:22:48.467" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11931" PostId="5843" Score="0" Text="@DukeZhou Since there have been no answers so far, I would be happy to see any new coinages as well. Perhaps something with *munus*, *officium*, or *magistratus*?" CreationDate="2018-01-18T22:26:27.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11893" PostId="5845" Score="1" Text="This is also how I have always analysed it. Fdb conveyed the same thought succinctly in his comment above. I would consider it an instance of suppletion. Normal substantive nouns have a genitive, but *nos* does not have a genitive; the reason is that it already has a possessive adjective *noster*, so you normally don't need a genitive of *nos*, for you can say *the father of us* as &quot;pater noster&quot; (indeed, the reason why *the father of us sounds odd in English is exactly the same: because we already have *our father* available, we don't normally use *of us* in this way). ..." CreationDate="2018-01-13T03:18:41.197" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11894" PostId="5845" Score="1" Text="... Even so, the need for a genitive still arises now and then, such as when we wish to distinguish between possessive &quot;our&quot; (*amor noster*: the love that we feel) and 'objective' &quot;our&quot; (*amor nostri*: the love someone feels for us). In the latter case, we **supply** the neuter adjective for the lacking substantive noun." CreationDate="2018-01-13T03:19:13.963" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11896" PostId="5846" Score="1" Text="A quibble: Neith and Thoth are Egyptian, not Semitic." CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:07:56.470" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11910" PostId="5847" Score="0" Text="An interesting aside. Is &quot;sua causa&quot; a variant reading or is it an emendation?" CreationDate="2018-01-15T13:44:11.897" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11911" PostId="5847" Score="0" Text="@fdb  The earliest authority I can find for _sua_ is Ernesti's edition of 1819-30. The Loeb has it too. As you presumably know, a good many of the 19/20th century editors offer variant readings or emendations to suit their own ideas of the best grammar in the various available editions — such as Teubner and OCT, as well as university publications — which can be both confusing and convincing. Pinkster (to whom I refer, but do not have available) apparently writes 'On this much disputed passage, see Heyworth (2007: 22). 11.30 Third person possessive adjectives functioning as attribute.'" CreationDate="2018-01-15T15:29:19.233" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11892" PostId="5849" Score="2" Text="I've heard &quot;poisoning the well&quot; as a term for this in English, in that you're pre-emptively attacking the source." CreationDate="2018-01-12T18:39:01.280" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11900" PostId="5851" Score="3" Text="Leumann mentions **four** occurrences only: two occurrences of **faciatur**: parui ... faciatur (Titinius, 97); faciantur [goes: faciatur] si tibi videtur, et triclinia (Petronius, Sat. 71); **satisfacitur** (Varro Men. 82), and **calfaciantur** (Vitr.)" CreationDate="2018-01-14T04:10:00.320" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="11901" PostId="5851" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Those two occurrences of plain *facere* would make a good answer." CreationDate="2018-01-14T11:00:54.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11944" PostId="5851" Score="1" Text="It had long been my observation that fio *tends* to be used instead of the passive of facio; still, I admit that when I read this question, my initial reaction was, 'That can't be right! It can't possibly be so one-sided!' And yet my own search (just on PHI) seems to confirm your findings; the passive forms of facio really aren't used very much at all (and mostly in compounds) – at least for pres., fut., and impf. tenses (obviously, it's impossible to say anything definitive about pf., fut.pf., and plupf., because the 2 verbs look identical in those tenses). A very illuminating question." CreationDate="2018-01-20T22:58:56.903" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="11903" PostId="5852" Score="2" Text="The native Latin *-a* seems to come from verbs: *-cida &lt; caedere, collega &lt; colligere, advena &lt; advenire, traha &lt; trahere*, and so on. The Greek [*poeta*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/439/79) has a verb behind it, but *nauta* doesn't seem to." CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:38:02.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11908" PostId="5852" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Perhaps so. But the verbal stem on -i- does not appear to be present in *advena*, so at least it isn't a direct derivation from he ordinary verb. // The Greek words are, I think, unrelated: it is clear where that -a came from." CreationDate="2018-01-14T21:23:53.463" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11909" PostId="5852" Score="1" Text="The derivative *-a* might not take the present stem as such. The *i* is only in the present stem of *advenire*. I agree that the Greek words are unrelated; the origins of the two examples are clear enough and quite different from the Latin examples." CreationDate="2018-01-14T21:26:47.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11933" PostId="5852" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: True! If they're old formations, they need not be derived from existing temporal/supine stems. As to *traha*, that one's feminine, isn't it?" CreationDate="2018-01-19T01:27:12.740" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11934" PostId="5852" Score="0" Text="Yes, it's feminine. It's also the only one on my list that doesn't mean a person. Perhaps they were originally all feminine or the non-humans became feminine by analogy to the first declension." CreationDate="2018-01-19T06:42:38.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11936" PostId="5852" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: It's possible! I was hoping for an answer like that. I would be inclined to suspect a conexion with the masculine suffix *-as*, though, but who knows? As to *traha*, you feel it's similar or related because it is derived from a plain verbal root and it ends on *-a*?" CreationDate="2018-01-19T16:25:15.427" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11902" PostId="5854" Score="3" Text="As Joonas says, it is correct as it stands, but usage does indeed depend on context. The participle _dolens_ would be better if it qualifies the subject of the sentence as in, for instance, _dolens dormire semper volo_, 'I always want to sleep when I'm in pain'." CreationDate="2018-01-14T15:57:08.847" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11916" PostId="5859" Score="1" Text="Oh, I see. I took ποιούμενος to be passive, not middle. I thought of it more as an adjective agreeing with the noun μνείαν  (i.e. &quot;a remembrance being made&quot;) instead of a middle verb taking a direct object (&quot;making for myself memory&quot;). I see how the Greek phrase μνείαν ποιούμενος is paraphrasing the sense of &quot;remembering&quot;. Interesting to learn that this is a common Greek construction. Thank you for your good answer!" CreationDate="2018-01-16T19:34:49.087" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11918" PostId="5859" Score="1" Text="μνείαν  is accusative sing., ποιούμενος is nominative sing., so they do not agree." CreationDate="2018-01-16T20:21:53.460" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="11919" PostId="5859" Score="1" Text="Right! I noticed that after your answer. But it escaped my attention before." CreationDate="2018-01-16T20:23:03.900" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="11920" PostId="5860" Score="0" Text="[habilitare](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/21813/habilito-habilitare-habilitavi-habilitatus) is medieval, but is a regular construction also" CreationDate="2018-01-17T16:51:41.223" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11921" PostId="5860" Score="1" Text="[potestatem](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=potestatem&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search) dare/accipere seems to me more idiomatic, but I'm far from convinced. It would need more research" CreationDate="2018-01-17T17:34:31.567" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11924" PostId="5860" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Those ideas sound possible, but I agree that more research is needed. I purposely did not put an era specification, as I suspected a more appropriate verb may be found in post-classical Latin." CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:39:59.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29341" PostId="5861" Score="1" Text="You could probably use *gladius eius* (literally &quot;the sword of her&quot;), but that does not convey femininity." CreationDate="2020-10-11T17:47:08.057" UserId="7473" />
  <row Id="28744" PostId="5864" Score="0" Text="*Fortis fortuna adiuvat*.  I'm surprised mine was the first upvote for this answer." CreationDate="2020-08-24T18:39:43.263" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="11923" PostId="5865" Score="0" Text="Thank you! The word &quot;facilitate&quot; had escaped me, but it is certainly appropriate in this context. I will add it to the question, too." CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:37:19.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29340" PostId="5866" Score="0" Text="I would leave off the 'nos' or at least move it somewhere else in the sentence. The s'es may get combined and start sounding like &quot;Ducatrici ensis non sumus&quot; &quot;We are not her sword.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-13T19:48:02.663" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="11961" PostId="5867" Score="2" Text="As I mentioned in my answer to your question about [Loki's name](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/q/1920) on the Mythology SE, the way you are using the term &quot;etymology&quot; in this question, although not invalid from certain points of view, is likely to be confusing and grating to people familar with the science of historical linguistics in its present-day form. People have (fairly successfully) struggled to rescue etymology from being a matter of subjective interpretations and irregular, intuitive, unfalsiable connections &quot;où les voyelles ne font rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.&quot;..." CreationDate="2018-01-22T20:59:31.867" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11962" PostId="5867" Score="2" Text="Because of this, if you want an answer based on literary analysis and consideration of wordplay in addition to (or instead of) accepted scientific principles of etymology (such as phonetic theory, the regularity of sound change, and the comparative method), I think it might be better to frame your question as primarily not about etymology, but about something like &quot;understood meaning&quot; or something like that. (The problem is that I doubt we have much ability to understand what the ancient Greeks would have thought, either; but maybe someone could give an educated guess.)" CreationDate="2018-01-22T21:01:20.447" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11963" PostId="5867" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I would say I'm definitely in the realm of mythopoesis and a narrative conception of language formation, and that is definitely, at best, alchemical (intersection of art and process.)  I'm going to have to do some more data mining on πένθος and πάθος, to support the idea that the type of pain in the former, when not used euphemistically, is in reference to extremity, mortal agony, as opposed to common suffering.  There's also the idea that many mythical names are compound words, which makes me wonder if the declined ending might be a permutation." CreationDate="2018-01-22T21:40:59.420" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11937" PostId="5869" Score="0" Text="This relationship of Zagreus/Dionysus and Pentheus/Dionysus is very well documented.  (I felt the links I included were sufficient, but as a supplement: [Zagreus] wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagreus), [Zagreus](http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Zagreus.html), the [*Bacchae*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bacchae) of Euripides, and Ovid [*Metamorphosis*, Book 3](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D3%3Acard%3D690).  Pentheus, like Dionysus, is torn, alive, limb from limb, and his flesh eaten bloody." CreationDate="2018-01-19T20:09:33.203" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11939" PostId="5869" Score="0" Text="So, while I don't necessarily disagree if we are talking πένθος (making the case for a divine aspect will require research into πέν, θ and εύς), we're talking about Πενθεύς.  I'm not entirely sure we can attribute the relationship merely to a brilliant wordplay insight by the Greek Dramatist regarded as the wisest of that triumvirate, as the story and name are almost certainly much older than 5th century Athens." CreationDate="2018-01-19T20:21:50.450" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11940" PostId="5869" Score="0" Text="This Greek myth extends into the Christian sacrament ([Dionysus sacrifice for humanity?](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/a/3257/2892)), and there is another Greek parallel in Pentheus' cousin, Actaeon, who is torn apart by his own hounds after offending Artemis.  Also worth regarding the relationship of πένθος to [πάθος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpa%2Fqos), which has a divine element (see &quot;passion&quot;), because it's a &quot;suffering of the soul&quot;." CreationDate="2018-01-19T20:23:18.987" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="11946" PostId="5872" Score="0" Text="[The TV comedy show Community made such a joke.](http://studyroomf.wikia.com/wiki/Greendale_Flag) I'm not sure if this is appropriate as a full answer though :p" CreationDate="2018-01-21T10:40:16.290" UserId="2340" />
  <row Id="11947" PostId="5872" Score="5" Text="Spoiler alert: I am a German, and the first time I heard that the U.S. motto is &quot;E pluribus unum&quot; was in a Jack Reacher novel about a money counterfeiting operation where $1 bills were &quot;laundered&quot; until they were blank paper, then had $100 printed on them, in an operation called &quot;ex unum pluribus&quot; (&quot;many [dollars] out of one&quot;) by the counterfeiters. (On a side note to this side note; to prevent this, every other currency uses bigger notes for higher denominations.)" CreationDate="2018-01-21T10:51:24.807" UserId="466" />
  <row Id="11966" PostId="5874" Score="0" Text="Great connection with Ovid's *Fasti*! So Ovid explicitly links Dido's sister with Anna Perenna, I had no idea. I get a feeling, though, that this might be folk etymology, as it was not uncommon in Antiquity. Ovid might have found it a pleasant idea to link the two women even though one was Semitic (Punic) and the other Latin (from *annus*) or from some other language (it is possible that a mythical woman had been connected by folk etymology to *annus* as well, whence *Anna Perenna*)." CreationDate="2018-01-23T01:58:55.607" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11967" PostId="5874" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus Yes, I think there is definitely a hint of folk etymology here too!  I keep coming back to this question because I feel I’m missing something.  My thoughts, in brief: factors in favour of Anna not being Punic/Semitic are the following: the name Dido isn’t Punic (her Punic name is Elissa) so perhaps neither is Anna; the absence of an H, when Hannibal is always spelt with one in Latin, could suggest that Anna is a complete name, in of itself; the apparent evidence of Anna Perenna as a deity indigenous to Italy, with a not-too-fantastical etymological link to _annus / annare_.  Yet ..." CreationDate="2018-01-23T04:07:52.887" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11968" PostId="5874" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus  Factors in favour of Anna being Semitic in origin include:  Augustine uses Anna for Hannah; Anna, in Virgil, is a Phoenician so why wouldn’t she have a Punic name?  To this end, Hannibal and Hanno are both unreservedly Punic names and the similarity with Hannah is obvious.  And indeed, they do all share the Semitic root ḥnn – to be(come) gracious (see: https://ahdictionary.com/word/semitic.html#%E1%B8%A5dd ) So, culturally and linguistically, it is entirely feasible that Anna is Hannah." CreationDate="2018-01-23T04:09:48.037" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11969" PostId="5874" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus (last one, I promise!) But why does the H drop off of Anna and not Hannibal, in Latin?  This perplexes me.  The ḥ in ḥnn is a guttural which we would expect to be transliterated as an aspirate H.  Strangely, in Greek sources, Hannibal and Hanno are Ἀννίβας and  Ἄννων respectively, with smooth breathing." CreationDate="2018-01-23T04:10:37.963" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11970" PostId="5874" Score="2" Text="Sorry, I just found this: Josephus writes Hannah as Ἄννα, with smooth breathing.  This could explain Anna in Latin but doesn't explain Hannibal!" CreationDate="2018-01-23T04:18:58.443" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="47384" PostId="5874" Score="0" Text="Random thought: perhaps Anna was taken by Virgil from some story in Greek literature (about a Punic women) now lost to us, while Hannibal and Hanno were directly taken from Punic by the Romans?" CreationDate="2024-01-25T23:17:22.060" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11945" PostId="5875" Score="0" Text="But doesn't the _pluribus_ refer to _hominibus_ or _gentibus_, for either of which _plures_ is correct in the reversed version?" CreationDate="2018-01-21T10:38:43.673" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11948" PostId="5875" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Good point! I don't know. I just read it simple-mindedly as &quot;from several things one thing&quot; or the other way around. I'll add some discussion of that to my answer." CreationDate="2018-01-21T13:27:09.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11949" PostId="5875" Score="0" Text="I now wonder what is the neuter _unum_ that comes from _pluribus_? This seems to go deeper than I would have believed!|" CreationDate="2018-01-21T16:31:03.803" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11950" PostId="5875" Score="4" Text="I've always taken the _pluribus_ to refer to the various states, and the _unum_ to be the confederation of them (The &quot;United States&quot;).  I don't think _unum_ stands for any definite neuter noun, just an abstraction, &quot;one thing/entity&quot;." CreationDate="2018-01-21T16:38:51.940" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11951" PostId="5875" Score="3" Text="This is really making me scratch my head. Words for 'state' are generally feminine, but the most sensible meaning for the original, neuter _unum_ seems to be _imperium_, in which case Joonas's suggestion of _plura_ is the more proper." CreationDate="2018-01-21T17:28:23.123" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11952" PostId="5875" Score="2" Text="As I understand it, the Founding Fathers looked to the Roman republic for inspiration in creating the new nation, but not to the later Roman empire, so calling the union a _res publica_ would have been congenial to them, but calling it an _imperium_ would not, with its echos of the British empire.  I'll still maintain that one should not look for any understood neuter noun for _unum_ to agree with, but to simply accept it as an abstract, &quot;one thing&quot;." CreationDate="2018-01-21T22:00:12.183" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11953" PostId="5875" Score="1" Text="@varro I think you are quite right. There's not really any option to what you suggest." CreationDate="2018-01-21T22:22:18.137" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="25739" PostId="5875" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton, I believe that the motto is an echo from Saint Augustine's *Confessions* 4.8.13, &quot;ex pluribus unum facere&quot;, where the first object of *facere* seems to be *animos* (minds or wills), which applies well to the nation. Or it might be *corda* (hearts), which works just as well. Other neuter possibilities (for the nation, not for Augustine), besides *corda*, might be *foedera* (covenants or pacts) or opera (works, a reference perhaps to the coepta of Virgil in *annuit coeptis*). Or, of course, it could just be &quot;one thing&quot; as varro says." CreationDate="2020-04-03T14:52:11.107" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="11960" PostId="5878" Score="3" Text="just a footnote to your statement above that &quot;We might also remember how little, if anything, Romans knew of the Jews before they began to accumulate their empire — which alone casts doubt on any connection with the name Hannah.&quot;  I don't think anyone would imagine that &quot;Anna&quot; is directly connected to *Hebrew* &quot;Hannah&quot;, but it's certainly reasonable that it's a genuine Punic name *cognate* with the Hebrew name.  In fact, that's what I'd always assumed, although now I am persuaded by Penelope's analysis." CreationDate="2018-01-22T20:30:00.113" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="11964" PostId="5878" Score="0" Text="The story of the old woman Anna from Bovillae is also in Ovid (_Fasti_, 3.667-696).  I was going to include it in my answer for similar reasons to yours but felt that my answer was getting too lengthy and decided in favour of the Dido-Anna story.  But you are absolutely right, the Bovillae-Anna story does indeed lend greater weight to our argument that the name Anna could possibly be Roman in origin (or at least, not _necessarily_ Semitic in origin)." CreationDate="2018-01-23T01:10:39.113" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11965" PostId="5878" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! I knew about Anna Perenna, but not about this myth." CreationDate="2018-01-23T01:57:38.240" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="11973" PostId="5879" Score="1" Text="Do [scientific names](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly#Taxonomy_and_phylogeny) count?" CreationDate="2018-01-23T18:47:28.940" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="11977" PostId="5879" Score="0" Text="@Rafael seems good!" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:56:39.277" UserId="2287" />
  <row Id="11979" PostId="5879" Score="3" Text="Do you have the actual citation for this use of _gloria_?  All references to butterflies that I can find in the corpus use only _papilio_ and so I wondered if your notes were perhaps a reference to some sort of metaphor, rather than an actual synonym for butterfly.  Phaedrus, for example, has a fable about a butterfly and a wasp which could conceivably be about former glory and/or boastfulness.  More explicitly, other, later authors would compare vain and proud people to butterflies." CreationDate="2018-01-24T01:57:49.797" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11986" PostId="5879" Score="0" Text="I checked around and it seems like I don't have anything listed regarding this - I am curious about the fable you mention though @Penelope" CreationDate="2018-01-26T00:33:49.343" UserId="2287" />
  <row Id="11988" PostId="5879" Score="1" Text="Here you go :) http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/oxford/199.htm" CreationDate="2018-01-26T02:36:46.313" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11974" PostId="5880" Score="5" Text="Warhammer games are the purest fantasy, and that also applies to the cod Latin terms that they use. You are right to call them untranslatable gibberish, and I commend the moderation of your language in doing so!" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:42:40.707" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11991" PostId="5880" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton: IIRC, Games Workshop devises this gibberish because it may be trademarked, whereas Latin phrases may not." CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:14:10.537" UserId="2274" />
  <row Id="12002" PostId="5880" Score="0" Text="Interesting, I had assumed that Adeptus Astartes had something to do with the goddess [Astarte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astarte) (Ishtar). Astartes would be a genitive singular form of her name." CreationDate="2018-01-26T21:42:20.427" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12045" PostId="5880" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Since &quot;adeptus astartes&quot; is supposedly Canis Latinicus for &quot;space marine,&quot; then &quot;astartes&quot; should be related to the Latin &quot;aster.&quot; Adding the suffix &quot;[-tas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-tas)&quot; is the only way it would have that form. Then somehow the last two vowels were transposed by mistake?" CreationDate="2018-01-29T13:56:58.260" UserId="2274" />
  <row Id="11980" PostId="5882" Score="1" Text="The following question is similar, although the answer doesn't seem to include all of the details that you are interested in like &quot;who&quot; and &quot;when&quot;: [Roman uses of diacritical marks](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1180)" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:25:01.240" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="11981" PostId="5882" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Yeah, I took a look at that question before posting. The accepted answer mentions long marks and diacritics and some tangential connection between the two, but doesn't really answer my specific question regarding the marking of long vowels." CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:31:21.567" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="11985" PostId="5883" Score="0" Text="I'm much inclined to accept _eminus_, ('not to hand' or 'at a distance'), but it's somehow not quite complete, if you see what I mean. Since asking, I have found _extra captum_ , _extra ictu_ and _ultra manu_, each of which might be useful, though I'm still uncertain. I've also thought of using _remotus_ in some way, but can't quite make it work any better than any of the alternatives." CreationDate="2018-01-25T19:38:21.557" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11989" PostId="5883" Score="1" Text="If you're willing to forego the metaphor, the verb _arceo_ means to keep at a distance, as when Horace says &quot;_Odi profanum vulgus et arceo_&quot;" CreationDate="2018-01-26T02:47:33.420" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11990" PostId="5883" Score="0" Text="@Penelope Thank you. I'm trying to translate '. . we rested our glasses at arm's length upon the table' (from 'Three Men in a Boat'), and _arceo_ looks adaptable to it. I think it would also suit the metaphor. Might you now convert it into an answer?" CreationDate="2018-01-26T15:44:39.010" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12005" PostId="5883" Score="0" Text="Done!  Such a funny book, 'Three Men in a Boat'.  Good luck with the translation." CreationDate="2018-01-27T02:42:55.393" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12046" PostId="5883" Score="0" Text="@Penelope Thank you. That's now a pretty complete survey. I'll mark it as accepted, I've actually settled for _ultra manu posuimus_ in the immediate instance; it's almost at the end of the book, and now I have to revise the whole thing!" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:26:02.210" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="11984" PostId="5884" Score="4" Text="I'm not sure if you had this in mind when posting your answer because it's not explicitly stated but I wanted to just highlight that _eminus_ comes from _ex_ + _manus_ and so might be quite a good match for the original metaphor 'at _arm's_ length'.  I only noticed this because I was researching idioms using _manus_ myself (not with much luck though!)" CreationDate="2018-01-25T02:04:05.883" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="11987" PostId="5887" Score="1" Text="it seems more and more likely that I must have been confused when writing Gloria in regards to butterflies, thanks for the mention about bees" CreationDate="2018-01-26T00:35:04.323" UserId="2287" />
  <row Id="12001" PostId="5890" Score="0" Text="You better buy the domain within 10 seconds of the answer being posted...." CreationDate="2018-01-26T20:58:31.960" UserId="2354" />
  <row Id="12007" PostId="5890" Score="1" Text="@Dan If I had a machine learning start-up in mind, I certainly would. But I think I'll have to pass... :) (Also, if the first answer is generated by [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), I'd be betting on the wrong horse.)" CreationDate="2018-01-27T04:21:54.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="11992" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="Why nominative *astēr* instead of genitive for Space Marine?" CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:24:31.640" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11993" PostId="5891" Score="1" Text="Also, while *telepathica* isn't native Latin, it's fairly transparently from Greek *tēl-* + *path-* + *-icos*; I'd think an educated Roman would recognize it as meaning &quot;distant-emotion-having&quot; (i.e. telepathic)." CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:25:51.880" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11994" PostId="5891" Score="1" Text="(That said, good answer; +1)" CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:25:57.940" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="11995" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Thanks, and good to know regarding *telepathica*. As for why I chose the nominative over the genitive in *astēr mīles*; I just felt that it matched the English noun phrase &quot;space marine&quot; better than something that would've translated as &quot;soldier of the stars&quot; or &quot;marine of space&quot;. I suppose it's just a matter of personal opinion there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:28:14.377" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="11996" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@EthanBierlein: IIRC English places adjectives before nouns, whereas Latin places adjectives after nouns. So would &quot;astēr mīles&quot; not mean &quot;star of the military&quot; instead?" CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:53:20.047" UserId="2274" />
  <row Id="11997" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: If I understand grammar correctly then the correct form would be *adeptum astrī tēlepāthicī* or &quot;adept of the star telepathic&quot;, I think? I honestly have no idea how you would translate the intended meaning &quot;adept of astrotelepathy.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-01-26T20:05:35.597" UserId="2274" />
  <row Id="11998" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@Anonymous Firstly: *adeptus, -a, -um* means *overtaken* or *obtained*, not &quot;adept&quot;, despite the similar appearance. A better adjective would be something like *perītus, -a, -um*, which means &quot;skilled&quot; or &quot;skillful&quot;." CreationDate="2018-01-26T20:20:22.930" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="11999" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@Anonymous Secondly: a better way of phrasing what is trying to be said would probably be &quot;[he is] adept/skilled *with* astrotelepathy&quot;, which would roughly translate as *[is est] perītus cum astrō tēlepāthicō*." CreationDate="2018-01-26T20:20:38.533" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="12003" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@EthanBierlein: your statement that the suitability of astēr mīles vs. something else is 'just a matter of personal opinion' isn't correct. In Latin, unlike English, you can't just stick two nouns in the same case together like this to form a compound noun phrase. Astēr mīles wouldn't literally mean 'star soldier,' as you claim: it would mean 'a star (and) a soldier.' 'Space marine' would have to be phrased as 'marine of space/the stars,' using either a noun in, e.g., the genitive (e.g., asterum/astrorum -- probably should be plural rather than singular) or an adjective (e.g., stellaris)." CreationDate="2018-01-26T21:57:21.227" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12004" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@cnread Noted. Will update answer." CreationDate="2018-01-26T21:58:36.490" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="12008" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure, but I got the impression that &quot;imperial guard&quot; is supposed to mean a group of people (cf. pretorian guard) as opposed to a single guard person. In that case I might suggest *cohors* instead of *custos*." CreationDate="2018-01-27T04:31:53.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12009" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Could be a possibility. When I was translating, however, I made the assumption that each of the names was referring to a role a single person could hold. I could easily be wrong though." CreationDate="2018-01-27T04:33:27.953" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="12042" PostId="5891" Score="0" Text="@EthanBierlein: The names are for organizations and government departments, not specific individual roles. Though they are often used that way too." CreationDate="2018-01-29T13:48:12.193" UserId="2274" />
  <row Id="12010" PostId="5893" Score="0" Text="This makes sense as an answer to me. The only thing I'm missing is a discussion of nuance or register. Do you have any ideas on what kind of urination/peeing/other this might mean? The tone or formality of the context would be a useful hint, for example. (To have anyone's answer turned into a comment to either the question or another answer, you can flag for moderation attention and tell what you want.)" CreationDate="2018-01-27T08:10:22.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12022" PostId="5897" Score="1" Text="Innominatus is exactly what I was looking for; for some reason it's missing in my paperback dictionary. I'm opting for cnread's answer because he keeps the &quot;enough/too much&quot; idea, but you have been very helpful as well. Thank you!" CreationDate="2018-01-28T09:49:20.537" UserId="2356" />
  <row Id="12014" PostId="5898" Score="0" Text="Can you tell us anything about the manuscript itself and/or the source of the photo?" CreationDate="2018-01-28T02:18:10.960" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12015" PostId="5898" Score="1" Text="If you're interested in reading the music, [this](http://www.dolmetsch.com/medieval.pdf) might help. Looks like it's in F-clef and composed mostly of &quot;longs&quot;." CreationDate="2018-01-28T03:16:13.180" UserId="2358" />
  <row Id="12016" PostId="5898" Score="0" Text="This was on display at Trinity College, Dublin, a friend sent me the photo, didn’t get more details though. I’ll have a go reading the music..." CreationDate="2018-01-28T03:33:53.410" UserId="2357" />
  <row Id="12020" PostId="5898" Score="2" Text="@Penelope, Yes, all my research kept taking me in the direction of [The Myroure of Our Ladye](https://books.google.com/books?id=WQ4IAwAAQBAJ) as well. Although I did find a recording of music from the order of St. Bridget, the invitatory on the recording was different (that is, the non-Psalm 94 bits were a different text)." CreationDate="2018-01-28T04:33:51.100" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12032" PostId="5898" Score="0" Text="@Penelope Can you post your comments as an answer? It would nicely complement the existing ones. Answering in a comment (especially as completely as you did) is against SE policy, and I am obligated to delete such comments. (I will give you some time though; this is not the fastest-paced site in the network.)" CreationDate="2018-01-28T21:22:44.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12033" PostId="5898" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm surprised by your interpretation of SE policy. On other SE sites, Penelope's valuable contribution would be deemed &quot;not an answer&quot; because it doesn't actually provide the requested transcription of the text." CreationDate="2018-01-28T23:17:42.097" UserId="2362" />
  <row Id="12034" PostId="5898" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Done.  I originally posted it as a comment for the same reasons Michael Kay gives - it doesn't actually answer the question but was more of an interesting aside.  I didn't realise there was a policy against doing that.  To be honest, I feel a little silly posting it as an answer because it clearly isn't one; people will think I haven't understood what was being asked :(" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:31:32.987" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12035" PostId="5898" Score="0" Text="@MichaelKay The transcript was already provided in another answer, but that answer was lacking in context. Providing such extra context would be a useful answer in my view. A partial answer, yes, but still an answer. I admit that my comment was written a little hastily, but the point is that significant contributions should rather be given in answers than comments. Comments can be cleaned out (by either local mods or SE staff (both do happen)), and comments are harder to find and interpret to outsiders." CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:35:11.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12036" PostId="5898" Score="0" Text="@Penelope My original comment didn't come across quite as well as intended... Your comments were in the direction of an answer, but I agree it's debatable whether they actually constitute one. We've been discussing methods to reduce answers given as comments, and I may have overshot here. I tend to view comments as something transient whose permanence should not be relied on, and my point was that your comment was too valuable information to be wasted. Sorry for making this complicated and being grumpy!" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:41:00.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12037" PostId="5898" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta No worries :)  This and your reply to Michael Kay explain the reasons well.  Perhaps I'll change my intro to the answer, making it clear that it's an adjunct to the previous answers." CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:49:56.910" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12021" PostId="5901" Score="0" Text="in your last suggestion, why did you put &quot;quam&quot; in the 3rd verse but not in the 2nd?" CreationDate="2018-01-28T09:46:40.303" UserId="2356" />
  <row Id="12023" PostId="5901" Score="0" Text="(Also, could you explain me why in+accusative? I thought the ablative was correct)" CreationDate="2018-01-28T09:56:38.310" UserId="2356" />
  <row Id="12025" PostId="5901" Score="0" Text="I should prefer for the first line _Ad perpetuam militis incognoti memoriam_. _Innominatus_ means 'never had a name', while _nomine non noti_ feels a bit clumsy." CreationDate="2018-01-28T16:00:11.807" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12030" PostId="5901" Score="0" Text="@Maldus. I think there was an issue when I copied and pasted the first suggestion to create the second. I've deleted the second for now, until I have a chance to take a closer look at it." CreationDate="2018-01-28T19:50:50.813" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12031" PostId="5901" Score="0" Text="@Maldus, *In* + accusative is the standard way of expressing this if one sets up a tomb or other monument, or does any other sort of dedicatory action, 'in someone's memory.' – for example, Suetonius, *Life of Caligula* 15.2: *at in memoriam patris Septembrem mensem Germanicum appellavit.*" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:03:30.523" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12026" PostId="5902" Score="1" Text="I recall reading both sciesne and scin, but at least one of them in a modern translation (I think Harrius Potter et  philosophi lapis.)" CreationDate="2018-01-28T17:48:21.033" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="43501" PostId="5903" Score="1" Text="I've seen &quot;dan=dasne?&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-10T00:42:43.450" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="12073" PostId="5904" Score="0" Text="The macron over the V doesn't seem to render well for me. Perhaps `V&amp;#772;` or `V&amp;#x304;` would be better? I don't know how others see all these characters. I just posted a solution to [the macron question](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2/79) that works with any letter." CreationDate="2018-02-02T16:04:05.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12038" PostId="5905" Score="1" Text="This is a fascinating question: what I thought would be an easy search has, so far, turned up no results. Part of the explanation is that *quo*, without a negative, strongly suggests either a comparative purpose clause or a correlate, e.g. *quo...eo* or *quo...hoc*. It takes a negative to reverse the assumption for me." CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:10:16.403" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12039" PostId="5905" Score="0" Text="Right? I had no idea I was stumbling onto a thorny question. I thought of it b/c I was composing in Latin and wanted to say, referring to the entirety of the last clause, X is easier than that. quo facilius X est. It makes logical sense, but maybe it's just not done." CreationDate="2018-01-29T05:47:35.243" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="12040" PostId="5907" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! It really solves the puzzle in an elegant fashion. It would be nice if you could provide a source for that feature of medieval grammar" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:20:21.783" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12041" PostId="5907" Score="0" Text="A quirk of medieval grammar—this might be the clue that finally sorts this out! Could the meaning be like English &quot;and because he was in a pitying and choosing state of mind when he saw Matthew&quot;? Can you point me to another example of Medieval Latin using the ablative in this way?" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:24:55.973" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12043" PostId="5907" Score="0" Text="Source added. I've seen it a lot with different verbs, since I read mostly late medieval and Renaissance Latin." CreationDate="2018-01-29T13:53:50.393" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="14450" PostId="5907" Score="0" Text="[How about](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6643/118) this as a literal English translation of Bede's sentence (clear though perhaps a little clumsy): &quot;And so Jesus saw a publican, and because when he saw him he pitied him, but he was also choosing [apostles], he said to him, 'Follow me'&quot;? And then this for Pope Francis's motto: &quot;pitying but also choosing [people to call to some higher mission than being pitiable]&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:46:12.410" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12058" PostId="5908" Score="0" Text="In addition to *scriba*, there is *traha*. It's not a person, but I thought it's morphologically the same." CreationDate="2018-01-30T14:47:16.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12065" PostId="5908" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta my dictionary (Castiglioni) says traha is feminine." CreationDate="2018-01-31T04:07:41.453" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12112" PostId="5908" Score="0" Text="Highly useful comparison of references! Would *Catilina* also be Etruscan? I think so? // I also wonder about the conexion with *-as* as mentioned in L&amp;S: *pārĭcīda; old collat. form of the nom. sing. PARICIDAS, Fragm. XII. Tab. ap. Fest. s. v. parrici, p. 221 Müll.* (added to my updated question above)." CreationDate="2018-02-11T01:14:22.980" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12044" PostId="5909" Score="1" Text="Thanks. This doesn't quite settle it for me, because the wording is ambiguous. &quot;used exclusively&quot; here can mean that, in negative relative sentences, it is the only acceptable form. You cannot use quam. I'm reading it this way b/c that exact rule is in other grammars." CreationDate="2018-01-29T13:56:47.493" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="12051" PostId="5909" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey. Sorry, I don't see the ambiguity; can you explain? The 2nd clause of the rule states that if the sentence is both negative and relative, only the ablative is used, never quam; and the 1st clause states that if the sentence is negative but non-relative, either quam or ablative can be used (and the ablative is 'very common'). What's taken as granted here, of course, is that either quam or ablative can also be used in any non-negative sentence (either relative or non-relative). Certainly this conforms to my own experience from reading Latin." CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:31:16.853" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12052" PostId="5909" Score="0" Text="OK, I agree with that. I thought you were reading G&amp;L as requiring a negative in order to use the relative pronoun. &#xA;&quot;What's taken as granted here, of course, is that either quam or ablative can also be used in any non-negative sentence (either relative or non-relative).&quot;&#xA;&#xA;This is what I'm challenging. I can't find any examples a relative pronoun being used apart from a negative, when the pronoun precedes the term of comparison. I can find plenty examples of _quo nihil optatius_, but none of _quo optatius_, in which _quo_ is functioning as a comparative." CreationDate="2018-01-29T23:20:01.060" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="12056" PostId="5909" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey. Ah, I see. I'm updating my answer with 2 examples, just from Cicero, of non-negative relative sentences that use the ablative." CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:45:04.660" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12057" PostId="5909" Score="0" Text="@cnread Great find! It's interesting because the *quid*, like a negative, immediately eliminates the possibility of a comparative purpose clause or a quo...eo construction." CreationDate="2018-01-30T13:48:50.603" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12059" PostId="5909" Score="2" Text="@brianpck, Good point. It's also interesting that the use of ablative in non-neg. rel. sentences seems to be largely (or perhaps exclusively) confined to interrogative sentences; and if you look at my the two examples, at least, they're both 'virtually negative' – Cicero is really saying 'quo nihil miserius, nihil acerbius, nihil luctuosius,' and 'quo nihil...gravius.' So, getting back to the original question, the construction actually does, in a way, seem to be reserved for negatives. That overlap or affinity of negatives and interrogatives would be worthy of separate investigation, I think." CreationDate="2018-01-30T18:11:42.640" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12047" PostId="5910" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I'm not too fond of *auto-* with a Latin verb, but with the Greek stem it looks very good. Based on your suggestions, I am tempted to call the whole field of machine learning *[ars] autodidactica machinata*. A self-taught machine could well be *machina autodidacta* as you mention. // Regarding the first paragraph: I just wanted to make sure that no user tries to give me a direct translation, but rather tries to express the idea in Latin, and so I elaborated on the idea and desired tone. The English phrase is not perfect, and neither will a Latin one be." CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:48:53.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12049" PostId="5910" Score="0" Text="I thought about _ars autodidactica_, but I'm not sure the adjectival construction allows more than two words, e.g., ars grammatica graeca. In order for there to be a three-word phrase, I think you need a genitive construction. Even there, I don't think _machinata_ works; it means &quot;designed,&quot; which is where we get the word machine, a designed object. _Mechanica_ is the closest adjective, but its semantic range is quite broad. &#xA;&#xA;Really, if you wanted (which, I think you don't) a phrase that leaves intact the ambiguity of the English, the best is probably mechanica disciplina." CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:42:24.160" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="12050" PostId="5910" Score="1" Text="I agree, *machinata* is not good. The word I was after is *machinalis*. The *ars* can be left out, and the title *grammatica Graeca* is not uncommon. I modeled my idea of *autodidactica machinalis* on that. *Mechanica* is an option, but I'm a little afraid of the mechanical (instead of digital) connotations. Whatever I end up choosing (I'm in no hurry with it), your ideas are very useful." CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:25:09.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12048" PostId="5911" Score="2" Text="This is not related to your answer itself (which did earn my vote), but I just wanted to say that I'm very happy to see a new knowledgeable user like you find their way to our site. I hope you will find the site both useful and interesting! If you have any questions or ideas, or you just feel like chatting in or about Latin, you are more than welcome to our [chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm)." CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:57:16.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47610" PostId="5912" Score="0" Text="I have no answer. I am attempting to put into English the definition on my family crest, &quot; Virtutis Amore &quot;. I have found everything very interesting. Thank you." CreationDate="2024-02-26T06:13:18.903" UserId="14800" />
  <row Id="12054" PostId="5913" Score="0" Text="@Zanolon I'm glad to be able to help! I hope you'll stick around and ask more questions (and take a look at our [tour] if you haven't yet)." CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:47:43.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12055" PostId="5913" Score="1" Text="Thanks so much. I'm really not great at latin so I assume I'll be making frequent stops by. ^_^" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:50:39.980" UserId="2368" />
  <row Id="12063" PostId="5915" Score="0" Text="Are you the famous TLL lexicographer?" CreationDate="2018-01-30T22:55:15.023" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14085" PostId="5916" Score="0" Text="A belated thank you for this reference! Very interesting, so the name has a history in Roman literature in that very context." CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:06:58.173" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30484" PostId="5917" Score="0" Text="Me pænitet tuum responsum non legisse cum proposuisti! [Subsequentem quæstionem](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15264/118) nunc propono." CreationDate="2021-01-18T18:35:33.947" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12060" PostId="5918" Score="4" Text="Can you give some of the examples here to make the answer more concrete? Also: Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2018-01-30T19:11:24.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12061" PostId="5919" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I took the liberty to make small polishing edits. Can you elaborate a bit on what you want to mean by those phrases? A literal translation is not always possible, so it's good to know what you actually want to say. Those three are pretty clear, but if there are any tones or connotations you want to have or avoid, please edit that into your question." CreationDate="2018-01-30T21:32:32.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12062" PostId="5919" Score="0" Text="I guess the tone I’m going for is saying it as being independent &amp; strong if that’s what you’re asking. I want the saying to represent me as I like to solve things and like to save myself, and be independent without help from others!" CreationDate="2018-01-30T21:37:25.967" UserId="2373" />
  <row Id="12066" PostId="5920" Score="0" Text="Why not [vado](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvado1) instead of eo? I think it sounds better and is closer in meaning to the original." CreationDate="2018-01-31T18:23:10.283" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12067" PostId="5920" Score="0" Text="@ Rafael I'm not sure that _solus vado_ sounds any better than _solus eo_, though it would also be correct — but each to his own taste, I suppose!" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:00:56.940" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12081" PostId="5921" Score="1" Text="If you're looking to translate &quot;I'm a sinner&quot; into Latin, consider &quot;Peccator sum&quot; or &quot;Sum peccator&quot;. Making &quot;ego&quot; explicit adds emphasis: &quot;Ego sum peccator&quot;. If you really want to grovel, &quot;Peccator sum, Domine, peccator sum ego.&quot; If you google for any of these phrases, you'll find examples of their real usage." CreationDate="2018-02-03T05:59:42.307" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12069" PostId="5922" Score="4" Text="Just a minor addition. By itself, _ego peccator_ means &quot;I am a sinner.&quot; If you saw this in a sentence, it would probably be concessive or imply some other logical relationship. Ego peccator te Domine invoco. &quot;I, though a sinner, call upon you, Lord.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-02-01T16:58:45.367" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="12070" PostId="5922" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Good point! I added a paragraph to mention the effect of context." CreationDate="2018-02-01T17:07:50.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12075" PostId="5932" Score="0" Text="See Rafael's comments to the question above. If *formare* can mean &quot;to mould&quot;, it's role in the process becomes clearer." CreationDate="2018-02-02T16:17:07.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12076" PostId="5932" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Quite possibly! Perhaps that could be added as a separate answer?" CreationDate="2018-02-02T17:35:13.690" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12078" PostId="5935" Score="0" Text="Thank you! It is indeed possible that there is no such thing in extant classical literature. We will know more once others have voted, answered, and commented." CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:08:10.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12079" PostId="5936" Score="0" Text="Good point! The &quot;level&quot; of the relationship can be anything. The closest classical analogue may well be for married or engaged couples." CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:21:33.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12082" PostId="5937" Score="0" Text="@Hugh not quite, see update. I assume that would apply to joining P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 50-54, right? They were found together and apart from the rest of P.Oxy. 1231." CreationDate="2018-02-03T10:58:18.960" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="12083" PostId="5940" Score="0" Text="I agree. As it stands, it looks to me like gibberish — so incomplete that it isn't worth wasting time in speculation." CreationDate="2018-02-03T17:39:51.537" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12084" PostId="5941" Score="1" Text="So it justifies joining fragments because... why? I mean, the fact they are found together plus the cost of the material implies that the fragments must be joined? Why? There may have been much more papyris that was totally lost, as far as we can say, so it doesn't sound like a solid justification to me... Well, in the case of P.GC. where the fragments were cartonnage, one could say that, on grounds of economy, a single roll was used, and then discuss the placement of the fragments, would this principle be used as (part of the) justification for joining P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 50-54 or..." CreationDate="2018-02-03T20:04:48.673" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="12085" PostId="5941" Score="0" Text="... were those joined only because the 2166(a) scraps overlapped significantly and joined to each other on grounds of &quot;convincing supplements&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-02-03T20:05:40.257" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="12088" PostId="5941" Score="0" Text="@MickG Please re-read it again - I changed my answer to make it clearer to you. Also, your post was about the principle, not about how it was specifically applied in a particular case." CreationDate="2018-02-04T03:38:02.323" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12090" PostId="5941" Score="1" Text="Nice Catullus too. Pity it had to go." CreationDate="2018-02-04T17:08:49.503" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="12096" PostId="5941" Score="0" Text="@MickG can you please unselect my answer as correct? I want to make significant changes." CreationDate="2018-02-06T14:24:17.317" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12091" PostId="5943" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for your response. This is very helpful, and I appreciate the thought and time you put into this." CreationDate="2018-02-04T17:09:29.670" UserId="2387" />
  <row Id="12092" PostId="5943" Score="0" Text="@lobsterhands I'm glad to be able to help! I hope you will stick around, take a look at our [tour], and ask more Latin questions. I know you can't vote yet (at 15 points you can), but I hope you will accept an answer to show what worked best for you. It doesn't have to be mine; others may have better recommendations coming your way." CreationDate="2018-02-04T17:13:11.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12093" PostId="5943" Score="2" Text="Seneca _de beneficiis_ ii, 26 has (in an obvious context) _sui suspectus_ for self-respect. Elsewhere, _reverentia_ or _observantia_ is used instead of _suspectus_,." CreationDate="2018-02-04T17:28:09.433" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12097" PostId="5949" Score="0" Text="Note to self (and to whoever reads this and doesn't know what poem Sappho 44 is): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sappho_44." CreationDate="2018-02-07T08:02:57.660" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="12098" PostId="5953" Score="0" Text="Have you seen the question [&quot;How to find scholarly articles related to Latin?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1515/79)? It looks pretty similar, but I'm not sure if it's an exact duplicate. Can you elaborate on where your question stands in relation to the other one?" CreationDate="2018-02-07T19:24:36.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12099" PostId="5953" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I think it actually yields the same results I was trying to achieve. Weird, I thought I had checked the suggested articles." CreationDate="2018-02-07T19:37:55.610" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="12100" PostId="5953" Score="0" Text="No worries! The correct questions are not always easy to find. To make it easier to future users, I marked this question as a duplicate of the earlier one, so that anyone who manages to find this will automatically find the answers. (If you really want this deleted, it's possible, but I would consider it more useful to keep around as a pointer.)" CreationDate="2018-02-07T19:55:59.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12101" PostId="5953" Score="0" Text="That is fine. No need to delete it then." CreationDate="2018-02-07T22:32:08.460" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="12102" PostId="5953" Score="0" Text="What changes in Latin are you researching?" CreationDate="2018-02-08T04:23:09.827" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12103" PostId="5953" Score="0" Text="The disappearance of cases in the fifth and sixth century AD in 3 regions: mauretania caesariensis, hispania citerior and latium et campania. This was done by analysing inscription from that time period. Now we have been asked to back up some the changes we found with some literature, but the other question was really helpful and we actually have completed it by now." CreationDate="2018-02-08T06:45:18.353" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="12104" PostId="5955" Score="2" Text="These are indeed the best authorities one could hope for! I am also glad to be reminded that it is not only *socius*, but also *socia*." CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:49:10.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14012" PostId="5955" Score="0" Text="On the title page of the 1687 edition of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, he is called 'Societatis Regalis Sodali(s)'. This would mean he was a 'mere member' of the Royal Society, if there was a difference between sodalis and socius in the Royal Society." CreationDate="2018-05-04T21:58:36.117" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14025" PostId="5955" Score="1" Text="@Jasper May It seems too much to compare the Royal Society's usage at its founding to the modern nomenclature of Fellow and Member. In Newton's day the organisation was so small, and the idea of the RS so novel, that the need for the distinction might not have yet arisen." CreationDate="2018-05-05T09:21:12.333" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12106" PostId="5956" Score="0" Text="Cuisine is just a fancy word for prepared food. Why not simply _cibus Nepalanus_?" CreationDate="2018-02-09T15:11:02.550" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12107" PostId="5956" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton That is a good option. Can you post that as an answer, so that people can vote and we find a popular favourite?" CreationDate="2018-02-09T15:17:20.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12109" PostId="5958" Score="0" Text="... as indeed of French cuisine, which has the same two meanings. The Romance etymological dictionaries derive these not directly from coquina, but from &quot;low&quot; Latin cucina." CreationDate="2018-02-09T18:45:20.040" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12110" PostId="5958" Score="0" Text="@fdb And even German Küche has both meanings, for what it's worth." CreationDate="2018-02-09T21:31:28.603" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12111" PostId="5958" Score="0" Text="And Dutch *keuken*." CreationDate="2018-02-09T22:31:36.060" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12114" PostId="5960" Score="0" Text="I'll make a more thorough answer later, but I especially enjoyed the *Fastī*." CreationDate="2018-02-11T17:47:40.900" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12113" PostId="5961" Score="0" Text="&quot;because I cannot find a tidy definition anywhere&quot; - I encountered the same problem. I've even looked it up in Martin West *Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique*  - the principle of economy is not even mentioned there, at least under this name, and we can't ask him directly because he passed way a couple of years ago." CreationDate="2018-02-11T16:45:39.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12115" PostId="5961" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. It's so frustrating! I think we may be spending as much time deciphering this as scholars have spent deciphering the Sappho fragments! I'm glad you've reinstated your answers - no need for economy here; the more food for thought the better :) And +1 for the _Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique_ reference. I have to admit I didn't know of it until now." CreationDate="2018-02-12T00:42:54.217" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12116" PostId="5963" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This reminds me of [an earlier question about *angulus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1932/79), and it turned out it was not a diminutive. This might be the case for *oculus* too. I don't know what the answer to this one is, but I am eager to see." CreationDate="2018-02-12T01:54:14.187" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12117" PostId="5963" Score="1" Text="The *-c-* is part of the PIE root; compare Russian *око*, German *Auge*, etc. But I'm not sure where the *-ul-* comes from, and it certainly does look diminutive." CreationDate="2018-02-12T02:16:39.263" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12118" PostId="5965" Score="0" Text="Are there other Latin words from the same PIE root?" CreationDate="2018-02-12T10:19:16.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12119" PostId="5965" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. My understanding is that antiquus is also from this root ('seen before'), but that etymology may be controversial." CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:58:06.087" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12120" PostId="5965" Score="0" Text="I was curious, so [I asked a separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5968/79). Anyway, I am intrigued by this seemingly diminutive suffix having an instrumental function. It never occurred to me, despite the (to me very) familiar example of *pendulum*." CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:14:32.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12123" PostId="5970" Score="1" Text="Interesting! It never occurred to me that it might appear as a suffix. *Omen* sounds semantically reasonable, too." CreationDate="2018-02-13T08:30:18.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12144" PostId="5974" Score="1" Text="I like this a lot, especially in its relationship to _parapluie_ and its contrast with _parasol_. But following the example of both _parapluie_ and _parasol_, I wonder if _parapluvia_ would be a closer rendition, as _pluvia_ is the substantive rain (as is _pluie_ and _sol_), from the adjective _pluvius_? On reflection though, _parapluvium_ does sound nice, certainly nicer than _parapluvia_, and euphony is as good a guide to word formation as any, I guess :)" CreationDate="2018-02-15T02:04:31.993" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12145" PostId="5974" Score="2" Text="@Penelope I've wrestled with this one for years, on and off. Looking at some old notes I see that I did indeed begin with _parapluvia_, but was uncomfortable with it. I adopted a correspondent's suggestion for the neuter form, because it (a) was used in _tempus pluvium_ and (b) was more euphonious, as you say." CreationDate="2018-02-15T06:56:29.117" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14566" PostId="5974" Score="1" Text="An aside: in Spanish is _paraguas_, from para+agua, stop water. What do you mean nobody has ever objected?" CreationDate="2018-06-21T14:07:39.547" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14569" PostId="5974" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I mean just that! You'd be surprised at some of the things in my translations that people choose to cavil at — but _parapluvium_ isn't one of them." CreationDate="2018-06-21T14:46:34.300" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12127" PostId="5975" Score="3" Text="Could you try to rephrase this question so that it doesn't require having the book? One option would be just to put the sample sentences and translations here." CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:49:54.680" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12129" PostId="5976" Score="0" Text="Liddell Hart (in fact not a general officer, but a captain) indeed makes a good and very readable comparison, but what does it have to do with the question?" CreationDate="2018-02-14T15:03:48.730" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12130" PostId="5976" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton. The cited exercise book implies that Scipio is to the ancient world as Napoleon is to the modern world. Thus, the one can be “translated” as the other. My answer drew attention to a (once) famous example of this analogy." CreationDate="2018-02-14T15:17:18.550" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12132" PostId="5976" Score="0" Text="So this is not a mistake by the publishers of N&amp;H?" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:40:40.530" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="12135" PostId="5976" Score="0" Text="@tony. I was referring to the book by Liddell Hart." CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:52:12.543" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12137" PostId="5976" Score="0" Text="@fdb Instead using of the Latinized personal name (e.g. _Napoleonis_) that I would have expected, the N/H key has _Scipionis_. Certainly the implication that you propose is there, but it seems to me a rather strange, indeed bizarre and unnecessary substitution in such a manual! Anyway thank you:, you do us all a favour by reminding us of Liddell Hart's justly lauded opus." CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:19:54.760" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12128" PostId="5977" Score="1" Text="Do you happen to have any sources to back this up, especially Lupercalia as a lover's holiday and the connection between Lupercalia and Valentine's day? [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day#Lupercalia) argues strongly against such a connection. There seems to be conflicting information out there, so sources would be great." CreationDate="2018-02-14T14:24:43.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12134" PostId="5977" Score="0" Text="General knowledge accumulated; but, of course, open to debate/ myths &amp; legends/ half-truths. Cynics would opine that Wiki could be viewed in the same light. (I've always found it useful)." CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:48:14.597" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="12136" PostId="5977" Score="0" Text="Wikipedia is not that reliable either. It does have citations, but the very fact that it attacks an opinion is evidence that the opinion (you present) is also widely known. Both your answer and Wikipedia are useful. I don't know which one to trust, so my instinct is to distrust both. (Citing personal general knowledge as a source earns my upvote. Of course it's not the best scientific source, but it's honest. It's good to know what the sources are, no matter how fishy.)" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:07:10.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12148" PostId="5977" Score="0" Text="I'll draw what comfort I can from this. As always, who knows, who can prove? It's plausible; it's a good yarn; but, the truth??" CreationDate="2018-02-15T17:20:41.313" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="12149" PostId="5977" Score="0" Text="Robert Graves claimed that the spirit of Claudius wrote the books through him (Graves). That takes some believing! But, then, given the detail; the erudition; the powerful pro-Claudius narrative--who knows?" CreationDate="2018-02-15T17:24:41.130" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="12138" PostId="5978" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a remarkably good translation for using Google Translate, seeing as the aforementioned Google service is notorious for improper translation. I think you are fine with what you have, though some other people might have different insights." CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:49:44.833" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="12139" PostId="5978" Score="0" Text="Thanks. As I said, I didn't just blindly accept the first thing Google spat out. I have enough experience with French and Spanish to know that Google is a bit shaky on things it hadn't seen before. Actually the breakthrough came when I asked it to translate 'gauls are people' which seemed more likely to be in its memory-banks!" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:52:01.943" UserId="2402" />
  <row Id="12146" PostId="5979" Score="3" Text="I'm more familiar with older (XII and XIII c.) paleography: I'm tempted to transcribe &quot;Iohann**is** de Herzelles &lt;et?&gt; **aliarum sedium** Cappellany,&quot; but I'm not sure if you could refer to an academic &quot;chair&quot; in that way at that time. Is the MS available online? The next pages might give further clues." CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:01:34.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12154" PostId="5979" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the suggestion. The MS is unfortunately not available online. The description is [here](http://bilder.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/hs/katalogseiten/HSK0036_b019_JPG.htm).  The rest of the MS is composed of medicinal, plague texts, astrological texts, a culinary text, and a health regimen which he compiled for his household's use. There is a small amount of Latin but the texts are mostly vernacular (Picard). The main questions are: (1) is this guy a chaplain? (2) could it be two people (e.g. Iohannis and a chaplain)? (3) could a chaplaincy be described as a chair?" CreationDate="2018-02-16T15:38:56.327" UserId="2403" />
  <row Id="12158" PostId="5979" Score="4" Text="Actually, it is available online: https://orka.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/viewer/image/1297331763218/1/" CreationDate="2018-02-17T02:30:06.097" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="12140" PostId="5980" Score="0" Text="Interesting that it is _elephas_ instead of _elephantus_, I just trusted it was the latter!" CreationDate="2018-02-14T18:11:27.303" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="12141" PostId="5980" Score="1" Text="Either exist, as well as a poetic alternative, Luca bos https://greekinitaly.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/two-latin-words-for-elephant Not at all what I was expecting to be learning today!" CreationDate="2018-02-14T18:16:04.883" UserId="2402" />
  <row Id="12142" PostId="5980" Score="0" Text="@JamieBull Interesting! The *Luca bos* variant is a completely new one to me. I made a slight edit to my answer; if you pick the singular nominative *elephantus*, then your original suggestion is correct, but I find *elephas* more proper as it is a more direct loan from the Greek original." CreationDate="2018-02-14T18:51:56.407" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12147" PostId="5984" Score="1" Text="Are you sure you can use *studeo* + acc. for a person?" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:58:00.363" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12150" PostId="5984" Score="0" Text="@brianpck In a word, yes. The dative in the Catullus is governed by _placere_. Smith gives several examples." CreationDate="2018-02-15T17:48:43.713" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12151" PostId="5984" Score="2" Text="I don't have Smith available: could you give an example? L&amp;S says that *studeo* + acc is &quot;mostly with neuter pronouns and adjectives&quot; and that it &quot;very rarely&quot; has a noun definite object, citing two examples that use *res*. All the examples with persons are genitive (&quot;studeo tui&quot;) or dative (&quot;studeo tibi&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-02-15T19:27:19.357" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12181" PostId="5984" Score="1" Text="@brianpck As it happens, none of Smith's examples is a noun, except for _res_, but unlike the much later L&amp;S (which allows that an acc. is rare) he made no comment on this. Well, thank you: we learn something every day, and I'll change the answer." CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:44:01.540" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12152" PostId="5985" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! This question looks promising, but more context would help: (1) What do you mean by Pigasus? The pig that ran for president or something else? (2) Where do you want to use it? In some contexts transliteration like you suggest is good, in others there might be better options. (3) What kind of Greek do you want it in (modern, old, other)? I've understood that in modern Greek eta and iota are pronounced the same, so the pun might be lost." CreationDate="2018-02-16T09:35:54.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12160" PostId="5985" Score="0" Text="Support the creation of a Greek language stackexchange by committing to it here: https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language?referrer=VB_DyRh7yEWzfFj03568GA2" CreationDate="2018-02-17T17:17:44.870" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="12185" PostId="5985" Score="0" Text="I will do so..." CreationDate="2018-02-20T19:34:12.470" UserId="2406" />
  <row Id="12153" PostId="5987" Score="0" Text="This matches my intuition. I don't think I was ever taught this rule of thumb, but I just picked it up subconsciously. It would be great to see if there is harder evidence (corpus analysis, mention by a grammarian, or something) or more nuance." CreationDate="2018-02-16T13:45:16.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12165" PostId="5995" Score="0" Text="συστοιχία sounds good.  I suspect the etymology is similar to that of 'battery'." CreationDate="2018-02-18T15:09:02.793" UserId="1051" />
  <row Id="12166" PostId="5995" Score="0" Text="@Toothrot Edited the answer with some etymological notes." CreationDate="2018-02-18T17:39:14.147" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="12168" PostId="5995" Score="0" Text="Doesn't it seem that συστοιχία was first used of batteries with the etymology of _battery_ in mind?" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:05:33.493" UserId="1051" />
  <row Id="12169" PostId="5995" Score="0" Text="@Toothrot Yes, it definitely seems so. I’ve added a final remark to my answer." CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:16:23.543" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="12195" PostId="5995" Score="0" Text="συστοιχια is ancient" CreationDate="2018-02-21T14:14:17.170" UserId="1051" />
  <row Id="12170" PostId="5996" Score="0" Text="This is very interesting! Of course there have always been different registers, but I didn't know that the idea of political correctness is so young." CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:33:57.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12178" PostId="5996" Score="0" Text="I'm highly skeptical of this argument. Do you have any evidence for this strong coupling of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the advent of &quot;political correctness&quot;? It takes a lot less than a strong &quot;language shapes reality&quot; thesis to inspire a (well-intentioned or not) push not to &quot;speak certain ways about certain people.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-02-20T02:56:19.123" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12171" PostId="5998" Score="0" Text="If the verb is used for undeleting instead of being undeleted (the subject being a user, not a post), shouldn't it be *revertere* instead of *reverti*?" CreationDate="2018-02-19T15:50:40.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12173" PostId="5998" Score="0" Text="I thought it was mainly used as a deponens and not in the formally active forms." CreationDate="2018-02-19T15:59:40.350" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="12175" PostId="5998" Score="1" Text="Hmm... It's possible, but it sounds a little weird at first. Comparing *revertere* and *reverti* calls for a follow-up question. Whichever form is preferred for this use, I agree that this is a good verb." CreationDate="2018-02-19T16:06:11.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12313" PostId="5998" Score="0" Text="The answer to my [follow-up question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6007/79) indicates that *reverti* is intransitive, so it can't be used to for undeleting a post on a SE site. It is a good verb for the post being undeleted, though." CreationDate="2018-03-04T20:28:35.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12177" PostId="6000" Score="2" Text="The question was not about the five (or so) cases in Latin, but the five different declensions (classes of nouns or other words).You make a valid point, but I'm not sure how it's related to the question. Can you elaborate?" CreationDate="2018-02-19T19:46:03.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12183" PostId="6001" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I made some edits to your question in an attempt to clarify it. I may have misinterpreted something, so (and in any case) feel free to undo my edits or edit further. While you wait for an answer, I recommend taking a look at our [tour]." CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:05:40.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12182" PostId="6002" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Greg! Would a direct translation of &quot;the first day&quot; be sufficient for your purposes? If not, can you elaborate on what direction it should be taken into?" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:55:37.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12188" PostId="6002" Score="0" Text="&quot;the first day&quot; is sufficient.   Can you kindly advise of the translation?" CreationDate="2018-02-20T21:44:39.063" UserId="2417" />
  <row Id="12190" PostId="6002" Score="0" Text="Adrian Keister's answer gives precisely that, including an example sentence." CreationDate="2018-02-20T22:06:39.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12186" PostId="6003" Score="1" Text="Joonas you are such a wonderful human. Thank you for you assistance in this, and especially for going to the effort to explain it through a little bit :)" CreationDate="2018-02-20T20:47:57.377" UserId="2416" />
  <row Id="20088" PostId="6004" Score="0" Text="It might have been &quot;day one&quot; in the Hebrew original, but if this is so, this translation of Jerome's testifies to the fact that he failed to understand the original. What the Latin means is &quot;in the evening and in the morning it was made one and the same day&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-11T18:30:22.303" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20092" PostId="6004" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian. Read the whole chapter: day one ...day two....day three...." CreationDate="2019-06-11T22:26:17.270" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20106" PostId="6004" Score="0" Text="So are you in essence contending that in Jerome's idiolect, the ordinal series &quot;prīmus, secundus, tertius&quot; was instead &quot;ūnus, secundus, tertius&quot;? That is not incredible, but to prove that this isn't one of the plentiful translation artifacts (not to use the terms &quot;translationese&quot; or &quot;gibberish&quot;) in that book, one would have to provide some evidence that this was the case for some other speakers too. I'd be very interested.&#xA;Or do you mean he switches from cardinal to ordinal? This does seem to happen in modern Italian, but in that language &quot;giorno uno&quot; doesn't already mean &quot;one day&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-12T12:26:13.983" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20110" PostId="6004" Score="0" Text="I have made this a bit too simple. Hebrew, Greek, and Latin all have “day one/one day”, but then “second day”, “third day” etc. The Vulgata is following the older versions literally. @Unbrutal_Russian" CreationDate="2019-06-12T14:03:25.343" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20112" PostId="6004" Score="0" Text="The most straight-forward translation for וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יֹום אֶחָד is “and there was an evening and there was a morning: day one” and it was understood thus by the KJV. But since Hebrew does not have any cases (the Semitic case system having been lost in Hebrew) one could theoretically interpret ʻereb and boqer as adverbials and translate “and it was in the evening and it was in the morning: one day”. This is how Jerome chose to understand it." CreationDate="2019-06-12T14:13:14.587" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20132" PostId="6004" Score="0" Text="Well, then you agree that not only does *diēs ūnus* not mean &quot;day one, i.e. the first day, the beginning&quot; in normal Latin™, but that Jerome himself didn't intend it to mean this?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T19:45:22.937" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="12202" PostId="6007" Score="0" Text="Castiglioni-Mariotti: &quot;In gener. le forme attive si trovano  al perf. e tempi derivati; le dep. al pres., imperf., fut.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-02-22T05:36:02.290" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12204" PostId="6007" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Quella sarebbe una buona risposta. Vuoi scriverla?" CreationDate="2018-02-22T10:52:19.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12194" PostId="6009" Score="4" Text="AFAIK, the inverse of plagiarism was much more preeminent in Roman times ... to publish something under the name of an already famous author that he didn't write." CreationDate="2018-02-21T10:54:46.110" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="12196" PostId="6011" Score="0" Text="This is great! I had no idea the word itself was that old. (To break a row in a quote or elsewhere, just end the line in the editor with two spaces. Click &quot;edit&quot; to see what I did.)" CreationDate="2018-02-21T16:25:36.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12197" PostId="6011" Score="0" Text="Plagiarius in the sense &quot;plunderer&quot; goes back at least to Cicero. I wonder whether it was in fact Martial who coined the modern meaning." CreationDate="2018-02-21T21:53:13.463" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12198" PostId="6011" Score="0" Text="Finding out whether this passage or Martial in general is the origin of plagiarism (with a related word) in the modern modern sense is certainly worth a follow-up question. This rabbit hole is much more deep and interesting than I anticipated..." CreationDate="2018-02-21T22:03:21.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12199" PostId="6012" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a relatively broad question, but a very interesting one. Do you want a quick overview of the influences Greek had on Latin, or do you want to focus on a specific area like grammar? You can ask several separate questions, but it can be good to wait a little between them so you have the chance to learn from previous answers before asking new questions." CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:43:50.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12201" PostId="6012" Score="0" Text="A quick overview of the list of influences and quick overview of those known influences. Let me rephrase the question, and I probably will break it up into different questions. Thank you!" CreationDate="2018-02-22T01:57:37.583" UserId="2422" />
  <row Id="12209" PostId="6015" Score="1" Text="Since “Aithiop-” starts with a vowel, wouldn’t it be possible for “mis-“ to be used instead of “miso-“? (“misaethiopidy”, like “misanthropy” and “misandry”)" CreationDate="2018-02-23T01:34:14.127" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="12210" PostId="6015" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. Good point." CreationDate="2018-02-23T10:14:22.400" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12207" PostId="6016" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton You're welcome!" CreationDate="2018-02-22T12:04:29.763" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12211" PostId="6019" Score="0" Text="Wonderful! Would you agree, though, that it *has* to be read with a rough-breathing in order for this reading to be acceptable? My primary problem was that the *apparatus criticus* of the OCT I was using did not even mention this alternative." CreationDate="2018-02-23T13:04:50.003" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12212" PostId="6019" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Ah, I see your problem - sorry I didn't address it!  I'll need a little time to formulate an answer but hopefully can report back later today." CreationDate="2018-02-23T23:21:30.370" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12213" PostId="6019" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I posted a whole new answer that I hope engages more directly with your question!" CreationDate="2018-02-24T04:21:04.017" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12214" PostId="6021" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I addition, the entry seems to say &quot;intr[ansitive]&quot;. That with the description of deponency makes a very complete answer." CreationDate="2018-02-24T10:19:34.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12215" PostId="6022" Score="0" Text="It’s also available online (subscription required) http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin" CreationDate="2018-02-24T17:15:55.227" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12222" PostId="6022" Score="1" Text="@AlexB.: Ah, good to know. Too bad it's ridiculously expensive. One day of access for €12,50? And no doubt in large part funded by public money. (It's easy to find the PDF online.) But I'll put it in my answer." CreationDate="2018-02-24T23:24:35.130" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12223" PostId="6022" Score="0" Text="Well, it is rather expensive but you get full access to **all** the etymological dictionaries published by Brill, with a wide range of search options. I recommend accessing it via an institution." CreationDate="2018-02-25T05:35:25.123" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12224" PostId="6022" Score="0" Text="Another important note. As De Vaan himself says in the Introduction, this dictionary is &quot;**not a complete etymological dictionary of Latin**. Its main aim ­­is to describe which roots and stems of the vocabulary of Latin and the other Italic languages are likely to have been inherited from Proto‑Indo‑European&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.]." CreationDate="2018-02-25T05:44:50.147" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12225" PostId="6022" Score="1" Text="There seems to be [a paperback edition](http://www.brill.com/products/reference-work/etymological-dictionary-latin) for a quarter of the price. I don't know if there are any differences in content." CreationDate="2018-02-25T11:20:27.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12226" PostId="6022" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Ah, that is a huge difference! How odd." CreationDate="2018-02-25T13:14:19.030" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12227" PostId="6022" Score="1" Text="No difference in content. I own it. There’s also a paperback edition of Beekes in 2 volumes." CreationDate="2018-02-25T13:54:23.647" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12234" PostId="6027" Score="3" Text="Hmm, difficult to resist such a challenge!  But this is already such a good answer, my efforts may be in vain ;)" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:14:10.823" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12230" PostId="6029" Score="1" Text="Pliny the Elder, Natural History, XXXV–VI, and Vitruvius, De Architectura, VII." CreationDate="2018-02-25T21:24:36.423" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12231" PostId="6029" Score="3" Text="I also recommend this website http://buntegoetter.liebieghaus.de/en" CreationDate="2018-02-25T21:29:26.563" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12228" PostId="6030" Score="2" Text="Sadly, there was such a myth. Neudecker writes that “ The discussion whether ancient sculpture was coloured or not ultimately went back to the arbitrary separation of sculpture and painting. **According to 19th cent. understanding, sculpture had to stand out through its lack of colour and remain white**” (New Pauly)." CreationDate="2018-02-25T20:43:46.850" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12229" PostId="6030" Score="1" Text="Nadia Koch adds that &quot;**Study of polychromy began at the beginning of the 19th cent.**, when the discovery of polychromy in Greek architecture and sculpture gave rise to a new aesthetic paradigm&quot; [emphasis mine - A.B.]." CreationDate="2018-02-25T20:53:43.130" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12232" PostId="6030" Score="3" Text="@ Alex B. Why not submit a proper answer?" CreationDate="2018-02-25T22:03:35.163" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12239" PostId="6036" Score="0" Text="Non sure, but I suspect you need a workaround to say both _evaluate_ and _function_ in proper scientific Latin. A quick lookup in the _principia_ gave lots of _equatio_, _inveniri_, _computatio_, etc. in places evaluate and function would have fitted." CreationDate="2018-02-27T12:46:43.830" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12241" PostId="6036" Score="2" Text="@Rafael That would depend on your definition of proper scientific Latin. Perhaps I should have made it clearer in the answer (I'll edit), but I'm aiming for something that would feel natural to a modern scientist who happens to know Latin, leaving classical or otherwise high style as a secondary goal. Newton's language might feel a little awkward in today's use. Gauss doesn't seem to shy away from *functio*, so I wouldn't either." CreationDate="2018-02-27T12:58:49.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12242" PostId="6036" Score="1" Text="Allright. By scientific Latin I meant broadly which was used in science at the time it was the language of science. I'm no expert in it at all, and spoke out of intuition only. I'm actually relieved to know Gauss used _functio_!" CreationDate="2018-02-27T13:37:57.273" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12243" PostId="6036" Score="1" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta Looking at it slightly differently, I would use something like _vim_ or _significationem_ with _subducere_, 'drawing out the force / significance'. Might not this better represent the meaning — and in classical Latin?" CreationDate="2018-02-27T15:36:01.567" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12244" PostId="6036" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton *Vim subducere* sounds like a good classical way to put it. However, I would not use such a phrase in technical use when a derivative like *valorare* is available. The problem is partly the ambiguity of terms, since *vis* and *subducere* could mean so many other things. It might have the correct meaning, but perhaps not the convenience of use. The best translation of &quot;evaluate&quot; depends very heavily on the exact goal, much more than with everyday language. Cicero might indeed translate &quot;value&quot; as *vis*, but I would not. I admit to being strongly biased as a modern mathematician." CreationDate="2018-02-27T15:47:34.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12247" PostId="6036" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta I agree completely, which is why I offered just a comment, rather than an answer!" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:48:43.290" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12235" PostId="6039" Score="1" Text="+1! When I started writing my answer, I thought you'd be working on yours. And I guessed correctly that you'd take a different approach. :) I hope the different wordings of the same idea are useful..." CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:57:43.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12236" PostId="6039" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, what would you call the English pronoun &quot;it&quot; as opposed to a demonstrative pronoun (if you are making such an opposition)?" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:59:11.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12237" PostId="6039" Score="1" Text="I *think* it would be called (paradoxically) a personal pronoun, but I'm not sure." CreationDate="2018-02-26T21:30:17.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12238" PostId="6039" Score="0" Text="That would make sense. It is syntactically practically a personal pronoun, much like a neuter counterpart to &quot;he&quot; and &quot;she&quot;." CreationDate="2018-02-26T21:35:34.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12240" PostId="6040" Score="0" Text="Possible lead for a Post-classical alternative: I think in the Old Testament the name of Moses is commanded to be erased from Egiptian history by the Pharaoh, but I don't know if it is elaborated as a properly named concept" CreationDate="2018-02-27T12:49:32.273" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12254" PostId="6041" Score="0" Text="Do you have any more specific questions/doubts about your translation?" CreationDate="2018-02-28T15:06:41.980" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12255" PostId="6041" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I edited question." CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:50:09.307" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="12248" PostId="6042" Score="1" Text="The knowledge that it was spherical predates Classical Latin, though I'm not sure how widespread it was. I wonder when the oldest attestations of *orbis terrārum* are…" CreationDate="2018-02-28T05:12:27.737" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12252" PostId="6042" Score="0" Text="Even if not, _orbis_ could refer to the celestial sphere, since _terrarum_ is genitive" CreationDate="2018-02-28T12:27:55.193" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12253" PostId="6042" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Orbis terrarum (or terrae) was used by Cicero." CreationDate="2018-02-28T14:51:52.583" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12256" PostId="6042" Score="2" Text="@fdb True, but isn't Cicero just about the epitome of Classical? Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth around 240 BC, so the idea of a spherical earth must have been fairly widespread by that point. And Plato said it was a sphere significantly earlier." CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:36:06.500" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12258" PostId="6042" Score="1" Text="@Draconis. Everyone knew that the earth is a sphere. I did not wish to imply anything other." CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:23:23.740" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12257" PostId="6046" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! It's always nice to see fellow mathematicians here. Would it make sense to ask three separate questions, one for each section? I think they are answerable separately and would be easier to handle one by one." CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:18:26.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12261" PostId="6046" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta: Hi Joonas, thanks! I'm happy to split up the questions if you think it'd be best, but I thought that since all come from the same source, it could be useful for translators to keep the context and flow of ideas in mind. (There are in fact 7 sections, not 3, but I've only had the time to attempt the first few.)" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:26:00.907" UserId="2439" />
  <row Id="12262" PostId="6046" Score="1" Text="I think it'd be best to split. The current question is a bit long. If each question has a link to the other two, I don't think context will be lost. It might make sense to tag them as [tag:translation-check] since you already have good guesses. (These are just my opinions, though.)" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:34:41.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12263" PostId="6046" Score="0" Text="Great, I'll follow your advice!" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:36:21.957" UserId="2439" />
  <row Id="12279" PostId="6046" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta: I'm a little surprised there have been no answers. I know this isn't MSE, where a simple question would be answered in less than a minute, but can you suggest a reason for the neglect? I don't think it's that the Latin is very hard, but then I don't really know Latin." CreationDate="2018-03-01T16:19:38.010" UserId="2439" />
  <row Id="12282" PostId="6046" Score="0" Text="This site can be a little slow. I don't think this question has been neglected; it can take a day or two to get a good answer. The score is good too, so I see no hostility. I gave you a quick answer. I can add more details later if you want, but now I have a plane to board." CreationDate="2018-03-01T17:05:13.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12283" PostId="6046" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your feedback! I didn't mean to goad *you* into answering, but I appreciate it!" CreationDate="2018-03-01T18:01:46.043" UserId="2439" />
  <row Id="12292" PostId="6046" Score="0" Text="I didn't take it that way. :) After the edit it was a clear and concise question, and I happened to have a moment to give some feedback. I'm glad to be able to help!" CreationDate="2018-03-02T19:48:18.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12272" PostId="6047" Score="0" Text="I think you mean future *active* participle? // I believe forms like *daturus erat* are possible. There is also the subjunctive, *daturus sit*. // Present participles can be used with auxiliaries when the participle is felt to be like an adjective, I believe. // *Habere* + p.p.p. is also possible, although, in classical Latin, most would not call it an actual periphrastic tense, but rather a special construction." CreationDate="2018-03-01T01:32:07.300" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12273" PostId="6047" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Ah, no, I'm thinking of *Carthago delenda est* with the passive. Though the rest of those would make a good answer!" CreationDate="2018-03-01T02:01:51.610" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12274" PostId="6047" Score="0" Text="Ah, I would call that a grundive!" CreationDate="2018-03-01T02:23:49.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12276" PostId="6047" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus True; I was taught that the gerundive was also effectively a passive participle, so the gerundive of obligation construction was a form of periphrastic. Do you think it belongs with the others?" CreationDate="2018-03-01T04:40:53.287" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12284" PostId="6047" Score="0" Text="Hmm perhaps it depends on one's definition of periphrasis? But it is at least a very similar construction, so why not!" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:21:16.200" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26268" PostId="6047" Score="0" Text="As brianpck wrote in his comment on this question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2978/can-esse-be-used-with-a-present-participle/2979), the Vulgate is full of examples of active present participle + esse, likely influenced by Greek." CreationDate="2020-05-10T23:48:14.663" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="12260" PostId="6048" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your answer! I didn't want to say that beautiful shape is the result of taking care of quality of the material used. It was more of a description without causability implied. At least I didn't plan to imply it with my sentence. It is true however that I am not English native speaker." CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:44:25.680" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="12264" PostId="6050" Score="0" Text="No, &quot;liber&quot; does mean book, &quot;libertus&quot; references to a freedman and &quot;libertas&quot; is freedom. And what do you mean by The Prince's Book, is it a book about a prince or a book by a prince or what?" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:05:41.660" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="12265" PostId="6050" Score="0" Text="@tox123 Thanks for the quick reply! It is suppose to be a sort of journal/diary to put is simply, so the context would be &quot;by&quot;, as in, it is his property. And sorry, libro and liber were really confusing me." CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:25:25.630" UserId="2440" />
  <row Id="12281" PostId="6050" Score="0" Text="Now that you have passed 15 reputation points, you can vote on any questions and answers on the site you like. Please have a look around and vote what you like! If you have trouble accessing your account, you can create (and register) a new one and ask a moderator to merge the two. We'll be glad to see more questions from you! :)" CreationDate="2018-03-01T16:43:08.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12266" PostId="6051" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the reply! I already answered above what the context was.&#xA;&#xA;So I'm guessing the best way of putting it would be &quot;Principis Liber&quot;, correct?" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:29:33.660" UserId="2440" />
  <row Id="12269" PostId="6051" Score="0" Text="Sorry, this is my first time posting and didn't know. I updated my notes to &quot;Liber Principis&quot;, I misread something. I'm really grateful for the help, this is really, really useful! Thank you so much! @sumelic" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:46:40.317" UserId="2440" />
  <row Id="12270" PostId="6051" Score="0" Text="@VeryAmateurWriter: No problem. Welcome to the site! I looked around and found another post about word order that seems relevant: [Why might “Philosophiae Doctor” (the source of “Ph.D.”) have been preferred over “Doctor Philosophiae”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/103) The answer says either genitive + noun or noun + genitive is a natural choice for Classical Latin; I wonder if the preference I have for noun + genitive may be influenced by my exposure to scientific Latin terminology, which makes much less use of free word order." CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:48:25.337" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="12277" PostId="6056" Score="0" Text="A little too strongly worded: Livy uses *regulus*, but Tacitus (according to L&amp;S) is more than happy to use *princeps* for &quot;heir.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-01T14:42:49.850" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12278" PostId="6056" Score="2" Text="@brianpck. I don't really think that is what he means with principes iuventutis.Have a look at the context." CreationDate="2018-03-01T14:52:26.880" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12286" PostId="6056" Score="0" Text="Yeah, you're right on that passage. I'm still not entirely sure of the negative claim, but it could just be my prejudice as an English speaker!" CreationDate="2018-03-02T03:55:28.057" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12289" PostId="6060" Score="1" Text="+1 but, isn't also possible to read _diminutus_ working as an adjective? (And hence explain the reference to verb omission?)" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:15:47.790" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12290" PostId="6060" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Just a matter of style. Without an auxiliary verb, it is effectively an adjective. Doesn't any participle, in effect, have all the properties of an adjective?" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:40:19.850" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12293" PostId="6060" Score="2" Text="@Rafael I think verb omission here means the omission of a verb in a personal form, not a full omission. I would read *deminutus* as a participle belonging to the pluperfect with implicit *esset* as Tom did. (The analogy to English is a good observation here! The omission of auxiliary verbs is not unique to Latin.)" CreationDate="2018-03-02T20:00:40.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12295" PostId="6061" Score="3" Text="+1 for your counter-argument to point 4.  This was exactly my experience and it was frustrating, to say the least." CreationDate="2018-03-03T01:42:26.457" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12296" PostId="6061" Score="2" Text="Thank you, that was illuminating. I think you've about covered all arguments for or against. My own opinion right now is that beginner programs should include them, but I'm also fine with more advanced programs leaving them out." CreationDate="2018-03-03T03:01:42.167" UserId="2418" />
  <row Id="12299" PostId="6061" Score="2" Text="@AdrianKeister I added one more point (7). I strongly disagree with it, but I wanted to have it in for the sake of completeness. I agree with you, but in my opinion even in advanced programs macrons should be used when teaching morphology and vocabulary. In texts the students can reconstruct the macrons, but it's impossible when seeing a new word or form." CreationDate="2018-03-03T11:28:54.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14119" PostId="6061" Score="0" Text="So far in my learning I just cannot see the relevance of macrons, and I think point 7 is the strongest element of all, namely, that to read Latin texts these are not needed. Maybe I'm too pessimistic but I have no prospects of speaking Latin with anyone, being little to no interest on it in my country. I am still yet to see (and a post about that would be very interesting) strong reasons why one should spend resources on learning them, if they are not even mentioned in most of the Latin's beginners material I've seen." CreationDate="2018-05-09T12:46:59.980" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14121" PostId="6061" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I have yet to see beginners' material in Finland without macrons. I assume there are big cultural differences there. At least I want to be able to pronounce what I see, and if I don't know vowel lengths I can't really pronounce (which might be a symptom of speaking Finnish), and I don't consider learning quantity to be a significant effort. And if you ever read poetry, quantity is going to be important. But I can understand well where you're coming from. Learning quantities it not important to all. It depends on our goals." CreationDate="2018-05-09T15:02:56.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14123" PostId="6061" Score="0" Text="To be honest, I would love to speak Latin properly, and hence learn about pronunciation rules (e.g. macrons), but I think my (current, perhaps uninformed or unoptimal) approach is more on the practical side of matters, which is to become capable of reading and understanding Latin texts. This can surely change in the future. For instance, I struggle to understand Gregorian chant lyrics (although that might be due to inherent difficulties in chant) so maybe learning about pronunciation might improve this understanding." CreationDate="2018-05-09T15:13:54.660" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="12333" PostId="6063" Score="1" Text="... have you heard of Troy ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Schliemann" CreationDate="2018-03-05T21:34:32.317" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="12334" PostId="6063" Score="0" Text="@blagae The city of Troy actually crossed my mind, but I didn't know or quickly find any concrete way literature helped. An answer about that city would be very welcome." CreationDate="2018-03-05T23:40:32.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12301" PostId="6064" Score="2" Text="There is already a [question about &quot;website&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5573/79). Would it make sense to narrow this one down to just web pages?" CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:31:12.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12302" PostId="6064" Score="1" Text="Vicipaedia uses _pagina_ to describe a page on their website. I did just some minor searching and I am a bit surprised that there is no accepted term for a website already..." CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:57:16.717" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="12304" PostId="6064" Score="0" Text="@jpyams How you choose to redefine the question is your call. Webpage, internet, net, web, and many other words make good questions, but I wouldn't lump them all together." CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:46:33.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12306" PostId="6064" Score="0" Text="Immediate thoughts are &quot;tela&quot; and &quot;interreta&quot; but I don't remember where those are from" CreationDate="2018-03-03T22:17:04.267" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12309" PostId="6066" Score="0" Text="Hello, and welcome to the site! Could you please provide more context as to why you need these translated? Also, it is part of the site guidelines that you provide evidence of self-translation. We would love to help, but we are not just translators! Again, welcome to the site, and I hope you find that for which you are looking." CreationDate="2018-03-04T04:39:19.770" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="12310" PostId="6066" Score="0" Text="These are from a novel written in my native language. This is a fantasy novel with a fictional world, in which there's a language, which isn't elaborated IRL but it has some &quot;Latin-sounding&quot; words, e.g. in the in-world versions of the mentioned sentences. I'm just curious how they sound in the real Latin. I translated these sentences from my native language to English, only for this reason. Sorry for the confusing description." CreationDate="2018-03-04T06:27:30.050" UserId="2443" />
  <row Id="12311" PostId="6068" Score="0" Text="Not really relevant to an answer, but I was trying to pronounce _Gallia_ without the &quot;i-glide&quot; as that source calls it, and I was having some issues! You almost need a glottal stop there to prevent the sounds from just meshing together in that way. That may just be my native accent, but it certainly wasted a minute of my time looking like an idiot saying _Gallia_ out loud over and over again!" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:40:30.943" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="12331" PostId="6068" Score="1" Text="Similar: [How was “VV” pronounced?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5201)" CreationDate="2018-03-05T18:28:36.217" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="12316" PostId="6069" Score="2" Text="There was a vogue some years ago for the abbreviation 'ttt', to be used instead of 'www', though I believe it came to nothing. It stood for either _tela totius telluris_ or _tela totius terrae_, according to your fancy." CreationDate="2018-03-04T22:31:00.317" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12317" PostId="6069" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I think I was taught at some point that the world wide web and the internet were two different things, so I do not know if ttt and interrete synonyms exactly." CreationDate="2018-03-05T03:04:01.647" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="12320" PostId="6069" Score="0" Text="@Sam K Both 'www' and 'ttt' mean(t) 'world wide web'. We all seem to use 'web' and 'net' interchangeably nowadays as shorthand for 'internet' and, if there really be a technical distinction, I have the impression that it's disappeared among lay users.  I used to call my own, long-defunct website a _locus intextus_, which was posted on the _interrete_." CreationDate="2018-03-05T06:35:49.400" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12322" PostId="6069" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton: I know the abbreviation *ttt* from Esperanto, there it means *tut-tera teksaĵo* (a very similar idea to the Latin one you quote)" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:30:14.077" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="12335" PostId="6069" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Perhaps it is just a technical distinction then. I like both terms, so I guess I was just trying to find a way to preserve them both! If you want to go down that technical rabbit hole, here are the Wikipedia articles on them: [Internet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) &amp; [World Wide Web](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web)..." CreationDate="2018-03-05T23:44:14.927" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="12336" PostId="6069" Score="0" Text="@Sam K 'Technical rabbit hole' — I do like that: all a Wonderland!" CreationDate="2018-03-06T06:45:31.927" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12321" PostId="6070" Score="3" Text="Yes. Isn't &quot;and elsewhere&quot; simple enough modern English? Maybe &quot;and other places&quot; feels more natural." CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:25:09.123" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="12323" PostId="6070" Score="0" Text="@jknappen Yes, I understand what &quot;and other places&quot; (or &quot;and elsewhere&quot;) mean. But, it's not so easy to understand it in the context of the provided example. There is some book (Papiers d'État de Granvelle) and there is a letter published in this book. It could be assumed, that this letter is located on the page 454 of this book. But, how to understand &quot;p. 454, et alibi&quot; here? It doesn't make sense for me. As well as &quot;p. 454, and other places&quot; doesn't make sense either." CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:46:19.103" UserId="2445" />
  <row Id="12325" PostId="6070" Score="2" Text="@jknappen, jsv, I think that is exactly what the author meant, &quot;p. 454, and other places&quot; (other pages, other letters). If you read it in context, the footnote is supporting the idea in the sentence &quot;The prospects the ministers hold out to him in return are anything but encouraging&quot;. The idea being supported in this letter and other places of the same book (Papiers d'État...)" CreationDate="2018-03-05T12:51:10.837" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12326" PostId="6071" Score="0" Text="Brian, thank you very much. I will wait a bit more before approving, to make this question more visible. There are some things, which are not completely clear for me. Due to the size, I will post them as separate numbered comments." CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:52:27.757" UserId="2445" />
  <row Id="12327" PostId="6071" Score="0" Text="#1. You write: &quot;This is usually done when one citation is sufficient to make a scholarly point, but you want to emphasize that this is not the only time it occurs.&quot; Did you mean that we can use **any** of 3 mentioned above Latinisms to solve this task?" CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:52:36.020" UserId="2445" />
  <row Id="12328" PostId="6071" Score="0" Text="#2. Is there any difference in the meaning between _et passim_ (&quot;and scattered about&quot;) and _et alibi, passim_ (&quot;and other places, scattered about&quot;)? From my point of view, there is no real difference, but the second is easier to understand." CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:52:42.500" UserId="2445" />
  <row Id="12329" PostId="6071" Score="0" Text="#3. Bottom line, as it looks for me: When we talk about geograpical locations, it would be better to use _et alibi_. When we talk about citations, it would be better to use _et passim_ or _et alibi, passim_." CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:52:59.657" UserId="2445" />
  <row Id="12330" PostId="6071" Score="0" Text="@jsv All three seem to have the same meaning, but I've only encountered one (*et passim*) in current scholarship. I think the meaning is the same, but you should only use that one." CreationDate="2018-03-05T15:20:59.340" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12337" PostId="6073" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! I appreciate that you provided a good source!" CreationDate="2018-03-06T07:51:17.110" UserId="2446" />
  <row Id="12342" PostId="6075" Score="3" Text="'The best wise works usurp the true taking of life for everyone.' That's the best sense I can make out of it, although even then it's shaky. What did you mean to say?" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:41:43.270" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="19847" PostId="6075" Score="0" Text="This question is unlikely to be salvaged, as it is unclear what the OP wanted to say, and s/he is evidently not coming back. Hence my request to be closed." CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:30:45.707" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19914" PostId="6075" Score="0" Text="Can you please add the intended original meaning to your question? I have put the question on hold, but it can be reopened it if you edit to clarify." CreationDate="2019-05-25T23:11:11.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12340" PostId="6076" Score="2" Text="Iirc *ipsus* is attested in older Latin. But I don't think *_illus_ or *_istus_ are." CreationDate="2018-03-07T04:26:46.037" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12351" PostId="6076" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I checked PHI and indeed *ipsus* is attested, also classically, but *illus* and *istus* aren't. I updated the question." CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:19:18.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12379" PostId="6076" Score="0" Text="*olle* and *ollus* are attested in old Latin for *ille*, if I am not mistaken. In general, a connection to voc. looks rather doubtful. The *se* and *te* reflexes are very transparent; and IIRC there is a relation of &quot;distance&quot; of demonst. to the grammatical person in many PIE daughter languages (this = near me, that (far) = near him, that (near) = near you = *is* + *te*)." CreationDate="2018-03-12T05:12:54.860" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="12381" PostId="6076" Score="0" Text="@kkm I agree, they are unlikely to be directly connected to vocatives. But still the question remains: why not *-us*? The old attestations are interesting, as it makes it seem like the ending has changed." CreationDate="2018-03-12T09:53:22.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12386" PostId="6076" Score="0" Text="@kkm, Joonas, what if -e is derived from/has a common ancestor with the adverbial ending instead?" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:54:58.763" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12387" PostId="6076" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I can't rule that out, but one would have to explain why the adverbial *-e* is long while the vocative/pronoun *-e* is short." CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:02:26.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12388" PostId="6076" Score="0" Text="Alas, quantity. That's the problem one gets when not learning classical from the beginning" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:08:09.137" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12341" PostId="6077" Score="1" Text="It could be a little more complicated than that (cf. parum) and then we have Appedix Probi with avus, flavus, rivus - ais, flaus, rius (see Niederman)." CreationDate="2018-03-07T14:14:07.723" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12354" PostId="6078" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. The problem is that this &quot;s&quot; is not mobile. It is always there." CreationDate="2018-03-09T11:20:58.083" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12357" PostId="6078" Score="3" Text="Mea culpa, not Beekes'! Same link, [Pre-Greek Loanwords in Greek](http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/greek): &quot;15. **A σ occurs both word‑initially and between vowels, where it has disappeared in most inherited words.** Initial: σάρυττα, σαγύριον, σάναπτιν, σάνδαλον, σαρρυφθεῖν, σεκούα, σιβύνη, σίγυμνον. Intervocalic: ἀγασυλλίς, ἄγχουσα (ἔγχ‑), αἴθουσ(σ)α, αἱμασιά, αἴσακος, ἄλεισον, δρόσος. After resonant: ἄλσος, βάλσαμον, γελσόν, γένσιμος, μάρσιππος (-υππος).&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-09T22:02:19.463" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12343" PostId="6081" Score="1" Text="Pliny uses *insomnia*" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:31:03.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12344" PostId="6081" Score="0" Text="I'd say it's another term. A person may want to sleep but have no time/possibility to do that, for example, due to lifestyle. Or did he mean this state as well?" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:55:36.600" UserId="2452" />
  <row Id="12345" PostId="6081" Score="1" Text="Ah, so you're looking for cases when it's not a medical cause but a lifestyle one (e.g. someone staying up all night writing)? In that case I'd probably go with *vigilia*, which means &quot;not sleeping&quot; but is used e.g. for guards standing watch." CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:57:57.330" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12346" PostId="6082" Score="1" Text="This is exactly was I was looking for! ...though I'm a little disappointed that &quot;gibbous&quot; has such a clunky equivalent (*in orbem insinuata*)." CreationDate="2018-03-07T21:48:48.083" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12347" PostId="6085" Score="1" Text="Tom, thank you very much for that answer - its perfect. Having the Latin title of Animal Farm to uses as a reference to cite to curious friends is a fantastic bonus too. I note you are the author of that and other books, which is just amazing to me, so we'll put a little acknowledgement on our sign of your authorship." CreationDate="2018-03-08T07:32:30.427" UserId="2984" />
  <row Id="12348" PostId="6086" Score="1" Text="Good answer! Are there other examples of initial #sV coming from each of these methods?" CreationDate="2018-03-08T17:44:42.497" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12393" PostId="6086" Score="0" Text="Of ξύν, Wiktionary says &quot;-υ- &lt; *-o- is expected, but -σ- &lt; *-s- and -σ- &lt; *-ξ- are not&quot;. I don't have enough knowledge of Proto-Greek to say, but is *ks- &gt; *s- a regular sound change?" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:49:18.000" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40388" PostId="6086" Score="1" Text="@Draconis *ks- &gt; s- does not seem to be regular; there are a couple of other sporadic cases (ξίρις~σίρις, ξύλον~σύλον) but usually PIE *ks- seems to remain unchanged. That said, there aren't that many words in ξ- with secure etymologies." CreationDate="2022-11-04T21:10:11.407" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="12355" PostId="6087" Score="0" Text="I think the paper by Stöwer (linked by you) gives a very good answer." CreationDate="2018-03-09T11:31:32.097" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12349" PostId="6088" Score="1" Text="Thx, helpful.  It's so strange to read the paleography book from 1912 using this term just en passant. Makes me wonder if &quot;What did the Romans call a *stilus plumbeus*?&quot; another question." CreationDate="2018-03-08T22:05:01.087" UserId="2072" />
  <row Id="12350" PostId="6088" Score="2" Text="@LangLangC That sounds like a good idea for a follow-up question. But first wait a day or two in case someone has more to say on this one. (It's not clear that the Romans would have a word for it in the first place; knowing a phenomenon doesn't imply naming it. But the lack of a name would also constitute an answer, so the question makes sense anyway.)" CreationDate="2018-03-08T22:43:50.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12353" PostId="6089" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Have you seen [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/957/79) for self-study material for Latin? If you think your inquiry is answered by that one, we can mark this as duplicate to make it easier to find. If not, please specify how this is different. The linked question also contains a banner about resource requests; please read it. Our policy is that broad resource requests should be proposed on [meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) before asking, but sufficiently narrow requests are fine without such formalities." CreationDate="2018-03-09T10:18:50.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15200" PostId="6089" Score="0" Text="This question has been closed as a duplicate of another one, but it can be reopened if edited. I hope the linked question gives you what you need!" CreationDate="2018-08-13T15:33:01.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12358" PostId="6092" Score="0" Text="This seems interesting, but unfortunately I don't speak French." CreationDate="2018-03-09T23:08:44.767" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12360" PostId="6092" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Basically, it says that it is possible that in some words *sw might have been preserved (i.e. we end up with PIE *sw &gt; Greek s), we could posit a connection between Greek σέλας and Sanskrit svargáḥ 'heaven'; however, because the origin of the Greek words that start with σ- followed by a vowel remains obscure and the connections are not particularly convincing, Lejeune concludes by saying that such words are probably loans ('emprunts')." CreationDate="2018-03-09T23:37:15.390" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12361" PostId="6092" Score="0" Text="Interesting! Mind adding that to the answer?" CreationDate="2018-03-09T23:53:03.133" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12363" PostId="6092" Score="2" Text="I agree with Sihler that Greek s &lt; sw is without parallel. Besides, there is the semantic difficulty of the proposed shift of meaning from “sun” to “moon”. The Greek descendant of *swel-nā seems to be εἵλη “warmth of the sun”. The same root (IE *swel-) is also the source of Avestan xvarənah- according to Almut Hintze, Der Zamyād Yašt, pp. 28-33 (with detailed discussion of other proposals)." CreationDate="2018-03-10T12:23:19.403" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12392" PostId="6092" Score="1" Text="@fdb and Alex B. That's some excellent information which I wasn't previously aware of! Mind adding all of that into the answer? (I'm not sure of the etiquette in editing answers to your own question.)" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:47:14.490" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40383" PostId="6092" Score="1" Text="@Draconis feel free to add or modify anything I write as you deem necessary, it's fine with me" CreationDate="2022-11-04T18:12:11.580" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="40389" PostId="6092" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Other words beginning with sw- in PIE end up as h- in Greek, e.g. *swād- &quot;sweet&quot; to Greek ἡδύς (and the epichoric variants don't include s- anywhere). I wonder if there are exceptions to that, though." CreationDate="2022-11-04T21:14:16.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="12362" PostId="6093" Score="1" Text="Excellent reference!" CreationDate="2018-03-10T04:19:46.737" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12372" PostId="6094" Score="1" Text="Very good points! Which classical noun do you think is best for &quot;pencil&quot; as in &quot;lead pencil&quot;? I agree that *stilus* is not the right word. Perhaps *calamus* or *penicillus* (from which &quot;pencil&quot; seems to come), as they are both supposed to leave matter on the surface rather than scrape some of the surface away." CreationDate="2018-03-11T17:00:22.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12377" PostId="6094" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think it depends on what you want to emphasise. If it's a question of leaving a thin trace of matter then I think _penicillus_ based mainly on the contest between Apelles and Protogenes as to who could draw the finest line - see Pliny, NH, 35.81ff.  If however you want to emphasise the type of trace left, its lead-likeness, then I think we may have to accept that materials like lead, chalk, and charcoal were simply held in the hand and referred to as &quot;lead&quot; etc. Hence why in Catullus (a/a) the lines are drawn simply _plumbo_. Similarly, Apelles quickly sketches someone ..." CreationDate="2018-03-12T02:07:25.410" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12378" PostId="6094" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta cont'd from above: ... on the wall _carbone_ (Pliny, NH, 35.89) and Martial reads graffiti on the toilet walls written _carbone_ and _creta carmina_  (Epigrams, 12.61.9-10). More specific to writing, both Horace and Persius make reference to marks in a list made with both chalk and charcoal, again just using the ablative (Horace, Satires, 2.3.246; and Persius, Satires, 5.108)." CreationDate="2018-03-12T02:13:33.397" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12380" PostId="6094" Score="2" Text="Thank you! If I could only give you another vote up for that explanation..." CreationDate="2018-03-12T09:48:19.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13467" PostId="6094" Score="0" Text="Let me just add to this that not only parchment and papyrus were lined with lead. Prior to using graphite lead was a very common drawing 'tool', used especially and extensively also in architecture and construction." CreationDate="2018-03-17T14:09:26.423" UserId="2072" />
  <row Id="13560" PostId="6094" Score="0" Text="Would it be possible to add a description of what the Romans actually might call a lead pencil from the comments to the answer? That would make the picture very complete." CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:55:40.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13569" PostId="6094" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta  Ok, done :)" CreationDate="2018-03-28T04:06:45.983" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="13570" PostId="6094" Score="0" Text="Thanks! There's a little bounty coming your way in a week or so. :)" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:29:17.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12364" PostId="6095" Score="2" Text="There is a comprehensive explanation here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5775/what-is-the-difference-between-spiritus-and-anima/5783#5783" CreationDate="2018-03-10T17:01:03.637" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12365" PostId="6095" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton. Thanks. What I gather from your answer there is that *animus* refers to human life (&quot;the essential principle&quot; of it), and *anima* doesn't. Is that the main thing to keep in mind?" CreationDate="2018-03-10T18:06:25.957" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="12366" PostId="6095" Score="0" Text="That's basically correct, but _anima_ can also mean 'air' or 'breath', in which sense it is used in connection with human (or any animate) life." CreationDate="2018-03-10T18:18:34.157" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12383" PostId="6099" Score="3" Text="I think the distinction became more and more explicit since Christianity for which the concept of soul is crucial and virtually always refered to as _anima_." CreationDate="2018-03-12T12:50:14.013" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12375" PostId="6102" Score="0" Text="Ah, Minimus the mouse and Vibrissa the she-cat! Lovely course for kids, too!" CreationDate="2018-03-12T01:05:41.300" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="12398" PostId="6103" Score="1" Text="Something to start with: Waquet, F. 2002. *Latin, or, The empire of a sign: from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries*. London: Verso, **esp. pp. 158-170.**" CreationDate="2018-03-13T03:03:57.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="12389" PostId="6104" Score="4" Text="Hi Hugh, thanks for the reply but I was not wondering about the earliest reflections on latin pronunciation but rather at what time in history people realised that the traditional/ecclesiastical pronunciation was not the roman pronunciation, and started a scientific and critical analysis of latin pronunciation (not the renaissance &quot;reconstruction&quot;). Also, who were the pioneers" CreationDate="2018-03-12T19:30:38.850" UserId="2463" />
  <row Id="12399" PostId="6106" Score="0" Text="And how about copied? You mention translations of Greek works, but I believe some Greek works have been preserved solely through Arab copies of the Greek originals? (Although I presume they would not have copied Latin texts, based on your answer.)" CreationDate="2018-03-13T05:32:56.730" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12402" PostId="6106" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. I don't know what you mean by &quot;Arab copies&quot;." CreationDate="2018-03-13T09:50:46.990" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12437" PostId="6106" Score="0" Text="I meant copies of manuscripts of the Greek original text, made by Arab scholars, which survived in the Arab world, after the original Greek had been lost in the West. I was under the impression that this was the case for some works of Aristotle (and other Greek authors), but perhaps I was mistaken." CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:14:01.963" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="12448" PostId="6106" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. Greek school learning continued among the Christians in Syria and Egypt after the Arab conquest, so of course the scholars in these communities copied Greek manuscripts and composed texts in Greek, and later, after the Ottomon conquest of the Byzantine territories, Greek Christians continued to copy Greek texts in Constantinople, Athos, and other centres of learning. But this has nothing to do with Arabs." CreationDate="2018-03-15T11:16:17.043" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="12438" PostId="6107" Score="1" Text="I thought I'd remembered reading something relevant in G.K. Chesteron's _The Everlasting Man_. `It is no reason for forgetting that the very word Pagan is the same as the word Peasant.`  I think he's got a good philosophical explanation for the change in the meaning of the word during after the Fall of Rome in chapter 8.  I think the change in the meaning of the word may have taken place a few hundred years after Christ.  Vulgar has a similar connotation.  And the Latin Bible is called the vulgate, I guess it sounded better than Pagan Bible?" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:58:51.133" UserId="54" />
  <row Id="12397" PostId="6108" Score="1" Text="Entirely unrelated peace of amusing trivia: the 2017 Ig Nobel prize in fluid dynamics was awarded “for studying the dynamics of liquid-sloshing, to learn what happens when a person walks backwards while carrying a cup of coffee. REFERENCE: &quot;A Study on the Coffee Spilling Phenomena in the Low Impulse Regime,&quot; Jiwon Han, Achievements in the Life Sciences, vol. 10, no. 1, 2016, pp. 87-101.” -- https://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2017. I do not think, however, that *hypotaxis* was mentioned in the winning paper." CreationDate="2018-03-13T01:27:26.700" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="12418" PostId="6120" Score="0" Text="Thanks. It appears to me that the same difficulty holds in the Greek, the only difference being that, in the Greek, the genitive absolute is used instead of the ablative absolute. But in both cases, there is nothing that seems to define (or limit) the relation between the subphrase πολλὰ ἐποίει or *multa faciebat* and the absolute construction. I suppose it's just a matter of understanding the relation by context and proximity." CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:05:30.160" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="12419" PostId="6120" Score="0" Text="@PédeLeão Actually, not really. As I said, the Greek uses a participle, not a genitive absolute. It is as unambiguous as &quot;audiens eum&quot;--except &quot;audiens&quot; is aorist, not present." CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:08:24.753" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12420" PostId="6120" Score="0" Text="You're right, the participle is in the nominative, but my point was that there is nothing to tie it to πολλὰ ἐποίει." CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:15:08.737" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="12421" PostId="6120" Score="0" Text="In Latin, yes: the ablative absolute is sequestered off. In Greek, the nominative participle lets us know that the person who heard was also the person who was doing, so it's not quite as open." CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:18:09.480" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12422" PostId="6120" Score="0" Text="I understand; the participle ἀκούσας ties the action to Herod, but my point is that the one doing the action of πολλὰ ἐποίει or multa faciebat is John, and there is nothing but the context to make that clear. The subphrases πολλὰ ἐποίει and multa faciebat are sort of floating without any relative pronoun or conjunction to tie them to αὐτοῦ or *eo*." CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:22:53.787" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="12423" PostId="6120" Score="0" Text="So my question was really about how *eo* can be understood as the subject of *faciebat* even though it's in the ablative. Since you haven't addressed that point, I'm going to assume that the reader simply has to understand it as such. Thanks for your help!" CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:41:02.150" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="12424" PostId="6120" Score="0" Text="We're really talking past each other: the subject of *faciebat&quot; is Herod, not John. (This is even clearer when you accept the better reading: ἠπόρει.) That much is unambiguous in Greek." CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:43:18.810" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12426" PostId="6120" Score="1" Text="I see my mistake now. I shouldn't have been trying to relate *faciebat* to *eo*; rather, I should have just let the main subject, Herod, carry through to *faciebat* as well. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2018-03-14T14:04:42.380" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="12440" PostId="6121" Score="0" Text="I'm not an expert at Latin in any way and by all means I don't even study, speak or read or anything. I only landed here because I found the question interesting. Anyways... I could believe there is no such equivalent to the expressions because they didn't have clocks like we do. Maybe?!?! :)" CreationDate="2018-03-15T00:35:40.620" UserId="2473" />
  <row Id="12427" PostId="6122" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a very good question, and confuses me too. Can you specify whether you are looking at the relative pronoun (*qui, quae, quod*), the interrogative pronoun (*quis, quid*), both, or some other combination? The page in your picture contains several pronouns, and they are slightly different." CreationDate="2018-03-14T15:58:15.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12428" PostId="6122" Score="1" Text="Thank you :) I'm looking at the interrogative pronoun (quis, quis). I think it should be quam in the fem acc singular, but I've never found Wiktionary to be wrong before." CreationDate="2018-03-14T16:01:12.183" UserId="2468" />
  <row Id="12434" PostId="6122" Score="0" Text="I think the fem sing acc is quam for both the interrogative pronoun and the relative pronoun?" CreationDate="2018-03-14T17:28:12.287" UserId="2468" />
  <row Id="12435" PostId="6122" Score="6" Text="So far I found this explanation. &quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem [...] **Quem was also sometimes used for fem. [...] but it was ousted by quam**&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204; English translation mine; emphasis mine as well)." CreationDate="2018-03-14T17:47:43.527" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13492" PostId="6122" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. As I deduce from your excellent answer below: &quot;sometimes&quot; means &quot;once&quot;." CreationDate="2018-03-19T13:05:06.450" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13504" PostId="6123" Score="0" Text="These are good suggestions, and very tempting, but too close to the English _helical_, with an underlying implication that does not suit my present problem. Thank you, anyway!" CreationDate="2018-03-20T15:16:55.323" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="12439" PostId="6125" Score="0" Text="Either order is correct; Latin word order is quite free, and those three words can be put in whatever order you choose. (All that changes is which one is most emphasized.)" CreationDate="2018-03-14T22:47:18.570" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="12442" PostId="6126" Score="0" Text="Nice find! But just for clarity, it should be noted that the phrase isn't from the 4th century but seems rather to be an 18th-century (specifically, 1734) comment or summation of the analysis of the case (which doesn't diminish the usefulness of your answer at all; this is a really great find)" CreationDate="2018-03-15T03:52:09.217" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12443" PostId="6126" Score="0" Text="Sorry!  I wasn't very clear above.  I meant that the Latin isn't a direct quote of a 4th-century source but an 18th-century interpolation.  The phrase may pre-date 1734 but we can't tell from this source." CreationDate="2018-03-15T04:38:02.000" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="12447" PostId="6126" Score="1" Text="@Penelope. I interpreted it as possibly being as you say, but my reason for believing it to be the earliest reference is because numerous sources, such as *Black's Law Dictionary*, cite Jenkins as their source. To avoid confusion, I removed the comment indicating that it was a case from the 4th century." CreationDate="2018-03-15T09:30:42.117" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="13502" PostId="6128" Score="2" Text="Thank you. This is entirely in sympathy with English terms such as _right-hand thread_ and suits my purpose exactly." CreationDate="2018-03-20T15:12:24.347" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="38472" PostId="6128" Score="1" Text="Are there any corresponding adjective expressions? or I have to use a participle like **movens** along?" CreationDate="2022-05-31T17:59:26.170" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="38476" PostId="6128" Score="2" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian not that I know (which doesn't mean a definitive 'no'). But you can use a phrase like [_ad dexteram vertens_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dverto) or _maybe_ _dextrovertens_ (knowing that it is probably unatested)." CreationDate="2022-05-31T22:23:10.407" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12450" PostId="6130" Score="1" Text="&quot;Satis&quot; is pretty ambiguous: in fact, the first meaning that comes to my mind is &quot;enough!&quot; as in &quot;stop!&quot; The first thing that came to my mind is a Plautine &quot;sat mi est&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-15T18:09:51.220" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="12451" PostId="6130" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Fair enough. I updated my explanation. *Satis* can be read in the intended way, but it's open to less welcome interpretations as well." CreationDate="2018-03-15T18:12:42.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12455" PostId="6133" Score="1" Text="The other ones look good, but I'm not sure I understand *me manebit supplicium*. Can you explain how it works?" CreationDate="2018-03-16T11:25:28.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12467" PostId="6133" Score="1" Text="In the entry for the verb maneo, my dictionary cites &quot;Te manebit supplicium&quot; as an example meaning &quot;punishment is imminent for you.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-17T13:27:00.960" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="13470" PostId="6133" Score="0" Text="Thanks!&#xA;I find the literal translation better for the context of the sentence. &quot;Waiting&quot; refers to a conscious acceptance, i.e.: &quot;I accept the consequences (whatever they will be), I don't fight against them.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-17T15:09:58.220" UserId="2443" />
  <row Id="13471" PostId="6133" Score="0" Text="My usage of a Latin/Spanish dictionary may have contributed to the confusion. In Spanish, *expect*, *hope*, and *await* are one single word." CreationDate="2018-03-17T15:35:33.317" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="13486" PostId="6133" Score="0" Text="And maybe it would have been better if I had used &quot;expecting&quot; instead of &quot;waiting&quot;.&#xA;Btw how could you translate &quot;My blood and marrow are yours. Do with them what you will.&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-03-18T19:28:14.557" UserId="2443" />
  <row Id="13490" PostId="6133" Score="0" Text="I used *vis*, which means strength, vitality, or essence." CreationDate="2018-03-19T02:11:00.467" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="13473" PostId="6135" Score="1" Text="+1, but note that _diligens_ [can mean](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddiligens) _diligent, careful_" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:48:54.033" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="12459" PostId="6136" Score="0" Text="There's a specific feature for spoilers, and I implemented it here to test. If you dislike it, feel free to rollback or edit further. You get a spoiler quote by `&gt;!` instead of plain `&gt;`, and the text is revealed by hovering the mouse over the box." CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:53:20.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12461" PostId="6136" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks—but I think I'm going to roll it back. I'd like the text to be easily readable to people who know the answer, and I'm thinking that most people for whom the line would be an unwanted spoiler probably don't know the answer. I figure that a beginner would have to struggle to understand the line even without blanking it. I'll remember &gt;! for future posts, though!" CreationDate="2018-03-16T23:07:03.043" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12462" PostId="6136" Score="0" Text="No worries! I had been looking forward for an opportunity to finally use that feature here so I couldn't resist testing, but it might indeed be better to use the standard quote here." CreationDate="2018-03-16T23:29:00.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="12463" PostId="6140" Score="0" Text="Ah, so maybe I've stumbled across a grammatical &quot;false friend&quot;. I had taken the Latin imperfect to include English &quot;used to&quot; and (past) &quot;[would](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/41329/6700)&quot;, which denote repetitive or habitual actions (but not incomplete or past-continuous actions, distinguished in English as &quot;The ship **was sailing**&quot;). Wait a minute, [this page](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/imperfect.pdf) says that the imperfect does cover all of those. Does it? I'll have to hit Allen&amp;Greenough when I get home…" CreationDate="2018-03-17T03:30:04.213" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12465" PostId="6140" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I clarified the answer. The imperfect covers all that, but there are also reasons for the perfect. I might have actually chosen imperfect myself, but I understand the perfect too." CreationDate="2018-03-17T10:36:39.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13478" PostId="6144" Score="1" Text="Hmm, the idea that the imperfect is more remote in time, and your suggestion of &quot;I have seen him here many times&quot;, make me wonder if the Latin perfect is actually not so different from the English present perfect, with its suggestion of a time interval extending to the present (explained [here](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/42962/6700) and [here](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/43027/6700)). Does Cornelius's choice of the perfect tense suggest that the times when he saw the slave are _not_ remote in time, hence making his claim to have recognized his face yesterday more credible?" CreationDate="2018-03-18T12:00:54.750" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13481" PostId="6144" Score="0" Text="Perfect tense does suggest the times are not remote, more or less like in English. Whether it makes the claim more credible is subjective though, hahaha. I think names of tenses are given for a reason (no irony intended), and I was taught &quot;perfect&quot; as &quot;presente perfecto&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-18T12:25:06.857" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13482" PostId="6150" Score="1" Text="Fac exemplum vel duo addas qui rationem illustret." CreationDate="2018-03-18T12:49:30.710" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13483" PostId="6150" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Exemplum addidi. Facitne illud responsum clarius?" CreationDate="2018-03-18T13:18:18.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13484" PostId="6150" Score="0" Text="Non tamen intellego cur &quot;ac&quot; prae vocale vel &quot;atque&quot; ante consonante non convenit vel in locutione cotidiana vel in versu metrico. Cotidiane, quidni &quot;Meus dominus ac erus frutex atque porcus est&quot; dicatur? Versu, quidni &quot;Sic ait, atque rationem campo pascit nudo&quot; si hexametrum facit?" CreationDate="2018-03-18T19:07:47.463" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13487" PostId="6150" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz To avoid confusion (mainly in my head), let me reply in English. The point is that the original form is *atque* (*at+que*), and when words are changed, Latin has a tendency to preserve syllable length. There is nothing wrong with *ac* per se, but there is something wrong with **turning** *atqu'* into *ac*. The way I see it, *atque* is the original, and the abbreviation *ac* is only permissible when it doesn't shorten a syllable. (I'll clarify this point.) I seem to be unable to scan your suggestion as a hexameter; the syllable lengths seem to be `– v v – v v v – – – – – – – –`." CreationDate="2018-03-18T19:31:04.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13488" PostId="6150" Score="0" Text="Ahh, nunc video. Id quod conservatum est, non intellegeram. Forsitan clarius Latine ;) Re hexametro, &quot;rationem&quot; consonantalem &quot;i&quot; habet." CreationDate="2018-03-18T19:54:55.477" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13489" PostId="6150" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Bene! Talis aspectus historicus parum patebat in versione prima. Quod ad hexametrum attinet, cum consonantali I aliter aptum est, sed metron paenultimum solet esse dactylus, non spondaeus. Metrice (haud grammatice) melius esset scribere *pascere* quam *pascit*." CreationDate="2018-03-18T20:39:56.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13485" PostId="6151" Score="2" Text="I think I'm asking a different question (why the preference before a vowel, not what's the difference), but it does look like my answer might be on or near this page: https://archive.org/stream/doctrinacopularu00alle#page/n9/mode/2up" CreationDate="2018-03-18T19:10:21.463" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13493" PostId="6152" Score="0" Text="Or even a &quot;typo&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-03-19T14:11:08.663" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13501" PostId="6152" Score="1" Text="&quot;For a question like this it is much better to adduce citations from classical authors&quot; - couldn't agree more; that's why I marked my answer as &quot;in progress.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-20T14:28:24.900" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13764" PostId="6152" Score="1" Text="How many times does quam appear in citations from classical authors?" CreationDate="2018-04-14T15:41:45.280" UserId="2468" />
  <row Id="13777" PostId="6152" Score="0" Text="@GailBowen. I would guess: thousands of times. But feel free to count them." CreationDate="2018-04-16T15:21:39.947" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42500" PostId="6152" Score="0" Text="There are certainly not thousands of examples of &quot;quam&quot; *used as a feminine interrogative pronoun,* though ... I think the mismatch between the title of the question and the question posed in the body/comments below has caused some subtleties to be passed over in this answer." CreationDate="2023-03-05T06:35:43.357" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13495" PostId="6155" Score="2" Text="Yes, it's the earliest known Motivational Poster ;o) The earliest Demotivational Poster was provided by Virgil, *non omnia possumus omnes*." CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:06:59.540" UserId="2489" />
  <row Id="13496" PostId="6155" Score="0" Text="It's also perhaps better translated to *if at first you don't succeed…* ?" CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:09:15.233" UserId="2489" />
  <row Id="13497" PostId="6155" Score="0" Text="@WillCrawford Certainly the second half of the phrase could be interpretted as such! I think I may have been a bit unclear with the very last comment, as I was actually referring the first half..." CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:58:50.433" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13506" PostId="6157" Score="1" Text="Wow. This explains everything. I had no idea that I'd stumbled onto a footprint left by the Renaissance revival of classical Latin. I can see how this wouldn't &quot;stick&quot;: there are too many reasonable incompatible choices." CreationDate="2018-03-20T18:14:15.683" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13507" PostId="6157" Score="0" Text="Strockis referred to these as &quot;explicative diacritics&quot;. Although it's a complex system, I can see how it could clarify ambiguities in some cases." CreationDate="2018-03-20T18:30:42.970" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="13508" PostId="6157" Score="0" Text="It just hit me that spelling it _octopûs_ under this system (like _Trapezûs_) might indeed suggest that the plural is _octopodes,_ not _octopi._" CreationDate="2018-03-20T19:01:30.673" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13514" PostId="6157" Score="0" Text="According to my reading, *octopus* wouldn't have a circumflex because it's not a Greek name ending in -οῦς (such as Trapezûs - Τραπεζοῦς). See, for example, on page 10 of Wright's book, the 3rd declension noun *opus* appears without a circumflex." CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:08:03.647" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="13517" PostId="6157" Score="1" Text="[Quæstionem novam](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6160/118) habemus! :)" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:40:00.933" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13532" PostId="6157" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz. I just edited my answer with an explanatory note regarding the former designation *Humanist Latin Orthography.* I thought you might want to edit your new question as well where you used that term." CreationDate="2018-03-22T10:33:39.210" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="13534" PostId="6157" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I just updated the _octopus_ question. I'm glad that you originally said &quot;Humanist&quot;, though, since that got me to read up a bit on the Humanist revival of Latin. For one thing, I learned that the Humanists restored _ae_ where much vernacular-influenced medieval writing had _e._ BTW, I just read the article by Steenbakkers, and it doesn't mention the Greek-imitative circumflex as in _Trapezûs._ Maybe that never became popular?" CreationDate="2018-03-22T13:02:01.947" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13535" PostId="6157" Score="0" Text="I'm also having trouble finding another reference to the rule concerning the Greek-imitative circumflex. However, I have seen numerous examples of it used in practice." CreationDate="2018-03-22T13:05:54.650" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="24104" PostId="6157" Score="1" Text="Like Expedito Bipes said, ὀκτώπους ends in -ους (not -οῦς), so in Latin it would end in -us (not -ûs). Opus is a Latin word ending in a short -us, with genitive operis, while Octōpūs is from Greek, ends in long -ūs, and its genitive is Octōpodis" CreationDate="2020-01-27T09:06:32.113" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13505" PostId="6158" Score="2" Text="From the Hellenistic period onwards Attic was regarded as the sole classical and correct variety of Greek." CreationDate="2018-03-20T16:20:26.467" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="24327" PostId="6158" Score="0" Text="Marcus Aurelius wrote in Attic, so the presumption is they went for the highest prestige variety." CreationDate="2020-02-27T21:58:24.957" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="13518" PostId="6160" Score="0" Text="Apparently the second-declension *polypus, polypi* was the usual substantive used for &quot;octopus&quot; in Classical Latin; I'm still not sure when or how *octopus* was used in Latin ... (fdb made some comments on related posts like https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/371/examples-of-species-whose-latin-and-scientific-names-are-different/871#comment10597_871, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/is-there-an-exclusive-word-for-octopus-in-ancient-greek, https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/270/what-is-the-correct-plural-of-octopus/138236#comment967371_138236)" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:46:43.040" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13520" PostId="6160" Score="2" Text="Just a note to anyone answering this question: According to Strockis' dissertation, *Hierichûs* (Jericho) should correspond to Ἱεριχοῦς, and that is, in fact, the case according to the spelling of some, such as the geographer [Stephanus Byzantius](https://books.google.com.br/books?id=oJg-AAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) (see pg. 807). However, someone searching for Jericho in Greek will likely find the more common spelling Ἰεριχώ." CreationDate="2018-03-21T02:42:01.693" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="13540" PostId="6161" Score="1" Text="I wonder if it might not be better to use the word _composition_ in your question, rather than _writing_?" CreationDate="2018-03-23T17:52:46.423" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="13541" PostId="6161" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton At least composition is a good key word to include in the question, so I edited it in. I'm not sure which one is a better choice, probably because Finnish makes no distinction, but I will think about rephrasing the question." CreationDate="2018-03-23T19:41:57.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13551" PostId="6161" Score="0" Text="@ JoonasIlmavirta _composition_ is the long-traditional word for translation — think of all those text-books entitled 'Latin Prose Composition'! — whereas I would _write_ a letter, say, in Latin, rather than _compose_ it. It's a narrow point, though, so perhaps I shouldn't have raised it." CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:43:36.927" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="13552" PostId="6161" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I don't think the point is moot at all. As it often happens, I keep polishing my English along the way, too. I appreciate the answer, too. I think I will refrain from accepting an answer before someone finds research on Latin pedagogy (or even relevant results for other languages), in the hope that such research has been done..." CreationDate="2018-03-25T22:57:34.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13526" PostId="6162" Score="0" Text="Do you want a translation or it may also be a quote? Mottos frequently (preferently?) are citations or paraphrasing of ancient works." CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:26:05.893" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13527" PostId="6162" Score="0" Text="Thank Joonas for your help, and Rafael for the thoughtful question. I'm grateful for a translation, although an ancient citation would give it added credence." CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:32:11.157" UserId="2492" />
  <row Id="13531" PostId="6162" Score="0" Text="@BobSylvain BTW among your translations, I like _dux ministrat_. You may also want some other word for leader (a _dux_ is also an army general, e.g. _magnus_, _primus [inter pares]_)" CreationDate="2018-03-21T20:09:21.317" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13528" PostId="6165" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Regarding the first point, I should point out that translation is not a passive endeavor. Reading and writing are both very active, but they are different kinds of activities." CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:27:55.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13529" PostId="6165" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Indeed passive–active is a continuum, reading and even photography are not completely passive, and translation is not at either extreme. With something like this, I can only point broadly to experiences; no precise abstract formulation can do them justice. Regarding translation, I hear that this is a controversial matter in contemporary Latin pedagogy, but my understanding is that translation is a major impediment to a beginner, to be studiously avoided. That's a separate question, though—or check [here](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/search?q=translation)." CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:44:05.067" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="13530" PostId="6165" Score="0" Text="The reason I asked the question was that the role of translation (or rather, the role of writing, singing, speaking, and all that jolly activity) is controversial in Latin pedagogy. My impression is the same as yours that writing does indeed help. I was just wondering whether there is research to support that conclusion and maybe even challenge someone who objects to writing Latin as a pedagogical tool." CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:59:00.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13533" PostId="6168" Score="2" Text="In Arabic most letters have [four different forms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet#Table_of_basic_letters) depending on position (initial, medial, final, isolated.) I have no sources, but this seems natural to me, and more natural the more _handwritten_ the alphabet is. In handwriting you naturally tend to make letters slightly different if they are at the beginning or end of a word (or following an &quot;o&quot;, for example.) Although in Greek letters are separate from each other, letters are sinuous, (especially sigma) and I see no reason not to suffer such changes along centuries" CreationDate="2018-03-22T12:07:24.610" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13537" PostId="6169" Score="3" Text="(+1) Excellent quote concerning the tendency to write final sigma differently. For those who haven't seen the text which Thompson is talking about, I thought it good to point out that the uncial sigma doesn't much resemble the modern forms. The word ισως looks like ιcωc, the sigmas appearing as C, both in the middle and at the end. The main difference is that the final C appears top-heavy; i.e. the upper part of the C extends downward. Looking at Thompson's texts, I would say that the modern forms don't start to appear until around the 14th or 15th centuries. (see e.g. pg. 264)" CreationDate="2018-03-23T13:31:55.810" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="13539" PostId="6169" Score="1" Text="@PédeLeão BTW, C-like sigma is called &quot;lunate sigma&quot;, and is ancient" CreationDate="2018-03-23T16:38:22.377" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13538" PostId="6171" Score="1" Text="Thanks! As a mathematician and a physicist, I have never seen ϖ anywhere except symbol lists. Some people distinguish φ and ϕ and even pronounce &quot;phi&quot; differently for these two symbols. I prefer to treat them as the same thing but stick to uniform notation." CreationDate="2018-03-23T15:46:50.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13542" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="Sorry, not sure I understand your comment about self-translation. By self-translation do you mean evidence that I have attempted to translate into Latin using some translation software?" CreationDate="2018-03-24T16:27:06.153" UserId="2499" />
  <row Id="13543" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="@ChrisG Not necessarily software. Just your own personal suggestion as to what you think the translation would be. You can use online or physical dictionaries to fin the vocabulary and whatnot. We are more than willing to help, we just have that policy so that we do not become the more accurate version of Google Translate. :)" CreationDate="2018-03-24T18:05:43.320" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13544" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="Hi. OK I understand, but as I have no schooling in Latin the only source I can find is what is available online such as the various translation websites that are listed in a Google type search. I am aware that Google translate and others like this are very inaccurate, but what can those of us that have no lnowledge of Latin do? If I enter an English sentence into Google translate and, say, two other similar programs I get different answers in Latin. I have no idea which if any is correct. I am writing a novel and have a few sentences that I need to be accurately translated into Latin." CreationDate="2018-03-24T18:43:01.683" UserId="2499" />
  <row Id="13545" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="@ChrisG Here is what I recommend. I completely understand not wanting to learn a whole new language just to write a few sentences. [Here is a question about dictionaries you can use.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why) Try looking up words individually and then use Wiktionary to conjugate. All we really need is perhaps some of your suggestions as to words that could be used. You do not need to even put them in the right form, just a little evidence that you did your own research is sufficient to meet guidelines!" CreationDate="2018-03-24T19:07:09.043" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13573" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="I have done some homework regarding this subject and have some Latin translations for the English phrases I have. perhaps you can comment on whether you think they are accurate.Nam eum hinc ferunt" CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:29:02.243" UserId="2499" />
  <row Id="13574" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="Sorry, that last post was cut off short. 1. For they beareth him hence - Nam eum hinc ferunt. Context is a group of men carrying another man away from danger. 2. It is forbidden to conceal beasts of little intellect within the folds of your garment - Animae celare bestias exiguae laxis vestibus illicitus est. Context - A man smuggling animals into a religious building, being warned by a saint that if he is to accept holy orders he is to take it seriously and not hide animals in his clothing. 3. The Devil does not like to be recognised - Diabolo se agnosci non placet." CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:41:50.477" UserId="2499" />
  <row Id="13575" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="Final phrases - 4. For they eateth that which eateth them - Nam idem quod eos edit edunt. Context - The notion that humans eat creatures that sometimes eat humans, such as parasites and worms. 5. It came out carrying infants - Ferens infantes exit. Context - a sinister old woman emerging from a building carrying infants." CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:42:10.090" UserId="2499" />
  <row Id="13576" PostId="6176" Score="0" Text="@ChrisG If you want confirmation on those, why don't you make them a separate question? It will be easier for people to answer that way." CreationDate="2018-03-28T16:37:49.503" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13651" PostId="6177" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answer, and for providing a reference!  Even an old reference is much better than no references at all (as is the case in many answers here!).  And though this one may be &quot;out of date&quot; in certain ways, it still has interesting insights.  I hope you'll consider undeleting your answer for the benefit of other readers.  Thanks!" CreationDate="2018-04-04T14:35:30.887" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="13546" PostId="6179" Score="0" Text="Looks promising! I have no prior experience with Loeb Classical Library. Do you know if there is a way to find a sneak peek and get a feeling what it might be like?" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:15:17.160" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13548" PostId="6179" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I edited my post to add a picture specifically from the Metamorphoses. I do not think it really does it justice, so I suggest just looking on Google, even if it isn't the _Metamorphoses_. Loeb has a lot of works available in both Latin and Greek that you could use as reference points." CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:22:50.263" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13550" PostId="6179" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: You can view a single page from the Loeb collection per session: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/ovid-metamorphoses/1916/pb_LCL042.3.xml You'd need to use a new private/incognito tab/window to view a different page." CreationDate="2018-03-25T00:59:01.590" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13553" PostId="6182" Score="2" Text="Spanish for roundabout is rotonda &lt; from Italian rotonda &lt; apparently from adj. rotondo, -a &lt; from Latin rotundus, -a, -um, which feels slightly more appropriate than circularis. Ongoing research. I don't think unlikely that Romans has some sort of roundabout" CreationDate="2018-03-25T23:52:55.707" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13555" PostId="6184" Score="0" Text="Are you aware of the adjective [itinerarius](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=itinerarius&amp;la=la&amp;can=itinerarius0&amp;prior=itinerarium#lexicon)? If so, what is it missing for your purpose?" CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:18:54.447" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13556" PostId="6184" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I was not previously aware of that adjective. It looks very promising. Do you happen to know if it was in the kind context I described? Any quote like *o quam difficlis est vita itineraria!* would help prove that it works in the right context. Perhaps I should study the examples in L&amp;S later..." CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:22:31.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13571" PostId="6185" Score="2" Text="I rewrote and reopened the question. I think it is much more attractive when written compactly, but it is of course a matter of taste. The Etymonline reference should be sufficient as a link (it is where you found the figurative meaning but all the relevant details are already included here). In general, I would advice to have more of your own text than quotes in a question. Most people seem to prefer to text organized into paragraphs as a question format." CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:40:24.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13580" PostId="6185" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta +1. Thank you . It is surely much more attractive!" CreationDate="2018-03-28T23:26:26.633" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="13558" PostId="6186" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I hope you will register your account and take a look at our [tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). Now that you got a couple of votes for a good question, you earned some [privileges](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) like voting. Most importantly, I hope you find the site useful and stick around for more questions." CreationDate="2018-03-26T22:54:50.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13564" PostId="6187" Score="1" Text="Yes. Google Translate and Latin left me uninspired to say the least. Thank you for your motto creation suggestion." CreationDate="2018-03-27T19:04:53.863" UserId="2503" />
  <row Id="13565" PostId="6187" Score="0" Text="@John I'm glad to be able to help!" CreationDate="2018-03-27T19:09:02.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13561" PostId="6189" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It was somewhat asinine of me to not think of the possibility of the words coming through Romance languages." CreationDate="2018-03-27T09:52:57.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13577" PostId="6192" Score="3" Text="[Look](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_Greek_words_of_Latin_origin) what I found! Not sure how to look for earlier ones" CreationDate="2018-03-28T16:38:40.143" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13578" PostId="6192" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Interesting! That's certainly a good starting point. The page says that those words entered Greek language in the Byzantine era, but it's Wikipedia without citations so I'm not surprised if some are older. I assume there are loans from the centuries following Roman conquest of Greece, but I don't know how to look for them." CreationDate="2018-03-28T17:25:02.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13627" PostId="6197" Score="0" Text="Hi Tucker! If you want to continue using this site, I recommend registering an account. That would allow you to get notifications and otherwise access your own posts. With the reputation gained from this question, you can vote the questions and answers you like. If you can't access your old unregistered account, create a new one (from the same place if possible) and raise a flag for moderators, and the two accounts can be combined." CreationDate="2018-04-02T09:54:30.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13581" PostId="6198" Score="3" Text="&quot;Averni&quot; is a variant reading in some manuscripts of the Aeneid, but &quot;Averno&quot; is favoured by modern editors, surely for some good reason that I am not able to investigate at the moment." CreationDate="2018-03-29T10:42:02.920" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13586" PostId="6198" Score="1" Text="The most recent Teubner edition (2011, ed. Gian Biagio Conte) also has &quot;facilis descensus Auerno&quot;" CreationDate="2018-03-29T22:44:11.123" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13622" PostId="6198" Score="1" Text="Google Books search gives 13,800 results for &quot;facilis descensus Averni&quot; and 7,320 results for &quot;facilis descensus Averno&quot;. Not implying anyone is wrong or anything, just found this data interesting in itself." CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:53:26.403" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="13623" PostId="6198" Score="1" Text="@Rodia That's interesting to know. The way I see those results is that the two versions are equally common (as Google hits). Typically when you compare two things that way, one is bigger not by a factor of two but ten or thousand or million." CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:16:37.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13625" PostId="6198" Score="2" Text="Sometimes quantity is less important than quality. No one is trying to imply that Averni is non-existent; however, all the major scholarly editions of Aeneis of the twentieth and twenty first centuries are clear on this matter - the preferred choice is &quot;Averno&quot;. The most recent Teubner edition (2011, ed. Gian Biagio Conte, not Conti - mea culpa) says: auerno **MPbnrx,** *schol. Bern. ad buc. 5, 6, Tib.* (auerno est **M²**): auerni **P²Rωγ**; *utrumque agnoscit Seru*." CreationDate="2018-04-02T01:56:37.353" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13626" PostId="6198" Score="2" Text="although Collinge (in [Collinge 1959](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1086972)), who I highly respected, insisted on Averni, not Averno." CreationDate="2018-04-02T02:11:11.457" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="25862" PostId="6198" Score="1" Text="I agree with you, Joonas. Both forms are expected: grammatically speaking, _Averni_ is to be analyzed as the complement of the **noun** _descensus_, whereas _Averno_ is analyzed as the complement of the **verb**al base of the noun _descensus_.  The fact that _descensus_ is a &quot;strongly **deverbal**&quot; noun can account for your correct observation that &quot;_Averno_ seems to be preferred&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-15T22:19:51.873" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47461" PostId="6198" Score="0" Text="The phrase *facilis descensus Averni* was used by M. Auguste Dupin in Poe's *The Purloined Letter.*" CreationDate="2024-02-02T16:38:48.387" UserId="14709" />
  <row Id="24218" PostId="6199" Score="0" Text="So could you use *ante* for a single point in time, and *præ* for a period (multiple points) in time – since motion technically is a change/difference/comparison between two or more points? E.g. *pre-history* (history is a progression) is made up of *anterior moments* (single points fixed in time)." CreationDate="2020-02-09T17:09:02.797" UserId="6545" />
  <row Id="24219" PostId="6199" Score="0" Text="@Matt Welcome to the site! I don't think there's a distinction like that, but I've been wrong before. Both *prior* and *anterior* exist, but I haven't studied whether they are related like *prae* and *ante* are. If there are two similar words like *ante* and *prae*, there rarely is a clear division of labor between them. If you want more details, please [ask a new question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)." CreationDate="2020-02-09T21:27:29.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13584" PostId="6201" Score="1" Text="You use _libenter invitare_ in your explanation but use _libenter vocat_ in your quoted translation. Just figured I would point that out since I'm not sure which one you want." CreationDate="2018-03-29T21:13:45.390" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13585" PostId="6201" Score="0" Text="@SamK I guess I wasn't sure either. I chose *invitat* now. Thanks for the catch!" CreationDate="2018-03-29T21:20:17.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13587" PostId="6201" Score="0" Text="(1) Wonderful answer! I'm really really thankful!&#xA;(2) The event in which thesis is defended (in my university) is called in german &quot;Rigorosum&quot; (which I thought is the latin name for it). Is it wrong to use it in Latin?&#xA;(3) I still doesn't get the principle for the university name (mainly because Gutenberg doesn't decline)... Would for instance &quot;at the Johannes Kepler University Linz&quot; be _in Universitate Iohannis Kepleriana Lentiae_?&#xA;(4) I definitely will do a thesis offence!" CreationDate="2018-03-30T09:49:52.577" UserId="2508" />
  <row Id="13588" PostId="6201" Score="2" Text="@Kyle_the_hacker (1) I'm glad to be able to help! (2) I'm not familiar with that term. It clearly comes from Latin, so it should be fine, but it will not be understood as broadly as *dissertatio*. You can say *in rigorosum, in quo* if you want. (3) The name *Iohannes Gutenberg* is in genitive. It's like *Universitas Iulii Caesaris Romana*. Does that make sense? (4) In Finland we have a [doctoral sword](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1020/79), but it is not available in a defense." CreationDate="2018-03-30T14:10:07.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13600" PostId="6201" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I just found out that [Rigorosum](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigorosum) is a short version of new latin _examen rigorosum_ (hard exam) used to designate a thesis defence. It seems not to be a proper latin word for it then. Is there a formulation like _Dissertation thesis doctoralis_ or something like &quot;thesis defence for the academic grade of doctor of natural sciences&quot; (_Scientiae empiricae rerum naturalium_) in order to have some transparent words to ease the understanding for non-latin speaking people." CreationDate="2018-03-31T06:48:05.483" UserId="2508" />
  <row Id="13602" PostId="6201" Score="1" Text="@Kyle_the_hacker You could use *examen rigorosum* then. It makes perfect sense in Latin (especially when the text says that a thesis is defended in it) and it should be easy enough to recognize. The general Latin word for a defense (that I know) is *dissertatio*, but I'm not aware of a longer formulation of the kind you're asking. Figuring out a full Latin name for a defense would actually make a good follow-up question. If you are interested, go ahead and ask it!" CreationDate="2018-03-31T09:35:42.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13592" PostId="6202" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this. One question regarding the phrase about concealing animals of little intellect within the folds of your garment. The translation I had for this was expressed to me thus - laxis vestibus for 'within the folds of your garments' is from Lucan, The Civil War. I am presuming this is correct from the 17th Century in England rather than classical Latin? Thanks. C Garvey" CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:18:29.660" UserId="2499" />
  <row Id="13594" PostId="6202" Score="0" Text="@ChrisG I'm not sure what you mean by 17th century, as Lucan is a 1st century writer. That being said, the phrase _laxis vestibus_ in the poem you mention is not used in the way you say. It is usually translated as &quot;flowing robes&quot; rather than &quot;fold of clothes,&quot; according to two different translations I checked." CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:57:21.630" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13589" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Just to be clear, would *parasceve* be declined like *Penelope*? I don't recall seeing non-names in the Greek first declension in Latin, so I'm not sure I got it right." CreationDate="2018-03-30T16:39:33.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13590" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Wiktionary says that it is indeed a &quot;first-declension, Greek type,&quot; so perhaps its just a unique exception. I am not as familiar with Greek declensions, so I do not know how definitive I can be on that topic." CreationDate="2018-03-30T16:54:10.077" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13591" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="I'm afraid all the names with parasceve on them refer to the preparations of the Jewish Pesach. I could be mistaken, though" CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:14:36.007" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13593" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="I think Feria VI in Passione Domini is the most appropriate liturgical name. Side comment: The whole week is called hebdomada sancta. In Spanish good Friday is Viernes Santo, as are all days of holy week (lunes santo, sábado santo). That is not the case in Latin, I'm afraid" CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:28:55.893" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13595" PostId="6206" Score="1" Text="@Rafael It is true that it can reference the Jewish Sabbath. That was its original meaning. But, like many Christian, religious terms, it was appropriated beyond its original meaning. And again, the Roman Missal calls it _Feria VI in Parasceve_ according to New Advent. A Google search for both terms turns up results for both. I think the &quot;Passion of the Lord&quot; part of what you suggest refers more to the whole of Holy Week, while what I found, although redundant, refers more specifically to Friday. In summary, I think either would work seeing as they both came up in my original search." CreationDate="2018-03-30T18:04:01.333" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13596" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="But those are just my two cents. :)" CreationDate="2018-03-30T18:04:13.297" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13597" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="feria sexta simply means &quot;Friday&quot;, the sixth day of the week (counting from Sunday)." CreationDate="2018-03-30T21:25:17.890" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13598" PostId="6206" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Are you sure it's *hebdomada* in nominative? I thought it's *hebdomas*, gen. *hebdomadis*. Perhaps *hebdomada* is a Latinization into the first declension?" CreationDate="2018-03-30T22:16:24.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13599" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="@fdb Can _feria sexta_ really mean any old Friday? I thought _feria_ had more of a &quot;holiday&quot; connotation." CreationDate="2018-03-30T22:20:38.887" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13605" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="The Roman missal is an important source for both good Friday and hebdomada" CreationDate="2018-03-31T14:36:32.077" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13606" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="@SamK. Common in Christian authors: http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/FERIAE1. And also in inscriptions." CreationDate="2018-03-31T17:17:59.233" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13678" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="I would probably translate &quot;sexta feria parascaves&quot; as &quot;the sixth weekday, [the weekday] of the Passover&quot;; similarly, &quot;feria sexta in Parasceve&quot; might be &quot;the sixth weekday, on the Passover&quot;. I've most often seen it in the ablative, where it would be well translated &quot;on the sixth weekday, on Passover&quot;." CreationDate="2018-04-06T16:16:28.483" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="40392" PostId="6206" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta in my breviary it's always first declension *hebdomada* in the rubrics, but sometimes third declension *hebdomas* in the text." CreationDate="2022-11-05T03:16:44.370" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="13603" PostId="6207" Score="0" Text="Hi and welcome to the Latin site! This is indeed the right place for this kind of question." CreationDate="2018-03-31T09:39:34.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13656" PostId="6208" Score="2" Text="Even the descendant languages have not fully regularized their nouns. Spanish, a Romance language, has feminine nouns that look masculine (e.g. *mano*), masculine nouns that look feminine (e.g. *problema*), and nouns that can be either gender depending on the speaker's desire (e.g. *mar*)." CreationDate="2018-04-05T15:07:35.670" UserId="1174" />
  <row Id="13657" PostId="6208" Score="1" Text="@RobertColumbia True! Every language has some weird inflection. Even if it was fully regularized at some point, new exceptions would emerge over time. Some of the Romance irregularities come from Latin, but some are their own inventions (like the Italian plural of *muro*)." CreationDate="2018-04-05T15:11:48.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13604" PostId="6209" Score="1" Text="Resurrexit sicut dixit comes to mind. I'd look in papal urbi et orbi Easter greetings. I hope I'll have a few minutes for that next Monday" CreationDate="2018-03-31T14:34:46.387" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13614" PostId="6209" Score="1" Text="I'll have to expand on this if possible but Wikipedia has an article on &quot;Paschal greeting&quot;." CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:56:23.730" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="13615" PostId="6209" Score="0" Text="@MattGutting [So it seems.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_greeting) It'd be good to see there's more reliable proof for the phrases suggested there." CreationDate="2018-03-31T22:03:58.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13607" PostId="6211" Score="1" Text="Related: [DVCITIS, DUCITIS, DŪCITIS](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/658/dvcitis-ducitis-dŪcitis)" CreationDate="2018-03-31T20:19:20.613" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13608" PostId="6212" Score="0" Text="First of all thank you for the lengthy answer, great information and links. Your comments on ō being used for dictionaries aligns with the information that prompted me to investigate my choice of translation. I'm leaning towards accepting the fact that although it is not completely wrong it should be changed to `perfectio`. I had no idea about jacet/iacet; from what you write I'm understanding I &quot;should&quot; use iacet. As far as `lux` translating to bright, I'm basing it on Google Translate which - while not being flawless - is the only proper translator I could think of." CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:23:27.713" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13610" PostId="6212" Score="1" Text="@GregKos I cannot emphasize how strongly I urge to dismiss any insight given by Google Translate when it comes to any kind of business decision. [It is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79). *Lux* is a noun meaning &quot;light&quot;, and I don't think it can be used as an adjective. Use of macrons is often restricted to teaching Latin and is often (for whatever reason) considered lower form than a text free of them. For a motto I would leave macrons out unless there is something specific to communicate with them." CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:30:20.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13612" PostId="6212" Score="1" Text="@ both, I completely agree that Google Translate has serious issues, but I couldn't really find any proper online translating services and I didn't realize there was an SE community for this until now :)" CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:41:23.290" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13619" PostId="6212" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I have no problem with the extra work, but my relative knowledge is so limited that it is not always easy to turn a dictionary entry into the correct form grammatically and syntactically." CreationDate="2018-04-01T15:53:32.727" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13634" PostId="6212" Score="0" Text="I will accept this as an answer because it better fits the question in the title, and will proceed to ask a new question specifically for the name. Thank you both (cc: @JoonasIlmavirta )" CreationDate="2018-04-02T16:20:49.143" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13611" PostId="6213" Score="0" Text="The &quot;light of stars&quot; works with my branding, because the idea is products being stars while also being perfect solutions for the customers. Would it be a generally acceptable translation? As you mentioned, most people wouldn't understand by themselves, but if they go &quot;hey, what does that mean&quot; to their more Latin-educated friends I wouldn't want them to go &quot;lol that's just wrong&quot;. I'm more open to different interpretations of Lux Astrum than changing the words themselves." CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:39:03.830" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13620" PostId="6213" Score="0" Text="Sad news for any material created so far then :( Although a 36.3k rep is an indicator the matter should end here, I'd like to wait a bit more for any other input on interpretations. Thank you for the alternate suggestions though!" CreationDate="2018-04-01T15:56:04.070" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13621" PostId="6213" Score="1" Text="@GregKos I incorporated my previous comment into my answer. It's always good to get a second opinion on the matter. If you want to be sure, you can always ask a separate follow-up question about using *lux astrum* (as opposed to *lux astrorum/astri*) as a name." CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:28:14.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13673" PostId="6214" Score="0" Text="Tomas Luis de Victoria wrote several motets to be used on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, which were listed under the respective headings &quot;Feria V in coena Domini ad Matutinum&quot;, &quot;Feria VI in parasceve ad Matutinum&quot;, &quot;Sabbato Sancto ad Matutinum&quot;: http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Tenebrae_Responsories_(Tom%C3%A1s_Luis_de_Victoria)" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:04:05.383" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="13617" PostId="6216" Score="1" Text="Looks perfect! I get the feeling that the diminutive adds a nuance of mockery, which I find appropriate." CreationDate="2018-04-01T09:30:35.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13618" PostId="6216" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, I overlooked that but I think you're right!" CreationDate="2018-04-01T09:33:51.350" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="13624" PostId="6216" Score="0" Text="You even find it in English, albeit usually in the negated form (incredulous)." CreationDate="2018-04-02T00:09:39.680" UserId="301" />
  <row Id="13628" PostId="6216" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Which diminutive?" CreationDate="2018-04-02T12:47:54.370" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="13629" PostId="6216" Score="0" Text="@DaG The *-ulus* in *credulus*. It could have been simply *credere &gt; credus* (like *fidere &gt; fidus*), but instead it's *credulus*." CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:04:31.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13631" PostId="6216" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I see. Are you sure that it is a diminutive? There other Latin adjectives in _-ulus_ that – I believe – are not diminutive, like [_sedulus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sedulus&amp;la=la&amp;can=sedulus0&amp;prior=rubicundulus#lexicon), _tremulus_ and so on. Again, I believe it is just a particular kind of word formation from some roots, but I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable." CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:09:20.503" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="13632" PostId="6216" Score="0" Text="@DaG No, I'm not sure at all whether that kind of *-ulus* should actually be understood as a diminutive. That would be a very interesting question to have on the site. If you want to go and ask it, I have an upvote waiting with your name on it. I'd be glad to understand all this better." CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:12:19.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13633" PostId="6216" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Great, thanks, good idea!" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:13:06.800" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="13630" PostId="6218" Score="3" Text="As weak as such mnemonics are, I’ve found the phrase _ger-__un__-d is a no-__un,__ gerund-__ive__ an adject-__ive___ to be of some help." CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:08:23.070" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="13637" PostId="6222" Score="0" Text="The book you mention is available at Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense	COLL.IT.P.0424/ 0028 000694141 1 v. Could anyone wish a better place to study? E stupendo!" CreationDate="2018-04-03T01:46:46.350" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13635" PostId="6225" Score="4" Text="+1 for pointing out J.K.Rowling's &quot;Latin&quot;" CreationDate="2018-04-02T18:21:20.350" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13636" PostId="6225" Score="0" Text="Relevance refers to the brand, not Latin. Someone who knows the idea behind the branding will quickly understand what it is supposed to mean and might go with it. I'm currently between your third option and complete rebranding. Realizing I've been using wrong phrasing kinda bummed me out." CreationDate="2018-04-02T20:12:47.847" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13643" PostId="6225" Score="3" Text="Is this really what this site is for? I mean: doing free consultancy work for a commercial enterprise?" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:05:56.420" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13645" PostId="6225" Score="0" Text="@fdb Good question. I wrote up [a meta question on this topic](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/332/79) for further discussion. I don't know how our users perceive questions with a commercial aspect like this, but I would like to learn." CreationDate="2018-04-03T14:08:17.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13652" PostId="6225" Score="1" Text="@fdb This is not a commercial enterprise at this time. It's my free time project. If I had founded a company I assume I would have hired a marketer to do the branding for me. But as an amateur who tries to figure this out, isn't SE just the place? Not sure either - I will look into the meta thread." CreationDate="2018-04-04T20:12:28.263" UserId="2514" />
  <row Id="13638" PostId="6226" Score="2" Text="Very good work. A side note: θεμελιωτές της θρησκειολογίας are not _founders of religion,_ but _founders of __religious studies___ (sometimes considered a part of ethnology.) There is a difference!" CreationDate="2018-04-03T05:45:12.153" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="13639" PostId="6226" Score="0" Text="@Dario That was Google's fault. Did sound strange but I was too lazy to look all the words up." CreationDate="2018-04-03T07:31:43.523" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="13641" PostId="6226" Score="1" Text="I am not surprised. Wilamowitz was a very clever man." CreationDate="2018-04-03T11:23:55.437" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13640" PostId="6227" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you give some context? Would this &quot;no rulers&quot; be a motto? If it's part of a sentence, it will look quite different." CreationDate="2018-04-03T07:58:04.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13642" PostId="6227" Score="1" Text="By _ruler_ I assume you mean a person with power to rule, dictate rules, etc.? As @JoonasIlmavirta suggests, a bit more context would help us find a more fit translation. Word-by-word translations aren't usually the best." CreationDate="2018-04-03T12:27:48.673" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13646" PostId="6227" Score="0" Text="It is indeed a motto." CreationDate="2018-04-04T00:55:21.033" UserId="2524" />
  <row Id="13650" PostId="6227" Score="0" Text="@Stoic1221 Thanks! I edited that in. If you have any details to add to your questions, it is typically best to edit them instead of leaving stuff to comments." CreationDate="2018-04-04T10:06:15.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13644" PostId="6228" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! This looks promising. Can you explain a little what the site is like, so that people know what to expect before clicking the link?" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:55:12.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16450" PostId="6233" Score="0" Text="Strength builds of itself; or it is the nature of strength to become stronger." CreationDate="2018-11-20T00:16:46.683" UserId="3123" />
  <row Id="13658" PostId="6240" Score="4" Text="I am not sure we want to dig up all the theological exegesis surrounding the concept of salvation “sola fide”. Just to say that it centres on Romans 3,28: λογιζόμεθα γάρ δικαιоῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου, which fairly obviously means that for Paul salvation was “by faith” (πίστει) “without the works of the Law”, that is: by faith alone." CreationDate="2018-04-05T15:24:45.110" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13664" PostId="6240" Score="1" Text="@fdb or, that was Luther's reading. But no, we don't want to dig up all the theology. _Sola fide_ was indeed explicitly used by Luther to mean that salvation comes through Faith (in God) alone. There is debate both ecumenical and among reformed Christians on what exactly is implied by &quot;Faith&quot; and &quot;works of the law&quot;, and how this reading is made compatible with other passages of the Scripture" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:30:54.367" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13689" PostId="6240" Score="0" Text="Thank you. On absolute vs. instrumental, I would have thought the phrase instrumental in meaning and syntactically absolute (as lacking an overt syntactic connector such as a preposition or conjunction). Is there a sense of 'absolute' or 'instrumental' by which they exclude each other?" CreationDate="2018-04-07T07:07:32.283" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="13691" PostId="6240" Score="0" Text="@Catomic Reading it as absolute ablative is possible, but sounds convoluted. In the canonical classification of ablatives, I would say that this is a clear case of instrumental ablative. Nothing seems to suggest to me that it would be absolute, but I may be missing something. Many kinds of ablatives (including instrumental) work on their own, without any preposition or such. (Whether there is a meaningful difference between absolute and instrumental is a good question. I expanded my answer a bit to comment on that and the absolute/instrumental issue.)" CreationDate="2018-04-07T09:31:47.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26417" PostId="6240" Score="0" Text="@fdb That's quite the apophasis. If you had replaced &quot;that is:&quot; with &quot;which is interpreted by protestants as:&quot;, I wouldn't have minded. But as it stands, I must share the Catholic view, that by the &quot;works of the law&quot;, St. Paul meant the ceremonial law. He didn't mean that you can break the moral and natural law, and &quot;fornicate a thousand times a day, and commit murder&quot; (as Luther wrote), but still be justified because you 'have (the) faith'. What's obvious is what St. James said: &quot;faith without works is dead&quot;, and &quot;by works a man is justified; and *not* by faith only&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-19T18:23:03.590" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13661" PostId="6241" Score="4" Text="[Related](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5143/a-dios-rogando-y-con-el-mazo-dando) question that may have to do with the sense of the phrase" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:11:23.880" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13671" PostId="6241" Score="1" Text="Similar to &quot;Praise the Lord and pass the ammo&quot; ." CreationDate="2018-04-06T12:02:51.907" UserId="2538" />
  <row Id="13660" PostId="6242" Score="0" Text="I wonder if there are any classical references for &quot;remigo ab&quot;, or if this even makes sense in Latin." CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:58:56.167" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13662" PostId="6242" Score="2" Text="Thanks very much! What a huge help you've been. I would be very interested to know if it is from somewhere specific – that might shed more meaning on it. Many many thanks." CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:14:49.687" UserId="2533" />
  <row Id="13663" PostId="6242" Score="2" Text="Although the adversative _sed_ might have been put there intentionally to twist the sense of the original meaning, I find more likely that the intention was to just go with it. If the deceased man who left the note was a believer, he probably meant that even if God does not need our help, he expects us to do our part while asking Him for help. (See the question I linked for more detail.)" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:20:19.240" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13665" PostId="6242" Score="1" Text="&quot;remigo ab&quot; +s 'away from' is the primary meaning in my dictionary. Example: Historia Salonitanorum Atque Spalatinorum Pontificum (p.240) &#xA;Thomas (Spalatensis, Archdeacon), 1666;    '...ab insula versus Almisium remigabat.'" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:33:01.527" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13666" PostId="6242" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Interesting take on it. I added your interpretation to my answer." CreationDate="2018-04-06T01:04:06.827" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13670" PostId="6242" Score="3" Text="Derived from your answer one could think of another, slightly different meaning:&#xA;You can always pray to god for help, but don't bring yourself into dangerous situations foolishly and expect him to help." CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:47:13.683" UserId="2537" />
  <row Id="13679" PostId="6242" Score="0" Text="@Jay, SamK, I see two possible nuances that could seem likely in the eyes of a present-day positivist or antitheist, but I think they aren't if the author was a believer or he just wanted to translate a popular saying. I was looking for a way to make this _caveat_. One of these nuances is &quot;yeah, praying is a nice thing, but don't count on God&quot;, the other one is similar: &quot;yeah, praying is a nice thing, but if you really want what you are asking for, you have to do whatever it takes, even if it's not what God wants you to do&quot; (which is the kind of bell that _pass the ammo_ rings me.)" CreationDate="2018-04-06T18:06:55.563" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13682" PostId="6242" Score="0" Text="@Rafael An atheist might certainly say, &quot;Well, you go ahead and pray if you want, but as for me, I'm going to row for shore.&quot; That isn't the tone I get from this particular quote, but as I don't know anything about the person who said it, it's certainly possible that I'm misreading his intent." CreationDate="2018-04-06T19:34:06.410" UserId="626" />
  <row Id="13687" PostId="6242" Score="0" Text="Well I know he grew up catholic, but was not an active practitioner. I gathered that he was a believer at one time, but those beliefs might have changed based on hardships or experiences. He also was not a man that fit into the traditional mold of a catholic at all based on what I know of his life. I would say if anything he believed in nature. He could be found canoeing in the early morning hours several days a week. I thought that might lend some significance to the rowing away from the rocks part of this." CreationDate="2018-04-07T03:43:18.187" UserId="2533" />
  <row Id="13680" PostId="6245" Score="0" Text="Funny that ῤάρος looks a lot like _rare_ or even more like the Spanish calque, as in _vocablos raros_ (rare/uncommon terms.)" CreationDate="2018-04-06T18:20:19.047" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13683" PostId="6245" Score="0" Text="I seem to faintly recall seeing breathing marks on a rho inside a word, but it might be just my memory failing. If that doesn't happen (or is rare) and initial rhos have essentially always rough breathing, that settles the issue completely." CreationDate="2018-04-06T20:15:25.260" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13685" PostId="6245" Score="0" Text="@Hugh I think it was indeed with a double rho. I somehow imagined that breathing was marked for other internal rhos, too. (Shows how well I know Greek!) Now it all makes sense, thanks!" CreationDate="2018-04-06T23:36:56.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13686" PostId="6245" Score="0" Text="On second thoughts I think I must have that wrong; that would mean that in the imperfect or aorist a verb such a rrheo (flow) would have three consecutive breathings. I think that in some fonts the initial rrh- was marked with two breathings. So, if you like, the second rho is an internal rho with a rough breathing." CreationDate="2018-04-07T00:05:15.630" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13690" PostId="6245" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Hmm... Maybe it would be best to ask a separate question about breathing on double rhos instead of discussing it here in comments. I don't think we have anything on the topic yet. I'm not sure I want to post it myself, but I'll be happy to see it." CreationDate="2018-04-07T09:08:33.180" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15245" PostId="6245" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta There is (or was) a convention of writing all double rhos as ῤῥ. It isn't always printed that way anymore, though." CreationDate="2018-08-15T03:38:08.787" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="13692" PostId="6251" Score="0" Text="How about _senex junior visu_?" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:48:34.620" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="13747" PostId="6254" Score="0" Text="Except that Dryden does not say &quot;rise FROM our blood&quot;; he says &quot;rise, some avenger OF our Libyan blood&quot;. &quot;Of&quot; goes with &quot;avenger&quot;." CreationDate="2018-04-13T10:42:12.553" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13694" PostId="6255" Score="0" Text="This is an interesting question. It is somewhat opinion-based, but I'm not sure if that's an issue. One option is to rephrase it as &quot;what are the strengths and weaknesses of the two in comparison?&quot; to make it more factual, but the formulation is up to you. (I think we should have a tag for Wheelock's Latin, so I'll create it and add to your question.)" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:10:06.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13695" PostId="6255" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Since I am significantly newer to this site than you, I wouldn't mind if you edited the question to meet the standard. You are obviously more aware of the standard than I am, and I do not mind insofar as the essence of the question is similar. I was also disappointed that Lingua Latina had a tag and Wheelock's Latn did not." CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:43:58.730" UserId="2459" />
  <row Id="13696" PostId="6255" Score="0" Text="Also, I noticed that you were able to add an m-dash. How did you do that?" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:44:19.427" UserId="2459" />
  <row Id="13697" PostId="6255" Score="0" Text="I rewrote the question. Feel free to make further edits or rollback to an older version! You can use a number of HTML entities on this site, like `&amp;mdash;` or `&amp;emacr;`. If you have any questions about formatting, you can ask them on [our meta site](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/). If you think a tag should be added to some question, you can always suggest an edit. You can't create new tags before 150 points, but you can always flag the question to request it (choose the custom flag). At 20 points you can also use [our chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm)." CreationDate="2018-04-07T21:03:43.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13699" PostId="6260" Score="1" Text="Tibi gratulor, quod iam mille puncta tulisti!" CreationDate="2018-04-08T16:35:01.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13716" PostId="6260" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ego quidem huic collegio pro doctissimis laetissimisque disceptationibus toto corde gratias ago." CreationDate="2018-04-09T23:13:03.437" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="14868" PostId="6262" Score="0" Text="As far as I know, the present infinitive in an a.c.i. is always contemporary with the main verb, so I don't think *is* is possible in the last example. At least that's how everybody here is taught to translate it." CreationDate="2018-07-18T15:25:11.807" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13702" PostId="6264" Score="0" Text="You're probably right. The only odd thing is that the so called *Lex Valeria Horatia de senatus consultorum custodia* is not mentioned at all in that article? And I couldn't find another, reliable source for the spelling above." CreationDate="2018-04-08T18:38:56.000" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13704" PostId="6264" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus It is a little puzzling. The article mentions explicitly that there were three laws, and each one is named, so implicitly the one you mention is not included. Perhaps the one *de senatus consultorum custodia* is an alternative name for one of the laws or refers to a part of one? I have no clue, to be honest." CreationDate="2018-04-08T20:59:18.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13705" PostId="6264" Score="0" Text="The problem is that the content of the *de senatus consultorum custodia* doesn't seem to be part of the thee laws in your article..." CreationDate="2018-04-08T21:02:24.547" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13707" PostId="6264" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus True, but I didn't assume that the descriptions of the laws were complete in that article. Judging by name and year, *lex de senatus consultorum custodia* should indeed be among those laws. Perhaps there's more than three? I don't really know of an authoritative source for looking up Roman laws. (It wouldn't hurt to have one on the site, I guess.)" CreationDate="2018-04-08T21:10:17.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13708" PostId="6264" Score="0" Text="♦: I'm not sure either. And I felt the site would appreciate a Question, rewarding my laziness!" CreationDate="2018-04-09T00:58:24.893" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13709" PostId="6266" Score="2" Text="I think the best first step would be to locate whatever source supplies &quot;ἔερθαι.&quot; [This one](https://newsappho.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/zpe-189-obbink.pdf), which seems pretty comprehensive, just has &quot;νεερ.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-04-09T13:07:41.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13710" PostId="6266" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I do not know of any source that fills that hole. The only source I have is _The Newest Sappho_, by Anton Bieri and André Lardinois, which contains as its chapter 1 the article _The Newest Sappho: Text, Apparatus Criticus, and Translation_ by Obbink himself. And that also only has νε̣ερ . [.]αι̣. As for the extra vestiges around the pseudohole, I suspect it's because of the dark margins of the pseudohole itself." CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:03:46.823" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="13717" PostId="6266" Score="1" Text="I completely agree with @brianpck . The correct practice is to fill gaps either with known words or with hitherto unattested words with a plausible justification. Postulating -θα- here is as arbitrary as any other guess. All seems to point to your having dreamt of ἔερθαι." CreationDate="2018-04-10T00:01:49.563" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="13719" PostId="6266" Score="1" Text="In our time and age, there is a quick way to check this - TGL http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/index.php" CreationDate="2018-04-10T02:57:15.470" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13720" PostId="6266" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Pardon my ignorance, but what is that site and how do I use it?" CreationDate="2018-04-10T06:32:45.747" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="13722" PostId="6266" Score="1" Text="@MickG Set up an account and find out! The wonders of the TLG are manifold and marvellous :)" CreationDate="2018-04-10T12:25:28.270" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23024" PostId="6267" Score="0" Text="I think translating is mandatory with Latin, to understand the specific grammar of Latin, and comparing it with our native language. You can learn other languages by immersion, without translating anything ever, but not Latin." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:32:35.293" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="13742" PostId="6269" Score="1" Text="That argument is very reasonable. Therefore, this method would be a kind of supplement. There are useful simplified texts where it is possible to find a good amount of vocabulary. The only drawback (and it also applies to original texts) is that one is constraint to the vocabulary contained in the texts, and if a word, for example, 'computer' is not there, you won't find it unless you look for it. Concerning words of modern objects, it is sometimes difficult to find them because there are not many texts about those topics, and I think that there are not even conventions for certain things." CreationDate="2018-04-13T04:32:05.410" UserId="1348" />
  <row Id="13752" PostId="6269" Score="0" Text="As for words like _computer_ conventions aren't universal even in modern languages. Take Spanish [ordenador, computador, computadora](https://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/25781/existe-alg%c3%ban-t%c3%a9rmino-para-ordenador-y-computadora-que-se-entienda-en-todos), yet for these neologisms most users of the language have chosen between a couple of translations that are commonly accepted." CreationDate="2018-04-13T16:50:37.993" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13743" PostId="6270" Score="1" Text="There is also the school Accademia Vivarium Novum, where students learn Latin by immersion, but I think that not everybody may have the time or the money to spend a summer there. And if I try to find a really skilled person, what are the chances that he (or she) can translate any word I ask? Can really good scholars use Latin as they use any other foreign language they learn or are they only experts in reading and writing?" CreationDate="2018-04-13T04:48:35.213" UserId="1348" />
  <row Id="13751" PostId="6270" Score="0" Text="@AlfieGonzález Of course, the chances depend on the word. For many words the chances are pretty high. For some, it is even difficult to tell whether there was a word at some point in history. Yet some modern concepts (e.g. the names of many digital devices) just need neologisms, and there are a few sources considered authoritative enough to provide them with a high level of acceptance. There are a few scholars able to use Latin like any foreign language, undoubtedly. I'm afraid the number is decreasing by the day, though" CreationDate="2018-04-13T16:43:20.307" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13711" PostId="6271" Score="1" Text="Not sure at all if it is, but supposing you are listening well and the whole sentence is in fact grammatical, i'd also consider the possibility that the relative clause is being treated as adjectival (Vale, homo qui-est-faba). I don't know if that is legal either. Another option is they are treating vale, as just a greeting, not a verb (interjection maybe?) I have the feeling that vale and ave _might_ have fossilized as verbs at some point after antiquity" CreationDate="2018-04-09T20:40:39.163" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13712" PostId="6271" Score="1" Text="@Rafael My impression is that it's classically illegal, but one of the things you describe may well have happened later. If so, there ought to be more examples out there to show that this isn't unique." CreationDate="2018-04-09T21:08:03.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13713" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="I seem to recall both forms are possible." CreationDate="2018-04-09T22:21:00.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13714" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus If you can find examples of both, that'd be a nice answer. I assume there is era-dependence, but any examples justifying that it's possible at all would already be good." CreationDate="2018-04-09T22:28:36.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13715" PostId="6271" Score="4" Text="It sounds like the influence of ModE grammar to me, where *you're a man who's a bean* is more common than *you're a man who are a bean,* if the latter occurs at all." CreationDate="2018-04-09T22:32:59.277" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="13718" PostId="6271" Score="1" Text="I'm trying to think of a way to find such quotations!" CreationDate="2018-04-10T00:41:38.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13721" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Could you actually post that as an answer? Whether the *est* is grammatical in Latin or not, English might be the reason it ended up being so in the song." CreationDate="2018-04-10T08:33:02.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13726" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Well, yes, but in Latin second-person verbs are generally used even if the subject/referent is a noun, whereas in ModE even if the referent is a second-person pronoun, we prefer third-person verbs (e.g., *it's you that's angry,* less common *it's you that are angry*). I'm actually not sure what part the grammar of the Lord's Prayer could play in this, given that it's quite a few centuries behind." CreationDate="2018-04-11T00:36:36.360" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="19851" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="What about the phrase, &quot;We, who are about to die, salute you,&quot; how was that said? I think a parallel would be appropriate here." CreationDate="2019-05-22T14:17:09.657" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19854" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="@MediaMatellaLucretiaFlores That (*morituri te salutant*) was formed with a pure participle without a relative clause, so the parallel doesn't quite work." CreationDate="2019-05-22T15:35:26.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19859" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="@ Joonas Ilmavirta, Thank you, good to know. Are there any other phrases that have a similar structure that would work here?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T19:03:02.290" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19861" PostId="6271" Score="0" Text="@MediaMatellaLucretiaFlores I am not aware of any, but I imagine there are. Finding examples with similar structure would bring one very close to answering this question." CreationDate="2019-05-22T23:03:35.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38312" PostId="6271" Score="2" Text="@Asteroides Plautus Truc. 667 as well: *Ita te quidem, qui es familiaris.*" CreationDate="2022-05-12T05:11:36.043" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38313" PostId="6271" Score="2" Text="@cmw: That seems like a good additional example of the same type as &quot;Tibi, qui amicus es, donum do.&quot; However, it differs from &quot;Vale homo qui est faba&quot; in that the latter, but not the former, has a noun (homo) that is not the second-person pronoun. (However, looking back at my comment, I'm not sure why I said &quot;that is not a 2nd-person pronoun or a vocative&quot;, since I think &quot;homo&quot; here may be vocative.)" CreationDate="2022-05-12T05:26:35.970" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38314" PostId="6271" Score="2" Text="@Asteroides Yeah, I was thinking of &quot;noun phrase&quot; more broadly, but I guess it's a direct relative after *te* here. You do see the [*o \* qui/quae* + 2nd person](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23o%23+%7E+qui%23) very frequently. I don't think the *homo* needs the *o*, but it's still vocative with *vale*." CreationDate="2022-05-12T05:34:22.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="13728" PostId="6272" Score="1" Text="In Italian we say “necrologio” and I would be tempted to propose _necrologium._ I am aware, however, that for some religious orders (in Italy too! just found out) a _necrologium_ is not an obituary for a deceased individual but a registry where all deaths of members are logged." CreationDate="2018-04-11T04:56:27.173" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="13730" PostId="6272" Score="0" Text="@Dario I was tempted by something in that line too, but _necrologia_ has Greek roots, and [I didn't find](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=necro&amp;lang=la) related words (with both roots) in L&amp;S" CreationDate="2018-04-11T12:08:23.910" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13724" PostId="6273" Score="1" Text="Good question. Also interesting is the shift from &quot;separate&quot; to &quot;see&quot;, &quot;understand&quot;, and &quot;decide&quot; in verbs like Greek krinô / Latin cerno, and also Latin caedo." CreationDate="2018-04-10T22:06:41.353" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13732" PostId="6273" Score="0" Text="I thought of a line of succeeding derviations where &quot;trimming&quot; &gt; &quot;simplifying&quot; &gt; &quot;making sth understandable&quot; &gt; &quot;coming to an understanding&quot;, but I don't know if I'm on the right track with that." CreationDate="2018-04-11T14:56:44.947" UserId="2415" />
  <row Id="13729" PostId="6274" Score="1" Text="+1, but how do you tell a biography apart from an obituary? Just the length and occasion? How is it done in English? BTW the Spanish etymological equivalent, _obituario_ primarily means a list of the recently dead or a piece of commented news about someone recently dead." CreationDate="2018-04-11T12:04:19.523" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13731" PostId="6274" Score="1" Text="@Rafael As you say, by length and occasion. While a biography is anything from a pamphlet to a full-length book, an obituary is shorter, and usually appears in a newspaper (where it can run from a brief notice to an essay of a few thousand words, depending on the public status of the subject). In English as in Spanish, _obituary_ can be a simple list of the recently dead." CreationDate="2018-04-11T13:32:09.187" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="13733" PostId="6276" Score="0" Text="I think that _laudatio_ is hardly valid. Obituaries are not universally dedicated to praise — they can often be critical." CreationDate="2018-04-12T05:46:41.397" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="13735" PostId="6277" Score="0" Text="How about _intellego/intellectio_, from inter+lego? Just a guess, though" CreationDate="2018-04-12T19:07:14.177" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13745" PostId="6277" Score="0" Text="Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis mentions the word partitio." CreationDate="2018-04-13T06:50:52.703" UserId="1348" />
  <row Id="13746" PostId="6277" Score="2" Text="Everyone: **Can you please post suggestions as answers?** Any suggested translation is an answer (it doesn't have to be perfect to be worthy), comments are intended for requesting clarifications and otherwise improving the question." CreationDate="2018-04-13T07:13:01.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13755" PostId="6277" Score="1" Text="But opinions alone sholudn't be answers, that's what makes this site better than Yahoo answers or Quora. I know a sister site where people upvote opinions, and people with honest questions get the wrong answers b/c the right ones arrive later. Maybe I should move this to meta, but I'm on the phone now" CreationDate="2018-04-13T22:11:02.323" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13758" PostId="6277" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That is a good topic to bring up on meta. I think opinions make good answers, as long as they are more expert opinions than personal ones and are clearly marked as such. If an answer is prefaced with &quot;I found no sources to back this up, but my intuition as a Latin teacher suggests&quot;, I know where it's coming from. I prefer a suggested translation to be given in an answer, so that we can vote and comment on that suggestion. (I know not all will agree with me.) Admittedly, it is a problem across the entire network that fast and easy answers come first and rank higher than they should." CreationDate="2018-04-14T07:36:19.077" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13736" PostId="6278" Score="0" Text="More info about the text?" CreationDate="2018-04-13T01:40:23.970" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13737" PostId="6278" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I added some, it's a 15th century incunable published in Spain.  It's a pretty boring scholastic commentary, this is the extent of something interesting that I've found (other than typographically it generally uses the same character for 3, ꝫ and z/ʒ haha)" CreationDate="2018-04-13T01:58:40.207" UserId="2560" />
  <row Id="13738" PostId="6278" Score="1" Text="**'igitur'** because it is frequent, it is second word in the clause, it is close enough to the superscript 'i' which is found earlier, and the important thing is that it should be distinguishable from g with 'o' superscript for 'ergo'." CreationDate="2018-04-13T02:19:58.860" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13740" PostId="6278" Score="1" Text="&quot;in Egypt there were always etcetera; ; therefore it could conceivably be said that it was there that he learnt the magic art. Et omne genus m...&quot;" CreationDate="2018-04-13T02:35:21.557" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13741" PostId="6278" Score="2" Text="@Hugh Could you post that as an answer so I can accept? (I'll adjust the title for future searchers).  I'll admit my Latin isn't the greatest — I'm tracking most of this book from a contemporaneous periphrastic translation, and in that version it was &quot;the Jewish people could say&quot; so seeing a *g* I assumed it was *gens*.  Sure enough, though, Capelli has g’, gͥ, gᷣ, and g+curlybar for *igitur*)." CreationDate="2018-04-13T02:55:02.203" UserId="2560" />
  <row Id="13749" PostId="6278" Score="1" Text="Out of curiosity--what is your reason for transcribing in this manner?" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:50:01.827" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13750" PostId="6278" Score="0" Text="@brianpck largely consistency, for a variety of reasons the other texts that I'm citing are cited diplomatically, so I might as well continue (also, the original is needed for a properly encoded documented follow TEI guidelines).  Side effect is it looks cool if the font can handle it (but that really is just a side effect)." CreationDate="2018-04-13T14:27:01.750" UserId="2560" />
  <row Id="13744" PostId="6279" Score="4" Text="Define &quot;complex&quot;? Some authors were horrifically florid and loved their elaborate nested clauses, but others (like Caesar) wrote clean and straightforward prose. I'd imagine the same is true in any language; it certainly is in English academic writing." CreationDate="2018-04-13T05:44:09.440" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13748" PostId="6279" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Just to state the obvious: Cicero certainly loved &quot;elaborate nested clauses,&quot; but he *wasn't* &quot;horrifically florid&quot;" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:34:41.267" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13754" PostId="6279" Score="2" Text="Two ideas: 1. Grammar and style change with time, even with cultural trends. Compare XVIII century literature with new books in the same language. Did writers from two or three centuries ago want to sound complex? I don't think so: it was just the way it was natural for them to write. 2. Does medieval Latin sound more familiar to Romance speakers because medieval knowledge of Latin was poorer? I don't think so: many languages have simplified over time, AND there were (arguably) native and (undoubtedly) fluent speakers of Latin much later than that. I have seen quite complex XX century Latin." CreationDate="2018-04-13T17:17:36.780" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14968" PostId="6282" Score="2" Text="And indeed ἐέρθαι is the Epic infinitive corresponding to ἔερμαι. ἔερθαι would be its recessively accented Aeolic counterpart." CreationDate="2018-07-29T13:15:45.933" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="13757" PostId="6283" Score="0" Text="I am confused by this answer. All three of your final reasons apply equally well to &quot;ergo,&quot; so the entire argument hinges on whether the OP text has an I or an o. I think it is clearly not the former, but you don't seem to address that point (though the comparison texts are helpful)." CreationDate="2018-04-14T03:13:50.163" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13766" PostId="6283" Score="0" Text="Just to be clear--you think it is **either** *ergo* **or** *igitur*? I suppose I was taking that issue as settled and arguing for the former option. I tend to think *igitur* is indefensible, unless you've come across an &quot;ir&quot; superscript like you mention. Even then, &quot;o&quot; definitely seems like the more parsimonious option." CreationDate="2018-04-14T21:05:54.577" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13767" PostId="6283" Score="0" Text="No, personally I think it is an 'i' superscript which has found a problem in this chunky font with the dot above the 'i;' the solution they chose was to displace the dot to the right and slant it. That solution may have been found in the MS, or spontaneously by the engraver cutting punches for the font." CreationDate="2018-04-15T02:09:06.400" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13768" PostId="6283" Score="0" Text="@brianpck  Parsimonious in what sense? sterner application of Ockham's razor?" CreationDate="2018-04-15T02:09:24.377" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13769" PostId="6288" Score="1" Text="I looked for 'qualification' in Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, and there are three results: titulus idoneitatis, certamen praeparatorium, idoneitatis assumptio. Also, Pons dictionary says 'qualificatio'." CreationDate="2018-04-15T08:52:36.343" UserId="1348" />
  <row Id="13771" PostId="6289" Score="1" Text="This is excellent, many thanks! Based on this, I would call the procedure of obtaining the qualifications *concessio iuris docendi* and the qualifications themselves *ius docendi*. If more specificity is needed, I would replace *docendi* with *linguae Latinae docendae* or similarly with other subjects. I like the word *ius* instead of *idoneitas*, as it refers more clearly to the formal side of things, not aptitude." CreationDate="2018-04-15T19:15:14.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13772" PostId="6290" Score="0" Text="Also _modo avión_ (m., airplane, also a noun) in Spanish" CreationDate="2018-04-15T23:17:14.750" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13773" PostId="6290" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I can see the argument for using -i- instead of -o- for compounds where both parts are from Latin, but even though &quot;planus/-um/-a&quot; is Latin, isn't the word &quot;aer&quot; originally a loanword from Greek?" CreationDate="2018-04-16T02:35:05.087" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13775" PostId="6290" Score="1" Text="@Rafael thank you very much. Answer corrected." CreationDate="2018-04-16T04:46:04.820" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="13776" PostId="6293" Score="0" Text="In my case *procursus* would fit. 'the milling about before a race begins.' Still, it's a bit late for that." CreationDate="2018-04-16T14:42:39.553" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13779" PostId="6293" Score="2" Text="Research lead: [cursus vitae](https://m.interglot.com/de/en/Vitae%20cursus), is it different to curriculum vitae at all? See meaning II of [cursus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcursus)" CreationDate="2018-04-16T20:58:10.273" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13780" PostId="6293" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That sounds excellent! It is different from *curriculum vitae* in the important way that it's not a set phrase used in a number of languages. CV is too prone to misunderstanding, but *cursus vitae* doesn't suffer from that. Would you like to write that up as an answer? (I did read [your meta question](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/336/79) on the matter.)" CreationDate="2018-04-17T05:35:52.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13778" PostId="6295" Score="0" Text="The word *analysis* has indeed made its way to modern Latin, but presumably not classical. Euler's [*Introductio in analysin infinitorum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introductio_in_analysin_infinitorum) is a classic. (The personal note is interesting; perhaps I should find out what p-dimethyl-aminobenzylidenerhodanine is...)" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:07:02.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13781" PostId="6295" Score="1" Text="@joonas Ilmavirta  I'm surprised that you even found it. That must be just about the longest word ever to find its way on to the LLSE!" CreationDate="2018-04-17T09:20:40.390" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="13782" PostId="6296" Score="3" Text="I wonder if Jefferson ever heard of Grosseteste, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaître... (but that's neither here nor there)" CreationDate="2018-04-17T14:18:44.567" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13783" PostId="6296" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Copernicus took minor orders, but there is no hard evidence that he was ever ordained as a priest." CreationDate="2018-04-17T16:32:03.480" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13790" PostId="6296" Score="3" Text="@fdb Ah, no wonder he was capable of doing science then! ;)" CreationDate="2018-04-18T01:47:40.300" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13785" PostId="6297" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question! Google translate is usually not a good tool for Latin, but in order to be on-topic, we've agreed that you have to show some previous effort, so you may want to add what did Google give you and why you think it's odd" CreationDate="2018-04-17T18:10:18.193" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13794" PostId="6297" Score="0" Text="Hi! and thanks for warm welcome, I tried to roughly translate from google translate and did little search with the result of translation and online dictionary. I almost have zero knowledge in latin but based on my search seems the result a little bit off" CreationDate="2018-04-18T04:57:09.730" UserId="2571" />
  <row Id="13787" PostId="6298" Score="0" Text="I don't really know if this helps, but the OP uses just &quot;again&quot; rather than &quot;ever again.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-04-17T21:31:04.377" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13796" PostId="6298" Score="0" Text="Whoa this is useful, but I still uncertain in few parts, I will add comment once I'm home (I already upvote but due to my low rep, it is not displayed).  &#xA;&#xA;And I think we don't mind to use &quot;ever again&quot; instead, since it just mean the same after all" CreationDate="2018-04-18T04:58:52.880" UserId="2571" />
  <row Id="13799" PostId="6298" Score="0" Text="I've arrived home and read your answer, I have certain things in mind to ask aside from your interesting notes; is it more appropriate to use quiēte rather than somne / somnus? what the difference between them? And also, Lūcem means light (daylight), how about Aurora? its not like I'm not satisfied, It just me that interested with those particular words. Thanks in advance!" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:12:01.683" UserId="2571" />
  <row Id="13800" PostId="6298" Score="1" Text="@tronic _aurora_ means light only by a far fetched analogy. Look at this [dictionary entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daurora)" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:18:20.773" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13788" PostId="6300" Score="0" Text="Thank you. The main reason why I used those specific words was to preserve the musicality: F**u**gitur ut str**i**gibus dil**u**culum sic v**e**ritas presb**y**teris." CreationDate="2018-04-17T23:53:01.550" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="13789" PostId="6300" Score="0" Text="Would *Fugitur ut strigibus diluculum sic scientia sacerdotis* be more exact?" CreationDate="2018-04-18T01:23:21.757" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="13791" PostId="6300" Score="1" Text="@CarlosArturoSerrano I would use *sacerdōtis*, but if you specifically mean Christian priests I'm not the best person to ask about that. I'm sure there are much better words in Ecclesiastical Latin." CreationDate="2018-04-18T03:33:06.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13792" PostId="6300" Score="0" Text="My dictionary includes Ecclesiastical Latin. It gives *sacerdos*, *presbyter* and *parochus*, and it reserves *flamen* for the Roman gods." CreationDate="2018-04-18T04:48:01.417" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="13793" PostId="6300" Score="0" Text="Hmm, my proposed revision seems to require a revision. Ablative should be *sacerdotibus*, right?" CreationDate="2018-04-18T04:54:31.970" UserId="2478" />
  <row Id="13795" PostId="6300" Score="0" Text="@CarlosArturoSerrano D'oh, yes, *sacerdōtibus*. To me a *parochus* is a professional host, someone who was paid to have supplies available for visiting bureaucrats and officers and whatnot." CreationDate="2018-04-18T04:58:47.437" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13797" PostId="6300" Score="1" Text="Flamen is definitely a pagan priest, which is not intended here. I think you need sacerdos, which can be either a pagan or a Christian (e.g. in Hebrews 7,15)." CreationDate="2018-04-18T09:54:59.167" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13801" PostId="6303" Score="0" Text="Very nice explanation! really extensive explanation, and based on your analysis, I think we prefer &quot;somnus&quot; over &quot;quiēte&quot;. It just sounds that the &quot;sleep&quot; sounds a lil bit meaningful. Just one question, is it appropriate to use Aurora instead? and what the difference between videbo and videre? because I saw them a lil bit more in internet, but I'm not certain. Thanks in advance!" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:29:19.280" UserId="2571" />
  <row Id="13802" PostId="6303" Score="1" Text="@tronic __Aurora__ = *dawn, daybreak, morning*. Perhaps you read *aurora borealis* meant the northern lights? Yes, but they were not called *lights* in Latin (nor are in some modern Romance languages.) __Videbo__ = *I will see* or *will I see*; videre = *to see*, not quite fit here" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:35:04.650" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13803" PostId="6303" Score="0" Text="@tronic Let us know if/when the story gets published!" CreationDate="2018-04-18T17:25:44.923" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13804" PostId="6305" Score="0" Text="Which is the commoner usage?" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:27:51.100" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="13805" PostId="6305" Score="0" Text="Also, _autem_ seem to be a weaker adversative than _sed_, so maybe _autem_ is overall more copulative." CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:28:43.533" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="13806" PostId="6305" Score="0" Text="@Geremia judging from my experience and the way it is put in the dictionary entry, it seems to me that the adversative is much more common. The copulative use is visibly more specific, not always interchangeable with _et_, _ac_ or _-que_, while the adversative use is pretty much equivalent to _sed_." CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:37:05.873" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13807" PostId="6305" Score="2" Text="The reason I say _autem_ is a &quot;weaker adversative&quot; is because L&amp;S says that _autem_ &quot;differs from the **restricting** _sed_ in like manner with _at_&quot;." CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:58:03.987" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="15244" PostId="6307" Score="0" Text="Just as a side note, &quot;topic/comment&quot; doesn't really map on to &quot;old/new&quot; -- you can have a topic that's new to the discourse." CreationDate="2018-08-15T03:36:16.970" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="13808" PostId="6309" Score="1" Text="Closely related: [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/600)" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:57:59.120" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13830" PostId="6309" Score="0" Text="@sumelic That is indeed closely related, but it would be great if someone could write up an answer specifically for this question." CreationDate="2018-04-22T13:55:39.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13831" PostId="6309" Score="0" Text="@DaddyWhale Since there are no answers yet, it might make sense to split your question and ask the other part separately. That way they would be easier to find and answer. How does this sound?" CreationDate="2018-04-22T13:56:50.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13834" PostId="6309" Score="0" Text="@Joonaslimavirta Sounds good.  I'm new to stackexchange.  I'll try breaking it up." CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:46:36.843" UserId="2574" />
  <row Id="13835" PostId="6309" Score="0" Text="@sumelic.  Thanks for the advice on enclitics.  I've come to this same conclusion from what I've learned from other websites." CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:47:28.157" UserId="2574" />
  <row Id="13810" PostId="6311" Score="0" Text="Thank you! So in the third sentence, &quot;ipse&quot; can be translated as &quot;myself&quot;, even though there is no accompanying first-person pronoun?" CreationDate="2018-04-19T01:59:53.573" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13811" PostId="6311" Score="0" Text="Yes, the nominative by default is the author.  By the way *scribendum* is ' written stuff' just as *legendum* is 'reading matter.'" CreationDate="2018-04-19T02:04:22.943" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13812" PostId="6311" Score="0" Text="Ah, I think I get it. So it is correct to say that &quot;scribendum&quot; is the object of &quot;curaui&quot; and &quot;hunc locum editurus&quot; is a subordinate, participial phrase?" CreationDate="2018-04-19T02:09:45.513" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13813" PostId="6311" Score="0" Text="Yes; Lundström is 'about to publish' or 'is in the process of preparing to publish on this locus, at the time when he pays special attention to the *scribendum* **A S**" CreationDate="2018-04-19T02:18:25.180" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23518" PostId="6313" Score="0" Text="Eventually there is no need for ... what is &quot;as&quot; anyway, a conjunction? I mean, English uses many prepositions to make up for its loss of the inflections. Even if Latin had a near synonym--I'm as curious as you--I guess it will often be left out, or is baked in with the word. So &quot;as a citizen&quot; is probably realized as ablative or vocative inflection, similar to *citizen rights*. Indeed, *als* exists similarly but not equivalently in German as well, as Germanic had already lost some cases. I've started to cp Greek relative pronouns, and it seems L *-alis, qualis* may be correlated to *as, like*." CreationDate="2019-12-01T13:00:57.610" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23520" PostId="6313" Score="0" Text="Point in case, *like when* is almost redundant. The usual aphorism is phrased &quot;Love is when you finish each others sentences&quot;, and there's also &quot;Happiness is a warm gun&quot;, &quot;sex is like driving--safety comes first&quot;, etc.. However, I'm aware it's a collocation, idem G *wie wenn*, and it feels a lot like *quasi* which is also composed of two syllables (not to commit to much to a grammatic interpretation)." CreationDate="2019-12-01T13:49:14.463" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23521" PostId="6313" Score="0" Text="take a look at the last collumns here https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_correlatives" CreationDate="2019-12-01T13:53:15.733" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23517" PostId="6315" Score="1" Text="Talking about *similis*, note it can take both the genitive and the dative; the genitive is preferred for perfect resemblance (e.g. &quot;similis patris&quot;), and in expressions like &quot;veri similis&quot;, &quot;similis mei/tui/...&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-01T11:46:32.173" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="23524" PostId="6315" Score="1" Text="My heart is so happy to know that this exchange even happened in this day and age. I love learning. Thank you. God bless." CreationDate="2019-12-01T06:05:11.607" UserId="6337" />
  <row Id="13822" PostId="6316" Score="0" Text="I was hoping to get information about the source, whether Tuchman invented the phrase herself or quoted from elsewhere, rather than a translation." CreationDate="2018-04-21T01:37:53.133" UserId="1432" />
  <row Id="13824" PostId="6316" Score="0" Text="@kingledion I know. That's why I wrote that this complements the other answers. I'll edit to clarify. You gave the impression that you don't know Latin very well, so I thought a discussion on the meaning and structure would be helpful, albeit tangential." CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:17:23.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16431" PostId="6316" Score="1" Text="Looking back at this question to pick an accepted answer, I find your answer much more helpful that I evidently did at the time, so thank you." CreationDate="2018-11-18T21:23:41.330" UserId="1432" />
  <row Id="13817" PostId="6317" Score="0" Text="I made this community wiki. If someone with more knowledge of the project can add extra info (especially about the difference between the *adumbratio* and the *silva*), that would be helpful!" CreationDate="2018-04-19T14:15:51.747" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13818" PostId="6319" Score="3" Text="Will include this in a more complete answer I haven’t the time to write now: for now, let me cite from _[S. Isidori, Hispalensis episcopi... Opera omnia, denuo correcta et aucta:](https://books.google.it/books?id=fMnyEyLo1XQC&amp;pg=PA75&amp;lpg=PA75&amp;dq=%22vesperescit%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=odB5Fm6slQ&amp;sig=uzGkMILBNHoew2nDNTdLfFiIW_s&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5uaeykMjaAhXJaRQKHb0gCT4Q6AEIPDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vesperescit%22&amp;f=false) 608: inter __Vesperescit__ et __Vesperascit:__ __vesperescit,__ id est sero fit, __vesperascit,__ sol ad occasum declinat._" CreationDate="2018-04-20T05:39:51.423" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="13819" PostId="6319" Score="0" Text="@Dario That sounds very promising! I look forward to a comparison of the two verbs." CreationDate="2018-04-20T19:40:08.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13820" PostId="6319" Score="0" Text="I've just remembered *obliviscor.*" CreationDate="2018-04-20T20:01:34.750" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13821" PostId="6319" Score="1" Text="@Hugh It would be unfortunate for that verb to go to oblivion." CreationDate="2018-04-20T20:54:52.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13823" PostId="6321" Score="4" Text="Recall the cardinal rule of (Latin) Google translate: uti est decipi." CreationDate="2018-04-21T02:10:04.213" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13827" PostId="6323" Score="1" Text="I have no personal experience with this issue, but, as you say, masculine is used for the common gender in all European languages that I know. Neuter is just not used for people in Latin, so I would rule that out. If you feel like it, you could rewrite the entire text using only nouns and adjective with common genders, such as *poeta* and words of the third declension." CreationDate="2018-04-22T13:22:15.240" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13828" PostId="6323" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I agree that masculine is best, but I would like to see some more direct evidence from the relevant people themselves (for any such language). In some cases one might be able to work around gender-specific words, but in the said academic context this will be hard. The key nouns referring to the recipient of the diploma are *candidatus/candidata*, *magister/magistra*, *licentiatus/licentiata*, and *doctor/doctrix*, and adjectives are easily in superlative. In fact, [the diploma I mentioned earlier](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1062/79) uses the phrase *femina praeclarissima*." CreationDate="2018-04-22T13:33:27.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13829" PostId="6323" Score="0" Text="Even so, it can be done! Words can be replaced and constructions recast...it's just a lot of work and it will uglify the text." CreationDate="2018-04-22T13:53:19.757" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13825" PostId="6324" Score="1" Text="I have read Ben Kovitz answer, but I did not know about *English As She Is Spoke*. Reminds me of the [Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6D1YI-41ao)." CreationDate="2018-04-21T13:31:55.147" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="13826" PostId="6325" Score="1" Text="Could you specify the context? A &quot;withholding&quot; is not the same as a &quot;deduction.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:17:29.410" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13833" PostId="6327" Score="1" Text="One of the 'hesitation' answers suggested the tense there be taken as Aorist (timeless) rather than Perfect (time past); in contrast to present subjunctive at that particular moment." CreationDate="2018-04-22T22:19:45.547" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13839" PostId="6333" Score="0" Text="I guess I don't understand this. The word I have in my dictionary is &quot;commeo&quot; and I know for a fact that the indicative of habeo is habent and the subjunctive is habeant. So, how is that commeant is not subjunctive in the same way that habeant is subjunctive?" CreationDate="2018-04-21T15:36:31.350" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="13840" PostId="6333" Score="6" Text="_Commeo_ is first conjugation: the _-e-_ is part of the stem _comme-_, and endings (mostly including _-a-_ in the indicative) are added after it. The subjunctive would be _commeent_. _Habeo_ is second conjugation: the stem is _hab-_, and most of the indicative endings include _-e-_. Its subjunctive would be _habeant_." CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:55:16.283" UserDisplayName="Colin Fine" />
  <row Id="13841" PostId="6333" Score="1" Text="Ok, that makes sense. Might want to make that part of the answer." CreationDate="2018-04-21T20:36:26.790" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="13842" PostId="6337" Score="0" Text="I don't know the answer, but your question raises my curiosity. 1) You have already spotted these differences, I think they help learning rather than obstruct it. For literal translations, don't you have dictionaries and grammars? 2) As a native Spanish speaker, why not look for a translation to Spanish? Grammars are a little more alike. BTW, as a general comment, I think older translations _tend_ to be more literal. Nacar-Colunga could be a good option in this sense." CreationDate="2018-04-26T12:06:38.370" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13850" PostId="6338" Score="2" Text="Thanks. It was intentional that I referred to the order of sentenced and not of words, as &quot;red horse&quot; and &quot;horse red&quot; are not identical in English, as they are in Latin. I get the impression Spanish is more poetic-style friendly, as &quot;caballo rojo&quot; and &quot;rojo caballo&quot; are both valid, the latter being indeed more poetical. But an identical order would help in the learning, imo. Still, I take the point that you can never get fully literal without losing meaning. You are right that the _tu_ is explicit, and so it must be included. Thanks!" CreationDate="2018-04-27T07:27:41.980" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13893" PostId="6338" Score="0" Text="What about the third example I just added? I have focused the last days on verb moods and tenses, and there are many differences. That is just an example." CreationDate="2018-04-30T08:12:17.183" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13895" PostId="6338" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho The third example is a case where Latin uses the subjunctive but English doesn't: *cum* circumstantial clauses and *donec* clauses take the subjunctive in Latin, but they don't in English. (Compare English and Spanish: it would be incorrect to translate, &quot;Cuando vengas, ven a verme&quot; with the subjunctive. The best translation is indicative: &quot;When you come, etc.&quot;)" CreationDate="2018-04-30T12:39:15.883" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33957" PostId="6341" Score="0" Text="You do indeed see words like *uulgus* and *uenus* in some dictionaries. Oxford does it that way, and I believe a few others do, too. They use V for capital letters and u for lower case regardless of whether it's a vowel or consonant." CreationDate="2021-07-03T17:14:57.803" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="13848" PostId="6343" Score="0" Text="Interesting; so, is graduum (gen. pl.) two syllables or three? Should it ideally be gradvum?" CreationDate="2018-04-27T01:34:32.600" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13849" PostId="6343" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I believe it had three, in fact! See https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6077/406" CreationDate="2018-04-27T03:34:31.000" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13862" PostId="6343" Score="2" Text="@Hugh It is three, and it is actually not exceptional. There is a number of words ending in *-uus* with two short vowels U and verbs ending in *-uere* have the form *-uunt*." CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:36:41.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33954" PostId="6343" Score="0" Text="Does writing long vowel Ū in V get rid of the - on top of it?" CreationDate="2021-07-03T16:31:38.873" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="13845" PostId="6345" Score="0" Text="Good question! I suppose you could alternatively ask why they are spelled *ae* and *oe* instead of *ai* and *oi*." CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:55:37.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13846" PostId="6345" Score="0" Text="Hi! It may be because i can be pronounced as /j/, so using e instead would resolve this potential ambiguity. But I can't prove it." CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:03:00.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13858" PostId="6345" Score="0" Text="It is not always the case that spelling accurately reflects pronunciation. Moreover, Latin constantly changed, like any other language. The diphthongs in question were no exception. I’m aware of at least four different phonetic realizations of these diphthongs." CreationDate="2018-04-27T14:44:06.860" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13847" PostId="6346" Score="0" Text="Do any of the sources indicate when the pronunciation changed, assuming it was more /ai/ than /ae/ at some point in early classical or pre-classical Latin? I would not be surprised if the pronunciation changed during the classical era." CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:06:24.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22909" PostId="6346" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta [This thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/70fy9m/comment/dn4tmcc) quotes Terence." CreationDate="2019-10-25T16:01:28.970" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="13851" PostId="6348" Score="2" Text="Worth noting: the Greek has an active aorist participle (ἐπάρας). The go-to strategy for translating such participles into Latin is to use a perfect passive participle in an ablative absolute construction." CreationDate="2018-04-27T13:16:01.537" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13852" PostId="6348" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Are you sure we are looking at the same passage? Gen. 22,4 has ἀναβλέψας, not ἐπάρας." CreationDate="2018-04-27T13:26:44.907" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13853" PostId="6348" Score="0" Text="@fdb The OP mentions several passages. Luke 6:20 has *elevatis oculis* in Latin and *ἐπάρας* in Greek." CreationDate="2018-04-27T13:31:06.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13854" PostId="6348" Score="0" Text="....Fair enough." CreationDate="2018-04-27T13:34:39.627" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13855" PostId="6348" Score="2" Text="@fdb Yup, should have mentioned that. I looked at the NT passage because the Greek is less suspect there" CreationDate="2018-04-27T13:42:02.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13859" PostId="6348" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer. I am however still puzzled. 1) the Latin bibles found online do not have such punctuations. So how do I infer when is ablative and when it is not? 2) [I read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)) ablative applies to nouns and not to verbs. Is the verb inheriting the ablative from the noun _oculis_? 3) How do I know _oculis_ is used as ablative and not as dative? Because precisely the dative makes no sense? 4) I still do not get why the ablative means a shift from second person to third person. 5) Which type of ablative is it? The link above mentions many." CreationDate="2018-04-27T16:03:23.437" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13861" PostId="6348" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I expanded my answer. The answers should be in the post now, but as a brief summary: 1) From context. Looking at the form gives you several options, and you can only decide the right one by trying different readings. 2) That picture is too simplified. Participles do have case inflection, and they are essentially adjectives. 3) Again, context. Dative doesn't seem to make sense. 4) The participle is impersonal. It doesn't refer to second or third person. Again, context. 5) It is the ablative absolute in Wikipedia's list. But I wouldn't treat it as a subclass of locative." CreationDate="2018-04-27T16:42:58.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41390" PostId="6350" Score="0" Text="Worth mentioning: A lot of adverbs have an ablative as origin; generally, if you find a puzzling ablative in a sentence, check whether it actually had become an adverb." CreationDate="2023-02-17T10:25:04.643" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="13856" PostId="6353" Score="1" Text="I can't find `plura` in [this declination table](https://www.latin-is-simple.com/de/vocabulary/adjective/6888/). What form should it be? accusative? Also I'm unsure if one needs singulum or plural. I would not even know how to translate the plural of `many` to English so it's hard to say what's needed..." CreationDate="2018-04-27T14:21:28.827" UserId="2587" />
  <row Id="13857" PostId="6353" Score="1" Text="@mcExchange When it comes to classical Latin, that table is unfortunately wrong. Corpus searches (see the linked question) show that *pluria* is only used when discussing the choice *plura/pluria*, but otherwise it's only *plura*. (There is also a possibility that this is an editorial choice, but my impression is that *plura* is by far more common.) These are two variants of the same form, neuter plural nominative/accusative/vocative. I would translate &quot;many&quot; as the plural *plures/plura*, whereas the singular *plus* is closer to &quot;much&quot;." CreationDate="2018-04-27T14:27:07.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13860" PostId="6355" Score="0" Text="Interesting! Also interesting that neither the old (Jerome's) nor the [Nova Vulgata](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html#22) mentions Abraham in the verse. Maybe a special issue of the Latin language?" CreationDate="2018-04-27T16:06:24.217" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13863" PostId="6356" Score="0" Text="Hasn't Joonas said this already?" CreationDate="2018-04-27T22:12:50.843" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13872" PostId="6356" Score="1" Text="He did. his answer is much more complete." CreationDate="2018-04-29T09:24:14.853" UserId="2588" />
  <row Id="13873" PostId="6356" Score="0" Text="I overlooked it because it starts by citing the wrong translation, in order to tell that it's wrong. Maybe others will do same mistake I did, and may find useful a concise answer.&#xA;I'm editing mine to give him credit." CreationDate="2018-04-29T09:32:08.250" UserId="2588" />
  <row Id="14183" PostId="6358" Score="0" Text="I feel like I just saw evidence that *magis* was used instead of comparatives for participles. But now I cannot for the life of me find where that came from, and I may well have dreamed it." CreationDate="2018-05-14T04:06:43.363" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18562" PostId="6358" Score="3" Text="I know your question is about *participles* and hopefully someone will try to answer your question. There's another obstacle though: we don't really know much about degrees of comparison of Latin *adjectives and adverbs* (see Pultrova 2018, *Periphrastic comparison in Latin*). Her claim though is that &quot;A substantial majority of Latin adjectives do not form degrees for semantic reasons.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-02-12T20:21:54.267" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18595" PostId="6358" Score="0" Text="Piece of non-information. In 1903 a marine biologist named a Tusk Shell aka Tooth Shell *Gadila Nitentior* (the shinier tusk shell). This name is not accepted. In 18?? it had been named Gadila or Cadulus Aberrans." CreationDate="2019-02-18T02:31:58.890" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18596" PostId="6358" Score="3" Text="**The most comprehensive list** of such participles I've ever seen is Neue and Wagener (3rd ed.), volume II, pages 214-241 (I'm not joking!). It's available online https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla02neueuoft/page/214 (and a similar list can be found in Kuehner and Holzweissig, v.1, pp. 553-555)." CreationDate="2019-02-18T04:06:01.980" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18599" PostId="6358" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. That is an excellent find! I hope someone can find the time to see if that list has examples that are &quot;clearly verbal and not adjective&quot;, whatever that might end up meaning precisely." CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:29:32.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13868" PostId="6359" Score="1" Text="Something seems off to me about _maxima securitas_. I feel like it should be in a case other than nominative, perhaps the ablative, but I am not sure." CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:04:35.340" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13869" PostId="6359" Score="1" Text="Just something? That whole phrase triggers all my dog Latin alarms." CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:12:43.390" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="13870" PostId="6359" Score="0" Text="Well, I mean, _muratus_ agrees with both _Novus Eboracus_ and _carcer_ so that's a bit confusing, and _Civitas_ doesn't agree gender-wise with _Novus Eboracus_, so I can see what you mean." CreationDate="2018-04-28T21:26:46.523" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13871" PostId="6361" Score="0" Text="Using the nominative _maximus_ is wrong. Just saying." CreationDate="2018-04-29T01:31:13.763" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13875" PostId="6361" Score="0" Text="@SamK : Nope. It modifies *carcer*, so it is correct as written. The ablative qualifies the adjective (“a prison greatest with respect to security”). Just saying." CreationDate="2018-04-29T11:37:55.210" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="13876" PostId="6361" Score="0" Text="If you gonna keep saying &quot;just saying&quot;, at least have the decency to say it in Latin. Just kidding (and saying)." CreationDate="2018-04-29T12:38:09.023" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="13877" PostId="6361" Score="0" Text="@MPW Hmmm. I just totally missed the &quot;ablative of respect&quot; part. I was thinking more along the lines of _carcer maxima securitate_ otherwise. Your answer is also missing the &quot;New York&quot; part, which seems a bit integral to the translation of the poster. My comment was also about the tone of your answer, which is a bit off-putting. Just saying." CreationDate="2018-04-29T16:53:43.573" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="13878" PostId="6361" Score="0" Text="As @SamK mentions, the ablative of quality should have both the describing noun (*securitas*) and the adjective (*maximus*) in ablative: *carcer maxima securitate*. // I recently asked [how to say &quot;just kidding&quot; in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6364/79), but there are no answers yet." CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:39:11.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13886" PostId="6361" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta : The ablative is specification does not: *maior natu* (older); hence my *maximus securitate*" CreationDate="2018-04-29T22:19:29.977" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="13891" PostId="6361" Score="0" Text="You are right! For some reason I was reading it as *ablativus qualitatis* which would be *carcer maxima securitate*, but *ablativus respectus* does indeed make sense as *carcer securitate maximus*. Perhaps I was puzzled by the word order. (Also @SamK)" CreationDate="2018-04-30T07:40:06.203" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13881" PostId="6363" Score="0" Text="+1 for mentioning mentioning a source with examples." CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:52:36.533" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13874" PostId="6364" Score="0" Text="Incidentally, this is the 2018th question on our site." CreationDate="2018-04-29T11:16:25.160" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13887" PostId="6364" Score="0" Text="All the Latin dictionaries on the first page of Google results (AKA the Internet) translate **I'm just kidding** to **I'm iustus kidding**, no joke." CreationDate="2018-04-30T01:36:19.603" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="13892" PostId="6364" Score="0" Text="@Rodia The internet saddens me." CreationDate="2018-04-30T07:41:11.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13879" PostId="6368" Score="0" Text="What is actually the point of quoting Allen/Greenough 1872 when you could quote (for example) Leumann/Hofmann/Szanty 1977, or Buck/Sihler 1995?" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:25:52.850" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13884" PostId="6368" Score="3" Text="Your answer is fine. My point is merely that in strictly linguistic issues it is better to cite up-to-date authorities (even if they are still in copyright)." CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:51:17.947" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13888" PostId="6368" Score="1" Text="Some of the books mentioned above can be previewed on Google Books, e.g. [Sihler 1995](https://books.google.com/books?id=tJh15AcIdLgC) and [Leumann et al. 1977](https://books.google.com/books?id=ig4F_lvsZUYC)" CreationDate="2018-04-30T01:41:44.740" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13889" PostId="6368" Score="1" Text="Weiss 2009/2011 writes that &quot;*-us* was already well established in Plautus' day since the *u*-stem genitive singular in Plautus is usually *- ī*&quot; (p. 221)." CreationDate="2018-04-30T02:05:42.387" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13890" PostId="6368" Score="1" Text="There's some interesting discussion in Leumann in §46, including the following quote from Quintilian (1.7.26): **&quot;Nostri praeceptores ‘servum’ ‘cervum’que u et o litteris scripserunt**, quia subiecta sibi vocalis in unum sonum coalescere et confundi nequiret; nunc u gemina scribuntur ea ratione quam reddidi: neutro sane modo vox quam sentimus efficitur ... [emphasis mine - Alex B.]." CreationDate="2018-04-30T04:26:29.063" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="37416" PostId="6369" Score="0" Text="*Per iocum* is what I learned and it's very well attested, from the earliest writers down to Justinian's reign. Even Cicero uses it. It would be my go-to." CreationDate="2022-02-25T01:03:14.853" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="13896" PostId="6373" Score="0" Text="Similar question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/724/is-there-a-plural-of-jesus-in-latin" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:51:11.093" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13897" PostId="6373" Score="0" Text="And this one: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/620/why-is-jesus-inflected-in-such-a-way" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:53:41.470" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13902" PostId="6376" Score="0" Text="Are you asking for a list of language names, or details on different ways to say a language name?" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:39:09.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13903" PostId="6376" Score="0" Text="A list, if possible." CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:42:58.217" UserId="2595" />
  <row Id="13904" PostId="6376" Score="1" Text="Welcome to Latin.SE! You may want to specify two or three languages whose Latin names you want to know, or ask for a method/rule to get some/most of them. Open lists are usually difficult questions to answer, and less people are willing to answer them" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:48:14.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13905" PostId="6376" Score="0" Text="Also, in order to get @Draconis to know about your answer, tagging him will trigger a notification. This is not needed if the addressee is the author of the question/answer being commented" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:51:05.090" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="47022" PostId="6376" Score="0" Text="Relevant question [one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/466/what-did-romans-call-their-language/469#469) and [two](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21989/how-to-say-i-know-a-little-latin-in-latin/22995#22995)." CreationDate="2023-12-28T00:41:13.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="14912" PostId="6377" Score="0" Text="The one gotcha with this approach: French in neo-Latin is Francogallice." CreationDate="2018-07-23T09:07:05.340" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14914" PostId="6377" Score="2" Text="@NickNicholas According to the linked list France is called *Francogallia*, so the name of the language is in line with the country. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was also called *Francia*." CreationDate="2018-07-23T13:19:15.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14917" PostId="6377" Score="1" Text="Francia on https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia, but Francogallia redirects to it. Sorry, I hadn't seen Francogall- refer to the country before." CreationDate="2018-07-23T15:30:54.600" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="13908" PostId="6378" Score="1" Text="You keep mentioning specific examples but aren’t giving any. Please give one. I have no idea what you mean. How does this pertain to Latin?" CreationDate="2018-05-01T08:27:01.140" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="13919" PostId="6378" Score="3" Text="If the grammar you are inquiring about is also used in classical Greek, then your question is on topic. If you can't use a Biblical example, then why not make up a classical example? Write in Latin letters if necessary. As it stands, I don't understand your question at all, I'm afraid." CreationDate="2018-05-01T15:29:42.933" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="13922" PostId="6378" Score="2" Text="@Julian You can take an example from NT Greek or even modern Greek and ask whether the same thing happens in older Greek. It's perfectly fine to use those newer variants of the language to help formulate a clear question about the kind of Greek that is on-topic. As long as the question is about old Greek, the supporting explanation can draw from any Greek – or any other language for that matter." CreationDate="2018-05-01T16:14:46.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13945" PostId="6378" Score="2" Text="I think we are all confused by your question. Do you know what a &quot;case&quot; is? Do you realise that Greek has five cases?" CreationDate="2018-05-02T19:30:03.437" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="13967" PostId="6378" Score="0" Text="@fdb everyone was confused by my original question before I revised it, hence their pre-revision comments. I'd be very surprised if anyone was confused by it anymore. Asking which case is appropriate to each different article is part of the question, and please feel free to give an answer if you know, and please don't forget to give the asked for example." CreationDate="2018-05-03T04:01:17.223" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="13970" PostId="6378" Score="1" Text="No, fdb is correct; this question is still very confusing. Are you asking how to say 'John of the Nazarene' (in the sense of 'John, the son/friend/etc. of the Nazarene') when 'John' fills various grammatical functions in the sentence (subject, object of direct address, direct object, etc.) – that is, when the noun is in various cases? Or do you really want to know how to say 'John the Nazarene' in various cases and learn why the article would be omitted in Ἰωάννη Ναζαρηνέ (as it is in Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ)?" CreationDate="2018-05-03T08:36:54.180" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="13971" PostId="6378" Score="1" Text="@cnread yes, I really want to know how to say 'John the Nazarene' in various cases and learn why the article would be omitted in that situation. Like I said, it's a hypothetical name. But that is exactly what I'm asking." CreationDate="2018-05-03T08:50:41.727" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="13917" PostId="6381" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This sounds reasonable. I should remark that while *urbs* can refer to Rome (like *ἄστυ* to Athens), it was also used for some other cities in antiquity." CreationDate="2018-05-01T15:02:13.360" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13918" PostId="6381" Score="0" Text="Shure, but that way it fit best into my argumentation :)" CreationDate="2018-05-01T15:05:01.710" UserId="1763" />
  <row Id="13927" PostId="6383" Score="1" Text="Can you add a (rough) translation of the term *ex officio*? The connection between the English and the Latin meanings would be nice to have explicitly." CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:48:56.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13934" PostId="6384" Score="0" Text="If 'a week of weeks' is 7 x 7 days, then 'an age of an age' is a very long time, 'Age squared.'" CreationDate="2018-05-02T11:25:13.210" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13928" PostId="6385" Score="3" Text="&quot;Singing in Latin&quot; by Harold Copeman (1992) goes so far as to say that &quot;ae&quot; was &quot;usually&quot; written as &quot;e&quot; in Medieval Latin, although I don't particularly know what his basis is for that statement." CreationDate="2018-05-01T21:34:53.850" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13929" PostId="6385" Score="3" Text="Yes, as someone who reads tons of medieval Latin, I can confirm it's usually spelled *seculum* in manuscripts. As for the offered translation: it's a painful calque of an ecclesiastical idiom that actually means &quot;forever.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-05-01T21:49:49.303" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13930" PostId="6385" Score="4" Text="_In/per saeculum saeculi_, _in/per [omnia] saecula saeculorum_, are common Catholic liturgical formulas to say forever. In Spanish they are translated more literally (centuries of centuries), but into English the translation is more prone to _for ever and ever_ and the like" CreationDate="2018-05-01T22:44:40.433" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="13931" PostId="6385" Score="6" Text="If no one gets to it, I'll eventually add some more detail: it's in, for instance, Heb 1:8. I believe it is a calque of Greek &quot;eis ton aiona tou aionos,&quot; which, in turn, is a Hebraeicism meant to convey the superlative, similar to &quot;Lord of Lords.&quot; As Rafael notes, it's ubiquitous in the Catholic liturgy." CreationDate="2018-05-01T23:38:56.577" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="13932" PostId="6385" Score="2" Text="@brianpck I would be happy to see you or anyone else post a more detailed answer. It does indeed fit well the common pattern of Hebraisms for superlatives." CreationDate="2018-05-02T00:01:57.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36873" PostId="6385" Score="1" Text="brianpck's comment is correct. It means &quot;ages of ages&quot;, or &quot;age of the age&quot;, and is a Latin translation of a Greek translation in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) in the Psalms of the Hebrew &quot;le olam va'ed&quot;, &quot;to the world of worlds&quot;, or &quot;to the world and beyond&quot;. The phrase's fame comes from its use as a formula in closing prayers in Christian liturgies, where it is traditionally translated &quot;world without end&quot;, &quot;world to come&quot;, &quot;to the ages of ages&quot;, &quot;unto everlasting&quot;, or &quot;forever and ever&quot;, and is understood as a reference to God's eternity after the end of time." CreationDate="2022-01-28T01:54:23.877" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="13933" PostId="6388" Score="4" Text="It's a slightly garbled version of line 463 from Seneca the Younger's tragedy *Hercules furens*: *nominem* should actually be *hominem* (*quemcunque* would also more commonly be spelled *quemcumque*, though it isn't wrong as is)." CreationDate="2018-05-02T08:53:09.840" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20216" PostId="6390" Score="3" Text="This is a very interesting question and I hope a more erudite scholar will be able to answer it in detail. My impression was always that the &quot;real&quot; Greeks in Philip's time considered the Macedonians to be *not Greek at all*, being too tribal to be worth consideration. That fits Alexander into the same pattern as Napoleon (who was not French) and Hitler (who was not German)." CreationDate="2019-06-19T06:21:43.743" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="23269" PostId="6390" Score="1" Text="cf. &quot;from Hesiod the name of Hellenes then became the customary name for all Greeks.&quot; Gschnitzer, Fritz (Heidelberg), “Hellas”, in: Brill’s New Pauly." CreationDate="2019-11-16T16:49:37.983" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13935" PostId="6391" Score="2" Text="It is indeed possible that it was an attempt at wordplay, but *nomen* is neuter so the accusative would be simply *nomen*." CreationDate="2018-05-02T14:23:21.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13936" PostId="6391" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It would also perhaps be better to have *cuiusviscunque,* *genitve.*" CreationDate="2018-05-02T14:40:56.817" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13938" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure what you mean by *quod* here. Do you mean that &quot;dwelt&quot; is perfect tense or that *habitabat* and &quot;dwelt&quot; are in the same tense?" CreationDate="2018-05-02T17:43:32.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13942" PostId="6392" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta English-speaking Latin students are generally taught that the &quot;simple past&quot; in English (very similar to the aorist in Greek) corresponds only to the Latin perfect, and that the Latin imperfect should instead be translated with the past continuous (&quot;was dwelling&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-05-02T18:58:17.207" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13943" PostId="6392" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Oh! I never knew such a simple correspondence between English and Latin tenses was taught. It looks like a good rule of thumb, but an oversimplification for a hard rule. This is the kind of situation where it makes a big difference to have learned Latin from the point of view of Finnish." CreationDate="2018-05-02T19:15:02.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13944" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Indeed! Honestly I wish I'd learned Latin with vowel length from the start, going back and adding it afterward has been a nightmare." CreationDate="2018-05-02T19:25:06.520" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13946" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="&quot;The English translation is in the perfect indicative ... rather than in the perfect indicative&quot; — Er, what?" CreationDate="2018-05-02T19:42:01.763" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="13947" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="@jwodder &quot;...rather than the ***im***perfect indicative...&quot;" CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:00:49.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13949" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="@jwodder updated, sorry." CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:05:06.817" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13950" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta sorry, still learning. Using quod as &quot;like&quot; (shame face)." CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:06:12.250" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13952" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Sounds like an advice for new learners. So far I have paid no attention whatsoever to accents. Should I? :0" CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:09:04.243" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13959" PostId="6392" Score="0" Text="I'd say absolutely yes! They're important and usually not emphasized as much as they should be." CreationDate="2018-05-02T21:29:52.133" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13937" PostId="6393" Score="0" Text="I'm happy to see an instance where the Vulgate is not using a Grecism!" CreationDate="2018-05-02T17:32:49.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13951" PostId="6393" Score="0" Text="I see. Using a more modern version of the translation the word used is &quot;lived&quot;, which I think might give a more sharper distinction between &quot;lived&quot; and &quot;was living&quot;." CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:08:08.807" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13948" PostId="6394" Score="0" Text="I do agree that &quot;lived&quot; (the actual word used in the [CPDV](http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/OT-01_Genesis.htm#25), which I am using for my learning) and &quot;was living&quot;, in this context, are both fine. But I still struggle with why the tense is changed. The Latin one is in imperfect tense, but the English one is perfect tense. To be honest, I have found many similar cases but after this one I lost my patience (I am using interlinear bible to learn so ideally want to have same tenses/moods for verbs)." CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:04:33.657" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13953" PostId="6394" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I'm a little puzzled here. What do you mean by perfect tense in English? The word &quot;dwelt&quot; here is in past simple, not perfect (cf. &quot;went&quot; but not &quot;[has] gone&quot;). The spellings &quot;dwelt&quot; and &quot;dwelled&quot; are synonymous. If &quot;dwelt&quot; is a different tense from *habitabat*, what would be the same tense? I'm sorry if the questions are silly, but I feel I'm missing something here..." CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:29:23.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14026" PostId="6394" Score="0" Text="Correct. I meant past simple, not perfect. Why is &quot;was dwelling&quot; not the correct translation? That is the question. The version I was reading used &quot;lived&quot; instead, so &quot;was living&quot; sounds better than &quot;was dwelling anyway&quot;. The answer could then be that precisely, &quot;was dwelling&quot; is awkward, hence &quot;dwelt&quot; was chosen." CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:00:43.353" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14027" PostId="6394" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I updated the answer. I think &quot;was dwelling&quot; is ***a*** correct translation, and another one is &quot;dwelt&quot;. To me the lighter choice looks better." CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:25:59.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14029" PostId="6394" Score="0" Text="I agree. Good translations does not always mean literal translations." CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:30:57.047" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14031" PostId="6394" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Indeed. Moreover, I really don't know what &quot;literal translation&quot; even means. I assume it means following the rules to the letter, but the precise rules are arbitrary." CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:34:06.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14032" PostId="6394" Score="0" Text="Well, at least I would say to keep verb mood and time, genre,  person, and other basic properties of grammar." CreationDate="2018-05-05T12:39:19.623" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="13939" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="I tried to write 'Dear Coemgenus' but it gets deleted automatically for some reason." CreationDate="2018-05-02T18:43:22.327" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13940" PostId="6396" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the detailed answer! The Stack Exchange system automatically removes any salutations from the start and end of a post in an attempt to go straight to the point. You can always simply edit your post; deleting and reposting should make no difference. Let us know if you come across any oddities that we can explain or help with (and take a look at our [site tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) if you haven't yet)." CreationDate="2018-05-02T18:46:23.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13941" PostId="6396" Score="1" Text="[Salutations, O Joonas Ilmavirta] Thank you and you're welcome. I'll have to get used to that system, but I can see how it could be helpful. I sneakily tried to delete and repost because I thought editing one minute after posting to tweak the lay-out slightly, would make me look like a chump. Another thing to get used to, but I'll manage." CreationDate="2018-05-02T18:56:17.803" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13955" PostId="6396" Score="2" Text="Actually, I'm not sure if the use of diacritics in the spelling of such words was actually meant to coincide with the stress accent in spoken Latin. See User4407's answer to the following question: [Qua ratione in hoc libro Henrici Allen notæ diacriticæ ponuntur?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6153)," CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:47:34.800" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13957" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="That answer by User4407 does not rule out that the Late Latin accent grave did coincide with the stress accent. I think they would not consistently mark the difference in the final syllable if they did not pronounce a difference. When Saint Augustine talks about an adverb having an 'acumen' where a accent grave would be written in Late Latin, this suggests to me that the syllable was stressed somehow (whether by length, height, or loudness)." CreationDate="2018-05-02T21:01:45.710" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13958" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="Of course in Saint Augustine's time this stress must have been made by pitch or loudness because he says that the 'times' or lengths of the vowels are the same in pṓne and pōné. Late Latin loses vowel length distinctions, so stress can be shown (partially) by length." CreationDate="2018-05-02T21:28:29.173" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13962" PostId="6396" Score="3" Text="I just looked through the dissertation by Mindaugas Strockis mentioned in the linked answer, and it seems to say that these words were not stressed on the last syllable during the relevant time period. You can download the PDF with this link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0ahUKEwirtf3eg-jaAhVF44MKHT5JCm4QFggpMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flf.vu.lt%2Fdokumentai%2Fmokslas%2FDisertacijos%2FStrockis_Dissertation_Summary.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw0vSglrDNWCNmZzbxz555yw See p. 11: &quot;cases where an accent mark was written on an actually unaccented syllable of the Latin word&quot; ... &quot;" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:02:47.037" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13963" PostId="6396" Score="1" Text="Strockis suggests that the practice of using the Greek &quot;accent&quot; marks to mark grammatical categories or inflections rather than accent was based on part on the situation that had developed with the pronunciation of Greek: scholars of the time period learned to assign stress in Greek words according to the Latin stress rule (the &quot;Henninian&quot; accentuation of Greek), and consequently they didn't necessarily associate Greek accent marks with stress accent." CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:08:35.683" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="13964" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="That is interesting. Strockis says that most Latin books of the 16th and 17th century mark certain final syllables, but that it is only the 'humanist grammarians', who through a misunderstanding of Greek, stop believing that the Late Latin accent grave marks real stress. But Marracci was a very conservative Catholic who likely would not have heard of or cared about the opinions of Dutch heretics and apostates like Henning and Vossius, and he assiduously marked final accents." CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:43:15.513" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13965" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/76930/discussion-between-jasper-may-and-sumelic)." CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:48:14.407" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13966" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="Important questions: How **reliable** is the evidence behind this list? How can you **interpret** it? And most importantly, the question is **why** some adverbs in Latin could be oxytones." CreationDate="2018-05-03T00:33:33.293" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13969" PostId="6396" Score="1" Text="1. This depends on your opinion of Marracci's Latin proficiency and my ability to list the accent graves in his introduction, which you can check. 2. By combining it with what Saint Augustine is telling us about pōné having an acumen (where Late Latin would have ponè), I'm interpreting it to show actual stress, until I find hard evidence to the contrary. 3. If you're going to ask 'why', you should ask why **all** adverbs in -e, -o, -us and -um are marked as oxytones in Marracci. But as I explained: strictly speaking, nobody can tell you 'why' anything in Latin is the way it is." CreationDate="2018-05-03T06:36:42.173" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13972" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="I could be totally wrong. The accent grave could be a merely orthographic convention to distinguish adverbs and conjunctions from other kinds of words. But here I read that Saint Augustine expects a Latin student to notice that two words with the same letters and vowel lengths (pōne and pōne) can be distinguished purely by sound (sonus). The verb has an audible accent (acumen) on the first syllable (pṓne), the adverb on the last (pōné). By cursorily listing a random sample of Late Latin, I found that in fact all adverbs ending in -e are written with a grave accent." CreationDate="2018-05-03T14:46:58.353" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13973" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="In my view, this suggests that adverbs were distinguished by sound generally. So I would need a contemporary source of a proficient Classical or Later Latin writer who says that you should write but not pronounce the final accent with actual stress." CreationDate="2018-05-03T14:51:53.277" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13986" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="Linguistically this doesn’t make any sense. Why would you have special rules for one word class? I can’t imagine why polysyllabic adverbs (with three or more syllables) would be oxytones." CreationDate="2018-05-03T23:11:08.327" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13987" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="In what sense do you need it to 'make sense' linguistically? Having special accent rules for some word classes doesn't sound far-fetched to me. I can't explain 'why' polysyllabic adverbs (with two or more syllables) would be oxytones any more than I can explain e.g. why Latin has the letter p or why the s is softened to r between vowels, but there seems to be some evidence to support it." CreationDate="2018-05-04T00:02:26.603" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13988" PostId="6396" Score="3" Text="**Everyone:** This comment discussion is getting too long. I recommend asking some follow-up questions separately to give the details the attention they need. The chat is also possible, either in a new room or in [our site's chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm)." CreationDate="2018-05-04T00:10:05.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="13989" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="I thought of a similar case where a certain word class has special accent rules: in Ancient Greek, only finite verbs have 'recessive accent' (http://ucbclassics.dreamhosters.com/ancgreek/accenttutU/recessiveU1.html) while other kinds of words have 'persistent accent' (http://ucbclassics.dreamhosters.com/ancgreek/accenttutU/persistentU1.html)." CreationDate="2018-05-04T02:19:19.413" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13990" PostId="6396" Score="1" Text="@JasperMay with all due respect, your Greek example is very different from Latin. However,  imho it is counter-productive to continue this thread, at least in the comments here. If you are interested in further details, why not post a separate question?" CreationDate="2018-05-04T05:00:33.507" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="13991" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="@Alex B., it was an example of a certain word class having special accent rules, which concept you apparently found hard to believe. I don't know what else to ask - the matter seems clear to me, until I find a primary source (outside of the humanist tradition) explicitly mentioning the orthographic final accent grave and that it should not be pronounced any differently from words without it." CreationDate="2018-05-04T09:20:27.230" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="28711" PostId="6396" Score="0" Text="I'd like to suggest a correction. &quot;Late Latin&quot; is the period between the 3d and 6th centuries AD, while you're talking about &quot;New Latin&quot;, a period whose start coincides with the rise of humanism and book printing, and whose end I'm not sure about - I personally would put it in the 19th century with the rise of modern Classical philology and the break with the humanistic tradition of spoken Latin instruction." CreationDate="2020-08-21T08:22:12.743" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20168" PostId="6397" Score="1" Text="The commentary on the hypothesis of the accent shifting due to the resulting rhythm of an enclitic formation with the word after the adverb was especially interesting." CreationDate="2019-06-16T03:42:27.197" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="13995" PostId="6398" Score="0" Text="If you are referring to my statement that Hendrickson and Stotz's 'sources are unclear' as 'libelous': I simply meant that they were not included in your citation. I would be very interested in Hendrickson's source 129, and Stotz's sources for his claim that the final accent grave in Later Latin does not describe a phonological reality (if that's his claim)." CreationDate="2018-05-04T14:44:30.677" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="13998" PostId="6398" Score="0" Text="I did wrongly attribute to you the opinion that modern Latin grammar never bother to argue why oxytones are out of the question, so I have edited my answer. It was sumelic who wrote: &quot;no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained ... a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern.&quot; But I think your accusation of libel was because I wrote that the 'sources are unclear', which I explained above." CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:24:32.547" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14015" PostId="6398" Score="1" Text="What then do you make of this quote by Saint Augustine? He is describing an audible difference between two words with the same letters and vowel quantity which he calls 'acumen'. If you can cite from Hendrickson and Stotz, you can surely add their sources to your citation for the benefit of your readers, who would have to search for these books, while you already have access to them. I don't share your preference for pagan writers over post-pagan or Catholic writers. Latin has always been kept alive in the Catholic Church more than anywhere else." CreationDate="2018-05-05T01:09:02.380" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14016" PostId="6398" Score="0" Text="If Hendrickson and Stotz's sources are not primary, I will continue to defer to Saint Augustine and hold that the last syllable could have an audible 'acumen' in ecclesiastical Latin." CreationDate="2018-05-05T01:15:10.070" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14018" PostId="6398" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay I think you've made your views very clear to everyone on this site. I am afraid I don't see any point in pursuing our communication further. Thanks for understanding. Good luck and farewell!" CreationDate="2018-05-05T01:47:53.610" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14019" PostId="6398" Score="0" Text="If you won't address the OP's primary source then I hope we can help each other with other questions in the future." CreationDate="2018-05-05T02:01:39.100" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="20169" PostId="6398" Score="1" Text="&quot;To put it differently, there is absolutely no reliable evidence to the claim that such diacritics represented stress.&quot;  But Adám, Sión, Iesús, Davíd are all accented in that way in Medieval Latin (6th century onward), and in the text underlay in Gregorian chant, and in some of the Romance languages. I don't find it &quot;ahistorical&quot; to look for characteristics of an ancestral language using clues from its descendents, or else how could we have even begun to approach Proto-Italic and Indo-European?" CreationDate="2019-06-16T03:48:48.410" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="20181" PostId="6398" Score="0" Text="@Coemgenus I strongly encourage you to re-read my post very carefully: I'm afraid you are attacking a straw man and not what I actually wrote, which is much more nuanced." CreationDate="2019-06-16T16:30:04.673" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20396" PostId="6398" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Care to clarify? I'm more eager to learn from a linguistic point of view how to make sense of an audible Late Latin oxytone than to hear that post-Classical authors like the one I quoted &quot;were no linguists&quot; and should be mistrusted. I would like to see Stotz' reasons for believing the oxytonic accent was merely orthrographical and not audible as Augustine suggests --- maybe an expansion of that quote would clarify his position for interest --- but the rest of your answer seems to have missed the &quot;late-latin&quot; tag I put on the question." CreationDate="2019-07-04T13:00:09.653" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="20401" PostId="6398" Score="0" Text="@Coemgenus &quot;than to hear that post-Classical authors like the one I quoted &quot;were no linguists&quot; and should be mistrusted&quot; - whom did you quote?" CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:24:33.100" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20406" PostId="6398" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Augustine in the original post." CreationDate="2019-07-04T22:58:43.360" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="13975" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="Thank you I had a hard time understanding your first answer because of my ignorance in grammar and language, but this answer was alot more simpler. Can you please explain to me more why the Greek needed the two letters ου to represent the Latin ū and Hebrew waw." CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:31:04.993" UserId="2593" />
  <row Id="13976" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="@diegob How's that?" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:38:09.700" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13977" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="I was asking if you knew why Greek needed two letters to represent the Latin u." CreationDate="2018-05-03T17:42:27.497" UserId="2593" />
  <row Id="13978" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="@diegob Basically, they didn't have enough letters for all the sounds in their language, so a few of them had to be written with two letters. Latin ū was one of those. (As for why that sound in particular got the short straw, it was pretty much arbitrary.)" CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:09:29.440" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13979" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="Are you saying Greek didn't have enough letters for all the sounds in their own language? Or for all the sounds in Latin?" CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:11:50.260" UserId="2593" />
  <row Id="13980" PostId="6400" Score="1" Text="@diegob But compare French, which now spells that same sound &quot;ou&quot;." CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:11:58.827" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13981" PostId="6400" Score="2" Text="@diegob Not enough for their own language: 12 vowel sounds, only 7 vowel letters." CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:12:32.503" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13982" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="Thank you that cleared it all up for me. So is it the same with French needing 2 letters? While Latin and English only need one?" CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:29:41.333" UserId="2593" />
  <row Id="13983" PostId="6400" Score="1" Text="@diegob English needs two for that sound also: &quot;oo&quot;. But yes, both English and French have more vowel sounds than they have vowel letters. It's a common problem." CreationDate="2018-05-03T19:46:28.210" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13984" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="I said they needed one because Iesus and Jesus only use one letter. Now I'm confused again" CreationDate="2018-05-03T19:48:07.360" UserId="2593" />
  <row Id="13985" PostId="6400" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/77005/discussion-between-draconis-and-diego-b)." CreationDate="2018-05-03T19:53:50.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="13992" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much. Amazing information. The green tick goes to Jasper though because I needed the examples of  Ἰωάννης. Thanks a million Cerberus !" CreationDate="2018-05-04T14:12:10.583" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="13997" PostId="6402" Score="2" Text="The article is not required before place adjectives, witness Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος (the opening words of his History)." CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:20:07.167" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14000" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="@fdb Amazing find." CreationDate="2018-05-04T17:19:06.637" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="14002" PostId="6402" Score="1" Text="@fdb: Right! Of course. It seems Herodotus uses the adjective as well: Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος." CreationDate="2018-05-04T18:35:31.683" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14005" PostId="6402" Score="1" Text="Virtually all historians follow suit. It is the approved way for an author to identify himself." CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:07:56.607" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14007" PostId="6402" Score="1" Text="@fdb: Maybe older Greek did not require articles but biblical Greek did? Are there any unambiguous instances of names and adjectives without articles in the Bible? If there are, I'll have to change my answer." CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:45:52.777" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14020" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus is this nominative? Can I have a name tag without the article?  Ἰωάννη Ναζαρηνέ?" CreationDate="2018-05-05T02:06:56.357" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="14023" PostId="6402" Score="1" Text="@Julian: No, that is the vocative. Look at the list in Jasper's answer, where &quot;nom.&quot; stands for nominative. I would say, yes, you can leave out the article." CreationDate="2018-05-05T03:31:56.280" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14030" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay:  It is more the other way round. The use or non-use of the article in Koine is erratic. E.g. you have both &quot;theos&quot; and &quot;ho theos&quot; for the Christian God." CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:31:05.687" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14034" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus hmmmm.. I understand that the article is left out in  Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ, because Jesus is being verbally addressed in the vocative. But why is the article left out in Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος and Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος if it is nominative rather then vocative? (And to confirm: you're saying I can write the nominative  Ἰωάννης Ναζαρηνός without the article?)" CreationDate="2018-05-05T13:04:48.070" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="14058" PostId="6402" Score="2" Text="@Jul: I believe what FDB is saying is that one is more likely to use the article in Classical Greek, though even there it is not compulsory, whence the examples of Herodotus and Thucydides (and that is also my impression). In Koine, the use of the article varies a lot, so it's up to you. And an over-arching rule is that there can be no article in a vocative, for a vocative is directed at the second person (&quot;you&quot;), while articles are always third person. (There is ὦ, which can be used instead of an article, but it is really an interjection (&quot;oh&quot;), and it can only be used *before* the head noun." CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:54:28.643" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26452" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="Dear @Johan88 / Alex, thank you for your flattering words, and sorry for the late reply. I would prefer to work for a website that could somehow aggregate the answers from all the different question sites, if that would even be legal. I don't think it's a good idea to start yet another one. However, as the Monica Cellio case shows, SE is becoming increasingly tyrannical in imposing its hateful and godless policies that only harm those who claim to believe they are something they are not. I would be interested in working for a Catholic company with a backbone. Best regards, Jasper May." CreationDate="2020-05-21T21:01:04.313" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26531" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="@Johan88 I would, but it would depend on the texts." CreationDate="2020-05-26T14:10:41.383" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26537" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="@Johan88 I've sent you an e-mail." CreationDate="2020-05-26T19:35:20.877" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26549" PostId="6402" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay Thanks. I've replied on gmail. I'll delete these messages now." CreationDate="2020-05-27T14:45:59.520" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="13999" PostId="6404" Score="0" Text="One final point: if I was to go round with a name tag saying John the Nazarene, would I use the Nominative or the Accusative?" CreationDate="2018-05-04T17:14:47.540" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="14003" PostId="6404" Score="3" Text="@Julian: Without context, one would use the nominative." CreationDate="2018-05-04T18:42:13.003" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23795" PostId="6404" Score="0" Text="Dear @JasperMay I'm Alex, working at a Hong Kong Art and Design company. We're looking to build out own group of avid language enthusiasts to advise us. You are quite the knowledgeable, kind and helpful linguist, and I would like to ask if you'd like to join as a private adviser. We envisage an informal, unpaid advisory board (like StackExchange), except we can give credit on our (as of yet unmade) website, rather then Stack points. But if anyone can recommend a suitable payment system we're all ears. If you have any interest please let me know. All the very best, A. J. T. Whiteheart" CreationDate="2019-12-23T12:13:10.970" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23864" PostId="6404" Score="0" Text="Or, if you're not interested, please let me know in the comments here, thanks" CreationDate="2019-12-28T13:01:08.857" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="14001" PostId="6406" Score="2" Text="Thank you! This is useful indeed. Could you add a couple of example words to the answer? It is hard to say decisively that some word is the earliest one of its kind, so any examples are good. (There is also the issue that links can rot and Google Books doesn't show everything to everyone, so reliance on links is a little tricky.)" CreationDate="2018-05-04T18:14:31.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14006" PostId="6406" Score="3" Text="You're welcome. I've added some examples." CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:32:11.577" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14011" PostId="6406" Score="2" Text="And prof. Dickey replied! According to her, it's οὐγγία from uncia, going back to the fifth (!) century BC." CreationDate="2018-05-04T21:38:57.280" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14013" PostId="6406" Score="3" Text="Great! Those are some nice examples, and I never imagined there would be so old loans. She would also be warmly welcome to participate on this site directly." CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:10:22.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14040" PostId="6407" Score="2" Text="The three Romanian examples are modern loans from French. They tell us nothing about ancient Roman pronunciation." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:20:35.280" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14041" PostId="6407" Score="0" Text="@fdb From French? I'm surprised to see cv in French loans, since qu is just k in French... I expected them to be loans from German or a Slavic language. Any idea how that cv came to be?" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:22:47.880" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="14044" PostId="6407" Score="1" Text="French quartette is pronounced with /kw/. Quorum is /kw/ or /k/. Quintuple is now mainly /k/, but older dictionaries give /kw/ or /kɥ/. But of course, the Romanian words could also be from Russian." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:41:30.870" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14046" PostId="6407" Score="1" Text="@fdb For the record, Romanian Wiktionary gives &lt;&lt;Din italiană quartetto, franceză quartette&gt;&gt; (din meaning from), and a variant form &quot;cuartet&quot;. Also, &lt;&lt;Din franceză quintuple&gt;&gt;. And &lt;&lt;Din latină cvorum&gt;&gt;, um, that makes me lose my trust :)." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:48:04.303" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="14047" PostId="6407" Score="0" Text="Justifiably....." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:59:10.603" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14049" PostId="6407" Score="0" Text="@fdb Moved this issue to [Quora](https://www.quora.com/unanswered/The-Romanian-words-cvintuplu-and-cvartet-are-according-to-Romanian-Wiktionary-loans-from-French-or-Italian-Given-those-languages-have-words-starting-with-kw-or-k-how-did-the-kv-develop-Are-they-perhaps-loans-through), let's see what comes up." CreationDate="2018-05-05T16:19:20.800" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="14070" PostId="6409" Score="1" Text="Similar pattern: [Aquila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_and_Aquila) &gt; Ἀκύλας" CreationDate="2018-05-06T00:16:49.787" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="14022" PostId="6411" Score="0" Text="Wouldn't *Νικάνδρος* be romanized as something like &quot;son of Nicander&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-05-05T03:13:07.253" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14060" PostId="6412" Score="3" Text="I wonder whether it makes a difference to have *quod* before the *si etiam*. Perhaps it's *quod-si etiam* instead of *quod si-etiam*? I expect *quod* to make a bigger difference than the word order." CreationDate="2018-05-05T18:24:24.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14072" PostId="6412" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Mmm, I'm not sure how I can help with that, as the versions I find online have _quod si etiam_. Are you suggesting the &quot;original&quot; Vulgata had quod-si in it? Where dashes used at that time?" CreationDate="2018-05-06T08:30:41.900" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14073" PostId="6412" Score="1" Text="Dashes were not used; I used them for emphasis. I meant the grouping of the words: Are *quod* and *si* a tighter pair than *si* and *etiam*? The spellings *quodsi* and *sietiam* would not be surprising. Since *quodsi* is so common, it seems likely that the *quod* effects the meaning of *si etiam* significantly." CreationDate="2018-05-06T09:17:43.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14051" PostId="6414" Score="0" Text="So now we have Weiss and Wallace joining the side of Ørberg and Joonas' Finnish book, against Henle, Teach Yourself Latin, and Wheelock." CreationDate="2018-05-05T16:37:14.023" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14052" PostId="6414" Score="2" Text="Apples an oranges. Ørberg, Henle etc. are secondary, pedagogical grammars, good for studying Latin but **completely useless for doing research**, whereas Wallace and Weiss are serious researchers generating new knowledge." CreationDate="2018-05-05T16:49:45.843" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14053" PostId="6414" Score="0" Text="Ørberg is on your side, but Henle, TY Latin and Wheelock are against you. If 'from roughly Cicero's time onwards, the future perfect indicative forms and the perfect subjunctive forms were no longer morphologically distinct', then why and when did such respected Latin grammars begin to teach that they should be distinguished?" CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:13:02.920" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14054" PostId="6414" Score="2" Text="I will say it for the last time, **Ørber,  Henle, TY Latin and Wheelock** are pedagogical grammars but they **are of no research value**. What they say is of little interest to me." CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:16:14.207" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14055" PostId="6414" Score="0" Text="I admit that your sources do show that (pagan) 'classical' Latin lost the distinction. I am also interested in Latin as it was used throughout the two millennia since the days of Cicero." CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:40:56.753" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14056" PostId="6414" Score="1" Text="I learned my Latin from pedagogical material, not scientific material (as almost everyone, I suppose). Pedagogical material will always cut some corners short and they will also contain occasional errors. Therefore it is of great value to understand **why** we believe the vowels are as long as they are, and the strongest answers to that rely on research. Alex B.'s answer indicates that both lengths are possible in both forms, and it therefore makes sense for a pedagogical author to pick the length that makes the most sense to them. Consulting several grammars is useful but gives no proof." CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:48:21.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14059" PostId="6414" Score="2" Text="@JasperMay Asking what happened in later or earlier Latin would make a good follow-up question. When it comes to post-classical Latin, I find it unlikely that a quantity distinction would be reintroduced, but this is only my intuition speaking. It would also make sense to ask about the origins of length choices of modern grammarians. All the details on this matter will certainly not fit in this single question, and I'm always happy to see people pick up a question or answer dig deeper in a follow-up question." CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:59:58.203" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14062" PostId="6414" Score="1" Text="@JasperMay I hope in my comment I didn't come off unnecessarily dismissive or rude. I have to admit, the word &quot;pagan&quot; did rub me the wrong way; it would be nice to stick to the accepted, standard terminology, which is &quot;classical.&quot; The question you ask &quot;why and when did such respected Latin grammars begin to teach that they should be distinguished?&quot; is interesting and I encourage you to do research on that and report your findings here." CreationDate="2018-05-05T20:02:21.220" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14071" PostId="6414" Score="1" Text="@Alex B., no worries. My use of the word pagan may be partly an emotional reaction to what I consider to be excess reverence for one particular kind of Latin in secular academia, and a disrespect for ecclesiastical Latin. As Joonas is mainly interested in the classical Latin, I will vote for your answer, and maybe ask my follow-up question as you and he suggested." CreationDate="2018-05-06T08:20:04.703" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14035" PostId="6415" Score="0" Text="As I wrote, I was taught that they're all short, so different grammars disagree. Perhaps the ones I used are wrong, but it's hard to tell what's right and wrong. Do you know how we know the vowel quantities?" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:00:17.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14036" PostId="6415" Score="0" Text="You can predict the vowel quantity from the forms of 'esse'. I think we know simply from tradition, but you may be able to reconstruct it from scansion." CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:05:29.333" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14038" PostId="6415" Score="0" Text="What is your source then, and do you trust it more than Henle and TY Latin? Any grammar with macrons will show the right vowel lengths of 'esse', but not all will distinguish the future perfect and the perfect subjunctive, e.g. at least Ørberg doesn't, I don't know of others. I think this is a slight mistake or oversight by Ørberg. I've added a quote from a teacher." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:06:56.360" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14039" PostId="6415" Score="0" Text="I have used grammars and textbooks written in Finnish. I don't remember what the older grammars say (I don't have my library with me here in Cambridge), but I do recall my textbook and grammar giving a short *-i-*. It might well be a mistake on their part. I am willing to unlearn if I have learned something wrong, but there is a bit of resistance. // Sorry, my previous comment was wrong (and deleted); it was indeed *sis* with long and *eris* with short *-i-*, I was just temporarily confused by the sound changes in the perfect. So the discrepancy is only in the perfect stem forms, not *esse*." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:13:59.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14042" PostId="6415" Score="0" Text="Do you recall whether there were any macrons at all? I learned Latin without macrons in high school, and they are indeed a small extra burden on memory. But sometimes they are very useful. For example here we notice an increased similarity between the endings of the fut. and pres. subj. of 'esse', and the fut. pf. and pf. subj.; and an increased distinction between the fut. pf. and the pf. subj.." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:29:41.897" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14043" PostId="6415" Score="0" Text="Yes, there were macrons, and I have been quite careful to learn them from the start because they have such a huge effect on pronunciation (especially for a Finn). Not having macrons in a declension or conjugation table indicates unambiguously a short vowel in the material I used." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:33:57.143" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14045" PostId="6415" Score="1" Text="All right, then if you correctly recall your Finnish book's lack of these 3 macrons, it agrees with Ørberg but disagrees with Henle, TY Latin and Wheelock." CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:45:12.190" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="14057" PostId="6418" Score="2" Text="This is very useful. Apparently most pedagogical authors have chosen one quantity for simplicity, out of personal preference, or due to misconceptions corrected by later research. Knowing that both are acceptable is useful for metric writing where morphological flexibility helps a lot, and helps understand discrepancies between grammars." CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:53:27.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14063" PostId="6418" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Thanks! The image is from Tronksii 1960, so it should be moved up - if you could help me, that'd be great! (I uploaded it from the iPhone)." CreationDate="2018-05-05T20:04:37.217" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14068" PostId="6418" Score="2" Text="Of course in egerint the quantity of /i/ is &quot;hidden&quot;. We do not know if it is long or short." CreationDate="2018-05-05T22:51:27.517" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14065" PostId="6419" Score="0" Text="I guess the choice depends on the intended usage register. I would prefer my answer in a technical setting, but I like yours much more artistically. That takes me off on a tangent to a hexameter verse: *Exitus eligitur nobis ancepsque manebit.*" CreationDate="2018-05-05T21:18:20.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14067" PostId="6419" Score="0" Text="I'm looking for something short to use as a technical term. Preferrably a single word, probably no more than two. The translation doesn't have to be perfect." CreationDate="2018-05-05T22:22:18.000" UserId="2606" />
  <row Id="14087" PostId="6420" Score="1" Text="Extremely interesting question! I'd love to hear about Etruscan quotations. I've never heard of any, though, which does not bode well..." CreationDate="2018-05-08T03:32:36.553" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14074" PostId="6425" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you explain where you want to use this expression? You tagged the question as [tag:legal-latin], so are you only interested in legal situations? Or do you want to be able to say things like &quot;family is more important than work&quot;? You can edit your question to add details. (Try explaining in English, but if you are not sure whether you got it right, you can also add an explanation in another language. Someone else can help you translate it more fluently.)" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:23:45.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14075" PostId="6425" Score="0" Text="I'm sorry if put the tag incorrectly. I didn't what the correct tag for my question. Your example &quot;family is more important than work&quot; is what i'm looking for." CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:36:12.240" UserId="2607" />
  <row Id="14076" PostId="6425" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I took the liberty to edit your question a bit to clarify it. Feel free to make any further edits." CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:04:58.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14080" PostId="6426" Score="1" Text="@OldSport19 I'm glad to be able to help! Now that you have gotten some reputation from votes on your question, you can vote questions and answers you like. And when you always accept the most useful answer to a question you asked yourself by ticking the green check mark next to the voting arrows. I hope to see more questions from you in the future!" CreationDate="2018-05-07T21:13:26.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14095" PostId="6426" Score="0" Text="Why you put est inside the brackets? Is 'est' change the meaning significantly?" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:16:58.127" UserId="2607" />
  <row Id="14096" PostId="6426" Score="0" Text="@OldSport19 It's optional. It has no real effect on the meaning. Having it in is more explicit. I added a remark at the end of my answer." CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:19:51.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14148" PostId="6427" Score="0" Text="have you looked at: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/latus#Latin ?  They seem to be making a distinction between *stlātus/*stelh₃- and *tlātus (from Proto-Italic *tlātos) from the PIE  *tl̥h₂tós, from the root *telh₂-" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:11:22.280" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14150" PostId="6427" Score="0" Text="*telh₂ makes me think of &quot;hill&quot;, but the roots for &quot;tel&quot; [תֵּל‎](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C#Hebrew),  [تَلّ‎](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%84#Arabic) indicate Proto-Semitic *tall- (“hill”), and I haven't yet run down [*telh₂](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/telh%E2%82%82-) in any of the alternate online PIE dictionaries..." CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:18:42.687" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14154" PostId="6427" Score="0" Text="@DukeZhou I took a look at that, but the lack of citations in Wiktionary is a little disturbing. There is a list of references at the end, but I don't know where the PIE roots were pulled from. With some digging the Wiktionary article could be turned into a nice answer. It would also be nice to see a more explicit comparison: why do we think the two words are distinct if there are no distinct attested predecessors in Latin?" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:44:37.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14078" PostId="6430" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Gabriel! I took the liberty to edit your question a little. Feel free to undo (rollback) my edits or edit further. While waiting for someone to answer, I suggest taking a look at our [tour]. After earning 15 reputation points you will be able to vote up, so you should soon be able to go and vote questions and answers you like. I look forward to seeing more questions from you!" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:24:57.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14079" PostId="6430" Score="0" Text="Could you tell me how this differs from what I had translated?" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:57:10.310" UserId="2608" />
  <row Id="14081" PostId="6432" Score="0" Text="I suspect the choice of words will be different from ancient Romans doing architectural calculations and people carrying out numerical algorithms some two millennia later. Which one are you more interested in? They are good questions, but I wonder whether they are two separate ones." CreationDate="2018-05-07T21:24:48.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14092" PostId="6432" Score="1" Text="There is a very good discussion in the OED: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/4956#eid7070186 and http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/4959#eid7075835" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:13:02.517" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14111" PostId="6432" Score="1" Text="They may not have had &quot;the calculus&quot; but I've always considered water clocks to be a physical expression of algorithms (information encoded in physical form that constitutes a mechanical process.)  **Very interesting** question!  Have you considered asking on History of Science?  I was researching the term &quot;mechanics&quot; recently, and although the application to calculus is late, it might be worth looking at." CreationDate="2018-05-08T21:27:00.477" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14159" PostId="6433" Score="0" Text="Could you break each word into parts to further explain their meaning as well as there pronunciations? Could you also give me the way that you would translate the phrase?" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:03:36.633" UserId="2608" />
  <row Id="14163" PostId="6433" Score="0" Text="@GabrielA. My suggested Latin translations of the two sentences are in the last two block quotes together with more literal translations back to English. Going through all the details would make this answer too long. If you want a part of it carefully grammatically explained, I recommend asking a new question (give a link to this one if you do). Pronunciation depends on era and location. Would it help if I added macrons? You can also add a follow-up question on pronunciation if you want." CreationDate="2018-05-12T10:51:07.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14091" PostId="6435" Score="2" Text="Not only are there a good number of ppps in -utus in Classical Latin, this ending becomes generalised for the ppp of fourth conj. verbs in Romance (venu, venuto etc.)" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:10:28.673" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14112" PostId="6435" Score="0" Text="Don't all _-struō/-strūctus_ verbs belong to the answer as an additional category? Not sure at all: quantity is not my area of expertise" CreationDate="2018-05-08T22:49:29.893" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14113" PostId="6435" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: Well, I only included verbs with a p. p. p. on -utus. Feel free to add all other verbs on -uo to my answer in a secondary list (I'm too tired!)." CreationDate="2018-05-08T23:15:15.387" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14105" PostId="6439" Score="0" Text="Have you looked at Plautus &amp; Terence?  I'm guessing they would be prime candidates!" CreationDate="2018-05-08T19:57:36.380" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14109" PostId="6439" Score="1" Text="@DukeZhou No, I'm not that familiar with their work, but I'd be happy to see if someone more versed in either one could give an example. This kind of thing is pretty slow to search unless you have a good hunch to begin with, so it might take me a while to get to anything worthwhile." CreationDate="2018-05-08T21:09:51.120" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35378" PostId="6439" Score="0" Text="&quot;Fruit flies like a banana&quot; has always irked me because it's either ungrammatical or nonsensical. Adding the &quot;a&quot; in there specifies that there is a single banana out there that flies. That's the nonsense interpretation. If the sentence is to mean that fruit flies like bananas in general, then it should be plural, no article necessary. Grr.." CreationDate="2021-10-06T20:18:57.900" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="21217" PostId="6440" Score="0" Text="Interesting; why feminine? (Is there a particular noun you're eliding, for example?)" CreationDate="2019-08-31T21:58:03.223" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14110" PostId="6441" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Are couple of things are unclear to me here: (1) What are the possible comma locations and what readings do they lead to? It might be my being slow, but I don't see how it works. (2) Where is *Ibis redibis nunquam per bella peribis* from? (3) How does the garden path work with that one?" CreationDate="2018-05-08T21:14:19.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14118" PostId="6441" Score="1" Text="@bukwyrm If the editing offends, use 'roll back.' Or, alternatively, add an improvement of your own, such as naming the location of the oracle, and reclaim ownership of the answer.  I particularly like your incorporation of an English garden pathism in your answer." CreationDate="2018-05-09T01:38:07.343" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14120" PostId="6443" Score="0" Text="Okay, scratch that. This answer is the accepted one. Thanks for the examples! The previous answer is fine but it doesn't really give examples, which I didn't necessarily expect. +1!" CreationDate="2018-05-09T13:26:15.043" UserId="1224" />
  <row Id="14125" PostId="6443" Score="0" Text="@MiddleSchoolHistorian I agree that this is the better answer. I had not looked at the adjective closely, just focusing on gender. Indeed *ultimus* or *ultimum* is the way to go if you want to use a word like that." CreationDate="2018-05-10T11:18:41.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14122" PostId="6444" Score="1" Text="[Our site's chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) is indeed a good place. The activity level varies quite a lot, but if you want to speak, it's not that hard to find someone to chat with. Just drop in and say hi. There won't be any paid services within the room, but you might find someone who is willing to help you for some compensation. And to some extent people will also help you without any compensation – that's what this site is all about." CreationDate="2018-05-09T15:09:02.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14126" PostId="6446" Score="2" Text="*&quot;Tolle legem,&quot;* 'Grasp the Law.' (overheard in a garden in North Africa, nearly)" CreationDate="2018-05-10T11:44:20.520" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14127" PostId="6446" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! That's a nice question, but in order to be on-topic in Latin.SE, you need to show your previous efforts in translation. You might want to start by checking a [good online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why), or even [Google translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for), though our (perhaps unanimous) advise is not to trust it too much." CreationDate="2018-05-10T11:54:45.390" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14147" PostId="6448" Score="0" Text="If Joonas is looking for a protasis expressed with a preposition, these examples work. None of them are counterfactual, though." CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:41:41.820" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14149" PostId="6448" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I did want it to be specifically counterfactual, but I'm starting to wonder whether the question was overly ambitious. It's quite interesting if the construction as I envisioned it isn't attested." CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:12:53.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14151" PostId="6448" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta this exceeds either my English, my vocabulary, or my grammar knowledge, I admit. Why is not _nullam rem sine Lucullo imperator gesserit_ not counterfactual? Would something like _istam rem sine Lucullo imperator non gesserit_ counterfactual?" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:26:17.257" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14152" PostId="6448" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, the previous comment is also for you (honest question, I'm puzzled!)" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:27:50.267" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14153" PostId="6448" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I think it's factual instead of counterfactual, but it's subtle. It seems to say &quot;the commander did nothing without him&quot; (the commander indeed did nothing without his help), not &quot;the commander would not have done anything without him&quot; (the commander did something, which would have been impossible without his help). The &quot;commander did nothing&quot; is factual, as he really (according to the author) did not do anything. The statement &quot;I would not be here without you&quot; is counterfactual: it actually means that I am here. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well." CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:37:50.387" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14135" PostId="6450" Score="0" Text="Research lead: [-oo verbs](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=oo&amp;lang=la). But as a Spanish speaker I can't help looking at the infinitives and say -u- verbs are still -ere verbs" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:38:15.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14137" PostId="6450" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That search is precisely how I produced my answer. (This also addresses Draconis's question below: you can search for words ending with a specific string on Perseus. In fact, it would be useful to have questions about dictionary search tools.)" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:42:37.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14138" PostId="6450" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Oh, they definitely conjugate just like consonant-stems, but the stems themselves seem to end in -u. (So you get -u-ō, -u-ere, -u-vī &gt; -u-ī, -u-itus &gt; -ūtus or something like that, like how the first conjugation has -a-ō &gt; -ō, -a-ere &gt; āre, -a-vī &gt; -āvī, -a-itus &gt; -ātus.)" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:42:58.570" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14139" PostId="6450" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ah, thank you! That's very useful, and I should ask a proper question about these tools when I have a chance. Is it able to search for inflected forms? I tried searching for -oere (which I expected to turn up *boere* and maybe some actual o-stems) and got nothing." CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:43:56.700" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14143" PostId="6450" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Perseus won't find inflected forms, but perhaps some other tool out there will. And then there's also the possibility of searching a corpus instead of a dictionary. Example: [words ending in *-oo*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=oo%23)." CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:47:31.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14133" PostId="6451" Score="2" Text="These are interesting, but the stems themselves seem to be *bova-*, *rebova-*, and *incoha-*. (L&amp;S mention the *v* and *h*, and the *a* shows in the conjugation. The *-a-* in *bova-* can also be seen in the Greek cognate, which is an a-contract.)" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:35:52.423" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14134" PostId="6451" Score="1" Text="@Draconis True. The point was that these are the closest we have to o-stem verbs in Latin. I'll expand." CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:37:18.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14136" PostId="6451" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, how are you searching L&amp;S for these? I'm used to accessing the text through Perseus, which is great for looking up individual words but not good for finding *all* the words matching a criterion." CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:38:56.483" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14140" PostId="6451" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I didn't see Joonas's answer. But I was thinking the same: the roots are more explicitly -are. Yet they are the closest one can think of... Unless there was 1) a verb in -oo, -ois, -oere, or 2) something oddly irregular. 1) seems ruled out by L&amp;S, 2) seems very unlikely to me" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:45:00.423" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14141" PostId="6451" Score="0" Text="Apart from that…it seems likely that -o-ō would contract to -ō in Latin, like how ama-ō &gt; amō, and dēlóō &gt; dēlô in Greek. Is there any way to search for inflected forms like -oere?" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:46:32.317" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14142" PostId="6451" Score="0" Text="@Draconis when searching in Perseus, you can choose to look for exact words, or words beginning/ending with/containing a pattern" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:46:50.207" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14144" PostId="6451" Score="0" Text="@Draconis If *-oo&gt;-o*, then why doesn't *-eo&gt;-o* and *-io&gt;-o* and *-uo&gt;-o*? (To be honest, I don't know why the first conjugation contracts but the others don't. Understanding that might help.)" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:50:24.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14145" PostId="6451" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good question! Probably deserves to be asked separately. I can't think of any Latin words that actually have *ao* or *oo* in them (except the ones listed above), but plenty with *eo* and *io*, and a few with *uo*." CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:52:24.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14146" PostId="6451" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Studying contractions certainly merits asking separate questions. It would be great to be able to predict contractions rather than only justifying sound changes by them. (There are words like *Danaos* and *coortus*, but I don't find these examples for *-ao-* and *-oo-* fully satisfying.)" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:58:43.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14158" PostId="6452" Score="0" Text="Is `word-comparison` the right tag for this?" CreationDate="2018-05-12T02:15:32.060" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14162" PostId="6452" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I don't know. I'm kind of comparing pairs of pronouns, but I don't mind if the tag is removed." CreationDate="2018-05-12T09:57:58.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14160" PostId="6455" Score="0" Text="Related: [Understanding the stem(s) of 'struere'](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4654/understanding-the-stems-of-struere)" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:21:15.610" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16552" PostId="6460" Score="0" Text="+1 Is it possible that the *fiere* forms eventually became passive because, semantically, they would fit into the paradigm of *facere* in a passive role? I don't know about classical Latin, but in school we learned that the perfect of *fieri* was *factum esse*, which means (amongst other things) &quot;to have been made&quot;—and which is identical in form and sense to the passive of *facere*. So if *fiere* means the same thing as *faceri*, then one of the two is redundant, so they can be merged/suppleted. And then *fieri* will get the *-i* befitting its passive role in the new paradigm. Or something." CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:25:24.557" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16554" PostId="6460" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I honestly have no idea, but it seems plausible! The suppletion is a good point but I don't know how much evidence we have of the details" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:28:51.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16555" PostId="6460" Score="0" Text="Neither do I! Just speculating omnibus visuris et audituris..." CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:30:17.150" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14166" PostId="6461" Score="0" Text="Wouldn't one expect _mortuus &gt; *mortuurus_ rather than _mortuus &gt; *morturus_ by the standard rule? The perfect participle has an unusual *-u-*. [There's a separate question about why it's *mortuus* instead of *mortus*.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6469/79)" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:30:26.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14167" PostId="6461" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Hmm, that makes sense. J.R. writes &quot;morturus&quot; though." CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:34:32.277" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14775" PostId="6462" Score="0" Text="May I ask if you found some criteria to make this distinction in the end?" CreationDate="2018-07-07T17:44:59.910" UserId="2736" />
  <row Id="14169" PostId="6463" Score="1" Text="The active infinitive is uniform (*-re*) across the regular Latin conjugations, but the passive one isn't: the third conjugation loses the consonant. Are you looking for an explanation of this too? Or any explanation of the origins of the long *-i*? (I never understood why it's *trahi* instead of *traheri*. Perhaps that needs to be asked at some point, too.)" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:59:31.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14170" PostId="6463" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good points! Added that to the question." CreationDate="2018-05-13T00:01:52.083" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14173" PostId="6463" Score="1" Text="Remember that historically infinitives are case forms of verbal nouns, so the active infinitive suffix *se could be locative, whereas **the passive infinitive marker ī could be dative** (at least, that's what Meiser or Weiss say)." CreationDate="2018-05-13T03:41:18.767" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14174" PostId="6463" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Interesting! Do they speculate as to where those suffixes came from? Regardless, that would be a good answer." CreationDate="2018-05-13T03:59:43.217" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14176" PostId="6463" Score="1" Text="It seems to me the idea that *se is the fossilized locative singular of a neuter s-stem has been around and accepted for at least sixty years, if not more (e.g. Tronskii 1960). With the passive marker, it is perhaps less clear - I'll try to write an answer tomorrow." CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:12:26.700" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14449" PostId="6463" Score="0" Text="I asked a separate [question about the third conjugation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6634/79). It might be better to also split off other subquestions, as there are no answers to this somewhat broad (but interesting!) question so far." CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:41:29.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14172" PostId="6464" Score="0" Text="&quot;These two words were distinct in Old Latin.&quot; Most likely it was so, but still this is not a fact since there is no textual/epigraphic evidence." CreationDate="2018-05-13T03:19:04.170" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14175" PostId="6464" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. L&amp;S cite &quot;Paul. ex Fest. p. 313&quot; for Old Latin *stlātus*, and the cognate *stlāt(t)a* is attested in a few places. Unfortunately I haven't found any evidence cited for *tlātus* except comparison with the other principal parts and the Greek cognate (nothing in other Italic languages even)." CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:03:52.687" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14177" PostId="6464" Score="0" Text="Hannah Rosén (Rosén 1988) writes that &quot;Stlat(t)a  itself is attested, evidently referring to a vessel of some kind or another, in various sources **from the second century A.D. onwards**&quot;  (p. 117; emphasis mine - Alex B.), CIL VIII 27790 (dubia) is the 3rd century AD.  Festus most likely lived in the second century AD as well, a period that can be hardly called Old Latin." CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:31:37.493" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14178" PostId="6464" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Ah! Very interesting; I wonder why these forms appeared so late? (Probably deserves its own question.)" CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:33:12.477" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39593" PostId="6464" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Did this question ever get asked? I'd also like to know the story behind this." CreationDate="2022-09-18T17:09:20.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39594" PostId="6464" Score="0" Text="@cmw I can't find it in my question history, so I probably forgot to ask. Feel free to ask it now, or I can look into it later tonight." CreationDate="2022-09-18T17:11:54.913" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19530" PostId="6466" Score="0" Text="I think this would have received more attention (and answers) on History.SE" CreationDate="2019-05-03T06:13:52.523" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="21197" PostId="6466" Score="1" Text="@VincenzoOliva [Here](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2755/where-did-the-romans-store-their-cash) is a related question, in History.SE." CreationDate="2019-08-28T22:38:07.670" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14182" PostId="6470" Score="0" Text="Interesting! It seems plausible that the active perfect participle together with *esse* lead to much of Latin perfect stem conjugation, which would answer [the question on perfect and *esse*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6422/79). Is that the way the *-w-* of *-wós* became the *-v-* in Latin perfect stems?" CreationDate="2018-05-13T19:53:35.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44572" PostId="6470" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta and Draconis, If answer was as simple as what is written here now, Latin would probably have \**morvus*. Page for root [\**mer-*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/mer-) mentions reconstructed 3 adjectives meaning &quot;dead&quot;: \**mr̥-tós*, \**mr̥-t-wós*, \**mr̥-wós* (the last one preserved in Proto-Celtic). Michiel de Vaan (2008)'s dictionary in entry for *morior* (page 390) says: 「The formation of \**mrtu̯o-* ‘dead’ for PIE \**mr̥to-* (as in Slavic) may be due to a contamination with \**mr̥u̯o-* as attested in Celtic.」 (Proto-Slavic had \**mьrtvъ*.)" CreationDate="2023-08-24T20:49:08.890" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44573" PostId="6470" Score="0" Text="And I think that *vīvō*, *vīvere* can be considered to be the corresponding verb for adjective *vīvus*." CreationDate="2023-08-24T21:02:17.650" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="14186" PostId="6471" Score="0" Text="Now that you got 15 reputation points, you can vote any questions and answers you like on the site. The feedback is always welcome! If your question has been answered satisfactorily, you can accept an answer by ticking the green check mark next to the answer. I hope to see more questions from you! For more information on site mechanics, please consult [our site's introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2018-05-14T17:34:50.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14188" PostId="6473" Score="1" Text="Great answer. There was one side note that I didn't quite understand: *But in Latin, a relative of fiō and the PIE subjunctive turned into a new future tense.* Are we to understand that there is a *fi-* somewhere in *amabo* and/or *mittam*?" CreationDate="2018-05-15T18:39:53.643" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14190" PostId="6473" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus My understanding is that *mittēs* comes from the original subjunctive, while the *-bī-* in *amābīs* comes from *bhuH* &quot;become&quot;. PIE *bh* turned into *f* at the beginning of words in Latin, but *b* in the middle, so the stem *bhuH* turned into *fiō*, *fuī*, and also that *-bī-*. I'll edit this in." CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:10:55.053" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14192" PostId="6473" Score="0" Text="The connection between the future *-bi-* and *fi-* or *fu-* would be worth asking separately. If someone is wondering about that, they are unlikely to take a closer look at this question. (@Cerberus)" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:17:57.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14194" PostId="6473" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Done!" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:30:34.700" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14201" PostId="6473" Score="1" Text="Regarding *erit*, L&amp;S mentions old forms *escit* and *esit*:  “fut. escit for erit, XII. Tab. ap. Gell. 20, 1, 25: esit, XII. Tab. ap. Fest. s. v. nec, p. 162 Müll.: escunt for erunt&quot;, Cic. Leg. 2, 24, 60, 3, 3, 9” Not sure what to make of it, though. Rhotatic shift is obvious, but he *-c-* is... interesting." CreationDate="2018-05-16T08:51:25.820" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14184" PostId="6477" Score="0" Text="Do you mean that /-twus/ is impossible in Latin or is this specific to the suffix *-uus*? If it only concerns the specific suffix, one also has to argue why this participle comes from it." CreationDate="2018-05-14T16:58:20.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14187" PostId="6477" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I seem to remember /w/ → /u/ in general after non-resonants, though I'll need to find a source on that." CreationDate="2018-05-14T17:59:23.627" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14673" PostId="6479" Score="0" Text="First of all, a quote from Schmidt 2006: &quot;Mommsen based his edition on the least ‘classical’ ‘Class 1’, mainly on Heidelberg, Pal. 921 (see VIII/IX; destroyed in a fire at Mommsen's house in 1880); the linguistically more standard ‘Class 3’ is now represented by the older Bobiensis Palermo, Archivio dello Stato, Cod. Basile (see VIII2, Codices Latini Antiquiores Suppl. 1741). Only the future edition by Bradley (cf. [13]) promises a stemmatically balanced text, which should provide a new basis for any investigations of language and style.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-01T02:12:36.853" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14674" PostId="6479" Score="0" Text="Secondly, Mommsen himself gives the following variants: emnetzur, emnedzur, emnezur, emmedzur, emmezur, zinnezur, emnetdzar, emnedzar just for Emnetzur only." CreationDate="2018-07-01T02:15:03.620" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14675" PostId="6479" Score="0" Text="Bradly 1995 writes: &quot;It is then possible that Mommsen has too readily dismissed the testimony of class iii manuscripts, and taken too little account of the possibility that the aberrations of a series of copyists are responsible for much of the flawed orthography and forms which characterise class i manuscripts and O&quot; (p. 348). Also Mommsen didn't think highly of *agramatus* Iordanes; he calls him &quot;scriptor infans et barbarus.&quot; See Bradly 1995 for a rather long list of errors in Mommsen." CreationDate="2018-07-01T02:20:54.010" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14676" PostId="6479" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. That would make a good answer in and of itself!" CreationDate="2018-07-01T02:26:48.800" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14196" PostId="6486" Score="0" Text="Interesting that the future and imperfect markers have the same origin! That lead to yet another question: [Is the same root twice in *fiebam*?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6487/79)" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:35:03.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14198" PostId="6486" Score="0" Text="Excellent, and easy to follow. And I am glad to know as a bonus that -bo and -bam are also related." CreationDate="2018-05-15T22:27:17.073" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14197" PostId="6487" Score="1" Text="The _similarity forgotten_ is attested in a different context: Latin _mecum_ and _tecum_ passed into Spanish as _migo_ and _tigo_ but somewhat lost the _with_ meaning and later &quot;reacquired&quot; a less evolved _cum_ particle to form [_conmigo_](http://dle.rae.es/?id=ALfVarA) and [_contigo_](http://dle.rae.es/?id=AVM506G), so both words have the _cum_ root twice." CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:59:12.537" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14200" PostId="6487" Score="0" Text="Its almost certain that by the Roman times, the formant *-ba-* was no longer perceived as bearing any root meaning by itself. Also, your terminology is slightly off. Stem is part of a word that fusional ending attaches to, *fi-/fie-* (irregular for this verb). You probably mean *root*. as both components likely come, as you noticed, from the PIE root *bhu-*. But since -ba- became part of the ending, it may no longer be called a root. It may have been in PI, if it was a separate word." CreationDate="2018-05-16T08:33:29.060" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14205" PostId="6493" Score="0" Text="Interesting, so I would grep LISTALL for the pattern I wanted? Does this handle unusual cases such as both *incoho* and *inchoo*, or *alucinari* and *halucinari* and *hallucinari*?" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:43:18.470" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14207" PostId="6493" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, I added an example to the answer. As for your second question, of these *hallucinari* is missing, if you run `cat listall | grep -Pw '(incoho|inchoo|alucinari|halucinari|hallucinari)'`. The other 4 forms are there." CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:41:27.270" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14506" PostId="6495" Score="3" Text="In your link about the Tholos at Epidaurus &quot;360 CE&quot; is a grotesque blunder for &quot;360 BC&quot;." CreationDate="2018-06-11T11:28:16.897" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14508" PostId="6495" Score="0" Text="@fdb grotesque indeed. Thanks for pointing that out." CreationDate="2018-06-11T12:33:40.030" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15243" PostId="6495" Score="2" Text="The last theory is a made-up etymology by Demosthenes, which like practically all ancient etymologies has no value. Here's the quote form Plutarch (tr. G. N. Bernardakis): &quot;He [Demosthenes] likewise used to swear by Asclepius, and accented the second syllable (᾿Ασκλήπιος) through some mistake, and yet afterwards defended it; for this Asclepius, he said, was called ἤπιος, that is a mild God.&quot; Wiktionary's derivation too is like something you'd find in the *Cratylos* rather than a scientific etymology." CreationDate="2018-08-15T03:06:32.500" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30707" PostId="6495" Score="1" Text="You misunderstand Grégoire. When scholars say &quot;resemble&quot;, they do not mean &quot;come directly from,&quot; but instead &quot;are somehow related.&quot; You see this all the time in dictionaries, where a Latin word contains &quot;cf. *Greek cognate*&quot;, but of course no one thinks the Greek is original, just that the two are related." CreationDate="2021-02-09T04:58:21.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="14202" PostId="6496" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you explain what you mean by &quot;gender nouns&quot;? In both French and Latin all nouns have a gender. Do you want to know what the gender of *collis* and *conlis* is?" CreationDate="2018-05-16T16:12:39.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14203" PostId="6496" Score="0" Text="I meant nouns have a gender. Yes, are collis and conlis the same noun with different gender or they have different meanings?" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:15:55.257" UserId="2623" />
  <row Id="14206" PostId="6498" Score="1" Text="* _kolən_ seems to be a pre-Laryngeal-Theory reconstruction; I'm familiar with this root as * _kelH_, with *collis* coming from zero-grade * _klH-ni-s_. (Regardless, good answer!)" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:48:59.680" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14270" PostId="6499" Score="0" Text="Similar: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2345/is-mementote-semantically-a-future-imperative" CreationDate="2018-05-19T22:19:55.540" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14211" PostId="6500" Score="2" Text="The Vulgate in this definition is excluded, right? It is late Latin, but probably all Hebraic names (Simon, Messia) are transliterations of Greek transliterations (although the naturalized version of שִׁמְעוֹן is Συμεών). Could the double sigma in μεσσίας, as opposed to the single shin in מָשִׁיחַ have something to do with representing a different sound?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:07:54.170" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14222" PostId="6500" Score="1" Text="In some forms of ecclesisatical Latin, *sc* before a soft vowel sound (e, i, ae, oe) makes the /ʃ/ sound, like in Italian. I doubt this was ever used to transcribe that sound, though." CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:49:30.713" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14225" PostId="6500" Score="0" Text="@Rafael The Vulgate is generally excluded, because all the foreign names in it seem to come through the Greek. *Messias* is a good thought, but the single sigma in *Iēsous* also comes from a shin, doesn't it?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:01:35.540" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14240" PostId="6500" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Agreed. I realize the double-sigma hypothesis raises a lot of questions, that's why I was just asking. But couldn't it still be that Ἰησοῦς had been already adopted into Greek with the sound [s] at the time of the Septuagint? Of course, this would also need an exception for initials. Yet יִשַׁי&gt;Ἰεσσαί&gt;Iesse, but maybe it has just to do with vowel quantity or something else. UPDATE: sorry, I read your message before even noticing varro's answer" CreationDate="2018-05-17T20:11:56.633" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14209" PostId="6501" Score="0" Text="&quot;we would expect modō, not modŏ&quot;—Wouldn't &quot;brevis brevians&quot; work as an explanation of the short vowel in the last syllable of &quot;modŏ&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T06:07:22.713" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14224" PostId="6501" Score="0" Text="@sumelic That would explain it in verse, but I've never seen *brevis brevians* sticking around in an inflected form (it always seems to be undone by analogy if there are other forms to analogize from), and *mŏdŏ* is also listed as pyrrhic by the grammarians." CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:59:13.933" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14246" PostId="6501" Score="0" Text="My understanding is that BB is thought to have applied in ordinary speech as well as verse. What you say about the long vowel being restored by analogy in inflected forms seems to be true in general, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that once &quot;modo&quot; came to be thought of as an adverb, it was no longer thought of as an inflected form of &quot;modus&quot;, even if it originated from the ablative case. De Vaan says *modus* is the source of *modō̆* 'just, only'" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:25:01.693" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14247" PostId="6501" Score="0" Text="(L&amp;S has a list of a few places where the last syllable is supposed to scan long: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=modo)" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:27:21.220" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14212" PostId="6503" Score="0" Text="Perhaps &quot;non solum ... sed etiam ...&quot;, though the meaning is not quite the same. Greek would use &quot;men ... de ...&quot;." CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:18:16.757" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="14213" PostId="6503" Score="0" Text="... and on the gripping hand, ..." CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:20:07.920" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="14215" PostId="6503" Score="0" Text="@DavidRicherby : The OTHER other hand, eh?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:22:32.693" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="14226" PostId="6503" Score="1" Text="My immediate thought also was *men…de* and it took me a minute to realize that wasn't Latin." CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:24:34.150" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14214" PostId="6504" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a nice question. Are you sure you want to keep it deleted? May I ask what the topic of the paper is? If Euler's Latin text plays a bigger role, you might actually find a coauthor willing to help." CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:20:50.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14216" PostId="6504" Score="0" Text="No. I've had some troubles with my account I've created right now. Thanks. Do not remove the question. The topic is mathematics. I've nowhere seen these phrases. No ideas who could help." CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:48:52.853" UserId="2626" />
  <row Id="14217" PostId="6504" Score="1" Text="A few questions: 1) Is it possible that it is **TUM** instead of **TURN** in both occurrences?, 2) do you know/can provide a link to the source, to get a bit more context?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T14:21:13.723" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14218" PostId="6504" Score="0" Text="A picture/scan/screen capture also helps" CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:26:00.377" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14219" PostId="6504" Score="1" Text="I had a meeting to attend so I had to disappear. As @Rafael points out, the original source (in picture, not just machine-recognized text) would be helpful. Can you tell more about the topic? I am a mathematician by profession myself, and I'm curious to hear if you are going to use this in a historical, philosophical, or some other context." CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:37:37.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14221" PostId="6504" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta +1, and if it gets published, it would be nice to know and have a DOI or some other handle to the paper ;)" CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:43:50.483" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30603" PostId="6506" Score="1" Text="When the gerundive enters the ablative case it seems to work either as a gerund or it just creates an agreement of case-endings. Here, &quot;cum bello cupiendo tam incensus&quot; = &quot;so aroused with the war-desire/ blood-lust.&quot;. See Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/15243/1982." CreationDate="2021-02-01T12:23:21.920" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14220" PostId="6507" Score="2" Text="I posted a separate answer. I think the missing verb is *sunt*, so that &quot;those things are around&quot;, *eae res sunt*. The subject of *premitur* is *additio* and *subtractio* (ellipsis from *additio premitur et subtractio premitur*). The structure becomes clearer when you know the point Euler must be trying to get across." CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:41:02.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14260" PostId="6507" Score="2" Text="Thanks a million to Rafael and Joonas Ilmavirta! Nice to hear from mathematicians. You are right. There were distortions in my machine-scaned Euler; &quot;turn&quot; should really be &quot;tum&quot;. Both the problems, 1 and 2, are from the 1736 and 1735 letters of Euler to Carl Ehler.&#xA;You may get the file here: [link](http://library1.org/_ads/F6EBCC792C9FE21A247D89AF66CAC6FA)&#xA;and look for latin urtexts there. The sentences under question are on pages 363 and 322 respectively. &#xA;PS. Is the phrase &quot;is pressed by&quot; good for native English speaker in the Joonas translation?" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:38:57.013" UserId="2626" />
  <row Id="14264" PostId="6507" Score="2" Text="@user2626 I updated my answer after taking a look at the originals. I rephrased &quot;is pressed by&quot; to &quot;is hindered by&quot; which sounds more idiomatic to me. I'm not a native English speaker, so others will have to judge that." CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:04:33.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14223" PostId="6508" Score="1" Text="Note that neither in the sentences or in the question is there an explicit link between between the 2nd sentence and complex numbers (though it could be implied, depending on how you read)." CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:53:34.907" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14227" PostId="6508" Score="2" Text="@Rafael True. I assumed the passages to be related in topic. That's yet another thing that would be easier to judge with the original source available." CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:36:29.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14230" PostId="6508" Score="1" Text="I don't think that any verb is missing from no. 2. Between _additio_ and _subtractio_ I  would expect not _et_, but a word for 'or' (_sive, aut_ etc.). 'Whether it is addition or subtraction carried out in the usual way, it is not beleaguered by any difficulty.'  As for _vir amplissime_, any polite formula would serve, perhaps in the formality of those times, 'My dear Sir'." CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:10:14.880" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="37876" PostId="6508" Score="0" Text="What is the subject of &quot;decet&quot; then? It doesn't seem to have any other *singular* noun in this phrase to use, so what's the &quot;it&quot; it is referring to? &quot;quās&quot; are plural (and feminine) in accusative, so if anything, this might only be the direct object." CreationDate="2022-04-08T17:32:22.687" UserId="10920" />
  <row Id="37881" PostId="6508" Score="0" Text="@SasQ Nothing. The verb *decet* is impersonal and it would indeed be wrong to supply a subject. I can't think of an English wording that comes close to what Latin does syntactically, partly because this verb behaves like this." CreationDate="2022-04-08T20:32:19.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14228" PostId="6509" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! Was medial *ss* used only for [ʃ], or also for foreign [s]?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:41:19.220" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14229" PostId="6509" Score="0" Text="I can't off-hand think of any, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.  I'll add a note to my answer with some further thoughts on this." CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:47:16.023" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14231" PostId="6509" Score="0" Text="I've also heard that *Elissa* might come from Greek (borrowed from Phoenician), but I don't know a solid source on this." CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:13:33.400" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14232" PostId="6509" Score="0" Text="It's possible, but I don't know for sure." CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:16:04.570" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14241" PostId="6509" Score="0" Text="Another possible example of [ʃ] as σσ or ss could be: יִשַׁי&gt;Ἰεσσαί&gt;Iesse?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T20:15:54.653" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14244" PostId="6509" Score="0" Text="Yes, but this doesn't seem to be consistent, though.  The name of the prophet Elisha (אֱלִישָׁע) is transcribed as Ελισαιε in the LXX, for example." CreationDate="2018-05-17T21:49:10.457" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14242" PostId="6510" Score="1" Text="I just found out about the existence of [san](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_(letter)) and its history. The WP article gives an idea or two about [ʃ], but none about σσ. Maybe the key is the history of Greek's sister languages?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T20:45:12.120" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16220" PostId="6510" Score="3" Text="I don't think this is necessarily evidence for a difference in the Greek sounds. Maybe [ʃ] was phonetically longer than [s] in the relevant language(s), or the Greeks heard it as such, or maybe they were just looking for an orthographic way of indicating &quot;this isn't [s]&quot;, which would have been difficult as they didn't have digraphs of the *sh* type. (FWIW, I can't find my copy of Sturtevant but I'm pretty sure he treats σ as always standing for [s], whether single or geminate.)" CreationDate="2018-11-02T18:03:27.100" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="14233" PostId="6511" Score="0" Text="Excellent! Out of curiosity, what happens to rising diphthongs in general?" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:50:18.950" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14243" PostId="6511" Score="1" Text="The pattern is generally the same; for sequences of /wV/ pattern, the /w/ disappears; note /kalwos/ *καλϝός ‐› καλός, with /w/ dropped completely in Attic, but with the previous α lengthened in compensation in the Epic dialect.&#xA;&#xA;For sequences of the /yV/ pattern, the /y/ generally makes some sort of union with the previous consonant, e.g., /alyos/ *ἀλιος/ἀλjος ‐› ἀλλός (cf. Latin alius)." CreationDate="2018-05-17T21:35:12.840" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14235" PostId="6513" Score="0" Text="Possibly the transliteration of the Greek should be changed to *engkomion*, (although perhaps this thought is merely folly... ;)" CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:11:19.047" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14236" PostId="6513" Score="0" Text="@DukeZhou I think the 'n' in &quot;enkomion&quot; is already pronounced as [ŋ], so no need to put in the extra 'g'. The standard transliteration matches indeed 'γκ' and 'nk' or 'nc'." CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:15:17.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14237" PostId="6513" Score="0" Text="I'm not so sure because I can pronounce it two different ways, depending on the shape of the mouth.  Possibly the fix is to update the wiki with the UK IPA, similar to encomium: /ɛŋˈkəʊ.mɪ.əm/ ?  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/encomium" CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:21:41.030" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14238" PostId="6513" Score="2" Text="@DukeZhou If you really want to make sure the pronunciation is unambiguous, use IPA. But I thought it was just a question of a transliteration (to make the words readable to those who don't know Greek), it's not needed." CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:25:31.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14239" PostId="6513" Score="1" Text="I guess the reason I'm pursuing is having found search results related to the text for both  Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον and  Μωρίας ἐνκώμιον.  So there definitely seems to be confusion." CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:28:00.420" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14252" PostId="6513" Score="1" Text="In some old inscriptions and manuscripts, ἐν+(word beginning with γ/κ/χ) sometimes kept the ἐν spelling, but the commonly accepted practice (the &quot;correct&quot; practice as it developed) is nowadays (and for some time now) to use the  ἐγ‐ spelling." CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:30:03.230" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14234" PostId="6514" Score="0" Text="Draconis, thank you.  [ἐγκωμ-](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=egkwm&amp;lang=greek)" CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:09:56.720" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14251" PostId="6514" Score="0" Text="@Draconis:  I don't know if &quot;died out&quot; is quite the way to express it.  I think it would more accurate to say that /gn/ (as in _magnus_) was phonetically realised (by partial assimilation) as [ŋn], which by a fairly natural transformation deleloped into a Romance [ɲ], as in *Karolus Magnus* becoming *Charlemagne*." CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:21:37.190" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14253" PostId="6514" Score="0" Text="@varro Fair; fixed" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:31:26.030" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14245" PostId="6515" Score="1" Text="*-isti* is probably the strangest of the bunch. I believe that *-erunt* is on analogy of the present tense, largely displacing earlier *-ere,* but I could be mistaken." CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:22:50.860" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14254" PostId="6518" Score="0" Text="Is this a homework question? If so, I'll only offer a hint: *ut* is the key word." CreationDate="2018-05-18T02:03:07.857" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14255" PostId="6518" Score="1" Text="*Nos* could be either Nom or Acc(subject or object) but *centurio* can't." CreationDate="2018-05-18T02:03:11.817" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14256" PostId="6518" Score="1" Text="I realize now that it's &quot;the centurion asked us...&quot; But I still don't know how to translate it because the ut in an indirect question is that subject should verb" CreationDate="2018-05-18T02:07:03.513" UserId="2368" />
  <row Id="14257" PostId="6518" Score="0" Text="Literally: &quot;the centurion asked us that we might guard the captives.&quot; Idiomatically: &quot;the centurion asked us to guard the captives.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-05-18T02:11:54.153" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14278" PostId="6520" Score="0" Text="Not Greek, but a Latin root that might have caught Sherry's attention. *Hio* gape; in Smith's used to mean incoherent, disconnected. *Hiandus* - bawling, yelling. Also *mp* is found in the modern Greek for a bar: Μπαρ this is simply aspirated." CreationDate="2018-05-20T22:31:50.167" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20423" PostId="6520" Score="2" Text="Two suggestions: could it be a misprint/misspelling? Perhaps it was meant to be _bomphiLologia_ or even _bomphiLogia_? Note that _homeoteleuton_ is misspelled  twice ( _homotelento_  and _homoteleto_) in Sherry's book. Or perhaps it's a joke? Perhaps _bomphiologia_ is in fact an example of _bomphiologia_ - both hollow noise (_bombus_) and padded bluster (_bombast_)? It does seem that Sherry's whole project was experimental to some extent (see: H. W. Hildebrandt, &quot;Sherry: Renaissance rhetorician&quot;, 1960)" CreationDate="2019-07-06T07:08:29.673" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="20424" PostId="6520" Score="1" Text="With regard to the joke thesis: the example of the 'boasting souldiar [sic]' that Sherry points to is about his 'great gasyng wordes [sic]', not explicitly the name he references ('Bombomachides'). To this end, the opening exchange of the _Miles Gloriosus_ has the braggart soldier rattle off imaginary names (Bombomachides being only one) to which the slave says, in an aside (and I paraphrase), &quot;none of which ever existed&quot;. Thus, _bomphiologia_ may itself be a &quot;great gasyng worde&quot;, empty but for hot air. Perhaps." CreationDate="2019-07-06T07:19:28.280" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="14261" PostId="6521" Score="1" Text="FWIW, I've been doing some research on Catholic liturgical colors. The best source I've found so far is [Benedict XIV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XIV). [He says](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu53277481;view=1up;seq=82) in the VI century there was apparently no more than white and red, and by the XII century black was intended for the dead and other meanings. That leaves a huge gap, though." CreationDate="2018-05-18T13:06:10.597" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14263" PostId="6521" Score="0" Text="@Rafael It does leave a gap, but I'm not sure if we're going to have any information closer to classical antiquity. If you can answer a question close to this one, that would be a useful contribution. I'm worried that there may not be sufficient ancient evidence on the matter, so I'm open to any pointers." CreationDate="2018-05-18T13:12:03.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14273" PostId="6521" Score="1" Text="Incidentally, Toynbee's “Death and Burial in the Roman World” is the best monograph on the topic that i've come upon, and also quite accessible, if you want to research the topic deeper." CreationDate="2018-05-19T23:10:27.087" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14271" PostId="6524" Score="1" Text="It is a very interesting question, but from what I am able to relate in the Roman psyche, self-humiliation was hardly considered a virtue. To the Roman, such an idea would be anywhere from ridiculous to insane. I would be extremely surprised if the source was classical. There is a [deep monograph](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9661-6) on the topic:of the history of humiliation, but I cannot remember it even touching the self-ridicule being a thing even worth mentioning. To the Roman, a maxim “He who laughs at himself, is mentally unstable” would be more apt." CreationDate="2018-05-19T22:28:29.373" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14272" PostId="6524" Score="0" Text="Another thought, try combing through Plautus and Terentius. Someone who is deluded that he'd be invincible because of his humility or self-ridicule would make a perfect laughing stock for the comedy." CreationDate="2018-05-19T22:59:48.773" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14265" PostId="6525" Score="0" Text="I'm surprised about the accusative. My first thought was it needed a proposition like _a_ or _de_" CreationDate="2018-05-19T15:05:16.230" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14266" PostId="6525" Score="2" Text="Ha! Thanks for the pentameter! It has a nice ring to it." CreationDate="2018-05-19T15:38:25.870" UserId="2628" />
  <row Id="14267" PostId="6525" Score="0" Text="Since I forgot to write down the source (which I regret in hindsight), I can only rely on fallible memory. I believe it was a cut-out of a quite long sentence. This clue probably does not help very much at all. I know." CreationDate="2018-05-19T15:42:31.733" UserId="2628" />
  <row Id="14268" PostId="6525" Score="1" Text="@Rafael So am I, but after looking at the examples in Lewis and Short, it seems that accusative is the way to go. My intuition says otherwise, but I'll trust L&amp;S more than myself on this." CreationDate="2018-05-19T18:04:59.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14269" PostId="6525" Score="0" Text="@Jim If you happen to know any of the key words in that sentence, that would help. I did a corpus search with some combinations of laughing and winning and I didn't find much. (I put one finding in the answer.)" CreationDate="2018-05-19T18:15:04.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14274" PostId="6528" Score="0" Text="A very good answer. I wonder whether qui ex se cepit could mean &quot;who began with himself&quot;, in effect for initium cepit." CreationDate="2018-05-20T10:28:07.853" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14275" PostId="6528" Score="0" Text="As in :  “ea pars artis, ex quā capere initium solent,” Quint. 2, 11, 1. (ap. L/S)." CreationDate="2018-05-20T10:49:01.410" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14276" PostId="6528" Score="1" Text="@fdb I hadn't thought of that but it works well and has the added advantage of being a less tortured translation than mine, which surely counts in its favour!" CreationDate="2018-05-20T10:49:24.247" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="14277" PostId="6529" Score="2" Text="What are the details of this curse? Are you stating this as a fact (&quot;this is what will happen&quot;) or as a wish (&quot;may this happen&quot;)? Who is using it?" CreationDate="2018-05-20T21:16:58.620" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14287" PostId="6530" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much for the answer. I want it to be stated as a fact. Also, if there's any differences between masculine and feminine forms, I would like to see it in masculine form." CreationDate="2018-05-21T22:41:35.517" UserId="2635" />
  <row Id="14288" PostId="6530" Score="0" Text="Sorry,  I'm the original asker but accidentally logged in under this account." CreationDate="2018-05-21T22:42:59.467" UserId="2635" />
  <row Id="14289" PostId="6530" Score="0" Text="@BlueSteel Added an option for that" CreationDate="2018-05-22T01:46:42.617" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14280" PostId="6534" Score="2" Text="+1, especially for *commotus*. *Vehementer commotus* would be a great way of saying, &quot;I was very touched.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-05-21T17:27:20.837" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20086" PostId="6534" Score="0" Text="First, could you explain the intended meaning of *amore puellae pelli* and give a classical citation or two confirming this usage? I only find the verb in collocations with *animum/mentem* and anything but tender emotions. And second, the PPP of *afficere* is *affectus*, yours means &quot;arrested, nailed by shame, as in to the spot&quot;  :-)" CreationDate="2019-06-11T17:56:06.893" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20138" PostId="6534" Score="0" Text="As I said, the examples are made up. _Pelli_ is the passive infinitive of _pello_ and _affixus is not from _afficio_, but from _affigo_. Sorry about the slight confusion!" CreationDate="2019-06-13T13:40:31.013" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14281" PostId="6536" Score="1" Text="Motus in all its meanings (noun, adjective, participle) also comes to mind as idiomatic" CreationDate="2018-05-21T17:27:55.720" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14279" PostId="6537" Score="0" Text="Good find! The intended Latin nominative is certainly *monoparentalis*." CreationDate="2018-05-21T15:58:57.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14284" PostId="6539" Score="1" Text="Note that if you're addressing more than one individual, you should replace *ora* with *orate*, and *ores* with *oretis*." CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:57:41.560" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="14285" PostId="6539" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9, good point, thank you. I asummed that if the OP stated from _ora_ it was singular, but it is not necessary. I'll add that into the answer later, if you don't mind" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:03:29.980" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14282" PostId="6540" Score="0" Text="Very nice!  (also the note on extra verbs)" CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:19:25.540" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14291" PostId="6540" Score="0" Text="+1 for noting that &quot;please&quot; is not necessary in Latin. However, while English strongly encourages &quot;please&quot;, prayers are just in imperative (&quot;Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners&quot;). I wonder if it's just that prayers don't need &quot;please&quot; in any languages or that Christian prayers in English have been directly adapted from Latin." CreationDate="2018-05-22T12:44:49.673" UserId="851" />
  <row Id="14292" PostId="6540" Score="2" Text="@Pere, I think it may be both. Prayers, at least in Catholic theology, are requests from a son to a Father/Mother (when directed to any of the three divine Persons or the Holy Virigin), so they don't _need_ to be super polite, although they can be, since they are also directed to the King of Kings/the Queen of Heaven. In the other hand, it's not frequent to see translations of ancient text of any kind using _please_ (not only in English), even in context of very humble requests (e.g. Mt 8:8: I do not deserve to have you come under my roof/But just say the word, and my servant will be healed)" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:31:29.713" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14294" PostId="6545" Score="0" Text="Interestingly enough, *εἰ* does come from the PIE for &quot;that&quot;, though not in the same sense: it's cognate with *is ea id*!" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:59:57.673" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14293" PostId="6546" Score="0" Text="*Fī* caught me off guard, and I don't think I've ever seen it before. Is that a common form?" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:55:14.347" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14295" PostId="6546" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Maybe not common, but certainly attested: *Sequere hac, Palinure, me ad fores, fi mi obsequens.* (Plautus) *Age fí benignus, subveni.* (Plautus) *Fi cognitor ipse.* (Horatius)" CreationDate="2018-05-22T19:10:24.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29919" PostId="6548" Score="0" Text="&quot;I think the Romans simply had a different view to structuring language, and **perhaps sentence was not as crucial a concept as it is to us**&quot;. I understand the particular context in which you make such a statement above but nothing could be further from the truth. I think that the reading of this book written by a good friend and colleague of mine (Renato Oniga) can help you dispel this kind of doubts:  https://global.oup.com/academic/product/latin-a-linguistic-introduction-9780198702863?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;#" CreationDate="2020-11-30T03:09:18.907" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29921" PostId="6548" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I have to invite you to write another answer! I would be happy to learn more, but reading a whole book might be too much of a commitment." CreationDate="2020-11-30T07:41:36.583" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14297" PostId="6549" Score="0" Text="I am sorry to have to say that this answer is totally wrong. In this passage si is simply a calque on εἰ. The real issue here is why εἰ is used here to mean “that”. I will get back to that one if I have time." CreationDate="2018-05-22T21:43:23.163" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14298" PostId="6549" Score="1" Text="@fdb Glad to know. I admit I answered out of speculation, and I suspected there could be some influence from Greek or Hebrew, but I thought these meanings i) fit (somewhat) the translation and ii) answered the question 'when does _si_ mean _that_?' which in fact happens in Latin: one of the meanings accepts the calque of εἰ as idiomatic Latin. I'd be even more glad to know why there is no ambiguity: I still think this answer could be a valid explanation despite there being another, Greek-based, possible one. I'll be happy to delete this answer if it is proven wrong." CreationDate="2018-05-22T21:54:43.140" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14299" PostId="6549" Score="1" Text="@Rafael. I think you're right since *L&amp;S* gives two examples from Livy, so if I had been reading Livy instead of the *Vulgate*, I might have asked the same thing as to why he used *si* in that way, in which case, the question of the Greek would have never come up." CreationDate="2018-05-23T12:29:22.543" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="14300" PostId="6549" Score="0" Text="@ExpeditoBipes, I sincerely think fdb has something important to say, and suggest you to wait for him before accepting an answer. He's a linguist, I'm just an amateur. I'm likely missing a reason why these definitions don't apply to this verse of the Acts." CreationDate="2018-05-23T12:41:29.090" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14302" PostId="6549" Score="1" Text="@Rafael. OK. I'll unaccept if for now even though I believe it addresses the question well." CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:17:20.810" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="14303" PostId="6550" Score="1" Text="I recall a frequent comment that the Vulgate is full of Graecisms, but L&amp;S seem to accept some uses of _si_ as _that_ as proper Latin" CreationDate="2018-05-23T14:09:39.890" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14304" PostId="6550" Score="1" Text="I think this is right, but it is still strange. *BDAG* (see, for example, footnote 67 [here](http://biblewebapp.com/study/content/texts/eng_net/AC26.html#footnote-67)) almost exclusively mentions &quot;wondering&quot; words with &quot;εἰ,&quot; except for this verse." CreationDate="2018-05-23T14:21:00.570" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14305" PostId="6550" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. I agree. It is strange." CreationDate="2018-05-23T14:26:40.577" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14306" PostId="6550" Score="2" Text="@Rafael. I do understand your point. But I think all the Latin references for si = &quot;that&quot; have a conditional component, which is lacking here." CreationDate="2018-05-23T14:37:21.700" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14308" PostId="6550" Score="0" Text="@fdb I want to better understand. My Latin professor spoke of conditionality as a form of futurity (in Spanish, so maybe there are false friends involved). Paul seems to be speaking from the time of the Prophets, _... prophetæ locuti sunt futura esse ... lumen annuntiaturus..._. Doesn't that involve some form of irreality?" CreationDate="2018-05-23T14:59:20.403" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14316" PostId="6550" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That is a good question, but I support taking it to a separate one. We could certainly explore conditionality more on the site." CreationDate="2018-05-23T20:15:57.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14317" PostId="6550" Score="0" Text="@fdb I think it would be good to explicitly state in the answer that *si* can indeed be read as &quot;that&quot; in classical Latin, but that requires a conditional situation which is not the case here. I agree it is a Greek calque, but there is more to it. The subtlety is easy to miss." CreationDate="2018-05-23T20:21:26.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14309" PostId="6551" Score="1" Text="As for nemo+nisi, it doesn't seem wrong to me, see Cic. Pis. 7, [English](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Pis.+7&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0020), [Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0013%3Atext%3DPis.%3Asection%3D7). Is that your only concern?" CreationDate="2018-05-23T15:42:52.067" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14314" PostId="6551" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Mostly. I As Draconis points out below, the unless/except ambiguity was also something I was wondering about." CreationDate="2018-05-23T19:32:22.383" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="14310" PostId="6552" Score="0" Text="While *praeter* can be an adverb, in this context I think it should definitely be treated as a preposition (*praeter Amorem*). Every [example of *nemo praeter* in Cicero](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nemo+praeter) uses it with the accusative." CreationDate="2018-05-23T17:11:29.067" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14311" PostId="6552" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Fixed" CreationDate="2018-05-23T17:37:53.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14313" PostId="6552" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Yes, I do think that _praeter_ works much better. I hadn't even considered it, but it does effectively eliminate that ambiguity that I'd also been concerned about. Thanks for this! :)" CreationDate="2018-05-23T19:29:56.590" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="14318" PostId="6555" Score="0" Text="What about a hypothesis test?" CreationDate="2018-05-23T22:16:28.723" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14319" PostId="6555" Score="0" Text="@Rafael It would certainly be nice to see something more elaborate than what I did. [This is the search I used to find *Melitae* and *in Melita*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=melita) (if you want no false positives, make two separate searches) in case you want to play with it." CreationDate="2018-05-23T22:19:12.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14320" PostId="6555" Score="0" Text="I was kidding. But with both numbers, the choice can be modeled as a Bernoulli trial (assuming the same probability along history, though) and one can do some Bayesian inference (happy to do it, but I'm not sure I'll tell all locatives apart from genitives right)" CreationDate="2018-05-24T12:07:07.467" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14321" PostId="6555" Score="1" Text="Cicero uses locative *Melitae* 5 times and *in Melita* only once. Perhaps a better explanation for the latter is that he wanted to disambiguate, i.e. prevent the reading &quot;the ruins *of Malta*&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-05-24T13:08:39.093" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14322" PostId="6555" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That's quite possible, but I didn't feel confident enough to draw conclusions from a sample of 5+1. Perhaps a comparison to similarly sized islands would give more support for preferring the locative." CreationDate="2018-05-24T14:10:47.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14323" PostId="6558" Score="0" Text="Latin [bell-](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bell&amp;lang=la) / Greek [βελ-](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bel&amp;lang=greek)" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:32:23.710" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="29390" PostId="6558" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Ah yep, that's a mistake on my part. Not sure where it would have come from, since my usual reference is LSJ and they make it clear it's a short ŭ." CreationDate="2020-10-16T19:26:38.410" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18234" PostId="6564" Score="0" Text="Agreed. The reason for monimentum in Renaissance-era inscriptions is almost certainly their awareness of these passages you cited that favor that spelling. The Renaissance Latinists were enamored with minutiae of this sort." CreationDate="2019-01-21T00:36:37.507" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="14328" PostId="6565" Score="0" Text="Don't believe google translate! &quot;quia&quot; means &quot;for, because, since&quot; (conjunction). It does not mean &quot;for, on account of&quot; (preposition)." CreationDate="2018-05-25T12:22:18.287" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14326" PostId="6566" Score="0" Text="Bienvenido! Do you prefer a literal translation rather than something more idiomatic?" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:07:51.660" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14327" PostId="6566" Score="4" Text="@Rafael gracias! Actually I don't mind, but it would be really nice if the translated sentence is something a real Roman would have said two thousand years ago. :-)" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:11:43.913" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="14336" PostId="6566" Score="0" Text="My understanding is that NSFW is &quot;Not Suitable For Work&quot;. FWIW. :-)" CreationDate="2018-05-26T02:58:37.387" UserId="1073" />
  <row Id="14341" PostId="6568" Score="0" Text="The sad moment when you realise your learning speed is much  slower than you think." CreationDate="2018-05-26T19:44:45.950" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14332" PostId="6569" Score="0" Text="@stendarr I think *operantibus* is a dative (&quot;**for** those whose are working&quot;), but the answer should still be worth your upvote." CreationDate="2018-05-25T18:11:18.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14333" PostId="6569" Score="0" Text="(Greek has no such trouble [πένομαι](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpe%2Fnomai) since it seems to conform well with the modern condition for many;)  Great answer.  Operantibus inconveniens is concise and conveys some resonance of meaning (&quot;not convenient for what you're doing&quot;) even to non-Latin readers." CreationDate="2018-05-25T18:56:54.167" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14335" PostId="6569" Score="0" Text="Acronym OHO. Not bad!" CreationDate="2018-05-26T00:24:04.377" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14329" PostId="6570" Score="0" Text="I thought of _non videndum(a, us) a principale (domino, decurio)_ but I'm not sure of the connotation. NSFW sounds like something whose context you don't want your boss to understand..." CreationDate="2018-05-25T16:23:53.363" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14330" PostId="6570" Score="2" Text="@Rafael It could also mean material people don't want to see in a work environment. I'm pretty sure most bosses would understand the context of porn at work, but that is blatantly in the NSFW category. You can always offer your idea as a separate answer so it's easier to vote and comment on it. There are many ways to say things like this." CreationDate="2018-05-25T16:27:21.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14337" PostId="6570" Score="1" Text="@Rafael NSFW originally had the context of something you might see in an email subject line from a friend when they are sending you images or videos, which-- if the boss or coworkers sees it--could be misinterpreted or get you fired. Porn is the obvious category, but other non-Porno NSFW items include anything from racist memes, rape memes, non-porn nude images like African tribal dancers or indigenous tribespeople, and even (in a predominantly Christian society) images of torture, witches, dem" CreationDate="2018-05-26T09:34:14.833" UserId="2391" />
  <row Id="14338" PostId="6570" Score="0" Text="...(continued). The whole point was &quot;Hey buddy, I'm send you this naked image/sex video but it might get you in trouble so don't open it at work: wait until you get home" CreationDate="2018-05-26T09:36:56.437" UserId="2391" />
  <row Id="14339" PostId="6570" Score="0" Text="As a final note, you are right @Rafael in that the boss (and the email servers which flagged words like &quot;porn&quot; and &quot;nude&quot;) originally were not supposed to understand the acronym . But, like parents, over time they came to understand the &quot;code&quot; and other code words like &quot;pr0n&quot; will now be understood by most bosses for what it is. Language is a living thing . &quot;NSFW&quot; was developed in 1990s, a time before the world fad Facebook, Smartphones, Instant messaging, YouTube, or Bittorrent." CreationDate="2018-05-26T09:44:12.037" UserId="2391" />
  <row Id="14334" PostId="6572" Score="1" Text="If it's an archaic form, why is it showing up in the 18th century?" CreationDate="2018-05-25T22:20:55.213" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14911" PostId="6572" Score="0" Text="Deliberate antiquarianism is the only reasonable answer. And the less commonplace Latin was becoming, I'd assume, the more latitude for idiosyncrasy." CreationDate="2018-07-22T23:33:23.790" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14348" PostId="6573" Score="1" Text="Aha, they were programmers! _Document Object Model_" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:53:40.087" UserId="2656" />
  <row Id="14340" PostId="6577" Score="0" Text="Not exactly what you're looking for, but FWIW, prope and longe work for both space and time" CreationDate="2018-05-26T18:14:41.710" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14342" PostId="6577" Score="1" Text="The verb *disto* can be used this way: e.g., *Caesare adhuc multas hebdomades distante, ...* 'with Caesar still many weeks distant, ...'" CreationDate="2018-05-26T21:23:53.713" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14343" PostId="6577" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Can you write that as an answer? It does answer the question. (Do you want to use accusative or ablative of the quantity *multae hebdomades*? I thought *distare* would use ablative exclusively.)" CreationDate="2018-05-26T21:33:25.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14376" PostId="6577" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It's an accusative of extent, but another reason for the accusative to be preferred is that the ablative often marks the thing from which the subject is distant." CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:07:43.843" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14344" PostId="6580" Score="0" Text="You could replace &quot;beauty&quot; with &quot;logical beauty.&quot; As a mathematician, I think you'll understand what I mean by this. Of the two suggestions, I think &quot;In veritate amoenitas&quot; is closer. Do you agree? Based on this new information, do you have another suggestion?" CreationDate="2018-05-26T22:26:53.870" UserId="2606" />
  <row Id="14345" PostId="6580" Score="0" Text="@RandyRanderson I agree that in that case *amoenitas* is indeed the best choice." CreationDate="2018-05-26T22:28:05.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14346" PostId="6581" Score="0" Text="The word *torus* has a number of meanings as listed in Wiktionary and many other dictionaries. Why do you think it should be construed as &quot;round hill&quot; specifically? The source Wiktionary quotes for this choice of translation is a book from 1844. // If your goal is to understand the etymology of a French word, I think asking at the French site is better. If the question is focused on Latin, can you elaborate on the Latin side of things?" CreationDate="2018-05-26T23:09:15.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14347" PostId="6581" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm interested about the Latin side, yes. You're correct that I shouldn't fixate on 'round hill'. I replaced it with the more general meaning." CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:51:50.820" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="14437" PostId="6587" Score="0" Text="Indeed. Oh, century-and-a-half-old etymologies, will ye never be right? I just noticed in *Moby Dick* the reference to the idea that French *requin* is from *requiem* because &quot;[when it has seized a man ... there is nothing left to do but sing the Requiem](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/requin)&quot;." CreationDate="2018-06-02T15:31:45.027" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="23060" PostId="6587" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary is very often wrong." CreationDate="2019-11-03T14:38:20.830" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="14358" PostId="6589" Score="0" Text="Interesting! Is this at all related to *ruina* from *ruō*? And did it remain productive post-PIE at all?" CreationDate="2018-05-27T17:07:40.450" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14403" PostId="6589" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. The suffix *-īno- forms adjectives like caninus, or nouns like ruina, regina and many others. I am not sure how long it remained productive." CreationDate="2018-05-30T17:25:21.547" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="43784" PostId="6589" Score="0" Text="I would imagine it remained productive throughout Classical Latin; e.g *constantinus* from *constans* is a post-classical derivation." CreationDate="2023-06-22T21:53:23.000" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43786" PostId="6589" Score="0" Text="@cmw good point" CreationDate="2023-06-22T22:07:28.187" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14362" PostId="6591" Score="0" Text="This word, salvo, is not in my dictionary (the dictionary of CT Lewis, first published in 1891). Do I need to resort to a dictionary of medieval Latin to find such words?" CreationDate="2018-05-28T07:22:05.670" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="14363" PostId="6591" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden. This particular word appears in my copy of Lewis &amp; Short. (I copied the entry in my answer from the [online version](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059).) It isn't in my Oxford Latin dictionary though – which actually isn't surprising if it's a late Latin word." CreationDate="2018-05-28T07:39:32.157" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14364" PostId="6592" Score="0" Text="[Related question](https://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/26384/12637) in the [Spanish.SE] site, in Spanish." CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:42:08.420" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="14372" PostId="6592" Score="11" Text="Not really addressing your primary question, but you should notice that while _beso_ is obviously descended from L. _basium_, _ósculo_ is not, but is a learned reborrowing.  Had L. _osculum_ survived at the popular level, the result would probably have been *_ocho_.  Cf. _macho_ &lt; L. _masculus_." CreationDate="2018-05-28T16:17:44.163" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14377" PostId="6592" Score="0" Text="@varro Good point! Since we are into partial answers, you should totally write that!" CreationDate="2018-05-28T19:16:14.777" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14378" PostId="6592" Score="0" Text="@varro actually I think you almost answer the whole thing: it doesn't need to be a cultured word in (Classical) Latin, but it is clear that it started as a cultured word in Spanish" CreationDate="2018-05-28T19:41:22.720" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14365" PostId="6593" Score="0" Text="I took the differences between _basium_ and _osculum_ from several Spanish dictionaries and texts dating from the 15th century. One of them is the Spanish-Latin dictionary by Nebrija from 1495, that pointed out this difference between &quot;an honest kiss&quot; (osculum) and &quot;a lover's kiss&quot; (basium)." CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:58:13.490" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="14366" PostId="6593" Score="0" Text="@Charlie Interesting! The distinction could well be a later development, not visible in classical Latin." CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:59:57.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14367" PostId="6593" Score="1" Text="I've seen in some dictionaries that _osculum_ could also mean &quot;lips&quot; or &quot;little mouth&quot;, could that indicate that an _osculum_ was a kiss given with a small mouth in the lips? Well, that would go against my reasoning nonetheless. Also, you mentioned the Lewis and Short dictionary so I checked it and for _osculum_ it says &quot;only poet. and in post-Aug. prose&quot; in one of the entries. Wouldn't that indicate that the word was a cultured one?" CreationDate="2018-05-28T10:06:12.147" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="14371" PostId="6593" Score="1" Text="@Charlie The note &quot;only poet. and in post-Aug. prose&quot; refers to literal use as &quot;little mouth&quot;, not to use as &quot;kiss&quot;. In fact, the meaning &quot;kiss&quot; (II) is marked frequent. A kiss is made with a mouth, so I wouldn't read too much into what kind of a kiss it is just based on etymology (and there's the danger of etymological fallacy, assuming that etymology implies meaning)." CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:43:22.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14380" PostId="6593" Score="3" Text="There apparently is a clue: “(rare and mostly poet.; most freq. in Cat.; &quot;not in Plaut. or Ter.)” *Basium* was apparently introduced by Cat., given the word does not occur neither before his time not in contemporary prose or poetry, and AFAICR, was meant to refer to a passionate kiss between lovers, not the ancient *osclum*, likely originating as a pre-Roman greeting ritual of kinfolk, perhaps of religious significance (most kin matters have religious significance, as the Roman family has always worshiped household deities, taboo for the outsiders)." CreationDate="2018-05-28T23:57:23.720" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14381" PostId="6593" Score="0" Text="@kkm Would you like to write that up as yet another answer? It is certainly an interesting new angle to the question." CreationDate="2018-05-28T23:59:48.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14382" PostId="6593" Score="0" Text="Shall we make a wiki out of all the partial answers?" CreationDate="2018-05-29T00:03:50.937" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14383" PostId="6593" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I don't think that's necessary. The different answers bring different points of view, so it makes sense to keep them separate. If anyone has improvements, we can edit each others' answers, and more substantial new ideas (like *basium* being introduced by Catullus) can be written as new answers. Having many answers with many points of view is very much in the spirit of the Stack Exchange network. (That said, my word isn't the law. Others might think otherwise.)" CreationDate="2018-05-29T00:08:56.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14384" PostId="6593" Score="1" Text="Sure! I can only compose a list of points (however much I despise Powerpoint-like presentations), as each one may be elaborated into a research paper on its own. I'll try to find at the very least some references, perhaps later." CreationDate="2018-05-29T00:15:38.730" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14388" PostId="6593" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta the only problem with that is that I'm going to have a very hard time to choose an accepted answer. :-D Yes, I know it's not mandatory to choose one at all, but still..." CreationDate="2018-05-29T05:28:05.813" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="14389" PostId="6593" Score="0" Text="@Charlie That's a very positive problem! :) If you feel something substantial is still missing or something better might still be coming, don't accept yet. Accepting is a good way to show that you aren't looking for anything more if that is the case." CreationDate="2018-05-29T06:53:33.583" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14368" PostId="6594" Score="0" Text="The subject of salvas is apparently &quot;qui&quot; (Who), which would make it third person singular, at least in English. (He) who freely saves those needing to be saved. Or, are you suggesting it should be read as &quot;(You) who freely saves those needing to be saved&quot;." CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:21:19.387" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="14369" PostId="6594" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden It is indeed &quot;you who save(s)&quot;. In English the predicate may be third person in a relative clause referring to second person, in Latin the predicate has to be second person. In your quote *qui* is the addressee and therefore second person." CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:34:01.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14370" PostId="6594" Score="6" Text="As in &quot;Our father who art (=2nd sing.) in heaven&quot;." CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:39:48.470" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14502" PostId="6597" Score="1" Text="You have an excellent point in the last paragraph. My assumption was that Vulg. L. retained the distinction otherwise lost in the literary language, but it well might have newly developed on the Christian background (cf. Eng. *love* vs. *charity*)." CreationDate="2018-06-10T03:03:39.403" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14385" PostId="6598" Score="0" Text="I am wondering if you can relate some interesting findings on topic, if there are any, from BNP. I do not have access to it, and I doubt many Latin.SE regulars have it in their library :) *** By the way, if you do not mind my asking, is this summary seems lifted from any encyclopedia you recognize: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss ?" CreationDate="2018-05-29T01:39:05.243" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14386" PostId="6598" Score="0" Text="@kkm I'll try to summarize the article from New Pauly some time tomorrow." CreationDate="2018-05-29T02:07:23.427" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14375" PostId="6599" Score="1" Text="This is quite interesting. If we add this information with Alex's response, we then have that the difference between words was not in the meaning, but in their uses (Alex cites a poem, a &quot;highest composition&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-05-28T16:54:36.163" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="14390" PostId="6599" Score="0" Text="The French baiser in its modern (sexual) sense does not appear until the second half of the 19th century. http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/baiser" CreationDate="2018-05-29T11:08:28.960" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14400" PostId="6599" Score="0" Text="@fdb Do you think it a coincidence that French seems to have re-adopted the ancient use as late as that? Our own, basic Anglo-Saxon verb was taboo in printing (but not completely unknown) for a very long time and still occurs quite rarely on the page : so did French, perhaps, have it concealed below their polite speech, all that time, to resurrect it for what we might call Catullus's purposes in either case?" CreationDate="2018-05-30T16:02:23.880" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14402" PostId="6599" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton. There are lots of racy writers in French. One would have expected at least Rabelais to have used it." CreationDate="2018-05-30T16:59:21.367" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14405" PostId="6599" Score="0" Text="@fdb Quite so! But I'm no authority on French lit. beyond the few I read at school. I've got a copy of Rabelais, so maybe I'll start reading French again." CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:27:55.823" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14393" PostId="6602" Score="0" Text="Basium - a fossil of this probably also exists in archaic UK Eng &quot;Buss&quot; to mean kiss, likely imported into the language via French." CreationDate="2018-05-29T16:22:40.187" UserId="2662" />
  <row Id="14484" PostId="6602" Score="1" Text="@DewiMorgan: True, and Harper confirms the loan origin of it. Notably, he also mentions that there is no common reconstructible PIE root for a kiss!" CreationDate="2018-06-08T06:25:41.583" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14391" PostId="6605" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Nice question!" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:11:28.860" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14394" PostId="6607" Score="0" Text="I'd also be curious which (if any) version of *se* is related to *semel* and *simplex* etc: I could see the connection to &quot;separated&quot; but it's a bit of a stretch" CreationDate="2018-05-29T17:21:36.103" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14395" PostId="6608" Score="0" Text="I find the most natural translation of *quantitas* to be simply &quot;number&quot;, as opposed to &quot;function&quot;. Some numbers are regarded as variables, some as constants, some as parameters, and some as something else. The division is somewhat arbitrary, but many mathematicians will understand the difference in nuance. I think Euler means numbers in general, not any specific type, judging by this passage alone." CreationDate="2018-05-29T23:10:23.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14401" PostId="6608" Score="0" Text="At the time of Euler and way until the 20 century what was officially called the function was f(x) and not f. Euler called f the [&quot;character of the function f(x)&quot;](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6104/who-first-considered-the-f-in-fx-as-an-object-in-itself-and-who-decided-t)." CreationDate="2018-05-30T16:45:09.387" UserId="2659" />
  <row Id="14398" PostId="6609" Score="0" Text="Very helpful! Am I correct, then, to think that the derivation from the reflexive pronoun is pretty remote, and the closer association is to the obsolete preposition *sēd, sē*?" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:37:51.253" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14399" PostId="6609" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Probably." CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:44:45.307" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14406" PostId="6610" Score="0" Text="If I remember correctly, teachers tended to use _multa bene_ or _optime_ for this purpose, but I do not know of any specific/official source for this information." CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:27:00.650" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="14407" PostId="6610" Score="0" Text="@SamK I remember teachers using plain adverbs (which I added to the question), but it would be nice to see what more native speakers would use." CreationDate="2018-05-30T20:21:43.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14408" PostId="6611" Score="0" Text="Are you sure it wasn't referring to cases like *timeo ne + subj.*?" CreationDate="2018-05-30T20:34:03.760" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14409" PostId="6611" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Like I said in the question, it specifically asked about -_ne_ in reference to questions. It would be rather odd if they actually meant _ne_ in reference to questions." CreationDate="2018-05-30T20:36:59.927" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="14410" PostId="6611" Score="1" Text="It sounds to me like the maker of this &quot;quiz&quot; misread a grammar book or just doesn't know what he's talking about. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong!" CreationDate="2018-05-30T20:45:21.613" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14412" PostId="6613" Score="1" Text="And, even though *ne* is used in clauses of fearing, the conjunction itself does not indicate fear at all." CreationDate="2018-05-30T22:55:52.657" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14413" PostId="6613" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Indeed. I had not worded that quite clearly, so I added some emphasis to it." CreationDate="2018-05-30T23:05:54.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14419" PostId="6614" Score="1" Text="The pun does not work in Latin." CreationDate="2018-05-31T09:32:31.443" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14421" PostId="6614" Score="0" Text="Fly (the insect) = musca. Fly (to run away) = fugio. Fly (to fly with wings) = volo." CreationDate="2018-05-31T09:54:25.337" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14426" PostId="6614" Score="0" Text="@fdb owhm well thanks anyway :/" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:41:11.467" UserId="2157" />
  <row Id="14422" PostId="6618" Score="0" Text="Your write that *macte* is the ablative of *mactus*. Judging by L&amp;S, it's a vocative. This looks like a very interesting saying, much in the spirit of &quot;well done!&quot;, but I seem to have difficulties parsing it syntactically." CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:18:09.927" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14423" PostId="6618" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oops!  You're right, macte!  I've changed it accordingly.  I agree, it is odd, very idiomatic." CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:23:54.650" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="14424" PostId="6618" Score="2" Text="[At least one grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=ThZLAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA232) says in a footnote, &quot;[*macte*] is generally, but without good reason, considered as the vocative of an adjective otherwise unused.&quot; The L&amp;S entry, though, seems to have at least one example of *mactus* in the nominative, from Cato." CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:30:30.563" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14425" PostId="6618" Score="2" Text="[Allen &amp; Greenough](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/vocative), though, wants to have it both ways: it initially describes it as vocative, but adds in an aside, &quot;As the original quantity of the final e in macte is not determinable, it may be that the word was an adverb, as in bene est and the like.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:33:08.607" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20083" PostId="6618" Score="0" Text="The quality of the vowel is short in Vergil, Statius et al. (checked with [pedecerto](http://www.pedecerto.eu/lessico/lessico/check/ricerca)). It still doesn't exclude it being an adverbial form of *mactis*, an ablative of the same agreeing with *virtūte*, or a derivative of *mag-* &quot;big&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-10T22:25:53.853" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="14430" PostId="6619" Score="2" Text="I have found three articles debating this unusual phrase but I don't have the time to analyse and condense them so I'll leave the references here for those who have the time (and access): (1) LR Palmer, 'Macte, Mactare, Macula', in _The Classical Quarterly_, Volume 32, Issue 1 January 1938 , pp. 57-62 ... tbc below" CreationDate="2018-06-01T11:54:59.293" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="14431" PostId="6619" Score="2" Text="(2) O. Skutsch &amp; HJ Rose, 'Mactare-Macula', in _The Classical Quarterly_, Volume 32, Issue 3-4 July 1938 , pp. 220-223.  (3) EJ Jonkers, 'Macte virtute esto', in _Mnemosyne_, fourth series, Vol. 2, Fasc. 1 (1949), pp. 63-67.  Hope this gives someone a head start!" CreationDate="2018-06-01T11:57:29.947" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="14436" PostId="6619" Score="0" Text="Also, quite inconclusively, in de Vaan's etymological dictionary, s.v. mactus." CreationDate="2018-06-01T16:18:28.437" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14458" PostId="6619" Score="0" Text="@fdb Assuming that represents the state of the art, I'd be happy with an answer that summarizes de Vaan." CreationDate="2018-06-06T12:06:23.900" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14427" PostId="6620" Score="1" Text="If one uses *te amo* with a student, there is a chance they'll ask how to translate &quot;me too&quot; to Latin." CreationDate="2018-05-31T19:20:52.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14428" PostId="6622" Score="0" Text="thank you for the answer &amp; the teaser. Does reversing the sentence by putting &quot;relief arrived&quot; at the beginning, actually change anything? Your tranalation incorporating: &quot;....mortui essent.....advenit&quot; would still stand? If not; then, the perf./ pluperf. conflict: auxilium advenerat; or conditional--advenisset--but that is for impossible conditions? compelling a rewrite to; &quot;if help had not arrived, the citizens would have died of....&quot; Please advise." CreationDate="2018-06-01T10:16:37.760" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14429" PostId="6622" Score="0" Text="see above please--" CreationDate="2018-06-01T10:34:42.853" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14433" PostId="6622" Score="0" Text="@:tony It wasn't meant to tease, but to encourage thought. As I said, there's no real context against which to set your rendering. In another setting, you might write something quite different, like _cum tandem advenisset auxilium cives non perierunt_, which delivers the same information in a different way. There is seldom a single, correct way to write a sentence of any complexity in Latin, nor to translate Latin to English : it's only necessary to read various translations of the same classical work to appreciate this." CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:45:47.967" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14435" PostId="6622" Score="0" Text="Hi again. &quot;Teaser&quot; was a semi-jocular thing that I used to use with students when I gave them the most difficult Qs that could find or invent (chemistry). My eccentric (mad) sense of humour." CreationDate="2018-06-01T15:57:44.130" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14438" PostId="6625" Score="2" Text="My completely unsubstantiated guess would be *mama* but I have no sources on that, only a vague recollection of reading it (I think as part of a folk etymology for *mamma* &quot;breast&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-06-02T15:43:42.040" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14439" PostId="6625" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Thanks for that, I think you're right! - http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#mamma" CreationDate="2018-06-03T02:03:07.610" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="14440" PostId="6625" Score="1" Text="These questions might be worth looking into: [Why did Roman children call their father 'tata' instead of 'pappa'?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1792/79) and [How did Roman babies talk?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1262/79)" CreationDate="2018-06-03T17:21:03.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14446" PostId="6633" Score="0" Text="The conclusion seems to be that while there is correlation between quantity and context, one has to learn the length of *pro-* case by case much of the time." CreationDate="2018-06-04T12:21:00.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14469" PostId="6634" Score="0" Text="An educated guess: vowel length &amp; stress patterns causing syncope." CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:37:30.423" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14851" PostId="6634" Score="1" Text="I lent my copy of Baldi to somebody years ago, and never got it back. But I don't think it's syncope. I think it's syncretism - historically different forms being reanalysed as playing the same role (like several historically different past forms being levelled out as the &quot;perfect&quot; in Latin). But i don't remember any details." CreationDate="2018-07-17T20:56:17.983" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="14852" PostId="6634" Score="1" Text="On the other hand, remember that the 3rd conjugation is basically consonant-stem, as opposed to all the others; so it is not surprising that it might have a different way of forming some instances." CreationDate="2018-07-17T20:57:47.253" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15680" PostId="6638" Score="0" Text="I don’t think it is a perfect translation insofer as an engineer doesn’t necessarly have a phD." CreationDate="2018-09-11T00:24:51.513" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="25789" PostId="6638" Score="0" Text="*Machinarius* is what I was taught, but I can't recall the published source. It seems quite apt to me, with or without the *doctor*." CreationDate="2020-04-07T06:31:32.133" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="14452" PostId="6643" Score="0" Text="I'm not quite sure that &quot;what about&quot; became more well known, for good or for bad, due to politics. :) EDIT: It took me a minute, but I believe you are referring to whataboutism, which has always been prevalent, but this odd term for it came about more recently." CreationDate="2018-06-06T02:34:58.297" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="14454" PostId="6643" Score="0" Text="*curnon* vel *quidni*" CreationDate="2018-06-06T03:17:56.077" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14451" PostId="6644" Score="2" Text="Notably the absolutive plural version of *-tecatl* is *-tecah*, which is much more similar to the Spanish form. (I'm also more familiar with the suffix being *-catl*, with no *-te-*, as in *Mexica* &lt; *Mēxihcah* &quot;Aztecs/Mexicans&quot; &lt; *Mēxihco* &quot;Tenochtitlan/Mexico City&quot;.)" CreationDate="2018-06-06T00:02:42.440" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14453" PostId="6644" Score="0" Text="*-tecatl* impels me to suggest *aztecatus,* though I know of no precedent." CreationDate="2018-06-06T03:12:15.503" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14459" PostId="6644" Score="2" Text="Note that *every* Spanish adjective ending in *-ista* (*fascista*, *materialista*, etc.) inflects in the same way." CreationDate="2018-06-06T12:46:55.103" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14455" PostId="6646" Score="1" Text="Well, we Spanish treat &quot;azteca&quot; as an adjective with no explicit gender. It could be applied indistinctly to a man or a woman. http://dle.rae.es/?id=4gU3yRZ We can say that Spanish works like Latin in this aspect &quot;masculine nouns can look feminine or vice versa&quot;. Notice that when there is a feminine version, it's explicitly mentioned http://dle.rae.es/?id=5rVKGkX" CreationDate="2018-06-06T07:12:33.020" UserId="2669" />
  <row Id="14456" PostId="6646" Score="0" Text="@RubioRic Thanks! I updated the answer. In Latin an adjective ending in *-a* can't be used for masculines, so the two languages differ there." CreationDate="2018-06-06T07:27:26.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14457" PostId="6646" Score="0" Text="Oh, I've misread your text. I thought where you say &quot;In Latin masculine nouns&quot;, you ment &quot;nouns and adjectives&quot;. Sorry about that." CreationDate="2018-06-06T07:31:30.387" UserId="2669" />
  <row Id="14464" PostId="6646" Score="0" Text="@RubioRic Thanks for the confirmation that &quot;azteca&quot; in Spanish is an adjective without a marked gender (and thanks for illustrating them with the links). I was surprised when I saw the sign in front of [El Rey Azteca](https://www.yelp.com/biz/el-rey-azteca-bloomington) but Wiktionary agreed with it. I'm curious now about why this happened—and why in Spanish but not Latin or other Romance languages. Do you know of other Spanish adjectives, maybe loan words, that also don't mark the gender explicitly?" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:45:12.337" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="14465" PostId="6646" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz You're welcome. Well, I think that probably there are a few of them. &quot;sutil&quot; for example. http://dle.rae.es/?id=YqUtnyM . Or &quot;inteligente&quot; http://dle.rae.es/?id=Lr8kWNx Both derived from Latin. We also got &quot;inca&quot; that was taken from America like &quot;azteca&quot;" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:55:04.353" UserId="2669" />
  <row Id="14467" PostId="6646" Score="0" Text="@RubioRic Thanks. I can see why _sutil_ and _inteligente_ don't inflect for gender: they're from third-declension adjectives in Latin, which also don't inflect for gender. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inca#Spanish) reports that _inca_ was taken from a different American language than Nahuatl. So maybe the pattern here is just the common one that loan words are often made indeclinable (or less declinable than native words)." CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:02:59.090" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="14466" PostId="6648" Score="1" Text="Thanks! You've convinced me to fix the name of the restaurant in [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6643/118). And now that you point it out, even with my intermediate-level ear for Latin, _rex Aztecorum_ sounds like a much more dignified name for a restaurant than _rex Aztecus._ I think I was doing something like &quot;hypercorrecting&quot;: since Latin so often uses an adjective where Engilsh uses a genitive, I went with the adjective; but the genitive has the precisely right meaning here, enabling distinctions like _Cortesius rex hispanicus Aztecorum._" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:55:12.743" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="14478" PostId="6649" Score="0" Text="Stress patterns within the word might also give us a clue." CreationDate="2018-06-07T02:06:54.393" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14460" PostId="6650" Score="0" Text="A few points: (1) There are a few indeclinable adjectives, like *nequam*. (2) I think the distinction isn't so much inflected vs. non-inflected as &quot;fully&quot; declined vs. m. sing. = f. sing." CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:38:37.033" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14461" PostId="6650" Score="0" Text="@brianpck (1) Good point! Lemme note that. (2) True, I'm just drawing a contrast between how foreign nouns are treated vs foreign adjectives: foreign nouns are sometimes fully uninflected, while foreign adjectives never are afaik." CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:39:53.740" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14462" PostId="6650" Score="0" Text="You and Joonas have me pretty well convinced: dropping the gender just isn't done this way in Latin. Here's my current thinking, after reading your and Joonas's answers: If this were a third-declension adjective, it would automatically drop the masculine/feminine distinction, but it's a first-and-second-declension adjective, which has that distinction. IOW, the relevant precedent is the fact that Latin has first-and-second-declension adjectives, not first-declension adjectives. What do you (and @brianpck) think?" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:40:42.800" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="14463" PostId="6650" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Indeed, it would either be first/second or third, but never just first. (And all the adjectives for foreign peoples I can think of are first/second, mostly formed with -icus, as in *Gallicus* &quot;Gaulish&quot;.)" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:42:35.140" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14468" PostId="6650" Score="0" Text="Another adjective that doesn't decline for gender is *vetus*—fodder for [another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6651/118)." CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:25:19.553" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="14470" PostId="6651" Score="3" Text="I'd say that singular feminines ending in *-a* and plural neuters ending in *-a* are two separate rules. It sometimes leads to similarity (*bona*), sometimes not (*faciens/facientia*)." CreationDate="2018-06-06T16:12:41.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14474" PostId="6651" Score="0" Text="... especially since one is long and the other short is most IE languages." CreationDate="2018-06-06T22:39:56.880" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14473" PostId="6652" Score="0" Text="My French is actually not good enough for me to be sure what Guardia and Wierzejski mean by &quot;qui ne s'appliquent qu'à seule personne&quot;, so I asked a question about it on the [French Stack Exchange](https://french.stackexchange.com/questions/30497/que-veut-dire-adjectifs-qui-ne-sappliquent-qu%C3%A0-seule-personne)" CreationDate="2018-06-06T21:35:01.870" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14476" PostId="6652" Score="0" Text="..&quot;.to a single person&quot;, in other words: to a singular animate noun." CreationDate="2018-06-06T22:56:27.600" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14477" PostId="6652" Score="0" Text="@fdb: I wonder why they would say that, though, because many of the listed words seem to have animate *plural* uses and forms." CreationDate="2018-06-06T22:58:44.663" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14475" PostId="6656" Score="2" Text="There's definitely at least one letter by Pliny that addresses this scenario, and I believe it even includes a pithy little saying or two to summarize. I'll try to dig it up later this evening." CreationDate="2018-06-06T22:41:32.327" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14604" PostId="6656" Score="0" Text="@cnread If you (or anyone else) can find that passage in Pliny, that would be great, even though I just accepted another answer." CreationDate="2018-06-26T13:22:14.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14480" PostId="6659" Score="0" Text="AFAIK in this context it'd be okay to use *deductiva* as a substantive with *functio* being implied (i.e, *deductiva functio*)." CreationDate="2018-06-07T15:40:21.303" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="14479" PostId="6660" Score="0" Text="The Wikipedia article uses _diferentia_ to express _dx_, and not the derivative itself, which is _df(x)/dx_." CreationDate="2018-06-07T12:38:45.050" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14489" PostId="6664" Score="0" Text="From my early search, I imagine Latin uses a single verb rather than a compound one. In a sense, &quot;keep walking!&quot; can be proxied by &quot;_vada_&quot; or _vada iterum_ or _vada itera_. and &quot;she continues to study&quot; by &quot;est studeo&quot; or &quot;est studeo iterum&quot;.  I [compiled a list](https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/9W37V5qqyF/) of Latin/English texts from a Pope Francis' text where the English has a compound verb in the sense you mean, and where I see (beware) no particular form arising. You might get a different idea." CreationDate="2018-06-08T11:15:01.047" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14500" PostId="6670" Score="0" Text="I'd say a parallel—though imperfect—in Spanish can be made: quia-porque/enim-pues @Anonym" CreationDate="2018-06-09T22:20:59.283" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14491" PostId="6671" Score="1" Text="The general term for these, to my understanding, is &quot;false cognates&quot;." CreationDate="2018-06-09T17:09:17.563" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14492" PostId="6671" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Hmm... I've never heard of that term. Does it cover cases where the two words are from distant languages and mean completely different things? Like when a Latin word is obscene in Finnish? I hope anyone wouldn't treat them as cognates to any extent, but just similar in written or spoken appearance." CreationDate="2018-06-09T17:15:40.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14493" PostId="6671" Score="2" Text="They're also sometimes called &quot;false friends&quot; (calquing some foreign term), and are known for being annoying when learning languages: for instance, Latin *mortalis* does not mean &quot;lethal&quot; (as in English &quot;a mortal wound&quot;) but rather &quot;able to die&quot;. I would imagine it includes words that are originally completely unrelated, though the famous examples I know tend to actually have some etymological connection." CreationDate="2018-06-09T17:22:02.823" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14497" PostId="6671" Score="1" Text="I think the term &quot;false cognates&quot; applies to cases like Eng. &quot;have&quot; vs Sp. _haver_, or Eng. &quot;day&quot; vs Sp. _dia_, which at first sight *appear* to be cognates, but really aren't" CreationDate="2018-06-09T22:05:36.473" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="43330" PostId="6671" Score="0" Text="There *must* be such words! - If a dedicated article is not yet written on the matter, then only a very erudite person could come up with a significant collection!.... - Inspired by your Italo-Finish accident that must be avoided, I can only indicate a neo-Latin one (which is bound to happen): the Romanian word with the meaning that you discretely omitted is held proudly by a [Sardinian town](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pula,_Sardinia), and also by an [Istrian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pula) one." CreationDate="2023-05-30T17:02:33.630" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="43331" PostId="6671" Score="0" Text="What I have personally encountered in relation to Greek and Latin was *etymological* (that is indirect) confusions of roots attributed to terms in Romance languages like Romanian: for example *pitic* (dwarf) seemed to some linguists closer to Greek *pythekos* (monkey) than to its real Latin origin in `*pittus/*piccus`. More [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/18927/3284)." CreationDate="2023-05-30T17:10:48.503" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="43387" PostId="6671" Score="0" Text="I think you would enjoy this group:&#xA;&#xA;https://www.facebook.com/groups/linguisticcoincidences" CreationDate="2023-06-02T17:16:56.243" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14495" PostId="6672" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! These are interesting examples, but they answer a different question. I was wondering about similarities between two languages, not within a single one. We could have a separate question about that." CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:16:31.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14501" PostId="6674" Score="1" Text="You may find this helpful: https://www.latinitium.com/lewisshort" CreationDate="2018-06-09T23:01:36.800" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14503" PostId="6674" Score="1" Text="And also the multiple dictionary access site Pollux of the Archimedes project: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/pollux/, which has L&amp;S, LSJ, Cooper and others." CreationDate="2018-06-10T03:19:55.550" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14505" PostId="6678" Score="0" Text="present tense, of course it is! Get &quot;blind spots&quot; over things; most notably, indirect speech cf epistemic modality. Thank you." CreationDate="2018-06-11T11:20:25.417" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14507" PostId="6678" Score="0" Text="@tony: Happens to all of us from time to time!" CreationDate="2018-06-11T12:09:24.790" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14513" PostId="6684" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer, the point that Vergil wrote about Aeneas, so that he had more freedom in what he was writing sounds pretty reasonable. If I think of it I would even maybe take it one step further, by saying that by writing about Aeneas, he had the possibility to indirectly criticising Augustus, by criticising Aeneas.  Directly criticising Augustus may have gotten pretty dangerous for him :)" CreationDate="2018-06-13T21:29:57.040" UserId="1763" />
  <row Id="18818" PostId="6685" Score="1" Text="Good question. In Mühlhausen (Thuringia, Germany) the protestants used the word &quot;divus&quot; to keep the title of a church but not use the *Catholic* &quot;sanctus&quot;. So since 1600 St. Blasius is names [Divi Blasii](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divi-Blasii-Kirche)." CreationDate="2019-03-09T15:09:52.927" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="18819" PostId="6685" Score="0" Text="@K-HB Can you turn that into an answer? Insight like that is very relevant." CreationDate="2019-03-09T15:51:51.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18820" PostId="6685" Score="0" Text="I would, but my only source for the reason is a sightseeing tour." CreationDate="2019-03-09T16:08:15.497" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="14510" PostId="6687" Score="0" Text="Stefano Morcelli was an _epigraphist_.  I spent about a minute trying to figure out what an &quot;ephigraphist&quot; might be.  A biographer of Ephialtes?  That would be a very specific job...  Also, _divi_ and _dei_ aren't just similar, they are variations on the same root word!" CreationDate="2018-06-13T03:15:11.777" UserId="2688" />
  <row Id="14511" PostId="6687" Score="0" Text="@Malvolio Indeed. Thanks for the remarks. Which is the root word you are referring to?" CreationDate="2018-06-13T16:24:53.467" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14554" PostId="6693" Score="0" Text="I have marked this as accepted, but I will be happy to accept a new answer if someone has more thoughts on the matter." CreationDate="2018-06-20T10:41:30.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14515" PostId="6694" Score="0" Text="Given that Erasmus was consciously emulating classical patterns, I don't think his use of *sanctus* for Cicero and Socrates is especially telling, though it is quite interesting!" CreationDate="2018-06-14T03:11:22.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14542" PostId="6694" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I am not disappointed at all; I do not expect to be first to wonder about the things that puzzle me in Latin, but I do like to know where similar wondering has lead others." CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:29:10.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14516" PostId="6695" Score="3" Text="I hate to think what your coat of arms will depict. Do you really think it a suitable question for th[s forum?" CreationDate="2018-06-14T05:46:14.697" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14521" PostId="6695" Score="1" Text="A raven, a heart, a book, and a floppy disk. Suitable? Are the people who frequent this forum not up for answering the question? If you know of somewhere I can ask this question of more serious students of Latin, I'm all ears." CreationDate="2018-06-14T16:51:12.020" UserId="2689" />
  <row Id="14522" PostId="6695" Score="2" Text="It's hard to say too much without knowing what it is that you're trying to express, but what you have is almost certainly incorrect. In the first place, the verb *crisare* is (at least in classical Latin) intransitive; so it can't take an accusative direct object, which is what *mentulas* appears to be. Also, *mentula* is (again, at least in classical Latin) the male sexual organ specifically; so *mentulas feminarum* seems suspect because, based on the forms, it's saying that the *feminae* are the possessors of the *mentulae*." CreationDate="2018-06-14T17:11:59.987" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14523" PostId="6695" Score="0" Text="That second part is intentional. It is referring to the sexual organs of trans women, unfortunately, I couldn't find a cleaner way of expressing it. It sounds like I'm missing a preposition, and also if my hasty internet research is correct, that using in to mean on would require mentula to take the ablative, so mentulīs. It looks like the correct phrasing would be In Mentulīs Fēminārum Crīsāte?" CreationDate="2018-06-14T17:31:45.853" UserId="2689" />
  <row Id="14524" PostId="6695" Score="1" Text="If you want help with a translation, you should always explain in the question what it is that you are trying to achieve, instead of just giving your attempt without telling what it attempts to say. If you want to hide something from accidental view, start a paragraph with `&gt;!`. // Users here certainly have the aptitude to help with your translation problem. Whether they want to help with this specific topic (or perhaps vote down or to close) is up to every user to decide." CreationDate="2018-06-14T20:52:33.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14525" PostId="6695" Score="0" Text="Yes, that was the only way I could make sense of what you had done; but I didn't know whether it was your intended meaning and didn't want to assume. I agree with Joonas: you should just update your question to explain what exactly you're trying to express. Context matters." CreationDate="2018-06-14T20:59:30.843" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14526" PostId="6695" Score="1" Text="This doesn't deserve the attention that it's getting. I vote we close it down." CreationDate="2018-06-15T05:42:46.427" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14527" PostId="6695" Score="4" Text="@TomCotton It's an unconventional question, but it does certainly seem to be on-topic as defined in the Help Center (asking for help with a translation), and it's no more obscene than the worst of Catullus. If I remember right, Martial even has an epigram specifically about this topic." CreationDate="2018-06-15T10:46:08.123" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14528" PostId="6695" Score="0" Text="A technical note to @TomCotton and others: To cast a vote to close, click the little gray button &quot;close&quot; under the question, choose an appropriate reason and hit &quot;Vote To Close&quot;. (Alternatively, you can click &quot;flag&quot; and choose &quot;Should be closed...&quot;.) Users like yourself can vote to close and reopen questions, and that his how most of the moderation is supposed to work. I prefer to leave questions like this for the community to decide, so I encourage everyone to vote. (Once there is a vote to close, others may vote to keep open [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/review/close).)" CreationDate="2018-06-15T13:13:34.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14518" PostId="6696" Score="0" Text="@ExpeditoBipes You are right! I have found other versions with _habitaverim_. There is still quite a few available online, including the [Biblehub](http://biblehub.com/vul/numbers/5.htm) and the [BibleGateway](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numeri+5&amp;version=VULGATE) versions, that use the &quot;wrong&quot; form. I wonder what is the origin of the &quot;error&quot; and how many more are there! :o Any idea?" CreationDate="2018-06-14T09:55:10.743" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14519" PostId="6696" Score="0" Text="I don't know. I'm reading the *Vulgate* also (the *New Testament*), and once in a while I come across things that simply appear to be inaccurate translations when compared with the Greek. Maybe someone who knows more about the *Vulgate* than I do can shed some light on the subject." CreationDate="2018-06-14T10:00:33.693" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="14520" PostId="6696" Score="0" Text="@ExpeditoBipes, luchonacho, brianpck is your man. Apparently, St. Jerome did not translate himself every book of the VG, but compiled a bunch of separate translations from the Old Testament. He did his best to correct and standardize them, with the tools available at the time. I don't know, but probably there are Greek codices using 3rd plural and others using 1st singular. With centuries, teamwork, and a number of codices (not always matching) that were not available to St. Jerome, exegetes have sometimes agreed to a different _original_ text" CreationDate="2018-06-14T13:24:11.470" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14540" PostId="6696" Score="1" Text="@ExpeditoBipes I'll try to write an answer at some point, but this seems to be a case where the text was updated by the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. Jerome's work was very good, but not perfect, so some of his readings had to be corrected. (The Douay-Rheims itself has a revised edition based on the Clementine Vulgate--it's not just one translation.)" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:16:14.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14541" PostId="6696" Score="1" Text="As for what Rafael was mentioning: a large part of Jerome's work was completely new translations. There were cases, though--particularly the Psalms, if I'm not mistaken--where the text was so ingrained in the popular mind that he only did minor revisions to the *Vetus Latina*" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:17:08.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14547" PostId="6696" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks. Looking forward to an answer. No rush!" CreationDate="2018-06-19T07:28:03.317" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="28693" PostId="6698" Score="0" Text="Είμαι Έλληνας και ούτε καν που κατάλαβα.... μονο το πρωτο νομιζω καταλαβα περιπου" CreationDate="2020-08-19T17:05:28.550" UserDisplayName="user7267" />
  <row Id="28694" PostId="6698" Score="0" Text="wait, you are greek right?" CreationDate="2020-08-19T17:06:25.927" UserDisplayName="user7267" />
  <row Id="14530" PostId="6700" Score="0" Text="Since adjectives have to match the case and number of the nouns they describe, if I wanted to keep mentula, would In Mentulīs Muliebribus Crīsāte be correct?" CreationDate="2018-06-15T17:21:57.087" UserId="2689" />
  <row Id="14531" PostId="6700" Score="0" Text="@Jessica Yep, looks right to me" CreationDate="2018-06-16T02:56:43.613" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14533" PostId="6704" Score="2" Text="Darn, I should have trusted my Spanish roots more... :-) Thank you!" CreationDate="2018-06-17T05:48:11.483" UserId="2693" />
  <row Id="14532" PostId="6705" Score="3" Text="I don't know the answer, but I would have thought that, if anything were used for such a scenario, it would be the infinitive, as it is for the nominative of the gerund and the accusative without a preposition." CreationDate="2018-06-17T00:45:07.117" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14537" PostId="6707" Score="1" Text="Note that *dilectio* often is used in the Vulgate for ἀγάπη, e.g. John 15:9. Also, as a general recommendation for your answers, I'd suggest &quot;summing up&quot; all your comments by providing one or two actual possibilities, if it amounts to something different from the OP. Someone without much knowledge of Latin might construe your answer to support a wording like &quot;amor exitus,&quot; which is pretty clearly not a good idea." CreationDate="2018-06-18T13:46:22.153" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14539" PostId="6707" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Good point. Lemme fix that." CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:06:03.013" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14534" PostId="6708" Score="1" Text="Not really relevant to improve the answer, but besides Iesus, also the masculine 1st declension Greek names like Andreas" CreationDate="2018-06-17T18:03:07.200" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14535" PostId="6708" Score="0" Text="&quot;Cantandum est mihi&quot;: Even though Pinkster 2015 (pp. 301-302) analyses it as an impersonal gerundive (or a complex verb form with a passive deontic meaning), he does mention a number of researchers who argue that cantandum is a nominative gerund." CreationDate="2018-06-18T02:17:23.010" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14536" PostId="6708" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Interesting! I'd never heard of that example, but I asked a new question about it ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6710/is-the-nominative-gerund-attested )." CreationDate="2018-06-18T02:23:24.397" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14538" PostId="6708" Score="0" Text="@AlexB, *mihi est* construction is unique in itself. Bauer 2000 gives an interesting and convincing, although possibly controversial account of its being a relic of an earlier PIE. I read that example as “I have a certain piece not yet sung (but I must),” as an adjectival substantive deverbal, i. e. clearly a gerundive. I haven't read Pinkster, but a different understanding (“I have a singing”, “the singing is mine” like in *est mihi pater*?) seems to me like a stretch. Am I missing the point, what do you think? What are the arguments for the gerund here, and how can it be understood?" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:02:33.507" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14543" PostId="6709" Score="0" Text="Gratulor, quod iam decem milia punctorum tulisti!" CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:41:40.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14544" PostId="6709" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Gratias! :D" CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:47:21.987" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14545" PostId="6712" Score="1" Text="Very interesting! That sounds semantically more plausible." CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:56:01.153" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14608" PostId="6712" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I might also consider the symbolism of nets (a form of [matrix](https://www.etymonline.com/word/matrix)) and their association with women.  The cage aspect is on point, but there is also the mythology of the καρκίνος which involves Hera sending it to [entangle Heracles when he is fighting the Hydra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_(astrology)#Greek_mythology)." CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:38:35.543" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14611" PostId="6712" Score="0" Text="@DukeZhou: Hmm interesting. A cursory search reveals only that the crab snapped at Hercules's foot, not exactly entangling him? I suppose restricting someone's movement by holding on to his foot constitutes impeding or limiting him, but it still seems somewhat far removed from a cage or lattice? // As to *matrix*, how is that related to nets (in classical or earlier Latin)? Or how are women connected with nets in general?" CreationDate="2018-06-26T23:56:46.527" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14649" PostId="6712" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Nets are latices, and there are many early representations of goddesses with these designs on their abdomens.  (Gimbutas wrote a book about it, and although the scholarship has been subsequently disputed, the artifacts themselves are not.)  For instance, nets are associated with Cassandra re: Agamemnon's murder, and, in general, weaving was the domain of women. Athena/Arachne is another example (spider webs are lattices.) Matrix etymology doesn't relate to καρκίνος, but the root for matrix, which can be a lattice, is related to many modern words relating to mother (&quot;matriarch&quot;, etc.)" CreationDate="2018-06-27T18:01:30.883" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14651" PostId="6712" Score="0" Text="@DukeZhou: Ah, I see, some interesting references there with regard to depictions and weaving. I'm still not sure I get the matrix, though: surely that is a modern use of the word? Or did the Romans also use the word matrix to indicate some kind of lattice or net?" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:54:50.730" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14652" PostId="6712" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus not linguistically, so far as I know, but the theory is that the representation in goddess images is the source of the association.  (Womb as origin, with lattice designs on the abdomen of the statues and icons.)  I'm not aware of mathematical use of matrix prior to ~Leibniz, but I think it's not an unsupportable thesis that the modern association is not random, and may have some narrative or symbolic roots." CreationDate="2018-06-27T21:02:36.227" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14546" PostId="6713" Score="2" Text="The Latin word *cancer, -crī, m* means both &quot;crab&quot; and &quot;lattice&quot;. That's what inspired this question." CreationDate="2018-06-19T00:57:00.280" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14548" PostId="6713" Score="0" Text="The question has nothing to do with the disease. It is about two Latin words that look the same (or a word with two wildly different meanings). Do you happen to know whether the meanings &quot;crab&quot; and &quot;lattice&quot; of the Latin word *cancer* are related?" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:27:05.627" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14549" PostId="6713" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta No I didn't, till the moment Draconis mentioned it. I guess that's because East-Slavic languages were more influenced by the Greek language directly rather than Italic/German languages which adopted Greek through Latin. The words &quot;crab&quot; (&quot;краб&quot;), &quot;crayfish&quot; (&quot;рак&quot; as animal) and &quot;cancer&quot; (&quot;рак&quot; as decease) in East-Slavic are unrelated to &quot;lattice&quot; (&quot;решётка&quot;) neither phonetically nor by the meaning. And maybe other East-Slavic native speakers will disagree, but I never associated lattice with all those words even unconsciously." CreationDate="2018-06-19T12:19:34.097" UserId="2696" />
  <row Id="14552" PostId="6713" Score="0" Text="I have to add two things. First, there is the word *карцер* (/karcer/, Russian/Ukrainian), *карцэр* (/karcer/, Belarusian), *karcer* (Polish) for punishment cells in prisons. Second, it's said *за решёткой* (/za reshetkoy/, Russian), *за кратамi* (/za kratamy/, Belarusian), *за гратами* (/za hratamy/, Ukrainian), *za kratkami* (Polish) meaning &quot;in prison&quot;, which literally can be translated as &quot;behind bars&quot; or &quot;behind lattice&quot;. Here you can see that Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish versions of &quot;lattice&quot; are actually similar to &quot;crab&quot;, but not the Russian one." CreationDate="2018-06-19T22:47:29.427" UserId="2696" />
  <row Id="14553" PostId="6713" Score="0" Text="So regarding my words about unconscious association between &quot;crab&quot; and &quot;lattice&quot; - I would narrow it down to Russian native speakers only. The border between Orthodox and Catholic worlds lay somewhere in these lands for centuries, with Catholic population (Poland, a half of Belarus and some part of Ukraine) more inclined to adopt Latin terms and Orthodox population (the rest of Belarus and Ukraine, Russia) -- to adopt Greek terms." CreationDate="2018-06-19T22:47:55.703" UserId="2696" />
  <row Id="14550" PostId="6717" Score="0" Text="&quot;Free spirit&quot; in English is usually applied to people directly, as in &quot;he is a free spirit&quot;. Is it idiomatic to use *animus* like that?" CreationDate="2018-06-19T20:37:22.167" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14551" PostId="6717" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Then I parsed the English correctly. In an expression like this I see no problem in calling a person an *animus* by metonymy, akin to calling a person a spirit in English. I don't find &quot;spirit&quot; idiomatic for a person directly (but I may be wrong!), but it works well in some phrases." CreationDate="2018-06-19T20:41:36.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14559" PostId="6723" Score="1" Text="@sumelic By &quot;regular&quot; I meant &quot;not restricted to this specific instance&quot;, but in retrospect it was a bad choice of words. I removed &quot;regular&quot;. There are indeed many instances of *d* still in Latin. Actually, studying the *d~l* variation would make a nice new question." CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:46:57.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27437" PostId="6723" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides I don't think the *dl &gt; l change is a generally accepted theory." CreationDate="2020-07-30T15:40:04.247" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14568" PostId="6724" Score="0" Text="An adverb does not “take” anything, the preposition does, and the usage of *clam* as a prep. is both archaic and extremely rare. Then, *Trebonio* is already governed by the preposition *a*, and *clam* is obviously in postposition in relation to it. So it's an adverb, modifying the verb. Yes, Antonius is being led by Trebonius. Just like in English, where the word *by* is a remnant of the old instrumental case, the same instr. was lost in L., and its function (the indication by whom or by what the action is done) was subsumed by the ablative." CreationDate="2018-06-21T14:19:45.347" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14575" PostId="6724" Score="0" Text="@tony Concerning your title, I assume you mean &quot;waxing poetic&quot;? I don't understand why that's there." CreationDate="2018-06-22T13:29:19.700" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14565" PostId="6726" Score="1" Text="I tend to see *effrenatus* (perhaps under the influence of *Catiline I*) as unambiguously pejorative, whereas &quot;free spirit&quot; in English is generally pretty positive. *Effusus* might capture that better, though." CreationDate="2018-06-21T13:53:02.387" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14570" PostId="6726" Score="0" Text="@brianpck How do you define 'free spirit' in English, which is what we're after here? I'd say , with a highly individual lifestyle, attitude, or imagination ; if you like, a nonconformist, maybe a hippie, maverick, or radical. Someone who doesn't feel bound or restrained by convention. You could read either as pejorative according to context, or your point of view, but not at all exclusively so. It seems to me that _effrenata mens_ might in fact  even improve on _effrenatus animus_, if the subject was an enraptured flower-child or hippie. Would that be pejorative?" CreationDate="2018-06-21T16:27:56.577" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14572" PostId="6728" Score="0" Text="Actually, your linked text says very clearly that the Latin name is &quot;Aqua Trivii&quot;." CreationDate="2018-06-21T22:54:43.313" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14574" PostId="6728" Score="0" Text="@fdb Oh! Is that the bit that says &quot;initio tamen, quando a &quot;Summis Pontificibus&quot; &quot;Aqua Urbi&quot; fuit restituta, &quot;Tres Viae&quot; fuerint, seu &quot;Trivium&quot;, a quo &quot;Aqua Trivii&quot; et vulgo &quot;di Trevi&quot; appellata fuit&quot;? But is this referring to the actual water of the fountain, or to the fountain itself?" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:31:16.513" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14573" PostId="6730" Score="1" Text="Short answer: different types of Proto-Italic verbs. The differences between -āre, -ēre, -īre appear as -āvi, -uī, -īvi/-ātus, -itus, -ītus in the perfect." CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:56:41.303" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14576" PostId="6731" Score="2" Text="Unfortunately, we're going to need more detail to help you with this kind of request. Do you remember anything else about it?" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:58:54.987" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14577" PostId="6731" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately not.. I've been trying to rack my brain to remember the author or the title. I've gone through my old folders and flashdrives. Nothing yet. But I'm not expecting a miracle, this was just my last resort" CreationDate="2018-06-22T19:16:59.390" UserId="2709" />
  <row Id="14578" PostId="6731" Score="0" Text="This might have to be closed then. Although you would obviously recognize the resource, the description you provide probably fits a huge number of different sources, and it's anyone's guess which is appropriate. You could rephrase it as a resource request (&quot;What are some examples of 16th century Latin instructional textbooks&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-06-22T19:50:44.430" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14579" PostId="6732" Score="2" Text="In this context it actually means &quot;to poke around in s.o. elseʼs business&quot; (Montanari)." CreationDate="2018-06-23T01:57:38.953" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14607" PostId="6732" Score="0" Text="[πολυπραγμονέω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=polupragmone%2Fw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=polupragmone%2Fw0&amp;prior=polupra/gmatos).  I found [πραγματεύομαι](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pragmateu%2Fomai&amp;la=greek&amp;can=pragmateu%2Fomai0&amp;prior=pragma/teuma).  πράττω/[πράσσω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpra%2Fttw) seems to have the opposite meaning.  Not doing to much (&quot;passing over&quot;) vs. doing the many things involved in ones own business." CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:28:20.623" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="14597" PostId="6733" Score="1" Text="Good answer. What would make it even better is a description of the suffix *-μων*..." CreationDate="2018-06-26T02:52:48.573" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14580" PostId="6736" Score="1" Text="Written down, *nitens* means either, 'slaving away,' 0r 'sparkling.' One has a short **i**, the other long. But, closer to your choice though not as dramatic, Q. mentions *Gallus* &quot;whether it means a cock or a Gaul or a proper name or an emasculated priest of tybele; &quot; Perseus tufts has this on-line: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ (Quintilian Inst. Bk7 ch9.5+)" CreationDate="2018-06-24T02:13:43.840" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14581" PostId="6736" Score="1" Text="*Dominus* was similar to &quot;madam&quot; in that it could either be very respectful or very insulting depending how it was used. *Rex* even more so. (Imagine addressing the President as &quot;your majesty&quot; in a heavily sarcastic way.)" CreationDate="2018-06-24T04:07:27.460" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14582" PostId="6736" Score="1" Text="Concerning the example, I think it's misleading to think of these as two contrasting meanings. It seems more like the second is just an ironic riff off the first. &quot;My dear sir&quot; is quite frequently used derisively, but it would be a stretch to call it a different meaning." CreationDate="2018-06-24T16:16:59.203" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14585" PostId="6741" Score="1" Text="This is an interesting argument, but there seems to be quite a bit of evidence against it. While later borrowings into Greek do use beta for Latin v, earlier ones always seem to use omicron-hypsilon. The grammarians indicate that Ancient Greek gamma was a stop, not a fricative as in Modern Greek. And gamma and digamma aren't necessarily related." CreationDate="2018-06-25T02:28:05.063" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14586" PostId="6741" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! While the sources you cite are indeed somewhat old, this is a very welcome contribution. I hope you'll stick around and ask or answer more questions." CreationDate="2018-06-25T06:30:27.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14592" PostId="6741" Score="0" Text="@Drac, I guess I don't really understand the last part of your comment. Gamma is not a fricative in modern Greek." CreationDate="2018-06-25T19:52:11.943" UserId="2714" />
  <row Id="14593" PostId="6741" Score="1" Text="@Bʀɪᴀɴ Isn't it? I don't speak Modern Greek myself but I'm fairly sure modern gamma is a velar fricative before back vowels and a palatal fricative before front vowels." CreationDate="2018-06-25T19:54:30.453" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14594" PostId="6741" Score="1" Text="@Draconis: I think Greek gamma can be an approximant instead/also, but my impression is that many languages don't keep fricatives clearly distinct from approximants of the same POA and voicing, so I don't know if that's really a notable difference." CreationDate="2018-06-25T21:32:46.123" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14595" PostId="6741" Score="2" Text="@Bʀɪᴀɴ: I wouldn't dismiss a strong argument, or strong evidence for the antiquity of the /v/ pronunciation just because it occurred in an old source, but the Buttman quote for example seems to just say that digamma was pronounced as [f] or [v] without giving much explanation as to why he thinks this. Note also that Blair says on p. 42 &quot;the natural probability is in favor of the English *w* [as the original sound of Latin consonantal V]&quot;; while Blair thinks this was altered to [v] in certain contexts in Classical Latin, he doesn't say that it had never been pronounced as [w]." CreationDate="2018-06-25T21:40:12.667" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14598" PostId="6741" Score="0" Text="@Drac, I suppose γ is kind of fricative, in its own way...I was thinking more along the line of in-your-face-fricative like β and to a lesser extent δ." CreationDate="2018-06-26T03:35:08.907" UserId="2714" />
  <row Id="14629" PostId="6741" Score="3" Text="You forgot to mention that [w] is &quot;a course and barbarous sound&quot; or that vigeat when pronounced with [w] &quot;loses its force and virility&quot; (I borrowed these examples from Waquet 2001). An interesting post for someone who is interested in what classicists thought in the remote and not so remote past (even around seventy years ago). Sorry but I feel compelled to downvote this answer." CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:04:37.457" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17858" PostId="6741" Score="4" Text="I agree with the other commenters -- none of this is particularly convincing." CreationDate="2018-12-25T03:17:46.780" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17860" PostId="6741" Score="2" Text="(Though I hate to downvote an answer that has had so much work put into it.)" CreationDate="2018-12-25T21:27:36.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20657" PostId="6741" Score="1" Text="A thorough answer, but I agree: not particularly convincing in any part. I'd like to see examples of &quot;f&quot; and &quot;v&quot; interchange in original, official Classical-era inscriptions. Also, there is indirect evidence of the &quot;w&quot; pronunciation from early borrowings of Latin words into Proto-Germanic (e.g. &quot;vinum&quot; -&gt; &quot;winą&quot; and its modern descendants). For that matter, the Mycenaean Greeks had the word &quot;woinos&quot; (beginning with digamma), which persisted in Aeolic Greek until the Classical period. The Proto-Indo European root clearly had the &quot;w&quot; sound, and is attested in other languages too." CreationDate="2019-07-22T13:06:58.560" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="14609" PostId="6746" Score="0" Text="Meaning in Late or Medieval Latin (i.e. **not** Classical Latin)?" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:29:05.763" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14610" PostId="6746" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Indeed, though if there's any information on it being used in Classical times that would also be interesting!" CreationDate="2018-06-26T23:07:26.407" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14630" PostId="6747" Score="0" Text="Nice answer! Can confirm that the Etruscan equivalent to Z (which looked something like an I) was probably /ts/ given its distribution. But if Z generally represented an affricate on its own, then what would have been the difference between TZ and Z on its own?" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:05:06.753" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14631" PostId="6747" Score="2" Text="@Draconis: I don't mean to say that Z on its own generally represented an affricate in Latin. What I mean is that the idea that Z *could be* used to represent an affricate seems to have been common throughout the centuries. Maybe (this is just speculation) the situation could be compared to how modern English speakers know that Z is typically /z/ in English words, but they also know that Z or TZ can be /ts/ in foreign words or names like &quot;Schulz&quot;." CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:09:42.533" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14632" PostId="6747" Score="1" Text="@Draconis: ...That is, even if &quot;Z&quot; is standardly a representation of the voiced fricative /z/ in the writing system of some particular time and place, that doesn't necessarily indicate that the users of that writing system have no idea that &quot;Z&quot; could represent some other sound in other writing systems." CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:16:07.910" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14616" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="Thanks very much for this! I've started to properly look into it and I'm coming up absolutely short on anything that could resemble these phrases in terms of how they're meant.&#xA;&#xA;To clarify: they're meant in the sense of &quot;do these things in moderation, never to their extreme&quot;, but the phrases &quot;Be cruel; be calm; be humble&quot; clearly don't work there." CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:23:15.697" UserId="2719" />
  <row Id="14618" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="Sorry, hit enter without holding shift! Haha" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:24:27.827" UserId="2719" />
  <row Id="14619" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="@Potestas14: Ah, I see! I feel like the Ecclesiastes verses are also about doing things in moderation, although I'm no theologian, so there are doubtless other interpretations that I'm not aware of." CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:25:36.427" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14621" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="@Potestas14: Perhaps it would help people to suggest appropriate translations if you gave an example of a situation where you think a person's actions would be &quot;too kind&quot;." CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:27:39.990" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14622" PostId="6749" Score="1" Text="For the most literal possible translation of the meaning, I'd go with: &quot;Do not be too kind or nice to other people or yourself where they don't deserve it; do lose yourself to anger in ways you regret or in ways that hurt others without cause (but don't suppress healthy anger); do not think too much of yourself but do not sell yourself short&quot;" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:28:34.703" UserId="2719" />
  <row Id="14628" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="I've updated the post with an attempt. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:43:46.777" UserId="2719" />
  <row Id="14633" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="*Nolī esse* feels very weird to me though I can't say why. Is that a Graecism/Hebraism or is that actually common in Classical Latin?" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:49:26.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14634" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I’m not sure about that, which is why I tried to restrict my recommendation to the use of “nimis”. Hopefully others will be able to comment more. Would the discussion at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6297/what-is-the-correct-translation-and-usage-of-sleep be relevant?" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:51:05.307" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14635" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Fair! I asked a new question about that ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6750/is-nol%C4%AB-esse-grammatical ) because I'm curious now." CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:56:38.430" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14636" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="In which case, would these work as simply _Nimis X, nimis y, nimis Z_, either as a poetic elision (&quot;Neither, sleet, nor rain&quot; etc. can stand on its own I spose) or as proper syntax?" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:55:51.360" UserId="2719" />
  <row Id="14637" PostId="6749" Score="1" Text="@Potestas14: I don't know, but I would guess not, because &quot;nimis&quot; by itself only means something like &quot;too much&quot;." CreationDate="2018-06-27T08:52:20.533" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14643" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="proud=[superbus, -a, -um](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuperbus), angry=[iratus, -a, -um](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Diratus). I'd say these are the most common Biblical/Ecclesiastical words" CreationDate="2018-06-27T14:48:37.577" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14648" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: Those sound like plausible candidates to me. Perhaps you could make a separate answer post suggesting these as translations of &quot;proud&quot; and &quot;angry&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-06-27T17:19:24.607" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14650" PostId="6749" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I wish I had the time. I don't mind you using them." CreationDate="2018-06-27T18:47:00.440" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14669" PostId="6751" Score="0" Text="This answer just keeps getting better and better! I do have to ask, though, how do we know that *zelum* had [tʃ] and *zinamomum* [ts]?" CreationDate="2018-06-29T17:45:56.513" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14670" PostId="6751" Score="0" Text="Stotz writes that if the spelling of a word alternates between z and c (or c cedilla), it means z was pronounced as [ts], cf. &quot;Dort, wo das Schriftzeichen z für stimmloses ts steht, teilt es sich mit dem Graphem c (soweit dieses vor e oder i steht) in denselben Lautwert.&quot; Did I understand him correctly?" CreationDate="2018-06-29T20:41:21.327" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14642" PostId="6752" Score="1" Text="Inaccurate. The digraph τζ was the only digraph used for any of /dz, ts, dʒ, tʃ/ in Byzantine and Early Modern Greek; τσ only started being used in the 19th century. Thus older έτζι for contemporary έτσι; and in fact Tzimiskes is now written as https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ιωάννης_Α΄_Τσιμισκής in Greek." CreationDate="2018-06-27T14:20:11.717" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14646" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas:  That's really interesting; I'd always wondered about the use of τζ in Mediaeval times to represent an apparent [tʃ] in foreign names.  The modern distinction between τσ and τζ is certainly an improvement.  I wonder why τσ wasn't used from the start to represent a foreign [ts] or [tʃ] ?" CreationDate="2018-06-27T17:00:46.910" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14647" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="Not really quite my area of expertise, but I wanted to share the following quote from Gary Miller: &quot;The sounds /ts/, /dz/ were reintroduced in Middle Greek, spelled τσ, τζ - also used for alveolopalatal affricates&quot; (Miller 2014: 41). Middle (or Medieval) Greek was supposedly between 500-1500." CreationDate="2018-06-27T17:07:46.367" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14653" PostId="6752" Score="1" Text="@NickNicholas. I am grateful for the correction." CreationDate="2018-06-27T22:27:57.603" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14654" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="@Alex B. All I can say is, I've read plenty of Middle Greek (in printed editions, admittedly, and not manuscript), and I simply don't remember seeing any τσ." CreationDate="2018-06-27T22:55:36.493" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14656" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas Like I said, this is not my area of expertise, and I'm not going to argue with the current (or former?) TLG research assistant." CreationDate="2018-06-28T02:52:18.170" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14657" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="Former. Which is why I can't check for counter-examples, although counter-examples might will be using modernised orthography anyway." CreationDate="2018-06-28T07:20:02.800" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14658" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="@varro I think sumelic's argument above about how strange &lt;ts&gt; would have looked to Latin speakers is applicable to Greek at the time as well." CreationDate="2018-06-28T07:22:24.843" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14665" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas Have you ever read Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως (late 14th century?)? e.g. in this version http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/history/2romanity/to_xronikon_toy_morews.htm τσ can be found 207 times. I haven't compared versions P and H yet, going to take a look at Shawcross 2009 now." CreationDate="2018-06-28T16:00:59.613" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14666" PostId="6752" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas That being said, I'm not sure if τσ can actually be found in one of the five Greek mss or if it's an editorial decision." CreationDate="2018-06-28T16:20:31.980" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14640" PostId="6753" Score="0" Text="FWIW, Ecclesiastical Latin is full of examples (of both noli+esse and noli+infinitive in general). Anyway, being the basis of Latin Liturgy, if/when the Vulgate introduces a grammatical innovation, such innovation is understandable to be inherited." CreationDate="2018-06-27T12:38:36.110" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14660" PostId="6759" Score="0" Text="FWIW, _esse_ also means _being_ in a philosophical sense, as in _human being_, since at least medieval Latin. So _ecce esse_ can also be translated as _behold the being_" CreationDate="2018-06-28T10:48:50.707" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14661" PostId="6759" Score="0" Text="@Rafael In that sense I would expect the participle *ens*. Comparing that and *esse* might make an interesting new question..." CreationDate="2018-06-28T10:52:38.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14662" PostId="6759" Score="2" Text="_Ens_ works as _being_ as well. My metaphysics are a bit rusty now. You are right in that _a being_ is _ens_, but I think _the being_ (~existence) is esse. St. Thomas Aquinas defines God as _ipsum esse subsistens_. And there is also _actus essendi_, the act of being. For me all the three are _ser_ in Spanish. Maybe that is the source of my mixing up the meanings" CreationDate="2018-06-28T11:03:52.573" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14667" PostId="6762" Score="2" Text="I think the implication of using Legendary on a real person is that &quot;This is the sort of greatness you would only expect from a fictional story&quot;" CreationDate="2018-06-28T21:53:01.997" UserId="1956" />
  <row Id="14668" PostId="6762" Score="0" Text="@corsiKa That is very well put!" CreationDate="2018-06-29T09:31:06.877" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14681" PostId="6771" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Comparison to the adjacent line indeed corroborates the conclusion that *in excelsis/altissimis* refers to the location of God." CreationDate="2018-07-01T06:58:48.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14685" PostId="6772" Score="0" Text="In effect, English translations not based on the LXX seem to use one-tenth." CreationDate="2018-07-01T09:42:11.313" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14687" PostId="6772" Score="1" Text="This observation is correct. עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן can be taken in two ways: distributive (“one tenth by one tenth” = “one tenth each”), or as a possessive phrase (“one tenth of one tenth”). The LXX follows the first option, the Vulgata the second." CreationDate="2018-07-01T10:54:44.427" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14677" PostId="6773" Score="0" Text="This is a good idea, but it's already mentioned briefly in Rafael's answer (as the third possibility). Mind adding a bit more elaboration on this to make your answer distinct?" CreationDate="2018-07-01T03:22:20.810" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14680" PostId="6773" Score="0" Text="I think you are right. Apparently, I did not understand Rafael's third possibility when I first read it. Now that I see what he's getting at, I have to say that that explanation strikes me as most probable." CreationDate="2018-07-01T05:53:57.647" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="14682" PostId="6773" Score="1" Text="What if it was an implicit *qui es* instead of a mere *es*? I'm not sure if it's likely at all, but this reading does make many such instances more grammatical." CreationDate="2018-07-01T07:05:54.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18110" PostId="6773" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. This is what I also think. The vocative *Domine* or *Fili Dei* to *call* the deity, then, the nominative in the list of sentences: (qui es) filius Dei; (qui es) Agnus Dei; qui tollis peccata mundi &amp;c." CreationDate="2019-01-10T23:47:41.830" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="14678" PostId="6774" Score="0" Text="Have you also seen &quot;[Why did the letters in the alphabet shift position?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/58/why-did-the-letters-in-the-alphabet-shift-position)&quot; and &quot;[Why are there no native Latin words with a Z?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34)&quot; They both seem relevant to this question." CreationDate="2018-07-01T04:48:24.457" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14679" PostId="6774" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Indeed, those are both quite useful! I'm specifically interested in when Z came back after rhotacizing, in its new position at the end of the alphabet. I'll make that clearer." CreationDate="2018-07-01T04:52:14.787" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14695" PostId="6777" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! The opposite can be easily expressed in Latin (*barbatus* or *ensifer* or other constructions), and as the other answers show, also lack can be expressed with an adjective like this. It's certainly trickier than in English, but not utterly impossible. However, you are right that this kind of thing is typically expressed in other ways in Latin." CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:34:14.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16358" PostId="6777" Score="1" Text="This answer makes a good point. I'd add that the word _sine_ can sometimes be a better way to express the idea." CreationDate="2018-11-11T10:22:29.367" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14688" PostId="6778" Score="0" Text="I won't try to write Greek letters on the phone. If someone dislikes Latinised Greek, feel free to edit." CreationDate="2018-07-02T00:11:00.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14689" PostId="6778" Score="0" Text="[What's wrong with _helicopterum_?](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopterum)" CreationDate="2018-07-02T08:57:59.627" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14690" PostId="6778" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I wanted to study the formation of such words in Latin, not find a Latin translation for a helicopter per se." CreationDate="2018-07-02T13:18:05.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14692" PostId="6780" Score="2" Text="Hi and welcome to the site! That's a nice question, but in order to be on-topic it is expected that you show some previous effort at translating. Do you mind giving it a try?" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:45:05.487" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14699" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="Not sure if _donec_ needs a subjunctive, or it is optional. _Donec aequales simus_?" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:50:23.530" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14700" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Are you familiar with *donec eris felix multos numerabis amicos*?" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:51:10.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14701" PostId="6781" Score="1" Text="@Rafael A quick glance at some relevant sources (namely this: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dum-d%C5%8Dnec-and-quoad) seems to indicate that the present, future, and future perfect indicative can be/are used with *dōnec*." CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:54:18.017" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="14702" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I wasn't, thank you. But in your cite, both verbs are in future. Maybe _donec aequales erimus_, then? The combo donec+present indicative sounds counter-intuitive to me" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:57:41.740" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14703" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="@EthanBierlein, sounds convincing. Thank you!" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:59:53.320" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14704" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I couldn't resist writing an answer in hexameter, following Ovid's good example. It just took me a while to figure out how to word it." CreationDate="2018-07-02T21:03:32.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14708" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="My latin is rusty, but is &quot;libertatem nullam habebimus&quot; more natural than &quot;libertatem non habebimus&quot;? I had the impression that the latter style of negation is more common in Latin." CreationDate="2018-07-03T08:31:58.770" UserId="1793" />
  <row Id="14713" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="@FedericoPoloni I can't say that I'm sure if there is a pragmatic difference between either of those two statements - I simply opted for providing the most literal translation as possible in my answer." CreationDate="2018-07-03T18:56:41.123" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="14730" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for all your translations. We can now order our flag!" CreationDate="2018-07-04T21:15:50.417" UserId="2726" />
  <row Id="14810" PostId="6781" Score="0" Text="@rachel I'd be interested in seeing the final result, if possible! :)" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:19:35.663" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="14707" PostId="6784" Score="0" Text="I didn't even know *quīre* existed until I saw this question…" CreationDate="2018-07-03T03:58:58.833" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14710" PostId="6784" Score="0" Text="Plautus uses *quivi* quite often, but I can't find *qui*." CreationDate="2018-07-03T14:12:43.867" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14709" PostId="6785" Score="0" Text="I'm surprised he didn't use *nequis*, which is very common." CreationDate="2018-07-03T14:04:51.117" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14714" PostId="6785" Score="1" Text="Cicero never used nequire, although he used &quot;non quire&quot; often, according to L&amp;S:queo." CreationDate="2018-07-04T01:43:12.433" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="14711" PostId="6786" Score="0" Text="Thanks! this is very thorough. Two questions: (1) Is *quit* relevant? Additional information is not harmful, but it does not quite look like a pronoun, unless it is a variant of *quid*. (2) What is LASLA?" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:10:32.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14712" PostId="6786" Score="1" Text="LASLA Opera Latina" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:25:07.373" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14715" PostId="6787" Score="1" Text="de Vaan: *neque it(ur) &gt; nequit(ur) &gt; ne quit(ur)" CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:34:40.450" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14716" PostId="6787" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Interesting! Does de Vaan argue why it is so and explain how the meaning arose from that origin? If there are any more details to the story, that would be a good answer." CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:37:56.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16350" PostId="6787" Score="0" Text="There were suggested edits to add the tag [tag:negation]. I rejected them on the grounds that the question itself is not about negations and does not even mention *nequire* alongside *quire*. That the answer is related to negation does not affect tagging; tags are for questions, not answers." CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:20:02.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14717" PostId="6789" Score="0" Text="In that case, it seems this answers another question: &quot;are there any neuter nouns that differ in the nominative and accusative?&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:17:50.487" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14718" PostId="6789" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That other question was [one of our earliest questions](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/18/79). The nominative and accusative seem to be identical for all neuters, and not only in Latin." CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:22:34.423" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14721" PostId="6789" Score="0" Text="Indeed, but it seems in this one specific case they do differ: the nominative is *volāre*, and the accusative *volāndum*." CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:28:42.840" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14722" PostId="6789" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Yes, although there is also the other accusative *volare* (when no preposition is used). It's a matter of opinion whether this counts as a counterexample to &quot;neuter nominative and accusative always agree in Latin&quot;, but at least it seems to be the closest one can get. It's a good observation that had never occurred to me before." CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:33:26.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14723" PostId="6790" Score="1" Text="Insread of *par,* the form *&quot;Vir quasi rex&quot;* suggests *&quot;Machina quasi deus.&quot;*" CreationDate="2018-07-04T08:10:50.573" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14729" PostId="6790" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Good idea! I added that in. As *machina* is feminine, I chose *dea* instead." CreationDate="2018-07-04T15:09:36.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14719" PostId="6791" Score="0" Text="That *quire* is derived backwards from *nequire* does indeed seem quite plausible, or at least far more plausible than anything I could think of." CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:25:12.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14720" PostId="6792" Score="5" Text="To be more precise, I would add that also *volare* can be the accusative. It depends on whether a preposition is used. This answer relies on the combination of infinitive and gerund being treated as a single noun, which it kind of semantically is. From another perspective, one could argue it isn't. Either way, this is a very worthwhile remark." CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:28:35.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14724" PostId="6793" Score="1" Text="The usual word is not _tribalis_, but _tribulis_." CreationDate="2018-07-04T09:13:02.180" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14725" PostId="6793" Score="1" Text="The word _Tribalis_ (with capital T) [was used by some authors](https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=H5I8W5jWOsTkUvDdiMgD&amp;q=%22ut+in+tribalis%22&amp;oq=%22ut+in+tribalis%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...27276.29321.0.29849.16.16.0.0.0.0.103.1251.15j1.16.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1014...0j0i131k1j0i10i67k1j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j0i22i10i30k1j33i160k1.0.InLCsvYfwMY), which might refer to [an ancient tribe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi)." CreationDate="2018-07-04T09:31:36.710" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14726" PostId="6793" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho. Yes, it refers to the Triballi. No connection with tribus." CreationDate="2018-07-04T13:20:02.477" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="33625" PostId="6793" Score="0" Text="This post should always be referenced when someone brings up using Wiktionary." CreationDate="2021-06-10T03:57:22.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38755" PostId="6793" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, it has two citations now, both from the 20th century." CreationDate="2022-06-29T18:56:10.127" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="14727" PostId="6794" Score="1" Text="What about &quot;tribuarius&quot;? Did I understand correctly that this is also an adjective meaning something like &quot;tribal&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-07-04T13:22:38.270" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14728" PostId="6794" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides. Yes, perhaps better." CreationDate="2018-07-04T13:24:03.100" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30467" PostId="6794" Score="1" Text="Cf. *tribunus*." CreationDate="2021-01-17T00:22:01.150" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14731" PostId="6799" Score="1" Text="Off the top of my head, do you mean μυ or ουκ? I've never seen μυ used as a negative in Greek." CreationDate="2018-07-05T23:47:31.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14732" PostId="6799" Score="3" Text="Μπορώ also isn't a word I've ever seen—is this Modern or Ancient Greek?" CreationDate="2018-07-05T23:50:29.830" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14734" PostId="6799" Score="2" Text="@Draconis: it's Modern Greek for &quot;I can&quot;, ultimately from &lt; εὐπορῶ &quot;to prosper (in doing something)&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-06T06:47:40.087" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14841" PostId="6799" Score="0" Text="This is modern Greek, or rather a google-translate style parody of it." CreationDate="2018-07-14T23:34:11.347" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14749" PostId="6804" Score="1" Text="Ahem. Perhaps because the penis seems to have a mind of its own, at least at times?  This is pure conjecture on my part." CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:06:52.540" UserId="2737" />
  <row Id="14750" PostId="6804" Score="2" Text="@Gordon That was my conjecture too. The Romans knew what it meant to think with your penis!" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:12:52.167" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="14751" PostId="6804" Score="0" Text="@ktm5142 I am not a Latin scholar (I am a pure beginner using Gwynne's), but some things don't seem to change with time!" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:18:08.130" UserId="2737" />
  <row Id="14752" PostId="6804" Score="0" Text="And how was mentula formed then, morphologically, under your hypothesis? (Answer to your question: **very** unlikely)." CreationDate="2018-07-08T03:48:27.583" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14753" PostId="6804" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. It's not his hypothesis. It's the first suggestion in Wikipedia's article on &quot;Latin profanity&quot;. Unsourced, natch." CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:56:38.240" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="14756" PostId="6804" Score="6" Text="I don’t use Wikipedia for etymological research." CreationDate="2018-07-08T12:54:08.590" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34009" PostId="6804" Score="2" Text="Just to add my two cents (as I wrote my MA thesis on Roman sexuality): Strictly speaking _mentula_ does not mean ‘penis’; it means ‘cock’, ‘dick’ or similar vulgarisms. As Adams notes in _The Latin Sexual Vocabulary_ (Duckworth, 1982: 9): ‘The basic obscenity for the male organ was *mentula*.’ *Mentula* is obscene, equivalent to *cunnus*; Cicero will not use it openly even when discussing obsceneties; and so, if in need of a ‘proper’ word for penis, one would use *verpa* (Adams 1982: 12f). In Greek, μύκης and κέρας worked as polite terms equivalent to ‘penis’ (Adams 1982: 11)." CreationDate="2021-07-07T16:35:41.883" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="29943" PostId="6807" Score="1" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1443/active-verbs-with-passive-meanings" CreationDate="2020-12-01T15:56:44.207" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14737" PostId="6809" Score="1" Text="FWIW, 1) googling _parecbola_ gives tens of _excerpta_ &amp; _oxonienses_. But I found this [XVII century book](https://books.google.cl/books?id=v00tKoGFI88C&amp;pg=PA352&amp;lpg=PA352&amp;dq=parecbola+-%22sive+excerpta%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TVtm8H3JOg&amp;sig=J78d9LaOsCVJgrPyzCpycH8nZkM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi519_A14rcAhXBHZAKHceaBNUQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=parecbola%20-%22sive%20excerpta%22&amp;f=false) with 3 occurrences, 2) L&amp;S lists [parectatus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dparectatus) as a Greek borrowing. Both parec- and -bola seem like Greek roots to me." CreationDate="2018-07-06T14:34:26.350" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14740" PostId="6809" Score="2" Text="@Raphael Yeah, it looked like *para-* with a mutated vowel but it's really an ellided *para-* + *ek-* (Gr. for *ex-*) + *bolē* (Gr. for *bola*)." CreationDate="2018-07-07T06:57:14.007" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="14735" PostId="6810" Score="1" Text="Does it have a meaning in Greek, perhaps?" CreationDate="2018-07-06T13:12:02.570" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14736" PostId="6810" Score="1" Text="@Rafael A Greek origin sounds likely enough, but I have really no idea." CreationDate="2018-07-06T13:23:05.000" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="14738" PostId="6811" Score="0" Text="Amazing! So who made the adaptation? Was it a relatively recent adaptation, given that it seems it did not exist in Classical Latin?" CreationDate="2018-07-06T15:33:45.870" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14739" PostId="6811" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho: I have no idea, but it might be a fairly late adaptation, since we couldn't find any classical Latin sources. *Parécbole* is in a Portuguese dictionary: https://www.dicio.com.br/parecbole/ It's also used in a few other languages, amongst which English, but very rarely: https://www.google.com/search?q=parecbole+-excerpta&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;nfpr=1&amp;filter=0&amp;biw=1080&amp;bih=1701" CreationDate="2018-07-06T16:20:21.693" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14741" PostId="6811" Score="0" Text="Not really rarely: all those uses seem to *just* be mentions of this particular book, making it less than a nonceword. The English cognate seems to be *parecbasis* &amp; co." CreationDate="2018-07-07T07:03:03.900" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="14743" PostId="6811" Score="1" Text="@lly: Not quite: there is mention of a Parecbole by one Eustathius of Thessalonica, then the book from the question, and also a gloss describing the meaning of the word in general, through referring to the work by Eustathius. References to parecbolae on Aristotle by one Theodorus Metochita(s?) can be found as well, if you expand the search a little bit: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=%22parecbole%7Cparecboles%7Cparecbola%7Cparecbolae%22+-excerpta&amp;nfpr=1 Then there are a few more results (in addition, no doubt, to other uses of the word outside Google's limited reach)." CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:55:47.967" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14744" PostId="6811" Score="0" Text="@lly: P.S. Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2018-07-07T15:05:08.477" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14764" PostId="6811" Score="0" Text="Pains me to see major Byzantine scholars peppered with &quot;one&quot; and &quot;(?)&quot; :-) . So: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustathius_of_Thessalonica (the major Byzantine commentator on Homer), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Metochites" CreationDate="2018-07-09T02:06:08.713" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14765" PostId="6811" Score="1" Text="@NickNicholas: Sorry! I'm ashamed to admit I know far too little about Byzantine literature (it was somehow never in the curriculum at uni). I was going to look up more information about them but I forgot. I've added your references to my answer." CreationDate="2018-07-09T03:15:06.907" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22438" PostId="6812" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Now I might finally be able to remember which is _iacēre_ and which is _iacĕre_!" CreationDate="2019-09-14T01:14:14.060" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="14754" PostId="6813" Score="0" Text="Latin already had *opera, -ae*, which, unlike *opus*, meant strictly willfully performed work; the distinction has been lost in the modern musical parlance. It's a more plausible immediate etymology for “opera” than the plural of *opus*, although L. *opera* ultimately ascends to it." CreationDate="2018-07-08T08:28:09.537" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14759" PostId="6822" Score="2" Text="Quite the textwall indeed, but, oh, what a stimulating one! Thorough research and pointed discussion, a pleasure to read. I have one formal suggestion, though: the second and third quotation blocks do not seem to be very clearly introduced; we cannot be completely sure whom you are quoting. The second block is by Messing, or is it not a quotation at all, but your own comment? The third could be Adams, but there is a double line in between, and the following paragraph suggests otherwise. Lastly, perhaps your elongated answer could benefit from thrusting the TL;DR up to the beginning." CreationDate="2018-07-08T23:23:48.373" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14762" PostId="6822" Score="2" Text="Excellent. P.S. I apologize for my tumescent puns above." CreationDate="2018-07-09T01:10:52.020" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22534" PostId="6822" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus At least you were warmly receptive!" CreationDate="2019-09-21T16:40:56.927" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22535" PostId="6822" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: Always! Very warmly. I've just come home slightly tipsy." CreationDate="2019-09-21T22:15:48.550" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24226" PostId="6822" Score="0" Text="If it originated as a diminutive of *mens*, why would we expect our sources to know this?  We're talking about the *hanc hodie* crowd here, not exactly refined scholars." CreationDate="2020-02-11T08:39:29.700" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="34031" PostId="6822" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2020.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/531/79) (Unfortunately this was written in 2018, making it ineligible for the prizes.)" CreationDate="2021-07-08T10:53:55.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14766" PostId="6826" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure if it is related at all, but there was a province called [Raetia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raetia), in the Alps, not too far from Slovenia, after a Gaul tribe called [*raetii*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaetian_people). In the Ecclesiastical pronunciation, *ae* sounds like the *e*, and *ti* sounds like the Italian *zi*, so it may as well be a back-produced spelling. It would be quite odd if this were the explanation, though, because I would have expected to see a different ending like  *Reziae*. Probably just a red herring." CreationDate="2018-07-09T08:10:51.830" UserId="1793" />
  <row Id="33356" PostId="6829" Score="0" Text="Add another one, Varro *Lingua Latina* 5.18.93." CreationDate="2021-05-23T21:49:22.657" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="14767" PostId="6832" Score="4" Text="Is it possible that it is, or is meant to be, fac ut gaudeam, 'Make me glad'?" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:46:37.723" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14768" PostId="6832" Score="1" Text="(Follow up: In *Latin for all occasions*, Henry Beard also used *fac ut gaudeam* to render the line 'Make my day' from the Clint Eastwood film *Sudden impact*.)" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:57:40.107" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14789" PostId="6832" Score="1" Text="Yes, you're spot on!  I remembered that I had that tome on my bookshelf &amp; must have mistranscribed it into said notebook." CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:29:59.117" UserId="2743" />
  <row Id="24334" PostId="6832" Score="0" Text="@cnread Can you post that as an answer, even a short one? It appears to be the correct one." CreationDate="2020-02-28T08:22:36.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24354" PostId="6832" Score="0" Text="Could it be 'Make my day' as in taunt. prefaced maybe by 'age' - 'Go ahead'?" CreationDate="2020-02-27T23:16:07.753" UserId="6599" />
  <row Id="14769" PostId="6834" Score="0" Text="Pope Francis just released an apostolic exhortation where there is a [full section](http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20180319_gaudete-et-exsultate.html#JOY_AND_A_SENSE_OF_HUMOUR) on &quot;Joy and sense of humor&quot;. Unfortunately, the document is not available in Latin (yet). My usual trick didn't work this time. Now, what about _sensi umoris_? It should be something like &quot;_[sensi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sensus#Latin) blahblah_&quot;." CreationDate="2018-07-09T17:08:32.893" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14770" PostId="6834" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho *Sensus* does indeed come to mind, but I don't recall seeing it used like this, so I'm unsure. But it's fourth declension, so no *sensi*. And, confusingly enough, *(h)umor* means &quot;moisture&quot;, not &quot;humour&quot;. The Pope's text would provide an interesting answer, and look forward to seeing it." CreationDate="2018-07-09T17:43:37.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14771" PostId="6834" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary says _sensus_ is first/second declension. Is that wrong?" CreationDate="2018-07-09T20:25:00.190" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14773" PostId="6834" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho: the noun _sensus, -us_ is in the 4th, but the p.p. _sensus_ from _sentio_ declines as a regular adjective." CreationDate="2018-07-09T22:41:43.950" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14777" PostId="6837" Score="0" Text="Amazing! Why did you open the tree branch to the right? Maybe to the center would have been more neat?" CreationDate="2018-07-11T11:35:30.077" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14778" PostId="6837" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Thanks! This was a fun little project for the first day of my vacation. I chose to focus on paternal ancestors (as I imagine a Roman would). That's the way the software positions the people. It would not not allow me to change some of the left-right orientations that I find clumsy, nor expand everything at once. I agree, a central positioning would look better. I just picked the first reasonable-looking free online tool, and I'm open to ideas. I think this tree deserves to be neatly formatted somewhere in the internet." CreationDate="2018-07-11T11:41:53.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14781" PostId="6839" Score="6" Text="Side comment: believe it or not, the other day I had a dream where I had no other language than Latin to communicate with someone specific. In my dream I used _exsisto_, knowing that it wasn't quite natural. _Esse_ came to my mind only a few hours after waking up." CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:06:58.113" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14788" PostId="6839" Score="5" Text="Dreaming in Latin. That is on another level!" CreationDate="2018-07-11T17:07:54.330" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23726" PostId="6840" Score="1" Text="&quot;Arar is a river, which...&quot; is just as well possible methinks." CreationDate="2019-12-19T11:21:18.713" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="28729" PostId="6840" Score="1" Text="Just to add, [Latin for beginners](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18251/18251-h/simple.html)  mentions explicitly at least twice (in [#86 footnote 1](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18251/18251-h/simple.html#sec86),  and [#96 foot note 4](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18251/18251-h/simple.html#sec96)) that in order to use *esse* in the sense of *there is*, it should come before the subject, and even as the first word in the sentence. &quot;Est in vîcô vir bonus&quot; = There is a good  man in the town" CreationDate="2020-08-23T18:42:30.343" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="14790" PostId="6845" Score="0" Text="It occurs to me that *lyceum* (= *Λύκειον*) means pretty much the same as *lupercal*. (Also, +1 for the answer!)" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:22:41.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14793" PostId="6845" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, you probably mean *cognates*, not *synonyms*. They both share their derivation, but the denotations, unless I am glaringly missing something, do not parallel each other. Except, maybe, both being sacred places, but you'd hardly could walk half a mile without bumping into one. :)" CreationDate="2018-07-12T04:21:32.020" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14794" PostId="6845" Score="0" Text="@kkm I meant that they both mean &quot;wolf place&quot;, before the more specific meanings were introduced. The point was that the underlying or literal meanings were the same, not that they are interchangeable. I don't know if *lupus* and *lykos* are related, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were." CreationDate="2018-07-12T09:27:56.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14798" PostId="6845" Score="2" Text="What about _schola secundus_?" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:18:25.877" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14801" PostId="6845" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, ah, I understand what you mean now. As for the L. and G. words being cognates, looks likely they are, although both show a metathesis, not found in other IE languages AFAICR, and the /p/ in *lupus* is not well explained. Tangentially, it's hypothesized that wolves had a special significance in PIE religion. Here is an interesting etymological read: https://www.etymonline.com/columns/post/wolf" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:29:34.650" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14806" PostId="6845" Score="0" Text="The french word for &quot;High School&quot; is &quot;Lycée&quot; which directly comes from this latin root. I think there is no more suitable word to describe high school than lycēum." CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:27:06.487" UserId="2755" />
  <row Id="14807" PostId="6845" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho It wouldn't be &quot;the second school&quot;; it'd be *schola secundaria*, although that adjective usually had the connotation of &quot;second-rate&quot; in classical Latin, I think." CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:58:53.887" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="14791" PostId="6846" Score="0" Text="The Swedish word for &quot;high school&quot; is based on *gymnasium*, and I would guess Swedish is not the only language to do so." CreationDate="2018-07-11T22:02:38.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14803" PostId="6846" Score="1" Text="I just could not resist adding that there is a twisted etymological path from the original meaning “place of nudity” to that of “high school.” The language works at times in such weird ways!" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:40:54.867" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14808" PostId="6853" Score="3" Text="The most complete instance I can think of is in the Aeneid, though that's quite heavily influenced by Greek sources (especially the Odyssey)." CreationDate="2018-07-12T19:43:37.717" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14823" PostId="6853" Score="0" Text="Is the earliest fiery hell in Plato's 'Phaedo,' lake of fire (explicitly identified with Tartarus)? &#xA;Also Pre- Christian is Daniel 7:11, (?200 BCE) &#xA;    'Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire.'&#xA;[echoed in Revelation 20:14  (?140CE)Death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire.]" CreationDate="2018-07-14T02:41:53.913" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14812" PostId="6856" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Shannon! This is a good question, but it turns out that it has been asked before. I therefore marked it as duplicate so as to make the other question easier to find and have all the answers focused in one place. If the linked question doesn't answer your question satisfactorily, can you elaborate how yours is different from the other one? If you edit the question, it can be reopened, but there is nothing wrong with leaving the question as is (and as a duplicate)." CreationDate="2018-07-13T08:35:15.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14813" PostId="6857" Score="1" Text="You should consider writing an answer under the linked question. This seems to be a duplicate of an earlier question, and it's best to have all the answers to the same question in the same place." CreationDate="2018-07-13T08:36:10.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14819" PostId="6858" Score="1" Text="This (text) is the worst kind of proselytizing! That aside, I'm more interested in the pre-Christian traditions of Hades, since texts from the Common Era might be colored by Christian notions of hell. In my question, I should have specified Greek and Latin sources from the Classical Era or before. I just edited my question to reflect this." CreationDate="2018-07-13T22:22:37.497" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="14822" PostId="6858" Score="0" Text="@ktm5124 Yes, deplorable. But it is well crafted; and noteworthy because it contains almost nothing about the landscape: Dante and Milton are much closer to Virgilius: 'vacuas et inania regna.'" CreationDate="2018-07-14T02:25:12.820" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14827" PostId="6863" Score="0" Text="llimavirta: had another look at the consecutio temporum: perfect tense without has/ had (negavit) links to the imperf. subj., usually in ut/ ne clauses. I should've remembered that in the first place. Thank you for answering." CreationDate="2018-07-14T10:28:48.687" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14828" PostId="6863" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm glad to be able to help. Please remember to vote up the questions and answers you like and accept an answer when a question of yours is settled. That feedback is crucial for the site to work well!" CreationDate="2018-07-14T11:26:49.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14824" PostId="6865" Score="1" Text="The Greek source must be Phaedo. There is a fiery river. It is used for destroying the deliberately wicked. It is used to punish the impetuously wicked until their victims haul them out. Phaedo 113." CreationDate="2018-07-14T03:04:57.987" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="14825" PostId="6865" Score="1" Text="@Hugh That would make a good answer on its own!" CreationDate="2018-07-14T03:10:40.917" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14826" PostId="6865" Score="2" Text="@Hugh (If you're interested in posting another answer, by all means feel free to take that, as you deserve the credit. Otherwise, I'll look at the Phaedo tomorrow!)" CreationDate="2018-07-14T04:57:08.303" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14829" PostId="6866" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question! This has to do with verb conjugations. It could help write a more customized answer if you tell us whether you speak any languages other than English" CreationDate="2018-07-14T14:36:53.993" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37464" PostId="6866" Score="0" Text="i have a question too. is there any way to differentiate &quot;i don't remember, i won't/ can't/ wouldn't&quot;. i learned there aren't modal verbs in latin but i wanna tattoo from these, so..." CreationDate="2022-03-05T19:49:11.903" UserId="10875" />
  <row Id="35234" PostId="6867" Score="0" Text="This one is missing: Meminisses = It means &quot;Remembering&quot;....or &quot;I hold in memory&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-24T16:19:28.517" UserId="10169" />
  <row Id="35235" PostId="6867" Score="4" Text="@DiGascon I converted your reply to a comment since it doesn't endeavor to answer the question. But I want to point out that neither translation is correct. *Meminisses* is 2nd person singular (&quot;you&quot;) pluperfect subjunctive, which, because it is a defective verb, means something like &quot;you might have remembered&quot; or &quot;you should have remembered&quot; (depending on the surrounding grammar, of course)." CreationDate="2021-09-24T17:15:53.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35237" PostId="6867" Score="0" Text="@cmw And perhaps more importantly, my answer is explicitly giving only a sample of the many forms. It's missing way more than one form, and with every intention." CreationDate="2021-09-24T18:12:08.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14834" PostId="6869" Score="0" Text="Are you asking for a translation of just the word remember, or you actually want a solution to your wider translation? It's unclear from the question. Please clarify." CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:39:26.940" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14840" PostId="6869" Score="7" Text="In what way was the answer inadequate [last time you asked this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6866/)?" CreationDate="2018-07-14T21:26:53.437" UserId="849" />
  <row Id="14845" PostId="6869" Score="0" Text="@DawoodibnKareem The earlier question was about the difference between two words, this one is about trying to convey a certain message. They are related, of course, but the questions themselves are different, and so are the answers. The answer to the linked question does not fully answer the present one." CreationDate="2018-07-16T12:15:10.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15769" PostId="6869" Score="0" Text="If the answer solved your question, don't forget to accept it :)" CreationDate="2018-09-26T08:34:26.023" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14933" PostId="6876" Score="0" Text="If I recall correctly, *mei* etc. are from the possessive pronouns, supplanting earlier *mis, tis,* etc." CreationDate="2018-07-26T05:04:27.467" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14853" PostId="6880" Score="1" Text="The story appears in sections 61–62 of the Satyricon" CreationDate="2018-07-18T01:19:18.227" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14854" PostId="6880" Score="1" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6864/469 Does the mention in Naturalis Historia fit your requirements?" CreationDate="2018-07-18T02:18:12.963" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14855" PostId="6880" Score="0" Text="Related Mythology SE question: [The Origin of Werewolf: Deities Cursing People into Animals?](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/2174/the-origin-of-werewolf-deities-cursing-people-into-animals)" CreationDate="2018-07-18T04:42:15.600" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14904" PostId="6880" Score="1" Text="I would be very surprised, given the significance of the wolves in the common IE mythology, if the motif of the werewolf did not originate in the PIE times." CreationDate="2018-07-22T00:48:27.967" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14865" PostId="6882" Score="2" Text="Unsourced partial answer sketch: ars -&gt; craft, scientia -&gt; knowledge. The modern meanings are somewhat particular cases. Physica -&gt; natural sciences but also nat'l philosophy. Medicine was a craft before becoming a science. I want to write something as soon as I have time. Anyone feel free to answer before that" CreationDate="2018-07-18T12:51:04.187" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14871" PostId="6882" Score="0" Text="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/ has a lot of useful information." CreationDate="2018-07-19T13:50:44.820" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14856" PostId="6883" Score="1" Text="Which stage of Latin are you interested in? The word is understood to have come from Proto Indoeuropean." CreationDate="2018-07-17T12:02:31.267" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="14859" PostId="6883" Score="0" Text="@Wilson. de Vaan says it has &quot;no etymology&quot;." CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:14:18.247" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14860" PostId="6883" Score="0" Text="@fdb That's true. I can't say I agree with him though. Walde-Hoffman and Pokorny link it to a PIE word meaning variegated which seems legit to me." CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:17:18.537" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="14867" PostId="6883" Score="0" Text="Walde and Hoffman actually say &quot;Et. unsicher; auch die Gbd. ist nicht sicher zu ermitteln.&quot; Re: the link to PIE *perk they say &quot;Lautlich unkontrollierbar.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-18T14:12:04.773" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14920" PostId="6883" Score="1" Text="Thank you for those who responded to my request for assistance with finding the first known use in Latin of what became the English word &quot;pulchritude.&quot; Your help is much appreciated. If anyone thinks of anything else which might be shared on this topic, feel free to do so, as I will continue to monitor this site. Best wishes to all." CreationDate="2018-07-23T14:57:02.240" UserId="2779" />
  <row Id="14921" PostId="6883" Score="0" Text="You've made an account, good! P.S. This looked like a comment, not really an answer to the main question, so I've converted it into a comment." CreationDate="2018-07-24T03:18:38.290" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14861" PostId="6884" Score="0" Text="What's up with the orthography in your quote? Does acute accent denote long vowel or stress?" CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:18:52.863" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="14862" PostId="6884" Score="1" Text="@Wilson: I don't know what conventions the HP corpus uses (an explanation was not immediately accessible on the website), but those look like ictus, so having to do with stress or metre. Most probably unrelated to apices." CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:30:35.663" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14863" PostId="6884" Score="0" Text="@ Cerberus It's definitely ictus." CreationDate="2018-07-18T01:31:42.983" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14864" PostId="6884" Score="0" Text="The idea is that early Roman poetry was accentual, not quantitative." CreationDate="2018-07-18T10:30:59.587" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14872" PostId="6886" Score="0" Text="Can you clarify how *techn&amp;emacr;* and *philosophia* were contrasted in antiquity? For Aristotle, for instance, the division was between productive, practical, and theoretical intellectual excellences, and (at least in that context) contrasting these with *philosphia* would be a category mistake." CreationDate="2018-07-19T13:52:40.020" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14898" PostId="6886" Score="1" Text="Thanks. *Episteme* being a calque was exactly the sort of answer I was looking for." CreationDate="2018-07-21T06:37:12.223" UserId="1133" />
  <row Id="14870" PostId="6888" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Jondel! Can you edit your answer to add a link, and perhaps the image itself (with proper attribution)?" CreationDate="2018-07-19T09:37:29.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14873" PostId="6890" Score="0" Text="This is probably too broad." CreationDate="2018-07-19T20:33:49.980" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14874" PostId="6890" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho It's rather broad, but it also seems like it could have a clear and well-defined answer: &quot;yes, this word was borrowed from this language, according to this source&quot;." CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:10:12.350" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14875" PostId="6890" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2912/greek-latin-words-from-ane-languages-excluding-biblical-hebrew and https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7/does-ad-have-its-origin-in-hebrew-semitic-languages but not quite the same, nor they answer this question" CreationDate="2018-07-19T23:10:00.547" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38172" PostId="6891" Score="0" Text="Conversely, it does have a singular _genitive_, but not a plural one? It should be possible to reconstruct the missing cases by looking at nouns that follow a similar pattern. I think the absence simply means that they do not appear in any surviving Latin text, and most likely Romans simply did not happen use those case/number combinations." CreationDate="2022-04-30T13:23:50.970" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="14887" PostId="6892" Score="0" Text="Welcome back to the site! I'm afraid your question had been asked before. Could you please see the linked post and tell us if that answers your question? If not, please modify your question adding what doubts you still have." CreationDate="2018-07-20T15:30:47.780" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14891" PostId="6892" Score="0" Text="This question seems to have been asked before, so I marked it as duplicate. This doesn't mean that there's anything wrong; we just want to have all the answers collected in one place. If the linked question does not satisfy your needs, you can edit your question to elaborate and it can be reopened. This is a good question indeed!" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:19:58.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14894" PostId="6892" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the friendly comments. I've added to the question. Hopefully it's an improvement." CreationDate="2018-07-21T01:54:06.840" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="14880" PostId="6893" Score="0" Text="Which Church is it? Do you have a link?" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:42:20.850" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14896" PostId="6893" Score="0" Text="Not part of a church. More like a secular wedding hall, dressed up to look Christian. Common place for Japanese newlyweds or couples to hold their wedding party." CreationDate="2018-07-21T06:14:26.553" UserId="2772" />
  <row Id="14877" PostId="6896" Score="4" Text="This looks very plausible. My educated guess is that this is a stained glass window dedicated to St. Joseph, since a verse often used for him (referring to the OT Patriarch Joseph) is Gen 41:55: &quot;Ite ad Ioseph.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-20T04:52:47.183" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14878" PostId="6896" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, That's great. Thanks for supplying that context. Do you think there should be more text somewhere (another window, another part of the same window not shown in the photo) to supply the missing 'Ioseph,' or would the phrase be well enough known to the faithful that 'Ite ad' by itself could be used as shorthand (the conceit here being that the final word is on the part of the banner that's curled to the back, I suppose)?" CreationDate="2018-07-20T05:31:49.090" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14881" PostId="6896" Score="0" Text="But this answer assumes the OP flipped the photo. This can be easily confirmed, I imagine." CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:43:57.250" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14882" PostId="6896" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho remember that it's _glass_. The photo could be easily taken from either side" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:52:56.333" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14883" PostId="6896" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Certainly, although my experience with stained glass (vitrales) is that they just look clear from one side. I guess my point is that the OP should state whether the photo reflects the direction in which it is meant to be read in the first place." CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:59:50.763" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="14884" PostId="6896" Score="2" Text="@cnread No, I think &quot;Ioseph&quot; is definitely in another part. As for flipping, this could easily happen (e.g. the OP was taking a selfie), and considering that the text goes from unreadable to standard Latin script, I can't imagine another possibility." CreationDate="2018-07-20T13:33:20.787" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14897" PostId="6896" Score="0" Text="The photo is not a flipped selfie. The stained glass is behind a pseudo-altar, facing the guests. So, that means it was installed incorrectly. Thank you for the explanation! (BTW, this is my very first post, so I'm not sure if I've been following the rules on how to post.)" CreationDate="2018-07-21T06:36:06.067" UserId="2772" />
  <row Id="14899" PostId="6896" Score="0" Text="@cnread. If there is another part, it is not at the &quot;chapel&quot; where the picture was taken." CreationDate="2018-07-21T06:48:35.593" UserId="2772" />
  <row Id="14939" PostId="6897" Score="0" Text="Could you give us some examples with this adjective?" CreationDate="2018-07-26T14:42:54.927" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14885" PostId="6898" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Pawel!" CreationDate="2018-07-20T14:14:22.947" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14888" PostId="6898" Score="2" Text="Mr Pck fixed your grammar and translation below but I'll just mention that, no, *navigare* and *piscari* are no more synonyms than 'sail' and 'fish' are in English. People who do one often engage in the other, but they're not alternate names for one another or mutually contingent. It's not a paraphrase but a different sentence meaning a different thing." CreationDate="2018-07-20T16:32:08.897" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="14889" PostId="6900" Score="2" Text="Your gerundive is just what I was going to post. And +1 for the elision, seems quite Plautine." CreationDate="2018-07-20T17:00:02.697" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="14916" PostId="6900" Score="0" Text="Thank you Daniel, maybe I will, but I will stick to 'Piscari necesse est' because it is more obvious reference to original Pompey sentence. I have a plan to start fishing instagram/facebook (youtube in the future) journal about my flyfishing/fishing expeditions mainly in Norway and that sentence will be the name of this journal. I will keep you updated :)." CreationDate="2018-07-23T14:03:10.390" UserId="2774" />
  <row Id="14892" PostId="6901" Score="0" Text="I don’t think we know any of this for sure. I will try to make a post later beneath this question, but for now, I wanted to link to an answer I have already written that I think has some relevant quotes: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6397/9" CreationDate="2018-07-20T20:58:56.737" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14893" PostId="6901" Score="0" Text="Why do you think that stress in poetry and in prose was different? Even though one should know what ictus is, the idea seems to have been abandoned by serious Latinists of our time." CreationDate="2018-07-21T01:14:52.410" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14895" PostId="6901" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I don't think it was different. It occurred to me that I didn't know at all whether they were. I wanted to base my pronunciation on more than guesswork." CreationDate="2018-07-21T05:50:04.020" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14903" PostId="6901" Score="0" Text="This is indeed a large and complex topic, I am indeed not qualified to write an answer. I just want to mention two points: (1) the poetry was rather sung than recited, and (2) Cicero touches on the subject in his work on the art of speaking, *De Or.* book II, IIRC, and probably in *Orator* too. The interesting take-home from reading him is that the meter was apparently much stronger perceived by native speakers than the stress. But this is only an opinion of this guy who read the opinion of Cicero. :)" CreationDate="2018-07-22T00:25:53.577" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14909" PostId="6901" Score="0" Text="@kkm Even a partial answer would be a great start. It would be a pity to have no answer at all just because we happen not to have the best experts on that very topic on the site. Those two points are already interesting." CreationDate="2018-07-22T10:46:14.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14910" PostId="6901" Score="1" Text="It’s not that we don’t have the best experts on the site that is the problem. It’s has been a thorny issue for a long time and it’s by no means settled. Any evidence from classical authors on language issues/theory should always be taken with skepticism." CreationDate="2018-07-22T18:17:09.240" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14918" PostId="6901" Score="1" Text="@AlexB, it is worth noting that a *conspicuous absence* of such evidence in the *loci* where it is rather anticipated may possibly be more reliable. :) I'll attempt to put together my observations into an answer to this question; my notes are in a permanent disarray, so I need to get back to sources. I am by no means a classicist, just an amateur, and my area in linguistics is much more technical. But, with this full disclaimer, it still might be an interesting topic to ponder." CreationDate="2018-07-24T00:25:23.970" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14901" PostId="6903" Score="0" Text="Awesome  Thank you so much. I had tried so many variants and looked at root words but felt that something may have been lost in translation. I appreciate your response!" CreationDate="2018-07-21T19:28:28.053" UserId="2778" />
  <row Id="14902" PostId="6903" Score="0" Text="@user2778 All good. Keep in mind that this is a singular imperative (an order addressed to one person). If you want to address a group, it would be *semper adeste.*" CreationDate="2018-07-21T22:40:43.247" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="38735" PostId="6910" Score="0" Text="This answer (and the question) helps a lot when I read the same map four years later" CreationDate="2022-06-27T12:04:22.180" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="14922" PostId="6912" Score="1" Text="imho pluralia tantum or singularia tantum is different from a defective partial paradigm lacking nom sg but not gen sg etc. just a thought though." CreationDate="2018-07-24T03:55:58.833" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14923" PostId="6912" Score="0" Text="@AlexB I agree. The issue is that luchonacho asked for examples in English or Spanish, which don't decline nouns. That's why I also included an example with a verb in Spanish" CreationDate="2018-07-24T03:59:21.833" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14924" PostId="6912" Score="1" Text="I see. So there is nothing ontological that caos has no plural.... or maybe there is! Interesting. Thanks for the examples. That's clear enough. (I think goods does have a singular. In economics we normally think in terms of a good)." CreationDate="2018-07-24T07:52:55.593" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="38170" PostId="6912" Score="0" Text="I can imagine myself saying &quot;teces&quot; if refering to the skin tone of multiple people, and it feels natural (never checked it in a dictionary and I trust you that it does not have a plural...). Almost the same with &quot;sedes&quot;." CreationDate="2022-04-30T13:18:32.873" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="38171" PostId="6912" Score="0" Text="Also, isn't &quot;gut&quot; as in &quot;my gut feeling&quot; or &quot;gut bacteria&quot; the singular of &quot;guts&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-30T13:19:25.347" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="14925" PostId="6914" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, Lucie! That's a nice question, but in order to be on-topic, it is customary that you show some previous effort at translating" CreationDate="2018-07-24T23:42:10.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="14932" PostId="6914" Score="2" Text="I second @Rafael. This is indeed a promising question. It is okay if you have no clue about Latin; in that case just state so so we know where you are coming from. And more importantly, try to explain what you want to mean by &quot;child of freedom&quot; and how you are planning to use it. There is no such thing as word-by-word translation, so context will be important." CreationDate="2018-07-25T17:36:23.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="14926" PostId="6915" Score="1" Text="Related &quot;Latin Discussion&quot; forum post: [De Ordine Casuum-- On the Ordering of the Cases](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/de-ordine-casuum-on-the-ordering-of-the-cases.778/)" CreationDate="2018-07-25T10:21:45.547" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14931" PostId="6915" Score="0" Text="In German the canonical order is N G D A., whether describing German or Latin." CreationDate="2018-07-25T17:11:14.143" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="39464" PostId="6915" Score="0" Text="Nom, Acc, Gen, Dat, Abl is syncretic and easiest! I use this in Latin, German and Russian all the time, placing rarer cases like the Instrumental at the end where they belong, regardless of &quot;tradition.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-09-07T19:56:24.373" UserId="11511" />
  <row Id="14929" PostId="6916" Score="0" Text="Of course. But you have to remember than Panini's work became known in Europe only two hundred years ago. The earliest record from Europe on the order of cases comes from Dionysius Thrax, who obviously knew nothing about Panini." CreationDate="2018-07-25T13:33:21.103" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14930" PostId="6916" Score="1" Text="The Indian system does have a logic. The first three cases (Nominative, Accusative, Instrumental) are typically &quot;strong&quot; cases in Sanskrit (cases with longer ablaut grades)." CreationDate="2018-07-25T16:45:07.877" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14941" PostId="6916" Score="3" Text="To return to German practice: NGDA is used in all grammars of German and is known to every German school child, alternatively Werfall, Wesfall, Wemfall, Wenfall. Leumann et al. in their Latin grammar intentionally use an order closer to that of Sanskrit. Otherwise, an excellent answer." CreationDate="2018-07-26T17:29:17.663" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="14938" PostId="6917" Score="2" Text="The first sentence has two very different readings, depending on whether you omitted a comma. Do you mean that the king needs to know and understand (&quot;know and understand this, king&quot;), or that the listener needs to know and understand the king?" CreationDate="2018-07-26T13:45:25.247" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="14949" PostId="6917" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I intend for this motto that the reader is told to know and understand this king who is the bearer of the motto." CreationDate="2018-07-27T09:15:35.197" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="14950" PostId="6918" Score="1" Text="Your magnificent translation easily shows just how bad Google Translate truely is. I take point, however, that the motto intends to say Christ who is the actively ruling King rather than is ruling the king." CreationDate="2018-07-27T09:21:49.627" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="15453" PostId="6919" Score="1" Text="*Queo* is especially common after negation. *Nihil facere quit* 'he can do nothing' vs. *omnia facere potest* 'he can do everything' (although both *nihil facere potest* and *omnia facere quit* are possible, even if the latter is rare)." CreationDate="2018-08-25T20:11:37.977" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="14935" PostId="6924" Score="1" Text="Appreciated. The translation to latin I got is from someone who translated from the portuguese version. But any way, I couldn`t found a reason as well." CreationDate="2018-07-26T07:37:58.500" UserId="2787" />
  <row Id="14943" PostId="6924" Score="1" Text="It could easily be *a happy king is he whom all citizens love* with *felix* fronted for emphasis." CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:04:46.550" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="38432" PostId="6924" Score="0" Text="In this context, where *is* agrees with the subject, I think *he* would be a less likely translation: *this/that* is better. It gives extra emphasis but it is optional. P.S. A defining relative clause (subjunctive) might be more appropriate here, in which case *is* is desirable: *felix est rex is quem omnes ament*." CreationDate="2022-05-29T16:21:18.637" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="14975" PostId="6926" Score="0" Text="I don't get this argument at all. The antecedent of the relative clause is _rex_.. Why does it need a demonstrative in apposition? What's sloppy about omitting it?" CreationDate="2018-07-29T21:40:30.423" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15006" PostId="6926" Score="0" Text="@Colin Fine: Here, &quot;king&quot; is being emphasised (possibly for a dramtic effect); HE, whom...Omit &quot;si&quot;, which you may do, the emphasis is reduced; assertion is weakened." CreationDate="2018-07-31T09:11:29.307" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14946" PostId="6927" Score="0" Text="I'm wondering why we see *lectuarius* and *lectualis* instead of *lectarius* and *lectalis*." CreationDate="2018-07-27T03:44:33.297" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14947" PostId="6927" Score="1" Text="@sumelic http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlectarius" CreationDate="2018-07-27T04:37:33.660" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14948" PostId="6927" Score="0" Text="Oh, that's interesting. I hadn't realized that &quot;lectarius&quot; also existed. Thanks also for the example of actuarius and actarius. Would you say the formation &quot;lectuarius&quot; is evidence that the u-stem declension of &quot;lectus&quot; was still used, or at least known of, in the post-Plautine period?" CreationDate="2018-07-27T08:15:49.857" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="14953" PostId="6927" Score="1" Text="My attempt at translation: &quot;…*penus* oscillates classically, as in Plautus, between the second, third, and fourth declensions, and similarly between the masculine and neuter genders. The second-declension is shown by *penum aliud* in Plautus *Captivi* 920…&quot; Is this accurate? And would you mind if I added it to the answer, for the benefit of those who don't speak German?" CreationDate="2018-07-28T03:56:30.930" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14954" PostId="6927" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yes, it is correct. Feel free to add or make changes." CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:00:22.753" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14955" PostId="6929" Score="0" Text="Montanari translates it as &quot;deadly for mortals.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:11:55.113" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14956" PostId="6929" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Sorry, I should have specified: the literal meaning (brotos + loigos) makes sense, I'm just curious why Procopius would use it in this way when L&amp;S only list it as a divine epithet. I'm wondering if there's some other usage of it, perhaps to describe the Furies instead of something like Erōs." CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:25:50.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15026" PostId="6931" Score="0" Text="Huge thanks to all of you for adding so much helpful information!" CreationDate="2018-08-01T07:15:07.343" UserId="2789" />
  <row Id="14961" PostId="6933" Score="0" Text="I've re-uploaded an image with higher resolution but it doesn't seem to show up here. The document was bought from the Antiquarium Houston and the description simply says &quot;page from a monastic breviary, c. 1300. original manuscript on vellum&quot;." CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:09:02.783" UserId="2789" />
  <row Id="14964" PostId="6933" Score="1" Text="I've uploaded another [version](https://imgur.com/a/m8guvsO) to Imgur -- this one should be much more clear." CreationDate="2018-07-28T17:45:30.343" UserId="2789" />
  <row Id="14980" PostId="6933" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the detailed answer! I am totally unaware that UWaterloo (where I am a student now) has a liturgical manuscript database -- would be good to do some further explorations there!" CreationDate="2018-07-30T10:04:36.653" UserId="2789" />
  <row Id="14966" PostId="6936" Score="2" Text="I think you're right in the main, but wrong to dismiss luchonacho's&#xA;identification of a somewhat altered quote from Mark 13.  Here's my reading of&#xA;that portion:&#xA;&#xA;In illo tp̃e (tempore) : egrediẽte (egrediente) ihũ (Ihesum)* de templo : ait&#xA;illi unus de disciplis suis Magister aspice quales lapides &amp; quales structure&#xA;&#xA;templi&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;(* _egrediente Ihesum_ looks ungrammatical, but I don't know how else to&#xA;interpret the tilde over _ihũ_.)" CreationDate="2018-07-28T20:04:42.557" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14967" PostId="6936" Score="1" Text="Sorry, didn't mean to belittle luchonacho. Was trying to say thankyou for identifying Mk 13; and his quote shows, I think, that 'Cum egrederetur' has been replaced by Ablative-absolute 'egrediente Jesu,' (while Jesus is coming out of the Temple, one of his disciples says: Master...) the mark over 'ihu' here means 's' is missing not, here, the usual final 'm'" CreationDate="2018-07-28T22:47:33.827" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="40120" PostId="6937" Score="0" Text="Congratulations on your re-election to Moderator. In this answer, https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/19029/1982, Tyler Durden translated, &quot;...si facis in penem quidquid tibi venit...&quot; to, &quot;...and come to do whatever your prick suggests...&quot;. What does, &quot;in&quot; + accusative, really mean here? To fit the translation it would have to be &quot;from&quot; or &quot;through&quot;--not among the listed meanings for &quot;in&quot;. Any thoughts? (I did ask TD but he didn't reply.)" CreationDate="2022-10-24T09:09:04.793" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="14971" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="That's a statement of fact noting the exceptions, but not an explanation of why the exceptions occur." CreationDate="2018-07-29T18:43:46.360" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14972" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="@varro Aren't exceptions usually explained ad hoc? What kind of explanation did you expect? (just curious)" CreationDate="2018-07-29T19:37:52.417" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14973" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="A possible explanation might be analogy.  Actually, I think some sort of analogy is likely involved, but it would take outlining a possible path of development for that to be put forth as an explanation.  Consider the&#xA;somewhat related case of περίπλους ‹ περίπλοος. Note the dual of this is&#xA;περίπλω, whereas *περιπλῶ from περιπλόω would be expected.  Here one can explain the &quot;irregular&quot; accentuation on the basis of analogy with other forms of the contracted form having the accent on the penultima." CreationDate="2018-07-29T20:15:35.533" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14976" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="@varro I see. I'll think it over. Let's agree on analogy for now." CreationDate="2018-07-29T21:44:02.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14978" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="By confirmation: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0019%3Asmythp%3D115 Kühner–Blass provide no explanation either, although analogy looks obvious. And @varro, the related case of περίπλω is clearly analogical, especially as it is restricted to compounds (and multisyllabic names, but those are usually compound, so that's another analogy)." CreationDate="2018-07-30T05:05:05.850" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14983" PostId="6942" Score="1" Text="@NickNicholas I found it Schwyzer - see my updated answer at the very end; no time to type all the Greek forms now." CreationDate="2018-07-30T13:18:48.987" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14988" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="Yup, I did see all of p. 554, 557, and 562—but none of those explicitly discuss the accentuation of contract dual -ώ. The &quot;neuen Nominative Ersatzwort&quot; is simply Koine replacing contracted with uncontracted forms (ὀστοῦν &gt; ὀστόν); likewise the mention beforehand &quot;Durch den Auusgleich der Akzentqualitäten wurden -ῆ -ᾶ usw. mit -ή, -ά gleichwertig&quot; refers to the elimination of length distinctions in Koine: it's not an explanation for the claimed Attic -ώ." CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:55:33.923" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14989" PostId="6942" Score="1" Text="@Nick Nicholas Yes, it’s not an explanation because there isn’t one yet. At least, I’m not aware of it. :)" CreationDate="2018-07-30T17:25:09.000" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="14996" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="Analogy may lack oomph, but it happens all the time, and it certainly happened in ancient Greek accentuation. I'm more sanguine about the prospect." CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:36:11.380" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15000" PostId="6942" Score="1" Text="@NickNicholas I 'm afraid I might have come off unnecessarily dismissive of analogy an a factor of language change. I do *not* deny its importance. What I meant to say was that analogy has been used in historical linguistics  - far too often! imho- when anything else fails. As Jasanoff puts it, &quot;the effort to put limits on analogy — to discover the conditions under which this type of change is likely to operate and in what direction — remains an important goal.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:14:38.667" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15002" PostId="6942" Score="2" Text="At least it's better than positing a substrate. :-) But I understand the concern." CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:47:43.213" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15078" PostId="6942" Score="1" Text="Thank you for keeping on with this. I take it you prefer Bubenik's external account. Myself, I see the analogy as inevitable, given how infrequent contract duals are..." CreationDate="2018-08-06T05:25:21.770" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15092" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas I've been reading the relevant sections in Kurylowicz 1958 today (see the quote above) and I started to lean towards analogy. :)" CreationDate="2018-08-07T02:57:54.687" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15093" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="And importantly, the contract duals are Attic and classical, meaning that it was already in retreat there anyway. That's what inclines me towards analogy." CreationDate="2018-08-07T08:58:40.340" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15094" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="Kurylowicz isn't taking about contract duals though: he is saying that even in the uncontracted duals, you would expect a circumflex but for analogy." CreationDate="2018-08-07T09:00:46.730" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15099" PostId="6942" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas He does! I just assumed I would be trusted so I did not include the first three sentences from that paragraph. If you take a look at page 128, you will see that. That’s what “cette constatation” in my quote refers to." CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:56:34.900" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15105" PostId="6942" Score="1" Text="Ok, cool. Whether or not I trust you, by the way, I am seriously impressed by you. :-)" CreationDate="2018-08-08T07:17:00.070" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="14994" PostId="6943" Score="1" Text="To add to complications, *dies* can also be feminine." CreationDate="2018-07-30T21:03:42.850" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="15041" PostId="6945" Score="1" Text="Far from a conclusive answer, but &quot;singing&quot; is a peculiar development, confined to Greek. Other IE languages developed a kindred word with the meaning centering on a loud, harsh cry of a bird or animal (Balt., Slav., Germ.), or a crackling sound (Skt. járati, of fire). And Γη- is also not a impossibility." CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:50:32.860" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="14981" PostId="6947" Score="0" Text="I'll add the caution that the ancient grammarians aren't always to be trusted, and Herodian could have just analogically back-formed a hypothetical *ὀστέον from ὀστοῦν, rather than known it was actually attested." CreationDate="2018-07-30T11:50:14.977" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15004" PostId="6948" Score="2" Text="Where is the bench located, country and region? This may reveal a clue." CreationDate="2018-07-31T02:12:50.893" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15007" PostId="6948" Score="0" Text="It's in northern Germany near the baltic sea and if I remember correctly the donating person is a supporter of the local graveyard association (I could have another look and google the name first)." CreationDate="2018-07-31T11:11:31.000" UserId="2794" />
  <row Id="15016" PostId="6948" Score="0" Text="If you are, by chance, a speaker of the local dialect, do any of the suggestions in my answer (sorry for the inept pun) ring the bell? I suspect a literally translated idiomatic expression from a local language, which makes no sense in Latin, but would, if literally translated back, to a native speaker." CreationDate="2018-07-31T16:23:20.890" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15019" PostId="6948" Score="1" Text="Unfortunately, I don't have a fitting idiomatic expression in mind, although I am a native speaker from the region. There is no really significant dialect (like Bavarian for example), just some subtle pronunciation nuances, so it is very similar to standard German." CreationDate="2018-07-31T19:47:32.750" UserId="2794" />
  <row Id="15028" PostId="6948" Score="0" Text="This seems to be a recent installation. Why don't you find the relatives of the defunct, and ask them for some more info? Maybe the company who did this can help too. If it's a little village, there might not be many of them." CreationDate="2018-08-01T10:09:54.090" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15029" PostId="6948" Score="0" Text="I have to correct me, there are just the initials of someone given and there is no mentioning of the graveyard association. But I could ask there." CreationDate="2018-08-01T10:28:21.747" UserId="2794" />
  <row Id="16501" PostId="6948" Score="0" Text="A little update, if somebody cares: Nobody from the graveyard association answered. But I thank everybody for their suggestions! :)" CreationDate="2018-11-26T12:24:10.207" UserId="2794" />
  <row Id="14991" PostId="6949" Score="2" Text="Good answer! But since OP says they aren't familiar with Latin, an English translation of that Suetonius quote might be helpful." CreationDate="2018-07-30T18:02:39.820" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="14993" PostId="6949" Score="4" Text="So what exactly do you think the inscription is expressing? Sorry, but I don't get it. The Suetonius passage seems like a stretch to me, a coincidental use of 2 of the same words – in different sentences and different constructions. Even one who's intimately familiar with the Latin text of Suetonious would, I think, be hard-pressed, upon seeing this inscription, to recall the Suetonius passage and use it to make sense of what he/she is looking at. It also doesn't end up having much to do with the setting (a graveyard), as the word vivos would lead me to expect. Perhaps I'm just being dense." CreationDate="2018-07-30T21:00:44.717" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="14995" PostId="6949" Score="0" Text="I also hoped for a dense meaning, like a proverb or so. Although the answer is detailed, I am not clearly getting why the too phrases were combined directly. Of course it could also be some kind of riddle for Latin enthusiasts ..." CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:26:04.027" UserId="2794" />
  <row Id="14997" PostId="6949" Score="0" Text="I'll have to agree with other people's comments that I find the actual sense of the inscription unclear." CreationDate="2018-07-30T23:10:02.083" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="14999" PostId="6949" Score="2" Text="Pedibus can also refer to the legs of a piece of furniture (OLD def. 12). In that case, vivos voco pedibus could be 'spoken' by the bench itself (not uncommon in objects w/ inscriptions) and mean 'I invite the living by my legs,' which could be a (very oblique) way of saying 'I'm an inviting place for the living to sit down.' But I still have no idea how ioco fits in – unless it refers to the inscription itself: the living are drawn to the bench also to see what's carved there. It could be a iocum because of the self-referentiality or because most people won't understand even when they see it." CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:06:54.713" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15001" PostId="6949" Score="1" Text="(For the record, I highly doubt that the reading that I offered in the previous comment – 'I invite by my legs [and] joke' – is correct. I suspect that, however professionally the inscription may have been carved, the job of translating or composing the text for it wasn't quite as professionally done.)" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:15:07.397" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15003" PostId="6949" Score="0" Text="cnread, I agree 'pedibus ioco' doesn't immediately conjure Suetonius, but if instead you were looking for a motto to describe someone you knew (&amp; definitely a Latin motto)  that description of Augustus might resonate. I.e. the dedicatee conjures Augustus, which conjures Suetonius.  Another switch; your suggestion about the bench doing the inviting works even better if it is the cemetery inviting the *vivos pedibus,* 'the living who are still on their feet.'" CreationDate="2018-07-31T02:08:00.743" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18521" PostId="6952" Score="1" Text="Please have a look at my answer." CreationDate="2019-02-11T12:01:37.207" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15009" PostId="6953" Score="1" Text="*iocor* is deponent: unfortunately I think that invalidates this answer." CreationDate="2018-07-31T13:31:50.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15010" PostId="6953" Score="0" Text="Well, upon looking further, it seems like vulgar Latin (and perhaps Plautus, though I couldn't find it) have used *iocare*, so maybe that is a possibility" CreationDate="2018-07-31T13:57:41.260" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15012" PostId="6953" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, yes, and not only that. We are looking at a modern epigraph, by a non-native speaker, naturally, and quite an obscure one. If we assume they wanted to make a clear statement, well... they failed at that. Any spelling, word usage or grammar error, or a deviant idiom is possible. (And assuming the opposite, e. g. a cipher or jargon, then we cannot even start with a single four-word inscription having no obvious relations to other evidence.)" CreationDate="2018-07-31T14:52:39.850" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15013" PostId="6953" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, as for Pl., if you mean the note in L&amp;S, look in the print--many online copies of Casina are quite corrupt. The *loc. cit.* reads `lúca bos` in both online PHI and Perseus. My conjecture would be a scan error,  `&lt;iocabor&gt;`. (To the previous note, and here we are looking at the text supposedly edited by a professional classicist--and still we get that!)" CreationDate="2018-07-31T15:00:58.217" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15017" PostId="6954" Score="0" Text="Although this gets something like a satisfying English meaning out of the text, I have very serious doubts that the ablative pedibus by itself (absent, e.g., an adjective) can be used the way you're trying to use it. It's not at all an obvious way of expressing 'still standing,' in the way you mean, as a descriptor (something like superstes would be the more obvious choice). Can you provide any grammatical reference or attestation/parallel for this?" CreationDate="2018-07-31T17:11:38.507" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15020" PostId="6954" Score="0" Text="Frankly, I think you are reading too much *into* the inscription. I am not aware of *voco* meaning “welcome;” its central meaning is “summon,” “welcome” is too far off. Then, “vivos pedibus” means ”those-ACC alive by way of feet.” Either way it's nonsense, and then it's just all guesses from what it *could* have meant is the speaker jumbled his Latin beyond repair. But an equally admissible assumption is that he mixed their cases, or simply used words not in their normal sense. It's just undecodable to the point of meaning *anything*. Or nothing whatsoever." CreationDate="2018-07-31T21:16:35.830" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15011" PostId="6956" Score="0" Text="I agree. I think the only way to read the sentence is as two separate phrases. Either as two separate verses or joined by an elided element: _vivos voco [dum] pedibus ioco_" CreationDate="2018-07-31T14:19:54.913" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15015" PostId="6956" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Yes, I think you can get to a grammatical sentence that way, but my larger point is that, even if grammatical, it's nonsensical." CreationDate="2018-07-31T15:43:20.283" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15021" PostId="6956" Score="1" Text="My point is more restricted. In any epigraphic study a variant of the Grice's maxim is implicit: we start by assuming that *they aimed to say something in an understandable way* (at the least, sensible to the intended recipients of the message). Whether it's really a word jumble, or we do not understand it *due to our wanting of context*, is impossible to know from the evidence. It's also important that a *presence* of the meaning is significantly harder to falsify than its *absence*. So I am careful not to call it nonsense in the absolute. I point it does not make sense to *us*." CreationDate="2018-07-31T21:36:31.667" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15024" PostId="6956" Score="0" Text="@kkm It's a bit generous to be describing this as an &quot;epigraphic study.&quot; Sure, the principle of charity remains, but in cases like these (where native Latin speakers are in scarce supply), that principle applies more to what the words are *trying* to say (often through misguided translations or calques) than what they actually say. I mentioned the possibility that there is an &quot;arcane&quot; meaning that context could supply, but that's still pretty generous. Language *could* always &quot;make sense&quot; to someone else, but if I know a language well and still can't make it out, &quot;nonsense&quot; is a fair guess." CreationDate="2018-08-01T02:55:42.370" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15025" PostId="6956" Score="0" Text="The collective attempt to answer this question has turned into a study de facto, albeit an amateur one. But you may be giving too much benefit of doubt to the object of &quot;real&quot; epigr. studies: most of the Roman world did not speak Latin natively. A sizable chapter in *The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy* titled *Inscriptions and Literacy* exists for a reason. Ours is quite a mild example of nonsense. [This short paper](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41291162) may serve as a fascinating example of the subject matter; the CIL IX 4549 that it mentions in passing is even funnier (“legite&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-08-01T04:26:12.250" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15018" PostId="6958" Score="1" Text="+1, but I beg to disagree and say you might be being a little too picky. I'd agree to reject libertas (or Libertas) if 1) the OP had specified she wanted a classical Latin translation (which IMHO, is not the only _good_ one) AND 2) the possible classical-times ambiguity wasn't solved by itself (you hear _libertatis_, you rise your eyebrows, you think of _Libertatis_ and then they go down again)" CreationDate="2018-07-31T18:53:56.250" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15022" PostId="6958" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, Thanks, I gladly admit being a perfectionist. :) To me, the classical language is at the very least the default choice. Certain Late L. authors are great, Augustin above most, and his style is very distinct. Medieval L. is an umbrella for a vast variety of different dialects, so it's impossible to translate *to* it (unless you are working on a forgery and select a specific variety, which the OP probably doesn't). Modern church neo-Latin? Meh. No native writers. As for the  (2), it is better, IMO, to reduce the eyebrow-bobbity of the translation right from the start." CreationDate="2018-07-31T21:52:32.223" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15023" PostId="6958" Score="4" Text="I’m curious — on what do you base the claim that “abstract nouns cannot act in a persona context”? (I’m not trying to criticize or tear down; this is a great answer. I’m just interested in reading through any of the relevant literature.)" CreationDate="2018-08-01T00:01:22.410" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15027" PostId="6958" Score="1" Text="@EthanBierlein, thank you, that's a very good question! In short, first, pretty much every book on advanced composition cautions against using abstracts where personal agency is possible and natural, and second, just from experience with the language. E. g. Boetius *de consolatione philosophiae*, where *philosophia* is obviously a personification, Philosophia, the one giving the solace.  But I do not think I can come up with references to research on this topic. I'll make a note to post a question on this topic tomorrow." CreationDate="2018-08-01T08:26:28.593" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15031" PostId="6958" Score="0" Text="Question: Acts 4:36 _filius consolationis_ / _υἱὸς παρακλήσεως_ is a personification, a foreign grammatical borrowing, or something that had entered the language by that time?" CreationDate="2018-08-01T14:52:18.133" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15036" PostId="6958" Score="2" Text="@Rafael, IDK, really. In context, this is a purported literal translation of a foreign name. But I really appreciate counterexamples. I am not standing my ground, and am always open to reversing my opinion. Besides, nothing in the language is a hard and fast rule. I'll post a question on this separately, will let you know here. I am just a little busy right now." CreationDate="2018-08-02T13:59:27.537" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15040" PostId="6958" Score="0" Text="+1 (it was an honest question, BTW, no hard feelings)" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:44:50.847" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15059" PostId="6959" Score="0" Text="Does 'in your unseen cloak' in line 5 go with 'I come' or 'I have spent these 13 years'? Better punctuation in these lines would help clarify meaning. Also what does 'it' in line 7 refer to? The cloak? That doesn't seem to make sense. I also don't understand the last stanza. The only thing I can think is that the first 3 lines are meant to specify the identify of 'us' in the last line." CreationDate="2018-08-03T20:16:04.433" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15032" PostId="6960" Score="5" Text="Such cases are fewer that you think, indeed. In the case of Roma (and cities ending in -a, and some islands) you would use the _rare_ locative case: _Romae_. I think the remaining ambiguities can be solved with prepositions, but let's see if someone can give a more formal answer" CreationDate="2018-08-02T12:26:27.220" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15033" PostId="6960" Score="1" Text="&quot;Ablative of place where&quot; seems misleading to me. The article is just referring to prepositions (like *in*) that take the ablative, and only mentions one exception: *loco* with an adjective." CreationDate="2018-08-02T13:13:57.770" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15034" PostId="6960" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Sorry. Did not read the sentence well. Fixed." CreationDate="2018-08-02T13:35:49.513" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15035" PostId="6960" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho My point was actually that &quot;ablative of place&quot; just doesn't work (except in a few cases) alone: it requires a preposition. In fact, ablative *Roma* alone would only be place *whence*." CreationDate="2018-08-02T13:38:57.720" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15037" PostId="6960" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh I see. How general is that rule?" CreationDate="2018-08-02T14:41:33.153" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15038" PostId="6960" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho That would only apply to place names like *Roma*. Here is a helpful reference: http://individual.utoronto.ca/ajhicks/place_acc_abl_loc.pdf Feel free to ask a question about it." CreationDate="2018-08-02T14:45:36.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15042" PostId="6961" Score="0" Text="Thanks! But how do you reach that conclusion from Figure 12.3? isn't that graph showing &quot;unconditional&quot; frequencies, whereas we are more interested in &quot;conditional&quot; ones? (i.e. given an ablative, with what frequency another one follows?)" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:13:10.513" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15043" PostId="6961" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I can only see one possible common case of &quot;ablative stacking&quot; - a chain of adjuncts?" CreationDate="2018-08-02T18:15:18.153" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15046" PostId="6961" Score="0" Text="Can you give an example of that please?" CreationDate="2018-08-03T09:20:46.610" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15055" PostId="6961" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I wish I could. Finding such examples is a very time-consuming task." CreationDate="2018-08-03T15:10:29.250" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15045" PostId="6962" Score="1" Text="Possibly *'ut opinor.'*" CreationDate="2018-08-02T23:17:52.860" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15056" PostId="6962" Score="0" Text="I believe I have actually seen _in mea sententia_ used in this context, but I could be mistaken." CreationDate="2018-08-03T16:02:51.407" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15051" PostId="6963" Score="0" Text="Not so sure about all this. Liberi does mean &quot;children&quot;, of course. And there is a lot more that could be said." CreationDate="2018-08-03T14:13:16.107" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15052" PostId="6963" Score="0" Text="@fdb Ack! Don’t know how I managed to overlook that. Are there any qualms in particular that you have regarding my answer? Always open to improvements. :)" CreationDate="2018-08-03T14:23:48.117" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15053" PostId="6963" Score="0" Text="My problem is that I really don't understand what he is trying to say, especially in the last stanza. But perhaps others are more atuned to arcane wisdom." CreationDate="2018-08-03T14:33:04.100" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15054" PostId="6963" Score="0" Text="@fdb I really couldn’t grasp the meaning either — my answer is mostly trying to criticize from a purely grammatical perspective." CreationDate="2018-08-03T15:01:37.007" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15060" PostId="6963" Score="0" Text="I think caecus, used in the original version, is a better choice than invisus since, in my experience at least, it means 'unseen' about as often as 'blind,' whereas invisus means 'hateful' much more often than 'unseen.' Also, although I agree about changing conficimur to 3rd person pl., perfect tense, I find the masc. form confecti very odd looking. I'd recommend using confecta in agreement with opera, and then changing line 2 to something like 'confectus et ego augur' or the pithier 'item ego augur' (because otherwise, the fact that the 'ego' is also worn out becomes obscured)." CreationDate="2018-08-03T20:39:01.697" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15062" PostId="6963" Score="1" Text="@EthanBierlein Thank you so much for being so specific! Oh dear, apologies for leaving out the premise (shaking my head at my own oversight there)! A few colleagues and I are making an instrumental piece evoking the &quot;Finale&quot; of the Cassini mission to Saturn, wherein the craft dove through the planet's atmosphere and was destroyed. When the idea got pitched to add text (as if the craft were speaking some verse to the planet through the metaphor of the deity), it fell to me as the resident language geek to figure it out. As you can see, my skills are far from academically exceptional." CreationDate="2018-08-03T21:38:28.483" UserId="2804" />
  <row Id="15063" PostId="6963" Score="1" Text="Ergo (ha), &quot;unseen cloak&quot; = gravity as bent spacetime; &quot;Caelus&quot; I had read somewhere was another Roman name for Ouranos (could be wrong). The last stanza is meant to highlight the link between Saturn being born of Uranus and Terra, and Cassini literally being made on Earth, and between their ages (Saturn being a first gen Titan [also the planet's some 4.5 billion yrs old] &amp; Cassini the craft being in operation well after its original mission period). Thanks all for your input!" CreationDate="2018-08-03T22:15:47.880" UserId="2804" />
  <row Id="15047" PostId="6964" Score="1" Text="I am not fluent in Latin, but I think there is some ambiguity in *uxor accipias* because *uxor* is also the vocative case. It could mean either &quot;you take a wife&quot; or &quot;you take, wife&quot; (I'm not sure whether that word order would be allowed, though)" CreationDate="2018-08-03T10:40:25.100" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="15362" PostId="6964" Score="2" Text="*Uxorem accipias* 'you should take a wife' vs. *uxor accipias* 'you who are a wife should take [something]'." CreationDate="2018-08-20T19:06:35.310" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15048" PostId="6965" Score="2" Text="Thanks! The &quot;three plates&quot; example (in Spanish, _tres platos_, as opposed to _tres plato_) is very revealing. Indeed, languages are full of redundancies! An interesting question which surely Linguistic theory has dealt with, i.e. why do they arise, and to what extent are they  &quot;needed&quot;. Maybe something about &quot;efficiency&quot; or optimal degree of uncertainty..." CreationDate="2018-08-03T11:04:09.790" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15049" PostId="6965" Score="3" Text="@luchonacho, on that broader question a starting point might be https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/25711/2394" CreationDate="2018-08-03T12:39:54.333" UserId="1790" />
  <row Id="15050" PostId="6965" Score="0" Text="@PeterTaylor Thanks. Quite interesting discussion." CreationDate="2018-08-03T13:23:26.150" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15057" PostId="6967" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Just to make sure, you want a _description_ of the item, not some kind of spell, right?" CreationDate="2018-08-03T18:24:40.903" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15058" PostId="6967" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, Right. Not looking for a spell. Just an inscription that indicates that the item can be used for swapping bodies. In English it might say, &quot;Body Changer&quot;, or &quot;Exchanges Your Body with Someone Else&quot; or whatever. Would like it to be short and sweet as Corpus Vorto seems to be." CreationDate="2018-08-03T18:38:21.633" UserId="2806" />
  <row Id="28687" PostId="6967" Score="0" Text="I think the answers you have gotten so far are really good.  You can't swipe the opening line of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* as is since you need a slightly different meaning, but using a compound of *muto* is first rate, to echo *in nova ... mutatas .... formas corpora*." CreationDate="2020-08-18T23:15:14.543" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="15087" PostId="6969" Score="0" Text="Thanks @Draconis. I will probably go with _Commuto Corpores_." CreationDate="2018-08-06T17:19:53.657" UserId="2806" />
  <row Id="15064" PostId="6970" Score="1" Text="It's a tattoo, it has to be more epigrammatic than that. _Sanguis non omnibus quam aqua densior_ (&quot;for all people&quot;), at most: I'd drop the &quot;hours&quot; too. Or, if we allow ourselves the (neo-Latin) diacritic for the ablative, _Sanguis aquâ non omnibus densior_." CreationDate="2018-08-04T01:23:25.583" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15071" PostId="6970" Score="1" Text="Yes, more epigrammatic, from NickNicholas. But *iunctior* 'closer in friendship,'  might be better than *densior* 'more crowded.'" CreationDate="2018-08-04T14:36:08.667" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15065" PostId="6971" Score="1" Text="I'm afraid that I'm not quite clear on what you wish to express.  There is a possible conflict here with associating &quot;Caesar&quot;/&quot;Cesar&quot; with Christ, seeing that &quot;Caesar&quot; is an emblem of secular power, and Christ is definitely is not.  Having said that, I acknowledge that later Roman times, both &quot;Augustus&quot; and &quot;Caesar&quot; came to be as terms for the emperors and their backups in the new, Christian, Roman empire.  I do think you need to explain more thoroughly what you're looking for," CreationDate="2018-08-04T02:10:57.827" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15066" PostId="6971" Score="0" Text="@varro The question title is not clear? Is it not that Caesar/Cesar is the Latin term for ultimate ruler?" CreationDate="2018-08-04T02:14:12.770" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="15067" PostId="6971" Score="3" Text="No.  In later times, the title of &quot;Augustus&quot; was higher than the title of &quot;Caesar&quot;.  In Byzantine times, the ultimate power was in the hand of the Βασιλεύς, the &quot;emperor&quot; (a title fraught will all sorts of connotations)." CreationDate="2018-08-04T02:21:23.613" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15068" PostId="6971" Score="2" Text="@Willtech Also consider that the Bible uses Caesar exclusively for secular rulers: hence &quot;render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-04T02:32:18.107" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15069" PostId="6971" Score="0" Text="So, a difficult question. Another question, would Christ put His picture on money? Then is &quot;Christī Regēns&quot; sufficient?" CreationDate="2018-08-04T06:40:55.510" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="15072" PostId="6971" Score="0" Text="For &quot;Caesar&quot; see this: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/german-kaiser-russian-tsar-arabic-qay%E1%B9%A3ar.3163959/" CreationDate="2018-08-04T15:19:23.520" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15076" PostId="6971" Score="1" Text="Your _Christī Regēns_ is inconsistent as to inflection. The first word is genitive (presumably not nominative plural!) the second nominative. _Christus Regēns_ for the nominative." CreationDate="2018-08-05T18:43:51.003" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15077" PostId="6971" Score="1" Text="I tagged this [tag:ecclesiastical-latin], assuming you are ok with this, considering the religious tone of the sentence. Pleas feel free to change it back, or just ask me to undo it." CreationDate="2018-08-05T18:54:20.573" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15095" PostId="6971" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine I fully accept Latin seems difficult to master. So then, if I understand (from another question) that would still make &quot;Es certus facere tē discipulum Christī Regēns.&quot; to be correct?" CreationDate="2018-08-07T09:14:41.677" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="15140" PostId="6971" Score="0" Text="@Willtech: nope. &quot;Christī&quot; is genitive (&quot;of the Christ&quot;). &quot;Regēns&quot; is nominative, so the only thing it could possible refer to in the sentence is the (unspoken) subject &quot;you&quot; So it means &quot;Be sure to make yourself a disciple of the Christ, O ruling one1&quot;. I don't think that's what you meant. Try &quot;Christī Regēntis&quot; &quot;of the ruling Christ&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-09T15:57:38.110" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15143" PostId="6971" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine I will take you on your word." CreationDate="2018-08-10T11:17:39.547" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="15157" PostId="6971" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine How do you take to read &quot;Es certus facere tē discipulum Christī Regēntis Rēgis.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-11T03:27:43.687" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="15173" PostId="6971" Score="1" Text="That works,, as far as the last few words go, and it is grammatical. What I don't know is whether &quot;es certus facere&quot; actually _means_ &quot;be sure to make&quot;. That is certainly a literal translation, but I have no idea whether or not the **idiom** &quot;be sure/certain to&quot; translates directly into Latin." CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:19:20.563" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15097" PostId="6974" Score="1" Text="I appreciate your work here and may yet add a couple of comments. I accept that Lord is a much more well-mannered situation seemingly befitting of Christ than DOMINATOR gives us by common understanding." CreationDate="2018-08-07T09:33:50.937" UserId="2785" />
  <row Id="15084" PostId="6977" Score="1" Text="Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the [wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_case) on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of _in_." CreationDate="2018-08-06T14:20:28.053" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15085" PostId="6977" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho hahaha, _ánimo_. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. _Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem..._" CreationDate="2018-08-06T14:30:01.343" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15086" PostId="6977" Score="2" Text="That's a great example of both uses of _in_. _¡Gracias!_" CreationDate="2018-08-06T14:38:29.347" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15101" PostId="6980" Score="1" Text="These are good words, but do you have citations for where they were used, or what exactly they meant?" CreationDate="2018-08-07T17:06:29.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15104" PostId="6980" Score="0" Text="+1 Good ones! But my impression (I could be wrong) is that _beneficium_ implies some kind of material effect on others that not all good deeds have. E.g. is telling the truth a good deed? Is it a beneficium?" CreationDate="2018-08-07T18:38:18.453" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15108" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot @luchonacho. I was looking for raw text format, for instance: https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/oba001.htm#011 but your suggestions are much appreciated!" CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:02:02.553" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="15110" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="Yes, I agree. How nice it'd be though to have some automatic corrector for OCR. BTW I OCR'd Romans 6 and 7 (1 Word page Font 10) from a crisp Beza .pdf, and although the amount of errors was not huge, it was very tedious to fix them." CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:18:43.530" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="15111" PostId="6983" Score="1" Text="@OliverAmundsen One option I've thought of in the past is to set up a website (e.g. on github) where people can collaboratively make changes/suggestions to the raw text. If the text is of sufficient interest, others would come up to help, whilst contributing to the public domain. Perhaps someone already have done this." CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:26:58.653" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15113" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="That'd be interesting" CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:34:19.660" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="15119" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot! that methodology in Ubuntu exceeds my knowledge I'm afraid... :(" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:33:05.020" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="15121" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="I've never used Ubuntu!" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:37:50.680" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="15122" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="@OliverAmundsen There are installation instructions for MacOS and Windows [here](https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract/wiki). Before your question I had no faith in OCR software, but after givin a try to `tesseract`, I can continue on some OCR projects I had, seeing it can be quite good!" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:40:57.920" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15126" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="@OliverAmundsen I just tested the program in older Latin, and it is amazing! See update. Why would OCR text in archive.org documents be so bad? Maybe they just apply a common code to every single book? In my case, the code is specific for Latin." CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:38:20.533" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15128" PostId="6983" Score="0" Text="Amazing! I will try it!" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:51:46.320" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="23058" PostId="6984" Score="0" Text="Oh! no macrons!" CreationDate="2019-11-03T11:10:23.133" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="15115" PostId="6985" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question! Just a nuance: do you mean healing others or being healed?" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:29:22.057" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15116" PostId="6988" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! That's a very complete question! Just the kind of translation question we'd like to be asked" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:00:37.977" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15117" PostId="6988" Score="0" Text="Keep in mind that 1) there is probably no single word to convey all the meanings of English _flow_ at once and 2) I don't think _transcendentia_ means the same as its English cognate (it's what they call a _false friend_)" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:04:58.307" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15131" PostId="6988" Score="1" Text="thanks!  yeah I'm not concerned about a *perfect* translation, just looking for something that's as close as possible to the meaning I'm aiming for.  if one definition or another of &quot;flow&quot; should be used, I would say that the verb form, i.e. the act of moving or adapting gracefully as in a stream or river, is the most likely to be translated correctly and is what we should shoot for.  as far as &quot;transcendentiam&quot; being a &quot;false friend,&quot; perhaps?  what might work better to signify mental / consciousness elevation?  thanks!" CreationDate="2018-08-08T20:59:44.970" UserId="2815" />
  <row Id="15133" PostId="6988" Score="1" Text="perhaps also something like (again, using Google Translate as a base here), instead of &quot;transcendentiam&quot; to indicate transcendence, to use &quot;spiritus elevandi&quot; to indicate elevation of the spirit." CreationDate="2018-08-08T21:31:28.443" UserId="2815" />
  <row Id="15134" PostId="6988" Score="0" Text="so maybe something like &quot;ignis et fluxus, spiritus elevandi&quot; (&quot;fire and flow, to elevate the spirit&quot;) - ?" CreationDate="2018-08-08T21:33:02.063" UserId="2815" />
  <row Id="15137" PostId="6988" Score="0" Text="maybe &quot;ignis et fluo, spiritus elevandi&quot; ?  replacing &quot;fluxus&quot; (which GT indicates is an adjective) with &quot;fluo&quot; (apparently the verb form).  ?" CreationDate="2018-08-08T22:45:18.460" UserId="2815" />
  <row Id="15118" PostId="6989" Score="0" Text="I bet your answer is in verse... metrics!" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:16:59.400" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15123" PostId="6990" Score="0" Text="Can we know this meaning is not a later influence of its meaning in another language? E.g. that it first got it from English (or Latin), and was then adopted by modern Greek as a meaning? I bet this is what happened in Spanish, where the word _economia_ can also means thrift." CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:47:36.003" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15125" PostId="6990" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho Good thought, but LSJ also includes &quot;thrift&quot;, citing several classical authors." CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:21:27.313" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15139" PostId="6990" Score="3" Text="How? I think the semantic shift is pretty obvious." CreationDate="2018-08-09T15:03:00.673" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15145" PostId="6990" Score="1" Text="@Draconis. It might be useful, if anyone has the time, to look up the references in LSJ and determine whether any of them really requires the meaning &quot;thrifty house-keeping&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-10T13:55:46.290" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15146" PostId="6990" Score="2" Text="The correct term would be a **metonymic** (semantic) change or shift. While it’s very easy to envision such a change, I’m not entirely sure if it happened in Ancient Greek. Let’s look at some examples." CreationDate="2018-08-10T14:31:51.027" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34251" PostId="6990" Score="1" Text="I'd concur with @Alex B.   &quot;Management, oversight, administration, of property&quot; obviously entails care with preservation of resources. It happened in Ancient Greece." CreationDate="2021-07-27T20:35:02.350" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="15135" PostId="6991" Score="1" Text="There seems to be less certainty about the pronunciation of short /i/ as /ɪ/ when it comes before another vowel, though. There are words in some Romance languages that seem to show reflexes of Latin [ɪ] &gt; [e]  (e.g. French &quot;voie&quot;, from Latin &quot;via&quot;), but if I remember correctly, there are also words that seem to show the reflex of Latin [i] (I know of an old article that talks about this, &quot;[Hiatus and Vocalic Quality in Classical and Vulgar Latin](https://www.jstor.org/stable/267006?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)&quot; by&#xA;G. K. Meadows (1946), but I forget any specific examples)" CreationDate="2018-08-08T22:02:15.907" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15136" PostId="6991" Score="0" Text="Allen also talks about this issue; I give the relevant quote in my answer here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1072/9" CreationDate="2018-08-08T22:04:00.117" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15192" PostId="6991" Score="1" Text="So, the take-home message (for everyone) is we don't know for sure - and most likely never will - and we shouldn't really worry about it." CreationDate="2018-08-13T02:20:30.927" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15144" PostId="6993" Score="2" Text="Because sum is not a transitive verb and fluvius is not an object. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicative_expression" CreationDate="2018-08-10T11:53:48.437" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15152" PostId="6993" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I think this is a circular argument. “Sum” is not a transitive verb precisely because it does not take an accusative object." CreationDate="2018-08-10T23:37:47.537" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15154" PostId="6993" Score="0" Text="@fbd I don't see any circular argument there. A canonical definition of a transitive verb is the one that takes a direct object (aka THEME; no, I'm not screaming - it's a convention to capitalize thematic roles, at least in some theories). The direct object is usually understood as an argument directly affected/changed by the predicate (if I'm remembering William Frawley *Linguistic Semantics* correctly). . If you want to define transitivity differently, no problem with me. Btw I didn't say that the direct object has to be in the accusative. :)" CreationDate="2018-08-11T00:00:03.783" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15178" PostId="6993" Score="1" Text="@AlexB.: So are you suggesting that direct objects ought to be limited to certain thematic roles (probably not)? Or are you arguing from a prototype, where the theme is the most typical role on which we should base the frameworks of our definition of a direct object? I admit it is a difficult problem to define the most basic terms in linguistics, when you have almost no other blocks available yet to build with..." CreationDate="2018-08-12T02:22:14.663" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15179" PostId="6993" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I use theme here in the sense of a semantic role that &quot;undergoes the action/change/event expressed by the verb&quot; (I copied this definition from Sebastian Löbner *Understanding semantics* - Löbner 2013); this would be equivalent to the Undergoer (macrorole). Of course, that would include patient, theme (in the narrow sense), source etc. And yes, the subject is prototypically  the agent (actor) and the object is prototypically the patient (theme, or undergoer). In passive sentences things are different, of course." CreationDate="2018-08-12T02:57:34.173" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15182" PostId="6993" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: OK so a definition partly based on the thematic roles of a prototype—seems fair. I wonder what other definitions exist. (Some modern schools of linguistics seem not to pay too much attention to thematic roles in their syntactic analysis, which I occasionally deplore.)" CreationDate="2018-08-12T10:54:59.407" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15205" PostId="6993" Score="0" Text="In one way, as for all &quot;why&quot; questions, the whole of the answer is &quot;because that's the way it is&quot;. In Slavonic languages, sometimes the complement of the copula is neither nominative nor accusative, but instrumental." CreationDate="2018-08-13T20:19:41.540" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15251" PostId="6993" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine. Could you give some examples? This sounds interesting." CreationDate="2018-08-15T10:38:15.077" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15257" PostId="6993" Score="1" Text="@fdb. For example, Russian &quot;Отец был рабочим (The father was a worker)&quot; or &quot;я хочу быть врачом&quot; (I want to be a doctor), where the endings -им and -ом are instrumental." CreationDate="2018-08-15T17:51:03.103" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15153" PostId="6994" Score="1" Text="In your last example puerum is NOT the direct object of scio. It is the subject of esse." CreationDate="2018-08-10T23:49:28.813" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15171" PostId="6994" Score="1" Text="@fdb I was under the impression that it was almost both because it is indirect speech; in this construction it takes the grammatical case of the direct object of _scio_ while still serving as the subject of the _esse_. Is there something I'm just missing about the grammatical terminology here (which is entirely possible)?" CreationDate="2018-08-11T16:16:36.117" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15177" PostId="6994" Score="1" Text="@fdb: It could be argued that *puerum* is in limbo: on the one hand, it cannot by itself be the entire object of the main verb, as that is probably the whole a.c.i.; on the other, it can in certain cases become the subject by itself when a sentence with an a.c.i. is passivised, which is ordinarily the sign of a direct object, i.e. *dicunt eum afuisse  =&gt; dicitur afuisse*." CreationDate="2018-08-12T02:17:52.053" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15180" PostId="6994" Score="1" Text="The subject of an infinitive is accusative, regardless of the syntactic environment." CreationDate="2018-08-12T09:48:26.190" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15183" PostId="6994" Score="0" Text="@fdb Could you direct me to an example where an accusative + infinitive is used not in indirect speech? I tried finding something myself but all that comes up are examples of indirect speech." CreationDate="2018-08-12T16:16:57.600" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15184" PostId="6994" Score="0" Text="@SamK &quot;... cum aliquis dicat se profectum esse ad exercitum&quot; (Cic. Inv. 1.87) or &quot;Credo edepol equidem dormire Solem&quot; (Pl. Am. 282) - the examples are from Pinkster 2015: 736-737. Not sure how you understand &quot;indirect speech&quot; but accusativus cum infinitivo is only possible in a subordinate clause, obviously." CreationDate="2018-08-12T17:32:47.953" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15185" PostId="6994" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Perhaps I am making a mistake or something in using the term &quot;indirect speech&quot;, but those examples look to me what I would consider indirect speech/indirect statement, which is why I think my own terminology is what is incorrect, rather than the concept." CreationDate="2018-08-12T18:25:03.050" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15187" PostId="6994" Score="0" Text="@Sam K I see. The infinitive - in our case a part of the accusativus cum infinitivo construction- is a non-finite verb form, hence it cannot be used as the predicate of the main (stand-alone) clause. What you call “indirect speech” in this case, e.g. *scio puerum esse pulchrum*, is known as a subordinate (or dependent) clause." CreationDate="2018-08-12T21:40:02.880" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15279" PostId="6994" Score="1" Text="@SamK. The acc. c. inf. construction is used also with impersonal verbs like oportet. This cannot be analysed as indirect speech. L/S quotes from Plautus: “servum hercle te esse oportet et nequam et malum,” &quot;you must be a truly good-for-nothing slave&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-16T11:53:23.017" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="45572" PostId="6996" Score="0" Text="Fac rem quó sequitur, can work?" CreationDate="2023-11-21T00:51:48.337" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="22491" PostId="6997" Score="0" Text="Definitely not all languages - for example, in (formal) Arabic the verb &quot;to be&quot; (كان) takes the accusative case for the complement." CreationDate="2019-09-18T15:10:30.603" UserId="1756" />
  <row Id="15158" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="That's great, n helps me a lot&#xA;Tho, I would not mind a biological context, so does homo feminam work? What's the dative for female in that context?" CreationDate="2018-08-11T08:32:29.653" UserId="2824" />
  <row Id="15159" PostId="6999" Score="1" Text="The opposite of mulier or femina is vir, not homo," CreationDate="2018-08-11T09:42:22.313" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15160" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="@KaushalSuvarna the two-word version would be _homo feminae_" CreationDate="2018-08-11T10:51:07.830" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15161" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="@fdb I didn't feel the need to make the same contrast with the male words. It even seemed poetically appropriate to me as a way of praising her while belittling him (the speaker). Do you think the answer is better if it addresses homo vs vir too?" CreationDate="2018-08-11T11:04:03.390" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15162" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="I should like to keep it biological, as long as we understand that we are talking about the biological aspects of men n women, love in a primal way" CreationDate="2018-08-11T12:59:55.500" UserId="2824" />
  <row Id="15163" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="So if vir feminae is going to sound like a biology lecture, I'd prefer homo feminae to keep some poetry" CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:01:28.590" UserId="2824" />
  <row Id="15164" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="Or how abt vir mulier as a kind of an appeal from a baser man to the femininity in woman?" CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:04:31.147" UserId="2824" />
  <row Id="15165" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="@KaushalSuvarna the logical pairs are (as pointed by fdb): vir/mulier and masculus/feminae. In fact homo as specifically male is rare, but happens (e.g. in Plautus, who opposes it to mulier). Hence &quot;man to woman&quot; can be _masculus feminae_ (&quot;biological&quot; pair) or _vir mulieri_ (comprehensive pair). You can also mix the two, taking care not to change wired endings, or you can mix the whole meaning" CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:33:19.347" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15166" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="@KaushalSuvana IMHO, _primal_ human love needs some kind of spiritual link, otherwise it would be indistinguishable from sexual attraction. But don't mind me: this consideration goes beyond the word choice. You can still mean what you want with the alternatives given. It's more of a matter of nuances at this point" CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:43:08.227" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15167" PostId="6999" Score="0" Text="I meant take care not to change WORD endings, sorry." CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:49:55.140" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15168" PostId="6999" Score="2" Text="feminae can be dative or genitive (&quot;a woman's man&quot;). mulieri is unambiguous." CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:59:53.843" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15169" PostId="6999" Score="1" Text="Rafael and fdb thanks a bunch for the help and explanations. Without going too much into the poem, it's an address from the base nature of man (and woman) to the discerning femininity in woman. So I think, tho it might break the logical pairing, &quot;homo mulieri&quot; makes most sense, esp now considering that homo is a neutral word." CreationDate="2018-08-11T14:30:44.333" UserId="2824" />
  <row Id="15267" PostId="7000" Score="1" Text="Well, the second part is &quot;missing&quot; (to use your word) in The Complete Poems of Sappho because it was **not** written by Sappho. You can see it on page 250 in *Julian, Letters. Epigrams. Against the Galilaeans. Fragments* in the section &quot;The Apocryphal letters (letter 77 to Iamblichus), NB &quot;Letters74–83, with the possible exception of 81, are certainly not by Julian.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-16T05:30:26.633" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15268" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Wait a second, whoever wrote the letter says it's &quot;just like beautiful Sappho says&quot;, how is it **not** written by Sappho?" CreationDate="2018-08-16T07:19:08.367" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15281" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="The verb form you’re jnterested in so much, is it in Campbell or Voigt? I don’t think so." CreationDate="2018-08-16T17:07:14.850" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15283" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Voigt adopts épsyxas, but mentions Wilamowitz suggested éphlyxas. Campbell follows Voigt but without the mention of éphlyxas." CreationDate="2018-08-16T17:13:56.593" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15284" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="I figured as much. But what does Voigt say about it? It could be important." CreationDate="2018-08-17T02:16:27.033" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15288" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I added the whole Voigt part about this fragment. All I can see about the form is «ἔφλυξας Wil. l.c.», where Wil. must stand for Wilamowitz, and l.c.… locus citatus? Or maybe it's an edition and the abbreviation is explained elsewhere?" CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:10:38.943" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15289" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="Conspectus compendiorum has no such edition, but in the TEST we have «Wil., TGBuk. 179», where I guess the number is a page number and the rest is in the conspectus compendiorum explained as «U. v. Wilamowitz-M., Die Textgeschichte der griechschen Bukoliker (Philol. Unters. 18). Bl. 1906»." CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:23:47.703" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15290" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="I guess it's that book, and l.c. stands for liber citatus." CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:25:35.457" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15301" PostId="7000" Score="0" Text="A quote for you, Stefano Caciagli (Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Italianistica): &quot;I am suggesting that the testimonia, and even the ipsissima verba of Sappho can ‘lie’ or, rather, can change their meaning, depending the contexts in which they are embedded. Once again, the only way properly to understand an ancient Greek text is through Quellenforschung, as Welcker suggested two centuries ago precisely in dealing with Sappho.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-18T02:29:40.670" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15176" PostId="7001" Score="1" Text="Well, I wouldn't consider _semper ubi sub ubi_ an actual example. It's more of a joke! :D" CreationDate="2018-08-11T20:55:40.500" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15174" PostId="7002" Score="1" Text="Can we assume that with &quot;three&quot; you mean &quot;tree&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:55:59.910" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15175" PostId="7002" Score="0" Text="Ooops, what a blunder..." CreationDate="2018-08-11T20:01:43.403" UserId="2406" />
  <row Id="15202" PostId="7002" Score="1" Text="There are some answers (not perhaps particularly good ones) here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13484/did-english-language-translations-describe-adam-and-eve-as-eating-apples" CreationDate="2018-08-13T16:23:22.413" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15190" PostId="7010" Score="0" Text="Doesn't obscenas agree with tabellas?" CreationDate="2018-08-13T01:08:35.577" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15191" PostId="7010" Score="1" Text="@Rafael for some reason I read obscaenas as the plural noun obscena, as in Ov.Met. 9.347 'obscena Priapi'. I think you're right, though, taking it as obscenus, a, um is much simpler!" CreationDate="2018-08-13T01:29:03.693" UserId="2831" />
  <row Id="15193" PostId="7014" Score="0" Text="thankyou, that’s helpful. So we take opus as acc, then ‘ad picturas figuras’ is adverbial. But doesn’t temptes need some kind of object? Isn’t this OLD sense 2? Is it [Lalage]?" CreationDate="2018-08-13T09:02:22.693" UserId="2831" />
  <row Id="15194" PostId="7014" Score="0" Text="ohhhh... temptes [the acts portrayed]" CreationDate="2018-08-13T09:09:15.233" UserId="2831" />
  <row Id="15203" PostId="7014" Score="0" Text="@BenjaminNagy, No, I was taking temptes without a direct object here, just with the si clause, as in Petronius 33.5: 'temptemus tamen, si adhuc sorbilia sunt' ('Let us test whether they [the eggs] are still runny enough to suck')." CreationDate="2018-08-13T19:31:34.657" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15209" PostId="7014" Score="0" Text="In that case I’m confused again :) I expect try to take a NP direct object (try the fish), or a VP in the inf. (try to escape). Test takes a DO or a conditional and then a standalone sentence in complement (your egg example). Could you give me your model translation of the temptes clause so I can see what you mean?" CreationDate="2018-08-13T23:54:52.113" UserId="2831" />
  <row Id="15214" PostId="7014" Score="0" Text="@BenjaminNagy. Assuming that I'm understanding the passage correctly, temptes works exactly like temptemus in the Petronius example, with a si clause instead of a dir. obj. or inf. Instead of testing whether eggs are still runny, she wants Priapus to test whether she can reproduce the sexy scenes from the illustrations." CreationDate="2018-08-14T04:41:09.917" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15219" PostId="7014" Score="0" Text="I see (finally) how you’re parsing it. I think I am convinced. Many thanks for your patient explanations!" CreationDate="2018-08-14T13:05:05.237" UserId="2831" />
  <row Id="15197" PostId="7015" Score="1" Text="Arbor is feminine, árbol is masculine. Just to let you know there are exceptions" CreationDate="2018-08-13T10:10:19.910" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15198" PostId="7015" Score="1" Text="BTW your answer is probably in the line of your last paragraph: grammatical gender is mostly arbitrary, except for the most obviously gendered words, and even those can have exceptions" CreationDate="2018-08-13T10:19:20.573" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="43542" PostId="7015" Score="0" Text="Several fruits are neuter second declension in Latin but end up as feminine in romance. Perhaps the plural in -a got &quot;regularized&quot; into feminine singular, especially for small fruits that you never eat just one of (e.g. cherries)." CreationDate="2023-06-12T13:30:29.030" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="15216" PostId="7016" Score="0" Text="Thanks! That is surely useful, but the spirit of my question (perhaps not clear in the wording) was rather different. In a sense, you reversed the directionality. By knowing declension rules, you can predict the noun gender. My logic is to derive declension rules from gender. Thus, I was hoping for the rules of thumb  to come from elsewhere. My logic of why _insula_ was feminine was because in Spanish it is. But I cannot do this with neuter nouns. Thus, is there an **ontological** reason behind the gender of nouns in Latin? I guess, as you pointed out in a comment, there is not." CreationDate="2018-08-14T08:29:50.793" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15225" PostId="7016" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I should  have started from the 4th idea  (which I think Alex B. conveys better): in his words, **semantic assignment is somewhat marginal (only 8.9%)**. Semantics is what you are asking for (non technically, meaning, ontology). For example, *things* tend *to be neuter*. Besides that, syntax and etymology is the best you can have. See also the wp article I linked in the &quot;it's not completely random&quot; bullet." CreationDate="2018-08-14T14:06:52.127" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15235" PostId="7016" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho fixed. Old no. 4 is now no. 1." CreationDate="2018-08-14T20:01:37.130" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15239" PostId="7016" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Semantic assignment of gender is “somewhat marginal” in Latin because it only happens with animate nouns, and even then there are some, albeit rare, exceptions." CreationDate="2018-08-14T23:13:26.103" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21082" PostId="7016" Score="0" Text="2 Decl has an interesting exception: humus, humi, f." CreationDate="2019-08-20T07:56:04.487" UserId="5018" />
  <row Id="15217" PostId="7017" Score="0" Text="So, point 1 means that gender is &quot;chosen&quot; primarily for language economy/efficiency? E.g. so that you do not have ten declension types but only five?" CreationDate="2018-08-14T08:31:18.607" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15222" PostId="7017" Score="3" Text="@luchonacho Of course. What is gender (in language) anyway? Gender is &quot;a property that separates nouns into classes&quot; and even though these classes are often linked to biological sex, that is not the only option. http://linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-43" CreationDate="2018-08-14T13:28:08.677" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15224" PostId="7017" Score="1" Text="Superb article! &quot;...Nigerian Fula with more than 20 genders...&quot; :0 Amazing! &quot;Generally speaking, there are three types of assignment rule: semantic, phonological, and morphological.&quot; I guess it is the former the one I was thinking about, but according to your answer (the OUP article has little to mention about Latin), the latter is the one prevailing in Latin. If you have the time, maybe you could expand your answer this this broader picture. At least a reference to that article would be helpful." CreationDate="2018-08-14T13:43:44.687" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="34990" PostId="7017" Score="0" Text="What are those percentages exactly? Are they fractions of nouns listed in a dictionary or other word list, or fractions of nouns in a corpus, or something else? I imagine that weighting by frequency will change the percentages but I have no idea which way. It's not obvious whether *res* should have equal weight compared to a hapax legomenon in such comparisons." CreationDate="2021-09-06T23:59:42.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34998" PostId="7017" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I added more info from Hoffmann 2016. I hope it's clearer now." CreationDate="2021-09-07T02:28:01.347" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35001" PostId="7017" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Thanks! It certainly is." CreationDate="2021-09-07T05:39:38.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15218" PostId="7019" Score="0" Text="I know _amor_ means love and _lux_ means light." CreationDate="2018-08-14T09:02:08.433" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="15211" PostId="7020" Score="1" Text="One could also use _virtus_ for strength" CreationDate="2018-08-14T01:49:43.587" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15212" PostId="7020" Score="0" Text="@SamK:  Yes one could, but in this *particular* instance, I think it's less appropriate.  The problem with _virtus_ is that it is hard to disassociate it with its basic meaning of &quot;manliness&quot;.   Now, as a man myself, I like to think of the virtue of courage as being an essential part of being a man, I also know that being strong/courageous cannot be claimed as an exclusive virtue (!) of either sex.  Considering that the OP is female, I think _fortitudo_ is more appropriate." CreationDate="2018-08-14T02:18:25.553" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15213" PostId="7020" Score="0" Text="Ah, I missed that last bit! Yeah, I think you made the right call then" CreationDate="2018-08-14T03:29:40.047" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15215" PostId="7020" Score="0" Text="That’s great. Thank you for your help. Also, just out of my own curiosity, virtus can also mean violence/power? Didn’t really want that permanently putting on me haha." CreationDate="2018-08-14T07:17:17.907" UserId="2836" />
  <row Id="15221" PostId="7022" Score="0" Text="_ne_ is not an option, right?" CreationDate="2018-08-14T13:23:53.457" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15228" PostId="7022" Score="2" Text="@Rafael, Ne is not an option, unless one were to reformulate the result clause so that it says something like '...that I managed to write not even 30 letters'; in that case, ne would be used, but only as part of a ne...quidem: ut ne triginta quidem epistulas scripserim." CreationDate="2018-08-14T16:57:21.073" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15229" PostId="7022" Score="0" Text="I kind of expected/needed an answer in that line, thanks" CreationDate="2018-08-14T16:58:15.353" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15255" PostId="7024" Score="2" Text="I might say &quot;ad proximum!&quot;, ie &quot;[On] to the next thing!&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-15T16:26:09.857" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="15231" PostId="7027" Score="0" Text="How does it not scan properly? I mean, the nu does make the iota long as it should be, and the rest scans, so it seems the problem is precisely the fact the movable nu is used to make the syllable it ends long by position, but why is that a problem?" CreationDate="2018-08-14T19:18:35.060" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15232" PostId="7027" Score="0" Text="Btw maybe I should have included the fragment we're talking about, it's Sappho LP 41 and in transliteration it reads &quot;Tais kalais ymmin &lt;to&gt; noēmma tōmon / oy diameipton&quot; in Bekker's emendation, and &quot;Tais kalaisin ymmi etc.&quot; in Lobel-Page's text." CreationDate="2018-08-14T19:20:49.077" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15233" PostId="7027" Score="0" Text="He seems to mean that nu ephelkystikon cannot be used to make position, but I would need to check on that." CreationDate="2018-08-14T19:23:06.143" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15234" PostId="7027" Score="0" Text="I wonder why he thinks so..." CreationDate="2018-08-14T19:29:41.140" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15237" PostId="7027" Score="0" Text="Smyth (135) says &quot;To make a syllable long by position (144) the poets add ν before words beginning with a consonant&quot;. But he doesn't say who &quot;the poets&quot; are -- maybe there are no such uses in Sappho/Aeolic poets/archaic poets? That would seem to be the only plausible grounds for the rejection." CreationDate="2018-08-14T21:20:08.920" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15248" PostId="7027" Score="0" Text="@TKR I guess it would have to be at least &quot;Aeolic poets&quot;, unless Alcman doesn't count as archaic, since [here](https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0082.tlg001.1st1K-grc1:111-120?q=ymmin&amp;qk=form) we have «καὶ κῆνοϲ ἐν ϲάλεϲϲιν πολλοῖϲ ἥμενοϲ,» attributed to him. But maybe that is just one that must be dropped because it is pointless and in fact perhaps anti-metrical? I mean, that looks like iambic trimeters to me, and the scheme should be x–u–x–u–x–u–, meaning that position is made on a syllable that should be short…" CreationDate="2018-08-15T09:22:19.327" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15256" PostId="7027" Score="0" Text="@MickG That does look like an error of some kind." CreationDate="2018-08-15T17:27:14.930" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15252" PostId="7028" Score="0" Text="And in liquid verbs, the aorist and future stems diverge, as they are etymologically distinct: τείνω, future _*ten-es-ō_  &gt; _teneō_ &gt; τενῶ, aorist _*e-ten-s-a_ &gt; _etēna_ ἔτεινα." CreationDate="2018-08-15T15:24:25.663" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15249" PostId="7029" Score="3" Text="For τειχίδιον LSJ reference only Zonaras, a Byzantine writer of the 12th century (for whom ει and ι would have sounded the same). ἑλκείδιον is in Plutarch." CreationDate="2018-08-15T10:08:19.233" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30995" PostId="7030" Score="1" Text="Not just Nausikaa's brother, but many of the Phaeacians. In book 8 they list the many competitors with names like Acroneus (Shipedge), Ocyalus (Seaswift), Prymneus (Steersman), Angkialos (Nearthesea), Amphialos (Doublesea), etc." CreationDate="2021-03-06T16:32:15.817" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34333" PostId="7030" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if nausi must be interpreted as dative, if ναυσιβάτης is said to be the equivalent of ναυβάτης." CreationDate="2021-08-03T00:32:21.350" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="34334" PostId="7030" Score="0" Text="@杨Eugene Seems like it would be a dative there too, &quot;one who goes by ship&quot;. Anyway it's hard to see what else the -si- would come from." CreationDate="2021-08-03T02:07:28.407" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15263" PostId="7032" Score="0" Text="[Potential versus Completed Infinity:&#xA;its history and controversy](https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex/courses/thereals/potential.html)" CreationDate="2018-08-15T22:17:21.313" UserId="1407" />
  <row Id="15322" PostId="7032" Score="0" Text="Frankly, as long as the writing is in English, I'd prefer, for the sake of clarity at the expense of the fancy, “and thus to potential infinity.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-19T01:35:23.993" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15253" PostId="7033" Score="3" Text="&quot;In potentia&quot; and &quot;in actu&quot; are indeed the terms commonly used in Scholastic philosophy." CreationDate="2018-08-15T15:32:03.810" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15254" PostId="7034" Score="0" Text="I guess I'll have to change the prefix then, or drop it entirely :).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Quite a far-fetched restoration, then, the one proposed by Wilamowitz, which probably was proposed on the grounds of that ἐκφλύξαι being possible in Aeolic too. Re the &quot;underspecified&quot; part, IIRC φλύγω, φλύκω, φλύσσω, φλύχω are all out of my reference dictionary as well, so that particular set of queries didn't suffer from underspecification of Perseus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I assume questions 2-3 have no answer that you could find?" CreationDate="2018-08-15T16:03:26.780" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15264" PostId="7034" Score="0" Text="TBH, I didn't look for answers to qns 2–3, although I do have a couple of editions of Sappho." CreationDate="2018-08-16T03:37:21.447" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15269" PostId="7034" Score="0" Text="Which editions do you have? I have Bergk, Edmonds, Lobel-Page, Campbell, Voigt, Carson, Wharton, and Powell." CreationDate="2018-08-16T07:22:30.357" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15271" PostId="7034" Score="0" Text="Page, maybe Lobel" CreationDate="2018-08-16T08:09:33.927" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15320" PostId="7035" Score="0" Text="Is *certifacio* a good example? Seems more like a late compound. The verb root  was thematized in -ā-, which should involve a lot of &lt;s&gt;speaker laziness&lt;/s&gt; progressive lenitions to end up as short -i-. Also, according to Harper, Old French had -e- there. I'd also not discount the *-u* &gt; *-i* route, implying the original ablative or accusative, not a bare root (intermediate _*certufactio_?)." CreationDate="2018-08-19T01:28:26.850" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15323" PostId="7035" Score="0" Text="@kkm Fair point. What would you consider the most archetypal compound?" CreationDate="2018-08-19T02:16:10.163" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15325" PostId="7035" Score="0" Text="Good question! L&amp;S mentions *argicultio* was spelled *argi cultio* in Var. and Cic., so it looks like a good example of the word in the process of fossilization. I'll try to look up more examples." CreationDate="2018-08-19T03:02:38.723" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15258" PostId="7036" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't say *all*: double declension is certainly a thing. But this confirms what I suspected." CreationDate="2018-08-15T19:13:05.423" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15270" PostId="7036" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Please note that I said &quot;all IE languages&quot;, not &quot;all compounds&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-16T07:57:58.153" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15259" PostId="7037" Score="0" Text="This lack of uniformity happens in Spanish too. I think it has to do with how old the compound is/how deep it has made it into the language by its own. I think res publica is an example of a compound that underwent the process of becoming a single word (and being treated as such)" CreationDate="2018-08-15T21:20:49.553" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15260" PostId="7037" Score="1" Text="@Rafael *Res publica* is an interesting example -- it's somewhat different from the ones above in that both parts decline (*rei publicae* etc.) rather than the first part remaining unchanged, but I think you're right that it can be thought of as a compound." CreationDate="2018-08-15T21:44:18.787" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15261" PostId="7037" Score="0" Text="I mean, it made it to Romance languages as a single word (republic, repubblica, república, republique), and I think (not sure, though) in medieval Latin it was already treated as a single word." CreationDate="2018-08-15T21:47:13.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15262" PostId="7037" Score="3" Text="@Rafael And you could argue that even in Classical Latin since the order is basically fixed (I don't recall ever seeing *publica res*, nor *res ... publica* with other words in between) it's well on its way to being a compound." CreationDate="2018-08-15T21:59:43.507" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15266" PostId="7037" Score="0" Text="for more examples see pp 445-446 in Schwyzer 1953 (GG)." CreationDate="2018-08-16T04:30:42.707" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15273" PostId="7037" Score="2" Text="@Rafael.  It is correct that in the conservative IE languages there are a limited number of compounds where the first component (Vorderglied) is a fossilized inflected form (typically genitive singular). But it is fossilized; the Vorderglied is not inflected according to the syntactic environment. “Res publica” inflects both words and is consequently a phrase, not a compound." CreationDate="2018-08-16T08:34:36.717" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15280" PostId="7037" Score="2" Text="@fdb Couldn’t agree more. If I understood Tribulato correctly, such compounds were known as “improper” and were formed via univerbation." CreationDate="2018-08-16T13:27:56.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15620" PostId="7037" Score="0" Text="For anyone who wants to look up more, this (the two examples in the answer) is known as an &quot;aluk&quot; samāsa (compound) in Sanskrit." CreationDate="2018-09-05T01:29:59.767" UserId="1118" />
  <row Id="15265" PostId="7038" Score="0" Text="Your translation is not how my brain sees it, but you've got the underlying grammar right. It's like English *drive safe* or *eat happy,* where the adjective modifies the implicit *you.*" CreationDate="2018-08-16T03:39:25.027" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15276" PostId="7040" Score="0" Text="An interesting read, describing an animal that is regarded as a sponge in some sources and a fish in another, but there are only few examples of Claretus's terms. However, according to the article, Thomas of Cantimpré's encyclopedia was the source of many terms found in Glossarius, so it might be a next place to look for them." CreationDate="2018-08-16T10:38:24.113" UserId="258" />
  <row Id="15277" PostId="7040" Score="0" Text="@IllidanS4 Not sure which is that encyclopedia, but if it is _De natura rerum_, Books I to XIX of the original(?!) are [here](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90684425/f1.image). A later (1400!) edition is [here](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85295093.image). A [recent edition](https://www.worldcat.org/title/liber-de-natura-rerum-editio-princeps-secundum-codices-manuscriptos/oclc/894787) was published in 1973, and a [more recent one](https://www.worldcat.org/title/liber-de-naturis-rerum/oclc/1011340421&amp;referer=brief_results) in 2017." CreationDate="2018-08-16T11:02:05.850" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15286" PostId="7042" Score="0" Text="Thank you, that is brilliant! (his Biblical Philologist to the tune of 'Modern Major General' by G&amp;S is also worth a listen)." CreationDate="2018-08-17T08:59:09.770" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15287" PostId="7042" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton It was the Biblical Philologist that first introduced me to him!  It's a masterpiece!" CreationDate="2018-08-17T09:23:13.690" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="15291" PostId="7043" Score="2" Text="I don't know whether this is on-topic here (I mean it). I saw your question in Spanish.SE. For now, I'm not upvoting nor voting to close. But I admit I find the question interesting. Moreover, it can have more than one answer, depending on the different pronunciation conventions." CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:20:55.310" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15292" PostId="7043" Score="2" Text="Out of curiosity, why Latin? Given that it's a phonetic language (like Spanish and Italian), the problem doesn't really apply." CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:21:04.613" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15293" PostId="7043" Score="1" Text="@brianpck well, someone [actually managed](https://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/27090/what-is-the-spanish-homophonic-group) to collapse all of Spanish to a single class, but I think they cheated a bit." CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:22:38.707" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15294" PostId="7043" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I'm just asking everywhere much like I did with my square-rectangle question about 5 months ago." CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:24:14.383" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="15297" PostId="7043" Score="2" Text="Ahhh, [Ghoti](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti) strikes back!" CreationDate="2018-08-17T23:50:13.207" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15298" PostId="7043" Score="0" Text="@kkm LOL. . . ." CreationDate="2018-08-17T23:54:59.197" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="15295" PostId="7047" Score="0" Text="&quot;Latin to use an adjective in the nominative, agreeing with the subject..., where English idiom would instead use an adverb. &quot; is the part I was getting most tripped up on. Thanks!" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:23:23.137" UserId="2844" />
  <row Id="15296" PostId="7047" Score="0" Text="You put it together much better than me, upvoting! When the question gets close to my business, I get a little carried away, trying to explain more complex things that the OP probably wanted to know..." CreationDate="2018-08-17T23:37:06.563" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15299" PostId="7047" Score="0" Text="Woodcock's explanation seems too caught up in the English translation to be truly representative of the Latin grammar." CreationDate="2018-08-18T02:01:52.240" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15300" PostId="7047" Score="0" Text="@Anonym, Well, since the distinction between an 'ordinary' attributive adjective and a predicative attribute isn't something in the Latin itself but is just a matter of how the adjective is translated into English, I think it makes sense for his explanation to focus on English, to explain how an original Latin adjective can correspond to an English adverb and why it makes sense to translate it as such." CreationDate="2018-08-18T02:13:21.803" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15302" PostId="7048" Score="0" Text="Thanks Draconis! I won't accept for now to allow for other answers." CreationDate="2018-08-18T04:36:54.000" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="15303" PostId="7048" Score="0" Text="If prefixed words' pronunciation evolved before orthography, it is reasonable to think that at some point it was OK to write both inmortalis and immortalis, but the pronunciation was only the latter. In that case you could add a few more equalities" CreationDate="2018-08-18T12:51:49.150" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15304" PostId="7048" Score="1" Text="Or none of these changes happened during Classical times?" CreationDate="2018-08-18T13:06:26.343" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15310" PostId="7049" Score="0" Text="To what period/s do assimilations belong? With those you have n(=m?)=r=l=d=most other consonants." CreationDate="2018-08-18T22:28:49.927" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15311" PostId="7049" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: I have the impression that assimilations with *ad-* were fairly old, and existed already in Classical Latin, but I don't think they were systematically applied in writing. And I'm not sure to what extent the variation between assimilated and unassimilated spellings might correspond to variation between assimilated and unassimilated pronunciations." CreationDate="2018-08-18T22:31:02.577" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15313" PostId="7049" Score="1" Text="Variation between *adsum* and *assum* shows up in Plautus, so we could get S = D = F = R from that word alone! Given your comment about XS, they all end up equal to the identity." CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:20:26.160" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15314" PostId="7049" Score="0" Text="Without any formal knowledge on the subject, it seems logical to me that writing changes come after sound changes, and that they do not become universal at once. Or are there examples of different processes? If not, I don't think it is far fetched at all to say that while the writing change was ongoing, both spellings are an example pair of heterographic homophones. Or am I overseeing something?" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:31:59.663" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15316" PostId="7049" Score="0" Text="I see, my bad. But I think you got my point, right? (That they qualify to put letters in the same class in the context of this question). What would those be called?" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:45:26.220" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15317" PostId="7049" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: I don't know of a word for words like that, which is why I used the rather awkward phrase &quot;words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations&quot; in this answer." CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:46:16.077" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15318" PostId="7049" Score="0" Text="Hahaha, I see. Sorry" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:54:45.603" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15321" PostId="7049" Score="0" Text="Go for it. Please let me know when you get an answer" CreationDate="2018-08-19T01:33:00.047" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15324" PostId="7049" Score="0" Text="A word may have several spelling variants - or its spelling fluctuates - when its spelling hasn't been normalized or regularized. I'm not aware of any special term used in linguistics. Kalendae and Calendae are **not** homophones; those are spelling variants." CreationDate="2018-08-19T02:46:36.297" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="38409" PostId="7049" Score="0" Text="Thanks Asteroides. Are you sumelic as Joonas Ilmavirta♦ said?" CreationDate="2022-05-27T04:43:28.217" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="15312" PostId="7050" Score="5" Text="What is the context of &quot;God and family&quot; here? If you're using the words in isolation, the nominative would probably be more appropriate, but if you want something like &quot;[to/for] God and family&quot; that would be dative, and &quot;[from] God and family&quot; would be the ablative. So the context will help us get a more accurate translation." CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:16:10.897" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15344" PostId="7050" Score="2" Text="Related: [Are “-que” and “et” equivalent?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1/are-que-and-et-equivalent)" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:24:05.793" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15371" PostId="7050" Score="0" Text="Neither really makes much sense to me because of the form of the words. They appear to be in the ablative, which without a preposition would mean 'by means of god and family'." CreationDate="2018-08-21T18:21:26.233" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15329" PostId="7051" Score="3" Text="I am curious: Where did you come across that phrase?" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:36:04.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15350" PostId="7051" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Twitch.tv chat :D, someone joked on this topic and everyone seemed like they know what it is all about. I didnt want to look stupid, so I asked here." CreationDate="2018-08-20T09:59:50.180" UserId="2850" />
  <row Id="15360" PostId="7051" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Can you edit your question to add that background in? No matter how unreliable, unscientific and unanything it is, the source of the phrase does make a question more interesting." CreationDate="2018-08-20T17:27:24.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15330" PostId="7052" Score="0" Text="This is right; except why do you translate *smart assimus* as plural? If it's a noun, as it's intended to be, it looks more like a singular (2nd decl.)." CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:49:07.197" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="15334" PostId="7052" Score="3" Text="@LarsH Mostly because the plural seems to make more sense in the context of the joke; I'm not sure the writer knew second-declension endings. (If they did, I wouldn't expect *-imus* as the ending at all.)" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:43:36.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15342" PostId="7052" Score="0" Text="Maybe, but a lot of people who know practically no Latin know that -i is the plural of -us in Latin loan words. Also I don't see why the singular makes less sense in the context of this joke." CreationDate="2018-08-20T02:50:06.790" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="15343" PostId="7052" Score="0" Text="@LarsH Fair, added a note" CreationDate="2018-08-20T02:56:54.390" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15326" PostId="7054" Score="0" Text="What numbering of Sappho does LSJ use? Just curious to know what the 66 is. I'm also wondering whether one of the Alcaeus fragments mentioned is the &quot;o d'Areus phaisi ken Aphaiston agen bia&quot; which Bergk and Edmonds put in the Sappho section." CreationDate="2018-08-19T05:55:26.200" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15327" PostId="7054" Score="0" Text="LSJ uses Bergk, for both Sappho and Alcaeus; the &quot;Suppl.&quot; for both is Diels, &quot;Supp. Lyr.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-19T07:36:33.073" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15328" PostId="7054" Score="0" Text="Curious. Sappho 32 in my Bergk is &quot;Ai d' ekhes eslon imeron e kalon&quot; (the one addressed to Alcaeus and quoted by Aristotle's Rhetoric, which contains no form of phemi, whereas the fragment at hand is 36. 66 is just &quot;parthenon adyphonon&quot;, no phemi there. Were there more than one Bergk?" CreationDate="2018-08-19T07:49:37.580" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15331" PostId="7054" Score="0" Text="A typo is not out of the question, either in the original LSJ or in the Perseus transcription." CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:57:57.000" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15351" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="One could get to G=C through archaic orthography (though arguably cheating), right?" CreationDate="2018-08-20T11:52:32.327" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15352" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="Sorry, no. That would be the exact opposite of what we are looking for" CreationDate="2018-08-20T12:44:07.650" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15353" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="In fact, I would say that it's the trivial group! G = C by the praenomina Gaius ~ Caius or Gnaeus ~ Cnaeus, which used both spellings with the same pronunciation in classical times." CreationDate="2018-08-20T15:41:08.473" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15354" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="(Also, just a nitpick: your example for G doesn't quite work, since both forms have the same number of Gs in them. The attested variant *adnoscō* does work.)" CreationDate="2018-08-20T15:44:02.860" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15358" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="@Rafael No, I think that counts indeed. Many of my relations stem from phenomena just like that. I added that as a separate note; I'm not sure whether to edit the answer to say that the group is trivial." CreationDate="2018-08-20T17:23:50.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15359" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Good catch! I had written my argument for G badly. I also added a discussion on C=G." CreationDate="2018-08-20T17:25:05.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15363" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="But these are different sounds for a single symbol. As soon as the new one pops into existence, it starts telling sounds apart: no two symbols for the same sound (at least arguably not at the same time)" CreationDate="2018-08-20T19:10:19.987" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15364" PostId="7055" Score="1" Text="@Rafael By the classical time the abbreviations for Gnaeus and Gaius are Cn. and C., and in this context one can argue that the C and G sound alike. I agree that this is fishy (unless someone finds a better way to put it), so perhaps it's indeed best left as an additional remark as it is now." CreationDate="2018-08-20T19:29:56.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38408" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="Thanks Joonas Ilmavirta♦. Asteroides = sumelic ?" CreationDate="2022-05-27T04:43:01.473" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="38450" PostId="7055" Score="0" Text="@BCLC Yes, indeed. I updated the answer. Users change names from time to time. Thanks for catching that!" CreationDate="2022-05-30T06:42:13.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15335" PostId="7056" Score="0" Text="It doesn't appear in Lewis &amp; Short, at least, but it's hard to prove a negative." CreationDate="2018-08-19T16:06:47.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15337" PostId="7056" Score="1" Text="Several dictionaries mention spiritum, -i n. *Itala act. 16.7* (versioni della Bibbia diverse dalla Vulgata)" CreationDate="2018-08-19T17:33:07.647" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15338" PostId="7057" Score="0" Text="I was wondering if Italian _spirito_ (pl. -i) came from that form. As for Ecclesiastical Latin, I've never seen it" CreationDate="2018-08-19T19:10:48.197" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15339" PostId="7057" Score="0" Text="@Rafael The Italian nouns mostly come from Latin accusatives like *spiritum*, which would look like that in both second and fourth declension. The similarity to ablatives and datives is coincidental. See [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5792/79)." CreationDate="2018-08-19T19:31:30.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15340" PostId="7057" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta AFAIK, the mechanism is more or less the same as Spanish, but Spanish kept the -u (espíritu). It might be a 4th-declension thing or an archaism, though" CreationDate="2018-08-19T19:49:55.033" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15355" PostId="7059" Score="0" Text="I could be wrong, but typically the dative cannot be replaced by _ad_. _ad_ indicates a motion toward something whereas the dative is used in the sense of the indirect object or reference, among other things." CreationDate="2018-08-20T16:17:19.437" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15356" PostId="7059" Score="6" Text="No prepositions have the nominative case after them, so the basic premise of your question is flawed." CreationDate="2018-08-20T16:35:05.667" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15357" PostId="7059" Score="1" Text="Yeah, I think you have to add further details about the premise of the question. *de + noun* is not &quot;equivalent&quot; to the genitive. If your question is whether we can come up with a &quot;calque that an English speaker would understand,&quot; then I don't see why word order is off limits." CreationDate="2018-08-20T16:53:57.050" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15361" PostId="7059" Score="0" Text="@cnread Oh! Really? So it is never ever possible to replace a case with preopsition + nominatuve? So then what is _de domi_, or _ad domus_? Are these just repetitions? Or perhaps not allowed at all?" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:00:30.917" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15365" PostId="7059" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho prepositions must be followed by either acc. or abl. This, plus the gradual _fusion_ of case after case (eventually including both acc. and abl.), gave rise to Western romance languages in which everything is down to prepositions + a single &quot;case&quot;. The process also pushed the prepositions' meanings in order to fit" CreationDate="2018-08-20T20:26:00.037" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15366" PostId="7059" Score="1" Text="... but that was barely Latin already, and the meaning changes took different directions depending on regions" CreationDate="2018-08-20T20:33:59.407" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15367" PostId="7059" Score="0" Text="Correct. De domi has no meaning by itself; and even de domo, with the required ablative, isn't equivalent to a genitive, as brianpck has noted in another comment. Ad domus could mean something, but only if domus were *accusative* and *plural* (and even then, I believe it would have to be limited by some other adjective or modifier – though that rule might apply only in the singular, and I don't have a grammar reference nearby). The only way to replace an accusative direct object with a nominative is to change the verb from active to passive." CreationDate="2018-08-20T23:06:35.770" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15368" PostId="7059" Score="0" Text="@cnread IIRC locative plurals only exist in *pluralia tantum,* and without the locative there is no bare accusative of motion towards or bare ablative of motion away. I can find one citation of *ad domus* and a handful of citations of *ad domos.*" CreationDate="2018-08-20T23:22:32.767" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15369" PostId="7059" Score="2" Text="This is not really a Latin question, but a Constructed Language question. Latino Sine Flexione did indeed do what you suggest, using word order for the accusative. Esperanto has had the neologism na proposed as a preposition indicating direct object. To me an Esperanto with na is no longer Esperanto. But then again, a Latin without the ablative is no longer Latin, either." CreationDate="2018-08-21T02:49:13.700" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15370" PostId="7059" Score="0" Text="@cnread I assumed this was possible (changed the question to correct this). A perfectly possible answer it that it is not possible. Some comments ought to be answers!" CreationDate="2018-08-21T09:25:08.623" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15393" PostId="7062" Score="0" Text="Relevant question: are you giving an instruction to yourself to remember your redemption? Or to the world at large?" CreationDate="2018-08-22T18:24:19.720" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15395" PostId="7062" Score="0" Text="This would be for me alone" CreationDate="2018-08-23T02:08:29.087" UserId="2860" />
  <row Id="15397" PostId="7062" Score="0" Text="Ah, okay. I'd suggest editing that into the question then just to clarify!" CreationDate="2018-08-23T02:16:50.650" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15372" PostId="7063" Score="1" Text="Regarding the date, if you want to keep it Ecclesiastical, I'd go for XXV augusti MMXV" CreationDate="2018-08-21T20:48:18.433" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15373" PostId="7063" Score="0" Text="Are you going for a late/liturgical Latin construction with ut redemptus/a sis? Because I don't think it's Classical Latin, where that would work only as an indirect question ('remember how you were redeemed'). Otherwise, just use an accusative+inf.: memento te redemptum/am esse." CreationDate="2018-08-21T21:07:03.577" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15377" PostId="7063" Score="0" Text="@cnread also _quia_ redemptus sis/es (cf. _memento quia pulvus es et in pulverem reverteris_)" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:13:10.060" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15378" PostId="7063" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Quia is a much better suggestion! Switched to use that" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:25:09.580" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15380" PostId="7063" Score="0" Text="Don't forget the date!" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:33:53.700" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15381" PostId="7063" Score="0" Text="[Pulv**i**s, -eris, m.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulvis), my bad" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:38:16.593" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15382" PostId="7064" Score="1" Text="Which begs the question: what evidence is there for the other P.Oxy. 1787 fragments to be Sappho when some are even more in tatters? I mean, I can think of three sources of evidence: 1. content, 2. being on the same roll, 3. meter. Number 1 clearly doesn't apply to the more tattery fragments where no intelligible word is found. Number 2... I'd expect it to be the reason why these are all P.Oxy. 1787. Number 3... hmm. The meter can't be made out very clearly here, but ll.2l 2-3 seem like they could be ionic, while l. 3 has three longs in a row so it couldn't be. (continues in next comment)" CreationDate="2018-08-22T06:43:43.947" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15383" PostId="7064" Score="0" Text="Maybe this has something to do with this fragment not being in LP and Voigt?" CreationDate="2018-08-22T06:44:13.470" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15376" PostId="7065" Score="1" Text="Did you mean memoramini?" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:11:14.463" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15379" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="Why -āmini instead of -entō?" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:28:56.823" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15385" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. I have modelled this on  “remoramini pristinos dies,” Vulg. Heb. 10, 32." CreationDate="2018-08-22T10:01:25.137" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15387" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="Then I'd say it is [&quot;re**me**moramini&quot;](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Hbr.html#x10_32), unless [it is a version-thing](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch) (which could be perfectly possible). Both the Clementine Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata use rememoramini, which is more familiar to me. Remoramini sounds like a dat. or abl. of [remoramen](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dremoramen)" CreationDate="2018-08-22T11:51:31.853" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15388" PostId="7065" Score="1" Text="@Rafael. &quot;Remoramini&quot; seems to be a typo (horrors) in L &amp; S. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drememoror I have corrected it in my answer." CreationDate="2018-08-22T12:32:42.267" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15389" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="Phew! I was scared. In fact if you go to the text you get [rememoramini](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3DHebrews%3Achapter%3D10%3Averse%3D32)" CreationDate="2018-08-22T14:37:19.677" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15390" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="Remember that this is still plural. The singular version would be [_(re)memorare_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorare). I can think of an instance of &quot;consolamini popule meus&quot;, but I'd say the key is that _populus_ implies many people." CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:32:09.180" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15391" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="@fdb But Hebrews 10:32 is addressing multiple people, isn't it? *Rememoramini* to me seems exclusively plural." CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:59:07.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15392" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. I was assuming that &quot;remember redemption&quot; is also addressed to the world at large. Of course the singular is (re)memorare." CreationDate="2018-08-22T17:50:41.493" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15394" PostId="7065" Score="1" Text="@fdb Fair; commented on the main question to ask for clarification. I figured it was an instruction to a single person, like *mementō morī*." CreationDate="2018-08-22T18:24:44.657" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15396" PostId="7065" Score="0" Text="It is for me alone, I am a woman, and I am extremely grateful for all of your carful consideration. Thank you." CreationDate="2018-08-23T02:11:13.427" UserId="2860" />
  <row Id="15409" PostId="7067" Score="0" Text="When a word is missing in de Vaan it's often because he thinks it's a loanword (which his dictionary excludes, for some reason) -- maybe that's the case with *strix*." CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:17:31.977" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15420" PostId="7067" Score="0" Text="@TKR Possible: Wiktionary connects it to a putative Greek *_strinx_ but I can't find attestation of that anywhere." CreationDate="2018-08-24T03:20:22.997" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15427" PostId="7067" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. http://www.zeno.org/Pape-1880/A/%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B3%CE%BE" CreationDate="2018-08-24T08:33:43.970" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15428" PostId="7067" Score="0" Text="Walde cites this as a (potential) cognate, not as the source of a borrowing." CreationDate="2018-08-24T08:35:06.247" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15398" PostId="7068" Score="1" Text="Do you mean anything particular by &quot;see me&quot; besides &quot;look at me&quot;? The former is a bit awkward on its own in English." CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:17:06.270" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15399" PostId="7068" Score="0" Text="No, not &quot;look at me&quot;. Think of it as a movie title about that person mentioned above. Something like a cry &quot;please, [see me]&quot;, but without &quot;please&quot;. I mean, &quot;see&quot; is more in general, &quot;look at&quot; is like here and now." CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:19:27.780" UserId="2862" />
  <row Id="15402" PostId="7068" Score="1" Text="By &quot;see&quot; do you mean &quot;perceive&quot; or &quot;look specifically at&quot;? English uses the same word for both, but in Latin they're distinct." CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:55:43.370" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15422" PostId="7068" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I mean see like in &quot;don't ignore me&quot; or &quot;talk to me [in general, not specifically here and now]&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-24T07:28:47.180" UserId="2862" />
  <row Id="15400" PostId="7069" Score="1" Text="Nothing was “added” in the oblique cases. s &gt; r rhotacism" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:07:17.933" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15401" PostId="7069" Score="2" Text="Note that the adjective is first/second, not third: *foedus, -a, -um*." CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:44:40.210" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15414" PostId="7069" Score="0" Text="But the stem in Classical Latin is _foeder-_, just like _vetus, veter-_, and similar to _corpus, corpor-_. Draconis' answer gives the historical background." CreationDate="2018-08-23T22:08:54.740" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15403" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="foedus is a neuter -s stem, so there was never a second s for the nominative singular (&quot;foidos-s&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:42:36.143" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15404" PostId="7070" Score="1" Text="Can we be sure the oblique cases originally had *foidos- ?  It looks parallel to _genus/generis_, which when compared to its Greek cognate γένος/γένεος suggests an original e/o ablaut." CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:51:01.150" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15405" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@fdb D'oh, I thought it was masculine for some reason. Lemme fix that." CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:54:09.740" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15406" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@varro I'm not actually sure; I'm going by what TKR said in the linked answer, but I can't think of any way to distinguish the two cases unfortunately." CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:56:22.320" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15407" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="γένος/γένεος can only be explained by ablaut. Likewise Old Church Slavonic slovo/slovese." CreationDate="2018-08-23T17:26:08.830" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15408" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@fdb Oh, I'm not doubting it happens in PIE, I'm wondering if that's relevant in Proto-Italic/Latin given the merging of short vowels, or if there's any way to be sure it wasn't already neutralized in Proto-Italic. Some ablaut patterns are definitely still there in Latin (pater vs patris) but I can't think of any case that would show this one meaningfully." CreationDate="2018-08-23T17:29:07.387" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15426" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="Thanks! How common is this in Latin?" CreationDate="2018-08-24T08:07:50.233" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15431" PostId="7070" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho Which part, the -us/-eris pattern? It's quite common: latus/lateris &quot;side&quot;, genus/generis &quot;gender&quot;, sidus/sideris &quot;star&quot;, just off the top of my head." CreationDate="2018-08-24T15:05:28.303" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15451" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="The e-grade of the suffix in the weak cases is the most common (and logical) reconstruction. Naturally, it was accented since this a neuter s-stem noun, i.e. it belongs to the proterokinetic (or proterodynamic) accent-ablaut class." CreationDate="2018-08-25T19:02:36.027" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15452" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="Also, I assume the declension paradigm is a reconstruction, so gen. sg. should probably have *es, i.e. PIt. *foidéses." CreationDate="2018-08-25T19:16:00.190" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15454" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I'm not too familiar with Proto-Italic declension; at what point (and how) did *es turn into -is?" CreationDate="2018-08-25T22:03:57.543" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15455" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I assumed you would want an scholarly reference to back up my claim, so here's Weiss 2009/2011: *e &gt; i/_C# (rule I.A.7, page 138), i.e. the raising of e to i before a consonant in a final syllable.  It's usually called &quot;e-raising&quot; or &quot;the raising of e to i&quot;. He mentions the following examples, FECED &gt; FECID and SALVTES &gt; salutis." CreationDate="2018-08-26T01:32:43.203" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15456" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Excellent, ty! Not asking for a source so much as for a point in the process, so that I can edit that into the appropriate part of the answer. But the reference is much appreciated!" CreationDate="2018-08-26T01:40:59.730" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15457" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="As for *es in gen.sg. of 3rd declension nouns specifically, we do have some inscriptional evidence: SALVTES, VENERES, IVNONE[NE]S." CreationDate="2018-08-26T01:45:12.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15460" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@varro if anyone has doubts whether the suffix had the e- or o-grade in the weak (oblique) cases, they should read Sihler (page 307). imho he's very convincing." CreationDate="2018-08-26T02:52:20.227" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15461" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@varro I've just found out - accidentally - that Sihler is merely repeating (albeit in English) Leumann et al. 1977 (the latter, as we know, is in German)." CreationDate="2018-08-26T03:14:29.017" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15464" PostId="7070" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Thanks for the reference.  I don't have access to Leumann, but do have Sihler, and I agree." CreationDate="2018-08-26T16:25:08.657" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15527" PostId="7070" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I added a note about the PIE ablaut. Would you be interested in adding an answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1907/406) as well, which currently has nothing about ablaut in it? I'm curious if the ablaut has any effect on the difference between -eris S-stems like *latus* and -oris S-stems like *corpus*. TKR's analogical explanation seems convincing, but then again I don't know anything really about ablaut in noun declension." CreationDate="2018-08-28T16:33:03.237" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15411" PostId="7071" Score="2" Text="Also consider the verb [respicio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drespicio)" CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:44:23.173" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15413" PostId="7071" Score="1" Text="I like the first suggestion: it reminds me of the *O Vos Omnes: &quot;O vos ómnes qui transítis per víam, atténdite et vidéte: / Si est dólor símilis sícut dólor méus.&quot; The last option isn't grammatical, though: you can't form negative commands that way." CreationDate="2018-08-23T19:45:05.660" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15421" PostId="7071" Score="2" Text="I'm really not sure attendo is the right verb here. In my experience (and my dictionaries seem to agree), although it does mean 'pay attention,' it's in the sense of 'apply one's careful attention to,' 'set one's mind to,' or 'watch/observe/study closely,' not merely in the sense of 'see' or 'not ignore.' Even in the quotation that brianpck mentions above, attendite doesn't appear to mean the same thing as the videte that follows it – in fact, I think videte is closer than attendite to what the original poster has requested." CreationDate="2018-08-24T06:04:30.937" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15423" PostId="7071" Score="0" Text="Without being a latin expert, I think I agree with @cnread. &quot;Attendite me&quot; seems more like &quot;look at me here and now&quot; (having the english meaning of &quot;attention&quot; in mind), while I'm searching for something like &quot;nec ignora me&quot;, but not as a negation, that is &quot;see me&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-24T07:34:35.817" UserId="2862" />
  <row Id="15424" PostId="7071" Score="0" Text="@cnread I think [this example](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2021%3A5&amp;version=VULGATE;NIV) from the Vulgata is in the required sense, but sure, maybe there is a more precise term." CreationDate="2018-08-24T08:04:27.800" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15425" PostId="7071" Score="0" Text="@brianpck How would a negative command be?" CreationDate="2018-08-24T08:05:52.570" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15429" PostId="7071" Score="0" Text="Eccl./Vulgate Examples: [ne+subjunctive (1)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_tuum_praesidium#Latin), [(2)](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Lc.html#x1_30), [noli (nolite if pl.)+infinitive](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Mt.html#x7_1)" CreationDate="2018-08-24T12:01:51.440" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15430" PostId="7071" Score="1" Text="@Rafael mmm, so the imperative can only be used in the &quot;affirmative&quot; sense? I guess is similar in Spanish, e.g. _come!_ and _no comas!_..." CreationDate="2018-08-24T12:34:32.323" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15432" PostId="7071" Score="1" Text="I'm pretty sure you can't use *nē* followed by an imperative, only *nē* with subjunctive or *nolī* with infinitive. Amusingly, *nē* with imperative makes me think of an Ancient Greek-speaker unfamiliar with Latin, because the direct translation of that is perfectly good Ancient Greek." CreationDate="2018-08-24T15:59:45.940" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15433" PostId="7071" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho: Actually, I think the example from the Vulgate that you linked to in an earlier comment supports my point. Look at the translation that's given: 'Look at,' which is exactly what the original poster has said he doesn't want." CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:54:56.373" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15434" PostId="7071" Score="2" Text="@Draconis: ne + imperative is early (or maybe just colloquial) and poetic.  Plautus's Curculio has 'ne time' (520) and Vergil's, Aeneid has 'equo ne credite, Teucri' (2.48) and 'tu ne cede malis' (6.95)." CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:04:14.047" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15435" PostId="7071" Score="0" Text="@cnread Ah, interesting! Ty!" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:04:52.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15436" PostId="7071" Score="0" Text="@cnread To be honest, the question is far from clear. I hope the OP could add more details, because as brianpck pointed out, &quot;see me&quot; in English is rather odd." CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:09:07.813" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15441" PostId="7074" Score="0" Text="This is my opinion only, but think I macrons simply look wrong outside of their use in dictionaries and teaching materials.  For a tattoo, I would definitely avoid them.  Otherwise, I agree with your response." CreationDate="2018-08-24T22:02:25.907" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15442" PostId="7074" Score="0" Text="@varro Completely fair; I like them because the ambiguity of leaving them off gets under my skin, so I include them whenever possible. But leaving them off is certainly in no way wrong!" CreationDate="2018-08-24T22:26:45.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15438" PostId="7075" Score="0" Text="Here is a similar question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1306/when-to-use-a-genitive-pronoun-instead-of-a-possessive-adjective" CreationDate="2018-08-24T20:43:10.327" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15443" PostId="7075" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yep, I actually linked that one in the question! That one's about when to use *meī* with a possessive/subjective, though, while this one's about whether a specific instance counts as possessive/subjective or not." CreationDate="2018-08-24T22:27:50.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15437" PostId="7077" Score="5" Text="Unfortunately, this is problematic on two levels: (1) the search results aren't filtered to just Latin, (2) more to the point, I guarantee that 99% (if not 100%) of the *mei/tui/sui* results are possessive *adjectives*, not *pronouns.* For instance, the first Latin result for *mors mei* reads *mors **mei praesulis***." CreationDate="2018-08-24T20:41:35.070" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15444" PostId="7077" Score="0" Text="@brianpck (1) solved. I made the proportions even stronger though. Regarding (2), even if filtering for pronouns case only, would the huge differences in hits make the answer to reverse very unlikely?" CreationDate="2018-08-25T07:54:46.277" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15449" PostId="7077" Score="0" Text="My point was actually that the huge difference should be even more huge (i.e. verging on 0 hits) for pronouns used in this way. In other words, *mors mei* means &quot;the death of my...&quot;, not &quot;the death of me.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-25T17:15:56.303" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15462" PostId="7077" Score="0" Text="@brianpck But surely that, in this purely statistical method, wold be evidence enough that _mea_ is the common/correct term?" CreationDate="2018-08-26T10:16:50.540" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15467" PostId="7077" Score="1" Text="Correct, but it's very easy to interpret this answer as giving evidence that &quot;mors mei&quot; is uncommon but admissible, when in fact it is never used for &quot;my death.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-08-26T17:15:09.753" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15468" PostId="7077" Score="1" Text="@brianpck oh, I understand now. Yes, you are totally correct on that. I will update to point this out." CreationDate="2018-08-26T17:24:17.443" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15445" PostId="7078" Score="1" Text="_Una_ seems an odd way of translating &quot;united&quot;: it means &quot;one (feminine)&quot;. I would expect something like _coniuncti_ (&quot;joined&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-08-25T10:05:29.147" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15446" PostId="7078" Score="1" Text="It isn't good Latin and, in fact, I'd say it was hardly Latin at all. The website of the (English) University of Kingston upon Hull has _&quot;Our motto,_  Lampada Ferens, _translates as 'carrying the light of learning', and over the years, we've shared that light with thousands of people&quot;_ ..., which would have a better Latin feel to it." CreationDate="2018-08-25T14:34:28.833" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15463" PostId="7085" Score="0" Text="Ah, but now I’m wondering, why manis instead of mane? I apologise if this is all really basic and thank you ever so much for your help " CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:56:40.553" UserId="2871" />
  <row Id="15466" PostId="7085" Score="0" Text="@mae I updated the answer. I got that wrong. _mane_ is indeclinable, so regardless of the case (most of nouns in Latin are declinables; see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension)), morning is always _mane_. So, considering that morning breath is an example of two nouns together, where &quot;morning&quot; is a [noun adjunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct), and that these can usually be rewritten with a preposition (in this case, &quot;of&quot;), I'm trying to translate the phrase &quot;breath of the morning&quot;. If that is not the meaning you intend, then this might not be good." CreationDate="2018-08-26T16:57:47.033" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15479" PostId="7088" Score="0" Text="Ah fantastic, this is where I was struggling. The phrase is to be used on a coffee cup and is to be a play on words, very roughly along the lines of (coffee gives me) morning breath (life/wakes me up) (but without the actual written ref to coffee if this makes sense). So with these two answers would “matutinus spiritus” make sense please?" CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:22:44.053" UserId="2871" />
  <row Id="15480" PostId="7088" Score="0" Text="Or matutinus spiro?" CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:26:57.510" UserId="2871" />
  <row Id="15500" PostId="7088" Score="0" Text="@mae What a great idea for a coffee cup!  I think _matutinus spiritus_  would work (a combination of cnread's and luchonacho's answers).  Although it doesn't convey the sense of *bad* breath, it does convey the other senses you're after: a breath, an animating spirit, a smell, and even inspiration." CreationDate="2018-08-28T04:21:24.993" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="15470" PostId="7089" Score="0" Text="&quot;Who wrote in Aeolic? Sappho and Alcaeus, that I know of.&quot; And Julia Balbilla, though her Aeolic is pastiche." CreationDate="2018-08-27T07:56:02.040" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15471" PostId="7089" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas Who is that :)? PS I would be on that list as well, but only after I started Sappho, I think. I wrote some Sapphic and Alcaic stanzas in Aeolic, plus a few &quot;warning lines&quot; for Sappho's poems (stuff like &quot;There's one or more lines missing here, the last of which may have ended with 'Ilíō'&quot; or &quot;This exists only by my phantasy&quot;, but cfr. my blog post &quot;All of Sappho&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-08-27T08:09:53.767" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15472" PostId="7089" Score="0" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Balbilla" CreationDate="2018-08-27T08:14:18.833" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15473" PostId="7089" Score="0" Text="You have a lot more to work with with Doric than with Aeolic. But that's an argument for sticking with Aeolic, in fact: more tractable :) . In going with Sappho instead of Alcaeus, you avoided the surprise of θᾶς: http://hellenisteukontos.opoudjis.net/aeolic-θᾶς-until/" CreationDate="2018-08-27T08:18:38.270" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15474" PostId="7089" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas Lucky that appendix had Aeolic before Doric then :). Otherwise I'd have Pindar on the blog instead of Sappho, probably :)." CreationDate="2018-08-27T08:42:06.587" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15952" PostId="7089" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas Actually I may not really have avoided it – well, back in the days, definitely, but with P.GC. coming to my attention, [that word seems to pop up](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-few-papyri-transcribed.html#GCrest). Surprise! :)" CreationDate="2018-10-13T19:49:50.403" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15478" PostId="7093" Score="1" Text="Here's another example of a comparative adjective formed from an adverb:  *cis* adverb =on this side; *citerior* adjective =nearer on this side, hithermost." CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:15:36.473" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15516" PostId="7093" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Citerior apparently comes from [citer](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dciter). *Anterior* is late Latin, according to L&amp;S. Not sure about the technical names of the processes, but maybe the fact it's not classical supports the idea the ending was derived by analogy with postea &gt; poster(us) &gt; posterior, through a non-existent (overcorrected?) *anterus" CreationDate="2018-08-28T12:05:16.170" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15521" PostId="7093" Score="0" Text="@Rafael *Infra* is another interesting form.  Does that spell out the same way?" CreationDate="2018-08-28T15:31:11.773" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15523" PostId="7093" Score="0" Text="Apparently ***infer*** is the Latin for **&quot;Bring it on!&quot;**" CreationDate="2018-08-28T15:44:20.547" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15529" PostId="7093" Score="0" Text="@Hugh for _inferior_ you have the adj. [_inferus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinferus). I wrote an answer on _anterus_ since I think it was answer worthy with a bit more evidence I found." CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:25:09.880" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15475" PostId="7094" Score="1" Text="(1) is the previous edition of Hesychius (1961?); (3) the new edition." CreationDate="2018-08-27T10:42:58.327" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15476" PostId="7094" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas What about (2)?" CreationDate="2018-08-27T10:44:45.710" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15477" PostId="7094" Score="1" Text="The edition of Hesychius before that. From the app crit of the current edition: Ὠράνα  χελιδόνων ὀροφή  is in fact what is in the manuscript. So (2) is what is in the manuscript of Hesychius, (1) is (Schmidt's?) edition, and (3) is Hansen &amp; Cunningham's." CreationDate="2018-08-27T10:49:22.777" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15481" PostId="7094" Score="1" Text="Sorry, I was wrong about the date. 1961 is when the modern edition started, but it didn't get to omega until 2009. So (3) is 2009, (1) is presumably Schmidt in 1868, and (2) is the ms reading; whoever used it was rejecting Schmidt's emendation." CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:53:53.617" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15482" PostId="7094" Score="0" Text="Les Belles Lettres is indeed the premier French publisher of classical texts, like Oxford University Press." CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:55:03.647" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15517" PostId="7094" Score="1" Text="French publishers are notoriously bad at indicating the date of publication. The date you see on the title page is normally that of the last reprint." CreationDate="2018-08-28T12:21:36.433" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15522" PostId="7095" Score="4" Text="Reinforced, no doubt, by analogy with _posterior_, _interior_, _exterior_." CreationDate="2018-08-28T15:33:16.683" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15485" PostId="7096" Score="0" Text="Can't help you. Not in my sources." CreationDate="2018-08-27T22:00:14.377" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15486" PostId="7096" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas [That source](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) gives it as Wharton 12 and Cox 12. I verified Wharton 12 is just Edmonds 9. Do you by chance have Cox to debunk the other number?" CreationDate="2018-08-28T00:37:15.237" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15487" PostId="7096" Score="0" Text="And of course we all remember what I wrote about Edmonds (or rather my quote from Campbell about Edmonds). https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4820/39" CreationDate="2018-08-28T02:16:35.087" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15488" PostId="7096" Score="0" Text="Ditto Cox: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sappho/sappho0.htm. Cox only cites under 12:  Ὄττινας γὰρ εὖ θέω, κῆνοί με μάλιστα σίννονται. The mishmash in &quot;The Complete Poems&quot; is in curly brackets, which means it's someone's guesswork; but it's not Cox's." CreationDate="2018-08-28T02:19:28.760" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15489" PostId="7096" Score="0" Text="Damn, I really want to know where the mishmash came from now. The TLG, where I used to work, did not digitise the really tiny fragments of Sappho; I'd be scouring Lobel &amp; Page for &quot;καλλος&quot;." CreationDate="2018-08-28T02:46:16.580" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15498" PostId="7096" Score="0" Text="And I have no idea what ἐπιτμέζον is supposed to be, and how you get from it to &quot;serve in my life&quot;. Campbell treats this as ἐπετ[ .... ] μέ&lt;σ&gt;δον, which means ἐπιτ[μέζον] is a massive distortion—it's not meant to be a single verb at all." CreationDate="2018-08-28T04:14:31.000" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15501" PostId="7096" Score="0" Text="@AlexB I only referenced Edmonds because item 1 was readily locatable there and not in e.g. Campbell. I very well remember that quotation and have billions of examples of &quot;eagerness to fill the gaps&quot; in mind." CreationDate="2018-08-28T08:30:24.373" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15491" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas There you go!" CreationDate="2018-08-28T03:56:42.973" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15492" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="Thank you! Now to work out why that didn't show up elsewhere in searches..." CreationDate="2018-08-28T03:57:25.737" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15493" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="High res http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg" CreationDate="2018-08-28T03:59:19.590" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15494" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas I don't really know. It literally took me seconds https://www.loebclassics.com/" CreationDate="2018-08-28T04:02:07.570" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15495" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="Well, the completion as ἑπέτμεζον is the word I was looking for, and that completion isn't there. The fragment does not seem to be in Lobel–Page, which is my go-to. There's more to be said about this..." CreationDate="2018-08-28T04:04:22.073" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15496" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="I do have the volume at home, so I'll be looking at its app crit too..." CreationDate="2018-08-28T04:07:11.057" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15497" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas Enjoy! Unfortunately, that's all I can do for now." CreationDate="2018-08-28T04:08:24.123" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15499" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas Perhaps because it is &quot;Sappho, Opus incertum 04 (?) (4. Commented upon)&quot; https://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=62703" CreationDate="2018-08-28T04:21:19.573" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15502" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas actually Campbell 90 and Lobel-Page 90 are the same P.Oxy. 2293, only Campbell doesn't follow the line breaking of the papyrus and Lobel-Page does. In fact, I have been contemplating to ask a question on the numbering of the fragments there, given my image has 3 papyrus fragments and Lobel-Page only mentions fragments 1(a) and 1(b) which is two fragments." CreationDate="2018-08-28T08:37:56.487" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15503" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="Also Lobel-Page has essential a raw transcription of the papyrus while Campbell splits words and completes a bit." CreationDate="2018-08-28T08:43:34.873" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15504" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="Yup, I've just seen it, and I'm going to give my answer now." CreationDate="2018-08-28T08:48:15.660" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15505" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="My copy of Voigt is still the same offline-saved Scribd (IIRC) document as always. I have in fact been comparing it will Lobel-Page lately to build a huge number comparison table between Lobel-Page, Voigt, Campbell, Edmonds, Bergk, Bibliotheca Augustana, Aoidoi.org, a document called &quot;SaffoComm1.doc&quot;, TCPOS, my blog, my blog's Spanish Sappho, my blog's Chinese Sappho, my old files, and safopoemas.doc, to ensure I don't miss anything. I just didn't look for this there. And given it's the only one that is given in a form which is nor a full fragment in any edition, I probably wouldn't have..." CreationDate="2018-08-28T08:52:27.200" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15506" PostId="7097" Score="0" Text="...fou6it even if I'd looked. At this point, the only question left is where the mishmash comes from. I have seen two such mishmashes in safopoemas, but at least those were collapsations into single fragments of many P.Oxy. fragments of the same number, precisely 1231 and 1787. Here the sources are pretty disparaged, so I wonder if there was any criterion for making this one." CreationDate="2018-08-28T08:55:04.257" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15515" PostId="7099" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the hood, old friend!" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:51:54.497" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15518" PostId="7099" Score="0" Text="The answer is here https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1907/eris-oris-uris/1908#1908" CreationDate="2018-08-28T13:15:54.250" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15559" PostId="7099" Score="1" Text="Allow me to grant you a bronze badge for your question, my friend. :-)" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:18:50.517" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="15560" PostId="7099" Score="1" Text="@Charlie so nice to feel your kindness also in this site!" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:23:42.357" UserId="1896" />
  <row Id="15508" PostId="7101" Score="1" Text="Maybe we should email Mr. Palmer to ask him where he found that mishmash (and perhaps also why he didn't include, among others, the Athenaeus quotation ἔγω δὲ phílēm' abrosýnan), and also that other mishmash I just saw in Bergk 15, consisting in three identifiable fragments smashed together as `εγω δ’εμ’[αυται τουτο συ]νοιδα μη κινη χεραδος ου γαρ θεμις εν μοισοπολων`. Then again, maybe it's just a weird cutout of our mishmash?" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:12:39.203" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15509" PostId="7101" Score="0" Text="I will check Carson and Powell for the mishmash. He also mentions Barnstone, which I don't have." CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:13:13.670" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15512" PostId="7101" Score="1" Text="Looking for &quot;beauty&quot; in Powell and Carson doesn't reveal the fragment at hand." CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:28:28.023" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15514" PostId="7101" Score="0" Text="I tried googling mishmash 2 and one of the results is http://www.elwaseet-brokers.com/forums/showthread.php, which just won't open on my mobile. Can you open it?" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:11:02.610" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15519" PostId="7101" Score="0" Text="Sean Palmer is a programmer and the take-home message is to forget about it and continue to enjoy reading Sappho in good scholarly editions." CreationDate="2018-08-28T13:20:41.523" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15520" PostId="7101" Score="0" Text="The world is a giddy thing, Alex B, and in the world we now inhabit, both the mismatch and Palmer's miscopying have become part of the reception of Sappho. (Witness the musical recording of the mishmash.)  ἐπιτμέζον is a modern misreading, which joins the more venerable ancient misreadings like διαστήτην." CreationDate="2018-08-28T14:18:02.487" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15532" PostId="7101" Score="0" Text="Can't open that link, @MickG, but in all likelihood it's a spam trap with randomly spidered online text, likely from the blog about Avaton." CreationDate="2018-08-29T00:07:41.877" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15536" PostId="7101" Score="0" Text="@AlexB He does say &lt;&lt;I'm not an expert on Aeolic Greek, so if you want to point out any mistakes, suggested emandations, further commentary, and so on, please contact the author who will be very happy to hear from you.&gt;&gt; though. However, I tried once, all the way back on 16/6/17, and no response has been given, and the bad auto-translation I suggested a replacement to is still there at Lobel-Page 15, so it's probably pointless to write to him..." CreationDate="2018-08-29T07:28:42.100" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16044" PostId="7101" Score="1" Text="It seems the group Avaton is responsible for both the video and the mishmash: cfr. my answer's &quot;Update 2&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-21T23:52:45.610" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="31182" PostId="7101" Score="0" Text="UPDATE The mishmash is a mishmash of Odysseas Elyti̱s mishmashes. More specifically, in Elyti̱s's Sappho edition, we find three mishmashes of interest, numbers 1 2 and 4. Random parts of those were smashed together, with no attention to spacing (which sometimes show line ends) or those signs which say &quot;fragment ends here&quot;, to form this thing. Elyti̱s's edition can be found on z-lib.org. It was Elyti̱s who came up with &quot;served&quot; (or rather, διακόνησα). The real Avaton lyrics are also part of Elyti̱s 2, plus the aeríōn part." CreationDate="2021-03-20T14:26:48.090" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15507" PostId="7102" Score="0" Text="I think it makes a difference whether the syllable is open or closed. Reduction seems to be more common in (but not restricted to) closed syllables." CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:02:10.143" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15510" PostId="7102" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Vowels in internal open syllables were reduced also (to -i- in most contexts; to -e- before -r-, or sometimes before a mute + r cluster; sometimes to -u- before a labial consonant)." CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:17:23.977" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15524" PostId="7102" Score="2" Text="The standard example of my Latin teacher was in + amicus = inimicus. Same thing there." CreationDate="2018-08-28T16:15:09.667" UserId="2878" />
  <row Id="15526" PostId="7103" Score="1" Text="If final ă became ĕ, why didn't that apply to the nominative singular in the first declension? Was there some other counterfeeding process?" CreationDate="2018-08-28T16:24:11.710" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15528" PostId="7103" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I know nothing of linguistic theory, but isn't this an issue of &quot;compound&quot; words only? Are you asking why not **every** final ă became ĕ? As in _rosĕ_? That's a way more dramatic change, imo." CreationDate="2018-08-28T18:08:20.080" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15538" PostId="7103" Score="1" Text="@Draconis, the 1st declension nom. sg. was originally -ā, and shortened for not entirely clear reasons; presumably this shortening postdates non-initial vowel weakening. There are some other examples of final short vowels which &quot;should have&quot; gone to *-i* but didn't because they were originally long, e.g. *male, ego*." CreationDate="2018-08-29T18:22:38.247" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15539" PostId="7103" Score="0" Text="Vowel weakening doesn't only occur in compound words -- for example, *caput / capitis* is the same phenomenon." CreationDate="2018-08-29T18:26:10.023" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15541" PostId="7103" Score="0" Text="@sumelic You're right, sorry -- word-final short vowels behave differently from medial ones. *Male* is, rather, an example of unexpected final vowel quantity (because of iambic shortening)." CreationDate="2018-08-30T00:03:22.453" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15533" PostId="7104" Score="1" Text="Almost the same: [Greek pronunciation, invisible aspiration](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4515/greek-pronunciation-invisible-aspirations) (my impression is that that question focuses on compound words, and doesn’t seem as broadly scoped in terms of dialect and era, but perhaps you could edit this question to mention the older one)" CreationDate="2018-08-29T00:13:46.490" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19247" PostId="7104" Score="1" Text="Hebrew *sanhedrin* &lt; συνέδριον is another piece of evidence that *h-* was preserved in compounds." CreationDate="2019-04-13T19:46:26.910" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19249" PostId="7104" Score="1" Text="@TKR I hadn't thought of that! That would make a good answer in and of itself." CreationDate="2019-04-13T19:48:25.343" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15530" PostId="7106" Score="0" Text="Another instance I've seen is *ὑὕζω* &quot;to hoot&quot; (like an owl does), but that's more onomatopoeia than an actual word. *Ταὧς* is much more legitimate." CreationDate="2018-08-28T22:30:49.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15531" PostId="7106" Score="0" Text="But just to check, is *ταὧς* Attic? I haven't come across it before, but I'd assume the presence/absence of `/h/` was very time- and dialect-dependent." CreationDate="2018-08-28T22:36:33.673" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15534" PostId="7106" Score="1" Text="@Draconis It's listed in Liddell and Scott as an alternate form of ταώς with no indication that it's anything other than Attic.  I've never seen this word in the wild, but I remember coming accross it in some sort of philological work decades ago as being apparently the only example of a Greek word that had an internal rough breathing (other than in compounds).  It's been long enough that I cannot remember the book I read that in, but the example was so striking as to stick in my mind." CreationDate="2018-08-29T00:23:17.960" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15535" PostId="7106" Score="0" Text="@Draconis  Oh, and I see now that you probably should look at the link referenced by sumelic in his comment." CreationDate="2018-08-29T00:30:52.187" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15537" PostId="7106" Score="1" Text="ταώς (with or without spiritus asper) is an Oriental loan word and thus not really relevant for Greek phonology. For the “inner aspiration” Beekes refers to Schwyzer: 219 (not available to me at the moment)." CreationDate="2018-08-29T16:44:28.970" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15655" PostId="7109" Score="0" Text="[Here](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH0120/b92c5cfb.dir/POxy.v0075.n5039.a.01.hires.jpg) is P.Oxy. 5039. The top-right-most fragment has a line 2 that looks like ]ϹÁΝΑΤ̣ . [, which more or less matches the safopoemas version of the papyrus fragment άθανά[τ, so I guess that is it." CreationDate="2018-09-07T08:49:36.123" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15656" PostId="7109" Score="1" Text="Let's see if I can recognize fragment 9 too. Nope. Damn." CreationDate="2018-09-07T08:51:33.323" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="19418" PostId="7109" Score="0" Text="Actually, scratch that. [P.Oxy. 2442, image 2](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH0115.dir/POxy.v0026.n2442.a.04.hires.jpg), fr. 86 is olim P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 8. Time to find olim fr. 9. UPDATE It's numbered 87." CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:39:40.803" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15543" PostId="7110" Score="2" Text="Interesting question! If you don't end up getting a sufficient answer here, you could consider asking at the [history site](https://history.stackexchange.com/) too. I consider it to be on topic for both sites. If you go ahead, please take a look at [this meta discussion on cross-posting](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/159/79). Most importantly, link the two questions clearly and wait for a week or so to see what you get here. I hope you get a good answer here!" CreationDate="2018-08-31T07:19:38.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15544" PostId="7110" Score="1" Text="I am not sure that this is correct. Constantinus is a Latin name." CreationDate="2018-08-31T10:29:02.297" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15553" PostId="7110" Score="0" Text="@fdb That's true, but it can also be regarded as a special case, since it was the name of the first Roman emperor centred in New Rome/Constantinople." CreationDate="2018-08-31T20:23:52.997" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15554" PostId="7110" Score="1" Text="&quot;While the language of state and administration [in the Byzantine Empire - Alex B.] was Latin at first, Greek gradually prevailed (in 629 the imperial title became Basileus instead of Imperator)&quot; (Schmalzbauer 2011, &quot;Byzantine Empire&quot; in *Religion Past and Present (RPP) Online*, Brill)" CreationDate="2018-09-01T03:05:46.010" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15555" PostId="7110" Score="0" Text="It was Emperor Heraclius." CreationDate="2018-09-01T03:12:21.090" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15545" PostId="7111" Score="0" Text="Also possible is *'gar'* (gamma alpha rho postpositive) and *'me:n'* (mu eta nu) postpositive particles to emphasise the noun." CreationDate="2018-08-31T11:48:02.767" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15552" PostId="7111" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Good point! How do those differ from *autós*? That would make a good answer in and of itself." CreationDate="2018-08-31T18:43:23.143" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15551" PostId="7112" Score="1" Text="For OP, *autos* and *ipse* are almost the same word, the latter being an emphatic enclitic fused to the third-person pronoun: *is-pse.* earlier latin even has forms like *ea-pse* and *eam-pse.*" CreationDate="2018-08-31T16:28:35.037" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15556" PostId="7112" Score="0" Text="@Anonym: Nice point. And to take it further, idem is likewise formed from is + dem. So, whereas Greek can use αὐτός as 3rd person pronoun, emphatic '-self'/'-selves,' and 'same,' thanks especially to its definite article, Latin has to differentiate the 3 uses through enclitics/suffixes." CreationDate="2018-09-01T21:16:13.453" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15549" PostId="7113" Score="0" Text="Sounds Greek:  Λυσις Ξυνθεσις.  Synthesis at least survives in English." CreationDate="2018-08-31T16:17:58.820" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15550" PostId="7113" Score="2" Text="I found it, It's Solve et coagula @Hugh" CreationDate="2018-08-31T16:21:10.907" UserId="2882" />
  <row Id="15558" PostId="7116" Score="0" Text="All language changes, and many words and phrases change their meanings over time. Words and phrases borrowed from other languages are not immune from this. (And sometimes even recently borrowed words have a different meaning from their original." CreationDate="2018-09-02T21:03:11.037" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15561" PostId="7121" Score="8" Text="I believe you but, could you spare some time to source it?" CreationDate="2018-09-03T12:37:24.813" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15562" PostId="7121" Score="5" Text="@Rafael. http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/actuel or any other etymological dictionary." CreationDate="2018-09-03T12:39:38.500" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15563" PostId="7122" Score="7" Text="&quot;I'll try to answer my own question, if I may&quot;. You may. In fact, it is encouraged, as it will help others who read this question in future ." CreationDate="2018-09-03T13:35:00.883" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="15564" PostId="7122" Score="3" Text="@Mawg thank you! In fact I knew that, I am a very avid user of the Spanish language stack. I wrote that just because I didn't feel confident enough to write an answer in a stack about a language I don't know much about. :-)" CreationDate="2018-09-03T13:44:27.197" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="15565" PostId="7122" Score="2" Text="If you did the research and are sure that what you found will help others, then of course you should not just post, but also accept, your own answer." CreationDate="2018-09-03T14:09:47.187" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="15566" PostId="7122" Score="3" Text="@Mawg The stack loves Q&amp;A and don't discriminate authorship. If the knowledge base improved, everyone won. see [this meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/17845/271150) and [straight from the horse's (Jeff's) mouth](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/07/01/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/). And Charlie gets two upvotes!!" CreationDate="2018-09-03T14:13:10.807" UserId="2886" />
  <row Id="15567" PostId="7122" Score="1" Text="That's the same on every other site :-)" CreationDate="2018-09-03T14:14:26.707" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="15568" PostId="7122" Score="1" Text="It is not clear to me that the quotations support what they are claimed to support. &quot;*Lo que real y verdaderamente existe al tiempo que se dice*&quot; explicitly talks about the present time, and doesn't justify the claim that it has the same meaning as an English word which &quot;*you can use ... to refer to things that existed in the past*&quot;. &quot;*La segunda cosa que se requiere es actuál devolución*&quot; without further context is not obviously *not* saying that the repayment must be made right now." CreationDate="2018-09-03T16:02:48.460" UserId="1790" />
  <row Id="15597" PostId="7123" Score="0" Text="This concept is important to understand how &quot;actualis&quot;/&quot;actual&quot; changed its meaning from &quot;active&quot; to the modern ones, but could you expand the linguistic consequences? Do you know how did the &quot;philosophical&quot; meaning replace the &quot;behavioral&quot; (relative to human actions)?" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:53:07.873" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="15599" PostId="7123" Score="2" Text="@PavelV. Are you referring to the English word &quot;action&quot;? Both seem to be different developments from the verb _ago_. E.g. see _[actio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/actio#Latin)_." CreationDate="2018-09-04T14:08:26.197" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15654" PostId="7123" Score="0" Text="yes. The other answers suggest that the original meaning of &quot;actualis&quot; was closer to &quot;action&quot; than to &quot;act&quot; as the metaphysical concept, or at least somewhere in between. The modern meaning of &quot;actual&quot; in English or Spanish is clearly derived from &quot;act&quot;, so I wonder when did this shift happen." CreationDate="2018-09-07T07:31:36.520" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="15582" PostId="7124" Score="0" Text="I also found this meaning in Latin dictionaries but note that I ask for the meaning of the word in Late Latin. Does this meaning apply to Late Latin or was it used in previous centuries?" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:51:43.030" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="15583" PostId="7124" Score="0" Text="*Macr. Somn. Scip.* refers to Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius' *Commentariorum in Somnium Scipionis*, which was written sometime around 400 AD, well into the Late Latin period." CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:55:59.770" UserId="1790" />
  <row Id="15580" PostId="7126" Score="1" Text="There's also the option to leave *sunt* out, although it could be read as &quot;all the things that started here&quot;." CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:33:43.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15576" PostId="7127" Score="3" Text="Where are you getting the statement that *coepi* has present meaning? I don't think that's right." CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:32:48.867" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15579" PostId="7127" Score="3" Text="Agree with TKR here; *coepī, coepisse, coeptum* is perfect in form and perfect in meaning; *incipiō, incipere, incēpī, inceptum* is used for *to begin* in any of the present system tenses. *hinc* also doesn't mean *here*; it carries the meaning of *from here*, *hence*, *henceforth*, etc. and *abhinc* carries a temporal sense with it, which may or may not be what the OP intended with &quot;here&quot;." CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:55:54.157" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15581" PostId="7127" Score="0" Text="@TKR *Coepio* as the examples show means 'instigate,' in the present. In the L&amp;S examples 'begin' is usually perfect, future-perfect, plu-perfect.." CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:49:35.543" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15584" PostId="7127" Score="3" Text="No, TKR and Ethan Bierlein are correct. The L&amp;S entry simply indicates that although there are present, future, and imperfect forms, these are very rare and primarily preclassical (except the future participle, coepturus); only perfect, future perfect, and pluperfect forms are normally found – and these have perfect, future perfect, and pluperfect meanings. In other words, coepi doesn't work like, e.g., odi, where perfect form = present meaning." CreationDate="2018-09-03T21:10:37.017" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15585" PostId="7129" Score="3" Text="In spoken English a thoughtful person, gathering their thoughts might say, &quot;I was watching, let's see, twelve or fifteen goldfinches eating berries.&quot; Videlicet must be very close to parenthetic 'let's see;' and similar in meaning if *licet* =allow=let." CreationDate="2018-09-04T03:44:29.463" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15586" PostId="7130" Score="1" Text="So the cushions are plural? Then the literal version should perhaps be &quot;And I will put your limbs down on new cushions&quot;, since plural cushions implies genitive case presumably going with katà... My cushions-accusative version had incorrect number, it should have had &quot;a new cushion&quot; rather than &quot;new cushions&quot; as the object. Is that the version you used in your answer?" CreationDate="2018-09-04T07:37:10.330" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15587" PostId="7130" Score="2" Text="i actually did not care about the number of cushions, I was just citing your translation; but http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0019%3Asmythp%3D102 tells me that the plural genitive would have been καινᾶν in Lesbian, not καίναν, though they concede controversy in http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0019%3Asmythp%3D80." CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:16:42.333" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15588" PostId="7130" Score="1" Text="Oh. I thought barytonesis would shift the stress back even on that genitive plural. Well, one cushion then, I guess." CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:38:13.983" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15658" PostId="7130" Score="1" Text="I'm going to come back to this, after I look up a more recent grammar of Aeolic." CreationDate="2018-09-07T13:16:57.210" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15589" PostId="7134" Score="0" Text="Amazing stuff! Thanks! And did you learn this in formal teaching of the discipline or it is just part of the unwritten culture absorbed in practice?" CreationDate="2018-09-04T10:21:12.763" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15590" PostId="7134" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I trained a long time ago and abbreviations like bd/tds/qid etc. were more usual on med charts and in notes and so I think we must have been taught this formally.  They do still occur but English is preferred to avoid any confusion. But even if they disappear formally, I can't imagine talking about patient care without using them and, in that sense, they are a part of the unwritten culture that is absorbed in practice." CreationDate="2018-09-04T11:41:41.443" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="15591" PostId="7134" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho  Also, they are used by many without an understanding of the Latin.  For example, many would say that PO is &quot;per oral&quot;. Similarly, RIP is used in patients' notes but many understand this as &quot;rest in peace&quot; rather than _requiescat in pace_ .  QID is understood as meaning &quot;six hourly&quot;. Thus, although the reference is wrong, the sense has been retained." CreationDate="2018-09-04T11:48:10.920" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="15594" PostId="7134" Score="0" Text="As an aside, I always thought RIP was in the English meaning. In Spanish we use a translated version, QEPD, standing for &quot;_que en paz descanse_&quot;." CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:33:04.183" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15619" PostId="7134" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho  Ah, interesting.  TBH, I'm not entirely sure now which came first, &quot;rest in peace&quot; or _requiescat in pace_. I always understood &quot;rest in peace&quot; to be a calque of the Latin phrase and it's just a happy coincidence that the initialisation of &quot;rest in peace&quot; in English matches. Perhaps this could be a question posed formally?" CreationDate="2018-09-05T01:29:17.507" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="15592" PostId="7135" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Is this an institution that _was_ born to heal or its members that _were_ born to heal? I'm afraid that if you want to have a verb, you need to choose either plural out singular" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:22:48.950" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15593" PostId="7135" Score="0" Text="Also do you want to keep it as close to the English meaning as possible, or would you like to concede a little to sound &quot;more Latin&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:25:46.740" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15598" PostId="7135" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Thank you for the warm welcome. I think, if it sounds more latin, it would fit our need the most. And in regards to the first question, we are having a dilemma about it. But basically, both options &quot;members&quot; and &quot;unit&quot; ..born to heal, could be presented, if possible." CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:54:08.463" UserId="2894" />
  <row Id="15600" PostId="7136" Score="0" Text="The infinitive alone wouldn't be a good translation of English &quot;to heal,&quot; which is a purpose clause." CreationDate="2018-09-04T15:21:21.767" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15601" PostId="7136" Score="0" Text="@brianpck mmmm, do you have an idea of what my translation actually means in English?" CreationDate="2018-09-04T15:38:32.870" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15602" PostId="7136" Score="0" Text="Not sure, but it's similar to Spanish. You wouldn't just say &quot;Nací sanar,&quot; but &quot;Nací *para* sanar.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:08:29.700" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15603" PostId="7136" Score="0" Text="@brianpck But I've seen in many places the infinitive used with the &quot;to&quot; preposition implied. E.g. _considerare_ [here](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=6&amp;ch=2&amp;l=3-#x), _clamare_ [here](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=6&amp;ch=3&amp;l=3-#x), _exultare_ [here](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=6&amp;ch=3&amp;l=7-#x), etc. From these examples is where I got the idea, actually." CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:18:25.370" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15604" PostId="7136" Score="0" Text="The infinitive of purpose is a Vulgar/Later Latin construction, almost unheard of in &quot;proper&quot; Classical speech. The most famous example I can think of is &quot;quo vadis?&quot; &quot;ad Romam crucifigi&quot; (&quot;where are you going?&quot; &quot;I'm going to Rome to be crucified&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:28:08.923" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15605" PostId="7136" Score="0" Text="@Draconis So the answer would be correct in Late Latin but not in Classical Latin? And in which sense _crucifigi_ is different from _sanare_? I don't get it. Doesn't _crucifigi_ also has an implicit &quot;to&quot;? Or is it inherited from the _ad_?" CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:34:21.323" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15606" PostId="7136" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho I've asked a new question about that [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7139/406)." CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:39:34.473" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15607" PostId="7139" Score="0" Text="Some _Vulgata_ examples [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7135/how-is-born-to-heal-in-latin/7136?noredirect=1#comment15603_7136)." CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:41:15.563" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="43627" PostId="7140" Score="1" Text="Might it also be under Greek influence, where I believe the infinitive is a bit freer?" CreationDate="2023-06-16T14:17:26.017" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15608" PostId="7141" Score="3" Text="Your translation is technically correct, word for word, but doesn't make much sense. What's the thing that runs in your blood? That'll affect the Latin." CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:59:22.537" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15610" PostId="7141" Score="0" Text="@Draconis  Thanks for the quick reply. I am looking for a formal sentence. It is literature. It refers to literature but i want the sentence to be exactly a meaningful translatiom of It runs in our blood." CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:12:21.977" UserId="2898" />
  <row Id="15612" PostId="7141" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Thanks for the reply. I have googled your sentence and according to google it means our blood flows. Do you mean the same? Or google may be wrong." CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:22:07.403" UserId="2898" />
  <row Id="15613" PostId="7141" Score="4" Text="Unfortunately, &quot;it runs in our blood&quot; is an English idiom that doesn't translate perfectly into Latin. Off the top of my head I'd use a form of *ingignō* instead. (Also Google Translate is notoriously bad at Latin, don't trust it in general.)" CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:23:16.560" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15615" PostId="7141" Score="0" Text="@Draconis No I don't trust GT and that's why i am here. I just used it to get something in latin. I didn't get the part about ingigno. Would you please tell me your prefered translation?" CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:32:52.787" UserId="2898" />
  <row Id="15616" PostId="7141" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho this one is ok only If really my own sentence doesn't make sense in Latin. Bit i prefee this idiom in Latin." CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:34:09.463" UserId="2898" />
  <row Id="15624" PostId="7141" Score="1" Text="In this sense all the classical example I've traced speak of the blood in terms of the blood-line. They all refer to the parents, or the tribe *gens. 'E Sanguine Gentis Nostrae Currit'* would get round that problem." CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:23:30.007" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15633" PostId="7144" Score="5" Text="How about a picture?" CreationDate="2018-09-05T22:44:40.297" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15641" PostId="7144" Score="2" Text="Ditto @fdb. The answers so far are great but there's no way to give you a more definite answer without more context." CreationDate="2018-09-06T13:31:46.750" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15659" PostId="7144" Score="1" Text="A picture would be very good indeed." CreationDate="2018-09-07T13:44:53.323" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15628" PostId="7147" Score="0" Text="I was remarking that it is sometimes necessary to transform the idiom into something else with the same effect and meaning. I would not, personally, refer to blood at all in this instance." CreationDate="2018-09-05T21:37:28.403" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15629" PostId="7147" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Agreed wholeheartedly! My mind had immediately gone to *ingignō* while you went with *innascor*, so now I'm curious if there's a difference between them, given that they both refer to something inherent from birth." CreationDate="2018-09-05T21:40:21.303" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15623" PostId="7148" Score="2" Text="Sorry, I should clarify, I mean the versions with *in-* &quot;in&quot; as opposed to *in-* &quot;not&quot;: the participles from *ingignō* and *innascor*. For example, L&amp;S cites Suetonius Nero 1 talking about _vitia ingenita_, &quot;inherent flaws&quot;." CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:19:44.517" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15627" PostId="7148" Score="0" Text="May I just point out that _ingenuus_ is more akin to _innatus_ than _ingenitus_? And that all three occur in properly Classical authors (Cicero, Pliny, Lucretius . . .  _passim_)?" CreationDate="2018-09-05T21:32:54.043" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15630" PostId="7148" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Apologies. I completely misunderstood your question." CreationDate="2018-09-05T22:02:58.860" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15687" PostId="7148" Score="0" Text="&quot;Ingenitus&quot; (unbegotten) is the &quot;proper attribute&quot; of the Father--at least since Augustine's *De Trinitate*. I'm not aware of any serious discussion about whether the Holy Spirit is &quot;born/unborn,&quot; though there certainly was concern about how the processions of the Son and Holy Spirit differed." CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:44:27.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15688" PostId="7148" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Geoges cites : Paul. Nol. carm. 1, 227 (Auct. class. ed. Mai 5, 379): Macedoniani spiritus sanctus, quem neque genitum neque ingenitum credimus." CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:53:17.187" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15689" PostId="7148" Score="0" Text="@fdb Fair enough: &quot;ingenitus&quot; is proper to the Father, &quot;genitus&quot; is proper to the Son. So of course it makes sense to say the HS *isn't* either. I'm just being pedantic because I happened to have been studying a bunch of manuscripts dealing with trinitarian theology :)" CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:58:38.690" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15657" PostId="7151" Score="0" Text="What about studio? Would it come from _studeo_ or from _studium_?" CreationDate="2018-09-07T10:06:38.457" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15626" PostId="7152" Score="0" Text="Hmm, so the OED suggests it's mixed etymology (Latin-Greek), just as _television_, which is arguably bad, but not as bad as I thought. But then again, is Etymonline not to be trusted?" CreationDate="2018-09-05T20:51:25.300" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15631" PostId="7152" Score="6" Text="OED is a serious scholarly work. Etymonline is a paste job." CreationDate="2018-09-05T22:06:09.273" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15632" PostId="7152" Score="1" Text="@fdb I don't doubt OED either. I just wondered whether the 1st. p. s. could still be a valid competing theory" CreationDate="2018-09-05T22:23:13.093" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16007" PostId="7152" Score="1" Text="@Rafael no, the 1SG hypothesis cannot be competing or valid." CreationDate="2018-10-18T20:09:42.577" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15635" PostId="7154" Score="0" Text="'Books' would be in the abl. pl. _libris_. Here we have _a liberis_, 'children'." CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:36:42.770" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15648" PostId="7154" Score="0" Text="Also, note that verb in the protasis is audita essent, not just essent. So the tense in that clause isn't actually imperfect." CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:44:34.660" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15667" PostId="7154" Score="0" Text="'If the father's words had not been heard by his children (back then), they would be afraid (now).'" CreationDate="2018-09-09T02:28:01.587" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15636" PostId="7157" Score="0" Text="Thank you but this is a title." CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:55:26.743" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="15639" PostId="7157" Score="0" Text="The timing suggests that at least one of the yokes is the Islamic occupation. The crusader author suggests (less clearly) that the other one could be the destruction of the Temple or the Lord's Crucifixion. But it's just a guess. cc: @turuncu" CreationDate="2018-09-06T12:00:44.360" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15637" PostId="7158" Score="2" Text="Possible duplicate of [A complete family tree](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2628/a-complete-family-tree)" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:45:12.713" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15638" PostId="7158" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! At least one user ( @luchonacho ) argues that your question might have an answer in the linked question. While I'm not convinced of that, could you have a look and say whether that is the case or tell everyone what part of your question is not answered in the older one? I suspect the answer goes in the line that your uncle's wife is your aunt no matter who's the brother or sister of your corresponding parent, but I'm not sure about that." CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:52:35.977" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15646" PostId="7158" Score="1" Text="I've had a look at it and it only gives me for your father or mother's siblings. However, it does not give me the answer to what their spouses are called." CreationDate="2018-09-06T15:43:45.353" UserId="2906" />
  <row Id="15666" PostId="7158" Score="3" Text="I agree that this is not a duplicate. The family tree question asks for a big picture, but it does no go into all the details. Asking specific questions about different kinds of in-laws or other types or relatives is good, although there is always room for more elaboration as @Rafael points out. Welcome to the site and a +1 for a good question! I hope you will get a good answer." CreationDate="2018-09-08T20:42:42.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15640" PostId="7160" Score="1" Text="Salt is a natural food preservative and flavor enhancer: it added value to food, AND was scarce in ancient Europe. That is why it's paralleled with gold (think of German _Geld_ meaning money)" CreationDate="2018-09-06T12:08:15.970" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15642" PostId="7160" Score="2" Text="Spanish _salchicha_ 'sausage' comes from Italian _salciccia_, probably from Late Latin _salsicia_, from _salsus_ 'salty'." CreationDate="2018-09-06T13:58:15.773" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="15643" PostId="7160" Score="0" Text="@Charlie (yes; see last quote in the answer!)" CreationDate="2018-09-06T14:07:44.337" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15644" PostId="7160" Score="1" Text="Yes, what I meant is that Spanish and Italian words for 'sausage' also come from Latin _salsus_. :-)" CreationDate="2018-09-06T14:12:38.560" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="15645" PostId="7160" Score="0" Text="@Charlie Oh, sorry! I didn't get that. Yes, that's interesting too!" CreationDate="2018-09-06T14:14:32.893" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15652" PostId="7160" Score="0" Text="“ Ignorance and the lack of literacy have contributed their full share to linguistic change.” Surely you don’t believe that?!" CreationDate="2018-09-06T23:13:30.953" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15649" PostId="7161" Score="1" Text="FWIW, L&amp;S lists a pair of examples of the word [paene](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaene) modifying adjectives as you ask: totidem paene, cuncta paene. Both in Cicero." CreationDate="2018-09-06T17:05:34.597" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15651" PostId="7161" Score="2" Text="A quick peek in OLD does indeed show examples of fer(m)e used with semper, nihil, numquam, and omnia. It not infrequently follows the word that it qualifies." CreationDate="2018-09-06T19:38:53.787" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15653" PostId="7161" Score="1" Text="Alternatively,  Isidore gives two examples of the comparative for English '-ish.' One is Elder *Senior* which he says is somebody less old than *Senex.* Adv. *saepiuscule* is given as fairly often." CreationDate="2018-09-07T01:07:29.633" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15660" PostId="7162" Score="3" Text="You can also use [6] _qui_ (_quae, quod_) and [7] _quo_ + [comparative adverb, e.g. _facilius_], in either case followed by a subjunctive." CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:22:26.410" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15661" PostId="7162" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton Thanks for the extra info; it has been added to the question!" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:35:05.317" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15662" PostId="7162" Score="1" Text="One meaning of the future active infinitive is 'intending to x'; therefore, it can be used to express purpose. When paired with a form of esse, it can express the purpose either in a main clause or in a subordinate clause that's equivalent to a 'proper' purpose clause with ut/ne. It can also be used, without esse, just as a participle that's also equivalent to a subordinate clause. Pliny the Younger uses it this way quite often." CreationDate="2018-09-07T17:04:16.170" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15663" PostId="7162" Score="1" Text="I might also consider the future participle for this purpose: *domum redii dormiturus*." CreationDate="2018-09-08T15:09:13.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15669" PostId="7162" Score="2" Text="Just to clarify the list: I think [3] should be &quot;ad + acc. noun + gerundive.&quot; In [4], the order is reversed and can also include a gerundive, i.e. [4a] &quot;gen. gerund + causa&quot; and [4b] &quot;gen. noun + gerundive + causa&quot;" CreationDate="2018-09-09T17:04:20.613" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15670" PostId="7162" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Noted and added! Grātiās tibi!" CreationDate="2018-09-09T20:05:01.467" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15671" PostId="7162" Score="0" Text="It's also possible have ut/ne clauses after (in apposition to, really) phrases such as eo/hoc/illo consilio and eo/hoc/illo proposito. I, for one, consider this a distinct construction from [1], because in that case the ut/ne clause is adverbial, whereas in this case it's a noun clause. And since I'm nitpicking, for [4] and [5], gratiā can be used in place of causā. Though this can express things other than purpose, it can also express purpose." CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:34:58.730" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15672" PostId="7162" Score="0" Text="I'm also noticing how muddled and poorly expressed my first, hastily drafted comment is – especially the 2nd sentence, which it's probably best just to ignore. In case this isn't clear, that comment is covering the same thing as Joonas's much more succinct, much clearer comment that follows it." CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:44:27.483" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15668" PostId="7164" Score="0" Text="I think they use the passive because the subject is receiving the verb (i.e. the danger was increasing), rather than the subject performing the verb (i.e. the kid plays music). Latin is probably much more subtle on these things, whereas English is more flexible. My educated guess. (changed the title, hopefully capturing the question better)." CreationDate="2018-09-09T14:15:27.220" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15673" PostId="7164" Score="0" Text="See [this discussion](http://alt.language.latin.narkive.com/pwTiYdjy/north-hillard-exercises-192-a-193-b). It seems to have a different take to the one in the answer below." CreationDate="2018-09-10T08:09:33.897" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15674" PostId="7166" Score="2" Text="This is not what &quot;ergativity&quot; means (at least not in its technical sense). Ergativity is when the agent of a transitive verb is in an oblique case and its logical direct object is unmarked, as in Basque, Georgian, Urdu etc. etc." CreationDate="2018-09-10T09:51:34.847" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15675" PostId="7166" Score="2" Text="@fdb: the question seems to be about the phenomenon of “ergative verbs”, not about the terminology, which Draconis did not come up with (see the discussions on the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ergative_verb#Not_standard_usage_in_linguistics$)). Many linguistics terms have multiple meanings" CreationDate="2018-09-10T15:39:22.897" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15678" PostId="7166" Score="1" Text="Perhaps of interest (especially J. Lawler's well-informed comments): https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/8600/ergative-verbs-and-some-discussion-about-them" CreationDate="2018-09-10T16:02:55.077" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15679" PostId="7166" Score="2" Text="This is indeed rather unfortunate but that’s how things are in linguistics. Ergative is **also** used to describe English verbs like *break*: He broke the vase. The vase broke. This is particularly common in some theories of formal syntax, e.g. generative syntax (GB, MP). This use is not common in linguistic typology though." CreationDate="2018-09-10T23:13:46.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15681" PostId="7166" Score="1" Text="Pinskter 2015 calls them &quot;decausative&quot; (p. 280). He argues that the number of such verbs in Latin is 260 (based on Flobert 1975)." CreationDate="2018-09-11T03:26:47.957" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15682" PostId="7166" Score="2" Text="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Latin-Syntax-Pinkster-2015-10-20/dp/B01A64ABF8 citing https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&amp;hl=el&amp;id=3dawAAAAIAAJ&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume . @alex-b, this  warrants an answer. And an example." CreationDate="2018-09-11T03:41:33.860" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15683" PostId="7166" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. Shall we say: &quot;also used&quot; by some monolingual &quot;linguists&quot;, as opposed to those who actually study languages?" CreationDate="2018-09-11T09:49:40.547" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15684" PostId="7166" Score="3" Text="@fdb That seems unnecessarily harsh; the terminology might be less than ideal, but that's nothing new. (See: gerunds vs gerundives, participles vs derived nouns…)" CreationDate="2018-09-11T16:37:50.127" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15692" PostId="7166" Score="0" Text="IFAIR, Latin tends to have closely related verbs instead, for example *cado*  vs. *caedo*." CreationDate="2018-09-12T20:30:06.087" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="15686" PostId="7171" Score="12" Text="It seems to me that the Russian quotation is actually a paraphrase of Horace." CreationDate="2018-09-12T13:21:16.943" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="15690" PostId="7171" Score="0" Text="carpo is etymologically “to pick, to cut off”. It is cognate with – among other things – the “harv-“ part of English “harvest”. I wonder whether “harvest the day” might not work very well in English." CreationDate="2018-09-12T15:12:29.030" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15691" PostId="7171" Score="0" Text="@fdb 'Harvest the day', as you say, might work, but I've never seen it and wouldn't use it myself." CreationDate="2018-09-12T17:39:22.270" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15693" PostId="7171" Score="0" Text="@fdb: In Dutch, the phrase is commonly rendered as &quot;pluk de dag&quot;. Outside this phrase, using &quot;pluk&quot; with a day is probably as unusual as it is in English: its most typical use is with fruit. So perhaps &quot;pluck the day&quot; might work to a similar extent. I believe I have seen this translation used in English as well." CreationDate="2018-09-13T00:04:39.770" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15696" PostId="7171" Score="0" Text="I believe we’ve already had a discussion on its equivalence https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4938/origin-of-seize-the-day-as-a-translation-of-horaces-carpe-diem" CreationDate="2018-09-13T13:20:15.330" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15695" PostId="7172" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! While I agree that it does remind many of Brutus and Caesar, the phrase is common and simple enough to be used without any reference to said events. I'd say this is similar to saying &quot;I'll be back&quot; in English without reference to The Terminator. But it's certainly worthwhile to be aware of the potential negative connotation." CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:51:46.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15710" PostId="7172" Score="0" Text="*Et tu, Brute?* was most likely an invention of Shakespeare." CreationDate="2018-09-17T01:27:28.710" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15699" PostId="7175" Score="0" Text="A very good point. In your example &quot;me&quot; indeed behaves like the direct object of the &quot;transitive&quot; verb &quot;to be&quot;." CreationDate="2018-09-14T14:33:34.283" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15700" PostId="7179" Score="9" Text="If a main clause with a perfect form has a subordinate clause with a subjunctive form, the subjunctive follows so-called secondary sequence for the aorisitic use (therefore, the subjunctive is either imperf. or pluperf.), whereas it follows primary sequence for the latter (perfective) (therefore, the subjunctive is either pres. or perf.). In other words, the tense of the subjunctive in a subordinate clause will generally tell you how to translate the perfect form in the main clause." CreationDate="2018-09-14T16:53:37.363" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15701" PostId="7179" Score="4" Text="@cnread That would make a good answer!" CreationDate="2018-09-14T18:33:34.390" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15709" PostId="7179" Score="1" Text="Here's an example of what @cnread has said: *cenam paravi ut sumeremus* 'I prepared dinner so that we could eat' (aorist); *cenam paravi ut sumamus* 'I have prepared dinner so that we can eat' (perfect)." CreationDate="2018-09-17T01:00:24.403" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15702" PostId="7180" Score="0" Text="I'd search the Vulgate and Denzinger" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:11:46.827" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15703" PostId="7180" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Is there a good/easy way to search the Vulgate, like there is for the Packhum corpus? Even a plain TXT version would be useful (I can then use normal corpus tools on it), but I haven't found such a thing." CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:20:08.463" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15704" PostId="7180" Score="1" Text="http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch not as good as one would expect, but it's a starting point" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:59:56.540" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15706" PostId="7180" Score="0" Text="I'm afraid most of such databases are subscription-based - see, instance, http://apps.brepolis.net/BrepolisPortal/default.aspx (Thesaurus Patrum Latinorum etc.), also http://www.brepols.net/Pages/BrowseBySeries.aspx?TreeSeries=LLT-O" CreationDate="2018-09-16T04:39:49.290" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15716" PostId="7180" Score="0" Text="I second VulSearch—use it on a daily basis." CreationDate="2018-09-17T21:30:50.970" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="15705" PostId="7182" Score="1" Text="Is there a way to narrow it down to only Ecclesiastical Latin works?" CreationDate="2018-09-16T03:20:03.830" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15712" PostId="7184" Score="0" Text="Daemonium is undoubtedly the primary term to refer to fallen angels. Now for the sole adjective the choice is less obvious. I guess both casus and lapsus are good" CreationDate="2018-09-17T14:33:26.870" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15713" PostId="7184" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho The concept of fallen angels isn't universal within some of the major Abrahamic religions, which is why I use &quot;sect&quot; instead: for example, some sects of Judaism believe in fallen angels, while others don't." CreationDate="2018-09-17T15:30:03.060" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15719" PostId="7184" Score="0" Text="Latin transliteration for nephilim? But that comes with baggage." CreationDate="2018-09-18T17:32:24.453" UserDisplayName="user2927" />
  <row Id="15714" PostId="7186" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, that is incredibly helpful. I’m assuming that this would work as a motto on a cost of arms or family crest?" CreationDate="2018-09-17T16:04:53.903" UserId="2921" />
  <row Id="15715" PostId="7186" Score="1" Text="@Luke I've just re-read your question and realized I may have misinterpreted your use of *accordingly.* Do you mean 'in the manner described' (e.g., *we must be polite; act accordingly.*) or 'in an appropriate manner' (e.g., *every circumstance is different; act accordingly.*)?" CreationDate="2018-09-17T18:44:05.443" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15721" PostId="7186" Score="0" Text="Apologies, the website won’t allow further comment. To clarify, I meant the latter. It would be act accordingly - Every circumstance is different - act accordingly. The instruction to act in a manner particular to the situation. Alter your behaviour accordingly. Thanks." CreationDate="2018-09-18T07:15:00.347" UserId="2925" />
  <row Id="15722" PostId="7186" Score="1" Text="@Luke In that case I would replace *ita* 'thus' with *apte* 'suitably'. For a coat of arms the singular imperative is normal, so *apte te ger,* although this sounds pretty ugly. I think *apte age* would sound much better while retaining the meaning!" CreationDate="2018-09-18T23:42:43.727" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="38059" PostId="7186" Score="0" Text="Did you mean  apte te gere? This is now not so ugly and a good motto. It was probably a lapsus calami on your part." CreationDate="2022-04-22T08:24:21.777" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="15717" PostId="7188" Score="1" Text="I'm sure the information you need is in Isidore of Seville Book14. It may take me some time to find the answer to your specific question, but it has the vocabulary. Isidore is a traditionalist who describes old-fashioned knowledge in classical language, but if it won't be useful it would be useful to know that." CreationDate="2018-09-18T14:16:09.643" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15720" PostId="7188" Score="1" Text="If whoever answers this question knows, it might also be nice to figure out *to the left/right of something.*" CreationDate="2018-09-18T20:15:12.050" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15718" PostId="7192" Score="1" Text="Huh, I hadn't taken the time to look back and realize that I had written *Alpēs Maritimae* in apposition to *prīma [...]*. Thanks for pointing that out, and good answer! :)" CreationDate="2018-09-18T15:48:43.930" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15744" PostId="7194" Score="2" Text="*Mihi* is dative of agent with the gerundive: &quot;must be said by me&quot;." CreationDate="2018-09-23T01:16:05.680" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15725" PostId="7196" Score="0" Text="What if I want to emphasize that this house is **mine**—i.e. have the emphasis on the possessor?" CreationDate="2018-09-19T15:50:50.783" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15726" PostId="7196" Score="0" Text="@Draconis If you don't use the dative, but write as you did _haec est domus mea_, you are saying simply that the house belongs to you, or that the house is in your ownership as opposed to that of anyone else. To reverse the order (i.e. _mea domus_)  is perhaps a little more emphatic." CreationDate="2018-09-19T16:23:37.767" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15724" PostId="7197" Score="0" Text="Not too sure about those four forms. The first is usually construed as dative, and thus no different from the third. The fourth, using _habere_, doesn't strike me as always appropriate to strict classical form : I believe that 'let us have lunch', for instance, is better rendered as _prandeamus_." CreationDate="2018-09-19T14:20:40.240" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15727" PostId="7198" Score="1" Text="You have given a clear description of **stress:** there can only be one stressed syllable in a given word; I believe that there is a further rule that a prefix (in- dys-) cannot be the stressed syllable. However in metrication a spondee, for instance, consists of two consecutive **heavy** syllables, sometimes in one word. Well-formed Latin seems to have used stress and heavy-light in some sort of interplay. Additionally, tho' I've not seen it argued, terminal vowel followed by initial vowel; and terminal vowel+m followed by vowel, elision, seem to be used where there is excitement, panic, fear" CreationDate="2018-09-20T00:44:07.637" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15728" PostId="7198" Score="4" Text="@Hugh I've never seen a rule that prefixes can't be stressed -- do you have a source for it?" CreationDate="2018-09-20T18:41:40.660" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15729" PostId="7198" Score="1" Text="@ TKR : you're right.   **&quot;Incipit&quot;** for a start." CreationDate="2018-09-20T21:02:18.833" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15741" PostId="7201" Score="0" Text="What do you mean with &quot;orbital earth&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-09-22T18:04:01.803" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15746" PostId="7201" Score="1" Text="Adelardus did not believe that the Earth turns on its axis." CreationDate="2018-09-23T10:29:35.443" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15747" PostId="7201" Score="0" Text="Adelardus had learnt from reading the Arabic astronomers that the Earth was spherical, suspended in air, at the centre of the universe, Question xlix *&quot;Si perforatus foret terre globus, lapide iniecto quorsum foret casus.&quot;*" CreationDate="2018-09-23T13:56:40.090" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15750" PostId="7201" Score="1" Text="Everybody knew that the Earth is a sphere. and everyone believed that it is immobile in the centre of the cosmos. But not that it turns on its axis." CreationDate="2018-09-23T16:59:33.413" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15730" PostId="7202" Score="0" Text="With rule 1), what is the treatment of vowels that seem to be in hiatus?" CreationDate="2018-09-21T05:54:41.633" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15732" PostId="7202" Score="0" Text="@sumelic What exactly did you have in mind? A specific example would be more helpful. (it could be rule 1 - it says &quot;one segment in a syllable onset&quot; or rule 2 &quot;there is a grammatical boundary&quot;)" CreationDate="2018-09-21T15:20:40.627" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15733" PostId="7202" Score="1" Text="@sumelic a quote for you from Lehmann 2005: &quot;A sequence of two vowels that contains a morpheme boundary (V#V) is always separated by a syllable boundary (re#i, re#um, me#am, tu#us etc.). If  there  is  no  morpheme  boundary between  two  vowels,  the  sequence  would  be  contracted into a diphthong, in other words, one of the two vowels would become a semivowel.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-09-21T16:22:56.080" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15735" PostId="7202" Score="0" Text="But still, I don’t think the second syllables of “meam” etc start a new breath group, do they? Also, I’m confused about the argument against “reg.num” because it seems to me that in “rex” we have a long vowel followed by a consonant cluster." CreationDate="2018-09-21T20:16:01.360" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15736" PostId="7202" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I believe there are no syllabification challenges in **mono**syllables, such as rēx? The observation I mention refers to polysyllabic words." CreationDate="2018-09-21T20:25:30.310" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15737" PostId="7202" Score="0" Text="@sumelic not entirely sure what's not clear to you in the case of me.am?" CreationDate="2018-09-21T20:26:59.543" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29625" PostId="7202" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides cf. Cser 2020: 43, ft. 77 &quot;the traditional dictum that hiatus only occurs across morpheme boundaries.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-11-03T17:18:23.277" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15742" PostId="7203" Score="0" Text="There are quite a number of Latin verbs with meanings around cleaning, all used differently. When you refer to the action of &quot;tidying up&quot;, who is performing the action, who is the recipient of the action, is it figurative or literal, etc.?" CreationDate="2018-09-22T22:07:43.220" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15753" PostId="7203" Score="0" Text="It is entirely literal  - for a group of people who need to tidy up a room, as in put away and also throw away rubbish, as you would tidying a bedroom. I think the suggestion below will work fine. Thank you" CreationDate="2018-09-24T22:30:43.867" UserId="2930" />
  <row Id="15738" PostId="7204" Score="0" Text="First of all, there is nothing passive about paying. Secondly, giving a penalty and paying a penalty describe very different situations." CreationDate="2018-09-22T02:44:11.760" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15739" PostId="7204" Score="0" Text="Hey @AlexB. Maybe passive isn't the right word. But it looks like you get my point. In the first example I gave, &quot;pay&quot; is affecting &quot;we&quot;, in the second example &quot;give&quot; would not affect &quot;we&quot;, but it would affect whoever the penalty is being given to. The same word (damus from do) can technically be translated into two distinctly differently meanings in English. Why? Which one is more correct? How can we be sure? These are some of the questions I have." CreationDate="2018-09-22T03:14:34.477" UserId="2931" />
  <row Id="15740" PostId="7204" Score="1" Text="An ancient Roman would perhaps ask why we English-speakers talk about 'paying a penalty' rather than 'giving penalties.' Different languages differ in idiom. When you learn a language, you have to think in terms of equivalence of concept and can't expect word-for-word equivalence. It's abundantly clear from sources where the phrase poenas dare is used that its closest equivalent idiom in English is 'pay the penalty.'" CreationDate="2018-09-22T07:26:46.080" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15752" PostId="7206" Score="1" Text="That is so useful, thank you. All I could find was that a late Latin word for the adj 'tidy' is ''mundus', but your verb choice w 'in loco propria' will be much better. I was being entirely literal." CreationDate="2018-09-24T22:24:15.227" UserId="2930" />
  <row Id="33689" PostId="7206" Score="1" Text="I believe it should be in locīs propriīs, since the neuter plural is for geographic locations." CreationDate="2021-06-14T13:33:19.577" UserId="9672" />
  <row Id="33696" PostId="7206" Score="1" Text="@NathanKendrick in that case it should be *in locos proprios*, since the ablative is for stationary locations, and here you need the accusative for a directed motion." CreationDate="2021-06-15T06:35:19.417" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="33731" PostId="7206" Score="0" Text="@LornaEllis, *Mundus* is indeed a good choice for &quot;tidy&quot;, and if you wanted to link it directly to a verb, you could use *mundare*, which can also mean to prune or to purge or just get rid of whatever does not belong. In general I prefer Tom Cotton's suggestion, but *mundare* has its uses." CreationDate="2021-06-18T00:57:19.107" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33882" PostId="7206" Score="0" Text="@gmvh For reasons not entirely clear to me, *pono* and friends actually prefer the ablative regardless (https://www.latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries?t=lsn41210). I would guess it has a causative explanation, like English *set:* you can set something on a table, but you can't set something *onto* a table, because etymologically *set* means 'cause to sit'." CreationDate="2021-06-27T19:40:05.017" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="15754" PostId="7209" Score="0" Text="Oh, I see now! When I looked up *decursus* on Wiktionary, it was listed as a participle form of the verb *decurro*. I didn't know it was also a noun." CreationDate="2018-09-25T00:14:00.127" UserId="2937" />
  <row Id="15755" PostId="7211" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Thank you. Would it read better as Excelsior Aude or the other way around (Aude Excelsior)?" CreationDate="2018-09-25T06:55:39.347" UserId="2938" />
  <row Id="15757" PostId="7211" Score="0" Text="Latin verse was not comfortable with two vowels between words: in poetry it's used to describe torrent, muddle; and there's disagreement about whether they garbled the vowels *Audyexelsior* or elided *Aud'excelsior.* But whatever feels right to you is fine." CreationDate="2018-09-25T13:18:24.507" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15758" PostId="7211" Score="0" Text="If you want to find out more about adjacent vowels in separate words, type or paste  elision  in the Search box (towards the left in the top black band); and then try  synizesis" CreationDate="2018-09-25T13:29:24.100" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15760" PostId="7212" Score="1" Text="For 'obligated' a modern Greek site gives  &#xA;υποχρεώνω  and &#xA;αναγκάζω . I hope that's a lead." CreationDate="2018-09-25T13:42:06.987" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15756" PostId="7213" Score="0" Text="I do not see why Pesch attributes this to Leibniz. It goes back at least to Aristotle." CreationDate="2018-09-25T12:24:06.860" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15770" PostId="7216" Score="2" Text="But where does Latin enters into the picture? I'm puzzled by the &quot;_when I was trying to din some Latin into them when I was a teacher_.&quot; This suggests that Latin is part of the joke. If the above had Italian instead of Latin, it would make a bit more sense. Hence my suggestion of the error. But I doubt Agatha Christie would make such a mistake!" CreationDate="2018-09-26T10:30:35.453" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15771" PostId="7216" Score="4" Text="Not sure that this is a proper question to ask here — it isn't strictly about Latin. Nevertheless, I've answered it above, and we can wait and see what others think. The reference to Latin is just coincidental — it could have been any subject at all." CreationDate="2018-09-26T10:40:17.723" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15772" PostId="7216" Score="0" Text="You mean someone could be teaching anything to English speaking students and then make the &quot;joke&quot; of Giuseppe Verdi, being equally &quot;funny&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-09-26T10:53:46.750" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="15776" PostId="7216" Score="1" Text="Is it just a reference to the fact that many Latin names have equally prosaic English translations?" CreationDate="2018-09-26T16:19:57.803" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="15777" PostId="7216" Score="6" Text="@luchonacho The only element of Latin is that he was teaching Latin at the time. Stereotypically it's a boring subject, so any mediocre joke is likely to get a laugh." CreationDate="2018-09-26T16:53:58.603" UserId="1509" />
  <row Id="15778" PostId="7216" Score="1" Text="I think the fact that Italian is the modern language most closely related to Latin has something to do with it." CreationDate="2018-09-26T16:55:42.750" UserId="2946" />
  <row Id="15785" PostId="7216" Score="9" Text="Now listen up boys, today we are going to learn the names of the colours in Latin... Green is &quot;viridis&quot;, from which we get &quot;verdant&quot;, and the Italian &quot;verdi&quot;.  Did you know, if Giuseppe Verdi had been an Englishman, his name would have been Joe Green. Now you'll remember *viridis* because you will remember my little joke about Verdi. ....  People try to teach Latin words by linking them to their modern cognates." CreationDate="2018-09-26T21:05:39.900" UserId="1256" />
  <row Id="15787" PostId="7216" Score="0" Text="Verdi's requiem, arguably his most famous piece, was written in Latin. Hence why they'd be talking about him in Latin class." CreationDate="2018-09-27T10:04:46.740" UserId="2955" />
  <row Id="15789" PostId="7216" Score="0" Text="@ Mardoxx Like most of those answering and/or commentng, you are reading too much into the question. You are right, of course, about the Requiem being in Latin, but there's no reason whatever to link that to PR's comment about his pupils." CreationDate="2018-09-27T10:23:20.480" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15795" PostId="7216" Score="1" Text="@JamesK: You mind if I convert this into an answer? Because I feel that it explains the text in the best way. Mardoxx's suggestion might also be relevant (although we can't know)." CreationDate="2018-09-27T22:03:26.760" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15775" PostId="7217" Score="4" Text="But Tom's question was about Patrick's joke told to the schoolboys. Patrick's joke had nothing to do with 'Redfern'." CreationDate="2018-09-26T15:00:20.073" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="15779" PostId="7217" Score="3" Text="@LarsH Agreed; this explains why the joke-scene is in the script at all (to allow for Poirot to catch the villain), but the joke-scene itself must exist on its own merits, or else it will be more easily distinguished as 'evidence'. This is how the mystery genre must work - items that appear innocuous are later revealed to be plot-relevant." CreationDate="2018-09-26T17:40:58.760" UserDisplayName="user2947" />
  <row Id="15780" PostId="7217" Score="1" Text="Patrick's joke about Joe Green is what made Poirot realize that `Felix Ruber` was the translation, that's how it related to `Redfern`.  If Patrick hadn't made that joke, Poirot wouldn't have necessarily made the connection." CreationDate="2018-09-26T17:41:35.337" UserId="2948" />
  <row Id="15781" PostId="7217" Score="0" Text="I am not really sure what the joke with _Felix_ is about - to be translated with _fern_??? _Felix_ is the Latin word for English _lucky_." CreationDate="2018-09-26T20:10:11.567" UserId="2951" />
  <row Id="15782" PostId="7217" Score="2" Text="@rexkogitans, it appears that apart from meaning &quot;lucky, happy&quot;, *felix* is also an alternate form of the word *filix* &quot;fern&quot;." CreationDate="2018-09-26T20:28:50.720" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15783" PostId="7217" Score="2" Text="@rexkogitans. As was mentioned in my answer. The jury is out as to whether felix or filix is the etymologically correct spelling." CreationDate="2018-09-26T20:40:32.350" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15788" PostId="7217" Score="0" Text="@fdb We can get all analytical and Eng. Lit. about it but, in the end, it makes us miss the point of luchonacho's query : he wanted to have explained what he thought a joke about Latin (which was not, as I pointed out, much of a joke at all). 'Redfern', etc., isn't really a joke either, but a clever plot device — though in another context it _might_ be humorous." CreationDate="2018-09-27T10:16:22.993" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15784" PostId="7218" Score="4" Text="When I was at school Latin was my favourite subject." CreationDate="2018-09-26T20:45:13.337" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15790" PostId="7218" Score="1" Text="And some Latin teachers are easily diverted onto other subjects. I recall one 80-minute Latin lesson which was spent solely discussing special relativity." CreationDate="2018-09-27T13:40:41.313" UserId="1790" />
  <row Id="15793" PostId="7218" Score="2" Text="@fdb: And mine! I remember finding a page from an old vocabulary book and memorizing the words on it when I was in primary school. Which seemed less enjoyable when I turned 12 and I actually had to memorize Latin words in high school (or whatever the school system translates into)..." CreationDate="2018-09-27T21:57:14.397" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15786" PostId="7220" Score="3" Text="The OP's question is not about HP's joke, but about PR's Verdi joke." CreationDate="2018-09-27T02:27:47.927" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="15794" PostId="7224" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Your answer is indeed the only one that explains the joke (even though that is only part of the question, I think it should be answered here)." CreationDate="2018-09-27T21:59:21.133" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="15900" PostId="7224" Score="0" Text="As a quick correction, Giuseppe is the Italian (not Latin) spelling of Joseph--which I think is the point that sparked the question in the first place." CreationDate="2018-10-09T13:12:04.090" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15791" PostId="7226" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately, what the words *used* to mean may not have any bearing on what they *do* mean now. See &quot;nice&quot;, which used to be a negative word, and &quot;awful&quot;, which used to be positive. Is your question specifically about the Latin meanings?" CreationDate="2018-09-27T16:27:28.713" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15792" PostId="7226" Score="0" Text="I didn't know for &quot;nice&quot; and &quot;awful&quot;, thanks for the information. Yes my question is specifically about the Latin meanings." CreationDate="2018-09-27T20:53:20.900" UserId="2961" />
  <row Id="15798" PostId="7226" Score="0" Text="@AmbroiseRabier As your question is specifically about the Latin meanings, I took the liberty to rephrase it to emphasize Latin. Feel free to make further edits if you see fit." CreationDate="2018-09-28T22:27:28.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15812" PostId="7226" Score="1" Text="I would suggest rephrasing the question to ask something like, &quot;What is the difference between nego, ignoro, and nescio?&quot; As it stands, the question's premise is a little shaky (cf. [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy)) and the glosses of the English words are problematic (e.g. &quot;I deny any involvement&quot; doesn't mean &quot;I refuse to know that I was involved.&quot;)." CreationDate="2018-10-01T14:12:38.810" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15796" PostId="7228" Score="1" Text="I can't help you with the answer directly, but I can quite believe that depending on the letter forms used, Τ and Υ might look close enough to each other to be confused." CreationDate="2018-09-28T15:51:13.933" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15797" PostId="7228" Score="1" Text="I definitely see an upsilon in the photo from Bergk that you've posted." CreationDate="2018-09-28T16:49:45.307" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15802" PostId="7230" Score="0" Text="@SamuelVidal No problem! I am curious, however; which one of these did you ultimately end up selecting?" CreationDate="2018-09-30T19:51:48.060" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15818" PostId="7230" Score="0" Text="I'm not too sure yet. I like that you gave several options giving me elements to explain them. Arithmēticae is good since latin is fancy enough. The emphatic Ea matches the title of the novel, so I might keep it, but I like the shortness of the first translation so I think I will chose this one." CreationDate="2018-10-02T07:38:18.693" UserId="2962" />
  <row Id="15801" PostId="7232" Score="1" Text="You might look into the Vulgate versions of the story of the Gadarene swine (or commentaries on that)." CreationDate="2018-09-30T18:49:10.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15827" PostId="7232" Score="0" Text="As TKR suggested, I looked into the [Vulgate Mark 5](http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/48005.htm). There is no term for possession, formulations like &quot;homo in spiritu immundo&quot; are used instead. The term &quot;possession&quot; is apparently derived from Latin, but it seems it started to be used later, probably in the Middle Ages. Interesting question, anyway." CreationDate="2018-10-02T13:21:08.827" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="15800" PostId="7233" Score="2" Text="Thank you for your answer.&#xA;*If you make something something directly, both somethings are in accusative. In passive they are both in nominative (milites fortiores facti sunt).* This is quite strange for me - it's good to know." CreationDate="2018-09-30T10:29:41.080" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="15804" PostId="7233" Score="0" Text="@PrzemysławP I'm glad to be able to help! Judging by your Polish-sounding name and what little I remember of Russian, I suspect your surprise is due to Slavic influence. Latin seems to be more fond of double accusatives than Slavic languages." CreationDate="2018-10-01T03:37:46.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15813" PostId="7233" Score="0" Text="Indeed, in Polish it would be a strange and wrong sentence with double accusative." CreationDate="2018-10-01T14:23:55.383" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="15816" PostId="7235" Score="0" Text="So far - since you read in Italian - Bettarini 2003 *La radice “mischiare” in Greco* https://www.jstor.org/stable/23961123" CreationDate="2018-10-02T03:53:41.637" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15803" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="Of course, if someone else has access to Thumb/Scherer 1959 (I've read it, I just don't have immediate access to my university library), they can put us both out of our misery...." CreationDate="2018-10-01T03:32:37.747" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15807" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="I guess adding an -i to get the &quot;normal&quot; Aeolic dative plural is more conservative than positing a diaeresis then. Modulo the participle, the differences amount to that. For some reason adding a diacritic seemed less drastic to me than adding a letter..." CreationDate="2018-10-01T10:47:16.003" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15808" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="I thought angled brackets meant simply a changethat wasn't an omission of a letter! How do you represent changing a letter to another, e.g. náï sym pléai to náï syn pléai as happened in P.Sapph.Obbink? I thought that would be náï sy&lt;n&gt; pléai..." CreationDate="2018-10-01T10:49:41.167" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15811" PostId="7236" Score="1" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden_Conventions: &quot;No sigla were suggested for literary corrections. Instead, it was proposed that these should be dealt with in an apparatus or in a commentary.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-10-01T12:25:59.183" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15819" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="About the Sappho 44 reference, are you talking about the line that goes «Αὖ̣λος δ' ἀ̣δ̣υ̤[μ]έ̣λη[ς (end of P.Oxy. 2076 part, start of P.Oxy. 1232 part) ]τον ἐμίγνυ[», completed to «Αὖ̣λος δ' ἀ̣δ̣υ̤[μ]έ̣λη[ς κίθαρίς] τ' ὀνεμίγνυ[το»? Grenfell and Hunt leave no doubt that the papyrus reads εμιγνυ there, no correction is mentioned in the notes…" CreationDate="2018-10-02T09:13:39.790" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15820" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="As for Alc. 303Ab, it looks like Lobel-Page didn't have that number (at least, Campbell only reports a 303A from Voigt). Voigt's Alc. 303Ab is L-P 99 col. ii. L-P 99 is P.Oxy. 2291, [image here](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01d2.dir/POxy.v0021.n2291.a.01.hires.jpg). Looking at Voigt's text, I see δει̣χ̣ν̣υσ at the beginning of col. 1 l. 23. Looking at the image, I found the line, I agree with the certain letters, and the underdotted ones are a terrible mess. Let me look closer…" CreationDate="2018-10-02T09:26:53.317" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15821" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="I can see what seems like the top and bottom of the I, with the middle being lost to the holes; then what seems like either X or K, but I guess X is more likely; then a very likely N. So that is one δεί̣χ̣ν̣υσ[θαι." CreationDate="2018-10-02T09:28:37.643" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15822" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="Alc. 73 is from P.Oxy. 1234 which, as usual, the Bodleian library didn't publish. Voigt has a last line starting δ̣είχνυντε with no comment in the CRIT." CreationDate="2018-10-02T09:31:38.107" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15823" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="Back to Sappho 44: the line I mentioned is ὀνεμίγνυτο in Campbell too, but that wasn't the line you were talking about. You were referring to the line which in P.Oxy. 1232 reads «[. . . . . . . .]ΙΚΑ̣Ϲ . . ΛΙΒΑΝΟ[ . ]ΤΟΝ€̣Δ̣&lt;sup&gt;€&lt;/sup&gt;ΙΧΝΥ̣ΤΟ», and in P.Oxy. 2076 reads «ΜΥΡΡΑΚΑΙΚΑϹΙΑΛΙΒ[»." CreationDate="2018-10-02T09:50:00.290" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15824" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="The epsilon wrapped in &lt;sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; is supposed to be a superscript, or rather placed on top of the following iota. Grenfell and Hunt took that to mean it was a correction, and the reading they gave was ὀνεδέχνυτο. Looking at [the image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/P.Oxy._X_1232.jpg), the &quot;superscript&quot; is a bit to the left, which might make it an addition. However, the letter before the epsilon-iota pair does not, IMHO, look like a mu, given the mus of that papyrus are almost pis, and we see a really slanted stroke there." CreationDate="2018-10-02T09:53:45.840" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15825" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="Even assuming an unusual shape for that mu, we'd end up clashing the mu into the previous epsilon, if we tried to retrace it. So I'm persuaded that's supposed to be a delta, giving either ὀνεδέχνυτο or ὀνεδείχνυτο depending on our interpretation of the &quot;superscript&quot; epsilon. ὀνεμείχνυτο is, IMHO, simply impossible. Btw the GH reading is based on an implied subject τὸ πῦρ, perhaps hidden in the lacuna of the previous line." CreationDate="2018-10-02T09:55:13.087" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16084" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas not sure how to tag users here - I've uploaded three screenshots in a separate post." CreationDate="2018-10-23T03:00:20.830" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16103" PostId="7236" Score="0" Text="&quot;I'm worried whether the grammars adequately differentiate between the words in the manuscripts and editorial conjecture.&quot; - Well, that's the thing, they simply don't." CreationDate="2018-10-24T02:26:01.930" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16104" PostId="7236" Score="1" Text="@NickNicholas That being said, considerable progress has been achieved in the quality of data used in the grammatical description and analysis of Ancient Greek. For example,  Blümel 1982 *Die aiolischen Dialekte* uses a lot of epigraphical data, and abbreviations such as EG, IG or SEG are virtually on every single page." CreationDate="2018-10-24T02:58:04.790" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15810" PostId="7238" Score="1" Text="Thank you. I was going to say, it's ain't superseding anything until it's published, but I see it's a dissertation, which means formally it's already out there." CreationDate="2018-10-01T12:24:26.250" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15805" PostId="7239" Score="0" Text="I've just read in a Spanish etymology book by Joan Corominas that _negocio_ is indeed a &quot;negative derivative of _otium_&quot;, but does not go more in depth about it." CreationDate="2018-10-01T10:23:36.390" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="15809" PostId="7239" Score="0" Text="@Charlie. Yes, but don't &quot;confirm&quot; something from a book published in 2008 by referring to one published in the 1950s." CreationDate="2018-10-01T12:05:48.863" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15814" PostId="7240" Score="1" Text="The Latin sentence translates literally to &quot;possession of a human by evil spirits&quot;, which would imply that *possessio* on its own could mean &quot;possession&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-01T16:04:35.103" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15815" PostId="7240" Score="0" Text="@Draconis it could be so, but I have been searching for occurrences of the word in classic Latin texts with no results found that might imply such &quot;possession&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-01T16:07:35.217" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="15838" PostId="7242" Score="0" Text="*diu noctuque* is a version of the phrase." CreationDate="2018-10-03T03:08:59.467" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15841" PostId="7242" Score="0" Text="This font is not ideal for DIURNUS, is it?" CreationDate="2018-10-03T06:10:42.693" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15845" PostId="7242" Score="1" Text="Could you elaborate a little on how your translation works? I thought one should use &quot;by day and by night&quot; (two adverbs) or &quot;daily and nightly&quot; (two adjectives), but you seem to have a mixture. An answer is much more useful to the OP and future readers if it explains instead of just stating." CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:53:13.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15817" PostId="7243" Score="1" Text="It's certainly not a word I've ever seen, though it could easily be an incorrect form of *tantus* &quot;so much&quot;. I'll have to poke into it more tomorrow." CreationDate="2018-10-02T05:41:42.937" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15836" PostId="7243" Score="1" Text="Searching Perseus and PackHum for *tantibus* also turns up nothing. I'm guessing it's a made-up word." CreationDate="2018-10-03T01:53:20.817" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15837" PostId="7243" Score="0" Text="No hint of *tantibus* or *thant-* etc. for nightmare. Did the Romans have a word for nightmare? *Somnium, Sompnium* is a dream." CreationDate="2018-10-03T03:04:54.557" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15843" PostId="7243" Score="1" Text="@Hugh: my amateur research into the matter gives me _incubus_ and _suppressio_, with Witkionary additionally claiming that _masca_ / _mascha_ / _mascus_ can mean &quot;nightmare, ghost&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:25:29.060" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="15826" PostId="7244" Score="1" Text="Not the best news about that, but SE answer-wise it seems to not get much better than that. Thx." CreationDate="2018-10-02T10:11:10.610" UserId="2072" />
  <row Id="34631" PostId="7244" Score="0" Text="Well, at least they're honest." CreationDate="2021-08-20T03:02:28.513" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="15828" PostId="7245" Score="2" Text="I'm pretty certain the latter part is incorrect: Catholic theology draws a pretty sharp distinction between demonic possession and obsession, the latter being extrinsic." CreationDate="2018-10-02T14:17:31.763" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15842" PostId="7245" Score="0" Text="See, for my original comment, the first paragraph of [this article](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm). It's possible the distinction wasn't made in Latin, but I tend to think that there was at least some way of preserving the distinction." CreationDate="2018-10-03T12:55:37.427" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15847" PostId="7245" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks. I suspect there could be an ambiguity in _obsessio_ as both genus and species, just as with English _possession_. Actually the wording of the article in the Cath. En. is consistent with this: the title is &quot;possession&quot; then it talks about p. and o., then it calls the subject demon the &quot;obsessing spirit&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-03T14:09:56.597" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29683" PostId="7245" Score="2" Text="@brianpck, I've found two pieces of evidence that make me feel confident about **obsessio**: 1) The presentation of the rite of exorcism from 1999 uses both words as [synonyms](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_it.html) both in Italian and [Spanish](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_sp.html) and 2) The [current rite](http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/1978_SCDW-Rom_Rit/Exorc/De_Exorcismis-searchable.pdf) [continues]" CreationDate="2020-11-09T18:02:17.117" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29684" PostId="7245" Score="2" Text="[continued]... uses **obsessio** three times, clearly referring to possession, while using no word starting with posses-.&#xA;&#xA;The rite does distinguish between possession and vexation (**vexatio**), but, surprisingly it does not distinguish conscious obsession and unconscious possession.&#xA;&#xA;For what it's worth, I consider this enough evidence for the use of **obsessio** as a valid (even preferred) word in eccl. Latin for possession." CreationDate="2020-11-09T18:04:55.463" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15833" PostId="7247" Score="1" Text="ἀνάθημα in this context isn't a curse, but a dedication or votive offering. On καρυωτὰς, see: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkaruowto%5Cs" CreationDate="2018-10-02T23:48:00.357" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15834" PostId="7247" Score="1" Text="At http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)ra%2Fkh LSJ says of the Athenaeus quote &quot;ἀρακίν cod.&quot; -- i.e. it looks like the MS tradition has that spelling, but editors have emended it to ἀράκην." CreationDate="2018-10-02T23:56:51.977" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15853" PostId="7247" Score="0" Text="On Q2.b: in Attic the accusative of ἀρακίς would be ἀρακίδα, not ἀρακίν. I don't know enough about Aeolic to know whether it retains the distinction between the ἀσπίς, ἀσπίδος type and the χάρις, χάριτος type, which in other dialects corresponds to an accent difference." CreationDate="2018-10-03T16:23:23.313" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15854" PostId="7247" Score="0" Text="I've posted a question on that topic: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7253/do-non-attic-ionic-dialects-distinguish-the-accusatives-of-the-ἀσπίς-and-χάρις-t" CreationDate="2018-10-03T16:56:18.547" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15855" PostId="7247" Score="1" Text="@TKR FWIW Edmonds reconstructs verse 3 of the Gongyla poem as containing khárin, and then LP 155 (Polyanactida paida khairen, the number may be misremembered) appears to contain Pōlyanáktidă, though Bergk amends it to Polyanaktídāo." CreationDate="2018-10-03T17:17:35.260" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15835" PostId="7248" Score="2" Text="I question interpreting _amalgo-_ in any way that deviates from the usual meaning of &quot;amalgam&quot;, given that the creature in question is explicitly described in-universe as exhibiting traits from multiple different kinds of spiders. That said, even if one takes αντιβίος as dubious, it's still very fitting, considering how much of a negative impact the Araneo had on the mental state of narrating character Helena (in-universe writer of the creature dossiers)." CreationDate="2018-10-03T01:46:57.590" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="15839" PostId="7248" Score="0" Text="The -malagmat- analysis seems a bit dubious because of the use of the spelling -g**o**t-. If it were something like amalgamatantibus I would be more convinced that -mat- is relevant" CreationDate="2018-10-03T04:23:37.687" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15844" PostId="7248" Score="1" Text="I am lost. Is there such a word as &quot;Amalgotantibus&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:48:17.410" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15850" PostId="7248" Score="1" Text="fdb Yes, you yourself have written it  (53 minutes ago). Secondly it can be found in print via the link in line .1.  Thirdly that link provides a definition and context for the word, which appears to be part of a fantasy game site. The word is formed regularly according to the standards of mediaeval alchemical texts. If the word Amalgama is acceptable to you, a Latin transcript of Arabic Greek, for which there is no evidence before CE1000, then you should find no problem with &quot;Amalgotantibus&quot; although there is no evidence for it before CE2000. I very much hope you can agree." CreationDate="2018-10-03T15:00:58.643" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15873" PostId="7248" Score="1" Text="@fdb: It's almost as if I didn't provide a link in the OP to where I found the word that you're asking about." CreationDate="2018-10-04T20:31:25.990" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="16430" PostId="7249" Score="2" Text="I don't think that is pleonasm. I'd translate as 'I haven't met and know nothing about'." CreationDate="2018-11-18T18:53:31.723" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16436" PostId="7249" Score="0" Text="I didn't realize at first that you are comparing one verb in perfect tense with one in present." CreationDate="2018-11-19T17:30:36.880" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="15846" PostId="7250" Score="0" Text="The correct quotation is: Nec vero Pythagoras nominis solum inventor, sed rerum etiam ipsarum amplificator fuit:" CreationDate="2018-10-03T14:08:44.087" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15856" PostId="7251" Score="1" Text="@K.Park I'm glad to be able to help! I look forward to seeing more questions from you around here." CreationDate="2018-10-03T17:45:37.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15857" PostId="7254" Score="0" Text="I mentioned it in my answer, but perhaps I'm missing something obvious: how did you sift through the results for &quot;neque#&quot; to determine that they were all false positives? That definitely seems like the most promising combination" CreationDate="2018-10-04T04:29:44.487" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15858" PostId="7254" Score="1" Text="@brianpck To screen off the word *neque*, I searched for things like &quot;sneque#&quot; and similarly for some other common final letters beside S. I didn't go through the entire alphabet, though. I wish there was a way to search for &quot;neque# but not #neque#&quot;..." CreationDate="2018-10-04T04:35:20.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15861" PostId="7254" Score="0" Text="I didn't think of that! You're right that that eliminates the false positives!" CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:20:38.320" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="15860" PostId="7258" Score="0" Text="Cf. Rix 1992 “im Att. ist sekundär -in auf Barytona : χάριν ὄρνῑν, *-ida* etc. auf Oxytona festgelegt : ἐλπίδα (anders noch z.B. hom. ἔριδα) (p. 152)." CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:16:15.367" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15862" PostId="7258" Score="0" Text="But ultimately acc.sg. Gr. -α &lt; PIE *-m̩ (i.e. syllabic m; not sure if it's displayed accurately) whereas Gr. -ν &lt; PIE *m (only i- and u-stems) (Rix 1992: 151)." CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:27:07.540" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15867" PostId="7258" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Can you possibly give the quote from Rix in context? As it stands. I do not understand what he is saying." CreationDate="2018-10-04T14:34:47.460" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15874" PostId="7258" Score="1" Text="This is part of my question, in a sense. Outside of the acc. sg. all these words are dental stems: χάρις, χάριτος; ἀσπίς, ἀσπίδος. In the acc. sg. some act like i-stems, and in Attic-Ionic the difference lines up with accentuation. I want to know what this looks like in the other dialects." CreationDate="2018-10-04T21:37:56.097" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15875" PostId="7258" Score="0" Text="There you go. &quot;Die Stämme auf *-ī̌d- -ī̌t- -ī̌tʰ*, meist umgebildete -ī̌-Stämme (§157), kennen neben *-ida* etc. auch den alten Ausgang *-ī̌n*; im Att. ist sekundär *-ī̌n* auf Barytona : χάριν ὄρνῑν, *-ida* etc. auf Oxytona festgelegt : ἐλπίδα (anders noch z.B. hom. ἔριδα).&quot;" CreationDate="2018-10-05T02:14:41.247" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15876" PostId="7258" Score="0" Text="Or Philomen Probert puts this way, &quot;Simplex nouns in -ις or -ῑς, genitive -ιδος/-ῑδος, that form their accusative singular in -δα only (never in -ν, at least in Attic) are generally oxytone&quot; (Probert 2003, §201); cf. §202. She does mention some exceptions, viz. nouns in -τις, gen. -τιδος, formed as feminine counterparts to paroxytone masculine ā-stems in -τις, πολῖτις πολίτης or ἱκέτις ἱκέτης." CreationDate="2018-10-05T02:37:14.647" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15877" PostId="7258" Score="0" Text="An exception to the second rule: νεᾶνις, acc. νεάνιδα and νεᾶνιν" CreationDate="2018-10-05T02:48:46.150" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15863" PostId="7259" Score="2" Text="I'm afraid Latin SE is turning into Sappho SE ..." CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:29:43.920" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15864" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Only my questions are doing that, AFAIK. Surely I'm not the only one asking questions here? Then again, I either don't ask, ask on Quora where they become &quot;in need of editing&quot; and get no answers, ask on Literature where they get no answers, ask where they are off-topic, or ask here, so I don't have much of a choice if I want answers, right? :)" CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:32:25.150" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15865" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="It _is_ a shame that Greek SE doesn't fly..." CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:33:55.303" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15866" PostId="7259" Score="2" Text="Oh no, I wasn’t really complaining. Was trying to be funny, that’s all." CreationDate="2018-10-04T14:25:31.580" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15868" PostId="7259" Score="1" Text="But worry not: there's only a few hundred more fragments on my list, and most are testimonia which I won't discuss, so there's only so many questions about Sappho I haven't asked yet :D." CreationDate="2018-10-04T14:45:15.703" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15937" PostId="7259" Score="1" Text="I know @AlexB was joking, but I have to say, I'm grateful for the questions. They bring out the inner workings of philology, and how tenuous they can be. I am now quite uncomfortable with the amount of intervention Lobel has done to the sources." CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:24:37.547" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15938" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="OTOH, @MickG, I will not touch this question unless you put paragraph breaks in it." CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:25:57.117" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15940" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas I put some breaks in the addendum (damn bulleted lists typed with mobile don't work), though that was mostly extra &quot;side info&quot;. The question is essentially &quot;Is there any justification to phérres with double rho?&quot;. The normal form would be épheres, remotion of the augment can happen in poetry, but the double rho is just unexplained for me. I really can't see what breaks I could add before the addendum..." CreationDate="2018-10-13T08:07:07.390" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15949" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="Not an answer, just some random thoughts: (1) AFAIK there's no way to get that double rho, but I'm not an expert on Aeolic. (2) I agree with you that an imperfect doesn't seem right here (though just maybe it would it we had the context). (3) ἄπυ strikes me as a weird emendation -- &quot;brings away&quot; is the opposite of the meaning we want; it seems to be based on the reading ἄποιον, which you translate as &quot;absent&quot; (where are you getting that btw?). If we need two moras there, maybe rather αὖ?" CreationDate="2018-10-13T19:10:28.993" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15950" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="@TKR (1) It would be really nice to find that Reinach edition… Otherwise we probably have to ask that huge PhD thesis on Aeolic which was posted in another one of my questions about Sappho. (2) OK. (3) [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=apoion&amp;la=greek#lexicon) is my source: apparently this can be a doric and/or poetic form of the participle of ἄπειμι=absum. It can also be a form of the participle of ἄπειμι=abeo, or a form of ἄποιος, &quot;without quality&quot;. Speaking of the weird emendation, [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=apo&amp;la=greek#lexicon) informs me…" CreationDate="2018-10-13T19:36:04.600" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15951" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="…this preposition, «IN COMPOS.», can mean «back again, as ἀποδίδωμι, ἀπολαμβάνω, ἀπόπλους: also, in full, or what is one's own, as ἀπέχω, ἀπολαμβάνω: freq. it only strengthens the sense of the simple.», so maybe that's what the emendation was going for. In fact, [sense II of ἀποφέρω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=apoferw&amp;la=greek#lexicon) is «carry or bring back», so this is not at all as weird as it might seem at first glance. (Of course, it's really the LSJ lexicon digitized on Perseus that is informing me.)" CreationDate="2018-10-13T19:37:36.270" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15953" PostId="7259" Score="1" Text="Good point on ἀποφέρω, thanks. On ἄποιον though note that masc. acc. sg. isn't one of the options -- that would presumably be ἀποιόντα." CreationDate="2018-10-13T20:01:34.873" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15954" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="@TKR Right, I guess that forces us to &quot;the child without quality&quot;, all the more reason to tamper with that adjective :)." CreationDate="2018-10-13T20:04:55.703" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16013" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="@NickNicholas &lt;&lt;I am now quite uncomfortable with the amount of intervention Lobel has done to the sources&gt;&gt;, cos you haven't seen Edmonds xD. I say this jokingly, but consider that, even in this fragment, Edmonds inserts a wòn after ápy, and his critical note says &quot;or print wwòn?&quot;. All in all, the Lobel-Page edition seems to me to be in the conservative group with Voigt and Campbell, Edmonds is the opposite extreme, and Bergk (1843 editions, he did 4 of them, noted Bgk1 Bgk2 Bgk3 and Bgk4 in Voigt) lying somewhere in the middle." CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:55:22.017" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16014" PostId="7259" Score="0" Text="And safopoemas is an incoherent and (very euphemistically) corrupted mixture :). Anyway, do you think I should insert more paragraph breaks :)?" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:55:36.567" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16025" PostId="7259" Score="1" Text="No, you're good. I'm just overcommitted to work right now. I also found that my literary Aeolic grammar, Hamm's, is not as legible as I'd hoped..." CreationDate="2018-10-20T10:36:52.697" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15869" PostId="7260" Score="4" Text="It's actually tantabus. I should think it's a nonce-word, got from something like tantalus-incubus." CreationDate="2018-10-04T15:45:45.860" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15870" PostId="7260" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton. Yes, very likely. tanta(lus) + (incu)bus = tantabus." CreationDate="2018-10-04T16:39:08.920" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15871" PostId="7260" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton, funny you should say that, because the MLP:FIM character that I cited is named &quot;Tantabus&quot;, but whose name is said to be a **corruption** of _tantibus_." CreationDate="2018-10-04T20:28:46.357" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="15872" PostId="7260" Score="2" Text="@fdb: What is the Classical Latin word for &quot;nightmare&quot;, incidentally?" CreationDate="2018-10-04T20:29:40.827" UserId="1343" />
  <row Id="15879" PostId="7261" Score="0" Text="I have zoomed in too. There is definitely the top of some letter after the &quot;m&quot;, but I cannot see that it is &quot;e&quot;. But what else could it be?" CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:08:15.580" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15880" PostId="7261" Score="0" Text="@fdb What I see is a faint /-shaped stroke (which could be dismissed as a quirk in the papyrus, e.g. a fold, due to the ink's faintness), a short \-shaped one, and a short /-shaped one, which could add up to either a reversed three woth the curves turned to angles, pr a capital sigma. The positioning of said letter is pretty weird, almost as if it were a superscript, which is why I rendered it as such in the revised transcription. I'll add a zoom with retracing and the possible completions to be clearer. If we want to exclude a superscript, then Idk what that could be." CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:19:47.137" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15881" PostId="7261" Score="0" Text="If we accept it, it might be an editorial correction for a smaller letter below it, or a letter that was placed lower on the line." CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:20:22.533" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15884" PostId="7261" Score="0" Text="@fdb just did that." CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:52:18.807" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15894" PostId="7264" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Perhaps the original question was not clear enough: the question is inspired by the passage, not about it. I tried to clarify it in that respect. Nevertheless, your answer is useful." CreationDate="2018-10-07T19:03:11.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15885" PostId="7265" Score="2" Text="Not a proper answer, with no hard data to back it up, but in my own 30+ years' experience reading Latin, this use of et is *extremely* common, in both prose and poetry, and in both Republican and Imperial literature (not sure about later literature, though). If the word that it precedes isn't something that you want or need to connect to something else, or if it's otherwise in a place where a conjunction isn't felt to be needed or desired, it's probably the adverb instead of 'and.'" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:17:11.977" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15889" PostId="7267" Score="0" Text="So we don't know, but probably not arákēn, rather árakin or arakída. What does &quot;at a.&quot; stand for in the Hesiod part?" CreationDate="2018-10-06T08:04:05.110" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15890" PostId="7267" Score="0" Text="Just zoomed in and it's &quot;et s.&quot;. What does s. stand for?" CreationDate="2018-10-06T08:05:51.373" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15892" PostId="7267" Score="2" Text="@MickG. Probably &quot;sub&quot; in the sense &quot;in his entry for the word X.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-10-07T11:33:35.877" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15893" PostId="7267" Score="2" Text="@fdb Oh well, I thought Hes. was for Hesiod, but now I guess it's for Hesychius :)." CreationDate="2018-10-07T11:42:49.317" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16265" PostId="7269" Score="1" Text="It took me one second to find Fraenkel https://books.google.com/books?id=6z8medIB24kC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2018-11-05T19:28:28.033" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16267" PostId="7269" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Thanks. Too bad I can't find the poem at hand in my preview..." CreationDate="2018-11-05T20:28:40.693" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16268" PostId="7269" Score="1" Text="Might post after work tonight." CreationDate="2018-11-05T20:45:43.893" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16273" PostId="7269" Score="1" Text="Here's the quote from Fränkel: 'eine Freundin hat aus Phokaia als &quot;kostbare Gabe purpurne parfümierte (?) Handtücher geschickt&quot;?'" CreationDate="2018-11-06T03:13:58.340" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16275" PostId="7269" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Hmm, so he doesn't give any clue as to what verb it could come from? _Acc_... Any idea on that &quot;a.ýtmnena&quot; from the new file (Q4)?" CreationDate="2018-11-06T06:24:47.317" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16237" PostId="7271" Score="0" Text="Another set of fragment comments may be helpful: page 85&#xA;https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sappho-fragments/1982/pb_LCL142.85.xml" CreationDate="2018-11-02T23:40:14.643" UserId="3068" />
  <row Id="15895" PostId="7272" Score="0" Text="So is there anything in the text to argue for one gender or the other of that conjectured we?" CreationDate="2018-10-08T15:36:41.303" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="15896" PostId="7272" Score="1" Text="Not as far as I can see." CreationDate="2018-10-08T16:24:34.990" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15897" PostId="7274" Score="0" Text="Oh, nice! That answers the specific question I had. For the general case, are you saying I should search without the digamma, then look for it in the specific entry?" CreationDate="2018-10-08T17:09:52.247" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15898" PostId="7274" Score="0" Text="I think so....." CreationDate="2018-10-08T17:11:20.550" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15901" PostId="7277" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, Danielle! Just to be clear, are you asking about the Latin origins of the English word &quot;sex&quot;? This site is for questions about Latin but your question does not mention Latin explicitly, so I just wanted to make sure. You can always edit your question to clarify it (and it's easiest if you register)." CreationDate="2018-10-10T14:41:47.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15906" PostId="7279" Score="0" Text="Thanks so very much. That's a very important distinction I missed - angling and fishing. So &quot;ἰχθυοθηρητήρ ἄναξ&quot; would be correct? And, to bring Draconis' excellent point into it, would &quot;ἰχθυοθηρητήρ ϝάναξ&quot; work as well?" CreationDate="2018-10-11T02:16:12.503" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15910" PostId="7279" Score="1" Text="I think that both I and Draconis have attempted to give you some reasonable possibilities, with indications of the connotations of the choices involved.  What is best for your purposes is up to you do decide.  Is ἰχθυβόλος (with its connotations of actually spearing that fish), or ἰχθυοθηρητήρ (with its connotation of hunting that fish) more suitable for what you want to convey?   Should you choose ἄναξ, or the still more archaic ϝάναξ?  This is a matter of tone where there is no &quot;right&quot; answer.  You must decide." CreationDate="2018-10-11T02:59:30.710" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15911" PostId="7279" Score="0" Text="Sorry, but I should have answered your question: would &quot;ἰχθυοθηρητήρ ϝάναξ&quot; work as well?  I think so, with some qualifications.  I suspect that ἰχθυοθηρητήρ is relatively late, and ϝάναξ is definitely archaic.  Does this combination work together?  I'm not sure." CreationDate="2018-10-11T03:07:05.477" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15912" PostId="7279" Score="0" Text="@varro ἰχθυοθηρητήρ ἄναξ / ϝάναξ it is, with that choice I'll have to make later. Thank you ever so much. Much obliged, friend." CreationDate="2018-10-11T03:07:13.960" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23791" PostId="7279" Score="0" Text="Dear @varro I'm Alex, working at a Hong Kong Art and Design company. We're looking to build out own group of avid language enthusiasts to advise us. You are quite the knowledgeable, kind and helpful linguist, and I would like to ask if you'd like to join as a private adviser. We envisage an informal, unpaid advisory board (like StackExchange), except we can give credit on our (as of yet unmade) website, rather then Stack points. But if anyone can recommend a suitable payment system we're all ears. If you have any interest please let me know. All the very best, A. J. T. Whiteheart" CreationDate="2019-12-23T11:59:39.870" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23859" PostId="7279" Score="0" Text="Or, if you're not interested, please let me know here in comments. Thanks so much." CreationDate="2019-12-28T12:53:36.693" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15907" PostId="7282" Score="0" Text="Thanks so very much. I had considered ϝάναξ but was a little worried about it precisely because it was so ancient and ϝ disappeared for a lot of Greece (but not all of it, for a long time). But I do require a title rather then a phrase, &quot;Fisher King&quot; rather then &quot;the King who is fishing&quot;, in reference to the character of grail legend." CreationDate="2018-10-11T02:18:35.533" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15909" PostId="7282" Score="2" Text="@Johan88 Greek doesn't draw as strong of a distinction as English does between &quot;fisher&quot; and &quot;fishing&quot;—both are basically &quot;one who fishes&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-11T02:39:42.310" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15921" PostId="7282" Score="3" Text="@Johan88, FYI ϝάναξ does look rather nonstandard because of the digamma -- even in the texts of Homer digamma is not actually written, only reconstructed. If you're going for a recognizably Classical Greek form I'd go with ἄναξ." CreationDate="2018-10-12T00:56:56.157" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23793" PostId="7282" Score="0" Text="Dear @Draconis I'm Alex, working at a Hong Kong Art and Design company. We're looking to build out own group of avid language enthusiasts to advise us. You are quite the knowledgeable, kind and helpful linguist, and I would like to ask if you'd like to join as a private adviser. We envisage an informal, unpaid advisory board (like StackExchange), except we can give credit on our (as of yet unmade) website, rather then Stack points. But if anyone can recommend a suitable payment system we're all ears. If you have any interest please let me know. All the very best, A. J. T. Whiteheart" CreationDate="2019-12-23T12:03:41.080" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23861" PostId="7282" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Or, if you're not interested, please let me know here in comments, thanks" CreationDate="2019-12-28T12:56:06.770" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15919" PostId="7283" Score="1" Text="The English term for these is &quot;minced oath&quot;. The Wikipedia article with that title has some examples from Greek, but not from Latin." CreationDate="2018-10-11T23:34:24.083" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15914" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="Does ἰχθυοθηρητήρ ἄναξ mean 'a King who Fishes' rather then Fishing King? If so, would ἰχθυοθηρητήρἄναξ work?" CreationDate="2018-10-11T10:10:47.617" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15915" PostId="7285" Score="1" Text="ἰχθυοθηρητήρ is a noun. In Greek if you combine two nouns (as opposed to adjective and noun) you need to use the compounding stem of the first noun." CreationDate="2018-10-11T10:52:21.850" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15916" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="Thanks. So what does ἰχθυοθηρητήρ ἄναξ become? I want to use ἄναξ rather then -βασιλεύς. ἰχθυοθηρητἄναξ?" CreationDate="2018-10-11T12:33:51.513" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15920" PostId="7285" Score="1" Text="*In Greek if you combine two nouns (as opposed to adjective and noun) you need to use the compounding stem of the first noun* -- that isn't right. Things like Ζεὺς ἄναξ, ἄναξ δεσπότης, βασιλεὺς ἄναξ are perfectly good Greek. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)%2Fnac" CreationDate="2018-10-12T00:50:09.497" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15923" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="@TKR Very interesting. But I had been interested in combining previous to it being mentioned so could somebody please tell me what it would be if combined (irregardless of whether I do so or not)? Thanks. ἰχθυοθηρητἄναξ?" CreationDate="2018-10-12T02:22:53.067" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15929" PostId="7285" Score="1" Text="@TKR. I think we are talking about two different things. Ζεὺς ἄναξ is apposition (Zeus the king). Fisher King is a compound where the first element is subordinate to the second." CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:58:26.827" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15930" PostId="7285" Score="1" Text="But Fisher King is apposition too -- it means &quot;the king who is a fisherman&quot;, not &quot;the king of fishermen&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:10:15.477" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15931" PostId="7285" Score="1" Text="@TKR: I think it is a kamadhāraya “a king who is also a fisher”." CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:21:40.810" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="15932" PostId="7285" Score="1" Text="Aren't karmadhārayas appositional? Cf. examples in Smyth http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+986&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007" CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:32:52.850" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15958" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="@TKR So is ἰχθυοθηρητἄναξ correct?" CreationDate="2018-10-14T02:30:56.810" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15964" PostId="7285" Score="1" Text="@Johan88 ἰχθυοθηρητηράναξ might be technically correct by the rules of compounding, but it looks bizarre. Three-part compounds are rare in Greek, and so are compounds where the non-final element is a noun in -τηρ. I wouldn't go with a compound in this case." CreationDate="2018-10-14T04:03:30.377" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="15965" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks do much. Exactly the advice I needed. Much obliged." CreationDate="2018-10-14T06:25:11.743" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23789" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="Dear @TKR I'm Alex, working at a Hong Kong Art and Design company. We're looking to build out own group of avid language enthusiasts to advise us. You are quite the knowledgeable, kind and helpful linguist, and I would like to ask if you'd like to join as a private adviser. We envisage an informal, unpaid advisory board (like StackExchange), except we can give credit on our (as of yet unmade) website, rather then Stack points. But if anyone can recommend a suitable payment system we're all ears. If you have any interest please let me know. All the very best, A. J. T. Whiteheart" CreationDate="2019-12-23T11:58:30.330" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23790" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="Dear @fdb I'm Alex, working at a Hong Kong Art and Design company. We're looking to build out own group of avid language enthusiasts to advise us. You are quite the knowledgeable, kind and helpful linguist, and I would like to ask if you'd like to join as a private adviser. We envisage an informal, unpaid advisory board (like StackExchange), except we can give credit on our (as of yet unmade) website, rather then Stack points. But if anyone can recommend a suitable payment system we're all ears. If you have any interest please let me know. All the very best, A. J. T. Whiteheart" CreationDate="2019-12-23T11:58:58.483" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23860" PostId="7285" Score="0" Text="@TKR Or, if you're not interested, please let me know here in the comments." CreationDate="2019-12-28T12:55:22.607" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15917" PostId="7286" Score="0" Text="Excellent! Would you mind adding a couple examples?" CreationDate="2018-10-11T16:55:47.123" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15918" PostId="7286" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Done." CreationDate="2018-10-11T17:12:01.823" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15922" PostId="7287" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much. Great point, but in thus particular matter I am limited to ἰχθύς. Great point though." CreationDate="2018-10-12T02:19:58.317" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="15925" PostId="7288" Score="0" Text="Well the gamemode I have selected for the character is that you can only die once, so I wanted to get a bit clever with the name. Unfortunately I haven't mucked around with Latin in many years so I don't know if Google is giving me the right information." CreationDate="2018-10-12T06:17:31.530" UserId="2996" />
  <row Id="15927" PostId="7289" Score="3" Text="Thank you! I agree on Google translate. Usually it gets short sentences right, but anything more complex than a few words yields.. strange results. I think I'm going to go with Morsuna :)" CreationDate="2018-10-12T07:13:13.653" UserId="2996" />
  <row Id="15928" PostId="7289" Score="1" Text="@Summer I'm glad to be able to help! Google Translate fails even with short sentences in Latin; it's far better with many other languages. You may get more answers over time, and you can use the little check mark next to an answer to accept it to indicate that you got what you wanted. After you reach 15 reputation points (you get 5 per upvote on your question), you can start giving your own votes to any questions and answers you like. I hope you'll come back if you have any more questions about Latin!" CreationDate="2018-10-12T07:18:44.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15955" PostId="7290" Score="3" Text="At all events avoid *botulus.*" CreationDate="2018-10-13T21:45:26.917" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15976" PostId="7290" Score="0" Text="...because of botulism, food poisoning from bad tinned beans.  What did you think I meant?" CreationDate="2018-10-15T12:35:31.757" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15977" PostId="7290" Score="0" Text="@Hugh That was one thing, but L&amp;S does also mention a vulgar secondary meaning which does align with &quot;sausage&quot;. I was not sure which one you meant." CreationDate="2018-10-15T13:08:41.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15933" PostId="7291" Score="2" Text="The [MSFUL](https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf) gives _colyphium_ and _globulus carneus_ as translations of meat ball, so I think _globulus_ is probably a good answer." CreationDate="2018-10-12T18:48:13.197" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15957" PostId="7291" Score="1" Text="Building off your answer and @Hugh comment: botulus globuli sounds beautiful" CreationDate="2018-10-14T01:30:08.710" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="15966" PostId="7291" Score="0" Text="@tox123 I'm not sure I follow. What would you use *botulus globuli* for? Sounds like a sausage filled with meatballs or some such thing. For just &quot;ball&quot; I would choose *globulus*. The word *botulus* has a vulgar meaning beside &quot;sausage&quot;, which can make it a little awkward for culinary use. (Also, the @-ping doesn't work unless you comment under the same post.)" CreationDate="2018-10-14T09:24:54.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15978" PostId="7291" Score="0" Text="@joonas Ilmavirta I think that tox123 meant to write _bubuli_, which would probably serve (it's derived from _bos_)." CreationDate="2018-10-15T13:47:09.747" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="15980" PostId="7291" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Ah, that would make perfect sense! It never crossed my mind, as I am not all that familiar with the word *bubulus*." CreationDate="2018-10-15T21:01:19.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15956" PostId="7292" Score="2" Text="Besides *debeo,* there is *oportet,* with various infinitives; and *licet* similarly." CreationDate="2018-10-13T21:49:25.587" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15934" PostId="7293" Score="0" Text="Ēheu! Don't know how this managed to slip my mind. Grātiās tibi!" CreationDate="2018-10-12T19:03:27.430" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="15935" PostId="7293" Score="3" Text="Actually, in 'unmarked' (unemphatic) usage, I think negation and indications of tense tend to be shown on the modal, not the infinitive; so *non debes eum amare* instead of *debes eum non amare*, *debuisti eum amare* instead of *debes eum amavisse*, *non debuisti eum amare* instead of *debes eum non amavisse*, etc. Indeed, Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge 280.2.b discusses the tense issue. Allen &amp; Greenough discusses it in 486.a and .b, noting that the present tense of debeo with perfect infinitive is used for special emphasis." CreationDate="2018-10-12T20:00:09.593" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="15936" PostId="7293" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thanks for pointing this out, I'll make an edit to reflect your comment" CreationDate="2018-10-12T20:30:41.817" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="15942" PostId="7295" Score="0" Text="This is exactly what I was hoping for. However, searching for `ve` in the TLG's LSJ gives only one hit, *Ϝέλχανος*. How would I search in order to find the actual word *ϝε*?" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:34:55.980" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15959" PostId="7295" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Has ϝε ever been attested epigraphically?" CreationDate="2018-10-14T03:17:15.287" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15960" PostId="7295" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I have no idea tbh; I never saw it before that question." CreationDate="2018-10-14T03:23:53.023" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15962" PostId="7295" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That's the problem. As far as I can see (partly based on Blümel 1982), we can find ϝε only in Balbilla 28 (line 12), on (the left leg of?) the Memnon colossus in Egypt. But this is not &quot;real&quot; Lesbian/Aeolic." CreationDate="2018-10-14T03:47:22.460" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15963" PostId="7295" Score="0" Text="@Draconis In section 20.8. **Digamma and hiatus**, Gary Miller (Miller 2014) talks of &quot;the tradition that profers ϝ- in reflexive (and, with little exception, only these) forms, as noted by Lobel (1925: §4) and many scholars since then (cf. HGD ii. 92f.&quot; (p. 249)." CreationDate="2018-10-14T04:02:18.410" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15967" PostId="7295" Score="0" Text="A search on the TLG LSJ will likely only match headwords. But if VE is in the corpus, eg in Balbilla, and you click it, it should point to its morphological analysis and matching headwords." CreationDate="2018-10-14T09:41:19.637" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="15968" PostId="7295" Score="1" Text="Like I tried to say earlier, and I would like to reiterate it, digamma never occurs in Lesbian ins­criptions. This is a well-known fact." CreationDate="2018-10-14T16:40:41.067" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15941" PostId="7296" Score="0" Text="Entirely fair. I say *y* appears to be feminine because it's sometimes called *y graeca*, not e.g. *y graecum*." CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:30:42.590" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15944" PostId="7296" Score="0" Text="Is this attested anywhere?" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:48:41.703" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15945" PostId="7296" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I don't know; I was basing my answer on a reasonable supposition." CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:54:20.687" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15946" PostId="7296" Score="0" Text="Entirely fair, just curious." CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:55:17.353" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15947" PostId="7296" Score="2" Text="@Draconis With respect to your remark about _y graeca_: one might compare this with its corresponding later Greek (Byzantine) name, υ ψιλόν / y-psilon, rather than (say) υ ψιλή, from an implied γράμμα." CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:57:54.007" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="15943" PostId="7297" Score="1" Text="Is there any attestation of this showing e.g. which gender would be used?" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:48:34.343" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15948" PostId="7297" Score="1" Text="@Draconis There must be some attestations if you have no limits for how recent it can be. For me both neuter (no noun implied) or feminine (*littera*) make sense." CreationDate="2018-10-13T18:14:19.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15969" PostId="7304" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Sermo! I took the liberty of adding a few tags, assuming that you meant *Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata*. If you meant something else, please edit the question and accept my apologies." CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:53:09.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15970" PostId="7304" Score="0" Text="I did mean that! Apologies, I thought I could be shortened, I didn't really think about whether or not similar titles exist." CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:54:47.893" UserId="2999" />
  <row Id="15971" PostId="7304" Score="0" Text="As *Lingua Latina* just means &quot;the Latin Language&quot;, I'm sure it can be misunderstood. I had no specific title in mind; I just wanted to be sure. Misunderstanding things online is all too easy... Anyway, feel free to make any further edits if you feel like it." CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:56:22.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15974" PostId="7304" Score="0" Text="Related question with relevant answers: [What word order resolves the ambiguity of two nominative nouns in a sentence?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/669/what-word-order-resolves-the-ambiguity-of-two-nominative-nouns-in-a-sentence)" CreationDate="2018-10-14T22:17:16.727" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15972" PostId="7305" Score="1" Text="That's unbelievably nice to hear. I was wondering why the author didn't try to make it clearer why he had chosen to move the word order. I was fearing that it would be a complicated, heavily contextual rule.&#xA;&#xA;Appreciate the answer and peace of mind!" CreationDate="2018-10-14T18:01:07.810" UserId="2999" />
  <row Id="15973" PostId="7305" Score="0" Text="@Sermo I'm glad I could bring you some peace of mind! If you have any more questions about that book or Latin in general, I would much like to see them on this site." CreationDate="2018-10-14T18:02:55.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15975" PostId="7306" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! That list of four properties is a tall order. Can you think of a suitable word in English or any other language?" CreationDate="2018-10-15T11:52:44.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15983" PostId="7306" Score="0" Text="I couldn't find a single word for it in English or any other language, it doesn't have to satisfy/mean each of these, but as close as possible to them" CreationDate="2018-10-15T21:41:41.257" UserId="3001" />
  <row Id="39049" PostId="7307" Score="0" Text="I do like *tutelaris*, especially in light of the last bullet point. *Numen tutelare* has a nice ring to it." CreationDate="2022-07-28T22:31:18.473" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="15979" PostId="7308" Score="2" Text="Do you mean that _tutor_ is here a false friend? If so, it's an extraordinary idea. The underlying concept is of protection, in every English sense, as the questioner requires. On the other hand _pastor_ (derived from _pascor_) is at root a herdsman, one who feeds his flock, etc. Can I invite you to reconsider your answer?" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:29:45.677" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="39043" PostId="7308" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I'm not trying to speak for Hugh or Glorfindel, but the English word &quot;tutor&quot;, at least here in the USA, means a guy who helps you with your schoolwork. The Latin word *tutor* means so much more than just that." CreationDate="2022-07-28T03:16:45.010" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="15981" PostId="7311" Score="1" Text="I would add that the accusative ending *-es* instead of *-is* is a valid choice in classical Latin although not used by Virgil, so *audentes Fortuna iuvat* is a faithful rendering of the original." CreationDate="2018-10-15T21:04:08.160" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15982" PostId="7311" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Fair; added!" CreationDate="2018-10-15T21:12:36.407" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="15985" PostId="7311" Score="0" Text="Re: the ending see https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1618/39" CreationDate="2018-10-15T22:14:05.217" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15986" PostId="7311" Score="0" Text="cf. line 280, Gian Biago Conte, in the most recent, 2011 Teubner edition, &quot;in manibus Mars ipse **, uiri!**&quot;" CreationDate="2018-10-16T01:44:56.313" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15987" PostId="7313" Score="1" Text="Your classmates are right. The use of bare locative ablative, *ablativus loci* (i.e. without a preposition) was restricted to a very small group of nouns. In this case we deal with *ablativus comparationis*." CreationDate="2018-10-16T02:39:07.127" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="15992" PostId="7313" Score="2" Text="Another thought: *maior* is nominative (masc. or fem.) and therefore subject, or complement of the two other possible nominatives in the phrase." CreationDate="2018-10-16T11:50:54.383" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15988" PostId="7314" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and many thanks for a great answer! I sure hope to hear more from you on the site." CreationDate="2018-10-16T08:18:46.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15989" PostId="7314" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the kind comment, Joonas! I would, by the way, have liked to add `negation` to the tags for the original question, but it seems this is not an available tag. I see you have a high rep. Could it be that Meta is closed for low rep users? If that is the case, could you make this request on my behalf?" CreationDate="2018-10-16T08:24:42.080" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="15990" PostId="7314" Score="0" Text="It never occurred to me that we have no [tag:negation] tag, but it would certainly make sense here and many other places. The threshold for [meta participation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/participate-in-meta) is 5 points, so you should be able to access it now." CreationDate="2018-10-16T08:50:17.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15991" PostId="7314" Score="0" Text="I have now added this as a question in Meta: https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/367/there-should-be-a-negation-tag" CreationDate="2018-10-16T11:27:56.473" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="15996" PostId="7314" Score="2" Text="If you're aiming for classical Latin, ne quidem spira should be ne spira quidem. In the extant classical literary writers, ne quidem just isn't used w/o some word between them; even, e.g., Plautus doesn't do it. It seems to be perfectly fine as legal Latin and/or Late Latin though (it maybe also as Medieval Latin). All but one ex. that I found in a search on PHI were from legal texts of Gaius (2nd c.) and Justinian (6th c.). The last ex., from Flavius Caper (2nd c.), just says to say 'ne fieri quidem potest' instead of 'ne quidem fieri potest' – i.e., to put something between ne and quidem." CreationDate="2018-10-16T21:37:58.243" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16040" PostId="7314" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this comment, @cnread, I did my best to update my answer. If you find my updated answer to be incorrect, please advise." CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:14:13.090" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="15994" PostId="7318" Score="2" Text="Possible duplicate of [If arm is 'arma', why is unarmed 'inermis' and not 'inarmis'?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7099/if-arm-is-arma-why-is-unarmed-inermis-and-not-inarmis) luchonacho’s answer has a quote that mentions *iners.*" CreationDate="2018-10-16T19:21:19.337" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="15997" PostId="7319" Score="0" Text="I've always thought of it as vowel raising: early Latin raised most unstressed vowels (a -&gt; e or i, e -&gt; i, o -&gt; u)" CreationDate="2018-10-16T23:13:40.647" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="15995" PostId="7320" Score="1" Text="Dictionary trawl:&#xA;*pauco foramine* a little way in front of the doorway (Hyginus Fabulae 194); *post paucum tempus* a little while after (Art Poet 203); *pauco numero tritici* small number  (African War 67)." CreationDate="2018-10-16T19:48:53.633" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="15999" PostId="7322" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Meech! Where do you want to use the phrase and have you tried translating it yourself? Context helps find the most suitable translation for your purposes." CreationDate="2018-10-17T06:33:57.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="15998" PostId="7324" Score="2" Text="It is fairly common for North American plants to have Latin or Greek names in binomial nomenclature.  I can certainly imagine Carl Linnaeus, who named Quercus phillos, looking at a herbarium specimen of C. philllos and giving it a similar name to Quercus suber.  Carl may have been the &quot;father of taxonomy,&quot; but is was nothing if not promiscuous when naming plants.  Your answer makes perfect sense." CreationDate="2018-10-17T02:07:17.557" UserId="3009" />
  <row Id="16001" PostId="7328" Score="0" Text="I'm somewhat confused about what you're asking here - you cite the well-know vowel changes that resulted from a systematic change of accent from old Latin to Classical Latin, so are you asking about the results of *other* changes as a consequence of (a different?) accent change?" CreationDate="2018-10-18T02:46:38.700" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16002" PostId="7328" Score="0" Text="@varro Sorry, I'll clarify. Those sound changes result from the accent being in the initial position: if it had e.g. moved to purely final stress, as in French, you'd see the same things. I'm wondering if there were sound changes that depended on the Classical stress system." CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:54:01.903" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16017" PostId="7330" Score="1" Text="Well, it's synaphia, cf. &quot;Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between&quot; (Brill's New Pauly)." CreationDate="2018-10-19T21:55:56.327" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16018" PostId="7330" Score="0" Text="Also, the title of Herodian's work is Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων (available online, e.g. https://scaife.perseus.org/library/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0087.tlg013.1st1K-grc1/) What's the connection between Herodian and Choeroboscus? Eleanor Dickey (Dickey 2007) mentions that &quot;Choeroboscus is for example responsible for much of the preservation of Herodian's Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων&quot; (p. 80)." CreationDate="2018-10-20T01:55:55.210" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16020" PostId="7330" Score="0" Text="Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for *Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis* first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian." CreationDate="2018-10-20T02:17:50.170" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16021" PostId="7330" Score="0" Text="&quot;why all this quoting?&quot; Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved &quot;primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius&quot; (Dickey 2007: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani (van Gulik, English transl. 2018)." CreationDate="2018-10-20T02:36:54.217" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16023" PostId="7330" Score="0" Text="So to sum up: 1. Herodian's Perì klísĕōs ŏnŏmátō (which I almost got right) was lost except for quoted parts, e.g. those quoted by Choeroboscus; 2. That Cornucopia is essentially an edition of various works, somewhat like Lobel-Page is an edition of Sappho and Alcaeus, and it's not a separate work quoting Choeroboscus which ended up quoting the passage where he quoted Herodian, as I had previously interpreted (&quot;quoteception&quot; whence &quot;why all this quoting?&quot;). @AlexB correct? Is that the only version of Choeroboscus we have left or are there independent manuscripts that you know of?" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:44:07.267" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16003" PostId="7331" Score="1" Text="Oh, is there hiatus in the Spanish word? I would have expected the “ie” to be /je/" CreationDate="2018-10-18T04:30:26.933" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16004" PostId="7331" Score="0" Text="[Horae tenebrae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenebrae) are held early in the morning (they should be celebrated before dawn, which is not always observed) and only in the paschal triduum. The evening prayer is called &quot;vespers&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-18T07:32:38.363" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="16005" PostId="7331" Score="0" Text="@PavelV.: That may be true historically, but probably not typically nowadays.  There are no doubt also variations according the particular church involved (note that tenebrae services are not confined to Roman Catholicism).  I think all the tenebrae services I've attended have been in the evening." CreationDate="2018-10-18T18:32:51.533" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16006" PostId="7331" Score="0" Text="@sumelic:  The transcription I gave reflects what I *think* I remember hearing, but I could be wrong, or there may be variation between [tiniˈɛβlɑs] and [tinˈjɛβlɑs] based on speakers/regions. &amp;c.  (And, of, course, I might just be wrong.)" CreationDate="2018-10-18T18:38:57.103" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16086" PostId="7331" Score="0" Text="@varro: they are definitely held in the morning, at least in the Catholic Church in the Central Europe (I have spent Triduum only in Czech Republic and Poland yet, but I pray them every year), but the wikipedia article I linked supports that they should be held in the morning everywhere in the Catholic Church, though the emphasis of disapprovement of their celebration in the evening before suggests that there are local tradition moving the tenebrae to the evening despite the liturgical norms." CreationDate="2018-10-23T07:38:03.760" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="18550" PostId="7331" Score="0" Text="I forgot to say this before, but what I meant was that I would expect *tinieblas* to be  [tiˈnjɛβlɑs] with a stressed syllable starting with [n] followed by the diphthong [jɛ] (or [je])." CreationDate="2019-02-12T08:51:07.260" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16027" PostId="7332" Score="3" Text="Excellent question! It stands to reason that such a creole should have existed somewhere, to some extent. But the Greeks probably felt very superior and all about their language, and the Romans really didn't like non-standard language, so they probably resisted wider application of creoles, and we have little or no evidence left." CreationDate="2018-10-21T04:16:59.070" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16056" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="I can think of potential sources like grafitti, votive offerings, or maybe some lines in a comedy play." CreationDate="2018-10-22T10:30:48.073" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="16060" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="Yes, exactly. It will be hard to find if you don't know what to look for, exactly, but I'm sure some people must have researched the subject?" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:42:46.850" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18372" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="Surely the Greeks would have just made them speak Greek..." CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:03:36.270" UserId="3257" />
  <row Id="18785" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: those Greeks who &quot;felt very superior&quot; and those Romans who &quot;really didn't like non-standard language&quot; would surely not generally be the people who were actually trying to do everyday business with the foreigners at the ports." CreationDate="2019-03-03T11:01:44.327" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18786" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine: Not the porters nor the stevedores! But the port officials may be. It's quite possible for some kind of calque to have existed in southern Italy, where both ethnic groups lived in the same city. But it probably never developed into anything that could be used officially and leave literary evidence...so graffiti and the like might be a good place to look, rather than port documents." CreationDate="2019-03-03T22:56:09.820" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18787" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: absolutely. But however the sailors and porters managed to communicate, I doubt if many of them could write even graffiti." CreationDate="2019-03-03T23:38:07.140" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18797" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine: Hmm why wouldn't they? And the people living together in the cities?" CreationDate="2019-03-04T22:23:01.427" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18798" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: maybe I'm wrong. [This Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#Classical_and_post-classical_literacy) says that &quot;Until recently it was thought that the majority of people were illiterate in ancient times. However, recent work challenges this perception&quot;" CreationDate="2019-03-04T23:12:11.267" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18799" PostId="7332" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine: Ah, I misread your earlier comment. A question about literacy would be quite interesting!" CreationDate="2019-03-04T23:25:23.603" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16008" PostId="7335" Score="3" Text="Instead of Etymonline, I strongly recommend taking a look at [the dictionary entry in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=intersum&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059). It has a similar jump from &quot;to be between&quot; to &quot;to be important&quot;, but it would be much better to base the question on a better source." CreationDate="2018-10-18T20:23:55.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16010" PostId="7335" Score="3" Text="(1) Indeed, it doesn't explain it, and the question is good. I just thought the question would be far more attractive if based on a better source. Quoting L&amp;S or OLD instead of Etymonline would be a great improvement in my opinion. (2) OLD is fine too. The point was not to rely on Etymonline." CreationDate="2018-10-18T21:06:40.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24048" PostId="7335" Score="0" Text="It should be worthwhile to compare the financial sense of &quot;interest&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-19T09:33:53.447" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="16012" PostId="7338" Score="1" Text="Do you have any evidence for this?" CreationDate="2018-10-19T14:14:28.313" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16015" PostId="7338" Score="1" Text="Interesting. But how to explain the fact that a feminine ablative singular form of possessive adjectives us used (e.g., meā interest)? If accusative rem is ellipsed, I'd expect meam. Or perhaps it changed to ablative on the model of something like refert? OLD suggests that the re- there may originally have been the ablative of res rather than the prefiix." CreationDate="2018-10-19T17:00:37.673" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16016" PostId="7338" Score="0" Text="I seem to have assumed too much familiarity with the usage of _interest_. Give me a few hours, and I'll expand my answer, with instances of use." CreationDate="2018-10-19T19:06:22.577" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16024" PostId="7339" Score="0" Text="Definitely stórgŏs then. Wonder where Bergk got his stŏrgãs..." CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:44:59.583" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16028" PostId="7339" Score="1" Text="@MickG See my updated answer above." CreationDate="2018-10-21T16:09:01.160" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16029" PostId="7339" Score="0" Text="You are right about the edition I'm using. I found that one and have been using it since, and have no time to change all the numbers in my huge comparative numbering table to match another one, so I'll stick to the 1843 one. Voigt mentions 4 editions in LIBRORUM ET NOMINUM COMPENDIA section of her CONSPECTUS COMPENDIORUM ET NOTARUM: Bgk1, 1843; Bgk2, 1853; Bgk3, 1867; and Bgk4, 1882. So Bgk2 is the one you're missing." CreationDate="2018-10-21T16:24:42.567" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16030" PostId="7339" Score="0" Text="So emendavi and correxi are essentially synonyms, right?" CreationDate="2018-10-21T16:26:05.623" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16031" PostId="7339" Score="0" Text="Note: What you introduce as 2 in the answer doesn't answer bonus question 2, but rather the main question. Bonus question 2 is &quot;What does stórgos mean? And does it even exist?&quot;, and I can't find an answer to that in that 2..." CreationDate="2018-10-21T16:28:26.687" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16032" PostId="7339" Score="1" Text="@MickG I *do* know there are four Bergk editions - this is a well-known fact; I’m not missing it, I just don’t see how useful it could be ..." CreationDate="2018-10-21T17:01:43.150" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16033" PostId="7339" Score="1" Text="As for the incorrect conjecture στόργος, which was rejected more than a century ago, I thought it was clear by now there was no such word in Greek, hence emendavi." CreationDate="2018-10-21T17:06:14.823" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16034" PostId="7339" Score="1" Text="@ correxi and emendavi are not necessarily used interchangeably by all editors, especially in the past - see the linked books by Tarrant or West. Now, if you really want to know how στόργος was analyzed two hundred years ago (and before), some editors of the distant past analyzed it as a “nomen mulieris”" CreationDate="2018-10-21T17:32:57.920" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16035" PostId="7339" Score="0" Text="As a genitive or a nominative (weird -os ending for a woman's name...)?" CreationDate="2018-10-21T17:36:27.227" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16095" PostId="7339" Score="0" Text="@MickG I uploaded two passages from Toup 1778 - with Voigt and Google one can find virtually everything these days. Will comment on it later; I might slightly revise my answer after classes." CreationDate="2018-10-23T14:35:36.633" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16039" PostId="7343" Score="1" Text="The English meaning of &quot;terror&quot; has been devalued over time, at least until its recent association with terrorism. Originally &quot;terrible&quot; denoted &quot;something that induces a state of terror&quot; - which is not what phrases like &quot;a terrible piece of homework&quot; or even &quot;a terrible car crash&quot; imply in modern English." CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:06:59.917" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="16036" PostId="7344" Score="1" Text="My Latin is rusty and was weak to begin with: what is Cicero saying there? *To throw threats, to intend danger, to oppose fear* seems like a strange reversal in the last section?" CreationDate="2018-10-21T18:24:16.870" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="16037" PostId="7344" Score="2" Text="@KRyan You could translate it as &quot;oppose with fear&quot; or something similar. *Opponere aliquid alicui* means &quot;to put something (acc.) in someone's (dat.) way&quot;. *Forminidines* is accusative, not dative. This kind of behavior is typical for Latin threats. That would make a nice question for the site, actually!" CreationDate="2018-10-21T18:28:17.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16041" PostId="7344" Score="0" Text="Can one even really have terrorism without a mass media?" CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:55:27.083" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="16042" PostId="7344" Score="1" Text="@David Richerby Why ever not? May not a gang strike terror into people with neither aid nor publicity from the media, for instance?" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:24:41.710" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16055" PostId="7344" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton That’s not terrorism in the sense the word is understood today. It’s hard to strike enough fear into a population to achieve political goals if people in the next town don’t know what’s going on, unless your goals are also very local." CreationDate="2018-10-22T09:00:16.893" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="16065" PostId="7344" Score="0" Text="@David Richerby We hear of neighbourhoods being terrorised by gangs.Whether or not it is reported in the media, it's still terrorism, and it happens." CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:00:24.490" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16093" PostId="7344" Score="0" Text="@DavidRicherby I wonder what would a neighbor of some of Attila's victims say if they knew the use we give the word today" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:44:39.810" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16049" PostId="7349" Score="0" Text="Thank you, NRitH, for your answer. Please see disclaimer in my comment above. However, I wanted to let you know that I learned something else (beyond my momentary myopia when attempting a search this arvo) interesting from your post, namely the idea of the &quot;contraction of maius 'better' and velle 'to want'&quot; that I had not considered. Cheers!" CreationDate="2018-10-22T01:59:57.993" UserId="2791" />
  <row Id="20287" PostId="7349" Score="0" Text="I'm confused by the rollback of the edit--any particular reason you want it to stand this way?" CreationDate="2019-06-25T20:10:29.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16043" PostId="7350" Score="1" Text="Related: [How do we know how gn was pronounced in Classical Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/152/how-do-we-know-how-gn-was-pronounced-in-classical-latin), [Do we know how 'ng' was pronounced in classical Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/443/do-we-know-how-ng-was-pronounced-in-classica)" CreationDate="2018-10-21T23:38:43.117" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16088" PostId="7350" Score="0" Text="I have read through the question and the very good answer which you have linked to. If I rephrase my question to emphasise my main puzzlement, the possibility of a /ŋ/ pronunciation, will this satisfy the requirements for this to be a unique question? I believe that in doing so, I will remain true to my actual question, at the same time not invalidating the answer provided." CreationDate="2018-10-23T08:15:03.467" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16094" PostId="7350" Score="1" Text="This looks less like a duplicate to me now, so I've reopened it – thanks!" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:50:03.457" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16127" PostId="7350" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your assistance, y'all. I learned from this as well." CreationDate="2018-10-25T18:28:52.283" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16061" PostId="7352" Score="0" Text="I'm also a bit puzzled by *quam*: what does it mean here? Normally *quam* + superlative is used to express &quot;as [adjective] as possible&quot;. But &quot;as many as possible&quot; wouldn't seem to fit here." CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:57:24.960" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16067" PostId="7352" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I've also seen *quam* as intensifier of superlatives (especially *plurimi*, I think), so I would read *quam plurimi* as &quot;very many&quot; as in the quoted translation." CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:36:23.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16068" PostId="7352" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Hmm you don't happen to have a quotation (except this one) or source for that? I've quickly looked at what L&amp;S have to say about it, but they mention no such use. Glancing at your HP link, I didn't immediately see it either. But wait! I shall ask a Question." CreationDate="2018-10-22T20:53:24.733" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16085" PostId="7352" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Hmm... It seems that where I would have translated &quot;very many&quot;, the sources I see choose &quot;as many as possible&quot;. Perhaps I'm not used to such use of *quam* and superlative. Regarding your question, I think there's a difference between *o quam* + superlative and *quam* + superlative, but it might just be my being misguided. However, reading *quam* literally as &quot;how&quot; does make sense, although it's not how I would put it in English." CreationDate="2018-10-23T05:37:24.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16062" PostId="7353" Score="0" Text="What do you mean by substantive nouns? I'm most used to &quot;substantive&quot; meaning an adjective used as a noun, e.g. *bonum* &quot;good thing&quot;, but trees aren't in this category." CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:11:49.030" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16064" PostId="7353" Score="2" Text="@Draconis: &quot;substantive nouns&quot; goes back to traditional grammar where both what we call nouns and adjectives fall into the category &quot;nouns&quot;.  To distinguish the subcategories, one used &quot;substantive nouns&quot; (or as I remember it, &quot;nouns substantive&quot;) and &quot;adjective nouns&quot; (or &quot;nouns adjective&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:41:18.083" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16066" PostId="7353" Score="0" Text="_Arbor_, tree, is of Third Declension, not Second." CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:06:47.170" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16070" PostId="7353" Score="4" Text="@TomCotton: Indeed not, but many trees are." CreationDate="2018-10-22T21:07:08.963" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16071" PostId="7353" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus You are quite right! +1" CreationDate="2018-10-22T21:24:27.680" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16073" PostId="7354" Score="0" Text="This is wonderful!" CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:34:20.180" UserId="517" />
  <row Id="16102" PostId="7354" Score="2" Text="What a fascinating word pond! Charmed I am to be /  sprouting cognitively / at sea in synecdoche / enlightened incredulity!" CreationDate="2018-10-24T01:31:22.510" UserId="2791" />
  <row Id="34194" PostId="7354" Score="0" Text="I just saw this, but the fourth line would actually be neuter, no? I think I remember learning this (or something like this?) way back in high school, but I had entirely forgotten it!" CreationDate="2021-07-22T18:47:51.607" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="16109" PostId="7355" Score="0" Text="Postgate's [The New Latin Primer, p. 131](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/131), lists the same plus _balanus_ (ground, balsam, the bear constellation) and &quot;the names of Trees&quot;, is this a precursor to Kennedy's?" CreationDate="2018-10-24T12:39:13.087" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16110" PostId="7355" Score="0" Text="I should have thought of humus! Thanks for the other examples as well, like the Greek ones. A comparison with the neuter *-us* words might be interesting subject matter for a new Question!" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:06:26.737" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16112" PostId="7355" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Mountford's revision of Kennedy was in 1930, Postgate died at about that time, so I guess that K's first edition is much older. All the Latin dictionaries and primers of the 19th C. tend to have many suspiciously similar entries (and plagiarism is not often acknowledged!). Kennedy has memorial lines on gender in his final appendix, which I had forgotten, and from which I should have quoted." CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:47:43.817" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16069" PostId="7356" Score="0" Text="I don't have an answer, but this could help someone else find it: I once heard Roman law considered the case when a woman gave birth something different than a human being. If I remember right, the word used in Spanish was _monstruo_ (monster), so the answer _could_ be in Roman law." CreationDate="2018-10-22T21:04:43.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16082" PostId="7356" Score="0" Text="Did the meaning shift?  I always thought that anything horrifying and monstrous was called a _monstrum_ precisely because it was interpreted as a &quot;supernatural occurrence&quot;, intended as a warning by the divine powers.  That is to say, _monstrum_ did always mean &quot;monster&quot; in the sense we currently understand it (horrifying) although we don't now necessarily associate something malformed as a divine omen (but we do associate monsters in horror films as &quot;evil&quot; to some extent)." CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:39:27.167" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="16092" PostId="7358" Score="2" Text="I quite like _terrorismus_ and _territor_ !" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:26:44.833" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16072" PostId="7359" Score="0" Text="Ahah, the answer you seek appears to be at the very bottom of your link." CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:23:12.457" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="16075" PostId="7359" Score="0" Text="@Anonym: Well, that isn't with superlatives?" CreationDate="2018-10-23T01:14:14.543" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16076" PostId="7360" Score="2" Text="Ah! Your answer has quotations where *quam* is translated as &quot;how&quot;, which I would call an interrogative. The &quot;very&quot; in those translations comes from the superlatives themselves. Even so, I think you've put us on the right track: I think *quam* in 'my' Augustinian quotation is indeed the same quam, to be translated as &quot;indeed, how very many&quot;. That makes sense; I wonder why I didn't see it. Perhaps it was the slightly liberal translation &quot;indeed very many&quot; that somehow led me astray." CreationDate="2018-10-23T01:17:53.017" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16096" PostId="7360" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus But is this *quam* 'how' really an interrogative? No question has been asked and no answer is expected." CreationDate="2018-10-23T17:03:32.530" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="16098" PostId="7360" Score="0" Text="@Anonym: Well, I think that's what it and the word &quot;how&quot; are normally called, but I would say it hovers in between interrogative adverb and conjunction (as many words do). In either case, it introduces an (elliptical) clause. So in the *o, quam pulcherrima laus* example, the original construction from which this elliptical use is derived is probably something like *o, [mirabile est] quam pulcherrima laus [sit/est]*, or similar. So in Augustine, it is probably best thought of as *[mirabile est] quam plurimi*, &quot;it is amazing how very many&quot;, which can then be liberally translated as &quot;very many&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-23T17:45:20.960" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16083" PostId="7361" Score="0" Text="@Nick Nicholas  There you go!" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:49:27.560" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16087" PostId="7361" Score="0" Text="So essentially this starts out as an effect of the suffixes -σθε -σθαι and spreads out, at least in screenshot 1. But then screenshot 3 seems to imply almost all the chi's are editorial corrections, so what gives?" CreationDate="2018-10-23T07:40:08.363" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16101" PostId="7361" Score="0" Text="Αsterisk in Hamm means &quot;in papyrus&quot;, which is meant to be more faithful to the source than the literary attestations. But you're right, even some of the instances in papyri are in fact emendations, and there has been a Neogrammarian assumption of grammatical regularity in these emendations.&#xA;&#xA;I'm reassured that Hamm at least indicates which ones the emendations are. A secondary source like Thumb/Scherer has no such compunctions..." CreationDate="2018-10-23T23:29:59.550" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="16105" PostId="7361" Score="1" Text="@NickNicholas Well, emendations are better than nothing (i.e. fragments), as long as they are clearly marked so, and at least Voigt (nee?/aka Hamm) did so in her research." CreationDate="2018-10-24T03:13:10.950" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16099" PostId="7365" Score="0" Text="My Latin is rusty, but it's equally valid to say *&quot;Aurorae Votum&quot;*, right? The OP may find that more poetic." CreationDate="2018-10-23T23:05:01.180" UserDisplayName="user2927" />
  <row Id="16100" PostId="7365" Score="0" Text="@fredsbend Yes, that is also perfectly grammatical" CreationDate="2018-10-23T23:10:35.647" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="16106" PostId="7366" Score="0" Text="Does the era matter to you? I'd guess *transcendentia* is used in more recent Latin but not classical." CreationDate="2018-10-24T05:59:10.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16107" PostId="7366" Score="0" Text="I think _transcendentia_ might be fine in Eccl Latin/ Related, unanswered question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6988/seeking-simple-latin-translation-for-motto-fire-flow-transcendence (though I think it doesn't refer to the same meaning of transcendence)" CreationDate="2018-10-24T12:21:07.680" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16108" PostId="7366" Score="0" Text="clue: [this paper](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transcendentals-medieval/) discusses about the origin of the related (but more specific) philosophical meaning, as in _the transcendentals_" CreationDate="2018-10-24T12:26:04.913" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16111" PostId="7367" Score="1" Text="Great overview, and great quotation. Kühner is so comprehensive!" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:10:54.940" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16113" PostId="7369" Score="1" Text="Never heard of “slenderization” in linguistics." CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:59:41.550" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16114" PostId="7369" Score="1" Text="@alexb Yes different linguists use different terms. That is the term in Goidelic linguistics. It is a really big thing in Old Irish, Modern Irish and Scots Gaelic where they have the same rule including the gender distinction. The rule is also found in Old English, Old Norse and Greek. I used that term because it is the least ambiguous and because I don't know if there is an agreed term in Latin or what it is. (Please advise.)" CreationDate="2018-10-24T15:33:30.383" UserId="3026" />
  <row Id="16116" PostId="7369" Score="0" Text="I think you're confused about what palatalization and umlaut mean -- these are phenomena that can be caused by front vowels in some languages (though not Classical Latin), but having a front vowel in an ending doesn't in itself imply them." CreationDate="2018-10-24T17:58:16.523" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16115" PostId="7370" Score="2" Text="Good question! I think the word you're looking for is &quot;calque&quot;." CreationDate="2018-10-24T16:51:24.507" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16117" PostId="7371" Score="0" Text="I have always thought that palatalization (a type of contact assimilation) and umlaut (a type of non-adjacent assimilation) are different sound changes. Could you refer me to any academic sources that support your analysis, i.e. that umlaut is a subtype of palatalization?" CreationDate="2018-10-25T00:40:31.447" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16118" PostId="7371" Score="0" Text="For example, I just grabbed the first book on my desk, the first volume of *A grammar of Old English: Phonology* by Richard Hogg, and he talks about i-umlaut, palatal umlaut, and back umlaut. This is pretty standard." CreationDate="2018-10-25T01:04:57.207" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16119" PostId="7371" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Ah, yes - I had forgotten about back umlaut.  Still, when one talks about &quot;umlaut&quot;, it is almost always front umlaut that comes to mind.  If you wish to confine the term &quot;palatalization&quot; to consonants only, then I have no problem with that, but I think it's clear that (palatal/i) umlaut and palatalization are not completely unrelated phenomena - they both represent the shifting of either a vowel or a consonant to a more forward point of articulation under the influence of a &quot;close&quot; front consonant or vowel.  Call it &quot;fronting&quot; then, rather than palatalization." CreationDate="2018-10-25T01:28:07.403" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16120" PostId="7371" Score="0" Text="Oh no, I didn't mean to say palatalization and umlaut were *completely* unrelated. Thanks for your answer." CreationDate="2018-10-25T02:09:45.490" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16121" PostId="7376" Score="0" Text="You're references were very helpful. Thanks! I didn't find John Duns Scotus saying that verbatim, but he said something which means essentially the same thing: &quot;Sed malo de possibili proponere conclusiones et praemissas. Illis quippe de actu concessis, istae de possibili conceduntur; non e converso.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-10-25T13:42:27.197" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16122" PostId="7376" Score="0" Text="@ExpeditoBipes You're welcome. Yes, I could not find that same expression either, but as far as I could get from the other links in the answer, no one seem to suggest Duns Scotus or Ockham stated the principle in those same words." CreationDate="2018-10-25T13:46:53.917" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16124" PostId="7377" Score="0" Text="Wonderful! I fixed the citation on Wikipedia." CreationDate="2018-10-25T16:18:47.743" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16129" PostId="7378" Score="0" Text="No, Latin meditor was primarily used in the sense of “deliberare, considerare” (TLL)." CreationDate="2018-10-25T18:42:04.333" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16144" PostId="7378" Score="0" Text="Well, it's not too far a stretch to render it as &quot;weigh&quot;, as in deliberating by weighing your options." CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:55:23.270" UserId="517" />
  <row Id="16151" PostId="7378" Score="0" Text="@NRitH of course, but 'weigh' - or rather 'measure' (see the post above) - should *not* be listed as the primary sense though." CreationDate="2018-10-27T19:51:04.180" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16136" PostId="7391" Score="0" Text="I think _semper_ or _sempiternus_ sounds more positive than _perpetuum_, which reminds me of _cadena perpetua_ (in Spanish; it seems this word [did not make it](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perpetuus#Descendants) into English)." CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:09:57.013" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16140" PostId="7391" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho We have in English _perpetual, perpetuate_ etc.(also, even, _sempiternal_)." CreationDate="2018-10-27T06:20:08.670" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16141" PostId="7391" Score="0" Text="*sempiternal* isn't related to *perpetuus*." CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:47:04.497" UserId="517" />
  <row Id="16147" PostId="7391" Score="0" Text="@NRitH Of course it isn't — and it's English, not Latin. Did you not notice that luchonacho referred to the Latin in his comment?" CreationDate="2018-10-27T15:32:36.220" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16138" PostId="7392" Score="0" Text="I would *definitely* use interpuncts rather than just omitting the spaces for this purpose, but omit the apices.  Otherwise, it looks good to me." CreationDate="2018-10-26T20:33:20.230" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16139" PostId="7392" Score="0" Text="@varro I would generally agree; I am simply offering all options." CreationDate="2018-10-26T20:34:26.490" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="16142" PostId="7392" Score="0" Text="Accent marks are rare in inscriptions." CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:47:55.260" UserId="517" />
  <row Id="16145" PostId="7392" Score="1" Text="@NRitH I am aware of that. Again, I’m simply offering a set of options from which to choose." CreationDate="2018-10-27T15:12:54.010" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="16146" PostId="7392" Score="0" Text="Understood and upvoted." CreationDate="2018-10-27T15:29:52.860" UserId="517" />
  <row Id="16153" PostId="7392" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much everyone!  I really didn't want to screw up the inscription on my gravestone.  Now I won't.  Thanks again." CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:02:52.337" UserId="3033" />
  <row Id="16137" PostId="7393" Score="1" Text="Related (but not duplicate): https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6352/what-would-be-the-correct-translation-for-out-of-few-many" CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:44:48.527" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16150" PostId="7398" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I see you created a new account to comment on my answer, and I converted your answer into a comment. It will be easier for you to comment and otherwise use this site if you register your account. With the reputation you have earned from this question, you will already be able to vote up all the questions and answers you like, and accept an answer. If you register a new account, we can merge this older account into it (just let us know!) so you have all the benefits and access you deserve." CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:17:32.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16148" PostId="7400" Score="0" Text="Thank you for taking time to answer.&#xA;If you mean &quot;nature of unibility&quot; then question remains - &quot;what is unibility&quot;? As I noted in the question: &quot;word *unibility* seems to be absent from at least some online dictionaries&quot;.&#xA;If I accept that &quot;unibilitatis&quot; means &quot;of unibility&quot; then to know the meaning of &quot;unibilitatis&quot; I need to know the meaning &quot;unibility&quot; but it seems that to know meaning of &quot;unibility&quot; I need to know the meaning of &quot;unibilitatis&quot; and the circle closes. It'd be great to show where *unibilitatis* comes from, explain what it means, what declension it is, etc." CreationDate="2018-10-27T16:57:23.190" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="16149" PostId="7401" Score="1" Text="Thank you both! @JoonasIlmavirta Re: *vetera*. The family [Vom Stein](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herren_vom_Stain) is a family of *ministeriales* who are mentioned in documents dating as far back as 922, possibly 728, so they are one of the oldest noble families still existing in 16th century southern Germany." CreationDate="2018-10-27T15:47:25.607" UserId="3041" />
  <row Id="16154" PostId="7408" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you happen to have any examples of *bi-* being actually used to multiply a prefix, as in *biquasqui-*? I'm not sure that would be interpreted correctly." CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:05:24.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43618" PostId="7408" Score="0" Text="Yeah, no. _quasqui-_ isn't multiplictive. It's additive: ¼ _and a_ ~. The equivalent format would be _quasquibi-_, not _biquasqui-_." CreationDate="2023-06-16T04:06:27.933" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="16155" PostId="7410" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Where do you want to use the phrase and what do you want to convey with it? The more we know about the context, the better our suggestions are." CreationDate="2018-10-28T13:20:27.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16156" PostId="7410" Score="1" Text="We are suggesting a motto for the change from a training to new innovations and I would like to convey that we bring the promise of the future or a better future.  Thank you!" CreationDate="2018-10-28T13:34:53.327" UserId="3044" />
  <row Id="16179" PostId="7410" Score="0" Text="It might be helpful to translate it into English before asking. I've no doubt that &quot;promissary&quot; is listed in dictionaries, but I can't work out what you mean by it." CreationDate="2018-10-30T00:13:24.447" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="34005" PostId="7410" Score="0" Text="Is your mother tongue English? I am unsure about your usage of ‘promissary’." CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:51:56.330" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16171" PostId="7411" Score="1" Text="There is a discussion of this gloss in Beekes s.v. ξεω, with some further literature." CreationDate="2018-10-29T12:52:24.983" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16162" PostId="7412" Score="1" Text="As you speak of Vulgar Latin, can we be fairly certain that educated Romans before the third century still pronounced these words (and analogous) in the classical way?" CreationDate="2018-10-28T19:59:28.513" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16168" PostId="7412" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva I've significantly revised my answer - see above." CreationDate="2018-10-29T04:12:35.380" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16169" PostId="7412" Score="2" Text="Thank you for the detailed answer. I agree with Adams' observation; as for your note, I've come to think that Vulgar Latin is a separate (kind of a sister) language, as in, Classical Latin was used for literary purposes, speeches and educated conversations, being also codified, whereas VL didn't have a set of rules and depended on the daily use by the people, and as a result arguably even consisted in a _set_ of languages from a certain point during the Empire - albeit, still mutually intelligible, I guess. But certainly my opinion is not as educated as I would like it to be." CreationDate="2018-10-29T07:17:48.503" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="25860" PostId="7412" Score="0" Text="Another example from Italian is &quot;I see&quot; which in Dante's Italian was &quot;veggio&quot; with a medial /dʒ/ but has been replaced by the modern form &quot;vedo&quot; formed regularly from the stem of &quot;vedere&quot;.  &quot;veggio&quot; shows the expected changes from classical Latin &quot;video&quot; with short &quot;i&quot; becoming short &quot;e&quot; and &quot;de&quot; becoming &quot;dʒ&quot;.  I wonder how Dante himself pronounced &quot;video&quot; when reading Latin, like &quot;veggio&quot; or more like /ˈvi.de.o/?" CreationDate="2020-04-15T18:04:06.487" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="16158" PostId="7413" Score="0" Text="One correction though. ξόανον is an adjective here - see my screenshot from Latte 1952 (this reference is mentioned in Voigt of course, but MickG did not mention it)." CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:25:19.400" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16159" PostId="7413" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: yes, I was unsure whether it should be construed as a adjective or a noun in apposition." CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:27:28.933" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16160" PostId="7414" Score="0" Text="&lt;&lt;Es ist der einzige unmittelbar erhaltene Beleg für das von xéō abgeleitete Adjektivum xŏanós (gebildet wie pithanós steganós epsanós), während sonst nur das Substantivum xóanŏn &quot;Schnitzbild&quot; vorkommt.&gt;&gt;, aka &lt;&lt;It is the only directly obtained evidence for the adjective xŏanós derived from xéō (built like pithanós, steganós, epsanós), while otherwise onlythe noun xóanŏn, &quot;carved image&quot;, occurs&gt;&gt;." CreationDate="2018-10-28T19:53:47.713" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16163" PostId="7414" Score="0" Text="@MickG and? How much was actually preserved from Sappho? Mostly fragments." CreationDate="2018-10-28T21:27:38.847" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16164" PostId="7414" Score="0" Text="I was just translating for those (me in primis) who have a hard or impossible time reading German. After working on Sappho so long, I very well know how fragmentary the preservation of her poems is. What did you think I was insinuating with that translation :)?" CreationDate="2018-10-28T21:30:49.207" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16165" PostId="7414" Score="0" Text="@MickG I see. Thanks for the English translation then! I thought you were trying to say it was a hapax legomenon." CreationDate="2018-10-28T21:33:26.117" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16166" PostId="7414" Score="1" Text="Well, technically it is, as far as we know, isn't it? I mean, the sentence I translated seems to say so... In any case, being attested only once may draw skepticism, but when the adjective is kind of expected, and in a quotation like this where the known noun doesn't fit, I think the only way to make sense of the passage is to posit the adjective. Besides, Hesychius glosses it with an adjective, and he cannot be glossing prothýrōn with that, another anti-skepticisim observation." CreationDate="2018-10-28T21:52:41.120" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="16197" PostId="7415" Score="1" Text="It is worth mentioning that the pronunciation of spēī is monophonic, ɔ: not as in English _hay_ but as in Latin poetic _mē in_." CreationDate="2018-10-31T10:05:38.297" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34006" PostId="7415" Score="1" Text="I didn’t notice at the time, but I erroneously wrote ‘monophonic’ when I meant ‘monophthongal’. Better late than never." CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:58:01.777" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16186" PostId="7417" Score="0" Text="I need to get rid of the &quot;...&quot;. Without the &quot;...&quot; is it still grammatically correct? &quot;εἰ γάρ μ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆν ἧκεν, ὡς μήτε θεὸς μήτε τις ἄλλος&#xA;τοῖσδ᾽ ἐπεγήθει. νῦν δ᾽ αἰθέριον κίνυγμ᾽ ὁ τάλας&#xA;ἐχθροῖς ἐπίχαρτα πέπονθα.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-10-30T12:23:54.663" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="16190" PostId="7417" Score="1" Text="@Johan88, Yes, it's correct without them." CreationDate="2018-10-30T16:50:12.483" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23792" PostId="7417" Score="0" Text="Dear @cnread I'm Alex, working at a Hong Kong Art and Design company. We're looking to build out own group of avid language enthusiasts to advise us. You are quite the knowledgeable, kind and helpful linguist, and I would like to ask if you'd like to join as a private adviser. We envisage an informal, unpaid advisory board (like StackExchange), except we can give credit on our (as of yet unmade) website, rather then Stack points. But if anyone can recommend a suitable payment system we're all ears. If you have any interest please let me know. All the very best, A. J. T. Whiteheart" CreationDate="2019-12-23T12:01:47.423" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23862" PostId="7417" Score="0" Text="Or, if you wood not be interested, please let me know here in the comments, thanks" CreationDate="2019-12-28T12:58:03.567" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="16170" PostId="7418" Score="0" Text="It doesn't seem quite right to me. Using the usual construction of _consumere_ + _in_, can I suggest _Multum temporis consumpsi in illa omnia legendo— et in hoc scribens._?" CreationDate="2018-10-29T12:14:29.257" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16172" PostId="7418" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I would expect *multum temporis consumpsi in illis omnibus legendis, et in hoc scribendo.*" CreationDate="2018-10-29T17:12:01.533" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="16184" PostId="7418" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Yes, it's perfectly correct, but not obligatory, to use the 'gerundive attraction' here. I just preferred not to, looking for a less cumbersome sentence." CreationDate="2018-10-30T10:39:16.463" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16192" PostId="7418" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton I actually did that in part by accident...I meant rather to ask why you'd written *in illa omnia legendo* but *in hoc scribens.*" CreationDate="2018-10-31T00:23:58.350" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="16194" PostId="7418" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton For some reason *consumere* with participle sounds more natural to me, but *in* with gerund or gerundive sounds good too, especially if there is precedent. Do you want to write another answer about that? I'm only glad if this old question gets more attention in form of answers than it has so far." CreationDate="2018-10-31T02:45:09.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16173" PostId="7419" Score="0" Text="In Spanish, &quot;tip&quot; is &quot;propina,&quot; but *propino/propinatio* in Latin seems to refer only to the act of drinking another's health." CreationDate="2018-10-29T17:30:38.863" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16177" PostId="7419" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Rather like the French _pourboire_, then!" CreationDate="2018-10-29T22:21:45.603" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16193" PostId="7423" Score="0" Text="So happy I could help in even a small way with a translation of _Three Men in a Boat_!" CreationDate="2018-10-31T01:18:56.703" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="16204" PostId="7424" Score="3" Text="I thought the original saying was *per aspera ad astra*?" CreationDate="2018-10-31T18:51:31.183" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="45189" PostId="7426" Score="0" Text="The problem is that the Hungarian &quot;sources&quot; are wrong about the grammar. There's nothing in either phrase that would indicate that one is about lying." CreationDate="2023-10-21T21:20:54.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="16200" PostId="7428" Score="0" Text="Thank you, Expedito Bipes! That does sound like the right sort of meaning.  I was also wondering about &quot;audacia&quot;, for a similar sense. Although perhaps &quot;audacity&quot; has a less positive flavour." CreationDate="2018-10-31T16:51:37.497" UserId="3046" />
  <row Id="16202" PostId="7428" Score="0" Text="@Amelia. It's similar in meaning, but I think *ausa* shifts the focus away from the adventurers and more onto their undertakings." CreationDate="2018-10-31T17:48:10.193" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16203" PostId="7429" Score="3" Text="The plural of &quot;the handbag of my wife&quot; won't be &quot;the handbags of my wives&quot;, either" CreationDate="2018-10-31T18:49:16.203" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="16205" PostId="7429" Score="0" Text="@HagenvonEitzen yes, but whereas one wife can have many handbags, generally one person can have only one _mons pubis_" CreationDate="2018-10-31T20:25:51.487" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16266" PostId="7433" Score="0" Text="@Josephine Hugh updated his answer to address that. You should vote up (the little arrow next to the answer) any answer (or question) you find helpful and accept an answer (the check mark next to the arrows) to indicate that your question has been fully answered. Accepting and voting are the way to reward people for their efforts on these Stack Exchange sites." CreationDate="2018-11-05T19:57:14.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16206" PostId="7434" Score="0" Text="&gt;&quot;The young lion appeared to Samson&quot; If this is the translation you expect, why would you expect accusative at all?" CreationDate="2018-11-01T17:53:02.200" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="16213" PostId="7434" Score="0" Text="@eques Correct. I got confused there (but still, the nominative is not used)." CreationDate="2018-11-02T09:25:48.253" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16209" PostId="7438" Score="1" Text="My Dutch-Latin dictionary doesn't have it either." CreationDate="2018-11-02T04:51:50.690" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16256" PostId="7438" Score="0" Text="Not sure either, but coccinella seems to refer to κοκκινέλη, red-like." CreationDate="2018-11-04T10:55:01.427" UserId="1388" />
  <row Id="16755" PostId="7438" Score="0" Text="The scientific term *coccinella* was invented by Linné in 1740 from the Latin coccinus (greek κοκκινος).&#xA;&#xA;At least in French an older name for the *coccinelle* (ladybug, « bête/vache à bon Dieu ») is *escarbot*. It comes from Latin *scarabeus* and could have different meanings : scarab, leaf beetle, ladybugs… Perhaps there is something similar in Latin…" CreationDate="2018-12-14T01:33:35.157" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="16756" PostId="7438" Score="0" Text="The reddit thread seems to confirm this hypothesis…" CreationDate="2018-12-14T01:35:09.923" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="16210" PostId="7439" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your assistance! Now say if I wanted to drop the medicine, would I still be able to use &quot;chiropractica&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-11-02T05:43:01.477" UserId="3063" />
  <row Id="16211" PostId="7439" Score="1" Text="@MaxGatzke You're welcome! Yes, you would. I just expanded my answer to cover that." CreationDate="2018-11-02T05:53:46.130" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16217" PostId="7439" Score="0" Text="Thank you again! I know I already asked a question of you, but since you have been the most helpful, I was wondering if you could answer this; how would I say &quot;fraternity officer&quot;? Would it be officini fraternis or fraternis officini?" CreationDate="2018-11-02T16:27:55.213" UserId="3063" />
  <row Id="16218" PostId="7439" Score="1" Text="@MaxGatzke It's best to ask that as new, separate question. That way people can easily see it and weigh in. (Also: In addition to voting all questions and answers you like, you can mark an answer to your question as accepted by ticking the little green mark next to the voting arrows. That shows that the case is closed, so to say.)" CreationDate="2018-11-02T16:49:40.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16219" PostId="7439" Score="0" Text="Oh my apologizes. Thank you for you comment on that" CreationDate="2018-11-02T17:55:32.003" UserId="3063" />
  <row Id="16215" PostId="7440" Score="1" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6510/how-did-σσ-differ-from-σ" CreationDate="2018-11-02T15:38:44.933" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19670" PostId="7440" Score="0" Text="Another thing doubled consonants can indicate, besides consonant length, is shortness of the preceding vowel.  My hazy memory is that this goes back at least to some period of vulgar Latin — which did have contrastive consonant length (unlike eg English), but also had the association of short vowels with that, so in regular spelling doubled consonants indicated both, and in loanwords could indicate either.  Another thing that *-ss-* vs *-s-* has come to indicate in some Romance languages is voicing; but that iirc is a much later development, so unlikely to be relevant here." CreationDate="2019-05-12T08:16:42.293" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="19850" PostId="7440" Score="0" Text="I would think that the reason in English why any consonant would be doubled would have to do with its intended pronunciation. Chiefly here would be that double consonants shorten the vowel that precedes them, so sass-an vs. s(ay)-san." CreationDate="2019-05-22T14:08:11.720" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="16221" PostId="7442" Score="1" Text="Välkommen! Kan du sammanfatta din fråga på engelska så att flera skulle kunna läsa och svara? Inget ord i engelskan motsvarar &quot;bildning&quot; men man kan förklara målet också på engelska." CreationDate="2018-11-02T18:35:32.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16222" PostId="7442" Score="0" Text="Thanks for tour prompt answer. I’ll try to translate this into English allthough there is no English word equivalent to the Swedish word ’bildning’. ’Bildning’ means educated, but not in the sense that refers tho superficial knowledge. ’Bildning’ in Swedish  means the growth of your carachter and personality as a result of education. Since I can’t find an equivalent word it mat be difficult for non-Swedish to translate the following sentence into Latin as ’bildning’ is the key word of the whole Idea." CreationDate="2018-11-02T18:59:36.620" UserId="3037" />
  <row Id="16223" PostId="7442" Score="0" Text="’”Bildning” is what is left when that which was actually learned is forgotten’. Is there any expression in Latin for it?" CreationDate="2018-11-02T19:08:34.757" UserId="3037" />
  <row Id="16224" PostId="7442" Score="0" Text="It seems like a close parallel to German &quot;Bildung,&quot; which many English speakers are familiar with, e.g. a &quot;Bildungsroman.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-02T19:20:21.800" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16225" PostId="7442" Score="0" Text="Thanks. So is there any Latin expression for |”Bildung” is what is left when that which was actually learned is forgotten|?" CreationDate="2018-11-02T19:30:18.900" UserId="3037" />
  <row Id="16226" PostId="7442" Score="0" Text="I edited your question to include an English version based on the comments and the original. Feel free to make any further edits!" CreationDate="2018-11-02T20:23:47.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16232" PostId="7443" Score="0" Text="Cultus est quod remanet omnia docta oblito. Is that sentece acceptable?" CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:29:40.193" UserId="3037" />
  <row Id="16233" PostId="7443" Score="0" Text="@Pons It is indeed. No other changes are needed if you change the first noun to something else. I added that remark to my answer." CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:39:37.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16234" PostId="7443" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your time and knowlege. I’m previleged to have made your acquaintance." CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:52:45.813" UserId="3037" />
  <row Id="16236" PostId="7443" Score="0" Text="@Pons I'm glad to have been able to help. Now that you have gained 15 reputation points, you can vote up any questions and answers you like. You can also accept an answer to your own question to indicate that you are satisfied and the case is closed, but there is no hurry to do so." CreationDate="2018-11-02T23:33:02.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16231" PostId="7444" Score="2" Text="There is a synonym to ”bildad” (educated in the notion of bildung) that is ”kultiverad” in Swedish. Cultus sounds therefore applicable to my Swedish ears." CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:39:26.307" UserId="3037" />
  <row Id="16235" PostId="7444" Score="0" Text="I agree, something like &quot;doctrina cultura&quot; or *cultivation*, as the Wiktionary translation has it." CreationDate="2018-11-02T23:19:40.393" UserId="3068" />
  <row Id="16227" PostId="7445" Score="0" Text="The participle *oblita* is semantically active because *oblivisci* is deponent. Thus *institutio oblita est* means &quot;instruction has forgotten&quot;, not &quot;instruction is forgotten&quot;. (But +1 for suggesting *mos*!)" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:05:36.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16228" PostId="7445" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. Thanks! But I'm at a loss then. Isn't there any passive form?" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:15:41.827" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16229" PostId="7445" Score="0" Text="No, there's no passive past participle for that verb. I struggled with the same lack of &quot;[is] forgotten&quot; myself, and ended up wit using *oblitus* as &quot;the one who has forgotten&quot;. Perhaps you could do something with *oblivio*? I would be glad to see questions about working around some missing participles! Not having a perfect participle of *discere* is a pain, too." CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:21:10.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16230" PostId="7445" Score="0" Text="The same problem persists with the absolute ablative. It's not the *institutio* that is *oblita*; it's the person who is *oblitus*." CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:28:52.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16261" PostId="7447" Score="0" Text="Could you clarify how this bears on the meaning of the passage in question? It does not seem to address the theta presence/absence question." CreationDate="2018-11-05T00:34:54.977" UserId="3068" />
  <row Id="16263" PostId="7447" Score="0" Text="@sventechie I thought the theta presence/absence part was very clear. This can be found in any good textbook - just added more details. My answer primarily addressed MickG's total misunderstanding of Hephaestion's quote, so MickG incorrectly assumed it was related to μάλης." CreationDate="2018-11-05T04:55:00.900" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16238" PostId="7449" Score="4" Text="To represent what Marcus Aurelius wrote into Latin, it would be good to quote the original Greek; i.e,, rather than trying to represent what he wrote in Latin from an English version of his Greek, it would be good to try to go directly from Greek into Latin." CreationDate="2018-11-03T00:28:06.580" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16241" PostId="7449" Score="1" Text="Thank you varro, you are right of course.  I am hardly equipped to quote the original Greek!  I'm not a scholar or classicist by any means; rather, I'm an overworked corporate schlep who had a personal epiphany on the way to work one morning and is now plotting a wrist tattoo to keep her resolve.  I found this link to a very old Greek-Latin side by side after some digging, if it is helpful? It is the last few sentences of book 5, verse 20. &#xA; https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433022674935?urlappend=%3Bseq=105" CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:01:35.147" UserId="3067" />
  <row Id="16239" PostId="7450" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6510/how-did-%CF%83%CF%83-differ-from-%CF%83" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:28:58.797" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16240" PostId="7450" Score="1" Text="There are also a couple of odd spellings with upsilon before or after the sigma: Συμεών, Μωυσῆς. I wonder if this is because the Semitic [ʃ] was rounded." CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:01:28.410" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16254" PostId="7450" Score="1" Text="We need to look it up in Knobloch, Frederick W, &quot;Hebrew sounds in Greek script: Transcriptions and related phenomena in the Septuagint, with special focus on Genesis&quot; (1995)." CreationDate="2018-11-04T02:35:00.810" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16243" PostId="7452" Score="1" Text="Thanks Expedito, with this I can see the translation clearly into the English.  It's only a couple letters longer than the original suggestion - not much extra needle pain, thank goodness!What do you make of the original suggestion, &quot;Ex impedimento via&quot; which I understand to be something like &quot;by means of the impediment, (comes) the path&quot;?  It has an air of familiarity - the phrase deus ex machina is known to a lot of people.  But I wondered if it was comprehensible &amp; reasonably coherent with Aurelius' intentions." CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:44:14.777" UserId="3067" />
  <row Id="16245" PostId="7452" Score="2" Text="Isn't obstare intransitive? That is, shouldn't the object be dative instead of accusative?" CreationDate="2018-11-03T05:33:21.687" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16248" PostId="7452" Score="2" Text="@LCA. Please note the correction I made, and, yes, I think *ex impedimento via* basically captures the idea." CreationDate="2018-11-03T09:12:55.957" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="19347" PostId="7452" Score="1" Text="&quot;fit&quot; has the meaning of &quot;is made&quot; - not simply &quot;becomes&quot;- and thus expresses more accurately the Stoic understanding of Man's participation in Man's own life..." CreationDate="2019-04-22T18:28:17.927" UserId="3685" />
  <row Id="44859" PostId="7452" Score="0" Text="_Quod erat demonstrandum._ Some high quality exchanges on this stack." CreationDate="2023-09-17T01:08:00.620" UserId="14069" />
  <row Id="16242" PostId="7453" Score="0" Text="The present imperatives are *es* in singular and *este* in plural. The future ones are *esto* and *estote*, respectively. (*Es* with long *e* is also the imperative &quot;eat!&quot; but there is hardly any chance of confusion here.)" CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:22:21.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16244" PostId="7453" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You are correct, I misread a chart when I was checking myself. I will update accordingly!" CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:51:12.153" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="16246" PostId="7453" Score="0" Text="This is for each individual employee to take to heart, but thank you for both options!" CreationDate="2018-11-03T05:49:09.937" UserId="3063" />
  <row Id="16260" PostId="7454" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! A literal translation could be *fraternitatis officialis*, but literal translations are often uglier and less desirable. For a more appropriate answer with explanations, we'd need more context. What role does an &quot;officer&quot; have, exactly? Presumably this is not a government official appointed to oversee fraternities?" CreationDate="2018-11-05T00:26:56.657" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16272" PostId="7454" Score="0" Text="No. This is a Brother who has been elected to a leadership position to oversee various functions he is responsible for in the Fraternity. I would have liked to have one for each position, but funds dictate that I can only have a general coin for my Officers." CreationDate="2018-11-06T01:14:47.733" UserId="3063" />
  <row Id="16251" PostId="7456" Score="1" Text="I would use the imperfect _putabam_ rather than the perfect _putavi_: &quot;I was in a state of thinking&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-04T00:21:48.147" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="16255" PostId="7456" Score="1" Text="@ColinFine: I see what you mean, that construction highlights the interruption of such &quot;state of thinking&quot;. However, for a different effect, I still abide by my explanation for the perfect; cf. the preterite of the Romance languages, e.g. Dante makes Vergil say _homo iam fui_ when he first sees him in his Inferno (actually he uses the Italian _già_ instead of _iam_, but that's the same)." CreationDate="2018-11-04T08:46:21.740" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16249" PostId="7457" Score="0" Text="Interesting! So if I'm understanding right, you're saying that a single sigma was used initially and adjacent to a rounded vowel, while a double sigma was used elsewhere?" CreationDate="2018-11-03T16:34:11.280" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16250" PostId="7457" Score="0" Text="@Draconis that might be putting it a bit too strongly, but I think there was a tendency to do that." CreationDate="2018-11-03T16:36:09.513" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="20274" PostId="7457" Score="0" Text="The ypsilon of Συχεμ is surely /i/, not a rounded vowel." CreationDate="2019-06-25T13:45:03.783" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16253" PostId="7458" Score="0" Text="obligatory 'hodie natus est radici frater' (an infamous Multics error message)" CreationDate="2018-11-04T01:55:33.043" UserId="3076" />
  <row Id="16299" PostId="7458" Score="0" Text="First piece of advice: Don't use Google Translate for Latin. It is always wrong." CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:32:27.680" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16258" PostId="7460" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for your quick reply you have been very helpful, I have a follow up question based on what you have written. What is the difference between Radice and Radix? Would one over the other change the meaning of the phrase?" CreationDate="2018-11-04T20:59:26.813" UserId="3073" />
  <row Id="16259" PostId="7460" Score="0" Text="@SacredSeed I'm glad to be able to help! Those are different cases (forms) of the same word. The preposition *ex* requires the ablative case. The nominative is *radix*, the ablative is *radice*, and there is a bunch of other forms as well. If you change the form, the sentence becomes ungrammatical." CreationDate="2018-11-04T21:21:45.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16257" PostId="7462" Score="0" Text="Of course, this applies not just to barbarians, but to Greeks and also to mythological figures." CreationDate="2018-11-04T20:14:22.273" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16269" PostId="7466" Score="8" Text="I have never seen &quot;ɔ:&quot; meaning &quot;that is&quot; - where did you get it from?" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:52:41.047" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16276" PostId="7466" Score="1" Text="I grew up with it. My granddad’s old dictionaries, printed in fraktur, were amongst those that often used it, and it is commonly known in stenography. Realising it was not common knowledge, was surprising to me.&#xA;AFAIK, it was most commonly used in areas influenced by germanic typographical tradition (such as Scandinavia); it seems to be gaining a resurgence now, with more and more people interested in typography and traditions lost.&#xA;Some links:&#xA;http://www.typografi.org/forklaringstegn/forklaringstegn.html&#xA;https://macbasics.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/typografi-det-glemte-forklaringstegnet/" CreationDate="2018-11-06T09:56:10.240" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16284" PostId="7466" Score="3" Text="Given that you're writing in English, for an audience familiar with Latin, why not use a convention commonly used in English (for example &quot;i.e.&quot;, short for &quot;id est&quot;)? Unfortunately, using &quot;ɔ:&quot; is confusing, especially in a site with a linguistics flavour, because readers are far more likely to interpret it as an IPA vowel than your intended meaning - certainly I was confused on my first reading :)" CreationDate="2018-11-06T11:34:36.427" UserId="1756" />
  <row Id="16298" PostId="7466" Score="0" Text="Two reasons in particular: 1) Realising that the current young students do not have knowledge of it, appears to be a matter of age. 2) Spreading the knowledge. When re-entering uni, I thought it was common knowledge – after all, I had known about it since I was a tiny kid – but soon realised it was not. I assumed this was a matter of age, as people of my own age (in their 30s) were familiar with it. Being that this is a classicist’s site, I assumed this way of spreading knowledge would be appreciated; I hope this was the case." CreationDate="2018-11-07T11:34:55.170" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16270" PostId="7467" Score="0" Text="The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of _ns_ and _nf_, which learned about after reading your answer." CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:54:26.807" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16271" PostId="7467" Score="2" Text="@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to?  That the I in _in_ can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?" CreationDate="2018-11-05T22:05:17.997" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16283" PostId="7467" Score="0" Text="The inconsistency I am talking about, is the (theoretical?) possibility of words that are both homographs _and_ homophones having different meanings. One could for instances think of a word such as _inesse_ existing in two forms, both written and pronounced the same way, but one meaning ‘be in’ and the other ‘un-be’, ɔ: either ‘not to be’ or ‘cause to cease to exist’." CreationDate="2018-11-06T11:03:14.520" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16277" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="This is a very interesting answer. Given this be true, you could in fact with some _a priori_ knowledge – as you explain: is the latter part of the word a verb or adjective – tell whether we are dealing with _in-_ or _in_. Do you have any sources?" CreationDate="2018-11-06T09:59:07.753" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16278" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="With regards to knowing what you are dealing with by pronunciation, I specifically mention this is not possible in the question." CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:01:07.897" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16280" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="Ah, thanks. I will have a read and try to correct my phrasing. The question was rewritten a couple of times." CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:33:08.110" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16282" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="I have updated my question to reflect that which is stated under the questions heading. I apologise for inconsistency." CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:58:57.053" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="21066" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: Thanks for this up-date. Chances are that I've just answered a question on a related issue (e.g., _oratio inscripta est_ is ambiguous: cf. (I) 'the speech is unwritten' and (II) 'the speech was inscribed/signed' (e.g., with the author's name)). Your A nicely explains that _oratio inscripta est_, in the former reading (i.e., when the neg. prefix is involved) cannot be interpreted as a VERBAL passive but rather as an ADJECTIVAL one. If so, one would expect that no agent by-phrase can be added in _oratio inscripta est_, understood as an adjectival passive. Is that correct for Latin?" CreationDate="2019-08-19T03:35:41.897" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21070" PostId="7468" Score="1" Text="@sumelic: e.g., cf. the contrast in English between these two adjectival passives: &quot;*The letter was unwritten by Mary&quot; vs. (?) &quot;The letter remained unwritten by the lawyers&quot; (NB: the latter drawn from [http: //academia.edu/1368590/Syntactic_affixation] ). I was wondering why the latter sounds better (though perhaps a bit dubious) compared to the former, which sounds awful. What about &quot;This question remains uncontested by any scholar in the field&quot;? I'm not a native speaker of English but it sounds ok to me." CreationDate="2019-08-19T03:57:31.560" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21071" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Well, I'm not actually sure that the agent by-phrase criterion is a reliable distinction between verbal and adjectival participles, because of examples like the one that you gave (I agree that &quot;uncontested by any scholar in the field&quot; sounds fine). And Greg Lee also posted a comment agreeing that *by __* can appear in non-verbal constructions beneath my answer here: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/20721/5581" CreationDate="2019-08-19T07:25:10.403" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21074" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="Ok. Thanks for the link!" CreationDate="2019-08-19T19:23:55.077" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37549" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="I don't believe there's evidence for any difference in pronunciation between prefixes and prepositions. There does seem to be a difference in inscriptional spelling (prefixes are rarely separated by interpuncts), but this doesn't hold precisely for compounds of *est* where they often are; outside inscriptions prepositions are often written together. If we're dealing with a phonetic process, then no difference should be expected as prepositions are prosodically part of the lexical word. A difference can exist only if we're dealing with lexical allomorphy, but the proof of this would be phonetic" CreationDate="2022-03-16T19:35:07.703" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37550" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: I don't think the lengthening of vowels before ns/nf was a phonetic process in the Classical Latin era, but instead a morphophonological rule. So it would be like the difference in vowel quality between con-and cum. But I could be wrong." CreationDate="2022-03-16T19:56:56.393" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37551" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="I would say you are :P)) Que Fortson 2008 : 126 &quot;note also the use of “I longa” or extra-tall I in inscriptional spellings of the preposition *in* before nouns beginning with a fricative, indicating lengthening of the *i* by the normally word-internal rule that lengthens vowels before a nasal plus fricative: *In saliare carmen* Mon. Anc. 10, *Insuos* CIL II 1503 (written as one word), *In super* CIL X 1781 (105 B.C.) (Christiansen 1889, 43)&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-16T21:07:31.587" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37552" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Thank you for the reference! That is suggestive (although not conclusive). I’ll delete that portion of my answer, which was an uncited side comment." CreationDate="2022-03-16T23:17:33.900" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37554" PostId="7468" Score="0" Text="Until very recently, _un-_ in English only attached to verbs when they were about fastening, wrapping, or closing: untie, unlock, unwrap, unfasten, undress, unbutton, (apart from a few literary rarities such as _unsay_), but it was freely added to adjectives. This has changed in the last twenty years with the invention of graphical user interfaces, so many actions which were not reversible have become so in that context." CreationDate="2022-03-17T16:45:56.277" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="16285" PostId="7471" Score="0" Text="And besides, τηλικ has the same pronoun (notice how the interrogative (with pi) and correlative alter the initial letter), so there may have been some sense of redundancy in the οὗ." CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:36:26.270" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16286" PostId="7471" Score="0" Text="αὐτός seems pretty transparently to come from αὖ το- &quot;that one again&quot; &gt; &quot;that (same) one&quot;, so probably there wasn't really a morpheme *uto*, but rather τηλικοῦτος is an analogical formation based on οὗτος (which maybe is what you're saying)." CreationDate="2018-11-06T22:40:09.777" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16361" PostId="7471" Score="0" Text="Would this also apply to τοιοῦτος, τοσοῦτος, τοιόσδε, τοσόσδε, such that they are not to be pronounced with an aspiration?" CreationDate="2018-11-12T11:09:58.933" UserId="1051" />
  <row Id="16324" PostId="7473" Score="0" Text="Sorry to be slow in replying. Without the rest of the poem it is difficult to guess the tone, I hope my answer is helpful, but I may be completely off-key. If you discover a better translation, you are encouraged to answer your own question (and earn points)." CreationDate="2018-11-09T06:39:08.723" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16346" PostId="7478" Score="0" Text="What I should have done is: Tell you (1) to ask that as a separate Question: &quot;In the phrase *Rex ducem ad templum manu duxit,* what sort of ablative is *manu* ?&quot; and then (2)you could look up Ablativus in the top margin here; (3)google Latin Ablative; and (4) check it in your dictionary/ grammar." CreationDate="2018-11-10T08:35:23.747" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16295" PostId="7479" Score="1" Text="Unrelated to the question itself, there are some problems with the proposed translation. This question was good and specific (+1), so if you want further feedback, I suggest taking to another question. It also sounds like this is work in progress, so of course take your time to polish it up and specify if you are unsure about something." CreationDate="2018-11-07T05:28:20.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16300" PostId="7481" Score="3" Text="Fun etymological fact: English &quot;marmalade&quot; comes (through Portuguese *marmelo*) from *melimelum*." CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:54:13.627" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16301" PostId="7481" Score="8" Text="Fun non-etymological fact: I had a hard time writing this question because in Spanish &quot;quince&quot; means &quot;fifteen&quot; and somehow my brain rejected the idea that the same word meant something completely different in English. :)" CreationDate="2018-11-07T15:01:57.427" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="16328" PostId="7481" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I lke your derivation of 'marmalade'. It's new to me, so I'll add it to the forty or so others that occur in English myth! (it's a standing joke, as you probably know, that no-one really knows the word's origin). More seriously, though, it's interesting that Charlie's 'quince jelly' is used here in England as an alternative to marmalade on your breakfast toast." CreationDate="2018-11-09T14:43:09.680" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="38064" PostId="7481" Score="0" Text="An extra note on its etymology can be found at https://www.etymonline.com/word/marmalade." CreationDate="2022-04-22T15:46:17.250" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38065" PostId="7481" Score="0" Text="For the word melimelum, see L &amp; S:-" CreationDate="2022-04-22T15:54:20.747" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="16303" PostId="7482" Score="0" Text="Are you suggesting *praepositus* or *praefectus*?" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:21:59.483" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16304" PostId="7482" Score="0" Text="I have corrected it!" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:23:37.947" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16305" PostId="7482" Score="0" Text="So If I wanted to use fraternitas, would the acceptable form be fraternitati? To keep with the grammar of course" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:29:26.127" UserId="3063" />
  <row Id="16306" PostId="7482" Score="0" Text="@Max Gatzke Yes. It's the dative singular that you need, which always ends in _-itati_ for words like these, where the nominative endinding is _-itas_." CreationDate="2018-11-07T17:01:40.283" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16317" PostId="7483" Score="1" Text="Horace “post hoc me docuit melimela rubere minorem&#xA;ad lunam delecta”" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:54:10.203" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16313" PostId="7484" Score="1" Text="Interesting that the flower of the Coing/Quince has a separate name from the fruit. In your first link, lower down the page, *melinum* scent of quince; *melinus* quince flower. (compare: Damask Rose, scent of which is called Attar)" CreationDate="2018-11-08T12:02:45.423" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16314" PostId="7484" Score="1" Text="*Melinus* 3 (quince coloured, quince oil, eye ointment etc) clearly shown as a loan word: L&amp;S  http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DM%3Aentry+group%3D22%3Aentry%3Dmelinus3" CreationDate="2018-11-08T12:15:34.240" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16318" PostId="7493" Score="3" Text="*Fugiō* is a good verb for this, cf *tempus fugit*" CreationDate="2018-11-08T16:17:58.113" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16323" PostId="7493" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Can you write a separate answer around that idea? It's worth more than a comment." CreationDate="2018-11-09T03:38:13.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16327" PostId="7493" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the quick response, would it be better to simply have vita fugax or something like vita est fugaces or vita fugaces?" CreationDate="2018-11-09T14:15:18.847" UserId="3085" />
  <row Id="16330" PostId="7493" Score="1" Text="@Hugh *Vitae **sunt** fugaces*? The singular form is a far better choice, though." CreationDate="2018-11-09T16:51:57.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16333" PostId="7493" Score="0" Text="Not 'vita est fugaces' because -st f- is awkward to pronounce; and it would have to be 'vitae **sunt** fugaces' &quot;lives are fleeting&quot;. Not 'vita fugaces' because it means 'Avoid the runners.' Vita Fugax or Tom Cotton's Vita Brevis are really your best choices." CreationDate="2018-11-09T17:36:25.263" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26639" PostId="7494" Score="0" Text="I've sent you an email." CreationDate="2020-05-31T21:06:05.387" UserId="6813" />
  <row Id="16320" PostId="7495" Score="2" Text="This answer explains the Roman naming system well, and how Octavianus fits into it. The only remaining question is, in what contexts would the name Octavianus have been used? In formal letters, but only as part of the full (tripartite+) name? Among friends? When being addressed by members of the gens Iulia? Would he ever have used it himself as a single name, in any situation?" CreationDate="2018-11-09T00:26:56.120" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16322" PostId="7495" Score="1" Text="Could this fourth name qualify as an _agnomen_? It sounds as if _agnomina_ were more like nicknames than official names, but there are some instances where it appears they were something a little more than that." CreationDate="2018-11-09T02:32:58.783" UserId="136" />
  <row Id="16390" PostId="7495" Score="0" Text="@SamK: It was more like a second _cognomen_, since upon adoption, the _nomen_ of the original family was usually retained as _cognomen_, in the usual &quot;-ianus&quot; form." CreationDate="2018-11-14T00:50:34.223" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16353" PostId="7497" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much, Hugh, for your answer. It sheds a new light on this poem for me. I thought that Angilbert was over-cautious in naming the relations between Pepin and his family. But now I see that Angilbert is not exactly cautious, he is sharp! Great!" CreationDate="2018-11-10T15:13:07.583" UserId="2411" />
  <row Id="16343" PostId="7498" Score="0" Text="Thank you! Another question, what ablative is the word &quot;manu&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-11-10T03:07:28.600" UserId="3082" />
  <row Id="16344" PostId="7498" Score="0" Text="The naming of Ablatives changes even more frequently than the rules of football. Try this http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/ablative3.pdf  Look under #2 INSTRUMENTAL  **B** *Ablativus modi.* Translate it as 'led him by the hand' or, to show you know the idiom, 'led him by force.'" CreationDate="2018-11-10T08:24:11.080" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16354" PostId="7499" Score="0" Text="Thank you, EB! In fact, I think you are going in the same direction as Hugh, who gave the answer that was complete, You also point to the ambiguity of the phrase. I will read poems like this with ambiguity from now." CreationDate="2018-11-10T15:16:43.257" UserId="2411" />
  <row Id="16355" PostId="7499" Score="0" Text="@LiesbethAgelink. You're welcome." CreationDate="2018-11-10T15:46:38.860" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16338" PostId="7502" Score="2" Text="It's not just this word -- Attic ττ : other dialects σσ is a regular pattern. (In this word there is Cretan θαλαθθα too -- I don't know if Cretan has θθ in other such words.)" CreationDate="2018-11-09T20:35:05.757" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16339" PostId="7503" Score="0" Text="Evidence that there was a velar in the &quot;sea&quot; word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-)." CreationDate="2018-11-09T20:59:01.360" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16341" PostId="7503" Score="0" Text="@TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!" CreationDate="2018-11-09T21:16:27.413" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16342" PostId="7503" Score="0" Text="(Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj &gt; tt/ss theory.)" CreationDate="2018-11-09T21:26:22.603" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16359" PostId="7511" Score="2" Text="Though it does not include the contempt bit, I think it would be strange if it were wrongly present in that 18th century edition." CreationDate="2018-11-11T13:34:36.873" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16360" PostId="7515" Score="0" Text="Thank you for that info on φανερός + participle in LSJ. I totally missed it!" CreationDate="2018-11-12T01:43:23.960" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="16378" PostId="7517" Score="1" Text="By that logic could a female member of the Homo Erectus genus be referred to as a Homo Erecta?" CreationDate="2018-11-12T21:37:08.627" UserId="3103" />
  <row Id="16379" PostId="7517" Score="1" Text="@Persistence Scientific names generally don't change their form, but in Latin that wouldn't be incorrect: see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2597/406) for some examples of *homo* used for a woman." CreationDate="2018-11-12T21:41:56.003" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16380" PostId="7517" Score="0" Text="@Persistence It would be nice to have a separate question about that so people could find the answer easily." CreationDate="2018-11-13T07:15:17.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19761" PostId="7517" Score="2" Text="One example I have not seldom heard is *nestrix*. Oh, and *rectrix* is not uncommon." CreationDate="2019-05-16T22:42:11.667" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16362" PostId="7519" Score="1" Text="It seems women have been teaching [since the origin of mediaeval universities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_education). It would be interesting to find some written evidence of their titles. I had a go but failed. Maybe you are a better searcher than me." CreationDate="2018-11-12T11:57:06.933" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16363" PostId="7519" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I edited my answer a bit. [This old question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/831/79) has an example which might be in the spirit of what you are looking for. I would be interested to see follow-up questions on the topic, though." CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:57:11.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16367" PostId="7519" Score="1" Text="&quot;I would consider it impolite in today's world to use professor as purely masculine word for professors of all genders.&quot; That is surely English specific. But can perhaps be extended to Latin." CreationDate="2018-11-12T14:59:02.760" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="16368" PostId="7519" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF That is certainly a matter of opinion, and I was very conscious about prefacing it with &quot;I would consider&quot;. But since Latin does not force *professor* to be exclusively masculine, I would find it inappropriate to treat it as exclusively masculine in this day and age. Different languages and different people might come to other conclusions." CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:20:39.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16371" PostId="7519" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho [*magistra*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmagistra) is classically attested. Considering that in medieval universities *magister* was the title for the highest teachers, that might be a better route to go." CreationDate="2018-11-12T16:13:32.643" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16372" PostId="7519" Score="0" Text="Interesting. The question you linked suggests the &quot;first ever professor&quot;, which it at odds with the link i provided." CreationDate="2018-11-12T16:16:46.320" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16369" PostId="7520" Score="1" Text="I think there are some differences between these examples. Only the first (&quot;cœli movendi sunt et terra&quot;) seems to have a subject &quot;split&quot; around the verb; the others have predicative adjectives or prepositional phrases, right? And &quot;coeli&quot; alone would warrant plural agreement on the associated verb, so I don't think any of the examples here shows a verb agreeing with a plural subject composed of singular nouns connected by &quot;et&quot; and placed before and after the verb. That would be interesting to see, though!" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:33:25.860" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16370" PostId="7520" Score="1" Text="It seems that plural agreement is not actually always used with compound subjects when the nearest (I don't know whether order is relevant when there's one before and one after) of the coordinated nominative nouns is singular. &quot;[Latin: An Intensive Course](https://books.google.com/books?id=CvYtq-JWB00C&amp;pg=PA400)&quot; gives the example &quot;Multi pueri parvi et **una puella parva aderat**&quot; and &quot;[Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition](https://books.google.com/books?id=PYLwAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA34)&quot; gives the example &quot;Et **tu ades** et frater tuus.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-12T16:00:49.433" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16364" PostId="7522" Score="0" Text="So there is such thing as an &quot;unusual&quot; word order? Because one gets the impression that word order in Latin is **totally irrelevant**, as in almost random, and therefore nothing is _per se_ usual." CreationDate="2018-11-12T14:02:56.987" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16365" PostId="7522" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho Fair question! I added a remark to my answer: The word order is not totally irrelevant. The order rarely affects semantics strongly, but sometimes it does." CreationDate="2018-11-12T14:14:28.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16381" PostId="7523" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2183/did-the-romans-use-any-swear-words" CreationDate="2018-11-13T12:45:42.813" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16382" PostId="7523" Score="0" Text="There's *edepol*, which more literally means &quot;by Pollux&quot; but is often used in the sense &quot;truly&quot; or &quot;indeed&quot;. I guess that wouldn't count as angry, so it doesn't answer your question? This particular word is [widely used](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=edepol)." CreationDate="2018-11-13T14:14:44.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16383" PostId="7523" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Yes, I am actually looking for a different kind of interjection, but _edepol_ is interesting. According to Wiktionary, it expresses surprise, annoyance or enthusiasm - not quite what I want, but not so far off, thank you. I see that women specifically, also used _ēcastor_, &quot;by Castor&quot;, in the same way." CreationDate="2018-11-13T15:25:06.180" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16385" PostId="7526" Score="0" Text="**MODERATOR NOTICE:** This is not a real question! It is a place-holder for the example question on the [tour] page. As such the question and both answers are entirely contrived to fit the limited space and formatting restrictions. Please don't answer or edit this question and its answers directly. If you have any input please participate in [this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/365/12)." CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:40:11.480" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16386" PostId="7526" Score="0" Text="Note that this content is heavily trimmed from [Why is the Roman acronym SPQR and not SPR?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5045/12)." CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:40:55.653" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16384" PostId="7527" Score="2" Text="For a concrete example, consider *Metamorphoses* V.414: &quot;*adgnovitque deam 'ne' c 'longius ibitis!' inquit*&quot; which uses *-c* instead of *-que*." CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:35:40.530" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16392" PostId="7533" Score="1" Text="I appreciate the help; I needed it on that one. :O" CreationDate="2018-11-14T18:35:23.077" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="16393" PostId="7533" Score="1" Text="I (and some translations I looked up) read the final genitive as one of possession, contrasting with ἁπάντων, roughly: &quot;They are about such things whose knowledge is common to all and not belonging to one specific discipline.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-14T20:34:31.017" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16395" PostId="7533" Score="0" Text="I would also comment on 'antistrophic', that it would merit a better translation. Presumably what is meant is something along the lines that the two are complementary, or two sides of the same coin." CreationDate="2018-11-14T21:12:25.680" UserId="1824" />
  <row Id="16396" PostId="7533" Score="0" Text="@TasosPapastylianou—I think it loses meaning when not translated as such; it is, after all, a valid English adjective. Moreover, I think Aristotle was thinking of the musical στροφή/ἀντιστροφή. If I were to read a translation with “complimentary” (for example), I would not have any idea that Aristotle had those in mind." CreationDate="2018-11-14T21:28:19.537" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="16398" PostId="7533" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, thanks, good point -- editing accordingly." CreationDate="2018-11-14T21:31:10.960" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16423" PostId="7534" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and many thanks for the answer! I took the liberty to edit your answer a bit, but feel free to make further edits or undo (rollback) mine. Your answers have gained you quite a few reputation points already, allowing you to use [more and more features of the site](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges). Most importantly, you can vote the questions and answers you like. I look forward to seeing more answers (and questions) from you!" CreationDate="2018-11-16T08:36:46.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16403" PostId="7536" Score="1" Text="It only occurs **once** (in the Ancient Greek texts). Can we really say anything of significance about a hapax legomenon?" CreationDate="2018-11-15T16:08:10.670" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16415" PostId="7536" Score="2" Text="@sumelic. It is a variant reading in a manuscript of the book by Aristotle. Otherwise nowhere." CreationDate="2018-11-15T21:20:43.067" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16417" PostId="7536" Score="2" Text="@sumelic. It would be noted in a critical edition of the H.A." CreationDate="2018-11-15T21:25:33.153" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16408" PostId="7538" Score="1" Text="Unfortunately this doesn't answer the question. All the examples you give are of archaic forms and are indicated accordingly (or just with parentheses as a variant) in L&amp;S. See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/714/why-is-paeniteo-considered-more-correct-than-poeniteo) for an example of a &quot;less correct&quot; form." CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:57:13.013" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16409" PostId="7538" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. I honestly don't know what he's asking then, nor do I know what you're talking about concerning archaic forms. He's showing variations without any real contradictions, so what is it that he's not understanding?" CreationDate="2018-11-15T18:27:50.500" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16410" PostId="7538" Score="0" Text="Archaic spellings (e.g. optimus/optumus) aren't &quot;less correct&quot;: they're just older and, hence, less common. The OP's examples (e.g. caenum/coenum) usually are a result of some spelling mistake, especially in the medieval period where e/ae/oe are all pronounced roughly the same." CreationDate="2018-11-15T18:31:06.503" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16411" PostId="7538" Score="1" Text="@brianpck. OK. I expanded my answer to address your objections. Maybe I'm wrong, but your assertion that archaic spellings aren't &quot;less correct&quot; seems questionable to me. If anything can be considered correct or not, I don't see why archaic spellings should be included as correct. Many archaic spellings are certainly rejected from acceptable English nowadays." CreationDate="2018-11-15T19:44:04.637" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16418" PostId="7540" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much！I mistakenly thought the classical manuscripts were the criterions of the correctness,and “less correctly” meant the scholars were not sure if the spelling was a classical spelling.But why didn’t they write it as “cena(less correctly coena,caena)”?" CreationDate="2018-11-16T03:13:32.440" UserId="3116" />
  <row Id="16419" PostId="7540" Score="1" Text="@nye: Oh, that comment makes the question clearer to me! I'm actually not sure whether &quot;less correctly&quot; means anything specific about the time period when the variant is found. I will try to look up more information on this" CreationDate="2018-11-16T03:24:27.703" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16662" PostId="7544" Score="0" Text="A great current resource for this is &quot;Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction&quot; byt Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen." CreationDate="2018-12-07T18:09:53.750" UserId="3157" />
  <row Id="16429" PostId="7548" Score="0" Text="Yes: the situation for all consonants besides final /m/ and /s/ (lost in VL) I think seems pretty clear; palatalization of /k/ before front vowels, loss of /h/, /w/ &gt; /v/. And monophthongization of 'ae' and 'oe' to /ɛ/ and /e/ are well-attested. I guess I could accept that for learned speakers final 'm' would be silent. But for single vowel qualities, it just seems odd to me that they would be able to associate the historic graphic symbols 'i' and 'u' with two different sounds depending on the context, with 'i' as either /i/ (former long i) or /e/ (former short i), and 'u' &gt; /u/ and /o/." CreationDate="2018-11-18T06:02:10.383" UserId="1858" />
  <row Id="16667" PostId="7550" Score="1" Text="As to the fact that this word was never applied to persons, I don't think that need be an insurmountable obstacle. You'd just have to do what, e.g., Pliny the Younger would do, and add something like *quasi* or *quaedam* to soften the expression/make it metaphorical." CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:38:42.723" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="43746" PostId="7552" Score="0" Text="So, this is like when Koreans speak English and can't pronounce 'f'?" CreationDate="2023-06-21T13:24:19.777" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="16432" PostId="7555" Score="0" Text="Actually, my original assumption was *proximus temporalis*. But after looking into it, it seems *temporalis* is closer to &quot;temporary&quot; than &quot;time&quot; itself. Whay do you think about that?" CreationDate="2018-11-19T09:04:32.927" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="16433" PostId="7555" Score="0" Text="@tjt263 It means various things, but the best overall translation of *temporalis* is &quot;time-related&quot;. It can mean &quot;temporary&quot;, but it is also widely used as &quot;temporal&quot;. The phrase *proximus temporalis* means roughly &quot;the closest time-related guy&quot; or something in that direction; it has good elements, but I can't quite make sense of it. You need something to say &quot;closeness&quot; instead of &quot;close&quot; here, but *proximitas* is probably not the only option." CreationDate="2018-11-19T09:14:53.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16451" PostId="7555" Score="0" Text="Where does &quot;guy&quot; come from? Which part indicates or refers to a person or object?" CreationDate="2018-11-20T10:34:23.297" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="16452" PostId="7555" Score="0" Text="@tjt263 It comes from the fact that *proximus* is masculine. In isolation (without a noun) and without context a masculine adjective often refers to a human male. If it were *proximum* (neuter) instead, I would have replace &quot;guy&quot; with &quot;thing&quot;." CreationDate="2018-11-20T10:56:14.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16442" PostId="7557" Score="0" Text="How can a gender-neutral word like &quot;proximity&quot; be feminine or masculine?" CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:37:22.413" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="16443" PostId="7557" Score="0" Text="You have repeated some versions of certain plurals. Is that intentional?  Also they seem different for the two examples, so I can't really isolate a pattern." CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:40:35.127" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="16444" PostId="7557" Score="0" Text="@tjt263 Unfortunately grammatical gender and semantic gender are quite independent in Latin. One would expect a neutral thing like &quot;proximity&quot; to be neuter, but *proximitas* is feminine. I don't know a simple explanation, other than &quot;that's how it ended up after a long development process&quot;. There are some rules of thumb, some having to do with meaning and some with form." CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:40:37.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16445" PostId="7557" Score="0" Text="So, how do you decide when to use the feminine or masculine form?" CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:42:08.927" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="16446" PostId="7557" Score="0" Text="@tjt263 I have repeated some forms intentionally so as to keep the order nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative. Sometimes different cases look alike. For neuters nominative and accusative look the same, and in plural dative and ablative do so for all genders." CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:42:09.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16447" PostId="7557" Score="0" Text="@tjt263 You just have to know for every word whether it is masculine, feminine, or neuter. If you learn a new Latin word (or look one up in a dictionary), you need to know how it's declined to different forms and what gender it belongs to. Knowing that &quot;dog&quot; is *canis* is not enough." CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:43:08.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16449" PostId="7557" Score="0" Text="Okay, I guess I have to learn what all these terms mean before I proceed. Nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, etc." CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:45:01.960" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="16438" PostId="7559" Score="1" Text="Femina is a noun, [feminina](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DF%3Aentry+group%3D10%3Aentry%3Dfemininus) is the related adjective. Does that fit your purpose?" CreationDate="2018-11-19T17:50:31.510" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="16439" PostId="7559" Score="1" Text="&quot; in genere Amazonarum mulierum, ubi *fortitudo* et *robur* *feminarum* prefertur fortitudini virorum, ...&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Thomas Cantimpratensis" CreationDate="2018-11-19T18:14:48.007" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16441" PostId="7559" Score="2" Text="Do you want to say &quot;feminine strength&quot; or &quot;strength of women&quot;?  They seem slightly different in tone to me and may have some bearing on vocab choice (and definitely on the grammar)." CreationDate="2018-11-20T01:55:52.857" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="16458" PostId="7563" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, and thanks for the response!" CreationDate="2018-11-21T03:25:53.433" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="31069" PostId="7563" Score="0" Text="The &quot;alget&quot;/&quot;friget&quot; issue is frequently mentioned as one of very few serious issues in Ørberg's Familia Romana (Ch. 14). Ørberg's &quot;Marcus friget&quot; is widely criticized for basically meaning the poor kid (though admittedly &quot;improbus&quot;) is cold, i.e. dead. The suggested correction is &quot;alget.&quot; Ørberg (RIP) is said to have defended himself by pointing out that, on the one hand, friget CAN in fact mean the kid is &quot;freezing&quot; and on the other &quot;friget&quot; is supposedly more frequent than &quot;alget.&quot; As for &quot;sic&quot; and &quot;ita,&quot; in my mind they're synonymous in practice." CreationDate="2021-03-13T17:19:02.070" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="16456" PostId="7564" Score="3" Text="How about the option *potestas feminina*? The plural genitive is good, but the adjective is a worthwhile option." CreationDate="2018-11-20T11:15:36.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16457" PostId="7564" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Added to the answer. Will share the credit with you." CreationDate="2018-11-20T13:29:56.453" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16461" PostId="7569" Score="1" Text="Are you looking for attested words, or are we free to coin new words? In principle one can derive without limits." CreationDate="2018-11-22T10:41:42.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16462" PostId="7569" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Attested words, for sure. I was not aware you could create your own words. Looks like an interesting question itself." CreationDate="2018-11-22T10:59:33.033" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16463" PostId="7569" Score="2" Text="You can indeed create your own words using existing words and a toolbox of new elements you can add. You can certainly ask a question about that. If you are only looking for attested words here (you could specify that in the question), I won't give an answer about extending words more or less artificially." CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:02:21.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16465" PostId="7569" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta But the fact I can put together words does not mean it becomes an official word. Maybe that's how all words end up being official in the long term (i.e. by someone using them and hanging around), but that's a separated issue." CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:04:02.273" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16469" PostId="7569" Score="1" Text="Well, that quickly becomes a question of how to define a word in the first place. There is no official body to decide which words are proper Latin and which are not. There are legitimate ways to derive new words in Latin and they have been used actively through the ages. A number of established Latin words have arisen through derivation from older elements within Latin. But I agree, that's not really what *this* question is about." CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:37:47.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16470" PostId="7569" Score="2" Text="Aristophanes [went a little too far in deriving a new word](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon). Greek is somewhat more flexible with compound words than Latin, though." CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:39:02.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16464" PostId="7570" Score="2" Text="But wait.... the word you mention is an English word. Sure, it's composed of Latin terms, but it seems it's never been used in a Latin context. Maybe the one I mentioned hasn't been either!" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:02:35.060" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16466" PostId="7570" Score="0" Text="I see that you're disappointed with my answer. I found it not as an English word, but in a forum about Latin words and spelled as a Latin word. I also didn't know at first that it was coined by students. I discovered that later." CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:05:55.407" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16467" PostId="7570" Score="0" Text="Rather than disappointed, I am surprised to find that you can come up with made-up words in Latin at all." CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:07:36.397" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16471" PostId="7570" Score="2" Text="Brilliant find, EB." CreationDate="2018-11-22T15:08:13.730" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16474" PostId="7570" Score="2" Text="To be more accurate, Shakespeare didn't *use* it, he *mentioned* it. Or, to put it another way, he used it not to express a meaning, but to put into the mouth of the character Costard in Love's Labour's Lost, for him to cite it as a very long word (again, not to express a meaning). The Balbus is, as you say, a dictionary entry, so he cites the word just to define it, not to use it. And where Balbus spells its -ibus form in full, is this merely to cite it as a very long (longissima) word? What's the longest attested Latin word used to express its meaning, not just cited for its length?" CreationDate="2018-11-22T19:15:33.757" UserId="3127" />
  <row Id="16477" PostId="7570" Score="1" Text="@RosieF. Either way, we agree that Shakespeare used it. I'm fine with that." CreationDate="2018-11-22T19:30:48.173" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16478" PostId="7570" Score="2" Text="@ExpeditoBipes Please don't misrepresent me. Read my earlier comment's first two sentences in full, rather than taking a few words from them out of context." CreationDate="2018-11-22T19:33:44.020" UserId="3127" />
  <row Id="16481" PostId="7570" Score="1" Text="@RosieF. I had no intention of misrepresenting you. After rereading your comment, I see that I was missing your point. Sorry about the misunderstanding." CreationDate="2018-11-22T20:49:25.880" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16482" PostId="7570" Score="1" Text="@RosieF. To answer your question, this word was used in various forms besides being just a dictionary entry. For [example](http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hon1.htm): &quot;It’s Latin, from honōrificābilis, honourable. Shakespeare didn’t invent this grandiose word: it first appears — in the form honōrificābilitūdo — in a charter of 1187 and as honōrificābilitūdinitās in a work by the Italian Albertinus Mussatus about 1300. It was used also by Dante and Rabelais and turns up in an anonymous Scots work of 1548, The Complaynt of Scotland.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-22T20:49:43.110" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="16484" PostId="7577" Score="0" Text="Awesome, thank you! So a masculine version of ‘today is day one’ would include ‘dies primus’?" CreationDate="2018-11-23T08:09:39.020" UserId="3129" />
  <row Id="16491" PostId="7577" Score="0" Text="@Jack Indeed! &quot;Diēs est prīmus&quot;, off the top of my head, is a nice concise way to say that. Literally, &quot;[this] day is [the] first [one]&quot;—Latin tends to leave out unnecessary words that can be understood from context." CreationDate="2018-11-23T15:20:38.090" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16485" PostId="7579" Score="0" Text="Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with *hermeticus* and *vilis* instead of *fortis*, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)" CreationDate="2018-11-23T12:06:18.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16487" PostId="7579" Score="0" Text="@Joonas: With _viliis_ I would say [_contemno_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=contemno), [_abicio_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=abicio) or [_deprimo_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=deprimo) are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. _advilire_ was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian _avvilire_." CreationDate="2018-11-23T12:27:31.540" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16488" PostId="7579" Score="0" Text="@Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying." CreationDate="2018-11-23T12:55:41.830" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16489" PostId="7579" Score="0" Text="It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the *-ificare* derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly." CreationDate="2018-11-23T13:27:35.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16490" PostId="7579" Score="1" Text="Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!" CreationDate="2018-11-23T13:38:10.433" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16492" PostId="7580" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for an interesting question! A small remark: L&amp;S seems to imply that *per* means the same thing with either case (as nothing else is mentioned). Therefore even with ablative *per* seems to have an effect on meaning." CreationDate="2018-11-23T22:08:39.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16493" PostId="7580" Score="1" Text="+1 While *per* + accusative can sometimes have a meaning similar to the bare ablative, this is often not the case. In addition, the bare ablative is unusual with people, at least in classical prose, so that wouldn't be an option anyway in those cases. // I believe I have seen *per* + ablative on occasion in post-classical Latin, which would make it a soloecism..." CreationDate="2018-11-23T23:46:33.393" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16506" PostId="7582" Score="0" Text="I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?" CreationDate="2018-11-27T14:40:58.003" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16527" PostId="7582" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan That's right, no special properties (unless you count the adverbial use of *quasi*)." CreationDate="2018-11-28T05:27:14.583" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16542" PostId="7582" Score="0" Text="I would include that comment in the answer, to have it all in one collected answer. Thank you!" CreationDate="2018-11-29T07:05:48.940" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="16583" PostId="7582" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Done." CreationDate="2018-12-01T01:09:01.877" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16496" PostId="7584" Score="0" Text="Do you want it to be idiomatic in classical Latin or modern usage? It sounds modern, but you have the classical tag." CreationDate="2018-11-25T08:31:42.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16497" PostId="7584" Score="0" Text="Two related questions: [How do you translate the idiom, I see?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2701/79) and [Translating “understand” in a conversation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5069/79)" CreationDate="2018-11-25T08:32:29.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16498" PostId="7584" Score="0" Text="@Joonas: Classical! Looking at the linked questions I would infer _intellego_ is more used in the negative, whereas _capio_ is most natural here." CreationDate="2018-11-25T08:40:30.927" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16499" PostId="7584" Score="0" Text="So it seems, but there don't seem to be many conversational use examples of *capio* in classical Latin. If you think you've found a decent solution, you can always answer your own question!" CreationDate="2018-11-25T08:47:53.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16500" PostId="7584" Score="1" Text="@Joonas: Uhm, after some research on the word, I'm indeed not that convinced... I hope to see a better solution." CreationDate="2018-11-25T09:10:04.977" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16504" PostId="7584" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, my Rosetta Stone course from high school used the perfect *intellexi,* presumably to emphasize the stative nature of the understanding." CreationDate="2018-11-26T23:15:49.050" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="16505" PostId="7584" Score="0" Text="Not really an authoritative answer, but the myself and members of Latin Discord server I participate in typically use the words *teneō*, *capiō*, and *intelligō / intellegō* (interchangeably) to express something equivalent to the English-ism &quot;I see&quot;." CreationDate="2018-11-26T23:17:46.300" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="16502" PostId="7585" Score="1" Text="Some of the Goddesses are quite feisty, uncompromising. Does the supernatural world reflect politics?" CreationDate="2018-11-26T18:42:43.570" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16503" PostId="7585" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Good question! Comments on politics in mythological contexts (female leadership of amazons or something similar) would also be interesting, and I think that would fall under the mythical interactions with female leaders I included. If there are comments on the goddesses as leaders and the effects of their leadership, that would indeed be relevant, but their womanhood in itself is not quite enough." CreationDate="2018-11-26T20:09:20.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16507" PostId="7585" Score="0" Text="I believe quite a few Roman authors have thought about this subject, though no specific passages come to mind. Plato and Cicero have probably commented on the issue. My impression is that Romans often thought of women as capable leaders, but that they lead in a very different style à la the wily seductress. Roman authors generally respected leaders like Cleopatra, Dido, Zenobia, Hippolyta." CreationDate="2018-11-27T14:54:35.660" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16508" PostId="7585" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus If you happen to remember any more details, consider posting them here. If not as a fuller answer, at least as something for others to start from." CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:00:05.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16520" PostId="7585" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: I will!" CreationDate="2018-11-28T03:33:56.270" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24054" PostId="7586" Score="1" Text="Why did you link Trask *Why do language change*? What's there on page 105?" CreationDate="2020-01-19T17:45:59.760" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="24060" PostId="7587" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: A verbal prefix, as well as an intensifier, can make the verb directional (towards someone/ something) therefore requiring a dative (indirect) object. In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12992/1982 prefix &quot;ir&quot; (an assimilated form of preverb &quot;in&quot;) applied to &quot;rideo&quot; gives &quot;irrideo&quot;. In &quot;nisi mihi irrisisset, forsitan ei ignossem.&quot; the directional prefix &quot;ir&quot; requires a dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-20T13:18:39.770" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="18915" PostId="7588" Score="0" Text="Found your comment when looking up this phrase in PDC#28 which you may be familiar with :-)" CreationDate="2019-03-13T18:13:39.413" UserId="3555" />
  <row Id="16512" PostId="7591" Score="0" Text="Hah, &quot;Veni, venite&quot; is a clever way of saying &quot;come one, come all&quot;." CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:14:28.100" UserDisplayName="anon" />
  <row Id="16509" PostId="7593" Score="0" Text="*Sylvanus, Silvanus* is usually the Forest God himself; and *silvaticus* the woodland adjective." CreationDate="2018-11-27T16:48:25.503" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16510" PostId="7593" Score="0" Text="Thanks for such a nice answer, so deep,  for  explanations." CreationDate="2018-11-27T16:50:55.283" UserId="3141" />
  <row Id="16511" PostId="7593" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Good call! Added" CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:05:13.820" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16513" PostId="7594" Score="0" Text="What is &quot;medieval *hocus pocus* Latin&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:31:11.857" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16515" PostId="7594" Score="0" Text="brianpck  *hocus-pocus* &quot;Early 17th century: from hax pax max Deus adimax, a pseudo-Latin phrase **used as a magic formula by conjurors**.&quot; Oxford Dictionary on-line" CreationDate="2018-11-27T18:50:51.700" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16516" PostId="7596" Score="1" Text="Would it be possible to include a text transcription for those of us that have visual impairments that make it difficult to read text in an image? It would also make the text searchable." CreationDate="2018-11-27T20:00:20.437" UserId="1130" />
  <row Id="16521" PostId="7596" Score="0" Text="de Vaan literally says this (s.v. bellum): &quot;The best etymology for *duellum* [i.e. Old Latin for bellum - A.B.] so far has been proposed by Pinault 1987, who posits a dim. *duenelo- to bonus.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-28T03:45:12.273" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16525" PostId="7596" Score="1" Text="To expand on @AlexB.'s comment, de Vaan's explanation of the putative semantic link is this: &quot;If *duenelo- meant 'quite good, quite brave', its use in the context of war (bella acta, bella gesta) could be understood as a euphemism, ultimately yielding a meaning 'action of valour, war' for the noun bellum&quot;. To me this sounds rather strained, especially given that de Vaan himself says of bellus (s.v. bonus) that it &quot;was originally used to refer to women and children; it was applied to men only ironically&quot;." CreationDate="2018-11-28T05:21:21.953" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16530" PostId="7596" Score="0" Text="@TKR I’m afraid you completely misunderstood de Vaan (or, rather, him reporting Pinault). Of course, it makes sense for **a diminutive** to be applied ironically back then, when women and children weren’t primarily engaged in warfare." CreationDate="2018-11-28T14:23:02.180" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16533" PostId="7596" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I understand the argument perfectly well -- it just strikes me as farfetched." CreationDate="2018-11-28T19:45:12.163" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16534" PostId="7596" Score="0" Text="@TKR let’s agree to disagree then. :)" CreationDate="2018-11-28T20:38:25.827" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16535" PostId="7596" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Certainly. It's always hard to know how to evaluate such things." CreationDate="2018-11-28T20:53:10.847" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16547" PostId="7596" Score="2" Text="An English translation would be appreciated for those of us who don't speak German; I'd translate it myself but I'm afraid I'd miss a nuance." CreationDate="2018-11-29T18:29:12.020" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16548" PostId="7596" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. I would be easier to copy out de Vaan's English if anyone has the energy to do so." CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:05:39.063" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16549" PostId="7596" Score="0" Text="@fdb Alas, I don't have my own copy. But I'll stop by the library when I have a chance." CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:10:36.793" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16560" PostId="7596" Score="0" Text="@Draconis and fdb, TKR and I have already shared the most relevant parts from de Vaan. &quot;The best etymology for duellum so far has been proposed by Pinault 1987, who posits a dim. * duenelo- to bonus. If * duenelo- meant 'quite good, quite brave', its use in the context of war (bella acta, bella gesta) could be understood as a euphemism, ultimately yielding a meaning 'action of valour, war' for the noun bellum.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-30T04:33:57.783" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16562" PostId="7596" Score="0" Text="@Draconis and fdb, another quote from de Vaan (s.v. bonus): &quot;Bellus reflects a dim. * duenelos &gt; * duenlos &gt; * duellos &gt; * bellos. The dim. meaning is the reason why bellus was originally used to refer to women and children; it was applied to men only ironically. The meaning '(little) good (one)' still shines through in Varro in quo Graeci belliores quam Romani nostri 'at which the Greeks are better than our Romans', and Nonius belliores 'meliores'.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-30T04:41:34.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16518" PostId="7598" Score="3" Text="*bellum/duellum* &quot;war&quot; is cognate with Greek *duh* &quot;agony&quot;, while *bellus* &quot;beautiful&quot; comes from an old diminutive of *bonus/duenos*. They're not related. And a single word's analogy isn't a solid argument: as Brian pointed out, *bos* &quot;cow&quot; ≠ *duos* &quot;two&quot;." CreationDate="2018-11-28T02:32:15.973" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16519" PostId="7598" Score="8" Text="This is a little silly: the unstated premise is that, &quot;If a subset of letters behaves in a certain way for one word, it behaves in the same way for all words.&quot; Considering that *optumus* is a variant spelling of *optimus*, you would need to claim that all i's in Latin can be replaced by u's. It's a clear *reductio ad absurdum*." CreationDate="2018-11-28T02:57:38.777" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16522" PostId="7598" Score="2" Text="@Draconis why do you think that bellum (OL duellum) and bonus (OL duenos) are not related?" CreationDate="2018-11-28T03:48:38.370" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16524" PostId="7598" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. The etymology I've heard is that _duellum_ is from PIE _*d-h₂w_ &quot;destroy&quot; (&gt; AGrk _δύη_ &quot;agony&quot;) while _duenos_ is from PIE _*d-w_ &quot;revere&quot; (&gt; Lat _beāre_ &quot;bless&quot;). But I wouldn't be surprised if de Vaan has something newer/more accurate." CreationDate="2018-11-28T04:37:45.430" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16531" PostId="7598" Score="0" Text="@Dracnois -  I'm sorry, but they are related.  Bellum is the vocative of both 'war' and 'pretty' in old latin, however one of them gender neutral.  Bellum (&quot;war&quot;) is the Inflection of bellus (“pretty”) - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bellum" CreationDate="2018-11-28T18:18:53.000" UserId="3144" />
  <row Id="16532" PostId="7598" Score="0" Text="@Dracnois -  (continued). But more importanlty, Nietzsche was pointing out,  they can both be traced back to the origination root 'duo' which is referencing conflict." CreationDate="2018-11-28T18:43:13.667" UserId="3144" />
  <row Id="16536" PostId="7598" Score="0" Text="@brianpck  -  what's &quot;silly&quot; about that perfection of logic?  It is commonly accepted logic.  Please refer to Wikipedia's History of Latin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin&#xA;&#xA;Initial *dw- (attested in Old Latin as du-) becomes b-, thus compensating for the dearth of words beginning with *b in PIE: &#xA;&#xA;So there is a clear reductio ad absurdum in here, but it's not this." CreationDate="2018-11-28T21:03:06.737" UserId="3144" />
  <row Id="16543" PostId="7598" Score="1" Text="Comments are not meant for extended discussion. Octavian, your conclusions were challenged, and the best response is to back up your answer by editing to add sources. For a free discussion environment, consider [our chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm). In case something seems out of order or there are questions, anything related to the functions of this site should be taken to [our meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/)." CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:25:32.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16537" PostId="7599" Score="2" Text="My own impression from seeing this in my own reading is that the diminutive suffix on an adj. is sometimes an alternative, esp. in poetry, to the non-diminutive adj. paired with a diminutive noun. The diminutive notion is just 'transferred' from noun to adj. Still, at other times, the diminutive ending on an adj. actually seems to change the meaning, to 'somewhat *x*.' I guess it's your call whether you think the passage is talking about 'somewhat milky girls' or 'milky little girls.'" CreationDate="2018-11-29T01:08:00.137" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16538" PostId="7599" Score="0" Text="@cnread  yes, exactly, you have rephrased my question neatly and accurately" CreationDate="2018-11-29T03:05:29.917" UserId="3149" />
  <row Id="16539" PostId="7599" Score="0" Text="@cnread may I ask for your opinion on this question? which interpretation would you stand for, ‘somewhat milky girls’ or ‘milky little girls’?" CreationDate="2018-11-29T03:08:39.140" UserId="3149" />
  <row Id="16540" PostId="7599" Score="1" Text="I'd probably go for 'milky little girls,' but context matters. I think that the line that you've quote is from Catullus, but I don't remember which poem. Usually, I think, C. would use *candidus* to describe the light skin that's so prized in the erotic poets; so perhaps the fact that *lacteolus* is used instead suggests some difference, possibly inferiority, in quality. In that case, the diminutive could serve to reinforce the inferiority: not only are the girls not strikingly white (*candidae*), but they're merely somewhat milky (*lacteolae*)." CreationDate="2018-11-29T04:43:14.457" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16544" PostId="7601" Score="2" Text="Related: [Where does the infinitive 'fieri' come from?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6459), [What is the significance of the different declensions and conjugations?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2521)" CreationDate="2018-11-29T10:25:40.263" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="16553" PostId="7601" Score="0" Text="So the infinitical suffix was originally *-si* (still mostly visible in *es-se*), but due to rhotacism the s between vowels turned into r. The question is now, what the origin of this *-si* is." CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:28:40.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16574" PostId="7604" Score="0" Text="Might we also consider _pandamen_ or _pandamentum_?" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:46:50.067" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16580" PostId="7604" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Good idea! According to a quick look-up, it seems that the *-a-* is only used for first conjugation verbs, whereas the third conjugation gets *-imen(tum)*. I edited that in. (It would be interesting know whether there are hard rules for the choice of vowel before *-men(tum)*; I only looked up some examples.)" CreationDate="2018-11-30T22:18:16.067" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16581" PostId="7604" Score="0" Text="I didn't spot that. We learn something new every day!" CreationDate="2018-11-30T22:29:07.897" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16584" PostId="7604" Score="1" Text="While _pandimen_ / _pandimentum_ is reasonable - I'm thinking of the Italian _condimento_ (seasoning, condiment) - I would lean towards _pandile_, as in Italian we say _spalmabile_ for spreadable products, and indeed sometimes (when it's cheese) we may leave it unspecified. Besides, _pandere_ is very similar to the Italian _spandere_, a synonym of _spalmare_." CreationDate="2018-12-01T11:53:06.930" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16550" PostId="7606" Score="5" Text="There seems to something wrong with what you've given: *ep'* should have a noun/pronoun after it, in the accusative, to complete the idea of *estrateuen*. Are you sure you copied correctly and that there shouldn't be an *auton* after *ep'* and then a repetition of *oute*? I think *tote de* in this instance is adversative: Tissaphernes was (in general) hostile to Cyrus, but on the occasion in question, he neither advanced his army against him nor ravaged the country. (Sorry for the transliterated Greek. It's just a pain to type in Greek on my Windows PC.)" CreationDate="2018-11-29T22:07:44.287" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16551" PostId="7606" Score="1" Text="That correction can be confirmed here:  http://cdn.textkit.net/JWW_First_Greek_Book.pdf" CreationDate="2018-11-29T23:57:39.447" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16556" PostId="7608" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! By the way, in my OLD, which is probably a couple of decades old now, it says it's from *vireo* + *-idus*, when I look up *viridis*. So I wonder why your copy didn't say this?" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:38:51.993" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16558" PostId="7608" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus hi, my copy is probably of the same edition as yours. the -idus suffix comes with the (possibly less common) alternative form ‘viridus’, instead of ‘viridis’, could you see that on the dictionary page? so my question is about the common form ‘viridis’ in particular." CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:47:49.277" UserId="3149" />
  <row Id="16557" PostId="7609" Score="1" Text="Another follow-up question could be, what other adjectives on *-idis* are there?" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:39:21.073" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16559" PostId="7609" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your answer! Would you quote the source of the content you posted? for i’d like to read the source material as reference for more details." CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:54:56.270" UserId="3149" />
  <row Id="16569" PostId="7609" Score="0" Text="All the verbs appearing in this question and answer are second conjugation (*virere, calere, torpere, liquere*). Verbs of that conjugation of describe a state rather than an action. I wonder if the same kind of derivation works for other verbs. Yet another possibility for a follow-up question!" CreationDate="2018-11-30T08:25:34.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16576" PostId="7609" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta There's a whole series of derivations that afaik only work for second-conjugation statives: torpeō → torpor, torpifaciō, torpidus, torpescō, a few others that I can't think of rn. I'm not sure if this pattern has a name." CreationDate="2018-11-30T18:18:54.143" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16585" PostId="7610" Score="0" Text="+1 for some valid classical options." CreationDate="2018-12-01T12:17:44.067" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16563" PostId="7612" Score="0" Text="*hasta tremens* and *tremens hasta* described as &quot;almost animate&quot; in a footnote to the Aeneid gets hits on the search engine." CreationDate="2018-11-30T07:03:21.510" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16570" PostId="7614" Score="0" Text="Should the ablative *illa* be understood with an implicit noun? The typical feminine choices *via* and *re* don't seem to make sense." CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:31:54.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16575" PostId="7614" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I'm not sure. Maybe *parte*?" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:51:34.867" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16571" PostId="7615" Score="0" Text="It seems plausible to me that some of the *-ar* come from *-arium*. Consider *donarium, aerarium, herbarium, librarium, panarium, vivarium, violarium, rosarium, seminarium, spoliarium*, which are places where something is stored or otherwise abundant. This is quite different from *-aris*. At least *melonar* sounds like *-arium* instead of *-aris* to me. Do you want to include *-arium* in the question or leave it out?" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:39:26.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16572" PostId="7615" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta the _-arium_ suffix seems different, and derived into the Spanish suffix _-ario_ as in _erario_, _herbario_, _rosario_, _seminario_ and others. It seems to be &quot;place (or building) where the original noun is stored&quot; more than just &quot;an abundance of the original noun&quot;." CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:50:46.350" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="16578" PostId="7617" Score="0" Text="Thank you!&#xA;It's quite embarassing - I copied it incorrectly into my notes, was unable to translate it and then copied from my notes into the question." CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:22:59.997" UserDisplayName="user1846" />
  <row Id="23799" PostId="7618" Score="0" Text="Since *puer* was regularly used to mean servant, and since Romans not infrequently took sexual liberties with their servants, I don't think that last sentence quite conveys what you want.  Of course, that's the danger with all of this--how can you say it in a way that doesn't sound like Martial quipped it first?" CreationDate="2019-12-23T12:42:56.147" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23801" PostId="7618" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Indeed, I had forgotten to update this answer after the spin-off question. I added a link there and updated my suggestion on that part. It should work better now, and the details of that choice of words can be discussed in the linked question. I only wanted to pick a single sample here to show how marrying would work." CreationDate="2019-12-23T14:29:08.017" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23803" PostId="7618" Score="0" Text="I was wondering to what extent &quot;_aliquem in matrimonium ducere_ is a good neutral option&quot;. You point out that _nubere_ has &quot;unwanted connotations&quot;. Well, one could also claim that the use of the verb _ducere_ 'to lead' has &quot;unwanted connotations&quot; too... By the way, your last example is ambiguous, isn't it? The verb _duxit_ could also be interpreted as &quot;he **considered** his boyfriend as his husband&quot;.  Such an ambiguity disappears if one uses a directional expression like _in matrimonium_." CreationDate="2019-12-23T16:42:25.013" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="16577" PostId="7622" Score="3" Text="There's a useful starting place in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2141/ - an answer by C. M. Weimer&#xA;Dec7 '16 where he begins: &quot;This is the big question! Genitives can be either subjective or objective&quot;" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:01:31.273" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16589" PostId="7622" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Thanks for the link. That answer essentially applies to my question here. The gist of that answer is that when the modified word can be both the subject and modifier, the exact meaning of genitive case is ambiguous." CreationDate="2018-12-01T22:57:30.313" UserId="1707" />
  <row Id="16586" PostId="7628" Score="0" Text="Why do you think it was *count*? pluralia tantum would be more accurate." CreationDate="2018-12-01T20:52:04.347" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16587" PostId="7628" Score="0" Text="@AlexB Because I had not put enough work into my research, having read something unscholarly that mentioned that Latin *tenebra* in the singular actually existed. However, I can find no obvious singular in Perseus now that I look a bit harder. Its descendants are certainly pluralia tantum in French, and almost but not quite 100.00%-always so in Spanish and Portuguese. I actually had to look that up because I’d never heard or read it in the singular in ES or PT, only in the plural, so I take those to be back-formations absent in the original source Latin. But again, I’m not the expert here. :)" CreationDate="2018-12-01T21:56:11.500" UserId="875" />
  <row Id="16588" PostId="7628" Score="2" Text="The HP corpus contains only a single easily identifiable instance of singular *tenebra*: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=tenebra%23" CreationDate="2018-12-01T22:52:47.000" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16590" PostId="7628" Score="1" Text="From the OLD, Apuleius *Metamorphoses* 5.20: *&quot;Omnique isto apparatu tenacissime dissimulato, postquam sulcatos25 intrahens gressus cubile solitum conscenderit, iamque porrectus et exordio somni prementis implicitus altum soporem flare coeperit, toro delapsa nudoque vestigio pensilem gradum paullulatim26 minuens, caecae **tenebrae** custodio liberata lucerna, praeclari tui facinoris opportunitatem de luminis consilio mutuare, et ancipiti telo illo audaciter, prius dextera sursum elata, nisu quam valido noxii serpentis nodum cervicis et capitis abscide.&quot;*" CreationDate="2018-12-01T23:01:27.727" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16592" PostId="7628" Score="0" Text="oops, technically it is **a plurale tantum** (pluralia tantum is its plural form)." CreationDate="2018-12-03T03:34:19.567" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16591" PostId="7629" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the good question! I'm not quite sure how to tag a question like this about constructions by analogy. Perhaps we should have a new tag? This doesn't quite feel like a translation question, and [we're actually in the process of getting rid of the overly broad &quot;translation&quot; tag](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79)." CreationDate="2018-12-02T21:05:27.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16596" PostId="7634" Score="1" Text="Its use is not restricted to Vulgata. A [quick classical corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23iam+nunc) produces 115 uses of *iam nunc*." CreationDate="2018-12-03T10:59:50.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19539" PostId="7635" Score="0" Text="IIRC, in a book I no longer have access to, on Latin forms of address, *domine /domina* were also used to address a beloved, though possibly not to *refer* to them." CreationDate="2019-05-04T00:13:07.383" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="19541" PostId="7635" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose: Interesting! If you happen to stumble again on that book or something else confirming it, make sure to post an answer!" CreationDate="2019-05-04T09:52:21.717" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19542" PostId="7635" Score="1" Text="This is a link to the book on Google Books, might be searchable? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vakSDAAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-05-04T10:30:58.430" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="19640" PostId="7635" Score="0" Text="ªTheHonRose: Weren´´t &quot;Domine/ Domina&quot; forms of address to high-ranking people? A slave would address his master as  &quot;Domine&quot;, the &quot;Imperatrix&quot;, &quot;Domina&quot;--&quot;Lady&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-05-10T09:01:57.623" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="16597" PostId="7636" Score="0" Text="So &quot;here and now&quot; (idiomatically speaking) is also a &quot;valid&quot; translation, as the &quot;here&quot; can also be understood as meaning something &quot;already happened&quot;, as in &quot;it is here now [already with us]&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-12-03T12:14:41.443" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16598" PostId="7636" Score="0" Text="'Here and now' describes something happening in the speaker's presence, or that the speaker knows to be occurring elsewhere. It isn't quite of the same meaning as _iam nunc_, but may occasionally be close enough." CreationDate="2018-12-03T12:28:43.140" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16603" PostId="7639" Score="0" Text="llmavirta  Thanks. There is no concept of &quot;ordering&quot;,  here. The thirst-crazed soldiers could not control themselves. There may be a case, therefore, for putting &quot;temperabant&quot; in the passive; but, checking in Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict., &quot;tempero&quot; can mean the controlling of others or self. So, it can be further argued that a feflexive pronoun is unnecessary; giving; non temperabant--they were not controllong/ did not control themselves? Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2018-12-04T10:19:25.350" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="16604" PostId="7639" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thanks. There is no concept of ordering, here. The thirst-crazed soldiers could not control themselves. It could be argued that &quot;temperabant&quot; should be passive. Checking Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict., &quot;tempero&quot; can mean the restraining of others or self; therefore, it may be argued, further, that a reflexive pronoun is unnecessary, giving: &quot;non temperabant&quot;--they were not controlling/ did not control themselves? Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2018-12-04T10:25:55.627" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="16605" PostId="7639" Score="0" Text="The first one disappeared, repeated it; first one returned!" CreationDate="2018-12-04T10:29:56.593" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="16606" PostId="7639" Score="0" Text="@tony You need the reflexive *sibi* with *temperabant*. The men were unable to give constraints **to themselves** (= *sibi*). If *temperare* took an accusative object, you could replace *se*+active with passive, but you can't (usually) passivize something that works with datives. Whether you give orders (*imperare*) or constraints (*temperare*), you give them **to** someone with a dative. I'm not aware of *temperare* being used to controlling oneself without *sibi*, but it can well be a matter of my limited knowledge." CreationDate="2018-12-04T12:14:43.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16621" PostId="7642" Score="0" Text="Manually, you could consult a reverse dictionary, e.g. Part B: Voces ordinantur a tergo (pp. 279-546) in Gradentitz 1904 Laterculi vocum Latinarum https://archive.org/details/laterculivocuml00gradgoog/page/n291" CreationDate="2018-12-05T03:03:34.807" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16602" PostId="7643" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for an interesting question! I hope that you will register your account and stick around; the site is much more flexible for a registered user. If you want a quick introduction to how the site works, you can check [our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2018-12-03T18:09:31.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16599" PostId="7644" Score="0" Text="Wow! This tool is far heavier than what I expected to see... This is a good option to be aware of (+1), but I hope there are easier ways. And ways that see *missile*." CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:36:28.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16600" PostId="7644" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta An even more brute force method would be to simply search the index of all Latin words and their declensions available. It seems however that there is no such list in Wiktionary." CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:44:54.243" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16601" PostId="7644" Score="0" Text="If you list them all, it gives a whole lot of false positives. That might not be debilitating, but it would be nice to have access to attested substantivized adjectives with less noise." CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:58:42.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16607" PostId="7646" Score="0" Text="Is this something specific to Gregorian chants, or is it the same as trying to understand the lyrics when someone (especially a choir) sings in a foreign language?" CreationDate="2018-12-04T12:16:40.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16608" PostId="7646" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Mmmm, good point. It is definitely specific to Gregorian chant in the sense that I have no interest in a similar issue for another language. But I guess the nature of the issue is the same. Are you suggesting this could be better placed in the music SE?" CreationDate="2018-12-04T12:57:53.057" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16615" PostId="7646" Score="1" Text="The same question can be on-topic on a number of SE sites. You might get some insight from Music, but different kinds of insights here. And if a question is valid for all languages, it's still valid for Latin. The question seems on-topic to me, but I wonder how much people here can help. (Let's hope I'll be positively surprised as I have often been on this site!)" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:59:35.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16614" PostId="7648" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Oh, I see. I thought accusative was appropriate." CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:38:53.160" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16617" PostId="7648" Score="0" Text="Could be; but in mottoes almost always Nominative." CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:26:43.493" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16616" PostId="7651" Score="1" Text="Now I've learned the Gerund and a+ablative case.!! Thank you so much for the clear explanation!" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:26:32.460" UserId="2973" />
  <row Id="16619" PostId="7651" Score="2" Text="You may want to edit the last part of your answer, in view of _generendo_ being a &quot;misspelling&quot; of _generando_." CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:55:02.817" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16620" PostId="7652" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for sharing your expertise!" CreationDate="2018-12-04T20:15:23.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16622" PostId="7652" Score="1" Text="Very helpful indeed. Point 1 is very interesting! Point 3 is definitely true. I can sometimes tell that the monks are French :) I will start to practice with the lyrics and see how it goes. Thanks!" CreationDate="2018-12-05T22:40:32.793" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16618" PostId="7653" Score="3" Text="Oh, you are absolutely right. It was my miss transcription of 'gerendo'. So now I try to keep it in mind that the ablative gerund of genero is generando, that of gero is gerendo... Thank you for the correction!" CreationDate="2018-12-04T16:55:19.177" UserId="2973" />
  <row Id="16623" PostId="7655" Score="0" Text="Ah, that makes sense! Only one question left: why is it _nostrā_ and not _meā_, if it's her (and only her) hand?" CreationDate="2018-12-06T16:03:24.963" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16626" PostId="7655" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, it's just what's sometimes called a 'poetic plural' (though that's a misnomer because it's also very common in prose)." CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:00:08.280" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16624" PostId="7659" Score="0" Text="Okay, thank you!  Awesome tool there, thanks!" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:22:55.007" UserId="1238" />
  <row Id="16625" PostId="7659" Score="0" Text="@rotaredom It's a wonderful thing; I'd never have made it through my early Greek classes without it!" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:23:50.147" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16627" PostId="7661" Score="1" Text="I'm almost certain it's *conventus*. Also, would you mind providing an example where *de* is paired with the genitive? I've never seen that before" CreationDate="2018-12-06T19:39:46.500" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16630" PostId="7661" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'll search for one when I have a corpus available; in the meantime I got rid of the &quot;not uncommon&quot; wording." CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:19:30.977" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16631" PostId="7661" Score="0" Text="Sounds good. It's worth noting that the OP's example seems to come from a poor translation on a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myeongdong_Cathedral) with at least one obvious mistake (*domina* instead of *dominae*), so I wouldn't trust that as a good example!" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:23:22.873" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16632" PostId="7661" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yeah, I feel sure I saw it at some point but that's not exactly a proper citation! I'm going to search when I can." CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:37:21.957" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16628" PostId="7662" Score="2" Text="Have you seen this already? https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5777/39" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:04:48.250" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16629" PostId="7662" Score="2" Text="For what it's worth, inverting the word order for the corpus search gives 5 results and 8 matches." CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:11:46.983" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16639" PostId="7662" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I had seen it (based on seeing that I had voted) but I had completely forgotten. It's very relevant, but it doesn't seem to contain an answer to this question as such." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:18:38.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16641" PostId="7662" Score="1" Text="@VincenzoOliva Interesting! The iconic name (in modern use) is *mare nostrum*, so it's surprising that *nostrum mare* is so common." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:20:20.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16650" PostId="7662" Score="1" Text="Indeed! I thought of giving it a shot because I was suspicious of such a crystallized order." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:58:44.130" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16666" PostId="7662" Score="1" Text="This is one of those infuriating questions that is probably unanswerable. The sea (and seafaring) is not a subject seriously discussed in its own right in extant classical literature, which is the probable reason for (y)our difficulty. It reminds me of the wider problem of interesting subjects obscured by the lack of sources, which has led to some unfortunate speculation — including, for instance, about ships, shipping and the seas in general." CreationDate="2018-12-07T21:54:18.850" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="16685" PostId="7662" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton If there are reasons to believe that the question is unanswerable, explaining those reasons would make a good answer. It is certainly not what I expected, but it might well be the correct answer. It's useful to be aware of the things we simply don't know!" CreationDate="2018-12-08T12:21:35.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18877" PostId="7662" Score="0" Text="Without any sources I could imagine that you normally did not speak or write about the whole Mediterranean Sea. The different parts like the Tyrrhenian Sea were more interesting. You only need some special name for *the sea*, if you want to comapre it with other seas (Black Sea, the Canal, ...). If you live near the Atlantic Ocean you may here of this name the first time, when you use some sort of map. So we just don't have their school books for geography." CreationDate="2019-03-12T13:58:16.460" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="16660" PostId="7663" Score="1" Text="Conjunction is another good starting point: Isidore Etym I xii" CreationDate="2018-12-07T06:59:09.233" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16701" PostId="7663" Score="0" Text="A Latin translation of Apollonius *Syntax* (with the Greek) is accessible as a download at http://schmidhauser.us/apollonius/works/ as pdf (Acrobat pro 9)." CreationDate="2018-12-10T14:34:32.130" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16633" PostId="7664" Score="2" Text="Hi and welcome!  It may be helpful to review our guidelines for translation – [How can I ask a translation or homework question?](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/a/144/12).  In particular, can you show the results of your efforts to translate these texts?  It's best to focus your questions on specific difficult elements in the translation, rather than make a large, generic request like this." CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:55:01.687" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16634" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@Nathaniel: I just edited my question. Is this better?" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:05:16.850" UserId="3179" />
  <row Id="16635" PostId="7664" Score="1" Text="Much better! Though your question is still *enormous*, and it might be better to break it down into sections." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:11:35.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16636" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="Also where did these prayers come from?" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:14:50.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16637" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="I agree with @Draconis: This question is too long. I recommend taking just one paragraph/section (the one you have most doubts about) and leaving the rest out. You can then ask about them in separate questions, but it's better to wait for feedback about one part before asking about others. That way you can learn more on the way!" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:15:52.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16638" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: These prayers were written in the 12th century by St. Nercess the Graceful in Classical Armenian. Sometime shortly later, they were translated into Koine Greek. Clearly the Koine Greek text is somewhat different from the Classical Armenian text on which the English translation is based though. So I was looking for an English translation of the Koine Greek version." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:18:13.937" UserId="3179" />
  <row Id="16640" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta: Would you rather I ask 24 separate questions? Is that what you are saying?" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:19:31.767" UserId="3179" />
  <row Id="16642" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="Interesting, so your goal is to compare the Koine Greek against the Armenian-to-English version? I'd been thinking the English was your translation, but it doesn't quite line up in places." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:21:22.743" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16643" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Yes, my goal is to get a Koine-Greek-to-English version and compare it to the Armenian-to-English version." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:23:04.977" UserId="3179" />
  <row Id="16644" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@7MessRobHackOpen Yes, that's what I'm saying. But I wouldn't ask them at the same time. Instead, start by asking one or maybe two of those smaller questions. Feedback from the first question(s) will be useful for the rest of the text, and you can ask new questions using newfound knowledge." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:23:38.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16645" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="As Nathaniel (and the link he gives) suggests, it's good to explain what you are unsure about. Giving a chunk of text and saying &quot;please give feedback&quot; is a little too open-ended. That can be part of the question, but if you are unsure about something specific, please elaborate on that." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:25:30.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16646" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta: Here is the problem - I don't know nearly enough Koine Greek to point out what I am specifically unsure about. That said, I do know enough to see that, as Draconis pointed out, &quot;it doesn't quite line up in places.&quot; Does that make sense?" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:34:16.710" UserId="3179" />
  <row Id="16647" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@7MessRobHackOpen It makes sense. Whatever the situation is, it's best to describe it in the question. As your question is currently written, there's not enough context and the origin of the English and Greek texts is unclear. The background can be anything, but disclosing it helps a lot. For example, we get questions where people have tried Google Translate and ask us to check if the translation makes sense. Anyway, taking a smaller chunk makes people much more likely to actually read the text, so start small. Answering the question as it is now is a lot of work." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:44:09.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16648" PostId="7664" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta: I just edited the question again. I just want to give people a chance to see if they will answer the question as it is right now. If they do not, then I will try what you are suggesting (taking a smaller chunk)" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:52:35.343" UserId="3179" />
  <row Id="16649" PostId="7664" Score="1" Text="I was wondering why Armenia was mentioned in the text. It is in the last prayer, the doxology. If you want to start 'small,' section 4 and the last one  are the only sections where I've noticed significant variants." CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:54:26.760" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16659" PostId="7665" Score="0" Text="3 sections done. I don't have time for more.Good wishes." CreationDate="2018-12-07T06:14:12.493" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16654" PostId="7667" Score="1" Text="I just put the Greek back for 13 through 24. See 1 through 12 here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7664/can-you-please-fix-the-mistakes-in-translating-these-prayers-from-koine-greek-to" CreationDate="2018-12-07T01:07:50.433" UserId="3179" />
  <row Id="16658" PostId="7667" Score="0" Text="I find Πρεσβείαις very interesting. It doesn't seem to say &quot;by the intercession of Saints&quot; 'my' petitions will be heard; rather, the Saints gifts of Praise and Honour carry 'my' requests. Is that in the Armenian?" CreationDate="2018-12-07T05:25:54.017" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16656" PostId="7668" Score="0" Text="This looks very good to me. A couple of minor points: κτίσματα here is &quot;creatures&quot;, and I'd take τὸν ἡμαρτηκότα σοι as &quot;the one who has sinned against you&quot; (rather than a dative of possession as your translation implies)." CreationDate="2018-12-07T03:38:55.253" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16657" PostId="7668" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks! Both of those make much more sense, and I edited them in." CreationDate="2018-12-07T03:59:58.123" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16661" PostId="7670" Score="0" Text="Is there any English translation of Apollonius's _Syntax_ available on the net? I want to see his exact wording regarding _logos_." CreationDate="2018-12-07T10:02:41.190" UserId="3178" />
  <row Id="16719" PostId="7670" Score="0" Text="@Kaveh I haven't found one, but I haven't done a thorough search." CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:24:53.180" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17818" PostId="7671" Score="1" Text="Eleanor Dickey's *Ancient Greek Scholarship* has a good section on ancient Greek grammarians, and another on lexicographers, with lots of bibliographical information." CreationDate="2018-12-19T21:13:17.913" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17834" PostId="7671" Score="1" Text="@TKR *Ancient Greek Scholarship* is my desk reference. I also recommend Brill’s *Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity*." CreationDate="2018-12-20T15:22:43.050" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16663" PostId="7672" Score="1" Text="Thank you @Hugh. What about information about editions and translations? Is there any anthology, reader, etc. (in English translation) of the extant texts?" CreationDate="2018-12-07T19:16:37.570" UserId="3178" />
  <row Id="16665" PostId="7672" Score="2" Text="@Kaveh You can always start with Brill’s *Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity*." CreationDate="2018-12-07T20:47:13.053" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16699" PostId="7672" Score="0" Text="Thanks @AlexB Is there any similar work for Latin?" CreationDate="2018-12-09T17:50:30.710" UserId="3178" />
  <row Id="16696" PostId="7674" Score="1" Text="Viti 2013 mentions that &quot;In the Classical period, the dual is viable only in Attic. In the Koine and in New Testament Greek, the dual has virtually disappeared. This decay, however, is not unilinear. The dual in Homeric Greek, for example, is mostly retained in pronouns (Viti 2011:596), while in Classical Greek it is more common in noun.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-12-09T06:02:18.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16681" PostId="7675" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Sara!" CreationDate="2018-12-08T09:45:41.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16683" PostId="7675" Score="2" Text="Interestingly, this sounds like the opposite of [_Nil satis nisi optimum_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nil_satis_nisi_optimum)." CreationDate="2018-12-08T11:03:30.047" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16679" PostId="7677" Score="0" Text="We had a very detailed (if somewhat ill-tempered) discussion of this issue in another forum. It is not easy to summarise the line of thought, so it might be better just to have a look at it:&#xA;&#xA;https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/missa.2529289/" CreationDate="2018-12-08T09:33:00.597" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16680" PostId="7677" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is an interesting question and has been asked before. Therefore we have marked it as duplicate of the earlier question so that all information on the matter is in one place. If you think the linked question doesn't quite give what you need, you can edit your question to elaborate what's different and we can reopen your question. I stress that having a question closed as duplicate is not a sign of bad quality or any such thing; it's just a matter of organizing information usefully." CreationDate="2018-12-08T09:43:03.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16668" PostId="7678" Score="0" Text="That's an incredible answer. Thank you. From what I understand: &quot;Mitta est&quot; = it is the dismissal OR &quot;Missa est&quot; = this is the mass. So do you feel that either of those would be at least grammatically correct?" CreationDate="2018-12-08T02:00:12.337" UserId="3183" />
  <row Id="16669" PostId="7678" Score="0" Text="@Dkett Sorry, that was a typo on my part: both should be *missa*, not *mitta*! Corrected now. But yes, both of those would be grammatically correct, especially in Church Latin (where everyone most likely knows the formula *ite, missa est* by heart)." CreationDate="2018-12-08T02:04:03.897" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16684" PostId="7678" Score="0" Text="Perfect, thank you so much for the help and clarity. Excellent insight." CreationDate="2018-12-08T11:19:14.443" UserId="3183" />
  <row Id="16672" PostId="7679" Score="0" Text="First of all, a reminder. As Dickey 2002 puts it,  &quot;Latin vocatives may be preceded or followed by a word meaning 'my' (*mi, mea, meum, meus, mei*, or *meae*) or 'our' *noster*&quot; (p. 214). Most importantly, in your example, *vobis* is not used as a form of address but it's the indirect object of *confiteor*, that is why it's in the dative; vocatives are syntactically independent." CreationDate="2018-12-08T04:13:07.757" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16673" PostId="7679" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Oh inded; my question isn't why *vōbīs* is dative but why *fratrēs* **isn't** dative along with it." CreationDate="2018-12-08T05:09:37.207" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16675" PostId="7679" Score="0" Text="because when it’s used as a form of address, it has to be in the vocative only." CreationDate="2018-12-08T05:37:13.080" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16674" PostId="7681" Score="1" Text="Did Greek's dual eventually reach a point like Hebrew's, where it was only used for natural pairs (such as eyes)?" CreationDate="2018-12-08T05:26:37.587" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16677" PostId="7681" Score="4" Text="Unfortunately, I don't think this answers the question, which is specifically about *Attic* Greek. A note about Plato's use (which is certainly not as consistent as Homer's!) would be helpful" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:03:59.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16686" PostId="7681" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: fair enough.  Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as familiar with Plato as I am with Homer..." CreationDate="2018-12-08T15:22:05.970" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16695" PostId="7681" Score="2" Text="Carlotta Viti (Viti 2011) did a corpus study on the dual forms in Homeric Greek (based on 6,255 verses in the Iliad). It was minor, facultative, and was already in decline (cf. Chantraine 1953), often being replaced by the plural. Viti also argues that the dual in Homeric Greek functions as a paucal." CreationDate="2018-12-09T06:00:43.680" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16697" PostId="7681" Score="1" Text="She made a very interesting observation, &quot;Non-inherently binary referents more frequently appear in the dual if they are human and salient in the context, while the plural is more common with nouns denoting animals and inanimate referents.&quot;" CreationDate="2018-12-09T06:05:57.667" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16721" PostId="7681" Score="0" Text="Αἴαντε is an interesting case. Though readers of Homer since antiquity have interpreted it as &quot;the two Ajaxes&quot;, this seems to be a misunderstanding: it originally meant &quot;Ajax and Teucer&quot;, an Indo-European &quot;elliptical dual&quot; (where dual of X means &quot;X and someone closely associated with X&quot;). The misinterpretation apparently occasioned odd distortions in some episodes of the Iliad." CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:45:11.827" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16722" PostId="7681" Score="1" Text="Though it's strictly off topic as @brianpck says, in case it's useful to anyone I'll link here to a full inventory of duals in the Iliad, distinguished by type: https://documents.kenyon.edu/classics/current/hahnemann_dual_forms_iliad.pdf" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:46:37.917" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16723" PostId="7681" Score="1" Text="@TKR I came across that interpretation a while ago, but when I checked some passages where it occurred, the context didn't seem to fit the &quot;Ajax and Teucer&quot; interpretation.  Of course, it is possible that the text was subsequently modified to fit a misunderstanding, but I remember that at the time I wasn't convinced." CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:52:26.630" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16732" PostId="7683" Score="1" Text="Thanks to all. I am here, but festive preparations are taking over my time. Apologies for not replying properly yet." CreationDate="2018-12-12T17:35:29.363" UserId="3181" />
  <row Id="17778" PostId="7683" Score="1" Text="Think I like the last one best, especially as it is a quote in it's own right. The more I think about it, the more I realise it needs to be succinct, otherwise I would have chosen the first one. My only concern, though- &quot;it's done as soon as it's good enough&quot; could mean &quot;I won't stop until it's good enough&quot;, so the opposite?" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:35:07.220" UserId="3181" />
  <row Id="16692" PostId="7684" Score="0" Text="@DenisNardin It surely can be. Where did you get that meaning from? What's the verb? I can't find it." CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:24:45.767" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16694" PostId="7684" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Sorry, my memory was faulty. Looking for it though I found that *meta* can mean *goal* (http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.11:1474.lewisandshort, meaning II). It survived with that meaning in Italian to denote the name of the try in rugby. Dunno though, so I'll stop speculating" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:35:02.203" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="16702" PostId="7691" Score="0" Text="_idea_ doesn't seem to have in Latin the meaning it developed in modern languages. It either was used in the context of philosophy, or with the meaning of &quot;notion&quot; - the latter use may be limited to Church Latin, in fact." CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:05:27.240" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16703" PostId="7691" Score="0" Text="On a second thought, the usual construct is &quot;_gaudeo_ + abl. of cause&quot;, is this some sort of special case?" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:14:35.583" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16704" PostId="7691" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Joonas did not specify a tag with period. But I added a more classical tone. Regarding your second question, [it seems](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=gaudeo) accusative are not so common, but are still attested." CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:14:51.550" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16705" PostId="7691" Score="1" Text="Yes, though I think even in modern times _idea_ isn't the same as the English &quot;idea&quot;. Ah, nice to know _gaudeo_ can be used with other cases - though one ought to check whether &quot;in&quot; is the right proposition for the accusative, since I don't see such an instance on the page you linked." CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:19:43.327" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16706" PostId="7691" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Oh, but I think you are right. Here it should be the ablative and not the accusative. See the quotation [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idea#Noun_10). I think _idea_ truly meant idea." CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:24:15.127" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16709" PostId="7691" Score="0" Text="I see. I found an instance of &quot;gaudeo in + ablative&quot; in St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians; the absolute ablative could also be used. The quotation on Wiktionary is indeed of philosophical nature (&quot;doctrine of ideas&quot;), but don't worry about it." CreationDate="2018-12-10T17:11:46.433" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="16708" PostId="7692" Score="1" Text="Just to add that these are not arbitrary spelling variants. κραδίη and καρδίη are both legitimate forms of the zero-grade stem with syllabic r." CreationDate="2018-12-10T17:02:11.243" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16711" PostId="7692" Score="1" Text="@fdb To make sure I'm understanding right, you're saying both of those are attested outside of metered poetry?" CreationDate="2018-12-10T19:27:32.397" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16713" PostId="7692" Score="0" Text="In prose only the Attic καρδία is attested. But that has to do with the fact that virtually all extant prose writings are in Attic. @Draconis." CreationDate="2018-12-10T23:06:38.603" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="16720" PostId="7692" Score="0" Text="FYI, the search link isn't working for me." CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:26:05.050" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16724" PostId="7692" Score="0" Text="@TKR I changed the link and gave information on the search" CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:12:37.867" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="16716" PostId="7695" Score="0" Text="Try searching [here](http://www.manfredclauss.de/gb/index.html)." CreationDate="2018-12-11T13:20:44.067" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16728" PostId="7698" Score="0" Text="I think the term **associative** is much more common in contemporary linguistic research, whereas elliptical is redolent of the Junggrammatiker, imho." CreationDate="2018-12-12T01:25:13.830" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="16726" PostId="7699" Score="0" Text="In Old Norse &quot;A noun (usually a proper name) was often put in apposition, or partial apposition, to a dual pronoun of the first or second person ... as _vit Hǫttr_ 'Hǫtt and I'; _þit móðir mín_ 'you and my mother'&quot; - E. V. Gordon, _introduction to Old Norse_." CreationDate="2018-12-11T23:05:35.620" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="16727" PostId="7699" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine Some dialects of French have this too: *nous deux Jean* 'Jean and I'. It's a somewhat different construction, though." CreationDate="2018-12-11T23:10:59.527" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="16729" PostId="7699" Score="1" Text="(Called ekaśeṣa (एकशेष) by the Sanskrit grammarians, if anyone wants to read more about the Sanskrit case.)" CreationDate="2018-12-12T07:07:40.277" UserId="1118" />
  <row Id="16730" PostId="7701" Score="0" Text="spot on!......." CreationDate="2018-12-12T14:32:04.850" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="16733" PostId="7703" Score="1" Text="Word order in Latin is insane, isn't it :-)" CreationDate="2018-12-12T18:58:43.533" UserId="2538" />
  <row Id="16738" PostId="7704" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! You explain your question nicely." CreationDate="2018-12-13T02:17:54.707" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16734" PostId="7706" Score="1" Text="So would declension in the specific sense then be kind of like -ar verbs in spanish? i.e., in the present tense, nadar (-ar verb) conjugates to nado (-o ending for yo) but escribir (-ir verb) conjugates to escribe (-e ending for you)?" CreationDate="2018-12-13T01:34:57.547" UserId="3197" />
  <row Id="16735" PostId="7706" Score="1" Text="@heather Indeed! In Latin those are called the conjugations. For example _amāre_ → _amō_ in that form, because it's in the &quot;first conjugation&quot;." CreationDate="2018-12-13T01:36:19.107" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16736" PostId="7706" Score="0" Text="That...makes a ton of sense. It basically represents different infinitive forms, then?" CreationDate="2018-12-13T02:03:55.170" UserId="3197" />
  <row Id="16739" PostId="7706" Score="2" Text="@heather: Yes, and different conjugations have different theme vowels in other forms than the infinitive as well (as you probably know). So declensions are for nouns what conjugations are for verbs: they allow you to praedict the various forms of a word (and possibly other things such as gender)." CreationDate="2018-12-13T02:20:16.400" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="16742" PostId="7706" Score="0" Text="In the first sense &quot;declension&quot; just means &quot;inflection&quot; except its use is limited to nominals (including adjectives etc.) It's not really a useful term, and most linguists would probably just say &quot;noun inflections&quot;." CreationDate="2018-12-13T05:13:34.363" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="16741" PostId="7707" Score="3" Text="I don't think I've ever heard _Dīs_ meaning any deity except the lord of the underworld, and L&amp;S seem to back me up on that (in Classical usage at least)." CreationDate="2018-12-13T04:39:23.583" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16745" PostId="7710" Score="1" Text="Thanks, I like a lot your examples and I think you got the message that the phrase tries to convey. And the use of the word humanum is quite powerful." CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:32:21.510" UserDisplayName="user3195" />
  <row Id="16746" PostId="7711" Score="3" Text="Shouldn't your `IVI` bad number actually convert to `NaN` (not a number) ??" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:55:11.110" UserId="3204" />
  <row Id="16752" PostId="7711" Score="3" Text="NaN is a floating-point number such that it does not equal to itself, for example it is the result of a division by zero. These properties do not fit the context (natural numbers, where, for instance, the division by zero triggers an error) and IVI should perhaps more properly be described as an ill-formed number. In other words, being NaN is a property of a value, that is, a denotation, but my concern here is about the notation (being wrong)." CreationDate="2018-12-13T21:35:47.580" UserId="3201" />
  <row Id="16753" PostId="7711" Score="0" Text="Roman numeral system being additive (and non commutative), instead of positional (like the decimal system), an error here means an invalid addition (e.g., n + IV is valid, but not IV + n). Of course, the property for Roman numerals to be well-defined can be described by a context-free grammar (which I did), without the need to perform the additions." CreationDate="2018-12-13T21:53:03.850" UserId="3201" />
  <row Id="16757" PostId="7711" Score="0" Text="Where is this language and how can I get it??? :)" CreationDate="2018-12-14T02:22:27.503" UserId="2535" />
  <row Id="16758" PostId="7711" Score="0" Text="The programming language is the next release of Michelson, the language for writing smart contracts on the Tezos blockchain. The macro instruction DIP { code } means that the piece of code is to be applied to the stack without a prefix of length one. For a prefix of length 3, you write DIIIP { code } and the next release will allow DXVIIP :)" CreationDate="2018-12-14T09:59:13.543" UserId="3201" />
  <row Id="16754" PostId="7714" Score="0" Text="Some of these contracted verb forms, sometimes called 'syncopated.'" CreationDate="2018-12-13T22:34:04.120" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="16747" PostId="7715" Score="0" Text="So they're both grammatically correct?" CreationDate="2018-12-13T19:01:40.280" UserId="2937" />
  <row Id="16748" PostId="7715" Score="0" Text="A handy guide to this and other kinds of contraction: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/contractions.pdf" CreationDate="2018-12-13T19:03:01.737" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="16749" PostId="7715" Score="3" Text="@Pascal'sWager Yep! Which one to use is really up to individual choice." CreationDate="2018-12-13T19:05:08.833" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="16750" PostId="7715" Score="2" Text="@Pascal'sWager This is also in the parsing information on Perseus: &quot;contr&quot; means contracted" CreationDate="2018-12-13T20:19:56.203" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="16751" PostId="7715" Score="1" Text="It's also worth noting that these contracted forms are the ancestors of modern Romance forms, e.g., Spanish 2nd sg preterit _amaste_ from L. _amasti_." CreationDate="2018-12-13T20:56:16.393" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="16759" PostId="7717" Score="1" Text="Related phrase, but not really the same: VG Ioh 21:22: _Si eum volo manere donec veniam, **quid ad te?** ¿Qué te importa?_ Perhaps _quid ad me?_" CreationDate="2018-12-14T16:44:35.733" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17772" PostId="7717" Score="0" Text="Interestingly, in Italian we say _non mi importa un fico secco di/se_ [of/if], where _fico secco_ means literally &quot;dried fig&quot;." CreationDate="2018-12-16T09:22:53.590" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17955" PostId="7719" Score="1" Text="I made an edit; please double-check my work. I think the 1711 dictionary had a typo: _punctatns_ for _punctatus._ The hexameter translation of &quot;Fly away home&quot; is a great find!" CreationDate="2019-01-02T12:17:26.297" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="17962" PostId="7719" Score="0" Text="BTW, I was just about to post a question asking if _citŏ_ was a mistake to fit the hexameter, since normally it's _citō,_ but a quick Google search turned up this book, explaining that it's a common poetic convention: https://books.google.com/books?id=NvkVAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA209&amp;lpg=PA209&amp;dq=cito+hexameter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GF0_r5TINj&amp;sig=cjXE3K9rvGPCByvglYLKCZCQmPg&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwig7buwgtDfAhUj8YMKHXgNBQYQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=cito%20hexameter&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-01-02T21:20:56.633" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="16760" PostId="7720" Score="1" Text="To say nothing of _interest_ and _refert_." CreationDate="2018-12-14T18:12:23.150" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="33099" PostId="7720" Score="2" Text="Another nice example: *tanti est quanti est fungus putidus* (Plautus)" CreationDate="2021-05-12T05:04:41.043" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33122" PostId="7720" Score="0" Text="@d_e, I love that! (For the benefit of others, the source is Bacchides 821.) I suppose it could be 'personalized,' like the Spanish phrase cited in the original question, by adding a dative (what some grammar books would call a 'dative of the person judging'): mi(hi) tantist quantist fungus putidus." CreationDate="2021-05-13T18:02:17.550" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16761" PostId="7721" Score="2" Text="Ooh, very nice find. In OLD, the spelling is given as tittibilicium (just FYI)." CreationDate="2018-12-14T20:56:59.337" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="16762" PostId="7723" Score="1" Text="I started with &quot;For the love of knowledge.&quot; I'm happy to see it can mean both.&#xA;Thank you for your help!" CreationDate="2018-12-14T21:15:53.080" UserId="3207" />
  <row Id="16763" PostId="7723" Score="2" Text="@fieryace I'm happy to see a well-thought question from a new user and glad to be able to help! I hope you'll stick around and ask more questions." CreationDate="2018-12-14T21:18:56.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17774" PostId="8729" Score="1" Text="Sihler &quot;A new comparative grammar&quot; par. 416 discusses this debated and controversial matter. Do you have a copy?" CreationDate="2018-12-16T13:39:35.893" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="17775" PostId="8729" Score="0" Text="@fdb Interesting! I'm afraid I do not, but I can check the library." CreationDate="2018-12-16T16:50:10.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17776" PostId="8729" Score="0" Text="@fdb The library does have a copy, though it's non-circulating so I'll have to go across town to access it. I'll be able to do that in a few days, but in the meantime you're free to write up a summary if you like." CreationDate="2018-12-17T01:17:11.577" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17780" PostId="8729" Score="0" Text="If you can read German, the German Wikipedia has a better exposition of the injunctive here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunktiv The references given there are all in German language!" CreationDate="2018-12-17T16:15:12.457" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="35673" PostId="8729" Score="0" Text="Mycenaean didn't have augments, which confuses me. If the Vedic past prefix a- is really cognate with the Greek augment, then you would think that the common feature would have been present when pre-Greek was imported from Asia to Greece, and therefore would have been present in Mycenaean. Since that's not the case, would the idea have to be that the fusion of the time adverb with the verb showed parallel evolution between the two languages?" CreationDate="2021-11-06T14:03:36.527" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35674" PostId="8729" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell My theory is that Mycenaean lost the augment, which existed in Proto-Greek. But it's also possible it was an areal feature; compare Grassmann's Law which may have spread from one to the other." CreationDate="2021-11-06T14:29:40.690" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47809" PostId="8729" Score="0" Text="@user3597 it looks like that is being disputed, if 'a-pe-do-ke' means απεδωκε and not απενδωκε or something, as it would otherwise be a-pu-do-ke. (https://www.academia.edu/23603556/The_Augment_in_Mycenaean_Greek)" CreationDate="2024-03-22T15:59:35.113" UserId="11000" />
  <row Id="17773" PostId="8732" Score="0" Text="Ptolemy  in the last chapter lists qualities associated with each planet (Mars short-tempered, Sun energetic etc) Moon is changeable." CreationDate="2018-12-16T12:30:26.487" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17790" PostId="8732" Score="2" Text="Luna was a minor deity in Rome, mostly based on the Greek cult traditions. They thought it primarily affected agriculture and birth cycles; also Luna was considered to be &quot;the queen of the Underworld&quot; (New Pauly). So no, it's not Classical Latin." CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:38:13.187" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17789" PostId="8733" Score="0" Text="The most important thing is that it occurs in **Late** Latin." CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:03:39.973" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17779" PostId="8735" Score="1" Text="A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the &quot;aspect,&quot; not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect." CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:42:53.060" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="17782" PostId="8735" Score="1" Text="@brianpck True, hence my &quot;could&quot; (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous." CreationDate="2018-12-17T18:53:50.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17783" PostId="8736" Score="1" Text="You might also link to the question&quot;[Hexametric Greek names](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7689/hexametric-greek-names)&quot;, which is about variation in Greek between different forms of names for the sake of poetry. One of the examples mentioned in b a's answer is Achilles' name, which apparently could have one or two lambdas." CreationDate="2018-12-18T03:29:50.243" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="17785" PostId="8736" Score="1" Text="For what it's worth, Ovid and Pliny also write _Allecto_. I have no evidence for this, but could the extra &quot;l&quot; be related to the adjective (and given name) _allectus_ &quot;chosen, recruited&quot;?" CreationDate="2018-12-18T06:45:55.903" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17788" PostId="8736" Score="1" Text="Alecto with a single L [is attested](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23alecto%23) too, but metric evidence shows that the first syllable is still heavy/long. Variations between *āl-* and *ăll-* are metrically irrelevant. What is the length of the Greek alpha?" CreationDate="2018-12-18T15:43:33.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17793" PostId="8736" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good question! As far as I can tell it's the &quot;privative alpha&quot;, but I don't know how long that alpha was…I'll ask another question about that, since it's relevant on its own." CreationDate="2018-12-18T17:29:52.563" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17795" PostId="8736" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva The mention in Pliny is especially interesting, given that he was writing prose, so it wouldn't be for metrical reasons. I wonder which sources he was working from?" CreationDate="2018-12-18T17:39:18.270" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17812" PostId="8736" Score="0" Text="In Latin, the much more frequent spelling variant seems to be Allecto. Alecto is extremely marginal." CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:28:50.940" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17815" PostId="8736" Score="0" Text="Basically, it boils down to this: why do we have Ἀλληκτώ (Lucian) or Ἀληκτώ in Greek? This could be difficult to answer, with such an extremely low number of attestations in Greek (TLG shows 3 only, Ἀληκτώ). cf. ἄληκτος (cf. **poet.** ἄλληκτος, Montanari)" CreationDate="2018-12-19T17:48:59.067" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17816" PostId="8736" Score="0" Text="That being said, the TLL headword is Allecto, where we can read that &quot;in recentioribus codicibus Alecto&quot;" CreationDate="2018-12-19T18:23:47.333" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17836" PostId="8738" Score="1" Text="Aristotle calls the brain &quot;**ὑγρότατος**&quot; (Parva Naturalia. On Sense and Sensible Objects). I don't see the connection to the moon in Aristotle though." CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:37:06.583" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="17796" PostId="8740" Score="2" Text="You could also use a genitive with peritissimus: pater cerevisiae peritissimus." CreationDate="2018-12-18T17:52:27.913" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="17799" PostId="8740" Score="0" Text="@cnread Or even _ad_ with accusative: pater ad cerevisiam coquendam peritissimus.If he's brewing his own, I prefer my first effort, which I think better suggests an experience of brewing, rather than of beer in general — a fine point, I know!" CreationDate="2018-12-18T20:27:09.173" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="17801" PostId="8742" Score="2" Text="Since &quot;sapio&quot; also means &quot;taste&quot;, it adds an extra layer of meaning since the object is beer" CreationDate="2018-12-18T22:22:03.153" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="17809" PostId="8742" Score="0" Text="+1 for the double meaning, very clever." CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:13:33.197" UserId="3224" />
  <row Id="17811" PostId="8742" Score="0" Text="Double meaning aside, why not *nosco*? From both my knowledge and your explanation, it fits better." CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:22:07.173" UserId="3225" />
  <row Id="17813" PostId="8742" Score="0" Text="@pacholik, I also think it fits somewhat better, but since both fit, I chose the double meaning." CreationDate="2018-12-19T16:25:01.897" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17817" PostId="8744" Score="0" Text="Though _artifex_ means &quot;artist, creator&quot; or &quot;master, expert&quot;." CreationDate="2018-12-19T20:12:30.140" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17819" PostId="8744" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva. According to Oxford Latin Dictionary, it's also commonly used as an adjective." CreationDate="2018-12-19T21:53:11.203" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="17820" PostId="8744" Score="1" Text="@cnread I notice that's true, but [it still seems](https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/adjective/1145/) to have more to do with ability rather than creativity." CreationDate="2018-12-19T22:04:29.103" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="47440" PostId="8746" Score="1" Text="The &quot;poetic license&quot; is dictated by rhe fact that in hexameter (and other commom metres) it is not possible to have three consecutive short syllables." CreationDate="2024-01-29T11:32:29.430" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="47445" PostId="8746" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Yes, that is what I meant (although I should probably have stated it more directly in this answer). However, it generally isn't possible for poets to adapt the form of words in any way that they like to make them fit into verse: short-short-short would not be allowed, but that doesn't tell us why treating the prefix ἀ- as a long syllable in this circumstance came to be regarded as an allowable 'fix' for that difficulty." CreationDate="2024-01-29T21:51:38.307" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="17845" PostId="8748" Score="0" Text="That fits in with something I'm working on. Can you put a name to this? Or can you name a book?" CreationDate="2018-12-21T22:03:21.650" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17804" PostId="8749" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question!" CreationDate="2018-12-19T12:27:59.017" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17841" PostId="8749" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Happy to be here and thanks for the warm welcome" CreationDate="2018-12-21T09:44:31.447" UserId="3221" />
  <row Id="17807" PostId="8750" Score="3" Text="That's hilarious! I can see some situations where that will come in handy and I love the idiom, but that's perhaps one layer of subtlety too deep.." CreationDate="2018-12-19T14:14:47.770" UserId="3221" />
  <row Id="17851" PostId="8750" Score="1" Text="This allusion to Aesop sounds perfect for this motto! If taking Horace's line _in toto_ is too obscure, what do you think of something like **Montes propositi, mures redditi**?" CreationDate="2018-12-23T22:26:58.000" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="17842" PostId="8753" Score="1" Text="Perfectly balanced, as all mottos should be." CreationDate="2018-12-21T09:46:43.550" UserId="3221" />
  <row Id="17821" PostId="8755" Score="1" Text="There's always a danger of over-elaborating into something uncomfortably pseudo-Latin in cases like this. The short and direct mottoes are always best." CreationDate="2018-12-19T22:16:59.373" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="17835" PostId="8755" Score="0" Text="I was mulling over nimis rather than nimium to match parum. Couldn't find matching verbs: +1 patro" CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:27:54.130" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17837" PostId="8761" Score="0" Text="Notably, another manuscript (from the Carmina Burana) has *immutantur* instead." CreationDate="2018-12-21T05:59:35.703" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17838" PostId="8761" Score="1" Text="The punctuation seems to show that 'in omnibus' goes with the 'surgunt' clause, not the 'imitantur' clause." CreationDate="2018-12-21T06:18:25.493" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="17839" PostId="8761" Score="0" Text="@cnread Perhaps, but then what does &quot;imitantur mores&quot; mean on its own? I took this from Wikipedia, and now see I didn't have the capitalization quite right—I'll edit that." CreationDate="2018-12-21T06:20:34.557" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17840" PostId="8761" Score="0" Text="Presumably, flores vernales is still the subject and, if I had to guess, I'd say this is a way of saying that they do the same thing that they do every year – that is, they imitate their custom." CreationDate="2018-12-21T06:26:02.807" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="17843" PostId="8764" Score="0" Text="Flowers rise in/from all things?" CreationDate="2018-12-21T15:03:32.813" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17844" PostId="8764" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That's a possibility, too. I doesn't seem to make much of a semantic difference here, but your idea sounds more grammatical to me." CreationDate="2018-12-21T15:48:24.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17853" PostId="8765" Score="2" Text="Good point about the lack of enjambment in Medieval Latin poetry. You've convinced me to give up on the hypothesis that _Vernales_ modifies _flores._ Another piece of evidence: the melody has a cadence on _flores_ that strongly suggests that the thought has completed." CreationDate="2018-12-24T00:06:50.303" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="17846" PostId="8766" Score="0" Text="This looks great! Formality is no problem, and *colloquium* doesn't strike me as very formal anyway." CreationDate="2018-12-22T09:54:40.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17847" PostId="8768" Score="2" Text="Have you seen [this question about words we don't understand](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4683/79)?" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:01:04.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17848" PostId="8768" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta No I haven't seen it (and it wasn't suggested while typing my question in, but maybe I was just too fast)" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:03:13.883" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="17852" PostId="8768" Score="0" Text="I'd say to keep this question, as it's not exactly a duplicate of the previous one and it leads in a different direction. This one leads me to think that words for colors might provide some good examples, e.g. _caeruleus_: sky blue, sea blue (dark blue), dark green, dark regardless of color? Similarly words for elements of rituals, offices, and foods—words whose meanings likely shifted over centuries and have little documentation. Someone more knowledge might know a definitive collection of these." CreationDate="2018-12-23T23:49:18.447" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34882" PostId="8768" Score="0" Text="I was wondering if I could edit this slightly to give a different emphasis from the other thread and revive it in doing so. The other thread certainly is fine for words we don't completely understand, but still have a vague idea of what they do. Perhaps this question could be about words we don't know at all? (Although brianpck's answer works here, too, I suppose.)" CreationDate="2021-08-31T22:54:44.717" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34887" PostId="8768" Score="0" Text="When you have a good idea for an edit and revival of the question, feel free to do so. Otherwise I won't mind marking this question as a duplicate of the linked question." CreationDate="2021-09-01T08:10:49.627" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="17855" PostId="8772" Score="1" Text="Could you explain the parts besides (a)? I don't understand the connections." CreationDate="2018-12-24T01:19:43.113" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="17859" PostId="8777" Score="1" Text="I don't understand your last paragraph -- what &quot;alternation between [v] and [u] in Latin&quot; do you mean?" CreationDate="2018-12-25T21:26:17.187" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17861" PostId="8777" Score="0" Text="@TKR: there are various examples of v-u alternation from Latin verb conjugation, as in solvo, solūtum, or with the compound naufragium from navis" CreationDate="2018-12-25T22:40:09.863" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="17862" PostId="8777" Score="0" Text="I don't think etymology is a good proof. English also has *dissolve, dissolution* where /v/ alternates with /u/. It could equally likely be the case that Latin *v derives from /w/ but was pronounced as /v/ at any given point in time (as is indeed the case in later Latin and its descendants)" CreationDate="2018-12-26T01:13:22.737" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="17863" PostId="8777" Score="0" Text="@ba: English &quot;dissolve, dissolution&quot; are loans. It's true that this argument doesn't provide any dates, which I had considered saying explicitly but ended up leaving out. When I wrote this answer, I was mainly thinking about what to say to somebody who wasn't convinced that Latin [v] had ever been pronounced as [w]--whether during the time period when we call the language &quot;Latin&quot; or in some earlier ancestor." CreationDate="2018-12-26T03:31:06.313" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="17864" PostId="8777" Score="4" Text="My favorite example for this alternation is av- &quot;bird&quot; + spic- &quot;observe&quot; = au-spic- &quot;augur&quot;. There's ample evidence that the v is a consonant in _avis_ and a vowel in _auspex_, as both are well-attested words." CreationDate="2018-12-26T05:55:10.357" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34743" PostId="8777" Score="1" Text="@Draconis. This is a bad example. &lt;V&gt; is a consonant/semivowel both is AVIS and in AVSPEX." CreationDate="2021-08-26T08:51:52.557" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="17865" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="For the final question: no, because &quot;x&quot; in Italian and in E. Latin is pronounced [ks] and &quot;c&quot; before &quot;e&quot; or &quot;i&quot; is [ʧ]. Being one after the other, they're just added up together." CreationDate="2018-12-27T02:55:10.423" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17867" PostId="8781" Score="2" Text="@VincenzoOliva: Hmm.  I'm not sure I quite agree with that logic.  Note that _sceleris_ is pronounced [ʃɛlɛris], so if &lt;sce&gt; is pronounced [ʃɛ] rather than  [sʧɛ]. should not &lt;xce&gt; (equivalent to &lt;csce&gt;) be pronounced [kʃɛ] by the same logic?" CreationDate="2018-12-27T03:27:16.653" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="17870" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="With the last remark of my first comment I didn't mean &quot;because they're one after the other&quot;. I stated a rule: _when_ they are one after the other, the're just added up together, i.e. &quot;xc&quot; before &quot;e&quot; or &quot;i&quot; is always pronounced [ksʧ]. As you noted, this is not the case for &quot;sc&quot;, which in these cases is [ʃ] and not [sk]." CreationDate="2018-12-27T03:44:53.397" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17872" PostId="8781" Score="1" Text="In Germany and parts East, a different pronunciation is current for Church Latin, one less influenced by Italiian. [ɡlɑtsiɛm], for example." CreationDate="2018-12-27T16:54:21.790" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="17877" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="Anyway, the answer is tradition and taste, though I don't know if this can be _made_ into an answer. I remember reading discussions about this, where many said to favour the softer sounds of Italianate Latin, sometimes in view of &quot;more intimacy with God&quot; - typically considering _veni, vidi, vici_, in fact. Being Italian I also prefer these sounds, but I opt to be (more) faithful to how the Romans spoke around 200 AD." CreationDate="2018-12-28T07:17:46.190" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17882" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="If you can get your hands on it, I found &quot;Singing in Latin&quot; by Harold Copeman to be a good read. However, from what I remember, it is more focused on evidence about earlier traditions of pronunciation, so I don't know whether it covers the spread of Italianate pronunciation to areas where it wasn't originally common" CreationDate="2018-12-28T22:33:46.687" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="17883" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: from Amazon beginning at $1368 for hardcover and from $349 for paperback!  I'm going to resist the urge to purchase it!" CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:08:27.117" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="17885" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva:  with respect to _excelsis_, I've just come across this [reference](http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/rehnotes/latin.html) that supports the [ɛkʃɛlsis] pronunciation.  (I won't claim it is definitive.)" CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:20:55.797" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="17886" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="@varro: Nope, that's wrong. Wiktionary gives the correct E. pronunciation of e.g. [_excelsus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excelsus)." CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:27:52.863" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17888" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I'll create a separate question for that." CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:50:12.417" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="17889" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="@sumelic: It is, nowadays, the only correct Italianate pronunciation, which is normally the standard for E. Latin. I never said it has _always_ been so, I couldn't easily back up that claim. Your find is interesting, though I think the French substratum plays a role in that (the _Liber Usualis_ was compiled by the monks of the Abbey of Solesmes in France)." CreationDate="2018-12-29T00:21:21.010" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="18912" PostId="8781" Score="0" Text="You will certainly find examples of music with other pronunciations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVLDd9FhC-w" CreationDate="2019-03-13T15:13:17.763" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="17879" PostId="8783" Score="3" Text="I'd say that the adverb modifies *nuntiare*: so that I can worthily announce the holy Gospel." CreationDate="2018-12-28T14:42:06.647" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="17890" PostId="8783" Score="0" Text="@egreg I think you have a point!" CreationDate="2018-12-29T01:04:59.180" UserId="2937" />
  <row Id="17878" PostId="8787" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, William! In case the link dies some day in the future, can you summarize the information in your answer? An answer should also be meaningful without following any external links." CreationDate="2018-12-28T08:06:41.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17881" PostId="8787" Score="0" Text="Is that better?" CreationDate="2018-12-28T15:12:32.740" UserId="3241" />
  <row Id="17874" PostId="8788" Score="0" Text="Thanks!  That’s exactly the help I was looking for.  Again, thanks so much." CreationDate="2018-12-28T00:52:55.017" UserId="3240" />
  <row Id="17876" PostId="8788" Score="1" Text="@Todd No problem! If this answered the question, remember you can &quot;accept&quot; the answer by clicking the checkmark on the left, under the arrows." CreationDate="2018-12-28T01:16:01.363" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17892" PostId="8790" Score="0" Text="Not (completely) authoritative, but FWIW, here's St. John XXIII [singing Gloria in excelsis](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LATEEHITZUo). 1. He was Italian. 2. At the time, it was common to follow Ecclesiastical (graduate) studies in Latin. The sound is not too clear. Judge by yourselves. IMHO there is anything but a /s/ sound: it could be either [ɛk'ʧɛl.sis] (would be weird) or [ɛk'ʃɛl.sis]" CreationDate="2018-12-29T01:33:54.047" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17903" PostId="8790" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: Provided that I do think the sound is unclear, I hear [ksʧ]. I've shown it to some people I know, one of which has sung in a church choir, and they also agree. Apart from that, I am particularly confident it's there at 0:15 [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1yd9JhLPyM). The singer (as well as director of the ensemble, called _Stirps Iesse_), [Enrico De Capitani](https://www.scuoladicantogregoriano.it/?ID=344), is not a pope, but he has studied Gregorian Chant and is a stable member of the group _Cantori Gregoriani_. [continues]" CreationDate="2018-12-31T09:50:16.290" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17904" PostId="8790" Score="0" Text="As I mention in my answer, I believe any deviation from [ksʧ] is either due to regional tradition (e.g. the _Liber Usualis_ builds on a French substratum) or personal taste of a specific director, as I've come to know some directors (perhaps also in Italy, but I don't know of any) choose to avoid the /s/ sound, and opt for a softer [kʃ]." CreationDate="2018-12-31T09:56:46.347" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17906" PostId="8790" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva I'm no expert at all, I just think I remember being taught that xc=ksc&gt;[kʃ], i.e., x being one letter didn't prevent simplification involving one of the constituent sounds. *You are probably right*, but I can't be convinced by the Italian=Ecclesiastical argument. The latter is strongly based on the former, undoubtedly, but there are differences (e.g. _mihi_), and 'xc' does not occur naturally in Italian. Consonant cluster simplification is (almost) a constant throughout Latin history" CreationDate="2018-12-31T12:04:34.383" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17907" PostId="8790" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: Sure enough, I get your perspective and you make good points. Anyway from what I've gathered, independently of what _should_ be the pronunciation of the word, the way the singers actually deal with it greatly varies from choir to choir, as well as from individual to individual, and any of the options seems to be acceptable. At the end of the day, at least in singing, the difference is not that significant." CreationDate="2018-12-31T12:18:13.930" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="17987" PostId="8790" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: Is *mihi* no longer pronounced as /miki/ in the context of Italian? I thought that was both the Italian and the Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation." CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:50:07.743" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18825" PostId="8792" Score="1" Text="Regarding your latest edit, there is another question on this site that asks about the pronunciation of intervocalic S in Latin: [Is “s” between two vowels voiced or unvoiced?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2904/is-s-between-two-vowels-voiced-or-unvoiced) As I say in my answer there, I wasn't able to find any clear definite pattern for &quot;Ecclesiastical Latin&quot;; it's interesting to see that Estrada Ramiro recommends voicing intervocalic S." CreationDate="2019-03-10T10:15:57.623" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22992" PostId="8793" Score="0" Text="The participle in an AA is compulsory, isn't it? &quot;Recently, with the serpent having been conquered, he (Delius) was seen gloating...&quot;; how about this?" CreationDate="2019-11-01T11:24:15.013" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22995" PostId="8793" Score="0" Text="@tony You can have an AA without a participle, like *Caesare duce*. But do bear in mind that it is a matter of taste how things are categorized, so one's AA is not always another's AA." CreationDate="2019-11-01T11:38:00.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24309" PostId="8793" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. (Unfortunately,) you're right when saying &quot;it is a matter of taste how things are categorized, so one's AA is not always another's AA&quot;. I understand by &quot;categorized&quot; you mean &quot;termed/named&quot;. As usual, &quot;terminological&quot; problems are not the true problems. Conceptual problems, the ones &quot;behind the label/name&quot;, are the really worrying ones." CreationDate="2020-02-25T20:29:08.497" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="24312" PostId="8793" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino By categorization I referred to both naming and dividing into groups. But both are an artificial layer of description on top of the actual phenomenon, so they often not that important." CreationDate="2020-02-25T20:33:22.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24313" PostId="8793" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think we agree: conceptual problems, the ones &quot;behind&quot; the terminological label &amp; descriptive taxonomy, are the really worrying ones. In any case, my point here is that if one (erroneously) says that _victa serpente superbus_ contains an AA, it is like saying that _ab urbe condita_ contains an AA as well. This said, it is worth pointing out there _is_ a parallelism between AAs and AUCs: **both** involve a subordinated subject-predicate relation that, to put it in the above words by Fund Monica's Lawsuit, is &quot;set off from&quot; the main subject-predicate relation." CreationDate="2020-02-25T20:52:33.720" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17899" PostId="8794" Score="0" Text="Is *puro pyro* of any interest?" CreationDate="2018-12-30T12:02:30.127" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17900" PostId="8794" Score="1" Text="@Hugh No, only pairs like Lўsis - Lȳsis are of any interest to me." CreationDate="2018-12-30T14:01:57.930" UserId="3249" />
  <row Id="17894" PostId="8800" Score="1" Text="Wouldn't that lead to *_studīre_, not *_studiāre_?" CreationDate="2018-12-30T01:31:34.390" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="17895" PostId="8800" Score="0" Text="Oh, you're right! So the explanation must be another one. I'll think about it." CreationDate="2018-12-30T02:22:21.173" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17896" PostId="8800" Score="0" Text="Here you have another explanation (cf. supra). What do you think?" CreationDate="2018-12-30T03:25:22.773" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17912" PostId="8804" Score="0" Text="Judith Slaying Holofernes (Artemisia Gentileschi, Naples) shows neither Judith nor Artemisia growing *more* gentle." CreationDate="2018-12-31T21:26:43.320" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17915" PostId="8804" Score="1" Text="The fact that (at least) Spanish and Italian share the augmentative suffix _-on(e)-_ suggests that it could have that sense in Vulgar Latin." CreationDate="2019-01-01T15:08:14.600" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="17923" PostId="8804" Score="1" Text="@ColinFine Indeed, there is strong indirect evidence of that. But how does one actually use that suffix and is it attested at all?" CreationDate="2019-01-01T20:21:56.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17926" PostId="8804" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: [Wiktionary _-o_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-o#Latin) says &quot;suffixed to nouns, forms cognomina and, in post-Classical Latin, nicknames and equivalent designations.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:07:56.807" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="44608" PostId="8804" Score="0" Text="I've always wondered whether *patronus* is an augmentative of *pater*. Big daddy." CreationDate="2023-08-29T16:22:00.993" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="17917" PostId="8806" Score="0" Text="Just a comment on what you say: &quot;In the Abl. Absolute _vivere Ptolomaeum_ becomes Ablative&quot;. One thing is to say that _vivere Ptolomaeum_ can be replaced by the ablative pronoun _hoc_ (which is of course correct: e.g. _Hoc cognito_) but, stricto sensu, it is not the case that &quot;the infinitival clause becomes Ablative&quot;. Otherwise, we would have the Gerundive construction, which is not the case: cf. the ill-formedness of _*Cognito vivendo Ptolomaeo_." CreationDate="2019-01-01T18:39:01.760" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17918" PostId="8806" Score="1" Text="Mitomino, yes there are easier ways to say the same thing, cum and quod with the indicative, and, as you mention, Gerundive. What I'm suggesting in this particular set of Ablative Absolutes is that an indeclinable noun, or, in this case, an indeclinable noun clause can take the place of the Ablative noun. cf. 'Iob patiente, omnes filli mortui sunt' shows the indeclinable noun Job in the Ablative." CreationDate="2019-01-01T18:42:32.513" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17921" PostId="8806" Score="1" Text="In contemporary syntactic theory I guess that one could argue that in _Iob patiente_ the noun _Iob_ is not morphologically but abstractly marked with Ablative, which makes sense for your example. But, as I've noted above, assuming that the Ablative marking applies to the infinitival clause, we would get the ill-formed Gerundive construction _vivendo Ptolomaeo_. This is interesting for a syntactician: we can perfectly assume that _Cognito vivendo Ptolomaeo_ is ill-formed (on the relevant reading) but, assuming that “the infinitival clause becomes Ablative”, why should it be ungrammatical?" CreationDate="2019-01-01T19:49:06.320" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17922" PostId="8806" Score="1" Text="Or, to put it differently, why should it be the case that in the Ablative Absolute _Cognito Ptolomaeum vivere_ the infinitival clause must be marked with **abstract** Ablative case but CANNOT be marked with **morphological** Ablative case (i.e., _Cognito **Ptolomaeo vivendo**_)." CreationDate="2019-01-01T20:05:33.557" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17925" PostId="8806" Score="0" Text="Or, to put it differently again (this time less technically), why should it be the case that the Ablative Absolute _Cognito Ptolomaeo vivendo_ is not ambiguous between the relevant reading, which is ungrammatical (see above), and the irrelevant reading, which is grammatical (though marginal), where the participle _cognito_ does not apply to the sentential argument but to _Ptolomaeo_ and _vivendo_ is a gerund, with the meaning ‘Once Ptolomaeus was known through his living’ or something like that." CreationDate="2019-01-01T20:53:19.543" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17927" PostId="8806" Score="1" Text="Mitomino, Your post and comments are interesting, even intriguing. If the course of my life had been different I might have acquired the expertise and resources to help you settle this question." CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:40:11.320" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17928" PostId="8806" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, if I understand your question correctly, it assumes that the gerundive and infinitive are the same form (so that the ablative of *vivere* would be *vivendo*), but why would we assume that?" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:57:45.927" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17929" PostId="8806" Score="0" Text="Well, following the grammatical tradition, if we accept that the infinitive is a nominal form of the verb, the gerundial form _vivendo_ can be regarded as the ablative form of the infinitive _vivere_. Both are “nominal” forms of the verb. &#xA;So, if we assume Hugh’s interesting proposal serioulsy (see above: ““the infinitival clause becomes Ablative”), one licit question, I think, could be: why _Cognito Ptolomaeo vivendo_ is then ill-formed?" CreationDate="2019-01-01T23:37:06.233" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17931" PostId="8806" Score="0" Text="As noted in my first comment above, the infinitival clause _Ptolomaeum vivere_ can indeed be replaced by the ablative pronoun _hoc_ (_hoc cognito_) in Livy’s example (see above) but this proposal is not exactly the same as accepting that &quot;the infinitival clause becomes Ablative&quot;. My conclusion is then that, stricto sensu, this infinitival clause does not become Ablative." CreationDate="2019-01-02T00:04:59.987" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17964" PostId="8806" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, I think you're overgeneralizing: it's true that one use of the infinitive is to act like the nominative form of a gerund, but it doesn't follow that we should expect all uses of the infinitive to be replaceable by gerunds. Both are nominal forms of the verb, but that doesn't make them the same form." CreationDate="2019-01-03T02:21:46.390" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17966" PostId="8806" Score="0" Text="For the purposes of the discussion on the ungrammatical/non-existent example (&quot;Cognito Ptolomaeo vivendo&quot;), I can admit that in a sense you're right. Still, I think that assuming the descriptive/non-theoretical (and indeed, obvious) point that the infinitival clause can be replaced by the (morphological) ablative pronoun &quot;hoc&quot; should not necessarily lead us to claim that the infinitival clause is marked with ablative case or that &quot;the infinitival clause becomes Ablative&quot;." CreationDate="2019-01-03T04:09:40.410" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17978" PostId="8806" Score="1" Text="[This textbook](https://books.google.com/books?id=QTvFKA1TxYMC&amp;lpg=PA450&amp;ots=jXbiu1ZCVh&amp;dq=%22hannibal%20cognito%20insidias%20sibi%20parari%22&amp;pg=PA450#v=onepage&amp;q=%22hannibal%20cognito%20insidias%20sibi%20parari%22&amp;f=false) agrees with your analysis of Example 1, saying that the &quot;proposition&quot; following the ablative participle is considered a neuter noun in the ablative case." CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:19:11.927" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="17979" PostId="8806" Score="1" Text="Many thanks for this confirmation of instinct perhaps or perhaps memory. I'll incorporate it into the answer, if I may." CreationDate="2019-01-03T20:52:36.773" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17932" PostId="8807" Score="2" Text="Translation could be &quot;and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, **she fell;** and **he became lame:** and his name was M.&quot; But it must be &quot;he became lame,&quot; as TKR says." CreationDate="2019-01-02T00:12:23.213" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="17943" PostId="8808" Score="0" Text="Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling." CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:31:12.707" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="17945" PostId="8808" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)" CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:40:22.977" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17948" PostId="8808" Score="0" Text="Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different." CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:59:38.143" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="17957" PostId="8808" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I see I missed the _claudus_ being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, _cecidit_ is subject-ambiguous. Interesting." CreationDate="2019-01-02T14:26:39.447" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="17933" PostId="8809" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure there's an answer to this other than that resultative constructions of the English type are rather unusual cross-linguistically -- there's no particular reason why we should expect Latin to have them." CreationDate="2019-01-02T01:27:21.297" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17934" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="Well, just by looking at the wikipedia entry for &quot;Resultative&quot;, one can find examples of resultative constructions of the &quot;wipe-clean&quot; type in languages that are quite typologically different like German, Chinese, and Japanese... So what do you mean by &quot;rather unusual cross-linguistically&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-01-02T01:36:07.947" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17935" PostId="8809" Score="2" Text="Maybe &quot;rather unusual&quot; is a slight overstatement (I'm not sure the Chinese and Japanese examples are of the same type as the English), but I don't think such constructions are common enough that we should expect a given language to have them *a priori*. It's an interesting question, but like many &quot;Why does language X have feature Y&quot; questions it may not be answerable." CreationDate="2019-01-02T01:48:43.177" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17938" PostId="8809" Score="1" Text="Of course, you're right: we should not expect a given language to have X a priori, where X can be a resultative construction of the &quot;wipe-clean&quot; type, an Ablative Absolute construction, a serial verb construction, whatever. But this is not the point. Notice that the question I raised has already been raised for other languages in works like the following one, which is downloadable: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/27/paper1854.pdf  Just read the first paragraph and you’ll see that these questions are typically formulated in linguistics." CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:00:05.477" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17939" PostId="8809" Score="1" Text="That gets into epistemological questions about what one means by explanation in linguistics. Personally I feel doubtful about positing unobservable parameters and tend to agree with Haspelmath that &quot;any linguist who asks 'why?' is ipso facto a historical linguist&quot;, but this is probably going too far afield." CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:08:57.853" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17940" PostId="8809" Score="2" Text="That's right. Linguistic variation is addressed differently by functional linguists like Haspelmath and by generative linguists like Chomsky (NB: the authors of the paper I mentioned above are also generativist). But do you know what? The important linguistic difference separating &quot;wipe-clean/float-into&quot; languages (e.g., English) from &quot;clean-wiping/enter-floating&quot; languages (e.g. Spanish) was put forward by a COGNITIVE linguist: Leonard Talmy, who is an anti-Chomskian linguist!" CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:16:59.073" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17941" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="I'm aware of that and am very much a fan of Len Talmy's work. But AFAIK he never tried to deal with the &quot;why&quot; question (do correct me if I'm wrong)." CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:19:26.617" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17942" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="Oh, I'm very glad to see that you are a fan of Talmy's work. So that's really great! So I can talk a bit more technically to you. According to Talmy, English and Latin are precisely classified within the very SAME typological class (they are &quot;satellite-framed&quot; languages), whereas Spanish and other Romance languages are &quot;verb-framed&quot;. So Latin is expected to behave like English, contrary to fact in the domain of resultatives. So notice that the question I formulated in this post acquires much more sense." CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:30:03.673" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17944" PostId="8809" Score="3" Text="Is Latin really &quot;satellite-framed&quot;? (I've always found Talmy's terminology unfortunately opaque, BTW; &quot;path-centric&quot; and &quot;manner-centric&quot; seem clearer.) It seems unlikely insofar as none of its descendants are, nor to the best of my knowledge are other early IE languages (at least, I've looked into this a bit in Greek and found very little in the way of satellite framing). But anyway why should we expect satellite framing to correlate with the existence of English-type resultatives?" CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:37:34.220" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17947" PostId="8809" Score="1" Text="Yes, Talmy (2000: 104) classified Latin within the satellite-framed type (Talmy, L. 2000 Toward a cognitive semantics, MIT Press). As for Greek, Ancient Greek has been claimed to be a satellite-framed language, whereas Modern Greek has been claimed to be more verb-framed-like. As for the correlation between the “float-into” (path of motion) and “wipe-clean” (resultatives), it was established by Talmy himself. And, yes, other linguists have precisely criticized his correlation (e.g., in the paper I mentioned above the generative authors criticize this correlation put forward by Talmy)." CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:58:27.263" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17949" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="Do you know of any specific studies of these lexicalization patterns in Latin or Greek? That would be interesting to look at." CreationDate="2019-01-02T03:05:21.063" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17950" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="Oh, yes. As for (Ancient &amp; Modern) Greek, take a look at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223009463_Grammaticalized_aspect_and_spatio-temporal_culmination" CreationDate="2019-01-02T03:10:58.870" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17951" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="And for Latin, see Acedo's doctoral dissertation published by OUP: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-morphosyntax-of-transitions-9780198733287?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;" CreationDate="2019-01-02T03:12:28.000" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37115" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="Relevant: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17716/auster-misceat-mare-aestum" CreationDate="2022-02-10T14:11:22.147" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37119" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="@cmw I understand this question could be relevant if the sentence at issue there (_Si mare uoluens turbidus Auster misceat aestum_) would mean what the OP intends ('If the turbulent South Wind stirs the rolling sea into a passion') but I doubt that this example can be said to contain a resultative construction. Cf.  https://books.google.es/books?id=StLoix_FWTQC&amp;pg=PA42&amp;lpg=PA42&amp;dq=Turbidus+Auster+Misceat+aestum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=G3qP1V6BPR&amp;sig=ACfU3U2vVIFKPH-93MczeyGTHtV_tIxClQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlyvD0gvb1AhWQ7KQKHaU_AaQ4HhDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&amp;q=Turbidus%20Auster%20Misceat%20aestum&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2022-02-10T20:59:34.687" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37120" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Unfortunately, your link doesn't work for me. The perils of using Google Books. I actually assumed it was an example of prolepsis, but I guess I'll wait until I get information on the link you provided before digging deeper into it." CreationDate="2022-02-10T22:01:57.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37127" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="@cmw The translation in this link (in Dronke (1994) _Verse with Prose from Petronius to Dante_, HUP) confirmed my intuition that this example is not to be analyzed as a resultative construction: &quot;If the turbid South wind / whirling the sea / stirs up the breakers / ...&quot; but perhaps you'll convince me that this is an example of resultative disguised under the guise of &quot;prolepsis&quot;. In any case, a good answer to my question would be to show some parallelisms but also some differences between Germanic resultatives and cases of prolepsis in Latin (e.g. cf. _John hammered the metal flat(*tened)_)." CreationDate="2022-02-11T02:38:04.153" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37128" PostId="8809" Score="0" Text="I don't think I could properly answer the question as formulated, as I'm with TKR that &quot;why&quot; questions are ultimately unanswerable and in fact counter-productive. There is no why, there is only how. Language X creates results in A way, language Y creates results in B way. Gray areas are interesting, but they don't really answer &quot;why.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-11T05:20:41.137" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="17956" PostId="8810" Score="3" Text="FWIW, the dates of letters in Latin (at least contemporarily) use the participle: _datae Romae, dies N..._ (or _datus_ if it is a decree, for example)" CreationDate="2019-01-02T13:58:14.487" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17958" PostId="8810" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Interesting! So the participle refers to the letter/decree/document, not the date itself? I read that as &quot;given in Rome&quot;. I had imagined the participle would refer to *dies* in the Latin precursor to &quot;date&quot;, but it doesn't have to be so." CreationDate="2019-01-02T15:15:15.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17959" PostId="8810" Score="0" Text="I coudn't say, but I have always had that impression" CreationDate="2019-01-02T16:26:37.893" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17960" PostId="8810" Score="1" Text="Interesting searches: [datum Romae](https://www.google.com/search?q=datum+romae&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b) and [data Romae](https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;ei=fuYsXLXbNMiuwATlyq3oBw&amp;q=data+romae&amp;oq=data+romae&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...11304.12004..12191...1.0..0.84.134.2......0....1..gws-wiz.N2W097zbBwQ) maybe I was wrong about _datae_, specifically. There is also a number of occurrences of [datis Romae](https://www.google.com/search?q=datis+romae)" CreationDate="2019-01-02T16:29:26.383" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17961" PostId="8811" Score="2" Text="Could _datum_ at the start of a letter mean &quot;dictated&quot;? I ask because I've seen _Da_ as a command from teacher to student to recite something, and I'm thinking that the Cicero class would typically dictate a letter to a slave/secretary rather than put pen to papyrus themselves." CreationDate="2019-01-02T21:12:15.740" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="17963" PostId="8811" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz I would much like to see that as a separate question. Too interesting to be buried in comments here, I think." CreationDate="2019-01-02T22:13:40.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17980" PostId="8814" Score="0" Text="Your English examples are very interesting.  However, notice that in nested/double ablative absolutes like _quo mortuo nuntiato_ **both** participles are predicative (they are not attributive modifiers), i.e., they are the predicates of the propositions formed by the inner and outer Ablative absolutes, respectively. In all of your three English examples above, one is predicative, while the other is crucially attributive, whereby it is not the case that we have “nested” absolute participial clauses." CreationDate="2019-01-03T21:36:05.470" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17981" PostId="8814" Score="0" Text="That is to say,  _fallen_ is the predicative participle in your first and second examples, while  the only predicative participle in the third example is _announced_. Is it possible in English to say something like “With Caesar dead announced, there was an exuberance of joy” (NB: In my native language (Catalan), it is not). In this example both participles would indeed be predicative." CreationDate="2019-01-03T21:36:38.887" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17989" PostId="8814" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino *With Caesar dead announced* is completely out of the question in my native-speaker judgment. (You can of course say *With Caesar announced dead*, but that's a different construction.)" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:04:42.857" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19159" PostId="8814" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Do you think that whether a given participle in these constructions is predicative or attributive might be left to context, i.e. the listener is expected to follow the interpretation that makes the most sense?" CreationDate="2019-04-08T17:12:04.443" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="21188" PostId="8815" Score="0" Text="Please, Sp: &quot;La puerta fue cerrada (sc. by someone)/ La Puerta estuvo cerrada (*/??by someone)&quot;, what is &quot;sc.&quot; &amp; &quot;*/??&quot;. When something is described as &quot;ungrammatical&quot; is it violating grammatical rules and is therefore incorrect; &quot;the door broke&quot; should be &quot;the door was broken&quot;, presumably by an agent?" CreationDate="2019-08-27T09:59:10.673" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21190" PostId="8815" Score="0" Text="&quot;sc.&quot; is a Latin abbreviation for _scilicet_ 'specifically' or' namely'. The symbols * and ?? mean ungrammaticality and marginality, respectively. So for example _*The door broke by John_ is ungrammatical (cf. ok. _The door broke by itself_). An Spanish example of a verbal eventive passive like _La puerta fue cerrada (por alguien)_ 'The door was closed  (by someone)' can be compared to an adjectival resultative passive like _La puerta estuvo cerrada (*por alguien)_ 'The door stood closed (*by someone)' (NB: Sp. _estar_ is a copulative verb similar to _be_ but with an aspectual meaning added)." CreationDate="2019-08-27T17:01:26.233" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17967" PostId="8816" Score="3" Text="I think it a mistake to try describing Latin in terms similar to those reserved to Greek, in which we distinguish a _middle_ (rather than _medium_ or _medial_) voice whose sense in Latin (as in English) is achieved in other ways. It's sometimes all too easy to be drawn into this kind of minute analysis with its clumsy descriptive terms, forgetting as we do so that the desirable objective called 'clear communication' can easily be turned into its very antithesis in that way. But +1 for the answer." CreationDate="2019-01-03T12:05:06.663" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="17968" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton I agree; the middle is a more useful concept for Greek than Latin. I added details on the Latin middle and the perils of overanalysis. Also, thanks for the reminder about the name. I tend to forget to call it 'middle' instead of 'medium' due to the terminology used in Finnish and my limited exposure to Greek." CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:02:18.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="17974" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="I’ve always found it curious that in many handbooks of Latin grammar the **typical** examples used to discuss the well-known ambiguity/distinction between verbal vs. adjectival passives _often_ include causative change of state verbs like _claudere, frangere_, etc: e.g., _Porta clausa est_. Since the (non-typical) third reading involved (see my post) is often not discussed when dealing with the ambiguity of this example, if one does not want to discuss it for God knows which reason, it would have been clearer to select verbs like _scribere_: _Epistula scripta est_ is **not** triply ambiguous." CreationDate="2019-01-03T17:44:37.727" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17975" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="I’ve deliberately avoided to use the term “middle voice” in my post since this term can be a bit confusing not only because it clearly applies to Greek compared to Latin, but also because, in modern linguistics, the so-called “middle construction” can apply to both change of state verbs (_These dishes break easily_) and to agentive verbs (_These horses saddle easily_). Notice that agentive verbs like _to saddle_ do enter into the so-called “middle construction” but do not enter into the (anti)causative alternation (_*The horse saddled yesterday_). Cf. _The horse was saddled yesterday_." CreationDate="2019-01-03T17:48:05.883" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17977" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="Let me reelaborate my question above. I was wondering if Classical Latin (let us put Late Latin aside since further complications are involved with the more widespread use of reflexive pronouns in anticausatives) can express the difference between _The door was broken by the wind_ and _The door broke with the wind_ (cf. * _The door broke by the wind_ // ??/*_The door was broken with the wind_)." CreationDate="2019-01-03T18:22:00.950" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17982" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino For me *The door broke with the wind* is ungrammatical. But assuming it's grammatical, what is the supposed difference in meaning between that and *The door was broken by the wind*?" CreationDate="2019-01-04T00:45:10.993" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17983" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="Well, the idea is that in the verbal passive PP modifiers can be agent-oriented (e.g., not only agents/causes but also instrumentals are allowed:  _The window was broken {by John/by the wind/with a stone}_ . In contrast in the anticausative reading (_The window broke_), the PP modifiers that are agent-oriented are excluded.  So it seems natural to conclude that in verbal passives the agent is **not** semantically eliminated (it can be syntactically omitted) whereas in anticausatives the agent is both syntactically and semantically eliminated." CreationDate="2019-01-04T01:07:31.750" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17984" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="It is interesting that for you _The door broke with the wind_ is ungrammatical, probably because in this example _the wind_ is also necessarily construed as an agent even it is construed with  _with_. Perhaps for you something like _The window broke {through/from} the explosion_ could be (a bit) better." CreationDate="2019-01-04T01:17:42.010" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17990" PostId="8816" Score="1" Text="It might also be worth adding that Proto-Indo-European didn't distinguish the middle from the passive voice, and Ancient Greek barely did. It's not that they merged in Latin so much as that they never separated in the first place." CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:35:15.367" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18002" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="Joonas, could you please elaborate on your following point a little more? I found it intriguing but I'm not sure if I fully understand it. You say: “I would split your third point in two: 3) Verbal middle: &quot;the door broke&quot; // 4) Adjectival middle: &quot;the door is broken&quot; (in itself, not by anyone)”. Cf. TKR’s remark below on Horace's example, where he concludes out that _fracta est_ is a &quot;verbal rather than an adjectival passive&quot;." CreationDate="2019-01-04T06:16:16.443" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18007" PostId="8816" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino I added an explanation under 3 and 4." CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:01:41.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18010" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="Joonas, I’ve been trying to understand your really intriguing idea that two types of adjectival readings are involved. I was wondering if these two readings/nuances would be subtypes of what I call the resultative interpretation: &#xA;“Adjectival passive”: i.e., ‘the door is now in the state closed because there has been a natural previous event of ‘*causing* the door to become closed’).&#xA;“Adjectival middle”: i.e., ‘the door is now in the state closed because there has been a natural previous event of just ‘becoming closed’, i.e., with *no* agent involved.)." CreationDate="2019-01-04T18:57:38.167" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18023" PostId="8816" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino In my interpretation, the two kinds of adjectival reading differ just like the two kinds of verbal reading. The difference is the same. They can be classified as subtypes of resultative if you like. I honestly don't think the fine details of use cases of a participle need to be classified so diligently, at least from the point of view of any usage." CreationDate="2019-01-05T12:28:40.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18028" PostId="8816" Score="1" Text="Yes, as you'll have seen from most of my questions, as a theoretical linguist, I'm also interested in the grammatical approach to Latin. Indeed, the grammatical perspective should not be necessarily incompatible with a usage-based one. In any case I fully undertand that most of people here are interested in Latin grammar if and only if it has consequences for usage. But in my professional discipline some people (mostly those ones who adopt a formal/generative approach to grammar) think that &quot;grammar is grammar, and usage is usage&quot;: e.g., cf. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/50267/summary" CreationDate="2019-01-05T20:32:17.770" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17986" PostId="8820" Score="1" Text="That -tti- exception is odd. I can find very few words that it would apply to: *muttio,* and then some proper nouns such as *Brattia,Sittius, Cottius.*" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:46:31.977" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="17988" PostId="8820" Score="1" Text="In the context of English, I've read that non-palatalization of &quot;tiV&quot; also often occurred in some words/names from Greek: https://books.google.com/books?id=dFQEAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA2" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:52:40.477" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18054" PostId="8820" Score="1" Text="After due consideration, I've decided to accept @Rafael's citation of the _Liber Usualis_ as about as authoritative as one can get.  (I do *not* accept the idea that its pronunciation guidelines somehow reflect a &quot;French substratum&quot;.)  There's no doubt that _excelsis_ is commonly pronounced as [ɛksʧɛlsis] (which is no doubt why Wiktionary reflects that pronunciation, but Wiktionary, in my opinion, cannot be regarded as authoritative)." CreationDate="2019-01-07T03:04:36.320" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18055" PostId="8820" Score="1" Text="Note that I *am* impressed with @VincenzoOliva's citation of Enrico de Capitani's clear pronunciation of [ɛksʧɛlsis].  But of course, individual choirs are not necessarily bound to follow LU's recommendations, and apparently don't." CreationDate="2019-01-07T03:04:55.750" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18822" PostId="8820" Score="0" Text="@varro: I think you should address my updated answer and sumelic's one." CreationDate="2019-03-10T01:19:30.063" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="18854" PostId="8820" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva: my apologies for not responding sooner - the fact is that I've been distracted lately.  In *do* intend to read the additional references you have supplied, and respond accordingly, but right now I just want to assure you that I'm *not* just ignoring your request, and hope to have a well-thought response in the near future." CreationDate="2019-03-12T02:55:19.217" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18862" PostId="8820" Score="0" Text="@varro: I see, no worries! Thanks for letting me know." CreationDate="2019-03-12T09:21:40.630" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="18937" PostId="8820" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva: Thank you for the reference - I have read the entire thing (despite my Spanish being a bit rusty).  This does seem, though, to be another data point that's interesting, but not authoritative.  In particular, it seems to approach the manner of pronunciation from a *very* Spanish perspective.  I was surprised (e.g.) to see a pronunciation [léyem] (IPA ['lɛjɛm]) for Latin _legem_.  (continued...)" CreationDate="2019-03-15T02:01:04.163" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18938" PostId="8820" Score="1" Text="@VincenzoOliva:  (contˈd) In fact, it seems to treat Spanish pronunciation(s) on an equal footing with the Italian pronunciation.  (But &quot;soft&quot; G is still pronounced &quot;[y]&quot; IPA [j] rather than [dʒ], and _ecce_ is pronounced &quot;[ékche]&quot; IPA [ˈɛkʧɛ] rather than [ˈɛtʧɛ]?.)  I will admit, though, it supports the idea that [kʧɛ] is now a _de facto_ standard for _xce_, and sumelic's addendum would also seem to support that.  So, I guess I can now sing [ˈɡloria in ɛks'ʧɛlsis deo] with a clear conscience." CreationDate="2019-03-15T02:02:12.810" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18943" PostId="8820" Score="0" Text="@varro: Sure,the author comes from a Spanish perspective -it's an &quot;Aragonese Journal of Musicology&quot;.But while he rightly comments on the validity of any local pronunciation if a piece of music is historically related to it, he does state the Italian pronunciation (mostly) coincides with the Ecclesiastical one, reminding the reader of the recommendations of Pope Pius X.Also, note that on pages 86 and 89 Ramiro explains his phonetic notation:his [y] is &quot;sonido palatal africado sonoro,y en cast. yo, reyes; **(omitting the wrong _yard_ example)**; g en it. àngelo&quot;, i.e. IPA [dʒ],correctly; (cont.)" CreationDate="2019-03-16T12:19:39.913" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="18944" PostId="8820" Score="0" Text="@varro: (... continued) as for -_cce_- , which he transcribes as [kche], it probably is a mistake indeed (though I'm not totally sure, his notation is terrible). However, he published several notable papers and the journal has national relevance, so I don't find the reference unauthoritative. Anyway, I'm glad you'll have a clear conscience while singing _Gloria in excelsis Deo_ !" CreationDate="2019-03-16T12:20:46.910" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="18017" PostId="8821" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! You've posted some very interesting questions! I have one small suggestion: it's easier to read a text when the point it is making is mentioned explicitly and sooner rather than later. Hence I think this question could benefit from three small changes: 1. put the actual question in the title, however general/vague you need to make it; 2. put the actual question in the first paragraph as well: it only needs a short introduction; its actual explanation can come after; 3. make explicit the purpose and source of the Latin that is now in the title (and move it elsewhere)." CreationDate="2019-01-05T00:34:00.010" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18020" PostId="8821" Score="2" Text="Many thanks for your kind welcome and your very useful advice! I must say that I'm really impressed by the high quality of the questions, answers, and comments in this site. Regards from Barcelona!" CreationDate="2019-01-05T03:06:47.123" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18005" PostId="8822" Score="0" Text="Ah - what a blunder - asking here for a word ending with -phil(e). Is there a Latin equivalent to this suffix that could be used to construct a Latin term?" CreationDate="2019-01-04T07:10:05.773" UserId="3258" />
  <row Id="17991" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="I agree that in your example _The boy punched the window and it shattered_, the verb _shattered_ is anticausative (and yes, probably, as you say, it is unaccusative rather than unergative). However, I disagree with your claim that “nevertheless the boy is the agent of the shattering”. Truth-conditionally speaking, your claim is not wrong but, crucially, in your example the boy has not been linguistically construed as the agent of _shattered_." CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:36:06.777" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17992" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="That’s why you cannot continue your example with a final clause or with an instrument: _The boy punched the window and *it shattered with a stone/in order to…_. If there was an agent, the final clause and the instrument modifier would be expected to be licensed, contrary to fact.  Cf. the previous anticausative construction with the following verbal passive: _ok The boy punched the window and it was shattered with a stone/in order to…_" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:36:33.980" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17993" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="As for your note on Greek, I consider it not only, as you say, “possibly interesting” but indeed extremely interesting! This point is for example addressed by Alexiadou &amp; Anagnostopoulou (2008). http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/26/paper1653.pdf In particular, see Section 5 (“Differences between Greek and English/German”). However, I must say that I am not convinced by their analysis. But it does contain food for thought." CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:39:17.353" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17994" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I'm not sure we're in disagreement about anything. *The boy* cannot be introduced syntactically into the clause as an agent, but semantically he is clearly the cause of the event. In any case, where English has two constructions (passive and anticausative) Latin has just one (passive), which does not necessarily imply an agent but can express one with a PP." CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:46:26.773" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17995" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="Essentially, I think we are not in disagreement with the facts. Probably, there would be disagreement in our conception of what kind of semantics we're adopting and how the syntax-meaning connection is established. For example, your point that &quot;the boy is the agent of the shattering&quot; is obvious in a sense but, in my view, it is fully misguided since you seem to adopt the proposal that the semantics corresponding to a _linguistic_ expression like _it shattered_ can be established independently from its syntax." CreationDate="2019-01-04T05:01:05.343" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17996" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="In other words, the obvious fact that &quot;the boy is the agent of the shattering&quot; is absolutely irrelevant for the linguistic semantics of the expression _it shattered_" CreationDate="2019-01-04T05:05:12.327" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="17997" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Then I agree that we have different views on the nature of semantics, but this probably isn't the place to pursue that. I can't quite tell if we're in agreement on the Latin question(s), though, because I'm not exactly sure what your question about Latin is or whether my answer addresses it." CreationDate="2019-01-04T05:10:47.297" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="17998" PostId="8823" Score="1" Text="Yes, TKR, I'm very grateful to your comments since you've addressed the point I raised. That's why I gave an upvote to your answer. We agree that _Porta clausa est_ is triply ambiguous but we disagree on to what extent the syntactico-semantic structure of my third reading can be collapsed with the first reading. Importantly, we agree on the verbal nature of the participle of first and third readings (vs. the second adjectival resultative/stative one). And finally I insist that your point on Greek is VERY interesting!" CreationDate="2019-01-04T05:28:41.200" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18003" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="By the way, TKR, I'm afraid that your position does not explain the contrast I've pointed out above between the verbal passive (_The boy punched the window and it was shattered with a stone/in order to…_) and the anticausative (_*The boy punched the window and it shattered with a stone/in order to…._). You assume that in both cases &quot;the boy is the agent of _shattering_&quot; but then how do you account for this contrast, where the agent is **not** syntactically expressed in any of the second coordinates?" CreationDate="2019-01-04T06:37:14.087" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18004" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="In contrast, recall my position: the agent is semantically present in _it was shattered with a stone/in order to…_ but, crucially, it is not in the second coordinate of _*The boy punched the window and it shattered with a stone/in order to…._ That difference explains why the instrumental and the final clause are not licensed in the latter." CreationDate="2019-01-04T06:42:59.100" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18012" PostId="8823" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino My point was to show that anticausatives are not limited to events that are conceptualized as occurring without an agent. As you say, it seems we differ on how to conceive of &quot;agent&quot; or semantics more generally, but as far as I can see that difference doesn't bear on the Latin issue so I think it's off topic here." CreationDate="2019-01-04T20:45:27.043" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18013" PostId="8824" Score="0" Text="Why puzzling? It doesn't seem too surprising that geminates should be more resistant to such changes." CreationDate="2019-01-04T20:56:39.090" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18014" PostId="8824" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I can understand why geminates would be resistant to lenition, but the assibilation of t to [ts] in palatal contexts doesn't seem to be a lenition change. For comparison, Latin -c- was palatalized even when it followed -c-, and Japanese -t- is palatalized to [tɕ] even when geminate." CreationDate="2019-01-04T22:54:31.937" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18015" PostId="8824" Score="1" Text="FWIW, Finnish has *ti &gt; si* but *tti* remains unaffected." CreationDate="2019-01-04T23:01:56.110" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18065" PostId="8825" Score="1" Text="turns out there are exceptions. For example, Hall and Hamann also mention, citing Fortescue 1984: 333, that &quot;in West Greenlandic (see 11q) singleton and geminate /t/ are assibilated to [ts] in all contexts.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-01-08T04:57:22.407" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18021" PostId="8826" Score="1" Text="Hi, and welcome to the site! A number of users think the linked question has an answer to yours. You might want to take the time to read it and decide whether your doubt has been satisfactorily answered there, or you want to reword this question to ask something more specific." CreationDate="2019-01-05T11:01:50.363" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18022" PostId="8826" Score="2" Text="At times, the philosophy of quickly closing questions _deemed_ duplicate by the community might prove frustrating to some of us. I know the feel. But that's the way it works, and also has collateral benefits" CreationDate="2019-01-05T11:05:01.667" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18027" PostId="8827" Score="0" Text="I agree with you in all you have said (and you've said many interesting things!). In particular, I'm glad to see that we have the same intuition: &quot;in this case I think a narrator would just say &quot;He wandered out of the valley&quot;&quot;. That's right! My intuition is that, probably, the verb would also be prefixed. At most one Goal PP could also be added to this sentence if the information structure would require it (e.g., for rhematic reasons). Excellent and very useful answer, TKR!" CreationDate="2019-01-05T20:11:56.440" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20539" PostId="8827" Score="0" Text="Even my limited Latin Sprachgefühl rejects _limen eius_. I'm wondering: do you also find the closing _ultra_ poor Latinitas? Placing a direction particle or &quot;adverb&quot; at the end seems like the Germanic style. And I've read that Latin word-order flexibility tends to shut down with adverbs, which should immediately precede what they modify, though I've also seen plenty of exceptions." CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:05:52.077" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20567" PostId="8827" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Yes, thinking about it I tend to agree there's something off about that final *ultra*." CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:44:21.637" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18025" PostId="8828" Score="0" Text="This is a very plausible option, +1. Could you provide an example sentence phrasing this idea grammatically in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-01-05T19:59:06.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18029" PostId="8828" Score="0" Text="Keeping the structure of a noun clause probably requires a double dative construction: peregrinandi occasio est magno nobis desiderio." CreationDate="2019-01-05T20:35:15.153" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18030" PostId="8828" Score="0" Text="That looks very reasonable. I took the liberty to edit it in; feel free to roll back or edit further. It makes the answer more complete and useful, I hope, although the key insight was your new reading of the idea." CreationDate="2019-01-05T21:22:50.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18042" PostId="8829" Score="0" Text="Interesting! So you disagree with my proposal above that _quo mortuo nuntiato_ must not be fully collapsed with the complex AAs typically mentioned in the textbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., _Cicerone consule creato_). Cf.  _Cicerone mortuo nuntiato_ with the well-formed  _Hoc_ (i.e., _Cicerone mortuo_) _nuntiato_. And cf. _Cicerone consule creato_ with the ill-formed _Hoc_ (i.e., _Cicerone consule_) _creato_.  Cf. also the ill-formed ex. _Ciceronem consulem (esse) creato_ with the well-formed one _Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato_ (cf. Livy's well-known example _Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum_)." CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:41:46.690" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18043" PostId="8829" Score="0" Text="In any case I agree that the reduction of the example at issue to a well-known type of complex AA would be a good solution. So I give you an upvote." CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:43:49.863" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18047" PostId="8829" Score="0" Text="Another interesting example of complex AA that, quite clearly, cannot be reduced to the type _Cicerone consule creato_ is the following one, also from Cicero: _**Quo optato impetrato**, Theseus in maximis fuit luctibus_ (Cic. _Off._ 3.95). The syntactic construction is intriguingly very similar to Cicero's example commented in my post above: _quo mortuo nuntiato_." CreationDate="2019-01-06T05:34:25.520" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18049" PostId="8829" Score="1" Text="Quo optato impetrato = Quod optatum impetratum est (which desire was obtained). Quo is just an adjective modifying optato, which is here used as a substantive." CreationDate="2019-01-06T14:31:19.027" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18051" PostId="8829" Score="0" Text="Oh, thanks! I've seen that this is precisely the analysis given in a Spanish textbook of Latin Syntax, _Sintaxis latina_ (1956) by Mariano Bassols de Climent, who classifies these two very same examples _quo optato impetrato_ and _quo mortuo nuntiato_ into the same class. According to Bassols, in these two examples both _optato_ and _mortuo_ are regarded as participles that are used as nouns ('desire' and 'death'). In contrast, I see you classify them into two different classes. That's interesting! Thanks for your very helpful comments, Kingshorsey!" CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:22:28.273" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18050" PostId="8832" Score="1" Text="Firstly, your suggestions do not capture the nuance of the intent behind the motto, but I'm very grateful for them nonetheless. Mainly, I am curious about your use of &quot;quam&quot;. Semper quam optime sounds like &quot;Always better than&quot; for me, did you mean that? As in constant improvement? In that case, why not use &quot;semper optime&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:05:16.877" UserId="3264" />
  <row Id="18052" PostId="8832" Score="2" Text="The intention underlying the (idiomatic) _semper quam optime_ is 'always as good as possible', which is perhaps a bit strong, but do remember that a literal translation isn't necessarily the best — especially in a motto.You seem to want something punchy : you can usually leave out a verb in this sort of thing, which helps achieve that." CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:59:09.713" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18150" PostId="8834" Score="0" Text="In addition to the dictionary source mentioned by Joonas, the Domesday book has even quite small English town names in Latin (and consequently a lot of American towns)." CreationDate="2019-01-14T03:17:01.403" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18056" PostId="8835" Score="1" Text="In medieval Latin, there is an additional option, &quot;de&quot; with the meaning of &quot;from.&quot; E.g., Thomas de Londonia. Also, there's a typo in your answer. It should be Londoniensis." CreationDate="2019-01-07T15:42:29.223" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18057" PostId="8835" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Interesting! I'm more of a classicist, and not familiar with *de* in that sense. That would make a nice answer. The typo is not a typo, in fact; I added an explanation why I used *Londiniensis*. I don't recall seeing *Londoniensis*, but I have come across the one with *-i-* in Vicipaedia and elsewhere." CreationDate="2019-01-07T15:49:26.143" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18058" PostId="8835" Score="0" Text="I suppose it's fair that a Roman of classical times would have used Londiniensis, but there are no surviving instances of that word, whereas there are many of Londoniensis. http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/advsuchergebnis.php?suchbegriff=Londoniensis&amp;table=&amp;level2_name=&amp;from_year=&amp;to_year=&amp;mode=SPH_MATCH_EXTENDED2&amp;lang=0&amp;corpus=all&amp;verses=&amp;lemmatised=&amp;suchenin=alle" CreationDate="2019-01-07T15:55:03.107" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18059" PostId="8835" Score="0" Text="It appears that at some point Londonia replaced Londinium as the dominant Latin name." CreationDate="2019-01-07T16:04:25.717" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18060" PostId="8835" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Fair enough, I reworded that part. I prefer the more classical version, but *Londoniensis* is possible too. I would much like to see another answer with post-classical ideas, especially the use of *de*." CreationDate="2019-01-07T16:14:28.750" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18061" PostId="8835" Score="0" Text="_Londiniensis_ or _Londinianus_? It's always a tricky choice! I try to avoid it myself by using _natus_ or _ortus_." CreationDate="2019-01-07T17:12:22.687" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18062" PostId="8835" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton My ear says *Londiniensis* and I found attestations, but *Londinianus* sounds possible too. I'm not aware of any hard rules for the choice. It would be nice to have an answer about the *natus/ortus* option. Good ideas should not hide in comments." CreationDate="2019-01-07T19:00:10.423" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18063" PostId="8835" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta:  Assuming that a Classical phrase is desired, your answer with _Londiniensis_ is, I think, absolutely correct.  *Only* if one desires a mediaeval-type phrase should _Londonia/Londoniensis_ be preferred, and *only* then could one use _de Londonia_." CreationDate="2019-01-07T21:36:28.647" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18064" PostId="8835" Score="0" Text="@varro: Thanks for the confirmation! There was no specific era requirement in the question, so I picked classical Latin out of personal preference and convenience. Everyone: As I have commented above, I would much like to see other options elaborated on in separate answers, not least to show that there rarely is a unique correct answer. Different preferences on era and choices of words should be reflected on the votes on the various answers, not in comments under a single answer." CreationDate="2019-01-07T21:47:06.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18069" PostId="8835" Score="2" Text="@joonas ilmavirta Your wish is my command." CreationDate="2019-01-08T15:35:17.350" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18097" PostId="8836" Score="0" Text="Have you come across Du CANGE, Charles du Fresne, 1610-1806? His Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis (in 10 vols) is on line through ARCHIVE. I checked vol six for occupations beginning SH &lt; https://archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n247  where Shawaldres (Gall *chevaliers*) ( a yeomen farmer, I believe provides own weapons, and horse) caught my eye. Abbreviated here to Shw. Would that fit? Sing. or plural. Not quite an occupation. The page refers you to SCH also::: https://archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n117" CreationDate="2019-01-10T02:11:24.990" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18113" PostId="8836" Score="0" Text="Haven't seen this material before, thanks for the reference.  Shawaldres seems unlikely... but you never know.  I think shopa might be taking things in the right direction.  What do you think the latin term for a shopkeeper/grocer would be?" CreationDate="2019-01-11T12:52:03.677" UserId="3269" />
  <row Id="18115" PostId="8836" Score="1" Text="(Not posting this as an answer because of too low confidence level) My first impression was something like ... *de waxtoneshire* ... and googling for &quot;Waxton shire&quot; does yield some results which might (not) be relevant for the manuscript's time frame..." CreationDate="2019-01-11T14:13:57.240" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="18068" PostId="8837" Score="2" Text="Hugh, thanks for your answer. However, I think the first line reads 'et Joh[ann]is Norgate de waxtone' before the word I am trying to decipher. Any further suggestions would be gratefully received." CreationDate="2019-01-08T15:06:12.957" UserId="3269" />
  <row Id="18070" PostId="8838" Score="4" Text="It's worth noting that _-anus_ may not necessarily yield the desired meaning:  Coriolanus did not come from Corioli, nor Scipio Africanus from Africa." CreationDate="2019-01-08T17:36:25.390" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18071" PostId="8838" Score="0" Text="@varro Agnomina like these are of special origins and used rather differently. The origin of _Africanus_ for Scipio is well known, but _Coriolanus_ is surely open to debate — was he from Corioli, or was he especially victorious there? Opinions differ! Nevertheless, what you say is true." CreationDate="2019-01-08T18:01:11.283" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18073" PostId="8839" Score="1" Text="FWIW, my intuition agrees with yours -- singular seems impossible here." CreationDate="2019-01-08T22:18:00.790" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18088" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="To talk about 'the fact that' some plural noun does something, and to have that fact be the subject of a singular verb, you'd have to, e.g., use a finite verb instead of a participle, and then use quod or ut at the beginning of the clause to render it a noun clause; or use an infinitive instead a participle, putting the subject into the accusative. In short, you can have either the participle or the singular verb, but not both." CreationDate="2019-01-09T22:22:17.117" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="18089" PostId="8839" Score="2" Text="In fact, it seems to me that, properly speaking, your English example with the singular verb doesn't involve a participle at all but a gerund. That is, it should really say 'Two old **men's** dealing with such a young theme....' However, colloquial English uses a participle instead of a gerund. In that case, the correct Latin equivalent would follow the 'more proper' English version and would likely use an accusative+infinitive instead of a participle." CreationDate="2019-01-09T22:29:51.090" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="18092" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="The English example (without _'s_) is taken from Jespersen (1909-1949). I found it in  https://books.google.es/books?id=VYQiAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA122&amp;lpg=PA122&amp;dq=%22Two+old+men+dealing+with+such+a+young+theme%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=0SsrlK82Eh&amp;sig=QTRuleJL7LyeKgmCwc9NNmUtL5I&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjFyqST6eHfAhWMzIUKHadTC64Q6AEwCHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Two%20old%20men%20dealing%20with%20such%20a%20young%20theme%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-01-09T23:21:10.833" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18096" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="I used an English example but the same phenomenon can be exemplified, perhaps even more intriguingly, with the so-called &quot;pseudo-relative&quot; construction in Italian. According to Jan Casalicchio, an Italian linguist (see his work below), in an It. example like _I bambini che giocano agli anziani mi {fanno/fa} ridere_ (lit. 'The children that play at the elder {make/makes} me laugh'), the verb can be plural (_fanno_) **or** singular (_fa_). Why is Latin different in the dominant participle constructions above? Cf. http://www.academia.edu/34840592/The_Pseudo-relative_construction_in_Romance" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:22:16.720" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18108" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="I have never seen such a *constructio ad sensum* as you suggest, but it can't be ruled out without examining literally every single relevant instance." CreationDate="2019-01-10T21:28:50.693" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47433" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="Stumbled upon interesting passage from *Carmina* (Venantius Fortunatus): *Quintiano demum sancto erudiente magistro \&#xA;pulchrius est auro corde probatus homo.*  . I believe it fits as why *pulchrius* and not *pulchrior*? can *pulchrius* be an adverb?" CreationDate="2024-01-28T16:43:31.157" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47442" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="@d_e I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of your example from Late Latin here. What is your interpretation of it? In any case, please note that I'm interested in examples from Classical Latin (see my question above). Interestingly, the use of dominant participle constructions gradually declined in Late Latin but this is another issue (probably related to the decline of gerundive constructions and syntactically similar constructions in this period)." CreationDate="2024-01-29T13:41:14.993" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47449" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, oh, the way I parse this as such: *corde probatus homo* should be taken as a unit (I guessed that a dominant participle *probatus*). I would expect *pulchrior* as an adjective modifying *homo*, but here they use *pulchrius* in neutral - so I interpreted as violation of subject -&quot;verb&quot; agreement because of the dominant participle." CreationDate="2024-01-30T22:12:09.047" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47454" PostId="8839" Score="0" Text="@d_e On the dominant participle reading, _homo probatus_ is interpreted as _hominis probatio_ (cf. _ab urbe condita_ with _ab urbis conditione_). However, it is not clear if this is the interpretation here. In any case, the existence of a neuter adjective (_pulchrius_) does not necessarily lead one to interpret the participle _probatus_ as a dominant one.  It could just be the case that _pulchrius_ is a neuter predicate ('something more beautiful') that applies to a non-neuter subject (cf. _Varium et mutabile sempre femina est_, where a neuter predicate applies to a feminine subject)." CreationDate="2024-01-31T16:01:44.627" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18075" PostId="8841" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer!" CreationDate="2019-01-09T11:42:33.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18098" PostId="8843" Score="1" Text="Haddock, according to https://aquaticallatin.info/haddock is Melanogrammus aeglefinus (Linnaeus, 1758). But a much more attractive name was given to a left-eyed flatfish called the megrim. The latin for that is ***Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis*** &#xA;https://britishseafishing.co.uk/megrim/ How about ***whiffiagonis*** for short?" CreationDate="2019-01-10T02:44:38.993" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18083" PostId="8844" Score="1" Text="Check the Wiktionary entry for the word." CreationDate="2019-01-05T21:58:14.970" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="18084" PostId="8844" Score="3" Text="From what I can tell, the vocative is indeed Θεέ. It is only used twice in the New Testament, both in Matthew 27:46. John 20:28 uses the nominative case. Here are some sources: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%98%CE%B5%CE%AD https://biblehub.com/greek/thee_2316.htm https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/27-46.htm https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-28.htm" CreationDate="2019-01-06T01:39:52.160" UserDisplayName="Cerulean Chelonii " />
  <row Id="18087" PostId="8844" Score="1" Text="Welcome to Latin Language Stack Exchange! This question was migrated here from Christianity, and it is indeed better suited here. If you register your account on this sister site, you will have full access to your question as you originally did. I hope you'll get a good answer and keep asking more questions when Greek grammar puzzles you!" CreationDate="2019-01-09T20:50:42.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18093" PostId="8845" Score="2" Text="I agree with you in the first part of your answer (&quot;It seems to me that the subject here is more the participle than anything&quot;). Yes, that's why the construction at issue is often referred to in many textbooks of Latin syntax as &quot;dominant participle construction&quot;. However, what you say in the second part of your answer (&quot;which could indeed take a singular verb&quot;) is controversial, I think. One could expect it (given that the subject is a participial clause) but my intuition is that the main verb cannot be singular if the nominal within the dominant participle clause is plural." CreationDate="2019-01-09T23:43:42.260" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18127" PostId="8845" Score="0" Text="I suppose you are right there..." CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:22:12.423" UserId="3257" />
  <row Id="24195" PostId="8845" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The first example: (he said) &quot;he was sent by Marcus Crassus to assure Cataline that the apprehension of Lentulus, Cethegus &amp; the others, from the conspiracy, ought not to alarm him....&quot;. This translation treats &quot;arrest&quot; as singular requiring singular verb &quot;alarm&quot; (terreret). Therefore the arrestees would have to be treated as one group (of individuals) requiring &quot;deprehensum&quot;. This means changing the original version, how else could it work? The second ex., Graeci (plural) demands &quot;evenerunt&quot;.  How to get around this--Graecia--Greece (singular);" CreationDate="2020-02-07T13:12:34.260" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24196" PostId="8845" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Continuing: but the country will not come out to Publius. Interesting theory; but, the strict demands of Latin grammar appear to undermine it." CreationDate="2020-02-07T13:13:58.217" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24229" PostId="8845" Score="0" Text="Consider the (simplified) example: _occisus dictator Caesar pessimum facinus videbatur_. Crucially, if you eliminate the participle _occisus_, the sentence becomes ill-formed. That's why _occisus_ can be considered a &quot;dominant&quot; participle: i.e., it is obligatory. Now even if the &quot;semantic subject&quot; of _facinus_ is an event, i.e., a murder/killing, and not an individual (_dictator Caesar_), the agreement is always consistent with this individual and not with the event. So Latin seems to lack examples like the English one above taken from Jespersen. I'm wondering why..." CreationDate="2020-02-11T20:56:40.993" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18099" PostId="8848" Score="2" Text="Nice overlaps (between colour and vitality) in another set: *viridus, viret, virescit*" CreationDate="2019-01-10T02:57:28.130" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18100" PostId="8849" Score="0" Text="Welcome:  Just a side note to this question: the *lib* is long. All the words in English with a short 'i' (liberty, liberality,) in Latin are **ī** pronounce long &quot;leeb-&quot;. And all the words with long 'i' (library, libellous) come from Latin short **ĭ** &quot;lĭb-&quot;.  English students of Latin have been known for wrong quantities since 1500." CreationDate="2019-01-10T03:49:06.803" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18102" PostId="8849" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you looking for words derived from *liberi*, where *liberi* is derived from, or perhaps words derived from the same source as *liberi*? Please [edit your question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/posts/8849/edit) to clarify." CreationDate="2019-01-10T08:42:37.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18105" PostId="8851" Score="1" Text="&quot;A well-known Latin sound change turned all short vowels in word-medial open syllables to i&quot;  (TKR) https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1908/39" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:44:26.130" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18106" PostId="8853" Score="1" Text="As a small quibble, *Iuppiter* is thought to come from a vocative rather than a nominative, so *diou-pater." CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:10:47.827" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18107" PostId="8853" Score="0" Text="@TKR Oops, you're right! Changed." CreationDate="2019-01-10T20:09:14.427" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18103" PostId="8854" Score="1" Text="So the word I am looking for is &quot;esse&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:13:10.847" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="18104" PostId="8854" Score="1" Text="@Charlie yes, esse." CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:15:21.090" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18119" PostId="8855" Score="0" Text="I think most ancient and medieval philosophers would disagree: matter (hyle) isn't a principle of existence. Immaterial substances can fail to exist just as much as material substances." CreationDate="2019-01-11T15:41:38.700" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18120" PostId="8855" Score="0" Text="@brianpck While it's abstract nature, and the accidental nature have been discussed, I thought Charlie was asking for the actuality, the 'thing,' the kickable object and its distinctive reality in the world. Isn't that hyle?" CreationDate="2019-01-11T19:47:54.200" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18112" PostId="8856" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm glad to see another mathematician with classical interests." CreationDate="2019-01-11T12:48:44.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18148" PostId="8856" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer! Though I wouldn't say that that's a vocative of *deus* in the Latin: the vocative of *meus* would be *mī*. Instead I see that passage as showing that *deus* just plain doesn't have a vocative, so it uses the nominative, and everything agreeing with it goes nominative too." CreationDate="2019-01-13T23:32:57.593" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18166" PostId="8856" Score="1" Text="Thank you. Sure, the vocative in classical Latin is *mi*. And I agree that a direct question or exclamation doesn't necessarily imply a vocative. But at least here, isn't X in &quot;*X, why did you leave me?*&quot;, ***logically***, a vocative? Besides &quot;*Mi Deus!*&quot; and &quot;*Deus mi!*&quot; are used in biblical Latin (but, yes, maybe later?), which shows, by your reasoning, that at least sometimes &quot;Deus&quot; can be a vocative." CreationDate="2019-01-14T22:44:13.503" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="18167" PostId="8856" Score="1" Text="I used to think that here &quot;meus&quot; is a vocative form of biblical Latin, maybe somehow attracted by &quot;Deus&quot;. In fact I am a bit confused. I'd say (in semi-serious way) that here &quot;Deus meus&quot; is  &quot;formally nominative  and logically vocative&quot;." CreationDate="2019-01-14T22:45:01.507" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="18217" PostId="8856" Score="1" Text="@PietroMajer Actually, [this is worth asking about separately](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8915/deus-meus-aut-deus-mī), because now I'm curious." CreationDate="2019-01-19T17:30:05.177" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37662" PostId="8857" Score="0" Text="I agree with your analysis.  Futurity and volitional statements are linked cross-linguistically, and volitional and future statements often have special forms or usage for first person reference.  For example, traditional English had/has the exceptional usage of &quot;I shall&quot; as the tense equivalent of &quot;you will&quot; and &quot;he will.&quot;  Latin had a preference for first person use of the deliberative subjunctive (e.g., &quot;Quid agam&quot;) and the potential subjunctive with &quot;velim,&quot; &quot;aussim,&quot; &quot;possim,&quot; etc.  Japanese volitional statements take one form for first person and another for the other persons." CreationDate="2022-03-25T14:20:39.733" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="18117" PostId="8860" Score="1" Text="(Should it be *plura* as the object of *oblitus sum*?)" CreationDate="2019-01-11T15:14:23.130" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18130" PostId="8860" Score="0" Text="*Tu* is rarely obligatory, but I'd use it since there's some contrastive emphasis on &quot;you&quot; here." CreationDate="2019-01-12T22:07:59.777" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18122" PostId="8864" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Just to be clear, would an example for any one of the listed items constitute a complete answer? Covering all bases fully would make the question quite broad." CreationDate="2019-01-12T17:04:58.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18137" PostId="8864" Score="0" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greek_alphabets (scroll down to the summary table)" CreationDate="2019-01-13T17:48:48.070" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18123" PostId="8866" Score="0" Text="A filled-in delta can easily be produced on papyrus, of course (not that there's any reason anyone would)." CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:00:20.440" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18125" PostId="8866" Score="0" Text="@TKR Very fair! Added a note about papyrus." CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:03:43.230" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18132" PostId="8866" Score="0" Text="&quot;some modern alphabets&quot; - interesting! Any chance you could name one?" CreationDate="2019-01-13T00:37:15.277" UserId="3283" />
  <row Id="18133" PostId="8866" Score="1" Text="@Silverfish The African Reference Alphabet is the first one that comes to mind; it's used for transcribing African languages that don't have standardized orthographies, as a sort of halfway point between IPA and a full new orthography." CreationDate="2019-01-13T00:44:05.000" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18134" PostId="8866" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Thanks! ([Wikipedia link for anyone interested](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_reference_alphabet))" CreationDate="2019-01-13T00:49:14.503" UserId="3283" />
  <row Id="18124" PostId="8867" Score="0" Text="+1, though I wonder if the singular verb *fit* might be used here instead (not that I have any evidence that it would, just a hunch)." CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:02:16.253" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18126" PostId="8867" Score="0" Text="@TKR certainly a possibility. At that point it's a matter of emphasis, not grammar." CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:09:51.830" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18157" PostId="8868" Score="1" Text="Isn't *poculum* the most common generic word for &quot;cup&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-01-14T14:51:21.250" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18139" PostId="8871" Score="1" Text="Thanks, this is interesting! In terms of the perfect having a resultative meaning, mightn’t that just be a result of aspectual coercion? Are other stative verbs not able to be used that way in the perfect?" CreationDate="2019-01-13T19:03:29.027" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18143" PostId="8871" Score="1" Text="@sumelic I'm not sure that's a real difference; *-sco* is restricted to the present system in almost all verbs, and *aruit* would naturally mean &quot;it became dry&quot; whether you see it as deriving from *aresco* or *areo*." CreationDate="2019-01-13T20:42:17.310" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18145" PostId="8871" Score="1" Text="@sumelic That same happens with all verbs in *-sco*; they share the perfect forms with the base verb. One could of course ask (see TKR's comment) whether the derivatives have perfect forms at all, but many dictionaries do list them." CreationDate="2019-01-13T21:13:33.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18146" PostId="8871" Score="1" Text="@TKR: Got it. How about “fuit aridus”? Would that be able to be used to mean “it became dry”?" CreationDate="2019-01-13T21:27:58.827" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18147" PostId="8871" Score="1" Text="@sumelic Good question... I would think it might in a specific context, but I'm not sure." CreationDate="2019-01-13T22:49:55.103" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18169" PostId="8871" Score="0" Text="Thanks for all the very interesting comments and observations, which have been very useful for me to refine/complete my question above. Next I will write a new final section in my post above. I hope I'll be able to integrate your comments (of course, from my perspective). If the result is not convincing, please let me know." CreationDate="2019-01-15T00:13:15.423" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18138" PostId="8872" Score="0" Text="Hmm... I'm no expert in epigraphy, but it looks like in the first line ΑΕΙΔΕ is mispelt as ΑΕΔΕ (should have a true diphthong, surely?)." CreationDate="2019-01-13T18:49:26.270" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18142" PostId="8872" Score="0" Text="That statement doesn't apply - the ει does *not* (i think) represent an &quot;e long fermé&quot;, but a true diphthong [ei].  (Yes, I know that eventually [e:] and [ei] merged in Attic, but this should be long time before that merger.)" CreationDate="2019-01-13T20:08:09.380" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18149" PostId="8872" Score="0" Text="@varro you were right, thanks for catching this! I uploaded a revised version Powell uses in his more recent, 2009/2011 book." CreationDate="2019-01-14T01:57:53.700" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18168" PostId="8872" Score="0" Text="The assumption that the Homeric language still had digamma is also questionable." CreationDate="2019-01-14T22:55:15.070" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18170" PostId="8872" Score="0" Text="@fdb do you mean [w] isn’t there at all in Homer? I mean the sound, not the letter." CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:42:37.590" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18173" PostId="8872" Score="0" Text="Yes, the sound. It is because clusters with w plus another consonant sometimes, but not always, effect a long syllable." CreationDate="2019-01-15T10:45:33.400" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18152" PostId="8877" Score="0" Text="You should be sure to recognise the odd genitive *eius, huius,* which you will meet in the relative pronoun, *cuius.* And the curious datives *huic (cui).* And though *is, ea, id* are not always needed for 'he' 'she' 'it' the accusative *eum, eam, id;* and *illum, illam, id, illos, illas, illa* will be needed for 'him' 'her' 'it' 'them.'" CreationDate="2019-01-14T05:05:39.677" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18153" PostId="8878" Score="0" Text="I would add that an important part of learning pronoun declensions is getting used to their use in textual context. Memorization in isolation is a useful step, but does not take one all the way to mastery." CreationDate="2019-01-14T08:19:15.187" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18154" PostId="8880" Score="0" Text="Thanks! The companion v. instrument is a distinction I was not aware of. Your phrase &quot;The dative and genitive cannot even be used with prepositions&quot; is interesting. So prepositions must be used with either accusative or ablative. ([This page](http://www.informalmusic.com/latinsoc/prep.html) has one example of genitive, but it's probably an exception that confirms the rule. The answer you just mention regarding _cum_ is also expressed at the bottom of the page!)" CreationDate="2019-01-14T12:18:34.800" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18164" PostId="8880" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I've never seen the preposition &quot;tenus&quot;, much less with the genitive. So I'd take that with a grain of salt." CreationDate="2019-01-14T21:09:40.590" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18165" PostId="8880" Score="0" Text="(I should clarify: *tenus* is absolutely a word, but I haven't seen it behave like a preposition, syntactically.)" CreationDate="2019-01-14T21:10:43.763" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18156" PostId="8881" Score="0" Text="*Ainsworth* marks *stapes* *-edis* with an asterisk (borrowed/ late /dictionaries) and attributes it to *Jun.*  Alternative, from an inscription, *stapia.*" CreationDate="2019-01-14T13:58:12.007" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18159" PostId="8881" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Can you add that information to your answer? It's part of the answer, not a comment, the way it looks to me." CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:58:58.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18155" PostId="8884" Score="1" Text="Hmm... *Bene facis* and the others mean roughly &quot;you do well&quot;. That is, they're more &quot;you deserve praise&quot; than &quot;I give praise&quot;. Latin seems to want to phrase things that way, but I'm not sure they work well in a motto." CreationDate="2019-01-14T13:12:40.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18160" PostId="8884" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much for your help and expertise, so willingly and promptly given." CreationDate="2019-01-14T18:55:36.217" UserId="3285" />
  <row Id="36000" PostId="8884" Score="0" Text="If you look at Penelope's post, you'll see that she actually divided up the ways to say &quot;thanks&quot; into two different categories. The three you mentioned fall under the &quot;Thanks expressed as pleasure and assent to the preceding action/suggestion etc:&quot;, which differs from the &quot;thanks used to express thanksgiving.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-26T16:31:13.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18158" PostId="8886" Score="0" Text="Thank you, although I think that you've missed the point of the question. I have already chosen _stapes_ as the word to use, and wish to know its origin, if possible, and (also if possible) to be directed to its proper declension." CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:54:27.167" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18162" PostId="8886" Score="0" Text="Clearly I didn't signpost **Stapes, edis, m A stirrup,** clearly enough. But I'm still not convinced that **step** is the etymology, compared with **στροφ-** and **strop** (naval) *a loop,* and **strep, strap, stroppus** a tie, a binding.  And now I've run into too many *culs de sac* to take it further." CreationDate="2019-01-14T20:29:59.267" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18163" PostId="8886" Score="0" Text="And the answer to your third question, is that ***stapia*** (ancient inscriptions may be the earliest usage. The earliest **dateable** form is ***stapeda, -ae, f.*** in Folieto author of *'de avibus'* etc. fl.1130." CreationDate="2019-01-14T20:42:12.867" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18203" PostId="8887" Score="0" Text="This shape is used for terminal sigma, in contrast to medial; In my (Classical) Greek grammar it is shown for 6;in the Aldine Bible it is used with an extended top bar for monogram ts, (tau sigma); in greek alphabets it is often placed in the position previously occupied by digamma.This is all a preamble to saying it has several names: sigma, terminal sigma, tsau, tsigma, stigma, hex, and digamma." CreationDate="2019-01-18T02:15:47.287" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18161" PostId="8888" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Exactly what I needed, and especially thanks for pointing me to gen. _stapedis_, which feels much more comfortable than _stapitis_ (which I formed on the pattern of _stipes_." CreationDate="2019-01-14T19:43:55.400" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18172" PostId="8889" Score="4" Text="So it's a sundial, perhaps? Would make sense with the needle in the middle of the circle." CreationDate="2019-01-15T08:33:25.473" UserId="2878" />
  <row Id="18175" PostId="8889" Score="0" Text="That would be my guess." CreationDate="2019-01-15T17:04:41.967" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18193" PostId="8889" Score="0" Text="@Arthur there's little doubt that it is one. In antiquity it was common to count 12 hours from sunrise to sunset" CreationDate="2019-01-17T00:32:00.113" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18176" PostId="8890" Score="2" Text="*Causā, gratiā* are other common examples." CreationDate="2019-01-15T18:02:27.120" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18184" PostId="8890" Score="0" Text="You will have to rewrite other parts of the textbooks too. *Cum amicis eius* 'With his/her friends' *Ablativus Collativus.*" CreationDate="2019-01-16T03:25:41.380" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18185" PostId="8890" Score="1" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/883/prepositions-adpositions-with-genitive" CreationDate="2019-01-16T13:37:48.423" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20160" PostId="8890" Score="0" Text="Plus, especially in the poets, words that are usually prepositions are sometimes used as postpositions – e.g., *super* in Lucretius, *DRN* 6.186: scilicet hoc densis fit nubibus et simul alte / extructis aliis **alias super** impete miro. I'm sure I've also seen this done occasionally in prose too." CreationDate="2019-06-15T19:21:22.187" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="18177" PostId="8892" Score="1" Text="I've never heard of &quot;_ge_ causal&quot; either, and would also translate it as &quot;to you in particular&quot;." CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:44:45.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18178" PostId="8892" Score="2" Text="FWIW Denniston's massive *Greek Particles* doesn't seem to recognize a &quot;γε causal&quot; either. That said, in this context it's not too hard to understand what Quandt means: Lysimachus is saying &quot;I wouldn't discuss these things with just anyone, but I will with *you*, because you're the kind of people who would get it&quot;, hence Quandt's causal translation &quot;given who you are&quot;." CreationDate="2019-01-15T23:33:46.687" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18179" PostId="8892" Score="0" Text="Its use here seems to be roughly equivalent to quidem in Latin, for what that's worth." CreationDate="2019-01-16T00:07:35.570" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="18180" PostId="8892" Score="1" Text="Isn't this **limitative γε**? - and it *is* in Denniston." CreationDate="2019-01-16T01:14:10.020" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18181" PostId="8892" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. &quot;limitative γε&quot; is in Denniston, but not &quot;γε causal&quot; unless I'm missing it." CreationDate="2019-01-16T01:35:05.307" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18182" PostId="8892" Score="0" Text="@TKR I meant to say this “causal” use is better known as limitative." CreationDate="2019-01-16T02:28:05.833" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18187" PostId="8892" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Interesting; I hadn't considered those two the same. But that would make a good answer!" CreationDate="2019-01-16T15:51:33.557" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18195" PostId="8897" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I hope the two answers you've got were useful. Please accept an answer that seems to settle the problem best for you. If you haven't gotten what you wanted, please edit your question to specify what converting a name to Latin actually means to you; there are several ways to interpret the task." CreationDate="2019-01-17T04:02:50.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18192" PostId="8898" Score="0" Text="Given how short `/a/` often fronts in Arabic, perhaps the personal name might end up as *Umer, Umerī/Umeris*? (Or, a bit facetiously, *Undris*?)" CreationDate="2019-01-16T17:11:40.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18188" PostId="8899" Score="0" Text="Of course, if we really want it “the way a Roman might have written it” then we should not use New Persian jahān-gīr, but Early Middle Persian *gēhān-gīr, and transcribe the first sound as g-. The three Arabic names might have existed in much the same form in Ancient North Arabian, even if they are not as yet attested as such, though I really do not know what our Roman would have made of the final sound in Ḥāfiẓ (a voiced emphatic interdental)." CreationDate="2019-01-16T16:41:05.593" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18189" PostId="8899" Score="0" Text="@fdb Draconis, I would be more precise in the answer (and also more helpful for other users) by specifying that by &quot;a Roman&quot; you actually mean Classical Latin. This could also allow for others to contribute with e.g. Late Latin." CreationDate="2019-01-16T16:57:05.970" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18190" PostId="8899" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Fair; how's this?" CreationDate="2019-01-16T17:01:47.623" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18191" PostId="8899" Score="0" Text="@fdb That's entirely fair, though I don't know enough about Arabic history to trace those words back. My gut feeling is that they would consider ẓ and z the same, based on how modern Arabic-English and classical Hebrew-Koine transcriptions tended to go." CreationDate="2019-01-16T17:03:44.977" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18200" PostId="8908" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! This question is interesting, but might be hard to answer. How many words are there in English and how was that number obtained?" CreationDate="2019-01-17T23:18:09.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18201" PostId="8908" Score="0" Text="Well, I found an approximation.&#xA;https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language/&#xA;&quot;171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words&quot;.&#xA;However, that is for the English language, not Latin." CreationDate="2019-01-17T23:49:59.827" UserId="3280" />
  <row Id="18202" PostId="8908" Score="0" Text="One of my Latin Dictionaries has 1206 pages (plus extra pages for names). Each page has about 25 words listed. Does that come to 30150 words?" CreationDate="2019-01-18T01:06:57.267" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18205" PostId="8908" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Perhaps from some count of a Latin corpus somewhere?" CreationDate="2019-01-18T12:27:51.560" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18204" PostId="8910" Score="1" Text="I'm pretty sure this is a reference to Gen 22:8 and the sacrifice of Isaac." CreationDate="2019-01-18T05:29:38.350" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39775" PostId="8910" Score="1" Text="I agree with Joonas, as providebit is the third-person singular future active indicative of prōvideō" CreationDate="2022-10-02T11:16:09.380" UserId="11611" />
  <row Id="18206" PostId="8911" Score="5" Text="Do you think we should count different forms of the same verb as separate words? That has a huge effect on the estimate." CreationDate="2019-01-18T18:35:35.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18207" PostId="8911" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oh, that's a good question. I was by default assuming so. But on a second thought, you might be capturing properties of the language which might not, in a sense, be a &quot;true&quot; measure of the richness of its corpus. Probably both are useful information, and ultimately it depends on the use the OP wants to give to it." CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:07:03.817" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18209" PostId="8912" Score="2" Text="Writing dates has been addressed at quite some length [in this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79). Would it make sense to restrict this question to just times within a day?" CreationDate="2019-01-18T20:21:57.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18214" PostId="8912" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta But does it address the issue of hours of the day? It seems not. An answer to the O'clock bit is [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/639/how-to-express-a-time-exactly-on-the-hour/4644#4644)." CreationDate="2019-01-19T11:21:52.380" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18218" PostId="8912" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Indeed, times exactly on the hour are there, but other times are not. The original version of this question included dates, but they were removed in an edit. This question is now very good, and I look forward to seeing answers." CreationDate="2019-01-19T17:42:43.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18221" PostId="8912" Score="0" Text="Yes, I have edited the question. It used to include days in respect to years, not hours in respect to days." CreationDate="2019-01-19T21:50:40.343" UserId="3280" />
  <row Id="18215" PostId="8913" Score="2" Text="Both words have the same origin, the past participle of the verb *benedico* (itself constructed from the supine theme of the verb). I am a bit at a loss about what are you asking here, it seems like you aren't aware of this (very important) verb form." CreationDate="2019-01-19T12:22:11.633" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="18273" PostId="8914" Score="0" Text="Yes, this definitely seems like the good old substantive." CreationDate="2019-01-22T16:00:53.320" UserId="3257" />
  <row Id="18216" PostId="8915" Score="0" Text="Related https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8856/39" CreationDate="2019-01-19T17:14:31.717" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18219" PostId="8915" Score="0" Text="Stotz 1998 (v.4, §24.1-24.2) explains it very clearly: &quot;Zu dem Poss'pron. *meus* lautet die Voc.-Form *mi*, doch wird hier seit alters (Plautus) auch *meus* gebraucht, und zwar nicht nur in Verbindung mit einer subst. Anrede auf -*us* (vgl. oben *deus meus*), sondern auch in Formeln wie *domine meus* (vgl. *popule meus*, § 24.1). Mitunter mögen rhythmische bzw. metrische Gründe einwirken. So verwender Hrotsvit meist *mi*, läßt jedoch einen Hexameter beginnen mit: *accipe, care meus*.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-01-19T18:02:08.187" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18220" PostId="8915" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. That would make a good answer!" CreationDate="2019-01-19T18:55:11.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18222" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="&quot;which are pretty much beyond controversy&quot; - &quot;In classical Latin, there is no attested vocative form of deus. That is, dee does not exist&quot; - I wouldn't put it that strongly. See, for example, Rauk, John. &quot;The Vocative of Deus and Its Problems.&quot; Classical Philology 92, no. 2 (1997): 138-49." CreationDate="2019-01-19T23:10:56.163" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18223" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="There is no textually secure attestation. Both his examples, as he himself goes on to say, exist in passages of dubious authenticity. Given how common a word &quot;deus&quot; is, it's practically impossible that a vocative form existed of which we have no attestation." CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:00:55.567" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18224" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="&quot;In the end it is necessary to recognize that for all the armament of scholarship that can be brought to bear upon it, **the vocative of deus is a question that must be left open**. All that we can do is say what the vocative of deus might have been. We cannot say what it was&quot;  [emphasis mine - Alex B.]." CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:07:21.467" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18225" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="&quot;Given how common a word &quot;deus&quot; is, it's practically impossible that a vocative form existed of which we have no attestation&quot; - that is a fallacious argument. Just because a word is frequently used (in some case form) does not mean its vocative form must be frequent too." CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:10:31.210" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18226" PostId="8917" Score="1" Text="That's not a contradiction of what I said. I said there is no attested vocative form, which is true if you don't include the dubious text from Scribonius. The passage in the Carmina doesn't have an adjective, so there's no way to distinguish whether it's a true vocative or nominative for vocative. Rauk is saying that in the absence of attestation, it should be an open question. I said that there is an absence of attestation." CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:16:38.707" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18227" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="Dickey goes into the rest of this. You should read her. We have plenty of attestations of dea as a vocative, and male gods are addressed more often than female gods. Therefore, we should expect more vocative forms of deus than dea, but we have none. This same pattern holds for adjectives ending in -eus, so it seems clear that there's a conscious choice to avoid such words." CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:19:17.417" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18228" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="Which paper by Dickey do you refer to, Dickey 2000? She does say that the masculine singular vocative of deus is avoided for phonological and stylistic reasons (Dickey 2002). I've read her book, among many other things written by her - she's one of my favorite scholars, actually. :)" CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:37:19.707" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18229" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="Just wanted to make it clear. It's not that I disagree with you - quite the opposite, actually. I was responding to the &quot;beyond controversy&quot; part, that's all." CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:41:42.337" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18230" PostId="8917" Score="1" Text="Thanks. I'll edit my answer to put in a caveat. Yes, my reading of Dickey 2000 (and she repeats this in her 2002 book) is that the Latin authors avoided the singular vocative of deus to the point that we can't know whether one even existed." CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:44:30.573" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18231" PostId="8917" Score="0" Text="Perhaps your no. 3 explains the nominative of [_agnus Dei_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4904/why-not-agne-dei/4906#4906) in _Gloria in excelsis_, if the three titles are considered together: _Domine Deus, agnus Dei, Filius Patris_" CreationDate="2019-01-20T11:56:57.660" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18232" PostId="8917" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I can see a connection. Sometimes, after an initial vocative, nouns in apposition take the nominative. If Deus was regarded as a nominative, perhaps there was a desire to keep using nominatives from that point on. Certainly we need some reason why the same texts uses both fili and filius." CreationDate="2019-01-20T12:27:49.160" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18236" PostId="8923" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you know if it is copyrighted material? In that case we unfortunately could not help, I'm afraid." CreationDate="2019-01-21T17:13:40.117" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="33923" PostId="8925" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, the same development seems to have happened with *equus* → *caballus*. I believe this can be seen in the Vindolanda tablets, if my memory serves me correct." CreationDate="2021-06-30T13:49:04.873" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="23235" PostId="8927" Score="0" Text="`In Romanian they're called Rromani or Rroma...` - that is not accurate. The correct Romanian forms are &quot;rom/romi&quot; (Roma person, singular/plural), &quot;rom/romă&quot; (adjective, masculine/feminine; rarely, academic: &quot;romani&quot; ), hard to confuse them with *Romanian* (noun: român, româncă, adjective: român, română). But the English form *Romani* is closer to Romanian name of the country (România) and that has created a rather dubious (nationalistic) trend of double-r forms being *tolerated* in print in non-academic context. But that trend is marginal, as double-r is unheard of in Romanian." CreationDate="2019-11-14T09:44:43.887" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="18241" PostId="8928" Score="0" Text="The use of _Zingari_ is not sourced by la.wp. But _Cingari_ is said to be in a dictionary of medieval Latin" CreationDate="2019-01-22T17:22:47.470" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18242" PostId="8929" Score="1" Text="Is that considered not offensive? I have no experience with this myself, but comparing to the list above *Zingarus* would seem to come from *athinganus*, which is why I'd held off on it." CreationDate="2019-01-22T17:32:50.740" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18243" PostId="8929" Score="1" Text="@Draconis  I'm baffled. Which bit do you think might be offensive, and how?" CreationDate="2019-01-22T18:03:12.723" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18244" PostId="8929" Score="1" Text="I was considering *zingarus* potentially offensive because of its source. But it sounds like it's sufficiently detached from the source that it's considered neutral now." CreationDate="2019-01-22T18:25:27.067" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18246" PostId="8929" Score="1" Text="@Draconis  As far as I know, the single, possibly offensive use of 'untouchable' is when it refers to the lowest Hindu caste (in Hindi the *harijan* championed by Mahatma Gandhi) or anyone not a Hindu, but it requires a deal of imagination to make it so." CreationDate="2019-01-22T19:27:10.377" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18248" PostId="8930" Score="1" Text="I think that is right. Feles refers to cats as well as to ferrets and other weasels. A catus is one particular kind of feles, namely, the type of feles which we today call a cat." CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:43:42.843" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="18251" PostId="8930" Score="2" Text="Not sure if I understand you correctly. In your opinion, what word was used in classical Latin for a domesticated cat? Or are you saying there were no domesticated cats back then at all?" CreationDate="2019-01-23T04:25:39.720" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18252" PostId="8930" Score="1" Text="The *domesticated cat* was *cattus*, the word was imported to Rome with the animal itself. Both arrived surprisingly late there, *catta* (the feminine) is found first in Martial: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=catta&amp;la=la#lexicon" CreationDate="2019-01-23T09:48:18.230" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="18258" PostId="8930" Score="1" Text="LS says &quot;an unknown species of animal&quot;, and in my copy of Martial (Loeb, translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey), cattae (13.69) is translated as &quot;Catta **birds**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.]." CreationDate="2019-01-23T20:40:42.643" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35953" PostId="8930" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. But it was glossed as an αἴλουρος in (what I assume is) a glossary to P. Vegetius' veterinary work. I'm unfamiliar with this P. Vegetius or this glossary, but if it is ancient enough, that's strong evidence for it. I think that is coupled with the fact that everything from German to Arabic borrowed the word to mean 'domesticated cat.'" CreationDate="2021-11-23T19:42:22.613" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18249" PostId="8933" Score="2" Text="You should definitely read this: R. Feldmeier, “Almighty παντοκράτωρ”, in: Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Online, Edited by: Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst. &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7802_DDDO_DDDO_Almighty&gt;" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:55:18.053" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18253" PostId="8934" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8912/telling-time-in-latin" CreationDate="2019-01-23T11:37:31.253" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18254" PostId="8935" Score="0" Text="so would your suggestion be that in classical Latin, mediam diem appeared as part of phrases like ad mediam diem, and only in later Latin became lexicalized and conflated in meaning to meridiem?" CreationDate="2019-01-23T15:46:24.830" UserId="3314" />
  <row Id="18255" PostId="8935" Score="0" Text="@Colin  I can't really speak about later Latin, but _meridies_ is certainly classical, and supposedly is conflated from _merus_ (pure) rather than _medius/-a_ and _dies_." CreationDate="2019-01-23T16:54:44.167" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18257" PostId="8935" Score="1" Text="I think meridies is a dissimilation of medidies (at least that's what wiktionary says)." CreationDate="2019-01-23T18:38:12.823" UserId="3314" />
  <row Id="18259" PostId="8935" Score="0" Text="It's just one of those instances where it would be nice to know the derivation, but in which we can't ever be certain." CreationDate="2019-01-24T06:46:27.233" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18261" PostId="8935" Score="2" Text="tempus is neuter." CreationDate="2019-01-24T12:47:07.927" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18262" PostId="8935" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton wiktionary seems to imply &quot;medidies&quot; is an attested form. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medidies . The etymology from pure + day has the hallmark of a folk etymology." CreationDate="2019-01-24T16:10:58.683" UserId="3314" />
  <row Id="18263" PostId="8935" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton. Wkipedia is a treasure house of nonsense. Here is gives a cross reference to L/S, which in turn refers to &quot;meridies&quot;, which in turn says that this is &quot;for medidies from medius-dies&quot;, in other words an etymology. The reference to Gauthiot is even more elusive." CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:04:14.023" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18264" PostId="8935" Score="0" Text="@fdb It's neuter now — thanks! I'm quite satisfied with the etymology in L/S, but I'm quite relaxed about it and don't find it necessary to know for sure." CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:09:07.777" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18265" PostId="8935" Score="1" Text="@Colin Yes, I agree that a derivation from _merus_ is probably nonsense (I did say _supposedly_!)." CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:12:11.427" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18260" PostId="8936" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Just to make a better-tailored answer, are you familiar with declensions?" CreationDate="2019-01-24T12:32:39.213" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18266" PostId="8942" Score="3" Text="You could also search for forms with *faciund-*. Combined, there are quite a few results, although, as you implied, quite a few will be gerunds rather than gerundives. https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23faciend+%7C+%23faciund" CreationDate="2019-01-24T18:30:18.050" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18268" PostId="8943" Score="0" Text="Just from &quot;reverse derivation&quot;, I guess there is something like **insipiens, insipidus** to mean without flavor. No time for a dictionary right now" CreationDate="2019-01-24T23:18:44.327" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18267" PostId="8945" Score="0" Text="+1 despite my losing the race to answer the question. :) Isn't the choice between t and s the same in the agent noun as in the perfect participle, at least mostly?" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:44:09.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18269" PostId="8945" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good question! I hadn't thought of it that way, but it sounds like you're correct—let me think for a moment and see if I can come up with any counter-examples." CreationDate="2019-01-25T00:10:06.807" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18270" PostId="8945" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm convinced you're right now! Edited my answer to reflect that. Even if there are some rare exceptions, that's a much more useful way for a learner to think of it." CreationDate="2019-01-25T00:17:02.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18271" PostId="8945" Score="0" Text="Just to be sure, I asked [a follow-up question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8947/79). I'm not aware of any counterexamples, but I don't know how universal it really is." CreationDate="2019-01-25T06:12:21.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18353" PostId="8946" Score="1" Text="Thanks!  Good to know this rule of thumb, I will keep it in mind." CreationDate="2019-01-31T20:43:59.917" UserId="3320" />
  <row Id="18272" PostId="8947" Score="0" Text="Maybe related to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8913/1459)?" CreationDate="2019-01-25T11:43:46.230" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18276" PostId="8954" Score="6" Text="I had the impression that this was more of an after-the-fact explanation, not the original reason for this word order" CreationDate="2019-01-25T23:21:34.530" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18277" PostId="8954" Score="0" Text="I'm sure this is a rationalisation. See my answer." CreationDate="2019-01-26T00:16:14.410" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18280" PostId="8954" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Quite possibly so. I expanded my answer to elaborate on my position." CreationDate="2019-01-26T12:19:43.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18279" PostId="8956" Score="2" Text="I recomend just perusing the relevant parts of this resource list: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voCJtIGDouGt80TxpNlmaRChfIX5OmUf-2jMWmImNMg/edit" CreationDate="2019-01-26T04:20:20.747" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18281" PostId="8956" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorey that is an extraordinary recourse. I would actually suggest making it into an answer." CreationDate="2019-01-26T13:30:40.940" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="18283" PostId="8956" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey: I joined this stack to upvote your comment. I heartily second Yadeses' suggestion and now need to work through that document." CreationDate="2019-01-27T05:58:05.080" UserId="3330" />
  <row Id="18286" PostId="8956" Score="0" Text="This is my ignorance of Latin curriculum speaking, but what do you do for *six* years without building up a substantial vocabulary? Are you reading translations of Latin texts for most of it?" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:59:34.997" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="18287" PostId="8956" Score="0" Text="Well, my vocab is not non existent: between 1000 - 1500 words probably, but it still is insufficient to read most texts as a lot of other unknown words occur quite often. It also had been 8 months since finishing my highschool, so maybe more has slipped than I thought, but I mainly notice a lot of specialized vocabulary occuring especially a lot of strange verbs. Furthermore, the curriculum did consist of learning vocabulary the first 3 years, but after that we got a dictionary which caused a lot of laziness in the vocabulary memorization department. @chepner" CreationDate="2019-01-27T17:58:41.113" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="18288" PostId="8956" Score="0" Text="@chepner History&amp;Culture play a large part, as well as more of a significant focus on grammar over vocabulary is typical for most Latin programs.  Also, assuming OP is a native english speaker, most latin courses tend to have a focus of understanding english roots/grammar via latin.  After all, unlike modern languages (e.g. French), conversational knowledge of latin won't get you far in very many places." CreationDate="2019-01-27T23:39:34.390" UserId="3333" />
  <row Id="18289" PostId="8956" Score="0" Text="@StackTracer Not a native English speaker. Our curriculum mainly focused on translation to Dutch. That was actually all we did. But without treating the material as a language, but more like a puzzle, where you tried to find the best representation of Latin in Dutch. Which teaches a lot of grammar and other useful analytical skills regarding text structure, but it is no good if you want to read the the actual texts. All other things you mentioned were more of an afterthought which would be discussed on a superficial level when they were the topic of a text." CreationDate="2019-01-27T23:55:10.117" UserId="61" />
  <row Id="18274" PostId="8959" Score="4" Text="Though, if you're going from the Vulgate, beware of strange stylistic choices made because &quot;that's how the Greek/Hebrew did it&quot;" CreationDate="2019-01-25T19:41:10.617" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18275" PostId="8959" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: yes, that's quite true and worth noting." CreationDate="2019-01-25T19:54:26.077" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18284" PostId="8959" Score="0" Text="In general, reading/learning from a text you are already familiar with (in your language) is quite a good option to learn a new language. Many in the West are familiar with at least some pages of the Gospels, do the Vulgate tends to be a good option." CreationDate="2019-01-27T14:18:45.607" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18278" PostId="8963" Score="1" Text="Very interesting! But in English you also see _therein_, _thereby_, etc, and German _dafür_ and so on. This seems different, because it happens only with _cum_, not with other prepositions." CreationDate="2019-01-26T00:20:32.233" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18282" PostId="8963" Score="0" Text="Also Welsh and Irish pronouns form sometimes opaque compounds with prepositions, eg W _gan fi_ -&gt; _gennyf_ (&quot;with me&quot;). But again, that is not restricted to &quot;with&quot;. I haven't an answer to &quot;why only _cum_&quot;. But &quot;Why&quot; questions about language hardly ever have substantive answers." CreationDate="2019-01-26T14:10:59.103" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18285" PostId="8969" Score="1" Text="Can you list at least some of the key resources here? If the linked page is edited or deleted, this answer loses much value. The key information should always be contained in the answer itself if reasonably possible." CreationDate="2019-01-27T15:00:21.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18291" PostId="8971" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Nice question!" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:48:41.233" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18308" PostId="8971" Score="1" Text="I suppose I should add that I feel reluctance to use exspecto because people will associate it with things - both English &quot;expect&quot;, which carries different connotations, and the awful mock Latin of spells in Harry Potter." CreationDate="2019-01-29T13:33:05.330" UserId="3331" />
  <row Id="18309" PostId="8971" Score="0" Text="Hahaha, I thought the same" CreationDate="2019-01-29T14:05:41.907" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18293" PostId="8974" Score="0" Text="I don't know Latin either. I got this from translate.google.com: &quot;I came, I attended, I left -&gt; Veni adtendi reliqui&quot;. Translated back is interesting: &quot;Veni adtendi reliqui -&gt; I came so look survivors&quot;.   With commas, makes even less sense: &quot;Veni, adtendi, reliqui -&gt; I came, I set my mind on, the rest of the&quot;.  Guess the tool needs some work!" CreationDate="2019-01-28T14:23:55.280" UserId="3339" />
  <row Id="18300" PostId="8974" Score="2" Text="@CrossRoads I think it doesn't just need work, it needs a complete restructuring. [This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) investigates the failure of Google Translate with Latin in some depth." CreationDate="2019-01-28T19:16:44.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18292" PostId="8975" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your quick answer! @Tom Cotton" CreationDate="2019-01-28T13:52:25.713" UserId="3338" />
  <row Id="18297" PostId="8975" Score="0" Text="Somehow imperfect _aderam_ seems preferable to perfect _adfui_." CreationDate="2019-01-28T17:20:14.653" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18298" PostId="8975" Score="2" Text="@Colin Fine  Why? All three actions are complete, _i.e._ perfected, and in the past. Why single out adfui? Would Caesar have written _veni, videram, vici_?" CreationDate="2019-01-28T17:22:53.473" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18299" PostId="8975" Score="0" Text="The semantics are different. _venio_ and _vinco_ are punctual, or at least telic. _video_ could be punctual or extended. _adsum_ (in contradistinction to _adeo_) is stative. But I accept that it loses the parallelism." CreationDate="2019-01-28T17:46:05.233" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18294" PostId="8976" Score="0" Text="&quot;*veni* means *I am*&quot; I think you meant &quot;*I came*.&quot; (I tried to edit the post but the fix was under the minimum number of characters. :-p )" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:00:19.417" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="18295" PostId="8976" Score="0" Text="@LarsH Yep. For your entertainment, I edited in such a way that you _could've_ done without hitting the minimum character limit. ;)" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:13:20.350" UserId="3341" />
  <row Id="18296" PostId="8976" Score="0" Text="Good. I don't like adding unnecessary changes to someone else's post in order satisfy that rule." CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:23:54.077" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="18306" PostId="8977" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer! I took the liberty to add a link to another question where Google Translate is explored more. Can you explain why you would choose pluperfect? It is a possibility, but it would be nice to have an explanation of the change in meaning." CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:37:39.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18301" PostId="8978" Score="0" Text="I faintly recall that an enclitic would shift the stress to the syllable preceding it, leading to *carminéque* and the like. Unfortunately I don't have access to my books now. Perhaps you could add this in as a third option?" CreationDate="2019-01-28T20:32:13.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18302" PostId="8978" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta -que does move the accent to the last syllable, but as far as I know, it is an exception" CreationDate="2019-01-28T23:47:52.237" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18303" PostId="8978" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That could be an explanation honestly! If it's treated as part of the word, then *=qve* would make the penult heavy, and thus draw the stress to it." CreationDate="2019-01-29T02:42:34.160" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18304" PostId="8978" Score="2" Text="Penult enclitic -que, -ne, -ue. e.g. Musaque, uidesne, facisue. cf. itaque vs. itaque." CreationDate="2019-01-29T03:22:03.437" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18310" PostId="8980" Score="1" Text="That first part sounds very Senecan to me, in case that helps anyone in their search." CreationDate="2019-01-29T16:21:48.903" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18312" PostId="8980" Score="1" Text="Here's half an answer (from Montaigne): For this reason it was that Caesar,&#xA;being asked what death he thought to be the most desired, made answer,&#xA;&quot;The least premeditated and the shortest.&quot;—[Tacitus, Annals, xvi. 15]—" CreationDate="2019-01-29T17:10:33.137" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18315" PostId="8980" Score="1" Text="Montaigne (or the editors) have got the Tacitus ref. wrong." CreationDate="2019-01-29T19:41:34.287" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18316" PostId="8980" Score="0" Text="Is it a commentary on Socrates?" CreationDate="2019-01-29T19:44:31.013" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18317" PostId="8985" Score="0" Text="Thank you, Joonas! That actually makes a lot of sense. In full disclosure, I just parroted it with 'frequenter' (with a tiny nagging in my mind), because of the doubt outlined above. A friendly acquaintance challenged me on it, and I'm glad she did!" CreationDate="2019-01-30T07:58:49.197" UserId="3349" />
  <row Id="18318" PostId="8985" Score="1" Text="@user I'm glad to be able to help! It's always good to have acquaintances who challenge your ideas and do so in a friendly way. If you happen to have more questions on Latin, I hope you will consider asking them on our little site." CreationDate="2019-01-30T08:54:46.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18321" PostId="8985" Score="2" Text="As a brief addendum: the phrase was not &quot;often said&quot; by Aquinas, as the cited blog post claims. It seems that it was coined anonymously well after as a generic maxim for scholastic practice." CreationDate="2019-01-30T13:14:00.783" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18322" PostId="8985" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thank you! That was going to be my next question (although I wasn’t sure where to ask). I have seen this attributed to Aquinas  many times by people of whom one would expect accurate information on such matters. A quick question: did the maxim admonish “seldom deny” or “frequentely deny”? Researching this, I have now seen both forms. Thank you!" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:03:13.620" UserId="3349" />
  <row Id="18323" PostId="8985" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta I will for sure. As time allows, I plan to get the rust off my Latin so I’ll be a visitor in the future! Thank you." CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:09:59.293" UserId="3349" />
  <row Id="18324" PostId="8985" Score="1" Text="@user You can always ask that as a separate question, too. Figuring out the origin of a phrase is well worth a question. Separate questions make the information easier to find." CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:10:25.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18374" PostId="8986" Score="1" Text="You may want to check if the name is available for a registered company https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company-name-availability in the UK, and also if a suitable domain name is available." CreationDate="2019-01-30T11:22:55.373" UserId="3351" />
  <row Id="18319" PostId="8987" Score="1" Text="This is perfect. Thanks a lot for your insights!" CreationDate="2019-01-30T10:05:55.473" UserId="3350" />
  <row Id="18320" PostId="8987" Score="3" Text="About non-Latin aspects: As someone who stumbled in here from the side-bar, my initial understanding of &quot;Scius&quot; was &quot;Sci-US&quot;, as in &quot;Science, USA&quot;. Your company is about Computer Science, so if USA is your primary area of operation, then I'd say you're all set." CreationDate="2019-01-30T12:16:11.487" UserId="3352" />
  <row Id="18373" PostId="8987" Score="1" Text="@Fax: That's interesting. I suspect people from other countries would not have thought of that? I certainly wouldn't. There are like a million words from Latin ending on *-us*, and which are widely used in all European languages including English, so..." CreationDate="2019-02-02T14:14:11.723" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18409" PostId="8987" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus It may be because you're a Latin scholar and I'm not, but I would suspect a company name to be an abbreviation before suspecting it to be an unknown Latin word. That European languages have appropriated so much Latin just makes it harder to recognize anything as distinctly Latin. Also, I'm from Norway." CreationDate="2019-02-06T14:49:27.140" UserId="3352" />
  <row Id="18417" PostId="8987" Score="0" Text="@Fax: Then it surprises me even more!" CreationDate="2019-02-06T22:25:12.197" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18329" PostId="8990" Score="0" Text="_Pellicula de libro derivata_ sounds just right to me." CreationDate="2019-01-30T17:21:11.293" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18325" PostId="8992" Score="0" Text="What do you mean by &quot;the writer puts Demosthenes, the soldiers &amp; Nicias as three elements&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:30:16.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18326" PostId="8993" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I like both suggestions. There is a difference between &quot;according to&quot; and &quot;based on&quot;. To me *secundum* sounds more like the former, but I would not be surprised to see it as the latter either. Concerning L&amp;S, do you mean [II.B.1 of the entry for *secundum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=secundum&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) or something else?" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:39:50.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18327" PostId="8993" Score="0" Text="Yes, that would be the one. But I never knew about L&amp;S before I saw this forum, having been taught Latin in the Netherlands." CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:50:27.823" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="18328" PostId="8993" Score="0" Text="I wasn't familiar with L&amp;S either before I joined. I learned my Latin in Finland using Finnish sources. I took the liberty to edit your answer a bit to include details for the support found in L&amp;S – feel free to re-edit! And thanks again for the answer; I was previously unaware of this use of *secundum*." CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:54:23.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18335" PostId="8993" Score="0" Text="I don't believe either of these quite fit, though they aren't too far off. The issue here is that &quot;based on&quot; refers primarily to the content of the piece. *Modo* refers to qualitative similarity rather than similarity of content. *Secundum* with an author does mean &quot;based on&quot; but is restricted to contexts that imply a choice between various versions." CreationDate="2019-01-31T11:43:49.380" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18332" PostId="8994" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: so the conclusion is &quot;it-seemed-that-he&quot; is equivalent to &quot;he-said-that-he&quot; generating indirect-speech &quot;exspectasse&quot;?  Thank you." CreationDate="2019-01-31T11:05:02.367" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="18333" PostId="8994" Score="0" Text="@tony I guess you can phrase it that way. The difference between those two is that &quot;he-said-that-he&quot; requires accusative (*acc. cum inf.*) whereas &quot;it-seemed-that-he&quot; requires nominative (*nom. cum inf.*). The infinitive *expecta(vi)sse* is the same." CreationDate="2019-01-31T11:14:14.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18331" PostId="8995" Score="0" Text="No time to write an answer at the moment but I believe ἤ corresponds to *aut*, while *vel* is expressed by εἴτε." CreationDate="2019-01-31T03:40:40.290" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18361" PostId="8997" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Janet! It seems that you have created two user accounts. See [this page](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts) for information about merging them. When you have your question assigned to a registered account, you will be able to comment on answers and otherwise use the site more flexibly. I converted your answer into a comment to Tom's answer." CreationDate="2019-02-01T06:44:15.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35922" PostId="8998" Score="0" Text="Hi, M. C. If this answer is now solved, don't forget to click the check to mark it so. Let me know if you have any questions." CreationDate="2021-11-22T17:12:37.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18330" PostId="8999" Score="1" Text="Also, it seems that no short vowel makes a word on its own." CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:25:36.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18334" PostId="9004" Score="0" Text="The word _occidere_ in fact reminds me of Italian _uccidere_ 'to kill', and _ucciso_ 'killed'. I understand that the development of _citione_ here is just a theory but there are no proofs that such a word existed. Thanks for your answer!" CreationDate="2019-01-31T11:25:46.890" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="18336" PostId="9006" Score="3" Text="Nice finding! It's worth underscoring what you already said implicitly, that 1) the infinitive matches that in the quoted passage and 2) _citio_ would be a regular construction from that verb" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:07:44.677" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18376" PostId="9006" Score="0" Text="@Rafael. &quot;Would be&quot; is not a good answer to &quot;does it exist&quot;." CreationDate="2019-02-02T21:34:48.377" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18379" PostId="9006" Score="2" Text="@fdb  Let's not tie ourselves up in knots over this, but I would say that Rafael's conditional is good form, introducing as it does a satisfying element of doubt in a place where where have no certain authority." CreationDate="2019-02-03T07:31:57.963" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18337" PostId="9007" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Could you give more context? I mean, enough is usually an adverb that needs to modify an action or a quality (i.e., verb or adjective). It seems to me that you want to imply something (e.g., I'm good enough as a person) rather than enough actually modifying to be (which normally doesn't admit degrees)" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:35:33.623" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18338" PostId="9007" Score="0" Text="HI! Thanks for the welcome. Yes, looking to imply something like your example, &quot;good enough as a person&quot;. I have tried looking online and there is just many different answers as to what it can actually be. I am not even sure if &quot;I am enough&quot; can be directly translated into Latin.&#xA;&#xA;Any help will be greatly appreciated :)" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:45:22.383" UserId="3361" />
  <row Id="18340" PostId="9007" Score="1" Text="I took the liberty to edit your question a bit. Feel free to make further edits or undo mine!" CreationDate="2019-01-31T13:55:14.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18359" PostId="9007" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta - thank you for the edit! much appreciated :)" CreationDate="2019-02-01T04:39:24.310" UserId="3361" />
  <row Id="18339" PostId="9008" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity: why do you put &quot;vitam...explicandam&quot; in the accusative?" CreationDate="2019-01-31T13:40:05.950" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18341" PostId="9008" Score="0" Text="Object of _petimus_. If you like, 'We seek a life not explainable except with a second person'." CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:02:21.867" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18360" PostId="9008" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much, Tom. What do you think about the following: “fatum verus amor noster. non inveniet vitam ipsi significatione- invenimus eam in alium”&#xA;or “amor est nostra sorte. non invenimus in vitae sensum per nos- invenimus eam cum alia.”" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:23:50.460" UserId="3365" />
  <row Id="18362" PostId="9008" Score="1" Text="@Janet F  I am trying to think of a suitably delicate way to put it, but I had better be blunt and simply say that they are full of error — and rather long for an epitaph. One basic thing I will point out, though : that _caritas_ is the better word for 'love' in this case, lacking as it does the sexual connotations that usually attach to _amor_ —  this on the authority of Cicero, no less, at _de Part. Ora._ 88." CreationDate="2019-02-01T10:21:48.320" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18365" PostId="9008" Score="0" Text="thank you once again, tom. no need to be delicate; both of those came from google translators. i like your translation a lot. i just have one more query as my deadline is today. would you be kind enough to comment on this:&#xA;Amor vera fortuna nostra est. Significationem vitae non solum invenimus. Invenimus eam cum alio&quot;" CreationDate="2019-02-01T14:15:00.620" UserId="3365" />
  <row Id="18366" PostId="9008" Score="0" Text="It might just about serve as a literal translation, but if it isn't good Latin, it's at least  far better than the Google. To explain would be a lengthy job — for instance, you have to know idioms of possession and interest, when and which pronouns/adjectives, etc. to use and so on — and whether or not to use them. As in other languages, nuance can be disguised, rather as 'false friend' translations can occur. The 'looseness' of word order in Latin can often lead to ambiguity and, indeed, to pleonasm. Don't be overwhelmed by this : it takes years of reading to form good habits of composition!" CreationDate="2019-02-01T15:43:16.237" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18367" PostId="9008" Score="0" Text="your explanation sounds a lot like what my father might have said. he translated the scriptures from latin and ancient greek into english and was fastidious about meaning and nuance. that’s settled: i’m going with your translation, tom. thanks so much for all your help. it’s so kind of you." CreationDate="2019-02-01T16:45:00.950" UserId="3365" />
  <row Id="18344" PostId="9009" Score="0" Text="I suppose the Italian translation would be &quot;avanti Varsovia&quot;, so maybe the Latin version is something similar?" CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:43:20.823" UserId="3362" />
  <row Id="18348" PostId="9010" Score="0" Text="@Matt I'm glad to be able to help! I look forward to seeing more questions from you. If you have found the answer you're looking for, you can mark it as &quot;accepted&quot; by clicking the check mark next to it. But there's no hurry. After you get a little more reputation points, you'll be able to vote up all questions and answers you like." CreationDate="2019-01-31T15:24:05.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18349" PostId="9011" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice answer! Note that in Latin you can omit the verb _to be_, so __ego satis__ isn't wrong from that point of view" CreationDate="2019-01-31T16:25:35.760" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18350" PostId="9011" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I would say even more: Omitting the *sum* sounds more idiomatic than leaving it in when it comes to a motto. But that's just a minor detail; this is a very nice answer." CreationDate="2019-01-31T16:33:05.993" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18351" PostId="9012" Score="1" Text="The usual word for &quot;not enough&quot; is *parum*, but *insatis* is certainly understandable. There's also the attested word *insatietas*, but it's a noun." CreationDate="2019-01-31T18:36:40.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18354" PostId="9012" Score="0" Text="Good to know, thank you. Though I still like the symmetry of the neologism." CreationDate="2019-01-31T20:53:21.843" UserId="3331" />
  <row Id="18352" PostId="9013" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! To answer your question, one extra detail would help, because how _ae_ is pronounced depends: no one knows _exactly_ how Romans pronounced Latin, but currently there are two widely accepted conventions: one based in the best reconstruction so far of how they probably pronounced (in which case the answer is pretty much yes), and one that enjoys official (-ish?) status in the Catholic Church (in that case the answer differs)." CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:33:54.387" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="27291" PostId="9014" Score="1" Text="However, the Wikipedia article Artem linked does not reconstruct /ai/ but /ae/ for *Classical* Latin. It does mention /ai/ but for Old Latin. Can you comment on that? Your answer skips the way between the two extremes and there probably had to be some transition. Also, the orthography hints something." CreationDate="2020-07-21T15:14:55.317" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="18357" PostId="9015" Score="0" Text="I doubt dictators would figure in the year labels much, simply because they were generally in position for less than a year - while the cycle of consular elections was (mostly) nice and regular." CreationDate="2019-01-31T22:57:12.103" UserId="3331" />
  <row Id="18370" PostId="9020" Score="1" Text="How about .i. .v. .x. etc pronounced *unus -a -um; quinque, decem.* And i◦  v◦  x◦ *primo, quinto, decimo.*  Another category which might deserve inclusion are Caius *G* Lucius *L* and Marcus *M.*" CreationDate="2019-02-02T01:59:59.600" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18371" PostId="9020" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Hmm... I would consider those to be abbreviations. If I understood correctly, the question was about words that sound like the names of the letters. Abbreviations seem to be pretty far from the examples given in the question." CreationDate="2019-02-02T06:48:24.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33445" PostId="9020" Score="1" Text="From Plautus: [*Há ha hae.*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/119/16/12/3096-3100,3100-3103@1#12)" CreationDate="2021-05-29T21:36:14.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33446" PostId="9020" Score="0" Text="@cmw Good find! I moved it to the other category." CreationDate="2021-05-29T21:52:07.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33447" PostId="9020" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I should have been clearer, though. So [Lewis and Short](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dhahae!) print it as one word, though *hahae* is also attested. Also, it's short, and if that post is accurate then the word for H has a long A, so not quite a match. I'd keep it in the &quot;close but no cigar&quot; category, but replace the part about the silent H with the above info." CreationDate="2021-05-29T22:08:17.117" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33477" PostId="9020" Score="0" Text="@cmw I should have read more carefully.I updated again, moving it to the second category. It is an interesting addition to the list!" CreationDate="2021-05-30T18:40:38.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18406" PostId="9023" Score="2" Text="Since &quot;dō, dare&quot; has a short vowel in its stem (unlike normal 1st conjugation), I though it might be an exception, but I confirmed its imperative is &quot;dā&quot;, not &quot;da&quot;. Thus the rule you presented seems universal." CreationDate="2019-02-06T09:29:03.673" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="18375" PostId="9027" Score="1" Text="It seems that you have created two user accounts. See [this page](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts) for information about merging them. When you have your questions assigned to a registered account, you will be able to comment on answers and otherwise use the site more flexibly. The reputation you have earned from the two questions will also be combined if you merge. (Answers on this site are supposed to be used only for answering questions. Therefore some of your answers have been converted to comments, and this can lead to an automatic answer ban.)" CreationDate="2019-02-02T16:58:11.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18382" PostId="9028" Score="0" Text="As for your interesting proposal that &quot;a possessive dative with _nullus_ is a nice choice&quot; here, I was wondering if there is a relevant stylistic difference between repeating _nullus_ and _nec_ (cf. Tom's translation supra). Another minor point: unlike _finis_, is _limes_ really appropriate in this context (i.e., when talking about love)?" CreationDate="2019-02-03T19:03:11.613" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18387" PostId="9028" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino The difference between using three copies of *nullus* or *nec* is to a large extent the difference between asyndeton and polysyndeton. Either way, the expression gets certain power from repetition. I find *nullus* to be somewhat more emphatic, so I chose it. // I'm not sure about the choice of *limes*. It means a number of things, not just fortifications. I'd gladly welcome new ideas!" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:06:12.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18396" PostId="9028" Score="0" Text="There is a curious analogy between English, Italian, and Latin, by which *end*, *fine*, and *finis* both mean &quot;objective&quot; (as in *to what end?*) and &quot;conclusion/limit&quot; (as in *the end of the year*). However, in Italian the noun is masculine in the former case, and feminine in the latter, making me wonder whether it's the same in Latin..." CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:14:56.420" UserId="423" />
  <row Id="18397" PostId="9028" Score="0" Text="@giobrach Please ask that as a separate question! I'd be very interesting in knowing how gender effects meaning for words like this." CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:16:45.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18377" PostId="9029" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Josip! The question specifically asked for something in Latin, but &quot;antipode&quot; sounds English to me. Is there a related Latin expression you could suggest?" CreationDate="2019-02-03T00:09:23.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18522" PostId="9029" Score="0" Text="Yes, you are right - it is English. But even the Latin coutnerpart is not far: antipodes." CreationDate="2019-02-11T12:14:21.223" UserId="3371" />
  <row Id="18378" PostId="9032" Score="1" Text="Note that in Christian Latin the declension of &quot;Thomas&quot; is Latinized, so the accusative is &quot;Thomam,&quot; e.g. [Luke 6:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lucas+6%3A15&amp;version=VULGATE)" CreationDate="2019-02-03T04:24:50.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18384" PostId="9034" Score="0" Text="Since John Galsworthy's original quote is, I think, &quot;Love has no age, no limit; and no death&quot;, _exitus_ can indeed be quite appropriate here. A very minor problem of Tom's translation is the ambiguity of _exitus_ in this context: i.e., after Nom.pl. _fines_, it is not clear if _exitus_ must be interpreted as Nom. sg. (intended reading, I think, as synonym of _mors_) or as Nom. pl (as synonym of _fines_)." CreationDate="2019-02-03T19:18:31.093" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18385" PostId="9034" Score="0" Text="I changed my mind several times before submitting the answer : should it be _est_ or _sunt_? There doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast rule for the verb's number in such cases, and I usually settle for agreement with the nearest subject. It's not a big deal!" CreationDate="2019-02-03T22:30:47.763" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18386" PostId="9034" Score="0" Text="I agree that both _est_ and _sunt_ are possible in this construction and both sound natural, but my minor point above had to do with the ambiguity of _exitus_ in that context (NB: this ambiguity remains whatever copular agreement _est_ or _sunt_ is chosen in that context)." CreationDate="2019-02-04T01:34:03.183" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18463" PostId="9034" Score="0" Text="thank you, tom. using your translation, would it be correct to capitalize the word  “’Est’, and omit commas (as in your text as written?)" CreationDate="2019-02-08T20:35:28.760" UserId="3365" />
  <row Id="18467" PostId="9034" Score="0" Text="Personally, I'd put it all in capitals, like all Roman public monuments used." CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:53:02.997" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18468" PostId="9034" Score="0" Text="commas, or no commas?" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:10:04.327" UserId="3365" />
  <row Id="18469" PostId="9034" Score="0" Text="Definitely, no commas!" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:15:46.097" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18388" PostId="9037" Score="1" Text="Quite interesting. I have just seen that the verb &quot;resolver&quot; in Spanish in the 15th century was close to &quot;dissolve&quot; or &quot;decompose&quot;, as in the example &quot;gracies resolvitur&quot;: &quot;Cada cosa se resuelve en aquello de que fue compuesta&quot; (1428)." CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:56:12.973" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="18389" PostId="9038" Score="4" Text="As is typical with the Bible, I believe the answer is &quot;because that's idiomatic in Hebrew (or Greek)&quot;. But I'll have to leave writing up an answer to someone who actually knows their stuff." CreationDate="2019-02-04T20:35:01.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18404" PostId="9039" Score="1" Text="Are you sure this is a Greek idiom? I've never seen it in non-NT writings." CreationDate="2019-02-06T02:57:29.127" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18405" PostId="9039" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I know it's an idiom in NT Greek, but unfortunately the majority of my knowledge is NT and Aristophanes, so I don't have a large sample size." CreationDate="2019-02-06T03:04:42.810" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18407" PostId="9039" Score="1" Text="Hmm...could you clarify your statement in the first paragraph that this is a feature of Koine Greek at large, and not specifically NT Greek? As fdb's response suggests, I'm pretty sure this is a Semiticism." CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:58:21.743" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18410" PostId="9039" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Altered" CreationDate="2019-02-06T16:28:02.257" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39124" PostId="9039" Score="0" Text="Should this just be deleted given your new answer?" CreationDate="2022-08-05T04:35:17.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39125" PostId="9039" Score="1" Text="@cmw Personally I think it's useful to keep both of them up, with the note at the top. This is what I was told when I asked about it in some long-ago Latin class, so having it here to compare against (with my note saying I think the other answer is more correct) could help future readers who have heard this explanation before as well." CreationDate="2022-08-05T04:47:57.750" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18391" PostId="9040" Score="1" Text="Notice the phrase is found with _saecula_, which is plural. So it doesn't exactly fit into the Hebrew idiom. There is no instance of _saeculum saeculorum_ in the NT Vulgata." CreationDate="2019-02-05T10:05:45.490" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18392" PostId="9040" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho. But there is in the Vulgata of Dan 7:18 (as quoted in my answer)." CreationDate="2019-02-05T10:39:26.760" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18393" PostId="9040" Score="1" Text="Indeed, but the versions in the NT are with plural, so I don't see exactly how the expression has a Hebrew origin. Draconis suggests it is of Greek origin. Is there a relation between the Greek and the Hebrew? Maybe Jerome used his NT _saecula_ to build the OT _saeculum_? In that case, the causality is reversed from that suggested in your answer." CreationDate="2019-02-05T10:51:04.920" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18394" PostId="9040" Score="2" Text="The Greek is calqued on the Aramaic (not Hebrew), not the other way round." CreationDate="2019-02-05T10:53:04.040" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18403" PostId="9040" Score="3" Text="@luchonacho FWIW, in modern Hebrew the plural version *le-olamei olamim*, lit. &quot;to worlds of worlds&quot;, is an idiomatic phrase meaning &quot;forever&quot;. I would have assumed it came from Biblical Hebrew, but oddly enough I'm not finding it in the Old Testament. If it is attested somewhere, that would be an obvious source for Jerome's phrase." CreationDate="2019-02-06T02:27:45.403" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18419" PostId="9041" Score="2" Text="&quot;The uniqueness of Tsakonian derives both from its exclusive innovations and from the archaisms it has preserved. These innovations include, for example, on the level of phonology, the change of [r] to [ʃ] in word-initial position or in second position in a consonant cluster, e.g. Ancient Gk. (A.Gk.) rhúnkhos &gt; S.Τsak. [ʃúkʰo] ‘nose’, A.Gk. metrô &gt; S.Τsak. [metʃú] ‘to count’&quot; (Nikos Liosis, “Tsakonian”, in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics)" CreationDate="2019-02-07T06:05:05.920" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18420" PostId="9041" Score="0" Text="For details, we need to read Χαραλαμπόπουλος 1980 — Φωνολογικὴ ἀνάλυση τῆς τσακωνικῆς διαλέκτου. Διδακτορικὴ διατριβὴ. Θεσσαλονίκη: Ἀριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Φιλοσοφικὴ Σχολὴ, 1980." CreationDate="2019-02-07T06:14:56.887" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18390" PostId="9042" Score="3" Text="Salve! Iucundissimum est sodalem novum apud nos accipere, et Latine scribentem quidem. Spero aliquem tibi respondere posse necnon me ipsum plura a te scripta hic lecturum esse." CreationDate="2019-02-05T09:32:18.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18398" PostId="9042" Score="2" Text="Salūtō tē ad hoc rogātōrium, Russice! Haec prīma est magna quaestiō, et quamquam ipse respōnsum rēctum nesciō, ut aliquis respondeat spērō item, sīcut Joonas!" CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:45:45.553" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18399" PostId="9042" Score="2" Text="Havēte amīcī, tum vetus tum nove! Juvat tam cōmiter hīc accipī! Est ut dīcis Ethan, putāvī nihil esse quīn continuō ad māla pervenīrem :D Nōn minus expectō mē et aliīs quoad valeō auxiliī latūrum, et ipse nōnnihil ab iīs discitūrum. Brevī vidēbō ut plūra rogam quae vel jam in animō volūtō, vel sī quid novī in buccam venit. Ut vērum autem comfitear, illud rogātum impraesentiārum mihi valdē velim dēliquētur!" CreationDate="2019-02-05T18:45:19.247" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="29941" PostId="9042" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: What do you believe &quot;etiamsi sit feles&quot; means? In my elementary text on concessive clauses (Oulton): &quot;etsi (etiamsi) laetus es/ sis&quot; = &quot;even if you are/ were to be happy&quot;. Therefore, &quot;etiamsi sit feles&quot; = &quot;even if he may be a cat&quot;." CreationDate="2020-12-01T13:54:08.770" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29969" PostId="9042" Score="0" Text="@tony &quot;even if he may be a cat&quot; is what I think it means, the problem being that I'm not sure whether the implication is the downplaying &quot;you wouldn't expect cats to such have long tails&quot; or the admiring &quot;you'd expect them to have long tails, but not *that* long&quot;. I was looking to express the latter meaning." CreationDate="2020-12-02T16:55:14.357" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="29980" PostId="9043" Score="0" Text="Your answer from &quot;Omnes fere...&quot;: might translate to &quot;All who have presented approximate ways of saying 'even if it may be' have a different-agreement presentation, in a small way (as I have said), even if a surprise may have been given &quot;this cat has a long tail&quot;  more than &quot;this cat has a longer tail than these cats (already having long tails!)&quot;. This is clearly incorrect. Please advise." CreationDate="2020-12-03T11:45:38.053" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29997" PostId="9043" Score="0" Text="@tony The translation is actually quite different:  &quot;Almost all the above sentences...have a somewhat different 'concessive' force (as it were), as if it were strange that 'this cat has a long tale' rather than that 'this cat has a longer tale than other cats--which already have long tales.' &quot;" CreationDate="2020-12-03T20:29:06.477" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18400" PostId="9046" Score="0" Text="This is an excellent answer; mind adding some examples of the bizarre Boeotian spellings? I'm currently searching for a copy of Buck." CreationDate="2019-02-06T01:01:56.717" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18401" PostId="9046" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I've added some examples." CreationDate="2019-02-06T01:21:58.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18402" PostId="9046" Score="0" Text="Much appreciated!" CreationDate="2019-02-06T01:49:38.683" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18411" PostId="9046" Score="0" Text="Is monophongizations hapaxlegomenon?" CreationDate="2019-02-06T18:13:25.933" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18413" PostId="9046" Score="0" Text="@Hugh No, it's a standard term." CreationDate="2019-02-06T18:44:01.240" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18502" PostId="9046" Score="0" Text="Monophthongization is indeed a standard term but I didn’t know it could be pluralized. Sounds a little bit odd to me but why not? Very interesting." CreationDate="2019-02-10T14:39:52.210" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18414" PostId="9049" Score="0" Text="The Wiki article on Tsakonian supports this: [ʃ] actually comes from [r], while [sx]  gives Tsakonian [kʰ]." CreationDate="2019-02-06T19:28:03.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18415" PostId="9049" Score="0" Text="@TKR Ah, so Tsakonian doesn't preserve [sx] in words like *schisma*? That seems like a nice final piece of the puzzle, if you want to add that (or provide it as an answer of your own)." CreationDate="2019-02-06T19:46:51.247" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18421" PostId="9050" Score="0" Text="Not only word-initial - see a quote from Nikos Liosis in my comment above." CreationDate="2019-02-07T06:17:00.273" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18418" PostId="9051" Score="0" Text="@YoussefDir: do you remember the Arabic phrase it was dubbed in? I did Arabic as a minor and know enough about the grammar to be able to use a dictionary. If I can combine my knowledge of Latin and Arabic, we might get a step closer." CreationDate="2019-02-06T23:47:29.463" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="18424" PostId="9051" Score="0" Text="Actually I'm a bit confused with Tesla gratte, but I guess it was Leste Gratte, as denoted in the question." CreationDate="2019-02-07T13:00:38.277" UserId="3378" />
  <row Id="18425" PostId="9051" Score="0" Text="@YoussefDir I'd say it was *deflagrate* all along. But the pronunciation isn't very clear." CreationDate="2019-02-07T13:06:23.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23231" PostId="9052" Score="0" Text="In French, the old language used  &quot;Si fait&quot;; &quot;Oui da&quot; , etc... So the 2 words &quot;yes&quot; is not so uncommon. &quot;Si&quot; or &quot;Oui&quot; would have been enough, but it's more emphatic." CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:33:50.777" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="47468" PostId="9052" Score="0" Text="As an aside, the Italian and Spanish (and to an extent French) “si” come from “sic” (thus) while French “oui”&#xA;Comes via a roundabout route from “hoc ille” (thus he). It seems that Latin had quite a few affirmative idioms." CreationDate="2019-07-29T20:52:42.130" UserId="4976" />
  <row Id="35399" PostId="9054" Score="0" Text="Don't forget to mark your questions solved by clicking the arrow whichever response you feel answers your question best. That way, people won't think you're unsatisfied with the answers. (I see there are three open questions.) Let me know if you have any questions on how to do this." CreationDate="2021-10-07T21:33:52.863" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18422" PostId="9055" Score="0" Text="Given how fuzzy and weird the Latin subjunctive is, a better comparison might be how the dual endings survive in words like _frenī_?" CreationDate="2019-02-07T07:02:38.600" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18453" PostId="9055" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I've added your example!" CreationDate="2019-02-08T01:36:51.693" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18423" PostId="9056" Score="1" Text="*Deflagrate* is a good idea! I updated my answer using that, and gave you a +1." CreationDate="2019-02-07T08:27:39.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18426" PostId="9062" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the clarifications. Some comments. If I say &quot;I give to the X of Y&quot; (e.g. queen of Saba), Y should be in genitive or dative? Is there an order of preference? Regarding _talentorum_, is _erat_ the key here, differentiating the &quot;was of...&quot; from the &quot;had ...&quot; in your giraffe example? If so, would then the translation be &quot;the weight was **of** six talents&quot;? You omitted the &quot;of&quot;. And, is there a particular situation in which the genitive is preferred to express quality?" CreationDate="2019-02-07T13:07:17.890" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18427" PostId="9062" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I expanded my answer. Yes, &quot;of Saba&quot; stays in genitive, but the word doesn't seem to be declinable in Latin. When you decline &quot;X of Y&quot;, you put &quot;X&quot; in the form required by syntax and keep &quot;of X&quot; untouched. Yes, *erat* often goes with the qualitative genitive. If one insists in precision, one should translate as &quot;**of** six talents&quot;, but leaving the &quot;of&quot; out is more idiomatic English. That's why I left it out, but added it more explicitly now. The genitive is often used when there is no adjective, but the ablative can be used the same way." CreationDate="2019-02-07T13:30:30.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18481" PostId="9063" Score="1" Text="For what is worth (not much), the Treccani dictionary etymology for the modern Italian word [*scalo*](http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/scalo/) says &quot;from the Byzantine greek σκάλα which came to mean a stone staircase [Latin *scala*] that in the docks of maritime ports was used for disembarking&quot;" CreationDate="2019-02-09T19:12:56.177" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="18448" PostId="9064" Score="3" Text="You're right, it's an inaccurate description: &quot;active meaning&quot; seems to mean nothing more than &quot;meaning which tends to be expressed with an active verb in modern European languages&quot;. To that extent the term may be pedagogically useful, but linguistically it's meaningless, and when one tries to make it meaningful as you have by translating &quot;active&quot; to something like &quot;agentive&quot;, the attempt fails." CreationDate="2019-02-07T20:43:01.797" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18456" PostId="9064" Score="2" Text="Related: [Are Deponent Verbs a feature of the Latin Language or Means of Translation?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5510)" CreationDate="2019-02-08T10:38:35.817" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18541" PostId="9064" Score="4" Text="I didn't know you were interested in generative syntax. If so, take a look at Embick 2000. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~embick/latin.pdf He claims deponency in Latin is **arbitrary**." CreationDate="2019-02-11T20:55:47.297" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18544" PostId="9064" Score="1" Text="If one just compares two apparently very different examples of deponent verbs (e.g., agentive transitive _hortari_ and non-agentive intransitive _mori_), one can easily arrive at Embick's conclusion. However, Pinzin, who, by the way, is also a generative linguist, shows that Embick's claim is probably wrong. In fact, a cursory look at Ethan Bierlein's semantic classification below is enough to realize that Embick's proposal is probably incorrect. It's true that, synchronically speaking, it is more difficult to justify the &quot;middle&quot; morphology but it is not impossible, as shown by Pinzin." CreationDate="2019-02-11T22:49:21.790" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18549" PostId="9064" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino With all due respect, since when has the constructivist approach become generative syntax? Perhaps I've missed something..." CreationDate="2019-02-12T02:23:21.617" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18552" PostId="9064" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if I understand your question. Could you please be a bit more specific about this? In the literature there is some confusion between &quot;(neo)constructionist&quot; and &quot;constructivist&quot; approaches (e.g., cf. the interesting quote by the generative linguist G. Ramchand (2008) in https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/33227w/is_there_a_difference_between_constructivist/ )." CreationDate="2019-02-12T14:37:56.680" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18555" PostId="9064" Score="0" Text="I've been doing generative syntax for a decade and I don't understand the formalism in Pinzin. Moreover, he has claimed, multiple times, very clearly, that he's been using the constructionist approach. **Generative grammar and construction grammar are radically different.** To use the words of William Croft, one of the leading constructionists, &quot;generative grammar has elevated the form-meaning distinction to an organizing principle of grammatical knowledge&quot; (Croft 2003: 287)." CreationDate="2019-02-12T17:31:07.747" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18556" PostId="9064" Score="0" Text="Construction grammar, on the other hand, according to another leading constructionist Laura Michaelis,  stipulates that &quot;many, if not most, of the grammatical facts that people appear to know cannot be resolved into general principles&quot; (Michaelis 2010: 139). Michaelis 2010 can be found in *The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis*." CreationDate="2019-02-12T17:31:11.777" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18557" PostId="9064" Score="0" Text="Also, I re-read your second edit and I don't think you wrote about generative syntax. &quot;Proto-agent&quot; sounds like something from Van Valin or Dowty or Givon, who have never been *generative* syntacticians." CreationDate="2019-02-12T17:40:07.623" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18558" PostId="9064" Score="1" Text="Yes, Alex, you're right: Generative Grammar and Construction Grammar are radically different. This notwithstanding, there are many current approaches in GG that argue for a what is called a &quot;neo-constructionist&quot; approach to argument structure (i.e., they agree with Goldberg's CG in claiming that argument structure is not determined by the verb by rather by the construction. E.g., for a good introduction to so-called &quot;neo-constructionism&quot; within GG, take a look at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287-chapter-2" CreationDate="2019-02-12T18:20:52.337" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18559" PostId="9064" Score="1" Text="You can also find some curious references to Construction Grammar by radical generativists. E.g., cf. the following quote from Marantz (1997: 212):  &quot;I support&#xA;Construction Grammar (see, e.g., Goldberg 1995) in the claim that&#xA;structures carry meaning, but I deny the major assumption of Construction Grammar that such meanings may be structure-specific,&#xA;rather than general for a language and generally universal&quot;. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1795&amp;context=pwpl &#xA;NB: Pinzin is a follower of Marantz's syntactocentric approach." CreationDate="2019-02-12T18:25:53.387" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18560" PostId="9064" Score="1" Text="Finally, you're right. &quot;Proto-agent&quot; is a descriptive notion taken from Dowty (1991) that is used **informally** by many linguists (generativist grammarians included)." CreationDate="2019-02-12T18:30:54.207" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23250" PostId="9064" Score="0" Text="It's too difficult to understand with my level of linguistics. In clear language, I still don't understand why Pinzin said the deponency wasn't arbitrary." CreationDate="2019-11-16T01:25:33.413" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="18437" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="There seems to be a terminological confusion on what &quot;active meaning&quot; is (as opposed to “passive meaning”). In my view, the **meaning** of _mori_ is by far less **active** than that of _loqui_, which, as noted above, probably explains why it is easier to find the verb _mori_ in AA constructions with past participles compared to _loqui_: putting both verbs into the same bag (by saying that both express “active meanings”, which is incorrect in my view) does not account for this difference in usage). That's why I find the typical/simple definition of a deponent verb confusing and misleading." CreationDate="2019-02-07T17:57:15.827" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18439" PostId="9065" Score="2" Text="@Mitomino I think the point is that in &quot;active meaning&quot; the word &quot;active&quot; is supposed to refer to active forms of non-deponent verbs, not activity in an everyday sense. I agree that it can be confusing. I think you misanalyzed the word &quot;active&quot; (from the point of view of someone defining deponent verbs the way you cite), but I hope my answer cleared at least some of that confusion." CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:02:34.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18441" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="As for your comment &quot;a passive verb cannot be transitive&quot;, I agree this is generally the case but there are indeed cases where a passive verb can be transitive e.g., _Pueri docti sunt grammaticam_." CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:10:34.383" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18442" PostId="9065" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino I would say that in your example the verb *docere* has active **meaning** (in the sense you seem to understand it), but it is now used in a passive **form**. Verbs with two objects fall outside what I presented in this answer, but [they are described in another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/144/79). Anyway, my point stands that the defining feature of deponent verbs is the semantics of the subject." CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:15:21.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18443" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="Joonas, yes, I think I understand what you mean concerning my interpretation of the term &quot;active&quot; applied to &quot;active meaning&quot;. In any case I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that &quot;it can be confusing&quot;. Indeed, (in MY view) it is! The adjective &quot;active&quot; applied to MEANING (and not to form!) means what it means." CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:24:45.660" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18449" PostId="9065" Score="1" Text="I think the difficulty with this analysis is how to define &quot;semantic subject&quot;. In modern linguistics &quot;subject&quot; and &quot;object&quot; are generally defined more by syntax than semantics, while semantics works with terms like &quot;agent&quot;, &quot;patient&quot;, etc., which don't necessarily match up with any particular syntactic roles." CreationDate="2019-02-07T20:49:01.520" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18450" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="@TKR Fair enough. My general linguistic training is quite limited, so I would be happy to see a more rigorous exposition of the matter. I think I successfully located the source of confusion, but I'm not convinced that I did a good job explaining it all." CreationDate="2019-02-07T20:52:38.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18487" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="I’ve seen that some authors have attempted to correlate deponent verbs with so-called “unaccusative” verbs (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb  ). As far as I know, this correlation **only** holds for those deponent verbs which I’ve argued have a “passive meaning”: i.e., verbs like _mori_, _nasci_, _oriri_ . Notice that in these cases the subject has the semantic function (i.e., the thematic role) of Patient, whereby these verbs can indeed be said to be “unaccusative”." CreationDate="2019-02-10T00:30:23.497" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18490" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="As for your definition in bold, let me clarify some important point. Notice that the subject of passive forms AND the subject of deponent verbs with passive meaning (verbs like _mori_, _nasci_, etc) have the very same semantic function (thematic role): their subject is a PATIENT, which is the thematic role typically associated to direct objects of transitive verbs, subjects of passive constructions, and subjects of unaccusative verbs.  Joonas, I'm afraid that your definition in bold is a bit confusing." CreationDate="2019-02-10T01:17:39.540" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18491" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Hmm... Then I feel our views are too different for it to make any sense for me to explain further. I still think you have read too much into the word &quot;active&quot;, and perhaps someone else can explain it better." CreationDate="2019-02-10T07:03:18.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18508" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="Our views are different but not “too different”. Here is my revised paraphrase of your text in bold above: Passive forms of non-deponent verbs work so that the semantic object (the Patient) becomes the syntactic subject, whereas in active forms semantics and syntax agree. For deponent verbs all forms are passive (apart form the pres.part.), but still the syntactic subject is the semantic subject (the Agent) in the case of _hortari_ and _loqui_ -type verbs. In contrast, and in parallel with the subject of passive constructions, the Patient argument of _mori_ verbs is the syntactic subject." CreationDate="2019-02-10T18:01:06.573" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18509" PostId="9065" Score="1" Text="In short, so-called “unaccusativity” is what connects deponent verbs of the _mori_ type with passive constructions.   &#xA;Finally, let me say that, of course, I’ve deliberately “read too much” into the notion of ‘active meaning’ in order to show its incoherence in any reasonable sense one can give to this phrase (e.g., the typical sense, e.g., the one shown in TKR’s paraphrase, or the other one I’ve also criticized in this post). Anyway, many thanks for your arguments and above all for your very interesting examples _locuto Caesare_ and _agmine secuto_." CreationDate="2019-02-10T18:01:35.437" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30008" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="Revising your answer, I've realized which is the source of your confusion in your generalization in bold above: &quot;For deponent verbs all forms are passive (apart form the present participle), but still the syntactical subject is **the semantic subject**&quot;. If you consider the famous unaccusative/unergative distinction, you will realize that the syntactic subject of deponent verbs like _mori_ and _nasci_ is the semantic **OBJECT**: e.g. see http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Unaccusative_verb" CreationDate="2020-12-04T03:48:54.710" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30012" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="Unaccusative verbs are those intransitive verbs whose surface subject is generated in the **object** position (that's why they are passive in meaning: the object position is where the patient role is assigned). In contrast, unergative verbs are those intransitive verbs whose surface subject is generated in the subject position (that's why they are not passive in meaning). Given the definition of unaccusatives, note the important parallellism between unaccusatives and passives. Your generalization above omits this very important point." CreationDate="2020-12-04T04:18:12.533" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30014" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="Your generalization can be revised as follows: &quot;Passive forms of non-deponent verbs work so that the semantic object is the syntactic subject, whereas in active forms semantics and syntax agree. For deponent verbs like _mori_ and _nasci_ all forms are passive (apart form the present participle) and the syntactic subject is the semantic object&quot;. Note that the so-called &quot;unaccusative hypothesis&quot; accounts for this parallelism between the semantic object of passives and unaccusatives: i.e. the derived subject of passives and the derived subject of unaccusatives are both generated as **objects**." CreationDate="2020-12-04T04:31:19.343" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30017" PostId="9065" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I see where you are coming from, but to me still the subject of *mori* and *nasci* is a semantic subject. We just have different views on what a semantic subject is. I would be happy to read your answer posted from your point of view. Those ideas should not be buried in comments, as comments do get deleted sometimes." CreationDate="2020-12-04T07:31:33.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18440" PostId="9066" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you specify which terms you would be interested in translating into Latin? I don't think there's a general Latin term bank for this purpose, and &quot;other terminology in artificial intelligence&quot; is too broad. It usually works best to ask for one translation at a time and use different questions for different terms. This site works best with focused questions." CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:08:29.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18452" PostId="9066" Score="0" Text="Specifically the terms: &quot;Gradient Descent&quot; and &quot;Backpropagation&quot;" CreationDate="2019-02-07T23:43:41.480" UserId="3382" />
  <row Id="18471" PostId="9067" Score="1" Text="In the last line ἐσέβην must be from ἐσβαίνω, &quot;he went into&quot;. And ἐπαρηγορήθη in the first line looks like it's from παρηγορέω, though I'm not sure what it means in this context -- &quot;he took counsel&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:33:22.247" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18474" PostId="9067" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I have edited my translation in accordance with your suggestions.  I'm sure you're right about the second; I'm still not sure I completely understand the sense of the first line, so I've left a &quot;?&quot; to indicate my uncertainty," CreationDate="2019-02-08T23:36:00.647" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18455" PostId="9070" Score="0" Text="Thanks. What's A&amp;G?" CreationDate="2019-02-08T09:15:54.573" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18459" PostId="9070" Score="0" Text="Allen &amp; Greenough is probably the most widely used reference grammar, at least among English-speakers. http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/alphabet" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:44:59.717" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18454" PostId="9074" Score="2" Text="Either word order seems possible, based on the answer to [Why might “Philosophiae Doctor” have been preferred over “Doctor Philosophiae”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/103/why-might-philosophiae-doctor-the-source-of-ph-d-have-been-preferred-over/120#120)" CreationDate="2019-02-08T04:55:23.353" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18482" PostId="9074" Score="0" Text="And in fact Cicero chose the opposite order in *De Natura Deorum*." CreationDate="2019-02-09T19:39:26.423" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18458" PostId="9075" Score="0" Text="Ah, yes, I was thinking of -φι when I posted this question, but I wasn't sure what that was about again. Great example! Now I'm curious about its nature: was it originally a particle? or a real case ending that was later simplified?" CreationDate="2019-02-08T14:37:57.700" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18478" PostId="9075" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus I am not an expert in historical linguistics, but my understanding is that it was originally (i.e. in Indo-European and apparently in Mycenaean Greek) an actual case ending, because cognate languages have it as an actual case (e.g. Sanskrit instrumental plural *-bhih*, *-bhis*; voiced aspirates came into Greek as unvoiced aspirates)" CreationDate="2019-02-09T16:42:13.577" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="18512" PostId="9075" Score="0" Text="Ah, very interesting! So was the instrumental case still very regular, by the time it began to disappear from Greek? It strikes me how this *-bhi-* is still visible in the Sanskrit forms and also in the Greek. Not even the dative is so regular. But perhaps that's just because we only know about a few forms of the instrumental. I don't know." CreationDate="2019-02-11T04:19:40.373" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18519" PostId="9075" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus My guess is that it just seems that way because the instrumental case is one of the few that has an ending beginning in a consonant" CreationDate="2019-02-11T10:03:01.777" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="18464" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="Of interest may be Plato's visions of the ideal city of the future in his *Republic*. I'm not entirely sure whether I would call it fiction, though." CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:09:15.750" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18465" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure the Greeks had much of an idea of fiction at all. Both they and the Romans had a hazy idea of *myth* as opposed to *history*. Fiction definitely existed in Rome, I believe we even have at least bits of something that approximates to our idea of a novel, but it was pretty rare during the republic as far as I know." CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:32:48.797" UserId="3331" />
  <row Id="18466" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="As to future fiction, SF and similar didn't start to happen really until we were well into the industrial revolution. For the first time there were people who'd seen the world change incredibly, in a way that would generally be seen as progress (albeit uncomfortable progress at times), in one lifetime. In one generation, even. It is not surprising that some then wondered &quot;how much will it change in another generation, or five, or ten?&quot;." CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:35:00.393" UserId="3331" />
  <row Id="18470" PostId="9076" Score="1" Text="@SamBC There are actually more extant Greek novels than Latin novels, but they all date from Imperial times." CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:23:37.813" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18473" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I always think of Greek in these circumstances as pre-Roman-hegemony Greece. I suppose because that's when they were fully distinct culturally. Greek culture and language as separate concepts, so to speak." CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:41:21.573" UserId="3331" />
  <row Id="18567" PostId="9076" Score="1" Text="@SamBC: Wouldn't you say that comedy was largely fiction? A few possibly historical elements shouldn't disqualify a work as fiction. And then there are novels." CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:15:08.360" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22642" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="Just in response to above comments, Lucian (2nd cent. AD) wrote what many would call science fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_True_Story" CreationDate="2019-09-29T05:07:09.970" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="22643" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="Sorry, I should have clarified that Lucian's story doesn't happen in the future, but has other SF elements such as travel into space and aliens." CreationDate="2019-09-29T05:38:53.320" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="22644" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="@Penelope Can you write that into an answer? It's certainly in the spirit even if it doesn't meet the technical criteria." CreationDate="2019-09-29T08:04:15.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22645" PostId="9076" Score="0" Text="Ok, I'll see what I can do, but I'll have to do it tomorrow :)" CreationDate="2019-09-29T08:54:14.570" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="18472" PostId="9081" Score="2" Text="Spelling pronunciation seems like an obvious answer to the last question." CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:37:45.603" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18475" PostId="9081" Score="2" Text="I'm not familiar with the work in question, but a merger of ι, η, υ sounds *way* too early for the IV century BC." CreationDate="2019-02-09T00:19:48.897" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18476" PostId="9081" Score="1" Text="As an aside, *I* pronounce &quot;wh&quot; as  [ʍ], and do not regard it as either archaic or artificial." CreationDate="2019-02-09T01:15:25.157" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18483" PostId="9081" Score="0" Text="@leaving υ aside for the moment, why do you think the merger of ι and η sounds way too early for the forth century BCE?" CreationDate="2019-02-09T20:53:37.893" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18484" PostId="9081" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Short answer: spelling confusions I've observed in manuscripts, time frame needed, evidence of Latin and Coptic.  A fuller answer would probably exceed the character count allowed in comments." CreationDate="2019-02-09T22:24:28.740" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18503" PostId="9081" Score="0" Text="Shouldn’t it be Teodorsson though? https://sprak.gu.se/english/contact/retired-teachers-and-researchers/sven-tage-teodorsson" CreationDate="2019-02-10T14:52:14.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18505" PostId="9081" Score="1" Text="And another quote from him (Teodorsson 2013): “Presumably it was demanded from reciters of epics as well as from actors in the theater to observe the traditional rules of pronunciation. A changed pronunciation according to an adjusted orthography, based on the everyday pronunciation, would have been detrimental to the performance.&#xA;&#xA;It is reasonable to assume that even in the cases where poetry or prose was read aloud − which was customary − the reader observed the ‘correct’ pronunciation as indicated by the orthography.”" CreationDate="2019-02-10T15:02:10.680" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18506" PostId="9081" Score="1" Text="A very important note so far. As Teodorsson himself writes, his focus was “the pronunciation of the broad mass of (illiterate) people, including the women.”" CreationDate="2019-02-10T15:04:12.280" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18542" PostId="9081" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Thanks, I did actually misspell Teodorsson's name" CreationDate="2019-02-11T22:21:18.457" UserId="3095" />
  <row Id="18543" PostId="9081" Score="1" Text="On spot @AlexB., this quote is basically the reason I was asking myself this question. What Teodorsson suggests here runs contrary to how I believe language works. In particular, 'spelling pronunciation' never introduces *new* sounds into a language. E.g. imagine someone 'spell-pronounce' the word &quot;meet&quot; with a [ɛ:] sound: no one native in English would ever do this, because English does not even have this sound. Similarly, [oi] was an extinct sound in Greek by Demosthenes's time, and contemporary Greeks perhaps still *thought* of οι as of a diphthong when it had been [ø:] for ages." CreationDate="2019-02-11T22:39:35.830" UserId="3095" />
  <row Id="18545" PostId="9081" Score="0" Text="@SimonKorneev I can think of at least one example of adding new sounds. In German, *ä* was traditionally pronounced `/e/`, same as *e*. But spelling pronunciation has led to a split between *e* `/e/` and *ä* `/ɛ/` in careful speech." CreationDate="2019-02-11T22:54:08.730" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18546" PostId="9081" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I think I can see both vowel qualities in the chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_German_phonology#Monophthongs&#xA;&#xA;Do you mean that that ɛ-sound was not historically represented by ä?" CreationDate="2019-02-11T22:56:25.307" UserId="3095" />
  <row Id="28696" PostId="9081" Score="1" Text="Some British lexicographers transcribe &quot;air&quot; as /ɛ:/, so I don't think we can be confident that &quot;no one native in English&quot; has this sound.  Of course, it's a phonemic transcription rather than phonetic, but it was introduced precisely because many phoneticians thought it more accurately reflected most people's pronunciation than the previous conventional transcription /eə/." CreationDate="2020-08-19T20:36:43.437" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="34688" PostId="9081" Score="0" Text="Greek loanwords with οι are rendered as ø and pronounced as [ø] in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish (some phonemic variances of course, and the Swedes spell it ö)." CreationDate="2021-08-22T11:44:24.993" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="18480" PostId="9083" Score="1" Text="Is this an actual answer to the question? The OP seems not to be restricting him/herself to Classical Latin." CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:09:41.787" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18479" PostId="9084" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/how-is-latium-pronounced?rq=1" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:07:49.387" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18486" PostId="9085" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as &quot;ke&quot; or &quot;kɛ&quot;? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)" CreationDate="2019-02-10T00:22:00.607" UserId="2549" />
  <row Id="18485" PostId="9086" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as &quot;ke&quot; or &quot;kɛ&quot;? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)" CreationDate="2019-02-10T00:20:59.313" UserId="2549" />
  <row Id="18489" PostId="9086" Score="0" Text="@wondering Added a note about that." CreationDate="2019-02-10T01:09:47.047" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18492" PostId="9086" Score="0" Text="Why do you write the vowels of &quot;que&quot; and &quot;angeli&quot; differently in &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both &quot;-que&quot; and &quot;angeli&quot; had short e in Latin anyway (except for when &quot;-que&quot; was positioned in the &quot;arsis&quot;, apparently)." CreationDate="2019-02-10T07:09:06.553" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18507" PostId="9086" Score="0" Text="@sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to &quot;weaken&quot; (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable." CreationDate="2019-02-10T17:01:02.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18510" PostId="9086" Score="3" Text="Would't *-que* and the second syllable of *angeli* both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that &quot;e&quot; would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable." CreationDate="2019-02-10T18:34:21.187" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18493" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:12:09.977" UserId="2549" />
  <row Id="18494" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="@wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where *-que* would be pronounced as [kɛ] **as opposed to** [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both &quot;[e]&quot; and &quot;[ɛ]&quot; sounds of other languages." CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:16:33.880" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18495" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:27:56.803" UserId="2549" />
  <row Id="18496" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="@wondering: In standard Italian, &quot;qu&quot; retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of &quot;qu&quot; in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure." CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:29:18.653" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18497" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="@wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on  Harold Copeman's *Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd,* it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did." CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:35:10.390" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18498" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="@wondering: Rather than using the word &quot;retains&quot; in my previous comment, I should have said that the digraph &quot;qu&quot; as used in modern Italian indicates the presence of a glide even before &quot;e&quot; or &quot;i&quot;. Historically, it seems that the Latin glide could in fact be lost in these contexts, but words where this has happened are spelled with &quot;ch&quot; in modern Italian: e.g. &quot;che&quot; and &quot;chi&quot;." CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:40:51.613" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18499" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="Well, yes, in Italian you pronounce &quot;que&quot; with the glide, and I was thinking rather of &quot;que&quot; in the meaning of &quot;that&quot; (I thought this was the meaning in Latin, as a standalone word, but now I see it might not be), which is &quot;que&quot; in Spanish and &quot;che&quot; in Italian, both pronounced without the glide." CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:42:44.647" UserId="2549" />
  <row Id="18501" PostId="9089" Score="0" Text="Ok, many thanks for accepting my tall order!" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:47:34.090" UserId="2549" />
  <row Id="18511" PostId="9090" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you tell a little more about the conclusion supported by the text and tell the name and author of the book? Google Books links don't work equally for everyone, and it'd be best to have all the key points recorded in the answer itself. Nevertheless, this is an interesting answer and I gave a +1 already!" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:57:33.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18514" PostId="9093" Score="2" Text="What is the value of calling them &quot;middle in form&quot;? Aren't they always inflected the same way as passive verbs (or in a few forms, the same way as active verbs)? The phrase &quot;middle in form&quot; seems to me to imply that Latin had three distinct sets of conjugated forms for active, passive and middle, but I don't think that is true." CreationDate="2019-02-11T06:10:17.983" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18515" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Because the *media tantum* verbs are themselves, for the most part, derived from middle-only PIE verbs with middle morphologies. Succinct dictums will never be able to accurately portray the whole picture; I was simply seeking a suitable alternative of an equal length to the *grossly* inaccurate saying “passive in form, active in meaning”." CreationDate="2019-02-11T06:15:12.457" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18516" PostId="9093" Score="2" Text="&quot;Middle in form&quot; might be true etymologically, then, but is it true synchronically in Latin itself?" CreationDate="2019-02-11T06:17:54.300" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18517" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="@sumelic For a succinct dictum, it is accurate enough; it is much better than simply claiming passive morphology. But this is largely useless pedantry over a simple saying; it distracts from the main point: that the so-called ‘deponent’ verbs are semantically *middle*, and that their morphologies originate from PIE *media tantum* verbs." CreationDate="2019-02-11T06:23:26.050" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18523" PostId="9093" Score="1" Text="Ok, so what about verbs like populor, cunctor, tueor, largior, etc? How would you classify them and why? Would you call populor or tueor media tantum? How's their subject &quot;physically or mentally affected by the event expressed by the verb&quot;? (to use Rutger Allan's definition of media tantum verbs) &quot;cf. &quot;Ita bifariam consules ingressi hostium fines ingenti certamine hinc Volscos, hinc Aequos populantur.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-02-11T17:12:15.193" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18524" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="This kind of research is interesting to a linguist but I don't see how it can be practically implemented in the classroom in this presentation. Oversimplifying a lot, I would explain deponent verbs in Latin as &quot;predominately passive morphosyntactically (or in form) but not (unambiguously) passive in meaning&quot;." CreationDate="2019-02-11T17:23:43.020" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18525" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="also cf. Weiss's remark &quot;it should be noted that from the synchronic point of view in Latin subject affectedness is not a predictor of deponent forms&quot; (p. 381, ft. 22)." CreationDate="2019-02-11T17:25:45.600" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18526" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="Another question (if I may): are you saying that all Latin deponent verbs are media tantum? NB: I'm trying to make this clearer to myself, hopefully with your and anyone else's help, collectively, in a very friendly way. :)" CreationDate="2019-02-11T17:32:20.767" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18531" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Verbs of perception (in your example *tueor*) are generally classified under the cognitive middle (per Allan); *cunctor* can be trivially classified under the direct reflexive, specifically the body action middle; *&quot;to delay [oneself]&quot;*. I am not sure about *populor* and *largior*; I suspect that they may be &quot;true deponent&quot; coinages (a description of which will be edited into my answer shortly), but I unfortunately do not have access to any suitable etymological dictionary to confirm this. (1)" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:14:54.970" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18533" PostId="9093" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. It is indeed more interesting and useful to one approaching Latin from philology or linguistics. However, the applications of this to a classroom environment are covered in brief at the end of Seumas' work, under &quot;For the grammar-translation context&quot; and &quot;Communicative Language Teaching&quot; respectively. The application in a GT context is too expansive to summarize here (I would highly recommend a reading of the original); however application in a CI context is relatively simple: to quote &quot;You simply introduce them without comment,&quot; students can inquire further on an individual basis. (2)" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:21:28.800" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18534" PostId="9093" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. No, I am not attempting to assert that *all* so-called 'deponents' are *media tantum*; there do exist Late Latin coinages which can be classified as 'true deponents' (this should be edited into my answer now). I will concede that my answer in its original state was perhaps not terribly clear about this; I suppose that's what I get for pounding this answer out at 1:00 AM. I appreciate all your inquiry towards improving clarity! (3)" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:24:57.523" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18536" PostId="9093" Score="1" Text="Many thanks for all this interesting discussion! In case you're interested in a more complete typology of deponent verbs, take a look at the recent Phd thesis by Francesco Pinzin: http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/12877/956151-1197504.pdf?sequence=2" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:37:07.777" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18537" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Looks quite interesting, right up my alley; I'll be sure to give it a read! Thank you for linking it!" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:39:31.927" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="23251" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="Very interesting answer, but I didn't understand everything." CreationDate="2019-11-16T01:33:24.087" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23266" PostId="9093" Score="0" Text="@Quidam I’d be happy to clarify if anything is unclear!" CreationDate="2019-11-16T14:19:47.630" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18528" PostId="9094" Score="0" Text="We agree that &quot;active meaning&quot; is an unfortunate expression. We agree that &quot;active meaning&quot; cannot mean what this phrase seems to mean literally (e.g., active meaning does not mean agentive meaning). But then WHAT is &quot;active meaning&quot; supposed to mean in the typical definition of a deponent verb?  My impression is that this phrase is absolutely confusing and the best paraphrase I've seen here is the one provided by TKR in a comment, where, ironically enough, ACTIVE is understood to modify (verbal) FORM, but not MEANING.  See the EDIT part of my post above." CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:08:46.163" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18547" PostId="9094" Score="0" Text="As for your point (&quot;If you think of the semantic meaning of an ordinary passive verb as being derived from the meaning of the corresponding active verb (e.g. you take the object of the active verb and turn it into the subject of the passive), then it's clear that deponent verbs are not passive in meaning&quot; [end quote]), I think that there is indeed a parallelism between the derived/Patient subject of passives and the derived/Patient subject of **unaccusative** deponents of the _mori_ type. And, yes, in both cases it seems quite natural to conclude that their meaning is passive." CreationDate="2019-02-12T01:01:32.920" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18548" PostId="9094" Score="1" Text="Putting recent literature aside, I also agree with you that in Latin there is no distinction between &quot;passive&quot; and &quot;middle&quot; **morphologies**. Of course, this does not prevent a construction like _Porta fracta est_ from being interpreted in the two following ways: as a verbal passive construction ('the door was broken by someone') and as an anticausative/&quot;middle&quot; construction ('the door broke'). Also as an adjectival passive ('The door is broken'). Cf. a detailed discussion in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/on-the-typical-ambiguity-of-porta-clausa-est" CreationDate="2019-02-12T01:41:54.900" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="18539" PostId="9098" Score="0" Text="Just for the sake of clarification: you are asking for an appropriate noun (or noun phrase) that roughly approximates the English noun &quot;handshake&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:59:42.833" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18540" PostId="9098" Score="0" Text="@EthanBierlein That's certainly the ideal case, but might not exist." CreationDate="2019-02-11T19:37:45.227" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18566" PostId="9100" Score="4" Text="I agree with you that *ubi* with a perfect is somewhat ambiguous: I read it as &quot;when&quot; at first. But using *quo* as &quot;where&quot; would probably be rare as well; Lewis and Short say this: `'Where' (rare but class.): &quot;respondit, se nescire, quo loci esset&quot;, Cic. Att. 8, 10: &quot;quo loci illa nasceretur&quot;, id. Div. 2, 66, 135: &quot;mitte sectari rosa quo locorum Sera moretur&quot;, Hor. C. 1, 38, 3.—`. Notice the addition of a genitive *loci/locorum* to clarify *quo*.&#xA;http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=quo&amp;filter=CUTF8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T03:57:16.443" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18568" PostId="9100" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Ah, thank you for that information! I was not aware of the rarity *quō* alone possessed. Would you recommend the addition of *locī* (or *locōrum*) here, or would it be sufficient alone?" CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:46:53.067" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="18572" PostId="9100" Score="0" Text="Mm I'm not sure! L&amp;S aren't exactly definitive." CreationDate="2019-02-15T00:53:55.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18563" PostId="9103" Score="0" Text="Did you try a search for *ntior*? There are quite a lot of relevant-looking hits." CreationDate="2019-02-12T22:10:26.640" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18564" PostId="9103" Score="0" Text="@TKR Using that, I found &quot;scientioris&quot; in Horace, which seems like a good candidate" CreationDate="2019-02-13T03:57:59.180" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18587" PostId="9103" Score="1" Text="All of those are being used as simple adjectives. Participles qua participles don't take degrees of comparison." CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:05:49.663" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18588" PostId="9103" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey You seem to state that as an absolute fact, whereas I see it as an opinion or a point of view. Can you elaborate (in your answer) why you think that is the case? Does it relate to some theory or other reasoning?" CreationDate="2019-02-17T21:15:13.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18589" PostId="9103" Score="0" Text="@TKR I added some elaboration on that. I did search, but it produces a lot of hits. It's just hard to decide how to classify them. It would be great to be somehow able to search for compared participles with an accusative object or something similar." CreationDate="2019-02-17T21:18:23.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18594" PostId="9103" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I added a reference to A&amp;G 494 in my answer. But please realize that you're asking &quot;Can X occur?&quot; which could only be answered decisively by an infallible, exhaustive reader of Latin. I am not that, but I have read thousands of pages of Latin and several reference grammars and have never seen the phenomenon about which you are inquiring." CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:54:18.203" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18597" PostId="9103" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I'm glad you find it useful! Unfortunately I don't have the time to study the examples closer in the coming days, but I hope I can get to it later. My best suggestions are *apertissimus* and *confidentior*, but all I can say now is that neither has a &quot;clear verbal signature&quot; in the form of an object or similar. The other hits are weak." CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:23:59.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18603" PostId="9103" Score="2" Text="To test passive participles, I suggest checking for an agent. If my proposal is correct, that only pure adjectives take comparison, you might be able to find something like *ianua apertissima* (a wide-open gate) and *ianua a hostibus aperta* (a gate opened by the enemy), but not *ianua a hostibus apertissima* (a gate opened very wide by the enemy)." CreationDate="2019-02-18T17:43:55.747" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18551" PostId="9105" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is an interesting take on the question. Could you perhaps edit your answer to add what the passage suggests as a translation of &quot;based on&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-02-12T14:35:00.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18553" PostId="9105" Score="0" Text="As a tiro I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here-- is my &quot;question&quot; the comment that I left?" CreationDate="2019-02-12T14:38:45.690" UserId="3397" />
  <row Id="18554" PostId="9105" Score="0" Text="Oops, I was supposed to write &quot;edit your answer&quot;, not &quot;edit your question&quot;. I fixed the old comment. The original question was about translating &quot;based on&quot;, and it would be nice if your answer contained a more explicit answer." CreationDate="2019-02-12T15:07:58.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18708" PostId="9106" Score="0" Text="Are there any examples of words where the stress in a present-day Romance language is on a different syllable than the Classical Latin stress, and this sound change has occurred based on the position of the Classical Latin stress? In Italian at least, I know that this is described a synchronically active phonotactic constraint on the distribution of /ɔ/ and /ɛ/." CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:02:57.623" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18709" PostId="9106" Score="0" Text="@sumelic In Spanish this has fossilized: for example, if we put a suffix on _tiérno_ we get _tiernaménte_, where the diphthong remains even though the stress moved." CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:32:57.410" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18710" PostId="9106" Score="0" Text="Hmm, it's true that diphthongs can appear in non-primary-stressed syllables in Spanish, but I'm not sure that shows that diphthongization in Spanish was conditioned by the position of the stress in Classical Latin rather than by the position of the stress in a later stage of the language. [User6726](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/20411/spanish-stem-change/20696#20696) posted an answer on Linguistics SE that suggested a synchronic analysis where stressed &quot;tense&quot; vowels diphthongize, but unstressed diphthongs don't monophthongize." CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:45:49.087" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18711" PostId="9106" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Oh, no, the conditioning happened much later, but the stress system at the time seems to have been the same as the Classical one." CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:32:20.993" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18712" PostId="9106" Score="0" Text="But, I would say this answers the question, as it's a known and systematic sound changed caused by the famous penult-if-heavy system." CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:35:02.277" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18714" PostId="9106" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Fair point; my understanding was that the stress stuck around, but was basically fossilized, like the stress in Ancient Greek nouns. But I asked [a new question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9190/406) about that." CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:45:31.987" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18732" PostId="9106" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Judging from the other question, it seems like the stress did fossilize when the vowel length was lost. I can't decide if that means this is a valid answer or not." CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:00:29.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18593" PostId="9108" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I added a reference to A&amp;G. But also, I've read thousands of pages of Latin and several reference grammars, and I've never seen the phenomenon being inquired about." CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:51:32.043" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18565" PostId="9113" Score="0" Text="The word *uter* is typically used interrogatively, whereas *uterque* isn't (cf: the difference between *quis* and *quī*, it's a similar sort of thing here)." CreationDate="2019-02-13T15:24:29.193" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="30713" PostId="9114" Score="0" Text="Yeah, this is the correct answer. Looking up both words in a real dictionary would have shown this to be the case, and even Etymonline makes the connection clear: [majesty](https://www.etymonline.com/word/majesty#etymonline_v_2229) and [master](https://www.etymonline.com/word/master)." CreationDate="2021-02-10T02:43:13.030" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="21220" PostId="9116" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Given that &quot;uterque&quot; means &quot;each&quot;, what about the plural &quot;utrique&quot; = &quot;both&quot;? Recently, in an anguish-of-indecision over whether to use &quot;ambas&quot; or &quot;utrasque&quot; (fem. acc. plurals) in [Q: &quot;Advice From History&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11414/79); finally, plumped for the latter. Hoped that suffix-&quot;que&quot; would cover the need for &quot;and&quot; in &quot;and-you-will-lose-both&quot;; but, it's a moot point." CreationDate="2019-09-01T09:44:16.250" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21221" PostId="9116" Score="1" Text="@tony Pronouns like *quisque* and *uterque* have a specific meaning which cannot be reduced to *quis/uter+que*, and therefore one can't really use *-que* with *quis* or *uter* to mean &quot;and&quot;. I would read *utrique* as &quot;each group&quot;, for example: *Ille et meae et tuae familiae canit. Utrisque delectat.* That said, I can't recall encountering the plural *utrique* in a text, so a separate question about its plural semantics would be good. (Also note that *utrique* can be a singular dative.)" CreationDate="2019-09-01T10:02:19.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18583" PostId="9118" Score="1" Text="This is an interesting idea and according to Latin wiktionary, a valid usage: (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ne#Latin), but I feel like in this case, &quot;huncine&quot; emphasizes &quot;that&quot; as in &quot;Should you not seize _this_ day?&quot; rather than capturing the meaning of the English phrase which seems closer to &quot;Go get that day!&quot; This is definitely somewhat subjective, though." CreationDate="2019-02-16T22:27:38.740" UserId="3391" />
  <row Id="18585" PostId="9118" Score="1" Text="@nellapizza: Perhaps so. I'm not sure about the ultimate effect." CreationDate="2019-02-16T23:58:35.397" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30400" PostId="9121" Score="0" Text="I suppose you could use &quot;cruor&quot; if the family was military and you wanted to suggest that glory came from bloodshed." CreationDate="2021-01-09T11:45:44.180" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="30401" PostId="9121" Score="0" Text="@PaulJohnson Good point! Edited." CreationDate="2021-01-09T12:33:54.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18570" PostId="9122" Score="1" Text="Good idea with the double accusative and ACI! You should replace *dicitur* with an active form, though, because with passives you have NCI instead. It's *dicitur potestatem vincere imperium* or *dicitur potestas vincere imperium* depending on which one is the subject of *dicitur*. But with *dicunt* (&quot;people say&quot;, &quot;it is said&quot;) both are always accusative and you get the ambiguity." CreationDate="2019-02-14T20:26:53.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18571" PostId="9122" Score="0" Text="changes adopted," CreationDate="2019-02-14T21:07:34.870" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18573" PostId="9123" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is an interesting question, +1. It's not always clear how to answer a &quot;why&quot;, but maybe some etymological background would explain how the cardinals became what they are." CreationDate="2019-02-15T09:49:27.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28716" PostId="9123" Score="1" Text="&quot;Quattuor&quot; was originally declinable, but that declinability was lost very early on." CreationDate="2020-08-22T09:49:54.133" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="18574" PostId="9124" Score="0" Text="Side comment: in Aristotelian/Thomistic/Christian philosophy, a spiritual being (like the soul, in a sense) can only go from not being to being _instantly_: there is just no other option. Actually, as far as I remember, any substantial change can only be instantaneous, though in the case of material beings it can be preceded/followed by a succession of accidental changes" CreationDate="2019-02-15T12:26:49.080" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18575" PostId="9124" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Interesting!" CreationDate="2019-02-15T15:44:03.577" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18576" PostId="9125" Score="2" Text="On a friendly note, you have mostly described the rules but not answered why. It would be an interesting answer! What about Greek? Are declensions similar?" CreationDate="2019-02-15T18:23:46.810" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18577" PostId="9125" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Well, yes and no! The major point is that it's wrong to say that numbers greater than 3 are indeclinable, and I tried to indicate the complexity of the system (if it's worthy of such a name). As to why it's so: I should think it's literally accidental, though in truth anybody's guess." CreationDate="2019-02-15T20:51:45.837" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18578" PostId="9125" Score="3" Text="@luchonacho There are some differences in detail but the system is very similar in Greek and Sanskrit -- it seems to be inherited from PIE." CreationDate="2019-02-16T00:52:27.520" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18579" PostId="9125" Score="0" Text="@TKR That may well be so; but isn't that just &quot;kicking the can down the road&quot;? _Why_  such barely systematic, if not random numbering happens surely can't be deduced and so a proper explanation must remain no more than a guess. Unless there is some appropriate philological technique of which I know nothing (as may very well be the case)?" CreationDate="2019-02-16T12:09:10.870" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18580" PostId="9125" Score="2" Text="Certainly; &quot;why&quot; questions in historical linguistics are often hard or unanswerable. In this case maybe it has something to do with lower numerals (and round higher numerals) being used more frequently, but that's no more than a guess, as you say." CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:53:04.060" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18592" PostId="9125" Score="1" Text="@TKR. &#xA;&#xA;In Sanskrit all numbers are inflected for case." CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:16:10.507" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18616" PostId="9125" Score="1" Text="@fdb You're right, I was misremembering: higher numerals inflect for case, though not gender. Thanks for the correction!" CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:34:15.810" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18582" PostId="9127" Score="0" Text="Good answer! You might also add that _skeyē_ is just _skeyos_ with a feminine noun ending added." CreationDate="2019-02-16T22:10:51.227" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18600" PostId="9130" Score="1" Text="But why would anyone analyze bibentem in your example as an adjective? Clearly it’s a participle there." CreationDate="2019-02-18T15:22:19.770" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18601" PostId="9130" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: I'm just not sure whether Latin draws a distinction between participle and adjective in the same place as English." CreationDate="2019-02-18T16:06:49.047" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18604" PostId="9130" Score="2" Text="How about amans patriam vs. amans patriae? This is a well-known example." CreationDate="2019-02-18T17:52:26.290" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18612" PostId="9130" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I think describing the example *amans patriam/patriae* would make a nice answer. (I agree that *bibentem* is a clear participle.)" CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:14:13.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18617" PostId="9130" Score="0" Text="I'd love to help, but I'm a bit confused by the question. Participles-qua-verbals introduce the equivalent of a subordinate clause and thus take the same arguments as their respective finite verbs. Participles-qua-adjectives, like other adjectives, take either no object or an oblique case. Their function is determined by context, not morphology." CreationDate="2019-02-18T20:59:43.590" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18618" PostId="9130" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey: &quot;Participles-qua-adjectives, like other adjectives, take either no object or an oblique case.&quot; That would be an answer, if you can support it with something. I just wasn't sure whether this was true in Latin the way it is in English." CreationDate="2019-02-18T21:01:20.867" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38726" PostId="9131" Score="0" Text="Does the answer given here satisfy your question?" CreationDate="2022-06-26T23:58:12.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18613" PostId="9132" Score="1" Text="It does in fact occur in Eichendorff's famous novel, in chap. 9, end of the third paragraph: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35312/35312-h/35312-h.htm Couriously this is not mentioned in the German Wikipedia." CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:17:58.000" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18614" PostId="9132" Score="0" Text="@fdb Thanks! I updated the answer to reflect that. It is curious indeed that it has no mention but the article is no stub." CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:25:39.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18605" PostId="9133" Score="0" Text="Just for the record: &quot;Israeli&quot; and &quot;Israelite&quot; are not interchangeable in English." CreationDate="2019-02-18T17:56:48.620" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18602" PostId="9134" Score="0" Text="That's a great article. I think it states clearly that Latin grammarians themselves recognized that the comparative forms are restricted to two functions: pure adjective and substantive. Thus, only in the positive degree is there functional ambiguity." CreationDate="2019-02-18T17:34:28.330" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18625" PostId="9134" Score="0" Text="Just curious, how do you understand this phrase, “**a noun** [sic] can have a comparative”?" CreationDate="2019-02-20T13:36:19.360" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18627" PostId="9134" Score="1" Text="@AlexB.: I think Walvoort may be using &quot;noun&quot; in the broad sense that includes both substantives and adjectives." CreationDate="2019-02-20T14:49:46.280" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18629" PostId="9134" Score="0" Text="Substantives? Do you actually use this word yourself? Sounds something like reading Jespersen or Wilamowitz." CreationDate="2019-02-20T15:27:04.837" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18630" PostId="9134" Score="2" Text="@AlexB.: I don't use it often. I don't see it used at all in modern typological categorizations or in discussion of languages other than Latin. In the context of Latin, a word that encompasses adjectives and &quot;nouns&quot; seems like it might have some value, since both decline similarly. If &quot;noun&quot; is used as an overarching term like this (after the traditional Latin use of &quot;nomen&quot;), then I'd use the more specific &quot;substantive&quot; for purposes of disambiguation (as in my last comment)." CreationDate="2019-02-20T15:30:45.480" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18607" PostId="9136" Score="0" Text="So mot likely Jerome tried to remain literal to the Hebrew, instead of adopting the &quot;intended&quot; meaning to Latin (perhaps the preferred translation)?" CreationDate="2019-02-18T18:32:51.447" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18608" PostId="9136" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I believe Jerome tried to follow the *Greek* as much as possible, and the Greek followed the Hebrew quite literally; it's how we ended up with a whole bunch of Hebraisms in Biblical Latin" CreationDate="2019-02-18T18:38:00.563" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18610" PostId="9136" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Of course bene-dico is the exact equivalent of εὐ-λογέω. But it is also consistently used as the translation of b-r-k, literally &quot;to bend the knee, bow down to&quot;. I do not see how we could decide which of the two the Vulgate is following." CreationDate="2019-02-18T18:48:55.527" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18611" PostId="9136" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Not sure if I'm reading the [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate) article correctly, but it seems to suggest the use of Hebrew sources for parts of the OT, including Book of Kings." CreationDate="2019-02-18T18:54:01.157" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18615" PostId="9136" Score="2" Text="@Draconis Jerome was actually a big advocate for the so-called &quot;veritas hebraica.&quot; He was most certainly primarily using the Hebrew texts, though (of course) he would have been familiar with the LXX translation." CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:32:16.113" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18619" PostId="9136" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I stand corrected! Ty!" CreationDate="2019-02-18T21:17:08.673" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18621" PostId="9137" Score="0" Text="&quot;In syntax, something is called adjectival if it modifies a noun. &quot; - ??? How about **his car**, **three** cars, **a** car, **the** car etc.?" CreationDate="2019-02-19T13:49:06.603" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18636" PostId="9140" Score="1" Text="An easy way to check, which confirms the answers already given: [Packhum search for -ee-](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ee)." CreationDate="2019-02-20T20:05:58.070" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18637" PostId="9140" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That's actually how I got my answer." CreationDate="2019-02-20T20:31:42.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18642" PostId="9140" Score="0" Text="Of course (but I’d argue it wasn’t common) See some examples in my post https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5889/39" CreationDate="2019-02-21T15:07:31.583" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18650" PostId="9141" Score="3" Text="I joined latin.SE just to express my pleasure with the fact that *beer* means &quot;may I be happy&quot;." CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:36:31.470" UserId="3426" />
  <row Id="18626" PostId="9142" Score="0" Text="&quot;I imagine you are not particularly interested in these.&quot; - but their specific example is for the ending -ee." CreationDate="2019-02-20T14:22:25.577" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="18628" PostId="9142" Score="0" Text="@OrangeDog Maybe I got the emphasis of the question wrong. Let's see what Draconis says." CreationDate="2019-02-20T15:17:26.360" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18632" PostId="9142" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho No, you're right; I'm more interested in native Classical Latin words, and proper names in the Vulgate are generally transcriptions from Greek and Hebrew." CreationDate="2019-02-20T15:46:04.450" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18631" PostId="9143" Score="0" Text="Very interesting. You wouldn't happen to have an example (preferably with your comments)?" CreationDate="2019-02-20T15:43:27.733" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18633" PostId="9143" Score="0" Text="I do not know it very well, I happened to meet it today by an accident in the context of Greek inscriptions of Latin names but I will find something." CreationDate="2019-02-20T15:59:26.433" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="18634" PostId="9143" Score="4" Text="@VladimirF This is very interesting! If I understand right, that inscription is from circa 100 BC?" CreationDate="2019-02-20T16:49:44.537" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18635" PostId="9143" Score="4" Text="The site states -150 to -76." CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:12:40.493" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="18643" PostId="9143" Score="0" Text="More examples https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5889/39" CreationDate="2019-02-21T15:08:16.747" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18639" PostId="9149" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! What do you intend the name to mean, exactly? Small differences can change the meaning a lot" CreationDate="2019-02-21T14:05:46.550" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18678" PostId="9149" Score="0" Text="I need the name of the order and his position to include the word rebus, which I have found means Operative. He's a liaison, but works in secret as an investigator. So &quot;Order of Vatican Intelligence Operatives&quot; and &quot;Vatican Intelligence Operative&quot; would be the terms I am looking for, and how to conjugate them, of course." CreationDate="2019-02-24T05:19:20.980" UserId="3419" />
  <row Id="18648" PostId="9150" Score="0" Text="*quod cadit lex tacet means &quot;because it falls the law is silent; so 'wrong sort of fall.'" CreationDate="2019-02-21T17:28:28.897" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18651" PostId="9150" Score="1" Text="Do not use Google translate for Latin, just don't." CreationDate="2019-02-21T19:40:13.693" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="18653" PostId="9150" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF [I fully agree.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)" CreationDate="2019-02-21T20:05:53.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18645" PostId="9152" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! And nice question!" CreationDate="2019-02-21T16:42:14.510" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18649" PostId="9152" Score="0" Text="Hi! It seems that you have created two accounts, as the first one was not registered. You will get more out of your question (notifications of comments and answers, ability to edit freely etc.) if you combine your two accounts. [See this instruction page for details.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts)" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:34:31.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18652" PostId="9153" Score="1" Text="The original literally means &quot;among arms, the laws are silent.&quot; Your translation seems to me to mean &quot;among crises, the laws are silent.&quot; I don't think that's really what OP is trying to say." CreationDate="2019-02-21T19:56:30.167" UserId="2246" />
  <row Id="18654" PostId="9157" Score="2" Text="Where did you find it? It certainly looks like a typo to me." CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:11:29.180" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18656" PostId="9157" Score="0" Text="Seen in an unpublished work.  There's 7,000 google hits for &quot;aeclepiadae&quot; (versus 38,000 hits for &quot;asclepiadae&quot;) so it's not common but also not unheard of.  It may be a typo but it has sure taken on a life of its own!" CreationDate="2019-02-22T01:05:03.083" UserId="3427" />
  <row Id="18657" PostId="9160" Score="0" Text="This is great!! Great job!" CreationDate="2019-02-22T08:33:02.663" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="37868" PostId="9161" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure *per finem capituli* actually works. I can't even visualize how that would work - you get to the end, and then go through it? The better expression, [attested in PHI](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=per+ultim), is *per ultimum* (or *ultimos*, *ultimam*, *ultimas*, etc.). You could even pair it with *usque ad finem* &quot;through the final chapter up to the very end.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-08T01:51:52.737" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30937" PostId="9162" Score="0" Text="This isn't entirely accurate. The vowel isn't purely a connector, but there is some sort of schwa. Imperfect verbs also have a -b-, but the fuller form is -ba-." CreationDate="2021-03-01T19:51:23.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18663" PostId="9164" Score="1" Text="Your translation is fine (grammatically), but it sounds funny. Caesar's quote works because of the alliteration." CreationDate="2019-02-22T15:36:31.683" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18673" PostId="9164" Score="1" Text="The perfect of *ludo* is *lusi*, not *ludi*, FYI" CreationDate="2019-02-23T14:32:32.753" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="18658" PostId="9165" Score="1" Text="Does ss. also apply?" CreationDate="2019-02-22T12:47:44.043" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18659" PostId="9165" Score="1" Text="I cannot recall having seen it." CreationDate="2019-02-22T12:48:33.147" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18660" PostId="9165" Score="1" Text="I had seen it used frequently... in Spanish, but in a context where a Latin abbreviation was very likely. After a short survey, it seems that it is short for Spanish _siguientes_" CreationDate="2019-02-22T12:55:33.807" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18676" PostId="9165" Score="1" Text="I wish I could accept two answers.  Scott Brown addressed the specific question, and so I must award the checkbox to him.  However, you have my deepest gratitude for addressing the *intent* of my question, and revealing an uncommon literary abbreviation that better suits our needs.  Cheers!" CreationDate="2019-02-23T20:25:47.650" UserId="3428" />
  <row Id="18661" PostId="9166" Score="0" Text="I think that _veni, vidi, adhuc ludo_ better implies that the subject is continuing to play, even as he speaks." CreationDate="2019-02-22T14:42:44.277" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18662" PostId="9166" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Thanks. I think a question about the differences might be interesting!" CreationDate="2019-02-22T15:08:55.237" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18664" PostId="9168" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I would assume that ‘He’ (God) is indeed the subject. Somehow all of the English translations I've seen (verse or prose) manage to miss this, and treat ‘fortune’ as the subject." CreationDate="2019-02-22T16:44:56.137" UserId="3433" />
  <row Id="18665" PostId="9168" Score="0" Text="@BrentBessemer, fdb, O Fortuna is not a religious work. I guess the elided subject could be Fortuna herself" CreationDate="2019-02-22T16:52:46.277" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18666" PostId="9168" Score="1" Text="@Rafael. That is possible, of course, though I do not quite understand the difference between &quot;fortuna&quot; and &quot;sors&quot; in this context." CreationDate="2019-02-22T17:02:29.090" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18669" PostId="9169" Score="1" Text="Apparently in Latin, every issue one can think of has already been addressed by some grammatician centuries ago. Appreciate the book reference!" CreationDate="2019-02-22T20:44:58.967" UserId="1707" />
  <row Id="18729" PostId="9169" Score="0" Text="@sumelic very kind! thank you for the bounty! :)" CreationDate="2019-02-27T09:09:48.130" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18672" PostId="9172" Score="0" Text="Thanks; so my translation is correct? The last sentence is given as (N&amp;H): &quot;...qui (Nicias) cum Demosthene capitis damnatus veneno necatus est.&quot; In the English version no account is taken of &quot;capitis&quot;; which, assuming, means: (he) of-the-capital-city?" CreationDate="2019-02-23T10:16:17.770" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="18675" PostId="9172" Score="1" Text="@tony I actually suggest asking a separate question about that second sentence. With *damnare* the genitive *capitis* has a special meaning and is worth discussing more prominently than in comments. (I don't think we've had questions on the phrase, but it'd be good to have them.) That Latin word is reflected in the English although there is no word &quot;head&quot;. It doesn't refer to a capital city either." CreationDate="2019-02-23T16:28:16.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23019" PostId="9175" Score="0" Text="Is it working? I get a message asking me to pay." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:01:11.403" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23035" PostId="9175" Score="0" Text="@Quidam It asks for donations but doesn't require payment. You can just click ok and get to the dictionary." CreationDate="2019-11-02T10:44:38.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18726" PostId="9176" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I rather thought that would be it. I suppose I might better have begun the sentence with the last four words? In the end, though, I'm an Occam's Razor man who tries to keep in mind the practical use of Latin without needing recourse to extensive, fine and indeed in its way quite admirable study." CreationDate="2019-02-26T19:18:39.813" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18728" PostId="9176" Score="0" Text="Fair enough. I do understand your position and I respect it." CreationDate="2019-02-27T03:32:16.977" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18677" PostId="9177" Score="2" Text="The rarity of unsyncopated perfect forms was news to me. That's a very interesting point!" CreationDate="2019-02-23T21:10:36.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18680" PostId="9179" Score="1" Text="This reads more like a eulogy of Pinkster than anything useful to the questioner. Perhaps when you add to it later, as you promise, you could identify in passing the 'incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post'?" CreationDate="2019-02-24T15:53:22.863" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18682" PostId="9179" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton It is my intention to stay tactful here, as usual. Before we proceed, could you please tell me what professional linguistic research you've read on the genitive in Latin and - broader - in the Italic, IE etc languages that was written in the last sixty years? Thank you." CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:31:01.707" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18683" PostId="9179" Score="0" Text="I'm sure you're very tactful. The answer is 'none whatsoever'. Are you now going to quote Wittgenstein at me?" CreationDate="2019-02-24T19:03:28.647" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18685" PostId="9179" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton No, sapienti sat. :)" CreationDate="2019-02-24T21:58:57.083" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18701" PostId="9179" Score="2" Text="&quot;some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post&quot; is that for me or for Tom? If for me, please can you be more precise, so I can amend/learn? Don't want to spread errors." CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:50:13.627" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18702" PostId="9179" Score="0" Text="Two of us would like to know that, and for the same reason." CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:22:53.517" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18693" PostId="9180" Score="2" Text="I posted my translation, but the handwriting is a bit difficult: if you know what the fifth line is supposed to say, a transcription would be helpful. (The first thing on that line is a person's name.)" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:39:01.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18690" PostId="9181" Score="1" Text="Isn't Lam Fuk On the name of the father? Specifically, the line looks like &quot;filium legitimum Lam Fuk On et Virginiae&quot;; my guess is both names are genitive, but &quot;Lam Fuk On&quot; is indeclinable." CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:36:26.663" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18695" PostId="9181" Score="2" Text="Woah, nice findings!" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:44:04.043" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18698" PostId="9181" Score="2" Text="You actually found the priest in question?? Damn, impressive!" CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:41:29.873" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18700" PostId="9181" Score="0" Text="@Draconis No merit for me. Google did the finding!" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:47:19.840" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18718" PostId="9181" Score="3" Text="I almost fell down from my chair seeing your findings. I am really amazed that you managed to track the details of Father F.P Sorin. The St Anne's Church is a globally well-known church (for its annual St Anne's Feast) near our community. This is also where my father's ash is sealed. I have never thought the Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is the abandoned/ruined church that I know. Our ancestors (at least 5 generations) are mainly buried here." CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:29:23.880" UserId="3440" />
  <row Id="18719" PostId="9181" Score="0" Text="Lam Fuk On is the father of the baptized child. The wife's name on the certificate is Virginia. But next to Lam Fuk On's grave, the wife's name is Agnes. I know my great grandfather had many women and lived like a king. That's why he didn't leave anything behind for us. LOL." CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:31:27.467" UserId="3440" />
  <row Id="18720" PostId="9181" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your finding is really something big to me." CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:32:43.483" UserId="3440" />
  <row Id="18723" PostId="9181" Score="0" Text="@LawrenceL Amazing stuff! I'm happy to have helped a bit. Praise be to God!" CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:42:10.963" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18724" PostId="9181" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yes, Lam Fuk On is the name of the father. Unfortunately, due to the incomplete ancestry records, I failed to find out who &quot;Justinus&quot; really is. I will try to dig for the baptism records of my other grand-uncles. I hope I can solve the mystery one day." CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:48:34.823" UserId="3440" />
  <row Id="18691" PostId="9182" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho From the context, I took the name as being in the genitive: compare to &quot;et Virginiae&quot; right after it." CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:36:58.383" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18692" PostId="9182" Score="0" Text="Makes sense like that. Actually, when the OP says &quot;my great grandfather's name on the certificate is Lam Fuk On&quot; I took it to mean the person being baptised, but I see it refers to the parent of the baby." CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:38:48.280" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18694" PostId="9182" Score="0" Text="The fifth line seems to include the Latin words &quot;fuerunt&quot; and &quot;ejus uxor&quot;: Lam Charlotte would be the wife of... err... Mian On Vu?, the godfather. _Vero_ in the first line seems to me like a (stylistic?) connector that doesn't really need to be included in the translation, as sometimes happens with _autem_ too." CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:40:16.803" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18696" PostId="9182" Score="1" Text="The first letter in the second word in the godfather's name matches the A in _Aprilis_, so it could be [Mian?] An [Vu?]" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:09:09.320" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18697" PostId="9182" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That's as good a reading as any, and certainly better than mine! Added that tentatively to the translation." CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:08:06.223" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18706" PostId="9182" Score="2" Text="The &quot;an/on/en vu&quot; might actually be French (priest was French) &quot;en vu&quot;, which would mean as much as &quot;in sight&quot;. So then we get for the fifth line: &quot;The godfathers were Mian, present, and Lam Charlotte, his wife&quot;." CreationDate="2019-02-26T01:47:05.077" UserId="3445" />
  <row Id="18707" PostId="9182" Score="3" Text="@HolKann That's an interesting idea! But Rafael's comparison to the first letter in &quot;Aprilis&quot; is convincing, and I'm not sure the priest would use French in an otherwise Latin document." CreationDate="2019-02-26T01:52:04.710" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18717" PostId="9182" Score="0" Text="Dear all, thanks for helping my family translating this 130 years old document. We really appreciate your help as nobody speaks Latin anymore in this country. The name is actually &quot;Ah Vu&quot; which is a Chinese name. But the one looks like &quot;Imian&quot; in front I can't figure out. But I am sure it is a Chinese surname." CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:10:18.500" UserId="3440" />
  <row Id="18721" PostId="9182" Score="0" Text="The fifth line seems to include the Latin words &quot;fuerunt&quot; and &quot;ejus uxor&quot;: I was told that &quot;eijus uxor&quot; means — HIS WIFE. What about &quot;fuerunt&quot; (which appears before the name of Lam Fuk On?" CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:35:06.397" UserId="3440" />
  <row Id="18722" PostId="9182" Score="1" Text="@LawrenceL sorry for the omission, __fuerunt__ is simply the verb: the godparents _were_ Xxxxx Ah Vu and Lam Charlotte." CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:39:05.877" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18699" PostId="9184" Score="0" Text="original question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9170/lost-and-confused" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:43:46.953" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18715" PostId="9185" Score="1" Text="thanks: so &quot;capitis&quot; means &quot;of-the-capital (kind)&quot;  as in (punishment) of the capital kind--death! And &quot;of-the-capital-city&quot; was nearly getting there--in roundabout ways." CreationDate="2019-02-26T10:38:33.170" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="18716" PostId="9186" Score="0" Text="Thank you. It seems to me that the translation of the word συντέλεια as “final period” (τελική περίοδος) is not correct at Mt 24:3, because the context in Matthew chapter 24 speaks about Christ’s coming and the end (τέλος, mentioned at Mt 24:14), which are short events rather than long periods of time." CreationDate="2019-02-26T14:28:19.703" UserId="3441" />
  <row Id="33924" PostId="9190" Score="0" Text="It is not entirely true that vowel length disappeared; there is plenty of both Late Latin and Mediaeval poetry that demonstrates a naturalised knowledge of Latin vowel length." CreationDate="2021-06-30T14:30:49.867" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="18730" PostId="9192" Score="0" Text="So if I understand right, you're saying by the third century the vowel length distinctions were vanishing, but the stress fossilized and remained (no longer predictable) until well into the Romance period?" CreationDate="2019-02-27T16:56:35.643" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18731" PostId="9192" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: yes, although the process of losing quantitative vowel distinction probably took place over several centuries and was likely to have happened at different rates in different parts of the Latin speaking world, and in different social circles." CreationDate="2019-02-27T18:07:21.557" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="18725" PostId="9193" Score="4" Text="With &quot;long&quot; and &quot;short&quot; e, there is supposed to have been a difference in vowel quality which would remain after contrastive vowel length was lost. The reflex of long ē merges with the reflex of short ĭ in French: unless this is analyzed as a lengthening of short ĭ, this merger implies that long ē stopped being a distinctively long vowel. A number of modern Romance languages have qualitative phonemic distinctions like /e/ vs. /ɛ/ without having quantitative phonemic distinctions like /a/ vs. /aː/, /i/ vs. /iː/." CreationDate="2019-02-26T18:42:47.463" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18733" PostId="9195" Score="0" Text="Possible overlap: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4688/how-does-one-say-the-will-to-live-in-latin/4691#4691" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:12:29.510" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18734" PostId="9195" Score="0" Text="In Spanish (and I suspect so in other Romance languages) you use the cognate --_voluntad_-- for both meanings, I also agree with _voluntas vivendi_ in the linked question" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:19:22.937" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18735" PostId="9195" Score="0" Text="It seems that [_volitio_](http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/39053/volitio-volitionis) was coined in modern times too." CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:24:02.410" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18736" PostId="9195" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That would make a good answer, if you've seen *voluntās* used in such a way!" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:29:13.350" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24419" PostId="9195" Score="0" Text="I don't really know, but could a simple &quot;vis&quot; be used for this context? It definitely has that kind of &quot;force&quot; idea." CreationDate="2020-03-05T04:21:41.377" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="18741" PostId="9199" Score="0" Text="If you're looking for the etymology, it's from Hebrew _beith leħem_, &quot;house of bread&quot;." CreationDate="2019-02-27T21:03:30.307" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18742" PostId="9199" Score="1" Text="Thanks! Even though the -m here clearly does not originate from the Indo-European -m suffix, there's the interesting mention of the adjective &quot;Bethlaeus&quot; where the &quot;m&quot; is removed, which suggests to me that Romans might not have necessarily felt a strong distinction between word-final -m here and in other words." CreationDate="2019-02-27T21:03:56.393" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18743" PostId="9200" Score="4" Text="A quick [search in a good dictionary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=tul&amp;lang=la) does not suggest any related terms. Note that words in scientific names do not need to be Latin: latinized borrowings are enough." CreationDate="2019-02-27T21:08:14.453" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18744" PostId="9200" Score="0" Text="It seems latinising was unnecessary; a local name **tulda** looked near enough Latin." CreationDate="2019-02-28T01:21:27.443" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18753" PostId="9202" Score="1" Text="Note that Roxb. is not part of _either_ [name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambusa_tulda). It is common practice in binomial names to _append_ the surname of the scientist that named the species (and sometimes also the year), among other reasons, for attribution and ease of controversy resolution." CreationDate="2019-02-28T13:32:41.383" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18746" PostId="9204" Score="2" Text="PS: corrections to any translation above are most welcome." CreationDate="2019-02-28T10:01:02.683" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18768" PostId="9204" Score="12" Text="For the sake of flippancy, exEUnt" CreationDate="2019-03-01T12:59:38.943" UserId="3471" />
  <row Id="18772" PostId="9204" Score="0" Text="@LogicianWithAHat haha, amazing. Almost enough for an answer!" CreationDate="2019-03-01T18:08:48.217" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18773" PostId="9204" Score="5" Text="&quot;Britanni Ite Domum?&quot; :P" CreationDate="2019-03-01T18:42:49.757" UserId="3474" />
  <row Id="18766" PostId="9205" Score="0" Text="What abou _Brexodus_? _[Exodus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Exodus)_ seems to be a (Late?) Latin word. At least that's [the name of the book](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Exodus) in the Vulgata. And its something would resonate also among English speakers (and beyond)." CreationDate="2019-03-01T10:22:19.977" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18767" PostId="9205" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho It's originally the Greek word *ἔξοδος*, &quot;out-road&quot;. Whatever the origin, my opinion stands: Any clever combination besides *Brexitus* is too hard to understand and would be of little use. In an extended story you are free to use any words at all, but in ordinary communication weird words like this easily leave the reader puzzled. *Brexitus* is just close enough to the English word and one can see the connection between &quot;exit&quot; and *exitus*. If you want, you can always collect these options in a separate answer." CreationDate="2019-03-01T10:45:45.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18755" PostId="9206" Score="8" Text="Adding a translation for the non versed Latin visitor would be nice (given that the post went into the HNQ)." CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:36:11.373" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18754" PostId="9207" Score="0" Text="What about other words meaning exit, perhaps more uniquely? I am thinking of _abire_, _educere_. Brabire?, Breducere?" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:34:52.170" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18756" PostId="9207" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho I added a little note about that in my answer. To be honest, I think *Brabitus* or anything like that is way too hard to parse to be of any use. While equally valid Latin as *Brexitus*, they are far worse at communicating the idea." CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:42:55.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18757" PostId="9207" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta _Brabitus_ sounds good to me!" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:52:32.680" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18770" PostId="9209" Score="0" Text="Note that the regular [**potesne**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=potesne&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search) is also attested a number of times (in Cicero, Livy, Seneca, etc.)" CreationDate="2019-03-01T13:08:56.263" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18771" PostId="9209" Score="1" Text="“potesne” appears 10 time in the corpus, but in all authors (except Plautus) it is being used as an actual question (“are you able to?”), not a veiled request." CreationDate="2019-03-01T13:37:06.970" UserId="3397" />
  <row Id="18759" PostId="9211" Score="3" Text="Unfortunately, I'm not sure this question is answerable, mostly because archaeologists have no idea what the things actually are!" CreationDate="2019-02-28T23:16:09.213" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18847" PostId="9211" Score="2" Text="There *are* some Latin words of unknown meaning, but any attempt to link one of them with an artifact of unknown name is arbitrary at best. You could, but nobody would be convinced until some new finding provides some more context." CreationDate="2019-03-12T01:09:18.267" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="18761" PostId="9212" Score="0" Text="@sumelic At least *hiems* is a clear case, so I have no objection to it. But out of curiosity, what makes you say *vermis* is an *i*-stem? Only because of the plural genitive *-ium*? The morphology seems to be equal to *pellis*. (From a practical usage point of view, I would see the stems as *verm-* and *pell-*, but this includes no claim of etymology.)" CreationDate="2019-03-01T07:46:31.497" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18763" PostId="9212" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I see. I think we should wait for Draconis to weigh in on how to count *i*-stems in this question. To be honest, I don't think plural genitive *-ium* is enough to classify something as *i*-stem, as I wouldn't say that *pars* has the stem *parti-* (I couldn't explain the nominative). I was taught rules to decide whether the plural genitive is *-ium* or *-um*. But I do recognize that my way of thinking is not the only way, and probably not the most historically accurate one." CreationDate="2019-03-01T08:18:08.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18764" PostId="9212" Score="0" Text="It does seem to be the case that from a historical standpoint, *pars* comes from sycope of *partis.* But I wouldn't object to classifying  nominative singular *pars* as a consonant-stem form from a synchronic perspective. With *vermis,* the nominative in *-is* also looked like a distinctively &quot;i-stem&quot; form to me, but I'm not sure how accurate my impression was. There's the famous &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule according to which *vermis* &quot;should&quot; be an i-stem, but I don't know how well regarded that rule is today." CreationDate="2019-03-01T08:25:42.773" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35008" PostId="9212" Score="0" Text="Old answer, but the final consonant of *Iph-* wouldn't be *h*, it would be *ph* /pʰ/ (or just *p*, obviously). *Iphis* is not actually a Latin word at all, of course, and Ovid, Statius, and Valerius Flaccus all use the Greek declined forms (voc. *Iphi*, acc. *Iphin*, mainly; it's an i-stem) for their three respective *Iphies*, which are the only ones I could find in Latin (*Metamorphoses*, *Thebais*, *Argonautica*)." CreationDate="2021-09-07T22:10:20.933" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35011" PostId="9212" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Fair point! I was looking at letters more than sounds, and with H that approach falls apart. I'll add a remark on that, but I'll leave that example in (with a caveat) until a more genuine example exists and surfaces." CreationDate="2021-09-08T07:18:05.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18765" PostId="9213" Score="6" Text="Why exactly? Please explain. Im not a Shakespeare _connoisseur_." CreationDate="2019-03-01T09:38:40.940" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18769" PostId="9213" Score="3" Text="A famous Shakespearean stage direction reads &quot;Exeunt, pursued by a bear.&quot;, leading up to the off stage death of Antigonus in _The Winter's Tale_." CreationDate="2019-03-01T12:59:45.327" UserId="3472" />
  <row Id="18775" PostId="9213" Score="2" Text="The OP is unregistered, so it's unlikely s/he will update the answer. Someone with some understanding of the meaning could edit it." CreationDate="2019-03-01T19:33:01.407" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18781" PostId="9213" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I added the relevant comment to the answer, as it makes it fuller, but I hope that someone who knows more could elaborate a little further." CreationDate="2019-03-02T09:44:32.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18782" PostId="9213" Score="0" Text="I have never seen this stage direction as &quot;exe**unt**&quot;, but always as &quot;exit&quot; - and I have played Antigonus. [This text](https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=winterstale&amp;Scope=entire&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=pl#a3,s3) has &quot;exit&quot;. Is &quot;Exeunt&quot; found in some editions, or is it a mistake?" CreationDate="2019-03-03T00:31:31.117" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18790" PostId="9213" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine *Exit* is singular, &quot;he/she/it leaves&quot;. *Exeunt* is plural and should be used when several characters leave." CreationDate="2019-03-04T11:06:40.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18791" PostId="9213" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I am well aware that _exit_ is singular. Antigonus is on his own when the bear chases and kills him. He is not even carrying the baby, as he has put her down (&quot;There lie!&quot;). I cannot think why the stage direction should ever have been _exeunt_." CreationDate="2019-03-04T11:16:20.137" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18776" PostId="9215" Score="0" Text="Exactly! Latin words for sorcerers are pretty negative and I read somewhere that &quot;eloquii mystici&quot; translated to something like expert magician, but I just wasn't sure about it. So &quot;Omnēs nōs magī&quot; is probably the best way to translate &quot;we are all magicians/sorcerers&quot;? Thank you for your time and help, I really appreciate it!" CreationDate="2019-03-02T00:41:09.267" UserId="3475" />
  <row Id="18777" PostId="9215" Score="2" Text="@ValeVanilla If I were going from scratch, I'd actually say _omnēs magī sumus_. That just feels a bit better to me. But the meaning is the same." CreationDate="2019-03-02T00:55:17.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18780" PostId="9215" Score="0" Text="You could also read *mystici* as a substantivized adjective, meaning &quot;mysticians&quot; instead of &quot;mystical&quot;. Then the plurality is legitimate, meaning something like &quot;eloquent mysticians&quot;." CreationDate="2019-03-02T09:41:47.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18789" PostId="9215" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Wouldn't that require _eloquii_ to be an adjective though? I only know it as a noun." CreationDate="2019-03-04T04:08:45.610" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18793" PostId="9215" Score="0" Text="I read it as &quot;mysticians of eloquence&quot;, so that the genitive noun would have no attribute. Such genitives do tend to come with attributes, but I was just proposing a possible alternative." CreationDate="2019-03-04T18:52:42.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18783" PostId="9218" Score="0" Text="Er, not 'pain breaks strong hearts'? (_cor_ is neuter.)" CreationDate="2019-03-03T07:38:11.040" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18784" PostId="9218" Score="1" Text="@Tom Cotton Ugh, you're right, corrected.  Thank you." CreationDate="2019-03-03T07:57:42.400" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="18792" PostId="9222" Score="2" Text="+1 but couldn't it be read differently, like _O [how bad] times and customs_?" CreationDate="2019-03-04T13:12:24.383" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18796" PostId="9222" Score="1" Text="Is this an unambiguous example of a vocative construction? [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Do2) seem to say that *O* can be used as an &quot;exclamation of joy, astonishment, desire, grief, indignation, etc.&quot; before a vocative, but also before an accusative or even a nominative noun. The translation that [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_tempora_o_mores!) suggests, &quot; Oh what times! Oh what customs! or alternatively, Alas the times, and the manners&quot;, doesn't seem to involve addressing the times and customs." CreationDate="2019-03-04T21:22:57.240" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18802" PostId="9222" Score="1" Text="It most definitely isn't a vocative - he isn't addressing times and customs, which can't reply (&quot;you there, times, and you, customs!&quot;), but draws our attention to them in outrage. If we take nominals that differ in Acc. and Nom., we get &quot;ō fortūnātam nātam mē consule Rōmam!&quot;, as the man himself once said." CreationDate="2019-03-05T23:59:35.657" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="18823" PostId="9222" Score="1" Text="As @Asteroides points out, &quot;o&quot; can be followed by vocative, nominative or accusative (good examples for all three in L&amp;S). I am saying only that the vocative is one of several possibilities: &quot;Oh ye times! Oh ye manners! Have ye done this to us?&quot;" CreationDate="2019-03-10T09:58:28.467" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18996" PostId="9222" Score="0" Text="I understand; I'm saying that in my opinion it's an inconceivable interptetation, the phrase being a textbook example of a rhetorical exclamation instead. Unlike a vocative it expresses a value judgement instead of an invocation: &quot;what times, what customs!&quot;, and I've yet to see it interpreted otherwise by any translation. This phrase is used 4 times by Cicero and quoted twice by other authors in PHI, and nowhere is a second-person verb present or implied. In fact Quintilian cites it as a rhetorical figure followed directly by a &quot;miserum mē!&quot;, a parallel case." CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:44:38.263" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="26550" PostId="9223" Score="0" Text="Note that according to your links, the word מָ֭לָךְ (mā·lāḵ) in Strong's concordance is translated (descriptively) as &quot;To reign, **inceptively**, to ascend the throne, to induct into royalty, to take counsel&quot;. Therefore the perfect can mean &quot;he has *begun* to reign,&quot; i.e. he is reigning. I don't know whether 'regno' had ever been used 'inceptively' in Latin before, but it was more important for St. Jerome to preserve the details of the Hebrew than to translate it into idiomatic Latin." CreationDate="2020-05-27T15:09:17.053" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="36233" PostId="9223" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay You should just post that as an answer." CreationDate="2021-12-13T18:39:34.610" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18794" PostId="9226" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I suggest registering your account, so that you can edit your post and get notifications about answers. There are ways to express similar things in Latin. Would you be satisfied with a future tense (&quot;I will know&quot;), or are you looking for some other nuance? Elaborating on the message you want to convey really helps find the best translation." CreationDate="2019-03-04T19:43:28.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18795" PostId="9226" Score="0" Text="Until I read Draconis's answer, I hadn't considered that you were using 'your grace' much as one might address a royal personage as 'Your grace.' I read it as more like 'the grace that you confer.' Perhaps you can clarify your intended meaning? I was taking the whole 'From Your Grace' phase to mean something like 'As a result of the grace that you confer'." CreationDate="2019-03-04T20:57:42.393" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="18800" PostId="9226" Score="0" Text="The Archpoet addressed his patron with meticulous politeness as 'Praesul.' https://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Texts/Arch.html This patron was both Archbishop-elect of Cologne and an Archduke. &quot;Ā tē, praesul, ...&quot;" CreationDate="2019-03-05T14:26:08.790" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18804" PostId="9231" Score="0" Text="FWIW, Classical Greeks are known to have dug up Mycenean-era shaft graves, but they probably stumbled upon them accidentally rather than deliberately excavating for them." CreationDate="2019-03-06T04:11:35.127" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18805" PostId="9231" Score="0" Text="@TKR It still counts if they dug to learn something about history even if they found the sites by accident." CreationDate="2019-03-06T06:58:51.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18813" PostId="9231" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure we know why they dug them up." CreationDate="2019-03-07T19:45:30.180" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18806" PostId="9232" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2019-03-06T07:51:59.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18807" PostId="9234" Score="1" Text="Somehow I would expect something more compact than _noli esse_, but I can't think what. _Noli servare_ would not mean the same thing." CreationDate="2019-03-07T00:03:05.813" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="18809" PostId="9234" Score="1" Text="@ColinFine *Noli servare* is a good option! Can you give that as a separate answer? I am always happy to see a number of answers proposing different approaches." CreationDate="2019-03-07T07:28:27.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18811" PostId="9234" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you so much for this detailed answer, yes, even though I do not know Latin, I sensed that something is wrong with Google translate... Best +1 !" CreationDate="2019-03-07T10:13:18.793" UserId="3486" />
  <row Id="18812" PostId="9234" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: the reason I did not give _noli servare_ as a separate answer is that I'm  not sure it fits. In English &quot;do not serve&quot; and &quot;do not be a servant&quot; (never mind &quot;a slave&quot;) are rather different, and I don't know whether that difference carries over into Latin or not." CreationDate="2019-03-07T16:08:13.937" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="38858" PostId="9234" Score="0" Text="2022 update: Google Translate is much better at Latin now, and it suggests almost the same translation as you did: “Noli servus esse!”" CreationDate="2022-07-12T19:52:30.413" UserDisplayName="user11274" />
  <row Id="38860" PostId="9234" Score="0" Text="@Anserin If you have updates on how Google fares with Latin nowadays, you can always write up an answer to the linked Google question. The question and the other answers contain plenty of examples to check for improvement." CreationDate="2022-07-12T22:23:06.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18810" PostId="9236" Score="0" Text="There is [a related question about identifying Roman and Greek gods](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6033/79)." CreationDate="2019-03-07T07:30:27.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18815" PostId="9239" Score="0" Text="You have convinced me that it is most likely hypercorrection. Now I just wonder how common it is." CreationDate="2019-03-08T17:05:34.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20762" PostId="9239" Score="0" Text="Compare in English the clever people who say “rhinoceri” instead of “rhinoceroses”, not knowing that the true plural would be “rhinocerotes”." CreationDate="2019-07-31T06:57:47.297" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="18814" PostId="9241" Score="0" Text="The religion of the early Republic seems not to have been worship in the more usual sense, but was instead a form of compact with the gods, whose advice they sought by means of omens. This 'arrangement' included buildings to reflect a god's importance and so on, so that we find promises to erect a temple, etc, in return for divine help in battle. A prayer such as this is entirely in keeping." CreationDate="2019-03-08T10:49:42.827" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18817" PostId="9242" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Jim! I recommend separating your two translation requests into two different questions. This site is most useful when a question contains a single question (or the multiple questions are very closely related)." CreationDate="2019-03-08T21:16:37.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18824" PostId="9242" Score="0" Text="I have put your question on hold. If you edit it to elaborate on the context (e.g. if you planned to use these phrases together somehow) or to ask for the two translations separately, I will be happy to reopen the question. Explaining the context always helps you get a more appropriate translation." CreationDate="2019-03-10T10:06:26.783" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18816" PostId="9243" Score="1" Text="see some comments here https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1117/are-there-any-other-neuter-words-of-the-second-declension-that-end-on-us-than" CreationDate="2019-03-08T20:46:16.667" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18828" PostId="9246" Score="0" Text="I do not think that θαυμάζω can be construed with διὰ." CreationDate="2019-03-10T11:36:50.927" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18829" PostId="9246" Score="0" Text="Hmm, good catch!  It does appear to be used more either with a direct object or with either εν or επι." CreationDate="2019-03-10T11:53:14.363" UserId="1238" />
  <row Id="18919" PostId="9249" Score="2" Text="Well, it’s not my insight. I have rearranged the listing order, but I took all information from Ernout’s book, pp. 147-152, which cites Niedermann, *Une loi rythmique proethnique en latin*, Mélanges de Saussure, Paris, Champion, 1908, as the original source." CreationDate="2019-03-13T21:53:59.637" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="18833" PostId="9250" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your detailed answers. I improved my text (see *dedit*(094), *longē*(095) and my remarks about *auium*(098), *quattuor*(097), *albus*(093)). I beg to differ about *seruāt*. See my remarks." CreationDate="2019-03-10T21:39:15.203" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="18835" PostId="9250" Score="0" Text="@sumelic : I beg to differ. I and my colleagues use macrons *only* to mark vowel length : it's the most untrivial information we need to guess syllable length." CreationDate="2019-03-10T23:11:10.377" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="18838" PostId="9250" Score="1" Text="@suizokukan Thanks for the updates! I added some remarks to the start of my answer. I can't tell when the *a* in *servat* shortened or if it was ever long in the first place; older Latin is not my strongest suit. I hope this answer is of use anyway." CreationDate="2019-03-11T12:40:36.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18842" PostId="9250" Score="0" Text="yes, thank you very much for everything you noticed in my post, it was helpfull !" CreationDate="2019-03-11T21:32:00.900" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="18850" PostId="9251" Score="30" Text="Some say _**her**itage_ balances out _**his**tory_" CreationDate="2019-03-12T01:49:43.870" UserId="625" />
  <row Id="18860" PostId="9251" Score="6" Text="Several comments deleted. If anyone wants to argue that &quot;his story&quot; is a nonsense theory of &quot;history&quot;, do so in an answer, and explain your reasoning. The current answers already explain a great deal; make sure you read them before commenting or answering. I will also have to point out that non-serious wordplay can be used to point out real and serious issues, much like using a joke can make a serious message more memorable." CreationDate="2019-03-12T08:05:29.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40546" PostId="9251" Score="0" Text="Unlike “herstory,” one feminist pun I heard decades ago that *is* etymologically justified was a professor calling her seminar an ovular. The eoot *semin-* in *seminar* and *seminary* does in fact come from the same root as *semen*. It means “seed,” and a *seminarium* was a plant nursery before it became a metaphor for teaching the next generation of scholars. She didn’t think it was offensive or sexist; she was just making a joke." CreationDate="2022-12-04T23:00:21.120" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="40550" PostId="9251" Score="0" Text="@Davislor Was the downvoting necessary? Or just didn't like the question?" CreationDate="2022-12-05T16:11:21.753" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="40551" PostId="9251" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho i didn’t downvote. No idea who did. Here, have an upvote to make up for it." CreationDate="2022-12-05T20:56:12.833" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="18868" PostId="9252" Score="7" Text="Interestingly enough, the Germanic root that originally meant what &quot;story&quot; now means in English developed into the modern English word &quot;spell&quot;. Christian preachers moving into Old English-speaking areas called their teachings &quot;gospel&quot;, meaning literally &quot;good story&quot; or &quot;good news&quot; (translating the Greek &quot;εὐαγγέλιον&quot;). Obviously this root is related to the German word *Spiel*, so we can see how these words change in meaning over time." CreationDate="2019-03-12T11:53:43.373" UserId="1174" />
  <row Id="18869" PostId="9252" Score="4" Text="@Robert In French, Jesus' message is taught as the &quot;bonne nouvelle&quot; (good news&quot;.... so it's all super interesting how it's a literal translation from gospel." CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:07:45.347" UserId="3521" />
  <row Id="18870" PostId="9252" Score="5" Text="@Patrice rather, both the English and the French expressions are likely separate literal translations from the Greek, but essentially yes." CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:09:51.833" UserId="1174" />
  <row Id="18874" PostId="9252" Score="3" Text="You may want to add a reference to the origin of the coinage &quot;herstory&quot;: It's the moniker for a line of (feminist) historical thought that criticizes the way history used to be (and often still is) taught and researched, namely as succession of biographies of &quot;great men&quot;. Instead, &quot;herstory&quot; as research program wants to explore the mostly invisible role of women in history." CreationDate="2019-03-12T13:01:54.223" UserId="3523" />
  <row Id="18882" PostId="9252" Score="0" Text="Thanks! When you say &quot;Does &quot;historia&quot; have a female connotation?&quot;, Do you mean male?" CreationDate="2019-03-12T17:09:36.883" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18887" PostId="9252" Score="4" Text="@luchnacho I was actually addressing the contrary observation that you brought up, i.e. that &quot;historia&quot; is grammatically feminine." CreationDate="2019-03-12T18:01:17.580" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18916" PostId="9252" Score="1" Text="Although you won the popular vote, I think sumelic's answer gets to the core of the issue, so I accepted that one. No hard feelings! Given your statement (&quot;While I'm sure a better-research answer might be able to give you more insight, perhaps a simple response will be a good place to start.&quot;), you might agree :)" CreationDate="2019-03-13T18:26:15.020" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23406" PostId="9252" Score="0" Text="History is directly from old French estorie/estoire https://www.etymonline.com/word/history" CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:29:35.133" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="18846" PostId="9253" Score="9" Text="Your first paragraph is not true, I'm afraid. Feminists certainly have had criticised language structures, but only in regards to gender assumptions, such as the use of &quot;he/him/his&quot; as a generic pronoun, and male figures as examples. These were and are a genuine issue, which is why more care is taken these days. &quot;Herstory&quot; certainly is a nonce word, but one invented to represent another very real issue: the omission of women's lives from historical records. Sadly it's too often misrepresented in the way you've just done, by people who haven't understood why it needed to be considered." CreationDate="2019-03-12T01:01:27.270" UserId="3512" />
  <row Id="18880" PostId="9253" Score="7" Text="@Graham My first paragraph is fine. I've misrepresented nothing. Try reading my second paragraph again — especially its last sentence" CreationDate="2019-03-12T14:30:51.797" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18902" PostId="9254" Score="1" Text="&quot;Hope this helps&quot;. It does, indeed !" CreationDate="2019-03-13T10:12:16.987" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="18851" PostId="9255" Score="0" Text="This is not true; a TLG search (which I can't link to here) finds many examples of θαυμάζω διὰ τοῦτο. That's to be expected, as διὰ τοῦτο is a quasi-adverbial phrase whose use shouldn't depend on the choice of verb." CreationDate="2019-03-12T01:54:02.857" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18855" PostId="9255" Score="0" Text="The LSJ entry gives an example from Isocrates: &quot;θαυμαζόμενοι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὰς ἄλλας πράξεις....&quot; The second part of your answer answers the question though. I think the  simpler point is to realize that just because a punctuation makes grammatical and even contextual sense doesn't mean it is correct." CreationDate="2019-03-12T03:11:44.240" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18863" PostId="9255" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I corrected my answer." CreationDate="2019-03-12T10:09:52.560" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="18864" PostId="9255" Score="0" Text="@TKR  I corrected my answer." CreationDate="2019-03-12T10:10:06.400" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="18852" PostId="9257" Score="1" Text="This is also not true: there are plenty of examples of non-clause-initial διὰ τοῦτο. http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/search3torth?dbname=GreekFeb19&amp;word=διὰ+τοῦτο&amp;OUTPUT=conc&amp;ORTHMODE=ORG&amp;CONJUNCT=PHRASE&amp;DISTANCE=3&amp;author=&amp;title=&amp;POLESPAN=5&amp;THMPRTLIMIT=1&amp;KWSS=1&amp;KWSSPRLIM=500&amp;trsortorder=author%2C+title&amp;editor=&amp;pubdate=&amp;language=&amp;shrtcite=&amp;genre=&amp;sortorder=author%2C+title&amp;dgdivhead=&amp;dgdivtype=&amp;dgsubdivwho=&amp;dgsubdivn=&amp;dgsubdivtag=&amp;dgsubdivtype=" CreationDate="2019-03-12T01:55:58.393" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="18865" PostId="9257" Score="0" Text="I have corrected my answer to refer specifically to the New Testament. https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=SBLG|text=%22%CE%B4%CE%B9%E1%BD%B0%20%CF%84%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CF%84%CE%BF%22&amp;options=VGNHU" CreationDate="2019-03-12T10:54:20.527" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="18888" PostId="9258" Score="5" Text="Excellent answer indeed – but the uncertainty about the etymology of the root of _ἵστωρ_, I think, is not warranted. Beekes mentions an attempt by [Floyd](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40266862) to derive it from _ἵζω_ (PIE _*sed-_), but apart from that, isn’t it rather universally accepted that it’s from PIE _*u̯ei̯d-_, despite the not altogether regular aspiraton of initial _*w-_ and the unexpected zero grade? I’ve never seen any other serious candidates, at least." CreationDate="2019-03-12T18:06:02.630" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="18896" PostId="9258" Score="3" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet [I recorded this possibility on meta.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/394/79) I had been meaning to do so." CreationDate="2019-03-12T20:43:24.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18884" PostId="9259" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answer. I took the gender of the word from [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Ancient_Greek) (I know nothing of Greek). So Wiktionary is wrong then? (could perfectly be). Unfortunately, I cannot read the link you provide." CreationDate="2019-03-12T17:14:28.297" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18886" PostId="9259" Score="8" Text="This is not quite accurate. The _spiritus asper_ or [_rough breathing_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_breathing) (as it’s traditionally called in English) does not indicate a lengthening of the vowel, but an actual [h] sound. This sound has been lost in Modern Greek (as indeed it was lost in Latin/Romance), but it was never a matter of vowel length. And the rough breathing **is** a letter in the word just as much as the others are: it’s a grapheme that represents a sound in the spoken form." CreationDate="2019-03-12T17:55:49.057" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="18889" PostId="9259" Score="0" Text="This must be right Janus! I will research a bit more so I can present this as correctly as I can." CreationDate="2019-03-12T18:30:08.823" UserId="3520" />
  <row Id="18890" PostId="9259" Score="1" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet Thanks. Good comments." CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:01:54.507" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18871" PostId="9260" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question!" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:23:02.213" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18872" PostId="9260" Score="0" Text="Re: your question, I'm not sure (but I can't rule it out) that there is such a specific distinction, which seems to be modern. A reputable dictionary, gives the plain definition of [_dawn, daybreak_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daurora) and even _morning_, which means the term was ambiguous to Romans. FWIW, one of the [sources](https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/dawn.html#popular) cited by the en:wp article, treats both popular and religious definitions as more general. (Annoyingly but unsurprisingly, Christianism is not mentioned)." CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:34:24.607" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18873" PostId="9260" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I am not sure too, if this exists; so I ask. Your link proves that there are really accurate religious definitions, but more than one per religion. My gut feeling about canon law says that there was at least one definition in the literature." CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:51:00.020" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="18878" PostId="9261" Score="2" Text="Do you mean in the short term or in the long term? Assimilation is just a change in pronunciation that gets reflected in writing. But in the long term an old writing/pronunciation can be _reacquired_ as a cultism with a different meaning. (Either more specialized, closer to the original, if the meaning has changed, or both.)" CreationDate="2019-03-12T13:59:29.193" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18881" PostId="9261" Score="2" Text="Good question. In my experience, it does not affect semantics. But, who knows, perhaps an exception can be found!" CreationDate="2019-03-12T17:05:37.447" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18909" PostId="9261" Score="0" Text="In esssence, you are asking whether two different words derived from the same source can have different meaning; to which the answer is a resounding Yes!" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:59:29.443" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="38970" PostId="9262" Score="0" Text="You can also do *fac* + a subjunctive with similar effect." CreationDate="2022-07-22T02:46:35.743" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="18892" PostId="9263" Score="0" Text="I added the &quot;Seneca&quot; tag, since this sentence seems to come from his works; feel free to revert if this is wrong." CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:39:58.497" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18897" PostId="9267" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! More details would help here: What app is it? Is it a Latin dictionary? Can we see a sample dictionary entry? It's much easier to judge when one sees a bigger picture." CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:37:46.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18901" PostId="9269" Score="0" Text="Regarding your last point, wouldn't this then be a duplicate?" CreationDate="2019-03-13T09:48:15.663" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18904" PostId="9269" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I don't see it that way. Corpora can do more than just find quotations, and there might also be other tools for quotes like this. But as always, you and everyone are free to vote to close the question as a duplicate if you think so. The site is supposed to be steered by community that way. (It's just that our user base is a little too small for that to work as well as intended. But still no mods are needed to close a question!)" CreationDate="2019-03-13T10:33:25.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18900" PostId="9271" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for providing a background for the term! With the more etymologically oriented answers, this puts the whole matter very well in context." CreationDate="2019-03-13T08:05:15.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18905" PostId="9271" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Couldn't agree more. This is a great answer." CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:37:10.543" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23407" PostId="9271" Score="0" Text="She was aware, but I'm surprised many people took with pun literally, as they aren't aware." CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:30:30.237" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="18953" PostId="9272" Score="0" Text="Interesting. For one thing, it seems there are phonetic limitations on the suffixes beginning with a stop: you cannot put those after certain consontantal clusters, I think; e.g. I cannot imagine saying *pentthôr* (Pentheus) (with reverse dissimilation, or whatever it's called), nor *atrtês* (Atreus). So would they add conexive vowels or something in that case? I can't think of any examples, but perhaps I'm tired." CreationDate="2019-03-19T01:25:32.513" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34192" PostId="9273" Score="5" Text="An [archaeological find in 2015](https://www.seeker.com/fabled-atlantis-metal-ingots-continue-to-emerge-from-the-seas-of-sicil-2290338231.html) found a number of metal ingots in a 2600 year old shipwreck that were at least thought to be orichalcum.  The material was mostly copper with zinc in a brassy ratio, along with small fractions of iron, lead, and nickel." CreationDate="2021-07-22T16:13:14.500" UserId="6999" />
  <row Id="18906" PostId="9274" Score="0" Text="I have edited the title, as it wasn't clear it's relevance to the question. Feel free to undo." CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:46:09.743" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18907" PostId="9274" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I thought it added a bit of levity" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:51:23.120" UserId="3547" />
  <row Id="18910" PostId="9274" Score="1" Text="'walker' is not the one who require medical attention, but one who provides it (a doctor)." CreationDate="2019-03-13T14:43:51.270" UserId="3551" />
  <row Id="18913" PostId="9274" Score="2" Text="Interestingly, in health services, ambulatory medicine is for patients that don't need and ambulance or a hospital." CreationDate="2019-03-13T18:03:09.163" UserId="851" />
  <row Id="18917" PostId="9274" Score="0" Text="@Pere Interesting indeed! Maybe because they are able to... _ambulare_? hehe" CreationDate="2019-03-13T18:28:54.173" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18918" PostId="9274" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho - Yes, hospitals only need to ambulare when patients can't." CreationDate="2019-03-13T18:51:30.187" UserId="851" />
  <row Id="18911" PostId="9275" Score="1" Text="Similar information not behind a paywall: https://www.etymonline.com/word/ambulance" CreationDate="2019-03-13T15:02:19.257" UserId="1853" />
  <row Id="18946" PostId="9276" Score="2" Text="Just to clarify, are you specifically asking about *praenomina*, or do you want to include *nomina* and *cognomina* as well?" CreationDate="2019-03-18T13:05:33.980" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18947" PostId="9276" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Any of the three." CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:30:13.113" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18934" PostId="9279" Score="0" Text="Btw., I have some doubts whether the translation of &quot;asset&quot; to &quot;dignissim&quot; (a word I didn't know so far) is correct. It is what google translates but I can't find another, reliable reference." CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:47:48.280" UserId="3567" />
  <row Id="18952" PostId="9279" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you explain in a bit more detail what you mean by &quot;is our biggest asset&quot;? After all, this is a somewhat broad metaphor in English; precision helps in translation. At a glance, your first translation would seem OK. In your second translation, is *hic* &quot;here&quot;? And what's up with masculine *noster*?" CreationDate="2019-03-19T01:18:51.700" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19035" PostId="9279" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Thanks for the input. Maybe in this context we could also understand &quot;assets&quot; as &quot;weapons&quot;. But I was looking for something slightly broader. Which also includes &quot;advantages&quot; or &quot;tools to be used&quot;. For the &quot;hic noster&quot;: I thought &quot;hic&quot; could be used as meaning &quot;This is our asset&quot;. And yes, it should be &quot;nostrum&quot; not noster, I've corrrected it." CreationDate="2019-03-29T13:09:56.173" UserId="3567" />
  <row Id="19036" PostId="9279" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: &quot;This is our asset&quot; in a sense of an exclamation, much like &quot;Here they are...&quot;. In any case, I like the first version much more. So if this is OK, then I am happy with it :-)" CreationDate="2019-03-29T13:17:12.083" UserId="3567" />
  <row Id="19037" PostId="9279" Score="0" Text="OK, I understand! I've offered some suggestions below." CreationDate="2019-03-29T19:26:13.393" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="18940" PostId="9283" Score="1" Text="Optime Latine scribis! Nulla est causa timendi. Res ipsa quoque, de qua scripsisti, interest." CreationDate="2019-03-16T03:27:41.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18936" PostId="9284" Score="0" Text="I do not see that the linked article says anything about this em.it" CreationDate="2019-03-14T23:32:41.840" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="18925" PostId="9285" Score="2" Text="I was about to write an answer based on [this site](http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm). It says it's a magic amulet, syncretic in nature, thus the admixture of the Christian Crucifix with a Greek deity's name." CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:29:14.983" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18926" PostId="9285" Score="2" Text="I'm wondering where they got the omega and chi from…they seem to pretty clearly be an omicron and kappa in the image." CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:31:07.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18927" PostId="9285" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Please do so! Sorry to have stepped over." CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:31:38.843" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18928" PostId="9285" Score="0" Text="@Draconis You are right. A typo in Wikipedia then." CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:38:55.883" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18929" PostId="9285" Score="1" Text="You didn't step over. But I'm no longer convinced there is one explanation. Perhaps the best answer is _we don't know, but there is a number of theories about it_. The paper you cite even says it is not clear whether it is a forgery, and it's currently lost!" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:43:09.503" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18930" PostId="9285" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Do feel free to post another answer of your own! It sounds like you've got another source that neither Lucho nor I used, and competing theories are always fun." CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:57:13.247" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18931" PostId="9288" Score="1" Text="In this case, Ovid is using the periphrastic future perfect to apply perfective aspect with future tense. I would read the simple future as meaning &quot;at some point, someone is going to join our names together&quot;, and the simple present as meaning &quot;someone is currently joining our names together&quot;." CreationDate="2019-03-14T19:24:25.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18932" PostId="9289" Score="0" Text="Stepping away from the text of the poem and focusing on the sentiment, does &quot;Apantur semper nomina nostra&quot; mean something like &quot;May our names be forever joined&quot;? I like the idea of using the passive subjunctive to express that this is my desire." CreationDate="2019-03-14T19:25:39.057" UserId="3571" />
  <row Id="18933" PostId="9289" Score="0" Text="@Some_Guy Passive subjunctives are cool, but it took me a few minutes to figure out what _apantur_ meant: I don't think I've ever seen it in the present tense. I would replace it with _apta sint_, &quot;may they remain joined&quot;." CreationDate="2019-03-14T20:08:25.897" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18935" PostId="9292" Score="3" Text="PHI pointed me to Quintilian, who talks about Philistus, &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;. All other authors seem to use *-is* in the genitive and *-i* in the dative, as you'd expect from the third declension." CreationDate="2019-03-14T22:23:59.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35868" PostId="9298" Score="1" Text="Just out of curiosity -- what is the Finnish-Latin pronunciation of *nuntii*? AFAIK Finnish doesn't have [ii:], except maybe in compounds." CreationDate="2021-11-19T23:44:11.207" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35878" PostId="9298" Score="2" Text="@TKR It's just like in compounds. For example, *yrtti-iiso* is a plant easy for Finns to pronounce, and the combination of short and long [i] in *nuntii* is pronounced the same. If I need to instruct a Finn to pronounce *nuntii*, I'd spell it as 'nuunti-ii' and I can trust that it goes right." CreationDate="2021-11-20T13:21:54.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35902" PostId="9298" Score="2" Text="@TKR I just listened to some Nuntii Latini programs by the Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE. Two of the newscasters pronounce an audible glottal stop [ʔ] between the vowels: /ˈnuːntiʔiː/ This is the way I was taught to say it. One of the newscasters says /ˈnuːntiː/ but sometimes inserts a glottal stop." CreationDate="2021-11-21T16:07:10.743" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="18955" PostId="9302" Score="4" Text="I would actually read that *nemo* as a noun: &quot;Nobody is accepted as a prophet in their own land.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:32:04.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18957" PostId="9302" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: this kind of thing is known as _nomina coniuncta_. It does not, as far as I can think, have an actual English equivalent, so we interpolate words to make the meaning in Latin clear in the English, as you and Sumelic  indicate." CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:39:07.173" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18958" PostId="9302" Score="1" Text="+1. I agree that the example looks ambiguous, but the general answer is backed by [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnemo), see meaning II.A." CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:40:37.100" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18961" PostId="9302" Score="1" Text="The form of this verse in Greek, &quot;Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ&quot; might be relevant to the grammar of the Vulgate version, since the Latin seems to be a word-for-word translation. I don't know whether &quot;προφήτης&quot; could be interpreted as anything but the subject there." CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:47:00.660" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="18962" PostId="9302" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Can you post the support found in L&amp;S in another answer? A separate argument in support of the same conclusion should be given as a new answer." CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:55:57.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18963" PostId="9302" Score="1" Text="@sumelic: If I knew something of Greek I would ask a question about the role of _propheta_ and thus of _nemo_ in that Vulgate passage. Please consider posting one yourself!" CreationDate="2019-03-20T08:45:32.890" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="18971" PostId="9302" Score="1" Text="It is indeed very hard to prove! Ideally, you'd have [nemo + noun that normally isn't adjectival] with a  verb that isn't a copula and doesn't typically invite apposition. But, even then, aren't [substantive noun + apposition] and [attributive noun + substantive noun] indistinguishable in Latin and Greek?" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:10:04.737" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="31083" PostId="9302" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva. The corresponding word for _nemo_ in Greek is [οὐδείς](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ou%29dei%2Fs&amp;la=greek), which is an adjective." CreationDate="2021-03-15T13:27:59.687" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="18966" PostId="9304" Score="2" Text="For example, in school we would say &quot;Eheu! Caesar mortuus est!&quot; around this time of year." CreationDate="2019-03-20T21:00:58.927" UserId="3587" />
  <row Id="18967" PostId="9304" Score="2" Text="Eheu! Caecilius est in horto!" CreationDate="2019-03-21T01:16:36.963" UserId="144" />
  <row Id="18968" PostId="9304" Score="0" Text="This is the perfect word, but &quot;eheu&quot; doesn't have any profane undertones, even in Plautus." CreationDate="2019-03-21T02:41:53.737" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="18969" PostId="9304" Score="4" Text="@brianpck Fair, though in modern English usage, I'd argue that something like &quot;oh s---&quot; isn't really meant to be profane: it's gotten semantically bleached into an expression of anger or dread or whatever without being meant to offend." CreationDate="2019-03-21T02:47:52.093" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18974" PostId="9308" Score="0" Text="I think this is a more apposite answer than Draconis'" CreationDate="2019-03-21T10:20:57.193" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="29184" PostId="9308" Score="0" Text="In agreement. cf. Fischer, Vol. 2, p. [72](https://books.google.com/books?id=9SXgAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA72#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), § 460, 2., 3." CreationDate="2020-10-04T04:05:54.713" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="18964" PostId="9309" Score="0" Text="These are all nice suggestions, thanks! I assume *ei* is a single diphthong unlike the dative or plural *ei*. The third option is very appropriate for [a very specific kind of a dire situation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_(Star_Wars)#All_Terrain_Armored_Transport_(AT-AT))." CreationDate="2019-03-20T15:31:17.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18965" PostId="9309" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta hahahaha hilarious. You are welcome. It's amazing that Latin, at least with the impression I have of it, has such open/dynamic expressions. Almost like slang." CreationDate="2019-03-20T15:38:47.113" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="18973" PostId="9309" Score="2" Text="As for your third option, it's very interesting to note that in Calabria, Southern Italy, there still exists the dialectal interjection _tettettettette!_ (read as if the last _e_ were accentuated). Today, it expresses wonder and incredulity with respect to a negative news or situation." CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:38:08.113" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="18989" PostId="9309" Score="2" Text="*Attat* can express the same as that dialectal expression - &quot;what a pity!&quot;, &quot;oh no, really?&quot;, but it can just as well be used positively, for example when someone you've been looking for shows up. But I'm afraid it makes little sense in your Latin sentence, @luchonacho - the sentiment is something like &quot;oh dear, I'd completely forgotten about Brexit and there's just 9 days left!&quot;. The rest of the sentence is also incomprehensible. If my guess is correct and you were going for &quot;oh no, it's only nine days until Brexit&quot;, this can be said as *&quot;hei mihi, modo novem diēs supersunt ad Brexitum&quot;*." CreationDate="2019-03-24T20:41:00.560" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="18970" PostId="9310" Score="1" Text="Would you classify *huius* and *cuius* as Greek influence?" CreationDate="2019-03-21T03:06:27.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18972" PostId="9310" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Huh, are those pronounced with a diphthong? I always said them `/hu.jus/` and `/ku.jus/`, with a syllable break in between. (Similarly `/e.jus/` and `/pe.jus/`.)" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:13:32.493" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18975" PostId="9310" Score="0" Text="The first syllables of all of them are heavy by metric evidence and I don't think any of the vowels are long. The J is regularly geminated between vowels and there is no big difference between /kuj.jus/ and /kui.jus/, so I would certainly see it as a diphthong *ui*." CreationDate="2019-03-21T13:59:14.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18976" PostId="9310" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Interesting; I'll have to ask another question about that later" CreationDate="2019-03-21T14:14:07.287" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18977" PostId="9310" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Question asked [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9313/406); feel free to post an answer!" CreationDate="2019-03-21T22:48:14.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37271" PostId="9310" Score="0" Text="If diphthongs that can have a separate digraph were written as such, it would indeed be much easier. J could replace I where you have /i̯a/, /i̯e/, /i̯o/, /i̯u/, your suggestion ej I do like, and æ could replace ae for /a̯e/ and œ could replace oe for /o̯e/, ui could be the monophthong whereas vi the diphthong. It is not perfect, but I believe it could be quite helpful." CreationDate="2022-02-18T15:07:32.710" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="38024" PostId="9310" Score="0" Text="Seu is a native word" CreationDate="2022-04-17T10:10:39.320" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="38055" PostId="9310" Score="0" Text="Not really relevant, but still interesting: Norwegian has a single word (with derivatives) which contains the diphthong _ui_ /ʉɪ/: ‘hui’ (noun (m and n) and interjection) and its verbal origin ‘huie’ (the nouns and interjection are derivatives of the verb, not the other way around). The origin of the word is Germanic, ɔ: Low German. Could it be that few instances of a phoneme is indicative of a loan-word origin?" CreationDate="2022-04-21T13:03:04.603" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="38056" PostId="9310" Score="1" Text="@pápilió Vērē! Forcellini: «**SEU.** Coniunctio disiunctiva, per contractionem a _sive_, ut _neu_ a _neve_» Et _neu_: «**NĒVE**  et _per apocopen_ Neu. Coniunctio disiunctiva a _ne_, particula negativa, et _ve_, quod pro _vel_ dicitur.»" CreationDate="2022-04-21T13:11:59.500" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="18979" PostId="9314" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! We marked your question as duplicate because essentially the same question was asked before. But there's nothing wrong with that; nobody expects you to read all previous questions. The point is to have the questions linked so that other readers can find all the related content easily. I hope that the answers here and in the linked question are helpful, and I look forward to more questions we can help you with! (If you haven't already, consider going through our [quick introduction tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) which describes all the main features.)" CreationDate="2019-03-22T16:10:38.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39991" PostId="9320" Score="0" Text="In some languages *Cartesian coordinates* are called   *Descartes coordinates* - e.g. in Russian &quot;декартовы координаты&quot;." CreationDate="2022-10-16T15:50:46.743" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="18982" PostId="9322" Score="1" Text="and de Montaigne was transliterated as Montanus (?)" CreationDate="2019-03-24T03:04:13.153" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29564" PostId="9324" Score="0" Text="In hoc signo amor [est] could also be an alternative! Just in case the OP wants to stick to that meaning" CreationDate="2020-10-28T23:22:13.920" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="18983" PostId="9325" Score="0" Text="Two more examples, Ioannes Fontana (Jean de la Fontaine) and Petrus Abaelardus (Peter Abelard, or Pierre Abélard)." CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:22:32.657" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18984" PostId="9325" Score="0" Text="Cf. Guillaume de Champeaux (William of Champeaux) is transliterated as Gulielmus de Campellis." CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:25:55.927" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="39992" PostId="9325" Score="0" Text="Indeed, similar translation of a compound genitive by a genitive structure native to a given language seems to be quite widespread in Slav languages (e.g., Duke de Bourgogne - герцог бургундский). I wonder whether this is also the case in Finnish or Hungarian." CreationDate="2022-10-16T15:56:17.637" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="47394" PostId="9325" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I think the &quot;de&quot; in &quot;de Champeaux&quot; is performaing a different function to the &quot;Des&quot; in &quot;Descartes.&quot; French doesn't make a distinction between &quot;of a group&quot; and &quot;from a place,&quot; but Latin does. For the latter construction, the Latin adposition &quot;de&quot; is appropriate. (Italian also makes this distinction, so we can contrast _Ioannes Medices_ for Giovanni **de'** Medici to _Leonardus de Vinci_ for Leonardo **da** Vinci.)" CreationDate="2024-01-26T15:27:18.050" UserId="11753" />
  <row Id="29859" PostId="9327" Score="0" Text="Isn't it _Marti_? The letter is very different from the 'c' in _Ackerman_." CreationDate="2020-11-26T23:14:17.900" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="29860" PostId="9327" Score="0" Text="@Colin Fine , That's possible, since Mark and Marty are currently family names for Ackermans." CreationDate="2020-11-27T01:14:48.287" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="18985" PostId="9328" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! We actually have a [general self-study question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/957/79), so I think it's better if this one focuses on just the subjunctive." CreationDate="2019-03-24T19:22:45.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="18986" PostId="9328" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for the link! I’ve edited my question so it focuses on just the subjunctive." CreationDate="2019-03-24T19:26:43.377" UserId="3377" />
  <row Id="19027" PostId="9328" Score="0" Text="If you'd like to, I could explain the subjunctive to you along with some lecture notes I have." CreationDate="2019-03-28T22:21:19.123" UserId="2522" />
  <row Id="19030" PostId="9328" Score="0" Text="@Stallmp That would be great!" CreationDate="2019-03-29T01:01:34.980" UserId="3377" />
  <row Id="19031" PostId="9328" Score="0" Text="Alright, would you like me to explain it here, or in another 'medium'? So that I can answer your questions as well. What way do you prefer?" CreationDate="2019-03-29T07:26:29.370" UserId="2522" />
  <row Id="19062" PostId="9328" Score="0" Text="@Stallmp If you are able to make a chat room, I think I that would work well for this since it would be separate from this post, but others could look at it if they feel it would be useful to them." CreationDate="2019-03-31T16:28:11.340" UserId="3377" />
  <row Id="19064" PostId="9328" Score="0" Text="This is the link: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/91785/latin-subjunctive" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:26:45.733" UserId="2522" />
  <row Id="18998" PostId="9330" Score="0" Text="Thank you: an interesting reminder indeed, but not quite apposite" CreationDate="2019-03-25T14:15:48.253" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="18990" PostId="9331" Score="0" Text="Wonderful! This is exactly what I was wondering. I edited in some translations for the German, but feel free to roll them back if you don't like them." CreationDate="2019-03-25T03:52:45.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="18991" PostId="9331" Score="0" Text="Let me know if you find what Stolz said; either way, this provides plenty of information, so I'll accept it after 24 hours or so." CreationDate="2019-03-25T03:53:49.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19014" PostId="9331" Score="2" Text="Stolz, KZ 38, 429 is Stolz, Fr. &quot;Über Angeblichen Wandel Von Lat. āνĕ Zu ā.&quot; Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 38, no. 3 (1905): 425-30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40846068. KZ stands for Kuhns Zeitschrift" CreationDate="2019-03-27T01:58:33.303" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="18994" PostId="9332" Score="0" Text="That's an interesting example, but notice that the rest of the sentence continues: &quot;o Priame periisti senex, qui misere male mulcabere quadringentis Philippis aureis.&quot; - thus only Priamus is unambiguously being addressed here. But yeah, it's much more likely that he's invoking the name of his fatherland in outrage than expressing outrage *about it*." CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:23:04.117" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="18997" PostId="9334" Score="0" Text="Thank you: exactly the kind of thing I was looking for! I know Ammianus basically as one of Gibbon's major souces, but I've read nothing of his for myself and would not have thought to look there. [If you know 'Rip Van Winkle', it is to describe the demise of his Dame.]" CreationDate="2019-03-25T14:13:32.013" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19001" PostId="9336" Score="0" Text="Extremely interesting." CreationDate="2019-03-25T22:29:22.147" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19007" PostId="9337" Score="1" Text="For anyone coming here from HNQ (or similar) who was confused to see a question about Greek on Latin Language, [this is on-topic](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/615)." CreationDate="2019-03-26T12:58:57.963" UserId="615" />
  <row Id="19009" PostId="9337" Score="0" Text="Homers texts are good examples for Dactylic hexameter (Odýsseia and Iliás). Iliás first line: μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά, Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος -&gt; dactyl, dactyl, spondee, dactyl, dactyl, spondee" CreationDate="2019-03-26T16:01:06.017" UserId="3604" />
  <row Id="19002" PostId="9341" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your time, very insightful answer. However, &quot;genitive&quot; appears to mean &quot;that expresses possession or relation, equivalent to the English *of*&quot;, so would that make it mean &quot;of the lords&quot; instead of just &quot;lords&quot; or &quot;the lords&quot;? I am aware that meanings may be different in different contexts. I am interested in this particular word/case because of some wordplay I'm interested in making with it, so I am not too worried about 100% serious/literarily correct meanings, and if it means &quot;of the Lords&quot;, it would be the best case scenario for this wordplay I'm trying to make." CreationDate="2019-03-25T23:53:48.520" UserId="3598" />
  <row Id="19003" PostId="9341" Score="0" Text="Not quite, @mariogarcc: the form Draconis is talking about is genitive _singular_: &quot;of the/a lord&quot;. The genitive plural would be **dominorum** in classical Latin." CreationDate="2019-03-25T23:59:52.470" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="19004" PostId="9341" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine oh, that's fine then, I meant to write as in both singular and plural, hehe. Thank you both for your time and assistance.&#xA;&#xA;P.S.: if anyone was curious, the wordplay I was trying to make was related to making a website called `dominei.me`, which now has four different meanings/implications, thanks to this." CreationDate="2019-03-26T00:04:04.760" UserId="3598" />
  <row Id="19005" PostId="9341" Score="0" Text="@mariogarcc As Colin mentions, this is either genitive singular or nominative plural. So it's either &quot;of the lord&quot; or &quot;the lords&quot;, not &quot;of the lords&quot;. But it sounds like that still works for you!" CreationDate="2019-03-26T00:15:53.727" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24588" PostId="9342" Score="0" Text="&quot;**Qv merged into c before front vowels**: coqvens → cocens&quot; But aren't there other words that show different reflexes of c and qu before front vowels? E.g. the question/relative words (French *qui* and *que* are not pronounced like *ci* and *ce*), Spanish *quedar,* and French *coi.* Given that *coquo* has back rounded vowels after the qu in the present tense in the first-person singular and third-person plural, and that the qu was always delabialized to c in the supine and perfect stems because of the following consonant, paradigmatic leveling seems like a potential explanation of *cocens.*" CreationDate="2020-03-22T07:08:42.453" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40604" PostId="9342" Score="0" Text="Do you happen to know when these changes happened? Were most of them already going on during the Golden Age?" CreationDate="2022-12-10T16:34:32.880" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19010" PostId="9348" Score="4" Text="I noticed too -- it looks like a bit of linguistic cluelessness on the part of the author and editor, who didn't stop to think about whether a word can be simultaneously derived from two separate words in different languages. It's just another example of how when it comes to claims about language in the popular press, anything goes." CreationDate="2019-03-26T20:53:47.747" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19021" PostId="9349" Score="2" Text="While it's really not that important, a quick [Gooogle search for both terms](https://www.google.com/search?q=procrastination+akrasia) seems to show that this &quot;relation&quot; has been floating about for a while. It seems to me that the author merely made the conceptual leap from a vague claim of being &quot;related&quot; to a false claim of being &quot;derived.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-03-28T12:07:54.200" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19011" PostId="9350" Score="0" Text="The intervocalic v of perfect stems can often be lost (sometimes with contraction of the vowels to a single long vowel, sometimes without contraction). Here is a question asking about related contractions: [When did unsyncopated forms become archaic?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9187)" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:06:14.373" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19012" PostId="9351" Score="1" Text="I think that the i might be shortened in this context (I'd need to check to be sure). Leumann mentions a form &quot;dormĭĕrunt&quot;, which seems analogous, although he also mentions &quot;īerant&quot; as a form of *eo.*" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:32:58.467" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19013" PostId="9351" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Oh, interesting, I didn't know it was ever shortened! There's a lot I don't know about contractions it seems…" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:38:58.210" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19015" PostId="9351" Score="0" Text="Also, I'm not sure, but based on [Varro's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9192/9) and the [Reddit discussion here](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/3pocsl/latin_vulgate_with_macronsstress_indicators/), it might be a bit anachronistic to talk about vowel length in the Vulgate." CreationDate="2019-03-27T08:04:25.217" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19017" PostId="9360" Score="0" Text="I had no idea this was a normal convention. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-03-27T21:20:44.517" UserId="3377" />
  <row Id="19018" PostId="9362" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thanks; can you sort-out Brexit, please?" CreationDate="2019-03-27T22:59:28.750" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19019" PostId="9362" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm glad to be able to help. (It seems that you have not voted on this site. Please vote up the questions and answers you find helpful and accept an answer if a question of yours is sufficiently answered. That's a very useful way of thanking people here.) The only way I can contribute to Brexit or avoidance thereof is [studying the word itself](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9204/79). I do hope to see it sorted out, not least for the sake of British academia." CreationDate="2019-03-27T23:26:29.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19020" PostId="9362" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: the nightmare continues because a majority of the MPs want to remain in the EU; until just a few weeks ago--the-truth-that-dare-not-speak-its-name--was never heard; now, every day! Clicked on &quot;vote&quot; but nothing seemed to happen?" CreationDate="2019-03-28T10:58:25.190" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19022" PostId="9362" Score="0" Text="@tony At the top left corner of every question an answer there is a score, and above and below the score are two arrows. Those let you vote up and down. In addition, for answers to your own questions there are little check marks under the voting apparatus; you can click that to accept. [The tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) indicates these functions pretty well, take a look." CreationDate="2019-03-28T15:29:48.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21212" PostId="9366" Score="1" Text="And when a occurs in hiatus in non-native vocabulary, synizesis could result in confusing airy things with brassy things..." CreationDate="2019-08-30T19:53:15.163" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="19033" PostId="9368" Score="2" Text="I have only some examples to add:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Cat. Carm. 64, 152: quam tibi fallaci supremo in tempore deessem&#xA;&gt; Ov. Met. I, 77: deerat adhuc et quod dominari in cetera posset&#xA;&gt; Ov. Met. XIII, 819: nec tibi castaneae me coniuge, nec tibi deerunt&#xA;&gt; Ov. Met. XV, 354: naturaeque suum nutrimen deerit edaci&#xA;&gt; Verg. Aen. VII, 263: divitis uber agri Troiaeve opulentia deerit&#xA;&gt; Verg. Aen. X, 378: deest iam terra fugae: pelagus Troiamne petamus?" CreationDate="2019-03-29T10:36:06.537" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="19034" PostId="9368" Score="1" Text="And one not for `deesse`: Verg. Buc. 7, 7: vir gregis ipse caper deerraverat; atque ego Daphnim" CreationDate="2019-03-29T10:49:11.247" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="19124" PostId="9368" Score="1" Text="Just because I stumbled upon it recently, here's one more example from Martial (Epigrams, 8,56): *Sint Maecenates, non deerunt, Flacce, Marones*." CreationDate="2019-04-04T05:21:09.163" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19038" PostId="9369" Score="0" Text="Great! So I could combine it into &quot;Ignorantia superbiaque adversorum nobis arma nostra acerrima.&quot; I do understand it right that &quot;acerrimo/-a&quot; is the adjective for &quot;sharpest/finest&quot;, yes? (I like the connotation of &quot;finest&quot;.)" CreationDate="2019-03-29T22:24:09.140" UserId="3567" />
  <row Id="19043" PostId="9369" Score="1" Text="@mathphd: Yes, that acerrima/us/um is correct. I would omit *nobis*, though, since you already have *nostra*." CreationDate="2019-03-30T19:17:48.547" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19044" PostId="9376" Score="0" Text="What is Embick's example supposed to prove? See Pinzin (2017: 32; cf. ref. above): &quot;To deduce from this single example that deponents in general can be passivized is not adequate. Even if Priscianus quoted Varro faithfully, this would only prove that _hortor_ ‘I exhort’, during the early I cent. BCE, could be passivized, not that all deponents could (...) Even taking into consideration this single occurrence, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of deponent verbs do not present passive occurrences. This fact must be explained and derived from a coherent analysis of these verbs&quot;." CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:19:30.790" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19047" PostId="9376" Score="0" Text="By the way, your well-formed example from Embick (2000) recalls an (allegedly, in my view) ill-formed example of Ablative Absolute pointed out by my Italian colleague Renato Oniga: *_hortatis militibus_: cf. https://books.google.es/books?id=qx-K88yZxUoC&amp;pg=PA292&amp;lpg=PA292&amp;dq=hortatis+militibus+renato&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=grmgprnaCw&amp;sig=ACfU3U3UDLfflfV-U9uJ0NtxvuKkZZy83Q&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwio-Y2PnKvhAhUEUBoKHZ_wBs4Q6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=hortatis%20militibus%20renato&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:28:58.720" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19048" PostId="9376" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Although Embick's argument about the ability to passivize &quot;hortor&quot; is debatable, I was mainly interested in the example of the same form being used for both meanings. I've edited to add a link to and summary of a separate analysis that I found; I'd be interested in hearing whether you think the interpretation mentioned in Wright's paper is more correct. I also added some other examples of verbs that are said to be &quot;verba communia&quot;: I'm confused about why Pinzin talks about deducing something from a &quot;single example&quot;, since there seem to be at least some other similar examples." CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:59:14.363" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19053" PostId="9376" Score="0" Text="Yes, Sumelic, I **think** your qualification above based on Wright is correct:  &quot;If you consider deponent _hortor_ and non-deponent _horto_ to be separate verbs, then _hortārētur_ in Embick's example could be analyzed as only being a form of the second&quot;. In contrast, I do not &quot;feel&quot; that _break_ (tr.) and _break_ (intr.) can be analyzed as separate verbs." CreationDate="2019-03-31T02:55:36.773" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19057" PostId="9377" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a useful remark, but I should also point out that the asker didn't specify that they wanted classical Latin. But if one wants to go with something classical, attestation is valuable." CreationDate="2019-03-31T03:54:54.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41406" PostId="9377" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think this is in particular in reaction to calling *memoror* Classical. That said, perhaps it should be converted to a comment on Rafael's answer." CreationDate="2023-02-20T19:07:49.493" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="19050" PostId="9378" Score="0" Text="Googling the example of &quot;Foris aperit&quot; led me to a section in *The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume 1,* (2015), by Harm Pinkster, that seems to have some discussion of this kind of verb; Pinkster mentions the example of *[grandio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrandio)* ([§5.32, p. 281](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA50)). Pinkster calls these &quot;decausative&quot; usages." CreationDate="2019-03-31T02:05:49.193" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19055" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="I don't think you misanalyzed the construction/the example from Pliny. Notice that my example above of impossible impersonal passive is that of the unaccusative verb _mori_. Impersonal passivization has been said to be a good diagnostic to divide unergatives (e.g., _to fight_) from unaccusatives (e.g., _to die_). See &quot;test of unergative verbs&quot; in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice" CreationDate="2019-03-31T03:30:07.150" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19060" PostId="9379" Score="1" Text="(I deleted my previous comment because I checked L&amp;S and saw that it lists the passive use of &quot;testatum&quot; under the collateral form &quot;[testo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtestor)&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-03-31T08:16:34.967" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19122" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="Your example from Pliny was very interesting. Anyway, besides the typical (but perhaps not systematic; see above) absence of passives of transitive deponent verbs, I'm also quite interested, as noted above, in why _Mortuum est beate_ (on the impersonal reading!) is ill-formed compared to the well-formedness of _Moriendum est nobis_, which is also an impersonal construction." CreationDate="2019-04-03T19:42:11.963" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25736" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: What is the example from Pliny, please?" CreationDate="2020-04-03T10:24:58.273" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25742" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm sorry but I can't remember Pliny's example put forward by sumelic (now Asteroides). The comment was deleted." CreationDate="2020-04-03T15:41:52.533" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25752" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides: What was the example from Pliny, please?" CreationDate="2020-04-04T10:50:37.767" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25753" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="@tony: I'm pretty sure it was &quot;Nam patrem illarum defunctum quoque	perseverantissime diligo, ut actione mea librisque **testatum est**; cui nunc unus ex tribus liberis superest, domumque pluribus adminiculis paulo ante fundatam desolatus fulcit ac sustinet.&quot; I think a moderator could check the deleted comment." CreationDate="2020-04-04T10:58:07.500" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="33528" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="**Two parts (1/2 )**  Just for reference I place here the deponents verbs I could extract from L&amp;S with impersonal passive examples): [medeor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=medeor); [tumultuor](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=tumultuor); [cunctor](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=cunctor); [assentior](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=assentior);&#xA;&#xA;**continue below in part 2**" CreationDate="2021-06-04T21:42:39.623" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33529" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="**Part 2 of the comment (2/2)** [fateor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=fateor); [lamentor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=lamentor); [vereor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vereor)" CreationDate="2021-06-04T21:43:49.030" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33536" PostId="9379" Score="0" Text="@d_e  Thanks for these examples. Note that some of them seem to have an active correlate as well: _medeo(r), tumultuo(r), cuncto(r)_, etc. E.g., cf. http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/tumultuor  It seems that the relevant semantic condition for an impersonal passive construction to be well-formed is **agentivity**. This could explain why _tumultuo(r)_ (but not _morior_) enters into this construction." CreationDate="2021-06-04T23:50:23.650" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19066" PostId="9380" Score="2" Text="Excellent question. Unrelated: I'm reading the *Falco* novels by Lindsey Davis, in which figure a striking number of men with names on *-ia*, such as Famia, Laeta. I have heard similar names, and I've asked a question about masculine nouns on *-a*, but wonder how realistic their abundance in Davis is. I associate them to some degree with Etruscan names, but Laeta, for instance, doesn't sound Etruscan to me." CreationDate="2019-03-31T23:25:23.133" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19061" PostId="9381" Score="2" Text="Do you know of any quotes that could be used as an example of impersonal &quot;conatum est&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-03-31T08:25:13.047" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19113" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="Stallmp, I'm afraid that there is a confusion here. Of course, I'm not saying that _Mortuum est_ is impossible when its (elliptical) subject is a neuter nominative (an animal, a plant or whatever). I'm referring to the IMPERSONAL construction (see the wikipedia link above). Besides this, I'm wondering why impersonal _Moriendum est nobis_ is well-formed, compared to _Mortuum est beate_, which is ill-formed." CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:55:51.183" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19114" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="Well, have you read the next paragraph?" CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:02:12.487" UserId="2522" />
  <row Id="19115" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="My objection to your final paragraph is essentially the same raised by sumelic above. Regarding _conatum est_, are you sure it can be considered an example of an impersonal passive construction or ... rather an example of a passive construction with an elided nominative _Hoc_? In any case notice it is not the same as impersonal _pugnatum est_ It is well-known that unergative verbs like &quot;to fight&quot; do enter into the impersonal passive construction: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice. Note that _(Hoc (bellum)) pugnatum est_ is a different (not impersonal!) construction." CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:21:34.873" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19116" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="That is to say, _(Hoc bellum) pugnatum est_ is the same as (_Haec pugna) pugnata est_. These passive constructions are **not** impersonal but passive constructions with an elided nominative subject: _hoc bellum_ and _haec pugna_, respectively." CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:32:29.487" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19117" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="To be fair, I think the answer to your question would be the same as the answer to the question: 'Why is 'this word' masculine?'. There is no real explanation for this, this is just purely induction and you aren't even sure yet whether this is the case or not. Even if it is, like I said, there might not even be an explanation for it." CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:36:51.997" UserId="2522" />
  <row Id="19118" PostId="9381" Score="1" Text="Ok, so we disagree. I don't think that the question of why the impersonal passive of a deponent verb like _mori_ (_mortuum est beate_) is ill-formed (compared to the well-formedness of an impersonal passive of a non-deponent verb like _pugnare_: _pugnatum est_) is **like** the question of why this or that word is masculine. This said, if your potentially interesting example _conatum est_ used as passive ('it has been tried/attempted') is actually found in (Classical?) Latin texts, I'll be happy to take a look at them. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-04-03T17:01:31.453" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19120" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="Wasn't referring to that question, but to 'I was wondering why there are not impersonal passives of deponant verbs'. And I have seen it before, I will be able to quote it once I find it, which I've seen a few years ago at school I'm afraid." CreationDate="2019-04-03T17:19:12.307" UserId="2522" />
  <row Id="19121" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="Ok. Thanks for your clarification." CreationDate="2019-04-03T17:22:07.720" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25854" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Yourself is most insistent that &quot;moriendum est nobis&quot; is not passive. When rendered into English, &quot;we must die&quot;, this is correct; but, in Latin, to the Romans, it would always be &quot;for us it-ought-to-be-dead (dying; death)--the passive-- wouldn't it? How are things in Barcelona?" CreationDate="2020-04-14T10:24:26.560" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25861" PostId="9381" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, my surmise is that _moriendum est nobis_  is not passive. Otherwise, given what I've said in my post (see also the 3rd link above), I'm afraid that one cannot give an explanation of why the truly passive construction _mortuum est beate_ is ill-formed. Regards from Barcelona." CreationDate="2020-04-15T22:10:36.647" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="40611" PostId="9383" Score="2" Text="In computing, the thirteenth month is called UNDECIMBER. It is used to give an easy way to refer to (and thus specify) the names of months in calendars in which a year has thirteen months - or in which some years do. [This Wikipedia article is concise and reasonably sensible][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecimber" CreationDate="2022-12-11T11:12:20.417" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="19065" PostId="9384" Score="0" Text="Good point! I upgraded my answer a bit. I would find it reasonable to keep the *e* in the English versions by analogy. I don't really know whether the *-ber* would have an effect on the vowel in Latin." CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:49:29.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19069" PostId="9384" Score="1" Text="I would *strongly* prefer &quot;Undecember&quot; and &quot;Duodecember&quot; rather than using forms ending in &quot;-decimber&quot;, both because of the analogy of &quot;September&quot;, &amp;al., and the fact the reduction of the &quot;e&quot; to &quot;i&quot; in _undecim_ would not naturally occur in a heavy syllable, as in _Undec(e/i)mber_." CreationDate="2019-04-01T03:31:46.747" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19083" PostId="9384" Score="0" Text="@varro Does vowel reduction not happen in heavy syllables? I thought it happened to short vowels no matter what came after them." CreationDate="2019-04-01T17:42:18.297" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19084" PostId="9384" Score="2" Text="I probably should have been more precise in my comment.  Compare _accipere_ with _acceptus_ - the second vowel in each exhibits a type of vowel reduction, but the closed syllable in _acceptus_ prevents the last stage in the full progression of /a/ -&gt; /e/ -&gt; /i/, which is at issue here.  That said, the various numbers ending in _-decim_ seem to be somewhat irregular in that we should expect to see forms such as *_undicem_, &amp;c. rather than _undecim_." CreationDate="2019-04-01T19:12:38.257" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19070" PostId="9386" Score="0" Text="Interesting! What does _Argos_ mean?" CreationDate="2019-04-01T03:47:00.170" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19071" PostId="9386" Score="0" Text="It's a bit ambiguous.  The word *can* mean &quot;white&quot;, or (more likely in this case, I think) &quot;swift-footed&quot;." CreationDate="2019-04-01T03:50:51.807" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19099" PostId="9387" Score="0" Text="Maybe you were thinking of this charming grave inscription for an unnamed dog: https://books.google.com/books?id=_tyyENTrvt8C&amp;pg=RA2-PA20&amp;lpg=RA2-PA20&amp;dq=numquam+latravit+inepte&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TpS_at26nP&amp;sig=ACfU3U0pi1eYOabjI1gjCckDVzj6NzgXrA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjixvC2z7LhAhXXJTQIHexYAiwQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=numquam%20latravit%20inepte&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:03:46.857" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19101" PostId="9387" Score="0" Text="@TKR That one is charming. I included it in a short collection that I once compiled to read with a class, but it isn't what I was thinking of. I was thinking of [this one](http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6727/unknown-maker-grave-stele-for-helena-roman-ad-150-200/), currently in the Getty Villa; apparently, though, it's not entirely clear whether the inscription is commemorating a dog or a human girl, in spite of the very sweet relief of a Maltese dog." CreationDate="2019-04-03T05:08:38.503" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30420" PostId="9389" Score="0" Text="Likely if it's Ancient Greek and referring to a slave, it's an indicator of degree, meaning the person might be the highest slave or the most valued (rank) of slave of their masters' order. See more here, where they discuss the degrees in Ancient Greek more in-depth: https://ancientgreek.pressbooks.com/chapter/36/" CreationDate="2021-01-08T23:38:12.487" UserId="8831" />
  <row Id="19081" PostId="9394" Score="0" Text="Great answer! One point, though: It seems to make a difference for the vowel change whether the prefix has one or more syllables. We have *circumagere*, but *circumiacere* also has the reduced variant. Maybe the new stress on the first syllable of the prefix is far enough so that a secondary stress can be kept on the first syllable of *agere* in old Latin?" CreationDate="2019-04-01T15:36:33.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19082" PostId="9394" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think those forms are later derivations, since the second syllable of *circum* doesn't get reduced either. Alternately, L&amp;S say that verbs prefixed with *circum* are often written as two separate words, so the Romans might not have thought of them as truly joined." CreationDate="2019-04-01T16:06:15.920" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19086" PostId="9394" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I find the last suggestion deeply unconvincing, because sound changes do not generally depend on writing (or indeed, on whether a language is written at all). But I'd be quite prepared to believe that prefixed _circum-_ was a later development." CreationDate="2019-04-01T23:19:03.180" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="19087" PostId="9394" Score="2" Text="@ColinFine Oh, sorry—what I meant wasn't that the writing made the sounds not change, but that the Romans wrote them separately *because* they thought of _circum_ and _eō_ as two separate words. In which case the sound changes, which happened only in words of 3+ syllables, would have left them alone." CreationDate="2019-04-01T23:34:39.113" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19088" PostId="9394" Score="2" Text="(In other words, the writing reflects the Romans' pronouncing them as separate words, not the other way around.)" CreationDate="2019-04-01T23:35:08.717" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19090" PostId="9394" Score="2" Text="I've always seen *prod-* written as *prōd-*, with a long vowel. The first syllable of *prodigo* scans as long, and I don't think that it's a case of the d acting as a coda consonant that makes a heavy syllable with a short vowel, because the similar example of *redigo* has a light first syllable." CreationDate="2019-04-02T03:34:21.697" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19091" PostId="9394" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Interesting, I didn't know that! Lemme edit that into the answer." CreationDate="2019-04-02T03:46:46.297" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19093" PostId="9394" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Edited again to note" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:29:08.387" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19097" PostId="9398" Score="1" Text="Following the Longus citation from the discussion you link yields an attestation of ἡ Λυκαίνιον in the wild (in more than one sense): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Longus+3.15&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0642" CreationDate="2019-04-02T17:39:29.680" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19098" PostId="9398" Score="0" Text="Longus writes a correct if slightly Koineized Attic. I think his usage is good evidence that such natural concord was standard in Greek." CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:01:06.730" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19100" PostId="9398" Score="1" Text="Another find from the same discussion: ἡ Χρυσάριον (followed by feminine participles) in Lucian, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Luc.+DMeretr.+1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0527" CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:21:45.990" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19096" PostId="9399" Score="1" Text="Brilliant! Reminds me of Dasher and Dancer and Donner and Blitzen, Comet and Cupid and Prancer and Vixen (but not necessarily in that order) — to say nothing of Rudolph." CreationDate="2019-04-02T14:45:43.467" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19102" PostId="9399" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton Or Achilles's two immortal horses, Balios (apparently meaning 'Dappled') and Xanthos ('Blonde'), and the third, Pēdasos ('Leaping', perhaps)." CreationDate="2019-04-03T05:37:14.750" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19104" PostId="9399" Score="0" Text="@sumelic So, on closer inspection, it would seem that there are several problems with that list!  Hurricane and Hunter should be transposed - Theron is Hunter (from θήρα, hunting) and Laelaps is indeed Hurricane.  But there are other problems, not least of which there are more English names than Latin! There is no translation for Thoos; no dog is called Wolf, Black-hair, Beast-killer or Mountaineer.  The list should stop at Barker (Hylactor). Perhaps I should edit my answer (and not blindly trust editors again!)" CreationDate="2019-04-03T07:32:03.967" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="19105" PostId="9399" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the clarification! I guess it could be a loose translation that is meant to convey only the general impression of the names, and not the specific meaning of each one." CreationDate="2019-04-03T07:43:07.673" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19106" PostId="9399" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Perhaps!  I've fixed up the list in the answer proper.  Thoos _is_ translated correctly as Swift and it's Lycisce that doesn't seem to have a translation.  I'm not even going to begin on the Xenophon list!  Well, not right now ... :)" CreationDate="2019-04-03T07:49:04.343" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="32565" PostId="9399" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been elected one of the best answers of 2019.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/490/79)" CreationDate="2021-04-13T20:44:43.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19107" PostId="9402" Score="0" Text="What does the abbreviation `Ved.` in that quote mean?" CreationDate="2019-04-03T08:50:16.977" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="19108" PostId="9402" Score="0" Text="@Wilson..... Vedic" CreationDate="2019-04-03T09:18:56.450" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="19111" PostId="9403" Score="2" Text="FYI: *lingua romana* was used as a word for the Romance languages in the modern era. So it was used for literature not written in Latin, but in the vernecular (French). So developed the name of the literary genre &quot;Roman&quot; (French and German, &quot;novel&quot; in English). Certain types of literature were later described &quot;as in a Roman&quot;, so the epoch of Romanticism got its name. From that meaning also the word &quot;romance&quot; evolved." CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:36:18.880" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="19109" PostId="9404" Score="0" Text="Also Ovid's famous _Amorēs_" CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:28:46.100" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19406" PostId="9411" Score="0" Text="It would be &quot;strange&quot;, yes, as in a paradox: that is exactly the figure of speech I was trying to read in it! A paradox usually relies on reading the same word in two different ways: their parents forbade (said no to) what they could not forbid (prevent). Perhaps it's wishful thinking and I should submit to the lectio simplicior(?). I do wonder, though: is unspecific cataphora possible in Latin? &quot;What they could not forbid, both burned equally...&quot;: *quod* refers forward, but it refers to the entire clause. This sounds a bit iffy to me, just as in English; or is that nonsense?" CreationDate="2019-04-27T02:38:03.730" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19407" PostId="9411" Score="0" Text="P.S. I still like the Golding translation from 1567 (vide supra) which / because it has the paradoxical variant!" CreationDate="2019-04-27T02:40:05.210" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19413" PostId="9411" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The loose cataphora seems normal to me, though I don't have a parallel off the top of my head. I'm not seeing how translating *vetare* as &quot;prevent&quot;  helps, because it's still the case that the parents did prevent the marriage." CreationDate="2019-04-27T21:02:28.273" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19414" PostId="9411" Score="0" Text="Well, if you read *taedae* poetically/loosely as &quot;being a couple&quot;, the parents tried to forbid that but failed." CreationDate="2019-04-28T01:19:15.527" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19133" PostId="9414" Score="0" Text="Joonas, I've incorporated some of my previous comments below together with what I consider some insights from your answer into my post above (I thought it could give a bad impression to include five consecutive comments of mine...)." CreationDate="2019-04-04T19:20:27.040" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19134" PostId="9414" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino It was very interesting to see that metonymy as a way to analyze these constructions is actually in academic use and not only something I ended up thinking on my own!" CreationDate="2019-04-05T01:49:51.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19130" PostId="9415" Score="0" Text="But isn't that the n. pl. of the future participle? If it's a noun you want (i.e., rather than the adj. 'tenured'), then the standard Decl. 4 noun would be _tentus_." CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:44:07.160" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19131" PostId="9415" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton No, it's not a participle but a derived noun. It isn't supposed to mean &quot;tenured&quot; but the concept &quot;tenure&quot; itself. I added some examples of the phenomenon to my answer." CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:56:32.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19132" PostId="9415" Score="1" Text="Oh, dear, of course you are right!" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:59:40.260" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="26137" PostId="9416" Score="2" Text="My intuition, weak though it is, would not prefer your (3) either. P.S. I believe *ellipsis* is perhaps more appropriate than *elision*." CreationDate="2020-05-02T13:08:52.533" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19135" PostId="9417" Score="1" Text="*sipho /sipo -onis* (long sip-) amongst others Livy describing some sort of hydraulic phenomenon, leading to a *fons.*" CreationDate="2019-04-05T23:47:01.310" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19136" PostId="9417" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: Hah! That makes sense, I presume it's Greek." CreationDate="2019-04-06T03:15:55.233" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19138" PostId="9417" Score="0" Text="My Greek lexicon doesn't show if it had the same range of medical, hydraulic, garden-feature meanings as the Latin." CreationDate="2019-04-06T17:36:02.907" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19139" PostId="9417" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: Yeah, I'll leave that to future respondentes..." CreationDate="2019-04-06T19:37:53.037" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19140" PostId="9420" Score="0" Text="Such orthography can lead to confusions between pairs like *a te* and *arte*. I'm pretty sure there are more pairs where *ā* and *ar* have different different meaning. But this is only an argument to say that the practice is bad, not that it doesn't exist." CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:39:25.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19141" PostId="9420" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta In that case at least you still have a space between the words, but yes; now I'm trying to think of more examples." CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:57:37.403" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19317" PostId="9421" Score="1" Text="I'd suggest asking a new question rather than repurposing an existing one; it makes it harder for people to answer just one or the other, if someone comes along and knows exactly what you need." CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:09:03.330" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19319" PostId="9421" Score="0" Text="Ok, many thanks for your suggestion. Following your advice, I've just divided my previous big question into two different (but related) questions. By the way, did you, Draconis, find my answer to your question ('Did Latin have any ergative verbs?' See above) convincing? Thanks in advance!" CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:49:18.580" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="46963" PostId="9421" Score="0" Text="By the way, could *foris aperit* not be read as, &quot;he opens the doors&quot;? The other examples are none of them truly intransitive." CreationDate="2023-12-22T16:45:32.667" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="46964" PostId="9421" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus In this case/context the verb is used intransitively. By the way, I've just seen that Pinkster (2015: 281) gives this very same example as a case of &quot;decausative use of active forms&quot; (cf. his translation: 'The door is opening'). Interestingly, he compares it with the transitive/causative use involved in _Ecquis has aperit fores?_ (Pl. _Mos._ 900).  In fact, this verb is a good example of anticausative/ergative verb. For further related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21231/how-one-can-say-the-door-opened-in-latin" CreationDate="2023-12-22T18:44:24.233" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19150" PostId="9426" Score="0" Text="Enim follows its phrase; et precedes.  *Contra (Diabolum enim) (et alios Daemones)*" CreationDate="2019-04-08T12:32:03.677" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19158" PostId="9426" Score="0" Text="I keep seeing this in HNQ and reading it as 'What does &quot;eminem&quot; mean?'" CreationDate="2019-04-08T16:19:53.707" UserId="632" />
  <row Id="19144" PostId="9428" Score="0" Text="Excellent! I think this is the right answer—am I correct in translating that sentence as &quot;for the Devil and other demons, created by God, are indeed good by nature, but their deeds in and of themselves are evil&quot;? I'm never sure when translating Church Latin if I'm missing some crucial nuance." CreationDate="2019-04-08T04:31:18.770" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19146" PostId="9428" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, I updated the answer with my attempt at a translation – admittedly, a somewhat heavy-handed one." CreationDate="2019-04-08T04:40:16.480" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19149" PostId="9429" Score="2" Text="In Cyrillic Н is also sometimes with a horizontal bar and sometimes with an [angled bar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Cyrillic_alphabet). Probably just a small change." CreationDate="2019-04-08T11:14:15.030" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="20550" PostId="9433" Score="0" Text="Can you tell us some more context for this question? For example, do you mean a situation like at [the end of the movie _Rambo 2_](https://youtu.be/HIU2aJS9cuM?t=1m52s), or Lyndon Johnson being sworn in as President, or, say, fixing a broken cartwheel? Depending on the situation, a word for &quot;things&quot; may or may not be necessary." CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:20:39.593" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="19161" PostId="9435" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This is indeed a good translation, but note that Mark was asking to check whether his Latin was correct, not so much how it translates to English. And it should also be borne in mind that the &quot;obvious&quot; English counterpart to a Latin word doesn't always mean the same thing..." CreationDate="2019-04-08T18:45:12.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19173" PostId="9437" Score="0" Text="Cerberus: Thank you. I'll re-submit the other two parts. Been meaning to ask; if nobody wanted to go to Hades, why was a three-headed dog required to guard the door? Cheers." CreationDate="2019-04-09T08:42:21.510" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19176" PostId="9437" Score="1" Text="@tony: Good! // Well, I am there to keep the dead where they belong! Stupid people like Hercules and Orpheus interfere with my work." CreationDate="2019-04-09T14:32:14.123" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19171" PostId="9439" Score="0" Text="I would say you're both correct! Your translations both capture the meaning of the text. Your translation is a bit more literal. In addition, you have chosen to read *illa* as &quot;matters&quot;, while the other translator has chosen &quot;those [apocryphal texts]&quot;. Either choice can be valid depending on the context (*illa* is like a pronoun, to be filled in based on context)." CreationDate="2019-04-09T00:16:02.867" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19177" PostId="9439" Score="0" Text="Thanks! However,  I'm confused as to the referents in the other translation. In mine, Judith is not definitive or authoritative enough to settle doctrinal matters (as I take Jerome to be saying the Jews hold), whereas the other translation appears to be saying Judith has &quot;no warrant for affirming&quot; *the Apocryphal texts.* Can we really both be right?" CreationDate="2019-04-09T14:56:44.567" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="19168" PostId="9441" Score="1" Text="That has to be the fastest answer in history (literally within seconds haha). I will mark yours as the answer as soon as it'll allow me (which is apparently 10 minutes from now) (Also, did you mean to write &quot;*un*ambiguously?&quot;)" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:06:52.050" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="19169" PostId="9441" Score="0" Text="@SolaGratia I did, but I was in a Latin mode and went with in- instead of un-. Good catch!" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:08:26.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19172" PostId="9442" Score="1" Text="I would actually say that *ipse* is a pronoun, but not a personal pronoun. But I guess that depends on what one means by a pronoun in a first place, and that's tangential to the question at hand. Anyway, a +1 for a good explanation!" CreationDate="2019-04-09T00:47:28.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19175" PostId="9445" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you add the White and Shirley translation of the passage to your answer? That would make the case much stronger." CreationDate="2019-04-09T13:40:43.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19360" PostId="9445" Score="0" Text="White:&#xA;I fully expect that those who judge things confusedly, and who have not been accustomed to cognise things through their first causes, will find it difficult to comprehend the demonstration of the 7th Proposition, since they do not distinguish between the modifications of substances and substances themselves, and are ignorant of the manner in which things are produced. Hence it comes to pass that they erroneously ascribe to substances a beginning like that which they see belongs to natural things" CreationDate="2019-04-24T07:09:38.973" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19361" PostId="9445" Score="0" Text="Shirley:&#xA;I do not doubt that for those who judge things confusedly and are not accustomed to know things through their primary causes it is difficult to grasp the proof of Proposition 7. Surely, this is because they neither distinguish between the modification of substances and substances themselves, nor do they know how things are produced. And so it comes about that they ascribe to substances a beginning which they see natural things as having" CreationDate="2019-04-24T07:09:56.257" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19363" PostId="9445" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I edited your answer to include those. You can always edit your own answers and questions to add or fix something." CreationDate="2019-04-24T15:32:21.260" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19187" PostId="9446" Score="0" Text="Cerberus: Thanks (yet) again: taking &quot;respicienti&quot; as  dative gives &quot;Chaerea split the jaw, with a blow, to/ for Caius, he-who-was-looking-back&quot; a relative clause but it fits." CreationDate="2019-04-09T22:14:30.890" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19199" PostId="9446" Score="0" Text="@tony: Yes, exactly!" CreationDate="2019-04-10T17:49:44.333" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19182" PostId="9447" Score="0" Text="Cerberus: thank you, erudite as ever: only one thing, now, generates confusion; on the eighth line, above, after &quot;discidisse&quot; you state [here ends indirect speech]. Immediately following is &quot;iacentem….clamitantem se vivere&quot;--lying...crying that he is still alive--active, indirect,  present tense of the infinitive--isn't it?" CreationDate="2019-04-09T17:27:02.000" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19185" PostId="9447" Score="0" Text="@tony: Thanks! No: that infinitive is part of the *confecerunt* sentence and indirectly depends upon it: *&quot;they killed him lying down and...crying out **that he was alive** (* vivere *)&quot;*. So *vivere* depends on *clamitantem*. You couldn't read it as yet another a.c.i., for then the finite verb *confecerunt* would be left dangling." CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:34:33.950" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19178" PostId="9448" Score="0" Text="Excellent summary/research. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:08:09.773" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="19179" PostId="9448" Score="0" Text="Does this Compendium assert that Jerome is saying this judgement is made by the Church? Isn't it referring to the judgement of the Jews (&quot;Apud Hebraeos .. legitur .. judicatur&quot;)?" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:11:41.050" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="19180" PostId="9448" Score="0" Text="I reworded slightly: the bolded part says, &quot;Only the authority of canonical scripture was judged fit for establishing matters that come into contention, but as for the rest of the books, which Cyprian calls &quot;ecclesiastical&quot; and Jerome calls &quot;apocryphal,&quot; certain people wanted them to be read in the church for the edification of the people, but not in order to establish the authority of churches' dogmas.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:28:58.393" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19181" PostId="9448" Score="0" Text="Yes, but according to Jerome, the 'judging fit for establishing matters' refers to the Jews' opinion on Judith, does it not. Anywho, probably irrelevant to the answer/question. Thanks again." CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:45:31.593" UserId="2047" />
  <row Id="19183" PostId="9452" Score="0" Text="Interesting! Do you know whether *res* should be construed as a general &quot;thing&quot; or more like &quot;case&quot; or some other specific meaning in legal use?" CreationDate="2019-04-09T19:23:08.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19184" PostId="9452" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta For what I can see, seems to refer to the thing to which the aspect of the law is relevant. In the case of a trial, is the case or matter under judgment. Perhaps is not that pertinent for other type of &quot;things&quot;. In any case, I found one instance (haven't searched for more) of a use which seems to be more general than a legal context in Aquinas' _Summa Theologiae_ (see point 4 [here](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1015.html#29105))." CreationDate="2019-04-09T19:47:08.237" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19186" PostId="9453" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you have existing terms for parts of the whole thing, like &quot;an order (from a court) to search&quot;? Such partial information would make it much easier to find something that fits the context." CreationDate="2019-04-09T21:58:21.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19189" PostId="9453" Score="0" Text="I took the liberty to making the title more specific. Please undo if you feel it doesn't do justice to the question." CreationDate="2019-04-10T10:36:09.153" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19193" PostId="9458" Score="0" Text="Wow, amazing! Absolutely different approach to the matter, different way of thinking! Now it sounds like a Japanese hoku to me, really brilliant! Thanks! A sight &quot;ex altera parte&quot;!" CreationDate="2019-04-10T13:32:23.270" UserId="3648" />
  <row Id="19195" PostId="9459" Score="0" Text="You are right, that seems to be really a Russian thing to use dashes instead of &quot;to be&quot;. As for the Option 2 I messed up with the meaning needed, true. Thanks on this, too! And I really like your second option with verbs, this sounds even more emphatic, which is actually required there. Really nice! Howerver, there is still one thing I'm curious about and suspicious of: does this ex + ablative construction sound like too-English-practice? What I mean is that is it natural to use such a construction in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-04-10T14:13:32.700" UserId="3648" />
  <row Id="19196" PostId="9459" Score="0" Text="@Ecrios I'm glad to be able to help! The construction with *ex* is idiomatic and I can't see it as English influence. For example, *ex oriente lux* (&quot;light [comes] from the east&quot;) seems to be too old to be affected much by English but I'm not sure of its origin. And actually, the &quot;from X Y&quot; construction doesn't even strike me as very idiomatic English without a verb." CreationDate="2019-04-10T14:20:58.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19197" PostId="9459" Score="1" Text="Thanks a lot! Now my curiousity seems to be satisfied! :)" CreationDate="2019-04-10T14:33:42.843" UserId="3648" />
  <row Id="37210" PostId="9459" Score="1" Text="*Ars longa, vita brevis.*" CreationDate="2022-02-14T15:08:27.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="19194" PostId="9460" Score="1" Text="Thanks! This looks like a very good approach here. Upon reading this, I actually quite like the plain *persuasisti* which is concise and emphasizes the role of the addressee. The *mihi* can be clear enough from context." CreationDate="2019-04-10T14:03:19.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19198" PostId="9460" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: You're definitely right (+1) when one says that after a long enough discussion. Otherwise, though, I would personally include the _mihi_ because _tibi persuasisti_ (&quot;You [sure] have convinced yourself [of this]&quot;) would also make sense in such cases, with an almost opposite meaning." CreationDate="2019-04-10T15:17:25.263" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19301" PostId="9460" Score="0" Text="It seems like you misunderstand either the English or the Latin. &quot;mihi persuāsum est&quot; means &quot;I'm certain, convinced that, I have good ground to belive; I've decided&quot; - it absolutely cannot be used to admit a point in a debate. &quot;Persuāsistī&quot; translates straightforwardly to &quot;you've convinced me&quot; - which is not what &quot;fair enough&quot; means at all, but means &quot;I admit that you've been right and I've been wrong - the debate is over&quot;. The latter on the contrary means &quot;all right, I accept this point, even if I'm still not convinced about the rest&quot;, and as such is often followed by a counter-point." CreationDate="2019-04-19T11:51:44.930" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="19303" PostId="9460" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Did you skip my first paragraph (where I illustrate the spirit of my answer, apparently well received by the OP), the next one (where I state that _persuasum est_ does usually mean &quot;I'm convinced&quot;) and the Seneca quote (where I show an instance of _mihi persuasum est_ meaning &quot;I've been persuaded&quot;) ? Also, the OP does state he wants to convey a change of opinion on the specific matter." CreationDate="2019-04-19T12:26:52.543" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19306" PostId="9460" Score="0" Text="Again, the idiomatic expression &quot;mihi persuāsum est&quot;~&quot;persuāsum habeō&quot; is not used to express a change of opinion (at least I've yet to see such usage), but to state one's own prior-existing opinion or decision. It is synonymous with &quot;crēdō, arbitror, certus sum&quot;. The Seneca quote looks to be a play on words which can be parallelled with &quot;I'm confident&quot; and &quot;I'm a confidant of&quot;. The former doesn't mean that someone confided something to me." CreationDate="2019-04-20T12:30:45.473" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="19308" PostId="9460" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: As for the first part of your comment, I already said that's the most common meaning. I disagree with your interpretation of the Seneca quote, and all the translations I've seen also do not reflect it." CreationDate="2019-04-20T13:58:31.210" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19329" PostId="9460" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Actually, I don't see a big difference between &quot;fair enough&quot; and &quot;you've convinced me&quot;. I think the suggestion in this answer communicates the idea very well. I have to disagree with your analysis. // If anyone wants to discuss the matter further, I recommend asking a new question. That's always the best way to sort out things like this." CreationDate="2019-04-21T21:47:06.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19385" PostId="9460" Score="0" Text="I agree that &quot;persuāsistī&quot; (you've convinced me) can be used to finish a debate. With &quot;mihi persuāsum est&quot;, the difference is that between &quot;fair enough&quot; and &quot;I'm certain&quot;. You can modify the latter with &quot;now&quot; to signal finally being swayed, but it doesn't signal agreement on its own. I agree with the interpretation of Seneca's quote in your translation - and it expresses what it normally does here, the background information for the communicative situation, it's starting point, the speaker's prior conviction. Any change of opinion has already taken place in the past." CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:10:05.090" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20825" PostId="9462" Score="0" Text="Yikes! This Google translation into fractured *Modern* Greek is funnier than Boris Johnson's similar (notorious) recent gambit!" CreationDate="2019-08-06T14:35:34.543" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="19200" PostId="9463" Score="0" Text="ἥττων &quot;less&quot; comes to mind as a counterexample. (Btw it seems this is the only reference to *ēta* having rough breathing rather than smooth.)" CreationDate="2019-04-11T03:59:39.310" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19201" PostId="9463" Score="0" Text="@TKR Oh, are there references to it being smooth? I didn't question that part—I figured it would be rough, since the name came from something like _ħet_. Might ask another question on that tomorrow once I've googled a bit." CreationDate="2019-04-11T04:14:00.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19215" PostId="9463" Score="2" Text="I've only ever seen it with smooth breathing -- see the LSJ entry, which cites this scholium as an exception." CreationDate="2019-04-11T20:06:12.027" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19204" PostId="9464" Score="0" Text="Well, hmmm...  the general idea of &quot;change is the only constant&quot; and &quot;life is flux&quot; (panta rhei) is what I was hoping to find with an actual quote from one of the fragments of his work.  Instead it appears that what this is is an interpretation of his words.  That would be (for me) the equivalent of quoting someone talking about the meaning of a Bob Dylan song, instead of quoting the song itself.  I am struggling to find something meaningful that is as close to the original source as possible.  Any suggestions?  “The way up and the way down are one and the same.&quot; - Thank you" CreationDate="2019-04-11T15:23:11.320" UserId="3651" />
  <row Id="19205" PostId="9464" Score="2" Text="@BillBeemer Unfortunately, none of Heraclitus's actual writings have survived. What we have are other writers summarizing his works (like this), or occasionally quoting him directly: there are a couple quotes in the _Cratylus_, and some more in _Thrax_, but the _Cratylus_ ones in particular may not be exactly accurate either. If what you're looking for is _a direct quote from Heraclitus expressing that everything changes_, that might be a good question to ask separately!" CreationDate="2019-04-11T15:40:29.507" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19206" PostId="9464" Score="0" Text="Thank you again - at this point, I am thinking that a correct 'spelling' of panta rhei (in the correct dialect for the era) would suffice.  I will post anew. (I am so glad that I found this web site)" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:35:41.757" UserId="3651" />
  <row Id="19202" PostId="9465" Score="0" Text="not sure why the downvote :(" CreationDate="2019-04-11T09:11:43.470" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="30823" PostId="9466" Score="0" Text="A university was a place where all knowledge is supposed to be collected (to be learned), as far as I know. So maybe that singularity of place has something to do with the naming of &quot;university.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-23T01:30:03.020" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="19203" PostId="9467" Score="1" Text="It seems an option is &quot;_[Indiana Cicero](https://translate.google.com/?um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;client=tw-ob#view=home&amp;op=translate&amp;sl=en&amp;tl=la&amp;text=Indiana%20Johnson)_&quot;. (0.0) Hilarious." CreationDate="2019-04-11T10:41:46.347" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19224" PostId="9468" Score="2" Text="Would be better to replace `J` with `I`. Both because `J` was developed after Roman Empire fell, and because it was plot element in `The Last Crusade`, IIRC." CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:09:39.340" UserId="1969" />
  <row Id="19208" PostId="9473" Score="0" Text="**πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει**&#xA;this seems to be the best I have come across so far - are the characters and spelling in modern greek, or is this appropriate for the era? Again, @Draconis thank you" CreationDate="2019-04-11T17:51:39.333" UserId="3652" />
  <row Id="19209" PostId="9473" Score="0" Text="Bravo. I was stuck on the Simplicius quotation which I eventual traced to  Simplicius&#xA;Commentary on Aristotle’s Physica 1313.11." CreationDate="2019-04-11T17:51:57.807" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19210" PostId="9473" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Ah, nice! I didn't manage to find the line number; mind if I edit that into my answer? Otherwise, posting the Simplicius quote with context could make for another good answer!" CreationDate="2019-04-11T17:52:53.353" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19212" PostId="9473" Score="0" Text="@billbeemer The words and spelling are all ancient, though using lowercase letters is modern. (The usual convention is to add modern capitalization and punctuation to ancient texts to make them easier to read; Heraclitus wouldn't have been familiar with periods and commas, but they help a _lot_ for modern-day readers.)" CreationDate="2019-04-11T17:58:58.913" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19213" PostId="9473" Score="0" Text="@Draconis - here is the google translate for the phrase in English **all countries and none left**  -or- **always lives and remains** ....ahh the joys of technology.  Thank you all again!" CreationDate="2019-04-11T18:07:32.447" UserId="3652" />
  <row Id="19214" PostId="9473" Score="0" Text="@billbeemer No problem! Remember, if you found an answer useful, you can click the green checkmark next to it to &quot;accept&quot; it." CreationDate="2019-04-11T18:34:39.750" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19216" PostId="9474" Score="0" Text="These are good suggestions, +1! Can you describe the meaning of *subiunctor* for those who haven't seen it before?" CreationDate="2019-04-11T20:32:07.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19220" PostId="9474" Score="0" Text="What is the difference between the subiunctor you suggest and subjugātor that Draconis suggested?" CreationDate="2019-04-12T02:07:37.670" UserId="3654" />
  <row Id="19223" PostId="9474" Score="1" Text="*Subiugator* is an agent who places somebody under a yoke, or ritually humiliates a conquered tribe by forcing them to run the gauntlet under an oxen yoke: from *sub-jugo.*  *Sunjunctor* is a regularly formed word, unattested, to specify an agent who ties a strap under the yoke to fasten it, from *sub-jungo,* to undergird." CreationDate="2019-04-12T12:53:59.693" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19217" PostId="9475" Score="0" Text="What does &quot;an inverted funnel system&quot; mean?" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:33:45.580" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19218" PostId="9475" Score="0" Text="It's a funny way of saying pyramid scheme, that one could be literally translated to &quot;Infundibulum inversum ratio&quot; and that'd probably be fine" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:39:44.483" UserId="3655" />
  <row Id="19415" PostId="9475" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! It's great that you are interested in Latin. The only thing is that translation requests are off topic here, unless you show what you have tried, and what parts you are not happy about. Something to work with. If you can add enough such information, the question will not be closed. Please don't take it personally, you couldn't have known, but this is the policy set by the community." CreationDate="2019-04-28T02:53:18.037" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19219" PostId="9476" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for the lengthy and informative answer!" CreationDate="2019-04-12T02:06:42.417" UserId="3654" />
  <row Id="19222" PostId="9480" Score="7" Text="Incidentally, this can be used to distinguish between diphthongs and vowels with iota adscriptum when dealing with capitals (where in modern typesetting, iota subscriptum is actually placed next to the capital (thus _adscriptum_, instead of under it.) Thus, in ᾿´Αιδι, we know it's pronounced as &quot;adi&quot;, not as &quot;aidi&quot;, because if the latter were correct, it would have to be written as Αἴδι." CreationDate="2019-04-12T12:20:25.940" UserId="2246" />
  <row Id="19229" PostId="9482" Score="0" Text="So if I say &quot;I love dogs&quot; will it be similar as &quot;I want a dog&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-04-13T02:23:13.387" UserId="3656" />
  <row Id="19236" PostId="9482" Score="0" Text="@jake dobson *canes amo,* I love dogs; *canem amo,* I love my dog; *ěgěo* (followed by Genitive or ablative) *cănis,* I seriously need a dog; *cănem fingo* if only I could have a dog; *cănem spero,* I hope I can have a dog." CreationDate="2019-04-13T10:18:58.287" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19225" PostId="9483" Score="1" Text="This is an excellent rule of thumb, but if you use it on the OP's first sentence (&quot;my favorite animal is **him**&quot;), it'll give the wrong answer." CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:30:58.920" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19226" PostId="9483" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I did write about that  right after the examples in the end. English treats *be* differently than Latin treats *esse*. That's also why I reworded the first example." CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:32:03.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19227" PostId="9485" Score="1" Text="I take your point about diphthongs. ει and ου were digraphs, not diphthongs.The long diphthongs ᾱι ηι ωι were still written in Attic inscriptions of the classical period; in the Byzantine orthography they were written with subscript iota." CreationDate="2019-04-12T18:26:23.970" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="19228" PostId="9485" Score="1" Text="@fdb Yeah, annoyingly my textbook at least calls those two &quot;diphthongs&quot; even though they linguistically weren't (they were long monophthongs), so I'm trying to use that same terminology here. I didn't know the Attics still wrote the long diphthongs though, I'll add a note about that." CreationDate="2019-04-12T18:27:36.077" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19252" PostId="9485" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the detailed answer, I'm learning everyday. It is known to me that ου (/u:/) is a monothong, but not in the case of ει. I thought it would be like /ei/, just as I would read λέγειν as /legein/. Do I miss something here...?" CreationDate="2019-04-13T21:49:57.263" UserId="2973" />
  <row Id="19253" PostId="9485" Score="2" Text="@K.Park Originally, ου and ει were true diphthongs, but at some point before Classical times they merged into monophthongs (`/o: e:/`). That's why εε contracts to ει rather than η in Attic (but εα→η because η was a somewhat lower vowel). Then both of them raised, becoming `/u: i:/`.&#xA;&#xA;That said, the Erasmian pronunciation (one of the more common pronunciation schemes for Ancient Greek) uses `/ei/`, so you're not at all wrong for saying it that way. No native ancient Athenians are going to try to correct you on it!" CreationDate="2019-04-13T21:58:59.533" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19230" PostId="9486" Score="0" Text="Thanks! The last two paragraphs were really what I was looking for: if this scholium-writer was actually talking about a phonemic rule or just making something up." CreationDate="2019-04-13T02:28:48.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19232" PostId="9488" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much! Appreciate you reply." CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:04:58.487" UserId="3659" />
  <row Id="19233" PostId="9488" Score="0" Text="@jcytzxc You are welcome, but not so fast (in marking as accepted), I should say. Let's see what other people think. I'm still a beginner in Latin. :/" CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:05:20.947" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19234" PostId="9488" Score="0" Text="I do have some sentences that I do have queries about. Would it be possible to share it with you? I would like to hear out your feedback so I can improve on my Latin. Similarly, I am a beginner as well." CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:06:46.493" UserId="3659" />
  <row Id="19235" PostId="9488" Score="0" Text="@jcytzxc You are welcome to post them in this site! If the phrases have some connection, perhaps you can add them as just one new question, rather than one new question per phrase. But that's just my suggestion." CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:08:19.820" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19238" PostId="9488" Score="0" Text="I think perhaps a construction with ut might be an alternative: &quot;... comprehendere ut sacrificare non debeam&quot;. Or maybe &quot;... quod sacrificare non debeo&quot;. But I am a beginner as well, so this is only a possibility at best." CreationDate="2019-04-13T14:42:27.080" UserId="3642" />
  <row Id="19260" PostId="9488" Score="1" Text="You should have _habeam_. And regarding _approbo_, the &quot;allow&quot; bit on the L&amp;S entry specifies &quot;so of the gods&quot;, hence the underlying meaning is still of &quot;approval, favor&quot; (of the gods)." CreationDate="2019-04-14T15:33:50.533" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19239" PostId="9490" Score="0" Text="Is *potest* being used as an impersonal verb? If so, *licet* might work." CreationDate="2019-04-13T15:13:19.123" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19256" PostId="9490" Score="0" Text="From the question body this seems to focus on the translation of **cannot be punished**, which disagrees with the title. Per chance you want to change the title?" CreationDate="2019-04-14T03:53:40.280" UserId="3642" />
  <row Id="19259" PostId="9490" Score="0" Text="@awllowerr: The setting of a dangerous precedent was the point; so, seemed an appropriate title." CreationDate="2019-04-14T10:49:42.673" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19275" PostId="9490" Score="0" Text="@tony If you really want a translation for &quot;precedent&quot; that has the juridical meaning and is not only an &quot;example&quot;: I suspect there is no such word. The Roman judical system did not rely on precedents in court but on *responsa prudentium*, responses of jurists." CreationDate="2019-04-15T20:12:20.720" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="19242" PostId="9491" Score="1" Text="Perhaps this might interest you as well. D'Angour 1999 &quot;Inconsistent usage of consonantal H is found on Attic state inscriptions at least as late as 407-6 (ML 91). On a stele dated 409-7 (ML 89) it appears together with H=eta and with occasional psilosis. Occurrences later than 403/2 appear to be archaisms: Threatte (1980) 24-5, 483&quot; (p. 109, footnote 3)." CreationDate="2019-04-13T16:35:36.573" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19254" PostId="9491" Score="1" Text="This might be interesting for you too: Plutarch, On the E at Delphi. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/misctracts/plutarchE.html" CreationDate="2019-04-13T22:18:34.797" UserId="2973" />
  <row Id="35861" PostId="9491" Score="0" Text="*Nowadays, the letter Η/η is called &quot;ita&quot; by Greeks and &quot;eta&quot; by physicists.* British people pronounce it &quot;ita.&quot; IIRC this has to do with vowel shifts since the time of Erasmus." CreationDate="2021-11-19T15:14:40.833" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="19244" PostId="9492" Score="0" Text="Just as a side note, the &quot;confusion of the sibilants&quot; theory which you allude to under San is IMO wrong, though it often gets put forward as fact in discussions of the transmission of the alphabet." CreationDate="2019-04-13T18:42:06.620" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19245" PostId="9492" Score="0" Text="@TKR Oh? I admit I've only seen it put forward as fact, I didn't realize it was contentious." CreationDate="2019-04-13T18:43:00.507" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19246" PostId="9492" Score="1" Text="It's often taken for granted, largely I think because Jeffery favored it in *LSAG*, but I think the evidential basis for it is very slight." CreationDate="2019-04-13T19:29:20.787" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19255" PostId="9492" Score="1" Text="@TKR Added a new question, since I'm curious now; I'd be quite interested to hear any other explanation, since &quot;the Greeks mixed up all the letters and their sound values and their order&quot; does seem a bit strange to assume without solid evidence." CreationDate="2019-04-14T00:18:11.667" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19713" PostId="9492" Score="0" Text="A comment on the &quot;Honorable mention&quot;: The letter j is used in Greek etymologies where it is required for reconstructed Proto-Greek forms and explaining some Greek sound laws.  The Greek grammar book I had made a lot of use of it." CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:12:08.040" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="19714" PostId="9492" Score="0" Text="@jknappen Interesting; that makes sense, but why would it need its own Unicode codepoint? For comparison, the IPA just uses U+006A, the Latin `j`." CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:15:59.823" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19716" PostId="9492" Score="1" Text="The principle is separation of scripts: Because it is weird to have a single Latin letter in a string of Greek letters, it was given the status of a Greek letter as well. The principle has also led to the cyrillic letters Ԛԛ and Ԝԝ for Kurdish with cyrillic script." CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:21:41.170" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="44978" PostId="9493" Score="0" Text="Who is Jeffery?" CreationDate="2023-10-02T12:09:55.063" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="44980" PostId="9493" Score="1" Text="@vectory Lilian Hamilton Jeffery, _The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece_" CreationDate="2023-10-02T15:28:14.130" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19268" PostId="9494" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: thanks: looks better, apart from using the same word in both clauses (tales/ talia)." CreationDate="2019-04-15T09:30:02.450" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19273" PostId="9494" Score="0" Text="@tony Actually, I did purposely use *talia* (&quot;such things&quot; rather than &quot;such conspiracy&quot;) in the second clause. But *tales* is perfectly fine, too." CreationDate="2019-04-15T14:28:48.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19262" PostId="9495" Score="0" Text="***&quot;Varium** nunc transgrediamur **virum** . et postea Marcus in trianguli primo angulo ...&quot;*" CreationDate="2019-04-14T16:28:13.510" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19263" PostId="9495" Score="0" Text="Yes; I'll probably have to settle for _varius_, or something similar, though it seems to mean any sort of variation, not just 'striped'. I put forward _striatus_, meaning 'fluted' as on architectural columns, but this also doesn't really convey the meaning, either. Maybe I'll just have to rely on context." CreationDate="2019-04-14T16:37:11.983" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19269" PostId="9499" Score="1" Text="Isn't -ul- some kind of diminutive suffix? &quot;virgulatus&quot; would then mean having narrow stripes, or maybe pinstripes" CreationDate="2019-04-15T10:38:51.757" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="19270" PostId="9499" Score="0" Text="@Wilson: It is true that *-ul-* is a diminutive suffix, but, like diminutive suffixes in other languages, I believe it can also be used non-diminutively. I don't know why or when. The OLD has this: https://i.imgur.com/WbFyDg8.png (*-ulus* forms (1) diminutives; (2) adjectives denoting repeated action; (3) instruments). So I'm not sure about that attractive hypothesis of yours...could be!" CreationDate="2019-04-15T13:48:23.980" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19265" PostId="9500" Score="0" Text="This is a question I'm interested in too—so if you find a way to get the full thing as betacoded XML, I have a script to convert that into nice readable Greek that I can share." CreationDate="2019-04-15T03:05:34.410" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19266" PostId="9500" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, that would be useful -- I actually wrote such a script years ago, but have since lost both it and the rudimentary coding knowledge that allowed me to write it. Could you share yours? It turns out you can download the entire Perseus corpus, which I've done (see edit), but the Greek texts are all in beta code." CreationDate="2019-04-15T03:10:07.603" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19267" PostId="9500" Score="0" Text="@Draconis and TKR: Such a code would actually make a nice separate question and answer on its own. The technology needed to study the languages of the site is very much on topic, and we haven't had much of that yet." CreationDate="2019-04-15T03:16:12.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19271" PostId="9501" Score="2" Text="If *striped* is intended to mean &quot;with a stripe along the rim of the garment&quot;, I think *clavatus* would work! It is from *claudo* &quot;to close (off)&quot;, so I believe it generally denotes one (big) stripe along the edge." CreationDate="2019-04-15T13:54:16.900" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19272" PostId="9501" Score="0" Text="Then again, the final sense of the noun *clavus* gives this (L&amp;S): *&quot;2. Poet., a tunic, in gen., either wide or narrow striped: &quot;mutare in horas&quot;, Hor. S. 2, 7, 10: &quot;sumere depositum&quot;, id. ib. 1, 6, 25.*&quot;" CreationDate="2019-04-15T13:57:16.050" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38199" PostId="9502" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately, that doesn't work for Smith's dictionaries!" CreationDate="2022-05-02T20:28:48.203" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="19276" PostId="9503" Score="2" Text="Just one correction: the `%3D` isn't part of the number, it's the escape code for the `=` character. So the URLs go from `chapter=1` to `chapter=[whatever]`, keep going until you get a 404." CreationDate="2019-04-15T23:18:43.140" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19281" PostId="9503" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Indeed. What I meant was that to get the automated download, the script needs to run from 3D1 to 3D58." CreationDate="2019-04-16T06:29:19.057" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19274" PostId="9504" Score="0" Text="The former comes from _macula_, &quot;stain/streak&quot;, so I don't think I'd apply it to intentionally-dyed clothes. A _gramma_ can be a line of writing, so that could make sense, but it does seem a bit too specific." CreationDate="2019-04-15T15:44:40.243" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19283" PostId="9507" Score="1" Text="Do you know what the evidence is for reconstructing affricates in Phoenician? It seems unusual that it would have sibilant affricates but no sibilant fricatives (except shin)." CreationDate="2019-04-16T20:36:56.230" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19287" PostId="9507" Score="1" Text="@TKR: As described in [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_language#Consonants), it seems that shin would be reconstructed as [s] in an affricate-heavy reconstruction, which fits as far as I know with the affricate-heavy hypothesis for (the original state of) Semitic in general (discussed in the Wikipedia article for [Proto-Semitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language#Fricatives))" CreationDate="2019-04-17T02:41:52.763" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19288" PostId="9507" Score="0" Text="@TKR e.g. Krahmalkov, Charles R. &quot;Chapter Two: The Alphabet, orthography and phonology&quot;. In A Phoenician-Punic Grammar, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2001)doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004294202_003" CreationDate="2019-04-17T03:38:48.560" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19294" PostId="9507" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Thanks -- I can't access the full text, unfortunately." CreationDate="2019-04-18T00:51:34.633" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19300" PostId="9507" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. That would be great, thank you." CreationDate="2019-04-19T03:35:00.477" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19736" PostId="9507" Score="1" Text="@TKR I found a copy; Krahmalkov says zayin was `/zd/` or `/dz/`, samekh was `/s/`, tzade was `/ts/`, and shin was an unknown sibilant that merged into `/s/` by Classical Phoenician times. In later Punic they all merged into `/s~z/`." CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:08:57.823" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19277" PostId="9508" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! But I wonder if we know that *eta* predated the loss of aspiration at all? That is, might people not have pronounced it *heta* up until `/h/` disappeared entirely? After all, modern _ypsilon_ has no `/h/`, but we know phonologically it must have been there all the way to the end." CreationDate="2019-04-16T04:09:29.573" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19278" PostId="9508" Score="0" Text="As far as Attic itself is concerned, the phoneme /h/ certainly persisted after adopting the use of eta to represent a vowel.  It seems that the Ionic re-purposing of H to indicate a vowel was due, at least in part, to the loss of /h/ in at least in some varieties of Ionic." CreationDate="2019-04-16T04:19:07.627" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19279" PostId="9508" Score="0" Text="I thought h developed as follows: [aha] &gt; [aka] &gt; [atS@] &gt; [aS] (sorry for the SAMPA; I’m on my phone). The h sound was not initial, and was not lost but turned into k (as in mihi &gt; [miki] in Ecclesiastical Latin)" CreationDate="2019-04-16T04:35:51.270" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19280" PostId="9508" Score="0" Text="Since my last comment, I looked at the Wikipedia article on H, and it seems like different etymologies have been proposed for the French form." CreationDate="2019-04-16T05:44:23.620" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19284" PostId="9508" Score="0" Text="@Draconis There are attestations of the spelling ἦτα from Plato and others, see LSJ." CreationDate="2019-04-17T01:49:09.067" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19285" PostId="9508" Score="0" Text="@TKR Aha, that's exactly what I was looking for! For some reason when I put *hta* into Perseus's word study tool it only shows me the Middle Liddell, which has no attestations listed. Want to post that as an answer?" CreationDate="2019-04-17T02:06:07.940" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19286" PostId="9508" Score="1" Text="@Draconis If you do a dictionary headword search you'll get the full LSJ entry. I've posted it as an answer." CreationDate="2019-04-17T02:26:46.663" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19289" PostId="9511" Score="0" Text="Very interesting—I'm also intrigued by the smooth breathing on the *ὖ*." CreationDate="2019-04-17T04:04:54.780" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19292" PostId="9514" Score="3" Text="Apparently the Latin name for the instrument is _tibia recta_: _tibia_ [corresponds](https://www.dizionario-latino.com/dizionario-italiano-latino.php?lemma=FLAUTO100) to Italian _flauto_, and _recta_ reflects an alternative to the name &quot;flauto dolce&quot; (i.e. _flauto diritto_, as can be seen on the [Wiki page](https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flauto_dolce)  )." CreationDate="2019-04-17T19:27:52.047" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19293" PostId="9514" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Nice find! Added." CreationDate="2019-04-17T20:03:26.133" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19298" PostId="9515" Score="0" Text="Actually this seems to be true of the standard android keyboard! Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-04-18T14:31:17.263" UserId="3627" />
  <row Id="19297" PostId="9516" Score="1" Text="Are there any attestations of this phrase? Is it mentioned in a dictionary or something? I'm not convinced yet that it really means that. (Concerning your comment about me asking questions as well as answering them: I have asked quite a lot of questions, about 20 % of all the questions on the site. You can see the list of questions and answers in every user's profile.)" CreationDate="2019-04-18T13:53:58.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19420" PostId="9516" Score="0" Text="Before the edit I thought you really meant *id est istum* (with a form of the pronoun *iste*). With the added *u* it makes much more sense and I removed my downvote, but the question still stands. If you get a nice answer to [your follow-up question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10582/79), make sure to update this answer!" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:48:00.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19469" PostId="9516" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Apologies for the spelling mistake that caused the (my) confusion. There´s an answer from Kingshorsey on the &quot;Revisited&quot; Q." CreationDate="2019-05-01T08:57:44.587" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19299" PostId="9517" Score="0" Text="It's usual to distinguish between several types of adverbial clause. You are quite far on with the N&amp;H exercises, and it would be helpful to know that you were able to cope earlier with the consecutive, final and causal types. Immediately, though, I suggest that you look at Rule 17 (p.96)." CreationDate="2019-04-18T14:35:01.933" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19304" PostId="9517" Score="0" Text="@Tom Cotton: Thank you. The Q isn't really about subordinate clauses, in indirect speech; but, the substituting of &quot;ut&quot; by &quot;quod&quot;/ &quot;quin&quot;." CreationDate="2019-04-20T09:34:23.117" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="46892" PostId="9519" Score="0" Text="In Caesar's &quot;de Bello Civili 3.73.3: &quot;habendam fortunae gratiam, quod Italiam sine aliquo vulnere cepissent&quot;, the use of &quot;quod + pluperfect subjunctive&quot;, is used to indicate that the subjugation of Italy occurred before the soldiers' recent defeat. Is that correct?" CreationDate="2023-12-15T13:46:01.997" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="46894" PostId="9519" Score="0" Text="@tony: It is the pluperfect that shows that the subjugation occurrent before Caesar's speech: the subjunctive mood does not express temporal relations. The reason this clause is in the subjunctive is because clauses dependent on indirect speech (here on an a.c.i.) are normally in the subjunctive. You could say that is a related effect: because the author obviously distances himself to some degree some someone else's speech, it may make sense for any clauses dependent on it to also be distanced." CreationDate="2023-12-15T17:00:31.977" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19315" PostId="9520" Score="0" Text="I'd recommend Stegemann, Ekkehard (Basle), “Jesus”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. Consulted online on 20 April 2019 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e522560&gt;" CreationDate="2019-04-20T20:17:41.657" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19316" PostId="9521" Score="0" Text="It's baloney. _Ipse_ means -self" CreationDate="2019-04-20T22:56:54.353" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="19330" PostId="9521" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I agree with Colin Fine - it's baloney.  I read the passage by Ricoeur and I think whatever distinction he's trying to make has nothing to do with Latin _idem_ and _ipse_.  (Frankly, I find it incomprehensible - but then again, I'm not a philosopher.)" CreationDate="2019-04-21T21:54:41.413" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19334" PostId="9521" Score="0" Text="@varro And why should a philosophical concept bearing a certain Latin name have the exact same meaning, as it was used two thousand years ago?" CreationDate="2019-04-22T03:12:02.447" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19335" PostId="9521" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.  All right - you've completely lost me here.  *What* &quot;exact same meaning&quot; are you referring to?  I'm willing to be educated here, but at the moment I'm completely baffled." CreationDate="2019-04-22T03:57:55.720" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19336" PostId="9521" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Addendum to my last comment:  are you seriously suggesting that some random person (and yes, for the purposes of *this* discussion, I *do* think that this guy - Ricoeur - *is* some &quot;random person&quot;) is someone whose re-interpretation of Latin should be regarded seriously, or for what it is - valueless." CreationDate="2019-04-22T04:10:04.800" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19340" PostId="9521" Score="1" Text="@varro I imagine it's like how a psychologist's use of _ego_ isn't the same as Cicero's, because Freud co-opted the word for a new concept he was developing. Cotter is referencing Ricoeur, rather than the Classical meaning." CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:31:38.613" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19322" PostId="9527" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Where have you seen such definitions? That might help giving a good answer." CreationDate="2019-04-21T20:10:40.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19337" PostId="9527" Score="0" Text="At first I thought your question was a joke. *Caprificus,* a goat fig; *magnificus,* large fig; *beatificus,* a perfect fig." CreationDate="2019-04-22T11:21:50.937" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19343" PostId="9528" Score="0" Text="I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: &quot;must not X.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:56:43.300" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19345" PostId="9528" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked [a separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9537/79) on negated gerundives." CreationDate="2019-04-22T16:10:57.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45736" PostId="9528" Score="0" Text="As an Native Spanish speaker *No tiene que morir*, and *El debe no morir* have clear and unambiguous semantic difference with the first saying that is superorogatory the death of him and the second saying that the death of him must never happen." CreationDate="2023-12-02T12:27:56.177" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="19331" PostId="9530" Score="0" Text="I really like using *dedecet* and *illicitum est* for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read *non oportet* as &quot;it is not a duty to&quot; instead of &quot;it is a duty not to&quot;." CreationDate="2019-04-22T02:24:34.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19344" PostId="9530" Score="0" Text="I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe *non oportet* always carries a strong negative sense: &quot;X is inappropriate.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-04-22T15:02:43.757" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19332" PostId="9531" Score="1" Text="Do you happen to know how old this distinction between accuracy and precision in statistics is? Both words have probably been in use for a long time, but I could well imagine that this exact pair of meanings solidified quite recently." CreationDate="2019-04-22T02:28:07.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19339" PostId="9536" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure how your first &quot;yes&quot; applies to anything except the weakest sense of &quot;can.&quot; Of course I *can* use a Latin word for any purpose I deem necessary, but I would certainly feel obligated to introduced at least a tenuous justification for my meaning. So, if your answer reduces to &quot;He can because he did,&quot; I don't think it's getting at the heart of the matter." CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:27:17.943" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19341" PostId="9536" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Whose usus are you discussing, the musicologist’s or Ricoeur’s?" CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:31:52.033" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19342" PostId="9536" Score="0" Text="I don't know enough about either to have an opinion: I was just objecting to one (mis?)interpretation of your answer, which would have it that &quot;I can use Latin words in English for any purpose I want.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:51:47.723" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19350" PostId="9540" Score="2" Text="“I think we just have to accept what has come down to us for what it is, and forget the etymology!” - hear hear! couldn’t agree more!" CreationDate="2019-04-22T23:05:53.347" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19357" PostId="9540" Score="1" Text="@alexB Thanks for your support!" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:20:05.847" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="36294" PostId="9541" Score="0" Text="Is *yote* as a past tense of *yeet* real (say beyond the occasional joke)? The form I see over and over again is *yeeted*." CreationDate="2021-12-18T03:15:25.647" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36295" PostId="9541" Score="0" Text="@cmw I've heard it frequently; in a joking context, true, but that's the pragmatics of _yeet_ in general." CreationDate="2021-12-18T03:43:11.927" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45679" PostId="9541" Score="0" Text="I am sure that neither google nor xeror are verbs by the same reasons." CreationDate="2023-11-27T15:59:31.857" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="19352" PostId="9542" Score="1" Text="BTW some of what look like prefixed versions of *dare* are probably not from the root of *dare*, but from that of *facio* -- according to de Vaan this is the case for *addere*. But your point holds for other verbs." CreationDate="2019-04-23T00:43:43.970" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19354" PostId="9542" Score="0" Text="@TKR That is surprising; *facere* and *dare* seem to be pretty far from each other phonetically and the perfect and participle stems do match *dare* quite well. What would be a safe prefixed version of *dare* then? *Dedere*?" CreationDate="2019-04-23T02:57:07.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19367" PostId="9542" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: I believe there are two Latin stems with d-, one from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning &quot;give&quot;, the other from a root meaning &quot;put, make&quot; or similar. I think the Proto-Indo-European of the latter was something like *dʰe-, also present in Greek tithêmi (root the-) and Latin facio. I forgot when Proto-Indo-European *dʰ turns into d in Latin, and when into f." CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:44:54.843" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19368" PostId="9542" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus If I remember right, all the &quot;voiced aspirates&quot; become `/f/` initially, and become normal voiced consonants medially? Something like that. It's why we have _futūrus_ with `/f/` but _amābō_ with `/b/`, both from `*bʰ`." CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:57:41.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19369" PostId="9542" Score="0" Text="That's pretty much right. *Facere* &lt; \*dʰeh₁-, *dare* &lt; \*deh₃-. Medial \*dʰ becomes Latin *d*, so prefixed *-dere* could come from either." CreationDate="2019-04-25T03:21:40.947" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19377" PostId="9542" Score="0" Text="@Draconis and TKR: noted!" CreationDate="2019-04-25T13:11:44.310" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19353" PostId="9545" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you explain a bit what you mean by &quot;argument to proof of work&quot;? An example situation might help find a good translation." CreationDate="2019-04-23T02:53:42.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19356" PostId="9545" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks! I'm trying to coin a phrase I suppose. There are a common list of fallacies which start with Argumentum.&#xA;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies&#xA;&#xA;Argument from authority would probably be the closest to what I'm talking about. `argumentum ad verecundiam`&#xA;&#xA;So I'm trying to say something similar, but saying the argument is made from proof of work rather than authority (which is a form of authority in Bitcoin). Proof of work is a Bitcoin term used to describe how more bitcoins are created." CreationDate="2019-04-23T04:47:32.897" UserId="3686" />
  <row Id="19358" PostId="9549" Score="0" Text="Right, that's the traditional answer. To put it in Marouzeau's (1949) traditional words: ‘l’ordre des mots en latin est libre, il n’est pas indifférent&quot; (‘Word order in Latin is free, it is not arbitrary'). Marouzeau, J. (1949). _L'Ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les Articulations de l'énoncé_. Paris: Belles Lettres." CreationDate="2019-04-24T01:26:08.407" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19359" PostId="9549" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino Mind adding that quote to your answer? It's a good source and deserves better than a comment." CreationDate="2019-04-24T01:41:37.310" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19364" PostId="9549" Score="0" Text="Done! I've added some further references, which I think can be useful to the interested reader." CreationDate="2019-04-24T17:43:46.290" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19365" PostId="10556" Score="0" Text="So you'd say that the meaning &quot;abolish&quot; or similar is probably a Slavic invention?" CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:22:43.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19366" PostId="10556" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Since the Oxford English Dictionary says so (see the info from the Question) and it does not come from Latin, that's probably the case!" CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:33:39.133" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19371" PostId="10556" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Thank you both. Any input on question 2?" CreationDate="2019-04-25T05:37:28.967" UserDisplayName="user3136" />
  <row Id="19375" PostId="10556" Score="0" Text="@Antinatalist: I'm afraid I know nothing about Russian. You could ask on the Russian Stack Exchange." CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:39:01.027" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19410" PostId="10558" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much. As far as I know, Symposium.215 and Crito.49 seem to be the only two extracts where we can read the words &quot;μετὰ τοῦτο ἄκουε&quot;." CreationDate="2019-04-27T13:54:27.727" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="19411" PostId="10558" Score="1" Text="Using the TLG, I also found the following with different forms of *akouein*: *Philebus* 66e1, *Protagoras* 355a5, *Laws* 832b8." CreationDate="2019-04-27T13:59:29.743" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19372" PostId="10562" Score="0" Text="yes, thanks, I have found the stem of the two nouns in your way." CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:21:08.033" UserId="4693" />
  <row Id="19378" PostId="10562" Score="2" Text="Dictionaries may also indicate the conjugation using Roman or Arabic numerals. So *&quot;nato I&quot;* means that *nato* is of the first conjugation (which is the *a* conjugation, so the stem is *nata-*), whereas *&quot;dico III&quot;* means *dico* is of the third conjugation, the consontantal conjugation (so the stem is *dic-*). Further, when the infinitive is given, a macron on the ē may be used to indicate that is of the *e* conjugation, whereas no macron, or a breve, indicates a consonantal stem: *vidēre* (*e* stem, *vide-*), dicere or dicĕre (consontantal stem, *dic-*)." CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:02:36.937" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19390" PostId="10562" Score="0" Text="I think the term &quot;stem&quot; is usually used to refer to the combination of the root (for *servus,* *serv-*) and the theme vowel (which was reduced to *u* in the nominative singular, but which shows up as *ō* in the genitive plural)." CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:24:26.513" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19391" PostId="10562" Score="0" Text="@sumelic In a historical sense, that's absolutely right—but as traditionally taught, the stem is _serv-_ with the fossilized, un-analyzable endings _-us -ī -ō -um -ō -e_ etc attached to it. I'm guessing that's the meaning OP is asking for." CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:26:12.500" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19395" PostId="10562" Score="0" Text="Can you add some citations about this being a traditional alternative definition of &quot;stem&quot;? I recall seeing references to that idea somewhere else, but the PIE-etymology-based definition of &quot;stem&quot; also seems to be quite old (I think it's been around for at least a century, and possibly two). Also, in a number of modern linguistic works about Latin and the Romance languages, the term &quot;stem&quot; seems to be used to refer to vowel-final morphological units as part of synchronic analyses of Latin or Romance morphophonology, not only in the context of historical linguistics." CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:57:14.883" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19373" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="maybe you want to read some articles about PIE root?" CreationDate="2019-04-25T08:34:16.490" UserId="4693" />
  <row Id="19374" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@zzzgoo: I have a basic familiarity with the concept of PIE roots. But I have the impression that Latin inflection shows significant differences from what is reconstructed for PIE." CreationDate="2019-04-25T08:37:02.250" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19379" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="If I understood correctly, the question meant stem to be the thing where inflection endings are added. That is the practical approach adapted by many pedagogical texts, but need not have anything to do with how the various forms actually came to be." CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:13:02.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19380" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="An excellent answer as always. In Greek, neuter words on *-os* also get an *-e-* in declined forms instead of the *-o-*, as with *genos* &quot;race, breed, sex&quot; : nom. *genos*, gen. *gene-os → genous*, dat. *gene-i*, nom. pl. *gene-a → genê*. Greek *-o-* most probably corresponds with Latin *-u-* here. Could it be e/o Ablaut? // Also interesting are cases where the stem remains the same but the gender changes, as with *locus*, pl. *loci* and *loca* collaterally." CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:13:52.307" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19386" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The analogy with Greek goes even further: _gene-os_ is originally _gene-s-os_, but intervocalic sigma in Greek usually vanishes. And Latin _gene-r-is_ is the result of rhotacism, where intervocalic s becomes r." CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:35:26.943" UserId="2246" />
  <row Id="19387" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@sgf: Indeed! I can never remember when it's intervocalic h and when intervocalic s, in Greek. I believe the latter normally turned into the former before disappearing?" CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:43:47.177" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19388" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@Cerberos I only remember initial s -&gt; h, usually before e (whence _hemi_ for Latin _semi_) (and maybe _Helios_ for _Sol_?), but I wouldn't know how we could tell that s had turned into h between vowels, since Greek had no way for writing h between vowels." CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:46:12.283" UserId="2246" />
  <row Id="19389" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@sgf: https://i.imgur.com/8I16D6E.png Voilà! From here: https://books.google.com/books?id=BwHPKIUXKGsC&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=greek+medial+h&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qlLs_VWXUs&amp;sig=ACfU3U17yiqnSS72RwoxLT8RZA2Ua-AJ7w&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X#v=onepage&amp;q=greek%20medial%20h&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-04-25T20:39:25.217" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19392" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="Did a consonant get vocalized to make the alpha-stems? I thought the ending was `*-eh₂`, where the laryngeal just colored a pre-existing vowel." CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:29:01.723" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19393" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I was just referring to the loss of the laryngeal consonant (with compensatory lengthening) as a form of vocalization." CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:32:08.887" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19394" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Ahh, I see. Fair!" CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:37:30.660" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19396" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: &quot;the thing where inflection endings are added&quot; is still ambiguous unless you have a clear definition of what Latin's inflectional endings are. Does the nominative singular have an inflectional ending, and if so, does it take forms like *-s, -∅, -m* or forms like *-us, -a, -um*?" CreationDate="2019-04-25T22:39:36.300" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19397" PostId="10563" Score="0" Text="@sumelic True, it is ambiguous. I should have been more precise and said something closer to &quot;the thing that stays immutable across inflection&quot;, with some exceptions like the singular nominative. To me the stems of *pars*, *genus*, *amare*, and *facere* are *part-*, *gener-*, *am-*, and *fac-*. Occasionally one might want to define a stem by analogy, so that for example in second conjugation the stem of *rubere* is *rub-* analogously to the other conjuations. From a pedagogical point of view stems like this seem to work well." CreationDate="2019-04-26T00:26:19.010" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19398" PostId="10568" Score="0" Text="By the way, if anyone knows where I can find an electronic copy of DRN with line numbers, it would be much appreciated! I'm using TheLatinLibrary which doesn't use any finer division than books." CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:04:20.017" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19399" PostId="10568" Score="0" Text="How's [this](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.02.0130)?" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:17:16.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19400" PostId="10568" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Perfect! Thank you!" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:19:14.660" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19403" PostId="10572" Score="0" Text="From your answer (&quot;The strengthening agent (_ipsa_) needs something to strengthen--the reflexive pronoun&quot;), I understand that the reflexive pronoun _se_ is (expected to be) compulsory in a sentence like _Foris ipsa aperit_. Is that correct? By the way, by using the English translation &quot;by itself&quot; I did not intend to interpret _ipsa_ as ablative (of course, it is not ablative). In any case, thanks for pointing out that 'by itself' is not a good translation of _ipsa_." CreationDate="2019-04-26T16:00:44.357" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19405" PostId="10572" Score="0" Text="It is perhaps worth pointing out that _foris ipsam se aperit_ is ill-formed unless we provide the door with some agency. A similar contrast is found in Spanish: _La puerta se abrió_ vs. ?? _La puerta se abrió a sí misma_. This said, it seems to me that _Foris aperit_ is **not** identical to Sp. _La puerta abre_. In my Spanish, the latter typically has a sort of generic reading, i.e., it lacks the eventive reading shown in the example above from Plautus (_Foris aperit_ 'The door is opening'). Cf. Sp. ??/*_La puerta está abriendo_ vs. OK _La puerta **se** está abriendo_." CreationDate="2019-04-26T19:58:11.103" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19409" PostId="10572" Score="0" Text="Mitomino: Yes, reflexive pronoun is compulsory. In your second comment: &quot;...is ill-informed unless we provide the door with some agency.&quot; Such as, if the door is opening itself? How would that affect the Latin? Are you writing a book about a haunted house? Sadly, my Spanish is not up to the rest of it." CreationDate="2019-04-27T10:05:32.697" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19412" PostId="10577" Score="1" Text="*fortes* ***?***" CreationDate="2019-04-27T16:34:34.063" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19417" PostId="10577" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: Thought about that. The concept &quot; (to be) strong&quot; is one concept, singular. To say &quot;We Choose to be Strong People; then, yes, fortes." CreationDate="2019-04-28T09:41:51.863" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19422" PostId="10577" Score="0" Text="@tony: It doesn't work like that in Italian (as well as the other Romance languages). Why would it work like that in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-04-28T18:08:57.887" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19470" PostId="10577" Score="0" Text="Vincenzo Oliva: In an anguish of indecision selected the wrong option. The human capacity for making a mistake; then, justifying it. One of the boons of this site is that errors are rapidly picked up, by colleagues, which is as it should be." CreationDate="2019-05-01T09:02:15.250" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19416" PostId="10578" Score="0" Text="Hi Joonas, thank you very much for your assistance. As we are a collective (an online mental health forum/community) I think that the 'fortes' would be the most appropriate form. Would that mean I would have to change the conjugation of the verb? Or is 'Voluntate fortes' grammatically correct?" CreationDate="2019-04-28T08:43:52.677" UserId="4699" />
  <row Id="19421" PostId="10578" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeGinger I'm glad to be able to help! In that case I agree that *fortes* is the best choice. The form *voluntate* is independent of the form of *fortes*, so *voluntate fortes* is grammatical. I just added a remark to my answer to underline this. // If you think that your question has been sufficiently answered, please mark one of the answers as accepted by clicking the little check mark on the top left corner of the answer. After getting 15 reputation points you will be able to vote up any questions and answers you like." CreationDate="2019-04-28T17:15:12.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19419" PostId="10582" Score="1" Text="On Stack Exchange sites &quot;OP&quot; usually refers to &quot;original poster&quot; (the one to ask the question that started the whole discussion) or sometimes &quot;original post&quot; (which is essentially equivalent in many situations)." CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:46:04.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19444" PostId="10582" Score="0" Text="@tony I sympathise with your point of view, and have appended another answer to the original question, which I hope will clarify things." CreationDate="2019-04-30T08:35:39.813" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19491" PostId="10587" Score="0" Text="I don't believe the nominative and dative can be used together as indicated in your final suggestion, except with nouns that normally take a dative of reference: erus, imperator, etc. You can't use a dative of possession (dative has nominative) as if it were a genitive of possession (noun belongs to genitive)." CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:04:04.007" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19495" PostId="10587" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey I didn't intend it as a dative of possession, but as *dativus commodi*. I deliberately wrote &quot;you are a wife to me&quot; rather than &quot;you are my wife&quot;. Sumelic's way of putting it is also good." CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:47:49.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19521" PostId="10587" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Dativus commodi requires an action verb (or a verbal noun). The action has to be completely intelligible apart from the dative, the dative merely indicating for whose sake the action was performed. With a being verb, the closest you get is the ethical/viewpoint dative: mihi es uxor means &quot;In my opinion, you are a wife.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-02T14:06:05.607" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19528" PostId="10587" Score="0" Text=":@Kingshorsey: The thread here suggests that *est* and a dative can be used to indicate possession, but that the meaning of this construction would be more like &quot;I have a soul and wife&quot;: [&quot;Dat. of Possession and those Times When a Dat. Translates to a Possessive in English&quot;, by Pacifica, in 'Grammar Tips And Examples'](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/dat-of-possession-and-those-times-when-a-dat-translates-to-a-possessive-in-english.28298/)" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:54:56.913" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20069" PostId="10588" Score="0" Text="I think that the following disjunction (&quot;or&quot;) can be a bit misleading when giving the translation of _mihi cognitum est_  (cf. your translations, the typical ones, &quot;it is known by me&quot; or &quot;it is known to me&quot;). I think that Latin speakers did distinguish between agent by-phrases and dative &quot;agents&quot;. E.g., cf. the parallelism between _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1.15) and _**Caesari** equitatus coactus erat_. Crucially, the parallelism with _habere_ does **not** hold for ablative agents: cf. _**A Caesare** equitatus coactus erat_." CreationDate="2019-06-09T20:50:46.150" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20071" PostId="10588" Score="0" Text="Similarly, _**Mihi** deliberatum est_ and _**A me** deliberatum est_ have different (linguistic) meanings. The former is nicely translated in Romance by using the verb HAVE (e.g., Cat. 'tenir'): cf. &quot;Ho tinc decidit&quot; (lit. 'I have this decided') and &quot;Això {ha estat/fou} decidit per mi&quot; (lit. 'This {has been/was} decided by me'), respectively." CreationDate="2019-06-09T22:38:01.267" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19425" PostId="10589" Score="1" Text="Could you define &quot;long vowel future&quot;? Do you mean like *audīs* &gt; *audiēs*, where an *a* or *ē* is added?" CreationDate="2019-04-29T16:50:14.060" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19427" PostId="10589" Score="1" Text="Or do you mean &quot;the feature of having long vowels&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-04-29T19:17:18.620" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19440" PostId="10589" Score="1" Text="Yes, it could be 'feature', sorry for the typo." CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:22:55.073" UserId="4693" />
  <row Id="19426" PostId="10590" Score="5" Text="Age ten, I was sure everyone in the world knew *&quot;cave,&quot;* pronounced 'K.V.' and *&quot;pax!'* Now in Brexit time *'etcetera'* sounds a good bet." CreationDate="2019-04-29T17:35:50.867" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19428" PostId="10590" Score="3" Text="I would have guessed *mamma*" CreationDate="2019-04-29T20:11:41.670" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="19443" PostId="10590" Score="3" Text="My (half in jest) guess would be &quot;Fortnite&quot;..." CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:41:07.893" UserId="4708" />
  <row Id="19446" PostId="10590" Score="0" Text="@HagenvonEitzen That sounds like an answer. You could add _pappa_ to it." CreationDate="2019-04-30T10:55:11.437" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19452" PostId="10590" Score="3" Text="I recall that Coca Cola did a study which determined that &quot;Coke&quot; was the second most universally recognized word in the world, after &quot;Okay&quot;, which prompted them to briefly release a beverage called &quot;[OK Soda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Soda)&quot;, which was not very successful.  Whether that universal recognition extends to &quot;Coca Cola&quot; and from there to just &quot;cola&quot; is up for debate.  And whether the word qualifies as &quot;Latin&quot; is yet another debate." CreationDate="2019-04-30T13:28:54.240" UserId="4715" />
  <row Id="19455" PostId="10590" Score="2" Text="@DarrelHoffman: OK Soda sounds like it would fail as hard as the nova rumor suggests." CreationDate="2019-04-30T15:47:00.900" UserId="3345" />
  <row Id="19457" PostId="10590" Score="5" Text="@Joshua I was in one of the test market regions at that time, and had the opportunity to try it.  It was - okay.  So truth in advertising I guess." CreationDate="2019-04-30T15:55:15.283" UserId="4715" />
  <row Id="19447" PostId="10594" Score="0" Text="*Canus lupus* and *Juniperus communis* are contenders." CreationDate="2019-04-30T11:40:49.623" UserId="4713" />
  <row Id="19448" PostId="10594" Score="5" Text="@user3819867 Boa constrictor as well. Just because the English name (and in other languages) is the same as the Scientific name." CreationDate="2019-04-30T11:44:38.463" UserId="2878" />
  <row Id="19449" PostId="10594" Score="1" Text="I forgot about *Iris*." CreationDate="2019-04-30T11:56:49.277" UserId="4713" />
  <row Id="19450" PostId="10594" Score="1" Text="And _Cannabis sativa L._" CreationDate="2019-04-30T12:57:08.300" UserId="4714" />
  <row Id="19453" PostId="10594" Score="4" Text="_Gorilla gorilla_ anyone?  Lots of commonly known animals have just their common name as their scientific name." CreationDate="2019-04-30T14:24:51.133" UserId="4715" />
  <row Id="19454" PostId="10594" Score="1" Text="How about *homo*, as in *homo sapiens*?" CreationDate="2019-04-30T15:43:39.320" UserId="4720" />
  <row Id="19460" PostId="10594" Score="0" Text="@Barmar That's a good alternative too!" CreationDate="2019-04-30T19:07:35.937" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19462" PostId="10594" Score="1" Text="+1. Relevant link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latin_name" CreationDate="2019-04-30T22:30:02.347" UserId="3511" />
  <row Id="19430" PostId="10596" Score="0" Text="Added the context to my answer, though I'm pretty sure I mangled parts of it" CreationDate="2019-04-29T22:45:19.960" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19431" PostId="10596" Score="1" Text="Could you confirm that the second to last word is *ration.* *Ratio* seems more likely, or, if *universalis* is a noun, *rationem.*" CreationDate="2019-04-29T23:18:12.097" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19436" PostId="10596" Score="0" Text="@Hugh My guess is it's the stem from _individu-us_ with a standard verb ending slapped onto it; either way the meaning's the same." CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:46:05.037" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19438" PostId="10596" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I corrected the OP's text based on the critical edition I was able to find online." CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:01:00.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19439" PostId="10597" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Now you'll have to up-date it all over again." CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:10:25.110" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19441" PostId="10598" Score="1" Text="Nice! Note that in VG Latin masculine Greek nouns in -as form the vocative (consistently, I think) in -a. Also 'vade _post me_ Satana' (Mt 16:23)" CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:27:23.137" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35229" PostId="10598" Score="0" Text="I am not entirely happy with the implication that Greek Σατανᾶς is from a non-Ionic dialect.  Another option is that it comes not directly from Hebrew śāṭan, but via Aramaic sāṭānā, adorned with Greek case endings." CreationDate="2021-09-24T16:30:47.480" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35231" PostId="10598" Score="0" Text="@fdb A good point! I should go through and update this answer at some point, looking back at it I made several mistakes here." CreationDate="2021-09-24T16:36:07.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19434" PostId="10600" Score="0" Text="Just a further remark on something you point out in your PS. As a linguist, I agree with you on the irrelevance of academies in theoretical linguistic matters. In fact, the linguistically interesting question is not what a &quot;real word&quot; is but rather what a &quot;(im)possible word&quot; is. E.g., cf. the lexical-syntactic decomposition view (Hale &amp; Keyser) and the atomist view (Fodor &amp; colleagues)." CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:41:04.750" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19433" PostId="10601" Score="0" Text="Aha, and we find someone who actually understands what the words mean in a metaphysical context! +1" CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:37:52.240" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19437" PostId="10601" Score="1" Text="As I mentioned in my answer, I'm pretty confident that &quot;having indivisibility&quot; isn't a good translation of &quot;individuare,&quot; but I'm willing to be corrected!" CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:50:59.093" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19445" PostId="10602" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot. I'm looking for a reference regarding how to make a verb out of a noun in Latin. Could you help me? And do you approve that individuandum is an accusative gerund?" CreationDate="2019-04-30T10:53:06.813" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19451" PostId="10602" Score="2" Text="Yes, *sufficiens ad + acc. gerund&quot; means &quot;sufficient for + verb-ing.&quot; I suppose you could also think of it as a gerundive..." CreationDate="2019-04-30T13:08:29.587" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19459" PostId="10602" Score="0" Text="Absolutely correct. Mainly before Siger's I had encountered with **individuandum** in another text, and now I see in that text  **individuandum** must be a gerundive." CreationDate="2019-04-30T17:39:21.847" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19468" PostId="10604" Score="0" Text="Tom Cotton: Yes, habeas, giving &quot;you (may) have it&quot;, concedo, &quot;I give way&quot;: certe, (id est) iustum." CreationDate="2019-05-01T08:52:38.843" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19458" PostId="10605" Score="0" Text="Thank you! This is a remarkable answer, which I shall need some time to digest. I wonder why the subject is passed over with a few airy words in most books of Roman history? Perhaps too far outwith the main subject." CreationDate="2019-04-30T16:53:34.547" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19471" PostId="10605" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton You are welcome! There are still many gaps to fill, but I hope it helps starting the conversation. The issue itself is likely not specific to the Romans, as I imagine many empires, even up until late 18 century, faced a similar problem. But banking (banknotes) is perhaps the key method humans devised to solve this issue. Actually, banknotes (paper money) emerged primarily in the private sector, as a complement to government backed coins. For instance, the Bank of England was private only until 1946! Its only recent that the government centralised the issue of notes, as it is today." CreationDate="2019-05-01T09:11:12.953" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19576" PostId="10605" Score="1" Text="Your answer, while satisfyingly comprehensive, rather skirts around the actual question, which was about handling cash: that is, the vast quantities of coinage which must somehow have been counted out and carried around. Nevertheless, it has opened the subject in a truly useful way, and I am very pleased to accept it. Enjoy the bounty, and thanks once again!" CreationDate="2019-05-06T10:33:57.603" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19577" PostId="10605" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Glad to have helped, somehow! I totally agree that it doesn't satisfactorily deals with the core of the question, about handling the cash. It's unfortunate no other answer appeared (yet)." CreationDate="2019-05-06T11:23:06.973" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19464" PostId="10608" Score="2" Text="Possibly related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9092/how-to-translate-carpe-that-diem-properly-into-latin" CreationDate="2019-04-30T23:33:52.097" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19465" PostId="10608" Score="3" Text="There are intensifiers for questions: *quidnam.* Intensifiers *hic &amp; iste:* e.g. *hunce, istuc.* Intensifying adverbs *edepol, mehercle.* See Q.#2178 by typing *mehercule* into **Search on Latin Language**" CreationDate="2019-05-01T02:56:48.583" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19466" PostId="10608" Score="0" Text="@Hugh All of those are wonderfully useful, but how would I apply them in this instance (where it's not a question, has no demonstratives, and doesn't really have an obvious place to put an _ecastor_)?" CreationDate="2019-05-01T03:47:13.487" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19472" PostId="10608" Score="2" Text="Pile'em on. *Nonne haecce laeta dies carpenda est, Hercle.*" CreationDate="2019-05-01T11:49:03.803" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19486" PostId="10608" Score="1" Text="Draconis: Sadly, in our time period words like &quot;fuck&quot; are almost accepted as parts of natural conversation. Some almost use it as a punctuation mark; others opine that the word is Anglo-Saxon, in origin. As A-S swear-words were never written down, how does anybody know? The FU-root comes from the Latin, futuo, does it not? Your Q: a part of &quot;ipse&quot;: carpe ipsum diem = seize the very day. Have not seen this anywhere so it may be invalid." CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:51:48.753" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19488" PostId="10608" Score="2" Text="@tony Oh absolutely; I figure such words wouldn't be taught in a standard course or found in Vergil, but we do have evidence of obscene words from less-highbrow poetry (Catullus, Martial), graffiti preserved from Pompeii, the vulgar Latin of Plautus, etc. I'm curious if there's any colloquial way to emphasize a short phrase found in one of those places." CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:54:28.537" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19543" PostId="10608" Score="1" Text="As a side note, I don't think Greek δή is really an intensifier of this sort. It has various uses but none of them really line up with Eng. *fucking* etc." CreationDate="2019-05-04T18:18:25.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19775" PostId="10608" Score="0" Text="Did you check out that book series?" CreationDate="2019-05-17T23:09:27.470" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="22687" PostId="10608" Score="0" Text="Don't really have the time to write up a proper answer, but *sānē* and *val(i)dē* might work as intensifying particles. Just a thought." CreationDate="2019-10-02T18:23:08.637" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="22689" PostId="10608" Score="0" Text="@Hugh What you (and Ethan Bierlein) are saying sounds like the material of correct answer: a big list of intensifiers for different grammatical and semantic situations. I haven't read any Plautus yet, and I've already run into more than I can count: _namque, iste, num, hunce, edepol,_ etc. Limiting an answer to just contemptuous intensifiers might keep it manageable." CreationDate="2019-10-02T22:36:38.797" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="19463" PostId="10609" Score="5" Text="Unfortunately, &quot;amen&quot; was borrowed from Hebrew and &quot;ave&quot; was borrowed from Punic, both unrelated Semitic languages. But &quot;ave&quot; was borrowed somewhere around 300 BCE or earlier, so whether that one's &quot;original&quot; or not really depends on definition: it's definitely older than &quot;cola&quot;." CreationDate="2019-04-30T22:46:04.923" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19473" PostId="10609" Score="2" Text="As amen is also used in Judaism ans Islam it migth be the word best known. But I think it is as much Latin as English or Arabic. We clearly have a problem with our definition of &quot;Latin&quot; here." CreationDate="2019-05-01T11:53:40.653" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="19475" PostId="10609" Score="0" Text="@K-HB The answers could well be differentiated as &quot;word acquired whilst Latin was a living language&quot; (or, more purist, when Classical Latin was alive), versus &quot;words adopted to Latin whilst being a dead language&quot;. (and didn't know amen is used in Islam). That's a pretty good candidate then!" CreationDate="2019-05-01T15:46:37.067" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19504" PostId="10609" Score="2" Text="@K-HB Absolutely. I should rephrase: while *amēn* wasn't inherited into Latin from Proto-Indo-European, it was well-known by native speakers of the language. Far, far more native than _cola_; _ave_ even more so, since very few people even knew its Punic origins by 1CE (+1)." CreationDate="2019-05-02T02:38:47.013" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20212" PostId="10609" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Wiktionary, citing Lewis and Short, claims ave is from the imperative of aveo, which is clearly IE as it has cognates in Sanskrit and Cornish.  Perhaps you could share more of this tale of its supposed Punic origins?" CreationDate="2019-06-18T17:00:40.993" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20213" PostId="10609" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Sure! Basically, it seems weird for &quot;hello&quot; to come from an imperative of &quot;long for&quot;; on the other hand there are native attestations of the Punic greeting _ħawe_ (from the root Ħ-W-H &quot;live&quot;), and Plautus's characters greet each other with _have_ and _havo_ (the second of which lines up nicely with an alternative Punic form _ħawū_). Plural _avete_ seems to be a later back-formation once the H was lost. For a bit more detail see https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5244/406 ." CreationDate="2019-06-18T17:21:58.513" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20242" PostId="10609" Score="0" Text="@Draconis It is weird but not super-weird.  Consider &quot;Miss me?&quot; in English when greeting a spouse or lover.  I guess it's one of those unanswerable questions." CreationDate="2019-06-20T21:54:23.597" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="19467" PostId="10610" Score="0" Text="If I remember right L&amp;S don't mark vowel length in closed syllables in general, so they're unfortunately completely unhelpful. I'll see what I can find tomorrow." CreationDate="2019-05-01T05:15:31.333" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19474" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="Interesting and funny! I had no idea this existed. I do remember doing an exercise at university in which we received a paragraph from *De Bello Gallico*, but with all case endings replaced by nominative endings. We were supposed to substitute the correct endings ourselves. It was surprisingly easy! The text was pretty legible without the proper endings; maybe only pronouns required some puzzling, but I don't remember." CreationDate="2019-05-01T15:20:53.283" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19476" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Pronouns have a fixer form in LSF. I am pleased to learn understanding might be easy for latin speakers." CreationDate="2019-05-01T15:49:19.463" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19479" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="Fixed, in what way? As in ego, (mei), mihi, me, me? Or as in ego, ego, ego, ego, ego?" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:56:11.707" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19481" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus http://mi.anihost.ru/Peano/lsf.htm" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:59:10.903" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19482" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="Ah! *&quot;Heri me scribe.&quot;* Then I wonder how they distinguish between &quot;I wrote&quot; and &quot;he wrote to me&quot; or &quot;I wrote to him&quot;. Perhaps they would make the subject compulsory in such cases and also force it to come before the verb, or something." CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:13:45.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19483" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="I guess word order is standardized." CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:23:40.950" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19493" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="“it was used in scientific literature but since forgotten.”  &#xA;Who else used latino sine flexione other than Peano?" CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:33:35.193" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="19497" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Some natural languages don't need to do any of that: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-world-s-most-efficient-languages" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:39:28.863" UserId="4722" />
  <row Id="19498" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="Ses the Wikipedia article for details but about 3000 pages were published before 1950." CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:41:52.617" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19517" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="@Blincer: Thanks. Do you refer to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione)? I can't find the part about the papers in latino sine flexione..." CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:28:23.067" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="19523" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="It is in the French version :)" CreationDate="2019-05-02T16:37:02.060" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19646" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="This would also make a good question on [conlang.se].—Note: This does not mean that it should be off-topic here, but you can address a different community with some more knowledge of the status of constructed languages like LSF." CreationDate="2019-05-10T15:01:26.047" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="19648" PostId="10614" Score="0" Text="I did it, thank you for the idea." CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:00:34.013" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19502" PostId="10615" Score="0" Text="Does Greek ῥῆμα have any relation to *res*? It seems the most obvious parallel to me, and I believe it has the same thing/word range of meaning." CreationDate="2019-05-02T01:16:39.950" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19503" PostId="10615" Score="5" Text="@brianpck Ooh, interesting thought! Seems not, though. As best I can tell, *rēma* is a *-ma* noun from *eirō* &quot;to say&quot;, which used to have a digamma in front of it, so its Latin cognate would be _verbum_." CreationDate="2019-05-02T02:36:55.820" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19855" PostId="10615" Score="0" Text="Is it *rex regium* or *rex regum*?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T17:15:04.643" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="19856" PostId="10615" Score="0" Text="@egreg I've found online versions of the Vulgate saying both; I used *regium* because I vaguely remember the *-ium* ending being more common in Church Latin (even though Classical would use *-um*), but that's a random recollection, not any solid evidence. Is _rex regum_ better-attested?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T17:22:04.480" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19857" PostId="10615" Score="1" Text="Well, an ngram search on English literature shows no trace of *rex regium*, similarly for other corpora." CreationDate="2019-05-22T17:25:58.217" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="19858" PostId="10615" Score="0" Text="@egreg That's pretty solid evidence! I'll edit the answer; _rex regium_ is most likely a transcription error then." CreationDate="2019-05-22T17:29:23.697" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26123" PostId="10615" Score="0" Text="Google books is never solid evidence of anything. The OCR severely fails for old manuscripts, and it doesn't index anything beyond 1500. jsyk" CreationDate="2020-05-01T11:15:03.003" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26127" PostId="10615" Score="0" Text="This gloss for \*h3r-'g- might be misleading; its correct interpretation is in fact debatable, and we can't reconstruct &quot;king&quot; for PIE because we are not aware of any PIE king (though Kurgan mounts imply powers). There's *oro* &quot;talk&quot;, *orate*, etc. assigned \*h2er-, though it's well known that \*h3 is the o-colouring laryngeal. Wiktionary also says in what looks like an edit conflict, that *oro* is from *os, orus* &quot;mouth; head, etc&quot; (from \*h3eh2os), period(!), from \*h2er-. It's complicated. Don't say it isn't. It's not clear what Polish had to do with it." CreationDate="2020-05-01T11:57:58.120" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26129" PostId="10615" Score="1" Text="@vectory An etymological connection somewhere between _rex_ and _oro_ isn't impossible, but enough Classical Latin literature survives that we can be quite confident about what the words meant by that time. We can also say quite confidently that there are many clear descendants of *_h₃rēǵs_ meaning &quot;king&quot; in disparate branches of IE, and no clear descendants meaning &quot;speaker&quot;. Whether the different PIE roots are connected may be an open question, but what those roots' descendants mean generally is not." CreationDate="2020-05-01T17:39:36.417" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19515" PostId="10616" Score="1" Text="I think this answer is wrong. There is no relation between the two auxiliary languages [Latino Sine Flexione](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione) (Peano's Interlingua)  and [Interlingua](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua) other than the shared name." CreationDate="2019-05-02T09:30:33.213" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="19516" PostId="10616" Score="1" Text="They have the same goal and inspirations but the answer is a bit off." CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:24:51.400" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19531" PostId="10616" Score="0" Text="@Blincer Well, I took what two serious sources say. It could be they are wrong. I don't know. Maybe another answer can show they are." CreationDate="2019-05-03T12:38:05.657" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19485" PostId="10618" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, are you looking for a verb meaning &quot;to be great&quot; or something along those lines?" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:49:19.587" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19487" PostId="10618" Score="0" Text="@Draconis &quot;to be great&quot; or &quot;have the might&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:53:29.527" UserId="4725" />
  <row Id="19489" PostId="10618" Score="3" Text="I don't believe there is such a verb. But there is the noun *magnitudo* &quot;magnitude, greatness&quot;. You say &quot;the&quot; cognate verb/noun: why? Or do you mean *any* cognate verb or noun?" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:02:57.003" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19490" PostId="10618" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The Russian language has the verb мочь (moch) &quot;can&quot; which cognates whith the english might and the german Macht &quot;power&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;The Russian language also has the verb мочиться (mochit'sya) &quot;to piss&quot;, where the ить (it') is a verb ending and the ся (sya) is a postfix.&#xA;&#xA;The latin language has the verb mingo, which also means &quot;to urinate&quot;." CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:15:45.647" UserId="4725" />
  <row Id="33632" PostId="10618" Score="0" Text="In addition to @Cerberus *magnitudo*, there is also *magnificare* which means &quot;to proclaim the greatness of&quot; and is the incipit of the song *Magnificat*. If used in the passive, it might do what you want." CreationDate="2021-06-10T20:58:11.420" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="19500" PostId="10619" Score="2" Text="I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not about Latin and does not show any particular research effort." CreationDate="2019-05-01T21:53:32.857" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19507" PostId="10627" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! If you want to use macrons, see [this meta page](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2/79). Two remarks on the answer: (1) The possessive genitive does indeed often come after, but it can also come before. There's no hard rule. There might be a change in nuance, and that'd be worth exploring in a separate question. (2) The *-a* in first declension ablative is indeed long, but in typical written Latin outside textbooks length is not marked. It's not wrong to mark them, but a number of people make the stylistic choice not to. In some cases it is necessary for clarity." CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:15:40.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36184" PostId="10627" Score="1" Text="&quot;de Natura Renovaminis&quot; is not wrong, but neither is the alternate order &quot;de Renovaminis Natura.&quot; For a famous example of interjecting the genitive between preposition and the noun it governs, see the conventional title of Lucretius's [&quot;de Rerum Natura,&quot;](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D1) &quot;On the Nature of Things.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-07T19:03:03.730" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="19508" PostId="10628" Score="0" Text="So 2000th is *bis millesimo* rather than something like *duo millesimo*? Could you please explain how that works?" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:18:29.617" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19509" PostId="10628" Score="1" Text="@MediaMatellaLucretiaFlores That's how Latin ordinals work. I recommend asking a separate question about that actually, so that the matter gets properly explored. The 2 in 2000 behaves differently with cardinals and ordinals, and this is not unique to Latin." CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:24:06.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19510" PostId="10629" Score="1" Text="Nice answer! For completeness, I'd also add the nominative version in case the OP wants to say &quot;[the most important things to me in life are] God and family&quot;." CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:26:30.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19529" PostId="10633" Score="1" Text="That scene always annoyed me because the Roman gets the cases wrong too!" CreationDate="2019-05-03T01:16:10.467" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44621" PostId="10633" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I wonder if it's akin to online commentators, who often incorrectly correct others. It's not like the soldier would have the best education!" CreationDate="2023-08-30T13:14:33.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="19525" PostId="10634" Score="1" Text="Seeing as _octō_ doesn't have an H in it, and also isn't a verb, I'm not sure why it would be connected?" CreationDate="2019-05-02T16:57:48.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19527" PostId="10634" Score="1" Text="Why are you only looking at first person singular forms of the verbs? The word *octo* does not have forms like *octare*, *octemus*, and *octa*. The question would make much more sense to me if *octo* was a verb, but it isn't." CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:49:08.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45703" PostId="10635" Score="0" Text="For similarities, cf. *duo* and *ambo*. *Octo* is of the same variety." CreationDate="2023-11-30T06:13:23.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="19536" PostId="10641" Score="0" Text="Your answer is quite elucidating. According to the literal meaning of **apparatus** and regarding your answer, **providing of sources** may be a more accurate translation" CreationDate="2019-05-03T19:05:00.120" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19537" PostId="10641" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad That would work too! I just try to use a noun for it, because in other phrases like _apparātus criticus_, &quot;critical providing&quot; sounds weird. &quot;Provision&quot;, maybe, if people still used that word in its original sense?" CreationDate="2019-05-03T19:11:04.137" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19538" PostId="10641" Score="0" Text="Yes, &quot;provision&quot; is much better." CreationDate="2019-05-03T19:21:06.580" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="39296" PostId="10643" Score="3" Text="The question seems to be about intensifiers rather than obscenities. English can use the latter as the former, but how about Latin? Do you know if the book covers intensifying at all?" CreationDate="2022-08-24T18:16:45.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19540" PostId="10646" Score="1" Text="This question reminds me of *varium et mutabile semper femina*. Agreement might suggest that *femina* is neuter but it isn't. This doesn't undermine your question, but reminds to put some care into analyzing possible examples." CreationDate="2019-05-04T07:35:01.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19545" PostId="10647" Score="1" Text="Thanks! The nominative example isn't quite what I'm looking for because &quot;Novum Pascha&quot; could potentially be interpreted as a third-declension form (even though that would be a bit odd given the use of &quot;Paschae&quot; elsewhere in the hymn), but &quot;sacramentum novi Paschae&quot; seems quite unambiguous." CreationDate="2019-05-04T20:46:46.400" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19580" PostId="10650" Score="0" Text="Thank you everyone - this has been very helpful!" CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:19:44.057" UserId="4739" />
  <row Id="19544" PostId="10653" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! I've been trying to figure this one out for hours. . . ." CreationDate="2019-05-04T19:46:27.570" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="19549" PostId="10655" Score="0" Text="Nice answer! Welcome to the site! Hope to see you often contributing with your valuable knowledge!" CreationDate="2019-05-04T23:02:31.623" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="19623" PostId="10655" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. Not at all. Go ahead and use them." CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:09:06.897" UserId="4740" />
  <row Id="19550" PostId="10658" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for an interesting answer! I didn't know that *alius* can go with ablative like that." CreationDate="2019-05-05T03:05:15.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19562" PostId="10663" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! Just going to leave this in a comment for OP: _sanārī_ is the infinitive (&quot;basic&quot; form) of the verb I used in my answer." CreationDate="2019-05-05T17:58:53.680" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19564" PostId="10663" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I'm not familiar with the abbreviations used in English online communications and I've just discovered that OP means 'original poster'. I was wondering if you could provide me with a link where I can find the most frequent ones. Many thanks in advance!" CreationDate="2019-05-05T18:31:01.867" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19565" PostId="10663" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately I've learned them through trial and error so I don't know of a good reference. OP is the only one I can think of that's common on StackExchange though. (Also maybe SE meaning StackExchange, so we're on Latin.SE now.)" CreationDate="2019-05-05T18:32:38.217" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19569" PostId="10664" Score="0" Text="This is interesting. I never realised how two of the most common -u nouns normally grow in pairs! And I've always found the -u ending odd (although I might have thought of a dropped -d à la *illud, istud*)." CreationDate="2019-05-05T22:17:39.573" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33525" PostId="10664" Score="0" Text="Cf. dative *cornū* (I think this exists in addition to *cornui*?)." CreationDate="2021-06-04T18:24:52.347" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33547" PostId="10664" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: I'm not really sure about the etymology or frequency of dative -ū, but it apparently shows up on all kinds of fourth-declension nouns, not just neuters: [How did the fourth declension neuter dative singular become different from the non-neuter ending?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14059/how-did-the-fourth-declension-neuter-dative-singular-become-different-from-the-n/14110#14110)" CreationDate="2021-06-06T03:33:53.083" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="33556" PostId="10664" Score="0" Text="Oh, had forgotten all about that question! It seems I had already voted for your answer there as well." CreationDate="2021-06-06T22:07:14.837" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43512" PostId="10664" Score="0" Text="Weiss convincingly has the neuter athematic dual as *\*-ih₁* instead, but suggests the *-ū* in the fourth declension neuter nominative is due to the neuter *plural* ending *\*-h₂* and terminal laryngeal loss in pausa later creating long/short variation there. This created ambiguity that was resolved by the singular always being unetymologically long and the plural getting a new ending *-ua* analogous with the other declensions." CreationDate="2023-06-10T13:51:05.010" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="19573" PostId="10665" Score="0" Text="It is fine, one of the oldest of the christian legends from Bohemia begins &quot;Crescente fide christiana...&quot; (When the christian faith was growing...)." CreationDate="2019-05-06T05:29:59.677" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="19574" PostId="10668" Score="3" Text="I'm curious—why do you call them special? The majority of Latin adjectives act this way." CreationDate="2019-05-06T05:49:50.280" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19578" PostId="10671" Score="1" Text="Sorry, it took me several days to complete; there was a lot here." CreationDate="2019-05-06T16:11:41.143" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19581" PostId="10672" Score="5" Text="Using *lingua* and an ablative is indeed an option as I mentioned in the question, but using the adverb is indeed common. In my experience the typical way to &quot;speak Latin&quot; is to *Latine loqui*, not *lingua Latina loqui* (which I'd regard more as &quot;to speak in the Latin language&quot;). The question was whether the same option is available for the third declension." CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:20:25.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19582" PostId="10672" Score="0" Text="@ Joonas Ilmavirta♦: in that case, it would be *islandiensē loquī* (and so on), wouldn't it? Personally, though, I prefer the ablative &quot;*linguā*&quot; use, because it is more specific." CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:40:26.400" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19584" PostId="10672" Score="4" Text="But the adverb corresponding to a third declension adjective does not end in *-e*. It ends in *-iter*. I have seen the adverbs in *-e* with languages numerous times, but I don't recall seeing third declension languages ever used. The expected analogous expression is *Islandiensiter loqui*, and the question was whether this is valid. Any examples of its use or clear avoidance (using *lingua* where second declension languages use the adverb) would settle the matter." CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:30:09.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19598" PostId="10676" Score="1" Text="Just two suggestions: In the phrase 'It is (adj.) to (verb),' the adjective will be neuter not masc. or fem.  So, *'Difficile est...;' 'Impossibile est...'*  Also the infinitive or *sequor* has to adopt a passive form (deponent), which is *sequi.*" CreationDate="2019-05-07T23:23:50.597" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19587" PostId="10677" Score="1" Text="To be fair, gerundives, like other adjectives, can *function* like nouns, and that is the case here." CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:56:00.853" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19588" PostId="10677" Score="0" Text="@varro Good point! I edited my answer to reflect that. What I was trying to say is that to find the word in a dictionary, one has to look for the underlying verb." CreationDate="2019-05-06T21:06:11.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19589" PostId="10677" Score="1" Text="How do I define the grammatical case of the word &quot;verenda&quot; or wherefrom should I know how to decline this word?" CreationDate="2019-05-06T21:21:00.093" UserDisplayName="user4752" />
  <row Id="19590" PostId="10677" Score="0" Text="@naloss I added a little something in my answer. Although I listed the possible forms above, I recommend looking up how gerundives behave in general. That will tell you about the possible interpretations of *verenda*. If you are not familiar with gerundives, I urge you to familiarize yourself with them – at least a little." CreationDate="2019-05-06T21:28:08.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19591" PostId="10678" Score="0" Text="There also seems to be a discussion in German here that I haven't processed yet: http://www.antike-welt.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=25&amp;t=43641" CreationDate="2019-05-07T06:02:21.017" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19600" PostId="10679" Score="0" Text="Your excerpt from Roby's (1875) is very interesting. Let me comment his following example from Varro _L.L._ 6.11: &quot;seclum spatium annorum centum vocarunt, dictum a sene, quod longissimum spatium senescendorum hominum id putarunt&quot;. Roby says &quot;_senescendi hominibus_ would have been better Latin&quot;. I disagree. The gerundive is not unexpected here since _senescere_ is an **unaccusative** verb (i.e., its argument is a PATIENT: see my answer). Cf. also the well-known parallelism between **gerundives** and &quot;dominant&quot; participles, which is often captured by translating them via a nominalization." CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:36:31.330" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19601" PostId="10679" Score="0" Text="Cf. the nominalizations used in Roby's English translation of his Latin examples that contain a gerundive form of an intransitive _-sc-_ verb: &quot;old-ageing&quot;, &quot;birth&quot;, &quot;growth&quot;, and &quot;flowering&quot;. Very appropriate translations, indeed, and, in fact, quite expected given the abovementioned parallelism between **gerundives** and so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles (the ones found in _ab-urbe-condita_-type constructions)." CreationDate="2019-05-08T02:16:44.297" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19602" PostId="10679" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thanks for the comments on Roby's examples; I didn't copy them because I didn't feel up to trying to understand them on my own, but I was hoping to get some information about the accuracy of his translations." CreationDate="2019-05-08T02:18:36.967" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19603" PostId="10679" Score="0" Text="Yes, Roby's English translations of these Latin examples are VERY accurate/appropriate. Ironically, he considered these gerundive forms as exceptional because I think he didn't take into account the fact that the argument of these intransitive -sc- verbs is a **PATIENT** (not an agent!). So after all his generalization of trying to relate gerundives to a **PASSIVE** meaning is not excluded here ... But, as I've noted below, some linguists (Pinkster, Miller; see below) question this generalization. Perhaps they are right but, to tell you the truth, I still share Roby's traditional intuition..." CreationDate="2019-05-08T02:33:55.307" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19605" PostId="10684" Score="1" Text="Regarding initial _ti_- followed by a vowel, in Italian there are no instances of assibilation of such Ts. If we allow for an -_h_-, the only exception is _zio_ from _thius_ and ultimately from Greek _θεῖος_." CreationDate="2019-05-08T14:30:20.380" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19611" PostId="10684" Score="1" Text="@@VincenzoOliva: Thanks. I couldn't find any other Latin words starting with *ti-* + a vowel except for *tiara,* so I don't know whether it even warrants a separate  category in this answer. I'm curious, as an Italian speaker, do you have any intuition about or familiarity with the way to pronounce Latin nouns from Greek ending in *-tia*? My current impression is that they would most likely be pronounced with [ˈtsia], like Italian *-zia* nouns." CreationDate="2019-05-08T22:20:53.277" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19621" PostId="10684" Score="1" Text="I would definitely second your impression: e.g. my intuition gives ['tsia] for all of the Greek-derived _prophētīa, dēmocratia, necromantīa, goētīa_. Three exceptions are _eucharistia, dynastia_ and _aplestia_ where I guess the preceding S prevented assibilation, and that might be it." CreationDate="2019-05-09T10:16:47.630" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19662" PostId="10684" Score="0" Text="Jack Maddington: Latin is not a dead language, it´´s very much alive. Latin evolved, as all languages evolve, as English evolves. If you went back 1000 or 2000-years and attempted to speak to your own ancestors  you would not understand them, or,  they--you; yet, you would all claim to be speakng English (it wasn´´t called English, then; but, still applies)." CreationDate="2019-05-11T09:47:55.810" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20846" PostId="10684" Score="0" Text="I second your summary: for Ecclesiastical Latin, assibilate in all dubious cases, keeping exceptions to the minimal set. _Simpatia_ and _antipatia_ were brought into Italian by 16th-Century secular philosophers, directly from Greek. Had they passed through Ecclesiastical Latin, they would show assibilation as well." CreationDate="2019-08-07T05:55:25.883" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="30260" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="Fascinating this use of the gerundive to indicate the distant future, &quot;nascendos filios&quot;, literally &quot;to the sons they ought (must) to be born&quot;. Firstly, how are sons obliged to be born? This idea of obligation would apply to hereditary monarchies, in history, that demanded sons to continue the dynasty. Otherwise, why not use the future tense &quot;nascentur&quot;?  Secondly, the gerundive is not supposed to be labelled--&quot;future participle&quot;. is it e.g. &quot;last week the wheel broke off, it ought to be fixed&quot;, happened in the past?" CreationDate="2020-12-28T13:28:23.307" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30317" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="@tony As for your first question, note that the gerundive is not always associated with the meaning of obligation. In &quot;nascendos filios&quot; I'd not say that such a meaning is involved. See Pinkster's (2015) _Oxford Latin Syntax_, where he deals with this issue. He also points out that it is not the case that the gerundive is always passive. You'll see that the issue is much more complex. Probably, the misunderstandings are due to (insisting on) seeing the gerundive as a future passive participle. Pinkster also notes that the gerundive is a true future passive participle from Late Latin onwards." CreationDate="2021-01-02T23:47:37.247" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30318" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="@tony The obligation meaning of gerundive is typical with _esse_ &amp; in its attributive use. Pinkster (2015: 290): &quot;The gerundive is, **however**, also used in a number of constructions in which it is more difficult to apply the notion of ‘passive’ and where the notion ‘deontic’ &lt;(i.e. obligation meaning)&gt; does not seem to apply at all.&quot; He gives two examples: _patriam ipsam inflammandam reliquimus_ (‘ we have left our mother city herself to burning.’ Cic. Fam. 16.12.1) &amp; _placet contra gaudere nosmet omittendis doloribus_ (‘but on the other hand one is glad to lose a pain.’ Cic. Fin. 1.56)." CreationDate="2021-01-02T23:55:54.153" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30387" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="In the first example of Cicero: if the gerundive, in the accusative case, is stripped of its passive &amp; deontic moods, does it become a gerund? Remember the movie &quot;The Shining&quot;, (a verbal noun) with Jack Nicholson? &quot;The shining&quot; was a psychic power. Here, &quot;the burning&quot;. Therefore, accusative, &quot;inflammandam&quot; = &quot;to the burning&quot;; &quot;We have left our mother city herself to the burning&quot;. Alternatively, a present participle (PP) could be used, &quot;inflammantem&quot;, (accusative), which describes what the noun, with which it agrees, is doing. Giving: &quot;We have left our burning city itself.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-01-07T12:53:01.193" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30388" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="The translation given is not correct English: &quot;We have left our mother city to burning.&quot; An English person would say: &quot;To burning what, the cakes?&quot;. Therefore &quot;to the burning&quot; works well. The second example is easy to understand: in the ablative the gerundive will be neither passive nor deontic; &quot;omittendis doloribus&quot; = &quot;by releasing the pains&quot;. But is this an AA or simply &quot;doloribus&quot; agreeing, in case-ending, with &quot;omittendis&quot;, as is required by the grammatical rule for gerundive constructions? Elementary text (Oulton): &quot;navibus eorum delendis hostes vicimus.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-01-07T13:07:44.290" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30389" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="= &quot;We conquered the enemy by destroying their ships.&quot;. But this is not an AA which would've been &quot;navibus deletis&quot;; but, an agreement of case-endings." CreationDate="2021-01-07T13:20:13.793" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30391" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="@tony For further discussion of these examples, see the following link: https://books.google.es/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA68&amp;lpg=PA164-IA68&amp;dq=patriam+ipsam+inflammandam+reliquimus+(%E2%80%98+we+have+left+our+mother+city+herself+to+burning.%E2%80%99+Cic.+Fam.+16.12.1)&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hShhzUjabA&amp;sig=ACfU3U3DUKluUz2rlpZV_9uISVIkQf2sUg&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwig1M-lsYruAhX9QEEAHa1EB0MQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&amp;q=patriam%20ipsam%20inflammandam%20reliquimus%20(%E2%80%98%20we%20have%20left%20our%20mother%20city%20herself%20to%20burning.%E2%80%99%20Cic.%20Fam.%2016.12.1)&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-01-07T17:55:49.390" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30393" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Is ex. &quot;semel haec mihi vivenda sint, an saepe nascendum?&quot; an indirect question? The presence of the perfect subjubctive, &quot;sint&quot; indicates that it is; the subjunctive in the same tense it would be in English. This, &quot;sint&quot;, though is necessary as the part of &quot;sum&quot; required for the gerundive-of-obligation, &quot;vivenda sint&quot;. The presence of the question mark indicates that this is a direct question, is it?" CreationDate="2021-01-08T16:41:55.250" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30394" PostId="10686" Score="0" Text="Silly me! It, &quot;sint&quot;, is the present-cum-future (in this example) subjunctive." CreationDate="2021-01-08T16:54:05.500" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19607" PostId="10690" Score="0" Text="Great! Thank you so much! :)" CreationDate="2019-05-08T15:29:29.283" UserId="4754" />
  <row Id="19608" PostId="10690" Score="0" Text="@M.Gonzalez: You're welcome!" CreationDate="2019-05-08T15:52:55.617" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19604" PostId="10691" Score="0" Text="Regardless of the meaning of sentence after word by word translation, it is useful to know which literal or maybe metaphorical meaning of each word is signified in a sentence." CreationDate="2019-05-08T13:11:28.667" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19609" PostId="10692" Score="0" Text="It is exactly what I want" CreationDate="2019-05-08T20:29:22.987" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="26270" PostId="10692" Score="0" Text="The link to Caesar is https://archive.org/details/CommentariesOnTheGallicWarCaesarCompletelyParsedBookI with I, not 1." CreationDate="2020-05-11T13:25:50.113" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="19636" PostId="10695" Score="0" Text="Detail: do the Greek cognates have to be verbs at all? Do they need to have vowels corresponding to the Latin vowels?" CreationDate="2019-05-09T22:03:48.807" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19614" PostId="10700" Score="0" Text="Who are &quot;they&quot;? I am not aware of any [mathematical texts written in classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/400/79). Would, say, 18th and 19th century texts do?" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:46:03.627" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19615" PostId="10700" Score="0" Text="When it comes to actually doing mathematics, I can't recall when I've last heard anyone say &quot;three fourths&quot;. Usually people would say &quot;three over four&quot; or &quot;three by four&quot; or even &quot;three divided by four&quot;. This is just to say that the practices in mathematics and in everyday speech may differ quite a bit." CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:47:54.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19616" PostId="10700" Score="0" Text="You might be interested in these: [How to read mathematics out loud?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1937/79) [Where to find ancient mathematics in Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/400/79)" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:50:09.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19617" PostId="10700" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta: I simply meant anyone anywhere at anytime, especially in the past, who spoke Latin fluently, like Romans, etc. Also I did read the first one, but it said nothing about fractions, division problems, yes, but not fractions as I know them as a means to express values between 0 and 1." CreationDate="2019-05-09T05:10:21.313" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19620" PostId="10700" Score="0" Text="In other words, I don't care about time or place, just as long as it is commonly accepted, so both an ancient and a modern approach would be welcomed and highly appreciated here." CreationDate="2019-05-09T05:25:19.237" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19618" PostId="10701" Score="3" Text="I don't know if it is you or I, but my screen can only make out four of those symbols (the rest show as hollow squares)." CreationDate="2019-05-09T05:14:10.373" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19619" PostId="10701" Score="0" Text="Also, by pronounce I mean write in words, spelling them out, so that they can be read in that language (I know how to pronounce Classical Latin). That said can you please rewrite that quote transliterating those numbers to spelled out words, so I can pronounce them?" CreationDate="2019-05-09T05:21:22.953" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19627" PostId="10701" Score="0" Text="@MediaMatellaLucretiaFlores Added descriptions of the symbols; unfortunately Unicode support is not as good as it should be still. Also added my best guess as to how it would be written out in words, but a guess is all I have I'm afraid." CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:13:06.030" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19638" PostId="10701" Score="1" Text="Is there a picture you can post that has a table or something with the illegible marks showing?" CreationDate="2019-05-10T00:28:31.817" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19654" PostId="10701" Score="0" Text="@MediaMatellaLucretiaFlores How's that?" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:56:29.790" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19666" PostId="10701" Score="0" Text="NICE! Thank you." CreationDate="2019-05-11T12:51:41.993" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19624" PostId="10702" Score="0" Text="The genitive *omnium iniuriarum* is governed by *obliviscor,* which (always) takes the genitive. &quot;Having forgotten all...&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:47:49.230" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24350" PostId="10706" Score="2" Text="I'd say Anno Salutis rather than Anno Salvatoris. FWIW, see [this German Wikipedia article](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Salutis). Edit: I've just realized fdb beat me by 8 months with his answer, hahaha." CreationDate="2020-02-29T17:33:45.717" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="19632" PostId="10711" Score="5" Text="you are correct that &quot;sit&quot; is subjunctive and that the present subjunctive of be is &quot;be&quot;. However, just because Latin uses subjunctive in a given case doesn't mean that an English translation will. They are conceptually similar ideas (some degree of uncertainty/unreality) but not identical." CreationDate="2019-05-09T20:06:55.360" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="19628" PostId="10713" Score="0" Text="Thank you, I had used the &quot;modern&quot; versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it &quot;sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical.&quot; My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be &quot;esse&quot; and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'." CreationDate="2019-05-09T18:18:41.663" UserId="4767" />
  <row Id="19629" PostId="10713" Score="3" Text="@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *&quot;the Father be not&quot; means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while &quot;the Father is not&quot; means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like &quot;might&quot; or &quot;should&quot; will get the idea across more clearly…" CreationDate="2019-05-09T18:34:15.370" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19630" PostId="10713" Score="2" Text="…than archaic grammar will." CreationDate="2019-05-09T18:34:22.083" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20063" PostId="10713" Score="3" Text="If you have a dial with a needle on it and a scale reading from “fully real” to “fully hypothetical”, a very large part of the scale is coloured “indicative” in English and a very small part coloured “subjunctive”. Much the same in French. For a modern language that divides the scale like Mediaeval Latin, try Spanish, where most of the scale is coloured “subjunctive”." CreationDate="2019-06-08T09:00:26.717" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="19631" PostId="10714" Score="1" Text="Many thanks! This is a very convincing and thorough answer. Regarding *Melitense-Latino-Italum*: In compound adjectives only the last part is inflected. You could have a *Lexicon Anglico-Latino-Anglicum*, for example. What surprises me is that it isn't *Melitensi-*, but I don't know how regular these compound formations are in Latin." CreationDate="2019-05-09T18:47:19.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19633" PostId="10714" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Ah I see! Indeed, not being familiar with any such lexicon, the _Melitense_ had led me to think they were all supposed to be neuter nominatives. Anyway I think you're right in doubting the regularity of such formations, at least in non-contemporary works." CreationDate="2019-05-09T21:30:37.053" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19639" PostId="10716" Score="0" Text="I would honestly leave out things/actions out altogether, though." CreationDate="2019-05-10T01:00:50.400" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19641" PostId="10716" Score="1" Text="Just one additional note. *Tum* fits if &quot;then&quot; is to be taken temporally, but something in the realm of *igitur* makes sense if &quot;then&quot; is drawing a logical consequence." CreationDate="2019-05-10T12:23:05.180" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19690" PostId="10716" Score="2" Text="You would need to modify it to *quas actiones*, for agreement. But I really don't think *tum* or *actio* is appropriate at all." CreationDate="2019-05-13T13:48:43.643" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19692" PostId="10716" Score="1" Text="Words in brackets are best left out. Words in parentheses are other words that might better fit. I would still prefer *Quae tum faciēs* or *Quae tum ages*" CreationDate="2019-05-13T14:16:53.053" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19733" PostId="10718" Score="2" Text="&quot;Explain yourself!&quot; may indeed sometimes (not always though) be tantamount to &quot;Justify yourself!&quot;, but in that case _excuso_ does not seem the way to go: [L&amp;S give](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=excuso) &quot;to excuse sb/sth, to apologize for, to atone for&quot;. // The verbs _claro_ and _explico_ don't seem to take a personal pronoun - at least, I couldn't find any instances of _explicavi me_ or _claravi me_ (and analogues). // For a person, to be _clarus/a_ meant to be &quot;illustrious&quot;, not &quot;clear&quot; - and _dilucidus_ refers to speech itself, not people." CreationDate="2019-05-15T10:16:55.690" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="19774" PostId="10718" Score="0" Text="@ Vincenzo Oliva: Do you have any recommendation for a good lexicon or dictionary that would better explain the subtleties to better aid my diction?" CreationDate="2019-05-17T20:47:36.580" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="20066" PostId="10718" Score="0" Text="@MediaMatellaLucretiaFlores I'm sure people appreciate you trying to help, but when your knowledge of the language is quite rudimentary, you cannot rely on it to do so. Your sentences range from meaning the wrong thing to completely incomprehensible. You can absolutely still help by giving suggestions of (classically) attested phrases whose translations you've made sure are correct. Here's a question with some dictionary suggestions: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why" CreationDate="2019-06-09T10:37:38.113" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="19653" PostId="10722" Score="2" Text="It is appropriate that the proper term 'suppletion,' resolutely refuses to adopt the suppleted form 'supplementation.'" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:17:49.067" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19649" PostId="10723" Score="0" Text="Hmm the English is also attested from the 16th century in an economical sense." CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:20:17.447" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19650" PostId="10723" Score="0" Text="Trade is international, after all. But for Russian in the 19th century or earlier, a German influence is more plausible than an English one." CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:25:12.260" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="19651" PostId="10723" Score="0" Text="Yes. But, if it was already an internationally used term, I think it makes the most sense to emphasise that aspect." CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:27:38.357" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19652" PostId="10723" Score="0" Text="My sources just don't give the international relations. For trade terms at that time, an Italian origin is plausible, but alas, where to look that up ... (wiktionary is not exact enough at this moment to say something definite)" CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:34:44.550" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="19657" PostId="10723" Score="0" Text="Yes, or just from Latin!" CreationDate="2019-05-10T23:29:17.220" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19655" PostId="10728" Score="0" Text="If you add *esse,* aren't you answering a different question?" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:58:21.387" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19656" PostId="10728" Score="2" Text="@Hugh The *esse* is implicit: it's like how _ego tē amō_ and _tē amō_ are semantically the same (they just have different emphasis)." CreationDate="2019-05-10T19:10:47.470" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19658" PostId="10728" Score="0" Text="The examples in L&amp;S suggest that *scio* +Acc and Infinitive means 'to know how to.' But 'To be aware of,' 'to appraise,' is plain Accusative (or +Genitive). Have I misread it?" CreationDate="2019-05-11T00:38:01.577" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19660" PostId="10728" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I interpreted L&amp;S to say _sciō_ + acc = &quot;I am aware of this thing&quot;, _sciō_ + inf = &quot;I know how to do this&quot;, _sciō_ + (ut, acc+inf, quod, etc) = &quot;I know that this thing happened&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-11T01:20:55.450" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19668" PostId="10736" Score="6" Text="Nice pun and great answer! Welcome to the Latin site. Don't hesitate to answer ans ask more!" CreationDate="2019-05-11T16:45:17.580" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19696" PostId="10739" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S also, which is I believe in the public domain" CreationDate="2019-05-13T15:31:14.813" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19671" PostId="10742" Score="0" Text="As you say *casus* could be either singular or plural. *Genere,* 'gender,' and *Numero* 'number,' although Singular are not in the Nominative. I  personally don't think your question can be answered." CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:39:16.217" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19672" PostId="10742" Score="0" Text="Thank you but I don't get &quot;although Singular are not in the Nominative&quot;." CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:45:30.937" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19674" PostId="10742" Score="1" Text="In a list of titles you might expect all to be Nominative singular: *Casus, Genus, Numerus.*  Or else all nom plural *Casus, Genera, Numeri.*  Or else all Ablative singular: *Casu, Numero, Genere.*  No consistency. So it is up to you." CreationDate="2019-05-12T15:00:13.710" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19675" PostId="10742" Score="0" Text="Please make it an answer so that I close the question. Thank you :)" CreationDate="2019-05-12T16:47:35.737" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19694" PostId="10743" Score="3" Text="In my opinion, *substitutis ... quibusdam* is an ablative absolute here, not an ablative of means. Hence I would translate, &quot;The cases of nouns can always be eliminated if particles of some sort are substituted in their place.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-13T14:39:44.497" UserId="2729" />
  <row Id="19707" PostId="10743" Score="2" Text="I agree with David. While translating the ablative as &quot;by&quot; (&quot;eliminate by&quot;) is possible in theory, I am convinced Leibniz meant it as an ablative absolute." CreationDate="2019-05-14T13:10:47.273" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19676" PostId="10745" Score="1" Text="I would bet that top 1 is either Euclid's Elements either the Bible. They weren't originally written in latin but old translations are known." CreationDate="2019-05-12T18:37:45.310" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19680" PostId="10745" Score="3" Text="The Codex Amiatinus is the Vulgate text. It comes to more than 1000 leaves and weighs in at 75 pounds.  But that's not really what I'm looking for, the Bible being an amalgam of lots of texts. And I guess there might have been complete one before Bede, but I'm not sure of that.  Thanks for the suggestions though.  Will research Euclid and Isidore and report back." CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:21:43.690" UserId="4783" />
  <row Id="19681" PostId="10745" Score="2" Text="Can you define length? Number of pages in modern print? In Ancient manuscript? In number of sentences? Words? Letters? I think in words or letters will be quite difficult to compare..." CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:25:43.440" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19682" PostId="10745" Score="0" Text="Link to Isidore http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Isidore/home.html#note:Guntherus" CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:33:40.580" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19686" PostId="10745" Score="0" Text="Euclid *Elements,*  Adelard's translation ed. HLLBusard.(Studies and Texts 64)Toronto 1983 https://www.worldcat.org/title/first-latin-translation-of-euclids-elements-commonly-ascribed-to-adelard-of-bath-books-i-viii-and-books-x36-xv-2/oclc/236351236" CreationDate="2019-05-13T00:21:34.067" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19679" PostId="10747" Score="0" Text="https://sites.google.com/site/latinosineflexio/de-latino-sine-flexione-1903" CreationDate="2019-05-12T20:55:54.610" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19683" PostId="10747" Score="0" Text="@Blincer. Thank you for the link. This is not Latin, nor is it Italian. It is &quot;Latino sine flexione&quot;, an artificial language invented by Peano." CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:38:19.263" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="19684" PostId="10747" Score="0" Text="Yes I knew it was the topic but I did not notice he uses the lang in the article." CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:39:53.617" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="19704" PostId="10749" Score="0" Text="As far as I understand, only the infinitive serving as the object clause is treated differently. Any subordinate clauses dependent on the infinitive should follow the normal rules. But I can't cite anything authoritative on this point." CreationDate="2019-05-14T00:30:00.240" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19685" PostId="10751" Score="0" Text="Are you sure the first word is _amore_ and not _amorem_?" CreationDate="2019-05-12T23:31:29.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19687" PostId="10751" Score="0" Text="Yes, what's the difference?" CreationDate="2019-05-13T07:08:16.340" UserId="4785" />
  <row Id="19688" PostId="10751" Score="0" Text="Is amorem correct spelling or it has different meaning?" CreationDate="2019-05-13T07:17:05.383" UserId="4785" />
  <row Id="19689" PostId="10751" Score="3" Text="Source/context would be helpful ." CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:51:26.463" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="19693" PostId="10751" Score="0" Text="@MaxTsepkov Welcome to the site! In Latin nouns change grammatical function (meaning, in short) with endings, just as verbs in English do. The ending of an English verb changes tense, _amorem_ here would make _amor_ (love) the object of _honora_, the verb; just as _libertatem_ is the object of _cura_." CreationDate="2019-05-13T14:21:02.163" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="19698" PostId="10751" Score="3" Text="Like Fdb, I must insist on more context. Because, without context, this phrase seems bad Latin, and people are doing their utmost to make something out of it; with context, it would probably be easier to tell whether it was just bad Latin or something that made sense. And we mean context in the broadest sense: anything you know could help. Did you make up this phrase yourself? Is it from Google Translate? From a poem? An fragment from an inscription? Would it make sense for us to reconstruct omitted words or not?" CreationDate="2019-05-13T16:21:23.213" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19724" PostId="10751" Score="0" Text="After discussing this question with another moderator, I have put it on hold, because we normally require translation questions to include (enough) context if possible. It will be reopened when some context is added." CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:23:01.460" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19735" PostId="10751" Score="0" Text="@cerberus, unfortunately I do not have a context. It's a tattoo on a girl's hand so any guess is helpful :)" CreationDate="2019-05-15T12:14:05.520" UserId="4785" />
  <row Id="19697" PostId="10753" Score="2" Text="That is creative! So you would have to assume an adjective *honorus*, which does indeed exist. The only problem is that *amor* is masculine, so it would have to be *honoro* then." CreationDate="2019-05-13T16:18:50.663" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19700" PostId="10753" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus What if you referred to a woman as &quot;my love&quot;? I guess it'd make sense to treat *amor* as feminine then. But that'd take the whole translation in a new direction, too..." CreationDate="2019-05-13T18:25:25.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19701" PostId="10753" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: I'm afraid it would still have to be masculine, then, as it would only refer to a female person metaphorically." CreationDate="2019-05-13T18:30:10.067" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19702" PostId="10753" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: Thanks: tend to think of &quot;love&quot; as feminine: back to the drawing board." CreationDate="2019-05-13T18:38:34.117" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19703" PostId="10753" Score="2" Text="@Joonasllmavirta: thanks for (almost) saving me; but, there's no fooling Cerberus." CreationDate="2019-05-13T18:40:49.660" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19705" PostId="10758" Score="0" Text="Very interesting; I would have immediately thought Koine (post-Alexander) but that wouldn't have a digamma either." CreationDate="2019-05-14T01:12:58.250" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42518" PostId="10758" Score="0" Text="+1 Indeed, apparently in the Hebrew Bible the &quot;air&quot; is referred to as &quot;skies/heaven&quot; (*shamayim*.)" CreationDate="2023-03-08T14:51:02.310" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="19715" PostId="10760" Score="1" Text="The replacement of an internal glottal stop with a semi-vowel seems reasonable enough, but the choice of [w] in this environment seems counter-intuitive.  I should have expected something like [ʔajer] instead.  Are other examples of this?" CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:18:36.450" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="19718" PostId="10760" Score="0" Text="@varro. As it happens, Mandaic Aramaic has this word as ʼyʼr, for /āyar/." CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:49:16.873" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="19723" PostId="10760" Score="0" Text="Interesting -- so the *w* is an accidental similarity... Like varro, I'm curious about the odd change VʔV &gt; VwV. Is it regular in Aramaic?" CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:42:29.830" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19732" PostId="10760" Score="0" Text="@TKR. E.g. Syriac active participle pāʾeḵ¸but imperative poḵ." CreationDate="2019-05-15T10:02:43.303" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="19708" PostId="10761" Score="0" Text="Do you have a source regarding the pluperfect being about the &quot;distant past&quot;? I've never heard it explained that way." CreationDate="2019-05-14T14:14:30.120" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19709" PostId="10761" Score="0" Text="Latin class at Walnut. The book we used was *Latin for Americans.*" CreationDate="2019-05-14T14:23:19.187" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19710" PostId="10761" Score="0" Text="*Ita, in viā ībam, et laciniam, quam in televisione vīderam, in fenestrā vīdī, et eam ēmī.* So, I was walking down the street, and I saw a dress, which I had seen on television (before then), in the window, and I bought it." CreationDate="2019-05-14T15:00:30.067" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19719" PostId="10761" Score="0" Text="That example is fine. But I think the way it's currently worded gives the (incorrect) impression that the pluperfect means &quot;a *really* long time ago.&quot; In fact, it just means &quot;sometime before another past action.&quot; Virgil wouldn't have used *Urbs antiqua fuerat* even if Carthage had existed in the more distant past." CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:09:24.703" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19720" PostId="10761" Score="0" Text="I use &quot;distant past&quot; rather loosely here." CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:20:11.213" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19712" PostId="10763" Score="0" Text="Thinking of ligatures, the Greek ligature omikron-upsilon also has some special status and I have seen it to be proposed as an additional symbol for use in engeneering (see Mylonas and Whitney (1993), TUGboat vol 13, p.39, https://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb13-1/tb34mylonas.pdf )" CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:03:51.253" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="19717" PostId="10764" Score="1" Text="There's nothing wrong with your composition, but the wording of the original made me think that the person setting the composition is fishing for a particular construction at the start:  *Quis (homo) est, qui* ..." CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:45:30.920" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19734" PostId="10764" Score="0" Text="*ecquis* seems to be a suitable alternative to the awkward construction “quis ibī quī ...”" CreationDate="2019-05-15T11:55:45.730" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="42475" PostId="10765" Score="0" Text="@DLosc Huh, looks like it. I can confirm the Loeb (where I copied from) has τὴι there, but that's not even a valid word: the grave accent can only fall on the last vowel. I think it's an error in the Loeb edition!" CreationDate="2023-03-02T23:15:18.780" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42477" PostId="10765" Score="0" Text="Done. I'm surprised none of the Loeb readers ever caught that!" CreationDate="2023-03-02T23:33:33.890" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42478" PostId="10765" Score="1" Text="They might have and just never told HUP, or perhaps HUP is waiting for a new edition? Cicero's DND pre-dates this, but I still think there's earlier." CreationDate="2023-03-03T00:18:33.750" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="20047" PostId="10766" Score="0" Text="This Q helps with the, more recent, &quot;acta est fabula, plaudite&quot;. What does PIE stand for....passive indirect example?? The revelation may make me feel stupid; but better stupidity than ignorance. How are you faring with the truncated word-fragments?" CreationDate="2019-06-06T15:42:55.737" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20048" PostId="10766" Score="0" Text="@tony Ah, that's my bad, it's not a universally-used abbreviation. PIE is &quot;Proto-Indo-European&quot;, the oldest ancestor of Latin we can reconstruct with any certainty." CreationDate="2019-06-06T15:43:43.423" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27115" PostId="10766" Score="0" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/14147/1982, Seb quoted Nepos (Epaminondas 5.4): &quot;nam paritur pax bello, itaque qui ea diutina volunt frui bello exercitati esse debent&quot;. When I asked about the translation Seb gave &quot;exercitati esse debent&quot; to be a perfective; but, didn't sound certain. Translating = &quot;they are obliged to be (having been) trained&quot;. Given that something is taking place at the moment of speaking (debent = they are obliged), does this expression qualify as a present perfective?" CreationDate="2020-07-08T10:31:01.713" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19725" PostId="10767" Score="0" Text="Any idea why the P.Oxy. 1232 fragments were placed together? And since you mention them, what about the 1231s?" CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:29:07.463" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="19726" PostId="10767" Score="1" Text="@MickG I'm afraid the best I have is—the archaeologists who first published those fragments decided they belonged together. Possibly based on the circumstances of their discovery?" CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:36:16.897" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19727" PostId="10768" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! I guess one could argue that *scriptum* is the object, meaning &quot;writing&quot; or &quot;text&quot;, in that Vitruvius passage. But I do agree that reading it as a perfect tense with auxiliary *habere* makes a lot of sense." CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:49:15.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20277" PostId="10768" Score="1" Text="Great answer. I do have one quibble, which is that the Augustine quote may not be a perfect at all. Here's the context: &quot;Attendite, rogo vos: iam in fine lectionis sumus. Metuo enim ne ibi vos habeam fatigatos, ubi maxime exigo intentos.&quot; &#xA;&#xA;Listen up, please, we're now coming to the end of the lesson. I'm afraid I have you all worn out at the precise point where I most require you to be attentive. &#xA;&#xA;Is Augustine taking responsibility, &quot;I've worn you out,&quot; or not, &quot;I finally have you [at this point in the lesson], and you're worn out&quot;? Maybe parallel texts could clarify?" CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:18:24.230" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20279" PostId="10768" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey That's a very good quibble! I'll find some more context for these and see what I can do." CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:27:14.973" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20289" PostId="10768" Score="1" Text="In general, caution needs to be exercisesed when equating a romance-looking construction in Latin to an actual romance construction. There's nothing indicating that the Vitruvius quote, to a CL speaker, meant something other than &quot;we have it written above&quot; in the literal, material sense by way of conflating the existential/possessive *nōbīs suprā scrīptum est* with the periphrastic perfect *suprā scrīptum est*. In fact, I think the absolute majority of instances of this use can be interpreted in this existential/possessive way." CreationDate="2019-06-26T01:56:19.703" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="19728" PostId="10771" Score="1" Text="Oddly enough, the sources that I've seen about the alleged Plautine stress rule say that stress only went on the fourth-to-least syllable of a quadrisyllabic word if **that syllable** was also light (i.e. if the word had the form LLLσ). I quote relevant sources here: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/29971/5581" CreationDate="2019-05-14T23:03:59.013" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19729" PostId="10771" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Huh, interesting! I'll edit." CreationDate="2019-05-14T23:04:25.010" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19730" PostId="10775" Score="0" Text="Can't &quot;_pro-_&quot; also mean &quot;toward&quot; or &quot;forward&quot; like &quot;process&quot; (vs. &quot;recess&quot;) or &quot;progress&quot;? It seems it's not just an intensifier or something regarding purpose." CreationDate="2019-05-14T23:26:29.987" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="19731" PostId="10775" Score="1" Text="@Geremia &quot;It seems it's not just an intensifier&quot;…why?" CreationDate="2019-05-14T23:32:46.167" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19738" PostId="10775" Score="0" Text="Do you have any evidence to support your claim that &quot;_pro-_&quot; here has &quot;Nothing to do with the purpose&quot;? And what is it about _procreo_ that is &quot;more intense&quot; than _creo_?" CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:47:59.683" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="19739" PostId="10775" Score="0" Text="@Geremia Mostly, Lewis and Short don't mention any sense of purpose, none of the examples I've found show a sense of purpose, and while it's hard to prove a negative, the fact that Cicero and Lucretius seem to use it as a plain intensifier is pretty solid evidence imo." CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:53:22.937" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19740" PostId="10775" Score="0" Text="It sounds like you're expecting a certain answer and don't want any other; do you have evidence that it *does* have something to do with &quot;for the sake of God&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:53:54.643" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19741" PostId="10775" Score="0" Text="(As far as &quot;more intense&quot;: that's just what verbal prefixes generally do in Latin. They put more emphasis on the verb, emphasizing the begetting or creating or producing or whatever.)" CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:55:00.997" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19744" PostId="10775" Score="0" Text="I added an _OED_ quote. Also, &quot;procreate&quot; in English is something restricted to humans; we don't say animals reproduce, not procreate." CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:50:37.440" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="19746" PostId="10775" Score="1" Text="@Geremia Oh, in English the meanings are totally different, yeah (&quot;create&quot; and &quot;procreate&quot; are far from synonymous). I'm talking solely about the meanings in Latin; it's worth noting that Gen 4:25 in the Vulgate uses the unrelated verb _pariō_ instead of _prōcreō_." CreationDate="2019-05-15T18:21:25.397" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19751" PostId="10775" Score="1" Text="It's not just Latin. Slavonic languages, and to an extent Germanic ones, use a variety of preverbs that seem to be originally directional in a wide variety of senses. Consider _understand_, _withhold_ and _forbear_." CreationDate="2019-05-15T23:35:02.110" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="32912" PostId="10775" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine I understand Draconis to only be referring to this particular word. Some words have what's called &quot;intensifiers&quot;, prefixes that just strengthen the word (although not always even that, especially when they're used in vulgar speech). Other times, of course, the prefix will substantially alter the meaning. It's always on a case-by-case basis." CreationDate="2021-04-28T04:08:29.417" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="19747" PostId="10776" Score="1" Text="*Odium,* hatred, spite, (sometimes the object of hatred) is grammatically neuter. So, *sui* may look masc., but is neuter, in this case." CreationDate="2019-05-15T19:14:37.133" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19737" PostId="10778" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a good question! I appreciate accepting my answer, but please also remember to vote up all answers (not just to this question!) you find useful. The suggestion by luchonacho is a good one." CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:31:51.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19743" PostId="10778" Score="0" Text="When you say &quot;word&quot;, do you really mean one word, and not an expression?" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:36:47.453" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19742" PostId="10780" Score="0" Text="Do you mean _res_ alone can be understood as &quot;area of interest&quot;? Can you think of a context/expression/idiom where such is the case?" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:35:34.773" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19745" PostId="10780" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I added an example. *Res* is pretty broad. You can use it to refer to just about anything like the English &quot;thing&quot;, but *res* feels more formal than the English counterpart." CreationDate="2019-05-15T18:13:11.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19748" PostId="10781" Score="0" Text="The name problem is hard, but not insurmountably so, I think. *Zēta* as you say is a very plausible case of contamination. *Sigma* becomes a little easier if we remember that *g* before *m* sometimes or always stood for a nasal: *siŋ-ma* could be from *sin* with an added dummy syllable to give the trochaic shape of most of the other letter names. *San* conversely would be a clipping. Some ad hoc assumptions are needed but not as many as in the confusion scenario." CreationDate="2019-05-15T21:22:15.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19749" PostId="10781" Score="0" Text="@TKR Was gamma a nasal before nasals? I thought it was only a nasal before velars." CreationDate="2019-05-15T21:43:14.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19750" PostId="10781" Score="0" Text="Also before some or all nasals, see e.g. Sturtevant 64f." CreationDate="2019-05-15T22:47:58.023" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19760" PostId="10781" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot for summarizing Krahmalkov’s research! I promised to do it but there’s too much going on at work now." CreationDate="2019-05-16T22:04:32.713" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19752" PostId="10782" Score="4" Text="Another word with a similar problem is *fere,* which, like English 'quite,' can mean almost but not quite, or it can mean quite sure, and no argument." CreationDate="2019-05-15T23:42:06.893" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19756" PostId="10782" Score="0" Text="@Hugh, interesting! thanks for that input." CreationDate="2019-05-16T16:45:03.187" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="19759" PostId="10782" Score="1" Text="Funnily enough _while_ has both these meanings in the local variety of English where I live." CreationDate="2019-05-16T17:32:35.233" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="26943" PostId="10782" Score="0" Text="for the sake of the record, is seem another word is *recingo*" CreationDate="2020-06-24T19:20:06.117" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35130" PostId="10782" Score="1" Text="The technical term for these is [auto-antonym](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym)." CreationDate="2021-09-16T01:46:27.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="28789" PostId="10785" Score="0" Text="I love the photograph! Do you happen to know when it was taken and who this mustached gentleman is?" CreationDate="2020-08-28T18:06:37.473" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28791" PostId="10785" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. According to [this site](https://medievalfragments.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/the-proud-reader-showing-off-the-medieval-manuscript/) and [this document](https://www.kb.se/docs/about/folder_eng_lowres.pdf), it is the &quot;machinist&quot; Gustaf Liljegren, perhaps at the National Library of Stockholm." CreationDate="2020-08-29T09:45:37.200" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="28795" PostId="10785" Score="1" Text="Thanks! The linked pages are very interesting too, e.g. &quot;It was nearly destroyed in 1697 when a fire raged at the Royal Castle in Stockholm, where it was kept at the time. It was saved because it was thrown out of a window, seriously injuring a bystander.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-08-29T15:11:43.580" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19757" PostId="10786" Score="2" Text="Can you elaborate more on this? This looks like a nice start of an answer, but it doesn't really get to explaining how the two seemingly opposite meanings arise." CreationDate="2019-05-16T16:46:05.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19755" PostId="10787" Score="3" Text="What is the context here? That looks like a part of something bigger. You'll get much more helpful translations if you explain what you want to express." CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:59:19.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19764" PostId="10787" Score="0" Text="A memorial to my brother. It is his photo then ... and the ones I have loved" CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:53:51.480" UserId="4797" />
  <row Id="19765" PostId="10787" Score="2" Text="Thanks! I edited that in. You can always edit your own posts to clarify them; comments can be deleted after a while. I still don't fully understand what you're after here. Is it a photo of him and of the people you have loved? Or is the photo of just him and the others are present? This difference will be visible in Latin. It might be my being slow, but a complete sentence or passage with that phrase would help make grammatical sense of it." CreationDate="2019-05-17T00:00:10.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19762" PostId="10789" Score="5" Text="The question in my mind is whether _somnium_ and its associated verb have the sense &quot;aspiration&quot;, &quot;desire&quot;, as well as the primary meaning &quot;inner experience while sleeping&quot;. If they do not, they surely don't match the intended meaning." CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:03:10.337" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="19766" PostId="10791" Score="0" Text="I thought that the wish is unreal if you use imperfect instead of present subjunctive. &quot;If only you kept on dreaming!&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-17T10:55:50.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19771" PostId="10791" Score="0" Text="ªJoonas llmavirta: Where does &quot;if only&quot; come from: thougt the idea was to create an unreal/ fantasy/ dream-world? Could use present subjuctive (somnies) may-you-dream; but it is harsh in iussive/ hortative demanding sense eg habeas corpus--a pres. subj. with imperative force: not &quot;you may have a body&quot;; but,  &quot;you HAVE a body!!&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:34:09.720" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19772" PostId="10791" Score="0" Text="When a subjunctive/conjunctive is used optatively, the imperfect tense implies unreal, present implies real. So: *Felix sis!* = &quot;May you be happy (and I think you might)!&quot; &amp; *Felix esses!* = &quot;I wish you were happy (but I know you aren't)!&quot; Dreaming can indeed produce a fantasy world, but the act of dreaming is very true. The unreal nature can be emphasized by *utinam* or some such word, but I don't think it has to be. (By the way, to ping a user, use `@` instead of `ª`. The latter doesn't cause the system to ping the user.)" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:55:11.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19782" PostId="10793" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your suggestions. You've solved a long term query for me so quickly.&#xA;Marianne" CreationDate="2019-05-18T22:42:16.343" UserId="4802" />
  <row Id="19769" PostId="10795" Score="3" Text="Both qui and quibus should be quos, because the relative pronoun is the direct object of amavi in both instances" CreationDate="2019-05-17T16:52:19.903" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19770" PostId="10795" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thanks for the feedback. Is there a way to rephrase the expression so that the accusative becomes evident? I just fail to see this. I'm not saying you are wrong. I just want to understand it, rather than just making the suggested change, and not understanding why." CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:25:42.207" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19773" PostId="10795" Score="3" Text="It's just the way relative pronouns work: their case depends on the function that they have in the relative clause itself; it doesn't depend on or have to match the case of the antecedent (omnes/omnibus) – in fact, if it does happen to match the antecedent, that's merely incidental. Think about why, in the English translation that appears after your 2 Latin suggestions, you (correctly) chose to say '**whom** I loved' instead of '**who** I loved' or '**to whom** I loved': it's because the relative pronoun, in English as in Latin, functions as the direct object inside the relative clause." CreationDate="2019-05-17T19:29:12.000" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19777" PostId="10795" Score="0" Text="@cnread I see. Clear now. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-05-18T07:15:59.810" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19776" PostId="10797" Score="0" Text="In this case you would decline the main noun which would be *Ordo* or *Lictor* depending on to what or whom you are referring. The former when referring to the order as a whole, and Lictor when referring to the operative." CreationDate="2019-05-18T03:44:06.660" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19778" PostId="10800" Score="0" Text="Thank you, I got it. I was confused because in my native language we would still translate these kinds of sentences with the accusative case..." CreationDate="2019-05-18T13:12:32.380" UserId="3404" />
  <row Id="19779" PostId="10800" Score="0" Text="@lmc I'm glad to help. Tony's answer is good, but I wanted to offer another point of view in case it helps you or other readers." CreationDate="2019-05-18T13:16:01.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19781" PostId="10800" Score="0" Text="Joonas, what you're saying (&quot;_legendum est_, 'one has to read'. An object can't be added to this kind of construction&quot;) is generally correct for Classical Latin but see my answer for a relevant qualification on this impersonal construction." CreationDate="2019-05-18T18:49:15.597" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19780" PostId="10801" Score="2" Text="... and perhaps *librum legendum legimus*" CreationDate="2019-05-18T16:39:47.037" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="19784" PostId="10804" Score="1" Text="Satellite-framed languages = 'float-into' or 'in-float' languages. In contrast, &quot;verb-framed languages&quot; = 'enter-floating' languages. Latin (like Russian) belongs to the first type, whereas Catalan and other Romance languages belong to the second type. Notice that it is a good example that shows that a **typological** classification of languages can be quite different from a **genetic** one." CreationDate="2019-05-19T03:32:02.193" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19786" PostId="10806" Score="1" Text="I find your examples charmingly confusing. Is ***libella*** the missing subject of the first? (&quot;The **libel** should be read to me&quot;).  And does the deponent verb in the second affect the grammar?" CreationDate="2019-05-19T12:09:38.373" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19805" PostId="10806" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: &quot;Book&quot; (libella) is understood, in the gerundive, &quot;it (the book)-ought-to-be-read&quot;. Blosius: &quot;morior&quot;; if you have an alternative translation, please proceed." CreationDate="2019-05-20T09:59:38.630" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19787" PostId="10808" Score="3" Text="I agree with you, Tom, in all you have said in your answer except in the following: are you sure that _Nunc est bibendum_ is &quot;**unquestionably** a gerund&quot;? I would not use this adverb since there's been and there's still **debate** on this issue. If you don't mind, I would like to post it as a new question to see what people think about this issue." CreationDate="2019-05-19T16:11:47.860" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19788" PostId="10808" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino By all means, post it as a new question. I'm convinced myself but, as you say, there have been differing opinions. My own is that meaning tends to get lost in all the attempts to rationalize what is, after all, a beautiful piece. Just look at the enormous variety among the translations, too!" CreationDate="2019-05-19T16:28:49.930" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19789" PostId="10808" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton Nunc bibendum est looks to me like a perfect example of an impersonal gerundive (A&amp;G 500). I would expect a gerund to have an expressed object." CreationDate="2019-05-19T17:10:32.097" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19790" PostId="10808" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey In A&amp;G's terms, you may well be right, but I'm afraid that I don't wholly buy into all the academic analysis of Latin syntax; in other words I'd rather take the language at face value, without having the reasons for its construction set out in fine detail to take away the enjoyment of reading something like the Cleopatra Ode. It's still possible to write decent Latin without all the apparatus that interests its analysts!" CreationDate="2019-05-19T17:25:00.890" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19808" PostId="10808" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino I've edited my answer to indicate doubt over the nature od _bibendum_. I have explained my point of view in an answer to your associated new question." CreationDate="2019-05-20T16:18:46.343" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19813" PostId="10808" Score="0" Text="Ok, Tom! I've also just replied to your answer on the nature of _bibendum est_. By the way, I understand that for you _bibendum_ here is nominative, right?" CreationDate="2019-05-20T17:10:08.797" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19814" PostId="10808" Score="0" Text="Has to be! btw, not _bibendum est_, but _est bibendum_. Doesn't the word order influence the meaning?" CreationDate="2019-05-20T18:01:14.327" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="19822" PostId="10808" Score="0" Text="Yes, you´re right. Although word order does not usually influence propositional content, it does influence information structure (focus, emphasis, old vs. new information, etc.)." CreationDate="2019-05-21T12:51:22.843" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19797" PostId="10809" Score="0" Text="See also: [When and how did the distinction between the gerund and the gerundive develop?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4799/79)" CreationDate="2019-05-19T20:27:05.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19802" PostId="10809" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, Joonas! Indeed, that topic (Did the gerundive develop out of the gerund or did the process go the other way around?) has generated a lot of discussion in the specialized literature. As far as I know, no clear conclusion has been reached yet. One work I found interesting is that by Miller (2000) (see below), who claims, among other things, that “The oldest documents in Italic and Latin support the hypothesis that the gerundive is older than the gerund + ACC object”. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/dia/2000/00000017/00000002/art00002" CreationDate="2019-05-19T21:23:48.773" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19803" PostId="10809" Score="0" Text="Oh! That'd make an interesting answer to the linked question. Pointing out that the matter is controversial and briefly describing one or two suggested theories would be nice; I don't expect a conclusive answer to all questions." CreationDate="2019-05-19T23:11:09.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19791" PostId="10810" Score="0" Text="I agree with you except in the following: &quot;I don't think it's any more awkward than other Latin impersonal passives: _persuasum est_, _pugnatum est_, etc&quot;. It seems that _Moriendum est nobis_ is perfect compared to _Mortuum est beate_, which is ill-formed. So something different happens here. NB: _pugnare_ is an unergative intransitive verb (so it can form impersonal passives like _Pugnatum est_. In contrast, _mori_ is an unaccusative verb (so it cannot form impersonal passives like _Mortuum est beate_ 'One died happily'). E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:59:56.900" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19793" PostId="10810" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino That's a good point, and I hope digging into that yields some insight. My point was that, since Latin elsewhere uses passive morphology not to communicate passivity but to promote event, I have no problem with the gerundive, a passive form, being employed analogously." CreationDate="2019-05-19T19:14:39.980" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19794" PostId="10810" Score="0" Text="In fact, I raised the _{moriendum/*mortuum} est_ contrast in another post (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9379/on-the-absence-of-impersonal-passives-of-deponent-verbs ).  Basically, one cannot make a passive construction out of an unaccusative verb like _mori_, whose subject is a **patient**; in contrast, one can make a passive out of an unergative verb like _pugnare_, whose subject is an **agent**.  Now the question is: _Moriendum est_ is an impersonal construction but is it a **passive** construction? I don't think so." CreationDate="2019-05-19T19:26:23.467" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19795" PostId="10810" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino. I agree. The basic issue seems to me to be that the two sets of forms commonly called &quot;active&quot; and &quot;passive&quot; are not sufficient to differentiate all the various combinations of agent, patient, event, etc. So, the passive morphology gets pressed into a number of functions not covered by a simple active-passive polarity. That's why it doesn't bother me to claim that the passive morphology of the gerundive is pressed into other uses. By contrast, I find it very difficult to believe that the gerund suddenly acquires modal force it nowhere else evinces." CreationDate="2019-05-19T19:38:39.417" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19796" PostId="10810" Score="0" Text="Yes, it is true that the proponents that _bibendum_ is a gerund in this example must face two problems: (1) its use as nominative when this usage does not otherwise appear, and (2) there seems to be no other instance where the gerund has the modal notions of necessity or obligation. But at the same time it is true that examples like Plautus's above are problematic if _agitandum_ is a gerundive form, as Woodcock claims. In my view, his appealing to the claim that _vigilias_ is a sort of &quot;accusative of relation&quot; is not a good explanation." CreationDate="2019-05-19T19:52:46.433" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19865" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="If I've understood your answer correctly, what you're saying is that _Bibendum est_ is ambiguous between two interpretations: (a) an **impersonal** construction (the one relevant here) and (b) a **personal** construction where the elliptical subject is neuter (e.g., some liquid). This second reading is not appropriate for the present context but, yes, it could be appropriate in another one. A gerundive form would be involved in both cases." CreationDate="2019-05-23T14:58:17.640" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19927" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: In the neuter, impersonal, gerundive, bibendum, &quot;it-is-to-be-drunk&quot;: so, &quot;it&quot; means nothing (impersonal); or, it is an oblique reference to the alcoholic delights, on offer; or, it is a nebulous allusion to the circumstances. Horace, in 30BC., after the fall of Cleopatra (&amp; Antony) was contemplating great celebrations. Now, it(?) is to be drunk--let's party!" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:36:32.840" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19928" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Continuing: the quote from Blosius, in a previous answer: &quot;si moriendum erit…&quot; giving &quot;If it-will-have-to-be-death...&quot;;  does &quot;it&quot; mean nothing; or, does it refer, however tenuously, to the circumstances?" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:43:05.013" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19929" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: A contributory factor, to the confusion, may arise from &quot;vinum&quot; being neuter. In the personal: &quot;vinum bibendum est&quot; = &quot;the wine: it-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;; and, the impersonal, the gerundive is the same word, by definition." CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:52:44.530" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19930" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="When dealing with **impersonal** constructions like &quot;Moriendum est&quot;, &quot;Pugnatum est&quot;, &quot;Bibendum est&quot;, &quot;Curritur&quot;, one often assumes that there is **no** meaningful subject there. However, it is perhaps interesting to point out that Priscianus and some grammarians from the Renaissance period (e.g., Sanctius, called &quot;El Brocense&quot;) did claim that these constructions are not impersonal but have an elliptical meaningful subject. For example, &quot;Curritur&quot; was interpreted by them as &quot;Cursus curritur &quot;. As far as I know, this analysis is not pursued any longer by contemporary linguists." CreationDate="2019-05-27T16:53:23.957" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19931" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="Here is a relevant link in case you're interested: https://books.google.es/books?id=fIwbskAFrkkC&amp;pg=PA137&amp;dq=curritur+cursus&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjq2ITDlbziAhUbSxUIHczsBMQQ6wEIKzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=curritur%20cursus&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-05-27T16:53:46.760" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20018" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Have given this further study &amp; thought. Answer has been revised, somewhat." CreationDate="2019-06-03T11:05:39.453" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20020" PostId="10811" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Tony, for the revision of your previous answer. As for the Spanish translation, a usual one is &quot;Ahora bebamos&quot; (lit. 'Now let's drink'). &quot;Ahora toca beber&quot; ('Now it's time to drink'. NB: the meaning of Sp. &quot;tocar&quot; involves a light nuance of obligation, much lighter than &quot;Ahora hay que beber&quot; 'Now one must drink') would also fit the context." CreationDate="2019-06-03T18:27:34.493" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19799" PostId="10812" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It is indeed interesting to compare Pinkster's (2015: 284) quote that &quot;Impersonal passive deponent forms are rare&quot; with the one he also makes immediately below: &quot;Gerundive forms of deponent verbs with a passive interpretation are found throughout Latinity&quot;. So **WHY** is there a contrast of productivity here, i.e., between impersonal passives made out of alleged deponent verbs (e.g., cf. _medeor_ AND **_medeo_**) and impersonal constructions made out of Gerundive forms of deponent verbs?" CreationDate="2019-05-19T20:51:38.913" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19800" PostId="10812" Score="0" Text="Assuming that Pinkster’s admittedly rare examples of passive deponent forms cannot be reduced to false cases (e.g., cf. _medeor_ **and** _medeo_), probably there is an agent involved in these rare cases, like in non-deponent unergatives (_Pugnatum est_) and unlike in deponent unaccusatives (_*Mortuum est beate_). In that case the contrast could have to do with unergatives (deponents or not) and deponent unaccusatives." CreationDate="2019-05-19T21:00:42.960" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19812" PostId="10813" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, Cerberus, for your detailed answer. I agree with you in all you've said except in two points: (i) Is the impersonal construction _Bibendum est_  passive? (if it was passive, I think the following contrast would be unexpected: cf. the well-formedness of  _Moriendum est nobis_ with the ill-formedness of _Mortuum est beate_ (see my comments below Kingshorsey's answer); (ii)  I agree with you that _Mordebatur in floribus carpendis_ is a very good example of a &quot;dominant participle&quot; but I'm unable to see  how this notion aplies to the predicative impersonal _Nunc est bibendum_." CreationDate="2019-05-20T16:55:17.813" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42486" PostId="10813" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Salve, Mitomino from the past. Ad i: impersonal constructions must be made using a verbal form that is normally passive in meaning. *Mortuus* is active in meaning, which explains why it cannot be used in an impersonal construction. *Moriendus*, however, can be, because it is passive in meaning, just like *bibendus*. So *bibendum est* is passive to the extent that any impersonal passive construction is passive, just like *itum est*. est*." CreationDate="2023-03-03T05:14:40.967" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42487" PostId="10813" Score="0" Text="Ad ii: I believe you are right, *vinum bibendum est* is no dominant construction. The praedicativity in *bibendum* is from the construction copula + subject complement, just as in *vinum datum est*: not from dominancy." CreationDate="2023-03-03T05:15:26.283" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42494" PostId="10813" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for your comments &amp; revisited answer. Cf. the debate summarized in Pinkster's (2015: 301-305) OLS, vol. 1: cf. https://books.google.es/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA70&amp;dq=excursus+pinkster+gerund&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwizls-nocH9AhVRRqQEHQBgBngQ6AF6BAgNEAI#v=onepage&amp;q=excursus%20pinkster%20gerund&amp;f=false. Let me tell you that, for many years, I've been assuming the more &quot;standard&quot; (ii) &quot;impersonal gerundive&quot; analysis as correct but I've recently changed my mind. Now I think the correct analysis is a variant of (i), i.e. the one put forward by Bolkestein (1980, 2001), i.a." CreationDate="2023-03-04T03:05:08.317" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42496" PostId="10813" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Hmm I cannot access this Google link. What is &quot;(i)&quot; here?" CreationDate="2023-03-04T04:11:34.820" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42497" PostId="10813" Score="0" Text="Go to &quot;google books&quot; and make a search with these three key words: &quot;excursus, Pinkster &amp; gerund&quot;. Hopefully, you'll be directed to the section 5.42 of Pinkster's (2015) OLS. &quot;(i)&quot; is the gerund analysis. If the text is cut, please scroll upwards and then scroll down and you'll be able to read the relevant pages of this section (only five)." CreationDate="2023-03-04T04:44:46.040" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19815" PostId="10816" Score="2" Text="read &quot;vis&quot; as power, but, then power would have been &quot;vim&quot;; it is now sorted." CreationDate="2019-05-20T18:40:07.580" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19826" PostId="10816" Score="0" Text="And *oppĭdō* as the new question from Luchonacho reminds me." CreationDate="2019-05-21T17:18:32.777" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19829" PostId="10817" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the nice answer! The answers to [this question about *s'il te/vous plaît*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1610/79) suggest that those Romance phrases are in fact not a continuation of a Latin phrase *si tibi/vobis placet*." CreationDate="2019-05-21T23:26:41.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19817" PostId="10819" Score="0" Text="Have you been watching &quot;Game-of-Thrones&quot;? Am guessing that a Roman would call it, what we would call it, evil. Fools who have dabbled with ouija boards and invited the forces of evil into their living rooms, fled, in terror. But, there is nothing wrong with an academic interest in the &quot;dark side&quot; of Latin. Did you find the &quot;expletive-intensifier&quot; that you were seeking?" CreationDate="2019-05-21T09:33:40.607" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19824" PostId="10819" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm afraid I did not (find the intensifier), but this would potentially be a good use for it! Lucan spends the majority of an entire book of his epic describing how horrific this magic is." CreationDate="2019-05-21T16:16:21.200" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19849" PostId="10819" Score="0" Text="@Draconis did you read the book I showed you? That series was full of expletives and intensifiers." CreationDate="2019-05-22T13:30:11.563" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19827" PostId="10820" Score="0" Text="Especially because _oppidō_ has a long _ō_, which means it looks exactly like the ablative of _oppidum_, and ablative nouns are a common source of adverbs…" CreationDate="2019-05-21T18:14:01.783" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19828" PostId="10820" Score="0" Text="Looking at the etymology of _oppidum_ &quot;ob + pedum: on or over the plain&quot; (Wiktionary), it would seem that oppidō might be glossed as &quot;outstandingly&quot;." CreationDate="2019-05-21T20:30:58.040" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="19844" PostId="10820" Score="0" Text="@Draconis but the meanings seem world apart. Is that also common? I'm very curious." CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:19:03.610" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19845" PostId="10820" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine In the sense that a town &quot;outstands&quot; from the rest of the landscape of a plain? Might be the connection between the two." CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:21:51.943" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19852" PostId="10820" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho: that's what I meant.." CreationDate="2019-05-22T15:11:37.363" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="30882" PostId="10820" Score="1" Text="Well, we could always start with the TLL https://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#63245 and then de Vaan (s.v. oppidum), where he mentions an etymology proposed by Nussbaum - &quot;Latin *oppidō* might be explained as *'to the ground' &gt; 'utterly'&quot; (p. 431)." CreationDate="2021-02-26T18:07:44.640" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30883" PostId="10820" Score="0" Text="For more info, there's Walde and Hoffmann https://archive.org/details/walde/page/n1123/mode/2up (p. 215) and Ernout and Meillet https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n239/mode/2up (p. 463)" CreationDate="2021-02-26T18:53:40.060" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19823" PostId="10821" Score="2" Text="My intuition would say there is little difference, possibly with some extra emphasis in *etiam*." CreationDate="2019-05-21T14:05:29.427" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19843" PostId="10821" Score="2" Text="Related: [How often is “et” used as an adverb, and what might distinguish that usage?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7265)" CreationDate="2019-05-22T03:05:08.370" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="23794" PostId="10821" Score="0" Text="Dear @Cerberus I'm Alex, working at a Hong Kong Art and Design company. We're looking to build out own group of avid language enthusiasts to advise us. You are quite the knowledgeable, kind and helpful linguist, and I would like to ask if you'd like to join as a private adviser. We envisage an informal, unpaid advisory board (like StackExchange), except we can give credit on our (as of yet unmade) website, rather then Stack points. But if anyone can recommend a suitable payment system we're all ears. If you have any interest please let me know. All the very best, A. J. T. Whiteheart" CreationDate="2019-12-23T12:04:35.100" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23944" PostId="10821" Score="0" Text="@Johan88: Dear Alex, thank you for your kind words. I can only say that I am rather busy, and I'm not sure what exactly this entails, what you'd like me to do." CreationDate="2020-01-05T23:38:16.390" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19846" PostId="10823" Score="0" Text="Is the year at the end just a signature of the year itself, or is it to be understood as part of the phrase, &quot;in 1772&quot;, as you state? Is there a clue in the writing that tell us which is the case?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:27:38.697" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="19848" PostId="10824" Score="0" Text="Have you answered your own Q? Used to end up doing that on ChemistryStack. Been looking on net: &quot;mala vota, carmina sussurrae&quot;--to whisper evil spells, incantations; &quot;malis avibus&quot;--under evil auspices (lit. &quot;under bad birds&quot;); &quot;mala mente esse&quot;--to be out of one´´s mind, there are others. Evil has the same seductive power as sex; money; gambling; ouija; Tarot and the Devil comes in many guises--beware." CreationDate="2019-05-22T09:47:41.957" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43642" PostId="10824" Score="0" Text="Worth noting that [the Thessalians were a specific group of magicians](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/hauggi/til_of_aglaonice_of_thessaly_an_ancient_greek/) who [actually ended up playing a major role in _Sandman_](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dmwq1iRX0AANiSR.jpg), including [as his girlfriend](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnCEzZ9X0AEW__V?format=jpg&amp;name=900x900)." CreationDate="2023-06-17T17:36:10.967" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="19839" PostId="10825" Score="0" Text="Thanks. You're quite right, but I'm not looking for a *&quot;significant difference&quot;*. **If** there is any difference I think it would be a highly nuanced one, a very fine stressing of one semantic over another." CreationDate="2019-05-22T02:29:54.077" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="19853" PostId="10825" Score="0" Text="Length is the only difference." CreationDate="2019-05-22T15:25:38.843" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19830" PostId="10826" Score="2" Text="You say it's &quot;commonly interpreted&quot;, but I can't recall ever seeing such an interpretation. Can you mention examples, preferably notable ones, that do interpret it so?" CreationDate="2019-05-21T23:29:06.203" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19832" PostId="10826" Score="2" Text="Um, you do realize that Aristotle wrote in Greek, not Latin, don't you?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T00:31:59.110" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19833" PostId="10826" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Like.. all of them. It's well known postulate of physics, philosophy, and even facetiously in the visual arts. I linked another question which mentions it, but I'll find you some journal articles or something more substantial, bear with me." CreationDate="2019-05-22T00:44:04.450" UserId="145" />
  <row Id="19834" PostId="10826" Score="0" Text="@tjt263 Both &quot;nature abhors a vacuum&quot; and &quot;horror vacui&quot; are a thing and I have seen both several times, but I have never seen them connected. Although they both have a &quot;vacuum&quot; in them, they seem disconnected to me. Now it seems as if you drew this connections yourself, so I would like to know whether the connection is well established." CreationDate="2019-05-22T00:57:26.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19835" PostId="10826" Score="0" Text="Is there any evidence that Aristotle said Η φύση απεχθάνεται το κενό;" CreationDate="2019-05-22T01:00:03.340" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19836" PostId="10826" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'd never heard the two connected, but Google shows that the Wikipedia page for &quot;horror vacui&quot; draws the connection in its first sentence: &quot;In physics, horror vacui, or plenism (/ˈpliːnɪzəm/), commonly stated as &quot;nature abhors a vacuum&quot;, is a postulate attributed to Aristotle…&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-22T01:09:44.270" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19837" PostId="10827" Score="0" Text="Based on this, do you see a connection between fear of the void and nature abhorring a vacuum? The question asks about the connection, while you seem to discuss the two separately. This is a good answer (+1!), but it could use a clearer conclusion." CreationDate="2019-05-22T01:42:16.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19838" PostId="10827" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Added a bit; how's that?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T01:44:07.100" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19840" PostId="10827" Score="0" Text="The way I interpret it now, the two phrases were originally from different contexts but can now be used to refer to the same idea although the literal meanings are different. Is this what you intended?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T02:31:05.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19842" PostId="10827" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yep! That's my understanding of the history." CreationDate="2019-05-22T02:54:46.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19860" PostId="10828" Score="0" Text="Just so I am clear, Koine ο is rounder than ω, and η is wider, closer to a Latin ē, than ε, which is more short, right?" CreationDate="2019-05-22T19:22:34.480" UserId="4731" />
  <row Id="19863" PostId="10828" Score="0" Text="In classical Attic, ω η are long and fairly open, ο ε are short and fairly closed, ου ει are long and fairly closed. In Koine, I _believe_ the height distinction had already vanished, so all that was left was ω η long vs ο ε short (and ου ει fully raised)." CreationDate="2019-05-23T05:29:43.290" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19943" PostId="10828" Score="1" Text="You seem to have gotten the macrons the other way around - they indicate length, not vowel closeness, so ο is transcribed as o, ω as ō, ε as e and η as ē.  There might be some long alphas, iotas and ypsilons in there - for these a dictionary should be consulted." CreationDate="2019-05-28T14:25:17.413" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="19862" PostId="10829" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure that quite works even as a literal translation. It means 'Knowledge builds knowledge upon (something unstated),' whereas, if I understand the English correctly, 'builds' is more middle in sense, being closer in practical meaning to 'builds itself' or 'is built.' To capture the force of the English, you could shift to passive voice – e.g., scientia scientiae astruitur, 'Knowledge is built upon knowledge,' where scientiae is dative. Or, OLD says astruere can be used absolutely to mean something like 'make an addition to'; but you'd still have to change scientiam to scientiae." CreationDate="2019-05-23T00:16:54.460" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20247" PostId="10829" Score="0" Text="@cnread: might you use the verb &quot;cresco&quot;, here?" CreationDate="2019-06-22T10:43:11.813" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20250" PostId="10829" Score="0" Text="@tony: Yes, that should work, either with or without a preposition such as a/ab: scientia (a) scientia crescit. You should write up that suggestion as an answer, especially if you can find (for example, in the Lewis &amp; Short dictionary) a passage or two to support it." CreationDate="2019-06-22T19:20:07.587" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19871" PostId="10832" Score="0" Text="Related (new question I just asked): https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10837/406" CreationDate="2019-05-23T23:14:02.677" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19913" PostId="10832" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! For the sake of future readers, I edited the context into the question and cleaned up some comments. (Comments are only meant to be temporary.) Feel free to edit any of your posts at any time to improve!" CreationDate="2019-05-25T23:07:28.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19899" PostId="10836" Score="0" Text="Be assured that your score will incur no de-duck-tions." CreationDate="2019-05-25T09:40:03.283" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19987" PostId="10838" Score="0" Text="The question was about &quot;the space beyond the world&quot;, not the spheres that carry the planets." CreationDate="2019-05-30T23:30:11.463" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="24549" PostId="10838" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: In &quot;Dream of Scipio&quot;: &quot;Beneath this are 7-spheres which have a retrograde movement, opposite to that of the heavens.&quot; The implication is, irrespective of relative movements, the spheres (the planets) are to be found in the heavens. Therefore, &quot;outer space&quot;, in Latin, is &quot;caelum&quot;. Do you agree, I'm not entirely sure about this?" CreationDate="2020-03-16T13:33:13.470" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19872" PostId="10839" Score="0" Text="Just out of curiosity, are you working from a physical text? Or is the Latin online somewhere linkable?" CreationDate="2019-05-24T03:09:10.900" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19873" PostId="10839" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your interest. I am using a pdf downloaded from Jung collection.http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-7705 This is degitized but not OCRed." CreationDate="2019-05-24T03:59:16.137" UserId="2954" />
  <row Id="19881" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your excellent translation. Cloud cleared for me! Just one point to ask. You translated:  «Uicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt,» to «We're missing only one single thing, which we know that those [alchemists] made:» Then «unicum»=«id quod ipsi fecerunt)»  Is it possilbe to translate the above sentence as follows: «we are missing one sigle thing, so that we might not be able to know what those [ancients] made...» or «we are missing one single thing, so we cannot know what those [ancients] made...» I took this «unicum» for «Natura una»)" CreationDate="2019-05-24T08:03:24.477" UserId="2954" />
  <row Id="19882" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="*'Seu'* equals 'aka' - Inspired translation!" CreationDate="2019-05-24T11:39:54.663" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="19883" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="Very nicely done. There are a few debatable points. &quot;usitata&quot; means &quot;common&quot; or &quot;frequent&quot;, not &quot;useful,&quot; right? I believe &quot;procreatio humana&quot; refers to human generations coming into existence, and &quot;in eo&quot; might mean &quot;thereby&quot; (in eo modo), referring to the previous clause. Admittedly, the &quot;nisi&quot; is difficult to understand." CreationDate="2019-05-24T12:32:01.357" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19884" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey That's how I would usually translate it — &quot;creation&quot; would be *creatio* instead of *procreatio*, useful would be *utilis* — but I wasn't really able to make sense of it with the *nisi* there. &quot;Unless there could be similarly many human generations&quot;, but &quot;similarly&quot; to what? The Stone?" CreationDate="2019-05-24T15:37:39.290" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19885" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="@RyoheiIrie I like that, that seems like a good translation for that line!" CreationDate="2019-05-24T15:39:10.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19886" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="@RyoheiIrie Though now that I think more about it, if he meant *natura*, I would expect *unicam*." CreationDate="2019-05-24T15:43:27.607" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19887" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="Either way, refined my own translation there." CreationDate="2019-05-24T15:48:13.757" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19888" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="@Draconis If we adopt an emendation, negating the protases, the sentence becomes intelligible. &quot;Unless the procreation of man were other than it usually is, and nature did not on this point observe its own law, we could hardly do other than go astray (in our quest for the philosopher's stone).&quot; Basically, the quest is doomed, since it is premised on the existence of something contrary to nature's law." CreationDate="2019-05-24T16:49:21.973" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19889" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey That would make good sense! But I'm still not quite sure what &quot;the procreation of man&quot; has to do with the quest for the Stone." CreationDate="2019-05-24T17:06:53.213" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19890" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="I think it just refers to the normal pattern of human birth, life, and death." CreationDate="2019-05-24T18:27:06.177" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19898" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey: &quot;human creations&quot; could be interpreted as &quot;human generations&quot;, with a little massaging; the parents create the child." CreationDate="2019-05-25T09:32:29.473" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19917" PostId="10840" Score="0" Text="@Draconis «natura, then unica». Yes, indeed. But can this «Unicum» be someting like insight into the unity of nature. This interpretation rhymes well with the following praise of the true, simple Nature." CreationDate="2019-05-26T00:21:27.573" UserId="2954" />
  <row Id="26422" PostId="10842" Score="0" Text="Other important alchemist include Robert Boyle, Elias Ashmole, and Henry Percy." CreationDate="2020-05-20T01:43:47.033" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="19891" PostId="10843" Score="0" Text="My understanding: here is something like the contrast between &quot;aurum nostrum&quot; and &quot;aurum vulgi&quot;. Lapis belongs to the realm outside this world. &quot;Procreatio humana&quot; is &quot;common&quot; and of this world so they cannot find the Lapis. Lapis is a wonder. Therefore Nature does not keep her law with Lapis and humans have difficulty in finding it." CreationDate="2019-05-25T00:42:47.383" UserId="2954" />
  <row Id="19892" PostId="10843" Score="0" Text="@RyoheiIrie In other words, &quot;usual&quot; here (_usitata_) means something more like &quot;of the same realm as&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-05-25T01:42:49.673" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19893" PostId="10843" Score="0" Text="Or rather like in &quot;common gold&quot;, meaning &quot;vulgus&quot;, Is it possible?" CreationDate="2019-05-25T02:02:22.447" UserId="2954" />
  <row Id="19895" PostId="10843" Score="0" Text="@RyoheiIrie Maybe? I'm not sure; I've never seen _usitata_ used that way, but it seems possible. What I really need is a dictionary of later/mediaeval meanings." CreationDate="2019-05-25T02:05:02.687" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19897" PostId="10843" Score="0" Text="ūsĭtātus, not in particulary pejorative sense, but simply &quot;common, ordinary, accustomed...&quot; meaning  &quot;not particulary sacred, just an ordinary thing&quot;" CreationDate="2019-05-25T06:20:35.247" UserId="2954" />
  <row Id="19900" PostId="10845" Score="1" Text="Hmm do you know such a translation by Plautus or Terence exists? Or is it just your hope?" CreationDate="2019-05-25T15:04:48.653" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19901" PostId="10845" Score="0" Text="It's only a hope but I think I remember reading that some passages are obviously(?) borrowed from this or that Greek author." CreationDate="2019-05-25T16:48:31.113" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="19902" PostId="10845" Score="1" Text="I hope somebody will find something!" CreationDate="2019-05-25T20:16:11.687" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19921" PostId="10845" Score="1" Text="This edition of the fragments of Menander contains occasional references in footnotes to similar lines in the equivalent plays of Terence: https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L132.pdf" CreationDate="2019-05-26T15:10:12.647" UserId="3397" />
  <row Id="19915" PostId="10850" Score="2" Text="Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the *quam* clause, parallel with *nihil*. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&amp;G 572)." CreationDate="2019-05-25T23:53:00.493" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19918" PostId="10850" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be &quot;…clarius quam **entem debere concipi** sub…&quot; with an acc+inf?" CreationDate="2019-05-26T00:47:26.453" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19919" PostId="10850" Score="1" Text="See A&amp;G 572. This is what is sometimes called a &quot;fact clause,&quot; which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction." CreationDate="2019-05-26T01:08:06.110" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19920" PostId="10850" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Edited, ty" CreationDate="2019-05-26T01:14:14.320" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19924" PostId="10850" Score="0" Text="Excuse my belated response. &quot;nothing in Nature is clearer than that each entity must be conceived under some attribute&quot;. This is the correct translation of Shirley" CreationDate="2019-05-27T12:32:21.663" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19925" PostId="10850" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey What is A&amp;G?" CreationDate="2019-05-27T12:40:15.177" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="19926" PostId="10850" Score="1" Text="@AliNikzad Allen &amp; Greenough is one of the standard English reference works on grammar and syntax. http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/alphabet" CreationDate="2019-05-27T12:50:03.157" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="19959" PostId="10850" Score="0" Text="To say that &quot;in mediaeval Latin, quod often takes the subjunctive&quot; is not actually an &quot;explanation&quot;, but only a restatement of the question. My guess is that this is the result of the influence of Romance, e.g. French que with subjunctive in subordinate clauses." CreationDate="2019-05-29T12:10:27.063" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="19963" PostId="10850" Score="0" Text="@fdb That would be basically my guess: in Vulgar Latin, _quod_ + subjunctive took the place of acc + inf, which evolved into French _que_ and also impacted later writers who were less familiar with then-archaic classical style." CreationDate="2019-05-29T15:49:15.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19964" PostId="10850" Score="0" Text="Added a note on that" CreationDate="2019-05-29T15:49:59.493" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19932" PostId="10858" Score="3" Text="*Facere* has an irregular imperative, *fac*." CreationDate="2019-05-27T17:18:54.043" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20022" PostId="10859" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for showing your reasoning, TKR. It makes it easier to grasp the difference. If I understand you correctly (grammar's never been my strong suit, and I'm an ESL), a quick and dirty translation would be something akin to &quot;For her, do!&quot;, and that &quot;Pro ea fac&quot; would be more like &quot;Do things for her now!&quot; while &quot;Pro ea facito&quot; is more in the line of &quot;Continously do things for her&quot;. Tough choice then; while it is intended to keep me going, it's in the here and now I need the push the most to not give up - so both of them fit very well in their own right (the almost-expletive..." CreationDate="2019-05-29T19:02:36.540" UserId="4829" />
  <row Id="20024" PostId="10859" Score="0" Text="[continued:] ... doesn't bother me). I'll have to give it some thought. I'm very grateful for the help. I've been wanting to do this for a very long time, but limited to free online translation programs, these are the &quot;best&quot; I found: Pugna pro ea.&#xA;Facet sunt propter illam.&#xA;Agite id propter illam. And I'm sure to someone who actually knows Latin, that's like the &quot;My hovercraft is full of eels&quot; scetch in Monty Python (and I have a feeling the first one would mean to actually brawl). So again, my deepest thanks!" CreationDate="2019-05-29T19:02:36.540" UserId="4829" />
  <row Id="19934" PostId="10860" Score="2" Text="To question 2, when a verb has multiple coordinated subjects it can be singular in form, as if it's agreeing with only one of them (especially when the subjects refer to basically the same thing, as here)." CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:02:58.390" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19933" PostId="10861" Score="0" Text="thank you very much. it makes much more sense now. I think you are right with all your points. with respect to the last point, it seems my guess was right with the implied subject, I've just that a passive form should be used in that case - so I found it quite odd. &#xA;&#xA;The only part missing now is the usage of singular verb form ingemuit rather than the expected plural. &#xA;&#xA;I also find the position of the word &quot;tantum&quot; quite strange - but I can live with that." CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:02:29.220" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="19935" PostId="10861" Score="0" Text="@d_e: &quot;opinantur&quot; isn't really passive, it just looks that way--it's a form of the deponent verb *[opinor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=opinor).*" CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:03:50.793" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="19936" PostId="10861" Score="1" Text="Right. I meant I expected it to be passive but it is not as the subject is missing." CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:05:06.960" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="19937" PostId="10861" Score="0" Text="with respect the singular verb. I saw a comment under my question answering that." CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:06:06.180" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="19939" PostId="10861" Score="0" Text=":) your answer is satisfactory, but I'll wait." CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:14:31.480" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="19942" PostId="10861" Score="1" Text="@d_e: Active verbs can be used like this, too. E.g. *ferunt* + a.c.i. &quot;they say that...&quot; or *ut ferunt* &quot;as they say&quot;. As to *tantum* &quot;only&quot;, as an adverb, its position is often quite free; in this case, it is somewhere near the words it modifies, which translates as follows: &quot;not...only the crowd and the unthinking people...; but also...&quot;. Latin can do &quot;[not the crowd only]&quot; as here." CreationDate="2019-05-28T03:34:26.830" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19948" PostId="10862" Score="2" Text="Computer translation programs are well known for being wrong.  It's not that they just make mistakes (like humans are known for) -- it's that they calculate their translations (much like a math problem), but they lack the ability to suspect that their translations could be wrong.  (At the very least, if they're programmed to have the ability to suspect wrong translations, they don't (yet) communicate it to the human user.)  So always take computer translations with a grain of salt!  (Meaning that you are allowed to be skeptical of them.)" CreationDate="2019-05-28T17:10:25.697" UserId="3459" />
  <row Id="19944" PostId="10863" Score="1" Text="What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have." CreationDate="2019-05-28T15:04:42.933" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19946" PostId="10863" Score="1" Text="I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between _scio_ and _nescire_; that _scio_ comes from _scire_ (&quot;to know&quot;) and _nescire_ (&quot;to not know&quot;) is literally just _ne scire_ ." CreationDate="2019-05-28T15:34:11.503" UserId="4823" />
  <row Id="19947" PostId="10863" Score="1" Text="Added, @RaphaelSchmitz" CreationDate="2019-05-28T16:13:18.993" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="19950" PostId="10863" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: [&quot;Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Jelinek)" CreationDate="2019-05-28T17:37:10.563" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="19951" PostId="10863" Score="0" Text="@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods." CreationDate="2019-05-29T00:21:29.627" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19952" PostId="10864" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! To what or to whom are you responding, exactly? Without context, it is not entirely clear to me that you are answering the original question at the top of the page. And is the French a quotation?" CreationDate="2019-05-29T00:27:08.817" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19958" PostId="10864" Score="0" Text="This appears to be a comment on one of the other answers instead of a separate answer. Can you which one it is, so we can convert this to a comment? Or, alternatively, you could expand this to a stand-alone answer. As such, this does not seem to answer the original question." CreationDate="2019-05-29T09:32:58.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19969" PostId="10865" Score="2" Text="I edited this question pretty heavily, since the narrative details do not contribute to (and, in my opinion, detract from) the question, which is worthwhile." CreationDate="2019-05-29T17:51:53.890" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="19978" PostId="10865" Score="2" Text="Would you mind adding the link where you found that definition, by the way? It would be helpful to look at any examples or sources they list." CreationDate="2019-05-30T03:11:36.950" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19974" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="Part 1 of 2.&#xA;Yes, the introductory reference speaks to a modern aberration of what I believe I have found as the original meaning: Nos = Nas/nasa/na= our, us, we, on, at, into,of, belonging to, to join, approach, copulate. Proto-Indo-European.&#xA;&#xA;Correct meaning: actions belonging to the wisdom, knowledge of a singular collective consciousness as a bend/crook in time-space.&#xA;Trum/trom=suffix=noun='agent of an action'&#xA;Interpretation: Human/Mass/Universal Consciousness formed (as a or distortion in Time-Space in Einsteins' Theory of Relativity), from Source." CreationDate="2019-05-30T02:59:38.087" UserId="4827" />
  <row Id="19975" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="Part 2 of 2.&#xA;References:&#xA;1. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html#IR075000&#xA;2. https://wordinfo.info/unit/2194&#xA;3. https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/?q=nas%22&amp;lang=sans&amp;action=Search&#xA;4. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe&#xA;5. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/distortion?s=t" CreationDate="2019-05-30T03:04:44.780" UserId="4827" />
  <row Id="19976" PostId="10866" Score="1" Text="@DeviNostrum I think you're mixing up your languages a bit. The AHD's appendix (besides using a somewhat outdated model of PIE) lists English words descended from the PIE root, which don't necessarily have anything to do with the original meaning. Similarly, -trum is a Latin suffix, not a PIE one. Most of the Sanskrit words you've cited come from unrelated roots, and synonyms for English &quot;distortion&quot; don't really have anything to do with the Latin pronoun *nōs*." CreationDate="2019-05-30T03:08:49.353" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19977" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="@DeviNostrum Basically, if you want to find the original/earliest meaning, you have to look at the earliest languages we have evidence of (Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, etc), then compare and reconstruct from there. That's how Beekes and Klein came up with the data I've cited in my answer. Looking at modern English words won't be particularly informative, because they've had millennia and millennia to diverge from their PIE source." CreationDate="2019-05-30T03:10:18.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19979" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="I'd be interested in seeing when *nostrum*, alone, started taking on this meaning. Certainly that wasn't the case in Latin, without some additional context?" CreationDate="2019-05-30T14:00:37.973" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30967" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="@brianpck fwiw the MWD says &quot;Some think that specially prepared medicinal concoctions came to be called nostrums because their purveyors marketed them as &quot;our own&quot; remedy. In other words, the use of nostrum emphasized that such a potion was unique or exclusive to the pitchman peddling it.&quot; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nostrum#note-1" CreationDate="2021-03-04T15:30:26.517" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30978" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="What's the evidence that *nōs* was originally enclitic? (Also, I've changed the first &quot;partitive&quot; in the first sentence to &quot;genitive&quot;, assuming it was a slip.)" CreationDate="2021-03-05T02:55:54.930" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30980" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="@TKR I need to check Beekes again, but isn't Latin nōs from the enclitic and Greek hēmeis from the independent?" CreationDate="2021-03-05T06:00:47.787" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30981" PostId="10866" Score="0" Text="De Vaan thinks nom. *nōs* is taken over from the (stressed, non-enclitic) acc." CreationDate="2021-03-05T06:26:57.813" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="19970" PostId="10869" Score="0" Text="Non invitus feci!" CreationDate="2019-05-29T18:08:15.603" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19972" PostId="10869" Score="0" Text="Etiam placet..." CreationDate="2019-05-29T19:11:52.160" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20000" PostId="10875" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a well explained translation question." CreationDate="2019-06-01T00:23:02.140" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19980" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="_dēsiniit_ or _dēsiit_?" CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:06:27.840" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19981" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Oh, right, the -n- present. Fixed." CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:07:04.130" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19983" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="By the way, Draconis, when you say &quot;It **looks** the same as the simple past tense&quot;, what do you mean? Are you saying this because of the English translation of _Acta est fabula_ as 'The story ended'? After all it looks the same as a typical **adjectival passive** like _Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres_, where no (apparent) connection with simple past tense is to be made." CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:57:42.410" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19984" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Ah, that was unclear: I'm saying the Latin present perfective (actions completed in the past with present effects) and past aoristic (actions in the past with unspecified duration) look the same. You can only tell them apart by what they do to the sequence of tenses: the former acts like a present verb, the latter acts like a past verb. In this case, Augustus's meaning seems to be &quot;the play has ended&quot;, emphasizing completion in the past, rather than &quot;the play ended&quot;." CreationDate="2019-05-30T23:02:18.687" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19985" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="Ok. I agree. It is clear that _Acta est fabula_ is better translated as 'The play has ended' rather than with a simple past tense 'The play ended' (hence my previous remark). By the way, do you also think that _Acta est_ in this example is an adjectival passive? I guess it sounds quite odd to translate it into English as 'The play is ended' but, (English) translations aside,  would _Acta est fabula_ be really different from _Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres_ (perhaps I should add &quot;for a (native) speaker of Latin&quot;)?" CreationDate="2019-05-30T23:23:43.670" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19986" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I'm honestly not sure; does Latin really have a strong distinction there?" CreationDate="2019-05-30T23:24:52.060" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19989" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="Basically, concerning the example _Acta est fabula_ , what I'm trying to work out is whether Latin made a real distinction between an anticausative, i.e., **change** of state reading (&quot;The story has **BECOME** ended&quot;) and a **stative** reading (&quot;The story **IS** ended&quot;). _Facta est_ can be interpreted in both ways (e.g., cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/on-the-typical-ambiguity-of-porta-clausa-est ), but what about _Acta est_?" CreationDate="2019-05-30T23:44:16.893" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="19991" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: thought &quot;acta est&quot; was a past-perfect passive giving: &quot;it-has-been-done&quot;; here, &quot;the story, it has been acted/ played/done&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-05-31T10:09:57.643" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="19992" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@tony Past perfective would be _acta erat_; _acta est_ is either present perfective or past simple." CreationDate="2019-05-31T13:38:16.967" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20001" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Are you considering the perfect-passive? Here's my old text-book: amatus-a-um est = he, she, it has been loved; amatus-a-um erat = he, she, it had been loved." CreationDate="2019-06-01T10:10:39.120" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20002" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@tony Indeed; the &quot;perfect&quot; tense is either present perfective or past simple. Past perfect is the &quot;pluperfect&quot; tense." CreationDate="2019-06-01T17:10:11.617" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20017" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the responses, everyone. In this case &quot;the story is not yet finished&quot; would imply it is still continuous, which is what I want. In that case &quot;Ācta non jam fābula&quot; sounds like the best translation. Would you agree?" CreationDate="2019-06-03T10:22:10.720" UserId="4832" />
  <row Id="20019" PostId="10876" Score="0" Text="@PaulienVanderKrift That sounds good to me!" CreationDate="2019-06-03T14:52:05.243" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="19994" PostId="10880" Score="0" Text="But if the plural 'facienda' is used, both 'quod' and 'erat' also need to be made plural. That isn't currently clear from your answer." CreationDate="2019-05-31T17:00:13.963" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19995" PostId="10880" Score="1" Text="@cnread Sorry if my answer was a little terse : I meant `facienda`  as a standalone form, 'those &lt;things&gt; which are to be made'. Classic Latin probably wouldn't bother for the whole 'quae facienda erant' phrase unless to a specific effect. I just thought it sounded more idiomatic, but if OP needs a kind of closing formula like Q.E.D., `quod erat faciendum` and `quae erant facienda` both fit the bill. Hope that makes sense!" CreationDate="2019-05-31T17:23:47.420" UserId="2698" />
  <row Id="19996" PostId="10880" Score="0" Text="Ah, of course. Thanks for the clarification." CreationDate="2019-05-31T21:25:03.387" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19993" PostId="10883" Score="1" Text="https://svetlogike.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/4-galileo-galilei-dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-1632-translated-by-drake-1953-abridged-by-s-e-sciortino.pdf on page 81 in the pdf under Simp.'s line though in this version they write &quot;tandem&quot; instead of &quot;eandem&quot; which is sort of weird. Though i think you have already cleared it up for me now since he is talking about how water may not have the earths movement exactly." CreationDate="2019-05-31T14:15:51.643" UserId="4834" />
  <row Id="20008" PostId="10885" Score="1" Text="Récalcitrant: Person or animal not inclined to obey or follow. From latin verb [recalcitrō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/recalcitro#Latin), itself from [calcitrō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/calcitro#Latin) ([calcitrare contra stimulum](https://books.google.fr/books?id=Pr6wCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=%22calcitrare+contra+stimulum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4sUIdhl1tM&amp;sig=ACfU3U1RA8UmNUAjx3mU47ifNXb0cXfe5Q&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijx6azjMviAhWyy4UKHbFYBrEQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22calcitrare%20contra%20stimulum%22&amp;f=false)). Family of calx / calcis... which also gave calcium, motionless stone." CreationDate="2019-06-02T15:21:49.613" UserId="621" />
  <row Id="20013" PostId="10886" Score="0" Text="To clarify, you're saying that 'calcitrare' is the word and that the suffix '-itr-' is of unknown origin (or L&amp;S say it is unknown)?" CreationDate="2019-06-02T21:40:14.473" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="20014" PostId="10886" Score="0" Text="@Mitch Indeed. But I personally think Cerberus's answer is more correct." CreationDate="2019-06-02T21:46:57.397" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20016" PostId="10886" Score="1" Text="“Chalk” it up... :-)" CreationDate="2019-06-03T03:01:39.417" UserId="2693" />
  <row Id="20003" PostId="10887" Score="2" Text="See also: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/332/183" CreationDate="2019-06-02T09:22:44.587" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="20026" PostId="10887" Score="1" Text="I'm afraid it is not a &quot;fact&quot; (see also my comment on the answer Jknappen has posted to above)." CreationDate="2019-06-04T21:07:26.413" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20065" PostId="10887" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Carolingian minuscule is the first &quot;standard&quot; bicameral scrip. That is a fact. You can find bicameral handwritten before this time, but they are all personal." CreationDate="2019-06-08T21:59:49.700" UserId="4840" />
  <row Id="20403" PostId="10890" Score="0" Text="Excuse me. I'm a beginner in Latin and I can't answer your question." CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:55:11.687" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="20009" PostId="10891" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much &lt;3! I knew about the long and short vowels but sometimes they're omitted, I suppose that's what caused the confusion." CreationDate="2019-06-02T18:07:49.203" UserId="4841" />
  <row Id="20010" PostId="10891" Score="1" Text="@Hannah Unfortunately many texts don't use them, which can be a huge headache for beginners (and even for experienced readers)." CreationDate="2019-06-02T18:09:43.917" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20011" PostId="10891" Score="0" Text="This is a good answer. For the record, I have never used texts with vowel lengths marked, nor was I ever offered any, neither in high school nor at university. (Except for the e in inifinitives, but only in vocabulary lists.)" CreationDate="2019-06-02T19:31:23.633" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20012" PostId="10891" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yeah, I only had vowel marks for the first couple years of study, but I don't think I ever would have gotten a sense for meter without them. (Or for things like us/ūs and a/ā in declension.)" CreationDate="2019-06-02T19:44:51.877" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20395" PostId="10891" Score="1" Text="Regarding your last sentence, I just came across III.14.3 of the *De bello civili*, where Caesar needs to mention both children and free men in the same sentence: *qui de servis liberisque omnibus ad impuberes supplicium sumit et ad unum interficit.* 'He [Bibulus] exacted punishment on all the slaves and free men, all the way down to the children, killing every one.' Through juxtaposition with *servis* (and use of *que* as the conjunction), C. hints that *liberis* is meant to be taken as 'free men,' and then he uses *impuberes* to mean 'children.'" CreationDate="2019-07-04T04:20:23.267" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20015" PostId="10892" Score="4" Text="_iter, itineris_ is I think an instance of the _r/n_ heteroclitic declension, which is rare in Latin and Greek, but common in Hittite. Compare _femur/feminis_ and _iecur/iecinoris_. So, not the common suffix _-ter_." CreationDate="2019-06-02T22:35:32.520" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="20021" PostId="10895" Score="2" Text="Bienvenido! Interesante pregunta. Se supone que las preguntas en este sitio deben hacerse en inglés (o latín, pero eso ya es otra historia). ¿Tendrías inconveniente en agregar una traducción, aunque sea breve?" CreationDate="2019-06-04T11:41:14.147" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20027" PostId="10895" Score="0" Text="I've translated your question into English (with my very limited Spanish knowledge); if I got something wrong, or you'd like to translate it yourself, feel free to roll back my edits." CreationDate="2019-06-04T22:01:55.617" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20033" PostId="10897" Score="0" Text="It's interesting that two words with such different meanings in my professional world (teaching artist) mean exactly the same thing at their root.  Strange journey of usage. Thank you." CreationDate="2019-06-05T09:43:13.067" UserId="4844" />
  <row Id="20028" PostId="10899" Score="0" Text="Domnus &gt; Dom/Don in Romance and sor(or) come to mind. I hope I can spare some time to do the research" CreationDate="2019-06-05T02:10:26.653" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20029" PostId="10899" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That sounds like exactly what I'm looking for!" CreationDate="2019-06-05T02:35:37.960" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20035" PostId="10899" Score="0" Text="Yes, but your question was about Latin, not Romance." CreationDate="2019-06-05T11:44:48.410" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20036" PostId="10899" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: net: &quot;Latin Abbreviations--Part 3: Word Contractions&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-05T13:02:20.520" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20037" PostId="10899" Score="0" Text="@fdb True, but if something happens consistently across the Romance languages, that's a good clue that it could already have been happening in Vulgar Latin." CreationDate="2019-06-05T15:19:54.843" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20030" PostId="10901" Score="4" Text="Two questions: 1) where are the quoted definitions from? 2) Why do you say the Latin words are &quot;from&quot; Greek? I would instead say that they are akin; they don't look like borrowings, and native Latin words are not thought to be derived from Greek, but from a common ancestor of both Latin and Greek that is thought to have been different from both." CreationDate="2019-06-05T05:56:07.910" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20031" PostId="10901" Score="0" Text="@sumelic citations added.  τείνω is mentioned in the top line of L&amp;S entries *tendo, teneo, &amp; attendo.* and also in Ainsworth. Ainsworth gives a reduplicated Aorist *tetensi,* which hints at Greek. I've deleted 'from' -good idea" CreationDate="2019-06-05T06:17:09.257" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20034" PostId="10901" Score="1" Text="Yes, these two words seem indistinguishable at their root. The derivation of bow and arrow is helpful.  Thank you." CreationDate="2019-06-05T09:44:37.053" UserId="4844" />
  <row Id="20049" PostId="10904" Score="0" Text="Tycho Brahe called his book Planispharium; but that is late Latin, and possibly too constricted." CreationDate="2019-06-06T17:21:18.183" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20045" PostId="10905" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Does &quot;ad astra&quot; imply the making of a journey, to the stars?" CreationDate="2019-06-06T08:25:33.917" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20046" PostId="10905" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, it is &quot;to the stars&quot;, not &quot;of the stars&quot; or similar. It does indeed imply a journey, and I'll update the answer to reflect that." CreationDate="2019-06-06T10:18:36.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20051" PostId="10909" Score="0" Text="If we knew the word for &quot;tambourine&quot; we could look in a dictionary." CreationDate="2019-06-07T17:52:37.610" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20052" PostId="10909" Score="0" Text="@fdb Indeed; unfortunately I have no idea what word that would be. I might do a search for _aulōn_ (&quot;of flutes&quot;) later, but it's really just a wild guess." CreationDate="2019-06-07T17:54:24.623" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33328" PostId="10909" Score="0" Text="What's likely, as is usually the case with misquotations like these, is that someone summarized an idea of a famous personage, and others mistook the summary for a direct quote. I've seen with Cicero on government, Socrates on the youth, Seneca on a variety of things. It's a shame real quotes are left to rot while poor, feel-good platitudes are trotted out time and time again." CreationDate="2021-05-22T19:42:36.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36298" PostId="10910" Score="1" Text="Homer has κένσαι and ἀνστάς. Odd. *For example, the prefix ἐν- seems to occur fairly freely before σ or ζ.* Homer has ἐνστρέφεται, but that's the only example I find, and in general it seems like this freedom with ἐν-σ- came later. There is the alternative of prefixing ἐνι-, which seems to be mainly an epic thing (ἐνιβάλλω, ἐνιθρῴσκω, ἐνικάππεσον). There is ἐνισπείρω in Apollonius of Rhodes, which may be to avoid the νσ, but he also has ἐνσκέλλω, so maybe the phonetics of νσ are OK with him, and he's just choosing based on meter." CreationDate="2021-12-18T15:07:52.663" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="20053" PostId="10915" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the link to text Lewis and Short, invaluable! Actually my question was prompted by noticing that Wheelock, Lingua Latina, and Lewis and Short often disagree, and wondering if more modern scholarship might have produced updated lists." CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:39:39.653" UserId="3627" />
  <row Id="20054" PostId="10915" Score="0" Text="@JohnLawrenceAspden Now that's very interesting. Unfortunately that's past my area of expertise, I just go from my own knowledge and rely on L&amp;S when that fails." CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:42:40.310" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20056" PostId="10915" Score="0" Text="Generating from stems looks easy enough. I was thinking that I might write something which spots sēnatus and senatus as wrong, and suggests senāt{uū}s for later hand-tidying up, but passes senātūs and senātus unchallenged. A more pedantic mode could point out all possible ambiguities. That solves most of the problem. If I can get that working version two will probably get clever with trying to deduce cases where it can, but that looks much harder!" CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:48:35.653" UserId="3627" />
  <row Id="20328" PostId="10915" Score="0" Text="There already is one: http://www.alatius.com/macronizer/" CreationDate="2019-06-28T11:31:48.523" UserId="3627" />
  <row Id="20336" PostId="10915" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S is known to have quite a few errors regarding vowel length. Better to look at OLD." CreationDate="2019-06-29T17:47:11.857" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20337" PostId="10915" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Unfortunately true, but I don't know of a machine-readable version of the OLD. Is there one?" CreationDate="2019-06-29T17:56:40.737" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20057" PostId="10916" Score="1" Text="I think the verb here is not *servare* but *servire*, &quot;to serve&quot; or &quot;to be slave&quot;. The one to be served is often put in dative. A more devoted variant of the verb is *deservire*. Therefore the third suggestion is closer to &quot;I will serve with devotion the ones I love&quot; and is grammatical apart from the extraneous *i* in the first word." CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:54:41.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20058" PostId="10916" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good call—do you want to write that in as an answer? Otherwise I'll edit mine." CreationDate="2019-06-07T20:26:16.997" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20059" PostId="10916" Score="0" Text="Go ahead and put it in! If I come up with a nice idea for the phrasing of the whole sentence I might write a new answer, but that shouldn't keep you from improving yours." CreationDate="2019-06-07T20:47:32.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26482" PostId="10917" Score="0" Text="Did you mean this book? &quot;Quantity and Quality in the Vowel-System of Vulgar Latin&quot; by N. C. W. Spence: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00437956.1965.11435415, cited by Asteroides in an answer: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1699/gemination-after-stressed-vowel/6517#6517" CreationDate="2020-05-24T14:33:28.777" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="23408" PostId="10918" Score="3" Text="This extract is interesting, I don't come to your conclusion. It's about mythology and symbolism, not real people. It's like the alchemical hermaphrodite." CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:49:58.950" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="20068" PostId="10925" Score="2" Text="Great answer, thank you!" CreationDate="2019-06-09T20:32:55.933" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="25731" PostId="10926" Score="0" Text="In general, agent and experiencer can be distinguished. As to whether the distinction can be made in this particular praedicate frame (*suspectaretur*), I'm open to it, but I am not yet convinced either way; the fact that the phrase can be translated in different ways is not proof to me. // I think the Aktionsart is very important and must be considered. // Thematic roles interest me very much. // I wasn't sure how the two types of constructions in your comments corresponded to the two thematic roles in the example." CreationDate="2020-04-03T03:00:59.767" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25732" PostId="10926" Score="0" Text="P.S. I found this page in an open tab in my browser from long ago (I tend to hoard tabs...); it seems I never got around to replying. I always read your posts and comments with great interest, even though I'm not always good at replying!" CreationDate="2020-04-03T03:01:06.580" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20073" PostId="10929" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you please split your question in two? You have two separate questions, so they should be asked separately. (The question can be reopened after that.) Also, please explain the message you are trying to convey with these sentences in both questions. Translation depends on context, and people are more willing to help if you put more effort into your question." CreationDate="2019-06-10T08:11:55.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20085" PostId="10929" Score="0" Text="I'm having a problem with your second aphorism, though the meaning is admirable. 'Roots in the forest,' *Radices in Silva,'* also unfortunately means 'the radishes in the wood;' or even rhubarb: *radix punica.* But do please present your questions again and we shall solve the problems." CreationDate="2019-06-11T17:07:02.093" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20078" PostId="10930" Score="2" Text="One remark:  It hardly matters what ῥόμβος actually refers to in this passage (I doubt that Ms  Monaghan - or *her* source - referred to the Greek text); what matters for this purpose is that it has been *translated* as &quot;tambourine&quot;, not only in Coleridge's rendering, but (at least) also in my paper copy of _Helen_ by Philip Vellacott.  (That said, the semantic gap is wide, but I've seen similar &quot;quotations&quot;.)" CreationDate="2019-06-10T17:01:00.357" UserId="1694" />
  <row Id="36296" PostId="10932" Score="0" Text="My copy of the LSJ certainly has ἀέρσιπους, not ἀέρσιπονς." CreationDate="2021-12-18T06:13:35.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="20093" PostId="10934" Score="3" Text="&quot;The world's best expert on Latin pronunciation is Alex Foreman.&quot; Citation needed?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T02:12:31.667" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20096" PostId="10934" Score="4" Text="I second @Kingshorsey. I very much doubt the world's best expert on **(Classical) Latin** pronunciation [is](http://poemsintranslation.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog.html?m=1) &quot;self-taught in many of the languages he translates, with a bachelors degree in linguistics from the University of Chicago, and a masters degree in **Arabic** from the University of Maryland&quot;. That is, I would expect their About Me section to be either more Latin-specific or richer than that." CreationDate="2019-06-12T11:08:42.267" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="20099" PostId="10934" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva; Have you listened to the recordings?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T11:27:23.967" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20100" PostId="10934" Score="1" Text="@fdb So you're basing your statement on those recordings?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T11:29:25.353" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="20101" PostId="10934" Score="3" Text="His pronunciation is good, apart from the nasalisation which is typically growly and unpleasant, like that of most other American speakers (Stephen Daitz comes to mind). This must have something to do with the default nasality of many American accents, I suppose, leading to an exaggeration of it. In Foreman's case it's very surprising though, given how amazing his accent is in every single other language." CreationDate="2019-06-12T11:31:55.233" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20104" PostId="10934" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Just to condense your analysis: no, he's not the world's best expert." CreationDate="2019-06-12T12:13:12.810" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="30838" PostId="10934" Score="7" Text="Much as I appreciate the vote of confidence, I can promise you, I am not the world's best expert on anything except maybe how to still eat the whole damn bag of potato chips when I swore I'd just take one. I've got *that* down to a science." CreationDate="2021-02-23T23:44:41.670" UserId="9027" />
  <row Id="39062" PostId="10934" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: I wouldn't just say that the speaking voices of most American men aren't just growly and unpleasan but also that the speaking voices of most American men has a hard texture too! Most American men don't have good speaking voices! There are only two American men that I've come across so far that have good speaking voices when they are speaking Classical Latin: Ben Johnson of LatinTutorial has a nice voice when he's speaking Classical Latin youtube.com/watch?v=qAeTN3bIko0&amp;t=24s and David Morgan had an extremely gorgeous and pleasant voice when he spoke Classical Latin!" CreationDate="2022-07-30T01:17:08.013" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="39063" PostId="10934" Score="0" Text="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwG_AAnBbKs Vincent Price is one of the few American men that I would have loved to/that I would love to hear speak Classical Latin! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNGz3IYkbb8&amp;t=475s" CreationDate="2022-07-30T01:17:28.747" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="20097" PostId="10936" Score="0" Text="Thanks. is that kind of a general tendency, or just for specific words?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T11:21:59.437" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="20102" PostId="10936" Score="0" Text="Vegliot yomno seems to imply hominum." CreationDate="2019-06-12T11:51:23.240" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20103" PostId="10936" Score="0" Text="I don't understand what &quot;Vegliot yomno&quot; stands for ?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T12:03:23.697" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="20108" PostId="10936" Score="2" Text="@d_e. Vegliot was an extinct Romance language spoken on the island of Veglio in the Adriatic. The Vegliot word for &quot;man&quot; in &quot;yomno&quot;, which seems to derive from Vulgar Latin &quot;hominum&quot;, not &quot;hominem&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-12T12:40:35.983" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20118" PostId="10936" Score="1" Text="@d_e To clarify a bit further: nouns in Romance languages are almost always derived from the accusative singular of the Latin nouns. We'd expect *yomno* to come from Vulgar Latin *hominum*, and something like \*_yomne_ from Vulgar Latin *hominem*; *yomno* is the one that we see, which implies that people were using *hominum* as the accusative." CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:19:36.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20114" PostId="10937" Score="1" Text="Can you clarify your question a bit? It's not clear what meaning you are referring to and how it is &quot;obsolete&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:30:21.353" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20116" PostId="10937" Score="0" Text="Perhaps you can expand your question a bit? Information like that should be in the body of the question, since it's pretty much impossible to understand the question without that context!" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:41:39.087" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20129" PostId="10937" Score="0" Text="Lewis &amp; Short is not referring to this quotation. The shields are undoubtedly golden and not bridles.  Nevertheless, *aureas* are bridles." CreationDate="2019-06-12T17:58:21.943" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20131" PostId="10938" Score="2" Text="To complement this excellent answer: the quotation is from 2 Chron. 9:16: trecenta quoque scuta aurea trecentorum aureorum quibus tegebantur scuta singula posuitque ea rex in armamentario quod erat consitum nemore." CreationDate="2019-06-12T19:17:51.350" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20141" PostId="10938" Score="0" Text="Surely only 90,000?" CreationDate="2019-06-13T16:14:52.740" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20142" PostId="10938" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Oops, right, off by an order of magnitude" CreationDate="2019-06-13T16:38:45.993" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20143" PostId="10938" Score="0" Text="Still quite a lot of shields!" CreationDate="2019-06-13T18:14:36.477" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20119" PostId="10939" Score="0" Text="*Rōbur, robōris* neuter, is not an exception since it means oak timber (Trojan horse *Robur cavum*  )  *Quercus* fem. oak." CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:33:31.047" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20120" PostId="10939" Score="2" Text="&quot;Natural gender&quot; is totally the wrong word in this context." CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:37:54.860" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20121" PostId="10939" Score="2" Text="@fdb Why? My Latin teacher told us in school with this term (&quot;natürliches Geschlecht&quot; in German). Ok, school and research are different spheres, but does it make this terminology wrong?" CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:45:06.257" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="20122" PostId="10939" Score="4" Text="Trees are not &quot;naturally&quot; female." CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:47:20.010" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20123" PostId="10939" Score="3" Text="While the terminology and the naturalness of femininity of trees are debatable, let us keep the focus on the actual question: Why are trees feminine? A discussion of the terminology would make a nice addition to any answer, but it is beside the main point. A separate question about the terminology is a good option." CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:49:30.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20124" PostId="10939" Score="0" Text="@fdb ... for a native speaker of English heavily influenced by either a monotheistic religion or the scientific point of view. Heathen Romans probably had different thoughts about this, and this is the main point of my question." CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:57:22.200" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="20125" PostId="10939" Score="0" Text="perhaps of interest: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/gendering-trees.3361383/" CreationDate="2019-06-12T17:22:10.617" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20137" PostId="10939" Score="1" Text="@fdb Agree! For instance, in present-day Russian, **words** for  trees can be either feminine (береза, сосна) or masculine (дуб, клён)." CreationDate="2019-06-13T12:26:20.657" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20288" PostId="10939" Score="0" Text="I'd like to know this as well. I've looked up a few tree names in De Vaan, but nowhere does he explain why they're feminine. About *quercus* (*u* stem), he says *&quot;...since masculine and feminine **u** and **o** stems tend to influence each other in nominative and accusative singular, and since **o**-stem tree names tend to be feminine, it cannot be excluded that **quercus** continues a Proto-Italic **o** stem.&quot;* This suggests that trees with (originally) *u* stems shouldn't be feminine. I don't know enough about the distinction between old *o* and *u* stems, though (which is now invisible?)." CreationDate="2019-06-25T21:10:22.767" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20301" PostId="10939" Score="0" Text="But see [_acer, aceris_ **n.** &quot;maple tree&quot;](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acer#Etymology_2)." CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:40:56.840" UserId="2753" />
  <row Id="20130" PostId="10941" Score="0" Text="FWIW, in Spanish you use _mandar/enviar_ which roughly correspond to a plain **mittere**" CreationDate="2019-06-12T18:48:02.280" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20134" PostId="10943" Score="1" Text="*Commendo tibi oves quas tradidisti mihi* - yes indeed, because you are indeed handing the manuscript over to someone’s care, to look after it, nourish it, and make itfruxtify into a publication." CreationDate="2019-06-13T06:51:37.573" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20149" PostId="10944" Score="1" Text="Question by yet another sock puppet of suspended user." CreationDate="2019-06-13T21:53:14.813" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20148" PostId="10945" Score="1" Text="Right. A connection is ruled by the Balto-Slavic forms, which show a sibilant in the &quot;paint&quot; word and velar in the &quot;pitch&quot; word; this means the former had a palatovelar in PIE, the latter a plain velar." CreationDate="2019-06-13T20:56:53.700" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20174" PostId="10946" Score="0" Text="First of all, you should not assume that Benedictine monks who are not priests are studying for the priesthood.  If you read the rule of St. Benedict, you will see that ordination was originally the exception rather than the norm for Benedictine monks, and it is certainly not a requirement even today, though it is becoming much more common in recent times as bishops pressure abbots to encourage their monks to become priests to help make up for the shortfall in diocesan priests." CreationDate="2019-06-16T11:12:41.837" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20175" PostId="10946" Score="0" Text="Second, in my experience, Benedictine monks often use the title &quot;Dom.&quot; (lord), whether ordained or not.  The ordained may precede is with the appropriate honorific for priests in their locale (e.g., &quot;Rev.&quot; in the English-speaking world)." CreationDate="2019-06-16T11:16:27.660" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20178" PostId="10946" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour It all depends on what congregation we are talking about, as there are 21 Bendictine congregations in total. The Swiss American congregation of monks at Westminster Abbey at Mission, BC have made the following documentary [Set Apart](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2170244/) with Frater Ceasarius being interviewed." CreationDate="2019-06-16T13:17:41.997" UserId="25" />
  <row Id="20179" PostId="10946" Score="0" Text="If you are talking about titles, then, yes, it depends on the congregation.  If you are talking about whether aspiring to ordination is a requirement like it is, say, for Jesuits, then I'd be shocked if any congregation calling itself &quot;Benedictine&quot; had such a requirement.  If you are claiming there is such a Benedictine congregation, please name it so I can research." CreationDate="2019-06-16T13:32:30.703" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20153" PostId="10948" Score="0" Text="Surely there is something more recent than Buck (1904)." CreationDate="2019-06-14T10:56:55.700" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20154" PostId="10948" Score="0" Text="@fdb Definitely, but unfortunately that's the latest I have access to. I'd be happy to see an answer drawing on something more recent though!" CreationDate="2019-06-14T16:10:07.483" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20157" PostId="10948" Score="0" Text="You may want to take a look at *Oscan in the Greek Alphabet* by [Nicholas Zair](http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/naz21/index.html) (published by Cambridge University Press, 2016). https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/oscan-in-the-greek-alphabet/D90940A9C29E4666F54AAA9962C5FA51" CreationDate="2019-06-14T21:09:19.337" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20152" PostId="10949" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! I took the liberty to edit your two answers into one. If the second half was meant to be a comment on another answer, I can convert it into a comment. (You can't comment yet, but I hope you'll get the needed reputation points soon enough.)" CreationDate="2019-06-14T10:53:34.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20159" PostId="10951" Score="0" Text="Are you looking for a sentence or a title?" CreationDate="2019-06-14T21:39:49.450" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20162" PostId="10951" Score="0" Text="A sentence meaning 'The pro Pagan city is the City of God. Many thanks." CreationDate="2019-06-15T21:09:10.080" UserId="4867" />
  <row Id="20163" PostId="10951" Score="0" Text="Would you mind editing that into your question? That's a somewhat different meaning than what you'd originally asked (though it's also answerable)" CreationDate="2019-06-15T21:10:07.037" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20156" PostId="10952" Score="0" Text="This is very promising, but you don't seem to get all the way to translating &quot;the City of God is established by the existence of (aggresive) pagans&quot;. Was this intentional?" CreationDate="2019-06-14T20:50:51.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20158" PostId="10952" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Looking back, it's not clear if OP wants a title or a sentence; if they want a sentence I can rephrase for that." CreationDate="2019-06-14T21:10:41.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20161" PostId="10952" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! I was writing a poem which ended 'Prince! Manichaeus explains what Machiavel explains away/ Pro paganos civitate est civitate dei but realized this must be grammatically wrong. What I want to say is 'A pro-pagan City is the City of God'.&#xA;&#xA;Your erudite guidance is highly appreciated." CreationDate="2019-06-15T21:08:28.343" UserId="4867" />
  <row Id="20183" PostId="10952" Score="0" Text="No, the title of Augustine's most famous work is Confessiones." CreationDate="2019-06-17T00:58:44.113" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20978" PostId="10953" Score="2" Text="Only it's not really the case ending as such that was preserved but rather a contraction of &quot;omnibus&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-14T13:02:39.290" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20165" PostId="10954" Score="0" Text="After all, *amaveris* has a place in fut.-perf. active; and perf. subjunctive, doesn't it?" CreationDate="2019-06-16T00:41:18.127" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20167" PostId="10954" Score="1" Text="Here is another possible way of formulating my question above, now based on so-called &quot;blocking&quot; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_(linguistics) ): why did the analytic form _amatus est_ block the synthetic form _amavitur_?" CreationDate="2019-06-16T03:12:24.987" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20164" PostId="10955" Score="0" Text="Thanks for confirming that there must be a diachronic reason. Some formal linguists have argued for a merely **synchronic** explanation (e.g., vid. Embick's (2000) purely technical account of the ill-formedness of _amavitur_: a [Passive] feature on the functional category Asp(ect) blocks adjunction of Asp(ect) to T(ense), whereby Tense+Agreement are pronounced as the copula and AspP as the participle (for more details, see Embick, D. (2000). &quot;Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect&quot;, LI 31: 185-230). I found his technical &quot;explanation&quot; a bit stipulative. Where's diachrony?)." CreationDate="2019-06-15T21:49:19.823" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20171" PostId="10955" Score="0" Text="I'm precisely asking for the nature of your &quot;whatever reason&quot; in your text above: &quot;in Latin (and actually Italic in general), **for whatever reason**, the passive equivalents to the perfect endings didn't survive&quot;.  To the extent I've been able to understand the relevant literature on the topic, it is not true that my question is related to simple claims like &quot;We don't see _*amāvitur_ for the same reason we don't see _*amistī_ for &quot;you love&quot;&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-16T05:03:37.023" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20172" PostId="10955" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino Indeed; I'm not sure what those reasons are, though they might be related to blocking. I'm just explaining why the present endings didn't get repurposed once the perfect ones were gone (for whatever reasons that might be)." CreationDate="2019-06-16T05:10:16.213" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20173" PostId="10955" Score="0" Text="Yes, thanks for your clarification. I understand what you mean." CreationDate="2019-06-16T05:12:08.513" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20166" PostId="10956" Score="1" Text="Many thanks! Could one write E paganis saevis, firmitas Civitatis Dei ?" CreationDate="2019-06-16T01:53:46.640" UserId="4867" />
  <row Id="20170" PostId="10956" Score="0" Text="@VivekIyer that word order would be fine." CreationDate="2019-06-16T03:49:39.003" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20193" PostId="10956" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much, Hugh. Could I ask, is 'Contra paganos, hic peregrinatur civitas Dei' permissible? What would it convey?" CreationDate="2019-06-17T16:55:45.370" UserId="4867" />
  <row Id="20177" PostId="10957" Score="0" Text="On second reading, the mention of the musical contents might be superfluous, since the question is not about a word unrelated to the music. I will leave it for now, but feel free to propose an edit if you think the question ought to be more concise." CreationDate="2019-06-16T13:16:41.103" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="20182" PostId="10959" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for a well thought and written question! Have you seen [this question about visas in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7565/79)? If it answers your question, we can mark your question as duplicate (which means making a permanent link so that people end up at the right place). If it doesn't, can you explain what's missing from your point of view?" CreationDate="2019-06-16T17:50:28.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24536" PostId="10959" Score="0" Text="med. L. *certification-em* (cited in the OED for [certification](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.99993/page/n244/mode/1up)) may be close enough. *certificatum* is not in L&amp;S." CreationDate="2020-03-15T16:14:58.977" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24036" PostId="10962" Score="0" Text="Is it possible to say it this way so as to keep the never and always in that order?&#xA;May you never forget, May you always remember?&#xA;Numquam obliviscaris, semper commemores Thank you " CreationDate="2020-01-16T22:44:26.813" UserId="6468" />
  <row Id="20186" PostId="10963" Score="0" Text="This is wonderful, thank you for your input. And I really love your suggestion. As for the verb, commemorare sounds the most fitting to my request. &#xA;&#xA;As for the english translation/interpretation, how could we change the [may you] mood? Although it should be imperative, after you pointed it out, it sounded a little bit off from what I initially desired. &#xA;&#xA;If I get what you said correctly, the word commemores made it to sound like the [may you] one. How would it sound if we change it to 'commemoras semper?&#xA;&#xA;thank you so much" CreationDate="2019-06-17T12:03:20.713" UserId="4875" />
  <row Id="20187" PostId="10963" Score="0" Text="If this helps, the tone of the phrase would be like, say that you want to say to yourself, &quot;hey, never forget. And always remember,&quot; to the mirror." CreationDate="2019-06-17T12:06:20.543" UserId="4875" />
  <row Id="20190" PostId="10963" Score="1" Text="@user4875 I'm glad it's useful! I updated the answer. I now think that imperative is more suitable for you. Whichever way you go, indicative is not good as it simply makes a statement instead of ordering or wishing. I understood that you want to express a goal, not a fact. // Please take a look at [our site tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) and make use of your right to vote when you reach 15 reputation points. I'm sure we have other questions that you'd find interesting, too." CreationDate="2019-06-17T12:20:22.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20200" PostId="10963" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta on a side note, how does 'memento' fit in in this instance? Also, I've updated my question. Thank you for your inputs." CreationDate="2019-06-18T00:04:31.340" UserId="4875" />
  <row Id="20204" PostId="10963" Score="1" Text="@Virulence *Memento* is the imperative of *meminisse*. The verb is a little unusual in its forms." CreationDate="2019-06-18T02:37:33.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20207" PostId="10963" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the input. I'll wait if there are other suggestions by other users. If not then I will definitely go with &quot;Numquam obliviscere, commemora semper.&quot; Thank you again!" CreationDate="2019-06-18T05:56:31.550" UserId="4875" />
  <row Id="20208" PostId="10963" Score="1" Text="@Virulence I hope there will be other suggestions, but we'll see. Once you've made your mind, please accept the answer you found most useful. Then others will know that the case is closed, so to say. And do vote up all the posts you find useful; that's a good way to thank people here." CreationDate="2019-06-18T06:01:18.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20237" PostId="10963" Score="0" Text="Still no other suggestion so far. I guess I will wrap this up. Just to make sure again, if we alter the word order of commemora semper/semper commemora, the translation would still imply the same meaning wouldn't it?" CreationDate="2019-06-20T15:49:26.763" UserId="4875" />
  <row Id="20238" PostId="10963" Score="1" Text="@Virulence Others did weigh in with a couple of votes up and none down, so it's not just my word. I added a little note in the word order paragraph: The only crucial part in the word order is to have *numquam* and *obliviscere* together and also *semper* and *commemora* together.&#xA;Within these word pairs you can do as you like.&#xA;To keep the two pairs separate, a comma or a row break will help." CreationDate="2019-06-20T15:56:38.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20239" PostId="10963" Score="0" Text="Lovely, thank you again @joonas" CreationDate="2019-06-20T16:01:14.573" UserId="4875" />
  <row Id="20202" PostId="10965" Score="0" Text="I'm afraid this means either &quot;all the goods will be there&quot;, or &quot;all [neuter items] will be of good quality&quot;. In my own reply I explain that you need an adverb instead of the adjective here, and that this adverb should in all likelyhood be *rēctē*, because I don't find this use of *bene*. If you still think your sentence is correct and means what you want, I'll be grateful if you provide examples of this usage." CreationDate="2019-06-18T01:29:42.197" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20209" PostId="10965" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Thank you. Was not convinced by my own answer; but, it had a simplistic logic about it. Such delightful simplicity, if correct, would have been pointed out, earlier, by colleagues, such as yourself. In &quot;all the goods will be there&quot;, where does &quot;there&quot; come from?" CreationDate="2019-06-18T10:37:31.470" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20211" PostId="10965" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: From your answer: &quot;sine cura sis, salvae res erunt&quot;; then, &quot;omnes salvae res erunt&quot; giving &quot;all things will turn out good&quot;, approaching the OP's request?" CreationDate="2019-06-18T11:47:39.343" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20214" PostId="10965" Score="0" Text="&quot;There&quot; is a mandatory dummy pronoun in English, the same as the first one in &quot;there's a sheep there&quot;. The equivalents of &quot;everything&quot; in my suggestions are *rēs* or *omnia* - there's no need for *omnēs* if you already put *rēs*, and in fact it seems to change the meaning of that word from the abstract to the concrete." CreationDate="2019-06-19T04:45:39.783" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20230" PostId="10965" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Joonas (above) suggests a new Q on the use of the adverb as a subject-complement. Given cnread's ex. (res bene cadent) not sure that it's necessary; but, as this was your own research, the right lies with yourself." CreationDate="2019-06-20T07:56:07.220" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20231" PostId="10965" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: I've made a spelling mistake: in this context it's COMPL-E-MENT! Nobody's perfect." CreationDate="2019-06-20T07:58:18.340" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20194" PostId="10967" Score="0" Text="Even though the analogy is simple and direct, I still think _puppet_ is an idiom. I wonder if a corrupt Roman senator would use _puppets_ for his purposes or something else..." CreationDate="2019-06-17T17:52:35.317" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20195" PostId="10967" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I agree, and hence the last paragraph. I'm not sure it's a good choice of words for the political use, but for the online thing I find &quot;puppet&quot; to be an excellent word. I would like to learn what the political &quot;puppet&quot; would be in Latin." CreationDate="2019-06-17T18:48:31.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20196" PostId="10969" Score="2" Text="Would a more idiomatic translation of the first be &quot;In their life, these men ...&quot; or is that inaccurate? Also, the men were buried, is there some significance to the *ashes*?" CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:27:59.777" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="20197" PostId="10969" Score="1" Text="@meide It's entirely possible I'm wrong about some details, since Church Latin really isn't my forte; _favilla_ means &quot;sparks&quot; as well, so if it were Classical I'd take it as a reference to the stars, but I thought the Church always used _favilla_ for &quot;ashes&quot; (as in _dies irae, dies illa / solvet saeclum in favilla_ &quot;on that day of wrath / the world shall crumble to ashes&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:31:39.093" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20198" PostId="10969" Score="1" Text="Though, actually, edited." CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:32:32.680" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20205" PostId="10969" Score="2" Text="*Divino lumine* might represent life's daytime, in the God-given light they cultivated/tilled Heaven. L.2 they are welcomed home. Line3 is curfew *(ignitegium)* when the ash, *favilla,* is heaped round the embers (the bones they have left behind *ossa)* to keep them safe *(foveo* =cherish) until morning, the final resurrection." CreationDate="2019-06-18T03:09:40.663" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20206" PostId="10969" Score="1" Text="@Hugh Very nice! Updated my answer in that light" CreationDate="2019-06-18T04:13:08.370" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20398" PostId="10973" Score="1" Text="Notker is indeed considered to have stuttered, if modern scholarship reads his near-contemporary biographer Ekkehard IV correctly." CreationDate="2019-07-04T13:30:35.373" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="20399" PostId="10973" Score="1" Text="I realize this answer is highly speculative, and could be organized with a bit of purpose, but it does offer some good food for thought. Thanks. I've also updated my answer with clarity on the musical matter (which is tangent to the main question)." CreationDate="2019-07-04T14:16:20.467" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="20233" PostId="10975" Score="1" Text="llmavirta:&quot; Latin Prose Composition&quot; North &amp; Hillard. Have asked a no. of Qs, accrued from studies of this work (and the &quot;Answer Key&quot;: It's on Amazon.) Pages 254-261; &quot;Military Vocabulary&quot;. It's not just a list of words; but, provides (brief) explanations (army/ navy) on everything from pitching a camp to fighting a naval battle. Clearly, not the comprehensive work that you desire; but, a framework of the Roman military machine." CreationDate="2019-06-20T08:55:15.343" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20234" PostId="10975" Score="0" Text="@tony Actually, I'm not looking for a comprehensive work at all. Perhaps the phrasing was a little unclear, so I added a note at the end. I am interested here in the division of a military power into branches (like army and navy) and the ways to express that in Latin. There is a whole lot of military vocabulary and I certainly don't want to try to explore all of that in a single question. I hope the focus is now clearer. If that book makes any mentions on the topic, I would be happy to hear." CreationDate="2019-06-20T09:01:50.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20246" PostId="10975" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Maybe not quite what you are looking for. N &amp; H is still a good book to have if only for its demanding English-to-Latin translations. Study as you may; but, do you know what it's like to face a Roman army, in the field? Have a look at &quot;Spartacus&quot; (Kirk Douglas): the final-battle scene! Made in 1960, long before computer-generated special-effects. People had to be used in what must have been a nightmare of filming. Spartacus's slave-army, a rag-tag band-of-brothers, occupying the high ground, facing-down fear, as the Romans deploy and advance. Excellent fare." CreationDate="2019-06-21T10:43:40.753" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20232" PostId="10976" Score="2" Text="@Nickmite: Thanks for adding to the debate. Isn't &quot;valeo&quot; more to do with health; well-being; I-am-strong? Tried &quot;omnia = all things&quot;; but, was advised (comments) that it means &quot;all-neuter-objects&quot;. Unbrutal_Russian may ask yourself for an example of its use." CreationDate="2019-06-20T08:30:30.120" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20235" PostId="10976" Score="2" Text="I really don't think this can mean what you want. When referring to inanimate things with no further context, *valēre* means &quot;to have efficacy, to be valid&quot;. Thus the phrase would mean &quot;everything will be valid&quot;. If I'm mistaken, @tony is very much right in suggesting that I, as well as other potential readers, would be interested in an attested example of such use." CreationDate="2019-06-20T09:29:11.307" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20248" PostId="10976" Score="0" Text="Nickimite, if you can add a discussion of what *valere* means and how it fits this context, that would be great. Did you perhaps have a specific situation in mind where this is the perfect translation? Your suggested translation is indeed simple, but it would be more useful if you could elaborate on it." CreationDate="2019-06-22T16:49:01.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20255" PostId="10979" Score="0" Text="I seem to remember reading that Romans were not &quot;natural&quot; sailors, and that the navy, for want of a better word, was treated as inferior to the legions. The same work (I've forgotten which) suggested that the actual seamen were probably not Roman (possibly Greek, who were skilled mariners) but officered by Romans." CreationDate="2019-06-24T01:59:18.283" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="20258" PostId="10979" Score="0" Text="@TheHonRose I've also come across such broad comments, but think them no more than speculation. It just doesn't add up. Granted that the Athenians at sea were a tremendous force on various occasions, etc. it asks too much to believe that, for instance, Caesar happened to have so many Greeks hanging around with him in Gaul, on the off-chance that he might need them for the invasions of Britain; nor is there any reason to believe, say,  that Agrippa was relying on them before Actium." CreationDate="2019-06-24T05:29:19.340" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20227" PostId="10980" Score="2" Text="Could you explain this post's connection to the shift from [w] to [v] in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-06-20T02:43:22.480" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="20273" PostId="10980" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! So what I think you're arguing is that w is likely to turn into v, as evidenced in Hebrew, so it would not be unexpected for the same to have happened in (late) Latin? The comparison with Hebrew, and potential 'universal' tendencies, are very interesting!" CreationDate="2019-06-25T12:47:19.790" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20236" PostId="10982" Score="4" Text="Comforting that Lucretius said a couple of pages later, &quot; I know how hard it is in Latian verse&#xA;To tell the dark discoveries of the Greeks,&#xA;Chiefly because our pauper-speech must find&#xA;Strange terms to fit the strangeness of the thing;&quot;" CreationDate="2019-06-20T10:18:11.540" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20243" PostId="10984" Score="2" Text="Good question! It could well have to do with where the Greek alphabet comes from. Have you looked into that?" CreationDate="2019-06-20T22:39:58.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20244" PostId="10984" Score="2" Text="I've only just read several Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary appendices. I noticed there were more letters representing digraphs and clusters in archaic alphabets, like the Pamphylian Sampi. But what I've found so far doesn't seem to answer my question directly." CreationDate="2019-06-20T22:51:06.840" UserId="2789" />
  <row Id="20253" PostId="10984" Score="3" Text="FWIW, the specific example clusters you cite (ts, kp, kth, sz) happen to be either impossible or rare in Greek. But of course one could cite others that are common (e.g. st, sk, or clusters with liquids). AFAIK there isn't a clear answer to this question." CreationDate="2019-06-23T19:59:58.867" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20252" PostId="10985" Score="4" Text="Some of the phrasing in this answer is puzzling to me. Of course Z and Ξ are single letters; the point is that they stand for double sounds. The Greeks didn't &quot;dissimilate&quot; Z. I don't know what &quot;splashy&quot; or &quot;Daffy Duck-style&quot; are supposed to mean, but *samekh* is thought by many to have been pronounced [s], just like Σ (though there's debate on this point). And the fact that Igbo has true labiovelar consonants seems irrelevant since this wasn't the case in Greek." CreationDate="2019-06-23T19:57:11.867" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47796" PostId="10985" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure I understand your point fully, but two points might be helpful to address: (1) Greek treats ζ, ψ, and ξ as double consonants for the purposes of poetry, and (2) the σ in aorist and future inflections is combined by a regular rule with certain consonants, e.g. βλέπω  -&gt; βλέψομαι." CreationDate="2024-03-20T21:42:53.427" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20249" PostId="10986" Score="0" Text="This is a nice find!" CreationDate="2019-06-22T19:11:39.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20251" PostId="10987" Score="0" Text="Oh yes,and the differences betweem RM, RN, M,  forma, como," CreationDate="2019-06-23T18:57:51.493" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20256" PostId="10987" Score="0" Text="Noto is similarly bad about this, much to my annoyance." CreationDate="2019-06-24T02:24:23.330" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20254" PostId="10988" Score="1" Text="I don't have an answer, but I suspect that it would be difficult to define the population to be described." CreationDate="2019-06-23T23:11:30.197" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20259" PostId="10988" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey There are indeed many possible choices. It could be an individual community or a newscast. I'm not sure if there's anything to say fully globally." CreationDate="2019-06-24T08:55:11.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20260" PostId="10988" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Suspect that your only option is to study the contemporary languages that Latin evolved into. These discredit the oft-spoke nonsense that &quot;Latin is a dead language&quot;. Latin evolved, as all languages evolve. It's alive, well and thriving, in a number of incarnations!" CreationDate="2019-06-24T09:05:44.153" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20261" PostId="10988" Score="1" Text="@tony That would indeed be possible, but unfortunately not what I'm after. Latin is not mutually intelligible with Romance languages, so it is a separate language. And it is used, albeit far less than its daughters. Today's Latin has been preserved to us by a continuous tradition, although it has been a first language to very few for a long time." CreationDate="2019-06-24T09:14:08.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20262" PostId="10988" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Could you explain why you think there exists anything that can be described as &quot;today's Latin&quot; with a continuous tradition? I'd think your question is bewidlering enough to most people to merit its own answer explaining the rationale behind asking it." CreationDate="2019-06-24T09:45:35.220" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20263" PostId="10988" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I added a paragraph (second last) to explain it. Please take a look." CreationDate="2019-06-24T10:57:11.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20264" PostId="10988" Score="2" Text="Well, the thing is, the Latin used by people in today's world does not constitute a tradition. For it to be a living tradition, they need to have learned their Latin from other people, who in turn did the same, **without interruption**. I'm not aware of any community today where this is the case - Latin is learned from textbooks, not people; from Classical or Renaissance, not modern authors, and deviation from the standard in question is not a feature of their variety of Latin, but **an artifact of imperfect acquisition**. Such a study would be an SLA study of failure in feature acquisition." CreationDate="2019-06-24T11:21:45.980" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20265" PostId="10988" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Then we mean different things by &quot;tradition&quot;. I do still think there is a continuous tradition of using Latin for communication, but I make no claim that it was conveyed the way you described. Indeed, in the sense of your definition, I agree that there is no continuous tradition. A study of imperfect Latin acquisition would also make a perfectly valid answer." CreationDate="2019-06-24T11:37:12.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43975" PostId="10990" Score="0" Text="Did you ever find those scholars again?" CreationDate="2023-07-06T07:38:18.387" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="20267" PostId="10995" Score="0" Text="Perhaps servare or one of its compounds would work for 'keep'? Somehow facere doesn't feel quite right, though I confess that I don't actually understand what the original poster means by 'keep above as below.'" CreationDate="2019-06-24T21:11:07.727" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20268" PostId="10995" Score="0" Text="@cnread &quot;keep above as below&quot; is technically a rephrasing of the quote &quot;As above, so below&quot;, that has origins in Hermeticism and Sacred Geometry. I rephrased it as a little adage for myself for a story I plan on writing that relates to Sacred Geometry, and because it helps me stay honest and truthful with myself." CreationDate="2019-06-25T03:36:31.103" UserId="4886" />
  <row Id="20269" PostId="10995" Score="0" Text="@Draconis thanks for the help! That would've taken me a long time to accomplish and I wouldn't have done it as accurately, so thank you again! I appreciate it." CreationDate="2019-06-25T03:41:26.880" UserId="4886" />
  <row Id="20270" PostId="10995" Score="0" Text="@Aloysius No problem! Hope it helps" CreationDate="2019-06-25T03:53:53.343" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20271" PostId="10995" Score="0" Text="@cnread Fair; I used _faciō_ mostly to hedge my bets since I couldn't quite tell what was intended. It seems like the OP just wanted a verb there, judging by the comments, so I think the semantically-very-weak _faciō_ fits better than the semantically-strong _servāre_ here." CreationDate="2019-06-25T03:54:48.323" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20272" PostId="10997" Score="0" Text="Have often wondered about the potential conflict between &quot;ad te&quot; and &quot;tibi&quot;. Is there a rule here; or, is it a matter of instinct?" CreationDate="2019-06-25T10:05:36.240" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20278" PostId="10997" Score="0" Text="@tony Personally, I see _ad tē_ as much more emphatic, indicating motion or direction, while _tibi_ is much more neutral, indicating something more like benefit or receiving. But I'm not sure how accurate that is. It might be a good question to ask!" CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:25:23.803" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20282" PostId="10997" Score="0" Text="The answer probably has little to do with Latin style. The Vulgate commonly uses ad rather than dative with dico to replicate the Hebrew sentence structure. Interestingly, the dative is retained with relative pronouns, as evident here. Cf. Genesis 3." CreationDate="2019-06-25T17:01:55.227" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20275" PostId="10998" Score="0" Text="This is a very interesting suggestion. If correct it would point to a phenomenon in Hebrew, not one in Greek. Something like a rule in pre-Masoretic Hebrew that shin takes dagesh forte after a short or ultra-short vowel. It might be compared with the way that initial consonants are doubled after the article ha-." CreationDate="2019-06-25T14:14:09.700" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20276" PostId="10998" Score="0" Text="Interesting! This raises (to me at least) the question whether they were all initially double sigma but gemination was dropped after a long vowel as somehow redundant. Or perhaps the quality of shin depended on the length of the preceding vowel or the Greeks heard so. There are [Greek words with a double sigma after a long vowel](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10999/79), but my impression is that they were pretty rare. Should we have a question whether this rule is as consistent as your preliminary research suggests?" CreationDate="2019-06-25T14:50:51.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20280" PostId="10998" Score="0" Text="It would be interesting to see if this pattern also holds up with ס (samekh)." CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:39:33.513" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20281" PostId="10998" Score="0" Text="@TKR Indeed! I'm going to see if I can find a proper list of Semitic loans in the Septuagint, which I can then search for medial sigmas (sigmata?), and compare against the original…it'll be a lot more scientific than my current &quot;Google for Old Testament names and look for ones with S's in them&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:41:25.667" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20285" PostId="10998" Score="0" Text="@fdb Apparently also Aramaic, since the first vowel of &quot;messias&quot; is long in Hebrew (מָשִׁיחַ‎) but short in Aramaic (מְשִׁיחָא‎)" CreationDate="2019-06-25T19:02:24.473" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="20283" PostId="11000" Score="1" Text="And Attic *glôtta*!" CreationDate="2019-06-25T17:32:46.617" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20284" PostId="11000" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Indeed! I should have rummaged deeper into the attic of my memory for suitable glottary." CreationDate="2019-06-25T17:37:06.187" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20286" PostId="11000" Score="1" Text="♦: Or dive deep into the isogloss, which must lie somewhere in the Aegean." CreationDate="2019-06-25T19:42:03.627" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20291" PostId="11007" Score="0" Text="That appears to say &quot;luck [itself] is unprepared&quot;. I'm looking for &quot;Luck is [only] for the unprepared&quot;" CreationDate="2019-06-26T11:52:02.650" UserId="4889" />
  <row Id="20292" PostId="11007" Score="1" Text="@stevemarvell: &quot;imparatis&quot;  is dative-plural = &quot;for the unprepared&quot;. The context: if the prepared don't need the luck; then, the unprepared must do." CreationDate="2019-06-26T12:01:27.347" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20294" PostId="11007" Score="0" Text="@tony is it plural? It is not like &quot;gruel is for the poor&quot; and &quot;the poor&quot; is singular? The poor rely on gruel as the unprepared rely on luck since they have nothing else." CreationDate="2019-06-26T13:55:29.820" UserId="4889" />
  <row Id="20295" PostId="11007" Score="1" Text="@Hugh: Well spotted, thanks." CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:04:11.377" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20296" PostId="11007" Score="2" Text="@stevemarvell: English &quot;the poor&quot; sounds like a collective noun. The Latin uses an adjective (plural). Perhaps you could submit your translation?" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:14:51.043" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20297" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="Could it be disambiguated with &quot;only&quot;? &quot;Luck is only for the unprepared&quot;" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:38:53.243" UserId="4889" />
  <row Id="20298" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@stevemarvell Unfortunately that would add no disambiguation. You would just have the same things with an added &quot;only&quot;. For example, *fortuna solis imparatis est* can be read as &quot;only the unprepared have luck&quot;. But *sola fortuna imparatis est* would be &quot;the unprepared have only luck&quot;. That's closed to what you are after, but it still gives me the impression that unpreparedness brings luck. I might be missing something, but I don't think adding an &quot;only&quot; can help disambiguate options 1–3." CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:24:02.947" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20299" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: how is the dative used to express possession, without a personal pronoun?" CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:34:29.163" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20300" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@tony The dative of possession can be used with any noun. It's not limited to personal pronouns, although it might be more common with them." CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:39:35.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20303" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I believe we should be aiming for &quot;only the unprepared have luck&quot; to be transformed into &quot;only the unprepared _need_ luck&quot;" CreationDate="2019-06-26T17:07:28.590" UserId="4889" />
  <row Id="20304" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@stevemarvell I expanded my answer. How does it look?" CreationDate="2019-06-26T17:31:48.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20311" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think it's going the wrong way. I'm not making a statement about whether or not the unprepared need the luck. I'm implying the prepared don't. Luck may help the unprepared, but that's not the emphasis. Latin is hard. Greek is for the birds. Luck is for the unprepared." CreationDate="2019-06-26T23:23:04.933" UserId="4889" />
  <row Id="20314" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@stevemarvell I thought &quot;luck is necessary only for the unprepared&quot; expressed precisely that. The implication is quite clearly that the prepared need no luck." CreationDate="2019-06-27T09:12:37.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20316" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I see, yes. Does that say &quot;(Luck is necessary) for the unprepared&quot; or &quot;Luck is (necessary for) the unprepared&quot; or more &quot;Luck only exists for the unprepared&quot; or &quot;Luck is needed only by the unprepared&quot; respectively?" CreationDate="2019-06-27T12:49:10.753" UserId="4889" />
  <row Id="20317" PostId="11008" Score="0" Text="@stevemarvell My option 5 is close to &quot;Luck is needed only by the unprepared&quot;. The prepared can have luck; no statement is made about that. The unprepared **need** it. It doesn't say that they have it, just that they are the ones that need it. It appears that this is the best I can do: *Fortuna solis imparatis necessis*." CreationDate="2019-06-27T12:59:06.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20302" PostId="11010" Score="0" Text="This is precisely the thing, thanks! Did you find a place where it's discussed?" CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:54:59.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20312" PostId="11010" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: net: &quot;predicative gen. + esse&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-27T08:32:19.840" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20315" PostId="11010" Score="0" Text="@Joons llmavirta: In the 3rd ex., have changed &quot;honest&quot;  to &quot;honourable&quot;, which is more like it." CreationDate="2019-06-27T09:19:51.570" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20305" PostId="11011" Score="0" Text="My favorite example is A.E.I.O.U. Austriae est imperare orbi universo." CreationDate="2019-06-26T19:36:32.420" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="23237" PostId="11012" Score="1" Text="And if you are a stage worker at a Golden Globe award show, late for work and trying to get in, it would be: Per astra ad aspera ;)" CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:49:57.207" UserId="6283" />
  <row Id="20308" PostId="11013" Score="0" Text="The closest I can think of is caput, which sometimes is used to mean 'person'" CreationDate="2019-06-26T21:55:45.493" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20309" PostId="11013" Score="1" Text="There are [neuter names](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9380/79), but that's not quite the same thing." CreationDate="2019-06-26T21:57:02.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20324" PostId="11014" Score="0" Text="I understand it now, thanks a lot! Even though I speak romance languages (being native from Brazil and speaking Portuguese, Spanish and French) I didn't knew Latin had such fluidity." CreationDate="2019-06-27T19:44:00.427" UserId="4892" />
  <row Id="20323" PostId="11016" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much for this clarification!" CreationDate="2019-06-27T19:42:46.380" UserId="4892" />
  <row Id="47705" PostId="11021" Score="1" Text="Could it perhaps hold the same meaning as, what you sow is what you will reap or what goes around comes around just as a wheel keeps turning. Perhaps was used as a curse in a ritual." CreationDate="2024-03-10T11:58:10.093" UserId="14849" />
  <row Id="20319" PostId="11023" Score="3" Text="llmavirta: a primitive plough consisted of a blade between two wheels; &quot;wheels&quot; as a slang term for plough is easy to understand; but, not easy to prove. That the square violates grammar in order to &quot;work&quot; is well-known." CreationDate="2019-06-27T18:10:11.487" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20322" PostId="11023" Score="0" Text="@tony Indeed, some flexibility and creativity is needed to parse the sentence. I agree that &quot;wheels&quot; could make a reasonable reference to a plough, but the dictionary entries I consulted for *rota* made no such mention. Therefore I thought the translation is more honest as &quot;wheels&quot;. If the reader interprets the wheels as a plough or a carriage or something else, that is their judgement. I get the impression that the interpretation as a plough comes mainly from the word *sator*, as that work restricts the possible set of tools." CreationDate="2019-06-27T18:16:27.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20332" PostId="11023" Score="1" Text="The 1938 interpretation in *S.Paul* by J Carcopino was very influential and probably fixed the association with Christianity AND with plough." CreationDate="2019-06-29T01:49:16.167" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20333" PostId="11023" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Can you add that as a separate answer? That is crucial insight into how the square is usually translated." CreationDate="2019-06-29T04:38:48.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20320" PostId="11025" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Is being a prefix a requisite, or some other form of compound word is good too?" CreationDate="2019-06-27T18:11:26.263" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20321" PostId="11025" Score="1" Text="Thank you! Some compound form could potentially work too. Got the idea from the way 'advantage' is formed, not married to it though" CreationDate="2019-06-27T18:13:03.787" UserId="4896" />
  <row Id="20347" PostId="11026" Score="2" Text="I was taught that the variation in the 5th decl gen sing was regular and depended on whether the final sound before the ending was a vowel or a consonant." CreationDate="2019-06-30T03:36:58.437" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20348" PostId="11026" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I think I've seen _spēī_ before, though I'd need to find where." CreationDate="2019-06-30T03:42:01.383" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20325" PostId="11027" Score="0" Text="I like the way epimorph- sounds but the prefix epi- is most commonly seen with &quot;epigenetics&quot; to mean &quot;adjacent to, influencing genetics&quot; which kind of mixes up things" CreationDate="2019-06-27T23:23:17.913" UserId="4896" />
  <row Id="20326" PostId="11027" Score="1" Text="Actually nvm that, epimorphism as in set theory is pretty close. Thanks much!" CreationDate="2019-06-28T02:52:09.343" UserId="4896" />
  <row Id="20338" PostId="11029" Score="0" Text="is 'ferro se petentem' a subordinate? I.e. the sentense &quot;Si quemcumque alium quis occiderit&quot; is correct : if someone (quis) killed someone else (quemcumque alium) and about that someone else, the author added : &quot;ferro petentem&quot; (asaulting with a sword) &quot;se&quot; (him). Is that understanding correct?" CreationDate="2019-06-29T17:59:04.867" UserId="1955" />
  <row Id="20339" PostId="11029" Score="0" Text="@thiebo I'd say it's not really a subordinate clause but &quot;anything similar&quot;. The point is that the dominating verb is *occiderit*, so *se* together with another verb can refer to either subject. Your way of parsing the structure is indeed correct. Leaving the *se* out at first and only finding a place for it in the bigger picture afterwards is a good way to approach this." CreationDate="2019-06-29T18:18:06.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20329" PostId="11032" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, Maria! Can you edit the question to include the whole prayer? It is much easier to judge these things in context, and out of mere curiosity I would be interested to see how the word is used in a prayer." CreationDate="2019-06-28T14:03:11.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20330" PostId="11032" Score="0" Text="In my answer I have changed 'bonacognoscant' to *'bona cognoscant;'* and 'quos ulcantur' to *'quo sulcantur.'* I hope that's OK with you." CreationDate="2019-06-28T17:12:48.107" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20331" PostId="11033" Score="2" Text="I think *membra* here is literally &quot;members&quot; (of the church), rather than &quot;limbs&quot;." CreationDate="2019-06-28T18:28:05.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20334" PostId="11034" Score="0" Text="On L8, did you contemplate &quot;against whom they may take revenge&quot;? The Latin does not include &quot;contra&quot;; but it sounds punchier, less vague;  that's the trouble with subjunctives. Blinding the poor, old Demons? What happened to Christian forgiveness?" CreationDate="2019-06-29T10:24:23.320" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20335" PostId="11034" Score="0" Text="@tony Also works! I'm never sure how fancy/formal to be when translating Latin into English, if I should be going for full-on King James style or what." CreationDate="2019-06-29T17:02:44.840" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20349" PostId="11035" Score="0" Text="A guess: the application of &quot;iron&quot; &amp; &quot;steel&quot; is to indicate strength/ power? The trick used by Stalin, adapting the Russian word for steel--maybe. Don't forget, old Hades was &quot;malis avibus&quot;--I like that expression!" CreationDate="2019-06-30T09:33:56.727" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20365" PostId="11035" Score="0" Text="FWIW, [Vulcan/Hephaestus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(mythology)) is the god of fire and smithery, and reportedly _came to be considered as the manufacturer of art, arms, [and...] **iron**_" CreationDate="2019-07-01T19:59:07.907" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20353" PostId="11037" Score="0" Text="Take as one group *saepe multis cladibus* 'often with many  injuries,'" CreationDate="2019-06-30T14:29:02.497" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20350" PostId="11038" Score="4" Text="The “mere” ablative of circumstances feels right to this (inexpert) ear. Simpler too!" CreationDate="2019-06-30T13:28:38.807" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20352" PostId="11038" Score="1" Text="Yes, I agree with you. Not only simpler but probably more appropriate too. Cf. also the typical example _senatu frequente_, where two readings are in principle possible: cf. the Ablative absolute, whereby _frequente_ is predicative, and the Ablative of attendant circumstances, whereby this adjective is not predicative but attributive." CreationDate="2019-06-30T14:06:16.300" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20355" PostId="11038" Score="1" Text="It is worth pointing out that in this English edition of the text (philological.bham.ac.uk/scothist/15lat.html // 22. _Erat inter eos et Reginaldinos vetus odium saepe multis utrisque partis cladibus nobilitatum &lt;acceptis&gt;_) , a participle _acceptis_ is added to highlight the propositional nature of the Ablative constituent. As noted above, this is not necessary provided that the adjective can acquire a predicative nature. Cf. also _Frequenti senatu_  and _Frequenti senatu coacto_ NB: only in the former example _frequenti_ can have a predicative reading." CreationDate="2019-06-30T17:59:16.087" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20360" PostId="11038" Score="0" Text="I think the presence of *saepe* makes an ablative of circumstance seem odd—perhaps also because I wouldn't expect the latter inside an existential *erat* sentence. On the other hand, *multis...cladibus* makes for an odd ablative absolute, because I somehow don't like the feeling of praedicative *multis* as in &quot;clashes were many&quot;. I think I would expect an adjective with a more 'propositional' meaning in an ablative absolute. So I'm inclined to say the sentence is odd either way. Should this be considered proper Latin? In classical Latin, I would perhaps expect a genitive." CreationDate="2019-07-01T12:11:55.790" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20377" PostId="11038" Score="0" Text="Precisely the combination of the meaning of _saepe_ with _multis_ made me think of the typical syntactically ambiguous example _frequenti senatu/frequentissimo senatu_.  I agree with you that the semantics of _multis_ is not enough to obtain a predicative status but perhaps combined with _saepe_ in this **non-Classical** text such a reading is possible." CreationDate="2019-07-02T18:12:44.673" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20356" PostId="11041" Score="0" Text="Good question! Perhaps before answering this one has to describe how (if at all!) the days of the week were used in antiquity. My impression is that they are a later addition to the calendar system. It might make sense to ask a prequel question." CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:13:54.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20357" PostId="11041" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta [better done that said](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11042/2646). :-)" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:43:38.413" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="20359" PostId="11041" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: the seven-day planetary week is first alluded to by Tibullus (1st century BC)." CreationDate="2019-07-01T11:01:57.843" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20361" PostId="11041" Score="1" Text="@fdb Would it be possible to write up an answer about the relevant passage from Tibullus to [the other question about the days of the week](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11042/79)?" CreationDate="2019-07-01T12:52:18.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20371" PostId="11041" Score="0" Text="Fun fact: in Chile it is not uncommon to abbreviate _miércoles_ as **W** (for Wednesday): DLMWJVSD" CreationDate="2019-07-02T13:04:37.527" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20358" PostId="11042" Score="0" Text="www.thoughtco.com/latin-names-for-the-days 121024" CreationDate="2019-07-01T10:10:08.603" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20364" PostId="11042" Score="0" Text="All I've found about _official_ status is that a seven-day week was officially adopted [under Constantine](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23074751?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents), but was in use for a few centuries before that." CreationDate="2019-07-01T19:55:25.627" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20369" PostId="11043" Score="0" Text="Saw &quot;CAVE CANEM&quot; in Pompeii. It exists! (House of the Tragic poet.) Have you been? It was an early example (for me) of Latin using an accusative (canem) when the (English) instinct is to use the genitive, canis, of-the-dog.This has nothing to do with your Q; which, has been well-answered, already." CreationDate="2019-07-02T09:18:24.703" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20366" PostId="11044" Score="0" Text="I would have thought &quot;dicitur&quot; would introduce a proverb or a saying, not a signpost.  The suggestions of &quot;scriptum est&quot; and &quot;ait&quot; make much more sense." CreationDate="2019-07-02T02:50:25.423" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20368" PostId="11044" Score="1" Text="Try reading it again. I don't suggest that _dicitur_  is appropriate here, but merely use it as a well-known instance of the impersonal use of a verb, before proposing a form of  _scribere_ to be appropriate in this case." CreationDate="2019-07-02T05:28:04.173" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20370" PostId="11044" Score="0" Text="Still, I would agree with the previous poster that &quot;scriptum est&quot; would better capture a single instance.  If you are expressing that people often post signs that say &quot;Beware of dog&quot;, then &quot;scribitur&quot; would make sense." CreationDate="2019-07-02T12:53:11.220" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20372" PostId="11044" Score="0" Text="If you like. Why not look at my (earlier) comment to @TKR's answer?" CreationDate="2019-07-02T13:46:00.370" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20374" PostId="11044" Score="0" Text="With respect to the comment on TKR's answer, did you see that *scriptum est* is in the question?" CreationDate="2019-07-02T16:21:34.657" UserId="1790" />
  <row Id="20376" PostId="11044" Score="0" Text="@PeterTaylor Yes." CreationDate="2019-07-02T16:41:28.763" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20363" PostId="11045" Score="0" Text="This is a nice find, and certainly wins the conciseness competition!" CreationDate="2019-07-01T18:25:20.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20362" PostId="11046" Score="0" Text="Of course! _scriptum est_." CreationDate="2019-07-01T17:38:44.817" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20386" PostId="11047" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question! Your original phrase and my limited English make me hesitate: are you 1) avoiding comparison (speak-or-die is a unit and you are asking whether that is better than something else your audience knows), 2) do you want to be ambiguous, or 3) your intention is to compare &quot;speaking&quot; and &quot;dying&quot; (which one is better)? In other words, would you expect an answer like **dying is better** or **yes/no**? One of the translations by **cnread** somewhat keeps the ambiguity IMHO, while that by **tony** is explicitly comparing (is it better to speak _than_ to die?)." CreationDate="2019-07-02T21:30:13.980" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20387" PostId="11047" Score="1" Text="@Rafael. I see your point, but I think the English would only be truly ambiguous if it said 'Is it better to speak or die' (i.e., if the second 'to,' before 'die,' were omitted)." CreationDate="2019-07-02T23:27:42.753" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20388" PostId="11047" Score="0" Text="@cnread, thanks for the clarification!" CreationDate="2019-07-02T23:29:09.383" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20375" PostId="11048" Score="0" Text="A substantial edit was suggested to this post. Please post substantial new information as a separate answer instead of adding to posts by others." CreationDate="2019-07-02T16:39:24.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20373" PostId="11049" Score="1" Text="+!  Great answer!  I knew about the 24 hours connection to explain the ordering, but I hadn't been aware Cassius Dio was one of the primary sources for this." CreationDate="2019-07-02T14:00:27.757" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20381" PostId="11050" Score="1" Text="I'd suggest adding *-ne* to make it *estne*. I'm not sure if it's strictly necessary, but I'd expect it in a context like this." CreationDate="2019-07-02T19:31:15.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20389" PostId="11050" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thought about suffix -ne; then, decided not. On reflection, you may be correct." CreationDate="2019-07-03T10:18:02.880" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20380" PostId="11051" Score="3" Text="Indeed, building a &quot;regular&quot; infinitive (aiere?) seems unidiomatic. Why not _dicere_ or _affirmare_? In this context they sound perfectly well to me." CreationDate="2019-07-02T19:09:27.487" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20383" PostId="11051" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Is it known which verb the Romans usually suppleted for this? If so that would make a good answer!" CreationDate="2019-07-02T20:48:42.567" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20384" PostId="11051" Score="0" Text="The classics are not my forte, but the exact phrase [_dicere licet_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=&amp;phrase=dicere+licet&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=) gives 12 hits, and [_dicere potest_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=&amp;phrase=dicere+potest&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=), 9. It is idiomatic; I'm afraid this doesn't answer the _suppleting_ issue, though." CreationDate="2019-07-02T20:57:47.757" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20382" PostId="11052" Score="0" Text="+1; I'd also suggest _loqui melius an mori_ because I'm always a fan of dropping _est_." CreationDate="2019-07-02T20:46:59.623" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20385" PostId="11052" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Thought I had done that but obviously not. Thanks for pointing it out. I've updated the answer." CreationDate="2019-07-02T21:14:00.037" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20390" PostId="11052" Score="0" Text="@cnread: If speaking prevents death (&quot;speak or die&quot;); how does the unexpressed &quot;...than to stay silent and be saved&quot; fit in? The, original, implication appears to be that silence invites the death-sentence?" CreationDate="2019-07-03T10:41:29.243" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20391" PostId="11054" Score="1" Text="Salu Natu is irrelevant; it was, in 2015, the name of a takeaway in Chile; it is an abbreviation of Salud Natural, Spanish for 'natural health,'  as in this example from linguee.com&lt;https://www.linguee.com/spanish-english/translation/salud+natural.html&gt; &#xA;*&quot;Feria de alimentación y salud natural* =Food and natural health exhibition&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-03T16:29:21.837" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21305" PostId="11057" Score="1" Text="They probably just didn’t have the letter in the fount. I have a book in Latin from 1584 where the letter W doesn’t exist in some of the typefaces. A word such as *Sienkiewicz*, when written in italics, has a capital Roman W in the middle." CreationDate="2019-09-05T10:18:33.120" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20417" PostId="11061" Score="0" Text="I don't think the perfect subjunctive has anything to do with whether something definitely happened: it's just the tense you use in a primary sequence for a completed action." CreationDate="2019-07-05T14:57:29.870" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20419" PostId="11061" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Checked with text: it's in consecutive clauses that perf.subj. is used to stress the fact that the result did actually happen (or, if negative, did not happen). In indirect Qs, the intro is by an interrogative and the verb is in the subj. (using the same tense as in English; here, the perfect). Changed it." CreationDate="2019-07-05T16:39:50.880" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20400" PostId="11062" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Penultimate para: &quot;It turns an indirect Q to a statement--an unknown to a known. The...., just that it should be looked into.&quot; If it is &quot;known&quot; it does not need to &quot;be looked into&quot;. Concluding: is it a Q; or, a statement; or, could it be argued both ways?" CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:06:17.940" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20402" PostId="11062" Score="0" Text="@tony It is an indirect question. There is a question: &quot;Are they all liable?&quot; There is a statement about the question: &quot;We should look into this question.&quot; This is how indirect questions work, by making a statement **about** a question. It is a statement about a question, not a question in itself. Syntactically, it is a statement, not a question. As mentioned in the last paragraph, the semantic difference is very small in this case." CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:34:51.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20404" PostId="11062" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Agreed, thanks." CreationDate="2019-07-04T17:07:49.640" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20418" PostId="11062" Score="2" Text="Great answer: I did a quick search for the text that follows, and it looks at different possibilities (e.g. whether or not we can determinate the final blow that actually killed the slave), which agrees with the interpretation that this is the beginning, not the conclusion, of an answer." CreationDate="2019-07-05T15:02:08.077" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20405" PostId="11064" Score="0" Text="**Conscius** is the subject of **nunquam esse desinit**. Thanks" CreationDate="2019-07-04T17:30:52.980" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="20422" PostId="11065" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! That is the exact answer I needed." CreationDate="2019-07-05T23:24:24.853" UserId="4911" />
  <row Id="20408" PostId="11066" Score="2" Text="What amazing handwriting! *Missa* is even written *Adissa* a few times on the second page. I look forward to the experts’ comments." CreationDate="2019-07-05T07:07:44.060" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20409" PostId="11066" Score="1" Text="The amount of variants of *M* in *Missa* is quite perplexing! I counted eight, but I might have missed something. Do the titles look the same in the book or is this variation only found in the table of contents?" CreationDate="2019-07-05T08:33:59.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20410" PostId="11066" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski When you see a question you like, please remember to vote up!" CreationDate="2019-07-05T08:35:39.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20414" PostId="11066" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It seems like all the capitals have many variants, `S` has at least five, and `D` at least 3; `E` at least six. I'm not sure they have any meaning beyond decorative, but what's perplexing to me is the use of a Q where an M seems like it ought to go; and since it's done often it can't be a mistake." CreationDate="2019-07-05T11:45:24.787" UserId="4913" />
  <row Id="20416" PostId="11066" Score="3" Text="@FredrickBrennan It seems pretty clear to me that this is an &quot;M&quot; that looks like a &quot;Q,&quot; not a &quot;Q.&quot; (Consider the &quot;M&quot; in &quot;Missa Generalis&quot; about halfway down the first page: it's definitely between a &quot;Q&quot; and an &quot;M.&quot;) So, I don't think the right question is, &quot;Why does the author write 'Qissa.'&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-05T14:38:03.483" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20420" PostId="11066" Score="0" Text="*Supremely irrelevant comment:* The bowed **M** is sometimes offered as an explanation for D+ (D reversed) for 'mille:'" CreationDate="2019-07-05T17:28:23.120" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20411" PostId="11067" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: &quot; With the enemy having been sleeping/ dormant we triumph&quot;; did you consider the future tense, here?" CreationDate="2019-07-05T09:56:51.167" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20412" PostId="11067" Score="0" Text="@tony Good idea! I added a note on the future tense." CreationDate="2019-07-05T10:14:34.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20413" PostId="11067" Score="1" Text="Are you sure that *triumphare* can mean &quot;gain a victory&quot;? The main meaning is &quot;celebrate a specific ritual as *a consequence of having gained* victories&quot;. You triumph, in other words, many months or even years after &quot;triumphing&quot; in our sense." CreationDate="2019-07-05T11:30:14.953" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20415" PostId="11067" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski I thought the intention was close enough to a victory celebration. That is for the original poster (OP) to clarify. The English verb &quot;triumph&quot; does also mean celebration, not only victory. (So says Merriam-Webster.) My intention was to say &quot;we will gain victory&quot; indirectly, by reference to the following triumph." CreationDate="2019-07-05T13:02:45.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20457" PostId="11067" Score="1" Text="This seems perfect to me. I understand the sentence to be a poetic expression of &quot;We're celebrating too early&quot;, which would make the present tense just right." CreationDate="2019-07-08T08:58:48.373" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20421" PostId="11068" Score="0" Text="I don't think *commode* works the way you're trying to make it work. If I saw *dum hostes commode dormiant*, I would assume that it means 'provided that the enemy sleeps comfortably,' which makes for a somewhat bizarre sentence." CreationDate="2019-07-05T18:30:18.157" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20425" PostId="11068" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict., gives &quot;commodus&quot; (adj.) = suitable, convenient, advantageous; lucky; obliging--all of these, in the adverb, convey the meaning that the enemy is almost &quot;co-operating&quot;, in providing an easy victory for &quot;we&quot;. Remember the Schlieffen Plan? Brilliant; inspired gamble; but, it could have only worked if the belligerent nations had conveniently co-operated--they didn't." CreationDate="2019-07-06T10:02:12.530" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20429" PostId="11068" Score="1" Text="I'm not denying that it can mean that; I'm just saying that, as your sentence currently stands, it more naturally reads as 'sleep comfortably.' Context and word placement matter." CreationDate="2019-07-06T19:13:16.990" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20437" PostId="11068" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Some help, please? The exchange of comments between cnread and myself: how does yourself understand the use of &quot;commode&quot; = &quot;conveniently&quot;, in the context of the enemy &quot;co-operating&quot; in his own downfall?" CreationDate="2019-07-07T14:52:22.710" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20461" PostId="11068" Score="1" Text="@tony The adverb is ambiguous. It can be convenient for the sleepers or for the winners, and the difference is huge. I can't see a way to remedy it other than leaving it out, but I might be missing something. (The ping doesn't reach me if the post isn't mine and I haven't commented. You can use the chat to point me to something. I happened to see this by chance.)" CreationDate="2019-07-08T15:19:17.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20483" PostId="11068" Score="0" Text="Joonas has it exactly right. It reads as expressing convenience for the sleepers, not the winners, because the sleepers, being the subject of the immediate clause, are the focus. (But even just moving commode in front of vicerimus won't help because that would most naturally read as 'We will win without difficulty.') I think your only option, if you want to use commodus/commode, is to say something like '...dum hostes dormiant, quae res nobis commodissima sit, '...provided that the enemy sleeps, a situation that would be most convenient to us.' Of course, that makes the sentence quite long." CreationDate="2019-07-08T21:12:26.770" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20470" PostId="11070" Score="0" Text="Modern Greek has γουργουρίζω &quot;to purr; to gurgle&quot;, but I am not aware of a Classical Greek word." CreationDate="2019-07-08T18:07:22.410" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="20426" PostId="11071" Score="0" Text="+1 for the punchline" CreationDate="2019-07-06T11:53:11.857" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20428" PostId="11072" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Is it important that you have literally &quot;shit&quot; and &quot;diamond&quot;, or is it enough if the overall message is the same?" CreationDate="2019-07-06T17:50:25.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20435" PostId="11072" Score="0" Text="Yeah. It is important to keep diamond and shit in this case. : P" CreationDate="2019-07-07T10:24:27.823" UserId="4916" />
  <row Id="20430" PostId="11073" Score="0" Text="Nice find with *cogere*! But does *stercus* really capture the meaning of &quot;shit&quot; in English? To my understanding *stercus* isn't inherently negative, more like English &quot;manure&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-06T20:24:34.753" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20431" PostId="11073" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. I was taking stercus as inherently unsavory and relying on the juxtaposition of stercus and adamas to do a lot of the heavy lifting. Were you thinking *coacta...merda* maybe?" CreationDate="2019-07-06T21:05:20.820" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20432" PostId="11073" Score="0" Text="Perhaps? I don't honestly know of a better word for this, I just have a vague recollection of excrement-related words not being particularly taboo." CreationDate="2019-07-06T21:15:03.493" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20434" PostId="11073" Score="1" Text="Thanks. My life is complete." CreationDate="2019-07-07T10:16:40.560" UserId="4916" />
  <row Id="20436" PostId="11073" Score="0" Text="@Galbathor Once you've got the answer you were looking for, you can tick the little green checkmark to the top left of the answer. That marks the answer as accepted. It gives a little reward to the answerer and signals that you've found what you wanted. (After getting 15 reputation points, you can also vote up any questions and answers you like.)" CreationDate="2019-07-07T14:43:37.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20438" PostId="11076" Score="0" Text="There is some analogy here with “iatrogenic disease”, which literally means “disease that gives rise to doctors”. It seems that scientific English is equally happy when the noun (or adjective) in the compound is the subject or the object of the verb." CreationDate="2019-07-07T17:48:55.987" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20480" PostId="11076" Score="0" Text="I would tend to thing that the mistake in the analogy lies not so much in the choice of -parous, since fissiparous does in fact have to do with birth/reproduction ('producing new individuals by fission,' according to my dictionary); rather, it lies in the fact that in the word viviparous, the first root has a direct object relationship with the second, whereas in fissiparous, it stands in the relationship of instrument/means. As you note, though, to be a proper analogy with viviparous, fissiparous should mean 'producing split offspring.'" CreationDate="2019-07-08T20:38:51.960" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20481" PostId="11076" Score="0" Text="Which is not to say that fissiparous is, per se, an improper word formation. Having the first root in a compound express the instrument/means of the second, verbal root, is perfectly valid and common. It's just that, as a word that's supposed to have been formed by analogy with viviparous, it doesn't quite work." CreationDate="2019-07-08T20:44:40.300" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20439" PostId="11077" Score="0" Text="No need to apologize! This site covers Ancient Greek as well as Latin (and also Etruscan, Oscan, Punic, Aramaic, and more)." CreationDate="2019-07-07T21:08:00.913" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20440" PostId="11077" Score="0" Text="That said, do you mean &quot;with&quot; in the sense of &quot;by means of&quot;, or &quot;with&quot; in the sense of &quot;accompanied by&quot;? I'm guessing the latter, but something like &quot;you came home by using your shield [instead of your sword]&quot; will be different from &quot;you came home holding your shield&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-07T21:12:34.800" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20441" PostId="11077" Score="0" Text="Hello - thank you for your reply, and your welcome. I do mean in the sense of accompanied with." CreationDate="2019-07-07T21:30:46.410" UserId="4919" />
  <row Id="20454" PostId="11077" Score="0" Text="@Draconis &quot;This site covers Ancient Greek&quot;: Does it? Wink wink. If it does, I can finally change my username!!!" CreationDate="2019-07-08T05:10:35.180" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20455" PostId="11077" Score="0" Text="@Greek-Area51Proposal [It certainly seems so!](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/358/policy-on-greek-questions)" CreationDate="2019-07-08T06:36:14.773" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20443" PostId="11079" Score="1" Text="νοστέω is also a great choice for &quot;come home.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-07T23:17:50.480" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20446" PostId="11079" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh, of course! I don't know how I missed that one!" CreationDate="2019-07-07T23:33:05.177" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20447" PostId="11079" Score="0" Text="It's worth noting that ἥκεις may or may not reflect the OP's intended meaning, since it implies &quot;you have come and are still here&quot;. Also, I'd leave in &quot;our&quot; in this case because it isn't clearly implied by the context (could be someone else's hearts)." CreationDate="2019-07-08T00:57:44.010" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20448" PostId="11079" Score="0" Text="@TKR Fair; added a note on that." CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:04:33.703" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20449" PostId="11079" Score="0" Text="(On the edit, it should surely be ἐνοστήσας, unless we're being Homeric.)" CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:06:08.393" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20451" PostId="11079" Score="0" Text="@TKR In fairness, *nostein* is a fairly epic verb…but no, that was totally just my mistake. I haven't had to conjugate Greek verbs in far too long! Fixed." CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:09:09.713" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20456" PostId="11079" Score="0" Text="Thank you all very much for your input - it has all been very valuable, and a good learning experience." CreationDate="2019-07-08T07:11:58.607" UserId="4919" />
  <row Id="20442" PostId="11080" Score="0" Text="Are you translating &quot;was made&quot; because of the Latin translation &quot;factus est&quot;? Remember that &quot;factus est&quot; (from *fieri*) and γέγονεν are usually translated &quot;has become,&quot; which seems to make a lot more sense of the passage. Another point: you translate two different words with &quot;before,&quot; but it seems pretty clear that the first one isn't meant temporally." CreationDate="2019-07-07T23:14:23.527" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20444" PostId="11080" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The ESV gives &quot;He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me,&quot; in which it is clear that the first *before* is not temporal. But is it clear to us that ἔμπροσθέν is not temporal? If that's the case then my translation is off! The King James Bible gives &quot;He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.&quot; What's the rationale for translating γέγονεν as &quot;preferred&quot;? Is it a liberal translation, or was this a common meaning of the word?" CreationDate="2019-07-07T23:18:37.033" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="20445" PostId="11080" Score="0" Text="@brianpck One other question regarding the ESV and KJV use of &quot;ranks&quot; and &quot;is preferred&quot; — why are these in the present tense, when γέγονεν is perfect? Even the Douay Rheims uses &quot;is preferred&quot;, which is present tense, not perfect." CreationDate="2019-07-07T23:21:39.570" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="20450" PostId="11081" Score="0" Text="Thank you, TKR! Good to see you on this forum. ἑρμηνεία evokes the English word *hermeneutics*, making both the Greek word and its definition easy to remember." CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:08:03.073" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="20452" PostId="11081" Score="0" Text="So, would that be ἑρμηνεία, 'clarification,' when translating from Greek? but  something else, say τα τοῦ μεταφραστοῦ, when translating into Greek?" CreationDate="2019-07-08T03:09:33.320" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20463" PostId="11081" Score="0" Text="@Hugh I don't know that there were separate terms for translating into and out of Greek -- what makes you think so?" CreationDate="2019-07-08T17:01:18.967" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20484" PostId="11081" Score="0" Text="If someone translated something **into** Greek for me, I could see that as a change of phrasing μεταφράζειν ( the word used by Josephus and by Plutarch for translate); but the not as elucidation ' ἑρμηνεία'" CreationDate="2019-07-09T01:10:02.337" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20471" PostId="11083" Score="0" Text="I think I remember (but I might be making this up) that prefixes (as in *in*curro) were fossil forms of former satellite prepositions that weren't otherwise present in Latin at all." CreationDate="2019-07-08T18:10:27.380" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20516" PostId="11083" Score="1" Text="Yes, Rafael, what you've said makes sense (except the claim that the prefixes are to be understood as &quot;fossil(ized)&quot; (?) forms. The prefix _in-_  in _incurro_ is not a &quot;fossil&quot;, compared to _se-_ in _secerno_, which it is). To put in the terms below, it is interesting to work out whether so-called &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot; (where Path/Result is prefixed onto the verb) are derived from so-called &quot;strong satellite-framed languages&quot; (where it is not always required that Path/Result be morphologically dependent on the verb)." CreationDate="2019-07-11T02:35:11.000" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20517" PostId="11083" Score="1" Text="Yes, Ben, you're absolutely right. Those of us who are native speakers of Romance languages find Germanic verb-particle constructions quite difficult to acquire. For those of us who learned English quite late it is nearly impossible to produce something like _John danced in_ (instead of &quot;Romanglish&quot; _John entered dancing_. _John {went/came} in dancing_ is also easier for us than the Manner conflation pattern involved in _John danced in_)." CreationDate="2019-07-11T02:53:00.453" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20519" PostId="11083" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino what I intended to mean is that 'satellite prepositions' had become prefixes in Latin and no longer acted as satellites or (arguably) prepositions." CreationDate="2019-07-11T11:33:23.287" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20522" PostId="11083" Score="1" Text="Ok, Rafael, but notice that in Talmy's typological distinction, prefixes or preverbs are satellites (that's why Latin and Slavic languages are classified as satellite-framed languages). So Engl. &quot;to ran in&quot; and Lat. _incurrere_ both count as satellite-framed constructions (compared to &quot;to enter running&quot;, which is a verb-framed construction). NB: English has both the Germanic pattern (&quot;to ran in&quot;) and the Romance one (&quot;to enter running&quot;). In spite of this, Germanic speakers find it more natural _John ran into the room_ than _John entered the room running_, which sounds a bit more stilted." CreationDate="2019-07-11T12:45:51.623" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20523" PostId="11083" Score="1" Text="Just a clarification (incorporated into my answer below). What is important for a language/construction to be classified as &quot;satellite-framed&quot; is the fact that Path (i.e., directionality) is not conflated with the verb root (e.g., in the Romance verb &quot;entrar&quot; Path is conflated with the verbal root: you cannot distinguish Path and Motion as two morphemes). The notion of &quot;satellite&quot; involves lack of &quot;conflation of Path with a verbal root&quot;. So Path, in satellite-framed languages, can be a preverb/prefix (e.g., Lat. _incurrere_) or a particle (e.g., Eng. _ran in_)." CreationDate="2019-07-11T12:48:07.273" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20528" PostId="11083" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, nice! Now I get it. Thank you" CreationDate="2019-07-11T19:43:56.043" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20464" PostId="11084" Score="2" Text="Thanks and welcome to the site! To clarify, the question is about ancient Greek (modern Greek questions are off-topic here)." CreationDate="2019-07-08T17:02:52.690" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20459" PostId="11085" Score="2" Text="The dots are being used in three ways; abbreviations; footnote links (as at the bottom of p242); punctuation. The triple dots in the lower example,  question marks, are (N.B.) each in a group of four &quot;What did you go out to see; A reed shaken by the wind ? But what did you go out to see ? A man in soft clothing ?&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-08T14:13:20.343" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20485" PostId="11086" Score="0" Text="Is it that the question-mark dots are besides the preceding letter, and the -ur dots are above it?" CreationDate="2019-07-09T01:30:47.787" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20498" PostId="11086" Score="1" Text="@Rafael The Q. dots are *next* to the letter only to make room for the Full-stop/Period placed below them." CreationDate="2019-07-09T12:28:18.770" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20460" PostId="11087" Score="1" Text="I was thinking of writing sth in the line that making a clear cut in something that is a process necessarily requires some arbitrary decisions: depending on who you ask, the Middle Age ended with the fall of Constantinople (1453), Columbus's first trip (1492), or the Printing Press (1500). You give a better view of the facts, at the same time suggesting that this is a matter of consensus, and an issue subject to debate." CreationDate="2019-07-08T15:02:42.150" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20462" PostId="11087" Score="0" Text="Indeed. The 'medieval period' differs quite a lot from country to country" CreationDate="2019-07-08T16:58:40.513" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20488" PostId="11089" Score="2" Text="One point to consider is that his family came from Iberia, though Marcus was born in Rome. The question is what speech varieties he was exposed to, and which ones had an influence on his Latin pronunciation. Also, it is very likely that he would have spoken several different lects of Latin (as well as of Greek) in different contexts, to different people. That's what happens when only a thin veneer of the culture is literate and everybody else speaks whatever works." CreationDate="2019-07-09T02:38:42.817" UserDisplayName="jlawler" />
  <row Id="20489" PostId="11089" Score="1" Text="@jlawler Yeah, I mention that in my post actually. :-) Most people tend to be influenced predominantly by their general environment more than their parents however, in the long run, and M.A. had training in rhetoric, philosophy, and other things from a young age (albeit mainly from Roman Greek scholars I believe)." CreationDate="2019-07-09T02:46:11.017" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="20490" PostId="11089" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the Latin site!" CreationDate="2019-07-09T05:18:58.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20492" PostId="11089" Score="2" Text="Nice to see new people here. You have an interesting question! Unless an answer is posted shortly, I will consult _Vox Latina_ when I get back home and see if he has any comments on 2nd century Latin." CreationDate="2019-07-09T06:46:28.140" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="20500" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="Thanks @JoonasIlmavirta and Canned Man. I appreciate whoever migrated this over, as well." CreationDate="2019-07-10T15:38:32.127" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="20501" PostId="11089" Score="1" Text="No answer yet... Vox Latina sounds like a very interesting book, so that would be great." CreationDate="2019-07-10T15:39:31.947" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="20655" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7548/2476 // Looking at the linked answers there and a few more, one can construct a satisfying answer. I would try, but I don't have enough spare time at the moment." CreationDate="2019-07-22T10:59:38.123" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="20656" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Thanks. Still missing some important points, but I think some of the information there is wrong. For example, I believe the &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; spellings appeared well before the 2nd century AD, and the final &quot;m&quot; was still pronounced at least until the end of the Republic, if not later." CreationDate="2019-07-22T12:51:12.500" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="20658" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="@Noldorin: Of course the &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; spellings appeared earlier, what I stated is they completely replaced &quot;ai&quot; and &quot;oi&quot; by the 2nd century AD. As for final &quot;m&quot; you're wrong, it was often omitted even in Old Latin inscriptions." CreationDate="2019-07-22T13:22:48.363" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="20661" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="Ah, that wasn't clear from the phrasing of your answer there... may be worth amending. :-) As for the final 'm', I did a bit of research, and it seems the issue is subtle: in the Classical period it was either pronounced very weakly and/or the preceding vowel was nasalised (I've seen claims to both), the distinction between the two being very subtle in any case. In Old Latin it seems to have been fully pronounced (at least, someone of the social class and era of Scipio Africanus would have), though I can certainly believe the lower classes had a more Classical Pronunciation towards the end." CreationDate="2019-07-22T23:42:27.173" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="20662" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="(If you have a reference to that inscription where it was omitted, and a date, that would be great. I believe you, but purely out of curiosity!)" CreationDate="2019-07-22T23:42:57.323" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="20666" PostId="11089" Score="1" Text="@Noldorin: Note that when one writes that final &quot;m&quot; was not pronounced or was weakly articulated, they do always mean that it nasalizes the preceding vowel. It is a bit of a simplification,but it's due to the fact that apart from final position, /m/ is usually pronounced [m] in its own right. As for an inscription, sure, one example can be seen [here](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/archaic_latin_inscriptions_i_inscriptions_proper_epitaphs/1940/pb_LCL359.5.xml): starting from _honc oino_ (which classically would be _hunc unum_) up to _Scipione_, all final M's are omitted except in _Luciom_ ." CreationDate="2019-07-23T08:12:51.050" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="20675" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Thanks for that. Very interesting. I suppose the other example there is &quot;duonoro&quot; (Classical &quot;bonorum&quot;), though maybe I missed another? As for the social class of the person writing this, I suppose tombstone inscription was probably a &quot;middle class&quot; job here (if we can say such a thing). i.e. Not a eques, but above your average citizen? I guess I'm trying to get an idea of when the &quot;prescribed&quot; (upper-class) Latin pronunciation would have dropped or weakened the final 'm'. It couldn't have begun before widespread literacy, I imagine." CreationDate="2019-07-23T22:35:53.727" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="28700" PostId="11089" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva The claim that final 'm' in classical Latin nasalises the preceding vowel is made by Allen in Vox Latina. He says it both lengthens and nasalises the vowel... although in some cases that final vowel is then elided.  In some other cases (e.g. when the followig word started with a &quot;g&quot;) the final &quot;m&quot; would have been realised as [ŋ], according to Allen." CreationDate="2020-08-19T22:27:54.710" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="20494" PostId="11090" Score="0" Text="What makes you think that the Latin word _kalendae_ was borrowed from Greek and there was a singular form of it, _*kalenda_?" CreationDate="2019-07-09T09:12:05.287" UserId="1410" />
  <row Id="20496" PostId="11090" Score="0" Text="The latter: That was in error; I will correct it immediately; thanks for pointing it out! The prior: I was taught this by my first professor at uni (philologist amongst many things); it might be that I remember this incorrectly, but I do believe this to be correct: K only occured word-initially, was always followed by A, and this only occured in words borrowed from Greek. I will check this to see what further I can learn." CreationDate="2019-07-09T09:30:07.647" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="20497" PostId="11090" Score="1" Text="The calends was a feature of the Roman calendar, but it was not included in the Greek calendar. Consequently, to postpone something _ad Kalendas Graecas_ (&quot;until the Greek calends&quot;) was a colloquial expression for postponing something forever." CreationDate="2019-07-09T10:11:44.453" UserId="1410" />
  <row Id="24462" PostId="11092" Score="0" Text="&quot;If the distinction between /g/ and /k/ were actually lost at the beginnings of words, we wouldn't expect to see it come back unaltered like this.&quot; The way I read the question, we totally would." CreationDate="2020-03-10T16:46:25.623" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24464" PostId="11092" Score="0" Text="@vectory …why? If the distinction between `/g/` and `/k/` was totally neutralized in speech, how would it come back exactly the same as before?" CreationDate="2020-03-10T17:06:37.523" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24465" PostId="11092" Score="0" Text="Neutralized in one italic branch, not in another, which would come down to Latin, perhaps later. I don't know anything about Latin dialectology, so I kept my comment as short as possible. &quot;totally&quot; is the specific point of contestion, which is unentenable if the question quotes rather illusively, &quot; the existence of a melting pot of peoples and languages.&quot; Which you explained reasonably, no doubt, but perhaps not to the fully extent. Mention of &quot;z&quot; replaced by &quot;g&quot; reminds of Slavic \hacek{z} for one (which is taking me too far afield to say anything more precise)." CreationDate="2020-03-10T17:23:08.233" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="20574" PostId="11094" Score="0" Text="Sententia mea novacula Occami dictat genetivum a Filio referire, ut in _the father becomes the son of the daughter_. Mary being a daughter of God (as everyone else) became the mother of Jesus (God the Son, a different person but the same One God in mainstream Christian theology)" CreationDate="2019-07-13T15:04:46.970" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20499" PostId="11098" Score="3" Text="Doesn't _**qui**_ there mean _those who_, and not simply _those_? If you agree it's _those who_, you get both a real relative pronoun (_who_), and it's antecedent (_those_). 'Antecedent' is a linguistic term for &quot;the object of reference of a relative or any other pronoun.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-10T09:24:27.890" UserId="1410" />
  <row Id="20502" PostId="11098" Score="1" Text="If you like **empty** elements in syntax, it could be said that there is a null nominative demonstrative **_ei_** preceding the relative clause headed by _qui_." CreationDate="2019-07-10T15:45:16.017" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20507" PostId="11098" Score="1" Text="@YellowSky That comment of yours goes such a long way in answering the question, that it should be rather posted as an answer. It doesn't matter that there are already two answers; more answers do add more value." CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:04:23.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20508" PostId="11098" Score="1" Text="Empty elements are a traditional solution to missing words prescribed by theories. It's one way to handle headless relatives. It's awkward in English, since they're pretty rare and somewhat obsolete. As for the Caesar quotation, I've always thought the really classy thing about it was that it gaps both left and right in the same sentence. It's such a cool sentence that I made up an [exercise about it](http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/Caesar.pdf) for my freshman etymology class." CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:08:48.270" UserId="4927" />
  <row Id="20513" PostId="11098" Score="1" Text="Yes, this famous sentence is also very appropriate to show the important relation between syntax (word order) and **information structure**. So, for example, _quarum unam incolunt Belgae_ is better to be translated as a passive sentence in English just to preserve the fact that _Belgae_ is not TOPIC but RHEME (e.g., see the excellent chapter on word order in Dirk Panhuis's &quot;Latin Grammar&quot;, where this sentence is analyzed)." CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:34:48.783" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20514" PostId="11098" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta - I'm sorry, but my rudiment knowledge of Latin doesn't allow me to post it as an answer. I do appreciate your enthusiasm, but no, the peers have answered, I have nothing to add." CreationDate="2019-07-10T20:17:37.833" UserId="1410" />
  <row Id="20510" PostId="11103" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the Latin site!" CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:18:14.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20509" PostId="11104" Score="0" Text="Perhaps more obvious than *alphai* and *betai* would be *omicra* and *epsila*. Different letters suggest different kinds of plurals, and I would be interested in seeing whether they all behave the same." CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:12:14.120" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20512" PostId="11104" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta True! I left off omega, omicron, epsilon, and ypsilon because those are later names, and I'm not sure they were actually treated as *names* or just as modifiers on the names (that is, if the plural of *o micron* would be *o micra*, with the *o* still being indeclinable)." CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:22:04.817" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20518" PostId="11108" Score="1" Text="Thank you for this extraordinarily detailed and comprehensive answer! Your last paragraph really makes the point, as in my own language we sometimes do not distinguish between iron and steel. Coliquially both are called Barzel, the word for iron, and context is used to understand which. The metallurgical  and production differences between iron and steel are very similar those between copper and bronze." CreationDate="2019-07-11T06:09:18.317" UserId="321" />
  <row Id="20527" PostId="11108" Score="0" Text="Compare *crater*, for which wiktionary assigns a root &quot;to mix&quot;, via &quot;mixing bowl&quot;, which is a bit of a stretch, but &quot;mix&quot; fits the topic." CreationDate="2019-07-11T18:45:46.057" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="20529" PostId="11108" Score="0" Text="@vectory Also possible! As far as I can tell, the oldest mention of *crateroma* is in Hesychius, who just defines it as &quot;a type of bronze&quot;. I don't know much about ancient culinary vessels but it's entirely possible *crateroma* was ideal for making bowls out of, instead of being *crateros* (strong)." CreationDate="2019-07-11T19:58:30.883" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20533" PostId="11108" Score="0" Text="Anyhow, your question treats primarily Ancient Greek, but the question concerns modern Greek. Wiktionary translates both brass and bronze as *oreichalcos*, and then some more for bronze, but *crateroma* does not appear." CreationDate="2019-07-12T07:34:49.767" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26293" PostId="11108" Score="0" Text="Just as a minor comment on your (excellent) translation, I would take οὐ παραμιγνυμένου αὐτῷ κασσιτέρου, ἀλλὰ γῆς τινὸς αὐτοῦ γινομένης καὶ συνεψομένης αὐτῷ as meaning &quot;because it is not mixed with tin, but with a certain kind of earth that is found there (αὐτοῦ γινομένης) [and is] smelted with it&quot;. Btw καρτέρωμα looks like it's derived from κρατερόω/καρτερόω &quot;be strong&quot;, so not related to mixing bowls." CreationDate="2020-05-13T19:23:51.017" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20515" PostId="11109" Score="0" Text="Perfect, this is just what I was looking for! What does the &quot;v.l.&quot; mean before _sigmatos_? And what time period are _Eust._ and _Id._ from?" CreationDate="2019-07-10T22:47:48.163" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20525" PostId="11109" Score="0" Text="v(aria) l(ectio). id(em). But who is Eust?" CreationDate="2019-07-11T14:21:39.463" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20526" PostId="11109" Score="1" Text="Eustathius of Thessalonike, a 12C Byzantine scholar." CreationDate="2019-07-11T16:57:58.293" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20537" PostId="11110" Score="1" Text="Thanks: this answer really settles it! Tangentially, learning toward a topic better for linguistics.SE, it also explains to me why Russians I've encountered are also puzzled by the directional particles in English even as Russian has directional prefixes on verbs like Latin. Bottom line, I won't be reticent about framing motion the English way in Latin—but will invoke a new verb for each &quot;segment&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-12T18:55:40.323" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20538" PostId="11110" Score="0" Text="Just to be sure: does &quot;PP&quot; above mean &quot;prepositional phrase&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-07-12T18:58:28.237" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20545" PostId="11110" Score="0" Text="Yes, PP means &quot;prepositional phrase&quot;. As for your comment above (&quot;I will invoke a new verb for each &lt;Path/directional&gt; segment&quot;), notice that this is the typical case of Romance languages (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/how-complex-a-motion-event-can-be-in-classical-latin). However, in this sense Latin is not like Romance but is not like Germanic either. This is expected since Latin, as a &quot;weak satellite-framed language&quot; is to be placed in the middle with respect to strong satellite-framed languages like English and verb-framed languages like Spanish." CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:57:41.183" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20546" PostId="11110" Score="0" Text="So my prediction/hypothesis is that Latin is like Polish in this respect (e.g., see the summary of the paper  jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.14.1.08lew ), which seems to be confirmed if the authors of the following study on Latin are correct: mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989" CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:59:14.693" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36806" PostId="11110" Score="1" Text="I really enjoyed this answer's short yet lucid overview of this interesting typological distinction and Latin's place along that axis, in particular the distinction between weak and strong satellite-framing." CreationDate="2022-01-22T18:58:47.287" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36820" PostId="11110" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Thanks for your kind words. Glad to know you've found this distinction interesting. By the way, I have a question for you: it seems that both Latin and Russian lack so-called &quot;complex resultative constructions&quot; like _to wipe clean, to hammer flat_, etc (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resultative#Adjectival_resultatives) but does Russian have &quot;simple resultative constructions&quot; like _Omnes consulares (…) partem istam subselliorum nudam atque inanem reliquerunt_ (Cic. Cat. 1, 7)? Cf.  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin" CreationDate="2022-01-23T18:03:31.247" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36821" PostId="11110" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino It seems like it does: *оста́вить дверь откры́той* &quot;to leave the door open&quot;. In these secondary predicate/object complement constructions the adj. is obligatorily in the instrumental; with copular verbs it may be in the nominative with a semantic distinction (nom. inherent, inst. attributable quality or evaluation)." CreationDate="2022-01-23T18:16:16.040" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20524" PostId="11111" Score="4" Text="I don't know whether *vir* can be used this way, but I think the vocative is *vir*. It would actually make a nice question to find the vocatives of second declension masculines who do not end in *-us*." CreationDate="2019-07-11T13:30:15.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20534" PostId="11112" Score="2" Text="What do you think of using &quot;salve&quot; instead of &quot;ave&quot;, as @fdb suggests?" CreationDate="2019-07-12T09:58:32.637" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="20536" PostId="11112" Score="1" Text="@Charlie Also works, though to me it's a little bit more…formal? &quot;Hello!&quot; instead of &quot;Hey!&quot; or something like that." CreationDate="2019-07-12T16:31:35.440" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20540" PostId="11116" Score="1" Text="I agree. _Numquid censetis?_ sounds quite idiomatic and appropriate. By the way, as for the less idiomatic alternative you mention above (&quot;You could just ask 'sententiae?'&quot;), I think it would be better to put it in accusative." CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:33:04.420" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20552" PostId="11116" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I like *numquid censetis* quite a lot too for this purpose. I added the accusative option to the standalone version. I could see the implicit part being *habetisne* or *suntne*, and they take different cases. But that is secondary, as a more natural phrasing takes a different approach." CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:07:28.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20547" PostId="11117" Score="0" Text="Latin has an astounding number of words for &quot;kill&quot;. Can you tell us a little more context: what you want to say, the situation where you want to say it, who's killing and who's being killed? That'll help someone choose an appropriate way to say it." CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:05:55.790" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20548" PostId="11117" Score="1" Text="And by the way, you've come to the right place. [Google Translate is so bad, it should be disregarded completely.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4352/118)" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:08:10.013" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20549" PostId="11117" Score="1" Text="&quot;A has killed B&quot; (B was killed by A). In my context death in battle or by a sword or something like that should work. Hope that clarifies the question :)" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:08:30.303" UserId="4934" />
  <row Id="20551" PostId="11117" Score="2" Text="For anyone wanting to look over and weigh the choices, [this blog post](https://foundinantiquity.com/2013/07/20/far-too-many-latin-words-for-kill/) by Carla Hurt lists 33 verbs for &quot;kill&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:02:25.250" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20554" PostId="11117" Score="1" Text="Ben, many thanks for this great link! It's really wonderful!" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:22:20.743" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20563" PostId="11118" Score="0" Text="In one translation of *deditus* the *de-* implies things have gone awry -held hostage; in the other *de-* is an intensifier, absolutely hooked on. This is another case where vowel length keeps readers on their toes." CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:31:47.557" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20566" PostId="11118" Score="1" Text="Another candidate, inspired by @Hugh's comment: [delacrimo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=delacrimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)." CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:09:23.107" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20570" PostId="11118" Score="2" Text="Thanks for the examples &amp; comments on the intensive meaning of prefix _de-_. Yes, a prefixed denominal verb like _delacrimo_ can also mean to cry intensively but in this post I was wondering if (semi)idiomatic verbal phrases like &quot;prefix-activity verb + direct object (body part)&quot; are possible in Latin, i.e., examples where the verbal root expresses an activity (e.g., crying), the prefix expresses a Path/Result (e.g., out) and the direct object is a body part or related entity: e.g., cf. the Russian example at the end of my question ." CreationDate="2019-07-13T00:17:47.727" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20553" PostId="11119" Score="1" Text="Re: the context, Sol and filius seem to me to unambiguously refer to Jesus, Pater to God, Mater and (probably) filia to Mary. The second verse reminds me of Dante, Divine Comedy, Paradisio 33, 1: &quot;Vergine madre, figlia del tuo figlio&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:10:47.917" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20564" PostId="11119" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Te [hanc quæstionem](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11094/118) videre quæso." CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:48:58.270" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="42845" PostId="11119" Score="0" Text="Sol does not refer to the physical Sun. It refers to the person, the Son Jesus Christ, who rose from the grave and will never set (die) again. Not that hard to understand really." CreationDate="2023-04-07T21:52:03.420" UserId="13356" />
  <row Id="42846" PostId="11119" Score="0" Text="@Pudy Rafael already mentioned that above. There's no need for additional rudeness." CreationDate="2023-04-07T22:46:57.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="20556" PostId="11120" Score="0" Text="Thank you for a very detailed answer! I understand that it would be awkward, but would you use um ending every time?  For instance in my particular case &quot;Ludwig killed Maria&quot; should I go with &quot;Ludwig Marium occidit&quot; or better stick with &quot;Ludwig occidit Maria&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:32:55.677" UserId="4934" />
  <row Id="20557" PostId="11120" Score="0" Text="@DanilLuzin Since &quot;Marīa&quot; is a Latin name, I would always decline it: the accusative is *Marīam*. (Or *Mariam*; the mark over the *i* indicates a slight pronunciation difference that disappeared in later Latin.)" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:40:59.563" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20558" PostId="11120" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Awesome! Thank you very much as well!" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:42:30.433" UserId="4934" />
  <row Id="20559" PostId="11120" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I'm glad to be able to help! I updated the answer a bit to include a translation for that specific case and to mention that the required ending depends heavily on the word. Knowing how to get all the forms right is a big part of knowing Latin." CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:42:45.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20555" PostId="11121" Score="3" Text="Tibi gratulor, quod iam mille puncta tulisti!" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:27:17.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20560" PostId="11121" Score="0" Text="Ah, _occasus_ is fourth declension! Thanks, that straightens out the grammar—and this was my first encounter with _nescius._ One question remains, though: what does the sentence mean? Is it &quot;The Sun rises, not knowing how to set?&quot; Not knowing that setting even exists?" CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:24:14.273" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20562" PostId="11121" Score="1" Text="Draconis's answer might have it: &quot;ignorant of its own setting&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:28:25.373" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20561" PostId="11122" Score="0" Text="Ah, I think you've answered the question in my [comment to Mitomino](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11119/occasus-nescius/11122#comment20560_11121)." CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:27:46.957" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20565" PostId="11122" Score="0" Text="[This page](https://www.millenniumofmusic.com/playlist/crown-veil-music-from-medieval-female-monasteries/) translates it &quot;The Sun rises, the one that never sets.&quot; Could that be right— *nescius* meaning metonymically &quot;it never happens&quot; since what never happens is unknown?" CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:56:22.573" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20568" PostId="11122" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz That's not a usage I've ever heard before, nor one that I can find in L&amp;S, though it's entirely possible it came about later." CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:47:54.653" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20579" PostId="11122" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: could the genitive of the present-participle, &quot;occidentis&quot;, be used instead of &quot;occasus&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-07-14T12:07:48.533" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20581" PostId="11122" Score="1" Text="@tony Mm, I don't think so; if anything I might use a gerund, _occidendī_. _Occidentis_ would be more like &quot;ignorant of the-thing-that-is-currently-setting&quot;, rather than &quot;ignorant of the-action-of-setting&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-14T16:54:56.957" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20586" PostId="11122" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: The setting is in the future, of course it is; so, not pres. part. Thanks." CreationDate="2019-07-15T11:10:14.457" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20571" PostId="11123" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer, Ben! The Latin verbs of killing are wonderful! And the link to Hurt's blog is indeed VERY useful! Moreover, I appreciate the English translations you give to the last series of Latin examples, which nicely exemply Marouzeau's famous claim that &quot;word order in Latin is free but **not** indifferent&quot;.  Your English translations clearly show the VERY important role of information structure (THEME vs. RHEME // TOPIC vs. FOCUS organization)." CreationDate="2019-07-13T00:40:15.090" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20572" PostId="11123" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino Thanks for confirming that I got those variants right. English speech is filled with locutions like &quot;What works best is to start by sautéing the onions&quot; but these get removed from formal writing because they're clumsy, leaving &quot;Sauté the onions first.&quot; As I learn more Latin, I'm ever more impressed with its elegance—and ease. Contra a lot of 19th-century advice, what works best for reading a Latin sentence turns out to be to start with the first word and go forward, presuming a logical order. :)" CreationDate="2019-07-13T00:58:10.767" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20576" PostId="11129" Score="1" Text="Like the adaption of Caligula's aphorism; but, how does it convey the concept of an enemy conveniently co-operating in his own downfall? Mind, if he's inclined to sleep, so much, he's asking for trouble, by definition." CreationDate="2019-07-14T10:16:40.320" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20577" PostId="11129" Score="0" Text="I've inserted _hostes_. Better, do you think?" CreationDate="2019-07-14T10:46:17.673" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20578" PostId="11129" Score="0" Text="Thank you. May I be a nuisance, please, and ask yourself to comment on the possible misuse of adverb &quot;commode&quot;, as indicated by cnread?" CreationDate="2019-07-14T11:46:54.563" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20580" PostId="11129" Score="1" Text="_Dum_ used in the way seen here suggests a proviso, which ought be sufficient : why dress it up with _commode_, or anything else? @cnread is basically correct, but there really isn't an adverb for 'conveniently' in the exact sense required. You might think of _opportune_, I suppose, or even _forte_, but I really can't see the need for the adverb at all._" CreationDate="2019-07-14T13:41:53.440" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20604" PostId="11130" Score="0" Text="&quot;Socrates was a major opponent of writing.&quot; Don't we only knows this from the *Phaedrus*, which was written by Plato as a kind of performative contradiction?" CreationDate="2019-07-17T14:20:09.390" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20605" PostId="11130" Score="0" Text="@brianpck True, but it's hard to say much about Socrates's actual beliefs without trusting Plato as an unreliable narrator." CreationDate="2019-07-17T16:17:07.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20582" PostId="11135" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! Indeed, the manuscript does include ℟...I just mistook it for a capital rum rotunda due to ignorance. Now I'll be sure to label it correctly." CreationDate="2019-07-15T02:54:49.007" UserId="4913" />
  <row Id="20583" PostId="11135" Score="0" Text="It’s a great adventure you’re undertaking and I hope you will find some way of letting us see the result when you get to the end of it." CreationDate="2019-07-15T06:46:42.530" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20584" PostId="11135" Score="1" Text="This is what I've got so far :-) https://imgur.com/MOHN7Tp" CreationDate="2019-07-15T07:28:55.570" UserId="4913" />
  <row Id="20588" PostId="11139" Score="3" Text="An easy parallel in English: &quot;What will happen next?&quot; =&gt; &quot;He asked me what would happen next.&quot; Latin just does this mood shift consistently." CreationDate="2019-07-15T13:17:14.930" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20594" PostId="11139" Score="1" Text="And if you wanted to say &quot;I am saying what love is&quot; you would use &quot;esse&quot;, since indirect speech uses the infinitive" CreationDate="2019-07-15T21:16:11.987" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20595" PostId="11139" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour. No, that's still an indirect question: dico quid sit amor." CreationDate="2019-07-15T22:14:27.783" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20596" PostId="11139" Score="0" Text="Good point.  &quot;I said that love is not hatred&quot; would use &quot;esse&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-15T22:19:30.663" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20587" PostId="11142" Score="0" Text="FWIW, _ipsissimus_ seems like a more regular construction" CreationDate="2019-07-15T12:49:56.813" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20597" PostId="11144" Score="2" Text="For my taste, Petronius is one of the &quot;best classical authors&quot;. But de gustibus non disputandum est." CreationDate="2019-07-15T22:48:57.380" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20601" PostId="11144" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Wiktionary gives; &quot;ipsimus&quot; : from a theoretic &quot;ipsissimus&quot; (ipse + -issimus) attested in Satyricon. The implication is that Petronius invented &quot;ipsimus&quot; (a theoretic); but; both Plautus &amp; Afranius lived in earlier time periods. The oldest, Plautus (died 184BC) invented it, pushing the barriers of his own language? The others copied it; but it did not catch on, universally? Therefore, is it strictly true that &quot;the superlative does not exist&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-07-17T10:05:21.500" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20603" PostId="11144" Score="0" Text="@tony I do stand by &quot;in good classical style the superlative does not exist&quot;, but I recognize that different people will have different opinions of what &quot;good classical style&quot; means. For example, if Cicero had considered the superlative proper Latin, I am quite sure he would have used it, but he didn't. The word does exist, but the question is: in what kinds of Latin does it exist?" CreationDate="2019-07-17T10:50:34.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20589" PostId="11146" Score="0" Text="Related question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5039/how-did-met-ipse-issimus-compound-to-mean-the-same-in-metipsimus" CreationDate="2019-07-15T14:59:15.443" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20590" PostId="11146" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Oh, I see now that this question is part of a larger conversation, which I had missed. _Bene, repetita iuvant..._" CreationDate="2019-07-15T15:30:51.823" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20591" PostId="11146" Score="0" Text="I fail to see how being a calque on the Greek disqualifies ipsissimus from being good classical Latin. After all, it is used by Plautus." CreationDate="2019-07-15T15:57:13.420" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20592" PostId="11146" Score="3" Text="@fdb What disqualifies _ipsissimus_ is its low frequency. Being a calque on the Greek justifies its very existence. Unfortunately, we cannot know for sure how the comic poets’ public reacted to that word: maybe it was a joke in itself, and later readers didn’t get it..." CreationDate="2019-07-15T16:18:24.737" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20593" PostId="11146" Score="1" Text="Very nice! I honestly would interpret that part of Donatus differently, though: he treats *nomina* (nouns+adjectives) and pronouns as separate categories, and forbids using superlatives of certain types of *nomina* — but *ipse* isn't a *nomen* to begin with." CreationDate="2019-07-15T20:45:57.273" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20599" PostId="11148" Score="1" Text="If *ébahir* does come from *baer*, an old form of *bayer* meaning &quot;open&quot;, you misinterpret the &quot;imitative origin&quot;, etymologists mention an **onomatopoeic** origin, not a visual one." CreationDate="2019-07-17T07:15:46.773" UserId="4940" />
  <row Id="20600" PostId="11148" Score="1" Text="*Bayer* comes from late Latin *batare* (found in a VIIth century commentary), from *bat* an onomatopoeic verb used to imitate the noise one makes when opening the mouth.&#xA;On line sources (Alain Rey *[Dictionnaire historique de la langue française*](https://books.google.fr/books?id=Pi8wQTpjJ34C&amp;pg=PT2441&amp;lpg=PT2441&amp;dq=%22Dictionnaire+Historique+de+la+langue+fran%C3%A7aise%22+bayer&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=mvjza8tiUv&amp;sig=ACfU3U0D270b-wPUR4QMeXh-fHWV9QGy0w&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_qc_LqrvjAhVHBGMBHQV8BE0Q6AEwBXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), [Littré](https://www.littre.org/definition/bayer)...)." CreationDate="2019-07-17T07:15:56.173" UserId="4940" />
  <row Id="20606" PostId="11148" Score="0" Text="@Laure I was referring to onomatopoeia. I wasn't referring to visual imitation." CreationDate="2019-07-17T19:25:59.307" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20611" PostId="11149" Score="0" Text="CIL IV, 8899 is a poem (two elegiac couplets), which might indicate that it is older." CreationDate="2019-07-18T13:59:57.643" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20612" PostId="11149" Score="1" Text="See the discussion here: https://thepetrifiedmuse.blog/2013/12/19/digesting-food-for-thought/" CreationDate="2019-07-18T14:02:09.610" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20607" PostId="11152" Score="0" Text="edit: paragraphs? Thank you so much for that detailed explanation! It sparked my curiosity for that beware of the dog line, &quot;Cave Canem&quot;- imagine how well that sign would do at doctors / dentist offices :). &#xA;Dental Practice XYZ:&#xA;Dens Sana In Corpore Sanem -Cave Canem hah!&#xA;&#xA;&quot;...should be in the vocative if...&quot; &#xA;&#xA;Is this similar to the &quot;imperative form/Impératif&quot; in english / french? &#xA;For ex. &quot;Viens ici. / Come here!&quot;&#xA;&quot;Taisez-vous / Shut up!&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I vagely remember a class on Porsenna &amp; Gaius Mucius... but my memory is failing me. All in all, I love your final translation. It's beautiful." CreationDate="2019-07-17T21:15:15.470" UserId="4941" />
  <row Id="20608" PostId="11152" Score="0" Text="&quot;...Requiem mass: ad te omnis caro veniet = &quot;to thee all flesh shall come...&quot; - sounds ethereal, I'm putting that on my To Read list. Thank you!" CreationDate="2019-07-17T21:17:42.430" UserId="4941" />
  <row Id="20609" PostId="11152" Score="0" Text="@anne95nl No problem! (Unfortunately paragraphs don't work in comments.) The vocative is a special noun form used when you're talking to someone directly: &quot;Brutus is going to the forum&quot; would use the nominative _Brutus_, while &quot;Hey! Brutus! Go to the forum!&quot; would use the vocative _Brute_. (Hence, &quot;et tu, Brute?&quot;) But for the majority of words, like 75% of all nouns, the vocative looks exactly like the nominative and you don't have to worry about it." CreationDate="2019-07-17T21:19:25.743" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20610" PostId="11152" Score="0" Text="@anne95nl (Also, the Requiem mass is a lovely example of Church Latin; not too hard to translate if you're interested in that dialect.)" CreationDate="2019-07-17T21:20:16.727" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20613" PostId="11153" Score="0" Text="Of course there have been discoveries since Dufresne, Compte duCange. Wangle your way onto the Anglo-French research site to keep up-to-date." CreationDate="2019-07-18T17:44:50.673" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20617" PostId="11154" Score="0" Text="The sign over the door of Plato’s Academy might have never existed, but the article you link to mentions examples of Greek inscriptions of the type _No {female/male/slave/infidel} admitted_ which were actually found at temples. Very good lead!" CreationDate="2019-07-19T06:59:02.837" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20635" PostId="11156" Score="0" Text="It took two years minus one week, but I think we finally have the right answer. Thanks, and welcome to latin.stackexchange.com!" CreationDate="2019-07-20T13:54:11.200" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20618" PostId="11160" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! Your answers have already earned you enough reputation to vote up any questions and answers you like. If you haven't already, take a look at [our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) to learn more about the site's functions." CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:16:30.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20626" PostId="11160" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for your introduction, I will take a look at the tour!" CreationDate="2019-07-19T14:55:47.857" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="20616" PostId="11162" Score="0" Text="I am not sure I understand this sentence: “gramatically it is still no diminuitive as it does not have an non-diminuitive origin.” Could you please check it?" CreationDate="2019-07-19T06:34:46.067" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="20625" PostId="11162" Score="0" Text="@DaG Normally, every diminuitive has got a non-diminuitive origin. For example, parvulus is a diminuitive and its origin is parvus. But credulus does not have an origin like that as the word credus does not exist. Therefore, I do not consider this a real diminuitive." CreationDate="2019-07-19T14:53:58.890" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="20620" PostId="11163" Score="1" Text="I warmly recommend that you ask your questions in a format closer to what I edited this one into. Keep to the point and don't quote Etymonline entries. You can give a link and quote a couple of words as needed. If you want to make a question longer, do so by adding your own elaboration written in paragraphs of text. Also, please remember that not everything in languages and etymology can be made sense of. Etymology does not imply meaning." CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:43:39.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20621" PostId="11164" Score="1" Text="I could cite (in the interest of increasing confusion) re**lig**io as another kind of &quot;binding&quot;. Laws do bind, after all." CreationDate="2019-07-19T08:17:13.080" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20622" PostId="11164" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski Good point! I had meant to have an interpretation of law using both *lego* and *ligo*. I now added the binding view. (Regarding your recent flag, you can see a response [on your flag page](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/831). If you want to discuss further, I suggest [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) or [meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/).)" CreationDate="2019-07-19T08:21:59.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22589" PostId="11165" Score="0" Text="Great answer!  So then I guess _credulus_ means gullible because you repeatedly believe something - a sort of &quot;fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me&quot; idea." CreationDate="2019-09-25T08:09:44.500" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="20713" PostId="11167" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Sorry for rolling back. I did incorporate some of your rewrite into the roll-back. I thought to keep the side-by-side screenshot that makes comparing definitions easier. I hope you don't mind? What do you think?" CreationDate="2019-07-27T02:28:18.297" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="21126" PostId="11167" Score="0" Text="I've been away from the site for some time, so don't know why the downvotes. Any idea?" CreationDate="2019-08-23T10:23:02.487" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="36706" PostId="11167" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho I have no idea why this question was downvoted. To me, it looks like a very good question." CreationDate="2022-01-18T21:11:03.403" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20637" PostId="11169" Score="1" Text="I updated my answer with a reading of this construction. I would be curious to see what you think of it." CreationDate="2019-07-20T17:46:59.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20638" PostId="11169" Score="0" Text="I fully agree with you. Yes, **possession** is the BASIC semantic notion involved in _habere_ + accusative constructions and _esse_ + dative constructions. There are other CONTEXTUAL (i.e., non-basic or derived) notions involved in the latter constructions (e.g., &quot;dative of agent&quot;, &quot;dative of relation&quot; or &quot;dativus iudicantis&quot;, etc.) but the central or prototypical one is possession: e.g., as for &quot;dative of agent&quot;, see your answer and my question. As for _dativus iudicantis_, one can also establish a parallelism between _Quintia formosa est mihi_ and _Habeo Quintiam formosam_." CreationDate="2019-07-20T20:51:12.497" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20639" PostId="11169" Score="0" Text="Still, the structural, i.e., syntactic, problem I have with _currendum habeo_ remains. In principle, an allegedly **transitive** verb like _habere_ would involve an object. Assuming that _currendum_ is a gerundive form (i.e., a verbal **adjective**), one would not expect _currendum habeo_ to be well-formed  for the same reason that one would not expect _Habeo formosam_ to be well-formed without any direct object. For an admittedly controversial explanation, see my preliminary analysis above: there is a null expletive object that the gerundive is predicatively applied to." CreationDate="2019-07-20T21:02:49.773" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20642" PostId="11169" Score="0" Text="An alternative proposal is to consider _currendum_ as a gerund (hence a **substantive**) in _currendum habeo_. That option would indeed satisfy the object requirement of a transitive verb like _habere_ but would involve other problems. Ditto for _currendum est mihi_, where _currendum_ could also be considered a gerund in...nominative case? No way! I would then stick to the gerundive analysis in both transitive (_currendum habeo_) and intransitive (_currendum est mihi_) constructions and would pay the price of positing a null expletive noun (marked with accusative and nominative, respectively)." CreationDate="2019-07-20T21:37:37.450" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20627" PostId="11170" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, Joonas! Your examples are very useful, indeed! As for your VERY important remark &quot;I found far fewer examples of a gerund(ive) with _habere_ without an object&quot;, this is what is expected since the gerundive, as a verbal **adjective**, must have an object to be predicated of. The interesting point is that these examples without object already existed in Classical Latin, even in Quintilian! By the way, I see you consider the possibility that in these rare cases without object the _-nd-_ form could be a gerund (cf. your parentheses in &quot;gerund(ive)&quot;). Very interesting, indeed!" CreationDate="2019-07-19T19:37:38.210" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20676" PostId="11170" Score="1" Text="Tony, as for the &quot;gerundive plus _habere_&quot;, the transitive construction (e.g., _ibi agrum de nostro patre colendum habebat_) is not surprising. For the syntactic reasons mentioned above, what is more intriguing is the intransitive one (e.g., _pugnandum habebam_). It could be the case that the latter was more typical of colloquial Latin, in contrast to _mihi pugnandum erat_. In any case, notice that _habere_ + accusative and _esse_ + dative are related constructions in many languages. In fact, some linguists derive HAVE from &quot;BE + Preposition&quot;. E.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.10.009" CreationDate="2019-07-23T23:25:56.980" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20688" PostId="11170" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Would all of the expressions work without &quot;habere&quot;? &quot;There is a field, from our father, it-ought-to-be-cultivated.&quot;; &quot;Dates, with figs, it-ought-to-be-fought.&quot;: these do not require a form of &quot;habere&quot;. It is necessary in &quot;...ut praeter auctoritatem vires quoque ad coercendum haberet.&quot; (with the result that, beyond his authority, he would also have the power for the purpose of restraining.) because it is an &quot;ut&quot; clause requiring a subjunctive. The use of &quot;habere + acc.&quot; is understood if &quot;habere&quot; is necessary; predicative dative e.g. auxilio esse = to be helpful. In &quot;pugnandum habebam" CreationDate="2019-07-25T09:10:17.527" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20690" PostId="11170" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Apart from the &quot;ut&quot; clause, would the expressions in your answer work without a form of &quot;habere&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-07-25T09:16:10.943" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20692" PostId="11170" Score="0" Text="@tony I think a form of *habere* or *esse* is needed, but *esse* can sometimes be left implicit. I wouldn't leave it out here, though, so I'd say you can't drop the *habere*. The way I see it, this is simply a construction by analogy: *mihi tempus est &gt; tempus habeo* is like *mihi currendum est &gt; currendum habeo*. The semantics of the gerundive work the same way whether it's *esse* or *habere*. At least I see nothing more in it, but separate follow-up questions are always welcome." CreationDate="2019-07-25T15:04:50.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20636" PostId="11171" Score="1" Text="Are you also interested in parallel texts, e.g. Loeb editions? It would actually be quite interesting to see if any good research has been done on this. It's well known (and obvious) that we don't retain vocabulary as well if we don't spend time looking it up, but I wonder if that is offset by the enormous benefit of getting through much more text." CreationDate="2019-07-20T14:32:48.817" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20643" PostId="11171" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I had to give that some thought but in the end I think I'm only interested in interlinear texts.  This is because they claim the word-for-word translation is an aid to gaining fluency in reading Latin.  Conversely, I understand parallel texts, with their more polished interpretation of the Latin, have accessibility to a non-Latin reading audience as a chief aim." CreationDate="2019-07-21T01:02:39.247" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="20645" PostId="11171" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Although, on reflection, an interesting question might be to contrast the pedagogical usefulness of literal translations with more polished translations.  Do literal translations, for instance, turn reading into more of a code-cracking exercise?  Perhaps I should try to formulate another formal question about this to post?" CreationDate="2019-07-21T02:32:14.353" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="20646" PostId="11171" Score="1" Text="When I was relearning Latin a few years ago, I found Loeb editions very useful.  I would have hated an interlinear text....too much help.  With facing text, it was easy not to look at the English unless I was really stuck." CreationDate="2019-07-21T02:35:10.210" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20664" PostId="11171" Score="0" Text="It's subjective, but I find this format hideously distracting. I would rather have a clean text, and then a translation or notes elsewhere. I want to have at least one run through a completely clean text to form my own ideas before looking at anything else. The mental effort it takes for me to not look at the helps keeps me from reading." CreationDate="2019-07-23T01:20:32.980" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20672" PostId="11171" Score="0" Text="It just happens that there is an interlinear text on an Old French blog https://tvof.ac.uk/blog/yo-du-gr%C3%A9co-latin-au-rap-en-passant-par-philippe-de-thaon-les-voyages-dune-interjection And if that is ephemeral the newly digitised ms is of Des lettres enclavées dans le MS Paris,  &#xA;BnF, lat. 12219, f. Bv.  And ad hoc interlinear versions have been most useful to me for transcription, where printouts can be  enlarged and annotated. Is it Kells that has interlinear translation?" CreationDate="2019-07-23T14:58:47.410" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="20677" PostId="11171" Score="0" Text="Speaking of French, these juxtalinéaire editions from the late 1800s provide the best of three worlds - the clean original text; a polished translation; and an interlinear (well, juxtalinear) translation!  https://www.arretetonchar.fr/traductions-juxtalineaires/" CreationDate="2019-07-23T23:29:39.883" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="20647" PostId="11173" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Your translation is correct in a sense, yet the best translation may depend on who is/are learning and other details. Any further detail you could provide would help" CreationDate="2019-07-21T13:27:34.397" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20648" PostId="11173" Score="1" Text="I was thinking &quot;(I am) always learning,&quot; or (We are) always learning." CreationDate="2019-07-21T13:34:25.880" UserId="4950" />
  <row Id="20649" PostId="11173" Score="0" Text="I'm not exactly sure what is implied by the Marine's motto SEMPER FIDELIS." CreationDate="2019-07-21T13:35:06.120" UserId="4950" />
  <row Id="20673" PostId="11173" Score="1" Text="_Semper dicens_ is the motto of [Kean University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kean_University)." CreationDate="2019-07-23T18:01:05.347" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="20650" PostId="11174" Score="0" Text="Awesome. Thank you for this!!" CreationDate="2019-07-21T14:33:50.693" UserId="4950" />
  <row Id="20680" PostId="11175" Score="2" Text="Hm... do mottos generally take the vocative case?" CreationDate="2019-07-24T15:15:47.663" UserId="4950" />
  <row Id="20704" PostId="11175" Score="0" Text="Yes, I would say so as they are always something like an attribute you have. You do not only live in accordance to your motto but always in general, just like you can have brown hair." CreationDate="2019-07-26T11:43:12.383" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="20654" PostId="11176" Score="3" Text="Hi Burcu, and welcome to the site! Could you supply some more context, and more details about what exactly you want to convey? &quot;Love&quot; can mean a lot of things in English, and that affects the Latin translation." CreationDate="2019-07-21T22:26:38.223" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42557" PostId="11178" Score="0" Text="İf I use intellectus as the noun will it take &quot;que&quot; again as in &quot;ratioque&quot; to give the meaning &quot;and&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-03-11T21:11:38.953" UserId="4951" />
  <row Id="20679" PostId="11181" Score="1" Text="I was finally able to [find this in the LXX](https://archive.org/details/cu31924012092437/page/n841). (Most versions online only include the shorter version, which is in more manuscripts but which Jerome did not use.) It has &quot;Πόθεν εἶ, νεανίσκε,&quot; which is a pretty straightforward, &quot;Where are you from, young man?&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-24T15:02:28.353" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20674" PostId="11183" Score="5" Text="Be careful: this is Jerome's Latin translation of a (lost) Aramaic text that was dictated to him in Hebrew. We have two Greek versions of Tobit, of which the second is quite close to the Aramaic text. Regardless, it's quite likely that the unusual construction ought to be explained with reference to the language of composition. I know very little about Semitic languages, so I can't speak to whether the first-person plural is patronizing in that context." CreationDate="2019-07-23T20:22:06.383" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20678" PostId="11183" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Right, and it's worth pointing out that Hebrew (I don't know about Aramaic) lacks a verb *have*, so we're probably not dealing with an exact translation in any case." CreationDate="2019-07-24T00:22:29.087" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36997" PostId="11184" Score="0" Text="I wrap my head around this possibility by imagining that the early Romans felt no need for a year divided in months.  If the months were needed to mark agriculturally important times, as in some cultures today, the winter months might have been unnecessary to demark with any special names.  You then could have priests deciding when to prepare for the new year in February during the count down to the first new moon or Kalendae of spring in March." CreationDate="2022-02-03T21:58:06.257" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36998" PostId="11184" Score="0" Text="As you come into contact with cultures that are more astronomically oriented, you might want to start counting down by using months dated from some time near the solstice, i.e., January, and show off your new scientific sophistication." CreationDate="2022-02-03T22:00:43.783" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="20682" PostId="11185" Score="1" Text="Does someone living within a province of the Empire count, even if they wrote in Greek rather than Latin?" CreationDate="2019-07-24T18:02:18.593" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20683" PostId="11185" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That would indeed count. It sounds like you have something specific in mind, and I'd be happy to see that. My only reason to restrict to Latin is that my Greek is... rusty." CreationDate="2019-07-24T18:04:36.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20684" PostId="11185" Score="6" Text="Tacitus also often gives several versions of what happened at a certain time, and mentions how credible they are, e.g. in the Annales. I'm sure various historians other than Tacitus and Livius did this as well." CreationDate="2019-07-24T18:40:30.433" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20685" PostId="11185" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Would it be possible to expand that into an answer, even a short one?" CreationDate="2019-07-24T18:47:27.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20686" PostId="11185" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: I'm afraid I don't have any specific passages at hand." CreationDate="2019-07-24T19:12:08.647" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20681" PostId="11186" Score="1" Text="Many thanks! We do in fact have [a question on &quot;fake news&quot; in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4854/79), and that finding of yours would fit there nicely." CreationDate="2019-07-24T16:04:24.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20687" PostId="11186" Score="0" Text="I was hoping someone would bring up Valerius Antias. In grad school, I took a seminar on the Roman annalists, and my project for the term was all about V.A. Since then, I've always had a bit of a soft spot for him. +1" CreationDate="2019-07-24T22:15:05.933" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="32566" PostId="11186" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been elected one of the best answers of 2019.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/490/79)" CreationDate="2021-04-13T20:44:54.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20696" PostId="11191" Score="3" Text="It's an interesting construction, but I don't quite understand what kind of answer you're looking for -- what could the answer to the &quot;why&quot; question be beyond &quot;because that's how this construction works&quot;? (Unless you're asking about the historical origin of the construction, that is.)" CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:02:03.313" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20697" PostId="11191" Score="0" Text="Yes, the grammatical &quot;logic&quot; of this construction can be related to (hopefully, even explained by) its historical origin. So any comment on its historical formation will also be VERY helpful (e.g., to understand the cases involved in it: genitive and accusative). In fact, notice that in my post I related genitive case here to the **diachronic** formation of these verbs (in particular, to the fact that they could be denominal in their ORIGIN). But perhaps this explanation of its genitive case is false/wrong." CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:09:44.380" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20698" PostId="11192" Score="0" Text="As for your analysis of the accusative case in _**me** pudet_, I agree with you that this causative interpretation is quite natural: 'X makes me to be ashamed'. By the way, when you're saying &quot;such wording is unnatural in many languages (not Finnish!)&quot;, do you mean that this accusative construction can also be impersonal in Finnish? I'm asking this because the personal construction _{Hoc/latine loqui} me pudet_ is indeed found in many languages. What is really unexpected is to find an **impersonal** causative verb assigning accusative case (cf. so-called &quot;Burzio's Generalization&quot; above)." CreationDate="2019-07-25T23:21:56.393" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20699" PostId="11192" Score="0" Text="As for your analysis of the genitive case in _me pudet **stultitiae**_, I found it quite original to claim that there is a missing noun _causa_ in ablative. To put in Giordano Bruno’s aphorism, “se non è vero, è ben trovato”, i.e., even if it is not true, it is a good story. However, I’m not sure if I want to buy it but in any case I do appreciate your attempt to find an explanation that sounds logical (at least for you!). Thanks also for pointing out the related link/question." CreationDate="2019-07-25T23:23:31.787" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20700" PostId="11192" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Concerning Finnish: &quot;I am ashamed&quot; is most naturally *minua hävettää*, where *minua* (&quot;me&quot;) is the object and *hävettää* is a verb without subject. The structure is exactly as in *me pudet*. In Finnish the cause of shame is expressed with a subject, but the word order is unusual and suggests that it is not really understood semantically as a subject but more as a cause. Furthermore, I have never seen the predicate in any person but third person singular, so only such subjects/causes are possible. The story is the same for many feelings. This may affect my reading of the Latin." CreationDate="2019-07-25T23:36:59.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20702" PostId="11192" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! But are you sure that _minua_ is accusative? Or is it rather **partitive**? What about _minut hävettää_, where _minut_ is accusative? Burzio's generalization predicts that the latter is impossible. In contrast, the co-appareance of an impersonal verb with a partitive object would **not** involve a violation of the abovementioned linguistic generalization. This prevents, for example, the existence of an impersonal causative verb with an accusative object (but not with a partitive one)." CreationDate="2019-07-26T02:15:28.613" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20703" PostId="11192" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino It's indeed partitive, but both of the two cases can be used for transitive objects. *Minut* is impossible. If you want to discuss Finnish further, we should take it to the chat instead." CreationDate="2019-07-26T07:39:47.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20712" PostId="11192" Score="1" Text="Thanks, Joonas, for your kind invitation to take it to the chat. The truth is that I'm not used to this system and when I used it, I never talked in English (I think that the last time I used it was about 15 years ago or so!). But I see why you say this. Otherwise, the section of comments could increase indefinitely, which makes no sense." CreationDate="2019-07-26T20:40:13.493" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20709" PostId="11194" Score="1" Text="Interesting question. Do you know if there are other such cases in Latin? Just as another data point, Hebrew (my first language) would also disallow *do it* in this context. I wonder about Greek; my guess is that ποιέω/πράττω would be odd and πάσχω would be preferred, but I could be wrong." CreationDate="2019-07-26T18:08:16.737" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20724" PostId="11194" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, TKR, for your comment on Hebrew and for your suggestion about the need of trying to obtain more similar cases of this phenomenon in Latin. I've just reformulated my question above accordingly." CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:18:49.807" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20706" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="Yes, in Romance languages like Catalan or Spanish, you cannot use _facere id_ 'to do it' (e.g., Cat. 'fer-ho' and Sp. 'hacerlo') to reassume a previous stative verb. Cf. the well-formedness of Cat. &quot;La Maria aprèn llatí i en Pau també ho fa&quot; (lit. 'Mary learns Latin and Pau also does it') with the ill-formedness of Cat. &quot;La Maria sap llatí i en Pau també ho fa&quot; (lit. 'Mary knows Latin and Pau also does it'). The contrast has to do with the fact that _aprendre_ 'to learn' is non-stative, whereas _saber_ 'to know' is stative. _Saber_ is like _odiar_, for example: both are stative predicates." CreationDate="2019-07-26T12:25:40.887" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20708" PostId="11195" Score="2" Text="It seems quite clear that _facere_ in _facere id_ doesn't have the **grammaticalized** status of the English verb _do_ in your example &quot;I hate cod but she doesn't&quot; (or &quot;Peter hates cod, doesn't he?&quot; for that matter). NB: I also pointed out that _do so_ is not exactly the same as _facere id_. So my point here is how to relate the alleged stativity of _odi_ and _amo_ with the non-stativity of _id faciam_." CreationDate="2019-07-26T12:55:32.067" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20738" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@Mitomono; Frankly, I find this Q difficult to follow. Please confirm: &quot;psychological predicates (fear type) are stative&quot;; meaning, a state-of-mind (being in love, in lust) which is an unchanging situation throughout the time frame, under consideration; which, could be a lifetime?" CreationDate="2019-07-29T10:48:20.503" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20739" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Secondly, &quot;translations of &quot;odi&quot; &amp; &quot;amo&quot; ...should ideally incorporate a more agentive component, which is typically missing in &quot;I hate&quot; &amp; &quot;I love,&quot;. The agent appears to be absent? In &quot;the girl was bitten by the dog&quot;, the dog is an agent because he's doing something to the subject. Here, &quot;I loathe and I lust&quot; for whom--an indirect object? Is it your argument that the agent should be making a presence e.g. &quot;I loathe and lust for she who tortures me&quot;--sort of thing? This would require a revamp of the poem which could upset the spirit of Catallus and his, still-living, acolytes?" CreationDate="2019-07-29T11:02:57.410" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20743" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@tony. As for the first question, yes, the time frame of stative verbs like the ones of _fear/timere_ class can be a &quot;lifetime&quot; but this is not necessary (NB: the lexical-aspectual classification of predicates is not based on world knowledge but on our **linguistic** knowledge of them. E.g., cf. the**linguistic** definition of state: http://web.ku.edu/~pyersqr/Ling331/Kearns9.htm )." CreationDate="2019-07-29T14:30:32.743" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20744" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@tony. As for your second question, the point is that _hate_ and _love_ are stative predicates that are **not** agentive. This makes them incompatible with being reassumed by means of an agentive expression like _do it/facere id_. At least this is impossible in Romance languages like Catalan or Spanish (and Hebrew); see above. In contrast, to the extent that &quot;I loathe and I lust&quot; are more agentive than &quot;I hate and I love&quot;, the former would be a more appropriate translation of _Odi and amo_ (in THIS context where all (?) verbs of the 1st verse are more agentive than the ones of the 2nd verse)." CreationDate="2019-07-29T14:38:08.233" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20749" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: That one stative predicate (&quot;I loathe and I lust&quot;) is more compatible with the verbs of 1st verse, I understand; but, why is this more agentive than &quot;I hate and I love&quot;: all are powerful emotions; all can generate crazy/ dangerous behaviour from rape to suicide? In English &quot;loathe&quot; &amp; &quot;hate&quot; are used interchangeably; the difference can only be marginal--how does this affect things? Tried to find examples of agentive verbal phrase, &quot;facere id&quot;; pronoun of choice appears to be &quot;hoc&quot;: &quot;ubi hoc fecit&quot;; &quot;cum hoc fecisset&quot;. The prohibition with 2nd person of perfect-subjunctive," CreationDate="2019-07-30T09:29:58.643" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20750" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Continuing: &quot;ne feceris illud, Marce&quot; = &quot;Don't do that, Marcus!&quot; Of course &quot;illud&quot; is equivalent to &quot;id&quot;: former, illud = &quot;that&quot; (something yonder); id = &quot;that&quot; (something close). Catallus may have used &quot;id&quot; to metaphorically, mentally or physically show how close (personally, intimately) all of this was to his soul. To put stative verbs with a non-stative agentive-verbal expression, he would have called &quot;poetic license&quot;. Maddening, when translating, to see how the great Roman writers conferred meanings upon words that are not included in dictionaries!" CreationDate="2019-07-30T09:44:57.957" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20753" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@tony: I'm not a native speaker of English but as for Romance languages like Catalan and Spanish, it sounds quite odd to reassume stative psychological verbs with &quot;to do it&quot;. To the extent that the alleged stative verb acquires a more physical component (and becomes less &quot;psychological&quot;, so to speak), one can predict that the test of _facere id_ is better. Quite probably, Catullus coerced the meaning of _odisse_ and _amare_ and wanted them to be more agentive in THIS context (see Arkins 2011 above), this being allowed as a sort of &quot;poetic license&quot;, as you say." CreationDate="2019-07-30T15:14:56.387" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20763" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you. Hate to &quot;mither&quot;; but, could yourself, please, confirm the Q: why is &quot;I loathe and lust&quot;  more agentive than &quot;I hate and I love&quot;? Is it that, here, &quot;agentive&quot; means &quot;destructive&quot;/ &quot;dangerous&quot;; less &quot;psychological&quot;, as you said; that is--less a state-of-mind, more a violent reaction?" CreationDate="2019-07-31T12:10:47.410" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20764" PostId="11195" Score="0" Text="I understand that to the extent that &quot;I loathe and lust&quot; involve a more physical meaning (or at I least I deduced this from Arkins 2011) , they can be taken as a bit more agentive than &quot;I hate and love&quot;. Perhaps with &quot;lust&quot; it is more clear but I don't know since I'm not a native speaker of English." CreationDate="2019-07-31T12:16:40.227" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20714" PostId="11199" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! The name &quot;Heal the World&quot; appears to be an order. Is it given to one person (&quot;you individual, heal the world&quot;) or several (&quot;all of you together, heal the world&quot;)? It makes a difference in Latin. Please edit your question to add details." CreationDate="2019-07-27T09:28:05.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20721" PostId="11199" Score="1" Text="Thanks! Several people -- all of you together, heal the world." CreationDate="2019-07-27T19:51:30.840" UserId="4963" />
  <row Id="20722" PostId="11199" Score="0" Text="I edited that into your question and wrote up an answer. Please [take a look at our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) to see the basic functions of the site. And of course, feel free to edit your question further if you want." CreationDate="2019-07-27T20:06:15.583" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20729" PostId="11203" Score="0" Text="Welcome to [latin.se], I hope my comment on your secondary questions helped!" CreationDate="2019-07-28T13:21:26.490" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20716" PostId="11204" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer. I'm using it in conjunction with an equivalent phrase in another language (which I know and speak). So I really want to stay as close to the idea of supremacy/highness as opposed to largeness or goodness. Does that make sense?" CreationDate="2019-07-27T11:38:05.957" UserId="4964" />
  <row Id="20715" PostId="11206" Score="1" Text="I have actually updated my answer with quite a few of the insights arising from the comments along the way." CreationDate="2019-07-27T10:52:03.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20717" PostId="11206" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: With Mitomino's permission we may put this one to bed? Did you read &quot;Nunc Est Bibendum&quot;? Sweated blood on that one; but, then we're supposed to!" CreationDate="2019-07-27T13:28:30.767" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20718" PostId="11206" Score="0" Text="I did indeed read that, and I'd be happy to close this case. The call is Mitomino's; marking an answer as accepted is what ends it definitively. (Or the question can be edited to tell what's missing, but often asking a more specific follow-up question works betters.) I never intended the discussion to meander as long as it did; a separate follow-up question is often (but not always) a better idea after the fifth comment)." CreationDate="2019-07-27T13:47:09.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20719" PostId="11206" Score="0" Text="Thanks, tony, for your useful summary. Thanks, Joonas, for your helpful revision of your answer. I've just marked it as accepted since it addresses the important connection between _habere_ + accusative constructions and _esse_ + dative constructions (the important link being **possession**) by providing a lot of useful examples. Although I've decided to mark Joonas's answer as accepted, notice that the very **specific** question formulated in the title remains to be solved: namely, are there null expletive objects in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-07-27T18:45:21.413" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20720" PostId="11206" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I'm glad to be able help and it was interesting to learn about this construction myself. Having taken this step forward, you can always ask a narrower new question on whether such objects exist." CreationDate="2019-07-27T18:55:41.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20728" PostId="11208" Score="4" Text="Or if you prefer the word order more common in Classical Latin, rather than Mediaeval Latin, **Deus altissimus est**." CreationDate="2019-07-28T11:37:19.233" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="20760" PostId="11208" Score="0" Text="Is there a difference in meaning between the form with &quot;est&quot; in the middle and the form without? I.e. is there a difference between the predicate adjective and a descriptive adjective in Latin. For instance (to avoid the case at hand), in Latin is there a difference between &quot;God is great&quot; and &quot;great God&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-07-31T03:35:20.707" UserId="4964" />
  <row Id="20902" PostId="11209" Score="0" Text="thanks! What about Solvitur Mundum?&#xA;Medeor Mundum?&#xA;Salvificem Mundum? (Save the world, I presume). Are these conjugated correctly and is the vocabulary appropriate? I’m hesitant to use “sanate” just because it’s a cognate to “sanitize” in English, which sounds a bit unpleasant for the name of an early music ensemble. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-08-09T17:24:53.693" UserId="4963" />
  <row Id="20723" PostId="11210" Score="0" Text="Does the Hebrew have a question (&quot;who is like God?&quot;) or a relative clause (&quot;[he] who is like God&quot;)? Latin makes a distinction between *quis* and *qui*, but I don't know about Hebrew." CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:09:40.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20725" PostId="11210" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta all translations I can find put the question mark in the end, but they could be biased by the Latin translation. I don't know Hebrew to give a more solid argument. But had Gregory the Great been wrong, I think we would know (I mean, it's been 1400 years!). Put into context, &quot;[the question is rhetorical](http://www.behindthename.com/name/michael), implying no person is like God&quot;" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:32:40.753" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20726" PostId="11211" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! I like this starting point, but there is a grammatical issue. Because of the dative form *in excelsis Deo* means &quot;to the God in highest&quot;. If you want to say &quot;the God is in highest&quot;, you need to switch *Deo* to *Deus*. You can also add an explicit *est* (&quot;is&quot;) before it if you want." CreationDate="2019-07-28T06:14:29.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20730" PostId="11212" Score="1" Text="@sumelic, thanks for the pointer, it answers my question!&#xA;Before I mark it as duplicate, does the translation look good to you?" CreationDate="2019-07-28T13:54:12.790" UserId="4967" />
  <row Id="20731" PostId="11213" Score="2" Text="I'm afraid I don't have an explanation for θωμενος either, so I can't fully answer question 1—but it's worth noting that the difference between τθ and θθ is an entirely stylistic one. Phonologically there was no distinction between them (either way the aspiration came only at the end of the cluster), so it was just up to scribal convention, and with a text this corrupt I wouldn't put much stock in the choice of one over the other." CreationDate="2019-07-28T17:41:34.327" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20732" PostId="11213" Score="0" Text="@draconis I assume the same holds for πφ vs. φφ and κχ vs. χχ, right?" CreationDate="2019-07-28T18:53:53.100" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20733" PostId="11213" Score="1" Text="Yep, and any other combinations of voiceless + aspirated stops. It's why nobody can agree whether the English adjective should be &quot;cthonic&quot; or &quot;chthonic&quot;: χθ and κθ were pronounced identically so the choice is a conventional one." CreationDate="2019-07-28T19:28:27.767" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20822" PostId="11213" Score="0" Text="@draconis Wiktionary seems to disagree: it reports δίφθογγος as being pronounced with two aspirated consonants in &quot;1CE Egyptian&quot; pronunciation, and regularly evolving into /'ðifþonğos/ in Modern Greek, with þ representing the hard th abd ğ the voiced velar fricative. χθόνιος and χθών are in a similar position, with Attoc 5CE also having double aspiration. Σαπφώ, instead, has double aspiration in 5CE Attic, and only cluster-final aspiration by Egyptian, thus regularly evolving to pf in Modern. So who is right?" CreationDate="2019-08-06T09:44:16.070" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20836" PostId="11213" Score="1" Text="@MickG: From what I remember, the modern Greek pronunciation of δίφθογγος is definitely not a *regular,* as in Demotic, development, because in Demotic sequences of two fricatives were generally avoided (in the case of φθ, Demotic would use /ft/ φτ instead). I'm also doubtful about the /pf/ outcome being regular as opposed to a learned pronunciation based on the spelling with πφ." CreationDate="2019-08-06T18:03:25.487" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20837" PostId="11213" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I had in mind ph-&gt;f and th-&gt;þ (modern sound of theta) when I wrote &quot;regular(ly)&quot;. I didn't know phth actually evolved to ft instead. Is that true of other aspirated consonant clusters, that the second one loses its aspiration and the first one &quot;regularly&quot; spirantizes? (e.g. khth-&gt;xt, x being the sound of chi)" CreationDate="2019-08-06T19:09:41.840" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20839" PostId="11213" Score="1" Text="@MickG: φθ and πτ correspond to Demotic /ft/, χθ and κτ correspond to Demotic /xt/, σθ, σχ, σφ correspond to Demotic /st/, /sk/, /sp/. [relevant Google Books page](https://books.google.com/books?id=vF-pAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA18&amp;lpg=PA18#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)" CreationDate="2019-08-06T19:17:56.570" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20735" PostId="11214" Score="1" Text="I'll write up a proper answer later, but first and foremost: that translation is, as you quite rightly surmised, nonsense. It literally means something like &quot;[I give] my heart to the momentum inside my life weapons&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-28T23:00:54.157" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20783" PostId="11214" Score="0" Text="Will you tell us the placement of the tattoo?  That might have some impact on the appropriate choice of words." CreationDate="2019-08-02T01:14:01.103" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="40244" PostId="11214" Score="0" Text="Un momento en mis brazos y toda la vida en mi corazón." CreationDate="2022-11-01T05:28:57.663" UserId="11720" />
  <row Id="20736" PostId="11216" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! What do you want the name to mean? Or is the meaning irrelevant as long as it's grammatical?" CreationDate="2019-07-29T06:17:21.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20751" PostId="11216" Score="1" Text="Thanks for asking. That's a good question. I've considered either &quot;patron&quot;, as in someone who financially gives to a cause, or &quot;advocate&quot;, someone who promotes or defends an idea." CreationDate="2019-07-30T11:11:37.563" UserId="4970" />
  <row Id="20784" PostId="11217" Score="0" Text="Can't you dispense with the &quot;in&quot;s also, and interpret brachiis and corde as locatives?  Or at least for &quot;corde&quot;?  Locative maybe isn't quite right for the use of &quot;brachiis&quot; in this sentence" CreationDate="2019-08-02T01:16:52.387" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20785" PostId="11217" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour Maybe, but to me the locative doesn't sound right for these nouns; I'm only used to it with place names and a few special words." CreationDate="2019-08-02T04:33:45.710" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40259" PostId="11217" Score="0" Text="Normally a lifetime is aetas. Saeculum means an &quot;age&quot; like an age of civilization." CreationDate="2022-11-02T04:20:25.110" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40260" PostId="11217" Score="0" Text="Also, I hate to be a nudge, but if a Roman read your phrase, he would first think you were talking about something in the branches of trees. Although we say we hold someone &quot;in our arms&quot;, that is not the way the Romans thought about a hug or embrace. In Virgil it says *collo dare bracchia circum* (to throw the arms around the neck), but that is a completely different expression that does not use the word *in*." CreationDate="2022-11-02T05:24:01.620" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="20745" PostId="11219" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, and thanks for your question! Where did you get that translation? Unfortunately, online translation resources are seldom trustworthy. Perhaps if you give us a little more context we can help pulling a better translation." CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:08:16.473" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20759" PostId="11222" Score="0" Text="That was awesome. Thank you for such a thorough walkthrough. I must admit, at first I was not a fan of either patrocinium or patrocinia. But, then, as I type this, patrocinium has grown on me. I'll put it out there for a focus group. I may be able to do a play on that -inium ending and give the branding a metallic theme. I think, however, that most folks will mispronounce it as patro-sin-ium. To be honest, I'm now doubting I can really pull off a Latin name for the platform. Still, I am holding out for at least one more response, hopeful that a great name pops out." CreationDate="2019-07-31T01:46:58.120" UserId="4970" />
  <row Id="20747" PostId="11225" Score="1" Text="Another relevant point is that μή is almost always the negator used in protases. So there really isn't a specific element of &quot;thought or wish&quot; here except insofar as those are always involved in conditionals." CreationDate="2019-07-29T23:17:23.003" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20748" PostId="11225" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good point! I'll add that." CreationDate="2019-07-29T23:17:36.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20752" PostId="11226" Score="0" Text="I would translate &quot;they say&quot; by &quot;dicitur&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-30T11:32:58.313" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="20755" PostId="11226" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine That also works; to me it feels…maybe a bit later?…to use dico instead of inquam, but I'm not sure what I'm basing that on." CreationDate="2019-07-30T17:39:13.663" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20756" PostId="11226" Score="0" Text="I only know _inquam_ for direct quotation, but there are presumably other uses I'm not aware of." CreationDate="2019-07-30T19:59:14.507" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="20789" PostId="11226" Score="0" Text="Do you know of any passages where *incubus/incubo* refers to a nightmare in a way similar to the English word? I was under the impression that it had a distinct sexual meaning, and the passages from Augustine and Isidore cited in the *incubus* entry bear that out." CreationDate="2019-08-03T15:22:54.073" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20761" PostId="11230" Score="2" Text="I agree that the last one of these sounds most natural." CreationDate="2019-07-31T06:57:30.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20774" PostId="11230" Score="2" Text="In my opinion, the last one also sounds quite natural but not so for a general rule or aphorism. E.g., cf. _Illud certissime tua ejus modi opera, diligentia, **consilio consequeris**, ut praeclarum hoc ad cetera adjunxeris tui erga regem ipsum obsequii testimonium et nostrum de tua virtute ac nobiscum judicium mirifice comprobaberis_ (https://books.google.es/books?pg=RA1-PA179&amp;lpg=RA1-PA179&amp;dq=consilio+consequeris&amp;sig=ACfU3U1JDL4ARDPq6_h2eI3nCVr1sjQasg&amp;id=VXM5DLZGihIC&amp;hl=ca&amp;ots=LV4ZgWTaAh#v=onepage&amp;q=consilio%20consequeris&amp;f=true )" CreationDate="2019-07-31T18:06:25.007" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20775" PostId="11231" Score="2" Text="I'm novice in Latin, but I encountered the phrase &quot;Hac ratione&quot; at least in one place to signify &quot;this is why&quot;." CreationDate="2019-07-31T22:20:52.963" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44202" PostId="11233" Score="0" Text="Please recommend &quot;other more advanced grammars&quot; books from linguistic perspective" CreationDate="2023-07-23T09:27:00.140" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="44207" PostId="11233" Score="0" Text="@Tim Harm Pinkster's 2 volumes of his monumental _Oxford Latin Syntax_ (vol. 1 on &quot;The Simple Clause&quot;, published in 2015 &amp; vol. 2 on &quot;The Complex Sentence and Discourse&quot;, published in 2021) are very useful and very detailed, with lots of attested examples. However, if you ask some (personal) _recommendation_ from me, I should rather say that among my favorite (relatively recent) advanced treatments of the Latin language are the ones written by A.M. Devine and L. D. Stephens (e.g. see some relevant textbooks in https://classics.stanford.edu/people/andrew-devine )." CreationDate="2023-07-23T16:33:24.167" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20765" PostId="11235" Score="0" Text="Wow, thank you for such a comprehensive answer, Joonas!" CreationDate="2019-07-31T12:36:51.453" UserId="4967" />
  <row Id="20766" PostId="11235" Score="0" Text="Based on your description it looks like &quot;*meditando*&quot; better conveys my idea.&#xA;What do you think about semantic differences between &quot;*consequeris*&quot; and &quot;*assequeris*&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-07-31T12:50:14.030" UserId="4967" />
  <row Id="20768" PostId="11235" Score="1" Text="@Yuriy I'm glad to be able to help! Based on a quick dictionary look-up, I think *assequi* is a more suitable verb. You can always ask a new question about choosing the most appropriate translation for &quot;achieve&quot; in your context if you want more details on it. There is a long list of possible verbs: *consequi, assequi, perpetrare, perficere, pervincere, patrare, peragere...*" CreationDate="2019-07-31T13:10:24.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20771" PostId="11236" Score="0" Text="There is an additional complex point with _refert_. Unlike _interest_, it seems to be the case that _refert_ does not usually coappear with a genitive in Early &amp; Classical Latin (Sallust's example above is a sort of an exception) but it is true that there are a few examples of this use in Livy and mostly in Silver Latin." CreationDate="2019-07-31T15:43:30.500" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20772" PostId="11236" Score="0" Text="So, if I've understood you correctly (and putting my comment above aside), what you're suggesting is that, for example, in Cicero's example in the title what we have is a {subjacent/abstract genitive} that turns out to be morphologically realized in the surface as ablative." CreationDate="2019-07-31T15:48:44.347" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20778" PostId="11236" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I am actually saying something more. As they are surface realizations of a subjacent genitive, __synchronically__ those forms must be regarded as gender-insensitive genitives, even if we know that __diachronically__ they appear to have started out as feminine ablatives." CreationDate="2019-08-01T13:11:11.850" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20796" PostId="11237" Score="0" Text="When I remember right, there is a lot of evidence that in Homeric Greek the Digamma ϝ /w/ was still present and pronounced. But this is only one feature of Homeric Greek." CreationDate="2019-08-03T21:40:25.890" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="20841" PostId="11237" Score="1" Text="Just a comment here: most classicists  blend their native accents with an Erasmian pronunciation which, broadly speaking, mixes “late” features (φ, θ, χ, σσ, ττ as /f, θ, x, ss, tt/) with “archaic” (ει as /ei/) and “classic” ones  (αι, οι, αυ, ευ, η, υ, β, δ, γ as /ai, oi, au, eu, ε:, y, b, d, g/) There may be disagreement on the timing of sound changes, but everybody agrees that this particular mix never existed outside western scholarship." CreationDate="2019-08-06T19:50:39.610" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20842" PostId="11237" Score="2" Text="@Dario Is σσ, ττ `/ss, tt/` a &quot;late&quot; feature? What were they before that?" CreationDate="2019-08-06T19:57:25.480" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20843" PostId="11237" Score="1" Text="Originally they represented a palatal sound, probably close to /tʃ/ (hence the spelling ττ), and later close to /ʃ/ (hence σσ) before merging with /s/. But this deserves a question by itself, with sources and examples." CreationDate="2019-08-06T20:41:31.900" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20847" PostId="11237" Score="1" Text="Ok, checking the usual sources showed me that my previous comments about a late depalatalization of σσ  represent a minority opinion: the majority seems to agree that it was /ʃ/ at a certain point, but had already merged with /s/ by the time of the adoption of the Ionic alphabet. Surely worth a question." CreationDate="2019-08-07T06:11:10.710" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20858" PostId="11237" Score="0" Text="@Dario It sounds like you could supply good answers to [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7502/what-was-the-sibilant-in-%ce%b8%ce%ac%ce%bb%ce%b1%cf%83%cf%83%ce%b1) and [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6510/how-did-%cf%83%cf%83-differ-from-%cf%83)!" CreationDate="2019-08-07T15:28:30.587" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39001" PostId="11237" Score="0" Text="There is a book called &quot;Vox Graeca&quot; that is on this subject." CreationDate="2022-07-23T22:11:43.763" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39003" PostId="11237" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden Allen focuses mainly on the &quot;classical&quot; dialects rather than the Homeric tradition." CreationDate="2022-07-23T23:48:19.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20782" PostId="11238" Score="2" Text="Huh. I don't remember ever coming across this and wouldn't have guessed that such a one-to-one equivalent works; but you're exactly right: I see examples from Seneca, Ovid, and even Cicero. And now that you've mentioned it, I've seen quid est cur many times, and hoc est cur is simply the declarative equivalent of that. +1" CreationDate="2019-08-01T17:18:50.557" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20779" PostId="11239" Score="0" Text="The derivation of &quot;Now one must drink&quot; (which appears to be the most apposite translation) was covered in &quot;Nunc Est Bibendum&quot;. Analogously: &quot;Now one must die&quot;--more dramatic than &quot;time to die&quot;!" CreationDate="2019-08-01T16:34:30.393" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20781" PostId="11239" Score="0" Text="Ok. So, in order to avoid the possible &quot;dramatic&quot; effect you mention (although I understand the context here is quite dramatic, isn't it?), perhaps _(Iam) tempus est moriendi_ is better for you." CreationDate="2019-08-01T16:53:30.270" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20786" PostId="11239" Score="0" Text="Think that &quot;Nunc est moriendum&quot; hits the nail-on-the-head! Working analogously can produce excellent results: Joonas worked analogously on &quot;Cariotae cum Ficis Certandum Habent&quot;; cnread, when he adapted Cicero's &quot;quod male cecidit&quot; (what has fallen [turned out] badly) to give &quot;res bene cadent&quot; (things will turn out well) on Q: &quot;....Everything Will Be Well&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-02T10:10:19.960" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20788" PostId="11242" Score="0" Text="I'm having trouble parsing the sentence--I can't find a verb for the main sentence. Regarding the second question, the surrounding context shows that he's using the Latinized Greek word &quot;thesis&quot; (with the inflections &quot;thesi&quot; and &quot;thesin&quot; on the same page), but I'm not sure how &quot;thesini&quot; would fit into that paradigm." CreationDate="2019-08-03T15:15:17.663" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20787" PostId="11243" Score="1" Text="The spelling is much more convincing than the scansion.  Even if the &quot;g&quot; were pronounced, the previous syllable could still be short in verse since the following cluster is stop + liquid, yes?" CreationDate="2019-08-03T14:43:57.237" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20790" PostId="11243" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Excellent point! I'll write about that when I have time later this weekend." CreationDate="2019-08-03T16:25:17.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20791" PostId="11243" Score="0" Text="In other words, you're saying _noscō_ was the normal pronunciation, with _gnoscō_ being a hypercorrection in writing based on forms like _cognoscō_, _agnoscō_, etc?" CreationDate="2019-08-03T19:41:34.847" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20795" PostId="11243" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour: Gn doesn't normally behave like a stop + liquid cluster in Latin: word-medially, it seems to have always been syllabified as -g.n- rather than as -.gn- (or in old-fashioned terms, it seems to have always made a preceding syllable &quot;long by position&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-08-03T20:40:22.507" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21042" PostId="11243" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Does yourself have any thoughts on Andras-Cser's &quot;floating C-Place node&quot; which fell out of use before  the days of Classica Latin; but, affected words ending -ig; and may have influenced the evolution of gnosco to nosco? (Q: [Does An -ig Prefix mean There's An Underlying g in the root?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11323/79))" CreationDate="2019-08-18T12:16:34.900" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21043" PostId="11243" Score="0" Text="@tony Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with that area to give a meaningful comment. Finer details of the history of Latin, especially before Latin itself came about, are not my strongest suit." CreationDate="2019-08-18T12:29:50.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20807" PostId="11250" Score="1" Text="For a useful introduction to the so-called &quot;double dative construction&quot;, vid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUlA9dv1Kzk or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dative . For a more advanced intro, see https://stcharlesprep.org/01_parents/oneil_j/Useful%20Links/Latin%20II%20Class%20Notes/Notes/class2-26.pdf Finally, for a more academic discussion, you can read the following paper: https://www.academia.edu/14457456/On_the_semantics_and_syntax_of_the_Latin_double_dative_construction" CreationDate="2019-08-05T22:02:46.907" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20864" PostId="11250" Score="0" Text="It reminds me of German: &quot;Es liegt mir am Herzen&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-05T09:42:17.403" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20798" PostId="11252" Score="0" Text="In languages that have this (very common) construction, the dativus ethicus is normally used with reference to inalienable possession (typically body parts). Thus you say « je me lave les mains », “ich wasche mir die Hände” but « je lave ta voiture », “ich wasche deinen Wagen”, though « je te lave la voiture » etc. is not exactly wrong. In Latin too I should think that “tuum currum” is more idiomatic." CreationDate="2019-08-05T10:54:56.740" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20799" PostId="11252" Score="1" Text="I believe your answer is correct, but it may be helpful to identify this construction as the dative of purpose (A&amp;G 382), also sometimes called the dative of service or double dative construction. Cf. Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin, 171." CreationDate="2019-08-05T15:47:27.687" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="20800" PostId="11252" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Indeed. I added a paragraph about names to the end. If I missed something, feel free to add." CreationDate="2019-08-05T17:30:15.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20810" PostId="11252" Score="0" Text="Joonas, I agree with your answer but I'd suggest to rewrite the final paragraph, which I think can be a bit confusing for the person who asked the question. E.g., when you write &quot;this kind of dative&quot;, which one are you referring to, _cordi_ or _mihi_?; the list of five (!) labels are not all relevant for describing the double dative construction (cf. my comment above)." CreationDate="2019-08-05T22:17:35.227" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20815" PostId="11252" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this discussion. I just want to add more context. I understand what Joonas is referring to when he says &quot;this kind of dative&quot;. And I understand the answer altogether. probably the phrase in question confused me, because that ( if I understand correctly) &quot;cordi est&quot; is expression by itself. somewhat &quot;impersonal&quot;. (as the verbs &quot;placet&quot; or &quot;decet&quot; that takes the dative).&#xA;&#xA;@Kingshorsey, I will certainly take a look on your links above with respect to the double dative discussion later on when I have more time. thanks a lot." CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:18:27.953" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="20820" PostId="11252" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Good point! I rewrote my answer a bit. (If you see trivial errors, feel free to go and edit!) The naming of the different datives is different in different sources, and I wanted to list relevant keywords generously to help any reader find more information." CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:47:45.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20805" PostId="11255" Score="0" Text="The information here is, in the main, correct; but this doesn't actually answer the question, does it? Unless you mean to suggest that paucis post diebus is an example of 'confusion between accusative/ ablative' and therefore somehow incorrect, which is simply not the case: paucis post diebus is a legitimate alternative construction to paucos post dies." CreationDate="2019-08-05T20:27:27.563" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20809" PostId="11255" Score="0" Text="@cnread: it's an adjunct to the Q, hence &quot;with other expressions of time&quot;. The OP seemed to be concerned about the circumstances dictating the use of the acc./ abl. cases." CreationDate="2019-08-05T22:10:15.427" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20801" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="Does gaudeo count?  Or does it have to have active and passive forms in the same tense?" CreationDate="2019-08-05T19:31:10.673" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="20802" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour The same tense would be ideal, but that's still worth noting!" CreationDate="2019-08-05T19:55:44.150" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20803" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="Some Latin verbs (e.g. doceo) that take 2 accusative objects in the active can retain one of those accusative objects in the passive (so-called 'retained accusatives'). But doceor can take an agent too, because it's passive, not middle, in *meaning*. For a middle *meaning* in Latin, passive and reflexive forms can be used (e.g. movetur/se movet, 'It's moving'); but to my knowledge, additional accusative direct objects are never used in these instances." CreationDate="2019-08-05T20:00:03.520" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20804" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@cnread The passive voice of verbs with two accusative objects was studied in [an earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/129/79). Some ideas from there might indeed be useful in this discussion." CreationDate="2019-08-05T20:06:21.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20806" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="As for your question, “do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?”, what about exs. like _neque mei neque te tui intus puditumst factis quae facis_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 3, 1, 12)?  As for your grammatical conditions, (i) there is an accusative direct object (_te_), (ii) no ablative agent is possible here, and (iii) the verb has passive morphology but is not &quot;prototypically&quot; deponent as such, though it is true it can be considered as semi-deponent in competition with _puduit_ (cf. also C Monsour's point)." CreationDate="2019-08-05T21:35:57.873" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20823" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="*puditum est* is simply an impersonal verb like *decet, vīsum/necesse est*." CreationDate="2019-08-06T11:47:14.547" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20834" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Yes, _puditum est_ is (simply?) an impersonal verb (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p ). But what is relevant here is not impersonality but to find verbs (impersonal or not) that obey the grammatical conditions described in the question (i.e., to find &quot;non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:35:59.633" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20848" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino The asker is looking for something that can be described as &quot;middle voice&quot;. *puditum est* is a semi-**deponent** impersonal verb, and impersonality is incompatible with the definition of middle voice, which requires a subject." CreationDate="2019-08-07T06:40:09.527" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20856" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Were you satisfied with the answer to your own, earlier Q; you did not seem to be? Any thoughts on this one; would be delighted to receive (further) enlightenment." CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:44:14.473" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20857" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@tony I was happy with it; I wouldn't have accepted it otherwise. I just wanted some additional clarification, but on that topic the level of clarity I was after might be impossible. I've been thinking whether I should write something to answer this one, but I don't have any thoughts coherent enough yet." CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:47:47.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20884" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: In the Q: &quot;The forms....can take direct objects and cannot take an agent..&quot;. Joonas, in his earlier Q., gave: &quot;tu rem doceris a me.&quot; The verb has a subject (tu), a direct object (rem) and an agent (me). How does this fit in?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T10:27:03.663" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20897" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="I wonder: why are you requiring the *grammatical form* of the Latin middle to be a **passive** one? Another option which exists in some modern Latin languages and also in Polish is to use a **reflexive** construction to express the middle: *zjedz ciastko* “eat a/the cake” vs. *zjedz sobie ciastko* “eat yourself a cake”. I would be curious to know whether *sibi* is ever used as a middle-izing particle." CreationDate="2019-08-09T14:38:29.683" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="20898" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski Good question! Mostly because the deponent verbs, the only ones I can think of with definite middle meanings, use passive morphology." CreationDate="2019-08-09T15:38:06.400" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20919" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Took your advice and used material from your earlier Q. I did ask about &quot;tu rem doceris a me&quot; contrasting with &quot;middle-voice&quot; verbs." CreationDate="2019-08-10T10:12:24.890" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20931" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="As for the connection with reflexivity, same in Italian: e.g., cf. _Lucia si è compratA un'auto_ &amp; _Lucia ha compratO un'auto_ (&quot;Lucy has bought a car&quot;).  The presence of a reflexive pronoun _si_ in the former requires BE auxiliary and participle agreement with the subject _Lucia_. In contrast, the latter, without reflexive, requires HAVE auxiliary and there is no participle agreement with the subject." CreationDate="2019-08-10T20:46:43.680" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20932" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="By the way, Draconis, I've just realized that the **title** of your question, as it stands, can be interpreted too broadly: e.g., for some people reflexive constructions like _Valvae se ipsae aperuerunt_ (Cic. Div. 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’ involve an instantiation of **non-deponent** verbs in &quot;**middle** voice&quot;, understood in a broad sense. In contrast, your question at the end, the one I've considered in my answers, is more precise (&quot;do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-08-10T21:13:47.853" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20935" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Very true; I unfortunately had to abbreviate the question in the title to keep it within the length limit." CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:47:06.660" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20940" PostId="11258" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Ok! Putting the connections between reflexivity &amp; middle voice aside (I guess something interesting could be said on this issue mainly in Late Latin), I've just revised my answer to your intriguing question. Hope you consider a bit convincing since I'm afraid it's my last push on it..." CreationDate="2019-08-11T03:11:42.567" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20821" PostId="11259" Score="0" Text="Verb &quot;necto&quot; (not the most appropriate for &quot;to crown&quot;) appears to be passive future of a nominative: the head(s) will be crowned. What's the difference between that and e.g. agricola videtur; pueri audiuntur; donum datur; agricola nectetur? Are you sure that &quot;caput&quot; is an accusative?  Recall &quot;vinum est Bibendum&quot; (the wine: it-ought-to-be-drunk); some, with an instinctive desire to treat &quot;vinum&quot; as a direct object (accusative) and not a nominative, which it is." CreationDate="2019-08-06T09:02:51.330" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20835" PostId="11259" Score="2" Text="@tony: As for the English translation of _nectentur_, I agree with you this is not a literal one (since it is not mine I previously added the source link. In any case, please note that the literal translation is not always the &quot;most appropriate&quot; one). As for _caput_, yes, I'm sure that it is accusative. Notice that it can only be accusative (as nominative, it would be _capita_, in agreement with 3rd plural of _nectentur_)." CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:45:44.873" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20859" PostId="11259" Score="0" Text="Mitomino: Yes, in the English translation, plural &quot;head(s)&quot; was optional; should have written &quot;caput/ capita&quot;. Could yourself, please, explain how caput/ capita nectentur differs from a nominative noun + passve-verb; thus, becoming an accusative + passive-verb? The &quot;flava oliva&quot; = &quot;with yellow oil&quot; is easy; but, having separated &quot;flava oliva&quot;, all that remains is &quot;caput (capita) nectentur&quot;. This, in grammatical terms, is the same as the examples e.g. agricola nectetur, I gave earlier." CreationDate="2019-08-07T15:55:54.193" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20861" PostId="11259" Score="0" Text="@tony: Perhaps it can be useful to point out that the nominative plural subject of _nectentur_ is mentioned in the previous verse: _tres primi_ ('the first three'). Since _caput_ is singular accusative but the verb _nectentur_ (3rd.pl) is passive -and passive verbs don't **generally** have direct objects-, a natural conclusion seems to be that _caput_  is an &quot;accusative of relation&quot;. This said, my point is that one can claim that HERE _caput_, the alleged accusative of relation, is in fact occupying the direct object position of the verbal predicate: cf. &quot;retained accusative of specification&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-07T17:00:58.540" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20891" PostId="11259" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Put an attempt at understanding in Answers." CreationDate="2019-08-09T13:31:37.167" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20816" PostId="11260" Score="0" Text="Sorry, I can't understand the structure of your question. In particular, I'm confused by the last two sentences of your post. Are you asking about the meaning of &quot;universum&quot; or that of &quot;compass&quot;? The compass imagery is only used as an explanatory analogy by the author; if it confuses you, you can ignore it. There is no literal connection between the etymology of &quot;universum&quot; and drawing circles on paper with a compass." CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:34:30.990" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20817" PostId="11260" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Sorry for confusion. I'm asking merely about &quot;universeum&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:35:20.060" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20818" PostId="11260" Score="0" Text="@sumelic 'The compass analogy is only used as a piece of imagery by the author; if it confuses you, you can ignore it.' I could, but I fancy understanding it please." CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:35:40.200" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20819" PostId="11260" Score="2" Text="Which of the following would you say is closer to your question? 1) How did *universum* develop from *unum* (meaning “one”) and *vertere* (meaning “turn”)? 2) Is it correct that the meaning of *universalis* evokes imagery of a circular area centered on a single point? 3) How is the analogy of a compass used by this author related to the meaning of *universum* and *universalis*?" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:40:48.417" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20854" PostId="11261" Score="4" Text="I wouldn't take the article too seriously: the idea that there is an excluded dark area &quot;beyond&quot; the boundary of something universal simply belies the meaning of the term." CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:26:18.837" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20845" PostId="11262" Score="1" Text="Thanks. +1. I was aware that the quote referred to the 'compass' used for drawing circles." CreationDate="2019-08-07T03:58:47.943" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20855" PostId="11262" Score="3" Text="The author of the article is trying to make an unsubstantiated, speculative point about Latin *universalis* somehow being exclusionary. Appealing to a compass, of course, makes that point much easier to make. I agree with you that it is hardly the primary denotation (or even connotation) of the term." CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:28:38.103" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20828" PostId="11263" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Have you taken a look at [our question about learning Latin on one's own](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/957/79)? Do you think that contains what you were after, or do you specifically want answers on how to start serious study from scratch? I'm just trying to figure out whether this should be regarded as a duplicate of the old question (in which case we'd link the two together) or a separate question with a focus on getting started." CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:45:53.300" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20831" PostId="11263" Score="0" Text="I would specifically like some answers on how to get serious study from scratch .In fact I am learning French and since many words have Latin roots I want to learn it as well." CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:51:28.273" UserId="4980" />
  <row Id="20824" PostId="11264" Score="1" Text="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausculto" CreationDate="2019-08-06T14:21:27.217" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20827" PostId="11265" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you provide your Attic translation? It is likely to be a useful reference for anyone working on a Koine version." CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:42:14.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20833" PostId="11265" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I took the liberty to edit that into your question. I only know very, very basic Greek, but we have people here who can certainly help." CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:06:49.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20826" PostId="11266" Score="0" Text="Thanks. The instrument suffix seems like a reasonable source for the -ter/-tr- part (the Everett quote in my answer says Seck and Schnorr von Carolsfeld 1884 identified that suffix as the source), but I'm still confused about how it got -as- before it. Are there any good examples of Greek words ending in -αστρον from verbs in -άζειν?" CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:36:29.877" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20829" PostId="11266" Score="0" Text="I agree with you, that the -ας- part comes from verbs in -άζω, but I cannot figure how a diminutive/pejorative meaning could evolve from the -τρον whih means _tool, instrument._" CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:46:28.103" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="20838" PostId="11266" Score="0" Text="@Dario No, the pejorative twist is just a connotation.  λαιμ-άσσω is being greedy, and λαίμαστρον is the &quot;agent of greed&quot;. The ending itself is not associated with pejorative functions.  Think of &quot;he is an eating machine&quot; in English." CreationDate="2019-08-06T19:17:40.760" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="20840" PostId="11266" Score="1" Text="@sumelic:   σκεπ-άζω &gt; σκέπαστρον 	to cover&gt; covering ." CreationDate="2019-08-06T19:24:00.390" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="20849" PostId="11270" Score="3" Text="It isn't quite what you want, so I won't offer it as an answer: but do you know of Alfred Henderson's 'Latin Proverbs &amp; Quotations'? It was published in 1869 and runs to 500 pages. While his references are scant, phrases are often easily tracked down by googling, and he gives lists of English equivalents, e.g. _non volat in buccas assa columba tuas_ = no gain without pain." CreationDate="2019-08-07T08:42:06.657" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20852" PostId="11270" Score="2" Text="Not sure that helps, but I guess it worth throwing this: https://books.google.com/books?id=Mt9FAQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=iw&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-08-07T12:49:52.240" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="20862" PostId="11270" Score="2" Text="@TomCotton: Many thanks for this reference! I've been googling a bit with it (searching for body parts) and, yes, it's very useful! For example, I've just found that Cicero used the idiomatic expression _nec caput nec pedes_, also found in Plautus (see above). Indeed, a very useful resource!" CreationDate="2019-08-07T19:27:52.870" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20863" PostId="11270" Score="1" Text="@d_e: Many thanks for pointing out the existence of this wonderful dictionary of Latin phrases, which is very useful to study Latin **collocations**. Excellent resource for increasing one's knowledge of Latin!" CreationDate="2019-08-07T19:31:12.500" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20865" PostId="11270" Score="1" Text="Kevin Guinagh's _Dictionary of Foreign Phrases and Abbreviations_.  A better title would have been &quot;Dictionary of Latin Phrases (Other Languages Included).&quot;" CreationDate="2019-08-08T03:29:36.350" UserId="4995" />
  <row Id="20878" PostId="11270" Score="0" Text="@livresque. Many thanks for this reference! I'll take a look at it!" CreationDate="2019-08-09T03:43:50.650" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20851" PostId="11272" Score="4" Text="_Alumni_ itself, as referred to former students, is corrupted Latin, IMHO: it is short for _antiqui alumni_, removing the adjective that gives sense to the concept" CreationDate="2019-08-07T11:00:00.217" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20850" PostId="11273" Score="0" Text="Cheers @fdb! Any thoughts on a better solution? I thought maybe &quot;socius&quot; conveyed what they were going for best." CreationDate="2019-08-07T08:44:34.017" UserId="3095" />
  <row Id="20853" PostId="11273" Score="2" Text="Populus has the advantage of being a collective. Socii might refer to (research) &quot;fellows&quot; or &quot;associates&quot; and thus not include the student body." CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:12:21.227" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20881" PostId="11277" Score="0" Text="How can I know that a verb is deponent or not?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T07:33:46.333" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="20882" PostId="11277" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad Actually, that'd make a nice new question: By looking at a dictionary entry, how do I know when a verb is deponent?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T07:38:13.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20890" PostId="11278" Score="0" Text="Can you elaborate a little on this? We have various like expressions in English idiom, which may often have no physical reality, for instance _shoulder a burden_ and _put one's back into something_. Is that the kind of thing which you mean?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T13:16:45.513" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20893" PostId="11278" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton not really, the Spanish expression &quot;a cuestas&quot; is quite literal, I just wanted to know if the expression originated in Latin or in Spanish, given how old it is." CreationDate="2019-08-09T13:57:43.407" UserId="2646" />
  <row Id="20866" PostId="11281" Score="0" Text="Thanks! So it'd be safe to say that &quot;I want&quot; is conjectured to have evolved from *volo* (irregular) to _*voleo_ (second conjugation) in vulgar Latin (but not attested), giving rise to the difference in Italian? That'd give a more definitive answer concerning the differences within Latin (classical or later)." CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:20:40.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20867" PostId="11281" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Yes, *\*voleō* is marked with an asterisk in Wiktionary, which should mean that it is unattested. I don't know of any evidence about the identity of the two pronunciations in Latin (aside from the obvious identity in spelling and vowel quantity). I'm just defaulting to assuming that they were pronounced the same. Perhaps someone can find a pun on the two senses, or some source that explicitly says that they're homophones." CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:22:35.250" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20868" PostId="11281" Score="0" Text="Do you a linguistic source that says that -gli- comes from -le- + vowel? I can think of a few counterexamples (*famiglia*/*figlio* from-li-)." CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:25:55.210" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20869" PostId="11281" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: What I meant is that *-le-* is one of the sources of *-gli-*, not the only one. At some point, unstressed *-e-* before a vowel merged into *-i-* in many words; words affected by that merger would naturally have the same development from that point on as words with original *-i-.* The second conjugation theme vowel is originally *e*, not *i*, which is why I said &quot;-le- before a vowel&quot;, but the [Wiktionary entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/voleo) does in fact show the reconstruction with -li- for the ancestor of Italo-Western Romance." CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:30:51.560" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20875" PostId="11282" Score="4" Text="I may be missing something, but volendi could be a third conjugation form so doesn't necessarily imply voleo." CreationDate="2019-08-08T20:52:25.503" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20885" PostId="11282" Score="0" Text="@TKR exactly: ferre~ferens~ferendus : velle~volens~X &gt; volendus" CreationDate="2019-08-09T10:43:42.243" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="20887" PostId="11282" Score="0" Text="Yes, I took this from the cnrtl site. Either they got something wrong, or I did not understand it." CreationDate="2019-08-09T11:44:38.610" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20870" PostId="11283" Score="2" Text="Could you expand a bit on why *tudibus* would be expected to go with nominative *tudis/tudes*? How can a form like *tus* (along the lines of *pes, pedibus; laus, laudibus; praes, praedibus*) be ruled out? Or would the form *tudites* be taken as evidence against that kind of nominative singular?" CreationDate="2019-08-08T14:10:24.267" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20871" PostId="11283" Score="0" Text="@sumelic. That is a good point." CreationDate="2019-08-08T14:16:38.543" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20872" PostId="11283" Score="1" Text="_tus, turis_ is the word for incense or frankincense (used in a thurifer)." CreationDate="2019-08-08T14:18:21.507" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20873" PostId="11283" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton .... which does not rule out the existence of a homophone meaning &quot;hammer&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-08T14:56:48.403" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20874" PostId="11283" Score="0" Text="Quite so. Just thought I'd point it out!" CreationDate="2019-08-08T16:35:33.203" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20892" PostId="11283" Score="0" Text="I guess the other d-stem nouns that I can think of that take -s rather than -es in the nominative singular all seem to have long vowels or diphthongs in that form: pēs, laus, fraus, praes. (Except maybe the disyllable pĕcus, ŭdis?) Maybe for some reason, a short vowel wouldn't be as likely in that context. But I guess I can't figure out how we know the vowel lengths in this word either: the quotes aren't in verse, are they?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T13:44:08.143" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22385" PostId="11283" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Off the top of my head, wouldn't ds &gt; s cause compensatory lengthening?" CreationDate="2019-09-11T18:43:36.313" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22403" PostId="11283" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I don't believe that there was a general principle of compensatory lengthening of vowels in nominative forms where -s combined with a preceding consonant to form a geminate (see [Alessio's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2621/9)). It looks like *-ds* in particular could possibly have lengthened a preceding vowel because d was originally a voiced stop, following the same pattern as &quot;Lachmann's Law&quot; (which traditionally refers to a vowel lengthening change in the context of past participle forms)." CreationDate="2019-09-12T03:55:06.727" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20876" PostId="11286" Score="0" Text="The gerund of a 3rd conjugation I-stem would be expected to be *voliendi,* right? Like *capiendi*" CreationDate="2019-08-09T02:50:57.000" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20877" PostId="11286" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Potentially, but iirc in Vulgar Latin there was a lot of alternation between i-stems and non-i-stems (eventually resulting in the third conjugation breaking up and disappearing entirely as its own thing in Romance)." CreationDate="2019-08-09T02:56:11.390" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20879" PostId="11286" Score="0" Text="I think the idea is that there was an analogy with *habeō*, i.e. *habuī : habēre :: voluī : volēre*." CreationDate="2019-08-09T03:55:29.320" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="20880" PostId="11286" Score="1" Text="@TKR That would certainly make sense (and could make a good answer!)" CreationDate="2019-08-09T04:05:50.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20888" PostId="11286" Score="1" Text="Fr. vouloir must be from volēre, like avoir from habēre." CreationDate="2019-08-09T11:50:25.400" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20899" PostId="11286" Score="0" Text="@fdb That would also make a good answer!" CreationDate="2019-08-09T15:39:55.337" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20903" PostId="11286" Score="0" Text="@fdb and of course there's Fr. pouvoir - OFr. poeir or pooir, CL posse, LL *pot**ē**re" CreationDate="2019-08-09T21:00:04.550" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20941" PostId="11286" Score="0" Text="If I understand the development of French vowels correctly, Present-Day French -oir goes back to ẹ; in other words, it must correspond to ĭ or  ē in Classical Latin before they merged in Late (Vulgar) Latin." CreationDate="2019-08-11T04:09:43.083" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20942" PostId="11286" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. That would *also* make a good answer!" CreationDate="2019-08-11T04:10:23.203" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20968" PostId="11286" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Let me think a little bit more about this." CreationDate="2019-08-13T17:14:43.700" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="20883" PostId="11288" Score="0" Text="I wonder how you propose to translate 'souvenir'?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T09:25:28.563" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20886" PostId="11288" Score="0" Text="@TomCotton Good question! I had not thought of that. I suppose that should be studied in a separate question. If you or anyone else is interested, go ahead and ask." CreationDate="2019-08-09T11:17:31.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20889" PostId="11288" Score="3" Text="@Tom Cotton: How about &quot;monumentum&quot; = &quot;memento&quot; (Pock. Ox Lat.)? Something tells that this word is more appropriate for huge &quot;mementoes&quot; e.g. statues/ tombs; but, they won't fit in Joonas's bag either." CreationDate="2019-08-09T12:10:24.097" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20894" PostId="11290" Score="1" Text="This idea never occurred to me, but it is a good one. Inverting the roles doesn't make the expression any more clumsy either. This also reminds me of the adjective *capax*." CreationDate="2019-08-09T14:19:32.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20895" PostId="11290" Score="1" Text="You beat me to it. Indeed, [capio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcapio1) means _to  be large enough for_ (meaning II), and especially in negative, _not to hold, to be too small for_ (II.A.2)" CreationDate="2019-08-09T14:20:02.280" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20896" PostId="11290" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, fun fact: the Spanish verb for _to fit_, _caber_, comes from _capio_ but the roles are inverted." CreationDate="2019-08-09T14:22:08.773" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="20900" PostId="11290" Score="3" Text="@Rafael: In linguistics this &quot;fun fact&quot; is known as **locative alternation**. The reversal/inversion of roles for Sp. _caber_ is probably due to the **unmarked** realization of the relevant semantic functions, i.e., Theme as NP subject (or object in transitive locative alternation) and Location as an oblique Prepositional Phrase. It is true that many languages have Location subjects, but, linguistically and conceptually speaking, these can be regarded as marked constructions. Probably, the reversal of roles in Sp. _caber_ wrt Lat. _capere_ is related to that." CreationDate="2019-08-09T17:13:55.127" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20901" PostId="11290" Score="0" Text="Furthermore, my intuition is that _capit_ in Seneca's example above involves a sort of **stative causation**, hence _exigua mens_, being conceptualized as a sort of static **causer**, is a syntactic subject. In contrast, no causation is involved in Sp. _caber_. Hence its unmarked realization for Theme &amp; Location arguments." CreationDate="2019-08-09T17:18:24.903" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20930" PostId="11291" Score="0" Text="Yes, my claim is that in this particular example _caput_ is occupying the direct internal argument position since it can be understood as a &quot;retained accusative of specification&quot; (see the link in my answer). In fact, it is **_caput_** what turns out to be _nexum flava oliva_. Cf. also _necte **comam** myrto_ (Ov. _Am._ 1, 2, 23)." CreationDate="2019-08-10T17:02:06.630" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20912" PostId="11293" Score="0" Text="wikipedia used the word &quot;another system is 'Vinculum'&quot;,  is this some sort of extension to original Roman Numeral system? and by medieval feature, do you mean this is only used in europe since middle age?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T12:18:37.330" UserDisplayName="Sajuuk" />
  <row Id="20913" PostId="11293" Score="0" Text="@Sajuuk - Yes, you are right, since the Middle Ages." CreationDate="2019-08-09T12:29:54.467" UserId="1410" />
  <row Id="20911" PostId="11294" Score="0" Text="Here's something. https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/07-03-118 Though I would have preferred a higher-order approach." CreationDate="2019-08-09T12:16:32.377" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="20914" PostId="11294" Score="1" Text="Can you provide source or reference for the formal grammar?" CreationDate="2019-08-09T12:12:31.880" UserDisplayName="Sajuuk" />
  <row Id="20915" PostId="11295" Score="0" Text="wonderful handout, I didn't find rule for how many same symbol can one place consecutively though. is it 3?" CreationDate="2019-08-10T08:28:18.853" UserId="5001" />
  <row Id="20917" PostId="11295" Score="0" Text="Additionally, could you provide source/reference for this handout? is this grammar authoritative in any regard?" CreationDate="2019-08-10T08:49:24.807" UserId="5001" />
  <row Id="20925" PostId="11295" Score="0" Text="@Sajuuk The source is the Wikipedia article on Roman numerals. It lists a few variants but I just described the most widely accepted one. Interestingly, I reread the article for the first time in about 8 years and found that it uses a similar analysis about place value. I just added a note about the source to the handout." CreationDate="2019-08-10T14:41:38.167" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="20926" PostId="11295" Score="0" Text="As for how many of the same symbol: you can only do that for the `x1` symbols. The limit is usually 3, but a common variant of the system allows 4. (I mentioned that in one of the exercises because it greatly increases the upper bound of numbers you can write! The checker tool linked in the handout also lets you write 4 of the same symbol.)" CreationDate="2019-08-10T14:42:39.217" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="20933" PostId="11295" Score="0" Text="Then there's [this inscription](https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ashhwg8vt6fah/Trerice%20inscription.jpg?dl=0), over a fireplace at  [Trerice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trerice). Yes, that is a numeral '3' on the end." CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:05:10.217" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="20934" PostId="11295" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine Delightful. Yeah, Wikipedia mentions even `IIIIII` and `XXXXXX`, as well as more outrageous subtractions (`DCD` rather than `CM` or `IIXX` for 18...). My aim in this handout was mostly granting basic usability of the system but also being algorithmically straightforward, so having multiple spellings didn't seem necessary and for the most part it doesn't affect reading (`IIXX` notwithstanding!)." CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:10:48.610" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="20918" PostId="11296" Score="2" Text="The system of pronunciation that you recommend here seems logical to me. But I was reluctant to suggest it because I'm not sure whether there are currently a significant amount of speakers who make a distinction between [tsi] (or [tsj]) and [ti] based on the original length of the vowel. Have you heard this pronunciation from any modern speakers of Latin, or have you seen sources that show that it was used by most educated speakers at some time in the past?" CreationDate="2019-08-10T08:54:08.457" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20920" PostId="11296" Score="0" Text="This pronounce is prescribed by Pompeius in the 5th century. Short /i/ + vowel turnes into /j/ pretty easily and that is what must have triggered the assibilation. The lost of vowel distinction by the undereducated was evidenced by late 4th century authors like Augustine of Hippo, the confusion then is plausible, and shortening of long vowels in Romance can be seen in these words that were mentioned as exceptions as well as in others (victōria from Latin turning into vittoria in Italian with an open O), although this might be disputed." CreationDate="2019-08-10T10:22:11.053" UserId="5002" />
  <row Id="20921" PostId="11296" Score="1" Text="Also, if we are focusing on modern Ecclesiastical pronunciation, that is also the rule to be applied, at least in all guides I've seen, like [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNCx0P9vwmI). The difference on how this applies to Late Latin is that there is evidence of short di + vowel being assibilated as dzi as well, e.g. giving Italian oggi from Latin hodie, this is not prescibed in the Ecclesiastical pronunciation." CreationDate="2019-08-10T10:39:19.190" UserId="5002" />
  <row Id="20922" PostId="11296" Score="1" Text="Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read the actual full passage by Pompeius. I know that Pompeius mentions assibilation in *Ti[ts]ius,* but the sources I've seen don't mention him making note of an exception for words with long ī." CreationDate="2019-08-10T10:59:52.087" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20923" PostId="11297" Score="0" Text="I guess that's the best we can do… at least until we get ahold of that book by Ferrari where he presumably operates the combinations and explains the supplements and translation. The thing that still perplexes me is how that becomes a superlative, and where the &quot;thought&quot; are, but maybe a supplement guess + creative translation can explain that away. Oh, and also [where the bleep ll. 12-13 come from](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it). That's anothe mysterious puzzle." CreationDate="2019-08-10T14:22:53.027" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20924" PostId="11297" Score="0" Text="As for the contraction, I guess αο usually contracts to ᾱ in Aeolic (cfr. genitive plural in the first declension), but I wonder if it would at all in this particular instance." CreationDate="2019-08-10T14:24:01.500" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20927" PostId="11297" Score="0" Text="Not really related, but concerning the word in [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11213/help-figuring-out-origins-of-some-words-in-a-passage-as-reconstructed-by-an-ital), I found out in an article in the Journal Eikasmós that it would be a hápax, that it was proposed by Ferrari in _Una mitra per Cleis_, the book mentioned in the question here, and that I should compare «Aesch. fr. 47,818 R.2» and «Epich. fr. 198 K.-A.» about it. Where can I find those comparanda? Is the Aeschylus one anywhere [here](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Συγγραφέας:Αισχύλος)&gt;" CreationDate="2019-08-10T15:20:55.163" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20928" PostId="11297" Score="1" Text="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=zK4SDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA66&amp;lpg=PA66&amp;dq=A.+φr.+47a.818&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XYpgS2ey-P&amp;sig=ACfU3U0SpSIv2_X9Ze5dfNwRyl0IaZciqg&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi8-MKRzfjjAhXyheYKHZnOB10Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=A.%20φr.%2047a.818&amp;f=false . It's just the use of θῶσθαι on its own. And it's in a fragment: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/aeschylus-attributed_fragments/2009/pb_LCL505.55.xml" CreationDate="2019-08-10T16:53:17.560" UserId="2704" />
  <row Id="20944" PostId="11299" Score="0" Text="This Q has certainly generated some labour! One (hopefully) final point, please. A middle-voice verb can take a direct-object/ accusative; but not an agent. Why not? If we can slay one sacred cow, why not another? Why can't Joonas's &quot;tu rem doceris a me&quot; qualify." CreationDate="2019-08-11T11:32:09.220" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20945" PostId="11299" Score="0" Text="Continuing: our favourite phrase could be: &quot;flave caput nectentur oliva, a rege&quot;, could it not?" CreationDate="2019-08-11T11:46:24.953" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20949" PostId="11299" Score="0" Text="The passivization of _docere_ is a case different from the &quot;middle&quot; example we're discussing here. Notice, for example,  that you can add an agent ablative phrase in _Tu rem doceris a rege_ (cf. _Rex docet te rem_) but you can't do it in _Tres primi flava oliva caput nectentur (*a rege)_.  Remember that in the relevant middle example the (elliptical) nominative subject is _tres primi_ ('the first three'), which is the agent and patient of the action (hence its middle sense). The incompatibility with _a rege_ is then very clear." CreationDate="2019-08-11T15:27:18.047" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20939" PostId="11301" Score="1" Text="Many thanks, Yerko, for your answer. I'm also grateful to you since I didn't know about the &quot;Diccionario&quot; written by the priest Esteban de Terreros (cf. https://books.google.es/books?id=psZLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA702&amp;dq=ad+triarios+ventum+est&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj96I-AxPnjAhVXPcAKHRH2DuUQ6AEIODAC#v=onepage&amp;q=ad%20triarios%20ventum%20est&amp;f=false ). An appropriate English translation of the Lat. impersonal passive _ad triarios ventum est_, which I've just seen was adopted from Livy (VIII, 8, 10), could be the proverb &quot;It is come to the last push&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-11T01:33:33.893" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20990" PostId="11301" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Did Romans say: &quot;Third time lucky&quot;? In the trenches of WW1 it was a case of third-time unlucky. It was considered bad luck to light a third cigarette, from the same match. This was actually true. The time required to light three cigs, gave enemy snipers ample opportunity, to shoot at the clearly-visible, burning-match, with predictable consequences." CreationDate="2019-08-15T12:56:56.600" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21022" PostId="11301" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The Spanish indicates that the Roman Army was divided into three ranks: the second, braver than the first; the third (triarius), braver still, and more meritorious than the second. So &quot;ad triarios ventum est&quot; = to the Third--it has come&quot; (presumably, after the failure if 1st &amp; 2nd.) hence &quot;third time lucky&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-08-16T12:47:17.580" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21023" PostId="11301" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Wiki gives a triarius as a tactical unit of the Roman Republican Army, during the Samnite Wars (343-290 BC)--shock troops/ cammandoes, perhaps? So called &quot;manipular units&quot; from &quot;manipulus = a handful&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-16T12:51:44.953" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21024" PostId="11301" Score="0" Text="@tony. Thanks for the additional info. I think that _Ad triarios ventum est_ is better translated with the proverb &quot;It is come to the last push&quot; (no one was after them. So it was the last opportunity to win but it was the best one since _Triarii_ were considered the bravest ones). But, as you say above, probably, Romans didn't say &quot;Third time lucky&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-16T19:59:15.037" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20943" PostId="11302" Score="0" Text="https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12033/why-was-the-name-%d7%aa%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%90-transliterated-as-%ce%98%cf%89%ce%bc%e1%be%b6%cf%82-thomas-rather-than-%ce%a4%cf%89%ce%bc%e1%be%b6%cf%82-tomas" CreationDate="2019-08-11T08:54:12.643" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20946" PostId="11304" Score="1" Text="Does /p/, with no emphatic counterpart, consistently pattern with the unemphatic stops (so it's later transcribed with phi)?" CreationDate="2019-08-11T14:20:28.187" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20947" PostId="11304" Score="1" Text="(Also, is it known roughly when this change took place?)" CreationDate="2019-08-11T14:57:08.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20951" PostId="11304" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. The &quot;later&quot; convention seems to be fully in place in the LXX, so it is probably not later than the 2nd century BC." CreationDate="2019-08-12T08:44:53.647" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20952" PostId="11304" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Josephus writes his name Ἰώσηπος so there is at least one exception" CreationDate="2019-08-12T16:37:40.103" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="20956" PostId="11304" Score="0" Text="@fdb I see! If you have a few examples for each of these (old-style, new-style, and what happens with `/p/`) I'd be glad to accept." CreationDate="2019-08-12T19:59:38.777" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20965" PostId="11304" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: In all stages, there is considerable fluctuation in the representation of the Semitic stops, even in variant forms of the same word, as in χιτών, but also Ionic χιθών and Doric κιτών “sleeveless garment”, from (in the first instance) Phoenician ktn, ultimately from Akkadian kitû, kitinnu, from Sumerian gad “linen, linen garment”" CreationDate="2019-08-13T07:57:51.697" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="20950" PostId="11306" Score="0" Text="The latter seems a better fit (as the case I'm trying to convey is like someone having an answer, walking in the streets looking for a question for it.) Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-08-11T16:11:12.523" UserId="5006" />
  <row Id="20953" PostId="11310" Score="2" Text="In fact, as J. Solodow has demonstrated in his monograph The Latin particle quidem, it too can have the force of 'at least' (what Solodow calls 'Limiting quidem'). In this case, the difference from saltem may be that saltem limits the whole clause, whereas quidem limits meo specifically (as word order also suggests). Or Spinoza may have meant the quidem here to be more generally emphatic, the equivalent of italic font in writing or vocal stress in speaking. (Solodow concedes that the 2 uses overlap.) 'At any rate, in *my* judgment (even if in no one else's), I have shown clearly enough....'" CreationDate="2019-08-12T17:17:46.893" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20958" PostId="11310" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your comment. I didn't know about this classic work by Solodow. I've just seen that it has recently been criticized by Lieven Danckaert (see the link above for his work: &quot;In sum, it seems that Solodow's account is not satisfactory either&quot;). Unfortunately, this topic is outside of my area of expertise, whereby I cannot give a founded opinion on this debate." CreationDate="2019-08-12T20:48:50.557" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20959" PostId="11310" Score="1" Text="It's surprisingly readable. I agree that it is, in some ways, 'unsatisfactory': S. starts by criticizing previous approaches that create discrete categories of uses, but in the end he too resorts to categories. Still, he does enunciate a kind of underlying, unified meaning/function behind the categories, and that's very useful and has worked in every instance where I've applied it. At any rate, S. confirmed many of my own thoughts about quidem, derived over years of reading. Perhaps the criticism of this work after 40+ years means we can expect a new treatise at some point. Fingers crossed." CreationDate="2019-08-12T21:53:17.840" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20964" PostId="11310" Score="0" Text="Ok! Thanks for sharing your positive experience with this book." CreationDate="2019-08-12T22:59:36.180" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20961" PostId="11312" Score="0" Text="But are the phonetics here really the reason why? I would assume that this is purely morphological. If this were a matter of phonetics alone, wouldn't e.g. genitive of names with -us in nominative would have to be -i instead of -ou? (Or are you trying to explain why Greek naturalizes Latin -us into -os instead of other Greek suffixes such as -eus?)" CreationDate="2019-08-12T22:38:45.657" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="20963" PostId="11312" Score="0" Text="@ba: morphology is definitely important. I just wanted to mention some of the phonetic similarities between &lt;ο&gt; and ŭ" CreationDate="2019-08-12T22:57:07.470" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20979" PostId="11313" Score="0" Text="This question was [also asked at Linguistics SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12944) but it is not mentioned here. If you cross-post, please give a link to the other version(s) and explain how the feedback from other other site didn't help. Can you add a link?" CreationDate="2019-08-14T16:37:55.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="20988" PostId="11313" Score="0" Text="Before trying to answer your question, l'm afraid I need a couple of clarifications: (I) could you please clarify why you are concentrating on the &quot;inanimate&quot; (?) nature of the subject (e.g., cf. the animate nature of the subject in &quot;the people who constitute a jury&quot;)? and (II) the Lat. **unprefixed** verbs _statuere_ and _ponere_ are **already** causative (in particular, they can be classified as &quot;**causative** verbs of change of location&quot;). So what's the point?  Thanks in advance. NB: unfortunately, I cannot have online access to OED." CreationDate="2019-08-15T01:23:16.040" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="20973" PostId="11314" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I also meant to raise [*constituere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/constitute#etymonline_v_18255). Can you please expound itÉ" CreationDate="2019-08-14T02:32:53.900" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20974" PostId="11314" Score="0" Text="Can you please respond in, by editing, your answer? Comment chains are&#xA;cumbersome to read." CreationDate="2019-08-14T02:33:09.147" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="20975" PostId="11314" Score="0" Text="@Greek-Area51Proposal Constituō is just con- (&quot;together&quot;) + statuō (&quot;set up, put in place&quot;). Same shift happened, just later (post-Classical)." CreationDate="2019-08-14T02:35:52.433" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20969" PostId="11316" Score="3" Text="What about *Servum misit quem fidissimum haberet*? I'd guess that's what N&amp;H mean." CreationDate="2019-08-13T17:47:08.717" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29436" PostId="11316" Score="0" Text="@TKR: In Allen &amp; Greenough p.278 section 2(b): &quot;servum misit quem secum habebat&quot; = &quot;he sent the slave whom he had with him&quot;. Does the use of the subjunctive or indicative depend on the context--what follows, meaning that both translations are correct?" CreationDate="2020-10-19T12:58:44.117" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="20977" PostId="11318" Score="0" Text="Interesting word. Could you elaborate on your suggestion a bit?" CreationDate="2019-08-14T03:47:19.093" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="20982" PostId="11320" Score="0" Text="&quot;Imagine then that one ϝε had just dropped off, for whatever reason…&quot; Easily justified by haplogy." CreationDate="2019-08-14T18:29:11.850" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="20980" PostId="11321" Score="2" Text="Perhaps [*bulla*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbulla), which is used for a door-knob?" CreationDate="2019-08-14T17:25:16.487" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20986" PostId="11321" Score="0" Text="I don't have an answer. One thing this question brought to my mind is tuning pins/pegs on instruments, which seem somewhat similar in function, but I don't know what Latin words are used to refer to those." CreationDate="2019-08-14T19:37:11.760" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="20987" PostId="11321" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, That's a nice idea. For what it's worth, the Latin Wikipedia page for [Testudo (instrumentum musicum)](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_(instrumentum_musicum)) refers to them as 'manubria vel turbines ob intendendos nervos'; but I'm not sure what evidence exists for those terms (and I have an automatic distrust of any source that starts with wik(i)). If that page is correct, though, manubrium or turbo would work. I have to say, my first thought was bulla (as suggested by brianpck) or umbilicus." CreationDate="2019-08-14T20:51:23.817" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="20989" PostId="11321" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Surely there's no doubt about _bulla_? Smith &amp; Hall offer several interesting possibilties, but _bulla_ is the top one. Why don't you make it a proper answer?" CreationDate="2019-08-15T09:41:31.170" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="20992" PostId="11321" Score="0" Text="Another possible source of precedent: medieval and renaissance writings about pipe organs.&#xA;Hmm, [Theophilus](https://books.google.com/books?id=wo4EAAAAYAAJ&amp;q=knob#v=snippet&amp;q=knob)…" CreationDate="2019-08-15T13:31:46.893" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="20981" PostId="11322" Score="0" Text="I guess the French thing uses those schwa-oid glyphs for the laryngeals?" CreationDate="2019-08-14T18:25:25.993" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="20983" PostId="11322" Score="1" Text="@MickG ə₁, ə₂, ə₃ are an old way of writing the laryngeals, usually when they're syllabic (but sometimes also when they're not)." CreationDate="2019-08-14T18:30:35.680" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21120" PostId="11322" Score="0" Text="[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CF%8D%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B1) claims θύω-θύελλα uses &quot;a suffix based on ἄελλα&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-22T16:27:36.733" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="21121" PostId="11322" Score="1" Text="@MickG Possible; I don't know what evidence there is for which word influenced the other, if either did." CreationDate="2019-08-22T20:31:46.563" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="21019" PostId="11323" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11241/how-was-gnosco-pronounced" CreationDate="2019-08-16T02:58:07.060" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21004" PostId="11328" Score="0" Text="I have come across so-called scintillation detectors when studying particle physics, and those are indeed based on &quot;sparks of energy&quot;. I fully support this choice (or *scintillula* for a small spark), not only because it will be readily understandable for a number of physicists. I think the same choice will work for all eras, only with slightly different pronunciations." CreationDate="2019-08-15T19:49:11.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21016" PostId="11328" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta Takes me back to my long-forgotten days in neutron activation analysis!" CreationDate="2019-08-15T21:14:35.963" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="21002" PostId="11329" Score="0" Text="Like I said already, the comparative evidence is rather clear - see my comments here https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11324/39" CreationDate="2019-08-15T19:44:56.163" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21007" PostId="11330" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I wasn't familiar with the lengthening sound change caused by a nasal or syllabic liquid before a laryngeal. Based on these sound changes, it looks like the Greek and Old Persian cognates have forms consistent with a derivation from a PIE form *ǵnh₃-sḱé-, in accordance with the rule you give in the last sentence of this answer. Are you familiar with any literature that talks about how or when Latin nōscō came to be an exception to the usual zero-grade vocalism for -sk- presents? De Vaan suggests that it might have been to avoid homophony, but doesn't say much else" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:12:24.167" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21008" PostId="11330" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides see the updated answer above. As for the relevant literature, it's all listed in de Vaan, s.v. nosco." CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:30:37.947" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21012" PostId="11330" Score="0" Text="@sumelic, PIE *nH &gt; Latin n**ā**. Is the macron correctly displayed on your computer/phone?" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:58:17.383" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21014" PostId="11330" Score="0" Text="I do understand that sound change now. What I don't understand is how the length of the ā resulting from that sound change is related to the length of the ō in nōscō (which is supposed to show a different sound change, of the full grade eh₃ to ō). I appreciate your answer, but I'm just not fully satisfied with the, as you say, &quot;ad hoc&quot; explanation of the Latin form's ō, and so I'm not sure if I can rely on it as an argument for the length of the vowel." CreationDate="2019-08-15T21:06:02.267" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21015" PostId="11330" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides, *gnāsco or gnōsco, the vowel is still long. It cannot be otherwise. The ad-hoc, analogical explanation, addresses the issue why it is gnōsco and not *gnāsco; it has no bearing on the length of the root vowel." CreationDate="2019-08-15T21:10:08.257" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21017" PostId="11331" Score="0" Text="I’m glad you arrived at the same conclusion. Now let’s examine Italic and Romance data?" CreationDate="2019-08-15T22:58:55.097" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21020" PostId="11331" Score="0" Text="Note that _*h₃_ does not by itself have the reflex _o_ in Greek either – it only does so in specific conditions: initially before a consonant (prothetic vowel), after a syllabic resonant, and in the context of [laryngeal breaking](https://www.academia.edu/31175186/The_Conditioning_of_Laryngeal_Breaking_in_Greek_Fachtagung_Kraków_) – and in all those cases, it is almost certainly a matter of an excrescent prop vowel [ə] before the laryngeal ending up being coloured by the laryngeal at a very early (Pre-)Greek stage." CreationDate="2019-08-16T09:36:36.170" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="21021" PostId="11331" Score="0" Text="You’re absolutely right, though, that there is no easy way to get a short _ŏ_ out of the _*ĝneh₃-_ root. The input for that would have to be _*ĝnh₃e-sk̂-_, which seems quite impossible: it would have to be a _Schwebeablaut_ formation, but an impossible one (_Sa_ is CVRC &gt; CRVC, not CRVC &gt; CRCV, which is phonotactically impossible in PIE), and anyways PIE _*-sk̂-_ presents always have zero-grade roots. It seems likely that the _quality_ of the vowel was analogically replaced in Latin to fit the paradigm and avoid confusion, but the _length_ was left alone." CreationDate="2019-08-16T09:51:21.967" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43523" PostId="11335" Score="0" Text="I think _computatrulum_ by itself would be a good synonym for this, at least until they get even smaller. Surely screens and keypads force a minimum size until the entire format changes though (whether to eyewear or biohacking)." CreationDate="2023-06-11T12:29:02.103" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="21026" PostId="11337" Score="0" Text="Oh God, Illapsus would've been amazing. Too bad I can't use it, and strange that it's meaning is itself falling and not 'not falling'. Thanks so much, Non Lapsus it is, or Numquam Lapsus" CreationDate="2019-08-17T05:38:53.353" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="21027" PostId="11337" Score="1" Text="My understanding is that [*in-* could be used to negate a participial adjective, but a verbal participle would be negated with *non*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7468/9) (basically the same pattern as for  *un-* vs. *not* in English)." CreationDate="2019-08-17T06:04:29.583" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21034" PostId="11337" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Right; I'll edit to clarify that" CreationDate="2019-08-17T16:07:20.153" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21035" PostId="11337" Score="2" Text="@Johan88 It's a strange historical accident in Latin! The PIE negation prefix (which shows up as *an-* in Greek and *un-* in English) ended up looking exactly the same as the preposition for &quot;in/into&quot; (*en* in Greek and *in* in English), so you sometimes have to check a dictionary to know which one is meant." CreationDate="2019-08-17T16:08:33.470" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21036" PostId="11337" Score="0" Text="@Draconis fascinating. Thanks" CreationDate="2019-08-17T17:14:19.997" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="21044" PostId="11337" Score="2" Text="@Draconis That accident led me to ask a follow-up question: [Are the two prefixes *in-* ever found with the same word?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11348/79)" CreationDate="2019-08-18T13:02:03.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21028" PostId="11338" Score="0" Text="This suggestion appears pretty easy to misinterpret. It sounds more like &quot;wonder&quot; than &quot;laptop&quot; to me. While surely wondrous to the ancients, it's not a good word for telling that it's a laptop instead of a microwave oven or an assault rifle or a space shuttle. Did you have an idea why *deus ex machina* would refer specifically to a laptop?" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:34:41.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21030" PostId="11338" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Just a flight-of-fancy. All the devices, you mention, would have been alien to the Romans--they could have called them anything--perhaps, &quot;malus&quot; = &quot;evil&quot;. People, then, were rather superstitious; certainly, in Medieval England, you would have been executed as being &quot;in-league-with-the-Devil&quot;. On a lighter note, did consider &quot;machina parva&quot; = &quot;little machine&quot;; but, it seemed too prosaic. Have a good weekend." CreationDate="2019-08-17T11:35:42.803" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21041" PostId="11338" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Have improved the answer (I think)." CreationDate="2019-08-18T10:41:13.953" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43451" PostId="11338" Score="1" Text="These types of answers are tiring because they are larpy... I find it bizarre how common it is for people to answer a question like this with &quot;but the Romans didn't have that concept&quot;, ignoring the rich 2000+ history of Latin and the fact that it is being used *today*. We don't need an oracle to ask what a Roman would think of X modern concept. We need a word or an expression that can, in good style and with practicality, convey X modern concept. To Caesar what is of Caesar, to Zoomers what is of Zoomers lol" CreationDate="2023-06-06T21:18:13.823" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="44243" PostId="11338" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC I dunno about that. I think pretending to speak &quot;modern Latin&quot; is more inauthentic experience. Latin was a liturgical language, not a common language, and then a learned language, not a common language. Even now there is no true native Latin speaker. Its use today is entirely artificial, a re-enactment of an ancient tongue. If that's not LARPing, what is?" CreationDate="2023-07-27T01:56:43.163" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44271" PostId="11338" Score="0" Text="@cmw What most interests me in Latin being used for modern concepts is actually pedagogical. If I want to read something from an author it becomes easier if I can use it in my day to day life. Unfortunately, our day to day life just has many concepts that didn't exist back then. So for me this is pretty much a question of practicality. Basically: I want to be understood and understand myself what I meant later on. And I want to do so because that helps gain dominion over a language." CreationDate="2023-07-30T02:56:55.487" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="44272" PostId="11338" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC We can definitely take this in some interesting directions, but anything further along these lines might be better served by a side chat, rather than comments on Tony's answer here." CreationDate="2023-07-30T03:31:26.480" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44281" PostId="11338" Score="0" Text="@cmw definitely! If you want to open one I'd like to participate in that. I don't know how to open one lol" CreationDate="2023-07-30T15:54:10.233" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="38405" PostId="11339" Score="0" Text="What text were you reading?" CreationDate="2022-05-26T17:25:19.270" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="21039" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Does yourself agree with Mitomino's analysis of &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot;, above, or not?" CreationDate="2019-08-18T10:06:07.813" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21040" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@tony I agree that there is indeed a trace of something like a middle there in a plausible reading. I don't know if there's anything in Latin that I'd call &quot;truly middle&quot;, but similar phenomena do appear. The point of my answer was to add to the variety of middle-like constructions and let the folks decide what's most appropriate or interesting." CreationDate="2019-08-18T10:31:30.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21059" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@tony: I think that my **last** example (see below: _nuda genu nodoque sinus **collecta** fluentis_) is in a sense even better as an answer to Draconis's question (hence my third try!). It's &quot;better&quot; in the sense that the accusative-of-relation interpretation of _sinus fluentis_ is a bit contrived here (cf. the body part _caput_ in the previous example (_caput nectentur_), where such an interpretation is in fact the &quot;typical&quot; one). If so,  it seems that _sinus fluentis_ is the true direct object of _collecta_, which behaves like a Greek **middle** participle." CreationDate="2019-08-19T01:40:14.280" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21061" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. After reading your very interesting answer on different meanings of _contemplo_ and _contemplor_, I was wondering if for native speakers of Latin there was an (indeed, very subtle, if any!) semantic difference between, for example, the impersonal variants _puduit_ and _puditum est_. Cf. my comment &amp; example above (my first try!): _neque mei neque te tui intus puditumst factis quae facis_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 3, 1, 12). After all, many functionalist linguists consider it, at least, as a default hypothesis that a difference in form involves a difference in meaning." CreationDate="2019-08-19T02:07:56.543" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21084" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Every time I read this, something new registers! In &quot;...with bare knees having been gathered in a knot of flowing robes...&quot;; isn't &quot;sinus fluentis&quot; a genitive phrase&quot;: of-the-flowing-robes? But the thing (flowing robes) referred to by the action (having-been-collected [collecta]) gives the &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot;--is that correct?" CreationDate="2019-08-20T09:39:53.503" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21085" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Me again, please. In &quot;valvae se ipsae aperuerunt&quot; the verb is not passive; though the meaning is--does this affect &quot;middle-voice&quot; qualification? When the subject of an indirect statement is the same as the subject of the main verb, a reflexive pronoun must be used. The &quot;participle bit&quot;  of the infinitive must agree with the pronoun, which will be in the accusative e.g. &quot;dixi me venturum esse&quot;. Reflexivity gives the accusative/ direct objects; but, as in &quot;Lucy buys herself a car&quot;, the verbs are active. Is participle agreement with the subject (I-said that-I-would-come) enough to" CreationDate="2019-08-20T10:08:43.500" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21086" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Continuing: establish &quot;middle-voice&quot; character?" CreationDate="2019-08-20T10:10:21.987" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21098" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@tony: notice that &quot;fluent**i**s&quot; is a poetic/archaic variant of accusative &quot;fluent**e**s&quot; (cf. https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4t4ddb/whats_this_about_accusative_plurals_ending_is/ ). As for the (ab)use of &quot;middle&quot; term,  perhaps it can be useful to take a look at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/on-the-typical-ambiguity-of-porta-clausa-est  &amp; https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" CreationDate="2019-08-20T18:51:31.993" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21117" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I translated incorrectly: &quot; ...and bare knees joined in a knot TO flowing robes&quot;; giving &quot;sinus fluentis (fluentes)&quot; as an accusative (&quot;the true direct object of collecta&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-08-22T10:08:47.280" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21118" PostId="11343" Score="0" Text="This comment discussion is getting sidetracked and has little to do with the answer about *contemplari*. Please take the discussion to our chat room or ask a new question about the details. This topic is certainly worth exploring in more questions." CreationDate="2019-08-22T10:49:17.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21038" PostId="11344" Score="0" Text="Montigena and mortigena make a lovely pair! I wonder if Latin pedants complained as much as I do about iatrogenic diseases (which obviously has to mean diseases which give rise to doctors)." CreationDate="2019-08-17T18:20:31.737" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="35736" PostId="11344" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski Complaining about doctors in Latin literature is a true, all-Roman tradition. Just ask [Cato the Elder](https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/doctors-did-not-have-best-opinion-in-ancient-rome/)." CreationDate="2021-11-10T13:18:36.003" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="21049" PostId="11346" Score="2" Text="I'm guessing Walker puts a short *ă* because it got syncopated later (&quot;York&quot;). But that syncope happened after the word had gotten totally reanalyzed in English, so I wouldn't put much weight on it." CreationDate="2019-08-18T17:48:38.363" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21045" PostId="11348" Score="2" Text="Of course it is not the case of the same prefix having two meanings. It is about two different IE preformatives merging in Latin." CreationDate="2019-08-18T16:05:36.997" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="21048" PostId="11348" Score="1" Text="@fdb I am aware, but that was somewhat irrelevant for the question. What matters here is that they look alike at the time of classical Latin so that the ambiguity arises." CreationDate="2019-08-18T17:38:29.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21073" PostId="11348" Score="1" Text="Related: Sometimes people misinterpret words like *inflammable* ..." CreationDate="2019-08-19T19:09:18.780" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="21065" PostId="11350" Score="0" Text="see Ernout and Meillet (s.v. ignosco) https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n161" CreationDate="2019-08-19T03:27:46.717" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21054" PostId="11351" Score="1" Text="That Plautine pun is an excellent find! The double prefixed ones are interesting too; I can't recall seeing those before. The other findings are interesting too and answer my question, but I do somehow quite like the twist here." CreationDate="2019-08-18T21:33:07.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21072" PostId="11353" Score="2" Text="One point: I'm pretty sure it's impossible to have a circumflex over a short vowel, so the accent does more than &quot;imply&quot; it is wrong. Obviously, the accenting could be mistaken." CreationDate="2019-08-19T13:13:31.980" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21075" PostId="11354" Score="1" Text="Thanks, the information about the association of χρηστός and the Marcionites was new to me. Your confirmation of the long vowel in χριστός makes me feel more confident about it, but this answer doesn't give any explanation of how we know that roots like this have consistent vowel length in all derived forms." CreationDate="2019-08-20T01:55:25.760" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21102" PostId="11355" Score="0" Text="I agree that, when spoken and accompanied by appropriate gesturing, this would probably work well enough. As a text, though, without the gesturing, it feels somehow incomplete. Perhaps even something as simple as *hac* ('in this/one direction') answered by either *illac* or another *hac* ('in that/the other direction') would help (even when the sentence is spoken), and you could even omit the *et* in this case: *cella mea duo metra hac, quattuor illac/hac patet.*" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:26:17.917" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="21104" PostId="11355" Score="0" Text="@cnread Good suggestion! I agree that there's no way to make it as unambiguous as the English with similar brevity, but I still wanted to see how far I could push it that way." CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:30:40.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21081" PostId="11358" Score="0" Text="It's worth noting that even the Italian _decimazione_, despite being visibly related to _dieci_ (&quot;ten&quot;), does mostly mean &quot;large reduction&quot; unless it's in a military context." CreationDate="2019-08-20T07:51:19.060" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="21087" PostId="11358" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Fair point. I added a clarification to my answer. Namely, I fully agree that the generalization has occurred later at least in languages other than Latin, but (in my reading) the question asks whether it occurred already at the time of classical Latin. What I've found suggests a negative answer, but I'd be happy to learn I'm wrong." CreationDate="2019-08-20T10:24:04.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21088" PostId="11358" Score="1" Text="Sure, I was only addressing the paragraph about the link to &quot;ten&quot; having deteriorated in English. I do agree with your conclusion." CreationDate="2019-08-20T12:11:17.320" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="21096" PostId="11361" Score="0" Text="and the muttering of spells, and the chink of coinage." CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:07:39.400" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21091" PostId="11364" Score="3" Text="This is a very good answer. Just to remark: the Greek text is not handwriting; it is hand-set type including Byzantine-style ligatures." CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:14:56.647" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="21092" PostId="11364" Score="1" Text="@fdb Huh, interesting! So that whole *para-* in the third word is a single piece of type? I admit this is the most difficult typeface I've ever tried to read in Greek…" CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:16:52.043" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21093" PostId="11364" Score="1" Text="I should think it is." CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:20:37.170" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="21103" PostId="11364" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I found a Google books version that has a more legible type-face: https://books.google.com/books?id=UXa4AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA72&amp;lpg=PA72" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:29:27.620" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21107" PostId="11364" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Thank you so much! Sometime later I'll edit a transcription into my answer, so that it's searchable." CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:54:03.980" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21110" PostId="11364" Score="0" Text="It is the standard critical edition by Heiberg." CreationDate="2019-08-21T09:11:30.357" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="24087" PostId="11364" Score="0" Text="And here I thought that &quot;cut&quot; originates not from the act of engraving, but rather from the fact that conic sections(!) are defined as intersection of a cone and a plane!?" CreationDate="2020-01-25T14:20:30.003" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="24088" PostId="11364" Score="0" Text="@HagenvonEitzen It probably has something to do with that too! I bring up engraving because the &quot;cutting&quot; metaphor is also used here for line segments which don't lie on the conic section itself." CreationDate="2020-01-25T16:19:21.337" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47772" PostId="11364" Score="0" Text="Like the answer. Another way to view this, is that each notch in the X-Axis coordinate system, is in itself a division of the line. So, later on apparently the idea of dividing a line into a numbered sequence was simply an extension of the original idea. Anyhow, now I can visualize abcissa as simply meaning dividing a line whatever the system might be. Could be cartesian, could be logarithmic. Makes no difference, it is just a cut and later mathematics simply added a numerical sequence to the cuts." CreationDate="2021-11-29T21:22:22.700" UserId="10471" />
  <row Id="21076" PostId="11365" Score="0" Text="Thanks for translating the entry, sumelic. I hope you don't mind my adding some links. - feel free to undo it." CreationDate="2019-08-20T02:40:11.463" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21078" PostId="11365" Score="1" Text="M. Leumann should be Leumann, Manu. &quot;Lateinische Laut- Und Formenlehre 1955—1962.&quot; Glotta 42, no. 1/2 (1964): 69-120 (he discusses ignoscere on page 110). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40265932.https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265932" CreationDate="2019-08-20T03:21:39.527" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21119" PostId="11365" Score="1" Text="and a more detailed summary of relevant research in Walde and Hoffmann https://archive.org/details/walde/page/n709 I'm afraid nothing substantial, of significance has been proposed/changed since then" CreationDate="2019-08-22T15:13:39.273" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21109" PostId="11366" Score="5" Text="Obligatory Spanish example: [¿Cómo se escribe &quot;papa&quot; en Inglés?](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yBPc2.png)" CreationDate="2019-08-21T02:43:39.350" UserId="3444" />
  <row Id="21111" PostId="11366" Score="3" Text="The most puzzling example to me is that in French people use the male version of &quot;day&quot; to say &quot;hi&quot; and the female to say &quot;bye&quot; (Bonjour / Bonne journée – Bon soir / Bonne soirée)." CreationDate="2019-08-21T10:18:40.467" UserId="2945" />
  <row Id="26194" PostId="11366" Score="0" Text="Similar examples in Spanish: el papa=the pope, la papa=the potato; la radio=the radio broadcast (the content you listen to), el radio=the radio set (what sits on your desk)." CreationDate="2020-05-06T12:58:55.560" UserId="1174" />
  <row Id="21090" PostId="11368" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Wow! Thank you for your efforts; to me, this was not nearly so involved! Thought that a string of (English-type) infinitives would be wrong, in Latin. Therefore, an &quot;ut&quot; (result) clause would be mandatory. The potential pitfall of &quot;to compete is worse than to compete&quot; was a trap that I saw; choosing, hopefully, just the exact subjunctives to make &quot;would-be-worse-than-not-to-compete&quot; work. Thanks again." CreationDate="2019-08-20T15:53:05.767" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21106" PostId="11368" Score="0" Text="@tony You're welcome! I see what you were trying to achieve with the *ut*, but it does indeed indicate a goal and it was not about racing with the intention of losing. A method to express something in a similar spirit occurred to me and I edited a bit: You could use a gerund or a participle." CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:36:47.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21199" PostId="11368" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: A tiny point: in these apposite translations yourself did not cover the &quot;at all&quot; bit (omnino); was that deliberate, in as much as &quot;at all&quot; would be understood, anyway? To include &quot;omnino&quot; would then be clumsy?" CreationDate="2019-08-29T11:32:32.617" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21200" PostId="11368" Score="0" Text="@tony I indeed felt it would have been clumsy. My goal was to tell the same story, not necessarily to use the same words. Adding adverbs and similar for nuance is always possible." CreationDate="2019-08-29T12:03:11.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21094" PostId="11369" Score="1" Text="Actually, I do not think any of these are real homonyms. Almost all are words that can be used both as common and proper nouns. Anyway, the question was about homonyms of two different genders." CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:32:27.517" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="21095" PostId="11369" Score="0" Text="fusus (noun) and fusus (participle) are indeed homonyms, but both are masculine." CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:37:27.070" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="21097" PostId="11369" Score="0" Text="I think the question was asked because the website Lenny read presents homophones as something very particular to French, which is quite strange." CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:12:25.857" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="21099" PostId="11370" Score="1" Text="Gallus also denotes a castrated priest of Cybele" CreationDate="2019-08-20T18:54:35.173" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23988" PostId="11370" Score="1" Text="@cnread So not just roosters but also capons...." CreationDate="2020-01-11T20:11:41.633" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21100" PostId="11372" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I didn't quite understand what García-Hernández was saying about *insuesco* and *immanesco.* Lewis and Short doesn't define *[insuesco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=insuesco)* as having a negative meaning, even though *[insuetus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinsuetus2)* does have such a meaning. Is L&amp;S missing an entry for another verb *insuesco* that does have a negative meaning?" CreationDate="2019-08-20T18:55:25.000" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21101" PostId="11372" Score="0" Text="Like you, I was also surprised when I read these comments on _insuesco_ and _immanesco_. I'm afraid the best we can do is to consult the voluminous monograph by Haverling (2000) directly (unfortunately, now I don't have it on hand). García-Hernández says that the discussion of these verbs is on pages 378ff. But what is really intriguing is that Haverling, THE expert on these verbs, says that the prefix IN- of _ignosco_ is not the one that expresses negation." CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:10:00.843" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21105" PostId="11372" Score="0" Text="Grrr! Google books only allows me to read the following sentence: &quot;scholars have held different views on the formation of _ignosco_&quot; on page 379.  It also mentions the work by Keller (1992). I guess it's the following:  Madeleine Keller (1992). _Les verbes latins à infectum en -sc-, étude morphologique à partir des formations attestées dès l'époque classique_. Collection LATOMUS volume 216. https://www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1994_num_62_1_3105_t1_0060_0000_3" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:34:37.177" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21108" PostId="11373" Score="2" Text="Good question. Perhaps related: interrogative *quid?* often means &quot;why?&quot;" CreationDate="2019-08-21T02:42:20.293" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21114" PostId="11375" Score="0" Text="Brilliant! Thank you for the time and effort put in, here. Yes, alternative routes to the meaning, however ineptly, I attempted to convey. Tom Cotton also suggested that &quot;commode&quot; could/ should have been omitted. Given such, this comprehensive answer would never have been produced! Tom's astute adaption of Caligula was reminiscent of your own adaption of Cicero's; &quot;quod male cecidit&quot; to give &quot;res bene cadent&quot; in Q: &quot;Everything Will Be Well&quot;--excellent!" CreationDate="2019-08-21T14:11:56.387" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21115" PostId="11375" Score="0" Text="Just on the &quot;future&quot; thing; construction--we shall do something if some circumstance will occur--is fairly common; so, usually use fut. perf. in 1st clause; fut. in 2nd., e.g. &quot;si veneris, eum videbis&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-21T14:16:05.333" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21116" PostId="11375" Score="0" Text="@tony, Right, the future perfect would be in the si clause – the subordinate clause, not the main clause. It doesn't matter whether the sub. clause is first or second in order. The same logic holds true here. To show the same tense distinction here, you wouldn't make future vincemus into future perfect vicerimus but, e.g.. present subjunctive ruant into perfect subjunctive ruerint." CreationDate="2019-08-21T16:59:47.743" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="21138" PostId="11377" Score="1" Text="Welcome! This is indeed a great fit for our site." CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:34:03.433" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21160" PostId="11378" Score="2" Text="This was actually extremely helpful. Thank you so much!" CreationDate="2019-08-25T20:50:19.930" UserId="5025" />
  <row Id="21127" PostId="11379" Score="0" Text="The imperative implies &quot;you&quot;, however rudely, &quot;you&quot; are the receiver of the command: &quot;(You) do it!&quot;. In English, imperatives are often used rudely, inviting aggression, was this the case in Latin? The (English) use of &quot;yourself&quot;, it is more polite than &quot;You!&quot;. Use this here when addressing colleagues, strangers; whom, are invariably better at Latin than I, people like yourself as opposed to people like you! Demonstrative pronouns may be required if a target is identified: &quot;(You) kill him!&quot;, sort of thing." CreationDate="2019-08-23T11:31:51.160" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21131" PostId="11379" Score="1" Text="@tony The imperative in Latin wasn't particularly rude or aggressive; it was often used in prayers, for example." CreationDate="2019-08-23T15:50:41.687" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21141" PostId="11379" Score="0" Text="Would you consider the *ipsum* in *te ipsum* a reflexive? Semantically, it seems to play the same role as the &quot;-self&quot; in &quot;yourself&quot;. As the imperative is more common with the second person, studying *ipsum/ipsos* might give more than studying *se*." CreationDate="2019-08-23T20:03:28.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21145" PostId="11379" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: A form of &quot;ipse&quot; is used to emphasise a reflexive pronoun, functioning as an intensifier e.g. &quot;dixit se ipsum venturum esse&quot; = &quot;He said that he himself would come&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-23T22:16:34.867" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21147" PostId="11379" Score="0" Text="@tony I know, but in the second person that pronoun seems to be the closest to a reflexive we have. That's why I asked whether it'd count instead of assuming so. For example, *nosce te ipsum* would be &quot;know yourself&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-24T06:32:34.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21151" PostId="11379" Score="1" Text="I don't have any evidence, but it seems obvious to me that e.g. &quot;Let him praise himself&quot; would have to be *laudato se* rather than *laudato eum* (which would mean &quot;Let him praise him=someone else&quot;). Is there a language that has distinct reflexive pronouns but doesn't use them with imperatives?" CreationDate="2019-08-24T23:46:57.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="21152" PostId="11379" Score="0" Text="@TKR Not that I know of, but I know very few languages well enough to say for sure. I asked about that on Linguistics.SE, and nobody seemed to know of one, but I don't have any specific evidence of absence." CreationDate="2019-08-25T01:43:46.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21185" PostId="11379" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Does &quot;nosce te ipsum&quot; answer Draconis's Q?" CreationDate="2019-08-27T09:08:21.697" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21128" PostId="11381" Score="0" Text="Hmm... I think &quot;forward&quot; in &quot;forward engineering&quot; should be parsed as an adjective, not as an imperative. Your suggestion sounds like the order &quot;[go] forward, engineering!&quot; rather than a name for a type of engineering. I gave an adjectival version in an answer." CreationDate="2019-08-23T12:58:23.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21130" PostId="11381" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oh, then I didn't understand the focus of the phrase. I was indeed trying to think on an imperative." CreationDate="2019-08-23T15:26:50.933" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21134" PostId="11384" Score="0" Text="As for your claim that in the case of _a nobis nobis_ you would add an _ipsis_ for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since _ipsis_ can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like _a nobis ad nos ipsos_ and a different verb." CreationDate="2019-08-23T18:41:35.760" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21135" PostId="11384" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of *nos* is pretty useless, and adding *ipsis* would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed." CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:20:33.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21139" PostId="11384" Score="0" Text="Although the nominal phrase _ipsis nobis_ is attested, I guess that the construction _a nobis ipsis nobis_ would never be used. _A nobis nobis ipsis_ would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know..." CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:35:20.437" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21170" PostId="11384" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Latin does not like jingles. In &quot;immo ut a vobis mutuom nobis dares&quot; (brianpck's ans.) &quot;vobis&quot; &amp; &quot;nobis&quot; are kept apart. Should it be: &quot;a nobis ipsis nobis&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-08-26T10:46:45.920" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21171" PostId="11384" Score="0" Text="@tony In *a nobis ipsis nobis* it's unclear whether *ipsis* goes with *nobis* or *vobis*. To clarify, put some different words in between, like nouns or verbs." CreationDate="2019-08-26T10:54:17.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21140" PostId="11387" Score="0" Text="Nice pair! There appear to be many examples of Ablative absolutes with this verbal adjective. E.g., _infectis iis_ (Caes. _B. C._ 1, 33) is translated as &quot;without having accomplished those things&quot; (involving a syntactically null AGENT: cf. &quot;without **PRO** having accomplished those things&quot;). However, I was wondering if this Lat. adjectival passive would be better rendered as &quot;without those things accomplished&quot;, i.e., as involving a RESULTATIVE reading of the participle, where there is NO **syntactic** agent involved (following Embick's (2004) famous tripartite classification of participles)." CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:54:58.443" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21143" PostId="11387" Score="0" Text="Ok, sumelic! Thanks! By the way, as a native speaker of English, could you tell me if it is possible in English to say the following **eventive** (i.e., &quot;verbal&quot;) passive: &quot;without those things having been accomplished (by someone)&quot;? In any case, the prefix _in-_ gives an adjectival reading in Latin. To put in Embick's (2004) terms, only a **resultative** reading would be possible here (crucially, not an eventive/&quot;verbal&quot; one, i.e., the one that involves a (null or explicit) syntactic agent)." CreationDate="2019-08-23T20:13:47.780" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21144" PostId="11387" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: &quot;without those things having been accomplished by ___&quot; seems weirdly phrased, but not very unacceptable to me. But I can't say whether it could take an eventive reading. As I mentioned recently in the comment about &quot;un_ed by&quot; constructions, I'm not sure that the presence of a &quot;by&quot; prepositional phrase referring to a semantic agent is perfectly correlated with the distinction between verbal (or eventive) vs. adjectival (or resultative) readings." CreationDate="2019-08-23T20:24:59.763" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21146" PostId="11387" Score="0" Text="Ok, sumelic, many thanks for your helpful comment and judgement!" CreationDate="2019-08-23T23:56:54.670" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26206" PostId="11391" Score="1" Text="I have posted a question about the Appendix Probi here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13785/more-details-on-the-appendix-probi" CreationDate="2020-05-07T09:59:37.487" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="21180" PostId="11392" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! That is a lovely message you want to convey. The thing is, on this site, we require translation questions to provide as much context as possible. I realise that Monsour has already posted a potential answer to your question, but could you add some context? Especially what you have tried to do yourself, what it is for, what sex these people are, whether they are plural, what kind of connotations or sentiments you would want to convey, or similar. The more context we have, the likelier it is that the answer will be correct in your situation (for otherwise it might not be)." CreationDate="2019-08-26T22:26:55.400" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21226" PostId="11392" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I edited the details Brian gave in a comment into the question." CreationDate="2019-09-01T18:52:24.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21148" PostId="11393" Score="1" Text="Is &quot;type it into the Perseus morphology tool&quot; a valid answer? I've never found a better one." CreationDate="2019-08-24T17:11:19.250" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21150" PostId="11393" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Very interesting, thank you, but it does not answer to my question, sorry." CreationDate="2019-08-24T20:25:44.770" UserId="5030" />
  <row Id="21159" PostId="11393" Score="1" Text="To clarify: are you looking for patterns how to derive the aorist root from the present tense (for example)? Greek has six [principal parts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_verbs#Formation_of_the_tenses), and they aren't always derivable from each other, but there are patterns that are helpful in memorization" CreationDate="2019-08-25T20:31:58.380" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="21167" PostId="11393" Score="0" Text="@ba Grammarians know that λείπω has λιπ-/λειπ-/λοιπ- as roots, respectively, and I wonder how they know it, that's to say, how they find this information. I am trying to investigate inner mechanisms of greek. Do you mean paradimg as  &quot;pattern&quot;, i.e. βλώσκω, μολοῦμαι, ἔμολον, μέμβλωκα or λύω, λύσω, ἔλυσα, λέλυκα, λέλυμαι, ἐλύθην, λυθήσομαι are patterns?" CreationDate="2019-08-26T09:48:28.070" UserId="5030" />
  <row Id="21169" PostId="11393" Score="1" Text="@OnnerIrotsab  Roots like λιπ-/λειπ-/λοιπ- are (disregarding historic considerations) only abstractions to help form the principal parts, e.g. present λείπω, aorist ἔλιπον, perfect λέλοιπα. I meant to ask whether you are looking for how to derive the root as listed by dictionaries (e.g. use δίδωμι to know ΔΟ), or how to derive principal parts from each other (e.g. use λείπω to know ἔλιπον)" CreationDate="2019-08-26T10:15:34.423" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="21174" PostId="11393" Score="1" Text="@ba I am interesting in: from λείπω how to deduce ἔλιπον (and not, following regular formation for weak aorist, ἔλειψα (ε-λειπ-σα &gt; ε-λειπ-σα &gt; ε-λειψ-α) that derives from λείβω) and vice-versa. I would like to understand if there is a logic/scientific way to do this and not (only) a mnemonic way. I have spoken of verbal roots because, since the endings are always the same (main and hystorical endings), the whole conjugation depends on the verbal roots and the usual phonetic phenomena between vowels, diphthongs and consonants." CreationDate="2019-08-26T12:10:52.670" UserId="5030" />
  <row Id="21162" PostId="11394" Score="1" Text="Adjectives might help. *Virgo aspera* an unmarriageable virgo. The dictionaries give a couple of examples of *virgo intacta* (Ter. And. 1, 2, 17; Cic. Ac. 1, 4, 11.) but that's not really enough to support an argument." CreationDate="2019-08-25T22:33:08.540" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21168" PostId="11394" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: If there was a time when &quot;virgo&quot; did not mean &quot;virgin&quot;; then, there must have been an alternative term for that--what was it? Virginity was revered by the Romans, however hypocritically. Tom has mentioned the Vestal Vigins; honoured, respected. Look how rich Romans queued-up to marry ex V-Vs, at the completion of their tenure; the erotic intoxication of innocence &amp; sensuality!" CreationDate="2019-08-26T09:52:49.543" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21175" PostId="11394" Score="3" Text="Another interesting angle on this question: is *virgo* ever used in Latin to refer to a young woman who is not a virgin? I don't think so." CreationDate="2019-08-26T13:54:00.100" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21187" PostId="11394" Score="0" Text="brianpck: Therefore &quot;virgo&quot; is a compliment, of sorts, in roundabout ways; or, would that be a Romanesque hypocrisy? To an adolescent male, the term &quot;virgin&quot; would be humiliating; now, and, probably then?" CreationDate="2019-08-27T09:45:59.277" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21155" PostId="11396" Score="1" Text="The dedication itself is not recent. &quot;Junius&quot; lived in the second half of the 18th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junius" CreationDate="2019-08-25T17:31:24.730" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="21158" PostId="11396" Score="0" Text="Isn't it *Observationes in Willerami Abbatis Francicam paraphrasin Cantici canticorum* (1655)? https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/resolve/display/bsb10123522.html (NB: I didn't check it though, could be completely wrong)" CreationDate="2019-08-25T19:38:56.370" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21161" PostId="11396" Score="1" Text="AlexB. Politeness to a sponsor or patron is understandable. What is rare in *this* example is the gentle self-deprecation of the writer and trust in the readers." CreationDate="2019-08-25T20:57:14.693" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21181" PostId="11396" Score="2" Text="Note: in a literal translation, *vixero* would be &quot;I shall have lived&quot;." CreationDate="2019-08-27T00:03:44.813" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22423" PostId="11396" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: Yes, and (fut. perf.) should be a completed action in the future, followed by a future tense e.g. &quot;si veneris, eum videbis&quot;. Here,  &quot;quamdiu vixero&quot; is ongoing and &quot;offero&quot; is present tense. What happened to the stricture that a Latin present cannot be used as a future (tense)?" CreationDate="2019-09-13T11:24:44.937" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22471" PostId="11396" Score="0" Text="@tony: Yes, I would sooner expect a future in the main clause here. I was taught that the future perfect should go with a simple future, but I believe this rule isn't as strict as we were led to believe, so I'll defer judgement." CreationDate="2019-09-15T21:14:17.947" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21166" PostId="11397" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Would semper memorati (?memorata) work?" CreationDate="2019-08-26T08:02:08.300" UserId="5029" />
  <row Id="21172" PostId="11397" Score="0" Text="_memorata_ is singular. If you want feminine plural, _memoratae_." CreationDate="2019-08-26T11:57:54.890" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="21227" PostId="11397" Score="0" Text="@Brian: *Memorati* can be masculine plural, or a group of mixed sex, so it would fit in your context. Take care." CreationDate="2019-09-01T20:26:26.420" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21163" PostId="11398" Score="2" Text="[L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvirgo) agrees with you: the primary meaning definitely is &quot;maiden.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-08-26T02:30:42.583" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21176" PostId="11399" Score="2" Text="I would postulate a bit of circular reasoning: the word _laus_ is now associated with the early morning because the Catholics have been saying _laudes_ every morning for centuries." CreationDate="2019-08-26T16:48:04.733" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21178" PostId="11399" Score="0" Text="I agree with @Draconis, this seems pretty intuitive to me (though with no immediate proof to argue in its favor). As you quote, *Laudes supplanted the name of Matins* thus coming to mean (in a purely liturgical, Ecclesiastical sense, but trully nonetheless) *the morning part of the office* and also by extension the time at which this part is recited. In this context, it is not wrong to say that these have to be recited in the morning *as the name indicates*." CreationDate="2019-08-26T20:47:16.423" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="21179" PostId="11399" Score="1" Text="Catholic Encyclopedia's article on [canonical hours](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07500b.htm) says: *In the Acts of the Apostles we see that prayer was designated by the hour at which it was said (Acts 3:1)*. Four out of the eight canonical hours [retain this logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_hours) in their names. Hence it seems still somewhat natural to me to use the remaining names for times of the day too." CreationDate="2019-08-26T21:03:53.597" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="21183" PostId="11399" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Mmm, so would the answer be something like &quot;in Classical Latin, _laus_ had no reference whatsoever to the morning of the day. This meaning was acquired after centuries of Christian worship of Lauds&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-08-27T07:40:52.053" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21186" PostId="11399" Score="0" Text="@Draconis &quot;the word _laus_ is now associated with the early morning&quot;. Also, is this the case?" CreationDate="2019-08-27T09:28:08.653" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21198" PostId="11399" Score="0" Text="You really should edit your title to say &quot;laudes&quot;.  It's clear &quot;laudate&quot; has no connection to morning in Catholic liturgy.  One of its most common occurrences is in the recitation of Ps 117 at the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, something which often takes place in the afternoon or evening." CreationDate="2019-08-29T02:47:39.553" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21182" PostId="11403" Score="0" Text="Are you saying _laudate_ does not imply morning hours of the day, because this has to be specified by adding _matutinae_ to it?" CreationDate="2019-08-27T07:38:25.443" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21184" PostId="11403" Score="0" Text="That's right. Laudes are praises and that's that. The fact that you may not bother to write &quot;matutinæ&quot; every single time doesn't make the word &quot;laudes&quot; matutinal in and of itself. To refer to the *Institutio generalis* again: it consistently and repeatedly says &quot;laudes matutinæ&quot;, but when the name occurs twice in a paragraph  (§41) it is simply given as &quot;laudes&quot; the second time. And when, in §43, it is in the genitive, to say &quot;psalmodia Laudum *matutinarum*&quot; would have been pompous and pedantic, so they don't." CreationDate="2019-08-27T08:07:45.137" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="21189" PostId="11403" Score="1" Text="This seems right, but I don't understand why you say, &quot;The Spanish translation is wrong.&quot; It's a pretty literal translation of the Latin." CreationDate="2019-08-27T12:46:12.123" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21196" PostId="11403" Score="0" Text="I said &quot;unless it is making the same implicit one-word [sc. Laudes] reference to the two-word [Laudes matutinæ] name&quot;. So I have edited accordingly." CreationDate="2019-08-28T07:29:26.293" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="21191" PostId="11404" Score="1" Text="To the first category can be added -λλ- from -λy-, e.g. βάλλω, ἔβαλον." CreationDate="2019-08-27T21:11:03.287" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="21192" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="This is a bit more systematic than my answer. Out of curiosity, are you suggesting the *-e-* in *dokeô* is from Ablaut (like the internal *-e-* in *peithô*)? I don't remember exactly, but I always thought it was a different *-e-*?" CreationDate="2019-08-27T21:16:40.337" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21193" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I don't know. The Wikipedia article I quoted them from groups them both together, so I just followed that" CreationDate="2019-08-27T21:54:10.510" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="21194" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The two -e-s have nothing in common; the first is ablaut, the second is a suffix (*-ey-*). Wiki is misleading to group them together." CreationDate="2019-08-27T23:47:23.740" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="21195" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="@TKR: OK I suspected as much. I don't think I've ever seen Ablaut manifested after the coda." CreationDate="2019-08-28T01:06:43.700" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26045" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="The Wiki article is incorrect in its discussion of consonant + *y outcomes for dentals and velars. Actually in both those classes the voiced stops (δ γ) + *y give ζ, while the other stops (τ θ κ χ) + *y give Attic ττ / other dialects σσ." CreationDate="2020-04-26T19:36:01.280" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26053" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="@TKR Then why θαυμάζω (ostensibly from θαυματ-) and πράσσ(ττ)ω (ostensibly from πραγ-)?" CreationDate="2020-04-26T20:38:18.160" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="26057" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="θαυμάζω is just one of many -ζω verbs where that suffix has become productive regardless of the stem. πράττω seems to be a bit unclear; Beekes doesn't come down on whether it's from πρακ- or πραγ-, while Chantraine favors the former. But there are many good examples of *gy &gt; ζ: μέγα ~ μέζων, ἅρπαγος ~ ἁρπάζω, φυγή ~ φύζα, ἔργον ~ ῥέζω." CreationDate="2020-04-26T21:15:19.897" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26064" PostId="11404" Score="0" Text="@TKR I looked at Wikipedia's source and it seems that Wikipedia misrepresented it. I corrected it according to the original source, which matches what you said" CreationDate="2020-04-27T10:19:51.237" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="21209" PostId="11412" Score="0" Text="Interesting…if Varro's correct about that, why do we have &quot;Decimus&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-08-30T16:16:33.193" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21213" PostId="11412" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: The blog post suggests *Decimus* was originally associated with December. The hypothesis doesn't seem to rely on the *-ilis* morphology specifically (which is part of why I said it was a side point to mention it in this post); it's just an idea that the number-based months were associated with the number-based praenomina." CreationDate="2019-08-30T22:55:24.940" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21208" PostId="11413" Score="2" Text="I read an article about it in The Times (of London) today. They mention some examples from the course, e.g. *Psittacum ebrium et perfidum habeo* or *Forte stercus sordidum est in ponte*." CreationDate="2019-08-30T14:29:49.913" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21210" PostId="11413" Score="1" Text="@AlexB.: That is rather nice." CreationDate="2019-08-30T17:10:18.077" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21223" PostId="11414" Score="0" Text="Also, you might want to edit Jefferson out of your question.  Franklin is the originator of this saying; mentioning Jefferson is a bit like false news.  Also, the original saying references &quot;safety&quot; or &quot;security&quot;, which is not quite the same thing as &quot;law and order&quot;.  For example, safety from invasion has precious little to do with law and order, whilst trains running on time has a lot to do with law and order but nothing to do with safety." CreationDate="2019-09-01T13:59:21.033" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21234" PostId="11414" Score="0" Text="C Monsour: Yes, found &quot;lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said&quot;. Also, it's clear that BF was not talking about dictatorship; but, perhaps, Jefferson was? This quote has been re-worked, over time; therefore, was careful to say: &quot;...it can be summarised as...&quot;. Proponents of these regimes usually offer &quot;order&quot;; a sort of crime-free society, to be delivered, how--down the barrel of a gun? However comforting this might be to victims of crime; and, those who live in fear of it, the killing does not end with the criminals. This quote, as given above, so apposite, in so few words, is a superb" CreationDate="2019-09-02T10:48:46.727" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21235" PostId="11414" Score="0" Text="C Monsour: Continuing: piece of English. Just had to put it into Latin!" CreationDate="2019-09-02T10:50:00.417" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21313" PostId="11415" Score="0" Text="First of all, thanks for the explanation. In this case the context is something like: &#xA;The history is the one who judges me." CreationDate="2019-09-06T02:44:58.403" UserId="5042" />
  <row Id="21215" PostId="11416" Score="2" Text="I went through the placement test and noticed that the program was also very intolerant of legitimate alternative word orders. It wouldn't accept, e.g., Minerva sapiens est as a correct answer; I would have had to enter Minerva est sapiens to get credit for the question." CreationDate="2019-08-31T21:35:55.290" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="21216" PostId="11416" Score="1" Text="@cnread I purposely skipped the test to see how the course starts. Those word order issues are sad but not surprising. I updated the answer a bit." CreationDate="2019-08-31T21:42:58.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21219" PostId="11416" Score="2" Text="@cnread I had the same issue. I flagged the result as &quot;my answer should be accepted&quot; and after a few hours I received a feedback email saying my answer was now considered good" CreationDate="2019-08-31T23:22:39.253" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22473" PostId="11416" Score="2" Text="There is a misconception that the accepted Duolingo answers are generated by some algorithm or even artificial intelligence. That is not correct. Volunteer contributors have to add each one manually using certain templates (one entry can generate multiple sentences with variant forms). Therefore *&quot;I don't know if Duolingo has the capacity to understand structures more flexibly. (This feels similar to the issues with Google Translate.)&quot;* does not make that much sense. The immense number of possible word orders is a pain. (I am a DL contributor, but for Czech, not for Latin)." CreationDate="2019-09-16T18:49:31.027" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22474" PostId="11416" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That happens when a contributor adds certain answer and then clicks on the reports that proposed that form. A nice summary can be found in https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/33996642 (Trofaste does contribute to Latin, among other languages)." CreationDate="2019-09-16T18:52:14.837" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22475" PostId="11416" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF I actually thought so, but I wasn't fully sure. What I meant is that in order to work well with Latin, it is not a good approach to list all allowed inputs, but to have some structural understanding. The quote makes sense, and your comment verifies that Duolingo does not have the mentioned capacity. The current situation seems to be that it will take a long time for Duolingo to learn enough options, and that unfortunately many of the proposed options are really quite unnatural. This is quite unfortunate." CreationDate="2019-09-16T19:29:26.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22484" PostId="11416" Score="0" Text="I'd like your answer twice if I could. I laughed with your reference to &quot;the sheer amount of poop and drunken parrots&quot;. I don't think women with wifes are essential to learn Latin either" CreationDate="2019-09-17T21:57:03.643" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22485" PostId="11416" Score="0" Text="@Rafael There is a feature that is essentially upvoting multiple times: You can give a bounty to any answer you like. Not that you necessarily should with this answer of mine, but it is nice to occasionally reward some great answers you see." CreationDate="2019-09-17T22:11:55.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22906" PostId="11416" Score="0" Text="Beginner here: it wasn't too fast for me." CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:47:31.077" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23227" PostId="11416" Score="0" Text="&quot;I feel unwell&quot; is not accepted, and What does Marcus is now accepted (it only takes report &amp; time). And I've found the source for &quot;quid agit&quot; meaning &quot;how are you&quot;, so I'm very happy. It's in http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=ago" CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:15:13.993" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23228" PostId="11416" Score="0" Text="Please, candidate to be a course contributor!" CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:16:43.107" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="34454" PostId="11416" Score="1" Text="@Quidam Are they willing to pay people to be a contributor?" CreationDate="2021-08-09T21:02:03.437" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="21236" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Thank you for another excellent presentation! (How does yourself find time for your mathematics studies?) Yes, &quot;paulatim&quot; = &quot;gradually&quot;; &quot;bit-by-bit&quot;: democratic freedoms are gradually surrendered; almost imperceptibly. Police forces demand special powers to fight &quot;terrorism&quot;/ &quot;drug-crime&quot;; governments surround us with CCTV-cameras, on similar pretexts--no-one complains. Not sure how &quot;parare&quot; fits with &quot;to give up&quot;? Dropped all efforts on &quot;law-and-order&quot;--same difficulty yourself ran into; the alternatives to &quot;salus&quot; all look good. A struggle with &quot;neither&quot;; sources all" CreationDate="2019-09-02T11:43:23.463" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21237" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Continuing: drive the student into &quot;neither....nor&quot; constructions; but, dictionaries give &quot;neque&quot; = &quot;neither&quot;. Found only one example: &quot;neque fas est illud sacrum ad alios fines detorqueri.&quot; = &quot;neither can this sacred rite be utilised for other gods&quot;. Thought of a swap/ exchange thing but the feel and the punchiness were lost. After &quot;Chariot Racing&quot; decided against a result/ concessive &quot;ut&quot; clause; and dropped purpose/ final for a gerundive. Have found some examples on plurals of &quot;uterque&quot;; so, may submit another Q. Plural &quot;you&quot;-- a wider audience is involved. Thanks again." CreationDate="2019-09-02T11:57:42.400" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21238" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="@tony Well, a surprisingly small fraction of my time as a senior researcher of mathematics (as my title currently stands) goes into actual mathematical research. Anyway, on your comments: (1) I thought the original intention was not &quot;little by little&quot; but &quot;by a little bit right now&quot;. But either makes a sensible statement, and you can translate as you wish. My goal was to make sure you're aware of the difference. (2) *Parare* and *parere* are for gaining, not losing. It's unrelated to the preceding point. (3) *Neque* means &quot;neither&quot; as in &quot;me neither&quot;, not as in &quot;you get neither&quot;. I'll edit." CreationDate="2019-09-02T12:01:53.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21239" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="@tony See if the edits clarify the matter." CreationDate="2019-09-02T12:07:14.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21264" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Yes, got the handle on &quot;neither&quot; and &quot;neutrum&quot;. In &quot;neutrum mereberis et utrumque perdes&quot;, why are the feminine  (neutram/ utramque) not used? Why choose the future passive &quot;mereberis&quot; = &quot;you-will-be-deserved&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-09-03T11:26:59.313" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21265" PostId="11420" Score="1" Text="@tony (1) I took the *utrumque* and *neutrum* to refer to *paululum [alicuius rei]*. The two items to be lost or gained are no longer feminine singulars, so I went with neuter. With *paulatim* the feminine makes more sense, but then bear in mind that *iustitia securitasque* is two things. (2) I used the deponent *mereri*, not the passive. The verb is commonly deponent, but not always." CreationDate="2019-09-03T12:41:23.120" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21315" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Accepting that plural, &quot;utrique&quot;, means &quot;each group&quot;; if had used (freedom-and-justice) and (law-and-order); two groups of two; would &quot;utrasque&quot; have been correct?" CreationDate="2019-09-06T10:19:34.790" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21324" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="@tony Nope. *Utrasque* is roughly &quot;each of two groups of feminines&quot;, and we don't have that here. It could possibly be recast in a way to allow that, but now that isn't what we have. If you add another feminine to go together with *libertas*, then I could buy *utrasque* but I'd still probably use *utrumque*." CreationDate="2019-09-07T10:09:59.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21330" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: I wrote &quot;freedom-and-justice&quot; (justice = iustitia, ae [fem.])." CreationDate="2019-09-07T13:07:21.270" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21332" PostId="11420" Score="0" Text="@tony That is grammatically possible if the law and order are both feminine. But still I'd regard both pairs as abstract things and use the neuter singular." CreationDate="2019-09-07T14:56:54.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21228" PostId="11421" Score="0" Text="Definitely in the Vulgate it's **cor**. Can't elaborate now" CreationDate="2019-09-01T20:32:05.930" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="21229" PostId="11421" Score="0" Text="Dear Joonas, you quoted this in a previous answer &quot;105: Interea tacitae serpunt in viscera flammae&#xA;Meanwhile silent flames creep inside.&quot; (Viscera 'guts'.) Respectfully," CreationDate="2019-09-01T22:38:58.960" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21230" PostId="11421" Score="2" Text="*iecur* should be considered too." CreationDate="2019-09-01T22:41:34.887" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21231" PostId="11421" Score="0" Text="For some related discussion see https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071231181635AAwGWOR&amp;guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADIWof5m6aUQpq9NHh1h_7dfFTjg-IhlZ2RyO90FUKM6YnxS77k-l7fB18SQf913ZPnYXL-qOjORbtp5ztTCzyBYA5HK--jEoX4IyulavVVtb601ljIstrnRM923FXUTGB7IwuZu3KBW1Fi_Oj4rw88-5Sko_49Bm2s2BBwA3q0T" CreationDate="2019-09-01T22:56:30.147" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21232" PostId="11421" Score="1" Text="From the Carmina Burana, the poem that starts with &quot;Omnia sol temperat&quot;:&#xA;&#xA;Ama me fideliter / &#xA;Fidem meam nota / &#xA;de corde totaliter / &#xA;et ex mente tota" CreationDate="2019-09-02T09:00:19.380" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="21240" PostId="11421" Score="0" Text="@Hugh If you have some uses of *iecur* in mind, I'd be happy to see them in an answer. You could throw in *viscera* too. It's good to have several answers exploring different avenues." CreationDate="2019-09-02T12:09:30.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21241" PostId="11424" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the nice question! One option worth considering is replacing *dexter* (right) with *lateris dextri* (of the right side). I faintly recall seeing that, but I don't know what would be a canonical choice in an anatomical context." CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:50:15.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21248" PostId="11425" Score="0" Text="If the desired effect is religious, I think *cor* is a better choice than *pectus*.  For example, &quot;sursum corda&quot; in the liturgy, whereas &quot;in pectore&quot; would describe something like a decision made but not yet uttered." CreationDate="2019-09-02T18:45:11.830" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21250" PostId="11425" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I edited the answer to add a remark on *cor* and *pectus*. It is a matter of the desired style and to some extent of the tone. I find both to be reasonable translations." CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:02:12.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21346" PostId="11425" Score="0" Text="Thanks everybody. Just one final question - is there any role for the use of animus as heart in this context?" CreationDate="2019-09-08T18:51:03.753" UserId="5029" />
  <row Id="21347" PostId="11425" Score="0" Text="@Brian You could use *animus* (as *in animo*), but it might actually cover both memory and heart. My impression is that it's used more for remembering, but in this context I'd take it to mean more heart-felt memory than a mere *memoria*. If you want to know more about the nuances of *animus*, ask a separate follow-up question." CreationDate="2019-09-08T20:36:58.407" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21242" PostId="11426" Score="1" Text="Funnily enough, I just referred to this phrase when answering [this question about a tombstone inscription](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11392/79)." CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:53:06.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21251" PostId="11426" Score="0" Text="I tend to agree with the following comentator, who says &quot;I think in this case _in_ + accusative implies purpose, so that the idea is more &quot;for the remembrance of&quot;. I don't know the exact origin of the phrase as found in epitaphs, however. The Romans applied it to verbs like _revocare_ and _reducere_ to mean 'to recall to memory', but the ablative was used if the idea were of holding or keeping in the memory&quot;. SOURCE: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/in-memory-of.872/" CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:29:17.670" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="21372" PostId="11426" Score="1" Text="In memoria doesn't make any sense at all in Latin. The monument does not exist inside your memory. Rather, the monument exists for the purpose of historical record or to place its subject into the historical record." CreationDate="2019-09-10T22:37:04.077" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="24448" PostId="11426" Score="0" Text="I doubt that &quot;in memoriam&quot; is a mistranslation of &quot;in memory&quot;, but that &quot;in memory&quot; rather is a mistranslation of the Latin. Similarly with the English phrase &quot;believe in God&quot; for &quot;credo in Deum&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-09T22:00:45.150" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="21243" PostId="11427" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the answer. Are you aware if there is a rule when to only use the `sinistri` part and when to use `lateris sinistri` as stated in the comment from Joonas?" CreationDate="2019-09-02T15:17:24.410" UserId="5048" />
  <row Id="21244" PostId="11427" Score="0" Text="@BrunoBieri see update." CreationDate="2019-09-02T15:40:50.930" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21247" PostId="11427" Score="3" Text="Are you sure dextri and sinistri (and medii) are genitive in the examples you give? If I saw those phrases, I would assume the adjectives were nominative, agreeing with nodi, so that the phrase for the original question would be musculus latissimus dorsi sinister." CreationDate="2019-09-02T18:11:07.973" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="21257" PostId="11427" Score="0" Text="@cnread What do you mean &quot;agreeing with nodi&quot;? I provided a link to examples using the nominative. In the end, the issue is whether you want to say &quot;right muscle&quot; or &quot;muscle of the right&quot;. Both seem correct to me." CreationDate="2019-09-03T07:59:48.683" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21258" PostId="11427" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho The examples in your picture are all plurals. The half-visible *faciales* also points at this. There does not seem to be an implicit *lateris* as far as I can tell, unless there are examples that make it unambiguous." CreationDate="2019-09-03T08:02:57.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21260" PostId="11427" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta oh, I see now! Sure, they are plural, suggesting nominative. It remains the case that both nominative and genitive are used, and I showed links with both cases." CreationDate="2019-09-03T08:12:13.360" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21261" PostId="11427" Score="0" Text="@BrunoBieri Notice there was an error in my previous (accepted) answer (noted by cnread and joonas). I've corrected it." CreationDate="2019-09-03T08:28:39.123" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21266" PostId="11427" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Updated the answer" CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:20:17.203" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="22907" PostId="11428" Score="0" Text="They are not flaws. The course in in beta, so the other examples of non US city will be added later." CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:48:12.250" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22913" PostId="11428" Score="0" Text="@Quidam, thank you! As I said in the question, the answer is expected to change as the course evolves." CreationDate="2019-10-25T18:29:33.357" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22914" PostId="11428" Score="1" Text="Okay!That's fine (impossible to just write &quot;ok!&quot;)" CreationDate="2019-10-25T22:21:31.260" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23229" PostId="11428" Score="1" Text="Parrots are a joke, this one is really enjoyed by many users, but they need to add other jokes. Could you make a comment about the &quot;studere&quot; being post-Augustan in the course's forum?" CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:19:15.297" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="34467" PostId="11428" Score="0" Text="@Rafael With everyone else owning their own answers and no one else adding to this one, would you like me to remove the community wiki status?" CreationDate="2021-08-10T12:21:09.060" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34514" PostId="11428" Score="0" Text="@cmw, thanks, but there's no need at all for that." CreationDate="2021-08-12T17:31:19.757" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="21279" PostId="11430" Score="0" Text="If I understand you correct then I should always use the nominative form and put it at the end. Depending on the muscle(s) I should use `dexter`, `dextra`, `dextrum` or `sinister`, `sinistra`, `sinistrum`.&#xA;What are the plural forms of those words?" CreationDate="2019-09-04T06:43:35.990" UserId="5048" />
  <row Id="21280" PostId="11430" Score="0" Text="@BrunoBieri _dextri_, _dextrae_, _dextra_ and _sinistri_, _sinistrae_, _sinistra_ respectively.  However, given that _musculus_ is masculine (_musculi_ in the plural), you may only need to ever use _dexter/dextri_ and _sinister/sinistri_" CreationDate="2019-09-04T07:18:27.967" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="21281" PostId="11430" Score="1" Text="@BrunoBieri  Although, I note that your original question mentions bones, in which case _os_ is neuter so you will use _dextrum/dextra_ and _sinistrum/sinistra_" CreationDate="2019-09-04T07:23:16.423" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="21282" PostId="11430" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the comment. I thought so as well but I came accross: `platysma` which I think is female." CreationDate="2019-09-04T07:23:16.453" UserId="5048" />
  <row Id="21283" PostId="11430" Score="0" Text="@BrunoBieri  Ah, I see.  It does look feminine - I suspect it is Greek in origin, from πλατύς/platus, meaning wide, spread over a large area, so that may complicate matters ... EDIT In fact, πλάτυσμα is a Greek word (a flat object) and is neuter in Greek." CreationDate="2019-09-04T07:30:05.857" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="21267" PostId="11432" Score="1" Text="If it's of any use, the formula _&quot;Dios te salve&quot;_ was already used as a translation for Latin _&quot;salve&quot;_ [in a Cathecism book written circa 1400](http://corpus.rae.es/cgi-bin/crpsrvEx.dll?visualizar?tipo1=5&amp;tipo2=0&amp;iniItem=0&amp;ordenar1=0&amp;ordenar2=0&amp;FID=030919\016\C000O03092019163617681.1016.1012&amp;desc={B}+{I}+dios+te+salve{|I},+en+todos+los+medios,+en+{I}CORDE+{|I}+{|B}{BR}&amp;tamVen=1&amp;marcas=0#acierto0)." CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:41:53.700" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="21268" PostId="11432" Score="1" Text="Also used in a [retelling of the Biblical passage in 1305](http://corpus.rae.es/cgi-bin/crpsrvEx.dll?visualizar?tipo1=5&amp;tipo2=0&amp;iniItem=4&amp;ordenar1=3&amp;ordenar2=0&amp;FID=030919\016\C003O03092019164640412.1016.1012&amp;desc={B}+{I}+Dios+te+salve{|I},+en+{I}0-1401{|I},+en+todos+los+medios,+en+{I}CORDE+{|I}+{|B}{BR}&amp;tamVen=1&amp;marcas=0#acierto4): _&quot;El angel entro, o ella era, e saludola e dixo: Dios te salve, plena de gracia. El seynor es con tu [...]&quot;_" CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:52:48.593" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="21269" PostId="11432" Score="0" Text="Looks like it was first used [around ~1240](http://corpus.rae.es/cgi-bin/crpsrvEx.dll?MfcISAPICommand=buscar&amp;tradQuery=1&amp;destino=1&amp;texto=Dios+te+salve&amp;autor=&amp;titulo=&amp;ano1=&amp;ano2=1401&amp;medio=1000&amp;pais=1000&amp;tema=1000)." CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:54:07.477" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="21270" PostId="11432" Score="0" Text="@walen Thanks! Looks interesting. Btw, last link is not working." CreationDate="2019-09-03T15:35:53.097" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21271" PostId="11432" Score="0" Text="Yeah sorry, I forgot to mention that in the third link you have to click `[Recuperar]` in order to show the search results (can't link them directly)." CreationDate="2019-09-03T16:29:52.527" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="21272" PostId="11432" Score="1" Text="@walen You have the makings of a good answer there! Want to put it together and get some rep? (If not, I'll compile it all later.)" CreationDate="2019-09-03T17:34:03.423" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21284" PostId="11432" Score="0" Text="@Draconis As I said to luchonacho in chat... I don't want to post an answer because, as much as I like Latin, I'm not really an expert nor a user of the stack, and I'd rather have some veteran user post a complete answer with proper references." CreationDate="2019-09-04T08:24:34.977" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="21285" PostId="11432" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Also, my theory about _Ave_ → _Salve_ → _Dios te salve_ is missing the key part: why Vulgata's _Ave_ turned into _Salve_. My bet is some later translation from original Greek where the translator realized that, given the context of greeting a soon-to-be-pregnant woman, translating χαῖρε as _Salve_ instead of _Ave_ [would make more sense](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4367); however, since I don't know of any such translation using _Salve Maria gratia plena_, that remains pure speculation." CreationDate="2019-09-04T08:29:29.583" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="21278" PostId="11434" Score="0" Text="Perfect! Thank you very much. I'm looking for the names from `first` to `twelfth` to name also the rips. I'll check your link to wikipedia to the ordinal numbers." CreationDate="2019-09-04T05:53:54.493" UserId="5048" />
  <row Id="21301" PostId="11436" Score="0" Text="This is awesome thank you! The thing I liked about emendavi is that it’s “to makes something better” and I think that’s what I was going for, not fix in the sense of repair, but like taking someone else’s product and fixing it, and making it better." CreationDate="2019-09-04T23:35:33.413" UserId="5053" />
  <row Id="21286" PostId="11437" Score="0" Text="Three random samples don't give much of a rule: [pragma](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pragma&amp;la=la#lexicon) is neuter, [dogma](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dogma&amp;la=la#lexicon) and [stigma](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=stigma&amp;la=la#lexicon) are both feminine and neuter depending on usage; the &quot;= στίγμα&quot; and &quot;= δόγμα&quot; usages are surprisingly the feminine ones if I'm reading correctly" CreationDate="2019-09-04T09:13:48.027" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="33003" PostId="11437" Score="0" Text="@ba But when they're feminine, they're treated as first declension nouns, not third. Note that they're in Petronius, too, who often uses grammatical errors to indicate the lack of intelligence and refinement in his characters." CreationDate="2021-05-04T18:40:45.617" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="21291" PostId="11440" Score="0" Text="Thanks for asking this! I took the liberty to edit a bit. When you refer to other questions, it's best to include a link. That will make the other question easy to find and it will also be automatically linked back (in the list on the right titled &quot;Linked&quot;). There's a little button &quot;share&quot; under each question; click that and then &quot;copy link&quot;, and you can then paste it to any post or comment you're writing. For example, write: `[this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11440/79)`." CreationDate="2019-09-04T17:38:46.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21309" PostId="11440" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thank you, wondered how this was done, should have asked. Where is the serial no. of the Q to be found?" CreationDate="2019-09-05T16:48:18.417" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21325" PostId="11440" Score="0" Text="Click the &quot;share&quot; button and then &quot;copy link&quot;. That's the designed way to link to questions. You never need to type a number by hand. (If you wanted to for some reason, it's contained in the URL too.)" CreationDate="2019-09-07T10:11:35.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21293" PostId="11441" Score="0" Text="Would you use _physicē_ here? I would have thought _physica_, neuter plural, like in the Latin title of Aristotle's work." CreationDate="2019-09-04T19:27:59.143" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21296" PostId="11441" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I might, but I'd mostly use *physica*. I've only ever seen *physica* as a singular feminine, and the Greek variant makes sense as it appears to be a calque of the Greek *physice techne*. It is an adjective, so a plural *physica* as in &quot;physical things&quot; makes sense for a title in Aristotle, but that to me is different than physics as a field." CreationDate="2019-09-04T19:48:06.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21297" PostId="11441" Score="0" Text="Does gratia ever precede the genitive that goes with it? At any rate, it's more usual to put it after." CreationDate="2019-09-04T21:03:15.310" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="21298" PostId="11441" Score="0" Text="@cnread *Ars gratia artis* is an expression many others are modeled after. I agree that *gratia* often comes after the genitive, for a simple maxim like &quot;X for the sake of Y&quot; this is common. But not the only choice. I'll edit a bit." CreationDate="2019-09-04T21:06:32.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21300" PostId="11441" Score="0" Text="Right, I forgot about ars gratia artis. And a quick peak in OLD has just told me that, even in classical usage, although of gratia placement after the genitive is usual, it isn't the only possibility." CreationDate="2019-09-04T22:26:33.917" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="21302" PostId="11441" Score="0" Text="Perhaps pedantic, but for Aristotle physics (or, to capture the meaning of the term better, &quot;natural science&quot;) was most certainly an ἐπιστήμη, not a τέχνη. I'm also pretty skeptical of &quot;physice, -es&quot; as a Latin borrowing: both Aquinas and Descartes use &quot;physica&quot; as a feminine singular." CreationDate="2019-09-05T03:34:55.223" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21308" PostId="11441" Score="0" Text="Φυσικὴ is, at least originally, an abbreviation of Aristotle's book title  Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις &quot;the lecture about natural things&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-05T15:43:48.803" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="21311" PostId="11441" Score="1" Text="@fdb Even within the *Physics*, Aristotle frequently uses φυσική alone (to designate the science) or as an adjective, so I don't think you should see the term as a mere abbreviation." CreationDate="2019-09-05T19:21:20.293" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21290" PostId="11442" Score="2" Text="Don't impersonal verbs still mark tense and aspect, just not person or number?" CreationDate="2019-09-04T16:09:16.220" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21294" PostId="11442" Score="0" Text="Ah, yes; suits all occasions within the context of &quot;a fun way to poke.&quot; English &quot;you were welcome&quot; subjunctive &quot;may you be welcome&quot; don't figure. BUT they are possible." CreationDate="2019-09-04T19:34:56.147" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="21303" PostId="11442" Score="0" Text="Shouldn't this be a more appropriate answer for the linked post (about &quot;you're welcome&quot;) rather than this one?" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:27:48.643" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21289" PostId="11443" Score="0" Text="This seemed to be a follow-up to the other question, so I added a link. Feel free to roll back or make further edits." CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:56:51.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21292" PostId="11446" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! By the comma you implicitly mean that creation _is_ in your hands? The whole of creation (the Universe) or the capacity to craft/create new staff, or something else?" CreationDate="2019-09-04T17:54:12.147" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="21295" PostId="11446" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I mean the latter (capacity to create), although I'd be curious to know the former as well. The comma does mean that it is implicitly is in my hands." CreationDate="2019-09-04T19:39:03.413" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21304" PostId="11446" Score="0" Text="Beware of Google translate. Check [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6889/1459)." CreationDate="2019-09-05T09:49:24.250" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="21317" PostId="11446" Score="0" Text="I rely on Google Translate for work on a regular basis, and found it it takes a fair amount of back and forth to feel comfortable with the final translation. Using proper grammar and avoiding colloquialisms can help with modern languages. With Latin, I mostly use it for individual words and assemble sentences myself. That post and its comments were so interesting I had to share it with my wife. :)" CreationDate="2019-09-06T14:52:32.033" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21310" PostId="11447" Score="0" Text="Sources Perseus and  McDevitte &amp; Bohn (Caeser's Commentaries) both give &quot;...by both generals.&quot;; then, new sentence: &quot;illi (They, Pompey's men, as you say) cum animadvertissent ex ignibus noctu (perceiving by our night-fires...) Is there scope, here, for alternative translations?" CreationDate="2019-09-05T16:56:12.107" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="21312" PostId="11447" Score="3" Text="Interesting. I just looked in the 5 translations/commentaries that I own (Damon's new Loeb translation, Raaflaub's translation in the Landmark Julius Caesar, Gardner's Penguin Classics translation, Kennedy's commentary, and Carter's commentary/translation), and all 5 are unanimous in talking in terms of 'sides'. As reflections of the Latin text, translations that say 'by both generals' are technically inaccurate. In terms of overall meaning, though, it could be argued that the difference isn't terribly great in this instance." CreationDate="2019-09-05T21:19:00.483" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="21299" PostId="11448" Score="1" Text="Thank you! I actually like the poetic duality of _creatio_ in this case as it ties into the context and art it will be used with. Thank you as well for the examples of word order as well; that will give me more options depending on the amount of room available." CreationDate="2019-09-04T21:57:57.937" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21307" PostId="11448" Score="1" Text="I would leave the comma out. It is not necessary and it looks cleaner to me without punctuation." CreationDate="2019-09-05T14:05:01.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21318" PostId="11448" Score="1" Text="I also prefer it without the comma, which seems like a more classical approach to [punctuation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin)." CreationDate="2019-09-06T15:03:04.397" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21321" PostId="11449" Score="2" Text="I share your skepticism of this usage. I've never seen the feminine used as a substantive, and even the masc/neut only in prepositional phrases." CreationDate="2019-09-06T22:44:15.307" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="21328" PostId="11449" Score="3" Text="Take a look at [What did Romans call their language?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/466/79) Perhaps you could relate your question to the observations made there. I think the only possibility of *Latina* as the name was a neuter plural, but that was no the main option." CreationDate="2019-09-07T11:55:41.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21314" PostId="11450" Score="1" Text="In case it's helpful, &quot;Fur.&quot; is Furnée (1972), *Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen*. Beekes (xxx) gives three more examples of this alternation: ἀκραιφνής / ἀκραπνής, ἀσύφηλος / αἰσύφιος, λάγματα / λαίγματα, adding &quot;The ι here is due to the following palatalized consonant&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-06T04:21:21.257" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="21322" PostId="11451" Score="0" Text="There's a related question here, my answer to which kind of touches upon this https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4072/latin-prefix-to-describe-the-wiping-out-of-robots" CreationDate="2019-09-06T23:56:45.273" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="21326" PostId="11452" Score="1" Text="I fully support this approach; communication is easily hindered by restricting oneself to classical elements. I might prefer the second declension *robotum*, though." CreationDate="2019-09-07T11:46:14.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21319" PostId="11454" Score="3" Text="A very Cerberean question." CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:11:56.820" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21323" PostId="11455" Score="0" Text="Very interesting. So basically we're looking at two separate meanings of *per*. The original usage not being &quot;à, for each&quot;, but rather &quot;by, in accordance with&quot;. And then precisely because it was actually used, it became a fixed phrase of sorts, which resist change even when adopted for new usages. So once people wanted to use the *per* in it in the other meaning, they just kept the rest of it as is. That makes sense. I'll wait a bit to see if others have something else to chip in, but so far this looks quite convincing." CreationDate="2019-09-07T09:32:59.417" UserId="3163" />
  <row Id="21327" PostId="11455" Score="0" Text="@ЯegDwight It's worth noting that the Latin *per* is quite different from the English *per*, although there's some overlap. Maybe a misanalysis of the preposition has played a role in reanalyzing *per capita* to work in other contexts." CreationDate="2019-09-07T11:52:18.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21329" PostId="11455" Score="0" Text="@ЯegDwight Just to clarify, prepositions are such versatile little words that enumerating the meanings of a preposition is challenging.  People with different linguistic backgrounds will count differently since there will be shades of meaning some of them perceive as being distinct but others do not.  So it might be best not to talk about &quot;the other meaning&quot; of *per*, as if there were only two..." CreationDate="2019-09-07T12:49:23.303" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21331" PostId="11455" Score="0" Text="+1. I find your answer very insightful, yet I resist assuming the grammar is wrongly applied without anyone thinking of it. Could be that the phrase is the short version of some broader expression? I mean, could there be an omitted noun?" CreationDate="2019-09-07T13:29:11.913" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="21354" PostId="11455" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I can't exclude other possibilities, but incorrect grammar is more common when expressions are adapted by non-native speakers, which is what I suspect happened here." CreationDate="2019-09-09T09:12:53.730" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="21334" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="So, how do you expect us to share Puglia 2007 or the XIX volume with you?" CreationDate="2019-09-07T17:20:46.417" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21335" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@AlexB either by summarizing the relevant discussions, or by posting scans of them like you did with volume XXI (remember?)." CreationDate="2019-09-07T17:50:17.230" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="21336" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="The university library doesn't seem to have the article anywhere, but I've sent in a request for volume 19 (which is in fact edited by Lobel). You're looking in particular for fragment 2506?" CreationDate="2019-09-07T18:46:20.963" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21337" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@draconis Yes. 2637 might be of interest too, I don't remember. I'll look to see if I had any questions about that. Assuming it's in volume XIX, which I'm not sure of at all. UPDATE Yep, absolutely, it's in a similar position to 2506, it would seem." CreationDate="2019-09-07T19:24:10.033" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="21338" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="I'll have Puglia 2007 (a pdf-file) tomorrow, but I don't have time to read and summarize it, sorry. I could email the pdf to our mods to be forwarded to you, as long as our mods are willing to do it and it's ok with you." CreationDate="2019-09-07T20:18:40.483" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21339" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="@AlexB Or you could email it directly to michelegor@hotmail.com." CreationDate="2019-09-07T21:12:37.393" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="21343" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@draconis I just realised I had one X too few: it's 29 (XXIX), not 19 (XIX). Oops . And 2637 is in XXXII." CreationDate="2019-09-08T12:55:18.293" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="21344" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@MickG Volume 29, edited by Denys Page? I'm not seeing 32 here, but I'll grab 29 first and take a look at it." CreationDate="2019-09-08T16:19:10.430" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21345" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@draconis Yes, &quot;P.Oxy.XXIX 2506&quot; (ed. Page) and &quot;P.Oxy.XXXII 2637&quot; (ed. Lobel) are what I find from the site with the images." CreationDate="2019-09-08T17:13:36.993" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30441" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Did you eventually take a look at that volume 29?" CreationDate="2021-01-13T22:14:37.677" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30442" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="@MickG Hm. I vaguely remember doing so, but apparently I never sent it to you. Let me see if I can request it again; I know it's available at the library but requesting materials is weird during the pandemic." CreationDate="2021-01-14T05:22:34.090" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30485" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Unrelated: have you been able to get in touch with your Lingala consultant?" CreationDate="2021-01-18T23:56:29.407" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30486" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="@MickG Radio silence since the pandemic started, unfortunately." CreationDate="2021-01-19T00:03:24.510" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30542" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@draconis Any news on that volume?" CreationDate="2021-01-28T08:45:40.133" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30543" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="@MickG I've sent a query but gotten no response. I'm assuming they're backlogged with everyone requesting materials remotely, but if I don't hear anything within another week I'll send another message." CreationDate="2021-01-28T16:48:10.420" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30728" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@Draconis any news? Did you end up writing again?" CreationDate="2021-02-11T23:22:54.337" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30729" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="@MickG I did, and apparently they're starting to lend out physical books again, but there's a backlog a mile long from all the resources people couldn't get during the pandemic. I'm going to give it another week before I try to make another request." CreationDate="2021-02-11T23:27:35.477" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30860" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Any news? Did you make another request?" CreationDate="2021-02-25T17:10:07.693" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30861" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@MickG I made another request last week, and again haven't heard back." CreationDate="2021-02-25T17:14:18.087" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30932" PostId="11457" Score="0" Text="@Draconis z-lib.org has all the volumes of P.Oxy. up to at least 32, so I downloaded 32 and 29. I looked at P.Oxy. 2637 (cfr. my answer), and will look into 29 (I have already started). The uploader beat the library :)." CreationDate="2021-03-01T17:37:16.767" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="30951" PostId="11457" Score="1" Text="@MickG Glad to hear it! Yeah, I love the library here, but they're seriously struggling with the pandemic; I was working on some stuff with Linear B before this all started and I've given up hope on getting the books I need until things open up again." CreationDate="2021-03-03T15:10:31.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21340" PostId="11458" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I hadn't thought about how the root being the same as *tutŭdī* could imply that the vowel was short. That makes sense. However, couldn't a different ablaut grade of the same root (like *ew or *ow) lead to a long vowel? I'm not sure at what time eu and ou changed to ū, or whether there is a general principle that such nouns are built on the zero grade rather than the e- or o- grade of a root." CreationDate="2019-09-07T22:00:31.510" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="21342" PostId="11458" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Both fair points! I'll recheck my vowel lengths in endings." CreationDate="2019-09-07T22:50:57.860" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22400" PostId="11458" Score="0" Text="Another small note about vowel length: I'm not sure that it's correct to reconstruct a stage with compensatory vowel lengthening for all nouns that show -s for -ds or -ts in the nominative singular. *Pes* is an unusual word, considering that it's not a regular reflex of the reconstructed PIE nominative at all. De Vaan (citing Jasanoff 2004: 414) says that the vowel in *pes* could have been lengthened by Lachmann's Law, which would not be expected to apply to roots ending in t." CreationDate="2019-09-12T03:27:56.427" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22401" PostId="11458" Score="0" Text="Alessio's post that I linked to below fdb's answer suggests that heavy scansion of the last syllable *sospes* etc. in older sources was caused by a word-final long consonant." CreationDate="2019-09-12T03:30:24.433" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22402" PostId="11458" Score="0" Text="[Jasanoff 2008](http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Lachmann's%20Law.pdf), available online, seems to give an overview of Jasanoff's opinion on the contexts where Lachmann's law-type vowel lengthening applied." CreationDate="2019-09-12T03:47:08.517" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="23389" PostId="11461" Score="0" Text="I think they did, because in &quot;New York&quot;, &quot;New&quot; is an adjective, so it follows the same declension than the noun. I think there are probably exception with fixed forms &quot;XXX  YYY&quot; when the adjectival meaning has been lost." CreationDate="2019-11-23T11:01:59.363" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="21348" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="Ahh, I see what you mean - it's independent of the actual vowel sound itself. I'm in the very early stages of teaching myself, so I really want to try and get it &quot;right&quot; for myself now so I learn it from the start. I'm not very familiar at all with IPA phonemes, which adds another layer of challenge. Google helps, though. :) Your quick summary will help, though! For example, am I correct in understanding that the Reconstructed Classical pronunciation of _i_ when not using a macron (at least for Øsberg) is like the _i_ in _kit_. I'm thinking of the name from my original post _Iūlia_." CreationDate="2019-09-09T01:05:33.017" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21349" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@Adam Basically! *i* without a macron is as in &quot;kit&quot;, *ī* with a macron as in &quot;machine&quot;. Annoyingly, Øsberg also writes `/j/` (the first sound in &quot;yes&quot;) with an *i* instead of a *j* — in this case, the first *i* is actually a `/j/`, which is why it's more commonly spelled *Jūlia*." CreationDate="2019-09-09T01:15:33.030" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21350" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="Fortunately I don't find using _I_ instead of _J_ too hard to grasp, having learned that in school at some point. So Iūlia would be pronounced something like _Yoo - lih - ah_. `/ɪ/` followed  `/ɑː/` is a new combination for me." CreationDate="2019-09-09T01:22:35.837" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21351" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@Adam Yep, pretty much. I'm half-remembering something about short vowels taking long quality when before another vowel, though I'd have to check my sources on that." CreationDate="2019-09-09T01:36:25.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21352" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="If that's the case it would make more sense to me in my limited experience with Latin pronunciation, since it would make that name _Yoo-lee-ah_, and Iūliī, _Yoo-lee-eee_ (extra _e_ to emphasize the long i)." CreationDate="2019-09-09T01:54:03.733" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21353" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="Interestingly, [wikibooks](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Latin_Language/Pronunciation) gives the pronunciation of each vowel as always the same, only changing in length." CreationDate="2019-09-09T02:46:36.027" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21355" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, what are you referring to when you say, &quot;When mediaeval writers went back and tried to imitate the Classical style&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-09-09T13:54:53.243" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21356" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@brianpck When mediaeval authors tried to write in what-we-would-now-call-Latin (imitating Cicero and Caesar), as opposed to what-we-would-now-call-Romance as spoken in day-to-day life, though at the time iirc they called both of them &quot;Latin&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-09T17:29:41.930" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21357" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I'm mostly confused by &quot;went back.&quot; Latin never dropped out of educated usage, so the gradual loss of vowel length wasn't an incomplete reversion but rather a natural development." CreationDate="2019-09-09T17:38:24.287" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21358" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I may be misunderstanding, but I thought there was a significant gap between Classical Latin being a living language and it being brought back in educated writing (which is how we get things like *equus* `/ekwus/` that Cicero wouldn't have used)." CreationDate="2019-09-09T17:46:45.053" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="21360" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@Draconis It was quite alive and well throughout all those centuries! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin#Important_medieval_Latin_authors" CreationDate="2019-09-09T18:50:34.760" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="21361" PostId="11463" Score="1" Text="@Adam Wikibooks is right in suggesting you forget English vowels altogether - the only Latin vowel that coincides with any English vowel in the majority of pronunciations is the short /e/ in *pet*. Everything else you need to repeat by ear without reference to English. I'm not sure if there's a good reply with pronunciation resources around here, but you can start [here](http://sicerabibax.free.fr) - using &quot;open in new tab&quot; is necessary on most pages due to them being from another millennium. The quality differences existed but you won't get them right if you try using English vowels." CreationDate="2019-09-09T19:10:20.987" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="21363" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Visually, that site belongs in antiquity. I listened to the audio files on Wikibooks as well and found that I was generally close with most sounds to what they should be. One sound that I sometimes hear differently is -um and -us; it seems like it should always bee _oom_ and _oos_, though some recordings have it as _uhm_ and _uhs_, which I took as more of an accent then the actual correct sound." CreationDate="2019-09-09T19:46:08.867" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21373" PostId="11463" Score="1" Text="@Adam Yes, Latin has no *uh* sound. *oos* might be fine - or might not be, depending on your accent - for the quality but not for the length, which needs to be as in *book*. What this also means that English has no sound for the long /u:/. The final /m/ is not pronounced as the English [m] but as nasalisation of the previous vowel. The Wikibooks recordings vary in quality from all right to less so, and always have an English accent. If there's more than one speaker, the other speaker from wiktionary is always wrong." CreationDate="2019-09-11T00:00:29.170" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22374" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="I noticed the disparity of recordings on Wikibooks. I'll give a listen tomorrow for the recordings on the site you linked. As a child of military parents, I moved around a lot in the US and heard a variety of different accents so I adapt pretty well to recognizing and imitating different pronunciations, at least within the microcosm of US English accents." CreationDate="2019-09-11T03:05:59.843" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22376" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="By the way, when you say _book_, the _oo_ in that for me with my native pronunciation is different than the _U_ sound in a word like &quot;luna&quot;. I'm assuming you mean _oo_ like the latter, or in a word like &quot;moon&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-11T03:09:38.727" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22378" PostId="11463" Score="1" Text="@Adam The general consensus, or at least what I learned, is that short ŭ is somewhat like English &quot;book&quot; while long ū is like English &quot;moon&quot; (except longer). I'm not sure that's still up-to-date, though, this was years ago." CreationDate="2019-09-11T03:38:06.440" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22405" PostId="11463" Score="0" Text="@Adam All right, let's just say that General American English has no equivalent vowel either for the short or the long /u/ of Latin, even if we tried transcribing using the IPA. Even less good will come out of trying to approximate Latin sounds with English spellings with no reference to an exact accent. Neither the vowel in *book* nor in *moon* exists in Latin. Imitating the pronunciations you've heard and have engrained already is different than acquiring a completely new sound system in a language you've never heard before." CreationDate="2019-09-12T15:26:09.350" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="21359" PostId="11465" Score="1" Text="These are interesting finds! Constantinople is Roman enough for the purposes of this question. The question is then: Are there any attestations that suggest locative or *in* with ablative?" CreationDate="2019-09-09T18:42:02.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21362" PostId="11465" Score="0" Text="I couldn't find anything after doing some additional searching, though admittedly my knowledge of online Latin text sources and Latin grammar is vastly inferior to my Google search skills. :)" CreationDate="2019-09-09T19:15:48.393" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="21365" PostId="11466" Score="2" Text="I'm glad you received it!" CreationDate="2019-09-10T01:35:20.033" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="21370" PostId="11469" Score="3" Text="Joonas, that is tremendously helpful and comprehensive, thank you very much for replying. I'm afraid I don't have enough reputation to upvote your response, but I have marked it as the answer. Appreciate your time and thoroughness." CreationDate="2019-09-10T07:59:04.957" UserId="5062" />
  <row Id="21371" PostId="11469" Score="1" Text="@AMarch I'm glad to be able to help! Now that your question has attracted some more votes, you have the privilege to vote on any posts you like." CreationDate="2019-09-10T20:43:02.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="21375" PostId="11471" Score="0" Text="I just thought of a reason that _renegatus_ isn't formed by analogy with _primatus_ etc.: the plural _renegati_ shows that it's 2nd declension, not 4th. (Maybe a 15th-century priest would miss that, but Bernardino's Latin seems to be very good from what I've seen.)" CreationDate="2019-09-11T00:26:36.643" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22373" PostId="11472" Score="0" Text="Since the genitive modifies an adjective used as a noun shouldn't Essentialis be in the genitive? Or shouldn't both be in the nominative? Can the noun be Neuter while the Modifier Masculine? Why not plural? The current situation emphasizes more &quot;of the transaction&quot; or putting negotium after would emphasize &quot;of the transaction&quot; more. In portuguese we would say negócios essenciais (de) since we lost cases.Does negotti modify the 'noun&quot; or does it belong to the transaction(thence the genitive).  negotiorum essentialium de trānsāctiōnum." CreationDate="2019-09-11T01:56:34.810" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22375" PostId="11472" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Only the possessor uses the genitive case; the thing possessed goes in whatever case it would normally use. Similarly, there's only a single _negotium_, so it's singular. Making it plural would be &quot;the essential points of the transaction**s**&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-11T03:08:32.197" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22377" PostId="11472" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Only when an adjective modifies a noun is there agreement in case, number, and gender (similar to Portuguese). A genitive noun in Latin is like _de_ before the noun in Portuguese. The genitive still modifies the noun, like _os fundamentos do negócio_ in Portuguese." CreationDate="2019-09-11T03:11:11.090" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22379" PostId="11472" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Does the current wording(essentialia negotii) emphasize more &quot;of the transaction&quot; or putting negotium after(negotti essentialia) would emphasize &quot;of the transaction&quot; more?" CreationDate="2019-09-11T11:33:21.217" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22383" PostId="11472" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Without a full sentence, I don't think one can say which is emphasized more. Here is strong emphasis on _negotii: Essentialia huius desunt negotii._ This is complex enough that you might want to post a separate question about it." CreationDate="2019-09-11T13:32:46.270" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22380" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="negotiorum essentialium de trānsāctiōnum would most probably be wrong then? negotiorum essentialium de trānsāctiōnum. I would translate it as essential things of transactions. In greek we have most cases(4 out of 6) but we use Adjective Noun. In portuguese(&amp;Italian, Spanish, French had to study all of them at some point) we lost declension and kept Noun Adjective. How could we say das(de+as) &#xA; translating of the?" CreationDate="2019-09-11T11:40:05.153" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22381" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Yes, _negotiorum essentialium de trānsāctiōnum_ would be wrong. _Dē_ in Latin is used much more narrowly than in the Romance languages; it does not introduce a genitive (even though _de_+noun replaced the genitive in Romance). For Portuguese _das+noun,_ you just say the (plural) genitive noun, e.g. _pila puellarum_ = &quot;the girls' ball&quot; (_a bola das meninas_)." CreationDate="2019-09-11T12:51:27.313" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22382" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos For &quot;the essentials of transactions&quot;, you would say _essentialia negōtiōrum._ The real legal phrase, though, uses the singular (_negōtiī_) to refer to a business deal in the abstract. The _essentialia_ are the elements of a single deal without which the law says that no deal really exists, such as a specific price paid and a specific product or service bought. I _think_ Latin prefers the singular for this." CreationDate="2019-09-11T13:20:15.907" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22386" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="So essentialia negotii is transaction's essentials. How would one say The transaction's essential things, transactions' essential things, essential things of the transaction and essential things of the transactions? Why wouldn't one use the plural since the essential things are needed for all transactions(to each its own, each transaction needs its own essential things but all need their's)? Doesn't latin make use of the definitive article? How is the genitive formulated(is it not optionally accompanied by an article)?" CreationDate="2019-09-11T20:01:40.627" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22390" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Latin does not have a definite article! To denote a concept abstractly, so you refer to all its instances, I think usually you use the singular, though not always. For example, _Homo est mortalis._ You should probably post a separate question about this so other people (more knowledgeable than I) are likely to answer. Also, a full answer needs more space than a comment." CreationDate="2019-09-11T23:59:50.510" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22392" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="I do not understand what you mean denote a concept abstractly." CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:05:42.533" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22393" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos In the sentence &quot;This man, Fred Wilkinson, is mortal,&quot; the word _man_ denotes its concept concretely: it refers to a specific man. In the sentence &quot;Man is mortal,&quot; the word _man_ denotes its concept abstractly: it refers to the kind of being, of which all men are instances, not to any specific man or men. This might not be important for what you're asking about, though. I hope your new question gets a good answer!" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:33:05.200" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22394" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="The part I did not understand was concept. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept When saying that Men are mortal we are not refering to the thought of Men. Men are not concepts. Concepts are contrasted with Beings if I am not mistaken. Whatever does not exist is a concept. What does exist necessarilly is not a concept. I understood what abstract is." CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:39:50.613" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22395" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Indeed I was only flailing about for a word to indicate how the concept was applied, to explain why the singular _negotii_ makes sense even when referring the essentials of all transactions rather than a specific transaction." CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:43:51.190" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22397" PostId="12471" Score="0" Text="So it would be essentiālia trānsāctiōnis/  essentialia trānsāctiōnum." CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:47:38.543" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22404" PostId="12471" Score="2" Text="The only rule about the positioning of the Latin adjective is that it should occur in the same sentence as its noun.  Indeed, one of the reasons for all those run-on sentences in Latin verse is to be able to put modifiers as far away from their heads as possible!" CreationDate="2019-09-12T05:16:56.097" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22389" PostId="12475" Score="2" Text="What is your intended meaning? Sub specie dei means &quot;under the gaze of God&quot;, i.e. from God's perspective; are you hoping for something like &quot;under the gaze of nothingness&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-09-11T22:53:15.063" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22391" PostId="12475" Score="1" Text="Can you give an example of something that you would say or see from the perspective that you have in mind?" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:03:00.203" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22430" PostId="12475" Score="0" Text="Hi, Thanks for the reply. What I am wanting to say is perhaps: over/above the gaze of nothing(ness). The idea of sub specie dei, views All from the &quot;higher&quot;, divine perspective. What I would like to know is how one might write: not &quot;under&quot; the gaze/perspective of God (which traditionally includes creator/ion, the world), but the idea that the world is &quot;above&quot; (coming out of), nothing (nihil). So less a sentence that contrasting world-views summarized in terms: sub specie dei vs super nihil. How would this be written correctly? (ideally it would be a neat contrast or symmetrical terms.) :)" CreationDate="2019-09-13T18:17:37.357" UserId="6064" />
  <row Id="22396" PostId="12477" Score="0" Text="I am sorry I had no time to read your answer. Was it against etiquete to change the question half a minute after you answered?" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:44:45.397" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22398" PostId="12477" Score="2" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Generally, editing a question in a way that invalidates an existing answer is discouraged. In this case though I'll just post another answer to the new question." CreationDate="2019-09-12T01:27:29.380" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22399" PostId="12477" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much my internet is not very good. I just gave it some thought and figured it out that the question was pointless. I did not think what was the implication of there being no definite article. You can see the edit was just 20 or so seconds after your answer. I am deeply sorry." CreationDate="2019-09-12T01:30:19.743" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22406" PostId="12479" Score="1" Text="Glad to see I'm not the only person here who is creating a game, although I've been using Latin rather than Greek, and the concept of &quot;magic&quot; is different. :)" CreationDate="2019-09-12T16:32:29.953" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22411" PostId="12479" Score="0" Text="Latin and pseudo-Latin (Harry Potter) have been done quite a bit in pop culture. Good luck to you!" CreationDate="2019-09-12T17:47:45.850" UserId="6067" />
  <row Id="22413" PostId="12479" Score="0" Text="Very true! I thought it might work to my advantage in that there's more general familiarity with it. Truth be told, though, I would have chosen it either way. Good luck to you as well!" CreationDate="2019-09-12T19:53:36.180" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22407" PostId="12480" Score="1" Text="Another option which would have the same effect *and* corresponds to common transcription standards would be to write &quot;hylē.&quot; In the OP's list that is the only vowel that would use the macron. EDIT: actually it should also be &quot;kinēsis.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-09-12T16:47:29.227" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22408" PostId="12480" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Good point! Added a note" CreationDate="2019-09-12T16:52:53.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22409" PostId="12480" Score="1" Text="If you want to avoid characters that may be more challenging to type, you could spell the _e_ phonetically, e.g. _hyleh_ (or whatever spelling most closely matches the general sound). Is this a game where someone playing the game will hear these spoken to them, like in a video game, or something more like a table-top game where they'll read it and say it without being exposed to the sounds first?" CreationDate="2019-09-12T17:28:40.820" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22410" PostId="12480" Score="0" Text="@Adam True, I have used Vh to indicate long vowels before, and it's unambiguous in Greek (where `/h/` only occurs word-initially and arguably after voiceless stops). But forms like &quot;Kinehsis&quot; and &quot;Sohcrates&quot; take some getting used to." CreationDate="2019-09-12T17:32:21.497" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22412" PostId="12480" Score="0" Text="@Adam I haven't decided which the player will be exposed to first. At the same time, I can't decide which is better: using non-keyboard characters like ē or making them look less elegant but more readable via y's, h's or double-vowels." CreationDate="2019-09-12T17:51:22.947" UserId="6067" />
  <row Id="22419" PostId="12480" Score="0" Text="@Hugh True! But I hesitate to suggest that here because the pitch accent is on the first syllable in _hýlē_." CreationDate="2019-09-12T21:34:10.593" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22421" PostId="12480" Score="0" Text="Good point; I'll delete my suggestion for É and é for macron." CreationDate="2019-09-12T21:38:19.797" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22445" PostId="12480" Score="0" Text="@Carduus You could include glossary that has a pronunciation guide, although that might not be feasible if this is a computer/mobile/console game. Now that I think about it, even if a player reads it one way for a while, once they hear multiple NPCs pronounce it a specific way they'll alter their own pronunciation to match." CreationDate="2019-09-14T15:43:38.327" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22414" PostId="12481" Score="0" Text="How can negotium mean transactions? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negotium. This is the wiktionary though which I question its credibility. Like Oxford University Press publishes Oxford English Dictionary. What is the equivalent dictionary in Latin. If one considers Oxford University to be the authority on the English language which university is the authority on the Latin language? OED is OUP's &quot;best&quot; dictionary(or so I have been told I bought Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary and Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary 10 years ago) which dictionary is that university's best dictionary?" CreationDate="2019-09-12T20:31:11.363" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22415" PostId="12481" Score="0" Text="In romance languages the closest meaning to transactions a negotium has is business. If transactio are a Latin Word why not use it instead?" CreationDate="2019-09-12T20:32:59.257" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22416" PostId="12481" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos _Negotium_ is a word with a lot of meanings. Most generally, it means a matter, an affair. So in a business context, it means a business affair of some sort, a contract, a deal, a transaction, etc. _Transactio_ is a more specific word, more like a legal term, not something I'd expect to hear in casual conversation." CreationDate="2019-09-12T20:52:14.240" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22417" PostId="12481" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos As far as the best dictionary for Latin—that would make a good question! I have my opinions on the matter, but others might be able to provide additional resources that I don't know about, and making it a question of its own makes it googlable for future readers." CreationDate="2019-09-12T20:53:24.120" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22458" PostId="12481" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos I'm not sure that &quot;transaction&quot; is the best English translation of _[negotium](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negotium#Latin),_ especially in the phrase _essentiales negotii._ This might make another good question." CreationDate="2019-09-15T16:15:13.460" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22462" PostId="12481" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz But I am questioning, doubting, opposing, objecting the truth of the exact same fact that you are! And I am not sure legal scholars(supposing they did some research on the latin language) want to refer to business. Since it is Civil-Contract law and not Commercial-Corporate law. So the only safe translation would be things. Things' Essentials? It doesn't sound these legal scholars did much research on the latin language. Either it is bad use of the latin language or they just ment transaction when using negotium. Which I object to." CreationDate="2019-09-15T17:35:00.783" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22465" PostId="12481" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos When I googled &quot;[_essentialia negotii_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22essentialia+negotii%22) to answer your [previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11470/118), I got the impression that this phrase is old and well established Latin, maybe even used by the Ancient Romans themselves. But I did not specifically check that. Perhaps it would help to post a new question specifically about the origin of the phrase _essentialia negotii?_" CreationDate="2019-09-15T18:45:25.387" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22426" PostId="12483" Score="0" Text="Ahh, I see! What I had originally was then something like, &quot;New moon, Monday&quot;, rather than &quot;New moon _on_ Monday&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-13T15:36:11.427" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22428" PostId="12483" Score="0" Text="I am not sure if &quot;luna nova&quot; is ever used in (classical) Latin. I know interlunium." CreationDate="2019-09-13T15:54:21.257" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22431" PostId="12483" Score="0" Text="@fdb I have seen *luna nova*, but not in classical Latin. For the sake of clear communication and in the absence of a specified era, I would go with *luna nova*." CreationDate="2019-09-13T20:44:50.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22432" PostId="12483" Score="0" Text="@Adam More precisely, what you had is &quot;new moon into Mondays&quot;. Whether that can mean anything sensible is another question..." CreationDate="2019-09-13T20:45:38.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22434" PostId="12483" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, what would this be if _interlunium_ was used, and does it mean &quot;new moon&quot; itself, or just &quot;[time of the new moon](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/interlunium)&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-09-13T23:13:53.170" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22435" PostId="12483" Score="1" Text="@Adam I updated the answer." CreationDate="2019-09-13T23:26:37.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22446" PostId="12483" Score="0" Text="If you want to be really archaic, the new moon was originally _pridie Kalendas_, but that gained a different meaning when they got rid of the lunar calendar." CreationDate="2019-09-14T18:18:09.383" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22447" PostId="12483" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yeah, that'd only work in a special context. I would read it as &quot;on the last day of the month&quot; without considering any relation to the phase of the moon." CreationDate="2019-09-14T18:57:21.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22424" PostId="12484" Score="1" Text="Take a look at this question: [Which online Latin dictionaries should I use and why?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) You can find a long list of possible online Latin dictionaries there. Does that answer your question, or do you want something more specific? There is no unique meaning of &quot;best&quot; or &quot;most authoritative&quot;, so you might want to be somewhat more specific." CreationDate="2019-09-13T13:43:46.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22425" PostId="12484" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I indeed did not specify which quality(or set of qualities) should we optimize. A utility/cost function. But I stated an analogy. OED. What dictionary is most &quot;oxonian&quot;. Whichever, Whatever, Regardless of the qualities that Oxford English Dictonary possesses subjectively for each person." CreationDate="2019-09-13T14:11:08.833" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="22436" PostId="12485" Score="3" Text="I *think* I remember reading that whether food can be _sanus_ was debated by medieval logicians! If someone can find that debate and its results, that might make the perfect answer." CreationDate="2019-09-14T01:02:34.513" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22439" PostId="12485" Score="3" Text="Googling &quot;[equivocation sanum Boethius](https://www.google.com/search?q=equivocation+sanum+Boethius)&quot; turns up some promising leads. Apparently Aristotle started the conversation, analyzing &quot;healthy&quot; as applied to dogs, their food, and their urine, and the Medievals dug into it further. On a first look, it appears that Boëthius wrote _salutaris_ rather than _sanum_ even when considering this topic." CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:29:15.957" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22908" PostId="12485" Score="0" Text="Your question shouldn't mention the Duo course, because the course being in beta, I really think they'll fix it soon." CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:50:30.330" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22910" PostId="12485" Score="0" Text="@Quidam It's not unusual that questions have a context that goes obsolete in time. I think it's better to indicate the origin of the question if it's as clear as inclusion in an online course. What's more, perhaps the Duolingo people follow this site take this discussion as a suggestion for improvement. If they change the wording later, we can always add a note to this question." CreationDate="2019-10-25T16:12:35.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22911" PostId="12485" Score="0" Text="Maybe &quot;online course&quot; would be enough. But if they fix the course, people could think it's an horrible course. I don't know if we could notice they have fixed the course, as there's no notification." CreationDate="2019-10-25T16:23:53.707" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="31224" PostId="12485" Score="2" Text="@Quidam Duolingo is still poorly constructed even now." CreationDate="2021-03-22T18:08:17.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="22440" PostId="12486" Score="1" Text="Food can be _laetus_?? That's sounds to me even odder than saying that food can be _sanus._" CreationDate="2019-09-14T03:13:13.407" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22442" PostId="12486" Score="2" Text="@Ben Kovitz That's what it says in the Gradus! It's actually printed _lætus_ in two different editions. My guess is a misprint for _lautus_ — splendid, sumptuous etc." CreationDate="2019-09-14T05:50:27.657" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="31223" PostId="12486" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz It's possible that *laetus* is a transferred epithet." CreationDate="2021-03-22T18:07:21.877" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="22441" PostId="12487" Score="1" Text="According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesaurus_Linguae_Latinae), it won't be completed until 2050. They aren't kidding when they call it a monumental dictionary." CreationDate="2019-09-14T03:55:35.307" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22443" PostId="12488" Score="1" Text="Certainly, if you don't accept metonymy, _salutaris_ would be more sensible than the _sanus_ used in Duolingo" CreationDate="2019-09-14T05:54:15.120" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22450" PostId="12491" Score="1" Text="A lot of research has been written on this, e.g. Austin 1968 jstor.org/stable/637692  - strongly recommend" CreationDate="2019-09-15T03:56:34.847" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="22452" PostId="12492" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I reformatted the poem a little. While this doesn't really address how the Romans would have said it, this is still an interesting contribution. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-09-15T11:09:24.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22448" PostId="12494" Score="2" Text="ὁ ἐπιτυχών more usually means &quot;random person, anyone you happen to meet&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-15T01:26:59.617" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22451" PostId="12494" Score="0" Text="@TKR What probably happened there is I looked the word up on Perseus, opened LSJ for epitygkhánø, and looked for a sense matching &quot;expert&quot;, landing on &quot;to be lucky, successful at a thing&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-15T07:48:28.223" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="22820" PostId="12494" Score="0" Text="Loeb's might think [otherwise](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sappho-fragments/1982/pb_LCL142.71.xml) : (in possession of?), so, then,  μέτοχος." CreationDate="2019-10-15T18:09:47.860" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="22488" PostId="12496" Score="0" Text="You may also want to see my thread [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2138/understanding-the-grammar-illis-evangelii-nuntiandi-praebens-mandatum), and its answers." CreationDate="2019-09-18T07:51:29.420" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="22467" PostId="12497" Score="0" Text="Oh, I’m sorry. Feel free to close this question or mark as a duplicate. Thanks for the reference and my apology for not searching the forum first." CreationDate="2019-09-15T18:51:36.187" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="22470" PostId="12497" Score="1" Text="No problem! There's nothing wrong with a duplicate question, and in fact the new version increases the visibility of all the information in the older one." CreationDate="2019-09-15T20:31:36.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22515" PostId="12497" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It also reminded me to accept the answer to the first question—the one that took almost two years to show up!" CreationDate="2019-09-19T23:59:41.143" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22454" PostId="12498" Score="1" Text="Good question! I'd just say that it has to be *in animis* to be grammatically sound, but I don't know how well the choice of words works." CreationDate="2019-09-15T13:03:25.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22461" PostId="12498" Score="1" Text="An alternative could be _in mentibus_ (please correct me if I have the wrong case). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mens#Latin) has some examples of it being used by Virgil and Catullus, although I'm not sure if that conveys the emotion as well as _in animis_." CreationDate="2019-09-15T16:39:45.653" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22466" PostId="12499" Score="1" Text="Thanks! This is a helpful answer" CreationDate="2019-09-15T18:50:49.647" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="22464" PostId="12500" Score="1" Text="This is a nice find (+1)! I might add that in this specific case it would also make sense to translate it as &quot;[effort] of proclaiming the Gospel&quot;. That's not the official one, but the point is that there is no unique translation of those words even in this context, but there is a clear unique meaning." CreationDate="2019-09-15T18:28:53.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22469" PostId="12500" Score="2" Text="This sounds like the right answer: the actual source of the phrase, in context. The context makes the meaning clear; without the context, there are so many possible meanings, it's hard to even think of them all: &quot;the gospels to be proclaimed&quot;, &quot;the gospels of announcing&quot;, &quot;the things to be announced of the gospel&quot;, etc" CreationDate="2019-09-15T19:04:40.943" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22472" PostId="12500" Score="2" Text="Yes, I agree with Ben. I like both answers but I will accept this one since it references a papal document. Thanks, Rafael!" CreationDate="2019-09-16T02:37:04.097" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="22479" PostId="12502" Score="5" Text="That really seems the most appropriate word. It combines (for me, at any rate) the ideas of _salus_ and _uber_ : as you might put it, 'a fertile (source) of health'. Surely the sense that Duolingo was looking for and the word they should have chosen. My suggestion of metonymy is all very well, but  _saluber_ makes the selection of _sanus_ quite unnecessary." CreationDate="2019-09-17T05:58:24.333" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22482" PostId="12506" Score="0" Text="Strangely enough, in English, many expressions for a time, like &quot;last Wednesday&quot;, &quot;Friday&quot;, &quot;next month&quot;, can function just like an ablative in Latin! I've found this helpful when explaining to native English speakers who Latin's ablative case works: &quot;like that, but for all nouns, and marked with a case.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-09-17T16:35:39.547" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22486" PostId="12506" Score="0" Text="For &quot;the store&quot; in your example sentence, what do you think of [_taberna_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/taberna#Latin) or [_mercatus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mercatus#Latin)?" CreationDate="2019-09-18T00:14:54.453" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22487" PostId="12506" Score="0" Text="Thanks!  this is all quite helpful." CreationDate="2019-09-18T01:47:57.220" UserId="6079" />
  <row Id="22489" PostId="12506" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz _taberna_ looks good, actually. Thanks." CreationDate="2019-09-18T08:28:43.743" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="22490" PostId="12506" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz For what I can read, &quot;to go to&quot; can be used with &quot;ad + acc&quot;, &quot;_ad tabernam_&quot;, or in this case, as one is going **into** the shop, with &quot;in + acc&quot;. Do you have a strong prior of which is best?" CreationDate="2019-09-18T08:35:39.467" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="22499" PostId="12506" Score="2" Text="@luchonacho I'd use *in* for actually going into the store to buy things. If you were planning to hang around in the general area around the shop, then *ad* is more appropriate, but that doesn't seem to be the OP's case." CreationDate="2019-09-19T10:23:42.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22501" PostId="12506" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks. I wonder now how one is to differentiate &quot;last wednesday&quot; from &quot;next wednesday&quot; when the phrase has no context. (probably a bit of a useless question anyway). In this case the verb indicated past." CreationDate="2019-09-19T14:29:06.903" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="22507" PostId="12506" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho I do have a good solution to that, but I'd rather if you asked a separate question. The issue with *proximus* pointing both ways in time deserves more than a comment." CreationDate="2019-09-19T16:58:04.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34854" PostId="12508" Score="0" Text="I'm confused by the seemingly random variation between *is/em/es/um*. Could you clarify?" CreationDate="2021-08-31T15:17:52.763" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22493" PostId="12509" Score="0" Text="FWIW, neither Beekes nor Chantraine have an entry for the Greek word." CreationDate="2019-09-18T23:56:58.833" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22494" PostId="12509" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Thanks for checking. I just saw that [Theoi](https://www.theoi.com/Nymphe/NymphaiHamadryades.html) lists two uses of the word in Classical Greek, but one is from a prose source (*Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses*) and the other is I think also prose, although I haven't found that out for certain yet (*Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae*). I'm not sure how many more attestations of the word in Greek I should expect there to be ... maybe it's just too uncommon to analyze." CreationDate="2019-09-19T00:23:56.270" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22510" PostId="12509" Score="0" Text="The Athenaeus quote is prose: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0405%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D14" CreationDate="2019-09-19T18:00:31.057" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22511" PostId="12509" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Oh, thanks for the link! I wonder whether there is any Greek evidence of how the word scans in poetry." CreationDate="2019-09-19T18:06:57.573" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22514" PostId="12509" Score="1" Text="TLG is giving me a total of ten hits all of which are in prose works, but I can only access the abridged TLG at the moment. But I'm not sure how useful verse evidence would be anyway: if the second syllable scanned long, that could be attributed to the consonant cluster rather than the vowel length. And it seems unlikely that we'd find it scanned short as that would give a sequence of three or more shorts, which wouldn't fit into most common meters." CreationDate="2019-09-19T22:08:14.310" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22520" PostId="12509" Score="1" Text="@sumelic [Nonnus, Dionysiaca 2](https://archive.org/details/dionysiaca01nonnuoft/page/50) - the reference comes from Wiktionary. The αδ seems to be long in 95,98 (but the scansion of line 95 isn't clear to me). There is also a Ἁδρυάς in 92 (also long αδ). There might be more attestations of Ἁδρυάς since the English footnote says it's the word favored by Nonnus" CreationDate="2019-09-20T08:54:51.170" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="22495" PostId="12515" Score="0" Text="I think &quot;[penes](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/penes#Etymology_1)&quot; here may be the postposition. &quot;Porteori&quot; would be a proper noun to express the idea of &quot;Porterhouse&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-19T01:03:59.400" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22496" PostId="12515" Score="0" Text="@sumelic Fascinating, that's not a word I'd known! I'll edit that in. Any idea about _fer_?" CreationDate="2019-09-19T01:07:37.420" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22504" PostId="12515" Score="0" Text="A few corrections to your translation: (1) *fidem reginae datam* means &quot;faith given *to* the queen,&quot; (2) *nos domus etc...* means &quot;We, the fellows of the house of Porter, welcome you,&quot; (3) &quot;Dominum mirabilem...splendide institutum&quot; almost certainly means &quot;we celebrate the wonderful lord marvelously established.&quot; (The adverbial &quot;splendide&quot; is a hint that *institutum* is an participial adjective applying to *dominum*, which here isn't used for *Deus*)" CreationDate="2019-09-19T16:06:25.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22505" PostId="12515" Score="0" Text="As for *fer*, my best guess is that it means, &quot;Bring [the mandate], and let him show by what authority he has been announced [as master].&quot; The problem is that the audio sounds much more like &quot;fe&quot;--I don't hear *fer* at all." CreationDate="2019-09-19T16:08:38.437" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22506" PostId="12515" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Fixed! Though I took the capitalization of &quot;Dominum&quot; as indicating that it meant &quot;Deum&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-19T16:25:55.490" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22512" PostId="12515" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Not to be pedantic, but... (1) *socius* does actually appear to be a technical term meaning &quot;[university] fellow&quot; and (2) &quot;splendide institutum&quot; *must* be modifying *Dominum*, since if *institutum* was a noun then it would have to be modified by *splendidum*. Given that they wouldn't speak of God as being *institutus*, and the capitalization just comes from a random Youtube transcription, I'm pretty confident that's not the intended meaning." CreationDate="2019-09-19T18:53:31.873" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22513" PostId="12515" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Interesting, I didn't know that use of the word! Made those changes too." CreationDate="2019-09-19T20:03:37.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22498" PostId="12518" Score="1" Text="I've used the adjective in a case where I needed to make a clear analogy to Italian. For that purpose *Italicus* was not close enough to *italiano*, so I ended up picking *Italianus*. But I agree that if you're working entirely within Latin, the adjective is not a good choice." CreationDate="2019-09-19T10:21:22.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22500" PostId="12518" Score="1" Text="A word of caution: If you are using dictionaries, check first whether the dictionaries in question include proper nouns and proper adjectives. Many do not. And then a query: If &quot;Italianus&quot; is not Latin (classical or mediaeval), where does &quot;Italian&quot; (and related forms in other languages) come from?" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:53:15.360" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22502" PostId="12518" Score="1" Text="IIRC, we see a related development in English surnames: Anglicus --&gt; Anglicanus --&gt; Anglianus" CreationDate="2019-09-19T14:38:34.543" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="22518" PostId="12518" Score="3" Text="@fdb Just like any other language, Italian is and has always been perfectly capable for deriving words internally, and correspondingly has its internal derivation rules independent from those of Latin, although continuously influenced by them. Names of nations are particularly easy to impose on a people during certain historic periods - the word *español* and its cousins in other languages is not even Castilian, and the Russians were originally a tiny ruling elite. That said, *Italiānus* **is** a Medieval Latin cognomen and very probably can be found as an adjective in the vastness of ML." CreationDate="2019-09-20T08:09:08.857" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22503" PostId="12521" Score="1" Text="Thanks for that link - very useful!" CreationDate="2019-09-19T14:42:54.263" UserId="6084" />
  <row Id="22509" PostId="12521" Score="3" Text="+1 for the consonance!" CreationDate="2019-09-19T17:18:55.537" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="22522" PostId="12522" Score="0" Text="Actually, most Cambridge colleges do use &quot;Master&quot; for their head." CreationDate="2019-09-20T23:15:25.350" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22526" PostId="12522" Score="0" Text="Quite so. I was trying to think of exceptions, but they are mostly, I think, Oxonian aberrations." CreationDate="2019-09-21T09:29:47.380" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22532" PostId="12522" Score="0" Text="King's has a Provost. Queens has a President. Girton has a Mistress. I think there are a couple more oddities, but I don't remember them." CreationDate="2019-09-21T14:04:33.500" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22516" PostId="12523" Score="4" Text="This strikes me as a misunderstanding. English, too, has a neuter gender, but I know of no one who adopts &quot;it&quot; as their pronoun of choice." CreationDate="2019-09-20T03:29:23.497" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22517" PostId="12523" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: It is very uncommon, and makes many people uncomfortable, but some individuals do like to be referred to as &quot;it&quot;. Here are two relevant reddit posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/comments/a4a46m/it_pronouns/, https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/comments/armm7t/on_it_its_itself_pronouns/" CreationDate="2019-09-20T05:32:23.897" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22519" PostId="12523" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and many thanks for sharing your experience!" CreationDate="2019-09-20T08:20:01.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30698" PostId="12524" Score="1" Text="It may be good to have a look at C.S. Lewis in *The Four Loves*, because he revives storage as one of those “four loves” and references the classical sources." CreationDate="2019-10-02T09:56:28.367" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="22531" PostId="12526" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Apologies: did try to link the old Qs., but it just said &quot;Link-copied-to-clipboard&quot;??" CreationDate="2019-09-21T13:43:14.490" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22723" PostId="12526" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Finally sorted the linking technique--yippee! Did yourself watch the press conference with your President &amp; Trump? Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2019-10-06T15:07:18.723" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22724" PostId="12526" Score="0" Text="I sent you an invitation to [our site's chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) recently. Many small tech support things and especially discussions not related to the questions and answers work best there. Chat also allows having more structured conversations, as the main site is not really built for discussions at all. Have you tried chat? You can drop in and say hi at any time, even if nobody is in at the moment." CreationDate="2019-10-06T19:44:51.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22533" PostId="12527" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer!" CreationDate="2019-09-21T15:58:39.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28697" PostId="12529" Score="0" Text="*Sol occasus* is a very special case. To my knowledge, *sol* is the only word in the whole Latin language that can be used with *occasus* like that. You cannot say *post Pompeium occasum*. Perfect participles with an active sense *do* exist, like *cenatus, pransus, adultus, obsoletus, inveteratus, …* but I do not think dominant-participle constructions have anything to do with it." CreationDate="2020-08-19T21:13:41.250" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28703" PostId="12529" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree with you that _ante solem occasum_ and _sole occaso_ are “very special cases” but these examples are attested and their existence/usage must then be accounted for (in contrast, I take invented examples like _advento die_ or _ante diem adventum_ not just as “very special” or “very peripheral” but directly as ill-formed; but cf. TKR’s comment. Given that they also violate the typical rule, only their being attested could lead me to reconsider my non-native judgement)." CreationDate="2020-08-20T03:23:04.160" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28706" PostId="12529" Score="0" Text="Cases like _sole occaso_ and _ante solem occasum_ are &quot;very special&quot; but they do exist, so there must be some _motivation_ for their existence: e.g., an **analogy** with “regular”/expected cases like _sole orto_ and _ante solem ortum_, the ones involving a deponent verb. Similar (attested!) examples of &quot;very special cases&quot; are welcome! For example, I remember I got surprised to see that a non-deponent verb like _erumpere_ (?) also appeared in an Ablative Absolute in a context related to a vulcano (crucially, the intransitive use of the verb was involved) but I can't remember the source..." CreationDate="2020-08-20T04:23:20.053" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37170" PostId="12529" Score="0" Text="Eo and sto are classic intransitive verbs. So what do itus and status actually mean?" CreationDate="2022-02-12T16:18:03.677" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="37173" PostId="12529" Score="0" Text="@fdb I'm not sure what you mean. For example, are you asking what the participle could mean in an (adapted) example like _Sic itum est ad astra_?" CreationDate="2022-02-12T17:04:36.863" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37208" PostId="12529" Score="0" Text="If non-deponent intransitive verbs cannot form a perfect passive participle, what is itus and what is status?" CreationDate="2022-02-14T11:42:49.100" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="37211" PostId="12529" Score="0" Text="@fdb The fact that a nominative form like _itus_ cannot be used in any syntactic context and the fact that that an impersonal passive like _itum est_ is also referred to as &quot;pseudopassive&quot; are related. This said, it's fine to use the traditional grammatical label (perfect passive participle) for them. The occasional quotation marks on &quot;passive&quot; are just used to call attention on facts like the abovementioned ones." CreationDate="2022-02-14T15:54:08.883" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22538" PostId="12530" Score="1" Text="Have you checked what [Lewis and Short say on *replico*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=replico&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)? The route from the basic meaning to II.B.2 gets some more perspective if you read the whole entry." CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:45:02.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22544" PostId="12530" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks. I read the *OLD* (now quoted!), and not *Lewis and Short*, but now that I have, I'm still too stupid to connect the dots." CreationDate="2019-09-23T04:53:31.427" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="22588" PostId="12530" Score="1" Text="This isn’t really a question about Latin at all. Nevertheless, I would suggest concentrating on all the different kinds of plication (ex, in, con, re, ad, sub) simultaneously since they will give a better sense of parallel evolution." CreationDate="2019-09-25T07:16:04.257" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="22864" PostId="12530" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. Certainly. Am I wrong to assume that *Oxford Latin Dict.* (last revised 2012) is better than *Lewis &amp; Short* last revised in 1879?" CreationDate="2019-10-20T05:53:04.437" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="22865" PostId="12530" Score="0" Text="@Greek-Area51Proposal: Oh! I am ashamed. I read it as *Oxford English Dictionary*, how stupid of me (the letters in the image were too small to read without opening it in a new tab). The Oxford Latin Dictionary is fine, of course! It is generally the better dictionary, although perhaps in this case Lewis &amp; Short can be helpful, as they usually provide more possible translations of each sense of a word." CreationDate="2019-10-20T14:12:20.117" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23662" PostId="12530" Score="0" Text="I don't see the link with &quot;folding&quot; in the title of the question. Could it be edited?" CreationDate="2019-12-12T16:24:58.350" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22539" PostId="12531" Score="1" Text="Unfortunately, there is no good machine translator for Latin. If you're curious about a particular part of a translation, feel free to post it here--but this probably isn't the best place to look for a long translation." CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:50:46.630" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22540" PostId="12531" Score="0" Text="I've now added approx. half of the text I would like to have translated. Probably it's too much for here, but it would be very helpful to have at least the first paragraph translated..." CreationDate="2019-09-22T20:31:25.790" UserId="6093" />
  <row Id="22542" PostId="12532" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This nice question has earned you enough reputation points that you can now vote up any questions and answers you like on the site. Please do so; voting helps us help each other. I also recommend taking a look at [our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2019-09-23T03:45:25.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22545" PostId="12534" Score="1" Text="+1. My Ecclesiastical context contributions: fideles populi&gt;faithful peoples (i.e., believers). Apostolic Seat&gt;Apostolic See (the Vatican). Erga Sedem venerationis&gt;of the veneration towards the See (the object of veneration is the Apostolic See). In persona Cardinalis Legati&gt;In the peson of the Cardinal Legate. Pontifici veluti unitatis Centro et Christi Vicario&gt;to the Pontiff as the center of unity and Vicar of Christ. That's what I can see right now" CreationDate="2019-09-23T12:17:54.770" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22547" PostId="12534" Score="0" Text="That's really great! I'm not sure if I could ask you to translate the rest of the text if I added it?" CreationDate="2019-09-23T15:34:49.813" UserId="6093" />
  <row Id="22554" PostId="12534" Score="2" Text="Thanks, @Rafael! Exactly the kind of knowledge I was hoping for. I'll put those in. Any correction for _ humillima ea de re vota sua?_" CreationDate="2019-09-24T02:12:33.430" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22555" PostId="12534" Score="1" Text="@TomS Sure, I'll give it a try. You don't need to type it in. I looked at the next paragraph [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=Wo6ygtOyo6oC&amp;pg=PA60) and it looks harder: more Catholic terminology and an even more complex sentence. It might take me a couple days to get to it. (It'll be a carrot while I'm working on something else.)" CreationDate="2019-09-24T02:26:32.163" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22556" PostId="12534" Score="1" Text="For *humillima, etc.*: &quot;They have seen to it [curarunt] that their most humble wishes  [humillima vota sua] on this matter [ea de re] be submitted to the Pope, etc.&quot; A *votum* often simply means &quot;wish.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-09-24T03:07:48.210" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22558" PostId="12534" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Thanks. &quot;Wishes&quot; makes much more sense. I just added it." CreationDate="2019-09-24T03:54:12.073" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22559" PostId="12534" Score="1" Text="@cnread I have taken _Ex quo_ here to mean the temporal &quot;since&quot;. I did some googling on &quot;ex quo&quot; and never found a fully satisfactory explanation, but from the rest of the sentence, I think it's got to mean &quot;In the time since&quot;. Your explanation, that it abbreviates _Ex eo tempore quo,_ is the first explanation I've seen that makes sense! I'll update the translation to clarify." CreationDate="2019-09-24T04:02:17.380" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22543" PostId="12535" Score="0" Text="The university I'm at certifies translators, but afaik only for living languages…I wonder if there's a similar standardization task force for dead ones." CreationDate="2019-09-23T03:52:38.393" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22548" PostId="12535" Score="1" Text="How to solve the issue, undoubtedly depends on the local legal system. In my country the Foreign Affairs Ministry _kind of_ certifies individual translations, and the burden is on them (they also set the fee, though)" CreationDate="2019-09-23T16:22:47.273" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22550" PostId="12535" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In my (perhaps limited) experience of life, nobody ever asks to see anybody's degree certificate. Any interested parties/ potential employers/ universities offering research degrees simply ask the original Uni for a reference. Which Uni is this that issues certificates, in Latin, w/o a translation; without a record?" CreationDate="2019-09-23T17:35:31.523" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22551" PostId="12535" Score="3" Text="@tony Asking for degree certificates like that is common in Finland. If you want to get a grant or a tenure, you need to show a certificate, in some cases the original paper copy. I just submitted a grant proposal and had to attach a scan of my doctoral degree certificate. (The colleague in the question is a colleague of a colleague, so I don't know the details. Somewhere in Europe, certainly. But I got interested in whether there is a good solution to the problem.)" CreationDate="2019-09-23T18:13:08.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22552" PostId="12535" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I see! Accredited translators may be found in academia, I would have thought; here I'd try Oxford/ Cambridge e.g. Prof./ Dame Mary Beard--very well-known, of course; good luck with it." CreationDate="2019-09-23T22:26:43.187" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34288" PostId="12535" Score="0" Text="To the best of my knowledge, the process in Norway would be to get it translated by a scholar at a university and to get said university to provide the translation with their official letterhead and/or stamp. However, paper copies of such things are today for decoration only; everything is online on government/university sites where everyone have access to information on a NTK basis." CreationDate="2021-07-31T15:16:07.060" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34291" PostId="12535" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Norway seems to be pragmatical or practical here, but in many other countries there is no online database of university degrees, the paper diploma is the actual diploma, no decoration. When the country officials wanted the proof of my degree for my national ID, they made a photocopy of the actual diploma (written in Latin). There are still people around us, who graduated in the 1950s. Their diplomas are certainly the paper ones, not online. I know that in USA they do not trust any paper that alumni can supply but ask for transcript from the uni, but that is USA, we have the diplomma" CreationDate="2021-07-31T18:13:22.960" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22546" PostId="12536" Score="4" Text="There are various ways in which working or acting together can be described: you will have to define _team_ before this can be answered properly. Can you tell us what situation you have in mind, please?" CreationDate="2019-09-23T15:10:09.650" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22549" PostId="12536" Score="1" Text="I second @TomCotton. I am not convinced that there is a general translation for &quot;team&quot; in Latin, just like in many other languages. Can you edit your question to describe where you would like to use the word? You could also list the internet results you found, and we can then tell you how useful they are." CreationDate="2019-09-23T16:37:49.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22562" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="I mean the collective,the many,the group." CreationDate="2019-09-24T09:27:35.000" UserId="6095" />
  <row Id="22563" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="bigas was the word I got" CreationDate="2019-09-24T09:27:52.813" UserId="6095" />
  <row Id="22564" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="from word hippo" CreationDate="2019-09-24T09:28:08.237" UserId="6095" />
  <row Id="22565" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="user6095: Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives &quot;protelum&quot; = &quot;team&quot;; but, on further study this is a team-of-oxen; probably, not what you are seeking?" CreationDate="2019-09-24T09:43:33.130" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22566" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="What about bigas?Is it wrong?" CreationDate="2019-09-24T11:16:12.307" UserId="6095" />
  <row Id="22568" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="Yes, I think _bigas_ will be wrong if only because it means a pair (usually of horses) (assuming it's a declined form of _biga_).  Are you thinking of a team of humans?  What activity are they engaged in as a team?  Your answers may help us find a good word for you :)" CreationDate="2019-09-24T11:55:03.403" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="22569" PostId="12536" Score="1" Text="FWIW, there is a scholarly translation of a _modern_ novel that uses [_turma, -ae_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dturma) for a team in the context of collective sports. Is that good for you?" CreationDate="2019-09-24T12:07:18.987" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22572" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="Yes a team of humans united. Is there one?" CreationDate="2019-09-24T13:31:08.840" UserId="6095" />
  <row Id="22573" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="or society.Is there a word for it?" CreationDate="2019-09-24T13:39:26.283" UserId="6095" />
  <row Id="22593" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="Would you be able to edit your question to clarify that you mean a team of people?  Even better if you can also give an example of what they are doing as a team.  Because, in the context of the ancient world, &quot;team&quot; almost always is a translation of a Latin word that means a group of animals harnessed to pull a chariot or a plough.  This is why WordHippo gave you _bigas_ - a &quot;team&quot; or pair of horses/oxen." CreationDate="2019-09-25T10:56:43.547" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="22686" PostId="12536" Score="0" Text="@User6905: While reading &quot;Latin Obscenity&quot; (Wiki) came across alternative for &quot;protelum&quot;--a team of three, as in a sexual threesome. There, a little less boring than &quot;a team of oxen&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-02T13:36:07.323" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22553" PostId="12538" Score="0" Text="A possible lead: I believe Carl Jung knew Latin, so possibly he coined a Latin phrase for this himself. I don't know where to begin looking to see if he did, though." CreationDate="2019-09-24T02:01:21.470" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22574" PostId="12538" Score="0" Text="I tried Googling and couldn't really find anything. Did the Romans have the concept of the unconscious in the way that we do?" CreationDate="2019-09-24T15:46:31.327" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22575" PostId="12538" Score="0" Text="They have words for simply being _not conscious_, but I don't know if they had the concept of thought as being conscious and unconscious." CreationDate="2019-09-24T15:52:04.807" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22560" PostId="12540" Score="1" Text="Good find! The question then arises whether he offers a paid translation service to outsiders." CreationDate="2019-09-24T06:09:40.560" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22578" PostId="12543" Score="0" Text="The OED dates it in English from 1890, but derives it from Finnish _essiivi_, formed from the Latin; but I don't know when it was created in Finnish. As for the motivation, that seems pretty obvious: once Latinate grammarians were let loose on Finnish, they had to make up Latinate names for all the &quot;cases&quot;, and most of them ended in _-ive_." CreationDate="2019-09-24T17:22:30.417" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22579" PostId="12545" Score="2" Text="This is reminiscent of the way *esse* is got reanalyzed in some Romance languages. Consider the Italian *essere*." CreationDate="2019-09-24T19:41:55.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22585" PostId="12545" Score="0" Text="It’s a great answer but I am worried that you may be chasing the wrong fox when you talk about present participles. Surely the “present participle” direction is a description of the word *ens*?" CreationDate="2019-09-25T06:49:02.127" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="22600" PostId="12545" Score="4" Text="@MartinKochanski As I understand it, *esse* actually had three present participles over the years! *Sōns* ~ *sēns* drifted semantically until its original meaning was lost (but see _absēns_ etc); *_essens_ was created by Classical authors as an intermediate stage in translating Greek _ousía_ (from the Greek present participle of the copula), and _ēns_ was created in Mediaeval Latin by analogy with Greek (because the AGrk participle of the copula looks like a bare ending with no stem). I don't think any two of these ever coexisted." CreationDate="2019-09-25T15:30:56.343" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22601" PostId="12545" Score="1" Text="@MartinKochanski …though now that I think of it that might be a good question in its own right; feel free to ask, if you don't, I'll do it later" CreationDate="2019-09-25T15:31:21.803" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22587" PostId="12546" Score="0" Text="Given the epigrammatic nature of mottoes, I wonder whether one needs to be explicit about either the *fas* or the world. What about simply “*Redde melioratum*”? It would fit better on the stone and make the *viator* think a bit. Or (I now think better) *Redde meliorem*, since one doesn’t need to be explicit about the “ation” bit of the melioration." CreationDate="2019-09-25T06:57:31.580" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="22599" PostId="12546" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski That would work too! Feel free to post that as an answer for the rep" CreationDate="2019-09-25T15:26:13.267" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22580" PostId="12548" Score="4" Text="Your translation seems fine to me; it's just a weird dialogue." CreationDate="2019-09-24T23:57:41.187" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22581" PostId="12548" Score="1" Text="It's probably even more weird out of context. There's a third child, Iulia, who was singing until her brother Marcus hits her. Quintus sees this and his him and they fight. Their mother hears this and comes to find out what is happening, and then asks where their father is because he obviously didn't hear it." CreationDate="2019-09-25T00:11:45.280" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22583" PostId="12548" Score="3" Text="BTW, are you regularly translating LLPSI into English (not just for this question)? I ask because I've occasionally I've come across people using LLPSI who don't know that it's designed to be read (and spoken) in Latin with no translation to your native language." CreationDate="2019-09-25T04:36:56.183" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22602" PostId="12548" Score="2" Text="I haven't been translating it - I only did it for this post so there was something to show my understanding what I was reading. When I read it I try to not actively &quot;translate&quot; anything in my mind." CreationDate="2019-09-25T15:49:33.027" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22605" PostId="12548" Score="2" Text="I took it to mean &quot;but Marcus is making sure we know he is here by insisting on talking&quot;" CreationDate="2019-09-25T17:22:32.543" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22606" PostId="12548" Score="2" Text="@Adam Ah, glad to hear it. :)" CreationDate="2019-09-25T19:52:27.407" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22584" PostId="12549" Score="0" Text="The OED gives the same story as Etymonline (or should that be the other way around?!).  But I wonder if its use for all medical practitioners actually stems from the earlier need to differentiate between the learnèd medical doctor and the decidedly unlearnèd surgeon who was (sometimes still is) referred to as Mister?" CreationDate="2019-09-25T06:39:16.923" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="22586" PostId="12549" Score="1" Text="Try calling an English surgeon Dr rather than Mr (or Manuscript) and see what happens to you! Better still, don’t. &#xA;The OED is the definitive source here, with dates and referenced quotations for each shade of meaning. For a real amused insight into semantic floppiness, follow the evolution of *nescius* into *nice*!" CreationDate="2019-09-25T06:53:23.530" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="22591" PostId="12549" Score="2" Text="In the linked quotation Barfield does not claim &quot;that the modern English meaning grew out of the character of Ancient Roman society&quot;. What he says is that &quot;now&quot; (i.e., in modern English) the word has taken on this meaning." CreationDate="2019-09-25T09:49:00.833" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22604" PostId="12549" Score="4" Text="How did _undertaker_ come to mean &quot;one who prepares cadavers for burial&quot;? How did _solicitor_ come to mean &quot;legal advisor&quot;? (though I understand it has a different meaning in other parts of the Anglosphere). How did _executor_ and _executioner_ come to mean such completely different things? Language does what it does, and the path is not always obvious." CreationDate="2019-09-25T17:19:40.780" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22607" PostId="12549" Score="0" Text="@fdb The first sentence, &quot;The difference between Greek and Roman character…is evident in…many English words,&quot; suggested to me that Barfield means that English &quot;doctor&quot; (along with &quot;discipline&quot;, etc.) still carries the imprint of the Roman worldview or that the Roman worldview somehow influenced the meaning that it took on in English. Many details are unclear, though. I'll reword the question now to remove &quot;grew out of&quot;. Do you think the new version is more accurate?" CreationDate="2019-09-25T20:10:12.760" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22608" PostId="12549" Score="0" Text="@Penelope I think you are right that the OED is the source of Etymonline's entry. I just added a link to the OED entry (now that I'm on a network with access to the OED)." CreationDate="2019-09-25T20:20:53.967" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32339" PostId="12549" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski - a British surgeon, prefixed &quot;Mr/Miss&quot; derived, as I understand, from the practical barber-surgeon, as opposed to the university educated &quot;doctor&quot;, is nonetheless seen as a cut above a *mere* doctor." CreationDate="2021-03-29T04:13:09.763" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="36164" PostId="12549" Score="0" Text="See https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16826, https://english.stackexchange.com/q/26972, https://english.stackexchange.com/q/222567, https://english.stackexchange.com/q/519461, https://french.stackexchange.com/q/16816, https://hsm.stackexchange.com/a/12986, https://hsm.stackexchange.com/a/5003. You can glean the answer by reading all of them!" CreationDate="2021-12-05T22:11:19.457" UserDisplayName="user10497" />
  <row Id="22603" PostId="12550" Score="2" Text="All of your points are exactly the reason I've been enjoying LLPSI so much. When I read the word &quot;sed&quot; for example, I don't see it and think &quot;that means but/however&quot; in my language. It actually just has that meaning intrinsically. I also think you're probably correct about Qiuntus's goal in mentioning Marcus; given the humor that Ørberg uses it makes sense. All it takes is speaking the sentence tone." CreationDate="2019-09-25T15:54:53.107" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22590" PostId="12551" Score="0" Text="You could add _protelum_, used for a team of horse (in chariot racing) or oxen." CreationDate="2019-09-25T09:33:23.900" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22592" PostId="12551" Score="1" Text="@TomCotton  I left out all the ways you can refer to a team of animals because in the comments above, the original poster did specify a team of humans.  I think they have in mind a team of people working together on a project and not teams of animals that pull chariots and ploughs!  Unless of course such terms were also used for groups of humans?" CreationDate="2019-09-25T10:49:18.437" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="22597" PostId="12551" Score="0" Text="Too many comments! Somehow I missed that. Splendid answer, anyway." CreationDate="2019-09-25T13:18:35.763" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="22598" PostId="12551" Score="0" Text="Why did grex become gregum and gregibus?" CreationDate="2019-09-25T13:59:42.077" UserId="6095" />
  <row Id="22609" PostId="12551" Score="0" Text="@user6095 They're different noun cases of _[grex](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grex#Latin):_ singular accusative and plural ablative." CreationDate="2019-09-25T20:55:00.223" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22595" PostId="12552" Score="2" Text="Looking forward to know the terms used!" CreationDate="2019-09-25T13:00:24.580" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22621" PostId="12552" Score="0" Text="I did a little digging based on your comment, and one possible phrase that Aquinas may have meant for it is &quot;Unitate Intellectus&quot;, or &quot;Unity of Intellect&quot;. They mention it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes%27_theory_of_the_unity_of_the_intellect" CreationDate="2019-09-26T20:47:10.157" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22594" PostId="12553" Score="0" Text="Do you have at least a vague idea about when this happened? I remember a bishop from East Europe doing something similar in a Synod, some 6-8 years ago I think. Probably even there, most bishops attending didn't understand." CreationDate="2019-09-25T12:58:45.907" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22596" PostId="12553" Score="0" Text="I am not sure, but when I remember right the answerer was Otto von Habsburg (CSU), pinning down the time interval to 1979–1999." CreationDate="2019-09-25T13:06:03.210" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="22614" PostId="12554" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and thanks for your question! I wrote my answer, but you might want to consider that the acronym is most probably written that way in the original, judging from digitized version of more than one printed version, and from the fact that it's a common acronym used in this context." CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:14:49.943" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22611" PostId="12555" Score="0" Text="Sir, your good self has forgotten to translate this. If you swear at me, in Latin, it will be forgiven." CreationDate="2019-09-26T08:33:49.880" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22623" PostId="12555" Score="1" Text="@tony A [quel link](https://www.facebook.com/174247906107064/posts/lintervento-in-latino-di-mario-capanna-al-parlamento-europeoin-giorni-in-cui-son/226582074206980/) c'è una traduzione italiana. If you want it in English, you might paste the Italian into Google Translate, which does a better job with Italian than with Latin (or possibly click the &quot;See Translation&quot; button on the Facebook page)." CreationDate="2019-09-27T03:19:00.853" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22626" PostId="12555" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: Thank you. Was having a little joke with Mitomino; but, keep forgetting that (English) humour does not travel, hope he wasn't offended, in some way. Have a good weekend." CreationDate="2019-09-27T11:59:13.493" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22619" PostId="12556" Score="3" Text="When your dictionary says that multo = 'long (before or after)', it doesn't mean that the word by itself means 'long before' or 'long after'; rather, when it's paired with another word that means 'before' or 'after', it can mean 'long.' The parentheses in that definitition are significant." CreationDate="2019-09-26T16:52:19.367" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="22627" PostId="12556" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Thank you. Was wondering why hadn't seen this in use." CreationDate="2019-09-27T12:05:39.420" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22657" PostId="12556" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure how well I understand your question. Ad + acc. often signals a limit or goal, a point of termination. So, ad vesperum means &quot;until evening.&quot; In the expression &quot;ad tempus,&quot; the idea is &quot;until an unspecified time,&quot; ergo, &quot;temporarily.&quot; In the expression &quot;id temporis,&quot; &quot;temporis&quot; is a partitive genitive. Time is being viewed as a continuum, and id is marking out a specific piece of it. Thus, ad id temporis means &quot;until that moment of time.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-09-30T17:54:50.253" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="22663" PostId="12556" Score="0" Text="Two great questions. The second one is actually not really related to the first one, though I can understand why you suspected they might be. I'll try to answer the second one later. Or you could split your question in twain." CreationDate="2019-10-01T03:45:23.200" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22615" PostId="12558" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your very fast response, I did searched a translation for the preface as well and couldn't find anything, I don't think anyone has ever done one.&#xA;Also, just so you know, I'm italian and we use a very similar name for declensions as the one you used, the only reason I didn't choose it was because I thought it wasn't very english-like and maybe it was simply one of those wrong &quot;literal translations&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:20:19.167" UserDisplayName="user6102" />
  <row Id="22616" PostId="12558" Score="0" Text="@Zashura it is likely that there is no other translation, in fact" CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:21:12.800" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="44459" PostId="12560" Score="0" Text="This _ēns/entis_ is where e.g. SP _ente_ and EN _entity_ come from, right?" CreationDate="2023-08-14T07:08:06.580" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="44460" PostId="12560" Score="1" Text="@NicolasMiari I believe so, yes!" CreationDate="2023-08-14T15:29:11.757" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22624" PostId="12561" Score="0" Text="One possible place to start is the [Wiktionary list of Latin words from the same PIE root](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_terms_derived_from_the_PIE_root_*%C7%B5%CA%B0er-_(bowels)). Perhaps someone could check whether those words actually come from the same root according to reputable sources and write an answer?" CreationDate="2019-09-27T08:40:22.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22629" PostId="12562" Score="1" Text="Re: *χαήο- Isn't there a typo in your quote? In my copy, I have *χαriο-" CreationDate="2019-09-27T23:43:51.850" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="22630" PostId="12562" Score="0" Text="By the way: what is &quot;hose&quot; in this context?" CreationDate="2019-09-28T09:59:22.883" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22631" PostId="12562" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Sorry for the OCR error, I fixed most of them, but this one remained." CreationDate="2019-09-28T10:05:17.803" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22632" PostId="12562" Score="0" Text="@fdb Hose in this context is a rubber pipe, a garden hose, firefighter's hose - Schlauch, hadice,..." CreationDate="2019-09-28T10:09:08.850" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22638" PostId="12567" Score="0" Text="Most technologies gradually change, as new ways of doing things are invented, and it becomes hard to understand how people managed before. Writing is one of our oldest technologies." CreationDate="2019-09-28T22:38:47.817" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22639" PostId="12567" Score="3" Text="I answered a question very like yours here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2414/why-did-roman-authors-never-feel-a-need-for-word-spacing/2685#2685" CreationDate="2019-09-28T22:56:50.700" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="22641" PostId="12567" Score="0" Text="Modern Chinese still lacks spaces between words." CreationDate="2019-09-29T04:22:11.040" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22649" PostId="12570" Score="0" Text="This question would probably find a better home on linguistics SE, since it's really about modern transcription practices. AFAIK Roman Q was not used to transcribe uvulars in antiquity, and Greek koppa never was." CreationDate="2019-09-29T22:17:02.937" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22650" PostId="12570" Score="0" Text="@TKR I'd also thought it was a purely modern practice, but it seems [it's attested at least back to the 1500s](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/33695/10559), so I'm curious if it was used any earlier than that." CreationDate="2019-09-29T22:32:38.123" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22662" PostId="12572" Score="0" Text="Some nice English dat." CreationDate="2019-10-01T03:19:21.843" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22669" PostId="12573" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! And good question!" CreationDate="2019-10-01T17:10:41.647" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22703" PostId="12573" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your good &amp; interesting answer! This site seems more userfriendly than the other Stackexchanges! Good." CreationDate="2019-10-04T11:52:38.067" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22658" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="So, &quot;ad ludum&quot; rather means that you don't attend school but you enter (in) the building?" CreationDate="2019-09-30T18:37:30.640" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22659" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="@Quidam Something like that. Depends on context. Maybe you're just in front of the building or in the general area." CreationDate="2019-09-30T18:45:55.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22661" PostId="12577" Score="1" Text="I think the English distinction you are looking for is between &quot;into&quot; and &quot;to&quot;." CreationDate="2019-09-30T21:23:30.883" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22665" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Indeed! I edited that in." CreationDate="2019-10-01T07:42:48.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22678" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="I agree with your description of the Latin contrasts involving _in_ vs. _ad_ but I'm not sure about your parallelism with English, in particular, about your statement that &quot;When you are **at** the store, you are probably **somewhere near** but not quite inside&quot;. I imagine &quot;at&quot; as involving you're located at some point in the store, rather than near (?) the store. I don't know if any native speaker of English could confirm this." CreationDate="2019-10-02T01:33:04.280" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22711" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="I think this whole reply as well as the comments are incorrect: neither &quot;ad&quot; nor &quot;to&quot; imply not being inside. &quot;At the store&quot; is used idiomatically to mean &quot;visiting the store, doing shopping there &quot;, while &quot;in the store&quot; expresses precise physical location. The former normally involves the latter. &quot;I'm going to school&quot; similarly means &quot;heading to the building to take classes&quot;, while &quot;to go to school&quot; means &quot;to be a student at school&quot;. &quot;I'm going to the school&quot; expresses heading to the school building, and &quot;I'm going into the school&quot; is what's used to purely express entering the building." CreationDate="2019-10-05T13:51:45.297" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22712" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="As far as Latin, &quot;ad Jūlium&quot; likewise doesn't say anything about entrering either way, but by default it's understood that if &quot;you're going to Mike's place&quot;, you're planning to enter it and not walk around the premises. Thus &quot;cēnāre ad/apud Jūlium&quot; is used to express location, precisely like &quot;I'm having dinner at Mike's&quot; means that you're at Mike's home in metaphorical sense, whether currently inside or outside in physical sense. &quot;Ad Jūlium&quot;/&quot;At Mike's&quot; is by extension used in names of shops, and &quot;venīre ad macellum&quot; is &quot;to go to the market&quot;. Meanwhile, &quot;to go to school is &quot;in lūdum venīre&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-05T14:07:15.747" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22716" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I only wanted to give a simple description of the differences for buildings. I make no claims about people; I did not compare*ad/in Marcum venire*. There are more details than what I gave, but I wanted to just give the main difference in the case of buildings. I would be happy to see you (or anyone else) write a separate answer to tell what I left untold or perhaps told badly." CreationDate="2019-10-05T18:56:24.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22721" PostId="12577" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta But your description is a priori wrong because you get the difference wrong in the language you're describing it with, while also establishing a false correspondence: &quot;at the store&quot; means *in tabernā* and &quot;at school&quot; means *in lūdō* (I've already pointed out the dynamic verbs). The main difference is in how the destination is conceived of by the speaker, but the ultimate usage is not just language-, but collocation-specific. It's impossible to draw such a generalisation for English as you're implying in the first place, let alone extend it to Latin." CreationDate="2019-10-06T14:36:40.020" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22668" PostId="12578" Score="0" Text="Yes, it does..." CreationDate="2019-10-01T13:23:02.270" UserId="6125" />
  <row Id="22664" PostId="12581" Score="0" Text="I hadn't seen &quot;operis citati&quot; before. Is that the Latin dative case?" CreationDate="2019-10-01T06:59:14.137" UserId="6122" />
  <row Id="22666" PostId="12581" Score="0" Text="@Zebrafish No, that's the genitive case. The dative would be *operi citato*." CreationDate="2019-10-01T07:47:22.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22670" PostId="12581" Score="0" Text="Can opere citato (without preposition) really mean &quot;in&quot; or &quot;from the cited work&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-10-01T17:51:02.843" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22671" PostId="12581" Score="0" Text="@fdb: I think so? You don't think so? I'm having some second thoughts about my answer now, though: perhaps, in English, it isn't necessary to assume any case except the base form, as your answer suggests." CreationDate="2019-10-01T19:57:29.670" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22673" PostId="12581" Score="0" Text="As an editor, I would certainly get rid of “mentioned in op. cit.” from your third example in a heartbeat. That’s pure abomination, that is. The last one would go straight onto the rubbish heap as well. I can’t think of any context where the abbreviation would be used in English where it doesn’t refer to a location (i.e., ablative). Your first example clearly says “_in_ the cited work” to me, and I’d add a comma in the second example, which would give that the same meaning as well." CreationDate="2019-10-01T22:09:26.237" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="22675" PostId="12581" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet: I agree that those are at least infelicitous. I had a hard time trying to come up with something. I'm still undecided about ablative v. nominative, now, though." CreationDate="2019-10-01T23:20:47.783" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22667" PostId="12582" Score="0" Text="Thanks to Kinghorsey and yourself." CreationDate="2019-10-01T09:00:05.843" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22717" PostId="12583" Score="0" Text="Can you add some information about the kind of context that you have in mind? In the phrase &quot;a priori&quot;, the word &quot;prior&quot; usually has a philosophical meaning: logically prior, as a cause is &quot;prior&quot; to the observed effects from which we infer the cause. But the word &quot;prior&quot; certainly isn't limited to that. Its broad meaning, of &quot;more first&quot;, gets narrowed very differently in different contexts, of course." CreationDate="2019-10-05T22:27:32.840" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22672" PostId="12585" Score="0" Text="We also say _ibidem_ (adverbial), though, which matches _opere citato_ (perhaps with an implied _scriptum est_)." CreationDate="2019-10-01T22:06:08.173" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="22720" PostId="12586" Score="0" Text="I never associated στοργή with early Christianity (in fact, I believe the word doesn't occur in the NT). What exactly do you mean by your last sentence?" CreationDate="2019-10-06T13:17:02.263" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22725" PostId="12586" Score="0" Text="[Romans 12.20](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155%3Abook%3DRomans%3Achapter%3D12%3Averse%3D10). [See](https://books.google.com/books?id=i1c7AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA223&amp;dq=Paul++Romans+XII++8-11&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_l87YtojlAhUGC6wKHcvTBsIQ6AEwBHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Paul%20%20Romans%20XII%20%208-11&amp;f=false)." CreationDate="2019-10-06T20:07:27.757" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="22674" PostId="12589" Score="0" Text="I like the compound word for my usage (idolifragus), although I might use the other versions in other text. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-10-01T22:51:15.260" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22679" PostId="12589" Score="0" Text="Hmm, might what you're doing with _-fragus_ answer my question about [_renegatus_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11471/118)?" CreationDate="2019-10-02T04:24:41.153" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22680" PostId="12589" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, I don't think so, because fragus isn't a perfect passive participle; I'd say it's just a denasalized present/imperfective stem, as in framentum or fragilis. Or have I missed your point?" CreationDate="2019-10-02T05:31:16.883" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="22681" PostId="12589" Score="0" Text="Not at all. I think you just lucidly explained why _-fragus_ doesn't provide a good parallel with _renegatus._ Oh well!" CreationDate="2019-10-02T05:40:51.243" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="22682" PostId="12589" Score="1" Text="*Idolifragus* has the further advantage that, had it existed, the 18th century would have naturalised it into English as *idolifrage* - both as a noun and as an adjective, “his idolifrage views”. Cf ossifrage." CreationDate="2019-10-02T06:54:50.603" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="22683" PostId="12590" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! This is indeed a very good direct translation, and something I would expect to see in a classical text." CreationDate="2019-10-02T10:22:06.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23219" PostId="12590" Score="0" Text="I missed this answer the first time around, but thank you! I can also use this in addition to the other answer to my question; it could be the title used for persons who are members of the group. I'll think on it - appreciate the answer!" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:41:29.943" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22697" PostId="12591" Score="0" Text="Thanks!  Maybe &quot;Meliorem redde mundum&quot;, because &quot;mundum&quot; is not so easily implied/understood if unstated." CreationDate="2019-10-03T14:01:21.250" UserId="6098" />
  <row Id="22698" PostId="12591" Score="0" Text="Come to think of it, what about &quot;Emenda mundum&quot;?  Brief, and with a somewhat satisfying alliteration." CreationDate="2019-10-03T14:02:17.717" UserId="6098" />
  <row Id="22684" PostId="12593" Score="0" Text="Nice question, 1) have you counsidered [musa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_acuminata) instead of banana?, 2) Wiktionary seems to clearly suggest the second `a` is long while the others are not, so why hesitate? I don't mean there aren't reasons for other possibilities, but I think the original length is the only _strong_ argument favoring one of them" CreationDate="2019-10-02T11:44:23.283" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22685" PostId="12593" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Thanks! 1) I did, but I think it's far clearer to call it *banana* of some length. I don't want the fruit being misidentified as a muse. 2) Indeed, there's support for that. But is that done regularly with modern loans? And there could be other points worth considering, and such new points of view are one thing I'm after. Just arguing that the original lengths suggest a choice would make a nice answer; others can add nuance later." CreationDate="2019-10-02T12:01:34.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22695" PostId="12593" Score="1" Text="There's also [_ăriēna_](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ariena), term used by Pliny the Elder in his _Naturalis Historia_." CreationDate="2019-10-03T12:14:33.070" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="22710" PostId="12593" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Antonius Musa, physician to Emperor Augustus, is credited with promoting the original cultivation of bananas www.thespruceats.com/history-of-the-banana-as-a-food1807565." CreationDate="2019-10-05T13:06:58.737" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22696" PostId="12594" Score="6" Text="Remember, on the Disc they don't have Latin - they have Latatian.  And while close enough for those who haven't had any Latin, Latin it ain't." CreationDate="2019-10-03T13:17:52.767" UserId="3204" />
  <row Id="22699" PostId="12594" Score="5" Text="If you get &quot;Don't Fear the Reaper&quot; tattooed on yourself in _any_ language, be prepared for a lifetime of &quot;more cowbell&quot; jokes" CreationDate="2019-10-03T15:01:25.623" UserId="6132" />
  <row Id="22701" PostId="12594" Score="0" Text="@MikeTheLiar it always needs more cowbell!" CreationDate="2019-10-04T08:45:28.997" UserId="6127" />
  <row Id="22715" PostId="12594" Score="2" Text="Pterry was rather fond on dog latin:  &quot;People in the UK, even in public (i.e., private) schools, don't assume that &quot;everyone knows Latin&quot;. Latin is barely taught anywhere anymore -- it certainly wasn't taught to me. But dog-Latin isn't Latin, except by accident. It's simply made-up, vaguely Latin-sounding phrases, as in Nil Illegitimo Carborundum&quot;. [The annotated Pratchett file](https://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html)." CreationDate="2019-10-05T16:37:03.580" UserId="1456" />
  <row Id="22747" PostId="12594" Score="1" Text="If you were to accept a periphrasis of it, you could use a very famous Latin sentence *Memento mori* – &quot;Remember you WILL die eventually&quot;. [See here for more details on this phrase.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/89/79)" CreationDate="2019-10-04T14:34:40.897" UserId="6136" />
  <row Id="22708" PostId="12597" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This is indeed a reasonable thing to suspect. Do you happen to know of any sources that give more details on this?" CreationDate="2019-10-05T04:40:42.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22692" PostId="12598" Score="1" Text="Thank you for all the details! Super helpful in the choice :)&#xA;What exactly would &quot;haud&quot; translate as, if anything?" CreationDate="2019-10-03T08:24:43.297" UserId="6127" />
  <row Id="22700" PostId="12598" Score="1" Text="@Whitehot, It's just a negator, so it just means the same thing as *non*, though it can also be more emphatic, like *minime* or *nullo modo*." CreationDate="2019-10-03T16:52:24.743" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="22691" PostId="12600" Score="0" Text="I think this must have been what I was thinking of. Thanks for the input!" CreationDate="2019-10-03T08:24:13.620" UserId="6127" />
  <row Id="22705" PostId="12600" Score="1" Text="I think there is a good precedent for this word order with Noli tangere circulos meos." CreationDate="2019-10-04T17:53:46.773" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22706" PostId="12600" Score="1" Text="@VladimirF Isn't that translated from Greek, though, where the negative goes next to the verb?" CreationDate="2019-10-04T17:54:45.600" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22707" PostId="12600" Score="1" Text="Right, this formulation (or with turbare) seems to be of a late origin." CreationDate="2019-10-04T18:10:44.330" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22709" PostId="12602" Score="0" Text="This makes perfect sense to me: Look at other languages (which have adopted the word already) but focus on languages that distinguish length instead of or in addition to stress, and adopt the length pattern." CreationDate="2019-10-05T07:09:42.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22718" PostId="12605" Score="1" Text="Are there other examples of an accusative subject (*te*) being omitted in indirect discourse? Greek does this when the referent is the same as the subject of the matrix clause, but I don't think I've seen it in Latin." CreationDate="2019-10-06T00:58:59.353" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22733" PostId="12605" Score="0" Text="NVaughan: Am not clear; is yourself saying that &quot;memento mori&quot; cannot be treated as indirect speech? C.M. Weimer (better at Latin than I) gave &quot;memento + acc. + infin.&quot;, where &quot;te&quot; is dropped (understood); meaning &quot;Remember that you can die.&quot; Of course &quot;can&quot; = &quot;to be physically able&quot;; axiomatic: all living creatures are susceptible to dying--are mortal. Therefore, I translated &quot;memento te mori&quot; as &quot;Remember you are dying.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-10-07T10:55:50.553" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22726" PostId="12609" Score="0" Text="Thank you! What would the passive imperfect of _uruntur_ be?" CreationDate="2019-10-06T20:19:39.113" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22727" PostId="12609" Score="2" Text="Accendetur, incendetur may work too, I think" CreationDate="2019-10-06T22:46:25.243" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22728" PostId="12609" Score="0" Text="@Adam I'm glad to be able to help! I edited the past forms into the answer." CreationDate="2019-10-07T00:33:24.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22729" PostId="12609" Score="2" Text="@Rafael Good point! I added a mention at the end." CreationDate="2019-10-07T00:33:39.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22730" PostId="12609" Score="0" Text="This is great - thanks for the additions, guys. I'm curious; what would be contexts in which _sunt_ could be omitted?" CreationDate="2019-10-07T03:31:04.460" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22731" PostId="12609" Score="1" Text="@Adam I added a little note on that. I don't think I can give a general description of a case where omission is certainly safe. For a standalone motto I'd include the *sunt*." CreationDate="2019-10-07T03:38:32.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22740" PostId="12609" Score="0" Text="Joonas, when dealing with the question of **ergativity** in Latin, it could be useful to include the link https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs  So-called &quot;labile verbs&quot; can be said to be rare in Latin (I tend to agree with your intuition) but the truth is that they can be found across different periods of Latinity: e.g., _Irae leniunt_  (Pl. _Mil_. 2, 6, 100); _Mores mutaverunt_ (Liv. 39, 51, 10), etc. Now, a relevant question could be whether there is a  difference between _mores mutaverunt_ (understood as intr. verb) and _mores mutati sunt_..." CreationDate="2019-10-07T14:52:35.030" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22741" PostId="12609" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Agreed; I put in that link. It seems to me that while there is something ergativeish in Latin, the passive voice is always (?) a valid choice even though active can be permissible. The comparison between *mutaverunt* and *mutati sunt* would make a nice new question." CreationDate="2019-10-07T14:58:15.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45800" PostId="12609" Score="0" Text="What about using reflexives like in spanish?" CreationDate="2023-12-06T04:33:42.747" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45801" PostId="12609" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus In many Romance languages you seem to be able to form a passive using reflexives, but in Latin you can't. You can say *me uro* in Latin, but it means &quot;I burn myself&quot; with the same person as the subject and the object and it is not the same as *uror*, &quot;I am on fire&quot; / &quot;I am being burned&quot;. Spanish grammar can be misleading for learning Latin." CreationDate="2023-12-06T10:35:36.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22736" PostId="12610" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! There are some Latin pronunciation resources on this site and elsewhere across the internet. Have you tried checking any? I assume the downvote you got has to do with asking for quite a lot (a sound file) while showing none of your own attempts to figure this out. Do you really mean vulgar Latin and not ecclesiastical Latin or something else? If you have a specific context in mind where you want to use this, please edit it in and we can help figure out the correct pronunciation." CreationDate="2019-10-07T14:39:25.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22742" PostId="12610" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot Joonas. The context is: I am the creator of an open source project named Fōrmulæ (please note the ō with macron, it was intended to be different to Formulæ, a well known word, but based on it). [link](http://formulae.org/) Of course I know that the origin of the word is Latin and also its meaning. I have already searched about the pronunciation, but I recurrently get the &quot;English&quot; pronunciation of the word. I don't know much about Latin but I am certainly sure that many sounds of English were not present in Latin, so the original Latin pronunciation could be very different." CreationDate="2019-10-07T15:13:46.380" UserId="6142" />
  <row Id="22735" PostId="12613" Score="1" Text="It might help to have the whole text." CreationDate="2019-10-07T13:26:39.007" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22738" PostId="12613" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a nice question but I second @fdb. I'd be far more confident giving an answer if I saw more. Do you happen to have all four pictures?" CreationDate="2019-10-07T14:43:34.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22751" PostId="12613" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I added pictures of the other 3 texts." CreationDate="2019-10-08T09:02:42.227" UserId="6145" />
  <row Id="22745" PostId="12614" Score="2" Text="I make it 1681." CreationDate="2019-10-07T22:45:50.667" UserId="1887" />
  <row Id="22748" PostId="12615" Score="0" Text="Great and clear answer, thanks! I was trying to add up the numbers as they are appeared in the text. Haven't thought of rearranging and putting same letters together!" CreationDate="2019-10-08T06:54:12.600" UserId="6145" />
  <row Id="22752" PostId="12615" Score="0" Text="The &quot;procession&quot; of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a set theological concept, from the Latin version of the Nicene Creed." CreationDate="2019-10-08T12:44:19.280" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22754" PostId="12615" Score="0" Text="Thus I suggest &quot;proceeding&quot;, not &quot;shining forth&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-08T12:53:52.337" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22758" PostId="12615" Score="0" Text="@fdb Ah, thanks! I'm a very bad Catholic and don't know the terms…" CreationDate="2019-10-08T14:31:50.553" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22766" PostId="12615" Score="1" Text="Why do the numerals have to be rearranged in this particular—strictly additive—way? Why shouldn't e.g. &quot;I DIVI&quot; read as &quot;(-1+500)+(-1+5)+1&quot; or something like that?" CreationDate="2019-10-09T11:50:56.410" UserId="1065" />
  <row Id="22770" PostId="12615" Score="1" Text="@Ruslan As written, the numbers can't be read as roman numerals. &quot;ID&quot;, for example, is not a number. (499 would be written as CDXCIX). If we decide to add them instead, then it makes no difference whether we rearrange them or not. But maybe it's easier to add if you rearrange them first." CreationDate="2019-10-09T14:18:26.643" UserId="6171" />
  <row Id="22746" PostId="12618" Score="1" Text="We have a tag [tag:duolingo] for questions about that course." CreationDate="2019-10-08T01:59:02.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22753" PostId="12618" Score="0" Text="Ok, thanks for info. I do still believe it is relevant to show the Duolingo choice of flag for latin in this question." CreationDate="2019-10-08T12:51:24.403" UserId="584" />
  <row Id="22757" PostId="12618" Score="2" Text="It is. I just wanted to point out that we have some related stuff on the site in case someone is interested." CreationDate="2019-10-08T13:22:04.933" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22755" PostId="12619" Score="0" Text="&quot;Einziggeboren&quot;, not &quot;eingeboren&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-08T12:56:45.373" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22756" PostId="12619" Score="0" Text="And Pest/pest are false friends. In English it is &quot;plague&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-08T13:09:40.440" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22759" PostId="12619" Score="0" Text="@fdb In other words, not &quot;pest&quot; but _pestis_?" CreationDate="2019-10-08T14:32:58.693" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22760" PostId="12619" Score="1" Text="@fdb: &quot;Eingeboren&quot; is idiomatic in this context, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eingeborener_Sohn" CreationDate="2019-10-08T14:38:11.063" UserId="6160" />
  <row Id="22761" PostId="12619" Score="0" Text="@Heinzi, You are right." CreationDate="2019-10-08T14:40:36.927" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22762" PostId="12619" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. Yes. German and English both borrowed directly or indirectly from Latin pestis, but in English there has been a semantic shift." CreationDate="2019-10-08T14:43:58.800" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22750" PostId="12621" Score="1" Text="@sumelic Apologies, didn't want anyone to think I was shilling. The book is &quot;Latin: An Intensive Course&quot; by Floyd Moreland and Rita M.  Fleischer." CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:29:24.947" UserId="6154" />
  <row Id="22764" PostId="12624" Score="2" Text="Vis means “force” in the singular and “strength” in the plural, so it should be “force overcomes” or “force conquers.”" CreationDate="2019-10-09T01:42:30.650" UserId="3377" />
  <row Id="22768" PostId="12624" Score="0" Text="Thank you also, this site is awesome.  I've been using those web translator apps for months to no avail, and companies that specialize in translation wanted over a hundred dollars..." CreationDate="2019-10-09T12:05:13.323" UserId="6161" />
  <row Id="22769" PostId="12625" Score="0" Text="I guess I now need to know how it is pronounced.  Can you send me a phonetic spelling or something?" CreationDate="2019-10-09T12:12:16.283" UserId="6161" />
  <row Id="22771" PostId="12625" Score="0" Text="An astonishing thing to write on the portal of a seat of learning." CreationDate="2019-10-09T18:39:13.357" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22779" PostId="12625" Score="0" Text="@tony. No, it cannot mean that." CreationDate="2019-10-11T12:01:16.373" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22780" PostId="12625" Score="0" Text="@fdb: it's superAT, not superARE; yes, of course it is, silly me! Perhaps this building was once a training school for a right-wing police force?" CreationDate="2019-10-11T13:22:29.957" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22765" PostId="12627" Score="1" Text="You are right !" CreationDate="2019-10-09T02:50:12.690" UserId="6074" />
  <row Id="22781" PostId="12627" Score="0" Text="Note that this means &quot;he asks whether the city is captured&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-12T04:21:20.600" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22786" PostId="12627" Score="0" Text="I don't think so: &quot;capta sit&quot; is past perfect passive subjunctive." CreationDate="2019-10-12T15:34:52.117" UserId="6074" />
  <row Id="22788" PostId="12627" Score="0" Text="Then what is  perfect passive subjunctive?" CreationDate="2019-10-12T20:40:13.510" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22789" PostId="12627" Score="0" Text="&quot;Perfect&quot; is short for &quot;past perfect&quot;. &quot;Quaerit utrum civitas capiatur&quot; is in present subjective passive: &quot;He/she asks whether the city *is* captured&quot;. On the other hand, &quot;Quaerit utrum civitas capta sit&quot; is in past perfect subjunctive passive, and it means &quot;He/she asks whether the city *has been* captured&quot;. (Note that &quot;an&quot; and &quot;utrum&quot; are somewhat equivalent for the purpose of making indirect questions.)" CreationDate="2019-10-12T21:35:33.083" UserId="6074" />
  <row Id="22790" PostId="12627" Score="0" Text="All right, pluperfect, then. How would you translate *quaesivit utrum civitas capta esset*?" CreationDate="2019-10-12T21:57:50.207" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22791" PostId="12627" Score="0" Text="&quot;... *had been* captured&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-12T22:40:17.213" UserId="6074" />
  <row Id="22792" PostId="12627" Score="0" Text="Hmm I see. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the options for *capta est* and your terminology, but I'll give these translations some more thought. At any rate, would you say your Latin matches the translation desired by Lawrence?" CreationDate="2019-10-12T22:47:48.787" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22772" PostId="12635" Score="1" Text="What's the passage from, out of curiosity?" CreationDate="2019-10-09T20:09:59.000" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22773" PostId="12635" Score="1" Text="You should show us what you've managed to do with it for yourself, even if you end up just giving the meanings of the individual words." CreationDate="2019-10-09T20:34:04.033" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="22782" PostId="12635" Score="0" Text="@Draconis see page 13 of Ashley Carter's Latin Unseens for A Level, which is adapted from Aelius Spartianus' Antoninus Caracalla 1-2 [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P0fOCwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]" CreationDate="2019-10-12T09:09:09.680" UserId="6175" />
  <row Id="22783" PostId="12635" Score="0" Text="@cnread I just added another few lines to the question, though I don't think they're very helpful. Thank you!" CreationDate="2019-10-12T09:15:47.120" UserId="6175" />
  <row Id="22784" PostId="12636" Score="0" Text="So does this mean his brother has found out about his plot, or is it a different nuance? Thank you for the answer!" CreationDate="2019-10-12T09:17:11.787" UserId="6175" />
  <row Id="22776" PostId="12638" Score="3" Text="Re: _What notions underlie authorization with employment termination_, I think it has got to do with the military: you end your military service, and are given _permision_, which in practice means the end of it." CreationDate="2019-10-10T12:14:37.650" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22785" PostId="12644" Score="0" Text="I have this nagging feeling that Memento is followed by Genitive, not Accusative; is that possible?" CreationDate="2019-10-12T15:01:04.540" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22787" PostId="12644" Score="1" Text="@Hugh [Take a look at this question about genitive and accusative with *meminisse*.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4466/79) Both are used." CreationDate="2019-10-12T18:28:27.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22800" PostId="12644" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta So, assuming that Genitive can also be followed by the verb _Memento_ and that Gerund is the nominal form used for declining the infinitive (e.g., _mori_), one could wonder if the result could also be _Memento moriendi_. What do you think?" CreationDate="2019-10-13T19:27:19.657" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22802" PostId="12644" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino My immediate reaction is that *memento mori* and *memento moriendi* mean slightly different things, something like &quot;remember to die&quot; and &quot;be mindful of the phenomenon of dying&quot;. I imagine both are valid, but that doesn't mean both are common enough to be attested. It'd be great to explore that difference in a new question and see if there are attested examples with *meminisse* with verbs in different forms." CreationDate="2019-10-13T20:00:27.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22795" PostId="12648" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the great answer!" CreationDate="2019-10-13T15:57:47.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22793" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="You forgot to mention that the adverb is *primum*; it will often be an adverb that is needed.  Also, the case of the pronoun may not be nominative, though it usually would be.  If we are waiting in line at the bread dole, &quot;tibi primum&quot; might be more appropriate." CreationDate="2019-10-13T14:47:48.677" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22794" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="I was in doubt about *primum* also. I didn't consider the dative case, thanks." CreationDate="2019-10-13T15:12:40.383" UserId="6185" />
  <row Id="22796" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="I would actually use the adjective instead of the adverb for this, even if English thinks otherwise. With plural the adjective should be plural (*primi*) and one has to switch to feminine when appropriate (*prima, primae*)." CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:01:27.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22797" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta To me, *tu primum* sounds as natural as *tu quoque*.  On the other hand, modifying a personal pronoun with an ordinal number sounds...special.  Can you cite examples?" CreationDate="2019-10-13T17:13:27.827" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22798" PostId="12649" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour Unfortunately I can't. To me *tu quoque* sounds much more natural than *tu primum*, but I fully acknowledge that this is based on nothing rigorous. Can you write an answer focusing on the adverbial side of things and maybe comparing the two? It's always best to have different views and many answers." CreationDate="2019-10-13T17:20:26.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22799" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour When I was looking for *primus* in my Latin dictionary (Latin-Dutch), I remember finding *primum* as an adverb with the translation *also*." CreationDate="2019-10-13T17:21:17.023" UserId="6185" />
  <row Id="22857" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta OK, so I'll settle for an example of a personal pronoun being modified by any adjective other than a predicate adjective." CreationDate="2019-10-19T16:00:45.147" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22858" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="And I think &quot;tu primus&quot; means &quot;you are first&quot; (&quot;es&quot; implied)--a mere recognition of fact or state, whereas &quot;tu primum&quot; means &quot;you first&quot; in that both resolve to &quot;you go first&quot; or &quot;please, you eat first&quot; or the like, depending on the situation, and can express a wish as well as a fact." CreationDate="2019-10-19T16:05:23.117" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22859" PostId="12649" Score="0" Text="Whereas to express a wish with an adjective would require an explicit subjunctive: &quot;sis primus&quot;, not &quot;tu primus&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-19T16:11:47.830" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="36931" PostId="12651" Score="0" Text="Did you mean &quot;if you can breathe...&quot;? https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/breath-vs-breathe-usage" CreationDate="2022-01-31T02:04:50.950" UserId="10726" />
  <row Id="22801" PostId="12652" Score="0" Text="I don't have an example for you, but keep In mind that there is no third person personal pronoun.  One is using a demonstrative, just like one would use for things.  It's hard to imagine one worries overmuch about the biological gender of &quot;that, there&quot; if it's unclear.  Just use neuter for inanimate and masculine for animates that are not clearly female.  A more interesting question would be whether to use masculine or neuter if it's unclear whether it's animate/human. (I actually don't remember whether to use masculine or neuter for non-human animates, but I seem to recall masculine.)" CreationDate="2019-10-13T19:47:32.387" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22807" PostId="12652" Score="1" Text="This is no Romans, but the Vulgate uses anima: &quot;anima quae peccaverit...&quot;, &quot;si peccaverit anima...&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-14T15:27:43.527" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22856" PostId="12652" Score="1" Text="@VladimirF That has a restricted semantic range, just like &quot;soul(s)&quot; in English.  You wouldn't be able to say &quot;brachium animae&quot; for &quot;a person's arm&quot; and be understood, for example.  People would instead think you were trying to make some really obscure philosophical point." CreationDate="2019-10-19T15:57:39.913" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22803" PostId="12653" Score="0" Text="As there is no subjunctive, I think it must be *&quot;ut&quot;* = as. As for *&quot;conditio&quot;* it has three entries in L&amp;S. *condĭtĭo,* for condĭcĭo =stipulation, condition  [http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:4098.lewisandshort] ; *condĭtĭo* a creating, a work; ( *condītĭo* preserve, pickle, )" CreationDate="2019-10-13T20:03:09.630" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22804" PostId="12653" Score="1" Text="Oh hmm. Maybe the &quot;condition&quot; part is just English; I originally assumed it was Latin since the second and third parts looked Latin. I guess condition in the sense of &quot;conditio&quot;/&quot;creation&quot; or &quot;work&quot; makes the most sense, as in maybe Paul being a sort of polarizing creation." CreationDate="2019-10-13T20:25:22.927" UserDisplayName="user6187" />
  <row Id="22805" PostId="12653" Score="1" Text="Like a person / creation / situation as extreme." CreationDate="2019-10-13T20:26:25.800" UserDisplayName="user6187" />
  <row Id="22806" PostId="12653" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure we are justified in assuming that Frank Herbert got all his Latin correct and according to classical precedent." CreationDate="2019-10-13T21:51:18.577" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22808" PostId="12657" Score="2" Text="I don't think the gerund proposed in the question has any sense of obligation to it. For a certainly attested type of obligation free gerund, one can say *domum redii cenandi causa*. Gerundives can be used similarly." CreationDate="2019-10-14T15:43:42.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22811" PostId="12657" Score="1" Text="As noted by Joonas, the examples in my question above do not involve obligation. However, as pointed out in your answer, things are different when the copula verb _esse_ is present: e.g., _Memento moriendum esse nobis omnibus_" CreationDate="2019-10-14T17:15:44.570" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22813" PostId="12657" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you. What is more obligatory than death? Isn't that the whole point, here? Gerund genitive, &quot;moriendi&quot;, did not appear to fit: &quot;Remember of-the-dying&quot;; which, can only work if more words are added (understood) than are there already. Is that what Joonas was attempting to achieve (Be-mindful-of-the-phenomenon-of-dying.)? How, then, is this any improvement on the panoply of translations offered in the preceding three Qs? Yes, a pithy, two-word, aphorism is now in its fourth Q. If yourself feels that the answer is unhelpful I'll delete it." CreationDate="2019-10-15T09:55:17.147" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22814" PostId="12657" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Apologies, misunderstood yourself, yesterday." CreationDate="2019-10-15T11:48:19.990" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22815" PostId="12657" Score="1" Text="@tony Thanks for your comment. You're absolutely right: (un)fortunately, nothing is more obligatory than death. As for my grammar question above, I was wondering if examples like _Me paenitet vivendi_ are attested (along with attested ones like _Me paenitet vivere_). Joonas's intuition is that they could exist (with a slightly different meaning) but I don't know for sure. Hence my question." CreationDate="2019-10-15T13:25:54.493" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22812" PostId="12660" Score="1" Text="Good question. I really don't know under which circumstances a stop would change from voiced (dgb) to unvoiced (tkp) or the converse. They do that when followed by another stop, as in the the p and the b in this case; but why would the t and the d be different, as they must come from the same root? When did they differentiate, and by what rule can this be explained?" CreationDate="2019-10-14T22:34:19.923" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22816" PostId="12663" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much! I have to ask, what's happening with ὀκτώ and ὄγδοος, then? Is it something different? I see [the PIE was](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/o%E1%B8%B1t%E1%B9%93w) *oḱtṓw or *h₁oḱtṓw—the long o didn't drop out, and no stop follows it, anyway. Analogy, maybe?" CreationDate="2019-10-15T13:40:04.910" UserId="6190" />
  <row Id="22821" PostId="12663" Score="1" Text="@Nick. “Analogy” is the easy way out, but as yet no one has suggested anything better." CreationDate="2019-10-15T19:21:35.340" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22827" PostId="12663" Score="3" Text="The explanation I've heard for ὄγδοος is *oktwos &gt; *ogdwos &gt; ogdowos, exactly parallel to ἕβδομος, with voicing assimilation to w. I don't know enough about the morphology of PIE ordinals to say whether the absence of ō is expected." CreationDate="2019-10-15T23:57:48.470" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22830" PostId="12663" Score="1" Text="@TKR. Yes, this and other proposals are discussed by Beekes, s.v.  ὄγδοος. In this case it is the assumed suffix *wo that is problematic." CreationDate="2019-10-16T09:59:44.300" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22862" PostId="12663" Score="0" Text="More precisely, that proposal doesn't necessarily assume a suffix *wo, but a -w as part of the stem. But it all seems very unclear." CreationDate="2019-10-20T00:48:11.890" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="22817" PostId="12664" Score="1" Text="I could try to edit my question, but you already gave good and interesting answers. Thanks. For the 3rd question, I think I will make it a separated question later." CreationDate="2019-10-15T14:33:31.570" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22819" PostId="12664" Score="1" Text="[_proximus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropior) is also an interesting example. It is also a superlative used as an adjective. The original adjective [_propis_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropior) was obsolete in Classical times, but not the regularly-formed adverb _prope_" CreationDate="2019-10-15T16:31:57.387" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22823" PostId="12664" Score="0" Text="@Quidam I updated the third point, as I had made a small mistake: *optimus* is not the comparative but the superlative, but otherwise the answer stands. I'd be happy to see a follow-up question or several." CreationDate="2019-10-15T21:03:56.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22818" PostId="12665" Score="0" Text="Let's see if there is a more informed answer, but [Romans had no question mark](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2770/did-the-romans-have-a-question-mark), hence a question word seems mandatory in writing (be it -ne, num, numquid). Regarding spoken Latin, [we don't know](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/245/did-ancient-romans-raise-the-intonation-of-their-voices-when-asking-questions) whether there was a difference in intonation for questions, which would render _markers_ unnecessary." CreationDate="2019-10-15T16:24:44.507" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22824" PostId="12665" Score="3" Text="Has anyone made the argument that because a rise in intonation is present in so many descendant languages of Latin that it could mean that this was also present in classical Latin itself?" CreationDate="2019-10-15T22:06:05.740" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22825" PostId="12666" Score="1" Text="Would you consider it fair to translate &quot;Edistine?&quot; as &quot;Have you eaten?&quot; and &quot;Edisti?&quot; as &quot;You have eaten?!&quot;? In the modern languages I know you can always have a question without question markers, but then the tone is quite different (which I attempted to convey with &quot;?!&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-10-15T22:17:38.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22826" PostId="12666" Score="1" Text="The first one is OK, but the second one isn't customary, and thus it doesn't seem proper." CreationDate="2019-10-15T22:52:38.267" UserId="6074" />
  <row Id="22828" PostId="12666" Score="1" Text="+1, but could you add some authoritative source(s) to support the argument?" CreationDate="2019-10-16T00:37:26.887" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22829" PostId="12666" Score="4" Text="Calling Plautus &quot;bad Latin&quot; because his usage disagrees with your school grammar is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?" CreationDate="2019-10-16T03:26:12.160" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22831" PostId="12666" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I did not notice anything of the sort in the answer. I only noticed calling it Early Latin." CreationDate="2019-10-16T12:05:56.683" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22838" PostId="12666" Score="0" Text="So, &quot;pin quam pridem non **edisti**?&quot; is bad Latin then?" CreationDate="2019-10-17T03:25:13.530" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="22842" PostId="12666" Score="1" Text="@VladimirF Read the two last sentences." CreationDate="2019-10-17T12:02:03.580" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22843" PostId="12666" Score="1" Text="@NVaughan Let me quote the first sentence from your last source's abstract: &quot;The Latin enclitic particle -ne, which may be of an affirmative origin, is an &#xA;optional focusing particle of polar questions, which in Latin can also occur &#xA;without any particle.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-10-17T12:07:34.313" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22834" PostId="12667" Score="3" Text="+1! I added the translations, feel free to rollback or change some wording for the English version of the poem." CreationDate="2019-10-16T19:56:45.557" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23686" PostId="12668" Score="0" Text="+1. Thanks. I hope you don't mind that I just narrowed this question to 'repeat', and asked anew for 'reply', so that each post is devoted to one semantic shift." CreationDate="2019-12-14T22:51:44.437" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="22835" PostId="12669" Score="1" Text="Possible duplicate of [Rhotacism: why?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why)" CreationDate="2019-10-16T21:40:40.950" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="22846" PostId="12669" Score="0" Text="@sumelic I wouldn't actually consider this a duplicate. This is more like a prequel question to the other one; the answer here is that rhotacism causes the change, whereas the linked question studies the reasons for rhotacism. Also, duplicate questions should ask the same thing, not just end up having the same answer. (But as always, I have nothing against others opining and voting against me.)" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:46:59.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22840" PostId="12670" Score="0" Text="A good answer. S also rhotacised to r in North Germanic languages, though in a different context (final rather than intervocalic). eg Old Norse &quot;dagr&quot; from Proto-Germanic &quot;*dagaz&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-17T10:09:06.613" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="22844" PostId="12672" Score="1" Text="That Latin is an SOV language is highly questionable. The &quot;general rule&quot; is that word order in Latin is free. The verb can go pretty much anywhere you like." CreationDate="2019-10-17T12:10:28.517" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22845" PostId="12672" Score="1" Text="@fdb Agreed. I modified the first sentence. Note however that many scholars have claimed that (see Spevak's discussion in the Introduction to *Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose*, 2010, pp. 2–3). And a Pinkster has suggested, syntactically Classical Latin can be said to be a SOV language, thought pragmatically it can be SVO or OVS." CreationDate="2019-10-17T12:45:04.897" UserId="6074" />
  <row Id="22847" PostId="12674" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the good question! In classical Latin there was neither distinction, so I=J and U=V, but it is true that modern editions (and in general many modern spelling choices) do distinguish U from V but not I from J. I write this way too, and I'd be happy to learn why I was taught so." CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:49:40.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22853" PostId="12674" Score="1" Text="About Italian using &quot;j&quot; for Latin loanwords: not really. Only _Juventus_ (name of a private football club, emphasis on &quot;private&quot;) and _junior_, _juniores_ (under the influence of English they've become more common than _iunior_ and _iuniores_) come to mind. Off the top of my head I can think of the loans _ius soli_, _de iure_ and _repetita iuvant_ - they're all way more common than their &quot;j&quot; alternatives." CreationDate="2019-10-18T18:10:13.453" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="40852" PostId="12675" Score="0" Text="Other people have tried to connect it with *vānus* (with the *in-* then being an intensifier rather than privative) or *animus* (semantically less convincing). It's possible to construct plausible forms, it's just that there are no parallels in other languages." CreationDate="2023-01-07T06:50:08.283" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40861" PostId="12677" Score="1" Text="That article contains a remarkably bad etymology for *ingens* for having been written in 2017." CreationDate="2023-01-07T18:54:25.937" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40906" PostId="12677" Score="0" Text="I dont believe anyone in historical ling is at all thrilled with the Garcia-Hernandez idea. However, there is an earlier article by Klingenschmitt, who was a very regarded scholar, which perhaps some do like. I have not read it yet myself. In general,the issue is methodological, or rather issues. First, given the sound laws of Latin, there are numerous theoretically possible sources. Second, we need to have some idea what the principles are that are used (not always consistently) in coming up with acceptable etymologies." CreationDate="2023-01-07T06:17:25.097" UserId="11988" />
  <row Id="40907" PostId="12677" Score="0" Text="What was Klingenschmitt's hypothesis?" CreationDate="2023-01-07T07:09:21.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40910" PostId="12677" Score="0" Text="Klingenschmitt, Gert 1994 Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. In: Jens E. Rasmussen (ed.), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.  https://reichert-verlag.de/en/9783882268232_in_honorem_holger_pedersen-detail (pp. 235-251)" CreationDate="2023-01-08T02:07:51.737" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="40911" PostId="12677" Score="1" Text="I haven't read Klingenschmitt 1994 yet (pp. 242-243) but in LIV they mention his proposal s.v. *h2es- 'satt werden', &quot;lat. in-anis 'nüchtern; leer' &lt; *n̥-h2es-ni-" CreationDate="2023-01-08T02:20:59.563" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="22851" PostId="12680" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, and thanks for your question!" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:51:14.720" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22855" PostId="12685" Score="2" Text="For what is worth, and perhaps more widespread, exactly the same strategy is used to translate these terms in Romance languages (e.g. in Italian  *ipotesi del continuo* for the continuum hypothesis)" CreationDate="2019-10-19T07:20:02.857" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="22861" PostId="12685" Score="0" Text="@Denis Nardin Thanks for your remark. I've just added the translation of the Latin expression into Italian." CreationDate="2019-10-19T22:31:07.730" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22868" PostId="12688" Score="1" Text="I've never seen the genitive alone used in that way in Medieval Latin--do you have any other examples? The Carmina Burana verse seems to be a pretty straightforward genitive: &quot;confusion of law&quot;" CreationDate="2019-10-20T22:22:48.737" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22869" PostId="12688" Score="0" Text="If by &quot;straightforward genitive&quot; you mean the possessive genitive, I think the sense of the whole stanza points against it. I would translate it rather as, &quot;a confusion is made of/from law&quot;. D.A. Traill (in his edition and translation for the Dumbarton Oaks medieval Library, 2018) renders it as: &quot;what is right becomes blurred&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-21T01:54:32.707" UserId="6074" />
  <row Id="22870" PostId="12688" Score="1" Text="Well, Traill's translation certainly is compatible with a typical objective genitive (e.g. timor Domini = fear of the lord; confusio juris = confusion of what is right). Could you point to a source that describes the usage of an isolated genitive to indicate &quot;from X&quot;? I'm not trying to be difficult--I just find the usage very strange!" CreationDate="2019-10-21T03:10:07.720" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22871" PostId="12691" Score="0" Text="Perhaps it would help if you could explain what, to you, the relevant difference between *fill* and *fill up* is. In general, I would say you could use the same Latin verb for both, but, depending on context, one compound verb or another may be more suitable." CreationDate="2019-10-21T15:46:59.240" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22872" PostId="12691" Score="0" Text="So, it doesn't seem there's a difference for you. If it's the case, I'll delete my question. Grammar books told me that &quot;fill up&quot; is to fill, but completely." CreationDate="2019-10-21T16:21:38.767" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22873" PostId="12691" Score="0" Text="@Quidam, then you might want to add something in that line to the question. Some of us are not native English speakers. Can you fill something (up) to half its capacity?" CreationDate="2019-10-21T16:39:31.107" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="22875" PostId="12691" Score="1" Text="I'm not neither, but I'll edit the question. I won't delete the question, as the answer is fantastic." CreationDate="2019-10-22T02:36:24.457" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22874" PostId="12693" Score="1" Text="Very good answer! Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2019-10-22T02:35:40.393" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22878" PostId="12694" Score="0" Text="Does the info in [this other question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7038/agreement-in-medio-tutissimus-ibis/) help?" CreationDate="2019-10-22T09:00:42.420" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="22876" PostId="12695" Score="5" Text="It might also be worth mentioning instances where Latin uses adjectives, esp. in the nominative, where we would more naturally use an adverb in English – e.g., tacitus venit, 'He came in silence/silently', laeti audiverunt, 'they listened with joy/happily.'" CreationDate="2019-10-22T05:32:29.250" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="22877" PostId="12695" Score="3" Text="@cnread You could also mention those in a separate answer. There's nothing wrong with having multiple answers with different focuses or points of view. Even different wordings of the same idea can be very useful." CreationDate="2019-10-22T07:38:18.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22950" PostId="12695" Score="0" Text="Group **1** Adverbial suffix, includes the group *gradatim,* step by step; *seriatim,* one-by-one; *sparsim,* here and there; etc. (just for completenes; does not affect the adj. for adverb Q.&amp;A.)" CreationDate="2019-10-29T20:34:10.553" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22888" PostId="12697" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thank you for this answer &amp; many constructive suggestions. Quite an edit. I scarcely recognise this incarnation of the original Q. Colleagues have been castigated for not providing context--let not such a scurrilous charge be levelled here. The loss of context means that readers will not understand the significance of &quot;ethos of Eros&quot;--returned an explanatory note. Am baffled by &quot;my tired state&quot;; please forgive me if I have been a burden to yourself.  Your translation though better than mine (naturally), does not define who these would-be &quot;Sirens&quot; are--&quot;de suis lupis&quot;;" CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:24:22.097" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22889" PostId="12697" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Continuing: &quot;crying out&quot;; would not have used this, if had thought of it; conjuring-up, as it does, the image of the lady consumed by hysterics." CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:26:22.930" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22890" PostId="12697" Score="0" Text=":Joonas llmavirta: Accident: not finished: translating, not verbatim, but clause-by-clause, ensuring that each segues into its successor. The lieral trans. of &quot;ethos&quot; would have been &quot;spiritus communitatis&quot;; rejected this as an improper use of &quot;spiritus&quot;. The material on Pompeii was compare-&amp;-contrast: the funny, but silly, &quot;feedback forms&quot; with how (informal) &quot;feedback&quot; was really &quot;relayed&quot;, in the Roman World. I hope that fatigue will not deter yourself  from  your erudite contributions to, occasionally, inadequate Qs? Thank you, again." CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:37:44.697" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22899" PostId="12697" Score="0" Text="@tony Your initial version was helpful, although not quite valid as far as I can tell. I think *reclamare* should not be interpreted as a hysteric reaction, but I'm not sure. There might be better tone choices. I chose to leave *lupi* out as there was no reference that in the English version either. That passage clearly comes within a context, and adding the context in Latin where there was none in English only makes sense if you are bringing the translation into a new context. // The tired state just had to do with teaching math for six hours before answering, so I was not at my sharpest." CreationDate="2019-10-24T08:06:24.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22879" PostId="12698" Score="2" Text="D for Domino using the conventional tilde for a missing n or m plus vowel." CreationDate="2019-10-22T18:30:06.090" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22880" PostId="12698" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Ah, so most serene reigning _lord_ prince?" CreationDate="2019-10-22T18:47:14.317" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22882" PostId="12698" Score="2" Text="Could *denuo* mean 'anew, from scratch;' and *integre* (almost the same) 'totally, from the ground up.'" CreationDate="2019-10-22T19:22:49.843" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22884" PostId="12698" Score="0" Text="The Brill edition is (in brief) &quot;Title: Instructio, quam ... princeps ac dominus, dominus Georgius Rakoci, Transylvaniae princeps, partium regni Hungariae dominus et Siculorum comes etcaet. tradidit ... domino Georgio Rakoci, filio suo, natu maiori non longe post cum ille scholis valedixisset&quot;" CreationDate="2019-10-22T20:56:30.270" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22902" PostId="12698" Score="0" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi" CreationDate="2019-10-24T20:23:25.527" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22885" PostId="12699" Score="3" Text="I think this is mostly correct. I wonder why you translate *lateribus* as &quot;with bricks&quot;: is that Neolatin? Isn't something like &quot;sides&quot; or &quot;side aisles&quot; intended? // Dominus can indeed be repeated; I believe one is the ordinary polite form of address, the other an address belonging to certain titles. I have often seen this repeated use." CreationDate="2019-10-23T03:44:10.723" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22886" PostId="12699" Score="2" Text="While the abbreviations are indeed unconventional, (*dono* rather than *dno*), I would not be inclined to believe in the second *dono*'s being *do no* &quot;domino nostro&quot;. I rather think there is a line above both instances of *dono*; the line above the first one might seem like the tail of the t above, but notice that none of his other t's have tails. So I would read it simply as *do[mi]no do[mi]no* without *nostro*." CreationDate="2019-10-23T03:44:15.557" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22887" PostId="12699" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus I agree with your second point. As for the first, I was taking it as [*later, -is*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlater) (not *latus*!) That seems to make most sense in context." CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:19:02.343" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22898" PostId="12699" Score="0" Text="Ah! I must confess I did not even remember the existence of this word. Good." CreationDate="2019-10-24T05:14:40.863" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22891" PostId="12701" Score="0" Text="Where do you read that ? `quae` is not only the form for the feminine singular nominative ..." CreationDate="2019-10-23T13:36:36.033" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="22892" PostId="12701" Score="0" Text="In some Latin course. In some courses &quot;quae&quot; is right, in some other only &quot;quis&quot; is right. When asking to some latinists, I've found both opinions represented. If there's a confusion about it. Why?" CreationDate="2019-10-23T14:29:22.823" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22893" PostId="12701" Score="0" Text="And also, do you have some reference, I would need to show them, in debates about quae or qui being wrong or right. In which sentences could I use them or not?" CreationDate="2019-10-23T14:30:09.147" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22896" PostId="12703" Score="0" Text="Sorry, but the declensions wasn't my question. It's about the use. When it's quis, used for any genders, and it's quae. In a course, they teach us &quot;quis&quot; for &quot;who...?&quot; every time, &quot;quae&quot; is listed as an interrogative, but not accepted in the course, and as said, the advanced learners of the course told us to not use the &quot;quae&quot; (read the quote in my question)," CreationDate="2019-10-23T21:43:45.483" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22897" PostId="12703" Score="0" Text="@Quidam _Quae_ is an interrogative, but I've never seen it used for feminine singular: it's only plural. _Quis_ is used as the interrogative pronoun for both masculine and feminine singular. You can use relatives as interrogative _adjectives_, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking about." CreationDate="2019-10-23T22:05:32.927" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22900" PostId="12703" Score="2" Text="Perhaps a good case to mention is where the boundary between interrogative pronouns and adjectives seems to evaporate, e.g. Cicero's &quot;Criminatio tua quae est?&quot; or &quot;Quae est ista praetura?&quot;" CreationDate="2019-10-24T12:07:19.913" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="22901" PostId="12703" Score="0" Text="Quae is also the feminine singular, in the declension table, so why is it used for feminine plural? It's all the meaning of my question. If someone could make an answer to sum up all the weird and unexpected things about the use of the interrogative &quot;who&quot;, it would answer my interrogations." CreationDate="2019-10-24T15:16:08.397" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22905" PostId="12705" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your explanation. I bookmark them preciously. But for my question, how to use quae/quis, and why the course and some user refuse &quot;quae&quot; instead of &quot;quis&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:22:00.353" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22917" PostId="12705" Score="0" Text="@Quidam: Was going to add some refinements; but, Unbrutal_Russian seems to have done the job. Satisfied? If not, we'll have another go." CreationDate="2019-10-26T10:38:11.640" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22922" PostId="12705" Score="2" Text="You can add refinements, please, don't refrain yourself." CreationDate="2019-10-27T00:48:13.443" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22915" PostId="12710" Score="1" Text="To be fair, its ambiguous in English too. One can say &quot;lets get a meal&quot; or &quot;lets get food.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-10-26T01:29:43.887" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="22916" PostId="12710" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Usually, it is more food or meals?" CreationDate="2019-10-26T08:13:37.830" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22919" PostId="12711" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the nice question! I should point out that the perfect form is *amai* in Italian, but that's not really a contraction within Latin." CreationDate="2019-10-26T14:54:48.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22928" PostId="12711" Score="0" Text="“Audii” was used as an alternative form to “audivi”; I researched this while putting together an answer to the following previous question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9352/do-contracted-perfects-have-long-or-short-vowels/9353#9353" CreationDate="2019-10-27T17:22:33.480" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="32567" PostId="12712" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been elected one of the best answers of 2019.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/490/79)" CreationDate="2021-04-13T20:45:10.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22918" PostId="12714" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you give an example of the kind of public business you have in mind, just so that we can make sure that a suggested translation actually works for you? There rarely is a Latin phrase that means exactly the same as the English one in all contexts." CreationDate="2019-10-26T14:52:26.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22925" PostId="12715" Score="0" Text="A personal friend of mine, Emeritus Professor James Diggle, suggests 'pixillum' rather than pixellum as being more Latin-looking. I would add an explanatory gloss like the above or perhaps minuta puncta electronicae imaginis." CreationDate="2019-10-27T14:19:29.787" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="22926" PostId="12715" Score="0" Text="A personal friend of mine, Emeritus Professor James Diggle, suggests 'pixillum' rather than pixellum as being more Latin-looking. I would add an explanatory gloss like the above or perhaps minuta puncta electronicae imaginis. Alternatively, the modern Greek εικονοστοιχείο could be used, sounding somewhat bar barbarous in Latin, viz. iconostoechīum." CreationDate="2019-10-27T14:28:46.500" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="22924" PostId="12716" Score="0" Text="This sounds like a nice translation, but I think *meus* should be *meae* to agree with *potiones*. I would have actually found *virtutes* inappropriate as it's about virtues and mental strength, whereas this is a matter of physical or chemical power." CreationDate="2019-10-27T11:23:22.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22920" PostId="12717" Score="4" Text="You should check the etymology info of the most obvious cognate, that being the Italian *anche*." CreationDate="2019-10-26T18:09:08.547" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="22921" PostId="12717" Score="0" Text="Well that doesn't explain much. How could *hanc hodie* - that is *this here today* if I understand correctly - or the alternative with *ora* come to mean *also, even*? I understand that some female noun is needed for the inflection to make sense (*die* &quot;*m* or *f*&quot; is another can of worms)." CreationDate="2019-10-26T18:31:55.287" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="22930" PostId="12717" Score="1" Text="Check http://www.etimo.it/?term=anche (I do not understand Italian)." CreationDate="2019-10-27T19:14:10.017" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="22931" PostId="12717" Score="2" Text="What do you think of _ancora_?" CreationDate="2019-10-27T23:14:22.907" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22932" PostId="12717" Score="0" Text="@draconis, since I had checked a bunch of different spellings when I couldn't find Turkish *ancas* (because it actually is *amcas* &quot;cops&quot;), I have to say, my thought is *anchored* in the east, so to speak. Now, I wouldn't mention Parthian ʾnjʾr‎ &quot;(anjār), “behaviour”&quot; if it doesn't readily give &quot;vice squad&quot;, though it derives Persian هنجار &quot;(hanjār) way, rule, law; habit, custom; norm&quot;, and it is akin to Sanskr. *sam-cara* &quot;path&quot; (? cp *sam-sara*?); But I find *even* and the like related to straight eveness in similiar idioms (Ger *glatt, gerade, eben, just …*), as for roads, *anyway*." CreationDate="2019-10-28T05:54:14.260" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="22934" PostId="12717" Score="0" Text="…I'm not sure I followed any of that. _Ancora_ is Italian for &quot;still, even, yet, again, more&quot; and seems to come from _hanc hōram_ &quot;(during) this hour&quot;; we see the same formation in other Romance languages (French _encore_, Occitan _encara_) with all the expected sound changes for a native word, so it presumably developed within Vulgar Latin." CreationDate="2019-10-28T17:05:16.373" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="22935" PostId="12717" Score="0" Text="@draconis, there's a second, more pertinent part to the comment, which I didn't finish: Also cp Ger *sogar* &quot;even, actually, in fact&quot;. I find it difficult even for a native speakers to define such particles and other discourse markers. So they might be prone for corruption. Ger *jeh* &quot;ever&quot; is surely one candidate for a cognate with *hora*, as in *je-doch*, &quot;although, however&quot;. I hold that it played into concessive usage of *ja* &quot;yes&quot; and *gar* (regionally *jar*, lenited *jah*; otherwise its stem means &quot;cook, finish&quot;), eg *Er hat ja/nu/so gar keine Ahnung* &quot;He doesn't even have a clue&quot;" CreationDate="2019-10-28T18:33:22.733" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="22936" PostId="12717" Score="0" Text="That doesn't explain my thoughts much better, I'm sorry. *To anchor* should be a clear allusion to *be still*, I thought that was clear, and it is admittedly a bit of a joke, that is supposed to hint at borrowing across the mare nostrum. The part about *sam-cara* is feeble minded, riffing more on *even* than the other glosses; which appears degenerate because I'm not familiar with *anca* itself--that's the very reason I'm asking; It's notable of the German glosses that I mentioned, three also mean &quot;just now&quot; and &quot;straight&quot;." CreationDate="2019-10-28T18:53:22.590" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="22937" PostId="12717" Score="0" Text="And if it didn't become clear before, then the third part about *gar* should imply that I suppose an Indo-European idiom. Bringing that in line is difficult and it doesn't really get easier with *hora*. Now I should add that I had *even* fresh on my mind because of a ELU question about *even the odds* and *fairness*; Note *hor-* also appears in words about *chance, fairness* and being *lucky*. I don't think the cross correlation looks accidental. Is that clearer?" CreationDate="2019-10-28T19:04:41.670" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="32481" PostId="12718" Score="2" Text="&quot;*Sententia* is the view of a subject, resting upon clear perception and acquired conviction, like γνώμη; *opinio*, an opinion resting upon mere feeling, like δόξα.&quot; (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33197/33197-h/33197-h.htm#word_Sententia). no examples/evidence is given" CreationDate="2021-04-07T19:02:03.313" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23226" PostId="12719" Score="0" Text="Please, tell us: how did you try to translate them?" CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:12:56.163" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23249" PostId="12719" Score="0" Text="I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because translations requires to have tried to translate." CreationDate="2019-11-16T01:06:11.353" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23310" PostId="12719" Score="0" Text="Did you want medieval, classical, or modern Latin? I recommend clarifying that and making an attempt and posting this question again. Don't worry about being wrong - it's a great chance to learn by doing and also one of the rules of the Community." CreationDate="2019-11-18T15:08:44.600" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22955" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="Gratified that yourself is not subscribing to the oft-spoke notion that the gerundive is a passive future participle. &quot;Last Wednesday he said that it ought to be done, so they did it.&quot; = &quot;dicit proximo die Mercurii faciendum esse, itaque id fecisse.&quot; All of this in the past. &quot;Insectandis Patribus&quot; = &quot;with the Senators it-ought-to-have-been-pursued-with-hostile-intent&quot;; so, the gerundive providing obligation within the framework of an AA. If a gerundive is not a (future) participle then it is disqualified from inclusion in an AA (grammatical rule)? How about &quot;Patres insectati&quot; using" CreationDate="2019-10-30T12:08:57.427" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22956" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="Continuing: the perfect participle passive? For an AA, the components must not be used to refer to any noun or pronoun grammatically connected to the verb in the main clause. Therefore, linking &quot;the agent of insectari&quot;, with the agent of &quot;gessit&quot; violates the AA? Why did Livy use this? Perhaps he was experimenting with his language, causing a stir to see what would happen." CreationDate="2019-10-30T12:16:21.233" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22959" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="@tony Thanks for your comments. There is debate in the literature on what a (true) AA is. For example, it is said that a typical trait of **true** AAs is that these can be claimed to function as true subordinate clauses that are directly adjoined to the main clause/sentence. So true AAs cannot be embedded at a lower syntactic level, e.g., true AA don't adjoin to the verbal phrase, as in Livy's example above nor to any other non-sentential constituent (like the alleged AA discussed in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/409/is-victa-serpente-an-ablative-absolute )." CreationDate="2019-10-30T17:15:31.000" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22990" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="It is easy to understand how an AA could be a subordinate clause; but, these, latter, are usually associated with indirect speech--a problem? What exactly is meant by &quot;Verbal Phrase-embedding rather than sentential one&quot;? Something sentential is between two full-stops or equivalent pauses; between the AA and the end of the sentence? How does the student differentiate between a &quot;dominant particle construction&quot; and an AA?" CreationDate="2019-11-01T11:03:20.173" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="22999" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="@tony As pointed out by Joonas, &quot;it is a matter of taste how things are categorized, so one's AA is not always another's AA&quot;. In fact, (true) participial AAs have been defined as those dominant participle constructions that function as adverbial subordinate clauses that adjoin at a sentential level. In contrast, the &quot;fake&quot;/apparent AAs that are adjoined **below** the sentential level **necessarily** involve that the agent of the participle and the agent of the clause are the same.  This is so because the agent of the main clause has scope over (i.e., is structurally higher than) the fake AA." CreationDate="2019-11-01T17:24:54.613" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23001" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="Accordingly, true AAs are those AAs that satisfy the following two conditions: (i) they function as adverbial subordinate clauses AND (ii) they do not involve any obligatory sharing of participants/arguments with the ones of the main clause. But again, as pointed out by Joonas, it can be the case that for other people only one condition (or even other conditions) must be satisfied. I've just revised my post above accordingly, with the hope that the notion of &quot;true&quot; AA will be clearer now. If it's not the case, please let me know." CreationDate="2019-11-01T18:27:38.053" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23081" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="Thank you. A &quot;compromised&quot; AA might be &quot;puella monita, pater discessit&quot; = &quot;with the girl having been warned, the father departed&quot;; the agent-of-participle (father) &amp; the agent-of-clause (father)?" CreationDate="2019-11-05T11:31:02.567" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23086" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, in my opinion, your example is a true AA since it is **not required** that the agent of _monita_ and the agent of _discessit_ be the same. When sharing of participants is required like in _Insectandis patribus tribunatum gessit_, I think that we're not dealing with a &quot;true&quot; AA." CreationDate="2019-11-05T15:52:47.317" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28991" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="In Liv. 28. 15. why not &quot;...oppugnaturis hostibus castris...&quot; = &quot;...with the camp about to be attacked by the enemy...&quot;? The camp (castra) is not mentioned again, which would violate the potential AA. The fortification,&quot;vallum&quot; = &quot;wall&quot;, is given; some might construe that to be the same thing--the camp?" CreationDate="2020-09-14T12:59:56.557" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29003" PostId="12724" Score="0" Text="@tony &quot;oppugnaturis&quot; in your example is an active participle. So I don't understand why you translate it as passive in English. Rather it seems that your English translation would correspond to something like &quot;oppugnandis castris&quot;, but then my point would be that _hostibus_ cannot be an dative of agent. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12844/can-a-dative-of-agent-appear-in-an-ablative-absolute-construction" CreationDate="2020-09-15T16:10:09.013" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23052" PostId="12725" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Gerunds and gerundive constructions can act as objects to a praeposition. But I'm not entirely sure what kind of sentence you have in mind. Could give a partial example?" CreationDate="2019-11-02T23:30:56.573" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22938" PostId="12726" Score="0" Text="The French also emphasizes one thing happening again *after it stopped*, while the romance emphasizes *one thing happening along with another*. I'm updating the question with a link to *anja*." CreationDate="2019-10-28T20:18:18.063" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26118" PostId="12728" Score="0" Text="Also &quot;Uncuò&quot; in the Veneto dialect." CreationDate="2020-04-30T17:22:15.860" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="22947" PostId="12729" Score="1" Text="I am not aware of a rule, but I wouldn't expect a 100% rule.  Spelling isn't a precise pronunciation instruction in almost any writing system.  In Latin you need to know which vowels are long and which pairs form diphthongs.  Moderns write *u* and *v* separately, use macrons, and use a diaeresis to distinguish *aere* (air) from *aere* (brass)." CreationDate="2019-10-29T13:20:02.920" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22951" PostId="12729" Score="0" Text="Especially tricky with Anglo Saxon names with &quot;W.&quot; Is it UU like *graduum* gen pl.? or Welsh W/OO? or UV, VU?" CreationDate="2019-10-29T20:41:22.867" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22946" PostId="12732" Score="1" Text="This meaning degraded over time, so that in the Middle Ages a suit heard *coram rege* meant it was heard in the Court of the King's Bench but not literally in the king's presence.  Having studied Latin long before I studied English history, I found that very confusing." CreationDate="2019-10-29T13:13:47.200" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="22948" PostId="12734" Score="0" Text="That sounds like a perfect alternative! Thank you" CreationDate="2019-10-29T14:43:42.123" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="22953" PostId="12734" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC: You may accept this answer (now or later, if you want to wait for other suggestions) by clicking on the check mark just below the vote buttons of it. This rewards the poster of the answer most useful to you, and makes it evident that your query has been resolved. Welcome on board, stick around!" CreationDate="2019-10-30T07:37:59.987" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="22977" PostId="12734" Score="1" Text="Gratias tibi ago! I did so now." CreationDate="2019-10-31T13:39:18.140" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="22944" PostId="12736" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the interesting question!" CreationDate="2019-10-29T08:15:11.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34012" PostId="12738" Score="0" Text="*Mundus* in the sense of 'world' is attested as early as Plautus. It's *possible* it was influenced by the Greek κόσμος, but not at all certain (especially since *mundus* also means 'subterranean vault', a meaning it could not have taken from the Greek)." CreationDate="2021-07-07T18:55:37.113" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="22970" PostId="12739" Score="1" Text="It almost certainly has a title page, which would be a more direct indication." CreationDate="2019-10-31T05:51:00.397" UserId="602" />
  <row Id="22982" PostId="12739" Score="0" Text="Not to be a bother, but shouldn't you ask this on the Greek or Biblical Hermeneutics sites?  This is the Latin site, right?" CreationDate="2019-11-01T00:02:03.320" UserId="1816" />
  <row Id="22991" PostId="12739" Score="1" Text="@thedarkwanderer See [relevant FAQ](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/441)" CreationDate="2019-11-01T11:06:46.837" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="22997" PostId="12739" Score="0" Text="Answers to this question would be better if they clarified the differences in orthography between Koine Greek as it is found in historic texts vs. Koine Greek as it is printed in modern editions." CreationDate="2019-11-01T16:08:00.757" UserId="2343" />
  <row Id="22957" PostId="12740" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I’m hopefully going to use this as a tool to learn Koine." CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:34:09.817" UserId="6236" />
  <row Id="22958" PostId="12740" Score="0" Text="@TomHahn I'm glad to be able to help! Questions will surely arise when you study Koine, and I'd be happy to see some of them on this site. (Meanwhile, take a look at [our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). With a little more reputation you can start voting and using other features.)" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:48:54.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22960" PostId="12740" Score="2" Text="I wonder if the presence of a critical apparatus is another indication." CreationDate="2019-10-30T18:41:13.333" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="22961" PostId="12740" Score="2" Text="Yes it is koine, the beginning of the Gospel of John. However, your three criteria are not really valid, because before the latest orthography reform (1970s) modern Demotic Greek was also written with three accents and with breathings (all superfluous, of course). By the way, the Orthodox Church has always banned the translation of the Bible into Demotic, so a Demotic Bible is not easy to find." CreationDate="2019-10-30T19:25:20.730" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="22962" PostId="12740" Score="0" Text="@fdb I am aware that my criteria are overly simplified, but it is good to know that the rarity of Demotic Bibles does give a bias favoring my conclusion. (Did Demotic Greek have *iota subscriptum* too?) I would be happy to see a more substantial answer by someone who knows Greek better than me, and that means almost anyone." CreationDate="2019-10-30T19:28:49.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22969" PostId="12740" Score="0" Text="Additionally, there are footnotes at the bottom that look a lot like the NTG critical apparatus. These wouldn't be present in a translation." CreationDate="2019-10-31T05:50:10.753" UserId="602" />
  <row Id="22996" PostId="12740" Score="0" Text="I rejected a suggested edit. If you want to give more ways to argue that this must be Koine, you are very welcome to do so, but please add a separate answer." CreationDate="2019-11-01T12:28:48.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22972" PostId="12741" Score="0" Text="Where is the chuckle emoji when you need it? Especially since I'm not supposed to put nice answer in the comments." CreationDate="2019-10-31T12:06:03.910" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22981" PostId="12741" Score="1" Text="Re: &quot;The critical apparatus is of course a giveaway: that would not make sense in modern Greek&quot;: Could you elaborate on this a bit? What is &quot;the critical apparatus&quot;? Why would it not make sense in Modern Greek?" CreationDate="2019-10-31T22:00:13.863" UserId="3511" />
  <row Id="23006" PostId="12741" Score="1" Text="A small wrinkle: the now defunct formal Greek idiom (καθαρεύουσα) dominant in the first half of the 20th century, breathings, accents and iota subscript and all, actually modeled itself after this very New Testament Koine cynosure, so, ideally, it might end up looking quite similar! But, of course, it would be bizarre to translate the original paradigm into its close  derivative simulacrum in the first place!" CreationDate="2019-11-01T19:33:29.723" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42514" PostId="12741" Score="0" Text="The translation of the first two sentences in Modern (καθαρεύουσα) Greek go like:  Εις την αρχήν της πνευματικής και υλικής δημιουργίας, άναρχος και προαιώνιος, υπήρχεν ο Υιός και Λογος του Θεού. Και ο Λογος ήτο πάντοτε αχώριστος από τον Θεόν και πλησιέστατα προς αυτόν, και ο Λογος ήτο Θεός απειροτέλειος, όπως ο Πατήρ και το Αγιον Πνεύμα. Αυτός υπήρχεν εις την αρχήν της δημιουργίας ηνωμένος προς τον Θεόν. ...As you might observe, they are close, but the syntax has broken down to something clumsier..." CreationDate="2023-03-07T23:02:37.583" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="22964" PostId="12743" Score="0" Text="The first meaning that comes to mind is &quot;from&quot;, as in from a particular location, although I think it also can be from a cause. My understanding of &quot;videntur&quot; is it's the present tense, passive voice of &quot;see&quot;, or something like that, so maybe something like &quot;he is seeing&quot;. I fixed my typo (note to self: vodka does not help spelling)." CreationDate="2019-10-31T02:27:35.883" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22966" PostId="12743" Score="0" Text="@Adam: A cause is closer. But there is yet another translation, one that is common when the praedicate is passive. As to *videntur*, it is indeed passive. But what person, what number? *He is seeing* is not how the passive is translated, though; *videor* is &quot;I am (being) seen&quot;. The person doing the seeing is not the subject." CreationDate="2019-10-31T03:19:31.173" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22967" PostId="12743" Score="0" Text="Per the other answer, &quot;by&quot; is another meaning and makes much more sense. *Videntur* is plural, so it clearly must refer to *muri Romani et porta Capena*. I think I understand you, though. The sentence would be accurately stated as &quot;the Roman wall and gate of Capena are seen by him&quot;, then?" CreationDate="2019-10-31T03:24:57.253" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22968" PostId="12743" Score="0" Text="@Adam: Correct! Add *iam* &quot;now, already&quot;, and make &quot;wall&quot; plural." CreationDate="2019-10-31T05:20:05.287" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="22965" PostId="12744" Score="0" Text="The other sentences around this one provide the context that Medus is a person rather than city. I think what is strange to me is splitting the two objects with the subject and verb." CreationDate="2019-10-31T02:31:51.993" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="22971" PostId="12745" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer!" CreationDate="2019-10-31T08:34:31.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23004" PostId="12746" Score="0" Text="I'm afraid that your question, as formulated in the title, is not easy to answer, since, as you know, nobody has native competence in Latin. So I'm afraid that the best one can do is what Joonas has made, i.e., to consult corpora and then try to deduce some relevant information, which is not an easy task at all." CreationDate="2019-11-01T19:04:16.137" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23005" PostId="12746" Score="0" Text="If you're interested in the specific linguistic conditions involved in splitting a participle like _natus_ from _sum_, I invite you to take a look at the relevant literature on Latin word order, which has been said to be determined by so-called **&quot;information structure&quot;** (e.g., cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9548/what-is-the-term-for-extremely-loose-latin-word-order/10549#10549 ). Additionally, please note that **prosody** is also relevant when dealing with hyperbata: e.g., see http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/28/paper2455.pdf" CreationDate="2019-11-01T19:06:28.457" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="22973" PostId="12747" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your help, I'm sure your answer will be really helpful to a lot of users (including me!), but my question is more specifically about &quot;natus sum&quot; and their link, it's even stronger than a copula link here, as it's a deponent structure, a compound tense or a kind of, (depending how you consider it)" CreationDate="2019-10-31T12:20:49.410" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22974" PostId="12747" Score="0" Text="But I still bookmark your answer!" CreationDate="2019-10-31T12:20:59.953" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22975" PostId="12747" Score="0" Text="Maybe I should have asked 2 different answer, for the copula thing, your answer is perfect." CreationDate="2019-10-31T12:21:46.250" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22978" PostId="12747" Score="0" Text="@Quidam I added a new paragraph to my answer. Although you did only ask about a specific verb, I think it's better to look broader (so as to have more data) and then draw more general conclusions. I think that's pretty safe here, as the examples by Caesar have both deponent and transitive instances." CreationDate="2019-10-31T14:34:46.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="22983" PostId="12747" Score="1" Text="Thank you. Awesome work!" CreationDate="2019-11-01T00:42:19.380" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="22993" PostId="12750" Score="2" Text="For informal First Century Latin communication (spacing, punctuation, lettering) see Vindolanda, Vindolanda tablets online search." CreationDate="2019-11-01T11:30:07.560" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22989" PostId="12751" Score="0" Text="As a side note, thought to be the earliest recorded French Farce, but presumed to be similar to unrecorded street theatre. **Le Garcon et l'Aveugle,** Jeu du XIIIe Siécle (ed. Mario Roques, Honoré Champion, Paris 1921)  Warburg: http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/pdf/ebh160b2452027.pdf" CreationDate="2019-11-01T10:37:47.433" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="22998" PostId="12752" Score="2" Text="Can you provide an actual, attested example of non-enclitic ne used as a question word in a direct question? It's true that *enclitic* -ne can be used with annon/necne in *indirect* questions to mean 'whether...or not,' but I've never seen the usage that you're describing. Still ne might be paired with quidem, and the whole sentence might just happen to be a direct question; but in that case, ne isn't an interrogative word." CreationDate="2019-11-01T17:17:34.213" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23009" PostId="12756" Score="1" Text="I am not able to answer this question for the moment, but, to help others, it can be noted that in Matt. 8,8 sed tantum dic verbo is a word for word rendering of αλλα μονον ειπε λογω, which also sounds like the wrong case." CreationDate="2019-11-01T20:05:39.697" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23010" PostId="12756" Score="0" Text="@fdb: That is probably with an iota subscriptum? By the way, there also seems to be a version *αλλα μονον ειπε λογον*. http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C008.htm" CreationDate="2019-11-01T20:27:21.000" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23011" PostId="12756" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. Yes, it is dative. αλλα μονον ειπε λογον is an inferior lectio in some late MSS. Jerome's verbo agrees with the older lectio difficilior." CreationDate="2019-11-01T21:02:43.277" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23012" PostId="12756" Score="2" Text="I think it means something like &quot;but say it with only one word&quot;." CreationDate="2019-11-01T21:04:00.883" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23013" PostId="12756" Score="1" Text="@fdb: It couldn't be one of those semantically empty phrases, possibly even a Hebraism?" CreationDate="2019-11-01T21:15:14.413" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23008" PostId="12758" Score="2" Text="For what it might be worth, as a reader of Latin, I'd have no trouble with _natus Romae consulibus M. Vincio et Q. Lucretio sum_, and it wouldn't strike me as poetic nor even necessarily unnatural. This said, I'm afraid that to solve questions like that of determining how much information can be packed in there (and in which possible order(s)) can often require (i) having a (near) native competence or (ii) having studied the specific linguistic, pragmatic and even prosodic (see my comment above) conditions involved." CreationDate="2019-11-01T19:46:07.153" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23023" PostId="12760" Score="1" Text="I don't understand this etymology -- *inter* means &quot;between&quot;, and has no specific idea of separation (even if it ultimately contains a suffix which can express separation, which I'm not sure about either). Also for Skt *antar-dhā* I'm not finding a sense &quot;kill, destroy&quot; in Monier Williams (the standard Skt-Eng dictionary)." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:26:35.160" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23026" PostId="12760" Score="0" Text="@TKR  In the paper linked above López Moreda (1987: 222) says that the verb _interficere_ &quot;acquires the separative pejorative meaning of the sufix *-tero&quot; (Sp. &quot;adquiere el significado peyorativo separativo del sufijo _*-tero_&quot;), without giving more details and only referring in a footnote to the works by Benveniste (1949), Sandoz (1976), and his own doctoral dissertation on compounds of _facio_ (López Moreda (1985))." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:38:43.750" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23027" PostId="12760" Score="0" Text="@TKR. As for its comparison with Sanskrit, Filimonov (2019: 86; paper linked below) points out the following parallelism: Skr. _antar-gam_ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘go’) ‘disappear’ (Apte 1957, 124) — _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’) (Mayrhofer 1992, 76) =_ inter-ficere_ (source: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf )." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:42:25.857" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23028" PostId="12760" Score="1" Text="Thanks, the Filimonov paper is a little clearer (but only a little...). So if I understand correctly, the semantic link with &quot;separation&quot; is that to place something &quot;between&quot; two things is to separate those things; hence *interficere* comes to mean &quot;separate&quot;, and then specializes to &quot;separate from life, kill&quot;, I suppose by euphemism?" CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:56:28.670" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23029" PostId="12760" Score="1" Text="(Btw Mayrhofer 1992:76 doesn't give any definition for *antar-dhā*, which as far as I can tell means &quot;place within, conceal&quot; rather than &quot;kill&quot;.)" CreationDate="2019-11-02T03:02:27.147" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23031" PostId="12760" Score="0" Text="I've just found this interesting/intriguing parallelism with a form in Hittite _istarna_. See page 482: &quot;(...) its specific usages, like those of Lat. _inter_, spring from suffix _*ter_ which singles out the marked member of a binary pair ('**separately** within'). Source: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separative+interficere+inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLlU9tC&amp;sig=ACfU3U25HTYiSwBb9Xh50DrZ4pYjKTJMtg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjDu5bOy8rlAhUiA2MBHS75DfYQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separative%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-11-02T03:45:38.753" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23033" PostId="12760" Score="0" Text="On the same page you'll see this author points out &quot;a double reference to interiority and **separation** similar to Lat. _inter_&quot;. And again the reference of Benveniste (1948) is given." CreationDate="2019-11-02T03:49:06.850" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23041" PostId="12760" Score="1" Text="The so called &quot;separation&quot; explanation is a very old one and surely it wasn't proposed by Lopez Moreda or Filimonov or even Benveniste himself. As far as I can see (based on Walde and Hoffman or Szantyr), it goes back to Hermann Hirt *Indogermanische Grammatik* (volume IV, p. 59)." CreationDate="2019-11-02T16:19:56.063" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23042" PostId="12760" Score="0" Text="Here's the relevant passage from Hirt 1928: “Eine Zusammensetzung mit en ist wohl enter mit der Bedeutung ‘zwischen’, eig. ‘hineintretend’, erhalten in l. inter, osk. anter, air. ētar, ‘zwischen’, ahd. untar ‘zwischen’, ai. antár ‘innen, innerhalb, in, zwischen’. Wenn also idg. en-ter selbst schon ein zusammengesetztes Wort ist aus en+ter, s.o. 3, so sehen wir, daß schon in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit Präpositionen auf demsleben Weg enstanden sind, wie später l. versus, adversus u.a.” (p. 58) and &quot;l. inter-ficere, ahd. untartuon, ai. antar dhījatē ‘verschwinden’&quot; (p. 59)" CreationDate="2019-11-02T16:43:57.110" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23044" PostId="12760" Score="0" Text="Also it's worth perusing the relevant entry in WH (p. 443 in my edition). I wonder based on what evidence they made the claim that interficio &quot;urspr. &quot;*dazwischen tun&quot;, vgl. interfectus mit ai. antarhitah &quot;verschwunden&quot; ...&quot; Let's examine it more thoroughly." CreationDate="2019-11-02T17:18:57.830" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23051" PostId="12760" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Thanks, Alex, for your comments and for quoting this relevant passage from Hirt (1928). You're absolutely right: it is also important to examine the parallelism with Sanskrit more thoroughly. I've just discovered another specific article on this topic in Spanish (&quot;Sobre el significado etimológico de _interficere&quot;_) but, unfortunately, it is not downloadable. ;-(  http://cosechador.siu.edu.ar/bdu3/Record/FILOUBA--oai:repositorio.filo.uba.ar:filodigital_9501" CreationDate="2019-11-02T21:21:04.240" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23025" PostId="12761" Score="0" Text="Does Duolingo count? It's…not particularly high-quality, but it exists." CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:37:46.980" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23030" PostId="12761" Score="0" Text="No, because Duo is a software to learn Latin (I think you are a bit severe with it by the way), it's not a software with a Latin interface, it was what I meant." CreationDate="2019-11-02T03:40:15.497" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23400" PostId="12761" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4318/is-there-an-operating-system-entirely-in-latin" CreationDate="2019-11-23T22:13:56.633" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23405" PostId="12761" Score="0" Text="Sorry, but what is the relationship with my question? Duolingo is not what I asked, not how Duolingo behaves." CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:24:34.230" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23410" PostId="12761" Score="0" Text="I know there are several chrome plugins that replace words of the page, with their translations in a language that you choose.  I can't attest to the quality of those however. By the way, would you mind linking the web page with the IT words translated?" CreationDate="2019-11-24T11:17:04.293" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23415" PostId="12761" Score="0" Text="That's not what I ask, but I take this opportunity to ask you if you have found a good replacement for Readlang?" CreationDate="2019-11-24T15:52:52.510" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23036" PostId="12762" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Where did you find that translation?" CreationDate="2019-11-02T10:56:18.423" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23037" PostId="12762" Score="0" Text="@chuff: What has imperative &quot;fac&quot; got to do with it? Delete and begin to approach the target." CreationDate="2019-11-02T11:25:15.987" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23038" PostId="12762" Score="0" Text="I have no Latin at all.  I started with the Google translate result and then looked at other sites. The reverse translate results came close with the above translation." CreationDate="2019-11-02T12:47:27.753" UserId="6254" />
  <row Id="23040" PostId="12762" Score="0" Text="@chuff: Net translation sites are next to useless (for Latin); &quot;ars me servabit&quot; should do it." CreationDate="2019-11-02T15:46:10.403" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23055" PostId="12762" Score="0" Text="Not surprised by observation on net sites, tony. Thanks for assist." CreationDate="2019-11-03T01:39:33.890" UserId="6254" />
  <row Id="23059" PostId="12762" Score="0" Text="At least in classical Latin ars means &quot;skill, dexterity&quot; or the like. What sort of art is it that will save you?" CreationDate="2019-11-03T14:07:24.380" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23062" PostId="12763" Score="0" Text="Höcker, Christoph (Kissing), “Cenaculum”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, says the following about cenaculum: &quot;originally the dining room on the upper floor of the Roman  house. From time to time the term cenaculum includes the entire upper floor (Varro, Ling. 5,162; Fest. 54,6); the rooms described as cenacula were for accommodating guests of an inferior rank or slaves. They could also be the object of a lease; cenaculum became in this context synonymous with shabby housing.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-03T16:52:15.797" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23063" PostId="12763" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I've searched this but didn't find. Please, turn it into an answer." CreationDate="2019-11-03T16:53:05.833" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23064" PostId="12763" Score="0" Text="Let me do more research and then I'll post it as an answer, with examples." CreationDate="2019-11-03T16:53:57.720" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23708" PostId="12764" Score="0" Text="It seems to me there are no more transcripts available, not even in Italian. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I added the link to all the podcasts in English and removed the transcript bit. Please revert change if needed." CreationDate="2019-12-17T20:42:48.540" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23709" PostId="12764" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho: Fortunately there still are! Thank you, I guess it wasn't clear enough, I improved the wording on the basis of your edit." CreationDate="2019-12-17T22:21:07.937" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="25642" PostId="12764" Score="0" Text="added a new answer, in case you are interested" CreationDate="2020-03-29T21:30:18.613" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="25650" PostId="12764" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho: Nice!" CreationDate="2020-03-30T09:43:48.383" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23043" PostId="12765" Score="2" Text="There's yet a third word for left, scaevus." CreationDate="2019-11-02T17:16:22.880" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23045" PostId="12766" Score="2" Text="The English KJV follows Erasmus's Textus Receptus, which has the inferior reading λογον (accusative)." CreationDate="2019-11-02T18:13:01.430" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23046" PostId="12766" Score="2" Text="I was thinking of the Catholic Mass in English, which presumably doesn't reference either Erasmus or the KJV, but produces the same accusative in English." CreationDate="2019-11-02T18:17:59.120" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="35604" PostId="12766" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour, the translation of the mass came long after the KJV, and the KJV had an enormous influence on modern English." CreationDate="2021-10-29T23:10:09.837" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="23049" PostId="12767" Score="1" Text="Interesting alternative to the explanation I found in the literature (cf.supra). I've just seen that Lewis &amp; Short give yours at the very end of the lexical entry of _inter_: &quot;Under, down, to the bottom; as _interire_, _interficere_&quot;. I wonder why this explanation is not given in the entries of these two verbs. Did they abandon it? http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=inter1&amp;highlight=interficere%2Cinterire" CreationDate="2019-11-02T21:03:24.380" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23054" PostId="12767" Score="0" Text="Btw, I've been unable to find discussion of your interesting alternative proposal in the specialized literature. I'm not acquainted with Indo-European Linguistics and perhaps I don't look at the relevant sources. The ones I've consulted revolve around the &quot;separative function&quot; commented on in my post above (e.g., see the definition provided by the Indo-Europeanist Meier-Brügger (2003: page **187**):  &quot;_interficere_: 'to separate (from life), to make disappear'. https://caio.ueberalles.net/Indo-European-Linguistics-Introduction/Indo-European_Linguistics%20-%20Michael%20Meier-Bru%CC%88gger.pdf" CreationDate="2019-11-03T01:36:14.337" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30712" PostId="12768" Score="0" Text="Lacus Curtius..." CreationDate="2021-02-10T02:36:55.927" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23067" PostId="12770" Score="1" Text="The basic expectation is that you'll put in some effort of your own to find an answer for yourself before you post a question, and that you'll share the results of that effort. Did you try looking up both words for yourself in a good Latin dictionary (e.g., for Latin-to-English lookup, the online Lewis &amp; Short dictionary) and examining the examples provided there? What did you find? To improve the quality of the question, you should also provide the author and title of the book that you refer to, and, if you haven't quoted the exact passage, you should do that (even if it isn't in English)." CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:36:35.387" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23069" PostId="12770" Score="0" Text="I looked in 5 or 6 online dictionaries, made intensive google books search to find the &quot;old book&quot;.  Discere and Studere are never considered as synonymous in any of those online dictionaries, except this book. We can guess, from their meaning in English, that their meaning could overlap sometimes, it's the reason why I did this search;" CreationDate="2019-11-04T00:20:24.950" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23061" PostId="12771" Score="0" Text="Thank you, it answers the question." CreationDate="2019-11-03T16:39:20.320" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23070" PostId="12771" Score="1" Text="I think C in ABCBA would often be a transitive verb, with nouns before and adjectives after (or vice versa)." CreationDate="2019-11-04T00:23:29.217" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23072" PostId="12771" Score="0" Text="Could you had some examples to make your answer perfect?" CreationDate="2019-11-04T09:27:54.020" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23073" PostId="12771" Score="0" Text="Thank you Monsour. You are free to make it an answer, it's interesting." CreationDate="2019-11-04T09:28:32.050" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23088" PostId="12771" Score="0" Text="Isn't the chiasmus much more common and natural in Latin and Ancient Greek than in English? (Or should this be a separate question?)" CreationDate="2019-11-05T22:43:48.423" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="23090" PostId="12771" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: I'm not sure. I feel that it isn't common in either Latin or English, but it's hard for me to judge the relative frequencies." CreationDate="2019-11-06T13:01:43.223" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23488" PostId="12771" Score="0" Text="Isn't the chiasma used by Cesar and Cicero too?" CreationDate="2019-11-28T05:04:30.577" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23490" PostId="12771" Score="1" Text="@Quidam: I'm fairly certain that it is! It was a widely known figure of speech." CreationDate="2019-11-28T13:07:46.653" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23071" PostId="12777" Score="1" Text="This is also the expression we chose for [our meta announcement](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/423/79)." CreationDate="2019-11-04T07:42:19.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23075" PostId="12777" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Well, isn't that a coincidence!" CreationDate="2019-11-04T15:39:27.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23085" PostId="12778" Score="1" Text="Choose *Unum,* and then leave out *quem,* which is wrong AND is unnecessary, because Latin is more concise. After that I suggest you change nothing, even if it is not yet Cicero." CreationDate="2019-11-05T13:10:59.667" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23079" PostId="12779" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Where did you find this phrase? Do you know what it's context? All that kind of information helps us figure out whether it's right, what it's supposed to mean, and what it actually means." CreationDate="2019-11-05T08:13:29.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23080" PostId="12779" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, Joonas Ilmavirta. I really appreciate your kind regard. Actually I have no idea about the context of this phrase. It was sent out/shared about a colleague as a sort of challenge." CreationDate="2019-11-05T08:36:56.760" UserId="6264" />
  <row Id="23082" PostId="12779" Score="0" Text="*Pulvinar* is a significant couch, either a wedding couch or a shelf for statues at a feast. *Mauris* is a personal name which may be connected to the Moors, Mauritius, mulberries. *Scelus* is a crime, *sceleris* crimes, or of a crime. *Pellens* means driving, herding." CreationDate="2019-11-05T11:34:00.490" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23084" PostId="12779" Score="0" Text="Feeding *Lorem ipsum* into the search box in the top margin leads to an earlier discussion on this topic." CreationDate="2019-11-05T13:06:10.023" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23089" PostId="12780" Score="0" Text="Dear Hugh, Many thanks for your informative and detail reply. I really appreciate your kind regards. Best." CreationDate="2019-11-06T01:58:32.190" UserId="6264" />
  <row Id="23176" PostId="12780" Score="0" Text="@PhuongNguyen If you liked the answer and think it addresses the question, please click the little V-shaped near the top left of the answer to indicate it as &quot;accepted&quot;. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-11-10T18:58:43.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39819" PostId="12780" Score="0" Text="He must have bailed, but +1 for a good answer." CreationDate="2022-10-04T20:38:03.350" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41164" PostId="12781" Score="0" Text="Did you ever settle on a proper translation? Or something that sounds pretty and means &quot;The Past Shall Live?&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-01T22:21:22.723" UserId="12074" />
  <row Id="41166" PostId="12781" Score="0" Text="I think *preteritum vivet* works fine." CreationDate="2023-02-02T01:40:20.033" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="23087" PostId="12782" Score="0" Text="I really prefer this; my audience will presumably not speak Latin, so this will be more intuitive to them. I also agree that present tense makes more sense for what I want to convey. Thanks, @tony!" CreationDate="2019-11-05T19:08:27.037" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="23091" PostId="12784" Score="0" Text="So a possessed person is _arreptitius, -a, -um_; does Aquinas use any other associated forms, like a verb &quot;to possess&quot; or a noun &quot;possession&quot;, or just _arreptitius esse_ etc? (Good answer btw!)" CreationDate="2019-11-06T17:23:31.380" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23101" PostId="12784" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I didn't find any. Thomas describes the process of angelic or demonic control over [bodies](https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP110.html#FPQ110OUTP1) and [men](https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP111.html#FPQ111OUTP1), but possession is mentioned just a limit caseof what is possible, no verb is used for it. There is also a false friend, demonic &quot;assault&quot; ([impugnatio](https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP114.html#FPQ114A1THEP1)), which is a synonym of temptation; its goal is a sin, not possession." CreationDate="2019-11-08T08:57:49.483" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="23102" PostId="12784" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: original version of my answer was based only on Aquinas' metaphysical works. In his biblical commentaries, I found the verb &quot;possideo&quot;. Answer editted." CreationDate="2019-11-08T09:27:54.597" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="23098" PostId="12786" Score="0" Text="It is not clear to me of you tried to use the word *to have* (habeo, habere, **habui**) or *to inhabit, dwell* (habito, habitare, **habitavi**). Neither of them leads to habiti, though (either habui or habitavi)." CreationDate="2019-11-07T13:01:54.687" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="23100" PostId="12786" Score="2" Text="What about something that preserves the alliteration? veni, vidi,v...." CreationDate="2019-11-07T17:06:19.060" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23093" PostId="12788" Score="0" Text="How about just _Vēnī, vīdī, sūmpsī?_" CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:28:08.050" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="23094" PostId="12788" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Also works! I just liked the extra emphasis of _prae-_ in context." CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:30:09.333" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23095" PostId="12788" Score="1" Text="OK, I'll post an answer with the parallel rhythm so people can vote on them (unless you object)." CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:36:34.760" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="23096" PostId="12788" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Go for it!" CreationDate="2019-11-07T01:39:55.747" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23097" PostId="12790" Score="6" Text="I think _quid agis?_ is indeed the best match, often used like &quot;what's up?&quot;. I would add _ut vales?_ and _ut valetur?_ for the &quot;how are you feeling?&quot; flavour." CreationDate="2019-11-07T11:25:19.823" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23099" PostId="12790" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Good point! I added *ut vales* as an option. I chose to leave the passive out for simplicity, and I'm sure I've overlooked something else too. There's always room to go beyond basics, but I think an elementary answer is worthwhile at least as one of the answers." CreationDate="2019-11-07T13:22:32.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23106" PostId="12790" Score="1" Text="I wonder about *Valesne?*" CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:17:31.010" UserId="116" />
  <row Id="23107" PostId="12790" Score="1" Text="@TimLymingtonsupportsMonica That sounds more like &quot;Are you ok?&quot; to me, not really a greeting." CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:38:23.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29136" PostId="12790" Score="1" Text="*quōmodo valēs* doesn't ask for *&quot;bene&quot;* or *&quot;male&quot;*, but for *&quot;dīs juvantibus&quot;* or *&quot;multā medicīnā&quot;* or *&quot;meīs vīribus&quot;*" CreationDate="2020-09-29T16:27:54.710" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="29141" PostId="12790" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I think it could ask for any of those. I know of no better way to ask in Latin how someone is doing, but I'd be happy to learn if there is one." CreationDate="2020-09-29T18:39:51.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29180" PostId="12790" Score="0" Text="***ut** valēs?* [is the basic way to ask this](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23ut+vales), [the other variant](http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/advsuchergebnis.php?suchbegriff=&quot;quomodo%20vales&quot;&amp;table=&amp;level2_name=&amp;from_year=&amp;to_year=&amp;mode=SPH_MATCH_EXTENDED2&amp;lang=0&amp;corpus=all&amp;verses=&amp;lemmatised=&amp;suchenin=alle) seems to be post-breakdown of the Classical system of conjunctions, although it might occur around the Classical period in some subliterary texts, because the two conjunctions were already largely interchangeable by that point. Still, set expressions are better left untouched" CreationDate="2020-10-03T04:09:38.043" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="29181" PostId="12790" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Thanks! I didn't know that *ut vales* is indeed the classically attested choice and *quomodo vales* is a more recent variant. A few quick corpus searches indeed verify that. I updated my answer." CreationDate="2020-10-03T09:35:07.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29336" PostId="12790" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Related to &quot;How do you do?&quot; is &quot;Pleased to meet you.&quot; = &quot;mihi placet&quot; (Glosbe), All the other examples of its use include some qualification; though, the meaning in these becomes &quot;it is pleasing to me&quot;. On Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/13623/1982, I made the mistake of assuming that &quot;videtur mihi&quot; = &quot;it seems fine to me&quot; can stand alone, without qualification. Vincenzo pointed out it must be followed by an &quot;ut&quot; or &quot;si&quot; clause.  Apart from &quot;Pleased to meet you.&quot;, can &quot;mihi placet&quot; stand alone, meaning &quot;it (is pleasing or) seems fine to me&quot; in any circumumstances?" CreationDate="2020-10-13T12:28:21.287" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29338" PostId="12790" Score="0" Text="@tony That's best asked as a separate question. Whether *mihi placet* can stand for &quot;pleased to meet you&quot; is a nuanced matter. Being technically grammatical does not imply being correct or idiomatic. One possibility is to ask how the Romans expressed their pleasure at a new acquaintance. I'd be happy to see that covered on our site!" CreationDate="2020-10-13T13:32:11.440" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29351" PostId="12790" Score="3" Text="@tony I'm 99% positive that &quot;mihi placet&quot; can't be used like that any more than &quot;I like&quot; can in English. The reason it's given as an option on Glosbe is that someone mistranslated it as &quot;encantado/enchanteé&quot;, which can be used this way in Portuguese, Spanish and French. Glosbe should not be used as a source or as a learning material. It can be used as a source for some useful suggestions when you can already reliably spot if those are as far off as in this case." CreationDate="2020-10-14T15:14:35.357" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="29353" PostId="12790" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian You could give that as an answer to [Tony's new question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14731/79)." CreationDate="2020-10-14T16:13:33.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29451" PostId="12790" Score="1" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: Welcome back. Long time no see? Thank you. This may explain why &quot;mihi placet&quot; does not appear in isolation; at least, not in my searches. Thanks again." CreationDate="2020-10-20T12:10:22.650" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30811" PostId="12790" Score="2" Text="May I also draw everyone's attention to Eleanor Dickey's book *Learning Latin the Ancient Way: Latin Textbooks from the Ancient World* - a real gem! https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/learning-latin-the-ancient-way/069A72E3A677FDAC79DA1B15E85E8889 You can find lots of useful material there, e.g. &quot;-Quid agis? - Omnia recte. Quomodo habes?&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-21T18:34:07.887" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="32396" PostId="12790" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Thanks! I wasn't aware of this. Now if we can get the same thing in Ancient Greek..." CreationDate="2021-04-01T01:24:05.547" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23103" PostId="12794" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Yourself might need to begin by defining &quot;sucks&quot;. Why is &quot;sucking&quot; something bad? Those who like to suck sweets, toffees, ice-cream cones; or, even, in a sexual sense might question this interpretation. If the desire is to bad-mouth someone/ something then: &quot;How to Abuse &amp; Insinuate in Classical Latin&quot;/ Lovric &amp; Mardas; and: &quot;X-Treme Latin&quot;/ Henry Beard. This latter first recommended by Flores on Q: How to Intensify a Phrase. Flores was voted down for this--why? Is it something for the Moderators?" CreationDate="2019-11-08T11:38:29.047" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23104" PostId="12794" Score="0" Text="@tony The English idiom doesn't make much sense literally. That's why I gave examples: I want to be able to say &quot;this movie sucks&quot;, &quot;her new job sucks&quot;, &quot;the weather here sucks&quot; and similar. I'll expand the question." CreationDate="2019-11-08T12:47:50.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23105" PostId="12794" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: A lovely expression is &quot;malis avibus&quot; = &quot;under bad birds&quot;. In the Roman World this was used in the sense of being under the influence of evil--going too far for your request, here? It's always tickled me; but, it's nothing to do with humour: &quot;her new job is under bad birds&quot;; you might just have started something?" CreationDate="2019-11-08T13:07:39.903" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23108" PostId="12795" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Could you tell us what you have tried already? E.g. what words have you found? It is great that you already provide the context, by the way: that really helps. I wonder about *a humankind*: what do you mean by that, exactly? It sounds a bit odd to me (but I'm a dog...)." CreationDate="2019-11-08T23:47:55.210" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23113" PostId="12795" Score="0" Text="Hi, thnx!! It literally means humankind is no higher than other creatures. I found these so far:&#xA;&#xA;nulla virtus in humanum (this one so far looks the best)&#xA;OR&#xA;nulla virtus in homine OR homines" CreationDate="2019-11-09T03:21:01.640" UserId="6271" />
  <row Id="23114" PostId="12795" Score="0" Text="OK I understand. It would be great if you could add that to your question, so that answerers may see it." CreationDate="2019-11-09T03:27:51.467" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23197" PostId="12795" Score="0" Text="In clear: try to translate the sentence first by your own, and give us the result." CreationDate="2019-11-12T10:37:12.143" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23122" PostId="12796" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the nice answer!" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:43:55.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23121" PostId="12797" Score="0" Text="Can you quote all of line 92 of chapter 24? At lines 91–92, I've got _Quīntus: &quot;Ego canem iānitōris nōn vereor neque um­quam ab eō morsus sum.&quot;_" CreationDate="2019-11-09T09:00:43.057" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="23127" PostId="12797" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz sorry, I meant twenty-five." CreationDate="2019-11-09T13:50:04.940" UserId="4999" />
  <row Id="23132" PostId="12797" Score="0" Text="Ah, there it is. I've found a few punctuation errors in LLPSI but never a macron error. Now I'm wondering if _Laetāminī, cīvēs mēī!_ might actually be correct somehow. ;)" CreationDate="2019-11-09T15:04:26.000" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="23134" PostId="12797" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Yeah, there are some lowercase letters after &quot;?&quot; but only when there are repeating questions in succession, so I would say it's an editorial choice. And eius is the exception; they write Māius, pēior, Trōia, Trāiānum with a long vowel before the /jj/, so maybe it was Ørberg's dictionary, or something." CreationDate="2019-11-09T15:28:07.187" UserId="4999" />
  <row Id="23110" PostId="12799" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer! That is a strange phrase so I probably am remembering it completely wrong. Even so I thank you very much for clearing it up for me!" CreationDate="2019-11-09T02:32:32.930" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="23109" PostId="12800" Score="0" Text="OK. How would one pronounce them differently, though? Is the &quot;i&quot; in &quot;eius&quot; not doubled?" CreationDate="2019-11-09T02:08:00.043" UserId="4999" />
  <row Id="23111" PostId="12800" Score="0" Text="@SlayerGames44: I'm no expert on pronunciation, but I'd expect the i to be doubled in both cases. It's just the length of the vowel that's different (so not necessarily the length of the syllable)." CreationDate="2019-11-09T02:43:55.267" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23128" PostId="12800" Score="1" Text="Lewis and Short doesn't mark hidden quantity; it's mānsī, but they don't mark the A, even though they seem to mark it before /jj/ - Māius. Gaffiot marks all vowels short before /jj/, so eius and peius; Also L&amp;S says it's *scanned* ĕius, just like it gives Ītalia for Italia because it's usually scanned as such - also given that the normal form is ēius and ĕius is found only in some earlier authors, I don't know what motivated Ørberg to make that choice" CreationDate="2019-11-09T14:04:35.447" UserId="4999" />
  <row Id="23160" PostId="12800" Score="0" Text="@SlayerGames44: You make some good points. Feel free to edit that into my text if you want." CreationDate="2019-11-10T00:56:14.477" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23120" PostId="12801" Score="5" Text="I have nothing to back this up (hence a comment instead of an answer), but I would guess it's derived from the use of the preposition that's found in passages such as 'aspice Regulum, qui ex paupere et tenui ad tantas opes per flagitia processit' (Pliny, Epistulae 2.20.13),'Consider Regulus, who, though starting as (i.e., formerly) a poor and humble man, went on to such great wealth through outrageous acts';  or even 'ex amico fit inimicus, hostis ex socio' (Seneca, Epistulae morales 91.5), 'From a friend he became an un-friend, an enemy from an ally.'" CreationDate="2019-11-09T06:43:49.500" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23144" PostId="12801" Score="0" Text="@cnread I would accept that pro forma as the answer, because I believe it's at least not wrong. It's helpful, insofar &quot;carne ex taurus&quot; would make sense, and I would appreciate a word to that, especially if it would regularly be just a collocation &quot;meat&quot; + &quot;```GEN``` bull&quot; etc. I meant to rename this &quot;does senex contain the particle ex?&quot;, therefore I'd welcome hints to that, but I acknowledge that would be a different question, or too broad." CreationDate="2019-11-09T17:57:44.787" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23151" PostId="12801" Score="2" Text="I don't quite understand the question  &quot;does senex contain the particle ex&quot;: do you mean something like &quot;senex&quot; from *ex-something?" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:24:03.780" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="23158" PostId="12801" Score="0" Text="@PietroMajer My best guess would be that it's a contraction from part of a phrase. That would imply &quot;from \*ex&quot; possibly &quot;from \*ex-something&quot;, yes." CreationDate="2019-11-09T23:35:59.973" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23175" PostId="12801" Score="0" Text="I think the use of the ex- particle, like ex-wife, ex-friend is an addition coming from Old French. I read a lot of old French texts, and if you also do, you will notice the emergence of &quot;ex&quot; with this meaning." CreationDate="2019-11-10T17:06:53.190" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23177" PostId="12801" Score="0" Text="That might imply it was from an otherwise unattested vulgar Latin usage, or, less likely, from Celtic: Matasovich only glossed PCelt \*exs &quot;out of, from&quot;, next to \*exs-obno- &quot;fearless&quot;, \*exs-obniya &quot;boldness&quot;, no other compounds (given for context, 'spose), \*extero &quot;without, outside&quot;, \*extos &quot;except, but&quot;--I'd cp &quot;he is but a friend&quot;, but I know even less Celtic than Latin; English was but influence by English, though, didn't it? *but* is especially notable if anyway connected to *by*, cp Ger *vorbei* &quot;over, gone; come over; pass [by]&quot;, apparently analog to *vorüber* &quot;over; passed [by]&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-11-10T20:16:30.423" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23178" PostId="12801" Score="1" Text="If I understand correctly, you're trying to make the -ex part of the word senex convey the primary meaning of 'oldness.' But I would have thought that the etymological connection between Latin senex and Greek ἕνος ('belonging to the former of two periods') was fairly secure. It certainly makes sense in terms of both underlying meaning and the sounds involved (Greek rough breathing vs. Latin s)." CreationDate="2019-11-10T21:18:03.250" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23179" PostId="12801" Score="0" Text="@cnread I don't feel bound to my words, and you shouldn't either. Yes, I have most likely been mistaken. I was looking for any way to assign the sense *grown* to \*(s)- and \*(h)eg`hs- &quot;ex&quot;. The idea of a clipping from *senex* seems untennable; it quickly appears more promissing to assume a composition; and even that has no good motivation, if *-ex* is not exactly rare as coda in Latin. Nevertheless, it strikes me as more than a mere phonemic curiosity. In the meantime, I noted G *Ahn*, *Ur-Ahnen* &quot;forebearers&quot;, G idiom. appelative *altes Haus* &quot;pal&quot; (literally *old house*?)" CreationDate="2019-11-10T21:41:13.677" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23180" PostId="12801" Score="0" Text="@cnread I recognize that my question is all over the place. I'm satisfied that it is sufficiently answered, anyway. I meant to give you a chance to receive the checkmark; That's almost not necessary anymore, after fdb's helpful quote of the OED's summary below." CreationDate="2019-11-10T22:18:19.033" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23146" PostId="12804" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! The nuances are that &quot;fruits&quot; mean the rewards which will appear from the darkness, and &quot;darkness&quot; will literally be the night (but also dark powers). So I think &quot;Fructus Tenebrarum&quot; will be right. So does your translation mean plural even thought you wrote &quot;fruit&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-11-09T18:02:56.250" UserId="6273" />
  <row Id="23145" PostId="12806" Score="0" Text="I agree with you, Vincenzo. Btw, I was wondering if the attested example of _cacata charta_ (rather than something like _merdosa charta_, which is perhaps not found until Medieval Latin) can be taken as it was _caca_ rather than _merda_ what was metaphorically extended in Vulgar Latin during Classical times. I'm noting this because of what you say in your post (&quot;One could object that Martial used the expression for food, and it might not make sense for something else. But I don't think so&quot;).  In any case, the counterparts of Lat. _merda est_ and _caca est_ are extensively found in Romance." CreationDate="2019-11-09T18:02:40.243" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23147" PostId="12806" Score="0" Text="Assuming that _merda est_ and _caca est_ were both extended metaphorically in Vulgar Latin during Classing times, it would also be interesting to work out whether a gradience similar to the one found in (Peninsular) Spanish and Catalan holds: cf. Sp. _Este film es una mierda_ ('This film sucks **a lot**') vs. _Sp. Este film es una caca_ ('This film sucks'), the former being 'stronger'/more forceful than the latter." CreationDate="2019-11-09T18:22:39.420" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23149" PostId="12806" Score="2" Text="@Mitomino I think we find _cacata_ rather than _merdosa_ (or similar constructions revolving around _merda_) because Catullus did actually intend it as a past participle: a defecated poem, hence produced that way and not intellectually. It still shows the &quot;excrement&quot; metaphor works for different contexts: Catullus would agree that _Annales Volusi merda sunt_, wouldn't he? It seems the reconstructed Vulgar Latin noun is _*cacca_ - I do also wonder if _cacca est_ was  used like _merda est_, or even with different gradience, though it seems hard to even find any attestations of _cacca est_" CreationDate="2019-11-09T19:41:18.043" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23150" PostId="12806" Score="1" Text="Ok! Many thanks, Vincenzo, for your clarification remarks." CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:08:36.293" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23152" PostId="12806" Score="0" Text="Nice find! As a small note on the English translation, *tepuit* should be &quot;cooled down&quot; rather than &quot;got warm&quot;." CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:28:45.503" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23153" PostId="12806" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Oh you're right, that's better! Thanks." CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:35:02.167" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23159" PostId="12807" Score="0" Text="Thank you for such a complete and comprehensive answer, I love it! Just one curiosity: how do we know that the word is tĭmĕō? I mean, is it a general rule that the ending of the present indicative II conj. is -ĕō (e short, o long)? I have tried to find it in books but I failed. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2019-11-09T23:37:15.613" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23162" PostId="12807" Score="1" Text="*vocalis ante vocalem brevis est*" CreationDate="2019-11-10T01:44:30.660" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="23167" PostId="12807" Score="0" Text="@PietroMajer Now it makes perfectly sense. I thank you for your comment and for your interesting answer as well." CreationDate="2019-11-10T09:07:22.613" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23171" PostId="12807" Score="0" Text="@Romeo &quot;How do we know all the vowel lengths in Latin?&quot; is a great question. I thought we had one already, but I couldn't find it, so it would make sense to ask it. Books rarely explain how we know things, they just give the things as facts. It's too much of a digression to discuss in this question. (There are rare cases of long vowels before vowels, like *fio*, but as a general rule indeed vowels before vowels are short.)" CreationDate="2019-11-10T10:49:20.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23184" PostId="12807" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good idea, I will ask it as a separate question, thanks a lot for your suggestion!" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:25:00.617" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23185" PostId="12807" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta [Here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12819/on-vowel-lengths-in-latin) it is. Feel free to edit it and to improve it. I hope we manage to collect as many rules as possible. Thanks a lot for your valuable help and suggestion." CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:37:26.613" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23155" PostId="12808" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your input. Not yet very familiar with how this site works so pardon me if I’m no using the commenting feature properly. I’m now between Humanum and Humanitate. According google translate, Humanum translates to Human Race (which I mean exactly) but Humanitate means Humanity. Humanity itself can mean either “Human Race” or “Humaneness; benevolence”. I think the second meaning (Humaneness) which has a positive feeling is more common for humanity &amp; people use mankind/humankind/human being usually to refer to human race. So according this don’t you think Humanum is more appropriate?" CreationDate="2019-11-09T23:18:46.460" UserId="6271" />
  <row Id="23172" PostId="12808" Score="0" Text="@ALY. [Take a look at our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) to learn the basics of the site functionality. [Do not trust Google Translate with Latin at all](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), as the results are horrible. The option *in humanum* is not valid Latin. If you want to say &quot;in human&quot; or &quot;in humans&quot;, say *in homine* or *in hominibus*. It is indeed true that *humanitas* as a wide range of meanings, but it also includes the human race. I would still consider *in humanitate* best, but *in homine/hominibus* is also possible." CreationDate="2019-11-10T11:12:57.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23626" PostId="12808" Score="0" Text="Joonas, what do you think of the word order alternative *In humanitate nulla virtus*?" CreationDate="2019-12-10T22:52:15.057" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23629" PostId="12808" Score="0" Text="@TKR It's a very good alternative. I edited it in. Thanks!" CreationDate="2019-12-11T08:53:00.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23143" PostId="12809" Score="1" Text="Intesi! Mille grazie." CreationDate="2019-11-09T17:13:08.917" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23156" PostId="12810" Score="0" Text="This answer does not tell me anything new and it is not really helpful, to say &quot;just *out, of*&quot; because those are polysemous, especially *of*. Sorry!" CreationDate="2019-11-09T23:19:07.183" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23157" PostId="12810" Score="0" Text="Well, OK, that wasn't quite true, I will look up the words you mentioned." CreationDate="2019-11-09T23:30:36.167" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23161" PostId="12810" Score="0" Text="Of course, I understand it's not new to you. What I'm saying is that other meanings are derived from the principal one, of motion from inside to outside, and come in connections with other words. In particular &quot;former/old&quot; has really nothing to see with the original meaning of &quot;ex&quot;; it only came later, I'd say via &quot;out of  --&gt; belonging to--&gt;once belonging to--&gt;former--&gt;old&quot;." CreationDate="2019-11-10T01:41:37.073" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="23164" PostId="12810" Score="0" Text="Yes but this is not constructive. I don't want to accept that because it had meant one thing it couldn't already have meant another, because it obviously has come to mean another thing. If the uncertainty is so large, that you cannot really say when this might have changed, then I do find it agreeable to draw any conclusions. I disagree that it had nothing to do with the original meaning; it might just be our perspective, biased by a different paradigm, in which it is too easy to see a basic sense, because it's so basic that indeed it can be found almost everywhere and thus looses meaning." CreationDate="2019-11-10T02:42:58.577" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23165" PostId="12810" Score="1" Text="I understand your point. In any case, the above answer doesn't mean  to be conclusive and just wants to suggest that the hypothesis on the root of &quot;senex&quot; from &quot;*ex-...&quot; is supported by too weak analogies, so that we could equally make it for any s-word --oh, is a sword what people ex-tract when they leave words and pass to deeds, in an argument? ;)" CreationDate="2019-11-10T08:08:24.640" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="23166" PostId="12810" Score="1" Text="Also, it seems to me that the formation of compounds with the prefix &quot;ex&quot; is much posterior, so that we usually have it well documented.  But here I stop as my knowledge of PIE is too poor to make safe statements. And of course, you're right, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." CreationDate="2019-11-10T08:08:35.963" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="23173" PostId="12810" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/100871/discussion-between-vectory-and-pietro-majer)." CreationDate="2019-11-10T12:43:40.057" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23181" PostId="12815" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer! Do you have some references, in Latin grammars?" CreationDate="2019-11-11T00:49:21.040" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23183" PostId="12815" Score="2" Text="That is quite interesting. The Duolingo course uses this subjunctive in polite questions &quot;Velisne panem/vinum/crustulum?&quot;. Is it wrong?" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:24:29.110" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="23187" PostId="12815" Score="0" Text="`means something like &quot;potentially, in the future, might you want it?&quot;` — or in other words &quot;`would you like&quot;`?" CreationDate="2019-11-11T11:21:40.710" UserId="1969" />
  <row Id="23188" PostId="12815" Score="2" Text="In english 'would you like' is more urgent, meaning more in the terms of the immediate future, right now right here very soon. The former, 'potentially, in the future, might you want it?' could mean anywhere from tomorrow to 50 years from now, with definitely more of a stretched time connotation to it." CreationDate="2019-11-11T11:48:30.690" UserId="5009" />
  <row Id="23194" PostId="12815" Score="1" Text="@VladimirF That sounds very wrong to me, and a quick corpus search shows that _visne?_ is an order of magnitude more common than _velisne?_. Though &quot;is this just unusual or actually wrong?&quot; could make a good question of its own!" CreationDate="2019-11-11T18:50:14.257" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23217" PostId="12815" Score="0" Text="Is it what they call &quot;the potential subjonctive&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:58:10.553" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23218" PostId="12815" Score="0" Text="&quot; &quot;is this just unusual or actually wrong?&quot; could make a good question of its own&quot;, It's part of my question, so if you have interesting things to say, be free." CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:59:19.480" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23223" PostId="12815" Score="1" Text="@Quidam Sure, you could call it a potential subjunctive. I don't always find those terms particularly helpful though." CreationDate="2019-11-13T19:11:31.247" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23189" PostId="12819" Score="0" Text="It’s not quite clear to me: do you want to know the rules per se (i.e. descriptive observations) or do you want to understand what evidence these rules are based on (i.e. some kind of theoretical explanation)?" CreationDate="2019-11-11T15:41:27.130" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23190" PostId="12819" Score="0" Text="Well, to begin with, I would be satisfied in having a list with all (?) the rules used to determine the quantity of a vowel (like the one mentioned in the post). Of course it would be also interesting to have a theoretical explanation on why that particular rule holds true, but maybe better to postpone that to a successive moment (say, something like statement vs proof of a theorem: let us confine ourselves first to the statements). Is it more clear? Thanks for your comment, btw." CreationDate="2019-11-11T16:47:19.950" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23192" PostId="12819" Score="1" Text="I understood your question in the second sense mentioned by Alex B. As to the rules: these are usually listed in any grammar text, starting with the distinction between length &quot;by position&quot; and &quot;by nature&quot;. E.g a vowel followed by a couple of consonants is long, although with a short list of exceptions, etc. Note also that declension and conjugation terminations do have their lengths. Finally, in any good dictionary  you may also find the lengths of each word &quot;by nature&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-11T17:12:57.957" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="23198" PostId="12819" Score="0" Text="@PietroMajer Thanks a lot for your comment and answer. For some reason, I was conscious of the distinction &quot;long by position&quot; vs &quot;long by nature&quot; in Greek, but I was not aware of that in Latin. Just for completeness, could you please mention a complete grammar book containing such a list? I cannot check now the one I used at school (I have it at home and I am living abroad) but I am pretty sure it was not complete in this respect). I am going to comment your answer asap. Meanwhile, thanks again!" CreationDate="2019-11-12T11:11:40.390" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23193" PostId="12821" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the community, @tum_!" CreationDate="2019-11-11T18:42:25.857" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="23246" PostId="12821" Score="0" Text="@vectory Cheers, added the image you suggested + an excerpt from &quot;The Latin Language&quot;." CreationDate="2019-11-15T22:25:18.137" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="23247" PostId="12821" Score="0" Text="I only meant they didn't use Roman Latin font." CreationDate="2019-11-15T23:08:05.860" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23248" PostId="12821" Score="0" Text="@vectory I understood. The added excerpt says 'inscribed in Greek characters' (though, I struggle to recognise many of them). The Roman Latin is used in the quote from Wikipedia, for some reason someone decided to 'transliterate' the phrase this way..." CreationDate="2019-11-15T23:20:31.533" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="23195" PostId="12823" Score="1" Text="How much loaned vocabulary from Etruscan is &quot;a bunch&quot;? Is it comparable to the amount of medieval French that got absorbed into English?" CreationDate="2019-11-12T04:22:12.427" UserId="1584" />
  <row Id="23196" PostId="12823" Score="5" Text="@MichaelHardy Much, much less. I don't have a good numerical answer, but I'd think it's closer to the amount of, say, _modern_ French loaned into English." CreationDate="2019-11-12T04:35:49.410" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23203" PostId="12824" Score="0" Text="What is the URL for this dictionary?" CreationDate="2019-11-12T12:47:12.030" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23204" PostId="12824" Score="1" Text="@Quidam It's Diogenes, the free viewer application for TLG databases https://d.iogen.es/d/index.html&#xA;https://github.com/pjheslin/diogenes/releases" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:02:00.023" UserId="6279" />
  <row Id="23209" PostId="12828" Score="1" Text="In case it helps someone, here are [the entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=bubo1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [the passage](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D450)." CreationDate="2019-11-12T16:18:30.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23205" PostId="12829" Score="0" Text="It's already very interesting." CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:33:03.873" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23206" PostId="12829" Score="0" Text="It was exactly why I asked this question, a Latin teacher told me it was post-classical, but I had some doubts." CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:34:11.103" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23207" PostId="12829" Score="1" Text="@Quidam It's always good to doubt your teacher, be it Latin or otherwise. (But don't be too vocal about your doubts in front of them!)" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:47:54.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23208" PostId="12829" Score="0" Text="I am my own teacher, I teach myself latin using the internet and books (I didn't have the chance to attend Latin classes at school), but I debate a lot about Latin words, in order to learn. Anyway, I'm a bit a St Thomas, if someone tells me it's the rule, I need to see this rule." CreationDate="2019-11-12T15:04:42.827" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23211" PostId="12831" Score="0" Text="The weird thing about that, is that this hapax is included in dictionaries as a rule. They say that &quot;bubo&quot; can be used in masculine or feminine." CreationDate="2019-11-13T11:55:38.380" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23236" PostId="12833" Score="0" Text="@AlexB For what it's worth, I do have access to the institutional version of TLG (and Loeb). Do you happen to know if the Loeb includes correct references to Bekker numbers?" CreationDate="2019-11-14T16:11:46.130" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23210" PostId="12834" Score="2" Text="At the end of each chapter is a list of the vocabulary included in the chapter; You could skip to the end of a chapter to learn them prior to reading, although I think it sort of defeats the intent of Ørberg's approach in that you learn them through context (not that I haven't had to look up some here and there when I wasn't totally sure)." CreationDate="2019-11-13T02:29:46.237" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="23220" PostId="12835" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much. I got this idea from a guide to succeeding in the Downing Method, which is the immersion method. It affirmed that first one should learn the main latin categories by &quot;brute memorization&quot; and then proceed to reading LLPSI" CreationDate="2019-11-13T17:47:33.307" UserId="6281" />
  <row Id="23683" PostId="12836" Score="0" Text="Maurice wrote in Greek; at least, his famous work on military strategy is in Greek." CreationDate="2019-12-14T21:28:56.260" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23684" PostId="12836" Score="0" Text="I also doubt that his court principally used Latin, except maybe his law courts." CreationDate="2019-12-14T21:30:50.847" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23243" PostId="12837" Score="2" Text="*vesuvinum* is attested as an early pun, vesuvian wine, but it's hardly a portmanteau" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:17:14.490" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23295" PostId="12837" Score="0" Text="@vectory: Hmm why not?" CreationDate="2019-11-17T23:18:22.490" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23296" PostId="12837" Score="0" Text="Because *vinum* isn't shortened.  If only one element need be shortened, this'd be an easy question (e.g., *quadecem*, *aliquis*)." CreationDate="2019-11-18T01:42:26.933" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23300" PostId="12837" Score="1" Text="I think it is a portmanteau, vinum doesn't have to be shortened, especially when it's the last term. It's half a portmanteau, as it's formed as a portmanteau, but the resulting word &quot;vesuvinum&quot; is also a word, so it doesn't show a neologism. So it depends if we consider that portmanteau should create new words, usually yes. But this example is very close, and show it is possible." CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:34:01.280" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23302" PostId="12837" Score="0" Text="For instance, Rabelais portmanteau &quot;sorbonnagre&quot; doesn't have the 2nd part shortened (onnagre is a whole word), but only the 1rst word. The French wikipedia page gives a lot of details about the different way to forge a portmanteau https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mot-valise#Construction" CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:47:03.850" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23303" PostId="12837" Score="1" Text="I don't think we could find better than &quot;vesuvinum&quot; as a portmanteau. The portmanteau in other languages than Latin are possible because the ending doesn't matter, so one of the word can lost its ending,and we still understand the meaning. But, in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:48:06.907" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23312" PostId="12837" Score="3" Text="@vectory The problem that I see with Vesuvinum is that Vesuvinus is also attested as an adjective, and it's common practice to use the neuter form of adjectives that denote geographical regions to refer to wines from that region. For example, Falernum = Falernum vinum, 'Falernian wine.' So you'd have to show that Vesuvinum is intended as a pun/portmanteau word and not as simple shorthand for Vesuvinum vinum. What's the source for your example?" CreationDate="2019-11-18T18:43:49.297" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23222" PostId="12838" Score="5" Text="I wouldn't class saxifragus a portmanteau word; it's just a multi-root compound, where the roots of the two elements are complete and distinctly visible. A portmanteau work like motel or brunch is different, because only the beginning of one of the elements and the end of the other are visible, leaving some of the 'root' material of each omitted." CreationDate="2019-11-13T18:11:40.697" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23224" PostId="12838" Score="0" Text="Good point; I was conflating a portmanteau with a compound word." CreationDate="2019-11-13T20:27:50.607" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="23225" PostId="12838" Score="0" Text="I guess you don't count words like *quadecem* where only one element is shortened." CreationDate="2019-11-13T22:12:16.063" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23238" PostId="12840" Score="0" Text="Think it's &quot;obliviscenda&quot;; &quot;oblita&quot; = &quot;having forgotten&quot;. The essence, here, is the soldiers/ warriors/ defendors; &quot;defensores&quot; cannot be omitted." CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:15:51.880" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23284" PostId="12842" Score="0" Text="Could you tell us first how you think it could be translated?" CreationDate="2019-11-17T09:40:37.940" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23290" PostId="12842" Score="1" Text="There is no such thing as &quot;the exact translation&quot; of anything. Even a literal translation is only possible if there is enough context to deteremine which of the possible equivalents is most appropriate - and when I talk about the &quot;possible equivalents&quot;, I don't mean just the choice of words, but also the grammatical relationships." CreationDate="2019-11-17T18:36:07.470" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="23304" PostId="12842" Score="1" Text="I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because ask for a translating, without really asking a question." CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:49:02.193" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23240" PostId="12843" Score="0" Text="This is great, but--isn't this an answer to a different question? I would think the current question, as stated, should be closed, though I'd love to see this as an answer to a different question!" CreationDate="2019-11-15T16:37:40.877" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23241" PostId="12843" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I agree. I'd be happy to repost this answer to a differently focused question. I can ask myself, but I'll be more than happy if someone beats me to it." CreationDate="2019-11-15T16:57:37.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23255" PostId="12843" Score="0" Text="Thanks, everybody.  Let me clarify; I am an amateur composer, working with my own small women's A capella choir for 20 years.  My work is entirely voluntary and the singers make a donation, so there are no spare funds for anything fancy.  As the song is in the form of short sentences, rather than complex prose, I was hoping that a straight-forward translation, paying attention to tense, and of course; intention of meaning, would be possible." CreationDate="2019-11-16T02:46:40.103" UserId="6284" />
  <row Id="23260" PostId="12843" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Personally, I think that this answer is 1. the correct answer to this question, in the context of this website; just because it wasn’t what was desired doesn’t make it the “right” response to give, and 2. better given “naturally” in a case where it was requested than “artificially” in a question designed for this answer. Personally I’d say it’s best where it is." CreationDate="2019-11-16T04:28:06.557" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="23263" PostId="12843" Score="0" Text="Whether this question should be closed is a matter to be settled by voting: If you think it should be closed, flag the question for closure or vote to close. That's the way it's designed to go." CreationDate="2019-11-16T09:49:50.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23264" PostId="12843" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thought this had been answered; eager to read the translation, alas. There is a prescient comment on Venice, sadly." CreationDate="2019-11-16T09:58:18.947" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36573" PostId="12844" Score="0" Text="What exactly is meant by &quot;verbal context&quot;/ &quot;non-verbal context&quot;? The spoken vs. the wrtten word?? In &quot;his rebus deliberatis mihi...&quot; = &quot;with these matters having been considered by me...&quot;, how is &quot;me&quot; a &quot;beneficiary&quot;--a benficiary of what? He (me) is the agent who chose, or was obliged, to do the considering." CreationDate="2022-01-10T13:17:19.950" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36577" PostId="12844" Score="0" Text="@tony Here &quot;verbal context&quot; means a context where there is an inflected verb or an infinitive. Participles are taken as &quot;non-verbal context&quot; (I'm aware that this terminology can be a bit misleading). As for the AA _his rebus deliberatis mihi..._, the relevant point is that _mihi_ cannot be interpreted as the person who carried out the action of _deliberare_. If any, it can be interpreted as a beneficiary (e.g. 'for me').  In contrast, note that in a &quot;verbal context&quot; like _Mihi hoc est deliberatum_, the dative can be understood as the one who has carried out the deliberation." CreationDate="2022-01-10T15:09:52.783" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36605" PostId="12844" Score="0" Text="Thank you. In &quot;de provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis&quot; = &quot;concerning the provinces being (which ought-to-be) retained by those who held them&quot;, &quot;iis&quot; is an ablative selected by &quot;ab&quot;. By removing &quot;ab&quot;, is &quot;iis&quot; metamorphosed into a dative (&quot;the dative 'iis' could be interpreted as associated to the ablative, 'provinciis'?) being then the party upon whom the obligation of retaining the provinces falls. Is Baldi a proponent of this--a dative (&quot;iis&quot;)-of-agent with a participle? What is wrong with a &quot;simplistic functionalist explanation&quot; if it works?" CreationDate="2022-01-11T13:12:01.110" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36606" PostId="12844" Score="0" Text="In the AA-construction, with a participle, dative &amp; ablative plurals can generate ambiguity. Wouldn't the context select the correct case, with the reader? Alternatively, clever writing e.g. &quot;de provinciis ab iis...&quot;, removes the need for a dative-of-agent--is this the thrust of the debate?" CreationDate="2022-01-11T13:19:26.283" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36612" PostId="12844" Score="0" Text="@tony Examples like _De provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis_ are interesting because they can contain an ablative of agent but not a dative of agent. So the relevant question is why the ablative of agent cannot be replaced by a dative of agent in this context. Baldi's account doesn't work since the relevant ambiguity problem shown in *_De provinciis iis qui obtinerent retinendis_ is not found in *_De provincia iis qui obtinerent retinenda_. The ill-formedness of both examples is then to be attributed to syntactic factors: i.e. &quot;datives of agent&quot; cannot appear in non-verbal contexts." CreationDate="2022-01-11T16:52:48.043" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23252" PostId="12846" Score="1" Text="An important distinction made in the first link above (the one between non-agentive deponent verbs like _mori_  or _nasci_ and agentive ones like _loqui_ and _hortari_) is crucial to understand why only the former deponent verbs, but not the latter, evolved into Romance: e.g., cf. the obvious parallelism between Lat. _**Marcus natus est**_ and It. _**Marco è nato**_. Unfortunately, as pointed out in the 1st link above, the typical definition of deponent verbs is a bit confusing since it does not make a distinction between _nasci/mori_-verbs and _loqui/hortari_-verbs." CreationDate="2019-11-16T02:30:08.577" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23253" PostId="12846" Score="0" Text="I noticed this also è nato/est né (French), and it was the reason of my question. I think that è nato/est né evolved from the deponent structure, so there is maybe other case. It seems a remainder of the deponent structure. I would be interested to know more residual structures like this. Hence also my question about the origin." CreationDate="2019-11-16T02:39:26.190" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23256" PostId="12846" Score="1" Text="Deponent verbs of the _loqui/hortari_-type didn't survive in Romance because of their meaning-form mismatch (agentive but passive in form). So no surprise that a deponent verb like _loqui_ was replaced by an active verb _parabolare_ in Late Latin (cf. It. _parlare_, Fr. _parler_, Cat. _parlar_) and that tr. verbs like _hortari_ were regularized/converted into non-deponent form: _hortare_. I hope that now the contents of the first link above are a bit clearer for you... but please note that the topic is not easy (see 1st link above for some relevant references that illustrate the debate)." CreationDate="2019-11-16T03:12:46.053" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23262" PostId="12847" Score="0" Text="Thanks for very precise reference and for the translation!" CreationDate="2019-11-16T08:35:48.307" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23267" PostId="12847" Score="1" Text="It is a rather nice quotation. By the way, I don't remember: how common is it in tragedy to omit the augment? I know this practice mainly from epic, but I haven't read tragedies in a very long time. I know tragedy had various archaic elements, like the Doric chorals(?)." CreationDate="2019-11-16T14:42:41.970" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23274" PostId="12847" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus The augment is sometimes omitted in tragedy, mostly in the choral parts as you suggest. Added a note on this." CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:45:45.560" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23276" PostId="12847" Score="0" Text="Thanks also for the interesting comment about augment, I like it! And I also think it is a rather nice quotation." CreationDate="2019-11-16T21:23:15.873" UserId="6274" />
  <row Id="23257" PostId="12848" Score="0" Text="As for your statement above that in the passage to Romance, deponent verbs &quot;were an irregularity in the system&quot;, please see the difference discussed in comments above between _nasci_-verbs and _loqui_-verbs. In particular, note that the fate of _locutus/secutus est_ should not be mixed with the **&quot;regular&quot;** evolution of _natus/mortus est_ (NB: the latter fall under the set of so-called &quot;unaccusative&quot; verbs. Cf. It. &quot;Marco **è nato**&quot; vs. &quot;Marco ha parlato&quot;. See above for the replacement of deponent _loqui_ by unergative _parabolare_ in Late Latin)." CreationDate="2019-11-16T03:41:17.517" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23258" PostId="12848" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino Good point! Feel free to post another answer with more details if you want. Otherwise I'll update this later." CreationDate="2019-11-16T03:44:23.763" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23259" PostId="12848" Score="0" Text="As for your strong statement that &quot;_Fiō_ means 'become', **nothing** passive about it&quot;, I disagree. In my opinion, this verb does have &quot;passive meaning&quot; in the sense that its argument subject is a **patient**. Note the parallelism between unaccusative verbs and passive constructions: both of them have patient subjects. This said, let me clarify that I understand what you mean but I also think that you should recognize that your statement above is &quot;too strong&quot; and can be misinterpreted. Cf. also It. &quot;Gianni **è** diventato matto&quot; ('G. became crazy'). It. BE-verbs select patient subjects." CreationDate="2019-11-16T04:08:31.457" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23261" PostId="12848" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Fair enough; I'll rephrase that. Mostly I mean that it's not unambiguously non-active the way deponents are unambiguously non-passive." CreationDate="2019-11-16T04:42:46.140" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23294" PostId="12848" Score="0" Text="I'd say the notion about English is entirely misplaced. *I will gladly chat about it, but that's up to you*." CreationDate="2019-11-17T21:21:17.783" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23271" PostId="12850" Score="0" Text="Was P already in use at that time? My immediate thought is that FH could stand for PH." CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:11:31.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23272" PostId="12850" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I would think so (that `P` was already in use), because we see both the voiced `D` and the unvoiced `K` used in the expected places here—though I'm not sure." CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:13:34.443" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23273" PostId="12850" Score="0" Text="FH was sometimes used in Etruscan for [f], but AFAIK isn't found elsewhere in Latin." CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:42:55.047" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23275" PostId="12850" Score="0" Text="@TKR Oh, that might be what I'm thinking of! But didn't Etruscan innovate a new glyph for `/f/`, looking roughly like a number 8?" CreationDate="2019-11-16T21:18:31.190" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23277" PostId="12850" Score="0" Text="Yes, both were used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_alphabet#Development" CreationDate="2019-11-16T21:43:03.583" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23278" PostId="12850" Score="0" Text="@TKR That would be what I'm thinking of then! Feel free to post that as an answer, since that's most likely where the inscriber of the Fibula got the convention from." CreationDate="2019-11-16T21:47:00.590" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23289" PostId="12850" Score="2" Text="F has its origin in the digamma, which generally had value /w/: I have always supposed that FH was being used for a sort of &quot;breathed&quot; (devoiced) /w/: in principle /ʍ/, but readily generalised to /ɸ/ (as in Maori) and to /f/." CreationDate="2019-11-17T18:24:38.627" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="23291" PostId="12850" Score="1" Text="@ColinFine That would make a lot of sense, especially since we see the same use of H for voiceless /r/" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:40:37.587" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23283" PostId="12851" Score="1" Text="Addendum: In (sinistroverse) Etruscan inscriptions, we can see the digraph , which is *usually* transliterated as **vh** - see virtually everything written by the greatest Etruscologists Rix or Wallace (cf. Weiss &lt;wh&gt;)." CreationDate="2019-11-17T01:00:56.507" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="23285" PostId="12852" Score="1" Text="The -ne is an enclitic, it's used to ask a yes/no question, and it's on the word where the question is (usually the verb, but not always), with &quot;expectat + ne&quot; alone = you would have: Is he/she/it wait for/expect. The enclitic can also be on noun (but it's less usual). &quot;Filiane&quot; alone would be something like &quot;is it the daughter who...&quot;, putting the yes/no question specifically on this word. See here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/search?q=enclitic" CreationDate="2019-11-17T09:44:24.483" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23287" PostId="12852" Score="1" Text="See also: [Where to put the enclitic -ne?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2781/79)" CreationDate="2019-11-17T12:18:24.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23282" PostId="12853" Score="1" Text="Ironically, _nonne_ was just introduced to me in Cap. VII of LLPSI, although by this point in the book I've already seen _-ne_ attached to various different words." CreationDate="2019-11-17T00:50:50.580" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="23288" PostId="12854" Score="1" Text="Now what was it you said about google translate?" CreationDate="2019-11-17T14:45:29.460" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23330" PostId="12854" Score="0" Text="Thank you fdb; I have to assume from your oblique comment that this translation will not be too wildly inaccurate to incooperate into an amateur musical score.  I will proceed using this text.  Please close this question, Latinstackers.  Sorry to bother you all." CreationDate="2019-11-21T08:55:56.693" UserId="6284" />
  <row Id="23331" PostId="12854" Score="0" Text="btw, fdb; I compared a lot of results from a lot of Latin translation sites to arrive at this basic translation." CreationDate="2019-11-21T09:04:28.567" UserId="6284" />
  <row Id="23332" PostId="12854" Score="1" Text="No, you have misunderstood me. Your translation is completely and utterly wrong." CreationDate="2019-11-21T09:59:47.857" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23292" PostId="12859" Score="1" Text="This is indeed a VERY interesting example! Cf. https://books.google.es/books?id=MGmCI3h0_tEC&amp;pg=PA98&amp;lpg=PA98&amp;dq=bene+gestae,+mihi+conservatae+rei+publicae+dat+testimonium&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qr2LAxNjSJ&amp;sig=ACfU3U22X1djhVEjETj0df1w6NRQ-kJUDw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi487bzjfLlAhUNCRoKHbezDiAQ6AEwBHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=bene%20gestae%2C%20mihi%20conservatae%20rei%20publicae%20dat%20testimonium&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-11-17T20:55:48.180" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23293" PostId="12859" Score="2" Text="Note that different variants of this dominant participle construction can be found in other works of Cicero. E.g., cf. _ceteris enim semper bene gesta, mihi uni conservata re publica gratulationem decrevistis_. (Cic. _Cat._ 4.20). It is true that, at first sight, in your example the agent interpretation of the datives wrt to the participles is possible, but I think that the reading whereby they depend on the collocation _dare testimonium_ is not excluded." CreationDate="2019-11-17T20:57:39.267" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23555" PostId="12859" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino: In the ex., above, where does &quot;decrevistis&quot; fit in: &quot;you have decreased/ diminished/ dwindled&quot;--the only accusative here is &quot;gratulationem&quot;; &quot;you have diminished the congratulations&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-12-03T12:07:20.620" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23556" PostId="12859" Score="1" Text="@tony: _decrevistis_ is a form of _**decernere**_ 'to decide', i.e., to decide something, i.e., _gratulationem_ (acc.) for someone (dat.)." CreationDate="2019-12-03T19:51:16.390" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23309" PostId="12861" Score="0" Text="The point (Seneca) is that the individual is dying, on a day-by-day basis, as (the figure of) Death approaches without relent. The officer, in the chariot, is advised that either he is dying; or, soon he will die. Soon could be tomorrow; next week; twenty-years down the road. Whichever, the time will pass quickly enough for the Roman, as it will for us." CreationDate="2019-11-18T13:32:44.590" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24579" PostId="12861" Score="3" Text="This is a good point. I would naively expect, &quot;Memento (te esse) moriturum&quot; rather than &quot;mori&quot;. However, &quot;memini&quot; seems to have a preference for the present infinitive, even when the action remembered is clearly in the past. This idiom is pretty clear in the examples given in Lewis and Short. &quot;Memini Pamphylum mihi narrare&quot; (I remember Pamphylum told me). This preference for the present seems to override the logical tense in the case of the future as well. I think &quot;Remember you will die&quot; is a perfectly defensible translation." CreationDate="2020-03-20T18:34:49.633" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="23318" PostId="12864" Score="1" Text="&quot;He&quot; isn't a meaning, but a pronoun that can be used in various syntactic and semantic functions - this also goes for all the Latin pronouns you mention. Do you mean the [anaphoric usage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_(linguistics))?" CreationDate="2019-11-19T09:23:21.393" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="23319" PostId="12864" Score="0" Text="Yes, it's the classical use for this pronoun. I'm not very advanced in Latin, so I'm looking to translate simple sentences." CreationDate="2019-11-19T10:44:14.537" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23323" PostId="12864" Score="1" Text="Keep in mind that these aren't quite the same as English *he* as they can refer to any masculine noun, not just male persons.  So in Latin you may need to repeat a name or add a noun (*hic vir*) for clarity when you might just say *he* in English." CreationDate="2019-11-21T01:15:47.207" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23314" PostId="12865" Score="0" Text="&quot;Dictionaries are not very clear about it&quot; because the **conceptual scene** referred to by &quot;_appropinquare_ + dative&quot; and &quot;_appropinquare_ + _ad_-accusative&quot; is the SAME. However, their **structural meaning**, i.e., the one associated to grammar, can be claimed to be different (see below)." CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:27:05.583" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23315" PostId="12866" Score="2" Text="The hypothetical alteration of the first element in *hodie* seems comparable to the shortening found in the first syllable of English words like *vineyard, shepherd* or *breakfast,* which I’ve never seen called portmanteaus." CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:34:48.177" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="23316" PostId="12866" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Agreed. I don't think there is a good hard definition of a portmanteau. Those English words do have some of the phenomenon but whether they qualify for the title is unclear to me. I know *hodie* is not a strong and clear portmanteau, but I couldn't think of anything better." CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:39:07.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23324" PostId="12866" Score="0" Text="Any particular reason you think *hodie* is a stronger candidate than *quadecem* or *aliquis*?" CreationDate="2019-11-21T01:17:12.023" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23328" PostId="12866" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Nope! I'd be happy to see other suggestions in other answers." CreationDate="2019-11-21T06:02:41.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33322" PostId="12866" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides On top of that, portmanteaus are deliberate shortenings, whereas *hodie* was shortened due to phonetics. There are no Latin portmanteaus that I am aware of." CreationDate="2021-05-22T13:26:08.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23320" PostId="12868" Score="0" Text="Yes, but is the &quot;proximity&quot; a thing then using it for &quot;he&quot;? So, &quot;hic&quot; would be the affectionate &quot;he&quot;, &quot;ille&quot; same thing, and &quot;is&quot; being neutral?" CreationDate="2019-11-19T10:47:51.287" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23321" PostId="12869" Score="4" Text="This seems possibly parallel to the common Greek usage of *ho theos* without reference to a specific god, meaning something like &quot;the divine&quot;; translators sometimes render that as &quot;God&quot; (which I've always felt doubtful about)." CreationDate="2019-11-20T07:06:24.080" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23353" PostId="12871" Score="0" Text="Try this: https://archive.org/details/romanischesetymo00meyeuoft/page/n5" CreationDate="2019-11-21T23:49:48.500" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26696" PostId="12871" Score="0" Text="@fdb Do you mind turning that into an answer?" CreationDate="2020-06-03T12:55:38.143" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23343" PostId="12872" Score="0" Text="Possibly *quid* is late from *quisquis;* and *quo* is relative, meaning (Eng slang) 'whatever.'" CreationDate="2019-11-21T18:07:34.693" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23344" PostId="12872" Score="0" Text="@Hugh What's wrong with _quid_ as nominative neuter singular of _quis_?" CreationDate="2019-11-21T18:50:33.910" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23346" PostId="12872" Score="1" Text="Er, ...... what?" CreationDate="2019-11-21T20:14:37.847" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23347" PostId="12872" Score="0" Text="@Hugh I don't understand what you mean by &quot;Possibly _quid_ is late from _quisquis_&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-21T20:49:54.710" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23359" PostId="12872" Score="1" Text="L&amp;S give examples of *quis* =anyone, someone; but no quotations for *quid* =anything, something, except with specific conjunctions. *Quiquid, quidlibet, ne quid,* are given. May just be an accident of compilation." CreationDate="2019-11-22T03:35:53.253" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23360" PostId="12872" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I'm used to seeing both *quis* &amp; *quid* as &quot;some&quot; with particles like *ne* or *si* but not alone. Therefore the reading &quot;something for something&quot; throws me off, but it could indeed be idiomatic not to use *aliquid* or similar in later Latin." CreationDate="2019-11-22T06:35:30.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23322" PostId="12873" Score="3" Text="For a full sentence description of roughly what we call quid pro quo, the ancient Romans would say *manus manum lavat*." CreationDate="2019-11-21T01:09:56.113" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23329" PostId="12873" Score="4" Text="@CMonsour: However that can have a negative meaning, like mutual omerta: &quot;close an eye on this, and I'll do you a favour later&quot; - indeed,the corresponding _una mano lava l'altra_ in Italian has this only meaning. Instead _do ut des_ was used in Latin and still is used in Romance languages to indicate what _quid pro quo_ is used for in English - quoting Wikipedia in the following- while _quid pro quo_ (or _qui pro quo_, as widely used in Italian, French and Spanish) retains its original meaning of something being unwillingly mistaken,or erroneously told or understood, instead of something else." CreationDate="2019-11-21T07:30:35.000" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23348" PostId="12873" Score="0" Text="@VicenzoOliva I agree with you about what all of these phrases mean in Latin.  However, *quid pro quo* tends to have a negative meaning in English.  Perhaps not as negative as *manus manum lavat*, but closer to that than to *do ut des*.  One would use *do ut des* to describe a religious sacrifice, for example, but English *quid pro quo* would feel inappropriate for that." CreationDate="2019-11-21T22:18:20.050" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23351" PostId="12873" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: In fact, the example of a religious sacrifice is great to show what I was saying: the Romans described it as _do ut des_, while one can find plenty of English sources [using _quid pro quo_ to describe it.](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&amp;sxsrf=ACYBGNS_foO5T-L4pU3Q7jLobejtXvoYaw%3A1574376009492&amp;ei=SRLXXZ3THY6WsAeuy5OgCw&amp;q=quid+pro+quo+religious+sacrifice&amp;oq=quid+pro+quo+religious+sacrifice&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..631338...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.OZDmljekhu8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjdm6fWr_zlAhUOC-wKHa7lBLQQ4dUDCAo)" CreationDate="2019-11-21T22:53:41.470" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23352" PostId="12873" Score="1" Text="@VincenzoOliva Interesting.  I usually find *do ut des* for religious sacrifice even in English, unless the attitude of the author is hostile." CreationDate="2019-11-21T22:59:30.310" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23333" PostId="12875" Score="0" Text="Yes, I didn't want something grammatical, only a really literal &quot;translation&quot;. Thank you." CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:26:14.377" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23334" PostId="12875" Score="0" Text="Of how much consist? Also good?" CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:28:05.970" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23335" PostId="12875" Score="0" Text="@Quidam That's possible, but beware of false friends. *Consistere* and *consist* certainly look alike and are etymologically linked, but that doesn't imply that the meanings are anywhere close. I think it's somewhat misleading here, but perhaps not horribly so." CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:30:39.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23336" PostId="12875" Score="0" Text="it's because I've checked all the meanings for &quot;constare&quot;, and they seem based on &quot;consist&quot;. I wasn't referring to the appearance of English word." CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:45:44.163" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23337" PostId="12875" Score="0" Text="@Quidam I wouldn't say that of all meanings of the verb. There are things like &quot;stand together&quot;, &quot;agree&quot;, &quot;be correct&quot;, and &quot;stand firm&quot; in addition to &quot;consist&quot;. But there is no perfect match, so I have to leave it for you to pick a translation that works for you." CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:48:56.067" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23338" PostId="12875" Score="0" Text="There's also a problem. It doesn't explain the agreement of &quot;constat/constant&quot;. It seems very difficult to find a word by word translation here or a literal translation with additional words." CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:51:30.573" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23342" PostId="12875" Score="1" Text="@Quidam Are you looking for a translation, or a gloss?" CreationDate="2019-11-21T17:34:50.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23345" PostId="12877" Score="0" Text="Thanks! The question was specifically about the use of that phrase in Latin, not in other languages. I took *quid* to mean &quot;what&quot; (interrogative or relative), and the meaning &quot;what for what&quot; was hard to imagine in use. While it is legitimate, I find it weird to use *quid* for &quot;something&quot; in such a phrase. // Do you happen to have any use examples of the phrase in Latin?" CreationDate="2019-11-21T20:03:06.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23349" PostId="12877" Score="0" Text="Curious if anyone uses *quid pro aliquo* for the French (medical) meaning." CreationDate="2019-11-21T22:37:03.553" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23380" PostId="12878" Score="0" Text="The meaning of the Arabic word هلم is bring forward.&#xA;As far as I know." CreationDate="2019-11-22T19:23:38.483" UserId="6300" />
  <row Id="23382" PostId="12878" Score="0" Text="The Arabic word mentioned above means join us come with us be with us" CreationDate="2019-11-22T15:32:25.677" UserId="6298" />
  <row Id="23354" PostId="12879" Score="0" Text="Does it mean that such word (هَلُمَّ‎) with such meaning exists in Arabic? I found this one: https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D9%87%D9%84%D9%85/ but it seems that it isn't close." CreationDate="2019-11-22T01:38:08.513" UserId="1087" />
  <row Id="23356" PostId="12879" Score="0" Text="@UbiquitousStudent I'm afraid I know very little Arabic so I'm not sure. I'm guessing at the vowel marks, too." CreationDate="2019-11-22T01:48:01.273" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23357" PostId="12879" Score="0" Text="@UbiquitousStudent Oh? What is it?" CreationDate="2019-11-22T01:48:07.217" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23358" PostId="12879" Score="0" Text="My mistake. It seems to be an orthographic ligature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_ligature#/media/File:Caslon_Pro_Ligatures.svg - See the lowest raw, first from the left - for such orthographic ligature." CreationDate="2019-11-22T01:51:40.360" UserId="1087" />
  <row Id="23875" PostId="12883" Score="4" Text="What does &quot;pr.&quot; mean?" CreationDate="2019-12-29T18:38:29.290" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23877" PostId="12883" Score="2" Text="Note that, although the edition that you link to does confirm the word appactim, the entry there is quite different from the entry that you quote from. It appears to give the meaning of the Hebrew word, when it isn't a particle, as equivalent to Latin impegit or contudit, or, as a noun, tunsio. That's significant because, if appactim is from appangere (and I suspect Nick Decroos is correct), impegit shares a root (im + pangere). So perhaps appactim means fixedly, forcefully, permanently (i.e., enduring usque huc)? Can the Hebrew word have that type of meaning? (I know no Hebrew at all.)" CreationDate="2019-12-29T20:43:16.480" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36895" PostId="12886" Score="1" Text="&quot;αιπιϲταμαι&quot; is comically misspelled. Why shouldn't there be more misspelled words?" CreationDate="2022-01-29T21:19:53.293" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="23443" PostId="12887" Score="1" Text="Probably worth pointing out that the diphthong change happens just a few words afterwards too: ερει -&gt; ερι" CreationDate="2019-11-25T22:16:58.093" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47327" PostId="12887" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Right, which is why you also get things like Δαυιδ v. Δαυειδ. This substitution is very common in the Codex Sinaiticus." CreationDate="2024-01-19T17:31:02.887" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23392" PostId="12888" Score="3" Text="Thanks! There is nothing wrong with having multiple answers. In fact, it's better to have more. The selection of different focuses, points of view, and other circumstances make the whole thread more useful. Even though there is an accepted answer, this clearly adds to the matter, so no need to apologize for posting it!" CreationDate="2019-11-23T11:41:00.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23393" PostId="12888" Score="1" Text="This Stack Exchange is particularly welcoming, explaining everything, and full of good will. It is not the case on most of the SE, where you are downvoted for forgetting a detail, or being the second answers. My answer is not complete, but I'll try to edit it with my researches in Latin grammar." CreationDate="2019-11-23T11:47:36.873" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23395" PostId="12890" Score="0" Text="By 1300 they could make a pun from *monimentum viret;* 'the memory is vivid/ the memorial is coloured green.'" CreationDate="2019-11-23T16:51:08.637" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23396" PostId="12891" Score="1" Text="Have you seen [the question &quot;How to phrase “it took two hours”?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6849/79)? If that answers your question, we can mark this as a duplicate so as to link the two. If not, maybe you could link to that and mention what you learned and what you have yet to learn. (We most certainly have not exhausted the topic. I just wanted to make sure you've seen the older question. Whatever you decide, there's no reason to delete this good question.)" CreationDate="2019-11-23T21:26:56.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23397" PostId="12891" Score="0" Text="Gratias tibi. I haven't seen that question (though I looked for the suggested questions SE offered - maybe it wasn't there or I just missed it). Anyway, it indeed answers my question at least partially. We can mark this as duplicate. My only doubt is how to phrase the question &quot;how much time does it take&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-23T21:37:41.087" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23398" PostId="12891" Score="0" Text="Now I'm thinking with respect to the question, that we can simply use *when* to ask when something is going to happen. instead of asking how much time." CreationDate="2019-11-23T21:47:57.570" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23399" PostId="12891" Score="0" Text="I didn't see it in related questions either, I just happened to vaguely remember it. Asking how to phrase &quot;how much time does it take&quot; would be nice, and not something easy to find in the usual sources. It's up to you whether you want to edit this to that direction or let this be marked duplicate and ask a separate one." CreationDate="2019-11-23T22:13:47.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23411" PostId="12891" Score="0" Text="I've edited the questions. Hopes its okay now." CreationDate="2019-11-24T11:26:11.297" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23412" PostId="12891" Score="1" Text="It's great! (I'd vote up if I hadn't already.)" CreationDate="2019-11-24T11:51:12.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23482" PostId="12892" Score="0" Text="As far as I know, it’s also possible to design a custom language pack; one could design their own improved Latin language pack and circumvent the problems of the current one." CreationDate="2019-11-27T15:03:50.117" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="23447" PostId="12895" Score="0" Text="You've really researched your question very well, as always. I have nothing to offer, except that Lewis &amp; Short say *urgeo (less correctly urgueo).* I wonder why, looking at the great number of authors using the form. // Perhaps this is irrelevant, but are we sure it was /urgweoː/ and not /urgueoː/?" CreationDate="2019-11-26T02:49:10.047" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23460" PostId="12895" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: I'd guess that we know from poetry. I haven't looked at all the examples of its use in verse, but for example I see &quot;urguet opus spernitque deum festumque profanat&quot; in Ovid Metamorphoses 4.390 seems to scan as ur.guĕ.tŏ|pus.sper|nit.quĕ.dĕ|um.fes|tum.quĕ.prŏ|fā.nat" CreationDate="2019-11-26T14:12:47.000" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="23461" PostId="12895" Score="0" Text="Ah, yes, it really doesn't scan otherwise, should have looked at a few examples myself." CreationDate="2019-11-26T15:04:08.260" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24293" PostId="12895" Score="1" Text="Re: their distribution, the OLD says the following: &quot;*urgu*- freq. in post-Augustan times, and occ. read in earlier authors&quot;" CreationDate="2020-02-24T01:04:28.663" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30314" PostId="12895" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides I don't understand your comment above. Urget and Urguet (assuming a digraph *gʷ*) would scan the same. If the second *u* is vocalic, it wouldn't scan. I don't have a critical text of the *Metamorphoses* at home, so I can't check, but the Perseus edition at least is *urget*. Granted it's 19th century..." CreationDate="2021-01-02T23:21:06.217" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30316" PostId="12895" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Cerberus's question was why /urgueoː/ with vocalic u wouldn't be a possible pronunciation of urgueo." CreationDate="2021-01-02T23:36:04.740" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="30319" PostId="12895" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Ah, sorry, read too fast." CreationDate="2021-01-03T01:56:56.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23418" PostId="12900" Score="5" Text="I know this sentiment from Horace, Epistles 1.2.40: dimidium facti, qui coepit, habet. A commentary on that work may point to other, Greek sources of the same idea. Otherwise, you're right, the quotation you found is from Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics 1098b (δοκεῖ γὰρ πλεῖον ἢ ἥμισυ τοῦ παντὸς εἶναι ἡ ἀρχή) and is a bit different." CreationDate="2019-11-25T02:05:09.590" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23420" PostId="12900" Score="0" Text="“Well begun is half done.”  ― Aristotle" CreationDate="2019-11-25T03:30:46.903" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23422" PostId="12900" Score="1" Text="@cnread I fixed your first comment. When the window to edit comments has closed, you can always let a moderator know and we'll edit. // Wouldn't that comment actually make an answer? There might be other Greek sources for that sentiment as well, but at the very least that is a very worthwhile option and the connection to Horace is interesting." CreationDate="2019-11-25T06:33:39.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23431" PostId="12905" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Useful answer. So it would matter if I wanted to compose Latin, but would it matter in terms of translation into English?" CreationDate="2019-11-25T18:44:51.260" UserId="6236" />
  <row Id="23432" PostId="12905" Score="1" Text="Although audī-am is a reasonable representation of the underlying structure, presenting the form that way might obscure the fact that the actual surface form scans with short i because of the rule of shortening vowels in hiatus." CreationDate="2019-11-25T18:55:52.560" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="23434" PostId="12905" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Very true." CreationDate="2019-11-25T19:58:48.877" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23436" PostId="12905" Score="3" Text="@TomHahn Absolutely. For example, _habet_ is present but _curret_ is future (present would be _currit_); _amat_ is indicative but _dicat_ is subjunctive (indicative would be _dicit_). These distinctions are lost if you don't know the conjugations." CreationDate="2019-11-25T20:01:16.570" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23438" PostId="12905" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Thanks. One more thing, if you know the present form/infinitive can you tell which conjugation they are in, or do you just learn them with the new vocabulary?" CreationDate="2019-11-25T21:39:42.797" UserId="6236" />
  <row Id="23439" PostId="12905" Score="1" Text="@TomHahn The infinitive tells you the conjugation. (That's the main reason it's included as a principal part; the reason you need the first singular also is for an edge case involving the third conjugation.)" CreationDate="2019-11-25T21:44:03.763" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23441" PostId="12905" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Great. Thanks so much!" CreationDate="2019-11-25T21:45:02.867" UserId="6236" />
  <row Id="23445" PostId="12905" Score="0" Text="You'll find you don't have to learn every form of every conjugation independently. For example, the present indicative of all conjugations has the same pattern, just with a change in vowel. And once you know the perfect stem (the third &quot;principle part&quot;) forming the perfect (and the derived tenses) have identical endings for every verb." CreationDate="2019-11-25T22:37:17.810" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="23448" PostId="12905" Score="0" Text="If you memorise infinitives, it is important to notice the length of the *e* before *-re*: short *e* (often written as ĕ) indicates a consonantal stem, while long *e* (often written as ē) indicates an e-stem." CreationDate="2019-11-26T03:00:07.403" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23463" PostId="12907" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the comments so far guys. (I couldn't find a reply button, sorry!). Are there any other words similar to audacem that would allude to valiance, strength or determination that would work? Apologies if that's a naïve question as far as this goes. I really know nothing, not unlike Jon Snow. :(" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:22:29.040" UserId="6321" />
  <row Id="23472" PostId="12907" Score="0" Text="That would leave two adjacent vowels; elision? *Contr' audacem...*" CreationDate="2019-11-27T01:19:27.957" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23508" PostId="12907" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: Does elision disqualify &quot;audacem&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-11-29T12:44:24.963" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23511" PostId="12907" Score="0" Text="It could, but if I remember right it's absolutely not unheard of for a poet to use hiatus to make the meter work out right." CreationDate="2019-11-29T17:24:30.520" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23512" PostId="12907" Score="0" Text="@Faz From the word &quot;commasculo&quot; meaning &quot;to screw up one's courage/to make (one) manly,&quot; you could use the past participle &quot;having been made manly/having been invigorated.&quot; I lack the knowledge to check if this is idiomatic, so another commenter might be moved to do that." CreationDate="2019-11-29T18:26:23.743" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23553" PostId="12907" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: An elided vowel would be put in brackets, so barely pronounced. This does not help a tattoo aficionado (suggested alternative, &quot;fortem&quot;). Allen &amp; Greenough: elision can be omitted if a word, ending in a vowel, has a special emphasis (p612-15; original: p411; reprint). Would &quot;audacem&quot; have a special emphasis? Is it one of those &quot;in the eye of the beholder&quot; things?" CreationDate="2019-12-03T10:07:16.477" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23462" PostId="12908" Score="2" Text="Hi Linoge, welcome to the site! I rolled back your edit since it is essentially a different question. Feel free to ask another question. Also, translation questions are generally better received if you show some evidence of research, e.g. &quot;What is the difference between these two Latin words for light?&quot;" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:10:38.520" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26321" PostId="12912" Score="2" Text="At some point I'll do the research, but I *do* know that [Robert Grosseteste](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/) (an early 13th c. English philosopher) has a lot to say about *lux* and *lumen*, and I believe he develops an explicit contrast." CreationDate="2020-05-15T16:48:48.383" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23481" PostId="12913" Score="0" Text="You've found occurrences of &quot;nōn velī&quot; and &quot;nōn velīte&quot; in texts? Don't leave us on a cliff-hanger, share them! Also, you should correct your explanation: *nōlō*, *nōlint* etc are of course contractions of *nevolō*, *nevelint* (you even cite *nevīs*). *Nōn* cannot contract - not only that, it was one syllable longer at the time all of these were formed." CreationDate="2019-11-27T14:24:17.257" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="23486" PostId="12913" Score="0" Text="I won't correct the explanation because it's not mine: I've only pasted the book content, as it is. I didn't say I've found &quot;non veli&quot;, but considering the pattern given by this book, that is always the same, it's a valid hypothesis." CreationDate="2019-11-28T04:56:39.507" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23489" PostId="12913" Score="0" Text="Some books chose to use &quot;non volo&quot; and some books say it's &quot;ne volo&quot;. Maybe older books chose one and more recent ones chose the other way, it's something that should be studied. If a book consider &quot;ne-volo&quot; (both explanations are common, and nobody agrees on the best one) If the &quot;ne veli&quot; is chosen, unlike in this book, the explanation simply has to be turned in &quot;ne veli&quot; instead of &quot;non veli&quot;, it's simple.I'm not sure we could find more &quot;ne veli&quot; than &quot;non veli&quot;, it seems to be very ancient forms of mandatory contractions." CreationDate="2019-11-28T06:54:04.793" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23509" PostId="12913" Score="0" Text="So... what did you &quot;find occurrences of them in texts&quot;? Is the part about &quot;they removed etc&quot; really from that book? Are you sure the books that give nōlō = nōn volō talk about etymology and not simple equivalence in meaning? *Nevelī* doesn't occur - it's been contracted into *nōlī*. *Nē velīs* occurs meaning &quot;ut nōn velīs&quot; and is never contracted. Perhaps then you could mention in the answer itself what you just mentioned to me about the different treatment by different books." CreationDate="2019-11-29T16:40:00.953" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="23510" PostId="12913" Score="0" Text="I think it's clear, because I don't see how I can format it to make it more clear. I quoted that is from the book, and enclosed  the quote in a colored frame, and it's close by the line: &quot;source:....&quot; and the next line is &quot;According to this book&quot;... If I find another book explaining in a different way, I will paste it." CreationDate="2019-11-29T17:15:19.310" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23537" PostId="12913" Score="1" Text="It's not clear at all that there are two points of view on this - you make no mention of the *ne-volō* derivation. Anyway, could you finally explain what occurrences you've found in texts?" CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:11:12.833" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="23471" PostId="12915" Score="1" Text="Please, try first, even if it's not good or perfect." CreationDate="2019-11-27T01:04:33.143" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23475" PostId="12915" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Deven! Is the sentiment behind that quote general or does it refer to something specific? Are you planning to use it in a specific context or medium?" CreationDate="2019-11-27T08:30:26.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23476" PostId="12915" Score="2" Text="@Quidam If Deven knows no Latin, it's of hardly any use to try to provide a translation. But if they are learning, I agree that it's useful to provide a rough translation. Feedback on it will help learning." CreationDate="2019-11-27T08:32:05.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23478" PostId="12915" Score="1" Text="&quot;Limited&quot;, yes, it can be a real novice or someone who tries to learn, but he will tell us if it means he is an absolute beginner. It's just to avoid the &quot;translate it for me&quot; questions, without giving a background." CreationDate="2019-11-27T08:50:42.563" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23479" PostId="12917" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much! I know I should’ve tried it on my own first, but I only just started learning latin, so it was hard to know where to start. Thank you for explaining your translation too, and how it works, This will really help my learning!" CreationDate="2019-11-27T11:44:07.063" UserId="6325" />
  <row Id="23484" PostId="12922" Score="1" Text="Any particular cultural milieu you have in mind?  I rather suspect this translates quite differently in a Christian vs a pagan context, for example." CreationDate="2019-11-28T00:30:06.533" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23493" PostId="12922" Score="1" Text="Only CL equivalent. Something concise and graphic, like atrocissimum est bellum." CreationDate="2019-11-28T17:00:43.167" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="29244" PostId="12922" Score="0" Text="Probably the best Latin would be bellum est Gehenna, suggested to me by a friend, Emeritus Professor Diggle.&#xA;The concept of hell, in our sense of the word, is alien to  the Classical world." CreationDate="2020-10-09T08:36:11.693" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="23483" PostId="12923" Score="3" Text="I'd put this in the same category as saxifragus, which was suggested above: it's a fairly garden-variety compound formed on well-established patterns for compounds in Latin. According to my dictionary, a portmanteau is a word 'blending the sounds and combining the meanings of two others'; the blending is key, I think, and is what separates real portmanteaus like smog (smoke + fog) and brunch (breakfast + lunch) from things like hodie and gratiactio, where the original forms and meanings of the constituent words remain more or less distinct. Still, I quite gratiactio as a neologism." CreationDate="2019-11-27T19:42:10.257" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="41348" PostId="12925" Score="0" Text="**Ubi maior minor cessat** You can find as many by simply looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases" CreationDate="2019-12-02T09:33:56.397" UserId="6341" />
  <row Id="41350" PostId="12925" Score="0" Text="Not a well defined rule, just a general way you can infer from biblio (as other answers already stressed - I just intended to deliver a pletora of exempla):&#xA; // &#xA;Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.&#xA; // &#xA;Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Functional Grammar Series 15).&#xA; // &#xA;Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas. Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxfod: Oxford University Press." CreationDate="2019-12-03T09:37:29.393" UserId="6341" />
  <row Id="23501" PostId="12931" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure I understand your difficulty. In your translation you have RECONSILIANS reconciling (nominative, like DEUS); IN SE within himself (in+Ablative position); IMA the lowest (the Object: Accusative neuter plural): SUMMIS to the highest / with the highest (Dative / Ablative neuter plural)." CreationDate="2019-11-29T01:48:14.893" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23502" PostId="12931" Score="0" Text="Lewis and Short say it must be Dative." CreationDate="2019-11-29T01:56:01.243" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23503" PostId="12932" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the explanation. I agree with the grammatical analysis of ima possibly being plural as well - I didn't see that before. And I am fine with that explanation, hence I accepted your answer. I am just curious: How did you identify that *IMA SUMMIS* is short for *IMA RES SUMMIS REBUS*  here? Is omitting forms of *RES* a common thing (like omitting forms of *ESSE*)? Do you know other examples of this phenomenon?" CreationDate="2019-11-29T05:20:40.147" UserId="1879" />
  <row Id="23504" PostId="12932" Score="1" Text="@jonathan.scholbach I know it as &quot;substantive use&quot; of the adjective, and it's quite common: compare English _the good [people], the bad [people], and the ugly [people]_, or proverbs like _the good [people] die young_. In this particular case you can't actually supply _res_ because that would be feminine—the &quot;things&quot; is implicit in the neuter-plural-ness of the expression." CreationDate="2019-11-29T06:05:06.870" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23519" PostId="12932" Score="0" Text="@jonathan.scholbach: „die Höchsten mit den Niedrigsten“" CreationDate="2019-12-01T13:28:59.860" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23522" PostId="12932" Score="0" Text="@fdb Ja, ich versteh schon. Mir war nur nicht klar, worauf sich das beziehen soll, also wer oder was mit &quot;den Höchsten&quot; gemeint sein soll." CreationDate="2019-12-01T14:39:54.680" UserId="1879" />
  <row Id="23505" PostId="12933" Score="0" Text="That is *astounding* research. Thanks. Is that *known* to be the reason for the choice of the motto? Or just a possibility? And was it chosen by the Prince Regent himself?" CreationDate="2019-11-29T06:25:42.803" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="23506" PostId="12933" Score="0" Text="Johan88 - I don't know of any connection apart from the words themselves." CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:12:39.830" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23513" PostId="12934" Score="3" Text="&quot;Deriving &quot;culture&quot; from &quot;cultura&quot; leads to associate the idea of culture with the idea of progress. It tends to make of culture a normative idea.&quot; This assertion really doesn't make any sense to me. I think you need to unpack this a bit and really think about whether that logical leap is justified." CreationDate="2019-11-30T05:57:06.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23525" PostId="12934" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer. At &quot; colo&quot; I read ( in Gaffiot) &quot;taking care of&quot; , but also  &quot;to ornate&quot; . When one &quot; cultivates&quot; , one develops , tends to make the cultivated thing better. Hence the idea of improvement, of progress." CreationDate="2019-12-01T19:08:38.377" UserDisplayName="user6328" />
  <row Id="23514" PostId="12937" Score="2" Text="I edited *possido* to *possideo*, since I'm pretty sure that's what you meant." CreationDate="2019-11-30T15:38:04.820" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23526" PostId="12937" Score="0" Text="Yes, sorry, you're totally right." CreationDate="2019-12-01T20:13:11.500" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="23566" PostId="12937" Score="0" Text="An alternative to _possideo_ is _habeo_. As in, _animus habet cuncta neque ipse habetur_ (&quot;the spirit/mind dominates everything and nothing dominates it&quot;)." CreationDate="2019-12-04T16:59:48.040" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23523" PostId="12940" Score="0" Text="Any explanation for the strange positioning of ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις?" CreationDate="2019-12-01T15:26:59.853" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23528" PostId="12940" Score="3" Text="@fdb It is strange-looking, but less-focused constituents tend to float around very freely in Greek prose -- they often wind up where one wouldn't expect them, apparently largely for reasons of sentence rhythm and the like. Here the &quot;logical&quot; position would be rather after μέν, but I'm guessing Plato wanted to give some more emphasis to ἥμισυ παντός by placing it first." CreationDate="2019-12-01T22:06:56.133" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23532" PostId="12942" Score="1" Text="Note that your example  _cum sibi nullius essent conscii culpae_ is from Cicero (_Off_. 3, 73). The one that corresponds to the ref. (Virgil, _Aen_. I, 604) is the following one: _mens sibi conscia recti_." CreationDate="2019-12-02T01:22:00.630" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45480" PostId="12942" Score="1" Text="It is dative because guilt is being given or transferred to someone. When there is a transfer of something from one person to another then it is dative. So here guilt is being assigned to sibi. Also, the quote from what I can tell is: &quot;sibi autem nullius essent conscii culpae&quot; (however, they were conscious of no guilt to themselves)" CreationDate="2023-11-15T20:22:42.170" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45484" PostId="12942" Score="0" Text="The line from *Aeneis* 1.604 is incorrect. The actual line is si quid 603| 604 Usquam iustitiae est, et mens sibi conscia recti. You quote the Wikipedia article: &quot;There were, however, many occurrences in Latin writings of the phrase *conscius sibi*&quot;. Wish Wikipedia would have quoted them! Best regards." CreationDate="2023-11-15T19:49:15.257" UserId="14378" />
  <row Id="45485" PostId="12942" Score="0" Text="@RichardHawleyTrowbridge [Here you go!](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=sibi%7E+consci)" CreationDate="2023-11-16T00:12:08.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23529" PostId="12944" Score="2" Text="There are also some letters attributed to Attic orators -- Demosthenes, Isocrates, Aeschines (maybe others?) -- but again their authenticity is debated." CreationDate="2019-12-01T22:11:34.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23530" PostId="12944" Score="3" Text="Diogenes Laertius also has some letters attributed to the Seven Sages. Also: authenticity isn't really relevant for epistolary conventions; presumably a forger would know at least how to write letters" CreationDate="2019-12-01T22:21:10.453" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="23533" PostId="12944" Score="0" Text="@ba: ...provided the forged letters were written while those conventions still reigned." CreationDate="2019-12-02T04:56:31.367" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23534" PostId="12944" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your suggestions, I appreciate it." CreationDate="2019-12-02T09:00:32.253" UserId="6339" />
  <row Id="23535" PostId="12945" Score="2" Text="Thank you for the resources you pointed me out, I read some parts of Letter-writing manuals and instruction from antiquity to the present, and I found what I was searching for." CreationDate="2019-12-02T09:01:52.990" UserId="6339" />
  <row Id="23554" PostId="12946" Score="0" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 204; Q1: &quot;If he had not mocked me, I should perhaps have forgiven him.&quot; Impossible conditions; past tense. Answer Book gives: &quot;nisi mihi irisisset forsitan ei ignossem&quot;. Was about to submit a Q on why &quot;mihi&quot; and not &quot;me&quot; given that &quot;irredeo&quot; does not take dative. Is this a case of &quot;intimate knowledge of self&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-12-03T11:49:13.270" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23559" PostId="12946" Score="0" Text="@tony: interesting point!  The use of dative with the compound verb _irridere_ sounds quite natural, doesn't it? In fact, this use is found in some Latin textbooks (e.g., https://books.google.es/books?id=BibAjQXMrTwC&amp;pg=PA207&amp;dq=irridere+dative+latin&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyqyU6prmAhWwAGMBHa2yCt8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=irridere%20dative%20latin&amp;f=false ). However, as you point out, it seems that the dative use is not attested in real texts. I did not carry out any extensive search but I've been unable to find an example of this use. Go ahead with raising this interesting question!" CreationDate="2019-12-04T01:30:38.393" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23563" PostId="12946" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Found: &quot;Grammar of Expression 'Mihi Cordi Est' &quot;. Joonas: Someone who benefits or suffers from an action can be indicated by dative e.g. potesne mihi auxiliari. In Allen &amp; Greenough &quot;Dative of Reference&quot; (377-79): &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother out of regard for me&quot;; &quot;laudavit fratrem meum&quot; would imply no such motive." CreationDate="2019-12-04T12:43:46.943" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23546" PostId="12949" Score="1" Text="Rather &quot;because it turned out well&quot; (*quod* is not the relative pronoun here, because *fama* is feminine -- it would be *quae*)." CreationDate="2019-12-03T02:10:36.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23536" PostId="12950" Score="0" Text="What is the context of this &quot;preferring man?&quot; Homo sapiens is &quot;man who is (being) wise.&quot; If you're looking for &quot;man who is preferring,&quot; your translation might work." CreationDate="2019-12-02T16:38:34.107" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23538" PostId="12950" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for the confirmation that Homo praeferens means man who is preferring.  That's what I was looking for." CreationDate="2019-12-02T21:14:25.707" UserId="6342" />
  <row Id="23549" PostId="12951" Score="1" Text="Hi Sue. Did you try to translate it? Could you include in the questions what you tried?" CreationDate="2019-12-03T05:55:54.993" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23540" PostId="12952" Score="2" Text="A couple of grammatical errors to be aware of: aliquis needs to become quis after si; studes needs to be subjunctive because it's in an indirect question; and although the switch from singular 'anyone' to plural 'them' may be acceptable in English, the use of plural eos in the 'then' clause to refer to the singular aliquis in the 'if' clause doesn't work in Latin; both pronouns need to be either singular or plural." CreationDate="2019-12-02T21:42:32.253" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23557" PostId="12952" Score="0" Text="Wow thank you cnread! I will make those changes forthwith." CreationDate="2019-12-03T23:28:30.537" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23539" PostId="12953" Score="0" Text="I am very grateful for your suggestions. To be more detailed about the findings of the study, we found that the choices of the majority of participants ( by simple majority rule in 2AFC task) always made the perfect rank of the alternatives. That means there is always the most favorite candidate for the majority of people in any set of alternatives. How do you think using the word praeferre ‘carry in front’ since it explains well the finding and seems to have more familiarity than cernere or optans for the current readers of the article?" CreationDate="2019-12-02T21:29:07.810" UserId="6342" />
  <row Id="23541" PostId="12953" Score="0" Text="@Yong-WookShin In this context your alternative seems to me to fit perfectly! While *cernere* indicates a faculty of the human intellect, (and it is still present in languages such as Italian, where *cernita* = selection, sorting), *praeferre* is more strict in isolating one object from a whole set of possibilities. It is also more concrete, identifying an action, material or figurative, deliberated or even instinctive" CreationDate="2019-12-02T22:16:08.077" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23543" PostId="12953" Score="0" Text="Btw, your interesting study reminds me of Buridan's ass, which apparently is in fact a paradox in nature. Really a fascinating topic, if you please I'd like to read the article about this research once finished!" CreationDate="2019-12-02T22:26:21.960" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23544" PostId="12953" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for the helpful comments. If you let me know your email address, I can send you the draft or the link for the study." CreationDate="2019-12-02T22:56:17.353" UserId="6342" />
  <row Id="23550" PostId="12953" Score="0" Text="@Yong-WookShin My pleasure! My address is luca.nr@libero.it" CreationDate="2019-12-03T06:31:02.940" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="28834" PostId="12953" Score="0" Text="I like your suggestion, and I think it works. What I don't see is how it is preferable to *praeferens* or *malens* or *judicans* or whatnot." CreationDate="2020-09-01T02:53:20.933" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="23585" PostId="12963" Score="1" Text="I believe *desiderium* is the subject of *pepererat*, and that the decision (via *quam*) is the object. I'm also not sure where you get &quot;in naming it.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-12-05T02:46:01.393" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23596" PostId="12963" Score="0" Text="I'm getting &quot;in naming it&quot; from &quot;in adventu&quot; and I translated it thus since the &quot;arrival&quot; of the expression of the thought is meant here to my mind. It does sound kind of nonsensical to say &quot;... to precede the others at the arrival&quot;, so I translated it more freely. And what makes you believe &quot;desiderium&quot; is the subject? Did I miss something?" CreationDate="2019-12-06T17:31:42.280" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="23598" PostId="12963" Score="0" Text="My reasoning is that *quam* (with antecedent *decisio*) can only be the accusative direct object, and it wouldn't make sense in this context to have two objects." CreationDate="2019-12-06T18:41:08.693" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23606" PostId="12963" Score="0" Text="Well, I reckon that &quot;quam&quot; is an accusative object of &quot;praecedendi&quot; and that - as you said - it refers to &quot;decisio&quot;, because then it would mean that the people try to precede the decision which has not been expressed yet (desiderium quam praecedendi) by naming theirs earlier (in adventu)." CreationDate="2019-12-07T12:45:16.633" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="23607" PostId="12963" Score="0" Text="In your translation, it looks like the object of &quot;precede&quot; is understood as &quot;the others,&quot; rather than the decision itself. (In other words, there seems to be some disagreement between your answer and your explanation.) Either way, gerund + accusative is almost always replaced in Latin with a gerundive, e.g. *cuius praecedendi*." CreationDate="2019-12-07T16:09:18.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23689" PostId="12963" Score="0" Text="You are right, it is better to translate it with something like: [...] to precede it in being named. I will change that." CreationDate="2019-12-15T13:07:03.013" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="23592" PostId="12964" Score="0" Text="side note: Qui is still used for who in atleast three romance languages, French, Occitan and Catalan." CreationDate="2019-12-05T15:05:17.297" UserId="6351" />
  <row Id="23612" PostId="12964" Score="0" Text="My readiness to blindly accept *qui* from the translation table under &quot;how&quot; was probably in no small part informed by the Rhyme on Ger *wie*, and an attempt to stay as short as possible." CreationDate="2019-12-08T13:11:05.010" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23597" PostId="12967" Score="0" Text="If I remember correctly, in the original question there also was the information that each participant of the dinner tried to stand out in the discussion, which has unfortunately been removed though in the course of the edit." CreationDate="2019-12-06T17:41:03.400" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="23588" PostId="12968" Score="7" Text="I'm sorry if this comes across as rude - it's not meant to be - but could you avoid writing (so many) sentences with implied subject? I think it detracts from readability, which is a pity because you ask good questions." CreationDate="2019-12-05T12:24:15.553" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23589" PostId="12968" Score="0" Text="@Vincenzo Oliva: I've been in trouble, recently, over asking Qs; but, thank you. In English it is not &quot;good form&quot; to keep repeating first-person pronoun &quot;I&quot;. Therefore, (I) try to keep it to a minimum." CreationDate="2019-12-05T12:38:18.637" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23590" PostId="12968" Score="5" Text="That may be true, but I'm pretty sure it's not really better to go to the other extreme. Just my 2 cents anyway, cheers." CreationDate="2019-12-05T12:45:23.537" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23593" PostId="12968" Score="0" Text="In this question I had trouble figuring out, at times, who the implicit subject was. I would rather see a subject repeated than be confused." CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:22:19.883" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="23594" PostId="12968" Score="0" Text="Omitting the (repeated) subject is a &quot;good form&quot; in Latin, Greek or Slavic languages, where other grammar categories reduce the ambiguity it might introduce. In English, I have always thought it's a mistake to omit the subject, even when it's just &quot;I&quot;, but this might be wrong, or true for some dialects only." CreationDate="2019-12-06T07:35:53.743" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="23595" PostId="12968" Score="4" Text="Tony, I'm not sure where your &quot;good form&quot; comes from, but I'm sure that whoever recommends avoiding &quot;I&quot; doesn't mean just to leave it out." CreationDate="2019-12-06T15:15:32.630" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="29339" PostId="12970" Score="0" Text="Please note that it is &quot;pelicane&quot; with only one L. Otherwise, there's nothing to add to @brianpck's answer below." CreationDate="2020-10-13T16:44:22.023" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="23621" PostId="12973" Score="0" Text="I am very grateful for your explanation. Gives me something more to consider before beginning the work." CreationDate="2019-12-09T20:11:28.243" UserId="6364" />
  <row Id="23602" PostId="12976" Score="0" Text="Ah okay, so 'permitteretur' is more impersonal in this sentence (i.e. it may be allowed)? I think one of the reasons I was confused was because I thought it would be something like 'he may be allowed/permitted'. Thank you!" CreationDate="2019-12-06T21:20:06.463" UserId="6175" />
  <row Id="23603" PostId="12976" Score="0" Text="@HafsahH - Yes, it's more impersonal (though, as I said, the grammatical subject is really the ut...mitterent clause). Note that although in English we can change '(someone) permits him (to do something)' to a passive by saying 'he is permitted (to do something),' in Latin, if the verb permittere is used, the person that you permit to do something is dative, not accusative; so 'he' wouldn't become the subject of the passive verb but would remain the dative indirect object." CreationDate="2019-12-06T21:51:13.167" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23601" PostId="12980" Score="3" Text="Just to point out that the original Greek text does exactly the same thing: καὶ ἐξέφνης ἐγένετο σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου αἰνούντων τὸν θεὸν καὶ λεγόντων." CreationDate="2019-12-06T20:53:24.113" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23604" PostId="12980" Score="0" Text="One angel with (i.e. plus) one multitude make a grammatical plural." CreationDate="2019-12-06T22:12:09.310" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23605" PostId="12980" Score="0" Text="@cnread Good point. So maybe it's influenced by the grammar of the Greek." CreationDate="2019-12-07T00:03:02.363" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="23599" PostId="12982" Score="1" Text="Okay so if I get it right, he/she/it like we would use in English is written with no pronouns, himself/herself/itself is written with αὐτός and this one or anything more &quot;demonstrative&quot; is written with οὗτος? (roughly)" CreationDate="2019-12-06T20:14:02.373" UserId="6339" />
  <row Id="23600" PostId="12982" Score="0" Text="@AlexandreDaubricourt Yes, that's right." CreationDate="2019-12-06T20:34:08.600" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23608" PostId="12983" Score="2" Text="Why do you think that it's random? There are certainly exceptions, but in general the gender is quite consistent between Latin and, say, French or Spanish." CreationDate="2019-12-07T16:14:39.297" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23609" PostId="12983" Score="0" Text="In French, I don't have the impression. Do you have rules about genders + ending in Latin, and their equivalent in Romance languages? I should edit the question to add &quot;if you have some rules, I would be interested&quot;. In Spanish and French, both from Latin, and genders aren't consistent at all between those 2 languages." CreationDate="2019-12-07T17:32:02.663" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23610" PostId="12983" Score="0" Text="For instance: Latin dactylus, el dátil (masculine, Spanish), il dattero (masculine, Italian), la datte (feminine, French)." CreationDate="2019-12-08T05:23:31.577" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23625" PostId="12984" Score="0" Text="Thank you, this is helpful. I wish I could accept all three answers." CreationDate="2019-12-10T17:10:59.890" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="23624" PostId="12985" Score="2" Text="Wow, three good answers, two very close to each other. It's going to be hard to choose which one to accept!" CreationDate="2019-12-10T17:09:17.527" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="23631" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I understand that &quot;mihi&quot; is an (object) argument, it is NOT an optional extra. The &quot;Datives-with-Compounds&quot; seems to represent indirect objects: &quot;praeficere imperatorem bello&quot; = &quot;to prefer a man as Commander-in-Chief (direct object) in a war (indirect object; dative). Both of these grammatical concepts tempt the student to use accusative, direct object, &quot;me&quot; instead of &quot;mihi&quot;, in (N &amp; H) &quot;nisi mihi irisisset…&quot;. Sadly, I am still not 100% clear as to the deployment of &quot;mihi&quot;. What if a student uses &quot;me&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-12-11T13:02:07.933" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23633" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="Re. Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12785/1982 one suggestion: &quot;quomodo te habes&quot; = &quot;How do you regard you?&quot; = &quot;How do you do?&quot; After studies on the dative, how about: &quot;quomodo tibi habes?&quot; = &quot;How do you regard yourself?&quot; Is this valid?" CreationDate="2019-12-11T13:19:47.597" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23639" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="@tony As for your first question, the verb _irridere_ takes accusative in the attested/real examples (so the student should use &quot;me&quot;). The fact that N&amp;H use dative in their invented (?) example _nisi mihi irrisisset, ..._ is to be attributed to the fact that the dative with compound/prefixed verbs (see the A&amp;G link above) is also a usual (and indeed quite productive!) construction in Latin." CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:14:06.827" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23640" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="@tony As for your second question, note that the verb _habere_ is strongly **transitive**, whereby  the example _quomodo tibi habes?_ sounds quite bad in Latin." CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:17:26.507" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23654" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="After further studies: A &amp; G; 362(a): &quot;Many verbs have a transitive &amp; intransitive use and take either accusative + dative, or dative alone.&quot; Ex. &quot;concidere amicis quidquid velint&quot; = &quot;to grant to friends all they may desire&quot;; &quot;amicos&quot; might have been used here. Does this parallel the N &amp; H example?" CreationDate="2019-12-12T11:01:14.963" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23703" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="Given that the ex. from (N &amp; H) is made up, here's one from the literature: &quot;ille terrarum mihi praetor omnis angulus ridet&quot; (Horace Ode 2.6) = &quot;that corner of the world smiles at me&quot;. The assumption is that &quot;rideo&quot; &amp; &quot;irrideo&quot; behave identically. Verb, &quot;rideo&quot; means &quot;to laugh at&quot;; preposition &quot;at&quot; is included; therefore, it ought to take accusative direct-object, &quot;me&quot;. Consider: Glosbe (uses of &quot;rideo&quot;): &quot;audi mamma, pueri etiam me rident&quot; (C.T. Lewis). (A &amp; G) give a number of examples of dative indirect-object; the best of these, &quot;bello&quot;, cited above." CreationDate="2019-12-17T09:52:49.593" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23704" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="Continuing: Also (A &amp; G; 387-388): &quot;nisi me fallit&quot; = &quot;unless I am mistaken&quot; = &quot;unless it deceives me&quot;. Therefore, &quot;to be mocked (N &amp; H)&quot; and &quot;to be deceived&quot; are  treated differently--what is the logic, here? (It is so, I think, that the victim of the mocking (I/ me/ myself) is a direct object.). Compound verb, &quot;irrideo&quot; seems very close in meaning to parent verb, &quot;rideo&quot;; does this justify the use of &quot;mihi&quot; (compound/ prefixed verbs, ( A &amp; G)--to (N &amp; H) it does?" CreationDate="2019-12-17T10:12:16.537" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23705" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="I didn't complete the translation: &quot;....smiles at me more than anywhere else.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-12-17T10:15:50.270" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23706" PostId="12993" Score="0" Text="@tony I interpret the dative _mihi_  of your example from Horace as an adjunct since it is not semantically selected by the verb _ridet_. Accordingly, I've seen it translated differently (cf. page 63: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f0d8/446f7a8cc2de1ebd94f509124dcde05c0be5.pdf ): &quot;the corner of the earth smiles **for me** &quot;. In contrast, the dative associated to the compound/prefixed verb _irridere_ has argumental status since it is semantically selected by the complex verb." CreationDate="2019-12-17T17:42:36.287" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23632" PostId="12998" Score="1" Text="Thank you. A literal translation: &quot; he praised (my) brother----for me&quot;: it begins to, almost, make sense. For full clarity, the &quot;missing link&quot; must be along the lines of liking/ respect/ regard--QED. Thanks for pointing the way. Cicero: &quot;What is Tulliola doing (for me).&quot;; &quot;You are defending, of all things, the art of risk-taking (for me).&quot; The Portuguese: &quot;The dog died (for me).&quot; Learned a new Portuguese word, &quot;pirralha&quot;, today. Bolsanaro's description of Greta Thunberg." CreationDate="2019-12-11T13:12:04.610" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23835" PostId="12998" Score="0" Text="Ahahah, now I've learnt a new word, too!" CreationDate="2019-12-26T20:18:03.970" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23623" PostId="12999" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! If you register your account, you get some privileges already based on the reputation earned from this answer, allowing you to use the site more freely." CreationDate="2019-12-10T10:39:36.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23627" PostId="13002" Score="2" Text="Great first question, and you are right to be wary of Google Translate! I edited so that the Latin is in quotes rather than code blocks." CreationDate="2019-12-11T00:38:05.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23991" PostId="13003" Score="0" Text="To my knowledge, dubitatus would mean something like 'having been hesitated over' (i.e., it's passive in meaning). Perhaps just dubius would work instead? (Though in that case, to make the time distinction explicit, you'd need to add something like the adverb ante)." CreationDate="2020-01-13T01:46:05.207" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23641" PostId="13004" Score="1" Text="As an aside, if you use PHI to do a corpus search for 'archaic' forms, you have to be a bit careful about the results for Sallust. The text that's used there is Kurfess's 1957 Teubner, which is a bit infamous for that editor's heavy-handed emendation of the text so that it consistently includes archaic forms such as quom and quoi/quoius, even when there's no manuscript support for them (and the MSS are very inconsistent about these forms). It makes for an interesting reading experience. Still, the 7 occurrences of minume that you found are corroborated by Reynold's more sober OCT." CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:21:25.383" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23635" PostId="13005" Score="1" Text="Does that mean the first _u_ in _documentum_ and _monumentum_ was most likely pronounced [ɨ] in Classical Latin? Do we know when the sound got closer to short _i_? (Interestingly, _monimento_ was also a thing in Old Italian but not _*docimento_ - indeed [_monimentum_](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=monimentum) appears to be way more common than [_docimentum_](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=docimentum))" CreationDate="2019-12-11T14:57:51.990" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23636" PostId="13005" Score="1" Text="@VincenzoOliva Not sure, but that could be a good question! I figured the pronunciations changed at the same time because the phonological environments are pretty similar, and it was just a spelling convention to keep the *u* there." CreationDate="2019-12-11T16:14:55.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23630" PostId="13008" Score="0" Text="Thanks. So just to make my understating more complete. I tend to evaluate &quot;non est&quot; as &quot;is not&quot; . is the usage of &quot;there is no&quot; is common?" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:49:27.097" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23637" PostId="13008" Score="1" Text="@d_e yes, both translations are correct. Notice that the so-called **existential** reading ('there is (no)') is related to the **possessive dative** construction. In the specialized linguistic literature, this construction has sometimes been referred to as a &quot;**dative subject** construction&quot; (e.g., cf. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4818977.pdf  or http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:757609/FULLTEXT01 )." CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:00:31.797" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23638" PostId="13008" Score="0" Text="Wow. that's news for me. I knew that we can say &quot;mihi est liber&quot; to say &quot;I have a book&quot; , but I didn't know we can say &quot;mihi non est liber&quot; to say that I don't have a book." CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:12:50.323" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23644" PostId="13008" Score="0" Text="@d_e The possessive dative construction is not incompatible with negation: e.g., cf. https://books.google.es/books?id=M2aqp2n2mKkC&amp;pg=PA251&amp;lpg=PA251&amp;dq=%22mihi+non+est+aliquid%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PPuby2vj3M&amp;sig=ACfU3U0IhhlhTYCgMgjdGb_cncxIKDFgWg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiau9TPrq7mAhVYA2MBHZcBCe8Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22mihi%20non%20est%20aliquid%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:57:25.827" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23661" PostId="13008" Score="0" Text="I would suggest that this is extrapositioning, not topicalization. A topic should be in the unmarked/nominative form (nominativus pendens)." CreationDate="2019-12-12T16:14:11.783" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23665" PostId="13008" Score="0" Text="@fdb Well, it depends on how one understands (and applies to Latin) the **typical** definition of 'extraposition' (e.g., cf. the monograph on Latin word order by Devine &amp; Stephens (2006: 29): &quot;we shall occasionally mention extraposition analyses, according to which an element moves to a higher position to the **right** (sc. periphery))&quot;.  Cf. also a typical definition of &quot;Extraposition is a mechanism of syntax that alters word order in such a manner that a relatively 'heavy' constituent appears to the right of its canonical position&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-12T18:39:24.820" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23669" PostId="13008" Score="0" Text="@fdb There are lots of definitions of topic, but in the discourse pragmatics / information structure sense there's no reason it should be confined to any particular case." CreationDate="2019-12-13T00:06:30.700" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23648" PostId="13010" Score="1" Text="&quot;...is not a number?&quot; This reading might work in terms of syntax (though I don't know if there are examples of a possessive adjective coordinated with a genitive), but it doesn't make much sense to me." CreationDate="2019-12-11T22:36:18.233" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23649" PostId="13010" Score="1" Text="@TKR. I was taking numerus somewhat loosely: '...is not a quantifiable thing'. Even so, you may be right that that doesn't work very well. Still, as I said, the coordinated use of possessive adj. with genitive is quite common, though it will be a nightmare to search for examples; perhaps I'll run across one during my reading over the course of the week." CreationDate="2019-12-12T01:13:55.277" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23650" PostId="13010" Score="1" Text="@cnread I'm afraid that your translation involving the coordination 'The great virtue of you and of your wisdom...'  does not apply here. Cf. supra. Note also that the very same sequence _sapientiae tuae non est numerus_ is repeated as an **independent** syntactic chunk below, in V.5 (cf. https://books.google.es/books?id=Y3wWAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA47&amp;dq=%22sapientiae+tuae+non+est+numerus.+ipse+autem+unigenitus+factus+est%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiL3ujSma_mAhXkA2MBHWwGCgAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22sapientiae%20tuae%20non%20est%20numerus.%20ipse%20autem%20unigenitus%20factus%20est%22&amp;f=false )." CreationDate="2019-12-12T04:03:02.877" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23651" PostId="13010" Score="1" Text="I think the parallel from Ps 146:5 (quoted in my answer) excludes this reading." CreationDate="2019-12-12T04:16:17.240" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23652" PostId="13012" Score="1" Text="Glad to see you've given arguments in line with my previous 2nd thought above. Your 2nd and 3rd arguments above are indeed very suggestive that the genitive reading is probably the correct one. +1vote!" CreationDate="2019-12-12T04:55:38.503" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23653" PostId="13012" Score="3" Text="Another argument for the genitive reading is that datives of possession usually have human referents." CreationDate="2019-12-12T05:47:45.600" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23664" PostId="13012" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's a good point.  I can't think of a single example of a dative of possession where that was not the case." CreationDate="2019-12-12T17:03:05.017" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23666" PostId="13012" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour It's true that, typically, the possessor is animate and the possessum is inanimate (both in the _habere_ and dat. + _esse_ constructions). However, some cases do not follow this prototypical description. E.g., cf. section &quot;4.26 The verb _sum_ in the so-called possessive construction&quot; from Pinkster (2015:109), where several examples are given. E.g., cf. _Quid est enim iam non modo pudori, probitati, virtuti, rectis studiis, bonis artibus sed omnino libertati ac saluti loci?_ (Cic. _Fam._ 5.16.4) or _Tum neque nomen erat, nec honos aut gloria monti_  (Verg. _Aen._ 12, 135), i.a." CreationDate="2019-12-12T20:28:10.247" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23667" PostId="13014" Score="1" Text="Interesting; it refers to a Mas Femina pair in bronze, and a Twin brother Gemini pair. I was expecting a horsemen pair like the chessmen and Demetrios Georgios: did I dream it?" CreationDate="2019-12-12T22:39:26.993" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23668" PostId="13014" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I preferred to edit the question since the space allowed for comments is quite reduced" CreationDate="2019-12-12T23:21:48.803" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="47457" PostId="13014" Score="0" Text="So interesting in general the 'twins' theme(a) from antiquity." CreationDate="2024-01-31T23:58:09.563" UserDisplayName="user2840" />
  <row Id="23912" PostId="13015" Score="1" Text="You probably want to change 900 to 1900.  I tried to edit this days ago but the moderators haven't gotten to reviewing it" CreationDate="2020-01-03T01:18:59.590" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23670" PostId="13016" Score="1" Text="Perhaps of interest: https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf" CreationDate="2019-12-13T15:10:03.270" UserId="1142" />
  <row Id="23671" PostId="13016" Score="0" Text="@EthanBierlein Thanks for this interesting document. I've taken a look at it and I've realized that it basically deals with the connection between (historical) &quot;middle voice&quot; and Latin deponent verbs. However, I've been unable to see any reference to the treatment of so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; in the sense of the links/video above." CreationDate="2019-12-13T17:52:31.950" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23685" PostId="13016" Score="0" Text="The basic answer is that Latin had already lost the middle voice, if it ever had any. Are you interested in the various substitutions under which the middle voice could be subsurmized, or only in the specific examples. I mean, I thought Spanish &quot;the vase broke itself&quot; was a proper continuation of middle voice, which McWorther talking about reflexive pronouns has compared to &quot;the car broke down *on me*&quot;" CreationDate="2019-12-14T22:15:58.493" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23690" PostId="13016" Score="0" Text="@vectory As noted above, so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (e.g., _These dishes break easily_) are different from ergatives (e.g., _These dishes broke_). The former have a **generic** meaning and often require an adverbial expression (e.g., _easily_). As noted above, agentive verbs can enter into the middle construction but not in the ergative one: cf. the well-formation of _These books {read/sell} well_ vs. the ill-formation of *_These books {read/sold}_. Note that &quot;the vase broke (by itself)&quot; (or its Romance equivalent with reflexive) is not a middle construction (in the sense above)." CreationDate="2019-12-15T17:23:36.243" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23695" PostId="13016" Score="0" Text="@Mitomano, and what about &quot;these dishes broke easily&quot;? I expect it has to be translated with care." CreationDate="2019-12-16T03:04:46.983" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23702" PostId="13016" Score="1" Text="@vectory You're right. In some cases it is not always easy to distinguish them formally. Some nice contrasts given in the first link above are: cf. _*The glass broke with a hammer_ (ergative) with _This glass breaks easily with a hammer_ (middle). The former is ungrammatical, whereas the latter is ok. This contrast has to do with the fact that ergatives are incompatible with instrumentals, which require an agent, whereas middles are compatible with them. That's why middles are compatible with agentive verbs (_These books read/sell easily_), whereas ergatives aren't (*_These books read/sold_)." CreationDate="2019-12-16T19:16:54.370" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23672" PostId="13020" Score="1" Text="Note that, in classical Latin at least, you can't make *esse* (or any other infinitive) the object of *in* (or any other preposition). Or perhaps this is a Medieval or later construction that aims to imitate a Greek articular infinitive? I do quite like your second translation, though I'm not sure it very accurately captures the sentiment that the original poster is trying to express." CreationDate="2019-12-13T19:55:11.637" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23673" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your comment! I perfectly agree with you. Yes, I'm aware that mine is quite a risky attempt, on the line of the Medieval *in esse*, *in posse*, etc. It is true that I took the freedom of using esse as a nominal predicate accompanied by a noun and not as a verbal one" CreationDate="2019-12-13T20:11:26.697" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23674" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="Ah, so it is a Medievalism then. Interesting. And would nominative case be used for the predicate noun with such an infinitive? In classical Latin, an accusative would be used. So, for 'To be a human is x', I'd say esse hominem est…." CreationDate="2019-12-13T22:09:18.957" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23675" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="The verb *esse* is never transitive, so we cannot use an accusative; we should say *esse homo est...*, where *homo* is the one who accomplishes the action or the state expressed by the verb, although the subject of the whole sentence is *esse homo* itself." CreationDate="2019-12-14T09:06:12.713" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23676" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="@cnread **For the use of nominative:** this comes from a relatively recent book, *Logica Magna: fascicule VIII, part 1: Tractatus de Necessitate*. https://i.stack.imgur.com/LJCUl.png, while this other comes from an older work (*De Aristotelis casu et contingenti. Dissertatio inauguralis, etc*): https://i.stack.imgur.com/OjGA9.png" CreationDate="2019-12-14T09:15:45.733" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23677" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="Normally yes, of course, *esse* is intransitive; but that doesn't apply in the case of my example. The subject of an infinitive is accusative, and therefore, a predicate noun/adjective is also accusative, even if, as in my example, the accusative subject isn't explicit. So *esse hominem est...* is correct. In Allen &amp; Greenough's Latin grammar, this rule is given in section 452, Note 2. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the nominative is used in the Medieval construction; I was just wondering whether that's the case." CreationDate="2019-12-14T10:39:39.917" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23678" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="And actually, the two examples that you link to are quite different from the example that I gave, and also from the translation that you gave in your answer, because the esse is a complementary infinitive; therefore, the sentence structure is really just an extended instance of nominative subject + copula + predicate noun (also nominative)." CreationDate="2019-12-14T10:46:12.663" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23679" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="Yes, I totally agree with you. What I was pointing out is that my sentence is not an infinitive construction with accusative, and the examples were meant to show that if we don't have an infinitive there's no way to use the accusative with *esse*" CreationDate="2019-12-14T11:53:59.963" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23680" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="I just looked up at the grammar you mentioned, and that's something I didn't know. Maybe we can say that the sentence non esse cupidum est pecunia is just an unusual case of infinitive, but please let me know your opinion" CreationDate="2019-12-14T12:00:35.470" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23681" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="The ex. in AG may be a tad obscure (Cicero, Paradoxa stoicorum 6.51), but I don't agree that its use of the inf. is unusual; it's a natural extension of the ideas that 1) subject of inf. is acc. and 2) complement is in same case as noun it complements (though that noun isn't expressed here). In fact, Cic. does this 3 times in a row, so it's no mere fluke: non esse cupidum pecunia est, non esse emacem vectigal est; contentum vero suis rebus esse maximae sunt certissimaeque divitiae. The less-obscure ex. I'm familiar with is Sallust, Iug. 31.27: nam inpune quae lubet facere, id est regem esse." CreationDate="2019-12-14T20:09:50.847" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23682" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="At any rate, this is getting off topic. If the construction that you used is Medieval, and if that Medieval construction uses the nominative case for predicate nouns/adjs. with esse, so be it. I rarely read Medieval Latin, so I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of its grammar. I don't suppose you can update your answer to provide an example of the 'in esse' construction that you used there (or the 'in posse' construction that you referred to in an earlier comment)?" CreationDate="2019-12-14T20:18:27.110" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23694" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="@cnread sry, i meant an unusual case of infinitive sentence, I got confused since in English the verb and the type of sentence are called the same. Nevertheless, I edited the answer; there are only a few examples that can be found on this topic, that is quite spiny imo. Again, the examples for the nominative are not specifically related, they are just meant to justify the use of nominative, if we do not have an infinitive sentence." CreationDate="2019-12-15T22:44:42.840" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="34610" PostId="13020" Score="0" Text="The examples numbered 489 and 490 struck me as bizarre, not just for the infinitive verbs but because the nouns and adjectives are all in the nominative. I would have made 489 _Sunt homines nomine tantum, non re, qui homine indigna faciunt._ How could there be so many errors? Google found the sentence in a book titled _Exercises to the Accidence,_ consisting of sentences lacking proper inflection, which the student must correct. This might explain those two examples (but not the others). What do you think?" CreationDate="2021-08-19T04:29:56.647" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34612" PostId="13020" Score="1" Text="Wiktionary suggests that _esse_ in Medieval Latin became used as an indeclinable noun meaning state or condition. So, _in esse naturae_ would mean &quot;in the state of nature&quot;. This sounds like it calls for a new question!" CreationDate="2021-08-19T05:06:00.673" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="23698" PostId="13025" Score="0" Text="Oh, and let us know 5he channel when you start!" CreationDate="2019-12-16T05:37:03.153" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23710" PostId="13034" Score="2" Text="I would take this as a dative of possession, actually, even though &quot;there is&quot; works for it in English. (In other words, I'd translate it as &quot;your wisdom has no limit&quot;.)" CreationDate="2019-12-18T00:58:19.410" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23725" PostId="13034" Score="0" Text="Didn't we discuss this very passage on here recently?" CreationDate="2019-12-19T11:19:52.337" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23727" PostId="13034" Score="0" Text="https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13006/grammar-of-sapientiae-tuae-non-est-numerus/13012#13012" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:24:09.950" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23868" PostId="13039" Score="0" Text="MDCCCC rather ?" CreationDate="2019-12-28T22:11:37.960" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23876" PostId="13039" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Please consider registering your account and taking a look at [our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). On the answer itself: Did you mean IIX instead of IIV? Abbreviation from VIII makes more sense than from III to me." CreationDate="2019-12-29T20:39:54.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23719" PostId="13041" Score="0" Text="A couple of clarifications on your answer: (i) the negative prefix (e.g., the one in _irreverens_ 'in-reverens') and the directional one (e.g., the one in _irridere_ 'in-ridere') must be distinguished; (ii) the prefix of _**ir**ridere_ does make a difference wrt _ridere_. Note that, unlike the unprefixed verb, the complex verb becomes directional. This said, you're right when saying &quot;compound verbs (sc. like _irridere_) take dative objects, though it would be more accurate to say the prefixes applied to the parent verbs do&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-18T16:28:33.103" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23734" PostId="13041" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The conclusion, therefore, is that the directional (prefixed) verb requires the dative &quot;mihi irisisset&quot;; the non-directional (parent) verb requires accusative direct-object &quot;me risisset&quot;. Is this correct?" CreationDate="2019-12-20T12:18:40.990" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23747" PostId="13041" Score="0" Text="What I've pointed out is that the prefixed verb _irridere_ can take accusative and, less frequently, dative, the latter being due to the directional prefix. The reason why some prefixed verbs can take a &quot;directional dative&quot; is quite complex (https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cjol/cjol_a2017v16/cjol_a2017v16p19.pdf ). Furthermore, another conclusion is that it's not the case that all datives are created equal: some are selected by the directional prefix, others are selected by the verbal root (e.g., _nocere_), others are not selected but are adjuncts (e.g., so-called 'datives of reference'), etc." CreationDate="2019-12-21T00:39:43.127" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23748" PostId="13041" Score="0" Text="According to dictionaries, the unprefixed verb _ridere_ can take accusative and dative but, for the purposes of the present question, I would not analyze the latter as a &quot;dative of reference&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-21T01:03:19.027" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23721" PostId="13042" Score="0" Text="So the idea is that there was a contraction rule whereby V1V2 &gt; V2: (if I understand correctly)? If so it surely can't go back to PIE as these words would not have been originally vowel-initial -- it must rather be Proto-Greek. (Btw the Sihler quote seems to be about a different question; but I see Sihler does address this topic in section 87, along the same lines as Buck.)" CreationDate="2019-12-18T22:13:57.533" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23722" PostId="13043" Score="0" Text="To clarify, I'm not asking about cases of contraction as in κακοῦργος -- that's regular; my question is about cases where the first element loses its final vowel and the initial vowel of the second element is lengthened." CreationDate="2019-12-18T22:17:27.163" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23728" PostId="13044" Score="1" Text="Can you provide more context--perhaps the full sentence? Your ellipses seem to be omitting some critical information beyond just &quot;we give.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-12-19T14:11:02.570" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23729" PostId="13044" Score="0" Text="I made some edits and added a photo of the sheet I have." CreationDate="2019-12-19T15:08:56.350" UserId="6356" />
  <row Id="23736" PostId="13047" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5010/how-to-write-gate-of-worlds-in-latin/" CreationDate="2019-12-20T14:18:40.357" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="23730" PostId="13048" Score="4" Text="Latin wikipedia agrees with the plural, and Italian (&quot;guerre stellari&quot;) is also plural. Strangely (judging from Wikipedia), French, German, Greek, and Spanish all seem to favor &quot;war [sing.] of the stars [pl.]&quot;--or, in the case of Spanish, &quot;de las galaxias&quot;" CreationDate="2019-12-20T01:07:27.953" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23737" PostId="13048" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Huh.  The Spanish name implies that there's more than one galaxy involved?" CreationDate="2019-12-20T14:35:18.210" UserId="4715" />
  <row Id="23741" PostId="13048" Score="1" Text="It was a tough choice between Bella Stellaria and Bella Siderea, but I will go with yours as that seems to be much more common and on Wikipedia too." CreationDate="2019-12-20T20:44:01.600" UserId="6383" />
  <row Id="23742" PostId="13048" Score="0" Text="@alekdimi It's more common because it's more familiar from cognates in modern languages, not because it's correct.  It's like a native German speaker using &quot;good&quot; as an adverb in English just because &quot;gut&quot; works like that in German" CreationDate="2019-12-20T23:08:16.147" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23743" PostId="13048" Score="0" Text="@alekdimi And a check of Lewis and Short confirms that *stellaria* (and also for its other inflections) is not even attested as a word in classical Latin." CreationDate="2019-12-20T23:17:53.643" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23749" PostId="13048" Score="0" Text="If you insist on *stella* I suppose you could try a locative to keep it classical (*bella stellis*).  That strains the locative, but it still sounds better to me than a genitive.   But even with the locative *bella sideribus* is better, as being less likely to roast the combatants alive. :)" CreationDate="2019-12-21T01:11:02.977" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23753" PostId="13048" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour I'd hardly think that a post-classical usage would discount this as a good answer (unless the question were, &quot;How would Cicero say *Star Wars*?&quot;). One point in favor of *Bella Stellaria* is that, by some linguistic luck, it reproduce pretty exactly the similar sound: *S**tar** W**ar**s* vs. *B**ell**a St**ell**aria*." CreationDate="2019-12-21T15:26:28.153" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23758" PostId="13048" Score="0" Text="Even so, *Bella Stellaria* would refer to wars about a particular star, not wars out among the stars generally.  I'm sure you've seen *Star Wars*.  Which is an accurate description? :)" CreationDate="2019-12-21T16:19:55.663" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23763" PostId="13048" Score="0" Text="You have changed my mind, I have updated my chosen answer." CreationDate="2019-12-21T19:25:09.793" UserId="6383" />
  <row Id="23766" PostId="13048" Score="0" Text="@brianpck &quot;Star Wars&quot; rhymes with &quot;Are Ores&quot;, at least to me, so not as close as the spelling alone suggests." CreationDate="2019-12-22T03:56:49.203" UserId="1582" />
  <row Id="23773" PostId="13048" Score="0" Text="I don't see how resemblance of the wrong word in Latin to the right word in other languages is a reason to suggest the wrong word, especially for someone who professes to care whether people get unfortunate tattoos..." CreationDate="2019-12-22T15:43:05.543" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23774" PostId="13048" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour I think it is a very strong statement to say that *stella* is wrong. Recognizability is one of the arguments I present, and I certainly would not use that to excuse a wrong word. But I do sincerely think that *stella* is valid (as is *sidus*) for this use, and I did write a whole paragraph about translating &quot;star&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-22T15:50:06.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23770" PostId="13051" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot for this great answer." CreationDate="2019-12-22T12:46:49.447" UserId="6356" />
  <row Id="23738" PostId="13052" Score="1" Text="This has the added benefit of being a classically attested word!" CreationDate="2019-12-20T15:01:54.290" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23781" PostId="13052" Score="0" Text="I think you're going too far by saying that *stellaria* is an incorrect translation. Regarding English usage, &quot;stellar cluster,&quot; &quot;stellar nursery,&quot; and &quot;stellar parallax&quot; are counterexamples. Regarding Latin usage, I'm not sure why you think it could only refer to a particular star: consider *famularis*, *columbarius*, etc., which all can refer to one or many *famuli*, *columbi*, etc." CreationDate="2019-12-22T21:50:51.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23785" PostId="13052" Score="0" Text="@brianpck When there is an established alternative with the right semantics, choosing the other one suggests a different meaning.  *Sidus* and *stella* have an established contrast; you don't cite similar situations with your Latin examples.  Regarding the English terms, which aren't strictly relevant, for the first the correct English phrase is &quot;star cluster&quot;, for the third parallax is a property of each star individually, just as much as mass and luminosity are." CreationDate="2019-12-23T02:48:52.433" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23786" PostId="13052" Score="0" Text="The contrast, as I understand it, is between &quot;star&quot; and &quot;constellation.&quot; Either can be plural, i.e. &quot;stars&quot; and &quot;constellations.&quot; I'm not sure why you think *stellaris* can only refer to a singular star." CreationDate="2019-12-23T03:18:12.790" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23798" PostId="13052" Score="0" Text="*Stella* can be plural, but *stellaris* being marked as plural just means it modifies a plural noun.  But if you mean something common to stars rather than specific to each star, then you need *siderea* rather than *strllaria*." CreationDate="2019-12-23T12:34:02.190" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23800" PostId="13052" Score="1" Text="I understand that's your claim. I just don't see any reason behind it. If anything, &quot;sidereus&quot; seems wholly inappropriate for stars that *aren't* constellations." CreationDate="2019-12-23T13:22:57.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23732" PostId="13053" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you edit your question to give more context? I don't know what *parvum officium* or *BVM* is. Those who can answer probably know, but it'd be nice to make the question clear for the rest of us too." CreationDate="2019-12-20T09:27:56.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23865" PostId="13053" Score="0" Text="Now i know that the online version of this office are wrong. This are rework of IXX century. The original version Is that one of S.Brunonis and the version on Google books  is the only one more appropiate." CreationDate="2019-12-28T13:58:27.730" UserId="6385" />
  <row Id="23739" PostId="13054" Score="1" Text="Could you provide a reference for the first two phrases from the *Breviarium*? I couldn't find them, and they actually seem ungrammatical." CreationDate="2019-12-20T15:34:50.040" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23804" PostId="13054" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the update! It looks like you accidentally changed &quot;signo&quot; to &quot;signum&quot; :)" CreationDate="2019-12-23T20:07:15.903" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23805" PostId="13054" Score="1" Text="I chose to call the picture &quot;signum crucis&quot;, because I did not want to use the ablative &quot;signo&quot; there." CreationDate="2019-12-23T20:17:09.837" UserId="6382" />
  <row Id="23740" PostId="13055" Score="0" Text="The singular imperative of ducere (like dicere, facere, and ferre) has no e at the end." CreationDate="2019-12-20T17:45:20.127" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23751" PostId="13055" Score="0" Text="@cnread: I did check that: &quot;duc&quot; &amp; &quot;duce&quot; are both given (Wiki)." CreationDate="2019-12-21T13:18:28.180" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23765" PostId="13055" Score="0" Text="Sure, but did your source say anything about the usage of each form? According to both the Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge and Allen &amp; Greenough grammars, the forms with *e* occur only in early Latin, and even there the forms without seem to be more common (Sihler, *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin* 73.1 describes the forms with *e* as 'scantily-attested'). If you're deliberately going for an attempt at an Early Latin translation, I recommend making that clear in your answer." CreationDate="2019-12-21T21:02:45.053" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23767" PostId="13055" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Thank you. Added an edit. Happy Christmas." CreationDate="2019-12-22T11:11:49.637" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23733" PostId="13056" Score="0" Text="A. Debugne: &quot;War of the Stars&quot; could be interpreted as the stars are fighting each other. The adjectival thing--&quot;starry&quot; wars--giving the feeling that it's war in outer space." CreationDate="2019-12-20T12:13:02.883" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23735" PostId="13056" Score="3" Text="@tony That kind of ambiguity is inevitable, I would say. Many languages use an official translation meaning &quot;war of stars&quot;. I find adjectives to be more idiomatic than genitives in Latin, but a genitive is still a reasonable choice." CreationDate="2019-12-20T13:18:02.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23761" PostId="13056" Score="0" Text="In French: La guerre des étoiles." CreationDate="2019-12-21T19:17:33.627" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23768" PostId="13056" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That's a fair point -- on second thought, I agree that adjectives would be more natural here." CreationDate="2019-12-22T11:55:39.267" UserId="6386" />
  <row Id="23771" PostId="13056" Score="0" Text="_Bellum Sidereum_ if we take the accepted answer into account?" CreationDate="2019-12-22T15:25:33.350" UserId="2750" />
  <row Id="23775" PostId="13056" Score="0" Text="@Cœur I've edited my post to add `sidereum` following your suggestion. I also added `astrorum` (because this discussion reminded me of `sic itur ad astra`), although it's unpleasant phonetically." CreationDate="2019-12-22T15:58:49.397" UserId="6386" />
  <row Id="23750" PostId="13057" Score="3" Text="Gives a whole new meaning to &quot;The Empire Strikes Back&quot;, err, I mean &quot;Iterum Imperii Oppugnationes&quot; :-)" CreationDate="2019-12-21T03:13:57.657" UserId="1073" />
  <row Id="23780" PostId="13057" Score="0" Text="Some random nobody who knows how to use Google Translate and post to Wikipedia is not &quot;the world&quot;. See the answer by C Monsour for why this translation is wrong." CreationDate="2019-12-22T21:08:05.257" UserId="321" />
  <row Id="23769" PostId="13058" Score="0" Text="Where can i see It?" CreationDate="2019-12-22T12:06:56.803" UserId="6385" />
  <row Id="23777" PostId="13058" Score="0" Text="@user3682770 Just follow the link in the answer. The page has an online reader for the book, and there is a pdf download option below it. // Now that you have earned 20 reputation from the question, you can vote up any questions and answers you like. Please also remember to accept an answer if it you got what you wanted. You can learn more about your privileges and site functionality in [our short introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour)." CreationDate="2019-12-22T17:34:49.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23762" PostId="13059" Score="0" Text="French translation The man is a wolf for the man." CreationDate="2019-12-21T19:18:44.097" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23752" PostId="13060" Score="0" Text="Thanks Nickimite. I like your use of &quot;idem est.&quot; But unfortunately overall phrase doesn't have a &quot;ring&quot; to it. What about using &quot;animated corpse&quot; for zombie?" CreationDate="2019-12-21T14:25:29.910" UserId="6391" />
  <row Id="23759" PostId="13060" Score="4" Text="*consenesco* really just means &quot;to grow old,&quot; so it wouldn't be a good standalone translation of &quot;zombie.&quot;" CreationDate="2019-12-21T17:04:54.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23760" PostId="13060" Score="0" Text="What about using the noun _mortui_ so the phrase would be more like _Mortui idem sunt mortuorum_, the dead are the same to the dead?" CreationDate="2019-12-21T18:11:17.733" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="23754" PostId="13063" Score="0" Text="really better answer than I could imagine. thanks for explaining all this!" CreationDate="2019-12-21T15:43:28.370" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23755" PostId="13063" Score="0" Text="we may say (I'm practicing what I've just learnt) : Augustinus, scriptus ibro, capitulum tertium exemplis vocabuli 'impleo' implevit .( I want to say: Augustine, when the book was written, filled chapter three with examples of the word 'impleo')" CreationDate="2019-12-21T16:05:59.247" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23756" PostId="13063" Score="1" Text="Yes, that works, except you'd want to say &quot;scripto libro&quot;!" CreationDate="2019-12-21T16:10:13.853" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23757" PostId="13063" Score="0" Text="yes you right, I meant to write it :) but because my latin is too weak I wasn't sure about the ppp of &quot;scibo&quot;, so when I found it was scriptus I forgot to use scripto. :)" CreationDate="2019-12-21T16:19:14.390" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23764" PostId="13063" Score="0" Text="A minor point on the translation of your last example: according to the (correct) parsing of the complex sentence and given the syntactic relevance of word order, I understand that the Ablative Absolute should not have &quot;scope&quot; over the main sentence (_refundis_) but **only** over the subordinate one (_restat_). Accordingly, i.e., syntactically speaking, the Ablative Absolute, as an adverbial clause, should only modify the latter." CreationDate="2019-12-21T20:14:59.257" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23776" PostId="13064" Score="0" Text="I'll settle for the last version &quot;Mortuus mortuo mortuus est&quot;. Thanks @Draconis" CreationDate="2019-12-22T16:25:35.820" UserId="6391" />
  <row Id="23772" PostId="13065" Score="2" Text="Please revise either title or content.  The title should not reference adverbs if the question is about present tense copula plus predicate adjective and does not appear to involve any adverbs." CreationDate="2019-12-22T15:39:29.307" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23779" PostId="13065" Score="2" Text="As C Monsour says, the title asks about adverbs (&quot;quickly&quot;, &quot;very&quot;), but the question asks about adjectives (&quot;perturbed&quot;, &quot;alive&quot;). If you change one or the other so they both agree, we'll be able to give better answers." CreationDate="2019-12-22T17:40:42.603" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23808" PostId="13065" Score="0" Text="Sorry about that, thanks for mentioning, I must've been too tired at the time to notice. It's been updated to read 'adjectives' as I had initially intended it to." CreationDate="2019-12-24T07:02:59.280" UserId="6397" />
  <row Id="23778" PostId="13066" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and many thanks for an excellent first answer!" CreationDate="2019-12-22T17:36:45.300" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23782" PostId="13066" Score="0" Text="Is it *stellarius* or [*stellaris*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dstellaris)? I'm seeing both when I look!" CreationDate="2019-12-22T21:51:55.037" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23823" PostId="13066" Score="0" Text="I think you misunderstood my post.  I made no comment on the semantics of the suffix, but on the semantics of the root noun *stella* contrasted with the root noun *sidus*, which conveys the intended meaning." CreationDate="2019-12-25T15:26:00.170" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23825" PostId="13066" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh, right, I forgot about *stēllāris*. *Bella* 'wars' is a neuter plural noun, and both the -ārius and the -āris suffix become -āria in the neuter plural. I have updated my answer accordingly." CreationDate="2019-12-25T23:24:37.040" UserId="6396" />
  <row Id="23826" PostId="13066" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour Alright, I wrongly assumed you were saying that. By the way, interestingly the OLD says the classical but not that-well-regarded poet Hyginus uses the word *stēlla* with the meaning 'constellation' in a couple verses of his work." CreationDate="2019-12-25T23:27:10.953" UserId="6396" />
  <row Id="23824" PostId="13067" Score="2" Text="*De Bellis Sidereis* has a nice ring to it, but the historical echo might fit the movies better if they had been written from an imperial rather than a rebel point of view!" CreationDate="2019-12-25T15:29:15.617" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23783" PostId="13068" Score="0" Text="&quot;Open your mind&quot; in what context? Do you want a general idea of being open-minded? Are you threatening somebody with cracking their skull open? Do you want to express a wish that other people should follow, or are you commanding somebody to reveal the contents of their mind to you? How many people are you addressing -- are you telling yourself to be an example to others, are you telling the world to bend to your will?" CreationDate="2019-12-23T00:58:05.233" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23784" PostId="13068" Score="0" Text="Also, if you were to try translating it yourself, that would give us a bit of insight into what you're looking for. A dictionary like Whitaker's Words can be very useful for this kind of thing." CreationDate="2019-12-23T00:59:18.980" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23788" PostId="13068" Score="0" Text="I tried translating it myslef but I don't know much latin and i want it to be accurate.. I got something like &quot;aperire animo&quot; but i don't know if it's correct. Also &quot;Open your mind&quot; would be addressed to me as if I'm telling myself to open my soul/spirit(mind) or be open to(like shift to) a higher consciousness. I still want it to be &quot;Open your mind&quot; though as if somebody is saying it to me. Something like me telling myself to open my mind to myself and see what is in it. I don't know if you'll understand what I mean since I am pretty bad at explaining but this is the closest i can get to it." CreationDate="2019-12-23T10:09:34.877" UserId="6400" />
  <row Id="23809" PostId="13070" Score="1" Text="Aaah! I see. Gratias tibi ago." CreationDate="2019-12-24T07:10:16.560" UserId="6397" />
  <row Id="23813" PostId="13070" Score="1" Text="As for the three translations you give of _perturbatus sum_, I think it would be better to eliminate the last one ('I had been perturbed'. Cf. _Perturbatus **eram**_). In fact, this construction (perf. participle + _esse_) is triply ambiguous. For more discussion, take a look at: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/on-the-typical-ambiguity-of-porta-clausa-est" CreationDate="2019-12-24T16:59:12.770" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23814" PostId="13070" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Thanks for the comment! Actually as far as I know, it can happen that both the perfect and the plusquamperfect have the same translation, though in different contexts of course" CreationDate="2019-12-24T17:02:34.650" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23806" PostId="13071" Score="1" Text="Is _animō_ meant to be dative or ablative? I would have expected an internal accusative, especially in a sort of poetic context like this." CreationDate="2019-12-24T01:30:43.383" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23807" PostId="13071" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Ablative of respect? This translation seems OK to me, though at first sight it looks wrong because *aperire* is natually taken as an infinitive." CreationDate="2019-12-24T01:51:22.820" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23810" PostId="13071" Score="1" Text="@TKR I also think that “animo” is ablative of respect, just like “animo” in the sentence of Cicero: “Concedo esse deos; doce me igitur unde sint ubi sint quales sint corpore animo vita” (Cic. N.D. 1.65.1): ‘I admit that gods exist; so teach me where they are from, where they are, of what sort they are with respect to body, mind and life’." CreationDate="2019-12-24T09:57:23.453" UserId="6382" />
  <row Id="23882" PostId="13071" Score="4" Text="I'm not convinced that this would sound good to a Roman, and I *am* convinced this would be incorrectly parsed by almost anyone with a smattering of Latin. Why not just go with the readily intelligible, &quot;Aperi mentem&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-12-30T16:00:08.133" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="43143" PostId="13071" Score="0" Text="I agree with @brianpck. This is too literal to be accurate." CreationDate="2023-05-14T02:22:00.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="23815" PostId="13072" Score="2" Text="*Mollio* is a transitive verb meaning &quot;soften (something)&quot;, so this would mean &quot;Make (something) soft by faith&quot;. Anyway &quot;Be susceptible to faith&quot; seems different from &quot;Open your mind&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-24T17:42:17.003" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23817" PostId="13072" Score="0" Text="@TKR: A softening of attitude be it cynicism or disbelief might make the student susceptible to positive influence, wouldn't you agree? A literal translation of &quot;open your mind&quot; would mean what, to a Roman? The great Roman writers were brilliant at massaging meanings to provide definitions, not listed in dictionaries. I'm not that clever; but, even Pock.Ox. gives &quot;mollis&quot; (adj) = &quot;susceptible&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-24T19:08:35.163" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23818" PostId="13072" Score="0" Text="I share TKR's doubts about the verb mollio. At the very least, you'd need to supply some direct object. The use of animum/animos with mollio is well attested, though you should look at the attested passages in OLD or Lewis &amp; Short to evaluate how well the Latin usage aligns with the English meaning that you're aiming at – or how well you judge that attested usage can be 'massaged' to suit the English meaning." CreationDate="2019-12-24T21:20:53.707" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23820" PostId="13072" Score="0" Text="@cnread: How about: &quot;molli animum fidei&quot; or just &quot;molliri&quot; = &quot;to be susceptible&quot;? It &quot;massages&quot; to &quot;having an open mind&quot;, doesn't it? When a literal translation won't work, it's lateral-thinking time. If not &quot;mollire&quot;, then?" CreationDate="2019-12-25T00:15:51.577" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23811" PostId="13073" Score="2" Text="The prefix _ir-_ is not a &quot;contraction&quot; of the infinitive _ire_. It's just an assimilated form of the preverb IN-. For the so-called &quot;assimilation&quot; of prefixes, see https://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/CLAS224/Handouts/assimilation_of_prefixes.htm" CreationDate="2019-12-24T16:33:39.433" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23816" PostId="13073" Score="1" Text="One indication that it isn't the infinitive ire (and it definitely isn't) is the fact that unassimilated forms of this verb (and related words) that start with inrid- occur in great abundance in the extant literature." CreationDate="2019-12-24T18:03:52.760" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23821" PostId="13073" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Does preverb &quot;in&quot; (&quot;ir&quot;)  provide the required sense of direction?" CreationDate="2019-12-25T00:21:46.407" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23822" PostId="13073" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, it's the same directional prefix you can find in, e.g., _**ir**rumpere_ (_**in**-rumpere_ 'to break in')." CreationDate="2019-12-25T01:03:10.130" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27289" PostId="13076" Score="3" Text="Red alert: the name-doctor site is fanciful/crank, full of erroneous folk etymology. So the   Λουκᾶς from Λευκός path is basically fraudulent. I'm sure the answerers here will reassure you about *that*." CreationDate="2020-07-21T14:42:20.037" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="27290" PostId="13076" Score="2" Text="For the record, the [Greek wikidictionary entry](https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/Λουκάς) traces the name to Latin, and, of course, the &quot;Greek&quot; name is not attested a century BC in texts or tombstones.  Just because there is a common IE ancestor, *lewk- ,  this hardly establishes a direct path to the name independent of Latin!" CreationDate="2020-07-21T15:07:42.880" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="27293" PostId="13076" Score="2" Text="Here is the [LGPN entry](http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/lgpn_search.cgi?name=Λουκᾶς), underscoring how *late* the name is attested in the language." CreationDate="2020-07-21T15:41:31.687" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="30696" PostId="13076" Score="2" Text="@CosmasZachos Why did you never turn that into an answer? You're undoubtedly correct." CreationDate="2021-02-08T05:19:30.137" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30701" PostId="13076" Score="1" Text="@cmw  OK, I did. My problem is I cannot comment on the Latin, Etruscan, ... , origins... I can only exclude the Greek connection, and underscore my cynicism about popular name sites. The great majority of them are purveyors of misinformation for names such as Catherine (which is likely Coptic), etc." CreationDate="2021-02-08T14:38:47.287" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="23839" PostId="13080" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I've been using the Vulgate as a rough guide (my Latin is poor), and it has proven more-or-less helpful in determining the words I couldn't read or understand. The Greek on the opposing leaves I have had a much easier time with..." CreationDate="2019-12-27T04:04:41.567" UserId="6409" />
  <row Id="23840" PostId="13082" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you elaborate a little more on how this works? Is *missa* a good translation of &quot;accomplished&quot; or should it be understood less literally? Would &quot;it is accomplished&quot; be used in similar situations as *ite, missa est*? You can edit your answer to add details." CreationDate="2019-12-27T14:46:56.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23848" PostId="13082" Score="0" Text="I think you're thinking of &quot;consummatum est&quot; (Jn 19:30), which were Christ's last words on the cross." CreationDate="2019-12-28T01:33:30.580" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23841" PostId="13083" Score="0" Text="Thanks you for a detailed explanation. Just to make sure I understand the active version [you order me to love you]  is: &quot;me iubes te amare&quot; or, as you wrote: &quot;me iubes me amare&quot; ?" CreationDate="2019-12-27T15:53:34.730" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23842" PostId="13083" Score="0" Text="@d_e Oops! A typo indeed snuck into that one. I was supposed to have two different pronouns and I just edited it." CreationDate="2019-12-27T16:05:11.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23843" PostId="13083" Score="0" Text="Just as a side note, is *volo* actually found with future infinitives like *amatum iri*? I don't think I've ever encountered that." CreationDate="2019-12-27T17:37:56.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23844" PostId="13083" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good point! Future is implied with *volo* + infinitive but I've never seen a future infinitive used. I updated that example." CreationDate="2019-12-27T17:43:39.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23845" PostId="13083" Score="0" Text="@TKR [I had to ask a follow-up question.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/13085/79)" CreationDate="2019-12-27T17:50:27.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38980" PostId="13084" Score="0" Text="Actually. Your version of what maxima is could be one of the definitions. I am pretty sure there were competitions in ancient Rome who says best maxima. In that context my definition fits (people would hardly compete in stating obvious)" CreationDate="2022-07-22T21:38:55.417" UserId="6410" />
  <row Id="23846" PostId="13085" Score="2" Text="The same question could be asked of active infinitives, e.g. *Volo amaturus esse*. (These all sound weird to me, but who knows...)" CreationDate="2019-12-27T20:50:23.153" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23847" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@TKR Indeed! I had no specific reason to pick passive examples." CreationDate="2019-12-27T21:03:58.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23852" PostId="13085" Score="3" Text="Your examples _Volo amatum iri_ and _Volo amaturus esse_ are ungrammatical in Latin (at least, in Early &amp; Classical Latin). But note that this is **not** an idiosyncratic property of the verb _volo_: i.e., future infinitives are not possible in so-called &quot;control structures&quot; (e.g. _Spero amatum iri. // Spero amaturus esse_ are also ungrammatical). In contrast, note that verbs like _sperare_, _censere_, _credere_, etc. do take future infinitives in so-called &quot;AcI&quot; structures: e.g., _Speravi ego istam tibi parituram filium_ (Pl. _Amp._ 718); _Censet eo venturum obviam Poenum_ (Naev. _Bell._ 40)." CreationDate="2019-12-28T05:49:57.463" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23867" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino You could argue against such usage in an answer! If the question was &quot;Is *volo* ever used like this?&quot; then &quot;No, and here's why...&quot; makes a good answer. Insights like that don't need to be hidden in a comment." CreationDate="2019-12-28T20:50:11.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23870" PostId="13085" Score="2" Text="Joonas, my comment was not intended as an answer. I thought it can just help you to (re)frame your interesting question: note that **all** of your examples above involve &quot;control structures&quot;. Perhaps you omitted examples involving &quot;AcI structures&quot; because they sound better to you... In my opinion, we should distinguish **two** questions: (1) whether _velle_ can take a future infinitive in an AcI structure like _sperare_, _censere_, etc. (cf. the two examples above) and (2) why all these verbs (_velle_ included) can take present but not future infinitives in &quot;control structures&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-29T00:50:13.310" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23880" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Welcome back. Why are you using indirect-speech constructions, after &quot;volo&quot;? In your example why not: &quot;volo amari hodie, cras audiri!&quot;? Why invoke &quot;iri&quot;, passive infinitive of &quot;eo&quot;, being used impersonally, giving &quot;it is gone&quot; or &quot;there is a going&quot;. The supine of a verb (which after a verb-of-motion has the meaning &quot;in order to...&quot;) e.g. &quot;auditum&quot;, with &quot;iri&quot; = &quot;there is a going in order to be heard&quot;; this rendered in translation to: &quot;it is going to be heard&quot;. Isn't &quot;audiri&quot; better?" CreationDate="2019-12-30T12:31:19.767" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23881" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@tony If that construction puzzles you, I recommend asking a separate question about it. There is a reason to pick *iri*, but I agree it's not an obvious choice at all. The whole thing is worth exploring in a question." CreationDate="2019-12-30T12:40:24.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23891" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Knew that I had met this phenomenon before; Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5230/1982; Lucretius uses indirect speech (creatam esse); though, he is speaking in the first-person. The expression of the speaker's attitude towards a concept. Lucretius and yourself were expressing epistemic modality towards your desires; not facts (expressed by direct speech. [Thanks to Cerberus.]) Little wonder that yourself did not wish to explain it all. Given this, does yourself understand exactly why Mitomino states that your examples &quot;are ungrammatical&quot;?" CreationDate="2019-12-31T10:33:34.217" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23892" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Hello. Me again, please. Given Joonas's experimentation with epistemic modality; why does yourself state that his examples &quot;are ungrammatical&quot;? (What is a &quot;control structure&quot;?) Certain verbs take future infinitives in accusative-infinitive constructions and yourself has given examples. Joonas has used AcI constructions (amatum iri; auditum iri) and &quot;volo&quot; is not irregular." CreationDate="2019-12-31T10:43:55.877" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23893" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@tony The verb *velle* often takes plain infinitives (as in *volo amari*), not really ACIs as far as I can tell. (You could read an implicit *me* but I don't find that necessary and there might be good reasons against it.) The future passive infinitive is *amatum iri*, so by that rule *volo amaturum iri* should be grammatical. Mitomino argues that there is another rule: structures like this do not permit future infinitives at all. My question can be then seen as: Is this really the case? Also bear in mind that &quot;ungrammatical&quot; is not far from &quot;not found in classical authors&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-31T11:15:52.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23895" PostId="13085" Score="1" Text="Joonas, the first line of your last comment, as it stands, is not correct since the verb _velle_ does take AcIs: e.g., _apud me te esse volo_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 58), _hoc volo scire te_ (Pl. _Cur._  133), i.a. As pointed out above, one of the problems/questions at issue here is whether _velle_ can behave like _sperare_: the latter often takes AcIs with **future infinitive** (e.g., _Speravi ego istam tibi **parituram** filium_ (Pl. _Amp._ 718))." CreationDate="2019-12-31T18:12:26.283" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23896" PostId="13085" Score="0" Text="@tony  Simply put, &quot;control structures&quot; are the ones where the subject of the infinitive is not an accusative nominal (unlike in AcI structures, where there is an accusative subject) but it coincides with an element of the main clause: e.g., in _Volo vivere_ the subject of the infinitive is said to be obligatorily &quot;controlled&quot; by the subject of the main verb. Please take a look at the English examples of the following link to understand what &quot;control&quot; means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_(linguistics)." CreationDate="2019-12-31T18:47:05.910" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23849" PostId="13086" Score="0" Text="Any idea what the .i. means in the quote?" CreationDate="2019-12-28T04:39:58.913" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23853" PostId="13086" Score="1" Text="Your claim &quot;the construction you propose is perfectly correct&quot; does not apply to Early &amp; Classical Latin (e.g., see my comment above).  In any case, for relevant searches, it could be useful for you to add the following link of this **Medieval** document: https://warburg.sas.ac.uk/pdf/nah173b2327146.pdf   (e.g., see page 59)." CreationDate="2019-12-28T06:12:05.983" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23854" PostId="13086" Score="0" Text="@TKR, &quot;.i.&quot; appears to mean something like &quot;i.e.&quot;." CreationDate="2019-12-28T06:13:02.087" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23858" PostId="13086" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino True, I should have specified" CreationDate="2019-12-28T08:23:54.950" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23885" PostId="13086" Score="0" Text="The text in the version Mitomino linked to is a bit different, and makes more grammatical sense: *Futuro: lectum iri a me volo vel lectum esse a me volo crastino die .i. ego legam cras.* Anyway, this is a made-up example in a grammar, so it doesn't necessarily mean this usage ever existed in real Latin." CreationDate="2019-12-30T23:37:08.157" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23886" PostId="13086" Score="1" Text="Oh, it looks like there are two relevant passages; the one you quote is on p. 56 in the section on active forms, the one in my comment is on p. 59 in the section of passive forms. But the &quot;active&quot; examples are puzzling. He's calling *lectum ire* a future active infinitive, which I've never seen before; and what is *a me* doing in *lecturum esse a me volo*, which isn't passive?" CreationDate="2019-12-30T23:45:15.707" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23890" PostId="13086" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's true, thanks for your precious comments! I completely overlooked that there are two identical examples nearby. Well, I can say both sentences make grammatical sense, though probably as you notice, *crastino die* is more common. He's saying that *lectum ire a me*, although passive, has an active meaning with respect to *a me*, that is the logic subject of the active form of 'reading'. Thanks again, I'll edit the answer and correct the quote!" CreationDate="2019-12-31T07:39:57.400" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23869" PostId="13087" Score="1" Text="Some third declension i-stems have this ending in the accusation singular, e.g., *turrim* and *febrim*.  It is somewhat irregular, though, and *turris* ultimately derives from Greek, which often results in irregular declension.  I don't think Greek is always the explanation, though." CreationDate="2019-12-29T00:32:18.677" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23871" PostId="13087" Score="3" Text="I've been assuming that the -im is the adverbial suffix that shows up in words such as certatim and guttatim, rather than a third declension accusative ending.  This suffix is added to perf. pass. participles, and pactus can be that form of either pango or paciscor (the compound appaciscor isn't listed in either OLD or Lewis &amp; Short, but it could be post-classical). Not that this really helps decipher the meaning." CreationDate="2019-12-29T06:22:41.277" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23872" PostId="13087" Score="0" Text="@cnread I agree that *appactim* doesn't appear to be a third declension noun.  I was just trying to correct the categorical statement that was made about the suffix.  Your suggestion seems more likely for this word." CreationDate="2019-12-29T15:02:59.513" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23887" PostId="13091" Score="0" Text="I completely agree that pr. = proprie. I have two questions: 1. Is הֲלוֹם always spatial, or can it describe a sort of extensiveness in, e.g., time or degree too, as either huc alone or its compounds (e.g., adhuc) can? 2. The linked entry in the lexicon includes attestations: Gen. 16.13, Iud. (= Judges? Judith?) 10.7, Ps. 73.10. What word or phrase is used to translate הֲלוֹם there, esp. in the Vulgate (but the Septuagint might also be useful)?" CreationDate="2019-12-31T02:02:51.053" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23888" PostId="13091" Score="0" Text="@cnread In modern Hebrew הֲלוֹם can be temporal (&quot;up until now&quot;), but is not used of degree (&quot;to this extent&quot;); but I did an Old Testament search and found 12 attestations all of which are spatial (one metaphorically so), so maybe the temporal sense is later. For translations, I find as follows. Gen. 16.13: Vulg. *hic*, Sept. ἐνώπιον. (I don't understand the meaning of this verse.) Psalms 73.10: Vulg. *ad eos*, Sept. ἐνταῦθα. (But Brown-Driver-Briggs think the Hebrew text is corrupt.) I can't find the &quot;Iud. 10.7&quot; attestation, but there are 10 or so other OT uses which I haven't looked at." CreationDate="2019-12-31T02:54:19.560" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23889" PostId="13091" Score="0" Text="Strong's/BDB page for reference: https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/1988.htm" CreationDate="2019-12-31T02:59:47.223" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23897" PostId="13091" Score="0" Text="Thanks. What was confusing me was that, in the version of the Vulgate that I was looking at (from the PHI discs), the numbering is off. The text that's given there for Gen. 16.13 is given in my hard copy as 17.13; and although the text given for Ps. 73.10 matches in both sources, I see that the Psalm is labeled in the hard copy as '73 (74)'; so apparently I should have been looking at the one labeled '72 (73).' Anyway, the only common thread I could see between my incorrect passages was an idea of continuity in time (aeternum in Gen., in finem in Ps.), hence my first question." CreationDate="2019-12-31T19:55:53.453" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="39107" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="While attempting to translate: &quot;quamquam Quirities, mihi, quidem ipsi nihil ab istis iam noceri potest.&quot;, from Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/18518/1982, I tried to translate &quot;noceri&quot; as a passive infinitive, &quot;to be harmed&quot;. Looking at the translation: &quot;O Romans, no injury can be done by me to them.&quot; and recalling the impersonal passive infinitive--this Q. In this Q., above: (Cic. Tusc. 3,49): how is &quot;posse&quot; to be translated: &quot;Epicurus denies that anyone is able/ can (&quot;potest&quot; not &quot;posse&quot;) live pleasantly who does not live with/ by virtue.&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-08-02T09:42:27.237" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39108" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="Given that &quot;vivi&quot; is an impersonal passive infinitive: &quot;it is to be lived&quot;, how does &quot;posse&quot; fit in, at all, when &quot;to be&quot; is in-the-verb, &quot;vivi&quot;: &quot;Epicurus denies it is to be able (&quot;posse&quot;) to be lived (&quot;vivi&quot;)&quot;, would be the translation?" CreationDate="2022-08-02T09:51:40.663" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39109" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="In (Vitr. 2.9.14) above, is it possible to translate &quot;noceri&quot; as a passive infinitive (&quot;to be harmed&quot;)? Here, &quot;...reicitque eius vim nec patitur ab eo sibi cito neceri,&quot; = &quot;...and drove away the power of it, and not suffer from this (ab eo) to be quickly harmed (cito noceri) by itself (&quot;sibi&quot;)? Does &quot;it&quot;, from &quot;power of it&quot;, link to &quot;be harmed&quot;, providing the impersonal passive infinitive?" CreationDate="2022-08-02T10:03:05.957" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39110" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="A mistake: reversing, &quot;O Romans, no injury can be done by them to me.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-02T10:07:04.220" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39111" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="@tony The translation given in your last comment seems perfect to me. It's a nice way to translate a kind of passive that is not possible in English (sc. &quot;impersonal passive&quot;). So don't expect a more direct translation to be possible in your language. As for the first ex. from (Cic. Tusc. 3, 49), I think that the use of an indefinite pronoun (&quot;one&quot;) can also be very appropriate to translate the impersonal meaning of the Latin passive sentence (see also the ex. given in NB I above). As for Vitr.'s ex., NB: _ab eo_ is the ablative of agent and _sibi_ is the typical dative selected by the verb." CreationDate="2022-08-02T16:10:33.343" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39129" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Changing the subject, if I may, in Caes. Civ. 1.7 (It's given in Perseus as Civ. 1.2.2?) what is the role of &quot;quam&quot;? Given: &quot;...it is not right concerning this matter that it is to be brought before the Senate before the recruitment, throughout all of Italy, of the retained (the soldiery) and armies are assembled (plural: &quot;conscripti essent&quot;). I thought it might be a feminine relative pronoun, referring to &quot;oratio&quot;: it is not right that it be brought before the Senate (given) his opinion that (&quot;quam&quot;); but no." CreationDate="2022-08-05T13:03:13.707" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39130" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="And is the impersonal passive infinitive, &quot;referri&quot;, also the infinitive required for the accusative (&quot;leniorem sententiam&quot;)-infinitve construction in this indirect speech (&quot;dixerat...&quot;)?" CreationDate="2022-08-05T13:07:34.163" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39136" PostId="13094" Score="0" Text="@tony _quam_ is not a relative pronoun here but the second member of the correlation _ante...quam_. The passive infinitive _referri_ depends on _oportere_, which in turn depends on the event noun _orationem_. Hence my final note above on the presence of the impersonal passive (_referri_) &quot;in a deeply subordinated context&quot;." CreationDate="2022-08-05T17:48:11.413" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47558" PostId="13095" Score="0" Text="@Joonas_Ilmavirta I’m not sure why you rejected my edit, can you explain that to me please?" CreationDate="2024-02-20T07:31:31.110" UserId="14552" />
  <row Id="23915" PostId="13097" Score="0" Text="Your question was migrated to the Latin site where it fits better. Please consider creating an account here (you should be able to just click &quot;Join this community&quot;) so that you get better access to your question here." CreationDate="2020-01-03T10:35:46.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44965" PostId="13099" Score="0" Text="I believe Late Latin/Medieval Latin uses the stare + gerund construction, or at least treated the ablative gerund as the general continuous tense, replacing the Latin present participle" CreationDate="2023-10-01T05:21:04.277" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="23907" PostId="13100" Score="1" Text="As a rule: never use Google translate, and especially for Latin, it's even worse than with other languages." CreationDate="2020-01-02T12:21:22.767" UserId="1059" />
  <row Id="23906" PostId="13102" Score="2" Text="Why do you use the present participle? _vivens_ means &quot;that lives&quot;. In order to use the verb as a subject, you need the infinitive _vivere_." CreationDate="2020-01-01T22:28:42.937" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23924" PostId="13102" Score="0" Text="You're absolutely right! That's a mistake on my part." CreationDate="2020-01-04T03:51:08.317" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23910" PostId="13103" Score="1" Text="Thanks for this answer, but my question was specifically about impersonal uses of the passive infinitive, not true passives as in *Dicit hostes superari*." CreationDate="2020-01-02T23:29:30.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="23929" PostId="13103" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I was astonished to read &quot;To what extent can passive infinitives be used...in indirect-speech constructions...&quot; and &quot;I'm not sure I've ever seen present or future passive-infinitives&quot;. Looks like I've misunderstood. In the first of the two old Qs., cited above, Joonas gave some examples from &quot;De Bello Gallico&quot; e.g. (7.11.4): &quot;...Vellaunoduni cum longius ductum iri existamarent…&quot; = &quot;...as they (Vellaunodini) thought it would be protracted/ lead (the siege) to a longer time...&quot;. Any use? Thank you for your help on Q: &quot;Gone But Not Forgotten&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-04T10:55:17.397" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23940" PostId="13103" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Clumsy me. I am beginning to see why TKR has had difficulty in finding examples in this genre." CreationDate="2020-01-05T11:02:36.377" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47272" PostId="13103" Score="0" Text="Another example from Seneca *Epistulae Morales* (Letter 30): ***succurri** non potest navigio dehiscenti*" CreationDate="2024-01-15T21:33:33.350" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23908" PostId="13105" Score="0" Text="I don't think this is what the &quot;una&quot; is doing here. He seems to be saying, &quot;Of things that are really distinct from each other, one can exist without the other.&quot; In other words, I'm reading it like a more typical &quot;alius...alius&quot; construction." CreationDate="2020-01-02T18:56:18.783" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23909" PostId="13105" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Hmm... To me that seems to be a detail of phrasing it in English, but I might be somewhat misled by it being a second language. It gets a little mangled after my simplifications and I did not read around the quoted passage at all, so my translation is certainly sub-optimal. But I hope I at least got the role of *rerum* clear enough." CreationDate="2020-01-02T19:12:39.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23911" PostId="13107" Score="0" Text="Are you going to be reading prose only or also poetry?" CreationDate="2020-01-03T01:10:13.867" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23916" PostId="13107" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Prose" CreationDate="2020-01-03T12:55:48.490" UserId="6236" />
  <row Id="23914" PostId="13109" Score="0" Text="Opinion: My intuition tells me that *unroll*/*unwind* variant of the original meaning is probably a better candidate for the semantic shift you're looking for. When you *reply* you *unroll* your thought to your interlocutor..." CreationDate="2020-01-03T10:09:59.533" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="23919" PostId="13109" Score="0" Text="Is this just a copy-paste of the previous question that got closed as duplicate?" CreationDate="2020-01-03T19:13:15.677" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23923" PostId="13109" Score="0" Text="@Draconis No. Previous question didn't have para 3." CreationDate="2020-01-04T02:33:49.340" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="23917" PostId="13110" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Is your *guide* s a subjunctive? I.e., does it mean &quot;may eternal light guide me&quot;, as in a wish or adhortation?" CreationDate="2020-01-03T15:57:37.057" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23918" PostId="13110" Score="1" Text="I modified the Italian translation assuming it's a subjunctive. The previous form _guida_ was indicative (corresponding to &quot;guides&quot;)." CreationDate="2020-01-03T18:54:45.623" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="23920" PostId="13110" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Thank you! Yes, you're right, I meant 'guide' as a subjunctive, like a request or wish." CreationDate="2020-01-03T19:18:59.917" UserId="6427" />
  <row Id="23930" PostId="13111" Score="0" Text="Yesterday, I was about to write &quot;lux aeterna me duc/ duce!&quot;; then, thought, it can't be that prosaic. How would it sound, in Latin, a bit too blunt?" CreationDate="2020-01-04T11:20:52.033" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23935" PostId="13111" Score="0" Text="@tony I would say _duc_, not _duce_, but that sounds fine to me too! Imperatives aren't uncommon in Christian Latin prayers (from the Requiem again, _pie Jesu domine, **dona** eis requiem_), and _ducere_ is a fine word for &quot;lead&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-04T17:53:25.910" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="23922" PostId="13114" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much. Is it idiomatic to remove the comma?" CreationDate="2020-01-04T01:27:43.240" UserId="6430" />
  <row Id="23926" PostId="13114" Score="1" Text="Ancient Latin did not use commas. As far as I know, they used very little punctuation so that there was more room to fit the letters on paper. The MOST idiomatic phrasing would probably be &quot;VERITASEXFABULA&quot; -- the Romans spelled using only capital letters, and no spaces. I would not recommend this phrasing -- I would use &quot;Veritas ex Fabula&quot;" CreationDate="2020-01-04T05:23:14.893" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23925" PostId="13115" Score="1" Text="I'll write a proper answer later, but for now I would strongly advise against _Cōleus_, which refers to a part of the male genitalia!" CreationDate="2020-01-04T03:54:14.993" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24155" PostId="13116" Score="0" Text="@C Monsour: Dictionaries usually have  Latin-English &amp; English-Latin sections. How is there any difference in difficulty in looking up words from the one or the other?" CreationDate="2020-02-03T10:09:30.640" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24156" PostId="13116" Score="1" Text="@tony Even when that's the case, there's usually a lot more effort that goes into the Latin-English section.  There's rarely much explanation in the English-Latin section of when to use which Latin word for a particular English word.  On the other hand, Latin-English dictionaries usually give extensive citations explicating the various meanings of the Latin word." CreationDate="2020-02-03T12:51:13.613" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23931" PostId="13120" Score="0" Text="That's not the opposite.  Please look up DeMorgan's law!" CreationDate="2020-01-04T15:41:56.527" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23932" PostId="13120" Score="1" Text="Please don't change questions after they have valid answers." CreationDate="2020-01-04T15:52:23.343" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23933" PostId="13121" Score="0" Text="By the aforesaid sentence to be translated, I refer to David Hilbert's quote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoramus_et_ignorabimus#Hilbert's_reaction.  I don't think &quot;or &quot; isn't suitable here" CreationDate="2020-01-04T16:00:03.320" UserId="6433" />
  <row Id="23937" PostId="13121" Score="0" Text="@Orion73 I revised my post to answer the revised question also." CreationDate="2020-01-04T18:35:52.810" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23943" PostId="13127" Score="0" Text="Of course, Gödel proved that Hilbert's statement is incorrect (at least in the way Hilbert intended it), so it's probably a good thing you agree more with Du Bois-Reymond." CreationDate="2020-01-05T20:10:35.767" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23945" PostId="13127" Score="0" Text="I don't think this works as the opposite of ignoramus and ignorabimus – unless, that is, you're intentionally going for the meaning 'we get to know/learn and will get to know/learn.' Otherwise, to get the simple meaning 'know' (as opposed to 'get to know') from the verb cognoscere, you have to shift to the perfective tenses – in this case, present &gt; perfect, future &gt; future perfect: cognovimus et cognoverimus." CreationDate="2020-01-06T00:12:58.590" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23946" PostId="13127" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thanks for the comment! Yes, it is intended as 'we get to know', highlighting the same moment in which 'we reach the cognition', and possess the awareness of things. However you made me notice that the other way also fits well and is grammarly more appropriate if the asker wants to express a knowledge already reached and now present. I'll edit the answer to leave to him both possobilities." CreationDate="2020-01-06T00:34:10.677" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="23941" PostId="13128" Score="0" Text="My guess is you will have more luck looking for neo-latin words. naturally those will have more technical-scientific flavor. such as: *stimulus*, *nebula*, *index*  or *sinus*. you may want to look for words that end with -us or -ex. &#xA;&#xA;There are also words that are the same but have modified meaning such as *alibi* &#xA;&#xA;However, as I'm curious of the context of your question, I would like to hear more details." CreationDate="2020-01-05T18:31:04.857" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23942" PostId="13128" Score="0" Text="Found this list (not all words are from latin, so *caveat*! (which is another word): &#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=RCUEAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;lpg=PA38&amp;dq=unique+english+plurals+index+vertex+stimulus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aN8zVkiwG7&amp;sig=ACfU3U0t7ebkmQHDcnbJB7zPEr6Kobhqtg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjhm4Psje3mAhVCElAKHZOyBU0Q6AEwCXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=unique%20english%20plurals%20index%20vertex%20stimulus&amp;f=false&#xA;&#xA;Hope those kind of words you are looking for" CreationDate="2020-01-05T18:46:03.797" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="23952" PostId="13128" Score="0" Text="@d_e yep you nailed it, thank you!!!" CreationDate="2020-01-06T05:20:03.227" UserId="3281" />
  <row Id="23959" PostId="13131" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, interesting question! You might want to add an example, for what constitutes a middle voice is open for debate." CreationDate="2020-01-08T22:23:11.803" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="23965" PostId="13131" Score="1" Text="see my comments below" CreationDate="2020-01-09T09:26:46.657" UserId="6437" />
  <row Id="23977" PostId="13131" Score="1" Text="Does the sequence _esse_ plus past participle (of a non-deponent verb) occur in middle function in Latin? **YES**. Is the middle function restricted to the mediopassive _r_-form in the imperfective tenses (infectum)? **NO**. Does the middle function also occur in the perfective tenses (perfectum)? **YES**. Please see my detailed answer below. NB: the real tricky question here is what one should understand by &quot;middle voice&quot; (if any!) in Latin (or what you refer to as &quot;middle function&quot;).  As pointed out by Cerberus, you'll not find a clear consensus in the specialized literature on the topic." CreationDate="2020-01-10T02:46:48.587" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23955" PostId="13132" Score="5" Text="Could you clarify what you are looking for? It's not incredibly difficult to formulate a backwards-looking link between the two meanings (e.g. &quot;A cause is that *from which* an effect proceeds.&quot;), but all this needs to be taken with a grain of salt: there isn't some kind of *a priori* necessity that language develops in a certain way. I'm not sure what *deeper* reason you're looking for in this and similar questions." CreationDate="2020-01-08T05:20:36.567" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="23956" PostId="13132" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I know there's no *a priori* necessity that language develops in a certain way. I'm seeking surmises like yours, as in `(e.g. &quot;A cause is that from which an effect proceeds.&quot;`" CreationDate="2020-01-08T05:22:58.707" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="23958" PostId="13132" Score="0" Text="Of course, Latin *ex* can also have both sets of meanings, and the logic is presumably similar to what brianpck has given for *apo*: an effect arises out of a cause, etc.." CreationDate="2020-01-08T19:51:45.133" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23982" PostId="13132" Score="0" Text="@brainpck the theme of these questions is clear: the same rigor as for the phonetic derivation needs to be applied to the semantic side of things. Except that semantic change is less likely *total*. Therefore, all the more weight lies on specific examples, cognates, typological arguments or any other systematic approach to establish plausibility, because, indeed, it's often too easy to fabulate about semantics." CreationDate="2020-01-10T08:00:01.733" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23960" PostId="13135" Score="2" Text="For those of us who don't have time to read the paper, can you define &quot;inactive&quot; in this context?" CreationDate="2020-01-09T00:21:48.003" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23961" PostId="13135" Score="1" Text="@C Monsour - it is worth reading the first three pages to get the answer; that's not just the quickest answer, it is (almost) the shortest. First three at the start of the book." CreationDate="2020-01-09T03:20:29.743" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="23962" PostId="13135" Score="1" Text="Thanks for this interesting paper. Kemmer (1993:152) describes the r-form as the Latin middle marker, Cennamo (2015:5) describes the mediopassive -r form in imperfective tenses as a maker for anticausativity (middle function), but I can't find any decription for the sequence esse plus past participle in middle function. But the sequence esse plus past participle does occur in middle function in my opinion. The following examples are taken from Kühner&amp;Stegmann 1955:104-8:" CreationDate="2020-01-09T09:18:28.113" UserId="6437" />
  <row Id="23964" PostId="13135" Score="1" Text="-	Liv. 6,38,1 circumactus est annus &#xA;-	Caes. B. C. 2,5,3 ut ante simulacra proiecti victoriam ab dis exposcerent&#xA;-	Liv. 30,15,1 Massinissae haec loquenti rubor suffusus (sc. est) &#xA;-	Caes. B. G. 2,19,6 qui in silvis abditi latebant" CreationDate="2020-01-09T09:20:30.023" UserId="6437" />
  <row Id="23973" PostId="13135" Score="2" Text="I agree with you, Shootforthemoon, that Migliori's Phd thesis is a good source. For another recent source see Pinzin's thesis on the middle voice in Latin: http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/12877/956151-1197504.pdf?sequence=2  In particular, I think Pinzin brings some light to the problem of what a deponent verb is (for some discussion, see  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9064/how-accurate-is-the-typical-definition-of-a-deponent-verb )." CreationDate="2020-01-09T18:29:41.790" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23974" PostId="13135" Score="1" Text="@Lisa Your examples taken from K&amp;S are indeed relevant. Note that some of them become even more relevant if more context is provided. As for the first example, the &quot;middle&quot; form _circumactus est_ is worth being compared with the following verbal eventive passive: _reducerentur_; see my answer below. Similarly, note that the other example from Livy contains a very nice contrast between a &quot;middle&quot; form of a non-deponent verb (_suffusus_ (sc. _est_)) and a &quot;middle&quot; form of a deponent verb (_obortae_ (sc. _sunt_)): _Masinissae haec audienti non rubor solum suffusus, sed lacrimae etiam obortae_." CreationDate="2020-01-10T01:05:01.717" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23966" PostId="13137" Score="0" Text="Many, many thanks. For inimicis, I think I need something more unnatural (it's for a ghost story) - can I swap &quot;daemones&quot; in there? (I'm assuming that google got that one right :) )" CreationDate="2020-01-09T13:37:19.887" UserId="6441" />
  <row Id="23967" PostId="13137" Score="0" Text="@TomMelly See the expanded answer." CreationDate="2020-01-09T14:48:13.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23968" PostId="13137" Score="0" Text="Wonderful! Thanks again." CreationDate="2020-01-09T15:25:23.043" UserId="6441" />
  <row Id="23969" PostId="13137" Score="0" Text="My immediate thought was &quot;comprimo.&quot; Does anybody else have intuitions about this translation of seeking?" CreationDate="2020-01-09T15:53:45.007" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="23970" PostId="13137" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In &quot;Deus quos avis malibus insectantur amat&quot; (God loves those who are pursued, with malicious intent, by bad birds [evil spirits]) does &quot;quos&quot; cover both &quot;those&quot; and &quot;whom&quot; in &quot;God loves those whom....&quot;" CreationDate="2020-01-09T16:07:15.787" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23971" PostId="13137" Score="0" Text="@tony Here &quot;those who&quot; would be *eos quos* (as both are accusative), but *eos* can be left implicit. It is not unusual for relative clauses to make use of *is qui* in some form." CreationDate="2020-01-09T17:34:21.300" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23984" PostId="13138" Score="0" Text="Following the concept of *conceptual metaphors* I call it a huge pile of [insert metaphor] that ignores possible explanations through internal reconstruction of the particle. Lakoff &amp; Johnson 's is mainly concerned with synchrony, which is a good start, whereas we are interested in diachrony, from synchrony's sake." CreationDate="2020-01-10T08:21:18.053" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="23978" PostId="13139" Score="0" Text="I've deliberately used the informal term (middle) &quot;reading&quot; in my answer in order to simplify things/exposition. However, one should be aware that each (grammatically relevant) reading has been claimed to be associated with a different morphosyntactic structure in the specialized literature. For some useful references, please see Embick's (2000) work on the Latin perfect https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~embick/latin.pdf and his (even more famous!) triple classification of (English) perfect participles in Embick (2004): https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179282?seq=1" CreationDate="2020-01-10T04:03:14.963" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="23979" PostId="13142" Score="0" Text="I like the idea of using Furiae for 'fiend' (+1). For a family crest, I could also easily imagine something like vexati [or agitati] a Furiis, amati a Deo." CreationDate="2020-01-10T05:37:35.267" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23980" PostId="13142" Score="0" Text="@cnread That's a great way to structure it. Can you post a separate answer about the idea?" CreationDate="2020-01-10T06:07:13.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23987" PostId="13142" Score="0" Text="I guess my only reservation is that the furies traditionally pursue people who have done something truly horrible (for example, the impios in your first quotation). So a family that used this motto, or the alternative that I offered in my previous comment, would seem to be admitting to certain atrocities. I'd want to do some research to see whether furiae is ever used in cases of persecution that is seen as unfair/undeserved." CreationDate="2020-01-10T20:45:52.053" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23985" PostId="13143" Score="0" Text="This is all wonderful - many, many thanks again to all who contributed." CreationDate="2020-01-10T10:59:16.487" UserId="6441" />
  <row Id="23993" PostId="13143" Score="0" Text="@TomMelly If you've found the answer you were looking for, please mark an answer as accepted by clicking the little mark below the score. You can now also vote up any content you like, not only answers to this question. I'm glad you're glad!" CreationDate="2020-01-13T06:35:28.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="23990" PostId="13144" Score="1" Text="As you v. rightly say, getting a good Latin term for 'emabarrass' is tricky. However, I don't think your choice of impeditus is correct. A Latin dictionary such as OLD (incl. pocket version) or L&amp;S may tell you that impedio means 'embarrass,' but it's an older use of the English verb that means 'hamper or impede (a person, movement, or action)'; it doesn't describe a person's feeling of awkward self-consciousness or shame (the ex. that my dictionary gives is 'the state of the rivers will embarrass the enemy in a considerable degree'). Of the verbs you listed, I think confundere may be closest." CreationDate="2020-01-13T01:30:15.403" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="23999" PostId="13144" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Thank you.  Added an edit." CreationDate="2020-01-13T13:16:02.013" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24009" PostId="13144" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Cerberus (CHAT) suggested &quot;pudor&quot; = &quot;embarrassment&quot;. I did find &quot;pudore dormiret&quot; = &quot;he might sleep with shame&quot;. I could not find examples of its use." CreationDate="2020-01-14T10:08:37.277" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24025" PostId="13144" Score="1" Text="Can you clarify what sleeping has to do with this? I don't understand that at all. At any rate, dormitus in your updated answer wouldn't mean 'having slept,' because the verb isn't deponent; it would mean 'having been slept' (passive). The only example I found (via PHI) of the phase 'pudore dormiret' is part of the larger phrase '**sine** pudore dormiret,' from Julius Capitolinus's life of Gordian III in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae." CreationDate="2020-01-15T18:05:12.620" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24030" PostId="13144" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Firstly, any thoughts on &quot;implicatur&quot; = &quot;he is embarrassed&quot;? I was not happy with &quot;pudor&quot; = &quot;embarrassment&quot;; and, having found &quot;pudore dormiret&quot; (sleep being disturbed by shame/ embarrassment [Cerberus]) decided to use it. An alternative is &quot;puditus&quot;, from &quot;pudeo&quot;, &quot;(having been) ashamed/ embarrassed. Of course &quot;having been slept&quot; makes no sense in English, but &quot;having been&quot; can be omitted from a perfect-participle passive e.g. &quot;puellam a militibus captam vidimus&quot; = &quot;We saw the girl having been captured by the soldiers.&quot;, would be rendered, in English, as" CreationDate="2020-01-16T09:49:24.467" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24031" PostId="13144" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Continuing: &quot;We saw the girl captured by the soldiers.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-01-16T09:50:42.220" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24033" PostId="13144" Score="1" Text="But even without 'having been,' 'slept' in that ex. is still passive; but as far as I know, the only time dormio is used in the passive is when the subject is a noun that denotes a period of time, and you're saying that that period was slept through. The most familiar ex. is probably in Catullus 5: nox est perpetua una dormienda. I don't see any way that pudore dormiret by itself could mean 'sleep disturbed by shame'; at the very least, a neg. subord. conj. (e.g., ne or ut non) would be an essential part of the phrase: 'with the result that he wasn't getting any sleep because of/out of shame.'" CreationDate="2020-01-16T18:13:00.870" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24038" PostId="13144" Score="0" Text="@cnread; Thank you: another edit. By definition &quot;dormio&quot; does not have a passive form, &quot;I-am-slept&quot;, showing why that is. The usual sources all give the supine, &quot;dormitum&quot;, of the verb. How is this to be translated? Hate to mither; but, &quot;implicatur&quot;, please." CreationDate="2020-01-17T11:58:58.670" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24042" PostId="13144" Score="1" Text="I don't have a dictionary in front of me right now, so this has to be taken cum grano salis; but my impression is that, although implicare can be used for emotional states, it doesn't, by itself, mean 'embarrassed' (except in the archaic usage of that word, where it means 'hinder' or 'impede,' not 'cause to feel awkwardly self-conscious'); I expect that there would need to be an ablative (or other addition) to specify the emotion. It's possible that something like pudore implicatur would work fine (and I do think that, of all the suggestions so far, pudor is closest to the required meaning)." CreationDate="2020-01-17T20:29:36.530" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24043" PostId="13144" Score="1" Text="The supine is used to describe the purpose of motion (for example, veni spectatum, 'I've come to watch'). It's also used with some adjectives (mostly) and corresponds especially to an epexegetic infinitive in English (and Greek and poetic Latin); an example is the phrase mirabile dictu, 'wondrous to say.' I don't see any way of making a supine work here." CreationDate="2020-01-17T20:46:56.447" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24000" PostId="13147" Score="0" Text="Draconis's answer on Latin Stack Exchange ***“Malo” in Motto Maelstrom*** explains three in a row *Malo malo malo malo;*            &quot; it's the ablative of position of mālus, &quot;apple tree&quot;; in the third line, it's the ablative of comparison of mālus, &quot;upright beam, post, mast&quot; (or &quot;ship&quot; by synecdoche); in the fourth line, it's the masculine ablative of mălus, &quot;bad&quot;.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-01-13T17:39:03.200" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24001" PostId="13147" Score="0" Text="And this site has nine ablatives (but only seven, then *&quot;quam&quot;* ) http://angustrumble.blogspot.com/2009/08/malo-malo-malo-malo.html" CreationDate="2020-01-13T17:50:23.710" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24002" PostId="13147" Score="1" Text="@Hugh, thank you for this beautiful insight. I think it would be more valuable as an answer. please consider posting at as an answer. at any case, for navigation, here Draconis's answer: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7346/malo-in-motto-maelstrom/7354#7354" CreationDate="2020-01-13T18:30:28.487" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40206" PostId="13150" Score="0" Text="Yeah, they should have titled that movie &quot;Mumbulus and Meemus&quot;." CreationDate="2022-10-29T13:47:43.203" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="23995" PostId="13153" Score="4" Text="You already know the Roman alphabet. Do you already know the Greek alphabet?" CreationDate="2020-01-13T09:31:42.040" UserId="6313" />
  <row Id="23996" PostId="13153" Score="1" Text="@AaronF I mostly do yeah, but certainly not as well as the Roman one!" CreationDate="2020-01-13T09:39:13.373" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="23997" PostId="13153" Score="5" Text="I personally found Latin easier to start with because I already knew the alphabet and many words have similarities with English. The Greek alphabet didn't take long to pick up, but there was a definite learning curve with the letters which I didn't have with Latin." CreationDate="2020-01-13T09:44:07.297" UserId="6313" />
  <row Id="23998" PostId="13153" Score="4" Text="If you intend to learn hundreds and thousands of vocabulary items, I thunk learning twenty odd letters should not be a barrier to entry, even if letters are mostly visual whereas words should be foremost audible. So, if reading the words out loud is supposed to help with the words, then actually writing down the letters will surely help (re)learn the letter forms. This should not be underestimated." CreationDate="2020-01-13T13:14:39.233" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24010" PostId="13153" Score="3" Text="Greek is more complex than Latin, having an additional voice (medium), number (dual) and tense (aorist). Whether that means it's better to learn first or second I don't know." CreationDate="2020-01-14T10:47:56.217" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="24013" PostId="13153" Score="2" Text="@OrangeDog And mood (optative)." CreationDate="2020-01-14T18:57:47.467" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24014" PostId="13153" Score="0" Text="@TKR ah well you can see how far I got" CreationDate="2020-01-14T19:00:46.567" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="24028" PostId="13153" Score="1" Text="@OrangeDog OTOH Greek has fewer cases." CreationDate="2020-01-16T05:00:42.170" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24029" PostId="13153" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour true, but locative is very niche" CreationDate="2020-01-16T09:32:55.967" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="24032" PostId="13153" Score="0" Text="@OrangeDog Ablative, on the other hand, is very productive in Latin and entirely absent from 5th century BC Greek.  (I guess it was there in Homer, but you certainly don't see it included in noun paradigms.)" CreationDate="2020-01-16T12:36:32.500" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="23989" PostId="13156" Score="0" Text="Making a fool of oneself is a way-of-life, around here. It looks fine--an accusative-case festival!" CreationDate="2020-01-12T12:25:39.647" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="23992" PostId="13159" Score="1" Text="If you consider the [apex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_\(diacritic\)) to be a kind of macron (or vice versa), retaining it is perfectly historical for classical Latin." CreationDate="2020-01-13T04:56:48.177" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="24024" PostId="13159" Score="2" Text="I am sure that &quot;capitol&quot; letters were used on the other six hills as well." CreationDate="2020-01-15T17:20:29.877" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="23994" PostId="13160" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for your response, I really appreciate it.  I'm just wanting a translation for the two words &quot;I choose&quot; only.  It will be those two words only that I use for my tattoo and the context is that those two words will give me a private reminder to myself that I choose to be happy or I choose to forgive or I choose how I will react, etc depending on whatever I need at the time etc. Google translate which I understand is not very accurate gives me ego eligere or ego eligere ad. I hope that makes more sense. Thanks again." CreationDate="2020-01-13T06:51:27.527" UserId="6446" />
  <row Id="24003" PostId="13162" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the counterargument - I'm definitely more interested in Greek - the thing that kicked this off for me was being given a copy of Lucian's A True Story for my Christmas only to realise it wasn't translated! I am a Christian so Greek would be beneficial to reading the New Testament as well. There seems to be a lot more source material in Greek but that's probably just my own ignorance." CreationDate="2020-01-13T21:41:47.217" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="24006" PostId="13162" Score="3" Text="There's actually a longer tradition of Greek pedagogy than Latin. But the relative complexity has nothing to do with this -- Greek really is more complex on pretty much every level." CreationDate="2020-01-14T06:28:35.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24012" PostId="13162" Score="0" Text="You don't think the Latin writing tradition is summa sumarum longer, and didn't leave a mark on text understanding and thus grammar?" CreationDate="2020-01-14T14:51:09.843" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24015" PostId="13162" Score="1" Text="Both languages have been studied and taught since antiquity, but in any case a language's grammar does not simplify by being studied. (If it *were* the case that Latin had been thus simplified, though, it seems like that would be an argument for studying Latin first.)" CreationDate="2020-01-14T19:01:57.933" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24011" PostId="13164" Score="2" Text="I'm pretty skeptical of *lego* without other context: it has [such a broad range of meanings](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlego2), including &quot;I read,&quot; &quot;I remove,&quot; &quot;I survey.&quot; I can't speak for a Roman, but *my* default translation of contextless *lego* would be &quot;I read.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-01-14T14:44:33.900" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24005" PostId="13165" Score="6" Text="I personally share your preference for Greek literature, but Latin shouldn't be written off so quickly. If Virgil isn't to the OP's taste, Ovid or Horace might be. In prose there are more interesting writers than Caesar and Cicero (e.g. Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius), and as the OP is Christian there's a lot of relevant literature there from Augustine on. Not to mention medieval Latin literature which is a world in itself." CreationDate="2020-01-14T06:25:32.977" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24019" PostId="13165" Score="2" Text="@TKR I was wondering myself what I should read in Latin, Augustine would be exactly what I am looking for, thanks!" CreationDate="2020-01-14T21:45:55.423" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="24022" PostId="13165" Score="3" Text="And, by the way, Virgil did not copy Homer. He was deeply influenced, sure, but old themes are treated differently/in a different context, and there are new themes too: just think of Dido, or Aeneas himself compared to Ulisses and Achilles. And of course, he produced other notable works besides the Aeneid." CreationDate="2020-01-15T10:49:57.320" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="31213" PostId="13165" Score="2" Text="You say &quot;Catullus is wonderfully perverted but one isn't allowed to read him until college.&quot; Who is 'one'? Catullus was taught in English secondary schools in the 1970s. I was there. The textbook was &quot;Two Centuries of Roman Poetry&quot;. It naturally used the less explicit poems." CreationDate="2021-03-22T11:03:27.430" UserId="1731" />
  <row Id="33031" PostId="13165" Score="0" Text="Mr. Asher, you're taking my words too literally, presumably so you can quibble.  When I said &quot;one isn't allowed to read C. until college,&quot; I was simplifying for brevity and gentle ironic effect (certainly there's no question of some agent that refuses to *allow* a high-schooler to read Catullus).  And then you undercut your point with your last sentence: NATURALLY it used the poems not about pederasty." CreationDate="2021-05-07T16:32:48.410" UserId="6454" />
  <row Id="24034" PostId="13170" Score="0" Text="If there are/were any neuter diminutives old enough to take part in the relevant sound changes, it would probably have ended up as _-tellum_. No idea if there are any of those either, though." CreationDate="2020-01-17T00:01:18.447" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="24039" PostId="13170" Score="1" Text="Thanks for a great answer! And for pointing out the neuter form, which had slipped my mind entirely." CreationDate="2020-01-17T17:15:16.120" UserId="6466" />
  <row Id="24068" PostId="13170" Score="0" Text="Wells, there's always the good old &quot;saltatrix parva&quot; :P" CreationDate="2020-01-22T19:15:59.587" UserId="3318" />
  <row Id="24035" PostId="13171" Score="2" Text="That's not quite the same though, is it? The agent noun itself isn't being made into a diminutive. Instead the derived adjective punctatorius is. Diminutives from adjectives aren't so uncommon (whereas, apparently, diminutives of masculine agent nouns are.)" CreationDate="2020-01-17T00:21:10.107" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24037" PostId="13171" Score="0" Text="@cnread I agree with you; however, I've reported the hypothesis of  Hanssen, who says that Cato may have used there the same word *punctator https://i.stack.imgur.com/XhNKf.png" CreationDate="2020-01-17T07:34:20.927" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="24040" PostId="13171" Score="0" Text="2 questions: 1. Why is it _nutric**o**la_ (sounds like a healthy soda, btw) but _metetric**u**la_? 2. What does it mean when you use the diminutive form of an adjective? Is it like prexifing an adjective in English with &quot;a little&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-01-17T17:19:32.157" UserId="6466" />
  <row Id="24041" PostId="13171" Score="1" Text="@Dhi Because obviously I've miswritten XD Thanks, it's nutricula, otherwise yeah it would be a healthy soda (https://i.stack.imgur.com/pX0SQ.png), or a jellyfish.  There are in Latin (also in Italian) diminutives of adjectives - not for all adjectives though. In English they are usually rendered as you write, by prefixing (a little, a bit, quite), or by using word such *teeny, weeny*..." CreationDate="2020-01-17T17:48:35.777" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="24047" PostId="13171" Score="0" Text="*barcarole* (a kind of song), if from *barca* (a kind of ship, from Egy *bar*) would exhibit ***o*** anyway. Wonder if *-ca* is also diminutive, cp Ger *-chen, -ken*, Pol *-ska* (not to be confused with Slavic fem. suf. *-ka*?)." CreationDate="2020-01-19T09:16:05.670" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24049" PostId="13171" Score="0" Text="@vectory that's a really interesting question! Here (https://www.etimo.it/?term=barca) are some hypothesis on the etymo; to me makes sense it can be a diminutive if derived from Egy *bar* and Greek *bar-is* (a cargo boat). Instead, if we think about Celtic *bar* (tree branch) that's maybe more difficult XD" CreationDate="2020-01-19T09:41:33.783" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="24057" PostId="13171" Score="0" Text="I don't see that the bit of Hanssen that you link to contradicts me (hence, I don't understand the 'however' in your comment). H. says merely that punctator is a word that Cato may well have used; and that punctariola, which is what actually appears in the mss, could therefore be haplography for punctatoriola instead of a corruption of pugnariola. This backs up what I said about the word: = punctatorius (adj. &lt; punctator + ius) + ola. (I note, though, that while OLD accepts that punctatoriola is the correct word, it gives the etym. as punctus + torius + ola; in any case, diminutive of an adj.)" CreationDate="2020-01-19T20:57:38.823" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24058" PostId="13171" Score="0" Text="@cnread yeah, I agree with you." CreationDate="2020-01-19T21:14:12.323" UserId="6344" />
  <row Id="24044" PostId="13174" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I recommend looking at [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own) for learning resources" CreationDate="2020-01-18T04:54:40.633" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="24045" PostId="13174" Score="2" Text="Welcome! I second the comment by @Adam. Please check that other question out. If you don't find what you were looking for, please edit this question to specify what you would like. I think that one should have what you need, but you need to judge it yourself. We can make a permanent link from this post to the other so that anyone who finds your question finds the resource list." CreationDate="2020-01-18T10:17:00.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24056" PostId="13174" Score="2" Text="@Adam Thank you I will give it a read. So far it seems like it was just what I was looking for. Cheers." CreationDate="2020-01-19T19:21:35.267" UserId="6471" />
  <row Id="24061" PostId="13177" Score="0" Text="I novice in Latin, but I would consider not using &quot;ex&quot; in &quot;from these hands&quot; , i would use simply manibus (as ablative of means/way) : healing comes using these hands. I think &quot;ex&quot; imply something more of location." CreationDate="2020-01-21T17:28:17.997" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="24055" PostId="13178" Score="0" Text="*Averno,* place name, the valley with no birds, probably sulphur (where Rachel Carson wrote of cyclo-hexanes in Silent Spring). Second, I think it has to be the first reading also because of the metre; I think *facilis* is a tribrach, unless followed by a consonant." CreationDate="2020-01-19T18:38:26.463" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24064" PostId="13182" Score="0" Text="I can think of a lot of ways of saying this that might be appropriate.  Obviously &quot;sicut est&quot; follows the wording of a very common prayer.  It might be interesting to find the Latin original for the supposed rule used by Henry II to resolve land disputes &quot;Let it be as it was on the day of my grandfather's death.&quot;  I haven't been able to find it in Latin.  The book I saw the translation in suggested the original might be in Glanvill.  If you have access to a good library that might be helpful." CreationDate="2020-01-22T06:16:28.610" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24062" PostId="13184" Score="0" Text="Yes, I mean *dragon's archers*. I've edited the question." CreationDate="2020-01-22T04:53:24.740" UserId="6479" />
  <row Id="24063" PostId="13184" Score="0" Text="About the order, it's preferable to use NOM + GEN (*Sagittāriī dracōnis*)?" CreationDate="2020-01-22T05:00:07.573" UserId="6479" />
  <row Id="24066" PostId="13184" Score="0" Text="You may use whichever you want :)" CreationDate="2020-01-22T13:08:39.880" UserId="3318" />
  <row Id="24067" PostId="13184" Score="0" Text="Is it the answer you were looking for?" CreationDate="2020-01-22T13:22:29.107" UserId="3318" />
  <row Id="24071" PostId="13189" Score="0" Text="Could future-perfect &quot;responderis&quot; be used, indicating that one thing will have to be completed before the consequence is invoked? In conditional sentences (simple/ open conditions) this fut. perf./ future linkage is often observed e.g. &quot;si veneris, eum videbis&quot;. But, as in your example, sometimes, less frequently, future/ future e.g. &quot;si recto cursu Romam petemus hac nocte in Capitolio epulabimur.&quot; Does this subtle difference matter;  may the student choose freely?" CreationDate="2020-01-23T09:56:21.930" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24073" PostId="13189" Score="0" Text="@tony Good question! I was taught that it was more common to use the simple future here, but I'm not sure if that's actually how it works." CreationDate="2020-01-24T05:38:10.730" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24084" PostId="13189" Score="0" Text="Allen &amp; Greenough p516 (p326, reprint) in &quot;Future Conditions&quot; give good information, on this." CreationDate="2020-01-25T11:31:14.207" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24116" PostId="13189" Score="0" Text="Rarer still, a double future-perfect: North &amp; Hillard Ex. 206; Q3: &quot;Unless you remind him, he will have forgotten in three days.&quot; = &quot;nisi eum admonueris, tribus diebus oblitus erit.&quot;.  The timeline, second clause, provides the scope for the fut. perf. (I got that one wrong!)" CreationDate="2020-01-29T12:09:56.200" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24074" PostId="13192" Score="1" Text="I thought &quot;aqua&quot; was nominative giving &quot;water (sweat) flows and (mixed) with blood&quot;. Trouble is, &quot;sweat&quot; would have been given as &quot;sudor/ sudore&quot;, not &quot;aqua&quot;, wouldn't it?" CreationDate="2020-01-24T11:12:09.710" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24075" PostId="13192" Score="0" Text="@tony, I don't think it would be so problematic to use aqua instead of sudor for 'sweat.' On the other hand, one really pressing problem with taking aqua as the nominative subject is, that it would leave latus syntactically 'stranded' – it wouldn't itself be the nominative subject in that case, but it couldn't be accusative direct object (because fluere is intransitive), and there's also no preposition for it to be the object of; it would have no function in the clause." CreationDate="2020-01-24T20:10:51.970" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24076" PostId="13192" Score="0" Text="Still, it is interesting that the verb fluere can have such different points of reference: the subject can be either the liquid substance that flows (which is the usage that's probably most familiar to people) or the solid substance that the liquid substance flows from." CreationDate="2020-01-24T20:15:21.640" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24105" PostId="13192" Score="0" Text="@cnread: If the sentence is treated as two clauses: &quot;cuius latus perforatum&quot; and &quot;fluxit aqua et sanguine&quot;; the former: &quot;side&quot; (subject); (having been) pierced (verb). This would free-up &quot;aqua&quot; to be a nominative subject, in the latter clause. I am assuming that this approach is incorrect; but, please, why is it incorrect?" CreationDate="2020-01-27T10:59:55.920" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24109" PostId="13192" Score="0" Text="If you look at the complete text, this is all part of one long vocative phrase; the sentence's main verb is esto in the next line. If fluxit aqua et sanguine were a separate independent clause, it would be the main clause of the sentence, which would shift the focus in a very strange, though not impossible, way. Regardless, it would leave sanguine 'stranded' in turn, because 'water and blood' isn't the same as 'water mixed with blood' grammatically, though it may be similar conceptually. 'And' would require that sanguine be nominative, and 'mixed with' would require a word that means 'mixed.'" CreationDate="2020-01-27T18:05:05.110" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="41310" PostId="13192" Score="0" Text="We always sang &quot;Unda fluxit cum sanguine&quot; which explains the ablative. I don't know where the &quot;et&quot; came from." CreationDate="2023-02-10T08:43:34.913" UserId="12111" />
  <row Id="41327" PostId="13192" Score="0" Text="@tony: I don't think *aqua* refers to sweat, but to John 19:34, *sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.*" CreationDate="2023-02-11T19:49:27.387" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41403" PostId="13192" Score="0" Text="Cuius latus perforatum :il suo fianco trafitto (soggetto) unda fluxit et sanguine : grondò di acqua e sangue. Il verbo fluxit è intransitivo e regge i due ablativi ( acqua et sanguine)" CreationDate="2023-02-19T19:51:14.853" UserId="12146" />
  <row Id="26402" PostId="13193" Score="2" Text="There is a Biblical parallel in Exodus 3:17: &quot;... ad terram fluentem *lacte et melle*&quot; - &quot;... to a land that floweth *with milk and honey*." CreationDate="2020-05-19T11:02:35.403" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="24077" PostId="13195" Score="2" Text="Is &quot;primis&quot; the correct adjective in Latin, though?  After all, its primary meaning is &quot;first&quot;, so it's at best ambiguous.  I'd prefer an adjective meaning &quot;irreducible&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-24T21:33:29.070" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24078" PostId="13195" Score="6" Text="@CMonsour: It is the one which has been historically used. Euler wrote [_De Numeris Primis valde Magnis_](http://eulerarchive.maa.org//docs/originals/E283.pdf) for example." CreationDate="2020-01-24T21:37:15.587" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24079" PostId="13195" Score="2" Text="On the other hand, I just verified that Gauss used &quot;primis&quot;, so I guess that is best after all." CreationDate="2020-01-24T21:49:29.510" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24080" PostId="13195" Score="3" Text="@CMonsour: Yes, as I said: Gauss, Euler and every other mathematician who wrote about primes in Latin." CreationDate="2020-01-24T21:51:52.570" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24082" PostId="13195" Score="0" Text="what do you mean with &quot;adverb of means&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-01-25T11:12:29.950" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="24085" PostId="13195" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Should it have been &quot;adverb of instrument&quot;? I meant a part of speech that expresses by what means, &quot;how&quot; in the sense of &quot;with/by/thanks to what&quot;, the action is completed." CreationDate="2020-01-25T12:01:31.963" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24106" PostId="13195" Score="0" Text="@Vincenzo Oliva: Is &quot;ludere&quot; here a hanging infinitive? There is no subject answering the question who or what. Who is playing with prime numbers?  Should it be &quot;we play&quot; or &quot;let's play&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-01-27T11:18:53.527" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24114" PostId="13195" Score="1" Text="@tony: It _is_ a hanging infinitive, and the action _itself_ of playing is the subject - the corresponding verb is simply implied. Just like you can think of the subtitle &quot;Playing with prime numbers&quot; as a truncation of &quot;The theme of this website is _playing with prime numbers_&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-28T19:43:11.717" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24092" PostId="13197" Score="0" Text="Could you edit your question to provide the link to the original, please? So that we could see the whole chapter. And the Spanish translation you mention might also be useful." CreationDate="2020-01-26T07:35:06.103" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="24093" PostId="13197" Score="1" Text="@tum_ The original is already linked but it's a bit hidden. [Same link](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Thuc.+1.22&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0105) and look in the right column for a tab called &quot;Greek (1942)&quot;, then click show. It's a nice feature of that site." CreationDate="2020-01-26T07:47:04.363" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="24094" PostId="13197" Score="0" Text="Adding in comments the Spanish translations I've found: &quot;En resumen, mi obra ha sido&#xA;compuesta como una adquisición para siempre más que como una pieza de&#xA;concurso para escuchar un momento&quot;, and &quot;mi obra [...] constituye una conquista para siempre, antes que una obra de concurso para un auditorio circunstancial&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-26T07:52:55.537" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="24095" PostId="13197" Score="1" Text="And [bonus link to the Google Translator result](https://translate.google.es/?hl=en&amp;tab=rT1&amp;authuser=0#view=home&amp;op=translate&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;text=%CE%BA%CF%84%E1%BF%86%CE%BC%CE%AC%20%CF%84%CE%B5%20%E1%BC%90%CF%82%20%CE%B1%E1%BC%B0%CE%B5%E1%BD%B6%20%CE%BC%E1%BE%B6%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%BD%20%E1%BC%A2%20%E1%BC%80%CE%B3%CF%8E%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1%20%E1%BC%90%CF%82%20%CF%84%E1%BD%B8%20%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%87%CF%81%E1%BF%86%CE%BC%CE%B1%20%E1%BC%80%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BD%20%CE%BE%CF%8D%CE%B3%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%B9.)" CreationDate="2020-01-26T08:09:32.210" UserId="845" />
  <row Id="24118" PostId="13200" Score="0" Text="In Latin this could be: &quot;mea vita aeternum donum est, non fabula audiri et deinde ex memoria excidere&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-01-30T10:23:58.243" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24121" PostId="13200" Score="0" Text="Upon reflection, &quot;ex&quot; may be superfluous, as a prefix it is already present in &quot;excidere&quot; providing the &quot;passing out&quot; element. Therefore, returning &quot;memoria&quot; to the nominative: &quot;...deinde memoria excidet&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-31T09:29:43.197" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24144" PostId="13200" Score="1" Text="The modern Greek mistranslation of Google is stunning indeed; one might think it is a joke of sorts by the programming staff, but it isn't. The program is attempting to morph words into modern Greek words it assumes you misspelled. Chopping up the sentence into shorter phrases gives you even more insights of the fuzzy logic principles of the program." CreationDate="2020-02-01T23:21:06.210" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24150" PostId="13200" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos So, have you managed to figure out where the &quot;shark&quot; comes from?" CreationDate="2020-02-02T21:25:22.837" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="24151" PostId="13200" Score="0" Text="@tum. No. It must be some sort of neural network spline program. I *strongly* recommend the following: Start with the full sentence, and stepwise delete words from the beginning, and likewise, from the end. Some &quot;guesses&quot; like land and estate for κτῆμα make sense, but much, including a hiccup in the middle is quite obscure. One is shadow-boxing with fuzzy logic bugs, not dictionaries...." CreationDate="2020-02-02T21:32:26.960" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24152" PostId="13200" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos That's exactly what I tried too... but soon just had to give up as it stopped making any sense to me.." CreationDate="2020-02-02T21:35:56.890" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="24153" PostId="13200" Score="1" Text="@tum  No, the complete, forward and backward escalation is actually instructive. Deleting the first word (κτῆμα) already eliminates the shark (κῆτος??), but the last few steps are stunning. Their spline finally fit ξύγκειται  to something like  ξύνεται!! I understand Boris Johnson misused this site to fake Ancient Greek translations, oblivious of the off tones the resulting Modern Greek sentence would have had in an ancient Athens spike..." CreationDate="2020-02-02T21:45:27.523" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24154" PostId="13200" Score="0" Text="&quot;spike&quot; as in [workhouse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spike_(essay))." CreationDate="2020-02-02T21:49:37.687" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24103" PostId="13201" Score="4" Text="The Greek for tooth is not *don*, but *odous* (stem *odont-*); the name of the town is unrelated to this word, and is probably to be segmented *Calyd-ōn*, since *-ōn* is a common derivational ending." CreationDate="2020-01-27T05:19:39.733" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24119" PostId="13201" Score="0" Text="Although in Modern Greek they do say ˈðɔndi or ˈðɔdi." CreationDate="2020-01-30T12:05:21.403" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="24100" PostId="13202" Score="0" Text="I don't read actual Greek, so could you Romanize the &quot;similar words&quot; for me?" CreationDate="2020-01-26T16:41:11.793" UserId="6492" />
  <row Id="24101" PostId="13202" Score="0" Text="@JohnWDailey _Calybë_ and _calydila_" CreationDate="2020-01-26T19:04:16.687" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24102" PostId="13202" Score="0" Text="@Draconis  I found something on &quot;Calybe&quot; but nothing on &quot;calydila&quot;." CreationDate="2020-01-26T19:57:14.167" UserId="6492" />
  <row Id="24107" PostId="13202" Score="0" Text="@JohnWDailey Use Beekes, *Etymological Dictionary of Greek*." CreationDate="2020-01-27T13:09:20.967" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="24141" PostId="13202" Score="0" Text="Town named after mythological [hero](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Apollod.+1.7.7&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0022:book=1:chapter=7&amp;highlight=Calydon)." CreationDate="2020-02-01T21:09:43.173" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24142" PostId="13202" Score="1" Text="Correction: town *said* to be named after said Calydon.  Beekes'  likely Pre-Greek καλυδίλα=bridge might relate to the town's mountain location?" CreationDate="2020-02-01T21:47:23.663" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="31135" PostId="13202" Score="1" Text="@CosmasZachos That seems to be the idea." CreationDate="2021-03-18T04:25:56.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="24117" PostId="13203" Score="0" Text="Related: [Is there a difference between 'a' and 'de' when the meaning is 'from'?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1458/is-there-a-difference-between-a-and-de-when-the-meaning-is-from)" CreationDate="2020-01-29T19:55:14.447" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="24249" PostId="13203" Score="0" Text="Since I don't mind the etymological fallacy too much, consideringing homonym, polysemous German *ab*, comparing *anti*, *ago*, and eventually considering below allusions to Aristotle, I want to mention *category* (uncertain ety, how interesting) and recommend *kata*. I do mind enough not to post that as an answer. Just note that modern *apo* translates as *runter* ~ &quot;down, off&quot; in various cases (off of the horse, even *runter vom Platz* &quot;off of the palazo&quot;). Also Cp *derivation*, *aberration*." CreationDate="2020-02-18T20:41:14.860" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24250" PostId="13203" Score="0" Text="@vectory But κατά would always mean against. Καταγωγή would always mean the origin. Απαγωγή could be abduction or deduction but Καταγωγή would be(and currently is) origin." CreationDate="2020-02-18T20:45:08.313" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="24251" PostId="13203" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary glosses &quot;[2. (*with accusative*)] 6. according to&quot;, thus cp *de legis*. I was chiefly refering to *kata, kato* &quot;down&quot;, anyhow, unaware of *against*. That does not fit very well (and my, err, derivation is a non-secitur). But since *de* is highly polysemous, I should think the question is not narrow enough?" CreationDate="2020-02-18T21:15:36.283" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24108" PostId="13204" Score="0" Text="Take a look at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5051/is-there-a-latin-standard-for-transliterating-russian" CreationDate="2020-01-27T16:19:12.667" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="24110" PostId="13204" Score="0" Text="@Alex B, thanks for the link. It's interesting but it's all about _transliteration_ of names (I understand it's how names are written in Latin in modern times e.g. from 18-19 c. onward). It's about the correct choice of Latin letters for representing precisely the same sounds (all of them and in the same order) as they are present in the original name (how it sounds normally in the native language). &#xA;     But I’ve been seeking advice on something different." CreationDate="2020-01-28T01:14:23.783" UserId="6493" />
  <row Id="24111" PostId="13204" Score="0" Text="(continued)      I was actually asking about the style of Latinisation of non-Latin names used in earlier times, where the sounds of the original name were not necessary preserved, but could be freely altered in order to make a naturally Latin sounding name, resembling familiar (to an educated Latin-speaker) old Latin names, words, hints of familiar Latin word roots (e.g. Morris to Mauritius).&#xA;      Can anybody help me with such Latinisation of the surname Kovalchuk?" CreationDate="2020-01-28T01:19:12.613" UserId="6493" />
  <row Id="24135" PostId="13207" Score="0" Text="It's really bad form to change a couple words in the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinus) and pass it off as original." CreationDate="2020-02-01T17:01:15.417" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24138" PostId="13207" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Where do you get info from? Do you quote from sources, many contributors do? The Pliny quote is not logged on Wiki, did you look at that?  The OP asked for the linkage between &quot;Fascinus&quot; &amp; &quot;happiness&quot;; the reason why--provided. Do you have an answer?" CreationDate="2020-02-01T19:09:56.947" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24122" PostId="13211" Score="0" Text="Thanks, but you wouldn't include Solum?" CreationDate="2020-01-31T15:13:40.583" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24123" PostId="13211" Score="1" Text="*haud aliter* looked promissing at first, but has tricky requirements of verb and construction; does *pŏtissĭmē* (Edits) fit your meaning?" CreationDate="2020-01-31T20:25:37.523" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24124" PostId="13211" Score="1" Text="If, after all, you prefer *sōlus,* make it Accusative Feminine Singular to agree; *per dătionem sōlam.*" CreationDate="2020-01-31T20:49:30.533" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24128" PostId="13211" Score="0" Text="Wow, thanks. Why would I take the Feminine *Solam* rather then the Neuter *Solum*? eg. *Non Nobis Solum.*" CreationDate="2020-02-01T04:22:10.930" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24130" PostId="13211" Score="1" Text="*dătĭo , ōnis,* f. the &quot;f.&quot; tells you that 'giving' is feminine. For the grammar it doesn't matter who gives; the 'giving' is feminine. [War, *bellum,* is neuter, A Casserole, *olla,* is feminine; *dătĭo* is feminine; it just is.]" CreationDate="2020-02-01T10:41:18.667" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24131" PostId="13211" Score="1" Text="Oh, sorry. That's not the question you were asking. Don't use ***solum*** as an adverb. It means &quot;Hence, adv.: sōlum , alone, only, merely, barely&quot; which seems completely the wrong meaning, doesn't it?" CreationDate="2020-02-01T10:53:48.563" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24132" PostId="13211" Score="1" Text="...and ***solus*** meaning yourself could be taken to mean &quot;alone, lonely, solitary, forsaken, deserted; without relatives, friends&quot;" CreationDate="2020-02-01T11:00:29.293" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24133" PostId="13211" Score="0" Text="Is that why it's suitable in Non Nobis Solum but wouldn't be suitable here? Because of the *possible* negative connotation?" CreationDate="2020-02-01T12:06:26.137" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24134" PostId="13211" Score="0" Text="It was because of Non Nobus Solum that I wanted Solum, so that my new motto would 'recall' that great saying" CreationDate="2020-02-01T12:08:22.257" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24145" PostId="13211" Score="0" Text="I prefer Solam if it can be used but now dear the negative connotation I was previously unaware of. Non nobis solum nati summus, et solam per dationem (... Etc ...)" CreationDate="2020-02-02T04:53:00.217" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24125" PostId="13212" Score="0" Text="As worded, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the Latin (or Greek) language. If you were actually asking for recommendations about what those 'first thousand words' should be for each language, that would be on-topic; but you're just asking about books with pictures. Voting to close as off-topic." CreationDate="2020-01-31T21:47:22.530" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24126" PostId="13212" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Point taken. But the help for the site does say that it's on topic to ask  &quot;cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin.&quot; Of course you're right that this is not directly a question about language." CreationDate="2020-01-31T22:01:23.933" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24127" PostId="13212" Score="2" Text="@cnread We've definitely taken questions about what books a beginner should use to learn Latin here before; that seems like a decent precedent for this one." CreationDate="2020-01-31T22:25:04.733" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24136" PostId="13214" Score="0" Text="What were the words used by Aristotle for Abduction and Deduction respectively then? Did he use Απαγωγή; Did he use Επαγωγή;" CreationDate="2020-02-01T17:32:22.417" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="24137" PostId="13214" Score="0" Text="Frankly, I don't know. If you gave me exact passages, I'd run to them, and so might you.  I *believe* from memory, the Alexandrian mathematicians, and current practice (!), that his Ἐπαγωγή  got translated to Inductio and his  Ἀπαγωγή to Reductio. Will scan the TLG and Perseus." CreationDate="2020-02-01T18:34:15.043" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24139" PostId="13214" Score="0" Text="Arist.APr.69a20: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπαγωγή : reductio per impossibile .   In the Logic of Aristotle, ἐπαγωγή: argument by induction." CreationDate="2020-02-01T19:31:20.463" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24140" PostId="13214" Score="0" Text="Further facts (best available): A's  ἀπαγωγή is also translated as abduction; it is his συλλογισμός that gets translated to deduction. Aristotle and his translations have swirled around long enough to render any linguistic systematic correspondence moot, here.  Are you perhaps more interested in Aristotelian terminology or in the usage of -θεν  vs.  ἀπό ?" CreationDate="2020-02-01T19:51:18.860" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24143" PostId="13214" Score="0" Text="Neither. I am interesented in a correspondence( which has been rendered moot) and 2 distinct words to capture the diferent nuances of ab and de(which as you told me don't exist there is no single word distinction in greek between motion away from and origin of all kinds). If anything I would lean towards Aristotelian terminology though." CreationDate="2020-02-01T23:08:24.513" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="24146" PostId="13217" Score="2" Text="Now I'm curious as to why they went to 288ths instead of skipping over (or stopping at) 144ths." CreationDate="2020-02-02T19:09:51.067" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="24147" PostId="13217" Score="2" Text="Can you add a passage from Frontinus as an image as well, so that it would be readable across devices?" CreationDate="2020-02-02T19:41:41.583" UserId="612" />
  <row Id="24148" PostId="13217" Score="0" Text="_&quot;close enough to 12-1/3&quot;_ — did you mean 12+1/3 instead (or, equivalently, 12⅓)?" CreationDate="2020-02-02T21:06:32.280" UserId="1065" />
  <row Id="24149" PostId="13217" Score="5" Text="@Ruslan: That's a hyphen, not a minus sign; so equivalent to 12⅓" CreationDate="2020-02-02T21:09:47.420" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24159" PostId="13220" Score="3" Text="You have put them both in the accusative case when nothing (appears) to be happening to them. Is there some context here? &quot;Life &amp;  death&quot; of whom or what? The nominatives are &quot;vita&quot; &amp; &quot;mors&quot;, if that's any help." CreationDate="2020-02-03T16:38:01.527" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24160" PostId="13220" Score="0" Text="@tony Life and death in general context, like saying &quot;I'm been thinking in life and death&quot; not my life or death... just as a thought." CreationDate="2020-02-03T17:04:22.197" UserId="6504" />
  <row Id="24163" PostId="13220" Score="0" Text="If you are thinking about....Then &quot;concerning&quot;, in Latin: &quot;de&quot; + ablative case; giving &quot;de vita et morte&quot; = &quot;concerning life &amp; death&quot;. Further, &quot;I am thinking&quot; = &quot;cogito&quot; (Pock.Ox.Lat. Dict. gives: consider, ponder, meditate; look forward to; imagine) alternatively, &quot;puto&quot; = think, imagine, believe." CreationDate="2020-02-04T09:50:15.333" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24162" PostId="13221" Score="3" Text="Good suggestions! I'm a bit less certain about your gerunds, though. As subject or direct object, the infinitive is used, rather than the gerund, so *vivere et mori*." CreationDate="2020-02-03T23:24:21.817" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24165" PostId="13221" Score="0" Text="Good point. The infinitives are a bit more general like Sxntk was wanting. I'll add those to my list." CreationDate="2020-02-04T16:52:49.883" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="24166" PostId="13221" Score="0" Text="I do think the per + gerunds work as I mentioned. But, without prepositions, you're right that the standalone gerunds would be strange." CreationDate="2020-02-04T16:53:34.550" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="24170" PostId="13221" Score="0" Text="Yes, I meant the lonely ones. I seem to remember *preposition + -ndum* is generally analysed as gerundive rather than gerund, though I forgot why." CreationDate="2020-02-05T02:37:28.523" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24173" PostId="13221" Score="0" Text="I will use for simplicity Vita et Mors, thank you very much for your suggestion!" CreationDate="2020-02-05T14:12:08.177" UserId="6504" />
  <row Id="24167" PostId="13223" Score="0" Text="The infinitive passive: &quot;semper amari&quot; = &quot;always to be loved&quot;; the perfect participle passive: &quot;semper amatus&quot; = &quot;always having been loved&quot; (&quot;having been&quot; can be omitted). for two children: plural: &quot;semper amati estis&quot; = &quot;always you (plural) have been loved&quot;. The perfect passive tense can function as an aorist or &quot;simple past&quot;. Therefore, &quot;amati estis&quot; can be translated as &quot;you (plural) were loved&quot;." CreationDate="2020-02-04T17:43:59.787" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24168" PostId="13224" Score="0" Text="Does &quot;vexatious&quot; have a specific legal meaning? I can think of plenty of Latin words for &quot;annoying&quot; etc, but I'm not sure if there's a specific connotation you need." CreationDate="2020-02-04T23:56:43.657" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24169" PostId="13224" Score="0" Text="the term &quot;vexatious litigant&quot; is a term of art and as such has a specific meaning, yes. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation#United_States) has the california variant of the law explained. In canada the term is different but I fail to remember how." CreationDate="2020-02-05T00:03:17.083" UserId="6508" />
  <row Id="24174" PostId="13224" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I don't think the term existed in roman time (roman-law) but legal-latin fits." CreationDate="2020-02-05T18:06:13.393" UserId="6508" />
  <row Id="32563" PostId="13225" Score="2" Text="More than Ancient Greek having its own terms for grammar, almost all of our current terminology is based on the terminology of Ancient Greek grammarians (usually through their Latin calques, which is also why they sometimes don't make sense)." CreationDate="2021-04-13T19:39:50.903" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="24213" PostId="13231" Score="1" Text="Interesting question. Lewis &amp; Short suggest *duumvir* is &quot;less correct&quot;: *dŭŏvir , vĭri, and usu. plur. dŭŏvĭri (less correctly dŭumvĭri , Zumpt, Gram. § 124; Krebs, Antibarb. p. 391; in MSS. and Inscr. usu. II. vir, II. viri;*" CreationDate="2020-02-09T00:39:52.717" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24179" PostId="13233" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer!" CreationDate="2020-02-06T11:41:48.683" UserId="2973" />
  <row Id="24175" PostId="13234" Score="0" Text="You might look at the word &quot;fructus&quot; as your word meaining &quot;benefit.&quot; It was a very common Latin word, and it holds a lot of positive meaning." CreationDate="2020-02-05T21:24:23.247" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="24176" PostId="13234" Score="0" Text="so you are suggesting something along the lines of &quot;fructus ingenio et labore succesu est&quot;? Google does translate it into pretty much what I mean but somehow it feels contrived to me - especially the word &quot;successu&quot; which feels rather Catalunian/Sardegnian instead of proper latin..." CreationDate="2020-02-05T22:21:55.417" UserId="6515" />
  <row Id="24181" PostId="13235" Score="7" Text="Are you asking for a translation of the literal or the figurative?" CreationDate="2020-02-06T13:18:53.350" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="24178" PostId="13236" Score="2" Text="I would think it is short for &quot;It's totally fucked up.&quot;, which roughly means &quot;It is in a exceedingly broken state&quot;. But I'm not very confident, because it is the most versatile verb of the English language, as far as I know. (I'm not a native English speaker)" CreationDate="2020-02-06T11:33:06.423" UserId="6320" />
  <row Id="24189" PostId="13236" Score="1" Text="@VolkerSiegel you are correct, another more gentle way of saying it would be 'this is totally messed up' or 'it's a complete/total disaster' . the word fuck in this case doesn't refer to sex at all, which is why I don't think this answer is accurate but to be fair I doubt there actually exists a latin translation that is 1:1 with the english." CreationDate="2020-02-06T21:49:10.400" UserId="6524" />
  <row Id="24204" PostId="13236" Score="0" Text="I think if you're going to translate *fucked* in a literal sense, then you're better off using either masculine or feminine gender." CreationDate="2020-02-07T17:49:47.913" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="24183" PostId="13237" Score="2" Text="I remember your quest for an expletive intensifier. Yourself suggests, I think, that the phraseology in your answer would not qualify as perjorative; expletive-type bad language. If Roman soldiers were addressing each other, good-naturedly, or otherwise how would they say: &quot;Fuck you!&quot;; &quot;I'm fucked-off with this!&quot;; &quot;Fucking hell, not again&quot;? Is it so that &quot;futuere&quot;, in Latin, is about as offensive as &quot;to make love&quot;, in English?" CreationDate="2020-02-06T16:48:24.867" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24192" PostId="13237" Score="3" Text="@tony &quot;Futuere&quot; is certainly more vulgar and offensive than &quot;to make love&quot;." CreationDate="2020-02-07T02:49:37.497" UserId="6381" />
  <row Id="24199" PostId="13238" Score="3" Text="Aristotle will often use the feminine singular (ἡ μαθηματική; ἡ φυσική) alone for the body of knowledge itself (with understood ἐπιστήμη), so in many contexts this would just mean &quot;mathematics,&quot; &quot;physics/natural science,&quot; etc." CreationDate="2020-02-07T15:12:08.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24202" PostId="13238" Score="0" Text="So one can say that it is hard to find any reference where the Ancient Greek mention a woman mathematician in a general noun, right? Now I wonder how Hypatia is mentioned in old texts..." CreationDate="2020-02-07T16:30:16.170" UserId="2973" />
  <row Id="24187" PostId="13241" Score="3" Text="English &quot;happy&quot; also originally primarily meant &quot;fortunate&quot;, as it still does in phrases like &quot;a happy accident&quot;. The association of happiness and good fortune is common across languages." CreationDate="2020-02-06T19:14:43.887" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="24188" PostId="13241" Score="3" Text="Are you familiar with Bruno Snell's Die Entdeckung des Geistes (The discovery of the mind) from the 1940s? Roughly stated, Snell put forward the notion that figures in Homer don't have an inner mental life (and he then shows how the course of Greek literature shows the development of an understanding of inner life). Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised if words for happiness/sadness in Homer are focused on externalities. Although I don't think Snell's ideas are widely accepted any more, this work, and later responses to it, may be a good place to start if you're interested in this topic." CreationDate="2020-02-06T21:33:39.610" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24190" PostId="13241" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Thanks, that's interesting. Turns out there's a freely available English translation of Snell: https://archive.org/details/discoveryofmindg00sneluoft/page/n5/mode/2up" CreationDate="2020-02-06T22:41:49.237" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24186" PostId="13243" Score="1" Text="Though this is possible, the parallelism (&quot;ipse...nos, non ipsi...nos&quot;) strongly inclines me to read *nos* as accusative." CreationDate="2020-02-06T18:52:20.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24205" PostId="13243" Score="3" Text="I think you were right the first time. If nos were accusative, there wouldn't really be anything to link ipsi to a first-person subject idea. In that case, I, for one, would naturally read it as 'they themselves' (as indeed the original poster tried to do) – especially since both preceding occurrences of ipse were for a 3rd person singular subject. Plus, the repetition of accusative nos would be pretty clunky. However, I freely confess that I'm completely out of my element in the Vulgate." CreationDate="2020-02-07T20:14:47.590" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24206" PostId="13243" Score="1" Text="@cnread I think you're right now. The Greek is in the nominative, and usually the Vulgate adheres very closely to the LXX: &quot;γνῶτε ὅτι Κύριος, αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ οὐχ **ἡμεῖς**.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-02-08T15:24:13.890" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24214" PostId="13243" Score="0" Text="Ok, I removed the alternate parsing from my answer. Thanks guys!" CreationDate="2020-02-09T16:01:48.023" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="24191" PostId="13245" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer! Now I can understand better what was explained in a previous question (ἀρσενικόν, θηλυκόν, οὐδέτερον and κοινόν, ἐπίκοινον)... Would then &quot;wolfs&quot; (ὁ λύκος and ἡ λύκαινα) belong to the gendered noun with a different ending or suffix?" CreationDate="2020-02-07T02:30:02.353" UserId="2973" />
  <row Id="24203" PostId="13245" Score="0" Text="@K.Park I would say so, yes!" CreationDate="2020-02-07T16:46:31.910" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24253" PostId="13245" Score="0" Text="By the way, what you call &quot;common nouns&quot; are more properly &quot;nouns with common gender&quot; or &quot;nouns with natural gender&quot; since &quot;common nouns&quot; already has a fixed meaning." CreationDate="2020-02-18T23:35:54.487" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24257" PostId="13245" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Ah, that's fair. I'll adjust that." CreationDate="2020-02-19T01:58:07.317" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24194" PostId="13246" Score="1" Text="Can you specify which prefix you think works on *fractus*?" CreationDate="2020-02-07T08:52:08.123" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="24200" PostId="13246" Score="0" Text="@Wilson _per_ seems reasonable, and is at least used by John Paul II in _Reconciliatio et Paenitentia_." CreationDate="2020-02-07T16:03:55.767" UserId="6381" />
  <row Id="24197" PostId="13247" Score="0" Text="Yes, I think you will be looking for 'Work' as a verb." CreationDate="2020-02-07T13:49:39.333" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24212" PostId="13247" Score="0" Text="Hmm I'm having trouble understand what this is supposed to mean in English. Could you use it in a natural-sounding sentence?" CreationDate="2020-02-09T00:36:39.197" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24207" PostId="13248" Score="0" Text="I would try posting this question on Linguistics.SE as it's pretty general in nature, not really Latin specific. I don't, however, anticipate many answers given the way it is formulated, though I *feel* a certain potential in it (hence an upvote)." CreationDate="2020-02-08T17:37:29.037" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="24225" PostId="13248" Score="0" Text="I agree about the Linguistics SE, although maybe someone has some ideas specifically about the &quot;It's totally fucked&quot; translation, especially since 'fucked' is in this case is trying to convey something has gone very, very wrong but with the added sexual innuendo (which does seem to have a translation in that context). Also, I never expected to see an Airplane reference here. :)" CreationDate="2020-02-11T02:59:15.397" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="24270" PostId="13248" Score="0" Text="It depends on the situation.  And there are problems the other direction as well.  Consider the English monk who translated ancient Latin *res publica* as modern (to him) Old English *cynedom* (kingdom) since he had no notion of what a republic really was, nor a word or phrase for it even if he had had a notion." CreationDate="2020-02-21T01:15:47.427" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24209" PostId="13252" Score="0" Text="That's a really great response! Thank you very much. The difference between Animus and Voluntas- what I'm intending the message for is in fact resolve, drive, determination sort of thing. Would animus therefore be more appropriate?" CreationDate="2020-02-08T21:11:35.163" UserId="6321" />
  <row Id="24210" PostId="13252" Score="0" Text="@Faz Both can be used in that sense! _Voluntas_ just has the additional meaning of &quot;desire to do something&quot;, and _animus_ has the additional meaning of &quot;mind&quot; or &quot;passion&quot;. Up to you which of those is more appropriate!" CreationDate="2020-02-08T21:20:59.720" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24211" PostId="13252" Score="0" Text="Awesome, I think I'll roll with Animus. You have been a great help, thank you sincerely." CreationDate="2020-02-08T22:00:34.367" UserId="6321" />
  <row Id="24237" PostId="13253" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the response" CreationDate="2020-02-14T12:02:55.620" UserId="6537" />
  <row Id="24215" PostId="13255" Score="1" Text="For the benfit of other beginners like me, I thought it might be helpful to give the basic forms of the three verbs from these examples, which I think are γηθέω, χαίρω (as in the modern greeting χαίρετε), and ἄχθομαι." CreationDate="2020-02-09T19:12:50.410" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24216" PostId="13259" Score="0" Text="Are you looking specifically for Homeric, or will any dialect do?" CreationDate="2020-02-09T19:24:42.043" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24217" PostId="13259" Score="0" Text="I would expect there to be quite a few. Goddess, island, disease, and way come to mind." CreationDate="2020-02-09T20:29:31.317" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24220" PostId="13259" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I'm specifically interested in Homer, but I don't know if that affects the answer much." CreationDate="2020-02-09T21:30:32.150" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24221" PostId="13259" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: Thanks! So that would be παρθένος, νῆσος, νόσος, ὁδός." CreationDate="2020-02-09T21:35:56.510" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24222" PostId="13259" Score="1" Text="&quot;Goddess&quot; in Homer is θεά, though later Greek uses θεός for both &quot;god&quot; and &quot;goddess&quot;." CreationDate="2020-02-09T21:38:45.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35541" PostId="13261" Score="0" Text="Also ἄλοχος, wife or unwed woman." CreationDate="2021-10-23T01:40:00.007" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24223" PostId="13262" Score="1" Text="In &quot;aut venator aut venatus&quot; is &quot;venatus&quot; a noun (the hunt; the hunting i.e. the festival to which all the riders &amp; dogs gather) or the perfect participle of &quot;venor&quot;; &quot;having hunted&quot;? The latter gives: &quot;be either the hunter or the having hunted&quot;--the same person/ people in different tenses; the former: &quot;be either the hunter or the festival, the hunt&quot;: &quot;purpose of&quot;/ &quot;target of&quot; would have to be understood, here--is it? In &quot;venatus nisi venator&quot; how does &quot;venatus&quot; refer to the future--&quot;venaturi&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-02-10T13:39:03.420" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24224" PostId="13262" Score="0" Text="@tony: Venator and venatus are 'two related nouns,' as indicated in the answer. The bits in parentheses in the English translations are merely to help show how the very succinct, verbless Latin mottoes might be 'unpacked' into actual English sentences. You're right that there's nothing future about venatus nisi venator, per se." CreationDate="2020-02-10T20:37:20.453" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24230" PostId="13263" Score="0" Text="I'm leaving this as a comment because I'm not sure enough of my own skills yet, but since potential is something that George has the you would use genitive singular: _Potentiae_." CreationDate="2020-02-12T00:48:25.020" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="24231" PostId="13264" Score="2" Text="On the relatedness question: neither word seems to have a secure etymology, but they can't be cognate given known sound laws. Hypothetically one could be a borrowing of the other, but this seems unlikely given the semantic distance; note also that in *sīdereus* the first vowel is long and the second short, in σίδηρος the other way around. (Also did the ancients know of meteoric iron?)" CreationDate="2020-02-12T01:51:12.440" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24232" PostId="13264" Score="0" Text="@TKR Right, that matches (with greater detail) what I had heard. As for your last question, according to Wikipedia, at least, yes they did—it’s noted as one of the principal sources of iron prior to the invention of smelting, and known to be the material of several ancient items. Whether they knew that the meteorites were from space, rather than just knowing certain rocks had this useful metal, that I don’t know, but it wouldn’t overly surprise me. I have no idea if the Romans knew though—it’s possible that with smelting available, knowledge of meteoric iron waned as it was no longer relevant." CreationDate="2020-02-12T02:15:41.807" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="24235" PostId="13270" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer! What you said make lots of sense. I was actually thinking, in the same idea behind silvanus (something or someone who comes from the forest, or lives in the forest or roams around the forest) but with &quot;nothing&quot; or similar. Like, if there are spirits/beings coming from chaos, darkness, light, etc., thinking in ones that either come from or now belong to nothing, or to an empty space or similar. But I understand that the idea may be very foreign for the people who actually spoke Latin, so I wasn't sure how to come out with a term for it. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2020-02-13T21:20:44.027" UserId="6559" />
  <row Id="24240" PostId="13271" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer!" CreationDate="2020-02-17T10:20:36.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24239" PostId="13272" Score="3" Text="Since you know of the difference between Vulgar Latin and Classical Latin, what do you mean by &quot;standard dialect&quot; – the standard dialect *is* Classical Latin, so what is your question?" CreationDate="2020-02-16T17:36:33.300" UserDisplayName="user6726" />
  <row Id="24241" PostId="13274" Score="0" Text="I think you mean that a *noun* ending in -uc sounds un-Latin.  For an adverb it's fine, viz. &quot;huc&quot;." CreationDate="2020-02-17T17:53:28.720" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24242" PostId="13274" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: And we have *lac* and *allec*, too! So I have qualified that sentence." CreationDate="2020-02-17T20:45:30.013" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24244" PostId="13274" Score="0" Text="Those don't end in -uc" CreationDate="2020-02-18T05:12:40.803" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24245" PostId="13274" Score="0" Text="Although *lux* effectively ends in -ucs, meaning its stem ends in -uc." CreationDate="2020-02-18T05:13:50.770" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24246" PostId="13274" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: No, indeed, what I meant is that words ending on c are rare of any kind. // Yes, stems on *-c* are fairly common!" CreationDate="2020-02-18T15:54:29.130" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24243" PostId="13277" Score="0" Text="Okay, I wondered about that, but decided it must be something else because of the active form εἰσαγήγοχα. I’ll accept your answer, thanks." CreationDate="2020-02-18T03:41:49.293" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="24247" PostId="13277" Score="0" Text="That's a handy tool, bookmarking it now" CreationDate="2020-02-18T16:09:04.910" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="24254" PostId="13279" Score="1" Text="It's worth noting, Google is not much help as &quot;latin-language newspaper&quot; tends to lead to Latin American resources.  Neat, but not helping here." CreationDate="2020-02-19T00:17:33.163" UserId="6570" />
  <row Id="24255" PostId="13279" Score="0" Text="Online there’s. http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/" CreationDate="2020-02-19T00:51:01.533" UserId="1497" />
  <row Id="24256" PostId="13279" Score="0" Text="The Times(UK) each Saturday has a Latin Crossword (main paper, last page)." CreationDate="2020-02-19T00:51:29.080" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24259" PostId="13281" Score="0" Text="There is a well known Thesaurus of Epithets and Synonyms called 'Gradus ad Parnassum.' Wikipedia will explain. Here's the address of a more recent lookalike:  https://adsa.cs.illinois.edu/mlosd/14-prof-luisa-kertzmann-v-1/9781241168056-gradus-ad-parnassum-on-a-plan-nearly-resembling-.pdf" CreationDate="2020-02-20T00:10:53.007" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24260" PostId="13283" Score="0" Text="Wouldn't that be 4th person?  As in 1:I; 2:you(singular); 3:he/she; 4:we; 5:you(plural); 6:they." CreationDate="2020-02-20T08:21:25.760" UserId="6576" />
  <row Id="24282" PostId="13283" Score="0" Text="@DavetheSax What you call 4, 5, and 6 are usually known as 1, 2, and 3 in plural. Three persons, two numbers." CreationDate="2020-02-22T21:48:46.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24262" PostId="13284" Score="1" Text="To support this, there's this Latin song that's popular on graduations that begins with &quot;Gaudeamus&quot; which translates to &quot;let us rejoice&quot; in the exact same situation OP wants: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaudeamus" CreationDate="2020-02-20T12:34:49.150" UserId="6578" />
  <row Id="24263" PostId="13284" Score="1" Text="It might be worth mentioning that this hortatory construction has survived in the Romance languages and it's the standard way to translate the English &quot;let's think&quot;" CreationDate="2020-02-20T16:21:11.330" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="24266" PostId="13284" Score="0" Text="Thanks @Draconis and others. I think if I had thought about it more, I would have remembered phrases I had to memorize like &quot;venite, adoremus&quot; or &quot;ergo bibamus&quot;. Brain cells are not what they used to be." CreationDate="2020-02-20T22:32:32.133" UserId="6574" />
  <row Id="36601" PostId="13285" Score="0" Text="1/3 I will say that one of the chief differences between modern English and Latin is that the former is being developed by native speakers, while there are no native speakers of Latin left (or rather, they're Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc. speakers)." CreationDate="2022-01-11T00:43:49.327" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36602" PostId="13285" Score="0" Text="2/3 Moreover, neologisms are often coined by people who do not even have a deep, intuitive understanding of the language, but learned it secondarily and use it in translation (attempting to translate their native thought patterns into Latin rather than produce a more authentic expression)." CreationDate="2022-01-11T00:43:54.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36603" PostId="13285" Score="0" Text="3/3 &#xA;&#xA;You do see this in English, too. There are certain expressions in non-native English dialects that are hard to understand or make no sense, again all due to translating *words* rather than ideas from a native tongue to another that they learned as a foreign language." CreationDate="2022-01-11T00:45:30.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="24261" PostId="13287" Score="4" Text="+1! An interesting note is that the Canticle is the first work of Italian literature whose author is known." CreationDate="2020-02-20T09:27:43.920" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24264" PostId="13287" Score="0" Text="Oh thanks so much - really helpful!" CreationDate="2020-02-20T16:39:34.600" UserId="6575" />
  <row Id="24355" PostId="13287" Score="0" Text="By the way, Wiktionary says *sii* is an imperative: is this true? I only know *sei* as &quot;you are&quot;, but my Italian is rudimentary." CreationDate="2020-02-29T23:25:08.650" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24356" PostId="13287" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Yep, that's right!" CreationDate="2020-02-29T23:43:19.443" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24362" PostId="13287" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva: OK! Now I wonder, is *sii* pronounced disyllabically?" CreationDate="2020-03-01T02:23:50.023" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24367" PostId="13287" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Yes indeed, _sì-i_." CreationDate="2020-03-01T09:33:44.767" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24371" PostId="13287" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva: Noted!" CreationDate="2020-03-01T13:50:08.407" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24267" PostId="13289" Score="0" Text="Thank you.&#xA;&#xA;Would _mundōrum ambōrum_ also be grammatically correct on its own, or or is _mundī ambō_ the only correct way to write &quot;both worlds&quot; without &quot;the best of &quot;?" CreationDate="2020-02-21T00:26:23.190" UserId="6579" />
  <row Id="24268" PostId="13289" Score="0" Text="@JCG _Mundōrum ambōrum_ means &quot;…of both worlds&quot;." CreationDate="2020-02-21T00:30:04.127" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24331" PostId="13289" Score="1" Text="This actually is NOT a partitive genitive; it's a genitive of possession (since &quot;the best&quot; here presumably includes aspects of each world, like scientific advancement, for instance, that are not composite parts of them, but that are abstract qualities they possess...you also wouldn't say &quot;a girl's beauty&quot; is a partitive either, I hope).  A partitive genitive would be &quot;the better of two worlds&quot; (*melior orbium duorum terrarum*) or the &quot;the best of all the worlds (*optimus orbium omnium terrarum*)." CreationDate="2020-02-28T02:02:44.170" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24399" PostId="13289" Score="0" Text="C Monsour: Allen &amp; Greenough p.346 (213 reprint): &quot;Partitive Genitive 2. Numerals, Comparatives, Superlatives, and Pronomial words....&quot;. The use of superlative &quot;best&quot; indicates that &quot;the best (parts) of both worlds&quot; is an ex. of the partitive genitive. A &amp; G p342 (211 reprint): &quot;Possessive Genitive: Footnote (1) section (2): &quot;the person or thing that possesses some feeling or quality...In the latter use it is sometimes called the Subjective Genitive; but this term properly includes the possessive genitive and several other genitive constructions...&quot;; &quot;beauty of the girl&quot; --subjective genitive." CreationDate="2020-03-03T09:54:40.303" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25799" PostId="13289" Score="0" Text="@tony Sometimes &quot;the best of X&quot; does refer to the best parts of X.  Sometimes it refers to the best qualities of X.  In the former case, it would be a partitive genitive.  I would maintain that this is an example of the latter case." CreationDate="2020-04-08T20:25:15.343" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24272" PostId="13292" Score="0" Text="Sorry, I've got a fixation about Latin ambiguities. How do you know it's not perfect subjunctive, indirect after *quodcumque?*" CreationDate="2020-02-21T21:04:42.137" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24273" PostId="13292" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Could also be that, &quot;whatever he might have said&quot;, but the subjunctive feels a bit weird to me here" CreationDate="2020-02-21T21:49:39.333" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24274" PostId="13292" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: It is my understanding that the perfect subjunctive is only used in specific circumstances e.g. (i) conditional sentences (improbable conditions); if the conditional act is completed before the consequence begins the perfect subjunctive is used, instead of present subjunctive; (ii) &quot;cum&quot; = since/ because (cum librum legerim = since I have read the book); consecutive clauses; perf. subj. can be used after a historic tense; but, only (a) when the result is momentary, not continuous and (b) the result actually did follow (tantus erat ardor militum ut nemo motum terrae senserit" CreationDate="2020-02-22T11:42:17.233" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24275" PostId="13292" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: Continuing: …= the soldiers were so engrossed that no one felt the earthquake); (iii) prohibition e.g. ne + second-person of the perfect subjunctive (ne feceris illud, Marce! = Don't do that, Marcus!). I used to wonder what the perf. subj. was for, so I compiled a list of its uses; but, this may not be exhaustive." CreationDate="2020-02-22T11:48:19.200" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24276" PostId="13292" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: If a subjunctive was used here would it not have to be imperfect--&quot;diceret&quot; = &quot;he might have said&quot;; definitely not perfect subj?" CreationDate="2020-02-22T11:52:56.653" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24278" PostId="13292" Score="0" Text="@tony That's probably it! All I can say for certain is that a perfect subjunctive here feels wrong to me for unclear reasons, but you articulated it much better." CreationDate="2020-02-22T16:20:38.670" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24283" PostId="13293" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! You will be able to accept an answer and vote on content you like once you register your account. You seem to have created a new one, and [you can merge them to get full access to this question from your new account](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts). Let us know if you need help doing so!" CreationDate="2020-02-22T21:52:38.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24287" PostId="13296" Score="0" Text="Perseus has a word-search tool, where you can click on a word in the text, and it will tell you what form(s) it is. You can then also search for forms of that word in the corpus, I believe. // As to προσώπασι: just like προσώπατα, this would be a regular formation from a singular neuter προσώπα (where the mu has disappeared?), stem προσώπατ- (consonantal declension)." CreationDate="2020-02-23T03:21:31.030" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24284" PostId="13297" Score="3" Text="Jason Kottke posted a quotation from Emily Wilson &quot;Dawn appears some twenty times in The Odyssey, and the poem repeats the same line, word for word, each time: emos d’erigeneia phane rhododaktulos eos: “But when early-born rosy-fingered Dawn appeared…” https://kottke.org/18/04/tracking-the-appearances-of-rosy-fingered-dawn-in-the-odyssey" CreationDate="2020-02-22T23:03:39.597" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24285" PostId="13297" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: Good point. So I wonder what's up with the fact that the word only occurs in that compound form in Homer, never as a separate word." CreationDate="2020-02-23T00:41:30.307" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24288" PostId="13297" Score="2" Text="Yes,   πούς can stretch to leg, as it does in English:  foot as that with which one runs, “πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς” Il.1.215, al.; or walks, “τῷ δ᾽ ὑπὸ ποσσὶ μέγας πελεμίζετ᾽ Ὄλυμπος” 8.443; freq. with reference to swiftness, “περιγιγνόμεθ᾽ ἄλλων πύξ τε . . ἠδὲ πόδεσσιν” Od.8.103; ποσὶν ἐρίζειν to race on foot, Il.13.325, cf. 23.792; “πόδεσσι πάντας ἐνίκα” 20.410, cf. Od.13.261; “ἀέθλια ποσσὶν ἄροντο” Il.9.124, etc.; ποδῶν τιμά, αἴγλα, ἀρετά, ὁρμά, ..." CreationDate="2020-02-23T14:30:41.850" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24292" PostId="13297" Score="0" Text="... &quot;the finale brought me to my feet&quot; where legs might be conceptually closer. The foot leads the leg.  But, at the end of the day, in literal usage, Homer, or anyone before 1000AD,  would never use  πούς in a description of a broken leg." CreationDate="2020-02-23T23:14:25.580" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="24286" PostId="13298" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! It might help if you posted the complete text, for context." CreationDate="2020-02-23T03:17:02.860" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24297" PostId="13299" Score="1" Text="A.S.C.D.P.F. = &quot;A Sacra Congregatione de Propaganda Fide(i)&quot; or some slight grammatical variation. The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith gave the Tibet Mission to the Capuchins of Ancona in 1703." CreationDate="2020-02-24T18:23:38.183" UserId="6586" />
  <row Id="24305" PostId="13302" Score="0" Text="The third example enjoys some strange translations (Perseus): &quot;Beside the fraudulent step he had taken, in detaining, for the purposes of his own ambition, the two legions destined to serve in Asia and Syria, determined him to use all his endeavours to bring on a Civil war.&quot; The Latin does not mention a &quot;civil war&quot;; we just have &quot;rem&quot;; &quot;fraudulent&quot; &amp; &quot;detaining&quot;?? My version: &quot;rem ad arma deduci studebat&quot; = &quot;he was striving after (studebat) the matter (rem) to be lead (deduci) to arms/ war (ad arma)&quot;. Doesn't &quot;studeo&quot; take the dative, &quot;rei&quot;? The rest:" CreationDate="2020-02-25T10:19:04.763" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24306" PostId="13302" Score="0" Text="Continuing: &quot;at the same time the treachery of the two legions that (quas) he had diverted (converterat) to the journey to Asia &amp; Syria for his power and absolute rule. Where does &quot;permotus&quot; come into it? It cannot refer to the two legions; it must be JC who &quot;has been moved excitedly&quot;? Thank you." CreationDate="2020-02-25T10:29:00.547" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24307" PostId="13302" Score="1" Text="@tony  The translation from Perseus is not a literal one (I know you typically prefer literal ones ;-)). As for the role of _permotus_, perhaps you'll see it more clearly in this translation: see page 9 of this Loeb book https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L039.pdf . As for the case selected by _studere_, this verb selects dative for nominal complements. However, note that here the complement is an infinitival clause whereby the accusative subject &quot;rem&quot; is the expected case." CreationDate="2020-02-25T16:47:06.573" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="24298" PostId="13304" Score="0" Text="An impressive life, Fr Horatius, *meritis cumulatus*. *Superstites,* as you say, is 'survivors' (my mistake); since Tacitus uses it in conjunction with *bellorum,* is *Billorum* a misprint?" CreationDate="2020-02-24T19:32:47.527" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24299" PostId="13305" Score="0" Text="Is this a medieval construction?" CreationDate="2020-02-25T00:54:20.383" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24301" PostId="13305" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour: Yes, I meant, Did it originate in the Middle Ages? I don't think I've ever seen the supine used with a verb in quite this way in classical Latin. Can you point to an example? (Or maybe Nickimite can.)" CreationDate="2020-02-25T04:57:12.177" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24302" PostId="13305" Score="1" Text="This is not correct: (a) the -u form of the supinum is only used with adjectives like &quot;facile visu&quot; and occasionally a few nouns like nefas (&quot;nefas est dictu&quot;), so it should be the &quot;solutum&quot;, but (b) the -um form is only used with verbs of movement, so, while &quot;laborare solutum&quot; might be understood, it is not idiomatic Latin." CreationDate="2020-02-25T06:07:59.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="24314" PostId="13307" Score="1" Text="Not an answer, but I notice that empress Irene of Athens (d. 803) is called &quot;Herena&quot; in the Royal Frankish Annals: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Annales_regni_Francorum – St. Irene of Rome (d. 288, known for saving the life of St. Sebastian) is also very rarely called Herena, for example in this German encyclopedia from 1844: https://books.google.de/books?id=8vJMAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA388&amp;q=herena" CreationDate="2020-02-25T21:07:59.870" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26475" PostId="13310" Score="1" Text="French has a few unprefixed verbs that look like location verbs to me: *loger* and *abriter.*" CreationDate="2020-05-24T03:41:35.193" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="26501" PostId="13310" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides  My non-native intuition (I'm Catalan) is that these French verbs mean 'to provide X/someone with accomodation'. If so, please note that this sematics is typical of **locatum** verbs (e.g., _beurrer/to butter_ = 'to provide the surface (e.g., the bread) with butter'; _seller/to saddle_ = 'to provide the location (e.g., the horse) with a saddle'). In contrast, location verbs do not have this semantics: e.g., _emboteuiller/to bottle_ does not mean 'to provide X with bottle(s)' but rather 'to put X into bottle(s)'." CreationDate="2020-05-24T23:05:39.930" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25638" PostId="13311" Score="0" Text="&quot;Salsissimum futura erit&quot; means &quot;she is going to be a salty thing.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-03-29T00:03:27.777" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24318" PostId="13315" Score="1" Text="Are you interested in noun/adjective declension or verb conjugation? In Greek, one is significantly easier than the other!" CreationDate="2020-02-27T01:19:39.497" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24329" PostId="13315" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: I meant noun declensions. Which do you think is harder?" CreationDate="2020-02-27T23:18:43.653" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="24330" PostId="13315" Score="0" Text="Verbs, by orders of magnitude. Nouns are way easier." CreationDate="2020-02-27T23:24:42.787" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24325" PostId="13316" Score="3" Text="To be able to tell why it has a dative, we should probably take a look at the whole sentence and possibly the preceding one(s) too. Can you give a fuller quote?" CreationDate="2020-02-27T14:55:02.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24322" PostId="13318" Score="0" Text="wow this is super helpful, they all make sense (I like the second explanation even more), thanks a lot!!!" CreationDate="2020-02-27T12:24:56.263" UserId="6597" />
  <row Id="24328" PostId="13318" Score="1" Text="I'm curious – and maybe this should made into a separate question – whether you think this really could be an example of hendiadys. If the ille and haec were omitted, I'd say 'yes.' But those demonstrative separate the grove and the oak so much, putting them in such different degrees of proximity to the speaker, that it seems strange (to me) to bridge that distance and take them together as single concept. But I admit that, when I've encountered examples of hendiadys in the past, I've never given much thought to how far the 'one through two' approach can be stretched before it 'breaks.'" CreationDate="2020-02-27T22:06:41.393" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24323" PostId="13319" Score="0" Text="yes so it would appear...it's so cool...and uh...not pedantic as &quot;classical&quot; would sound like..." CreationDate="2020-02-27T12:26:57.913" UserId="6597" />
  <row Id="24324" PostId="13319" Score="1" Text="Can you add an example fro *De bello Gallico*? A concrete example would make this point stronger." CreationDate="2020-02-27T14:53:55.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24320" PostId="13320" Score="0" Text="oops I just assumed it's masculine because of the ending, my bad...that one solved, I think it has to be singular and the verb goes with the closest subject. since later it went &quot;saepe a me lectus in Mario&quot;,  so I think he read both about that grove and this tree (otherwise he wouldn't mention the forest). then lectus is used which is even more confusing, cuz by that logic given by Hugh lecta should be used not lectus, lecta can be f.sg and n.pl and they would both work..." CreationDate="2020-02-27T12:10:15.857" UserId="6597" />
  <row Id="24321" PostId="13320" Score="1" Text="but I think the sentence is &quot;sloppy&quot; because it's a dialogue, I'll just have to be less fussy about the infection (languages with inflection are scary...), and just read more(as soon as my brain returns from the state of scrambled eggs)" CreationDate="2020-02-27T12:16:04.873" UserId="6597" />
  <row Id="24341" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="@d_e Great find! I see another letter after the q that's been rubbed out, but I can't make it out either. (Out of curiosity, what does fibri mean that you searched for that with canis?)" CreationDate="2020-02-28T16:12:22.403" UserId="6595" />
  <row Id="24343" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Could the word in question refer to the verb _to rise_ instead? FWIW, I searched a dictionary for Latin words in the form m + vowel + lc-. The only loosely related terms I found were a handful of words with the root mulc- related to the verb _to milk_. Including _mulctus_, the animal being milked, arguably a village/domestic animal." CreationDate="2020-02-28T16:56:06.527" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24346" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="@DonielF, In another forum I had the offer from another forum: **&quot;molosso&quot;** which is the Italian for &quot;Molossian dog&quot;. so if it could מלצו instead of מלקו. i.e the letter צ instead of ק, it might be promising maybe?" CreationDate="2020-02-29T08:18:01.347" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="24357" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="@d_e I have a hard time justifying that. It’s not like a switch between, say, a ד and a ר where the letters look similar." CreationDate="2020-03-01T01:14:36.350" UserId="6595" />
  <row Id="24358" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="@Rafael How would that fit in context, translating it as *to rise* or some form of *milk*?" CreationDate="2020-03-01T01:15:34.747" UserId="6595" />
  <row Id="24359" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="@DonielF it's a long shot, I know, but _mulctus_ is the animal being milked, so it could mean not a dog, but a domestic animal in general. I've found no better option so far" CreationDate="2020-03-01T01:58:12.250" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24360" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="The question about the verb _to raise_ (sorry for the typo, I just noticed it) is an attempt at finding an alternative reading: is it possible that it is _to raise_ that is translated as mlkv in foreign tongue?" CreationDate="2020-03-01T02:12:14.963" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24364" PostId="13321" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Might be, but what foreign tongue? Based on the historical context of this comment, as I described in the OP, it seems likely to me that it’s a Latin word - does such a word exist in Latin which means “to raise”?" CreationDate="2020-03-01T04:44:06.980" UserId="6595" />
  <row Id="24344" PostId="13326" Score="2" Text="Those are, strictly speaking, not three dots but rather a dot and a comma, forming a semicolon-like thing, and it does indeed mean _que_. A list with many more of these abbreviations can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation" CreationDate="2020-02-28T19:13:55.757" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="24365" PostId="13329" Score="1" Text="Definitely promising!" CreationDate="2020-03-01T04:44:19.780" UserId="6595" />
  <row Id="24348" PostId="13330" Score="1" Text="llmavirta: Glosbe &quot;leap year&quot;: &quot;annus bisextus&quot;; bisextus being an intercalary i.e. something inserted between other things: &quot;annus intercalarius&quot;; a year + additional day, &quot;annus bisextilis&quot;. Unusually, for Glosbe, no attestations were offered. On Wiktionary, a quote from 1553 which ends: &quot;...quartus vero, ex 366 diebus componitur, et bisextilis nuncupatur.&quot; = &quot;...while the fourth (year), composed of 366 days, is called bissextile.). Pock. Ox. Dict. gives &quot;bisextilis annus&quot; (masculine). Is it your birthday, today? If so Happy Birthday; if not, please ignore this impertinence." CreationDate="2020-02-29T11:44:21.477" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24378" PostId="13330" Score="0" Text="Does *Annus saltus* seem reasonable?" CreationDate="2020-03-01T19:54:33.783" UserId="2707" />
  <row Id="24380" PostId="13330" Score="0" Text="@Allawonder Possibly, but you'd have to argue why it makes sense. I don't recall seeing that in Latin. It looks like a direct translation from English, and not all languages relate leap years to jumping. But whatever the reasoning might be, I'd be happy to see it fleshed out as an answer." CreationDate="2020-03-01T20:48:47.243" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24349" PostId="13332" Score="1" Text="Side comment: this also adds to the answer of [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/241/how-to-say-every-fourth-year-in-latin/887)" CreationDate="2020-02-29T17:20:30.080" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24351" PostId="13332" Score="3" Text="+1. Note that the terms have Roman origins, related to the original Roman calendar. See [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bissextile-), perhaps you could summarize and integrate this in your answer." CreationDate="2020-02-29T17:41:32.813" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24352" PostId="13332" Score="2" Text="@VincenzoOliva Agree that it’s worth explaining why Caesar’s *bissext* (a largely forgotten and obsolete word in English today, though *bissextile* remains) was actually a “double-sixth” day before the March Kalends and so was considered to double the **24ᵗʰ** of February rather than the 28ᵗʰ as we would now reckon it." CreationDate="2020-02-29T19:32:34.533" UserId="875" />
  <row Id="24353" PostId="13332" Score="3" Text="just wanted to mention that the Russian word *високосный* for &quot;leap (year)&quot; originates from &quot;bissextus&quot;" CreationDate="2020-02-29T20:20:25.263" UserId="1760" />
  <row Id="24377" PostId="13332" Score="0" Text="Bissextile is a great word, but pretty much obsolete in English, at least according to [google ngrams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bissextile&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbissextile%3B%2Cc0)" CreationDate="2020-03-01T16:33:53.433" UserId="6610" />
  <row Id="24363" PostId="13334" Score="2" Text="So is this English &quot;exit&quot; an imperative? In that case, your translation is possible." CreationDate="2020-03-01T02:24:37.997" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24369" PostId="13335" Score="2" Text="Imperatives can be rude, in English. In Latin, I was assured by Draconis, this is not the case; in fact, imperatives appear in Latin prayers." CreationDate="2020-03-01T11:34:52.207" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24370" PostId="13335" Score="0" Text="@tony: “Latin” varied and changed over the centuries and places it was used, as all languages do.  If I’m remembering right (though I’m not at all an expert), the connotations/usage of the imperative shifted over time.  Originally the imperative form *exi* was not harsh/rude; but later it came to be seen as rude, and as that changed, the 2nd-person-indicative (eg *exias/exiatis*) became established as a more polite alternative (where earlier, using that indicative as an imperative would have been a grammatical mistake)." CreationDate="2020-03-01T13:16:31.180" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="24372" PostId="13335" Score="0" Text="For some further context, this is a military superior telling a subordinate to &quot;exit smiling&quot;, although in a joking manner. The subordinate, Yossarian, was expecting to be disciplined because he screwed up on a mission and go back and do it again. Instead, he was praised for his 'bravery' and given a promotion, then told to 'exit smiling' so it wouldn't look like he had been disciplined. Classic Catch-22 humor." CreationDate="2020-03-01T14:24:57.520" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="24373" PostId="13335" Score="0" Text="@Adam That information should be in your question; it seems like Nickimite had a different impression of the tone/context of the statement and this translation is perhaps not the best one." CreationDate="2020-03-01T14:27:13.693" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="24374" PostId="13335" Score="0" Text="@KRyan I edited the post to include the additional information." CreationDate="2020-03-01T14:41:52.227" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="24376" PostId="13335" Score="0" Text="@Adam: How about &quot;proficies cum gaudeo/ cum laetitia&quot; = &quot;(you will) advance with joy&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-03-01T15:28:48.717" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24387" PostId="13335" Score="1" Text="Hey, let's not condone the idea that the gerund is adjectival.&#xA;&#xA;gerund is a noun,  gerundIVE is an adjectIVE" CreationDate="2020-03-02T06:56:48.380" UserId="1970" />
  <row Id="24395" PostId="13340" Score="0" Text="A name but I would welcome a change to mens because it is too easily confused for men's. What are some options?" CreationDate="2020-03-02T20:16:34.900" UserId="6608" />
  <row Id="24396" PostId="13340" Score="0" Text="@JuliusBaer I updated the answer." CreationDate="2020-03-02T21:26:39.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24409" PostId="13340" Score="0" Text="I wonder if men's artis is problematic. Artis is quite essential because I am interested in technical art. Mens on the other hand is short and indicates A.I. @c-monsour advises against intellectus artis but that would be the concept of mind I would be after. Much like imagination or intuition or knowledge or interpretation or reason, much less soul or perception or memory." CreationDate="2020-03-04T08:13:32.327" UserId="6608" />
  <row Id="24410" PostId="13340" Score="0" Text="@JuliusBaer Then I think your best option is *mens artis* and you have to live with the possibility of misinterpretation. You can never completely avoid that, and I don't find this situation to be particularly dangerous or likely." CreationDate="2020-03-04T09:42:19.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24379" PostId="13342" Score="0" Text="As a laymen student, I'm curious about your choice to use &quot;esto.&quot; The only times I've heard about it being used was in legal documents, and in a joke by modern classicists about how rare it is." CreationDate="2020-03-01T20:41:04.133" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="24381" PostId="13342" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite I simply adjusted for number and gender the Scouts motto &quot;Estote parati&quot;; I'm open to suggestions" CreationDate="2020-03-01T20:55:09.903" UserDisplayName="user6612" />
  <row Id="24389" PostId="13344" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! We marked this question as duplicate because it had been asked before. If you think the linked question and its answer don't really satisfy you, please edit your post to clarify what you're after. Your question is an excellent one; marking as duplicate is merely a matter of organizing content." CreationDate="2020-03-02T10:03:02.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24390" PostId="13347" Score="0" Text="I didn't use a grammar book, I'm Italian and I tried to make it sound as natural as possible for a Romance language speaker. Compare to: sii preparata a mutare/cambiare i tuoi propositi ma non mutare/cambiare mai i tuoi valori." CreationDate="2020-03-02T11:34:24.717" UserDisplayName="user6612" />
  <row Id="24391" PostId="13347" Score="0" Text="&quot;ne mutes&quot; has a nice touch to it, but as far as i know esto paratus is for masculine and esto parata is feminine (participles are gendered, at least in italian)" CreationDate="2020-03-02T11:38:28.273" UserDisplayName="user6612" />
  <row Id="24392" PostId="13347" Score="0" Text="you did answer my accusative vs. ablative question so I'll mark it as accepted" CreationDate="2020-03-02T11:39:39.987" UserDisplayName="user6612" />
  <row Id="24401" PostId="13347" Score="0" Text="Ah, yes, I see the problem now.  Your language is naturally the closest to classical Latin, but I guess there is the occasional 'false friend'.  &#xA;&#xA;In Italian it seems you express the passive imperative by the verb 'to be' followed by a participle, which, as you say, is gendered.  In Latin, though, I think they'd prefer the imperative mood of the passive voice, which is not gendered.  For example:" CreationDate="2020-03-03T14:03:15.990" UserId="1970" />
  <row Id="24402" PostId="13347" Score="0" Text="amas:   active indicative, you love&#xA;ama:    active imperative,  love!&#xA;amaris: passive indicative, you are loved&#xA;amare or amator:  passive imperative, be loved!&#xA;&#xA;You might consider a grammar book?  Allen &amp; Greenough is my favourite" CreationDate="2020-03-03T14:03:59.500" UserId="1970" />
  <row Id="24403" PostId="13347" Score="0" Text="The 'ne mutes' is a Latin idiom used for a negative imperative, e.g.&#xA;ne ames: ne + subjunctive, do not love!&#xA;I think you say 'Non lavorare!' for 'don't work!', so that does look similar, or 'a nice touch'...  Interesting that you would not say 'Non mutare...'" CreationDate="2020-03-03T15:32:35.933" UserId="1970" />
  <row Id="24393" PostId="13349" Score="1" Text="Off the top of my head, you could elide across a final _S_ in older Latin too, but later poets (especially the poetae novi) disliked this and thought it was bad style." CreationDate="2020-03-02T16:57:54.973" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24394" PostId="13349" Score="2" Text="This is interesting. Do you have a source for this?" CreationDate="2020-03-02T17:53:56.600" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="24452" PostId="13349" Score="1" Text="@Draconis: I'm also curious; the sources I've looked at so far have mentioned short vowel + s in word-final position sometimes scanning as short before a consonant in Plautus, supposedly because of possible loss of /s/ in this position, but that is said to not occur before a vowel." CreationDate="2020-03-10T02:00:54.753" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="33962" PostId="13349" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides, related note [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=mUsQtrxbfxIC&amp;pg=PA221&amp;lpg=PA221&amp;dq=%22it+was+the+custom+not+to+pronounce%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=SRevlXYOh-&amp;sig=ACfU3U1eb9GnQFiUsEzF06-ZUybI9KIk7w&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22it%20was%20the%20custom%20not%20to%20pronounce%22&amp;f=false): Cicero himself seem to agree with you." CreationDate="2021-07-04T22:23:27.203" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="24412" PostId="13351" Score="0" Text="Thank you. If you are a native English speaker, what would be your interpretation of mens artis and would it be disturbing?" CreationDate="2020-03-04T15:27:32.107" UserId="6608" />
  <row Id="24413" PostId="13351" Score="0" Text="Not disturbing.  &quot;Men&quot; is a common syllable in words that have nothing to do with men.  (&quot;Mental&quot;, &quot;menstruation&quot;,&quot;mensuration&quot;, &quot;mended&quot;.)  Also, if you pronounce the Latin properly the first word can't possibly be mistaken for &quot;mens'&quot; since the s transfers to the next word for syllabification purposes, since it starts with a vowel" CreationDate="2020-03-04T18:51:04.720" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24418" PostId="13351" Score="0" Text="@JuliusBaer Also, &quot;mendacious&quot;, &quot;mendicant&quot;, &quot;amen&quot;, &quot;mention&quot;, &quot;mentor&quot;, &quot;meniscus&quot;, &quot;menu&quot;.  I'm thinking you have nothing to worry about here (and I am a native English speaker).  Also, I've never known the opening of the Iliad to cause confusion for English speakers &quot;Menin aeida thea...&quot;" CreationDate="2020-03-05T01:26:48.473" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24398" PostId="13352" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I took the liberty to edit your answer a little to format quotes and such. If you want to mention your blog, I suggest putting a link in your user profile." CreationDate="2020-03-03T06:59:55.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26390" PostId="13352" Score="0" Text="Prayers in the Catholic Mass do not need to be literal translations of the Old Testament. Is. 6:3 in the Vulgate also has &quot;... plena est omnis terra gloria *Ejus*&quot; (Douay-Rheims: &quot;... all the earth is full of *His* glory&quot;)." CreationDate="2020-05-18T21:51:50.297" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="24400" PostId="13353" Score="1" Text="Nice  thought. I like commoneo. I would have translated faciamus as 'Let us make...' ; You could get round this by using *licet* with the infinitive of *facio* and *disced...* ;but that would possibly involve subordinating the first line -*Ut vitae...*" CreationDate="2020-03-03T12:28:01.277" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24411" PostId="13353" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: Thanks. Yes, the hortative subjunctive &quot;let us&quot; = &quot;may we&quot;; I needed &quot;we may&quot;. Perhaps the imperfect subjunctive--&quot;faceremus&quot; = &quot;we might&quot;. The imperf. subj. always seems vague, weak &amp; wishy-washy; still, when needs must." CreationDate="2020-03-04T11:55:38.200" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24428" PostId="13353" Score="1" Text="My own reading of the English is that 'may' is equivalent to Latin licet, as Hugh suggested, not to a hortatory or other type of subjunctive. Lines 2-4 are indirect statement after 'remind, so I'd say something like vitae...commonent licere…." CreationDate="2020-03-05T19:01:56.633" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24414" PostId="13358" Score="1" Text="As a side note, I don't think you have to be shy about including relevant details here—it's best not to have anything NSFW in the question title, but I doubt anyone will get offended if you just say outright what body part is pierced in the question body. (Though I'm not a moderator, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.)" CreationDate="2020-03-04T20:18:13.880" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24417" PostId="13358" Score="1" Text="I agree with @Draconis. If you keep the title clean, avoid shocking images, and take a neutral tone, you can describe pretty much anything. Users on this site can distinguish swearing from discussing swear words, for example." CreationDate="2020-03-04T20:25:52.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24420" PostId="13358" Score="0" Text="Thank you both ... I am not particularly shy, as a rule and I think (hope!) I managed to get my point across, as it were. @Draconis answer has been most helpful." CreationDate="2020-03-05T06:20:08.067" UserId="6622" />
  <row Id="24415" PostId="13360" Score="2" Text="Great find (+1). For a Prince Albert, perhaps glans anulata would be more to the point than mentula anulata?" CreationDate="2020-03-04T20:20:49.623" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24416" PostId="13360" Score="1" Text="@cnread A very good point! I'll edit that in." CreationDate="2020-03-04T20:21:05.333" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24421" PostId="13360" Score="1" Text="Great find indeed! _Anulātus_ will definitely work in my case, so thanks for that. I will officially accept your answer in a day or two." CreationDate="2020-03-05T06:22:37.633" UserId="6622" />
  <row Id="24423" PostId="13360" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Well, naïve, little, old me had to look these things up on the net! Why on earth would anybody want these?! The benefits are?? The word you seek may not be &quot;mentula&quot; but &quot;mental&quot;; giving &quot;morbus animi&quot;; or, even &quot;morbus mentulae&quot;! I shudder at the potential medical problems. You're welcome to it. Have a nice day." CreationDate="2020-03-05T10:21:30.550" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24424" PostId="13360" Score="1" Text="@tony: I think a discussion of the respective dangers and benefits of body piercings really is beyond the scope of this SE. Even though I am not personally affected, I do take exception to your tone and notably your implication of mental health issues. It's not for you (or me, for that matter), we get it, but _suum cuique_ nonetheless." CreationDate="2020-03-05T10:46:20.027" UserId="6622" />
  <row Id="24425" PostId="13360" Score="0" Text="@Ingmar: Issues like politics; history; religion and, of course, sexual practice may incite strong feelings/ passions, generating opinions you may neither like nor agree with. If you can't stand the heat...Upon reflection, my policy is normally--if it doesn't harm anybody; then, please proceed--harsh was the implication &quot;mental&quot;; I withdraw it with an apology." CreationDate="2020-03-05T11:11:13.993" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24422" PostId="13363" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure the question as such makes much sense to me. _Ex post_ means &quot;after&quot;, yes, but this usually refers to knowledge, a motive, a point of view or things like that, and in direct opposition to _ex ante_. It only makes sense in comparison. What exactly is it you are trying to express?" CreationDate="2020-03-05T08:20:13.063" UserId="6622" />
  <row Id="24426" PostId="13363" Score="0" Text="*&quot; in flagrante delicto&quot;* suits some occasions." CreationDate="2020-03-05T13:50:19.867" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24431" PostId="13363" Score="1" Text="Hi @Ingmar, I'm trying to express that instead of a behaviour happening after another event has completed, that that behaviour is happening at the same time as the other event." CreationDate="2020-03-06T09:26:04.207" UserId="6628" />
  <row Id="24432" PostId="13363" Score="1" Text="Sorry for even more information @Ingmar, ex post facto is also used in another sense where a judge gives reasons for his decision 'ex post facto', ie, not the reasons that were the operative or actual reasons for his decision, but which were thought up afterwards. I'm interested in a slightly different sense, where a judge thinks up misleading reasons as he goes along, ie say he's biased for whatever reason, then he thinks of a misleading basis for his decision that he updates as the case goes along to account for any new evidence." CreationDate="2020-03-06T13:18:47.987" UserId="6628" />
  <row Id="24427" PostId="13365" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! Should *octo vocibus* after *per* be construed as ablative or dative? Both make some sense but neither seems classically grammatical." CreationDate="2020-03-05T16:34:29.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24430" PostId="13365" Score="0" Text="Perhaps *per* was a mistranscription of a second *pro*?" CreationDate="2020-03-06T00:16:33.887" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24429" PostId="13366" Score="1" Text="*Post* can be an adverb, so the phrase is valid Latin (though I don't know if it's classically attested)." CreationDate="2020-03-05T23:33:11.910" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24433" PostId="13366" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, I really like this answer. Could it be used in the sense described above (see comment in response to @Ingmar), ie to describe a misleading account of a judge's decision that the judge thinks of (and updates) as the case goes along, rather than thinking of it only after all the evidence has been heard?" CreationDate="2020-03-06T13:23:44.017" UserId="6628" />
  <row Id="24434" PostId="13366" Score="0" Text="@Poul Legal terms aren't my specialty, but I would say yes, it could be." CreationDate="2020-03-06T16:37:48.980" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24435" PostId="13366" Score="0" Text="@Poul To me this was an interesting question. It seems you are pleased with the answer you were given, and be that the case, I would kindly advise you select the answer as your chosen one." CreationDate="2020-03-06T19:35:28.543" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="24436" PostId="13367" Score="1" Text="To clarify: you're using the *ut* in your translation as an interrogative adverb, right? (So a translation back into English would be '...remind *how* it's permitted to us...'?) This may be worth pointing out in your answer, because I think many people who see (*com*)*monent* + *ut* + subjunctive will tend to try to construe it as indirect command (e.g., '...remind that it should be/is to be permitted to us...') instead of indirect question. I heartily approve of your choice of reddere instead of facere; that's a nice touch." CreationDate="2020-03-06T22:07:15.413" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="24440" PostId="13367" Score="1" Text="@cnread Ugh, you are right, _commonere ut_ certainly typically introduces a final clause with a meaning of admonishment (commonishment?) – although the _liceat_ would not really make sense in that case." CreationDate="2020-03-07T10:09:03.220" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="24488" PostId="13370" Score="0" Text="Can you give an example with an ordinal as well?" CreationDate="2020-03-11T22:03:02.353" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24439" PostId="13372" Score="0" Text="Why not use &quot;iter&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-03-07T02:50:27.723" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24441" PostId="13372" Score="0" Text="@Johan88 Because *iter* means journey, not way." CreationDate="2020-03-07T15:44:34.983" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="24442" PostId="13372" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer [L&amp;S:](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=iter) II. Trop., a way, course, custom, method of a person or thing" CreationDate="2020-03-07T15:58:28.213" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24443" PostId="13372" Score="1" Text="@Johan88 Yes, it can mean that, but as you noticed it's not the primary definition. It's metaphorical, but like all metaphors retains the primary meaning of journey, too. That's not to say you can't use it, but keep in mind what you're emphasizing with each metaphor." CreationDate="2020-03-07T16:12:50.237" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="24444" PostId="13372" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Thank you very much, Sir ;P" CreationDate="2020-03-07T16:43:29.653" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="24437" PostId="13373" Score="0" Text="By imperial you mean to include post-classical time? I assume Flavius Josephus is excluded, right? (He meets the imperial criterium, but not quite the outside perspective)" CreationDate="2020-03-06T22:13:54.317" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24438" PostId="13373" Score="0" Text="@Rafael If Josephus actually wrote out the name in Greek letters, I'd include him!" CreationDate="2020-03-06T23:30:52.957" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24460" PostId="13373" Score="0" Text="Saying that *deus* weren't actually a name is contestable. I don't know how you would recognize the difference (especially when they still caps'ed everything), save for the plural being used,or how worthwhile that would be to consider if the practice of translating it thus could be much older. Which is getting ahead of your question anyway. Good question, in fact." CreationDate="2020-03-10T16:14:34.180" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24461" PostId="13373" Score="0" Text="@vectory Jewish tradition treats the Tetragrammaton very differently from titles like _adonai_ (~dominus), _elohim_ (~deus), etc." CreationDate="2020-03-10T16:35:02.120" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24463" PostId="13373" Score="0" Text="Which is perhaps too unique to infer any general statement. Greek at least capitalized names with a simple size contrast, occasionally. I don't know if you got my point. I want to say that &quot;*Deus*&quot; [always] was a name, I just don't want to commit to a specific time frame for that." CreationDate="2020-03-10T16:55:39.187" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24445" PostId="13375" Score="3" Text="Wonderful! Do you happen to know which sources use the transliteration?" CreationDate="2020-03-07T19:55:16.970" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24446" PostId="13375" Score="0" Text="Hi Draconis. The sources are spelled out in the linked article. Thanks to Rafael for making the link!" CreationDate="2020-03-09T21:48:46.387" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24449" PostId="13376" Score="0" Text="Isn't it trochaeic senarius? In either case,  the seventh foot is only a half-foot (limping), which I believe is an anceps as well, So you get 6 times 1 full foot followed by a 7th half-foot. Further, short–long (or long–short) is problematic to use at this period in time, as we are dealing more with stressed/unstressed rather than short/long syllables. Remember that Old Latin was quite clearly accented, and on the first syllable that is." CreationDate="2020-03-09T22:05:03.373" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="24451" PostId="13376" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan: What makes you think that it is a trochaic senarius, or that there is a seventh half-foot? Plautine poetry is weight-based, and the hypothesized Old Latin first-syllable stress is thought to have shifted already to a weight-sensitive stress system by the time of Plautus ([mostly like the later stress system, but supposedly with pre-antepenult stress for LLLX words](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/29971/5581)). The role of stress in Plautine poetry is unclear and disputed." CreationDate="2020-03-10T01:34:27.677" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="30232" PostId="13376" Score="0" Text="I am incredibly embarrassed for not having come back to this earlier. Your reply helped me steer clear of a proper dog’s breakfast, understand what was really going on and identify the proper meter of the text; you helped me earn an A in the subject. Now what to do with my question, which is completely, well, wrong?" CreationDate="2020-12-23T00:09:53.807" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30234" PostId="13376" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Many questions turn out to be a little silly in retrospect, but that retrospect is a sign of learning. There's nothing wrong with that. If you want, you can add a little note to the end of your question or a relevant point within to indicate where you assumed wrong. We hope that future readers read both the question and at least the top answer, so it need not work in isolation. It's best not to edit the question too much as that might invalidate the answer. (It also sounds like you might want to consider giving a bounty.)" CreationDate="2020-12-23T09:27:26.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30536" PostId="13376" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Bounty: I do think it worthwhile, but how do you go about giving a bounty to the chosen answer post factum? Or did you mean offering a bounty for more answers (that I know how to do)?" CreationDate="2021-01-27T20:09:28.080" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30538" PostId="13376" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan You can indeed give bounties post factum, and I've done it several times. In the bounty menu you'll see the option &quot;reward existing answer&quot;. You can then choose the answer to receive the bounty immediately if you wish. I often try to leave the bounty open for almost the full time (a week) so that it gives extra visibility for the post. If you want to leave the bounty up for some time, you can always write a short custom bounty description. The bounty interface allows that." CreationDate="2021-01-27T20:15:16.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24612" PostId="13377" Score="0" Text="For my purposes, I am treating Helios and Apollo as two separate deities, so both terms you shared were equally helpful. Apollo's chariot can be pulled by swans while Helios' can be pulled by horses." CreationDate="2020-03-24T17:18:33.753" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="24455" PostId="13379" Score="3" Text="Technically it would still be Covid-19, since the corona virus is a family of viruses. Not *a* virus." CreationDate="2020-03-10T12:59:27.213" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="24457" PostId="13379" Score="0" Text="@Mast I know, that's why I added &quot;a specific kind thereof&quot;. It is a kind of virus, but I purposefully did not specify if it's a species or something else. Just like a mammal is an animal, a corona virus is a virus." CreationDate="2020-03-10T13:52:37.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24472" PostId="13379" Score="6" Text="@Mast COVID-XIX, or [about 364](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Use_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_Renaissance)" CreationDate="2020-03-11T08:48:52.427" UserId="6647" />
  <row Id="24501" PostId="13379" Score="0" Text="@Chronocidal why not Covid-MMXIX? Or is abbreviating years something that was commonly practiced by the Romans?" CreationDate="2020-03-12T13:24:58.830" UserId="6666" />
  <row Id="24502" PostId="13379" Score="1" Text="@0xC0000022L By the Romans? No idea.  But &quot;O&quot; (11) is a so-called &quot;Medieval Roman Numeral&quot;, and Medieval years were written in [all sorts of different ways](http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/guide/chron.shtml) (Plus, &quot;CoViD&quot; is an abbreviation of &quot;***Co***rona***vi***rus ***D***isease&quot;, but &quot;&quot;Coronavirus&quot; won't parse as Roman Numerals, because &quot;A&quot; and &quot;V&quot; are both 5, so would be &quot;X&quot; or nothing, while &quot;COVID&quot; is COVI (100+11+5+1=117) taken from D (500), for 383)" CreationDate="2020-03-12T14:00:39.260" UserId="6647" />
  <row Id="24503" PostId="13379" Score="0" Text="@Chronocidal ... ah, now I got it. I was aware of the abbreviation, but not of O as numeral and the fact that what you presented was meant as equation." CreationDate="2020-03-12T14:21:34.083" UserId="6666" />
  <row Id="24519" PostId="13379" Score="1" Text="@Mast to be even more precise, the virus is called SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 is the resulting disease)" CreationDate="2020-03-13T13:02:33.580" UserId="6681" />
  <row Id="24450" PostId="13380" Score="0" Text="It seems others adapt this approach as well. I had a hunch that I would find the exact term in  google: indeed search lead me to an interesting Latin twitter account. This is the tweet: https://twitter.com/WWUNuntiiLatini/status/1233547070113447936" CreationDate="2020-03-09T22:18:56.820" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="24470" PostId="13381" Score="1" Text="for anyone else &quot;Ductility&quot; is a measure of a material's ability to undergo significant plastic deformation before rupture or breaking" CreationDate="2020-03-10T22:30:37.437" UserId="6645" />
  <row Id="24473" PostId="13381" Score="4" Text="@TankorSmash: Metaphorically, something is ductile if it is [capable of being fashioned into a new form](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ductile)." CreationDate="2020-03-11T09:00:33.547" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24453" PostId="13383" Score="8" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a good remark, but I think it needs a footnote: One should be careful to make the distinction between a Latin name and a scientific name. The scientific names are in Latin by convention, but scientific names are not the ones that would be typically used in Latin. A Roman wouldn't call a sheep *ovis aries*. [There's a whole question on this distinction.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/371/79)" CreationDate="2020-03-10T12:07:49.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24468" PostId="13383" Score="0" Text="Why that or not just the whole family Coronaviridae? But neither is really the name of the virus the very same way neither Felidae nor Felinae is the name for a cat. It is a word for a group of things, not for a member of that group. And it looks like a plural adjective to me, but I can easily  be wrong." CreationDate="2020-03-10T20:56:43.760" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="24467" PostId="13384" Score="0" Text="Germans say _cricetare_ ;-) – https://www.dw.com/en/a-52635400" CreationDate="2020-03-10T19:42:19.577" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="24456" PostId="13385" Score="5" Text="The first element of a Latin compound usually has its final vowel weakened to -i- (or alternatively, is suffixed with a linking vowel -i-) so corona should make compounds in coroni-." CreationDate="2020-03-10T13:40:03.330" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="24458" PostId="13385" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides. The -a is preserved in coronamentum &quot;garland&quot;. I do not know any compounds beginning with coroni-." CreationDate="2020-03-10T14:47:33.237" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="24459" PostId="13385" Score="1" Text="@fdb but is *coronamentum* a suitable comparison? I guess it's not a Greek loan with merely *-tum* a Latin inovation, but I see *coronam* as inflection (whether it fits is another matter, that I can't answer, given that I could only find *mentum* &quot;chin, jaw&quot;, haha)." CreationDate="2020-03-10T16:07:47.187" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="24466" PostId="13385" Score="4" Text="@fdb: that’s true. I guess I think of *-mentum* as a suffix rather than as a compound element. If you use *coronamentum* as an analogy, then the a would be long, which is historically the case for the stem-final vowel of first declension words, but synchronically not so clear in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2020-03-10T18:39:40.067" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="26330" PostId="13386" Score="0" Text="I would read _proprie_ as adverbial (“which properly sounds the word for God”), if indeed _proprie_ is what it should say. Looks like something went wrong when the scribe was writing that word. The final verb is definitely _opinantur_ in the manuscript, though, making _Hebreī_ (nom.pl.) the subject of a perfectly logical sentence." CreationDate="2020-05-16T10:08:08.247" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="24475" PostId="13388" Score="0" Text="Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. The British press has made light of panic-buying--it's all a bit of a joke--empty shelves reminiscent of a scene from the Third World. These things can turn ugly; food riots, savagery. We think that we are immune from such circumstances--is that true? It was the potential nightmares that I attempted to encapsulate in &quot;delirium emens&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-11T11:27:16.340" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24491" PostId="13390" Score="1" Text="The reconstructions in the quoted MW dictionary entry are taken from Michael Weiss *Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin*, one of the best historical grammars of Latin." CreationDate="2020-03-12T02:54:57.570" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="24476" PostId="13391" Score="17" Text="Not long ago, Latin was the *lingua franca* of educated people; nowadays that role seems to be increasingly filled by English. It's telling, though, that someone who knows Latin can read with relative ease a corpus of written works that spans several millenia, whereas I can only read Chaucer (14th c.) with great difficulty. I don't think, though, that this modest practical benefit is the actual point." CreationDate="2020-03-11T13:50:28.737" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24483" PostId="13391" Score="12" Text="There are easier ways to spend your free time, to be sure, but learning Latin is really not &quot;extremely hard&quot;. It depends a bit on from where you come. But for most Europeans and Americans (North and South), the writing system is identical to our own, the vocabulary is full of familiar faces (like &quot;familiaris&quot; and &quot;facies&quot;), and the grammar is different but not otherworldly." CreationDate="2020-03-11T19:54:31.233" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="24487" PostId="13391" Score="13" Text="Latin among languages is like C among programming languages." CreationDate="2020-03-11T21:57:56.780" UserId="6613" />
  <row Id="24490" PostId="13391" Score="6" Text="I started learning Latin on Duolingo 43 days ago. I feel like I am constantly encountering Latin phrases that I can now understand, not to mention Romance language ones. It really has pervaded all of Western civilisation." CreationDate="2020-03-11T22:43:19.010" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="24493" PostId="13391" Score="5" Text="@Nacht-ReinstateMonica I look forward to seeing Latin questions here arising from the Duolingo course. The course leaves some things out and does a confusing job with some of the things included. I hope we can provide the human feedback aspect that Duolingo lacks." CreationDate="2020-03-12T08:01:10.120" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24497" PostId="13391" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta yes I have had to supplement quite a lot. I didn't find the Tips at all until this past week because I was on mobile. I would have given up learning Latin 42 days ago if it weren't for Duolingo though." CreationDate="2020-03-12T10:28:38.953" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="24498" PostId="13391" Score="1" Text="&quot;_Why speak in Latin in 2020?_&quot; - **to do magic, obviously**. Case in point, spells in Harry Potter are mostly Latin (e.g. Accio = &quot;I summon&quot;). I also remember an old movie where a wizard casted a spell with [a famous Roman quote that translates to &quot;And again I remark that Carthage must be destroyed&quot;](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OminousLatinChanting)." CreationDate="2020-03-12T10:42:41.750" UserId="4823" />
  <row Id="24499" PostId="13391" Score="0" Text="Strange to use a phrase like 'lingua franca' to describe Latin... as it approximately means 'French' (I know, it more accurately means 'The language of the Franks'), because French served as the common language used between the educated of different nations more recently than Latin." CreationDate="2020-03-12T10:47:43.940" UserId="6663" />
  <row Id="24504" PostId="13391" Score="2" Text="Related, but not a direct answer... [Tom Scott](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBa659QWEk1AI4Tg--mrJ2A) (YouTuber) speaks in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYlVJlmjLEc) about &quot;Fantastic Features We Don't Have in the English Language&quot;. In particular, he mentions some endangered languages, and how knowledge of them can enhance knowledge of history and capabilities of the human mind." CreationDate="2020-03-12T14:42:46.477" UserId="6667" />
  <row Id="24505" PostId="13391" Score="0" Text="@stackzebra And I guess Fortran is like PIE?" CreationDate="2020-03-12T16:35:25.883" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24506" PostId="13391" Score="4" Text="I would like to thank everyone who took their time explaining the contemporary Latin scenario, it's truly eye opening, i'm even considering learning Latin now :)" CreationDate="2020-03-12T18:20:21.170" UserId="6648" />
  <row Id="24526" PostId="13391" Score="0" Text="@RaphaelSchmitz Rowling studied French, Classics, and German at Exeter, making Harry Potter almost as modern as Montaigne." CreationDate="2020-03-14T01:21:31.600" UserId="4995" />
  <row Id="24532" PostId="13391" Score="0" Text="Oh got they are using V instead of U in titles - this is too much for me!" CreationDate="2020-03-14T20:45:47.597" UserId="112" />
  <row Id="24545" PostId="13391" Score="2" Text="Because speaking Latin in 1920 is no longer an option" CreationDate="2020-03-16T03:15:08.700" UserId="6692" />
  <row Id="24562" PostId="13391" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5499/what-are-the-benefits-of-studying-latin/5502" CreationDate="2020-03-17T17:41:38.043" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="24494" PostId="13392" Score="8" Text="Philosophy, **law**, biology, **medical sciences**. The highlighted ones require you to learn some Latin to these days (at least in Hungary)." CreationDate="2020-03-12T09:12:12.960" UserId="4713" />
  <row Id="24495" PostId="13392" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: &quot;Roman literature is only available in Latin&quot;? English translations are available (Perseus; Penelope.uchicago.edu) for I-won't-say-everything but I've always found something; even if it took hours on the most obscure little websites." CreationDate="2020-03-12T09:33:04.373" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24496" PostId="13392" Score="2" Text="@tony There are a number of translations to a number of languages. I meant in its original form. I'll edit to clarify." CreationDate="2020-03-12T09:39:00.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24500" PostId="13392" Score="3" Text="Switzerland is a perfect example for point 5. With 4 official languages it is almost impossible not to make anyone upset if you choose one the spoken languages. The official name 'Confoederatio Helvetica' in latin resolves the issue as nobody is advantaged" CreationDate="2020-03-12T12:25:24.990" UserId="6664" />
  <row Id="24508" PostId="13392" Score="0" Text="Was this anthem for the EU &quot;Ode an die Freude&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-03-12T22:37:10.610" UserId="1794" />
  <row Id="24511" PostId="13392" Score="0" Text="&quot;Italy and Vatican have the closest relation, but they both operate in Italian.&quot; Are you certain of this? I was absolutely tickled to find an ATM **in Latin** in Vatican City. It's the only one I ever saw. (I also speak Italian. I overheard many conversations in Latin in St. Peter's Square, usually among priests.)" CreationDate="2020-03-13T06:34:35.040" UserId="239" />
  <row Id="24512" PostId="13392" Score="0" Text="@Nzall Yes, but with new words. It's not a translation of Schiller." CreationDate="2020-03-13T07:43:51.560" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24513" PostId="13392" Score="1" Text="@anongoodnurse Vatican does make occasional use of Latin, but it's certainly not the main language. I've encountered priests there who don't understand if I speak Latin to them." CreationDate="2020-03-13T07:46:11.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24481" PostId="13393" Score="2" Text="Humans are constantly evolving, that means that we constantly optimize our way of communicating, EG: &quot;Do not&quot; -&gt; &quot;Don't&quot;, &quot;Thomas A Swift's Electronic Rifle&quot; -&gt; TASER, thus, languages are created and evolve, just like every language came from the &quot;First/Mother language&quot;. The same happened to Latin, if Latin does start being used again, what would stop it from changing, just like our modern languages today? They do also have a very structured list of rules." CreationDate="2020-03-11T17:22:17.383" UserId="6648" />
  <row Id="24482" PostId="13393" Score="9" Text="If Latin ceased to be a dead language and became something used every day by people, I would expect it to evolve just like you say. And you are right- Latin did evolve, although the Latin people learn and talk about is usually only either classical or ecclesiastical Latin. Of course, if Latin became a living language used every day again that would pretty much answer your original question. :)" CreationDate="2020-03-11T17:32:19.540" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="24514" PostId="13393" Score="1" Text="Latin actually does still evolve though. Like, the grammar itself doesn't evolve, but I distinctly remember that every couple years Latin adds new vocabulary so it can still be properly used in modern society. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/597781/latin-words-phrases-modern-world for more information." CreationDate="2020-03-13T08:31:12.783" UserId="1794" />
  <row Id="24521" PostId="13393" Score="1" Text="@Nick - I like how you sneaked in the latin 'e.g.' in your comment there" CreationDate="2020-03-13T15:20:04.037" UserId="6682" />
  <row Id="24515" PostId="13394" Score="0" Text="Note that the Latin Mass (ordinary or extraordinary forms) has never ceased to be an option. For example, papal masses with broadly international audiences have continuously been celebrated in Latin to this day" CreationDate="2020-03-13T10:22:21.483" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24516" PostId="13394" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Yes, but it did cease to be a matter of uniformity." CreationDate="2020-03-13T11:35:06.750" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24485" PostId="13395" Score="0" Text="Hint: think of the _futuram_ as _futuram esse_, an infinitive." CreationDate="2020-03-11T21:46:30.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24486" PostId="13395" Score="0" Text="yes it definitely feels like a Latin indirect statement but where is the 'direct' verb?" CreationDate="2020-03-11T21:54:03.760" UserId="2796" />
  <row Id="24531" PostId="13395" Score="0" Text="@Ben Dunlap: The use of &quot;futuram (esse)&quot; may give &quot;his authority will be great&quot;. Ex. &quot;(dicit) hostes venturos esse&quot; = &quot;(he says) the enemy will come&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-14T12:31:54.140" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24509" PostId="13399" Score="0" Text="+1 for a very good explanation of Latin use in the current day, and also for explaining why you need to get some rest. ;)" CreationDate="2020-03-13T00:44:51.197" UserId="6678" />
  <row Id="24510" PostId="13402" Score="0" Text="Salvete omnes worked for Doctor Illa Flora." CreationDate="2020-03-13T03:59:32.513" UserId="4995" />
  <row Id="24523" PostId="13402" Score="0" Text="@livresque That's fine until you need an adjective.  Then *socii* would be better." CreationDate="2020-03-13T21:40:30.157" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24507" PostId="13403" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! It can indeed be quite a nuisance that in living languages words change meaning or at least nuance pretty quickly." CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:37:45.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24520" PostId="13405" Score="0" Text="The first example, &quot;unus tribunorum&quot;, may have only one translation; the second, &quot;unus ex tribunis&quot; will depend on the alternative meanings of &quot;ex&quot; e.g. &quot;one from (the group of) tribunes&quot;; &quot;one (circumstance) on account of the tribunes&quot;; one (thing) in accordance with the tribunes&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-13T13:46:48.937" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24522" PostId="13405" Score="0" Text="I agree with your point that _ūnus ex tribūnīs_ can be literally translated as 'one from (the group of) tribunes'. The source construal with 'from' would not be encoded in the partitive genitive." CreationDate="2020-03-13T17:17:48.693" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="24517" PostId="13406" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! As you have two distinct questions, I recommend asking them separately. Can you edit one of them out from this one and ask it as a new question?" CreationDate="2020-03-13T11:51:19.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35510" PostId="13408" Score="1" Text="+1 for a good and thorough answer. You just edited one nit to pick, but if I can add another, *mitosis* is properly from coined from [Greek roots](https://www.etymonline.com/word/mitosis), so unfortunately Latin won't help with that. But you do see Latin in medicine anyway, like with body parts (*cerebrum*, *tibia*) or some adjectives (like the *nervosa* part of *anorexia nervosa*)." CreationDate="2021-10-18T21:40:47.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="24537" PostId="13414" Score="3" Text="For some reason *vaefae* sounds more like a waffle to me." CreationDate="2020-03-15T17:03:33.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24556" PostId="13414" Score="2" Text="That's how we do it in Czech (`/vIfI/`) be we do not decline it. We do decline the colloquial wifina though (`/vIfIna/`)." CreationDate="2020-03-16T18:34:10.147" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="24538" PostId="13417" Score="1" Text="I really liked your answer, specially with the contrast between negotium and otium. I will wait to see if anyone else has other answers to give (specially if there is already a medieval or later latin word specifically for this) and if not I will select your answer. Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2020-03-15T19:13:44.510" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="24539" PostId="13419" Score="1" Text="Hagen, Hansludwig. &quot;Die Diskussion Um Die Schreibweise Von Ζῆν(') Im Homerischen Epos.&quot; Glotta 72, no. 1/4 (1994): 98-104. Accessed March 15, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40266989. - see esp. page 100" CreationDate="2020-03-15T22:30:06.037" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="24540" PostId="13419" Score="1" Text="Körte, Alfred. &quot;Die Episynaloiphe.&quot; Glotta 3, no. 2 (1911): 153-56. Accessed March 15, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40264676. - see esp. page 154" CreationDate="2020-03-15T22:34:45.277" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="24542" PostId="13420" Score="2" Text="If you could include the actual text, as well, that would help a lot!" CreationDate="2020-03-15T23:06:14.000" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24546" PostId="13420" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! As others have mentioned, the actual text would make it far easier to explain what is going on. It's okay if it's a lot of text; we can recognize the essentials if you can point to some of the confusing words. Let me know if you have trouble editing your question, attaching images, or anything else." CreationDate="2020-03-16T07:18:45.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24555" PostId="13420" Score="0" Text="I edited the letter from your answer to the question. Feel free to edit further by clicking the little &quot;edit&quot; button under the question!" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:24:55.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24547" PostId="13421" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for sharing your view! I look forward to seeing more questions and answers from you." CreationDate="2020-03-16T07:21:10.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35530" PostId="13421" Score="0" Text="This excellent reply is truly *the* answer to this question." CreationDate="2021-10-22T13:54:55.053" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="24557" PostId="13426" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Is &quot;nine&quot; in this context nine individual somethings, or the number nine itself, are is it the nine that have faith or is the nine that you have faith in?" CreationDate="2020-03-16T22:29:09.313" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="24558" PostId="13426" Score="0" Text="Hello.Thank you. The title &quot;Faith of Nine&quot; is referring to a fictional faith that is based on the worship on 9 elements. I'm not entirely sure which alternative from your response to choose from." CreationDate="2020-03-17T09:58:47.357" UserId="6697" />
  <row Id="24559" PostId="13426" Score="0" Text="@User5504242: Number &quot;novem&quot; does not decline so &quot;fides novem&quot; will not immediately convey your desire. How about &quot;fides rudimentum&quot; = faith of the first-principles&quot;/ &quot;faith of the rudiments&quot;? You could include &quot;novem&quot;, but it's less punchy." CreationDate="2020-03-17T11:00:13.607" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24560" PostId="13426" Score="0" Text="Hm...so Fidei Autem Novem is not the correct translation? The correct translation is Fides Novem?&#xA;Faith of the first-principles does not really convey the meaning of the song, or lay any emphasis on the elements/the number 9, which is highly important in this context." CreationDate="2020-03-17T11:22:22.003" UserId="6697" />
  <row Id="24561" PostId="13426" Score="0" Text="@user5504242: &quot;Fidei Autem Novem&quot; = &quot;Nine is however of the Faith&quot;; or &quot;to&quot;/ &quot;for&quot; the faith&quot;. Fides Novem&quot; could be translated as &quot;Faith of the Nine&quot;; but numbers, above three, do not decline; without the genitive &quot;of nine&quot;, it looks like &quot;Faith Nine&quot;. Alternatively, &quot;fides novem elementorum&quot; = &quot;faith of the nine elements&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-17T14:39:48.053" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24569" PostId="13426" Score="0" Text="All right. Then I understand. Thank you for your answer. Fides Novem, or Fides Novem Elementorum would be more correct in other words. It just doesn't sound as punchy and powerful as my original idea. I will have to figure out a different title based on your answer." CreationDate="2020-03-18T15:36:50.180" UserId="6697" />
  <row Id="24571" PostId="13427" Score="1" Text="I don't know how well they researched it, but the game developers of Imperator Rome used &quot;infera&quot; for some province names." CreationDate="2020-03-18T20:39:05.643" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="31125" PostId="13430" Score="3" Text="Can you reproduce the actual dialogue? What is that &quot;he&quot; doing there? It seems we're missing something in the beginning of your translation." CreationDate="2021-03-17T16:38:55.517" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31129" PostId="13430" Score="0" Text="@C. M. Weimar: I like to translate lines from Roman-epic films &amp; TV-progs e.g. &quot;I Claudius&quot;, into Latin. This one I wrote down years ago and translated it badly. I cannot remember the dialogue or the position from which Pilate's colleague had been originally dismissed. Apologies for this lack of detail. Joonas, in his excellent answer, has covered all angles of interpretation and it's well-worth the study!" CreationDate="2021-03-17T23:28:03.917" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24570" PostId="13431" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I think your translation would be understandable, and the resemblance to the original justifies the possible lack of grammatical correctness. I'm not sure if _cogito_ is the verb to express this kind of belief (I'd use [puto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dputo) or [credo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcredo) instead). In Latin you usually express beliefs with the infinitive: **puto me esse**" CreationDate="2020-03-18T19:23:48.943" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="24563" PostId="13432" Score="1" Text="It seems good, but couldn't that be confused with a valley? Maybe something like _Terrae Vallium_? I also just found this link: &#xA;&#xA;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_baixa&#xA;&#xA;It is a play called &quot;lowlands&quot; and the wiki author translates lowlands as _terra demissa_." CreationDate="2020-03-17T18:13:51.433" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="24566" PostId="13432" Score="1" Text="Yes it can be confused with valley, but very few languages have as many words as English, and their words cover more ground (pun intended)" CreationDate="2020-03-18T00:49:38.200" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24567" PostId="13432" Score="0" Text="True, and in most cases I would agree with you.After all, context matters, so there are many words that mean one thing and can mean another in a different context.My main problem though is the differentiation of the two meanings, because they are essentially very different things.In the case of lowlands, we are talking about lands that are closer to the sea in height.Like when we speak of the Netherlands.But when we talk about a valley we are talking about a land that is between mountains or hills.I would hesitate in using a word for valley because of such dissimilarities.Does that make sense?" CreationDate="2020-03-18T01:12:19.717" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="24568" PostId="13432" Score="0" Text="Just to add to what I said, because of the character count constraints: They have very different meaning, but are employed in the same _context_ (geography)." CreationDate="2020-03-18T01:13:13.337" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="24565" PostId="13433" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question!" CreationDate="2020-03-17T22:10:25.730" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="26467" PostId="13434" Score="1" Text="Why would &quot;&quot;what is going on in someone's mind&quot; demand the perfect subjunctive, as opposed to the more diffuse, indefinite imperfect subjunctive? In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/13729/1982 the thinking was, finally, that &quot;memento quod + perfect subj. was an evolved form of indirect speech; possibly, unique to the Latin Vulgate. Your thoughts, please." CreationDate="2020-05-23T12:53:55.360" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26468" PostId="13434" Score="1" Text="@tony What is going on in someone's mind would not of itself demand a perfect subjunctive, but if the action being contemplated is complete, that completion would demand a perfect rather than an imperfect tense. Note that it's not the *momento* that is perfect, but the *sumpseris*." CreationDate="2020-05-23T13:33:53.070" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26469" PostId="13434" Score="1" Text="Understood. Therefore, &quot;memento quod + perfect subjunctive&quot; is nothing to do with indirect speech?" CreationDate="2020-05-23T14:00:59.780" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26491" PostId="13434" Score="1" Text="@tony What an excellent question! (Now I have to update my answer.) The simple answer, I believe, is in general no, but in any particular case maybe. In this particular case, the answer may very well be yes, but it's not easy for me to tell." CreationDate="2020-05-24T18:55:26.657" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26506" PostId="13434" Score="0" Text="In three of the Vulgate examples there are two perfect subjunctives (PS), in each sentence. It could be argued that each PS must be fulfilling the same role. The speaker asks the second person to remember (memento quod...) a completed action/s in his memory/ mind/ thoughts. If correct, this must obviate the need to express the action of the third party (God), in indirect speech. The grammatical priority goes, not to the third party, but the recollection from the memory (of the second person). Have you considered the asking of a new Q? If you do not wish to, would you mind if I did?" CreationDate="2020-05-25T08:04:46.990" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26507" PostId="13434" Score="0" Text="The right lies with yourself." CreationDate="2020-05-25T08:05:35.720" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26514" PostId="13434" Score="0" Text="@tony I certainly would not mind. Please do." CreationDate="2020-05-25T14:26:25.727" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24574" PostId="13435" Score="1" Text="Are you sure about &quot;mihi&quot; in &quot;memento mihi semper&quot;? For close, personal/ emotional relationships the genitive is used: &quot;memento mei pro hoc et ne deleas miserationes meas quas feci in domo Dei et in caerimoniis eius.&quot;  (Nehemiah 13.14) = &quot;Remember me my God concerning this and wipe out not my good deeds that I have done for the House of God, and for the offices thereof.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-03-19T14:13:20.400" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24597" PostId="13438" Score="0" Text="This is a quote from the Baha'i faith." CreationDate="2020-03-22T13:54:52.360" UserId="6710" />
  <row Id="24618" PostId="13438" Score="0" Text="This quote is from Baha'u'llah the founder of the Baha'i Faith.&#xA;&quot;Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch&quot;.&#xA;There are many similar quotations like this in the Baha'i literature including &quot;waves of one ocean ,and drops of one sea, and flowers of one garden&quot;&#xA;These quotations for unity ,are very well known for Baha'is through out the world.&#xA;It seems these quotations have been simplified in this format." CreationDate="2020-03-21T06:24:49.503" UserId="6706" />
  <row Id="24583" PostId="13439" Score="0" Text="Vincenzo Oliva: Which part of Italy are you in? May God be with you." CreationDate="2020-03-21T12:56:57.290" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="24586" PostId="13439" Score="0" Text="@tony: Thank you for your kind thought, I'm in my hometown in Calabria (Southern Italy). Here the situation is nowhere as critical as in Lombardy - still, as you may know, everyone is (should be) shut away at home to avoid escalation, especially in the other regions. May things improve soon in Lombardy, and let us hope things don't get to that point anywhere else. Stay safe!" CreationDate="2020-03-21T16:19:16.373" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24604" PostId="13439" Score="0" Text="Other than the message of fraternity on this garden monument attributed to Seneca, is there anywhere else where this quotation is attributed to Seneda? If this phrase attributed to Seneca can not be found anywhere in Seneca's writings, is there something similar that Seneca said?" CreationDate="2020-03-21T20:37:08.430" UserId="6708" />
  <row Id="24605" PostId="13439" Score="0" Text="@MauryMiloff: See my edit." CreationDate="2020-03-23T13:53:35.553" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="24573" PostId="13440" Score="2" Text="I edited the last paragraph a bit. I actually have Ylermi's translations, and I might write up something about them. // Can you include actual names in the answer? The links might rot." CreationDate="2020-03-19T12:26:11.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24587" PostId="13442" Score="0" Text="A good intro book would indeed be a big help. I don't know of one myself, but I do know that there is a lot of interest on Thomas Aquinas on the net. Googling &quot;aquinas latin for beginners&quot; or some such might yield a few leads." CreationDate="2020-03-21T18:02:32.980" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24593" PostId="13442" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, I followed my own advice, and I found some references to *A Lexicon of Saint Thomas Aquinas* by Roy J. Deferrari. The blurbs make it sound like it might be suitable. Since it's so expensive, you might request a copy through interlibrary-loan and see whether it is worth buying." CreationDate="2020-03-22T18:39:33.520" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24581" PostId="13444" Score="0" Text="Since Latin has been spoken for so long, there is no single pronunciation system for Latin that is unanimously agreed to be the &quot;proper&quot; one. For example, English-speaking students taking a Latin course at school in the United States are likely to be taught to follow the &quot;restored&quot; pronunciation system; singers working on a choral piece might be taught to use an &quot;ecclesiastical Latin&quot; pronunciation system; and English-speaking students of law or medicine might use what Wikipedia calls the &quot;traditional English pronunciation of Latin&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-20T20:48:08.273" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="24591" PostId="13444" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides, this is a very appropriate question. I would mean the context of Bible reading. It's interesting to add another detail, the Tremellius/Junio - Beza Bible, in contrast with the Vulgate, was Protestant so much so that was one of the sources of the KJV. That being said, I don't know whether Protestants pronounced the &quot;ecclesiatical Latin&quot; or the Ciceronian latin. Any insights are very welcome." CreationDate="2020-03-22T12:27:02.987" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="24592" PostId="13450" Score="0" Text="That's a pretty neat observation. You could personalize it to &quot;Reddo quod debeo&quot; (I pay what I owe) or &quot;reddimus quod debemus&quot; (we pay what we owe)." CreationDate="2020-03-22T17:32:00.423" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24609" PostId="13451" Score="2" Text="Note that _Confine yourself to the present_ is one translator's version (Long, 1862). Farquharson, 1944, renders it _Define the time which is present_, which would have an utterly different Latin translation from Long's version." CreationDate="2020-03-23T18:21:56.683" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="24603" PostId="13453" Score="1" Text="Do you want something that's purely Greek and then transliterated to the Latin alphabet? Or is it okay to use Latin words too?" CreationDate="2020-03-23T13:42:31.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="24606" PostId="13453" Score="1" Text="I think I am open to either option. It will be written in English letters in the end anyway." CreationDate="2020-03-23T14:09:41.330" UserId="6714" />
  <row Id="24610" PostId="13456" Score="0" Text="Thanks, this helps a lot.  I keep finding - and or - end in the gerundive set. It makes sense that - nd is a gerundive marker (sort of)." CreationDate="2020-03-23T21:03:46.217" UserId="6636" />
  <row Id="24613" PostId="13460" Score="0" Text="Hmm, I checked my text for those very verbs, thinking they might show it. Don't know how I missed that, must have been up too late last night ;) Will look again. Thanks for the informative answer, +1 for you." CreationDate="2020-03-24T18:06:13.437" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="24615" PostId="13460" Score="0" Text="Yes, it is there in my text (JACT *Reading Greek*) for δίδωμι and τίθημι as well. Don’t know how I missed them. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2020-03-25T09:35:41.590" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="24617" PostId="13460" Score="0" Text="Idle speculation: could those be from some sort of old subjunctive? I believe the subjunctive didn't (always) have lengthened vowels in archaic Greek." CreationDate="2020-03-25T14:45:26.350" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24619" PostId="13460" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus There were indeed short-vowel subjunctives (the IE subjunctive rule was simply &quot;add -e/o-&quot;, resulting in short-vowel stems for athematic verbs and long-vowel stems for thematic verbs), but they still had a thematic vowel, which we don't see in δό-ς etc." CreationDate="2020-03-25T17:41:20.213" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="24627" PostId="13460" Score="0" Text="@TKR: OK, noted. I'll pay more attention reading Homer..." CreationDate="2020-03-26T04:08:23.950" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="24614" PostId="13461" Score="0" Text="*Serum* (long -e-) means late in the day, late in the evening. So the first suggestion 'the time is late-in-the-day for being wary.'" CreationDate="2020-03-24T21:59:49.020" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="24624" PostId="13463" Score="0" Text="Good catch on the Publius Syrus quote. I like it! That's a first for me for Google translate." CreationDate="2020-03-25T23:40:29.433" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="24626" PostId="13463" Score="0" Text="I looked around some more--the attribution to Publilius Syrus may not hold water after all. Definitely in Seneca later (Sen. Thy. 488), so the AI probably fed on that. Whether a quote or an interpolation, it does have that ring of a common saying. ;)" CreationDate="2020-03-26T02:32:46.003" UserId="6718" />
  <row Id="24620" PostId="13464" Score="1" Text="I would find a more standard translation of Aquinas: *equalizing* implies an active role, as if the two were made to be equal rather than found to be so. &quot;Belief&quot; is also not a good translation of *intellectus* (&quot;intellect/understanding&quot;; corresponding to Aristotle's νοῦς)." CreationDate="2020-03-25T18:45:38.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="24621" PostId="13464" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Fair; isn't _**ad**aequatio_ somewhat active though, with the prefix? I normally think of _adaequo_ as &quot;equalize&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-25T18:53:50.540" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="24622" PostId="13464" Score="0" Text="I'd like to say 'Love equalizes understandings of itself' in a way which echoes Aquinas." CreationDate="2020-03-25T19:19:11.430" UserId="4867" />
  <row Id="24623" PostId="13464" Score="0" Text="In certain contexts it can be active, but here Aquinas uses it as a synonym of *conformitas* and *correspondentia*. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has some good info on this in its article on the [Correspondence Theory of Truth](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/). FWIW in that article (and in other translations of Aquinas I've seen), they translate *adaequatio* as &quot;equation&quot;; I've also seen the transliteration &quot;adequation.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-03-25T21:24:06.573" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25708" PostId="13464" Score="0" Text="FWIW, I think Russell's famous example points up an inadequacy in Aquinas's definition: If the &quot;understanding&quot; is based on a mistake, maybe it would be better to use a different word, like &quot;belief&quot;.  (If you think the prime minister's name starts with a &quot;B&quot;, but you think Balfour rather than Boris Johnson is prime minister, that is a belief in something that is true, but you probably shouldn't call it &quot;understanding&quot;, nor *intellectus*.)" CreationDate="2020-04-02T10:23:20.990" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="24630" PostId="13465" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! I look forward to hearing more from you." CreationDate="2020-03-26T20:03:21.017" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25641" PostId="13465" Score="1" Text="I suggest you cut the second paragraph. There are Greek books that have survived only in Arabic translation, but no Latin works. Latin was not widely read in the Near East." CreationDate="2020-03-29T16:48:08.090" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="25666" PostId="13470" Score="0" Text="So is there a feminine word *alimenta* in post-classical Latin? Or is there some kind of post-classical deponent *sustentor*? I do think your translation is the meaning intended by the author." CreationDate="2020-03-31T02:01:08.513" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25667" PostId="13470" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Possibly _sustentor, sustentari_, meaning something like &quot;take sustenance from&quot;? Often in later Latin the cases don't seem to line up and I have to force them a bit to get something grammatical; I assume that's just my limited understanding." CreationDate="2020-03-31T02:13:03.103" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="25670" PostId="13470" Score="0" Text="No, I have seen the same thing. For example, *per* + ablative is very common in post-classical Latin. So it could be an combination of soloecisms in this case." CreationDate="2020-03-31T12:35:32.527" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27279" PostId="13472" Score="0" Text="I really think this might be the answer (to my two year (?) old question). Can anyone else please chime in and let me know if they agree or disagree that this is it?" CreationDate="2020-07-20T19:57:39.270" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="25639" PostId="13476" Score="3" Text="The &quot;Old Greek word Lavrenti&quot; in that article is unsourced and certainly nonsense." CreationDate="2020-03-29T00:15:16.543" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="25653" PostId="13477" Score="0" Text="I think, &quot;synchronum facere&quot; (or &quot;synchronam facere&quot; depending on the gender of what you were synchronizing) is a fine alternative to &quot;synchronizare&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-30T10:11:12.423" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25652" PostId="13478" Score="0" Text="One reason that nouns in -&quot;ation&quot; are not much used is that the suffixes &quot;-isma&quot; or &quot;-ismus&quot; came ready made to turn &quot;-ize&quot; verbs into nouns. &quot;Baptism&quot; instead of &quot;baptization&quot;. I humbly suggest &quot;synchronism&quot; instead of &quot;synchronization&quot;, or in Latin, *synchronisma*, *synchronismatis*, or *synchronismus*, *synchronismi*." CreationDate="2020-03-30T10:07:31.773" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25643" PostId="13480" Score="2" Text="As an aside, while we are on the subject of monastic poverty, you can listen to John Kuhner telling a joke about poor Jesuits in Latin here: https://youtu.be/jSeBLq6X2FY?t=157" CreationDate="2020-03-29T21:32:06.310" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25651" PostId="13482" Score="0" Text="The Wikipedia article you linked to does give the rather better translation, &quot;rule of falsehood&quot;, when quoting Humphrey Baker further down in the body." CreationDate="2020-03-30T09:55:09.523" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25645" PostId="13484" Score="0" Text="Hmm. ἀστεραίων looks weird to me, though I can't quite say why." CreationDate="2020-03-30T02:40:33.430" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25646" PostId="13484" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I don't know...could it be that αἰὼν is rarely or never used in compounds? I've no idea." CreationDate="2020-03-30T03:22:05.043" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25647" PostId="13484" Score="0" Text="It has a nice ring to it. I don't know much about Greek, but it sounds legitimate." CreationDate="2020-03-30T04:31:07.150" UserId="6714" />
  <row Id="25648" PostId="13484" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I'm not sure noun-noun compounding of this kind is very productive in Greek." CreationDate="2020-03-30T04:48:35.490" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25649" PostId="13485" Score="8" Text="Note that Latin is hardly special in this regard. Most Slavic languages (like Polish or Russian) have no articles either, for example." CreationDate="2020-03-30T06:28:33.043" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25654" PostId="13485" Score="1" Text="... and other languages only have a definite article (&quot;the&quot;), and no indefinite article (&quot;a/an&quot;), e.g., Hebrew." CreationDate="2020-03-30T12:00:09.333" UserId="3330" />
  <row Id="25663" PostId="13485" Score="1" Text="@StephanKolassa: And, conversely, some have indefinite articles but no definite articles. [The *World Atlas of Linguistic Structures*, Chapter 37](https://wals.info/chapter/37) includes 45 such languages, including Japanese, Persian, and Cantonese. ([Chapter 38](https://wals.info/chapter/38) includes 98 languages with definite articles but no indefinite articles, including Icelandic, Welsh, and various forms of Arabic.)" CreationDate="2020-03-31T00:40:35.490" UserId="3511" />
  <row Id="25664" PostId="13485" Score="1" Text="A.A. Milne's book &quot;Winnie the Pooh&quot; has been translated into Latin under the title &quot;Winnie Ille Pu&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-30T11:26:50.360" UserId="6732" />
  <row Id="25696" PostId="13485" Score="0" Text="@A.k.a.Demic In that context *ille* has a meaning something like 'the well-known', rather than the plain definite article." CreationDate="2020-04-01T14:57:32.023" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="25697" PostId="13485" Score="0" Text="For accomplishing the same goal as 'the' as opposed to 'a', i.e. specifying who's performing a certain action, the pronoun ipse is also used." CreationDate="2020-04-01T15:21:37.987" UserId="6749" />
  <row Id="25687" PostId="13486" Score="2" Text="Another interesting case is Romanian, where various forms of ille/illa morphed into enclitic definite articles, e.g. _om_ (man) → _omul_ (the man), _muiere_ (woman) → _muierea_ (the woman) etc." CreationDate="2020-03-31T20:33:09.013" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25655" PostId="13489" Score="0" Text="Amazing find! Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-03-30T12:07:59.107" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="25661" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="Some discussion here, and an answer by Alex B quoting de Vaan: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3405/why-does-b-differ-between-l-offero-and-l-aufero" CreationDate="2020-03-30T22:07:58.040" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25678" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="compare German *abhauen* &quot;to leave, get away&quot; (usually quickly so). the apparent stem *hauen* &quot;to hew&quot; (beat, strike) makes close to no sense here. To split off, branch off and similar might make sense somehow, but I suggest rebracketing, in which case it might be relevant. Also see *die Biege machen* (idem); *abbiegen* (&quot;to turn&quot; in the sense &quot;make a left&quot;, but wiktionary has more; trivially *biegen* &quot;bend&quot;, cp &quot;get bent&quot;). \*Hu implies \*Hew, cp. \*kewp &quot;bend&quot; (IIRC), perhaps \*kaput (cp &quot;to head of&quot;), or the same element as in *away* (I want to say the same as in L *e-x*), or *ever*." CreationDate="2020-03-31T17:23:02.357" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="25679" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="also see https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/abuhaz supposing \*Hepo, trivially" CreationDate="2020-03-31T17:27:40.963" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="25680" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="@vectory You seem to be talking about descendants of *_h₂(e)po-_, cognate with Latin _ab_; I'm asking about Kloekhorst's view that Latin _au-fugiō_ comes instead from *_h₂-u-_." CreationDate="2020-03-31T17:32:25.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="25681" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="Kind of. It's the most obvious assumption, isn't it? But if I suppose rebracketing in abhauen (and geminated h out of the bue), then *-a*  is left to be explained. I could even imagine another comparison, *abhängen* (to get away from, leave behind, literally *hang off*) that might show n-infix (?) and original velar; just for sake of the argument. Eitherway, an internal derivation of \*h2(e)po is wanted, yes. Its stem might be the stem in au-fugio, contracted with *fui* and then some." CreationDate="2020-03-31T17:40:38.583" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="25755" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="Cyril Bosch with *Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Raumgrammatik* treats *u-* in sections 2.2.2.1 and 4.1.2. The former is not previewed in google books, the latter, on p. [342](https://books.google.de/books?id=RNPmBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA419&amp;dq=lexikon+der+indogermanischen+partikeln+Dunkel&amp;hl=de&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjAt8vKpODmAhWz6KYKHUXjAHwQuwUINzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=lexikon%20der%20indogermanischen%20partikeln%20Dunkel&amp;f=false), is not clear to me, paraphrased: *it was a topologic term, gained reference to the &quot;Centrum deicticum&quot; through pragmatism, later &quot;inferierte Perspektive&quot; and loss of prior function*" CreationDate="2020-04-04T19:23:41.923" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="25756" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="[cont.] *If 'her' ~ ablative/adjective 'von … weg' then 'hin' ~ terminative 'an/auf … hin', cp. Gr.* epi *'an/auf', etc. in line with Kloekhorst (2008: 661) instead of Gr.* apo *'von/weg', Slav.* po, *etc. thus \*poi, cp. TochA* -pi *[w.R.]. The diphtong is secured by the* a *in* payi-/pai-[zi] *(against Melchert 1994 \*pe), which may be &quot;univerbiert&quot; after \*h1 elided, but before monophtongization of [\*oiH] (\*poi-antsi, panzi versus \*h2uh1ienti, huyanti)*" CreationDate="2020-04-04T19:40:48.150" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="25757" PostId="13494" Score="0" Text="I know some of these words. The paragraph is introduced by a broad reconstruction for *pe*: *\*(H)PVi- or \*(H)Pe(h1)-; to which* u- *should be compared on semantic grounds*. Anyhow, another interesting bit might be p. 317 *uwa-*, *sometimes though implying immediacy [with references]*" CreationDate="2020-04-04T19:53:19.003" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="25682" PostId="13497" Score="0" Text="I remember reading somewhere that the rhetoricians preferred some rhythms at the end of paragraphs. E.g.Dactyls (Dum -diddy) were good. *Germania* has a good cadence." CreationDate="2020-03-31T17:55:21.717" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="25668" PostId="13500" Score="0" Text="And what is the connection betwen &quot;valeō&quot; and &quot;valere&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-03-31T07:10:56.660" UserId="6727" />
  <row Id="25672" PostId="13500" Score="1" Text="@Ark25 They are the same thing. They are different forms of the same verb, and you can use either one to refer to it. More precisely, *valeo* is &quot;I am strong&quot; and *valere* is &quot;to be strong&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-31T14:32:47.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25669" PostId="13501" Score="1" Text="This doesn't really answer the question, but it's very nice to know. I knew about the &quot;sa&quot; article in Sardinian, but I had no idea it came from &quot;ipsa&quot;." CreationDate="2020-03-31T12:27:31.027" UserId="2677" />
  <row Id="25683" PostId="13501" Score="1" Text="Eh, it answers it for a dialect of vulgar Latin which developed into Sardinian. It's as valid in its way as the classical bias pretending lower-class Latin didn't use _ille_ and intensifiers for clarity." CreationDate="2020-03-31T18:48:18.423" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="25686" PostId="13501" Score="0" Text="Not only Sardinian. Some dialects of Catalan did, too. Nowadays the articles es/sa, from ipsus, are restricted to the Balearic Islands and a few locations in North Eastern Catalonia, but thew used to be common in a larger area." CreationDate="2020-03-31T19:49:41.903" UserId="851" />
  <row Id="25689" PostId="13503" Score="1" Text="How did a question about a Greek translation end up on latin SE? O_o" CreationDate="2020-03-31T23:52:32.900" UserId="1452" />
  <row Id="25690" PostId="13503" Score="5" Text="@Ángel Latin.SE handles Ancient Greek and a few other ancient languages as well; the name is a bit unintuitive, but we broadened our scope a while back." CreationDate="2020-03-31T23:56:58.463" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="25691" PostId="13503" Score="2" Text="Thanks @Draconis. I did look at the tour and only found it mentioning &quot;the finer points of the Latin language&quot;. Only on rereading do I find now the mention of &quot;We also allow questions about Ancient Greek&quot;. Well, it was bound to be a silly question." CreationDate="2020-03-31T23:59:36.250" UserId="1452" />
  <row Id="25727" PostId="13503" Score="2" Text="Not important to the question, but if the Trisagion is meant to be Classical Greek (as the accentuation would imply), the transliteration would be _hágios ho Theós, hágios ischyrós, hágios athánatos, eléēson hēmâs_. The transliteration you’ve given is for Modern Greek." CreationDate="2020-04-02T22:56:52.663" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="34650" PostId="13503" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet as this question has received additional attention, I have gratefully incorporated your comment into my original question so that the transliteration is correct. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2021-08-21T03:22:16.350" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="25715" PostId="13504" Score="1" Text="https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2642.htm gives it as &quot;living God&quot; (Psalm 42, verse 3). indeed &quot;חָי&quot; [translates](https://translate.google.com/#view=home&amp;op=translate&amp;sl=iw&amp;tl=en&amp;text=%D7%97%D6%B8%D7%99) as &quot;live&quot; and has no &quot;immortality&quot; connotations. (but that's in Hebrew original)." CreationDate="2020-04-02T14:44:46.680" UserId="6768" />
  <row Id="25730" PostId="13504" Score="0" Text="Indeed. I wonder where the author of the commentary got this idea from then! He writes so confidently I just connected the dots for him and assumed it must have had something lost in translation, but it seems it could have just been rhetorical flourish!" CreationDate="2020-04-03T01:26:40.187" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="25733" PostId="13504" Score="1" Text="I guess in polytheistic traditions of the time &quot;god&quot; was a local statue to which they were bringing their first-born child sacrifices and what not, and the abrahamic pitch was &quot;look, the statues are *dead*, true God is living&quot;. something like that. :) re translations, Christianity did break from Judaism by incorporating many other trends and ideas in the surrounding Hellenistic world. Judaism of the day also wasn't what it was 1000 years prior." CreationDate="2020-04-03T07:44:02.937" UserId="6768" />
  <row Id="25673" PostId="13505" Score="1" Text="Thank you. Even though I initially accepted this answer, I'm not sure I fully understand. Perhaps this is my lack of etymological knowledge, but what prevents one from taking an analogous argument as in my question and translating 'not death' as 'life' or even 'living'?&#xA;(To be fair, from a mathematical point of view, I'm appealing to the law of excluded middle, and I suppose that is unwise, as there is quite a large spectrum between death--not death/ life--not life.)" CreationDate="2020-03-31T15:20:07.363" UserDisplayName="Samantha Y" />
  <row Id="25674" PostId="13505" Score="0" Text="Oh, I did not see the word 'privative', that spells out the grammatical concept that could explain the etymology. Searching, I found this definition: 'marked by the absence, removal, or loss of some quality or attribute that is normally present.' which, taken literally, would render athanatos as 'the absence of death' 'the removal of death' or 'loss of death', and on one hand, I would agree the latter two definitely lend themselves better to the meaning 'immortal'." CreationDate="2020-03-31T16:53:55.763" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="25675" PostId="13505" Score="0" Text="On the other hand, and this dips into Christian theological territory (and hence why I originally posted this question on christianity.stackechange.com, the first rendering, 'absence of death' could be re-rendered as Life (i.e. the Light of Men, as in the Gospel of John, the True Light that came into the world, the Life and Resurrection, etc.)." CreationDate="2020-03-31T16:55:37.740" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="25685" PostId="13505" Score="6" Text="@SamanthaY A little more precisely, adding the privative prefix to a noun makes a compound meaning &quot;one who is without [noun]&quot;. So in this case, ἀθάνατος = &quot;one who is without death&quot; = immortal." CreationDate="2020-03-31T19:05:10.323" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25688" PostId="13505" Score="1" Text="@TKR Thank you. That makes much more sense to me." CreationDate="2020-03-31T23:50:42.963" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="34675" PostId="13505" Score="0" Text="I edited the answer to incorporate some of your text from comments, so that it would be easier to understand without reading the comments. However, is it really true that an  ἀ- on a noun always means &quot;one who is without?&quot; By that logic, ἄχολος would mean something like &quot;mild-tempered,&quot; whereas Cunliffe translates it as &quot;allaying wrath.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-21T16:42:01.233" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="25676" PostId="13506" Score="0" Text="So, this suggests, and perhaps you suggest this as well in your comment on consistency, that it is theologically permissible (in context) to translate this word in that way, but it is grammatically 'undertranslated', in an abstract sense." CreationDate="2020-03-31T16:57:31.013" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="25677" PostId="13506" Score="9" Text="No, I don't think it would be a *good* translation in any context, theological or otherwise; but at least it wouldn't contradict the correct translation. (E.g. In Herodotus, I wouldn't be wrong to say that the Persian immortals were &quot;living,&quot; but I'd be missing the point.)" CreationDate="2020-03-31T16:59:58.350" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25694" PostId="13512" Score="3" Text="I think calling something &quot;bullshit&quot; is quite different from calling it &quot;wrong.&quot; Harry Frankfurt has an excellent little book *On Bullshit*: the key distinction for him is not that one is wrong (or right), but that one doesn't really even care about whether something is wrong or right--it's just words for the sake of appearances." CreationDate="2020-04-01T14:42:04.750" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25695" PostId="13512" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Indeed, the word certainly goes beyond &quot;wrong&quot;. It has many nuances and different people use it somewhat differently. I updated the question. (I think I read an article about that book recently, but only the Finnish translation was named and I considered it to be different from &quot;bullshit&quot;.) I hope the direction I'm pursuing is clear enough even though I don't have a specific use case in mind." CreationDate="2020-04-01T14:54:34.560" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25693" PostId="13513" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Antiquarian! You will get access to more features of the site if you register your account, so I recommend doing so if you think you might want to post more answers or questions. If you end up with two accounts after registration, you can [merge the accounts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts)." CreationDate="2020-04-01T09:05:37.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25698" PostId="13515" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is just the kind of thing I was after. Tamer than I had expected but very useful nonetheless." CreationDate="2020-04-01T18:16:36.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25707" PostId="13516" Score="0" Text="Is there a reason you went with Ineptiae sunt aniles instead of just the simple Inepti(as/ae)? Would that miss something important?" CreationDate="2020-04-02T08:31:36.230" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="25709" PostId="13516" Score="0" Text="Vaticinari - So the Vatican is a place where such nonsense is practiced? =D" CreationDate="2020-04-02T10:30:47.340" UserId="2945" />
  <row Id="25716" PostId="13516" Score="2" Text="@StianYttervik It's based on the more charitable meaning (which both *vaticinari* and *horiolari* have), more directly linked with the underlying *vates*, 'prophet'. But etymology doesn't imply meaning." CreationDate="2020-04-02T15:13:05.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25723" PostId="13516" Score="3" Text="@Mast No particular reason, just for variety. These are not just exclamations but can be used freely. An example from Plautus (Casina, Act 2, Scene 5): _Nugae sunt istae magnae: quasi tu nescias …_ Free translation: _Oh, that's a load of bull: like you don't know how suddenly those human Jupiters can pass away …_ – https://books.google.com/books?id=F30VAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA286 (line 25, Olympio's boss Stalino thinks he's the Jupiter of his household)" CreationDate="2020-04-02T19:23:25.183" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25735" PostId="13516" Score="0" Text="Is there a reason to believe the &quot;nonsense&quot; meaning of Hariolari isn't just sarcasm, like saying &quot;thanks, professor&quot; to someone these days?" CreationDate="2020-04-03T09:38:09.993" UserId="6772" />
  <row Id="25751" PostId="13516" Score="0" Text="@Borgh Depends on context, I guess. I added an example from Terence that I found when I perused the references in L&amp;S. In this case sarcasm does not really fit in my opinion; make up your own mind though." CreationDate="2020-04-03T19:25:40.567" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25699" PostId="13518" Score="0" Text="Have you seen [this related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6414/79)?" CreationDate="2020-04-01T21:11:23.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25702" PostId="13518" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I had not seen that question, and that despite looking for it! Many thanks!" CreationDate="2020-04-02T00:02:05.757" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25701" PostId="13519" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Weiss' explanation of the inconsistency of the poets is probably the root cause of the inconsistency of the  pedagogues, and I think that your guess that they based their decision on etymology is likely enough. Still, any additional info on the history of the development of the opinions (and differences of opinions) among pedagogues and other classicists would be much appreciated!" CreationDate="2020-04-01T23:50:20.553" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25703" PostId="13520" Score="0" Text="Perhaps 'undying' is the sense I'm after." CreationDate="2020-04-02T00:58:27.730" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="25706" PostId="13520" Score="3" Text="How do you know it has connotations in English that weren't present in Ancient Greek? Please [edit] this to provide some supporting evidence." CreationDate="2020-04-02T07:39:55.610" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="28758" PostId="13521" Score="0" Text="In what context is it used exactly?" CreationDate="2020-08-26T03:15:01.630" UserId="7306" />
  <row Id="28777" PostId="13521" Score="2" Text="@JohanVanhove What do you mean? It is a motto." CreationDate="2020-08-27T14:11:13.690" UserId="6756" />
  <row Id="35727" PostId="13521" Score="0" Text="This is also Clan McLeod's Motto which translates &quot;I Shine, Yet I do not Burn&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-09T12:08:57.523" UserId="10371" />
  <row Id="28759" PostId="13522" Score="2" Text="Just to clarify: generally you wouldn't want to put *non* alone with an imperative. You'd probably do something like &quot;noli urere&quot; or &quot;ne uras&quot; if you wanted to say, &quot;Don't burn.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-08-26T12:25:44.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25729" PostId="13523" Score="1" Text="Thank you. I appreciate your response. I perhaps was taking an overly-academic approach to the question (that is more what my brain is used to), so I appreciate you sharing your perspective. If it's not painfully obvious, I'm as far from cradle-born orthodox as one can get, but im trying! Thank you again. Take care." CreationDate="2020-04-03T01:25:07.130" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="25705" PostId="13524" Score="1" Text="Interesting! several weeks ago I was working on simple software to learn verbs declensions but I stopped working on this. If that might interest you, I might give it another push (I think the hard part is behind me in developing this), and put this online somehow." CreationDate="2020-04-02T06:54:08.930" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="25711" PostId="13524" Score="0" Text="@d_e I'd definitely be interested in something like that. It would be awesome to have something that taught declension and conjugation more broadly as that's probably the biggest hurdle for most people." CreationDate="2020-04-02T12:50:22.603" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="25717" PostId="13524" Score="0" Text="Write spells for the *Fantastical Beasts* movies (jesting of course)" CreationDate="2020-04-02T16:22:53.820" UserId="2663" />
  <row Id="25721" PostId="13524" Score="0" Text="Finding a process by which I could come to a fake Latin-derivative language would be interesting, @gen-z ready to perish. Harry Potter's spells do seem to come from a Latin derivative, and Warhammer 40k does so even more explicitly." CreationDate="2020-04-02T18:22:34.243" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25724" PostId="13524" Score="0" Text="@d_e This is my wish-project since 6 (?) years. But I stopped each of the 4 (?) tries after a few weeks." CreationDate="2020-04-02T20:24:13.337" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="25725" PostId="13524" Score="0" Text="@K-HB , I can surely relate :) Indeed, I should  give it another push. I'll try to make it usable first (even if not complete) . Actually it is already usable and I practiced with it.  But it in console format python. It is my wish to put this online in web-format, but not sure how.  So if you think you have any input, it could be nice if we could chat somewhere (not sure where. certainly not in in this comment section). At any case I'll try to let you know if I have this done." CreationDate="2020-04-02T20:42:02.343" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="25726" PostId="13524" Score="0" Text="@Adam , I agree with your observation. I started this project since I could not find any software to practice verb conjugations. especially the unique features such as particles and 1st person perfect -- those vary even within the same conjunction group. &#xA;&#xA;Interestingly, when working on this and getting the verbs data from the web, I found many verbs have more than one conjunction such as praedico, colligo volo, ...&#xA;&#xA;I'll try to let you know if I have this done" CreationDate="2020-04-02T20:55:53.117" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26937" PostId="13524" Score="1" Text="@Adam, I finally have it now (the site to practice verbs inflections). just notifying here, for I don't know other way to do it ... [this is the site](https://danelh.github.io/verbs/). Hopefully it will have it's value for you and others." CreationDate="2020-06-24T10:16:19.783" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26941" PostId="13524" Score="1" Text="@d_e That is a pretty cool! I linked it and credited you on the [How Can I Study Latin on My Own](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own/14087#14087) question." CreationDate="2020-06-24T17:55:56.160" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26942" PostId="13524" Score="1" Text="@Adam, wonderful. thanks!" CreationDate="2020-06-24T19:02:34.970" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="25712" PostId="13525" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site! That looks like an interesting text, a kind of paraphrase of Genesis? But we have a special requirement for questions that request a translation: the asker is supposed to explain what she has tried, possibly show a partial translation, or at least tell us what aspects of the text proved problematic." CreationDate="2020-04-02T13:54:36.040" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25714" PostId="13525" Score="0" Text="Sorry Cerberus♦ , I've jumped the gun. But don't let that stop Sarah posting earlier attempts." CreationDate="2020-04-02T14:16:35.113" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="25737" PostId="13525" Score="0" Text="It looks as though Matthew Paris has copied this passage straight from Bede, The Venerable Bede; at least that's what turned up when I fed a few words into Google." CreationDate="2020-04-03T11:07:45.130" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="25718" PostId="13526" Score="3" Text="I think you're misreading libravit as liberavit. Libravit should be about poising, suspending, or balancing, not freeing up space." CreationDate="2020-04-02T16:28:02.907" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="25720" PostId="13526" Score="1" Text="@cnread 'divide equally' is given in Ainsworth, but not supported by L&amp;S. You are definitely right; I shall emend." CreationDate="2020-04-02T16:48:15.843" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="25754" PostId="13527" Score="0" Text="Very good answer, Joonas. By the way, I've just realized that the current number of your answers is: 666. A very bad number, isn't it? So may I suggest you  answer another question asap? ;-)" CreationDate="2020-04-04T18:53:37.560" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25763" PostId="13527" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Thanks! [I just remedied that and got past the devil.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/13543/79)" CreationDate="2020-04-05T13:00:05.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25740" PostId="13530" Score="0" Text="I fully agree with you that the gerundive forms in your example from Ovidius must be translated &quot;passively&quot;. It seems to me that the impersonal construction with the gerundive of _mori_ (_Moriendum est nobis_) is **not** interpreted this way, i.e., &quot;passively&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-03T15:37:49.757" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25744" PostId="13530" Score="0" Text="In contrast, the impersonal passive construction with the past participle of mori (*_Mortuum est beate_) sounds quite odd precisely because we're using a verb with a &quot;lexically passive meaning&quot; (_mori_) in an impersonal passive construction. Typically, intransitive agentive verbs can appear in impersonal passive constructions but intransitive non-agentive (i.e. &quot;lexically passive&quot;) verbs (e.g., _mori_) cannot. In short, it seems that intransitive verbs with a &quot;lexically passive meaning&quot; cannot appear in a syntactic passive construction (e.g., into an impersonal passive construction)." CreationDate="2020-04-03T15:52:50.693" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25745" PostId="13530" Score="0" Text="Note that the conclusion from my previous comment is that the ill-formed example _*Mortuum est beate_ is an impersonal **passive** construction but the well-formed example _Moriendum est nobis_ is also an impersonal construction (but, crucially, it is **not** passive)." CreationDate="2020-04-03T15:53:48.583" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25746" PostId="13530" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I agree with you that *moriendum est nobis* is semantically not 'passive', unlike *exhortanda est mater*. All I wanted to suggest was that perhaps there was something odd about the gerundive with deponent verbs, but it may very well not be relevant, if we concede that the gerundive with inagentive deponent verbs is in fact quite regular, i.e. it does not swap the praedicate frame." CreationDate="2020-04-03T17:14:38.827" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25747" PostId="13530" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I do have a question about *Mortuum est beate*: how do we know this is not possible? Admittedly, a cursory search did not turn up any examples of unagentive deponent verbs used impersonally, but can we be sure?" CreationDate="2020-04-03T17:16:50.677" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25749" PostId="13530" Score="0" Text="The question you've raised is typical: since we don't have native competence of Latin, how do we know that &quot;X&quot; is not possible in this language? (Same with similar questions: e.g., how do we know that a resultative construction like _We drank the teapot dry_ is ungrammatical in Latin? For an answer, see this book: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-morphosyntax-of-transitions-9780198733287?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp; ). It seems to me that the methodology we can use to provide a solution to these questions is similar. For example, linguistic typology and comparative grammar usually help a lot." CreationDate="2020-04-03T17:30:45.227" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25750" PostId="13530" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Yes, of course it is difficult to prove anything about a dead language, especially that something should *not* be possible. If that book is your source, you might want to add a quotation where it says that at some point (though I'll take your word for it!)." CreationDate="2020-04-03T18:26:57.753" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32973" PostId="13533" Score="0" Text="I wonder if the duplication of the -f- in *effemino* isn't perhaps a hint to a different etymology, namely that it is derived from *ad* + *femina* (i.e. via **affemino*)?" CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:44:11.753" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="32977" PostId="13533" Score="0" Text="@gmvh I don't think so but it is interesting to point out that both _*affeminare_ and _effeminare_ can be posited in order to explain Spanish &quot;afeminar&quot; and Catalan &quot;efeminar&quot;, respectively. Note that the source prefix _ex-_ involved in _effeminare_ is the same one involved in _**ef**ferare_ (cf. Cat. &quot;fer (algú) **sortir** ferotge&quot;; 'to make (someone) to become fierce'). The prefix _ad-_ is not involved in their formation." CreationDate="2021-05-03T00:54:40.547" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25758" PostId="13535" Score="0" Text="Where does the term &quot;Garden Conversation&quot; come from? I have not heard the term before." CreationDate="2020-04-05T00:46:01.433" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25761" PostId="13535" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: First heard this last Tuesday. Had to ask this friend what she meant. It's one of the newest of the new. We're on the cutting edge of the evolution of English." CreationDate="2020-04-05T07:49:25.737" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25762" PostId="13535" Score="0" Text="Perhaps something more established in the direction of &quot;Garden Conversation&quot; could be derived from the story of Pyramus and Thisbe?" CreationDate="2020-04-05T12:35:26.130" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="25772" PostId="13535" Score="0" Text="@Hagen von Eitzen: Yes, if people speak to each other through a wall, it would keep both parties safe from the pestilence." CreationDate="2020-04-06T08:41:18.540" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25767" PostId="13539" Score="0" Text="This isn't worth a separate answer given the way the post is titled, but to address your second question: [Pauli was famously harsh and harshest to scientific work that was so unclear as to be untestable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli#Personality_and_reputation). The Greeks and Romans didn't think in those terms and don't have a catch-all for 'non-scientific thinking' or 'unfalsifiable' (_in/nonfalsificabilis_) statements." CreationDate="2020-04-05T20:41:29.110" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="25768" PostId="13539" Score="0" Text="You'd need to specify _which_ logical mistake the other person was making. You'd describe it differently if the statement was not addressing the original question, if it employed circular reasoning, if it used a single term in multiple ways, &amp;c. Lots of these mistakes (but not all) could fit under _non sequitur_: &quot;it doesn't follow&quot; (from what you were looking at or from what you said before)." CreationDate="2020-04-05T20:46:55.073" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="25759" PostId="13540" Score="1" Text="According to google, this directly translates in English to: &quot;not only did not, indeed, is true, but do not lie&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-05T03:45:34.873" UserDisplayName="user6527" />
  <row Id="25760" PostId="13540" Score="12" Text="If you trust google to translate Latin, you are going to have problems.  Anyway, you can find the relevant construction on p 305 of Gildersleeve's Latin grammar.  https://books.google.com/books?id=PfjBAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA305&amp;lpg=PA305&amp;dq=gildersleeve+non+modo+non+sed+ne&amp;source=bl&amp;o" CreationDate="2020-04-05T03:49:01.723" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="32675" PostId="13540" Score="0" Text="Being unclear without context is the whole point of the expression, and there's no difference in that regard between German, English and Latin - all are idiomatic ways to say the same thing." CreationDate="2021-04-18T12:10:51.507" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="25764" PostId="13543" Score="0" Text="Perhaps.  But that's not how Pauli said it.  And it does lack context....e.g., very different from &quot;not only not a big lie, but not even false&quot;, which might be the sense of &quot;not even false&quot; when a politician surprisingly says something true.  Also the *non modo non* construction is much less obscure in Latin than in most languages, and this is a perfect time to use it for clarity" CreationDate="2020-04-05T13:37:19.667" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="25765" PostId="13543" Score="2" Text="@CMonsour True, but the OP asked for a translation of &quot;not even wrong&quot; so I aimed specifically at that." CreationDate="2020-04-05T14:34:58.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25770" PostId="13543" Score="0" Text="Are you quite sure it should be *ne falsum quidem* and not *non falsum quidem* now that it's the only clause in the sentence?" CreationDate="2020-04-05T21:43:39.677" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="25771" PostId="13543" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour Yes, the fixed expression &quot;not even&quot; seems to be *ne ... quidem* without *non*, although I do find that counterintuitive." CreationDate="2020-04-05T22:02:54.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25773" PostId="13543" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: When translating dialogue from &quot;I Claudius&quot; recall &quot;...ne filio quidem Caeseris.&quot; = &quot;...not even by the son of the Emperor.&quot;. This use of &quot;ne...quidem&quot; confirmed by Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. Therefore, &quot;non falsum quidem&quot; is incorrect&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-04-06T09:58:54.933" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25774" PostId="13543" Score="0" Text="@tony Indeed so!" CreationDate="2020-04-06T10:11:04.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25775" PostId="13543" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour You can find the construction in [Allen &amp; Greenough 217(e)](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-217.html)" CreationDate="2020-04-06T14:17:23.250" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25776" PostId="13543" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks! I added that clarification to my answer." CreationDate="2020-04-06T14:31:08.277" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25852" PostId="13543" Score="0" Text="In accord with your further suggestion I'd compare &quot;*noch* nicht einmal falsch&quot;, that is &quot;not even wrong, *yet*&quot;, which is but overthinking it. I am surprised just how good it fits, if, as I can only guess, *-em* and *-mal* are obscure, distant cousins (which was denied elsewhere, but is perhaps just not well understood yet); It's also far fetched speculation comparing *aequus* to *ein-*, thus *equidam*. I suppose, all the examples in wiktionary that exclusively translate the negated part as noun are just chosen unfortunately?" CreationDate="2020-04-13T23:15:52.110" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="32491" PostId="13543" Score="1" Text="@vectory The *noch* hier doesn't mean &quot;yet&quot; in German, *noch nicht einmal* is a standing expression meaning &quot;not even&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-08T12:00:39.380" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="25766" PostId="13545" Score="0" Text="What is the purpose of this translation. If it's becomes a sign on a dorm room, it would be different than if it were going on a doormat, for example." CreationDate="2020-04-05T17:32:29.407" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25769" PostId="13545" Score="1" Text="Google really needs to designate its Latin translator as an experimental feature." CreationDate="2020-04-05T21:30:07.207" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25777" PostId="13545" Score="0" Text="Yes, you're right Sebastian. That's why I didn't trust it." CreationDate="2020-04-06T15:48:59.007" UserId="912" />
  <row Id="25778" PostId="13549" Score="2" Text="Spanish _estar_ etc come from a phonological change: Latin allowed certain types of initial consonant clusters, but Western Romance didn't, so a vowel got attached to remedy that. But Latin had no issue with initial _f_, as seen in the word _femina_ itself." CreationDate="2020-04-06T18:52:42.310" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="25779" PostId="13549" Score="0" Text="@Draconis that's a pretty good point. So do you think *effeminare* does come from *ex-*? It very well could." CreationDate="2020-04-06T18:58:45.353" UserId="6138" />
  <row Id="25780" PostId="13549" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Isidoritas! The last point about *ex-* having both inclusive and exclusive meaning is very interesting. Can you expand upon it with an example of both?" CreationDate="2020-04-06T19:10:20.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25781" PostId="13549" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Sure! I'm looking on the Lewis and Short page for the preposition *ex* (rather than the prefix, but I think their commentary still applies). Both of these uses would be encompassed under their third definition:&#xA;&#xA;&quot;III: In other relations, and in gen. where a going out or forth, a coming or springing out of any thing is conceivable.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The inclusive *ex* is subdefintion C: &quot;To indicate the material of which any thing is made or consists&quot;. The exclusive is subdefinition F: &quot;To indicate a transition, i. e. a change, alteration, from one state or condition to another&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-06T19:21:31.487" UserId="6138" />
  <row Id="25782" PostId="13549" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta here's the link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ex&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" CreationDate="2020-04-06T19:25:58.227" UserId="6138" />
  <row Id="25787" PostId="13549" Score="3" Text="I fully agree with Joonas's comment above. Your last point, Isidoritas, seems to be very interesting. By the way, cf. the following information by the end of the link you've provided in your last comment above: &quot;B. Signification. 1 (...) .—Hence also, trop., out of (a former nature), as in **_effeminare_, qs. to change out of his own nature into that of a woman**; _effero, are_, to render wild&quot;. So perhaps you would like to modify your answer above accordingly." CreationDate="2020-04-07T00:08:25.150" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="25788" PostId="13549" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino Jeez! That sure is embarrassing. Thank you for correcting me. What's your take on the role of *ex-* in this word (and in general)? By the way, when I was describing an &quot;inclusive *ex-*&quot;, I was thinking of phrases like *ex animo*." CreationDate="2020-04-07T02:40:16.023" UserId="6138" />
  <row Id="25783" PostId="13551" Score="3" Text="A [corpus search for words ending in -ier in Plautus](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ier%23+%5BPl%5D) returns about 100 examples, if you exclude false positives like *mulier*!" CreationDate="2020-04-06T21:54:11.900" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25784" PostId="13551" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: Great! That could be the heart of an Answer." CreationDate="2020-04-06T23:00:16.547" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25790" PostId="13557" Score="0" Text="Thanks. And I thought it was just another suffix. Little wonder I couldn't find it." CreationDate="2020-04-07T15:58:17.227" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25794" PostId="13557" Score="0" Text="And perhaps the most commonly seen _-ce_ word of all that shows the full form of the suffix: ***ecce!*** (which oddly is not included in their list)." CreationDate="2020-04-07T20:58:40.610" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="25795" PostId="13557" Score="1" Text="In addition, the -c in all forms of *hic/haec/hoc* is from the same suffix/particle, I believe. (By the way, I am used to calling it a deictic particle.)" CreationDate="2020-04-07T22:14:23.437" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32601" PostId="13560" Score="0" Text="Downvoter, please explain why you down-voted" CreationDate="2021-04-15T02:45:21.533" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="35405" PostId="13560" Score="0" Text="Going to hazard a guess, but perhaps it is because you explain the term in context of Christianity, but the word *procreare* is also found in Plautus, Cicero, and Lucretius, so it can hardly have that monotheistic meaning you ascribe (and doesn't seem to be in reference to gods in those passages). L&amp;S's note is informative: &quot;[pro-'s] signification has reference either to place, before, forwards; or to protection, for; procedo, procurro, profanus; procuro, propugno, prosum, protego.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-07T22:57:10.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="25806" PostId="13569" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much Sebastian for a very comprehensive answer. Your link to the other question was particularly helpful. Am I right in saying that one can only know from the Latin (not the translation) whether the 'quod' is factual or not.?" CreationDate="2020-04-09T08:54:57.653" UserId="6792" />
  <row Id="25808" PostId="13569" Score="0" Text="@Martin O'Reilly: Are you familiar with epistemic modality? See Cerberus &amp; cnread in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5575/1982." CreationDate="2020-04-09T09:53:20.370" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25820" PostId="13569" Score="0" Text="@MartinO'Reilly The distinction may be lost in translation, yes. I extended the answer to add a short discussion of how to deal with this when translating. (I also removed the term &quot;factual quod&quot; as it is apparently not the correct term here.)" CreationDate="2020-04-09T20:49:53.447" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25842" PostId="13571" Score="0" Text="No mention of *baccalaureus*?" CreationDate="2020-04-11T22:34:12.113" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25843" PostId="13571" Score="0" Text="@Figulus No, for two reasons: The original question did not include bachelor's degrees (which I believe *baccalaureus* would correspond to), and I couldn't find the word in the sources I'd prefer. It seems that in Finland we call bachelors *candidati* due to the word used in Finnish and Swedish. But if you have something to say about that word, I'd be happy to vote up a second answer!" CreationDate="2020-04-12T18:56:09.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25821" PostId="13572" Score="0" Text="Just a tip: *ignorare* is a false friend: It usually means “not know, be ignorant of” in Latin, where as *ignore* in English usually explicitly means “know but disregard.”" CreationDate="2020-04-09T20:52:58.743" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25800" PostId="13574" Score="0" Text="Thanks you so much. Helped a lot." CreationDate="2020-04-08T21:47:05.377" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="25802" PostId="13574" Score="1" Text="Note that “id, quod … proximum est” cannot very well refer to _via_. I personally would translate this as a relative clause: “… says that which is nearest …”" CreationDate="2020-04-08T22:00:48.850" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25804" PostId="13574" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. Thanks! I edited the answer according to your recommendation." CreationDate="2020-04-09T01:17:01.100" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25807" PostId="13576" Score="1" Text="Would it be possible to interpret it as a relative clause instead of an indirect question? &quot;He did not know the thing that he was writing about.&quot; That would justify the indicative." CreationDate="2020-04-09T09:38:25.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25809" PostId="13576" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta think you would need *quod* instead of *quid* in that case. See, for instance, Pontius Pilate's response: &quot;Quod scripsi, scripsi.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-04-09T12:11:02.323" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25810" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="I thought so. Do you want to incorporate that into the answer? It's true that the sentence is wrong, but there are two ways it can be fixed and it's not obvious which one was originally meant. Or if you prefer, I can write up that side of things as a separate answer." CreationDate="2020-04-09T12:19:06.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25811" PostId="13576" Score="1" Text="Something still seems off to me about using *quod* with *nescio*: there's a funny interchange in Plautus that goes between the two, but I can't quite capture why the *quid* seems appropriate first and then the *quod*: &quot;Phaed. Perii hércle, huic quid primúm dicam nesció. Pal. Em istuc, quod míhi dixti [=dixisti].&quot;" CreationDate="2020-04-09T12:26:40.117" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25812" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="Perhaps it's the difference between &quot;not knowing the answer to the question, 'What are you writing?'&quot; (quid + subjunctive) and &quot;not knowing [how to explain] the content of what one wrote&quot; (quod + indicative). It's a subtle distinction. I did find a few examples in Plautus and Terence of &quot;nescio id quod + indicative&quot;" CreationDate="2020-04-09T12:31:56.613" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25814" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="I too was thinking of those (very few) examples of the indicative with an indirect question, which made me wonder whether that indeed was Housman's objection. The fact that I couldn't find anything else &quot;unsound&quot; in the sentence made me doubt my own judgment. Thanks for the confirmation!" CreationDate="2020-04-09T15:50:25.413" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25815" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, please go ahead and answer again! I think Brianpck is right, but I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on the matter. My own instinct was that Scaliger should have written *Manilius, de quo scripserit, nesciebat*, but then I wondered whether  I wasn't just calquing the English distiction between writting something and writing *about* something. After studying *scribo* in Lewis and Short, I'm not sure that distinction holds for Latin." CreationDate="2020-04-09T15:56:45.447" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25816" PostId="13576" Score="1" Text="@Figulus I added an answer about the other reading. It'd actually be nice to have a question about the difference between *scribere aliquid* and *scribere de aliquo* if the latter even exists. Many languages make the distinction. Go ahead and ask if you're interested!" CreationDate="2020-04-09T16:39:16.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25819" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That exchange from Plautus with *quid* and *quod* would be good to explore in a new question rather than just comments here. Even if you've found an answer, you could post an answer as well; at least I'd be happy to understand it." CreationDate="2020-04-09T20:23:17.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25823" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="I wonder if the natural reading of &quot;Manilius nesciebat quid scriberet&quot; would not be &quot;Manilius didn't know what to write / what he was to write&quot; (original *Quid scribam?*). It seems ambiguous." CreationDate="2020-04-10T00:01:10.683" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25824" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="&quot;I asked where he was&quot; is indirect speech.&#xA;   &#xA;   &quot;I told you what I would do&quot; is indirect speech. &quot;I know what he did&quot; is not. Or am I missing something?" CreationDate="2020-04-10T13:06:25.503" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="25839" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="@TKR I agree that the meaning is ambiguous. Woodcock makes exactly the same point in his Sequence of Tenses Table in #180. ( I should have consulted that table before I made my comment above!)" CreationDate="2020-04-11T19:13:31.257" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25840" PostId="13576" Score="0" Text="@fdb That's a great question! I think maybe the answer is that yes, you are missing something, but I don't know enough to say what. Would you mind posting it as a question? I would love to read some answers to it." CreationDate="2020-04-11T19:21:17.363" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25841" PostId="13576" Score="1" Text="@fdb &quot;I know what he did&quot; can represent two Latin constructions: indirect question (where &quot;what he did&quot; is the embedded version of &quot;What did he do?&quot;) and relative clause (where &quot;what he did&quot;  = &quot;that which he did&quot;). Hence the two alternatives in Joonas's answer. &quot;Indirect question&quot; is a misleading term because there isn't necessarily a speech act involved." CreationDate="2020-04-11T21:32:25.427" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25813" PostId="13578" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a well-thought question!" CreationDate="2020-04-09T13:58:34.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25822" PostId="13578" Score="4" Text="What is the source of the passage? I didn't find it by doing a corpus search on diruptionem or cognitione. Since what you've quoted appears to just a subordinate clause of some larger sentence, it may be helpful if you edit your question to provide the whole sentence, maybe even the preceding sentence." CreationDate="2020-04-09T23:10:32.187" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="25825" PostId="13583" Score="1" Text="Would you say that the distinction is the same as between writing something and writing about something in English?" CreationDate="2020-04-10T16:56:51.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25828" PostId="13583" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, That seems to be the case. At least I haven't noticed any counter examples. Generally, we use the prepositions &quot;of&quot; and &quot;about&quot; to make the distinction clear, but not always. It's not uncommon to say, for example, &quot;He doesn't know what he's saying,&quot; and &quot;He doesn't know what he's talking about,&quot; meaning the same thing. It both cases, it usually refers to the subject matter rather than the words spoken. It appears to me that that's what's going on with what Scaliger wrote." CreationDate="2020-04-10T18:34:37.480" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25829" PostId="13583" Score="0" Text="*Aufidius praetorius Graecam scribebat historiam* is cited. They also rattle off a list of accusatives like *bellum* and *res gestas* without context, and further down *formam*. I'm not 100% sure these are counter examples, but they don't give me great confidence either. Your point about English's lack of consistency is well taken though; you can say &quot;write a history&quot; in English. I hadn't thought of that." CreationDate="2020-04-10T21:59:16.687" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25830" PostId="13583" Score="0" Text="The more I over-analyze the distinctions between English *writing* and Latin *scribere*, the more I realize the inconsistencies even in English. *I don't know what I was writing about* could mean two things: 1) I forgot what I wrote, or 2) I was writing about brain surgery or some other subject in which I am unqualified." CreationDate="2020-04-10T22:08:00.917" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25832" PostId="13583" Score="1" Text="@Figulus.  I see your point. Sometimes it has the sense of describing or depicting, in which case, it's not used quite like as in English. I edited my answer to include this broader meaning of the accusative." CreationDate="2020-04-11T01:27:13.957" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25833" PostId="13585" Score="2" Text="I think Jerome (as usual) was trying to capture the Greek as literally as possible, at the expense of brevity. The contrast between the abstract noun (μωρία = stultitia) and the concrete (τὸ μωρὸν = stultum) isn't nothing, and even does some philosophical work in ancient philosophy (e.g. &quot;justice&quot; vs. &quot;the just&quot;). Unfortunately, Latin doesn't have an article, so the &quot;quod...est&quot; is needed to make it less ambiguous." CreationDate="2020-04-11T12:52:21.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25834" PostId="13585" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, Thanks. That's an interesting observation.." CreationDate="2020-04-11T13:09:12.420" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25835" PostId="13585" Score="0" Text="I see, thanks! The implicit words &quot;ẁisdom&quot; and &quot;strength&quot;, are they obvious from the Latin?" CreationDate="2020-04-11T15:37:14.723" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="25838" PostId="13585" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho. I suppose it's not as obvious as one might want." CreationDate="2020-04-11T19:01:31.210" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25857" PostId="13587" Score="1" Text="Ah thanks, this explains how the grammar is listed without the stem in Mounce's book." CreationDate="2020-04-15T13:28:08.953" UserId="6236" />
  <row Id="25853" PostId="13593" Score="1" Text="In the second example would putting &quot;come&quot; in the pluperfect have improved it--wouldn't the arrival have been completed before the greeting was made?" CreationDate="2020-04-14T08:34:28.973" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25856" PostId="13593" Score="0" Text="@tony Excellent question! The answer depends, I suppose, on whether the greeting was done when they came or afterwards. In the first question, the book's usefulness was certainly posterior to its being sent." CreationDate="2020-04-14T23:05:49.613" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25850" PostId="13594" Score="1" Text="An entry for the 'questions you can answer from the title alone' gallery" CreationDate="2020-04-13T12:08:39.307" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="25844" PostId="13595" Score="0" Text="Pisteet suomesta! Please can you refer to where or how you came up with this solution?" CreationDate="2020-04-12T21:28:11.467" UserId="6809" />
  <row Id="25845" PostId="13595" Score="1" Text="@Sami A poem by Catullus came to mind and suggested using *par*, but it's mostly a result of years of studying Latin. Unfortunately I don't know any other way to translate well. I did consult a couple of dictionaries, including the Finnish one by Pitkäranta and one online. Jos tähän onneen olisi oikotie, olisin varmaankin jo löytänyt sen..." CreationDate="2020-04-12T21:34:36.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25846" PostId="13595" Score="0" Text="I think the poem had something like &quot;Mihi par deo videtur&quot; which means &quot;to me he seems like a god&quot;" CreationDate="2020-04-12T22:10:05.830" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25847" PostId="13595" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite I added the first line of the poem in case anyone wants to search it." CreationDate="2020-04-13T08:03:30.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25848" PostId="13595" Score="0" Text="@Sami After sleeping the night, I now updated with a little explanation." CreationDate="2020-04-13T08:03:53.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25855" PostId="13600" Score="0" Text="Welcome! There are already some tools advertised [here](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/52), though I didn't check all the online dictionaries for hints on ecclesiastical pronuntiation. In modern &quot;standard&quot; (in many countries, it's spoken just by a few exceptional priests formed in Rome) ecclesiastical Latin pronuntiation differs from the Italian one just a little, but in Middle Ages there were lots of variants (probably even more than all the non-standard eccl. latin dialects today). If you know in which regions and periods the c/ch confusion occured, it would help." CreationDate="2020-04-14T15:32:14.423" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="25859" PostId="13600" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your reply.  I think it is mainly late texts from Italy (post 1500AD) that I have seen the variation of &quot;monachus/monacus&quot;, &quot;monachi/monaci&quot; but I am quite new to Latin so there might be other occurrences in different periods and places." CreationDate="2020-04-15T17:41:12.060" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="26273" PostId="13600" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, Wiktionary claims that the Classical Latin pronunciation would have been /ˈmo.na.kʰus/ with aspirated 'k' like in Ancient Greek. Since aspirated 'p' (&lt;ph&gt;) turned into /f/ in both later Greek and later Latin, I think it is reasonable to assume that originally aspirated 'k' (&lt;ch&gt;) and 't' (&lt;th&gt;) would have been pronounced as resp. /χ-x/ and /θ/ in later Latin as well, at least by those more familiar with Greek. I have no actual evidence though." CreationDate="2020-05-11T20:30:53.963" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26274" PostId="13600" Score="0" Text="'Monk' in Welsh is &quot;mynach&quot; ['mənax] and &quot;manach&quot; in Irish, both have a [x] in so could possibly be evidence that that is how they heard the word pronounced." CreationDate="2020-05-11T20:32:38.053" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="25863" PostId="13604" Score="2" Text="English is not my first language: in the English idiom is really “wood” meant in the sense of the material (_lignum_) rather than the place (_silva_, say)? Apparently, at least Finnish and Italian mean the latter." CreationDate="2020-04-15T23:02:56.210" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="25864" PostId="13604" Score="2" Text="@DaG The idiom is usually “can’t see the forest for the trees,” and while “wood” can be used as a synonym for “forest,” that would absolutely be in the sense of *silva*, and *lignum* would be wrong." CreationDate="2020-04-16T03:13:25.577" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="25869" PostId="13604" Score="1" Text="Thanks, @KRyan, I thought so. I asked since in the question a tentative Latin translation with _lignum_ was offered." CreationDate="2020-04-16T07:56:51.690" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="25870" PostId="13604" Score="2" Text="@DaG, FYI in American English &quot;wood&quot; (singular) virtually always means the material, while &quot;woods&quot; (plural) usually refers to the place: &quot;I went for a walk in _the woods._&quot; It's different in British English. A British speaker might say, &quot;I went for a walk in _a wood._&quot;" CreationDate="2020-04-16T12:56:41.610" UserId="6833" />
  <row Id="25858" PostId="13605" Score="0" Text="Depending on the era its from, &quot;mari&quot; could also be &quot;mare.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-04-15T16:43:22.937" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25865" PostId="13605" Score="3" Text="It seems to me that, assuming I remember the word correctly, *mare* meaning “sea” would suggest salt water, which puts me in mind of a quite-different English phrase: [“water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink.”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rime_of_the_Ancient_Mariner) As Sebastian notes with his suggestions, however, “can’t see the forest for the trees” is about focusing too much on the details and missing the big pictures, which isn’t the sense Sextus Propertius had here." CreationDate="2020-04-16T03:17:55.093" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="25866" PostId="13605" Score="2" Text="@KRyan. It reminds me of the same thing, and for that reason I prefer the river proverb. However, if you search the internet, you'll find that &quot;In mari aquam quaeris&quot; is understood by many as meaning  &quot;can't see the wood for the trees&quot;. Its listed as such in more than one dictionary of proverbs. The same goes for the proverb of Sextus Propertius. Many have understood it to be more or less equivalent." CreationDate="2020-04-16T03:27:06.327" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25872" PostId="13605" Score="2" Text="@KRyan Since the question explicitly asked how the Romans expressed the concept, we are a bit constrained here. If I could translate freely, I would say something like: _Silvam viderem, nisi arbores prospectum impedirent_ ;-)" CreationDate="2020-04-16T19:33:19.060" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25878" PostId="13605" Score="2" Text="@Expedito Bipes: Excellent answer. Thank you. Which Dictionary of Proverbs do you use?" CreationDate="2020-04-17T10:02:46.300" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25880" PostId="13605" Score="2" Text="@tony. You're welcome. I didn't actually use a dictionary. I found these phrase is dictionaries after discovering them, such as &quot;Full, Large and General Phrase Book&quot; by William Robertson, and &quot;Thesaurus Linguae Latinae&quot; by Robert Ainsworth." CreationDate="2020-04-17T11:14:13.723" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25879" PostId="13606" Score="0" Text="ausgezeichnete Antwort, danke. The second line could be more direct: &quot;he requires, for himself, to be shown the sun&quot;; the implication, &quot;he is stupid&quot;. Thanks again." CreationDate="2020-04-17T10:08:14.883" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38291" PostId="13606" Score="0" Text="The English phrase really does mean the latter: paying too close attention to the trees that you fail to notice the whole wooods." CreationDate="2022-05-09T20:33:35.163" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="25867" PostId="13609" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your contribution to the site! What sort of value is the person in question portraying? For example, if they were possessing manly virtue, virtus is a great word. But if their virtue was working a lot, the translation would be very different." CreationDate="2020-04-16T05:10:13.950" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25868" PostId="13609" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite value as in self-worth. The ebook is focused on how if we truly recognized our intrinsic self-worth we would be set free from using others to convince us that we have value. So the thesis is that individuals have unwavering, intrinsic, limitless worth/value. &#xA;I summarize all of that by stating all we need to believe is &quot;I have constant value&quot;. &#xA;Hopefully that is enough context to explain the intent behind the word &quot;value&quot;.&#xA;I saw that virtus had many &quot;virtuous&quot; type definitions, but I also saw that it had definitions that pertained to worth, and I liked the extra connotations." CreationDate="2020-04-16T05:26:49.837" UserId="6827" />
  <row Id="34048" PostId="13610" Score="0" Text="This seems to have answered the question, so remember that you can close your question by choosing your own answer as the accepted answer." CreationDate="2021-07-09T14:01:12.747" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="25874" PostId="13611" Score="3" Text="Aeolic is Ancient Greek as well. The variety of Greek typically taught in Ancient Greek courses is Attic, the dialect of ancient Athens." CreationDate="2020-04-16T22:54:44.450" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="25871" PostId="13612" Score="0" Text="*Constans* is a participle. Could you do something more directly with *constare*?" CreationDate="2020-04-16T17:39:42.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25873" PostId="13612" Score="0" Text="According to Whitaker's Words, it is also a simple adjective." CreationDate="2020-04-16T20:12:17.130" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25875" PostId="13614" Score="0" Text="Did you mean &quot;some basic words in Aeolic where it became τ even before a front vowel&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-04-17T04:44:23.607" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25876" PostId="13614" Score="0" Text="@TKR I did not. *\*kʷ* becoming τ before a front vowel is the normal state of affairs across Greek dialects, Aeolic is exceptional for sometimes having it become π instead." CreationDate="2020-04-17T05:57:24.910" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="25877" PostId="13614" Score="1" Text="I should maybe also point out that Lesbian and Boeotian are both Aeolic sub-dialects, and that Homeric is a composite literary dialect including a lot of Aeolic forms." CreationDate="2020-04-17T06:00:52.233" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="25881" PostId="13614" Score="0" Text="In Aeolic the change of labiovelars to labials is the general rule regardless of environment, not just in basic words; it's the basic words (τίς, τε) that are the exception." CreationDate="2020-04-17T17:22:24.637" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25888" PostId="13614" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's not what Sihler says, and I don't know enough about Aeolic to contradict. Exact quote (164A.2 if you want to check): &quot;It is a notable characteristic of the Aeolic dialects that even before a front vowel the labial is found in some basic words, as [examples given]&quot;. I admit it would make more sense to me your way." CreationDate="2020-04-19T06:21:15.113" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="25899" PostId="13614" Score="1" Text="Sihler, though useful, is not always wholly reliable. Buck (Greek Dialects 62) says that Aeolic &quot;very frequently&quot; has labial reflexes before a front vowel (and lists 3 exceptions, τε τίς τιμά). Lejeune (Phonetique historique 46ff.) treats the labial reflex as general, also listing a handful of exceptions. It's all pretty messy, especially as the picture isn't quite the same before *e* as before *i* (in all dialects)." CreationDate="2020-04-19T18:37:17.380" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34028" PostId="13617" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2020.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/531/79)" CreationDate="2021-07-08T10:53:06.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25883" PostId="13619" Score="3" Text="So does that essentially mean that the nominative singular and the genitive singular together will tell you the declension of a noun?" CreationDate="2020-04-18T11:18:43.590" UserId="6236" />
  <row Id="25884" PostId="13619" Score="4" Text="@TomHahn Yes, the singular nominative and genitive tell which declension number you have. But you don't know all the forms without the gender. (The word &quot;declension&quot; can mean slightly different things. It can mean the five groups of nouns in Latin or in general the way nouns are inflected.)" CreationDate="2020-04-18T11:28:35.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25904" PostId="13619" Score="0" Text="With a bit of experience (and the knowledge of common exceptions), the gender can be guessed with a high accuracy, tho." CreationDate="2020-04-20T08:40:49.907" UserId="6844" />
  <row Id="25905" PostId="13619" Score="2" Text="@Boiethios Very true, and I did point that out in the answer. There are ways to guess with good accuracy, but at least at first one should memorize the genders as well." CreationDate="2020-04-20T11:13:21.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25885" PostId="13621" Score="2" Text="+1! The last one might be intended as a command, &quot;defend Europe!&quot;. At leas that's how I read it. Maybe you could point out that different forms of the verb are needed for different uses, (mostly) unlike in English." CreationDate="2020-04-18T15:28:22.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25889" PostId="13623" Score="2" Text="The &quot;bene&quot;/ &quot;bonum&quot; conflict was aired in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4444/1982. The excellent adaption of Cicero's &quot;quod male cecidit&quot; = &quot;what has turned out (fallen) badly&quot; to give, &quot;res bene cadent&quot; = &quot;things will turn out well&quot; (by cnread) favours &quot;bene&quot;. My attempt to use &quot;bonum&quot; in &quot;omnia bona erunt&quot; was assassinated by Unbrutal_Russian as &quot;all the goods will be there&quot;/ &quot;all [neuter items] will be of good quality. This is one of my favourite Qs. Hope it helps!" CreationDate="2020-04-19T10:58:45.340" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25891" PostId="13623" Score="0" Text="@tony: Thanks for the link! It is indeed relevant, as it also has *esse*, another potential copula." CreationDate="2020-04-19T13:02:26.143" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25927" PostId="13623" Score="0" Text="&quot;Well&quot;, as in &quot;she looked well&quot;, is an adjective (&quot;she looked healthy&quot;), not an adverb (unless you mean that she had a thorough look for something)." CreationDate="2020-04-21T13:40:24.253" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="25929" PostId="13623" Score="0" Text="@fdb: I think that is a bit of a simplification." CreationDate="2020-04-21T14:53:39.800" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25945" PostId="13623" Score="0" Text="@fdb: This was the quality of debate enjoyed on the earlier Q." CreationDate="2020-04-22T07:53:26.060" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25937" PostId="13629" Score="0" Text="Thank you, that's very helpful. I knew Cicero and Atticus were friends, I believe Atticus helped Cicero financially, and I read (in translation) Cicero's letter asking for library slaves. I didn't know Dionysius tutored Tiro. In fact, Tiro seems to have largely &quot;disappeared&quot; from the historical record, which is a shame, it would be interesting to read his own works, apparently lost." CreationDate="2020-04-21T20:35:48.743" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="25938" PostId="13629" Score="1" Text="@TheHonRose You're welcome." CreationDate="2020-04-21T20:37:01.203" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25895" PostId="13630" Score="1" Text="Would something like &quot;ὦ&quot; (&quot;oh!&quot;) and &quot;ᾧ&quot; (&quot;by which&quot;) fit the bill?" CreationDate="2020-04-19T17:56:10.770" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25896" PostId="13630" Score="0" Text="@brianpck If possible I'd prefer one without the iota subscript, but that would still be a fine answer! (I know at least a few minimal pairs exist, so I'm mostly curious to see which ones people come up with, since the ones I can think of are very boring.)" CreationDate="2020-04-19T17:59:37.417" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="25897" PostId="13630" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. This only works if the loss of aspiration postdates the loss of the /i/ component of the long diphthongs." CreationDate="2020-04-19T18:07:02.293" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="25900" PostId="13632" Score="2" Text="Out of curiosity, how did you access the full Perseus lemma list?" CreationDate="2020-04-19T19:11:32.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="25901" PostId="13632" Score="3" Text="@TKR I downloaded the lemma dump from here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/opensource/download It requires some SQL knowledge, though." CreationDate="2020-04-19T19:44:30.537" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26042" PostId="13632" Score="0" Text="If you don't mind a technical question, what did you use to query the SQL file? I tried to import it into PostgreSQL but kept getting errors. But I'm very new to SQL and probably am doing something wrong." CreationDate="2020-04-26T18:53:42.207" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26047" PostId="13632" Score="0" Text="@TKR Actually, I cheated and did a few find+replaces to turn the query into a CSV file. The data dump uses MySQL format, so I'm not surprised that you're getting errors." CreationDate="2020-04-26T19:58:24.697" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25976" PostId="13635" Score="0" Text="They are both in the genitive case, fem.sing." CreationDate="2020-04-20T15:39:55.583" UserId="6847" />
  <row Id="25903" PostId="13638" Score="2" Text="In fact, one finds that the Latin verbs behind the first 2 example in the original question are used in just this way in the extant literature (abstinere ab, adhaerere ad)." CreationDate="2020-04-20T07:47:31.583" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="25906" PostId="13639" Score="3" Text="_videri_ means &quot;it seems good&quot; on its own only when used impersonally to introduce incidental propositions with _ut_ or _si_, and **certain** infinitive propositions (e.g. they must not contain themselves an impersonal verb)." CreationDate="2020-04-20T15:28:49.103" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="25919" PostId="13639" Score="0" Text="@Vincenzo Oliva: The request was for, among other things, &quot;it seems good (to me)&quot;. The A &amp; G example of this did not offer any disqualifications of its use. Why do you think that is?" CreationDate="2020-04-21T11:51:13.443" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25926" PostId="13639" Score="0" Text="[Here](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-agent) is a link to that page. You can see that the line _videtur mihi_ is general, not taken from any particular context, unlike the others such as the one with _videor_ you mention. That's why it is translated with the parenthetical &quot;or seems good&quot;: which one it is depends on the sentence it is in." CreationDate="2020-04-21T13:20:23.397" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="25930" PostId="13639" Score="0" Text="@Vincenzo Oliva: How would you say &quot;It seems good to me&quot;? I like your answer. It ends the &quot;bene&quot;/ &quot;bonum&quot; debate. Your counsel would've been welcome on the earlier Q. How are things in Calabria?" CreationDate="2020-04-21T15:40:55.943" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25936" PostId="13639" Score="4" Text="Res hic in Calabria satis bona videtur mihi." CreationDate="2020-04-21T18:37:19.663" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="29319" PostId="13639" Score="0" Text="Vincenzo Oliva: I don't know why I didn't pursue this at the time: &quot;it seems good to me.&quot;, in isolation, no qualification. It would have to be a different word e.g. &quot;mihi placet.&quot; = &quot;It pleases (seems good to) me.&quot;. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2020-10-12T11:31:43.650" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25931" PostId="13642" Score="3" Text="The percentages of the two answers come from different sources, one from a corpus and one from a dictionary. A corpus is more descriptive of actual use, but the question didn't specify what was meant." CreationDate="2020-04-21T17:25:38.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25946" PostId="13643" Score="2" Text="I wonder if the other stats are based on frequency of occurrence.  5th declension is tiny in terms of lexis, but *dies* and *res* are pretty commonly used words." CreationDate="2020-04-22T14:30:44.140" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="25947" PostId="13643" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour. According to the article, the data comes from two sources: another study, which is [&quot;The frequency of Latin words and their endings,&quot;](https://archive.org/details/PAULB.DIEDERICHLATINWORDFREQUENCY/page/n24/mode/2up) Diederich, 1939; and a random sampling of 1500 nouns from classical Latin texts." CreationDate="2020-04-22T14:42:07.740" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26285" PostId="13644" Score="1" Text="see fig. 12.1 and 12.4 https://global.oup.com/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/ (Pinkster 2015)" CreationDate="2020-05-13T15:17:28.637" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26286" PostId="13644" Score="1" Text="cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6961/39" CreationDate="2020-05-13T15:21:11.263" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26287" PostId="13644" Score="1" Text="and Pinkster 1990 http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.19:6:2:1.NewPerseusMonographs" CreationDate="2020-05-13T15:28:28.043" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26301" PostId="13644" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Thanks! Those make a great addition to the current answer. I'd be happy to see an answer based on those. I may write something up myself, but it'll take a while before I can find a good moment." CreationDate="2020-05-14T10:15:20.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25910" PostId="13645" Score="3" Text="Thanks! That was very quick for such a thorough answer. ;)" CreationDate="2020-04-20T18:15:36.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25912" PostId="13645" Score="0" Text="I find the unknown to be generally high. I guess unknown should account the times of ambiguity?" CreationDate="2020-04-21T06:50:27.727" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="25916" PostId="13645" Score="3" Text="@d_e Certain words in certain contexts are ambiguous as far as assigning the case with any certainty. This was done &quot;semi-automatically&quot; and revised as much as possible. You can find more information about the PerseusDL Treebank at [Github](https://github.com/PerseusDL/treebank_data/tree/master/v2.1/Latin)." CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:46:57.857" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25948" PostId="13645" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this answer and the link to the database. Both are very helpful." CreationDate="2020-04-22T14:57:04.750" UserId="262" />
  <row Id="25915" PostId="13647" Score="0" Text="Well I am pleasantly surprised to find out who the author is! Okay this is a really helpful and instructive answer, I'll update the line in the linked question after re-reading a few times more. *Thanks!*" CreationDate="2020-04-21T08:59:45.497" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="25917" PostId="13647" Score="0" Text="@uhoh I'm glad to be able to help! Was the content of the title clear enough from context or did you want a translation as well?" CreationDate="2020-04-21T11:07:06.243" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25918" PostId="13647" Score="0" Text="Oh that would be greatly appreciated; would you like it as a new question or is here okay? Also if you like *please feel free* to edit my linked answer there as well; I may not get it right the first time or two." CreationDate="2020-04-21T11:33:39.633" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="25925" PostId="13647" Score="2" Text="@uhoh I think a separate question would work better. There are several approaches to translating it. But it's your call." CreationDate="2020-04-21T13:15:59.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25928" PostId="13647" Score="0" Text="will do then..." CreationDate="2020-04-21T14:12:38.170" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="29016" PostId="13647" Score="0" Text="I usually wait a week  or so to accept answers, but in this case it seems I'd lost track. I've  just now made the substitution in the linked answer in Space SE, and accepted this. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2020-09-16T12:36:38.913" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="29017" PostId="13647" Score="0" Text="@uhoh No worries! I'm glad to have been able to help." CreationDate="2020-09-16T12:52:37.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25933" PostId="13648" Score="1" Text="Thanks @MattAllegro! Was _erema_ used in classical times? I can see that the others were, but it wasn't clear to me with that one." CreationDate="2020-04-21T17:55:02.837" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="25941" PostId="13648" Score="2" Text="@Adam I found no reference now but I will ask again. Open a follow-up question to attract attention on the _erema_ matter" CreationDate="2020-04-21T21:28:44.273" UserId="6851" />
  <row Id="25949" PostId="13648" Score="1" Text="@Adam Ifound a reference of Justinian using the word _erema_. This is pretty much all I can say and I really suggest you to open a new thread about this...better than in comments :)" CreationDate="2020-04-22T15:40:38.903" UserId="6851" />
  <row Id="25966" PostId="13649" Score="0" Text="It's worth pointing out, you translate *meaning*, not words. You have to decide what exactly you mean by &quot;destroy&quot;, since (for example) Godzilla destroying Tokyo means something very different from a sports team destroying its opponent." CreationDate="2020-04-23T15:55:42.573" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="25940" PostId="13651" Score="6" Text="I faintly recall *domi militiaeque*. Does it ring a bell? I don't have the time to write an answer now, but I don't mind at all if someone elaborates on this." CreationDate="2020-04-21T21:21:49.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25943" PostId="13652" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot. Exactly what I wanted." CreationDate="2020-04-22T01:40:21.637" UserId="6855" />
  <row Id="25942" PostId="13653" Score="1" Text="+1 for the rhyme and for pointing out the typo I had reiterated too! I couldn't help but go with Cato, though. :)" CreationDate="2020-04-21T21:59:04.413" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="25944" PostId="13653" Score="0" Text="This had so much on-point information. Learned a lot. Thanks. I appreciate your time and effort lot." CreationDate="2020-04-22T01:41:38.363" UserId="6855" />
  <row Id="25952" PostId="13653" Score="0" Text="“The best path to finding a word is to consult a dictionary” - This should be the motto of this and many more websites and forums about languages." CreationDate="2020-04-22T17:05:54.687" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="25956" PostId="13653" Score="2" Text="@VincenzoOliva You can never go wrong with Marcus Porcius :)" CreationDate="2020-04-22T20:49:22.923" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25957" PostId="13654" Score="0" Text="Thank you, that certainly fits the bill. And it is quite fascinating – did _bellum_ just inherit the locative from _domus_?" CreationDate="2020-04-22T21:05:29.527" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="25958" PostId="13654" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Indeed! I think so. [Here](https://books.google.it/books?id=Smak_L1Tg7EC&amp;pg=PT1053&amp;lpg=PT1053&amp;dq=domi+duellique&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=W5LMeobRa0&amp;sig=ACfU3U3bXsEBeweatGgYlOkxg9efPUEUhg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjatMaMgP3oAhXFeZoKHWUNDR4Q6AEwBnoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=domi%20duellique&amp;f=false) the author states that &quot;_belli_ and _militiae_ occur without _domi_ only in poetic and artificially archaizing texts&quot;, which seems to support this." CreationDate="2020-04-22T22:17:19.057" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="25950" PostId="13655" Score="2" Text="Good call on checking this place. Google translate does not translate well." CreationDate="2020-04-22T16:17:02.030" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25951" PostId="13655" Score="1" Text="Does this refer to a person, people, a thing or more than one thing?" CreationDate="2020-04-22T16:40:58.380" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="25953" PostId="13655" Score="0" Text="It refers to an organization of people performing a service" CreationDate="2020-04-22T17:14:32.660" UserId="6858" />
  <row Id="25959" PostId="13655" Score="0" Text="Why would you want it in Latin? If you can’t translate it *into* Latin, I doubt many customers/members/whoever would be able to translate it *from* Latin—and if it’s incomprehensible, it kind of defeats the purpose, don’t you think?" CreationDate="2020-04-22T23:49:27.343" UserId="2663" />
  <row Id="25954" PostId="13656" Score="1" Text="what about &quot;numquam vidistis&quot; or &quot;non vidistis&quot;? I'm looking for something to describe the people or the work as being not seen and in the background... there but no one knows its going on" CreationDate="2020-04-22T17:53:37.980" UserId="6858" />
  <row Id="25955" PostId="13656" Score="0" Text="@DannyMorrison. I updated my answer.  The plural is in the participle as opposed to a verb form such as &quot;vidistis&quot;, because &quot;vidistis&quot; refers to a the number of people seeing, and &quot;conspecti&quot; to the number of people seen." CreationDate="2020-04-22T18:50:55.433" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26017" PostId="13656" Score="0" Text="@DannyMorrison *numquam vidistis* means &quot;y'all never saw&quot;, while *non vidistis* means &quot;y'all did not see&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-25T22:25:46.327" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26083" PostId="13656" Score="2" Text="I would use a chiasmus for a nice stylistic effect: *Praesentes semper, numquam conspecti* or the other way around." CreationDate="2020-04-28T07:18:42.470" UserId="6844" />
  <row Id="25960" PostId="13658" Score="1" Text="Isn't it &quot;pater noster&quot;, not &quot;pater nostras&quot;? There are four Es in the square and only two As." CreationDate="2020-04-23T04:22:55.013" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="25961" PostId="13658" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Could you illustrate this with a picture or something? I can't quite follow your description of how to read *pater noster* and have A and O left over." CreationDate="2020-04-23T07:06:18.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25982" PostId="13658" Score="0" Text="The paternoster interpretation is an invention of the 1920s and doesn't show up in the Christian traditions that claim the Sator Square. It's not clear that the Sator Square *was* originally Christian." CreationDate="2020-04-24T20:56:04.253" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="25969" PostId="13661" Score="0" Text="I really like &quot;Vilicus!&quot; It is a term of respect, but one closer to being a friend/equal than a superior. That seems about right." CreationDate="2020-04-23T17:04:05.907" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25964" PostId="13662" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Wouldn't &quot;slave&quot; and &quot;little teacher&quot; be offensive? The OP requires an answer that treads the line between truth and insult with the skill of a mountain goat. In English, a &quot;monitor&quot; hands out pens etc., it has to sound good to English ears which accounts, I think, for the OP proscribing &quot;derector&quot;...Just a thought." CreationDate="2020-04-23T15:43:14.510" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25965" PostId="13662" Score="0" Text="@tony I had forgotten to comment about the tones of *paedagogus* and *magistellus*. I updated. I was unfamiliar with the English use of &quot;monitor&quot; apart from a screen. If *monitor* carries unwanted connotations, then my last suggestion (also updated) is the best I can think of." CreationDate="2020-04-23T15:55:26.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25967" PostId="13662" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: I tried to make mine ambiguous--to be interpreted as both/ either truth or insult. This is ironic English humour; e.g. nicknames which are the opposite of reality. Of course, English humour does not travel. I agree, the OP should proceed with his studies--applying maximum vigour." CreationDate="2020-04-23T16:43:50.620" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25968" PostId="13662" Score="0" Text="Secretly mocking a teacher would be difficult. This is not really my intention; this teacher just doesn't seem to take his role to seriously. He is lax on any rules or structure and constantly asks us what we want to do with seemingly no direction otherwise. This signifies to me a level of skill that is below teacher but above student." CreationDate="2020-04-23T17:02:11.363" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="25971" PostId="13662" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite I see; I slightly misread your tone then. The word *tutor* came to mind and I added a comment on that as well. (Giving responsibility to students and asking them for initiatives doesn't sound all that bad, but can be hard to cope with if you're used to something else. Even if the teacher holds the power, giving students an illusion of control can be quite useful.)" CreationDate="2020-04-23T18:07:01.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25973" PostId="13662" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: I was once told that if you have bad teachers, you have to do more work yourself. Doing the past exam papers. In my experience, such as it was, even bad teachers can do past-paper questions, in their own subjects. Good luck with it." CreationDate="2020-04-23T18:31:53.037" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25977" PostId="13662" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite: I would submit that control and skill are not necessarily related." CreationDate="2020-04-24T16:30:53.933" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="25974" PostId="13663" Score="2" Text="That's a really terrific discovery. To make the answer more useful, though, you should point out that that exact phrase doesn't mean 'in war and in peace' in such a way that it could be plugged into any context without modification. The two words are dative singular masculine because they modify mihi. In other contexts, different forms would be required." CreationDate="2020-04-23T20:40:13.867" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="25975" PostId="13663" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thank you, I have elaborated a bit. Still a little unsure how to apply this in other contexts." CreationDate="2020-04-23T22:19:22.550" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32982" PostId="13663" Score="0" Text="This one's pretty cool! Had a chuckle at that example sentence :D" CreationDate="2021-05-03T19:45:07.993" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="25978" PostId="13664" Score="3" Text="If you want to start the last sentence with 'This is the reason (why I was made thirsty...)' instead of 'This (made me thirsty...)', you would actually, as a matter of good prose style, say, &quot;Haec est causa,&quot; where the form of hic/haec/hoc is attracted to the form of causa. So that's something slightly different." CreationDate="2020-04-24T19:02:39.970" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="25981" PostId="13664" Score="0" Text="@cnread And that was actually the original case. I pointed out in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) *hoc est causa...* should rather have *haec* although it doesn't refer to anything feminine. But of course that phenomenon requires there to be something to attract the form (*hic est **sermo** meus, haec sunt **divitiae** meae*)." CreationDate="2020-04-24T20:45:13.433" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="25983" PostId="13664" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Right, and one would say: *Hoc fecit, ut …* (In reality I would not write that at all, but rather: *Qua de causa, qua re, quam ob rem*, or without relative prounouns: *Ob eam rem* etc. But that was not the question.)" CreationDate="2020-04-24T21:13:41.520" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26066" PostId="13665" Score="0" Text="Yes, &quot;mystagogus&quot; plays on the English word &quot;mister&quot;; Mister Gogus&quot;--a good one!" CreationDate="2020-04-27T11:46:37.570" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="25984" PostId="13670" Score="0" Text="Ok, thank you.  It is a rubric for the hymn Rector potens, verax Deus found in a catalogue of medieval music: Die mittelalterlichen Hymnenmelodien des Abendlandes.  There is a similar one for Rerum Deus tenax vigor: ad nonam in tertiis duplicibus.  Yes, the 'tertiis' part is where I am confused." CreationDate="2020-04-24T22:47:33.080" UserId="6870" />
  <row Id="25986" PostId="13670" Score="3" Text="I believe both &quot;tertiis&quot; and &quot;totis&quot; modify &quot;duplicibus&quot; as adjectives, i.e. &quot;on tertiary and complete doubles.&quot; I found a French work where this was translated as &quot;doubles complets&quot; (complete doubles) and &quot;troisièmes doubles&quot; (third doubles). It appears to be a very old (perhaps pre-16th c.) designation of liturgical feasts, and perhaps it's even peculiar to a religious order." CreationDate="2020-04-24T23:49:17.650" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25993" PostId="13670" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I think you've nailed it. Do you want to make it the answer?" CreationDate="2020-04-25T05:13:01.037" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25998" PostId="13670" Score="0" Text="Under 'Ranking of liturgical days' Wikipedia has &#xA;Doubles, I Class; 	Doubles, II Class;	Greater Doubles;	Doubles; 	Semidoubles. and then, in 1911, 1955, 1960, 1969 simplifications and renaming." CreationDate="2020-04-25T13:47:16.867" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26002" PostId="13670" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I think even that belies the complexity: here's a good Catholic Encyclopedia article that includes a few lists of different terms used: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021b.htm" CreationDate="2020-04-25T15:48:35.070" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25989" PostId="13672" Score="0" Text="Great.  Thanks a lot.  juvenco bothers me.  It's not capitalized and those verses are written by Theodulf of Orleans.  Could it mean something else?" CreationDate="2020-04-25T00:32:47.433" UserId="6870" />
  <row Id="25991" PostId="13672" Score="0" Text="@R.B.Jawad I added some further information--that's what the text says, but it appears to be an error." CreationDate="2020-04-25T00:48:19.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25992" PostId="13672" Score="0" Text="Interesting.  Ok, that is what the [sic] is for, then.  Thanks a lot." CreationDate="2020-04-25T00:50:06.837" UserId="6870" />
  <row Id="25987" PostId="13673" Score="1" Text="Why do you think &quot;this&quot; is implied? Just after the portion you quoted, Augustine has his famous &quot;fecisti **nos** ad te,&quot; so I don't think he's just talking about himself." CreationDate="2020-04-24T23:54:11.550" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="25988" PostId="13673" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh, thanks for the comment. I was referring to another English translation to see how the translator translated &quot;homo&quot;, and they used the word *this*. That's why." CreationDate="2020-04-25T00:02:27.397" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="25996" PostId="13673" Score="0" Text="Your translation is extremely literal. There's nothing wrong with this if you are using it as a crib for the Latin, but if you want it to stand alone in English, I could suggest some more idiomatic expressions." CreationDate="2020-04-25T05:54:35.030" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25997" PostId="13673" Score="0" Text="I can also add that you seem to have overlooked translating *mortalitatem suam*." CreationDate="2020-04-25T05:55:45.500" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25994" PostId="13674" Score="0" Text="I'm having a really hard time parsing this. Is this the whole sentence?" CreationDate="2020-04-25T05:27:23.860" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25995" PostId="13674" Score="1" Text="*De beata Maria virgine in sabbatis officium* (Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Saturday) is a popular devotional office for Saturday liturgies. I have noticed that *Sabbata*, the plural of *Sabbatum* is often used in a singular sense, almost as if it were a *plurale tantum*, so it could be interpreted as singular &quot;Saturday&quot; as well as plural &quot;Saturdays&quot;, not that that makes much difference in meaning." CreationDate="2020-04-25T05:32:50.580" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="25999" PostId="13674" Score="0" Text="Ya, I checked again.  I copied it correctly.  It may be one of those cases that mixes in local dialects, I don't know." CreationDate="2020-04-25T15:29:47.147" UserId="6870" />
  <row Id="26001" PostId="13674" Score="1" Text="@R.B.Jawad Do you have an image or link you can post? I'm really skeptical of the &quot;quae.&quot; I could easily see someone who didn't know paleography misinterpreting an abbreviation, e.g. it could be &quot;quando&quot; (as the translation you posted seems to assume), which would make a lot more sense." CreationDate="2020-04-25T15:43:14.897" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26007" PostId="13674" Score="0" Text="I tried to find the original source online, but couldn't.  It's apparently from Roma, Santa Sabina, Archivum Generale Ordinis Predicatorum s. n., in a manuscript Correctorium des Humbert von Romans (&quot;le gros livre&quot;), ca. 1255.  Here is an image from Stäblein's book: https://pasteboard.co/J5t50Xu.png" CreationDate="2020-04-25T16:44:00.607" UserId="6870" />
  <row Id="26008" PostId="13674" Score="0" Text="Has anyone heard of an idiom where *quae de ea* equals *de qua*? I'd really like to change *quae de ea* to *de qua* or *cum de ea* (which is what I think R.B.Jawad's translator did), but I cannot justify it." CreationDate="2020-04-25T16:50:24.453" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26009" PostId="13674" Score="0" Text="Maybe the quae is just a dangling nominative. Those are common enough in all periods." CreationDate="2020-04-25T16:52:10.100" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26000" PostId="13676" Score="2" Text="What kind of fire are you talking about? If it were something like the London fire, you could do a neat parallel with the usual Roman way of counting years: *ab urbe incensa*" CreationDate="2020-04-25T15:32:00.357" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26004" PostId="13676" Score="0" Text="Atomic or nuclear fire, although I'm totally open to something more like the London fire for the parallel with Roman year counting. The &quot;fire&quot; in question isn't limited to one particular city, though." CreationDate="2020-04-25T16:13:08.873" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26005" PostId="13676" Score="0" Text="I edited my post with an idea I just had based off your comment, @brianpck." CreationDate="2020-04-25T16:16:09.620" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26034" PostId="13676" Score="3" Text="I fully agree with brianpck. The use of a so-called &quot;dominant participle&quot; construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction; cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9412/how-obligatory-is-the-predicate-in-a-dominant-participle-construction ) is indeed quite idiomatic in Latin. E.g., cf. _**ante Capitolium incensum**_  (Livy VI, 4)." CreationDate="2020-04-26T03:05:12.377" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43337" PostId="13676" Score="1" Text="*Ab omnia incensa*: Your instinct is right, but it needs to go into the ablative, *ab omnibus incensis*" CreationDate="2023-05-31T01:35:55.353" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43383" PostId="13676" Score="0" Text="Ahh, thanks for that. I've updated the post to use the ablative." CreationDate="2023-06-02T15:36:22.547" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26013" PostId="13677" Score="2" Text="I would include the following (I might be forgetting something): intervocalic _s_; _xc_, _sc_ and _g_ before E/I; _gn_ at the start (because it remains roughly the same) and in the middle of a word (because it varies); _-ns-_, and _-nf-_; [_sonus medius_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13004/is-there-any-difference-between-minime-and-minume/13005#comment23635_13005)." CreationDate="2020-04-25T19:19:00.847" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26014" PostId="13677" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Thanks! I updated the question." CreationDate="2020-04-25T21:05:54.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26016" PostId="13677" Score="0" Text="Actually, sorry, on second thought Ecclesiastical _gn_ sounds [ɲ] initially ([ɲɲ] medially), differently from Classical initial _gn_, likely [n]." CreationDate="2020-04-25T21:24:55.803" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="34119" PostId="13677" Score="0" Text="Actually, the quick brown fox was – to the best of my knowledge (having served as a radio operator in the navy – developed to test the quality of a radio transmission; all 26 Modern English letters should be present, so any garbling due to poor radio conditions would be easy to spot. ‘Test the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog [new line] 1234567890 [ryry to fill the line]’." CreationDate="2021-07-12T13:20:17.113" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34120" PostId="13677" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Rather [ŋn]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7350/is-there-support-for-claiming-gn-was-pronounced-as-ŋ-in-classical-latin" CreationDate="2021-07-12T13:24:33.150" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="26023" PostId="13683" Score="1" Text="ὀλίγου = &quot;almost&quot; rather than &quot;a little bit&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-26T00:51:27.117" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26024" PostId="13683" Score="0" Text="@TKR Ahh, right, looked it up and apparently that's a specific idiom. Corrected!" CreationDate="2020-04-26T00:53:51.723" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26025" PostId="13683" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the clear explanation!" CreationDate="2020-04-26T01:43:34.137" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="26026" PostId="13684" Score="0" Text="This is great! It would be very easy for an English-speaker to understand. Would abbreviating these as A.R. and P.R. be accurate?" CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:01:11.873" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26027" PostId="13684" Score="1" Text="@Adam Seems reasonable to me! (You'd also probably use a normal _i_ without the long mark on top; I just use the long marks because it helps me keep in practice.)" CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:01:43.050" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26028" PostId="13685" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately the link seems to be broken." CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:13:45.157" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26029" PostId="13685" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Thank you, fixed the link!" CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:14:45.267" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="26030" PostId="13686" Score="0" Text="Thank you! So εἰρήκασιν οὐδὲν ἀληθές means &quot;they said nothing truthful&quot;, right? It makes sense that ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν can come between οὐδὲν and ἀληθές, since we often insert &quot;so to say&quot; in between clauses. But what does the particle γε contribute here?" CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:18:39.460" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="26031" PostId="13686" Score="1" Text="@ktm5124: I've tried to answer in my answer!" CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:23:20.387" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26032" PostId="13686" Score="0" Text="No wonder I was so confused! There is an idiom that was throwing me off. Thank you!" CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:31:33.587" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="26033" PostId="13686" Score="2" Text="To add a little about ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν -- it often appears with words like &quot;nothing, everything, no one, everyone&quot;, and seems to express a slight hedge, &quot;practically nothing&quot;, &quot;just about everyone&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-26T02:34:53.943" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26035" PostId="13686" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the comment, @TKR. Good to see you here!" CreationDate="2020-04-26T03:25:23.867" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="26067" PostId="13690" Score="0" Text="This suggestion is great!" CreationDate="2020-04-27T12:39:04.903" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36697" PostId="13691" Score="1" Text="If &quot;ex se intellegetur me ad tempus advenisse.&quot; is written indirectly, why is &quot;intellegitur ex se quam laeta est.&quot; not?" CreationDate="2022-01-18T13:10:35.493" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36704" PostId="13691" Score="1" Text="@tony because, as so often, I made a mistake: it should be *quam laeta sit*." CreationDate="2022-01-18T20:29:57.123" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36772" PostId="13691" Score="0" Text="Sebastian Koppehel: I have been trying to find examples of subordinate clauses, in indirect speech, introduced by &quot;quam&quot; = &quot;how&quot;, with no luck. In Pinkster's notes on relative clauses, p2, (freely available on the net) among all the substantives, adjectives &amp; adverbs used for this purpose, &quot;quam&quot; = &quot;how&quot;, is not one of them. Are you sure about this? I would have translated: &quot;intellegetur ex se laetissimam esse.&quot; = &quot;I need not tell you that she is supremely happy.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-21T13:20:10.003" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36791" PostId="13691" Score="1" Text="@tony Look no further than the [L &amp; S entry for *quam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquam) (under letter B)." CreationDate="2022-01-21T18:22:17.797" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36798" PostId="13691" Score="1" Text="Thank you. It's an indirect question! Often puzzling because many of these are not questions at all--nobody is asking anybody anything. In Latin, it seems to be the case that if there's an interrogative with a subjunctive, it's called an indirect question. Thanks again." CreationDate="2022-01-22T09:12:13.637" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26044" PostId="13692" Score="0" Text="Is there a particular dialect and time period you're interested in? If I'm remembering right, as Attic transformed into Koinē a bunch of -mi verbs got regularized into -ō verbs; on the flipside, Aeolic has many more -mi verbs than Attic ever did." CreationDate="2020-04-26T19:33:33.113" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26046" PostId="13692" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Classical Attic I suppose, by default. But I'd be glad to see a complete list for any dialect or period." CreationDate="2020-04-26T19:37:01.907" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26059" PostId="13693" Score="2" Text="You could describe *acclino* as semantically causative, in the same way that e.g. English *put* can be described as meaning &quot;cause to be located&quot;. But it isn't formally causative (as the Hebrew verb is)." CreationDate="2020-04-27T00:28:50.823" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26080" PostId="13694" Score="2" Text="“Latin” is a weird way to spell “High Gothic” :-P" CreationDate="2020-04-28T01:52:16.620" UserId="59" />
  <row Id="26084" PostId="13694" Score="1" Text="@BalinKingOfMoriaReinstateCMs In Gothic, it's &quot;Mortis xenos, adversa humanis&quot;. Just pick whatever Latin words that make the meaning clear to an English speaker. Ignore any grammar, that just makes stuff difficult." CreationDate="2020-04-28T08:19:57.200" UserId="6314" />
  <row Id="26085" PostId="13694" Score="1" Text="As much as I like 40k, it's for my own fictional universe, so I'd prefer Latin xD" CreationDate="2020-04-28T10:55:53.873" UserId="6878" />
  <row Id="26089" PostId="13694" Score="1" Text="Out of interest: Who are the enemies of mankind?" CreationDate="2020-04-28T15:08:25.003" UserId="1912" />
  <row Id="26090" PostId="13694" Score="1" Text="It's a slogan for the Terran military forces, who fight within the larger Terran Union Army. All forces originating from Earth share this common motto, though they may be different otherwise, even to the extent of other mottos." CreationDate="2020-04-28T15:59:25.117" UserId="6878" />
  <row Id="26061" PostId="13695" Score="0" Text="Does that literally translate to what I asked for, or is it, like, similar in meaning? Google Translate seems to think it means &quot;Taker of man's foes&quot;." CreationDate="2020-04-27T02:45:16.270" UserId="6878" />
  <row Id="26062" PostId="13695" Score="4" Text="Shouldn't it be *hostibus*, dative of reference? (Though my sense is that *inimicus* would be a better choice -- *hostis* connotes armed conflict between nations, which doesn't to be quite what OP is looking for.)" CreationDate="2020-04-27T04:28:19.773" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26065" PostId="13695" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite: A gerund gives &quot;dying is the enemy of men&quot;; a gerundive: &quot;it-ought-to-be-dying&quot; rendered to &quot;it must be death&quot;; shouldn't it be dative hostibus/ inimicis--to the enemies of men?" CreationDate="2020-04-27T11:39:02.713" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26069" PostId="13695" Score="1" Text="The gerund in Latin doesn't have a nominative; the infinitive is used there." CreationDate="2020-04-27T15:03:19.997" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="26081" PostId="13695" Score="1" Text="@Budhaditya Ghosh One should never rely on Google Translate for Latin translations. Its translations are almost always wrong. Not that human students of Latin are always right (as you can tell from the comments on my post) but we're always more right than Google." CreationDate="2020-04-28T03:11:15.450" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26086" PostId="13695" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: Please see Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10809/1982; &quot;nunc est moriendum&quot;--the best translation, using English impersonal pronoun, &quot;one&quot;, is &quot;now one must die&quot;;  presumably, the translation would be completed with (--the enemies of mankind)." CreationDate="2020-04-28T11:21:42.370" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26106" PostId="13695" Score="1" Text="In that example *'est'* is obligatory." CreationDate="2020-04-29T01:45:57.963" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26070" PostId="13697" Score="0" Text="Given how much family and lineage mattered to the Romans, it is pretty strange that they only used borrowed words! Perhaps _nothus_ and _spurius_ were borrowed early enough that any previous words are just lost to history." CreationDate="2020-04-27T15:22:32.590" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26074" PostId="13697" Score="0" Text="@Adam actually, they were less uptight about illegitimate children in Ancient Rome." CreationDate="2020-04-27T18:29:22.877" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26076" PostId="13697" Score="0" Text="for more info we'll need to read Rawson, B. (1989). Spurii and the Roman View of Illegitimacy. Antichthon, 23, 10-41. doi:10.1017/S006647740000366X" CreationDate="2020-04-27T18:41:51.093" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26077" PostId="13697" Score="1" Text="cf. &quot;illegitimacy was neither a moral nor a social problem for pre-Christian Rome&quot; or &quot;the term 'illegitimate' can be misleading in discussing Roman society, because its connotations in English are so different from those of the Latin terms discussed below&quot; (Rawson 1989)  - it's a very interesting study!" CreationDate="2020-04-27T19:12:44.687" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26078" PostId="13697" Score="1" Text="Interesting! This is something with learning Latin that is really challenging if your native language uses a lot of Latin words - you make assumptions about the meaning and usage based on how your own language uses them." CreationDate="2020-04-27T21:07:14.503" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36002" PostId="13698" Score="1" Text="Does classical Latin ever say &quot;mors + dative&quot; to mean &quot;so-and-so must die&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-11-26T17:13:39.350" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="36007" PostId="13698" Score="2" Text="@fdb Good point -- come to think of it, maybe not (though possibly *mortem* acc. as object of some implied verb?). If it doesn't and if Classical idiom is important to the OP, maybe a looser paraphrase with e.g. *moriantur* is better." CreationDate="2021-11-26T19:29:43.693" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26068" PostId="13699" Score="1" Text="And it'd also be nice to have an idea what people usually took the full Bible passage to mean." CreationDate="2020-04-27T14:21:00.030" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="26072" PostId="13699" Score="4" Text="Jeremiah Ch2 v24" CreationDate="2020-04-27T16:41:45.000" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="40077" PostId="13699" Score="0" Text="A wild ass, crazed with lust, sniffing the wind for the scent of an estrous female..." CreationDate="2022-10-21T03:40:40.223" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26071" PostId="13700" Score="0" Text="(or hostes - i think both is possible for nom.pl.)" CreationDate="2020-04-27T16:20:00.637" UserId="6882" />
  <row Id="26073" PostId="13700" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the suggestion! Two remarks: (1) I think the one ending in *-is* is only possible in plural accusative, not nominative, so it'd have to be *hostes*. [See this for some details.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1615/79) (2) Your English translation suggests that you wanted to use future, which would be *morientur*. Or did you mean to use present tense? // You can always edit your questions and answers to add details or fix something." CreationDate="2020-04-27T17:51:46.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47046" PostId="13700" Score="0" Text="I like *morientor*, but I don't think it means &quot;they shall die&quot;. Rather it means, &quot;let them die&quot;. Please come up with a better English phrase." CreationDate="2023-12-31T02:10:46.743" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26110" PostId="13707" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/1982 brianpck, in his answer, stated that Medieval Latin was greatly influenced by the Latin Vulgate (4th. Century). He cited five examples, from the latter, which appeared to include indirect speech, expressed in the indicative, using &quot;quod + subj.&quot; clauses. In examples from Allen &amp; Greenough (p. 539-40) the tenses of the subjunctives, in these &quot;quod + subj.&quot; clauses, is the same as in English." CreationDate="2020-04-29T08:08:34.033" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26114" PostId="13707" Score="1" Text="@tony That's a good find! Using *memento quod* with conjunctive sounds like what A&amp;G calls informal indirect discourse. It's certainly classically valid as well, but perhaps so is the indicative. It's not unusual that there is no hard rule to select the mood. Once the mood is chosen, there is often only one sensible tense, and it may well be different for indicative and conjunctive." CreationDate="2020-04-29T14:19:56.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26120" PostId="13707" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Why is *appropinquant* in the indicative? Is this a typo? A solecism? Or is this making some distinction between the turning around and the drawing near?" CreationDate="2020-05-01T00:36:49.977" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26121" PostId="13707" Score="0" Text="@Figulus Perhaps it's not part of the subordinate clause. If it is, I don't know why it has that form. That would make a good new question; I think this answer is long enough as it is." CreationDate="2020-05-01T06:50:23.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26124" PostId="13707" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Taking one of the Vulgate examples: &quot;Memento quod et ipse servieris in Aegypto et eduxerit te inde Dominus Deus tuus.&quot; (Deut. 5:15) and referring to (A &amp; G) p.592:&quot; A subordinate clause takes the subjunctive....[Section 3]….When a reason or explanatory fact is introduced by a relative or by quod...&quot;. Does this explain the perfect subjunctive, &quot;eduxerit&quot;, in the example? What if the student used &quot;eduxisse&quot;--basic indirect speech (before the student discovers (A &amp; G))?" CreationDate="2020-05-01T11:28:19.297" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26126" PostId="13707" Score="0" Text="@tony You really should ask a separate question about that. It's related, but a still a new sentence. There's room for much more discussion about moods in subordinate clauses on this site!" CreationDate="2020-05-01T11:44:14.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26098" PostId="13710" Score="0" Text="This is great, thanks very much! From your second list, the simplex verbs are: σκίδνημι πετάννυμι σβέννυμι στορέννυμι ἕννυμι ἄγνυμι χώννυμι κεδάννυμι σκεδάννυμι. In the same list there are some compound verbs of which the simplex forms don't seem to appear in the master list for some reason: κίδνημι κορέννυμι οἴγνυμι χρώννυμι κτίννυμι μείγνυμι. Also εἰμί (not the same as εἶμι) is missing. (A couple false positives: κόμμι is not a verb but a noun meaning &quot;gum&quot;, and ἠρεμί is an adverb &quot;gently&quot;.) With these additions we may well have a complete list!" CreationDate="2020-04-28T19:13:23.510" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26103" PostId="13710" Score="0" Text="@TKR You're welcome and thanks for the help! This was a fun challenge, but I knew I couldn't finish alone with my rudimentary Greek. I updated the answer and put the final list at the start. I hope this is at least very close to a complete list." CreationDate="2020-04-28T22:44:07.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26091" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="In the last line of the translation &quot;it&quot; rather than &quot;this&quot; would be more usual English phrasing." CreationDate="2020-04-28T17:27:22.317" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26092" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="I like the choice of topic! This looks very promising. A couple of points: Shouldn't *acuit* have short I, *sed* a short E (with long its the accusative reflexive), *confirmata* a long final A (assuming it's ablative), *meta-* a short E, and *laude* a short E? I also think the classical spelling is exclusively *pronuntiare* with T instead of C." CreationDate="2020-04-28T17:27:39.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26093" PostId="13711" Score="1" Text="The word *hoc* is nice to have in. If my memory serves me well, the O is actually short but the syllable is always heavy/long, so it's more like *hocc*. Some sources use a macron to indicate the length of the syllable." CreationDate="2020-04-28T17:31:58.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26094" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: Edited, thanks!" CreationDate="2020-04-28T18:02:22.657" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26095" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="@Joonas: The &quot;y&quot; got me into _metaphysica_. :) Yes to all of your objections about vowel quantities, I knew I would mess up some of them (the doublechecking actually made it worse!).Thanks //Indeed _pronuntiare_ is the classical standard, but was classical spelling a requirement? _(pro)nunc-_ does seem to be quite common, since the Renaissance at least, in European (not only Italian) texts, and not only related to the Church - so I think the choice on which pronunciation to use applies. // I guess I'll leave _hoc_ without the quantity to avoid confusion, readers will see your comment about it." CreationDate="2020-04-28T18:02:42.223" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26097" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Greek loans are a good source of *ph* and *y*, so *physica* in some form is a natural choice. Classical spelling was not a requirement, but it would just feel weird to pronounce classically what is a later spelling. But one could get around that by varying the spelling with the accent. It's great to have more than one answer, as multiple sentences make the pronunciation practice much better." CreationDate="2020-04-28T18:25:01.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26099" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="If the point is that *hoc* is always long, it would be more helpful to start the next word with a vowel...." CreationDate="2020-04-28T20:18:02.243" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26100" PostId="13711" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Maybe you're right about the classical pronunciation, however my point is that there are regional differences within Ecclesiastical Latin - even though the standard is the Italian pronunciation - so people can read _-cia-_ as /tʃia/, /tsia/, /sia/ or /θia/." CreationDate="2020-04-28T20:40:46.323" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26101" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: Done!" CreationDate="2020-04-28T20:41:12.457" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26102" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva Indeed, if one wants to cover all dialects, I think both spellings should be included; neither is universal. If one goes for some version of classical pronunciation (with differences between eras), the spelling needs to be *-tia-* for the pronunciation /tia/. I have nothing against small spelling variants as one shifts between dialects. I was just aiming at something like a remark that you may need to spell *adnunciat* as *adnuntiat* or *annuntiat* or something similar depending on your dialect choice. (It only now occurred to me that the assimilation *adn-&gt;ann-* varies too.)" CreationDate="2020-04-28T22:13:01.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26104" PostId="13711" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I see. I added the variants and a note about it." CreationDate="2020-04-28T22:57:01.280" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26111" PostId="13712" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you have an example of Fisher becoming Pistorius? The Latin name [sounds more like a baker](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pistorius&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059). But perhaps it's not unusual if piscator (fisher) simplifies to pistor (baker) in a name." CreationDate="2020-04-29T09:30:46.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26115" PostId="13712" Score="0" Text="Oh right, I confused Pistorius and Piscator. I'm updating the answer." CreationDate="2020-04-29T17:29:21.913" UserId="6329" />
  <row Id="26096" PostId="13713" Score="0" Text="Regarding the last point: an *imprimatur* or *nihil obstat* isn't a guarantee that there aren't translation errors. I do a lot of work in medieval philosophy, and this particular translation is well known for often being inaccurate." CreationDate="2020-04-28T18:14:16.143" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26105" PostId="13713" Score="1" Text="I think I remember learning *oportet* as 'it behoves.' That would support +'need;' but it's not real evidence." CreationDate="2020-04-29T01:36:56.807" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26108" PostId="13714" Score="1" Text="@ExpeditoBipes - With a Latin phrase, though, &quot;Lux belli&quot;. That's not Spanish." CreationDate="2020-04-29T02:09:42.967" UserId="3513" />
  <row Id="26109" PostId="13714" Score="6" Text="I wonder whether it's a typo for Lex belli, which is a well-established phrase even in classical times, meaning 'the custom of war, the right of the conqueror,' which certainly makes sense in this context." CreationDate="2020-04-29T04:01:03.967" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26112" PostId="13714" Score="1" Text="@cnread Do you want to write that into an answer? It sounds very likely, and in any case it's a good option to have in mind." CreationDate="2020-04-29T09:31:58.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26119" PostId="13722" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you edit your question to be more specific? The verb *videre* has many future passive forms, one for each person and number (and double that if you include the second future). You seem to imply that something should be translated from English to Latin, but what is that something? It's great if you add your own attempts; then we can help you much better." CreationDate="2020-04-30T17:56:20.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26170" PostId="13722" Score="0" Text="Hi again! I closed the question for lack of clarity, but it can be reopened if you can clarify it. What exactly are you looking for? Do you want all the future forms of that verb? Do you want to translate some sentences or words? What exactly do you want to translate? We do not know what material you have nor what your exact task is." CreationDate="2020-05-05T08:19:40.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26154" PostId="13723" Score="2" Text="Hi, and welcome to the site. It is only incidental to your answer, but are you sure about the translation of _cras mane_? I would have guessed it means “tomorrow morning.”" CreationDate="2020-05-03T11:51:09.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26156" PostId="13723" Score="3" Text="The English distinction that's taught in school as &quot;short vowels vs. long vowels&quot; is really one of vowels vs. diphthongs, which is rather different from the Latin situation. (The two *bow* words, by the way, are something else again -- the difference there is between two diphthongs.)" CreationDate="2020-05-03T17:41:56.710" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26149" PostId="13724" Score="2" Text="Subjectively I would say that _dux_ makes more sense in context than both _lex_ and _lux_." CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:48:31.110" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26130" PostId="13725" Score="1" Text="Very nice to have an “official” statement of sorts, but still it is strange that the usual suspects do not come right out and say explicitly how to interpret this. Another example that drives home the “it is proper/improper” aspect is [Cic. Pro Flacco, 86](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/flacco.shtml#86)." CreationDate="2020-05-01T18:58:58.397" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26138" PostId="13725" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree that it is mysterious and annoying that non of my dictionaries tell me what *non oportet* means." CreationDate="2020-05-02T19:47:02.593" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26135" PostId="13730" Score="0" Text="Recent dictionaries often fall into traps." CreationDate="2020-05-02T02:05:03.500" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26131" PostId="13731" Score="0" Text="A &amp; G called this &quot;informal Indirect Discourse&quot;. In discussions, in the original Q., indirect discourse was discussed; but, not with a final conclusion. In the example, the subject is having recent events/ consequences explained to him, I think. God led the subject out of Egypt. I knew this would be difficult, thanks for having a go." CreationDate="2020-05-01T19:16:32.537" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26134" PostId="13731" Score="2" Text="@tony It is an explanation for why the Israelites must observe the Sabbath, but that is besides the point. _Quod_ does not introduce a causal clause here. I have edited my answer to clarify this." CreationDate="2020-05-01T22:22:15.283" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26136" PostId="13731" Score="0" Text="Yes, &quot;memento quod&quot; = &quot;remember that&quot;, as translated above; nothing to do with &quot;because&quot;. In the Vulgate example the speaker/ writer is telling the subject what God (a third party, in the sentene) had done. This would normally be expressed indirectly (John told Fred what Mary had done.). In Latin, &quot;te eduxisse&quot;. Here, quod + perfect subjunctive, &quot;eduxerit&quot;--why?" CreationDate="2020-05-02T08:29:23.657" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26147" PostId="13731" Score="1" Text="@tony Because the Latin language changed? It is a late Latin/Medieval construction, as has been (I think) quite extensively discussed in the [question you cited](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1179/memento-quod-subjunctive)." CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:43:20.957" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26160" PostId="13731" Score="0" Text="The Vulgate example dates from the 4th. Century. The original Q., for all its erudition, did not delve into the indirect-speech, eduxisse/ eduxerit, conflict. Your theory, that this is a case of (Latin) linguistic evolution is interesting and it may well be the correct answer. I hope so. I'd like to put this Q. to bed and get my life back." CreationDate="2020-05-04T11:07:17.557" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26132" PostId="13733" Score="2" Text="_Summa Theologiae_ surely must be the elephant in the room." CreationDate="2020-05-01T21:44:47.763" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26133" PostId="13733" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel does it exist online anywhere in full in Latin? http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/aquinas/summa.shtml is missing most of it. Ah looks like it might be [here](https://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIa)." CreationDate="2020-05-01T21:48:06.393" UserId="3281" />
  <row Id="26140" PostId="13733" Score="0" Text="@LancePollard—Absolutely. Aquinas, Thomas. *Summa Theologica.* Paris: Bloud, 1880. 8 volumes. Type **summatheologica0#thomuoft** in the archive.org search field, but replace the # symbol with a number from 1-8." CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:09:47.913" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="26145" PostId="13733" Score="0" Text="There is also Augustine’s *De civitate Dei contra paganos* (“On the City of God against the Pagans”)." CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:12:19.530" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="26148" PostId="13733" Score="0" Text="@DerÜbermensch You could post those two as an answer or even two. They are certainly good candidates." CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:45:52.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26150" PostId="13733" Score="4" Text="This is a very broad/vague question. What makes something a top text?" CreationDate="2020-05-03T01:52:58.773" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26151" PostId="13733" Score="2" Text="@TKR I agree--this really needs to be made more specific, e.g. &quot;Did the Romans have a 'holy book' like the Bible?&quot; As it stands, almost any famous book written in Latin could be an answer." CreationDate="2020-05-03T03:15:27.013" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30231" PostId="13733" Score="0" Text="As the question stands now, it seems to be more along the line of ‘Which is the key book of the Roman culture?’ The real problem with the question, as I see it, is not the effort, it’s not the contents, but the question itself. I believe the question is interesting in and of itself, and if ‘Roman culture’ is delimited by time, such as ‘of the Roman culture, understood as _ab urbe condītā_ to 330 C.E.’ I believe that would include all Roman culture as most understand it and clearly demarcate the Byzantine culture as a new chapter (if not a book) of its cultural history." CreationDate="2020-12-23T00:01:50.697" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="26139" PostId="13735" Score="1" Text="Sounds spot on to me. *Major* and *Minor* are masculine or feminine adjectives, presumably modifying the feminine *continens*. The bigger continent of Solum and the smaller continent of Solum." CreationDate="2020-05-02T19:51:58.360" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26158" PostId="13737" Score="2" Text="Have you looked at the LSJ definitions? They're quite detailed, esp. for τέλος: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dte%2Flos" CreationDate="2020-05-03T17:55:15.177" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26157" PostId="13740" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the examples! The type of τὸν δὲ οὔ is indeed a common one, which it hadn't occurred to me to mention in the question. That type makes intuitive sense to me in a way that the examples I quoted in the question don't -- in e.g. ...ὃν Ὅμηρος μὲν οὐκ ᾔσθετο, Στησίχορος δέ, the δέ-clause seems to lack a focused element, which is weird (unless δέ itself is the focus). Your Epictetus example is interesting in that ὑπὸ σαυτοῦ is arguably focused there, which is unusual for elements preceding μέν or δέ." CreationDate="2020-05-03T17:52:36.897" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26159" PostId="13740" Score="0" Text="You're welcome. I meant that the omission of the verb in μὲν-δὲ sentences doesn't seem that common." CreationDate="2020-05-03T19:28:53.797" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30230" PostId="13742" Score="0" Text="I would easily upvote this, if you could also provide a brief summary of why you believe so. (Most, if not all ancient authors, mediaeval authors and modern authors probably agree with you, though, as do I (though my opinion on this matters but a little)." CreationDate="2020-12-22T23:56:57.257" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="26163" PostId="13749" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Translating something like a motto well is hard without context. For example, are you referring to spending all of one's fortune or perhaps a single gift? You can edit your question to elaborate on the message you want to convey. It really makes a big difference." CreationDate="2020-05-04T15:44:35.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30787" PostId="13751" Score="1" Text="because it is at a whole other continent. France, Italy, Spain etc. are already in Europe where Latin language were spoken. but when a language gets spoken in a different contient they named as such. It's not about Spanish itself but where did it originate from. If French speaking people were to colonize the region more than Spanish speaking people did, the people there would be mainly speaking French and it still would be called Latin America." CreationDate="2021-02-16T10:33:42.513" UserId="8988" />
  <row Id="26161" PostId="13754" Score="3" Text="Interesting question about the nuances of meaning. Could you tell us which verbs you have been looking at?" CreationDate="2020-05-04T15:26:50.160" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26162" PostId="13754" Score="2" Text="Can you also mention what material you are using? Are you using [an online Latin dictionary of some kind](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) or something else? We can't help much unless you provide more context. Don't be afraid of writing several paragraphs of text; asking a clear question often takes that." CreationDate="2020-05-04T15:41:14.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26165" PostId="13754" Score="0" Text="Just been looking at https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/latin-word-for-a05d478d6e09bf33436de8e7a36f179666ac7545.html and looking them up on wiktionary." CreationDate="2020-05-04T15:59:33.680" UserId="4707" />
  <row Id="26164" PostId="13755" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you explain your answer further? How does this answer relate to the question that was asked?" CreationDate="2020-05-04T15:46:00.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26166" PostId="13756" Score="1" Text="Don't forget (English) impersonal pronoun, &quot;one&quot;. giving &quot;now one must drink&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-04T16:28:06.500" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26167" PostId="13756" Score="0" Text="I don't think you can read that pronoun into the Latin. There is no neuter pronoun that can refer to both genders. I suppose my translation is not entirely direct, but putting in the pronoun feels like a stretch to me." CreationDate="2020-05-04T16:33:22.387" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26168" PostId="13756" Score="2" Text="I agree with @tony. The English impersonal &quot;one&quot; corresponds well to the Latin impersonal passive. It's certainly not a must to put the pronoun in, but it's no stretch either. Depending on context, you can justifiably supply pretty much any English pronoun, like &quot;now we must drink/play&quot;. Anyway, I do like this choice of Latin phrase for this purpose, so +1!" CreationDate="2020-05-04T18:18:14.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30760" PostId="13757" Score="0" Text="There's nothing in that article that says it was applied to Iberians..." CreationDate="2021-02-16T22:28:27.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26169" PostId="13759" Score="1" Text="I suspect that in the 19th century the sense “weep” was still considered to be less correct or of a lower register. Note how Noah Webster only [mentions it in passing](http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/cry) among numerous meanings that are all essentially the same (and curiously remarks that it is “a popular use of the word”)." CreationDate="2020-05-04T20:53:41.163" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39888" PostId="13761" Score="1" Text="Very strange that *Iberoamérica* would apply to the Iberian peninsula as well. If that weren't the case, it would have been the perfect name for &quot;Latin America.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-08T21:07:13.583" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26171" PostId="13764" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for an excellent first question!" CreationDate="2020-05-05T10:20:16.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26176" PostId="13768" Score="1" Text="Good answer,, but a link and a sample is better than the full list" CreationDate="2020-05-05T19:37:13.513" UserId="3663" />
  <row Id="26178" PostId="13768" Score="3" Text="@vectory I thought that links alone were discouraged because of breakages?" CreationDate="2020-05-05T20:18:59.140" UserId="6910" />
  <row Id="26180" PostId="13768" Score="0" Text="@Restioson wiktionary is durably archived somewhere, I'd hope ;)" CreationDate="2020-05-05T21:55:43.957" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26182" PostId="13768" Score="6" Text="I myself would actually prefer a link *and* the full list, as long as it fits into one answer. De gustibus non disputandum?" CreationDate="2020-05-06T00:50:29.027" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26183" PostId="13768" Score="3" Text="@Cerberus. I agree. It's better that way." CreationDate="2020-05-06T00:55:37.407" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26185" PostId="13768" Score="3" Text="@ExpeditoBipes: Perfect. And some interesting words, too! I suspect many would have been Vulgar." CreationDate="2020-05-06T01:55:01.100" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26186" PostId="13768" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus. I also found it very interesting. I didn't know that such a list existed before today." CreationDate="2020-05-06T02:01:09.360" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26190" PostId="13768" Score="3" Text="It looks very much as if the true list is shorter than what we have here: as if, in an ancestor of this list, several words were specified using two forms, e.g. &quot;abanteo, abanteare&quot;, &quot;amicitas, amicitatis&quot;, and whoever sorted them treated each form as if it were a separate list entry." CreationDate="2020-05-06T06:06:26.583" UserId="3127" />
  <row Id="26191" PostId="13768" Score="1" Text="Seriously?  &quot;Fata&quot;?  That's used frequently in the Aeneid.   A scholarly source would be nice.  Wiktionary is perhaps not that..." CreationDate="2020-05-06T06:54:01.660" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26192" PostId="13768" Score="1" Text="@RosieF. I eliminated the infinitives and the genitive forms." CreationDate="2020-05-06T12:40:28.397" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26193" PostId="13768" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour. Did you check out the page for [Fata](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/Fata) in Wiktionary? It explains why it's listed. You might also note that Fata doesn't have an entry of its own in [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fata&amp;la=la). The plural form of fatum was adapted for a different use." CreationDate="2020-05-06T12:49:41.407" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26196" PostId="13768" Score="0" Text="@ExpeditoBipes Linguistic reconstruction uses sounds laws (Lautgesetze).  You can't reconstruct that a redeployment of a plural took place in the mother language rather than as an areal spread later.  That's total bunk." CreationDate="2020-05-06T14:29:18.763" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26213" PostId="13768" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour: You may or may not be right. But must you express yourself so forcefully?" CreationDate="2020-05-07T17:19:33.327" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26179" PostId="13770" Score="2" Text="(Hacker voice) I'm *in.* ;-)" CreationDate="2020-05-05T20:39:54.500" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26187" PostId="13771" Score="0" Text="I think *vocationi jam factae* means &quot;to a calling already made&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-06T02:26:59.663" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26181" PostId="13772" Score="1" Text="OP's first translation is grammatical if you read *futuri* as the genitive of substantive *futurum* rather than a form of the adjective." CreationDate="2020-05-06T00:00:43.007" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="26184" PostId="13772" Score="0" Text="Could one breath knowledge into students? If so, than the first translation given by @Dan might be good." CreationDate="2020-05-06T01:51:52.293" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26188" PostId="13772" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon, You're right. I overlooked that possibility. I have edited the answer (and also removed some unnecessary editorialising)." CreationDate="2020-05-06T05:54:59.670" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26189" PostId="13772" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite Yes, imparting supernatural knowledge, as Lewis &amp; Short put it. That is the origin of English “inspire.”" CreationDate="2020-05-06T05:56:32.170" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26212" PostId="13772" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thank you so much, that is really helpful." CreationDate="2020-05-07T14:32:36.770" UserId="6909" />
  <row Id="26199" PostId="13773" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much!  When you say &quot;lectio&quot; is the medieval and neo-latin word for &quot;Lesson&quot; can you give me a link to a dictionary or any examples in a text, where it doesn't just mean &quot;a reading&quot;?  I am not doubting your info at all, I am very interested in medieval Latin and neo-Latin but most resources seem to be Classical Latin orientated so it is hard to find resources." CreationDate="2020-05-06T17:38:34.263" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="26200" PostId="13773" Score="1" Text="I have just found a book with the title &quot;Propaideia seu modus docendi tranctandique lectiones in schola praecipue Regismontana, pro optanda et obtinenda facilitate ac felicitate a. M. Matthia Gaedenio, 1624:&quot; which might answer my own comment re (lectio), I am still only a beginner at Latin though so may have misunderstood this." CreationDate="2020-05-06T17:45:44.040" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="26201" PostId="13773" Score="0" Text="@PaulusFiliusRogeri An excellent question. John C. Traupman's excellent *New College Latin and English Dictionary* gives *lectio* as one equivalent of &quot;Lesson&quot; in the English to Latin section.Smith and Hall also give it as one option. Other options include *documentum* and *pensum*. Carolus Egger calls them *scholae* in his text book. I will add these to my answer." CreationDate="2020-05-06T20:21:14.253" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26202" PostId="13775" Score="0" Text="I made a mistake in my answer. I will correct it forthwith." CreationDate="2020-05-06T22:50:52.277" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26329" PostId="13778" Score="0" Text="This is how I would instinctively pluralise it." CreationDate="2020-05-16T09:52:41.673" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="26223" PostId="13780" Score="0" Text="Paratus fuit is actually equivalent to paratus est (perfect passive), not paratus erat (pluperfect passive). There's a [whole question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5315/which-grammatical-format-is-the-double-perfect-system-as-found-in-the-vulgate) devoted to this. Of course, it's also possible that paratus is being used here simply as an adjective, as happens. Either way, I'd say paratus fuit means 'has been/was prepared,' not 'had been prepared.'" CreationDate="2020-05-08T01:38:22.513" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26224" PostId="13780" Score="0" Text="Is it common for the perfect passive participle in particular to be used simply as an adjective? I've come across, for example, &quot;destinatus est&quot; being translated as &quot;is destined&quot; rather than &quot;has been destined.&quot; I thought this was incorrect but I might be wrong. How can one tell when it is being used simply as an adjective rather than as a verb tense of the perfect passive system?" CreationDate="2020-05-08T03:01:28.843" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="26225" PostId="13780" Score="0" Text="@MichaelJYoo: The perfect passive tense can double up as an aorist or &quot;simple past&quot;. Thus, as well as meaning &quot;it has been destined&quot; destinatus est&quot; also means &quot;it was destined&quot;. When the supine is used on its own: &quot;amatus-a-um&quot; = &quot;(having been) loved&quot;; the &quot;having been&quot; is sometimes omitted giving &quot;loved&quot;; which may be rendered as &quot;is loved&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-08T08:24:58.367" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26207" PostId="13781" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer thank you!" CreationDate="2020-05-07T10:36:34.777" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="26203" PostId="13784" Score="0" Text="This is a fantastic answer! Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-05-07T03:44:08.770" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26237" PostId="13792" Score="4" Text="I think you want _manet_ rather than _relinquit_: _relinquo_ means &quot;leave&quot; in the sense of &quot;abandon&quot;, not &quot;be remaining&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-08T22:40:11.687" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="26239" PostId="13792" Score="0" Text="@Colin Fine: Thanks. I've changed it." CreationDate="2020-05-09T08:52:03.327" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26240" PostId="13792" Score="3" Text="@tony Or you could say: *quod relinquitur* (canonical Caesar example: *relinquebatur una via*), or, even simpler: *relictum*." CreationDate="2020-05-09T09:59:37.010" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26241" PostId="13792" Score="0" Text="Yes, @SebastianKoppehel, a passive form of _relinquo_ is better than _manet_." CreationDate="2020-05-09T10:33:09.907" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="26244" PostId="13792" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: &quot;quod relinquitur&quot; = &quot;what is left behind&quot;; &quot;relictum&quot; = &quot;(it having been) left behind: what about Colin's concept of &quot;abandonment&quot; as in &quot;not wanted&quot;, with verb, &quot;relinquo&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-05-09T13:11:19.110" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26245" PostId="13792" Score="0" Text="@Colin Fine: Are you not a proponent of &quot;relinquo&quot; = &quot;abandon&quot;? Therefore, why is a passive (or any) form of this better than &quot;manet&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-05-09T13:15:40.790" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26250" PostId="13792" Score="1" Text="@tony That is one meaning. It has [many other nuances](https://www.latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries?t=lsn40982) that imply no unwantedness (such as *reliquit filiam adulescentulam* = “he [died and] left behind a very young daughter”). Note the dictionary entry explicitly mentions the passive sense “to remain,” but as usual in L&amp;S this crucial information is the needle in the haystack of untranslated examples. Colin rightly pointed out that the use in the *active* voice does not fit here." CreationDate="2020-05-09T18:04:16.723" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26253" PostId="13792" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. Please consider the mental agility of Holmes: the process (it) of dismissing all of the impossible things (&quot;omnibus rebus impossibilibus missis&quot;) then, whatever (it) leaves behind. giving &quot;quodcumque relinquit&quot;. Is it, perhaps, a little peremptory to preclude the active form of &quot;relinquo&quot;, in this context?" CreationDate="2020-05-10T10:44:03.067" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26228" PostId="13794" Score="0" Text="This answers my question, I've marked it as such. Thank you for your time and details." CreationDate="2020-05-08T14:39:08.150" UserId="6920" />
  <row Id="26229" PostId="13794" Score="0" Text="You're welcome." CreationDate="2020-05-08T14:39:32.853" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26230" PostId="13796" Score="1" Text="It is possibly viz., but only as a stretch of its literal sense &quot;it is permissible to see&quot;. Why is videlicit abbreviated as viz, by the way? Why not vid.?" CreationDate="2020-05-08T17:28:47.433" UserId="6924" />
  <row Id="26233" PostId="13796" Score="1" Text="The abbreviation &quot;viz.&quot; goes back to Tironian shorthand, the way I heard it; that would make a fine question in its own right, though." CreationDate="2020-05-08T18:40:34.060" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26234" PostId="13796" Score="0" Text="Qv or q.v.  (plural qq.v.) is listed in Chambers page x, but in the concise Oxford page xix they prefer cf. (short for confer) which is also in the answer given by Draconis." CreationDate="2020-05-08T20:39:32.070" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26235" PostId="13796" Score="4" Text="_Re_ is not an initialism, but the Latin word _re_, ablative of _res_ (&quot;thing&quot;, &quot;matter&quot;). Originally in the legal Latin phrase _in re X_ &quot;in the matter of X&quot; or &quot;in X's legal action&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-08T22:37:23.547" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="26236" PostId="13796" Score="0" Text="I wrote *viz.* in this sense for sometime, but stopped after finding that it rather means &quot;that is, which means&quot;, basicly *i.e.* &quot;id est&quot;. I shouldn't use entirely arcsne shorthand except in space constrained writing (viz. comments)" CreationDate="2020-05-08T22:39:48.310" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26249" PostId="13798" Score="1" Text="Note that *q.v.* has a different grammatical function than *see*: *see* takes a direct object saying what entry to go look at, whereas *q.v.* says to go look at the entry for the entity just mentioned. For example, &quot;He was the third president of the United States (*q.v.*)&quot; means &quot;He was the third president of the United States (*see* Uɴɪᴛᴇᴅ Sᴛᴀᴛᴇꜱ)&quot;. So *see* is more flexible: it lets you refer to an entry whose title isn't *exactly* the preceding word or phrase." CreationDate="2020-05-09T17:42:18.317" UserId="3511" />
  <row Id="26231" PostId="13799" Score="0" Text="I noticed in the L.L.H. they have also have _aeroplanum_. It would be interesting to know if there was any classical word which inspired these modern forms, but this still works fine for my needs either way." CreationDate="2020-05-08T17:47:53.023" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26238" PostId="13799" Score="0" Text="Without the diaresis, it sounds like a bronze ship..." CreationDate="2020-05-08T22:52:58.377" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26246" PostId="13800" Score="1" Text="Diccionario Micénico https://archive.org/details/AuraJorroDiccionarioMicnicoVol.I1985/mode/2up" CreationDate="2020-05-09T14:50:45.390" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26247" PostId="13800" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. That's exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for! Feel free to post it as an answer if you want the rep for it." CreationDate="2020-05-09T17:32:23.897" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26242" PostId="13802" Score="0" Text="If I'm understanding right, each sheet is consecutively labelled with one letter of the alphabet (a &quot;signature&quot;), so 23 sheets is referred to as an alphabet. Right?" CreationDate="2020-05-09T10:39:02.407" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26243" PostId="13802" Score="3" Text="@ExpeditoBipes Yes, and the second alphabet is labelled Aa, Bb, …, the third Aaa, Bbb, … and so on. An example: First alphabet starts [here](https://archive.org/details/1545DieGanzeHeiligeSchriftLutherBibel/page/n23/mode/2up), second [here](https://archive.org/details/1545DieGanzeHeiligeSchriftLutherBibel/page/n391/mode/2up). The New Testament has its own alphabet (A), (B), … starting [here](https://archive.org/details/1545DieGanzeHeiligeSchriftLutherBibel/page/n1103/mode/2up). Newer books do not use this system and have simple Arabic numbering." CreationDate="2020-05-09T11:14:39.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26252" PostId="13802" Score="0" Text="Thanks. It's right [here](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/plagula), kinda, but somehow I missed it. Seems to be a hapax legomenon in this sense in Roman literature. However, the modern meaning that you provided isn't given by any dictionary I've consulted. Hats off for figuring it out." CreationDate="2020-05-10T07:43:33.613" UserId="6926" />
  <row Id="26248" PostId="13803" Score="1" Text="Yeah, DĀMOS says they're manually annotating the texts with later Greek cognates and PIE etyma, but unfortunately that part doesn't seem to be publicly available. The database itself is still wonderfully helpful though!" CreationDate="2020-05-09T17:33:26.540" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26251" PostId="13804" Score="2" Text="What about some translation using &quot;Animatus-a-um&quot; meaning &quot;endowed with spirit.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-09T22:27:33.667" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26264" PostId="13804" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite *Anima cybernetica*, maybe? And just *cybernetica* (sc. anima) in latter occurences?" CreationDate="2020-05-10T21:18:58.980" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26266" PostId="13804" Score="1" Text="@Figulus That intuitively sounds like &quot;cybernetic soul&quot; to me. It might work, but I think &quot;animata cybernetica would be better.&quot; Using the participle feels more like &quot;animated cybernetic (person)&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-10T23:42:50.327" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26276" PostId="13804" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite Yes, &quot;cybernetic soul&quot; is sort of what I was going for. I think *animātus* works too in the right context, but in the wrong context, it might sound like you were bringing something non-living to life, animating a machine, rather than mechanizing an organism. So I suggested *anima cybernētica*, although *homo cybernēticus* might be  a better choice, depending on context." CreationDate="2020-05-11T23:32:51.127" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26265" PostId="13805" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I’d just about given up on this question, and this is great stuff. So the Romans just used Greek words “as-is” beyond transliteration? Makes sense, considering they (at least the scholars whose works fill most of our available corpus) probably knew Greek well." CreationDate="2020-05-10T21:27:45.320" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="26277" PostId="13805" Score="2" Text="@Kryan Not exactly.  Greek and Latin cases don't precisely correspond, so Romans had traditional ways of declining Greek nouns that resembled, but were not identical to, Greek inflections." CreationDate="2020-05-12T10:15:44.273" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26280" PostId="13805" Score="0" Text="They are often kept, but often not. I looked up *sophos*, and found some examples, but not modified by adjectives, except for one instance of *factus*, but then I found it had become *factus sophus*, rather than *factus sophos*. The wholesale importation to Latin 2nd declension is quite common." CreationDate="2020-05-12T21:53:25.483" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26260" PostId="13806" Score="0" Text="It's entirely up to you whether the question linked to by @Adam answers your question. You can edit the question to add a link your question to what was there, or you can say it's a duplicate. Although duplicate questions are technically closed, there's nothing wrong with them." CreationDate="2020-05-10T14:26:14.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26262" PostId="13806" Score="1" Text="This is an excellent answer to my question. Thank you Adam!" CreationDate="2020-05-10T20:24:48.180" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26269" PostId="13809" Score="0" Text="I forgot to mention: The pronunciation of &quot;Europa&quot;, in particular that of the initail diphthong, does seem like the way it's pronounced in German." CreationDate="2020-05-11T05:39:44.420" UserId="1584" />
  <row Id="26315" PostId="13809" Score="0" Text="I seem to hear two different c's: one /s/ (*cives*), the other /tʃ/ (*caelo*). But I'm not 100% sure either. The /s/ pronunciation matches Dutch pronunciation of Latinby those who learned it more than at least forty years ago. The /tʃ/ in *caelo* might be influenced by Church pronunciation. I really do not hear /z/ in *semper*, but rather /s/. But *s* internal might be voiced. All of this and the /g/ sound fairly Dutch. But the *u* as /u/* doesn't sound Dutch except by those who learned Latin more recently. And the pronunciation of *Eu-* sounds very German indeed." CreationDate="2020-05-15T00:36:56.460" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26254" PostId="13810" Score="0" Text="https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/verb/5761/?h=profites" CreationDate="2020-05-10T13:17:04.843" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="26255" PostId="13810" Score="0" Text="It is well-known that the Robert of Ketton's translation is not literal." CreationDate="2020-05-10T13:18:28.483" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="26258" PostId="13810" Score="2" Text="@AliNikzad. &quot;latin-is-simple&quot; is a computer generated conjugation table. profiteor is a deponent verb." CreationDate="2020-05-10T13:32:49.590" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26259" PostId="13810" Score="1" Text="I'm grateful to you" CreationDate="2020-05-10T13:34:34.507" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="26275" PostId="13811" Score="1" Text="How peculiar, by the way, that precisely where we would expect the letters 'ten', between 'profi-' and '-tes', we find the number 10 in the margin. Robert of Ketton was English, and the spelling 'ten' for the number 10 has been around since Middle English." CreationDate="2020-05-11T20:56:15.413" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26278" PostId="13811" Score="0" Text="Probably It is not the case. That 10 is the line number and this book was published in Basel, 1550. https://archive.org/details/case_bp127_l3_1550/page/n155/mode/2up" CreationDate="2020-05-12T13:51:48.680" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="26279" PostId="13811" Score="0" Text="Probably not, no. I just thought it was an interesting coincidence." CreationDate="2020-05-12T14:24:50.003" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26271" PostId="13818" Score="0" Text="It may be because 'ae' and 'oe' were written for some, likely phonetic, reason with '-e', instead of '-i', even in 'classical' Latin, while 'au' was not written 'ao'." CreationDate="2020-05-11T20:03:09.907" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26290" PostId="13821" Score="1" Text="“Longus usus” is very likely not an addition by the George to express his idea, but rather *longus usus* (or *longa consuetudo*) and *opinio iuris* are the conditions for a practice becoming customary law. E longo usu et opinione iuris (i.e., civibus usum iustum arbitrantibus) constituitur ius consuetudinis." CreationDate="2020-05-13T18:24:53.867" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26302" PostId="13821" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thanks! I wasn't familiar with *longus usus* as a legal term. I updated my answer with an alternative using it. (I'd be happy to see other answers, too, especially if someone can find precedent in existing legal terminology.)" CreationDate="2020-05-14T10:19:18.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26345" PostId="13821" Score="0" Text="Why is longus usus in ablative? In dubio pro reo, Pacta in favorem tertii, In malam partem, In bonam partem, Par in parem not habet imperium. I don't understand when to use the Accusative and when to use the Ablative after &quot;in&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-17T11:14:26.987" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26346" PostId="13821" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos In with accusative is &quot;into&quot; (movement from outside to inside) whereas with ablative it is &quot;in&quot; (being inside something, status instead of movement). After you have gone into a city (acc.), you are in the city (abl.). If you want to understand the difference between the two cases with *in* better, please ask a separate question." CreationDate="2020-05-17T12:09:55.107" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26289" PostId="13827" Score="1" Text="Thanks! I appreciate including translations of what I originally had." CreationDate="2020-05-13T18:02:58.583" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26313" PostId="13828" Score="0" Text="I think that the question &quot;Can an absolute construction be focused?&quot; is a bit more general, whereby it could be useful to formulate it independently. I think that it could also be useful to clarify the (too general) notion of &quot;focus&quot; by giving some empirical hints to the readers in order for them to know what you're looking for. E.g., cf. Pinkster's (1990) remark: &quot;focus constituents may be marked by certain intensifying particles like _et … et_, _quidem_ and _sane_&quot;. Cf. http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.19:2.NewPerseusMonographs" CreationDate="2020-05-14T23:37:25.963" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26303" PostId="13830" Score="0" Text="We have discussed ablative absolutes (AA) before, in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12724/1982. In the example, above: &quot;...neque inventis in agro hostibus Ferentinum urbem eorum vi cepissent, …&quot;, pronoun, &quot;eorum&quot;, in the main clause, refers to the enemy &quot;hostibus&quot; in the  AA-clause. Is this not forbidden? (&quot;Absolutus&quot;: free or unconnected.) Has Pinkster's violated an established orthodoxy? Whatever next? Negation: an ex. from an elementary text (GCSE): &quot;templis a consule aedificatis, cives cibum non habebant.&quot; = &quot;After the temples had been built by the consul, the citizens" CreationDate="2020-05-14T12:32:19.007" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26304" PostId="13830" Score="0" Text="had no food.&quot; This could be put into reverse: &quot;templis a consule non aedificatis, cives cibum habebant.&quot; = &quot;With ….not having been built, the citizens had food.&quot;--do you agree? A more imaginative approach to negation is given in Allen &amp; Greenough (p419 [a]): &quot;nil desperandum Teucro duce et auspice Teucro.&quot;  (Hor. Od. 1. 7. 27.) = &quot;There should be no despair under Teucer's leadership and auspices (Teucer being leader, etc.). Here, the use of our old friend, the neuter gerundive." CreationDate="2020-05-14T12:44:42.387" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26305" PostId="13830" Score="1" Text="Thanks for these interesting examples! The Plautus quote does look like an instance of what I asked about, though as you say it's less surprising because lexicalized. The Livy quote I think is most naturally taken as a &quot;normally&quot; negated AA where the scope is just *inventis* (it could be recast as something like *hostibus non inventis*). Information structure seems important here -- in the Plautus and my made-up example the negated AA is the focus of the sentence. Maybe the question is really whether an AA can function as focus?" CreationDate="2020-05-14T17:24:11.720" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26309" PostId="13830" Score="1" Text="@tony In Livy's ex. _eorum_ is referring to _Hernicos_. Cf. Pinkster's translation with this one: &quot;when the consuls C. Sulpicius and C. Licinius Calvus led an army against the Hernici and did&#xA;not find the enemy in the field, they took Ferentinum—a city of the Hernici—by force. The Tiburtines closed their gates to the returning Romans)&quot;. For context, cf. p. 98 (transl. given in footnote 197: https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3715&amp;context=edissertations ). Ok with your transl. of _templis non aedificatis_. Finally, glad to know we share a passion for the gerundive." CreationDate="2020-05-14T21:04:33.003" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26296" PostId="13831" Score="1" Text="At least in classical Greek there seems to be a variety of nuances, as you say: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/οὖν; but that is not necessarily conclusive evidence for how the word was used 4-500 years later in Biblical Greek." CreationDate="2020-05-12T22:40:23.560" UserDisplayName="microtherion" />
  <row Id="26297" PostId="13831" Score="0" Text="οὖν is an adverb, not a conjunction." CreationDate="2020-05-12T22:48:06.593" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26298" PostId="13831" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the pointer." CreationDate="2020-05-12T22:48:19.590" UserDisplayName="Tony Chan" />
  <row Id="26299" PostId="13831" Score="0" Text="You guys are great. From your comments, I did some more googling around and found https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/when-%CE%BF%E1%BD%94%CE%BD-doesn%E2%80%99t-mean-%E2%80%9Ctherefore%E2%80%9D-john-11-6" CreationDate="2020-05-13T00:19:39.370" UserDisplayName="Tony Chan" />
  <row Id="26300" PostId="13831" Score="0" Text="For NT Greek the place to look is Bauer et al. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer%27s_Lexicon). If you can find a library that is open." CreationDate="2020-05-14T09:08:05.733" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26504" PostId="13831" Score="0" Text="Serves the function of &quot;actually&quot;;  &quot;so...&quot;; &quot;so now&quot;;  &quot;so, then&quot;., in conversational English." CreationDate="2020-05-25T00:12:28.810" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="26306" PostId="13832" Score="2" Text="BTW English *without* shows the same semantic development from an older meaning &quot;outside&quot; (cf. *within*)." CreationDate="2020-05-14T17:44:14.613" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26314" PostId="13833" Score="0" Text="I tend to agree with your conclusion &quot;the prefix thus indicates loss rather than lack&quot;. However, I'd prefer to say &quot;the prefix thus **primarily** indicates loss rather than lack&quot;. In other words, you're probably right when considering the **prototypical** sense but your statement is probably too strong when dealing with derived senses (figurative ones included: cf. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=exsanguis ). Gaffiot also nicely captures the different senses with different attested examples: https://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=exsanguis" CreationDate="2020-05-15T00:25:27.817" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26317" PostId="13833" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I agree, and I made it softer. The last paragraph was meant to be my first quick impression of how the preposition would give rise to that meaning of the prefix. Studying the difference between lack and loss deserves a separate question." CreationDate="2020-05-15T07:01:43.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26308" PostId="13834" Score="3" Text="I wouldn't call an ablative absolute a literary device -- it's just part of the grammar of the language, like other types of subordinate clause." CreationDate="2020-05-14T20:19:48.390" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26310" PostId="13834" Score="0" Text="But wouldn't it have a different feel within a line of verse than a relative clause, for example? I want to know what that difference in feeling would be." CreationDate="2020-05-14T21:39:20.717" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26311" PostId="13834" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if a blanket statement would apply to the literary effect of *all* ablative absolutes: it's such a versatile and common device. In the *Aeneid* case you mention, my sense is that the &quot;interjected excitement&quot; has a lot more to do with the fact that the ablative absolute is placed between the predicate and the subject than the fact that it's an ablative absolute." CreationDate="2020-05-14T21:46:59.563" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26312" PostId="13834" Score="1" Text="Would you mind turning that comment into an answer? @brianpck" CreationDate="2020-05-14T21:57:33.510" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26316" PostId="13834" Score="0" Text="It might help to link to the full line or paste it in for context. I'm not personally at a level to read it well, but it could help others." CreationDate="2020-05-15T01:26:51.653" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26319" PostId="13836" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the nice answer! It has already earned you enough reputation to allow you to vote up any questions and answers you like on the site." CreationDate="2020-05-15T15:40:36.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26320" PostId="13836" Score="2" Text="I think you're on the right track--though Christ's words in the Gospel are &quot;Ego sum **lux** mundi,&quot; so *lux* can also have a metaphorical meaning." CreationDate="2020-05-15T16:46:37.097" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26367" PostId="13836" Score="1" Text="cf. dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux." CreationDate="2020-05-18T02:41:28.097" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26325" PostId="13837" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for your detailed answer! I fully agree with Hofmann and Szantyr's insightful remark that these gerundives from Cicero's works can better be interpreted as other kinds of ablatives (e.g., as Ablatives of Respect in the first example; see my comments below for some arguments for their remark). In contrast, the examples from Late Latin (Ammianus' example is very clear) do show that gerundives can be predicates of AAs, probably because, as pointed out by Pinkster and others, they were reanalyzed in this stage (but not in Classical Latin!) as true 'future passive participles'." CreationDate="2020-05-16T03:35:34.297" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26326" PostId="13837" Score="0" Text="As for the first example, more context should be provided in order to analyze/understand it properly. Note the following structural and semantic parallelism between the gerundive and gerund constructions, which shows that the alleged AAs cannot be analyzed as such but rather as **Ablatives of Respect**: cf. &quot;[144] _Nam ut Antonius **coniectura movenda aut sedanda suspicione aut excitanda** incredibilem vim habebat: sic **in interpretando in definiendo in explicanda aequitate** nihil erat Crasso copiosius_.&quot;  These adjuncts are syntactically lower than typical AAs (please see my NB I above)." CreationDate="2020-05-16T03:48:47.643" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26327" PostId="13837" Score="0" Text="As for the second example, I must say that I got surprised when I read it. So I decided to find more information on this example and guess what... There is an interesting philological debate on the interpretation of the text. Please see footnote 24 in this link: https://books.google.es/books?id=55sbCxI_iVYC&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=quo+senatus+consulto+recitato+cum+more+hoc+insulso&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m8RKEg5Ykd&amp;sig=ACfU3U3GOk2vPe9lTWqCD_xdkz2_cgaUcQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiOoruwpLfpAhVSDmMBHY_AAo4Q6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=quo%20senatus%20consulto%20recitato%20cum%20more%20hoc%20insulso&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2020-05-16T03:52:27.760" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26328" PostId="13837" Score="0" Text="Given the empirical evidence, MY interpretation of your statement in the first line of your post (&quot;Yes, the predicate of an ablative absolute can be a gerundive&quot;) is rather the following one: &quot;Yes, the predicate of an ablative absolute can be a gerundive in Late Latin but not in Classical Latin&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-16T03:58:38.223" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30384" PostId="13837" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In the second example gerundive &quot;recitando&quot; is used in an AA for the past tense. What benefit has this over an ordinary AA : &quot;meo nomine recitato&quot; = &quot;with my name (having been) read out&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-01-07T09:49:17.630" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26322" PostId="13838" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site and great question!" CreationDate="2020-05-16T02:41:19.237" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26323" PostId="13838" Score="0" Text="For your first example you might be able to use an adverb like [sicut](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/sicut). I'm not confident enough yet in my abilities to post this as an answer, but it might be helpful for you regardless." CreationDate="2020-05-16T02:48:12.390" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26331" PostId="13840" Score="1" Text="&quot;That you have behaved etc.&quot; is the subject of &quot;know&quot;, while &quot;who cut off etc.&quot; is a relative clause. So I would expect the acc. cum inf. and the finite form to be switched: &quot;... sed (tamquam) virum te gessisse, qui cum sinistro bracchio dextrum secavit, solum scio&quot;. According to Lewis &amp; Short you can leave out tamquam with gerere + acc., which by itself means 'behaving as ...'. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgero1." CreationDate="2020-05-16T10:33:56.057" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26336" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="@Jasper May: History indicates that this was a face-to-face confrontation. Appolinarus spoke directly to Valentinan: you did.../you have...The &quot;man who&quot; may be a caricature of Valentinian but he, the &quot;man&quot;, is a third-party in this sentence. If the one, tells the other, what a third party did it's indirect--secavisse." CreationDate="2020-05-17T08:14:53.183" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26337" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Does yourself agree with Jasper's analysis of Appolinarus' statement to Valentinian? Thank you." CreationDate="2020-05-17T08:17:55.680" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26342" PostId="13840" Score="1" Text="I'll take your word for the quote in English and the historical context. Still, the whole phrase &quot;that you (i.e. Valentinian) have behaved just like a man [who has cut off his right arm, with his left]&quot; is what Apollinarus says he &quot;knows&quot; - it's indirect. But the relative clause in brackets is self-contained and depends on &quot;man&quot;. If we translate it with an acc. cum inf. in English: &quot;I know you *to have behaved* as a man [who has cut off etc.]&quot; is fine. But &quot;who *to have cut off*&quot; isn't. It's the same in Latin." CreationDate="2020-05-17T09:18:07.233" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26344" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="@Jasper May: Thank you. I'll think on this." CreationDate="2020-05-17T10:16:23.870" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26356" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="I agree that the grammar of that sentence is shocking. The verb that should be infinitive, because it's the main statement of the indirect statement introduced by scio, is finite (gessisti); and the verb that should be finite, because it's subordinate clause of that indirect statement, is infinitive (secavisse). Even if one takes the solum scio as an afterthought, casting the preceding statements as indirect statement retroactively, as it were, there's no need for secavisse to be infinitive. It's true that subordinate clauses in indirect statements sometimes have their verb in the infintive..." CreationDate="2020-05-17T18:46:39.243" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26357" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="...when those subordinate clauses provide 'coordinate' information, that doesn't appear to be the case here. Still, if Tyler (Lansford) was able to confirm the accuracy of the text, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you know what the source of the quotation is, if anyone wants to look it up?" CreationDate="2020-05-17T18:50:52.473" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26361" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="You're welcome. @cnread Calling the sentence shocking is a bit rude because tony translated it from English himself. The quote from Prof. Lansford was ambiguous - I doubt that he approved the entire sentence as it is written here. He may have meant &quot;that part is correct, and if you want to change it into an indirect statement you need to use the accusative-infinitive form&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-17T19:28:44.390" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26363" PostId="13840" Score="1" Text="Oh dear. Apologies to tony. I misread your answer and thought the Latin was the original version. I would never have used the word 'shocking' in that case but would have said that it needs work and tried to help you improve it. Thanks to Jasper May for pointing out my unintended rudeness." CreationDate="2020-05-17T20:31:56.633" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26369" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="@cnread: No rudeness taken; no apology necessary; thank you for looking at this. I don't like bothering academics; when I have I've tried to keep it as brief as possible; perhaps, fatally, omitting context. Having provided Prof. Lansford with the complete sentence, in English, I asked, only, about the middle section. Prof Lansford: &quot;As for the clause &quot;you have behaved like a man who&quot;, I would write &quot;te gessisti tamquam virum qui&quot;. Of course, it would need to go into an accusative + infinitive form in indirect discourse.&quot; I took &quot;te&quot; as a typo, it should be &quot;tu&quot; i.e. &quot;te gessise&quot; or" CreationDate="2020-05-18T10:27:32.757" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26370" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="@cnread: &quot;tu gessisti&quot;. I am beginning to see the flaws indicated by Jasper! The original Latin: the Wiki article on Valentinian III has a poor translation (not even naming Appolinarus) and a ref. to &quot;The Fragmentary History of Priscus&quot;--a translation by John Given. I'm guessing that a ref. to the original Latin lies there. Trouble is, I don't want to spend twenty quid on a book; then, the ref. isn't there! I'll keep yourself posted. Thank you, again." CreationDate="2020-05-18T10:34:24.550" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35098" PostId="13840" Score="0" Text="@cnread: The original quote is from &quot;The Suda&quot;, therefore it was written in Greek. The exchange was, Valentinian: &quot;Did I not perform the killing of Aetius well, my man?&quot; Apollinarus: &quot;Whether well or not, I do not know. But know that you cut off your right hand with your left.&quot; This from p.127 of John-Given's book." CreationDate="2021-09-14T11:27:37.020" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26332" PostId="13841" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer! By &quot;false friends&quot;, you mean that _apathia_ and _humanitas_ work fine as opposites within the sentence, right?" CreationDate="2020-05-16T13:19:59.570" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26333" PostId="13841" Score="1" Text="@Adam False friends are words that look familiar but mean something other than you think they mean, like *fascinare, ignorare* or *compendium*. When translating a Greek or Latin loanword in English, one has to beware of these. But *apathia* and *humanitas* are “true friends” I think." CreationDate="2020-05-16T13:53:59.303" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26334" PostId="13841" Score="0" Text="Ahh - that has bitten me a few times here and there." CreationDate="2020-05-16T14:33:48.707" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26425" PostId="13850" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question! If you want to give it a more Roman/Classical flavor, you could say by the grace of [Gaea](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1815/mother-earth-in-latin-personification/1817#1817)" CreationDate="2020-05-20T13:46:13.133" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="26433" PostId="13850" Score="0" Text="Or Tellus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_(mythology)" CreationDate="2020-05-20T20:40:48.710" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27128" PostId="13850" Score="0" Text="Thanks! These people do not live on Earth and much of their knowledge of Latin is purely from Earth literature. It's like Space Middle Ages for these people, except they have somewhat modern technology. So I would assume their knowledge of Gaea or Tellus may be limited." CreationDate="2020-07-10T06:34:33.533" UserId="6952" />
  <row Id="26338" PostId="13851" Score="0" Text="Haha! I find it so cool to see you already have an account on Latin.SE ;) Well that's is an excellent answer! I'll probably select it if no one yields a longer list. I didn't want to write the algorithm and was hoping some one already wrote it somewhere, well... You wrote it at last. Big +1" CreationDate="2020-05-17T09:06:03.553" UserId="6951" />
  <row Id="26339" PostId="13851" Score="0" Text="I hesitated posting here, or in StackOverflow. Do you think my final choice is the right one?" CreationDate="2020-05-17T09:06:33.630" UserId="6951" />
  <row Id="26340" PostId="13851" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is a better place; it doesn't *require* programming, you can probably get very far with copy, paste, Find &amp; Replace in a text editor." CreationDate="2020-05-17T09:08:13.907" UserId="648" />
  <row Id="26343" PostId="13851" Score="4" Text="Applying the subtractive rule to 98, 99 is questionable (one single attestation of *undecentum* in classical Latin, *duodecentum* apparently none at all). Applying it to 198, 199, 298, 299 etc. or even saying *undemille* for 999 is probably just wrong. See [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_cardinal_numerals#Counting_backwards) for details. In any event the additive forms are also legal (like *octo et viginti*), which might be interesting when looking for anagrams." CreationDate="2020-05-17T09:53:24.183" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26347" PostId="13851" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel thank you, I'll adjust the script. At least it's not as complicated as [Danish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_language#Numerals) ..." CreationDate="2020-05-17T12:37:52.530" UserId="648" />
  <row Id="26348" PostId="13856" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Do you think you can change your algorithm so it's continuous up to for instance 5,000? It's much more valuable **within the scope of my question** than having it with gaps up to 1,000 billion for instance :) +1 !" CreationDate="2020-05-17T13:47:53.927" UserId="6951" />
  <row Id="26349" PostId="13856" Score="2" Text="@JKHA I'm afraid I cannot do that, because it's not my list :)" CreationDate="2020-05-17T13:50:49.603" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26350" PostId="13856" Score="0" Text="@JKHA With a bit of manual labor you can extend the list easily: The word for 1463 is the concatenation of 1000 and 463, possibly with *et* in between. That should work quickly and easily enough for computer checks." CreationDate="2020-05-17T13:52:31.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26351" PostId="13856" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oh cool! So any Latin number for any n in {10001...1999} is 1000 and the rest, with a space between?&#xA;&#xA;Thank you Sebastian, that is a great answer ;)" CreationDate="2020-05-17T13:55:04.697" UserId="6951" />
  <row Id="26352" PostId="13857" Score="0" Text="Good answer! Seeing the two cases as movement and position is a good starting point, but not the whole story." CreationDate="2020-05-17T14:31:32.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26353" PostId="13858" Score="0" Text="Can you name the books and summarize what you found? Google Books links are not equally visible to everyone; what is freely visible to you might not be to me. It'd be nice to know whether they are extending the system by analogy or listing attestations. I expect the tail of the list to be later than classical." CreationDate="2020-05-17T16:53:00.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26354" PostId="13858" Score="1" Text="Oh sorry, no problem. The first book's title is gargantuan: &#xA;Trophaei Europaei, Sive Tokeologias Illustrium Universalis, Exhibentis, 62. Majores, utpote 31. Progenitores [et] 31. Progenitrices usq[ue] in quintam generationem, Omnium Imperatorum, Regum, Electorum ... Quotquot hodie in Orbe Christiano supersunt, vel paulò ante nostram aetatem vixerunt ... Centuria Athenaea.&#xA;&#xA;The second book's title is: &#xA;Austriotokeologia, Maximili-Rodolpho-Matthiana&#xA;&#xA;The third book is called: The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volumes 1-2." CreationDate="2020-05-17T18:06:11.190" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26355" PostId="13858" Score="0" Text="They are definitely not classical, but personally I don't mind as long as it's good Latin." CreationDate="2020-05-17T18:07:41.657" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26358" PostId="13858" Score="0" Text="I don't mind later influences either. It's just that the question was explicitly about classical Latin, so it's better to mention when an answer is post-classical." CreationDate="2020-05-17T18:50:52.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26382" PostId="13858" Score="1" Text="@Joonas you are right. I will update my comment." CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:06:36.767" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26401" PostId="13858" Score="0" Text="Great find. I've found a book from 1671 by a Colerus with a long title starting &quot;Trauer-Sermon, Als Der Durchleuchtigste Fürst und Herr, Herr Friderich ...&quot; (http://books.google.nl/books?id=Dk5JAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA78), which has decitavus, octitavus and sextitavus instead of decatavus, octotavus and seditavus. Note also that the first page of your second source has novitavus, while your first source has nonitavus throughout (Colerus also has the latter)." CreationDate="2020-05-19T10:10:59.680" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26406" PostId="13858" Score="1" Text="@JasperMay I find these things interesting. It is probably because this is such a medieval need (Romans wouldn't have needed such precise genealogy) that it took forever to actually define things so far back and it wasn't ever standardized. The good thing though is that they are pretty much mutually intelligible variants. I love how one can go so far back with such small words in Latin lol" CreationDate="2020-05-19T15:02:29.840" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26368" PostId="13861" Score="0" Text="The plural could also be &quot;Dies Memorales&quot; depending on if one wants a nominative phrase." CreationDate="2020-05-18T03:25:47.703" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26383" PostId="13861" Score="0" Text="Dies memorialis can also be interpreted as a simple combination of noun and adjective in the nominative (and both can be declined in parallel). I like this best." CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:07:20.463" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26384" PostId="13861" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite What form of what word would *memorales* be?" CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:07:45.447" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26365" PostId="13863" Score="0" Text="*Monimentum* does mean the monument; but also the person/ event remembered. Hence *Monimentum Viret* means both the monument is green and (their) memory is fresh." CreationDate="2020-05-18T01:22:54.900" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26366" PostId="13863" Score="0" Text="That information might make a good answer in and of itself!" CreationDate="2020-05-18T02:16:34.603" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26381" PostId="13865" Score="0" Text="I agree with this analysis, although I would not call it impersonal. My answer is not intended as a differing opinion, but while this answer focuses on the mutations one has to make to arrive at idiomatic English, mine focuses on the type of infinitive-as-subject construction that is not so well known." CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:05:13.373" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26391" PostId="13865" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree with your analysis as well. I think it's a difference without a distinction. In the case of e.g. &quot;Te venire volo&quot; and &quot;Te venire delectat&quot;, both have an accusative-infinitive construction, while the first can be described as either personal or having the infinitive as object, and the second as either impersonal or having the infinitive as subject. But if grammarians insist that the second kind of sentence should not be called impersonal, I will defer." CreationDate="2020-05-18T21:57:44.910" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26392" PostId="13865" Score="2" Text="Thank you to both of you. Jasper May I didn't even consider that it could be an accusative-infinitive construction until you mentioned it. @SebastianKoppehel, your analysis helped me to see how the structure of the sentence allows for it. To restructure it in English--so that it makes it more clear--&quot;Erat possibile et aequissimum legem praestari.&quot; That is, &quot;It was possible and most just THAT the law be obeyed.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-19T03:09:36.877" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="26371" PostId="13867" Score="1" Text="Thank you, Joonas, for your quick response. *I don't know whether it was English or an intermediate language. Perhaps English doesn't want C before E when it's pronounced as a K?* -&gt; Yes, the letter 'c' gives /s/ sound when it comes before e, i and y. On the other hand, 'c' gives /k/ sound when it comes before a, o and u. The spelling changed to 'k' in order to maintain the /k/ sound (which was original sound of the word in Latin)." CreationDate="2020-05-18T11:06:26.660" UserId="6813" />
  <row Id="26372" PostId="13867" Score="1" Text="@DecapitatedSoul I'm glad to be able to help! That's what I expected." CreationDate="2020-05-18T11:20:04.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33097" PostId="13868" Score="0" Text="This is great, but it isn't *quite* what I was looking for. But definitely a good find!" CreationDate="2021-05-11T17:50:11.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="28572" PostId="13869" Score="0" Text="I think this is a real classical example: *Vah! quam vellem etiam noctu amicis operam mos esset dari!* ( Oh! How I wish it was the custom to offer services to friends at night as well! ) - in the translation they made it active - which sounds better in English. saw it [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mos#Latin)" CreationDate="2020-08-10T09:03:22.323" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26376" PostId="13870" Score="5" Text="Yes...I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this is pretty hilarious" CreationDate="2020-05-18T18:07:25.267" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26377" PostId="13870" Score="7" Text="It certainly has a hilarious aspect to it, but I find it more saddening. They wouldn't have had to pay much to a Latin teacher or student to get something sensible." CreationDate="2020-05-18T18:51:18.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26378" PostId="13870" Score="6" Text="Oh dear, someone used google translate instead of finding an actual translator. What a hack job (I refer to the translation; I'll leave my feelings about what the book itself will be like unmentioned)." CreationDate="2020-05-18T18:52:58.467" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26380" PostId="13870" Score="7" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta He wouldn't have had to pay anything at all to the people here at the Latin StackExchange, or any other on-line forum about Latin. It frankly shows his contempt for his audience." CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:01:17.960" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26385" PostId="13870" Score="2" Text="@JasperMay Indeed, one could get free assistance also. What I meant was that for a little fee you could be sure that someone who knows the language commits to the translation. I agree, the choice of tools shows contempt." CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:09:03.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26403" PostId="13870" Score="0" Text="Bemoaning the poor attempt at Latin is beside the point of the book cover. In a country where a significant proportion of the population believe that the unalterable Authorized Word of God was written in English in 1611 (or alternatively, that the original text of the US Constitution has the same status as a Holy Book), who cares anything about ancient languages?" CreationDate="2020-05-19T13:07:31.727" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="26423" PostId="13870" Score="0" Text="@alephzero—Well, King James was one of the apostles." CreationDate="2020-05-20T02:03:00.720" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="26424" PostId="13870" Score="4" Text="&quot;The people called Romanes they go the house??&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-20T10:55:02.000" UserId="652" />
  <row Id="26396" PostId="13871" Score="3" Text="No, it's not perplexing at all that it would end up on a Hannity book cover. Not even a little bit. *sigh*" CreationDate="2020-05-19T08:29:52.460" UserId="6519" />
  <row Id="26399" PostId="13871" Score="3" Text="@T.J.Crowder Perhaps you'd then count me blessed, as this question was the first time I heard of him. Better first impressions have been made to me..." CreationDate="2020-05-19T09:01:18.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26404" PostId="13871" Score="1" Text="When translating back to English the translator gives me &quot;FREEDOM OF AMERICA lives or perishes&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-19T13:23:58.450" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="26393" PostId="13872" Score="1" Text="What would be the right way to translate &quot;live free or america dies&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-05-19T04:33:06.560" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="26394" PostId="13872" Score="0" Text="*Liber vivas aut moriiaris*, maybe?" CreationDate="2020-05-19T06:29:56.887" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26395" PostId="13872" Score="2" Text="@Nacht-ReinstateMonica Perhaps that'd work better as a separate question? It'd be a pity to bury such a question and its answer(s) in comments here." CreationDate="2020-05-19T08:19:25.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26398" PostId="13872" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I asked because I thought it would improve this answer, to show how wrong the nonsense Latin is." CreationDate="2020-05-19T08:54:12.247" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="26410" PostId="13872" Score="0" Text="The original question was, What does &quot;VIVAMUS VEL LIBERO PERIT AMERICAE&quot; mean? But this answer does not answer that question. It only says that this Latin is produced by GT on an English phrase, possibly one of many, that is different from the book title. And in this case it's obvious that GT is wrong (e.g. *Americae* is not nominative singular, etc.). So what on earth is the relevance of this answer to the original question?" CreationDate="2020-05-19T16:23:57.590" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="26412" PostId="13872" Score="4" Text="@LarsH I think there's a more charitable interpretation: it's well known that Latin Google Translate produces gibberish, so the (understood) conclusion of this answer is: &quot;It's a word salad that doesn't mean anything.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-19T17:28:33.913" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26413" PostId="13872" Score="0" Text="@brianpck This argument has so many gaps it's hard to even know what fallacy was intended." CreationDate="2020-05-19T17:44:41.853" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="26414" PostId="13872" Score="0" Text="@LarsH It's an [*enthymeme*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme), not a fallacy. (Unless you think one of the premises is false!)" CreationDate="2020-05-19T17:46:27.380" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26415" PostId="13872" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Since the unstated premise of an enthymeme is unstated, it's hard to be sure which premise was intended. One good guess is the premise &quot;Latin GT *always* produces gibberish.&quot; This is impossible to verify, but easy to falsify: try translating &quot;I came, I saw, I conquered.&quot; Since that unstated premise is false, it's possible that the argument attempts to leap from &quot;Latin GT *sometimes* produces gibberish&quot; (and &quot;This string was produced by Latin GT&quot;) to &quot;This string is gibberish&quot;, which is indeed (also) a fallacy." CreationDate="2020-05-19T18:01:15.903" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="26416" PostId="13872" Score="0" Text="If you think there is a different understood premise that makes more sense, I'm interested to hear it. I agree that the Latin phrase is nonsense, by the way... but your answer does a good job of showing that by analyzing the Latin, whereas this answer doesn't shed light on the subject." CreationDate="2020-05-19T18:04:28.103" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="26418" PostId="13872" Score="2" Text="@LarsH You could say this is our (the internet's) best guess what the author intended to express with those words. So it does, sort of, answer what the sentence “means.”" CreationDate="2020-05-19T18:37:28.387" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26421" PostId="13872" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian Even if the author's intent were the primary component of what the sentence *means* (dubious, if the grammatical and lexical meaning of the words is at odds with the author's intent), the fact that phrase X run through GT produces phrase Y does not mean the author intended phrase X. There may be many other variations that when run through GT produce phrase Y." CreationDate="2020-05-19T23:19:40.477" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="26427" PostId="13874" Score="2" Text="`Mors servituti anteponenda` said the slave owner Cicero." CreationDate="2020-05-20T17:01:22.527" UserId="1969" />
  <row Id="26428" PostId="13874" Score="0" Text="@user28434: Many (most?) illuminists were slave owners since &quot;some men cannot make good use of reason&quot;. It's not that easy. Not to mention that, in Cicero's time, slaves performed services which in modern times have been automatised or facilitated by technology. Of course that's not a justification, but it did take much technological and social progress to get rid of slavery." CreationDate="2020-05-20T17:57:28.463" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26432" PostId="13874" Score="0" Text="@user28434 Jefferson faces similar rebukes. While we can and ought to hold historical figures to the standard of timeless moral principles, we should do so with caution: &quot;canceling&quot; Cicero because he believed some reprehensible things is hardly the proper attitude to the mistakes of those who preceded us. (Nor do I think you were suggesting that!)" CreationDate="2020-05-20T19:24:43.303" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26448" PostId="13874" Score="0" Text="How do you feel about a translation like &quot;Aut vivamus liberi aut moritur America&quot;, in an attempt to recover what Hannity (or the intern at Hannity's publisher) was trying to say?" CreationDate="2020-05-21T19:28:25.270" UserId="111" />
  <row Id="26459" PostId="13874" Score="0" Text="One option would be a neuter, impersonal gerundive: &quot;si serviendum erit, moriar Americae fidelis&quot; = &quot;If it must be slavery, let me die loyal to America&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-21T11:18:01.110" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26419" PostId="13875" Score="3" Text="I don't think this really counts – it's more a case of something that's just highly alliterative/assonant than something that's difficult to articulate – but the first thing that came to my mind was the following fragment that I've always loved from Ennius's *Annales*: o Tite tute Tati tibi tanta tyranne tulisti." CreationDate="2020-05-19T19:19:22.270" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26436" PostId="13875" Score="2" Text="Not on topic, but I can't resist saying: Years ago, I came across the following in a book of tongue-twisters: El otorrinolaringólogo de Parangaricutirimicuaro / Quiere se desotorrinolaringólogoparangaricutirimicuarizar / Porque si no se desotorrinolaringólogoparangaricutirimicuarizara / Lo van a desotorrinolaringólogoparangaricutirimicuarizar." CreationDate="2020-05-20T23:11:07.690" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="26420" PostId="13877" Score="1" Text="Very nice list. I was going to comb though my copy of Ennius's fragments later to look for more, but you've saved me the trouble." CreationDate="2020-05-19T21:54:47.623" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26426" PostId="13878" Score="0" Text="*Raetica* agrees with *ditione*, so that is correct." CreationDate="2020-05-20T16:02:27.840" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26434" PostId="13878" Score="0" Text="But then wouldn't this mean &quot;by Raetian law&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-05-20T21:05:42.060" UserId="3663" />
  <row Id="26435" PostId="13878" Score="0" Text="*In ditione* = “under the rule.” In the [original](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_British_sovereign#British_sovereigns): *terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt Britannica Rex* = “king of the overseas territories that are under British rule.”" CreationDate="2020-05-20T23:09:33.603" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26437" PostId="13878" Score="0" Text="I see, so it would mean &quot;Raetian rule&quot; parallel to &quot;British rule.&quot; The question asks for &quot;by law, are Raetian&quot;. So I see arguments for each. And thank you for showing where the choice of the word &quot;ditio&quot; comes from." CreationDate="2020-05-21T07:31:21.670" UserId="3663" />
  <row Id="27129" PostId="13878" Score="0" Text="I made a mistake in the English translation, haha." CreationDate="2020-07-10T06:36:19.210" UserId="6952" />
  <row Id="26451" PostId="13880" Score="2" Text="It would be helpful if you could specify what the words are supposed to mean. Both phrases are perfectly legal Latin but make little sense as the name of a government agency. *Excelsior terra* literally means “higher ground.”" CreationDate="2020-05-21T20:49:31.400" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26439" PostId="13882" Score="1" Text="What would it mean though? I'd translate it as something like &quot;loftier of Earth&quot; which doesn't make very much sense to me." CreationDate="2020-05-21T14:50:18.347" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26440" PostId="13882" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay. I think it would sound better with articles, such as &quot;the nobler of the Earth&quot; —  kind of like &quot;the upper crust&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-21T15:15:38.920" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26442" PostId="13882" Score="0" Text="I guess pars or gens could be understood, if the OP insists on the word form 'excelsior'. But maybe 'excelsiores' would make it more immediately obvious that it's referring to a group of people. Or what about 'Excelsiùs Terrâ' (higher than the Earth), an adverbial phrase like 'per ardua ad astra'." CreationDate="2020-05-21T16:17:38.937" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26449" PostId="13882" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay. *Excelsior* was chosen as the motto for the state of [New York](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excelsior), so I don't know why there would be a problem with keeping it in the singular. However, I think you might be right that the ablative would be a better choice." CreationDate="2020-05-21T20:18:01.793" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26450" PostId="13882" Score="0" Text="Ok, you may be right about Excelsior. I do prefer the ablative." CreationDate="2020-05-21T20:28:53.923" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26453" PostId="13882" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay. I changed my mind about the plural form because of Sebastian's comment about &quot;higher ground&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-21T21:05:05.703" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26454" PostId="13882" Score="0" Text="Sure, excelsior terra, in macronless Latin, could mean either 'higher ground' or 'higher than the ground (Earth)'." CreationDate="2020-05-21T21:11:54.557" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26455" PostId="13885" Score="0" Text="Thank you! So, if her name is say, Maria, ex animo Marie would work, right?" CreationDate="2020-05-21T22:09:22.327" UserId="6978" />
  <row Id="26456" PostId="13885" Score="1" Text="@Gremlet Almost! It'd be *Mariae* with two As. I added a paragraph on that to my answer." CreationDate="2020-05-21T22:27:18.117" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26460" PostId="13889" Score="3" Text="The first one is amazing!" CreationDate="2020-05-22T14:35:44.827" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="26461" PostId="13889" Score="6" Text="The second one is an elegiac couplet. That's twisting your tongue in style." CreationDate="2020-05-22T14:40:56.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26462" PostId="13889" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Haha wow, I hadn't noticed! Nice catch." CreationDate="2020-05-22T14:47:16.303" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26472" PostId="13889" Score="0" Text="Not to mention Proclus getting his bell rung in style." CreationDate="2020-05-23T15:47:48.943" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26474" PostId="13889" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: Literally _ba dum tss_." CreationDate="2020-05-23T16:47:38.747" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26471" PostId="13891" Score="1" Text="e.g. Pinkster 2015, 11.77 The so-called partitive use of adjectives indicating relative positions, pp. 1048-1051 or Vaughan 1942 *Latin Adjectives with Partitive Meaning in Republican Literature* https://www.jstor.org/stable/i222643" CreationDate="2020-05-23T15:14:12.027" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26494" PostId="13891" Score="1" Text="Is &quot;dominant adjective&quot; a standard term for the type of construction in the first two examples? Those feel like a different phenomenon from the &quot;dominant participle&quot; construction of the third." CreationDate="2020-05-24T19:55:52.510" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26502" PostId="13891" Score="0" Text="@TKR I think that &quot;dominant adjective&quot; is not a standard term for the first two examples. However, it is true that some linguists like the French structuralist linguist Lucien Tèsniere provided a uniform analysis for both types. I'd like to know if such a parallelism is older (I guess so) or was firstly (?) pointed out by Tèsniere, L. (1959).  _Éléments de syntaxe structurale_. Paris: Klincksieck." CreationDate="2020-05-24T23:16:26.240" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26515" PostId="13891" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Could you tell us where exactly Tesniere provided such an analysis? An English translation of his 1959 monograph is open-access https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027269997#chapters" CreationDate="2020-05-25T14:54:02.070" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26519" PostId="13891" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. In your English transl. the syntactic and semantic parallelism is pointed out on **page 302** (cf. sect. 7 &amp; 8). Some years ago I remember a Latinist scholar telling me that this parallelism is known but I must say I've never seen it in Latin grammars, only in Tèsniere. That's why I said above that I'd like to know when this parallelism was put forward for the first time (probably before Tèsniere 1959). Furthermore, I remember I saw more specific structuralist analyses of this parallelism but I can't find them now, perhaps I saw them in a different work." CreationDate="2020-05-25T18:06:33.173" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26483" PostId="13893" Score="0" Text="It may be noted that regarding this aspect of grammar, modern languages do not differ from what is described here. E.g., in German &quot;Mein Vater ist eine Koryphäe auf seinem Gebiet&quot; or &quot;Meine kleine Schwester ist ein Satansbraten&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-24T14:47:55.657" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="26487" PostId="13894" Score="6" Text="A meta-comment on your question: the framing of your question suggests to me that you should do some further research for your character. &quot;Thousand-year-old&quot; Latin would be medieval Latin, which was primarily used in academic/learned contexts--I'm not sure how much sense it makes to speak of a &quot;native&quot; speaker here. &quot;Modern-day&quot; Latin (i.e. the kind of Latin emulated by the Renaissance) consciously imitated &quot;classical&quot; Latin in opposition to medieval Latin. Is this character supposed to be a Roman or a medieval scholar?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T16:59:13.303" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26488" PostId="13894" Score="3" Text="For example, Thomas Aquinas (13th c.) obviously wrote entirely in Latin, and he probably spoke it all day at the University of Paris and elsewhere, but his &quot;native&quot; language wasn't Latin." CreationDate="2020-05-24T17:01:53.977" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26478" PostId="13895" Score="1" Text="Draconis &amp; TKR seem to have discredited the imperfect, here. Why have you chosen the imperfect, even it does make sense?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T07:56:10.927" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26490" PostId="13895" Score="3" Text="Imperfect has a sense of duration. If somebody often did, or kept doing, something over a non-instantaneous duration of time, one would expect a use of the imperfect. But I think the question of emphasis answers the question of perfect or imperfect; if we want to emphasize that the LANGUAGE was spoken, we would use imperfect, but if we want to emphasize the language NO LONGER BEING SPOKEN, we would use the perfect to signify its ending. This is speculation on my part however." CreationDate="2020-05-24T17:40:31.910" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="26510" PostId="13895" Score="1" Text="Interesting and some erudite comments, above. Again, as I said to Draconis, the finality argument (dictating the perfect tense) may be undermined by the fact that the old man could resume his speaking of Latin (dictating the imperfect, possibly)." CreationDate="2020-05-25T11:05:19.627" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26516" PostId="13895" Score="1" Text="@tony Not really, because if he were to resume speaking Latin he'd use the present, not the imperfect." CreationDate="2020-05-25T17:28:44.500" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26476" PostId="13896" Score="3" Text="I think the perfect would be used here rather than the imperfect, despite the durative semantics, since the latter is basically a narrative background tense. Looking through the first few pages of results from PHI for *multos annos* I find lots of perfect indicatives but no imperfect indicatives (https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=multos+annos&amp;first=31)." CreationDate="2020-05-24T04:04:40.510" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26477" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good point. Changed to perfect, which also lets me use an attested form of _effor_ instead of an invented one." CreationDate="2020-05-24T05:03:55.440" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26479" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="@TKR: It seems that Draconis used the imperfect, initially; Nickimite has chosen it; I would've done. If this is &quot;a narrative background tense&quot;, isn't that what is required--this ancient character who spoke Latin in the distant past, for many years?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T10:06:24.890" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26480" PostId="13896" Score="1" Text="So &quot;Immo saeculīs praeteritīs locūtus sum&quot; would be &quot;yes indeed I used to speak it in ages past&quot;? While &quot;Immo saeculīs praeteritīs loquēbar&quot; would have the same meaning but in the imperfect tense? I think the perfect tense does make sense here as he would not have had any reason to use the language for a very long time so the time he was talking about is over... although I can also see the argument for imperfect considering he does still speak it, even if he has no use for it." CreationDate="2020-05-24T10:59:09.297" UserId="6987" />
  <row Id="26484" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="@Tim B: The OP stated that the subject would say: &quot;I used it for many years.&quot; Habitual repeated action, in the past, as opposed to a single completed action, in the past requires which tense?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T15:17:10.320" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26485" PostId="13896" Score="1" Text="@TimB Pretty much! Both tenses have a lot of different nuances, such as the imperfect meaning &quot;repeatedly&quot; or &quot;habitually&quot;, and the perfect meaning &quot;this is now over and done&quot;, and based on TKR's corpus search I do think the perfect is better here." CreationDate="2020-05-24T16:08:03.180" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26486" PostId="13896" Score="3" Text="@tony Perfect can be a single action, but it can also be a long-term state that's now definitively ended. &quot;Fuimus Troes, fuit Ilium et ingens / gloria Teucrorum&quot;: we used to be Trojans, this used to be Ilium and the great glory of the Teucri, but no longer (from Aeneid 2)." CreationDate="2020-05-24T16:12:39.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26492" PostId="13896" Score="1" Text="@tony There's more to Latin tenses than the textbook definitions. In narrative, the main use of the imperfect is to set the scene for some other, more important (&quot;foreground&quot;) event, which isn't the case here. For durative/repeated foreground actions in prose narrative you often get the historical infinitive, but that's not suitable here either; the perfect has no problem fulfilling that function, as Draconis's quote (which is a common type) shows." CreationDate="2020-05-24T18:58:45.880" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26493" PostId="13896" Score="1" Text="@TimB For meanings like &quot;he does still speak it&quot;, i.e. past action continuing into the present, Latin actually uses the present tense, e.g. *multos annos Latine loquor* &quot;I have been speaking Latin for many years&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-24T19:00:18.630" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26508" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Thank you. Fascinating how logical, coherent arguments can be deployed to support (apparently) contradictory scenarios.  Understand &quot;a long-term state that's now definitely ended&quot;; but, here, the old man could always start speaking Latin, again?" CreationDate="2020-05-25T10:56:10.513" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26509" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Thanks. I shall think on it." CreationDate="2020-05-25T10:57:19.413" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26533" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="BTW wouldn't you want *Latine* in the first two sentences? I'm not sure that can be elided." CreationDate="2020-05-26T16:36:07.410" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26534" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="@TKR I figured it could be elided because it was part of the question; does that not work with adverbs?" CreationDate="2020-05-26T18:17:52.420" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26535" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="I have no actual evidence for this, but it sounds off to me, as if you're saying &quot;I spoke for many years / in ages past&quot;." CreationDate="2020-05-26T18:26:43.353" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26536" PostId="13896" Score="0" Text="@TKR Adjusted, in that case; I don't have evidence either, but including it where it's not necessary does no harm." CreationDate="2020-05-26T18:30:01.367" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26489" PostId="13897" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your examples! As for the second one, which is by far more attested than the former (rare and post. classical), my first impression would be to analyze it as an extension of a locatum verb (i.e., 'to provide X with a _corona_') rather than of a location verb (i.e., 'to put X in a _corona_'). Same with the verb _vestire_. Note that in locatum verbs the surface or the location (to be covered) is expressed by the direct object." CreationDate="2020-05-24T17:08:40.973" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26511" PostId="13899" Score="0" Text="That's really a case of the adjectives being in agreement with an omitted predicate noun.  This isn't a &quot;rare case&quot;, just an application of the rule that the nouns needn't agree with each other and the rules about omitting nouns." CreationDate="2020-05-25T12:51:23.123" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26512" PostId="13899" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I don't actually think there is an omitted noun here. I think this is just a neuter adjective standing on its own as &quot;a fickle thing&quot;. Of course in cases like this supplying an omitted noun is a possible reading, but no noun jumps to me here." CreationDate="2020-05-25T12:54:55.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26513" PostId="13899" Score="0" Text="I guess I should have said &quot;omitted substantive&quot;.  I didn't have a specific noun in mind.  We're describing the same phenomenon in different ways." CreationDate="2020-05-25T14:09:50.710" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26547" PostId="13899" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour: I don't feel that there was such a strict distinction between adjectives and substantives in Latin, nor in Greek." CreationDate="2020-05-27T13:22:17.303" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26591" PostId="13899" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Good point.  I think I should probably reexpress my point.  The function of *varium* and *mutabile* in the sentence Joonas gives is as predicate nouns.  In some other situations the non-agreeing adjectives may be functioning as ordinary adjectives modifying an omitted predicate noun.  But the non-agreeing adjectives are never functioning as predicate adjectives as in that case they would agree with the subject." CreationDate="2020-05-29T10:56:25.573" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26495" PostId="13901" Score="1" Text="Do you think it's really a meaningful question in a Latin-internal sense whether the participle in *virgine caesa* is &quot;dominant&quot; or &quot;attributive&quot;? Arguably we only see two readings here because modern European idiom prefers *You placated the winds with the slaughter of a virgin* to *...with a slaughtered virgin*, but is there a real semantic (or other) difference?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T20:03:30.933" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26498" PostId="13901" Score="0" Text="@TKR Putting translation to modern languages aside, there is an important difference between &quot;dominant&quot; and &quot;attributive&quot; participles: the former are predicative, whereas the latter are not. That's why only the former are compatible with proper nouns. Note that _Iphigenia caesa_, unlike _virgine caesa_, is not ambiguous: i.e., in _Iphigenia caesa_ (or for the same matter in _ante Christum natum_), the participle _caesa_ (or _natum_) cannot be interpreted attributively but only predicatively. For more arguments, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-968X.12061" CreationDate="2020-05-24T21:14:32.873" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26499" PostId="13901" Score="1" Text="Thanks -- some interesting examples in that paper!" CreationDate="2020-05-24T21:23:57.477" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26503" PostId="13901" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure I understand your comment, though -- are you saying that proper names in general can't be modified by an attributive participle?" CreationDate="2020-05-24T23:35:48.057" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26505" PostId="13901" Score="0" Text="@TKR The point is that there is a such a restriction when dealing with the alleged modification of proper names in dominant participle constructions (ablative absolutes included: e.g., in _Cicerone mortuo_ the participle cannot be attributive). Another clear context where the attributive reading is excluded is the one involving a pronoun: _ante te cognitum_ (Sall. _Bell. Iug._ 110). Again in this example the participle cannot be interpreted as attributive but only as dominant/predicative. For more discussion, please see the text just above the examples in (6) on page 30 of the work/link above." CreationDate="2020-05-25T00:12:40.130" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26526" PostId="13902" Score="0" Text="Sorry, it is from the Acta Et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Remonstrantium, which is a early 17th century theological work. Full quotation is: &quot;Ac initio quidem duo principalia decreta ante omnia consideranda veniunt, quae sententiarum harum fundamenta sunt, scilicet decretum electionis ad vitam &amp; reprobationis ad exitium faciendae.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;As for the second: &quot;Quaeret forte aliquis, quid itaque sibi velit haec phrasis? Respondemus, dupliciter accipi eam posse. Ut idem significet quod contritum esse. . . ex Patre datum habere, Deum timere, etc." CreationDate="2020-05-26T04:35:17.510" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="26529" PostId="13909" Score="2" Text="Some deadline! I enjoyed your description of the day of judgment as “an appointment or deadline” which I think is the funniest understatement I have seen in a long time." CreationDate="2020-05-26T12:12:42.727" UserId="122" />
  <row Id="26530" PostId="13909" Score="1" Text="@11684 It was indeed an attempt at a comic understatement, but also factually accurate: You'd use the feminine in such uses, and the last judgement certainly qualifies in the category. [Note: I edited the comments a bit for clarity.]" CreationDate="2020-05-26T12:14:36.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26556" PostId="13909" Score="0" Text="@J... I meant that I underplayed judgement to a mere deadline; the comic intentions were mine in this answer, not of the original text. The feminine is used regularly for specified dates as this one certainly would be (albeit unknown to men), so there's nothing unusual about the choice. And even my answer can be read in full seriousness; the comedy, if any, is unimportant." CreationDate="2020-05-27T20:19:57.470" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26558" PostId="13909" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ah, ok, I misunderstood, lol.  I thought your comment was suggesting that the original intent of the line was to be something of a play on words.  I follow now." CreationDate="2020-05-27T21:09:35.963" UserId="6999" />
  <row Id="26538" PostId="13911" Score="0" Text="You mean that if a stem cannot form a θη, its passive meaning will be carried through the middle voice, so that it will only have active and medio-passive ?" CreationDate="2020-05-27T07:49:51.183" UserId="6339" />
  <row Id="26546" PostId="13911" Score="0" Text="@AlexandreDaubricourt: Yes, exactly (note that there is no different between passive θη and passive η: those are the exact same suffix with the exact same meaning and usage; it's just that the θ is dropped after certain roots, notably after m, n, l, r, analogous to sigmatic and pseudo-sigmatic aorist)." CreationDate="2020-05-27T13:06:29.807" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26552" PostId="13911" Score="0" Text="@AlexandreDaubricourt Just to clarify, it's not about stems but tenses. The aorist and future tenses distinguish passive from middle, so verbs whose meaning allows it have all three voices in those tenses. The other tenses don't, so in those tenses verbs can only have active and medio-passive forms." CreationDate="2020-05-27T17:58:55.390" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26557" PostId="13911" Score="0" Text="@TKR: You're right, I should have said *roots*." CreationDate="2020-05-27T20:34:32.513" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26539" PostId="13912" Score="0" Text="Hm okay and I guess the thetaful form conveys an even more passive meaning than the second, or the two forms are pretty much interchangeable and have developed due to the sporadic usage of Greek?" CreationDate="2020-05-27T07:55:16.600" UserId="6339" />
  <row Id="26551" PostId="13912" Score="0" Text="@AlexandreDaubricourt No, it just depends on the specific verb. Some have the forms with theta, others have the forms without theta, but there's no difference in meaning." CreationDate="2020-05-27T17:55:12.897" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34056" PostId="13913" Score="0" Text="Remember to mark an answer as &quot;solved&quot; if it resolves your inquiry. Let me know if you need help doing that." CreationDate="2021-07-09T20:52:39.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26548" PostId="13918" Score="0" Text="I think that explains why I felt something was wrong. Thank you!" CreationDate="2020-05-27T14:16:34.977" UserId="4909" />
  <row Id="26555" PostId="13919" Score="0" Text="I wonder if *mentiflex* wouldn't be more natural (along the lines of e.g. *pontifex*)." CreationDate="2020-05-27T20:18:23.940" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26542" PostId="13921" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! In what context are you speaking? &quot;Man to man combat,&quot; or perhaps a &quot;man to man talk&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-05-27T11:56:31.763" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26543" PostId="13921" Score="0" Text="thanks! As in &quot;they were standing man to man&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-27T11:58:32.593" UserId="6998" />
  <row Id="26544" PostId="13921" Score="4" Text="Are you referring to a context like a line of soldiers forming an impenetrable barrier standing &quot;man to man&quot;? There might be an idiom for that, but it might not include a man. (At least in Finnish the expression is &quot;chest to chest&quot;.) Or would a general idea of facing adversity together work as well? (Explaining the context and purpose is **very** important to get a translation. Word-for-word approaches don't work well." CreationDate="2020-05-27T12:39:48.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26545" PostId="13921" Score="0" Text="I think more in the context of fighting someone actually, as in a &quot;man to man fight&quot;. thanks!" CreationDate="2020-05-27T12:42:12.387" UserId="6998" />
  <row Id="26559" PostId="13921" Score="0" Text="With fists or swords?  I suspect there would be an authentic medieval Latin idiom for single combat." CreationDate="2020-05-28T01:56:51.977" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26560" PostId="13921" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: How does the &quot;chest-to-chest&quot; work, in terms of ladies' breasts? You are to be congratulated; you have triggered some raucous (English) humour!" CreationDate="2020-05-28T10:08:13.920" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26561" PostId="13923" Score="0" Text="Great answer, as always. How about &quot;homo ad hominem&quot; or &quot;vir ad virum&quot;; would these be too confrontational?" CreationDate="2020-05-28T10:10:45.843" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26565" PostId="13923" Score="1" Text="@tony. &quot;Vir ad virum&quot; seems like a good possibility. It appears in the Vulgate under Isaiah 5:3. My only question would be whether it would be understood in the sense of a courageous stand or as simply one person in conflict with another. To illustrate my point, the word &quot;virilim&quot; means &quot;man to man&quot; in the sense of passing something from one person to the next, but it doesn't seem to convey they idea of doing so in a manly way as we normally think of a man-to-man confrontation." CreationDate="2020-05-28T12:21:36.140" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26583" PostId="13923" Score="0" Text="I liked your answer. I'd only put it &quot;ut viri&quot;, since they are two men confronting each other in a manly manner. So &quot;like men&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-28T22:38:47.443" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26562" PostId="13924" Score="1" Text="Perhaps this idea could work with *inebriator*, &quot;drunk-maker&quot;, which is a one-word way of saying *ebriam reddens*. That with a partitive genitive (*mentis/mentium inebriator*) sounds pretty nice, even if not bending in the same way as the OP probably intended." CreationDate="2020-05-28T11:41:49.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26563" PostId="13924" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thank you. There are always alternative approaches, even if they do get me into trouble. Mind (no pun intended) imagining that one can fly (people died on these &quot;trips&quot;) is as &quot;bending&quot; as it gets." CreationDate="2020-05-28T11:46:27.783" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26564" PostId="13925" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer! Indeed, both the choice of the pronoun *illa* and the feminine version of *dies* drive home the message that it is a well-known and special day." CreationDate="2020-05-28T12:03:47.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26566" PostId="13927" Score="1" Text="Have you seen [this online dictionary question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)?" CreationDate="2020-05-28T14:24:57.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26568" PostId="13928" Score="0" Text="That is very helpful" CreationDate="2020-05-28T16:20:00.083" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="26585" PostId="13929" Score="1" Text="Is there another NASB that translates from the Latin? The normal [NASB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible) is a translation of the Greek NT!" CreationDate="2020-05-29T03:46:16.043" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="26586" PostId="13929" Score="0" Text="@curiousdannii—Agreed. I wonder if perhaps he means the [NAB (New American Bible)](http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/1)." CreationDate="2020-05-29T03:54:14.917" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="26587" PostId="13929" Score="0" Text="@DerÜbermensch Even it is still a translation of the Greek. But the translation before it, the [Confraternity Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_Bible), was a translation of the Vulgate." CreationDate="2020-05-29T04:00:15.607" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="26588" PostId="13929" Score="0" Text="Please see brianpck's comment under my answer and consider whether you want to unaccept it or react otherwise." CreationDate="2020-05-29T06:02:49.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26628" PostId="13929" Score="0" Text="The NASB is very strict in translating the original languages into precise english as possible that reflects the literal meaning of the text, sometimes this results in a stilted reading however for accuracy of translation the NASB sets a higher standard than the KJV. both translations are perfectly valid, for ease of reading the NIV and ESV have become classic translations that blend accuracy with readability. in any case if none of those options are helpful to u there are plenty of valid translations to choose from between the ideals of word for word, and paraphrase translations, ..." CreationDate="2020-05-29T09:51:37.350" UserId="7004" />
  <row Id="26629" PostId="13929" Score="0" Text="[by Rich] ... feel free to choose the one that best suits your needs." CreationDate="2020-05-30T20:23:08.110" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26578" PostId="13930" Score="2" Text="I'm pretty sure this isn't the correct interpretation, since this is translating the Greek &quot;γέγονεν&quot; (&quot;became&quot;), which is translated identically in the previous verses of Jn 1, where it doesn't mean &quot;consider.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-28T20:10:58.167" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26579" PostId="13930" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That's very well possible. I was working fully within Latin, and that can easily lead to misreading the Vulgate." CreationDate="2020-05-28T20:19:51.830" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26573" PostId="13931" Score="0" Text="I would agree with Lightfoot and the NASB, and disagree with Vincent, in this instance. If it meant 'priority in time' then the following phrase &quot;for He existed before me,&quot; also signifying 'priority in time,' would not explain anything. Also the Douay-Rheims has 'is preferred before me.'" CreationDate="2020-05-28T18:23:40.407" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26577" PostId="13931" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay. That's a very good point. I edited my answer, because I actually find Vincent's words hard to understand, so maybe I was misinterpreting him. On the one hand, he says &quot;before is used of time, not of dignity&quot; and then he goes on, seemingly arguing for the contrary. I'm not sure what he means exactly with &quot;...as, on that interpretation.&quot; So, instead of interpreting him, I simply quoted it." CreationDate="2020-05-28T19:53:59.470" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="26580" PostId="13931" Score="0" Text="Ok, now you've quoted him, I also don't quite understand what he means." CreationDate="2020-05-28T20:26:49.673" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="34129" PostId="13933" Score="0" Text="You should add your answer to the [original question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why)." CreationDate="2021-07-13T12:33:17.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26575" PostId="13935" Score="2" Text="As a note on *cuius/eius* (which look redundant), the Latin is closely following the original Greek: οὗ ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω αὐτοῦ τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος, where the genitive relative pronoun οὗ is pretty clearly going with ἄξιος &quot;worthy&quot;. So *cuius* can be likewise taken with *dignus*, i.e. &quot;I am not worthy of him, [not even] to loose...&quot;" CreationDate="2020-05-28T18:48:48.657" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26576" PostId="13935" Score="1" Text="Thanks, that is also possible, or even preferable. &quot;Dīgnus and indīgnus sometimes take the Genitive in colloquial usage and in poetry&quot; (http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-specification)." CreationDate="2020-05-28T18:57:44.667" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26574" PostId="13936" Score="1" Text="Do you think think 'ut' and 'ubi' wouldn't apply for the same reason 'postquam' doesn't?" CreationDate="2020-05-28T18:38:10.443" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26582" PostId="13936" Score="1" Text="@JasperMay These, and *simul ut, simul atque* etc., essentially mean “as soon as,” so in my mind they imply a sequence: first one, then the other. But they all stress the temporal proximity, so it is admittedly a gray zone. I would be absolutely fine with: *Ubi me venire vidit, via decessit.*" CreationDate="2020-05-28T21:31:00.153" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26605" PostId="13936" Score="0" Text="Sebastian Koppehel: In the first example, is &quot;venienti&quot; being used as an adjective (the-one-who-is-coming) as opposed to a present participle? Is that why the person (in the ablative) is omitted?" CreationDate="2020-05-30T09:26:33.770" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26624" PostId="13936" Score="1" Text="@tony I believe the technical term for this construction is *participium coniunctum* (I am actually unaware of a non-Latin term). The subject of the participle clause could very well be mentioned, but it would be in the same case as the participle, in this case the dative, e.g. *ei venienti* or perhaps *Amaliae venienti* etc.; in fact, leaving it out is probably untypical, but we were given a rather fragmentary English sentence to start from here." CreationDate="2020-05-30T18:13:51.197" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26749" PostId="13936" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thanks. I thought it was person-in-ablative; but, it's dative. Allen &amp; Greenough p.488 (participles): &quot;As an adjective it limits substantives and agrees with them in gender, number and case. As a verb, it has distinctions of time and often takes an object.&quot; The implication of &quot;often&quot; is that the inclusion of the person is not mandatory.  Continuing p.494: &quot;Participles often become complete adjectives, and may be compared or used as nouns e.g. &quot;sibi indulgentes et corpori servientes (Legg. I 39) = &quot;The self-indulgent and slaves to the body" CreationDate="2020-06-07T10:07:53.743" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26750" PostId="13936" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: (indulging themselves and serving the body)." CreationDate="2020-06-07T10:08:55.123" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26581" PostId="13937" Score="0" Text="*Famem*, surely?" CreationDate="2020-05-28T21:06:47.717" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26584" PostId="13937" Score="0" Text="True! Should be famem!" CreationDate="2020-05-29T00:46:55.353" UserId="4754" />
  <row Id="26590" PostId="13937" Score="1" Text="I would expect &quot;eis, qui&quot; instead of quibus. Now it says &quot;for whom starve&quot; etc. You can also replace the relative clauses with participles: &quot;Da panem, Domine, esurientibus, et famem justititae panem habentibus.&quot; As a theological note: now it seems that you are claiming that some people don't need the Lord to give or keep giving them literal food, and that people who have no literal food don't need to hunger for justice. You can't go wrong praying the Lord's prayer." CreationDate="2020-05-29T10:04:17.913" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26592" PostId="13937" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay *quibus* is correct and perfectly good Latin style. See [307.c](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/relative-pronouns). English does not have this facility, leading to all those &quot;he who&quot; and &quot;that which&quot; constructions, but Latin can do it. (Not that *eis qui* would be wrong though!)" CreationDate="2020-05-29T15:21:17.657" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26593" PostId="13937" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That's interesting (in English, it's the relative that can often be omitted, not the antecedent), but I notice that in those two examples, the relative is still in the nominative case, which I would expect because it is the subject of the verb in the relative clause: &quot;[eos] qu*i* cognoscer*ent* misit&quot; (not 'quos cognoscerent misit'). I would be surprised by the omission of antecedents in any other case than the nominative or accusative ([ei] qui esurit cibum do?), but even more so by the case of the antecedent being transferred onto the relative (cui esurit cibum do??)." CreationDate="2020-05-29T15:53:51.570" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26594" PostId="13937" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I don't think you're interpreting that correctly. 307c says that the antecedent can be omitted, but note that the relative agrees with its function in the subordinate clause, i.e. it's &quot;qui cognoscerent misit,&quot; not &quot;quos cognoscerent misit.&quot; In the OP's example, the relative should be nominative with respect to esuriunt. There's a different phenomenon of &quot;attraction of the relative&quot; (described in 306a), but I'm not aware of a case where that occurs with the omission of the antecedent. (I seem to recall that's possible in Greek, though.)" CreationDate="2020-05-29T16:20:19.027" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26596" PostId="13937" Score="1" Text="@JasperMay &amp; brianpck, oops, you are of course both correct!" CreationDate="2020-05-29T17:38:09.333" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26597" PostId="13940" Score="0" Text="Are you also interested in Greek sources? Plato had quite a lot to say about this newfangled &quot;writing&quot; thing." CreationDate="2020-05-29T17:56:01.430" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26598" PostId="13940" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I prefer to keep this question about Romans. It'd be nice to have a Greek counterpart to this question, though. If you write up a question and an answer (which is encouraged anyway on the site), I'll be happy to vote both up. (That said, I'm sure people won't mind an answer with an interesting find in Greek instead of Latin.)" CreationDate="2020-05-29T18:14:28.160" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26595" PostId="13943" Score="1" Text="I agree with your correction of &quot;eis qui&quot; but I don't understand why either &quot;quibus&quot; or &quot;quibus ii&quot; (as you quote the OP) would be at all possible, never mind just less natural. Maybe I'm missing something but I would translate &quot;Da panem, Domine, *quibus ii* esuriunt, et famem iustitiae *quibus ii* panem habent&quot; as &quot;Give bread, o Lord, *to whom they* starve, and a hunger for justice *to whom they* have bread.&quot; I think the Latin makes as much sense as the English." CreationDate="2020-05-29T17:11:18.147" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26600" PostId="13943" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay Yes, I too feel that something more is wrong, but I have a hard time pinpointing just what. It's not just putting an imperative into a relative phrase (weird, but it seems to me I've seen it before) or putting the verb of one phrase into another phrase (definitely wrong, but is it really *that* bad?). Since I can't really define it, I didn't mention it in my answer. You translation, I think, is spot on, but in the abstract, I still can't quite put into words what I think the big problem is." CreationDate="2020-05-30T01:18:20.507" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26603" PostId="13943" Score="0" Text="Please have a look at my and brianpck's comments on the question. I think the main problem is omitting the antecedent (eis) while putting its dative case onto the relative (qui &gt; quibus). &quot;Quibus (ii)&quot; means &quot;to whom (they)&quot; while &quot;eis qui&quot; means &quot;to those who,&quot; which is what the sentence needs." CreationDate="2020-05-30T04:38:06.180" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26601" PostId="13945" Score="1" Text="What an excellent question! My little brother is autistic, and very low-functioning (as the jargon was when we were kids). You are obviously extremely high-functioning (as we'd have said then). Thank you for asking this, and for spelling out exactly what it is you are seeking to describe. I don't have an answer to propose yet, but I will be thinking about this until I, or another community member, come up with one." CreationDate="2020-05-30T01:24:56.467" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26602" PostId="13945" Score="2" Text="Thank you very much for your kind words. Thank God I am truly high-functioning. My wife is very patient with me though, because she sees right through my facade of normalcy :P I can't really pretend as well with her, since we literally live together. It took me a long time to learn how to &quot;act normal&quot; and most of the times I don't even know why I have to do X or can't do Y, but I just know that if I don't do X or if I do Y people will get mad at me so I do it/don't do it accordingly lol" CreationDate="2020-05-30T01:44:14.113" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26632" PostId="13945" Score="1" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/108696/discussion-between-jasper-may-and-victor-bc)." CreationDate="2020-05-31T05:15:12.263" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26646" PostId="13945" Score="2" Text="I cleaned up most of the comments, as they were no longer about improving this question. The messages were automatically moved to the chat room @JasperMay created, so nothing was lost." CreationDate="2020-06-01T05:55:15.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26663" PostId="13945" Score="0" Text="Thank you Joonas!" CreationDate="2020-06-01T16:56:33.993" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26599" PostId="13946" Score="1" Text="Splendid! I shied away from participles myself, since it has been drilled into me that present participles *generally* are not equivalent to relative phrases. The reason for that, as I was told, is that present participles have a very strong temporal flavor to them which can lead a newbie astray. &quot;Give them bread, O Lord, when they are hungry, and give them hunger for justice when they have it [bread]&quot;. But in this case, I think the temporal flavor works very well." CreationDate="2020-05-30T01:10:43.050" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26626" PostId="13946" Score="1" Text="I agree with @Figulus, the use of participles is great here. It also streamlines the structure not to use many subordinate clauses." CreationDate="2020-05-30T18:55:28.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26627" PostId="13946" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much for your answers @Figulus and @SAG! Everything was very clarifying and, as a beginner in Latin studies, I'm usually confused about structure of phrases and good grammar practices." CreationDate="2020-05-30T20:04:12.387" UserId="4754" />
  <row Id="26631" PostId="13947" Score="0" Text="How would you use that phrase to introduce a new topic?  I take *ceterum* to be something similar in this context to the colloquial English &quot;and, changing the subject,...&quot;  I don't see how *non solum* works that way at all." CreationDate="2020-05-31T00:47:00.510" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26634" PostId="13947" Score="0" Text="@C Monsour: Not only &quot;that&quot; but also &quot;something tenuously, or otherwise, connected with it&quot;. What's the problem?" CreationDate="2020-05-31T07:52:34.850" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26637" PostId="13947" Score="0" Text="I think you could interpret what @CMonsour is saying so that it's the *sed etiam* that introduces the new thing. And that new thing ought to be related to the previous one. The whole pair *non solum ... sed etiam* is used to add one thing to another, whereas the OP was after moving to a new topic altogether. I agree that that's a problem with this suggestion. A good phrase, but not quite for this use." CreationDate="2020-05-31T16:54:10.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26645" PostId="13947" Score="0" Text="@tony In your quotation, Cato isn't changing the topic at *sed etiam* but at *non solum*.  (He would say this whatever the topic had been.)  Obviously, *non solum* sets up a contrast with whatever comes after *sed etiam*.  It isn't related to the fact that Cato is changing the topic.  He just is, without a segway, which was sort of his style." CreationDate="2020-06-01T05:04:58.290" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26652" PostId="13947" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Understood." CreationDate="2020-06-01T08:18:31.303" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26653" PostId="13947" Score="0" Text="@C Monsour: It was what Cato &quot;might&quot; have said; a supplement to Joonas's answer. Anyway, I can see that I got this one wrong." CreationDate="2020-06-01T08:22:42.793" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26630" PostId="13950" Score="0" Text="Strangely, in modern medicine, *lues* has come to be used for syphilis (more precisely, but still not very precisely, *lues venerea*)." CreationDate="2020-05-30T23:04:00.213" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26656" PostId="13953" Score="1" Text="Wow, the different ordering of cases really wrecks my ingrained habit. In Italy it's nom, gen, dat, acc, voc, abl" CreationDate="2020-06-01T09:46:26.660" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="26657" PostId="13953" Score="1" Text="@Francesco Fortunately the sentences work with that order as well, even though the genitive seems to refer differently. Once past the basics, I recommend letting go of a fixed order of cases and learning to produce the forms without listing the preceding ones." CreationDate="2020-06-01T10:02:40.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26698" PostId="13953" Score="0" Text="You're completely right. It's such an ingrained habit that I found it surprising. I agree on the approach of not relying on a fixed order, but since I learned about it when I was younger than 10 yo... it's something which I always uncritically assumed." CreationDate="2020-06-03T17:04:48.273" UserId="519" />
  <row Id="26742" PostId="13953" Score="2" Text="Now that you mention it, it is of course, o @Francesco, possible to add a vocative at the desired position to these examples" CreationDate="2020-06-06T16:56:12.083" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="26638" PostId="13954" Score="0" Text="I think a horse is a fine gift for a king, personally. Thanks for the answer!" CreationDate="2020-05-31T18:13:38.727" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26743" PostId="13954" Score="1" Text="@Adam Given that some might trade a whole kingdom for a horse, indeed" CreationDate="2020-06-06T17:01:22.160" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="26705" PostId="13957" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the suggestion, Joonas! Would you have any suggestion for a proper adjective to use with it so as to make it clear one is speaking of a meltdown instead of just a rage?" CreationDate="2020-06-03T23:23:53.513" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26710" PostId="13957" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC Good question! An adjective would indeed be good to have. What adjectives would you use in English to describe this kind of a &quot;rage&quot;? I don't think I know well enough what I'm aiming for. (Note that *furor* also means positive things like fierce passion. The English translations I listed don't give the full picture, which is why I gave the dictionary link.)" CreationDate="2020-06-04T07:31:46.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26718" PostId="13957" Score="0" Text="Hum... I'd say it is a feeling of dispare and of being completely lost. It's more of a panic than anything. I usually describe it as &quot;my brain rebooting&quot;. &quot;Autistic rage&quot; sounds too much like something else. Maybe &quot;collapsing rage&quot;? &quot;Breaking rage&quot;? Because you kinda feel like you &quot;broke&quot; when it happens. Like I said, it feels like your mind doing a reboot." CreationDate="2020-06-04T13:42:47.020" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26849" PostId="13957" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC Sorry for taking so long! I thought about that a few times, but I was unable to find anything I was happy with. Perhaps the best I could think of was *collapsio furiosa*, roughly &quot;a furious collapse&quot;, but I'm not sure if this kind of a collapse could be meant by that word. I would expect the Romans to have a word for a mental collapse of some kind, but I've never seen one." CreationDate="2020-06-13T22:15:11.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26858" PostId="13957" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't, because although the Romans were sophisticated, they rather paled in comparison to modern psychology. Maybe one could find an example of such a word in the Renaissance or maybe on early modern (still in Latin) books on psychology. Unfortunately most people aren't interested on that time frame of Latin so we might be reinventing the wheel on a number of topics when a person of the Renaissance would blink at us confounded at how we did not know X or Y word or expression lol" CreationDate="2020-06-14T15:31:03.007" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26654" PostId="13958" Score="2" Text="L&amp;S say that the main definition of aliquid is 'something (or other), anything,' as does https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/aliquis#Latin. The context has to show whether it means 'something already mentioned,' or 'something else' (with aliud implied). Several Latin dictionaries also use the abbreviations alqm (aliquem), alci (alicui), alqd (aliquid) etc. as meaning 'someone, something,' to show how to use a verb." CreationDate="2020-06-01T09:22:21.673" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26655" PostId="13958" Score="0" Text="See the end of the Wiktionary entry for a long list of examples from Meissner and Auden's Latin phrasebook, in which aliquid etc. are written out." CreationDate="2020-06-01T09:32:09.800" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26661" PostId="13959" Score="0" Text="I faintly remembervthat Italian [altri](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/altri) may mean &quot;other&quot; as well as &quot;previous, last&quot;. Thanks for your input." CreationDate="2020-06-01T11:57:06.090" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26666" PostId="13963" Score="1" Text="In my opinion, this is the correct answer for what the OP is actually asking." CreationDate="2020-06-01T18:48:00.643" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26665" PostId="13964" Score="0" Text="Would **Furtum est, secundum legem latam, contrectatio rei alienae fraudulenta** be proper and idiomatic classical latin when translating **Theft is, according to existing law, laying hands on others' things fraudulently**?" CreationDate="2020-06-01T17:43:04.957" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26667" PostId="13964" Score="1" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos That looks grammatically correct to me. Of course Latin word order is flexible and context-dependent, so there would be various correct ways of phrasing this." CreationDate="2020-06-01T19:26:33.467" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26668" PostId="13964" Score="0" Text="Could one add animo furando or cum animo furando to mean with misappropriating intent( with the intent to misappropriate)?" CreationDate="2020-06-01T19:31:22.220" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26669" PostId="13964" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos That would not be a correct use of the gerundive -- *animo furando* would mean something like &quot;by stealing a mind&quot;. (In any case it would risk circularity to use the verb *furor* in a definition of the noun *furtum*.)" CreationDate="2020-06-01T19:42:58.083" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26670" PostId="13964" Score="0" Text="How could one communicate the need for the contrectatio to be commited with the intent to misappropriate( the intent to illegally dispossess someone of the thing and appropriate it themselves-add it to their property) so as to be considered theft?" CreationDate="2020-06-01T20:12:07.153" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26686" PostId="13965" Score="0" Text="Are you looking for something like a word that a Roman would have used for the animal? [Scientific and Latin names are two different things](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/371/79), and it could be worth clarifying what you're after. Good colloquial alternatives to a scientific name is an interesting thing to think about." CreationDate="2020-06-02T19:52:21.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26723" PostId="13965" Score="2" Text="I always thought that the plural of *opossum* should be *opossumus*." CreationDate="2020-06-05T03:05:40.577" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34776" PostId="13965" Score="0" Text="Actually all animals have official zoological names, in this case Didelphis virginiana." CreationDate="2020-06-01T20:11:27.843" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26674" PostId="13967" Score="4" Text="Shouldn't that be *in angustiis*?" CreationDate="2020-06-01T22:49:18.707" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26690" PostId="13967" Score="0" Text="@TKR I prefer the accusative. It's more idiomatic, and it implies that you've moved into the corner recently." CreationDate="2020-06-02T22:49:07.957" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26691" PostId="13967" Score="3" Text="But given that *in* with the accusative means &quot;to, into&quot;, it presumably would not be used with *esse*, but with a verb of motion." CreationDate="2020-06-02T23:09:16.423" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26730" PostId="13967" Score="0" Text="I certainly don't object to using it with a verb of motion. *Agi*, *mitti*, or even the pleonastic *angi* come to mind, but given the temporary and abrupt nature of meltdowns, I don't see why *esse* or *fieri* could not be used." CreationDate="2020-06-05T18:51:53.547" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26733" PostId="13967" Score="2" Text="Are there parallels for using *esse* with *in*+acc.? I would think that the accusative requires a verb of motion: you can be in dire straits, or you can be brought into dire straits, but you can't be into dire straits. (You can be into Dire Straits, but that's another story.)" CreationDate="2020-06-05T22:41:54.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26740" PostId="13967" Score="0" Text="I don't think *esse in* can generally take the accusative, but I think *angustiae* idiomatically goes into the accusative with *in*, even without verbs of motion. Having said that, I can't put my finger on any examples. A corpus search turns up little, Pliny 37.172.4 *Lysimachos, Rhodio marmori similis auratis venis, politur ex maiore amplitudine in angustias, ut inutilia exterantur..*" CreationDate="2020-06-06T16:04:42.373" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26745" PostId="13967" Score="1" Text="That looks like a motion usage, though -- &quot;from a greater thickness to thinness&quot;. PHI finds quite a few hits for *in angustiis* (https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in+angustiis)." CreationDate="2020-06-06T17:56:10.560" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26720" PostId="13968" Score="0" Text="If there is a 20 pager, surely it should be about 50% bibliography. If you find one, please post back. Actually, I had thought you could write one yourself." CreationDate="2020-06-04T20:23:00.303" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="26678" PostId="13970" Score="0" Text="I am actually Greek( Half-Greek Half-Brazilian) and I am not very fond of history. I simply see some Latin phrases in my Greek Law text books which don't seem right( Portuguese is a Romance language and some phrases strike me as foreign maybe because of word order or word choice). I didn't intend to plagiarise( not even the textbooks mention the medieval source that is why I was honestly unaware)." CreationDate="2020-06-02T06:28:32.610" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26679" PostId="13970" Score="0" Text="How could one communicate the need for the contrectatio to be commited with the intent to misappropriate( the intent to illegally dispossess someone of the thing and appropriate it themselves-add it to their property) so as to be considered theft?" CreationDate="2020-06-02T06:28:42.127" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26684" PostId="13970" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Bracton does this with the addition of *cum animo furandi* – literally, “with the intent to steal.”" CreationDate="2020-06-02T19:39:18.423" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26687" PostId="13970" Score="0" Text="Cum animo furandi would mean With the intent of misappropriating? Why Genitve instead of Ablative( for the declination of furandus)? Am I risking circularity as TKR said because of the use the verb furor in a definition of the noun furtum or not?" CreationDate="2020-06-02T20:27:35.183" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26688" PostId="13970" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Why the genetive? Because *animus* + gerund genetive means “the will/intention/desire/inclination of …” This is a rare example where [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Danimus) miss something important (unless I have overlooked it), but Georges [knows about it](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/animus?hl=animus). All his examples are from Justin and Velleius, so not medieval, but perhaps not Cicero &amp; Caesar classical either." CreationDate="2020-06-02T21:34:56.270" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26689" PostId="13970" Score="0" Text="I suppose the definition sounds a little circular on first hearing. Quid valet «furari»? Furtum facere. Quid est furtum? Contrectatio alienae rei. Omne contrectatio? Immo, nulla contrectatio nisi cum animo scilicet furandi! — I believe this is just intended to express that it is not theft if somebody does not think he is committing theft, e.g. because he believes he has a genuine right to take the thing. I am not a philosopher of law and feel somewhat underqualified to decide whether this is really circular." CreationDate="2020-06-02T22:12:14.257" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26680" PostId="13971" Score="1" Text="fyi: I personally like Alkire and Rosen *Romance Languages* (2010) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/romance-languages/45EE841889CA578615891F44B9B59A3A ; then there's a hefty *The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages* https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108" CreationDate="2020-06-02T14:38:26.297" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26681" PostId="13971" Score="1" Text="And of course a new, second edition of Michael Weiss's Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin was published earlier this year (Weiss 2020). http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.html" CreationDate="2020-06-02T14:41:09.653" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26682" PostId="13974" Score="2" Text="That must be it. Excellent. And plus a billion for linking to that list." CreationDate="2020-06-02T17:36:39.240" UserId="1156" />
  <row Id="26683" PostId="13974" Score="1" Text="@TKR My first guess is that the participle in _Anno Orbis **Redempti**_ is dominant, right? But cf. _Anno Salutis Reparatae_ and _Anno Salutis_. This reminds me of the question on how obligatory the so-called &quot;dominant&quot; {participle/predicate} is. Cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9412/how-obligatory-is-the-predicate-in-a-dominant-participle-construction" CreationDate="2020-06-02T18:48:43.530" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26694" PostId="13974" Score="5" Text="Odd that it isn't equivalent to AD +33." CreationDate="2020-06-03T03:08:18.063" UserId="602" />
  <row Id="26695" PostId="13974" Score="1" Text="@chrylis-cautiouslyoptimistic- I recall reading somewhere that AD 0 is used both for His birth and death, leaving those 33 years missing. If this is true, it’s somewhat ironic that the date system built around Him excludes His life! It would also explain why it’s not equivalent to AD 33. (As another aside, I think His birth is now considered closer to BC 8, not 0)" CreationDate="2020-06-03T08:26:54.780" UserId="1588" />
  <row Id="26697" PostId="13974" Score="2" Text="@Tim: I don’t think those years were ever *missing* in anyone’s version of the system, or that (once the system was  established) people disagreed on the number of their current year due to this point.  It’s just that people sometimes misunderstood the system, thinking that AD 0 was intended to refer to Christ’s birth or crucifixion — so most people would said “A.D. 1700 means 1700 years since Christ’s birth”, some would have said “A.D. 1700 means 1700 years since Christ’s death”, but both would have agreed that the current year was 1700 and that the year before 1 AD was 1 BC." CreationDate="2020-06-03T13:04:14.503" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="26699" PostId="13974" Score="0" Text="The years certainly are not missing. Note that none of those terms unambiguously refer to the crucifixion or death of Christ. Some refer to the birth explicitly others refer to salvation, which while that might be directly attached to the crucifixion as the point which for Christians that would be accomplished, the start of his life would still be reasonably understood. Similarly, you will see as recently as 20th century the Pope use In Anno Incarnationis" CreationDate="2020-06-03T17:53:42.430" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="29268" PostId="13975" Score="1" Text="The use of etymologically related words in a phrase (a &quot;figura etymologica&quot;) is not terribly uncommon in New Testament Koine Greek — e.g. the shepherds in the Lucan nativity story εφοβηθησαν φοβον μεγαν. It appears that this is to some extent a Hebraicism." CreationDate="2020-10-10T20:39:06.740" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="26692" PostId="13976" Score="0" Text="Off topic, but shouldn't the French read *indiqua* (since *chagrin* is singular)?" CreationDate="2020-06-03T01:06:34.073" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26693" PostId="13976" Score="0" Text="Oh oui vous avez raison, j'ai écrit trop rapidement, merci !" CreationDate="2020-06-03T01:49:40.307" UserId="7017" />
  <row Id="26713" PostId="13977" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: &quot;...the reason is semantic rather than syntactic.&quot;; &quot;...the reason is the meanings (of words) rather than the sentence construction (the ordering of the words). In the link to ( A &amp; G), the difference between examples in  sections (1) &amp; (2) is that, in (2), the verbs are to do with &quot;saying&quot;, or related terms. Unusually, with yourself, I'm not following this." CreationDate="2020-06-04T10:38:35.353" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26714" PostId="13977" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: The ruling for informal indirect discourse appears to be the reverse of that for a subordinate clause in normal indirect speech. If the subordinate clause is independent of the main statement, it has been added by a person other than the original speaker/ writer, then the verb remains in the indicative e.g. original speaker: &quot;The girls are beautiful.&quot;. A second party, reporting this, with location/ activity details: He said that the girls, who are now walking in the garden, were beautiful = dixit puellas, quae in horto nunc ambulant, pulchras esse. Is this correct?" CreationDate="2020-06-04T10:56:04.343" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26715" PostId="13977" Score="0" Text="@tony The phrasing in A&amp;G is confusing. Consider: &quot;John was scared because there was a dog.&quot; The causal clause with *quia* takes the indicative if the existence of the dog is a fact or is considered such by the speaker or writer. If the speaker or writer wants uses conjunctive instead, then the existence of the dog is given as John's view. It is a matter of focusing on the fact itself (indicative) or on the effect on John's action (conjunctive). In your example you can have *ambulant* or *ambularent* depending on whether you consider being in the garden factual." CreationDate="2020-06-04T11:28:51.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26716" PostId="13977" Score="0" Text="The informal indirect discourse thing is a side remark here. If you want to discuss it further, ask a new question. The actual answer is that we have an indirect question." CreationDate="2020-06-04T11:29:39.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26701" PostId="13978" Score="0" Text="It's rare to borrow a noun from a completely different language family that just happens to fit a standard native form for nouns. I say we take it as-is! _opossum, opossī_ (n.) But wait…neuter gender for an animal? Don't all animals in Latin have masculine, feminine, or common gender—never neuter? ([This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1410/118) doesn't quite answer.) A quick search finds non-neuter gender even in _mūlus, mūla,_ and _hinnus._" CreationDate="2020-06-03T21:44:18.360" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="26702" PostId="13978" Score="0" Text="Oh no, another decision: _opossum, ōpossum, opōssum,_ or _ōpōssum?_ What precedents relate to this?" CreationDate="2020-06-03T21:45:29.627" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="26711" PostId="13978" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz There's the word *animal* itself, but I can't think of other neuter animal names. Nevertheless, the word *opossum* is so convenient that it practically forces neuter; changing to *opossus* or something feels forced. Vowel quantities can be decided based on other languages as Latin doesn't restrict it. I thought of both Os as short as they are in all languages I know. (My scansion breaks down if the first one is long!)" CreationDate="2020-06-04T08:30:11.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27209" PostId="13981" Score="1" Text="I heartily second the figures posted from the OED. English--though chock full of Latin roots, phrases, mutations and so on--just doesn't belong in the same category as Spanish. Same with French, Italian, Portuguese, and any additional Romance Languages I'm blanking on. I took Latin from 6th grade through my freshman year of college, and it's especially interesting to think about this era of etymology while looking at a map. Before the sheer scope of the British Empire, geography--and language itself--is a country's destiny." CreationDate="2020-07-15T16:56:18.560" UserId="7162" />
  <row Id="26704" PostId="13982" Score="2" Text="Some ancient authors use it also as a way of creating imagery with the words. For example, Virgil uses it when talking about caves so as to seem like the person was &quot;inside&quot; the cave, by being placed in the middle of the noun and adjective of the cave. Ovid uses it when describing an arrow being drawn, simulating the arrow being drawn in the bow. I have used it personally when talking about a hammock (*Lectulus pensilis* according to Wikipedia lol) so as to mimic someone being chilling inside the hammock :)" CreationDate="2020-06-03T23:05:14.033" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="26739" PostId="13982" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answer. I selected the other because it focused particularly on the religious emphasis, which I think is very relevant for this case (particularly with the word _ætérnam_, as this can be found in several places; see my comment to his answer)." CreationDate="2020-06-06T13:45:36.187" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="26700" PostId="13983" Score="1" Text="what about simply **coniuratio**? if that's too far please clarify in what ways?" CreationDate="2020-06-03T19:08:20.203" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26703" PostId="13984" Score="2" Text="16) gn = ɲ applies to Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin" CreationDate="2020-06-03T21:50:21.037" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="26706" PostId="13984" Score="0" Text="13) started at least a little even before the first century, as final -m is dropped in verse to allow an elision." CreationDate="2020-06-04T00:55:46.030" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26712" PostId="13984" Score="0" Text="Good point about gn.  And final m yes, some of the other changes probably started before the first century too which I should have mentioned, for example Polybius c.  200 – c.  118 BC wrote Livius in Greek as Λιβιος which would suggest a bilabial fricative and the diphthong ae was e in Cicero's time I think." CreationDate="2020-06-04T08:33:00.267" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="26717" PostId="13984" Score="0" Text="@PaulusFiliusRogeri I'm not an expert, but that doesn't seem right to me. β could have been a transcription of /w/; if he wrote Λιυιος or Λιουιος, it would have to have been pronounced with four vowels in a row or pronounced with υι diphthong, in either case far from the Latin pronunciation. Centuries later Marcus Aurelius (beginning of Meditations) transcribes Verus as Οὐήρος." CreationDate="2020-06-04T12:06:44.373" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="26719" PostId="13984" Score="1" Text="I agree it could have been the nearest thing the Greeks had to a 'w' so may not have necessarily represented the Latin sound, but maybe Latin speaking Greeks pronounced it like that in some words?  The article &quot;The Greek Transliteration and Pronunciation of the Latin Consonant U&quot; by Bradley Buzsard is a very interesting analysis and mentions various instances of Λιβιος and also Λιουιος from the 1st and 2nd Cent. B.C." CreationDate="2020-06-04T17:04:17.270" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="28605" PostId="13984" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth (and as far as I know) 1) the Italian pronunciation of Latin became the Ecclesiastical norm under Pius X (c. 1900) and 2) previously there were lots of regional norms where _the influence of the spelling 'corrected'_ pronunciation locally (though in a feedback process with sound changes!) _when people no longer spoke Latin natively_" CreationDate="2020-08-12T18:02:11.657" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32709" PostId="13984" Score="0" Text="It's a really good question and one I've been trying to find an answer for for some time now, withouth much success. It's dubious whether Alcuin's reforms even reached most of Italy - probably only the north, Lombardy. One thing is for certain: the Roman/Scholastica pronunciation has little to do with the pronunciation of Latin in the 5th century, which is the language that resulted in Italian itself and is reconstructed as Proto-Romance - the similarities are due to Italian itself being its descendant. I personally suspect it took shape during the Renaissance, with Wild West before that" CreationDate="2021-04-20T01:03:15.267" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37588" PostId="13984" Score="1" Text="Could you list some of your sources? Like the Italian ones? I’m also interested" CreationDate="2022-03-20T20:46:59.313" UserId="10926" />
  <row Id="26709" PostId="13986" Score="0" Text="Excelent! That makes a lot of sense. Thanks." CreationDate="2020-06-04T03:11:47.550" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="26738" PostId="13986" Score="1" Text="Being aware of this, it seems is quite common. For instance, [Laudes today](https://universalis.com/L/0/lauds.htm) includes this prayer: _Corda nostra, quǽsumus, Dómine, resurrectiónis splendor illústret, quo mortis ténebris carére valeámus et ad claritátem perveniámus ætérnam._ I think the formula is similar, with emphasis in _ætérnam_ rather than making it rhyme." CreationDate="2020-06-06T13:43:18.587" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="26707" PostId="13987" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much.  That rendering fits perfectly in context.  Well done.   --   KT" CreationDate="2020-06-04T01:31:05.677" UserId="7023" />
  <row Id="26708" PostId="13988" Score="1" Text="Well, sir, that's impressive on so many levels, not least that you knew just where to find the quote (which, for those who don't know, is in a book called THE DAFFODIL AFFAIR).. i really found your analysis fascinating in its detail.  Thanks very much.....                                                                                                                              I always seem to end up getting an education when I read another Innes, but this is above and beyond" CreationDate="2020-06-04T02:20:41.253" UserId="7023" />
  <row Id="26726" PostId="13988" Score="1" Text="This is great. Regarding the third error, my guess is that the &quot;o&quot; is meant to be short, i.e. it's a transliteration of the Greek nominative singular rather than a Latin accusative plural.   It's still not quite right (since the word seems to be well assimilated into the Latin second declension), but it's more pardonable." CreationDate="2020-06-05T13:09:59.780" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26725" PostId="13990" Score="3" Text="Can you give some concrete examples? I'm having trouble understanding your question." CreationDate="2020-06-05T12:59:12.013" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26727" PostId="13990" Score="0" Text="@brianpck https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethica_practica Ethica practica est investigatio philosophica, ex cosmotheoria morali, certarum rerum provinciae privatae et publicae quae sunt res iudicii moralis." CreationDate="2020-06-05T13:11:37.107" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26896" PostId="13990" Score="0" Text="Latin has two words *obiectus*, namely the participle of *obicere* and the noun *obiectus, -us*. Which one are you talking about?" CreationDate="2020-06-19T23:59:04.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26930" PostId="13990" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I was talking about obiectus the noun." CreationDate="2020-06-23T20:11:37.510" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26731" PostId="13994" Score="5" Text="*pecus* is an interesting case since (if I'm not mistaken) it is only neuter when it refers to a generic herd, not a specific animal." CreationDate="2020-06-05T18:54:51.743" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26729" PostId="13995" Score="5" Text="*Cete* is an exception because it's actually a Greek loanword. The singular is τὸ κῆτος and is neuter." CreationDate="2020-06-05T18:48:46.723" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26732" PostId="13995" Score="3" Text="I had not realized it had a singular neuter in Greek. Very interesting! All my Latin dictionaries, however, including http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcetus list it as masculine in the singular." CreationDate="2020-06-05T19:00:53.133" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26741" PostId="13995" Score="2" Text="@Figulus Given the legend, if there is anybody knowing a lot about cetus, it should be Perseus :)" CreationDate="2020-06-06T16:45:53.327" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="26755" PostId="13995" Score="3" Text="I meant that the singular *in Greek* is neuter. In Latin it's masculine for whatever reason. Obviously τὸ κῆτος isn't Latin." CreationDate="2020-06-07T14:25:59.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26734" PostId="13997" Score="3" Text="σφιγγίον is indeed a diminutive, namely of σφίγξ &quot;sphinx&quot;, which apparently also referred to a kind of ape. ἡμερόβιον isn't a diminutive, but a compound of ἡμέρα &quot;day&quot; and βίος &quot;life&quot; (i.e. something that lives for a day)." CreationDate="2020-06-06T02:20:39.737" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26754" PostId="13997" Score="2" Text="For the record, all* spiders are venomous; presumably φαλάγγιον refers to a spider whose venom is medically relevant to human beings, but ἀστέριον and ῥαγίον still have venom. *(Technically, there is one family of spiders that seems to have lost its venom over the course of its evolution, but that was only recently discovered and would not have been known to ancient Greeks.)" CreationDate="2020-06-07T13:19:25.883" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="34262" PostId="13997" Score="2" Text="Greek also has at least some animals that are neuter and not diminutive, e.g., μῆλον, sheep, but I don't know if any of these are also neuter in Latin. There seems to be some speculation that μῆλον actually did originally derive from a diminutive, but I guess we don't know for sure, and in any case it doesn't mean a lamb, it means a sheep in general." CreationDate="2021-07-29T17:40:01.673" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="26735" PostId="13998" Score="1" Text="[This](https://books.google.de/books?id=ZuWK_l-bVDEC&amp;lpg=PT194&amp;pg=PT194#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) translation also interprets it to refer to the two *pueri*. I also see no other possible reading. But I agree that it seems wacky, because it reads a bit like *vestros vestrum oculos*." CreationDate="2020-06-06T11:58:18.267" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26758" PostId="13998" Score="0" Text="What a great find, these dialogues." CreationDate="2020-06-07T15:17:43.673" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26759" PostId="13998" Score="0" Text="@JasperMay You may also like the [Colloquia Scholastica](https://books.google.de/books?id=yxthAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover) by Maturinus Corderius and the [Paedologia](https://books.google.de/books?id=ueJRAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover) by Petrus Mosellanus (properly formatted digital version of these seem to remain desiderata)." CreationDate="2020-06-07T16:37:10.387" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26761" PostId="13998" Score="0" Text="I am especially interested in Roman Catholic dialogues, phrasebooks and textbooks." CreationDate="2020-06-07T19:59:11.033" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26744" PostId="13999" Score="1" Text="If it were one child we wouldn't have *vestros*, but *tuos*." CreationDate="2020-06-06T17:52:53.703" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26746" PostId="13999" Score="0" Text="@TKR, hmmm... thanks for that. got confused with all that :) . I'll edit my answer. so basically amborum was indeed unnecessary here?" CreationDate="2020-06-06T18:07:19.513" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26747" PostId="13999" Score="1" Text="Well, it adds some emphasis, but yes, logically it's unnecessary." CreationDate="2020-06-06T18:46:41.503" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26751" PostId="13999" Score="0" Text="@d_e I retract my comment that this is “wacky” :) That video (or rather the grammar explained in it) was the missing piece of the puzzle. I suspected there must be such a puzzle piece, as Vives wrote his little colloquia very carefully to demonstrate good, classical grammar." CreationDate="2020-06-07T10:21:18.103" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26752" PostId="13999" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, Completely agree with that. Reading a little bit more of his work, you can see how Vives wisely choosing his words and phrases. &quot;ut feriat clarum mane&quot;, for example, is clearly allusion to &quot;Jam clarum mane fenestras Intrat&quot; of Persius - showing the less-usual and somewhat poetical usage of &quot;mane&quot; as substantive.  I'm sure I can learn a lot from this work, trying to solve Vive's &quot;puzzles&quot; - and my guess they are not only related to the Latin. After all, as my linked-translation book nicely observes, to have a translation stands of it's own right, is quite remarkable." CreationDate="2020-06-07T11:18:48.653" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26760" PostId="14001" Score="0" Text="The more I think about your answer, the more I think &quot;land&quot; is almost certainly right. This seems especially obvious if you think that much volcanology is oriented around the study of islands, and young islands are often described as new lands." CreationDate="2020-06-07T19:21:22.793" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26762" PostId="14001" Score="1" Text="@Figulus I agree, that's the most likely explanation, assuming it was a conscious choice by someone who knows some Latin. I edited to add a fourth option, but it's certainly not as likely as *terra*." CreationDate="2020-06-07T20:26:58.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26764" PostId="14001" Score="0" Text="Actually, this might be very likely. It's not clear to me that it has been analyzed as feminine, but in English we refer to it in the singular. That might just be an American thing though, and have nothing to do with its origins, as with *data*." CreationDate="2020-06-07T22:27:05.090" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26787" PostId="14001" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta &amp; Figulus: The problem here might be the fact that the Romans did not have a word for &quot;volcano&quot;; certainly, prior to Vesuvius (79AD); after that, &quot;mons (masculine) igneus&quot;  = &quot;mountain of fire&quot;. a valid description but not a &quot;new&quot;, unique term." CreationDate="2020-06-09T11:24:14.827" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26794" PostId="14001" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, *mons* was their name for volcano, they did not have a specific name for it, which is exactly why I would expect *novus ruptus*." CreationDate="2020-06-09T20:27:46.087" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26810" PostId="14001" Score="1" Text="@tony Note, the Romans knew what volcanism was before 79, thanks in no small part to living practically next door to a very big volcano (and almost constantly active), Mt. Etna on Sicily. See Aeneid III, 570 for a vivid description of its activity." CreationDate="2020-06-10T06:16:22.887" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26814" PostId="14001" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Yes, anyone would believe so. The letters of Pliny-the-Younger indicate that the survivors &amp; witnesses (79AD) were  shocked to the core. Whatever they had learned from Sicily, it had provided little understanding of their own cataclysm. Strange that a word was not invented for this phenomenon." CreationDate="2020-06-10T10:55:22.863" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26748" PostId="14002" Score="2" Text="Thanks for your post and welcome to the Latin Stack Exchange. If you intend on using a lot of Latin for world-building, it might be in your best interests to try learning some Latin. You don't need to be fluent to do basic translations of place names. There should be books in Polish I would think. As for your question, are you looking for Classical Latin in specific, or any era of Latin?" CreationDate="2020-06-07T02:20:32.477" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26757" PostId="14002" Score="0" Text="@Adam I don't really know the difference, but I would guess classical :)" CreationDate="2020-06-07T14:28:45.957" UserId="7037" />
  <row Id="26779" PostId="14004" Score="0" Text="That makes sense, thank you!" CreationDate="2020-06-08T17:38:09.867" UserId="4909" />
  <row Id="26765" PostId="14006" Score="0" Text="Neither bibliotheca de hostibus nor liber de vulgo has the requested meaning. This is a bad answer." CreationDate="2020-06-07T22:29:29.613" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26766" PostId="14006" Score="0" Text="Assuming that answer is right about _de_ so _liber de vulgo_ means something roughly like _&quot;Book about people&quot;_ then it has the requested meaning :) &#xA;Maybe I wasn't precise enough in my question, for what I'm sorry." CreationDate="2020-06-08T00:30:06.617" UserId="7037" />
  <row Id="26767" PostId="14006" Score="0" Text="I will go with _liber de vulgo_ for the book, however since I should mark some answer as accepted, I will mark the other one for it's take on _bibliotheca_." CreationDate="2020-06-08T00:32:46.657" UserId="7037" />
  <row Id="26769" PostId="14006" Score="1" Text="@fdb I like Sebastian's version better than mine for the library, because it's more idiomatic, but mine also has the right meaning.  Consider the titles of works like *De Anima*." CreationDate="2020-06-08T02:33:58.533" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26753" PostId="14007" Score="2" Text="I had interpreted Book of Common People meaning it was about the common people, similar to the first item.  Perhaps the OP could clarify.  In an event, *vulgus* is probably a better translation than *plebs*, which is a culturally specific term (like the name of a caste) that the Romans would be unlikely to apply to cultural contexts other than their own." CreationDate="2020-06-07T11:46:08.930" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26756" PostId="14007" Score="0" Text="Yes, as far as I researched the words, I believe *vulgus* to be more adequate than *plebs*, but *populus* could work as well, but I preffer sound of *vulgus*. And while I want latin names and maybe some Roman-inspired things, I'm not really carrying over Roman culture as a whole into the world I'm building" CreationDate="2020-06-07T14:27:26.810" UserId="7037" />
  <row Id="26768" PostId="14007" Score="0" Text="Despite marking this answer as accepted, for the book I went with @CMonsour answer below" CreationDate="2020-06-08T00:33:45.280" UserId="7037" />
  <row Id="26780" PostId="14007" Score="0" Text="Actually I think that *absent* the context of ancient Roman politics, the word *plebs* stands on its own and simply suggests a multitude of commoners as opposed to a smaller group of nobility of some sort - a dualism on which Rome certainly had no monopoly. Even in English, words like plebeian, patrician etc. are often used without any Roman connection. In any event, it's good to have choice." CreationDate="2020-06-08T17:48:38.290" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26774" PostId="14012" Score="0" Text="It is from Cicero's Laelius III. And yes, I agree that this ought to be mentioned in the question. TKR's first suggestion seems the right one." CreationDate="2020-06-08T12:45:58.207" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26770" PostId="14013" Score="0" Text="Do you mind if I edit your question to focus more on Latin?" CreationDate="2020-06-08T06:56:19.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26771" PostId="14013" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Not at all! As always, please edit my questions to improve them." CreationDate="2020-06-08T06:56:44.043" UserDisplayName="user37" />
  <row Id="26772" PostId="14013" Score="1" Text="I edited it and voted up. The etymology of the English word not very important for the question about Latin, so I only included a link. Long quotes distract, especially now that the question was not about all of it. I added links to a Latin dictionary for the relevant words. The question is about Latin, so a Latin dictionary is important to consult." CreationDate="2020-06-08T07:09:16.400" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35124" PostId="14015" Score="2" Text="A. Be polite but not overly apologetic in doing so." CreationDate="2021-09-15T15:35:46.147" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26773" PostId="14016" Score="3" Text="Need I add that https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cetus , true to the principle that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”, does not hesitate to invent a full plural paradigm ceti, cetorum, cetis, etc. All fake." CreationDate="2020-06-08T12:19:52.600" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26775" PostId="14016" Score="0" Text="It appears that the plural *ceti* is in taxonomical use in some compounds. It's unfortunate but hardly surprising that the fake plurals are in use." CreationDate="2020-06-08T12:53:07.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26776" PostId="14016" Score="3" Text="well, while the OLD entry confirms this, but take a look at some interesting data in the TLL entry http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#24838" CreationDate="2020-06-08T14:41:01.803" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26777" PostId="14016" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Thank you for the information. It appears that ceti, cetorum, cetis, cetibus and acc. pl. cetos can be found here and there in post-classical (mainly Christian) authors." CreationDate="2020-06-08T16:18:57.663" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26778" PostId="14016" Score="1" Text="as to be expected from post-classical authors. But in Classical Latin the paradigm was very defective - you're absolutely correct." CreationDate="2020-06-08T17:35:46.277" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26812" PostId="14016" Score="1" Text="fdb: Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives &quot;cetus, i (m)&quot; with no further qualification. Therefore, does Oxford agree with Wiki?" CreationDate="2020-06-10T10:36:16.507" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26813" PostId="14016" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: There appears to be an unholy alliance between Oxford &amp; Wiki. I recall Russian word, KUT = whale. In Russian, foreign (non-Russian) words do not decline. Perhaps the Romans were not over-bothered about declining foreign words. However unlikely, this might explain the current confusion." CreationDate="2020-06-10T10:42:15.163" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26815" PostId="14016" Score="1" Text="@tony from the OLD: &quot;**cētus, ~os** m., neut. [Gk κῆτος] Forms and gender: In singular usu.  2nd decl. (m.); nom.neut. ~os Man. 1.433, ~us 5.15; acc. ~os Plin. *Nat*. 32.10; nom., acc. pl. ~ē (neut.). A large sea animal (whale, porpoise, or dolphin) or its flesh.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-06-10T14:50:50.267" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26816" PostId="14016" Score="1" Text="@tony not sure why you mentioned Russian кит - which has a regular paradigm in Russian btw (кита, киту, китом etc)" CreationDate="2020-06-10T14:54:30.400" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26817" PostId="14016" Score="1" Text="@Alex B: Thanks: Oxford did define as &quot;whale&quot; etc., I meant that nothing was given about any irregular, or otherwise, declension details--me being too terse. I enjoyed studying Russian at school, recalled some things, foreign words don't decline, which might be relevant, here?" CreationDate="2020-06-10T15:55:48.897" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26818" PostId="14016" Score="2" Text="@tony yes, I see your point now. Loanwords that haven't been fully assimilated do indeed quite often have irregular or incomplete paradigms." CreationDate="2020-06-10T16:19:06.647" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26783" PostId="14018" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Are you wondering what an ancient Roman might have called kiwis if they'd been introduced by an exotic foreign merchant, or what a mediaeval philosopher might have called them, or what a modern-day author might call them?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T02:07:51.327" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26822" PostId="14018" Score="0" Text="Hi Kiwi! I have closed this question because you have not edited your question in response to comments requesting clarification. Please edit the question to answer the question @Draconis asks and explain what you are looking for. The question can be reopened if you edit to clarify it." CreationDate="2020-06-11T13:03:13.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26781" PostId="14019" Score="0" Text="But what would the Romans say?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T00:31:01.457" UserId="7043" />
  <row Id="26785" PostId="14019" Score="2" Text="@Kiwi Can you please edit your question to make your goal more specific? See the comment under your question. Are you only looking for a word that a Roman might use, or something else?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T06:48:22.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26782" PostId="14020" Score="0" Text="I think your answer provides a way of *referring* to a kiwi bird/fruit, but not a name. In this case, &quot;pomum alienum&quot; would be quite ambiguous without context." CreationDate="2020-06-09T01:06:05.480" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26784" PostId="14020" Score="0" Text="I favor the borrowing and latinization the best; it feels to me the most like what might actually happen if a trader or merchant brought kiwi fruit or birds to Rome and verbally told people, &quot;this is kiwi&quot;. Using the  _K_  has the benefit of preserving more of the original spelling but reducing the chances of mistaking it for declensions of other words." CreationDate="2020-06-09T03:16:32.800" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="26793" PostId="14021" Score="0" Text="Somehow, I subconsciously always assumed the -s was a nominative ending, and -ts → -s. But neuter words probably shouldn't get nominative endings. So perhaps the question should be reversed: why do various neuter words with stems on -t- end on -s in the nominative/accusative?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T18:22:55.577" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26789" PostId="14023" Score="7" Text="Please note that the Latin sentence from E. A. Andrews is grammatical gibberish. It is [apparently](https://books.google.de/books?id=CGwSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA247) a form of prose composition exercise where the student is supposed to put all the words in their proper form. I think the proper form is: *Dictum igitur est ab eruditissimis viris neminem esse librum nisi sapientem.* (Unless I fail at this prose composition exercise, which would not be the first time.)" CreationDate="2020-06-09T16:32:07.857" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26802" PostId="14023" Score="3" Text="Regarding the remark about oblique forms: “Oblique forms” is a fancy term for “other cases than the nominative,” and the remark is incorrect: the dative and accusative forms *nemini* and *neminem* were used in classical Latin." CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:40:52.353" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26805" PostId="14023" Score="5" Text="By the way, this is definitely a *great* first post! Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2020-06-09T22:36:30.030" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="26786" PostId="14024" Score="0" Text="So then how did Subject acquire this meaning of Res? In Latin we would say Res iudicii. In English we would say The Subject of judgement. How and why did the semantics shift?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T09:54:38.030" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="26788" PostId="14024" Score="1" Text="@Drwhops Could you perhaps give a few examples how *obiectus* is used in this way, or perhaps point to a dictionary?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T16:20:05.780" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26895" PostId="14024" Score="0" Text="Downvoted. I cannot square this answer with what my dictionaries tell me about the meaning of (either) *obiectus*." CreationDate="2020-06-19T23:57:45.647" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26790" PostId="14027" Score="2" Text="Also, we should keep in mind that [Andrew Fleming West](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Fleming_West), a professional classicist with impeccable credentials, [managed to compose](https://medium.com/in-medias-res/classicists-and-latinists-37fa732548e3) the words “Academia Medicinae **Nova** Eboracensis” for the building of the New York Academy of Medicine, where they still are. People make mistakes, and sometimes they do not get corrected." CreationDate="2020-06-09T17:03:51.963" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26792" PostId="14027" Score="0" Text="That's quite true. To me, it's just as likely this comes from a poor grasp of Latin as from a unique selection of words. Even if all the scientists in the 1919 expedition studied Latin, it's possible that very few of them remembered vocabulary perfectly from their years at school." CreationDate="2020-06-09T18:01:17.513" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="26795" PostId="14027" Score="1" Text="Thanks for posting all this information! Everything you say is obviously true, but my conclusion differs from yours. *Novarupta* is not the same thing as *noviruptio* (although that would have been a fine name), and Novarupta is not a botanical name (nor is there any reason it should be). I think that Joonas' answers are so probable that I'm embarrassed to have not thought of them, &quot;new broken land&quot; or &quot;new broken things&quot; (*prata*?)" CreationDate="2020-06-09T20:37:09.873" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26796" PostId="14027" Score="1" Text="I am not saying that &quot;Novarupta&quot; is the same thing as &quot;noviruptio&quot;. I'm saying it's possible that it was inspired by &quot;nova&quot; and &quot;eruptio&quot;, but &quot;erupta&quot; was chosen as a root (either on purpose or as an improper declension of &quot;eruptio&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;I am also not saying it's a botanical name. Not only is it for a volcano, but it fails at that. My point is that Griggs was a trained taxonomist and that would like influence his approach to naming." CreationDate="2020-06-09T20:51:59.417" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="26798" PostId="14027" Score="1" Text="Or to be brief: I don't think that it was &quot;good Latin&quot; as you stated. I think it's poor Latin that happens to mean something else than what it was intended to mean." CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:01:20.740" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="26836" PostId="14029" Score="0" Text="Interesting. It's fascinating how we've learned quite a bit about Latin pronunciation from studying poetry and working backwards. Just to clarify, when you say the &quot;ancestral state of the Romance languages,&quot; are you referring to Vulgar Latin/late Empire period?" CreationDate="2020-06-12T18:23:10.683" UserId="7047" />
  <row Id="26848" PostId="14029" Score="0" Text="@KaiGarcia: I mean a change of unstressed eV/iV to jV seems to have been part of the common ancestor of Spanish, French, Romanian, etc. I didn't give a period or date range because a) I don't know much about the periodization of Latin sound changes; it seems like a difficult topic to me and b) in theory, multiple varieties with and without this sound change might have coexisted in certain time periods even though only one of those varieties ends up having living descendants." CreationDate="2020-06-13T19:19:56.010" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="26797" PostId="14031" Score="2" Text="Could you provide a bit more context for the latter example? Perhaps how it's used in that sentence?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T20:57:10.047" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="26799" PostId="14031" Score="1" Text="It's a fragmentary text, so there is not a lot of context: *Quis tu homo es? nemo sum homo.* (What man are you? I am no man.)" CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:08:09.033" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26800" PostId="14031" Score="1" Text="Excellent. Is the use of both &quot;nemo&quot; and &quot;homo&quot; for emphasis on &quot;man&quot;, then?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:21:31.230" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="26801" PostId="14031" Score="1" Text="@Lulah Indeed. *Nemo homo* is actually pleonastic, since *nemo* is just a contraction for *ne homo* (no man). So *nemo homo* is just an emphatic way to say *nemo*." CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:30:30.770" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26804" PostId="14031" Score="1" Text="Makes good sense. So would my original thought of &quot;Nemo sum si egomet sum&quot; would work as an unemphatic &quot;I am no one if I am myself&quot;?  &#xA;Did I go too far with &quot;Ego Nihil...&quot;? Or would that also work as an emphatic version?" CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:58:39.257" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="26806" PostId="14031" Score="0" Text="(Should I just break that off into a specific translation question?)" CreationDate="2020-06-09T22:38:12.873" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="26811" PostId="14031" Score="1" Text="@Lulah I think that *nemo sum si egomet sum* makes about as much sense as such an oracular saying can." CreationDate="2020-06-10T06:21:39.523" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26803" PostId="14032" Score="0" Text="This reminds me of how Gaul was *divisa in partes tres*. A famously attested idiom." CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:56:53.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26808" PostId="14032" Score="0" Text="Quite different from the meaning of *in-* in *indivisus*.  :)" CreationDate="2020-06-09T23:22:26.107" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26809" PostId="14034" Score="1" Text="I haven't been able to read Hans Helander's *On Neologisms in Neo-Latin* at this time, but it's something I'm hoping to draw from as well as Helge Niska's *Explorations in translational creativity: Strategies for interpreting neologisms*" CreationDate="2020-06-10T00:47:36.923" UserId="7046" />
  <row Id="44644" PostId="14035" Score="0" Text="I was reading a book on botanical Latin years ago, and, if I remember aright, it said the rule used by botanical authorities was to use *i* when connecting Latin roots, and *o* when connecticting Greek roots. FWIW." CreationDate="2023-09-01T00:50:37.530" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26826" PostId="14037" Score="0" Text="Why would scholars advocate &quot;aquam Bibendum est&quot;? A neuter, impersonal gerundive with a feminine, accusative, direct-object; to be translated as &quot;one must drink the water&quot;; which negates, completely, the passive nature of the gerundive. Therefore, why deploy a gerundive in such circumstances? What can this be but a grammatical violation? Why do you appear to be a proponent of this?" CreationDate="2020-06-12T08:48:29.013" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26840" PostId="14037" Score="1" Text="@tony It is not the case that some scholars theoretically &quot;advocate&quot; for the existence of examples like _aquam bibendum est_. These examples are attested, which has been taken by some scholars as evidence for considering the -nd- form as a gerund. I've always taken it for granted that in _nunc est bibendum_ the -nd- form is gerundive. However, my current view is influenced by Haspelmath (1987), who considers the gerund as a sort of an impersonal gerundive. In his view, gerund and gerundive represent the same category:  http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/24318" CreationDate="2020-06-12T20:04:46.167" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26843" PostId="14037" Score="0" Text="Thank you.  I agree that by using &quot;aquam&quot; the gerundive is nullified. But this transmutes the g'dive into a gerund?!? Translating as &quot;the drinking (verbal noun) is the water&quot;. Would that not put &quot;aqua&quot; back into the nominative? Though downloaded, Haspelmath's paper won't display, on screen. It must require a ridiculously high fee. Intriguing &amp; baffling is &quot;gerund as a sort of impersonal gerundive&quot;. If this theory is so apposite why has it not filtered-down onto the net/ the literature, in the intervening 33-years?" CreationDate="2020-06-13T10:46:41.733" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26844" PostId="14037" Score="0" Text="May I be a nuisance, please, and ask yourself for one example of a gerund functioning as an impersonal gerundive? Thank you. Returning to your Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10809/1982, did my answer not &quot;prove&quot; that &quot;Bibendum&quot; was a gerundive?" CreationDate="2020-06-13T10:50:08.267" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26852" PostId="14037" Score="0" Text="Haspelmath's paper can be freely downloaded from the link above. On page 12 you'll see his claim (&quot;we can call the gerund the impersonal form of the gerundive&quot;) and his argumentation for this claim. The following link contains Pinkster's (2015) summary of some relevant bibliography on the debate: https://books.google.es/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA70&amp;dq=%22excursus:+the+relationship+between+the+gerund+and+the+gerundive%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5naewgoDqAhVHCxoKHTWfARQQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22excursus%3A%20the%20relationship%20between%20the%20gerund%20and%20the%20gerundive%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2020-06-14T00:13:11.403" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26900" PostId="14037" Score="0" Text="Finally located Haspelmath's paper, though it is the typewriter-written draft that would have been submitted to the publisher. The printed-out published-version eludes me. A supplementary Q., please? On p.12; Ex. 41:  &quot;superstitione tollenda religio non tollitur&quot; = &quot;by abolishing superstition religion is not abolished&quot;. Is &quot;superstitione tollenda&quot; an Ablative Absolute? How would a gerundival AA be translated, literally--&quot;with superstition it-must-have-been-abolished&quot;? Given the passive nature of both gerundives and AAs, why can't the one be melded into the other?" CreationDate="2020-06-21T10:16:00.697" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26901" PostId="14037" Score="0" Text="Hence, or otherwise, why would Vester say: &quot;Gerundives do not enter into true AAs.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-06-21T10:17:13.803" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26912" PostId="14037" Score="0" Text="@tony I surmise that Vester's claim that Gerundives do not enter into &quot;true&quot; Ablative Absolutes is due to the fact that the &quot;absoluteness&quot; criterion does not hold in AAs with gerundives, where the agent of the action involved in the gerundive is necessarily **dependent** on the agent of the main clause. In contrast, note that in (true) Ablative Absolutes such a dependency is not required: e.g., _Urbe capta ab hostibus, cives fugerunt_ (NB: in this example the agent encoded by the by-phrase of the AA does not coincide with the agent of the predicate of the main clause)." CreationDate="2020-06-22T03:39:34.887" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26832" PostId="14038" Score="0" Text="What exactly is meant by a &quot;non-verbal context&quot; in &quot;...but also because a &quot;dative-of-agent&quot; (nobis) is not possible in this non-verbal context...&quot;? Your correction of Joonas's example: &quot;urbs a nobis capta …&quot; using perfect participle passive, &quot;capta&quot; = &quot;having been captured&quot;. Joonas is attempting to say &quot;...which we were supposed to capture...&quot;--it is still to be done--hence, &quot;capienda&quot;. What is happening here? I often find your material to be something of a trial of understanding; nevertheless, I enjoy the mental gymnastics." CreationDate="2020-06-12T12:16:03.083" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26841" PostId="14038" Score="1" Text="@tony So-called &quot;datives-of-agent&quot; cannot be found in examples where no verb is involved. Note that in Latin grammars &quot;datives of agent&quot; always appear with verbs (typically, the verb _esse_. That's why the so-called &quot;dative of agent&quot; can basically be regarded as an extension of a &quot;dative of possession&quot;. But this is a story for a different question...). Furthermore, note that _capienda_ in Joonas's example cannot be understood as an attribute (see Pinkster's point above on the restricted class of gerundives used as attributes) nor as a praedicativum (see Vester's point above)." CreationDate="2020-06-13T00:19:29.440" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26867" PostId="14038" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I understand Pinkster's &quot;personal-evaluation&quot; test. Sadly, it is still not clear why a change-of-tense was invoked in correcting from &quot;capienda&quot; to &quot;capta&quot;, in Joonas's example. Vester (gerundives do not enter into &quot;true&quot; ablative absolutes [AAs]); you once said that one person's AA  is not another's. A &quot;true&quot; AA is &quot;in the eye of the beholder&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-06-16T09:15:38.993" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26876" PostId="14038" Score="2" Text="@tony Joonas's example _Urbs **capienda** militiam novam paraverat_ sounds odd. Please note that this oddness accords well with (or at least is expected given) Pinkster's (2015) well-known empirical observations above, which I agree with you can be regarded as a (correct) &quot;statement&quot; rather than a (true/deep) &quot;explanation&quot; of facts. So your question is indeed very appropriate: why is _urbs **capta** militiam novam paraverat_ fully well-formed, whereas _urbs **capienda** militiam novam paraverat_ is not? Please feel free to raise/post your very interesting question as an independent one." CreationDate="2020-06-16T18:34:07.957" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26845" PostId="14043" Score="1" Text="Written Latin is extant; spoken Latin isn't. :)" CreationDate="2020-06-13T14:40:55.427" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26846" PostId="14043" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour, My question is indeed &quot;problematic&quot;. It's somewhat blurred and open in nature. One can take it as a question relevant to the historic times; i.e accounts of Romans writing about this subject of spoken language issues (like &quot;deterioration&quot;). Another one, might say, having present-times in mind, that we just have to start real-speaking to find that out. However, I venture to say here that &quot;imposing&quot;/&quot;dictating&quot; a system from above (such by translating living scenes - which is the context of the Q), might have it's influence: bi-directional living-process." CreationDate="2020-06-13T15:14:20.253" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26847" PostId="14043" Score="0" Text="My theory, by the way, is  that we indeed could hear sentence like Ovid's in spoken language - but up to a certain time in history... doubtly in Ovid's age.  that's another aspect of that interests me, namely language evolution." CreationDate="2020-06-13T15:20:37.470" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35853" PostId="14043" Score="0" Text="Spoken Latin is, of course, extant, but that's not the point here. We obviously don't have a corpus of, say, recorded every-day-life Latin from the first centuries (on either side). Comedy is typically, and I suppose for good reason, considered a decent source for close-to-real-life spoken Latin." CreationDate="2021-01-31T14:36:39.647" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="35854" PostId="14043" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus Do you mean &quot;extinct&quot;? &quot;Extant&quot; seems like the opposite of what you're trying to say." CreationDate="2021-11-17T11:54:47.940" UserId="9062" />
  <row Id="26828" PostId="14044" Score="0" Text="&quot;545. A temporal clause with cum (when) and some past tense of the _indicative_ dates or defines the time at which the action of the main verb occurred.&quot; http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/cum-clauses -- So vidit is fine." CreationDate="2020-06-12T10:26:06.857" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26829" PostId="14044" Score="0" Text="&quot;540. The Causal particles quod and quia take the indicative, when the reason is given on the authority of the writer or speaker; the _subjunctive,_ when the reason is given on the authority of another.&quot; http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/causal-clauses -- So I'd expect potuerit." CreationDate="2020-06-12T10:26:32.750" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26833" PostId="14044" Score="2" Text="@JasperMay I believe this is a textbook example for a *cum* that is not purely temporal. The seeing *prompted* the saying; thus the subjunctive. You are right that the *quod* clause must be in the subjunctive here. Even if it took the indicative mood in direct speech, it would have to be rendered in the subjunctive in indirect speech. I believe it should be the imperfect subjunctive though." CreationDate="2020-06-12T14:47:22.123" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26834" PostId="14044" Score="0" Text="To be fair, I didn't quite understand the distinction made in note 3 on 546. But it doesn't seem that one action _prompting_ another has anything to do with the second needing to be subjunctive. The question &quot;Quid dīxit Hecuba cum marītum senem arma capere vīdit?&quot; comes from Oerberg's Exercitia Latina II, Ch. 37, Ex. 7, Nr. 13. 'Vīdit' is Oerberg's choice, and I don't want to disagree with him without a good reason." CreationDate="2020-06-12T15:57:44.140" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26835" PostId="14044" Score="0" Text="You are right about posset. The perfect 'Dixit' is here, as it is 'ordinarily,' a secondary tense, and the dependent verb denotes an incomplete action, which means it must be in the imperfect, as you said. http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/sequence-tenses (484.2.b)." CreationDate="2020-06-12T16:19:10.500" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26837" PostId="14044" Score="2" Text="@JasperMay Hard to argue with Ørberg, but it does not strictly describe the *time*, much rather the *circumstances* of Hecuba's utterance, right? Anyway, this is rather ancillary to the question at hand, maybe a matter for a new question." CreationDate="2020-06-12T18:48:33.677" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26838" PostId="14044" Score="0" Text="That's the distinction I didn't quite understand. I can interpret all the examples from 545 and 546 as describing both the time and the circumstances. But I agree it's better to start a new question about it." CreationDate="2020-06-12T19:32:15.510" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26830" PostId="14045" Score="1" Text="Congratulations for hitting a thousand points!" CreationDate="2020-06-12T11:22:18.120" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26831" PostId="14045" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, Gratias tibi ago :)" CreationDate="2020-06-12T11:28:55.130" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26851" PostId="14048" Score="0" Text="I guess the macrons abbreviate a following “m”." CreationDate="2020-06-13T23:18:12.730" UserId="7066" />
  <row Id="26853" PostId="14048" Score="3" Text="By the way, welcome to the site! This is a lovely illustration." CreationDate="2020-06-14T00:52:55.743" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26855" PostId="14048" Score="0" Text="Thank you. The illustration is from Lorenz Fries’s 1525 “Admiral’s Map”. Just a friendly family picnic and a gigantic, incredibly buff opossum…&#xA;&#xA;I find on the verso a description normally credited to Simon Grynaeus in 1532: &quot;Christophorus natione Italicus, patria Genuensis, gente Columba…&quot; I’m a little mystified by “gente Columba”." CreationDate="2020-06-14T02:44:05.237" UserId="7066" />
  <row Id="26857" PostId="14048" Score="1" Text="A 'gens' is &quot;a family consisting of individuals who shared the same nomen and who claimed descent from a common ancestor&quot; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gens. I looked up the quote and apparently there is a variation with 'gente Columbus,' which makes more sense in context (https://books.google.nl/books?id=HD-nO-wmOcAC&amp;pg=PA20). So: &quot;Christopher, by nation Italian, by fatherland Genovese, by family 'Columban,' i.e. of the Columbus family." CreationDate="2020-06-14T07:52:30.060" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26863" PostId="14048" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I believe I saw Marsupial Blackletter Difficulty open for Nirvana back in 93. Thought they had promise." CreationDate="2020-06-15T19:24:28.603" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26864" PostId="14048" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: &quot;Open for&quot;? As in, a concert hall that opens for a band? Or is this about the well known band Marsupial Blackletter Difficulty." CreationDate="2020-06-15T22:15:54.947" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26865" PostId="14048" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus A band opening for another, i.e., playing before them ;-)" CreationDate="2020-06-15T22:34:03.377" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26866" PostId="14048" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Ahh, in that sense. You may very well be right, although I think they were touring Antarctica around that time." CreationDate="2020-06-15T23:14:13.320" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26854" PostId="14050" Score="1" Text="Thank you kindly for the detailed response and corrections. I suspected “reservaculum”, but did not find it in dictionaries; glad to have it confirmed." CreationDate="2020-06-14T02:25:47.060" UserId="7066" />
  <row Id="26859" PostId="14050" Score="1" Text="Almost got a +1 sola &quot;praesumably&quot;" CreationDate="2020-06-15T12:27:58.803" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="26860" PostId="14051" Score="0" Text="The idiotic machine has apparently &quot;corrected&quot; (grati)tude to &quot;tune&quot;." CreationDate="2020-06-15T13:20:09.733" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="26880" PostId="14055" Score="0" Text="Interesting.  However, if you had the answer all by yourself, why ask the question?" CreationDate="2020-06-18T16:28:25.490" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26891" PostId="14055" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I didn't know the answer at the time I asked the question, and no one else posted an answer. [Answering one's own questions is encouraged](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/17467/257345) on StackExchange." CreationDate="2020-06-18T20:29:36.533" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="26893" PostId="14055" Score="0" Text="Cool. Thanks, I hadn't known that!" CreationDate="2020-06-19T03:04:24.757" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26881" PostId="14058" Score="0" Text="Thank you. The Latin word order is confusing for me. How can I learn it?" CreationDate="2020-06-18T16:43:19.387" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="26884" PostId="14058" Score="0" Text="Note that *forte* does not really mean “by chance” here. *Nisi forte/vero* (+ indicative) is a standing expression indicating an exception which the author may grant but thinks is improbable or does at least not detract from his original claim. It can be translated as “unless perhaps” or “unless I suppose” or “unless of course” etc. Famous Cicero quote: *Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit.* – For almost nobody dances sober, unless perhaps he is insane." CreationDate="2020-06-18T19:03:00.880" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26887" PostId="14058" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. I grant that it may be a weakened idea of 'chance'; but it would still be very common to use 'by chance' (or 'perchance') in English in such cases, where it's more like a simple 'perhaps.' (In fact, the 'hap' of 'perhaps' also means 'luck' or 'chance' so that, etymologically speaking, 'perhaps' also means 'by chance.')" CreationDate="2020-06-18T19:32:57.567" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26889" PostId="14058" Score="0" Text="@cnread I suppose it is quite close, I just wanted to point out that *nisi forte* is a common collocation and one need not interpret it as the autor talking about any actual “chance.”" CreationDate="2020-06-18T20:01:10.713" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26882" PostId="14059" Score="0" Text="*&quot;The third declension i-stem ablative singular, which is -ī for neuters and -e for non-neuters...&quot;* I think this is a mistake: a few neuter words may have an ablative on -i, like *mari*, but most do not, e.g. *capite, corde*. The distinction is rather between nouns (*capite*) and adjectives (*facili*)." CreationDate="2020-06-18T18:56:12.897" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26883" PostId="14059" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: *corde* and *capite* are not i-stem nouns." CreationDate="2020-06-18T18:59:02.563" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="26886" PostId="14059" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides: Oh, I see. But then I still don't get it: *turri facili* has two non-neuter words with i-stems in the ablative, but they still have the ending *-i*? *Turre* is possible, but I'm used to seeing *turri*. And *facile* isn't possible." CreationDate="2020-06-18T19:06:07.673" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26888" PostId="14059" Score="0" Text="You're right; I guess the distinction is that for i-stems, the neuter ending is never _-e_, while for non-neuter nouns _-e_ is possible and frequent." CreationDate="2020-06-18T19:53:20.573" UserId="7048" />
  <row Id="26890" PostId="14059" Score="0" Text="@PizgenalFilegav: Are you talking about ablative endings still? And does this apply to substantives, adjectives, or both?" CreationDate="2020-06-18T20:29:00.800" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26892" PostId="14059" Score="0" Text="I'm talking about the difference in substantive ablative singular endings due to gender (as the _-e_/_-ī_ distinction in adjectives seems to be unrelated to gender)." CreationDate="2020-06-18T20:31:47.303" UserId="7048" />
  <row Id="26898" PostId="14061" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure which translation would be most natural. But I would call your dative a dativus ethicus, the dative &quot;of the person concerned&quot;, rather than possessive (which I would rather expect with *sum*)." CreationDate="2020-06-21T02:08:02.927" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26903" PostId="14061" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, thanks for your input. Not sure I understand what do you mean by &quot;expecting with *sum*&quot;. And, if that's indeed not a possessive dative, should we expect to include *meos* also?" CreationDate="2020-06-21T16:10:14.067" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26904" PostId="14061" Score="1" Text="Oh, what I meant is this: the dativus possessivus normally occurs with a form of *sum*, e.g., *mihi multa pecunia est*. // I don't know whether adding *meos* to your *mihi* examples would make them better or worse, but I should think the latter; in modern languages, adding the possessive pronoun would be unidiomatic, as in Dutch or German or French. You would say, in French, *il me lave **les** pieds*, not *\*il me lave **mes** pieds*. Similarly, in Dutch, you would say *iemand in de ogen kijken*, whereas *\*iemand in zijn ogen kijken* would be less idiomatic." CreationDate="2020-06-21T16:36:26.113" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26910" PostId="14061" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus In Latin grammars the dative in _Nescio quid incidit **mihi** in oculos_ is often referred to as a &quot;**sympathetic** dative&quot; (e.g., https://books.google.es/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA582&amp;dq=%22the+so-called+sympathetic+dative%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjd5Iy92pPqAhXBoXEKHaZvBg4Q6wEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22the%20so-called%20sympathetic%20dative%22&amp;f=false ). In these cases there is a relationship of **inalienability** between a body part (e.g., _oculos_) and the dative. NB: in Romance linguistics it is true that this dative is often (mis?)classified as a &quot;possessive dative&quot;." CreationDate="2020-06-21T20:37:27.227" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26911" PostId="14061" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Noted. I suppose some (sub)classifications of the Latin cases are somewhat open to interpretation, and possibly less useful..." CreationDate="2020-06-22T00:15:02.297" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26899" PostId="14062" Score="1" Text="What meaning of &quot;cash&quot; are you going for here? &quot;Physical objects representing currency&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-06-21T03:19:56.157" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26905" PostId="14062" Score="0" Text="Yes, pretty much any kind of physical representation of currency. I guess it's a little different for the Romans because their currency actually had intrinsic value." CreationDate="2020-06-21T16:50:46.743" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="27015" PostId="14062" Score="1" Text="Combining some of the ideas in the answers below, you could possibly try the effect of *civitas post nummum*." CreationDate="2020-06-29T10:42:07.313" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="26902" PostId="14064" Score="3" Text="Spurious and etymological diphthongs have completely merged in pronunciation in the Classical period. ει is pronounced like a diphthong before vowels and a monophthong elsewhere, regardless of its origin. During the fifth century υι is pronounced like a monophthong except in the feminine ending -υια, which is the model for the later restoration of the diphthong elsewhere. If you're particularly invested in pronunciation, you'll want to check out W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Graeca* at some point." CreationDate="2020-06-21T13:53:36.110" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="26906" PostId="14064" Score="0" Text="Ah, ok. Thanks! So, if I want to recitate *ει* as diphtong it is need to see its environment." CreationDate="2020-06-21T19:22:19.677" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="26932" PostId="14066" Score="0" Text="I like your suggestion of *communio* for community. I'd say it's much better than *civitas*." CreationDate="2020-06-24T04:13:36.090" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26933" PostId="14066" Score="1" Text="I recommend changing *gratia* to the plural if you want it to mean gratitude rather than, say, favoritism. *Misericordia, Amor, Gratiae, Communio*." CreationDate="2020-06-24T04:15:23.847" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26944" PostId="14066" Score="0" Text="I totally agree, I'll change that." CreationDate="2020-06-24T19:26:59.880" UserId="4947" />
  <row Id="26913" PostId="14069" Score="2" Text="Awesome, thanks! I'm actually learning Modern Greek right now (because that's all that Duolingo offers). But my intent is to learn Ancient so I will get that keyboard." CreationDate="2020-06-22T12:15:52.420" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="26920" PostId="14070" Score="0" Text="Notice also the dative *compositioni* after *in*. This text doesn't seem to adhere to standard Latin grammar? Perhaps this *sunt* is aequally unusual." CreationDate="2020-06-22T22:40:21.780" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26922" PostId="14072" Score="2" Text="Thanks Owen that sounds very useful as well." CreationDate="2020-06-22T22:57:37.523" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="26939" PostId="14072" Score="0" Text="I find it really useful. I mainly installed it to be able to type emoji easily (Windows 10 only supported emoji on UK English, not UK English Extended at the time; not sure if it's still the case). But it's easy to customise, so I can easily Cyrillic now as well" CreationDate="2020-06-24T11:43:59.223" UserId="7084" />
  <row Id="26915" PostId="14073" Score="0" Text="FYI: Latin, like any other language, was never static, and changes affected its sound system too. What kind of Latin are you interested in?" CreationDate="2020-06-22T20:08:18.217" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26916" PostId="14073" Score="0" Text="As in post teg, i.e. Classical Latin." CreationDate="2020-06-22T20:14:58.903" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="26921" PostId="14073" Score="0" Text="Additionally, I have met another system: [ a(ː) e(ː) o(ː) i(ː) u(ː) ] in place of the [ a(ː) ɛ(ː) ɔ(ː) i(ː) u(ː) ]. So there are mentioned more such examples as in this topic." CreationDate="2020-06-22T22:54:05.133" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="26947" PostId="14074" Score="0" Text="ARCADIUS Gramm. De accentibus [Sp.] {2116.001} Page 206 line 10&#xA;  Πᾶν δὲ μονοσύλλαβον ἐπίῤῥημα ὀξύνεται· ἄψ μάψ, &#xA;δάξ (παρὰ τὸ δήκω, ὅπερ καὶ ὀδάξ λέγεται) λάξ πύξ    (10)&#xA;μίξ καὶ ἀπρίξ, χθές δίς τρίς, πρίν, μύ (τὸ" CreationDate="2020-06-24T22:39:46.313" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26950" PostId="14074" Score="1" Text="Searching for &quot;πύξ, λάξ, δάξ&quot; I found a site which apparently preserves a former edit of Wikipedia, in which πύξ is connected to πυγμή, λάξ to λάκτισμα, and δάξ to δαγκωματια (https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/147686) - citation missing, and I can't find the last word. Also, it would make sense having a word meaning 'bite' in a text about fishing." CreationDate="2020-06-25T15:55:36.360" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26952" PostId="14074" Score="1" Text="@Jasper  Basically... but  δαγκωματιά is aggressively modern Greek, whereas   you'd probably be looking for δῆγμα." CreationDate="2020-06-25T16:11:57.577" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="26954" PostId="14074" Score="0" Text="fyi: I hope it's clear that I copied and pasted an example containing δάξ from TLG. I didn't mean to offer a possible source of the phrase." CreationDate="2020-06-25T16:21:38.690" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26955" PostId="14074" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos Ok thanks. I could only find that page, and I have minimal ancient or modern Greek." CreationDate="2020-06-25T18:42:05.010" UserId="2602" />
  <row Id="26960" PostId="14074" Score="0" Text="Googling δάξ, Iliad XXIV 738 &amp; Odyss I 381 cameup; but both read ὀδάξ." CreationDate="2020-06-26T02:37:18.643" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="26918" PostId="14075" Score="0" Text="What you describe for sentence 2 is not unimaginable...he is taking a bit of a hit at the Pythagoreans. I will add the sentence in context to my original post, perhaps that could give more leads." CreationDate="2020-06-22T22:12:26.850" UserId="7075" />
  <row Id="26917" PostId="14076" Score="0" Text="Fabulous explanation, thank you! I figured that the *alia* were going through a list, as you describe, but was unsure how it connected all together with unde, which most dictionaries seem to give as merely &quot;whence&quot; or &quot;from where&quot;. By the way, did you find the text online on the Indiana.edu site, or do you have an actual copy??" CreationDate="2020-06-22T22:09:32.590" UserId="7075" />
  <row Id="26919" PostId="14076" Score="0" Text="I see it is indeed the Indiana.edu, which you graciously added as a source to the original post!" CreationDate="2020-06-22T22:14:54.120" UserId="7075" />
  <row Id="26925" PostId="14078" Score="3" Text="Song of Solomon 2:5 contains this exact phrase in the original Hebrew (sick of/from love). Vulgate translates this as *amore langueo*.(verbal form of the expression of course)" CreationDate="2020-06-23T16:14:05.927" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26929" PostId="14078" Score="2" Text="@d_e interesting comment! So the adjectival counterpart of _amore langueo_ would be _amore languidus_ (cf. Engl. 'lovesick'). For subtle differences between stative verbs like _languere_ and stative adjectives like _languidus_, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8848/aret-aridus-est" CreationDate="2020-06-23T19:25:03.013" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26931" PostId="14078" Score="0" Text="@d_e Turn that into an answer please!" CreationDate="2020-06-24T03:47:06.313" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26934" PostId="14078" Score="0" Text="@Figulus,Thanks, I might turn that comment into answer, however, I preferred the comment for a reason: I'm not confident in this as an answer. Actually, the verb *langueo* is new to me. Also I'm not sure Vulgate translates from the original - so this might be not so accurate. And it seems the user searched for noun, and for now I just gave verb form. So anyone can feel free to transform my comment to an answer. I might do so myself later on." CreationDate="2020-06-24T06:03:13.140" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39183" PostId="14079" Score="1" Text="How can both the dative, &quot;mihi&quot;, (1) and accusative, &quot;me&quot;, (2) be correct? Mitomino seems to think that the dative is the correct one. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2022-08-12T08:21:19.770" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39193" PostId="14079" Score="0" Text="@tony when a verb has a prefex which is a preposition, you can often make that virtual preposition take an object by using a dative. Thus *inspice mihi* means virtually the same thing as *inspice in me*. A lot could be said about this, too much for a comment. I should expand my answer and add a reference. But not tonight; it's too late." CreationDate="2022-08-13T03:36:17.893" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39195" PostId="14079" Score="1" Text="Interesting: the dative becomes a direct object. In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/18612/1982, (in comments) the dative, &quot;mihi&quot;, becoming an indirect object after &quot;irrideo&quot;; the ridicule directed, by prefix, &quot;ir&quot;, to me/ to someone. Seb pointed out that &quot;irrideo&quot; can also select accusative, &quot;me&quot;, as well (confirmed by Lewis &amp; Short). It could get confusing." CreationDate="2022-08-13T09:24:38.730" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39236" PostId="14079" Score="0" Text="@tony I promised you a reference. Here it is: Woodcock #58(1)(c) and #62. The rules he lays out are much more complicated than I remember them, but I don't think what I wrote above is *wrong*, I just left out a bunch of complications. A lot more could be said about it, but it is something of a digression from the OP's question, so I'll wait and maybe ask a question (and answer it) later." CreationDate="2022-08-20T03:14:40.377" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26936" PostId="14081" Score="2" Text="First impression: For reciprocal actions, one typically uses inter se (or, in your case, inter nos). Using utri nostrum for this seems very odd, though perhaps you've come across a similar expression somewhere." CreationDate="2020-06-24T08:45:33.457" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26938" PostId="14081" Score="1" Text="@cnread: What about &quot;alter-alterum&quot; = &quot;each other&quot;; though a case-ending change may be required?" CreationDate="2020-06-24T11:35:33.837" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26945" PostId="14083" Score="0" Text="Also, the *morbus venereus* idea is certainly an allusion to Vitruvius' [comments](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vitruvius2.html#8.12) on the fountain [Salmacis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmacis_(fountain)), and its purported effects were nothing we would call lovesickness, or for that matter a venereal disease, in English." CreationDate="2020-06-24T22:12:29.663" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26940" PostId="14084" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much !" CreationDate="2020-06-24T16:16:19.207" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="33321" PostId="14087" Score="2" Text="There is now trainer for declension of the nouns:  https://danelh.github.io/nouns/" CreationDate="2021-05-22T11:55:21.157" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26953" PostId="14088" Score="0" Text="Frivolous? Copidokinesis, Sphagidokinesis, Smilokinesis...  Perhaps similar to πετροβολεῖν,  σφαγιδοβολεῖν ... but stones are so much cheaper than knives..." CreationDate="2020-06-25T16:18:51.247" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="26966" PostId="14088" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos what would σφαγιδοβολεῖν be? I assume you're not throwing abattoirs (σφαγεία) around, but that's the only connection that comes to mind as a (modern) Greek  speaker." CreationDate="2020-06-26T16:37:16.123" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="26968" PostId="14088" Score="0" Text="@terdon Σφαγιδές are apparently knives used for ritual sacrifices, though I'm not sure they'd be thrown. I associate the word more with blood-sacrifice than with combat." CreationDate="2020-06-26T16:47:28.133" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26969" PostId="14088" Score="0" Text="Σφαγίς is the sacrificial knife, but your could opt for κοπίς. You must have noted since school how treacherous a guide modern Greek can be to classical Greek... must recall the snickers at unintentionally funny passages..." CreationDate="2020-06-26T16:48:10.743" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="26972" PostId="14088" Score="0" Text="OK, φάσγανον, from the same root, of linear B attestation, might be superior. Φασγανοβόλος sounds as magnificently weird as it should... When it comes to combat, I'm not sure Greeks fought that way... You throw spears, not knives... Think of the suitors' massacre in the Odyssey." CreationDate="2020-06-26T17:34:15.423" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="26973" PostId="14088" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos It's entirely possible there's no ancient word for a thrown knife, but is there perhaps a modern word for it, whose ancient ancestor we could use? (A bit like how there's no ancient word for electricity, but the root _electro-_ has taken on that meaning because of how it was used centuries later.)" CreationDate="2020-06-26T17:38:33.177" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26974" PostId="14088" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos ah, thank you. _Σφαγίς_ makes sense. I wasn't expecting an explanation that would work in modern Greek, I was only hobbled by my ignorance of Ancient Greek :)." CreationDate="2020-06-26T17:42:06.183" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="26949" PostId="14090" Score="2" Text="I like your non-literal approach here and your choice of passages from the Vulgate to use as a model. If you use the infinitive portare, though, note that the nominative alter needs to be changed to accusative alterum, because it's the subject of the infinitive." CreationDate="2020-06-25T08:23:10.043" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="26956" PostId="14090" Score="1" Text="… or *alteram* if both friends are female." CreationDate="2020-06-25T22:08:14.860" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27036" PostId="14090" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thanks! I'll fix it." CreationDate="2020-06-30T15:30:39.210" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="26962" PostId="14091" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Emily! If you register your account, you will be able to accept an answer, vote up the questions and answers you like, and have more freedom on the site with the privileges this nice question has earned you. (Reputation points effect what you can do.) If you created a new account and registered it (as it seems), you can [merge your accounts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts)." CreationDate="2020-06-26T07:22:26.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26961" PostId="14092" Score="0" Text="Thank you, that makes sense. I thought it might have some meaning related to &quot;tome&quot; but couldn't find any confirmation." CreationDate="2020-06-26T04:21:45.830" UserId="7098" />
  <row Id="26957" PostId="14093" Score="1" Text="Thanks -- I actually did find these; Oppian *Halieutica* is the poem on fishing I referred to in the OP, which contains the word ὀδάξ but not the phrase πύξ, λάξ, δάξ." CreationDate="2020-06-25T23:26:13.873" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26958" PostId="14093" Score="1" Text="The thing is that the actual line in Oppian's Halieutica is &quot;αὐτὰρ ὀδὰξ μὲν ἔρεισεν, ὁ δ᾿ ἔσπασεν ἄϊδος ἔξω&quot; (Loeb ed.) https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL219/1928/volume.xml" CreationDate="2020-06-25T23:27:08.867" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="26965" PostId="14096" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, why &quot;tibi&quot; instead of &quot;tuus&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-06-26T16:35:21.340" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26981" PostId="14096" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Since the verb *servire* is used with a dative, it makes sense to me to use the same case for the beneficiary of the corresponding noun. Perhaps I'm mislead by other languages, but I'd read a genitive or a possessive pronoun as ownership and a dative more as a favour. Tony, could you elaborate on this choice in your answer?" CreationDate="2020-06-26T18:57:59.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26987" PostId="14096" Score="0" Text="@brianpck &amp; Joonas: The use of &quot;tibi&quot; seemed to be more personal (a servant to you) without being obsequious. I was unsure about the grammatical acceptability of this, and was anticipating a challenge. As for &quot;servus&quot; the thinking was that, in Rome, the servants and the slaves might have been one-and-the-same species, hence the Oxford definition. As you have indicated, &quot;servus&quot; would have evolved, with time. I liked the work you did (2016) in finding examples (Vulgate)  of sentences which included pairs of perfect subjunctives. Great!" CreationDate="2020-06-27T08:51:30.673" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26988" PostId="14096" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Please see comment to brianpck, above." CreationDate="2020-06-27T08:52:53.813" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26991" PostId="14096" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I forgot to reference the Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/1982 which included the Vulgate examples." CreationDate="2020-06-27T11:23:17.820" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26963" PostId="14097" Score="0" Text="It is not strange to adverb to preceding a pronoun: it's just American English way. And this situation is rule for many other languages in such type of the letter-end cliché." CreationDate="2020-06-26T15:05:13.287" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="26964" PostId="14097" Score="1" Text="Hmm, can you give me some examples? From my (limited) knowledge of letter-writing in other European languages, I can't think of an example of &quot;adverb + yours.&quot; Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment: if your point is that it's only common in English, then that's what I was intending to say!" CreationDate="2020-06-26T16:33:25.267" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26967" PostId="14097" Score="0" Text="@Josh: (Oxford); servus, i (m) = a slave; as an adjective: servus-a-um--having the status of a slave, servile. Is this what you want?" CreationDate="2020-06-26T16:39:59.770" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="26971" PostId="14097" Score="2" Text="@tony Again, &quot;servus&quot; has a vastly different meaning in a Christian context. See, for instance, Romans 1:1, or the Pope's title: &quot;servus servorum Dei&quot;" CreationDate="2020-06-26T16:52:10.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="26975" PostId="14097" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Ok. Look at here: British English - yours sincerely (pronoun+adverb), but American English (mostly) - sincerely yours (adverb+pronoun); Russian - iskrenne vash (adverb+pronoun); French - as cliché: bien à vous (dual treatment by me: or ajective+preposition 'to'+pronoun, so literally 'good for you', or adverb+(preposition-pronoun compound),  so literally 'pleasantly yours'), as speech example: sincèrement à vous/vôtre - 'sincerely yours' (adverb+(preposition-pronoun compound)/adverb+pronoun)." CreationDate="2020-06-26T17:48:08.793" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="26979" PostId="14097" Score="0" Text="But it seems to be more useful for you. There was example similar to question theme: 'sincèrement vôtre en Jésus-Christ' in Trench. So you can use calque from French expression: 'sincērē vostrī(masc.)/vostrae(fem.) in Jesus Christus'." CreationDate="2020-06-26T17:57:26.307" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="26980" PostId="14097" Score="0" Text="It was answer to the topic-starter (@Josh)" CreationDate="2020-06-26T18:00:42.623" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27027" PostId="14097" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much. I didn't even think of rephrasing it as being, &quot;your servant in Christ&quot;. Now I'll place more attention on the semantics during translation." CreationDate="2020-06-30T05:19:53.667" UserId="7088" />
  <row Id="30697" PostId="14101" Score="0" Text="The majority of English words from Greek that have the φ in them transliterate the letter with &quot;ph&quot; and not &quot;f,&quot; but otherwise this is a good answer." CreationDate="2021-02-08T05:21:48.503" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="26982" PostId="14102" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the educating answer! I have it now. yet the *annon* still seems to me out of place. wouldn't *an* (without the non), be better as the meaning of &quot;or rather&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-06-26T19:43:04.433" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26983" PostId="14102" Score="2" Text="I'm guessing *experiri* here has the meaning of &quot;experience, find&quot;, i.e. the implacable person will find God too to be implacable." CreationDate="2020-06-26T20:01:42.027" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="26984" PostId="14102" Score="0" Text="@TKR Excellent point, now that you point it out it seems the better interpretation to me as well." CreationDate="2020-06-26T20:17:12.750" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="26985" PostId="14102" Score="0" Text="According to [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=an1) , in C: &quot;Sometimes the opinion of the speaker or the probability inclines to the second interrogative clause (cf. infra, II. E.). and this is made emphatic, as a corrective of the former, or rather, or on the contrary&quot; . So maybe you can use *annon* in the sense of *an*, but where the speaker is *not* inclined to the second, but to the first clause. it fits your example indeed, where the speaker does not seem to think that his friend was speaking the truth." CreationDate="2020-06-26T20:29:54.200" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="26986" PostId="14103" Score="0" Text="I think *machaera* is the right word, but I don't like &quot;machaerokinesis&quot; for other reasons. Apparently ([if Wikipedia doesn't misguide me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrokinesis)), Stephen King coined the term &quot;pyrokinesis,&quot; but it's a pretty inept combination of &quot;pyro-&quot; and &quot;telekinesis.&quot; Everyone has the power to &quot;move a dagger,&quot; but few people have the power to do so at a distance." CreationDate="2020-06-27T02:10:52.897" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27013" PostId="14105" Score="0" Text="I like this question. We know this happens all the time, especially in large companies. We should have a name for it." CreationDate="2020-06-28T14:16:28.207" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="26994" PostId="14107" Score="0" Text="Can you comment on Cairnarvon's statement that &quot;ει is pronounced like a diphthong before vowels and a monophthong elsewhere, regardless of its origin&quot;? That seemed like a non-obvious statement to me so I was wondering about its basis" CreationDate="2020-06-27T19:16:56.210" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="26996" PostId="14107" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Allen (_Vox Graeca_ page 79) suggests that, as a possible explanation for why ειC merged with ιC much earlier than ειV~ιV. But his evidence doesn't seem convincing enough to say for certain, especially since ειV was regularly transcribed into Latin as ēV (not eiV) during that period (Aen**ē**as, N**ī**lus). I'm quite confident in the statement that earlier `/ej/` and `/eː/` had merged by Euclid's time, though, and whatever variation there was in pronunciation was purely phonetic." CreationDate="2020-06-27T19:33:26.643" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="26992" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if I understand your proposal of _societas innummata_ for &quot;cashless society&quot;. Do you mean _societas **ex**nummata_ instead?" CreationDate="2020-06-27T18:46:47.370" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="26993" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I did mean *in-*, but it's not the only option (whence I wrote &quot;a prefix like *in-*&quot; rather than &quot;the prefix *in-*&quot;). I added a paragraph on the choice." CreationDate="2020-06-27T18:54:59.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26995" PostId="14108" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the clarification of the **ambiguity** involved. I must say that the first reading I assigned to _innummata_ is the one similar to _nummata_, probably because of the existence of minimal pairs like _inauratus_ and _auratus_. Note that _inauratus_ is also ambiguous. Unlike _innummata_, note that _exnummata_ is **not** ambiguous." CreationDate="2020-06-27T19:25:17.120" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27000" PostId="14108" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino I agree that *innummata* is ambiguous, but I actually disagree that *exnummata* isn't. I would read it as &quot;moneyless&quot; or &quot;poor&quot;, but with suitable context and explanation I would find both prefixed versions of *nummata* reasonable for &quot;cashless&quot;. I doubt there is an unambiguous Latin adjective for &quot;cashless&quot;, but of course that need not stop endeavours to minimize ambiguity." CreationDate="2020-06-27T21:18:21.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27004" PostId="14108" Score="2" Text="Presumably it would be *enummata*, as Latin does not seem to allow *xn*. Note that this would specifically mean a society that had once had coinage and had it taken away, rather than simply &quot;a society lacking coinage&quot;." CreationDate="2020-06-28T00:41:21.130" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27005" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good points, thanks! Updated." CreationDate="2020-06-28T01:01:35.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27008" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: A Roman may have interpreted &quot;a cashless society&quot; as a reference to the pre-money World of bartering. The noun &quot;permutatio, onis (fem.)&quot;  = &quot;barter&quot;. Therefore expressions &quot;negotiari sine pecunia&quot; = &quot;to trade without money&quot; and (nominative-of-gerund) &quot;negotiari est permutare&quot; = &quot;trading is bartering (swapping)&quot; may have held more currency, in the Roman World. (That pun was intended.)" CreationDate="2020-06-28T10:15:51.183" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27009" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="*I cannot think of a way to say &quot;cashless&quot; that would probably not mean &quot;poor&quot; to a Roman* — or to an English speaker a hundred years ago, then again." CreationDate="2020-06-28T11:24:29.793" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27010" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Indeed! And even in today's English &quot;cashless&quot; might not be familiar to everyone in the sense used here. I would be interested to know if some living Latin circles have an established expression for this." CreationDate="2020-06-28T11:52:13.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27024" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="Maybe a less succinct phrase would add in the needed context? Something along the lines of &quot;a society that pays without cash&quot;, or making some kind of adjective out of &quot;cashless purchase&quot;." CreationDate="2020-06-29T20:53:08.677" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="27028" PostId="14108" Score="0" Text="@Adam I think the premise of my answer was not clear enough, so I added a first paragraph. I was specifically looking for something succinct for continued use, but it would need to be coupled with a more elaborate explanation as an introduction. Were you looking for that too? I assumed you were only after the more compact variant." CreationDate="2020-06-30T09:59:28.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="26998" PostId="14109" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot !!" CreationDate="2020-06-27T20:22:17.227" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="26999" PostId="14109" Score="1" Text="Also related: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/6675/what-did-the-greeks-and-romans-believe-about-language-relationships" CreationDate="2020-06-27T21:10:42.113" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27001" PostId="14109" Score="0" Text="Thanks to you too!" CreationDate="2020-06-27T21:35:36.283" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27006" PostId="14109" Score="0" Text="@TrmIntrs2 Do you think the question Asteroides links to answers your question fully? If it does, we can mark this question as a duplicate of it. If it doesn't, can you edit your question to specify what aspect is missing there? Adding the link given by TKR to the question would also be helpful for building context if you find it relevant." CreationDate="2020-06-28T01:04:35.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27011" PostId="14109" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmarvirta Yes. As can I see there nothing more to say about this theme. So my question able to be tagged as 'doublet'. Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-06-28T12:14:33.853" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27002" PostId="14110" Score="1" Text="Do I understand correctly that a fourth declension neuter can have the same form (e.g. *genu*) for all singular cases? I wonder whether these variations are all due to these few neuters being occasionally considered undeclinable." CreationDate="2020-06-27T22:01:59.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27007" PostId="14110" Score="0" Text="These examples of _-ū_ in the genitive and dative singular seem like they could be related to the [irregular declension of _Iēsūs_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus#Latin)." CreationDate="2020-06-28T01:11:56.570" UserId="7048" />
  <row Id="27012" PostId="14110" Score="0" Text="@PizgenalFilegav: I was just thinking about that. I always thought the genitive *Iesu* was a rendering of the Greek genitive (Greek ou generally becomes u in Latin), but now I'm not so sure." CreationDate="2020-06-28T14:14:51.970" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27020" PostId="14110" Score="0" Text="Something to think about: 1. How many neuter nouns are we talking about? How many occurrences of such nouns in dat.sg. are attested? 2. &quot;Contrary to what Spaelti (2004:133) claims, the u-stem dative without the -ī is not more typical of neuters than of masculines and feminines.&quot; What data is this argument based on? Can we verify it?" CreationDate="2020-06-29T16:48:31.290" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27021" PostId="14110" Score="2" Text="TLL entries: genu http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#44548 and cornu http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#30443 (where all the attested forms, including dat. sg., are listed, with attestations)" CreationDate="2020-06-29T17:09:19.000" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27022" PostId="14110" Score="2" Text="also see Ernout 1909 https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/indo/26/1909/article-p91.xml and Leumann 1977 pp. 442-443" CreationDate="2020-06-29T17:36:31.897" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="38099" PostId="14110" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides I would like to un-CW this, since it's really your sole contribution. What do you think about that?" CreationDate="2022-04-25T01:50:37.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="27014" PostId="14114" Score="1" Text="Context is often helpful for a question like this. Who is doing the pursuing?" CreationDate="2020-06-29T07:36:04.647" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="27016" PostId="14114" Score="0" Text="The individual is pursuit of a higher ideal as if it were a school moto." CreationDate="2020-06-29T14:12:21.127" UserId="7108" />
  <row Id="27018" PostId="14114" Score="0" Text="I'm now thinking, &quot;vero, bonitas, pulcritudo&quot; or &quot;enim veritas, bonitas, pulcritudo&quot;" CreationDate="2020-06-29T14:46:57.937" UserId="7108" />
  <row Id="27017" PostId="14116" Score="2" Text="related https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/123/39" CreationDate="2020-06-29T14:25:32.557" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27019" PostId="14116" Score="0" Text="Wiki article on Tilius Cimber tells us that the signal for the assassination to begin would be Cimber, grabbing JC, by the arm (pretext of handing him a petition). In Roman society it was the depths of bad manners to touch someone--especially if they were important. When Cimber did this JC is reported to have said: &quot;ista quidem vis est!&quot; = &quot;This indeed is violence of yours!&quot;,  roughly--&quot;How dare you touch me!&quot;--sort of thing. Is this true? Who knows? Given the mores of that World, it has some credibility." CreationDate="2020-06-29T16:22:40.570" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34114" PostId="14116" Score="0" Text="Danish scholar Allan Lund in _Til sengs med romerne_ tells that the phrase ‘Et tū, Brūte […]’ could actually also have been understood as ‘Fuck you, Brutus’." CreationDate="2021-07-12T12:59:27.913" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="27149" PostId="14117" Score="1" Text="llmavirta: There is another argument concerning &quot;et tu brute&quot; in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4982/1982. I'm not sure that this one has yet been resolved. My understanding is that &quot;et tu...&quot; is a Shakespearian invention. JC's last (recorded) words were &quot;ista quidem vis est&quot;. This has more credibility; but as always, proving anything is the nightmare. Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2020-07-12T10:41:45.880" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27157" PostId="14117" Score="2" Text="@tony There are so many accounts of his last words that I would say that we simply don't know well enough. Many phrases may have been uttered in various stages of the final act. The Greek *kai sy teknon* seems to have a classical origin as his last words, and that would quite naturally translate as *et tu fili*, so the invention is not without sense." CreationDate="2020-07-12T19:06:45.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27159" PostId="14117" Score="1" Text="llmavirta: A fascinating piece in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Last words of Julius Caeser: Keith Massey realised that the Greek &quot;kai tu tekson&quot; = &quot;You, my child&quot; sounds similar to the Latin &quot;Quaeso te non&quot; = &quot;I beg you, no&quot; or &quot;Please no&quot;. (Attestation:  Plautus: &quot;Apollo quaeso te&quot; =  &quot;Apollo, I beg you&quot;; Mercator 678.) Suetonius offered both &quot;ista quidem.....&quot; and silence--some &quot;witnesses&quot; stated that JC didn't say anything. Of course--hidden agendas--it may have been deemed noble to claim that JC died silently. In the unfolding tumult/ chaos, it could have been anything or nothing." CreationDate="2020-07-13T11:23:18.577" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27037" PostId="14118" Score="0" Text="I still don't understand how &quot;fili mi&quot; is proper Latin in this context, or &quot;fili.&quot; That should translate as either &quot;sons&quot; or &quot;son's&quot;." CreationDate="2020-06-30T16:42:14.163" UserId="7109" />
  <row Id="27038" PostId="14118" Score="2" Text="@ribs2spare You're thinking of &quot;filii&quot; (with two i's). Take a look at [A&amp;G section 49.c](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-049.html): the vocative of 2nd declension nouns in &quot;-ius&quot; is often &quot;-i,&quot; and &quot;meus&quot; has an irregular vocative." CreationDate="2020-06-30T16:54:03.737" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27135" PostId="14118" Score="0" Text="I'm a bit confused. I see that &quot;meus, -a, -um&quot; is a separate adjective from the declension of &quot;ego.&quot; But then what is the genitive singular form of &quot;ego&quot; for? Doesn't &quot;mei&quot; mean &quot;of me&quot; or &quot;mine&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-07-10T14:28:12.110" UserId="7109" />
  <row Id="27136" PostId="14118" Score="2" Text="@ribs2spare Take a look at [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1306/when-to-use-a-genitive-pronoun-instead-of-a-possessive-adjective) about the difference. Short answer: the possessive adjective (*meus, -a, -um*) is almost always used for possession, but the genitive pronoun (*mei*) is usually used for other genitive constructions, such as verbs that take the genitive (e.g. verbs of forgetting or remembering)." CreationDate="2020-07-10T14:50:48.930" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27041" PostId="14120" Score="0" Text="This is my favorite answer, but I think that perhaps instead of the dative, I'd use an accusative to highlight the idea of motion, *ad verum, bonum, pulchrumque*." CreationDate="2020-07-01T03:47:53.627" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27025" PostId="14121" Score="0" Text="FWIW, Thomas Aquinas uses &quot;infernum&quot; for hell in the &quot;proper&quot; sense." CreationDate="2020-06-29T22:41:39.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27026" PostId="14121" Score="0" Text="I think the nom. pl. would be *recentia*, but why not go for the more obvious *novus*? *Quid novum hoc infernum*?" CreationDate="2020-06-30T01:34:40.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27029" PostId="14122" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Could you provide some context behind this text as well as anything that you've tried?" CreationDate="2020-06-30T12:51:37.673" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27030" PostId="14122" Score="1" Text="Well, I just met a guy with a shirt with this text on it's back. There was also a St. Benedict's Cross on the front with some words but I haven't captured it. Unfortunately all I possibly imagine was to use those OCR scanners but I saw it couldn't recognize letters correctly and in addition with google translator the text I've received was this: Holy Cross be my light&#xA; The dragon will not be my guide&#xA; GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN,&#xA; JUMQUAM suggest to me PHANTOM&#xA; There are evils which burn&#xA; Sharp drink poison..." CreationDate="2020-06-30T13:11:10.943" UserId="7113" />
  <row Id="27031" PostId="14122" Score="3" Text="Take a look at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Benedict_Medal" CreationDate="2020-06-30T13:13:56.023" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27039" PostId="14123" Score="2" Text="Very good point suggesting *offundere*, which seems to be a favourite companion of *nox*, *caligo* and *tenebrae*." CreationDate="2020-06-30T18:52:43.650" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29054" PostId="14126" Score="0" Text="I never heared of the dictionary, is THIS an abbreviation perhaps? Please give the title, linkrot is a ting you kno" CreationDate="2020-09-21T07:22:04.793" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="29055" PostId="14128" Score="0" Text="Tities :D The problem with the tri-partite div. is that it has all the hallmarks of a folk ety. Describing folks, it is literally a folk etymology. Might be why DeVaan left it out, besides it being well known in any event" CreationDate="2020-09-21T07:28:56.507" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="27042" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="[There's a separate question about the word *draco*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4337/79) if anyone is wants to learn more about the first note." CreationDate="2020-07-01T20:45:19.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27043" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="Is *non (draco) sit* a medievalism? Classical usage would be *ne*." CreationDate="2020-07-01T22:07:57.433" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27044" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="@TKR I read it roughly as &quot;may something that is not a dragon lead me&quot;, but I'm not sure if it's classically sound. A medieval quirk sounds more likely. I smell a good follow-up question..." CreationDate="2020-07-01T22:25:12.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27045" PostId="14131" Score="1" Text="@TKR Not classical but not medieval either. [Schultz says](https://books.google.de/books?id=e9ZGAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA306): &quot;Only poets and later prose writers&quot;, and quotes Horace (non sileas) and Quintilian (non desperemus)." CreationDate="2020-07-01T22:44:14.073" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27046" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="Minor quibble: this is a prayer of exorcism, not a blessing :)" CreationDate="2020-07-02T01:39:27.777" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27057" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: As Hugh has been proscribed, may I transfer my Q. to yourself, please? The use of &quot;ipse&quot;, here: should it be &quot;te (ipsum) venena bibas&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-07-02T13:39:48.073" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27065" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Interestingly it is called *Benediktussegen* in German, Benedict's blessing. Not sure about exorcism, even if Wikipedia says so. By the way, I wonder if the claim that the text was and still is included in *De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam* is really true; the most recent edition can be found online, I just skimmed it (it's short!) and found nothing." CreationDate="2020-07-02T20:36:53.777" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27066" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="@tony The addressee (Satan) is the subject of the sentence (literally: may **you** drink the poisons), so it is: *tu ipse bibas*. If it were *te ipsum*, then he would be the object and someone would drink the devil." CreationDate="2020-07-02T20:38:52.483" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27077" PostId="14131" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Silly me! When Bear Grylls does his jungle-survival thing and counsels the thirst-crazed explorer to drink his own urine, this would be expressed: &quot;de siti aquae, tuam urinam bibas&quot; = &quot;With a craving for water, you may drink your own urine.&quot;. Alternatively: &quot;....te ipsum bibas.&quot; = &quot;...., you may drink yourself.&quot;. Does that work, probably not?" CreationDate="2020-07-03T11:31:05.357" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27049" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="It may or may not pertain to your question, but in the Byzantine empire, Jews were often looked upon as the &quot;before&quot; picture in a before/after advertisement of the Orthodox faith. They lived lives as second class citizens and whenever a Jew converted to Orthodox in order to obtain more rights and political enfranchisement, the government used that fact as propaganda. Source: History of Byzantium podcast." CreationDate="2020-07-02T07:50:31.060" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="27050" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="Maybe there is such evidences, but, in my opinion, and by my knowledge, it seem to say that it need to request the PIE mythology, because Roman faiths is just a descent of this one." CreationDate="2020-07-02T08:38:37.360" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27060" PostId="14132" Score="2" Text="@TrmIntrs2 I mean, the Romans certainly didn't consider it to be &quot;Proto-Indo-European mythology&quot;; they had no concept of PIE." CreationDate="2020-07-02T16:16:23.107" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27061" PostId="14132" Score="1" Text="I'm curious about the answer, but I doubt there's something directly analogous to Christianity. I'm not aware of any Roman effort to &quot;convert&quot; the tribes that they conquered, nor any claim that their gods were the only gods." CreationDate="2020-07-02T17:55:16.453" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27063" PostId="14132" Score="3" Text="The ending of Apuleius's *Metamorphoses / Golden Ass* is often described as a kind of conversion story. But it doesn't really answer your requirements as it's not about someone going from unbelief to belief." CreationDate="2020-07-02T18:15:45.397" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27064" PostId="14132" Score="1" Text="@TKR That might turn out to be the closest hit, but I hope not. A near miss would make a reasonable answer though, especially as others who find this question through a web search might be looking for something slightly different." CreationDate="2020-07-02T19:19:50.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27080" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yes. They haven't concept of PIE. But evidence that more part of theirs beliefs just is descent of the PIE's make us need to make another question about - what PIE people thinked about &quot;coming in faith&quot;. With parallelly keeping in the mind that every person every moment answer in his own way to such questions. So..." CreationDate="2020-07-03T18:30:11.527" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27081" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="@TKR Apuleius is my first thought too. I suggest you turn it into an answer. As you know (though others may not) Apuleius does indeed convert to the mysteries of Isis (not a Roman goddess). Although this does not involve a rejection of the Roman pantheon, it does involve converting to a mystery religion, and such religions were not traditional Roman religions, although they were very much tolerated." CreationDate="2020-07-04T01:10:09.400" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27082" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="@TKR Strictly speaking, Apuleius is not pre-Christian, but there is no proof I know of that the tiny Christian minority in Rome influenced him in any way, although they certainly &quot;drank from the same well&quot; as saying goes, but drinking from the same well just makes him even more interesting, doesn't it?" CreationDate="2020-07-04T01:10:52.753" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27084" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="How about Julian the Apostate?" CreationDate="2020-07-04T04:56:47.033" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="27085" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="@Hugh He could make an interesting answer. If there is a relevant passage of him, I'd be glad to learn." CreationDate="2020-07-04T08:47:57.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27103" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta So Greek-language accounts of coming to faith in Platonism (the kind I imagine might be found in Julian) are also of interest?" CreationDate="2020-07-06T16:56:03.040" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="27104" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="@ba My main interest is in Latin here, partly because I know so little Greek. If there is an interesting Greek source, perhaps it's best to ask a separate question for Greek and answer it. (There's nothing wrong with answering your own question immediately yourself.) I would be interested to know, but I'm not sure if this question would be a good fit." CreationDate="2020-07-06T18:30:52.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40195" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="Does the story have to be fully extant in Latin? The Arrival of Dionysus is your best bet, but it's chiefly in Greek. Lucius Accius did compose a play on the subject, but only a couple dozen lines have been preserved. The story is definitely pre-Christian, though." CreationDate="2022-10-29T09:33:49.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40220" PostId="14132" Score="0" Text="@cmw That would make a very interesting answer. I'm willing to relax the requirement of Latin if there's a good fit in Greek." CreationDate="2022-10-30T11:50:11.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27056" PostId="14135" Score="0" Text="So, in Latin you don't use 'concludere' in the same sense as in English? As in, when you finish a text/speech/lecture and you end the last remark with 'And this concludes today's lecture'? And thank you for the warm welcome! I should update my site, though. My focus has shifted to QCD. I am finishing my master's degree at the moment. Who knows what comes next?" CreationDate="2020-07-02T13:12:30.457" UserId="7122" />
  <row Id="27058" PostId="14135" Score="0" Text="@ThomasWening It can mean the same as in English, but that is only one of the many meanings it has. [This dictionary entry gives an idea of the variety of meanings.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=concludo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)" CreationDate="2020-07-02T14:17:24.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27059" PostId="14135" Score="0" Text="I did my master's thesis on QFT and neutrino physics, but then a surprising offer came along and went after something else after graduation. Having a plan for research in physics was important for my career trajectory even though it never came true in a form I could anticipate. My research interests still cover QCD, QFT, and especially GR, but from a different angle." CreationDate="2020-07-02T14:17:27.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27083" PostId="14135" Score="1" Text="Let me heartily endorse your answer (5), *Quae [verba] finiunt iter nostrum*. *Verba* is, in my opinion, redundant, but redundancy is only rarely a reason to reject a word. Plus if the final sentence actually contains a neuter plural, then *quae finiunt iter nostrum* might, in that unusual case, actually be ambiguous." CreationDate="2020-07-04T01:28:15.600" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27062" PostId="14136" Score="1" Text="I think English *longing* is a false friend here -- at least as far as I can gather from dictionary entries, *langueo* and *languor* have no particular connotation of &quot;desire&quot;, only of weariness or feebleness." CreationDate="2020-07-02T18:12:49.253" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27072" PostId="14136" Score="0" Text="Clarifying the response (below) I just posted to your comment. “Being sick with/debilitated by cause of love” -&gt; _amore langueo_, thus by cause of “desire” too, correlates without identifying them _cupiditas amorem_ &amp; the infirmity (_langueo_) induced by the former. The idea being that the sickness-like state (_langueo_) induced by love (_amor causat languorem_) is tantamount to a “languishment” effected by desire (the desire itself being fueled by love). This seems consistent with Solomon’s idea of being made “love-sick” (חולת אהבה), which was the matter I primarily intended to answer about." CreationDate="2020-07-03T05:12:39.460" UserId="7124" />
  <row Id="30557" PostId="14136" Score="0" Text="Thank you @TKR for the comment. I updated the answer." CreationDate="2020-07-03T03:48:48.193" UserId="7124" />
  <row Id="27073" PostId="14138" Score="0" Text="This might just be something that is ambiguous in Latin. Perhaps one would use a different phrase if they wanted to emphasize that one is the aggressor in a war. For example &quot;Si vis pacem, neca hostes prius.&quot; &quot;If you want peace, kill the enemy first.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-03T07:24:25.430" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="30864" PostId="14138" Score="0" Text="In Latin, para is translated as &quot;prepare&quot; in this case (paro, parare). Bellum is the Latin word for &quot;war&quot; and is categorized in the second Latin declension (bellum, belli). The &quot;-um&quot; suffix denotes that the translation of the word in this sentence structure is that of the accusative case singular. Accusative is used when the word in question is the direct object of an action." CreationDate="2021-02-23T15:36:37.810" UserId="9028" />
  <row Id="47771" PostId="14138" Score="0" Text="I think we might be able to go more deeply on this one: preparing for war and preparing the war in Latin mean the same thing. I don't think it means embrace yourself for war, but rather get what you need for war ready, i.e. ready the troops, gather equipment, etc." CreationDate="2024-03-18T16:29:03.487" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="27074" PostId="14140" Score="3" Text="What happened to Sardinian?" CreationDate="2020-07-03T09:41:21.070" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="27075" PostId="14140" Score="0" Text="Nothing, I was just wondering which one from Spanish, Italian and French is more similar. Ofcourse Sardinian is the most but it is now out of my interest :)" CreationDate="2020-07-03T09:42:20.237" UserId="7126" />
  <row Id="27076" PostId="14140" Score="1" Text="You're right, I didn't read the question closely enough" CreationDate="2020-07-03T11:08:25.923" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="42533" PostId="14140" Score="9" Text="*Phonetically similar*. This does not mean that they are in the same order of similarity in terms of grammar and vocabulary." CreationDate="2023-03-09T13:47:44.030" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="43603" PostId="14140" Score="3" Text="Did you want to edit your question or answer? You've ticked yourself but they don't actually match. Vowel stress is among the _least_ important possible considerations for which one is 'most like' Classical Latin in any meaningful sense, even if it's fairly easy to quantify." CreationDate="2023-06-15T20:41:21.397" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43894" PostId="14140" Score="0" Text="Yes i can do that." CreationDate="2023-06-29T14:34:38.857" UserId="7126" />
  <row Id="43895" PostId="14140" Score="1" Text="@Nabla You could also change the question to match the answer." CreationDate="2023-06-29T14:53:58.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="27078" PostId="14142" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Are you struggling to understand some specific part of the text? Was there any explanation or translation alongside that passage where you found it? Why are some words written in capitals? You can always edit your question to add details. I think it would be best if the question contained a question rather than just a request to translate. At least it would be easier to answer if you could clarify your goal." CreationDate="2020-07-03T13:17:50.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27079" PostId="14142" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta&#xA;Thanks for the comment. This piece of text is part of a philosophical paragraph. After this piece, the author (or translator) explains it in English. I just want the literal meaning of this piece of text. Thanks again." CreationDate="2020-07-03T13:40:27.933" UserId="7127" />
  <row Id="27087" PostId="14144" Score="0" Text="Sui-factus is definitely closer to what I am looking for, although _sui_ could be somewhat of a loaded word to some people because of closeness to suicide. The phrase _a me factus sum'_ is perfect, though." CreationDate="2020-07-04T13:37:14.693" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="27086" PostId="14147" Score="2" Text="I have taken the liberty to edit in a link to the original book. The context is interesting. It makes it clear that Vegetius means it exactly like Tony says: If you are well-prepared, nobody will dare challenge you or make a strike against you. It also makes clear that by “preparing,” Vegetius primarily means *learn the art of war* (by reading his book, I guess)." CreationDate="2020-07-04T12:34:23.000" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27088" PostId="14147" Score="1" Text="Having said that, to call it an incorrect quote is perhaps going too far. Vegetius may provide the closest we have to an actual ancient version of the quote, but the thought is older and exists in other versions (e.g. Nepos, Epaminondas 5, 4: *Nam paritur pax bello. Itaque, qui ea diutina volunt frui, bello exercitati esse debent.*) The familiar *Si vis...* can arguably be called a valid expression of the idea in its own right, with its own history and range of meaning, rather than a misquote." CreationDate="2020-07-04T18:32:26.460" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27092" PostId="14147" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. This one seems to have inspired your imagination. The translation: &quot;For peace is born out of (from) war. Those who would want to enjoy this (peace) indefinitely, they are obliged to be in training for war&quot;. A bit clumsy in its repetition of &quot;bello&quot; and long-winded. These things hit home harder if they are succinct--giving, perhaps, the prize to &quot;si vis pacem...&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-07-05T09:44:32.153" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27093" PostId="14147" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thinking about it: &quot;exercitati&quot; = &quot;(they) having been trained&quot;; therefore: &quot;....they (having been) trained for war, are obliged (committed) to war.&quot; Is that why Nepos repeated &quot;bello&quot;? The purpose of &quot;esse&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-07-05T10:43:29.030" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27094" PostId="14147" Score="1" Text="I would just read this as a perfective use: *exercitati esse debent* literally: they must have been trained; but what does that mean? Having been trained, they are now in a trained state, and the participle can be read adjective-like: They must be well-trained, their training must be complete. The speaker (Epaminondas) is presumably the greatest orator in all of Thebes, although Nepos suggests that doesn't have to mean much. And nobody ever claimed Nepos himself was a great stylist, on the contrary." CreationDate="2020-07-05T16:17:12.783" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27091" PostId="14149" Score="0" Text="After my last answer I wanted to add such version too, with explaining this that clipping the root as *cogni-* is the way what the New Latin do. And it sounds more pretty." CreationDate="2020-07-05T09:30:23.513" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27089" PostId="14150" Score="0" Text="I like the simplicity and ease that this would be understood. The adjective was easy enough to find, although the noun mostly brought up some german-language results. I might be able to work with _autogene_ and add a suffix the imply further meaning, though." CreationDate="2020-07-04T18:51:48.590" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="27090" PostId="14150" Score="1" Text="I did some poking around and found [Autogenitor](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/autogenitor), which seems like it even more closely aligns with the idea of making/creating oneself. It's not clear to me from the citation on that when it was actually used, although I might use that as the &quot;first&quot; of these people." CreationDate="2020-07-04T20:23:45.937" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="27097" PostId="14152" Score="0" Text="https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2331/expressing-a-possession-relationship-without-the-genitive Here is close question. Maybe it helps to you." CreationDate="2020-07-05T18:47:31.253" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27101" PostId="14152" Score="2" Text="@TrmIntrs2, thanks for the input. Yet I'm not sure that question addresses the issue presented here. In this case I'm quite certain that both types(genitive or adj) are valid, and have nearly the same meaning" CreationDate="2020-07-05T20:59:10.973" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="27095" PostId="14153" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I do in such way before I asked my question, but it was only on the basis of my own language perception, not on the basis of examples from Classics." CreationDate="2020-07-05T17:54:45.780" UserId="7081" />
  <row Id="27102" PostId="14156" Score="0" Text="Here is the relevant text from Livy (IX, 5): _Tum a consulibus abire lictores iussi **paludamentaque detracta**; tantam **&lt;id&gt;** inter eos qui paulo ante [eos] exsecrantes dedendos lacerandosque censuerant **miserationem fecit**, ut suae quisque condicionis oblitus ab illa deformatione tantae maiestatis velut ab nefando spectaculo averteret oculos._" CreationDate="2020-07-06T03:25:42.583" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27105" PostId="14156" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I've heard it said that feminine singular forms like *opera* and *biblia* came from neuter plurals in a process similar to the one Draconis mentioned for Greek and Anatolian languages." CreationDate="2020-07-06T21:48:59.820" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27107" PostId="14156" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I was looking at Livy 9.5 yesterday, and the translation on Perseus, after yourself had omitted all the words between &quot;paludomentaque detracta&quot; &amp; &quot;miserationem fecit&quot;. The second &quot;[eos]&quot; is square-bracketed because it refers to a different group (the consuls) to the first &quot;eos&quot; (the cursing crowd). Why is &quot;&lt;id&gt;&quot; = &quot;that&quot; (neuter nom. sing. [&quot;That aroused such deep commiserations...]&quot;) in pointed brackets? Use-of-brackets sites advise that these are used in mathematics." CreationDate="2020-07-07T11:35:34.173" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27112" PostId="14156" Score="0" Text="@tony The brackets around the pronoun _id_ have to do with an addition put forward by a classical scholar (Drakenborch). For details of textual criticism, see https://books.google.es/books?id=ebE8AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA161&amp;lpg=PA161&amp;dq=Drakenborch+Livy+paludamentaque+detracta&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=0zNSSOoJv3&amp;sig=ACfU3U0vmsueUn7EuFmFH3RH-rFMVSkHQg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjuwJ2P4bvqAhVS3IUKHbWvCk8Q6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Drakenborch%20Livy%20paludamentaque%20detracta&amp;f=false ." CreationDate="2020-07-07T18:36:55.713" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27106" PostId="14158" Score="0" Text="What is your native language?" CreationDate="2020-07-06T22:06:44.037" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="27109" PostId="14158" Score="1" Text="I've edited your question to make it easier to understand. Regarding your &quot;P.S.&quot; I suggest you ask a separate question!" CreationDate="2020-07-07T14:00:08.757" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27110" PostId="14159" Score="3" Text="I suspect that the OP is asking about the partitive genitive construction, e.g. &quot;plus pecuniae&quot; = &quot;more money&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-07T15:27:04.820" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27111" PostId="14159" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Hmm that is possible. The question is less than clear." CreationDate="2020-07-07T17:32:59.253" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27113" PostId="14160" Score="0" Text="Not a special case, just a case. :)" CreationDate="2020-07-07T19:46:54.023" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27114" PostId="14160" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour This has indeed been an interesting case study." CreationDate="2020-07-07T20:12:01.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27117" PostId="14160" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: To cry &quot;More!&quot;, in English, might not be appreciated. Reminiscent of &quot;Give!&quot;; the French &quot;Donne!&quot;. Such imperatives could generate aggression. Theory: the more violent the societies, the more elaborate are the codes of manners." CreationDate="2020-07-08T12:16:46.957" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27118" PostId="14160" Score="0" Text="@tony Indeed, but the parallel I gave was more grammatical than cultural. In English you would generally at least add &quot;please&quot;, depending on context. I was careful not to make a claim about manners in either language." CreationDate="2020-07-08T15:48:34.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27119" PostId="14164" Score="0" Text="Then why did the vowel in the second syllable get shortened when they entered English?" CreationDate="2020-07-08T17:55:11.293" UserId="6813" />
  <row Id="27120" PostId="14166" Score="0" Text="If geminus is &quot;the humdrum prosaic everyday word&quot; and gemellus the &quot;more fanciful locution&quot;, it is curious that it is the latter that survives in French jumeau." CreationDate="2020-07-09T10:57:05.227" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="27121" PostId="14166" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: With &quot;a more fanciful locution&quot;, this is a good place to learn English. In Ancient Rome &quot;Gemellus&quot; could be somebody's name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gemellus --returning to the prosaic?" CreationDate="2020-07-09T11:24:18.660" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27126" PostId="14166" Score="0" Text="@fdb I would really not expect subtle differences like these to be in any way predictive of what might happen centuries later in the Romance languages. In fact, not all Romans in the classical era would necessarily have agreed on such things. Just look at Stack Exchange sites for modern languages, where the native speakers start arguing when someone asks about semantic subtleties ..." CreationDate="2020-07-09T18:45:25.790" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27127" PostId="14166" Score="0" Text="@tony Many things could be somebody's name, his cousin was essentially called Littleboot! I suspect these were childhood nicknames that eventually came to be borne with pride in adulthood." CreationDate="2020-07-09T18:48:03.910" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27131" PostId="14166" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Are you sure that Emperor Caius liked being called &quot;Bootykins&quot; (Mary-beard's TV-prog--a sanitised biopic of dear Caius)? Would you have liked to have faced our late-lamented Emperor with this? Whimsical and dangerous (John-Hurt's portrayal in &quot;I Claudius&quot;): &quot;I'll kill you!&quot;; &quot;I won't kill you!&quot;; &quot;Oh, alright, I'll kill you!&quot;.  When compelled, by the crowd, to rescind his &quot;thumbs-down&quot; concerning a prostrate gladiator, Hurt's malignant Caius, with malice and venom: &quot;If they had but one neck I'd hack it through.&quot; = &quot;si unam cervicem solum haberent ego eam secarem.&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-10T08:40:42.077" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27132" PostId="14166" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Are you sure that you want to call him &quot;Bootykins&quot;? Have you read Suetonius's account of the assassination of Caligula and its aftermath? The cryptoporticus, where he was murdered, I walked down that tunnel, once. I don't usually subscribe to ghost-stories but this was a chilling experience. Good luck." CreationDate="2020-07-10T08:46:36.980" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28558" PostId="14169" Score="0" Text="*Bis quot viderat Remus*?" CreationDate="2020-08-08T17:29:05.577" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="28559" PostId="14169" Score="0" Text="@Figulus Interesting idea! I don't know if I've seen a construction like *bis quot*, but it may well be idiomatic Latin." CreationDate="2020-08-08T17:56:08.630" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29110" PostId="14169" Score="0" Text="@Figulus, Not sure about *bis quot* by itself, but I just came across a bit in Vitruvius (3.4.3) that uses *totidem bis* together with a correlative clause introduced by *quot* to mean 'twice as many as': sed ita columnae in peripteris conlocentur, uti, quot intercolumnia sunt in fronte, totidem bis intercolumnia fiant in lateribus, 'But let the columns on peripteral temples be so arranged that there are twice as many intercolumniations on the sides as on the front.'" CreationDate="2020-09-27T20:00:54.477" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29111" PostId="14169" Score="0" Text="By the way, another, common way to express '2/3/etc. times as much/many' is to use *bis* (or *altero*)/*ter*/etc. *tanto*, sometimes with a comparative. Cicero, Verrines 2.3.102 has: sexiens tanto quam quantum satum sit ablatum esse ab aratoribus, '6 times as much corn as was sown was exacted of the farmers.' In 2.3.225, a comparative is used: reperietis quinquiens tanto, iudices, amplius istum quam quantum in cellam ei sumere licitum sit civitatibus imperasse, 'You will find, judges, that man commanded the cities to supply 5 times as much as it was lawful for him to take for the granary.'" CreationDate="2020-09-27T20:12:06.560" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="27122" PostId="14170" Score="0" Text="Very interesting! At what point, then, would Aeolic `/zd/` have gotten respelled into σδ? Sappho was writing well before Attic lost its `/zd/`, according to this, but of course the manuscripts we have are later." CreationDate="2020-07-09T16:09:47.290" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27123" PostId="14170" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Are you asking because you know *Vox Graeca* talks about it and I omitted it? Allen says those spellings (where medial ζ becomes σδ in Lesbian poetry) almost certainly represent a later editing based on the then general value of ζ, as they are not found in early Lesbian inscriptions. They do point to the preservation of [zd] in Lesbian after ζ had changed to [z(z)] elsewhere, and the use of ζ for the result of synizesis in e.g. ζά = διά to the coexistence of some other sound (? [dz] or [z]) for which at the editorial date ζ was the most appropriate writing. No precise date is given." CreationDate="2020-07-09T17:16:57.213" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="27124" PostId="14170" Score="0" Text="Oh, not at all for that reason; I don't have a copy of _Vox Graeca_, unfortunately (and the library is closed for the foreseeable future), and this question was inspired by seeing _phrontisdēn_ in Sappho and thinking &quot;huh, that seems like evidence for `/dz/`&quot;. That's interesting information though! So Aeolic likely had both `/zd/` and something else in the time of Sappho and Alcaeus?" CreationDate="2020-07-09T18:01:10.693" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27130" PostId="14170" Score="0" Text="Maybe not at the time of Sappho and Alcaeus, but likely at the time of editing (presumably after the 4th century). Allen specifically says Lesbian poetry, so I don't know about the implications for Aeolic in general, and I'd also think it conceivable for recited poetry to preserve archaisms no longer present in the current language." CreationDate="2020-07-10T08:10:00.400" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="27137" PostId="14170" Score="0" Text="True; I've heard that the digamma preserved in Lesbian poetry probably wasn't used in spoken Aeolic, so this could be something similar." CreationDate="2020-07-10T16:36:25.560" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27125" PostId="14171" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your answer. Do you have a source you could link to concerning this meaning of the &quot;-ius&quot; ending? Many Roman names end in -ius without this meaning, e.g. Appius, Lucius, Servius, Tiberius, etc. EDIT: I see now that you said &quot;surname.&quot; But that wouldn't apply to &quot;Aloysius,&quot; right?" CreationDate="2020-07-09T18:25:36.983" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27133" PostId="14171" Score="0" Text="That is an interesting observation. It makes me think immediately of Nicolaus Stenonius. I always thought of his *ius* ending as an adjectival one, taken from his father's name (presumably *Steno* / *Stenonis*). When Stenonius wrote his academic works, he needed a Latin name, and so he coined his from his father's name. In fact, he could have used his father's name simply as a genitive, and he did do this at least once *Nicolaus Stenonis*. Of course, ecclesiastics, nobles, and academics all needed Latin names, and Stenonius wasn't an ecclesiastic (yet) nor a noble." CreationDate="2020-07-10T14:07:58.637" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27134" PostId="14171" Score="0" Text="So getting a Latin name if you weren't a noble would have been something like a rite of passage, either into the church, or into the academy." CreationDate="2020-07-10T14:09:00.173" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27143" PostId="14171" Score="0" Text="Wherever you read that in wasn't a good source. That's exactly like saying that the suffix &quot;-s&quot; in English names like Jones originally indicated a manual labourer. The logic is that of an 8 years old: scholars/manual labourers typically have a name like that, therefore it indicates scholars/manual labourers. In reality -ius is nothing more than an generic Latinisation suffix extended from the many Roman names that have it. It originally stood for a relative adjective, largely equivalent to the English &quot;-s&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-11T16:32:30.003" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="27138" PostId="14172" Score="3" Text="*superstes* sounds fine. As a noun you use the masculine or feminine form, as the case may be. The survivors of the plane crash = *superstites aeronavis praecipitatae*." CreationDate="2020-07-10T22:47:31.287" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27139" PostId="14174" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10987/406 (though that question is looking specifically for _monospaced_ fonts, and I'm looking for anything that's easy to read on a screen)." CreationDate="2020-07-10T23:13:19.143" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38413" PostId="14174" Score="1" Text="Out of morbid curiosity: the stylesheet of Wikipedia, as long as the text is marked as polytonic Greek, will attempt to use 'SBL BibLit' font first." CreationDate="2022-05-27T12:03:07.943" UserId="8955" />
  <row Id="43455" PostId="14175" Score="0" Text="See also [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2058/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-abbreviations-h-e-and-h-l)." CreationDate="2023-06-06T23:53:20.483" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="27141" PostId="14176" Score="0" Text="Thanks! can you link one of the Google Books dictionary sources for abbreviation? for some reason they evade me." CreationDate="2020-07-11T09:43:11.947" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="27142" PostId="14176" Score="4" Text="@d_e I have added links; the best way to find abbreviations on Google Books I am afraid is *guessing* the meaning first, then searching for the unabbreviated term." CreationDate="2020-07-11T09:48:45.360" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27166" PostId="14178" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Is &quot;someone else&quot; the second or third person, in the sentence? Is it a   &quot;previous sentence&quot; or a previous clause--would it matter? Allen &amp; Greenough p.572: &quot;inter inanimum et animal  hoc maxime interest, quod animal agit aliquid&quot; = &quot;this is the chief difference between an inanimate object and an animal, that an animal aims at something&quot; (Acad. 2.37). This could be adapted: &quot;inter inanimum et te....quod tu dixisti aliquid&quot; = &quot;between an object and you....that you have said something&quot;. To reference information from a third-party, Cicero took a different path :&quot;is unde te" CreationDate="2020-07-14T12:09:36.813" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27167" PostId="14178" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: audisse dicis&quot; = &quot;the man whence (from whom) you heard it&quot;, (Ad Quintum Fratrem 2.285). This may be irrelevant to the main point that you seek; but, I like this use of &quot;unde&quot; and have been looking for an opportunity to include it, somewhere." CreationDate="2020-07-14T12:13:24.937" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27177" PostId="14178" Score="0" Text="@tony It makes no difference to me what role the &quot;someone else&quot; plays in the sentence. It is only a matter of changing speakers and whether the relative pronoun can refer across such a change." CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:50:08.277" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27197" PostId="14178" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Translating &quot;the thing you just said&quot; = &quot;id, quod modo dixisti&quot; (where &quot;id&quot; = &quot;that [thing]); A says this to B: chappie, B is the &quot;someone else&quot;; the speaker has changed from A to B; &quot;id&quot; is &quot;referring to the matter discussed in the previous sentence&quot;. If the &quot;role&quot; i.e. the number of parties involved is irrelevant, then I fail to see the difficulty. If you disagree, fine; at least enjoy the superlative Latin of Cicero." CreationDate="2020-07-15T12:57:10.797" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27150" PostId="14180" Score="1" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/13395/1982: &quot;...enim eius magnam auctoritatem in ea re futuram (esse).&quot; = &quot;...for great authority of his, in this matter, will be great.&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-12T11:37:51.340" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27155" PostId="14180" Score="1" Text="@tony As Tony points out, the *esse* is often omitted: *Dicit se iturum* means &quot;He says he will go.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-12T16:49:45.890" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40561" PostId="14182" Score="1" Text="The clarity of Didot with its low x-height, is unmatched by the others. Maybe that is a key thing to look for? Fonts with a lower x-height? A low x-height allows more room for the diacritics to breathe, so to speak." CreationDate="2022-12-07T12:51:33.563" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="40595" PostId="14182" Score="2" Text="@CannedMan, The x-height certainly has something to do with it, as does the somewhat exaggerated size of the diacriticals. Over all, what makes the Didot such an effective face is that the letters have been designed so that each is so utterly unique. Even at a distance a sigma and an alpha are distinct. I greatly admire Zapf, but because the counters of the rho, omicron, sigma, and even the alpha, are basically the same, the letters can lose distinctiveness at even a bit of distance. The only issue I have with the Didot face is that the letter spacing always feels a litte cramped to me." CreationDate="2022-12-10T02:11:12.533" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40607" PostId="14182" Score="0" Text="That is a very informative comment (I would advise adding much of that to your answer). Does Didot come in both display and text optical sizes? Also, I can agree that your sample does indeed look a bit cramped (and it is a bad font selection for printing on low-quality paper; I would expect a lot of bleeding, especially with e.g. ντ, ε, νε, possibly ημ), but there are two options to solve this: If not writing an academic text with strict restrictions, one could strongly argue for simply increasing font size; if restrictions are strict, another option would be to slightly increase kerning." CreationDate="2022-12-10T23:31:48.183" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="27154" PostId="14185" Score="0" Text="Nice find! I think, though, that I might prefer *conatus* to *adumbratio* in this particular instance, or even *conatus primus*." CreationDate="2020-07-12T16:46:19.420" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27160" PostId="14189" Score="21" Text="It already describes a female person, if she says that." CreationDate="2020-07-14T01:37:29.013" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="27180" PostId="14189" Score="0" Text="@MPW In this case yes, but not in general. What if Caesar had said: I came, I dared, I conquered? The asker was right to suspect the sentence might need to be changed." CreationDate="2020-07-14T18:12:25.917" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27181" PostId="14189" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel : Yes, if you refer to the participial form in that case, that’s true. Still, OP asked about “Veni, vidi, vici” in particular." CreationDate="2020-07-14T18:16:55.940" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="27162" PostId="14190" Score="1" Text="Re &quot;Subject-verb agreement in Latin only involves grammatical person (I, you, he/she/it) and number (singular and plural)&quot;: That's true of contemporary English, German and, I believe, many other languages as well." CreationDate="2020-07-14T08:01:16.990" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="27163" PostId="14190" Score="3" Text="@Peter-ReinstateMonica it's the norm in Indo-European languages although some languages (in particular the Slavic languages) have innovated past tenses from older participles and had those participles agree with the subject for gender as well as number (but not person). Other language families may tend to mark gender/class on verbs. I'm surprised there isn't a WALS chapter, but the Afro-Asiatic languages almost all mark gender, person, and number on their finite verbs" CreationDate="2020-07-14T09:49:12.290" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="27178" PostId="14190" Score="2" Text="“Subject-verb agreement in Latin only involves grammatical person and number” – that rule does not hold when participles are involved. And participles can easily become involved. It is pure luck that Caesar conquered instead of, for example, talking to the enemy. The sentence would then be gendered and would have to be modified for a feminine subject: *Veni, vidi, locutus sum.*" CreationDate="2020-07-14T17:35:51.793" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27196" PostId="14190" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Indeed I'm only talking about agreement with finite verbs. That's usually all that's meant by &quot;subject-verb agreement&quot;. I figure that someone asking this question isn't ready for the complication that starts when we bring in verbal adjectives. For example, in _Locuta sum,_ the verb _sum_ doesn't reflect the gender of the subject, but the adjective _locuta_ does. One could argue semantics about whether _locuta_ is part of the verb, but I don't think that would be helpful." CreationDate="2020-07-15T12:17:39.920" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="27161" PostId="14191" Score="4" Text="Wow! I thought there would only be answers like &quot;It already does&quot;, and you actually answered the question and I learnt something new." CreationDate="2020-07-14T04:53:03.393" UserId="1211" />
  <row Id="27165" PostId="14191" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: Following the tradition of the original quote: &quot;I came, I saw...&quot;, doesn't &quot;she&quot; have to be repeated: &quot;she came, she saw...&quot;? The way it is written, wouldn't &quot;and&quot; have to be included between &quot;saw&quot; &amp; &quot;conquered&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-07-14T11:23:16.850" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27168" PostId="14191" Score="3" Text="@tony No, the sentence is elliptical - after you have defined the pronoun for the first time, you don't need to repeat it unless there is another second-person noun.  Technically, &quot;veni, vidi, vici&quot; would be &quot;ego veni, vidi, vici&quot;, however the conjugation into first-person of &quot;venio&quot;, &quot;video&quot;, and &quot;vinco&quot; is unambiguous (so &quot;ego&quot; can be left implicit), while the conjugation into second person does not specify male/female/neuter - but you only need to define it *once*.  It's similar to Portuguese or Spanish conjugation (while French or German *would* require the pronoun all 3 times)" CreationDate="2020-07-14T12:28:44.937" UserId="6647" />
  <row Id="27169" PostId="14191" Score="1" Text="Portuguese: &quot;vim, vi, vitoriei&quot; / &quot;ela veio, viu, vitoriou&quot;; Spanish: &quot;Vine, vi, vencí&quot; / &quot;Ella vino, vio, vencio&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-14T12:35:56.770" UserId="6647" />
  <row Id="27172" PostId="14191" Score="1" Text="@Chronocidal German: &quot;Ich kam, sah und siegte.&quot; - There is no necessity for the repeated subject. Grammar isn't all, there is also context. No speaker would intend a different subject for the second and third clause, when using this construct." CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:17:40.367" UserId="1134" />
  <row Id="27174" PostId="14191" Score="1" Text="@I'mwithMonica However, you *did* require the addition of &quot;und&quot; (i.e. &quot;veni vidi et vici&quot;), which was the second part of the point tony was querying.  In Latin, Spanish and Portuguese, you need neither the repeated subject nor a conjunction for it to be grammatical." CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:34:21.277" UserId="6647" />
  <row Id="27175" PostId="14191" Score="0" Text="@Chronocidal: Thank you. I am familiar with ellipsis, which works in Latin, not always in English: &quot;veni vidi vici&quot; works, in Latin. The translation is given as &quot;I..., I..., I&quot;, which provides the rhetorical force. To say: &quot;came, saw, conquered&quot;, in English, sounds like a demented robot. The &quot;and&quot; still appears to be required, unless the pronoun is to be repeated." CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:34:44.747" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27176" PostId="14191" Score="0" Text="@I'mwithMonica Perhaps a slightly different example.  In English, when describing someone's actions at a party, you can say &quot;she ate, drank, and made merry&quot;; &quot;she ate, she drank, she made merry&quot;; and/or &quot;She ate, she drank, and she made merry&quot;.  You *can't* (grammatically) say &quot;She ate, drank, made merry&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:46:19.677" UserId="6647" />
  <row Id="27179" PostId="14191" Score="0" Text="@Chronocial I could grammatically say &quot;she ate, drank, and made merry.&quot; The rules of grammatical are slightly different in a list in many languages, aren't they?" CreationDate="2020-07-14T18:09:33.243" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="27182" PostId="14191" Score="0" Text="@Chronocidal, French wouldn't mandate the pronoun 3 times &quot;Elle est venu, a vu, (et) a vaincu&quot; works as well as &quot;Elle est venu, elle a vu, elle a vaincu&quot;. I admit the last version is stronger and arguably sounds better, but nevertheless the first one is valid. Oddly enough I find weirder not to repeat the pronouns in the original quote's translation &quot;Je suis venu, j'ai vu, j'ai vaincu&quot;, but that may be because we are so used to this translation..." CreationDate="2020-07-14T18:47:22.187" UserId="7155" />
  <row Id="27183" PostId="14191" Score="0" Text="@Chronocidal: just read your reply to the German translation. And yes &quot;et&quot; feels natural if I remove the pronouns, but even without &quot;et&quot; it remains valid." CreationDate="2020-07-14T18:54:16.397" UserId="7155" />
  <row Id="27189" PostId="14191" Score="1" Text="@Chronocidal Kind of tangential, but you were consistently using “second-person” to refer to “he/she/it.” Those pronouns correspond to third-person; second-person is “you.”" CreationDate="2020-07-15T01:04:56.667" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="27198" PostId="14191" Score="1" Text="Portuguese, corrected: &quot;vim, vi, venci&quot;, &quot;ela veio, viu, [e] venceu&quot;. ( @Chronocidal, [vitoriar](https://dicionario.priberam.org/vitoriar) has a [different meaning](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vitoriar).) Anyone is welcome to come discuss Portuguese in [Falatório](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/25826/falatorio). :)" CreationDate="2020-07-15T15:03:53.067" UserId="7161" />
  <row Id="27205" PostId="14191" Score="0" Text="@odalet Surely the &quot;Oxbridge&quot; *et* is NOT normal in Latin, which tends to prefer *et* throughout if you decide to use it at all." CreationDate="2020-07-16T01:38:28.620" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27207" PostId="14191" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour Not sure I understand your comment... the _et_ I'm referring to is French not Latin... in my last comment I'm simply stating that the _et_ I introduced could have been absent as well." CreationDate="2020-07-16T07:11:45.893" UserId="7155" />
  <row Id="27170" PostId="14195" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! We have a specialy policy here for translation requests: they should include what you have tried your self, if at all possible. They should also include maximum context: what is it for? Can you explain the message it is supposed to convey? Etc." CreationDate="2020-07-14T14:38:16.387" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27186" PostId="14198" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This looks like a promising option. Can you explain or discuss your choice of words a little? I don't immediately see how those verbs work for &quot;retaliate&quot;, but it's probably because they have a nuance I don't know or remember. (Answers always get much more value from explanation in addition to mere statement.)" CreationDate="2020-07-14T21:38:46.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27188" PostId="14198" Score="0" Text="Thank you!  I have edited my answer." CreationDate="2020-07-14T22:27:38.103" UserId="7148" />
  <row Id="27191" PostId="14198" Score="0" Text="Excellent! I'd vote up a second time if I could." CreationDate="2020-07-15T07:47:03.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27192" PostId="14199" Score="1" Text="I assume that &quot;italice: viglietti&quot; refers to the word which in modern Italian is biglietti, French billets, in the sense &quot;notes passed from one person to another&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-15T08:45:18.003" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="27193" PostId="14199" Score="0" Text="@fdb, indeed Wiktionary confirms this. It also says the french *billets* is from the Latin *bulla* (that could mean in medieval times a seal of a document, or the document itself)" CreationDate="2020-07-15T09:08:45.617" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="27171" PostId="14201" Score="0" Text="Thanks for detailed response! How far I got it ... alas." CreationDate="2020-07-14T15:57:55.157" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="27173" PostId="14201" Score="0" Text="By the way, my second-hand source, from which I transcribed the text says &quot;Codicilli voce nihil **Romani** denotabant&quot;, while the original [source](https://books.google.co.il/books?id=qr4oAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA465&amp;lpg=PA465&amp;dq=quam+scripturam+quamdam+ad+alios+missam+veteres&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=mrZXy6wrjc&amp;sig=ACfU3U2GRXAcq62Oz_eeoClYZZCerAsY3w&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiksMW6k83qAhXvl4sKHU5nDgIQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=quam%20scripturam%20quamdam%20ad%20alios%20missam%20veteres&amp;f=false)  says &quot;**Veteres**&quot;  instead of &quot;Romani&quot;. Which indeed makes this clearer." CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:25:30.880" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="27184" PostId="14201" Score="0" Text="Note that *colligas* is subjunctive, so &quot;you *would* correctly conclude...&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-14T20:32:43.443" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27185" PostId="14201" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Ah, of course. What would be the best translation? *Would* might suggest an irrealis? I'm not entirely sure about the conventions of translating into English. A potentialis can be expressed as *could/might*? Alternatively, an adhortativus &quot;should&quot; is possible. I feel that perhaps *would* fits the context best, but I'm not sure whether it is possible with a present subjunctive." CreationDate="2020-07-14T21:18:08.763" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27187" PostId="14201" Score="0" Text="I was using *would* as an implied apodosis (&quot;if you were to conclude this, you would conclude correctly&quot;), but *might/could* seem equally good. A jussive *should* seems less suitable to me in this context, since you wouldn't normally order someone to &quot;conclude correctly&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-14T21:43:45.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27190" PostId="14201" Score="0" Text="@TKR: *&quot;If you were to..., you would...&quot;* sounds a bit like an irrealis? I would not normally treat a present subjunctive as irrealis, but perhaps this translation can be used to render a potentialis as well in English? Or maybe it's the 'trivial' kind of modern irrealis. Oh, well. I agree that *should* is unsuitable if only because of *recte*. I'll go with *may* for the moment." CreationDate="2020-07-15T01:41:18.110" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27202" PostId="14201" Score="0" Text="Apodosis of a future less vivid is what I was thinking with &quot;If you were...&quot;. But *may* seems like an excellent choice." CreationDate="2020-07-15T20:40:08.887" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27203" PostId="14202" Score="0" Text="This isn't really a question about Latin; it feels more like a general [linguistics.se] question to me." CreationDate="2020-07-15T20:50:28.383" UserId="648" />
  <row Id="27194" PostId="14204" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Does [this old question on finger names](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4965/79) answer your question?" CreationDate="2020-07-15T11:38:57.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27199" PostId="14205" Score="0" Text="Great answer! If you go to that much detail, you might want to comment on the numbering of the persons too. Plural semantics shows that it's the order of precedence: any group containing the speaker is first person, any other group containing the addressee is second, all others are third. And of course there's a simple benefit from using the canonical order. (Cf. OP's order.)" CreationDate="2020-07-15T17:03:49.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27200" PostId="14205" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I hadn't heard about the order of precedence. Can you point me to a book that tells more about that? I just figured that variations like &quot;inclusive we&quot; simply don't apply in Latin or English." CreationDate="2020-07-15T17:09:23.050" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="27201" PostId="14205" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately not; it's merely an observation on my part. All languages I know (but surely not all languages on the planet, as any discussion of &quot;clusivity&quot; will show) have this same three-person system. If you describe the persons as you do, which plural person do you assign to a group consisting of the speaker and the addressee? The system is hardly complete enough unless it says that this combination is first person. My point was mostly to draw attention to how your good description of persons is insufficient for a plural &quot;mixed group&quot; (and this is why I avoided these details in my answer)." CreationDate="2020-07-15T17:46:01.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27206" PostId="14210" Score="0" Text="I like *in puncto*. Lucretius is fond of the expression, as are others as a corpus search shows." CreationDate="2020-07-16T06:42:50.730" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27210" PostId="14213" Score="0" Text="Thanks, specially for Collatinus-web." CreationDate="2020-07-16T17:45:36.920" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="27213" PostId="14215" Score="0" Text="How would you translate it in that sentence? It's not obvious how to work &quot;with thanklessness&quot; into it." CreationDate="2020-07-17T07:15:15.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27217" PostId="14215" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: The translation is &quot;against their will&quot;, not &quot;with thanklessness&quot;. It is an idiomatic expression." CreationDate="2020-07-17T12:51:03.983" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27219" PostId="14215" Score="1" Text="you're right about the ablative, the OLD has a separate entry for ingratiis, which says &quot;f. abl. pl.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-17T15:08:59.880" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27221" PostId="14215" Score="0" Text="Hah, I did not think of looking up *ingratia*. Good find." CreationDate="2020-07-17T20:34:53.953" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27222" PostId="14215" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Does the ablative give, literally, &quot;with unwillingness&quot;? Oxford gives &quot;ingratiis&quot;, &quot;ingratis&quot; as an adverb = &quot;against the wishes of&quot;, &quot;unwillingly&quot;. The latter fits, &quot;unwillingly&quot;; but. then there would be no case-ending, for the adverb." CreationDate="2020-07-18T15:53:32.750" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27225" PostId="14215" Score="0" Text="@tony The untold story appears to be that the noun *ingratia* by itself hardly exists at all, whereas *ingrati(i)s* is common. (Well, not common enough for me to know it, but OK.) Or what else do we make of the fact that the only example for *ingratia* L&amp;S can think of is in Tertullian (a Christian writer from 150 AD!), whereas for *ingrati(i)s* they have a whole slew of comedic and classical attestations? One is reminded of *iussu*, an ablative of an otherwise non-existant word." CreationDate="2020-07-18T20:25:19.650" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27226" PostId="14215" Score="1" Text="@tony My point being that you cannot necessarily derive the meaning of *ingratiis* from the meaning of *ingratia*. Of course every Latin speaker could coin the word *ingratia* from *gratia* at any time, but the meaning is not obvious, because *gratia* means so many things. By the way, there is also a counterpart *grati(i)s*, which means “out of favor or kindness; hence, pregn., without recompense or reward, for nothing, gratuitously, gratis.”" CreationDate="2020-07-18T20:45:03.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27258" PostId="14215" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. How about the simplest possible solution: &quot;ingratiis&quot; = (adverb) &quot;unwillingly&quot; (Oxford)? Neither dative nor ablative, by definition. It certainly fits: &quot;....ut ingratis ad depugnandum omnes cogerentur&quot; = &quot;....with the result that all were compelled, unwillingly, for (the purpose of) fighting&quot;. Interesting that the use of &quot;cogo&quot; = &quot;compel&quot;, already implies the unwillingness." CreationDate="2020-07-20T12:08:30.973" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27259" PostId="14215" Score="1" Text="@tony: That is true. But the ablative thing was about how the adverb *ingrati(i)s* had come to be. The dictionaries say it is from *ingratia*, so the ending that made this an adverb was *-is*. That is not an adverbial ending. But it is an ablative or dative ending. The ablative case is often used to form adverbial phrases of nouns, like *gladio hostem interfeci*, &quot;I killed him by sword&quot;. And so it stands to reason that *ingratiis* was really an ablative plural of *ingratia*, but which later acquired a special meaning, whenceforth it was described as a word unto its own (an adverb)." CreationDate="2020-07-20T14:24:30.380" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27283" PostId="14215" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: I wondered about the non-adverbial endings &quot;-is&quot;/ &quot;-iis&quot;; there is a tendency to take anything labelled &quot;Oxford&quot; as Gospel truth. Seb wondered about the evolution of &quot;ungrateful&quot; to &quot;unwilling&quot;; if a party is ungrateful for a service rendered, he may be unwilling to return the favour. The one is &quot;massaged&quot; into the other. The possible tautology between &quot;ingratis&quot; &amp; &quot;cogo&quot; would require the omission of &quot;ingratis&quot; = &quot;unwillingly&quot; (adverb) or = &quot;with unwillingness&quot; (ablative) . There was a debate about superfluous adverbs in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11127/1982." CreationDate="2020-07-21T08:17:04.863" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27316" PostId="14215" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Perhaps &quot;Ingratis&quot; means &quot;with ingratitude&quot;, here? Alternatively, with &quot;cogo&quot; = &quot;compel&quot;, unwillingness is understood therefore the adverb can be omitted. Thirdly, a simpler adverb, looking like an adverb, e.g. &quot;invite&quot; could have been deployed?" CreationDate="2020-07-22T10:59:54.393" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27211" PostId="14216" Score="0" Text="This isn't the answer, but it's a good one: &quot;Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.&quot; Anyone can err, but only the fool persists in his fault. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)" CreationDate="2020-07-17T00:12:30.073" UserDisplayName="senortim" />
  <row Id="27214" PostId="14216" Score="0" Text="Similar to Romans 7:15-19 (but it being a Latin quote is iffy)" CreationDate="2020-07-17T07:42:05.650" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="27216" PostId="14216" Score="0" Text="@Liam: I am reminded of people whom I have known: drinkers; gamblers; druggies: lacking sympathy/ empathy, in my youth: &quot;tu es stulto stultior!&quot; = &quot;You are more stupid than stupid!&quot; Now, realising that addiction is an illness, a more enlightened approach. A one-word answer: &quot;deditus&quot; = &quot;addicted&quot;; or &quot;deditus esse&quot; = &quot;to be addicted to&quot;. (Oxford). If there is anybody who knows that he is making a mistake, but does it anyway, it's an addict." CreationDate="2020-07-17T12:25:54.097" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27218" PostId="14217" Score="1" Text="It would improve the quality of your answer if you provided a link to (or a quote from) the actual Ovid's text." CreationDate="2020-07-17T14:11:08.400" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="27224" PostId="14221" Score="1" Text="Just out of curiosity, what's the text from?" CreationDate="2020-07-18T18:53:38.527" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27229" PostId="14221" Score="0" Text="https://books.google.com/books?id=9Z_fZA-HszUC&amp;pg=PP72#v=onepage&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:04:11.703" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27227" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="Rather &quot;that a native Italian can scarcely understand a Wallachian&quot;, I think." CreationDate="2020-07-18T22:24:13.523" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27228" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="@TKR Fixed, thanks!" CreationDate="2020-07-18T22:31:13.150" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27230" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="tanks a lot @Draconis, I put the source of the book in the first comment. Curious about Moldavia? )" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:05:25.757" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27231" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="So, &quot;Italian mutilated&quot;, but they don't name it... I just searched references about the language of Moldova, over the eternal dispute how to name it, &quot;moldovan&quot; or &quot;romanian&quot;, so here we are )" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:20:14.513" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27232" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="@Serge I'm not sure where exactly this text was written, but I'm guessing the writer's native language was something Western Romance (e.g. Spanish). Romanian and (some varieties of) Italian are both Eastern Romance, so they have features in common that all the Western Romance languages lack, and those similarities would stand out more to a Western Romance speaker than to an actual Italian or Wallachian." CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:26:09.423" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27233" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="the author is &quot;Levin Hulsius (Nuremberg) typis Christophori Lochneri&quot; https://books.google.com/books?id=9Z_fZA-HszUC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:28:56.107" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27234" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="is just the dispute, Moldovans says the language name is Moldovan, and there are multiple sources naming it like this, the Romanians say Moldovan is a dialect... The Moldovans say Walahian is a dialect of Moldovan... )" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:31:28.593" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27235" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="and just, if we are here, in order to not open a new question, could you confirm this phrase &quot;Ex hoc autem incluso exemplo responsionis **moldavice**, quam dedit domino capitaneo exercitus cum aliis dominis, qui cum eo erant, vra.&quot; is about an answer in **moldovan language**, or is a &quot;moldovan answer&quot;, meaning, from Moldova? from here https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/110247415_322626492458325_2884033905847353180_n.png?_nc_cat=108&amp;_nc_sid=8024bb&amp;_nc_ohc=bMlfGkqiTjgAX-h4nAF&amp;_nc_ht=scontent-cdg2-1.xx&amp;oh=4e42998284c7d91893445811d5fb8656&amp;oe=5F393D44" CreationDate="2020-07-19T00:04:03.837" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27236" PostId="14222" Score="2" Text="@Serge I would honestly recommend asking it as a new question; comments aren't long-lived here and it's more useful to have questions others can search for. Feel free to ask it though. I can give a good answer once you do." CreationDate="2020-07-19T00:15:52.960" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27237" PostId="14222" Score="0" Text="you smart, building the community of QA ))" CreationDate="2020-07-19T00:17:41.120" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27238" PostId="14225" Score="0" Text="I thought _Moldavice_ could only be the adverb, since the ablative with _exemplō_ would be _Moldavicō_ and the genitive with _responsionis_ would be _Moldavicae_?" CreationDate="2020-07-19T04:02:45.010" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27239" PostId="14225" Score="1" Text="@Draconis: In this text, *ae* is generally written as *e*. In addition, there is no real praedicate to which an adverbial form could belong here?" CreationDate="2020-07-19T04:15:31.267" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27240" PostId="14225" Score="0" Text="So, if I understand, 1) the &quot;Army&quot; gave a &quot;Moldovan answer&quot; to the &quot;Capitan &amp; Co&quot;; 2) [we?] are held in esteem by the Moldovan[s]? or it's &quot;we&quot; that esteem the Moldovan[s]?" CreationDate="2020-07-19T13:10:00.940" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27241" PostId="14225" Score="0" Text="I could be logic to be &quot;we [cowards] esteem the Moldovans&quot; but not sure..." CreationDate="2020-07-19T13:12:19.500" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27242" PostId="14225" Score="2" Text="@Serge: The esteem in which we are held by the Moldovan(s) is based on our cowardice, so he or they have a very low esteem of us. Conversely, the letter says nothing about our esteem of the Moldovan(s). // I do see a slightly different reading of the army is possible: *&quot;...which he/she/it gave to the Lord Captain of the army along with other Lords, who were with him, ...&quot;*. I can't tell from context which it should be, nor do I know who this he/she/it would be: there is too little information about the situation." CreationDate="2020-07-19T13:56:04.787" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27260" PostId="14225" Score="0" Text="so, &quot;responsionis quam dedit domino capitaneo&quot; could be **to** Captain, or **from** Captain. And the other phrases before the phrase in question does not explain the answer *direction*, neither clearly the *source*..." CreationDate="2020-07-20T14:24:32.593" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27261" PostId="14225" Score="1" Text="@Serge: No, it must be *to* the captain. I think my translation makes that clear? Or is there something unclear about the translation?" CreationDate="2020-07-20T14:28:07.837" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27271" PostId="14225" Score="0" Text="no, no, it's me, I am not native English speaker neither, so now is clear )" CreationDate="2020-07-20T17:55:03.707" UserId="7171" />
  <row Id="27281" PostId="14225" Score="1" Text="@Serge: Ah, OK! Either the army gave the Moldovan answer to the captain, or someone (he/she/it) gave the Moldovan answer to the captain of the army." CreationDate="2020-07-20T21:09:59.350" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27244" PostId="14226" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This is indeed a good option." CreationDate="2020-07-19T18:55:18.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27254" PostId="14226" Score="0" Text="Right, this is basically a general info I already have from public sources, which does not include a suffix usage, like in the example." CreationDate="2020-07-20T08:15:11.437" UserId="7172" />
  <row Id="27246" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="As you point out, the impersonal passive construction can be seen as &quot;a **subject-free** construction&quot;. However, some linguists who believe in (syntactic) empty categories, would say that it is better to regard it as &quot;a **null subject** construction&quot;, i.e., there _is_ a syntactic subject but it is phonologically null (for some references, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null-subject_language)." CreationDate="2020-07-19T20:20:08.303" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27249" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="IIRC, the same is true in Welsh and Irish: no personal passive (though a periphrastic one has developed) but an impersonal one." CreationDate="2020-07-19T23:01:05.180" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="27251" PostId="14228" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino In a null-subject sentence (like &quot;Arma virumque cano.&quot;) the subject could easily be supplied, but in this case no subject (like &quot;someone,&quot; &quot;people&quot;) would fit in. If no subject would fit (without changing the verb's voice), it cannot really be said to be &quot;phonologically null&quot; (i.e., &quot;silent&quot;)." CreationDate="2020-07-20T06:36:09.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27253" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel In null-subject languages like Latin impersonal constructions can be claimed to have a null expletive pronoun in subject position. Note that in non-null-subject languages like German there _is_ a subject pronoun in impersonal constructions: e.g., cf. _**Es** wurde getanzt_, lit. 'It was danced' and _**Es** regnet_, like in English _It rains_. So, according to some linguists, in Lat. _ascenditur_ there is a null expletive subject (technically, a null expletive pro). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_expletive" CreationDate="2020-07-20T07:54:00.697" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27255" PostId="14228" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino You seem to have so much to comment on the answers that maybe you should post your own. Multiple points of view are welcome, and yours is unfortunately buried in the comments." CreationDate="2020-07-20T10:03:05.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27269" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your kind invitation, Joonas, to post a new third answer but my comments are just minor qualifications on the two excellent answers (I upvoted both!) to the simple question above. As noted, for me an interesting point is why Latin lacks the expression _He {climbed/ascended} the stairs (to the room)_, i.e., why in Latin _scalas_ cannot be the direct object of a verb like _ascendere_." CreationDate="2020-07-20T17:39:38.073" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27273" PostId="14228" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino But such pronouns in impersonal constructions do not exist in Latin. Is it not silly to claim the existence of a part of syntax which unfortunately is always invisible? It is an unfalsifiable claim! (And what goes on in German is a whole other can of worms. In educated speech you can still say “mich hungert” [I am hungry, but with an impersonal verb].)" CreationDate="2020-07-20T18:13:53.057" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27277" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel The issue of empty subjects (expletive ones included) has a long tradition in formal syntax, especially since the formulation of the allegedly **universal** principle that _all_ clauses have subjects (the so-called Extended Projection Principle, EPP for short: cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_projection_principle ). For some relevant (although admittedly too technical) discussion, see http://157.138.8.12/jspui/bitstream/11707/476/3/6.1.2.pdf  Still, is the universal status of EPP (and more generally, so-called Universal Grammar) controversial? Yes, probably it is." CreationDate="2020-07-20T19:33:45.127" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27280" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel As for your interesting German example, it is funny that the expletive pronoun _es_ can be added after the impersonal verb: cf. p. 20 of https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/83653183.pdf In contrast, the non-impersonal example _ich hungere_ is said to be possible as controlling verb: 'I am fasting/dieting'. Turning back to the topic of the present post, if there is control (i.e. **agency**), the impersonal passive construction of this second example should be possible. Is this prediction correct? Impersonal passive constructions are only possible with agentive intransitive verbs." CreationDate="2020-07-20T20:37:07.783" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27282" PostId="14228" Score="2" Text="To add to the collection of impersonal verb constructions, Polish does it with the reflexive rather than the passive *chodziło się*, “it would go itself”. It seems that this construction is a universal need and each language has to find a different way to accommodate it in a grammar not designed for it." CreationDate="2020-07-21T05:12:49.760" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="27301" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Your prediction is indeed correct. Any intransitive verb is eligible and transitive ones too if they can be used intransitively. I wonder if that works in Latin? *In foro canitur.* – there is singing in the forum. *Vir illustris in oppidum nostrum venit. In foro canitur.* – A famous man came to our city. He is being sung in the forum / there is singing in the forum?" CreationDate="2020-07-21T22:25:36.370" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27303" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Yes, I agree with your intuition: _in foro canitur_ sounds perfect as an impersonal passive construction. However, note that the statement &quot;any intransitive/intransitivized verb is eligible&quot; is too general for Latin (and probably for German too). For example, I think that the intransitive verb _mori_ does not enter into the impersonal passive construction: see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9379/on-the-absence-of-impersonal-passives-of-deponent-verbs" CreationDate="2020-07-21T23:18:26.650" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27304" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="Interesting.  Impersonal actives (*placet*, *licet*, *oportet* and friends) are more common in Latin than impersonal passives, but it now strikes me that those are all intransitive verbs.  For a transitive verb if only the patient is known, a personal passive will do.  If neither agent nor patient is known, does Latin always use an impersonal passive for a transitive verb, or is it a choice?" CreationDate="2020-07-22T01:17:19.837" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27311" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Excellent question! Would you mind asking that as a separate question? At least I'd be glad to learn more about that. I have an impression about that but I think someone could provide something much more solid." CreationDate="2020-07-22T07:08:01.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27321" PostId="14228" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks.  I will do this." CreationDate="2020-07-22T21:27:31.210" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27245" PostId="14229" Score="0" Text="Your observation is very interesting: &quot;the Romans didn't typically think of stairs as things that were themselves climbed but as the means of climbing up to something else&quot;. This is related to the so-called &quot;satellite-framed&quot; nature of Latin, where the preverb expresses directionality, and the verbal root encodes the manner. The meanings of the prefixes were quite transparent and the Ground (i.e., the Place) is expressed (i) via a PP or (ii) via a NP. The adjunct _scalis_ is specifiying the manner component and, as you point out, unlike in English, it cannot be construed as a direct object." CreationDate="2020-07-19T19:55:36.050" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27250" PostId="14229" Score="0" Text="Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge's descriptive claim that &quot;Impersonal Verbs are verbs in which **the agent** is regularly implied in the action (...) The passive of intransitive verbs is often used impersonally&quot; can be appropriate when accounting for **why** only some intransitive verbs (so-called &quot;unergatives&quot;) enter into the impersonal passive construction. For more discussion, see Section 1 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice" CreationDate="2020-07-20T02:33:34.703" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27256" PostId="14229" Score="0" Text="[disclaimer: my father was the Latin expert in the family, I'm strictly a linguistic dilettante] given that *dicuntur* is also passive, it all fits rather nicely. The passive is better translated into English as *reached via a/the staircase*, complete with the irony of *adding* a Latin word that wasn't present in the original." CreationDate="2020-07-20T10:18:19.413" UserId="2489" />
  <row Id="27257" PostId="14229" Score="1" Text="@cnread: Why can't &quot;ad quae scalis ascenditur&quot; = &quot;to which it-is-climbed by stairs&quot;? This could have been written as gerundive-of-obligation impersonal construction: &quot;ad quae scalis ascendendum est&quot; = &quot;to which it-ought-to-be-climbed by stairs&quot; = &quot;....it must be climbed by stairs&quot;, where &quot;scalis&quot; is dative plural." CreationDate="2020-07-20T11:46:52.410" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27266" PostId="14229" Score="3" Text="@tony, Sure, I suppose another translation could be 'to which it-is-climbed by stairs' – it's not my cup of tea, but why not? I don't see that the gerundive construction is the same at all: there's no obligation to climb the stairs in the original version. Also, note that, even if a gerundive were used, scalis would still be ablative, because the stairs aren't doing the climbing, and they have no obligation to do so. The dative with gerundive shows who has the obligation, not the means by which the obligation is discharged." CreationDate="2020-07-20T16:37:05.177" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="27272" PostId="14229" Score="0" Text="@WillCrawford In fact, the lexical &quot;addition&quot; of the preposition _via_ in your English translation corresponds to the means component that can be claimed to be grammaticalized in the ablative case of _scalis_. By the _way_, note that your translation lacks the **manner** component encoded in the Lat. verbal root (-_sc(e)nd-_), i.e., the English verb _reach_ only encodes directionality (cf. the Lat. prefix _ad_-) but lacks manner." CreationDate="2020-07-20T18:05:42.750" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27275" PostId="14229" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino true enough. I wish English allowed us to write *to which by stairs is a-climbed* :)" CreationDate="2020-07-20T19:17:28.970" UserId="2489" />
  <row Id="27276" PostId="14229" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino or *which is climbed to via a staircase*. Just seems a bit clumsy." CreationDate="2020-07-20T19:20:58.313" UserId="2489" />
  <row Id="27278" PostId="14229" Score="1" Text="@WillCrawford natural translations like yours above (although lacking some information from the original text) are typically better than those clumsy ones that try to fit _all_ the original information. Translation is often a matter of selection..." CreationDate="2020-07-20T19:53:53.660" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27263" PostId="14230" Score="1" Text="The accusative is used when motion is involved, hence &quot;ad Vincula&quot;. Preposition &quot;sub&quot; takes the accusative, instead of the expected ablative, in &quot;sub iugum mittere&quot; = &quot;to be taken under the yoke&quot;, a form of humiliation for a defeated enemy." CreationDate="2020-07-20T15:45:07.233" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27264" PostId="14232" Score="3" Text="I also think it's most likely to be Secundus. cf. SECVΛDVS.FE https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1853-0502-220 (a side note: do we even know of any female potters in Roman Britain?)" CreationDate="2020-07-20T15:52:50.950" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27265" PostId="14232" Score="3" Text="@AlexB.: Good example. I wouldn't expect female potters in Britain either." CreationDate="2020-07-20T15:58:38.420" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27274" PostId="14232" Score="6" Text="the only source I can find that mentions Secundua [sic] is Buckland, P.C., Hartley, K.F. and Rigby, V. 2001. The Roman Pottery Kilns at Rossington Bridge. Excavations 1956–1961. Journal of Roman Pottery Studies Volume 9. Oxford: Oxbow/Study Group for Roman Pottery. We'll need to see a photo to speculate further." CreationDate="2020-07-20T18:20:37.100" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27287" PostId="14232" Score="2" Text="While computers may have difficulties transcribing the letter S and mistake it as A, please note that also on standard English keyboard, the S key is next to the A key and people may have a similar difficulty too. Then if the name is foreign, a proofreader may miss that easily." CreationDate="2020-07-21T11:32:35.747" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="27296" PostId="14232" Score="3" Text="Update: a quote from NAA Monograph Series No. 3 Artefacts Volume 2 A Roman Roadside Settlement at Healam Bridge: The Iron Age to Early Medieval Evidence :110  : “ The optimum date of Sarrius’s productions in north-east England and in Scotland is within the period AD 140-165. They were not necessarily contemporary, but the wall-sided mortaria made at Bearsden and at Rossington Bridge (**stamped by his associate Secundua**) would best&#xA;fit a date no earlier than c.AD 140. Further details of his work can be found in Buckland et al. (2001, 45-47) and Breeze (2016)” [emphasis mine - Alex B.]" CreationDate="2020-07-21T18:11:57.157" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27297" PostId="14232" Score="2" Text="A quote from Breeze 2016: 143 : “ The multi-potter workshop at Rossington Bridge, near Doncaster&#xA;At some point in the Antonine period Sarrius became involved in a pottery workshop at Rossington Bridge where his stamp sometimes appears alongside a stamp of either Setibogius or Secundua (Buckland et al 2001). It has always been supposed that they were local potters who were acting as ‘agents’ for Sarrius, but it would make more sense if they were the two potters sent by him from his headquarters workshop in Warwickshire and if they were allowed to put their names on the vessels as well as his.”" CreationDate="2020-07-21T18:29:18.283" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27267" PostId="14233" Score="2" Text="The question says *Secundua*, though." CreationDate="2020-07-20T17:21:10.937" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="27268" PostId="14233" Score="0" Text="I'm not aware of that as a word, much less a name, which would be why I misread it." CreationDate="2020-07-20T17:25:57.797" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27270" PostId="14233" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I misread it myself! Thanks for pointing this out." CreationDate="2020-07-20T17:46:42.280" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27322" PostId="14234" Score="1" Text="Thankyou Figulus. I had seen S Peter in vinculis mentioned in an Italian context. The ad bit and accusative baffles me a bit . Does it mean S Peter going to the chains or is it suggesting a pilgrimage to Rome , like a pub in Nottingham called The Trip to Jerusalem? Geoff Clarke" CreationDate="2020-07-22T22:06:55.387" UserId="7177" />
  <row Id="27324" PostId="14234" Score="0" Text="@GeoffClarke It is definitely more of a virtual pilgrimage to Rome. Often these shrines in Rome have indulgences associated with them, and there is usually some allowance for non-Romans to get an equivalent indulgence, something like, &quot;If you celebrate the feast *Ad vincula* (which was on August 1st), you get the same indulgence that you would have gotten if you had physicially travelled &quot;to the chains&quot;, i.e., to the shrine in Rome." CreationDate="2020-07-23T00:23:38.747" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27284" PostId="14235" Score="0" Text="Strictly.speaking, don't all *cognomina* have natural gender?  *Seneca* is whatever gender its referent is.  (I'm not sure the extent to which women used *cognomina*, but since *cognomina* were sometimes treated as heritable, this must have happened at least once in a while.)" CreationDate="2020-07-21T10:42:23.343" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27285" PostId="14235" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Cognomina were mostly used by males, at least as an only name. Typically the name *Seneca* is used to refer to Lucius Annaeus Seneca, a male (or two). Modern last names have arguably natural gender, but Roman cognomina aren't quite the same. And the main point is: cognomina like Seneca and Pansa can refer to males despite looking feminine, so you can't deduce the gender from form alone." CreationDate="2020-07-21T10:48:30.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27288" PostId="14235" Score="0" Text="So would one of their daughters, for disambiguation, have been *Annaea Seneca*, *Annaea Senecae*, or *Annaea Senecarum*?" CreationDate="2020-07-21T14:36:07.340" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27294" PostId="14235" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Good question! I recommend taking that to a separate question. My only point here was that Seneca is most often masculine; whether it is always masculine is irrelevant for my argument but certainly interesting. It would be a digression here, though." CreationDate="2020-07-21T16:37:41.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27300" PostId="14236" Score="1" Text="btw, in German &quot;Salat&quot; is masculine." CreationDate="2020-07-21T20:36:34.683" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="27308" PostId="14236" Score="6" Text="It sounds a prime candidate for a neuter plural being reinterpreted as a feminine singular." CreationDate="2020-07-22T06:53:01.923" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="28522" PostId="14236" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski That's a very good guess! Can you post it as an answer? We might not have a fully definitive answer, but explaining that and maybe giving other examples would be great." CreationDate="2020-08-06T16:18:36.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28547" PostId="14236" Score="3" Text="The etymological dictionaries usually trace it to Italian *insalata*, cf.  &quot;Empr. à l'ital. du Nord salada, salata, ital. insalata (att. au sens 1 dep. fin xiiie-déb. xives., Cenne de La Chitarra; dér. insalatuzza ds Boccace, Décaméron ds Batt.), part. passé de salare, insalare « saler », du lat. tardif salare, insalare « id. », dér. de sal, -is (sel*). Voir FEW t. 11, p. 82b et 84a, et Hope, pp. 49-50.&quot; https://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/salade" CreationDate="2020-08-07T16:45:33.867" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28551" PostId="14236" Score="2" Text="btw, one of the first attestations of *insalata* (a feminine noun in Italian) is Domenico Cavalca (c. 1270-1342): &quot;fece un'insalata di erbe, e con poco d'aceto e oglio cenarono.&quot; (Grande dizionario della lingua italiana) http://www.gdli.it/sala-lettura/vol/8?seq=85 cf. Zingarelli 2021, &quot;av. 1342&quot;" CreationDate="2020-08-07T19:17:07.057" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28562" PostId="14236" Score="1" Text="Stipulation: Because it's elided from a compound, *plantname salata*, *salted leaves of plant so and so*. The partucular plant (brasica?) doesn't matter much at this point, plants are simply feminine, often enough." CreationDate="2020-08-06T16:14:06.430" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="27295" PostId="14237" Score="1" Text="I took a look, and it looks like your 1st ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Sublime)) and 3rd ([link](https://www-jstor-org.proxycu.wrlc.org/stable/pdf/41318441.pdf)) examples both date to the latter half of the 1st century AD." CreationDate="2020-07-21T17:02:06.063" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27298" PostId="14238" Score="1" Text="Perhaps some distinction could be made with habito vs versor?" CreationDate="2020-07-21T18:39:44.807" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="27299" PostId="14238" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite Making the distinction with verbs never crossed my mind, but that sounds like a good idea. Especially if those two are an attested contrasting pair in that sense, that would be great." CreationDate="2020-07-21T18:47:38.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27315" PostId="14238" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In English &quot;at home&quot; has a feeling of comfort; security; peace-of-mind. Americans invite guests to &quot;make themselves at home&quot;. In Latin &quot;domi&quot; = &quot;at home&quot;; &quot;postquam domi suae lesum hospitio recepit...&quot; = &quot;after welcoming Jesus to his home...&quot; (Glosbe: Uses of domi)." CreationDate="2020-07-22T10:54:34.347" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27317" PostId="14238" Score="0" Text="@tony That is precisely the sense of &quot;home&quot; I am after. Indeed, *domus* can mean this but it can also refer to the physical building. The distinction is hard to make with it, although it's certainly the most important word in this topic." CreationDate="2020-07-22T11:04:32.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27302" PostId="14239" Score="5" Text="Excelent suggestion! I would have thought that the plural *lares* would be more common, but your quote from Sallust gainsays my prejudice." CreationDate="2020-07-21T23:11:44.583" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27309" PostId="14239" Score="1" Text="Excellent indeed. Spanish uses *hogar*, a hearth, which is exactly the same idea minus gods. The only snag might be if you wanted to say that Rome is a city of half a million *lares*, because that implies (which is absurd) one *lar* per household. It is one of those cases where one needs plurals of plurals..." CreationDate="2020-07-22T06:56:10.967" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="27314" PostId="14239" Score="2" Text="As a portugese speaker, we use a lot &quot;LAR&quot; to mean home. I can have a home, even if I dont have house. I, and my wife and kids, can have a home, even if we live over the streets, one street each day. As we still hold together, support each other, rely on each other, we have a quit strong LAR, even without house." CreationDate="2020-07-22T09:01:56.567" UserId="7188" />
  <row Id="27319" PostId="14239" Score="3" Text="Just adding, I hope, an interesting &quot;cent&quot; to enforce the &quot;lar&quot; as a good word for what you are looking for.&#xA;&#xA;I believe &quot;Home, sweet home&quot; has become an american saying (just learnt this origin is a song) and I believe people use it exactly to express a place they feel comfortable, at ease, safe and enjoy being at.&#xA;&#xA;In Portuguese, the same would be &quot;Lar, doce lar&quot; which is also used to express the same and as far as I could find it comes directly from the latim &quot;LAR&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-22T15:28:07.330" UserId="7190" />
  <row Id="27399" PostId="14239" Score="2" Text="@Figulus To be sure, the dictionaries also list plural uses in this sense. For some reason, in one example Ovid prefers the plural *tecta*, but still the singular *larem*: “nunc avis in ramo tecta laremque parat” (Fasti III 242). Who knew birds had lares too?" CreationDate="2020-07-26T11:07:35.000" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27400" PostId="14239" Score="1" Text="@FEST This Portuguese use is most fascinating. I would have thought *lar* might be a bit too culturally specific to be used in a context where we, well, do not believe in domestic lares, but at least the Portuguese seem not to have thought so. Apparently in Spanish you also *can* say *lar* for *hogar*, but it seems to be a latter-day “learned borrowing” from Latin." CreationDate="2020-07-26T11:11:38.880" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34027" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2020.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/531/79)" CreationDate="2021-07-08T10:52:31.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37985" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="Your suggestion of lār for 'home' is a welcome surprise to me, and even more fascinating is the fact it's still used for 'hearth' in Galician-Portuguese, esp. metonymically. But I would like to offer corrections as well: 1) *habitatium* should be ***habitātiō;*** cf. the rare *habitāculum*. 2) *tēctō subiī* should be ***tēctum*** and the meaning is &quot;I've walked under a roof, covered myself with a roof&quot;, i.e. &quot;entered a house&quot;. It describes physical movement/change of location and cannot be used to mean &quot;I've found a place to live&quot;. 3) *etiam* requires *-num* or *-dum* to mean &quot;still, yet&quot;." CreationDate="2022-04-15T23:56:31.760" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37990" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Thank you, I have corrected these. It is not clear to me why you object to the dative *tecto*; do you agree with [this person](https://www.google.de/books/edition/Publius_Virgilius_Maro/xWNHAQAAMAAJ?pg=PA26) that «[apud Virgilium saltem, verbum subire] accusativo adiuncto significat *intrare*, dativo *prope accedere*»? On what grounds do you think it must be read literally? Caesar wrote, «Germani, exercitatissimi in armis, qui inter annos XIII tectum non subissent» (BG I, 36; they had been in the field fourteen years, not exactly the same thing, but surely Ariovist was not …" CreationDate="2022-04-16T12:10:20.963" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37991" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="… suggesting they had never sought shelter from rain, I think)." CreationDate="2022-04-16T12:10:39.417" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38000" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="Yes it's clear that &quot;to enter inside the location&quot; is expressed with the accusative, and &quot;to approach it&quot; with the dative, as that commentary says and as you can see for yourself by consulting L&amp;S.—The grounds for reading it literally is the same as in any language I know - the verb in question expresses physical entrance into a space. *tēctum* means &quot;roof of a house&quot; - the soldiers hadn't entered a house for 13 years, being on a continuous campaign. In English &quot;he hasn't stepped inside a house&quot; can be used in the same way, but &quot;he stepped inside a house&quot; can't mean &quot;He found a place to live&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-16T14:08:50.810" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38029" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="*sēdēs, is* f.  abode, residence (see Gaffiot), which could stand for *home*. In «Fabulae Faciles: A First Latin Reader», by Ritchie, 1884, you read *ille matrem et puerum benigne excepit, et eis sedem tutam in finibus suis dedit*" CreationDate="2022-04-17T18:01:28.473" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="38075" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian that does not seem so clear to me. What are we to make of this example, quoted by L&amp;S: *aut dumis subit, albenti si sensit in aethra librantem nisus aquilam, lepus* ([Sil. 5, 283](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/silius/silius5.shtml))? The rabbit does presumably not just approach the shrubbery." CreationDate="2022-04-23T12:24:15.860" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38081" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="I'm unsure how to answer so I'll flip it around. Suppose you as a fluent English &amp; German speaker read the sentence *&quot;I've gone to the house&quot;,* which the author claims to mean 'Ich hab eine Wohnung gefunden'. You explain to them that 1) it should be 'gone into the house' because *to* means 'zum, in Richtung Haus gehen' expressing direction, and *in* means 'das Haus betreten'; but most importantly 2) 'das Haus betreten' cannot mean 'einen Wohnungsplatz finden'. Because there's no such custom, ritual or cultural metaphor where you become a permanent occupant of any house that you enter." CreationDate="2022-04-23T15:50:31.680" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38082" PostId="14239" Score="0" Text="—And that person says: &quot;but what about 'John went to the shop to buy some food while his mother went to the cinema'? Presumably he didn't just approach the shop, while his mother probably didn't just walk in the direction of the cinema and come back.&quot; How would you reply?" CreationDate="2022-04-23T15:50:42.893" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="27306" PostId="14242" Score="3" Text="Where's this from?" CreationDate="2020-07-22T04:23:02.627" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27310" PostId="14242" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you have trouble understanding a specific part of the passage? You can edit your question to clarify your goal and context." CreationDate="2020-07-22T07:04:26.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27312" PostId="14242" Score="1" Text="@Draconis its the title of a map of the Earth made in ~1668: https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:n8710p88b" CreationDate="2020-07-22T07:21:20.193" UserId="7187" />
  <row Id="27313" PostId="14242" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta its not a particular part i need translated, its the whole thing. I want to include the image linked above in my thesis (Im a geology student, not latin :p) and would like to include the english translation of the title." CreationDate="2020-07-22T07:22:40.497" UserId="7187" />
  <row Id="27318" PostId="14242" Score="0" Text="1. The last word must be concoctos, I think. .2. The whole title should include, underneath: &quot;Ignis centralis &quot;A&quot;, whence and whence by fire-conducting channels ...etc.&#xA;&quot;But the Figure will teach you all things better, than I by explanation.  &quot;The rest more exactly will become clear from the description and argument of the work itself etc etc&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-22T13:28:29.217" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="27323" PostId="14242" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I guess rather that *concoctus, -us* is a noun meaning “boiling.” Yes, it's not in the dictionary, but neither is *protrusio*. “Ignis centralis …” starts a whole new sentence (verb is *diffundit* and so on)." CreationDate="2020-07-22T23:35:03.533" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27336" PostId="14242" Score="0" Text="Thanks for all the interest in this :D So what would the full translation be?" CreationDate="2020-07-24T00:09:54.097" UserId="7187" />
  <row Id="27320" PostId="14243" Score="0" Text="Sure, but my question is specifically about Mt. Ararat, which AFAIK only occurs in the Genesis version of the story." CreationDate="2020-07-22T17:56:29.533" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27325" PostId="14247" Score="0" Text="What would an impersonal _ait_ mean? Something like &quot;they say&quot; or &quot;people say&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-07-23T03:56:41.373" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="27326" PostId="14247" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I suppose.  I guess I am wondering for a defective verb that lacks a passive whether *ait* as impersonal would mean what *aitur* would mean if it existed.  What I am wondering in general is different.  In English you can have impersonal transitive actives: &quot;How's it going?&quot;  &quot;It sucks %^&amp;*s&quot;.  Can you do that in Latin, or do you have to say &quot;%^&amp;*s are being sucked&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-07-23T04:34:55.460" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27344" PostId="14251" Score="2" Text="Browsing the relevant entries in the OLD, I found an interesting example from Livy 31.27: &quot;hic metus Codrionem, satis validum et munitum oppidum, sine certamine ut dederetur Romanis effecit, praesidio ibi relicto, Cnidus—nomen propter alteram in Asia urbem quam oppidum notius—vi capitur." CreationDate="2020-07-24T15:13:33.653" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27356" PostId="14251" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. That is indeed interesting. Would you translate that as &quot;a name better known for another Asian city than a town&quot;? I find that sentence confusing, a feeling familiar from when I took a Livy course a decade ago..." CreationDate="2020-07-24T20:32:42.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27363" PostId="14251" Score="3" Text="I read it as [nomen notius quam oppidum] propter [alteram in Asia urbem], i.e. &quot;a name better known than the town itself because of another town/city in Asia&quot;. It's like talking about St. Petersburg in Florida and St. Petersburg in Russia" CreationDate="2020-07-25T03:30:52.530" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27327" PostId="14253" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the answer and the appropriate link. I'm thinking that if perhaps  we are on a dial system it can be turned High enough so any noun could really have agency and in that case saying a lectīcā is acceptable. I can think of few cases in Italian where abstract thoughts or emotions can be agents, but along with the above one can say 'a macchina' (by car) and especially you do want to distinguish it from a second following proposition of location, i.e. --a macchina in ospedale, not --in macchina in ospedale" CreationDate="2020-07-23T15:50:02.033" UserId="5004" />
  <row Id="27328" PostId="14253" Score="0" Text="@rearThing Most Latin grammars will tell you that things can be agents but that they will not get the preposition. A less common but essentially equivalent view is that the &quot;thing agents&quot; are in fact instruments. In Latin a thing agent with a preposition is extremely rare, nowhere near comparable to e.g. Italian. You would have turn the dial a lot, but I wanted to mention this rare option too." CreationDate="2020-07-23T17:34:23.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27334" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="This is indeed most of what I am looking for.  I'd also be interested if there are examples that don't feel like they *ought* to take the dative...e.g., examples of straightforward action verbs like &quot;strikes&quot; or &quot;sucks&quot; or &quot;kills&quot; appearing as active impersonals." CreationDate="2020-07-23T22:28:16.267" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27335" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour The English verbs you mention are **causative** verbs that can be interpreted psychologically. Note that Lat. stative verbs of the _pudet_ type are also psychological and their accusative case has been originally related to those causative verbs of the 2nd conjugation. Cf. Matasović's  (2013) proposal that &quot;the irregular case-frames of the Latin bivalent statives are innovations based on the analogy with the case-frames of causative verbs, which had the Causee argument in the accusative case&quot;. https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/indo/118/2013/article-p93.xml?language=de" CreationDate="2020-07-23T23:59:43.407" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27337" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="Thanks for copying that material into your answer!" CreationDate="2020-07-24T02:02:17.897" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27338" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="However, while I can see how &quot;it kills me&quot; uses &quot;kills&quot; as a psychological verb, I don't see how you can make the same claim about how &quot;it sucks balls&quot; uses &quot;sucks&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-24T02:10:48.283" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27342" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Your example _it kills me_ involves figurative usage but contains a &quot;normal&quot; transitive verb, i.e., a transitive verb whose subject (the pronoun _it_) is semantically interpreted as a Cause argument. So this example, unlike the Latin ones discussed above (e.g. the _pudet_-type ones), lacks impersonality. Same with the idiomatic expression _It sucks balls_: I understand this _it_ is referring to something (e.g. a movie). So I'd not consider it impersonal either. Note also that _Hoc/id_ (nominative) VERB _me_ (accusative) is not (usually considered) an impersonal construction in Latin." CreationDate="2020-07-24T03:53:01.680" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27343" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="OK, I probably should have been more clear.  While &quot;It sucks balls&quot; is usually not an impersonal construction, it certainly is in response to the question &quot;How's it going?&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-24T10:30:58.300" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27345" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Ok, I see. So it seems that &quot;it sucks balls&quot; is a kind of idiomatic expression where the subject pronoun &quot;it&quot; (unlike the one of &quot;_it_ kills me&quot;, right?) can be a sort of expletive (i.e., non-meaningful) pronoun similar to the one of the impersonal construction &quot;_it_ rains cats and dogs&quot;. As I pointed out before in a previous post, it would be nice if we could have a database on idiomatic expressions of Latin: cf.  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11270/is-there-any-database-on-idiomatic-expressions-in-latin" CreationDate="2020-07-24T15:58:23.190" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27348" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="Aren't meteorological expressions like &quot;it rains&quot; classic examples of impersonals?" CreationDate="2020-07-24T17:03:43.893" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27349" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour That's right! Impersonal constructions like _It rains_ have an expletive (i.e., non-meaningful) subject in English. Note instead that the subject of _it kills me_ is meaningful since the pronoun _it_ is the Cause of _killing_. Thanks for letting me know that _it sucks balls_ can also be used as an impersonal construction (NB: I'm not a native speaker of English)." CreationDate="2020-07-24T17:10:54.307" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27364" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Having proven the case with &quot;nisi me fallit&quot;, why express doubt at the end? In the cited pages from (A &amp; G): p.388(a): &quot;Many verbs apparently intransitive, expressing feeling, take an accusative, and may be used in the passive.&quot; Three examples are given, the third of which: &quot;ridetur ab omni conventu&quot; = &quot;he is laughed at by the whole assembly&quot;; where is the accusative, here? This is faintly reminiscent of &quot;nisi mihi irisisset&quot; from Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12992/1982, in which a directional prefix, &quot;ir&quot; (= &quot;in&quot;) applied to verb &quot;rideo&quot;, demands a dative (mihi)" CreationDate="2020-07-25T08:12:00.180" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27365" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: indirect object. The logic is clear: the ridicule is directed at someone--directional, by definition. Why is &quot;mihi&quot; labelled &quot;indirect&quot; when it is substituting for what would normally be the accusative direct-object, &quot;me&quot;, e.g. &quot;me ridet&quot; = &quot;he is laughing at me&quot; (A &amp; G)?" CreationDate="2020-07-25T08:19:43.603" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27429" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@tony note that your interesting example _ridetur ab omni conventu_ is **ambiguous** since it can be interpreted as a personal passive of a transitive use, i.e., with an elliptical personal subject (your interpretation: &quot;**he** is laughed at by the whole assembly&quot;) but also as an **impersonal** passive of its intransitive use (i.e., 'laughing is being done by the whole assembly'). Note the very important point that impersonal passives in Latin can *also* take agentive _by_-phrases." CreationDate="2020-07-27T21:44:21.520" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27430" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="E.g., cf. Caesar's (_BG_ 2.33.3) example _Pugnatum ab hostibus acriter est_. CF. https://books.google.es/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA39&amp;lpg=PA164-IA39&amp;dq=Pugnatum+ab+hostibus+acriter+est&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aieV8oDoX-&amp;sig=ACfU3U1m5apUFhiEkcSHDktnAZqs88MxaQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiS1NDMte7qAhUP4YUKHaDcDCg4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Pugnatum%20ab%20hostibus%20acriter%20est&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2020-07-27T21:53:58.507" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27435" PostId="14254" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you. The &quot;nisi mihi irisisset&quot; vs &quot;nisi me risisset&quot; conflict: thinking and paraphrasing: &quot;If he (the subject) had not directed (verb) the ridicule (direct object) at/to me (indirect object [mihi])&quot;. The difference is now clear between the  directionally-prefixed verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;, demanding a dative indirect-object; and, the non-prefixed parent verb, &quot;rideo&quot;, which demands an accusative direct-object, &quot;me&quot;. It pays, at least initially, to translate literally." CreationDate="2020-07-29T11:55:07.360" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27329" PostId="14257" Score="5" Text="I'd take *sibi* as dative of agent -- &quot;nothing certain has yet been decided by him&quot; (taking the implied *esse* with *constitutum*)." CreationDate="2020-07-23T19:29:11.177" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27332" PostId="14257" Score="1" Text="Thanks! this missing *esse* made it harder for me. How frequent an &quot;implied esse&quot; in indirect speech is used?" CreationDate="2020-07-23T21:12:52.833" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="27333" PostId="14257" Score="0" Text="@TKR I think you're right! Edited accordingly" CreationDate="2020-07-23T21:20:23.137" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27346" PostId="14257" Score="2" Text="@d_e I find that *esse* is rarely made explicit in indirect speech." CreationDate="2020-07-24T16:16:19.167" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="27347" PostId="14257" Score="0" Text="@TKR  Descriptively speaking, I agree that here _sibi_ is a &quot;dative of agent&quot;. However, to the extent that datives of agent can be theoretically reduced to datives of possession (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12844/can-a-dative-of-agent-appear-in-an-ablative-absolute-construction ), I'd eliminate the correction over &quot;possession&quot;. Incidentally, note that the presence of a dative of agent here is a nice evidence for the existence of an elliptical _esse_. Importantly, as claimed in my link, datives of agent, unlike ablatives of agent, cannot **directly** depend on a participle." CreationDate="2020-07-24T16:51:49.593" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27350" PostId="14257" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I agree that the distinction is a fuzzy one. As often in such cases, it's not clear to me whether there's any Latin-internal justification for positing two distinct readings or whether the apparent ambiguity is an artifact of translation. I wonder if there are any extant discussions by ancient grammarians of such apparently ambiguous constructions." CreationDate="2020-07-24T18:51:41.587" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27357" PostId="14257" Score="0" Text="@TKR translations often conflate {datives/ablatives} of agent (typically via a _by_-phrase), whereby the relevant morphosyntactically-encoded semantic distinction in Latin is lost. If you take a look at this link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255723772_Le_datif_d'agent_'datiuus_auctoris'_un_fantome_dans_la_syntaxe_latine ), you'll see that the &quot;dative of agent&quot; is more similar to a dativus iudicantis (in my view, it is even more similar to a dative of possession) than to an &quot;ablative of agent&quot;. I agree it'd be nice to see if ancient grammarians said anything about this" CreationDate="2020-07-24T22:10:23.037" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27330" PostId="14258" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you also try to answer the specific question I had about the two puzzling parts in this particular poem? Are the two parts I mentioned exceptional or expected according to the convention? It seems that you are providing background information but not getting around to answering the actual question using that information." CreationDate="2020-07-23T19:43:13.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28440" PostId="14258" Score="0" Text="Hi! I undeleted the answer and voted up. I hadn't noticed your edit as you had deleted the post. I look forward to reading more from you!" CreationDate="2020-07-31T05:31:40.443" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27368" PostId="14259" Score="1" Text="*Academīa* is from Ἀκαδήμεια, so with -īa as in Thalīa &lt; Θάλεια. Likewise Elēus &lt; Ἠλεῖος. Οὐρανία has short ι, as I think does Παυσανίας." CreationDate="2020-07-25T21:13:41.647" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27401" PostId="14260" Score="0" Text="An interesting point about metric constraints - thanks!" CreationDate="2020-07-26T12:46:36.560" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27404" PostId="14260" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Thanks! I updated that point slightly. The metre may have already played a role in Greek before Latin." CreationDate="2020-07-26T16:56:19.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27369" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="Romance languages like Catalan (my native language) can account for the minimal contrast _**Mihi** hoc est constitutum_ and _**A me** hoc est constitutum_ as follows: '(Jo) tinc això decidit' (lit. 'I have this decided') and 'Això {ha estat/va ser} decidit per mi&quot; (lit. This {has been/was} decided by me'), respectively." CreationDate="2020-07-25T22:53:05.560" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27370" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="A couple of ways come to mind in which the classification of the OP's sentence as a dative of possession might be tested. 1 The sentence has an omitted copula; are copulas ever omitted in the possessive dative construction? I don't think I've ever seen that; if it's rare or unattested, that would be a problem for this analysis. 2 Taking the omitted *est* as a present-tense copula rather than part of a periphrastic perfect with the participle implies that this construction should never trigger secondary sequence; that too is in principle falsifiable, though it may be hard to find relevant data." CreationDate="2020-07-25T23:56:06.967" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27371" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="(2 cont) And more generally, temporal expressions with past semantics should not be licensed: Heri constitutum est a me / *mihi..." CreationDate="2020-07-26T00:24:01.217" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27374" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="@TKR Many thanks for your comments! Let me start with your last comment. _Heri constitutum est mihi_ is of course expected to be possible on the reading of _mihi_ as a beneficiary dative. This (irrelevant) reading aside, your contrast _Heri constitutum est a me / *mihi..._, gives strong evidence for Lavency’s/my claim that _constitutum est_ cannot be understood as a complex verbal form (e.g. “was decided”) when a &quot;dative of agent&quot; is present. In contrast, note that brianpck seems to take it for granted that _constitutum est_ can form a complex verbal form even if a dative of agent is present." CreationDate="2020-07-26T03:39:27.353" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27375" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="@TKR Recall the very important fact that datives of agent, **unlike** ablatives of agent, cannot depend **directly** on a participle/-nd- predicate (please see 1st &quot;further reading&quot; above). Accordingly, the (explicit or implicit) presence of a verbal form (typically, _esse_) is compulsory for a dative of agent (i.e., a dative of possession!) to be licensed. Since datives of agent (e.g., unlike beneficiary datives; again **please** see the 1st further reading) cannot depend directly on a participle/_-nd-_ predicate, elliptical cases of the copula are expected to be exceptional." CreationDate="2020-07-26T03:50:37.427" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27376" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="However, it is true that elliptical instances of the copula can be found, typically in the subordinate clause domain: e.g., _Caesar maturandum sibi existimavit_ (Caes. _Gal._ 1.37.4). Still, note that there is strong evidence for the “possessive” parallelism between _Mihi currendum  est_ and _Mihi est liber_: e.g., cf. _Habeo  currendum_ and _Habeo librum_. Why the copula is obligatory in “purely” nominal possessive dative constructions but can be elliptical in proper dative of agent constructions (especially in subordiante contexts: see Caesar’s example above) can be related...(next comment!)" CreationDate="2020-07-26T03:54:38.607" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27377" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="(can be related)... to the morphosemantics of the -nd- (_maturandum_) or –t- participial (_constitutum_) predicate, which is missing in the former. However, this difference should not lead us to consider that the syntatic and semantic status of _mihi_ is different (say, possessive and agentive) in both constructions." CreationDate="2020-07-26T03:57:02.380" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27378" PostId="14261" Score="2" Text="To clarify, my &quot;Heri constitutum est a me / *mihi...&quot; was not meant as a description of actual usage, but as a prediction made by the analysis you cite -- I have no idea whether or not it's borne out by the usage facts." CreationDate="2020-07-26T04:00:49.140" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27379" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="@TKR, Right, right! The contrast _Heri constitutum est a me / *mihi..._ (on the relevant reading of _mihi_; see above) is just {Lavency's/my} prediction (not yours!)." CreationDate="2020-07-26T04:05:51.207" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27380" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="I do think the differing behavior of the copula is grounds for treating this as different from the possessive dative construction, though. In that construction the reason *esse* can't be elided is presumably that it's existential. If it's the case that the possessive dative construction involves existential *esse*, and that existential *esse* is never elided (both of which I think are true), then the OP's sentence must be something other than a possessive dative construction." CreationDate="2020-07-26T04:06:56.433" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27383" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="You point out that &quot;possessive dative construction involves existential esse&quot;. Do you really think that, for example, _Nunc est (nobis) bibendum_ is not &quot;existential&quot;? In any case, please note the following important parallelism: cf. _Mihi currendum est_ and _Mihi est liber_ &amp; _Habeo currendum_ and _Habeo librum_, which points towards the very same status of both copulas and datives. For further discussion, please see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11169/null-expletive-objects-in-latin-cariotae-cum-ficis-certandum-habent-plin-ep" CreationDate="2020-07-26T04:22:37.410" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27384" PostId="14261" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure how to decide whether the *esse* of *Nunc est (nobis) bibendum* is existential -- if it's never elided, that would be good evidence, but I don't know if that's the case. The parallelism you note is indeed suggestive. But the copula ellipsis difference still argues against the dative of possession analysis in my mind." CreationDate="2020-07-26T04:31:07.283" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27386" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="@TKR For example, in Spanish we use the very same &quot;existential&quot; verb _haber_ 'lit. to have (but it means 'There+be') in both _nunc est bibendum_ and in the elliptical context above of _Caesar maturandum [esse] sibi existimavit_: cf. Sp. &quot;Ahora _**hay**_ que beber&quot;  (cf. &quot;hay&quot;--&quot;habet-ibi&quot;) and Sp. &quot;César creyó que **había** que darse prisa&quot; (cf. &quot;había&quot;--&quot;habebat&quot;).  Unsurprisingly, the typical English **existential** construction &quot;there is...&quot; is translated into Spanish by the existential verb &quot;hay...&quot;. E.g., take a look at https://www.thoughtco.com/spanish-verb-haber-3078306" CreationDate="2020-07-26T04:49:31.930" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27387" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="Existential to obligation is a common semantic shift, certainly -- cf. Eng. *have to*, for that matter." CreationDate="2020-07-26T04:55:06.263" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27388" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="Cf. also the parallelism between Sp. _No **hay** nada que hacer_ (HAVE) and It. _Non c'**è** niente da fare_ (BE), lit. 'There is nothing to do'." CreationDate="2020-07-26T05:19:39.687" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27390" PostId="14261" Score="1" Text="That existentials can diachronically acquire obligational sense doesn't mean that they're the same thing synchronically. As I see it: the dative of possession, as that term is normally used, definitionally depends on an existential *esse*; existential *esse* definitionally cannot be elided; therefore, despite semantic commonalities, the dative of agent (for which this is not true) cannot be reduced to a dative of possession. (Of course, if it turns out *esse* can be elided in the possessive dative construction, my argument fails; I've just posted a question on that topic.)" CreationDate="2020-07-26T05:43:36.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27402" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="@TKR *Dicit sibi sororem* is ungrammatical. Well, in my opinion, {Lavency's/my} argument does not fail for this obvious fact. I think that the obvious ungrammaticality of that example should not lead us to consider that the dative *mihi* in *mihi est liber* and *nunc est mihi dormiendum* is different. It's the same (e.g., unlike the beneficiary dative, which is different from them. For example, unlike the dative of agency/of possession, the beneficiary one can directly depend on participles)." CreationDate="2020-07-26T14:04:18.123" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27403" PostId="14261" Score="0" Text="One can continue to &quot;label/classify&quot; the dative *mihi* of *mihi est liber* as &quot;possessive dative&quot; and that of *mihi currendum* est as &quot;dative of agent&quot; but it is the SAME dative, realized in different domains (lexical and functional ones, respectively). E.g., cf. the distinction between lexical/functional categories as established by generative linguists. In any case, thanks, TKR, for your time and for your comments! A pleasure, as always!" CreationDate="2020-07-26T14:05:05.757" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27372" PostId="14262" Score="0" Text="So, I guess, without Greek (or Romance data), it's going to be just exceptions in Latin, to be learned as you go?" CreationDate="2020-07-26T02:57:51.743" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="27373" PostId="14262" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. I think knowing the Greek form is the most straightforward way to be able to predict the presence of a long vowel in Latin in this context. Someone who doesn't know any Greek might be able to get a sense for which words have a suffix containing this vowel, like the examples you list in your answer, but aside from that, it seems like it would have to be learned word by word." CreationDate="2020-07-26T03:21:10.783" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="27393" PostId="14265" Score="0" Text="FWIW, same feeling like yours: _Dicit sibi sororem_ without _esse_ sounds really bad, compared to, for example, _Dicit sororem sibi occidendam (esse)_, which is ok. I think that the &quot;problem&quot; is not that the former construction is &quot;existential&quot; and the latter isn't (in my opinion, a modal construction like _Nunc est bibendum_ is also a type of &quot;existential&quot; construction. Why not?). In any case, existential or not, what about if the &quot;problem&quot; in Latin has to do with the fact that there is a lexical predicate (e.g., _occidendam_) in the latter, which is missing in the former?" CreationDate="2020-07-26T08:39:01.970" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27395" PostId="14265" Score="0" Text="We can assume that _esse_ is a lexical predicate in the possessive dative construction, but a functional predicate in the modal construction, which makes sense in the grammaticalization process involved (from the former to the latter). However, note that this lexical/functional distinction preserves the following relevant parallelisms between them: e.g., cf.  _Mihi est liber_ and _Mihi currendum est_ &amp;  _Habeo librum_ and _Habeo currendum_. For further discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11169/null-expletive-objects-in-latin-cariotae-cum-ficis-certandum-habent-plin-ep" CreationDate="2020-07-26T08:51:44.303" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27406" PostId="14265" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino I suspect we're getting at the same thing with &quot;existential&quot; and &quot;lexical predicate&quot; (namely that this use of *esse* has more semantic content than a copula)." CreationDate="2020-07-26T17:50:38.077" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28580" PostId="14266" Score="0" Text="Wow, thanks @Sebastian Koppehel this is awesome. I appreciate the effort." CreationDate="2020-08-11T03:10:59.893" UserId="7187" />
  <row Id="27423" PostId="14268" Score="1" Text="I would say &quot;Tu es,&quot; since I would guess that the person is particularly important to @Jjj. The &quot;Tu&quot; would serve to emphasize the 'you' in their English translation." CreationDate="2020-07-27T20:29:52.390" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="27432" PostId="14268" Score="3" Text="Perhaps *ergo* would be better, since (I suspect) the OP is thinking of Descartes' &quot;cogito ergo sum&quot;" CreationDate="2020-07-28T03:24:04.010" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="27405" PostId="14270" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure that &quot;the dative of possession can also occur without *esse*&quot;. *Dicit sibi sororem te amare* sounds wrong to me -- wouldn't it be *suam*?" CreationDate="2020-07-26T17:49:35.663" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27407" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="It would more usually be *suam*, but I think *sibi* is possible." CreationDate="2020-07-26T18:09:01.453" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27408" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@TKR There is a difference in flavor of meaning between the two: see http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-reference" CreationDate="2020-07-26T18:34:11.743" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27438" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="The dative of reference can't freely replace a possessive adjective, though -- its use is more restricted (though I'm not sure how the restrictions are to be defined). I think *Dicit sibi sororem te amare* would have to mean &quot;He says his sister loves you for himself&quot;, or &quot;for herself&quot;, whatever that might mean." CreationDate="2020-07-30T20:37:53.257" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27439" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@TKR It definitely means something more like the first, though i would still translate it as &quot;He says his sister loves you&quot;.  You can't always translate the shades of meaning--in this case that the speaker's sister's love for &quot;you&quot; may have been on account of the spsaker (e.g., maybe &quot;you&quot; and he are old pals)." CreationDate="2020-07-30T23:55:25.137" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="27440" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="I still have grave doubts that this is a good Latin sentence, but if *sibi* means &quot;on account of the speaker&quot; then it's not a dative of possession, since it doesn't imply it's the speaker's sister (it could equally well mean &quot;someone else's sister loves you on account of me&quot;)." CreationDate="2020-07-31T00:14:43.120" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28439" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@TKR Dative of reference also implies possession.  At any rate, this probably isn't the place to debate the semantics of English grammatical terms." CreationDate="2020-07-31T00:56:50.977" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28441" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@TKR: If she is someone-else's sister, not the speaker's, wouldn't &quot;eius&quot; have to be used? Otherwise, how would anybody know this?" CreationDate="2020-07-31T11:32:14.033" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28442" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@Tony *eius* or *ei* or *illius* or *illi*, definitely not *suam* or *sibi*" CreationDate="2020-07-31T15:42:41.967" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28443" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@tony If a possessive form is used it would be either *suam* or *eius / illius*. I disagree that a dative of reference would naturally be used in this sentence, but if it were it would not indicate whose sister it is but only &quot;with reference to whom&quot; she loves you, whatever that means. Dative of reference and dative of possession aren't the same thing." CreationDate="2020-07-31T17:40:15.793" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28444" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@tony In any event, you couldn't really manage this with *Dicit eius sororem te amare* if she were someone else's sister.  The implicit subject and *eius* each refer to a person, and we know they aren't the same person, but in most cases it's unlikely you can tell from context which is which.  If you _literally_ wanted to refer to _someone else's_ sister (unspecified someone else) , that would work, but you'd need *alicuius* or *alicui* rather than *eius* or *ei*." CreationDate="2020-07-31T19:23:32.993" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="33125" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="A dative cannot express adnominal possession, replacing the genitive, like it can't in English: &quot;food for the cat&quot; is not a possessive construction and doesn't mean &quot;the cat's food&quot;. In Latin it must be the dative of experiencer or of benefit: cf. *sibi placēre* &quot;to care for pleasing oneself&quot;. There are languages like Bulgarian where both constructions are synonmous: *knigata mu* (book-DEF. he-DAT.), *njegovata kniga* (he-GEN.-DEF. book). This a Balkan Sprachbund feature, in whose other languages the Gen. and Dat. have merged (eg. Greek)." CreationDate="2021-05-13T19:36:20.500" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33133" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@unbrutal_russian It doesn't indicate precisely the same thing as possession, but something close enough to possession that possession is often the closest translation into English, which is why English speakers sometimes call it &quot;dative of possession&quot;.  Anyway, given Roman Law concepts, it was probably more accurate to use the dative in many cases as someone might merely be the bonitary owner rather than the &quot;real&quot; owner." CreationDate="2021-05-14T12:32:27.707" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="33134" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@unbrutal_russian Dative is probably also a safer way to describe a usufruct (*pomarium mihi*) or a tenancy (*casa mihi*).  In English it would just be &quot;my orchard&quot; or &quot;my house&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-14T12:40:19.483" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="33136" PostId="14270" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I understand what you're saying. You're coming up with examples to illustrate your understanding: I'm saying that both the examples you came up with and your understanding are entirely incorrect - Latin has no such expressions and they can't be translated in any way, being ungrammatical. The closest thing that exists is the vocative *Mārce mī* and they would be equated with it. What you need to do is to find authentic, extant examples and show why an interpretation in line with your understanding is preferrable; preferrably with a scholarly reference discussing them." CreationDate="2021-05-14T15:52:33.553" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="27409" PostId="14271" Score="1" Text="There is a translation of several fairy tales by the Grimm brothers (made by one Franz Schlosser, a highschool Latin teacher), published under the title: **Erat olim** (and also, with a different publisher, as: **Et nisi mortui sunt …**). But these are just translations of the Grimms' signature phrases." CreationDate="2020-07-26T20:43:13.743" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="27410" PostId="14271" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Our local, late Saxon, foundation  legend starts *Erat Merwaldus Rex...*" CreationDate="2020-07-27T00:38:46.100" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="27412" PostId="14271" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Seb has given &quot;olim&quot;, which I have seen translated as &quot;once upon a time&quot; (can't remember where). Oxford offers: &quot;olim&quot; = &quot;formerly&quot;; &quot;in past times&quot; (and changing tense); at a future time; some day; sometimes. A one-word answer, &quot;olim&quot;, may not be exactly what you seek but it's not far off." CreationDate="2020-07-27T10:22:22.183" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="27413" PostId="14271" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm not looking for a translation of &quot;once upon a time&quot; at all, but a Latin device that sets expectations in a similar fashion. It could be something like alliteration promising satire." CreationDate="2020-07-27T11:00:06.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="27414" PostId="14273" Score="1" Text="These verses are elegiac couplets. There should be a line break before &quot;Eductos&quot; in your third line." CreationDate="2020-07-27T14:31:47.380" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="27421" PostId="14273" Score="2" Text="The first line ends *requirat* (see OP's second link)." CreationDate="2020-07-27T18:55:28.493" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27422" PostId="14273" Score="3" Text="A couple of small corrections: the *mathematicis* are presumably people, i.e. &quot;a light to mathematicians&quot;; in the preceding line the meter shows that *illa domo* go together, while *alma* has to be nom. with *Gratia* (though I'm not sure why *quas* is fem. -- a typo?); and *roget* is subj., &quot;who would ask...&quot;." CreationDate="2020-07-27T19:03:55.190" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="27426" PostId="14274" Score="0" Text="Good finding! I think that it could be relevant to add the immediately previous context in _Latin_ (cf. _incipit_). For example, Pinkster (2015: 1112), when discussing the meaning of _quadam_, also gives the _entire_ example including the very relevant previous text: _'Sed ego te **narrationibus lepidis anilibusque fabulis** protinus avocabo', et **incipit**: 'Erant in quadam civitate rex et regina..._'." CreationDate="2020-07-27T20:49:09.777" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="27431" PostId="14274" Score="0" Text="It can be useful to take a look at the following book by Laura Gibbs http://bestlatin.net/1001latin/download/MilleFabulae101.pdf and make a search of relevant words like _quidam, quondam, olim,_ etc.  The number of hits is quite significant. Cf. also the prominent position of these words in many fables." CreationDate="2020-07-28T03:14:04.280" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44783" PostId="14274" Score="0" Text="While I (3 years ago) upvoted this answer and very much like it, I am still left wanting a phrase that indicates the spatial distance from the present, like *olim*. That is, of course, the first thing I thought of, but I thought I would make a comment here in case you came across anything more similar to a more literal analogue of the phrase in Joonas' question." CreationDate="2023-09-10T04:50:57.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="27420" PostId="14275" Score="1" Text="Not _etymologically_ related but certainly related otherwise." CreationDate="2020-07-27T17:40:26.107" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="40922" PostId="14275" Score="0" Text="I agree the words share silimarities and p and b are indeed the same phoneme (bilabial stop), but one is voiced, the other voiceless." CreationDate="2023-01-11T01:02:13.073" UserId="12008" />
  <row Id="40923" PostId="14275" Score="3" Text="p and b share a place and manner of articulation, but that doesn't mean they're the same phoneme. They certainly contrast in Latin: there's a minimal pair in e.g. *pālā* 'spade (abl. sg.)' vs. *bālā* 'bleat!'." CreationDate="2023-01-11T03:05:11.367" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="27416" PostId="14276" Score="1" Text="This much is clear from the linked etymologies -- my question speculates on an even deeper connection that perhaps `cubare` and `cupire` were themselves cognate in an earlier Latin (or pre-Latin), could you speak to that possibility?" CreationDate="2020-07-27T15:51:05.237" UserId="7202" />
  <row Id="27417" PostId="14276" Score="5" Text="If you click through the cross-references on etymonline, to &quot;cubicle&quot; and &quot;cupidity&quot; respectively, you'll see reconstructed PIE roots _*kub-_ and _*kup-_ respectively—so, no, this may have once been a minimal pair but they've been separate concepts as far back as we can hope to trace." CreationDate="2020-07-27T16:37:37.987" UserId="7203" />
  <row Id="27418" PostId="14276" Score="1" Text="thanks @zwol, that solves it completely for me. have added a check but that info ideally would be edited into the answer. thanks!" CreationDate="2020-07-27T16:48:12.340" UserId="7202" />
  <row Id="27419" PostId="14276" Score="5" Text="@zwol. Actually, PIE *kub is very doubtful. It is traceable only in Italic and Celtic. PIE *b is problematic." CreationDate="2020-07-27T17:28:28.743" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="28445" PostId="14282" Score="0" Text="I've also read that initial d &gt; l was a regular sound change in Etruscan, though I'd have to search for a source on that." CreationDate="2020-07-31T20:11:38.753" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28446" PostId="14282" Score="0" Text="Before we start analyzing relevant data in detail, can we have the entire list of such Latin words with this hypothetical - at least for now - word-initial *dl &gt; l, along with the other Italic and IE comparanda please? One could use e.g. de Vaan to do that." CreationDate="2020-08-01T01:14:22.667" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28447" PostId="14282" Score="0" Text="FWIW, Coleman (1990) adheres to the old &quot;Sabine L&quot; theory, without mentioning Hamp's idea: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44696679?seq=1" CreationDate="2020-08-01T01:15:12.793" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28448" PostId="14282" Score="0" Text="Link to Hamp 1972: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40266244?seq=1" CreationDate="2020-08-01T01:21:55.213" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28450" PostId="14282" Score="0" Text="Is your question about d/l (without any *dl reconstructions) or about uncontroversial cases of word-initial *dl &gt; l (one word only, longus - based on IE reliable comparanda) or words of unknown etymology, like lingua and lacruma/lacrima (for which there could be ad hoc hypotheses only, e.g. Hamp PIE *dr &gt; PIt. (?) dl &gt; l)?" CreationDate="2020-08-01T12:41:23.887" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28452" PostId="14282" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: I would say my question is about the various ways in which the d/l variation has been explained. *dl reconstruction is specifically Pulju's explanation (in the case of lacrima, going back to Hamp; Pulju also reconstructs *dl in the ancestor of levir/laevir and lac). I'd like to know alternative explanations also" CreationDate="2020-08-01T18:35:19.503" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="28459" PostId="14282" Score="0" Text="I know about Hamp 1972. What are Pulju's PIE and PIt reconstructions for Latin levir (with page numbers please) ? I cannot find such *dl- reconstructions for Latin levir in his article." CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:47:38.500" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28470" PostId="14282" Score="1" Text="I have virtually no knowledge of this topic, but, by chance, I've just [seen](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/calamitas#Latin) _ca**l**amitas_ comes from old-Latin _ka**d**amitas_  . I wonder if it has something to do with question." CreationDate="2020-08-02T20:36:45.950" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28449" PostId="14284" Score="0" Text="also see **scripturae** in the TLL entry http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#54309" CreationDate="2020-08-01T02:49:53.267" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28451" PostId="14286" Score="0" Text="I first tried asking the question at https://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/35378/list-of-verbs-in-spanish." CreationDate="2020-08-01T16:28:14.540" UserId="6941" />
  <row Id="28469" PostId="14286" Score="7" Text="This is pretty pedantic, but it feels weird to say that Latin has influences on Spanish - Spanish is a modern form of Latin!" CreationDate="2020-08-02T06:16:16.220" UserId="7212" />
  <row Id="29817" PostId="14286" Score="0" Text="I can't find any evidence for a noun _navex_. _Navigare_ is usually explained as from _navis_ ('ship') + the productive suffix _-igo._ If _navex_ exists, I'm sure it is a back-formation from _navigo_." CreationDate="2020-11-22T22:03:03.977" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="38497" PostId="14286" Score="0" Text="Would you really say the opposite of *odiar* (Latin *odi*, defective verb, *not* -are conjugation) is *quierer* and not *amar*? [The two aren't the same,](https://www.spanish.academy/blog/te-quiero-vs-te-amo-dont-say-the-wrong-i-love-you-in-spanish/), but I'm no Spanish native." CreationDate="2022-06-02T04:35:32.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38498" PostId="14286" Score="0" Text="And even if you prefer *quierer* and not *amar*, the existence of the latter pokes holes in the idea. The grouping is a matter of arbitrary selection, a kind of Texas sharpshooter fallacy." CreationDate="2022-06-02T04:40:01.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47091" PostId="14286" Score="1" Text="I couldn't find _navex (sailor)_ anywhere on **Wiktionary**, but we all know _nauta_; perhaps the OP meant that?" CreationDate="2024-01-05T02:13:41.820" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="28453" PostId="14287" Score="1" Text="Just a minor qualification on your statement &quot;the suffix _-scere_ creates a verb meaning &quot;to become__&quot;( _calēre_ 'to be hot' &gt; _calēscere_ 'to become hot')&quot;. Strictly speaking, unprefixed _-sc-_ verbs are not telic, whereby the translation of _calescere_ as 'to become hot' is not accurate enough. As pointed out by Haverling (2010: 297-298), the suffix _-sc-_ just adds dynamicity to the stative verb, as in _calescit_ 'it is getting warmer'; the _-sco_ verbs become telic when prefixed as in _concalescit_ 'it becomes warm'. So  unprefixed -sc- verbs express *a*telic/ *in*definite change of state." CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:01:34.813" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28454" PostId="14287" Score="1" Text="See Haverling's (2010: 299) precise translations of stative verbs (_calere_ 'to be hot'), *a*telic/ *in*definite change of state verbs (_calescere_ 'to become warm*er*'), and telic/definite change of state verbs (_concalescere_ 'to become warm'). Source: Haverling, Gerd. (2010). “Actionality, Tense, and Viewpoint”. In _Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax_ (chap. 4, vol. II), Philip Baldi &amp; Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), 277-524. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter." CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:11:09.103" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28455" PostId="14288" Score="1" Text="Are you sure the time is correct? I don't seem to be able to pick any words between 0:26-0:46 in the clip. It could just be that I'm not good at hearing words in anything a choir sings, especially when mixed below the instruments." CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:14:39.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28457" PostId="14288" Score="0" Text="The two Google hits you got are character recognition errors. In the first example, the OCR software completely dropped the ball, in the second one, it somewhat understandably stumbled over an abbreviated *enim* in the phrase *omnes enim eum viderunt*." CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:20:05.170" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28464" PostId="14288" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The timing is definitely correct, but I may have completely misheard the lyrics. The reason why I  thought the lyrics might be correct was because Google translates “Petras omnes cin cum” as “All the rocks and the smell of smoke” or something along those lines, which makes sense in reference to like “fire and brimstone” and “Hellfire”. But I could be wrong in the lyrics since Google translate isn’t exactly renowned for their translation accuracy." CreationDate="2020-08-01T20:11:58.233" UserId="2422" />
  <row Id="28466" PostId="14288" Score="0" Text="Also, I know the composer’s style in this VG’s soundtrack to know that there definitely ARE Latin lyrics in the song, since a majority of the other songs with choir parts have Latin lyrics. Otherwise it’s just “ahhh”. How it’s recorded for 90% of the soundtrack makes it obnoxiously difficult to figure out the words though." CreationDate="2020-08-01T20:15:23.533" UserId="2422" />
  <row Id="28471" PostId="14288" Score="1" Text="Did you see this written or did you hear it? How do you pronounce &quot;cin&quot;? As it stands, this is not Latin." CreationDate="2020-08-02T20:43:45.067" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="28513" PostId="14288" Score="0" Text="@fdb It seems to be pronounced &quot;chin&quot;, but that doesn't sound very Latin to me." CreationDate="2020-08-05T00:22:56.570" UserId="2422" />
  <row Id="28460" PostId="14289" Score="0" Text="&quot;the idea of a &quot;Sabine&quot; origin is mistaken&quot; - Neither Prósper nor Zair came up with this idea - see Poucet 1966 (almost sixty years ago!)" CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:51:40.147" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28461" PostId="14289" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: Yes, that part seems to have pretty widespread agreement." CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:55:23.863" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="28462" PostId="14289" Score="0" Text="Also, I skimmed Prósper - does she simply choose to discard (or invalidate) the language data her hypothesis cannot explain - &quot;if dacruma is real&quot; etc.?" CreationDate="2020-08-01T19:59:40.333" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28463" PostId="14289" Score="0" Text="@AlexB.: Both Prósper and Zair seem to be skeptical of the authenticity of dacruma, dingua as preserved archaic Italic forms. Prósper does attempt to give some explanation of their presence in things like grammarian's discussions by proposing that Latin speakers noticed the correlation between Latin #la- and Greek #da- in the pair lacrima, δάκρυ(ον) and so &quot;dacruma&quot; would represent a Graecized or a hypothetical, etymologized form of lacrima" CreationDate="2020-08-01T20:02:50.513" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="28467" PostId="14289" Score="0" Text="I particularly like “all  this  casts  many  doubts  on  the traditional  reconstruction  of  the  IE  stop  system” - I wonder how many times I’ve seen this argument used before ..." CreationDate="2020-08-01T20:42:37.143" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28468" PostId="14289" Score="0" Text="Even though I disagree with Prosper, I’ll upvote your answer." CreationDate="2020-08-01T20:53:01.110" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28472" PostId="14290" Score="0" Text="I should add that this was an easy find, as this word is in fact the first Google hit for &quot;longest latin word&quot; :) It appears, correctly attributed to Aulus Gellius no less, on a website called “Pinterest,” the purpose of which is unclear to me." CreationDate="2020-08-02T22:47:30.683" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28488" PostId="14290" Score="0" Text="Why not 31 letters?  (Add *-que*.)" CreationDate="2020-08-04T13:54:31.343" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28499" PostId="14290" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I considered adding -que! But since you can essentially add it to any word (or can you? that would make another interesting question), it does not really contribute substantially to the question which word is the longest of them all." CreationDate="2020-08-04T21:00:13.830" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28511" PostId="14290" Score="0" Text="I don't think you can generally add it to conjunctions or prepositions.   Also, in another answer,  2 of the 3 longest words in the Vulgate end in *-que*." CreationDate="2020-08-05T00:17:04.713" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28474" PostId="14291" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Given that there are near-minimal pairs like _iambus_ vs _jam_, that one would count! I'm not sure if there are any similar cases for u/v." CreationDate="2020-08-03T03:13:22.020" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28475" PostId="14291" Score="1" Text="Would something like *abicere* spelt with I but pronounced as JI count? You can't deduce pronunciation from spelling, but I don't know of a minimal pair for this." CreationDate="2020-08-03T09:01:34.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28476" PostId="14291" Score="2" Text="The answer may differ for different dialects. Do you mean the classic pronunciation? For medieval ones it might a lot more complex." CreationDate="2020-08-03T09:17:19.847" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="28477" PostId="14291" Score="0" Text="@PavelV. Good point. I'll narrow it down to Classical." CreationDate="2020-08-03T15:41:18.963" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28478" PostId="14291" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'd also count that, alongside things like the final consonant in _hoc_. Anything that makes it more difficult to determine the pronunciation from the spelling." CreationDate="2020-08-03T15:42:36.350" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28479" PostId="14291" Score="0" Text="@draconis Tour question asks whether Latin orthography is phonemic.   Your last comment asks whether it is phonetic.  Perhaps you should post that as a separate question?" CreationDate="2020-08-03T16:30:30.883" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28480" PostId="14291" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour I don't know of any minimal pairs for final _c_ versus _cc_, but consonant length is definitely phonemic in general; likewise, for Joonas's suggestion, there are near-minimal pairs like _abit_ with `/i/` versus _abicit_ with `/ji/`." CreationDate="2020-08-03T17:18:52.503" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28481" PostId="14291" Score="0" Text="I wasn't commenting on the first sentence of your remark, nor on the preceding discussion, just on &quot;Anything that makes it more difficult to determine the pronunciation from the spelling&quot;.  Phonemic spelling DOES make it harder than phonetic spelling to deduce pronunciation from spelling--you have to know the alternations and rules for realizing each phoneme." CreationDate="2020-08-03T18:07:27.363" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28482" PostId="14291" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I should clarify—anything that makes it more difficult to determine the pronunciation of an unknown word from the spelling, given native knowledge, a copy of _Vox Latina_, or something similar that covers the realization rules. For example, _G_ realized as `[ŋ]` before nasals isn't a problem, because it's completely regular; _I_ being sometimes `/i/` and sometimes `/ji/`, though, is an issue, because there's no way to know which is the case for an unknown word." CreationDate="2020-08-03T18:30:30.090" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28483" PostId="14292" Score="0" Text="I don't know if this applies but the words &quot;primus&quot; and &quot;princeps&quot; overlap somewhat in meaning. They can both mean &quot;first.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-08-03T19:17:12.427" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28484" PostId="14292" Score="0" Text="There are unspecific numbers of course, *manipulus,* group, platoon; *manipulatim,* in heaps (handfuls). *Scala,* a series, e.g. of notes, steps." CreationDate="2020-08-03T22:05:57.583" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="28486" PostId="14292" Score="5" Text="As an aside, seeing as you mention seizaine in French, the English dozen comes from the French douzaine :)" CreationDate="2020-08-04T06:54:03.930" UserId="7219" />
  <row Id="28503" PostId="14292" Score="2" Text="I don't know if I would describe *seizaine* as completely separate from *seize*; *-aine* can be added to many numerals, so it's rather analogous to English *-some* (as in &quot;threesome&quot;, &quot;foursome&quot;, &quot;fivesome&quot;, etc.)." CreationDate="2020-08-04T21:58:21.803" UserId="3511" />
  <row Id="28517" PostId="14292" Score="0" Text="In the etymology of &quot;dozen&quot; is also Latin: from Latin duodecim (“twelve”) (from duo (“two”) + decem (“ten”)) + -ana (“-ish”)." CreationDate="2020-08-04T08:21:46.540" UserId="7220" />
  <row Id="28574" PostId="14292" Score="0" Text="&quot;Dozen&quot; is not DIRECTLY from Latin, but from Italian dozzina, which in turn is from French douzaine. &quot;dozen&quot; is basically a commercial term (&quot;set of twelve goods&quot;) which proliferated at the time when Venice and Genoa controlled much of international trade." CreationDate="2020-08-10T12:33:15.527" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="28489" PostId="14296" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14/406" CreationDate="2020-08-04T17:33:36.003" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28490" PostId="14296" Score="0" Text="I've always thought *Troia* was trisyllabic -- is this not the case?" CreationDate="2020-08-04T19:00:45.280" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28491" PostId="14296" Score="0" Text="Perhaps you should note that this is a subset of the question you asked yesterday https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14291/are-any-phonemic-distinctions-not-represented-in-latin" CreationDate="2020-08-04T19:12:43.067" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28492" PostId="14296" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Related, but here I'm wondering if there's a way to distinguish them easily, there I'm wondering what distinctions exist. (I can delete this one if it's too similar though.)" CreationDate="2020-08-04T19:36:47.630" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28494" PostId="14296" Score="0" Text="Would it make sense to rephrase the question to ask for a method that recognizes when human judgement is needed and keeps those cases to a minimum (and maybe makes a reasonable guess if you want to run it independently)? I don't think the minimum will be zero unless you get close to a full dictionary approach." CreationDate="2020-08-04T19:51:31.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28495" PostId="14296" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yeah, I doubt I'll be able to get 100% accuracy, but anything that minimizes the human intervention required would be helpful." CreationDate="2020-08-04T20:00:13.830" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28497" PostId="14296" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I don't think you should delete this.  But a cross-reference would be nice.  (from that one to this one)." CreationDate="2020-08-04T20:55:57.563" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28501" PostId="14296" Score="0" Text="Also related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/13265/406" CreationDate="2020-08-04T21:13:45.523" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28493" PostId="14297" Score="2" Text="On what are you basing the statement that 2 is ungrammatical? I've never seen it stated that transitive deponents can't take an object in an AA (though on the other hand I also don't know that I've ever encountered such a construction)." CreationDate="2020-08-04T19:48:41.653" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28508" PostId="14299" Score="0" Text="I've just consulted Hoffman &amp; Szantyr and it seems that Sallust was the first author to venture expressions like _Sulla omnia pollicito_ 'Sulla having promised everything' (B. Iug. 103.7)). NB: it is perhaps worth pointing out that in this first usage the direct object was a neuter object (cf. the example in (2)). They say he was followed by others (Livy, Valerius Maximus, the Elder Pliny, Tacitus,...). So it seems that the construction _became_ somewhat commoner (i.e. more &quot;entrenched&quot;) quite after Sallust. Quite probably, examples like (2) are not found in Cicero nor in Caesar..." CreationDate="2020-08-05T00:04:32.653" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28509" PostId="14299" Score="0" Text="The reason that constructions like (2) in my post are not common (or can sound unnatural for some authors/speakers) cannot just be attributed to the reason you mention at the end of your post: “most deponents don't take accusative objects”. On the one hand, note that (1) _(Caesar,) cohortatus suos_ can be claimed to be more natural compared to (2) _Caesare cohortato suos_. On the other, note that AAs like _Caesare pauca loquente_, unlike the one in (2), are probably perfect/attested in Ciceronian/Caesarian Latin (and quite before!)." CreationDate="2020-08-05T00:06:33.803" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28510" PostId="14299" Score="0" Text="So when you say “your sentence (2) seems well-formed”, my reply is “well-formed **for whom**?” What if the sentence in (2) was (cf. &quot;became&quot; above) grammatical for some authors but it was not for others? What’s the problem with accepting the existence of different grammars? What's the problem with accepting that for some authors/speakers examples like (1) are by far more natural (more grammatical?) than examples like (2)? –" CreationDate="2020-08-05T00:11:46.413" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28515" PostId="14299" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Who said there was a problem with any of that? If the data show that for some Latin authors *cohortatus suos* is grammatical but *cohortato suos* is not, of course that's an interesting finding that needs accounting for. I have no idea whether or not that's the case. My answer was simply intended to show that describing the construction as &quot;ill-formed&quot; without qualification is incorrect." CreationDate="2020-08-05T00:45:12.183" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28516" PostId="14299" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the clarification &amp; your examples. My point above was to make it clear that the statement at the beginning of your post (&quot;I don't think such a constraint exists. Your sentence 2 seems well-formed&quot;) must _also_ be qualified. E.g. the absence of examples like (2) in Cicero/Caesar can be claimed to point to the conclusion that (2) could be ill-formed for these authors. To say (not you!) that both (1) and (2) seem (equally) well-formed in Latin can be interpreted incorrectly. NB: (1) is ok across all periods/authors, unlike (2). This non-trivial difference must _also_ be accounted for." CreationDate="2020-08-05T01:38:35.013" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33767" PostId="14300" Score="1" Text="&quot;There are no languages that changed their writing direction from LTR to RTL.&quot; Egyptian was written LTR; the oldest Semitic alphabets (which are generally assumed to derive from Egyptian script) use RTL or Boustrophedon." CreationDate="2021-06-21T14:38:00.737" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="33768" PostId="14300" Score="0" Text="@fdb, interesting." CreationDate="2021-06-21T17:14:33.057" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28519" PostId="14301" Score="6" Text="Literally, it's &quot;he was born in death&quot;, but some context would help. Where did you find the phrase?" CreationDate="2020-08-05T20:12:19.687" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28541" PostId="14302" Score="0" Text="Constructions like _non plus ultra_ suggest me something like _non plus quam amicum unum habeo_. But it seems implied by your question that you are looking for somethinkg more concise, not that &quot;regularly&quot; grammatical, so to say?" CreationDate="2020-08-07T13:37:20.250" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28542" PostId="14302" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I am looking for the closest Latin equivalent of the Romance thing. Perhaps there is indeed no exact match. I agree that Latin seems to require *plus* (as in your *non plus quam unum amicum habeo* or my *non habeo plus quam unum amicum*), but there might be options in Latin I had considered impossible. If there's an answer &quot;you can't get closer than that&quot; with upvotes, I'd be happy to consider the matter settled, as it's hard to prove impossibility. Any insight into the origins of the Romance construction would be fun, too, as it would shed light on the absence in Latin." CreationDate="2020-08-07T13:58:32.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28543" PostId="14302" Score="1" Text="I guess (but it is no more than a far fetched guess) the omission of the word for more is a regional thing. In Spanish the &quot;más&quot; is needed: you can't say *_no tengo que un amigo_." CreationDate="2020-08-07T14:13:54.657" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28544" PostId="14302" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That Spanish requires its *plus* unlike Italian and French is good evidence that the omission is not global and thus might not trace back to Latin. (And that the whole thing could or should be seen as omission of *plus/más/più*.) I'm getting pretty convinced – and I'm glad to learn more about Spanish as I'm in the slow process of learning some basics." CreationDate="2020-08-07T14:31:22.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28535" PostId="14306" Score="0" Text="The phrase is used adverbially, which works because it is in the ablative. I guess that would not work in Italian without some further adornment, like *in grosso modo*, right?" CreationDate="2020-08-06T19:36:56.397" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28546" PostId="14306" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Yes, if it were not a crystallised borrowing, some adornment would be needed." CreationDate="2020-08-07T15:14:44.643" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="28554" PostId="14306" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That sounds like an answer actually." CreationDate="2020-08-08T09:41:18.917" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="28549" PostId="14308" Score="0" Text="It seems to me the English word “family” is a bit broader than that too (if not as broad as Latin *familia*). You seem to be looking for a Latin word for “nuclear family.”" CreationDate="2020-08-07T17:20:03.767" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28555" PostId="14308" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Maybe, yes. I was coming at it from a &quot;what does an ordinary person mean by &quot;my family&quot; in everyday conversation&quot; angle, i.e. &quot;I went on a vacation with my family&quot; or &quot;I would die for my family&quot;, but nuclear family might be a more precise term." CreationDate="2020-08-08T10:17:32.060" UserId="7233" />
  <row Id="28557" PostId="14308" Score="0" Text="Related: Most masculine plural nouns can refer to both genders, but on rare occasions Latin does prefer using both nouns.  Is *filius* one of those situations?  Can you say *uxor filiique* for &quot;wife and kids&quot;?  Or do you need to say &quot;uxor, filii, filiae* or the like, which is too long to be convenient?" CreationDate="2020-08-08T12:39:17.023" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28561" PostId="14308" Score="3" Text="@CMonsour Yes, you can. (According to L&amp;S: Filii, in gen., *children.*) Which makes *parentes filiique* actually a good candidate." CreationDate="2020-08-08T20:11:48.077" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28570" PostId="14308" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That does still have the same ambiguity as the English phrase.  It can refer to one's parents and one's children.  Is there a Latin word for &quot;married couple&quot;?  If so, that would be less ambiguous than *parentes*." CreationDate="2020-08-09T13:48:22.053" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28527" PostId="14310" Score="1" Text="There's also the verb *superare*. Do you want to comment on its imperative as an option?" CreationDate="2020-08-06T16:59:08.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28531" PostId="14310" Score="0" Text="&quot;The idea of a wordplay with the neutral plural supera, -orum (= upper regions, heights) standing in for space is indeed compelling, but evidently the U.S. military did not think of, or decided not to go with that idea.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;let's just say is possible did not decide to go with one over another... (google translate may have made the decision for them)" CreationDate="2020-08-06T17:32:04.437" UserId="7231" />
  <row Id="28536" PostId="14310" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Indeed, I have mentioned it also." CreationDate="2020-08-07T06:54:56.157" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28537" PostId="14310" Score="3" Text="@user2158094 Let's just say the U.S. military has been coming up with Latin slogans since long before Google Translate existed. In any event, as far as I can see their slogan is fine and means what they say it means. That you or I might have a better idea doesn't make theirs wrong." CreationDate="2020-08-07T06:57:00.340" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34176" PostId="14310" Score="0" Text="Semper fidelis means &quot;always faithful&quot; not loyal." CreationDate="2021-07-21T14:32:20.450" UserId="9838" />
  <row Id="28552" PostId="14316" Score="0" Text="“pronounced Latin as if it were Hochdeutsch” – uhm, but what does that mean? How would we pronounce *glaciem* “if it were” Middle High German?" CreationDate="2020-08-07T19:52:00.383" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28563" PostId="14316" Score="0" Text="I am no expert in MHG so I suggest you consult a guide to MHG pronunciation. From the little I remember, the only variation from Hochdeutsch in &quot;glaciem&quot; would be to pronounce the '&quot;c&quot; as /k/. At a guess, the &quot;ie&quot; would be taught as following the Latin, but it may well have been sounded as the monophthong /i/." CreationDate="2020-08-08T23:02:08.830" UserId="7234" />
  <row Id="28568" PostId="14316" Score="0" Text="But the pronunciation &quot;glakiem&quot; is definitely not how *glaciem* was pronounced in medieval Germany. It would be the reconstructed pronunciation that (as you correctly point out) appeared no earlier than the 19th century and would be out of place in a medieval song." CreationDate="2020-08-09T09:32:26.570" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28569" PostId="14316" Score="0" Text="Compare German loan words like Zisterne (from *cisterna*) or Kreuz (MHG kriuz, from *crux, crucis*). As a matter of fact, that we say Kiste (OHG kista, MHG kiste, from *cista*) is seen as proof that it must be a very early borrowing (3rd century or so)." CreationDate="2020-08-09T09:37:49.660" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30121" PostId="14318" Score="0" Text="Indeed I believe this wording best expresses the idea that I want to convey. Personally I prefer the form that includes the verb (as it has a very direct Romanian equivalent: &quot;Successul din sudoare si ingeniozitate se naste&quot; - which also communicates the exact same idea)" CreationDate="2020-12-09T22:59:50.517" UserId="6515" />
  <row Id="28556" PostId="14321" Score="0" Text="thank you for your help." CreationDate="2020-08-08T12:26:07.173" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="28560" PostId="14323" Score="0" Text="Neither an English nor a Latin carol.  French.  The original is *Les anges dans nos campagnes*." CreationDate="2020-08-08T19:55:44.153" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28564" PostId="14323" Score="3" Text="@Monsour If you sing it French, you should use French pronunciation. I assumed the question is why do we pronounce it like English when we sing it English." CreationDate="2020-08-08T23:09:27.050" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="28565" PostId="14323" Score="0" Text="If you sing a French carol partly in English and partly in Latin, you could just as well say you should pronounce the English as though it were Latin.  In the real world, there are customs about how Latin is sung that aren't reducible to such trite statements.  To take an example from using French words in English, surely you don't pronounce *hors d'oeuvres* as though it were English." CreationDate="2020-08-09T00:36:53.933" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28567" PostId="14325" Score="0" Text="In the vein of &quot;forma&quot; you could use &quot;formosa&quot; to mean 'well-formed.' I love this Catullus poem where he shows what &quot;formosa&quot; means to him: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_86" CreationDate="2020-08-09T04:45:57.327" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28566" PostId="14327" Score="0" Text="I don't have access to Bonfante at the moment; what sorts of texts do they list?" CreationDate="2020-08-09T04:29:25.503" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28578" PostId="14327" Score="0" Text="The Bonfantes cite about 70 glosses, most of which are a single sentence or phrase. The glosses are mainly from later grammarians, so are of philological interest only. Other Roman authors (including the historians, obviously) do talk about the Etruscans, but I know of no extended quotes in Etruscan. This is the problem of sources: the Bonfantes state (p60) that &quot;what has come down to us are religious writings, legal documents, and funerary epitaphs.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-08-10T21:48:52.203" UserId="7234" />
  <row Id="28579" PostId="14327" Score="0" Text="If there are any phrases (more than one word), that's exactly what I'm looking for with this question; if there are, and you can give some examples here, I'll give the checkmark." CreationDate="2020-08-10T21:50:10.087" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28590" PostId="14327" Score="0" Text="Sorry, there are no phrases cited, just single words." CreationDate="2020-08-11T22:25:17.347" UserId="7234" />
  <row Id="28571" PostId="14333" Score="3" Text="Just to add a Greek analogue: οἶδα is the perfect of the non-existent verb ειδω, whose aorist is εἶδον. εἶδον means “I saw”. Οιδα means “I know” because when you are in a state of having seen something, you are in a state of knowing it." CreationDate="2020-08-10T07:25:08.850" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="28576" PostId="14333" Score="0" Text="Greek also sheds some light on the semantics of *memini*. μιμνήσκω is &quot;remind&quot;, its perf. middle/passive μέμνημαι is &quot;remember&quot;. To be in a state of having been reminded = to remember." CreationDate="2020-08-10T18:31:04.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28583" PostId="14333" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Don't forget the subjunctive: Emperor Caius Caligula was compelled to use the perfect subjunctive (a form of the perfect tense), &quot;oderint&quot;, when he said: &quot;oderint dum metuant&quot; = &quot;let them hate as long as they fear&quot;. Normally, the &quot;let-them-do-something&quot; construction, for an exhortation, would require a  present (hortative) subjunctive e.g. &quot;magistrum audiant&quot; = &quot;let them listen to the master&quot;." CreationDate="2020-08-11T09:47:18.723" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28588" PostId="14337" Score="0" Text="We will always encourage asking questions! You gave multiple sayings with similar meanings, which was helpful in narrowing down the Latin phraseology. If you told us how you were going to use this phrase, that would also help." CreationDate="2020-08-11T18:06:33.987" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28575" PostId="14338" Score="2" Text="As a side note, in the Sanskrit grammatical tradition the numbering is the opposite -- he/she is &quot;first person&quot;, etc." CreationDate="2020-08-10T18:27:54.423" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28577" PostId="14338" Score="2" Text="@TKR The Greco-Roman numbering corresponds more readily to usage in contract law (where there may not be a third party, and they are often extraneous if they exist) so maybe it's fortunate it caught on." CreationDate="2020-08-10T20:20:42.643" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28601" PostId="14340" Score="0" Text="[Comments moved to chat.](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conversation/comments-on-https-latin-stackexchange-com-q-14302-79)" CreationDate="2020-08-12T16:19:10.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28606" PostId="14344" Score="1" Text="I really like your find of *Cavebo quae sunt cavenda*, it indeed reminds me the (pretty much the same [at least the second part]) quote of Dali Lama: &quot;&quot;If it can be solved, there's no need to worry, and if it can't be solved, worry is of no use.&quot;, which, in my opinion at least, has the same sentiment of the OP's quote that I've absorbed." CreationDate="2020-08-12T18:09:55.820" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28607" PostId="14344" Score="0" Text="@d_e, thanks! I agree it is a neat sentence, even if Cicero seems to have written it in a much more practical sense" CreationDate="2020-08-12T18:49:07.177" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28592" PostId="14345" Score="2" Text="Thanks, this is interesting! I should add though that I don't think *magis* works here in Latin; [*plus* seems much more appropriate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2228/79) although words like *más* seem to come from it." CreationDate="2020-08-12T07:20:28.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28594" PostId="14345" Score="0" Text="@MItomino: Doesn't &quot;non&quot; link with &quot;habeo&quot; = &quot;I don't have&quot;? Why &quot;non...quam&quot;? For me the problem was &quot;plus...quam&quot;. Initially assuming this to be one-word-written-as-two c/f &quot;prius&quot; &amp; &quot;quam&quot; = &quot;priusquam&quot; = &quot;before&quot;. Single-word &quot;plusquam&quot; does not appear to exist (Ox., L &amp; S., Wiki). When &quot;quam&quot; = &quot;than&quot;, it's usually comparing nouns in the same case e.g. &quot;puella tristior est quam puer&quot;. Arguing with Joonas, about &quot;solum&quot;, I was still researching this. If there is a problem between &quot;non&quot; &amp; &quot;quam&quot;, what about &quot;neque&quot; &amp; &quot;quam&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-08-12T12:02:54.763" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28595" PostId="14345" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Caeser: Gallic Wars 1. 53: &quot;...neque prius fugere destiterunt quam ad flumen Rhenum,&quot; = &quot;...they did not abandon to flight until they had reached the Rhine,&quot;. Years ago, before LSE., I had tried to translate &quot;prius&quot; &amp; &quot;quam&quot; as separate words?!" CreationDate="2020-08-12T12:09:40.563" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28596" PostId="14345" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Changing the subject: on CHAT we've been discussing Pinkster's book, from which yourself has quoted, in earlier Qs. How good is this, compared with (A &amp; G)? Is it worth the prohibitive price?" CreationDate="2020-08-12T12:12:42.763" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28600" PostId="14345" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You’re right, Joonas. I’m afraid I adopted an “Hispanicocentric” perspective in my first answer or, more probably, I was (mis)led by the following words by Moignet (1973: 49): “(…) en latin tardif,  _quam_ peut à lui seul suggérer l’idée de comparaison. Il est donc inutile de supposer la disparition  du _magis_ de _non magis quam_&quot;.  Now I think it is not the «disappearance» of _magis_ but rather that of _plus_ (pace Moignet) what can be relevant. As noted in my new edit, this could account for why the construction at issue is found in It./Fr. but not in Sp./Cat./Port." CreationDate="2020-08-12T16:17:40.283" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28602" PostId="14345" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino It is quite peculiar if the omission of the adverb depends on whether it comes from *plus* or *magis*, but so far we do indeed have a strong correlation. If we really want to test this, I think a larger sample of Romance languages is needed and the histories, if known, of these expressions should be checked. (And there is also the possibility of later parallelisms between Romance languages, adding or removing adverbs and thus obfuscating data.) I am interested, but it seems to go way beyond what is reasonable to expect from an answer here, let alone a comment." CreationDate="2020-08-12T16:27:12.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28603" PostId="14345" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, I agree with you. It is also the case that I only consulted Moignet's (1973) work. Probably, there are more recent works that could be (more) useful in disentangling this conundrum. In case I have new info, I'll let you know." CreationDate="2020-08-12T16:45:14.067" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28604" PostId="14345" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm afraid you've raised too many questions to discuss in the comments section. As for your last general question, Pinkster (2015) is not to be compared with A&amp;G. Rather his aim is to update (and replace) the excellent work by Kühner&amp;Stegmann (1912). For those of us who have some difficulties in reading German, Pinkster (2015) is an excellent source. Note that Pinkster (2015) is just the **first** volume (simple clause). The 2nd volume devoted to complex clause will appear soon. It's (too) expensive, you're right, but, if you like Latin syntax, is after all a (very) good investment." CreationDate="2020-08-12T17:17:37.340" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28610" PostId="14345" Score="0" Text="@tony Thanks for your comments. I've revised my answer. As for the status of _quam_, note that Moignet's crucial point is that, unlike in Classical Latin, &quot;in Late Latin _quam_ can suggest the idea of comparison **by itself**&quot;. So according to him, there is no need to claim that there is an omitted _plus_ in Late Latin (NB: in Classical Latin this omission is impossible) to account for the It. and Fr. data. However, my surmise is that this omission is needed to account for the contrast between Italian/French, which have this construction, vs. Spanish/Catalan/Portuguese, which don't have it." CreationDate="2020-08-13T01:45:50.493" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28608" PostId="14351" Score="2" Text="Or the scientists just drew a dictionary and put stems in the order they felt like putting (which I'm afraid is more usually than not the case)" CreationDate="2020-08-12T19:56:44.163" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28609" PostId="14351" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That's quite likely, I think. That leaves plenty of room for answering different aspects, though: What does it literally mean? What does it apparently try to mean? How should it be modified to be better Latin? Are the problems with this name (whatever they might be) common? Insight into any of them would constitute a nice answer." CreationDate="2020-08-12T20:13:23.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28611" PostId="14351" Score="0" Text="Maybe the scientists have resorted to coroprate sponsoring for financing their research, and this dinosaur is officially supported by [Vectaire](https://www.vectaire.co.uk/) brand air extraction solutions ;)" CreationDate="2020-08-13T06:10:15.620" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28622" PostId="14351" Score="0" Text="Bones with airsacks are usually found in flying dinosaurs/ birds/ dragons. This 'outlier' makes use of it for buoyancy." CreationDate="2020-08-13T20:53:51.257" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30684" PostId="14351" Score="1" Text="FYI it's customary when erecting a new genus or species to give the etymology in the [original paper](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/spp2.1338). Which the author of that taxon did: &quot;Derivation of name. Vectis (Latin): referring to the discovery of this new taxon on the Isle of Wight; aero (Greek): ‘air’, referring to its high degree of skeletal pneumaticity; -venator (Latin): meaning hunter. We imagine the name to be pronounced ‘vectair-oh-ven-ah-tor’.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-06T16:22:49.880" UserId="152" />
  <row Id="30685" PostId="14351" Score="0" Text="@plannapus I was completely unaware of that convention, but it makes a lot of sense. Can you give that an answer? It is great insight for this kind of question in general." CreationDate="2021-02-06T16:41:14.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28612" PostId="14352" Score="0" Text="That sounds indeed plausible! Then I guess it would be &quot;the unexpected air-hunter of the Isle of Wight&quot;. Do you happen to know other species named after the island? I understood that these were not the first bones found there." CreationDate="2020-08-13T08:42:09.433" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28613" PostId="14352" Score="0" Text="http://www.dinowight.co.uk has Vectidraco" CreationDate="2020-08-13T08:48:56.307" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="28614" PostId="14352" Score="0" Text="Excellent observation, although I would have expected the place name to go into the second part of the name (like *Bombus alpinus, Bombus pyrenaeus* etc)." CreationDate="2020-08-13T08:56:39.577" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28616" PostId="14356" Score="0" Text="Thanks (+1)! I took the liberty to edit and emphasize the final suggestion at the end." CreationDate="2020-08-13T13:48:37.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28617" PostId="14356" Score="0" Text="Makes a lot of sense, but then how do you say _one more_ (honest question!)?" CreationDate="2020-08-13T14:07:49.147" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28620" PostId="14356" Score="0" Text="@Rafael You should ask that as a separate question!" CreationDate="2020-08-13T15:36:14.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28629" PostId="14356" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: Remember Pyrrhus of Epirus? After the Battle of Heraclea, 280BC., he is reported to have said: &quot;si talem victoriam iterum habuero, sine exercitu domum iter faciam&quot; = &quot;If I win one more (another) such victory, I shall make the journey home without an army&quot;. What about &quot;two, or three, more? The cardinal numbers would have to be deployed e.g. &quot;tres plus quam heri&quot; = &quot;three more than yestersay&quot;. Unattested things on the net: &quot;hodie te amo magis quam heri&quot; = &quot;Today, I love you more than yesterday.&quot;. &quot;anno 2008 plus quam 4,500,000 exemplares vendiderant in quadraginta tres linguis&quot; =" CreationDate="2020-08-14T10:38:06.577" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28630" PostId="14356" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: &quot;In 2008 the sales topped 4M., in more than forty languages.&quot; (Glosbe)." CreationDate="2020-08-14T10:40:47.840" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28632" PostId="14356" Score="0" Text="@tony, yes, but **iterum** means _one more time/once more/again_, I think you cannot just use it as an adjective for, say, _one more apple_" CreationDate="2020-08-14T13:00:37.450" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28619" PostId="14357" Score="0" Text="It's quite interesting that Latin can drop *quam* but Italian and French can drop *plus*." CreationDate="2020-08-13T15:14:07.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28621" PostId="14357" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: Your third example has &quot;plus&quot; &amp; &quot;quam&quot; together, so the use of these two is valid. I'll have a think about &quot;one more&quot;." CreationDate="2020-08-13T15:41:23.253" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28618" PostId="14358" Score="1" Text="It might be worth adding that [the source is available](https://github.com/Alatius/latin-macronizer), as well." CreationDate="2020-08-13T15:02:19.660" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33098" PostId="14358" Score="0" Text="@Draconis It looks like it just has a major master list!" CreationDate="2021-05-11T17:53:33.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="28628" PostId="14359" Score="1" Text="One thing I noticed in the L&amp;S passage: would it be possible to simply use mei/tui/sui in the sense of &quot;my/your/his people&quot; and derive from context that it refers to family? It sort of has the same problem as domus in that it might include more people than what I'm looking for, and it's probably even less specific and more reliant on context, but otherwise quite elegant." CreationDate="2020-08-14T09:17:09.350" UserId="7233" />
  <row Id="28631" PostId="14359" Score="0" Text="@Pahlavan, yes, indeed: that is what Lewis and Short say. The entry [**suus**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuus), meaning II.A.1 offers a few examples" CreationDate="2020-08-14T12:54:52.600" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28651" PostId="14360" Score="2" Text="That's all very well for *si*, but as I wrote, it's pretty uncontroversial that you can say *si quis…* But can I say: *Furtum fit, cum quis rem alienam amovet*? Or can I say: *Quo quis est doctior, eo est modestior*? What's up with these? Are they rare, non-classical, late Latin, neo-Latin, bad Latin?" CreationDate="2020-08-15T21:39:27.650" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28660" PostId="14360" Score="0" Text="I also gave a set of circumstances in which you can't use *quis* instead of *aliquis*.  You had seemed uncertain from the question what those circumstances might be.  If I knew more, I'd have said more." CreationDate="2020-08-17T11:32:09.023" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28623" PostId="14361" Score="0" Text="Related: [What are the future imperatives of sum?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/565/what-are-the-future-imperatives-of-sum)" CreationDate="2020-08-14T04:26:37.890" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="28624" PostId="14361" Score="0" Text="But this is the present." CreationDate="2020-08-14T04:45:09.050" UserId="7064" />
  <row Id="28626" PostId="14361" Score="1" Text="Could you clarify where you are seeing *esto* given as a present imperative form of *sum*? Allen and Greenough describe it as a future imperative *form* even when used with a generic meaning: [449](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/imperative) (giving the example &quot;Is iūris cīvīlis cūstōs estō. (Legg. 3.8) Let him (the prætor) be the guardian of civil right.&quot;)" CreationDate="2020-08-14T05:04:21.087" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="28627" PostId="14361" Score="0" Text="I was taught this by my teacher, based off the Oxford Latin Course" CreationDate="2020-08-14T05:26:53.880" UserId="7064" />
  <row Id="28713" PostId="14361" Score="0" Text="It's possible that you may have misunderstood: i.e. that it wasn't explicitly said that *esto* was present tense, but you assumed it." CreationDate="2020-08-21T11:18:35.517" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="33657" PostId="14363" Score="0" Text="If I recall correctly, *esto* not infrequently occurs in the function of a present imperative, simply because *es* shares its form with the indicative and therefore introduces a not insignificant amount of ambiguity." CreationDate="2021-06-12T21:40:06.003" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33658" PostId="14363" Score="0" Text="@Anonym Makes sense! If you can quote a grammar and an example or two where such ambiguity would arise if *es* were used, it'd make a great answer." CreationDate="2021-06-12T21:46:19.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28635" PostId="14364" Score="0" Text="Changed the classical-latin tag to old-latin, because this isn't a standard Classical form and the answer goes back to Old Latin sound changes. Perhaps we should have a tag for dialects (_latina rustica_)? The current &quot;dialects&quot; tag seems intended for Greek." CreationDate="2020-08-14T17:43:06.860" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28727" PostId="14364" Score="1" Text="*Devom* sounds like tamil தெய்வம் - *Deivam*/*Dheivam* which means God/Goddess. According to Douglas Harper, the etymological roots of **Deva** mean &quot;a shining one,&quot; from *div*- &quot;to shine,&quot; and it is a cognate with Greek *dios* &quot;divine&quot; and Zeus, and Latin deus &quot;god&quot; (Old Latin deivos). Deva is masculine, and the related feminine equivalent is devi. Etymologically, **Devi** is cognate Latin *dea*." CreationDate="2020-08-15T20:25:37.003" UserId="7260" />
  <row Id="28633" PostId="14365" Score="4" Text="Some options that come to mind are *alter/secundus* and *novus* for adjectives and *bis* for an adverb. But I don't know what would be idiomatic, so I won't write an answer unless I find attestations." CreationDate="2020-08-14T15:10:06.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28645" PostId="14365" Score="1" Text="Joonas llmavirta: I can't find this...All there is, what little there is--&quot;plus unum&quot;-- without attestation. Perhaps it's so simple no textbook writers bothered with it? If I had said to a Roman: &quot;....plus tres (any cardinal number) panes quam heri&quot; = &quot;....three more loaves than yesterday.&quot;, how would it have been understood? If it's quick; delightfully simple; readily understood--does it stand without attestation?" CreationDate="2020-08-15T13:10:29.273" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28646" PostId="14365" Score="4" Text="@tony The difficulty I see here is that *plus tres panes* by itself generally means &quot;more **than** three breads&quot; (the *quam* being habitually left out with numbers)." CreationDate="2020-08-15T15:24:25.567" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28648" PostId="14365" Score="0" Text="Sebastian koppehel: Thank you. Latin &quot;panis&quot; can mean &quot;loaf&quot; (Oxford); but, my attempt at a short-cut has failed! I'm looking forward to seeing the answer this this Q., if one appears." CreationDate="2020-08-15T16:56:05.133" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28673" PostId="14366" Score="0" Text="+1 Hmm when was ει a monophthong? I'll admit my Greek pronunciation is rusty..." CreationDate="2020-08-17T22:35:36.607" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="28674" PostId="14366" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus My understanding is that the high-mid long monophthongs and mid-to-high diphthongs merged pretty early, which is why the result of two epsilons next to each other, or an epsilon that goes through compensatory lengthening, is written ει (and likewise for omicron and ου)." CreationDate="2020-08-17T22:47:48.587" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28677" PostId="14366" Score="0" Text="Hmm that is interesting, about those contractions (which is what we called it) and lengthenings. It would make sense. So this would have happened, around the time of Homer, perhaps?" CreationDate="2020-08-17T22:53:00.707" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="28678" PostId="14366" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Not sure, actually; I might ask a new question about that. I only know that it happened at some point, not when." CreationDate="2020-08-17T22:57:24.003" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28636" PostId="14367" Score="3" Text="In the Wikipedia entry on Nodens, the M is supposed to translate as &quot;Marti&quot;, possibly citing [a 1932 paper](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00007419). However [see also](https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/305). The PDF is art from an essay in *A Wilderness of Dragons: Essays in Honor of Verlyn Flieger*." CreationDate="2020-08-14T20:40:07.787" UserId="7251" />
  <row Id="28641" PostId="14368" Score="0" Text="(I'm experimenting with this myself, and will hopefully be able to provide a good answer sometime soon if nobody else has one.)" CreationDate="2020-08-14T22:56:03.593" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28652" PostId="14373" Score="0" Text="Thanks for sorting-out the &quot;three loaves&quot;. My last thought on this was it's a lateral-thinker--alternative ways of saying &quot;more&quot; had to be found e.g. &quot;in addimento&quot; = &quot;in addition&quot;; the same meaning given by adverb &quot;insuper&quot; (Oxford). Glosbe &quot;uses of insuper&quot; gives the meaning as &quot;moreover&quot;; &quot;also&quot;; &quot;and&quot;." CreationDate="2020-08-16T08:09:56.750" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28658" PostId="14373" Score="1" Text="What happens with numbers that do not decline--&quot;...four more loaves....&quot; would be &quot;...quattuor plures panes quam heri&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-08-17T10:43:52.257" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28671" PostId="14373" Score="0" Text="@tony, It should work the same, but that's a good question. If I think of it, I'll do a corpus search later to try to find an example." CreationDate="2020-08-17T19:33:39.423" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="28654" PostId="14376" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your answer and for having made me discover the hortatory subjunctive. I used mutor because according to the Olivetti dictionary, vario is a transitive verb. I could also use alii instead of infirmissimi so that the quote covers all beings. And finally, does the masculine also apply to plants? Thanks again!" CreationDate="2020-08-16T17:31:21.050" UserDisplayName="user3165" />
  <row Id="28655" PostId="14376" Score="0" Text="One difference between Blincer's original translation and this one is that he added the audience: &quot;you, the strongest [beings], must live, while you, the other [beings], must perish&quot;. I suppose either is possible, depending on the desired effect. But you are of course right that the original is also in the third person. // As to the gender, the noun *animal* is neuter." CreationDate="2020-08-16T22:39:12.497" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="28656" PostId="14376" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus *animal* is neuter, but I think a masculine plural would still be plural given that [pretty much every single animal name is masculine or feminine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13994/is-any-animal-neuter-in-latin). A neuter plural adjective strongly suggests to my ear &quot;things that are *X*&quot; to the exclusion of people and animals. But I could be wrong!" CreationDate="2020-08-16T23:37:16.810" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28657" PostId="14376" Score="0" Text="@Blincer According to Lewis &amp; Short *vario* can also be used intransitively. &quot;Alii&quot; would be fine, though (obviously) it's a bit different from what Darwin says. As for plants, I suspect that masculine wouldn't be appropriate in that case." CreationDate="2020-08-16T23:40:16.433" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28659" PostId="14378" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! As *corpus* is a neuter, you might want *corpora* instead of *corpores*. You can always edit your answer, at least if you register your account." CreationDate="2020-08-17T11:03:24.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28661" PostId="14378" Score="0" Text="Is *excambio* an actual Latin word? *Cambio* should carry the same meaning and is actually attested; however, it seems to be a rare word from mercantile jargon." CreationDate="2020-08-17T13:22:08.233" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28679" PostId="14379" Score="3" Text="Tip: If you have a phrase that you know comes from the Bible, and you want to know how to say it in Latin, you can simply look it up in the [Vulgate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), which is exactly where the top answer comes from, that's what the &quot;VG&quot; link means." CreationDate="2020-08-18T01:45:19.257" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="28680" PostId="14379" Score="2" Text="Thanks  for the tip :) I didn't know it came from the Bible when I wrote it, I didn't even know what Vulgate was. Now I do." CreationDate="2020-08-18T04:47:35.923" UserDisplayName="user7267" />
  <row Id="28663" PostId="14380" Score="0" Text="Thank you :) Even though @Rafael gave me the answer I was looking for, thank you for the alternatives. They are also great! I can use them instead, so I don't seem like a copycat ;)" CreationDate="2020-08-17T14:09:05.823" UserDisplayName="user7267" />
  <row Id="28664" PostId="14380" Score="2" Text="Are you sure *serviri* works? As far as I know, *servire* goes with dative instead of accusative, so I'm not sure the passive infinitive does what it would do for a transitive verb." CreationDate="2020-08-17T14:30:21.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28668" PostId="14380" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I didn't think of that! I checked L&amp;S and it looks like there's only one attested use of a passive *servire* (by Seneca the Younger), so it's probably not the best option." CreationDate="2020-08-17T14:46:58.093" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28669" PostId="14380" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Interestingly, that attestation (*servis paucioribus serviri*) seems to be doubtful as well. Several editions of the text I found online had *servire*, and [here](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Peace_of_Mind#IX.) it is translated as &quot;to be the slaves of fewer slaves&quot;, which admittedly seems contorted. Ah, the simple stoic life, where you have only a few slaves ...!" CreationDate="2020-08-17T15:05:21.927" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28683" PostId="14380" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: This (servis paucioribus serviri.) looks like &quot;You serve too few [of those about] to be served.&quot;. Then, that might be indirect, requiring future participle, &quot;servituros esse&quot;, not passive infinitive, &quot;serviri&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-08-18T12:19:13.010" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28691" PostId="14380" Score="0" Text="@tony The context is, roughly, “Get used to getting by with less.” I see no indirect speech (no verbum dicendi/cogitandi), but note that, in any event, *servituros* means “about to serve,” not “about to be served.” (Remember *morituri te salutant* = “those about to die salute you” – that *mori* is a deponent verb makes not difference, by the way.)" CreationDate="2020-08-19T10:55:26.437" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28662" PostId="14381" Score="0" Text="Oh my god!!!! Thank you!!!!! :) This is exactly the phrase they used. I just looked it up ;)" CreationDate="2020-08-17T14:07:36.770" UserDisplayName="user7267" />
  <row Id="28665" PostId="14381" Score="0" Text="@AlexandrosKourtis, well, you are welcome. Now I'm curious who _they_ are... :)" CreationDate="2020-08-17T14:35:23.617" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28666" PostId="14381" Score="1" Text="Oh, it's the college I go to :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Greece" CreationDate="2020-08-17T14:39:58.093" UserDisplayName="user7267" />
  <row Id="28667" PostId="14381" Score="1" Text="It's funny, they even have it on their wiki page but I didn't see it before I posted the question here..." CreationDate="2020-08-17T14:41:18.560" UserDisplayName="user7267" />
  <row Id="28670" PostId="14381" Score="10" Text="Curious that the American College of Greece has a Latin motto, and to make things worse, one that is a translation of a Greek original :)" CreationDate="2020-08-17T15:30:09.437" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28672" PostId="14381" Score="1" Text="Sebastian: Your observation is both ironic and smart! Nicely done." CreationDate="2020-08-17T22:10:55.163" UserId="7269" />
  <row Id="28675" PostId="14382" Score="0" Text="The verb is [&quot;*vasto*&quot;](https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/38392/vasto-vastare-vastavi-vastatus): &quot;*lay waste, ravage, devastate*&quot;. That (or the nouns &quot;*vastus - waste*&quot;) is also the origin of the English word &quot;*waste*&quot;, through the Old French and Old Northern French." CreationDate="2020-08-17T20:38:23.040" UserId="604" />
  <row Id="28681" PostId="14382" Score="2" Text="As this is a question about a specific historic military order (albeit one that I doubt really existed), not about the Latin language, it was perfectly well suited for History SE and should be moved back. We can here discuss what verbs one might use for &quot;plunder&quot;, but that is clearly not what the question was about." CreationDate="2020-08-18T09:06:49.590" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28682" PostId="14382" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Either my comment above is trivially correct - making the question unsuitable for history - or it isn't and the Latin required is more complex than history cares to deal with,again making it unsuitable for History." CreationDate="2020-08-18T11:36:18.043" UserId="604" />
  <row Id="28684" PostId="14382" Score="3" Text="@PieterGeerkens Why would you even attempt to answer the question without finding out first whether the supposed order really existed, who gave it and what exactly was ordered (which are all matters of history)? If someone asked what Brezhnev's order for the invasion of Afghanistan was, in the original Russian, would you attempt a one-word answer from a Russian dictionary and move the question to Russian SE &quot;if the Russian required is more complex&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-08-18T13:33:36.350" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28685" PostId="14382" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Because I can't read bloody Latin well enough to attempt scanning the original source. This really seems like a simple translation exercise, given there is exactly one source document to check. History is not a translation exercise. The facts are: (1) History doesn't want the question, as evidenced by our moderators migrating it. (2) Your moderators accepted the migration. if you don't want the question here - close it here." CreationDate="2020-08-18T15:10:21.257" UserId="604" />
  <row Id="28686" PostId="14382" Score="3" Text="@PieterGeerkens and Sebastian: This is not a translation question at all. If it was, it would be &quot;how should I phrase this order in Latin?&quot; instead of &quot;what was the order given in Latin?&quot; as it is now. // There is no tool for accepting a migrated post; it just appears on the target site and the local mods don't even get notified. If it's closed on the new site, it automatically returns to the original site. // I think this is essentially a passage request (and that tag would probably fit), and I think it fits the site. I think it needs some more explanation to be easier to answer, though." CreationDate="2020-08-18T15:59:58.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28692" PostId="14382" Score="2" Text="@R.Frank: **Please create an account on this site too** so that you can edit your post and communicate otherwise and get notified when you get an answer. When a question is migrated, a new account is not created automatically. To help get an answer, can you tell where you heard about this order and give all any details that you might have? That will make locating it easier." CreationDate="2020-08-19T13:17:27.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29173" PostId="14382" Score="0" Text="@R. Frank In order to accurately answer this question, please say text it was, or at least what author wrote it. There is a LOT of ways to say &quot;plunder.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-02T14:28:06.753" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="30743" PostId="14382" Score="0" Text="Thank you all for your gracious time you have given this subject. I have attempted to find the command in Latin sources but my ignorance obstructs me. The Roman army after the Gallic Wars brought the Germanic tribes into the military. The discipline required was far greater than before. This is the time for disobedience a &quot;centuria&quot; was decimated, that is one tenth was put to death. Discipline was tantamount. To keep the &quot;new&quot; soldiers content they were authorized to plunder to supplement their meager wages BUT only on command." CreationDate="2021-02-15T01:13:45.587" UserId="8983" />
  <row Id="28688" PostId="14385" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Could you provide a bit more context? Is it implied that something has to be done (so glory may be given to God)? Is ecclesiastical Latin adequate? Would you prefer a quote with an approximate meaning over a literal translation, if available?" CreationDate="2020-08-19T01:33:51.337" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28689" PostId="14387" Score="0" Text="Thanks for a swift reply Joonas, much appreciated!" CreationDate="2020-08-19T06:57:29.383" UserId="7280" />
  <row Id="28690" PostId="14387" Score="0" Text="@SethBraddock You're welcome! If you like the answer, you can vote it up by clicking the little arrow at the top left of the answer. Below the score thing there's a little green checkmark you can give to one answer to indicate that you got what you were looking for. Our [tour] tells more about the functionalities." CreationDate="2020-08-19T07:27:51.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28701" PostId="14390" Score="0" Text="I don't know for sure, but there is a mixed conjugation of 3rd and 4th declensions. &quot;Speicial -io verbs&quot; Wheelocks calls them. So giving someone &quot;facio&quot; might make them wrongly assume &quot;facire&quot; instead of &quot;facere.&quot; Just a guess though." CreationDate="2020-08-19T22:35:39.403" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28707" PostId="14390" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite That'd explain the need for the infinitive to be one of the principal parts (and for the conjugation number to be specified where the infinitive isn't included) but it wouldn't explain why the infinitive is sometimes given last, and I don't think it quite explains why the Italians add on a fifth pp (the 2nd person sgl present ind)." CreationDate="2020-08-20T17:33:29.240" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28708" PostId="14390" Score="0" Text="In the 4th c. AD, the grammarian Flavius Sosipater Charisius wrote the following (which doesn't answer my question - unless there is a longer version of the text, which I'll seek out - but the interesting thing is, he cites each verb by two forms - the 1st p.sg. present ind. actv. and the 2nd p.sg. present ind. actv.): &quot;Primi ordinis est verbum cuius secunda persona -as litteris terminatur, velut *amo, amas*. secundi ordinis est verbum cuius secunda persona -es terminatur, velut *teneo, tenes*...&quot; etc." CreationDate="2020-08-20T17:38:16.097" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28695" PostId="14392" Score="3" Text="Thanks! somewhat surprised I haven't heard about up until now, as that looks pretty basic. though not entirely surprising as my &quot;way&quot; of studying this language is anything but organized; yet I'm certain - all roads lead to Rome :)" CreationDate="2020-08-19T18:59:54.750" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28712" PostId="14394" Score="0" Text="For the first part you could render the pun nicely by something like &quot;with the strings move the heartstrings&quot;." CreationDate="2020-08-21T10:51:07.783" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="28710" PostId="14397" Score="2" Text="I recently reread the BC, this time with a private student, and I remember discussing this very point: the fact that the sentences *appear* to be using a parallel construction to 'mark' a contrast, as Cicero might do, but it's deceptive – the parallelism is only surface-deep. There's still a little note about this in the margin of my OCT. I also have a recollection that this isn't the only place where Caesar does such a thing. In a way, it's the opposite of Sallustian-style inconcinnity, where difference in surface appearance belies similarity in underlying meaning. It's a great question." CreationDate="2020-08-21T04:25:14.233" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="28715" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@cnread Many thanks for your comment!" CreationDate="2020-08-22T01:12:19.617" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28735" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Please, &quot;BC&quot;...Back Catalogue (?) &amp; &quot;OCT&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-08-24T11:37:16.703" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28736" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Given that &quot;ad oppugnationem urbis agere&quot; = &quot;to arrange for the attacking of the city&quot;; &quot;ad obsidionem urbis&quot; = &quot;for a siege of the city&quot;; &quot;ad obsidendam urbem&quot; = &quot;for the purpose of besieging the city&quot;; these display clear differences e.g. use of &quot;ad&quot;= &quot;for purpose of&quot;. And on the ground: an attack tends to be quick, hopefully, whereas a siege can last for years (Leningrad). What exactly are you looking for, here?" CreationDate="2020-08-24T11:59:48.607" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28740" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@tony, BC = Bellum Civile, OCT = Oxford Classical Text" CreationDate="2020-08-24T16:26:21.550" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="28746" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@tony I was wondering why it's the case that in the text above &quot;the PP _ad oppugnationem urbis_ could be easily replaced by the PP _ad oppugnandam urbem_. In contrast, the previous PP _ad obsidionem urbis_ cannot be replaced by the PP _ad obsidendam urbem_&quot;. Are you suggesting that this contrast could be due to the polysemy of the preposition _ad_?" CreationDate="2020-08-24T19:22:27.447" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28748" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: It seemed to be fatuous, if not patronising, to attempt to explain the nuanced differences between these (similar) expressions. Hence the assumption that yourself was looking for something deeper, that I could not see. The answer, in the Q., construction &quot;ad + gerundive&quot; (&quot;ad obsidiendum urbem&quot;) implying that the Massilians might besiege their own city, precludes its use. The interpretation of cnread's reversal of Sallust: similarity in surface appearance belies (fundamental) difference in underlying meaning. With the constructions &quot;ad + gerund/ + gerundive: how does the student" CreationDate="2020-08-25T12:22:08.087" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28749" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: recognise which one it is? Given that the meaning is the same &quot;for the purpose of...&quot; does it matter?" CreationDate="2020-08-25T12:23:43.510" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28751" PostId="14397" Score="0" Text="@tony The _general_ question here has to do with the differences between verbal nouns with suffix _-tio_ and verbal adjectives (gerundives). Since both nominal forms are derived from verbs, one could expect a similarity as for the interpretation of the arguments inherited from their corresponding verbs (NB: both forms involve an agent and a patient) but it is not always the case: for example, note that in the text above _ad oppugnationem urbis_ **can** indeed be replaced by _ad oppugnandam urbem_  but _ad obsidionem urbis_ **cannot** be replaced by _ad obsidendam urbem_. **Why?**" CreationDate="2020-08-25T18:21:02.293" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32680" PostId="14401" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this useful collation of different sources." CreationDate="2021-04-18T20:50:05.977" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36555" PostId="14402" Score="1" Text="After reading the parallel passages, I agree that there is no dative of agent." CreationDate="2022-01-07T21:38:26.363" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36566" PostId="14402" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Ok, thanks for your comment. Glad to know that you've changed your mind concerning the analysis of this example (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12844/can-a-dative-of-agent-appear-in-an-ablative-absolute-construction/12859#12859 ).  I'd have loved to discuss it (and, more generally, the topic of the different syntactic distribution of &quot;datives of agent&quot; vs. &quot;ablatives of agent&quot; in Latin) with the late Harm Pinkster. Unfortunately, that won't be possible." CreationDate="2022-01-08T05:17:24.470" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36686" PostId="14402" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Walter Ker translates dative, &quot;mihi (uni)&quot; = &quot;to me (alone)&quot;; similarly, J.B. Calvo, &quot;pero solo a mi&quot; = &quot;but alone to me&quot;, which is to be expected, for a dative. The translation of which you are a proponent (Shackleton-Bailey) appears to be understanding datives as accusatives: &quot;sibi&quot; = &quot;(acknowledging) himself&quot;; Latin &quot;se ipsum&quot;: &quot;mihi&quot; = &quot;(but) me&quot;; Latin, &quot;me&quot;. Cicero did not attempt to write in the accusative; therefore, how can this translation be so good? The translations with the best &quot;feel&quot; are Pinkster's; datives translated as datives." CreationDate="2022-01-17T13:36:36.530" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36687" PostId="14402" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: If there is no obligation falling upon the person then the dative-of-agent is inappropriate. Why can't the dative be an ordinary dative--distinguished by context--what feels right? In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8816/1982, Tom Cotton, commented to Joonas that &quot;clear communication&quot; is the &quot;desirable objective&quot;; for me, that's the datives translated as (ordinary) datives. I'm guessing that as an idealistic young student you joined your Uni's debating society? Speaking for a cause, one day; against it, the next--compelled to counter your own arguments, from the previous one." CreationDate="2022-01-17T13:51:48.557" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36688" PostId="14402" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: This generates perspicacity into how others pursue their points. Therefore, if you could have debated these translations, with Dr. Pinkster, what do you think he would have said?" CreationDate="2022-01-17T13:56:38.077" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36689" PostId="14402" Score="1" Text="@tony In my opinion Shackleton Bailey's translation is better than Pinkster's ones because only the former seems to consider the datives as dependent on the collocation _dat testimonium_ (NB: Pinkster considers them as datives of agent, i.e. as dependent on the participles, which I think is a wrong analysis). When giving translations, you must not necessarily adhere to the syntactic rules of the original text. What one can't do is to tergiversate the meaning. So for me it's not a big problem if the datives are translated as direct objects to the extent that the original meaning is preserved." CreationDate="2022-01-17T16:19:21.437" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28719" PostId="14404" Score="1" Text="Re: N-G-D-Ac-V-Abl (Russia): I'm afraid I have to disagree. From my own experience it is usually N-G-Acc-Abl-Voc. Voc is usually the last case." CreationDate="2020-08-22T14:57:19.467" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28720" PostId="14404" Score="1" Text="I largely treat N-G-D-Ac-V-Abl and N-G-D-Ac-Abl-V as two variations on the same order - at any rate they have much more common with each other than with N-(V-)Ac-Gen-D-Abl - although I admit the distinction is nevertheless useful, so I'll amend." CreationDate="2020-08-22T15:00:07.747" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28731" PostId="14407" Score="0" Text="[Burta](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/burtă) is the Romanian word for *belly*. Its etymology is unknown, though suspected to be related to the Indo-European [bʰelǵʰ](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰelǵʰ-), meaning *swell*. If so, then it is cognate to the Latin [**f**ollis](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/follis#Latin) and Romanian [**f**oale](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foale#Romanian), since the Indo-European *b&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;* corresponds to the Latin *f*, and any connection to a hypothetical (though unattested)..." CreationDate="2020-08-23T09:58:59.047" UserId="7296" />
  <row Id="28733" PostId="14407" Score="1" Text="...Latin root bort- is completely out of the question. However, were such a (lost) root to have existed in ancient Latin, its Romanian equivalent would be either bort- or burt-. (...) *-t(a)* is a common suffix in Romanian as well, deriving from its aforementioned Latin equivalent; if so, then a possible connection to the equally mysterious [(a) borî](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/borî), meaning *(to) vomit*, might not be completely out of the question." CreationDate="2020-08-23T11:24:48.560" UserId="7296" />
  <row Id="28721" PostId="14408" Score="1" Text="Thanks, that’s interesting." CreationDate="2020-08-22T19:04:49.813" UserId="43" />
  <row Id="28723" PostId="14412" Score="1" Text="Thank you a lot! It solves my problem! :D" CreationDate="2020-08-22T20:57:15.107" UserId="7291" />
  <row Id="28741" PostId="14417" Score="1" Text="Is this a folk etymology, though?" CreationDate="2020-08-24T16:59:17.527" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="28747" PostId="14417" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure, but I don't think so." CreationDate="2020-08-24T21:56:50.133" UserId="7297" />
  <row Id="28743" PostId="14418" Score="0" Text="Re: &quot;I can't find another source that gives cōs-cotis, with alternating vowel length.&quot; and that is why it is important for a linguist to know one's material very well because his statement about cōs is simply wrong. (Gorman is a computational linguist btw, and I'm not sure how well he knows Latin.)" CreationDate="2020-08-24T17:53:06.020" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28745" PostId="14418" Score="1" Text="and then we have minimal pairs like ōs - ŏs, vās - văs etc." CreationDate="2020-08-24T19:14:14.253" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29345" PostId="14418" Score="0" Text="perhaps relevant, [length of a in masculus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium#length_of_%C4%81_in_m%C4%81sculus_(m%C4%83sculus...))." CreationDate="2020-10-14T05:48:37.740" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="29358" PostId="14418" Score="0" Text="&quot;The other thing that puzzles me is the general motivation for the idea that word-final /s/ is not moraic in Latin.&quot; &#xA; I read something relevant when skimming Meyer-Brügge, but didn't take a copy or page number. It was something about an intermediate palatal between s&gt;r becoming lengthened as visible from mismatching moras in transcribed oldet text, lengthened where short is expected(?) implying s was short(?). *mas, maris* (or something similar?) is the example, noting that it was never notated long. It's an intro book, suppose you know the facts better than I." CreationDate="2020-10-14T19:09:04.723" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="28742" PostId="14419" Score="1" Text="Exactly! All the major dictionaries have cōs-cōtis (i.e. the long vowel): the TLL http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#30656 or the OLD" CreationDate="2020-08-24T17:14:08.890" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28750" PostId="14422" Score="0" Text="It shouldn't literally be in the gender of the word for what he is buying.  After all, you may know he is buying a *res*, which is feminine, but you would still use the neuter *quid*, whereas *quam* as an interrogative would specifically refer to a female human being.  This is very different from *quam* as a feminine relative pronoun, which very well can refer to *res* (and any other noun of feminine gender).." CreationDate="2020-08-25T16:32:25.640" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28752" PostId="14422" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour The word *res* is a red herring for this question. If you ask &quot;what is he buying?&quot;, the interrogative is simply *quid*, as neuter is used for general things. The word *res* only plays any role if you ask &quot;what thing is he buying?&quot; with *quam rem*. Romans don't seem to have used *res* quite the same way as modern anglophones use &quot;thing&quot;; I would even say that Julius is buying a thing but not a *res*." CreationDate="2020-08-25T19:55:40.830" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28753" PostId="14422" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Ah. I thought pronouns in Latin always took the gender of the word to which they refer. Thanks for clarifying" CreationDate="2020-08-25T23:11:59.463" UserId="7299" />
  <row Id="28754" PostId="14422" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta If I want to say something like &quot;Put it on the table&quot;, and &quot;it&quot; refers to an item which is known, should the pronoun be the gender of the item (as it would be in German) or always &quot;id&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-08-25T23:16:58.540" UserId="7299" />
  <row Id="28755" PostId="14422" Score="1" Text="@user1488 They do, when they refer to a word.  Demonstrative and relative pronouns do refer to words (usually).  Interrogative and indefinite pronouns do not." CreationDate="2020-08-25T23:28:53.740" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28757" PostId="14422" Score="1" Text="@user1488 If you refer to a specific thing and you have a word in mind for it, you use the gender of that word for &quot;it&quot;. For example: &quot;Habes clavem meam. **Eam** mihi da!&quot; When you have no word in mind (especially if it isn't anything specific), then go with neuter. You can think of the neuter as a backup." CreationDate="2020-08-26T07:08:01.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28737" PostId="14423" Score="0" Text="I took the question as asking whether to use *quem* or *quid* if you don't know whether he is shopping for slaves.  Similarly, one might ask whether you need masculine plural, neuter plural, or two pronouns to refer to a group that includes both people and things." CreationDate="2020-08-24T14:03:21.703" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28738" PostId="14423" Score="0" Text="Could you actually say *quem aut quid*?  Or, *quos vel quae*?  Or, in a declarative sentence, *eos et ea*?" CreationDate="2020-08-24T14:11:27.933" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28739" PostId="14423" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour If it could be either way, then the neuter is your choice. Just like in English you can ask &quot;what are you buying?&quot; and your friend can respond &quot;slaves&quot;. I would only list both *quem* and *quid* if you specifically want to emphasize that Julius might be buying either slaves or other things. Under normal circumstances I'd go with just neuter." CreationDate="2020-08-24T14:31:39.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35332" PostId="14425" Score="0" Text="for *facultatem facere* we can add *copiam facere* with the same formula" CreationDate="2021-10-02T13:15:47.347" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28756" PostId="14428" Score="2" Text="If I'm not mistaken, Latin (like many other Romance languages) uses *scio + inf.* where an English speaker would use &quot;know *how* to...&quot; So I think the *quomodo* could be dropped." CreationDate="2020-08-26T00:48:51.340" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28761" PostId="14428" Score="1" Text="@brianpck True.  Corrected." CreationDate="2020-08-26T13:44:43.903" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28760" PostId="14432" Score="2" Text="You might be interested in [this question about *servos*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6365/79), about those very same instances of the word." CreationDate="2020-08-26T12:49:39.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28778" PostId="14432" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: A touch embarrassing; something similar has been asked before; though I was interested in the &quot;quem patrem&quot; thing, as well as &quot;servos&quot;. All's well that ends well." CreationDate="2020-08-27T15:39:50.270" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28764" PostId="14434" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I was writing an answer, but then became puzzled too. Veneti _can_ be the vocative of both the Venetic and Venetians (but then the verb should be caveant). In oder to be a vocative, in turn, antuerpiae should refer to the city, not the people. Antwerp is spelled antuerpia, the demonyn seems to be antuerpiensis. I don't know whether antuerpiae is also a valid spelling, but it could be a plural as well–yet also a locative, genitive, etc. The word _to_ also puzzles me. Is the marginal note XVI century? Can we know how fluent in Latin the writer was/where was he from?" CreationDate="2020-08-26T19:42:20.130" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28765" PostId="14434" Score="1" Text="The &quot;to&quot; that you mention is probably &quot;tu&quot;. I corrected the typo. The marginal note is XVI century. I don't know how fluent in Latin the writer was, but the commentary that he was reading was in Latin. The writer was a Scot, but possibly living in London." CreationDate="2020-08-26T19:54:39.360" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="28766" PostId="14434" Score="5" Text="Do you have a photo of the actual text? That could help think of alternative readings; with just the transcription it's hard to tell whether the first word could be *caveas* instead, for example. Something seems to be a little awry, and it's hard to guess what." CreationDate="2020-08-26T19:59:16.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28767" PostId="14434" Score="0" Text="I don't have a photo, I am afraid. I just took the text from an article. There may be a typo in the article. The book itself is in the John Rylands Library." CreationDate="2020-08-26T20:08:48.303" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="28768" PostId="14434" Score="6" Text="Do you have a link to the article? Perhaps there are transcription errors. Perhaps there was a short stroke above the a in *caveat*, which would indicate an *n*." CreationDate="2020-08-26T21:09:38.493" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="28769" PostId="14434" Score="1" Text="@Rafael There is some indication that Antwerp in Latin may sometimes have been &quot;Antuerpiae&quot;.  It's notable that the Dutch and French names for Antwerp both look like plurals in form (of course, this doesn't prove anything in itself, but fwiw, Antwerpen and Anvers respectively) (as does the Spanish Amberes). See https://rbms.info/lpn/a/antuerpiae/" CreationDate="2020-08-26T21:19:43.440" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28770" PostId="14434" Score="1" Text="Stupid question, perhaps, but isn't 'London' Londinium in Latin? Or does that change to Lundina over the centuries?" CreationDate="2020-08-26T21:24:10.840" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="28771" PostId="14434" Score="0" Text="@cnread Wiktionary includes &quot;Lundonia&quot; as a medieval name for London, but even more relevantly, a book of illustrations of London was published in the early 19c under the title &quot;Londina Illustrata&quot; ( https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/book/londina-illustrata-graphic-and-historic-memorials-of-monasteries-churches )" CreationDate="2020-08-26T21:27:38.590" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28774" PostId="14434" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus This is the article for those that have access to it. The reference is on p. 33.  https://doi.org/10.7227/BJRL.96.1.2 The translation given in the article is &quot;Be wary of the example of Venice and Antwerp as well as Tyre and London&quot;." CreationDate="2020-08-27T05:23:21.197" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="28775" PostId="14434" Score="3" Text="@user558840: Sci-Hub won't let me see the article. Perhaps you might consider posting the relevant passage and some text around it in the question; more context may help." CreationDate="2020-08-27T13:34:01.730" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29058" PostId="14434" Score="0" Text="@BrynJess Thanks for the edit! I made some further adjustments because [we are getting rid of the tag &quot;translation&quot;](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79)." CreationDate="2020-09-21T16:37:05.107" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30598" PostId="14434" Score="0" Text="The *Orbis Latinus* only gives singular Latin names for Antwerp: http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/Graesse/orblata.html But it could still be intended as plural by this particular author." CreationDate="2021-01-31T18:04:17.213" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="28772" PostId="14435" Score="0" Text="AFAIK there is no &quot;Doric κε&quot;. You may be thinking of the particle κε = ἄν, but that's not related to τε." CreationDate="2020-08-26T22:51:00.840" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28773" PostId="14435" Score="0" Text="@TKR I vaguely remember it being attested as cognate with τε, but LSJ doesn't list it. I'll see if I can figure out where I got that from." CreationDate="2020-08-26T22:57:22.260" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28786" PostId="14439" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for that example of vividly spoken and commonly applied Latin. As for me, it's an absolutely sufficient authority. A better one than others who'd try to impose rules of classic Latin on modern Latin usage." CreationDate="2020-08-28T12:44:56.770" UserId="7310" />
  <row Id="28780" PostId="14441" Score="0" Text="+1 agreed, the plural should not be necessary, unless they both suffer from many conditions, which seems to be the case ;)" CreationDate="2020-08-27T22:45:04.953" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28781" PostId="14441" Score="1" Text="māla as in apples, but I guess the same applys here" CreationDate="2020-08-27T23:57:05.830" UserId="5004" />
  <row Id="28782" PostId="14441" Score="2" Text="It seems to me the same logic would argue for singular *habet*. Which is to say that it isn't a question of *a priori* logic, but of the facts of attested usage." CreationDate="2020-08-28T00:15:49.513" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28783" PostId="14441" Score="3" Text="That's a good point @TKR and according to Harm Pinkster (The Oxford Latin Syntax) an emphatic coordination (et...et) usually involves the verb agreeing in number with the nearest subject (so being singular if the nearest subject is singular), e.g. *et proavus et avus praetor fuit*, &quot;both the great-grandfather and the grandfather were praetors&quot; (literally &quot;was a praetor&quot;).  Pinkster mentions that there are &quot;also instances&quot; where writers use a plural verb though, as they normally would for a straightforward &quot;et&quot; coordinated subject." CreationDate="2020-08-28T07:36:36.310" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28790" PostId="14441" Score="0" Text="@TKR, that occured to me as well but did not want to push my luck:)" CreationDate="2020-08-29T05:35:50.097" UserId="5004" />
  <row Id="29070" PostId="14441" Score="0" Text="@rjpond Can you write that comment into an answer? It provides quite a bit of insight into *et...et* and numbers." CreationDate="2020-09-23T06:53:47.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28832" PostId="14442" Score="0" Text="Would *pius* be better than *officiosus*?" CreationDate="2020-09-01T02:36:07.160" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="28784" PostId="14444" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure that's really true, not just that his work was partly a revision of earlier work, but because it's not known that he did all of it, and some earlier work that wasn't his was apparently included (in most editions) unrevised. &quot;While he revised all of the Gospels of the Vetus Latina from the Greek, it is not known who revised the rest of the New Testament. Several unrevised books of the Vetus Latina Old Testament also commonly became included in the Vulgate.&quot; (That's if Wikipedia is correct.) But Isidore may have copied other people's work too.Plagiarism wasn't seen as bad back then." CreationDate="2020-08-28T12:05:56.583" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28785" PostId="14444" Score="0" Text="(Actually, plagiarism isn't really the right term, but I was reaching the max comment length.)" CreationDate="2020-08-28T12:07:40.137" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28979" PostId="14444" Score="1" Text="@rjpond There is a response to your comments in the answer now." CreationDate="2020-09-13T18:50:33.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28983" PostId="14444" Score="2" Text="Thank you, @JoonasIlmavirta, for letting me know, and thank you, Colin, for taking the time to address my point." CreationDate="2020-09-13T19:05:51.887" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="28787" PostId="14445" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Kate! Can you edit your question to tell what you have made out of the sentence so far? A preliminary translation would help us help you more efficiently. (Also, consider registering your account and taking a look at our [tour], as it makes interacting with your question easier later on. Answers are not always immediate, and it's unfortunate if you lose access before they come.)" CreationDate="2020-08-28T13:30:54.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28788" PostId="14445" Score="0" Text="Yes thanks I will look at registering! So far I have got something roughly like this: &quot;I will show you that rays, which flow from each and every substance, are not beyond the idea of substantiality, even if they are forces...&quot;" CreationDate="2020-08-28T13:36:32.000" UserId="7314" />
  <row Id="28792" PostId="14446" Score="0" Text="cnread: Why would Cicero choose a perfect subjunctive (PS), &quot;occiderit&quot;, instead of the perfect, &quot;occidit&quot;? Joonas (CHAT: 20/5/20) discussed Cicero's use of the PS to convey &quot;might&quot; e.g. &quot;hoc sine ulla dubitatione confirmaverim&quot; = &quot;I might confirm this without any hesitation.&quot; (Brutus 25). But there is no &quot;might&quot; about a killing. Alternatively, Allen &amp; Greenough p.540, section 2: &quot;mea mater irata est quia non rederim&quot; = &quot;My mother is angry because I did not return.&quot; The authority is the mother's, not the writer's, therefore the PS is deployed. Here, the authority lies with the killer, Not Cic?" CreationDate="2020-08-29T10:47:28.743" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28797" PostId="14446" Score="1" Text="@tony: Subjunctive is the regular mood in a subordinate clause within indirect statement. It's true, though, that one sometimes finds an indicative in such instances, when the speaker really wants to insist on or emphasize the reality of the statement in the subordinate clause. (As a side note, this choice here isn't actually Cicero's, since he's quoting a letter from M. Antony.)" CreationDate="2020-08-29T18:11:09.123" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="28818" PostId="14446" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much for the help!" CreationDate="2020-08-30T23:21:43.177" UserId="7314" />
  <row Id="28793" PostId="14448" Score="1" Text="It should be noted that _Terra_ is more easily recognisable as a scientific name of the planet, and its use with this connotation is attested even classically. For instance, in Quintilian's _Institutio Oratoria_ [we find](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/quintilian-orators_education/2002/pb_LCL126.189.xml): _Quaeritur per coniecturam... : ‘an sol maior quam terra...'_ (&quot;We use conjecture... is the Sun bigger than the Earth...&quot;)." CreationDate="2020-08-29T14:52:42.203" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="28794" PostId="14448" Score="0" Text="@VincenzoOliva That's a surprise to me. Around here people would recognize *tellus* as the scientific name for our planet, not *terra*. There are regional differences, but it's true that both options work. My preference is *tellus*." CreationDate="2020-08-29T15:08:32.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28796" PostId="14448" Score="0" Text="Fair enough! :)" CreationDate="2020-08-29T15:14:11.560" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="28798" PostId="14448" Score="0" Text="In the US, &quot;Terra&quot; is the only widely recognized scientifical name for the planet. I didn't know that &quot;Tellus&quot; was recognized (by non-classicists) anywhere." CreationDate="2020-08-29T19:21:25.597" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28799" PostId="14448" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite In Finland I had learned Tellus as a scientific name of our planet as a kid, perhaps a decade before I ever encountered the word *terra*. I'll edit the answer a bit to give both options." CreationDate="2020-08-29T19:40:13.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28800" PostId="14449" Score="0" Text="The man actually wages war, because it is his duty since his country declared war, even though he is more inclined to peace and seeks peace. So gero is probably the good verb. Thanks for the rest of your remarks." CreationDate="2020-08-29T21:48:08.477" UserId="7312" />
  <row Id="28801" PostId="14449" Score="0" Text="Gaudeo ut iuvare possim! Happy to help!" CreationDate="2020-08-29T21:49:49.537" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28802" PostId="14450" Score="4" Text="Gens names are first/second declension adjectives. You are seeing the first-declension form because *gens* is feminine. For example, men of the gens Julia are called Julius, women Julia. Also, all the names you refer to are cognomina, and in that case one has to keep in mind that the Romans did not generally give cognomina to women (I think)." CreationDate="2020-08-30T10:57:17.657" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28803" PostId="14450" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I have edited the question to mention that these are cognomina. But I guess that that leaves the question open, right?" CreationDate="2020-08-30T12:04:59.490" UserId="3663" />
  <row Id="28804" PostId="14450" Score="1" Text="You may find this useful https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5908/39" CreationDate="2020-08-30T12:37:03.207" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28805" PostId="14450" Score="1" Text="Thank you. There it says that 1st decl. masc. nouns may come from fem. abstract nouns, from Greek influence or loanwords. For proper nouns, however, Etruscan loanwords seem like the most relevant of the explanations mentioned there. Are these many 1st decl. cognomina derived from Etruscan?" CreationDate="2020-08-30T13:19:58.593" UserId="3663" />
  <row Id="28806" PostId="14450" Score="1" Text="@JoshuaFox re: Sulla, Leumann says the following, citing Schwyzer: Sulla from Surula, from Σύροσ (p. 52, in Lit.) and then adds &quot;die Verknüpfung mit Σύροσ ist unglaubhaft &quot; [i.e. implausible]" CreationDate="2020-08-30T15:25:58.077" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28807" PostId="14450" Score="1" Text="So, I don't know yet - I'll have to do more research/think about this. But my guess is that one of the factors I mentioned in the linked post would apply." CreationDate="2020-08-30T15:38:27.123" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28808" PostId="14450" Score="1" Text="Re: Agrippa: we have Gellius (XVI: 1-2), who says &quot;Quorum in nascendo non caput, sed pedes primi extiterant, qui partus difficillimus aegerrimusque habetur, “Agrippae” appellati, vocabulo ab aegritudine et pedibus conficto.&quot; - and Leumann also mentions it (p. 398)" CreationDate="2020-08-30T15:48:27.790" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28816" PostId="14450" Score="1" Text="Right, my comment was not intended to suggest the question isn't valid. It's a good question and I have upvoted." CreationDate="2020-08-30T21:50:52.403" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28833" PostId="14451" Score="0" Text="*Pro mare nostro* would be what I would expect, with *mare* an ablative. I don't know what to think of *nostrum*. &quot;For the sea of us&quot;? Not likely, but I can't rule it out." CreationDate="2020-09-01T02:44:47.913" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="28809" PostId="14452" Score="1" Text="That does make sense: &quot;The White family&quot;" CreationDate="2020-08-30T17:21:46.043" UserId="3663" />
  <row Id="28812" PostId="14454" Score="3" Text="A very interesting question! Looking forward to reading answers." CreationDate="2020-08-30T17:47:32.873" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28815" PostId="14454" Score="3" Text="Chapter 5 of Irfan Shahid's *Rome and the Arabs* (available for download [here](https://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books/rome-and-the-arabs-a-prolegomenon-to-the-study-of)) catalogs all of the Arab units of the Roman army in the 4th-5th century. Maybe the ethnic division was also a language division (but I don't see any explicit information on the question there)" CreationDate="2020-08-30T19:48:56.657" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="28851" PostId="14454" Score="0" Text="Big problem for armies of multiethnic empires. For instance, up to WW1, the *lingua franca* of the Austro-Hungarian navy was Venetian. The army had ethnic units (Austrians, Hungarians, Bosnians, Italians and whatnot) where the officers were expected to speak German, but not the soldiers. Quite likely, they understood as much German as was needed for short orders." CreationDate="2020-09-02T09:56:58.763" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="28852" PostId="14454" Score="0" Text="@egreg, military orders (and responses) are in special codified language (that reduces chances of miscommunication), even if those codified languages are subset of &quot;common&quot; language of the civilians of the country. So, you gotta muster soldiers/sailor to speak differently anyways." CreationDate="2020-09-02T10:06:01.783" UserId="1969" />
  <row Id="28813" PostId="14455" Score="0" Text="This is a good start! I wonder if the source cited by Wikipedia goes any deeper into this." CreationDate="2020-08-30T18:14:48.617" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28814" PostId="14455" Score="0" Text="I wondered the same. It looks like you [download a PDF](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261942644_The_De_Militari_Scientia_or_Muller_Fragment_as_a_philological_resource_Latin_in_the_East_Roman_army_and_two_new_loanwords_in_Greek_palmarium_and_recala) of the cited source for further reading." CreationDate="2020-08-30T18:16:44.657" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="28827" PostId="14458" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a good first question! I look forward to seeing more questions from you." CreationDate="2020-08-31T14:11:15.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28829" PostId="14460" Score="7" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a great first answer! I hope you'll register your account and stick around." CreationDate="2020-08-31T16:06:46.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28831" PostId="14460" Score="6" Text="Imperfect analogy is the use of a lot of French in modern military language. Echelon, bivouac, esprit de corp, etc. Any soldier knows what is intended without also being able to order breakfast in a Paris hotel." CreationDate="2020-08-31T22:49:52.043" UserId="7323" />
  <row Id="28839" PostId="14460" Score="5" Text="Military graffiti: Hic erat Kilroy" CreationDate="2020-09-01T15:44:04.180" UserId="7329" />
  <row Id="28856" PostId="14460" Score="1" Text="Your answer has earned you reputation points which in turn give you some [privileges](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/user/7322) on the site. You need a registered account to benefit from them; if you want to register but have no access to the account anymore, create a new one and [merge the two accounts following this help page](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts)." CreationDate="2020-09-02T17:25:16.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28863" PostId="14460" Score="0" Text="This is such a good answer that I joined this site just to be able to upvote it." CreationDate="2020-09-03T14:37:40.160" UserId="7334" />
  <row Id="28835" PostId="14461" Score="1" Text="Can you give some more detail? Who might be saying this? Who might be receiving these words? Can you give some examples in English of what some &quot;wise words&quot; might be? In what sense do you mean life? The way one should live their life? These are just some examples." CreationDate="2020-09-01T04:23:01.700" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28836" PostId="14461" Score="0" Text="Added on the body thank you for your question" CreationDate="2020-09-01T06:09:27.720" UserId="7126" />
  <row Id="28837" PostId="14461" Score="1" Text="@Nabla: If &quot;wise words&quot; is synonymous with advice then verb &quot;moneo&quot; = to warn&quot;; &quot;to give advice&quot;; de (pronoun taking the ablative case) = &quot;concerning&quot;; &quot;vita&quot; = &quot;life&quot; and looks the same in the ablative case giving &quot;de vita monere&quot; = &quot;to give advice about life&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-01T11:37:40.467" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28857" PostId="14466" Score="1" Text="Many thanks for your detailed answer! In particular, I think that Meissner's excellent book, which is organized on the basis of interesting lexical/semantic fields, is very useful! +1!" CreationDate="2020-09-02T18:48:04.117" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="28844" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="Wow thanks for the big and great answer!" CreationDate="2020-09-01T20:49:00.287" UserId="7327" />
  <row Id="28845" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="In the movie it means something like, when they pass the door, god doesn't exist anymore, like the absence of him I think It could be expressed like that. But when I google deo it comes up as god but I have no understanding of latin so maeby iam getting something wrong" CreationDate="2020-09-01T20:51:49.983" UserId="7327" />
  <row Id="28846" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="@MadsVestergaard Latin nouns have many forms, and *deus* has more than most (see them all [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deus#Latin)). They all mean “god” in a sense, but which one you have to use depends on context. Understanding how exactly that works is a big part of learning Latin, and explaining it would go a little far here." CreationDate="2020-09-01T21:35:49.133" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28847" PostId="14467" Score="3" Text="The word order does matter here.  *hic* as an adverb shouldn't usually stand next to a noun that it might modify as an adjective.  *Finitur hic deus* means &quot;this god is ended&quot; or &quot;this god is dead&quot;.  If you want &quot;God ends here&quot; you want *Hic finitur deus*." CreationDate="2020-09-01T22:41:16.123" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28848" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour Oh right, maybe that was the idea behind the comma " CreationDate="2020-09-01T22:52:54.137" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28849" PostId="14467" Score="1" Text="Probably not, since *hic* doesn't agree with *deo*." CreationDate="2020-09-01T23:22:46.377" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28850" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="This is why gravemarkers start *Hic iacet...* and not *Iacet hic...*." CreationDate="2020-09-01T23:24:29.187" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28855" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="Okay I am a little confused now, it's for a tattoo so I hope to get it right, so the real one would be &quot; Hic finitur deus&quot; or I am I wrong?  And if would it be easier to put something like &quot;where god ends&quot; instead? And thanks for all the help!" CreationDate="2020-09-02T17:00:46.633" UserId="7327" />
  <row Id="28871" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="By the way, while this issue with *hic* is unusual, Latin word order in general is not very free for adverbs.  They don't inflect for concordance so they DO have to be near the verbs they modify (unlike the situation with nouns and adjectives in Latin verse).  Also, the classical vocative of *deus* is quite well-attested: It's *di* (plural)...See Ovid, *Metamorphoses* 1.2.  If you were addressing just one god, you would have used his name...." CreationDate="2020-09-03T23:58:16.403" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28872" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="Also, it's not clear that there is a church Latin vocative singular for *deus* either.  There's a strong argument that when it seems to be used as a vocative, it's actually a nominative.  See this question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4904/why-not-agne-dei" CreationDate="2020-09-04T00:00:39.337" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="28885" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="Would it be correct to go with Ubi deus designit as &quot;where god ends&quot; ?" CreationDate="2020-09-05T20:27:34.153" UserId="7327" />
  <row Id="28886" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="@MadsVestergaard &quot;Hic finitur deus&quot; is correct and good Latin. &quot;Designit&quot; is not. (You probably mean &quot;designat&quot;, but that still does not mean &quot;ends&quot;.)" CreationDate="2020-09-05T20:39:21.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28887" PostId="14467" Score="0" Text="I will go with that then, thank you so much! You have been a huge help! Again thank you!" CreationDate="2020-09-05T20:41:22.473" UserId="7327" />
  <row Id="28861" PostId="14468" Score="1" Text="Thanks a lot for your answer!" CreationDate="2020-09-03T10:37:06.953" UserId="7325" />
  <row Id="28843" PostId="14469" Score="0" Text="Dear Sebastian Koppehel thank you for your time." CreationDate="2020-09-01T20:00:45.317" UserId="7126" />
  <row Id="28853" PostId="14470" Score="2" Text="Perhaps this is an abuse of the comment function, but...congratulations!" CreationDate="2020-09-02T16:19:03.443" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28854" PostId="14470" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That's a welcome form of abuse. Thank you!" CreationDate="2020-09-02T16:46:11.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43614" PostId="14470" Score="0" Text="[I've been looking for a similar term](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21084/any-idea-whats-going-on-with-the-middle-term-of-this-dedication). From [this source](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1714.0065), it looks like the G.F. might have something to do with being a _fellow_ at Exeter, one of the Oxford colleges. I'm sure they have called themselves _something_ in Latin that would be more accurate in this context than the RSS. Even so, I can't find it from Google." CreationDate="2023-06-16T00:29:30.083" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43624" PostId="14470" Score="0" Text="@lly Interesting! I think it would be best to ask a separate question about Latin titles for fellows (and maybe others) at Exeter. A question specifically about Exeter might attract answers." CreationDate="2023-06-16T06:01:40.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43639" PostId="14470" Score="0" Text="Maybe, in that newer questions without answers attract more eyes. It really is just a request for _exactly_ the same word you were asking for here, though, I think. My linked thread also already asked about G.F. as an abbreviation there. I don't think I should start a third thread xD but you're welcome to if you really think it would be helpful." CreationDate="2023-06-17T15:41:18.467" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43641" PostId="14470" Score="0" Text="@lly I don't think this question is about the same title at all. An academy research fellow is someone who has been funded by a specific national funding instrument for a 5-year period and is relatively young (never tenured, for example), whereas a fellowship at a college at Oxford or Cambridge is essentially permanent but unfunded. If anyone (you or me or anyone else) wants to learn about the British kinds of fellowships in Latin, we should certainly have a separate question." CreationDate="2023-06-17T16:43:05.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43643" PostId="14470" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta [Pretty sure that's wrong](https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/university-archives/glossary/fellow): fellows have always had funding ('fellowship') and you're just possibly talking about the funding coming from an impersonal modern national gov't instead of an endowment, local association, or grant from some monarch. Seems 6 of one to me. Still welcome to start a new thread if you see an angle for it." CreationDate="2023-06-17T17:40:02.797" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43644" PostId="14470" Score="0" Text="@lly It's a side issue, but I agree that fellowship comes with *some* funding. I just meant it's essentially unfunded in comparison: College fellows do get some support but not full salary, as they are mostly paid by their departments instead of their colleges. (This is at least my impression from my time spent at Cambridge.) An academy research fellow is funded by their fellowship in full, requiring no other source of salary. There are various kinds of fellowship out there, and they are related. My point was merely that these two are not *exactly* the same." CreationDate="2023-06-17T17:59:58.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28858" PostId="14472" Score="2" Text="Do you perhaps mean *nihil cum labore difficile*?" CreationDate="2020-09-02T20:10:47.243" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28859" PostId="14472" Score="0" Text="It seems to me that the phrase you give @arkate means the opposite of what it intends. &quot;(There is) nothing by means of difficult labor.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-03T05:27:36.310" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28860" PostId="14472" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite Would that not be *difficili*?" CreationDate="2020-09-03T06:21:07.597" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28865" PostId="14472" Score="0" Text="I'm also confused by the point of the phrase: Doesn't &quot;difficult&quot; just mean &quot;requiring hard work&quot;? You could say that nothing is *impossible* with hard work." CreationDate="2020-09-03T15:46:05.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28866" PostId="14472" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, I had the same doubt (as I view that the hard work *is* the difficulty itself).  So  I suspect this echos “Train hard, fight easy” . which when applied to school and exams I simply don't like either." CreationDate="2020-09-03T17:33:48.017" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28870" PostId="14473" Score="2" Text="While that is actually an authentic quote from Homer, on *this* website many people's first association is bound to be the Greek writer of the same name, so you may want to clarify you are talking about *Homer Simpson*." CreationDate="2020-09-03T21:12:32.093" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28873" PostId="14473" Score="0" Text="Yes, that's the joke. Should not affect the answer to the question. Feel free to edit if unappreciated." CreationDate="2020-09-04T07:47:17.607" UserId="7335" />
  <row Id="28869" PostId="14474" Score="2" Text="Another compact possibility would be: *Nihil difficile laboranti*, in parallel with Cicero's *nihil difficile amanti* ([Or. 10, 33](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/orator.shtml#33))." CreationDate="2020-09-03T21:06:38.620" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28874" PostId="14476" Score="3" Text="Great question. If you ask anyone in medieval studies, the gap is even more dramatic: &quot;How many notable works have a critical edition in Latin?&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-04T14:02:47.823" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28883" PostId="14476" Score="0" Text="Maybe lorem ipsum dolor sit amet could be a nice example, because it is not translatable at all ? : )" CreationDate="2020-09-04T17:56:57.550" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="29848" PostId="14476" Score="0" Text="@d_e I think there may be some fragments of (known and unknown) ancient works only discovered in the last century, that are not translated. Does this count?" CreationDate="2020-11-25T20:48:06.680" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="29849" PostId="14476" Score="0" Text="@K-HB, I would say does it not only count, but also fascinating :). now I'm curious... what works are you referring  to?" CreationDate="2020-11-25T21:29:32.400" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29850" PostId="14476" Score="0" Text="@d_e It is not really my special field, I just heard of some things: The 20th century really improved the recoverability of palimpsests (see e.g. the Archimedes Palimpsest). And in Egypt there where many discoveries of papyrus fragments. I just suspect that some of these are so new and/or niche fields, that they are not translated. If you use a fragment for textual criticism I also don't see any use in translating the raw material and not only the product of the research." CreationDate="2020-11-25T22:39:59.980" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="29851" PostId="14476" Score="1" Text="@d_e If I remember correctly they found some really used legal documents on papyri in the last decades. These are separate works and may not have all been meanwhile translated. I doubt they are &quot;notable&quot; though." CreationDate="2020-11-25T22:42:56.183" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="28875" PostId="14478" Score="0" Text="Ah ok looks like the online dictionary is wrong, I checked somewhere else, most probably they generated the declinations. thanks!" CreationDate="2020-09-04T15:10:55.173" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="28876" PostId="14478" Score="2" Text="just to add the other eight that share the same irregularity:  alius, alter, ullus, nullus, uter, neuter, solus, totus." CreationDate="2020-09-04T15:14:17.613" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28877" PostId="14478" Score="2" Text="@oguzalb I recommend Wiktionary ([gets it right](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/unus)) or [Collatinus](https://outils.biblissima.fr/en/collatinus-web/) (also gets it right but cannot be linked). Note that the pronunciation is different, by the way: the comparative has a short i and is stressed on the third to last syllable." CreationDate="2020-09-04T15:47:28.450" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28878" PostId="14478" Score="3" Text="@d_e: In addition, is, ille, iste, hic, and qui also have genitives on -ius." CreationDate="2020-09-04T16:19:00.760" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="28888" PostId="14484" Score="2" Text="Thanks a lot for this very precise and beautiful explanation.." CreationDate="2020-09-06T12:50:08.970" UserId="4821" />
  <row Id="28889" PostId="14485" Score="1" Text="Related (I think): https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14152/semantic-difference-between-genitive-and-belong-to-adjectives" CreationDate="2020-09-06T15:41:12.693" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28890" PostId="14485" Score="1" Text="Thank you! From the link in the link: “ A genitive would indicate a relationship of dependency or subordination between the genitive noun and the other noun. But the island is Sicily. There's no dependency; the two nouns are just different terms for the same thing. Latin doesn't typically use a genitive for expressions such as 'the island of Sicily' or 'the city of Rome.' Instead, it tends to treat the two nouns as noun + appositive, much as it would for phrases such as 'the consul Cicero', where 'the consul' and 'Cicero' refer to the same person. To say insula Siciliae would be as strange.”" CreationDate="2020-09-06T16:54:13.013" UserId="7342" />
  <row Id="28891" PostId="14485" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Ryan! Does the linked question answer your question completely? If yes, we can mark your question as &quot;duplicate&quot; so that it redirects to the other one. If not, can you edit to clarify what remains unclear after looking at the earlier question and its answer? There's a little &quot;edit&quot; button under your question if you want to make any changes." CreationDate="2020-09-06T17:11:01.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28892" PostId="14485" Score="1" Text="Not really, because the Patriarch and Alexandria do not refer to the same thing. There is a relationship of dependence. So we use the genitive. Does that mean that Both Patriarch of Alexandria and Alexandrian Patriarch are both translated “Patriarchatus Alexandrinus”? And Catholic Church of France and French Catholic Church are both translated ”Catholica Ecclesia Gallicana”? The two different ways of saying it English are equivalent in Latin?" CreationDate="2020-09-06T17:31:44.310" UserId="7342" />
  <row Id="28893" PostId="14485" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I look forward to reading answers to your question." CreationDate="2020-09-06T17:59:39.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28894" PostId="14486" Score="1" Text="All good dictionaries should show this! You will find that some are not very explicit in the case of simple transitive verbs like *adjuvare*, but does, for example, the [L &amp; S entry for *gaudere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgaudeo) leave any questions open? It is is a rather dense jungle of letters, but the information is there." CreationDate="2020-09-06T19:05:23.217" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28895" PostId="14486" Score="1" Text="Since I take it you read German, you may prefer the [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/adiuvo?hl=adiuvare)." CreationDate="2020-09-06T19:05:51.217" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28899" PostId="14486" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, I have seen the dictionarie(s) in Perseus before, it feels more suitable for academical eyes. The Georges looks quite niche for cross studying two languages in the same time, thank you very much. I m looking for something clearer with simpler examples, but maybe this is the way for a dead language (Authors don't have the courage to form their own sentence examples?). Will wait for a while for alternatives, otherwise these might be the answers : )" CreationDate="2020-09-07T07:51:42.120" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="28907" PostId="14486" Score="0" Text="re &quot;Authors don't have the courage to form their own sentence examples?&quot; - that's not how dictionaries are made now. There are excellent dictionaries of the type you are interested in but of(Present-Day) English or Russian. English - because there are a lot of people who need/want to know it (i.e. more funds for lexicographers), Russian - because of a really strong lexicographic team of researchers there (led by Apresjan). I' afraid there is little demand for such &quot;practical&quot;, learner-friendly, modern dictionaries of Latin." CreationDate="2020-09-07T15:17:13.160" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28908" PostId="14486" Score="0" Text="and traditionally Latin is taught receptively, i.e. the focus is on the so called receptive skills (like being able to read &quot;the authors&quot; rather than write or speak in it)." CreationDate="2020-09-07T15:21:25.627" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28896" PostId="14490" Score="0" Text="Without context, its difficult to say. What I see is &quot;Men with (someone/something) playing, Men with shameless (something).&quot; It would make sense at a party, maybe, where the man playing is some sort of wacky entertainer." CreationDate="2020-09-07T01:23:33.050" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28897" PostId="14490" Score="1" Text="Specifically &quot;with&quot; in the sense of &quot;by using&quot;, not &quot;accompanied by&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-07T01:26:08.850" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28898" PostId="14490" Score="4" Text="I suggest rephrasing the question:  As the current comments suggest, the phrase means *something*, but almost certainly not what you (or someone else) intended. You could get a fuller answer if you gave some more context." CreationDate="2020-09-07T04:11:44.353" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28901" PostId="14490" Score="0" Text="without a context I could guess the extended meaning as 'To learn, one must be shameless, so that he can create a playground on the subject, try and fail'. Many people can't learn a language because they have the shame to talk in the wrong way for example, meanwhile shameless people do horrible talks but learn the correct way in time" CreationDate="2020-09-07T08:05:14.467" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="28923" PostId="14491" Score="0" Text="If I were bold enough, I'd summarise this answer to the question as &quot;no&quot; (which I agree with)." CreationDate="2020-09-08T23:21:39.810" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="28900" PostId="14492" Score="0" Text="As a counterfactual study into the matter, I wonder if there is any language that translated 'bug', 'feature' and is using as a standard in daily language. I feel like all developers just gave up and they are using all these terms in English anyway. So if Latin was alive, it could possibly take the same road. I think, to have these words in Latin, we would need to first author many software books in Latin to have a real playground, otherwise everybody might invent their own. Might be good to find some examples in internet to see if people intuitively came up with the same words." CreationDate="2020-09-07T07:56:05.290" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="28904" PostId="14492" Score="7" Text="@oguzalb I'm no developer, but in normal Finnish I'd express &quot;not a bug but a feature&quot; as &quot;ei vika vaan ominaisuus&quot;, which literally has the somewhat broader meaning of &quot;not a fault but a property&quot;. Words like this exist in many languages, including Latin, but their meaning is rarely confined to software." CreationDate="2020-09-07T13:38:54.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28914" PostId="14492" Score="2" Text="@oguzalb: you seriously underestimate us, French people who decided to rewrite computer language so that the world may have a laugh. The French word for &quot;bug&quot; is &quot;bogue&quot; (http://jargonf.org/wiki/bogue - it is actually the name of the spiky cover of chestnut and was allegedly chosen as such on purpose)" CreationDate="2020-09-08T05:43:28.373" UserId="6668" />
  <row Id="28922" PostId="14492" Score="0" Text="It needs to be noted that &quot;It's not a bug, it's a feature&quot; is often used as an excuse for re-categorizing the perceived aberrant behavior.  And sometimes it's used in a jocular fashion." CreationDate="2020-09-08T22:13:34.717" UserId="7362" />
  <row Id="28930" PostId="14492" Score="0" Text="@WoJ well the same approach is also tried for Turkish in some universities, and those scholars are actually teaching with those words. I mean words that also cover &quot;register&quot;, &quot;chip&quot; etc and Turkish is not based on Latin words, so they are totally new and very different to the English ones. But those don't reach to the actual sector, people generally make fun of them&#xA;Thanks for the link though, I can read some French, will have a look, will be very interesting" CreationDate="2020-09-09T22:37:32.120" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="28936" PostId="14492" Score="0" Text="@oguzalb: we have a culture of strongly protecting our language. This is sometimes great, and sometimes simply ridiculous. There was an official dictionary of computer-related words built in the '90s. Some of the words proved that the writers were clearly under influence when they invented the words. Some others caught up. Today we use a mix, sometimes several words for one action (say, to reboot will be *rebouter* (an anglcism - it will be written as *rebooter*), or *redémarrer* (restart))." CreationDate="2020-09-10T06:22:31.120" UserId="6668" />
  <row Id="28902" PostId="14493" Score="1" Text="Playing off of that format, which to me retains the general flow and feel of the english, what about something like _Non comminutus sed ratione_, &quot;not broken but by design&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-07T13:27:39.427" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="28903" PostId="14493" Score="1" Text="@Adam I think the parallelism works better if you have two participles, &quot;not broken but designed&quot;. How does *non ruptum sed designatum* sound?" CreationDate="2020-09-07T13:35:17.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28905" PostId="14493" Score="2" Text="I like that! This is a phrase I encounter at work a lot, so I'm very familiar with the original. Oh, one additional I idea from my wife: _non erratum sed designatum_" CreationDate="2020-09-07T13:46:22.693" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="28906" PostId="14493" Score="1" Text="@Adam I haven't checked carefully, but my impression is that *errare* is &quot;to take wrong step&quot; rather than &quot;to break&quot;. Which one is more appropriate depends on context, but I think breaking fits a little better. But I'd be happy to see other suggestions! There must be a number of nouns, participles, adjectives, and adverbs one could use." CreationDate="2020-09-07T13:58:04.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28909" PostId="14493" Score="2" Text="&quot;Wrong step&quot; is absolutely perfect for a programming bug!" CreationDate="2020-09-07T17:15:29.737" UserId="7346" />
  <row Id="28910" PostId="14493" Score="1" Text="@ManicPolymath I added a note on that." CreationDate="2020-09-07T17:22:28.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28911" PostId="14493" Score="0" Text="Perhaps &quot;not by error but by design&quot;, which (I think?) would be something like `non errato sed designato` (ablative, rather than nominative)." CreationDate="2020-09-07T18:17:22.410" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="28912" PostId="14493" Score="0" Text="or perhaps use *intentio*?" CreationDate="2020-09-07T20:15:23.190" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="28913" PostId="14493" Score="0" Text="There are some nice suggestions in these comments. They should be given as other answers; I'm happy enough with mine and I don't think I'll expand further." CreationDate="2020-09-08T04:55:56.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28920" PostId="14493" Score="2" Text="The problem with this excellent answer is that the phrase &quot;feature, not bug&quot; is used to refer to the properties of software that were in fact **not** designed. Usually this phrase is used to express &quot;I didn't intend for it to be that way, but the code is already written and I'm satisfied with its behaviour even if you are not&quot;. In Hebrew, lacking the word &quot;feature&quot;, I would substitute the word &quot;advantage&quot;. Other viable words might be &quot;trait&quot;, &quot;property&quot;, or &quot;difference&quot; if Latin has those words." CreationDate="2020-09-08T18:42:26.303" UserId="321" />
  <row Id="28921" PostId="14493" Score="0" Text="@dotancohen Oh! I always took it so that the saying referred to the program working as planned despite the user thinking otherwise. The key message here is: If one asks a translation question and wants specific nuance, the nuance must be explained explicitly in the question. With no explanation, we can't really tell what the intention here was. I'd be happy to read if anyone wants to take the point of view you propose and write a second answer." CreationDate="2020-09-08T20:02:46.870" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28932" PostId="14493" Score="1" Text="When I asked the question I had indeed thought about &quot;feature&quot; being &quot;as explicitly designed&quot;, but I am curious what the Latin would be for &quot;not a failure, but a happy accidental success&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-09T23:39:21.680" UserId="7346" />
  <row Id="28934" PostId="14493" Score="0" Text="@ManicPolymath To get visibility for that question, I recommend asking it separately as a new question. I would be curious to read the answer(s) too!" CreationDate="2020-09-10T05:57:13.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28931" PostId="14494" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer, this could be helpful, but I am not sure if I can pick this in stackexchange as an answer since we are generally talking about English. But the first picture was the structure I was looking for" CreationDate="2020-09-09T22:44:19.030" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="28915" PostId="14495" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I assume that by &quot;through&quot; you mean &quot;with the help of&quot; rather than &quot;through the obstacle of&quot;. Both would make sense, but the meaning is quite different." CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:45:05.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28924" PostId="14495" Score="0" Text="Good point. Yes, as in 'by the will of man'." CreationDate="2020-09-09T02:37:46.583" UserId="7365" />
  <row Id="28925" PostId="14495" Score="0" Text="@guest1922939 Thanks! You'll have easier time commenting and editing your question if you register your account and [merge your accounts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts)." CreationDate="2020-09-09T06:18:09.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28947" PostId="14495" Score="0" Text="You might also consider translations of the similar phrase *per angusta ad augusta*." CreationDate="2020-09-09T11:27:37.100" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="28916" PostId="14500" Score="0" Text="would 'hi prospera' cover this phrase?" CreationDate="2020-09-08T14:00:01.773" UserId="7359" />
  <row Id="28917" PostId="14500" Score="4" Text="&quot;Carpe diem&quot; pretty exactly covers your gloss of the intended phrase" CreationDate="2020-09-08T14:28:32.143" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="28918" PostId="14500" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I agree that that's the best choice. Can you write it up into an answer? It doesn't have to be long, as further details can be found online once you know the phrase." CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:10:36.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28919" PostId="14500" Score="0" Text="thank you for your comments.  i agree about Carpe Diem but it is a well used phrase and I was hoping to offer something a little different." CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:40:26.987" UserId="7359" />
  <row Id="28945" PostId="14501" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thank you. Still puzzled as to how adverb &quot;quam&quot; can be used as an interrogative, I consulted Allen &amp; Greenough p.573: &quot;...exclamatory sentences are not distinguished from interrogative: (p.574)  &quot;quam sis audax omnes intellegare potuerunt.&quot; (Rosc. Am. 87) = &quot;All could understand how bold you are.&quot; [Direct: &quot;quam es audax!&quot;]." CreationDate="2020-09-11T10:41:55.747" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28946" PostId="14501" Score="0" Text="@tony In English you can make distinction between &quot;how tired are you?&quot; and &quot;oh how tired you are!&quot; but in Latin they look alike. This has nothing to do with *quam* specifically, and applies to all question words, although *quam* is most applicable to exclamations. You could see such exclamations as a variety of questions. You can well ask separate questions about those interrogative and exclamatory distinctions; they can be tricky." CreationDate="2020-09-11T11:23:43.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28926" PostId="14503" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this alternative option. not one i had considered. It is great to get a different viewpoint on this." CreationDate="2020-09-09T09:16:53.803" UserId="7359" />
  <row Id="28927" PostId="14503" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: Ovid? Are you sure about that? The Q: &quot;Nunc...&quot; is one of the best that's ever been asked, on the site." CreationDate="2020-09-09T10:57:14.033" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28929" PostId="14503" Score="0" Text="Hehe. I meant Horace. Good looking out -- I fixed my answer." CreationDate="2020-09-09T14:58:02.357" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28937" PostId="14504" Score="0" Text="Thank you Cerberus." CreationDate="2020-09-10T14:57:15.763" UserId="7342" />
  <row Id="28935" PostId="14511" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Thanks for the share." CreationDate="2020-09-10T06:22:27.367" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28933" PostId="14514" Score="0" Text="English accentuation usually follows Latin, which should be penultimate since you say the iota is long, so that explains Merriam-Webster's choice" CreationDate="2020-09-10T00:24:41.187" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="28939" PostId="14521" Score="1" Text="I think &quot;Beatus -a -um&quot; also works very appropriately -- &quot;Beatissima&quot; perhaps." CreationDate="2020-09-10T19:20:04.520" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28940" PostId="14521" Score="2" Text="@Nickimite I recommend giving that as a separate answer, describing the meaning of the two adjectives (or at least *beatus*). I have an upvote waiting with your name on it. (+1 also to this answer.)" CreationDate="2020-09-10T19:23:02.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="28941" PostId="14522" Score="0" Text="thank you for your answer! I will probably have to also coin the terms in greek at some point as I'm doing this in a theological context. For now I'm sticking to latin however" CreationDate="2020-09-10T21:47:42.133" UserId="1202" />
  <row Id="28942" PostId="14522" Score="0" Text="I also feel iffy about how I'm joining the words. I basically want to squish &quot;alter persona&quot; into a single word to convey &quot;an other person&quot; (think 'alter-ego'), and then do it again by adding &quot;re&quot; (or something else) to it which conveys the repetition of &quot;yet another person&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-10T21:50:07.080" UserId="1202" />
  <row Id="28943" PostId="14522" Score="0" Text="If you can guess the context of what I'm trying to do (theologically speaking), I'll buy you a virtual beer :)" CreationDate="2020-09-10T21:50:50.357" UserId="1202" />
  <row Id="28944" PostId="14523" Score="0" Text="(For example, Smyth §656 specifically mentions φιλημι, φιλημεν, and various other forms, though he doesn't specifically attribute any of them to Sappho. Colvin's dialectal reader mentions the general rule in Lesbian but doesn't cite any examples.)" CreationDate="2020-09-11T00:02:12.447" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="28950" PostId="14523" Score="0" Text="I think Thumb 1959 *Handbuch der griechischen dialekte* could be more useful; e.g. the so called *verba vocalia* in Aeolic (&quot;der lesbische Dialekt&quot;) are discussed on pp. 102-103 (section 16)." CreationDate="2020-09-11T19:10:47.300" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28952" PostId="14524" Score="0" Text="Voigt 1971 also suggests fort. φί[λημμ(ι) for S. 65,5 and a question: why φίλημ' and not φίλημμ' (from φίλημμι)? I thought the first compensatory lengthening and **consequent gemination** happened in (North) Aeolic, so a geminate resonant is to be expected, cf. Miller 2014 writes &quot;the outcome was -VRR- at least in Thessalian and Lesbian&quot; (pp. 219-220, §19.1)" CreationDate="2020-09-11T20:22:42.797" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28953" PostId="14524" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. It looks like the papyrus does give φίλημμ’ (see the link)." CreationDate="2020-09-11T20:36:56.533" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28955" PostId="14524" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. But actually, why would this form be subject to the 1CL / Aeolic gemination? AFAIK that only involved *s/y* + resonant, while this would presumably be from *-eh₁-mi (that is unless the athematic treatment of contract verbs in Aeolic is a later analogical development, which seems likely to me offhand)." CreationDate="2020-09-11T21:10:49.143" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28956" PostId="14524" Score="0" Text="There's also δηὖτε κάλημ(μ)ι in S 1.16, where it seems the Teubner edition of Dionysius of H. prints κάλημι but the Loeb Sappho gives κάλημμι." CreationDate="2020-09-11T22:04:51.967" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28957" PostId="14524" Score="0" Text="Let me think more about this. I’m not quite sure about the underlying process but from what I can see all the references have double μ for Aeolic φιλημμι. Voigt, Thumb, etc" CreationDate="2020-09-11T22:13:50.923" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28958" PostId="14524" Score="2" Text="Also, Aeolic gemination happens instead of, not in addition to, the 1CL: e.g. ἔνεμμα, ἔστελλα for ἔνειμα, ἔστειλα. (Or if lengthening did occur, it was undone by Osthoff's Law.) I wonder what the evidence for the -μμ- forms is. I don't have access to Hamm's *Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios*, nor to Hock's 1971 dissertation *The So-Called Aeolic Inflection of the Greek Contract Verbs*, both of which might shed light on this." CreationDate="2020-09-11T22:32:00.720" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="28959" PostId="14524" Score="1" Text="&quot;Aeolic gemination happens instead of, not in addition to, the 1CL&quot; - ah, I see, thanks! I have Hamm 1971 and Thumb - I could add info later tonight." CreationDate="2020-09-11T22:37:17.153" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28960" PostId="14524" Score="0" Text="Hamm 1957: 36 “ Sporadisch erscheint Verdoppelung von Nas. (Liqu.) nach langem Vokal, besonders im Suffixanlaut): 1) Am häufigsten bei -μ nach η und ω in festen Gruppen: α) bei den Verben auf -ημι, -ωμι [...] häufig aber auch in gleicher Stellung einfaches μ [...]” - sorry, I omitted all the examples (for now, will add later)" CreationDate="2020-09-11T22:53:52.247" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28961" PostId="14524" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Interesting. Buck (p. 76) also mentions epigraphic examples from both Aeolic and Doric where an etymologically single intervocalic sonorant is written double. I wonder if the -μμι forms are attested in Aeolic inscriptions (I'm guessing not, since they're 1sg. forms)." CreationDate="2020-09-11T23:09:42.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33712" PostId="14525" Score="1" Text="Pics of the coin in question. Typo and all. (https://i.stack.imgur.com/xS8Zt.jpg)&#xA;(https://i.stack.imgur.com/T2Ewc.jpg)" CreationDate="2021-06-16T20:32:44.690" UserId="9683" />
  <row Id="33716" PostId="14525" Score="2" Text="@Awe.and.inspire I converted your answer into a comment because it did not answer the question. I suggest you take a look at [our tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). Welcome to the site, by the way! If you have questions about Latin or answers to existing questions, feel free to go ahead and post them." CreationDate="2021-06-17T03:34:56.063" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42691" PostId="14525" Score="0" Text="As Ayn Rand has explained it:&#xA;“Man—every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”" CreationDate="2023-03-21T08:47:30.020" UserId="13272" />
  <row Id="28974" PostId="14527" Score="0" Text="Your sentence has a subject: &quot;chapters&quot;. Do you mean to ask about the lack of a subject for the infinitive phrase &quot;to pass the test&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-09-13T16:31:58.840" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="28987" PostId="14527" Score="0" Text="Yes. About that infinitive." CreationDate="2020-09-14T01:51:48.510" UserId="7378" />
  <row Id="28990" PostId="14527" Score="0" Text="Oh I see! I thought you were looking for how to make passive verbs or which verbs had an impersonal subject or which verbs had a dropped subject. A verb like that can be translated a bunch of ways, but most often with an ut clause like I used in my answer but only in classical Latin. In later Latin, an infinitive can translate directly to an English infinitive." CreationDate="2020-09-14T03:56:11.960" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28954" PostId="14528" Score="1" Text="That Aquinas did not speak of God as *causa sui* may be so, but Spinoza sure did ;-) The specific phrasing *Ens causa sui* seems to be mostly associated with Sartre, judging by Google Books, though I would have guessed it is older." CreationDate="2020-09-11T20:46:28.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28964" PostId="14528" Score="1" Text="I am still wrapping my mind around the fact there is a typo on that coin..." CreationDate="2020-09-12T12:04:48.243" UserId="7377" />
  <row Id="28965" PostId="14528" Score="3" Text="@suchislife: You won't be buying it, then?" CreationDate="2020-09-12T15:56:23.270" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28969" PostId="14528" Score="1" Text="@suchislife Coins (and stamps, for that matter) with typos have been coined on purpose before. It can give them added value due to rarity." CreationDate="2020-09-12T21:52:07.873" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="28970" PostId="14528" Score="1" Text="The John Wick universe has more [wild Latin](https://chroniclecollectibles.com/products/adjudicator-medallion) by the way." CreationDate="2020-09-12T22:26:09.210" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28971" PostId="14528" Score="0" Text="it's very interesting that this &quot;it exists because of itself&quot; argument is actually so parallel with &quot;we just happen to be&quot;, but they are from totally different angles." CreationDate="2020-09-13T00:05:25.287" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="28973" PostId="14528" Score="0" Text="Rafael: That is the case with government-issued coinage; this one doesn't appear to be. It's value is only that of the gold. If a gold-investment is all that is required, the fault is irrelevant; or, it adds interest." CreationDate="2020-09-13T08:04:19.103" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29027" PostId="14528" Score="0" Text="I still think I will be buying it. I like the idea of having one of these. And the made of gold part too. They do have it in silver." CreationDate="2020-09-16T19:30:02.437" UserId="7377" />
  <row Id="33714" PostId="14528" Score="0" Text="Better to inscribe fake Latin on a piece of metal than fake Chinese permanently on your body (as so often happens)." CreationDate="2021-06-16T21:36:36.133" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="28948" PostId="14529" Score="4" Text="Well, you could easily eliminate the &quot;wrong&quot; cases. 1. It can't be nom, (it's a dependent word, &quot;deus&quot; is the head, i.e. the most important word in the phrase; 2. It can't be voc. either (you are not addressing the machine, &quot;O dear Machine! Hear me out&quot;). 3. So it must be abl. and this is confirmed by the preposition ex, which is used with abl. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ex#Preposition" CreationDate="2020-09-11T17:42:15.567" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="28963" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="Which conjugation of verb do we use when the subject is missing?" CreationDate="2020-09-12T09:45:51.033" UserId="7378" />
  <row Id="28966" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="I would make that a separate question. Short answer: 3rd person singular." CreationDate="2020-09-12T16:13:45.883" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28968" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="&quot;the future passive (also known as gerundive)&quot; ← I find this phrasing misleading. There is a real future passive that's not the gerundive. For example: *Capita sunt inspectanda* and *capita inspectabuntur* don't mean the same thing, right?" CreationDate="2020-09-12T21:40:41.160" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="28972" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="They mean the same thing, but the gerundive carries a different connotation. With a gerundive, something is about to happen because it MUST happen. A simple future passive is a statement of fact. In sum, they DO mean the same, but they have important nuances." CreationDate="2020-09-13T00:26:42.840" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28975" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="Can you say something more about _possit_? In my modest experience with Latin so far, a statement about anyone in general but no one in particular, as in English &quot;In order to pass the test, **one** must study the chapters well&quot;, is expressed with an explicit subject like _qui_ or _tu_ (just as we often use &quot;you&quot; in English), or a customarily impersonal verb like _licet_ with no subject, or a passive verb like _dicitur_ or _appellatur_ (again like English: &quot;is called&quot;). But _possum_ has no passive. Is this a special use of _possum_? Can you quote a sentence a Latin writing that does this?" CreationDate="2020-09-13T16:44:13.510" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="28976" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="Possum takes an active form, but has a passive meaning &quot;is able,&quot; and it works fine with an impersonal subject. I grant you that my example is a bit strange and it could be taken either way. You could either say that we have an inferred &quot;is&quot; or &quot;ea&quot; or that possit is an impersonal verb meaning &quot;it is possible.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-13T17:46:57.397" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28977" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="Can you add a link to or quotation of something that tells more about impersonal _possum_? I tried [googling](https://www.google.com/search?q=latin+impersonal+possum) for it and so far haven't found anything. I haven't seen impersonal _possum_ in &quot;real&quot; Latin, but of course that doesn't mean it isn't out there." CreationDate="2020-09-13T18:21:47.123" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="28978" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="BTW, there may be some confusion about terminology. &quot;Is able&quot; is not passive, and &quot;chapters&quot; is the subject of the OP's sentence." CreationDate="2020-09-13T18:25:16.160" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="28984" PostId="14530" Score="1" Text="Truthfully, I used impersonal possum because my intuition told me it worked. I know that est is extremely common in impersonal use. But you know what-- this is a good opportunity for a seperate stack exchange question!" CreationDate="2020-09-13T19:25:25.633" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="28992" PostId="14530" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: Q: &quot;https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12724/1982 explains why the gerundive is not a future participle; though it may comfort you to be advised that in Allen &amp; Greenough p.155: &quot;In late use (gerundive) it became a passive future participle.&quot; If you are referring to classical Latin, this escape does not apply." CreationDate="2020-09-14T15:49:47.533" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="28967" PostId="14532" Score="1" Text="Importantly, this implies &quot;a lot&quot; -- not just an indefinite quantity." CreationDate="2020-09-12T17:03:00.047" UserId="7379" />
  <row Id="28988" PostId="14537" Score="0" Text="Can the sentence be rewritten as &quot;For the sake of passing the test, chapters must be studied well.&quot; and then translating it?" CreationDate="2020-09-14T01:53:15.553" UserId="7378" />
  <row Id="28989" PostId="14537" Score="0" Text="@Tobey Sure. Or you can just go straight to the Latin: _Gratia examen transeundi, capitula perlegenda sunt._ The literal English version is pretty stilted, but I think this is ordinary Latin (though I think the translations in the answer are punchier). I'm no expert, though." CreationDate="2020-09-14T02:25:36.393" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="29019" PostId="14539" Score="0" Text="I like it. Out of curiosity, why did you go with _error_ instead of _erratum_?" CreationDate="2020-09-16T17:43:25.480" UserId="7346" />
  <row Id="29069" PostId="14539" Score="0" Text="Erratum is from the perfect passive participle of Erro, Error is the noun. So erratum would technically be &quot;Something mistaken&quot; and not &quot;a mistake&quot; There is a difference of tone. But I also like to be more laconic in my Latin renderings." CreationDate="2020-09-23T05:39:39.017" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29002" PostId="14544" Score="0" Text="I *think* I see all kinds of wildcat rhymes in Romanos the Melodist (540 CE), but not that systematic. Insight sought." CreationDate="2020-09-15T16:02:15.280" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="29414" PostId="14544" Score="0" Text="In Modern Greek, for whatever it's worth, the first attested rhymes are by [Sachlikis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanos_Sahlikis) in the 14th century, even though [Rumi's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi) Greek verses of the 13th century  have rhyme, albeit juxtaposed to Persian rhyming verses." CreationDate="2020-10-19T01:16:17.600" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="29030" PostId="14545" Score="2" Text="Choosing a work to read depends on what you like reading. As Colin says, the 1st Catilinarian is a good place to start with if you like dramatic oratory, as is the 2nd Philippic. If you like military history, Caesar's Gallic wars can be accompanied with lots of  online resources, e.g. maps and analyses of the campaigns." CreationDate="2020-09-16T23:55:02.227" UserId="7234" />
  <row Id="28994" PostId="14546" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. For the issue of raising about moving forward, let me disagree here. I think one should skip a pure-grammatical issue, **if it does make sense to him** I once had a question about the grammar of *&quot;sapientiae tuae non est numerus&quot;* - which dative/genitive is that. In that example I can indeed agree with you. But sometimes it is simply not the case: when you can't make sense of expression (even when you see it's meaning!) - many times it can lead to better understating, not to mention to a better expression of the language if you are writing or speaking." CreationDate="2020-09-15T06:02:36.650" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28995" PostId="14546" Score="0" Text="Several weeks ago, I had a question - essentially like this one - that by which I discovered the &quot;accusative of time&quot;. Now, the question, can someone could get along without knowing what is the accusative of time (and when he is expecting other case every time)? the naive answer would be yes!. But, at least from my own experience, it is not going to work in the long run. I once had the habit of reading without considering the gender of words; i.e I would parse the mistaken *&quot;magnus est urbs&quot;* easily. why care about genders at all, one can ask. Because it finally breaks." CreationDate="2020-09-15T06:09:40.353" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28996" PostId="14546" Score="0" Text="It breaks when the sentences become more convoluted and complex. in those sentence if one has no idea that *urbs* is feminine, it will cause him issues in parsing the sentence. At least from my own experience." CreationDate="2020-09-15T06:12:36.773" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="28999" PostId="14546" Score="0" Text="Now, back to the point of the question, maybe I have problem in English as well. We can find indeed this structure in that language like &quot;had a hell of a day&quot;. So yes, maybe that's more of a question [I wounder if &quot;more of a question&quot; is yet another example] to another forum of linguistics. But I just could not be sure it works that way in Latin as well, or rather it is a kind of unique grammatical structure with specific meaning like the &quot;accusative of time&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-15T06:43:14.050" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29000" PostId="14546" Score="1" Text="@d_e You make a wonderfully valid point, what I highly recommend doing is looking up on any number of websites, the functions of the various cases. &#xA;&#xA;The genitive is the one case that is almost universally translated the same way - **of**&#xA;&#xA;Without knowing your skill level, I can't assess what you may or may not know about cases. In teaching, I've met plenty of learners who hyper focus on types of cases. Which doesn't seem to be what you're doing. But a final word of caution, not everyone agrees on the terms. Some argue that the ablative of x is just the ablative of y, etc." CreationDate="2020-09-15T09:00:15.073" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29001" PostId="14546" Score="0" Text="I disagree pretty strongly with the spirit of this answer. &quot;It's in the genitive because it's in the genitive, it could be on purpose, it could be a mistake.&quot; This is almost never the right attitude to bring to bear to Cicero's works. That said, I agree that the OP is overthinking this." CreationDate="2020-09-15T11:31:30.170" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29009" PostId="14546" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Well I'm not saying necessary *Cicero* is making a mistake here. But reading the Vulgate for example, you find a lot of vocabulary used in different ways, or tenses that are hard to decipher, which is where the attitude of 'just get through it' comes from. But I see how my wording could be interpreted." CreationDate="2020-09-16T04:08:36.433" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29004" PostId="14547" Score="2" Text="Can you provide any attestation for the use of *ventus* as a deponent participle in your first version? If it's post-classical usage, you may want to notice this in your answer, in case the original poster is interested mainly in classical Latin." CreationDate="2020-09-15T16:50:54.040" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29010" PostId="14547" Score="0" Text="@cnread No, because *ventus* isn't deponent. I do note that Latin 'lacks' an active past tense participle, which I didn't go too deep into obviously. I also state it is 'closer' to the original grammar, not exactly the same as. Which is why I provide the other two, better translations below." CreationDate="2020-09-16T04:15:06.303" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29422" PostId="14547" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your responses." CreationDate="2020-10-19T04:23:18.600" UserId="6952" />
  <row Id="29008" PostId="14548" Score="7" Text="related: [Expression warning that some things can't be easily undone and one might want to think about this a while longer?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14551/6850)" CreationDate="2020-09-16T01:51:08.023" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="29005" PostId="14549" Score="3" Text="Kudos for finding a fitting locus Ciceronis! But I'd rather not want my tattoo to sound like a lawyer … can't we at least say *non sanguine, sed corde etc* ?" CreationDate="2020-09-15T22:15:17.110" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29006" PostId="14549" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Haha that's definitely a possibility! You could write an answer proposing that, I think it deserves a separate one (with my pending +1)." CreationDate="2020-09-15T22:21:37.137" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="29007" PostId="14549" Score="1" Text="Actually I had started an answer with those very words (+ *sorores*), but then spent too much time skimming *Laelius de Amicitia* for additional inspiration ;-)" CreationDate="2020-09-15T22:28:12.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29018" PostId="14549" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel There are plenty of other languages to make a personal graffito of.  If one doesn't want to sound like a lawyer, why would they select Latin?" CreationDate="2020-09-16T17:16:10.407" UserId="6999" />
  <row Id="29020" PostId="14549" Score="2" Text="@J... Hey now, Latin has many more connotations! Maybe they want to sound like a vampire-chasing exorcist, or a poet making frivolous allusions about the qualities of the beautiful boys of Rome … in any event, I was just trying make an allusion to Cicero's profession." CreationDate="2020-09-16T17:44:18.203" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29023" PostId="14549" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I freely admit the comment was mostly for levity!  Fair point, though, I interpereted your statement to imply that Latin of itself lends (to modern ears) a legal or scholarly gravitas - I hadn't made the Cicero connection." CreationDate="2020-09-16T17:58:09.733" UserId="6999" />
  <row Id="44332" PostId="14550" Score="0" Text="+1 I think even *sorores* could be left out here for a fitting tattoo." CreationDate="2023-08-02T03:53:39.950" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29021" PostId="14552" Score="0" Text="Oh that is nice. I'm keeping _felix culpa_ around for later." CreationDate="2020-09-16T17:46:01.593" UserId="7346" />
  <row Id="29011" PostId="14553" Score="1" Text="For the bonus points, caveat luventor (young/youth)? Quite possible I wrote that in the wrong form." CreationDate="2020-09-16T11:55:11.997" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="29015" PostId="14554" Score="4" Text="This is an excellent suggestion, not only because it is stylishly in hexameter!" CreationDate="2020-09-16T12:30:36.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29022" PostId="14554" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I never notice these things!" CreationDate="2020-09-16T17:46:37.153" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29024" PostId="14554" Score="0" Text="If you wanted to make this a pithy tattoo, you could probably shorten it to just &quot;RESPICE FINEM&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-16T18:59:30.987" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29025" PostId="14554" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Having spent quite a bit of time reading and especially writing hexameter, it has become impossible for me to not notice. My mind just involuntarily starts trying to scan when I read." CreationDate="2020-09-16T19:03:34.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29028" PostId="14554" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite But what if you regret getting your &quot;Respice finem&quot; tattoo later? " CreationDate="2020-09-16T20:24:34.023" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29029" PostId="14554" Score="2" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel Then I will get another tattoo for &quot;Respice initium&quot; ;)" CreationDate="2020-09-16T23:44:06.630" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29026" PostId="14555" Score="2" Text="Another well-known version of this is [*Festina lente!*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_lente) (when directed at several persons: *Festinate*, but that's not the usual form)." CreationDate="2020-09-16T19:14:37.143" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29031" PostId="14555" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel My Latin dictionary translated both &quot;properate&quot; and &quot;festinate&quot; as &quot;make haste&quot;. I'd guess there's a difference in connotation, but my Latin is far from good enough to know what! (Like someone looking up English words in a dictionary might be confused what the difference is between, say, &quot;like&quot;, &quot;love&quot; and &quot;lust&quot;!)" CreationDate="2020-09-17T13:55:42.983" UserId="626" />
  <row Id="29032" PostId="14557" Score="1" Text="I have never read the Greek New Testament, but my guess is there could be some Latin vocabulary when talking about Roman military (e.g. centurio). I doubt there are any full Latin sentences, but I'd search the epistle to the Romans and the passion. I guess the titulus (itself written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew) is only described in one language, which should be Greek" CreationDate="2020-09-17T21:36:16.400" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29033" PostId="14557" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Yes, the titulus seems to be quoted in [Greek only](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joh+19%3A19-20&amp;version=SBLGNT). But I may very well be overlooking something." CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:00:58.963" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29034" PostId="14557" Score="2" Text="And centurio seems in Greek in the original: ἑκατοντάρχης (act 10:22)" CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:10:30.683" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29035" PostId="14557" Score="0" Text="Shouldn't we talk about a particular &quot;version&quot; of the Bible? Or am I missing something and there is indeed an &quot;original Greek New Testament&quot; available?" CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:16:26.323" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="29036" PostId="14557" Score="0" Text="@tum_ The consensus is that all the books of the NT were written in Greek. The earliest manuscripts of all the works are certainly in Greek. There is no pristine &quot;Greek NT&quot; available, but the sheer amount and antiquity of the manuscripts we possess, and an impressive amount of scholarly work, makes the critical edition of the NT much closer to an &quot;original&quot; than any other comparable work." CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:25:38.427" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29037" PostId="14557" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yes, of course. But there was a long way from the earliest manuscripts (only fragments of them being discovered) and any sort of a canonical variant of the New Testament. And, obviously, the content was edited along the way. Hence the question." CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:31:07.057" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="29038" PostId="14557" Score="3" Text="“Mene mene tekel …” is Aramaic (like much of the rest of Daniel)" CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:37:20.643" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="29039" PostId="14557" Score="3" Text="@tum_ Ah, I see. The NT canon, as currently recognized by most Christian churches, was first explicitly recorded by Athanasius in 367. That said, there was minimal disagreement about which books were authoritative before that, except perhaps with the so-called Catholic epistles. As for the &quot;content being edited along the way,&quot; I'm not sure what you mean. We have many manuscripts from many families dating back to the 2nd century: there's no evidence that radical alterations were made and--if you look at a Nestle-Aland textual apparatus--you'll see that variants are rarely more than trivial." CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:43:43.510" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29040" PostId="14557" Score="1" Text="@tum_ I do not wish to restrict this question to any particular edition. If you find a Latin phrase in one version but not in another, feel free to write an answer. Let's be reasonable though about obviously unauthentic texts like the Epistle to the Laodiceans." CreationDate="2020-09-17T22:47:10.107" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29041" PostId="14557" Score="0" Text="I would suggest looking for words like *sestertius*, *denarius* (monetary units) and their other grammatical forms, if you are in a position to search through the text." CreationDate="2020-09-17T23:10:48.890" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="35812" PostId="14557" Score="1" Text="*But since the New Testament, at least, came into being in a world where the Romans had a word or two to say, I wondered if is there any Latin to be found.* Greek was the common language of the eastern Roman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Roman_Empire#/media/File:Roman_Empire_330_CE.png" CreationDate="2021-11-15T14:14:38.757" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="29042" PostId="14559" Score="1" Text="Very nice finding, indeed!" CreationDate="2020-09-18T13:18:05.100" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29043" PostId="14559" Score="3" Text="Chapter II even briefly discusses idioms built with Greek vocabulary and seemingly Latin grammar" CreationDate="2020-09-18T13:46:14.453" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29048" PostId="14562" Score="0" Text="I once read a comment by an Italian who said it is physically impossible to pronounce &quot;absolute&quot; with a voiced &quot;b&quot; and a voiceless &quot;s&quot;, but rather one can only say &quot;abzolute&quot; or &quot;apsolute&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-20T17:48:05.050" UserId="1584" />
  <row Id="29046" PostId="14564" Score="2" Text="First, just a note: machine translation generally ranges from &quot;useless&quot; to &quot;nonsensical&quot; for Classical Latin (which has a lot of features current statistical models struggle with). Until some significant advances are made, it'll be better to stick to human translators for anything in Latin." CreationDate="2020-09-20T02:38:22.477" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29047" PostId="14564" Score="1" Text="(Though it's good that you've looked at other translation options! Askers who've done some amount of &quot;due diligence&quot; before asking here are always appreciated.)" CreationDate="2020-09-20T02:39:20.190" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29051" PostId="14570" Score="8" Text="Welcome to the site! You may ask about me in any way you please, but *quis* would indeed be conventional." CreationDate="2020-09-21T02:22:44.573" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29057" PostId="14573" Score="1" Text="Are you sure that the interrogative pronoun, &quot;quis&quot;, is gender-dependent, in the nominative?" CreationDate="2020-09-21T16:08:41.300" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29060" PostId="14573" Score="2" Text="If this answer were correct, Pontius Pilatus should have said: “Quis est veritas?” because *veritas* is feminine. But he famously said “Quid est veritas?”" CreationDate="2020-09-21T22:00:10.870" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29061" PostId="14573" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: The interrogative &quot;quis&quot; remains the same for masciline &amp; feminine nominatives; e.g. &quot;quis venit?&quot; = &quot;Who (male or female) is coming?&quot;. To specify gender, the adjectival pronoun; &quot;quis homo venit?&quot; = &quot;What man is coming?&quot;. The neuter nominative, &quot;quid&quot;, may be less useful--&quot;What comes?&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-21T22:35:12.313" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29062" PostId="14573" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I see your point and that makes sense, although because the subject was a proper name, &quot;Cerberus&quot; and one that we know was specifically male, I assumed the question was only asking &quot;who is Cerberus&quot;. I'll update my to make that more clear since both words make sense depending on what your question actually is." CreationDate="2020-09-22T13:22:07.417" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29052" PostId="14574" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you give some context for this sentence? The translation typically depends on it. You can edit your question to add details." CreationDate="2020-09-21T06:08:09.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29053" PostId="14574" Score="0" Text="&quot;Cum subrahitur numerus naturalis de alio naturali , exsultat interdum non naturalis sed numerus qui est minor quam nullus.&quot; That is on wikipedia and im practicing latin in that site lol." CreationDate="2020-09-21T07:19:44.063" UserId="7406" />
  <row Id="29197" PostId="14574" Score="0" Text="&quot;Whichever number is less than nothing&quot; I think is what it is." CreationDate="2020-09-21T05:26:53.850" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29063" PostId="14581" Score="0" Text="&quot;sanguis Iesu Christi, qui est saxum, quo salus&quot; = &quot;The blood of Jesus Christ, who is the rock, from whom there is salvation&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-22T16:51:45.357" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29068" PostId="14584" Score="4" Text="Shame on the unexplained downvote. The genetive of *ūnus* is *ūnīus*. To be honest, I'd just say *ēius* - I don't quite know what to make of the capitalized &quot;One&quot; (Neo?) in the question, but generally &quot;the one who&quot; is &quot;is qui&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-22T21:54:48.213" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29071" PostId="14584" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: If you object to the downvote why haven't you put it back to zero? I've complained to the Mods, in the past, about unexplained downvotes but there is nothing to be done about it. If the OP improves his answer &quot;(uni&quot; to &quot;unius&quot;), I'll vote it up, how about you?" CreationDate="2020-09-23T08:50:45.167" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29079" PostId="14584" Score="3" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I don't see why my downvote is shameful. I was planning on commenting on a few of the issues when I had time, but (with no offense to Vince) this translation isn't correct and should not be put on the OP's seal." CreationDate="2020-09-23T15:39:04.497" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29080" PostId="14584" Score="3" Text="@Vince Here are some things I would correct, besides what Sebastian already mentioned: (1) &quot;Rock&quot; in a Biblical context is usually *petra*, (2) You should include &quot;est&quot; in the relative clause, (3) *salus* is the usual Christian word for &quot;salvation,&quot; and (4) the second option with *de* isn't actually allowable in this case." CreationDate="2020-09-23T15:42:35.663" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29082" PostId="14584" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I think even to the asker an explanation what the problem is should be more helpful than a simple downvote." CreationDate="2020-09-23T17:28:03.730" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29085" PostId="14584" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: The capitalised &quot;One&quot; is because it refers to Jesus. A similar situation occurs with &quot;The Queen&quot;--the &quot;T&quot; in &quot;The&quot; is capital because She is The Queen--no-one else is accorded such an accolade." CreationDate="2020-09-24T08:25:47.673" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29064" PostId="14586" Score="1" Text="I would say *ante( )quam* is used as a conjunction, just like *quam*." CreationDate="2020-09-22T18:10:56.337" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29065" PostId="14586" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus It seems that L&amp;S (I added a link and some coordinates to my answer) that usage is classified as adverbial. I wonder if that dictionary makes a distinction between adverbs and conjunctions in any meaningful way." CreationDate="2020-09-22T18:38:09.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29083" PostId="14586" Score="0" Text="It could be argued that many conjunctions have adverbial properties 'externally', since they head adverbial clauses (&quot;because I like you&quot;; &quot;before she left&quot;). The same can be said about many prepositions, which head adverbial phrases when combined with objects (&quot;in the oven&quot;; &quot;before the war&quot;). The word *ante* as used in combination with *quam* may be considered adverbial, which is no doubt why Lewis &amp; Short mention it under adverbial; but the combination functions like a conjunction, does it not? When written as one word, certainly it must be a conjunction?" CreationDate="2020-09-23T21:32:36.267" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29084" PostId="14586" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Agreed. I updated the answer slightly. I'd be happy to see more details in another answer." CreationDate="2020-09-24T06:19:26.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29066" PostId="14587" Score="0" Text="Is there a (full) list of the author numbers somewhere? It's easier to see patterns in more data." CreationDate="2020-09-22T20:53:22.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29067" PostId="14587" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta [Here](https://latin.packhum.org/canon) and [here](https://github.com/cltk/cltk/blob/dev/src/cltk/readers/phi5_index.py), though neither is in numerical order unfortunately." CreationDate="2020-09-22T20:58:15.560" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29072" PostId="14588" Score="1" Text="This would suggest some sort of chronological order to me? Have only glanced at a few names." CreationDate="2020-09-23T12:20:31.707" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29073" PostId="14588" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus That sounds possible. Adding some years of birth and death to (some of) these names would probably tell whether that is the case." CreationDate="2020-09-23T12:55:19.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35886" PostId="14588" Score="0" Text="Favorinus is 0067 and Andronicus is 0094? There is no real chronology in those early years. Very strange numbering indeed." CreationDate="2021-11-20T17:36:01.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29074" PostId="14595" Score="0" Text="Unrelated to the content: It seems that you started your answer with &quot;Hello&quot; or some such greeting and the system removed that word automatically without telling you. If you greet in Latin or not at all, the system will never know... (And +1 for the content.)" CreationDate="2020-09-23T13:53:45.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29075" PostId="14595" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, hahaha, thank you" CreationDate="2020-09-23T14:10:05.163" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29076" PostId="14595" Score="0" Text="The same quirk seems to have had an effect on [your newest answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/14596/79) too." CreationDate="2020-09-23T14:55:10.043" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29077" PostId="14595" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta  will I ever learn?" CreationDate="2020-09-23T15:00:39.757" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29078" PostId="14595" Score="1" Text="I'm told people learn with repetition, and you have done that. :P" CreationDate="2020-09-23T15:14:10.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29081" PostId="14596" Score="2" Text="Exodus 17 (the water from the rock in Horeb) also uses *petra*, so I think that's definitely the right choice" CreationDate="2020-09-23T15:52:32.333" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29247" PostId="14596" Score="1" Text="Why &quot;illius&quot; rather than &quot;eius&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-10-09T21:18:35.630" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29263" PostId="14596" Score="0" Text="@gmvh as I tried to say, it is more of a matter of taste. I'm not comfortable with **Unius** because it sounds to me more as &quot;of one&quot; than &quot;of the One&quot;. **Eius** would act as a definite personal pronoun (of Him), which doesn't quite match the original meaning either. **Illius** (of that [who is...]), in turn, has a singularizing meaning without proximity, more or less as the originally intended meaning. Another alternative, perhaps too emphatic, would be **Ipsius**" CreationDate="2020-10-10T17:19:30.680" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29086" PostId="14599" Score="3" Text="A translation of *To kill a mockingbird* was also recently published (*Avem occidere mimicam*) but seems not to have made it onto the Wikipedia list, unless I missed it." CreationDate="2020-09-24T16:30:48.737" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29172" PostId="14600" Score="0" Text="I think OP is looking for a quote but has not yet provided an author" CreationDate="2020-10-02T14:26:24.513" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="30742" PostId="14600" Score="0" Text="Thank you all for your gracious time you have given this subject. I have attempted to find the command in Latin sources but my ignorance obstructs me. The Roman army after the Gallic Wars brought the Germanic tribes into the military. The discipline required was far greater than before. This is the time for disobedience a &quot;centuria&quot; was decimated, that is one tenth was put to death. Discipline was tantamount. To keep the &quot;new&quot; soldiers content they were authorized to plunder to supplement their meager wages BUT only on command." CreationDate="2021-02-15T01:11:58.113" UserId="8983" />
  <row Id="29091" PostId="14601" Score="0" Text="Since _iri_ is the passive infinitive of _ire_ (an example of so-called &quot;**impersonal** passive&quot;: e.g., see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice ), I was wondering to what extent this Latin **impersonal** sentence _(Puto) inimicos expugnatum iri_ can be said to be &quot;quite similar&quot; (?) to the translation &quot;(I believe) the enemies are going to be defeated&quot;. In fact, given this English translation, the reader could easily interpret that _inimicos_ is the acc. subject of the infinitive but it is not. Rather _inimicos_ is the direct object of the supine _expugnatum_." CreationDate="2020-09-25T02:11:44.000" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29098" PostId="14601" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: How can something be both subject &amp; accusative (&quot;inimicos is the acc. subject of the infinitive&quot;)? Are you saying that Seb is right or wrong with this translation? Given that &quot;iri&quot; is the passive infinitive of &quot;eo&quot;, being used impersonally (i.e. having a meaning such as &quot;it is gone&quot;; &quot;there is a going&quot;; then, translating literally e.g. &quot;dicit urbem oppugnatum iri&quot; = &quot;he says there is a going in order to attack the city&quot; rendered to: &quot;he says that the city is going to be attacked&quot;. Here: &quot;I think there is a going in order to conquer the enemy&quot; rendered to:" CreationDate="2020-09-26T10:17:42.057" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29099" PostId="14601" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: &quot;I think that the enemy is going to be conquered&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-26T10:20:16.143" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29102" PostId="14601" Score="0" Text="@tony As noted above, _inimicos_ is the direct object of the supine. However, it seems to me that many people would take &quot;expugnatum iri&quot; as a complex passive infinitival form and, since infinitives have acc. subjects, would say that _inimicos_ is the accusative subject of this complex infinitive (but it can't be because _iri_ is **impersonal**). As for Sebastian's English translation, I think it's perfect, like yours (&quot;I think that the enemy is going to be conquered&quot;), which is also excellent." CreationDate="2020-09-26T13:08:38.587" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29114" PostId="14601" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino “many people would take &quot;expugnatum iri&quot; as a complex passive infinitival form” –  people see it like that because that's what their textbook tells them: Latin has a future passive infinitive, it's got this strange form with *iri*, don't think too hard about it. And that is actually good enough for reading and writing Latin! As for your original point, I say in my defence that I used “in quite a similar way” in the [Waterloo sense](https://genius.com/Abba-waterloo-lyrics) ;-)" CreationDate="2020-09-27T22:22:38.323" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29094" PostId="14604" Score="1" Text="*Google Translate is not to be trusted at all*. Period!" CreationDate="2020-09-25T23:46:40.597" UserId="7419" />
  <row Id="29095" PostId="14604" Score="2" Text="Can we have a tag for collecting bad Google Translate examples? I can see myself using these as an example for something in the future" CreationDate="2020-09-26T01:43:52.837" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="29096" PostId="14604" Score="1" Text="@Nacht The best list is the [list of questions linked to the Google Translate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/4349?lq=1). At least I've been linking to it actively to build that repository of examples. If you'd like a tag, I suggest asking a meta question." CreationDate="2020-09-26T05:30:30.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29097" PostId="14604" Score="1" Text="@Nacht a tag could be useful. Especially if google eventually uses it to identify incorrect translations" CreationDate="2020-09-26T06:09:35.660" UserId="7415" />
  <row Id="29100" PostId="14604" Score="2" Text="@stevec I strongly encourage you to write up a meta question about such a tag. I wouldn't want to hide such a discussion in these comments." CreationDate="2020-09-26T10:59:48.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29101" PostId="14604" Score="0" Text="JoonasIlmavirta and @Nacht, I created a question [here](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/461/tag-specifically-for-incorrect-google-translate-translations). Please feel free to edit it as necessary" CreationDate="2020-09-26T11:07:32.067" UserId="7415" />
  <row Id="29115" PostId="14604" Score="1" Text="@Shaggy While I would not trust a machine translation for something that really mattered (company motto, tattoo, contract), it is also true that Google Translate can produce very usable results for many pairs of modern languages. The Latin feature though seems to be a bit of a gag/proof-of-concept that is not identified to the users as such." CreationDate="2020-09-27T22:38:03.960" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29106" PostId="14608" Score="0" Text="*requiens* is probably a typo. I assume that should be *requirens*." CreationDate="2020-09-27T12:32:24.630" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29107" PostId="14608" Score="0" Text="Yup it is. Is the rest ok tho?" CreationDate="2020-09-27T16:29:42.643" UserId="7422" />
  <row Id="29112" PostId="14610" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! I edited in a link to the Google Translate question; I had intended that to be a universal question about that tool so that others can refer it for further details and credibility (of the claim that Google is unreliable)." CreationDate="2020-09-27T20:37:42.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29113" PostId="14610" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for your reply! I didn't trust google for sure, but sadly latin is a thing I have no knowledge of, or anyone that I know lol, so I truly appreciate your reply. &#xA;&#xA;If it were up to you, what other variations would you suggest that run along the same lines of what I'm trying to translate? My interest is both in accuracy and aesthetics." CreationDate="2020-09-27T20:39:17.360" UserId="7424" />
  <row Id="29116" PostId="14612" Score="1" Text="Remember our movie clip from Mel-Gibson's &quot;The Passion of the Christ&quot;: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4297/1982?  When the Centurion decided that Jesus had had enough flagellation from the cat-o'-nine-tails: &quot;satis!&quot; = &quot;Enough!&quot;. Also, &quot;sed haec hactenus&quot; = &quot;enough of this&quot; (Oxford). I know, you asked for a verb: &quot;satior&quot; [1] = &quot;to have one's fill of&quot; (+ ablative case). Attestations: Glosbe: &quot;Uses of Satior&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-28T12:04:10.323" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29118" PostId="14612" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Curious about the entry (Oxford) I lookked it up: Cic. de fato 20: &quot;sed haec hactenus: alia videamus&quot; = &quot;Enough of these matters (lit. &quot;to this point and no further&quot;): let us consider others.&quot;, where &quot;haec&quot; must be a neuter plural." CreationDate="2020-09-28T13:50:59.063" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29119" PostId="14613" Score="4" Text="The usual English translation is quite literal--perhaps you can add some context to your question? Some languages (like Spanish) translate the first part less literally (*no nos dejes caer en la tentación...*)" CreationDate="2020-09-28T16:06:09.513" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41402" PostId="14613" Score="0" Text="Regarding the meaning you may want to compare James 1,13 f:&#xA;13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: See also Sir 11 f&#xA;11 Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”; for he will not do what he hates.&#xA;12 Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”; for he had no need of a sinful man.&#xA;." CreationDate="2023-02-17T10:04:19.363" UserId="12140" />
  <row Id="29117" PostId="14614" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is an excellent fit." CreationDate="2020-09-28T13:25:11.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29122" PostId="14614" Score="1" Text="For those who are curious, it's letter 46. The problem I see with exhaurire is that, in the letter, there's no sense that Seneca has 'used up all it can give.' In fact, in the last paragraph he says, De libro plura scribam cum illum retractavero, 'I'll write more about the book when I've gone back through it.' I think Seneca is really using exhaurire more or less as a synonym for perlegere, which he also uses in the letter." CreationDate="2020-09-28T17:01:50.017" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29123" PostId="14614" Score="1" Text="@cnread: Yes, you make a good point. At the same time, he starts the letter saying he wanted to just have a taste of the book, but - on the contrary - then happened to really love it and &quot;exhausted&quot; it. I think this can be seen as &quot;complete use&quot;, whereas the &quot;going back through it&quot; can be seen as a &quot;reuse&quot;. However, I too would like to see an expression somewhat stronger than this." CreationDate="2020-09-28T17:29:40.077" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="29120" PostId="14615" Score="0" Text="Hi, and welcome to Latin.SE! Techinically it could be correct, though it sounds odd.What meaning do you have in mind exactly?" CreationDate="2020-09-28T16:51:34.760" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29121" PostId="14615" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! It depends on what it should mean. Where does it come from? Is it a translation attempt of something? Please edit your question to add more details so you can get a useful answer." CreationDate="2020-09-28T16:52:38.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29124" PostId="14615" Score="1" Text="It looks like &quot;praise for all (people) of god.&quot; Depending on how it's intended to be used (aka as a command or a declarative statement) it could be correct or incorrect." CreationDate="2020-09-28T18:39:46.547" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29125" PostId="14616" Score="0" Text="It's biblical all right - this is the Vulgate translation of [Mt 6:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt+6&amp;version=VULGATE)." CreationDate="2020-09-28T19:47:18.880" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29126" PostId="14616" Score="3" Text="Out of curiosity, why &quot;please&quot; and &quot;tribulation&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-09-29T02:06:07.057" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29127" PostId="14616" Score="2" Text="&quot;Please&quot; because inducas is a subjunctive form of induco, -ere which makes it a polite command. &quot;Tribulation&quot; because it means the same thing as &quot;trial&quot; in English, and I just thought the word had a nice force to it. Although, it would be fair to say that &quot;trial&quot; better captures the sense of being tested and &quot;tribulation&quot; better expresses difficulty." CreationDate="2020-09-29T04:01:45.510" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29128" PostId="14616" Score="0" Text="Because the Vulgate chooses to use the subjunctive for the first clause and the imperative for the second, the English should retain this difference, as Nickimite's translation does." CreationDate="2020-09-29T08:55:07.377" UserId="7234" />
  <row Id="29132" PostId="14616" Score="2" Text="@yutu *ne* + subjunctive (usually perfect, but present is common too) is a standard way of expressing a negative command in Latin, and it just reflects the Greek construction for 2nd person aorist negative command: μή + subjunctive. (See [Smyth #1840](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s1840))" CreationDate="2020-09-29T11:56:19.870" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29134" PostId="14616" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite Re &quot;tribulation,&quot; it seems to me to have a slightly different meaning, and actually the Vulgate uses *tribulatio* fairly often, as a translation of Greek θλῖψις (as opposed to temptation: πειρασμός)" CreationDate="2020-09-29T12:01:09.460" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29137" PostId="14616" Score="1" Text="I did not know that. I will update my answer, then." CreationDate="2020-09-29T17:56:15.490" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29142" PostId="14618" Score="0" Text="Incidentally, while I see the term “ablative of agent” is well established, I find it misleading. The preposition *a/ab* requires the ablative, no matter if it has anything to do with agency, and that's that. Is there also an ablative of danger? (*a periculis tueri*) I don't think so." CreationDate="2020-09-29T20:45:49.347" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29131" PostId="14620" Score="1" Text="I agree; Confluendo's a mouthful, but it has just the right amount of strangeness and familiarity, and will immediately remind many people of 'crescendo', hopefully toward a concordant sound. Thank you greatly!" CreationDate="2020-09-29T10:44:57.253" UserId="7428" />
  <row Id="29133" PostId="14620" Score="2" Text="A number of these are going to get you in trouble with [Atlassian](https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence)." CreationDate="2020-09-29T11:58:14.467" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29135" PostId="14620" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Good point! Unfortunately I can only advice on the language, and the legal responsibility of the name stays with the owner of the project anyway, so they need to check the name for availability." CreationDate="2020-09-29T13:01:28.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29138" PostId="14622" Score="0" Text="Maybe OT, but I wonder, if the relative clause was in the subjunctive: *Puella quam puer **amet***, what difference will it make? will it give it a general flavor like: &quot;**a** girl  whom a boy loves?" CreationDate="2020-09-29T18:12:02.317" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29139" PostId="14622" Score="0" Text="@d_e Here's some helpful reading on that: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/clauses-characteristic" CreationDate="2020-09-29T18:33:05.633" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29140" PostId="14622" Score="0" Text="thanks! I'll take a look." CreationDate="2020-09-29T18:37:21.933" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29146" PostId="14622" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: The quote &quot;accipe quae peragenda prius&quot; was translated (Harvard) as &quot;accept my counsel&quot;. It's like a cryptic clue; correct, but baffling to behold. For me it's: &quot;accept what ought to be completed sooner/ better&quot;." CreationDate="2020-09-30T10:48:16.773" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29149" PostId="14623" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Laura! I recommend registering your account. That will enable you to interact more easily with this question and its answers, and the reputation points you have earned here will give you access to more features of the site. If you have lost access to your account, you can create a new one and [merge your two accounts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts)." CreationDate="2020-09-30T14:11:04.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29151" PostId="14624" Score="0" Text="The noun is actually spatium (i.e., neuter), so it couldn't be inferred from secreti mei." CreationDate="2020-09-30T16:48:10.797" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29152" PostId="14624" Score="0" Text="Ah you're right. That's a rookie mistake! I must have been thinking &quot;loci&quot; and wrote &quot;spatii&quot;" CreationDate="2020-09-30T16:51:54.810" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29153" PostId="14624" Score="3" Text="I think there's also a problem with saying libri: secreti mei, using masculine forms, instead of libri: secreta mea, using neuters. Absent context or allusion/quotation, the noun that I, for one, would supply for secreti mei isn't 'things' or 'spaces/places' but libri, because otherwise, the masculine wouldn't make sense." CreationDate="2020-09-30T16:56:26.243" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29154" PostId="14624" Score="0" Text="I don't think that's too much of an issue. I used the masculine thinking that &quot;secreti&quot; applies to &quot;Libri,&quot; for the most part. I just thought it was interesting to consider unlikely alternatives which &quot;secreti&quot; could agree with, because it can add a bit more poetic flair. But I see what you're saying. In English, we'd never say something like Books: The Yellow (turtles). That would be a random inference, unless there was context." CreationDate="2020-09-30T17:30:10.727" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29150" PostId="14627" Score="2" Text="You can find the abbreviation on page 12 of Cappelli's [*Elements of Abbreviation...*](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf)." CreationDate="2020-09-30T16:37:20.793" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29155" PostId="14629" Score="2" Text="The [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dma%2Fntis) gives an example from Theocritus (3rd c. BC) that uses this word for the insect. My guess is that the &quot;praying&quot; posture can easily extended to cover a &quot;prophet,&quot; but I have no evidence." CreationDate="2020-09-30T21:41:23.180" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29156" PostId="14629" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I agree. Praying is talking to God. Prophets need to hear God in order to talk for him" CreationDate="2020-09-30T21:57:13.307" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29157" PostId="14629" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Perhaps, but μάντις is related to μῆνις (from μαίνομαι), isn't it? The word usually makes me think of a frenzied oracle crying out in the throes of prophetic ecstasy, whereas the insect's posture makes me think more of a solemn priest or monk. (It may not have had those implications to the ancients, though.)" CreationDate="2020-09-30T22:14:12.477" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29158" PostId="14629" Score="0" Text="@Rafael (as above; I can't @ two people in a single comment unfortunately)" CreationDate="2020-09-30T22:14:25.077" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29161" PostId="14629" Score="2" Text="I don't really know whether prophets in Antiquity used to fold their hands." CreationDate="2020-10-01T15:51:00.493" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29159" PostId="14630" Score="0" Text="I wonder if that &quot;all ye who are without sin&quot; thing could be adapted to fit this purpose." CreationDate="2020-10-01T04:03:53.870" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29174" PostId="14630" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite I was going more for an exploration connotation instead of judgement." CreationDate="2020-10-02T14:34:56.677" UserId="7346" />
  <row Id="29160" PostId="14634" Score="0" Text="Such a nice explanation, thanks a lot! We are thinking in a name for a website aiming people who want to build muscle through right nutrition and supplementation and of course, by exercise, what would better descibe it?" CreationDate="2020-10-01T14:27:48.447" UserId="7434" />
  <row Id="29162" PostId="14634" Score="0" Text="@BrunoCasarotti I updated the answer." CreationDate="2020-10-01T20:13:27.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29163" PostId="14634" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for updating your answer! I laught a lot with the Frankenstein's monster!" CreationDate="2020-10-01T20:25:32.063" UserId="7434" />
  <row Id="29164" PostId="14634" Score="0" Text="@BrunoCasarotti I'm glad to have been able to help! Latin tends to have translation traps like Frankenstein's monster or a little mouse, so it's always good to run any translation of any importance by someone who knows the language." CreationDate="2020-10-01T20:32:51.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29165" PostId="14634" Score="0" Text="Yeah it's so true, although I must say that when you finish your daily workout would be nice to say (in a funny way) *corpus perfectum*... Even sounds like a Harry Potter's spell" CreationDate="2020-10-01T20:36:33.830" UserId="7434" />
  <row Id="29166" PostId="14634" Score="1" Text="Wikipedia has a [lengthy treatise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_word_order#Adjective_position) on adjective word order, which would perhaps argue in favour of *perfectum corpus*, but only as a general tendency, not a fixed rule." CreationDate="2020-10-01T20:48:39.710" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29167" PostId="14634" Score="1" Text="Nice point @SebastianKoppehel for someone like me that doesn't know Latin it's very informative!" CreationDate="2020-10-01T20:52:59.490" UserId="7434" />
  <row Id="29171" PostId="14636" Score="1" Text="Good catch; the PIE to Latin equivalent is in-. Answer edited." CreationDate="2020-10-02T14:19:15.200" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="29169" PostId="14643" Score="0" Text="Which verb do you find most suitable for the scenario in the question?" CreationDate="2020-10-02T06:51:23.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29175" PostId="14643" Score="1" Text="I still like both _mittere_ and _proicere_, but considering the audience for this, I think _proicere_ will be more obviously related to _projectile_ vs. the relation between _mittere_ and _missile_. So: _Proicere est humanum_" CreationDate="2020-10-02T14:53:34.133" UserId="7346" />
  <row Id="29192" PostId="14646" Score="2" Text="I believe Wikipedia's source for the etymology, ῥᾴδιος+δρόμος, is &quot;The Mathematics of Pursuits and Evasion&quot; by Paul J. Nahin. Contrary to what I originally thought, the article originally had the Laitn-Greek etymology, but it later updated it to the Greek (in 2016), and I believe the change was due to Nahin's book." CreationDate="2020-10-05T02:28:59.353" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29176" PostId="14647" Score="6" Text="By the way, it is customary that artists sign their works by writing *N fecit*, where *N* is replaced with the artist's name,  e.g. *Adam fecit*. The oldest known Latin inscription, the [Fibula Praenestina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praeneste_fibula), happens to be of a similar sort. It features the early Latin reduplication perfect *fhefhaked* instead of classical *fecit*." CreationDate="2020-10-02T17:48:06.923" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29177" PostId="14647" Score="0" Text="I'm somehow not surprised that the oldest known inscription is that." CreationDate="2020-10-02T18:03:28.393" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29185" PostId="14649" Score="1" Text="&quot;If you are translating from English... If you are translating from American...&quot; -- say what? Are you talking about British English versus American English? American English certainly distinguishes simple past and perfect and uses both; are you referring to the fact that American English [makes *less* use of the perfect](https://www.onestopenglish.com/support-for-teaching-grammar/differences-in-american-and-british-english-grammar-article/152820.article)?" CreationDate="2020-10-04T04:17:10.350" UserId="1875" />
  <row Id="29191" PostId="14652" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the Latin site! Your question was migrated here at it fits here much better; despite the name, we also include Ancient Greek. Please create and register an account on this site, too, so that you can interact with others, vote up the answers you like, and accept one of them." CreationDate="2020-10-04T19:18:21.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29195" PostId="14652" Score="1" Text="Wouldn't this be about declension rather than about conjugation?" CreationDate="2020-10-05T16:04:49.957" UserId="1584" />
  <row Id="29193" PostId="14653" Score="0" Text="This. The sentence that comes to mind is what you hear in weddings: Man, love your woman like Jesus loved the ekklesia. You can see how ekklesia is the object here." CreationDate="2020-10-05T06:26:57.183" UserId="3520" />
  <row Id="34121" PostId="14655" Score="0" Text="This would be even more helpful if you could reformat the list of included phonemes to match the numbering of your sentences. Apart from that, excellent approach!" CreationDate="2021-07-12T13:27:21.283" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="32618" PostId="14656" Score="0" Text="[iam](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djam) &amp; [nunc](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnunc) will approximate the effect. You can find examples in the dictionary entries." CreationDate="2021-04-15T14:53:35.480" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37404" PostId="14657" Score="0" Text="Which tense would you use to say &quot;I had been singing&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-02-24T14:23:39.207" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="37407" PostId="14657" Score="0" Text="@Jacqueline Probably the pluperfect *cecineram*, but it depends on context. If you have a specific example in mind, please ask that as a separate question and give a link to this one." CreationDate="2022-02-24T16:17:36.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37432" PostId="14657" Score="0" Text="Thanks! And nope I did not really have anything in particular in my mind. :)" CreationDate="2022-02-26T11:44:18.093" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="29194" PostId="14658" Score="6" Text="This is Latin stackexchange, so Ancient Greek is on topic (And usually what is meant when Greek appears). Modern Greek isn't on topic" CreationDate="2020-10-05T15:06:34.547" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="29196" PostId="14659" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your post! It's always nice to see new contributors. So help me help you -- I'm bit confused about what &quot;in the vein of Deus ex Machina&quot; means to you. Do you mean a dream is accomplishing something by fiat? It would be helpful if I had a bit more context to work from." CreationDate="2020-10-05T18:55:18.367" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29198" PostId="14659" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite, I simply interpreted the OP such that when he wondered how to express *X from Y* in Latin, he remembered the phrase *deus ex machina* and thought: if it works with *machina*, it should work with other words as well. Which reasoning is sound :)" CreationDate="2020-10-06T06:01:18.770" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29199" PostId="14659" Score="0" Text="I did indeed mean in the sense of how to express X from Y. Apologies if that wasn't clear - was very overworked last night!" CreationDate="2020-10-06T10:23:06.397" UserId="7446" />
  <row Id="39302" PostId="14659" Score="0" Text="Ex typically takes the ablative, and dream is &quot;somnium&quot; so &quot;Ex somnio&quot; would be correct." CreationDate="2022-08-25T14:36:47.850" UserId="11426" />
  <row Id="29200" PostId="14661" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much for this! I have settled on 'ex somnio' :) Clearly I need to start re-reading my notes from historical linguitics!" CreationDate="2020-10-06T10:25:30.397" UserId="7446" />
  <row Id="29201" PostId="14662" Score="2" Text="Googling around a bit, I noticed that, while this title seems to be unique, the title *vicaria potestate antistes* is found a few times in historical sources, which *may* be a fancy term for &quot;vicar general&quot; - in which case *antistes* does not mean &quot;bishop&quot;. It is possible that this title was modeled after that." CreationDate="2020-10-06T12:44:17.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29202" PostId="14663" Score="1" Text="Another English version is: &quot;The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.&quot; - generally attributed to Oscar Wilde, and not without reason, as something very close is found in the first chapter of *The Picture of Dorian Gray* (though not as Wilde's opinion, rather that of a character in the book). Another version: &quot;There's no such thing as bad publicity&quot;. But we are not looking for English quotes, are we?" CreationDate="2020-10-07T00:14:40.233" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29204" PostId="14663" Score="1" Text="@Jessy B: Don't we need the original Latin?" CreationDate="2020-10-07T08:31:28.723" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29205" PostId="14663" Score="1" Text="@tony The question did indeed ask for a Latin proverb. This answer says there is none (but claims like that are hard to justify so it's hard to say more). Perhaps there simply is no suitable proverb in Latin, but there are some in other languages. It might also be that the phrase the OP heard was a translation from English to Latin, so the Latin is not original. So yes, we'd like to have the original Latin – if it happens to exist." CreationDate="2020-10-07T11:08:22.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29223" PostId="14663" Score="0" Text="@Jessy B: Hazarding a guess: &quot;narrent me in gloria, narrent me in ignominia, dum narrent&quot; = &quot;Let them discuss me in glory, let them discuss me in shame, as long as they discuss me.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-08T08:53:12.470" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29224" PostId="14663" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: I like your invocation of Oscar Wilde. Are you going to translate it? A wild guess: &quot;unus qui est peior quam famam habens, non famam habens.&quot; = &quot;The one-and-only (thing) that is worse than fame/ gossip/ ill-repute is not having...&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-08T09:29:25.067" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33487" PostId="14663" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. Lord Henry (who says these precise words) is Oscar Wilde's self portrait. You cannot separate the two." CreationDate="2021-06-01T11:38:25.137" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29208" PostId="14664" Score="1" Text="I think the &quot;ulla&quot; is specific, but I don't think it's necessary. On the one hand it would be &quot;live without regret,&quot; and on the other it would be &quot;live without any regret.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-07T16:35:36.557" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29206" PostId="14671" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a great suggestion! Does this dictionary have a website where anyone interested could find more details or perhaps purchase a copy? Or is there even an online version?" CreationDate="2020-10-07T15:00:14.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29207" PostId="14671" Score="1" Text="There seems to be only a small extract available online at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html (it is the Italian/Latin version, not an English/Latin one, sorry)." CreationDate="2020-10-07T15:33:56.407" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29209" PostId="14671" Score="1" Text="Thanks! That's already useful. Many users here read Italian to some extent, and translating those Italian terms to English is a much easier task than coming up with the Latin translations. (I don't agree with all the choices made in that dictionary, but it's still a useful resource to have.) I edited that link into your answer." CreationDate="2020-10-07T18:32:31.260" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29214" PostId="14672" Score="0" Text="I don't think &quot;consequentias habere&quot; is a very good translation. I read a few selections from the book, and it seems pretty clear that it's a literal calque-style translation from a modern Romance language. That was a common style for manuals of this kind, but probably shouldn't be recommended under normal circumstances. (For reference, &quot;consequentia&quot; seems to be a post-classical term--it only occurs in Cicero, I think, as the participle for *consequor*.)" CreationDate="2020-10-08T02:23:19.433" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29218" PostId="14672" Score="0" Text="It's certainly not classical Latin, true, which is why I specified that it would appear to be acceptable in modern Latin (as in the language of the Vatican)." CreationDate="2020-10-08T06:39:50.423" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29245" PostId="14673" Score="1" Text="An excellent idea." CreationDate="2020-10-09T08:37:25.610" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="29246" PostId="14673" Score="1" Text="a good alternative to abaculus would be &quot;tessera&quot; (the Latin-borrowed Greek word for mosaic tile or other small square)" CreationDate="2020-10-09T15:30:35.067" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="29211" PostId="14674" Score="0" Text="That graffiti script is [(old) Roman cursive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive), the usual script employed by the ancient Romans for handwriting on wax, papyrus and indeed walls. If I ever get me one of those Latin tattoos, it better be in Roman cursive ;-)" CreationDate="2020-10-07T22:36:41.440" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29210" PostId="14675" Score="3" Text="The default gender in Latin is masculine. So, a (classical) speaker would most often refer to a group of boys and girls as &quot;boys.&quot; If this is an issue (it doesn't have to be, but some people are sensitive to the gender distinction), you could include the gender of your children for us to work with." CreationDate="2020-10-07T21:21:25.357" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29212" PostId="14676" Score="1" Text="What is the literal translation of your phrase, @Sebastian Koppehel?" CreationDate="2020-10-07T23:33:45.780" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29216" PostId="14676" Score="0" Text="I think it would translate into &quot;I release love for the ones that are absent.&quot; Which is nice but not quite what I was looking for. I wanted to specify/emphasise that it is my children that are absent. And also that we will be together again.. as if this is only temporary." CreationDate="2020-10-08T05:44:00.930" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29217" PostId="14676" Score="0" Text="Edit: &quot;Liberos&quot; masculine plural of Liberi [Plural of offspring]. So &quot;I have love for my offspring [plural] who are not with me.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-08T05:48:48.043" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29219" PostId="14676" Score="0" Text="While I appreciate the input I am looking something a lot more meaningful." CreationDate="2020-10-08T07:21:23.427" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29234" PostId="14676" Score="1" Text="@JamieLindsey Only a quick grammatical note: *liberos* is just the accusative of *liberi*, which is a masculine plural form of *liber*. It's a bit of a weird word, because *liber* just means &quot;free&quot;, but the plural, depending on context, takes on the special meaning &quot;children&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-08T13:36:11.040" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29236" PostId="14676" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, wow thank you. That's really insightful and something that was confusing me a little." CreationDate="2020-10-08T19:49:11.090" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29220" PostId="14679" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I appreciate the difference from the alternative answer. I think I am really looking for something with a lot more meaning than simply I love my kids who are absent." CreationDate="2020-10-08T07:22:32.860" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29221" PostId="14679" Score="2" Text="I'm afraid it's difficult to know what you would consider meaningful given the limited information available. Are you looking for something that has a literary reference? A poetic meter? Or a particularly emphatic phrasing?" CreationDate="2020-10-08T07:26:49.213" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29222" PostId="14679" Score="0" Text="I have updated my question a little to give better clarity. But I would really like to be emphatic in regards to the love for my kids part. I want something that is, I guess, poetic also. I want something meaningful as opposed to a direct translation." CreationDate="2020-10-08T07:31:07.583" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29225" PostId="14682" Score="2" Text="I have to choose this as an acceptable answer. You have managed to explain the finer details in a very understandable way. Although it is not as &quot;poetic&quot; as I may have first expected I think it is very fitting. I wanted to make sure I didn't portray my love of children generally!!! It's important I am referencing my own children . This is so close to what I want and I learned a great deal, thanks" CreationDate="2020-10-08T10:03:05.220" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29226" PostId="14682" Score="1" Text="Nice and comprehensive answer! Just one comment: maybe I'm biased by ecclesiastical Latin, but I'm with gmvh in the use of **diligo**. It expresses a more specific, meaningful form of love for this occasion, or so I think" CreationDate="2020-10-08T10:19:05.067" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29227" PostId="14682" Score="2" Text="@Rafael The difference between *amo* and *diligo* is quite complicated as the linked question indicates. When it comes to classical usage, I think *amo* is more apt. But I'm not against *diligo*; it's a matter of preference. I just wanted to steer away from &quot;I esteem my children highly&quot;, which feels a bit sterile for this purpose. While *diligo* can be read in different ways, I think *amo* doesn't leave room for such a sterile reading." CreationDate="2020-10-08T10:29:02.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29228" PostId="14682" Score="1" Text="A nice solution, but I think rhythmically it would flow even better if you inserted, for example, *longe*, i.e. *... et longe absentes*. (Assuming the children are indeed **far** removed.)" CreationDate="2020-10-08T11:17:28.110" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29229" PostId="14682" Score="2" Text="Incidentally, I cannot be the only one in this thread thinking of *Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis* (Aeneid 2,49) ;-)" CreationDate="2020-10-08T11:18:18.747" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29230" PostId="14682" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Adding *longe* for &quot;far away&quot; is indeed a good option. I can't resist the temptation to write all this into a hexameter verse, but the vocabulary feels a little unfavorable metrically." CreationDate="2020-10-08T11:23:27.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29231" PostId="14682" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I would not be against the idea of a hexameter verse! Although I have only just learned what it is exactly." CreationDate="2020-10-08T11:33:17.293" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29232" PostId="14682" Score="1" Text="And my children are not specifically far away, but I don't know where they are." CreationDate="2020-10-08T11:35:28.673" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="29233" PostId="14682" Score="3" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I had to change my approach quite a bit, but I found a way to put it in hexameter. It doesn't parallel the line from the Aeneid, though." CreationDate="2020-10-08T11:41:20.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29235" PostId="14682" Score="2" Text="Nice elisions; they make the absence suitably heavy." CreationDate="2020-10-08T16:27:34.643" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="29237" PostId="14682" Score="1" Text="Wow guys thanks so much" CreationDate="2020-10-08T20:02:34.980" UserId="7456" />
  <row Id="37666" PostId="14685" Score="0" Text="Between man and wife is seen to be the greatest friendship." CreationDate="2022-03-25T17:35:39.993" UserId="10942" />
  <row Id="29238" PostId="14686" Score="0" Text="&quot;To seem&quot; means the same as &quot;to appear&quot;, doesn't it?" CreationDate="2020-10-08T23:15:00.633" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="29239" PostId="14686" Score="0" Text="In English, yes. They're sort of remark-upon words. &quot;Ah, it appears I left my coat in the break room.&quot; That kind of thing." CreationDate="2020-10-08T23:18:04.450" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29240" PostId="14686" Score="3" Text="Video *can* take on a different meaning in the passive, and often does do; but there are still many instances where 'be seen' is clearly the better English translation, based on the context." CreationDate="2020-10-09T01:29:38.543" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29241" PostId="14686" Score="0" Text="@cnread If you have an example or two for both translations, I think it'd make a nice answer. That would justify that the answer is &quot;depends on context&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-09T04:55:49.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29243" PostId="14687" Score="3" Text="Good question! Would it make sense to reword the question to &quot;what is the most modern calculus book in Latin?&quot;? That would be easy to answer with examples and would answer your original question." CreationDate="2020-10-09T07:34:32.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29250" PostId="14687" Score="0" Text="Yes it definitely it would make sense!" CreationDate="2020-10-10T09:18:37.210" UserId="7406" />
  <row Id="29248" PostId="14688" Score="1" Text="I was reading St. Thomas. See the example I added to my question." CreationDate="2020-10-09T22:21:34.000" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="29249" PostId="14688" Score="0" Text="@Geremia I agree that in the example you quote, given the context, &quot;seems to be&quot; is unnecessarily guarded. This seems to be (!) a plain impersonal passive, as we often find in Latin. But don't you also agree that &quot;there is seen in existence&quot; is very stilted English? (And it is not even all that literal.) I would suggest: &quot;One sees&quot; or even &quot;it is clear&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-10T07:04:18.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29272" PostId="14688" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I'm not sure why they added the &quot;in existence&quot; part." CreationDate="2020-10-10T22:52:17.093" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="29254" PostId="14692" Score="9" Text="[etiam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Detiam) / [enim](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Denim) - could you perhaps tell us a little about where you see the similarities? Because as far a I can see, the two words have little in common." CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:02:04.840" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29267" PostId="14692" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Well, when I translate the words I generally find myself translating both words as &quot;indeed&quot;. I don't really understand the sense behind the words that make them different. The sense that both seem to have is the idea, &quot;...and here is another thing along the same lines...&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-10T18:48:30.380" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="29270" PostId="14692" Score="3" Text="If you see the dictionary entries linked by @SebastianKoppehel, their meanings are quite different in general, though they could be interchangeable in some contexts. The confusion could come from the fact that they are treated as pet words sometimes, especially **enim** (and thus rendered nearly meaningless)" CreationDate="2020-10-10T21:42:44.763" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="43718" PostId="14692" Score="0" Text="&quot;Etiam&quot; is &quot;also&quot; and &quot;enim&quot; is &quot;namely&quot;. Very different." CreationDate="2023-06-18T14:26:56.683" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="33381" PostId="14694" Score="4" Text="*Narro* doesn't appear to take an accusative in that way -- it would be *narrent de me*. (I'm not sure if *in gloria/in ignominia* is an idiomatic usage, either.)" CreationDate="2021-05-26T02:15:50.507" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33412" PostId="14694" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Thank you. Before I edit the answer, what does &quot;an idiomatic usage&quot; actually mean--it does make sense, in Latin; a Roman would say it like this?" CreationDate="2021-05-28T10:44:38.467" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33428" PostId="14694" Score="2" Text="The latter -- I meant I'm not sure a native Latin speaker would use *in gloria* in this way." CreationDate="2021-05-28T23:06:41.957" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42750" PostId="14695" Score="0" Text="*Elementorum physicae mathematicae* from 1840 by Andreas Caraffa is a bit more modern, but it is more than just Calculus.   https://books.google.com/books?id=UhHvnAEACAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2023-03-30T04:41:08.363" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="29251" PostId="14696" Score="2" Text="This definitely is confirmed by what I've heard. Now I'm curious, though: does Latin always follow its stress rules even for imported Greek words? I wonder what happens when the accent on the Greek word doesn't fall on the same place as Latin stress rules place it." CreationDate="2020-10-10T13:23:50.183" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29252" PostId="14696" Score="4" Text="@brianpck My impression was always that Latin completely ignores Greek accents, which is all the more likely if the stress is realised differently in the two languages. But I've never seen this explicitly discussed, and I answered completely within Latin." CreationDate="2020-10-10T13:29:12.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29253" PostId="14697" Score="5" Text="I guess ICƆ is misprint for IƆC (= DC = 600) in which case the year would be 1617. More about the Ɔ at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Apostrophus" CreationDate="2020-10-10T13:32:16.207" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42555" PostId="14697" Score="0" Text="Scopro per caso a distanza di tre anni questo forum e vi descrivo il mio caso. Sono giunto in possesso di una copia in latino delle &quot;Gaii Institutiones&quot; curate da Edward Bucking e pubblicate come quinta edizione a Lipsia nell'anno 1866.&#xA;Ebbene, in cifre romane si parla di &quot;A. CIƆ IƆCCCLXVI&quot;.&#xA;Mi pare quindi evidente, fatto salvo che le cifre CCCLXVI significano 366 (CCC=300 e LXVI=66), che CIƆ IƆ altro non siano che una forma errata/medievaleggiante/stilizzata di M D: da qui CIƆ IƆCCCLXVI= MDCCCLXVI= 1866." CreationDate="2023-03-07T23:52:05.143" UserId="13212" />
  <row Id="29315" PostId="14699" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer. Strange that the word order can be so flexible, would think it'd lead to misunderstandings. Like some guy in Rome names his S&amp;M-club &quot;The Big World of Dominatrixes&quot;, but then some guy walks past and goes &quot;Why's this place called The Great Ruler of The World?&quot; :D ...but I guess the different forms of the words take care of those problems... P.S. So could I then also say _magna mundorum domina_ ?" CreationDate="2020-10-12T09:50:33.877" UserId="7463" />
  <row Id="29318" PostId="14699" Score="0" Text="@JanosDrake indeed, the inflections take care of most ambiguities. Yes, _magna mundorum domina_ would also work." CreationDate="2020-10-12T11:01:42.427" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29314" PostId="14700" Score="0" Text="I'm still gonna stick with _domina_, since there's a bit of sadomasochistic element to that character in the comic book I'm making. I also prefer _magna_ since I've seen it used when referring to divine beings, as in the case of the goddess _Magna Mater_, and that's the kind of vibe I'm going for here... So would the grammatically correct phrase then be _domina magna mundorum_ ?" CreationDate="2020-10-12T09:34:38.150" UserId="7463" />
  <row Id="29316" PostId="14700" Score="0" Text="@JanosDrake I updated my answer; take a look." CreationDate="2020-10-12T10:08:11.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29255" PostId="14701" Score="0" Text="This type of question usually is treated in &quot;Biblical hermeneutics&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:47:00.620" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29265" PostId="14701" Score="3" Text="@fdb They don't like me there because I challenge the 'standard' interpretation of words. I look at words in greater contexts than they are willing to consider and pretty much have all my questions closed. They say that since I don't accept the standard 'tools', I am stating an opinion and 'no opinions are allowed here'." CreationDate="2020-10-10T18:23:33.817" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29266" PostId="14701" Score="2" Text="@fdb They don't like me, and I don't care much for them. That's why I'm here." CreationDate="2020-10-10T18:25:08.710" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29269" PostId="14701" Score="0" Text="One issue with the translation you've added: the shame itself isn't said to be the necessary consequence. The Greek says they created shame (a euphemism) **and** (και) took on the consequence for going astray." CreationDate="2020-10-10T21:29:31.170" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29271" PostId="14701" Score="1" Text="@Mardymar I hope you've found this site more welcoming! While any community has limits to how far from some standard approaches one can go, asking for alternative readings and the uniqueness of a particular interpretation from the point of view of the language itself is most certainly within our scope. I am happy to see questions like this on our site. Welcome aboard!" CreationDate="2020-10-10T21:43:29.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29273" PostId="14701" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you for the welcome! I just study language, not theology. That's why I think I would fit in better at this site. I'm doing a couple words and phrases in the bible right now, because some of them are almost like a detective game trying to navigate all the politicization (forgive me if your religious) that went on. Modern scholars have started to unravel some of this, but there is still a long way to go and we may never even really know." CreationDate="2020-10-10T23:11:18.700" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29274" PostId="14701" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Although, to be fair, there are some parts of Plato that we will never know, either. That guy talked some really weird stuff sometimes ..." CreationDate="2020-10-10T23:13:22.177" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29275" PostId="14701" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I've made some edits. I couldn't really find a way for this to make sense in modern English without 3 sentences and repeating 'shame' twice to make sure the consequence connection was still there." CreationDate="2020-10-10T23:37:30.163" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29277" PostId="14701" Score="2" Text="@Mardymar In the original Greek, there doesn't seem to be any connection between the &quot;shame&quot; (ἀσχημοσύνη) and the &quot;consequence&quot; (ἀντιμισθία). The first is part of a euphemism for (presumably) having sex, and the second is about the results of the sex. Where does the equation of the two come from?" CreationDate="2020-10-11T01:11:21.803" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29279" PostId="14701" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Reading your comment again, I think I now see what you meant. I must have read something into it. This euphemism, can it come from ideas earlier in the text? The greater story is about pagan's falling away from God. When I read your comment, I think I just got excited about the connection 'original sin' leading to 'shame' (like Adam and Eve feeling shame for their nakedness (ησχύνοντο)), and I missed the point of what you were saying." CreationDate="2020-10-11T02:45:52.687" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29284" PostId="14701" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Where did the 'having sex' part come from? Is there a greater Greek idiom on this?" CreationDate="2020-10-11T13:23:49.477" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29256" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="How did you get 'moral' indecency from indecency 'manufacturing'? If the literal translation holds, it would mean more like &quot;bringing about indecency&quot; I'd imagine, and that's according to an extremely conservative translator." CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:51:39.680" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29257" PostId="14702" Score="2" Text="@Mardymar Ἀσχημοσύνη is literally something like &quot;lack of elegance&quot; (ἀ-σχημ-οσύνη = not-shape-fulness), but it can also mean &quot;moral indecency&quot; or &quot;obscenity&quot; (in the sense of &quot;something that goes against propriety&quot;). Κατεργάζομαι can be translated as &quot;manufacture&quot; but it can also just be translated as &quot;create&quot;, which seems much more natural here: what does it mean to &quot;manufacture&quot; indecency?" CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:56:16.383" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29258" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="@Mardymar Ah, I see what you mean with the &quot;manufacturing&quot; now. The verb here comes from ἔργον &quot;work&quot; or &quot;labor&quot;, so there's some implication that these people were actively putting in effort to create this indecency (which seems weird to me; Koine isn't my specialty so maybe someone else will chime in and say the verb had a different connotation by Paul's time)." CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:59:21.900" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29259" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="According to Thayer, a lexicographer I have little trust in:&#xA;1) to perform, accomplish, achieve&#xA;2) to work out i.e. to do that from which something results&#xA;2a) of things: bring about, result in&#xA;3) to fashion i.e. render one fit for a thing" CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:59:45.313" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29260" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="Understandable. I do appreciate the effort, though!" CreationDate="2020-10-10T17:00:32.337" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29261" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="@Mardymar Those definitions sound correct to me. Note that (2a) is specifically &quot;of things&quot;, i.e. with a thing rather than a person as the subject of the verb. In this case the subject is the &quot;males&quot;. (For comparison, this is the standard verb for &quot;working&quot; land to make it usable for farming: tilling, planting, cultivating, all that stuff. So these people were apparently putting a lot of effort into their indecency.)" CreationDate="2020-10-10T17:02:55.293" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29262" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="&quot;So these people were apparently putting a lot of effort into their indecency.&quot; This made me chuckle." CreationDate="2020-10-10T17:15:07.167" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29264" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="There's also 'indecency'. The same word is used in https://studybible.info/interlinear/Revelation%2016:15 . So is this more of a feeling of embarrassment over ones body? A form is also used https://studybible.info/interlinear/1%20Corinthians%2012:23 . I can try to find examples from other Koine Greek texts if your unsure. Ty." CreationDate="2020-10-10T17:23:08.577" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29278" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="I don't know enough to say whether this is the case in Koine, but in Classical Greek φυσικός generally means &quot;natural&quot; rather than &quot;physical&quot;; that meaning seems appropriate here. (And ἔδει in this context could be translated as &quot;was owing&quot;, though &quot;was required&quot; does get the sense across.)" CreationDate="2020-10-11T02:39:57.857" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29280" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="@TKR Ah, I was misled by a cognate again! I'll fix that." CreationDate="2020-10-11T04:01:53.900" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29282" PostId="14702" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good catch! If you look at https://studybible.info/interlinear/Romans%201:26 , then 'natural' does make more sense. Also in https://studybible.info/interlinear/2peter%202%2012 . I tried searching another koine text, but couldn't find this word and I've run out of resources. In their definition, they had 'natural' and also 'physical (by implication). I think its safe to say they took some liberties, at least to word choice." CreationDate="2020-10-11T12:37:03.727" UserId="7442" />
  <row Id="29288" PostId="14708" Score="2" Text="I don't see how we could know. The accent is not indicated in Latin writing." CreationDate="2020-10-11T18:12:32.460" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29289" PostId="14708" Score="1" Text="@fdb Ancient grammarians could mention it. And perhaps stress influenced developments in Romance languages in a telling way." CreationDate="2020-10-11T18:53:06.277" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29292" PostId="14708" Score="1" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9220/406" CreationDate="2020-10-11T21:02:31.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29285" PostId="14709" Score="2" Text="FWIW there's also filiabus for filiis to make feminine explicit. The same for deabus and equabus. I think it posts ecclesiastical Latin" CreationDate="2020-10-11T15:27:00.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29286" PostId="14709" Score="2" Text="Filiabus, at least, seems to be preclassical http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfilia" CreationDate="2020-10-11T15:34:23.737" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29287" PostId="14709" Score="1" Text="Animabus, per L&amp;S, is ecclesiastical: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Danima probably by analogy to filiabus. I can recall a number of prayers using animabus, like the optional prayer for parents in the responsum: miserere clementer animabus parentum nostrorum, etc." CreationDate="2020-10-11T15:35:59.857" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29291" PostId="14712" Score="4" Text="*Animabus* is actually fairly common before the medieval period: it's all over the place in the Vulgate, Augustine, and even Servius Honoratus." CreationDate="2020-10-11T20:13:52.893" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29305" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="What rules out a literal translation in English, specifically, is the Ross &quot;island constraint&quot; on extraction from wh-questions. Latin seems to lack that particular constraint. I'm not sure this has anything to do with discourse configurationality, but it's an interesting question." CreationDate="2020-10-12T03:31:19.267" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29306" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="That said it's not quite clear to me what your question is. Are you asking why *delerit* is subjunctive? That seems to be dictated by the normal rules of indirect questions." CreationDate="2020-10-12T03:43:10.727" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29307" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks for your interesting comment! For other cases (the ones related to hyperbaton) where Latin disobeys syntactic island constraints, see http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/28/paper2455.pdf and https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/phonology/article/phonological-constituents-and-their-movement-in-latin/13908F602D093BDD18120275963B4EC0" CreationDate="2020-10-12T03:46:07.297" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29309" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="@TKR No, I'm not asking why _delerit_ is subjunctive. I'm asking why examples like the one in the title are possible in Latin but not in English, Spanish, etc. In my post above I tentatively point out that this typological difference could have to do with the (non)-configurationality issue but I'm not so sure. Hence the present question." CreationDate="2020-10-12T04:02:25.610" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29310" PostId="14715" Score="1" Text="Thanks -- I'm familiar with that paper in its 2010 *Language* version, which makes similar points but is IIRC confined to Greek. Cf. also violation of the adjunct island constraint as in e.g. τί παθὼν τοῦτο ἐποίησας; and Latin equivalents. It would be interesting to see an overall study of syntactic islands in Latin and/or Greek -- I don't know if this has been done." CreationDate="2020-10-12T04:05:30.277" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29311" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="@TKR Yes, you recall it correctly:  http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~chrisg/PhMovement_files/Agbayani%26GolstonLanguage.pdf  Yes, I fully agree with you. I don't know if such an overall study exists." CreationDate="2020-10-12T04:12:33.113" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29312" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="Let me prime the pump a little by asking: &quot;A book read by how many people do I need to become a famous author?&quot; Does that sound so wrong? If we can say that, we should also be able to say: &quot;Consider an empire by how much labour built, a freedom by how much courage established, fortunes by what great benevolence of the gods increased and raised up a single night almost annihilated.&quot; Is this really impossible?" CreationDate="2020-10-12T07:42:41.437" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29320" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: What about the ablative-absolute treatment? Giving: &quot;quantis laboribus&quot; = &quot;with/ by the quantity having-been-laboured (with/ by the volume of work that was done); &quot;quanta virtute&quot; = &quot;with/ by the quantity (of presumably will-power) given-up to virtue [It cannot be rendered as: having-been-&quot;virtued&quot;]; &quot;quanta deorum benignitate&quot; = &quot;with/ by the quantity having been favoured [with/ by the volume of good-will of the gods]&quot;. The other grammatical points (all the accusatives dictated by imperative, &quot;cogitate&quot;; perfect subjunctive, &quot;delerit&quot; for the indirect questions [Cerberus]" CreationDate="2020-10-12T12:49:21.837" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29321" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: have been explained. Cerberus, in an excellent answer, is entirely correct; here, there is a wide gulf of incompatibility between the Latin &amp; the English--evidenced by my own attempts to bend the ablative-absolute (literal) translations to fit the understood-English." CreationDate="2020-10-12T12:55:47.043" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29329" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Your English translation is &quot;understandable&quot; but it is not natural at all (NB: grammaticality is not a matter of &quot;understandability&quot;). Note also that the subordinate clause selected by &quot;consider&quot; lacks the exclamative force of the Latin example. Here the main predicate _cogitate_ selects an exclamative clause as its argument. In English this exclamative force is naturally obtained by putting &quot;how&quot; or the ablative WH-constituent just after the main verb _cogitate_. Same in the languages I know of. Perhaps in the German translations at your disposal it's also the same." CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:42:36.367" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29331" PostId="14715" Score="0" Text="@tony I do not see any Ablative Absolute in the Latin example above. So I'm afraid we understand this typical construction of Latin syntax differently. The three ablative constituents are modifiers of the participles (e.g. _quantis laboribus_ 'with what great labour(s)' is just a modifier of the participle _fundatum_. Your gloss of _quantis laboribus_  as 'with/ by the quantity having-been-laboured' sounds very unnatural to me and in fact is not correct)." CreationDate="2020-10-12T17:04:04.913" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29293" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for your detailed answer! I'm afraid that you misinterpreted the commentator's point above (&quot;A short form of expression combining two really distinct indirect questions&quot;). What (I understand) is meant by this commentator is that the Latin example involves a periphrastic combination of the following triplet in (1) _cogitate quantis laboribus imperium fundatum sit_; _cogitate quanta virtute libertas stabilita sit_; _cogitate quanta deorum benignitate fortunae auctae exaggerataeque sint_ and (2) _cogitate ut una nox paene {imperium/libertatem/fortunas} delerit_." CreationDate="2020-10-11T23:46:14.457" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29294" PostId="14717" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino: Okay, a &quot;periphrastic combination&quot;: what does that really mean? And why would such a reading be needed or desirable over the lectio simplex? I couldn't easily find the quotation in the linked document. P.S. I've added an explanation of why English does not allow a literal translation." CreationDate="2020-10-11T23:49:51.787" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29296" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="Here _periphrastic_ means 'wordy', 'roundabout', the result of a paraphrase (in Spanish we say &quot;rodeo&quot;). BTW, let me say that I fully agree with your conclusion: &quot;there is nothing odd about Latin; it is just English which is incapable of rendering the same construction&quot;. Or, to put it in the neutral typological words of my post, Latin belongs to a type of languages that allow this type of constructions, whereas English belongs to a different type that doesn't allow it. As noted above, I wonder if this difference could (?) have to do with the so-called &quot;(non)configurationality&quot; of languages." CreationDate="2020-10-12T00:16:22.173" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29297" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="When you say &quot;I do not understand why the commentator read the sentence that way&quot;, please note that what (I understand) he was trying to do was just to clarify the **content** of the complex Latin sentence to a reader of English. What is said by him is not necessarily incompatible with what you call the lectio brevis. In any case, as emphasized in your interesting edit (+1!), the question above is not so about the real ellipses involved in the tricolon (a debatable issue, indeed) but rather about why the example in the title of the post (without a tricolon) is ok in Latin but not in English." CreationDate="2020-10-12T01:23:36.653" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29299" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Right, the ellipsis I supplied was just a possible example. In your version here, though, we still do not have three independent sentences; if we wanted to expand into independent sentences, those interrogatives would still need to depend on something (we'd need to supply three somethings). But I agree it is not really important to the central thought of your question. (I usually see filling in ellipsis as a mere illustration of structure, rather than as the discovery of &quot;real&quot;, specific words that should somehow exist invisibly." CreationDate="2020-10-12T02:12:19.337" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29300" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino About the underlying reason why Latin can do this but English cannot: a generic reason is that translating a construction from one language into another always 'favours' the original language: after all, the construction was naturally formed in this language. But I also think it may be because, to express syntax, English depends on word order very much, whereas Latin has more morphology which it uses for the same purpose, allowing for more flexibility in word order; this flexibility might make such nesting easier." CreationDate="2020-10-12T02:14:55.893" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29301" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="Notice that your Italian translation on Facebook also flattens the syntax: could that be because Italian, too, has more limited morphology than does Latin? Do you think a literal translation would be possible in Italian?" CreationDate="2020-10-12T02:18:17.273" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29302" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="When I said that &quot;the real ellipses involved in the tricolon is a debatable issue&quot;, I mean that this issue is not always obvious. For example, it seems clear that the tricolon above does not involve three instantiations of the main verb _cogitate_ but only one (after reading one of your last comments, I see we can agree on this point). This option discarded, two possibilities remain: (1) to the extent that the juxtaposition/coordination is that of three Nominal Phrases, _una nox paene delerit_ is **not** elliptical (let’s call it the what-you-see-is-what-you-get proposal) &amp; ..." CreationDate="2020-10-12T03:24:41.400" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29303" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="...&amp; (2) to the extent that the juxtaposition/coordination is that of three subordinate clauses, _una nox paene delerit_ is syntactically instantiated three times: i.e. to the extent that three landing sites for so-called &quot;WH&quot;-exclamative/interrogative elements (_quantis/quanta_ + abl. NP) are needed in subordination clauses, these elements must move up to the initial position of the subordinate clause of _delerit_ (here we can assume there can be only one WH-element per clause: cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wh-movement)." CreationDate="2020-10-12T03:27:23.760" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29304" PostId="14717" Score="0" Text="The Italian translation in the Facebook link is not mine. As for your question “Do you think a literal translation would be possible in Italian?&quot;, no, I don’t think so (NB: I read &amp; speak Italian but I’m not a native speaker of this language)." CreationDate="2020-10-12T03:29:45.923" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29313" PostId="14718" Score="0" Text="question: in the case &quot;pulchra sunt ad intellegendum&quot;, with the gerund, may it mean &quot;for understating&quot;, i.e something like: &quot;beautiful things exist for the (great) sake of understanding&quot; (not implying the *pulchra* themselves are the thing to be understood.). maybe it is possible to have &quot;pulchra sunt ad (se) intellegenda&quot; ?" CreationDate="2020-10-12T09:22:09.473" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29322" PostId="14719" Score="1" Text="Some of those seem to be alchemical symbols rather than scholarly abbreviations. For example, the one in the first line looks like ♄, Saturn or lead (_plumbo_ in Latin). And the one in the bottom line is ☾, Luna or silver (_argenta_). The zodiac symbols were sometimes used to indicate alchemical processes, but this was less standardized." CreationDate="2020-10-12T15:20:20.197" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29324" PostId="14719" Score="0" Text="Thank you, @Draconis, for finding out those are alchemical processes!" CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:11:57.730" UserId="7479" />
  <row Id="29332" PostId="14720" Score="0" Text="see Vox Latina (2nd ed., Allen 1978/1989), p. 37" CreationDate="2020-10-12T22:59:54.563" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29323" PostId="14721" Score="0" Text="Most impressive, @gmvh and @Draconis!&#xA;&#xA;Even if I knew the planetary symbols, I still would not have found this solution on my own!&#xA;&#xA;Where do you get you information that Saturnus = plumbum and Luna = argentum?" CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:05:44.960" UserId="7479" />
  <row Id="29325" PostId="14721" Score="0" Text="@LooselySubtle That's just the general alchemical lore (Sol=aurum, Luna=argentum, Mercurius=Mercurium/Hydrargium [quicksilver], Venus=cuprum, Mars=ferrum, Iupiter=stannum, Saturnus=plumbum). Some of these are obvious notions (Sol, Luna), some are mythologically sensible (cuprum for Kypris, ferrum for war), others are a stretch (Mercury is &quot;quick&quot;, Saturn is dim) or make no sense (at least I could never figure out a reason for Iupiter to be associated with tin)." CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:12:15.210" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29326" PostId="14721" Score="0" Text="As far as I remember the plants-metals association was pretty consistent across time and places. With the exception of Mercury, that was in the past associated with electrum by the Greeks." CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:23:39.413" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29327" PostId="14721" Score="0" Text="@gmvh My best explanation for that last one is &quot;there are seven basic metals and seven planets, and we don't have anything better for tin&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:23:48.743" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29328" PostId="14721" Score="0" Text="@Draconis yeah, that's pretty much the only explanation." CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:33:24.343" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29335" PostId="14724" Score="0" Text="From where did you get letter &quot;j&quot; from, &quot;ianua&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-10-13T11:23:34.940" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29337" PostId="14724" Score="2" Text="@tony Why, from the [dictionary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djanua), of course ;-)" CreationDate="2020-10-13T12:58:15.167" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29346" PostId="14724" Score="1" Text="What an answer! It exonerates you from a (potential) Roman-alphabet violation." CreationDate="2020-10-14T08:29:40.947" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29347" PostId="14724" Score="0" Text="A wonderful answer, @SebastianKoppehel, thank you very much! I've just added a few words to my question to explain what I need the translation for. The idea of a 'window' is based on old photographs a few friends of mine would like to use to create a historical calendar showing how our home town has changed in the past 150 years or so. So, I'm not sure _janua_ is the best word here. Since the title should probably be as short as possible, I suppose _prospectum magnificum ad res veteres_ could work here. What do you think?" CreationDate="2020-10-14T10:46:46.707" UserId="7480" />
  <row Id="29349" PostId="14724" Score="0" Text="@tony I suppose the jury is still out on that. More [illustrious personages](https://medium.com/in-medias-res/theres-no-j-in-latin-your-holiness-5a331c3f7a06) than me have fought this battle and lost ..." CreationDate="2020-10-14T14:49:57.740" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29352" PostId="14724" Score="0" Text="@petusek79 That sounds good. Though, if the idea of a window is important to you, by all means you can use *fenestra*. It is certainly an understandable metaphor. (In our ambition to use idiomatic Latin and avoid &quot;barbarisms&quot; we can lose sight of the fact that *unusual* metaphors are also a literary quality.)" CreationDate="2020-10-14T15:19:01.923" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29368" PostId="14724" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2020-10-15T11:09:08.587" UserId="7480" />
  <row Id="29333" PostId="14725" Score="1" Text="I consulted the [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1910/A/Geschichte) and found, somewhat to my surprise, the following distinction: &quot;besonders »alte Geschichte«, und zwar *res veteres*, insofern sie seit Jahrhunderten oder Jahrtausenden besteht, *res antiquae* und *antiquitas/antiqua, -orum,* insofern sie der grauen Vorzeit angehört&quot;. That is, *antiquitas* for the dim and distant past. Not sure where George's got this." CreationDate="2020-10-13T08:37:10.417" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29334" PostId="14725" Score="0" Text="I can kind of see that _antiquus_ is older than _vetus_ – I could imagine _vetus_ used of a living person, but not _antiquus_, which has an etymological implication of &quot;former, bygone&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-13T11:17:47.050" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29348" PostId="14725" Score="0" Text="Wow, another great answer. Thank you very much, @gmvh! I've added a few words to my question to explain what I need the translation for. It should be a title of photographic calendar composed of very old photographs of my home town, hence the idea of a _window_. Looking at the suggestions you've provided, I'm not sure which would be the best option here. I should probably ask my friends if it's really only going to be the photographs (which would mean relatively recent history) or whether they intend to include anything older than that." CreationDate="2020-10-14T10:54:49.647" UserId="7480" />
  <row Id="29392" PostId="14726" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. I'm not a native speaker of English but your translations sound very natural to me." CreationDate="2020-10-17T18:52:55.130" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29342" PostId="14727" Score="2" Text="They're ultimately from the same basic root but the thing to realise is that *cuius*'s immediate ancestor is *quoius*, and when the *o* turned into *u* the *qu* became *c* through dissimilation. The *cu* isn't a variant of the *qu* in *quis*. (This is one of those instances where the fact that Latin's qu is /kʷ/ rather than /kw/ matters.)" CreationDate="2020-10-13T20:10:59.117" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29343" PostId="14727" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon it easily could have been 'quuius' /kʷu jus/ then, right?" CreationDate="2020-10-13T21:37:47.130" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="29344" PostId="14727" Score="2" Text="The dissimilation involved is relatively mandatory, I think. Off-hand I can only think of one case where /kʷu/ didn't immediately turn into /ku/ and that's in *equus* (earlier *equos*), where it persisted through analogy with the oblique forms (and there's good evidence the actual pronunciation was often /ekus/ regardless). Even high frequency of use doesn't seem to encourage exception: when *quom*'s *o* turned into *u* the word universally became *cum* (with the spelling, but perhaps not the pronunciation, *quum* briefly existing), even though they already had a *cum* (from *com*)." CreationDate="2020-10-13T23:01:52.853" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29357" PostId="14727" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon That all seems like an answer." CreationDate="2020-10-14T17:06:15.073" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="29377" PostId="14727" Score="1" Text="Related: [What is the relationship between “cuius” and “quoius”](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/what-is-the-relationship-between-cuius-and-quoius)" CreationDate="2020-10-16T01:12:29.560" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="29354" PostId="14730" Score="3" Text="I think &quot;Dunker&quot; as an informal name for the sect comes from the common German word &quot;dunken/tunken,&quot; i.e. the Baptism sense comes from the immersion word, not vice-versa.  βαπτίζω would be an excellent Greek translation of the term, but I think Latin *baptizo* introduces a religious sense that wouldn't be appropriate for &quot;dunk&quot;--though it would certainly be colorful!" CreationDate="2020-10-14T16:14:00.533" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39447" PostId="14730" Score="0" Text="Who doesn't like a cookie baptized in milk?" CreationDate="2022-09-07T15:44:29.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29350" PostId="14731" Score="0" Text="My answer is yes. But I don't know why exactly. It may have to do with transitivity." CreationDate="2020-10-14T14:57:58.097" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29452" PostId="14731" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: Thank you. Unbrutal_Russian has provided what may be an answer in Comments in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12785/1982, indicating that &quot;mihi placet&quot; cannot stand alone." CreationDate="2020-10-20T12:17:46.043" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29364" PostId="14732" Score="1" Text="Immo mos lepidissimus! :)" CreationDate="2020-10-15T01:03:16.113" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29370" PostId="14735" Score="1" Text="How about changing the last word to *mercatoria*? An adjective sounds more fitting than a genitive." CreationDate="2020-10-15T15:08:33.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29371" PostId="14735" Score="0" Text="But then you get _-atoria -atoria_, which sounds unpleasant to my ears." CreationDate="2020-10-15T15:09:41.727" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29372" PostId="14735" Score="0" Text="I had actually considered that rhyme a benefit. You can also put *arithmetica* between the other two if you want to lessen the effect." CreationDate="2020-10-15T15:24:18.597" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29388" PostId="14735" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta a benefit to English speakers perhaps, but when Cicero's poetry rhymed he was ridiculed by the establish writers" CreationDate="2020-10-16T18:04:29.553" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="29373" PostId="14736" Score="1" Text="See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation#Marks_with_relative_meaning" CreationDate="2020-10-15T17:09:12.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29374" PostId="14736" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel, I don't see the relevance of this Wikipedia entry to my question." CreationDate="2020-10-15T17:22:14.003" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="29376" PostId="14736" Score="0" Text="The Wikipedia article says that the _et_ mark &quot;after a, e, u vowels meant -m not us or ei, if after an o it meant -nem&quot;, but there's no citation for that (and it's explained in kind of a roundabout way)." CreationDate="2020-10-16T00:15:12.877" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29378" PostId="14736" Score="1" Text="@Draconis The whole text is, however, very closely based on the [Lexicon Abbreviaturarum](https://archive.org/details/LexiconAbbreviaturarum/page/n25/mode/2up) (German edition). The explanation there is slightly less confusing if you can read German, much more if not. I couldn't find the Italian original edition online." CreationDate="2020-10-16T03:10:24.483" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29379" PostId="14736" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel Thank you very much! I missed the relevant passage in the entry at first reading. I'm also not aware of the original edition of  Lexicon Abbreviaturarum online, but there is [an English edition](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf) (and [the interactive one](https://www.adfontes.uzh.ch/en/ressourcen/abkuerzungen/cappelli-online) but without the preface)." CreationDate="2020-10-16T05:42:18.170" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="29380" PostId="14736" Score="0" Text="@Draconis  Thank you very much." CreationDate="2020-10-16T05:46:52.927" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="29381" PostId="14736" Score="3" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Could write up the relevant bit into an answer? It doesn't have to be long." CreationDate="2020-10-16T07:18:21.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29375" PostId="14738" Score="2" Text="And *Vita Nova* is also the famous Latin title of a famously not-Latin work by Dante. **Incipit vita nova** - A new life begins (when Dante meets his Beatrice)." CreationDate="2020-10-15T21:31:02.620" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29382" PostId="14742" Score="0" Text="See the answers above – this is a common scribal abbreviation for _-que_." CreationDate="2020-10-16T10:52:32.487" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29383" PostId="14742" Score="3" Text="@gmvh The original poster haven't explicitely asked for the meaning of it, he explictely asked what kind of ligature it is. My answer doesn't contradict yours but supplement it." CreationDate="2020-10-16T11:23:03.703" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="29384" PostId="14743" Score="1" Text="related https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7595/39" CreationDate="2020-10-16T14:28:48.453" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29385" PostId="14743" Score="1" Text="another related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6558/81" CreationDate="2020-10-16T14:40:56.183" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29391" PostId="14743" Score="0" Text="It is  bēlua, not &quot;bellua&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-17T13:52:25.413" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29393" PostId="14751" Score="1" Text="You can add *stinguere* and its compounds, *pinguis*, and *unguis* to that list, and that's it for the 2000 most common Latin words. It feels significant that phonemically this isn't /ɡ/ + /w/ but /ɡʷ/. If you remove the &lt;n&gt; from consideration and just look for *guV*, there's only *exiguus* without the glide, which may be a late coining from *exigere* + *-uus*. There are also few words matching *kuV* where the &lt;u&gt; is vocalic, by the way: mainly *acuere*, *vacuus*, and *cuius* (special because it used to be *quoius*, which did have the glide but lost it to dissimilation when its o &gt; u)." CreationDate="2020-10-17T19:48:46.200" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29394" PostId="14751" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon The observation that there are no counterexamples but just more examples within the most common words would make a nice answer. That any counterexample would have to be rare is a practical answer even if not definitive. Can you turn that comment into an answer?" CreationDate="2020-10-17T19:53:03.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29395" PostId="14751" Score="0" Text="I don't think it's a satisfactory answer, I don't think my frequency list is sufficiently exhaustive (2000 words is less than 10% of an average person's vocabulary, and it doesn't include inflected forms), and I'm particularly bothered by *acuere*, which feels hard to explain if there *is* a real phenomenon here. I hope my comment can spur someone more knowledgeable/with better access to resources in a useful direction, though. (Also I just realised *cuius* doesn't match *kuV* because the &lt;i&gt; is consonantal.)" CreationDate="2020-10-17T20:05:36.650" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29404" PostId="14751" Score="0" Text="Cser 2020 mentions eleven words (and their derivatives) where ngv is found: anguis, inguen, languor, lingua, ninguit, pinguis, sanguis, stinguere, tinguere, unguis, unguere (p. 21)." CreationDate="2020-10-18T17:42:02.247" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29405" PostId="14751" Score="0" Text="He also writes that in poetry [w] **never** scans as [u] (when following a consonant) cf. &quot;a word like *aqua* or *inguen* is **always two syllables**&quot; (p. 31; emphasis mine - Alex B.)." CreationDate="2020-10-18T17:52:02.353" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29401" PostId="14752" Score="0" Text="Hi! It seems that you have created two accounts. Please [see the instructions for merging them](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts). After doing so you can more easily interact with anyone who answers you, accepting the best answer and voting up any questions and answers you like after reaching 15 reputation points yourself." CreationDate="2020-10-18T12:37:13.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29396" PostId="14753" Score="1" Text="*ipsam* surely?" CreationDate="2020-10-17T20:13:43.943" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29397" PostId="14753" Score="1" Text="In addition to what @Sebastian said, can you explain what your suggestion means? The OP (original poster) doesn't seem to have much prior knowledge of Latin, so an explanation would be helpful, also about genders. But I do fully agree: this is a great translation." CreationDate="2020-10-17T21:08:24.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29398" PostId="14753" Score="1" Text="Super pedantic carping: *te* is the reflexive pronoun in this sentence (although yes, it is the accusative of *tu*; the difference would be visible in the third person, where we would have *se*, not *eam*). *Ipse* [is not a reflexive pronoun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9440/is-ipsum-ipsa-ipse-a-third-person-pronoun-or-can-it-serve-other-functions) *except* when it stands in for the nominative of *se*. This is why we cannot leave out *te* here in my opinion." CreationDate="2020-10-18T10:26:16.307" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29399" PostId="14753" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel you're of course quite right, I oversimplified. In my opinion, neither _te_ nor _ipsum_ can be omitted, because the second person reflexive pronoun _te_ requires the _ipsum_ for clarity." CreationDate="2020-10-18T11:04:39.450" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29400" PostId="14753" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your kind reply&#xA;Yes, unfortunately I never had an opportunity to learn Latin and I am trying to prepare small project for my friend." CreationDate="2020-10-18T06:13:29.087" UserId="8492" />
  <row Id="29402" PostId="14753" Score="1" Text="The *ipsam* is not required, but emphasises the reflexive nature of the exhortation. For example, when Cicero tells Catilina: &quot;Confer te ad Manlium [...] secerne te a bonis&quot; (1st Catilinarian), he does not use it, and it would sound weird if he did. Here Latin differs from English, where the emphatically reflexive *yourself* is the only option." CreationDate="2020-10-18T14:48:44.067" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29403" PostId="14753" Score="1" Text="In this case, I feel the _ipsam_ is required. In my opinion, Latin and German are much alike in this regard; certainly, a German translation would be &quot;übertriff Dich selbst&quot;, not &quot;übertriff dich&quot;, whereas in the Ciceronian example, a German translation would not use _selbst_. This is indeed different from English, where _-self_ is the only way to express reflexivity." CreationDate="2020-10-18T15:15:43.317" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29406" PostId="14760" Score="0" Text="I'm assuming the _i longa_ doesn't count as &quot;closer to [J] than I to the modern eye&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-10-18T18:16:38.307" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29407" PostId="14760" Score="1" Text="@Draconis I think the best solution is to post it as an answer and let people decide. If it's more common than a &quot;proper J&quot; (if one exists) and still somewhat J-ish, it's an excellent example." CreationDate="2020-10-18T18:21:19.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29464" PostId="14760" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta do you have access to *Glossarium till Finlands och Sveriges latinska medeltidsurkunder jämte språklig inledning* by Hammarström (1925) - page 22. Peter Stotz (v.3) mentions this as a source of some information about how J was used in medieval Latin." CreationDate="2020-10-20T22:52:06.293" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29472" PostId="14760" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. It seems that my local library has [a physical copy](https://jyu.finna.fi/Record/jykdok.540463?lng=en-gb) but I found nothing electronic. With the corona situation and my being on leave (for a post in another university) access is a little complicated. I will give that a look and scan the relevant pages if I get a good opportunity." CreationDate="2020-10-22T07:52:35.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29475" PostId="14760" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I see - I totally understand. I'll try to get a pdf then (via ILL)." CreationDate="2020-10-22T17:56:23.653" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29415" PostId="14762" Score="3" Text="Re: aquai (or acuai) in Lucretius, the relevant TLL entry says, &quot;*prosodiaca*: aquae *trium syllabarum*: LVCR. 6, 552 (ubi v. Lachmannum)&quot; http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#9975 and Garrod, H. W. &quot;Aquai in Lucretius.&quot; The Classical Review 28, no. 8 (1914): 264-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/699581" CreationDate="2020-10-19T02:23:32.640" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29420" PostId="14762" Score="2" Text="That being said, about Lucr. 6. 1072, the same TLL entry says &quot;aqua&lt;i&gt; quattuor syllabarum&quot; (!) - and hence Garrod's conjecture ăquăī &lt;cum&gt; (not accepted by others?), cf. Lachmann 1860 has aqūai https://archive.org/details/tlucreticarider01lachgoog/page/n250/mode/2up David Butterfield or Marcus Deufert should know why. You could also ask Michael Reeve https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/directory/michael-reeve" CreationDate="2020-10-19T03:25:30.587" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29421" PostId="14762" Score="1" Text="And I suspect Cser is merely reporting someone else's findings - it's very possible his *never* statement is too strong. Anyway, I encourage you to look into this and summarize your findings!" CreationDate="2020-10-19T03:50:46.403" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29445" PostId="14764" Score="0" Text="I've never seen this directional use of _afficio_. In any case, since this verb is transitive, I guess that the intransitive uses of this verb would rather involve the middle-passive morphology, i.e. _afficior_." CreationDate="2020-10-19T22:10:50.577" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29424" PostId="14769" Score="1" Text="And if you're talking about the TARDIS (or some versions of Baba Yaga's hut), you can even omit the _est_ and just say _maius intus_." CreationDate="2020-10-19T08:18:46.337" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29435" PostId="14769" Score="1" Text="@tony Non *novi* sed [*nōvi*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco) ;-)" CreationDate="2020-10-19T12:58:16.757" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29461" PostId="14769" Score="0" Text="I wasn't even close! My goodness." CreationDate="2020-10-20T21:01:26.433" UserId="6952" />
  <row Id="29470" PostId="14770" Score="2" Text="Thanks a lot for such a detailed answer! A side note (you might know this already though) - just saw it in Deufert 2017 *Prolegomena Zur Editio Teubneriana des Lukrez*, where he explains his choice of **acuae** - &quot;In Entsprechung hierzu schreibe ich auch sonst konsequent cu statt qu, wenn das u vokalisch gemessen werden muss, also acuae 6, 552 (aquae Ω) und 6, 868 (so die Sekundärüberlieferung; laticis Ω), acuai 6, 1072 (aqua Ω), consecue 5, 679 (consequiae Ω, corr. Lachmann)&quot; (p. 232)." CreationDate="2020-10-21T20:59:27.117" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29437" PostId="14771" Score="0" Text="We're talking about &quot;had been brought (ἀρμένα=ἠρμένη) to the creation of children (παίδων ... ποήσει)&quot; vs. &quot;were apt (ἀρμένα=ἀρμένη) to/for the creation of children (παίδων ... ποήσει)&quot;. I think we can never be sure what Edmonds had in mind. I'd personally go for &quot;apt&quot;: &quot;apt for the creation of children&quot; = &quot;able to create/bear children&quot; seems a little less &quot;creative&quot; of a circumlocution than &quot;brought to the creation of children&quot; = &quot;brought to create/bear children&quot; = &quot;able to bear children&quot;. Unless we're saying dólofyn is a relation accusative and an implied &quot;I&quot; is the subject…" CreationDate="2020-10-19T16:16:28.953" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="29438" PostId="14771" Score="0" Text="…in which case &quot;If I were brought to the creation of children relative to the womb&quot; would be… even more creative of an expression. :)" CreationDate="2020-10-19T16:17:25.197" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="29446" PostId="14773" Score="0" Text="I love that quote, and it took me many years to learn and truly understand its meaning." CreationDate="2020-10-19T23:11:56.407" UserId="262" />
  <row Id="29434" PostId="14774" Score="0" Text="This looks like a very natural way to approach this. How would you feel about *praeterire*  instead of *abire* to pass by rather than go away?" CreationDate="2020-10-19T12:51:04.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30326" PostId="14774" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I do not feel qualified enough to make this judgement. Since translations in my answer are by other people, I have simply found them and posted here." CreationDate="2021-01-03T11:19:06.253" UserId="7403" />
  <row Id="29442" PostId="14777" Score="1" Text="I haven't yet looked this up in a dictionary, but if the verb celare were used instead, I believe that it can take a double accusative in the active (one for things concealed, the other for the person it's concealed from); so in the passive, the accusative of the person could be retained. Of course, that approach could open up other ambiguities, depending on the genders, numbers, and cases of the specific nouns that are involved" CreationDate="2020-10-19T20:07:33.970" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29443" PostId="14777" Score="0" Text="Or actually, perhaps the person would become the subject of the passive, and the thing that's hidden would be the retained accusative? Or maybe both are possible... Will look it up when I have a chance." CreationDate="2020-10-19T20:13:02.040" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29447" PostId="14779" Score="1" Text="Note that the machine is direct object, so it should be in the accusative." CreationDate="2020-10-20T04:36:19.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29449" PostId="14779" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Oooops, in my defense it was 3 am here haha." CreationDate="2020-10-20T07:16:08.710" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="29450" PostId="14779" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I rewrote this all because you know, I should really not write answers late in the night. Thanks :)" CreationDate="2020-10-20T07:34:12.843" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="30812" PostId="14780" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your contribution. Generally, simply linking to an answer won’t be considered helpful; hence your answer has received no upvotes. If you can elaborate on why this is a good source and how, expect to see your upvote-count change." CreationDate="2021-02-22T00:51:33.443" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="47575" PostId="14782" Score="0" Text="Or maybe an earlier form [lotor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lotor), thus _Quis lavabit ipsos lotores?_" CreationDate="2024-02-23T02:59:44.810" UserId="14789" />
  <row Id="29453" PostId="14784" Score="0" Text="Your suggestion means something like &quot;your wealth mine until death&quot;, which doesn't quite sound like what you want to express." CreationDate="2020-10-20T13:13:18.973" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29459" PostId="14784" Score="3" Text="&quot;I fear Google Translate introduces ambiguity&quot; -- not really, Google Translate produced gibberish, as usual." CreationDate="2020-10-20T20:41:52.247" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29460" PostId="14784" Score="0" Text="Yep, Google Translate doesn't." CreationDate="2020-10-20T20:47:10.757" UserId="8504" />
  <row Id="29454" PostId="14786" Score="1" Text="The &quot;Letters of Themistocles&quot; are universally held to be a forgery, but they are almost certainly an ancient forgery (ca. 1st century CE). It is thus surprising that L/S do not cite this reference." CreationDate="2020-10-20T18:05:15.127" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29457" PostId="14788" Score="0" Text="Is that conditional on your death? I want indifference, but know zero Latin" CreationDate="2020-10-20T20:29:55.960" UserId="8504" />
  <row Id="29466" PostId="14788" Score="1" Text="_etsi_ means &quot;even if, although&quot;, so it's not conditional on your death." CreationDate="2020-10-21T06:45:03.797" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29456" PostId="14789" Score="3" Text="Surely, haec in version 1 is meant to be neuter accusative plural, not feminine nominative singular; therefore, 'Haec protegimus' is perfectly correct, grammatically speaking. And it's not uncommon for Latin to use the plural 'these' where English uses the singular 'this'. It depends what the referent of 'this' is understood to be, I suppose." CreationDate="2020-10-20T20:16:48.983" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29458" PostId="14789" Score="2" Text="*Defendemus* surely? Also, doesn't the English motto intentionally leave it open exactly what they're defending? Sure, if it's *patria* or *libertas*, they're feminine. But what if it is *deos publicos suosque patrios ac penates*? ;)" CreationDate="2020-10-20T20:35:19.533" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29462" PostId="14789" Score="0" Text="You are correct, defendemus, sorry was a tad distracted there. @cnread Sure, but like I said, we don't know that the &quot;this&quot;: is. During the Oath of Enlistment, servicemembers swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, *constitutio* is feminine, likewise, the Army's general mission is to defend the country, *terra* and *patria* are likewise feminine. So while **haec** &quot;these things&quot; could be valid, I see it as less likely, and someone looked up the Latin word for &quot;this&quot; followed by the Latin for &quot;we defend&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-20T22:18:02.200" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29455" PostId="14790" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Two comments: (1) Before *oculis* it should be *ab(s)*. (2) I can well imagine me hiding you from me. If I know I'm prone to have violent fits (due to intoxication or some other reason), I might want to protect loved ones from it. But of course that would only make sense in rare contexts." CreationDate="2020-10-20T19:22:59.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29463" PostId="14790" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That was my second typo of the day, ugh. Not my day at all." CreationDate="2020-10-20T22:42:05.457" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29465" PostId="14790" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta actually, realized I had it as ā tuīs occulīs first, then swapped it since adjs. usually follow the noun, but forgot to put ā as ab." CreationDate="2020-10-20T22:53:53.983" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="43690" PostId="14793" Score="1" Text="'he did this, then he did that, versus he did this and he did it well': This profoundly misrepresents the two words and the distinction between them. Etiam is not a synonym for deinde, and enim is not a synonym for bene." CreationDate="2023-06-19T15:35:38.053" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29468" PostId="14794" Score="1" Text="Can you explain 'E ut ab' in the last version? You appear to be using 2 prepositions, but without supplying nouns to serve as their objects." CreationDate="2020-10-21T19:45:22.900" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29469" PostId="14794" Score="0" Text="@cnread I think it is an idiom that roughly means &quot;away from&quot;. So, &quot;e ut ab&quot; would be &quot;go away!&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-21T19:48:15.207" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="29471" PostId="14794" Score="3" Text="Can you cite a source? I've never seen that as an idiom, and a corpus search on PHI didn't yield any results. Is it Medieval or otherwise non-Classical?" CreationDate="2020-10-21T21:18:45.627" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45542" PostId="14794" Score="0" Text="Tyler Durden: In Latin the present &amp; future tenses are not separate countries; see A &amp; G section 468." CreationDate="2023-11-18T12:09:04.180" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29467" PostId="14795" Score="2" Text="Love the ciceronian expression, it perfectly corresponds to the Italian _venire in mente_ (e.g. _mi venisti in mente_)" CreationDate="2020-10-21T19:21:54.543" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="29474" PostId="14795" Score="2" Text="@VincenzoOliva Some would say Latin never died, it's just called Italian today ;)" CreationDate="2020-10-22T12:13:31.927" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29477" PostId="14796" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your comment, but I don't think it is the tilde, cf. Capelli." CreationDate="2020-10-23T06:51:06.640" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="29476" PostId="14798" Score="1" Text="&quot;This sense is only used in poetry (Terence, Plautus)&quot; -- these two gentlemen weren't poets but playwrights, and between them are our best source of colloquial everyday Latin. It's also not true, cf. &quot;Abi hinc cum tribunatibus ac rogationibus tuis&quot; (Livius, [Ab urbe condita 6,40](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.6.shtml#40))." CreationDate="2020-10-22T19:19:16.697" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29482" PostId="14798" Score="0" Text="I agree that they have a lot of colloq. Latin. But I'm not saying that &quot;abi hinc&quot; is only in Terence/Plautus, I'm saying that only they use it in the sense of &quot;friendly or reproachful signif.&quot; (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=abi&amp;la=la) (Also, plays = poetry. Latin comedy is written in iambic senarius &amp; iambic trimeter mostly)." CreationDate="2020-10-23T12:44:32.033" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="29483" PostId="14798" Score="1" Text="@eyesplice17 I think that entry is referring to a pretty specific usage of *abi* similar to English &quot;get out of here!&quot; The literal usage (&quot;go away&quot;) is common to all authors and can certainly be friendly/reproachful as the context dictates, cf. https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abi%23&amp;first=111" CreationDate="2020-10-23T18:06:42.747" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29478" PostId="14801" Score="4" Text="... who was **still** a baby? That's how I would read it." CreationDate="2020-10-23T10:42:47.640" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29479" PostId="14801" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Well, adhuc is supposed to be an adverb, so it modifies a verb, not a noun." CreationDate="2020-10-23T10:49:49.133" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="29480" PostId="14801" Score="2" Text="... or an adjective, which *infans* is." CreationDate="2020-10-23T12:05:43.497" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29484" PostId="14803" Score="0" Text="Interesting question. &quot;When a resultative prefix is present (e.g. com- in comedere), panem is necessarily understood as definite&quot;: I would like to read more about this, as unfortunately it is not intuitive for me. If we take this example: &quot;senex etiam, antequam salutatores venirent, panem siccum **comedit** ad sustentandas vires&quot; does this adheres to this law (since I read this as *a bread*)?" CreationDate="2020-10-23T18:59:14.760" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29503" PostId="14803" Score="0" Text="@d_e Thanks for your comment. Cf. your example with the following one: _panem nisi siccum numquam comedit eundemque sale atque aliis rebus conditum_. First, as emphasized in my NB I above, we should be cautious when dealing with examples of late stages. Second, in Classical Latin the prefixed verb _comedit_ requires a definite/specific reading of _panem_: cf. 'He eats up {the/a} bread'. NB: _panem_ with the prefixed verb _comedere_ can be understood as '_a_ bread' if it is specific (definite Nominal Phrases are specific but it's not the case that all specific NPs are definite). –" CreationDate="2020-10-24T01:04:36.347" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29504" PostId="14803" Score="0" Text="Note also that Spanish, unlike English, allows to mantain the topicalized nature of _panem_ in my Latin example above: Sp. 'El pan, si no es seco, no se lo come nunca y este (se lo come) aliñado con sal y otras cosas'. Here the topicalized direct object is naturally seen as definite (_el pan_ 'the bread'). Cf. the ungrammaticality of Sp. _Pan, si no es seco, no **se** lo come nunca_  with the grammaticality of _Pan no come nunca_. Cf. the parallelism above between Spanish completive _se_ and English _up_ (cf. the resultative prefix _com-_ in _comedere_)." CreationDate="2020-10-24T01:07:15.890" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29509" PostId="14803" Score="1" Text="I have no definite answer, but my intuition would agree with your expectations. On a side-note, one thing to consider may be Aktionsart and 'Objeksart': in some cases, those might resolve ambiguity or even force an otherwise impossible reading, especially in poetry." CreationDate="2020-10-24T18:53:28.280" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33271" PostId="14803" Score="0" Text="I think Ilse Depratere’s analysis (based on English data) is very informative and I also distinguish between boundedness and telicity. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00984959" CreationDate="2021-05-19T03:47:29.017" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33272" PostId="14803" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Thanks, Alex, for this reference. I remember I read this paper many years ago. It is true that in the linguistic literature notions like resultativity, telicity, boundedness/delimitedness, and perfectivity are not always clarified and separated." CreationDate="2021-05-19T03:54:15.493" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33273" PostId="14803" Score="0" Text="Also are you familiar with Hana Filip’s research? She’s been studying aspect for several decades https://user.phil.hhu.de/~filip/Publications.htm" CreationDate="2021-05-19T04:01:24.057" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29489" PostId="14805" Score="0" Text="Just to check—it sounds like you want to macronize the text without parsing (much less translating) it?" CreationDate="2020-10-24T00:06:59.003" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29490" PostId="14805" Score="0" Text="(The reason I ask is because &quot;how do I tell the difference between these forms _while translating_&quot; and &quot;how do I tell the difference between these forms _in isolation_&quot; will have somewhat different answers.)" CreationDate="2020-10-24T00:09:13.857" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29493" PostId="14805" Score="0" Text="Well, I can parse, but that isn't always helpful and definitely not quick. For example, you can immediately identify some nouns based on a verb or preposition or quick context, occidente solis for example, the falling/setting of the sun would be occidente sōlis, but occīdente is also a word, as is solīs. Parsing wouldn't get me there, because occidente and occīcente are the same form of participle. Parsing is good for figuring out most grammar, but with fueris vs fuerīs, they are both translated in a similar fashion, (should you have been vs. you will have been) makes it a bit harder." CreationDate="2020-10-24T00:15:28.913" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29494" PostId="14805" Score="0" Text="I should also specify I'm doing this as a book to publish, I can get it to be &quot;close enough&quot; but I want it to be as perfect as I can get it, also tools like Perseus Tufts form identifier is hit or miss." CreationDate="2020-10-24T00:17:12.167" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29499" PostId="14805" Score="0" Text="Have you looked at Winge's automatic macronizer ([demo](http://www.alatius.com/macronizer/), [paper](https://cl.lingfil.uu.se/exarb/arch/winge2015.pdf))? I've found it quite reliable (though still not 100%)." CreationDate="2020-10-24T00:50:18.617" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29500" PostId="14805" Score="0" Text="I did mention in my post that I will not be using an auto-macronizer, a: the text is so long that if I did that I'd be having to double check thousands of lines of text anyway, b: it's not classical Latin and is filled with 100s of names which aren't Latin words, c: it's not authentic, I am a Latinist, I am producing a hand-crafted text for Latin lovers." CreationDate="2020-10-24T00:53:13.467" UserId="7313" />
  <row Id="29501" PostId="14805" Score="0" Text="Valid; I don't mean to imply you should rely on it for your task, just that it might be better than the Perseus analyzer you mentioned." CreationDate="2020-10-24T00:56:51.727" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29505" PostId="14805" Score="2" Text="Note that apparently, in Classical Latin, the long vowel and short vowel forms of the future perfect indicative and perfect subjunctive were not consistently distinguished according to their meaning: see Alex B.'s answer here: [&quot;Vowel length in future perfect indicative and perfect conjunctive&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6414/vowel-length-in-future-perfect-indicative-and-perfect-conjunctive)" CreationDate="2020-10-24T04:53:57.017" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="29507" PostId="14806" Score="1" Text="It shows up for me, if I search on that site (online-latin-dictionary.com)." CreationDate="2020-10-24T17:26:52.953" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29510" PostId="14806" Score="0" Text="Happy to hear Fab. Fac. Fabulae Faciles still going strong." CreationDate="2020-10-24T20:32:58.817" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="29514" PostId="14811" Score="6" Text="Note that *tempus* is 3rd declination neuter, so its accusative and nominative are the same. In this case it is the accusative." CreationDate="2020-10-25T05:53:21.463" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29515" PostId="14811" Score="5" Text="@d_e Strictly speaking, the words &quot;3rd declination&quot; in your comment are superfluous :-)" CreationDate="2020-10-25T06:32:11.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29513" PostId="14812" Score="0" Text="Are you wondering about precedent within Latin itself, or something older (e.g. linking it back to a Proto-Indo-European form)?" CreationDate="2020-10-25T04:23:59.500" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29520" PostId="14812" Score="2" Text="&quot;I notice that the genitive of unus can apparently be either the regular uni ...&quot; ← this is news to me. Really?" CreationDate="2020-10-25T13:05:15.677" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29524" PostId="14812" Score="1" Text="Pretty much every pronoun has a genitive ending in -ius, which looks quite regular to me, despite the rather limited numer of words…" CreationDate="2020-10-25T18:29:13.347" UserId="8513" />
  <row Id="29536" PostId="14812" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel yes, it is very rare but the relevant OLD entry mentions at two occurrences of gen. sg. uni: Catul. 17.17 &quot;ludere hanc sinit ut lubet, nec pili facit uni&quot; and Titin. com. 7 &quot;uni collegi sumus&quot;(which stands for Titinius, 2nd century BC) - Priscian says the following: &quot; *uni* pro *unius* Titinius in barbato: quod quidem pol mulier dicet, Namque uni collegi sumus&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-26T14:56:03.907" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29538" PostId="14812" Score="0" Text="the relevant passage in Priscian http://www.stgallpriscian.ie/images/keil/Keil_v2_227.gif" CreationDate="2020-10-26T15:39:47.153" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29541" PostId="14812" Score="0" Text="@Alex B. Cool, I did not know that." CreationDate="2020-10-26T15:59:59.543" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29545" PostId="14812" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Me neither! I just found out three hours ago. I wouldn't worry too much about such rare forms though." CreationDate="2020-10-26T18:29:52.717" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29523" PostId="14813" Score="4" Text="The mnemonic I learned for the adjectives was UNUS NAUTA (ullus, nullus, unus, solus, neuter, alter, uter, totus, alius)." CreationDate="2020-10-25T17:20:06.100" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29526" PostId="14816" Score="0" Text="This is the table where haes is given as the neuter plural accusative: https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=HIC200  Is this web site just wrong?" CreationDate="2020-10-25T22:45:04.683" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="29527" PostId="14816" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden Yep. _Haec_ is standard; I checked to make sure there wasn't some obscure variant form, and a corpus search shows no attestations of &quot;haes&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-25T22:48:09.683" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29528" PostId="14816" Score="1" Text="Right. And when the verb after *cum* is in the indicative, you know the subordinate clause is *independent*, indicating the events happened at the same time, but *independent* of each other, e.g. *Eo tempore cum Romae vivebam, Colosseum etiam stabat.*" CreationDate="2020-10-25T22:57:36.750" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29529" PostId="14816" Score="5" Text="@TylerDurden Yes, that is a terrible site. You can find reliable tables at Wiktionary and Collatinus-web, for example. I mean seriously. This is like somebody creating the website &quot;Online English Dictionary&quot; and claiming the demonstrative pronouns are &quot;this&quot; and &quot;thut&quot;." CreationDate="2020-10-25T23:01:03.493" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29532" PostId="14816" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian brings to mind the [Scottish wikipedia fake](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/ig9jia/ive_discovered_that_almost_every_single_article/) by some teenager who had no deeper knowledge of Scottish than me. Maybe he switched languages after getting exposed?? Still an amazing feat -- like the guy who fixed one of the car wrecks on my mother-in-law's Texas farm only in order to steal it. You would want to give them a legit job putting their commitment and skill to better use." CreationDate="2020-10-26T10:51:42.077" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="29539" PostId="14816" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel To be fair, the site seems to incorporate a decent morphological analyzer, so I'm more inclined to blame this on poor proofreading than poor language knowledge. Someone who didn't know Latin wouldn't be able to implement such a thing." CreationDate="2020-10-26T15:43:48.423" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29544" PostId="14816" Score="0" Text="@Draconis It even (correctly) lists obscure alternative forms like *queis* for *quibus*. So I agree, the site was probably not made by ignoramuses, and maybe it's as simple as a typo. But it sure is an embarrassing mistake." CreationDate="2020-10-26T17:04:50.643" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29530" PostId="14819" Score="1" Text="Hmmm, this is why Latin students jump off of buildings, right?" CreationDate="2020-10-26T03:16:16.010" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="29531" PostId="14819" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden Latin grammar seems nicely regular at first, but as you go on you learn more and more exceptions and more complicated versions of rules. Unfortunately that's just the way of it. (Ancient Greek, on the other hand, has a reputation for front-loading all that difficulty.)" CreationDate="2020-10-26T03:20:20.857" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29548" PostId="14820" Score="2" Text="I think we should examine the relevant entry in the OLD at first. It says &quot;**quis**2 **qua** or **quae**, **quid** *indef. pron. (adj.)* [unaccented form of QVIS1 ...]&quot; and the examples under **3** (in a main sentence, in generalizations) Whoever or whatever you choose, anyone, anything and **4** (as adj.) Any (nom. sg. m. and neut. only). Then we could look it up in Pinkster 2015 (p. 1164), 11.149 The indefinite pronoun *quis*, who says &quot;It is rare in main clauses [...], but very common in conditional and other subordinate clauses [...]. It does not occur in first position in its clause.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-27T16:14:11.507" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29549" PostId="14820" Score="0" Text="also see Bertocchi et al. 2010 (pp. 31-32) https://www.degruyter.com/view/book/9783110215465/10.1515/9783110215465.19.xml etc." CreationDate="2020-10-27T16:14:26.560" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29535" PostId="14821" Score="0" Text="Where are you getting the final sense from, though? It does not seem to be in any of the translations -- I cannot comment on the original Sanskrit." CreationDate="2020-10-26T11:46:11.953" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29537" PostId="14821" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel The first translation in the Wikipedia article has &quot;that Being who has produced this universe&quot;, and the meaning of _savitṛ_ is glossed as “stimulator, rouser, vivifier” from a root meaning &quot;give birth&quot; in the notes thereto." CreationDate="2020-10-26T15:01:12.740" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29540" PostId="14821" Score="0" Text="I mean, why the *ut*?" CreationDate="2020-10-26T15:54:46.047" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29543" PostId="14821" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel duh, my bad for misunderstanding! From the the notes in the Wikipedia article and what extremely little I know about Sanskrit, I believe that _pracodayāt_ is an optative, and I would typically render optatives into Latin with _ut_." CreationDate="2020-10-26T16:36:27.577" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29546" PostId="14821" Score="1" Text="The plain subjunctive generally suffices to express an optative sense, though it can indeed be introduced by *ut*. But if you do that, it should be clearly recognisable as a main clause. The way you wrote it here, it looks to all the world like a subordinate clause with a final sense. Or how would you translate your own sentence if someone else had written it? &quot;We choose ... **so that** it may impel etc.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-27T10:12:55.537" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29547" PostId="14821" Score="0" Text="You're right, I was missing some punctuation there – I've added it." CreationDate="2020-10-27T11:57:46.540" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29565" PostId="14829" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your comment. MUFI has also U+F193 'LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH CURL, but the curl goes download." CreationDate="2020-10-29T07:06:27.370" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="29554" PostId="14830" Score="1" Text="FWIW, _Academica_ in project Gutenberg [reads](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm) _Stagiritem_" CreationDate="2020-10-28T16:08:44.587" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37209" PostId="14833" Score="0" Text="it is a military saying and [here it is](https://i.stack.imgur.com/U9zkv.jpg) on my work mug" CreationDate="2022-02-14T09:25:11.600" UserId="10793" />
  <row Id="29551" PostId="14836" Score="1" Text="What is the role of pres. subj., &quot;sit&quot; in &quot;quid sit&quot;? I thought it was--you want to know what may be (&quot;scire cupis quid sit&quot;) that (&quot;quod&quot;) nobody meets with you willingly?" CreationDate="2020-10-28T13:52:06.030" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29552" PostId="14836" Score="2" Text="@tony Ugh, I overlooked that. My analysis is wrong a it stands." CreationDate="2020-10-28T14:06:46.733" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29555" PostId="14836" Score="1" Text="I've updated the answer." CreationDate="2020-10-28T19:07:41.737" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29576" PostId="14837" Score="0" Text="Grand! Thanks so much, it had been bugging me for so long!" CreationDate="2020-10-29T18:29:50.033" UserId="8520" />
  <row Id="29556" PostId="14838" Score="1" Text="I had to downvote: the declension of Aristotle given isn't correct (see [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Aristoteles#Latin) or L&amp;S for the correct declension), nor is it true that all Greek nouns ending in -ης have the same paradigm. The analogy with Anchises is correct though!" CreationDate="2020-10-28T20:12:45.567" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29557" PostId="14838" Score="0" Text="@brianpck any better now?" CreationDate="2020-10-28T20:17:27.887" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="29558" PostId="14838" Score="1" Text="Definitely enough to remove the downvote! (Though you still have the comment about both names declining the same way, which isn't quite right.) I think the explicit answer given here is that, although we don't have attested genitive and dative forms of this word, we can take them by analogy from other non-contracted masculine first-declension Greek nouns. For this to be a slam-dunk case, I'd just want to review other similar Greek loanwords to see if there are exceptions." CreationDate="2020-10-28T20:27:53.597" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29559" PostId="14838" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Feel free to do the legwork there. I'll upvote you if you do." CreationDate="2020-10-28T20:30:18.850" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="29560" PostId="14838" Score="0" Text="@brianpck interesting, what do you think about the plural forms of Aristoteles in Wiktionary?" CreationDate="2020-10-28T20:50:11.413" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29561" PostId="14838" Score="1" Text="I can't speak for brianpck, but I think if someone were to do it, it'd be Cicero." CreationDate="2020-10-28T21:21:43.843" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="29562" PostId="14838" Score="2" Text="@AlexB Honestly I'm not sure how to judge it...perhaps there are other loanwords of that kind that have attested plurals. I was about to say that such a plural would be useless, but I literally just read 5 minutes ago the following line in Rousseau's preface to his Second Discourse: &quot;...the following problem would not seem to me unworthy of the Aristotles and Plinys of our century....&quot; Unfortunately he wrote in French, not Latin!" CreationDate="2020-10-28T22:03:17.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29566" PostId="14841" Score="3" Text="Looks like a typo; I'm pretty sure that should be *quōs*, to agree, as you say, with *dentēs*, and googling for the text a lot of results actually have that." CreationDate="2020-10-29T10:28:25.343" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29571" PostId="14841" Score="3" Text="In both my copies of Fabulae faciles, the word is quos, referring to dentes; so, as Cairnarvon says, it's just a typo." CreationDate="2020-10-29T16:22:05.590" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30744" PostId="14841" Score="1" Text="@cnread You should make that an answer." CreationDate="2021-02-15T05:10:19.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29567" PostId="14842" Score="4" Text="Nice! By the way another way to solve the ambiguity is to use the passive infinite instead so the agent will be in the ablative. I've seen this construction (which in being translated to other languages is more naturally rendered as the active infinitive) several times one for example with Augustine ([here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13081/the-usage-of-present-passive-infinitive))." CreationDate="2020-10-29T11:23:43.400" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29568" PostId="14842" Score="2" Text="@d_e Hm yes, that is probably the more idiomatic solution, Plautus notwithstanding. I have updated my answer a little." CreationDate="2020-10-29T11:40:56.597" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29572" PostId="14842" Score="1" Text="This also explains why there are so few chart toppers in Latin nowadays." CreationDate="2020-10-29T16:44:10.500" UserId="1887" />
  <row Id="29580" PostId="14842" Score="1" Text="@Strawberry Strange, I was told there is even a Latin Grammy Award." CreationDate="2020-10-29T21:52:09.780" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29593" PostId="14842" Score="0" Text="I think using quod with indicatives/subjunctives would be easy enough for me or for beginners to use because it can solve any sentence construction like &quot; dicit te regem laudare &quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-31T06:16:41.817" UserId="7406" />
  <row Id="29569" PostId="14843" Score="5" Text="Do you think word order ever resolves (or lessens) the ambiguity? e.g. &quot;Eam puto me amare&quot; seems to my ear like it could only mean, &quot;I think she loves me.&quot; But I don't have a Roman ear." CreationDate="2020-10-29T13:41:44.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29570" PostId="14843" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I think word order can lessen the ambiguity but not resolve it. Having two readings doesn't have to mean having two equally strong readings." CreationDate="2020-10-29T14:38:12.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29573" PostId="14843" Score="2" Text="@brianpck Now that I think of it again, it would be great to have another answer focusing on word order as a means to convey the distinction. That word order can do so is not highlighted often enough on this site." CreationDate="2020-10-29T17:34:25.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29574" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="As someone just passing by, I note that in Spanish, we usually translate &quot;I like X&quot; as  &quot;me gusta X&quot;, literally &quot;X pleases me&quot;  -  I wonder if Latin had a similar construction in this case." CreationDate="2020-10-29T17:54:58.567" UserId="7176" />
  <row Id="29575" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="@chasly-supportsMonica You can say *X me delectat*, &quot;X pleases me&quot;. That reverses the roles of the subject and the object, but the ambiguity is still there as both subject and object become accusatives. You'd need something that doesn't use an accusative object at all." CreationDate="2020-10-29T18:15:43.910" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29577" PostId="14843" Score="4" Text="Have you ever seen the participle construction with a verb of thinking in the wild? It looks odd to me." CreationDate="2020-10-29T19:36:44.853" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29578" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="@TKR I haven't seen one in the wild, which is why I mentioned it requiring some licence. I agree it looks unusual, but I don't know how widely the accusative participle construction is attested. Perhaps this calls for a separate question." CreationDate="2020-10-29T20:12:41.023" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29579" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="In regard to the participial construction, which I also think looks odd: one way to disambiguate it – and also make it less odd, I think – would be to express the object by using a genitive (mei). In this case, the amantem is really more an adjective, so that an esse is understood: puto eam mei amantem (esse)." CreationDate="2020-10-29T20:36:08.577" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29581" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Regarding word order, while I don't know about your specific example, note [Cicero's remark](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/divinatione2.shtml#116) that *[Pyrrhus potuit] intellegere, &quot;vincere te Romanos&quot; nihilo magis in se quam in Romanos valere*." CreationDate="2020-10-30T05:28:39.077" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29582" PostId="14843" Score="4" Text="@brianpck I think it's very context-dependent. I could imagine &quot;Eam puto me amare&quot;, with stress on the first word, as an answer to &quot;Who do you think you love?&quot;" CreationDate="2020-10-30T05:41:30.873" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29584" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, I don't understand your point or how it applies to my earlier comment. Word order wouldn't have any particular effect on the example I gave." CreationDate="2020-10-30T06:16:30.707" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29585" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="@cnread Perhaps Sebastian meant to refer to the first comment by brianpck?" CreationDate="2020-10-30T09:16:50.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29586" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="Yes indeed, I meant to address @brianpck" CreationDate="2020-10-30T13:39:28.940" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29587" PostId="14843" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I edited your earlier comment. I'm not sure if it sends a notification, but your latest comment certainly does." CreationDate="2020-10-30T13:42:19.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29588" PostId="14845" Score="1" Text="Context matters. In what regards is the person in question &quot;master of his own fate?&quot; For example, he could be able to decide where he goes, what he does, or whether he lives at all, or other combinations of the three. Knowing who this phrase applies to will help make sure we're all translating properly." CreationDate="2020-10-30T16:00:08.193" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29589" PostId="14845" Score="2" Text="@Nickimite The original context of those words is [this poem](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus) (and the context of the poem is that the author suffered from severe medical problems throughout his life), though of course I do not know in which context the Latin translation is intended to be applied." CreationDate="2020-10-30T16:36:18.710" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29590" PostId="14847" Score="0" Text="Well, that's how the education system teaches us Latin unfortunately. Thank you so much! This was very helpful." CreationDate="2020-10-30T23:34:06.473" UserId="6175" />
  <row Id="29591" PostId="14847" Score="1" Text="What's the problem with a grammatical question like &quot;what case is this word and why?” What IS a problem is to think that a grammatical analysis boils down to assigning labels to things. Unfortunately, many people confound grammar with (grammatical) taxonomy. Of course, to try to learn any language just by analyzing the grammar of written texts and then translating them to the native language is very odd. But this should not lead one to ridiculize grammar, as many proponents/fans of inductive-contextual methods do (which, in my opinion, only shows their ignorance of what grammar really is)." CreationDate="2020-10-31T03:24:45.113" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29594" PostId="14847" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I may be reading to much into it, the question is fine in itself and certainly has a place in the best and most modern of Latin classes. Still, when it is called a &quot;comprehension question,&quot; I wonder what is going on." CreationDate="2020-10-31T08:14:09.487" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29597" PostId="14847" Score="0" Text="I suspect that is just a general term for all questions about a text, as opposed to translation itself." CreationDate="2020-10-31T15:38:29.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35391" PostId="14847" Score="0" Text="That note about _Scipio_ helped! I thought he was the subject of _circumdatos_; only now do I see that _fames_ is the subject of the _cum_ clause. I guess Scipio is the subject of _occideret._" CreationDate="2021-10-07T13:58:00.020" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="29596" PostId="14849" Score="1" Text="***Causa*** (final **a** long) with Genitive is usually: 'for the sake of...our pleasure etc.' giving the intent and motive." CreationDate="2020-10-31T13:19:12.450" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="29599" PostId="14849" Score="1" Text="Potiti is deponent participle, modifying the 'we' that is the subject of prosimus: 'having gained possession of' or 'having gained control over'; here, it takes an ablative object, istis, though it isn't really clear what this refers to. Also, the verb prosum means 'to benefit' or 'to be of use to', not 'to be benefitted by'; it takes a dative object, aliis." CreationDate="2020-11-01T00:59:20.697" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29607" PostId="14850" Score="0" Text="Do Finnish predicative adjectives have a plural form?" CreationDate="2020-11-01T18:52:44.683" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29608" PostId="14850" Score="0" Text="@fdb They do. When addressing several people, all the adjectives and participles are plural, no matter what the grammatical role is. In polite address of one person they are all singular. Singular looks different from plural almost always." CreationDate="2020-11-01T19:34:17.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29598" PostId="14851" Score="2" Text="In my experience it does. But it could be an Ecclesiastical feature. Each word is somewhat associated with the closest: eam is the DC of puto and me goes with amo" CreationDate="2020-10-31T18:40:46.693" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29604" PostId="14852" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Is there a verb (other than to be) implied, like my hands go wherever your will wants them to go?" CreationDate="2020-11-01T14:53:41.963" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29605" PostId="14852" Score="1" Text="@Rafael The question was just edited." CreationDate="2020-11-01T16:23:44.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29600" PostId="14853" Score="4" Text="I like this answer, and I would love a some more detail on your phrasing and word choice!" CreationDate="2020-11-01T09:21:57.957" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29620" PostId="14860" Score="1" Text="I believe the adjective *Italus* is very uncommon in prose. The ordinary adjective is *Italicus*. But, as you say, there is no real reason why Ørberg should have used *Italiae* rather than *Italicis*." CreationDate="2020-11-03T02:05:45.290" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="29621" PostId="14860" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the answer! I was expecting that each example would use adjectives, and was scratching my head as to why the first example didn't follow the same pattern as the others. I suppose this is Ørberg slyly throwing in other structures. I understood the meaning of each in general, but not the distinction of each type." CreationDate="2020-11-03T02:33:26.610" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29623" PostId="14861" Score="0" Text="Is it &quot;illuc&quot; = to there, &quot;hinc&quot; = &quot;from here&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-11-03T13:35:02.047" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29624" PostId="14861" Score="1" Text="@tony. OK. Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-11-03T13:43:22.463" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29631" PostId="14861" Score="1" Text="Well let's not give up all hope just yet. There's still a few States left to declare." CreationDate="2020-11-04T10:40:10.630" UserId="1887" />
  <row Id="29632" PostId="14861" Score="0" Text="@Expediti Bipes: Alternatively, &quot;non hinc proficiscereris.&quot; = &quot;You shouldn't start from here.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-11-04T11:59:26.567" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29629" PostId="14862" Score="0" Text="A classic Ennius :)" CreationDate="2020-11-03T22:04:40.180" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29633" PostId="14862" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Literally; &quot;praeterpropter vitam vivitur&quot; = &quot;more-or-less life (subject) is lived (passive verb)&quot;; why is &quot;life&quot; given in the accusative, &quot;vitam&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-11-04T12:23:21.593" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29634" PostId="14862" Score="0" Text="@tony, I suppose it would be accusative showing extent of time. Still, in the OLD entry for praeterpropter, this passage is cited, and '(s.v.l.)' – short for  '(si vera lectio)' – is printed after the word vitam; so the editors at Oxford have doubts about the form too." CreationDate="2020-11-04T17:35:45.800" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29636" PostId="14869" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I appreciate the edit but, as you can see in the crazy link I provide, it is spelled &quot;inasnum,&quot; not &quot;insanum&quot; for whatever reason... :(" CreationDate="2020-11-05T04:20:01.837" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="29637" PostId="14869" Score="5" Text="Sorry for the sloppy edit. I can say pretty confidently that this is a typo for the very common word [*insanus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinsanus). Why not use a more reputable site for a Latin dictionary?" CreationDate="2020-11-05T04:27:48.167" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29638" PostId="14869" Score="0" Text="@brianpck No worries. :) What would you say is the most dependable dictionary out there?" CreationDate="2020-11-05T04:35:57.553" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="29639" PostId="14869" Score="2" Text="I edited the spelling again, @mig81. I don't know why that site hasn't corrected their own spelling, but it's better to have it spelled correctly here for people searching for similar questions. Also, a portion of us here will likely be driven _insanus_ every time we see it spelled wrong. :)  My edit was also somewhat sloppy, so if you wanted you could remove the bits related to the misspelled word." CreationDate="2020-11-05T14:03:33.983" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29640" PostId="14869" Score="3" Text="For recommended dictionaries see the post regarding [what are the best online latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why)." CreationDate="2020-11-05T14:08:13.683" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29647" PostId="14869" Score="0" Text="@Adam Thank you! :)" CreationDate="2020-11-05T23:37:36.030" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="29648" PostId="14869" Score="0" Text="@brianpck It's all good. So, two questions remain: What is the difference between _demens_ and _insanus_ and is there a noun for _insane person_?" CreationDate="2020-11-05T23:37:42.523" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="29649" PostId="14869" Score="0" Text="@vectory Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Entschuldigung! ;) I am looking for a word in Latin similar to the Russian _псих_ (n.), if it helps. (Having said this, it still seems to translate to _insanis_, which is still an adjective, not a noun...)" CreationDate="2020-11-06T00:54:13.473" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="29642" PostId="14870" Score="1" Text="Perhaps there's a better answer, but honestly, I'd just use one of the many Latin words for a container for physical objects (capsa, capsella, locellus, loculus, loculamentum, receptaculum, thesaurus, etc.), with the immaterial thing that is held added in the genitive. At most, I'd add a form of quidam in agreement with the container word, to signal a figurative usage, as I see writers such as Pliny the Younger do – e.g., quidam thesaurus virtutis." CreationDate="2020-11-05T20:51:30.117" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29646" PostId="14870" Score="0" Text="That makes sense. Something like _capsellae memoriae imperfectae_, or _quaedam capsellae memoriae imperfectae_? For context this is a descriptive statement being directed at someone else (in this case the someone is plural)." CreationDate="2020-11-05T21:32:06.217" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29651" PostId="14872" Score="0" Text="I don't know any ancient greek, but this is a great example of the usage of the word in a similar context. Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-11-06T15:01:00.790" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29654" PostId="14875" Score="0" Text="You point out that _imperare_ is an _intransitive_ verb but the example you give _nobis imperat ut veniamus_ can be claimed to involve a _transitive_ use of this verb (i.e., the direct object is the subordinate clause introduced by _ut_ : e.g., cf. the transitive use of _imperare_ selecting an _ut_ clause as its internal argument in http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/impero ). So note that it can be a bit confusing to say that your example _nobis ab eo imperatur ut veniamus_ is an impersonal passive (cf. _**Hoc** nobis ab eo imperatur_)." CreationDate="2020-11-07T03:43:51.347" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29791" PostId="14875" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: In &quot; nobis imperat ut veniamus&quot; is the direct object &quot;the order&quot;? The literal translation of &quot;impero&quot; = &quot;I-give-an-order-to&quot; + dative. Analysis: &quot;He (subject) gives (verb) an order (direct object) to us ([dative] indirect-object). The subordinate clause, &quot;ut veniamus&quot;, is, then, a secondary indirect object? Thus in &quot;nobis ab eo imperatur ut veniamus&quot; = &quot;It (subject) is ordered (the order is given) by him (direct object) to us that we come.&quot; In &quot;hoc nobis ab eo imperatur.&quot; = &quot;This is ordered (this order is given) by him to us.&quot;, where &quot;this (order)&quot; becomes the subject." CreationDate="2020-11-20T13:17:21.467" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29792" PostId="14875" Score="0" Text="@tony, Although the verb imperare has a dative object to describe the person that the order is issued to, it can also take an explicit accusative direct object, contrary to what I say in my answer. For example, when a general orders a local town to supply him with troops, it can be phrased as 'He (nom. subect) ordered (imperavit) troops (acc. direct object) from them (dat. indirect object).' In a sentence like nobis imperat ut veniamus, the ut veniamus clause is filling the role of direct object. At some point, I need to update my answer to correct the inaccuracy that imperare is intransitive." CreationDate="2020-11-20T17:34:27.827" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29657" PostId="14876" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! Cf. Joonas's related one: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1144/when-can-the-gerund-take-an-object In light of cnread’s answer, I was wondering **why** there is a contrast between your second exemple (see cnread’s examples below) and the fact that there seem to be no attested examples of the construction &quot;IN + gerund + **accusative** object&quot; in Classical Latin (cf. my answer to Joonas’s post). Perhaps examples like these involve a case of a neutralization of the gerund/gerundive distinction. The topic of when gerunds can take objects is very complex." CreationDate="2020-11-07T13:54:44.357" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29656" PostId="14877" Score="2" Text="In relation to your exemples from Cicero, involving “in + gerund + **sentential** object”, I was wondering why they are possible but the construction “in +gerund + **accusative** object” is not attested in Early &amp; Classical Latin (according to Vester (1991). https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.21.21ves). Should one then posit that what we have here is a gerundival construction where the “nominal” subordinate clause can be replaced by an ablative pronoun? Or is it a case of a neutralization of the gerund/gerundive distinction?" CreationDate="2020-11-07T13:23:58.467" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29659" PostId="14877" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino. That's a very good question. Now that you've asked it, I find that I do tend to think of them as equivalent to in eō iudicandō and in eō promerendō (i.e., gerundival), but I'm not sure." CreationDate="2020-11-07T19:12:50.687" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29660" PostId="14877" Score="1" Text="Thank you for this excellent answer. These are exactly the sort of example I was looking for. Also, it's fascinating to see the supine used that way, although in hindsight, in *that* case if I had looked, I would easily have found examples at least for AcI constructions (e.g. Google search for &quot;nefas est dictu&quot;). The gerund examples I find much harder to Google for." CreationDate="2020-11-08T10:18:42.370" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29661" PostId="14877" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino You may have pinpointed the reason for my uncertainty. The intuitive answer to my question (&quot;is this allowed?&quot;) would be: &quot;Sure, why not?&quot; It was the restrictions on the use of gerunds that gave me pause." CreationDate="2020-11-08T10:21:14.533" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34026" PostId="14877" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2020.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/531/79)" CreationDate="2021-07-08T10:52:00.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29670" PostId="14879" Score="1" Text="The English word “there” is ambiguous, it can mean *illic* or *illuc*. In this expression, I have always interpreted it to mean *illic*. The speaker points to a miscreant being led to the gallows; not to the gallows itself." CreationDate="2020-11-08T23:39:55.217" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29672" PostId="14879" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I edited the details into your question. You can always edit your own posts to polish them." CreationDate="2020-11-09T08:58:51.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29662" PostId="14880" Score="3" Text="&quot;I suspect it should not be suas but earum&quot; -- that is also my understanding, at least so it should be according to good classical grammar. See [Allen &amp; Greenough](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/possessive-pronouns-paradigm)." CreationDate="2020-11-08T16:17:54.007" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29664" PostId="14880" Score="1" Text="This is fantastic. Thanks for your help, guys! I had a feeling that suum wasn't what I wanted when I wanted to refer to the object." CreationDate="2020-11-08T17:19:18.097" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29668" PostId="14880" Score="0" Text="Quick followup question: does *Vos vasa non integra memoriarum* make sense using _integer_?" CreationDate="2020-11-08T21:16:22.853" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29669" PostId="14880" Score="1" Text="@Adam, Yes I think it makes sense. you are imperfect vessels of memories." CreationDate="2020-11-08T22:04:45.103" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29665" PostId="14881" Score="1" Text="Indeed, the present subjunctive &quot;I might go&quot; was intended.  I had proposed the preposition 'sine' = without.  But 'sinon' as an adverb would be fine, although I have only come across it as two separate words." CreationDate="2020-11-08T20:00:56.693" UserId="8551" />
  <row Id="29667" PostId="14881" Score="1" Text="I would have thought that the verb should be imperfect subjunctive, because the statement is basically a contrafactual condition, isn't it? I it weren't for the grace of God, I would be going there too. Then again, I freely admit that I haven't a clue how contrafactual conditions are done in Ecclesiastical Latin." CreationDate="2020-11-08T20:24:38.917" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34500" PostId="14881" Score="2" Text="I'm pretty sure *sine* is correct here. I've never heard of *sinon* used in this way, and there is only one unique passage from an obscure Renaissance work that uses the phrase *sinon Dei gratia*. &quot;Sine Dei gratia&quot; (=without the grace of God) is a pretty straightforward translation of the English idiom &quot;but for the grace of God,&quot; and it returns tons of results." CreationDate="2021-08-12T12:51:24.627" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29671" PostId="14883" Score="0" Text="Interesting. By the way, As far as I know Bacchus was associated  with the stuff/stick thyrsus, hence the proverb: &quot;Multi thyrsigeri, pauci Bacchi&quot;" CreationDate="2020-11-09T06:48:02.657" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29681" PostId="14883" Score="1" Text="Please [don't cross-post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/64068) the same question to multiple Stack Exchange sites. If you feel you absolute must do that, at least have the basic decency to [link](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/49799/did-isidore-of-seville-ever-claim-roman-god-of-wine-bacchus-got-his-name-from) the questions [together](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/16261/did-isidore-of-seville-ever-claim-roman-god-of-wine-bacchus-got-his-name-from) so that answers don't get needlessly duplicated between sites." CreationDate="2020-11-09T17:30:33.550" UserId="57" />
  <row Id="29675" PostId="14884" Score="0" Text="Why the downvotes, actually?" CreationDate="2020-11-09T11:12:57.160" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="29676" PostId="14884" Score="2" Text="Do you mean downvotes on this question? I see none on this question or the other one about Bacchus, only on the one about Wyoming. It could be a case of a retracted upvote, but retraction is only possible within a short time window or after a post is edited. Users with 750 reputation can see vote counts." CreationDate="2020-11-09T14:47:22.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29674" PostId="14885" Score="3" Text="and it is of course wrong, if *-culus* is a common derivational suffix leaving only *ba-* as a stem for everyone's best guesses, unless it were either inherently tied to the origin of the suffix, which has various origins (cf. wiki/-culum 1. from *-cus* + *-lus*, *-ulus* 2. from \*-tlom, \*-trom, cp. *saeculum*, *Saturn*), whereas wiktionary cites a non-IE form \*bak- with En. *peg*, Ger. *Pegel*, Gk. *baktrion* (bacteria, because of the shape) but compare further *Pokal* &quot;cup&quot;, *beaker*, uncertain, yet certainly related to wine, see Bell-Beaker cult. or the cultic functions cup-bearer." CreationDate="2020-11-09T11:10:44.697" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="29677" PostId="14885" Score="0" Text="a side note: as the TLL entry mentions (s.v. baculum), &quot;generis masc. certa exempla [...] non ante saec. III&quot;, so that there's no confusion about this noun in *Classical* Latin http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#16225" CreationDate="2020-11-09T15:38:09.090" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29678" PostId="14886" Score="0" Text="On that forum thread, somebody suggested the solution &quot;Heroes oblivioni numquam dantur.&quot;. Do you think it's correct?" CreationDate="2020-11-09T16:13:48.630" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="29680" PostId="14886" Score="3" Text="The phenomenon that some verbs lack certain forms that most other verbs have is not unique to Latin either. For example in English, the verb &quot;must&quot; lacks, as far as I know, not just a passive form, but also all past forms, future forms, infinitive, imperative, gerund..." CreationDate="2020-11-09T16:45:20.180" UserId="8555" />
  <row Id="29682" PostId="14886" Score="0" Text="Yeah, that could work @FlatAssembler. It means something like &quot;Heroes are never given to forgottenness.&quot; It would probably be a good question on its own." CreationDate="2020-11-09T17:35:21.047" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29685" PostId="14886" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler It's OK, but in the present tense. I'd prefer the future tense (&quot;dabunt&quot;). And if you want to be really fancy, you can say: Memoriam heroum numquam delebit oblivio!" CreationDate="2020-11-09T18:07:36.340" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43066" PostId="14886" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel What do you mean you'd use &quot;dabunt&quot;? Do you mean &quot;dabuntur&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-05-03T21:13:34.293" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="29679" PostId="14887" Score="0" Text="On that forum thread, somebody suggested the solution &quot;Heroes oblivioni numquam dantur.&quot;. Do you think it's correct?" CreationDate="2020-11-09T16:13:53.103" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="29686" PostId="14887" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler That means literally &quot;heroes are never given to oblivion&quot;, and is indeed a good translation. You might want to change the present tense *dantur* to the future tense *dabuntur*, but either is valid." CreationDate="2020-11-09T18:29:48.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29687" PostId="14889" Score="0" Text="Is this a motto for something? The sense might be different in Latin depending on its context and usage." CreationDate="2020-11-09T23:16:26.197" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29688" PostId="14889" Score="0" Text="The usage will be in a memorial context. someone is a treasure and in the mind of the people that are left behind, they will last forever." CreationDate="2020-11-09T23:24:45.270" UserId="8558" />
  <row Id="29690" PostId="14890" Score="3" Text="While I suppose it isn't wrong to say *in perpetua*, the customary expression is *in perpetuum*. Alternatively one could also say *in aeternum*." CreationDate="2020-11-10T08:12:46.603" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29689" PostId="14891" Score="0" Text="From the comments on that other question, I take it the correct form is indeed φιλημμι with two μ's, but it seemed worth putting that part into the question itself in case I'm wrong about that (because I've definitely seen it cited with a single μ)." CreationDate="2020-11-10T01:53:53.387" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29691" PostId="14892" Score="0" Text="In the future, please refrain from using the tag [tag:translation], as [we are getting rid of it](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79). Use something more descriptive, like [tag:english-to-latin-translation] or [tag:translation-check] or [tag:translation-explanation] instead." CreationDate="2020-11-10T13:35:40.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29692" PostId="14893" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: Thank you. This sentence has been driving me mad. Is it the case that N&amp; H have been a touch clumsy--incredible? Is their use of &quot;ut&quot; = &quot;by&quot; an excellent (highly convenient) piece of sleight-of-hand? Given the myriad of meanings attributed to &quot;ut&quot; (Lewis &amp; Short gave 1134 hits) it would be so easy to look past it, assuming it to be correct." CreationDate="2020-11-10T14:23:38.977" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29693" PostId="14893" Score="0" Text="@tony It could of course be something more exotic, but I can't parse their Latin sentence in a way that resembles the English. *Ut* is one of the frustratingly versatile words in Latin. We should wait and see what others think before making a final decision on this. We two may have overlooked something..." CreationDate="2020-11-10T14:41:18.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29696" PostId="14893" Score="1" Text="@tony Indeed, I had overlooked something. I stand by my suggested translation (minus the *ea lege*), given the English original, but the one in the book does make sense after all." CreationDate="2020-11-10T18:20:24.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29708" PostId="14893" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Yes, I think that &quot;ea lege&quot; was a trap, inviting &quot;from the law&quot; when Blosius hadn't broken any laws. I knew that &quot;ut&quot; was linked to something (Seb's answer); I just picked the wrong link (ita). Yourself used &quot;in such a way&quot; = &quot;ut...ita&quot; (interesting); Seb said &quot;...that way&quot; at the end of his translation. I sweated blood on this sentence because I did not want to submit the Q! A basic (?) use of &quot;ut&quot;--I'll look silly; in the end there was no alternative." CreationDate="2020-11-11T14:05:55.323" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29710" PostId="14893" Score="1" Text="@tony When something is trivial in retrospect, it often indicates that learning has taken place. It might feel embarrassing, but it's a good sign!" CreationDate="2020-11-11T20:39:26.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29694" PostId="14894" Score="2" Text="That's indeed exotic. The key revelation to me was that you could read *lex* that way. How would you parse the whole sentence with this reading? A rough literal translation to English would clarify how this works in the context." CreationDate="2020-11-10T17:01:00.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29695" PostId="14894" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the edit! It makes more sense now. In fact, you have a good chance of getting a bounty for teaching me something interesting..." CreationDate="2020-11-10T18:18:58.143" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29698" PostId="14894" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta et me ipsum. In a prose composition exercise, I'd have expected *ea condicione*." CreationDate="2020-11-10T20:04:38.263" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29699" PostId="14894" Score="1" Text="I'd have expected nothing at all; there's no explicit &quot;condition&quot; in the English original. I'd have gone with a simple final *ut*." CreationDate="2020-11-10T20:28:36.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29701" PostId="14894" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Right, not only that, the idea of a condition does also not square with the verb *iubere*. Your reversed version would make more sense." CreationDate="2020-11-11T00:51:36.147" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29706" PostId="14894" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. An excellent answer. I had translated &quot;ea lege&quot; = &quot;from this condition&quot; as in &quot;from this state-of-affairs&quot; because Blosius had not broken any laws. Linking &quot;ea lege&quot; with &quot;ut&quot; = &quot;under the condition that&quot; escaped me. A closer parallel to the English would be: &quot;...I would not so ensure my wellbeing.&quot;." CreationDate="2020-11-11T09:54:31.983" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29697" PostId="14895" Score="1" Text="I think that a pluperfect ending can be reduplicated to make a plupluperfect. I don't know if that counts as 'deliberately bad grammar' though." CreationDate="2020-11-10T19:50:44.060" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29707" PostId="14895" Score="1" Text="There's a word for deliberate faults of scansion (or in popular verse of rhythm) to add significance. (The only example I can quote is 13th C.)  I'll try and find it, if it would be useful." CreationDate="2020-11-11T12:52:10.137" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="29715" PostId="14898" Score="0" Text="Can you clarify whether you're looking for a literal translation or something more colloquial or idiomatic?" CreationDate="2020-11-12T01:25:13.940" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="29718" PostId="14898" Score="0" Text="@RobbieGoodwin, I'm mainly after something more colloquial that actually was in use." CreationDate="2020-11-12T07:51:42.293" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29737" PostId="14898" Score="0" Text="One should also be aware of the implication. In UK English &quot;With all due respect&quot; is generally a polite or ironic preface to something non-respectful. e.g. &quot;With all due respect, that is a very bad idea.&quot; https://hollyschroth.com/5-quick-tips-to-have-more-effective-interactions/" CreationDate="2020-11-14T10:11:31.243" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="29736" PostId="14899" Score="0" Text="I sort of get the sense that while this is technically correct, it wouldn't be the normal way to say it, because a Google search doesn't come up with much. What would be the normal way to say this?" CreationDate="2020-11-13T19:33:37.983" UserId="8564" />
  <row Id="29738" PostId="14899" Score="0" Text="Another verb with the meaning of 'escape' is 'fugere' (fugio). It seems to be common, and less ambiguous in terms of alternative translations." CreationDate="2020-11-14T18:47:58.520" UserId="6185" />
  <row Id="29719" PostId="14901" Score="0" Text="That's indeed the meaning of &quot;“with all due respect” I was thinking. Thanks for great answer." CreationDate="2020-11-12T07:56:58.633" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29711" PostId="14902" Score="0" Text="The problem I see with this is that it basically means &quot;always brought up, mentioned,&quot; does it not?" CreationDate="2020-11-11T20:55:02.113" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29717" PostId="14902" Score="0" Text="My first reading of your suggestion was a future imperative: &quot;always remember&quot;. That is not a particularly harmful ambiguity, and can even be considered beneficial." CreationDate="2020-11-12T07:45:55.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29721" PostId="14902" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your input - is there a general consensus on what might be appropriate/correct to engrave?" CreationDate="2020-11-12T12:18:38.043" UserId="8567" />
  <row Id="29724" PostId="14906" Score="0" Text="@Expediti Bipes: Thank you. Is this where the Russians got it from?" CreationDate="2020-11-12T14:10:53.103" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29725" PostId="14906" Score="0" Text="@tony. I don't know, but it seems very likely to me." CreationDate="2020-11-12T14:41:58.303" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29726" PostId="14906" Score="2" Text="@tony Would seem like a mighty big coincidence if not!" CreationDate="2020-11-12T17:07:43.007" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29729" PostId="14906" Score="1" Text="@tony See the discussion on Russian.SE: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/19886/7386" CreationDate="2020-11-12T19:22:15.383" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="29731" PostId="14906" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Is there a German equivalent of this expression, I'd be surprised if there isn't?" CreationDate="2020-11-13T09:44:11.593" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29732" PostId="14906" Score="0" Text="@tum_: Thanks. I studied Russian at school; sadly I've forgotten too much of it." CreationDate="2020-11-13T12:24:42.673" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29733" PostId="14906" Score="0" Text="@Expedito Bipes: In the Q. recommended by tum_, contributor, yellow sky, the quote is: &quot;duos insequens lepores, neutrum capit&quot;, attributed to Erasmus. As always, it can be difficult to prove who original progenitors were." CreationDate="2020-11-13T12:29:31.760" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29734" PostId="14906" Score="1" Text="@tony. Erasmus compiles a book of proverbs or sayings, the &quot;Adagiorum&quot;, and, in it, he provided a Latin translation of a Greek proverb. However he did so at a date long after Publius Syrus included this saying in Sententiae. The saying probably did, in fact, orignate with the Greeks." CreationDate="2020-11-13T12:48:27.180" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29735" PostId="14906" Score="1" Text="@tony I was completely unaware of it, but Google shows plenty of hits for &quot;Wer zwei Hasen jagt, fängt keinen&quot;, which is as straightforward a translation as anyone could wish for; attributed, curiously, to all kinds of origins (Japan, Hungary, Confucius, &quot;an old proverb&quot;). It may be just as well not to catch the rabbit, because: Der eine schießt den Hasen, der andere frißt den Braten (as Diocletian [reportedly complained](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sha/carus.shtml): *ego semper apros occido, sed alter utitur pulpamento*)." CreationDate="2020-11-13T17:48:05.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29722" PostId="14908" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I saw four English translations and all of them ignored the translation of 'id'. So, I thought that it is the subject." CreationDate="2020-11-12T13:30:26.643" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="29727" PostId="14908" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad You're welcome! Indeed, the *id* can be ignored as it is not a very crucial word. You could also replace it with *sic* (&quot;so&quot; rather than &quot;it&quot;) or drop it altogether in Latin. The verb is in the form of an ablative participle, so the (semantic) subject is also ablative. Whenever you see an ablative of the present participle, it is good to first suspect an absolute ablative and look for an ablative that could function as the subject." CreationDate="2020-11-12T17:35:28.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29723" PostId="14909" Score="2" Text="Good answer! Euler is perhaps the best authority on modern mathematical Latin. English seems to have four spelling variants: parameterization, parametrization, parameterisation, parametrisation. Anyone familiar with the concept will conflate these variants and also easily understand the Latin verb *paramet(e)rizare* and the derived *-atio*, so they serve the communicative purpose well even if they are not attested." CreationDate="2020-11-12T13:43:04.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30172" PostId="14910" Score="1" Text="@TKR I just added some info from Hock 1971" CreationDate="2020-12-14T21:40:23.603" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34029" PostId="14910" Score="1" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2020.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/531/79)" CreationDate="2021-07-08T10:53:28.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29739" PostId="14916" Score="0" Text="&quot;Memento mori&quot; means &quot;Remember to die!&quot;, it is also rendered in other ways described in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12603/1982. You need the noun, &quot;death&quot; = &quot;mors&quot;; giving &quot;Memento mortem...&quot;." CreationDate="2020-11-15T11:19:04.653" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29740" PostId="14916" Score="1" Text="@tony Shouldn't that be &quot;memento mortis&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-11-15T19:16:48.157" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29749" PostId="14916" Score="0" Text="@gmvh: Defective verb &quot;memini&quot;  can take the genitive or accusative, therefore you are equally correct." CreationDate="2020-11-16T10:13:35.853" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29760" PostId="14916" Score="0" Text="@tony: doesn't that alter the meaning? I seem to recall that the accusative implies that it is something you simply have in your memory, whereas actively remembering is denoted by the genitive." CreationDate="2020-11-16T19:38:42.457" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="29771" PostId="14916" Score="0" Text="@gmvh: Death and its inevitability will be in everyone's memory/ mind. The expression seeks to stir it up a little. I was unaware of this difference." CreationDate="2020-11-17T09:33:53.267" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47015" PostId="14916" Score="0" Text="Did you get the tattoo? I'm getting one similar" CreationDate="2023-12-27T02:46:10.820" UserId="14569" />
  <row Id="29744" PostId="14921" Score="1" Text="There are a lot of words that do what you want. I recommend picking some synonyms in English (rule, govern, direct, control) and plugging them into a dictionary. My favorite one is http://archives.nd.edu/words.html but please feel free to check out this list of dictionaries https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why. Doing this will let you choose the nuances that suit you best." CreationDate="2020-11-15T23:57:54.617" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29745" PostId="14921" Score="0" Text="That's a really great idea, I saw adpertineo meaning belong to or appertain to, so would I be able to use that in a more specific way? How would I word &quot;I belong to myself&quot; @Nickimite" CreationDate="2020-11-16T00:22:34.230" UserId="8584" />
  <row Id="29741" PostId="14922" Score="1" Text="Are you sure the first word is spelled correctly? Sentum is a form of the adjective that means 'rugged' or 'uneven,' which doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps it should be sensum instead? Also, where did you find this quotation? What context was it given in? And where have you already looked to try to find an answer?" CreationDate="2020-11-15T23:17:49.240" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29742" PostId="14922" Score="1" Text="Hi Faro, and welcome to the site; I agree, the first word is probably meant to be _sensum_, not _sentum_. But we can't give a very good answer without more context. The meaning of the phrase itself is fairly straightforward, but I've never heard it used in law before, so knowing where you saw it would help." CreationDate="2020-11-15T23:23:22.070" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29743" PostId="14922" Score="1" Text="Good evening everyone!, &#xA;sorry, I misspelled, it should be 'Sensum', and I tried to look all over the internet for this and didn't have success;   I do not have specific context because it was just on a list with Latin expressions what I have as a task to learn and explain it, it's from subject Roman Law in uni, ''Sensum, non verba spectamus (ad C. 6.28.3, D. 34.4.3.9)''" CreationDate="2020-11-15T23:39:34.607" UserId="8585" />
  <row Id="29750" PostId="14924" Score="0" Text="The requirement is &quot;remember death&quot;--blunt &amp; chilling. The use of &quot;memento mori&quot; is long-winded: &quot;remember-that-you-are-mortal&quot; and has a lesser impact. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2020-11-16T10:21:35.687" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29751" PostId="14924" Score="3" Text="@tony It works best with two parallel structures, so I'd say it should be either *mori&amp;vivere* or *mors&amp;vita*. Perhaps the verbs are somewhat more active. The phrase *memento mori* doesn't have a perfect English counterpart; both &quot;remember death&quot; and &quot;remember that you are mortal&quot; work. It's indeed blunt in Latin." CreationDate="2020-11-16T11:50:58.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29764" PostId="14924" Score="4" Text="@tony It's only the English translation that's long-winded; *memento mori* is slightly shorter than *memento mortis*, for whatever that's worth." CreationDate="2020-11-16T22:08:19.220" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47079" PostId="14924" Score="0" Text="The carpe diem poem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem has it all, in a personal form. The memento mori comes as a brutal Roman ritual during the triumphal processions and has no connection to the Epicurean motto." CreationDate="2024-01-04T15:23:12.563" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="29747" PostId="14925" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! &lt;3" CreationDate="2020-11-16T03:21:36.380" UserId="8584" />
  <row Id="29765" PostId="14925" Score="0" Text="Is there a reason to prefer this most simple rendering? Or should we try to use more powerful language, like rego, gero, conduco, et cetera?" CreationDate="2020-11-16T23:08:25.863" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29768" PostId="14925" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite That's up to the OP of course, but I'd say it's closer in meaning to the requested phrase than would be something like *Me rego* &quot;I rule myself&quot;." CreationDate="2020-11-17T03:16:49.610" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29835" PostId="14925" Score="0" Text="I appreciate you guys taking the time to help me out this means so much to me! The original saying is meant to have ownership of the good and bad outcomes of my actions, overall I am responsible for my happiness and consequences. The &quot;I rule myself&quot; seems to be similar to what I'm trying to get at but I'm not sure if it's exactly what I'd like. @Nickimite" CreationDate="2020-11-24T06:58:55.967" UserId="8584" />
  <row Id="29748" PostId="14926" Score="3" Text="C. stands for Codex Iustinianus here." CreationDate="2020-11-16T08:49:13.893" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29761" PostId="14927" Score="3" Text="I'm intrigued as to what you do and don't consider 'official', if this site counts as the latter!" CreationDate="2020-11-16T20:45:01.837" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="29762" PostId="14927" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9 As far as hearing it from just some person online goes, I think our site has the best just some persons. Now that's essentially official." CreationDate="2020-11-16T20:54:01.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29763" PostId="14927" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta To be clear, I consider this site very reliable and upvoted your answer! I just found it a funny turn of phrase from the OP." CreationDate="2020-11-16T21:06:22.273" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="29773" PostId="14927" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9 That's how I took it. I just wanted to say in an unnecessarily convoluted manner that this site is among the most reliable ones about Latin." CreationDate="2020-11-17T14:16:22.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35946" PostId="14928" Score="0" Text="do you have a source for the claim that æ was only used for the diphthong?" CreationDate="2021-11-23T10:29:51.993" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="35954" PostId="14928" Score="0" Text="@Tristan Unfortunately nothing but my experience. Judging by the votes, many users agree, but I know full well that that is not the most compelling proof. Probably the best course of action is to ask a separate question for a reputable source discussing this very point." CreationDate="2021-11-23T20:04:55.067" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29759" PostId="14929" Score="2" Text="Just to clarify: your example focuses on the difference between a reflexive possessive adjective (*suus*) and a non-reflexive personal pronoun (*eius*). My linked question was asking about situations where the reflexive vs. non-reflexive distinction didn't come into play." CreationDate="2020-11-16T17:18:34.400" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29754" PostId="14931" Score="0" Text="So to use my original two quotes, the first is _mother waits for her husband_ (_her_ being a possessive adjective since she is the subject), and the second is _the girl cries: in the girl's eyes are tears_ (genitive pronoun). I'm being very literal for my own sake so I can clearly see the distinction." CreationDate="2020-11-16T14:28:06.927" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29755" PostId="14931" Score="1" Text="@Adam Exactly! If you want extra emphasis for the first one, you can use &quot;her own husband&quot;." CreationDate="2020-11-16T14:29:48.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29758" PostId="14931" Score="1" Text="Great! Future me thanks you when I come back to refer to this post again at some point." CreationDate="2020-11-16T14:38:20.150" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29767" PostId="14931" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In the original Q., both yourself and brianpck questioned the use of &quot;mei nata&quot; (Priscian). Brian also questioned (in his answer) Cicero's use of genitive pronouns (the first two examples) when possessive adjectives were expected. There is a natural tendency to accept anything Cicero says as Gospel (truth), which stifles debate. Four-years on it will be interesting to see if there is any fresh thinking on these points, from anyone." CreationDate="2020-11-16T23:15:09.663" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29769" PostId="14931" Score="0" Text="@tony At least I don't have any new thoughts on that." CreationDate="2020-11-17T05:44:23.613" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29770" PostId="14933" Score="0" Text="+1! But I miss the hypothesis that _dum interim_ was at some point a cultism. That could explain both a regular pronunciation and a different history of sound changes. Or is this idea just implausible?" CreationDate="2020-11-17T09:15:48.223" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29775" PostId="14933" Score="1" Text="Re: &quot;If the *ie* in *mientras* was caused by influence from *-mientre/-miente/-mente*, it doesn't seem too implausible to me to suppose that the /m/ might also be influenced by *-mientre*&quot;: That seems like a stretch to me, sorry. /me/ and /mje/ are similar enough that it's plausible for /me/ to become /mje/ due to a bit of influence from a similar-sounding-but-semantically-unrelated form with /mje/; but for /e/ to become /mje/ requires a lot influence from a neither-similar-sounding-nor-semantically-related form. What would cause that?" CreationDate="2020-11-17T18:09:18.927" UserId="3511" />
  <row Id="29777" PostId="14933" Score="0" Text="@ruakh: I'm not sure exactly how I think it would have worked, but what I was imagining was that the development to /m/ would have occurred from a form that had not been entirely denasalized. So not /e/ &gt; /mje/, but maybe something like [õe] &gt; [omje] or [one] (compare the monosyllables *quien, con*) &gt; [omje]." CreationDate="2020-11-18T08:08:22.253" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="29778" PostId="14933" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides: Ah, I see; that makes much more sense. Thanks for clarifying. :-)" CreationDate="2020-11-18T08:31:34.727" UserId="3511" />
  <row Id="29774" PostId="14934" Score="2" Text="How about dropping *diurnis* and going with *e(x) commentariis* alone?" CreationDate="2020-11-17T15:01:10.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29780" PostId="14934" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That sounds like a good expression, depending on context, but since the question specifically asks for *diaries*, I think just *commentarii* alone would not be unambiguous." CreationDate="2020-11-18T12:18:29.050" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29781" PostId="14934" Score="0" Text="I agree, it would be ambiguous. It depends on context whether it would hurt, but to me *commentarii* is not far from a diary." CreationDate="2020-11-18T12:24:03.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29779" PostId="14937" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much" CreationDate="2020-11-18T11:00:13.443" UserId="1987" />
  <row Id="29782" PostId="14940" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! The correction makes a lot more sense and the explanation even more ;) Your suggestion has put me on a path to look at Latin in another way. My thanks! I will wait a little longer to give other answers a chance but I consider this question answered by you." CreationDate="2020-11-18T12:45:05.967" UserId="3296" />
  <row Id="47047" PostId="14940" Score="0" Text="Great anwer! Your observation that *malae memorial* means good at forgetting is spot on. I also have no objection to your translation. However, I'd like to add that *memoria malorum* might be closer to what the original poster meant by a bad memory. If that's true. then *pereant memoriae malorum* might serve you just as well as *tristes memorial*." CreationDate="2023-12-31T02:27:22.697" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="29821" PostId="14943" Score="0" Text="About the two forms *subcesivarum* and *subsecivas*: look at the context.&#xA;The one follows *horarum*, where the other follows *horas* which are different declensions of the word *hora*. The first is the genitive for the plural form, the other is the nomative for the plural form." CreationDate="2020-11-19T16:02:53.473" UserId="8612" />
  <row Id="29823" PostId="14943" Score="0" Text="*Subsecivas* is not the nom(in)ative, it's the accusative, but in any event, I was wondering what's going on with the C and S exchanging places." CreationDate="2020-11-19T20:58:21.687" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30934" PostId="14943" Score="0" Text="Could it be that the C, since it's before i/e, would be pronounced like in English, i.e. like an S? I know in Medieval Latin it had more of an tch (tʃ) sound, but at some point in English and French at least it became a full sibilant. I'm not sure what was going with Latin in Germany or if whoever wrote the title (publisher if not Wolff) made the error for that reason." CreationDate="2021-03-01T18:16:38.583" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29814" PostId="14944" Score="0" Text="Great answer! Welcome to the site." CreationDate="2020-11-22T02:52:55.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30440" PostId="14946" Score="0" Text="Perhaps.. &quot;Unity is strength in and of itself&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-01-13T17:25:06.497" UserId="7377" />
  <row Id="33713" PostId="14946" Score="0" Text="Philosophers normally know how to spell." CreationDate="2021-06-16T21:20:56.307" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29793" PostId="14951" Score="4" Text="[Wiktionary gives a number of different uses of OK.](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/OK#English) Which one(s) are you after? No single Latin word can play all those roles as a noun, an adjective, a verb, and an interjection. In modern English it's not really used as an abbreviation for anything; it has its independent new life." CreationDate="2020-11-20T18:55:51.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37028" PostId="14951" Score="1" Text="I closed the question now for lack of detail. If you edit to specify what you're after, we can reopen. See my previous comment." CreationDate="2022-02-04T20:38:19.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29788" PostId="14952" Score="0" Text="I don't see how you can infer from the fact that no other forms are in (recorded) use that they are not participles.  Noone speaks of toothing either, but it seems obvious (to me at least) that _toothed_ is a participle (of a highly ``defective'' verb)." CreationDate="2020-11-20T07:56:22.240" UserId="8607" />
  <row Id="29800" PostId="14952" Score="0" Text="@NullusMaximus As for your point &quot;but it seems obvious (to me at least) that _toothed_ is a participle&quot;, note that Asteroides is not saying that _dentatus_ is not a participle. What s/he is saying is that &quot;it is not a participle meaning 'having been toothed&quot;. In linguistic terms, what Asteroides is saying is that _dentatus_ is not an eventive passive participle. In Embick's (2004) terminology _dentatus_ is a **stative participle**, which has a clear adjectival behavior. Cf. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~embick/result.pdf" CreationDate="2020-11-21T17:26:53.620" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29787" PostId="14953" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you give an example sentence or otherwise describe the context? It can make a big difference." CreationDate="2020-11-20T05:47:41.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29807" PostId="14955" Score="0" Text="I was wondering to what extent verbs with the suffix _-izo_ can have the so-called &quot;locatum object&quot; paraphrase mentioned by the OP above ('to furnish something with the thing named by the noun'). It seems to me that the verbs you mention do not form &quot;locatum verbs&quot; (i.e. 'to furnish something with X') but rather change of state verbs where the noun is expressing the final state (i.e. 'to make something to be converted into X'). Finally, it is perhaps worth pointing out that this suffix forms Result verbs from Late Latin onwards (NB: in Early and Classical Latin this suffix formed Manner verbs)" CreationDate="2020-11-21T18:47:57.117" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29796" PostId="14956" Score="1" Text="Two remarks on your invented verb _iotabesco_. Note that _b_ is part of the root of the verb you mention next: _ru**b**esco_. Note also that unprefixed verbs formed with the suffix _-sco_ are typically atelic (i.e. they do not involve a culmination, whereby the typical paraphrase &quot;to become X&quot; is often not accurate, as pointed out by Haverling (2000, 2010)). The telic verbs with suffix _-sco_ are the ones that are prefixed. The authoritative reference on this subject is Haverling (2000), mentioned in  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8848/aret-aridus-est )." CreationDate="2020-11-21T16:56:58.927" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29797" PostId="14956" Score="0" Text="As for why denominal verbs involving the so-called &quot;locatum object&quot; paraphrase 'to provide X with Noun' (e.g., _iotare_ as 'to provide X with _iota_'), are typically unprefixed, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13310/are-there-unprefixed-location-verbs-in-latin" CreationDate="2020-11-21T16:59:34.383" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29799" PostId="14956" Score="1" Text="Finally, rather than saying that _manubriatus_ or _dentatus_ are &quot;participles of defective verbs&quot; (the label &quot;defective verb&quot; is misleading here, I think), it's better to say that they are &quot;stative participles&quot;, which lack a verbal eventive layer (that's why these participles behave like &quot;simple&quot; adjectives). See my answer to Asteroides based on Embick's (2004) tripartite typology of participles (1) eventive passive // 2) resultative // 3) stative)." CreationDate="2020-11-21T17:18:20.807" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29801" PostId="14956" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, thanks for your illustrative comments. I'll take care to read those links later on. Good catch with respect to my *iota**b**esco*, maybe *iotaesco* or *iotasco* just didn't sound well to me for some reason, or influenced as you imply by *rubesco*. It indeed feels like *iotasco* is too short. we find this *a*, also in other verbs like *labasco* (labo + sco), but I wonder if *ioto* + *sco* will work the same, since *ioto* is derived from iot**a**." CreationDate="2020-11-21T18:02:58.400" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29803" PostId="14956" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, I've just find *vesperasco* from *vespera*. so indeed *iotasco* is probably the correct choice." CreationDate="2020-11-21T18:13:42.950" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29804" PostId="14956" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, If you had to chose a prefix to make it a telic verb, what would it be? *ex*, *per*, something else ?" CreationDate="2020-11-21T18:26:08.320" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29805" PostId="14956" Score="1" Text="For the reasons mentioned above I think that the use of a  _-sco_ verb like _iotasco_ would not work here. If Haverling is right (and I think she is), this invented verb would mean an **ongoing** process (atelic reading) rather than 'to become a iota' (telic reading). According to her, note that _rubesco_ does not mean 'to become red' (telic reading) but rather 'to grow red' (atelic reading)." CreationDate="2020-11-21T18:30:52.557" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29806" PostId="14956" Score="3" Text="The use of prefixes with _-sco_ verbs is determined by the **aspectual phase** you want to focus on (e.g. _ad-_ and _in-_ for the initial/ingressive phase, _per_- for the medial/progressive phase and _ex-_ for the final/egressive one). All these options sound odd to me when applied to _iotare_." CreationDate="2020-11-21T18:34:52.233" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29808" PostId="14957" Score="3" Text="*Semper enim potum* is not correct. Google Translate (if that's the source) practically never produces correct Latin." CreationDate="2020-11-21T20:05:05.753" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29809" PostId="14965" Score="0" Text="Do you know if this has a digital version available? I've found paperback editions available from various places, but didn't find a digital version for Google Books or Amazon Kindle." CreationDate="2020-11-21T20:25:40.550" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="29810" PostId="14965" Score="0" Text="@Adam No, I'm afraid I don't know anything about a digital version of it." CreationDate="2020-11-21T20:54:29.010" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29813" PostId="14966" Score="4" Text="-que is a common enclitic that just means &quot;and&quot;." CreationDate="2020-11-21T22:07:49.300" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29825" PostId="14967" Score="4" Text="Wouldn't it be *causa bibendi*? I've never seen *causa + ad*" CreationDate="2020-11-23T15:04:41.847" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29831" PostId="14967" Score="2" Text="@brianpck. I actually looked this up on PHI shortly after the question was posted. I found a couple of scattered examples of causa + ad + accusative – one in Terence, as I recall. Of course, the genitive is much more common." CreationDate="2020-11-23T23:41:05.583" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29815" PostId="14969" Score="0" Text="A denarius is a specific coin; you'd want *nummus* (acc. pl. *nummos*). *Attero* is also a weird verb to use." CreationDate="2020-11-22T03:16:35.763" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29816" PostId="14969" Score="0" Text="Yeah... nummus though correct just doesn't sound fitting, especially to a person not knowing Latin. For example,  seems like related to being numb." CreationDate="2020-11-22T12:51:52.223" UserId="8620" />
  <row Id="29820" PostId="14970" Score="0" Text="*Ex* could be translated simply as 'after.' 'Frost bite' is the usual term." CreationDate="2020-11-23T12:24:09.853" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="29829" PostId="14970" Score="0" Text="I could not find this passage in the Greek original. Can anyone help out?" CreationDate="2020-11-23T18:40:44.467" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="29832" PostId="14970" Score="2" Text="Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was a Persian Muslim philosopher who wrote his major works in Arabic. &quot;Liber de philosophia prima sive scientia divina&quot; is the Latin translation of the metaphysics part of his &quot;Shifa&quot;, an arabic encyclopedia." CreationDate="2020-11-23T23:43:33.093" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="29818" PostId="14971" Score="1" Text="*Deleo* is off course fine; if you are looking for other choices for &quot;destroy,&quot; Latin does not let you down; I recommend [this old answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13649/how-do-you-say-this-phrase-in-latin-venisti-vedisti-you-destroyed/13653#13653) of mine." CreationDate="2020-11-23T12:00:28.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29819" PostId="14971" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Good point! I added that and a dictionary link for more breadth in vocabulary." CreationDate="2020-11-23T12:03:01.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29837" PostId="14971" Score="0" Text="Thank you for that explanation, it has given me something to chew on for my long drive. I think I can see how it may look to have more than one meaning.  As is for, destroying coins, but also as, numerous destruction, kind of playing off it as a pun in a way. I do like when a title may appear to have more than one meaning.   I do agree rubbing coins doesn't sound right when translated, just seems to sound decent.   I may go with Nummos Destruo.... or similar,  Nummo Destruo, Nummos Destruos... or just as it was stated. Got to think on it. Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-11-24T12:04:36.537" UserId="8620" />
  <row Id="29838" PostId="14971" Score="0" Text="@MrPatrick I'm glad to be able to help! *Destruo* is certainly a possible verb. Regarding forms of the noun: Use either *nummos* (plural) or *nummum* (singular) but not other forms like *nummo*. If you use other cases than accusative, you get things like &quot;I destroy with coins&quot; or &quot;I destroy for coins&quot; or &quot;I am a coin and I destroy&quot;. Also, I recommend taking a look at [our quick tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) at some point to see more functionalities." CreationDate="2020-11-24T12:17:35.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29862" PostId="14971" Score="0" Text="Thanks again. If I ever write a satire, I would definitely go with &quot;I rub dimes.&quot; Or, &quot;I am a coin and I destroy&quot; (Translated)" CreationDate="2020-11-27T04:09:30.767" UserId="8620" />
  <row Id="29839" PostId="14972" Score="1" Text="The OP asked for a translation: easily found on Latin-Phrases sites: &quot;The Roman state stands with her ancient traditions &amp; men (ancestors).&quot;, Ennius." CreationDate="2020-11-24T12:36:32.957" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29833" PostId="14973" Score="1" Text="1. Did you have scholarly editions in mind, like Teubner or Oxford Classical Texts? 2. Did you mean to say &quot;all macrons&quot; or only in those cases where it could affect stress placement?" CreationDate="2020-11-24T03:26:21.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29844" PostId="14973" Score="0" Text="Hi @AlexB., yes to both, although I am happy with the present answer and don't see the need for further edits." CreationDate="2020-11-25T07:30:58.417" UserId="7173" />
  <row Id="29845" PostId="14973" Score="1" Text="Hi @JoonasIlmavirta, great, thanks for your assistance." CreationDate="2020-11-25T07:31:21.507" UserId="7173" />
  <row Id="29841" PostId="14976" Score="1" Text="&quot;Spes&quot; means &quot;hope&quot; but as the noun, not the verb, and all of the other words seem to be inflected more or less at random." CreationDate="2020-11-24T19:10:28.570" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29843" PostId="14976" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Can you write that as an answer? It answers the question, and an answer shouldn't be given in the comments even if simple and short." CreationDate="2020-11-25T06:27:46.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29846" PostId="14977" Score="1" Text="Thanks, this was helpful, and even added new information about ablative -â which I was not aware of. It's good to have spelled out the implication in the nonoccurrence question. I suppose I was assigning about 25% probability to some such coordinated effort having occurred, and figured this made it worth asking." CreationDate="2020-11-25T07:34:56.167" UserId="7173" />
  <row Id="29840" PostId="14978" Score="0" Text="Great. Just two point. According to what Avicenna said before, it might be &quot;the same kind of thing&quot;. And now I think that the Latin translator mistranslated this sentence." CreationDate="2020-11-24T16:23:08.437" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="29842" PostId="14979" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! It seems that you created two accounts. I recommend [following these instructions to merge them](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts) so that you get full access to your own question. That includes getting privileges from any votes you get, the ability to accept the best answer, the ability to respond to comments, and alerts of any answers you get." CreationDate="2020-11-24T19:24:49.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29847" PostId="14983" Score="1" Text="Optio is a noun." CreationDate="2020-11-25T19:56:27.520" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29852" PostId="14983" Score="1" Text="Elige, or eligite, if the directive is for many people. The verb is [eligo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deligo) . Is that what you are looking for?" CreationDate="2020-11-25T23:01:56.507" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29854" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this awesome and detailed answer!" CreationDate="2020-11-26T05:40:05.030" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="29861" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="I think you read in German, so you may want to take a look at the third volume of Neue and Wagener 1897 *Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache* (p. 210) - it is still unsurpassed in its comprehensiveness https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft/page/210/mode/2up" CreationDate="2020-11-27T03:59:42.147" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29864" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="hence a note in Leumann 1977 Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre : &quot;Bei späten Grammatikern stehen, in Paradigmen, auch Formen auf -minor&quot; (section 423B. Deponens, 2/3. sing. und 3. plur. - note the omission of 2 plur. in the section title though). I do agree with the content of your post, but such **artificially constructed forms, created by the late Latin grammarians,**  are still mentioned in some scholarly grammars of our time." CreationDate="2020-11-27T04:31:41.780" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29865" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="And of course I upvoted your answer :)" CreationDate="2020-11-27T04:57:04.863" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29866" PostId="14984" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Indeed, the passage already exists in the [first edition from 1861](https://books.google.de/books?id=SZBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA302#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). It adds another presumptive (but invalid) example from Apuleius to “duo illa Plautina.” What I would really like to know is if, since the form was in the grammars all those years, it came to be used by any Neo-Latin writers eventually … in which case it wouldn't be fictitious anymore!" CreationDate="2020-11-27T12:39:39.470" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29871" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="It is the job of a linguist to accurately and comprehensively collect all relevant data (from multiple sources, including what the Latin grammarians wrote) and then try to provide a convincing analysis, which Neue and Wagener did, cf. &quot;Es fehlt also an allen sicheren Belegen für die Endung minor, welche daher mit Recht als eine Fiction der Grammatiker betrachtet wird.&quot;  I may add my own thoughts as a separate post some time later in the future, when I have more free time." CreationDate="2020-11-27T14:24:29.343" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29873" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="Just to make things clearer, to avoid misunderstanding. 1. Based on what I know, I do agree with your post about the artificialness of such forms; 2. It's better to refer to the third edition of Neue's grammar (Neue and Wagener) because it was substantially revised by Carl Wagener (although in this case, the relevant part seems to be not much revised); 3. I guess I'm responding to the claim - maybe I'm misreading you - that if something is only attested in the grammars, it's fictitious. While in this case it's true, overall, we need to apply this principle with extreme caution. Hope this helps" CreationDate="2020-11-27T14:53:09.043" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29880" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I quite agree with you. Note that I did not call the form fictitious, that was Neue (&quot;mit Recht als eine Fiction der Grammatiker betrachtet&quot;). I was just speculating whether this judgement, if for the sake of argument one followed it, could be upheld if some 17th century writer or so started using the form *because* of this very fiction. But I suspect Mr Neue would not be much impressed by a Neo-Latin source." CreationDate="2020-11-27T21:59:41.080" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29881" PostId="14984" Score="0" Text="As a matter of fact, the idea of a 4th century grammarian making the form up from whole cloth makes little sense to me. Have we just fallen for a practical joke all those centuries? I suspect there must be more to the story, but we shall perhaps never know." CreationDate="2020-11-27T22:03:07.157" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29853" PostId="14985" Score="0" Text="Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you! &#xA;It seems like “deligere” might work the best overall. If I want to extend the thought, how would I say “we are our choices”?" CreationDate="2020-11-26T05:01:51.067" UserId="8637" />
  <row Id="29858" PostId="14985" Score="1" Text="@user8637 Shooting from the hip I'd say something like: *Exsistimus ex quae deligimus*. If you want to know more, I think it would be best to post that as a new question." CreationDate="2020-11-26T12:03:53.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39607" PostId="14988" Score="1" Text="I am so pleased to have found this post… I too have always sung “semper victorious”, it was only last weekend that someone called it out as they explained the changes being made to the National Anthem; “‘send her victorious’ will need to change”. Given that I mis-learned the lyrics before learning any Latin, I wonder how we both settled on this version?" CreationDate="2022-09-19T11:15:24.663" UserId="11549" />
  <row Id="39617" PostId="14988" Score="0" Text="@AlistairBlackmore - I'm glad I'm not the only one. :-)" CreationDate="2022-09-20T06:26:23.587" UserId="6519" />
  <row Id="29878" PostId="14989" Score="1" Text="'out of my chair' *Ex cathedra* ..?" CreationDate="2020-11-27T19:31:25.267" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="29885" PostId="14989" Score="0" Text="@Hugh: falling of my chair is the literal translation of a Flemish proverb. I don't know its origins." CreationDate="2020-11-28T08:35:43.020" UserId="3420" />
  <row Id="29886" PostId="14989" Score="0" Text="Why the downvote? What's wrong with this question?" CreationDate="2020-11-28T08:35:59.580" UserId="3420" />
  <row Id="29888" PostId="14989" Score="0" Text="Most organisations (companies and institutions) are incapable of writing ***their own name*** correctly on their own *home page*. It is not uncommon to find three different spellings on the home page (the *same* page), one of which may be correct." CreationDate="2020-11-28T11:43:13.267" UserId="2852" />
  <row Id="29898" PostId="14989" Score="0" Text="@PeterMortensen: is this the case for the VUB I mentioned?" CreationDate="2020-11-28T20:54:24.110" UserId="3420" />
  <row Id="29867" PostId="14990" Score="0" Text="Re *vicit*: oh, of course! The same form as in *tempus fugit*, one of my father's favourite sayings. Maybe that saying was part of why I didn't think *vicit* was correct. Thank you!" CreationDate="2020-11-27T13:28:44.067" UserId="6519" />
  <row Id="29868" PostId="14990" Score="1" Text="@T.J.Crowder In &quot;tempus fugit&quot; the &quot;fugit&quot; is actually in the present tense, though the only difference between present and perfect in that case is whether the *u* is short or long. There we know it's short because it scans as short in Vergil's Georgica, though, from which the saying in taken." CreationDate="2020-11-27T13:35:11.173" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29869" PostId="14990" Score="0" Text="That makes more sense. I was slightly struggling with how it could be &quot;has always passed&quot; without the habitual aspect. Answer: Because it isn't. :-) Really appreciate your thorough answer to such a basic question." CreationDate="2020-11-27T13:37:31.180" UserId="6519" />
  <row Id="39613" PostId="14990" Score="1" Text="Correct as usual Cairnarvon. Let me also suggest *semper victrix* and *semper victor* as possible alternatives." CreationDate="2022-09-19T21:23:08.970" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39625" PostId="14990" Score="1" Text="_Victoriosa_/_victoriosus_ sounds awkward, because I find very few instances in classical literature. I think @Figulus is right suggesting _semper victrix_ (feminine) / _semper victor_ (masculine) (no matter _victrix_/_victor_ may be used as nouns: they are used as adjectives here). _Vicit semper_ may also be right, but sounds less poetical." CreationDate="2022-09-20T13:03:02.760" UserId="1819" />
  <row Id="29870" PostId="14991" Score="4" Text="In the context of a motto macrons are very rarely used, and one could even go as far as to say that it is not only not compulsory but not allowed. Using macrons seems to have a flavour of helping beginners and is avoided in formal situations." CreationDate="2020-11-27T13:55:29.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29875" PostId="14991" Score="0" Text="In any event, with macrons it should be *sciēntiā vīncere tenebrās*." CreationDate="2020-11-27T16:25:11.200" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29876" PostId="14991" Score="3" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I don't think that's right. Definitely *tenebrās*, but AFAIK it's *sciēns* but *sciĕntia* (*-ā*), and *vīci* but *vĭnco*." CreationDate="2020-11-27T19:00:01.660" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29879" PostId="14991" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Argh, you're absolutely right, I knew this but wanted to be absolutely sure (would be embarrassing to get this wrong, no?), so I double checked with Collatinus and trusted it over my own intuition :( What in the world is going on there?" CreationDate="2020-11-27T20:15:19.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29882" PostId="14994" Score="0" Text="I took the liberty to edit your accusative endings from *-um* to *-em*. The present participle follows the third declension." CreationDate="2020-11-27T22:26:33.423" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29883" PostId="14994" Score="3" Text="*Rex* is not an irregular word, it's a regular third-declension noun. *Rexum*, if it existed, would be a second-declension form, but there's no reason to move a word between declensions just because it's being used as a name." CreationDate="2020-11-28T01:37:57.440" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29889" PostId="14994" Score="0" Text="There's a similar precedent, Rex (Regis) used as a *cognomen* though. I'd go with the same declension paradigm." CreationDate="2020-11-28T15:00:27.607" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29884" PostId="14995" Score="1" Text="I tend to disagree in this case, since this isn't a foreign name. When a name is a Latin noun, it seems natural to decline it as that noun. (*Rexus* especially feels wrong because the *-x* already contains the nom. sg. ending.)" CreationDate="2020-11-28T01:40:51.530" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="29890" PostId="14995" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Given that &quot;king&quot; was a dirty word to the Romans, would &quot;Rex&quot;/ &quot;Rexus&quot; have been used as a name?" CreationDate="2020-11-28T15:44:52.460" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29892" PostId="14995" Score="0" Text="@TKR I actually agree with your disagreement. I added a paragraph in the end to elaborate. There can be reasons to want to make a distinction between kings and the name. I agree that *Rexus* sounds wrong, but it would not be the first wrong-looking name formation I have ever seen in post-classical Latin." CreationDate="2020-11-28T17:37:43.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29893" PostId="14995" Score="0" Text="@tony I don't think it would have been used as a name in ancient Rome. It does not look like other names we know for humans, but I don't know much about naming dogs in Latin. I think by the time Rex became a name it did not refer to ancient kings of Rome but kings in general. If so, the Roman allergy to Etruscan kings would no longer play a role." CreationDate="2020-11-28T17:41:46.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29891" PostId="14996" Score="0" Text="One grammatical issue: it should be *ipso* (ablative), not *ipse* (nominative)." CreationDate="2020-11-28T17:33:12.583" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29894" PostId="14996" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I think both are correct (that is, *ipse* outside of its use specifically as a demonstrative pronoun can be declined or treated as indeclinable)? I had Seneca's famous line *&quot;recede in te ipse quantum potes&quot;* in mind (*te* in the accusative, *ipse* not declined), but *in te ipso* is obviously not wrong." CreationDate="2020-11-28T18:30:21.270" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29895" PostId="14996" Score="0" Text="Though looking it up now I see the Loeb edition has *ipsum* there." CreationDate="2020-11-28T18:32:12.020" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29896" PostId="14996" Score="1" Text="I looked it up [here](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/demonstrative-pronouns) (298f) and found something new: apparently *ipse* often agrees with the (understood) subject. So, in your case, *ipse* would agree with the understood nominative *tu* of the imperative--which isn't quite the same as being indeclinable." CreationDate="2020-11-28T19:59:35.617" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29897" PostId="14996" Score="0" Text="Oh, cool, I never knew that. Happy accident, then." CreationDate="2020-11-28T20:34:42.483" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29887" PostId="14999" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much. My bad on the wrong line and I should've mentioned my unconcern in fitting a hexameter.Thanks again!" CreationDate="2020-11-28T10:57:32.577" UserDisplayName="user8647" />
  <row Id="43095" PostId="15000" Score="2" Text="I am curious about the logic behind Google Translate's &quot;ventus&quot; for &quot;favorite.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-07T01:37:13.057" UserId="13432" />
  <row Id="43097" PostId="15000" Score="1" Text="@magistramc Have a look at [this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16768/how-good-is-the-new-version-of-google-translate/16769#16769). Essentially, it's just wrong, and Google Translate should never be trusted." CreationDate="2023-05-07T03:33:07.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29903" PostId="15001" Score="0" Text="Regarding your second title: It's not really a question of whether the two languages have declension but whether they are compatible. Finnish has more cases than Latin, but I still wouldn't adapt any Finnish morphology to Latin. And the same goes for Russian and Latin although the two are much closer in declension. This doesn't undermine your argument at all; I just found the wording a little unfortunate." CreationDate="2020-11-29T00:13:49.163" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29900" PostId="15003" Score="0" Text="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amvLd1mnXH4. For example here αρχη is pronounced like αρχει." CreationDate="2020-11-28T22:07:19.927" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="29902" PostId="15003" Score="1" Text="You are correct, But for another example in &quot;Learn To Read Greek, part 1&quot;, Yale University Press, 2012, p. 5, it is written that η is pronounced like 'late'. It seems to me that it is 'eɪ'." CreationDate="2020-11-28T22:13:17.603" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="29908" PostId="15003" Score="2" Text="@AliNikzad That's an approximation designed more to be readily familiar to an English speaker than an accurate representation of the actual vowel. True distinctions between short and long vowels are rare or absent in English." CreationDate="2020-11-29T15:51:01.830" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="30478" PostId="15003" Score="0" Text="These issues in rendering non-English languages into words of similar sounds in English, is only made worse by English being such a prominent research language. For a Germanic or Slavic language speaker, for instance, /e/ to /e:/, /i/ to /i:/ etc., is no problem at all. I wish such explanations would rather rely on explanations along the lines of ‘a long vowel: like the _e_ in _let_, but long.’" CreationDate="2021-01-18T12:51:35.680" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37139" PostId="15003" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad American here. I would pronounce it closer to 'egg' than 'late.' I think it's a natural tendency for English speakers (at least of certain dialects) to diphthongize /e:/ into /eɪ/. Perhaps Keller and Russell were just giving an approximation, or else they might have insisted on a more careful pronunciation of 'late.'" CreationDate="2022-02-11T16:05:27.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="29911" PostId="15004" Score="1" Text="My understanding of IPA is sadly very limited. *&quot;a longer version of the vowel in English &quot;red&quot;*: would that make it like the vowel in the English word _reed_ or is it not that long? Also, for what it's worth, there is no  *`/i/` as in &quot;reed&quot;* in modern Greek, all i versions (ι, η, ει, οι and υ) are pronounced the same and sound like the i in the English words *pit* or *sit*. (I am not a linguist, just a native Greek speaker; all I can say is that I'm certainly not aware of any other form of i sound in any of the dialects I am familiar with)." CreationDate="2020-11-29T19:58:42.653" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="29920" PostId="15004" Score="3" Text="@terdon No, &quot;longer&quot; just means literally more time/breath, it doesn't change the sound. (That's also what the IPA `ː` indicates.) I don't think there is a way to notate that in english since &quot;ee&quot; is a completely different sound." CreationDate="2020-11-30T04:07:32.810" UserId="2854" />
  <row Id="30080" PostId="15004" Score="1" Text="I was reading &quot;Technopaegnion&quot; by Ausonius earlier today, and came across this line: &quot;Hτα quod Aeolidum, quodque ε valet, hoc Latiare E.&quot; just sharing, for no specific reason, that's all :)" CreationDate="2020-12-07T20:35:41.473" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30081" PostId="15004" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. Oh, fascinating! Looking up the context, it sounds like Ausonius equates the quality of Latin Ē with &quot;Aeolic eta&quot; and (Attic?) epsilon [e], Latin Ĕ with &quot;Doric epsilon&quot; [ɛ], Latin Ō with a sound not found in Attic [o], and Latin Ŏ with (Attic?) omicron and omega [ɔ]? Or am I misreading that?" CreationDate="2020-12-07T20:58:27.167" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30082" PostId="15004" Score="0" Text="Yes, you got it right!" CreationDate="2020-12-07T21:38:03.117" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="37138" PostId="15004" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. Of course, Ausonius is a millennium after Homer, and over 750 years after Plato. It's certainly useful as evidence for how Greek changed, but it likely has no bearing on how Classical Attic, Doric, and Aeolic were pronounced." CreationDate="2022-02-11T15:58:54.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37150" PostId="15004" Score="0" Text="@cmw ita vero! :)" CreationDate="2022-02-11T19:38:55.840" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="44322" PostId="15004" Score="0" Text="FWIW, in our local pronunciation of Classical Greek we certainly just pronounce it as our long é and epsilon as our short e. We ignore the small quality difference, be the quality difference is the main one." CreationDate="2023-08-01T14:08:00.103" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="29915" PostId="15009" Score="0" Text="Could the second example fit &quot;O Master, please do not be chastised by my beatings?&quot;" CreationDate="2020-11-29T20:27:47.517" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="29916" PostId="15009" Score="0" Text="How about _Servus dominum ōrābat nē eum verberārētur_ for &quot;The slave begged the master that the master not be beaten&quot;? That's not necessarily beaten by himself. I'm wondering if _sē_ vs. _eum_ is enough to make clear that the slave is not the one to be beaten." CreationDate="2020-11-29T20:31:25.983" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="29917" PostId="15009" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz First comment: Yes, it could be read that way. I don't see a way to completely avoid ambiguity without explaining a whole lot more. The most natural thing to do is to shift emphasis so that a different interpretation is suggested. // Second: If you use *eum*, my first impression is that the slave is protecting someone else from his master. But you should have *verberaret* here; you can't (typically) have a non-deponent passive with an accusative object. // Another thought: Maybe you could do something with *nominativus cum infinitivo*, but then you need a verb that uses ACI/NCI." CreationDate="2020-11-29T20:49:43.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29906" PostId="15010" Score="2" Text="I see no immediate problem with *intrepidus*, it does mean &quot;intrepid&quot; (no surprise there) and will be easily recognisable even to beginners. Another possibility would be *impavidus*." CreationDate="2020-11-29T15:20:29.573" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29907" PostId="15010" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel : Yes, I only meant that it wasn’t clear to me that OP really meant “intrepid”. I’m not familiar with the term “intrepid art”." CreationDate="2020-11-29T15:22:23.300" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="29910" PostId="15010" Score="1" Text="Neither am I, although I have to say, compared to a few mottos and tattoo ideas I have seen on this website, it seems like a pretty ordinary English expression ;-)" CreationDate="2020-11-29T17:38:15.373" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29909" PostId="15011" Score="1" Text="Maybe something like &quot;Vola, cogitatio, alis aureis.&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-11-29T16:40:35.767" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="29912" PostId="15012" Score="0" Text="Thank you! What is the infinitive form of &quot;i&quot;? What would the difference in nuance be between choosing &quot;mens&quot; or &quot;cogitatio&quot;? Is it correct that the former refers more to one's mind, whereas the latter refers to one's thoughts?" CreationDate="2020-11-29T20:06:59.693" UserId="8653" />
  <row Id="29918" PostId="15012" Score="2" Text="@a20 That about captures it. Ever since I knew this song (first in a German translation: &quot;Steig, Gedanke, auf goldenen Schwingen&quot;) it has struck me as odd that a single *thought* is supposed to go wandering. The infinitive of *i* is *ire* - so far so good - but you will find it in the dictionary under *eo* because it's one of Latin's few irregular verbs." CreationDate="2020-11-29T20:56:39.667" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29923" PostId="15012" Score="2" Text="Please note that the italian world &quot;pensiero&quot; means both a single thought, than the complex of thoughts in a mind. One can say &quot;il mio pensiero&quot; o &quot;il suo pensiero&quot; to refer to the opinion of someone; &quot;pensiero comune&quot;, means &quot;common opinion&quot;. &quot;Va' pensiero&quot; refers to a pensiero which is more like a &quot;train of thoughts&quot; than to a single &quot;train car&quot;. Source: I'm italian ;) Usually, to refer to a single thought, one would use the word &quot;pensiero&quot; with the article &quot;un&quot;, like &quot;ho fatto un pensiero&quot; - &quot;I made a thought&quot;." CreationDate="2020-11-30T15:54:14.743" UserId="8660" />
  <row Id="29985" PostId="15013" Score="1" Text="The current/second title is still misleading: note that the participle in an AA is precisely a predicative one. The participle in ablative case is the predicate of the AA." CreationDate="2020-12-03T15:43:36.710" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29993" PostId="15013" Score="0" Text="What  is the problem with using the traditional taxonomic labels here? Cf. AA (_acceptis litteris, Caesar..._) and &quot;participle coniunctum&quot; (_accipiens litteras, Caesar..._). Cf. also  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14297/participium-coniunctum-vs-ablative-absolute-of-transitive-deponent-verbs" CreationDate="2020-12-03T17:32:18.217" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29995" PostId="15013" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, yes, I changed the title again." CreationDate="2020-12-03T18:44:37.307" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29925" PostId="15015" Score="0" Text="I looked into *ab hoc*, *de hoc* and *hinc* a bit more (thanks for the tip!) and realised an important thing about the original quote. In the book the main character finds the quote written on a big dais where an enormous statue had stood, and of course *ab hoc* refers to THIS dais. So if I would refere to the spot/area we occupy, [loco] seems fitting to add, maybe also &quot;nostro&quot;. *Possum videre domum tuam ab hoc loco nostro* or maybe better *possum videre domum tuam hinc loco nostro* looks good the first time I translate it (Google Translate+MyMemory), but not back again. Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2020-11-30T16:48:31.320" UserId="8654" />
  <row Id="29922" PostId="15016" Score="1" Text="You might throw *omnis* and *universus* in the mix as well. I think the distinctions can get a little esoteric." CreationDate="2020-11-30T12:10:02.160" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29924" PostId="15016" Score="1" Text="We could start with the TLL entry for *cunctus*, e.g. http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#31452 (see DIFF., lines 53-73)" CreationDate="2020-11-30T16:23:42.237" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="29949" PostId="15016" Score="1" Text="Already explained at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5104/comparison-of-omnes-cuncti-and-universi/5105#5105" CreationDate="2020-12-01T19:25:38.680" UserId="645" />
  <row Id="29940" PostId="15019" Score="1" Text="Perhaps helpful: the Greek original has ἔνδοθεν, which would normally be translated by a simple *intus*. In medieval Latin, this kind of thing is actually pretty common, e.g. talk of operations &quot;ad extra&quot; and &quot;ad intra.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-12-01T13:37:47.397" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29935" PostId="15027" Score="0" Text="Perfect! Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2020-12-01T09:56:00.597" UserDisplayName="user8582" />
  <row Id="32965" PostId="15028" Score="1" Text="It seems to me that, after fiddling with the sign of p at the start of the sentence, Gauss is now saying that q is to be taken positive. (Caution: I claim no expertise in Latin, but I'm a mathematician, and this reading makes sense to me.)" CreationDate="2021-05-01T00:11:08.690" UserId="9372" />
  <row Id="32967" PostId="15028" Score="0" Text="@AndreasBlass As a bit of both mathematician and latinist, I agree. I tried to argue that in my answer too. I didn't manage to find whether Gauss in general required primes to be positive, but no other reading seems to make sense to me." CreationDate="2021-05-01T14:54:04.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29957" PostId="15029" Score="1" Text="Do you want a Latin word or an English word?" CreationDate="2020-12-02T00:44:52.363" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="29958" PostId="15029" Score="1" Text="Non-serious answer: since an &quot;art&quot; in Greek is _technē_, clearly the study of arts should be _technologia_." CreationDate="2020-12-02T03:27:31.223" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="29961" PostId="15029" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I actually suggested that in my answer. Changing *ars* to *techne* in the proposed *artologia* leads quickly to that. I suppose technology is the pursuit of *ars/techne* in a way." CreationDate="2020-12-02T10:31:25.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29942" PostId="15030" Score="0" Text="Those are good ones! Do you know if *veneo* can take an agent? Or are there other signs that it functions syntactically, not just semantically, as a passive of *vendo*?" CreationDate="2020-12-01T15:54:38.253" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29945" PostId="15030" Score="0" Text="I don't know, I have never seen it but have little experience with texts with this verb. Ablative without preposition, at any rate, is that of price, not agent, here." CreationDate="2020-12-01T16:39:27.767" UserId="2922" />
  <row Id="29944" PostId="15033" Score="0" Text="I indeed thought of technologia but I already use it in a different context. Thanks anyway!" CreationDate="2020-12-01T16:09:01.793" UserDisplayName="user8582" />
  <row Id="29946" PostId="15033" Score="0" Text="@Blincer I updated my answer. Without knowing more context I can't do any better. Why do you want it to be just a single word, for example?" CreationDate="2020-12-01T17:04:30.210" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29947" PostId="15033" Score="0" Text="I am translating a text with a list of fields of study (geographia, politica, iurisprundentia…), and there are all one word, it would be very odd to use a compound here. I will consider your suggestions, thank you for your time." CreationDate="2020-12-01T17:08:38.743" UserDisplayName="user8582" />
  <row Id="29948" PostId="15033" Score="3" Text="Another problem with artologia is that, because there's a Greek noun ἄρτος, the word would more obviously mean 'the study of bread.'" CreationDate="2020-12-01T17:35:07.077" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="29951" PostId="15034" Score="0" Text="Good option! But what would be the Latin form? I understood the word was supposed to be a Latin one. Aesthetica?" CreationDate="2020-12-01T19:30:57.167" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29952" PostId="15034" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. I don't know. The OP doesn't mention anything about Latin. But since this site deals with Greek as well, the English word is a close approximation of the original Greek." CreationDate="2020-12-01T19:32:07.377" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29953" PostId="15034" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta. However, I like your suggestion for a Latin form of the word: Aesthetica." CreationDate="2020-12-01T19:40:24.353" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29954" PostId="15034" Score="0" Text="In fact, the study of art is *not* a subfield of aesthetics. Not all arts are fine arts, and even if they were, considerations on techniques, movements... are not part of aesthetics. I did not know that this site was also dedicated to Greek. Anyway, thanks for your time" CreationDate="2020-12-01T20:05:50.077" UserDisplayName="user8582" />
  <row Id="29955" PostId="15034" Score="1" Text="@Blincer. OK. I reworded my answer. I also made my reference more clear in order to show that I'm not simply expressing my opinion. Aparently you don't agree with this particular approach to art, but there may be some who do. If so, my answer might be found useful by them. Sorry that I couldn't have been more helpful for what you were looking for." CreationDate="2020-12-01T21:12:39.327" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="29956" PostId="15034" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the rewording, it might indeed be useful to some people!" CreationDate="2020-12-01T21:16:02.117" UserDisplayName="user8582" />
  <row Id="29959" PostId="15035" Score="0" Text="Maybe one can take a look at the sophismata of the middle ages to get some ideas." CreationDate="2020-12-02T08:43:03.623" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29998" PostId="15035" Score="1" Text="First, I am fairly sure there are better Latin terms for these. There is a specific class of numeral adjectives with the meaning &quot;X each&quot; so like &quot;5 apples (for each person in question).&quot; I don't know enough to offer concrete help on this subject though. Second, I don't think pro is the right preposition here, because it often carries an 'on behalf of' sense. Third, ut must be used with a subjunctive to be resultative. Use 'sit' instead." CreationDate="2020-12-03T20:39:43.790" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="29960" PostId="15036" Score="2" Text="&quot;they're the same word, and it's not like Greek ἐκ/ἐξ/ἐγ where the form depends on the following letter or anything&quot; - so you could just as well say *e eius manibus*? That's not what I was taught." CreationDate="2020-12-02T08:58:38.093" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29963" PostId="15036" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That is what I was taught (in high school; I guess it hasn't come up again in college), but looking it up I see I was taught wrong. I've made an edit." CreationDate="2020-12-02T13:18:15.297" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29965" PostId="15036" Score="1" Text="Regarding the choice of *e* or *ex*: [There is a hard rule for prefixes](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2466/79) but [not for the prepositions](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2430/79) (other than always *ex-* before vowels). (Also @SebastianKoppehel)" CreationDate="2020-12-02T13:40:13.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29982" PostId="15036" Score="0" Text="This has helped me a lot, I appreciate the details.&#xA;You interpreted the subject to be the &quot;healing force&quot;; I thought it to be the patients, but your interpretation makes more sense, because she is not a midwife. A last detail: To have it say &quot;back to life&quot;, would one only need to insert the word &quot;retro&quot; before &quot;ad&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-12-03T13:42:14.647" UserId="8651" />
  <row Id="29987" PostId="15036" Score="1" Text="@Marie.P. No, that would mean more like... &quot;turned backwards to life&quot;. The *re-* on the implied verb carries the meaning you're looking for, and unless your friend is also making golems I feel like it's kind of implied regardless? The patients were alive to begin with so any motion towards life is going to be a motion *back* to life. If you definitely want to make it explicit you could unelide the verb but you'd have to work out the structure of the whole thing to decide on a form." CreationDate="2020-12-03T16:05:51.600" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29988" PostId="15036" Score="0" Text="Also patients being the subject actually makes more sense, now that you mention it, sorry; the healing force isn't flowing to life, is it? For *eius* it doesn't make a difference but it does for the elided verb(s). Though actually you could probably get away with an infinitive *revocare* or *revertere* either way." CreationDate="2020-12-03T16:08:45.427" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29964" PostId="15041" Score="1" Text="How about &quot;defensor&quot;; &quot;defensor temporis acti&quot;? Alternatively, &quot;defensor saeculi&quot; = &quot;defender of the past&quot;; &quot;defensor saeculorum&quot; = &quot;defender of the ages&quot;." CreationDate="2020-12-02T13:29:39.623" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="29966" PostId="15041" Score="1" Text="@tony *Defensor* and *laudator* scan the same so both fit hexameter, but it's always nice to quote Horace when you can. Of course, not everyone shares my preference for putting everything possible in hexameter." CreationDate="2020-12-02T13:41:47.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29968" PostId="15044" Score="0" Text="Oh, I now see that [Wiktionary article about Pronunciation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Pronunciation) states that phonemic transcriptions are given within slashes. However, it gives this phonemic transcription of the word *better* in non-rhotic accents of English: /ˈbɛt.əɹ/. Isn't this an inconsistency?" CreationDate="2020-12-02T16:38:44.150" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="29970" PostId="15044" Score="0" Text="@Charo Regarding the vowels? /ɛ/ and /ə/ are different phonemes in English; there's a minimal pair in *bet* /bɛt/ and (unstressed) *but* /bət/. In other languages [ɛ] and [ə] might be allophones of the same phoneme, in which case you'd use the same phonemic transcription for both there (possibly /ɛ/). A phoneme is a phoneme in a specific language, not across all languages." CreationDate="2020-12-02T16:57:43.447" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29971" PostId="15044" Score="0" Text="That said, a lot of eager Wikipedians are very confused about the difference between phonemic and phonetic transcriptions, and even people who should know better sometimes think of /.../ as broad (i.e. less precise) phonetic transcription compared to [...]'s narrow transcription, and you'll inevitably run into clear misuse of IPA *somewhere*." CreationDate="2020-12-02T17:01:06.220" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29972" PostId="15044" Score="0" Text="I was simply referring to the use of d /ɛ/ instead of /e/ in this phonemic transcription." CreationDate="2020-12-02T17:04:11.833" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="29973" PostId="15044" Score="1" Text="@Charo People are free to use whatever transcription they like as long as it's consistent (and, ideally, eventually a consensus emerges and you get a set of conventions to use in a specific language). You could use /e/ for [ɛ] if you wanted to, but English in particular has a lot of e-like sounds, so the extra effort required to type ɛ might pay off in a reduction in confusion with other phonemes." CreationDate="2020-12-02T17:10:18.790" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29978" PostId="15044" Score="0" Text="Just another question, @Cairnarvon. For Ecclesiastical Latin, do we have to assume that both vowel sounds [e] and  [ε] are phonemic transcribed at Wiktionary as /e/? Isn't that confusing?" CreationDate="2020-12-03T07:46:42.613" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="29979" PostId="15044" Score="0" Text="@Charo I'm not an expert on E. Latin but AFAIK it doesn't have [e]. It certainly lost the contrastive vowel length of Classical Latin, collapsing long and short *e* (/eː/ [eː] and /e/ [ɛ]; here /e/ rather than /ɛ/ to indicate that the two phonemes are closely related, one meaningfully being the short version of the other) into a single phoneme. But yes, in general, a single phoneme can have multiple pronunciations (allophones), and a phonemic transcription won't tell you how a word is pronounced unless you're very familiar with a language's phonology—hence the separate phonetic transcription." CreationDate="2020-12-03T09:57:45.780" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="29999" PostId="15044" Score="1" Text="Some English dictionaries do use /e/ in &quot;better&quot;, so unfortunately there is no set convention on how to phonemically transcribe English. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/better?q=Better" CreationDate="2020-12-03T20:53:48.267" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="29975" PostId="15045" Score="2" Text="*Caveat interrogator*: brevity surely isn't a *sufficient* condition for being the &quot;best answer&quot; :)" CreationDate="2020-12-02T22:48:26.073" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="29976" PostId="15045" Score="0" Text="@brianpck  Indeed! Beware the OP! And, surely not, but I know absolutely squat about Latin. It was the only condition for a best answer I could think of." CreationDate="2020-12-02T23:41:58.307" UserId="3428" />
  <row Id="29974" PostId="15046" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately *interrogantem* refers to the one asking, and *conventae notificari* does not mean what you are looking for." CreationDate="2020-12-02T20:13:11.633" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="29977" PostId="15047" Score="0" Text="Thank you, it makes more sense now, I've edit the title a bit. my switch between passive and active, was due to another mistake, thinking its better to use the passive participle in AA." CreationDate="2020-12-03T07:43:33.527" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29981" PostId="15047" Score="0" Text="By the way, the perfect participle is of course active in meaning when you have a deponent verb. But deponents also have a present participle, which is also active in meaning. My pocket grammar has this cute example: *Sole oriente/orto profecti sumus* = We departed at/after sunrise." CreationDate="2020-12-03T13:20:48.543" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="29983" PostId="15047" Score="0" Text="Although the grammatical tradition says what you say, does it really make sense to say that the perfect participle of deponent verbs like _sole orto_ is &quot;of course active in meaning&quot;? After all, it is not by chance that the auxiliary selected by this verb in German is _sein_ and not _haben_: _Die Sonne **ist** aufgegangen_ (the subject is a patient. In contrast, _haben_ is selected when the subject is not patient). Same with _Cicerone mortuo_, where the subject (Cicerone) is a patient. Cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9064/how-accurate-is-the-typical-definition-of-a-deponent-verb" CreationDate="2020-12-03T15:29:57.680" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29994" PostId="15047" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Yes, I think calling the meaning &quot;active&quot; is sensible. In any event, I think we can agree that the active forms of deponents have the same meaning as the passive forms, so *oriens* does not mean &quot;raising&quot; and *moriens* does not mean &quot;killing.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-12-03T18:04:30.467" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30002" PostId="15047" Score="1" Text="Yes, given the parallelism between _Cicerone mortuo_ and _Cicerone occiso_ (in both cases _Cicerone_ is patient!), why should one claim that the perfect participle of deponent verbs like _mori_ is &quot;**active in meaning**&quot; (see your statement above)? It is not. Rather it is **passive in meaning**.  Hence the syntactic &amp; semantic parallelism between unaccusative verbs (_Cicero mortuus est_) and passive constructions (_Cicero occisus est_). Note also that unaccusative verbs select _sein_ in German. No surprise that the passive construction has also  been claimed to be an unaccusative construction." CreationDate="2020-12-04T01:01:41.097" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30006" PostId="15047" Score="1" Text="One more argument from the well-known bipartite class of intransitive verbs (unergatives vs. unaccusatives): only agentive/unergative verbs form impersonal passives (e.g.. Germ. _Es wurde getanzt_) but patient/unaccusative verbs do not form passives. Unaccusative verbs (e.g. _mori_, _nasci_) are passive in meaning: their subject is a patient, like the subject of a passive construction! To say that deponent verbs like _mori_ are &quot;active in meaning&quot; neglects (i) the important division above among intransitive verbs and (ii) the parallelism between passive constructions and unaccusative verbs." CreationDate="2020-12-04T03:14:22.077" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30021" PostId="15047" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Are you sure about &quot;supplicium&quot; = &quot;gallows&quot; and not just &quot;punishment&quot;? How about &quot;patibulum&quot;? I like to translate literally; top people don't (and don't translate every word, either); therefore &quot;gallows&quot; may fit." CreationDate="2020-12-04T15:08:31.663" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30026" PostId="15047" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino We will have to agree to disagree, I think. There is a semantic difference between dying and being killed, and I think the tried and true formula &quot;passive form, active meaning&quot; captures it well. If it seems philosophically problematic that dying is viewed as an active process, fine, but that objection can hardly be made for the sun rising or for talking, forgetting, promising or basically any other deponent." CreationDate="2020-12-04T18:17:40.777" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30029" PostId="15047" Score="1" Text="Probably, our disagreement comes from the fact we're talking at cross-purposes. I understand why the traditional informal proposal (&quot;passive form, active meaning&quot;) is said to hold for _all_ deponent verbs. What I'm just trying to show is why this old formula falls short for unaccusatives like _mori_ or _nasci_ (it goes well for _hortor_, which is **not** unaccusative. See my link above). Unaccusativity provides a formal parallelism between unaccusative _dying_ and passive _being killed_: i.e. their derived subjects come from an **object** position, where they are interpreted as **patients**." CreationDate="2020-12-04T19:26:14.903" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="29984" PostId="15048" Score="0" Text="Where did you see that the first person version is valid? I don't see why the same wouldn't hold for all persons." CreationDate="2020-12-03T15:33:34.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="29989" PostId="15048" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I've edited the post with link to Perseus: &quot;verb 1st sg imperf ind act poetic&quot;, but they don't accept this poetic(?) structure for the 3rd person. But without the -ne, they [do](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%20scibat&amp;la=la). So it is due to nescibat not being attested." CreationDate="2020-12-03T16:12:43.187" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="29991" PostId="15048" Score="2" Text="I think that is reading too much into attestations as I alluded to in my answer. Given the attestations around that specific form, I don't have any proper grounds to reject it just because of lack of attestation." CreationDate="2020-12-03T16:52:25.440" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30533" PostId="15049" Score="1" Text="You missed something major in your examples: every single attestation you found comes from poetry." CreationDate="2021-01-26T20:55:02.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30534" PostId="15049" Score="0" Text="@cmw Excellent point! I added a paragraph on that." CreationDate="2021-01-26T21:31:50.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30001" PostId="15050" Score="1" Text="Amazing stuff. This is of course no &quot;official&quot; translation but there is no such thing anyway." CreationDate="2020-12-03T21:52:01.643" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="30016" PostId="15052" Score="1" Text="The first example could perhaps be explained as a dativus (in)commodi; but the second one I cannot explain away. Good answer." CreationDate="2020-12-04T04:36:08.653" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30040" PostId="15052" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. Thanks! As for your point, if you take a look at the context (or at the different translations available), you'll see that the _dativus (in)commodi_ reading does not seem to be appropriate here." CreationDate="2020-12-05T04:15:50.573" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30050" PostId="15052" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, why would you say a dativus incommodi is impossible in the first example? I have read the context, and noticed the Loeb translation treats it as an ablative absolute, but..." CreationDate="2020-12-05T14:52:03.460" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30059" PostId="15052" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Out of context, it is true that the dative interpretation is possible. In fact, syntactically speaking, it could be a dative complement of _augent_ and even of the participle _congestis_ (cf. _Carthaginienses prima luce oppugnaturis hostibus castra saxis undique congestis augent vallum_). My translations, like yours, all follow the ablative absolute reading, for good reasons." CreationDate="2020-12-05T20:09:29.817" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30003" PostId="15053" Score="0" Text="Just a minor qualification on your claim: &quot;_acceptis litteris_ does not connect grammatically with the rest of the sentence! This is the meaning of &quot;absolute construction&quot;&quot;. I agree with you. However, on the basis of attested examples like _obsidibus imperatis centum **hos** Haeduis custodiendos tradit_ in &quot;very classical&quot; texts (Caes. _BG_, VI, 4, 3) we should rather say &quot;this is the _prototypical_ meaning of AA&quot;." CreationDate="2020-12-04T01:53:55.883" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30004" PostId="15053" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Thanks for the wonderful example! Pedagogically, though, I'm wary of complicating an explanation of a basic concept with odd edge cases. Also, does _hos_ really connect grammatically with _obsidibus_? As I understand it, _hos_ modifies _custodiendos_ and refers to _obsidibus_ the same way it would refer to an antecedent noun in a separate sentence. Am I misunderstanding the sentence? (I'm not an expert.) Worthy of a separate question?" CreationDate="2020-12-04T02:30:41.553" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30005" PostId="15053" Score="1" Text="I agree with you: given the nature of the question above, you should not complicate your very clear explanation, which holds for many cases. However, there are exceptions to the rule. As for your questions/doubts regarding my example above, (i) yes, _hos_ does connect grammatically with _obsidibus_ &amp; (ii) no, _hos_ does not seem to modify _custodiendos_. If any, it's the other way around. Yes, the issue (i.e. exceptions to the rule of AA formation) is worth of a separate question. Please feel free to do it." CreationDate="2020-12-04T02:42:23.777" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30015" PostId="15053" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino Proposita [quaestione](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15055/118), responsum tuum opperior. :) Above, yes, I got that wrong: _custodiendos_ modifies _hos_. That's corrected in the question." CreationDate="2020-12-04T04:33:28.863" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30019" PostId="15053" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino: In the example from Caeser, the hostages appear in the AA; and, then they are the accusative direct-object in the main clause (hos custodiendos) with the accusative of the gerundive. This violates the rule that a noun cannot be put into an AA if it goes on to be the subject or object of the main clause. Is this what you mean by &quot;prototypical&quot;? Why is this violation allowed?" CreationDate="2020-12-04T10:23:38.497" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30032" PostId="15053" Score="1" Text="@tony  Please take a look at my answer to Ben's interesting question. As for your questions, let me tell you that what some prescriptive/scholar grammars can say about AA does not necessarily coincide with what one can find in real texts (even in &quot;very classical&quot; ones like Caesar's works). By the informal term of &quot;prototypicality&quot; I mean what one typically finds. Examples like the one in Ben's question are not typical/frequent but this does not mean that they violate a grammatical rule (I'm using &quot;rule&quot; here not in the prescriptive sense)." CreationDate="2020-12-04T21:43:03.817" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30020" PostId="15055" Score="2" Text="The hostages appear in the AA (obsidibus); and, again, as accusative direct-object (hos) in the main clause. This appears to violate the rule that a noun cannot be put into an AA if it goes on to be the subject or object of the main clause." CreationDate="2020-12-04T10:34:46.457" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30022" PostId="15055" Score="1" Text="@tony I don't think there's a rule that an ablative absolute can't contain a noun that's referred to in the main clause. Would you like to post this as a separate question?" CreationDate="2020-12-04T15:40:53.573" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30046" PostId="15055" Score="1" Text="My elementary text (Oulton) insists on this rule; a more advanced work (Allen &amp; Greenough) p.419: &quot;A substantive in the AA very seldom denotes a person or thing elsewhere mentioned in the same clause.&quot; Were A &amp; G politicians? What does &quot;very seldom&quot; mean--the rule is open to interpretation; the rule can be &quot;manipulated&quot; at will; or, just ignored when it suits? Is Caeser's use a case of theory versus practice; ideality vs. practicality?" CreationDate="2020-12-05T09:50:39.443" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30054" PostId="15055" Score="0" Text="The expansion you edited out looks like great material for a number of follow-up questions. I look forward to seeing how this line of inquiry evolves!" CreationDate="2020-12-05T16:23:38.790" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30055" PostId="15055" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Glad to hear it! After I posted it, I thought there's no way I can ask anyone to read through so much stuff, that wades through so much of the complexity of parsing. I'll see how soon I can chop it up into smaller pieces." CreationDate="2020-12-05T17:19:55.830" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30018" PostId="15056" Score="0" Text="I might be completely mistaken due to my lack of formal training, but isn't qui[kwi]/cui[ku.i] a minimal pair, q/c being the orthographic distinction old Latin made up for this?" CreationDate="2020-12-04T10:00:26.840" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30023" PostId="15056" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Depends if you interpret _quī_ as `/kʷiː/` or `/kwiː/`. Personally I think it makes more sense to analyze `/kʷ/` as a single phoneme." CreationDate="2020-12-04T16:32:48.703" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30024" PostId="15056" Score="0" Text="Also, very interesting! Have you done a corpus analysis to find a comprehensive list of these interchanges?" CreationDate="2020-12-04T16:34:21.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30025" PostId="15056" Score="0" Text="(I say that not because you're obligated to do so, of course, but because it sounds like an interesting experiment to run, but I don't want to step on toes if you're already doing that.)" CreationDate="2020-12-04T17:28:30.230" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30027" PostId="15056" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I see. The argument for `/kʷ/` choice has to do with PIE, right?&#xA;&#xA;Re: corpus analysis: No, I haven't. In fact it's proven less frequent than I thought. Besides plural **qui** and dative **cui** (which, I just realized don't match vowel quality either), there are just a [few other](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=cui&amp;lang=la) occurrences of words containing _cui_.&#xA;&#xA;Two near misses worth noting: **pecuinus/equinus** and **qui usque/cuiusque**" CreationDate="2020-12-04T18:33:58.323" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30028" PostId="15056" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Also evidence within Latin: it only counts as a single consonant metrically (though this one is arguable), other stops can't combine with `/w/` in an onset, and it reacts differently with adjacent `/u/` (equus pronounced ecus, but servus pronounced servos)." CreationDate="2020-12-04T18:52:10.597" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30031" PostId="15056" Score="1" Text="&quot;the v in solvo is ultimately derived from reduction of the av in lavo&quot; -- I don't think those verbs are related; *solvō* is generally derived from *luō* (: Gk. λύω etc.)." CreationDate="2020-12-04T20:37:27.317" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30042" PostId="15056" Score="1" Text="Any examples with soluit (from soleo)?" CreationDate="2020-12-05T05:06:15.760" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30045" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="As I pointed out in my answer, your intuitive analysis is very interesting. Perhaps I'm wrong in interpreting your diagram but do you see any syntactic difference between the gerundive construction in Caesar's example in the title and the one in Nepos's example in my answer? I see one, but I'm not sure (for more discussion, please see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  ).If my comment (&amp; linked question) is not clear enough, please let me know. Thanks! –" CreationDate="2020-12-05T05:59:54.013" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30047" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: For me &quot;hos custodiendos&quot; is to be treated as a single unit: the accusative plural direct object of verb, &quot;tradit&quot;--this simplifies things." CreationDate="2020-12-05T09:57:14.717" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30048" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="@tony I think that oversimplifies things. It works grammatically but I don't think it captures the meaning that well semantically. But these are only different points of view and don't change the meaning or what is grammatically possible." CreationDate="2020-12-05T11:10:00.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30049" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Cut the Gordion Knot; apply Ockham's razor--cut to the heart of the problem. Look above at the heat generated by one sentence! What would Caeser have made of this? Hey you guys, I wrote simple, idiomatic Latin (for my audience in Rome); get into the zone; so, I broke the odd grammatical rule or two--who cares?" CreationDate="2020-12-05T11:22:10.007" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30051" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="@tony I understand the argument, but my point was that such a simplification misses the heart of the problem. Something comparable is &quot;my umbrella keeps me dry&quot;, where &quot;to keep dry&quot; is a complex predicate. The word &quot;dry&quot; is so central to the verb that treating it as an attribute of the object can feel misleading. I agree that from a practical point of view the sentence is fine, but there is a lot of passion on this site for deeply understanding grammatical structures." CreationDate="2020-12-05T15:32:44.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30052" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I don't see a significant syntactic difference between your Nepos example and the original example. The gerundive is an integral component of the predicate, at least to me. I'm not saying that there is no difference, just that the integrality of the gerundive to the predicate is of a similar degree. (That linked question is interesting and I hope someone answers you. I find these different ways to classify and structure things interesting, maybe because it is not that far from the pursuit of putting structure to mathematics.)" CreationDate="2020-12-05T15:38:18.700" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30053" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="The diagram does not fully capture my thoughts, but is a closer approximation that the originally suggested one. Perhaps circling the predicate and the gerundive as one unit would bring it a little closer to how I think." CreationDate="2020-12-05T15:39:48.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30056" PostId="15057" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your clarification. My intuition was that examples like that of Nepos above or this one from Cicero (_Virtus constat ex hominibus tuendis_ (Cic. Off. 1.157)) are different from Caesar's example in the title. In the former, it seems clear that the internal argument is a **proposition** (that's why the gerundive is compulsory), whereas in Caesar's example the gerundive seems optional since the direct object can be an individual (_hos_). _Tradit_ in Caesar's example does not appear to select a propositional/&quot;sentential&quot; complement but it's true that this reading is not excluded either." CreationDate="2020-12-05T19:35:03.857" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30057" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="Can Caesar’s example be structurally ambiguous? In one reading the direct object would not be propositional, the gerundive being then an optional purpose adjunct (cf. ‘he hands them over to the Haedui to be guarded). In another reading, the DO  would be propositional (_hos custodiendos_), the gerundive being compulsory: ‘he hands [the guarding of them] to the Haedui’ (NB: the latter interpretation is the only one involved in Nepos’s &amp; Cicero's examples: e.g. ‘Virtue centres in protecting people’. The individual reading is not available: #'Virtue centres in people who must be protected')." CreationDate="2020-12-05T19:39:10.713" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30058" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="I know that ambiguity could be said to be forced by looking at English translations rather than by looking at Latin itself! However, ambiguity is not to be discarded. After all, _ab urbe condita_ is also potentially ambiguous, depending on whether the **propositional** reading is involved (cf. the so-called &quot;dominant&quot; reading, the favorite one: 'since the foundation of the city') or not (cf. the &quot;individual&quot; reading: 'from the founded city')." CreationDate="2020-12-05T19:48:12.270" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30061" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I think Caesar's example has room for ambiguity. In my reading the gerundive is what you call propositional and not optional. I recognize that my treating *custodiendum tradere* as a set unit rather than having the simple *tradere* as the predicate with an object that happens to be *custodiendus* is not the only option, but it feels most natural to me. But the choice of reading does not seem to change the factual event being described, and I actually wonder if there is an example where dominance of a participle or gerundive deeply changes meaning." CreationDate="2020-12-05T22:32:05.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30062" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="This comment chain is getting long. We should continue in [the site's chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) or have a new question if we want to continue." CreationDate="2020-12-05T22:33:18.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30072" PostId="15057" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Whether the gerundive is optional or not, do you agree that &quot;hos custodiendos&quot; can be treated as a single, discrete unit--the accusative-plural direct-object?" CreationDate="2020-12-06T09:05:28.290" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30126" PostId="15057" Score="1" Text="I am linking this page to the continuing discussion in CHAT: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/56352051#56352051" CreationDate="2020-12-10T09:27:43.097" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30030" PostId="15058" Score="1" Text="It was very interesting to read your comments on my answer. As is amply clear, my area of technical expertise is not linguistics, so your take on my intuition is quite illuminating — at least to me." CreationDate="2020-12-04T20:36:36.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30033" PostId="15058" Score="1" Text="I certainly am interested in theoretical questions! (I'm a Ph.D student; I have to be.) Thanks for all the wonderful examples. My favorite definition of absolute construction: a phrase that, in a sentence diagrammed as shown above, has no lines connecting it to the main clause. I've never read that anywhere but I think it's equivalent to what I've read everywhere—&quot;grammatically independent&quot;, etc. I just checked out the four Caesarean sentences, and I don't see a problem. Do you?" CreationDate="2020-12-04T22:04:02.407" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30034" PostId="15058" Score="0" Text="I'll reply about _hos custodiendos_ when I have a little more time. I think that's of more theoretical interest, more than I dared hope we could examine here." CreationDate="2020-12-04T22:05:51.913" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30035" PostId="15058" Score="0" Text="*&quot;...my intuition is that the next example involves a sort of so-called &quot;dominant construction&quot;, whereas Ben's example above does not.&quot;* — I agree. // About whether or not they are part of a praedicate, I would say the gerundives in both versions (both Ben's example and your dominant example from Nepos) are used as [praedicative expressions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicative_expression), which are something in between adjectives (morpho-syntactically) and adverbials (semantically). So, yes, you might very well see them as part of a praedicate. Object complements are generally pr. exps." CreationDate="2020-12-04T23:47:54.993" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30037" PostId="15058" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yes, in both versions the gerundive is a predicative expression. The issue here is whether _corrumpendum_ in the ex. above is the predicate of a dominant pr. construction (if so, this verbal adjective can be argued to be the head; see my comment above on Nikitina &amp; Haug (2015)). In contrast, in Ben's example it seems that the head is _hos_, the gerundive _custodiendos_ being then a modifier (and not the predicate of a dominant pr. construction)." CreationDate="2020-12-05T01:11:18.487" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30038" PostId="15058" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz As for your question above &quot;I just checked out the four Caesarean sentences, and I don't see a problem. Do you?&quot;, note that my first three examples are typically problematic for many definitions of AA (cf. Cerberus's rule above, which can have other variants). Let me tell you that for me the real problematic examples are the ones that involve a coincidence of subjects (subject of AA and subject of main clause). I'd expect a participium coniunctum: i.e. _coacta equitum milia recensebantur_. Unsurprisingly, this type of AA is VERY infrequent (even in Caesar's works)." CreationDate="2020-12-05T01:25:10.200" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30036" PostId="15059" Score="0" Text="When dealing with the syntax of AA, a debatable issue is whether the **head** of the AA is the nominal subject (cf. your rule) or the predicate. Unsurprisingly, the same issue arises when dealing with the syntax of dominant participle constructions (aka _ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short). For example, see Section 2.2 of this article (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-968X.12061 ) for some arguments that the head of AUC is not the nominal subject but the predicate. NB: for Pinkster (1995: 132) **AAs are dominant part. constructions in adjunct position**." CreationDate="2020-12-05T00:53:29.877" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30039" PostId="15059" Score="0" Text="_Obsides imperatos_—thanks, that's just the stimulus I needed to clarify my understanding of how predication is working in this sentence. My understanding is probably wrong; I'll add it to the question." CreationDate="2020-12-05T01:57:59.027" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30063" PostId="15060" Score="1" Text="It happens sometimes in English that someone writes: “You know that, when X and Y but Z, that you will do the right thing.” Strictly speaking it is a mistake. Maybe the same happened here in Latin?" CreationDate="2020-12-05T22:34:18.187" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30074" PostId="15063" Score="1" Text="Do you mean like a general wish (&quot;Please let me do well on that test tomorrow!&quot;), or actually asking someone for permission to do something?" CreationDate="2020-12-06T14:51:05.553" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30075" PostId="15063" Score="1" Text="the latter, I think, although now I'm curious as to what the first would be as well!" CreationDate="2020-12-06T15:24:50.737" UserId="6998" />
  <row Id="30079" PostId="15064" Score="2" Text="Tibi gratulor, quod iam decem milia tulisti punctorum!" CreationDate="2020-12-07T10:00:18.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30076" PostId="15065" Score="0" Text="In this case, the Hebrew wouldn't be the reason for the subjunctive—there is no subjunctive mood in Hebrew. I've not looked at the LXX text for this verse to see what the Greek does, but your answer seems to be spot on. I'd note that I've found places where Jerome makes some deviations from the source text in surprising ways, notably varying the phrasing for “XXX lived” in the genealogies in Gen 5." CreationDate="2020-12-07T01:46:22.257" UserId="8682" />
  <row Id="30077" PostId="15065" Score="1" Text="@DonaldHosek I can't comment on that, it has just been my experience on this website that any weirdness in the Vulgate seems to end up being explained as a literal translation from this or that Hebrew or Greek original ;-)" CreationDate="2020-12-07T02:12:03.413" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30078" PostId="15065" Score="0" Text="Fair enough. In this case though, it's gaps in my Latin (it's been three decades since I was studying it in college).As I make my way through the text if I have further questions I'll indicate that I've checked the Hebrew and the Greek. I've got some distance to traverse in the meantime." CreationDate="2020-12-07T03:00:39.057" UserId="8682" />
  <row Id="30116" PostId="15068" Score="1" Text="Ok. Joonas, Thank you very much for your answer." CreationDate="2020-12-09T19:50:21.040" UserId="8685" />
  <row Id="30085" PostId="15070" Score="0" Text="Would *mos/mores* sound too alien to your target audience?" CreationDate="2020-12-08T16:59:25.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30088" PostId="15070" Score="0" Text="I don't think so, since they'll see it as the english plural [mores](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mores). As long as the meaning is the same or close it would work well." CreationDate="2020-12-08T19:20:02.687" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30105" PostId="15070" Score="1" Text="Many famous Latin writings by ancient Romans lamented that the world has lost its way, as well as by later Christian writers. One of them, many of them, must have said exactly this. The only one I can think of is Cicero's _O tempora! O mores!_ as in Vincenzo Oliva's answer. There must be more." CreationDate="2020-12-09T15:43:04.063" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30089" PostId="15071" Score="2" Text="I feel like that website is confusing three separate concepts in a wildly unhelpful way: the actual locative case (now mostly gone), the ablative of place, and when you can use a locative or ablative of place without a specific preposition." CreationDate="2020-12-08T19:40:07.077" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30090" PostId="15071" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Explaining that distinction would make a fine answer!" CreationDate="2020-12-08T19:48:50.453" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30091" PostId="15073" Score="0" Text="So if it is possible that adjectives appear with geographical proper names you should give the possible locative for every adjective if you would build a list of every form for something like &quot;magnus&quot;? I'm currently working on a Android app, that's why I ask." CreationDate="2020-12-08T20:59:10.330" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30093" PostId="15073" Score="0" Text="But I want to deliver a complete table :(  xD&#xA;On German search engines for Latin words every single noun is shown with a locative which is also kind of wrong but I think I would include locatives for the single nouns which form a locative and every adjective. Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-12-08T21:08:16.890" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30106" PostId="15076" Score="4" Text="Are you sure about putting _mundus_ into the vocative case? I'm thinking that this lamentation calls for _O_ with the nominative—or is it [the accusative](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15061/118)?" CreationDate="2020-12-09T15:45:04.067" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30112" PostId="15076" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz: Oh that's a very good point, they do seem to work! I have found a precedent for the use of the vocative [here](http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Augustinus_Hipponensis__Incertus_cps2&amp;rumpfid=Augustinus_Hipponensis__Incertus_cps2,%20Ad%20fratres%20in%20eremo%20commorantes,%20%2031&amp;id=Augustinus_Hipponensis__Incertus_cps2,%20Ad%20fratres%20in%20eremo%20commorantes,%20%2031&amp;level=3&amp;corpus=2&amp;current_title=SERMO%20XXXI.%20DE%20FALLACIA%20MUNDI,%20ET%20EIUS%20DETESTATIONE,%20PROPTER%20TRIA%20PRAECIPUE%20MALA%20QUAE%20IN%20EO%20SUNT.): _o munde immunde, fallax et proditor_..." CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:56:38.947" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="30113" PostId="15076" Score="2" Text="... where indeed the World is personified (e.g. cf. cuncta bona promittis), so I guess the choice of case depends on the desired nuance. I did go for the accusative though, see my edit." CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:57:11.133" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="35208" PostId="15076" Score="0" Text="Just a note, it's not so much personification that matters, but address. In *o mundum*, you're exclaiming *about* the world, not directly addressing it. Accusative is indeed best here." CreationDate="2021-09-21T15:37:59.513" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30103" PostId="15077" Score="1" Text="With respect to dative, the proverb *porta itineri longissima* comes to mind.  But I'm not sure about the meaning difference with respect to a genitive." CreationDate="2020-12-09T13:30:25.453" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30104" PostId="15077" Score="1" Text="@d_e Great example! I incorporated it into my answer." CreationDate="2020-12-09T14:05:02.400" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30107" PostId="15077" Score="1" Text="The dative strikes me as wrong. The construction *porta itineri longissima* seems highly unusual to me. I do not fully understand it (it is probably worth its own question), but I am not convinced *porta itineri* means &quot;the gate to the journey.&quot; For one thing, that's not how [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/porta?hl=longissima) translates it." CreationDate="2020-12-09T15:57:44.153" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30108" PostId="15077" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. Thanks! I posted a question to address that." CreationDate="2020-12-09T16:52:56.280" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30137" PostId="15077" Score="1" Text="&quot;Although this expression doesn't appear as such in the Bible&quot; - what about &quot;porta caeli&quot;&#xA;(Genesis 28:17)? But the Vulgate and Irenaeus are both translations, so it isn't a great proof for Latin idiom" CreationDate="2020-12-10T15:17:02.310" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="30139" PostId="15077" Score="0" Text="@ba You're right! Thanks! I updated my answer." CreationDate="2020-12-10T15:29:44.210" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30129" PostId="15078" Score="0" Text="Well there would be nothing strange about borrowing a letter, it is what was done with y" CreationDate="2020-12-10T11:43:42.280" UserId="8690" />
  <row Id="30140" PostId="15078" Score="0" Text="I see - I misread your question. You may want to read more about which Greek letters were borrowed in Latin - and which ones were not - here https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/39" CreationDate="2020-12-10T20:20:14.497" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30122" PostId="15080" Score="0" Text="It could almost be read as a dativus possesivus: The [passing of the] gate is the journey's longest [part]." CreationDate="2020-12-10T07:07:32.317" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30123" PostId="15080" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I thought of that, and it is certainly an option. It requires filling in so many gaps that it makes me suspicious. But no option seems completely transparent and obvious to me; this is a weird dative. I'll edit." CreationDate="2020-12-10T07:41:41.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30124" PostId="15080" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, this [page](https://archive.org/details/berdenkasusgebr00sitzgoog/page/n12/mode/1up) seems to mention this phrase in context of the dative. However I can't read German unfortunately." CreationDate="2020-12-10T09:06:16.113" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30127" PostId="15080" Score="2" Text="@d_e Fascinating, but unfortunately the author only writes that this use is “remarkable” and goes on to cite Georges' translation. He does not elaborate further how he interprets it. The example is *not* part of an earlier paragraph about how Varro uses the dative in place of the genetive with *sum* and a predicate noun." CreationDate="2020-12-10T11:30:46.507" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30128" PostId="15080" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, I see. Thanks. Maybe it is indeed better to leave it &quot;remarkable&quot; than trying to explain and to confuse the readers." CreationDate="2020-12-10T11:41:29.433" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30136" PostId="15080" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I don’t see that the **literal** translation of _porta itineri longissima est_ is &quot;the gate is the longest thing to the journey&quot;. Unlike the possessive dative reading, this alternative reading requires a sort of special (re)interpretation of the fem. agreement (cf. &quot;the longest thing&quot;?), which is not obvious to me." CreationDate="2020-12-10T14:38:53.150" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30138" PostId="15080" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Indeed, it's not literal, just an attempt to capture that reading option. I polished the answer a bit in that regard. I think supplying a word like *pars* is needed also for the possessive reading. Neither reading seems more obvious than the other, at least to me." CreationDate="2020-12-10T15:17:50.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30154" PostId="15080" Score="0" Text="In the OLD entry *porta* it is explained as &quot;the journey to the gate, the first step&quot;" CreationDate="2020-12-11T22:04:02.983" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30155" PostId="15080" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. That's clearly what it means, but reversed cases (*iter portae*) would make more sense to me. Does OLD comment any further?" CreationDate="2020-12-11T22:06:55.010" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30156" PostId="15080" Score="0" Text="No, and the TLL also mentions it (1c) http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#70959, cf. Otto 1890, who explains its meaning (&quot;Die größte Schritt ist immer der aus der Thür [sic]&quot;, also see the footnote about Georges ) but not its grammar/use https://archive.org/details/diesprichwrteru00ottogoog/page/n337/mode/2up" CreationDate="2020-12-11T22:20:47.060" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30157" PostId="15080" Score="3" Text="but I also found this interesting quote in the Cambridge Classical Journal supplementary volume 39: &quot;in contemplating a journey, the gate is the most distant point: Giusta finds the dative forced (he would have expected a genitive)&quot;. When I get access to Giusta (it seems to be in Italian), I could add more." CreationDate="2020-12-11T22:29:32.360" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30158" PostId="15080" Score="1" Text="Perhaps that is why this reading was offered: &quot;portam itineris dici &lt;partem&gt; longissimam esse&quot; in J. van der Vliet &quot;Varronis Rei Rusticae I. 2. § 2. § 4.&quot; Mnemosyne, New Series, 23 (1895): 181-82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4425072" CreationDate="2020-12-11T23:04:35.387" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30161" PostId="15080" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. I would be happy to read an answer about objections to the dative like Giusta and that alternative reading." CreationDate="2020-12-12T09:04:03.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45701" PostId="15081" Score="0" Text="You are right when you say:&quot;I think the verbs should be Present Active Imperative, either singular (consolare, afflige) or plural (consolamini, affligite).&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-30T04:41:37.673" UserId="14438" />
  <row Id="45702" PostId="15081" Score="0" Text="When a Latin verb is passive in form, but has an active meaning, it is called a deponent verb.They are tricky!" CreationDate="2023-11-30T04:45:19.880" UserId="14438" />
  <row Id="46957" PostId="15081" Score="0" Text="On the appropriateness of the [tag:ecclesiastical-latin] tag: While the phrase itself may have a secular origin, the sentiment seems to me to be quite biblical. See e.g. Ezekiel 34:16, in which God says, &quot;I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-21T18:38:01.313" UserId="10646" />
  <row Id="30141" PostId="15085" Score="0" Text="I agree with you that if we “cut out most of the sentence”, the main idea that remains is _Constituendi sunt fines_. I’m not sure what you mean when saying “As I understand the first sentence, its subject is _qui_.” I could be wrong but it seems to me that the sentence in the title involves a sort of blending of two different syntactic structures: (i) _constituendi sunt fines_ &amp; (ii) _constituendum est qui sint fines_." CreationDate="2020-12-11T02:13:46.953" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30144" PostId="15085" Score="0" Text="Your example _Perspicio te, Miles Gloriose, quam levis sis_ is very interesting. In my opinion, this example would also involve a blending of two different structures: (i) _Perspicio te_ &amp; (ii) _Perspicio quam levis (tu) sis_." CreationDate="2020-12-11T02:51:40.660" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30145" PostId="15085" Score="2" Text="Your example _Perspicio **te**, Miles Gloriose, quam levis sis_, which involves an instantiation of the so-called **proleptic accusative**,  is really illuminating. This construction could well be at the basis of the passive construction of the example _Quidam saepe in parva pecunia perspiciuntur quam sint leves_: i.e., its nominative subject _quidam_ could correspond to a subjacent proleptic accusative object in the active voice. Cf. this interesting example from Cicero: _nosti uirum, quam tectus_ (Cic. _Att._ 14.21.2) 'You know how cryptic the man is'. NB: _virum_ is a proleptic accusative." CreationDate="2020-12-11T04:12:40.393" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30146" PostId="15085" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Funny thing: I'm usually the one saying, against objections from linguists, that language sometimes works by simultaneously evoking multiple senses of words or multiple grammatical structures and blending them in some _ad hoc_ way (e.g. [this answer](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/57324/6700) on ELL). But the two sentences in this question seem to me to have an unambiguous grammatical structure, no need for unusual blending. I'll add a diagram to the answer—and google to find out what a proleptic accusative is." CreationDate="2020-12-11T04:40:32.270" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30147" PostId="15085" Score="1" Text="Many thanks, Ben! I've just added a link to the notion of &quot;proleptic accusative&quot; (on the first page of the article you'll see a brief definition &amp; a typical example)." CreationDate="2020-12-11T04:50:26.097" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30179" PostId="15085" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The &quot;proleptic accusative&quot; is something I have not encountered before--. a noun that can be both subject and object. The ex. from Cicero (Att. 14.21.2), did it come from the paper by Hilla Halla-Aho? Checking with the chaps on CHAT, Cerberus pointed me to Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4684/1982, Prolepsis is not exclusive to the accusative. If &quot;prolepsis&quot; is &quot;The anticipation or representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so; anticipatory use of adjectives as in 'paint the town red' (Oxford), why is it called the &quot;proleptic accusative&quot;?" CreationDate="2020-12-15T10:14:37.597" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30181" PostId="15085" Score="0" Text="@tony The example from Cicero you mention was taken from the same source of Terentius's example above: cf. _patrem nouisti ad has res quam sit perspicax_ (Ter. Haut. 370). I can give you more bibliography on this topic, if you're interested. As for your example of &quot;prolepsis&quot;, I think that we're not talking on the very same phenomenon. In fact, note that Latin does have cases of proleptic accusatives but lacks resultative constructions like &quot;to paint the wall red&quot; or &quot;to wipe the table clean&quot;. Cf.  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin" CreationDate="2020-12-15T14:38:41.353" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30190" PostId="15085" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you, some extra bibliography would be most welcome. The expression &quot;to paint the town red&quot; is so common, here, that I assumed that you would be aware of it." CreationDate="2020-12-16T12:59:55.537" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30194" PostId="15085" Score="0" Text="@tony You can take a look at the interesting examples of proleptic accusative of this downloadable article (please see **pages 118 &amp; 119**, examples from (44) to (47)): https://revistes.uab.cat/catJL/article/view/v16-bortolussi/208-pdf-en  At the end of this article there are some relevant references: Bortolussi (2012), Álvarez Huerta (2007), and the article you mentioned above in a comment of yours: Halla-aho (2012)." CreationDate="2020-12-16T19:42:37.687" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30148" PostId="15086" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the Latin site! Your question was migrated here as it is more about Latin than English. Please consider joining this SE site too in order to get proper access to this question as its owner." CreationDate="2020-12-11T07:42:35.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30149" PostId="15086" Score="0" Text="[Wikiquotes](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger) has a long list of quotes for Seneca the younger with better attribution than most online sources. The closest fit I found quickly is: &quot;Nothing lasts forever, few things even last for long: all are susceptible of decay in one way or another; moreover all that begins also ends.&quot;" CreationDate="2020-12-11T08:00:19.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30160" PostId="15086" Score="0" Text="Thanks @JoonasIlmavirta! I should have mentioned that I saw that quote. None of the claims in that quote match the attributed quote. The one that comes closest is &quot;all that begins also ends&quot;.&#xA;     But the attributed quote has a profound insight regarding the relationship between beginnings and endings that the Wikiquote lacks: a new beginning **entails** the end of some other beginning. At best, one might claim that the Seneca quote in Wikiquotes &quot;inspired&quot; the quote in question." CreationDate="2020-12-11T23:55:11.897" UserId="8708" />
  <row Id="30151" PostId="15087" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm always glad to see more people with interest in both mathematics and Latin. I look forward to seeing more questions from you." CreationDate="2020-12-11T12:17:54.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30153" PostId="15087" Score="0" Text="You'll have a better understanding of *tradit* when you get to Cap. XXIII of LLPSI." CreationDate="2020-12-11T18:57:59.533" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30159" PostId="15087" Score="1" Text="Just as a comment, hyperbaton means separating words that go together grammatically (e.g. *Magnum* vidi *puerum*), so it's not a relevant term in this case." CreationDate="2020-12-11T23:51:33.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30150" PostId="15088" Score="0" Text="It occurs to me that English &quot;teach&quot; is typically used with a double direct object (&quot;teach him that&quot; etc). So is *docere*, the usual Latin word for &quot;teach&quot; (double accusative). But not *tradere*." CreationDate="2020-12-11T09:12:46.250" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37735" PostId="15091" Score="0" Text="Do any of these answer your question?" CreationDate="2022-03-29T03:07:43.513" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30162" PostId="15093" Score="1" Text="Thanks a lot! I think this sounds more &quot;catchy&quot; than the literal translation (pun intended) :)&#xA;I'm gonna send them an e-mail, let's see what they think!" CreationDate="2020-12-12T14:38:24.887" UserId="8707" />
  <row Id="30170" PostId="15097" Score="0" Text="Note that *semper feles* does indeed mean “always cats,” but it could also mean “always a cat” (or “always the cat”). Something that sounds closer (to my ears at least) to *semper fidelis* would be *semper felinus* = “always catlike” (singular)." CreationDate="2020-12-14T00:23:32.037" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30171" PostId="15097" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That ought to be an answer rather than a comment." CreationDate="2020-12-14T09:53:26.653" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="30211" PostId="15099" Score="1" Text="What I like about that is that felidae is a neat spoonerism of fideles." CreationDate="2020-12-20T11:27:42.783" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="30173" PostId="15101" Score="4" Text="Cf. *unde* &quot;whence&quot;, *ut* &quot;how&quot;. It may be related to the u in *ullus, usquam*, etc." CreationDate="2020-12-15T02:24:45.930" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30187" PostId="15101" Score="1" Text="It is &quot;kojãst&quot;. And &quot;kojãst&quot; means &quot;where is&quot;. &quot;kojã&quot; is equivalent to &quot;where&quot;." CreationDate="2020-12-15T22:15:28.140" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="30188" PostId="15101" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad fixed" CreationDate="2020-12-15T22:32:52.260" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="30175" PostId="15102" Score="0" Text="Any idea about the '-bi' part?" CreationDate="2020-12-15T03:05:55.973" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="30176" PostId="15102" Score="2" Text="@Mitch I believe it's from PIE *-dʰi, cognate with Greek -θι." CreationDate="2020-12-15T03:29:50.363" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30177" PostId="15102" Score="0" Text="And does PIE *-dʰi have any special meaning?" CreationDate="2020-12-15T04:09:39.690" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="30178" PostId="15102" Score="0" Text="@Mitch &quot;Where&quot;, or something like that." CreationDate="2020-12-15T04:49:01.900" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30180" PostId="15102" Score="0" Text="Not that it's relevant to Latin, but any clue as to cognates of *-dʰi in other IE?" CreationDate="2020-12-15T13:33:14.767" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="30185" PostId="15102" Score="0" Text="Excellent...thanks. Sometimes there's just no knowing the pregistory but this seems to work out pretty well (the loss of 'c' here)." CreationDate="2020-12-15T16:24:13.587" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="30184" PostId="15105" Score="0" Text="Excellent..thanks" CreationDate="2020-12-15T16:21:59.243" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="30196" PostId="15108" Score="1" Text="Possibly relatedly, the i in &quot;etiam&quot; is a vowel despite that word also coming from &quot;jam&quot;" CreationDate="2020-12-17T02:20:12.443" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="30189" PostId="15109" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your findings!" CreationDate="2020-12-16T10:10:49.627" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="30193" PostId="15109" Score="2" Text="Lewis &amp; Short [agree](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquoniam) that it is a vowel (or else their entry would be *quonjam*)." CreationDate="2020-12-16T18:15:23.227" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30195" PostId="15109" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Good point! That's evidence in support of my conclusion. Is it documented somewhere how L&amp;S decided on vowel lengths?" CreationDate="2020-12-16T21:00:02.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30215" PostId="15109" Score="1" Text="Another piece of metric evidence from Ecclesiastical Latin: in the *Gloria* of the Mass, there is the phrase *quoniam tu solus sanctus*, and the *quoniam* is always sung as three syllables." CreationDate="2020-12-21T08:06:26.420" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="31154" PostId="15109" Score="0" Text="In poetry, isn't an *i* in a position inside a word like this normally flexible as to whether it's pronounced as a vowel or a consonant—i.e. according to whichever way fits the meter?" CreationDate="2021-03-19T08:26:52.297" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="31155" PostId="15109" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Indeed, it is flexible like that, but I still think words are preferably used with their proper pronunciation on poetry. That's why such metric evidence can suggest but not prove things." CreationDate="2021-03-19T10:54:36.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30191" PostId="15110" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer!" CreationDate="2020-12-16T15:24:41.173" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30192" PostId="15110" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks!" CreationDate="2020-12-16T15:51:24.903" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30201" PostId="15112" Score="1" Text="I wish there were such a dictionary! Unfortunately, I have never seen anything like that. Typically such information is scattered across historical grammars of Latin (most of them in German, some in English). That being said, we have the Thesaurus linguae Latinae (TLL) https://thesaurus.badw.de/en/project.html , so sometimes it is mentioned there, especially in those cases when it was mentioned by the grammarians or posited on etymological grounds. see e.g. how comprehensive their treatment of *iam* is http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#47477" CreationDate="2020-12-17T16:52:24.417" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30203" PostId="15112" Score="0" Text="The OLD also helps in some cases (I think they use a lot of the TLL data, naturally). For instance, for *quoniam* they say &quot;trisyll.&quot; (i.e. three syllables)" CreationDate="2020-12-17T16:56:03.827" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30214" PostId="15112" Score="0" Text="Only related, maybe useful here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1850/websites-for-latin-pronunciation" CreationDate="2020-12-20T21:13:28.310" UserId="6851" />
  <row Id="30198" PostId="15113" Score="0" Text="Where does &quot;you must definitely&quot; come from?" CreationDate="2020-12-17T14:24:09.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30199" PostId="15113" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Wiki: &quot;ad modum&quot; = &quot;completely&quot;; &quot;greatly&quot;; &quot;just so&quot;; rendered to &quot;definitely&quot;; but, perhaps not? Thank you for the answer." CreationDate="2020-12-17T16:25:38.380" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30202" PostId="15113" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Yes, &quot;quemadmodum&quot; = &quot;how&quot;; but it's always given as one word, not three?! Oxford lists it as one word. In a way, I feel stupid; in another, I don't. Thanks again (I've learned something)." CreationDate="2020-12-17T16:53:24.893" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30204" PostId="15113" Score="0" Text="Spellings vary. The Romans mostly had no word spacing, so division to words is a later editorial decision. Being listed and analyzed as a single word is due to being a set expression. That kind of spelling variation happens to a few words." CreationDate="2020-12-17T16:58:44.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30205" PostId="15113" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: There is &quot;priusquam&quot; = &quot;until&quot;,  often written as two words e.g. &quot;neque prius fugere destiterunt quam ad flumen.&quot; = &quot;They did not abandon to flight until they had reached the river.&quot;." CreationDate="2020-12-18T09:39:42.543" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30206" PostId="15113" Score="0" Text="There's also *ante-quam* and *qua-re* and probably many more." CreationDate="2020-12-18T09:50:47.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30277" PostId="15117" Score="0" Text="Castellio doesn't have to be right. Delapsa is probably not a finite verb, but the perfect participle. &quot;The weapons, having slipped, fell.&quot; I'll write a fuller answer later." CreationDate="2020-12-31T06:17:17.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30210" PostId="15119" Score="2" Text="Two questions to clarify: (1) Do you mean citations in the context of a scientific article? In many other contexts something less formal would do. (2) Have you tried reaching out to the email address `latin@packhum.org` give on their pages? I would assume that they have the definitive answer. Having their answer recorded here on our site would be great." CreationDate="2020-12-20T10:38:43.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30212" PostId="15119" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ah yes, I mean in the context of a publication. Their very minimal license agreement doesn't even indicate whether that's allowed, but going from the earlier licensing on their CDs, it seems like the intent is to allow pretty much any academic use (just not commercial publication), so I'm hoping that's allowed. I'll send them an email and update here if I get a response!" CreationDate="2020-12-20T17:27:33.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30213" PostId="15119" Score="0" Text="(In the meantime, though, if anyone else knows of precedent, I'm sure there are papers out there which have used this corpus and have probably cited it _somehow_.)" CreationDate="2020-12-20T17:28:14.380" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30217" PostId="15124" Score="0" Text="Very nice! In this particular case, I know from outside information that this version of the data was first published (on CD) in 1991, and then moved online 20 years later; I'm assuming I should cite when the data was first published in _any_ form, rather than when it was moved online, since that's what I'd do with a digitized article or book?" CreationDate="2020-12-21T17:28:47.510" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30220" PostId="15124" Score="0" Text="@Draconis. I don't know. My [source](https://www.mendeley.com/guides/web-citation-guide) simply said to cite the date when it was published on the internet. The instructions I included are those that they gave for obtaining that." CreationDate="2020-12-21T18:28:25.000" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30216" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="(may I ask, what the Latin for a sheet-bend is?  [ref. the insignia on yr flag])" CreationDate="2020-12-21T15:49:21.540" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30218" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="@Hugh I have no idea. But you can always ask a separate question about that. There's no question too small." CreationDate="2020-12-21T17:55:29.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30223" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="I wonder if you could perhaps use *velut … sic* in a pinch, e.g. *velut Marcum et Mariam, sic Lucium et Luciam invitabo ad convivium* – this is how we do it in German (*so* + *wie* = *sowie*), but in Latin *velut* + *sic* usually is correlative." CreationDate="2020-12-21T22:17:05.420" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30224" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel A quick search produces &quot;velut in cantu et fidibus quae ἁρμονία dicitur: sic ex corporis totius natura et figura varios motus cieri tamquam in cantu sonos&quot; (Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes), &quot;uelut ante deuictarum gentium Numantinus et Isauricus, ita Sergius Orata et Licinius Muraena&quot; (L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, De Re Rustica), &quot;quippe q non constat aliter quam duabus c et u, b velut vel k quod esse q vides muti soni; q velut et u, c quoque et uu plenius quod postmodum	&#xA;sic in unam q&quot; (Terentianus Maurus, De Litt.). Perhaps something like that could indeed work." CreationDate="2020-12-21T23:19:18.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30225" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In English &quot;and also&quot; would divide the two pairs of nouns. &quot;I invited A and B and also C and D.&quot;. These words are not the same: &quot;and&quot; is a conjunction; &quot;also&quot; is an adverb--&quot;in the same manner&quot;; &quot;in addition&quot;; &quot;as well&quot;. Further, it prevents the clumsy repetition: &quot;.....A and B and C and D.&quot;. The second pair may be of a lower priority: &quot;I invited the Prime Minister and his wife and also a minister and his wife.&quot; You would not say: &quot;I invited a minister and his wife and also the Prime...&quot;. The Latin is &quot;necnon&quot; = &quot;and also&quot;, an adverb." CreationDate="2020-12-22T12:40:40.107" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30226" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="@tony In Finnish you can do this with two conjunctions, and according to the answer also in Latin. An adverb like &quot;also&quot; is a workaround but not quite the same as what Finnish and Latin can do without any sense of priority." CreationDate="2020-12-22T12:43:31.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30227" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: There is only one ex. of this use in Glosbe--uses of necnon; but, without attestation. Interesting is &quot;Dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritu tuo&quot; = &quot;God be with you and your spirit&quot;. The ICEL (International Community on English in the Liturgy) is considering changing this translation to &quot;....and also your sprit.&quot;." CreationDate="2020-12-22T12:45:24.533" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30236" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="@vectory Which half of each couple is listed first is not of much importance for this question. And I don't think the tradition of &quot;ladies first&quot; applies to listing couples, but that is beside the point. I have actually paid attention to gender balance in some questions. // More importantly, please refrain from etymological speculation, especially in connection with a question that is not about etymology. If you have a question about the etymological connections of *et*, they should go into a separate new question." CreationDate="2020-12-23T14:44:44.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30237" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="You missed the point: &quot;*The change of a commitative adposition &quot;with&quot; to a coordinating conjunction &quot;and&quot; is not unusual and often seen in the languages of the world*&quot;([1](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/35944/22504)). That's typology, not etymology per se. It's stochastic not speculative, because I don't draw any conclusion. I just mentioned it for your purview. // I insist that a correct translation has to take etymology into account, if possible. It's certainly not forbidden. More over, even a wrong etymology (Mari-ja) can lead to a correct translation, yea? You can hold it any way." CreationDate="2020-12-23T18:10:13.147" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="30238" PostId="15126" Score="0" Text="@vectory That's indeed a relevant remark. I just didn't know what exactly you were referring to in the linked post. It's worth checking whether a similar effect has been reached in attested Latin literature using *cum* and *et/atque/-que*." CreationDate="2020-12-23T18:24:04.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30219" PostId="15127" Score="0" Text="Note, I can translate out the rest of the sentence if it would be useful; it's just a lot of text without many conjunctions to show off." CreationDate="2020-12-21T18:23:11.803" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30221" PostId="15127" Score="0" Text="Thanks! So you'd say that my option 2 is valid for this purpose?" CreationDate="2020-12-21T18:36:33.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30222" PostId="15127" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Definitely; I'm not sure if this is a universal &quot;hierarchy&quot; or just in Plautus, but it seems certainly to be precedent for that usage." CreationDate="2020-12-21T18:47:22.573" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30228" PostId="15127" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: The English translation displays the ugly repetition of &quot;and&quot;; is that why three versions of this were used? Why have Mercury speaking in this way, was it a satire?" CreationDate="2020-12-22T16:50:45.393" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30229" PostId="15127" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm sure there was some humor intended, given that it's Plautus, but I don't know if it was satire directed at anyone in particular." CreationDate="2020-12-22T17:18:52.577" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30244" PostId="15132" Score="0" Text="Interesting. I have to wonder if *celare sub stola**m*** is indeed invalid, wouldn't that also mean that *celare sub stola* does not mean the intended meaning of this sentence. i.e. *sub stola* can only refer to the place the action has taken place (not the hidden place). For the intended meaning one then can only use the ablative of means. i.e. *Puella crustula stola celat* (without sub altogether)." CreationDate="2020-12-25T15:38:59.633" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30246" PostId="15132" Score="0" Text="*But in English &quot;to hide&quot; can be either the act of moving to a hidden position* -- this is arguably *not* the case, at least not grammatically: you cannot hide *into* a closet, for example. And I believe the same is true in Latin, but it is hard to prove a negative." CreationDate="2020-12-25T19:55:39.193" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30301" PostId="15132" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel For related discussion confirming Sebastian's point see https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/56572/can-a-snake-hide-in-or-into-a-cars-engine  Cf. &quot;Additionally, I would note that _hide_ is used with prepositions which indicate location, not motion. Thus, your guest cannot _hide into, hide towards_, or _hide back to_ even the most spacious engine bay, but can slither, scuttle, swarm, etc. into it to hide _in_ or _inside_ or _within_ it&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-02T17:20:43.797" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30302" PostId="15132" Score="0" Text="I see the point about &quot;hide into&quot; in English. But the instruction &quot;Hide in the wardrobe!&quot; is still pretty clearly indicating movement. So how would that be put in Latin? I'm only reasoning by analogy with English; Latin may well be different." CreationDate="2021-01-02T17:25:06.597" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="30305" PostId="15132" Score="0" Text="Assuming that the parallelism with English is correct (NB: English and Latin are both &quot;satellite-framed languages&quot; : see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11083/are-latin-verbs-of-motion-satellite-framed-or-verb-framed), the prediction is that accusative (_sub stolam_) with a non-motion verb like _celare_ is not expected. But, as Sebastian says, it is hard to prove a negative. As for your example &quot;Hide in the wardrobe!&quot;, I'd use another verb in Latin, a **directional** one: _abdere_ with a reflexive or in its (medio)passive form (_abdi_) plus a PP with acc. (_in aliquem locum_)." CreationDate="2021-01-02T18:29:46.207" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30276" PostId="15133" Score="1" Text="Do you want a literal or idiomatic translation?" CreationDate="2020-12-31T06:14:01.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30275" PostId="15136" Score="0" Text="I would implore you to look at other answers..." CreationDate="2020-12-31T03:26:59.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30242" PostId="15137" Score="0" Text="Perfect! Exactly what I was looking for. Interestingly, I put it into Google Translate (as I expect that is what some of the audience might do) and Google returns _Eat, Drink, rejoice!_" CreationDate="2020-12-25T14:54:35.853" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30243" PostId="15137" Score="1" Text="@Adam That's great! This is one of the rare cases where we should care about Google Translate, as the less fluent readers will no doubt use it." CreationDate="2020-12-25T15:16:42.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30366" PostId="15137" Score="0" Text="I upvoted your suggestion.  What about comissare (carouse) instead of gaude? Love it that you guys were active here on Christmas Day." CreationDate="2021-01-06T13:00:17.553" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30367" PostId="15137" Score="0" Text="@Afer The verb *comissari* sounds more like a Bacchanal whereas *gaudere* is a more neutral form of joy. I wanted to wish a merry family Christmas without any hints of drunken chaos. This is yet another case where context and nuance makes a big difference. (At least here in Finland Christmas Day is not that special. The festive day is Christmas Eve. This is mostly due to the Lutheran tradition, I think.)" CreationDate="2021-01-06T13:26:41.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30368" PostId="15137" Score="1" Text="That is very laudable @Joonas.  I like your thinking." CreationDate="2021-01-06T14:24:01.387" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30245" PostId="15139" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! (Please take a look at [our quick tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour).) I took the liberty to edit a bit to clarify that the offered translation is in Finnish. Aika harva täällä osaa suomea..." CreationDate="2020-12-25T19:38:06.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30247" PostId="15141" Score="2" Text="Thanks! I suspect for some of us, we start our holiday celebrations at _edo_ and end up at _comedo_. :)" CreationDate="2020-12-26T00:58:25.000" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30253" PostId="15141" Score="1" Text="I'd say it's more &quot;feast&quot; than &quot;devour excessively.&quot; But also many prefixes are toothless, especially in vulgar Latin (and even places like Cicero's letters). That said, I'm glad you picked up on the Ecclesiastes quote." CreationDate="2020-12-27T05:43:44.747" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30250" PostId="15143" Score="6" Text="It's not *communemque* that's translated as *and*, it's just the enclitic [*-que*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-que#Latin)." CreationDate="2020-12-26T10:55:00.850" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30251" PostId="15143" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Can you write that as an answer? Being short doesn't invalidate the answer in any way; here the key insight happens to be just that." CreationDate="2020-12-26T11:54:03.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30258" PostId="15147" Score="4" Text="I asked a similar question whose answers might be helpful: [What is the difference in meaning/usage between “nasciturus” and “nascendus”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10679/what-is-the-difference-in-meaning-usage-between-nasciturus-and-nascendus) The future active participle form of *nāscor* is actually *nāscitūrus*, as far as I know--I can't find the form *nātūrus* in [any dictionary other than Wiktionary](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/naturus), only the noun *nātūra,* which ends in a distinct [noun-forming suffix](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1353)." CreationDate="2020-12-27T23:25:07.830" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="30334" PostId="15147" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides That's a good point! I updated the example verb in my answer to be the regular *arbitrari* to avoid the slight irregularity of *nasci*." CreationDate="2021-01-03T14:56:57.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30254" PostId="15148" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! Is there an inherent aspect of the primary suffix *-tūr* for the formation of the future active participle that makes this a bit more intuitive? I was speculating that it just might relate to the suffix *-tōr* for constructing a nomen agens …" CreationDate="2020-12-27T12:39:51.257" UserId="236" />
  <row Id="30255" PostId="15148" Score="0" Text="@k.stm I'm glad if it helped! I'm not aware of anything that would make it more intuitive. I would treat this as one of the weird things to just accept, but I'd be glad to learn if there's more structure behind it. You can always ask a separate question about etymology of the future participle. We might already have it on the site somewhere." CreationDate="2020-12-27T12:44:07.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30257" PostId="15148" Score="1" Text="A side note, probably already known to and irrelevant to asker and answerer alike: the gerundive of a deponent verb has the normal passive meaning (pretending to be from a non-deponent verb), e.g. Cicero: *verendum est* &quot;it must be feared&quot;. The deponent gerund has an active meaning (just like the participles of present and future)." CreationDate="2020-12-27T21:32:43.843" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30323" PostId="15148" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus Just a qualification (perhaps a minor one for many people but perhaps not for you) related to your claim that &quot;the gerundive of a deponent verb (like _verendum est_) has the normal passive meaning ('it must be feared')&quot;. For a recent criticism of the traditional passive analysis of the gerundive + _esse_ construction, see this descriptive (not technical!) paper by Danesi et al. (2017) https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8522423/file/8522426.pdf , published in _Indogermanische Forschungen_ 122.1." CreationDate="2021-01-03T05:37:39.693" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30324" PostId="15148" Score="1" Text="See their conclusion on p. 24: &quot;In conclusion, the GER+(NOM+)DAT construction is structurally and semantically very different from a passive construction. In fact, the passive analysis of the GER+(NOM+)DAT construction appears quite simplistic and not properly rooted in the actual properties of the construction itself. The passive analysis should therefore be abandoned as such, and following this, the traditional description of the dative argument as being “dative of agent”&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-03T05:37:58.280" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30261" PostId="15152" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure how to find the Cicero quote that the Dutch author cites and not at a level to probably understand it well. What did Cicero say that led this author to think it was definitive but that Sidney Allen did not?" CreationDate="2020-12-28T14:45:03.267" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30263" PostId="15152" Score="4" Text="@Adam Long story short, in § 58 of *Orator ad Brutum*, M. Tullius describes the well-known &quot;penultimate&quot; stress in Latin by saying the stressed syllable has &quot;acuta vox,&quot; which is taken to mean a rising pitch. Otherwise he talks about the song-like quality of language in this passage. As a layman, I wonder how we can be sure what &quot;acuta&quot; really means …" CreationDate="2020-12-28T22:19:14.763" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30264" PostId="15152" Score="4" Text="… but in any event, many linguists are generally suspicious of ear-witness accounts like that and certainly would not throw away a well-founded theory because of them. I can understand them, as talking precisely about one's own language can be quite difficult, and one is easily led astray by established terminology. For example, I could not tell you for sure whether long vowels in German are literally longer than short ones, or whether we just call them so by convention—and I pronounce them every day. On the other hand it does take some gall to claim to know Latin better than Cicero." CreationDate="2020-12-28T22:26:17.043" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30268" PostId="15152" Score="0" Text="Are there any other pitch accent that hve changing tones?" CreationDate="2020-12-30T20:28:26.390" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="30271" PostId="15152" Score="1" Text="@AnaMaria Lots of languages have this. See [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch-accent_language) for an overview." CreationDate="2020-12-31T00:01:09.960" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30363" PostId="15152" Score="0" Text="Lots of languages have this as in lots of languages have changing tones?" CreationDate="2021-01-06T01:16:20.720" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="30376" PostId="15152" Score="1" Text="@AnaMaria Yes indeed! Wikipedia thinks that &quot;as many as seventy percent of world languages may be tonal.&quot; (Already [linked](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_(linguistics)) in my answer above, by the way.)" CreationDate="2021-01-06T18:56:44.510" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36197" PostId="15152" Score="2" Text="@AnaMaria: A good starting point for anyone familiar with Germanic languages, is Norwegian. Norwegian is a two-tone primary tone language (secondary tone languages can change the meaning of a sentence by pitch (most languages do this), such as by a rising tone at the end to indicate a question: ‘He arrived yesterday.’ vs. ‘He arrived yesterday?’), meaning we can change the meaning of individual words by tonemes alone. In my dialect, *endene* (the end(ing)s) has a falling toneme on the last syllable (the whole word is circumflexed), whilst *endene* (the ducks) falls on the second." CreationDate="2021-12-09T14:53:18.813" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30265" PostId="15153" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! It seems that you have created two accounts by accident. I recommend registering your account and [following these instructions to merge them](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts); that gives you full access to and benefit from both the question and the answer. I look forward to seeing more questions and answers from you!" CreationDate="2020-12-29T14:06:08.670" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30266" PostId="15155" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Where is this sentence from? Context makes a big difference in deciphering a sentence. (Also, I recommend registering your account so that you get proper access to your question, including the ability to edit it.)" CreationDate="2020-12-30T10:35:44.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30267" PostId="15157" Score="5" Text="The statue is damaged and the picture doesn't give too much detail, but the person could be Micah himself, or Saint Matthew the Apostle (his gospel cites the passage from Micah)" CreationDate="2020-12-30T18:53:40.797" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30269" PostId="15157" Score="3" Text="@Rafael Interesting ambiguity. The hand indicates someone from the NT, but I'd expect substantially more symbolism for Matthew (book, money bag, etc.)." CreationDate="2020-12-30T22:05:57.570" UserId="602" />
  <row Id="30270" PostId="15157" Score="0" Text="@chrylis-cautiouslyoptimistic- That sounds like good material for a follow-up question, but probably not on this site." CreationDate="2020-12-30T22:14:23.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30272" PostId="15157" Score="1" Text="@chrylis-cautiouslyoptimistic- I'm not convinced either, but it could as well be part of a bigger set where the four evangelists are pictured as the four creatures from the Apocalypse (man, lion, ox, eagle)" CreationDate="2020-12-31T00:30:53.770" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30273" PostId="15160" Score="2" Text="Wow, I never expected I would get an answer written by one of the sources that I cited! Thank you for the updated summary of this topic and the pointers to further references." CreationDate="2020-12-31T03:00:06.933" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38969" PostId="15160" Score="0" Text="Well, yes, you can propose such a change, dear Nick, if the single exception, *dap- (by the way the only plausible etymology of lapio), has been strongly influenced by the considerable amount of Greek loanwords of the same origin: dapino, dapsilis and dapsalis." CreationDate="2022-07-21T20:06:30.617" UserId="11312" />
  <row Id="30280" PostId="15161" Score="0" Text="Thank you, not a tattoo, just a custom necklace for a lady veteran." CreationDate="2020-12-31T15:23:24.013" UserId="4795" />
  <row Id="30281" PostId="15163" Score="2" Text="Medieval Latin actually uses the gerund like a present participle quite often (see [A&amp;G 507](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D507)). It isn't classical, but it's definitely &quot;proper&quot; to the time." CreationDate="2020-12-31T15:32:20.677" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30282" PostId="15163" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I might have been unclear in my answer, but we are actually in agreement. Even with *sequentes*, you'd still expect the temporal aspect of the participle to go with all the verbs, not just the first. It would strike my ears as incredibly poor writing to make *sequendo/sequentes* to act as a type of temporal cum or ablative absolute with only venerunt." CreationDate="2020-12-31T18:39:03.287" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30291" PostId="15167" Score="1" Text="a: In late Latin *quod* introduces a sort of indirect speech. b: *Eo... minus* and *quo... magis* are correlative; the less *x* happens, the more *y.* *Locus*  here means the verse from Jeremiah at the top of the chapter. At least that's what I think so far." CreationDate="2021-01-01T21:03:38.013" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30287" PostId="15168" Score="0" Text="Note: *domus* is not in the second declension and the genetive is not *domi*." CreationDate="2021-01-01T20:47:25.110" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30289" PostId="15168" Score="0" Text="My Stowasser (I think you know Stowasser) and multiple websites tell me that both u and o declension exist for domus. Isn't that correct?" CreationDate="2021-01-01T20:51:19.043" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30293" PostId="15173" Score="1" Text="Thanks. Reading your answer, now I see I was misreading *facilius*, to be the nominative of *facilior*, but it is rather the comparative of *facile* the adverb." CreationDate="2021-01-01T22:34:06.287" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30296" PostId="15173" Score="1" Text="@d_e Indeed, *facilius* plays different roles in the two approaches. I added a note on that to help future readers." CreationDate="2021-01-02T09:34:23.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30299" PostId="15175" Score="4" Text="Maybe of interest, in Italian it's Betlemme [beˈtlɛmme], so that might have flowed into Pavarotti's pronunciation one way or another." CreationDate="2021-01-02T10:15:01.520" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="30306" PostId="15175" Score="0" Text="To me it sounded like a &quot;hard 'g'&quot; in &quot;regen angelorum&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-02T18:33:20.703" UserId="1584" />
  <row Id="30300" PostId="15176" Score="0" Text="I wonder if old spellings with FH as in the [Praeneste fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praeneste_fibula) play a role here." CreationDate="2021-01-02T12:53:10.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30327" PostId="15177" Score="1" Text="It may be interesting to note that in Spanish this concept can be expressed by the word &quot;ultratumba&quot;. According to the [Diccionario de la Lengua Española](https://dle.rae.es/ultratumba?m=form) ultratumba in turn is an adaptation from French outre-tombe." CreationDate="2021-01-03T13:08:11.427" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="38725" PostId="15177" Score="0" Text="I added the comment you made to Mast, which I hope clarifies the purpose of his answer. I would remark that I think things will get tricky with that, though, because you see the dead speaking from beyond the grave all over Classical literature (e.g. Darius in Aeschylus, the shades in the *Odyssey*, the spirit summoned by Erictho in Lucan)." CreationDate="2022-06-26T23:57:06.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38727" PostId="15177" Score="0" Text="Btw, I'll double check Lucan, but I'm pretty sure there's a relevant passage in there for you." CreationDate="2022-06-27T02:52:44.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38732" PostId="15177" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks! True, that's common. But in the absence of better hits examples of that trope do bring us closer to an answer." CreationDate="2022-06-27T07:24:19.117" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38739" PostId="15177" Score="0" Text="I think that what cmw is thinking of in Lucan is Pharsalia bk. 7, ll. 470 sqq.  Di tibi non mortem, quae cunctis poena paratur,&#xA;Sed sensum post fata tuae dent, Crastine, morti,&#xA;Cuius torta manu commisit lancea bellum&#xA;Primaque Thessaliam Romano sanguine tinxit.&#xA;&#xA;Heaven punish Crastinus and not with death alone, for that is a punishment in store for all mankind alike; but may his body after death keep the power to feel, because a lance that his hand brandished began the battle and first stained Pharsalia with Roman blood. post fata can be loosely translated as ‘beyond the grave’." CreationDate="2022-06-28T09:53:29.860" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="30307" PostId="15178" Score="2" Text="The general rule is that the locative is formed like the locative. It's a separate (if moribund) case, not a series of special uses of the more common cases." CreationDate="2021-01-02T21:08:25.777" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30309" PostId="15178" Score="1" Text="So there is no real regularity for those few Locatives that are left?" CreationDate="2021-01-02T21:41:01.173" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30310" PostId="15178" Score="1" Text="Sihler (276.6) says that *ruri* was made on analogy. I imagine a similar thing is going on with *tempori*, because *tempore* also works. Sometimes sound changes can be irregular." CreationDate="2021-01-02T22:21:47.780" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30311" PostId="15178" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer And regarding all city names? There are many cities and I suppose there is not a story or history behind every single locative, right? I wonder if there's any regularity." CreationDate="2021-01-02T22:24:05.510" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30312" PostId="15178" Score="0" Text="Which ones are irregular? Not Romae, Athenis, or Carthagine?" CreationDate="2021-01-02T22:27:12.190" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30313" PostId="15178" Score="1" Text="I don't know. So every locative of a city is regular?" CreationDate="2021-01-02T22:43:38.290" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30315" PostId="15178" Score="1" Text="@Cyb3rKo As far as I know, yes, but if there is an irregularity, it doesn't necessarily go back to a proto-language." CreationDate="2021-01-02T23:21:53.607" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35778" PostId="15178" Score="0" Text="Wikipedia has a good explanation of most of the issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Latin" CreationDate="2021-11-13T01:45:51.163" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="46944" PostId="15178" Score="0" Text="The rule of thumb I was taught is that for *regular* nouns (not, e.g., for *domus*) and adjectives, the  locative has the same form as the dative, with the exception of the singular 2nd declension, where it has the same form as the genitive. My experience has been that this rule works pretty well." CreationDate="2023-12-20T03:21:07.703" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="30328" PostId="15179" Score="0" Text="I've accepted this answer because it provides a definite explanation of what the accusative would really mean, and hence why &quot;sub stolam celat&quot; is wrong." CreationDate="2021-01-03T13:39:10.753" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="30329" PostId="15179" Score="0" Text="So if I understand it correctly you could say &quot;Puella crustula mercatorem celat&quot; to mean &quot;The girl is hiding cookes from the merchant&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-03T13:43:34.217" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="30331" PostId="15179" Score="0" Text="@PaulJohnson Yeah, correct." CreationDate="2021-01-03T13:53:40.740" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30308" PostId="15180" Score="0" Text="Döderlein’s Hand-Book of Latin synonyms [entry of *celare*](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33197/33197-h/33197-h.htm#word_Celare) further suggests that *celare* is probably not the best choice here, as it tends to pertain to abstract objects, like hiding *sententia* (that being said, *celare* can also refer to physical objects)." CreationDate="2021-01-02T21:25:28.563" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30330" PostId="15181" Score="2" Text="c.f. Ding Dong Merrily on High, with the line &quot;And io, io, io by priest and people sungen&quot;" CreationDate="2021-01-03T13:51:22.100" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="30349" PostId="15190" Score="1" Text="Are you sure? Did you see that anywhere being used?&#xA;I ask because 'salus' is feminine and 'plurimum' isn't but both have to be the same genus." CreationDate="2021-01-05T12:44:53.267" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="30351" PostId="15190" Score="2" Text="Sorry @Cyb3rKo yes you are right it should be plurimam. I will correct it." CreationDate="2021-01-05T13:53:27.710" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30341" PostId="15192" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the Community!" CreationDate="2021-01-04T21:29:51.360" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30350" PostId="15192" Score="0" Text="Thank you Adam. That's very kind." CreationDate="2021-01-05T12:48:28.607" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30427" PostId="15194" Score="0" Text="wow this is gold! did you use it for a long time? are there errors?" CreationDate="2021-01-12T21:43:21.607" UserId="6111" />
  <row Id="30428" PostId="15194" Score="0" Text="@oguzalb, I used this occasionally in last 2 month or so. I don't know of errors. some of the pages are cut on the left side unfortunately." CreationDate="2021-01-12T22:10:13.250" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30340" PostId="15196" Score="1" Text="This is very similar to another proposal. Can you expand your answer to describe what the difference is and why you prefer this wording? I actually like your suggestion better (+1!), but answers are more helpful (especially to a broad readership) if they elaborate on the choices made." CreationDate="2021-01-04T19:49:00.300" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30399" PostId="15197" Score="0" Text="Or would &quot;Sine sanguine non gloria&quot;: without blood no glory, be correct? It seems to flow better to me." CreationDate="2021-01-09T11:40:14.367" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="34385" PostId="15197" Score="0" Text="@PaulJohnson *non* doesn't really negate the noun, so it looks less correct your way. You also see the original sometimes *palma non sine pulvere.* I think it's one of those idiomatic things that isn't &quot;technically&quot; wrong except that it would sound wrong/weird if it happened." CreationDate="2021-08-06T12:35:32.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30342" PostId="15198" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the community! What did you want either of those phrases to mean? It will help to know what it is you are trying to convey in Latin." CreationDate="2021-01-05T01:07:01.547" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30343" PostId="15198" Score="0" Text="@Adam The statement should be related to the scared heart of jesus but I honestly do not know which is the correct one or whether the statements make sense. Consequently since I do not know latin I cannot say which is correct." CreationDate="2021-01-05T01:09:17.480" UserId="8816" />
  <row Id="30344" PostId="15198" Score="2" Text="There's no grammatical difference between the two statements; the second one just uses an _I_ for the same consonant that is a _J_ in the first. It's really just a stylistic choice." CreationDate="2021-01-05T01:17:37.417" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30345" PostId="15198" Score="1" Text="@Adam So `Jesu` and `Iesu` mean the same thing?" CreationDate="2021-01-05T01:19:09.463" UserId="8816" />
  <row Id="30346" PostId="15198" Score="3" Text="Yes! :) There is no _J_ in classical Latin, but one was substituted in later to make it easier to distinguish when an _I_ is a consonant or a vowel." CreationDate="2021-01-05T01:20:43.823" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30347" PostId="15198" Score="0" Text="@Adam Can you help correctly translate it? I want to understand what it means." CreationDate="2021-01-05T01:26:34.800" UserId="8816" />
  <row Id="30348" PostId="15198" Score="1" Text="You can find the meaning on the Wikipedia entry for [Sacred Heart College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart_College,_Cayo):  _Our Sacred Heart of Jesus, source of all our wisdom_" CreationDate="2021-01-05T01:33:57.607" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30352" PostId="15199" Score="0" Text="there's an interesting contrast between the i/j distinction and the u/v distinction. In both cases. Only one letter form was used in Classical Latin, and the other developed from it in the Middle Ages. One represents a consonant, and the other a vowel. And yet, solely using v is almost unheard of in modern printed texts, whilst it's easy to find modern printed texts that only use i" CreationDate="2021-01-05T15:55:03.347" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="30353" PostId="15199" Score="0" Text="@Tristan I think the main difference is that modern readers are familiar with I as a vowel, but not with V (so you can still find editions that only use U for both consonant and vowel). But agreed, it's strange how the U/V distinction has caught on more thoroughly than the I/J one." CreationDate="2021-01-05T17:36:24.783" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30364" PostId="15199" Score="0" Text="oh yeah, people are obviously more familiar with I as a vowel, but many people are not familiar with use of I as a consonant. So the situation with I/J is reversed from the U/V situation, in the former the one that became the vowel is the original form, in the latter it's the one that became the consonant" CreationDate="2021-01-06T11:06:05.433" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="30358" PostId="15201" Score="0" Text="Note that, because consolor is a deponent verb, consolare is not the actually the infinitive, as you claim, but the singular imperative; so Sven3B has used the correct form. However, I do think that your suggestion of a plural object for each verb would be a better choice than singular." CreationDate="2021-01-05T21:42:22.713" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30359" PostId="15201" Score="0" Text="Quite right @cnread, I should have checked on consolor." CreationDate="2021-01-05T21:48:14.113" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30380" PostId="15201" Score="0" Text="Is there any rhyme or reason why one might go with the infinitive over the imperative?" CreationDate="2021-01-06T22:51:48.847" UserId="8693" />
  <row Id="30415" PostId="15201" Score="2" Text="@Sven3B [*consolor, -ari*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dconsolor) is deponent, so the *-are* ending actually is imperative" CreationDate="2021-01-12T14:29:06.487" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45698" PostId="15201" Score="0" Text="Yes, consolor, consolari is a deponent verb which dropped certain part of the conjugation. I learnt it in Gregorian Chant for the Advent Antiphon: Consolamini. consolamini...Console, console your people! Passive form with active meaning!" CreationDate="2023-11-30T04:36:25.743" UserId="14438" />
  <row Id="45704" PostId="15201" Score="1" Text="Is there no way to duplicate the chiasmus? This translation is a bit feeble." CreationDate="2023-11-30T10:27:26.087" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30356" PostId="15202" Score="2" Text="Note that the dative singular of the relative pronoun is cui (or, for an archaizing effect, quoi), not quo. At any rate, when what's agreed to is a thing, an accusative object is also found, according to Oxford Latin dictionary; so Joel's quod is perfectly acceptable." CreationDate="2021-01-05T21:29:41.463" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30357" PostId="15202" Score="0" Text="Thank you @cnread you are quite right.  I will amend my post accordingly." CreationDate="2021-01-05T21:39:06.307" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30362" PostId="15202" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! You probably forgot to add &quot;ask&quot; in your translation?" CreationDate="2021-01-05T23:01:42.797" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30365" PostId="15202" Score="1" Text="Thank you Cerberus!  Well spotted you!  My attention to detail is slipping.  I will amend." CreationDate="2021-01-06T12:29:41.530" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30374" PostId="15202" Score="0" Text="One other correction: hanc and anulum don't agree in gender." CreationDate="2021-01-06T17:55:06.437" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30377" PostId="15202" Score="0" Text="Oh dear I am slipping." CreationDate="2021-01-06T19:42:44.833" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30354" PostId="15204" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for your time and your input!" CreationDate="2021-01-05T20:12:38.243" UserId="8821" />
  <row Id="30355" PostId="15205" Score="1" Text="Great, thank you for your time and input!!" CreationDate="2021-01-05T20:12:59.890" UserId="8821" />
  <row Id="30361" PostId="15208" Score="3" Text="This answer is so simple and straightforward, I am nonplussed. My lesson for the day: Do not read to much into other translations, especially not when you have already decided there are errors in it. I presume this then would be a correct translation of the final line: *You play and are a woman amongst / mixing with naked men.* And considering the grammatical comment on dum, it should probably be rendered as *played* and *were*." CreationDate="2021-01-05T22:37:39.070" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30369" PostId="15210" Score="2" Text="FYI, both the 2002 Loeb edition (Russel) and the 1970 OCT edition (Winterbottom) have: &quot;sicut etiam quos palaestritas esse nolumus, tamen esse nolumus eos qui dicuntur apalaestroe.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-01-06T16:22:15.450" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30370" PostId="15210" Score="2" Text="cf. ἀπάλαιστρος 'that has not exercised in the palaistra, untrained (in wrestling)'" CreationDate="2021-01-06T16:38:50.710" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30371" PostId="15210" Score="1" Text="also: &quot;Idque Cicero optime videt ac testatur frequenter se quod numerosum sit quaerere ut magis non **arrhythmum**, quod esset inscitum atque agreste, quam enrhythmum, quod poeticum est, esse compositionem velit&quot; (Russell)" CreationDate="2021-01-06T16:44:55.537" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30372" PostId="15210" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Including the -r-? And yes, I would have expected it to mean something along those lines—the same as with arrhythmum—which is why I was surprised to find these definitions." CreationDate="2021-01-06T17:10:35.550" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30373" PostId="15210" Score="1" Text="yes, see e.g. Winterbottom 1970, p. 546 https://books.google.com.vc/books?id=GgvyzJe6fHAC&amp;lpg=PA353&amp;pg=PA546#v=onepage&amp;q=apalaestroe&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-01-06T17:29:12.600" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30375" PostId="15210" Score="1" Text="Interesting. Thanks for the source!" CreationDate="2021-01-06T18:32:39.150" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30451" PostId="15214" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much.  Unfortunately, I don’t have enough reputation to upvote.  I can hope that my reformulation becomes its own aphorism, however!" CreationDate="2021-01-15T12:46:14.747" UserId="8826" />
  <row Id="30378" PostId="15215" Score="2" Text="Excellent work, the both of you. Thank you for taking the time in solving this conundrum for me! May I suggest adding a note in the second paragraph on the different tonality as well?" CreationDate="2021-01-06T21:06:15.707" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30379" PostId="15215" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Oh, that was just a mistake on my part. Final -oi sometimes counts as long for accent purposes, and sometimes as short, and I guessed wrong. (It counts as short here and I accented it as if it were long.)" CreationDate="2021-01-06T21:10:40.923" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30395" PostId="15218" Score="0" Text="Thanks, can you suggest some Latin grammar workbook where I can read about the absolute superlatives?" CreationDate="2021-01-08T21:34:03.253" UserId="7405" />
  <row Id="30396" PostId="15218" Score="1" Text="@DachiPachulia Unfortunately I'm not familiar with such grammar workbooks, but perhaps someone else can suggest something. I edited my question to add a link to an online grammar if you want to read some more." CreationDate="2021-01-08T21:46:30.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30410" PostId="15224" Score="0" Text="I don't speak Latin yet I feel obliged to point out, yours is the first example in 50 years of listening that I've read of Latin using accents.&#xA;&#xA;Did I miss something, or what?" CreationDate="2021-01-11T23:21:23.527" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="30412" PostId="15224" Score="1" Text="This is a reading aid for learners - a macron is used to mark length and an acute is used to mark accent." CreationDate="2021-01-12T09:46:59.027" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="30403" PostId="15225" Score="0" Text="Thank you! This post explains it well!" CreationDate="2021-01-10T03:14:54.990" UserId="8824" />
  <row Id="30413" PostId="15226" Score="1" Text="I think in dependency syntax, this is called an attribute and it is fairly common in languages similar to Latin (with cases and free word order). The word is typically an adjective, it modifies often the subject, occasionally the direct object and it is _connected through_ the verb." CreationDate="2021-01-12T09:51:36.097" UserId="828" />
  <row Id="30405" PostId="15228" Score="0" Text="The same way as in several East-Asian languages today, and in some European languages today which I have knowledge of, new words can be created by using the first few or last syllables of key words. 셀카 (sel-ka), for instance, is the Korean word for ‘selfie’ (from self + camera). As is well known, we have ‘bus’ from ‘omnibus’, and Nordic languages have ‘bil’ from ‘automobile’. How about finding Latin sources for the same method, and create words such as *litterōnica*, Could such a word be created to get a less clumsy word for mailing list? After all, ‘mailing’ = ‘sending electronic mail’." CreationDate="2021-01-10T10:57:38.213" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30423" PostId="15229" Score="2" Text="Are you asking in which cases the gerundive can be said to lack the passive and deontic (obligation) &quot;qualities&quot;/meanings? If so, perhaps you could try to formulate your question in a more transparent way. I agree with you that the two examples above (_meo nomine recitando_ &amp; _omittendis doloribus_) can be said to be relevant to show the lack of those two meanings/&quot;qualities&quot; (passivity and obligation) that are present in examples like _Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam_." CreationDate="2021-01-12T17:57:47.930" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30435" PostId="15229" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you. In the first example, &quot;meo nomine recitando&quot;, classed as a &quot;borderline&quot; ablative absolute (Hofman &amp; Szantyr), how is the gerundive to be translated here? As yourself has shown, in the earlier Q., the ablative case negates the deontic &amp; passive moods of this species. Therefore, must the gerundive, in this format, be translated as a gerund? If so, it must become a verbal noun; here, &quot;the reading-out&quot;/ &quot;the calling&quot;; giving &quot;with 'the reading-out' of my name&quot;. In the second example, &quot;the releasing&quot;; giving &quot;by the releasing of the pains&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-13T13:05:56.450" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30436" PostId="15229" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The problem with this approach is that a genitive will be required for the noun. Of course the grammatical rule, for the gerundive, demands the agreement of case-endings. Here, may be a clue to the answer: a gerundive, deployed in an ablative-absolute construction, will lose its passive &amp; deontic moods but will to continue to dictate an agreement of case-endings. This beggars the question: why was such an agreement required? A guess: it suited the literary effect/ rhetorical force required by the speaker, here, Cicero." CreationDate="2021-01-13T13:25:11.057" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30437" PostId="15229" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I asked why a conventional AA was not deployed e.g. &quot;meo nomine recitato&quot; = &quot;with my name read-out&quot;; overlooking that with &quot;my&quot; in the AA and &quot;I&quot; (&quot;I spoke to the assembly&quot;) in the following clause, there would be a  violation of the grammatical rule governing the AA--a species in the AA must not appear again in the succeeding clause." CreationDate="2021-01-13T13:39:26.133" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30438" PostId="15229" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The famous example from Cato uses indirect speech &quot;I opine that... &quot; (accusative-infinitive construction, &quot;delendam esse&quot;) therefore the gerundive retains its natural qualities. The other example, previous Q., from yourself is trickier: &quot;patriam ipsam inflammandam reliquimus&quot;; &quot;inflammandam&quot; given as an accusative-gerundive, by Pinkster, having lost its deontic &amp; passive properties, but only seems to work if translated as a gerund: &quot;We have left our mother-city 'to the burning'&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-13T14:04:21.620" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30406" PostId="15230" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site! There are different conventions for citing a verb, some use *sum* and some *esse*, and both are used by native English speakers and others. Both are fine; see e.g. [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/63/79) and [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2004/79). The different forms of a verb can be listed in different orders, and that is not important. With all that said, the missing verb here is probably not *sum/esse* but *habito/habitare*, as cnread points out in an answer." CreationDate="2021-01-10T20:09:12.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30408" PostId="15230" Score="1" Text="&quot;In the vocabulary there is for first indicative present first and second singular, then past first person singular and only at the end the infinite.&quot; - Could you please give me an example of how you talk about verbs in the Italian tradition you mentioned? For instance, when I studied Latin, we memorized verbs like, amo-amavi-amatum-amare, and we referred to it as either the verb amo (we would describe it as persona prima singularis praesentis indicativi activi) or the verb amare or as the verb amo-amare." CreationDate="2021-01-11T20:09:16.920" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30407" PostId="15232" Score="1" Text="I know that **&quot;de quo&quot;** (as well as &quot;de qua&quot;) is used in modern Italian to express something close to the English phrase &quot;in question&quot;. It's also a phrase in legalese. Does &quot;de quo&quot; have the same meaning in Latin?" CreationDate="2021-01-11T16:00:02.707" UserId="7268" />
  <row Id="30409" PostId="15232" Score="1" Text="@TomHosker It does not. To my knowledge *de quo* by itself has no particular meaning." CreationDate="2021-01-11T23:15:29.067" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30411" PostId="15232" Score="1" Text="So [Oxford Reference](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-527) states that the literal translation of &quot;de quo&quot; is &quot;of which&quot;, which seems close enough that it could be translated as &quot;in question&quot; in the right context. Where am I going wrong?" CreationDate="2021-01-12T09:34:44.927" UserId="7268" />
  <row Id="30424" PostId="15232" Score="3" Text="@TomHosker Let's say the point where I don't follow is where it &quot;seems close enough&quot; to you. It would be ungrammatical nonsense in English (&quot;put the key next to the car of which&quot;), and I believe it is the same in Latin." CreationDate="2021-01-12T18:42:10.780" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30425" PostId="15232" Score="2" Text="@TomHosker I agree with Sebastian. It is similar to how *status quo* does not make much sense in Latin in isolation, but this part of a Latin phrase has obtained a meaning in other languages. I suppose *de quo* (&quot;of which&quot;) is part of *de quo locutus sum* (&quot;of which I have spoken&quot;) or some such expression, and in Latin you'd have to use it in full." CreationDate="2021-01-12T19:28:06.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30430" PostId="15232" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Okay. I understand now. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-01-13T01:23:38.073" UserId="7268" />
  <row Id="30416" PostId="15233" Score="0" Text="And in the case of written communication *vid.sup.* or *vide supra,* hints at a superior ride." CreationDate="2021-01-12T14:52:39.220" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="33465" PostId="15234" Score="0" Text="also: *qui* relative clause (subj.). also: double dative might be translated as infitive of reason. also: future participle when attached to verb." CreationDate="2021-05-30T15:29:51.107" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30419" PostId="15237" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site. Good example." CreationDate="2021-01-12T17:35:55.277" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30439" PostId="15238" Score="1" Text="*(de)pasco* is another similar verb often used for animals" CreationDate="2021-01-13T15:32:21.367" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30445" PostId="15239" Score="2" Text="Thanks for sharing that answer. Can you provide a link to the response on Quora? It can help to have that in the event there's further discussion or information from the original source." CreationDate="2021-01-14T20:47:34.920" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44125" PostId="15239" Score="1" Text="@Adam Traupman, in his dictionary under &quot;Welcome&quot;, lists *libenter* as meaning &quot;you are welcome&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-18T02:54:30.540" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="30443" PostId="15241" Score="0" Text="I’m so embarrassed. I was looking at that very page and managed to look right past the gender and accusative forms." CreationDate="2021-01-14T13:16:38.373" UserId="8682" />
  <row Id="30450" PostId="15241" Score="0" Text="@D.A.Hosek Nōn pudeat lābī! You've come to the right web site. I've asked several questions here that were &quot;even below my level&quot; and gotten good answers." CreationDate="2021-01-15T06:09:44.640" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30448" PostId="15243" Score="1" Text="I agree that _navibus delendis hostes vicimus_ does not contain an AA. The 2nd example of gerundive construction is not an AA either but is a bit different since it is semantically selected by the verb _gaudere_: cf. _placet gaudere nosmet omittendis doloribus_ (Cic. _Fin_. 1.56). Note that the syntactic status of this 2nd gerundive is not different from the following &quot;dominant participle&quot; construction, which is also selected by the verb: _Cum absoluto Scaevola gauderet_,…’ (Cic. _Orat_. 2). Cf. http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.19:8:3:7.NewPerseusMonographs" CreationDate="2021-01-15T00:18:57.160" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30479" PostId="15243" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: (Cic. de Oratore 2.281) &quot;cum...valde absoluto Scaevola gauderet&quot;, the use of adjective-as-noun (&quot;absoluto&quot;) gives &quot;...when...with the acquitted one, Scaevola, Granius celebraed magnificently...&quot;. Is this correct? In English it woks better as an AA: &quot;...when...with Scaevola [having been] acquitted, Granius celebrated magnificently...&quot;. Have you read Cerberus's answer to Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/110/1982? What an answer! Cerberus seems to agree that a gerundive does not really belong in an AA-construction; that it will, effectively, be translated as a gerund," CreationDate="2021-01-18T13:11:35.730" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30480" PostId="15243" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: as in &quot;inflammandam&quot;, above. Example: &quot;floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-01-18T13:14:27.773" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30464" PostId="15244" Score="2" Text="I would say this is equivalent to asking when _sic_ started being pronounced without the final 'c' as well as consistently replacing _ita_ for an affirmative answer on its own." CreationDate="2021-01-16T11:26:32.243" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="38427" PostId="15244" Score="3" Text="Plautus used sic regularly in replies to mean yes. So one would imagine it being a normal way of affirming replies since even Old Latin!" CreationDate="2022-05-29T07:33:24.553" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="33144" PostId="15245" Score="3" Text="I would disagree with the translator. The &quot;mottoes&quot; aren't feel good imperatives, but moral imperatives. It's advice, not desire. The imperative is the right choice. See e.g. &quot;tolle lege&quot; and &quot;si vis pacem para bellum.*" CreationDate="2021-05-14T22:08:26.440" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30453" PostId="15247" Score="0" Text="Translating it to Esperanto gives &quot;Justeco kaj la mondo pereu&quot; (Let justice &amp; the world perish)." CreationDate="2021-01-15T22:18:22.403" UserId="7135" />
  <row Id="30454" PostId="15247" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the community! It's good that you [question what Google Translate provides](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for), because it generally does not handle Latin very well." CreationDate="2021-01-15T22:19:34.750" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30455" PostId="15247" Score="0" Text="It doesn't always translate Esperanto very well either, so I'm not sure if I can go by that translation because of that. The Esperanto sentence above is translated as &quot;Justice and the world perish&quot; when I do a reverse translation but it should be &quot;Let justice &amp; the world perish&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-15T22:24:40.100" UserId="7135" />
  <row Id="30456" PostId="15247" Score="2" Text="No offence (and I think this question deserves a proper answer), but you do realise that in addition to its somewhat iffy translation tool, Google also offers something called a &quot;search engine,&quot; right? This is not exactly an obscure phrase …" CreationDate="2021-01-15T22:29:36.617" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30457" PostId="15247" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I know. I just figured I'd ask somewhere I thought was more trusthworthy than Google search results, which may or may not be accurate. Most of the search results give a variation of the first translation, but if that's correct does 'et' mean more than (or something other than) &quot;and&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-01-15T22:40:26.250" UserId="7135" />
  <row Id="30459" PostId="15247" Score="1" Text="@jastako It does indeed, in fact, even English “and” means something more than “and” now and then ;-) But that's why I said this question deserves an answer and have upvoted." CreationDate="2021-01-15T23:12:49.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30462" PostId="15247" Score="1" Text="This phrase has another trick up its sleeve, *Mundus,* adj., -us -a -um;  means pure, innocent.  &quot; ...even though an innocent man perish.&quot; (A cynical oxymoron? Not to everyone's taste.) John XI 50" CreationDate="2021-01-16T05:17:58.793" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30466" PostId="15247" Score="2" Text="@Hugh Huh, I didn't think of that, but feel free to write an answer about that interpretation!" CreationDate="2021-01-16T20:33:03.583" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30482" PostId="15247" Score="1" Text="The phrase is also found in this form - 'Fiat iustitia, ruat caelum' (no 'et') 'Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.' It's not thought to be Classical in origin though." CreationDate="2021-01-18T13:44:19.753" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30458" PostId="15249" Score="1" Text="I think I'd prefer sola over solum, but I've always liked adjectives more than adverbs in Latin." CreationDate="2021-01-15T20:51:17.953" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30461" PostId="15249" Score="1" Text="According to OLD, except in a few specific contexts, variare is transitive, and if you want it to mean 'vary' (i.e., 'become different') here, you would need to use the passive variatur (or, I suppose, the reflexive se variat)." CreationDate="2021-01-16T01:32:58.827" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30463" PostId="15249" Score="1" Text="@cnread I don't know why the OLD claims that because it's not true." CreationDate="2021-01-16T08:38:19.027" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30465" PostId="15249" Score="0" Text="Sorry, either I misread 'pass. **or intr.**' in def. 3b of the OLD entry, or my brain just completely failed to register the 'or intr.' part. I myself would still go for the passive, but this is your translation and does appear to be grammatically correct after all." CreationDate="2021-01-16T19:44:34.647" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30471" PostId="15249" Score="1" Text="Well, that's some profound shit" CreationDate="2021-01-17T13:32:06.473" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="30468" PostId="15252" Score="2" Text="Perhaps apperi? You may want to take a look at https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/618/39" CreationDate="2021-01-17T02:14:29.450" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30474" PostId="15252" Score="1" Text="Another compound verb derived from *pario* is *reperio*, with an attested perfect *repperi*. I guess the geminated *-p-* is the result of a collapsed reduplication?" CreationDate="2021-01-17T23:40:47.897" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30475" PostId="15252" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon That sounds like an excellent argument. Do you want to write a suggestion based on that as an answer? The general observations pointed out by Alex seem to support it." CreationDate="2021-01-18T06:25:22.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30700" PostId="15252" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus I added some extra clarification to my last paragraph. Notice that I always referred to the verb as *părĕre*, so *parire* is out of the question. [I converted your answer to a comment as there were flags about it. Asking for clarification should go into a comment.]" CreationDate="2021-02-08T08:57:01.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30472" PostId="15256" Score="1" Text="It doesn't necessarily help to have the verb either. *Ars longa, sententia bravis.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-01-17T21:46:24.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30473" PostId="15256" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the help!" CreationDate="2021-01-17T22:04:08.213" UserId="8867" />
  <row Id="30477" PostId="15260" Score="0" Text="I’ve used the document several times, but after finding it seven or eight years ago, I have forgotten that there is indeed a page explaining these things. Why are these symbols different?" CreationDate="2021-01-18T12:41:24.727" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30481" PostId="15260" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan I don't know, but I'd be happy to learn. I think this calls for a new question about how the polytonic acute (and other accents) evolved into the monotonic accent. Although modern Greek is off-topic in itself, its relation to ancient Greek like this is perfectly fine in my opinion." CreationDate="2021-01-18T13:25:39.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33164" PostId="15260" Score="0" Text="Long overdue, but now done: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16006/why-is-tonos-sometimes-rendered-different-from-oxia" CreationDate="2021-05-15T12:43:07.857" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33165" PostId="15260" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan Excellent!" CreationDate="2021-05-15T12:45:28.327" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33162" PostId="15265" Score="0" Text="Interestingly, Duolingo does not treat them similarly; it considers the oxia to be different from the tonos and in error." CreationDate="2021-05-15T12:29:36.907" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33163" PostId="15265" Score="4" Text="@CannedMan That's because Duolingo was made by programmers and not linguists." CreationDate="2021-05-15T12:34:14.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30493" PostId="15266" Score="0" Text="I also normally hear ordinary people uttering pater with long a. And I am *not* mistaking quality for quantity, my native language has phonemic length and also a similar difference in quality of long and short i like Latin. The word was even borrowed as páter (and the prayer as páteř), with a long a, to my language, already in the middle ages." CreationDate="2021-01-19T09:12:22.880" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="30501" PostId="15266" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF What is your native language (&quot;my native language has phonemic length&quot;)?" CreationDate="2021-01-20T15:50:19.913" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30502" PostId="15266" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. It is Czech. But I think Hungarian also borrowed the word as páter with long á." CreationDate="2021-01-20T16:46:14.400" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="30496" PostId="15267" Score="2" Text="What is the difference between /. / and [.]? Does the first denote the length and the latter the quality?" CreationDate="2021-01-19T20:44:29.117" UserId="7122" />
  <row Id="30498" PostId="15267" Score="3" Text="@Thomas /Slashes/ indicate _phonemic_ writing, which shows the sort of ‘abstract’ inventory item that we mentally associate a sound with when speaking and listening; [brackets] indicate _phonetic_ writing, which shows the actual quality of the sounds coming out of our mouths, regardless of which item in our inventory they represent. For example, in German, there is a phoneme /r/ which is generally pronounced [ʁ] or [ʀ] at the beginning of a syllable, but after a vowel, it’s pronounced like a very short [ɐ̯] or [ə̯] vowel: _Ruhr_ is /ruːr/ phonemically, but [ʀuːɐ̯] phonetically." CreationDate="2021-01-19T21:31:59.103" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="30504" PostId="15267" Score="2" Text="@ThomasWening Simply put: If in slashes, symbols are the closest approximation to how a native speaker would pronounce them; if in brackets, it is an exact representation. In Norwegian dialects, there are six to eight different ways to pronounce the letter R (excluding the retroflex flap), if you include unvoiced pronunciation, so /r/ could in Norwegian be: [ɾ, ɾ̥; r, r̥; χ, ʁ; ʒ, ʃ].¹ All these will be showed as /r/ in phonemic writing. ¹ The pairs are standard (east, Trøndelag and north west (and some more)), standard emphatic, south and south west, and many areas of Northern Norway." CreationDate="2021-01-20T22:06:27.480" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30495" PostId="15268" Score="1" Text="That was a great answer. Since I'm not a linguist and study languages as a hobby, I must ask if by 'vowel quality' you mean the property that is captured in the vowel charts one sees for languages? Regarding what you wrote about rhythm, does that mean that the way sentences on the YouTube channel 'Latin tutorial' are read is how Romans actually spoke to one another on the streets? I am asking since I'm interested in how they spoke" CreationDate="2021-01-19T20:43:00.393" UserId="7122" />
  <row Id="30497" PostId="15268" Score="3" Text="@Thomas Yes, the quality of the vowel is essentially what you’ll see in vowel charts, i.e., the difference between /a/ and /e/ is one of quality. The other, quantity, is the length, which is the difference between /a/ and /aː/ (= _ā_). Note that the lax/tense difference Ben mentions as being secondary to length in Latin is also present – but secondary – in German (which I’m guessing is your native language). The difference between _bitte_ and _biete_ is primarily the length of the first vowel, /i/ versus /iː/, but phonetically, as in English, short /i/ is actually lax /ɪ/." CreationDate="2021-01-19T21:25:18.327" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="30499" PostId="15268" Score="2" Text="@ThomasWening Yes, the vowel quality is what's noted in vowel charts, as Janus said. I'll edit the answer to clarify that the vowel quality is the waveform or timbre of the sound." CreationDate="2021-01-19T21:42:53.937" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30500" PostId="15268" Score="2" Text="@ThomasWening How the Romans actually spoke on the street probably merits a separate question. A classics professor told me that based on comparative linguistics, we know that whatever language the Romance languages came from, it was not classical Latin. It was vulgar Latin—not what is taught in Ørberg, Wheelock, etc. I understand the difference to be like that between the formal English or German taught in schools and the vernacular picked up at home. I think someone with more expertise must give you a better answer about that." CreationDate="2021-01-19T21:52:33.167" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30503" PostId="15268" Score="1" Text="Wouldn’t ‘pă-tĕ-rĕt-mā-tĕr’ rather be ♪♪♩ ♩ ♪? An absolutely excellent answer, though." CreationDate="2021-01-20T21:50:18.710" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30505" PostId="15268" Score="2" Text="@CannedMan *-tĕr* is a long syllable (also called &quot;heavy&quot;) because it's a closed syllable (closed by the constant _r_). If the next word in the sentence begins with a vowel, though, it would indeed steal the _r,_ leaving _tĕ-_ a short syllable." CreationDate="2021-01-20T22:13:11.610" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30506" PostId="15271" Score="1" Text="ah ok, thanks. the full sentence is ' I have never made a worse journey than this.' does this change anything?" CreationDate="2021-01-21T15:36:50.233" UserId="8876" />
  <row Id="30507" PostId="15271" Score="0" Text="The verb *facio* basically means to make something physical. To &quot;make a journey&quot; = to &quot;go on a journey&quot; and the verb would be *ire.*" CreationDate="2021-01-21T17:19:30.800" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="30514" PostId="15271" Score="2" Text="*Iter facere*, &quot;to make a journey&quot;, is a common enough idiom in Latin" CreationDate="2021-01-23T15:58:27.557" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="30517" PostId="15271" Score="1" Text="@jonathan Yes, what Figulus said is correct. So *iter numquam feci*, &quot;never have I made a journey.&quot; Cf. Caesar's, *sine ullo maleficio iter per provinciam facere*, :to make a journey throughout the province without [committing] any crime&quot; (*BG* 1.7)." CreationDate="2021-01-24T20:17:12.327" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30513" PostId="15273" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! The question was about interpreting *ad astra per aspera* so I'm not sure how to read your answer. We're translating from Latin here, not to Latin. Perhaps this order of things has some implications on the interpretation, then?" CreationDate="2021-01-23T12:18:41.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30510" PostId="15274" Score="1" Text="I think the subject of the relative clause is &quot;dies et longioris aevi diligentia&quot;." CreationDate="2021-01-22T14:30:26.383" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="30512" PostId="15274" Score="0" Text="Thanx, gmvh. I finally understood." CreationDate="2021-01-22T16:52:32.543" UserId="8881" />
  <row Id="30511" PostId="15275" Score="1" Text="Got it! Great!, very clear explanation! Thanx brianpck!" CreationDate="2021-01-22T16:51:29.733" UserId="8881" />
  <row Id="30516" PostId="15277" Score="7" Text="[Pliny](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0138%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D21) said: &quot;scythae ipsi persas chorsaros et caucasum montem **croucasim**, hoc est **nive candidum**, [appellavere].&quot; That would be _white with snow_, rather than _snow-covered_. Do you have a source the backs up the claim that it's from &quot;kroi hezios&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-01-24T14:18:43.763" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30518" PostId="15277" Score="1" Text="Probably unknown, since Etymonline doesn't elaborate, but you might get a better answer with linguists who specialize in Indo-Iranian languages: https://www.etymonline.com/word/Caucasus#etymonline_v_27825" CreationDate="2021-01-24T20:26:58.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32323" PostId="15277" Score="1" Text="[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%8D%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek) says &quot;Perhaps from Proto-Scythian *xrohukäsi (“ice-shining, white with snow”).&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-27T23:18:48.993" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="30520" PostId="15279" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, what are the verbs in Finnish?" CreationDate="2021-01-24T20:42:04.457" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30521" PostId="15279" Score="0" Text="To be even more precise, what action led to the change in position for the second example?" CreationDate="2021-01-24T20:49:10.747" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30523" PostId="15279" Score="1" Text="@TKR They are 'pudota' and 'kaatua'." CreationDate="2021-01-24T21:24:25.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30524" PostId="15279" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I added a paragraph in the end. There are many situations where I would be interested in this. Feel free to pick one or two. They key idea is that it is quick and involuntary, so deciding to get some sleep and any sporty maneuvers are excluded." CreationDate="2021-01-24T21:31:32.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30525" PostId="15279" Score="0" Text="*Labor, lapsus* might work, perhaps as a participle describing the one who falls." CreationDate="2021-01-25T02:26:47.757" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30522" PostId="15280" Score="0" Text="This is how I read it, too. *dat + locum facere&quot; is a common enough idiom." CreationDate="2021-01-24T20:58:42.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30526" PostId="15280" Score="0" Text="This was so helpful thank you so much!" CreationDate="2021-01-25T05:42:03.153" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="30540" PostId="15280" Score="0" Text="@MichaelJYoo If you feel that this answers your question to your satisfaction (and correctly as evidenced by the upvotes), don't forget to mark it &quot;correct.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-01-28T01:27:08.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30550" PostId="15280" Score="0" Text="Do I do that by clicking the checkmark?" CreationDate="2021-01-29T08:07:45.617" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="30527" PostId="15281" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thank you for the answer!" CreationDate="2021-01-25T06:40:03.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30530" PostId="15286" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Have you seen [this earlier question on the phrase](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4592/79) and read its answers? That might give you ideas if not answers, and you can edit your question to update it if you have new insights." CreationDate="2021-01-26T07:33:15.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30531" PostId="15287" Score="2" Text="[The *-e-* is not compulsory, but it is indeed common.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15048/79) I suspect the *-e-* is the same as in the third conjugation, and I look forward to seeing answers with some details." CreationDate="2021-01-26T11:05:08.353" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30532" PostId="15287" Score="1" Text="So it should be a thematic vowel then." CreationDate="2021-01-26T11:44:38.050" UserId="7405" />
  <row Id="30535" PostId="15288" Score="3" Text="I edited your question to make it easier to read. Thank you for an interesting question and for providing ample sources for us to consider. For your next question, especially for longer questions, may I kindly ask that you set aside some time editing before posting, to make it easier for the community to read, understand and reply?" CreationDate="2021-01-27T20:01:33.930" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30539" PostId="15288" Score="3" Text="@Canned Man: Thank you." CreationDate="2021-01-27T22:21:26.617" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30544" PostId="15289" Score="0" Text="Note: There are some typos in your version of the Latin original which I have not corrected so as not to obscure the question; but I noticed, for example: progressione summand**a**; necess**e** erat." CreationDate="2021-01-28T23:58:22.370" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30548" PostId="15289" Score="0" Text="Youre right, thanks, fixed!" CreationDate="2021-01-29T02:49:48.023" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30567" PostId="15290" Score="2" Text="Thank you. Why do these indirect questions end in a question mark? This is what caused my confusion. In &quot;semel haec mihi vivenda sint, an saepe nascendum?&quot; does &quot;sint&quot; have a dual role: (i) the subjunctive required for the indirect question; (ii) the part of &quot;sum&quot; required for the gerundive-of-obligation?" CreationDate="2021-01-30T09:39:31.850" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30568" PostId="15290" Score="2" Text="@tony, Now I see. The entire sentence that contains an indirect question can itself be a direct question. Here, the main clause that introduces the indirect questions (ego nesciam) happens to have been ellipsed after the first occurrence and must be understood from context. However, Seneca is still asking a series of 'Am I not to know...?' questions. And yes, I suppose sint has a sort of dual role, as you say." CreationDate="2021-01-30T10:31:33.117" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30571" PostId="15290" Score="3" Text="@tony Notice that the same thing can't be both direct and indirect. As cnread wrote, the entire sentence **containing** the indirect question can **be** a direct question. For example, the sentence &quot;Do you know where John is?&quot; is a direct question but the subordinate clause &quot;where John is&quot; is an indirect question, not a direct one. Compare the Seneca quote to: &quot;Do you know where John is? Or where he's been? Or why he's gone?&quot; The direct part of the question is implicit in the following indirect questions." CreationDate="2021-01-30T13:49:38.560" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30556" PostId="15291" Score="0" Text="Which dictionaries did you consult? Did you check the Vatican lexicon or Ephemeris?" CreationDate="2021-01-29T19:56:00.880" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30563" PostId="15291" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Finnish dictionaries and L&amp;S, neither of the two you mentioned. I'm not familiar with them." CreationDate="2021-01-29T21:46:04.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30573" PostId="15291" Score="0" Text="There is at least one street name mentioned in Actus Apostolorum 9:11: the Straight street (vicus qui vocatur Rectus). According to EN wikipedia this was &quot;the old decumanus maximus, the main Roman road, of Damascus&quot;. So I doubt if it would have needed a street sign, being known well enough." CreationDate="2021-01-30T13:59:26.190" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="30574" PostId="15291" Score="0" Text="@JobRozemond Ancient Rome had a number of named roads too, including the famous Via Appia. I'm not sure if they had signs or what they were called, though." CreationDate="2021-01-30T14:15:24.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30575" PostId="15291" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Have you heard of the Tabula Peutingeriana? Finnish wikipedia has a scrollable version, and the English wikipedia has a cut-out of Rome, showing the roads and their names." CreationDate="2021-01-30T15:12:38.017" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="30576" PostId="15291" Score="0" Text="As we can see in Pompey, the Romans certainly had signs designating the number of the regio and insula. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&amp;ccid=JqxTpdgZ&amp;id=0884F7416FFBE745FA2EA04073CF25AC5C5CFCCC&amp;thid=OIP.JqxTpdgZrsK5bpKlayUebgHaFj&amp;mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F08%2F35%2F34%2F08353418de7dfa3321f231564559534a.jpg&amp;exph=852&amp;expw=1136&amp;q=pompeii+street+signs&amp;simid=608029265035725095&amp;ck=5B76A2DAFBD1A5CCEFDF9F8A46066261&amp;selectedindex=3&amp;form=IRPRST&amp;idpp=overlayview&amp;ajaxhist=0&amp;vt=0&amp;sim=11" CreationDate="2021-01-30T15:28:36.943" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30579" PostId="15291" Score="0" Text="@fdb Do you happen to know what the Romans called these signs? I expected them to have had them but I recall no word associated with them." CreationDate="2021-01-30T15:37:35.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30545" PostId="15293" Score="0" Text="Macte decem milia punctorum cumulando!" CreationDate="2021-01-29T02:25:36.073" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30546" PostId="15293" Score="0" Text="Thanks for such a detailed answer! This helps a lot. One point though, I don't think 'used to be necessary' is as off-base as you think. Not that it's the best, but in general (you probably know) it's a perfectly acceptable way to translate the imperfect tense, and it's probably better without it, but I think it's clear &quot;where I got it from&quot;. The question for me was, is Euler talking about the state of things before this new method (used to be, 'we used to have to do this...'), or the state of things with a less refined version of the same method (was, '...but now it's even better')" CreationDate="2021-01-29T02:39:36.417" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30547" PostId="15293" Score="0" Text="That being my reasoning, I think I am leaning more towards your translation, which works a fair bit better in the paragraph. It's most likely he's talking about the way he came upon a general method, not that he's comparing with previous methods" CreationDate="2021-01-29T02:44:32.037" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30551" PostId="15293" Score="1" Text="@Ben Kovitz gratias cupio agere suffragantibus, parentibus meis, deis denique inmortalibus, quorum ope et auxilio multo magis haec situs interretialis quam ratione hominum gubernatur ;-)" CreationDate="2021-01-29T08:12:09.517" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30549" PostId="15294" Score="3" Text="Surely _habuerō_ and _lēgerō_ are future perfects themselves, not just future?" CreationDate="2021-01-29T05:41:47.303" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30564" PostId="15294" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Oops! Yes. I'm going to leave my mistake in the question, so others can learn from it. I'll add a note about it right now. (I'll correct the short *e* in *legerō*, though.)" CreationDate="2021-01-30T02:16:17.410" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30565" PostId="15295" Score="0" Text="Ah, this explanation at least makes _some_ sense: indicating the sequence of future events that Jerome hopes never occur. The future perfect on _habuero_ seems very strange, though, because _codices habere_ isn't the sort of action that gets completed. Even _legere_ in context doesn't mean actually finishing reading any of the books. Responsum tuum consistere committo sine accepto quoad aliquis explicationem Hieronymi grammaticae definitivam proposuerit, ille tamen dies probabiliter numquam veniet." CreationDate="2021-01-30T03:21:22.870" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30566" PostId="15295" Score="0" Text="Also, thanks for the correction of the vowel quantity in *legerō*! I just corrected it in the question (so I don't teach anyone any bad habits)." CreationDate="2021-01-30T03:23:28.210" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30569" PostId="15295" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz One interpretation that springs to mind is that *codices habui* means a point-like action rather than a continuous one (*habebam*) and could be translated as &quot;I received books&quot; or &quot;I came in possession of books&quot; or &quot;I got books&quot;. This would make sense to me, but I did not find this sense of *habere* in L&amp;S. Yet." CreationDate="2021-01-30T10:44:23.770" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30552" PostId="15296" Score="0" Text="I'm a little confused. Do you want to translate &quot;Where law exists, there is (a legal) remedy&quot; into Latin, *ubi ius ibi remedium* into English, or modify the Latin phrase? It'd be great if you could edit and clarify the goal." CreationDate="2021-01-29T09:43:03.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30553" PostId="15296" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I am trying to understand the phrase because it seems most incomplete. There is no verb. It would actually make the most sense if there where 2 verbs and something separating the two sentences. Maybe a comma or a period (a semicolon would be weird as I have not seen any in Latin texts). After completing the sentence with its verbs and punctiation I would like to translate it from Latin to English." CreationDate="2021-01-29T10:05:54.843" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="30554" PostId="15296" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I tried to reformulate your question for more clarity. Feel free to edit further or undo my edits." CreationDate="2021-01-29T10:19:20.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30562" PostId="15299" Score="2" Text="*For &quot;whatsoever&quot;, though, I'd expect the neuter form &quot;quicquam&quot; or &quot;quidquam&quot;* – or quidquid, methinks …" CreationDate="2021-01-29T21:27:18.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30570" PostId="15302" Score="2" Text="`non jam`? Isn't it `non iam` since J didn't exist in latin?" CreationDate="2021-01-30T12:29:04.727" UserId="8919" />
  <row Id="30581" PostId="15302" Score="2" Text="@MartinW Classical Latin had a few different instances where two sounds were written with the same letter; nowadays, people tend to use different letters for those, for clarity (i/j, u/v, a/ā, etc). For some reason i/j is less commonly written that way than the rest but I prefer to use it to make the pronunciation clear." CreationDate="2021-01-30T16:32:12.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30580" PostId="15304" Score="1" Text="This is an interesting question! Would it make sense to split it up and ask about each genre separately? That way each one would get proper attention." CreationDate="2021-01-30T16:24:05.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30577" PostId="15305" Score="4" Text="Doesn't Lewis explain? ... *porcissimus*, the **piggest of pigs**." CreationDate="2021-01-29T17:20:51.013" UserDisplayName="Weather Vane" />
  <row Id="30578" PostId="15305" Score="0" Text="Weather Vane, I think you are correct; it seems the -imus ending gives it a superlative form. Thank you! I moved the other question to the latin stack exchange." CreationDate="2021-01-29T17:57:05.933" UserId="8913" />
  <row Id="30582" PostId="15305" Score="2" Text="I'm assuming this is a migrated question from English Stack, but it was restated here: [Possible Latin Pun?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15298/possible-latin-pun)" CreationDate="2021-01-30T19:05:11.807" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30584" PostId="15305" Score="0" Text="I agree with @C.M.Weimer: One half of the question was already posted here. The other one can be asked separately, but that is by far simplest to do by asking a separate question. I'm not sure if the migration is reversed due to this closure." CreationDate="2021-01-30T20:12:54.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30585" PostId="15305" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The comments weren't made from Latin.SE, but English.SE. I guess a moderator moved it here instead of just closing it." CreationDate="2021-01-30T21:59:25.667" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30586" PostId="15305" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Yeah, at least the moderator interface shows that it was migrated from English. I just should have been closed instead of migrated, especially because of the comment of having the other part already here." CreationDate="2021-01-30T22:01:14.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30587" PostId="15308" Score="0" Text="For me (nearsighted), looking at these screenshots at default size, the spiritus tend to blur into an indistinct blob—it's easy to see that there's a spiritus there, but I have to get in closer to tell if it's rough or smooth." CreationDate="2021-01-30T23:41:46.463" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30588" PostId="15308" Score="0" Text="@Draconis They're legible to me, though I do have to look a little carefully when it has both a spiritus and an accent. If you can't really tell, I'm afraid the only real option is making the font bigger or getting closer to the screen." CreationDate="2021-01-31T00:02:33.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30589" PostId="15308" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Just to be sure, though, you're looking at them on your computer or your phone?" CreationDate="2021-01-31T00:02:55.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30590" PostId="15308" Score="0" Text="Laptop with HD screen at 200% magnification. But this really shouldn't be an intractible problem; the acute, circumflex, and grave, for example, are all clearly distinguishable at this size. It's just the design of the spiritus (heavy body, light tail) that poses a problem, so it should be possible to design a font to make them easier to distinguish. The question's just whether anyone's already done so." CreationDate="2021-01-31T00:10:59.917" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30591" PostId="15309" Score="7" Text="Latin has an archaic first-declension genitive *-as*, as seen in *paterfamilias*. Latin's *-ae* is actually the odd one out; it developed by analogy to the second declension's (innovated) *-i* genitive." CreationDate="2021-01-31T00:18:42.740" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30602" PostId="15309" Score="2" Text="When I saw that the Greek ablative is a YouTube link, I expected precisely that scene from precisely that show. And I was not disappointed." CreationDate="2021-01-31T21:45:57.617" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30592" PostId="15310" Score="1" Text="Dammit! Just barely too slow again! (But it's good to have multiple answers, and this seems entirely correct; +1)" CreationDate="2021-01-31T00:26:26.370" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35292" PostId="15310" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Beaten, but you were &quot;victorious&quot; in the end. ;)" CreationDate="2021-09-29T16:45:55.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30606" PostId="15313" Score="0" Text="Thanks: In &quot;fieri non potest quin sit credendum&quot;, what does &quot;quin&quot; mean? It's usually used negatively e.g. &quot;without&quot;; &quot;not that&quot;; &quot;but that&quot;; here? Why use &quot;credendum sit&quot;, which implies doubt when Sherlock was certain--&quot;it must be believed&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-02-01T16:47:01.013" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30674" PostId="15313" Score="0" Text="Fieri non potest quin + conj. = “It definitely is...” (“It can't be that not...”). Quin = “lest” (if that helps joy). The construction requires the subjunctive." CreationDate="2021-02-05T20:21:32.900" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30599" PostId="15314" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! The *Orbis Latinus* only seems to give singular Latin names for Antwerp:&#xA;http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/Graesse/orblata.html&#xA;But it is nevertheless possible that the author treated it as plural, especially when adjacent to *Veneti*, which is clearly plural." CreationDate="2021-01-31T18:06:15.247" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30605" PostId="15314" Score="0" Text="Many thanks. Since you alone have dignified your comment with the title 'Answer' I shall award you the prize. Who dares, wins!" CreationDate="2021-02-01T15:37:16.997" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30595" PostId="15318" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for your answers! Can you edit this answer to comment on the proposed translation *semper in animi* as well? I like your suggestion, but it'd also be good to comment on the original one. The asker may have little knowledge of Latin, so explanation is better than mere statement." CreationDate="2021-01-31T17:18:12.280" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30676" PostId="15318" Score="0" Text="In animis (non in animi, which would of course be wrong, but I suppose that's just a typo) simply strikes me a less apt (semantically, so to speak). The problem is that animus is of course a word with an enormous breadth, so referring to, say, Lewis &amp; Short or OLD won't help all that much." CreationDate="2021-02-05T20:30:57.180" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30597" PostId="15319" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! It's great that you found the original. Your answer might be even better if you also explained *tanta cupiditate incendit bellandi* a bit, and how/why it is different from the translation Expedito Bipdes chose." CreationDate="2021-01-31T17:57:30.187" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30675" PostId="15319" Score="0" Text="incendit = “he fired him up”; tantā cupiditate = “with so great a desire”; bellandi = “for waging war” (gen. gerundii with tanta cupiditate)" CreationDate="2021-02-05T20:25:43.080" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30677" PostId="15319" Score="0" Text="Great, now, if you could put that in your answer somewhere?" CreationDate="2021-02-05T20:54:12.923" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30619" PostId="15320" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you mean that you only mark rough breathing and recognize smoothness by absence of a breathing mark? This sounds like a non-standard approach. Is this method followed by any textbooks or other material? You can edit your answer to add details." CreationDate="2021-02-02T21:44:07.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30636" PostId="15320" Score="2" Text="As with @JoonasIlmavirta, I am interested in hearing more on this. Your answer could prove to be useful – and I would then happily upvote it – if you would provide us with some references to your method, or be that you have none, a more thorough explanation of how and why you choose to do this. (Now, why on earth is there one O in prove and two in choose? English spelling rules …‽)" CreationDate="2021-02-03T08:56:57.113" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30658" PostId="15320" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the update! (also @CannedMan)" CreationDate="2021-02-04T11:24:54.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30679" PostId="15320" Score="1" Text="Thanks, @Marblescraps, for the update. I do, of course, see one good reason for including smooth breathing, which anyone with database experience would attest to: It’s a fail safe. If an indication of spiritus is missing, how do you know for sure it is supposed to be smooth breathing or that the rough breathing went missing? It is indeed good practice to include it. However (!), I completely agree with you from a pedagogical perspective. There really is more than enough to try to understand when learning Greek (I’m a beginner learner now myself), so it clearly is didactically sound." CreationDate="2021-02-06T00:07:14.863" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30695" PostId="15320" Score="0" Text="I must disagree with the argument you've provided, @CannedMan, as I feel that it is equally plausible to just type the wrong breathing mark by mistake, all the more so for a beginning learner, as it is to omit putting the rough one where it belongs, and so there's no advantage whatsoever in typing the smooth breathing mark considering all the other negative consequences I've listed." CreationDate="2021-02-07T20:09:40.647" UserId="8924" />
  <row Id="30604" PostId="15323" Score="2" Text="The term in English is far less...direct than your proposed translation :)" CreationDate="2021-02-01T13:25:28.700" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30608" PostId="15323" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Weren't the Romans inclined to be blunt? Have you read Wiki's &quot;Latin Profanity&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-02-01T22:04:22.407" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30678" PostId="15323" Score="3" Text="Iuvat, libet, placet are all way to broad for “sexy” IMHO." CreationDate="2021-02-05T20:56:30.830" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30607" PostId="15325" Score="3" Text="Doesn't necessarily have to be French — _-ista_ shows up in Latin as an adaptation of Greek _-istēs_. That's where French got it from." CreationDate="2021-02-01T21:54:38.397" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30609" PostId="15325" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Well that makes much more sense! The noun is Greek after all... I have a small grammar for classical Greek but it doesn't cover things like word formation" CreationDate="2021-02-01T22:23:48.743" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30610" PostId="15325" Score="1" Text="Note that *hic* in the first part is paralleled by *illic* in the second, so this isn't the demonstrative &quot;this&quot; but the locative sense of *hic* &quot;here&quot;." CreationDate="2021-02-02T06:52:12.197" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30611" PostId="15325" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks for pointing that out, that's really helpful" CreationDate="2021-02-02T14:22:59.340" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30625" PostId="15329" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this excellent answer, and especially for providing another text sample by the same author. A commentary is indeed an invaluable tool, and I do believe much more prior knowledge was expected from a 19th century reader than a 21st century reader." CreationDate="2021-02-02T22:54:12.913" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30626" PostId="15329" Score="1" Text="Great research. I do wonder about the apparent conflict between the Oxford classical dictionary on the one hand (&quot;at the top of the quality scale&quot;) and Thoresby Jones (&quot;commonest&quot;) and the OLD (&quot;cheap&quot;) on the other." CreationDate="2021-02-02T23:49:34.593" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30627" PostId="15329" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, I was hoping no one would ask that before I had a chance to do more digging. The quotation from Oxford Classical Dictionary (OCD) in the original question suggests that 'commonest' refers just to the fact that Samian ware was mass-produced and widely distributed. It's hard to say whether 'cheap' in OLD refers to price, quality, and/or durability. If it refers to quality, the next question is whether OLD and OCD are using the same criteria to assess quality. If OLD includes durability in that assesment but OCD doesn't, there isn't necessarily a contradiction, just different criteria." CreationDate="2021-02-03T00:35:19.757" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30628" PostId="15329" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus (continued) Examination of the attestations that OLD provides may shed additional light." CreationDate="2021-02-03T00:36:08.787" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30629" PostId="15329" Score="1" Text="@cnread: Hehe. I suppose cheap crockery of good quality will probably be thick and sturdy, not thin and frail. From what I read, samian ware became the standard fine table ware in the early Roman Empire and later. But what was meant by the term in the time of Plautus? I'll consult the OLD when I have time." CreationDate="2021-02-03T01:11:23.883" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32540" PostId="15329" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Have you had time to do any more digging on this? I am very curious to learn what you may have found." CreationDate="2021-04-12T12:28:32.810" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="32548" PostId="15329" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan: Here is the article from the OLD: https://i.imgur.com/F4ydH15.png I have consulted Pauly, but the section on Samian &quot;Plastik und Erzguß&quot; says nothing about crockery. Perhaps something could be found in Panofka's *Res Samiorum*." CreationDate="2021-04-12T18:57:51.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30623" PostId="15330" Score="0" Text="Incidentally, the accusative of *geometres* should apparently be *geometren*, although there is a secondary form (nom.) *geometra*, maybe that has *geometram*." CreationDate="2021-02-02T22:38:25.307" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30637" PostId="15331" Score="4" Text="Well, Latin and Finnish are very different typologically (traditionally Finnish is described as an agglutinating language). If I understand you correctly, in Finnish you have what sometimes is known as sequential exponence, i.e. each grammatical meaning is expressed by a different affix, wheres in Latin (like in Russian) cumulative exponence is very common, i.e. one affix may express several grammatical meanings (e.g. -am in rosam is both ACC. and SG.). This criterion is known as formative exponence. https://wals.info/chapter/21" CreationDate="2021-02-03T14:05:42.160" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30638" PostId="15331" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Interesting! The phenomenon is not entirely alien to Latin, as the stacking of affixes around *-i-* to produce *abiturus* shows. But it indeed seems to be absent in declension in both Latin and (what little I remember of) Russian. That a typological difference gives a reason to not expect sequential exponence in Latin declension would actually make a nice answer. Even if there is something with a trace of separate number and case markers somewhere, it does not undermine the general argument that it should be rare if even that." CreationDate="2021-02-03T14:37:32.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30631" PostId="15333" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much. That was a far more welcoming and detailed answer than I could have hoped for. I think the sentiment is meant to reflect back upon the person who nurtured the mind, and I agree it comes off as a bit self-congratulatory." CreationDate="2021-02-03T02:16:32.333" UserId="8939" />
  <row Id="30632" PostId="15333" Score="0" Text="My knowledge of Latin is near to zero, and I imagined there might be referential honorifics for teachers and mentors in a way similar to Japanese." CreationDate="2021-02-03T02:19:38.167" UserId="8939" />
  <row Id="30642" PostId="15335" Score="0" Text="If you haven't already, I suggest [going through our quick intro tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). It'll guide you through some key features. You can always accept an answer to your own question to indicate that the problem is settled and you can vote up any questions and answers you like when you're logged in." CreationDate="2021-02-03T15:57:05.330" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30644" PostId="15335" Score="1" Text="Looking online, this appears to be the motto of of the Operations Support Squadron, and the translation given is 'Support second to none'. However I would have expected 'second to none' to be 'nulli secundum' not 'nullum secundum.' Has someone slipped up?" CreationDate="2021-02-03T18:12:24.050" UserId="8814" />
  <row Id="30647" PostId="15335" Score="0" Text="@Afer I only just now saw your comment. I added a discussion on that to my answer a moment ago. I reached the same conclusion that a dative would make more sense." CreationDate="2021-02-03T20:15:06.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30645" PostId="15336" Score="0" Text="I did a quick Google search of the phrase and found the [emblem itself](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:910_Operations_Support_Sq_emblem.png) on Wikimedia commons. According to the file description it seems to have been intended to mean &quot;support that is second to none&quot;. Is that a possible reading of this, or should the case of _nullum_ and/or _secundum_ be changed?" CreationDate="2021-02-03T19:00:45.997" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30646" PostId="15336" Score="2" Text="@Adam Thanks! That does make sense and I added it to my list. It strikes me as the least sensible reading on syntactical grounds, but it is very reasonable in content." CreationDate="2021-02-03T19:46:50.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30648" PostId="15336" Score="1" Text="The only way to make the phrase work (sort of) as it is, is to construe secundum as the preposition, which does take an accusative object and can mean 'second to'; the catch, of course, is that we'd have to assume that it's being used as a postposition instead of a preposition. Certainly, it's fairly easy to imagine some poet moving the preposition that means 'second to' after its object for special effect. Still, I think you and Adam are correct that nullum is a mistake, and that it should really be nulli (or, according to OLD, a nullo)." CreationDate="2021-02-03T21:55:02.443" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30651" PostId="15336" Score="0" Text="@cnread Indeed, I had ignored the prepositional reading as *secundum* was not prepositioned. I added more readings to my list. Very few of the readings are natural by any measure, but sometimes these mottoes require quite a bit of charity from the reader." CreationDate="2021-02-04T07:24:48.393" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30649" PostId="15337" Score="0" Text="As for ecclesiastical Latin, it's perfectly ok to use **lectio** for *a reading*. I don't think there's a difference for classical Latin. Thus, **lectionem ago/-ere** should be ok, but... Why not just **lego/-ere**? Though I see there's a difference in nuisance, it's been argued that specific verbs are more correct than auxiliary verb+noun" CreationDate="2021-02-04T01:25:22.250" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30650" PostId="15337" Score="5" Text="What exactly do you mean by this phrase/in what context do you want to use it? For example, if you mean reading something aloud before an audience, as authors may 'do a reading' from their newest work at a bookstore or some other event, the verb *recito* will suffice." CreationDate="2021-02-04T05:11:27.867" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30655" PostId="15337" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite: It seems that you need to convert verb &quot;to read&quot; to a noun--&quot;the reading&quot;. The gerund! What about &quot;paratus ad legendum&quot; = &quot;prepared for the reading&quot;/ &quot;prepared for the purpose of reading&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-02-04T11:11:16.523" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30672" PostId="15337" Score="1" Text="I'm on board with @Rafael. No need to &quot;do a reading&quot; when you can &quot;read.&quot; I tell my students &quot;lege + historiam/scaenam/fabulam&quot; instead of circumlocuting." CreationDate="2021-02-05T15:00:46.990" UserId="7368" />
  <row Id="30652" PostId="15338" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a good question! I took the liberty to edit a bit, but feel free to roll back or edit further." CreationDate="2021-02-04T09:03:52.477" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30654" PostId="15339" Score="2" Text="The nominative plural is also &quot;vertebrae&quot;, as in &quot;vertebrae thoracicae&quot;." CreationDate="2021-02-04T10:45:36.143" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="30656" PostId="15339" Score="1" Text="@gmvh Good point! I added a remark on that. I don't want to list all possible things here, but to give the necessary core insight. But it's good to know that a form that looks familiar might not be familiar." CreationDate="2021-02-04T11:17:19.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30692" PostId="15339" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer Good point! The singular genitive is not unusual in anatomy from what I remember, but the plural nominative is common and perhaps more so. I added a plural table as well so that all the possibly relevant forms are visible. (For example, *arcus vertebrae* is &quot;the arc of a vertebra&quot;, so this is a singular genitive.)" CreationDate="2021-02-07T15:44:11.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30694" PostId="15339" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. Some are plural, some are genitive! Hasty typing, I suppose." CreationDate="2021-02-07T18:34:13.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30659" PostId="15340" Score="1" Text="I put the longer text quotes in quote boxes. I strongly suggest you to learn doing so, as it helps reading a lot, at least to me. You just have to put `&gt; ` at the start of a line. Click the &quot;Edit&quot; button to see what the text looks like." CreationDate="2021-02-04T14:43:31.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30660" PostId="15340" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thank you for the answer. I have never put anything in a quote box. (The different colour, for the quote, still appeared.) I thought it was the inverted commas, or italics, that triggered this. Anyway, I'll use the arrow-head thing from now on." CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:38:16.280" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30661" PostId="15340" Score="0" Text="You're welcome! The formatting things on the site can be counter-intuitive, but the folks at SE are actually working on a new editor. A lot of the basic structure can be given by starting the row with a special symbol, like `&gt; ` for quotes and `# ` or `## ` or `### ` for titles of different levels. These are the easiest ones to use. Let me know if you see something in another post that you'd like to be able to produce yourself, and I'll try to help." CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:45:53.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30668" PostId="15345" Score="1" Text="Good answer! You beat me to it by seconds." CreationDate="2021-02-05T13:36:42.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30669" PostId="15345" Score="0" Text="Hmm, ok, so basically it is a scribal error?" CreationDate="2021-02-05T13:55:45.903" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="30671" PostId="15345" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden. I updated my answer with what information I was able to gather." CreationDate="2021-02-05T14:28:28.207" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30681" PostId="15348" Score="1" Text="Thank you. I remember now why I found Latin so difficult!" CreationDate="2021-02-06T09:20:19.333" UserId="8950" />
  <row Id="30680" PostId="15352" Score="2" Text="Somewhat related question about the case of predicates: [Is the complement of esse in nominative or accusative when esse is a subject?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1877/is-the-complement-of-esse-in-nominative-or-accusative-when-esse-is-a-subject)" CreationDate="2021-02-06T03:56:10.817" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="30683" PostId="15353" Score="1" Text="Thank you. Reading your answer, I found good explication in &quot;Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition&quot;, 2006, excersize 5 to 7." CreationDate="2021-02-06T15:49:33.117" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="30706" PostId="15359" Score="0" Text="I understand &quot;absolute&quot; in this context to mean &quot;not relative&quot;, i.e. not varying from one context to another. Newton famously held time and space to be absolute, but a few centuries later we found out that even durations and distances vary from one reference frame to another. Even relative things, then, can be well defined (and perhaps absolute things can be _indefinitus_). What do you think?" CreationDate="2021-02-09T00:46:08.103" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30710" PostId="15359" Score="0" Text="Ah. I guess this gets to the limits of my understand of physics (which is almost non-existent anyway). I personally think finding a satisfactory Latin equivalent then becomes a bit of a personal journey, depending partly on the kind of Latin one accepts/likes (I am hopelessly not at home in the Latin of Newton, but I suppose reading that sort of stuff means dealing with a lot of terminology that one simply doesn't get from Cicero, Caesar, Ovid, Vergil, Tacitus, even Bede or Erasmus). As I'm writing, however, how about a word like immutabilis? “Pauca sunt immutabilia”?" CreationDate="2021-02-09T20:31:44.150" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30711" PostId="15359" Score="0" Text="I only meant the physics example as an illustration to suggest that _definitus_ might draw a different distinction than intended. Perhaps the moral principle &quot;Always do your best&quot; is absolute—applicable in all life situations—and yet it's not sharply defined. It's pretty hazy; the details need to be discovered anew in each situation. Well, I did my best yesterday to find a Latin word for this, which led me to spend an hour looking at Augustine's debate with Iulian, and I had no success. _Immutabilis_—maybe! Maybe a separate answer for that, even, to encourage &quot;relative&quot; voting." CreationDate="2021-02-09T21:33:48.717" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30693" PostId="15361" Score="0" Text="I'll try to summon Varro then :)" CreationDate="2021-02-07T17:48:21.687" UserId="7405" />
  <row Id="30717" PostId="15362" Score="0" Text="Hi! This is a good answer, but the question was closed as a duplicate. Would you mind reposting this as an answer to [the still open question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4592/79)?" CreationDate="2021-02-10T08:09:23.893" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30689" PostId="15365" Score="0" Text="Or to [Augustus](https://mobile.twitter.com/tutubuslatinus/status/1328791188929880066) ..." CreationDate="2021-02-07T12:11:41.300" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30703" PostId="15371" Score="0" Text="Thanks much for this quick response. I think this would be a reasonable translation then (with some free rearranging): &quot;It seemed proper however to provide this series with the present form, as the letters A and B may be interchanged, in such a way that whatever may be observed from one may also be valid for the other.&quot; Does that match up? From context I can say this is what Euler had in mind, but the specifics might be off." CreationDate="2021-02-08T19:05:04.340" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30704" PostId="15371" Score="0" Text="@SamGallagher, See my updated answer for a rough translation and a correction about one point." CreationDate="2021-02-08T19:19:06.247" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30705" PostId="15374" Score="0" Text="I think they had started to kill him, figuratively speaking: either they were about to kill him or had started throwing stones to him" CreationDate="2021-02-08T21:11:38.110" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30714" PostId="15377" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you have any other context on where these would be used? Sometimes that can have an impact on the best translation." CreationDate="2021-02-10T03:34:08.590" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30719" PostId="15377" Score="0" Text="Context &quot;letters that appear on amulet/charm, as a self-reminder or a self-challenge&quot;. I think i would lean towards more literal translation, but honestly not completely sure, i guess it more depends which end result sounds/reads better, preserving the core meaning." CreationDate="2021-02-10T08:57:33.420" UserId="8967" />
  <row Id="30720" PostId="15377" Score="1" Text="@LtFrg3 I would suggest you add the above to your original question. Also, if you have no knowledge of Latin, adding that to the question is beneficial, as this explains why you have not posted any suggested translations." CreationDate="2021-02-10T12:40:37.567" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30724" PostId="15377" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! White translation requests are allowed on this site, we require that the asker provides as much context as possible, and posts what he has tried himself. So it would be great if you could add that the next time you ask a translation question (there is no such requirement for other types of questions)." CreationDate="2021-02-11T06:07:09.767" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="30708" PostId="15379" Score="0" Text="Preserving English structure is of no interest. I'd like to know how one conceives of and expresses this in the Latin way of thinking and speaking: _quomodo haec idea Latine formatur._" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:21:05.847" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30709" PostId="15379" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz Then you might be interested in the fourth option I added. The others seem pretty verbose in comparison. I'm not going to discuss *orexis* as a word here (it deserves a separate question), but otherwise I am happy with the simplicity of the fourth solution." CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:39:58.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30721" PostId="15382" Score="0" Text="And a [very famous quotation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_51) from Catullus at that." CreationDate="2021-02-10T18:15:31.537" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37134" PostId="15382" Score="0" Text="Worth noting here that there is some dispute and obscurity about how to understand the relationship between *[deus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=deus)* (in the 1st line, &quot;par esse [deo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deus#Latin) videtur&quot;) and *[divus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=divus)* (in the 2nd, &quot;si fas est, superare [divos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divus#Latin). Some poets use them interchangeably, others not, and some grammarians (e.g. Servius) distinguished them." CreationDate="2022-02-11T08:06:09.463" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="37135" PostId="15382" Score="0" Text="In some contexts, *superare deos* would suggest surpassing the di immortales, ie. surpassing perpetual gods like Iuppiter, Mars, Venus, etc. *superare divos* could suggest the same in some contexts; in others it would mean only the lesser (or less *nefas*!) status of surpassing *divinized humans,* i.e. folks like Romulus or Caesar who once were mortal, now worshipped and held to have ascended to the heavens to become lesser gods (or godlike?) only after they died or vanished. The translator can pick one or other depending on how blasphemous they want the suggestion of surpassing to be." CreationDate="2022-02-11T08:16:46.123" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="30722" PostId="15385" Score="1" Text="If I missed something in the above (and in the sources), I do apologise; I am trying to prepare for two seminars with little time to spare, so I have not had the time to re-review the information too thoroughly." CreationDate="2021-02-10T23:51:07.430" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30726" PostId="15385" Score="0" Text="No, I generally have a tendency to forget about Wikipedia when investigating things like this; I shouldn’t. My Q: In short: Can we know who actually minted the coin, and is the letter a minter’s mark telling us who they were? @sebastian-koppehel answered this below. Thank you for your question." CreationDate="2021-02-11T11:34:10.513" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30725" PostId="15388" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! I did not realise that LCL was the same as the minter. I understand from the answer that the only thing we can know about the minter, is who his boss was, and not who the actual minter was. The information you provide on the letters being control letters was completely new to me, so this will be valuable when I am doing my seminar today. Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2021-02-11T11:31:37.820" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30727" PostId="15388" Score="2" Text="@CannedMan The *tresviri monetales* were an entry-level public office typically held by young Romans hopeful for a senatorial career. I doubt they performed the actual physical labour of minting themselves. Even at the time it would presumably not have been possible to link any coin to the precise worker who made it -- though to those in the know, the die marks *might* have given a clue. It's also possible they only indicate a particular lot of silver, or whatever." CreationDate="2021-02-11T17:51:49.447" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30730" PostId="15389" Score="1" Text="https://rbms.info/lpn/t/tricassibus/" CreationDate="2021-02-12T00:11:50.580" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30731" PostId="15389" Score="1" Text="Thanks. That is useful." CreationDate="2021-02-12T09:00:11.047" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30734" PostId="15390" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Which sites did you find that translation on? It's helpful to see the source. I also recommend looking at our meta post on [how to ask for a translation](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/483/how-can-i-ask-a-translation-question-if-i-dont-know-any-latin), as it will give you some tips on edits you can make to your question. The more information you provide the better the translation you will get." CreationDate="2021-02-12T15:17:27.380" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30732" PostId="15391" Score="4" Text="You should rather question your translation of *e conspectu hostium auferri* (note passive!). It does not mean &quot;to catch sight of the enemy.&quot; There's nothing unusual going on with *fugere* here ;-)" CreationDate="2021-02-12T11:56:20.103" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30733" PostId="15392" Score="0" Text="Ok, I see, I forgot that the Argonauts were the ones being chased and Medea was with them. I had read the previous passage a while back and forgot who was chasing who. That explains it." CreationDate="2021-02-12T15:12:07.823" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="30735" PostId="15394" Score="1" Text="&quot;Et in tenebris lux&quot; also nicely evokes the (emotionally completely unrelated, though) [Et in Arcadia ego](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/228809/what-does-et-in-arcadia-ego-refer-to) ... (Sebastian ultimately opted for a form of *manere* by the way ;-))" CreationDate="2021-02-13T09:21:03.363" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30736" PostId="15394" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel *Manere* is good, too! And good ear for *et in Arcadia*. I knew it sounded familiar, but when I typed it up I couldn't remember what it sounded like, but that's it exactly." CreationDate="2021-02-13T15:25:29.163" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30745" PostId="15396" Score="0" Text="As you say,  ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου is Biblical. The question of whether Mary is in fact the &quot;Mother of God&quot; (Θεοτόκος) and not the mother only of Jesus's humanity but not of his divinity was a central issue in the Christological controversies of the 5th century." CreationDate="2021-02-15T13:02:14.280" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="30747" PostId="15396" Score="0" Text="@fdb Yes--I believe &quot;Θεοτόκος&quot; was only defined at Ephesus in 431, though the term goes a couple centuries back from then. Regardless, the term goes way further back than the 10th c. The OP's larger intent isn't really clear from the question itself." CreationDate="2021-02-15T13:41:53.657" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30737" PostId="15397" Score="2" Text="Could be Museum Regis Galliarum, the French royal museum where the medals are kept? I don't know which that would be in Gibbon's day, presumably not the Louvre." CreationDate="2021-02-14T00:25:28.660" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30740" PostId="15397" Score="0" Text="Based on [a page from another book](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Descrizione_degli_Stateri_antichi_illust/I2CVL25oXsUC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22mus.+reg.+gall.%22&amp;pg=PA33&amp;printsec=frontcover), it definitely seems to be a reference to some French museum. My guess is either &quot;Regional Museum of France&quot; or &quot;Royal Museum of France.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-14T14:52:38.433" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30741" PostId="15397" Score="0" Text="Presumably it would be Museo Regis Galliarum in that case; it's possible, but I only found one reference to that, and I would expect more (but my expectations could obviously be incorrect). I had found that page from another book, but that just multiplied the references to what I already had, it didn't help me with what the words were." CreationDate="2021-02-14T17:12:44.583" UserId="7411" />
  <row Id="30753" PostId="15397" Score="0" Text="Wiki fr has a list of French museums. There are two 'Gaillards.' The commune on the Swiss border has a decorative tower. The Normandy Gaillard has a Royal Castle which is a cultural centre and museum. Select Fr as language choice in the left margin before searching." CreationDate="2021-02-15T21:33:13.003" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30738" PostId="15398" Score="1" Text="See the TLL entry for more info on its declension and gender uses https://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#71005" CreationDate="2021-02-14T02:36:58.377" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30739" PostId="15398" Score="1" Text="Leumann and the OLD entry: fem. after *domus*" CreationDate="2021-02-14T02:51:16.517" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35129" PostId="15398" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. You should write that up as an answer." CreationDate="2021-09-16T01:45:09.510" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44813" PostId="15398" Score="0" Text="On second thought, I'm not sure that's actually what happened. Why would *porticus* become feminine (which we know it did) but not *portus*?" CreationDate="2023-09-12T00:20:05.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30746" PostId="15401" Score="0" Text="Excellent examples! Do you happen to know if &quot;illud&quot; is only used in the nominative and accusative, as in your examples? It seems like the other cases--which aren't recognizably neuter--would be less useful for disambiguation." CreationDate="2021-02-15T13:38:28.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30750" PostId="15401" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, It didn't register with me that all my examples were either nominative or accusative, so thanks for pointing that out. Since other cases are also found, I'll add some more examples this evening." CreationDate="2021-02-15T20:39:16.153" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30754" PostId="15401" Score="1" Text="I've changed this to the accepted answer: it's really thorough, has great examples, and isn't restricted to medieval Latin." CreationDate="2021-02-16T03:55:21.260" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30748" PostId="15404" Score="2" Text="‘Ex aequo’ as synonym for ‘simul’ or ‘eodem tempore’ seems problematic to me. Why not simply ‘equally’?" CreationDate="2021-02-15T18:51:35.023" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30749" PostId="15404" Score="1" Text="I took ex to refer to all that had been mentioned previously, as is reflected in cnread’s translation, too. And by the way, @cnread, you gave me more than I asked for, so thank you very much for that!" CreationDate="2021-02-15T20:13:21.663" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30755" PostId="15404" Score="3" Text="I thoroughly revised this answer, after giving it some more thought (esp. in light of Batavulus's comment) and taking a peek at the original Greek text that is the source." CreationDate="2021-02-16T07:57:05.763" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30756" PostId="15405" Score="0" Text="Many thanks. So Abeli was losing his privilege of a separate room &quot;for valid reasons&quot; (which I think was a standard way of saying that we have reasons but we are not going to state them here) while Sergent was effectively suspended. Great!" CreationDate="2021-02-16T11:29:39.883" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30763" PostId="15405" Score="0" Text="@user558840 No, he held a room outside the dormitory for &quot;worthy reasons,&quot; the reasons are not the reasons they are taking the room away. That is clear from the punctuation in the Latin." CreationDate="2021-02-17T08:16:30.680" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30764" PostId="15405" Score="0" Text="How do you interpret the use of *negare* here? I cannot make heads and tails of it. It does not mean &quot;denounce&quot; -- certainly not classically, at least -- and its direct object should be an entreaty or an assertion. Otherwise it can also take an AcI. Maybe there is some ecclesiastical usage I am unaware of." CreationDate="2021-02-17T08:29:12.527" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30767" PostId="15405" Score="0" Text="Lewis and Short give “reject” for “denegare” (II.); the question to me, as always, is how to understand the word in this context. It seems to me that the “ut indignos” has to mean “as unworthy,” referring, of course, to the two gentlemen in question. To me, the phrase “ut indignos denegamus” cannot possibly mean “we deny them to be unworthy,” because it leaves one with a redundant “ut.” Alternatively, how do you understand the text?" CreationDate="2021-02-17T12:33:07.803" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30771" PostId="15405" Score="0" Text="Here is why Abeli was in trouble, but I don't really understand this either: &quot;at cum magistro ordinis F. Vincentio Justiniani displicuisset, cujus causam non invenio, nisi fortè quod huic conventum Parisiensem a congregatione Gallicana segregare tentanti suoque immediato regimini subjicere volenti acrius restitisset, ut ut sit tum in comitiis ordinis Avenione xxv maii MDLXI celebratis rejectus fuit, &amp; in conventum Trecensem relegatus.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-17T17:16:53.143" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30752" PostId="15406" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you elaborate on the intended meaning? Are the two translations your own? They seem so but I'm not sure. The checklist [in this meta question](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/79) is quite useful making a translation question clearer. (Registering your account gives you better access to your post when you want to edit it or react to answers.)" CreationDate="2021-02-15T21:10:53.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30757" PostId="15408" Score="1" Text="Not relevant to your question, but most authorities would syllabify *impresso* as *im/pres/so*, not *imp/res/so*. Depending on who you ask the relevant rule is that plosives followed by liquids are usually kept together at the start of syllables and/or that prefixed prepositions (here *in*) are split off before anything else because they behave distinctly." CreationDate="2021-02-16T15:09:01.690" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30759" PostId="15411" Score="0" Text="I want to express a command from one to another. &quot;Go forward in the light.&quot; &quot;Take it as it goes,&quot; I am new to semantics and have no general understanding of latin. What information can I provide to help? Thank you for your time" CreationDate="2021-02-16T22:12:02.847" UserId="8985" />
  <row Id="30762" PostId="15411" Score="0" Text="@CameronGriffith well, but what does &quot;take it as it goes&quot; mean in the intended context? Does it mean something more like &quot;quietly accept whatever happens&quot; or more like &quot;if life hands you lemons, make lemonade&quot;? And what does &quot;light&quot; refer to – physical light? the light of knowledge? spiritual light? And &quot;forward&quot; in which sense? physically marching on? the inexorable march of progress? a personal spiritual path? Those differences in intended meaning could affect how best to translate a phrase into another language." CreationDate="2021-02-17T07:46:19.630" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="30780" PostId="15411" Score="0" Text="Quietly accept what ever happens in stride.   and a personal spiritual path with the spiritual light. I really appreciate this" CreationDate="2021-02-17T19:20:10.687" UserId="8985" />
  <row Id="30765" PostId="15414" Score="1" Text="This video is an Italian text-to-speech engine being made to read Latin. Latin did not sound like that." CreationDate="2021-02-17T11:38:46.743" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30772" PostId="15421" Score="0" Text="[Fax nova lingauae latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=3NrptHtMhjMC&amp;pg=PA493&amp;lpg=PA493&amp;dq=valet+tres+nummos&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=I_Tr4MqHlz&amp;sig=ACfU3U2YMzSHQ8t-vfRW5hnJhTonR03Fxg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiv6ITStPHuAhX-ZxUIHX0CAvIQ6AEwAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&amp;q=valet%20tres%20nummos&amp;f=false), mentions *valet tres nummos* as worth three coins. But I could not find classical attestations for this (post could find). Also I'm not sure it fits here, but I don't know." CreationDate="2021-02-17T17:22:05.577" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30773" PostId="15421" Score="4" Text="Cannot *magna* simply be the object of *praestandi*, which itself modifies *robore*, the power of achieving great things?" CreationDate="2021-02-17T17:34:09.520" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30774" PostId="15421" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. I considered that, but _praestandi_ is passive. How can it take a direct object?" CreationDate="2021-02-17T17:38:29.787" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30775" PostId="15421" Score="2" Text="@ExpeditoBipes *praestandi* is not passive. It's a gerund." CreationDate="2021-02-17T17:50:24.900" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30777" PostId="15421" Score="1" Text="@d_e I commented on that in my answer. That accusative is not an object but an adverb." CreationDate="2021-02-17T19:05:02.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30790" PostId="15423" Score="1" Text="I'm sorry for writing this comment although I do not speak Latin language at all. In school we learned that names are never translated to another language: Even in France - where a law exists that forbids using foreign words in French language (!) - &quot;Disney World&quot; remains &quot;Disney World&quot; and does not become &quot;Monde Disney&quot; or similar. In Latin, you have the problem that the ending of the words change depending on the position in the sentence, so you might need to do this here, too. However, really translating words (&quot;World&quot; -&gt; &quot;Mundus&quot;) seems not to be correct for names." CreationDate="2021-02-18T15:32:33.920" UserId="8999" />
  <row Id="30791" PostId="15423" Score="2" Text="@MartinRosenau &quot;In school we learned that names are never translated to another language&quot; -- I'm afraid that's not quite true, and if someone does not adhere to this maxim, it is [the Disney company](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers_des_canards_de_Disney#Personnages) :-)" CreationDate="2021-02-18T17:26:51.633" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30793" PostId="15423" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel However, the name &quot;Univers de canards&quot; is not a translation of the English term; it is a completely new name invented by Disney for French customers. Just like the Spanish name of the movie &quot;Sister Act&quot; literaly translates to &quot;Changing the Robe&quot;. Doing it the same way, you can use the literal Latin translation of &quot;Duck Land&quot; (or similar) if you want to express the term &quot;Disney World&quot; in a Latin text. And unlike the name &quot;Disney&quot;, the word &quot;Duck&quot; definitely exists in Latin." CreationDate="2021-02-18T21:32:06.213" UserId="8999" />
  <row Id="30798" PostId="15423" Score="2" Text="@MartinRosenau Names were often, but not always, inflected in Latin, even when they came from non-Latin languages. For example, Vercingetorix was fully inflected, and the genitive was Vercingetorigis. That said, most modern institutions tend not to be translated anymore." CreationDate="2021-02-19T01:14:04.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30776" PostId="15425" Score="0" Text="Thanks! That was helpful!" CreationDate="2021-02-17T18:52:11.950" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="30778" PostId="15425" Score="0" Text="Do you have a source for the first option, or can you clarify? I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. Also, given the implied *angeli*, I don't think that's right for this. From the comments, it seems Expedito missed that *praestandi* is a gerund. That seems the most natural explanation to me." CreationDate="2021-02-17T19:08:09.797" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30779" PostId="15425" Score="2" Text="@C.M.Weimer It's indeed not quite that simple. I don't think it's a likely reading at all, but I wanted to point it out as a direction one can pursue. I should make it clearer that it leads to a dead end here." CreationDate="2021-02-17T19:10:08.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30782" PostId="15425" Score="1" Text="And the missing piece of the puzzle is found in Allen &amp; Greenough, [§ 504 a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/gerund-and-gerundive): &quot;The genitive of the gerund sometimes takes a direct object, especially a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective used substantively.&quot; Otherwise we would expect a dominant gerundive construction, i.e., *robore magnorum praestandorum*, which (I think) would not be wrong either." CreationDate="2021-02-17T21:19:29.343" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30784" PostId="15425" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Indeed, the option with a gerundive would be valid but was not used here. (Whether there is any difference in nuance would be an interesting question to explore.) I added a few notes on the gerundive options to my answer." CreationDate="2021-02-18T08:47:21.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30788" PostId="15426" Score="0" Text="Could you provide a reference for when you state that &quot;Disney is from the French d'Isigny&quot; ?" CreationDate="2021-02-18T15:22:38.710" UserId="8998" />
  <row Id="30789" PostId="15426" Score="3" Text="@Frédéric Added." CreationDate="2021-02-18T15:25:44.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30794" PostId="15426" Score="0" Text="If the phrase would be about 'going to' Disney World, I assume we'd be using the dative Mundo instead?" CreationDate="2021-02-18T21:35:32.673" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="30795" PostId="15426" Score="3" Text="@Mast: Motion is generally expressed with *ad* (or another preposition) + ACC, so it'd be *ad Mundum*." CreationDate="2021-02-18T21:40:51.180" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="30783" PostId="15427" Score="0" Text="Very interesting, +1 for you" CreationDate="2021-02-18T04:24:32.267" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="30785" PostId="15427" Score="0" Text="Great answer. I would modify &quot;instance of Xing&quot; to a slightly more pedantic &quot;denoting a state of having executed/completed/established an/the act of X&quot;. Otherwise 'instance' might also include things like «δίδαγμα» (which refers more to the outcome of the act, &quot;that which has been taught&quot;, rather than the fact that such an act has been executed to completion in the first place). I view it similarly in this case to 'advise -&gt; advisement', as opposed to 'advice'. (in fact, I suspect the -ment suffix in English plays a similar role to what you describe?)" CreationDate="2021-02-18T10:23:34.923" UserId="1824" />
  <row Id="43744" PostId="15427" Score="0" Text="So, you mention that ⲇⲓⲇⲁⲭⲏ isn't the *act* of teaching.  Yet lexicons list the *activity* of teaching as the primary definition of the word (cf. &lt;BDAG, s.v. “διδαχή,” 241.&gt; &lt;The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v. “διδαχη,” 520.&gt; ). I get that the -ⲥⲓⲥ ending refers to activity and the -ⲙⲁ ending clearly shows the product/effect.  But, without any actual evidence, I find your conclusion interesting, but not all that convincing or compelling." CreationDate="2023-06-21T13:03:39.333" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="30796" PostId="15431" Score="1" Text="Yes, I entirely agree about the importance of Latin for sixteenth-century European history, and it is my lack of full comprehension that brings me here. Sometimes 90% comprehension suffices, but sometimes one has missed the crucial point." CreationDate="2021-02-18T23:36:00.797" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30797" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="With regard to what was going on, the General Chapter at Avignon also ruled: &quot;Restituimus et relinquimus eandem conventum in directione et auctoritate congregationis, ut prius erat.&quot; One has to distinguish the French province (provincia Franciae) from &quot;congregationis Gallicanae&quot; (I am not sure what this was). The provinces (Scottish, English, French, etc.) were the basic units." CreationDate="2021-02-18T23:55:56.700" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30806" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="Restituimus...: “We restore and leave said monastery under the direction and authority of the congregation [I guess meaning the monks living there], as it had previously been.” I have had to do with churches, incl. the Roman Catholic, professionally for many years, but such aspects of church viz. monastic law remain a mystery to me... I guess this goes beyond standard knowledge of Latin...  :-)" CreationDate="2021-02-20T10:02:09.783" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30814" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="My guess would be that Master of the Order tried to separate the Paris convent, for whatever reason, but was overruled by the General Chapter. As a sop to him, however, they pseudo-disciplined Abeli, sending him to Troyes. I still don't understand the thing about the bedrooms." CreationDate="2021-02-22T09:23:44.100" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30818" PostId="15431" Score="1" Text="The bedroom part: “privamus cubiculo,” we take away (deprive him of) the bedroom “quod [cubiculum] tenet extra dormitorium propter causas dignas” which he holds outside the dormitory (i.e. a private bedroom) for worthy reasons (what ever those are. In other words, as part of his “punishment” he was stripped of the privilege of a private room. (How this relates to him being sent back to Troyes is not clear to me.)" CreationDate="2021-02-22T19:03:04.187" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30819" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="Apparently the 1558 General Chapter approved the separation of the Paris convent but the French king intervened: &quot;Acceptamus conventum nostrum Parisien et auctoritate sanctissimi domini nostri Pauli papae IIII subiicimus illum immediate curae et dispositioni reverendissimi magistri ordinis pleno iure in omnibus et per omnia committimusque illi, ut regio favore et auxilio restituat illum ad optimam formam tam in studiis quam regulari disciplina, in quibus defecisse videtur, ac proinde ex toto subtrahimus illum a cura et regimine reverendi vicarii congregationis Gallicanae,..." CreationDate="2021-02-22T20:09:42.447" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30820" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="...cui ex parte et nomine eiusdem sanctissimi domini nostri in virtute sanctae obedientiae et sub poena absolutionis ab officio et excommunicationis latae sententiac praecipimus, ne de caetero se intromittat de illo conventu quantum ad dispositionem eius in temporalibus aut spiritualibus, neve super et in eo ullam exerceat iurisdictionem.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-22T20:10:38.233" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30835" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="user558840, I get it, but don't feel like sitting down and contemplating a translation now. Will try tomorrow." CreationDate="2021-02-23T22:02:30.553" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30837" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="Anyway, much of the picture is clear now. The General Chapter basically supported the Master General's plan, but reluctantly backed down because of the king of France. They revenged themselves on Abeli (who quickly recovered and became eminent). Probably he had petitioned the king. The main thing for me now is why the Master General wanted direct control? Was there some heresy issue or some Gallican anti-Italian issue?" CreationDate="2021-02-23T23:35:40.943" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30842" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="If I understand you correctly, you have no need for more translating (if I'm mistaken, just let me know). It's an interesting story. Is it possible that the Magister Ordinis was simply power-hungry? I personally would be skeptical about heresy." CreationDate="2021-02-24T16:07:14.910" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30855" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="The only thing would be if the decision of the 1558 Chapter sheds any light on the reason for the transfer. I think that the dispute was to do with Observant Dominicans. A history of the Order says of a later Master: &quot;He devoted much care to the Provinces of Toulouse, Provence, and France and the decadent Gallican Congregation, including St. Jacques. Against fierce opposition he solidified the Congregation of Occitania reformed by Michaelis (d. 1616) to which he added as a counterforce in Paris to recalcitrant San Jacques the observant Annunciation Priory in the Faubourg St. Honoré.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-25T11:28:28.477" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30878" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="I don't read anything in what you sent that sheds any light on the reason for the transfer of Abeli, no." CreationDate="2021-02-26T15:44:53.323" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30903" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="Sorry, it was the transfer of the Paris convent to the direct control of the Master General that I was thinking of (not the transfer of Abeli)." CreationDate="2021-02-27T11:54:45.730" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30904" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="I've copied your last Latin passages in the new answer with some rough &quot;translations&quot; of crucial aspects, but I think it's all clear. If not, let me know." CreationDate="2021-02-27T20:48:48.900" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30940" PostId="15431" Score="0" Text="The &quot;technical term (...) for such a meeting&quot; is also Chapter, or General chapter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_(religion)" CreationDate="2021-03-02T07:09:30.657" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="30799" PostId="15434" Score="4" Text="Just a quick note: &quot;why do multiple software translators confuse...?&quot; Because no real time was spent trying to make them better. Auto-tagging for Latin has been around many years, but online translators are not content with spending the time or money to develop the necessary AI." CreationDate="2021-02-19T01:19:50.680" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30801" PostId="15434" Score="0" Text="Interesting topic! It also might be amusing to make acronyms of your translations since it's a very Roman thing to do that is also common with internet slang." CreationDate="2021-02-19T16:22:36.553" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30868" PostId="15434" Score="0" Text="I removed the last question, because it has already been answered [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1180/roman-uses-of-diacritical-marks)." CreationDate="2021-02-26T06:52:11.717" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31026" PostId="15434" Score="0" Text="Was there an answer here earlier, or is that just my imagination?" CreationDate="2021-03-09T16:31:49.967" UserId="8972" />
  <row Id="30800" PostId="15436" Score="8" Text="There are lots of words that mean &quot;World&quot;, even in English: Planet, Earth, Globe...  &quot;Orbis&quot; being correct does not negate other words being correct, or more idiomatically appropriate." CreationDate="2021-02-19T13:35:06.817" UserId="6647" />
  <row Id="30802" PostId="15436" Score="4" Text="Yes, *orbis* is one option, but so is mundus. Have a look at [its definition](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmundus2) under II.B." CreationDate="2021-02-19T16:25:23.463" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30807" PostId="15437" Score="1" Text="I think you mean frenos instead of renos." CreationDate="2021-02-20T10:10:41.337" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30808" PostId="15437" Score="0" Text="@cnread Indeed!" CreationDate="2021-02-20T12:26:17.430" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="30809" PostId="15438" Score="9" Text="&quot;I think that the Carthage of the whales should be destroyed.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-20T15:35:47.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30813" PostId="15442" Score="3" Text="(Posting as a separate answer so that people can vote them up or down individually.)" CreationDate="2021-02-22T02:27:09.963" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30821" PostId="15442" Score="0" Text="Can you put the text sample in a comment so we can post other fonts with it?" CreationDate="2021-02-23T01:17:45.427" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="30822" PostId="15442" Score="1" Text="@curiousdannii Added it to the Noto answer, since comments were causing issues with copying and pasting it" CreationDate="2021-02-23T01:24:03.447" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30827" PostId="15443" Score="0" Text="Hmmm... Using meme jargon, this seems to be a joke I'm too romance to understand. I don't know the answer, but I strongly suspect you'd just go with the number (pluralized if applicable/necessary)" CreationDate="2021-02-23T12:24:59.157" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30828" PostId="15443" Score="2" Text="A fiver is a five dollar bill (or a five pound bill), not the number five. Latin uses cardinals for counting and for describing the number, if that's what you're asking." CreationDate="2021-02-23T13:06:11.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30829" PostId="15443" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer &quot;Fiver&quot; was the closest analogue to what we have in Finnish and Swedish. At least all numbers 1–10 have &quot;names&quot; that are different from the usual cardinals. These names would be used for names of playing cards, names of coins and bills, names of numerical grades in school, names of the digits as symbols, and probably something that I forget. Perhaps most languages use just cardinals for these purposes, but in Finnish and Swedish doing so would be wrong. The question is: What does Latin do?" CreationDate="2021-02-23T13:15:42.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30830" PostId="15443" Score="0" Text="I hadn't learned that part of Swedish yet. Is it true for Sweden's Swedish, or only Finland's Swedish? Either way, it's absent in Latin (as far as I understand what you're describing). Latin would just use the cardinal for your second example." CreationDate="2021-02-23T13:52:24.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30831" PostId="15443" Score="2" Text="@C.M.Weimer I think it's true in both varieties of Swedish. At least [Wiktionary gives several uses for *tvåa* (&quot;number 2&quot;)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tv%C3%A5a) without any remarks on regionality. The linked other numbers are similar. And I faintly recall seeing those names of numbers used in the Swedish media." CreationDate="2021-02-23T13:58:36.327" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30833" PostId="15443" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for the info!" CreationDate="2021-02-23T18:00:56.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30816" PostId="15446" Score="1" Text="It might be helpful to mention other forms like *transversum* and *transversarius* to show that both adjectives have all genders (and cases). The endings are actually the same, so the only difference is in *-ari-*." CreationDate="2021-02-22T17:48:45.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30817" PostId="15446" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I added a link instead. I'm a fan of not habitually reinventing the wheel! But feel free to edit to clarify if you think it really needs it." CreationDate="2021-02-22T17:59:34.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30824" PostId="15448" Score="3" Text="Oh, I do love the look of Gentium. Might be worth mentioning that it's free as well." CreationDate="2021-02-23T03:36:33.100" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30825" PostId="15448" Score="3" Text="Gentium was mentioned on one pages that are linked to in the original question. Unfortunately, there's no sans-serif version of it." CreationDate="2021-02-23T03:58:30.280" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30834" PostId="15448" Score="0" Text="Do you have any idea of a good font to pair it with? A sans-serif alternative doesn’t necessarily have to be the same font-family." CreationDate="2021-02-23T20:42:01.697" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30836" PostId="15448" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan Not really, that's super subjective." CreationDate="2021-02-23T22:18:04.400" UserId="255" />
  <row Id="30826" PostId="15449" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! I look forward to reading more from you here." CreationDate="2021-02-23T11:44:55.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30851" PostId="15452" Score="0" Text="Thank you Alex, I am very grateful for the comprehensive answer!  The examples from Pompeii are exactly what I was trying to find.  I agree that even though some examples of monnophthongization appear in the first century AD, it doesn't necessarily mean that the change was universal by then.  Regarding the later grammarians describing diphthongs, I believe some of them reproduced the work of earlier writers and prescribed what they thought should be the correct pronunciation, even though the general pronunciation of the day may have been more innovative." CreationDate="2021-02-25T09:47:52.553" UserId="6814" />
  <row Id="30852" PostId="15452" Score="1" Text="If later grammarians are prescribing what they believe to be the correct pronunciation, that is itself evidence that the pronunciation so prescribed also existed, however restricted its currency. For Terentius Scaurus, a diphthongal pronunciation of &quot;oe&quot; can hardly have been dead in the same way that pronunciation of &quot;knife&quot; with an audible k-sound is dead in modern English." CreationDate="2021-02-25T10:06:53.153" UserId="9027" />
  <row Id="30853" PostId="15452" Score="1" Text="Marius Victorinus though is harder to interpret: &quot;duae inter se uocales iugatae ac sub unius uocis enuntiatione prolatae syllabam faciunt natura longam, quam Graeci diphthongon uocant, ueluti geminae uocis unum sonum, ut ae oe au.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-02-25T10:07:20.853" UserId="9027" />
  <row Id="30854" PostId="15452" Score="2" Text="The question is how to interpret &quot;sub unius vocis enuntiatione&quot;. Phrased this way, it could describe diphthongs or monophthongs. The problem is that the inclusion of &quot;au&quot; in this group (which was only monophthongized in part of the Romance world, and mostly much later thaan this) may imply the former. Either that or the whole passage is just recycling an earlier source and has no real relationship to living speech of any kind." CreationDate="2021-02-25T10:10:28.193" UserId="9027" />
  <row Id="30840" PostId="15453" Score="0" Text="you could use a gerund?" CreationDate="2021-02-24T13:24:08.500" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="30841" PostId="15453" Score="0" Text="Not sure if this is correct" CreationDate="2021-02-24T14:13:05.537" UserId="8690" />
  <row Id="30844" PostId="15453" Score="3" Text="Really needs more specificity. Even a single English example would be helpful." CreationDate="2021-02-24T17:58:28.883" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30901" PostId="15453" Score="0" Text="related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14987/how-to-translate-a-sentence-where-gerunds-are-present" CreationDate="2021-02-27T08:45:04.363" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30845" PostId="15456" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot! I'm still trying to wrap my head around the sentence, but having a valid translation makes it much easier. Would you say 'cognoscere non datur' is taken as one part (so to speak)? Something like &quot;knowing cannot be taken [for granted]&quot;? And is this a common form?" CreationDate="2021-02-24T18:23:42.893" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30846" PostId="15456" Score="0" Text="The writer below is right, 'cognoscere' is the subject of 'datur', &quot;to learn (it) is not given,&quot; i.e. it cannot be learned, i.e. it cannot be known. (All this is a bit academic, in my humble view.)" CreationDate="2021-02-24T18:40:14.990" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30876" PostId="15457" Score="0" Text="In Comments to Mitomino's answer to Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10679/1982, the point was made that a gerundive, in the oblique cases, loses both its deontic &amp; passive qualities, effectively becoming a gerund. Two examples from Pinkster's: (i) &quot;patriam ipsam inflammandam reliquimus.&quot; (Cic. Fam. 16.12.1) = &quot;We abandoned our mother-city to (the) burning.&quot;; (ii) &quot;placet contra gaudere nosmet omittendis doloribus.&quot; (Cic. Fin. 1.56) = &quot;but on the other hand to celebrate by (the) releasing the pains.&quot;." CreationDate="2021-02-26T13:17:53.430" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30877" PostId="15457" Score="0" Text="The only benefit to using a gerundive, in the oblique cases, is the agreement of case endings. Therefore, the gerundive, in this context, becomes a gerund (active; verbal noun) while retaining agreement in number, case &amp; gender. Do you agree with this?" CreationDate="2021-02-26T13:28:49.170" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30881" PostId="15457" Score="0" Text="@tony, I don't agree that it 'becomes' a gerund. Clearly, though, it has long been well-established something like omittendis doloribus is equivalent, in terms of sense, to omittendo dolores (gerund + direct object). I think something quite different is going on in the patriam ipsam inflammandam example, where the gerundive is predicative. I, for one, wouldn't say that the gerundive is equivalent to a gerund even in terms of sense in that instance; then again, I have no particular background in linguistics, nor have I read the comments that you refer to." CreationDate="2021-02-26T17:42:11.117" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30915" PostId="15457" Score="0" Text="Thank you. In example (i) pinkster may have mistranslated: &quot;We abandoned our mother-city to burning.&quot; To burning what, the bread? In English we would use either a gerund (&quot;...to the burning.&quot;) or an infinitive (&quot;...to burn.&quot;). If a gerund works in English, why not in Latin? This would give gerundive, &quot;inflammandam&quot;, behaving as a gerund while requiring the agreement of case-ending, number &amp; gender." CreationDate="2021-02-28T09:20:12.990" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30895" PostId="15458" Score="0" Text="Jesus would never say anything derogatory!" CreationDate="2021-02-27T03:27:18.063" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="30850" PostId="15459" Score="1" Text="Can you tell us a more concrete version of the kind of situation you have in mind—a little story where someone wants to say this? That will help us find appropriate Latin. I think, though, that most of the synonyms fit most situations: *[scilicet](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Latin_Synonyms_with_Their_Different_Sign/blhFAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;bsq=scilicet), plane, certe, sane, quippe, nempe, vere, clare, videlicet* —hmm, there are indeed a lot! *Nimirum*, literally &quot;no wonder&quot;, might best carry the insinuation that the question need not have been asked." CreationDate="2021-02-25T04:10:20.993" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30856" PostId="15459" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Thank you for your answer.&#xA;The exact example is the one I've mentioned&#xA;You have a question with multiple answers and must choose the correct one.&#xA;Someone asks you which one is the correct answer, and you answer &quot;option X, obviously!&quot; because the other options are not even related to the topic at hand so there's absolutely no doubt that the correct one is X." CreationDate="2021-02-25T12:23:37.127" UserId="9036" />
  <row Id="30857" PostId="15459" Score="0" Text="Hi Iza! You seem to have created two accounts. [You can follow these instructions to merge them.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts) Having this question connected to your registered account allows you to respond by comments and edit your question." CreationDate="2021-02-25T14:09:35.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30858" PostId="15459" Score="0" Text="Here are some examples to show what I mean, and how widely this can vary. Roommate A: &quot;Did you take out the trash, yes or no?&quot;, referring to the overflowing garbage can in plain sight. Roommate B: &quot;No, obviously!&quot;, admitting guilt and sarcastically implying an unwillingness to do it (as opposed to &quot;No, obviously. Sorry, I forgot.&quot;). Teacher pointing to an exam question, which reads: &quot;Which is a solution to x^2 + 2 = 11: 3 or b?&quot; Student: &quot;3, obviously!&quot; A happy demonstration of understanding. If a student asks and the teacher answers that way, it might be insulting, depending on intonation." CreationDate="2021-02-25T16:02:19.587" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30865" PostId="15462" Score="0" Text="Other options: *manifesto, aperte, palam*" CreationDate="2021-02-25T22:22:57.737" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30869" PostId="15462" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thanks! I like *manifesto* a lot for this use." CreationDate="2021-02-26T07:16:07.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30872" PostId="15462" Score="1" Text="The level of sarcasm that the OP wants still isn't clear to me, but don't _scilicet_ and _videlicet_ carry this kind of meaning?" CreationDate="2021-02-26T12:10:16.270" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30873" PostId="15462" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Not to my knowledge, and I don't think they can be used in isolation. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong!" CreationDate="2021-02-26T12:11:57.830" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33546" PostId="15464" Score="0" Text="&quot;dog&quot; has also been an ethnic slur against Christians in several Islamic cultures (like the Ottoman empire):  impure pork eaters. I did not quite figure how σκύλαξ  is meant to feature in all this, but in AG *it* had the connotation of bothersome and unappealing. Beekes points out it has no certain cognate outside Greek, whence &quot;In view of the lack of an etymology, the word could well be Pre-Greek&quot;." CreationDate="2021-06-05T22:08:56.213" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="30867" PostId="15465" Score="0" Text="Multas gratias pro consilio tuo. For what it's worth, I was going mainly by the OLD entry for iuvo, which gives the ut construction as a possibility - but it hadn't occurred to me to look under adiuvo!" CreationDate="2021-02-26T04:02:05.687" UserId="9034" />
  <row Id="30913" PostId="15466" Score="1" Text="It can be useful for you to take a look at the references found in my answer to a previous post (esp. Devine &amp; Stephens 2006; 2019). https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9548/what-is-the-term-for-extremely-loose-latin-word-order/10549#10549  Take also a look at this recent work by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016) https://repository.library.fresnostate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/175464/Phono%20Movement%20Latin%2016k.FINAL%20JULY%201%202015.pdf?sequence=1" CreationDate="2021-02-28T04:56:20.623" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30870" PostId="15467" Score="2" Text="Do you think it's possible to cry out &quot;Patet!&quot; akin to using &quot;Obviously!&quot; in isolation? The OP's use case looks more like that." CreationDate="2021-02-26T07:17:09.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30871" PostId="15467" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That sounds *satis Latine* to me, although I know no direct example. I did find this from Cicero though (in the L&amp;S entry for *pateo*): Quid porro quaerendum est? factumne sit? at constat: a quo? at patet. (Nice how one accidentally comes across these little vignettes of Ciceronian rhetoric just browsing the dictionary. He really was good.)" CreationDate="2021-02-26T08:04:51.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31227" PostId="15468" Score="1" Text="As a bonus, unlike many of the other options, this one has a small caps set." CreationDate="2021-03-22T23:36:20.973" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="30874" PostId="15470" Score="0" Text="Good answer! I think the key question is whether the word order is significantly more scrambled in poetry than in prose. Neither is a sequence of clean SOV-sentences as you demonstrate." CreationDate="2021-02-26T12:31:03.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30875" PostId="15470" Score="0" Text="Good point, I added some more thoughts specifically about poetry. I'm specifically not wading into metrical constraints, because that is a (very interesting) bottomless pit of a subject" CreationDate="2021-02-26T12:47:34.347" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="30879" PostId="15470" Score="1" Text="My own personal take is that meter as a reason for word order is basically a cop-out, viz. a bit of a modern perspective. Evidently some word combinations (and some words) simply don't scan in particular meters, but surely alternatives can always be found. Word order in Vergil (and poetry in general, of course) has, in my mind, as a rule always more significance than (overly) simple metric requirements." CreationDate="2021-02-26T15:57:25.363" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30897" PostId="15470" Score="2" Text="I think there's more to Caesar's word order than signaling literariness. He starts by introducing the topic *Gallia*, and ends with the word (*tres*) which most effectively links forward to the content of the next part of the sentence (listing the three parts). Both choices arguably improve understandability rather than detracting from it." CreationDate="2021-02-27T06:27:21.553" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30900" PostId="15470" Score="0" Text="Very educating answer. Minor point however with respect &quot;in general the word order in Latin was, in an unmarked sentence, preferrably Subject-Object-Verb (SOV)&quot;. I assume *classical* Latin is referred here; for the &quot;general&quot; order itself appears to be different in earlier period of Latin." CreationDate="2021-02-27T08:36:01.427" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="30880" PostId="15472" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Did you want the title translated into Latin purely for aesthetics or style reasons, or does having it in Latin also relate to the content of the thesis itself?" CreationDate="2021-02-26T17:29:54.763" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="30884" PostId="15472" Score="0" Text="I need just the title translated, problem is, as you can see in my attempt, renewable and integration are still in English and the University System flags the whole topic as not being in Latin." CreationDate="2021-02-26T19:04:57.710" UserId="9044" />
  <row Id="30885" PostId="15472" Score="3" Text="Can't really argue with the University System there " CreationDate="2021-02-26T20:09:46.933" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30886" PostId="15472" Score="0" Text="Please help me with the right translation." CreationDate="2021-02-26T20:18:50.573" UserId="9044" />
  <row Id="30899" PostId="15472" Score="0" Text="I hope you write and defend the whole dissertation in Latin." CreationDate="2021-02-27T07:22:23.900" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="30887" PostId="15473" Score="0" Text="I don't think that &quot;ad&quot; works as a result clause here, since there is no verb of motion. Unless there's one implied somewhere." CreationDate="2021-02-26T22:09:35.580" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="30888" PostId="15473" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite I think a dative works better so I switched. But it's not true that *ad* needs a verb of motion." CreationDate="2021-02-26T22:23:09.247" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30889" PostId="15473" Score="5" Text="@Nickimite A famous phrase to remember: [*ad usum Delphini*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_usum_Delphini) indicates an edition of a text that's suitable for children (literally: for the [“Dauphin,”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauphin_of_France) the heir to the French throne." CreationDate="2021-02-26T22:44:01.180" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30891" PostId="15473" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That's an excellent analogue that I had forgotten. I reverted back to *ad*." CreationDate="2021-02-26T23:11:27.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30893" PostId="15473" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for such a wonderful demonstration of experience and know-how. You encourage me to learn more Latin during my free time. Put the way you do, it is the most natural language I have read. I hope you wouldn't mind me coming to you even while I am learning this language " CreationDate="2021-02-27T00:27:41.997" UserId="9044" />
  <row Id="30902" PostId="15473" Score="1" Text="@Pozeidon I'm glad to have been able to help! When you're learning Latin and need help, don't come to me. Come to this site!" CreationDate="2021-02-27T09:25:56.097" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30890" PostId="15474" Score="0" Text="If you are downvoting my post, I'd love to know why. I legitimately want to know where my Latin translation skills are spotty so I can improve them." CreationDate="2021-02-26T22:52:34.873" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="30892" PostId="15474" Score="2" Text="I can't tell what the downvote was really for, but using subordinate clauses in a title strikes me as weird. It could also have to do with vocabulary. Clarity and similarity to other languages is perhaps more important than style in this context." CreationDate="2021-02-26T23:14:46.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30894" PostId="15474" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I can always count on you Joonas!" CreationDate="2021-02-27T03:07:48.707" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="30896" PostId="15474" Score="0" Text="You say that ut...licet is a result clause, but in your English translation you render it as a purpose clause. Either way, the verb has to be subjunctive (liceat), and I don't see that it can reasonably be omitted and left to be inferred, as you suggest it can. (In theory, I don't find the use of a subordinate clause in a title as weird as Joonas.) Plus, domum = 'homeward'; for 'at home' you need the locative (domi)." CreationDate="2021-02-27T04:15:10.430" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30898" PostId="15474" Score="0" Text="Fair enough -- the domum is just a flub on my part, but the licet not being subjunctive is just a product of me switching that portion back and forth two or three times. I made those edits." CreationDate="2021-02-27T06:58:20.667" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="30912" PostId="15475" Score="1" Text="It seems that the hyperbaton involved in _**posthabita** coluisse **Samo**_ was very pleasing to Latin poets/ears. E.g. cf. the parallelism with _**posthabito** studium est coluisse **Tonante**_ (_Silvae_ 4,4,58), which can be taken as a nice piece of evidence that Statius was trying to present himself as a second Vergil. It would be really great for me to find a similar AA in prose but, as you say, I'm afraid ... it ain't gonna happen!" CreationDate="2021-02-28T04:34:04.833" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30905" PostId="15476" Score="1" Text="You’re choosing a completely different construction if you’re translating *mutatis* as a perfect active participle, so I would say any detailed analysis is pretty meaningless" CreationDate="2021-02-27T20:57:38.717" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="30906" PostId="15476" Score="2" Text="It seems to me that the meaning of mutatis mutandis is so obvious and generally accepted that it's not very helpful to debate it." CreationDate="2021-02-27T21:09:27.720" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30907" PostId="15476" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus Let me frame it differently. What I discuss here is whether the **two** readings of the AA _mutatis mutandis_ discussed by Joonas in the third paragraph of his answer in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5750/why-does-the-substantive-come-second-in-mutatis-mutandis are **both** possible in Classical Latin. It is not obvious whether _mutandis_ (or any gerundive) can be the predicate of an AA: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12724/can-gerundives-be-predicates-of-ablative-absolutes . The conventional reading of _mutatis mutandis_ is not at issue here." CreationDate="2021-02-27T21:42:25.277" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30908" PostId="15476" Score="1" Text="I don't think I agree with your interpretation of the English phrase 'with things changed that should be changed': I take it as a less clunky way of saying 'with things that should be changed, changed', i.e. 'with those things that should be changed having been changed'. In that case the implied syntax of the Latin is the same as in the other two translations." CreationDate="2021-02-27T21:42:44.540" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30909" PostId="15476" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks! I'll revise it. I misanalyzed the sentence &quot;with things changed that should be changed&quot; as it were said in my native Romance language. Nice syntactic difference here between English and Catalan!" CreationDate="2021-02-27T21:53:44.870" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30914" PostId="15476" Score="1" Text="@MPW I'm not sure if I understand your comment. The issue here has to do with whether the Ablative Absolute _mutatis mutandis_ can in principle have two readings: 1) the conventional one where _mutatis_ is the predicate and 2) a controversial one where _mutandis_ is the predicate. Joonas contends that &quot;both readings are reasonable&quot; but I disagree (gerundives are not expected to be found as predicates of Ablative Absolutes, at least in Classical Latin: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12724/can-gerundives-be-predicates-of-ablative-absolutes )." CreationDate="2021-02-28T06:02:59.147" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30926" PostId="15476" Score="0" Text="With all due respect, let's put it this way: mutatis mutandis means what it means as long as Latin is a language (has been for well over 2000 years, and it doesn't look like it's going away any time soon). I think the question relates to some hypothetical (but very popular) look at Latin as a kind of mathematics. I readily confess that that does not interest me." CreationDate="2021-03-01T12:05:45.370" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30929" PostId="15476" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15229/1982 we discussed the gerundive, in the oblique cases, losing its deontic &amp; passive qualities, effectively becoming a gerund; but, still dictating agreement in case, number &amp; gender. Here, &quot;mutatis mutandis&quot;  = &quot;with the things which ought-to-be-changed (having been) changed&quot;, is an example of a gerundive in an AA-construction which retains its passive &amp; deontic qualities. Did Pinkster contrast this with &quot;omittendis doloribus&quot; &amp; &quot;patriam ipsam inflammandam&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-03-01T14:23:31.970" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="30910" PostId="15478" Score="0" Text="Thanks. What is odd is that the Gallican congregation was originally the stricter (Observant) wing of the Dominicans in France, which &quot;captured&quot; Saint-Jacques earlier in the 16th century from the more liberal Province of France. Now it seems that the Gallican congregation had become liberal. I wonder if this 1558 dispute had more to do with politics than religion?" CreationDate="2021-02-27T23:20:21.750" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="30927" PostId="15478" Score="0" Text="That strikes me incredibly possible, as often (if not always)........." CreationDate="2021-03-01T12:06:27.103" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="30911" PostId="15479" Score="1" Text="Thanks, that's very helpful. LSJ says ὄργια is most frequently used to refer to the Dionysian cult, which would make for a pretty close semantic connection to the idea of releasing one's passions." CreationDate="2021-02-27T23:53:46.393" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="30930" PostId="15479" Score="1" Text="*The most likely etymology derives* orgia *and* orgeon *from the radix \*werg of* érdo, érgon, *etc. The whole to do is about sacred acts, and one can approach this by drawing a parallel to* to dromena, *cf. Wilamowitz,* Glaube *2, 70. Ruijgh in* Minos l. c. *posits \*worga  « acte rituel  ». Not to miss the folk etymology [attributed to?] Dyonisus that the words had been associated with* ὀργή." CreationDate="2021-03-01T16:20:53.640" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="30918" PostId="15480" Score="1" Text="I feel like you're using &quot;causative&quot; in too broad a way. *Transducere* absolutely isn't a causative in the way *docere* and *monere* are/were (they're not really meaningfully causatives in Latin but they descend from true PIE causatives), and I don't really see how it's any more &quot;causative&quot; than just *ducere*, which only takes a single accusative. Maybe I'm just missing your point." CreationDate="2021-02-28T22:45:05.353" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30920" PostId="15480" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon The theoretical claim here is that those verbs that take two accusatives are complex in the sense that they involve a causative verbal layer that can assign accusative case to the person object. In the passive, it is only this upper causative verb that lacks its accusative case assigning property. In technical terms, the person object has &quot;structural&quot; accusative case, while the thing object receives &quot;inherent/lexical&quot; accusative case." CreationDate="2021-03-01T00:21:35.430" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30921" PostId="15480" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon The passive construction absorbs the structural case assigned by the upper causative verbal layer, but crucially not the lexical one assigned by the inner predicate (e.g. the V _discere_ in the case of _docere_ or the P _trans_- in the case of _transducere_)." CreationDate="2021-03-01T00:22:21.390" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30922" PostId="15480" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon As for your natural objection &quot;you're using 'causative' in too broad a way&quot;, it's true that lexical causative verbs are typically defined as those ones that enter into the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; (e.g., the Latin verb _lenire_. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causative_alternation ). In the more general sense used here, causative verbs are all the ones affected by the so-called &quot;Event Composition Rule&quot;: e = e1 → e2 : e consists of two subevents, e1, e2 such that e1 causally implicates e2 ( https://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/courses/PDF/HaleAndKeyser1993.pdf)." CreationDate="2021-03-01T00:46:39.850" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30923" PostId="15480" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon As for the difference between _transducere_ and _ducere_, it is important to realize that only the former involves an additional resultative subevent (introduced by the &quot;satellite&quot; _trans_-”: cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11083/are-latin-verbs-of-motion-satellite-framed-or-verb-framed ). A similar parallelism is found in English: cf. _bring_ vs. _bring_ + _across_. The former involves a simple event structure (only the activity subeventuality is involved), whereas the latter involves a complex event structure, i.e., a **causative** one (activity (e1) + result (e2))." CreationDate="2021-03-01T01:11:42.717" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30924" PostId="15480" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon For useful detailed discussion of these ideas applied to Latin, please see https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-morphosyntax-of-transitions-9780198733287?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;" CreationDate="2021-03-01T01:15:39.787" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="30916" PostId="15481" Score="2" Text="Could it perhaps be a typesetting error for &quot;caput 1&quot;, that is, chapter 1 of the _Apologeticus_?" CreationDate="2021-02-28T22:00:12.367" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30919" PostId="15482" Score="0" Text="Good grief. The site I found the quote on only showed a small section of the text at a time, and it was the 10/11/12/13 smaller numbers. I didn't see the chapter#, or I might have (more likely my wife, who has some Latin) been able to put that together. Thanks very much!" CreationDate="2021-02-28T23:32:50.767" UserId="7411" />
  <row Id="30928" PostId="15483" Score="0" Text="*Vetus* (adjective, old) is a tricky one; the Ablative is *vetere* (pretending to be the Infinitive of *veto* which is *vetare*)." CreationDate="2021-03-01T13:32:25.217" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30925" PostId="15484" Score="2" Text="Oh that makes much more sense. Thanks" CreationDate="2021-03-01T01:23:50.497" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="30973" PostId="15486" Score="0" Text="An excellent observation. *Nebenstunden* is not a common word in contemporary German, but it [can be found](https://www.dwds.de/wb/dwb/Nebenstunde) in the DWB, which has the curious habit of giving Latin definitions for many words, and defines *Nebenstunde* as “tempus succisivum.” An English translation would be “spare time.”" CreationDate="2021-03-04T20:10:20.790" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30941" PostId="15487" Score="8" Text="Where is this *frater&lt;fere+alter* idea from? Is it an etymological dictionary, an ancient source, or something else?" CreationDate="2021-03-02T17:28:05.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30955" PostId="15487" Score="0" Text="Cairnarvon's last sentence is the most important one: &quot;It's generally safe to assume any etymology proposed before the 19th century is false.&quot; To be charitable, one might say that the Church Fathers were concerned more with _higher or spiritual truths_ than with _factual or historical truths_. ;) Wikipedia even has an article on this phenomenon: [Medieval etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_etymology), as distinct from the actual social science of &quot;etymology&quot; proper." CreationDate="2021-03-03T16:53:39.873" UserId="2680" />
  <row Id="30956" PostId="15487" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta [p. 544 (PDF 549)](https://archive.org/details/TeologiaDeLaCaridad/page/n548/mode/2up) of [_Teología de la caridad_](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&amp;book_id=7472) by Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.: &quot;_Frater_, «hermano», equivale a _fere alter_, «casi otro», una como prolongación de nosotros mismos.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-03T18:37:10.377" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="30944" PostId="15488" Score="2" Text="@vectory The easier analogy for *bʰreh₂ter would be the other kinship terms ending in *-ter, I'd think." CreationDate="2021-03-02T19:12:13.967" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30945" PostId="15488" Score="1" Text="Please don't use Etymonline, none of its etymologies are any good and its creator is not a linguist. In this specific case, regardless of your position on *\*ā*, &quot;*\*bhrāter-*&quot; isn't a root. Even Wiktionary is more helpful." CreationDate="2021-03-02T20:02:56.700" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30946" PostId="15488" Score="2" Text="@Cairnavorn While it's not acceptable for academics, the site is suitable for non-specialists who need to quickly get the gist of an etymology, such as for people who are unfamiliar with Isidore. I've seen more incorrect information at Wiktionary then Etymonline, though perhaps that has changed lately if there were concentrated efforts to fix the former." CreationDate="2021-03-02T20:11:04.493" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30947" PostId="15488" Score="1" Text="More and more thorough information is of course welcome, though. I wouldn't even call it unnecessary, just that it serves a purpose beyond the original question's poster." CreationDate="2021-03-02T20:15:53.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30948" PostId="15488" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer _fere_ + _alter_ is also a folk etymology?" CreationDate="2021-03-02T21:21:07.053" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="30949" PostId="15488" Score="1" Text="@Geremia Yes, it's a folk etymology." CreationDate="2021-03-02T21:58:52.490" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="30953" PostId="15490" Score="0" Text="Latin Wikipedia goes with [Vasi**n**tonia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasintonia_\(civitas\))." CreationDate="2021-03-03T15:55:14.237" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30960" PostId="15490" Score="0" Text="Related: [Quomodo “Bloomington” reddere?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4758/quomodo-bloomington-reddere)" CreationDate="2021-03-03T20:19:04.603" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="31009" PostId="15491" Score="2" Text="I feel a noun is lacking, but i wouldn't repeat the amount. What about _multo minori pretio_" CreationDate="2021-03-07T10:18:02.250" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="31014" PostId="15491" Score="1" Text="Or you could use an adverb, e.g. multo minus" CreationDate="2021-03-07T14:22:31.663" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="31021" PostId="15491" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: I thought of the adverb but chose the double-adjective. Do both have equal merit?" CreationDate="2021-03-08T12:47:58.393" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31022" PostId="15491" Score="1" Text="I could be missing something (and that's why I'm not posting an answer yet), but I think [multo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmulto1) is playing its adverbial role here, since adjectives cannot modify adjectives. Re: adv+adj without a noun, it would need a [nominalized adjective](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4270/nominalized-adjective-in-latin). In theory they work, but they're not the first option one would think of. It sounds (somewhat) like _£30,000? Murders have been committed for a lot the less_ or _many of the less_." CreationDate="2021-03-08T19:20:38.683" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="31023" PostId="15491" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: What about the double-adverb &quot;multum minus&quot; = &quot;much(ly) less(ly)?" CreationDate="2021-03-09T11:57:47.840" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31025" PostId="15491" Score="1" Text="It makes sense to me" CreationDate="2021-03-09T14:38:07.760" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30954" PostId="15492" Score="2" Text="Do you have an official source that that is the Latin name of the archdiocese? FWIW, searching Latin documents on vatican.va, I found several different forms: Washingtonia, Vashingtonia, [Vasintonia, -ae](https://www.google.com/search?ei=_7s_YO7hJ9Sr5NoPi_uHwA0&amp;q=Vasintoniae+site%3Avatican.va), and [Vasingtonia](https://www.google.com/search?ei=A7w_YOOsB-qp5NoPhcO6yAc&amp;q=Vasingtoniae+site%3Avatican.va). The latter seems to be part of a formula with &quot;degenti,&quot; i.e. &quot;residing in Washington.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-03T16:41:37.797" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30957" PostId="15492" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: good point. [Here is a letter from John Paul II to *Archiepiscopo Vashingtonensi*.](http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/letters/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19960520_50-anniv-hickey.html)" CreationDate="2021-03-03T19:38:32.983" UserId="3330" />
  <row Id="30961" PostId="15492" Score="0" Text="@brianpck good question. I just trusted CH. Although not official, I consider it a serious source that's kept very up to date" CreationDate="2021-03-03T22:47:40.357" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30962" PostId="15492" Score="1" Text="@brianpck fixed! I also looked for the current bishop's appointment, but the source I found only had the AAS texts up to 2018" CreationDate="2021-03-03T23:37:02.103" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30963" PostId="15493" Score="0" Text="I may need help with tagging, thanks! Potentially related: [Would the meaning change a bit if I changed “mea culpa” to “culpa mea” even if Latin doesn't care about word order?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14948/6850)" CreationDate="2021-03-04T00:47:34.047" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="31011" PostId="15493" Score="0" Text="A *mea culpa* is an admission of guilt. By default, the actions behind each one is in the past. You don't need *ex post facto*." CreationDate="2021-03-07T13:33:02.170" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31012" PostId="15493" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer I may not need it yes, but &quot;Can I label...&quot; as such given what I've explained?" CreationDate="2021-03-07T13:52:48.900" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="31013" PostId="15493" Score="0" Text="Not really. *Ex post facto* refers to a retroactive effect. Theoretically, an *ex post facto mea culpa* would refer to your taking the blame for something that wasn't wrong then but only is wrong now. To my mind, that's different from something being wrong then and only now realizing it." CreationDate="2021-03-07T14:22:26.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31016" PostId="15493" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer my advise was ill-advised but was given after the recipient had already acted, so I'm taking the blame for telling them to do something that they'd already done by the time I wrote the advice. I guess if this doesn't work for that, then &quot;no&quot; is the answer." CreationDate="2021-03-07T14:29:32.263" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="31017" PostId="15493" Score="1" Text="Oooh, I think I misunderstood the question. In that case, then I can see that indeed being fine. You are retroactively taking the blame. It's a bit puzzling on first glance, but with a short explanation I think it should be fine to use." CreationDate="2021-03-07T14:32:15.880" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42614" PostId="15493" Score="0" Text="@cmw being told that things I write in Stack Exchange are &quot;a bit puzzling on first glance&quot; is not an unfamiliar experience for me. Please feel free to free to immortalize your comment(s) in a short answer post if you think it works." CreationDate="2023-03-19T05:32:57.103" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="30979" PostId="15494" Score="1" Text="Thank you to Asteroides, Agnes, and Batavulus for your answers." CreationDate="2021-03-05T03:31:43.240" UserId="2355" />
  <row Id="30991" PostId="15494" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your question! The best way to thank those who helped you is to vote up the good answers (there's a little arrow up next to the numbers at the top left of each answer) and check one of them as the accepted answer (the check mark under the voting arrows)." CreationDate="2021-03-05T17:37:54.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30964" PostId="15498" Score="0" Text="Is this utility a free online tool? If so, a link would make it easier for others to find it." CreationDate="2021-03-04T15:11:21.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30966" PostId="15498" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It's unfortunately pretty common to be unable to link to specific pages in an online dictionary or morphological analyzer." CreationDate="2021-03-04T15:27:08.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30969" PostId="15498" Score="1" Text="It sounds as though this is a case of 'You get what you pay for.' It could be giving dialectical forms that don't have the aspiration (and that accent with circumflex on the ultima), or it could be giving forms of ἄπειμι for some reason. You'd be far better served by consulting the conjugation charts in a reputable textbook or grammar." CreationDate="2021-03-04T17:57:55.003" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30971" PostId="15500" Score="0" Text="Actually regarding the circumflex on the ultima for the second form both of the textbooks I have in front of me have it but neither explains where it comes from. One does say there's considerable confusion between it and the (in my view expected) paroxytone attested. If someone else knows more about that I'd be glad to hear it." CreationDate="2021-03-04T18:40:05.797" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="30972" PostId="15500" Score="0" Text="Interesting. I only ever learned the Attic form as ἀφίησι(ν) (though I did learn ἀφιεῖς as an alternative 2nd person singular form). Certainly, at first glance, Smyth appears to suggest that ἀφιεῖ is only dialectical (attributing it to Homer, Herodotus), but I haven't looked closely at all his notes." CreationDate="2021-03-04T19:23:05.367" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="30977" PostId="15500" Score="3" Text="The circumflex is due to conjugating the verb as if it were an epsilon contract verb. See Smyth para. 746: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+746&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007" CreationDate="2021-03-04T22:16:40.857" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="30975" PostId="15501" Score="2" Text="It's hard to answer the question as posed, but I think it would be helpful to specify some examples or time periods. I study Aristotle, and γνῶσις for him is a &quot;generic&quot; term that can be applied to everything from sense perception to scientific knowledge. There are even huge differences in how, e.g., Plato and Aristotle define φρόνησις." CreationDate="2021-03-04T21:51:23.127" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="30984" PostId="15501" Score="0" Text="Practical wisdom, exemplary wisdom, might be σωφροσύνη Sophrosyne; the last 'e' (eta) is pronounced ee or ay." CreationDate="2021-03-05T15:55:10.083" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="30993" PostId="15501" Score="2" Text="@Hugh σωφροσύνη means self-control, pretty much, and eta in Classical (Attic) Greek is pronounced like the vowel in *red* except long." CreationDate="2021-03-06T00:37:02.267" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="31015" PostId="15501" Score="0" Text="Yes, a better translation for σωφροσύνη is Social Intelligence – SQ (postulated by psychologist Edward Thorndike) which contributes another useful form of knowledge." CreationDate="2021-03-07T14:23:59.320" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="47823" PostId="15504" Score="0" Text="...and never confuse archeology with paleontology..." CreationDate="2024-03-24T21:46:13.567" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="32492" PostId="15506" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Related to your Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12872/1982, in &quot;ne quid obstet...&quot; (Livy 9.8.6) how does &quot;quid&quot; come to mean &quot;nothing&quot;? I cannot find a listing for this. (The clock-inscription at Wells Cathedral: &quot;ne quid pereat&quot; = &quot;let nothing perish&quot;.). Does it arise from the neuter form of &quot;quis&quot; = &quot;Who?&quot;.  A person cannot be a neuter, therefore &quot;quid&quot; came to mean &quot;nobody&quot; or &quot;nothing&quot;--is this correct?" CreationDate="2021-04-08T12:37:14.810" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32493" PostId="15506" Score="0" Text="@tony It works the same way for all genders. If the obstacles are people, then *ne quis obstet* would work fine. This will probably not surprise you, but I recommend asking a separate question on this use of *ne quis/quid*. It is idiomatic in Latin, but I admit it is also quite puzzling at first. Or at least was to me." CreationDate="2021-04-08T13:06:31.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37785" PostId="15506" Score="0" Text="@tony the inscription on the clock is referring to time: ne quid pereat means &quot;let not any (time) go to waste&quot;" CreationDate="2022-03-31T21:51:17.327" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="30983" PostId="15507" Score="1" Text="The accepted answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/68/406) explains why the 1S is one of the principal parts, but not why it's the citation form. The comments have an example from the fourth century CE, which shows that this convention is pretty ancient, but I'm interested to see what other evidence there is." CreationDate="2021-03-05T15:41:36.450" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30987" PostId="15507" Score="0" Text="Perhaps there's an answer already there https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2005/39" CreationDate="2021-03-05T16:41:42.733" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30988" PostId="15507" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Very true, but that one mentions the Romans also used third singular and infinitive. It seems like it would also be possible that, for example, some prominent post-classical lexicographer made the decision when curating a Latin dictionary (based on Varro or whatever) and that set the standard for many later works." CreationDate="2021-03-05T16:58:29.850" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="30989" PostId="15507" Score="3" Text="Your question is very interesting but I'm afraid it would take weeks of research to properly answer it. If/when I have some free time, I might dig deeper into this, but I can't promise anything more definite. Off the top of my head, I'd say it's the first person singular because it's the first form students had to memorize, amo-amas-amat etc." CreationDate="2021-03-05T17:03:22.283" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30990" PostId="15507" Score="2" Text="Meanwhile, you may want to peruse Donatus' *Ars Grammatica* (esp. pp. 359-360) https://archive.org/details/grammaticilatini04keil/page/358/mode/2up" CreationDate="2021-03-05T17:23:10.403" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="30985" PostId="15509" Score="1" Text="[There's a separate question on the ancient precedent to the common modern convention.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2004/79) I agree that it is largely a matter of convention. There are a couple of other forms that would be equally helpful in figuring out the other forms, and I see no deep meaning in the choice." CreationDate="2021-03-05T16:27:12.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="30986" PostId="15509" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good catch, I wasn't aware of that thread." CreationDate="2021-03-05T16:35:29.827" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32894" PostId="15510" Score="0" Text="I like your answer, but I think the part about a standard pronunciation in the whole of the Latin church is very far from being true. Even now the strongest churches, like the Polish and Hungarian one, don't seem to have any intention of abandoning their traditional pronunciations, and in the middle of the century I imagine this was true in more countries. And to get an idea how &quot;Roman&quot; the pronunciation was in France, you only have listen to the [first recording of Desessard's Assimil book](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihKEHem1zU) xD (yes, they're having a go at something like Restored)" CreationDate="2021-04-27T07:08:06.807" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32907" PostId="15510" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian, thanks for your comment. You are probably right: I don't really know what happened in eastern Europe, (though I have listened to St. John Paul II's Latin.) But I can say for sure that 1) the movement was universal enough to call it ecclesiastical Latin, 2) priests from every continent traveled to study in Rome _in_ eL, 3) this allowed ecclesiastical pronunciation to reach places as far from Rome as the southern tip of South America" CreationDate="2021-04-27T13:39:27.510" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="30994" PostId="15514" Score="6" Text="I like the general idea, but am a little reserved about your choice of words … *praetextus* can mean “clothed in the toga praetexta,” the bright toga with purple stripes reserved for the holders of the highest civil and religious offices (and for little boys). Other than that its meaning is more along the lines of “bordered, trimmed, studded” (like the aforementioned toga). *Brunus* is fine per se, but it's quite a rare medieval word." CreationDate="2021-03-06T15:59:48.537" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="30996" PostId="15514" Score="1" Text="I liked 'bruno' because, despite being rare, it is the most similar word to English &quot;brown&quot; in Latin AND its already a name in English. I think that those meanings of *praetextus* are absolutely fine in context -- the title is supposed to be for the lovers and cult-followers of Firefly who would clearly hold themselves in esteem. Although, having googled the context further, perhaps *sagulum* would be a better choice, considering the military connotations." CreationDate="2021-03-06T17:04:01.460" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="31050" PostId="15514" Score="0" Text="You guys are great, you know that? Thank you kindly. :)" CreationDate="2021-03-11T23:42:48.640" UserId="9081" />
  <row Id="31008" PostId="15517" Score="0" Text="It feels way better indeed, thank you for your time" CreationDate="2021-03-07T09:32:01.513" UserId="8952" />
  <row Id="31005" PostId="15518" Score="2" Text="Slight tangent, but Suomi is the name of the country, not the people. If the Finns ever had an ethnonym for themselves as a whole it hasn't survived (though since *Finn* itself is extremely old and of disputed etymology, there's a non-zero chance it's related, even if neither Finnish nor any of its reconstructable ancestors at any point had /f/; *Suomi* is probably an exonym). Tacitus mentions Fenni, FWIW, which has usually been taken to refer to Finnic if not necessarily Finnish people." CreationDate="2021-03-07T01:11:55.557" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="31006" PostId="15518" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon Thanks for the correction. I knew about Tacitus' Fenni, but I still thought that was an exonym, but that it was lost and reintroduced by the Norwegians. I'm no expert in Medieval history, though, so feel free to suggest the necessary edits to correct the above." CreationDate="2021-03-07T02:19:56.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31019" PostId="15520" Score="1" Text="Chantraine thinks it may actually preserve an old neuter i-stem, and gives some comparanda, e.g. Old Latin *sale*." CreationDate="2021-03-07T19:44:43.937" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31020" PostId="15521" Score="1" Text="[There's a question in the ordering of persons](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14338/79), and it justifies that *dico* indeed is &quot;first&quot;." CreationDate="2021-03-07T21:13:45.633" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31024" PostId="15524" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I rejected &quot;price&quot; because it was reminiscent of a fee for an assassin. Similarly, &quot;value&quot;, attributing an intrinsic worth to killing. Looks like I was being too literal, again." CreationDate="2021-03-09T12:20:08.593" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31029" PostId="15524" Score="1" Text="Is the issue here really price or value though? As I understand it, the English statement is saying simply that murders are committed in order to obtain an amount; the amount is the goal, not what one would have to pay to achieve it. It seems as though a gerund/gerundive construction ('for the purpose of acquiring much less') would be more to the point." CreationDate="2021-03-09T18:04:21.377" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="31033" PostId="15524" Score="1" Text="@cnread That's a good point and you may be right (though one could argue that the price was &quot;paid&quot; by the murdered party). It feels like a natural extension to me, but I don't have any evidence to back that up." CreationDate="2021-03-09T23:20:25.927" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31037" PostId="15524" Score="1" Text="And I don't have any evidence to refute it, really. To be honest, I've never gone to the trouble to examine the ablative of price and genitive of value in any great depth, to see how flexible/extensible they are in practice. You could be perfectly correct; it just feels 'off' to me, as though we're saying that people have paid some amount of money to have themselves murdered (e.g., so that their spouse can collect the life insurance money)." CreationDate="2021-03-10T01:07:37.797" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="31030" PostId="15525" Score="0" Text="I can't comment on the Latin pronunciation, but &quot;Roterodamus&quot; sure _looks_ like it should be pronounced to rhyme with &quot;hippopotamus.&quot; And anyone who knows their Flanders &amp; Swann [surely knows how to pronounce &quot;hippopotamus&quot;!](http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/songs/hippopotamus.html)" CreationDate="2021-03-09T20:46:56.603" UserId="2680" />
  <row Id="31032" PostId="15525" Score="0" Text="@Quuxplusone I'm afraid that particular duo is *no* reliable guide to the pronunciation of “hippopotamus.” For they first sing: “A bold hippoPOtamus was standing one day” (stress on the antepenultimate) and *then* in the same song: “the hippopoTAmus was no ignoRAmus!”" CreationDate="2021-03-09T22:57:11.120" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31034" PostId="15525" Score="0" Text="BTW what is the Latin name for Rotterdam itself? Google is failing me." CreationDate="2021-03-09T23:21:37.747" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31035" PostId="15525" Score="1" Text="@TKR https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roterodamum or https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lexicon_Geographicum/hHtXAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;bsq=Roterodamum or https://www.google.com/books/edition/Famiani_Strad%C3%A6_de_Bello_Belgico_Decas_P/Q1JoAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;bsq=Roterodamum%20" CreationDate="2021-03-09T23:40:51.510" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31036" PostId="15525" Score="0" Text="Let me ask some people who should know." CreationDate="2021-03-10T00:03:57.887" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31027" PostId="15526" Score="3" Text="Native Dutch chiming in. I'm out of depth on this stack, I passed Latin in high school with the minimum score but having both lived in Rotterdam and studied at the Erasmus University I definitely pronounced it as 'roterōdamus'." CreationDate="2021-03-09T17:23:24.140" UserId="9097" />
  <row Id="31039" PostId="15526" Score="0" Text="And the reason is?" CreationDate="2021-03-10T18:26:39.890" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31040" PostId="15526" Score="0" Text="Please bear in mind I know very little. By introspection, it's already quite far removed from the word Rot-ter-dam. Visually the words are similar but the syllables would be Ro-te-ro-da-mus I think so pronunciation would be quite different and the native pronunciation is not much of a guide. Of course, if it should be Rot-ter-o-da-mus 'o' would be short but there is only one t." CreationDate="2021-03-10T18:36:35.847" UserId="9097" />
  <row Id="31047" PostId="15526" Score="0" Text="Bob, sorry, whether there's one or two t's has no bearing whatsoever on the length of the antepenult o, if that is what you mean; in any case, Ro-te- or Rot-te- makes no difference for the accent later on in the word by any rule. As Sebastian (and the colleague who discussed this with me as well as the editors of the source Sebastian cites) suggest, it seems odd that such a clear emphasis on -dam in Dutch would disappear in the Latinization, making the word sound altogether exotic without any clear reason whatsoever other than a rule which clearly applies in a completely different context." CreationDate="2021-03-11T19:09:35.303" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32381" PostId="15526" Score="0" Text="Seconding this. We also have a clear analogy with *Nostradamus*. The second /a/ is pronounced long, so the penult receives the accent, regardless of the quality of the /o/ in Roterodamus." CreationDate="2021-03-31T14:47:51.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32399" PostId="15526" Score="0" Text="Thanks, CMW. The analogy with Nostradamus (I think you mean) is fascinating. I've never heard anybody mention that in this context, but strikes me as very convincing." CreationDate="2021-04-01T15:36:16.920" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31028" PostId="15527" Score="3" Text="Hi, and welcome to the site! These are pretty technical. It's easy to mistranslate them, and some probably don't have a universal translation. Most of us aren't acquainted with technical accounting terminology, but some will be willing to give it a try. It would be helpful if you provided a link to a short explanation of each one of these four principles. Do you need a word-by-word translation, or an ancient and meaningful enough quote would also be ok?" CreationDate="2021-03-09T17:33:42.197" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="31038" PostId="15527" Score="1" Text="Perhaps this is good and short enough? https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-accountingformanagers/chapter/basic-accounting-principles/ On accounting principles" CreationDate="2021-03-10T01:14:20.980" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="31081" PostId="15529" Score="0" Text="Continues in [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/15563/13)." CreationDate="2021-03-15T10:56:10.057" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="31157" PostId="15531" Score="0" Text="What a wonderful answer! Thank you." CreationDate="2021-03-19T13:19:41.707" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31041" PostId="15532" Score="2" Text="Does [this](https://www.latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries?t=sh13094) answer your question? Beyond that, we would really need more context to help you." CreationDate="2021-03-10T20:56:28.053" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31042" PostId="15532" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! To second @SebastianKoppehel, can you give a couple of example sentences where you would want to use the verb? Context matters." CreationDate="2021-03-10T21:09:56.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31051" PostId="15533" Score="1" Text="I'm pretty sure that &quot;conservatism&quot; in this context means a lot more than &quot;lower price.&quot; I also think *constantia* is much better than *perseverantia* (which you go with at the end)." CreationDate="2021-03-12T13:00:43.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31052" PostId="15533" Score="0" Text="@brianpck well, that's the meaning of &quot;conservatism&quot; I took from the link posted in comments. I agree that *constantia* is generically better, but I like the alliteration." CreationDate="2021-03-12T13:26:17.380" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="31045" PostId="15536" Score="0" Text="The wiktionary table is fantastic! Exactly what I was looking for. The google books link for Mastronarde doesn't work for me." CreationDate="2021-03-11T16:25:29.227" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="31053" PostId="15538" Score="0" Text="*summus* should absolutely be used here. Cf. *summum bonum*." CreationDate="2021-03-12T14:24:31.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31055" PostId="15538" Score="0" Text="Gratias ago. Do you have a suggestion yourself? (Out of curiosity, it wasn't my question, after all...)" CreationDate="2021-03-12T17:38:20.153" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31057" PostId="15538" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I'll post my thoughts a little later. I think you're close, but the insistence on the exact words used (which is awkward even in English) makes for awkward Latin." CreationDate="2021-03-12T18:40:07.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31058" PostId="15538" Score="0" Text="You are right, that is a problem. I'll be interested to see what you have." CreationDate="2021-03-12T18:46:31.670" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31062" PostId="15538" Score="0" Text="And I've submitted." CreationDate="2021-03-12T19:55:35.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31048" PostId="15540" Score="2" Text="Thank you so much, it was really helpful! I'd rather use &quot;Gaudium intellegendi voluptatum altissima.&quot; then, sounds better to my ear and seems more Latin when I read it." CreationDate="2021-03-11T20:21:37.013" UserId="4754" />
  <row Id="31049" PostId="15542" Score="1" Text="The &quot;some+X&quot; forms aren't really accented on the ultima, exactly -- they're enclitics, so (though disyllabic enclitics are cited with final accent) they generally aren't accented at all." CreationDate="2021-03-11T23:35:27.127" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31056" PostId="15545" Score="1" Text="I.e. &quot;dīvitiīs&quot; is a dative (with &quot;pārēre&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-03-12T17:44:43.247" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31059" PostId="15545" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus. Yes, I should have mentioned that." CreationDate="2021-03-12T19:01:46.950" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="31061" PostId="15545" Score="0" Text="Just b/c Tyler had suggested abl. :-)" CreationDate="2021-03-12T19:42:23.140" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31068" PostId="15549" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much for your answer! Then a translation such as &quot;Gaudium altissimum illud intellegendi.&quot; would be more appropriate? Because I understand &quot;altissimus&quot; gives me the idea of some &quot;elevate&quot; joy, so to speak, it brings the translation closer to what I intended to say." CreationDate="2021-03-13T16:49:27.653" UserId="4754" />
  <row Id="31071" PostId="15549" Score="0" Text="@M.Gonzalez Word order aside, your translation looks like &quot;the joy of understanding something is the highest.&quot; Just feels a bit weird with the *illud*. While *altissimum* isn't a bad choice, you can think of *summus* as &quot;highest&quot; like in loftiest, given that we derive the word summit from it. However high *altissimus* is, *summus* is higher still." CreationDate="2021-03-13T18:43:03.903" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31072" PostId="15549" Score="0" Text="You've been very helpful, thanks! So I could stick with something like &quot;Intellegere summum gaudium&quot;, following the advice of @Joonas to left out the &quot;est&quot; in a pithy motto? Or is it better to try first to rephrase my sentence? I intended to say that, among all pleasures, the joy of understanding something is the most elevated. I think even in English the sentence got a bit bizarre..." CreationDate="2021-03-13T18:54:14.767" UserId="4754" />
  <row Id="31073" PostId="15549" Score="1" Text="@M.Gonzalez You generally don't need *est*, but you absolutely do here, since without it it would mean &quot;to understand the highest joy.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-13T20:05:21.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31063" PostId="15550" Score="0" Text="I hope you don't mind that I've replaced your graphic of the verses with actual text. You can always roll back my edit if you want." CreationDate="2021-03-12T20:40:08.107" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="31064" PostId="15550" Score="2" Text="cnread gave you the right answer, but this is not Anacreon. It actually comes from the *Anacreontea*, a Hellenistic- or Roman-era poem which eyes Anacreon but is not actually by him. If you have access to it, the Loeb (Greek Lyric ed. by Campbell) is a great place to start." CreationDate="2021-03-12T20:41:58.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31074" PostId="15550" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer, in the book where I've found this (an Ancient Greek Method for beginners), it reads &quot;ἐκ τῶν Ανακρέοντος ᾠδῶν&quot;, that's why I said it's from Anacreon's Odes. Are you absolutely sure it's not Anacreon?" CreationDate="2021-03-13T21:52:34.413" UserId="4909" />
  <row Id="31075" PostId="15550" Score="0" Text="@rmdmc89 Slight typo on my part, should have said &quot;set of poems&quot;, as it's a collection, but you can find information on it on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacreontea) if you don't have access to a library. It's numbered 39 in Campbell or under heading 54 in the [Stephanus edition](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Anacreontea/1dTAHxYaGGMC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1). Due to some Google Books brokenness, you'll have to scroll down to page 120 before it gets confused and starts over at 1, then go to &quot;page&quot; 54 from there." CreationDate="2021-03-13T23:15:36.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31065" PostId="15551" Score="0" Text="Also called *accusativus respectus*." CreationDate="2021-03-13T01:33:46.613" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="31067" PostId="15552" Score="0" Text="Fascinating, we even have a [question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/when-to-use-the-greek-accusative) about the Latin form (without any examples sadly)." CreationDate="2021-03-13T10:30:42.683" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31076" PostId="15557" Score="0" Text="I was not entirely sure about the second phrase; as I says, it has been a while. There was something that bothered me about, but I could not pinpoint it. Well earned accepted answer." CreationDate="2021-03-14T21:03:52.657" UserId="9123" />
  <row Id="31077" PostId="15558" Score="0" Text="I had Latin for a considerable amount of years and I know ad and its function. Stuff like that is obvious, while other ones are a bit blurred." CreationDate="2021-03-14T21:04:59.450" UserId="9123" />
  <row Id="31078" PostId="15558" Score="2" Text="@ToReplyIsActuallyFree Ah, your &quot;would expect ad +&quot; was ambiguous then. I thought you meant that you thought it should have been ad + acc." CreationDate="2021-03-14T21:45:05.513" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31079" PostId="15559" Score="9" Text="It's not too clear to me why ‘case denoting causation’ would be a reasonable description of the function of the accusative, either. There seem to be some discussions of the Greek names of the cases in Lallot's edition of Dionysius Thrax and in Dalimier's edition of Apollonius Dyscolus, neither of which I have access to." CreationDate="2021-03-15T00:28:27.780" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31080" PostId="15559" Score="4" Text="@TKR Lallot 1985 https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343" CreationDate="2021-03-15T01:21:32.200" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31082" PostId="15560" Score="1" Text="_peccatoris_ is genitive singular, _peccatores_ is nominative/accusative/vocative plural. _memento mori_ is more literally the command: &quot;remember to die&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-15T11:16:48.407" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="31084" PostId="15561" Score="1" Text="Also worth noting that the word order is flexible depending on what effect you want to produce: I'd lean toward 'mementote, peccatores, mori' (commas optional) which feels the most dramatic to me." CreationDate="2021-03-15T14:55:13.393" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34703" PostId="15564" Score="1" Text="Would Etruscan need to express the object in this context? Latin (if I am not mistaken) can easily leave out such an object when it follows from a previously stated subject." CreationDate="2021-08-24T14:41:50.550" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34707" PostId="15564" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan I do not know, I have not studied Etruscan a lot. That is why I am asking here." CreationDate="2021-08-24T16:55:24.003" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34711" PostId="15564" Score="3" Text="@FlatAssembler Nor has anyone else, it seems." CreationDate="2021-08-24T18:25:40.393" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31086" PostId="15566" Score="1" Text="Without it being clear from the question, I wouldn't put much weight in a tag from a new person. I know Lewis &amp; Short offer &quot;sinner&quot; in translating *peccans*, but I think that's fairly anachronistic, and really doesn't fit with Nepos. Maybe in Seneca you can get close to it, but I haven't checked those references." CreationDate="2021-03-15T23:13:13.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31087" PostId="15566" Score="1" Text="(But still good to note that *peccator* is not properly &quot;Classical.&quot;)" CreationDate="2021-03-16T02:06:44.430" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31091" PostId="15566" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer I guess the English word “sinner” can hardly be disentangled from the Christian context, and so the best Latin counterpart would be similarly entangled (which would be *peccator*), or else you are liable to end up with an anachronism." CreationDate="2021-03-16T08:38:39.363" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31098" PostId="15566" Score="1" Text="That's my thinking, at least. If the OP wanted a Classical Latin reference for some reason (such as writing a story about Cicero), then a whole new set of doors would be open, including *nefarii*, *scelesti*, and *peccantes*." CreationDate="2021-03-16T15:01:44.730" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31088" PostId="15571" Score="3" Text="Why would it be redundant? _Lēgō_ on its own means &quot;appoint&quot;." CreationDate="2021-03-16T04:55:29.873" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="31089" PostId="15572" Score="3" Text="To be fair, the ancients might have confused de- and di-." CreationDate="2021-03-16T04:59:05.923" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31090" PostId="15573" Score="2" Text="The point about prefixes is well taken. But note also that the unprefixed base word *mittere* can hardly be boiled down to a single meaning of “send” either. [L &amp; S give](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitto): *to cause to go, let go, send, to send off, despatch, etc.* And that is just the basic meaning." CreationDate="2021-03-16T08:31:12.783" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31092" PostId="15573" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Indeed! While the basic or original meaning might be &quot;send&quot;, it is hardly a good description of the whole verb. And adding a prefix only makes these things worse, so it would be quite the surprise if *admittere* had a clean meaning &quot;send to&quot;." CreationDate="2021-03-16T09:30:52.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31093" PostId="15574" Score="1" Text="[Searching for *abdic-* and *cib-* close to each other](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abdic+%7E+%23cib) in a classical corpus gives two hits, only one in Pliny, and it is the one you found. [Other hits for *abdic-* in Pliny](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abdic+%5Bplinsen%5D) seem to contain no double accusatives, based on a very quick look. Peculiar..." CreationDate="2021-03-16T11:11:59.950" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31099" PostId="15574" Score="0" Text="Not sure where “prohibit” comes from, by the way. Democritus *rejected* [the use in food of] turnips." CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:32:01.720" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31101" PostId="15574" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, thanks for this remark. We have to keep in mind those dictionaries are quite old from 17th century or so. Maybe back then *prohibit* had also the sense of *reject*. don't know." CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:47:07.133" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="31102" PostId="15574" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. Why do you say that? Besides the two dictionary entries cited above, [_Lewis and Short_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=Abdicare&amp;la=la#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=abdico2-contents) list _to forbid_ as an accepted meaning. Isn't that  synonymous with *to prohibit*? Are you speaking about the broader context of the text?" CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:48:40.813" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="31104" PostId="15574" Score="0" Text="@ExpeditoBipes No, that's for *abdicere*, not *abdicare*. (And anyway it is “to forbid by an unfavorable omen” – I'm not sure what that means, but it does seem a bit melodramatic for discouraging the consumption of turnips on account of flatulence ;-))" CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:55:43.277" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31105" PostId="15574" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. I see what you mean. I'll update my answer to reflect that. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:59:51.263" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="31094" PostId="15575" Score="2" Text="Haha. Thank you. So the formula just meant to show *abdicare* works with food." CreationDate="2021-03-16T13:23:47.090" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="31095" PostId="15575" Score="0" Text="And it now occurs to me, that maybe the reason to place *aliquem* after *cibum* to stress it is merely adj. usage. (which, interestingly enough merely confused me. as for some reason it is more natural to me to see adjectival *aliqui* before the noun. (like *hic*, or other formula like *de aliqua re*))" CreationDate="2021-03-16T13:32:16.143" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="31096" PostId="15575" Score="2" Text="@d_e. According to _Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition_, &quot;Adjectives, when used as attributes, are oftener than not placed after the noun with which they agree; but demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, numerals, and adjectives denoting size or quantity come before the noun they qualify.&quot; I'm not sure about the word order, but perhaps it was meant to convey a meaning such as &quot;To prohibit food of some/any kind,&quot; as opposed to the more deterministic &quot;To prohibit some food&quot;." CreationDate="2021-03-16T13:44:23.287" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="31097" PostId="15575" Score="0" Text="@Expredito Bipes, maybe. But I think it further suggests my idea: Because of the ambiguity of *aliquem*, placing it before *cibum* would suggest *aliquem* as the pronoun, hence the decision was taken to put it after *cibum* however being less conventional." CreationDate="2021-03-16T14:02:28.827" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="31100" PostId="15580" Score="3" Text="+1 for Catullus. To keep on with Catullus, what about *recordare* instead of *memento*?" CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:32:03.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31103" PostId="15580" Score="2" Text="Since the -dare would elide with *et*, you'd still have 3-1-3 syllable scheme." CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:51:21.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31108" PostId="15580" Score="2" Text="I very much like recordare, yes, bowing not only to Catullus, but also to the anonymous poet of the Dies irae (bien étonnés de se trouver ensemble); and of course agreed on the elision/syllable count." CreationDate="2021-03-17T02:29:57.393" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31126" PostId="15580" Score="0" Text="Definitely like Recordare! I am fond of the Dies Irae, so that is an interesting connection. Also didn't realize -dare and et would elide, so I'm liking &quot;Recordare et obdura.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;With the elison in mind, and since my memory of pronunciation is a bit hazy, how would the phrase be pronounced? If I remember correctly, recordare would be &quot;reh-core-dah-ray,&quot; right? So would the phrase be &quot;reh-core-dah-rayt ohb-doo-rah&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-03-17T18:01:58.613" UserId="9135" />
  <row Id="31152" PostId="15580" Score="0" Text="Pronunciation becomes a whole different and complex topic, but something along those lines, yes, although others may want to be mores specific here." CreationDate="2021-03-18T20:13:28.957" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31117" PostId="15582" Score="7" Text="I got reasonably good in modern Greek a couple of decades now, and am now learning ancient Greek. The transition is quite difficult. If you don't have plans to visit Greece, then I would not recommend learning the modern language in order to get started on the ancient language. The vocabulary is very, very different, even for basic words like &quot;bread,&quot; &quot;water,&quot; &quot;to speak,&quot; and &quot;to be able to.&quot; Greetings, forms of address, and body parts are all different. You will have to unlearn the familiar/formal distinctions in verbs, and noun paradigms you memorize will be missing the dative." CreationDate="2021-03-17T13:16:50.940" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="31122" PostId="15582" Score="7" Text="Note that although I don't doubt the correctness of the information in the video you linked, the speaker has a heavy foreign accent in modern Greek so you should not try to learn pronunciation (at least not of modern Greek) from that specific video (source: I'm a native Greek speaker). –" CreationDate="2021-03-17T15:17:23.220" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="31131" PostId="15582" Score="3" Text="I'm am intrigued. I have been told that that β is pronounced more like &quot;veta&quot; in modern Greek, so that we need μπ to get the &quot;b&quot; sound. But if we also need &quot;ντ&quot; to get the &quot;d&quot; sound that would seem to imply that δ is not pronounced &quot;delta&quot;. Is this right, and if so how _is_ it pronounced? Thank you." CreationDate="2021-03-18T02:18:58.647" UserId="9141" />
  <row Id="31136" PostId="15582" Score="2" Text="@AdamChalcraft That is correct, &quot;δ&quot; is pronounced like the &quot;th&quot; in &quot;this&quot;. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(letter)" CreationDate="2021-03-18T05:08:23.663" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="31138" PostId="15582" Score="1" Text="Interesting -- I was wondering about the spelling of the name of NBA player [Giannis Antetokounmpo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giannis_Antetokounmpo) (Greek with Nigerian parents), and this explains it perfectly." CreationDate="2021-03-18T09:43:25.583" UserId="1793" />
  <row Id="31139" PostId="15582" Score="0" Text="@FedericoPoloni I would expect that name to be pronounced Yianis Antetokunbo using a more generic continental orthography" CreationDate="2021-03-18T10:24:53.107" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="31106" PostId="15583" Score="2" Text="Oh of course, not to mention &quot;άντρας&quot;. I almost made a comment in my question about whether starting with these letters matters, but I left it out for some reason." CreationDate="2021-03-17T00:18:33.970" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="31107" PostId="15584" Score="0" Text="Oh... Γ as well, as in ΓΚ as in γκρι..." CreationDate="2021-03-17T02:02:40.883" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="31116" PostId="15584" Score="1" Text="@Nacht not Γ, ΓΚ. You can have _γ_ as the first letter in Greek words (e.g. γένος, γόνος, γονέας, γέλιο, γρίφος) but _γκ_ in the beginning of a word is a good indication that it is a loan word (e.g. _γκέλ_, _γκόμενα_)." CreationDate="2021-03-17T13:11:04.960" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="39334" PostId="15584" Score="0" Text="Initial ΜΠ, ΝΤ and ΓΚ in MG could also arise from elision, see μπαίνω &lt; ἐμβαίνω &lt; ἐν-βαίνω above. This means that those initials are good indications of loan words, but they are not 100% reliable." CreationDate="2022-08-29T08:00:59.513" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="31128" PostId="15588" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thank you. An excellent, comprehensive answer, as always. A lack of clarity, from me--apologies. Pilate was speaking, to his colleague, without any narration. My interpretation seems to work for the narrated version, as shown in your answer. Though this is direct speech I felt that Caeser, a third party, should be considered indirectly. I shall study this further. (This Q. was submitted a year ago, so badly presented it was ignored. Therefore, I re-wrote the whole thing.) Thanks again." CreationDate="2021-03-17T23:15:37.767" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31127" PostId="15590" Score="0" Text="I had a feeling an indirect question might be involved here, thanks so much for the helpful answer!" CreationDate="2021-03-17T22:45:37.507" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="31193" PostId="15590" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In &quot;quaestio multo magis ardua videtur&quot;, &quot;multo (adjective) magis (adverb)&quot; = &quot;much more(ly)&quot;. Is &quot;multo&quot; dative or ablative?  Would the double-adverb, &quot;multum magis&quot; = &quot;much(ly) more(ly)&quot; be equally correct?" CreationDate="2021-03-21T11:50:30.707" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31194" PostId="15590" Score="0" Text="@tony *Multo* is also an adverb, and with comparatives (like here) identical to *multum*, which would be equally correct. I would guess it was originally the neuter ablative of the substantivized adjective *multus* (cf. English &quot;by a lot&quot;), but I don't know if that's true." CreationDate="2021-03-21T17:01:44.290" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31130" PostId="15594" Score="1" Text="Note too that this is primarily tragedy. Comedy had a slightly different structure (including the agon and parabasis)." CreationDate="2021-03-18T02:00:39.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31132" PostId="15594" Score="0" Text="I may be misunderstanding, but I believe Menander's Dyskolos is structured in five acts, although they don't seem to be marked in the editions of the text I'm looking at. For instance, this paper refers to acts with roman numerals I-V: http://uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1992/094pdf/094008.pdf I was asking because I wanted to figure out how to refer to the acts in this play. The edition by Jacques has on p. 15, &quot;On ne doutait guere que la division en cinq actes destinee a devenir canonique y fut deja en vigueur,&quot; which may mean that the acts are implicit...?" CreationDate="2021-03-18T02:48:13.803" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="31133" PostId="15594" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Yes, good point; I've added a note about that." CreationDate="2021-03-18T04:10:46.977" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31134" PostId="15594" Score="3" Text="@BenCrowell By the 4C (Menander's time) a five-episode structure seems to have been standard, so I'm guessing the &quot;acts&quot; may refer to episodes, or maybe episodes+odes." CreationDate="2021-03-18T04:14:22.803" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31137" PostId="15595" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Please take a look at [these instructions for asking a translation question](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/79) and edit your question to add details." CreationDate="2021-03-18T08:14:23.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31142" PostId="15597" Score="0" Text="How well do you understand Croatian? &quot;Retoricar Andreas Paulus Logmagi, sin dubrovackog plemica Ivana Logmagi&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-18T18:07:18.523" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31143" PostId="15597" Score="0" Text="The book &quot;Spomenici kotara Krapina i Zlatar &quot; (Szabo 1914) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14423848.pdf" CreationDate="2021-03-18T18:10:28.680" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31144" PostId="15597" Score="0" Text="Do I understand the quote above in Croatian (or Serbo-Croatian?) correctly, &quot;Andreas Paulus Logmagi, son of a nobleman Ivan Logmagi from Dubrovnik, who graduated from the Jesuit University in Graz, Austria&quot;? (&quot;Retoricar Andreas Paulus Logmagi, sin dubrovackog plemica Ivana Logmagi, bio je upisan u matrikule isusovačkog sveučilišta u Grazu (Austrija)&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-18T18:29:42.403" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31145" PostId="15597" Score="0" Text="and a very interesting document here http://www.rodoslovlje.hr/savjeti/najstarija-prezimena-radoboj" CreationDate="2021-03-18T18:38:15.243" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31146" PostId="15597" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I understand it pretty well because I'm from Croatia :) And  that is exactly the book from which I took the screenshot with full text." CreationDate="2021-03-18T19:03:45.050" UserId="9149" />
  <row Id="31150" PostId="15597" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I forgot to answer your question, yes you understood it correctly :)" CreationDate="2021-03-18T19:17:34.190" UserId="9149" />
  <row Id="31140" PostId="15598" Score="0" Text="Whoa, tied again!" CreationDate="2021-03-18T16:42:26.643" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31141" PostId="15598" Score="0" Text="And you both beat me to it, but I chose to post instead of deleting." CreationDate="2021-03-18T16:53:13.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31148" PostId="15598" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the explanation!" CreationDate="2021-03-18T19:13:06.820" UserId="9149" />
  <row Id="31147" PostId="15599" Score="0" Text="Thank you for correction!" CreationDate="2021-03-18T19:12:45.363" UserId="9149" />
  <row Id="31149" PostId="15600" Score="0" Text="thank you for the  help with translation!" CreationDate="2021-03-18T19:13:40.993" UserId="9149" />
  <row Id="31160" PostId="15600" Score="0" Text="I think the superlatives can work he same even in English.  This is most interesting, most extraordinary...  &quot;my most dutiful respect performed to Her Majesty...&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-19T15:40:04.067" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="31161" PostId="15600" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF Indeed, a superlative can be used in English in this same fashion, but it is rarer. And non-native speakers might be unfamiliar with it, so I always want to warn about it." CreationDate="2021-03-19T15:48:28.833" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31153" PostId="15601" Score="2" Text="Out of curiosity, why do you change tenses in the imperatives?" CreationDate="2021-03-19T01:24:08.333" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31177" PostId="15601" Score="0" Text="Animadvertito sounds better to me than -verte. The categorization as &quot;future&quot; imperative is, in my mind, rather theoretical." CreationDate="2021-03-20T11:30:53.700" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="31158" PostId="15602" Score="1" Text="Ok, why the downvotes? It's an honest question!" CreationDate="2021-03-19T14:41:51.490" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="31159" PostId="15602" Score="3" Text="Could you clarify? Are you inferring that **inter-** means *up*, from the meanings *touch up, work up*, etc.? If so, I think those are idiomatic to English. (There's nothing above, raising, or superior in touching up or working up.)" CreationDate="2021-03-19T14:45:05.577" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="31162" PostId="15602" Score="1" Text="Ayto says very clearly in your own quoted passage that *inter-* means 'between'." CreationDate="2021-03-19T15:59:00.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31163" PostId="15602" Score="3" Text="@Rafael I didn't down vote, but it's a really sloppy question that shows no real effort to find an answer before coming here." CreationDate="2021-03-19T16:00:06.517" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31183" PostId="15605" Score="2" Text="cross-posting https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/38591/what-is-the-the-etymological-origin-of-the-name-calvin" CreationDate="2021-03-20T17:03:14.450" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31203" PostId="15605" Score="2" Text="@יהודה Cross-posting is considered rude on Stack Exchange sites, especially when not mentioned. Then people helping you duplicate their efforts, not knowing of each other. Also readers who end up seeing one of your posts do not know of their siblings where they might find answers from different perspectives. Please edit links to the other versions into your question and edit the question so that it focuses more on the Latin side of things. Questions like this are welcome on this site, but we greatly appreciate transparency about cross-posting – and waiting a week before doing so." CreationDate="2021-03-21T21:45:43.750" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31207" PostId="15605" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta First I would like to apologize for whatever bad vibes I brought forth.  I am new to the &quot;StackExchange Community&quot; and am not too familiar with the written and unwritten etiquette.  My reasoning was just looking for sites that dealt with etymology based upon the name/word &quot;Calvin&quot;.  Seeing how it has heavy roots in French and Latin (heavy usage in English as well) led me to inquire from the different avenues.  I appreciate the advice and will incorporate it moving forward. Be blessed beloved." CreationDate="2021-03-21T23:57:36.760" UserId="9154" />
  <row Id="31210" PostId="15605" Score="1" Text="Thanks! It's perfectly normal for a new user not to know the etiquette thoroughly. I'm glad to see that you have the right attitude of willing to learn. I look forward to seeing more questions from you." CreationDate="2021-03-22T07:42:50.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31168" PostId="15606" Score="0" Text="The text that you pasted is from de Vaan, not from the Trésor." CreationDate="2021-03-19T21:06:56.603" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="31169" PostId="15606" Score="0" Text="@fdb. I edited it to make that more clear." CreationDate="2021-03-19T21:10:30.357" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="31171" PostId="15607" Score="0" Text="Good question, welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-03-19T22:37:47.723" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="31172" PostId="15608" Score="0" Text="but ut is not an interrogative. its about fear, purpose. how is like that in english. wheres that in a latin dic?" CreationDate="2021-03-20T03:32:15.430" UserId="8882" />
  <row Id="31173" PostId="15608" Score="2" Text="@user21669 That is incorrect. Look at the [very first definitions](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dut) in Lewis &amp; Short." CreationDate="2021-03-20T04:15:23.897" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31174" PostId="15608" Score="0" Text="how is used like that right in english. like i understand how life is tough. so the same thing is happening in latin?" CreationDate="2021-03-20T04:48:09.517" UserId="8882" />
  <row Id="31175" PostId="15608" Score="0" Text="this ut is used like &quot;that&quot;. you see that horses are....?" CreationDate="2021-03-20T04:48:56.103" UserId="8882" />
  <row Id="31176" PostId="15608" Score="1" Text="@user21669 Precisely like the English there. In Latin, a *that* like &quot;you see that horses are&quot; would be indirect statement, so accusative + infinitive: *vides equos esse...&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-20T06:08:08.767" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31186" PostId="15611" Score="0" Text="As is well-known, in Classical Latin the gerundive construction (_legatorum mittendorum_) is preferred wrt the gerund one _legatos mittendi_, which is, as you point out, also accepted to some degree. However, when dealing with this gerund + object construction, what I do not understand is why the genitive construction (e.g., _legatos mittendi_) is more frequent than the **prepositional** one, which is practically absent in Latin (e.g. _in mittendo legatos / ad mittendum legatos_). Cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1144/when-can-the-gerund-take-an-object" CreationDate="2021-03-20T21:18:26.193" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="31178" PostId="15612" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: The second line: &quot;tresviri with copper, silver &amp; gold for blowing &amp; beating&quot;, presumably the smelting process. Is &quot;feriundo&quot; from verb &quot;ferio&quot; = &quot;to beat&quot;; the dative gerundive from this would be &quot;feriendo&quot;, wouldn't it?" CreationDate="2021-03-20T12:15:13.420" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31179" PostId="15612" Score="1" Text="@tony In the third and fourth conjugations the gerund and gerundive can use *-und-* instead of *-end-*, and this seems to be more common in older texts. You can replace *feriundo* and *faciundis* with *feriendo* and *faciendis* but you don't have to. // Those tresviri were responsible for minting coins." CreationDate="2021-03-20T12:25:14.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31180" PostId="15612" Score="0" Text="Hello, me again. C.M. Weimer has deleted his answer so he will not entertain questions? He used &quot;ad pugnandum&quot; (gerund) = &quot;for the purpose of fighting&quot;. If &quot;ad&quot; is used like this then it does not matter if the species is a gerund or a gerundive--they are indistinguishable e.g. &quot;duas legiones in proelium misit ad hostes superandos.&quot; (gerundive); it could be either. Is this correct?" CreationDate="2021-03-20T12:41:40.983" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="31181" PostId="15612" Score="1" Text="@tony Indeed, *ad* with either gerund or gerundive is one way to express purpose. But in your example *superandos* is a gerundive, not a gerund. The gerund would be *superandum* and also possible, but the gerundive is often preferred in cases like this." CreationDate="2021-03-20T12:45:56.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31184" PostId="15612" Score="0" Text="For some (mysterious?) reason, the **prepositional** _ad_ + gerund + object construction _ad superandum hostes_ was not particularly accepted compared to the gerundive one _ad hostes superandos_. Cf . &quot;the prohibition of using objects with gerunds is, for example, very strong in _**in**_ + ablative and _**ad**_ + accusative contexts across authors of different periods&quot; (excerpted from my answer: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1144/when-can-the-gerund-take-an-object )." CreationDate="2021-03-20T20:55:26.320" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="31185" PostId="15612" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Indeed, there are limitations to when a gerund can take an object. I purposely chose to simplify the matter in my comment. (I often find myself trying to balance between simplicity and accuracy when communicating science or anything similar.) The question you link to gives a lot more information for anyone wishing to dig deeper. I edited my previous comment slightly." CreationDate="2021-03-20T21:12:56.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31191" PostId="15614" Score="0" Text="Governor, especially in British English, can be a male tutor; cf. &quot;governess.&quot; I think it's less common, though, but I imagine he meant that kind of governor, not someone who governs a province/state (which didn't exist as a title in ancient Greece)." CreationDate="2021-03-21T02:57:46.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31187" PostId="15617" Score="3" Text="Do not use Google Translator or other automatic translation software for Latin translation. They are all terrible." CreationDate="2021-03-20T22:35:15.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31188" PostId="15617" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Got it, thanks! May I use the phrase I wrote with peace of mind you think?" CreationDate="2021-03-20T22:40:14.807" UserId="9159" />
  <row Id="31189" PostId="15617" Score="3" Text="What you have now is good, but it translates to: &quot;Let that which changes not perish.&quot; It's a little less matter-of-fact than your original English, but it's good Latin still." CreationDate="2021-03-20T22:48:57.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31195" PostId="15620" Score="0" Text="(I think it's not the word that's strengthened by modifications, but the discourse/narrative/poem.)" CreationDate="2021-03-21T17:40:00.457" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31196" PostId="15620" Score="0" Text="@TKR That makes a bit more sense, but I'm not sure how anything is made stronger by splitting a word across lines. I suspect errwtai has some grammatical or linguistic meaning that I'm missing." CreationDate="2021-03-21T17:51:05.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="31198" PostId="15620" Score="0" Text="ῥώννυμι is in Eleanor Dickey's glossary of grammatical terms with the meaning &quot;to wake up the acute accent on the final syllable of an oxytone word (i.e. change it from grave to acute)&quot;, but that doesn't seem to be relevant here. I'm guessing the idea is that πάθη make a λόγος more attractive or powerful or add stylistic pizzazz." CreationDate="2021-03-21T17:56:33.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31197" PostId="15621" Score="2" Text="&quot;Manu ducant&quot; certainly seems to make more sense than &quot;manducant&quot;, the other interpretation that comes to mind." CreationDate="2021-03-21T17:54:49.480" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="31199" PostId="15622" Score="2" Text="OLD does list a noun manuductor, 'a guide', though it cites only a single inscription (CIL 4.3905)." CreationDate="2021-03-21T18:30:03.107" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="31206" PostId="15622" Score="0" Text="also https://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#57880" CreationDate="2021-03-21T22:35:04.793" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31211" PostId="15622" Score="0" Text="(Speaking from a position of complete ignorance on the matter) I wonder why Latin swapped 'manu' as opposed to 'chiro', for 'xeira'." CreationDate="2021-03-22T09:31:00.463" UserId="1887" />
  <row Id="31215" PostId="15622" Score="0" Text="@Strawberry &quot;chiro-&quot; would be the Greek prefix. Latin sometimes uses the Greek prefixes, but it's more standard to do a translation. As an analogy from English, we could use &quot;circumlocution&quot; but it's more normal to &quot;talk in circles.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-22T15:19:33.810" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31200" PostId="15623" Score="0" Text="In the Julii Caeares, I wonder if this a case of where the name may have initially been used as part of a sequential numbering of children, but then evolved into something more of a family name instead." CreationDate="2021-03-21T19:18:50.257" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="31201" PostId="15623" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure if you're referring to *minor* and *maior* with the first two, but *Octavia* is not a *praenomen*." CreationDate="2021-03-21T20:02:50.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31202" PostId="15623" Score="1" Text="Likewise, Septimius is a *nomen*, too. He was *Lucius* Septimius Severus." CreationDate="2021-03-21T20:37:33.070" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31205" PostId="15623" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Normas meas demisi ut Septimium Severum nominem atque Octaviarum ignotus eram. Utrumque soloecismum retinebo ut responso bono corrigi possint." CreationDate="2021-03-21T22:04:47.767" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="31209" PostId="15623" Score="0" Text="Remembering that in those days there was huge child mortality, so Number 7 son might be the only one who survived." CreationDate="2021-03-22T07:12:34.743" UserId="1211" />
  <row Id="31212" PostId="15623" Score="2" Text="@RedSonja I'm pretty sure there are instances of elder sons with later numbered names than their younger brothers so, in at least some instances, it doesn't seem to have referred to order of birth" CreationDate="2021-03-22T10:25:51.040" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="31225" PostId="15623" Score="0" Text="It isn't a foregone conclusion that these were never based on the order the child was born. Infant mortality rates were extremely high, and infanticide was not uncommon." CreationDate="2021-03-22T19:43:59.873" UserId="9168" />
  <row Id="31216" PostId="15624" Score="0" Text="I have a problem with “the famous Akkadian title, šar-šarrāni”. As far as I can see this title is never used for Babylonian or Assyrian kings, but only for foreign rulers, notably in the Babylonian versions of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, where it translates the Old Persian title “king of kings”. The evidence is that “X singular of X plural” is an Iranian parlance borrowed into Aramaic and Hebrew in the Achaemenid period." CreationDate="2021-03-22T15:35:47.983" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="31217" PostId="15624" Score="1" Text="@fdb Isn't it attested from the thirteenth century BCE, well before the Achaemenid empire? For example, [this Middle Assyrian inscription](http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2008/antiquities-n08500/lot.62.html) (weird source I know but it's the first one I found) starts &quot;Tukulti-Ninurta, king of the universe, strong king, king of Assyria, king of kings, lord of lords, rulers of rulers, prince, lord of all, conqueror of the rebellious…&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-22T15:44:34.020" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="31245" PostId="15625" Score="2" Text="An analogy may be the present-day existence of female names like &quot;April&quot;, &quot;May&quot; and &quot;June&quot; (also &quot;Summer&quot;). The blog post too mentions Marcus and Maius named after March and May. Also, considering that the Greek and Roman religions have many parallels (unfortunately not much discussed) with Hinduism (all of them at one point Indo-European &quot;cousins&quot; after all), I also note that many children in India are named after months or &quot;stars&quot; (*nakshatra*), typically the one in which they were born: Chaitra/Chitra, Phalguni, Rohini, Swati, Shravan, etc." CreationDate="2021-03-23T18:00:58.787" UserId="1118" />
  <row Id="32388" PostId="15627" Score="0" Text="Might I suggest making a small edit to bump this to the top of the front page while there is still bounty time left? Some might have missed it. I do hope someone picks this up and gives an answer, even a partial one." CreationDate="2021-03-31T21:40:34.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32389" PostId="15627" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I made a minimal edit, but it doesn't seem to have brought about the desired bump." CreationDate="2021-03-31T21:53:29.137" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32390" PostId="15627" Score="1" Text="I did for me, also if viewed in a private tab. It might take a few minutes or a refresh, but it should show up for you too." CreationDate="2021-03-31T22:03:05.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32391" PostId="15627" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Not just private tabs, but any edit takes a few minutes to bump up. I've noticed that frequently when I make an edit." CreationDate="2021-03-31T22:40:31.493" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32392" PostId="15627" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Ah, I see. I think all edits made within a 5-minute window are lumped into one in the post's history, so it makes sense that it only produces a single bump too. It seems I'm still learning how the site works..." CreationDate="2021-03-31T22:43:31.027" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31220" PostId="15630" Score="0" Text="I wonder if *Christocoles* is a borrowing in English, like *Christians* is for *Christiani*." CreationDate="2021-03-22T16:40:06.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31222" PostId="15630" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Good point. I forgot to mention that &quot;Christicoles&quot; *does* return quite a few French results." CreationDate="2021-03-22T17:24:48.843" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31218" PostId="15631" Score="3" Text="Excellent answer (+1). Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but I'm hesitant to call this a &quot;misspelling.&quot; The idea of &quot;correct spelling&quot; is a rather modern idea, and I wouldn't want to say that Plautus (for example) &quot;spells badly.&quot; It just reflects a different spoken convention." CreationDate="2021-03-22T16:16:52.137" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31219" PostId="15631" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'm going with &quot;correct spelling&quot; on the principle that since classical Latin became standardized, it has culturally served as a prescriptive standard in relation to which the medieval variances are seen as corruptions, which, for example, writers in the Renaissance sought to undo. I know that contemporary linguists dismiss all &quot;prescriptivism&quot;, but I think they're ignoring something important about language. More in [this answer](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/53560/6700)." CreationDate="2021-03-22T16:26:55.887" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="31221" PostId="15631" Score="0" Text="Thank you for these answers. I believe my source referring to 'worshippers' as 'Christicola' is valid, as it is in all likelihood taken from the medieval." CreationDate="2021-03-22T17:11:33.173" UserId="9162" />
  <row Id="31226" PostId="15631" Score="0" Text="@Johnny Note that _Christicola_ is singular (Christ-worshipper). The plural is _Christicolae_ (classical spelling) or _Christicole_ (medieval spelling often used in some regions, where the phonetic distinction between _ae_ and _e_ had been lost in vernacular speech). I'll add a sentence or two to the answer about _caelicola_ and its plural, in which you can see the same medieval straying from classical standards." CreationDate="2021-03-22T23:25:31.377" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="31229" PostId="15631" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I'm not unsympathetic to prescriptivism, but I was just (mildly) objecting to the note of censure or ignorance that &quot;misspelling&quot; implies. If you've ever taken a look at medieval paleography (such as [this 13th c. autograph](https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.9851) by Tommy Aqua), &quot;misspelling&quot; is either unfair or the understatement of the century." CreationDate="2021-03-23T02:05:17.960" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31231" PostId="15631" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I certainly wouldn't want to disparage medieval sigla! Let's hope that the background, in my answer and in yours, guides the reader to understand that plural *-e* is not a mere typo, nor a true solecism like &quot;should of&quot; in English, but a common medieval practice that strayed, due to vernacular influence, from the standard held as authoritative for the formal language—and, I believe, was regarded by many scholars as somewhat ignorant, meriting correction for this reason. Maybe we need a question about degrees of censure-worthiness in medieval variances from classical precedents." CreationDate="2021-03-23T03:25:57.917" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="31264" PostId="15631" Score="0" Text="Chalk this up to my own ignorance, but at what point did scholars consider it incorrect? Is there a continuation of Medieval scholars who objected to the -e spelling?" CreationDate="2021-03-25T00:35:57.833" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31228" PostId="15632" Score="1" Text="Interrogata tua legere semper valde fruor, mi congerro acutissime!" CreationDate="2021-03-23T01:34:51.480" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="31230" PostId="15632" Score="2" Text="Mihi quoque dubia videtur haec sententia Georgii: si enim ita esset, possemus certe dicere e.g. *Gladium vaginae est*, quod haud Latinum puto. (Si de casibus disseritur, ut pediculum eligam, nonne scribendum erat *in lexico Latino-Germanico ... opere Germanico*, etc.?)" CreationDate="2021-03-23T02:08:55.617" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="31234" PostId="15632" Score="0" Text="Si *condo* cum dativo casu quaestioni respondens: «quem in locum?» . Quid igitur inter dativum et locativum casūs sit, nisi quam nomina eorum?" CreationDate="2021-03-23T08:06:01.443" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="31235" PostId="15632" Score="0" Text="@TKR adde «quod est opus etc.» ;-)" CreationDate="2021-03-23T11:48:01.287" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31255" PostId="15632" Score="0" Text="Neue and Wagener 1902, Band 2, p. 642 **C. Lokativ. 8. I. 1. Substantivische Lokative** https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla02neueuoft/page/642/mode/2up" CreationDate="2021-03-24T19:02:08.720" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31258" PostId="15632" Score="0" Text="cf. Magnus Frisch (Frisch 2020: 228) “*uaginae* ist hier Dativ der Richtung bws. des Ziels nach Verben der Bewegung (vgl. Lease 1895: 23-24 §59, Lavarenne 1933: 88 §172 u. Burton 2004: 13)” https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110630831-011/html" CreationDate="2021-03-24T19:37:49.797" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31261" PostId="15632" Score="0" Text="Lavarenne 1933 “poétique et postclassique”, **datif de direction**; Hofmann and Szantyr 1965/2016 *Lateinische Grammatik Bd. 2: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik* §70 (Dativ des Zieles bzw. der Richtung), pp. 100-101; Stotz 1998 *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters Bd. 4: Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik*, pp. 257-258 (§16 Dativ des Ziels, der Richtung)" CreationDate="2021-03-24T20:14:39.377" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="31277" PostId="15632" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Quam mirum tot auctores eum ipsum locum iam intuiti esse. Recentiores Latinitatis periti in ea sententia esse videntur, ut *vaginae* casus dativus sit in hoc loco. Quod libenter audio, cum mihi assentiantur, et invitus audio, cum illa tabula augeri non iam posse videatur." CreationDate="2021-03-25T22:42:02.257" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31243" PostId="15635" Score="5" Text="Nietzsche has a lot to say about the origins of &quot;good/evil&quot; terms in Greek in the *Genealogy of Morality*, and he definitely makes the πόνος/πονηρός connection in I.10. (He accepts a theory quite similar to your first option.) He's an excellent (albeit dated) classicist, though his overall philosophical point is (imo) more problematic." CreationDate="2021-03-23T16:22:19.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32886" PostId="15635" Score="0" Text="Indeed, Beekes appears to concur with your (1): toilsome, useless, bad, evil. A bridge word is δουλοπόνηρος = bad like a slave. Has undertones of &quot;villain&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-26T15:37:11.747" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="31247" PostId="15636" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure I agree about ρίπτω. When Nausicaa plays ball with her handmaidens in Odyssey 6 the verb is used for throwing the ball, and there are several other examples of targeted throwing in LSJ, from such writers as Herodotus and Euripides." CreationDate="2021-03-23T19:14:48.837" UserId="1731" />
  <row Id="31253" PostId="15638" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I made a novice assumption it was second declension." CreationDate="2021-03-24T14:22:18.203" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32315" PostId="15638" Score="3" Text="@Adam as a heuristic, nouns formed from verbs, describing the action (not the result) and ending in *-us* are very often fourth declension, e.g. *exitus* (from *exire*; exit, outcome, death), *volatus* (from *volare*; flight), *usus* (from *uti*; use) and many more." CreationDate="2021-03-27T14:43:42.313" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31248" PostId="15639" Score="0" Text="The vocative of *cantus, -a, -um&quot; would be &quot;cante.&quot; Word order is why I stayed away from some of those meanings, though it's technically possible in poetry." CreationDate="2021-03-24T00:27:36.267" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31250" PostId="15639" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Well, it is meant to be a nominativus pro vocativo." CreationDate="2021-03-24T01:41:32.953" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="31251" PostId="15639" Score="3" Text="*Cantus, -us* also an enchantment, a charm." CreationDate="2021-03-24T06:45:17.633" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="31254" PostId="15639" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity I put it into Google Translate since I expect someone might do that. Google gives it as _wild singing dog_, so it's at least directionally accurate." CreationDate="2021-03-24T14:23:38.340" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="31256" PostId="15639" Score="2" Text="@Hugh: The charms of a wild dog, I like it." CreationDate="2021-03-24T19:22:34.267" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="31257" PostId="15639" Score="2" Text="@Adam: Hah, Google Translate is always wrong in unpredictable ways!" CreationDate="2021-03-24T19:22:54.803" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="31262" PostId="15639" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus: No kidding. Try asking it to translate goatherd into Latin." CreationDate="2021-03-24T21:24:25.583" UserId="3345" />
  <row Id="31263" PostId="15639" Score="0" Text="@Joshua: Hah, unus caprimulgus. That makes exceedingly little sense." CreationDate="2021-03-25T00:12:40.980" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="31249" PostId="15641" Score="1" Text="What's the euphemistic meaning behind *florebat* (earlier *floruit*)?" CreationDate="2021-03-24T01:37:38.657" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31279" PostId="15641" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary claims a mediaeval usage meaning ‘to ejaculate’, but upon checking the references, I cannot find it (though my French is too poor to tell for sure with regards to Gaffiot). Though, truth be told, older Latin dictionaries are pretty much useless on the sexual vocabulary. Checking Adams’s _The Latin Sexual Vocabulary_ renders no hits either, though Mediaeval Latin is beyond the purpose of that book (considering p. 2 ll. 27ff and generally all the writers referenced in chapter 1). Maybe it is untrue." CreationDate="2021-03-25T23:02:19.963" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="31283" PostId="15641" Score="2" Text="I don't see it under Gaffiot either. It might be a thing, I have no idea, but it doesn't seem sourced from Wiktionary, which is one of the many reasons I always cautioned my students from using that resource." CreationDate="2021-03-26T03:16:12.573" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31252" PostId="15642" Score="0" Text="*Quibus:* Ah, I didn’t even consider that option! Thanks so much, it makes much more sense. *Scloppus:* ‘late and corrupt’ – one can not hold back a slight chuckle (‘Cicero’s Latin is the only true Latin, I say!’) *Circa:* It goes all the way back there. I see! Oh, dear me." CreationDate="2021-03-24T12:48:04.700" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="31281" PostId="15643" Score="0" Text="The first line I had been fooled by the commas. Thanks for clearing that up! I have a question, though. How do you arrive at ‘studies of fruitful subjects and to [acts of] piety’? My reason for interpreting bona litera as natural philosophy, was based on https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Lovaniensis#Facultas_Philosophiae_Bonarumque_Litterarum which in English is rendered as ‘The State University of Leuven counted upon the creation the Faculties of Law, Medicine, Science and Mathematics and of the Natural Philosophy and Letters.’" CreationDate="2021-03-26T00:31:27.367" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="31267" PostId="15645" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Did you want the word to be from the perspective of the person doing the devouring, or are you telling someone that they should devour stuff? For a good first-person &quot;I devour&quot; example, see this post on translating [I came, I saw, I ate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12520/idiom-for-i-came-i-saw-i-ate-or-drank/12521#12521)." CreationDate="2021-03-25T13:49:58.890" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="31266" PostId="15646" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for making your first post! :)" CreationDate="2021-03-25T13:47:45.637" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="31271" PostId="15648" Score="2" Text="This might be better as a community Wiki q&amp;a? There can't really be a right-and-wrong here." CreationDate="2021-03-25T17:49:33.683" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31272" PostId="15648" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Good idea! I discussed it with Adam in chat and it made sense to both, so I changed the status." CreationDate="2021-03-25T19:54:38.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31273" PostId="15648" Score="2" Text="It's since been fixed, but a few years ago Google Translate said &quot;*Arma virumque cano*&quot; was &quot;Chairman Meow.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-25T22:23:42.910" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="31274" PostId="15648" Score="1" Text="That's a good one even if it's fixed. You should post that as an answer, @jwodder!" CreationDate="2021-03-25T22:26:38.107" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="31282" PostId="15648" Score="1" Text="Google Translate is open to crowdsourcing. Feel free to [fix them](https://support.google.com/translate/answer/2534530) (and make all these answers moot)!" CreationDate="2021-03-26T02:13:15.960" UserId="1625" />
  <row Id="31284" PostId="15648" Score="1" Text="I'd like to add, answerers, please include what the Latin **actually** means!" CreationDate="2021-03-26T07:36:24.613" UserId="9194" />
  <row Id="31294" PostId="15648" Score="4" Text="@AndrewT. It seems some of the stranger results are precisely the result of Google Translate's openness to crowdsourcing …" CreationDate="2021-03-26T19:36:12.240" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31298" PostId="15648" Score="2" Text="@AndrewT. This may sound overly pessimistic, but I think Google Translate is beyond repair when it comes to Latin. Unless they change how it works structurally, I would consider most efforts wasted. Perhaps we could fix the 100 most commonly asked phrases, but then it's a phrase list rather than a translator." CreationDate="2021-03-27T00:03:21.910" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32299" PostId="15648" Score="3" Text="@AndrewT. Why should Google, one of the most profitable companies on earth, rely on free labor from experts to help fix their broken products? Are they that really that awful of a company? Or are they just massively incompetent?" CreationDate="2021-03-27T01:37:18.267" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32301" PostId="15648" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta That really isn't what community wiki is for. This is just not a good question for Stack Exchange." CreationDate="2021-03-27T02:17:45.957" UserId="1956" />
  <row Id="32312" PostId="15648" Score="0" Text="@corsiKa Different SE sites use CW differently, and I think a wiki-type list of bad translations works well in that format. A lot of people seem to be happy with this question and its status. If you disagree, you are free to vote down and for closing." CreationDate="2021-03-27T09:26:27.573" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32316" PostId="15648" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Well I mean, it doesn't really help to downvote a CW post, but honestly, if this is on-topic, you should consider updating your help page. https://imgur.com/a/7x3Qrjb" CreationDate="2021-03-27T14:54:10.077" UserId="1956" />
  <row Id="32317" PostId="15648" Score="0" Text="@corsiKa [That help page](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask) is not editable by local mods, so any such change would have to be network-wide. I prefer to see rules as guidelines rather than hard rules; if our core users like something, then it's *de facto* on topic even if it appears *de iure* off topic. There are also different kinds of opinions; experts' professional opinions are very useful content. This question further underlines that Google Translate is unreliable, and that's a good message. With that all said, I agree that we shouldn't have too many questions like this." CreationDate="2021-03-27T15:00:22.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31268" PostId="15649" Score="1" Text="I've never heard the expression &quot;casus vorandi&quot; before...could you clarify what it means?" CreationDate="2021-03-25T14:58:25.807" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31269" PostId="15649" Score="0" Text="Oh, it is follow famous expression 'casus belli', but for the case of the author's synopsis, where something happened to need to devour any piece of the found resource." CreationDate="2021-03-25T15:25:39.273" UserId="9174" />
  <row Id="31275" PostId="15649" Score="3" Text="If we're going down that road, why not: *Voro, ergo sum*? " CreationDate="2021-03-25T22:29:51.503" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="31270" PostId="15650" Score="1" Text="I think you misread the question for *one who devours*, but I think the person meant the verb, for which I actually prefer your own previous suggestion in the linked thread (in Adam's comment under the question)." CreationDate="2021-03-25T17:48:59.457" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="31276" PostId="15651" Score="1" Text="Does anyone know _why_ the translator confused _dolor sit amet_ with carrots?" CreationDate="2021-03-25T22:35:18.683" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="31278" PostId="15651" Score="9" Text="@BenKovitz I guess someone entered it manually as a contribution from the community. It's sad if it's so open to trolling." CreationDate="2021-03-25T22:45:00.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="31285" PostId="15651" Score="8" Text="Note that “dolor sit amet&quot; are the third to fifth word of [Lorem Ipsum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum). So maybe two placeholder texts were thought to be actual translations of each other (one being Lorem Ipsum, the other featuring carrots). On the other hand, this also makes this a likely troll target." CreationDate="2021-03-26T11:07:29.073" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="31286" PostId="15651" Score="4" Text="PS: Larger parts of Lorem Ipsum (mind that parts of it are not proper Latin by any standard.) are translated to pretty much bogus: “Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt” → “Lorem ipsum carrots, enhanced undergraduate developer, but they do occaecat time and vitality”. Note how the English translation features a Latin word that does not appear in the Latin input." CreationDate="2021-03-26T11:16:57.583" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="31287" PostId="15651" Score="1" Text="@Wrzlprmft It's not a surprise to get garbage out if we put garbage in, but the garbage does appear surprisingly creative. This could indeed be a case of placeholder texts, but at least the verification of the carrot translation is an act of trolling. And even *dolor sit amet* is not a meaningful sentence, but the individual words are valid and do not correspond to the translation at all. I would have been happy enough with &quot;pain may love&quot;." CreationDate="2021-03-26T11:23:20.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32328" PostId="15651" Score="3" Text="The phrase &quot;dolor sit amet&quot; (as well as much of &quot;lorem ipsum&quot;, albeit in mangled form) is from a real Latin text, namely Cicero's De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum. The relevant passage is: &quot;neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum, quia dolor sit, amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-28T01:53:20.770" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="32409" PostId="15651" Score="2" Text="@Wrzlprmft you are probably right. Google Translate makes heavy use of machine translation, which in turn uses texts that are thought to be &quot;equivalent&quot;. What would bother me more than trolls is that someone thought Lorem Ipsum was actual Latin and used it to train a machine translation." CreationDate="2021-04-02T14:00:21.793" UserId="7152" />
  <row Id="32300" PostId="15653" Score="6" Text="I love the misreading, but I suspect that &quot;party&quot; here is a noun, i.e. &quot;side.&quot; So it's just missing the verb (&quot;be heard&quot;)" CreationDate="2021-03-27T01:49:32.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="31293" PostId="15656" Score="4" Text="Ørberg introduces this fairly early on in LLPSI. I found it to be fairly easy to grasp as an English speaker, particularly when he would use the word order of _X (non) tam est quam Y_." CreationDate="2021-03-26T18:38:24.713" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32313" PostId="15656" Score="0" Text="@Adam: Interesting: we look for things and look for things...I've never seen &quot;tamquam&quot; written as two words before. I recall trying to translate &quot;prius&quot; &amp; &quot;quam&quot; as two words when, of course, it was the one word, &quot;priusquam&quot;!" CreationDate="2021-03-27T09:43:30.167" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32314" PostId="15656" Score="1" Text="@tony Usually it doesn't really matter whether you spell pairs together or separate. For example *quare = qua re*." CreationDate="2021-03-27T09:49:55.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32344" PostId="15656" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I was so frustrated that I recall the sentence: &quot;neque prius fugere destiterunt quam ad flumen. = &quot;They did not abandon to flight until they had reached the river.&quot; And &quot;quam&quot; = &quot;how&quot; or &quot;than&quot; did not fit in. Easy when the penny drops." CreationDate="2021-03-29T12:40:57.287" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32309" PostId="15660" Score="1" Text="_”...named for its myth of drinking goat’s milk”_ — as in “chupacabra”?" CreationDate="2021-03-27T04:43:40.800" UserId="2693" />
  <row Id="32319" PostId="15660" Score="1" Text="A *pastor* isn't specifically a *goat*herd, and a *caprimulgus* is at least a *milker* of goats (in addition to specifically being a nightjar). For &quot;goatherd&quot; I would expect to get back *caprarius*, though, and the *unus* is completely indefensible." CreationDate="2021-03-27T18:40:10.943" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32320" PostId="15660" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: I don't actually know if Latin has a separate word for goatherd but I know that both Greek and Hebrew do not but rather the same word was used in the time of antiqity for both shepherd and goatherd." CreationDate="2021-03-27T19:53:25.177" UserId="3345" />
  <row Id="32324" PostId="15660" Score="2" Text="@Joshua I don't know Hebrew but that's not true for Greek. ποιμήν is a generic herdsman and defaults strongly to sheep alone, οἰοπόλος is specifically a shepherd (οἶς 'sheep'), αἰπόλος is specifically a goatherd (αἴξ 'goat'). The same is true for Latin: *pastor* is a generic herdsman defaulting to sheep, *opilio* is sheep, *caprarius* is goats (*opilio* is rare and a loan, but the other two are very transparent constructions). Goats and sheep were kept for very different purposes, it doesn't make sense to conflate them." CreationDate="2021-03-27T23:21:13.620" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32302" PostId="15661" Score="2" Text="Note that it's specifically _finite_ verb forms that are recessive—participles, for example, aren't necessarily recessive either." CreationDate="2021-03-27T02:58:41.290" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32303" PostId="15661" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Does this have to do with the fact that participles and infinitives are adjectives and nouns, respectively?" CreationDate="2021-03-27T03:21:42.953" UserId="6899" />
  <row Id="32304" PostId="15661" Score="1" Text="Infinitives aren't true nouns, though they are verbal nominals. I think Draconis is onto something about that, though. Interesting question, I hadn't thought about the reason before." CreationDate="2021-03-27T03:53:06.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32305" PostId="15661" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Could you briefly explain to me (or point me toward a resource) what a nominal is, and the distinction between it and a noun? I think I remember reading somewhere that, in Latin at least, infinitives used to be something like a dative." CreationDate="2021-03-27T03:54:25.353" UserId="6899" />
  <row Id="32308" PostId="15661" Score="1" Text="&quot;Nominals&quot; include pronouns, but it's essentially the same thing, just constructed on analogy with &quot;verbal.&quot; I'm not sure where the dative idea originates, but a good reference on the topic would be Woodcock's *A New Latin Syntax*." CreationDate="2021-03-27T04:22:23.457" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32310" PostId="15661" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure what you mean by *Obeying the accent rules of nouns would, at least, explain why it is a circumflex and not an acute*: a form like παιδεύσαι would be impossible (as infinitive, though not as optative) by the general rules of accent, not specific to nouns. Related Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2869/different-ways-to-accent-active-aorist-infinitives-ending-in-αι-greek?rq=1" CreationDate="2021-03-27T04:46:36.600" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32311" PostId="15661" Score="1" Text="@TKR By that I was merely referencing a rule we learned: &quot;in nouns, whenever the accent falls on the penult, if the penult is long and the ultima is short, then the accent is circumflex&quot;. My only point was to give another example of how my &quot;noun hypothesis&quot; would fit, if that makes sense." CreationDate="2021-03-27T04:59:28.090" UserId="6899" />
  <row Id="32318" PostId="15661" Score="0" Text="@healynr That's a general rule of Greek accentuation -- it isn't specific to nouns." CreationDate="2021-03-27T18:34:15.367" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32337" PostId="15661" Score="0" Text="@TKR Oh I see thank you" CreationDate="2021-03-29T02:26:55.103" UserId="6899" />
  <row Id="32336" PostId="15664" Score="1" Text="At this point I'm providing my answer for future readers, because I think this question actually does have merit." CreationDate="2021-03-28T23:34:07.677" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32338" PostId="15672" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much. My textbook is indeed the very one you decry; can you recommend me any better readings for accentuation?" CreationDate="2021-03-29T02:42:36.073" UserId="6899" />
  <row Id="32341" PostId="15672" Score="0" Text="@healynr The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, which is a very useful reference grammar to own anyway, has a pretty extensive and practical chapter on accentuation. It's a synchronic treatment of how it behaves, not particularly where it came from; if you wanted a comprehensive treatment of that AFAIK you'd have to gather all the pieces yourself from various works on PIE." CreationDate="2021-03-29T11:33:55.260" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32321" PostId="15673" Score="3" Text="I'm by no means an expert on theology, but your translation looks right to me." CreationDate="2021-03-27T22:25:23.563" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32322" PostId="15673" Score="4" Text="You might want to explain what you think the theology is to see if there is something about that translation that doesn't gibe with it, but I agree, there's nothing wrong with the translation." CreationDate="2021-03-27T22:41:33.963" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32325" PostId="15673" Score="0" Text="Yeah, what do you think does not match? Angels in general are messengers, protectors and guides. Saint Michael, as _princeps militiae coelestis_ is all of that _par excellence_. Not that he literally handles souls and places them (physically?) in heavenly happiness, though" CreationDate="2021-03-28T01:20:55.723" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32326" PostId="15673" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I've edited the question to clarify my confusion, which as you point out is precisely that he does not place souls in supernal happiness. Being a protector doesn't entail that." CreationDate="2021-03-28T01:31:42.290" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="32327" PostId="15673" Score="0" Text="@cmweimer I've edited to clarify the issue." CreationDate="2021-03-28T01:32:20.347" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="32329" PostId="15675" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I wasn't aware of this subsidiary role. That's perfect." CreationDate="2021-03-28T10:14:13.723" UserId="94" />
  <row Id="32340" PostId="15675" Score="0" Text="From what I understand of the Catholic traditions he's not &quot;carrying&quot;, but more like &quot;shepherding&quot; these souls - a role that's more in sync with his other duties (guidance and protection). But I concede it may be just an interpretation." CreationDate="2021-03-29T08:59:45.470" UserId="563" />
  <row Id="32330" PostId="15676" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for posting your question!" CreationDate="2021-03-28T13:22:48.293" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32345" PostId="15676" Score="0" Text="literal translations don't 100% work" CreationDate="2021-03-29T14:31:03.483" UserId="779" />
  <row Id="34925" PostId="15676" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12505/audire-with-accusative-or-dative" CreationDate="2021-09-03T14:59:19.453" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32331" PostId="15678" Score="4" Text="I can't really see the comma working like that, but perhaps that's because I'm thinking in terms of the Latin. But good you got it all worked out." CreationDate="2021-03-28T13:57:21.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32333" PostId="15679" Score="2" Text="If only StackExchange had a facepalm reaction." CreationDate="2021-03-28T19:46:48.423" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32334" PostId="15679" Score="1" Text="@Adam To be fair, I've seen some wildly incorrect claims made across StackExchange that were upvoted and accepted (and sometimes downvoted and accepted regardless)." CreationDate="2021-03-28T19:51:29.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32349" PostId="15679" Score="1" Text="Also, getting rid of the *ego* yields &quot;I speak plainly.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-03-29T21:05:09.743" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32407" PostId="15679" Score="2" Text="@Adam you can actually use emoji now: ‍♂️" CreationDate="2021-04-02T10:17:30.593" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="34391" PostId="15679" Score="0" Text="This still has not been fixed. @Rafael With no *ego*, it yields &quot;sPEAK PLAINLY.&quot; It's so broken!" CreationDate="2021-08-07T05:29:27.883" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42998" PostId="15679" Score="0" Text="To be fair there is *some* desire for this kind of translation. Saying &quot;Speak English!&quot; to someone in English may have the meaning &quot;speak intelligibly&quot;, so while the meaning of the words is not the same, the intent and meaning of the whole sentence is preserved perfectly. Neither may be always desirable though, since this depends on the purpose of the translation (translating prose vs. webpages), and this kind of meta-language problems Google Translate cannot solve." CreationDate="2023-04-27T09:37:19.120" UserId="258" />
  <row Id="32351" PostId="15680" Score="0" Text="Laetor neminem contextum rogavisse." CreationDate="2021-03-29T22:48:43.150" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32357" PostId="15680" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz Forsitan sit bipes implumis." CreationDate="2021-03-30T03:55:00.003" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32363" PostId="15680" Score="2" Text="Sententia alata: Verba volant, gallina manet." CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:50:19.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32365" PostId="15680" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta; sub malis avibus = under the influence of evil; sub bonis gallinis = under good hens." CreationDate="2021-03-30T15:23:18.070" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32342" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: &quot;Should any hen ask you to lift her(self), she must be lifted.&quot; Small things, but don't spoil the ship for a ha'peth of tar. The hen could've been asking you to lift the Empire State Building; unlikely, but you never know." CreationDate="2021-03-29T12:29:09.177" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32343" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="@Expedito Bipes: Is there any particular reason why yourself wanted this?" CreationDate="2021-03-29T12:30:54.343" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32346" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="@tony In metric poetry I don't have the luxury of clarity like in prose. I did not see a neat way to insert an object for *leves*, so I considered it enough to indirectly hint at it. What I translated by &quot;it&quot; is a feminine singular, so without further context it must be the hen. I did contemplate a passive along the lines of *si qua velit gallina levetur* but I did not find a way to finish within one line, at least not as nicely." CreationDate="2021-03-29T14:59:19.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32347" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="You're going for a present general here? If so, you may want to choose a different word than &quot;should.&quot; Your translation doesn't match a present general conditional." CreationDate="2021-03-29T20:00:21.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32348" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Yes, I'm indeed using the present tense as a general time. But your comment puzzles me, probably because I'm missing a bit of English grammar. Which auxiliary should I be using, and what is the wrong message conveyed by &quot;should&quot;? It seems this is more a question of English than Latin if I understand correctly." CreationDate="2021-03-29T20:26:00.287" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32350" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="Conditional are tricky, but [here is the relevant A&amp;G](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/general-conditions) on general conditions. Conditionals in Latin do not work the same way as conditionals in English (or Swedish - no idea about Finnish, sorry!)." CreationDate="2021-03-29T22:16:47.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32352" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="Is the rhythm of _Si qua rogat…_ &quot;long long short long…&quot;? If so, does _qua_ not scan or is this a customary correption?" CreationDate="2021-03-29T22:57:12.967" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32353" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="Ordinary English would be: &quot;If a hen asks you to lift her, she must be lifted.&quot; If you're wondering why &quot;her&quot; is necessary (it is indeed necessary), I'd have to think about it. It might even be a good question for ell.stackexchange.com. (Not that I'm suggesting that you phrase it in ordinary English.)" CreationDate="2021-03-29T23:02:59.913" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32354" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="Regarding _quă,_ I just found [the answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9023/118). Wow, I did not even know this pronoun before!" CreationDate="2021-03-29T23:09:14.500" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32355" PostId="15681" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Isn't it just [*aliqua*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aliqui), which drops the *ali-* after *si*?" CreationDate="2021-03-29T23:21:10.250" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32356" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer Thanks! All this time, I didn't even know. I just assumed it was (only) _aliquae_ and never looked closely. Wow, you never know what you're going to learn by checking scansion!" CreationDate="2021-03-29T23:30:30.687" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32358" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: Without &quot;her&quot;, the hen could be asking for anything to be lifted e.g. Joonas's Empire State Building (above). It may even need to be reflexive (&quot;herself&quot;); otherwise the hen may be asking for a secondary female creature to be lifted." CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:01:11.703" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32359" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: If you had been writing prose would you have used reflexive pronoun, &quot;se&quot;, to make it unequivocal that the hen is referring to herself, not another female creature; or, God forbid, The Empire State?" CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:10:32.290" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32360" PostId="15681" Score="1" Text="@tony I don't know what &quot;Joonas's ESB&quot; refers to; you brought it up. I think it is common in Latin to leave things up to context, and I don't think I would have actually inserted an explicit object even in prose. I assumed no further context (if there is any relevant context, it should be supplied in the question, but I don't think there was this time), so while it may be technically ambiguous, it is practically clear. It's the same in English: nothing guarantees that the two &quot;her&quot;s are the same. If I need to resolve this tiny ambiguity, my preferred method is the passive." CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:26:36.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32361" PostId="15681" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: The original joke, above, about the Empire State Building." CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:28:55.583" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32362" PostId="15681" Score="1" Text="@tony I remember that, I was only asking about the possession. I was just pointing out that the building was yours, not mine." CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:30:18.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32418" PostId="15681" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for your answer!" CreationDate="2021-04-03T09:55:16.987" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="32368" PostId="15685" Score="1" Text="&quot;Or did they not think of it this way at all?&quot; I think this, but if there is anything in it, it might be found in Vergil's Georgics or Columella. I don't remember reading anything similar at all in Catos' De Agri Cultura." CreationDate="2021-03-31T04:21:12.673" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32369" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="@C.M.Weimer: Or perhaps (natural) philosophers like Epicurus, Lucretius, Aristotle? I could imagine terms like *vita*, *vitalitas*, *medulla*, *dunamis* or similar being used by some philosopher. P.S. Lovely question. P.P.S. Or perhaps simply *sucus* &quot;juice&quot;, which was also used metaphorically for &quot;strength&quot;." CreationDate="2021-03-31T05:01:58.917" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32371" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: This Q. could have been: &quot;Did the Ancients have a Word for Photosynthesis?&quot;; more prosaically, &quot;....Sugar?&quot;. OLD gives &quot;saccharon&quot; = &quot;sugar&quot;. I thought that the only sweetening agent available to the Romans was honey; perhaps not." CreationDate="2021-03-31T08:36:20.457" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32373" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="@cmw If it's anywhere, it must be in those works, or maybe Lucretius or Aristotle, or even Aquinas. (I've only read short excerpts from each.) I got to thinking about this because seeing everything in terms of flow of (conserved) energy sounds like a distinctively modern scientific way of looking at things (e.g. leaves are &quot;solar collectors&quot;), but how do you miss this in the garden? Without some notion of energy, how do you understand the function of leaves? Or why people and animals get tired after physical exertion? Or why eating food helps with that?" CreationDate="2021-03-31T11:01:03.380" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32375" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="Maybe a Latin word for &quot;fuel&quot; was put to use for whatever plants get from the Sun and store in themselves? Indeed when you burn wood, you're releasing it." CreationDate="2021-03-31T11:13:25.960" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32378" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="@tony Maybe your comment (just deleted) provides an important clue: it's not at all obvious that heat, fire, motion, growth, the charge in a battery, the compression of a spring, sunlight, and the state of petrol before it's burnt are all interconvertible. This is the modern conception of energy, enabling us to reason that petrol holds the energy received by plants from sunlight long ago. The ancients surely had no conception of interconvertibility so broad. But didn't they think that plants accumulate something when they sit in the Sun, which they expend when they bloom or bolt?" CreationDate="2021-03-31T12:23:41.153" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32384" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="Perhaps some philosophers might have thought of it as fire atoms being collected and stored." CreationDate="2021-03-31T14:55:54.877" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32387" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz That's a very mechanical perspective, that is not historically shared. I can't speak for the ancients with any authority, but historically a framework of conflict and balance has been more prevalent; here a life force against the grip of winter, or fertility against sterility. A more common belief seems to have been that nature *just is* and life *just does* unless there is something to stop it." CreationDate="2021-03-31T19:43:52.453" UserDisplayName="user9214" />
  <row Id="32393" PostId="15685" Score="0" Text="@Servaes That's the kind of answer I'm hoping to see, especially if supported with some ancient or medieval writing that addresses something like what biennials are doing in their first year, or what is the function of leaves. Would you care to post an answer?" CreationDate="2021-03-31T23:02:41.690" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32370" PostId="15687" Score="2" Text="Would this perhaps be an opportunity to use *tute*?" CreationDate="2021-03-31T05:20:36.200" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32372" PostId="15687" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Other than in the famous alliterative line by Ennius, I haven't encountered _tute,_ so I don't have a feel for it. Maybe you could post it in a competing answer?" CreationDate="2021-03-31T10:36:20.347" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32377" PostId="15687" Score="1" Text="See [I.B under *tu* in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=tu&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for more examples. (My first intuition is to parse *tute* as a vocative of *tutus*, though.)" CreationDate="2021-03-31T11:46:04.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32374" PostId="15688" Score="2" Text="Interesting: I often say &quot;juice&quot; metaphorically for energy, or whatever is the relevant limiting factor that gets consumed by use (e.g. oxygen), when describing attention." CreationDate="2021-03-31T11:11:02.890" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32379" PostId="15688" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: Winstedt (Letters to Atticus Vol. 2) gives &quot;sap &amp; blood&quot; = &quot;sucum ac sanguinem&quot;. In the phloem tubes sugar, manufactured in the leaves (photosynthesis), is transported downwards as a sweet, watery syrup (sap). This, beloved of insects, who gnaw at the tree-bark." CreationDate="2021-03-31T12:48:53.727" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32382" PostId="15688" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: Exactly! Often used forbattery charge." CreationDate="2021-03-31T14:54:51.087" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32383" PostId="15688" Score="0" Text="@tony: Voilà! It makes sense." CreationDate="2021-03-31T14:55:22.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32380" PostId="15690" Score="2" Text="I don't know anything about poetic scansion, but phonologically an acute on a long vowel/diphthong indicates a rising tone on the *second* mora. If it were the α that had the rising tone the diphthong would originally have had a circumflex." CreationDate="2021-03-31T13:57:00.590" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32394" PostId="15690" Score="2" Text="The accent on ἔσχατη is violating the same rule. (And if TKR guessed correctly that this is your own composition, wouldn't ἆσσον take a genitive? Though it would ruin the meter.)" CreationDate="2021-03-31T23:17:06.940" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="32395" PostId="15691" Score="0" Text="I agree indirect speech is more ambigous especially when we add adjectives e.g &quot; fortem virum esse dixit &quot; but I think it's all depends on the contexts." CreationDate="2021-03-31T23:33:14.353" UserId="7406" />
  <row Id="32406" PostId="15693" Score="0" Text="Thank you. In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6578/1982 , I tried to use &quot;mihi placet (eam videre)&quot; to mean &quot;sexy&quot;, in the sense of &quot;it is pleasing (arousing) me to see her&quot;. It proved to be too great a stretch. Nobody offered a Latin term for &quot;sexy&quot;. Does yourself have any thoughts on this one?" CreationDate="2021-04-02T08:38:24.430" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32397" PostId="15694" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for making your first question! What does that phrase mean to you? Context and meaning can make a big difference in a Latin translation." CreationDate="2021-04-01T13:37:24.147" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32398" PostId="15694" Score="2" Text="Please take a look at [our instructions for asking questions like this](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/79). Please edit your question to supply the context; it makes a big difference as @Adam points out." CreationDate="2021-04-01T15:26:04.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32400" PostId="15694" Score="2" Text="sorry for the lack of clarification! to me I feel that a lot of my suffering/anxiety come from attempting to walk down paths that aren’t for me if that makes sense. I believe we all come here with a unique purpose and path specific to us and comparing yourself or trying to be like someone else or walk down their road behind them will inevitably cause you pain because it’s not meant for you and you can never be someone else or live their life." CreationDate="2021-04-01T21:15:33.423" UserId="9217" />
  <row Id="32404" PostId="15694" Score="4" Text="Additionally, I would wait until you get a few answers, ESPECIALLY if you want to get this as a tattoo. It's better to have the best answers than go with the quickest if you're looking at something permanent. (Good advice for all regardless of which answer you go with.)" CreationDate="2021-04-02T01:26:01.840" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32435" PostId="15694" Score="1" Text="&quot;Mens semita tua&quot; comes off as something like, &quot;brain, your footpath&quot;. It would only be comprehensible at all by translating it into English (and not into any other language). Latin grammar is quite unlike English grammar and you can't just mash words together that you found in a dictionary. As for the correct translation, I second TKR's suggestion of &quot;Memento viae tuae&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-02T10:43:20.387" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="32401" PostId="15695" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for your thorough response I really appreciate it I feel like it encapsulates what I was attempting to say! Do you feel like this captures specificity like would including the word own(mind your own path ) change anything?" CreationDate="2021-04-01T21:27:36.407" UserId="9217" />
  <row Id="32402" PostId="15695" Score="2" Text="@Nicole. Yes I believe it does capture the specificity of what you're trying to say. As TKR says, the root idea is to guard, so it is precisely the sort of watching that is usually done when its a question of taking care of one's life." CreationDate="2021-04-01T22:03:08.263" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="32403" PostId="15696" Score="0" Text="Are you looking for the plurals in English, or Latin?" CreationDate="2021-04-01T22:34:41.233" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32412" PostId="15696" Score="0" Text="English, but by way of getting clear what the Latin might be.." CreationDate="2021-04-02T15:53:16.200" UserId="8711" />
  <row Id="32413" PostId="15697" Score="1" Text="Pretty much what I was guessing.  Succuba morphed to Succubus when it came into English.  I'm with you in choosing succubi and incubi as the better plural form." CreationDate="2021-04-02T15:55:11.940" UserId="8711" />
  <row Id="32414" PostId="15697" Score="0" Text="I have not yet figured out how to mark things &quot;accepted&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-02T16:03:43.817" UserId="8711" />
  <row Id="32415" PostId="15697" Score="0" Text="Beneath the voting button should be a checkmark - click on that and it will mark that answer as accepted. You can also read more about [accepting answers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work) on the StackExchange meta." CreationDate="2021-04-02T16:19:30.907" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32411" PostId="15698" Score="1" Text="I agree that this verb is more appropriate, +1 for you" CreationDate="2021-04-02T15:46:36.147" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="34393" PostId="15699" Score="0" Text="It's been fixed, but if you click on *laudis*, Ham is still a possible suggestion." CreationDate="2021-08-07T05:32:10.840" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32408" PostId="15701" Score="1" Text="I don't know if there is a popular direct analogue for &quot;do well&quot; in Latin, but I do know that you could simply say &quot;I learn well&quot;, disco bene" CreationDate="2021-04-02T13:32:07.930" UserId="6899" />
  <row Id="32410" PostId="15701" Score="0" Text="@healynr Yes, this is a great substitute... Somehow I just missed it. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-04-02T14:29:45.070" UserId="9224" />
  <row Id="32417" PostId="15706" Score="2" Text="It reads like: &quot;it is no less stupid than it is wicked/ impious&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-03T09:37:05.893" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32425" PostId="15707" Score="0" Text="In perhaps a bit more idiomatic English, &quot;It's every bit as stupid as it is wicked.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-04T14:54:39.347" UserId="602" />
  <row Id="32426" PostId="15707" Score="0" Text="The translation &quot;wicked&quot; for &quot;impius&quot; strikes me as slightly simplistic, though obviously not wrong per se. But in the religious context offered here, it seems to me that aspect is not clear." CreationDate="2021-04-04T16:42:05.950" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32517" PostId="15707" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus Indeed, “godless” may be a better term. Or just go with “impious” and hope whatever *that* means should be about the same thing that the Latin means ;-)" CreationDate="2021-04-09T18:57:59.940" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32520" PostId="15707" Score="0" Text=":-)  I had an insane but quite funny teacher once who claimed he had no idea what a “Heiland” (Dutch/German, take your pick) was, but that he thankfully knew what a Messiah/Messias was." CreationDate="2021-04-10T20:48:33.840" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32421" PostId="15710" Score="7" Text="You might want to step back a second. 1. Where did you see the phrase? 2. What do you think it even means? 3. What are you trying to figure out? Do you want to know about genitives, about what *vinum rubrum* means, or something else?" CreationDate="2021-04-03T22:29:09.443" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32422" PostId="15710" Score="1" Text="In the phrase Velisne vinum rubrum. I am not sure if it's correct" CreationDate="2021-04-04T03:53:51.807" UserId="9235" />
  <row Id="32467" PostId="15711" Score="1" Text="Urbane. Gratias ago." CreationDate="2021-04-06T18:47:06.573" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32424" PostId="15712" Score="3" Text="A partitive genitive can be used in Latin too (although I'm not sure if it'd make any sense here), but then *du vin rouge = vini rubri* with both words in the genitive case." CreationDate="2021-04-04T11:13:05.530" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32428" PostId="15714" Score="0" Text="I was expecting to find more readily available translations as well, although to be fair I didn't Google that hard after reading the Wikipedia entry." CreationDate="2021-04-04T17:26:15.307" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32427" PostId="15715" Score="0" Text="It was actually @tony's post about [as...as](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15655/how-is-as-as-to-be-expressed-in-latin) and the answer to that which got me thinking about this phrase. I wasn't sure if _tam...quam_ could be used like this so I left it out of my question. It's great that it more closely parallels the original Arabic!" CreationDate="2021-04-04T17:23:13.810" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32429" PostId="15715" Score="2" Text="@Adam I should note that the *de* is what the Arabic has that the original Latin doesn't. What *comes from above...*. That said, I'm relying on Wikipedia for that information, as I don't know Arabic." CreationDate="2021-04-04T17:59:09.207" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32454" PostId="15715" Score="1" Text="@C.M.Weimer The &quot;من&quot; of the Arabic does indeed have a basic meaning of &quot;from&quot; (though it can have other meanings too)." CreationDate="2021-04-06T10:25:47.387" UserId="1756" />
  <row Id="32432" PostId="15716" Score="0" Text="How about &quot;chorea sub malis avibus&quot;  = &quot;a dance under bad birds (evil spirits)&quot;. In Latin &quot;sub malis avibus&quot; = &quot;to be under the influence of evil (under bad birds)&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-05T08:50:22.697" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32434" PostId="15716" Score="0" Text="Is _sub malis avibus_ a common idiom to imply that? I'm not actually trying to directly imply anything with the original English so people can draw whatever meaning from it they want." CreationDate="2021-04-05T13:56:43.887" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32437" PostId="15716" Score="1" Text="To give a proper translation, more context is needed: what kind of &quot;dance&quot; is it, i.e. who dances (an individual, a couple, a group)? in what sense is it &quot;among&quot; devils (are they participants, spectators, surroundings)? in what sense are they &quot;devils&quot; (denizens of the underworld, the epitome of evil, harmful spirits, tempters)?" CreationDate="2021-04-05T17:46:03.297" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="32438" PostId="15716" Score="0" Text="Thanks for questions - I'll update the post to add more context." CreationDate="2021-04-05T18:15:21.780" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32457" PostId="15716" Score="1" Text="@Adam: Would the Romans have said it in this way? I don't know. It seemed to fit the requirement. Joonas's answer may be a better bet; the trouble is the dancer would have to have gone down into the underworld (&quot;ad infernos&quot;), to find  potential partners for a waltz. Such a journey was prohibited--Cerberus-the-Dog would have made this plain." CreationDate="2021-04-06T11:38:20.007" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32436" PostId="15718" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the community and thanks for making your first post!" CreationDate="2021-04-05T15:37:12.753" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32474" PostId="15718" Score="1" Text="Hi Patrick, if you have clarifications, feel free to edit your post to add them here. Unfortuantely, StackExchange doesn't like chattiness, so it limits answers to only answers." CreationDate="2021-04-07T12:11:17.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32475" PostId="15719" Score="0" Text="My thanks for your eloquent edited comment, which clarifies everything. &quot;Joys&quot; does appear in the prayer, I merely blundered in typing it out. It ought to run: *perpetuae capiamus gaudia vitae &amp;c.*" CreationDate="2021-04-05T18:01:53.447" UserId="9242" />
  <row Id="32440" PostId="15722" Score="0" Text="I added some additional context per @gmvh's comment, but this actual fits in fairly nicely with that." CreationDate="2021-04-05T18:18:51.547" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32442" PostId="15722" Score="0" Text="@Adam That seems to fit surprisingly well!" CreationDate="2021-04-05T18:28:51.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32449" PostId="15723" Score="0" Text="If it can't be said in hexameter... No, you should always try to say it in hexameter." CreationDate="2021-04-05T20:10:28.747" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32455" PostId="15723" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In &quot;varium et mutabile semper femina&quot; why use two adjectives and why are these neuter?" CreationDate="2021-04-06T11:28:16.897" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32456" PostId="15723" Score="1" Text="@tony You can read the neuter as &quot;a woman is a changing thing&quot;, so that the adjectives don't refer directly to *femina*. It's not unusual in any poetry to use a surprising amount of adjectives, and the two here are not exactly synonymous. For simplicity I conflated them to one adjective in English." CreationDate="2021-04-06T11:30:54.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32446" PostId="15725" Score="0" Text="Oh and then you attach it to the abstract noun as if it were an adjective? &quot;manifestata perfectio&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-04-05T19:38:47.550" UserId="9245" />
  <row Id="32447" PostId="15725" Score="0" Text="@theonlygusti. Yes, I'm about to update my answer to give more info." CreationDate="2021-04-05T19:39:55.480" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="32448" PostId="15725" Score="3" Text="Keep in mind that *manifesto* is a pretty uncommon word: L&amp;S marks it as &quot;poetic&quot; and &quot;post-classical.&quot; I would probably use a word like *revelo*, *patefacio*, or *ostendo*." CreationDate="2021-04-05T20:00:39.810" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32450" PostId="15725" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks for the information. Do you know if incarnate existed in classical latin?" CreationDate="2021-04-05T20:59:46.037" UserId="9245" />
  <row Id="32451" PostId="15725" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Good call. I updated my answer to address that. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-04-05T21:08:21.323" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="32452" PostId="15725" Score="2" Text="Also, while *manifestare* may be rare, *manifestus* is not, and it may be fitting here too." CreationDate="2021-04-05T22:28:10.433" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32453" PostId="15725" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. Thanks! I included _manifestus_ in the answer." CreationDate="2021-04-06T01:34:08.247" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="32458" PostId="15726" Score="0" Text="Have you tried using a participle rather than a relative clause?" CreationDate="2021-04-06T15:30:12.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32460" PostId="15726" Score="0" Text="Not yet. You're thinking something like _Occultas_, i.e. _Those in whom deserts are hiding_?" CreationDate="2021-04-06T15:54:40.250" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32461" PostId="15726" Score="1" Text="Like *occultans*. In general *illi qui occultant = occultantes*." CreationDate="2021-04-06T16:05:19.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32463" PostId="15726" Score="0" Text="So _Illi Quibus in Solitudines Occultant (Occultans)_, or _Illi Qui Solitudina Occultant (Occultans)_? I was pondering about which to have in nominative after posting my question, since it _deserts_ is the subject and _those_ is the object." CreationDate="2021-04-06T17:21:27.313" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32464" PostId="15726" Score="0" Text="@Adam, sorry I deleted my comment. it wasn't accurate. But  *Illi in Qui Solitudina Occultant* just seem off, because according to the rules or rel. clauses, the case of *qui* is determined by the role of it in the relative clause." CreationDate="2021-04-06T17:27:12.793" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32465" PostId="15726" Score="3" Text="@Adam, continue: To render it like the English, I would go for: *Illi in quibus Solitudina se occultant* (here in the clause *Solitudina* is the subject, the obj. is *se* and the place of of hide is *ablative* *quibus*" CreationDate="2021-04-06T17:32:25.720" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32466" PostId="15726" Score="1" Text="Ahh, ok! Can you post this as answer? I like both your answer and the answer that @gmvh posted, but yours will have better visibility as a separate answer." CreationDate="2021-04-06T18:33:38.393" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32468" PostId="15726" Score="0" Text="@Adam I was unclear, sorry. I wasn't commenting at all whether *occultare* is a good choice or how it should be used, just making the grammatical point that a participle can replace a relative clause and in cases like this it might be the most natural choice. This is not unlike English: &quot;a horse that runs&quot; = &quot;a running horse&quot;. To compose a sentence, you'll also need to know whether you need an active or passive participle and whether you need some other words to go with it." CreationDate="2021-04-06T20:05:25.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32469" PostId="15726" Score="0" Text="@d_e I agree with Adam: That'd make a fine answer!" CreationDate="2021-04-06T20:06:04.617" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32470" PostId="15728" Score="6" Text="*Lateo* does seem the most natural choice of verb here. Note that as far as I can tell, it takes a bare ablative only in verse; in prose you would probably want *in quibus*." CreationDate="2021-04-06T22:47:34.380" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32472" PostId="15728" Score="0" Text="Thanks! And, yeah, but the distinction prose/poetry is somewhat artificial IMHO (and arguably at least the original English phrase here is kinda poetry)!" CreationDate="2021-04-07T07:25:52.320" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32473" PostId="15728" Score="1" Text="@Batavulus: The [actual original](https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Unter_T%C3%B6chtern_der_W%C3%BCste) is, of course, in German: &quot;Die Wüste wächst: weh dem, der Wüsten birgt…&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-07T11:48:26.213" UserId="57" />
  <row Id="32477" PostId="15728" Score="1" Text="Ah, please forgive my ignorance! In that case Crescit desertum / Crescunt deserta; vae illi (in) quo latent deserta." CreationDate="2021-04-07T16:20:29.833" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32471" PostId="15730" Score="0" Text="I agree that indicative works only if the people are specific. But in the question's context they might actually be." CreationDate="2021-04-07T05:40:12.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32506" PostId="15730" Score="0" Text="Would the passive work with _latentur_?" CreationDate="2021-04-09T13:59:06.983" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32507" PostId="15730" Score="0" Text="@Adam, I think passive would not work with *lateo*. since *lateo* already means somewhat passive &quot;to be hidden&quot;/to hide himself, where *occulto* is hide something. Not 100% sure though" CreationDate="2021-04-09T14:28:22.053" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32508" PostId="15730" Score="0" Text="Hmm.. I wonder if it would retain the feeling of being passive with just _latent_?" CreationDate="2021-04-09T14:36:25.177" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32510" PostId="15730" Score="1" Text="@Adam, I think so. example from Distichs of Cato: *Quod flumen placidum est, forsan **latet** altius unda* (For when the river is quiet, perhaps deeper water is hiding.)" CreationDate="2021-04-09T14:53:03.823" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32511" PostId="15730" Score="1" Text="@Adam, maybe better translation would be &quot;...water is **hidden**&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-09T14:56:59.770" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32495" PostId="15731" Score="0" Text="Not a full answer but FWIW, Weiss's discussion of this question is rather skeptical. He mentions the ictus theory you allude to in the linked answer but says it's unclear whether ictus really aligned with stress; he also cites the syncope *balineae &gt; balneae*, but calls it &quot;a rather thin reed to hang a theory on&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-08T21:19:17.707" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32486" PostId="15732" Score="2" Text="But if I'm not mistaken, those aren't classical works. So far I've found Carmen de Duobus Populis, Carmen De Moribus through google. I only found Carmen Fratrum Arvalium, but to me it sounds like it implies that's a song made or sung by Fratres Arvales. I would really like an example from classical works, or to find an explanation in a grammar book, if not all grammarians missed it." CreationDate="2021-04-08T04:35:42.817" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="32487" PostId="15732" Score="0" Text="I didn't cite titles, I cited language. You can, of course, believe me or not." CreationDate="2021-04-08T06:16:56.500" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32490" PostId="15732" Score="2" Text="Well, languages change. A valid construction for mediaeval or modern speakers may not be valid for the ancient Romans. It'll be much appreciated if you can cite some classical work. The idea that &quot;of&quot; represents is so vague, I don't know how it fits into the list of explanations (possession/quality .. etc.)" CreationDate="2021-04-08T10:26:38.917" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="32502" PostId="15732" Score="0" Text="Eugene, you're mistaken, but all I can say is: You're welcome." CreationDate="2021-04-09T11:49:33.453" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32553" PostId="15732" Score="2" Text="Well, you shared your opinion and I appreciate it, even though I'm looking for more than opinions." CreationDate="2021-04-13T09:16:28.977" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="32564" PostId="15732" Score="0" Text="Eugene, language is not mathematics. But what I said is not opinion, but simply how this particular aspect of Latin works, whether you like it or not. Of course, you can take it or leave it." CreationDate="2021-04-13T20:43:56.043" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32580" PostId="15732" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus I'm confused: are you denying that there are important differences between classical and medieval Latin? ...or that this particular construction is only attested in the latter?" CreationDate="2021-04-14T16:46:05.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32617" PostId="15732" Score="0" Text="You first have to define Classical, then Medieval, then important differences. But anticipating that discussion, I'd say that the differences tend to be exaggerated. As for the genitive in my example, it is fine either way and by no means exclusively medieval." CreationDate="2021-04-15T14:47:46.630" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32482" PostId="15733" Score="2" Text="Do you have an alternative translation that you think makes more sense, or explains why you think _quae_ is odd? I think it would help improve your answer to include that." CreationDate="2021-04-07T19:35:33.917" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32483" PostId="15733" Score="0" Text="One would expect the pronoun q... to refer to cantus, which however is masculine. (qui). It's not really clear to me how quae could be explained (e.g. it doesn't make sense for it to refer to virgo)." CreationDate="2021-04-07T19:41:19.663" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32555" PostId="15734" Score="0" Text="I guess that's as close as it gets, thanks (doesn't that mean I KNOW THAT, though?). Anyway, I'm marking as answered until something better comes along :-)" CreationDate="2021-04-13T13:46:04.433" UserId="6698" />
  <row Id="32556" PostId="15734" Score="0" Text="Dear Riegardt, ‘quod sciam’ means something like “as far as I know” (quod sciam). Vale." CreationDate="2021-04-13T14:16:11.663" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32478" PostId="15735" Score="8" Text="This answer seems pretty speculative. I would suggest bringing in a few sources or parallel quotes to support your intuitions." CreationDate="2021-04-07T17:58:41.407" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32479" PostId="15735" Score="1" Text="Brianpck, the opinion is yours, this is not intuition." CreationDate="2021-04-07T18:02:07.600" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32484" PostId="15735" Score="1" Text="@Batavulus thanks for your answer (+1). I partially support Brianpck's remark, though, in the sense that it is desirable to provide sources. Also do you think animantes could apply to plants too?" CreationDate="2021-04-07T21:25:20.137" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32534" PostId="15735" Score="0" Text="As for plants, I would say that's stretching things a bit, although I suppose in theory, yes. The problem with such words (as with very many) is that their semantic value (so to speak) depends on context. In certain contexts (I'm thinking Aesop) ‘animantes’ is indeed quite obviously used for “animals.” But in the example of Gen. 1, although practically correct, it strikes me as essentially too narrow. If you like, look in L&amp;S s.v. animo II. (However I for one am a bit weary about turning dictionaries into bibles, as the CUP commentaries tend to do with OLD and many other Latinists with L&amp;S.)" CreationDate="2021-04-11T16:08:04.103" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="33046" PostId="15735" Score="5" Text="The opinion pointed out by @brianpck was supported by several upvotes, so it is shared by a number of users. If seven users question whether an answer is valid, it is indeed a good idea to edit the answer to add a few sources. Requesting clarification is a standard practice on this site, and we all notice from time to time that we have to explain what we thought was clear. Please do not take such requests as anything personal." CreationDate="2021-05-07T20:25:55.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32674" PostId="15737" Score="1" Text="That's a good suggestion, works well as a more emphatic version, although I do feel it's less amusingly confusing, and thus further away from the original." CreationDate="2021-04-18T12:09:29.953" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32488" PostId="15740" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Shouldn't *princips* be *principis*? Looks like a typo." CreationDate="2021-04-08T09:03:32.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32500" PostId="15740" Score="1" Text="Yes, this was a typo! changed it" CreationDate="2021-04-09T09:42:37.030" UserId="9261" />
  <row Id="32529" PostId="15741" Score="1" Text="Nice succinct summary, +1 for you" CreationDate="2021-04-11T12:56:31.833" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="32498" PostId="15747" Score="4" Text="Nickimite, the [centurio from &quot;Life of Brian&quot;](https://youtu.be/0lczHvB3Y9s) wants a word with you. (That is to say, you may want to reconsider both the accusative with *habitare* and the locative with *ire*.)" CreationDate="2021-04-09T07:18:00.290" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32509" PostId="15747" Score="0" Text="Oof yeah you're right. It takes in+ablative. I have sinned!" CreationDate="2021-04-09T14:36:56.850" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="32512" PostId="15747" Score="2" Text="Alter at the beginning of a sentence is perfectly fine; examples abound, even just in Cicero. Presumably, it answers to a form of alter in a previous sentence that describes what the first of two individuals did; therefore, the sentence and the larger passage where it occurs would lose something fairly essential without it. Also, Sebstian Koppehel has already alluded to this, but the locative domi is incorrect here; the original poster's domum (accusative showing goal of motion) is correct." CreationDate="2021-04-09T16:21:38.137" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33019" PostId="15747" Score="0" Text="thanks so much!" CreationDate="2021-05-05T20:45:43.200" UserId="8876" />
  <row Id="32501" PostId="15749" Score="0" Text="Thank you.  When reading Joonas's Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12872/1982, I wondered why &quot;quid pro quo&quot; was never given as &quot;aliquid pro aliquo&quot;, which seems to be a much more correct way of translating &quot;something for something&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-09T11:16:51.720" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32519" PostId="15749" Score="1" Text="What is the difference from *nihil* as in the indicative *nihil obstat*?" CreationDate="2021-04-10T10:56:57.230" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="41091" PostId="15749" Score="0" Text="@VladimirFГероямслава The big diffference here is between *obstat* and *obstet*. One is indicative, the other subjunctive. The distinction between the two subjunctives *ne quid obstet* and *nihil obstet* is likely in the type of subjunctive it is. *Ne quid obstet* is likely a final clause, &quot;lest anything obstruct,&quot; while *nihil obstet* might indicate an unintended result, &quot;things just happened in such away that there was nothing obstructing." CreationDate="2023-01-23T03:41:10.960" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="32503" PostId="15750" Score="3" Text="With the caveat that *fatum* does also have a supernatural connotation, but I don't think it's possible to talk about destiny without that anyway." CreationDate="2021-04-09T13:14:28.883" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32516" PostId="15751" Score="3" Text="There is even a [cartoon Ali](http://www.latein-online.net/index.php?section=ali.htm) (an elephant for some reason)." CreationDate="2021-04-09T18:19:05.020" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32513" PostId="15755" Score="0" Text="If there were to be such a present participle, it would be *fiens*, but that is nowhere to be found in the extant literature. So indeed there is no participle like this. In some rare cases *faciundus* might work, but not here." CreationDate="2021-04-09T16:47:12.000" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32514" PostId="15755" Score="0" Text="Interesting! So in essence, _fio_ can be taken as both _I become_ and _I am becoming_?" CreationDate="2021-04-09T16:54:06.840" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32515" PostId="15755" Score="1" Text="@Adam Yes, and that is in no way unique to this verb. The best general translation of &quot;I'm singing&quot; is *cano*." CreationDate="2021-04-09T17:12:15.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32518" PostId="15755" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta spot on! the TLL entry does mention at least four occurrences of *fiens* (under **formae rariores terminationis activae**), albeit all in the grammatical treatises https://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#41444 or is it seven there?" CreationDate="2021-04-09T19:50:39.537" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="32528" PostId="15755" Score="0" Text="There is in English a technical word “fientive” used to describe some verb forms, though it may formed from a hypothetical *fiens (fient-)*; Hittite has a fientive suffix *-ešš-* used to form verbs with the meaning “to become ...” or “to turn ...”. . The point is that the meaning is clear enough, whether or not the form ever existed in Latin." CreationDate="2021-04-11T12:45:43.087" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="32523" PostId="15756" Score="0" Text="Isn't ``homo futuris`` the common phrase?" CreationDate="2021-04-11T09:24:27.123" UserId="6535" />
  <row Id="32524" PostId="15756" Score="4" Text="@PatrickT that phrase is indeed found here and there, but back in actual Latin, *futuris* is the dative/ablative plural of *futurus/-a/-um*, so it is certainly out of congruence with *homo*. (You could have *hominibus futuris* in some context or other, but that is neither here nor there.)" CreationDate="2021-04-11T11:08:37.917" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32526" PostId="15756" Score="0" Text="I see, thanks! By analogy with homo heidelbergensis (Of Heidelberg), it seemed to make sense. But having said that, searching through google books doesn't return many uses. I found it in a 17th century book, &quot;Atheismus triumphatus seu reductio ad religionem per scientiarium veritatem.&quot; But for some reason it has become a very popular phrase in more recent years. Several books with that title on amazon and other booksellers." CreationDate="2021-04-11T11:51:24.430" UserId="6535" />
  <row Id="32541" PostId="15756" Score="2" Text="@PatrickT There are different kinds of adjectives in Latin with different sets of endings. The forms *futurus/facilis* are the same, and so are *futuris/facilibus*. The analogy doesn't, unfortunately, work." CreationDate="2021-04-12T13:55:06.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32542" PostId="15756" Score="0" Text="Thank you, got it!" CreationDate="2021-04-12T14:29:35.720" UserId="6535" />
  <row Id="32539" PostId="15757" Score="1" Text="&quot;...he carried himself into Italy.&quot;, is that how the Romans would have said it; what about &quot;...in Italiam iit&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-04-12T11:35:11.560" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32551" PostId="15757" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, according to L&amp;S that's “very freq. and class.” Of course you could just as well say *iit*. You could also say *iter fecit* or *Italiam petivit* (transitive verb)." CreationDate="2021-04-12T21:05:37.890" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32527" PostId="15763" Score="2" Text="Num semper casura cadent et ventura venient?" CreationDate="2021-04-11T12:25:07.323" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32533" PostId="15763" Score="0" Text="In the example from MTC, it strikes me that ‘a(d)scendes’ sounds less than elegant. My understanding is that there is a sense of “about to” with the periphrastic. But in the end the difference is slight to virtually unnoticeable, I would say. BTW possibly noteworthy is MTC's choice for the periphrastic despite the monosyllabic ‘es’ at the end of a sentence, which he darn well knows he's supposed to avoid (but doesn't always, admittedly)." CreationDate="2021-04-11T15:55:42.250" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32538" PostId="15763" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: A &quot;Seneca-esque&quot; warning: &quot;The (your) hour is about to arrive&quot;; is approaching without relent: your last hour; your last day when you run out of tomorrows. What a happy chappie Seneca was: &quot;qui intellegat se cotidie mori&quot; = &quot;he who may understand that every day he is dying&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-12T08:54:12.743" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32549" PostId="15763" Score="1" Text="@tony Like some sundials have an inscription: *Una harum ultima* (one of these [hours will be your] last). In fact, on the same cemetery, you can find a (mechanical) [clock which has the German inscription](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friedhof_Ohlsdorf_(Hamburg-Ohlsdorf).Neues_Krematorium.Uhr.Westseite.4.43974.ajb.jpg): „Eine von diesen“ (= una harum)." CreationDate="2021-04-12T19:59:31.247" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32550" PostId="15763" Score="1" Text="@tony Incidentally I have a hunch that the “last hour” is a relatively modern idea and the ancients would usually talk about the “last day” (hence the frequent use of *diem [sc. ultimam] obire* etc). But I don't know that." CreationDate="2021-04-12T20:23:47.330" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32530" PostId="15764" Score="2" Text="How would you translate the inscription? &quot;The time is about to come&quot; as opposed to &quot;The time will come&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-04-11T15:06:14.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32532" PostId="15764" Score="1" Text="Or even “The hour is coming”? (“I'm going to the movies tonight.”)" CreationDate="2021-04-11T15:48:24.300" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32537" PostId="15767" Score="0" Text="*Morituri te salutant* — *aut non*?" CreationDate="2021-04-12T07:31:48.967" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="32543" PostId="15768" Score="0" Text="Thank you for a comprehensive answer!  Do you have sources for the reemergence of female *praenomina* in the first century AD?" CreationDate="2021-04-12T15:42:11.337" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="32546" PostId="15768" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour All I have is lecture notes that don't really say more than Wikipedia: you see women getting second, non-regular names in addition to the gentilical very quickly (e.g. Claudius's daughters Claudia Antonia and Claudia Octavia), and you begin to see legitimate daughters get named after their mothers, i.e. as if their name is a *praenomen*, not a gentilical (e.g. Livia Medullina Camilla, whose father was *gens* Furia; her mother's father was *gens* Livia). The common idea that birth-order adjectives were pressed into service as *praenomina* is harder to support." CreationDate="2021-04-12T18:51:20.340" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32547" PostId="15768" Score="0" Text="Later on, with increasing Greek influence and barbarian emperors taking barbarian wives and then especially Christianisation, you see Roman (and &quot;Roman&quot;) women with all kinds of names, but that's outside of my area." CreationDate="2021-04-12T18:53:32.313" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32552" PostId="15769" Score="0" Text="Thank for your answer. It is indeed seems that the usage of future active participle is strong and forcing: A thing cannot be *venturum* and not come in the end, it can only *seem*  venturum and not come (i.e. it wasn't *venturum* in the first place) . that's at least how I read it." CreationDate="2021-04-13T08:46:55.503" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32554" PostId="15769" Score="0" Text="@cnread: In a number of examples the alternative, contrasting, translations are predicated upon: &quot;it seems that&quot;/ &quot;it is certain that&quot;: can both be correct?" CreationDate="2021-04-13T12:53:59.887" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32561" PostId="15769" Score="0" Text="@tony, Note that it isn't 'it seems that'/'it is certain that' but 'it seems that'/it **seems** certain that.' The seeming is key here, as d_e has also noted in the other comment. As for using 'certain' in a translation for a future participle, that's  discussed in answers to the question that's linked to at the beginning of the current question." CreationDate="2021-04-13T16:22:35.667" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="32558" PostId="15770" Score="0" Text="Originally all i-stems had an abl. sg. in *-i* and consonant stems had *-e*, but by the Classical period analogy had extended the consonant stem forms to the i-stems except for i-stems with an acc. sg. in *-im* and a handful of others. *Ignis* retained the old ending some common expressions (*ferro ignique*, *aqua et igni interdicere*), so both forms coexisted; I think the average contemporary grammarian would prescribe using *igne* outside of those expressions, though." CreationDate="2021-04-13T15:15:37.567" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32562" PostId="15770" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Thanks! I updated the answer regarding the ablative ending." CreationDate="2021-04-13T19:30:35.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32574" PostId="15770" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I thought of adjectives too, but for ice and fire, I found them (with no reason) too specifically suggesting 'icy and fiery'. I just updated some thoughts at the end of my question, what do you think?" CreationDate="2021-04-14T12:23:33.123" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="32576" PostId="15770" Score="0" Text="@杨Eugene I expanded my answer to discuss the genitive too. It depends on what kind of an &quot;of&quot; you want to have. Let me know if that was unclear." CreationDate="2021-04-14T13:08:40.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32602" PostId="15770" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Do you mean the part about &quot;like ice&quot;? Is it Genitive of Material?" CreationDate="2021-04-15T03:48:04.293" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="32605" PostId="15770" Score="0" Text="@杨Eugene Yes, I mean a genitive of material. But it can also be understood figuratively, so that it means &quot;icy&quot; or &quot;ice-like&quot;. I will edit to clarify." CreationDate="2021-04-15T06:49:28.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32557" PostId="15771" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site and many thanks for the answer! It is great to hear how Latin students, who have a perception of how Latin gender works, prefer to be gendered in Latin. The correct answer certainly depends on the individual, but it is illuminating to know that some prefer the neuter." CreationDate="2021-04-13T15:07:13.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32569" PostId="15774" Score="0" Text="In general any word in a dictionary of Latin can be assumed to be Classical Latin unless specifically noted otherwise, and Old Latin will not usually be included in most dictionaries (with a few exceptions; most dictionaries will have *quom*). I don't think you're going to find any dictionaries listing the earliest attestation of words the way some English dictionaries do, since that's often impossible to say and rarely particularly useful for anything. The best way to learn how Latin evolved is to read one of the many accounts of how Latin evolved, not to reinvent the wheel on your own." CreationDate="2021-04-14T01:20:40.363" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32570" PostId="15774" Score="0" Text="Thank you for explaining this to me, by quom do you mean origin or when?" CreationDate="2021-04-14T01:23:03.027" UserId="8559" />
  <row Id="32571" PostId="15774" Score="1" Text="Yes, I mean the word that later became the conjunction *cum*, when *-om* changed to *-um* generally (and not the preposition *cum*, which came from Old Latin *com*). I'm not sure why it's usually included; probably because it's short. This isn't an answer to your question so I'm not going to post it as one, but if you want a specific recommendation I'd say try James Clackson's *The Blackwell History of the Latin Language*. It's not exhaustive but it's an accessible introduction." CreationDate="2021-04-14T01:27:41.230" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32568" PostId="15776" Score="6" Text="Suggesting St. Isidore to someone interested in real etymologies is pretty ridiculous." CreationDate="2021-04-14T01:02:58.153" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32587" PostId="15776" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Define &quot;real etymology&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-14T18:26:44.737" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="32589" PostId="15776" Score="5" Text="Connected to reality and supported by comparative and/or philological evidence, not pulled out of some bishop's backside^Wfreewheeling imagination. Etymology is a science, and it really only became a science in the 19th century—the work of St. Isidore is to legitimate etymology as alchemy is to chemistry: connected, sure, and a kind of precursor, but you wouldn't recommend John Dee to someone asking about chemical reactions. Didn't we already have a demonstration of the inadequacy of Isidore's approach when you asked about the etymology of *frater* a while back?" CreationDate="2021-04-14T19:56:05.350" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32591" PostId="15776" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon So more modern, the more true?" CreationDate="2021-04-14T20:28:24.127" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="32593" PostId="15776" Score="4" Text="Someone who doesn't even know Latin and Greek have a common ancestor is considerably less likely to hit on a meaningful explanation of a word's origins than a framework that not only does know that, but actually worked out, through comparison of sound correspondences in a large number of languages, what that ancestor looked like and how it evolved into its various daughter languages, yes. Isidore's &quot;etymologies&quot; are uninformed guesses; even if some happened by chance to be right (and not a single one is), the fact that he doesn't even have a coherent methodology makes them worthless." CreationDate="2021-04-14T20:53:46.177" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32596" PostId="15776" Score="0" Text="&quot;_Someone who doesn't even know Latin and Greek have a common ancestor_&quot;: I highly doubt he thought that; it's against Holy Scripture, the story of the Tower of Babel, [Gen. 11:1](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&amp;bk=1&amp;ch=11&amp;l=1-#x)-9: &quot;And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. …&quot; etc. &quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-14T22:25:26.437" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="32597" PostId="15776" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123005/discussion-between-geremia-and-cairnarvon)." CreationDate="2021-04-14T22:25:41.113" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="32637" PostId="15776" Score="2" Text="Nobody should ever be discouraged from discovering Isidore of Seville." CreationDate="2021-04-16T14:30:04.707" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="32586" PostId="15779" Score="2" Text="Sorry for again commenting on this site although I don't speak Latin: The literal translation of &quot;folk music&quot; to German would end up in &quot;Volksmusik&quot; which is a different type of music. For this reason both terms (&quot;folk music&quot; and &quot;Volksmusik&quot;) remain *untranslated* when translating from English to German and vice versa. When translating to Latin (and you don't leave the expression untranslated), you'll get an ambiguous translation because it will not be clear which of the two types of music is meant." CreationDate="2021-04-14T18:15:04.723" UserId="8999" />
  <row Id="32600" PostId="15779" Score="1" Text="It's a difficult translation — how do you explain the difference between &quot;folk music&quot; and &quot;pop music&quot; without 20th century context, and how do you maintain that distinction in Latin? Any phrase that means &quot;the music of the common people&quot; (as the existing answers provide) will be ambiguous. Perhaps (and this is a comment because my Latin isn't good enough for an answer) we could try to tack on something meaning &quot;traditional&quot;. It's not quite right, but it would get the point across." CreationDate="2021-04-15T02:36:22.133" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="32575" PostId="15780" Score="0" Text="Is there a context in which the shared -a is more than coincidental?" CreationDate="2021-04-14T12:39:33.223" UserId="3473" />
  <row Id="32578" PostId="15780" Score="1" Text="@BThompson Interesting question! I am far from well-informed about this, someone else will be able to provide better references.... but I found discussion in this thread: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/neuter-plural-feminine-singular-ie-languages.2650663/ and in this article: Rovai, F. (2012). Between Feminine Singular and Neuter Plural: Re-Analysis Patterns. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(1), 94–121. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01286.x" CreationDate="2021-04-14T15:23:43.910" UserId="9128" />
  <row Id="32579" PostId="15780" Score="1" Text="@BThompson The answer to this question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2132/where-do-the-plurals-of-locus-come-from?rq=1 by TKR also gives a relevant example relating Latin _pilus_ &quot;hair&quot; and _pila_ &quot;ball&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-14T15:35:50.387" UserId="9128" />
  <row Id="32581" PostId="15780" Score="2" Text="@BThompson: I think the neuter plural and feminine -a are thought to have been related in Proto-Indo-European, the neuter -a being originally an abstract collective suffix. I'm not sure how well established this theory is." CreationDate="2021-04-14T16:46:30.927" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32583" PostId="15780" Score="0" Text="Interesting, thank you both!" CreationDate="2021-04-14T16:57:05.577" UserId="3473" />
  <row Id="32572" PostId="15781" Score="2" Text="I guarantee Vergil did not distinguish case, and the goddess Fortuna is just the personification of the concept of fortune anyway." CreationDate="2021-04-14T03:01:46.030" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32616" PostId="15782" Score="0" Text="Gratias maximas!" CreationDate="2021-04-15T14:14:15.880" UserId="8559" />
  <row Id="32609" PostId="15785" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thanks. This answer confirms that &quot;divini&quot; &amp; &quot;humani&quot; are neuter genitive singulars. Canon Roberts' translation [also available on Perseus Livy 9.8.6] gave these as masculine/ neuter plural adjectives, describing (unwritten) &quot;law/s&quot; (&quot;...so without infringing any (law) human or divine...&quot;. The trouble is that &quot;law&quot; = &quot;lex&quot; is feminine! Your translation offers, I think, (unwritten) &quot;ingenium&quot;/  &quot;ingenii&quot;; &quot;of divine or human (nature)&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-15T11:04:22.543" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32610" PostId="15785" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: This same translator took the two neuter adjectives-as-nouns, &quot;iustum&quot; &amp; &quot;piumque&quot; and created: &quot;...which will be justified  by the law of nations and sanctioned by the gods.&quot;. Is that a leap of faith worthy of the Grand Canyon? The more sober translation can be seen, above." CreationDate="2021-04-15T11:09:32.277" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32611" PostId="15785" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: How can a literal translation be made &quot;more literal&quot;? The only, minor, problem is the unwritten &quot;violated&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-15T11:11:42.097" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32612" PostId="15785" Score="0" Text="@tony The translation you offered in your question was not literal. Pretty far from it if you ask me, as the grammatical roles have been shuffled. In English &quot;war&quot; was an object in the main clause, in Latin it was a subject in a subordinate clause. The words *iustum* and *pium* are attributes of *bellum*, but the English translation treats them very differently. // The word &quot;nature&quot; I supplied was just to make more sense of the Latin genitive; I did not mean that I implicitly understood any additional Latin noun." CreationDate="2021-04-15T13:13:18.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32613" PostId="15785" Score="0" Text="I updated my literal translation to contain all the words; I had previously skipped some." CreationDate="2021-04-15T13:15:57.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32588" PostId="15786" Score="2" Text="Si Romae sis, circa hoc ATM, Inserito scidulam quaeso ut textūs cognoscas sensum. Deinde nobis narrabis quid sibi vult." CreationDate="2021-04-14T19:16:08.383" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32592" PostId="15786" Score="20" Text="Is that Comic Sans??" CreationDate="2021-04-14T20:38:56.633" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32594" PostId="15786" Score="1" Text="@d_e Sequens consilium ingeniosum tuum, vice ad Romam proficiscendi imaginem paginae secundae interretialiter quaesivi atque [infima hac pagina](https://kottke.org/12/04/vatican-city-atms-use-latin) nuntium tristem inveni." CreationDate="2021-04-14T21:34:16.700" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32595" PostId="15786" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. It does look like it, doesn't it? Because *cognitio faciundae rationis* should be 'fun,' I suppose. (Or perhaps it just needs to be made less 'intimidating' – esp. when the text is in Latin?) Still, it could have been worse; they could have used the vile, ubiquitous [Papyrus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_(typeface)) instead." CreationDate="2021-04-14T22:07:19.503" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="32598" PostId="15786" Score="0" Text="+1 for the ATM in the Vatican" CreationDate="2021-04-14T22:43:57.677" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32599" PostId="15786" Score="2" Text="@d_e Etiam [nuntium bonum](https://twitter.com/incunabula/status/1344704366964600834)." CreationDate="2021-04-14T23:39:55.293" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32607" PostId="15789" Score="0" Text="Two questions: 1. Would a fair translation be &quot;Please insert card for instructions&quot;? 2. If so, would _rationem_ at the end make sense because it's the logical &quot;closer&quot; of the thought: the thing you get when you insert the card?" CreationDate="2021-04-15T10:06:59.797" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32639" PostId="15789" Score="0" Text="Very appreciative of the link to Reginald Foster, of whom I had never heard. An interesting character!" CreationDate="2021-04-16T16:49:02.013" UserId="9301" />
  <row Id="32606" PostId="15792" Score="5" Text="I'm not sure that Dreyer's rule really exists in English, even the most formal English. If you and I have shared ownership of a jar of pencils, they're your and my pencils, not you and my pencils. But it might exist in Latin, so let's see what answers you get!" CreationDate="2021-04-15T10:02:45.527" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32608" PostId="15792" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, I don't know (and the more I progress with Latin the more I discover I don't really know English). But  I suspect  Dreyer will object and say that &quot;If you and I have shared ownership of a jar of pencils&quot; they are *our* pencils. (your and my pencils are for individual ownership)." CreationDate="2021-04-15T10:13:11.530" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32614" PostId="15792" Score="0" Text="If you're using first person the distinction in English and Latin doesn't seem too clunky, _our_ or _ours_ in English, _noster_ in Latin. Where it gets awkward is second and third person. As a native English speaker I would simply rephrase with a different verb to something like _those pencils belong to Jeanette and Nelson_," CreationDate="2021-04-15T13:42:15.033" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32615" PostId="15792" Score="0" Text="With Dreyer's example, only the second seems clear to mean that there's shared ownership. Some people might take the first example one way or the other, even if grammatically it's supposed to mean separate ownership." CreationDate="2021-04-15T13:43:33.017" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32626" PostId="15792" Score="1" Text="Dreyer's distinction seems to be one of those made-up prescriptive rules with no basis in usage. I don't think Latin has a straightforward way of making the semantic distinction either, though in some contexts distributive numerals do something similar. Note that your example phrases with *est/sunt* mean &quot;*it is/they are* Q and M's house(s)&quot;, not just &quot;Q and M's house(s)&quot; as translated." CreationDate="2021-04-15T19:14:06.267" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32619" PostId="15794" Score="2" Text="Damn, beaten by thirty seconds. It should be said that *amasco* is very rare in practice, though." CreationDate="2021-04-15T15:20:39.457" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32620" PostId="15794" Score="1" Text="So rare I had to check it actually exists ..." CreationDate="2021-04-15T15:21:34.557" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="32621" PostId="15794" Score="1" Text="I was also told that you could use *adamo* but that one you suggest works for a lot of things. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-04-15T15:28:06.437" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="32627" PostId="15794" Score="0" Text="@JohhanSantana *adamo* is a very good choice as well (and not as rare)." CreationDate="2021-04-15T19:28:14.757" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32629" PostId="15794" Score="2" Text="Not a native speaker (wink wink) but _amasco_ sounds kind of &quot;artificial&quot;, although maybe it would have been understood by Cicero and his contemporaries.&#xA;I think something like &quot;__incipio amare hanc linguam__&quot; would have sounded more natural to them.&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm an Italian native speaker who studied Latin, so I might be biased towards modern Italian sentence structure." CreationDate="2021-04-15T21:55:44.420" UserId="9298" />
  <row Id="32665" PostId="15794" Score="1" Text="Yeah, it's only attested in the grammarians, though one quoting Naevius. They also list it together with other common inchoatives, albeit Diomedes, in the 4th century, ascribes the word to &quot;veterēs&quot;. I dunno, it seems like a word that had to exist, and if Naevius used it, it's hard to protest against. But it must be stressed that it refers only to the very first stages of affection, a budding of feelings so to speak" CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:50:18.707" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32658" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="*coepī* isn't like *ōdī*: the latter can basically be described as stative and refers to the present together with the past, but the former refers to a punctual action in the past. It has not one present, but three: *coepiō* is rare, *occipiō* is old-fashioned and *incipiō* is everywhere." CreationDate="2021-04-17T18:32:08.457" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32659" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="Yes. Typical school teaching is 'coepisse' (I prefer the infinitive) as perfect for 'incipere', usually accompanied by the suggestion  that 'incepisse' either doesn't exist or is somehow bad or naughty. In the same category as 'odisse' is 'novisse': 'Eam non novi', “I don't know her”; 'Eum non noveram', “I didn't know him.”" CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:14:30.443" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32663" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="*incēpisse* is attested just 11 times against 88 of *occēpisse,* so to those who don't understand the precise connotations of the use of the former, &quot;it doesn't exist&quot; is a workable assumption, and it's basically true that *incipere* and *coepisse* are suppletive and represent the corresponding imperfect and perfect stems @Batavulus" CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:45:18.233" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32666" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="Ah. I guess it depends where you count." CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:50:42.147" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32669" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure what you mean. Surely it's not that those numbers aren't representative of the actual rarity of incēpisse? By the way, these are combined for all perfect forms, not just the infinitive, naturally in PHI: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=occep. Where else should we count them? @Batavulus" CreationDate="2021-04-17T22:06:29.277" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32670" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian You're right--definitely a mistake on my part. (I was mixing up &quot;defective&quot; verbs with other characteristics that are only present in *odi* and *memini*.) I'll edit when I have some time." CreationDate="2021-04-18T05:27:07.223" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32672" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="Dear Unbrutal_Russian, one can count anywhere one likes, surely, but it strikes me that the particular corpus represents but a tiny fraction of Latin literature." CreationDate="2021-04-18T11:15:34.713" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32809" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="Dear @Batavulus , your dismissive tone, in-your-face dogmatic statements and clear lack of critical self-doubt or fact-checking begins to grate on my nerves. Please do bother yourself with clicking on the About button on the PHI's website and learning what literature this corpus, that you clearly have just learned about the exitence of, includes. If you want to dispute the fact that this corpus is representative of Classical Latin, it's on you to provide data from a different corpus. Blank dismissal of my efforts to bring the evidence to you is rude, unproductive and will earn you bad rep." CreationDate="2021-04-23T17:56:36.527" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32810" PostId="15799" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Reading your latest edit it occurs to me that **amāre coepisse** means &quot;to have fallen in love&quot;, while **amāre incipere** matches &quot;to be falling in love, to start to love&quot; - and the OP seems to be looking for the latter. It also reminds me of Žižek's, uh, extended remarks on the nature of &quot;falling in love&quot; as always retrospective, i.e. even the progressive aspect expresses that the speaker has suddenly found himself feeling love, and not literally realising that in the future, they will have reached the bottom, but are currently only &quot;falling&quot; :^) A difference of intensity, not fact." CreationDate="2021-04-23T20:04:41.310" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32633" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="How about _eu,_ which I understand can mean a diphthong as in _Europa_ and _eheu_ or two syllables as in _eum_ and _aureus,_ and is not marked by a diæresis in any period's spelling conventions?" CreationDate="2021-04-16T13:24:41.713" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32636" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I though about *(ē)heu* but I rejected it for the same reason I would reject the idea that tutting means English has a click phoneme, and apart from that I don't think there's any native word that has *eu* as a diphthong, but you're right that *Europa* is a prominent loan I forgot about. There's actually a few others, like *eulogia* and *eunuchus* (also the title of a play by Terrence). I'll amend." CreationDate="2021-04-16T14:23:22.713" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32640" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="Don't you mean that the nasalization in *consul* was phonemic *before* the N was restored, rather than after? When the N is there the nasalization is predictable." CreationDate="2021-04-16T17:24:04.920" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32641" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="@TKR No, Vns &gt; Ṽːs is perfectly regular (the nasalisation is effectively allophonic), Vns &gt; Ṽːns is not." CreationDate="2021-04-16T17:31:12.307" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32642" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="Are you saying that [Ṽːns] contrasted with [V:ns] for some speakers? What's the evidence for that?" CreationDate="2021-04-16T17:55:32.387" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32643" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="@TKR I'm saying that Ṽːns (possibly!) contrasted with Ṽːs for some speakers, including Cicero, who certainly had an *n* in *consul* but apparently not in certain other words (Velius Longus (2nd C., admittedly): &quot;Cicero *foresia* [= *forensia*] et *Megalesia* [= *Megalensia*] et *hortesia* [= *hortensia*] sine N litera libenter dicebat.&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-04-16T18:16:54.553" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32644" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="Right, but my point is that the relevant contrast there is between [Ṽːs] and [V:s], e.g. *cõsul* vs. *rōsa*. What made the nasalization phonemic was the loss of the conditioning factor [n], regardless of whether it was subsequently restored in some forms. That is, if Cicero said [forẽsia] then he had phonemic nasalized vowels, whatever his pronunciation of *consul* was." CreationDate="2021-04-16T18:23:13.377" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32645" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's not necessarily an illegitimate analysis, but it's not the way nasalised vowels are usually analysed in Latin, which is through mediation by a placeless nasal, which also does *not* trigger nasalisation in certain other phonetic contexts (see e.g. András Cser's *Phonology of Classical Latin*); I don't doubt the main reason this is done this way is because of the spelling. The important bit in *this* context is that nasalisation is regularly reflected in orthography except for people like Cicero." CreationDate="2021-04-16T18:31:05.353" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32646" PostId="15800" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123061/discussion-between-tkr-and-cairnarvon)." CreationDate="2021-04-16T19:01:45.327" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32638" PostId="15804" Score="2" Text="*Pernoctare* is a great verb for this context. The personal forms and the future participle are also useful in some situations." CreationDate="2021-04-16T15:38:07.130" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32647" PostId="15804" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Such as on Latin dating apps?" CreationDate="2021-04-16T19:42:06.910" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32648" PostId="15804" Score="1" Text="Not really what I had in mind but, true, that too. Perhaps our site ought to have a question about dating or other apps where Latin is in use. (I was thinking of something like: *Amicus meus pernoctaturus mecum cenat.*)" CreationDate="2021-04-16T19:47:11.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32653" PostId="15804" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta♦: Well, well. Your friend dines with you intending to stay the night? Interesting!" CreationDate="2021-04-16T22:35:44.323" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32649" PostId="15805" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! Do you know of a source where others could verify this, such as a dictionary or a textbook?" CreationDate="2021-04-16T20:56:02.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32651" PostId="15807" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for making your first post! Did you want something like literal &quot;log of wood&quot; in size, or did you want something that was more like a splinter of wood?" CreationDate="2021-04-16T21:32:37.197" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32655" PostId="15809" Score="2" Text="It just occurred to me that the unnatural *facere* might be a calque of the ubiquitous Italian *fare*. It is quite likely that whoever wrote the text speaks Italian as a native language." CreationDate="2021-04-17T13:09:26.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32656" PostId="15809" Score="1" Text="Well, Latin itself widely employs *facere* as a generic support verb for nominal periphrasis: in fact it has grammaticalised it as an affix -ficāre and a base -facere (laetificāre, calfacere) while continuing the syntactic use (laetum facere to make happy). So the difference here is in degree and detail - something I would expect a celebrated writer like Foster to get right. Incidentally, I get the impression that the exaltation he received is more of a Christian tradition (like with the saints) than a true reflection of his mastery of Latin. Sounds a bit arrogant, but many will quietly agree" CreationDate="2021-04-17T13:27:14.500" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32735" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="A few notes: (1) I've never seen rogamus used &quot;extra-syntactically&quot; in this way. In fact, [&quot;rogamus&quot;](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23rogamus%23+%5BPl%5D) only generates one hit in the Packhum corpus; (2) though there are certainly cases where the future imperative has a distinctive future force, I see no reason to think that this use of *inserito* is at odds with Plautus; and (3) I see the *ambiguity*, but not the incorrectness, of using *facere*. Witness Varro talking about siege technique: &quot;sed non in omnibus locis est aggeris **ratio facienda**, etc.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-21T03:13:19.850" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32736" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="Finally, I think I ought to note that Foster's mastery of Latin is hardly a product of Christian hagiography: are you aware of anyone who &quot;quietly agrees&quot; with your muted appraisal of his merits?" CreationDate="2021-04-21T03:16:30.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32737" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="@brianpck &amp; Unbrutal_Russian: Might the future imperative make sense here because, being on a screen that just sits there 24/7 as passersby pass by, the actual meaning is &quot;when and if you decide to do it&quot;, i.e. not necessarily right now?" CreationDate="2021-04-21T03:22:53.397" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32742" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="It would be used like that in an instruction manual such as &quot;How to Use an ATM&quot;, but in this situation it gives you instructions relevant at the precise moment you read them, promising immediate action. It seems like Joonas Ilmavirta's &quot;for sollemnity&quot; is the true explanation for its choice here." CreationDate="2021-04-21T12:48:31.147" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32747" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="@brianpck (1) You've forgotten to remove the [Pl] from your search; it's simply a less direct, less insistent equivalent of **rogō**. (2) Do you think the future imperative acquires and loses its future force based on something in particular? Can it be that you've been simply overlooking its presence? (3) Good find! I take this as a telescoping of *rēs aggeris ratiōne facienda*, certainly clear enough. In our case, it's confusing because, again, there's no disambiguating context, and the financial context points to the meaning &quot;account&quot;. Like &quot;what approach needs to be done&quot; said to a pilot." CreationDate="2021-04-21T13:51:35.930" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32748" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="As for Foster, anyone with some fluency who listens to his recordings will think this way, and certainly I'm aware of someone who has. Of course it would be rash to judge a person's language abilities when they're old, sick and being interviewed on their hospital bed. The problem is, these are the only Latin recordings of his that I've come across; nor do I think he developed such a tremendously American accent on his hospital bed. Everything is relative, and his mastery of Latin was being compared to that of the rest of the Vatican; what this tells you can be taken both ways." CreationDate="2021-04-21T14:00:59.917" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32750" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="On second thought, the *ratiō facienda* (in the jargon-friendly Vitruvius, not Varro) might simply be a corrigendum for ***aggeris** ratiō **faciendī***, which is the usual turn of phrase. Apart from Vitruvius, it seems to occur in Quintilian where **facienda** means &quot;to be assumed&quot;; and centuries later, twice in the same passage in the corrupt Digest, where the meaning is indistinguishable from the normal **ratiō habenda**. It's [rephrased here](https://books.google.com/books?id=ChqryXdmOgQC&amp;pg=PA360&amp;lpg=PA360&amp;dq=ratio+habenda+est+illius+legis) like that too (on the right under Ulp. 35.3)." CreationDate="2021-04-21T14:37:00.280" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32773" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="Helpful responses: (1) My bad about the filter. I still haven't found a case where *rogo* goes with an infinitive, e.g. &quot;lauda me rogo.&quot; It's usually (exclusively?), &quot;rogo ut me laudes&quot; or &quot;rogo te laudare&quot; or even &quot;rogo me laudes&quot;; (2) I took a look at a bunch of examples, and admit that I've found a nuance in Plautus that I never saw before--very interesting! (3) I'm not following your reading--I saw it simply as a passive periphrastic, i.e. *ratio non est facienda in omnibus locis aggeris*; (4) as for Foster--no one disputes his comically inauthentic midwestern accent :)" CreationDate="2021-04-21T22:22:31.127" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32790" PostId="15809" Score="0" Text="@brianpck (1) These uses with the subjunctive are rather pointed and non-immediate, I wouldn't equate them with English &quot;please&quot;; the parenthetical use [in Petronius](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23rogo%23%5BPetr%5D) on the other hand seems to match it to a (non-existent) letter, and It. *prego* to a whole 3. (3) I think you're mis-parsing it: **aggeris** can't belong to the previous noun phrase - the sentence is broken into 2 phrases by **est** after which a pause occurs. Even semantically only &quot;you don't need the embankment everywhere&quot; makes sense to me and the Loeb translator." CreationDate="2021-04-22T20:20:06.440" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32689" PostId="15810" Score="1" Text="You're translating the idiom *get under one's skin* literally, but I don't think it has the required meaning in Latin." CreationDate="2021-04-19T01:05:44.757" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32693" PostId="15810" Score="0" Text="Quite possibly not, but that, in a sense, turns the whole question upside down (forget trabs, festuca, whatever). I suppose something like ‘Ne siveris ab hominibus irritari” might work." CreationDate="2021-04-19T12:46:13.463" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32705" PostId="15810" Score="1" Text="According to the OP, the log should be literal but the subcutaneity metaphorical." CreationDate="2021-04-19T21:07:21.797" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32657" PostId="15816" Score="1" Text="Well, good luck with ‘folcumusica’! To me, and speaking strictly for myself, this seems an excellent example of creating a neologism where there is not the slightest need for it, a practice, I think, most Latinists prefer to avoid. As for the various musical genres, the problem is that's they are hard enough to define in any language and the borders are far from strict. (Someone has suggested that “folk music” and “Volksmusik” are very distinct genres; this strikes me as an extreme statement, but it all depends on your definition.)" CreationDate="2021-04-17T18:28:55.603" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32660" PostId="15816" Score="1" Text="I designed my answer specifically as a demonstration of the fact that no suitable translation exists, and the same holds true for a very wide number of languages. Where it doesn't, I suggest that this is because the very phenomenon isn't known there well enough. I see you're Dutch and know German, Italian and French. As such you must also know that in all these languages, folk music is referred to with the English borrowing; in fact, some like French, have two subsequent borrowings of that word, the former as *folklorique*. So you must realise that the need for a borrowing was felt universally" CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:19:23.710" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32661" PostId="15816" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus In addition to the general demonstration of the need to distinguish that meaning, I made sure to demonstrate that there exists no Latin expression that would appropriately express it - including your own translation attempt, which cannot refer to a genre. Therefore, I would kindly ask you to explain which parts of my reasoning undermine my conclusion, because as it stands - and this isn't helped by your &quot;speaking strictly for myself&quot;, it seems to me that you're dismissing logic and evidence out of hand and subscribing to an ideological position of &quot;alle Neologismen Verboten&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:24:12.910" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32662" PostId="15816" Score="0" Text="In addition, if you believe that some Latin expression I've overlooked is fit to express it, presenting it would instantly remove the need for a borrowing-translation." CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:28:55.290" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32664" PostId="15816" Score="0" Text="The ideology you cite is not mine; I do believe that Latinists tend to steer clear from neologisms and that in this case it did and does strike me as unnecessary to coin one. I'm not convinced by your reasoning, perhaps mostly because ‘folk music’ covers a very broad area of musics (many of which bien étonnées de se trouver ensemble, if you'll excuse my French). I don't see a reason why ‘cantus’ couldn't possibly refer to a genre; ‘cantus Gregorianus’ comes to mind, but of course, you can quibble about anything. Once again, good luck with ‘folkumusica’." CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:49:36.320" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32667" PostId="15816" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus I assure you I'm not in the habit of quibbling - everything I say is material. When I said that *cantus* can only refer to a type or technique of singing, cantus Gregoriānus is precisely the kind of thing I was thinking about. If you believe otherwise, I welcome you to search for the uses of that word in reference to a type of instrumental music, it's that simple. Anything I say that you disagree with, you can present evidence against. But resorting to replying with unfriendly irony only proves that you have no evidence, and that your position is ideological." CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:56:27.297" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32668" PostId="15816" Score="0" Text="When you say &quot;there's no need for it&quot; in the face of an overwhelming number of speakers of different languages across the world who all felt the need, it's likewise hard to believe that you're doing anything other than proudly throwing your personal ideology in the face of the entire world... I mean, in the face of all those ignorants who can't speak proper." CreationDate="2021-04-17T19:59:58.227" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32671" PostId="15816" Score="0" Text="Dear Unbrutal_Russian, Gregorian chant is most definitely a genre; whether it is exclusively vocal is possibly open for discussion, but this, it seems to me, is not a musicological seminar. It is in the nature of language that words have a variety of meanings. Borrowings from other languages by no means prove that alternatives don’t exist. Millions of native Dutch speakers use “yes“ and “Nice!” every five minutes, millions of Germans refer to distance teaching as “home schooling.” Do use ‘folkumusica’ if and as you like it; for my part, I don't see a need for the word." CreationDate="2021-04-18T05:29:24.533" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32673" PostId="15816" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123109/discussion-between-unbrutal-russian-and-batavulus)." CreationDate="2021-04-18T11:44:17.477" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32688" PostId="15819" Score="3" Text="A small corrective aside: In the modern Pontic Greek dialect/language, so, quite off the mainstream, αυτό [this] is pronounced &quot;aooto&quot;, not &quot;afto&quot;, and rendered in modern greek phonetically as αούτο; so the medieval transition is not absolutely complete.  As for your [β] vs [f] distinction, the former is when υ is followed by a vowel or a voiced consonant, and the latter when followed by a voiceless consonant or nothing, including a period." CreationDate="2021-04-19T00:51:22.060" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="32692" PostId="15819" Score="0" Text="(I cleaned up some comments here. One was converted into an answer and many others commented on it. I think the current answers address the points brought up. If you want your contributions to be permanent, write them up as posts (i.e. answers or questions) instead of comments.)" CreationDate="2021-04-19T07:09:58.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32697" PostId="15819" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos that's really interesting. Would you happen to have any videos or recordings of this? I'm a modern Greek speaker and I have never heard this dialect. I assume it didn't survive in the Pontic populations living in Greece (at least I've never heard it from my third generation friends) and would love to hear an example of it. Makes me wonder if it is linked to _τούτο_." CreationDate="2021-04-19T18:14:25.620" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="32698" PostId="15819" Score="1" Text="@terdon The 11th stanza [here](https://www.pontos.gr/default.aspx?catid=350), or [youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Y-kitAT4g). And [either](http://www.kallitexnikistegipontion.gr/ποντιακό-λεξικό/)." CreationDate="2021-04-19T18:42:34.003" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="32700" PostId="15819" Score="0" Text="Brilliant, thanks @CosmasZachos!" CreationDate="2021-04-19T18:46:42.817" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="32702" PostId="15819" Score="1" Text="Minute 2:30 and later [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faC0xsbZLzg&amp;t=516s). Gunaydin's videos are intriguing." CreationDate="2021-04-19T18:56:49.363" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="32694" PostId="15820" Score="2" Text="Can you quote around that passage or at least link to a fuller version? It might have to do with surrounding text." CreationDate="2021-04-19T15:33:47.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32699" PostId="15820" Score="2" Text="One thing is certain, ‘arce’ does not mean “ark” (that would be ‘arca’), but is the ablative of ‘arx’, which to me suggest that ‘arce speculationis’ is a watchtower of sorts (‘divinae’). My feeling (sorry) for ‘municipatum’ is it’s a supine-like thing, “for a citizenship,” “to build a dwelling-place,” kinda. But yes, context might help." CreationDate="2021-04-19T18:42:35.867" UserId="8910" />
  <row Id="32732" PostId="15820" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It's part of the author's salutation, so there isn't much more context than what I quoted." CreationDate="2021-04-20T23:44:16.347" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="32733" PostId="15820" Score="0" Text="@Batavulus Thanks for clarifying. The work is a treatise on music theory that opens a book of Gregorian chants, and so 'speculatio' here is the 'theoria' or the mind's 'seeing' that comes from a study of the liberal arts such as Musica." CreationDate="2021-04-20T23:56:24.417" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="32761" PostId="15820" Score="2" Text="@Coemgenus Thanks! It seems indeed that there wasn't more context of use, but it's always good to check. Sometimes an unexpected accusative is the object of a verb that comes half a page later." CreationDate="2021-04-21T17:57:06.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32690" PostId="15823" Score="1" Text="+1 You had me at &quot;thermodynamics &gt; linguistics&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-19T03:06:52.997" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32691" PostId="15823" Score="3" Text="Note that the problem is not just the loss of the [k], but the short vowel in the first syllable. As you say, [kd] is an uncomfortable cluster for Latin, but it's hard to see why its simplification would cause the vowel to shorten." CreationDate="2021-04-19T04:04:35.697" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32695" PostId="15823" Score="2" Text="&quot;That's the second law of thermodynamics (which takes precedence over the rules of linguistics).&quot; — honestly not trying to be mean, but this is one of the most amusing things I've read on this website xD In fact, I'm currently reading an introduction to a book that discusses how Linguistics has been too keen on swinging &quot;Ockham's razor with Aristotle's blade&quot;. In this case it's the other way around. If there's no rule, postulating one to explain one single occurrence is violating the parsimony principle. An exception like this will never be accepted as a satisfactory explanation in linguistics" CreationDate="2021-04-19T16:01:10.303" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32696" PostId="15823" Score="2" Text="Also, it's spelled &quot;palatalisation&quot;: this process changes /k/ into /ch/ (Kirche = Church) and isn't relevant in this case. More importantly, hōc is secondarily made up of *hō(d) + ce,* and  so there's no need to explain away the absense of /k~g/ - just don't postulate the *ce* in the first place. Parsimony again. The deletion of /d/ in Ablatives is already a regular process. The only thing that actually needs explaining here is the short /o/." CreationDate="2021-04-19T16:06:14.030" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32706" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I understand the invocation of Ockham's Razor here to mean skepticism about postulating a law to explain every change of every word, as against random and unique changes influenced by ordinary factors like laziness. The latter seems to me the proper scientific presumption; the former has a burden to meet. It seems to me that linguists have often tried to treat language as if it were the periodic table of the elements (more than chemists treat the real thing), when we all know that language is _messy._ (And many push this condescendingly, as if it makes them superior.)" CreationDate="2021-04-19T22:50:56.737" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32707" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="That said, I do find it puzzling that the word is _hŏdiē_ rather than _hōdiē,_ as @TKR concisely stated above. The pressure from the folk etymology that _hodie_ is short for _hōc diē_ is so strong that I had to keep checking it in dictionaries for a long time, thinking that it must be _hōdiē._ Since syllable length tends to be pretty stable in Latin, it seems reasonable to ask, &quot;What happened to the long *ō*? Maybe it's not short for _hōc diē_?&quot; I'm glad, though, to see someone offer the simple hypothesis, &quot;Maybe people shortened this vowel in a random, unique occurrence, not following a law.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-19T23:06:59.917" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32708" PostId="15823" Score="2" Text="'Assuming laziness' is anti-scientific, it's a magic wand you wave at something you can't explain to make it disappear. If laziness is universal and vowel shortening is exceptional, then you have a problem - another is defining laziness. The difference between too often and not often enough is significant if you know ~90% of what the people in question know - an outsider cannot judge about that. The way randomness disappears as you learn more about language is known as Dunning-Kruger. One or ten people learning a vowel as short happens. An entire city - there's *nothing* random about that." CreationDate="2021-04-19T23:58:53.367" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32711" PostId="15823" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz The thing is that &quot;Maybe people shortened this vowel in a random, unique occurrence&quot; isn't actually an explanation. Most sound change is regular, and presumably none of it is literally random, so talking about &quot;a random occurrence&quot; just amounts to positing some unknown and unknowable cause rather than trying to apply known processes, which is the opposite of Occam's razor." CreationDate="2021-04-20T02:48:49.647" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32712" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@TKR We're probably going far beyond the scope of the question, but I'm curious about your opinion: Is this physics envy?&#xA;As I understand things, randomness (unrelatedness) is the default; the burden of proof is on a claim of regularity.&#xA;In the hard sciences, we don't expect explanations for everything.&#xA;Even in the soft sciences, statistics is commonplace: randomness is commonly put into equations explicitly.&#xA;Are linguists trying to get prestige by insisting on more regularity in language than there really is (denying the ubiquity of arbitrariness), to appear more scientific?" CreationDate="2021-04-20T03:53:07.367" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32713" PostId="15823" Score="3" Text="@BenKovitz No, it isn't physics envy. It really is the case that most sound change is regular; if we lived in a world in which it was random, historical linguistics wouldn't be possible in the first place." CreationDate="2021-04-20T04:00:59.530" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32718" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@TKR I think my question wasn't clear due to cramming it into 600 characters. A second version: Are linguists taught that Occam's Razor means that regularity is the default (the presumption) and a claim of randomness/unrelatedness/arbitrariness requires an additional postulate? For example, English _sky_ means the same as Latin _caelum._ Most of us would presume that no explanation is to be found, that the difference is arbitrary—until shown evidence that these words got their sounds and meanings by a universal rule. Do linguists really think it's [the other way around](https://j.mp/3tLyTeA)?" CreationDate="2021-04-20T04:36:45.277" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32722" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@TKR Just to be clear, I do understand that you're saying that sound changes are regular, a special premise assumed only for this narrow topic, which, if understood as an inviolable rule, shifts the burden of proof to the claim of an exception. I'm curious to ask more about that, too, but right now I'm just interested in getting clear on this unusual (to me) use of Occam's Razor." CreationDate="2021-04-20T04:42:02.017" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32723" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz That's a very different question. Linguistic signs are arbitrary (mostly), but that has nothing to do with whether phonological or other processes that affect their forms are regular." CreationDate="2021-04-20T04:42:36.833" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32724" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@TKR I don't think that quite answered my question, but maybe that's OK. About regularity of sound changes: are they really so regular that we should not expect a single deviation? From what I've seen in English, randomness is common. Off the top of my head, _Bach_ is usually pronounced with a velar fricative but _Mach_ is usually /mak/; some drop the middle syllable in _tetanus_ and some don't; in some regions people dropped the _e-_ of _electricity_ but not the _e-_ of _election._ Isn't there normally some randomness/irregularity in sound changes?" CreationDate="2021-04-20T05:26:17.450" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32725" PostId="15823" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Sporadic changes certainly exist, and I don't think any linguist today would really claim that sound change is absolutely exceptionless (unless you define &quot;sound change&quot; to mean &quot;the kind of change that's exceptionalness&quot;). There are some sporadic changes reconstructed for Latin as well. The point about *hodie* specifically is that AFAIK there are no good parallels for the putative shortening, even irregular ones; and the broader general point is that an account that doesn't appeal to randomness will (ceteris paribus) be more attractive than one that does." CreationDate="2021-04-20T05:50:09.067" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32726" PostId="15823" Score="2" Text="BTW none of your examples is necessarily an instance of irregular sound change. The adaptation of loanwords isn't really part of sound change at all (though admittedly regular principles should ideally be findable there too). &quot;Some drop the middle syllable in *tetanus* and some don't&quot; describes variation between idiolects, not inconsistency within a single speech variety (though such variation can be a source of apparently irregular sound change due to diffusion). The treatment of *electricity* vs. *election* could be phonologically conditioned (no elision before a primary stressed syllable)." CreationDate="2021-04-20T05:55:03.960" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32727" PostId="15823" Score="2" Text="@TKR Thank you for the patient and thoughtful explanation. I certainly agree that _hŏdiē_ is a strange case that reasonably calls for explanation (and that factors extending beyond a single case are likely in my examples). I also think it's reasonable (not anti-scientific, not deplorable) to entertain &quot;chance, the ever-present rival conjecture&quot; (in the words of G. Polya) even when you've observed a lot of regularity. Agreement about all these things is not necessary, of course." CreationDate="2021-04-20T06:19:12.657" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32796" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz To believe that the diff. between *caelum* and *sky* is arbitrary one needs to believe that someone made those words up out of nothing, and in order to believe that one has to have no notion of historical linguistics, linguistic change, the comparative reconstruction method etc etc. This would be to linguistics exactly like believing that the position of heavenly bodies is arbitrary - subject to divine whim - and than one needs to pray to the Sky Father to ensure the Sun comes up in the morning. Science is about finding explanations, and &quot;none to be found&quot; is the opposite of it." CreationDate="2021-04-22T21:16:22.803" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32797" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="No science would be possible on the assumption that randomness is the default, and none is, because it would explain everything and nothing. You could write a physics paper where you introduce the data and the entirety of your theoretical section is &quot;it's random&quot;, and the conclusion is &quot;nothing new, everything is still random&quot;. The only locus of ***&quot;randomness&quot;*** in current physics that I know of is in quantum physics with its interposition, and so current physics is preoccupied with explaining this randomness away. That is to say it's preoccupied with exorcising the latest god of the gaps." CreationDate="2021-04-22T21:20:29.510" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32798" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Let's talk about this in chat. What you're saying sounds to me so far-out crazy that I figure that there is either a misunderstanding or…something interesting to discover. (Any idea how to start a one-topic chat room?)" CreationDate="2021-04-22T21:28:15.903" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32799" PostId="15823" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Is this getting spicy or what?! Invite sent (finding the chat invite button on this site is a veritable Odyssey)." CreationDate="2021-04-22T22:51:22.467" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32738" PostId="15834" Score="0" Text="This is great! Do you think there could be a way to create these time-specific greetings using Latin? Or is this language limited to what was known in that era? (Currently newbie at Latin)." CreationDate="2021-04-21T03:31:52.713" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="32743" PostId="15834" Score="0" Text="What might be worth looking at (or listening to) is a five-minute podcast of news in Latin, which must surely have to cater for some modernisms -- although I confess I haven't followed my own advice. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/podcast/vatican-radio-news-in-latin.html" CreationDate="2021-04-21T13:04:47.267" UserId="7451" />
  <row Id="32744" PostId="15834" Score="0" Text="They've actually been created many times over - these Erasmian variations only just scratch the surface. I've already mentioned the difficulty with saying &quot;morning&quot;; apart from that, you can simply substitute **diēs** in my phrases with the words for &quot;evening and night&quot;. The old phrase book I linked has **bonum māne**, **bonum sērum** and **precor tibi fēlīcem noctem**. In order to go into details about this, I think we'd need a separate question." CreationDate="2021-04-21T13:14:34.587" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32774" PostId="15834" Score="0" Text="My first Latin professor, a practitioner of Living Latin, used to greet us with _bonum mane_." CreationDate="2021-04-21T22:58:19.527" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="32734" PostId="15835" Score="0" Text="Thank you for replying, but actually the priest is using the traditional German, not Roman pronunciation. As befits a proud German, he sounds *eva* as /efa/, and *quid* as /kfid/. But I did ask for the German one as well didn't I? ;-) And this is a nice example." CreationDate="2021-04-21T00:23:38.783" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32741" PostId="15835" Score="1" Text="No the pronouciation would be /ev/ as well with the German pronuncation (see the addendum). But here it's the Italian one, as it became the common one everywhere in the Catholic Church during the 20th century. What you ear can only be some accent here.&#xA;&#xA;Other pronunciations are still widely used in music however: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ciHR2etY4" CreationDate="2021-04-21T07:42:24.150" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="32745" PostId="15835" Score="0" Text="Luc, please, trust me when I tell you that this is the German pronunciation of Latin and not the Italian one; and when I tell you that the priest says [f] for **v**, and that this is extremely characteristic of the German pronunciation. Everything about his pronunciation is German: [ditsentes] for **dicentes**, [t] for **d**, [tʰ] for **t**, the lax short vowels. I (used to) speak German, and I understand Italian, and phonetics/phonology is my linguistic specialty. To sound more German he'd have to adopt a Bavarian accent :D" CreationDate="2021-04-21T13:25:59.337" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32762" PostId="15835" Score="1" Text="(The comment discussion had escalated, so I deleted most of it. If there is nothing positive to say, better refrain from saying anything.)" CreationDate="2021-04-21T18:01:01.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32768" PostId="15835" Score="2" Text="As a German speaker, I can attest that the pronunciation of the gentleman in the linked video (who I believe is Peter Nickl, in his usual life Master of Ceremonies at the Cathedral of Regensburg) is almost painfully German, **but** „Efangelium“ is *not* the traditional German pronunciation of Latin. (It is the German pronunciation of „Evangelium“ to be sure.)" CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:41:33.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32739" PostId="15836" Score="1" Text="What time period are you wondering about? Latin's /h/ was never especially stable and eventually disappeared completely." CreationDate="2021-04-21T05:07:26.767" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32740" PostId="15836" Score="2" Text="I should have clarified this in the question, but the Classical period. I'm well aware that /h/ was lost — my question is about the possibility of an unspelt but pronounced /h/ (rather than a spelt but silent h-)." CreationDate="2021-04-21T05:22:36.433" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="32791" PostId="15836" Score="0" Text="related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/the-latin-word-have-rather-than-ave-as-a-translation-of-the-greek-word-%ce%a7%ce%b1%e1%bf%96%cf%81%ce%b5" CreationDate="2021-04-22T20:29:06.567" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="32764" PostId="15839" Score="1" Text="Minor (!) quibble, but Quintilian did not say so in a *Declamatio minor* but rather in his [Institutionis Oratoriae Liber I (6, XXI)](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/quintilian/quintilian.institutio1.shtml#6), where he in fact reports that there are people who do *not* pronounce the h (from which we may gather that the norm would be to pronounce it). He also mentions they pronounce the last syllable long; to wit: *Multum enim litteratus qui sine adspiratione et producta secunda syllaba salutarit (&quot;avere&quot; est enim)* [⋯]" CreationDate="2021-04-21T18:47:49.443" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32765" PostId="15839" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You're right, of course. I happened to have [this page](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/1/7/6264-6270#7) open because it was linked from the Wiktionary entry and it has the wrong title tag, was the problem." CreationDate="2021-04-21T18:57:44.243" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32752" PostId="15840" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the Community and thanks for making your first question!" CreationDate="2021-04-21T17:11:32.777" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32763" PostId="15842" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I assume you mean the Roman name (and later title) *Caesar* instead of *Cesar*, so I took the liberty of supplying an *a* in the first syllable. Feel free to edit your question to add any further details." CreationDate="2021-04-21T18:38:44.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32767" PostId="15842" Score="1" Text="That phrase is the product of some American pop philosopher, so I'm not sure why translating it into Latin is something you'd want to do. (Marcus Aurelius himself wrote in Greek, FWIW.)" CreationDate="2021-04-21T19:00:16.413" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32781" PostId="15843" Score="0" Text="Excellent, this is what I was hoping for. Thanks for the thorough response!" CreationDate="2021-04-22T12:12:28.173" UserId="9320" />
  <row Id="32769" PostId="15845" Score="0" Text="You can say something is in the hat like that, although it should be _petaso_ since _in_ takes an ablative when you're saying something is in or on something else." CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:45:42.713" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32789" PostId="15846" Score="1" Text="If it helps, you can often think of the ablative as translated with the suffix -wise in English. In this example: The wolf makes for the sheep's neck teeth-wise. In English too, then, there is no further need for a preposition." CreationDate="2021-04-22T19:58:11.207" UserId="3445" />
  <row Id="32770" PostId="15847" Score="6" Text="I would call this &quot;gnomic&quot; rather than &quot;didactic&quot;, since it's stating a general fact about the world." CreationDate="2021-04-21T21:19:15.083" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43972" PostId="15847" Score="1" Text="&quot;*A car drives on …*&quot; — It's also common to omit the article entirely: &quot;*Cars drive on …*&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-06T02:20:23.730" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="32772" PostId="15850" Score="0" Text="What if you were saying something like &quot;the wolf, with the dog, attacked the sheep&quot;? I'd imagine it's more straight forward to just keep _wolf_ and _dog_ nominative and use _et_ and a plural verb, but if you wanted to make it clearer that the wolf is the main aggressor it might make sense to word it this way (at least in English): _lupus collum ovis petit cum cane_. I'm not sure if that requires a plural verb, though." CreationDate="2021-04-21T21:54:29.527" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32777" PostId="15850" Score="1" Text="I have seen _cum_ used instead of _et_ many times to set up a singular verb, just as you illustrate (or, more prosaically, _lupus cum cane ovem petit_), but [this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=c4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA204&amp;ots=oBuspdi7c1&amp;dq=latin%20cum%20et%20singular&amp;pg=PA204#v=onepage&amp;q=%22more%20frequently%20a%20plural%20verb%22&amp;f=false) suggests the plural. I'm no expert, but I've come to think of that use of _cum_ as a Latin mannerism." CreationDate="2021-04-21T23:47:29.203" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32778" PostId="15850" Score="1" Text="@Adam You can use **cum** as well as **et** for this; the verb can be either singular or plural according to how much of a single idea the two subjects form in your head. For maximum disambiguation you have **ūnā cum** &quot;together with&quot;. Notice though that postponing *cum cane* so far from the subject is quite awkward, and it kind of feels instrumental. Yes, instrumental uses of *cum* also exist, normally when the noun is some kind of tool." CreationDate="2021-04-22T00:08:52.850" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32776" PostId="15852" Score="0" Text="I'm curious as to why you think **salva sīs** is courteous, when to me it seems precisely the opposite, a mirror of the Russian **будь здоро́в** for **здра́вствуй.**" CreationDate="2021-04-21T23:35:26.667" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32783" PostId="15853" Score="1" Text="Might this question go better on https://history.stackexchange.com/ ?" CreationDate="2021-04-22T15:03:09.993" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32784" PostId="15853" Score="0" Text="I thought about this. (And I am an historian, now turning classicist.) I thought that it might be reasonable to post this here to see how the community felt about these kinds of questions. Classics, after all, is cross-disciplinary; the site is, though, named Latin SE. As you probably are aware of, there have been meta discussions on what the focus of this site should be. I would have no issue in flagging this to moved to History SE. What does the community think?" CreationDate="2021-04-22T17:16:08.657" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="32785" PostId="15854" Score="0" Text="municipatus in ML can mean &quot;warden&quot; or &quot;castellan&quot;, some kind of officer. So perhaps, &quot;servant of the wardens ... in the fortress&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-22T17:52:40.240" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="32786" PostId="15855" Score="0" Text="Doesn't _terit tempus_ mean &quot;he is _wasting_ time&quot;? And so _terit tempus scribendis epistulis_ would mean &quot;he is wasting time while there is a letter to be written&quot;? And _terit tempus scribendo epistulas_ would mean &quot;he is wasting time by writing a letter&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-04-22T18:07:44.883" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32795" PostId="15855" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz, See the link to A&amp;G in my question. When the gerund takes a direct object, a gerundive might be used instead. It is even preferred in some cases." CreationDate="2021-04-22T21:01:21.677" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32800" PostId="15855" Score="0" Text="Both examples _terit tempus scribendo epistulas_ and _terit tempus scribendis epistulis_ sound natural in Latin (there is some preference for the latter (in Classical Latin), i.e., for the gerundive construction). What I'm wondering is **why** the gerund construction (_scribendo epistulas_) becomes ill-formed or very very marginal when preceded by a preposition: *_in scribendo epistulas_. In contrast, the prepositional construction with gerundive is perfect: see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1144/when-can-the-gerund-take-an-object?rq=1 for related discussion." CreationDate="2021-04-23T00:34:55.013" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32837" PostId="15855" Score="0" Text="@d_e I've been looking at that page over and over. I'm still digesting it. It appears that I need to radically revise my understanding of gerunds and gerundives. BTW, the previous sentence from Cicero is right on that page! (§504)" CreationDate="2021-04-25T14:25:35.467" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32841" PostId="15855" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz The grammar of gerunds and gerundives is not an easy topic, which, in my opinion, makes it one of the most interesting topics of Latin syntax. For example, concerning the page you mention (§504), one of the gerundives that seems quite unexpected (at least to me) is the adverbal genitive that expresses purpose: e.g. _Aegyptum proficīscitur cōgnōscendae antīquitātis_ (Tac. _Ann_. 2.59). If it is not an influence of Greek, I don't know how one could explain it within Latin grammar..." CreationDate="2021-04-25T16:22:30.270" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32780" PostId="15856" Score="0" Text="Thanks. The sentence makes more sense now. Latin does it again. But TBH, not sure I can discern what is the &quot;genitive attribute describing the action scribere&quot; if not the author himself... meaning: How letters write :) . I struggle to capture any other distinction." CreationDate="2021-04-22T10:59:23.807" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32782" PostId="15856" Score="3" Text="@d_e I'm not sure myself what that would mean! It was a remotely plausible reading that crossed my mind, but I am unsure whether it makes any sense. Latin does have objective genitives (e.g. *amor Caesaris*, &quot;love towards Caesar&quot;), but I don't know whether it can appear with gerunds or gerundives. I smell a good follow-up question..." CreationDate="2021-04-22T13:04:08.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32801" PostId="15856" Score="2" Text="To the best of my knowledge, _in scribendo epistularum_ is not possible (or should I say, this specific pattern is not attested) but, as pointed out in my answer, I think it is interesting to point out that examples like _facultas scribendi epistularum_ could exist. It seems that this construction is a sort of **blend** of two possible constructions: the gerund one (_facultas scribendi epistulas_) and the gerundive one (_facultas scribendarum epistularum_)." CreationDate="2021-04-23T01:02:34.180" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32822" PostId="15856" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The second example (&quot;...scribendarum epistularum&quot;) falls into the jingle-trap: ugly-sounding jingles ending -orum -orum or -arum -arum. To avoid this trap, the Romans often allowed a gerund to govern a direct object e.g. &quot;ars oppidorum oppugnandorum&quot; becomes &quot;ars oppugnandi oppida&quot; (Oulton Book III; p92)--genitive-of-gerund plus accusative direct-object. Therefore, the first example (&quot;facultas scribendi epistulas&quot;) is the correct one, isn't it?" CreationDate="2021-04-24T10:39:38.510" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32823" PostId="15856" Score="0" Text="@tony That's a matter of taste. I find the thing that you call a jingle actually appealing. This might be influenced by Finnish. And anyway such rhyming endings don't make anything wrong; they can at most make something less preferable." CreationDate="2021-04-24T11:26:53.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32829" PostId="15856" Score="1" Text="@tony Yes, the stylistic rule you mention is, for example, typical of Caesar, although there are some exceptions to it even in this author: e.g., _in spem potiundorum castrorum venerant_ 'they had conceived (lit. 'had come to') the hope of taking the camp' (_BG_ 3.6.2); _haec faciunt recuperandorum suorum causa_ (_BG_ 7.43.1). In contrast, it is worth pointing out that Cicero rarely avoids the genitive plural of the gerundive. So Joonas is right when saying &quot;that's a matter of taste&quot;. It's a matter of **stylistics** rather than of grammar." CreationDate="2021-04-24T16:06:21.173" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32787" PostId="15858" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if I understand the thrust of &quot;acts of legislature&quot;, but **agere** simply means &quot;to act in the world&quot; as opposed to &quot;to write&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-22T18:15:11.590" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32804" PostId="15858" Score="2" Text="As to your genitive vs. dative quandary, I'll just note that in book 1, sentence 78 of the same work (De officiis), Cicero uses a very similar sentence, with basically identical word arrangement; there, because of the addition of studiique after operae, it's unambiguous that genitives are involved: sunt igitur domesticae fortitudines non inferiores militaribus; **in quibus plus etiam quam in his operae studiique ponendum est**." CreationDate="2021-04-23T01:37:24.943" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="32806" PostId="15858" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: Why would Cicero refer to himself in the plural; how would that have been received by his audience?" CreationDate="2021-04-23T13:07:32.247" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32824" PostId="15858" Score="1" Text="@tony You should ask that as a separate question. Cicero often refers to himself in the plural, and the phenomenon is worth proper exploration." CreationDate="2021-04-24T11:28:19.910" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32802" PostId="15860" Score="1" Text="I'm confused. Plus isn't omitted at all; it appears 4 words earlier in the sentence. Plus + partitive genitive is so unexceptional – and even the word separation in this example isn't so uncommon, really (though perhaps the arrangement is a bit forced) – that it seems bizarre to try to construe operae as an 'argument of the verb poneremus' or to emend the text to operam. It's perfectly clear to me that the sentence is just to be construed as in agendo plus operae quam in scribendo poneremus. If I ran across this sentence while reading, I wouldn't think twice about it." CreationDate="2021-04-23T01:04:38.300" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="32803" PostId="15860" Score="0" Text="@cnread Oh, you're right! I was misled by the existing alternative version, the one I consulted: _in agendo plus quam in scribendo operam poneremus_, where _operam_ would occupy the direct internal argument slot of the verb (this argumental slot could also be occupied by an expression like quantifier+ partitive object _operae_). But, as you point out correctly, there's no need for this alternative analysis/corrected version." CreationDate="2021-04-23T01:26:56.833" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32805" PostId="15861" Score="0" Text="Great question! This is one that I wondered about as well." CreationDate="2021-04-23T02:55:02.127" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32808" PostId="15861" Score="2" Text="The proximity of the words also helps to reduce ambiguity, at least in prose. Word order is freer in Latin than in languages like English, but the most natural reading is still to associate the genitive with the noun that proceeds it." CreationDate="2021-04-23T14:10:14.227" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32807" PostId="15863" Score="0" Text="Wouldn't this mean **the farmer's daughter loves the waters covered with wood**?" CreationDate="2021-04-23T13:36:19.203" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="32820" PostId="15863" Score="1" Text="@JohhanSantana No. *Silvestris* means primarily &quot;forest-related&quot;. While in some situations you could analyze that as &quot;covered with wood&quot;, here it doesn't make sene, I think." CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:25:47.793" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32811" PostId="15865" Score="0" Text="+1 but &quot;in the country&quot; is more commonly *ruri*." CreationDate="2021-04-23T23:59:01.120" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="32812" PostId="15865" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour See, another translation artifact! That's not the sense of &quot;in the country&quot; that **in terrā** has; the latter means &quot;in the geographic (political) entity&quot;, while **rūrī** means &quot;in the countryside, not in town&quot;. One is **in terrā** whether they're **rūrī** or **in urbe** (typically replaced by the locative of whatever city, eg. **Rōmae, Parīsiōs** [yes it's weird like that]). Like those prepositions, they aren't interchangeable." CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:03:20.817" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32814" PostId="15865" Score="0" Text="English has its own idiomatic requirements.  To translate *in terra* into English, English requires a demonstrative rather than &quot;the&quot; (unless you supply the country's name).  Without a name, the English &quot;in the country&quot; invariably means *ruri*." CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:13:28.567" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="32815" PostId="15865" Score="1" Text="@CMonsour Do you mean that &quot;I'm not in the country right now&quot; cannot mean &quot;I'm abroad&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:17:47.883" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32816" PostId="15865" Score="0" Text="Sure it can.  Negated phrases have their own rules, as always. ." CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:19:06.597" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="32817" PostId="15865" Score="0" Text="@CMonsour I don't believe there's an 'always' involved here, only 'in some specific expressions'. What if we try removing the negative: &quot;He's just arrived in the country&quot;? Or &quot;He's been in the country for a week&quot;? Or &quot;I'm not sure whether she's even in the country&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:21:16.207" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32818" PostId="15865" Score="2" Text="&quot;In this country&quot; would be much clearer.  If you utter what you wrote (1st sentence...the others appeared later) in a non-urbanized area and mean *in terra* you are likely to be misunderstood." CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:23:34.800" UserId="4871" />
  <row Id="32819" PostId="15865" Score="0" Text="Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll definitely need to investigate this. In the meantime I'll clarify my reply." CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:25:23.187" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32813" PostId="15867" Score="2" Text="*Glōs* and *lēvir* definitely aren't borrowings. *Socrinus* for some reason only seems to show up in certain Latin-Dutch dictionaries (meaning 'wife's brother'), AFAICT; might be an old copyright trap?" CreationDate="2021-04-24T00:09:47.647" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32832" PostId="15867" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon You're probably right about the Greek, although Georges derives *levir* from δαήρ, but it is probably just a cognate. They are both apparently quite obscure, though." CreationDate="2021-04-24T20:35:53.180" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32882" PostId="15867" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thank you. (1) is there a word for a wife's sister?  (I don't see it in your list.) (2) Can these terms extend two steps? Is a woman's husband's sister's husband also a brother-in-law, as it would be in English?" CreationDate="2021-04-26T12:45:08.770" UserId="3663" />
  <row Id="32821" PostId="15870" Score="1" Text="(Technically the older form of the infinitive should be *eise, but I'm ignoring rhotacism here since it's not relevant to the vowel discussion.)" CreationDate="2021-04-24T02:29:09.207" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32826" PostId="15870" Score="0" Text="Cf. *iens*, but *euntes, eundum*." CreationDate="2021-04-24T14:49:21.040" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32825" PostId="15872" Score="3" Text="In mathematical English one has to refer to oneself as &quot;we&quot;. In a single-authored article I would write &quot;we prove our theorem as follows&quot;; using &quot;I&quot; and &quot;my&quot; would be considered arrogant. But this is a peculiarity of mathematical language and it is not confined to English." CreationDate="2021-04-24T14:46:23.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32827" PostId="15872" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In such circumstances isn't it customary to say &quot;It has been proved that...&quot;? In a single-author thing it is clear that you are the one who has done the proving. I don't recall seeing &quot;we&quot; in a research paper unless it was referring to &quot;we&quot;--the research team. Of course this is implied--potentially diluting your own credit, as a single-author." CreationDate="2021-04-24T15:10:36.607" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32828" PostId="15872" Score="2" Text="No, in mathematics it pretty much has to be &quot;we have proven that&quot; in the active voice with the first person plural. Other disciplines are probably different, but in mathematics that is the standard, no matter how many authors there are." CreationDate="2021-04-24T15:38:13.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32831" PostId="15872" Score="4" Text="Also see: [Where did pluralis-ut-singularis come from in Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/434/where-did-pluralis-ut-singularis-come-from-in-latin)" CreationDate="2021-04-24T18:34:29.730" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32835" PostId="15872" Score="3" Text="(I don't remember highly respecting her.)" CreationDate="2021-04-25T12:30:47.583" UserId="6106" />
  <row Id="32873" PostId="15872" Score="0" Text="@Old Brixtonian: I do." CreationDate="2021-04-26T08:26:36.510" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32830" PostId="15873" Score="4" Text="In most translations I know and in Catholic and many other Christian theologies, it is the Gospel/good news of (i.e., about) the Kingdom (of Heavens/of God). Are you concerned about a specific translation?" CreationDate="2021-04-24T16:24:54.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32833" PostId="15874" Score="1" Text="⋯ or rather the [kingdom of Heaven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_heaven_(Gospel_of_Matthew)) (regnum caelorum), which is presumably the same thing." CreationDate="2021-04-24T20:41:15.407" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32836" PostId="15874" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I never noticed this difference in word choice among the three synoptic Gospels!" CreationDate="2021-04-25T13:25:36.203" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32834" PostId="15875" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Alternatively could it be a collegiate/ fellowship thing--(we) the group; (we) the clique; (we ) those (of us) who agree on most things/ support the same causes?" CreationDate="2021-04-25T11:29:56.217" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="32838" PostId="15875" Score="1" Text="The Prime Ministerial use, *a la* Thatcher, is virtually never used in the UK, hence the derision with which Thatcher's remark was received. Apart from the fact that her husband, if she was speaking for both, was **not** a *grandmother*!" CreationDate="2021-04-25T14:55:34.110" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="32845" PostId="15875" Score="1" Text="@tony I believe that would make it the primary meaning of &quot;we&quot; present in all languages, with multiple reference. The use in question is specifically single-reference: I and I alone need to write less letters and get more involved with current affairs. Although watching a Boris Johnson address, it does occur to me that while &quot;thanks to your efforts we've prevented...&quot; would be fine in Russian as unambiguously involving the addressee, but &quot;we believe we may be able to begin opening schools...&quot; where &quot;we&quot; means &quot;us the government&quot; does seem to have a &quot;I'm more than just a man&quot; overtone to it." CreationDate="2021-04-25T18:46:43.793" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32840" PostId="15876" Score="1" Text="In the Christian bible, you'll often see this relationship expressed with the Aramaic loan words ῥαββί and ῥαββονί. Rabbi just meant &quot;master,&quot; and it was the customary way for an apprentice to address the person who had accepted them as an apprentice. Rabboni is an obsequious form meaning &quot;great master.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-25T15:38:33.670" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="32864" PostId="15876" Score="0" Text="Does &quot;eromenos&quot; count? IIRC there was sort of a tradition of them being taught &quot;how to be a man&quot;, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eromenos Posting as a comment instead of an answer because I'm not an expert and I'm not sure." CreationDate="2021-04-26T01:46:06.843" UserId="6315" />
  <row Id="32843" PostId="15879" Score="4" Text="Nobody's going to stop you, but if you're willing to make up whole new ahistoric idioms, not just out of necessity coin a few words for things that didn't exist in Antiquity, I'm not sure what the point of the exercise is." CreationDate="2021-04-25T18:40:15.357" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32848" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="What do you mean by *the point of the exercise*?" CreationDate="2021-04-25T19:15:47.857" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="32850" PostId="15879" Score="2" Text="Paulum dē hāc rē [hīc](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinitas_viva) lege, plus Anglicē [hīc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin#Living_Latin)." CreationDate="2021-04-25T19:59:04.183" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32854" PostId="15879" Score="1" Text="You also might want to see [this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13248/is-a-translation-from-modern-english-to-latin-meaningful/13285#13285) from [Sebastian Koppehel](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/6567/sebastian-koppehel). I would say this in Latin but I'm still learning like you. ;)" CreationDate="2021-04-25T20:28:19.640" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32859" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Maxime miserandum est plerasque paginas Vicipediae Latinae tam brevis esse." CreationDate="2021-04-25T23:10:31.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32870" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately the Finns ended their Latin radio service. That would have been interesting for you." CreationDate="2021-04-26T06:49:39.720" UserId="1211" />
  <row Id="32871" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="wait i thought the point that latin is a dead language means that the answer is negative?" CreationDate="2021-04-26T07:56:43.740" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="32872" PostId="15879" Score="3" Text="Don't blindly translate Good morning to Latin. That's like our Duolingo users complaining that the translation of Dobrý den must be Good Day and cannot be Hello. Different languages have different greetings." CreationDate="2021-04-26T08:00:11.680" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="32878" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="@BCLC People who claim Latin is a dead language usually do not know what they are talking about, and are actually intending to say that there are no (known) native speakers of Latin as a first language. There’s a very big difference between that and a language being dead (Esperanto and Interlingua, as well most other conlangs, and an increasing number of minority cultural languages, are largely in a similar situation, though many of the minority cultural languages are dead or dying as well as they are not actively evolving)." CreationDate="2021-04-26T11:19:16.430" UserId="2342" />
  <row Id="32879" PostId="15879" Score="1" Text="@AustinHemmelgarn i thought latin [really is dead and just not extinct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language)? if not, then ok not dead and not extinct but then what? Edit: wait the wiki article actually says 'In contrast, a dead language is &quot;one that is no longer the native language of any community&quot;, even if it is still in use, like Latin' --&gt; so either it's wrong or it has a different definition from you?" CreationDate="2021-04-26T11:24:24.690" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="32880" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="@BCLC I’ve always been told that ‘dead’ in terms of linguistics means the language is no longer evolving (no new words, no loan words, etc). Usually this translates to a complete lack of vernacular usage, and typically also very limited formal usage as well. If the definition given by Wikipedia is the standard one among linguists though, then even though Latin is dead, that does not preclude it from being actively used, because there’s a big difference between no native speakers and the language not being in any active usage." CreationDate="2021-04-26T12:08:48.497" UserId="2342" />
  <row Id="32883" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="@AustinHemmelgarn is latin dead according to wiki definition? is lating dead according to your definition?" CreationDate="2021-04-26T12:58:06.307" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="32888" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="Consider that vulgar/vernacular Latin diverged from classical Latin pretty much immediately, and that vulgar Latin + 2000 years of evolution = Spanish (and also Italian, French, etc.)." CreationDate="2021-04-26T20:29:59.623" UserId="4722" />
  <row Id="32893" PostId="15879" Score="0" Text="Yet how, for example, did computer or car or television or Xbox come into english or any other language? Duh!" CreationDate="2021-04-27T01:47:36.767" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="32847" PostId="15880" Score="0" Text="Loaning of words? How would that work? And from which language could we loan words from?" CreationDate="2021-04-25T19:14:46.873" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="32852" PostId="15880" Score="5" Text="Loan words can come from any language. The Romans themselves incorporated words from across the whole empire and beyond, not unlike almost any modern language. _How_ this is done varies of course, and I can think of a number of different ways a word can make its way into another language, by design or by chance. You could post another question specifically about methods of transition words from another language into Latin, if you wanted." CreationDate="2021-04-25T20:10:11.843" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32869" PostId="15880" Score="2" Text="An awful lot of Latin words were lifted from Greek; historia etc. Anything with th or ph." CreationDate="2021-04-26T06:47:44.663" UserId="1211" />
  <row Id="32849" PostId="15881" Score="0" Text="The process of adding new words is what I would like to know. Do you know any article for this?" CreationDate="2021-04-25T19:55:11.430" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="32853" PostId="15881" Score="2" Text="@JohhanSantana Alter fōns est [_Lexicon Recentis Latīnitātis_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicon_Recentis_Latinitatis), nexūs ad alterōs [hīc](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicipaedia:Noli_fingere) incipiunt." CreationDate="2021-04-25T20:17:30.867" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32868" PostId="15881" Score="1" Text="*Tutubum* is even better than the original name!" CreationDate="2021-04-26T06:12:49.883" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="32884" PostId="15881" Score="3" Text="Why are company/website names translated? You can't go to pipiatorium.com or tutubum.com." CreationDate="2021-04-26T14:39:31.527" UserId="4720" />
  <row Id="32885" PostId="15881" Score="0" Text="@Barmar, That's a good question. But as a matter of fact they got translated. Latin has declination system for nouns, so that might be a good reason to have a Latin name so the words will fall about a declination category." CreationDate="2021-04-26T14:59:21.330" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32855" PostId="15882" Score="0" Text="No *est* was dropped. Boiled down, the sentence is: *Recordatus Deus Noë adduxit spiritum.* Where would you insert an *est* there?" CreationDate="2021-04-25T21:24:21.800" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32857" PostId="15882" Score="0" Text="It's effectively a compound sentence. Note that the Greek has a simple aorist for the verb in the first part (ἐμνήσθη) (I never would have imagined when I was a callow undergraduate that I would feel more comfortable in Greek than Latin), and recordor being deponent I would expect a simple perfect." CreationDate="2021-04-25T21:57:37.307" UserId="8682" />
  <row Id="32858" PostId="15882" Score="0" Text="I have remarked before that Vulgate question have an uncanny tendency of turning out to be Septuagint questions. All I can say is that the Latin is actually a simple sentence. *Recordatus* is perfect all right, but not a finite verb. (For what it's worth, I think Jerome *claimed* not to have used the Septuagint for the Vetus Testamentum.)" CreationDate="2021-04-25T22:52:24.250" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32860" PostId="15882" Score="0" Text="It's possible that the late Latin use of the object in the genitive of recordor per Cairnarvon's answer may be indirectly influenced by μιμνήσκω taking the genitive independent of the Septuagint. It is attested to in Cicero twice so it's not an innovation of Jerome." CreationDate="2021-04-25T23:12:28.197" UserId="8682" />
  <row Id="32889" PostId="15886" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for making your first question!" CreationDate="2021-04-26T21:17:46.093" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32874" PostId="15888" Score="0" Text="Can you elaborate on the choice of *de*? I tried to look into *de*, *ex*, and *ab*, and I ended up with no clear preference in this kind of use." CreationDate="2021-04-26T09:49:34.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32875" PostId="15888" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I didn't put a lot of thought into it, and don't have access to a dictionary other than Wiktionary, so don't want to give an impression of greater certainty than I have. Having said that, *ex* definitely sounds wrong to me since there is no movement out of the forum involved." CreationDate="2021-04-26T09:58:58.430" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="32877" PostId="15888" Score="3" Text="The preposition *ex* is not solely for movement; for example, *e marmore factus* is &quot;made of marble&quot;. All these three prepositions have quite wide ranges of meanings. It might well be that *de* is the best, but I don't have a clear opinion yet." CreationDate="2021-04-26T11:00:11.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32891" PostId="15893" Score="2" Text="&quot;Citation form unattested&quot; was my first guess too, but looking through that document, most of the hapaxes listed don't occur in the citation form (as you might expect) and yet this seems to be the only lemma that's asterisked. I wonder if it's just an error." CreationDate="2021-04-26T23:23:13.370" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32892" PostId="15893" Score="0" Text="@TKR I'd guess so. It's a doctoral thesis, so it won't have had many editors looking it over for strict consistency in style." CreationDate="2021-04-26T23:29:55.770" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32898" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="Immersive learning of a language is indeed effective, but it requires an environment to be immersed in. Living in a community using a certain language gives ample connections between language and physical referents, while a common textbook does not. Can you give any ideas how to practically immerse oneself in Latin? And which ages would that be appropriate for? People of different ages learn differently." CreationDate="2021-04-27T12:11:22.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32899" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta You don't have to be in an immersive environment to intuitively understand a language. When I learn prepositions in Latin, for example, I make drawings to show the relationships involved, or I mentally imagine them. I don't try to translate the prepositions. I do the same thing with nouns. So, for example, I don't try to translate a word like aede. I just imagine a building with one room, like a hut or the Pantheon or a garage." CreationDate="2021-04-27T12:16:03.637" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="32900" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="I fully agree that not everything should be translated; it sometimes artificially forces things into the structures of another language. But the question was about learning Latin, as an adult if I understood correctly, and the role of translation in it. Can you address that more directly in your answer?" CreationDate="2021-04-27T12:23:23.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32901" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The question is &quot;Is translating texts really necessary to learn a language?&quot; I answered that question. The answer is &quot;no&quot; for the reasons given." CreationDate="2021-04-27T12:36:46.223" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="32902" PostId="15894" Score="2" Text="Research shows that second-language learning is an entirely different process than learning one's first language as a toddler." CreationDate="2021-04-27T12:59:35.367" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="32903" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I read this as a pretty straightforward endorsement of the so-called &quot;natural method.&quot; I had plenty of teachers who refused to use English in the classroom!" CreationDate="2021-04-27T13:03:35.307" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32904" PostId="15894" Score="1" Text="Just to reiterate what brianpck said. There is absolutely no need to translate a langauge to learn it, for an adult or anyone else. As Brian said, you can find any number of classrooms where using a second langauge is entirely forbidden and you can only use the langauge being learned. In Latin, you can read it without translating it. Learning the meaning of a word is different than learning to translate a word." CreationDate="2021-04-27T13:18:07.163" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="32905" PostId="15894" Score="2" Text="@brianpck I've had that experience too, but not with Latin. (Which is a coincidence; Latin certainly fits such an approach.) I see a lot of value in such immersion, but I think it requires an environment such as that created by a teacher. I was just asking for Tyler to elaborate on the kind of circumstances needed. Details would be interesting, such as whether there is anything to be done in self-study." CreationDate="2021-04-27T13:19:40.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32906" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I put my comments into my answer explaining the non-translational approach I use when learning Latin." CreationDate="2021-04-27T13:37:16.097" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="32908" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="Thanks! The explanation makes the answer much more concrete, and hopefully more useful to the OP." CreationDate="2021-04-27T13:42:43.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32916" PostId="15894" Score="0" Text="I would say the best way to learn the meaning of the word is through translating texts. We can't go back to Rome and learn via immersion, so all we have of the ancients are their texts. But I do agree that the Latin words have nuances that can't always be captured in English with a single word." CreationDate="2021-04-28T13:00:14.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32909" PostId="15897" Score="0" Text="Ahh, beginner error on my part with using nominative instead of accusative. That's a great reference, too. Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-04-27T18:35:24.107" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32913" PostId="15897" Score="1" Text="@Adam On this site, taking inspiration from real literature, thinking critically about the verb choice and not just trying Google Translate (which gives 'Ecce ego inducam super umbra mea') puts you *way* past the beginner level." CreationDate="2021-04-28T09:19:34.323" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="32918" PostId="15897" Score="2" Text="Thanks! One of the first things I found out after joining this site and started my journey to learn Latin, was just [how bad Google translate is](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15648/what-is-the-best-worst-translation-of-latin-from-google-translate)." CreationDate="2021-04-28T13:14:48.073" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32911" PostId="15899" Score="7" Text="Can you give some example sentences?" CreationDate="2021-04-28T04:03:11.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32937" PostId="15899" Score="1" Text="@cmw added an example" CreationDate="2021-04-29T14:48:40.820" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="32993" PostId="15899" Score="0" Text="@Geremia FWIW, Aristotle and Aquinas (among others) would think of your example as a *per se* predication." CreationDate="2021-05-04T12:32:26.803" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33002" PostId="15899" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Maybe. Do you have a better example?" CreationDate="2021-05-04T18:11:35.133" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="33004" PostId="15899" Score="0" Text="@Geremia Aquinas gives a good modification of your example in a Christological passage from his Sentences commentary: Man is an animal *per se*, but Christ is an animal *secundum quid*, i.e. *inquantum est homo*." CreationDate="2021-05-04T19:10:36.687" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33007" PostId="15899" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Are you referring to [_Super Sent._ lib. 3 d. 10 q. 1 a. 1 qc. 2 s.c. 1.](https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp3006.html#8690)? Isn't _simpliciter_ (not *per se*) the antonym of _secundum quid_?" CreationDate="2021-05-04T21:53:08.983" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="33016" PostId="15899" Score="2" Text="@Geremia *per se* is more often contrasted with *per accidens*, but the two map pretty closely to the *simpliciter/secundum quid* distinction. See, for instance, *De Ver.* q. 17, a. 4: &quot;Quia quod per se est, simpliciter est; quod autem per accidens, secundum quid.&quot; My original point was pretty limited: &quot;Man is an animal&quot; is a *per se* predication that is true *simpliciter*: in fact, Aquinas would even call it &quot;self-evident&quot; (*per se notum*) because it is a predication of a part of the definition (the genus) of &quot;man.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-05T17:40:54.040" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32914" PostId="15903" Score="5" Text="+1, but for clarity you could add the Latin verbal forms (correspondens, incipiens) and a comment on -ens/-entis, and how the latter is the preferred root for derived words, not only in English, but in many modern languages, including most from the Romance family" CreationDate="2021-04-28T10:54:31.357" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32921" PostId="15904" Score="0" Text="&quot;_Secundum quid_&quot; is what I was thinking, too, but is there also &quot;_secundum [quos/quas/quae](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Declension)_&quot; (&quot;in certain respect**s**&quot;)?" CreationDate="2021-04-28T22:34:55.987" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="32922" PostId="15904" Score="1" Text="No, I've never seen that usage. &quot;Secundum quid&quot; is more like &quot;in a qualified way&quot;: it either is or it isn't." CreationDate="2021-04-29T02:59:31.330" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="32919" PostId="15907" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer. A couple of notes: ἐάω seems to have no clear etymology, so its ει may be etymological for all we know; I don't *think* there are late-coined verbs that augment as ει (the analogy of η was probably stronger), but I don't know for sure; and it's worth pointing out for learners that even knowing your principal parts won't necessarily get you these forms, since the imperfect usually isn't listed as a principal part. (BTW &quot;η was lowered to [ɛː] and ε was raised to [e]&quot; -- surely just one or the other?)" CreationDate="2021-04-28T21:57:09.140" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32920" PostId="15907" Score="0" Text="@TKR I've always been told PIE *\*e* was probably [ɛ] and *\*ē* [eː], like in Latin and Dutch/German, but in retrospect that's probably mostly because my university is Dutch-speaking." CreationDate="2021-04-28T22:31:05.900" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32930" PostId="15907" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon reading anything at all into the phonetics of PIE is tricky. It's not even 100% clear that e was a front vowel rather than central (although in most languages it seems to have become a front vowel pretty early), so minor distinctions of height are pretty much unreconstructible" CreationDate="2021-04-29T12:38:51.413" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="32931" PostId="15907" Score="0" Text="Please excuse my ignorance, I don't know the first thing about Ancient Greek, I just happen to speak modern Greek. Was `η` really the long version of `ε` and not `ι`?" CreationDate="2021-04-29T12:46:39.300" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="32934" PostId="15907" Score="0" Text="@terdon Definitely; the long version of ι /i/ was, well, ῑ /iː/ (not traditionally marked in writing). A total of eleven distinct Classical vowels and diphthongs, including η, ended up collapsing into /i/, which is one reason why modern Greek has so few different vowels now, but that's a process that wouldn't start until some time after the Classical period." CreationDate="2021-04-29T13:25:19.393" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="32936" PostId="15907" Score="0" Text="I see (or I will, if I read up a little). Thank you for the clarification!" CreationDate="2021-04-29T14:40:25.050" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="32932" PostId="15908" Score="0" Text="If there is no attested phrase that Keats was referencing, would you be interested in a translation of this anyway?" CreationDate="2021-04-29T12:59:05.630" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32933" PostId="15908" Score="0" Text="@Adam : why not ? A translation into Greek or Latin might help me to find the original expression more quickly." CreationDate="2021-04-29T13:18:12.397" UserId="3029" />
  <row Id="43816" PostId="15909" Score="0" Text="Just to confuse things, the French and Spanish translations use &quot;sépulcres&quot; and &quot;sepulcros&quot; for Matthew 27:53." CreationDate="2023-06-25T00:46:32.103" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="43820" PostId="15909" Score="0" Text="@RayButterworth I suppose the translators to French and Spanish were translating a lot less literally than Jerome was." CreationDate="2023-06-25T15:05:45.333" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="32924" PostId="15910" Score="3" Text="Is there a difference in meaning?" CreationDate="2021-04-29T10:07:09.027" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="32925" PostId="15910" Score="0" Text="Sorry, I do not understand your answer, as I do not speak a word of Greek, and I am not even sure about the alphabet." CreationDate="2021-04-29T10:08:00.477" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="32927" PostId="15910" Score="2" Text="I've added transliterations and further explanations of the words." CreationDate="2021-04-29T11:05:22.387" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="32928" PostId="15910" Score="0" Text="@gmvh Is &quot;tafos&quot; really related to &quot;thapto&quot;, or is it a folk etymology? I mean, how do you explain the change from &quot;th&quot; to &quot;t&quot;." CreationDate="2021-04-29T11:27:10.573" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="32929" PostId="15910" Score="4" Text="In the aorist, there are form of θάπτω that have the stemp ταφ-, so it ought to be a real etymology." CreationDate="2021-04-29T12:05:14.663" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="32935" PostId="15910" Score="8" Text="@FlatAssembler That could honestly be a good question in its own right, but the short answer is, there's a rule in Ancient Greek called _Grassmann's Law_: if you have two H's too close to each other, the first one disappears. The underlying root here is thaph-, which appears as taph- before a vowel (first one disappears) but as thap- if it comes before a consonant that suppresses the second h (first one doesn't disappear). Compare also hekh- &quot;have&quot; which appears as ekh- before a vowel and hek- before a consonant." CreationDate="2021-04-29T14:26:14.930" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32941" PostId="15912" Score="1" Text="[Related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1186/79) on *cum*." CreationDate="2021-04-29T15:53:25.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32951" PostId="15912" Score="0" Text="Why would &quot;cum&quot; be an adverb, and not a conjunction?" CreationDate="2021-04-30T09:06:47.463" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="32953" PostId="15912" Score="0" Text="I was basing that off of how [cum](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=cum) is listed in various Latin dictionaries, which give it as a preposition and adverb. This is an adverb that is functioning as a conjunction, right?" CreationDate="2021-04-30T15:14:09.110" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32956" PostId="15912" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler and Adam: As Cerberus points out in a comment under the answer, *cum* is a conjunction and a preposition. It does introduce adverbial clauses, but it is a conjunction. Listing it as an adverb strikes me as misleading, as it cannot really be used as one." CreationDate="2021-04-30T15:38:22.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32957" PostId="15912" Score="0" Text="Ok, thanks for clarifying that! I was focused on the meaning and wasn't really thinking about what it was grammatically beyond that. It's helpful to know that it's actually a conjunction, though." CreationDate="2021-04-30T15:48:37.740" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32938" PostId="15913" Score="0" Text="That makes sense. I'm guessing it's a sort of contrived way to show the passive of _moveo_." CreationDate="2021-04-29T15:21:08.550" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32939" PostId="15913" Score="2" Text="If I would been asked to translate it I would rather use the active voice in English. (&quot;The wings are moving&quot;). because the verb *moveo* is transitive. using the collation *se movere* instead of the passive, sounds like the wings are an active agent. Kepler for example was using the passive *moventur* when he was saying the planets are moving." CreationDate="2021-04-29T15:44:10.533" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32940" PostId="15913" Score="1" Text="@d_e Ah, I didn't know about that use of moveō (as used by Kepler)! A sort of middle-voice-esque usage?" CreationDate="2021-04-29T15:48:56.137" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32942" PostId="15913" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, I'm afraid I'm unqualified to answer this question. The usage of *moveo* simply caught me, as I was saying to myself *planetae se movent* (reluctantly using the active, but I then thought the passive is even worse), and then I saw the usage at Kepler. for example: *Nam sive Terra moveatur, sive Sol; demonstratum certe est, id corpus, quod movetur, moveri inaequabili ratione;*" CreationDate="2021-04-29T15:57:25.900" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32943" PostId="15913" Score="1" Text="@d_e Fair enough! I've edited my answer and might ask a new question about this later today." CreationDate="2021-04-29T15:59:11.957" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32944" PostId="15913" Score="4" Text="It has been my experience that the passive and the active reflexive are generally used fairly interchangeably to render a middle sense, at least in classical Latin, apparently without a lot of concern over precisely how active an agent the subject really is in the action. You're just as likely to find se movent and moventur where the sense is clearly, as we would say in English, 'they move.' Perhaps some authors use the two constructions less discriminately but, as I said, this has been my experience. I think a new question about this is a great idea." CreationDate="2021-04-29T16:15:51.257" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="32945" PostId="15913" Score="0" Text="@cnread I agree that a new question about this would be great. For a related question, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" CreationDate="2021-04-29T16:21:15.093" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32946" PostId="15913" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, Ooh, thank you! I must have missed that question when you posted it. Maybe all that's really needed is renewed attention to, and an answer for, your old question (instead of a brand-new question), since you seem to have hit on the essential issue that has been raised here." CreationDate="2021-04-29T21:12:05.130" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="32947" PostId="15913" Score="0" Text="Just a minor qualification, Draconis. It's true that the verb _moveo_ is very often transitive. However, the strong statement that this verb &quot;is always transitive&quot; is not correct, as shown by the following examples from Livy: _Romae per idem tempus duo maximi fuerunt terrores, diutinus alter sed segnior: **terra** dies duodequadraginta **mouit**_ (Liv. 35.40.7). See the very same intransitive use of _terra mouit_ in Liv. 40.59.7. See also my answer to a previous question of yours on this topic: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs/9378#9378" CreationDate="2021-04-29T22:37:07.760" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32948" PostId="15913" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Changed to &quot;generally&quot;; I'd forgotten about that old question" CreationDate="2021-04-29T22:39:21.580" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="32952" PostId="15914" Score="3" Text="There is [a separate question on translating that English phrase to Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15133/79), but it doesn't discuss the validity of your suggested translation." CreationDate="2021-04-30T10:44:27.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32954" PostId="15916" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the Community! Have you tried searching for each individual word in a [Latin Dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why)? It's great to post a question like this when you need help with a translation, but a good dictionary can help in advance of that - it will help you understand the translation and aid you with other phrases in the future." CreationDate="2021-04-30T15:20:19.773" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32960" PostId="15916" Score="0" Text="Well, I understand &quot;necessitas&quot;,&quot;ferre&quot;, suffragi&quot; etc, but the mix of those words, as presented here, look not understandable to me. &quot;necessitas ferat&quot; or &quot;necessitas fert&quot;, for example, what could it mean ? I browsed dictionaries but found nothing. I could understand &quot;experientiae suffragor&quot;, but not &quot;experientia suffragetur&quot;..." CreationDate="2021-04-30T16:52:13.280" UserId="9369" />
  <row Id="32958" PostId="15917" Score="3" Text="&quot;experiences are agreed with&quot; ← I think this should rather be: &quot;as experience counsels&quot;" CreationDate="2021-04-30T16:28:53.077" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32959" PostId="15917" Score="1" Text="Oops, missed that *suffragor* is a deponent verb (and it's a singular form to boot!)." CreationDate="2021-04-30T16:36:42.500" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="32961" PostId="15917" Score="0" Text="I didn't know verb &quot;ferre&quot; could mean &quot;arise&quot;... The English translation seems to me far apart the real meaning" CreationDate="2021-04-30T17:02:35.453" UserId="9369" />
  <row Id="32964" PostId="15917" Score="2" Text="@Andrew oh, you'd be surprised at all the things *ferre* can mean..." CreationDate="2021-04-30T18:30:07.993" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32962" PostId="15919" Score="4" Text="Thanks for posting your question! [Google translate does not handle Latin well](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for), and you can get some [wildly inaccurate translations](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15648/what-is-the-best-worst-translation-of-latin-from-google-translate) out of it. I'm sure you'll get some great answers to this with proper translations, though." CreationDate="2021-04-30T17:32:11.223" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="32963" PostId="15919" Score="2" Text="Hi Adam, thanks very much. I'm aware that google translate is not great for a whole bunch of languages, but it seemed only fair to at least try to translate the phrase. Those are some hilarious mistranslations though." CreationDate="2021-04-30T17:49:06.813" UserId="727" />
  <row Id="32966" PostId="15924" Score="0" Text="Whenever need be... the norms be laid down. It's a _big if_: if there is need, they will be laid down. The English translation goes around the ifs pretty well. English doesn't like subjunctive." CreationDate="2021-05-01T00:17:55.303" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="32968" PostId="15926" Score="0" Text="As a side note, in classical Latin, I believe indefinite clauses (generalis/futuralis in Greek) are normally in the indicative mood. But Church Latin may diverge from that." CreationDate="2021-05-01T20:56:11.497" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="32970" PostId="15926" Score="0" Text="Fascinating, so I essentially have to read this as: *quasquas normas Sacra Congregatio [⋯] edere censuerit*? I still wonder about the subjunctive after *prout*, why is that? Attractio modi?" CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:28:45.363" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32972" PostId="15926" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yes, the famous “quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis” (Aeneid II,49) comes to mind." CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:38:39.723" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32974" PostId="15926" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Yes, I think so; conditional relative clauses can use the normal form of the relative pronoun. *Prout ... ferat* can also be understood as an FLV protasis (=*si ... ferat*). (The &quot;unconditional&quot; *quidquid id est* type, which takes indicative as you and Cerberus point out, is of course a different construction.)" CreationDate="2021-05-02T19:49:54.970" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32971" PostId="15929" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure what you mean by “comes from.” Obviously the main clause is direct speech. (It is also not clear whose speech or sentiment would be reproduced in this context. Plus, I really do not think this sentence is talking about *past* decisions by the congregation.)" CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:33:15.323" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="32978" PostId="15929" Score="1" Text="You mean indirect question. Indirect statements are expressed with an accusative and infinitive." CreationDate="2021-05-03T12:55:28.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32985" PostId="15930" Score="0" Text="I'm sure the OP doesn't mean to suggest that election campaigns existed in the Roman republic, but just to clarify -- I don't think they did. The US didn't even originally have election campaigning, since the idea was considered unseemly. The notion dates to ca. 1800." CreationDate="2021-05-03T23:18:23.690" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="32989" PostId="15930" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell I didn't mean to suggest that. I was only asking for a Latin word for it, whether it existed in Rome or not." CreationDate="2021-05-04T05:24:09.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33005" PostId="15930" Score="1" Text="@BenCrowell There were certainly [elections campaigns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Roman_Republic) in republican times." CreationDate="2021-05-04T19:25:18.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33006" PostId="15930" Score="1" Text="This question made me think of Stage 11 Candidati in the Cambridge Latin Course (Unit 1), one of my favorite textbooks. And I hope we don't need *divisores* in our *ambitio* :)" CreationDate="2021-05-04T20:34:57.857" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="32979" PostId="15932" Score="1" Text="_Hom**e**_ is the Catalan translation of _homo_. Cf. Cat. &quot;L'home és fins a cert punt un animal&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-03T17:41:45.700" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="32980" PostId="15932" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, fixed :)" CreationDate="2021-05-03T17:44:50.523" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32981" PostId="15932" Score="0" Text="The example sentence is so strange I can't decide whether I'm confused because of its entirety or specifically because of how *aliquātenus* is used o_o It reads like &quot;2+2 in some respect equals 4&quot; to me - basically it can't be used to qualify an either-or definition, there must be a sliding scale, and equalling 4 or being an animal, tree or insect doesn't admit of one in most cases." CreationDate="2021-05-03T18:33:49.460" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32983" PostId="15932" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian, would *non sine causa dicitur hominem homini lupus esse; homo enim aliquatenus animal est* makes more sense?" CreationDate="2021-05-03T19:52:43.520" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32992" PostId="15932" Score="2" Text="Not really, because *homō animal est* is simply unqualifiably true, like *lupus animal est*, *saxum inanimum est* or *apis bēstiola est, item animal. **Animam habet? Animal est.*** How can there be an *aliquātenus* to it? I think there must be some English-language interference here, where 'animal' has the &quot;bad&quot; meaning **bēstia,** but even there I hardly imagine sensibly making such a statement because it's either a definition dependent on the technical definition of 'animal'—how can a great ape be more or less an animal?—or the &quot;bad&quot; metaphorical use that doesn't allow qualification either." CreationDate="2021-05-04T07:13:13.340" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="32984" PostId="15933" Score="1" Text="&quot;Since the predicative examples above based on the transitive use of *utor* are possible&quot;. How can you be so sure they are **based** on the transitive use of *utor*, and not merely **treated** as such. [A&amp;G](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/gerund-and-gerundive) : &quot;In the gerundive construction the verbs ūtor, fruor, etc., are treated like transitive verbs governing the accusative, as they do in early Latin&quot;.In other words, I just wonder, why should the focus be on &quot;why NOT&quot; instead of &quot;why this predicative use is even possible?&quot; How to rephrase *ad hanc rem utendam* if it was invalid?" CreationDate="2021-05-03T20:54:43.967" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33010" PostId="15933" Score="0" Text="@d_e Thanks for your interesting comment. Note that the issue here has to do precisely with Woodcock's emphatic (and wrong) statement (see my answer below)." CreationDate="2021-05-05T15:31:41.757" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33013" PostId="15933" Score="0" Text="I would suggest different reading of the &quot;emphatic NOT&quot;. It can be read as to further stress this is impossible **though logic can't clearly understand why**. i.e., we have &quot;emphatic NOT&quot; exactly because one would except, with good judgment on his side, to find  *haec res utenda est* but he can't. (except very rare cases)" CreationDate="2021-05-05T17:03:22.330" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33014" PostId="15933" Score="0" Text="@d_e  Yes, if you put it this way, I agree with you. In any case, it seems clear that Woodcock did not bear Pinkster's examples below in mind. Otherwise, (I think) he would have mentioned them." CreationDate="2021-05-05T17:21:11.630" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33015" PostId="15933" Score="0" Text="Yes, I agree. And it was just a suggestion on my part (which I think is has good changes being wrong actually...) . It simply happened to me few times that someone writes to extra-explain something or to emphasize something, and I end-up being confused because this very deviation from the regular lines. I just saw it might be the case here also with this question :)" CreationDate="2021-05-05T17:28:41.050" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32986" PostId="15936" Score="0" Text="Cool, thanks for clearing that up! *which actually confuses things further since if so, the Attic form should regularly be ἀρή* The Ionic/Epic form is ἀρή, but I guess that would be irrelevant...?" CreationDate="2021-05-04T02:41:23.927" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="32987" PostId="15936" Score="1" Text="@BenCrowell Ionic ἀρή is regular since in Ionic, long α &gt; η always. In Attic, this was blocked (or reversed) after ε ι ρ, which means ἀρά would be regular if not for the fact that we know there was a digamma there: ἀρϝά should not show the blocking so should have gone to ἀρϝή and then ἀρή." CreationDate="2021-05-04T02:46:31.297" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="32988" PostId="15936" Score="0" Text="I added a brief summary of your information to the wiktionary article." CreationDate="2021-05-04T03:01:32.080" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="32994" PostId="15937" Score="0" Text="Does the dative *cuicui* even exist? I found no hits in a classical corpus." CreationDate="2021-05-04T12:36:53.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32995" PostId="15937" Score="0" Text="Well, I don't think I have seen it either, but based on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quidquid#Latin) it does exist." CreationDate="2021-05-04T12:39:41.460" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="32996" PostId="15937" Score="5" Text="quidquid is the subject of the relative clause." CreationDate="2021-05-04T12:42:10.953" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="32998" PostId="15938" Score="0" Text="Can you explain a bit how you ended up with the infinitive *posse*?" CreationDate="2021-05-04T13:48:24.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="32999" PostId="15938" Score="0" Text="Poor life choices... No, in all seriousness, I was looking at the idiom example from the entry for [possum](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=posse) in Whitaker's Words and he gave the example _multum posse_, so I modeled it after that." CreationDate="2021-05-04T13:54:01.850" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33000" PostId="15938" Score="3" Text="In that entry, *posse* is in the infinitive state for dictionary purposes. It is set apart from actual uses. So you would have something like, &quot;Caesar multum potest&quot; --&gt; &quot;Caesar has much influence/power.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-04T14:29:19.577" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33001" PostId="15940" Score="1" Text="thanks! There were probably not so few *quidquid*s I was misreading as accusatives instead of nominative. At any case, apart for their page on *quidquid*, I now see Wiktionary has a [separate page](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quisquis#Latin) for *quisquis* that contains many usage notes." CreationDate="2021-05-04T15:00:43.820" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33024" PostId="15940" Score="0" Text="@d_e I still would trust a more traditional grammar, because at least with those there is editorial control, which Wiktionary lacks, but it seems about right. Be careful too with attestations to early Latin. The spelling conventions were different, so looks can be deceiving." CreationDate="2021-05-06T01:31:06.270" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33009" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for your interesting answer. I'm not convinced by your proposal that the prefix of the verb _effeminare_ has an intensive meaning ('thoroughly/completely'). Rather my intuition is that the prefix here maintains its original meaning (it expresses a source). In my opinion, the paraphrase put forward by Lewis &amp; Short is very appropriate: 'to change **out** of his own nature into that of a woman'. It seems that the nominal root of _evirare_ specifies the source (_vir_) but not the goal, whereas the root of _effeminare_ specifies the goal (_femina_) but not the source." CreationDate="2021-05-05T14:14:47.673" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33011" PostId="15943" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino: Don't you think it's odd how a verb with *ec-* should specify the goal as its direct object? None of the other verbs do this, with the possible exception of *effero*. Why not simply *femino* instead? That would already mean &quot;to change into a woman&quot; without the praefix. So what does it really add?" CreationDate="2021-05-05T16:04:24.867" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33012" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="In Catalan (and in other Romance languages) the verb _sortir_ (lit. 'to exit/to go-out') can be used to express change of state without mentioning the source (which is implicit): e.g., cf. the satellite-framed Lat. _**ef**ferare_ with the verb-framed transl. in Cat. 'fer **sortir** ferotge': i.e., 'to cause someone to become (lit. go-out) fierce'. Cf. also Cat. _**es**tovar_ (&lt; ex- tou ('mollis')), i.e., 'fer **sortir** tou'.  Note also that in Latin there are motion verbs with a source prefix (e.g. _e(x)_-) that can be followed only by a goal PP (e.g. ad/in +NP), the source being implicit." CreationDate="2021-05-05T17:00:27.533" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33017" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="As for your invented denominal verb _feminare_, my intuition is that it would mean something like 'to provide X with _femina/feminis_', i.e., it would be a locatum verb. Cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13310/are-there-unprefixed-location-verbs-in-latin  By the way, you mention the verb _exanimare_ in your answer. Note that this verb is ambiguous: it can have a (dis)locatum reading (cf. also _exoculare_: the nominal root is the Figure) or a (dis)locatio reading (cf. also _eliminare_: the root is the Ground). In contrast, as predicted, _animare_ can only have the locatum reading." CreationDate="2021-05-05T17:48:10.580" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33018" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Do you have a specific comparison to your derivation of *effeminare*?" CreationDate="2021-05-05T19:56:43.483" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33020" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="This quote from Gibert-Sotelo (2017:325) can be a bit illuminating: &quot;Brachet (2000) concludes that the primitive function of the prefix was that of introducing a complement specifying the initial state of a change of state event, an initial state that happens to be the opposite state of that expressed by the (“adjectival”) root and that corresponds to an inherent condition of the entity undergoing change (which is that of being masculine in the case of _effemino_ ‘to make feminine’, that of being bitter in the case of _edulco_ ‘to sweeten’,...)&quot;. https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/461414#page=1" CreationDate="2021-05-05T23:33:13.207" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33021" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="@cmw The Catalan paraphrase with the transitive causative verb _fer_ ('make') plus the unaccusative change verb **_sortir_** ('to go **out**'/'to **ex**it') corresponding to Lat. _**ef**feminare_ is a bit stilted but is possible/understandable: 'fer (algú) sortir dona/femella' (i.e.,'to cause someone to become (lit. to go-out) woman'). NB: it is true that the Cat. paraphrase 'fer sortir ferotge' (cf. Lat. _efferare_) sounds better, i.e., with adjectival predicates." CreationDate="2021-05-05T23:46:58.200" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33022" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="@cmw The relevant reference/monograph mentioned by Gibert-Sotelo (2017) is the following one, which, unfortunately, I don't have at my disposal now. Brachet, Jean-Paul (2000). _Recherches sur les préverbes_ de- _et_ ex- _du latin_. Bruxelles: Latomus." CreationDate="2021-05-06T00:04:29.707" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33023" PostId="15943" Score="0" Text="@mitomino Yes, I understand what you were saying better now. I don't think the Catalan is necessary here, *edulco* should suffice, though I don't see it in Lewis and Short and don't have the OLD at home. But it makes sense that the *ex* is referring to the direct object after the verb: *virum effeminare* -&gt; to bring the woman out of the man, almost a shorthand (forgot the linguistic term for this construction) for *\*feminare ex viro*." CreationDate="2021-05-06T01:25:46.113" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33065" PostId="15945" Score="0" Text="In the forbidden, &quot;haec res (nominative) utenda est&quot; = &quot;this thing it-ought-to-be-used&quot; there is a form of &quot;esse&quot; (&quot;est&quot;) indicating that it is a gerundive-of-obligation: &quot;...it-must-be-used&quot;. That there is no person upon whom the obligation falls (given in the dative case) means that this is an independent clause e.g. &quot;Carthago (nominative) delenda est&quot; = &quot;Carthage must be destroyed!&quot;. Woodcock's alternative: &quot;hac re (ablative) utendum est&quot; = &quot;with this thing it-ought-to-be-used &quot;; looks like an impersonal construction, and is not quite the same meaning because of the ablative." CreationDate="2021-05-08T08:58:50.113" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33066" PostId="15945" Score="0" Text="The intransitive use of the verb shows that the ablative, here, is nothing to do with &quot;utor&quot; selecting the ablative in its direct objects. The forbidden and the allowed are different &quot;this thing&quot; &amp; &quot;with this thing&quot; and/ or Woodcock did not like independent clauses, do you agree?" CreationDate="2021-05-08T09:04:27.830" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33068" PostId="15945" Score="0" Text="@tony As for the contrast betweeen the impersonal  _Hac re utendum est_ and the (non-im)personal one _Haec res utenda est_, I'd say that only the latter involves a more &quot;affected&quot; argument (http://compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/events/2014-ws-affectedness/slides/Introduction_Final.pdf). Transitivity has been said to be a syntactic property that can be associated to the gradual semantic property of affectedness. Typically, _utor_ selects a non-affected ablative argument and, less typically, selects a more affected accusative one. Only in the latter case a personal passive is expected to be possible." CreationDate="2021-05-08T15:24:41.470" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33025" PostId="15946" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-05-06T03:55:27.307" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33026" PostId="15947" Score="3" Text="It should be spelled &quot;memento ignoscere.&quot; It looks like an innocent typo intruded." CreationDate="2021-05-06T05:02:51.243" UserId="9394" />
  <row Id="33027" PostId="15947" Score="2" Text="@user1071303 Yep, thanks. Late night typos." CreationDate="2021-05-06T11:45:31.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33029" PostId="15951" Score="1" Text="Should be noted that the notion that Latin *canere* is from Greek καναχεῖν is total nonsense." CreationDate="2021-05-06T21:44:43.917" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33030" PostId="15951" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon. Thanks. I made a note of it." CreationDate="2021-05-07T00:59:59.013" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="43538" PostId="15951" Score="0" Text="It does look though quite similar to Japanese _kanaderu_ (to play a musical instrument) :-)" CreationDate="2023-06-12T11:24:19.560" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="33170" PostId="15952" Score="2" Text="I would thank Vincenzo Oliva for the bounty (very much appreciated!), but I cannot find the user. So if you read this, thank you very much indeed, sir!" CreationDate="2021-05-15T13:34:28.523" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33032" PostId="15955" Score="2" Text="This might be my being slow, but I don't quite understand the question. Can you elaborate on what you mean by a new Latin adaption and give some other examples? I'm not sure if you are asking about spelling, pronunciation, or something else." CreationDate="2021-05-07T18:20:51.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33033" PostId="15955" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Just edited the question for sake of clarity. Should have done it in advance. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-05-07T18:40:18.440" UserId="9398" />
  <row Id="33034" PostId="15955" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Are you essentially asking if _jens_ and _iens_ are the same word, with the former just using the spelling recommendations from New Latin?" CreationDate="2021-05-07T18:58:45.947" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33035" PostId="15955" Score="1" Text="This question would most handsomly profit from a simplification. It looks to me like it could be condensed into two single sentences: 1) your assumption and 2) the part of assumption that you'd like clarified." CreationDate="2021-05-07T19:08:29.553" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33036" PostId="15955" Score="0" Text="@Adam No, because I have not ascertained the presence of the word _jens_ (nothing crops up by a cursory Google search but I will pursue its existence more thoroughly now that the weekend is here). But yes, New Latin adaptions did serve the meanings of the primeval words like-for-like. So if _jens_ was coined during that period, it would run run synonymous to _iens_." CreationDate="2021-05-07T19:20:13.613" UserId="9398" />
  <row Id="33051" PostId="15955" Score="1" Text="Sampark: I think you intended &quot;how was the word iens written in New Latin&quot;, and with &quot;adaption&quot; you seem to be saying &quot;alteration, change&quot;, so you believe the spelling of the word changed in NL." CreationDate="2021-05-07T22:37:43.800" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33058" PostId="15955" Score="1" Text="@SamparkSharma Welcome to the site, by the way! Try not to worry too much about those comments, I hope you will look past this less than perfect welcome. Most of the time, this site is all nice and peaceful! I think your question is quite interesting." CreationDate="2021-05-07T23:54:05.827" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33063" PostId="15955" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal Anyone can edit a question, it is not specifically a task for moderators. Anyone can post a question, without any prior approval; users with little reputation can edit any post but require approval before editing someone else's post; users with a high reputation can edit any post without prior approval. Note that approval can be given by other high-rep users. But, given the current sensitivity of the situation, I think it might be best to let the question be as it is, at least for you and me. P.S. Please do not post anything in this comment thread any more, I think all has been said." CreationDate="2021-05-08T00:28:17.320" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33067" PostId="15955" Score="1" Text="You seem to be using *alphabet*, *letter*, and occasionally *word* as synonyms." CreationDate="2021-05-08T12:56:08.510" UserId="159" />
  <row Id="33038" PostId="15956" Score="0" Text="Are you saying that New Latin did **not** blanketly discourage the use of _i_ as a first letter, and that it was **only** done in instances where misreckoning or misreading was a possibility?" CreationDate="2021-05-07T19:35:30.237" UserId="9398" />
  <row Id="33044" PostId="15956" Score="1" Text="@SamparkSharma I don't think New Latin did **anything** blanketly. It never was a centralized movement but only an era in the history of Latin. The spelling conventions of all eras had variations. It is quite common that J only stands for the consonant sound, and under that convention *jens* would indeed be incorrect as Sebastian writes. But if J is a more general valid variant of I, then it is fine. There is unfortunately no universal truth to Latin spelling." CreationDate="2021-05-07T20:15:56.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33045" PostId="15956" Score="0" Text="@SamparkSharma There was no such blanket discouragement. For example, [here](https://books.google.de/books?id=pSlyjVyxtFEC&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) is an edition of Erasmus' *Colloquia familiaria* from 1536 (the year of his death) that uses both I and J and lots of words starting with I. (And [here](https://books.google.de/books?id=2V5lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) an edition published during his lifetime that does not use J at all.) But J was also used where no misreading needed be feared, like *jubeo*." CreationDate="2021-05-07T20:18:43.977" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33047" PostId="15956" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thank you. I am not an advanced student of Latin but I was under the impression that when Latin was revived in the Middle Ages, there was a scholarly consensus about it having been received with a 'conventional orthography' (a phrase I welded to my question). There was also, at least in England, a coterie of scholars who arbitrated Continental disputes and can, for the most part, be said to have persevered towards a united end. But on the former point, I have weak footing and you're probably right about New Latin never having been a mound of congenial sympathies." CreationDate="2021-05-07T20:29:22.800" UserId="9398" />
  <row Id="33048" PostId="15956" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thanks! I will go through the text tomorrow morning torched by your indicators. Would you say that there were circumstances where the prevalence of a replaced front-letter impacted the commended pronounciation ('commended' because its relevancy and approval was only within academic circles)? That is to say, would the vocal expulsion of a single word led by _j_, _g_ or the standard _i_ be indistinguishiable? Or would they be positioned as having different phonetic identities?" CreationDate="2021-05-07T20:42:02.577" UserId="9398" />
  <row Id="33060" PostId="15956" Score="0" Text="I woulnd't particularly object to the statement &quot;J at the beginning of words is definitely not the usual rule in Neo-Latin literature&quot;, because I doubt any one the conventions I mention in my answer could be called &quot;usual rules&quot;; however, you also seem to be implying that Neo-Latin &quot;generally&quot; has a convention &quot;to distinguish the consonant I (spelled as J) from the vovel I (spelled as I)&quot;. This isn't true in my experience - of all the conventions I mentioned I'd say this one's the rarest. I can only recall seeing it  here: https://books.google.com/books?id=JGMaHaUbiQkC&amp;pg=PA399&amp;lpg=PA399" CreationDate="2021-05-08T00:13:25.863" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33057" PostId="15958" Score="4" Text="The Septuagint is probably clarifying what 3rd century scholars thought the text meant. I'm sure there's a comment somewhere in the Talmud or some of other text remarks on the matter. Too bad the extant of the Dead Sea Scrolls' Peshar to Genesis (4Q252ff.) doesn't go this early." CreationDate="2021-05-07T23:50:09.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33074" PostId="15959" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the detailed response." CreationDate="2021-05-09T16:57:10.127" UserId="6870" />
  <row Id="33069" PostId="15962" Score="1" Text="What about _sequens_?" CreationDate="2021-05-08T20:25:13.013" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="33070" PostId="15962" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I can't really back this up, but to me that feels like it imparts to much agency to the star itself in this context, or too much inevitability to the sequence. Obviously you can use *sequens* with basically inanimate nouns (*sequenti anno* &amp;c.), but I don't think I'd use it unless I were talking about the past." CreationDate="2021-05-08T20:46:11.337" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33071" PostId="15963" Score="1" Text="On thinking of another word for &quot;bad&quot;, I'm reminded of this [answer regarding Samian pottery](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15326/what-is-peniculus-insinuating-with-his-reference-to-samian-crockery/15329#15329)." CreationDate="2021-05-08T21:58:59.203" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33082" PostId="15964" Score="1" Text="A fascinating use of *numerus* which I had never come across before. Thanks! Do you think *numerus* would also be appropriate for things that are not counting nouns, like cookie dough? (I'm just curious. Clearly clones are counting nouns.)" CreationDate="2021-05-10T02:13:10.183" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33092" PostId="15964" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Not sure, but i would imagine that usage of &quot;numerus&quot; in the sense of &quot;quantity&quot; is only valid for countable quantities since one would logically expect a number of something to be countable. (Just don't ask the folks over at mathematics stack exchange or they will tell you that the set of real numbers is uncountable :))" CreationDate="2021-05-11T01:26:19.007" UserId="3391" />
  <row Id="33073" PostId="15966" Score="0" Text="Tnx! It seems that _ipse_ may be such intensifier. Waiting more answers." CreationDate="2021-05-09T16:29:31.117" UserId="9174" />
  <row Id="33075" PostId="15967" Score="0" Text="It doesn't include a percentage, but @Cerberus answered a similar question on the Linguistics SE about [how many Latin words are of Greek origin](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3707/how-many-of-latin-words-have-greek-roots)." CreationDate="2021-05-09T20:40:03.120" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33076" PostId="15967" Score="0" Text="@Adam Thank you, but I also want to know about non-greek loanwords." CreationDate="2021-05-09T20:46:07.037" UserId="9405" />
  <row Id="33077" PostId="15967" Score="1" Text="Wouldn't there be cases where we couldn't be able to tell whether a particular word was a Greek loan-word, a word that appeared in both Latin and Greek as a loan from some third language, or a PIE word? For instance, Troy is Τροία in Greek and Troia in Latin. How would we know whether this came to Latin through Greek or directly from Anatolia? I'm also not sure it makes sense to ask for a percentage. The percentage would be higher in fancy educated usage, lower in the vernacular." CreationDate="2021-05-09T21:18:41.890" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="33078" PostId="15967" Score="0" Text="Ben Crowell yes there are PIE words, but I still need those percentages." CreationDate="2021-05-09T21:23:55.170" UserId="9405" />
  <row Id="33079" PostId="15967" Score="2" Text="One way to try to answer this might be to go through a sample of Latin words and see how many have entries in de Vaan's etymological dictionary, since that dictionary only lists native Latin words. (@BenCrowell, cases of the kind you describe will be rare because most native Latin words will have undergone Latin-specific sound changes.)" CreationDate="2021-05-09T22:18:59.443" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33080" PostId="15967" Score="0" Text="Ok, I will wait for a professional to answer my question (thanks for your help :D)." CreationDate="2021-05-09T23:02:19.157" UserId="9405" />
  <row Id="33081" PostId="15967" Score="0" Text="@TKR Contrary to his stated policy, De Vaan actually includes a good number of words that aren't (likely to be) native; he mainly excludes very transparent loans from Greek. I once went through a list of the 2000 most common words (based mainly on the Perseus corpus), and only about forty weren't in De Vaan, and of those, only *persona* and *titulus* weren't Greek. Some other high-profile non-Greek loans like *ave* and *mappa* (both from Punic) are also out, but e.g. *harena* is in, as well as any number of etymology-unknown certain loans." CreationDate="2021-05-10T01:20:09.563" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33083" PostId="15969" Score="0" Text="What definition is Wharton using for &quot;Aryan&quot; here?" CreationDate="2021-05-10T04:41:32.117" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33084" PostId="15969" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Probably same from which the old name for IE, Indo-Aryan, comes, with Greek as a special category. Given that it's 1888, he should have made Indo-Aryan the category. I can't see why he would break it down this way." CreationDate="2021-05-10T04:45:08.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33087" PostId="15969" Score="1" Text="@cmw I'm aware of early philologists using Aryan for IE, but I've never heard of them using Indo-Aryan that way (rather than for the family of languages still refered to as Indo-Aryan)" CreationDate="2021-05-10T08:37:23.487" UserId="2246" />
  <row Id="33088" PostId="15969" Score="1" Text="Terminology aside, it looks like Wharton is way too eager to call native Latin words Greek. This works as an upper bound (and it's probably the best answer possible without some serious legwork of our own, unless there's some other study out there), but it's a significant overestimate." CreationDate="2021-05-10T14:37:07.337" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33089" PostId="15971" Score="2" Text="If you ended up with *Asteraeon* in the previous question, can you mark that answer as accepted by clicking the green check mark next to the voting arrows? It's helpful to know which answer you found most useful." CreationDate="2021-05-10T15:02:10.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33090" PostId="15972" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Given how long the question has gone without an answer, any reasonable guess is a welcome contribution." CreationDate="2021-05-10T17:47:20.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33482" PostId="15972" Score="2" Text="εἶδον is from *weid, cognate with Latin video, and cannot be connected with idoneus." CreationDate="2021-05-31T22:23:40.003" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="33093" PostId="15973" Score="0" Text="Do you think the ablative *salva Terentia* could be read in a way that integrates it better to the sentence? It could in principle be an agent ([without *a* if her own agency is negleced](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/840/79)) or a causal ablative or something in that direction. I find myself preferring &quot;Terentia blessed me with a baby&quot; over &quot;and Terentia is healthy, too&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-11T11:55:18.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33094" PostId="15973" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm pretty sure Sebastian has the right sense: *salvus* in the ablative absolute is pretty formulaic, though I'm more used to it in impersonal contexts, e.g. *salva lege*. Here, I'm pretty sure it just means, &quot;with Terentia doing well.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-11T13:56:58.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33095" PostId="15973" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks! It makes sense. A different reading of the nature of the ablative wouldn't change much semantically, but of course we shouldn't add too much color that wasn't there in Latin." CreationDate="2021-05-11T14:53:00.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33123" PostId="15973" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta A personal agent needs to be expressed using the preposition *ā;* in the absense of one the default reading being instrumental, and then as an absolute, which is made sure both semantically (Terentia isn't an object) and by the idiomatic nature of the phrase." CreationDate="2021-05-13T19:12:04.137" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33124" PostId="15973" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I specifically linked to a question where the preposition in connection with the agent is discussed. The feature that necessitates the preposition does not seem to be humanity but agency. But either way, I agree that it's an unlikely reading." CreationDate="2021-05-13T19:36:10.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33126" PostId="15973" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Isn't that what my &quot;a personal agent needs to&quot; says as well? The fact that humans can be tools as opposed to agents is a non-linguistic issue and is separate from the grammar. I'm only saying that a non-prepositional ablative NP cannot as a rule express a personal agent (or experiencer) in Latin." CreationDate="2021-05-13T19:39:09.480" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33127" PostId="15973" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian In an answer to [the question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/840/79) I linked to in the first comment Joel provides an example of a human agent without a preposition. But it is very rare if it exists, and in the rare cases one might prefer to argue that something else is going on. But this discussion on agents is tangential; my curiosity here is fully satisfied." CreationDate="2021-05-13T20:01:11.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33128" PostId="15973" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think you're failing to grasp my point. This is an example of humans being treated as instruments, which is a non-linguistic phenomenon, and there's nothing surprising about it. *patriciī juvenēs* is not an agent in that sentence, but specifically an instrument. The troops are being used to guard the flanks. The young particians are being used as a living shield to ward off direct contact with the... *electorate.* You might want to look into the concept of *theta-roles.* Latin syntactically distinguishes this role from that of the instrument - no preposition means not agent" CreationDate="2021-05-13T20:09:16.230" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33096" PostId="15975" Score="0" Text="Your examples exemplify the so-called &quot;inchoative&quot;/intr. variant associated to transitive causative verbs of change of state. Cf. the links in my question above and this footnote: https://books.google.es/books?id=6wIZWOrcBf8C&amp;pg=PA4&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;dq=%22the+middle+alternation+should+not+be+confused+with+the+causative/inchoative+alternation%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TC2ATYF_ZO&amp;sig=ACfU3U28vwrZkYB-0ffhl6VN6Gm6wcfNCg&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiotbGq88HwAhXDx4UKHe5gBIUQ6AEwBnoECAUQAw#v=onepage&amp;q=%22the%20middle%20alternation%20should%20not%20be%20confused%20with%20the%20causative%2Finchoative%20alternation%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-05-11T15:20:01.980" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33101" PostId="15978" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-05-12T13:41:22.443" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33113" PostId="15978" Score="2" Text="Your nice question has earned you enough reputation that you can now vote up any questions and answers you like. Just click the little arrow up next to a post. That's the best way to reward people here. If you think your question has been fully settled, you can choose one answer as an accepted answer by clicking the little green check mark under the voting gadget." CreationDate="2021-05-13T09:31:30.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33102" PostId="15979" Score="2" Text="You beat me to it by 8 seconds!" CreationDate="2021-05-12T13:46:10.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33115" PostId="15979" Score="2" Text="Probably too late if your friend is already worried, but in general I'd recommend against telling people their tattoos are incorrect when it's too late to do anything about it!" CreationDate="2021-05-13T11:34:42.080" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33119" PostId="15979" Score="3" Text="@dbmag9 And I'd recommend never getting a tattoo written in a language you aren't fluent in, or failing that, consult someone you *really* trust (i.e. not strangers on the internet) who is fluent." CreationDate="2021-05-13T16:50:05.970" UserId="4715" />
  <row Id="33120" PostId="15979" Score="1" Text="@DarrelHoffman You don't have to convince me! Very much agreed; the number of tattoo requests here always worry me, but each to their own." CreationDate="2021-05-13T17:14:22.330" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33258" PostId="15979" Score="0" Text="She just had her tattoo removed, so everything will be fine" CreationDate="2021-05-18T16:29:52.513" UserId="9433" />
  <row Id="33107" PostId="15981" Score="5" Text="Well, it worth to note here, that there is the proverbial expression *Omnis minervae homo* which [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=minerva&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) renders as &quot;Jack of all trades&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-12T19:44:36.813" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33108" PostId="15981" Score="4" Text="@d_e With a couple citations, that itself might make a decent answer." CreationDate="2021-05-12T20:10:19.050" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33131" PostId="15983" Score="2" Text="Might be of interest what Roman translators did with Homer's &quot;wily Odysseus&quot;, although he was depicted as 'clever in a sneaky way' rather than what we would call a genius." CreationDate="2021-05-14T11:24:07.727" UserId="652" />
  <row Id="33132" PostId="15983" Score="1" Text="@AakashM That certainly sounds worth checking, but it's worth remembering that a Roman translator might prefer to see Odysseus as a traitor rather than a hero. Taking genius characters from ancient literature is a good starting point!" CreationDate="2021-05-14T11:46:06.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33150" PostId="15983" Score="1" Text="@AakashM, I know that the opening line of Livius Andronicus's Odyssia uses virum...versutum, 'a wily man,' to render Homer's ἄνδρα πολύτροπον." CreationDate="2021-05-15T00:56:25.563" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33207" PostId="15991" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for your research, I will consider different options but multiplex is definitely one of them" CreationDate="2021-05-16T08:59:31.990" UserId="8690" />
  <row Id="33208" PostId="15991" Score="0" Text="@KimP I'm glad you found it helpful! *Multiplex* is indeed a good building block, but I don't think it'll work alone here." CreationDate="2021-05-16T09:04:05.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33209" PostId="15991" Score="0" Text="Probably not but I was referring to your last point, not the word alone, sorry for the unclarity. Anyway, thanks again" CreationDate="2021-05-16T09:13:19.470" UserId="8690" />
  <row Id="33135" PostId="15992" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-05-14T14:16:37.070" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33142" PostId="15992" Score="4" Text="[Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) and its suggestions are not to be trusted." CreationDate="2021-05-14T20:12:04.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33146" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="What do you think of using *-que* intead of *nec*: *mei pristinique amoris*?" CreationDate="2021-05-14T23:27:41.320" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33148" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="@TKR Can *-que* be used with negations like that? It strikes me as a little odd, but this should probably explored in a separate question. But even if it's possible, I prefer not to use it here; I get the sense that the second item is a kind of an afterthought (&quot;oh, and don't forget this either&quot;), but I might be misreading." CreationDate="2021-05-14T23:54:23.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33152" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure either, which is why I asked :) I think in this case the negation is syntactically far away enough (since *meminisse* itself is not negated) that *-que* is possible, and that it has the effect of tying together &quot;me&quot; and &quot;the old love&quot; more closely." CreationDate="2021-05-15T01:23:42.717" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33159" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="@TKR [I had to ask a new question about that.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16001/79) That's a simpler version than what'd be used here, though." CreationDate="2021-05-15T09:06:44.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33172" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thank you.  The use of an infinitive (&quot;meminisse&quot;) as an accusative direct-object, is a new one on me! Therefore &quot;obliviscor&quot; is not behaving intransitively, in the first line? In Allen &amp; Greenough p.456: &quot;Complementary Infinitive&quot;: &quot;Verbs which imply another action of the same subject to complete their meaning take the infinitive without a subject accusative.&quot; Again, (A &amp; G) p.350 makes it clear that &quot;meminisse&quot; + acc. (for casuals); + gen. (for relationships); therefore, the genitive must be used in the second  line. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2021-05-15T13:42:38.903" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33175" PostId="15995" Score="1" Text="@tony I think many grammars make it unnecessarily convoluted. When you need a verb as a subject (&quot;Singing is important.&quot;) or as an object (&quot;I like to sing.&quot;), you use the infinitive. With nouns the same roles are played by the nominative and accusative case, so I find it practically very reasonable to say that the infinitive serves as these two cases. For other cases and accusatives following a preposition, a gerund is used instead. Therefore I would indeed read *oblivisci* transitively here. But mind you that there are many ways to parse Latin grammar with wildly different terminology!" CreationDate="2021-05-15T14:48:42.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33176" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="@tony Concerning the A&amp;G reference, I don't know where you're pointing at. Page 350 (according to this [online version](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/causal-clauses)) seems to discuss something else. See the scanned page images on the right. Can you provide a link to the relevant page in that online copy of A&amp;G?" CreationDate="2021-05-15T14:50:14.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33193" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Your link reaches p. 539, not p. 350." CreationDate="2021-05-15T22:40:49.237" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33206" PostId="15995" Score="1" Text="@tony That is the section number, not the page number. The book has two numberings. (It took me a while to find the correct page, as the section numbers are more visible online than the page numbers.)" CreationDate="2021-05-16T06:27:14.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33212" PostId="15995" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I have the (A &amp; G) re-write. The indices indicate that the section-numbers are (the original book's) page-numbers. When I first started referencing (A &amp; G) I gave both section number  and the page  number, of this re-write. It began to look silly because no-one else was doing it. Now, I am advised. Thank you. Any thoughts on the genitive for the second line?" CreationDate="2021-05-16T10:23:32.113" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33217" PostId="15995" Score="1" Text="@tony It seems to me that both accusative and genitive make sense to me. The way I have seen the meanings with the two cases described, both look valid. If you want to dig deeper in to the choice of cases with *meminisse* or *oblivisci*, ask a new question. (It helps if you provide a link to an online version of the grammar. I don't have a copy of the book, and it takes a while to trace the thing. § 350 is faster to find than p. 350 but not much. Different editions can have different numberings, too. You should really learn using links!)" CreationDate="2021-05-16T17:05:34.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33138" PostId="15996" Score="0" Text="Yes, I was trying to capture the sentiment of the GME holders but in a different context... I do like the idiosyncratic feel of that phrase and I also like that `pleb` or `plebs` is the first word. Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-05-14T18:33:00.637" UserId="9442" />
  <row Id="33141" PostId="15996" Score="0" Text="How do you feel about the participle *unita* instead of *una*? I'm not sure if there's a significant difference in this use." CreationDate="2021-05-14T20:11:33.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33143" PostId="15996" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Well [unitus](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23unit) is a pretty rare word, *uniter* aside, and not present in Republican authors." CreationDate="2021-05-14T22:03:32.007" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33145" PostId="15996" Score="0" Text="The alternate word order *Plebs una fortior* strikes me as preferable here; an English translation would be &quot;A united people is stronger&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-14T23:24:28.777" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33147" PostId="15996" Score="1" Text="@TKR I think you're right. I was sort of playing with *e pluribus unum* as a parallel, but I agree that reversing the two is indeed preferable. I think I'll add it." CreationDate="2021-05-14T23:33:23.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33157" PostId="15996" Score="0" Text="I don't know if this affects anything, but memetically, it is 'strong', not stronger.  It's a sense of: &quot;apes alone weak, apes together strong&quot; rather than &quot;hedge funds strong, apes together stronger&quot;, if that makes sense.   I also don't know if *memetically* means: of or relating to memes, but it should." CreationDate="2021-05-15T07:01:44.260" UserId="9452" />
  <row Id="33160" PostId="15996" Score="0" Text="@mcalex In that case, using the same vocabulary I offered, you would only need to make *fortior* *fortis* instead." CreationDate="2021-05-15T11:06:49.507" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34495" PostId="15996" Score="0" Text="@mcalex I still think &quot;stronger&quot; works, too: &quot;We're stronger together than separate.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-11T23:58:17.063" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33137" PostId="15997" Score="1" Text="Good call on *valet*. I like this translation." CreationDate="2021-05-14T18:18:15.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33139" PostId="15997" Score="1" Text="I agree with cmw about valet. The choice of concors is also spot on. (I like the word order too.) In short, your translation is a thing of beauty." CreationDate="2021-05-14T18:54:01.787" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33140" PostId="15997" Score="1" Text="@cnread Sane erubesco ;-)" CreationDate="2021-05-14T19:31:12.317" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33151" PostId="15998" Score="3" Text="Or we can just combine all three (so far) answers to yield homo mire ingeniosus, or homo mirissimi ingenii." CreationDate="2021-05-15T00:57:52.287" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33156" PostId="15998" Score="1" Text="@cnread Would you like to post that as a separate answer? A good synthesis of the existing often makes a very interesting answer that shouldn't be hidden in a comment." CreationDate="2021-05-15T05:46:32.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33158" PostId="15998" Score="2" Text="@TKR: I've heard of super-bright people being referred to as &quot;being able to walk on water&quot;, bringing in the &quot;miraculous&quot; god-like thing." CreationDate="2021-05-15T08:35:45.377" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33149" PostId="15999" Score="1" Text="There is a [related question on animal gender](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1410/79)." CreationDate="2021-05-15T00:25:46.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33154" PostId="16000" Score="0" Text="Considering that a she-wolf figures pretty prominently in the founding of Rome, and everything I can find [refers to that she-wolf as a *lupa*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Romul+~+%23lup), this definitely seems right." CreationDate="2021-05-15T04:13:50.417" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33171" PostId="16000" Score="3" Text="I would add though that _lupus_ could certainly be used to refer to a wolf of unknown gender - You'd say _Apparently a lupus ate my chicken_, and noboy would complain if it turned out to be a female wolf." CreationDate="2021-05-15T13:39:53.437" UserId="2246" />
  <row Id="33161" PostId="16002" Score="2" Text="And the name *Scaevola*, although like with *parvolus* and *servolus* about, it was also written *Scaevula*." CreationDate="2021-05-15T11:21:53.103" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33168" PostId="16004" Score="1" Text="See also [this thread on the name](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13379/what-should-the-corona-virus-be-called-in-latin). You should note that if you choose the top answers, the grammar would remain the same as the second set (so *virus coronarium/coronatum delendum...*)." CreationDate="2021-05-15T13:23:37.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33221" PostId="16006" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan While this is a borderline case, I actually think you'd have better luck elsewhere. Not really sure where, though!" CreationDate="2021-05-16T19:59:07.190" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33232" PostId="16006" Score="2" Text="I'm not an expert on typography, but I would imagine the core reason is that the polytonic oxia needs to be easily distinguishable from its mirror image, while the monotonic tonos doesn't." CreationDate="2021-05-17T01:04:40.717" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33293" PostId="16006" Score="2" Text="This may be helpful (or not):   https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3024808" CreationDate="2021-05-19T19:41:34.287" UserId="1497" />
  <row Id="35063" PostId="16006" Score="0" Text="Interesting question! However, when I was looking into it now, it seems to me that it is in fact unrelated to Ancient Greek, as the replacement of polytonic orthography with monotonic occurred in the 20th century. I posted an [answer to your question on the Graphic Design site](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/153767/44807); perhaps this question should be closed?" CreationDate="2021-09-12T00:53:13.317" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35068" PostId="16006" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides You could probably just post that answer here, too. As I mentioned under Draconis' answer, it's not like the population of each site is equivalent." CreationDate="2021-09-12T01:06:54.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33166" PostId="16007" Score="0" Text="There's a separate [question about translating the name of the virus to Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/13379/79). If you want to call it other than *corona*, which is well justified, I recommend reading through the suggestions and thoughts in that question." CreationDate="2021-05-15T12:52:38.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33167" PostId="16007" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta:  I recall that Q. Your suggestion &quot; the crowned virus&quot; implies, in English, that the disease has benefitted from a royal-coronation; it has been honoured in some way. How about &quot;morbus cum sudibus acutis praefixis&quot; = &quot;diseae with established sharp spikes&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-05-15T13:12:56.227" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33169" PostId="16007" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't say at all that there is anything royal or honoured about it, and I just edited my answer to clarify. I just meant &quot;equipped with crown&quot;, which is what the name of the virus is quite literally trying to say. But there are a lot of other answers there, too. // I should also point out that the present question was about adapting something for today, so using words in their modern meanings seems necessary." CreationDate="2021-05-15T13:31:38.050" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33177" PostId="16007" Score="2" Text="You're right that you would just substitute *Coronavirus* for *Carthaginem*, but you would also have to change the gerundive to agree with it. That's an equally important part!" CreationDate="2021-05-15T14:57:52.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33179" PostId="16007" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Well-spotted." CreationDate="2021-05-15T15:08:12.417" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33181" PostId="16007" Score="0" Text="@tony Can you add a clear translation suggestion to your answer? Making it bold or putting it in a quote box would help make it stand out. The conclusion of your answer is not very clear, but could be clarified easily, I think." CreationDate="2021-05-15T15:15:45.067" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33192" PostId="16008" Score="5" Text="Difficult, given that the concept of vaccination began approx 1,40 0years after the fall of the Roman Empire. Don't expect a literal translation, just something that conveys the concept." CreationDate="2021-05-15T22:28:38.550" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="33195" PostId="16008" Score="6" Text="@MawgsaysreinstateMonica, Latin outlasted the Roman Empire by more than a thousand years. It was the #1 language used by scholars, lawyers, physicians, clerics—anybody with an education—to communicate with their peers throughout most of Europe until at least the 1600s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#History  And, yeah! I know,  &quot;vaccine&quot; wasn't a word until almost 1800, but FWIW, when I was a kid, and doctors still wrote prescriptions on paper slips that you took to the pharmacy yourself, I asked my parents why I couldn't understand the writing, and they said, that's because it's Latin." CreationDate="2021-05-16T00:33:15.277" UserId="6833" />
  <row Id="33197" PostId="16008" Score="0" Text="&quot;territus sum&quot;:)" CreationDate="2021-05-16T01:30:38.057" UserId="6692" />
  <row Id="33200" PostId="16008" Score="0" Text="You might use a participle or passive of dēfendō." CreationDate="2021-05-16T02:24:32.523" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="33201" PostId="16009" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure what you mean by saying &quot;is divided = has been divided&quot;. So-called &quot;adjectival passives&quot; are not to be equated to &quot;verbal passives&quot;, right? Cf.  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/on-the-typical-ambiguity-of-porta-clausa-est" CreationDate="2021-05-16T02:47:36.863" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33202" PostId="16009" Score="4" Text="@Mitomino It's a bit more complicated than that, but I wanted to present it simplified here to ensure that people don't confuse &quot;I am vaccinated&quot; with the present passive, in the same way that &quot;I am loved&quot; would be present passive. It's a completed action, therefore it's perfect, describing a fully completed state in the present." CreationDate="2021-05-16T03:36:01.840" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33185" PostId="16013" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your help!" CreationDate="2021-05-15T16:32:56.233" UserId="9461" />
  <row Id="33189" PostId="16013" Score="0" Text="@Joan The best way to thank users for their help is to vote up all answers (and other questions and their answers) that you find helpful. You can do that by clicking the little arrow up near the top left of the question or answer. You can also choose one answer as the best one to your own question using the little green check mark. [See our Introductory tour for details](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour). Welcome to the site! This is an excellent first question!" CreationDate="2021-05-15T18:00:23.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33184" PostId="16014" Score="2" Text="1. You probably want to put all this in a past tense; 2. *audeo* means &quot;to dare.&quot; You want *audio*. Others will chime in with more specific suggestions." CreationDate="2021-05-15T16:29:48.547" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33186" PostId="16014" Score="0" Text="Ahh, thanks! _Audeo_ was a typo, but tenses are still confusing to me. I'll make an update with what I think it is." CreationDate="2021-05-15T16:34:04.413" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33196" PostId="16014" Score="0" Text="I don't understand your play with words?" CreationDate="2021-05-16T01:22:58.923" UserId="3003" />
  <row Id="33204" PostId="16014" Score="0" Text="Where I live a famous actress said once: Never, ever place/use phrases from a language you don't know into a t-shirt you pretend to wear! She had visited an Islamic place for a movie festival in the 70's and he and her husband innocently accepted a courtesy gift: a pair of t-shirts with word in a language that was not Arabic, but made lots of sense for some people around. Bad trip, she said!" CreationDate="2021-05-16T04:09:11.383" UserId="9463" />
  <row Id="33205" PostId="16014" Score="1" Text="Welcome, @love_latin. Unfortunately, I had to convert your &quot;answer&quot; to a comment since it doesn't actually attempt to answer the question. I know you don't have enough &quot;rep&quot; to comment yet, so I did that for you. Answers though have to be on-topic, as it's Q&amp;A style here, not forum discussion. I hope you stick around though and ask/answer some questions yourself!" CreationDate="2021-05-16T04:54:31.530" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33213" PostId="16014" Score="1" Text="@Adam: How do we order the T-shirt?" CreationDate="2021-05-16T10:26:41.153" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33214" PostId="16014" Score="1" Text="@tony I haven't gotten that far with it (I'd like to get the album out first), but when they are available I'll probably add something to my SE profile about the band with a link." CreationDate="2021-05-16T12:57:45.853" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33187" PostId="16015" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Would it make sense to read it as two clauses, with the repeated *habeo* left out? I agree that *nec...nec* sounds better, but I'm not yet convinced that a single *nec* wouldn't work." CreationDate="2021-05-15T16:50:55.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33188" PostId="16015" Score="1" Text="Maybe? But it’s extremely awkward. But a single nec is used when only the second element is negative. Habeo felem nec canem (I have a cat but not a dog.)" CreationDate="2021-05-15T17:29:21.680" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="33190" PostId="16016" Score="3" Text="I'd think *auscultavi* (pf.) would be used here -- it's not a narrative background &quot;I was listening (and then something else happened)&quot;, but a discrete action that's part of the main narrative. For the second half I like your *nihil nisi* (more pithy than *praeterquam*) and would suggest moving the verb to the end: *nihil nisi hanc tunicam accepi*. (I wonder if *nec aliquid* would be more idiomatic than *et nihil*, but that's probably overly pedantic.)" CreationDate="2021-05-15T19:44:37.807" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33191" PostId="16016" Score="0" Text="@TKR You are right regarding the tense. *Nec aliquid nisi …* was my first idea, but I (books-) googled and did not find the results convincing, so I took the less adventurous route." CreationDate="2021-05-15T21:52:13.463" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33194" PostId="16016" Score="0" Text="*auscultāre* with the dative means &quot;to listen to someone and do what you're told&quot;; you want the accusative with a physical act of listening. Otherwise this seems like a solid translation suggestion." CreationDate="2021-05-15T23:25:08.053" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33203" PostId="16016" Score="1" Text="“*Haec tunicam* should be *hanc*,” reads as though the entire phrase *haec tunicam* would be replaced with just the word *hanc*, but I see in your final suggestion that it’s actually to replace the *haec* in *haec tunicam* with *hanc* and thus yield *hanc tunicam*. I suggest “*Haec tunicam* should be *hanc tunicam*,” as the shortest clarified version, though “The *haec* in *haec tunicam* should be *hanc*,” is perhaps closer to your phrasing." CreationDate="2021-05-16T04:02:41.143" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="33210" PostId="16016" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian you are quite correct, I was unaware of the finer points. A case where [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dausculto) are worlds better than [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/ausculto?hl=dat), by the way." CreationDate="2021-05-16T10:07:04.773" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33211" PostId="16016" Score="0" Text="@KRyan I thought that was pretty obvious... but I modified it to be clearer." CreationDate="2021-05-16T10:08:24.757" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33216" PostId="16016" Score="0" Text="Thank you Sebastian and everyone else; my first attempt ended up being a great opportunity to think about and assess cases. :)" CreationDate="2021-05-16T13:00:14.380" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33218" PostId="16019" Score="1" Text="Btw I've never seen the Greek vowel described as [ʉ̄] -- what's the evidence that it was centralized?" CreationDate="2021-05-16T17:52:25.220" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33219" PostId="16019" Score="0" Text="@TKR The fact that it underwent fronting from [u] and ended up as [i]; I simply don't know of evidence as to its exact quality in the period and varieties involved, so I picked the more conservative choice. In fact I've never seen evidence to decide whether it was [ʉ] or [y] in any sort of Greek, so I'm going by the general vowel space distribution wherein it further fronts to [y] when /oo/ raises to [u:]." CreationDate="2021-05-16T19:11:51.090" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33215" PostId="16021" Score="2" Text="cf. Biville 1995 *Les emprunts du latin au grec* (t. 2, p. 106): &quot;L’apparition tardive de βυκάνη (Polybe) et de ses dérivés, et les hésitations graphique entre βυ- et βου- dans les manuscrits, montrent que le grec a emprunté le terme au latin, en lui faisant subir une adapation suffixale sur le modèle des couples machina = μαχανά, patina = πατάνη, runcina = ῥύκανη, trutina = τρυτάνη.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-16T12:58:20.210" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33220" PostId="16021" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer; it's not the same analogy because of course an ox is not an instrument. It's a different type of compound with the same element (I'm totally lost with types of compounds). There's really nothing else that second element could be, nor the first one. I'm not quite satisfied with this answer though because Alex B.'s quotation provides just the type of &quot;active reduction reversal&quot; that I was looking for, ostensibly as a reversal of the way Greek loans are reflected in Latin." CreationDate="2021-05-16T19:21:16.673" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33222" PostId="16021" Score="0" Text="possibly a typo in ῥύκανη - must be ῥυκάνη (?)" CreationDate="2021-05-16T20:20:23.693" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33241" PostId="16023" Score="0" Text="The answer by @cmw has now been updated with an explanation of the plural." CreationDate="2021-05-17T13:52:47.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33228" PostId="16026" Score="1" Text="If you want to emphasize that a vowel is short, I recommend adding a breve. [See instructions on meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/172/79)." CreationDate="2021-05-16T23:00:41.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33227" PostId="16027" Score="0" Text="From that then follows the opposite question: Why was *sāl* made long? Obviously my initial question was attacking the problem from the wrong end, not realising that the root of the word was indeed short. Maybe you could add a comment to explain how the root of the word was lengthened for the nominative?" CreationDate="2021-05-16T22:59:53.803" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33229" PostId="16027" Score="3" Text="@CannedMan I don't actually know why, and the singular nominatives of the third declension can be pretty weird. I think that'd make a good follow-up question, now that you've found the source of the problem. It can't be simply iambic shortening, as then we'd never see long vowels in monosyllabic stems." CreationDate="2021-05-16T23:03:06.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33230" PostId="16027" Score="0" Text="I take it you recommend this be posted as a separate question? (In that case: tomorrow, after a good night’s sleep.)" CreationDate="2021-05-16T23:07:16.010" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33231" PostId="16027" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Exactly, I think that's the best choice. Editing a question substantially is often a messy choice, as it makes answers obsolete and gives the impression of a moving target." CreationDate="2021-05-16T23:09:15.643" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33233" PostId="16027" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan My first guess would be compensatory lengthening from the -s disappearing. This happens much more regularly in Greek than in Latin, but is seen not infrequently in Latin third-declension nominatives." CreationDate="2021-05-17T01:11:47.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33247" PostId="16028" Score="2" Text="The biggest well-known problem with Sihler is that he unfortunately decided not to include any references he so clearly relied on. For example, the part you quote is strangely similar to a discussion in Leumann et al. 1977, §225.I.c-d (p. 220), except that they say about *par* &quot;nom. sg. mask. als metrische **Länge** Plt. Poen. 376&quot; [emphasis mine - A.B.] I have to admit I rarely use Sihler, for the reason mentioned above." CreationDate="2021-05-18T03:08:10.877" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34030" PostId="16028" Score="0" Text="[This answer has been nominated as one of the best answers of 2020.](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/531/79)" CreationDate="2021-07-08T10:53:44.993" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33240" PostId="16029" Score="0" Text="The two other answers have suggested substantial changes to the phrasing of the question to make it work better both semantically and grammatically. Those changes seem to break your rhymes. Would either of those give a better starting point? I must also add that while word order isn't as important in Latin as in English, it's not irrelevant or completely free either. (I assume these are the reasons why your answer has accumulated a couple of downvotes and flags.)" CreationDate="2021-05-17T13:47:18.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33248" PostId="16029" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for the useful pointer on word order! Appreciate it" CreationDate="2021-05-18T07:14:51.400" UserId="4821" />
  <row Id="33256" PostId="16031" Score="2" Text="for a historical review see Taylor 1991 *Latin declensions and conjugations: from Varro to Priscian* https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0750-8069_1991_num_13_2_2334" CreationDate="2021-05-18T16:06:57.760" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33260" PostId="16031" Score="2" Text="Note that &quot;the traditional numerical method&quot; is anglophone. Studying Latin in Germany, I never heard about &quot;first&quot;, &quot;second&quot; etc. declensions, only about a-, o-, consonantal etc. declensions." CreationDate="2021-05-18T19:40:52.240" UserId="3330" />
  <row Id="33261" PostId="16031" Score="1" Text="@StephanKolassa I don't think it's anglophone. The terms *declinatio prima/secunda* etc.&quot;  were used by the ancient Roman grammarians (Varro, Probus, Priscian etc.), and the best German grammars of Latin I have all refer to them as &quot;die lateinischen fünf Deklinationen&quot; e.g. Die lat. 1. oder ā-Deklination etc.&quot; (Leumann et al.) or see Kühner and Holzweissig 1912 or Neue and Wagener 1902 - they all use numbers (e.g. die erste, zweite, dritte, vierte, fünfte Deklination or Declination)." CreationDate="2021-05-18T21:05:58.707" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33262" PostId="16031" Score="2" Text="@StephanKolassa That being said, perhaps the numerical terminology is not that common in *pedagogical* German grammars of Latin?" CreationDate="2021-05-18T21:15:44.800" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33242" PostId="16032" Score="0" Text="This method has the benefit of being more memorable; this label, unlike a number, carries a meaning. But it can be slightly confusing to students that the second declension has O rather than U as the label." CreationDate="2021-05-17T18:10:36.523" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33244" PostId="16032" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta A good mnemonic for that can be the ablative singular or accusative plural: -ās, -ōs, -īs (sometimes), -ūs, -ēs. Though I'm not sure how widely this is used in the real world." CreationDate="2021-05-17T19:03:38.417" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33245" PostId="16032" Score="0" Text="@Draconis The ablative singular is what I used when learning (and teaching) them. I think it works better than the acc. pl. since the latter has a chance for confusion with 3rd and 5th." CreationDate="2021-05-17T20:17:56.893" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33250" PostId="16032" Score="2" Text="this labelling also has the advantage of being commonly used across Indo-European languages, making similarities in the declension more apparent (although in some branches shifts can lead to the labels being different, e.g. the Germanic equivalents of ā-stems are the ō-stems, and the equivalent of the o-stems are the a-stems)" CreationDate="2021-05-18T09:03:53.050" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="33252" PostId="16032" Score="1" Text="This is the system used in German schools to name the declensions. I heard of first, second, ... declension, but it is unfamiliar to me. But we never really spoke about what exactly is ment with this names." CreationDate="2021-05-18T13:37:25.370" UserId="3495" />
  <row Id="33259" PostId="16032" Score="2" Text="@K-HB The German system is still a little different, because it splits the third declension into three different ones: i-Deklination, konsonantische &amp; gemischte Deklination. Someone should write an answer about that ..." CreationDate="2021-05-18T17:28:36.190" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33290" PostId="16032" Score="1" Text="Naming by vowels becomes a little confusing with the [Greek names of the first declension](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4531/79). Some of them (*Anchises, Circe*) have a stem in E but are not of the fifth declension. But there's no reason to bend over backwards to accommodate this into the labeling scheme, given the rarity." CreationDate="2021-05-19T17:40:40.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33243" PostId="16033" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! [This meta page](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/79) might be worth reading, as it explains how to ask questions when you don't know Latin. The key thing I request that you edit into your question is an explanation of what you want the phrase to mean. If you paint a fuller picture, you'll probably get more useful answers." CreationDate="2021-05-17T18:13:52.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33249" PostId="16034" Score="2" Text="In addition to cmw's excellent points about getting tattoos in Latin, I would be doubly wary of tattooing any words relating to mental illness. The *euphemism treadmill* is a process by which words can gradually stop being seen as acceptable, and you risk being left with something that seems very offensive permanently on your skin. If it's a direct quotation from a lyric then at least it's clear what the reference is, but it wouldn't surprise me if in twenty years 'insane' (say) was regarded as very offensive. http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmill-replacing-r-word.html" CreationDate="2021-05-18T08:36:47.660" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33253" PostId="16035" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you please edit your question to elaborate what you are after? I am not sure if &quot;written in classical Latin&quot; means how it would look when carved in stone or how it would be spelled or how it would be converted to a more classical form or something else. I will close the question for now, but it can be reopened for others to answer once clarified." CreationDate="2021-05-18T14:03:06.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33254" PostId="16036" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a nice first question! If anything else in the Duolingo Latin course confuses you, feel free to ask more questions here." CreationDate="2021-05-18T14:54:19.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33255" PostId="16036" Score="0" Text="Thank you, Joonas." CreationDate="2021-05-18T16:05:49.920" UserId="9479" />
  <row Id="33269" PostId="16037" Score="3" Text="In short: the order of *tibi* and *nomen* does not matter at all: swap them and the sentence remains exactly the same. The same applies to the other sentences." CreationDate="2021-05-18T23:05:23.257" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35113" PostId="16037" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus I have no experience with Latin, I am merely curious. Is it really true that the order _does not matter at all_? I am a Hungarian speaker, another language with free word order. Yet the word order is not meaningless: it is used to emphasize a certain part of the sentence. If the emphasis conveyed by the word order does not match the context, the sentence will feel very unnatural to native speakers. Is there anything like this in Latin?" CreationDate="2021-09-14T19:51:43.997" UserId="10129" />
  <row Id="35114" PostId="16037" Score="0" Text="To clarify what I mean by &quot;emphasis&quot;, in English we might also play with word order: &quot;My name is Marcus&quot; (not Lucius—emphasis on _Marcus_). &quot;Marcus is _my_ name&quot; (not _your_ name—emphasis on _my_)." CreationDate="2021-09-14T19:53:28.727" UserId="10129" />
  <row Id="35115" PostId="16037" Score="1" Text="@Szabolcs: You're absolutely right: word order can be significant in Latin. For example, deviating from certain patterns of standard word order may convey emphasis, as you say; see 'topic and focus' on WIkipedia. What I meant was that, in this particular sentence, swapping *nomen* and *tibi* would not normally result in a serious change in meaning. It may or may not convey topicality depending on context." CreationDate="2021-09-14T21:48:16.007" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36130" PostId="16037" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus What Szabolcs says is very important: Latin, like Hungarian, is _not_ a &quot;free word order language&quot; but rather a &quot;discourse configurational language&quot;. In Latin (and Hungarian), sentences with different word order can have the same propositional content but crucially differ in their **informational meaning**. In my opinion, one pending issue in learning Latin as L2 has to to do with learning this connection between word order and informational meaning. Unsurprisingly, even very proficient learners can be found using word orders of their native languages when speaking/writing Latin." CreationDate="2021-12-04T15:09:10.680" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33257" PostId="16038" Score="4" Text="Thanks for joining the site! Google translate is [notoriously bad](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for) at translating to and from Latin, unfortunately, so it's good that you're questioning what it gives you." CreationDate="2021-05-18T16:29:44.063" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33263" PostId="16040" Score="3" Text="Do you happen to have the original Chinese or a citation to find the passage?" CreationDate="2021-05-18T21:47:22.130" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33264" PostId="16040" Score="2" Text="The original Chinese is &quot;至人无己，神人无功，圣人无名&quot;。It is from Chapter 1 (逍遥游) of Zhuang Zi. Here's a link to the sentence (Page 13 before &quot;1.2&quot;): https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/23427/Zhuangzi-updated.pdf?sequence=2&amp;isAllowed=y  But this English translation might not be good as mine, and I prefer to use my translation as the basis for a Latin version :D" CreationDate="2021-05-18T22:01:25.650" UserId="9482" />
  <row Id="33265" PostId="16040" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I'll cook up a translation or two later on." CreationDate="2021-05-18T22:08:23.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33267" PostId="16040" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! Does it mean that you also read Chinese?" CreationDate="2021-05-18T22:23:02.993" UserId="9482" />
  <row Id="33278" PostId="16041" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! And I really appreciate your understanding of Chinese classics especially the Taoism. But could I ask an indelicate favor? The reason I provide my translation is because I would like to translate my understanding of this sentence into Latin. As you can see, there are various understandings/translations of this sentence.  The previous link I provided makes it &quot;Person A has no X&quot;, which I actually totally disagree XDDDD." CreationDate="2021-05-19T05:02:56.940" UserId="9482" />
  <row Id="33279" PostId="16041" Score="0" Text="So what I want to do, is to translate 至人 into &quot;the perfect&quot; (I think perfectus looks great. I don't know if Latin also has the structure of &quot;the+adj=plural form&quot;), 神人 into “the immortal” to emphasize the &quot;never die&quot; part instead of using religious word like &quot;divine/sacred&quot;, 圣人 into &quot;the holy&quot; (alright, I fail to find another proper word that is not religion-related)." CreationDate="2021-05-19T05:04:34.593" UserId="9482" />
  <row Id="33280" PostId="16041" Score="0" Text="For the 無 part, I intentionally make it an &quot;action&quot; instead of a status (haven't). I'd like to embody the procedure of having it first but abstain from it when enlightened (since no holy/immortal person was born to be like that, in a mundane setting of speaking). That's why I want to translate it to be &quot;abstain from&quot;. I'm really sorry for having such a brutal request. But could you please try to translate my English translation into Latin XD I really appreciate it." CreationDate="2021-05-19T05:05:51.087" UserId="9482" />
  <row Id="33281" PostId="16041" Score="0" Text="@user38830 That's a very different kind of request! It's late here, but later I can remark on your specific English-to-Latin requests." CreationDate="2021-05-19T05:14:26.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33282" PostId="16041" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! Actually that's the reason I provide my English translation ,instead of just referring to the existing English links to Zhuang Zi :D" CreationDate="2021-05-19T05:15:55.350" UserId="9482" />
  <row Id="33283" PostId="16041" Score="1" Text="@user38830 Edited it to conform to your English." CreationDate="2021-05-19T05:40:39.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33284" PostId="16041" Score="1" Text="It looks perfect! Thank you so much for your patience and generosity!!" CreationDate="2021-05-19T05:50:01.703" UserId="9482" />
  <row Id="33286" PostId="16041" Score="0" Text="@cmw Could you post your original translation from the Chinese as a separate answer? I think that would be great to have as well." CreationDate="2021-05-19T07:33:35.073" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="33276" PostId="16042" Score="0" Text="This is a great option! Would it be possible to drop the *sunt* if it's used as a motto?" CreationDate="2021-05-19T04:37:46.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33277" PostId="16042" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think so, but it might be a little ambiguous. Editing to mention that possibility." CreationDate="2021-05-19T04:58:33.060" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33285" PostId="16044" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Where did you come across this? Context can matter a lot for translation. You can edit your question to add details." CreationDate="2021-05-19T07:25:06.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33302" PostId="16044" Score="0" Text="Hello, thanks!&#xA;I have been conducting research on some early hermeticism and esoteric works, so that is where I came across this expression." CreationDate="2021-05-20T07:52:58.583" UserId="9483" />
  <row Id="33303" PostId="16044" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I edited that into your question. Feel free to make any further edits if you feel like it. // You have now earned enough reputation to vote up all questions and answers on you like. [Our introductory tour](https://latin.stackexchange.com/tour) has some details. I hope to see more questions from you!" CreationDate="2021-05-20T07:56:33.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33287" PostId="16045" Score="4" Text="I feel like the initial vowel of *Eboracensis* would take precedence over the final vowel of *novum*, giving *Noveboracensis*, but I don't have any examples to base that instinct on." CreationDate="2021-05-19T07:58:27.013" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33301" PostId="16046" Score="0" Text="Thank for the clear explanation." CreationDate="2021-05-20T07:51:23.660" UserId="9483" />
  <row Id="33289" PostId="16047" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a great first answer!" CreationDate="2021-05-19T17:27:01.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33314" PostId="16047" Score="3" Text="Isn’t *neo-* derived from Greek? Seems a strange choice..." CreationDate="2021-05-20T19:45:05.837" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="33315" PostId="16047" Score="3" Text="@KRyan It is Greek, but Greek uses compound words (or prefixes like *neo-*) much more freely than Latin. Therefore a Greek version makes connecting the two words into one more natural. A somewhat similar city name familiar to the Romans is *Neapolis*, &quot;new city&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-20T19:58:14.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33316" PostId="16047" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Nice, good to know." CreationDate="2021-05-20T20:13:57.473" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35242" PostId="16047" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta There is a difference, though. Neapolis is just the Greek name of the city transliterated into Latin; meanwhile, Neo-Eboracensis is a newly coined word. This is not how the ancients would have said it, even if the Church approves." CreationDate="2021-09-25T04:10:09.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33291" PostId="16048" Score="0" Text="Scientists have a lot f freedom to name species, so I’ve seen both *noveboracensis* and *novaeboracensis*." CreationDate="2021-05-19T18:37:02.310" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="33298" PostId="16048" Score="0" Text="@Davislor Definitely good to note that. To judge by Google hits, though, *novaeboracensis* is considerably less common." CreationDate="2021-05-20T02:51:29.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33299" PostId="16048" Score="4" Text="@Davislor novaeboracensis is most certainly ill-formed - the stem-final short /a/ is deleted in compounds without exception, and the result spells an entirely different sound, namely the dipthong /ae/, from a city of *Novum Aeboracum." CreationDate="2021-05-20T07:11:26.397" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33300" PostId="16048" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian i guess you could at least add a dieresis, so the reader would know that *Camponotus novaëboracensis* is not dipthongized into *novæboracensis*." CreationDate="2021-05-20T07:37:36.437" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="33308" PostId="16048" Score="0" Text="@Davislor that would still make it be formed from some such place as Novum Aëboracum" CreationDate="2021-05-20T11:52:26.563" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="33310" PostId="16048" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Nevertheless, that is the name of the species." CreationDate="2021-05-20T17:51:04.427" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="33319" PostId="16048" Score="1" Text="@Davislor I suspect that the &quot;freedom&quot; you mentioned in your first comment explains the name better than any standard of correctness--especially since that is a rare variant." CreationDate="2021-05-21T14:35:21.493" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33320" PostId="16048" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Are you insinuating that *Ytu brutus*. *Aha ha*, *Pieza kake*, *Ba humbugi*, *Heerz lukenatcha* and *Pison eu* are not correct Latin?" CreationDate="2021-05-21T15:22:22.060" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="33296" PostId="16054" Score="1" Text="Would you prefer an actual, attested motto or some new invention?" CreationDate="2021-05-19T20:51:33.380" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33307" PostId="16055" Score="0" Text="Is &quot;sitast&quot; two words, &quot;sit&quot; and &quot;ast&quot;, giving,, &quot;...in quo nunc sit ast&quot; = &quot;...in which now at least it may be&quot;? Why switch from present subjunctive, &quot;sit&quot; to imperfect subj., &quot;posset&quot; between the first &amp; second/ third?" CreationDate="2021-05-20T10:27:33.413" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33313" PostId="16055" Score="0" Text="@tony sitast = sita est. Why the irrealis? Because I wanted to translate &quot;**could** be worse&quot;. Admittedly, the indicative would have stayed closer to Terence's original." CreationDate="2021-05-20T19:17:51.950" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33318" PostId="16057" Score="0" Text="Excellent. I was unsure of an analogy but it is clear now there is a pattern." CreationDate="2021-05-21T13:24:32.547" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="33317" PostId="16058" Score="0" Text="Excellent exposition. &quot;the origin of the dental suffix is unclear&quot; seems to be clarified by this. I wonder if the '-it-' suffix is in fact a suffix or has a particular meaning or precursor." CreationDate="2021-05-21T13:23:10.670" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="33309" PostId="16060" Score="1" Text="Note: Asper, lacer, tener, liber and miser always keep the -e-." CreationDate="2021-05-20T17:29:43.837" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33311" PostId="16060" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thanks, I added them in." CreationDate="2021-05-20T17:53:10.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33312" PostId="16062" Score="2" Text="Gaffiot gives &quot;conjŭgus, a, um (conjugo), qu’on peut joindre : PRISC. Gramm. 17, 60&quot; (i.e., joinable). Georges also gives this meaning but [also says](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/coniugus): &quot;= σύζυγος (Apoll. de synt. p. 100, 21 B.)&quot; (whatever that cryptic incantation means), for which [see here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/σύζυγος) (but that pertains to modern Greek)." CreationDate="2021-05-20T18:47:55.737" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33324" PostId="16064" Score="1" Text="It is often followed by *quin* with a quasi-consecutive meaning: https://i.imgur.com/OZAMse5.png E.g. *Non procul afuit quin urbem caperent*:  it was not far off that they captured the city = they almost captured the city." CreationDate="2021-05-22T14:42:38.360" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43450" PostId="16065" Score="0" Text="Would it be correct to say that _nōn_ modifies _procul_ and **not** _abest_, therefore the meaning would be &quot;he's away, (but) not far (from here)&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-06T20:54:47.810" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="43452" PostId="16065" Score="0" Text="@NicolasMiari Yes, that is a good way to see it." CreationDate="2023-06-06T21:20:29.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33323" PostId="16066" Score="2" Text="That setting would make a lot of sense for Medieval Latin, but it is indeed so bizarre for teaching Classical Latin!" CreationDate="2021-05-22T13:40:35.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33327" PostId="16066" Score="0" Text="@cmw Exactly! If it was teaching Mediaeval /Ecclesiastical Latin, then the setting would be entirely appropriate. This is just a mess, and, I think, pedagogically unhelpful to beginners working alone." CreationDate="2021-05-22T16:29:47.710" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="33329" PostId="16069" Score="6" Text="Do you know how the same is expressed in other modern languages? Sampling a few might give some insights into how one can go about expressing this idea." CreationDate="2021-05-22T21:53:44.710" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33330" PostId="16069" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, unfortunately, no. But if someone knows, let the question be edited." CreationDate="2021-05-22T21:58:39.137" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33331" PostId="16069" Score="3" Text="The German is *Wunschdenken* ('wish-thinking'). The Italian phrase that I learned is *pio desiderio* ('devout wish'), obviously from Latin *pium desiderium*. According to the Oxford dictionaries installed on my Mac, one of the other possible Italian expressions – and also a possible Spanish expression – uses a descendant of Latin *illusio*; though it doesn't appear that *illusio* was itself ever used in a remotely similar way – at least not in antiquity." CreationDate="2021-05-23T06:51:02.793" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33334" PostId="16069" Score="0" Text="@cnread Does the Italian necessarily go back to Latin? Couldn't it have formed later? I don't recall seeing such a phrase before, and I don't see anything resembling it when searching PHI." CreationDate="2021-05-23T13:25:06.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33339" PostId="16069" Score="1" Text="@cnread You can also say *frommer Wunsch* (pious wish) in German; the difference being that someone who has a pious wish is typically under no illusion that it is a wish only. *Wunschdenken* (which is a loan translation of &quot;wishful thinking&quot; originating in the 1950s) indicates a degree of self-delusion like, I believe, the English. Therefore I suspect the Italian translation is not quite spot on." CreationDate="2021-05-23T17:33:01.437" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33340" PostId="16069" Score="0" Text="@cmw, I didn't express myself very clearly. I merely meant that each word of the Italian phrase is obviously derived from a Latin word, not that the whole phrase derived from some corresponding Latin phrase." CreationDate="2021-05-23T18:15:04.060" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33341" PostId="16069" Score="0" Text="@cnread Yeah, that makes sense, but I thought it was possible you knew a Latin/Medieval Latin phrase from which the Italian descended." CreationDate="2021-05-23T18:35:37.640" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33342" PostId="16069" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, Interesting about frommer Wunsch vs. Wunschdenken, and the origin of the latter. You could be correct about Italian pio desiderio; or perhaps it covers a broader range of meanings than the direct German equivalent (encompassing both Wunschdenken and frommer Wunsch). Maybe a native Italian speaker will chime in on this. As I said, that's the expression that I learned. I'm not sure the English phrase necessarily involves self-delusion; after all, the phrase is often used when wishful thinkers themselves openly acknowledge that their thinking may be wishful." CreationDate="2021-05-23T18:35:49.420" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33343" PostId="16069" Score="0" Text="@cmw, Alas, no. Like you, I did a PHI search for something similar." CreationDate="2021-05-23T18:36:58.313" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33345" PostId="16070" Score="0" Text="I think the Latin translation of 'devices' deserves a separate question of its own, since the scope is different than the rest of the current question. That is, unlike characters, settings, and props, devices apply to all literary forms, not just to drama. In fact, I'm surprised that there isn't already a question about it on Latin Language SE." CreationDate="2021-05-23T18:49:56.557" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33338" PostId="16071" Score="2" Text="+1. [Here](https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth2006.html) is the Latin text (need to scroll down, or search first for &quot;Quaestio 13&quot;, then for &quot;Articulus 5&quot;), and [here](https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa/summa.FS_Q13_A5.html) is a translation into English, which also uses the term &quot;velleity&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-23T16:13:53.327" UserId="3330" />
  <row Id="33405" PostId="16072" Score="0" Text="So, *Dramatis scaenae*?" CreationDate="2021-05-27T20:16:29.233" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33332" PostId="16074" Score="1" Text="Translating, &quot;de isto utinam tuo&quot; = &quot;Concerning your thing (dream), if only (it could be).&quot;, is this the best interpretation?" CreationDate="2021-05-23T11:30:17.353" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33335" PostId="16074" Score="3" Text="@tony The *utinam* is substantivized in that phrase. The closest equivalent would be, &quot;Concerning your 'if only'&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-23T14:50:43.790" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33357" PostId="16075" Score="0" Text="You have coelum and caelum backwards: &quot;Caelum dictum scribit Aelius, quod est caelatum, aut contrario nomine, celatum quod apertum est; non male, quod impositor, multo potius caelare a caelo quam caelum a caelando. Sed non minus illud alterum de celando ab eo potuit dici, quod interdiu celatur, quam quod noctu non celatur.&quot; (Varro, LL 5.3)" CreationDate="2021-05-23T21:50:18.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33361" PostId="16075" Score="0" Text="Some of the pronunciation features mentioned here are not particular to &quot;Vulgar&quot; Latin, but were probably also features of Cicero, Caesar, or Vergil's Latin. E.g.: [qu changing to /k/ before /u/](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4901/why-sequundus-secundus), intervocalic &quot;i&quot; in words like *cuius* being pronounced as [j], [*vi* being elided from verb forms in certain contexts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9187/when-did-unsyncopated-forms-become-archaic)" CreationDate="2021-05-23T22:50:58.557" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="33336" PostId="16078" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-05-23T15:30:11.627" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33344" PostId="16078" Score="0" Text="Thank you, Adam!" CreationDate="2021-05-23T18:37:51.293" UserId="9511" />
  <row Id="33364" PostId="16078" Score="1" Text="Welcome. Several points to consider (for now I prefer them in a comment). I'm not sure about the meter restrictions. **(1)** about *pro vos*. pro comes with the ablative, so maybe *pro vobis*. But you can consider using *propter vos*. **(2)** about *Aquae sanguinisque mei vobis effundo* not sure I understand the grammar here, can you comment about the usage of the genitive? **(3)** about *maneo* : consider adsum (as used afterwards), or *pareo* to keep the meter. **(4)** about *Mei nominati*, I wonder if just *mei* (as pl. or *meus*) might do for you. or *mei nomine*  (Jos. 5:13 noster es an.." CreationDate="2021-05-24T09:08:32.587" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33368" PostId="16078" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Is there a way to view your entire comment? It’s cut off for me in the middle of the citation you gave from Jos. 5:13. I’ve corrected “pro vos” to “pro vobis” and “aquae sanguinisque” to “aquam sanguinemque” (for some reason I was under the impression that effundo would take the genitive, but the examples in L&amp;S show otherwise). I rather like “maneo” for the resonance with Jn 1:39 (‘viderunt ubi maneret, et apud eum manserunt’)." CreationDate="2021-05-24T16:26:49.260" UserId="9511" />
  <row Id="33369" PostId="16078" Score="0" Text="How about something like “vos vocati mei” instead of “mei nominati”?" CreationDate="2021-05-24T16:53:44.523" UserId="9511" />
  <row Id="33370" PostId="16078" Score="0" Text="@MatthewKnight, My comment wasn't cut. My bad. I should have finish it with &quot;etc.&quot;  instead &quot;...&quot;. **N**ow *maneo* usually means &quot;I stay/remain&quot; so it seems quite off (to me) from the English &quot;I'm here&quot;. but if *maneo* works good for you, use it. **A**bout *mei nominati* I was unsure about this one. I don't know if that conveys the required meaning of &quot;you are call by my name&quot;. Hence I suggested simply *mei* (as Jos 5:13 suggests it makes sense with the *noster es* could be *meus es*); or suggested *mei nomine* (&quot;mine, by name). A more explicit could be *Meo nomine vocati* (but again unsure)." CreationDate="2021-05-24T17:31:32.573" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33346" PostId="16080" Score="1" Text="Do you have a picture or any other details to provide? The phrase you entered doesn't mean anything in Latin, though it could conceivably be an abbreviation." CreationDate="2021-05-23T19:59:17.590" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33347" PostId="16080" Score="0" Text="@brianpck link added. good idea, thank you." CreationDate="2021-05-23T20:17:11.087" UserId="9514" />
  <row Id="33349" PostId="16080" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for an interesting question! I added the image itself to the post." CreationDate="2021-05-23T20:27:45.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33355" PostId="16080" Score="1" Text="If it's an abbreviation (ignoring final n/m; shortening familiar words, as usual) then IN PIAM MemorIAM is a likely candidate. Digging tunnels is notoriously dangerous work." CreationDate="2021-05-23T21:26:01.837" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="33363" PostId="16080" Score="1" Text="@Hugh That sounds very plausible! Can you (or anyone else) write that into an answer?" CreationDate="2021-05-24T05:54:26.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33352" PostId="16081" Score="0" Text="Hi. You got the location correct. The Travel Novi Sad link you posted - I saw it before posting the question - it sounds more like an assumption than a statement to me, but who knows. More info added to original question." CreationDate="2021-05-23T20:42:15.503" UserId="9514" />
  <row Id="33353" PostId="16081" Score="1" Text="Thank you for expanding your answer. It seemed to me that the info was vague and largely a guess, not a verified info." CreationDate="2021-05-23T21:08:39.893" UserId="9514" />
  <row Id="33354" PostId="16081" Score="0" Text="@Rorschach That seems likely, but as I don't read Hungarian or Serbian, there may be some monograph in those languages that I'm unaware of. So far though the phrase turns up zilch." CreationDate="2021-05-23T21:15:44.640" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33358" PostId="16082" Score="0" Text="Do you want a fairly straightforward translation, or just a way for Latin to express that sentiment? If the latter, does it matter if it's authentic?" CreationDate="2021-05-23T22:15:57.413" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33359" PostId="16082" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks for your comment. I suppose the latter would be more appropriate if a direct translation wouldn't express the sentiment. Please could you explain what you mean by authentic?" CreationDate="2021-05-23T22:20:18.720" UserId="9515" />
  <row Id="33360" PostId="16082" Score="0" Text="By authentic, I mean do you want that expression or something very similar to actually be found in Latin writings from the period in which people spoke and wrote Latin as a primary language." CreationDate="2021-05-23T22:33:16.130" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33362" PostId="16082" Score="0" Text="@cmw If possible, seeing both options would be great :)" CreationDate="2021-05-24T00:13:35.503" UserId="9515" />
  <row Id="33388" PostId="16082" Score="0" Text="Interesting question. I feel the meaning of this expression is not immediately obvious, at least it isn't to me: if you explain what it means, perhaps that will make it easier to translate." CreationDate="2021-05-27T02:26:07.673" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33396" PostId="16082" Score="3" Text="It's artfully phrased in English: *to have [it] one's way* is to get one's desired outcome, and the way the construction is normally used the subject and the possessive pronoun refer to the same actor (*I have my way*; *he has his way*). So after *others have* you expect *their way*, but instead get *your way*; this is unexpected and subtle, alluding to the character of a diplomat who can get their desired outcome without those they are negotiating with realising it – indeed the others feel they've gotten what they wanted, but it is in fact what you wanted." CreationDate="2021-05-27T13:23:06.347" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33415" PostId="16082" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I apologise for not elaborating on the subtle meaning of the phrase more in my original question, but another user's comments excellently explains the subtleties, and I've integrated some that in an edit to my question. Hopefully that helps! :)" CreationDate="2021-05-28T14:59:04.137" UserId="9515" />
  <row Id="33416" PostId="16082" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9 Thank you so much for your comment, it excellently explains the artistic nature of the phrase - something I failed to do in my original question! I've included a summarised version of this in my question which I hope you don't mind. Hopefully the explanation will allow a more accurate Latin translation be suggested with the meaning in mind." CreationDate="2021-05-28T15:01:26.290" UserId="9515" />
  <row Id="33374" PostId="16085" Score="0" Text="Also: ἐλεέω (cf. &quot;kyrie eleison&quot;--but the word is in classical sources too)" CreationDate="2021-05-25T13:36:04.440" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33379" PostId="16085" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Yes, though that's more &quot;show pity/mercy to&quot; than &quot;forgive&quot; (i.e. no implication that someone has wronged you). Semantically quite close of course." CreationDate="2021-05-25T20:50:04.287" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33380" PostId="16085" Score="0" Text="@TKR Interesting, there semantic similarities is present in English, too. One theoretical to translate νηλής besides &quot;pitiless&quot; is &quot;ruthless&quot; or &quot;**unforgiving**.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-25T21:40:41.617" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33365" PostId="16086" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! It's [good to not trust Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for) - it does not handle Latin well at all. Could you edit your post to include information on what meaning you want to convey? I would also take a look at our question on [how to ask for a translation](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/483/how-can-i-ask-a-translation-question-if-i-dont-know-any-latin) for more information." CreationDate="2021-05-24T13:22:47.070" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33371" PostId="16086" Score="2" Text="What is a &quot;time reaper&quot; supposed to be? Google's nonsense can usually be disregarded, but for the record, *messor tempus* means &quot;time the reaper&quot; or &quot;time as a reaper.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-24T18:58:40.093" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33382" PostId="16086" Score="1" Text="I'll second @SebastianKoppehel. If you can explain some more about what exactly you are trying to convey, it would help others know what to translate." CreationDate="2021-05-26T03:52:34.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33390" PostId="16086" Score="0" Text="magnus: This was a good question featuring &quot;The Reaper&quot;; https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12594/1982." CreationDate="2021-05-27T09:25:30.887" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33366" PostId="16088" Score="1" Text="A suggestion for your final translation, since English can be elliptical in the exact same way: &quot;Get up now. You will be able to go back to bed that much earlier!&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-24T13:31:56.517" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33376" PostId="16088" Score="0" Text="Much obliged, sir. This has truly helped me." CreationDate="2021-05-25T15:15:13.643" UserId="2906" />
  <row Id="33367" PostId="16089" Score="2" Text="I edited &quot;ordering&quot; to &quot;labeling&quot;, as you don't seem to want them in order but just named. Feel free to roll back my edit if you prefer the old wording!" CreationDate="2021-05-24T15:14:33.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33385" PostId="16091" Score="1" Text="As a side note (too tangential to deserve its own answer), it seems common for linguistic discussions of Latin to use the second singular as shorthand for different inflection patterns in general, because vowel length is preserved before S and there's no risk of vowel contraction. For example, the present subjunctive might be referred to as _amēs_ when discussing its etymology." CreationDate="2021-05-26T19:29:19.577" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33387" PostId="16091" Score="0" Text="I learnt them as -āre, -ēre, -ĕre, -īre, perhaps (back-)influenced by the Spanish system for labeling regular conjugations from the infinitive (-ar, -er, -ir)." CreationDate="2021-05-26T23:42:38.010" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="33377" PostId="16093" Score="3" Text="IIRC, in one of his letters to Brutus, Cicero complains that, being a candidate, he's  followed by a crowd of hired youngsters loudly defaming him every time he walks the streets. I can't remember which letter it was, sorry. I'm on a limb that this was in a letter to Brutus, or even that it was Cicero :(" CreationDate="2021-05-25T15:17:35.527" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33386" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S give the passive perfect *instatum*, and [it seems to be attested through future participles](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23instatu). I think *instator* sounds reasonable." CreationDate="2021-05-26T20:37:26.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33440" PostId="16096" Score="1" Text="&quot;instantatator&quot; Do you mean *instator*? I'm not sure why you're deriving a new verb from the present participle." CreationDate="2021-05-29T12:08:16.500" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33451" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="@cmw Yes, I think you are probably right. I'll rewrite that part. It was a gut feeling, my bad." CreationDate="2021-05-30T08:50:58.530" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33452" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, Reasonable, but unattested. I'm just not a fan of making new words in Classical Latin. Besides, English is very noun-heavy (a common joke goes &quot;every noun can be verbed&quot;). A road sign &quot;End road work speed limit&quot; has 5 words, all nouns. Latin, on the other hands, prefers verbs and finite verb forms to nouns. Yes, Cicero introduced many abstract nouns in _-io_, but I'm no Cicero, so I stick to attested words. :)" CreationDate="2021-05-30T09:01:22.940" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33453" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: This is pidgin English (&quot;End road work speed limiit.&quot;). It barely makes sense and people would laugh. An Indian, English-language, newspaper (2010), reporting a burglary: &quot;Miscreants decamped with loot. They were nabbed by police-sleuths with dog-squad.&quot; It's accurate; tells the tale; but, I still laugh at it!" CreationDate="2021-05-30T09:58:03.097" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33455" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="@tony I didn't make that comment. Pay attention to who you reply to!" CreationDate="2021-05-30T11:41:14.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33479" PostId="16096" Score="1" Text="@tony, Your profile says nothing about the country you live in, but this &quot;pidgin English&quot; is used on road sign across the whole US. Sanskrit is also quite often stringing nouns, by the way, and sometimes in such a quantity that would make out road signs blush. Nothing wrong with it. Attr. Adj and N. are very close categories, and English nearly uninflected, so they nearly merged in syntax. Also, a road sign must be designed such that this madcap going sixty in a metal box on rollers spent as little time as possible reading it..." CreationDate="2021-05-31T10:41:02.750" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33481" PostId="16096" Score="1" Text="@tony, and the heading you cite is a proper English dialect spoken in India. Everyone has an accent and speaks in a dialect. Yes, even you. Now you can have a second laugh! :))" CreationDate="2021-05-31T10:47:06.210" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33485" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="@kkm: Sorry for mistaking you for Joonas. A dialect in one part of England will generate amusement in other parts of England. In London they say &quot;Leave it out!&quot;, which means, &quot;Stop being objectionable/ rude.&quot;, spoken as, &quot;Leeeve it owwwwt.&quot;, &quot;ow&quot; as in &quot;cow&quot;. Similarly, &quot;You are having a laugh.&quot;, &quot;You are making fun of someone/ something.&quot;, &quot;Yooor 'avin a laaaarrff, aintcha?&quot;. Where &quot;aintcha&quot; = &quot;aren't you&quot;. In London they mock the short vowels of the far North, e.g. &quot;tart&quot;, here is &quot;taaart&quot;, in the South." CreationDate="2021-06-01T08:19:24.303" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33486" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Sorry." CreationDate="2021-06-01T08:20:17.757" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33490" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="@tony, ya good, dude, no biggie! :) The dialectal variety of England has always fascinated me. We're 4.5 times more English-first speakers peppered over 75 times the area, and come not even close to the difference between e.g. Estuary and Cumbrian. By the same measure of difference, I'd say we have AAVE, Southern, Boston and Everything Else. :)) AAVE is the most interesting linguistically: the first thing people notice is the sound system, but it's divergent even in its syntax. E.g., its verb/aspect system has one more verb tense, not found in any other US/UK English variety, AFAIK." CreationDate="2021-06-01T13:20:30.410" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33499" PostId="16096" Score="0" Text="You mention Cicero, but what about Medieval Latin?" CreationDate="2021-06-02T21:05:52.330" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="33511" PostId="16096" Score="1" Text="@Geremia, Not my cup of tea. A language without native speakers. But what about Elvish and Klingon?" CreationDate="2021-06-03T20:50:28.827" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33389" PostId="16100" Score="0" Text="Right -- reaping would probably be literally interpreted by the Romans to mean &quot;harvest.&quot; Like in the proverb &quot;you reap what you sew.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-27T03:27:56.130" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="33399" PostId="16100" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite Is there a different definition for &quot;reaper&quot; in English? To reap means to harvest. They are exact synonyms to my ears." CreationDate="2021-05-27T15:15:48.900" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33403" PostId="16100" Score="0" Text="You're right that the definition of souls is the same. It's about what it implies. It's either harvester (of plants) or harvester (of souls). We tend to assume harvester (of souls), but I meant to say that Romans would probably assume harvester (of plants)." CreationDate="2021-05-27T17:48:20.680" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="33401" PostId="16102" Score="2" Text="Thank you all for the help.  Excellent explanation.  I understand now.  For the record when I used 'own' I meant possession - not the legal meaning.  As a beginner, I really appreciate the help." CreationDate="2021-05-27T15:25:10.733" UserId="9543" />
  <row Id="33402" PostId="16102" Score="2" Text="@John Happy to help. Make sure to upvote answers you find helpful and before too long accept (by clicking the check mark) the response that answer your question. Let us know if you have any problems, and feel free to stick around and ask questions as you begin your Latin journey!" CreationDate="2021-05-27T15:27:14.670" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33406" PostId="16103" Score="2" Text="*Novocomensis* is a great find!" CreationDate="2021-05-27T20:18:03.830" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34797" PostId="16103" Score="2" Text="I think this is the best answer." CreationDate="2021-08-30T17:59:38.000" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33409" PostId="16105" Score="0" Text="How does this match the Sanskrit development?" CreationDate="2021-05-27T23:51:40.170" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33411" PostId="16105" Score="2" Text="@CannedMan It doesn't. I don't think it's really cognate." CreationDate="2021-05-28T01:50:16.287" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33413" PostId="16105" Score="4" Text="The suffix in Skt antika- is *ko, as in Greek physikos. It does not lengthen the preceding vowel." CreationDate="2021-05-28T11:34:59.343" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="33414" PostId="16105" Score="1" Text="@fdb Ah, that's what it is. I've added it to the answer." CreationDate="2021-05-28T13:50:36.470" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33419" PostId="16106" Score="0" Text="It is worth pointing out that your second example is from Horace (NB: in prose the proper/so-called &quot;ablative of the agent&quot; _without_ a preposition is not (usually) admissible). In fact, it is not obvious (at least to me) that _Thessalo victore_ must be analyzed here as a proper &quot;ablative of agent&quot;. According to some commentators, it is an &quot;ablative absolute&quot;: e.g., cf. the section of &quot;notes&quot; on the right of http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0024%3Abook%3D2%3Apoem%3D4" CreationDate="2021-05-28T17:44:43.183" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33423" PostId="16106" Score="0" Text="Those examples of &quot;intransitive verbs that have a passive sense&quot; (e.g. _cado_, _pereo_, etc.) can be claimed to coincide with (a subset of) the ones that involve a Theme/Patient subject (rather than an Agent subject). In the linguistic literature they are often referred to as &quot;unaccusative verbs&quot;: cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb" CreationDate="2021-05-28T18:04:28.740" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33427" PostId="16107" Score="0" Text="Also check out [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4426/whats-the-best-translation-of-vindice-in-met-1-89?rq=1), which includes a translation of that first line." CreationDate="2021-05-28T21:30:49.567" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33417" PostId="16108" Score="2" Text="Thank you, this makes perfect sense. There are obviously languages, no doubt most languages, where the precision concerning consonants and vowels matters less than with Latin. It's interesting that the imperatives of the metre here are also powerful enough to reveal to a Latinist instantly that *aurea* here cannot possibly be an ablative noun." CreationDate="2021-05-28T17:15:50.480" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33424" PostId="16108" Score="1" Text="Note that adjective *primus, -a, -um* is sometimes used (by poets and in post-Ciceronian prose, according to Georges) adverbially, so you could read this as *aurea primum sata est aetas*, in English: “the golden age was established first,” or more freely, “at first came the golden age.”" CreationDate="2021-05-28T19:27:18.937" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33426" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent There are only two metrical possibilities for dactylic hexameter: dactyl or spondee. The second vowel is short, so the third has to be short, too." CreationDate="2021-05-28T21:29:56.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33429" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent The word *aurea* cannot be a noun, because this form cannot in any way come from the noun *aurum* &quot;gold&quot;. Instead, *aurea* must be a form of the adjective *aureus* &quot;golden&quot;. The letter *-e-* makes it clear that it is not a form of *aurum*." CreationDate="2021-05-29T01:34:10.150" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33430" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. True. That's basically what I was doing with the translation(s) in parentheses. I don't think it's as accurate a reflection of the Latin, though, given the placement of aurea. I'd expect the prima to be first or otherwise made more emphatic than it currently is. Still, it works well enough for English idiom." CreationDate="2021-05-29T01:34:14.283" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33431" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="I think all of those translations are possible, but how about simply *The Golden Age was sown first*? I think this places enough emphasis on *golden*." CreationDate="2021-05-29T01:35:20.587" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33438" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus... indeed. I've just realised I made a major mistake when I looked up *aurea* in Wiktionary. There is a noun *aurea*, but it means &quot;bridle&quot;, not &quot;gold&quot;! Thus, &quot;The first age was planted with a bridle&quot;? It also says &quot;usually in the plural&quot; now I look closely... This failure to examine the def closely enough is really the source of my confusion! False friends are no doubt a big problem for Latin beginners." CreationDate="2021-05-29T09:52:34.670" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33439" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="... AND... (disregarding metre of course) couldn't *aurea* be the ablative of &quot;golden woman&quot;? (or the nominative/accusative of &quot;golden things&quot;?). Thus &quot;The first age was planted with a golden woman...&quot;???" CreationDate="2021-05-29T10:20:11.833" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33441" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent: Disregarding the metre, it could theoretically be those things. But would either of them make sense in context?" CreationDate="2021-05-29T12:52:09.037" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33443" PostId="16108" Score="0" Text="No! I was just exploring the wilder shores of possibility." CreationDate="2021-05-29T14:46:27.093" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33435" PostId="16109" Score="0" Text="Thank you for that last line!" CreationDate="2021-05-29T08:08:50.240" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33483" PostId="16109" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your thoughtful answer, @cmw. The suggestion from the Aeneid was most helpful. Regarding your last aside—although I am only a translator (an amateur at that) and don't presume to know the author's mind—I would point out there is a long tradition of Christian and indeed Jewish spirituality that might be called 'erotic'. See the Song of Songs and the writings of the mystics (Teresa of Avila springs especially to mind). Pope Benedict also wrote a [document](https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html) on the topic." CreationDate="2021-06-01T00:49:58.020" UserId="9511" />
  <row Id="33437" PostId="16110" Score="0" Text="I'm curious as to what you mean by 'important words'. Are these words with meanings specific to the context of the play (like invented words, or words being used in a particular sense), or do you have something more analytical in mind ('these are the key words that relate to the themes of the play', say)?" CreationDate="2021-05-29T08:17:47.457" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33444" PostId="16110" Score="2" Text="The word you want translated to latin would be 'glossary'." CreationDate="2021-05-29T18:13:18.593" UserId="9550" />
  <row Id="33442" PostId="16111" Score="1" Text="If I had a vote, I'd vote for *Dramatis vocabula*." CreationDate="2021-05-29T14:34:22.097" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33448" PostId="16114" Score="0" Text="My sincere thanks for your answer. I have one further question: how is it that there exists two different versions of the latin text?" CreationDate="2021-05-29T22:16:25.460" UserId="9551" />
  <row Id="33449" PostId="16114" Score="0" Text="@BtureP I don't have a critical edition of this particular text with me, but generally one of three ways. 1. There is gibberish in the manuscript (like a typo); 2. The word makes no sense where it is; or 3. A word is clearly missing. What happens is that different editors choose different options to correct the text (called 'emendation') when they publish their editions." CreationDate="2021-05-29T22:19:04.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33450" PostId="16115" Score="2" Text="I think a PIE origin is ruled out mainly on geographical grounds, since I don't think there are any formal problems with a hypothetical etymon like *\*iH-lék-s* or *\*h₁éi-lk-s* (if it passed through Celtic). Other than the lack of cognates, obviously." CreationDate="2021-05-30T00:15:39.113" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33473" PostId="16115" Score="1" Text="(On reflection *\*iH-lék-s* doesn't work because of Dybo's law (yielding Latin *ilex* with a short *i*) and *\*h₁éi-lk-s* passing through Celtic probably doesn't work because that would have yielded Celtic *īalix*. But some reconstruction is surely conceivable.)" CreationDate="2021-05-30T18:12:40.497" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40354" PostId="16115" Score="0" Text="I'm accepting the answer for now, but I still invite other possibilities!" CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:06:29.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33456" PostId="16116" Score="0" Text="You might want to take that first request for resources and turn that into a community wiki question of its own. Here's what we've done like that before: [ex. 1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4845/resources-for-pronouncing-latin), [ex. 2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why), &amp; [ex. 3](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6018/what-are-the-most-important-scholarly-resources-for-latin-and-greek-historical-l)." CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:27:08.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33457" PostId="16117" Score="2" Text="I hesitate to question a person with your rep, but according to wiktionary *mella* is &quot;honey-water&quot;, and feminine. I read these lines as saying that &quot;the **rivers** are dripping with golden honey-water&quot;... What is the meaning of *mellum*, if your reading is correct?  From Wiktionary I get &quot;a collar for dogs&quot; (!) or *mellum* is also said to be the genitive plural for *mel*, &quot;honey&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:28:09.590" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33458" PostId="16117" Score="5" Text="@mikerodent It's actually the nominative plural of [*mel*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mel#Latin), a neuter noun, and not *mella*, which would be the nominative singular. The difference here does matter, too, as if it were the latter, the verb would be singular (*stillabat*), and that would be metrically impossible since that latter -a- would then be short. But it has to be long, so it has to be plural, so it has to be the plural nominative of *mel*, not the rare word *mella*." CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:32:01.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33459" PostId="16117" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent I'll add a little translation too for you." CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:34:30.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33460" PostId="16117" Score="0" Text="I read *flava mella* (which I also parsed as f. sg.) as a predicative adjunct, with *flumina iam lactis, iam flumina nectaris* serving as the subject for both verbs. Honey in the plural seems weird but it's awkward either way." CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:39:07.243" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33461" PostId="16117" Score="0" Text="@cmw Fascinating, thank you! To answer your question, no, I hadn't seen your question on *ilex*. Also I'll see if I can pose a community wiki question. I have been trying to understand whether my reading could under any circumstances (&quot;the rivers were dripping with golden honey-water from the green ilex&quot;) be an acceptable interpretation hereof? I mean, why exactly is that a wrong reading?" CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:40:11.530" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33462" PostId="16117" Score="1" Text="@Cairnavon I suppose that's technically possible, but *mel* in the plural is not unknown in Ovid (and in the accusative to boot, where it is all but impossible to read a feminine singular *mella*)." CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:44:30.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33463" PostId="16117" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent Beyond the metrical impossibility, I'm not sure what that really means grammatically. What does it mean that the rivers are dripping with X from Y? What is going on that?" CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:46:18.233" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33464" PostId="16117" Score="0" Text="Aha, again the metrical impossibility (I posed my first question here two days ago and the metrical possibilities showed why outlandish readings were simply not feasible). Yes, certainly, honey(s) dripping from trees is more sensible than rivers &quot;dripping with&quot; honey-water." CreationDate="2021-05-30T13:48:38.180" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33466" PostId="16119" Score="5" Text="Does [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4111/how-did-status-quo-get-its-meaning) answer your question? Essentially, it should be either *status quo* or *in statu quo*." CreationDate="2021-05-30T15:41:48.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33468" PostId="16119" Score="2" Text="Thank you for linking it. I had seen it but I missed that there was some discussions about my question as well. However, I think this is not a duplicate and there is some value in it, also because it is hard to find the answer in the linked question." CreationDate="2021-05-30T16:10:47.810" UserId="9553" />
  <row Id="33470" PostId="16120" Score="2" Text="If you are correct, the Italian translation is incorrect, being &quot;Affermazioni Orientate al Mantenimento dello Statu Quo&quot;, literally &quot;Statements aimed at maintaining the Statu Quo&quot;, which is a bad translation of &quot;Sustain Talk&quot;." CreationDate="2021-05-30T17:40:28.543" UserId="9553" />
  <row Id="33471" PostId="16120" Score="1" Text="@MicheleDorigatti Added a note about that. It's technically incorrect Latin, but Latin case marking doesn't generally survive borrowing into other languages." CreationDate="2021-05-30T17:46:11.847" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33472" PostId="16120" Score="0" Text="Nice, thank you!" CreationDate="2021-05-30T17:55:04.490" UserId="9553" />
  <row Id="33474" PostId="16121" Score="0" Text="Thanks. That Catullus site is useful, but unfortunately he doesn't show the caesura (I assume the metre there is of a type with caesurae... all Alexandran hexameters?)." CreationDate="2021-05-30T18:19:18.393" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33475" PostId="16121" Score="2" Text="@mikerodent I don't remember my Catullus well enough (and I never paid that much attention to scansion at school) but Catullus 1 is in hendecasyllables; I think that's true for a lot of his writing." CreationDate="2021-05-30T18:21:29.833" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33476" PostId="16121" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent Yes, not every meter will have caesura. Caesuras are also either a) fairly easy to spot with punctuation, or b) often completely ambiguous. If there is space in the third foot, it's probably going there, unless there's a good reason to put it in the fourth. But otherwise the meter is there for you." CreationDate="2021-05-30T18:38:21.683" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33478" PostId="16123" Score="0" Text="Why would the standard order be Subject-Object-Verb and not Subject-Verb-Object? What does it mean for a verb to have a present force even if it is in perfect? Why is this so? Wouldn't Iura novit curia be used by the Appelate Court to defend the Trial Court's decision?" CreationDate="2021-05-31T10:15:45.430" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="33480" PostId="16123" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos: I provided links in my answer to address your questions. I'm not sure what you're getting at this: &quot;Wouldn't Iura novit curia be used by the Appelate Court to defend the Trial Court's decision?&quot;" CreationDate="2021-05-31T10:41:59.267" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="33491" PostId="16123" Score="1" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos “What does it mean for a verb to have a present force even if it is in perfect?” — when you _knew_ something, you probably _know_ it. It's not an easy trick to unknow, unhear or unsee (try it!). That's common with verbs of knowing and perceiving, and probably has to do with how Proto-Italic perfect tense has developed from PIE perfective aspect. Why Latin is SOV, no one knows. Easy to guess, for the same reason English is SVO and many Austronesian languages are VOS, but the humongous riddle is, no one knows that reason. :)" CreationDate="2021-06-01T13:54:29.057" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="33488" PostId="16124" Score="2" Text="A few more comments: (1) *liquefacio* literally means to &quot;melt,&quot; but it is transitive, i.e. I can use it to say that I *melt* gold but not that gold *melts.* In this case, you want to use the passive (*liquefit*, *liquefactum est*) or a different word (*liquescit*; cf. Ps. 21). (2) The genitive pronoun *mei* is [almost never used](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1306/when-to-use-a-genitive-pronoun-instead-of-a-possessive-adjective) for possession: you should probably rephrase to *sanguinem meum* or (better, in my opinion) drop the *mei*." CreationDate="2021-06-01T12:34:15.623" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33495" PostId="16124" Score="1" Text="These are very helpful. Thanks, @brianpck." CreationDate="2021-06-02T16:40:12.687" UserId="9511" />
  <row Id="33484" PostId="16125" Score="1" Text="This is good stuff. I don't think though that the Romans would have gotten the word from the Macedonians, though? It grows so much in Italy that I would have assumed it was the other way around, no? (I'm no paleobotanist, so maybe it was all over Macedonia, too.) Definitely an interesting hypothesis." CreationDate="2021-06-01T03:20:12.953" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33489" PostId="16125" Score="0" Text="@cmw Sure, I'd think it'd be Italians selling to Greeks/Macedonians in this scenario, not the other way around, but if the trade in holm oak is the biggest use of it locally the foreign word for it conceivably might still displace whatever native term the Italians had. If it was such a generic word (&quot;wood tree&quot;) in M. originally but never meant anything but specifically *holm oak* in Latin (another unconfirmable *if*), that may actually be a point in favour of that. (Though apparently holm oak does grow on the Macedonian coast.)" CreationDate="2021-06-01T13:14:08.390" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33492" PostId="16127" Score="5" Text="Since his book of laws is named the *Codex Inae*, I'd says his name was *Inas*, and that &quot;Inus&quot; is just Wikipedia bobbling the Latin, as usual, probably because automated text scanners often can't tell the difference between &quot;a&quot; and &quot;u&quot;." CreationDate="2021-06-02T03:27:37.027" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33493" PostId="16127" Score="3" Text="I think you're right, and I can't think of any reason why his name wouldn't have been Ina in Old English of the time, so I've updated my answer to more clearly suggest Ina or Inas. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-06-02T06:40:53.410" UserId="9062" />
  <row Id="33496" PostId="16127" Score="1" Text="[One of Wikipedia's sources](https://pase.ac.uk/jsp/persons/CreatePersonFrames.jsp?personKey=292) lists &quot;Inus&quot; as a variant (but only 1 attestation out of 55 listed). &quot;Inas&quot; isn't listed even once, though evidently there is the one you found scanned" CreationDate="2021-06-02T16:57:48.023" UserId="2605" />
  <row Id="33530" PostId="16127" Score="0" Text="Good find. The print below has *Ine*, which looks more like what's in the manuscript: https://books.google.com/books?id=oudBAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA744&amp;lpg=PA744&amp;dq=%22dei+gratia+westsaxonum+rex+exhortatione%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=d-VX2BpqRU&amp;sig=ACfU3U3MeL_tWrbT8wA2lmsUyx6j9oVWzQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dei%20gratia%20westsaxonum%20rex%20exhortatione%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-06-04T21:49:15.970" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33591" PostId="16127" Score="0" Text="There is still an open question left why the word is spelled in a such strange way." CreationDate="2021-06-08T18:19:15.673" UserId="6712" />
  <row Id="33497" PostId="16128" Score="2" Text="In the indirect discourse version, I'm not sure that the verb in the relative clause should be infinitive. Doesn't that happen only when the relative is functioning as a so-called connecting relative (= et/sed is)? I would think subjunctive is needed in this instance." CreationDate="2021-06-02T17:01:46.087" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33498" PostId="16128" Score="2" Text="This is an excellent question which touches upon several interesting corners of grammar; minor point (which could distract from the central questions): *punissisent* should be *punivissent*. I also doubt that *se ludificari* is a good translation for &quot;make a fool of oneself,&quot; it sounds Latinglish to me, but I could be wrong." CreationDate="2021-06-02T18:14:50.900" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33500" PostId="16128" Score="1" Text="I'd think the relative clause would be subjunctive even in the direct version (relative clause of characteristic)." CreationDate="2021-06-03T00:54:13.867" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33501" PostId="16128" Score="2" Text="@TKR No, because he is not talking about a characteristic (&quot;the sort of commander who makes a fool of himself&quot;), but about those commanders who, however characteristic or not, did so in the actual campaign. That said, I would argue in favour of the subjunctive too, due to attraction of mode." CreationDate="2021-06-03T10:02:45.137" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33502" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel; Thank you. Because &quot;punio&quot; has two perfect participles &quot;punii&quot; &amp; &quot;punivi&quot;, I chose &quot;puniissent&quot; (two &quot;i&quot;s; not the one &quot;i&quot; I used). The &quot;ivi&quot; form may be better therefore an edit." CreationDate="2021-06-03T10:02:48.063" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33503" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Tricky was the &quot;to make a fool of oneself&quot; part. Oxford gives &quot;ludificor (aliquem)&quot;; so, &quot;se&quot; and not &quot;sui&quot; for the reflexive pronoun. Wiki gives alternative, regular verb, &quot;ludifico&quot;." CreationDate="2021-06-03T10:05:45.413" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33504" PostId="16128" Score="2" Text="@tony That is a rather literal translation though for an idiom which really means &quot;to act stupidly in a disgraceful way. For lack of a better idea, I'd say: *stultitia se dedecorare*." CreationDate="2021-06-03T11:28:58.593" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33505" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Thanks. Does the relative clause of characteristic mean that the relative clause is the same in both direct &amp; indirect speeches? Giving, &quot;qui se ludificatus sit&quot;, selecting the perfect subjunctive (same tense as in English)? Definitely not &quot;quem&quot; in the indirect version?" CreationDate="2021-06-03T11:31:36.753" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33506" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@cnread: Thanks: I would ask yourself the same question I have put to TKR: is the relative clause, then, the same in both direct &amp; indirect versions? Further, would imperfect subjunctive, &quot;ludificeretur&quot; fit for a recurring event, in the past, (according to Gracchus)?" CreationDate="2021-06-03T11:38:57.570" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33510" PostId="16128" Score="1" Text="@tony, It could be if, as Sebastian Koppehel says, the mood in the direct version is attracted into the subjunctive. Personally, I'd leave it in the indicative in the direct version, but then make it subjunctive in the indirect version (not only because verbs in subordinate clauses in indirect speech tend to be subjunctive, but also as a signal to the reader that the clause is part of the speech that is being reported rather than a comment attributable to the narrator who is reporting it)." CreationDate="2021-06-03T16:10:06.430" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33512" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I'd actually initially thought of calling it &quot;attraction of mode&quot; but then found myself wondering if there's really a difference between that and &quot;relative clause of characteristic&quot; in this case. That discussion is probably beyond the need of this question, though; I'm glad we agree that subjunctive is required here, in any case." CreationDate="2021-06-03T21:42:38.037" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33514" PostId="16128" Score="1" Text="@tony The case of the relative pronoun doesn't depend on what kind of relative clause it is (characteristic or otherwise); if this were an accusative and infinitive it would be *quem*, but I agree with the other commenters that a finite clause would be used here." CreationDate="2021-06-03T22:04:15.570" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33516" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Re. &quot;attraction of mode&quot;, A &amp; G p186; sect.306(a) Note: &quot;urbem quam statuo vestra est&quot; and &quot;Naucratem, quem convenire volui, in navi non erat&quot;; I struggled with the antecedents being in the accusative?! Wiki: &quot;Attraction is a type of error...that incorrectly extends a feature from one word, in a sentence, to another. Here, the subjunctive, in the direct speech is an (acceptable) error--&quot;attraction of mode&quot;--is that correct?" CreationDate="2021-06-04T13:37:09.460" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33518" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@tony Per definitionem error non est quod apud Ciceronem inveniatur " CreationDate="2021-06-04T14:32:36.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33540" PostId="16128" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thanks for the answer which puts some of the above comments into focus. There is a natural tendency (Attraction?) to make an antecedent agree with the relative pronoun, because the gender &amp; number have to agree. Why is this &quot;mistake&quot; legitimised with the expression, &quot;attraction of mode&quot;? Cicero, like Julius Caeser, did violate the rule on ablative absolutes--using a species from the AA, again, later in the same sentence. Therefore, experimenting with his own language, or mischievously looking to confound the logic of others, Cicero does not necessarily  offer perfection." CreationDate="2021-06-05T08:46:09.223" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33509" PostId="16131" Score="3" Text="I actually looked at this very entry and totally missed that reference, hah!" CreationDate="2021-06-03T15:58:37.617" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33513" PostId="16132" Score="0" Text="Licetne discipulis dictionario uti?" CreationDate="2021-06-03T21:55:02.150" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33515" PostId="16132" Score="0" Text="@d_e Non puto..." CreationDate="2021-06-03T22:21:40.213" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33531" PostId="16132" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, at what age do children normally take this test?" CreationDate="2021-06-04T21:59:07.760" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33535" PostId="16132" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The SAT is a college admissions test." CreationDate="2021-06-04T23:49:00.690" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33539" PostId="16132" Score="1" Text="@TKR I assume that means students would be 18, but I'm not certain – 'college admissions' is very country-dependent." CreationDate="2021-06-05T08:42:25.160" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33548" PostId="16132" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I think students are typically in their last or second to last year of high school." CreationDate="2021-06-06T05:40:39.137" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33549" PostId="16132" Score="0" Text="@TKR That doesn't really clarify, as I'm not totally sure what age high school ends in the US." CreationDate="2021-06-06T14:41:01.607" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33552" PostId="16132" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9 18 generally." CreationDate="2021-06-06T17:53:43.570" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33532" PostId="16134" Score="0" Text="Do you know at what age children normally take this test? Just curious." CreationDate="2021-06-04T22:22:28.127" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33533" PostId="16134" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The vast majority would be 16 for GCSEs, 17 for AS (if they take them), 18 for A-Levels. At 16 they would generally have studied Latin for 3–5 years depending on the school." CreationDate="2021-06-04T22:26:39.160" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33534" PostId="16134" Score="0" Text="Thanks! So what levels are the texts in your answer? The first one is 16, the second one 17 or 18?" CreationDate="2021-06-04T23:40:30.737" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33538" PostId="16134" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The first is from a GCSE paper, so 16; the second is from an A-Level paper, so 18." CreationDate="2021-06-05T08:41:10.680" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33544" PostId="16134" Score="0" Text="Thanks. So I see there are some small changes in the latter, mainly words that have been replaced with commoner synonyms, and the occasional simpler construction. I wonder why they do that: in Dutch exams, this is never done. From ca. age 16, pupils read original authors (usually beginning with Ovid). This is probably compensated by giving a bit more assistance in the margin." CreationDate="2021-06-05T13:57:19.877" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33521" PostId="16136" Score="0" Text="Does *puniissemus* have an extra I?" CreationDate="2021-06-04T15:25:05.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33522" PostId="16136" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: According to Wiki's conjugation tables; I made the mistake of a single &quot;i&quot; in the original posting--if it is a mistake?" CreationDate="2021-06-04T15:34:00.897" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33523" PostId="16136" Score="0" Text="@tony I see, I read too hastily. I'm not sure if the I at the end of the perfect stem is retained in all forms. Contracting to a single long I is appealing, but I'm not sure if it's done." CreationDate="2021-06-04T15:59:38.357" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33541" PostId="16136" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Concepts e.g. &quot;relative clause of characteristic&quot; &amp; &quot;attraction of mode&quot; are completely new to me. The latter I am still asking Seb about--it appears to be the legitimising of a mistake--do you have a thought on this one?" CreationDate="2021-06-05T08:51:51.353" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33545" PostId="16136" Score="0" Text="@tony Those concepts are well worth studying if you want to dig deeper into Latin grammar. It makes some sense to call all language evolution &quot;legitimization of mistakes&quot;, and I see nothing deeply different in the various attraction phenomena (of mode and case) in Latin. Things don't always go as you'd expect, but language is not exactly a logic puzzle." CreationDate="2021-06-05T19:44:40.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33569" PostId="16136" Score="0" Text="@tony That is a philosophical question, but personally I do not think it is a helpful framing to call attraction a legitimized mistake. To us the subjunctive, all too often, feels like a meaningless complication of grammar that we have to employ according to numerous rules when composing Latin prose. To native speakers (I suspect) it was a meaningful tool to intuitively structure their thoughts and sentences. Many of the rules we learn were dreamt up much later by philologists trying to make sense of the chaotic usage found in the sources …" CreationDate="2021-06-07T21:05:50.323" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33570" PostId="16136" Score="0" Text="… and thus you have all those [vague criteria](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/intermediate-clauses#subjunctive-integral-part) and remarks like “but other uses are occasionally found in the best authors,” etc., especially around rules concerning mood." CreationDate="2021-06-07T21:10:44.643" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33519" PostId="16137" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Castellio is fond of using *qui* as demonstrative pronoun for some reason, but I don't remember he has done so without explicitly re-mention of the subject from the previous verse as here as an apposition (which indeed it is not obvious one at least for me). Note the speaker is Abimelech (I've edited the Q to make this clear)" CreationDate="2021-06-04T14:49:49.413" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33520" PostId="16137" Score="0" Text="@d_e Yeah, I've seen that more often too. I suspect that this might grammatically parse as an apposition with the relative pronoun: L&amp;S even mentions how the gender of the relative pronoun is sometimes &quot;attracted&quot; to the gender of a new noun in the relative clause. (Usually *attractio relativi* refers to changes in case, though.)" CreationDate="2021-06-04T14:57:02.570" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33603" PostId="16137" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: The concept of &quot;attraction&quot; came up in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16128/1982. In an ex. from (A &amp; G), &quot;urbem quam statuo vestra est&quot; (Aen. i. 573) = &quot;the city which I am founding is yours&quot;. The antecedent ought to be nominative, &quot;urbs&quot;. This natural tendency (&quot;attraction&quot;) to make everything agree appears to be legitimising a mistake--a terminology rejected by both Sebastian &amp; Joonas. Further (A &amp; G: p.185 sect. 306) &quot;mare etiam quem Neptunum esse dicebas&quot; (N. D. 3. 52) = &quot;the sea, too, which you said was Neptune&quot;; corresponding to neuter &quot;mare&quot;" CreationDate="2021-06-09T12:09:36.790" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33604" PostId="16137" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: the expected relative pronoun should be the neuter, accusative &quot;quod&quot;. The use of &quot;quem&quot; attracted into accusative &quot;Neptunum&quot;, in the relative clause. Here, in the ex. from de B. G. there is neut. acc. &quot;regnum&quot; (indirect speech) corresponding to relative pronoun neut. acc. &quot;quod&quot;, which is what would be expected. Therefore how is it known that &quot;quod&quot; is attracted into &quot;dictum&quot;, which could have been omitted. Presumably, it was (transfer of) &quot;the rule&quot; which upset the Haedui, not the announcement--shooting the messenger? Similarly, the original Q., &quot;defensione&quot; (feminine)" CreationDate="2021-06-09T12:27:14.460" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33605" PostId="16137" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: corresponding to fem. sing. ablative (selected by &quot;utor&quot;) relative pronoun &quot;qua&quot;, which is what would be expected. How are expected things to be considered as examples of &quot;attraction&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-06-09T12:31:09.947" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33609" PostId="16137" Score="0" Text="@tony Usually the relative pronoun agrees with the antecedent, as you mentioned, so one would normally expect *quibus* (agreeing in gender and number with *argenteos*) rather than *qua* (agreeing with the noun in the relative clause). The case is quite similar to your &quot;mare quem Neptunum&quot; example." CreationDate="2021-06-09T13:05:40.407" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33553" PostId="16139" Score="3" Text="Grammars tend to be frustratingly vague about the relationship between the second supine and the noun modified by the adjective to which the supine is attached. But in every single example I have seen, the noun was the **direct object** of the supine. *Res foeda visu*, *si hoc est fas dictu* and so on. So I believe your whole idea cannot work, because the direct object of *credere* is the thing to be believed, not the person." CreationDate="2021-06-06T20:39:05.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33554" PostId="16139" Score="0" Text="FWIW, searching on PHI finds no instances of *creditu*." CreationDate="2021-06-06T20:41:41.617" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33555" PostId="16139" Score="0" Text="@TKR, If I had to guess, I would have said it is *difficile creditu* not to find any *creditu* in PHI. at least I could find [2 examples](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23dign+%7E+%23credi%23) of *dingus credi*:" CreationDate="2021-06-06T21:13:10.613" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33557" PostId="16139" Score="6" Text="I think you need to use a different construction for this – e.g., nemo est dignus cui credatur." CreationDate="2021-06-07T05:42:26.030" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40004" PostId="16139" Score="2" Text="This is a case where Latin prefers a noun to an explicitly verbal construction: nemo praecipiti fide dignus est or nemo properam meret fidem." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:53:52.860" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="33551" PostId="16141" Score="0" Text="I see. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-06-06T17:29:12.947" UserId="2906" />
  <row Id="33558" PostId="16144" Score="0" Text="Is there a rule on imperatives requiring an accusative e.g. &quot;te abi&quot;? How does the reader know if the receiver is a singular or plural entity?" CreationDate="2021-06-07T11:35:02.733" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33560" PostId="16144" Score="1" Text="@tony The number of the addressee is indicated by the number of the imperative: *abi(to)* for one person, *abi(to)te* for several. An accusative is used for a direct object just like with any other use of the verb; I don't think there's anything special about the imperative." CreationDate="2021-06-07T13:16:16.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33627" PostId="16145" Score="0" Text="Good find. I wonder how common this is in prose." CreationDate="2021-06-10T04:35:05.010" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33565" PostId="16146" Score="0" Text="Why two &quot;ubi&quot; next to each other?" CreationDate="2021-06-07T18:07:44.983" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="33566" PostId="16146" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler - According to [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ubi&amp;la=la#lexicon): &quot;Repeated _ubi ubi_, also written as one word _ubiubi_, wherever, wheresoever = _ubicumque_&quot;" CreationDate="2021-06-07T18:22:07.370" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="33568" PostId="16147" Score="0" Text="This seems extremely broad. Editions of what? Anything at all in Latin or Greek?" CreationDate="2021-06-07T20:27:56.887" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="33571" PostId="16147" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell This is indeed a broad resource request, and we currently have the linked meta system for choosing which ones to implement. I think Mike is simply after good reading suggestions for the phase of studies he is in, but of course any additional details, if any, on this should be edited in. There might be many, many possible books to read, but here we are after the best ones (by any criteria, to be described in the answers); this could be clarified in the wording." CreationDate="2021-06-07T21:20:10.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33575" PostId="16147" Score="0" Text="If you want something aimed more at a popular audience, the Loebs aren't bad anymore. In some cases, like the Remains of Old Latin, they're still fairly standard texts. I imagine cheaper Latin/Greek texts that aren't commentaries or critical texts in the original language are and will continue to be harder to find because of the success of dual language editions (like the Loeb or Budé sets)." CreationDate="2021-06-07T22:14:52.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33582" PostId="16147" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks. I don't mind commentaries/critical texts at all, especially if they are good (informative) and don't clutter up the original text too much. I just find having the translation there in the Loeb is, even now, a bit annoying. I find the Loeb translation style (at least with this book) quite unappealing, but also in general having an English translation if/when you don't need it has a detrimental effect on the reading experience. I wonder what you mean by &quot;Loebs aren't bad any more&quot;... how did they used to be bad, and how have they improved?" CreationDate="2021-06-08T11:49:55.173" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33583" PostId="16147" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent Yeah, some of the older translations are terrible, and they struggled financially for years up until pretty recently (90s, I want to say?). The benefit of a critical text is that you know you're reading a text that is generally secure in what was written, so I'm not trying to dissuade you against that! It's what I mostly have." CreationDate="2021-06-08T11:52:39.730" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33567" PostId="16148" Score="2" Text="That's a seriously impressive rendering of a complicated expression – hats off to you!" CreationDate="2021-06-07T19:36:55.193" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33573" PostId="16148" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9 Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-06-07T21:30:58.990" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33643" PostId="16148" Score="1" Text="Thanks so much for translating what is undoubtedly a very hard phrase to encapsulate. I think you've expressed the nature of the idiom very well!" CreationDate="2021-06-11T19:48:01.920" UserId="9515" />
  <row Id="33685" PostId="16148" Score="1" Text="@Rocco You're welcome! It was a fun challenge!" CreationDate="2021-06-14T14:48:16.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33572" PostId="16150" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that's helpful. So the answer seems to be that you either use two accusatives or an accusative for the thing being sung and a dative for the topic. I don't think the first paragraph adds anything." CreationDate="2021-06-07T21:25:39.320" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="33577" PostId="16150" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell I think the dative αἰδοίοισιν in Heraclitus expresses addressee rather than topic (they're singing &quot;to&quot; the phallus in a Dionysian revel). // For completeness the more specific θρηνέω &quot;sing mournfully&quot; could be added, with an accusative as e.g. ᾠδὰς θρηνέω &quot;sing songs of lamentation&quot;." CreationDate="2021-06-07T23:54:05.887" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33584" PostId="16151" Score="0" Text="Thanks... useful to know they're changing the covers, I'll keep an eye out for that. Seems like OCT is probably my best bet, and some are available for a bit cheaper through Abe etc. I looked at the OCT Metamorphoses, and was indeed slightly disappointed to find that, rather like Loeb, the actual book format (h x w size) is a little bit on the mean side (19 cm x 12 cm)." CreationDate="2021-06-08T11:54:58.997" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33631" PostId="16151" Score="0" Text="Just got my OCT P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoses... it's actually a very nice size, much nicer than Loeb, nicely printed, etc.  On the back it says there are now over 100 volumes of Greek and Latin, so that might keep me occupied for a while." CreationDate="2021-06-10T16:46:36.493" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33579" PostId="16152" Score="0" Text="Could you explain what you mean by &quot;tilted German&quot;? The editors/collators are German? I'd also be curious if anyone could add additional info about pros/cons beyond &quot;individual preference.&quot; I tend to OCTs way more, but maybe that's because I'm in the English-speaking world." CreationDate="2021-06-08T02:30:52.313" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33580" PostId="16152" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I didn't actually mean individual preference, but individual *cases*. Typing too quickly. Pindar's Teubner is said to be better a better text than the OCT (per a conversation with a Pindar scholar, but I never got into the details of the text myself)." CreationDate="2021-06-08T03:14:48.320" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33586" PostId="16152" Score="0" Text="Interesting. A bit of searching seems to show that these may be a bit tricky to get in the UK. But getting them second-hand (through Abe etc.) may be possible." CreationDate="2021-06-08T11:56:51.197" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33587" PostId="16152" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent here’s the publisher’s website https://www.degruyter.com/serial/BT-B/html  Caveat, Teubner editions are not particularly cheap (it’s de Gruyter)" CreationDate="2021-06-08T13:22:27.490" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33589" PostId="16154" Score="0" Text="I just found [a related question about *(h)ave*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15836/79)." CreationDate="2021-06-08T15:15:52.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33612" PostId="16154" Score="2" Text="I also want to add that the infinitive *avere* actually is not the infinitive of *ave* — in every instance I've managed to find (that isn't the separate IE verb 'to desire'), it means 'to greet'. It's a neologism built on *ave*, but *ave* itself obviously doesn't mean 'greet!'." CreationDate="2021-06-09T17:10:38.650" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33590" PostId="16155" Score="0" Text="That makes sense. It's like &quot;et de profundo lacu&quot; from Fauré's requiem. Excellent, thank you so much. Do you recommend any texts on Latin language/grammar? I have an intermediate understanding of a few Romance languages, so difficulty isn't too much of a concern. I would prefer sometime mainly in English, however." CreationDate="2021-06-08T17:05:51.367" UserId="9583" />
  <row Id="33592" PostId="16155" Score="1" Text="@SprNtndoChlmrs I'm glad to have been able to help! [This question about self learning material](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/957/79) is a good place to start looking; it gives far better suggestions than I could in a comment. If you are looking for a good book for your specific case and those general ones seem to miss the point, you can ask a focused separate question." CreationDate="2021-06-08T18:24:13.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33593" PostId="16155" Score="0" Text="I wonder if *filius silvestris* might also work?" CreationDate="2021-06-08T19:13:09.567" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="33594" PostId="16155" Score="1" Text="@DerÜbermensch It would but with a somewhat different meaning. I added a discussion on that. Good suggestion!" CreationDate="2021-06-08T19:58:32.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33598" PostId="16164" Score="0" Text="I know nobody was waiting for this answer but I wanted to write it." CreationDate="2021-06-08T23:29:23.270" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33599" PostId="16164" Score="1" Text="I for one am glad that you did. Your hypothetical verb ingeō would seem to suggest  that the adjective ingens may not only share meaning with magnus but also be etymologically related to it. Or do you think that's a linguistic coincidence? (I note that OLD gives the etymology of ingens as dubious.)" CreationDate="2021-06-09T04:05:25.517" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33601" PostId="16164" Score="1" Text="@cnread That's also [what De Vaan says](https://i.imgur.com/N1pTiOx.png), yeah, and I think it's convincing. (The derivation here, if it's not clear, is that the syllabic *\*m̥* of *\*m̥ǵ-* in the zero-grade becomes *\*em*, then the *\*m* assimilates to the following *\*g* &lt; *\*ǵ*, and finally *\*e* raises to *i* before the resulting [ŋ]. This doesn't happen in  *\*m̥ǵ-nó-s* itself because Schrijver's rule \*RDC- &gt; RaDC- takes priority.)" CreationDate="2021-06-09T07:36:26.683" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33600" PostId="16165" Score="0" Text="Latin or Greek text + introduction and commentary in English. Some of them also include a facing English translation." CreationDate="2021-06-09T07:21:25.367" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33602" PostId="16165" Score="0" Text="What @cnread said, but I should add that these are aimed at students." CreationDate="2021-06-09T11:23:25.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33606" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="Thanks. These seem to be very expensive: £20 for one book of Metamorphoses. Poor students! I've now ordered the OCT Metamorphoses: 592 pp, seemingly with all the books, for a similar sum." CreationDate="2021-06-09T12:35:16.890" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33607" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent Well, they're different. This will have extensive commentary on grammar, history, literary analysis, etc. that the OCT lacks. The OCT you'll only get some background information and a text with a critical apparatus. For former is for learning, the latter is for reading." CreationDate="2021-06-09T12:39:43.790" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33608" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="That makes sense. This is one case where it would good to &quot;look inside&quot; the books properly (not the case on Amazon with these books) ... failing that, of course, I'm getting useful low-downs from the likes of yourself and others here." CreationDate="2021-06-09T12:43:34.977" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33611" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="Many of the Bristol editions are actually reprints of the old red hardcover Macmillan editions." CreationDate="2021-06-09T16:02:40.517" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33614" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@cnread Feel free to add that to the post, too." CreationDate="2021-06-09T20:50:56.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33618" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@cnread Interesting idea. Surely generations of school children must have studied these things... so mightn't there be various editions out there from decades ago? Of course many may consist only of excerpts, and maybe mainly the best-known texts, e.g. Metamorphoses, Caesar, etc. Also maybe they were just thrown away as rubbish in the course of time. Or maybe they're now quite valuable. I just did a search on the Macmillan edition books, trying to find a few ISBN numbers. Elusive, but I'll keep trying." CreationDate="2021-06-09T22:24:47.507" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="33628" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent. The original red hardcover Macmillan 'Classical Series' editions predated the creation of the ISBN format in the late 60s, by quite a bit. I have a distinct (but possibly mistaken) impression that Macmillan ceased publishing/reprinting them at around that time, though its US arm (St. Martin's Press) did continue. So, any that actually have ISBNs may not be listed as Macmillan editions (though 'Macmillan' may still appear on the title page recto and verso), but as editions from St. Martin's Press or from publishers such as Bristol Classical Press or Thomas Nelson." CreationDate="2021-06-10T04:57:15.157" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33630" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@cnread here's the link with the Modern School Classics eds. https://www.publishinghistory.com/modern-school-classics-macmillan.html" CreationDate="2021-06-10T14:42:25.777" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33633" PostId="16166" Score="1" Text="@AlexB., What an interesting site. Thank you. I have about a dozen of the 'Modern School Classics' books, and that series is, apparently, distinct from what I'm thinking of, which is called the 'Classical Series' (though that series title wasn't consistently printed in all the volumes) and is aimed at a somewhat higher level. The volumes have bright red covers with gold lettering on the spine; it doesn't appear as though any of the 15 to 20 'Classical Series' titles that I have are listed on the page that you linked to." CreationDate="2021-06-10T22:54:41.730" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33634" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@cnread Indeed, this isn't what I have either. I have Virgil's Aeneid I-VI by R. Deryck Williams, and indeed in the front matter it says it was originally published by Macmillan in 1972." CreationDate="2021-06-11T02:04:37.127" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33639" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@cmw the edition you mention is still available from Bloomsbury https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/virgil-aeneid-i-vi-9781853994968/" CreationDate="2021-06-11T18:02:42.523" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33640" PostId="16166" Score="0" Text="@cnread you may want to take a look at the Classical Texts series from Bloomsbury https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/series/latin-texts/" CreationDate="2021-06-11T18:03:46.127" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33613" PostId="16168" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Do these questions ([one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79), [two](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9500/79)) give what you need? // As a side remark, you may have trouble defining what a sentence should be. // Given [how badly Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) works with Latin with its large database, I hope you are planning to do more than just throw a corpus at the network. An annotated corpus with some morphological tools would be more work but far more likely to produce sensible Latin." CreationDate="2021-06-09T18:42:38.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33629" PostId="16170" Score="0" Text="The Perseus project likely has a decent claim to work beyond merely changing the format—the aforementioned annotations, for instance. That makes a portion of their HTML copyrightable (I believe, I am not a lawyer), and they can license that copyrighted work however they wish and those using it would have to abide by it. I don’t know if stripping the HTML of annotations would help, either, though it might. But frankly the bar for copyright is pretty low—unless it was literally a trivial automated conversion (which it wasn’t), it probably can get copyright." CreationDate="2021-06-10T12:55:48.530" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="33654" PostId="16170" Score="2" Text="Transcriptions which aim to be a faithful copy do not qualify for a new copyright. In the US, even a photograph of a painting does not qualify, if it aims to faithfully reproduce the original. Where Perseus and others gain the possibility of a new copyright is in the editorialising that takes place when choosing between competing manuscripts, and interpreting potential errors within them. However, transcribing (say) a Loeb edition from 1920, as a faithful copy, does not qualify for a new copyright. Removing new material / annotations should be sufficient to avoid any copyright claim." CreationDate="2021-06-12T17:43:16.140" UserId="9634" />
  <row Id="33616" PostId="16172" Score="1" Text="Are the daggers in the Teubner text, or did you supply them yourself?" CreationDate="2021-06-09T22:01:14.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33617" PostId="16172" Score="0" Text="The daggers are Müller's; they are in the physical book." CreationDate="2021-06-09T22:05:53.527" UserId="9610" />
  <row Id="33626" PostId="16172" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, excellent question." CreationDate="2021-06-10T04:32:55.543" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33619" PostId="16173" Score="1" Text="So the real question is not: why does Müller say *accusatius?* but rather: why do some say *crustas?* I took another look at the apparatus crtiicus, and it says that for this section, *L* refers to only four editions: one by Scaliger, and three published after Scaliger's edition, one of them in the same city, at the same time Scaliger lived there. This further supports your explanation of *crustas*. Thanks for the clear answer." CreationDate="2021-06-09T23:05:41.600" UserId="9610" />
  <row Id="33620" PostId="16173" Score="1" Text="@GaiusPetronius And in case it isn't clear, *accusatius* is the reading in *O* while *L* has *accusant*. The colons separate the readings and conjectures from each other." CreationDate="2021-06-09T23:10:25.430" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33621" PostId="16173" Score="0" Text="But the *explicatio siglorum* lists one of the books under *L* as &quot;codex Leidensis Scaligeranus 61&quot;. Does this mean that all of *L* has *accusant*, except the cod. Scaligeranus, which has *crustas?* Or does &quot;crustas *Scaliger*&quot; mean that yet another book, outside of these sigla, has *crustas?*" CreationDate="2021-06-09T23:20:53.937" UserId="9610" />
  <row Id="33622" PostId="16173" Score="1" Text="L is the source of all the codices listed under it. Scaliger wasn't the only one who made a copy of it, which is how we know what it contained. Likewise, O is the source for those mss. under it. Without reading the introduction to the text, I can't say for sure, but I presume here the codex Leidensis contained conjectures by Scaliger, one of which was changing *accusant* to *crustas*." CreationDate="2021-06-09T23:28:47.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33623" PostId="16173" Score="1" Text="That fits what I have read so far, so this answers my question. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-06-09T23:31:53.620" UserId="9610" />
  <row Id="33624" PostId="16173" Score="4" Text="@GaiusPetronius You're very welcome. Welcome to the site, by the way. I hope you stick around. Answering textual criticism questions is a refreshing break from English-to-Latin translations!" CreationDate="2021-06-09T23:39:39.147" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33644" PostId="16175" Score="1" Text="Gratias tibi ago! Now I know that translating is not just all about translating and taking etymologies of every word into latin but constructing a words with the same sense." CreationDate="2021-06-11T23:49:12.473" UserId="7406" />
  <row Id="33645" PostId="16175" Score="0" Text="@Vince - You're welcome!" CreationDate="2021-06-12T00:49:11.537" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="33699" PostId="16179" Score="0" Text="Could &quot;causam publicam perimere&quot; be translated as a &quot;coup d'etat&quot;--being a final blow (end) to the State?" CreationDate="2021-06-15T09:50:36.377" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33700" PostId="16179" Score="0" Text="@tony: I suppose that might be possible!" CreationDate="2021-06-15T16:12:46.523" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33705" PostId="16179" Score="0" Text="Is this worth a new question? If so, the right lies with yourself." CreationDate="2021-06-16T08:08:55.190" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33637" PostId="16181" Score="0" Text="The [Italian wikipedia page](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empoli) has a whole section about the etymology of the name. Long story short: many etymologies, including emporium, limpidus, and in portu, have been proposed." CreationDate="2021-06-11T16:18:23.347" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33642" PostId="16181" Score="0" Text="You might consult &quot;Storia Di Empoli (Classic Reprint)&quot; ( December 2018) by Luigi Lazzeri, inaccessible to me. But your conjecture appears quite sound, for market, sale: τὰν [δεκάταν δωσεῖ]ν τῷ Ἀσκλ[απ]ιῷ τᾶς ἐμπολᾶς τῶν ἰχθύων... Beekes guesses &lt;IE ? *kwel- .  In Catalonia,  you could find [Empúries ⟶ Ampurias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empúries) in the same spirit." CreationDate="2021-06-11T19:12:58.760" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="33659" PostId="16181" Score="0" Text="Indeed, [this ref](https://2017.gonews.it/2016/02/24/il-nome-empoli-deriva-da-portus/) argues the original name Portus was doctored!" CreationDate="2021-06-12T22:38:53.737" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="33635" PostId="16182" Score="0" Text="Can *imperium* fear? or do things in general?" CreationDate="2021-06-11T15:15:00.130" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33636" PostId="16182" Score="0" Text="d_e: If it can rule, it can fear, can't it? It could be changed to politicians (&quot;Senatores&quot;) and the verbs put into third-person plural (Oxford gives &quot;politician&quot; = &quot;vir rerum publicarum peritus&quot;--a bit of a mouthful). Before I do this, are you sure?" CreationDate="2021-06-11T16:01:33.367" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33638" PostId="16182" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure. I just wondered because somewhere I read that neuter nouns usually are not the agent of verbs. don't know about *imperium*." CreationDate="2021-06-11T16:20:29.817" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33641" PostId="16182" Score="2" Text="&quot;vaccine as a defending thing; requiring a gerund&quot; -- a present participle, surely? But seriously, just say *vaccinum*. Or if that's too modern for your taste, *[medicamen] praeservativum*." CreationDate="2021-06-11T19:11:18.470" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33646" PostId="16182" Score="0" Text="@SEbastian Koppehel: I wanted the noun--&quot;the defending...&quot; and the verb element--it's doing something--driving away the virus. The present participle is adjectival, requiring something being described e.g. &quot;res&quot;; &quot;...rem defendentem quod superet&quot;. The addition of &quot;rem&quot; looked clumsy. The use of &quot;vaccinum&quot; = &quot;relating to a cow&quot;: yes, the cow(pox) was involved in the development of the first vaccine; but, I try to avoid the trap of using Latin words that look like English words e.g. &quot;infestus&quot; = &quot;hostile&quot;; not &quot;infested&quot;. My main concern, as always, is that it's all grammatically correct--is it?" CreationDate="2021-06-12T08:28:44.140" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33655" PostId="16182" Score="2" Text="@tony A concern for me would be that I, at least, do not understand what the *ut* and the *quod* are doing in those sentences." CreationDate="2021-06-12T20:44:11.207" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33660" PostId="16182" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. The use of &quot;quis&quot;/ &quot;quod&quot;, after &quot;ne&quot; = &quot;any&quot;. I wondered whether the new (&quot;ut&quot;) clause should still continue this sequence.  It can be changed to &quot;ullum&quot;. The &quot;ut&quot; = &quot;that&quot;; literaly, &quot;with the result that&quot;--which doesn't quite fit; but, then, I have been castigated for being too literal-minded.  The use of &quot;ut&quot; is massaged a little. A good way to learn something is to get it wrong the first time." CreationDate="2021-06-13T10:00:37.877" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33736" PostId="16182" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel:  I've added an edit of the second translation. It retains the subjunctive, after &quot;quae&quot;,  because it is still to do with fearing and/ or the authority is not the writer's but the government's. Is this better, please?" CreationDate="2021-06-18T10:37:25.357" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33737" PostId="16182" Score="1" Text="Why not use _remedium_?" CreationDate="2021-06-18T10:50:47.253" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="33750" PostId="16182" Score="1" Text="@Rafael: I wanted the verbal part of the gerund--the vaccine is doing something--stopping the virus." CreationDate="2021-06-19T11:32:27.173" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33763" PostId="16182" Score="2" Text="@tony The gerund does not refer to *something that verbs* but to *the act of verbing.* For the former meaning, you want the present participle, which on its own (= used as a substantive) can mean *something that verbs.* Participles need no obvious referent: e.g., *currentem video* 'I see someone running', *amantes osculantur* 'the lovers (= the loving ones) exchange kisses'." CreationDate="2021-06-21T00:05:41.197" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33772" PostId="16182" Score="1" Text="I'm seconding @Anonym. The gerund is wrong here." CreationDate="2021-06-22T00:29:44.160" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33818" PostId="16182" Score="0" Text="@Anonym: Thank you. The gerund-version translated literally: &quot;...which may overcome any 'the defending.'&quot;, which is clearly wrong.  The present-participle version: &quot;...which may overcome  any defending thing (any vaccine).&quot;, which is more like it." CreationDate="2021-06-23T10:19:24.530" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33661" PostId="16184" Score="0" Text="&quot;Anyway&quot; implies Cato was saying in effect - &quot;What I've just said [in our debate about whatever topic] is less important however, than the important issue for Rome - that Carthage should be destroyed.&quot;  As opposed to furthermore - , &quot;Since I'm speaking I'll also remind us that Carthage should be destroyed&quot;.  That works since OP specified &quot;I went home&quot; is the important point, but just curious, do we know if Cato thought that?" CreationDate="2021-06-13T13:20:34.603" UserId="9662" />
  <row Id="33662" PostId="16184" Score="1" Text="@lessthanideal I don't think we have any direct quotes from Cato on that. That's a good question and worth exploring, so I recommend asking a new question about (textual proof of) the nuance of Cato's invention with his repeated reminders." CreationDate="2021-06-13T13:28:27.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33663" PostId="16184" Score="1" Text="thanks - asked now over on the History SE https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/64200/did-cato-the-elder-think-destruction-of-carthage-was-more-important-than-anythin" CreationDate="2021-06-13T13:59:09.563" UserId="9662" />
  <row Id="35308" PostId="16184" Score="1" Text="@lessthanideal That question would have been fine here as well, and without the anti-covid nonsense." CreationDate="2021-09-30T12:55:46.923" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35374" PostId="16184" Score="1" Text="@cmw Didn't occur to me to ask it here, since in my mind the new qn is &quot;what did this person in history think?&quot;.  Is Cato the only person we know used ceterum? If to us he 'owns' the word I'd agree more. I can't' find guidelines for what this site accepts just now. [to clarify for other readers, covid was in answer to my qn there, not my qn]" CreationDate="2021-10-06T16:25:10.413" UserId="9662" />
  <row Id="33665" PostId="16192" Score="0" Text="Re TheLatinLibrary: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cred.html" CreationDate="2021-06-13T16:09:29.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33674" PostId="16192" Score="0" Text="Thank you CMW, I have corrected that!" CreationDate="2021-06-14T07:37:36.457" UserId="9634" />
  <row Id="39324" PostId="16192" Score="0" Text="@IácóbusdeBremesgrave a computer training an algorithm is not infringing, as otherwise Google would not be able to train machine learning models on the stuff it finds on the web." CreationDate="2022-08-28T20:25:40.890" UserId="11439" />
  <row Id="42603" PostId="16192" Score="0" Text="@osa In the USA it certainly is not; but depending on the output, the results can be. In the UK and EU it is still a matter of debate and uncertainty; hence exceptions being introduced for Text and Data Minining in the UK for example, which nevertheless only applies to non commercial acts https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#text-and-data-mining-for-non-commercial-research" CreationDate="2023-03-18T13:37:53.270" UserId="9634" />
  <row Id="33649" PostId="16193" Score="1" Text="Thank you! I did check the question guidelines. I could not find a good answer to this (to ensure that I had complied with the &quot;have I researched&quot; criterion). There is a parallel discussion going on at Dischord (mostly students) and they are also struggling to find a good answer to this. It seems a specific enough (closed) question, so fits that criterion. Let me know what I am missing." CreationDate="2021-06-12T15:14:12.773" UserId="9634" />
  <row Id="33651" PostId="16193" Score="2" Text="@IácóbusdeBremesgrave Just so that we can give you the best answer for what you're looking for, are you thinking primarily ancient, Classical Latin, or does Medieval Latin suffice? What about recent coinages based on calques by other students? Do you want a simple translation of only that phrase, or would you prefer to know *how* the Romans discussed the weather. It doesn't have to touch upon all of that, but the more specificity you give, the better we can help!" CreationDate="2021-06-12T15:29:12.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33652" PostId="16194" Score="1" Text="That seems a really useful example, thank you." CreationDate="2021-06-12T17:32:03.337" UserId="9634" />
  <row Id="33653" PostId="16194" Score="0" Text="@IácóbusdeBremesgrave - You're welcome!" CreationDate="2021-06-12T17:33:17.817" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="33664" PostId="16194" Score="0" Text="IMO, &quot;what kind of...&quot; is actually a more appropriate question to ask, as opposed to &quot;how is...&quot; (when speaking of the weather)." CreationDate="2021-06-13T14:05:00.323" UserId="262" />
  <row Id="33673" PostId="16194" Score="0" Text="Well, *what kind of* is what many other languages use here, why asking for an adverb when the answer will be an adjective? The weather is nice, not nicely." CreationDate="2021-06-14T06:35:17.857" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="33666" PostId="16199" Score="1" Text="If I just wanted the literal translation &quot;deeds not words&quot; from english to latin what would it be?" CreationDate="2021-06-13T18:22:57.530" UserId="9660" />
  <row Id="33669" PostId="16199" Score="6" Text="I like the &quot;non X sed Y&quot; arrangement, which is common in Latin, but, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong or un-idiomatic about &quot;facta, non verba.&quot; There is a (semi-) common expression &quot;multum, non multa&quot; (&quot;much, not many&quot;), which is usually attributed to Plinius minor, ep. VII, 9, 15, where it actually says: *Aiunt enim multum legendum esse, non multa.*" CreationDate="2021-06-13T19:14:08.613" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33670" PostId="16200" Score="1" Text="Russell adds that the phrase, which does survive on a mosaic, was probably more fully καὶ σύ ἔρρε, which was shortened since it was so familiar. Interesting idea. I hadn't heard this before (or came across this article before now, probably because it was buried in an edited volume and not published separately in a journal?)." CreationDate="2021-06-13T22:46:56.597" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33671" PostId="16200" Score="2" Text="Seems a bit strange to add τέκνον when you're telling someone to go to hell, though." CreationDate="2021-06-13T23:27:51.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33678" PostId="16200" Score="2" Text="Russell, J. (1980), ‘Julius Caesar’s Last Words: A Reinterpretation’, in B. Marshall (ed.), Vindex Humanitatis. Essays in Honour of John Huntly Bishop. Armidale, 123-128" CreationDate="2021-06-14T13:19:26.903" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33679" PostId="16200" Score="2" Text="You may also want to read Arnaud, Pascal. &quot;«Toi Aussi, Mon Fils, Tu Mangeras Ta Part De Notre Pouvoir» — Brutus Le Tyran ?&quot; Latomus 57, no. 1 (1998): 61-71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41538208." CreationDate="2021-06-14T13:22:40.207" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33672" PostId="16201" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site. You might find this question about [differences between Latin names in antiquity and in Scientific Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/371/examples-of-species-whose-latin-and-scientific-names-are-different), and about the [history of Scientific Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/what-is-the-history-of-scientific-latin)." CreationDate="2021-06-14T01:45:14.813" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33675" PostId="16201" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! This question is interesting but in need of clarification so I have closed it for now. It seems to me that most species names are not translated but coined; many species with a scientific name never had an English or Latin name. Can you edit your question to specify what kind of &quot;badly translated&quot; names you mean? Both &quot;badly&quot; and &quot;translated&quot; leave room for interpretation. Are you looking for examples of mismatch between the (somehow recorded) intent and the eventual name?  See the posts @Adam mentioned, too. This question can certainly be reopened once clarified." CreationDate="2021-06-14T09:45:01.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33676" PostId="16201" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The genus names are most often coined but the species names, at least those I know from Central-European botany, as established by Linneus, are almost always adjectives that do carry a meaning on their own or are named after some person. I could imagine someone would make a mistake there but I can't imagine a productive question about that unless the question brings a specific example. E.g. check the names of various species of the genus Carex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carex_species" CreationDate="2021-06-14T12:36:15.893" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="33694" PostId="16201" Score="2" Text="Thank you so much! I'll take a look at the material suggested and see if I can clarify the question, or indeed answer it! I'm super excited that you replied! Thank you!!!" CreationDate="2021-06-15T03:56:51.600" UserId="9665" />
  <row Id="33753" PostId="16201" Score="0" Text="@SeanYo How's the process going? If you end up with a clearer question but find the answer, you can edit your question and then post the answer separately (once the question is opened). Or if you need help with anything, just leave a comment here and we can hopefully sort things out." CreationDate="2021-06-19T14:03:41.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33677" PostId="16202" Score="2" Text="If you wanted to keep the parallelism with &quot;in the year of our lord,&quot; you don't need the *in*." CreationDate="2021-06-14T12:55:30.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33682" PostId="16202" Score="0" Text="Of course you are correct.  Including the answer below, I think I will go with &quot;Anno pestilentiae&quot;" CreationDate="2021-06-14T14:31:28.573" UserId="9671" />
  <row Id="33684" PostId="16202" Score="1" Text="it's a good answer. Pestis could also work, or contagionis, but you can't go wrong with *pestilentiae*. Feel free to mark the answer &quot;accepted&quot; if that's what you went with." CreationDate="2021-06-14T14:47:10.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33687" PostId="16202" Score="1" Text="Having reconsidered, I think I'll go with &quot;Anno Pestis&quot;.  Thanks." CreationDate="2021-06-14T14:49:54.337" UserId="9671" />
  <row Id="33686" PostId="16203" Score="1" Text="Forgetting I should use the genitive would have led to a sharp rebuke from my latin teacher! Thanks also for pestis - that was what I was reaching for, and I should have remembered based on Bubonic plague being called &quot;Yersinia pestis&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;I will go with &quot;Anno Pestis&quot;" CreationDate="2021-06-14T14:49:44.060" UserId="9671" />
  <row Id="33688" PostId="16203" Score="1" Text="@colintd - You're welcome!" CreationDate="2021-06-14T14:51:10.673" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="33703" PostId="16204" Score="0" Text="... and in Mt 7:20 we have the famous: *ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos* -- by their fruits ye shall know them." CreationDate="2021-06-15T16:24:11.580" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33691" PostId="16206" Score="4" Text="Can you be a little more specific by what you mean by &quot;conception of truth&quot;? Maybe provide a few example sentences so we get a sense of how you want to use it?" CreationDate="2021-06-14T17:50:48.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33692" PostId="16206" Score="0" Text="@cmw I want to use it as &quot;the conception/notion of truth of different cultures in different cultures is so....so....&quot; I wan to use the term as a meta-category of the way different ppl, civilisations, groups think of truth." CreationDate="2021-06-14T20:58:31.177" UserId="9674" />
  <row Id="33721" PostId="16207" Score="0" Text="You might get more traction if you explain Orbergs' book to those unfamiliar with it." CreationDate="2021-06-17T12:42:17.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33693" PostId="16209" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you edit your answer to elaborate what the difference is and why you think this would be a better choice? This proposal looks good but could be made stronger with an explanation." CreationDate="2021-06-15T03:41:00.143" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33695" PostId="16209" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think it was intended as a joke.  It was supposed to be Genitive plural (with the implication that the US suffered from more than one plague that year).  Grammatically, though, I think it should have been anno pestum [The Latin Dictionary](http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:pestis)" CreationDate="2021-06-15T06:17:59.437" UserId="9678" />
  <row Id="33697" PostId="16209" Score="2" Text="@JonathanWillcock I thought something like that, and elaboration would clarify the message. Given that the asker does not seem to know much Latin, it would help to explicitly mention that this is the plural genitive. // That looks like an automatically generated declension table and I actually think it's wrong. For nouns with nominative and genitive looking alike the plural genitive tends to be *-ium*, and a [corpus search](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pestium) shows hits for *pestium* but none for *pestum*." CreationDate="2021-06-15T08:05:34.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33698" PostId="16209" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It is far too long since I studied Latin (I graduated in 1983!).  Even when I studied, I was never sure about -um vs -ium, which is why I instintively googled it.  (Lewis and Short does not cite the genitive plural, in the process indicating that the plural is rare - the Oxford Latin Dictionary had only been published in facsimile, whilst I was studying, so I never bought it).  Thinking about it again, pestium does sound better than pestum, so I suspect you are right that the online resource is wrong." CreationDate="2021-06-15T08:55:51.197" UserId="9678" />
  <row Id="33701" PostId="16209" Score="1" Text="Nouns in -is, -is usually have -ium. The only exceptions I am aware of are *iuvenis* and *canis*. I nowadays recommend Wiktionary when in doubt about declension, it has tables for every noun and in my experience is very reliable." CreationDate="2021-06-15T16:13:06.147" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33702" PostId="16209" Score="1" Text="Iocus mehercule iste diversas in partes legi potest..." CreationDate="2021-06-15T16:14:55.330" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33704" PostId="16209" Score="0" Text="@JonathanWillcock Your conjecture is correct: my use of the genitive plural was intended as political commentary, but I hope further explanation is not required." CreationDate="2021-06-15T22:26:30.340" UserId="9680" />
  <row Id="33708" PostId="16213" Score="2" Text="Great answer, thanks! So the difference between &quot;mihi videtur illos perbeatos fuisse&quot; and &quot;mihi videntur illi perbeati fuisse&quot; is that in the first sentence we have a subordinate: &quot;it seems to be THAT they were happy&quot;, whereas in the second one it is the subject: &quot;they seem to have been happy to me&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-06-16T11:05:56.777" UserId="7266" />
  <row Id="33709" PostId="16213" Score="3" Text="@user35319, yes, I would say your sentences demonstrate the distinction between the two." CreationDate="2021-06-16T11:24:28.050" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35388" PostId="16213" Score="0" Text="This is indeed a great, memorable answer. I could not lock on to the grammar in Cicero's sentence at all. The breakdown of the structure into _mihi_ and _videntur_ made it all clear—and shows what's going in simpler form in [_circumspicienti in mentem venit_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16940/118)." CreationDate="2021-10-07T11:29:38.743" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="33756" PostId="16214" Score="2" Text="Cf. *o* and the accusativus exclamationis. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15061/the-interjection-o-with-different-cases" CreationDate="2021-06-19T20:58:38.600" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33758" PostId="16214" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus. Interesting." CreationDate="2021-06-19T21:38:24.957" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="33711" PostId="16216" Score="0" Text="It sounds convincing. Can we say, in that case, that you use potest as a kind of impersonal verb (without subject) ?" CreationDate="2021-06-16T20:24:05.143" UserId="9682" />
  <row Id="33715" PostId="16216" Score="0" Text="I'm not a good source for grammatical terminology, so I'll let someone else comment with how it could be analysed (and whether my suggestion has any mistakes I haven't noticed)." CreationDate="2021-06-16T21:49:54.240" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33717" PostId="16216" Score="2" Text="I think the first option should be neuter (*notum*)" CreationDate="2021-06-17T03:37:00.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33733" PostId="16216" Score="1" Text="Perhaps *non* should go before *potest* and not before *notum*. It sounds to me like you are saying it can be unknown." CreationDate="2021-06-18T01:03:28.327" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33718" PostId="16219" Score="1" Text="It seems that it is what the author of the book was expecting. I found an example in the lesson : &quot;One can not live.&quot; translated as &quot;Non potest vivi.&quot; Verbatim, it is like &quot;To be known can not&quot;. Can we say that the infinitive passive verb &quot;sciri&quot; is the subject of the verbe potest ?" CreationDate="2021-06-17T05:32:33.827" UserId="9682" />
  <row Id="33720" PostId="16219" Score="1" Text="@ArnaudMégret They're usually called the &quot;complementary infinitive.&quot; So *sciri* is the complementary infinitive of the verb *potest*." CreationDate="2021-06-17T12:05:13.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33727" PostId="16219" Score="1" Text="The funny thing is that the passive form *potestur* does in fact occur along with a passive infinitive complement, but it is not typical." CreationDate="2021-06-17T21:45:52.757" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33728" PostId="16219" Score="2" Text="@Anonym It's old Latin, found a handful of times and only once, I believe, by the archaizing Lucretius in Classical literature. It's certainly not something that a textbook would be wanting a beginner to know. But yes, it is possible (and weird!)." CreationDate="2021-06-17T23:23:16.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33729" PostId="16219" Score="0" Text="@Anonym I wonder how exactly that came about, since it's not really passive - attraction from the passive infinitive and re-analysis of the verb's origins?" CreationDate="2021-06-17T23:27:06.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33730" PostId="16219" Score="0" Text="@cmw It tends to happen with verbs whose function is primarily auxiliary: in line with *potestur* is *nequitur,* but it's also found with verbs like *incipio.* With the former two, I would say that it's both attraction and analogy with the *incipio* type, where it's probably a mixture of attraction and semantic logic (both *fieri incipit* and *fieri incipitur* make sense, logically)." CreationDate="2021-06-18T00:52:08.720" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33732" PostId="16219" Score="0" Text="@Anonym I knew about *incipitur*, and even *nequitur* makes sense morphologically. But *potestur* is morphologically unusual. I wonder if it's made on analogy with *estur* (from *edo, esse*)? Or just on passive verbs in general with a spurious -ur." CreationDate="2021-06-18T01:03:23.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33734" PostId="16220" Score="0" Text="Better resource here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=victurus&amp;la=la" CreationDate="2021-06-18T04:02:58.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33855" PostId="16220" Score="1" Text="*Vinciturus* does sometimes also occur for *vinco,* but is somewhat 'extraparadigmatic'. I would imagine that you're not the first to note the potentially self-contradictory ambiguity. ;)" CreationDate="2021-06-26T02:10:46.117" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33722" PostId="16222" Score="5" Text="This is indeed a good way to say &quot;one must not know&quot;. But do you think this approach can be used for &quot;one cannot know&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-06-17T13:42:25.753" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33726" PostId="16222" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thank you. It's not easy to translate this verbatim. Answers--though good--have had to skirt around-the-houses,  somewhwat; but, nothing wrong with that. If &quot;one cannot know&quot;; then, presumably, one is not allowed to know: hence, Seb's clever use of &quot;licet&quot;. If one is not allowed to know; then, &quot;one must not know&quot;! I am with Horace's school-of-thought. If you require the English, impersonal pronoun, &quot;one&quot;, Horace is your man." CreationDate="2021-06-17T16:40:18.550" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33723" PostId="16223" Score="0" Text="Amazing answer, thanks a lot for your help." CreationDate="2021-06-17T16:12:58.797" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33724" PostId="16224" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! How did you arrive at this translation? What part does the original cover? Is there something specifically that you struggle understanding? Where is the original text from? Editing more details into the question would improve it and make others more likely to answer." CreationDate="2021-06-17T16:15:16.473" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33725" PostId="16224" Score="3" Text="Hint: *erat munita* does not mean &quot;he had been protecting,&quot; it means &quot;she had been protected&quot; (or rather &quot;it&quot; in this case, *ripa*, the riverbank). *Sudibus* is ablative plural and agrees with *fixis*, &quot;fastened.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-06-17T16:15:38.300" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33735" PostId="16224" Score="0" Text="@user9689: Is this from &quot;Julius Caeser&quot;? It helps to provide a reference, if possible.  The &quot;...ut sudes flumine tegerentur.&quot; part = &quot;...in order that the spikes were covered by the river.&quot;. It may fortify your confidence to know that the works of JC (Latin &amp; English) are available, on the net, and are easy to find." CreationDate="2021-06-18T10:06:28.257" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33738" PostId="16224" Score="1" Text="@tony Your intuition is right, it is based on [*De Bello Gallico* V 18,3](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D18%3Asection%3D3). I say &quot;based on&quot; because it is quite heavily modified, presumably by a Latin teacher or textbook author. I assume the purpose of such modifications (besides simpler vocabulary etc.) is to prevent students from just looking up the translation online ..." CreationDate="2021-06-18T16:24:02.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33739" PostId="16226" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, didn't know these details!" CreationDate="2021-06-18T17:44:13.093" UserId="7405" />
  <row Id="33759" PostId="16228" Score="0" Text="Traupman's excellent dictionary translates &quot;I wonder what's up&quot; as *miror quid hoc sit negoti*." CreationDate="2021-06-20T02:40:30.610" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33747" PostId="16230" Score="2" Text="I'm curious why Lindsay takes it as a separate form rather than simple ellipsis, since leaving out _esse_ in a periphrastic infinitive is not at all uncommon. I'm sure there _is_ a reason, but it doesn't seem to be explained at all." CreationDate="2021-06-19T05:14:29.230" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33757" PostId="16230" Score="1" Text="@Draconis♦: Or could this example simply be read as &quot;she said that you will die by one of the two swords&quot;, with intransitive *occido* &quot;fall, die&quot;? So perhaps more examples could be of interest. But it's a fascinating question either way, the way it compares the future participle with the gerund." CreationDate="2021-06-19T21:15:06.787" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33762" PostId="16230" Score="2" Text="@Draconis I believe that Lindsay selected that specific example because in it ellipsis is not a possible explanation for the form, given that the implied subject (*Casina*) is feminine and would therefore require *occisuram.* The form *occisurum,* if Cerberus's theory is not correct, seems rather like a verbal noun to me, similar to the accusative supine." CreationDate="2021-06-20T22:29:35.750" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33749" PostId="16231" Score="2" Text="You're just throwing words at it without considering case or number. There's only one word in the nominative plural that can serve as the subject of *vorant*, and while *ovis* formally looks like a nominative, that's in fact not all it can be." CreationDate="2021-06-19T08:18:12.613" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="33751" PostId="16231" Score="3" Text="@Cairnarvon Give MichaelJYoo some credit. He's seeing *qui...vorant*, which isn't entirely unreasonable, as *qui* could be plural." CreationDate="2021-06-19T13:41:42.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33752" PostId="16231" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Not a fair assessment, Michael correctly understood the *instar* + genetive construction, and *qui* could theoretically be nominative plural too." CreationDate="2021-06-19T13:46:53.060" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33755" PostId="16232" Score="0" Text="I feel somewhat different sense of the sentence. something like: &quot;It is him - who act(s) like a sheep, that wolves eat&quot;. it is very close indeed, but here the subject is the person and not the wolves. This reading may be supported by the the indicative *gerit* ( see also [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/547652/i-am-the-man-who-commands-you-vs-i-am-the-man-who-command-you) ; and my answer to that question )" CreationDate="2021-06-19T14:36:44.900" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33761" PostId="16233" Score="0" Text="I don't see what this has to with Latin." CreationDate="2021-06-20T13:57:46.133" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="33770" PostId="16235" Score="0" Text="It should be noted that a *nomen* includes both substantives (English: &quot;nouns&quot;) and adjectives. In English as well, a *noun* could be adjective or substantive (though this usage is now less common). So an adjective is really a kind of nomen/noun." CreationDate="2021-06-21T19:25:16.797" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33764" PostId="16237" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your help! One more question, please, is _significare_ colloquial?(I want my text to be easy to understand. Advanced words may be against my purpose.)" CreationDate="2021-06-21T00:15:51.353" UserId="9701" />
  <row Id="33765" PostId="16237" Score="1" Text="@stw It's a very frequent word with [thousands](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=signific) of attestations (in one form or another)." CreationDate="2021-06-21T00:40:50.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33766" PostId="16237" Score="0" Text="@stw Moreover, many people will be able to connect *significare* with a word in their own language (like &quot;signify&quot; or &quot;significant&quot; in English), enabling them to guess the meaning even if they do not know it." CreationDate="2021-06-21T06:41:14.443" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33773" PostId="16238" Score="0" Text="I suspect one could always add *esse*, even with present participle. So I'm not sure whether it could be proven that way. But perhaps Cirilo de Melo (is that his last name?) says this because instances with *esse* become less common and even disappear as one goes back in time: that would suggest the ones without *esse* represent the original construction." CreationDate="2021-06-22T00:49:20.727" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33806" PostId="16238" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus As for your suspicion that &quot;one could always add _esse_, even with present participle&quot;, one cannot do it in cases like _video te venientem_ or _facit Laertem agrum colentem_. You cannot add _esse_  there." CreationDate="2021-06-23T03:30:09.047" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33808" PostId="16238" Score="0" Text="Are you sure that your final sentence _puto eum currentem_ is grammatical in Latin? Cf. ok _Video eum currentem_ // _Tibicinam cantantem audio_, etc. This construction (by the way, without _esse_!; see my comment above) is more typical with perception verbs." CreationDate="2021-06-23T03:36:23.660" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33769" PostId="16240" Score="0" Text="Thanks, this is great!" CreationDate="2021-06-21T19:18:30.897" UserId="1512" />
  <row Id="33771" PostId="16240" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S mention *desiderans*, but desideratus, -a also works: *“and in inscrr. applied to a beloved person: FILIO DESIDERATISSIMO,” Inscr. Orell. 5068; id. Grut. 681, 2 al.*" CreationDate="2021-06-21T23:41:46.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33774" PostId="16242" Score="1" Text="I like the suggestion of *hircumveniri* – as you’ve pointed out, *hircus* is routinely used to denote a bad smell (usually emanating from armpits!) (e.g. Plautus, *Pseudolus*, 735; and *Poenulus*, 870). However, in the Cicero passage in question he continues, “*At utrumque genus continet verbi ad litteram immutati similitudo*” which I understand to be saying that these sorts of pun contain a likeness to a word which is unchanged to the letter. If so, there’s no missing line. Perhaps the joke depends, therefore, on a certain pronunciation? Perhaps the ‘c’ is more of a ‘ch’ as in ‘loch’?" CreationDate="2021-06-22T07:40:07.530" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="33788" PostId="16242" Score="0" Text="@Penelope, OLD lists both an adjective immutatus where the im- is a negating prefix ('without alteration, unchanged') and a verb immutare, where it's an intensifier ('to make different, alter, modify'). In his translation, Watson is taking it as the latter: 'yet it is the resemblance of words, with the change only of a letter, that constitutes both jokes.' Still, I did wonder the same thing as you, thinking particularly of Catullus 84, where commoda is pronounced chommoda and insidias hinsidias." CreationDate="2021-06-22T16:15:42.340" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33789" PostId="16242" Score="0" Text="(Continued) However, I think the joke is weaker that way (though of course this is entirely subjective), because it relies on two bases: mispronunciation through aspiration and then a double interpretation of the resulting word, one of which would involve a punning word that P. possibly made up for the occasion. (I'll note in passing that I also think that Toup's addition of 'non circum sed' also makes for a weaker joke than simply 'Video me a te hircumveniri.')" CreationDate="2021-06-22T16:40:02.280" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33791" PostId="16242" Score="0" Text="@cnread “a punning word that P. possibly made up for the occasion” – hoc veri mehercule simile mihi videtur." CreationDate="2021-06-22T19:24:56.843" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33793" PostId="16244" Score="2" Text="“What, does he think it is obvious what the quantity of 'i' and 'a' is but for 'u' he decided to make it entirely clear?” – well, it may not be “obvious,” but yes: the 'i' before 'ns' becomes nasal and is automatically long. The 'a' is the nominative ending of the first declension and is therefore short." CreationDate="2021-06-22T19:32:56.257" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33794" PostId="16244" Score="2" Text="In other words, you, the educated Latin speaker who knows all the rules but not necessarily all the words, do not need Messrs. Lewis &amp; Short to tell you the length of the 'i' and 'a', but the 'u' could very well be long, and so they make it clear it is short. Keep in mind that Lewis &amp; Short's dictionary used to be a very expensive tool for professional Latinists and was not intended for pupils in Latin class." CreationDate="2021-06-22T19:39:05.640" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33798" PostId="16244" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You should just go ahead and turn this into an answer." CreationDate="2021-06-22T20:52:34.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33775" PostId="16246" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-06-22T12:38:03.453" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33781" PostId="16247" Score="0" Text="Thank you cmw! Would you be able to tell me what &quot;to talk&quot; or &quot;talk&quot; (in the sense of a giving a command to say &quot;talk&quot;) would be?" CreationDate="2021-06-22T13:22:41.367" UserId="9703" />
  <row Id="33782" PostId="16247" Score="2" Text="The imperative of *loqui* is *loquere* for one person and *loquimini* for more than one person. Likewise, for *dicere*, it would be *dic* and *dicite* respectively." CreationDate="2021-06-22T13:27:57.943" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33783" PostId="16247" Score="0" Text="apologies for the silly questions! the following is then a correct summary?&#xA;&#xA;loquere -&gt; speak (a command to a single person),&#xA;loquimini -&gt; speak (command to more than one),&#xA;dic -&gt; tell/say,&#xA;dicite -&gt; tell/say (more than one)" CreationDate="2021-06-22T13:35:04.320" UserId="9703" />
  <row Id="33784" PostId="16247" Score="3" Text="@silent This is correct, but again, be careful with &quot;speak.&quot; &quot;to speak a language&quot; is very different from &quot;to speak what's on your mind.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-06-22T13:36:55.343" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33785" PostId="16247" Score="0" Text="In that case would &quot;loquere&quot; still be valid in the sense of commanding someone to &quot;speak a language&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-06-22T13:42:17.917" UserId="9703" />
  <row Id="33786" PostId="16247" Score="2" Text="@silent Yes, that's right." CreationDate="2021-06-22T13:46:07.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33787" PostId="16247" Score="2" Text="thank you for your time! :)" CreationDate="2021-06-22T13:49:05.540" UserId="9703" />
  <row Id="33790" PostId="16249" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for such a detailed answer! That makes sense now that it has been explained." CreationDate="2021-06-22T18:52:22.753" UserId="9706" />
  <row Id="33795" PostId="16249" Score="0" Text="Concerning the case of the subject of an infinitive in general (as @Asteroides mentions): [this old question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1877/79) might be worth reading." CreationDate="2021-06-22T19:45:53.277" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33803" PostId="16249" Score="0" Text="From your statement in your 1st paragraph one could (wrongly) infer that the accusative case of the subject of the infinitive is always assigned by the main verb. But this is not the case: e.g. cf. the example _Te beātum esse mihi est gratum_ in the link provided by Joonas above. Given the well-formedness of this sentence, should we infer (from what you say in your 1st &amp; 2nd paragraphs) that there are **two** different ways of assigning accusative case to the subject of infinitival subordinated clauses?" CreationDate="2021-06-23T02:51:51.760" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33817" PostId="16249" Score="1" Text="Would I be correct in thinking that these rules also apply to verbs that require the dative case? For example, is the following sentence grammatically correct: &quot;deus mihi regi esse imperavit.&quot; &quot;God commanded me to be  king.&quot; Or would that be incorrect?" CreationDate="2021-06-23T07:33:52.673" UserId="9706" />
  <row Id="33825" PostId="16249" Score="0" Text="@WhatKnaveryIsThis Mmmaybe. I think in theory _esse_ could link two dative nouns, but _imperō_ with dative and infinitive looks odd to me; I'd expect either dative (person) + accusative (command, as a noun) or accusative (person) + infinitive (command, as a verb). Syntax isn't my strongest suit, though, so I'd suggest asking that as a new question to see if someone else has a better answer or some good examples!" CreationDate="2021-06-23T16:12:36.813" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33826" PostId="16249" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I've always viewed the AcI as getting its case from the main verb, but that other answer brings up some very good counterexamples. So the short answer is, I'm not sure. I'm going to leave this answer as it stands, based on my current understanding, but do feel free to post another answer explaining that!" CreationDate="2021-06-23T16:14:45.233" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33838" PostId="16249" Score="1" Text="@WhatKnaveryIsThis: Yes, it *can* work like this with dative. The example that I once made a note of is in Livy 21.44.8: illis timidis et ignavis esse licet qui respectum habent.... A corpus search (PHI) also turned up a couple of other instances (with licet) in Martial. Still, it does seem more typical to use an ACI in these contexts (e.g., illos timidos et ignavos esse licet)." CreationDate="2021-06-24T06:13:16.623" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="33799" PostId="16251" Score="1" Text="so if an author is marking long vowels with a macron but haphazardly marks a few vowels as short here and there should I just assume that any unmarked vowel is short?" CreationDate="2021-06-23T02:06:45.300" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33800" PostId="16251" Score="2" Text="@bobsmith76: It's usually not safe to assume that." CreationDate="2021-06-23T02:34:03.803" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="33801" PostId="16251" Score="2" Text="Well that's extremely unfortunate.  I don't understand how I'm supposed to learn this." CreationDate="2021-06-23T02:36:11.987" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33802" PostId="16251" Score="1" Text="@bobsmith76 Every dictionary I own tells me how long vowels are marked and how to interpret short vowels in the front matter. I guess you'll just have to read the front matter if you want to learn it, and it is often different from dictionary to dictionary." CreationDate="2021-06-23T02:49:01.773" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33804" PostId="16251" Score="0" Text="I use online dictionaries and usually the front matter is hidden.  My favorite dictionary is the Jeaunneau dictionary available at Collatinus.  They have translated examples, plus it is more nicely laid out." CreationDate="2021-06-23T03:23:28.457" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33805" PostId="16251" Score="0" Text="If I were to use a physical dictionary I would have no chance." CreationDate="2021-06-23T03:24:12.993" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33807" PostId="16251" Score="0" Text="However, doing a google search I have not yet figured out when the Jeanneau dict was written.  It says 2017 on the software but years sometimes are wrong on the internet.  Plus I don't know if the Jeanneau dictionary is a revision of the Gaffiot dictionary or what.  I get very upset that people put this info on the internet and they don't tell us where they get it or how reliable it is.  I'll do some more research in this question soon but not now." CreationDate="2021-06-23T03:30:12.587" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33809" PostId="16251" Score="2" Text="@bobsmith76: There are many online resources with information about Latin vowel length, but unfortunately it can be difficult to determine their accuracy or to find the accurate ones. I will also try to update with links to further resources" CreationDate="2021-06-23T03:38:34.267" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="33810" PostId="16251" Score="0" Text="Thanks I appreciate that." CreationDate="2021-06-23T03:47:28.043" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33949" PostId="16251" Score="0" Text="Asteroides i would appreciate that.  i'll probably be opening another thread on the issue soon" CreationDate="2021-07-03T05:09:37.103" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33950" PostId="16251" Score="1" Text="Actually, let me make sure that you're not doing work that I already know about.  I have got files of 7 open source dictionaries which contained vowel quantity info these are: Lewis&amp;Short (1879), Lewis (1890), Georges (1913), Gaffiot (1934), Pocket Oxford (1991?) - then there Jeanneau and Orchard but I'm pretty sure they just copied from the others, though they do provide some new words.  I have gathered stats on how often these 5 dicts agree with one another, including the other 2 copyists.  I'm trying to figure out who the odd man out is.  I'll assembled the stats in an easy to read format." CreationDate="2021-07-03T08:41:58.083" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33951" PostId="16251" Score="0" Text="Ouvrard not Orchard" CreationDate="2021-07-03T09:46:31.930" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33811" PostId="16252" Score="1" Text="This isn't at all an answer to your question, but I'm curious—what's the end goal of the database? And have you looked into automatic macronizers?" CreationDate="2021-06-23T04:00:38.827" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33819" PostId="16252" Score="3" Text="Have you taken a look at [this older question about vowel length variation in verb conjugation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4334/79)? It gives a pretty solid set of rules for all verb forms from the present stem." CreationDate="2021-06-23T10:52:22.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33821" PostId="16252" Score="3" Text="just so you know, usually the abbreviation OLD is used to refer to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, the best English-Latin dictionary yet published.  https://global.oup.com/academic/product/oxford-latin-dictionary-9780199580316?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp; I almost spilled my coffee when I was reading your sentence &quot;The OLD has macrons but there are a ton of mistakes in them&quot; :)" CreationDate="2021-06-23T14:01:53.907" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33822" PostId="16252" Score="1" Text="It needs to be digital.  Print is worthless.  They say they have a digital edition but I can't find it.  I probably won't be able to use it however.  If I can't get the words into a database then there is no point.  In order to learn a language you need to learn a ton of rules.  You can't quantify the rules but let's just say you could and that that number was 10,000.  In order to remember 10,000 rules, you need to organize them into a database.  You need to arrange them in order of importance and keep tabs on the rules you've mastered and the rules you're still struggling with." CreationDate="2021-06-23T15:01:16.163" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33823" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="I realize publishers and authors don't like to make the info they've collected entirely user friendly.  At least that's what it seems to me.  Either that or they're just not very good at figuring out how to make their info efficiently accessible.  For example, back when I was building a database of English words I had bought an app of the Oxford English Dictionary but I wasn't able to transfer the data from that app into a database." CreationDate="2021-06-23T15:04:05.760" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33832" PostId="16252" Score="2" Text="@bobsmith76: By the way, it's not that hard to find an ordered text-based version of the OED online. I use one in Golden Dictionary, so I rarely use the official OED programme from the CDs any more." CreationDate="2021-06-24T01:35:48.930" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33833" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="Could you go into more details about what you mean.  What is Golden Dictionary?" CreationDate="2021-06-24T02:52:09.160" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33834" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="You're not going to learn C++ in a day, but some of us here do know it, well, at least one of us, so we can help you. Maybe in the chat?" CreationDate="2021-06-24T03:32:24.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33835" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="Thanks that's good to know.  Whatever c++ questions I ask on stackoverflow, I'll post a link here." CreationDate="2021-06-24T03:44:14.267" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33836" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="Ok, I've asked a question over here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68104126/where-do-i-put-the-qt5-clone-in-this-project" CreationDate="2021-06-24T04:05:29.283" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33837" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="[There are instructions on our meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/172/79) for adding the shortness hat or breve." CreationDate="2021-06-24T04:28:43.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33839" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="@ cmw, I have another question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68113027/cannot-configure-qt-creator-for-mac" CreationDate="2021-06-24T09:24:57.387" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33847" PostId="16252" Score="0" Text="The end goal is to learn Latin.  In any system which has a gazillion rules, you need to organize the rules.  You need to pick out the most important ones, and mark the ones you've mastered.    You can only do that with a database.  If it turns out that my database is a useful tool for others then I'll post it online." CreationDate="2021-06-25T03:55:22.673" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33812" PostId="16253" Score="0" Text="Would it be possible to write down as many example as you can.  I think online-latin-dictionary might follow a pattern, in that if they forgot to write the macron in the 1st person singular indicative active for verbs or nominative masculine singular for adjectives or nominative singular for nouns, then it follows that they forgot on each declined form.  But if they remembered to put it in those locations and the macron disappears in other declined forms, then this is not a mistake.  I could then search the whole database and find each mistake." CreationDate="2021-06-23T04:12:10.540" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33813" PostId="16253" Score="0" Text="Then I could post a list of all words whose vowel quantity changes on at latindiscussion.com and you could take a look at the list I've generated. For example, online-latin-dictionary.come appears to have gotten the examples concerning 'video', 'lego', 'pedes' right." CreationDate="2021-06-23T04:13:27.660" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33814" PostId="16253" Score="0" Text="I found this good list of rules, so you don't need to link to this http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin_vowel-quantity_macrons_macra/" CreationDate="2021-06-23T04:17:00.980" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33815" PostId="16253" Score="0" Text="3rd person singular also lacks a long vowel. Cf. habēs v. habet." CreationDate="2021-06-23T04:52:46.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33816" PostId="16253" Score="0" Text="There's also the *honor-honōris* type, with short vowel in the nom. sg. but long vowel elsewhere." CreationDate="2021-06-23T05:51:40.183" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33829" PostId="16255" Score="7" Text="Perseus is a very imperfect tool and quite often messes up automation. This is a good lesson in actually reading an entry!" CreationDate="2021-06-23T21:37:15.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33828" PostId="16256" Score="0" Text="A consequence of my diachronic speculation at the end of my question is that the personal construction _Tu diceris venire_ should precede the impersonal one _Dicitur te venire_ in the history of Latin. Could anyone confirm this point? The motivation of subject raising in _Tu diceris venire_ would be due to the typical (but not systematic: e.g. cf. _Tu doceris grammaticam_) connection between passivization and lack of accusative marking. However, once the case of the subject of AcI was licensed internally, the impersonal construction _Dicitur te venire_ became legitimate. Is this claim viable?" CreationDate="2021-06-23T20:57:03.513" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33831" PostId="16256" Score="1" Text="I would agree. *&quot;A plausible (?) diachronic account could be that the AcI construction was born as an ECM construction..., then it was extended to transitive cases...and finally it was extended to...&quot;*: this is also how I have always considered the phaenomenon. *&quot;The personal construction...should precede the impersonal one&quot;*: probably, but I think both seemingly exclusive notions of licensing can coexist in the linguistic subconscious of users: the emergence of internal licensing in some cases need not drown out the notion that e.g. *puto* + accusative bears some relation with direct objects." CreationDate="2021-06-24T01:30:51.970" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33842" PostId="16256" Score="0" Text="Perhaps at the linguistics SE there would be some moore people with relevant input? Does this have to do anthing with the ECM vs. raising-to-object debate?" CreationDate="2021-06-24T21:29:24.293" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="33843" PostId="16256" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF Thanks for your suggestion and, yes, my question is directly related to the debate you mention." CreationDate="2021-06-24T23:22:29.693" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33844" PostId="16256" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Thanks for your comment. Yes, it is clear that both the personal construction and the impersonal one did coexist. But I'd like to know which one was the first one to emerge in the history of Latin. I guess that there must be some works that deal with this issue. Perhaps I'm wrong and _Dicitur te venire_ was the first one but I doubt it. _Tu diceris venire_  was probably generated to avoid a problem involved in _Dicitur te venire_ (NB: the latter can be said to violate so-called &quot;Burzio's Generalization&quot;). Raising to the subject position avoids this problem, like in English." CreationDate="2021-06-24T23:49:16.563" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33845" PostId="16256" Score="0" Text="That is to say, _Dicitur te venire_ is ill-formed as an ECM construction. However, once the licensing of the acc. subject of the infinitive was **internal**, the construction _Dicitur te venire_ became legitimate. By that time, _Tu diceris venire_ was already an entrenched construction and that's why, I guess, both constructions happened to coexist." CreationDate="2021-06-25T00:07:48.400" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36356" PostId="16256" Score="1" Text="Returning to this several months later, it occurs to me that we see a close parallel in English: _necesse est me abire_ = &quot;it's necessary for **me** to leave&quot;. In other words, from a theoretical perspective, we could easily say that there's some complementizer like English &quot;for&quot; that gives accusative case to the subject of the infinitive." CreationDate="2021-12-21T00:57:24.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36357" PostId="16256" Score="1" Text="@Draconis  Yes, you're right. In fact, I remember that twenty years ago or so Renato Oniga and Carlo Cechetto wrote a paper on this parallelism. I think that what they postulated was that in Latin there is a sort of null relational/complementizer element similar to English _for_ that assigns accusative to the subject of the infinitive." CreationDate="2021-12-21T01:42:41.323" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33846" PostId="16258" Score="0" Text="Now that _desidero_ is not in subjunctive mood. It sounds to me more fit as a complaint than a concession" CreationDate="2021-06-25T02:09:13.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="33841" PostId="16259" Score="0" Text="Also see [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15060/quod-after-cum-and-before-si), where a *si* was similarly repeated." CreationDate="2021-06-24T18:25:51.623" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33848" PostId="16260" Score="1" Text="Thanks so much, Sebastian. I think the first 'se' is just anticipatory—rhetorical." CreationDate="2021-06-25T09:12:04.877" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="33851" PostId="16260" Score="2" Text="Spot on. I would just change the *hic* to being adverbial (&quot;here&quot;) and make &quot;true and simple&quot; adverbial in some way, e.g. &quot;in a true and straightforward way.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-06-25T19:55:13.263" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="33856" PostId="16260" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Oops, I guess I read *hoc* for *hic* or something. I took the opportunity to turn that part into an impersonal construction." CreationDate="2021-06-26T07:12:49.733" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33849" PostId="16261" Score="0" Text="How are you taking the 'se' that comes after 'significandum'?" CreationDate="2021-06-25T09:13:25.377" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="33850" PostId="16261" Score="1" Text="As the head of the gerundive phrase: to have spoken this mystery in order to signify himself" CreationDate="2021-06-25T10:17:40.073" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="33852" PostId="16262" Score="0" Text="So there are cases in which a word in nominative has one quantity but another quantity in oblique.  But what about in the different oblique cases?  Is it ever the case that a word has one vowel quantity in the stem in, say, genitive and another quantity in ablative?  It seems like there is an exception to almost every rule in Latin.  If there are only a handful of exceptions then I'm not worried about it, but if there are many, then I am." CreationDate="2021-06-25T23:41:25.140" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33853" PostId="16262" Score="3" Text="@bobsmith76 The different oblique cases always have the same quantity. That's what makes it all so easy! If there are exceptions, they're rare enough to be learnt one by one. All I can think of is various pronouns and *bos*. Latin morphology has very little exceptions compared to any other language I know." CreationDate="2021-06-26T00:42:59.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33854" PostId="16262" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I appreciate your input." CreationDate="2021-06-26T00:51:52.197" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33861" PostId="16262" Score="1" Text="&quot;Shift some of what you consider as rules to vocabulary and it all becomes far easier to manage&quot; - hear! hear! couldn't agree more" CreationDate="2021-06-26T14:48:10.673" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="33857" PostId="16264" Score="0" Text="upvote, but, sorry, it's not exactly snappy. Is there no single word which implies a font of knowledge? Maye I should look into gods and godesses ... or maybe there is a Pandora's box of knowlegde. guidance, etc" CreationDate="2021-06-26T12:14:22.103" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="33858" PostId="16264" Score="0" Text="Maybe leader? Is dux only miltary? I mean in the sense of one who shows the way. Or explorer?" CreationDate="2021-06-26T12:37:11.560" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="33859" PostId="16264" Score="0" Text="google translate says that dux can also mean guide? I like the sound of rimor - what connotations does it have?" CreationDate="2021-06-26T12:42:03.957" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="33860" PostId="16264" Score="4" Text="@MawgsaysreinstateMonica Oh, I thought *Forma urbis* is pretty much the snappiest you could get with Latin here, especially with the Roman map of the same name. [Google Translate is very untrustworthy with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) and I would disregard it entirely. It is far better to consult any of [the many (free) online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79). *Rimor* means &quot;I dig up&quot; or &quot;I explore&quot; or similar. *Dux* can be a general guide, but I don't think I've ever seen it refer to anything but a person and the first impression is &quot;general&quot;." CreationDate="2021-06-26T13:55:27.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33862" PostId="16264" Score="2" Text="I'd also have suggested something like *index aedium (vel locorum)*, but that would admittedly suffer from the same lack of snappiness." CreationDate="2021-06-26T18:07:24.073" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33863" PostId="16264" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Do you want to write that into an answer? While it might not be what the asker wants here, it might be perfect for someone who else stumbles upon this question later." CreationDate="2021-06-26T22:00:03.203" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33865" PostId="16264" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Given your rep, how can I object?  :-)  I had hoped for a single word, but I probably wouldn't get a domain name, so [forma urbis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forma_Urbis_Romae) is a good contender.  The [Wikipedia picture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forma_Urbis_Romae#/media/File:Mapancientformaurbisromae.jpg) coudl make a good logo." CreationDate="2021-06-27T07:22:55.127" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="33866" PostId="16264" Score="0" Text="Hmmm, does anyone know of a classical Roaman map that I could use as an example?  Temple of the Vestals, or something like that? Something with maybe 20, max 30, rooms, hopefully with good descriptions? (or maybe that should be a new question   ... on ... [history](https://history.stackexchange.com/)?" CreationDate="2021-06-27T07:23:22.103" UserId="307" />
  <row Id="33868" PostId="16264" Score="1" Text="@MawgsaysreinstateMonica I don't know if such a map exists. It's best to take it to a new question, but perhaps history is indeed the most fitting site. You might have more luck with modern drawings of ancient buildings." CreationDate="2021-06-27T07:44:27.963" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33872" PostId="16264" Score="0" Text="Don't forget that forma urbis romae got  'recent updates' from Nolli &amp; Lanciani: https://rometheimperialfora19952010.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/carta-archeologica.pdf https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/map-rome-history-lanciani-artifact" CreationDate="2021-06-27T11:44:36.170" UserId="2072" />
  <row Id="33906" PostId="16265" Score="0" Text="Wiki gives, for &quot;temere&quot;, a number of meanings e.g. &quot;idly&quot;; casually&quot;; &quot;rashly&quot;--the implication--no day; no half-hour was wasted." CreationDate="2021-06-29T11:57:29.383" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33867" PostId="16266" Score="2" Text="If the dictionary is in the public domain, good chances a scan can be accessed using archive.org or GoogleBooks. One can simply write the dictionary name plus &quot;archive&quot; or &quot;google books&quot; in the search bar. here are scans of [L&amp;S](https://archive.org/details/LewisAndShortANewLatinDictionary/) , and [Gaffiot](https://archive.org/details/FelixGaffiotDictionnaireIllustr.LatinFrancais/) for example." CreationDate="2021-06-27T07:41:59.517" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33869" PostId="16266" Score="0" Text="@d_e Can you write that into an answer? It's short, but it doesn't matter as it does answer the question." CreationDate="2021-06-27T08:23:53.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33870" PostId="16266" Score="0" Text="While were at it, I do not believe the following question is worthy of a new post in stackexchange but if you feel free to edit it, do you know what these number refer to in Gaffiot, here there is an 8 next to the def for pario: părĭō,8 pĕpĕrī, partum, părĭtūrus, ĕre, tr.," CreationDate="2021-06-27T09:08:02.080" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33871" PostId="16266" Score="0" Text="Do you find [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2292/abbreviations-in-latin-dictionaries-especially-lewis-and-short) helpful? .&#xA;&#xA;FWIW, I could not locate the edition of Lebaigue that that site uses. but I have this list of abbv. from a differnt edtion of Lebaigue, [here](https://books.google.fr/books?id=13ZIAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PP7&amp;hl=fr&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=2#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)" CreationDate="2021-06-27T11:19:53.307" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33873" PostId="16266" Score="0" Text="Yes, that helps.  Any idea about the numbers.  For example, here https://logeion.uchicago.edu/levitas  if you look at Gaffiot, he has the numbers 14 and 9." CreationDate="2021-06-27T12:00:08.157" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33883" PostId="16266" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 those numbers are the *indice fréquentiel*, a number between 0 and 16 that indicates how frequently some words occur. 0 is the most frequent; only *sum*, *et* and *qui* have a zero score. This is an innovation in the 2016 digitization of the original 1934 Gaffiot. It's all explained in the preface. You can download the whole thing in PDF format [here](http://gerardgreco.free.fr/spip.php?article43&amp;lang=fr)." CreationDate="2021-06-27T19:46:27.640" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33886" PostId="16267" Score="0" Text="I tried to scan it before clicking the link to see if I can still scan, and got caught out because I read the word as 'Lasonis' (misreading capital I for lowercase L). Consequently my scan was the same as yours." CreationDate="2021-06-28T17:15:18.647" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="33877" PostId="16269" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Is the naive spelling of *jiasoni* out of the question?" CreationDate="2021-06-27T19:08:34.637" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33878" PostId="16269" Score="1" Text="@d_e I'm not sure what you mean: naive?" CreationDate="2021-06-27T19:10:54.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33879" PostId="16269" Score="0" Text="well, I meant that if I had to spell it based on the sound, this is how I think is more natural way to do.  basically I just wondered why not to spell like this" CreationDate="2021-06-27T19:12:31.073" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33880" PostId="16269" Score="3" Text="@d_e Based on what it sounds, I think *ijason* is closer than *jiason* (cf. cmw's parenthetical remark), but *iason* is best. The pronunciation starts with a vowel, so it would be confusing to start the spelling with a consonant (J)." CreationDate="2021-06-27T19:25:13.107" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33881" PostId="16269" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta, I see. thank you both." CreationDate="2021-06-27T19:28:34.143" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33898" PostId="16273" Score="2" Text="To be clear, you are talking about grammars written in English? Because the ones you mention I have never used (first heard about them on this website), as opposed to Kühner–Stegmann, Van der Heyde (probably only in Dutch)." CreationDate="2021-06-28T22:09:35.430" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33900" PostId="16273" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus I would personally welcome a post on grammars in Dutch, too, if you're so inclined, but I am indeed primarily looking for grammars in English. I actually deleted English from the title and then forgot to put it in the body of the text!" CreationDate="2021-06-28T22:22:01.863" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33903" PostId="16273" Score="0" Text="There is [12.a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/accents) : &quot;When an enclitic is joined to a word, the accent falls on the syllable before the enclitic, whether long or short.&quot; -&gt; for what I understand this statement at least conversational and probably wrong." CreationDate="2021-06-28T23:32:54.993" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33927" PostId="16273" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus As you probably know, the two volumes of the recent _Oxford Latin Syntax_ by Pinkster were intended to update and then replace the monumental work by Kühner &amp; Stegmann. My experience is that there has been no such replacement (unfortunately for me since my German is quite limited...). I've realized that in many aspects K&amp;S still provides richer and more useful syntactic information &amp; data than Pinkster!" CreationDate="2021-06-30T14:50:29.467" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33930" PostId="16273" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Ah, thank you for the information. I had heard of Pinkster's Syntax but not seen it yet. I shall continue to use the excellent and publicly available K–S." CreationDate="2021-06-30T17:43:27.443" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33938" PostId="16273" Score="2" Text="@Mitomino: I am not familiar with K &amp; S. If your German &quot;is quite limited&quot; how do you know that it's better than Pinkster's? The assumption is that you are not enamoured of Pinkater's vol. II, recently-published, is that correct?" CreationDate="2021-07-01T12:00:14.357" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44205" PostId="16273" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Is Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax* the best Latin grammar book in English?" CreationDate="2023-07-23T13:37:57.003" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="44206" PostId="16273" Score="0" Text="@Tim Harm Pinkster's 2 volumes of his OLS are indeed very useful and very detailed (with lots of attested examples). However, if you're interested in &quot;grammar&quot; (not just in syntax), you should know that you won't find a treatment of morphology there. In this sense, I'd not refer it to as &quot;the best Latin _grammar_ book&quot; but, if you're basically interested in syntax, Pinkster's 2 volumes published by the Oxford University Press (vol. 1 in 2015 &amp; vol. 2 in 2021) are indeed a very good choice." CreationDate="2023-07-23T16:15:24.673" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="33889" PostId="16274" Score="2" Text="Possible duplicate: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1332/latin-translation-for-the-serenity-prayer" CreationDate="2021-06-28T19:29:32.407" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33892" PostId="16274" Score="2" Text="As @SebastianKoppehel noted, there is already a question on this. The extra caution on tattoos isn't unwarranted, though, so if you like, if you have further questions that the other thread doesn't answer or **desire a more specific answer to your translation**, feel free to edit your question to reflect that." CreationDate="2021-06-28T20:22:20.250" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33893" PostId="16274" Score="1" Text="For what it's worth, the translation you provided is a fairly straightforward translation and is mostly grammatically correct, with just a few quibbles (no *res*!)." CreationDate="2021-06-28T20:23:43.480" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33895" PostId="16274" Score="4" Text="@cmw I definitely wouldn't want those infinitives on my skin. By the way, the source of this translation appears to be the [back cover](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41NHVyk6UkL.jpg) of Neil Young's 1981 album &quot;Re-ac-tor.&quot; (With *fortitudinem* instead of *animos*, which is another one of those quibbles …)" CreationDate="2021-06-28T21:09:36.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33896" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That actually makes it easier for inking - if anyone doubts the translation, just blame Neil Young! And you're right that the infinitives are an Anglicism, whereas Latin would likely have a purpose clause." CreationDate="2021-06-28T21:26:38.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33897" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@cmw Not classical, certainly, but aren't infinitives of purpose fairly common in later (especially church) Latin?" CreationDate="2021-06-28T21:54:53.520" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33899" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@Draconis♦: They might also be used in classical poetry, but even there they are exceptional (probably Graecisms?)." CreationDate="2021-06-28T22:11:57.160" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="33902" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@Draconis [I do think there's something to that!](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7139/when-did-the-infinitive-of-purpose-arise) I guess since this is not a prayer and isn't necessarily looking at classical Latin, the [prohibition on the infinitive of purpose](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/purpose-clauses) isn't warranted." CreationDate="2021-06-28T22:34:50.887" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33908" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I'm aware of that thread, but the key issue being that his starts with &quot;God grant me&quot;. The reason (if you're interested) I prefer it like this is because I wouldn't want to rely on any outside factors, I wish for myself to have this strength from within." CreationDate="2021-06-29T19:29:49.177" UserId="9737" />
  <row Id="33909" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel would you please elaborate on the infinitives?" CreationDate="2021-06-29T19:33:40.327" UserId="9737" />
  <row Id="33910" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@cmw so basically just remove the &quot;res&quot; and it's proper Latin?" CreationDate="2021-06-29T19:34:20.243" UserId="9737" />
  <row Id="33915" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@ReinierWijnen I'll let others chime in on the Medieval/Late Latin use of the infinitive of purpose, but res isn't correct here." CreationDate="2021-06-29T22:34:59.793" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33916" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="I also altered the title to better reflect what you're actually looking for, I think. Let me know if you have any questions or problems with that or feel free to continue revising until it suits your needs." CreationDate="2021-06-30T01:40:00.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33917" PostId="16274" Score="0" Text="@cmw thank you, hopefully people who are familiar with (Classical) Latin will be so kind to confirm proper grammar." CreationDate="2021-06-30T06:35:50.263" UserId="9737" />
  <row Id="33907" PostId="16276" Score="6" Text="FWIW, πρακτέα is the modern Gr translation equivalent of agenda." CreationDate="2021-06-29T13:55:37.777" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="34074" PostId="16276" Score="0" Text="A collection of πρακτέα (sing. πρακτέον), are the items (to-do or what was done) of a πρόγραμμα (see below)." CreationDate="2021-07-10T18:32:12.110" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="34083" PostId="16276" Score="0" Text="@gts, Sure, πρόγραμμα is a word that can be translated as 'agenda' (though it has other meanings too). However, the original question seemed to me to be getting at the larger question of how Latin gerundives can be rendered in Greek; so I framed my answer accordingly, by pointing to the adjectives in -τέος." CreationDate="2021-07-11T03:17:27.340" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34084" PostId="16276" Score="0" Text="Yes of course, this answer it's spot on when it comes to reasoning morphologically about it; and when translating this word and taking into account what context the latin use of agenda is in, I think πρόγραμμα is a pretty strong candidate too (regardless of both agenda and πρόγραμμα having other meanings too)." CreationDate="2021-07-11T03:39:09.770" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="33918" PostId="16282" Score="1" Text="Thanks I appreciate that." CreationDate="2021-06-30T11:12:57.977" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="33919" PostId="16282" Score="0" Text="With regards to the diaeresis: Be advised though, that in numerous languages it is used to create separate letters, so if writing either in a language where this is the case, or for an audience where they are likely to misread this as such, italics or other formatting to demarcate text which is written in another language than either that which your work is written in and/or the language of your target audience. Swedish, Finnish, German and Slovak ä =/≈ Norwegian/Danish æ; in Latin, æ (as used e.g. in Gaffiot) is ae. Swedish, Finnish, Icelandic, German, Turkish ö = Norwegian/Danish ø." CreationDate="2021-06-30T12:31:56.820" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33920" PostId="16282" Score="0" Text="In Norwegian, a diaeresis is sometimes used, for example in Zaïre (as Norwegian has the diphthong ai). So yes, I agree, the diaeresis is a good symbol to use, but be advised that it, too, can be misread. (Just read about Mötley Crüe’s first crowd experiences in Germany. /møtli kryː/!)" CreationDate="2021-06-30T12:34:59.140" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33921" PostId="16282" Score="3" Text="@CannedMan Indeed, the Finnish pronunciation of *Nausicaä* is amusing. Far better to leave the the dots out or spell it *Nausica'a* or something. This is yet another reason to not give too universal answers, as the language context besides Latin makes a difference for how the audience is likely to react. I'll have to edit something in about ligatures; I forgot to bring them up." CreationDate="2021-06-30T12:38:26.120" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33922" PostId="16282" Score="0" Text="Oh yes, indeed. Cæsar is pronounced /ˈsæːsar/ in Norwegian (or /ˈseːsar/ if you are posh or from some very specific dialect groups), /siːzə/ in English and /kae̯.sar/ in Latin, even though it is (or could be) spelt exactly the same way." CreationDate="2021-06-30T13:20:03.403" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33929" PostId="16283" Score="4" Text="@CannedMan could you perhaps provide the full English translation? Good translators do not work word-by-word, and also English &quot;penetrate&quot; is rather more [versatile than one might think](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penetrate). It seems a bit rash to speculate about Late Latin developments based on a translation we do not know." CreationDate="2021-06-30T16:42:23.970" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33935" PostId="16283" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You mean Bowersock’s full translation?" CreationDate="2021-06-30T22:09:01.760" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33936" PostId="16283" Score="0" Text="If the above reply was what you were looking for, I have added it now." CreationDate="2021-06-30T22:18:39.540" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33937" PostId="16286" Score="3" Text="The use of *itinere* and *ad* + accusative also makes it quite clear that the author had the plain old sense of *pervenire* in mind. It seems the translator thought that this was not idiomatic English and wrote &quot;penetrate&quot; instead, but he produced a dissonance of metaphors: one does not &quot;penetrate&quot; something &quot;by a road.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-07-01T06:09:10.527" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33959" PostId="16286" Score="0" Text="With Sebastian’s comment and your pointer towards it, this made an excellent answer. Thank you very much! In this case, it obviously was me not noticing this as an idiom, and reading it literally. As Sebastian says, the author thus produced ‘a dissonance of metaphors’, but not only that, writing for an international audience, he did not consider that someone whose first language isn’t English might (as I did) catch on to this here being meant as the idiom, and not have some other (maybe tongue-in-cheek) meaning to it. Thank you for your answer!" CreationDate="2021-07-03T22:29:00.903" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33940" PostId="16288" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Is *incipere* also used so that the work is the subject? I only recall seeing the worker as the subject, but I certainly haven't seen everything." CreationDate="2021-07-01T17:10:40.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33941" PostId="16288" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It's less common (rare in Classical prose), but it is a thing. See II. under the Lewis and Short definition." CreationDate="2021-07-01T17:24:45.963" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33942" PostId="16289" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Just to be clear, are you saying that *insula* is an uncommon word, and that's why it's so marked? If not, do you have a few examples of dictionaries that do this (especially if they say they do!)?" CreationDate="2021-07-01T18:30:26.033" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33964" PostId="16292" Score="1" Text="Since the asker specifically wants to not have an external force granting the various aspects, _dā_ seems strange." CreationDate="2021-07-05T03:01:22.673" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33965" PostId="16292" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I don't know about strange, but perhaps unnecessary. I'm in the middle of concocting a translation which drops the imperative, which I'll post shortly as a separate answer." CreationDate="2021-07-05T03:05:17.273" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="33948" PostId="16295" Score="1" Text="related https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14762/39" CreationDate="2021-07-02T21:39:58.993" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36921" PostId="16296" Score="0" Text="Based on your recomendation, I just switched to Maori in Windows 10; however, I have to press the &quot;tilde&quot; key below the ESC key before pressing the vowel to get a macron." CreationDate="2022-01-30T20:20:35.570" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="33952" PostId="16298" Score="0" Text="Where is this from? And which part are you curious about in particular?" CreationDate="2021-07-03T16:16:45.363" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="33953" PostId="16298" Score="0" Text="Just curious if the sentence makes sense. I am currently studying the personal nouns and this one came up." CreationDate="2021-07-03T16:22:29.387" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="33955" PostId="16299" Score="0" Text="Ahh, sorry. It would be CUM EIS EO? Thank you." CreationDate="2021-07-03T16:36:46.073" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="33956" PostId="16299" Score="2" Text="@JohhanSantana I updated the answer for you." CreationDate="2021-07-03T16:39:08.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33958" PostId="16299" Score="3" Text="I can count at least four substantially different translations: two full sentences ('with him I go', 'when I go, I go') and two partial ('when thither I go', 'when therefore I go')." CreationDate="2021-07-03T18:35:59.920" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33960" PostId="16301" Score="2" Text="And just to add on to this, *paucus* is &quot;few&quot; and is chiefly found in the plural (like &quot;few things&quot; or &quot;few words&quot; etc.)." CreationDate="2021-07-04T01:33:39.753" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34050" PostId="16301" Score="0" Text="Sebastian Koppehel: In &quot;...hodie quam hesterno die&quot; isn't &quot;quam&quot; omitted in an ablative-of-comparion? The inclusion of &quot;quam&quot; requires the two compared nouns to be in the same case, doesn't it?" CreationDate="2021-07-09T14:53:31.077" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34053" PostId="16301" Score="1" Text="@tony it's no ablative of comparison, it's an ablative of time. And *hodie* is not a noun." CreationDate="2021-07-09T18:29:11.893" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="33961" PostId="16302" Score="1" Text="What are your own thoughts on possible relations? Did you check the etymology or the derivation history within Latin anywhere? Reducing these words to the most basic underlying Latin words will simplify the task." CreationDate="2021-07-04T06:26:59.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33963" PostId="16302" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Phonetic and semantic similarities. I can't remember where, or if it's even a non-folk etymology, but I read somewhere that _pater_ and _partitio_ are related, in the sense that when one opens or &quot;partitions&quot; the womb, one becomes a father." CreationDate="2021-07-04T22:44:43.097" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="33966" PostId="16302" Score="0" Text="It might be useful to include background like that in the question. I was not the one to vote down; I just suspected the reason someone did it was a lack of presented rationale. I edited your comment into the question, but feel free to edit further or roll back. That connection between *pater* and *partitio* sounds much like folk etymology, given all the other uses of *partitio* and the way it comes from *pars*. I gave an answer which hopefully gives a method to get started with questions like this." CreationDate="2021-07-05T08:02:39.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33967" PostId="16304" Score="0" Text="A Roman might ask: &quot;quid videbimus?&quot; Does &quot;videbimus&quot; stand alone--no context?" CreationDate="2021-07-05T12:23:40.533" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="33968" PostId="16304" Score="0" Text="@tony Sure, as a family motto in response to a question." CreationDate="2021-07-05T13:30:19.610" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33969" PostId="16308" Score="0" Text="You need to also decline the words according to their case." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:16:40.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="33970" PostId="16308" Score="0" Text="Ah, I forgot sub takes the accusative or ablative, and _lucens_ needs to match its noun." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:29:57.553" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33971" PostId="16309" Score="0" Text="_Sub_ uses the accusative when the object is in motion, and ablative when not, correct? How does that work with light? In modern terms, light is in motion so I would use the accusative, but I'm not sure that the Romans would have thought this." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:31:25.157" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33972" PostId="16309" Score="0" Text="@Adam What do you want to mean with the phrase? Usually it means being under the light. Passing underneath the light would make sense if you wanted to crawl under a projector so as not to disturb the film others are watching, but I can't think of many other reasonable uses. It doesn't matter whether the light moves or not, it's all about the thing under it, whether named or not." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:36:07.427" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33973" PostId="16309" Score="0" Text="Ok, I'm thinking just more generally being under it, so movement isn't really important. I'm not sure how to decline _lucens_ to match _astri_ in the genitive." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:37:37.583" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33974" PostId="16309" Score="1" Text="@Adam I thought so too, so ablative is the way to go. Have you been given a declension table of the participle? Like all present participles, it behaves like a third declension adjective. I assume that when you are introduced these participles, you would be told how to decline it." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:42:04.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33975" PostId="16309" Score="0" Text="Ahh, so _lucentis_ then." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:46:58.360" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33976" PostId="16309" Score="0" Text="@Adam Exactly! Now your translation is perfect." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:50:09.713" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33977" PostId="16309" Score="0" Text="Yay! Handy link on [participle declensions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Participles) for anyone reading this later." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:52:14.517" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33978" PostId="16309" Score="0" Text="@Adam I hope guiding you through rather than giving you the answer worked out well. I thought, apparently correctly, that you only needed to be poked into the right direction. // [The A&amp;G grammar](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms) lists those under third declension adjective declensions." CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:53:40.067" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33979" PostId="16309" Score="1" Text="I greatly appreciate this approach - much more helpful for me and for others. Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-07-05T16:09:27.690" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="33980" PostId="16310" Score="0" Text="The Google books link shows nothing to me. What is shown depends on the user, so it's a little untrustworthy for linking. Can you add a screenshot of the table (and surrounding text if relevant)?" CreationDate="2021-07-05T16:31:18.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="33981" PostId="16310" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The table is just the text as appears.  I found the chart in the 3rd edition though so the google books link has been removed entirely." CreationDate="2021-07-05T16:37:13.760" UserId="788" />
  <row Id="33989" PostId="16310" Score="2" Text="&quot;Wanting&quot; is indeed old-fashioned English for &quot;missing, lacking, absent&quot;, so in this context it means that in these forms the ending is zero." CreationDate="2021-07-06T03:57:34.983" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="33997" PostId="16315" Score="4" Text="Meaning is always contextual, so you have to look at the whole sentence and quite often even at the other adjacent sentences. Good dictionaries, unless they are historical, usually list meanings by frequency; that is why it's important to read a dictionary guide or preface first, to confirm this." CreationDate="2021-07-06T18:55:47.033" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34001" PostId="16315" Score="3" Text="I did a thorough edit of your question; I suggest you take a look at it and ask if you have any questions as to why I made the edits I did. I would also suggest you rewrite the question ending in ‘to pick the correct term that people refer to’ as this is poorly written. Doing this helps everyone answer your question as best they can, giving you a better answer and helping us all to learn more. Welcome to Latin SE!" CreationDate="2021-07-07T12:37:04.713" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="33995" PostId="16317" Score="3" Text="... or, since Latin does not have articles, just *stars which are called 'wandering'* - or more idiomatically in English, *so-called 'wandering stars'*." CreationDate="2021-07-06T15:46:08.360" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="33998" PostId="16320" Score="2" Text="The imperfect subjunctive can represent unreal present circumstances that are ongoing; likewise, the pluperfect subjunctive can represent unreal present circumstances that are complete. It seems to me that that's what's going on here. That is, it's in a past tense because it's irrealis, and it's in a perfect tense because the meaning requires a sense of completion." CreationDate="2021-07-06T21:36:58.497" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="33996" PostId="16323" Score="0" Text="FWIW, *Nova Vulgate* uses this (quite rare) phrase also in Ezekiel 30:16: *&quot;Et dabo ignem in Aegypto; quasi parturiens dolebit Sin, et in No scissura erit, et contra Memphin hostes **plena die**&quot;*." CreationDate="2021-07-06T17:17:34.703" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="33999" PostId="16325" Score="4" Text="“Using an online dictionary is no replacement for a real &quot;word list&quot; is no replacement for a proper dictionary” — This seems like an odd statement, especially because you then go on to link to a very much proper, but online, dictionary. Using a word list is certainly no replacement for a proper dictionary, but online dictionaries can be, and are often, perfectly proper, and often superior to printed ones." CreationDate="2021-07-07T09:26:05.090" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="34000" PostId="16325" Score="5" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet It got mangled there a bit in the initial composition, but I just edited to make it clearer. Thanks for pointing that out." CreationDate="2021-07-07T11:34:28.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34002" PostId="16325" Score="0" Text="‘This is especially true because metaphors extend.’ Extend what? In any case, this had me thinking of my previous question on perveniō: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16283/did-perveni%c5%8d-acquire-a-new-meaning-in-late-antiquity" CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:28:08.483" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34003" PostId="16327" Score="2" Text="I studied this a long time ago. If I remember correctly, the 20th is the day that is omitted in 29-day months. (The lunar cycle is approximately 29.5 days, so the months have 29 or 30 days, alternating). This explains (more or less) the nomenclature for the 20th and 21st." CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:39:32.100" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34004" PostId="16327" Score="1" Text="Thanks much. This makes more sense than anything I've seen; the overflow/slop day merits a perverse name. I had thought of it as some type of residual  μεσοῦντος δεκάτη, with προτέρα/ὑστέρα  contrasting the two spatchcocked 10s." CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:49:14.200" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="34024" PostId="16327" Score="0" Text="Thank you Cosmas Zachos for this excellent answer, and @fdb for expanding upon it, This was very very helpful and greatly appreciated." CreationDate="2021-07-08T07:30:08.770" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="34155" PostId="16328" Score="1" Text="Thank you. The nearest example to the Verres-quote is in Allen &amp; Greenough p.303; section 484 [2(c)], &quot;He showed that if they should come (should have come) many would perish.&quot; = &quot;demonstavit, si venissent, multos interituros.&quot;. Changing the Verres, slightly, to, &quot;He threatens them violently, unless they should restore the statues, many would perish.&quot;. This would be, &quot;nisi statuas restituissent, vehementer minatur, multos interituros.&quot; Is that correct?" CreationDate="2021-07-17T11:41:21.660" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34008" PostId="16332" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure I understand the goal here. What do you mean by your suggesting a Latin motto for them? It sounds to me that you are an outsider to the company and are asking for others to compose a motto which you could then present to the company, possibly as yours. Coming up with a motto can be a fun exercise, but it'd be nice to know better what it's for." CreationDate="2021-07-07T16:07:34.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34010" PostId="16332" Score="0" Text="Yes you are correct I am an outsider to the company, I do not know Elon Musk and have no way of directly contacting him. It's more a fun exercise than anything else, I assume it would not involve a lot of work. I'm quite prepared to credit the author who suggests the motto, and I don't intend to gain anything from this. I will post it here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ it might attract a small amount of interest and I know that SpaceX insiders do frequent the site, so who knows, but more than likely it will disappear after a week or two." CreationDate="2021-07-07T16:39:21.437" UserId="2077" />
  <row Id="34011" PostId="16332" Score="1" Text="Mars exspectat? ;-)" CreationDate="2021-07-07T17:42:06.270" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34022" PostId="16332" Score="4" Text="Ad astra per fracta?" CreationDate="2021-07-07T21:54:47.267" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34013" PostId="16335" Score="2" Text="You don't seem to mention *εὐγένειος*, which was mentioned in the question as the source of *eugĕnīus/-ēus*. Did this word exist in Greek too, or do we perhaps know that the Latin word is more likely to have come from *εὐγενής*? I don't know much Greek, so I'm a little puzzled by the discrepancy." CreationDate="2021-07-07T19:22:16.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34014" PostId="16335" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Oh, I didn't even see that. εὐγένειος means 'well-bearded' (of men) or 'well-maned' (of lions) (connected to γένυς 'jaw' rather than γένος 'race'). Though εὐγένειος would obviously also be borrowed as *eugeneus*, I don't think it's tenable on semantic grounds; *eugeneus* and εὐγενής are exact semantic matches, and [L&amp;S equate them](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=eugeneus). You can't trust the French." CreationDate="2021-07-07T19:30:53.947" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34015" PostId="16335" Score="2" Text="Are there other examples of Greek -ής being borrowed as Latin -ēus? I don't recall seeing this correspondence before. // @JoonasIlmavirta I don't know where Gaffiot gets εὐγένειος; LSJ only lists this word as meaning &quot;well-maned, well-bearded&quot;, from an unrelated word γένειον &quot;beard&quot;." CreationDate="2021-07-07T19:31:30.550" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34016" PostId="16335" Score="1" Text="Thanks Cairnarvon and @TKR! Could that bit be edited into the answer? The explanation makes perfect sense, but I'd never have figured it out based on the question and the answer as they are now?" CreationDate="2021-07-07T19:40:22.110" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34017" PostId="16335" Score="1" Text="@TKR There's *heterogeneus* from ἑτερογενής, but that's Medieval, I think, and has a short *e*. I can't actually think of any other third-declension adjectives borrowed into Latin at all right now; nouns didn't seem prone to getting shunted into the second declension like that and just stayed *-ēs*. I think it's important to remember this is a very rare poetic word as well." CreationDate="2021-07-07T19:48:13.993" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34018" PostId="16335" Score="1" Text="(Looking at the passages it seems to be not poetic, but rather a technical term for a variety of grape. But yes, certainly a rare and unusual word.)" CreationDate="2021-07-07T19:55:19.493" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34025" PostId="16335" Score="0" Text="The only thing I would request from you for this excellent answer, is a final summarising sentence explicitly answering the topic question, to make it easier to find for someone skimming the page." CreationDate="2021-07-08T08:43:00.687" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34019" PostId="16336" Score="0" Text="It wouldn't be *moveo* anyway, since it's transitive. Yes, there are a couple intransitive uses, but that might just be a Livian thing (&quot;very rare&quot; and the examples in L&amp;S are all from Livy). Regardless, it wouldn't be the obvious choice. *Procede* is a good choice, though." CreationDate="2021-07-07T20:43:24.083" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34020" PostId="16336" Score="0" Text="@cmw Well, *move te*." CreationDate="2021-07-07T20:47:07.390" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34021" PostId="16336" Score="0" Text="Fair enough, but I still think your actual choice is much better." CreationDate="2021-07-07T20:48:14.387" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34172" PostId="16336" Score="0" Text="Thanks very much. I hesitate to comment in any detail for fear of revealing my ignorance of the subject. But I will post Prōcēde vēlōciter et frange rēs and see if it generates any discussion." CreationDate="2021-07-20T17:00:57.627" UserId="2077" />
  <row Id="34023" PostId="16337" Score="2" Text="Oh, I kind of prefer just *rumpe moras* by itself! Or maybe even a good pun with *rumpe mores*." CreationDate="2021-07-07T22:28:03.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34032" PostId="16339" Score="0" Text="That's a very clear answer, thank you for that." CreationDate="2021-07-08T11:26:11.503" UserDisplayName="user9690" />
  <row Id="34033" PostId="16340" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Explaining your thought process on why you chose what you chose will help yield better answers. There are much simpler ways to express that, but they risk missing points of the text (since it's presented without context). For example, is &quot;being&quot; an important distinction? Could it not be *homo* or simply the adjective used substantively?" CreationDate="2021-07-08T12:13:05.983" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34034" PostId="16340" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your comment but I'm afraid I don't have much to say about the process. It's just picking the word that seems to fit best from a dictionary whenever I hesitate (*solus* for example is closer to *alone* than to *only* from what I understood). As for the sentence itself, yes it is important that there is no reference to men specifically. The point is really consciousness, so a noun from the adjective *conscius* would fit but I thought that was grammatically correct only in the plural. Thanks again." CreationDate="2021-07-08T12:29:00.733" UserDisplayName="user9785" />
  <row Id="34035" PostId="16343" Score="1" Text="I don't understand how it's &quot;way simpler&quot; but the way you got around it is very good in my opinion. Thank you" CreationDate="2021-07-08T14:49:27.133" UserDisplayName="user9785" />
  <row Id="34036" PostId="16343" Score="1" Text="And also *habeam* is a subjunctive while *sum* is an indicative, is there a reason for that?" CreationDate="2021-07-08T14:59:47.257" UserDisplayName="user9785" />
  <row Id="34037" PostId="16343" Score="1" Text="@Discupulus I've edited it. You're right, it's not simpler in word count or syntax. I was thinking more along the lines of not using *ens*, which I would avoid if you wanted to imitate the Classical style. I also explained the subjunctive use in my edit." CreationDate="2021-07-08T15:17:25.983" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34038" PostId="16343" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for your clarification! I am still hesitating between the subjunctive and the indicative but I think both are correct here" CreationDate="2021-07-08T15:20:40.150" UserDisplayName="user9785" />
  <row Id="34039" PostId="16343" Score="3" Text="@Discupulus Yeah, I saw plenty of Neo-Latin authors use the indicative, but I personally would pull for the subjunctive in this case. Cheers." CreationDate="2021-07-08T15:22:16.527" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34040" PostId="16343" Score="3" Text="As far as I understand this, using the indicative might result in ambiguity. as it might mean: **I, who is conscious, am not alone.** , hence indeed the subjective might be preferred as it prevents this kind of meaning." CreationDate="2021-07-08T15:37:42.213" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34042" PostId="16348" Score="1" Text="&quot;Greek or AG&quot;? Greek signifying Modern Greek? There isn't such a term, as top economists borrow the French [ραντιέρηδες](https://aristosd.wordpress.com/2010/06/) and one only does that in desperation,  in the absence of an AG term, otherwise the Greek chorus would snicker, which oracles avoid at all cost...  Sarcastically, MG uses &quot;κρατοδίαιτος&quot; or something: &quot;eating off the state&quot;." CreationDate="2021-07-08T20:01:36.183" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="34045" PostId="16348" Score="0" Text="The Bekker numbering for Politics only goes up to 1342; 1360a is in Rhetoric, and it doesn't seem relevant. (I also don't really agree that &quot;rentier&quot; is the right word in English for the specific phenomenon you describe.)" CreationDate="2021-07-09T13:20:17.403" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34112" PostId="16357" Score="1" Text="I am currently reading up on polite requests in Latin. To whom are you addressing your statement? And do you prefer the statement in your title (an imperative (a command)) or in your question (an indicative (stating the facts))." CreationDate="2021-07-12T10:37:21.607" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34373" PostId="16357" Score="1" Text="I am not sure that all contributors are aware that in America this slogan “choose life” is the battle-cry of people who want to outlaw abortion where it is legal, and keep it illegal where it is forbidden, people who have been known to fire-bomb abortion clinics. Just so everyone knows what we are talking about." CreationDate="2021-08-05T17:36:03.103" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34054" PostId="16358" Score="2" Text="&quot;LAY-go&quot; -- more like &quot;leggo&quot; actually (unless you're sending your life as a legate). *Legere* isn't wrong, but an awfully ambiguous word. Since the OP already asked a similar question a while back and insinuated they want a second tattoo now, they might want to use the same word for both." CreationDate="2021-07-09T19:27:01.783" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34055" PostId="16358" Score="0" Text="Isn't there some debate whether Latin short &lt;e&gt; was /ɛ/ or /e/? At least to my ears English /eɪ/ is &quot;closer&quot; to /e/ than /ɛ/ is, especially given that it's a stressed syllable." CreationDate="2021-07-09T19:29:45.920" UserId="1416" />
  <row Id="34057" PostId="16358" Score="1" Text="To my ears, far from it; you are comparing a monophthong to a diphthong." CreationDate="2021-07-09T21:24:42.123" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34058" PostId="16358" Score="0" Text="But given English's stress pattern, it's more like comparing a *long* monophthong to a diphthong. This is anecdotal, but in my experience, [eɪ] and [e] are near indistinguishable to the vast majority of English speakers" CreationDate="2021-07-09T22:42:30.893" UserId="1416" />
  <row Id="34059" PostId="16358" Score="1" Text="Though this specific verb has a short vowel, and thus would be pronounced as in *let*, or the building blocks Lego." CreationDate="2021-07-09T22:44:49.367" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34060" PostId="16358" Score="1" Text="I'm aware how it's pronounced in Classical Latin, I'm saying that the transliteration into English necessarily must take into account that English's stress pattern works differently." CreationDate="2021-07-09T22:54:59.233" UserId="1416" />
  <row Id="34062" PostId="16358" Score="0" Text="I might be wrong here, but I thought English stress pattern accounted for this; hence the English pronunciation of *lego* can be either LAY-go, meaning ‘dispatch, deputise or bequeth’; or (LE-go), meaning choose, collect, read. Doesn’t Latin long vowels usually yield English diphthongs and short vowels monophthongs? A negative example: library v. liberty, which by the above should have been pronounced LIB-ruh-rē (/ˈlɪb.rə.ri/) and LIE-bur-tē (/ˈlaɪ.bə.ti/), which of course it isn’t.  But consider cicada, exegesis … But then radius, Asia … I suppose English prefers trochees, causing diphthongs." CreationDate="2021-07-09T23:42:21.060" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34064" PostId="16358" Score="1" Text="To my knowledge it is pretty uncontroversial that stressed short e is pronounced /ɛ/. That vowel exists in English, so I see no need to approximate it with a different vowel. (Hey, even a certain [YouTube personality](https://youtu.be/R7kwvJpbAvI?t=4m44s) agrees!)" CreationDate="2021-07-10T10:05:04.023" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34071" PostId="16358" Score="0" Text="Fair enough! I stand corrected." CreationDate="2021-07-10T16:27:36.970" UserId="1416" />
  <row Id="34061" PostId="16360" Score="7" Text="It is indeed a genitive noun, but it's also acting as a modifier (modifying _doctor_)." CreationDate="2021-07-09T23:19:54.237" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34065" PostId="16361" Score="3" Text="Both in ancient and more recent times, it is rare to mark vowel lengths in texts. I find texts to have more solemnity and gravitas in the absence of diacritics. Those marks are useful in supporting material, but I would recommend against them in any use that is not educational. There is also the issue that the person to write or carve or tattoo the text might not be familiar with them and might end up improvising. A macron written by hand can easily to turn to an umlaut or any accent mark. That said, I do like your suggestions!" CreationDate="2021-07-10T12:36:05.967" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34066" PostId="16361" Score="1" Text="What about using verb tenses like legate or optate, the dictatorial form of choose? Legate Vitam. Or Optate Vitam." CreationDate="2021-07-10T14:03:33.717" UserId="9797" />
  <row Id="34068" PostId="16361" Score="1" Text="@user139301 While the OP has &quot;Choose life&quot; in the title, they write &quot;**I** choose life&quot; in the question body." CreationDate="2021-07-10T14:27:02.687" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="34073" PostId="16361" Score="0" Text="Very good point, @HagenvonEitzen; I will add that to my answer after having probed about in the chat for some pointers." CreationDate="2021-07-10T18:15:46.093" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34075" PostId="16361" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Two counterpoints to that: One, given how slender the apices usually were, it is according to the literature I have read considered highly likely that many more inscriptions had them than we know of today, especially considering how hard they can be to see in even well-preserved specimens; and two, the altar of Augustus and the tombstone to Agrippina includes at least the I longa. Bonus point: Older inscriptions would double vowels to indicate long vowels, such as Maarcoo. I would consider all of these specimens to hold plenty of both pondus and gravitas." CreationDate="2021-07-10T18:33:25.497" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34076" PostId="16361" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan But a) they're absent from manuscripts, b) they're only really become common after Augustus and are barely present before the 1st century BCE (one source I see mentions that it's not extant before 104 BCE), c) they're not even consistently employed within the same inscription, and most importantly d) macrons aren't apices and will look awful on tattoos (and stand out as a learner's thing). I second Joonas' caution here." CreationDate="2021-07-10T19:19:43.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34113" PostId="16361" Score="0" Text="I agree with you both on these points, which is why I merely suggest it, and say that ‘Many scholars do not like macrons denoting long vowels […]’ and ‘I do not think anyone would consider [leaving them out] a mistake.’ I have not come across serious studies of their prevalence or lack thereof in letters, but in inscriptions, I would highly recommend Rolfe’s ‘The Use of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin’ (https://www.jstor.org/stable/984435)." CreationDate="2021-07-12T10:48:04.380" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34070" PostId="16362" Score="1" Text="As mentioned, dative. More importantly, Latin isn't English. It'd've been far more idiomatic to move the verb to the end or (in this case) omit it and the possessive." CreationDate="2021-07-10T15:18:58.993" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="34072" PostId="16362" Score="1" Text="&quot;Patreon&quot; is a modern company trademark.  I think you mean &quot;patrons&quot; in the title, not &quot;patreons&quot;." CreationDate="2021-07-10T17:18:20.400" UserId="6999" />
  <row Id="34063" PostId="16363" Score="0" Text="Ugh. Right! Newbie mistake " CreationDate="2021-07-10T04:38:24.553" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34069" PostId="16364" Score="2" Text="&quot;Causa nostra&quot; - &quot;our interest/issue&quot; comes to mind, but has already been branded in its Italian form ..." CreationDate="2021-07-10T14:33:28.297" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="34111" PostId="16366" Score="3" Text="“'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! He is an ex-parrot!”" CreationDate="2021-07-11T23:42:54.207" UserId="9119" />
  <row Id="34132" PostId="16366" Score="2" Text="@Fivesideddice: You've got a good memory with this recital of Monty-python's &quot;Dead-Parrot&quot; sketch. What's this lot in Latin?" CreationDate="2021-07-13T14:35:50.507" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34079" PostId="16367" Score="0" Text="But... isn't this too specific? Quite close to its English usage? Agenda refers to things that simply  have to be done, at some  point, *without* specification of modalities, no?" CreationDate="2021-07-10T21:47:30.310" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="34081" PostId="16367" Score="0" Text="Not sure that it is simply used to refer in general to any things to be done; as this is a translation question then the context (interdependent with modality) has to be taken into account. If no context it'd be *things to be acted on* (πρακτέα), but when translating (more than equivalency of words is needed) agenda is a medieval Latin word and it is being used within a specific Church/State context (e.g. Latin usage examples at Logeion https://logeion.uchicago.edu/agenda) and as such it also came to have the secondary meaning of 'ritual'. So, as such to me πρόγραμμα looks like a good fit." CreationDate="2021-07-10T23:25:21.163" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="34082" PostId="16367" Score="0" Text="Having said that, it would be interesting if it could perhaps be found whether there are any Ecclesiastical Latin texts containing 'agenda' that are translations of Church Greek (Late Koine, Church Fathers etc), and check how the translation was done there. This would probably offer a definitive answer." CreationDate="2021-07-10T23:34:31.660" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="34095" PostId="16368" Score="0" Text="Would SOLUS NAM NOS work as well?" CreationDate="2021-07-11T15:28:11.007" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34125" PostId="16368" Score="0" Text="@JohhanSantana No, that is no replacement for the phrase Sebastian suggests." CreationDate="2021-07-12T15:01:04.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34135" PostId="16368" Score="0" Text="Thank you! The quote is great." CreationDate="2021-07-13T19:05:15.733" UserId="9792" />
  <row Id="34077" PostId="16369" Score="3" Text="A very famous scene from Roman history has Cicero emerging from the Tullianum, having attended the execution of the conspirators Lentulus, Cethegus, Statilius, Gabinius and Caeparius and, addressing the crowd outside, crying: “Vixerunt!” (This circumlocution was allegedly supposed to fend off bad luck; if so, it did not work.) Only known through Plutarch, who quoted it as *ἔζησαν* by the way." CreationDate="2021-07-10T21:27:44.927" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34080" PostId="16369" Score="6" Text="I'm a big fan of *vixit:* he's finished living!" CreationDate="2021-07-10T22:23:24.190" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="34136" PostId="16370" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the name! It's perfect." CreationDate="2021-07-13T19:05:43.500" UserId="9792" />
  <row Id="34097" PostId="16371" Score="0" Text="Is that really a euphemism or just a poetic description?" CreationDate="2021-07-11T15:41:49.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34099" PostId="16371" Score="1" Text="@cmw, Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive?" CreationDate="2021-07-11T18:22:44.323" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34100" PostId="16371" Score="0" Text="No, but they're not always the same. I would actually say the latter half of the sentence sounds more euphemistic, though because it's the *Apocolocyntosis* the whole thing is likely in a deliberately mocking tone." CreationDate="2021-07-11T18:52:13.900" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34123" PostId="16371" Score="0" Text="Should that be &quot;and from then **on**&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-07-12T14:35:46.277" UserId="9562" />
  <row Id="35737" PostId="16372" Score="0" Text="Do you have a citation for this?" CreationDate="2021-11-10T13:20:06.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39056" PostId="16372" Score="0" Text="No, sorry I should have specified that this is entirely anecdotal." CreationDate="2022-07-29T13:24:11.123" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="34085" PostId="16373" Score="0" Text="Thanks! This is a useful remark, but the question was about simultaneity. Can you comment on that too?" CreationDate="2021-07-11T06:22:02.997" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34086" PostId="16373" Score="0" Text="The question is titled *The simultaneity of democracy in Athens and Rome*; in the answer I explain why there is no such thing, democracy was purely an Athenian phaenomenon. I've updated my answer to make it clearer, plus added a brief lead to Sparta if one is to look for similarities (of Res Publica, not democracy)." CreationDate="2021-07-11T08:50:06.003" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="34087" PostId="16373" Score="0" Text="I know that the two systems of government were different. My point was that Rome and Athens experienced major events of similar nature at almost the same time. The title of the question had to be simplified (and I hope you read below it too), and the main question is not about comparing the two systems but: Was the simultaneity of the two events observed in antiquity?" CreationDate="2021-07-11T10:11:31.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34088" PostId="16373" Score="0" Text="Right, I see... I did read the main body of your question as well and not just the title, that is why I spent some time to reply to it. But when speaking of simultaneity and have a question titled about the *simultaneity of democracy in Athens and Rome* then I don't how else simultaneity can be meant as per your question and why you would expect something different, even more so especially as you say that you know what the difference is as per your above comment. If it wasn't what you're looking for, perhaps it will be for other people reading so all is not for nothing." CreationDate="2021-07-11T11:13:13.113" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="34089" PostId="16373" Score="0" Text="I believe that the problem still remains even after editing your question  https://latin.stackexchange.com/posts/4869/revisions along with your latest comment on whether the body of your question is being read." CreationDate="2021-07-11T11:18:05.207" UserId="9798" />
  <row Id="34090" PostId="16376" Score="0" Text="Thanks. The search @ALE posted let me found some other examples too." CreationDate="2021-07-11T12:01:36.983" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="34093" PostId="16378" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you elaborate a bit on what the phrase means? Literal translation of short mottoes can be difficult or impossible, so it is often best (and always safest) to understand the original well and then re-express it in Latin and perhaps compress it to be as succinct as the original. You can always edit your question to add details." CreationDate="2021-07-11T13:59:31.983" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34124" PostId="16378" Score="0" Text="Hi Joonas, and thank you for your helpful suggestion." CreationDate="2021-07-12T14:41:31.673" UserId="9801" />
  <row Id="34102" PostId="16385" Score="0" Text="So I guess Nominative and Genitive can be used here, right? For example, *EQUUS EST AMICAE MEAE*?" CreationDate="2021-07-11T20:42:27.213" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34103" PostId="16385" Score="1" Text="Yeah, that would be &quot;The horse is my friend's (horse)&quot;." CreationDate="2021-07-11T21:06:22.060" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34105" PostId="16385" Score="5" Text="It is not always in the nominative, however: e.g. *puto eum esse stultum* (accusative), *mihi necesse est forti esse* (dative). It goes in whatever case it needs to go in in order to match the (semantic) subject." CreationDate="2021-07-11T22:07:38.193" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="34106" PostId="16387" Score="2" Text="Relevant: [What makes a syllable “heavy” or “light”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light)" CreationDate="2021-07-11T22:11:44.547" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="34108" PostId="16388" Score="0" Text="Put nicely and in detail. Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-07-11T23:34:58.273" UserId="9803" />
  <row Id="34109" PostId="16388" Score="0" Text="Still, I don't understand why Bennet has gone for that kind of wording. I don't see how &quot;contains a short vowel followed by [...] two consonants&quot; is more comprehensible than &quot;ends in a consonant,&quot; even if the target group of the book were non-linguists." CreationDate="2021-07-11T23:39:05.920" UserId="9803" />
  <row Id="34110" PostId="16388" Score="4" Text="@BillHeap Mostly to avoid getting into the details of syllabification, I'd imagine. &quot;Followed by two consonants&quot; is a good rule of thumb for scanning poetry, and the idea of syllabification rules working regularly across word boundaries can be less than obvious." CreationDate="2021-07-11T23:42:24.307" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34130" PostId="16388" Score="0" Text="Is *z* really `/zz/` and not something like `/ts/`?" CreationDate="2021-07-13T12:37:12.783" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="34133" PostId="16388" Score="0" Text="@HagenvonEitzen I believe so (according to Allen at least), but that would make a good new question!" CreationDate="2021-07-13T16:58:36.193" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34122" PostId="16390" Score="0" Text="Ahh! Thanks. I always forget that you can have subjectless sentences in Latin." CreationDate="2021-07-12T14:19:10.790" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34127" PostId="16390" Score="2" Text="@Adam You could consider the gerund(ive) the subject of the first sentence, and *nives* of the second. In constructions like these the grammatical subject might have nothing to do with the &quot;semantic subject&quot;." CreationDate="2021-07-12T18:31:00.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34138" PostId="16394" Score="0" Text="Great answer +1. My only comment is that I don't see anything particularly different about the usage of *homo* in the Vulgate. Isn't this just a so-called &quot;gnomic present&quot; about humans as a kind? It's not clear to me what the boundary between that and a quasi-pronoun is. See, for instance, Seneca: &quot;Magna scilicet laus est si homo mansuetus homini est.&quot; (Many of the results for &quot;homo&quot; in Seneca--with his tendency for aphorisms--are similar.)" CreationDate="2021-07-14T13:31:38.127" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34156" PostId="16394" Score="0" Text="The Vulgate of Matt. 4,4 is a literal translation of Οὐκ ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος. Hence, I do not think it is a very good example for impersonal homo." CreationDate="2021-07-17T12:01:42.483" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34126" PostId="16396" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help, Sebastian. I've been looking for such a detailed response for a very long time. Glad I found this place. Now it will be much easier to continue the development." CreationDate="2021-07-12T17:25:48.040" UserId="9807" />
  <row Id="34131" PostId="16396" Score="0" Text="Actually, I've got one more question regarding this theme. Is it written the same way in medieval Latin as it is written in post-classical Latin? Like, is it still being translated as &quot;Monstrosum universum&quot; in such case?" CreationDate="2021-07-13T13:50:34.697" UserId="9807" />
  <row Id="34134" PostId="16396" Score="0" Text="@Malum I am no expert on medieval peculiarities, but I think that this would be just the same." CreationDate="2021-07-13T17:35:34.127" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34169" PostId="16399" Score="0" Text="This is very helpful, thank you. One further question, would not &quot;qui&quot; work to convey the &quot;who we are&quot; better than &quot;quod&quot;? As in &quot;Qui sumus docemus&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-07-20T13:18:35.913" UserId="9801" />
  <row Id="34410" PostId="16399" Score="0" Text="No, just for the reason that Anonym gives." CreationDate="2021-08-07T21:04:16.837" UserId="3261" />
  <row Id="34148" PostId="16402" Score="3" Text="Welcome, Ana Maria. Do you think you could provide a little bit more information on what exactly you're looking for? Are you looking for comparisons of pronunciation or something else?" CreationDate="2021-07-16T00:56:09.993" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34191" PostId="16402" Score="0" Text="Comparisons of pronunciation would be good but what I'm looking for is individual recordings of Old Latin, Late Latin, Vulgar Latin, and African Latin!" CreationDate="2021-07-22T14:32:19.370" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="36211" PostId="16402" Score="0" Text="Here's this one video that I found! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdQawsU2RFg&amp;t=306s The women that is speaking in this video is excellent at pronouncing Vulgar Latin although she still sounds English when she is pronouncing the words!" CreationDate="2021-12-10T22:46:16.837" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="34137" PostId="16403" Score="1" Text="Maybe you’ll find something useful here https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6751/39" CreationDate="2021-07-14T00:55:11.387" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34140" PostId="16403" Score="1" Text="Question inspired by [this comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16387/what-does-a-vowel-followed-by-two-consonants-exactly-mean/16388?noredirect=1#comment34130_16388), which made me realize we have some related questions but no question about this specifically." CreationDate="2021-07-14T15:46:07.977" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34139" PostId="16405" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary uses 'corpus programmatum' for its article about software https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_programmatum. This motto is presumably based on the Masonic 'ordo ab chao' 'order out of chaos'." CreationDate="2021-07-14T15:36:31.153" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34142" PostId="16406" Score="0" Text="Nice answer - welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-07-15T03:22:16.663" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34193" PostId="16407" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the suggestions—I will definitely get on that." CreationDate="2021-07-22T18:25:50.113" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34195" PostId="16407" Score="0" Text="Excellent! The question has now been reopened and I look forward to reading answers." CreationDate="2021-07-22T19:39:39.843" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34198" PostId="16407" Score="0" Text="Fruyt 2011, pp. 158-160 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch11" CreationDate="2021-07-22T22:10:02.737" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34199" PostId="16407" Score="0" Text="e.g. just one quote from Fruyt 2011 &quot;Words in *-tūra* are often in parallel with words in *-tiō* or -tor built on the same bases: the action is expressed by *-tiō* , the agent by *-tor*, and the concrete result of the action by *-tūra*&quot; (p. 160)" CreationDate="2021-07-22T22:12:44.033" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34200" PostId="16407" Score="1" Text="He also discusses -tio vs -tus on p. 159, e.g. auditus 'sense of hearing' vs. auditio 'fact of hearing' (a process noun). Perhaps someone else could summarize it in a post." CreationDate="2021-07-22T22:20:02.290" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34143" PostId="16408" Score="2" Text="This isn't directly related to your question, but if you're trying to say 'Send me a picture' = 'Send a picture to me,' ME is incorrect; it should be MIHI. Otherwise, neither version makes much sense in Latin, regardless of word order." CreationDate="2021-07-15T17:02:31.360" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34144" PostId="16408" Score="0" Text="Ahh my bad. Edited the question. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-07-15T18:04:05.973" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34160" PostId="16408" Score="0" Text="Is there really such a thing as &quot;the regular SOV order&quot; in Latin? Statistics would be useful." CreationDate="2021-07-18T11:14:06.143" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34145" PostId="16411" Score="0" Text="What about using a gerund as in the following example: &quot;Hurry up, we'll be late to the movie!&quot; &quot;Coming!&quot;" CreationDate="2021-07-15T20:38:26.633" UserId="9820" />
  <row Id="34149" PostId="16411" Score="1" Text="@RobertF In that case it's short for &quot;I'm coming&quot; in English, but in Latin no gerund would be employed. What you need in Latin is a suitable idiom for just that scenario. That'd make a good separate question!" CreationDate="2021-07-16T01:29:13.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34152" PostId="16411" Score="1" Text="Yes that makes sense. Going back to the original question, how about using a gerund to answer the question: &quot;How is order maintained?&quot; &quot;By ruling.&quot; Although in this case you could say the question is implicitly asking &quot;How does one maintain order?&quot;." CreationDate="2021-07-16T14:32:37.047" UserId="9820" />
  <row Id="34154" PostId="16411" Score="0" Text="@RobertF How short an answer makes sense depends on the circumstances, so I recommend asking separate questions on specific cases. If you can count on having a charitable audience, as you would in most real conversations, then a single word can easily suffice. The biggest problem is probably sounding unfriendly than being too difficult to parse." CreationDate="2021-07-16T20:04:48.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34146" PostId="16415" Score="2" Text="I might suggest *esto* for the imperative here, since *es talis* might well be interpreted to mean 'you are one'." CreationDate="2021-07-15T21:31:14.247" UserId="427" />
  <row Id="34151" PostId="16416" Score="1" Text="What is the context you want to use this? Ronan theatres didn't have curtains (afaik) so if the idea is to convey an idea of something behind-the-scenes or an insider's perspective, the curtain metaphor might be an odd choice for Latin." CreationDate="2021-07-16T08:55:47.960" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34153" PostId="16416" Score="0" Text="The Romans did have curtains. I mentioned one above. The aulaeum, which was used in the downstage for dramatics, such a scene being suddenly revealed, or much like how we use our theatrical curtains today. But I think this is supposed to be a phrase applied in a neo-Latin setting, such as a motto of a school or something. The question still stands, does Latin allow for these prepositional phrases to have an inferred subject?" CreationDate="2021-07-16T18:51:50.477" UserId="6952" />
  <row Id="34147" PostId="16418" Score="0" Text="Excellent, I hadn't though of that one. Thanks." CreationDate="2021-07-15T23:50:44.577" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="34150" PostId="16419" Score="0" Text="I feel like there should be some good prefixed verb for this, but _recipere_ doesn't seem to have had that meaning, and _coepi_ doesn't generally take prefixes." CreationDate="2021-07-16T04:48:26.260" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34157" PostId="16421" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, if I said something like _Incipere iterum iterumque_, would it mean _begin again and again_ and not read strangely?" CreationDate="2021-07-18T03:46:51.887" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34158" PostId="16421" Score="0" Text="One more thought: if using the adverb twice with -que makes sense, what about changing the word order to _Iterum Incipere Iterumque_ (or even _Rursus Incipere Rursusque_)?" CreationDate="2021-07-18T03:53:22.953" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34159" PostId="16421" Score="1" Text="@Adam *iterum iterumque, iterum atque iterum, iterumque iterumque* are all attested with the meaning &quot;again and again, repeatedly&quot; according to L&amp;S and Georges. For *rursus* this does not appear to be the case." CreationDate="2021-07-18T06:22:15.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34161" PostId="16421" Score="0" Text="Ok, thank you! I need to make it a habit to check sources more." CreationDate="2021-07-18T12:56:32.940" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34162" PostId="16421" Score="1" Text="@Adam Another great resource is [Döderlein’s Hand-book of Latin Synonymes](https://www.latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries?t=do270) by the way ;-)" CreationDate="2021-07-18T19:03:52.410" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34163" PostId="16421" Score="0" Text="@Adam Incidentally, another way to say “again and again” would be simply *identidem*, which also happens to be a pretty cool sounding word in my opinion." CreationDate="2021-07-18T19:05:55.240" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34164" PostId="16421" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/127645/discussion-between-adam-and-sebastian-koppehel)." CreationDate="2021-07-18T20:03:43.880" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44698" PostId="16425" Score="0" Text="I wonder if _nōn pārēbō_ can work too." CreationDate="2023-09-07T03:41:32.537" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="34165" PostId="16426" Score="3" Text="I haven't read the chapter you mention, but this doesn't seem right since there are quite a few verbs that contrast aorist/future middle vs. passive, as ἐλυσάμην / ἐλύθην etc." CreationDate="2021-07-19T03:50:23.420" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34170" PostId="16426" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately, my University Library is still closed because of the pandemic and I have not been able to access Aubrey's paper. It is specifically about the  θη  verbs in the koine, and in the broader context of Hellenistic Greek. I would be very hesitant to dismiss it without closer examination." CreationDate="2021-07-20T14:36:01.180" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34166" PostId="16427" Score="0" Text="I know there is a table facility, but when I tried to use it, it was displayed all-right in the preview, but not after saving. Feel free to reformat..." CreationDate="2021-07-19T14:32:40.563" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="34167" PostId="16427" Score="0" Text="I converted to table formatting. It looks good to me, but let me know if it still looks wonky to you." CreationDate="2021-07-19T15:48:11.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34183" PostId="16427" Score="0" Text="This was not the question, but the request should rather be *veni huc, veni ad me, accede huc*, etc." CreationDate="2021-07-21T18:41:28.227" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34858" PostId="16427" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Of course! I should have realised, knowing that the German translation for &quot;Hinc equitavit&quot; (Carmina Burana) is &quot;Der ist geritten hinnen&quot;. Changed accordingly. But why the imperative?" CreationDate="2021-08-31T16:08:47.413" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="34168" PostId="16429" Score="9" Text="We **must** use the accusative because *de te metuo* means &quot;I am afraid **for** you&quot; (i.e., I fear something untoward will happen to you)." CreationDate="2021-07-19T18:15:01.023" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34171" PostId="16431" Score="3" Text="This is actually not so easy to answer: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/344/78" CreationDate="2021-07-20T16:43:57.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34173" PostId="16432" Score="1" Text="*improbus* also means &quot;disgraceful&quot; or even &quot;dishonest&quot;. I think the range of meaning for it is too large to use for &quot;graceless&quot; (as in lacking grace, inelegant). Assuming she doesn't mean &quot;lacking *mercy*&quot;, I would have went with something like *inelegans* or perhaps even *haud lepidus* (as *inlepidus* is rare), or perhaps a better word but along those lines. Thoughts?" CreationDate="2021-07-20T21:36:11.670" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34178" PostId="16432" Score="0" Text="@cmw That depends on your interpretation of the lyrics. I do not find it compelling that a heart should be thought &quot;inelegant&quot; or, if so, be cut out on that count. Rather I suspect the author had the more traditional, religious meaning of &quot;graceless&quot; in mind, which Merriam-Webster gives as &quot;immoral, unregenerate,&quot; and which probably also underlies Smith &amp; Hall's translation as &quot;improbus, nequam.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-07-21T16:36:31.277" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34179" PostId="16432" Score="0" Text="I hadn't even considered the older religious meaning. I think you might be right. It's the opposite then of *plena gratiae*?" CreationDate="2021-07-21T17:07:24.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34181" PostId="16432" Score="0" Text="@cmw Indeed, perhaps one could say *corde inani gratiae*." CreationDate="2021-07-21T18:05:37.543" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34184" PostId="16432" Score="1" Text="*Ingratus* might also be an option to consider, though I'm also not sure exactly what &quot;graceless&quot; means here." CreationDate="2021-07-21T20:10:37.453" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34185" PostId="16432" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Clunkiness aside, I think it works better than *improbus*. Even having read the lyrics again (which I never before precisely knew, though I've listened to the song a dozen times), I'm not 100% sold she means it's wicked. For what it's worth, [genius](https://genius.com/13583147) also went with &quot;lacking charm.&quot; Ultimately we'd have to ask Florence, but I think *inani gratiae* at least keeps the same word whence we got *graceless*." CreationDate="2021-07-21T21:26:59.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34186" PostId="16432" Score="0" Text="@TKR I think that actually works best so far, since it has the negative connotation that Sebastian was going for and is etymologically equivalent to *graceless*. +1." CreationDate="2021-07-21T21:29:40.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34174" PostId="16435" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-07-21T13:44:13.427" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34182" PostId="16435" Score="2" Text="Thanks! The answers here are very useful!" CreationDate="2021-07-21T18:13:54.363" UserId="9098" />
  <row Id="34190" PostId="16435" Score="0" Text="@ermatveit I'll second that welcome. I hope you stick around and ask more Latin questions. Make sure, when you're ready, to accept the answer which answers your question best." CreationDate="2021-07-22T13:35:28.623" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34177" PostId="16436" Score="5" Text="While what you say is certainly true, one needn't look any further than the adjective's principal parts (that is, the dictionary entry) to make the same determination – it's sort of the point (or one of the points, anyway) of having principal parts. For 1st/2nd declension adjectives, the feminine and neuter nominative forms tell the stem: thus libera and liberum indicate that the e is part of the stem of that adjective, whereas pulchra and pulchrum indicate that the e isn't part of the stem. The situation is a bit more complex for 3rd declension adjectives, but the principle is the same." CreationDate="2021-07-21T16:29:24.490" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34187" PostId="16436" Score="1" Text="@cnread Yeah, I would say it doesn't work for 3rd decl. adjective. The feminine and neuter of *sapiens* is *sapiens*, but the stem is *sapient-*. The genitive is safer for those." CreationDate="2021-07-22T02:06:59.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34188" PostId="16436" Score="0" Text="@cmw, Yes, but in cases like sapiens, most dictionaries I know will give the genitive singular as the second principal part. So that's what I meant by the principle's being the same: the principal parts are all you need." CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:29:14.737" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34189" PostId="16436" Score="0" Text="@cnread Ah, I see what you mean now. Got it." CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:38:59.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34196" PostId="16443" Score="0" Text="Ahh, that makes sense. I haven't delved far into Latin poetry or translations of it, but I didn't think it would be too surprising that a lot of license might be taken with the English." CreationDate="2021-07-22T20:53:45.847" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34197" PostId="16443" Score="1" Text="@Adam Especially the translations that try to be poetic themselves. You'll find plenty of glosses and skipped phrases along the way." CreationDate="2021-07-22T21:07:42.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34201" PostId="16443" Score="2" Text="I suspect that “as fancy led me” is nothing else but this translator's attempt to translate *ultra terminum* in a way that rhymes with “fled me.” I note that other translations reproduce the clause quite plainly (like [this one](https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/HoraceOdesBkI.php#anchor_Toc39402028) or [this one](https://books.google.de/books?id=jlgCAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA83#v=onepage))." CreationDate="2021-07-22T22:56:28.940" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34205" PostId="16444" Score="3" Text="The closest I could find: *Doce me non an fortitudo animal sit, sed nullum animal felix esse sine fortitudine ...* (SenPhil.Ep.113.27.2)" CreationDate="2021-07-23T13:42:19.570" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34222" PostId="16444" Score="3" Text="For comparison, this line from Publilius Syrus: Ignoscito saepe alteri, numquam tibi. We see a positive imperative with two arguments, one of which is modified by a negative adverb." CreationDate="2021-07-25T15:55:55.287" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="34236" PostId="16444" Score="2" Text="I agree with the two comments above: your option 2) would seem most natural to me (or simply the reverse: *da mihi librum, non gladium*). I have my doubts about option 3): I think there is a problem of scopes." CreationDate="2021-07-26T22:15:13.710" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34693" PostId="16444" Score="2" Text="also consider: *Si non ingenium, certe brevitatem approba* (Phaedrus). though it not quite the same because of the *si* and *certe* but I think it shed more light on the issue at hand." CreationDate="2021-08-23T08:00:03.697" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40979" PostId="16444" Score="0" Text="2. and 3. look impeccable to me.&#xA;@Cerberus I do not think 3. should involve any scope issue; the second V just remains implicit:&#xA;*Noli mihi gladium dare, sed librum &lt;dare&gt;.*" CreationDate="2023-01-13T12:30:11.747" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40984" PostId="16444" Score="0" Text="@VincentKrebs But in 3 what we want is *librum da*, not *dare*. I'm doubtful that the *da* can be elided." CreationDate="2023-01-13T17:38:51.070" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40985" PostId="16444" Score="0" Text="@tkr Look. *Noli* has a negation component, and the &quot;volo&quot; component. Exactly like you can say *nemo venit qui sapiens esset*, meaning &quot;not anyone came who were wise&quot; (and think of &quot;neque ullus&quot; or &quot;unquam&quot;) , you can say &quot;want-not to do this, but that&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-13T18:46:07.177" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40986" PostId="16444" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs You may be right, but I'd like to see actual examples; logic and usage don't always match up. And I'm not sure the logic of separating out the negation to apply only to the first clause is valid at all; e.g. I don't think you can say *Nemo venit qui sapiens esset, sed qui stultus* for &quot;no one came who was wise, but someone came who was stupid&quot;, or *Nescio quis sit sed unde sit* for &quot;I don't know who he is but I know where he's from&quot;. I think the scope of the negation in such structures extends to the entire coordination." CreationDate="2023-01-13T19:39:29.923" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40987" PostId="16444" Score="0" Text="@TKR I see what you mean, you are right. Note that your first example with *nemo* wouldn't work with *non ullus* anyway, it is not good. But the other one with *nescio* proves your point. I know this is not Ciceron's latin but in the deuteronomy you find:&#xA;&#xA;*Noli metuere sed recordare quae fecerit Dominus Deus tuus Pharaoni et cunctis Aegyptiis.* For what it's worth I found those examples from ecclesiastic latin: *Noli me corporali tactu, sed fide pulsare.* and&#xA;*Noli esse incredulus sed fidelis. *" CreationDate="2023-01-14T02:20:31.767" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="34206" PostId="16448" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thank you. Term &quot;hendiadys&quot; is a new one on me! Why did Cicero use &quot;hoc&quot;? The original title of this Q., was &quot;What is the Role of 'hoc' in...&quot;. It wasn't clear, initially, what case or gender it was." CreationDate="2021-07-23T15:21:04.200" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34207" PostId="16448" Score="1" Text="@tony I think *hoc* goes with *ut* here, a little like &quot;so that&quot;. You can well ask a separate question on the role of that pronoun if you'd like to learn more. It's good for questions to be focused, and a single sentence can well give rise to several questions." CreationDate="2021-07-23T20:39:00.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34213" PostId="16449" Score="1" Text="Is the *axis mundi* the center of the world, or is it **that which everything else revolves around**?" CreationDate="2021-07-24T13:00:23.253" UserId="9854" />
  <row Id="34221" PostId="16449" Score="0" Text="@RonJohn That'd make a nice separate question! The exact meaning of the phrase and also *axis* in itself is worth exploring properly." CreationDate="2021-07-25T15:24:16.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34210" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="*Axis mundi*, &quot;centre of [a/the/one] world&quot;; *axes mundi*, &quot;centres of the world&quot;; *axes mundorum* &quot;centres of [some/the/multiple] worlds&quot;; and for completeness, *axis mundorum* &quot;centre of the worlds&quot;. Is that correct?" CreationDate="2021-07-24T06:42:01.660" UserId="1248" />
  <row Id="34211" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="@TimPederick *Axis* means axis/axle, not centre, but otherwise yes." CreationDate="2021-07-24T12:52:13.407" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34212" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon the axle is in the center of the wheel." CreationDate="2021-07-24T12:59:07.253" UserId="9854" />
  <row Id="34214" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: I was just using OP's phrasing." CreationDate="2021-07-24T14:12:15.093" UserId="1248" />
  <row Id="34215" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="@RonJohn The nose is in the centre of the face and you'd still be wrong to translate *nasus* as centre." CreationDate="2021-07-24T15:07:31.910" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34218" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon my point is that people have been interpreting *axis* as *center* for a long time." CreationDate="2021-07-24T20:53:29.403" UserId="9854" />
  <row Id="34224" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="Honestly, I do not see how one world can have more than one axis, whether in a literal or a metaphorical sense." CreationDate="2021-07-25T22:39:24.270" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34225" PostId="16450" Score="0" Text="@fdb: In the Cartesian sense, the Earth has three. (At least.)" CreationDate="2021-07-26T08:51:55.353" UserId="1248" />
  <row Id="34216" PostId="16455" Score="1" Text="Agree that this is an excellent translation. I'd actually vote for *feram* over alternatives like *tolerem*, since *fero* is the most basic/common Latin verb for this meaning; ambiguity doesn't seem like a big problem here given that the meaning is clear from context and that this is a well-known quote (not to mention that such lexical ambiguity is very common in real Latin texts)." CreationDate="2021-07-24T19:23:52.900" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34217" PostId="16455" Score="0" Text="@TKR I agree that *feram* is the most stylish choice and what a Roman author would have been likely to choose. I just wanted to point the potential ambiguity out explicitly so that the OP can judge whether it is fine. The context reduces the room for misinterpretation quite a bit here. It's very true that tolerance for ambiguity is often needed with Latin." CreationDate="2021-07-24T20:05:50.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34220" PostId="16456" Score="0" Text="So also Cicero, Pro Rosc. Am. 54: *Exheredare filium voluit. Quam ob causam? 'Nescio.' Exheredavitne? 'Non.'* And also In Verrem 1,7: *Quid? iudices non [⋯] existimationem populi Romani sequentur? Non: omnia in unius potestate ac moderatione vertentur.* (Both examples from L &amp; S, which lists several more Ciceronios locos.)" CreationDate="2021-07-25T11:35:31.237" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34223" PostId="16456" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That would make a good additional answer, if you feel like listing those examples out! It would show quite definitively that my instructors were wrong about _non_ not being good Classical style." CreationDate="2021-07-25T19:43:52.567" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39701" PostId="16456" Score="0" Text="@Draconis But Terence was an Old Latin author!" CreationDate="2022-09-26T01:41:19.133" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="34227" PostId="16457" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Idioms can be interesting to translate." CreationDate="2021-07-26T13:07:02.733" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34228" PostId="16458" Score="2" Text="Note: This is a so-called [substantive clause of purpose](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/substantive-clauses-purpose)." CreationDate="2021-07-26T16:23:55.660" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34229" PostId="16458" Score="5" Text="The ut cause is an indirect command, a type of noun clause. Here it functions as the direct object of praecipit; therefore, it can be anticipated/encapsulated by the neuter acc. sing. pronoun hoc: '...reason and learning instruct this, namely that...' The pronoun refers to the whole clause, not any one word in it. This is extremely common. It's also common for translations to leave out any explicit translation of the pronoun, since it really does just anticipate the upcoming clause. Cicero could have left it out; it's a matter of style to include it." CreationDate="2021-07-26T16:25:40.543" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34230" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="And of course Ovid here is echoing Vergil's *omnia vincit amor*." CreationDate="2021-07-26T18:56:44.100" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34231" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="@cmw Utrum verius sit miror …" CreationDate="2021-07-26T19:10:58.540" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34232" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="I believe I made a convincing case for this being so long long ago, but alas, I'm a few hdd crashes past having evidence of that." CreationDate="2021-07-26T21:12:51.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34233" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="@cmw Minime, utra harum sententiarum vero propior, volui dicere." CreationDate="2021-07-26T21:24:06.227" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34234" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="Ignosce mihi, celerrime legi. Fortasse neutra est verissimas, omnia enim vincet mors." CreationDate="2021-07-26T21:58:00.563" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34235" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="But seriously, [this is relevant](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=omnia+%7E+vincit), and I feel like there was another famous one that perhaps uses a different verb? Not Pliny the Elder's [constasntia superat omnia](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=omnia+%7E+superat), but similar." CreationDate="2021-07-26T22:03:14.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34240" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="That is what i was looking for! It seemed strange to me that no latin poet ever had a similar thought, plus it has a nice ring to it." CreationDate="2021-07-27T06:49:19.940" UserId="9862" />
  <row Id="34247" PostId="16460" Score="0" Text="@cmw Nonne fama vincit mortem? Famam autem vincit tempus ... I understand the Eclogues were the biggest theatrical hit of the time, which everybody had to see. So in a way, saying &quot;X vincit omnia&quot; back then was like saying &quot;May the X be with you&quot; today; even if it isn't intended as a reference, you still know what it will call to mind in your audience." CreationDate="2021-07-27T17:18:54.257" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34237" PostId="16461" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that's very helpful. I got my wife, the French professor, to explain what tonique and atone mean in this context, and she explained what it meant in French, which I'm familiar enough with to get the idea (dites moi versus me dire, pour moi, etc.). Is this what we would refer to in an English-language grammar of Greek as emphatic versus non-emphatic? Oddly, I can't seem to find any discussion of this in Pharr, 4th ed, at #1028ff. From modern Greek a long time ago, I vaguely remember constructions like κι εμάς. In ancient Greek is this just about emphasis (not syntax too, as in French)?" CreationDate="2021-07-26T23:06:29.773" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34238" PostId="16461" Score="0" Text="I'm glad my answer was helpful. &quot;Tonique&quot; in this context means that it has its own accent, while &quot;atone&quot; means without an accent of its own (which is to say that it is &quot;anaphorique&quot; = enclitic, that is, it relies on the previous word to be pronounced)" CreationDate="2021-07-26T23:19:23.663" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34239" PostId="16461" Score="1" Text="possibly relevant: Helma Dik, On Unemphatic 'Emphatic' Pronouns in Greek, https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/4433482" CreationDate="2021-07-27T00:51:32.853" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34263" PostId="16464" Score="0" Text="In the text before this quote, she says she didn't have any advice or permission on the matter, and it wasn't &quot;in ipsa&quot;, then she repeated that in the quote I already gave above." CreationDate="2021-07-29T18:10:15.583" UserId="9851" />
  <row Id="34264" PostId="16464" Score="1" Text="@CeeGesange: Perhaps posting more of the Latin text in your question might help." CreationDate="2021-07-30T01:26:11.823" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34241" PostId="16466" Score="4" Text="Can you clarify what your question has to do with Latin (or Greek)? I can't tell whether this is a historical, biblical, or some other kind of question, so I'm unsure whether this is the best fit among SE sites. It'd be great if you could to elaborate on the context and what you already know about the phrase." CreationDate="2021-07-27T13:46:26.553" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34242" PostId="16466" Score="0" Text="The earliest usage I know of is in The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary/Against Jovinianus, by Jerome (issued c.383 in Latin): &quot;Observe, Mary is the mother of James the Less and of Joses. And James is called the less to distinguish him from James the greater, who was the son of Zebedee...&quot; https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm" CreationDate="2021-07-27T14:26:33.507" UserId="8981" />
  <row Id="34243" PostId="16466" Score="2" Text="This sounds like a question for history.SE, christianity.SE, or hermeneutics.SE." CreationDate="2021-07-27T14:32:12.317" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34244" PostId="16466" Score="1" Text="I can see a legitimate question here - the attestation will be in Greek or Latin. Ryan, can you add that info to the question. I'll run a TLG search later to see if it comes up. Just a little busy at the moment." CreationDate="2021-07-27T14:45:17.880" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34252" PostId="16466" Score="1" Text="I couldn't find much, unfortunately. But I did find a Didymus the Blind reference where he calls James the Apostle μέγας (Comm. Ps. 29-34 228.18). It's not μείζων or maior, though, so not quite the same. I can keep looking around, but it'll get tricky in Greek because there's a prominent passage in Genesis that combines μείζων and Ἰακώβ. Searching TheLatinLibrary also brings up nothing." CreationDate="2021-07-27T20:46:25.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34253" PostId="16466" Score="0" Text="RE: &quot;Didymus the Blind reference where he calls James the Apostle μέγας (Comm. Ps. 29-34 228.18).&quot; If he did not say which apostle, is it possible that he was talking about James the son of Alphaeus?" CreationDate="2021-07-28T01:50:09.707" UserId="8981" />
  <row Id="34254" PostId="16466" Score="0" Text="Re: TheLatinLibrary also brings up nothing. What is the latest date the LatinLibrary covers?" CreationDate="2021-07-28T01:51:47.597" UserId="8981" />
  <row Id="34255" PostId="16466" Score="2" Text="TLL goes very late, but it is not complete and doesn't have search capabilities. Re Didymus, I'll check again, but he specifically is referring to the author of the Epistle of James. I'll post that as an answer later and maybe others can fill in the gaps." CreationDate="2021-07-28T05:09:52.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34257" PostId="16466" Score="0" Text="Re: Didymus. A quotation of the relevant passage (in the original language and in English translation) would be useful. Given that Origen refers to the author of the book of James as &quot;the Brother of the Lord&quot; (Commentarium in Epistulam ad Romanos IV, 8), and Didymus was influenced by Origen, it seems likely he was referring to &quot;the Brother of the Lord&quot; as &quot;great.&quot; But since Didymus was in the chain of tradition leading to Jerome's identification of &quot;the Brother of the Lord&quot; with &quot;James son of Alphaeus,&quot; I would like to know if the passage rules out the son of Alphaeus." CreationDate="2021-07-28T16:31:46.923" UserId="8981" />
  <row Id="34258" PostId="16470" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I'm not sure however, if all the examples would use a distributive if the number were defined.  for example it seems *aliquot* might be replaces with *tres* (*tres orationes*/ *tres annos* and not *terni annos*).  But The example with *castra* indeed looks promising." CreationDate="2021-07-28T21:28:01.730" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34259" PostId="16470" Score="3" Text="Because castra is (usually) a plural-only noun, the first example in your list is really the only one that's relevant to the question." CreationDate="2021-07-28T21:30:03.037" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34260" PostId="16470" Score="1" Text="So I think I have misinterpreted the purpose of the question and I apologize. As an indefinite distributive numeral adjective aliquot could be fine, as the example of Cato I cited (which however is the result of a textual restoration) would demonstrate. However, tres is not a distributive numeral like ternus (but beware: ternOS annos and non ternI annos). As far as I know, in classical Latin there is no indefinite distributive adjective that translates 'some at a time'." CreationDate="2021-07-28T22:32:49.217" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34265" PostId="16473" Score="3" Text="Saved by the σωτῆρα law!" CreationDate="2021-07-30T03:41:10.740" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34268" PostId="16474" Score="2" Text="you may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachmann%27s_law" CreationDate="2021-07-30T18:38:57.410" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34266" PostId="16475" Score="1" Text="Thank you for this answer; it explains the cause of the problem excellently; I had not considered that they could have made such editorial choices. I just unpacked (box 5 today!) my _Latinsk ordbok_, and am pleasantly surprised to see that it does in fact list all long vowels, as your Finnish dictionary does. ••• In my dialect too (though this would be neither Bokmål nor Nynorsk pronunciation of Norwegian), as well as that of my wife’s, we can have both short vowel + long consonant and long vowel + long consonant, e.g. /mɑɲː/ means ‘man’ and /mɑːɲː/ ‘the man’, so I can feel your frustration!" CreationDate="2021-07-30T15:02:35.593" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="47681" PostId="16475" Score="2" Text="Gaffiot 2016 is a good source for 'hidden' vowel lengths (that is not publicly edited, unlike Wiktionary) and is available at Logeion: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/lego" CreationDate="2024-03-05T22:29:11.850" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47684" PostId="16475" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Thanks! That does indeed look very useful for that purpose." CreationDate="2024-03-06T00:55:53.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34267" PostId="16476" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site - great question!" CreationDate="2021-07-30T18:04:17.993" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34275" PostId="16476" Score="2" Text="An alternative can be to render one of the &quot;of&quot;s as an adjective, e.g. *principium viae crucialis*. I suspect the Romans would consider too many (how many?) genitives ugly. Religious texts might care less." CreationDate="2021-07-31T00:44:18.187" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34276" PostId="16476" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I feel like that would make a great question of its own of the Latin Community of Stack Exchange." CreationDate="2021-07-31T03:19:38.230" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34301" PostId="16476" Score="0" Text="The most famous “stacked” genetive is probably the papal title *Servus servorum Dei* ([Servant of the servants of God](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Servus_servorum_Dei))." CreationDate="2021-08-01T07:35:21.903" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45181" PostId="16477" Score="1" Text="Spanish &quot;e&quot; didn't diphthongize before Latin -ct- &gt; &quot;ch&quot;, possibly because of vowel raising from the following palatal. Thus lĕctum, *pĕctum &gt; Sp. lecho, pecho rather than *liecho, piecho. (Although the etymology still supports reconstructing a long vowel in collēctum.)" CreationDate="2023-10-21T17:52:48.290" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="34269" PostId="16479" Score="2" Text="It worth noting that stripping this out of context and considering the grammar alone, this might be rendered as *man's heart enriches good-wine* which is really not so far fetched as one might suppose, as the judgment (and the very taste itself!) of people tend to be effected by their &quot;hearts&quot; (prejudices, and even their mood.)" CreationDate="2021-07-30T20:10:47.137" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34270" PostId="16479" Score="0" Text="Les pages roses agree with your text, but add the full quotation attrib. **Eccle'siastique XL 20.** Wine and music rejoice the heart: but the love of wisdom is above them both" CreationDate="2021-07-30T22:47:53.940" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="34271" PostId="16479" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Apparently Ecclésiastique and Ecclesiastes are different books and something got confused along the way. Ecclesiasticus (Ecclésiastique) has the exact quote." CreationDate="2021-07-30T23:00:17.323" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34272" PostId="16479" Score="1" Text="Oh, it's not actually the exact same quote, I guess. Still a lot closer than Ecclesiastes." CreationDate="2021-07-30T23:20:41.887" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34273" PostId="16479" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I got _some_ words right, but not nearly enough. This makes a lot of sense." CreationDate="2021-07-30T23:28:08.053" UserId="9905" />
  <row Id="34274" PostId="16479" Score="1" Text="@Hugh I used to have a Larousse AND a Robert, but these days, I am separated from my physical books. I would not have expected the phrase to come from a biblical quotation, and the film takes place in 50 BCE. That's my bad for being too literal." CreationDate="2021-07-30T23:30:29.953" UserId="9905" />
  <row Id="34279" PostId="16480" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Do [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5143/a-dios-rogando-y-con-el-mazo-dando) question and the corresponding answers help?" CreationDate="2021-07-31T12:17:31.373" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="34278" PostId="16481" Score="1" Text="Could you edit your original question and add the original quote, as well as some additional context for the quote?" CreationDate="2021-07-31T04:03:05.397" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34277" PostId="16482" Score="3" Text="Alternate to what? What is it supposed to be a modification of? (And no, *dedere* can only mean &quot;surrender&quot; in a transitive sense. You'd need a *te* to go with it.)" CreationDate="2021-07-31T03:27:30.860" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34280" PostId="16482" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Your question seems to need a bit more context so that the rest of us can give a meaningful answer. What is the Latin adage you are referring to? Do you know other translations, or why you call 'alternate' that of yours?" CreationDate="2021-07-31T12:20:13.630" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="34296" PostId="16482" Score="1" Text="The closest Latin quote i found online that expresses  the same thought is &quot;Non desistas non exieris.&quot; I wanted to express it slightly differently and in the imperative, and was only seeking confirmation that my rusty Latin is still adequate to the task.  Thanks for responding." CreationDate="2021-07-31T23:19:06.307" UserId="9907" />
  <row Id="34295" PostId="16483" Score="1" Text="Thanks very much for your comment. I translated this version of the common adage &quot;God helps those who help themselves,&quot; into Latin, after slightly modifying it for emphasis, because I could not find a literal Latin translation online. I then posted the question to reassure myself that my (German) high school Latin (4 years),which is 1960's vintage and thus very rusty, was still adequate for a simple task like this. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2021-07-31T23:05:15.400" UserId="9907" />
  <row Id="34281" PostId="16484" Score="0" Text="To all those can be added the hundreds of phrases about *fortuna* and *audentes*." CreationDate="2021-07-31T13:08:00.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34282" PostId="16484" Score="0" Text="Of course. I preferred to cite some examples where there is a god who helps those who work for themselves." CreationDate="2021-07-31T13:26:47.223" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34283" PostId="16484" Score="0" Text="Don't let *Fortuna* hear you talk about her like that!" CreationDate="2021-07-31T13:29:12.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34284" PostId="16484" Score="0" Text="Sure, but the topos with Fortuna (Fortes Fortuna adiuvat, cf. eg Ter. Phorm. 203; Cic. fin. 3,4,16; Liv. 8,29,5 and 34,37,4; Plin. ep . 6,16,11) has a different semantic value; also, in  Audentes Fortuna iuvat (Verg. Aen. 10.284), audentes properly designates a temporary state of mind which is just the opposite of fortis" CreationDate="2021-07-31T13:41:05.330" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34285" PostId="16484" Score="0" Text="That was tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I do think the Romans would have been cognizant of the semantic overlap of Fortuna (dea) and fortuna (idea). In some ways, I'd also argue that *audentes* is a closer analogue to the *iuvantes* - in both cases the object of the gods' aid is doing something on their own accord, whereas *fortes* describes what those people simply are. All are temporary, though, since as we all know, *valet ima summis deus/Fortuna*." CreationDate="2021-07-31T14:04:28.427" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34286" PostId="16484" Score="0" Text="Good to see you posting again after your long hiatus." CreationDate="2021-07-31T14:04:38.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34287" PostId="16484" Score="0" Text="It's a pleasure to see you again here!" CreationDate="2021-07-31T14:31:07.990" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34293" PostId="16485" Score="1" Text="Thanks very much for your input!  I really appreciate it  My (German) high school Latin (4 years) is 1960's vintage, so it's getting very rusty.  I was merely trying to simplify the syntax by untangling the elegant, but to the uninitiated,, confusing, placement of the subject (quisque) between elements of the object (faber suae fortunae) and further complicating the sentence structure by splitting the genitive indirect object (suae fortunae) with the subject (quisque)..  My sincere thanks again!" CreationDate="2021-07-31T22:41:48.890" UserId="9907" />
  <row Id="34303" PostId="16487" Score="0" Text="*Canis mei amandi causa* ← I think that's just agreement. You would also say *in cane amando* (and not *canis*)." CreationDate="2021-08-01T11:34:58.207" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34305" PostId="16487" Score="0" Text="That's a fair point actually. I'll have to edit this answer. I happened to give a grammatically correct answer, but not for the reasons I thought. I construed this as genitive gerundive + objective genitive, but I've now realized that gerundives do not take objective genitives." CreationDate="2021-08-01T15:31:16.033" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34292" PostId="16489" Score="0" Text="Adding *ei* there sounds perfectly normal to me. // I think adding *ille* is common but not compulsory." CreationDate="2021-07-31T19:27:08.710" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34302" PostId="16489" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Verb, &quot;succurro&quot; selects the dative case; therefore, you are obliged to use &quot;ei&quot;. Presumably you are asking about unrestricted verbs--requiring &quot;eum&quot; or &quot;eius&quot;, according to context?" CreationDate="2021-08-01T10:44:27.823" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34304" PostId="16489" Score="0" Text="@tony No. I'm asking whether an explicit pronoun is needed and whether such a need depends on the case. My guess is that nominative is optional and oblique cases compulsory, but I'm not sure. It's not uncommon for pronouns to be omitted in Latin, even when they are in an oblique case." CreationDate="2021-08-01T12:32:43.417" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34299" PostId="16490" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! The answer will depend on context. Can you give a whole sentence where you intend to use the phrase? You can always edit your question to add details." CreationDate="2021-08-01T04:05:07.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34300" PostId="16490" Score="1" Text="&quot;Contrapunctus duplex ab octo vocibus&quot;, as a title for a movement." CreationDate="2021-08-01T05:47:25.640" UserId="9914" />
  <row Id="34312" PostId="16490" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I edited your question with the details. Feel free to edit further yourself. (For the record, even after your comment I had no clue that this had to do with music. I had to see the answers. Always better to explain a little too much!)" CreationDate="2021-08-02T09:29:56.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34369" PostId="16490" Score="0" Text="Thanks for adding the music tag, if that was you." CreationDate="2021-08-05T04:31:54.033" UserId="9914" />
  <row Id="34307" PostId="16492" Score="3" Text="Still, Google finds expressions like &quot;ab una et duabus vocibus,&quot; &quot;Canon a tribus vocibus,&quot; &quot;Vespera a quattuor vocibus&quot; etc. (perhaps *sc. cantus, -a, -um*)." CreationDate="2021-08-01T22:35:33.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34314" PostId="16492" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel A solo keyboard player can perform contrapuntal music. J S Bach (and others) routinely wrote &quot;a 3&quot; etc to indicate this. But note that in orchestral scores, markings like &quot;a 2&quot; or &quot;a 3&quot; have the *opposite* meaning - i.e. that several instrumentalists should play the *same* monophonic part in unison." CreationDate="2021-08-02T11:37:18.770" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="34319" PostId="16492" Score="0" Text="Yes, it implies a gerundive. A very neat analysis. We actually all agree about something." CreationDate="2021-08-02T13:53:57.437" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34370" PostId="16492" Score="0" Text="@qwertxyz The per + accusative translation makes a lot of sense. You say that the instrumental ablative could be fine if the &quot;voces&quot; are musical instruments: I am using &quot;voces&quot; to mean &quot;independent melodic lines&quot;, as a translation of the term &quot;voice&quot; as used in the study of counterpoint. These voices just so happen to also be for eight instruments, but that is not what I mean, nor am I referring to voices, as in singing. That being said, what I'm hearing from both answers is that either (the instrumental ablative and the per + accusative) is fine and that they both have precedent." CreationDate="2021-08-05T04:45:08.277" UserId="9914" />
  <row Id="34339" PostId="16493" Score="0" Text="Some more context might help this question. When it comes to saying *completely alone*, your translation seems good, but context will determine the gender and number of *solus*, and whether or not *esse* should be present." CreationDate="2021-08-03T18:09:50.673" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34346" PostId="16493" Score="0" Text="For context, I'm imagine a celestial body which is utterly alone in the way that something in deep space can be utterly alone. The nearest _anything_ would be so far away as to basically not exist to the celestial body itself." CreationDate="2021-08-04T01:07:23.120" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34308" PostId="16495" Score="2" Text="*Sanctissimae Virgini Missa senis vocibus ac Vesperae pluribus decantandae* by Verdi is an example that seems to use a dative. More recently, I see *Cantiones Sacrae Quinis Vocibus* and *Moduli Quinis Vocibus*. Not that I have a problem with *per voces*, but the dative seems well attested." CreationDate="2021-08-02T00:26:35.750" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="34315" PostId="16498" Score="3" Text="Very good answer. Also &quot;pervivendo vere vives&quot; (more alliterating, better for a motto) or &quot;superfuturus vere vives&quot;, if you want to use supersum at the future participle" CreationDate="2021-08-02T12:18:48.207" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34317" PostId="16498" Score="0" Text="As far as I know: `gerund` = `gerundium`, `gerundive` = `gerundivum`. I did indeed mean the first. Did I choose the wrong tag, then?" CreationDate="2021-08-02T13:07:22.317" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34318" PostId="16498" Score="0" Text="Thank you for an excellent answer. It both answers my question about the usage of per plus gerundium and suggests excellent options for the translations. Could you perhaps elaborate more on the usage of per plus noun in paragraph five, maybe also make some notes on how this differs from per plus the verbal noun?" CreationDate="2021-08-02T13:11:09.843" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34320" PostId="16498" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Oops, sorry. Indeed gerund equals gerundium, but I was somehow led astray by using the Latin word instead of the English one. The tag is right. // I expanded a little on the noun thing. It's next to impossible to say much in general, as so much depends on the specific words." CreationDate="2021-08-02T14:24:52.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34321" PostId="16498" Score="0" Text="An excellent improvement. Thank you very much for this; it is most helpful! And I would dare say that the trouble in finding the difference between *gerundium* and *gerundivum* is not only in the likeness of the words. My go to phrase to remember it, is (Nrw.) ‘gerun*div* adjek*tiv*’ (falsely stressing the last syllable of *ADJektiv*). It serves as a guide, but it still is one of those pages I can flip straight to without searching much in my grammar; it almost seems as if I have been reading that passage over and over. :-)" CreationDate="2021-08-02T15:12:30.037" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34322" PostId="16498" Score="1" Text="Do we have any cause to know *why* accusative gerund doesn’t care for the company of other praepositions than its select few? Or is it one of those linguistic things that just *is*? In other words: Is the correct question (also) a why, or is it only a how?" CreationDate="2021-08-02T15:30:48.073" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34323" PostId="16498" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan My impression is that the gerund is a substantivized gerundive. That explains why the former looks like the neuter of the latter and why the usage of the more nouny version might be limited. The line between the two can be blurred pretty badly at times. We might have questions on this very thing somewhere, but I couldn't find one just now. If it seems to be undiscussed, it'd make for a nice new question!" CreationDate="2021-08-02T15:34:50.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34324" PostId="16498" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I agree. I also think that the gerund can be reduced to the gerundive rather than the other way around. If one is interested in this question, a good start is to take a look at this work by Martin Haspelmath (NB: this paper can be read quite easily, I think): http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/24318    As for your point (&quot;the line between the two can be blurred pretty badly at times&quot;), a well-known case is discussed in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive" CreationDate="2021-08-02T17:12:34.547" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34479" PostId="16498" Score="1" Text="I was thinking about the very subtle difference between _pervivens profecto vives_ and _pervivendo vero vives_ (cf. supra). My intuition is that the gerund in ablative (_pervivendo_) provides a better/more precise rendition of the meaning intended above by the OP: 'through surviving&quot;. The present participle (_pervivens_) would provide a more general idea here, right? The syntactic distribution of gerunds and present participles, which varies across different authors, is indeed an interesting topic." CreationDate="2021-08-10T21:03:14.137" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34480" PostId="16498" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Comparing the two constructions, in different authors or from another point of view, is something I would enjoy seeing studied further on this site. I agree that the gerund is more suitable here, closer to &quot;by surviving&quot; whereas the participle is more &quot;as a survivor&quot;. But given how Latin has a stronger inclination to metonymy than many modern languages, I feel I should trust a corpus study more than my own judgement. I don't expect my current position to be overturned, but I am likely to have to adjust the nuance." CreationDate="2021-08-10T22:19:16.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34328" PostId="16499" Score="0" Text="τάξις was my own guess too -- what gives me pause is that I'm not sure a &quot;place&quot; is something you can (even metaphorically) &quot;carry away&quot;, as a &quot;prize&quot; is in τὰ πρῶτα (sc. ἄεθλα) φέρεσθαι. Are there attestations of τὴν πρώτην τάξιν φέρεσθαι?" CreationDate="2021-08-02T18:19:49.480" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34329" PostId="16499" Score="0" Text="φερώ in middle by extension could mean &quot;obtain&quot; (φέρεσθαι τί τινος &quot;means obtain something from someone&quot;, e.g.  Hdt. 4,129,3, 7,211,2; Soph. OT. 500; Eur. Hec. 348): see LSJ s.v. φέρω VI 3 (http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#context=lsj&amp;eid=113588). Literally it would be &quot;Demosthenes and Aeschines obtained the first place among those who favored the Persian king&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-02T20:00:26.857" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34330" PostId="16499" Score="1" Text="Right, that's the LSJ section I quoted in the OP; the examples there seem to be with objects that are easier to conceptualize as being &quot;carried&quot; than a τάξις, which is why I'd like to see an attestation of the unelided phrase τὴν πρώτην τάξιν φέρεσθαι to be more sure that that's the word being implied here." CreationDate="2021-08-02T20:07:29.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34332" PostId="16499" Score="0" Text="I edited the answer adding another example of the elliptical form" CreationDate="2021-08-02T21:01:53.353" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34335" PostId="16505" Score="0" Text="[This question on diphthongs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9313/79) gives /cuj.jus/ for *cuius*, but it doesn't seem to comment on how we know that." CreationDate="2021-08-03T13:20:44.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34336" PostId="16506" Score="0" Text="Awesome - thank you! In my usage the ambiguity is definitely totally fine and is poetic in its own way (in my opinion, anyway)." CreationDate="2021-08-03T14:25:30.217" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34337" PostId="16507" Score="1" Text="I think you nailed it. Using your explanation, I was able to find the relevant explanation in my grammar: Eitrem § 175 Explicative quod, stating that ‘*Quod* with indicative describes **the circumstance that** or **the fact that**. *Quod* really is the relative neuter pronoun and is used almost like an inner object (as per § 66): ‘on account of which’, ‘considering which, that’. If the sentence includes a reason, we get *quod* as causal conjunction  (§ 180.2)." CreationDate="2021-08-03T15:33:19.533" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34338" PostId="16507" Score="1" Text="@Expedito Bipes: Does &quot;quid illud quod mori non timuit?&quot; = &quot;What is it that he didn't fear dying?&quot;. A blunt way of saying: &quot;What is this phenomenon that...&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-03T17:04:45.513" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34342" PostId="16507" Score="1" Text="FYI, I wrote about this endeavour on my blog, and how it is addressed in the Norwegian Latin grammar: https://cannedman.blogspot.com/2021/08/lingua-latina-quid-illud-quod-mori-non.html. I do reference your answer with link and user name." CreationDate="2021-08-03T22:35:26.967" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34341" PostId="16508" Score="0" Text="As far as the double 'ii', when and where did this happen?  Ennius used to write double vowels to indicate long vowels but I think there was one vowel that was never written double, maybe it was the 'o' or the 'i'.  The process died off around 80BC I think.  Is it possible that the 'ii' was a double vowel?  Further, if 'qu' is used to indicate kw and cu is used to indicate ku, then that does not tell us that the u in ku is long or short or forms a diphthong with i." CreationDate="2021-08-03T21:57:29.730" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="34343" PostId="16508" Score="0" Text="I cannot actually find a lot of examples in any corpora of cuiius, so I may have to search for more conformation on that. As for *ku*, *k* is never used in front of *u*. *k* is only used in front of *a* in Latin except for a few cases like Koppa, the name of the Greek letter from which the letter *Q* came." CreationDate="2021-08-03T22:56:32.617" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34347" PostId="16508" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 My recollection is it was the O, because it was based on Oscan precedent and Oscan had no O. I'll see if I can find where I read that." CreationDate="2021-08-04T01:24:15.370" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34348" PostId="16508" Score="0" Text="I think it was in the John Rolfes 1922 paper." CreationDate="2021-08-04T05:57:49.943" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="34344" PostId="16509" Score="0" Text="I neglected terminology in my answer accidentally—thank you for pointing that out. The o might have been short; I primarily meant to differentiate between u as a vowel and u as a consonant when I said &quot;long u&quot;." CreationDate="2021-08-03T22:59:32.420" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34345" PostId="16510" Score="3" Text="Hello, and a warm welcome to the site. Could you please improve this question by clearly stating what your question is? It is not clear neither from your title nor the main body text. Good luck!" CreationDate="2021-08-03T23:10:40.567" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34357" PostId="16511" Score="0" Text="Welllll, Caesar did of course *not* bestow knighthood on the whole tenth legion. He literally put them on horses, because he trusted them most and Ariovist demanded that Caesar bring no infantry to their meeting. The unknown soldier remarked that Caesar was really generous by using them not just as his bodyguard, as promised, but making them all knights. (*⋯ commodissimum esse statuit omnibus equis Gallis equitibus detractis eo legionarios milites legionis decimae, cui quam maxime confidebat, imponere, ut praesidium quam amicissimum, siquid opus facto esset, haberet.*)" CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:09:18.413" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34363" PostId="16511" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Good catch. I'll fix this shortly." CreationDate="2021-08-04T20:15:33.360" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34374" PostId="16511" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the great answers. This is a valuable site. I forgot this was a pun. OLD cites this passage as an example of transferring one group to the task of another. In this case, the foot soldiers of the Tenth to his cavalry guard. The pun is a Tenth dig at the guards. They have been 're-assigned' (rescribere) from 'equitibus' to 'equis'." CreationDate="2021-08-05T15:20:17.100" UserId="9933" />
  <row Id="34395" PostId="16511" Score="0" Text="*tyro comment* - I've always read that the Romans didn't 'rate' cavalry, and left that to the *sociis*? Confused :(" CreationDate="2021-08-07T09:22:51.800" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="34349" PostId="16520" Score="2" Text="There's no ellision in solitaque iugum. The i of iugum is consonantal. The first 3 feet of the line are dactyls." CreationDate="2021-08-04T16:14:25.483" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34355" PostId="16520" Score="0" Text="All commas in Latin texts are inserted by modern editors; commas, and other modern puctuatation marks, hadn't been invented yet in classical times." CreationDate="2021-08-04T18:58:39.950" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34358" PostId="16520" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks for answering that point" CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:11:16.270" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="34350" PostId="16523" Score="0" Text="Thanks. This is quite a surprise for me: that you can have a caesura between the 2 short syllables of a dactyl. I'm assuming that any commas don't seem to relate much to the placing of the caesura. I suppose I'd better buy a book to understand some less predictable aspects of scansion." CreationDate="2021-08-04T18:29:06.527" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="34352" PostId="16523" Score="1" Text="Why are you placing the principal caesura after *solitaque*? The main syntactic break in the line is after *equi*." CreationDate="2021-08-04T18:47:46.910" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34353" PostId="16523" Score="0" Text="@TKR ... in view of your rep, and your dissenting opinion, any chance you could add an answer yourself? Unfortunately I haven't read D.S. Raven, or indeed anything, so am *in positione nulla* to contribute to any discussion." CreationDate="2021-08-04T18:53:44.143" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="34354" PostId="16523" Score="2" Text="@mikerodent Personally I tend to think the idea of a principal caesura isn't a very useful one. Yes, you can define &quot;caesura&quot; as &quot;word break that doesn't map onto a foot boundary&quot; and you can then debate which of the caesurae in a line is the &quot;principal&quot; one in terms of syntax or meaning, but what does that tell you about the line that you didn't know before?" CreationDate="2021-08-04T18:57:08.450" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34356" PostId="16523" Score="0" Text="@TKR As I say, I'm a complete neophyte here. In a previous question someone said that **usually** scansion of a line is fairly obvious (it also helps if you know that the *i* in words like *iugum* is/can be consonantal). When I'm reading out loud the question of whether *solitaque*, or indeed *solita-*, is left hanging in the air when some sort of pause happens, does pose a problem for me... currently. I'm still trying to digest this idea of a caesura between the two shorts of a dactyl. *A priori*, that feels strange. But maybe I haven't understood what a caesura actually is... indeed!" CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:04:12.767" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="34360" PostId="16523" Score="0" Text="@TKR I have indicated the caesuras present in the verse without specifying which is the main one, but distinguishing those that are coupled to each other: a tritemimer that generally couples to an eftemimer (which I have indicated with a line: |) and a caesura of the third trocheus (which I indicated with two lines)." CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:46:38.520" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34351" PostId="16524" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Bit over my head: I don't really know what a &quot;weak&quot; caesura is, and when this says &quot;combined&quot;, does this mean &quot;in the same line&quot;, i.e. multiple *caesurae* in the same line? Suppose I'd better buy the book." CreationDate="2021-08-04T18:35:33.400" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="34359" PostId="16525" Score="0" Text="Thanks, this really clarifies a lot! Also, in terms of the speaking of the second line, to me (admittedly I am not an Ancient Roman, and *de gustibus...*) I find it more acceptable to have to deal with the rather lengthy phrase *solitaque iugum gravitate carebat*, as a &quot;unit&quot;, than have *solitaque* &quot;hanging&quot;, and a dactyl split between two shorts." CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:34:36.737" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="34361" PostId="16525" Score="0" Text="&quot;a caesura is defined simply as ANY word break in the line that occurs within a foot, rather than at a foot boundary&quot;. This is wrong: a caesura is a word ending that occurs in CERTAIN locations of the verse (after the third, fifth, seventh or eighth elementum or after the first short of the sixth element made bisyllabically)" CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:47:41.890" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34362" PostId="16525" Score="1" Text="@qwertxyz I'm not sure what you mean by elementum -- are you basically saying that only word breaks in the second, third or fourth feet count as caesurae? If so, I haven't seen it defined like that, though I see why one might given that those tend to be where &quot;stronger&quot; breaks in the line happen." CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:58:09.523" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34364" PostId="16525" Score="0" Text="In metric terminology, elementum means the minimum unit of the ideal model of the verse. The hexameter, for example, is made up of twelve elementa: longum (made only by a long syllable), biceps (made by a long syllable or two short syllables), longum, biceps, longum, biceps, longum, biceps, longum , biceps (but almost always made by two short syllables), longum and indifferens (made indifferently from long or short syllable). The five caesuras of the hexameter occur in the locations I have indicated. The terminology you use (foot; syllable of a dactyl or spondee) is obsolete and misleading" CreationDate="2021-08-04T20:19:22.380" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34365" PostId="16525" Score="0" Text="@qwertxyz Well, these seem like definitional differences which it probably isn't worthwhile pursuing for the purposes of this particular question." CreationDate="2021-08-04T20:26:44.813" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34366" PostId="16525" Score="0" Text="it is the terminology currently in use, which allows to explain metric phenomena in a linear way, especially with lyric and aeolic meters. @mikerodent Among the various modern manuals, I recommend that of Halporn and Ostwald, freely available (https://digi20.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00051893_00001.html)." CreationDate="2021-08-04T20:47:23.727" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34367" PostId="16525" Score="1" Text="@qwertxyz Hopefully we can agree that it is *one* terminology currently in use, and that approaches that are useful for lyric meters are not necessarily equally useful for the epic hexameter, especially for beginners." CreationDate="2021-08-04T21:02:35.590" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34368" PostId="16525" Score="0" Text="All modern manuals adopt this terminology. In my opinion, especially for beginners, explaining that the various metra are made up of a sequence of elementa is much simpler and more understandable." CreationDate="2021-08-04T21:14:27.720" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34380" PostId="16525" Score="0" Text="@qwertxyz Entschuldingens, mein Deutsch is zuviel schlecht!" CreationDate="2021-08-06T07:06:10.043" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="34371" PostId="16526" Score="2" Text="I like this answer. It's succinct, offers a pithy phrase, and draws on an ancient source. +1." CreationDate="2021-08-05T05:06:12.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34377" PostId="16532" Score="1" Text="I cannot understand how I missed that. Now to make this a _really_ interesting answer, how come eccl. Latin changed the usage of the word? Is it due to what @Asteroides says above (https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/9/asteroides)?" CreationDate="2021-08-05T23:10:44.857" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34378" PostId="16532" Score="0" Text="I believe the reason I missed it, probably was confirmation bias. I rechecked both my paper dictionaries, and indeed there is no entry on ecclesiastical usage there. I simply didn’t expect there to be any new information after the Augustan entry, and did not notice. Thanks for catching that!" CreationDate="2021-08-05T23:13:58.127" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34379" PostId="16532" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan I assume indeed that since Jerome was translating from the Hebrew, he chose the singular. I'm not sure if it appears before the Vulgate (Prudentius was his contemporary), but it's a plausible origin to it." CreationDate="2021-08-05T23:18:42.800" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34388" PostId="16533" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a nice first question! (I cleared up some old comments. I hope it wasn't too confusing.)" CreationDate="2021-08-06T13:18:13.490" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34416" PostId="16533" Score="0" Text="I moved what you wrote into an answer here in the question itself. We restrict the answering tool to only answering the question to help organize things. You can always make edits to your posts if you have anything to add or improve." CreationDate="2021-08-07T23:26:03.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34417" PostId="16533" Score="1" Text="I'm glad you found the site friendly and useful! **The best way to thank those who answered is to vote up all the answers you find useful and accept the most useful one.** To vote up, click the little arrow up next to the number at the top left corner of an answer. To accept, click the check mark below the number and the arrow down. Your nice question has earned you enough reputation to vote up all questions and answers you like – that would be greatly appreciated." CreationDate="2021-08-07T23:26:08.697" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34421" PostId="16533" Score="0" Text="Marcus: Additionally, if you have further questions, you can create a new topic question for them. If this question can be clarified, you can edit it as well." CreationDate="2021-08-08T04:20:20.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34434" PostId="16534" Score="0" Text="Tibi impera looks about close as I can make out for what I want, but when I research it, the words are reversed to &quot;Impera tibi&quot;.  Which is correct?  Is one arrangement more appropriate than another?" CreationDate="2021-08-08T19:18:33.663" UserId="9951" />
  <row Id="34435" PostId="16534" Score="0" Text="@Marcus Both work equally well. Latin word order is pretty free. The only difference I see is that the word coming first has somewhat more emphasis." CreationDate="2021-08-08T19:28:04.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34451" PostId="16534" Score="0" Text="Perfect!  Then I am all set and thanks to everyone for being so helpful :-)" CreationDate="2021-08-09T16:37:43.563" UserId="9951" />
  <row Id="34386" PostId="16536" Score="0" Text="Did nobody ever say, &quot;Control yourself!&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-08-06T12:48:46.233" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34387" PostId="16536" Score="3" Text="@tony Sure, but I think that's a bit different than mastery. I think the OP wanted something more along the lines of being in complete control, rather than a synonym for &quot;behave.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-06T12:51:39.530" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34389" PostId="16537" Score="2" Text="For the record, “be as happy as the Phoenix” would be *tam felix sis quam Phoenix*." CreationDate="2021-08-06T20:17:43.490" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43409" PostId="16542" Score="0" Text="You probably want to say *quo ambulabimus* (where shall we walk to) rather than *ubi ambulabimus*. *Ubi* would be right if you were asking whether you want to take a walk at the mall or park, or the riverfront." CreationDate="2023-06-03T19:40:09.857" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="34390" PostId="16543" Score="0" Text="Great answer! I think I'll make a separate post about what to do with _quid_ or _ubi_, assuming one doesn't already exist." CreationDate="2021-08-06T21:16:13.470" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34425" PostId="16543" Score="0" Text="Just curious, is there a word for yes-or-no question in Latin?" CreationDate="2021-08-08T13:24:46.730" UserId="9957" />
  <row Id="34742" PostId="16543" Score="0" Text="@MarcvanLeeuwen https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1592/how-do-you-say-yes-and-no-in-classical-latin" CreationDate="2021-08-26T03:49:50.113" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34394" PostId="16546" Score="0" Text="I think it is a fair question, because in English we differentiate: “In what a city we live!” versus “In what a city do we live?” Does the first type of sentence exist in Latin?" CreationDate="2021-08-07T07:38:16.783" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34396" PostId="16546" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree, the question is fair. I hope my answer didn't come across as condescending. For such a question-natured cry I think the best option is *o quam*, as in: *O quam amoena est urbs nostra!* Whether his works with *o* and other question words or without the *o* is not clear to me. Certainly worth exploring in a follow-up question." CreationDate="2021-08-07T11:22:14.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34397" PostId="16546" Score="0" Text="I didn't take the answer negatively; I figured even though the answer was likely no it was worth asking in case someone else wondered and searched." CreationDate="2021-08-07T15:43:12.707" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34398" PostId="16546" Score="0" Text="One of the things that got me thinking is that in Japanese you can [add _ka_ to the end of a sentence](https://selftaughtjapanese.com/2014/02/16/the-japanese-question-particle-か-ka/) like a sort of spoken question mark. Not an enclitic at all, but it got me wondering if there was something like that in Latin." CreationDate="2021-08-07T15:47:14.923" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34399" PostId="16546" Score="0" Text="@Adam Finnish has an interrogative enclitic *-ko/-kö*, and it behaves very similarly to the Latin *-ne*. If there are small differences, I'm sure I'll replace all Latin rules with Finnish ones and never know about it. Germanic languages seem to have a tendency to indicate questions by word order. For any language student learning how questions work is a big question in learning the language in question." CreationDate="2021-08-07T15:57:27.677" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34392" PostId="16547" Score="3" Text="You know, all things considered, that's weird but not terrible! What's strange is that it doesn't know to drop the pronoun if there's a named subject. But out of context it makes a little sense...if you squint..." CreationDate="2021-08-07T05:31:07.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34418" PostId="16547" Score="0" Text="@cmw yes, after returning today and squinting I see what you mean; it's probably just the pronouns that are throwing me off." CreationDate="2021-08-07T23:32:51.577" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="34419" PostId="16547" Score="1" Text="Yes, it's not correct or even good, and it definitely showcases what's wrong with Google translate, but could be worse, I guess." CreationDate="2021-08-07T23:35:09.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34400" PostId="16550" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Could you edit your post to include the part that you think you might know?" CreationDate="2021-08-07T18:47:17.067" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34411" PostId="16550" Score="0" Text="Victor Hugo opens the next Chapter with the following (a face  which banishes boredom): &quot;La nature avait été prodigue de ses bienfaits envers Gwynplaine. Elle lui avait donné une bouche s'ouvrant&#xA;jusqu'aux oreilles, des oreilles se repliant jusque sur les yeux, un nez informe fait pour l'oscillation des&#xA;lunettes de grimacier, et un visage qu'on ne pouvait regarder sans rire. Nous venons de le dire, la nature avait&#xA;comblé Gwynplaine de ses dons. Mais était−ce la nature?&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-07T21:14:23.773" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="34414" PostId="16550" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Thank you, that gives the passage more context. what edition are you reading? I have about 60 pages of rambling about British history between this line and the passage you cite." CreationDate="2021-08-07T22:03:19.277" UserId="9955" />
  <row Id="34412" PostId="16551" Score="4" Text="I think the last two paragraphs are a bit misleading, implying that the locative is the same thing as the genitive; the usual way of describing this is that the locative is its own case and is used in all such nouns, but is identical in form to the genitive in 1-2 decl. sg. and to the ablative otherwise." CreationDate="2021-08-07T21:23:30.130" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34423" PostId="16551" Score="0" Text="You're right: I wanted to write a quick answer and I trivialized the part about the locative. I changed my answer: thanks for pointing this out. However, for the third declension the termination of the ablative does not absolutely coincide with the locative! There are forms of stay in place of the third declension expressed in locative, such as ruri and domi, but, as I wrote, stay in place for city and small island names is expressed in ABLATIVE." CreationDate="2021-08-08T09:35:57.333" UserId="1148" />
  <row Id="34424" PostId="16551" Score="0" Text="probably worth emphasising that the locative is only taken with certain nouns (particularly the names of cities, &quot;small&quot; islands, and a handful of other words). It can't be used with arbitrary nouns" CreationDate="2021-08-08T12:55:14.500" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="34426" PostId="16551" Score="3" Text="Is there a reason to call _Athēnīs_ an ablative rather than a locative? To use an analogy, I wouldn't say &quot;the recipient is expressed by the dative in the first declension singular and the ablative in the first plural and second singular and plural&quot;—I'd say &quot;the recipient is expressed by the dative, which is still a separate case even if it always looks like the ablative in the plural&quot;." CreationDate="2021-08-08T14:22:09.803" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34429" PostId="16551" Score="0" Text="You're right that in the 3rd decl. locative and ablative aren't always the same. But that's a reason not to say that &quot;stay in place for city and small island names is expressed in ABLATIVE&quot;: e.g. the locative of *Carthago* can be *Carthagine* or *Carthagini*, but the ablative (I think) is always *Carthagine*." CreationDate="2021-08-08T18:21:07.863" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34413" PostId="16553" Score="1" Text="Damn latin, destroyed my wordplay. :) thanks!" CreationDate="2021-08-07T21:37:34.787" UserDisplayName="user9896" />
  <row Id="34415" PostId="16553" Score="1" Text="@ParibusCeteris Out of curiosity, what did you want it to mean?" CreationDate="2021-08-07T22:19:28.680" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34422" PostId="16553" Score="1" Text="Anything but the same :)" CreationDate="2021-08-08T05:40:27.313" UserDisplayName="user9896" />
  <row Id="34440" PostId="16553" Score="0" Text="@ParibusCeteris I dunno, I feel like the fact that “all else [aside from the order] is the same” is rather fitting wordplay here." CreationDate="2021-08-09T03:19:02.513" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="34441" PostId="16553" Score="0" Text="@KRyan yeah! looking at it that way it may even make it stronger, everyting else *including the meaning* is equal - thanks!" CreationDate="2021-08-09T08:02:46.180" UserDisplayName="user9896" />
  <row Id="34401" PostId="16554" Score="1" Text="What about something like &quot;butchered nose&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-08-07T18:56:48.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34402" PostId="16554" Score="0" Text="@cmw That works! I'm searching for any other attestations of _murdridare_ right now but if I don't find anything I might swap that in." CreationDate="2021-08-07T18:57:31.693" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34403" PostId="16554" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I have no idea about the actual meaning. It's far too late for me, but I thought it would get the point across a little better than crushed or especially battered. This is assuming though it's more than merely cognate with &quot;murder.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-07T19:00:46.800" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34409" PostId="16554" Score="0" Text="It's very helpful, thank you! I think the unfamiliar words can be put down to Victor Hugo making it up as he went along. Interestingly, I found genezivis in English translations but genzivis in French editions." CreationDate="2021-08-07T20:22:44.273" UserId="9955" />
  <row Id="34405" PostId="16555" Score="0" Text="So if we say UBI EST MEDUS? TUSCULI EST. This would be correct since it's using locative for a place where Medus is instead of MEDUS IN TUSCULO EST." CreationDate="2021-08-07T19:33:33.230" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34406" PostId="16555" Score="1" Text="@JohhanSantana Yes, I believe that would be correct. _Domī est_ &quot;he's at home&quot; is a common expression." CreationDate="2021-08-07T19:52:25.093" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34407" PostId="16555" Score="0" Text="Could *In domo est* be correct as well?" CreationDate="2021-08-07T20:01:45.110" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34408" PostId="16555" Score="1" Text="@JohhanSantana _In domō_ is also common Classically—much more common than _ad Rōmam_. I suspect that's because the locative was already dying out by this point." CreationDate="2021-08-07T20:03:21.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34420" PostId="16559" Score="3" Text="Similarly, _ad Romam_ turns up only gerundive constructions like _ad Romam obsidendam_ (Livy), and _ad_ with other cities I've tried gives no hits." CreationDate="2021-08-08T04:06:09.463" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34427" PostId="16560" Score="0" Text="I'm wondering if there is a connection with the phrase `Quae cum ita sunt` which [apparently means &quot;since these things are so&quot;](https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program/Catiline/v10-13/v10-13-notes)" CreationDate="2021-08-08T17:14:14.010" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="34428" PostId="16560" Score="0" Text="You're right in your intuition. Cum+subjunctive, here, is taking a secondary meaning of 'when': when Jabin, the king of Asor, heard that..." CreationDate="2021-08-08T17:36:16.667" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="34438" PostId="16561" Score="3" Text="It occurs to me I seem to be the only person in the world to use the term “relative continuation.” That's my translation of „relativer Anschluß“ as they call it in German. I have no idea if it has a common name in English." CreationDate="2021-08-08T20:53:39.330" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34442" PostId="16561" Score="0" Text="I might adopt that term, as it seems to hit the nail on the head and I don't have an English term for it either. That'd make two of us then, but perhaps the term is indeed not found in grammars or the scholarly literature." CreationDate="2021-08-09T08:03:49.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34550" PostId="16561" Score="0" Text="I don't think I know a term for it either. Allen and Greengough talk about this use as similar to &quot;a demonstrative with a conjunction.&quot; I also thought of it as having a conjunction sense, so perhaps conjunctive relative?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T19:05:58.463" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34439" PostId="16562" Score="0" Text="This is very helpful and clears up my confusion. Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2021-08-08T21:21:01.760" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="34430" PostId="16564" Score="0" Text="Do you know if there are other cases of an imperative &quot;be&quot; being elided? That seems like a strange elision (which would argue in favor of the second reading you mention)." CreationDate="2021-08-08T18:25:30.880" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34431" PostId="16564" Score="0" Text="@TKR My view is that the *est* was elided in the first part, and we are pretty much free in how to interpret the *et tu* part." CreationDate="2021-08-08T18:38:17.350" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34432" PostId="16564" Score="0" Text="@TKR, it is possible to prefer the first reading, but avoid the imperative. simply reading this as description/law: &quot;(When) the Phoenix is happy, you are also&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-08T18:47:02.043" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34433" PostId="16564" Score="0" Text="@d_e Then my question would be whether there are parallels for such an elision of &quot;when&quot;..." CreationDate="2021-08-08T18:55:33.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34436" PostId="16564" Score="0" Text="@TKR, I was thinking something like the English &quot;you are happy, I am happy/too&quot;. But my short search indeed didn't yield any results for this kind of action in Latin.  Only [this Note-2 at the end of p.99](https://archive.org/details/latincomposition00allc/page/99/mode/2up) , *... A similar ellipsis of **si** in Latin is very rare, and is rhetorical or poetical*. But even there, it speaks only on &quot;contrary-to-fact&quot; cases, and gives no examples." CreationDate="2021-08-08T19:37:22.907" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34443" PostId="16568" Score="1" Text="Homonyms exist in English too: &quot;bark&quot; is what trees have or what dogs do, a &quot;bat&quot; can fly or hit a ball, &quot;mean&quot; is either average or unkind, and many others." CreationDate="2021-08-09T09:51:12.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34445" PostId="16568" Score="1" Text="I agree with the comment (which was automatically deleted by the system) that this is a duplicate, so I marked it as such. If you think it is not, please edit your question to elaborate on what you learned from that other question and what remains. Or if you want to focus on something different, perhaps asking a new separate question works better." CreationDate="2021-08-09T10:46:20.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34446" PostId="16571" Score="2" Text="Uh, domorum is not femine. That is the masculine form. The feminine IVth declension genitive plural is domuum. I know that domus is feminine. I said that IN THE QUESTION ITSELF. There is no need to be telling me that domus is feminine. I KNOW THAT. The question is why does this feminine word have masculine forms." CreationDate="2021-08-09T11:35:47.217" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="34447" PostId="16571" Score="11" Text="@TylerDurden Those forms are not masculine or feminine in themselves. Most words in the second and fourth declensions are masculine, but the forms of those words are not called masculine forms. The term &quot;masculine form&quot; is only used for adjectives, where gender works with far fewer exceptions than in nouns. I fully agree with the answer: Those forms can look masculine by association to a lot of masculine nouns, but they are not masculine forms." CreationDate="2021-08-09T11:44:18.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34448" PostId="16571" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I guess we are getting into semantics here, but I view -arum and -uum as feminine forms of the genitive and -orum as the masculine/neuter form of the plural genitive, and I think the Romans would agree with me. If a Roman overheard somebody talking and heard nothing but -orum, the Roman would assume men (or something masculine) was being discussed." CreationDate="2021-08-09T11:59:16.450" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="34449" PostId="16571" Score="8" Text="@TylerDurden I don't think that's correct. Neuter nouns also populate the second declension, and -orum is just as likely to be neuter plural as masculine plural. There's also a long list of islands and trees that are feminine second declension, the ending of which in genitive plural would be -orum while their modifying adjectives would end in -arum. That said, there is a question here why *domus* has two forms. I think the mix-up here just comes from different terminology used (i.e. to have said 2nd/4th decl. forms instead of m/f)." CreationDate="2021-08-09T12:18:48.550" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34452" PostId="16571" Score="4" Text="@TylerDurden Quin per silvam aliquam ambulas odoribusque suavibus altarum populorum, fagorum, fraxinorum, pinorum, alnorum, ulmorum delectaris? " CreationDate="2021-08-09T17:09:46.497" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34460" PostId="16573" Score="0" Text="Great news! I'd definitely like to give it another try once it's been updated." CreationDate="2021-08-10T00:27:49.487" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39106" PostId="16574" Score="0" Text="Does my answer satisfy your question, or are you looking for something else?" CreationDate="2022-08-01T23:36:59.570" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34464" PostId="16577" Score="1" Text="de Vaan does not say that these &quot;were originally two separate words&quot; that &quot;merged&quot;. He says that this is one word, which shifted (at least partially) from 2nd to 4th declension." CreationDate="2021-08-10T08:19:51.837" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34466" PostId="16577" Score="2" Text="@fdb I didn't say De Vaan said that. I said it. But De Vaan notes right there in the quoted text that &quot;a u-stem derivative also existed.&quot; It ultimately doesn't matter whether the u-stem existed in Latin or was just created as a part of regularization, as either way we originally have an o-stem noun that shifted into a u-stem noun, and the most likely reason is that feminine 2nd declension nouns are a rarity. But you're right De Vaan doesn't actually say the u-stem derivative is also found in Latin or that they merged." CreationDate="2021-08-10T12:14:04.137" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34539" PostId="16577" Score="0" Text="I'm confused by the reference to δμώς. Isn't it from a different PIE root, demh-, cognate with &quot;tame?&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-13T13:58:45.550" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34548" PostId="16577" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell It's the [same root](https://www.etymonline.com/word/domestic)." CreationDate="2021-08-13T18:25:39.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34453" PostId="16579" Score="2" Text="The constant parrot “jokes” sound very off-putting. I do think they're right about contorquere, though, while hardly the obvious choice (that would be *iaculari*, I think), it is occasionally used with *hasta, telum, cuspis*, etc." CreationDate="2021-08-09T19:23:54.380" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34455" PostId="16580" Score="3" Text="*Ab-* as a verbal prefix only loses its *b* when it precedes *m* or *v*. Neither *arepo* nor *abrepo* is attested historically, and it wouldn't really make any grammatical sense either. (The first word can't be *rotas* without also switching *arepo* and *opera*, or you'd have *ratos orepa tenet apero sotar* vertically.)" CreationDate="2021-08-09T22:29:49.010" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34465" PostId="16582" Score="1" Text="One quibble: the Armenian cognate is (orthographic) town, (phonological) /tun/. I note that you use the orthographic spelling in tanow-. Otherwise an excellent answer," CreationDate="2021-08-10T10:10:01.400" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34468" PostId="16582" Score="0" Text="@fdb Yeah, I got *tanow-* from Weiss and *tun* from [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D5%BF%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B6#Old_Armenian), where it's positioned as if it's a transliteration, but I see it can't actually correspond to the word in the Armenian alphabet. Armenian isn't my area, obviously." CreationDate="2021-08-10T13:26:19.640" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34459" PostId="16583" Score="1" Text="While [Duolingo for Latin could use some work](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11413/is-duolingo-good-for-latin?r=SearchResults&amp;s=1|37.9680), it's still another tool to help get a person engaged with learning the language. I would definitely use it if they would improve the course." CreationDate="2021-08-10T00:25:07.943" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34477" PostId="16583" Score="1" Text="@Adam I wouldn't. It's not the worst thing in the world, but their &quot;statistically proven effectiveness&quot; line is straight up a lie and their system introduces so many bad habits in a language that it really it could actually be harmful. A few of their modules are decent (but weird), but many have drawn the ire of actual language teachers across various fields. But that's what you get when you have a bunch of programmers who refuse to hire proper linguists and teachers." CreationDate="2021-08-10T20:23:57.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34488" PostId="16583" Score="0" Text="'their &quot;statistically proven effectiveness&quot; line is straight up a lie' — I don't mean to antagonize you, but I genuinely am curious: why do you say that? To be clear, by &quot;effectiveness&quot; I was referring only to the ability to stimulate regular practice; I didn't mean that it is effective in teaching the languages well. My reference for that claim was posts like [this](https://blog.duolingo.com/improving-duolingo-one-experiment-at-a-time/)." CreationDate="2021-08-11T14:23:40.407" UserId="9965" />
  <row Id="34463" PostId="16584" Score="0" Text="I see. For the translations, I specifically used them as a guide, but none has really convinced me; for I still don't understand what is the *meaning* of *etiam* if we accept the instrumental *gloriando*." CreationDate="2021-08-10T05:26:20.247" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34470" PostId="16584" Score="1" Text="*Lexicis [contingit], quod mulierculis, cum diu in eas invecti sunt viri, ultro ad eas supplicatum veniunt, et commoditatibus illarum uti gaudent* ([Io. Matthias Gesnerus](http://mateo.uni-mannheim.de/camenaref/gesner/gesner1/v1/jpg/as0009.html))" CreationDate="2021-08-10T18:25:23.770" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34471" PostId="16584" Score="0" Text="A couple of minor points: (1) the term &quot;satellite&quot; is not so widespread as that of &quot;adjunct&quot; (I think that &quot;satellite&quot; is only (?) used by functional linguists: e.g. Dik, Pinkster, et al.). Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_(grammar); (2) I would not recommend to &quot;use translations to guide one into seeing (syntactic) structure in the Latin&quot;. (Good) translations must respect content/meaning and information structure of the source text but may have a different syntactic structure." CreationDate="2021-08-10T18:33:24.383" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34472" PostId="16584" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, the irony is (as I see that), that this is exactly when one acknowledges that &quot;translations must respect content/meaning and information structure of the source text but may have a different syntactic structure&quot;, that he is then ripe to read back into the Latin and seeing the syntactic structure of the Latin. For, after all, different grammatical understanding of a sentence results in different meanings. For my experience at least, translation were very helpful getting the structure of the Latin." CreationDate="2021-08-10T19:25:06.007" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34476" PostId="16584" Score="1" Text="@d_e I agree that translations can be helpful when learning Latin syntax but one should be cautious. E.g., consider this very typical text: _Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, ..._ 'Gaul is a whole divided into three parts, one of which is inhabited by the Belgae' (Loeb). Note that a very natural way to translate a **rhematic subject** like _Belgae_ into English involves using a _**by**_-phrase. Good translations can sacrifice syntactic structure (even in radical aspects: e.g. from active to passive) to preserve information structure. Hence my caveat above." CreationDate="2021-08-10T20:20:37.787" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34458" PostId="16585" Score="2" Text="Isn't this true for all nouns, not just 'life' and 'death'? Latin also won't distinguish (without additional words) between &quot;a house is expensive&quot; and &quot;his house is expensive.&quot; Do you thus want language indicating the general/specific divide or something more specifically (no pun intended) about life and death?" CreationDate="2021-08-09T23:53:58.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34461" PostId="16585" Score="0" Text="@cmw To my understanding, a word like _villa_ always refers to an individual house. I might have a particular house in mind or not (&quot;I want to buy the/a/his house&quot;), but it's always an individual house, not the broad concept of house-ness (*I like house)—you need a derivational suffix like -itas for that. _Vita_, though, can be an individual lifetime (&quot;his life was short&quot;) or the broad concept of what it means to be alive (&quot;life is the opposite of death&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-08-10T02:11:36.227" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34462" PostId="16585" Score="1" Text="I'm not so sure, not yet at least. *Opulentia* can be both abstract (*virtutem opulentia vincit*) and concrete (*opulentia Lydorum*). Maybe if you add enough background to the question to clarify precisely what you mean, that would help." CreationDate="2021-08-10T03:19:32.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34473" PostId="16590" Score="1" Text="I'm not really sure Cicero's saying people are *lost* in thought. To me this sounds more like a train of thought - jumping from one image to another. And yet the last word is it, I think." CreationDate="2021-08-10T19:50:40.237" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34474" PostId="16590" Score="0" Text="@cmw - The last word is what? I don't understand what your saying. Isn't being lost in thought following a train a thought to wherever it might lead?" CreationDate="2021-08-10T19:58:15.617" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="34475" PostId="16590" Score="1" Text="Sorry, I got lost in thought! I added a post actually, but I think *aberrans* (three words later than your bolded phrase) gets closer to the meaning of &quot;lost.&quot; It's not simply following a train of thought - one to the next - which can be done in a simple conversation, but being oblivious to the surroundings in thoughts. And the thought can be singular, you can be lost in a single thought." CreationDate="2021-08-10T20:09:01.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34478" PostId="16590" Score="1" Text="@cmw - OK. Thanks! I included your suggestion in my answer as an alternative option." CreationDate="2021-08-10T20:54:53.257" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="34482" PostId="16590" Score="0" Text="To me both options express rather an _opposite_ of being [lost in thought](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lost%20in%20thought). Cicero speaks about not thinking in a logically consistent way and rather jumping on the subject back and forth, or &quot;losing a thought,&quot; like when you suddenly find yourself asking &quot;where was I?&quot; _cogitatione aberrans_, lit. &quot;with one's mind/reasoning facility wandering/going astray&quot; excellently conveys the latter meaning, but it's rather an opposite of being lost _in_ thought, when one goes so deep into a thought as to forget everything else." CreationDate="2021-08-11T02:56:35.247" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="34483" PostId="16590" Score="0" Text="@kkm - I agree that in the present context, Cicero is not using &quot;_alio ducitur cogitatione_&quot; in the sense of being so absorbed as to be oblivious. However, the fact that he thought it necessary to clarify the statement with &quot;_neque tamen aberrat_&quot; suggests that it could be taken as such in some contexts. I also don't understand your last comment, because it seem to me that thinking about something so much as &quot;to forget everything else&quot; would include &quot;not paying attention to one's surroundings&quot;, which, according to the link you provided, is what it means to be lost in thought." CreationDate="2021-08-11T10:04:37.553" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="34492" PostId="16592" Score="3" Text="This translation might not be easy to give. I can't really tell if Romans actually rode sideways. I don't know if any of their clothes, even the toga or stola, made it necessary to ride sideways." CreationDate="2021-08-11T16:14:51.817" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34506" PostId="16592" Score="0" Text="Hello! Yes indeed, side saddle was definitely NOT in vogue in Roman times, hehe. Riding as a whole wasn’t too evolved really. &#xA;I was thinking more about something in the line of “this side or that side” in Latin, as literal translations are impossible of course. That concept can easily be interpreted by a modern side saddle rider as near side/off side. Some poetic liberty is allowed! Hehe" CreationDate="2021-08-12T15:18:37.233" UserId="9968" />
  <row Id="34563" PostId="16592" Score="0" Text="Can you explain a little more the meaning of the motto? It would help to figure out a translation." CreationDate="2021-08-15T15:39:29.033" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34582" PostId="16592" Score="0" Text="It’s about how it doesn’t matter wether you ride with your kegs to the left or the right, you always have to sit balanced in the center of the saddle and horse." CreationDate="2021-08-17T05:11:25.313" UserId="9968" />
  <row Id="34481" PostId="16593" Score="2" Text="Surely a forest fire is a type of fire, not a type of forest?" CreationDate="2021-08-11T02:09:41.657" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34485" PostId="16596" Score="1" Text="Exactly what I was going to say." CreationDate="2021-08-11T12:41:12.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34486" PostId="16596" Score="3" Text="I believe authors sometimes ask “qualis [gen.] natura est?” in a very similar way. E.g., Caesar sent scouts to determine  “qualis esset natura montis” - what the mountain was like" CreationDate="2021-08-11T13:40:36.600" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="34487" PostId="16596" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Do you happen to know of a neuter example of that? Masculine and feminine fail to differentiate between nominative and genitive but neuter doesn't. Asking *qualis naturae est* (&quot;of what nature is it&quot;) makes sense as a qualitative genitive, but *qualis [gen!] est* sounds unlikely to me. The qualitative nature of the word is already in the word itself (even etymologically!) so I think only the nominative is used. But as always, classical attestations trump my intuition and I'd be happy to be proven wrong." CreationDate="2021-08-11T13:44:37.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34489" PostId="16596" Score="1" Text="Qualis is modifying natura. Cicero: roges me qualem naturam deorum esse dicam. You may ask me what sort of nature I say is [the nature] of the gods —&gt; You may ask me what I say the gods are like." CreationDate="2021-08-11T15:11:33.383" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="34490" PostId="16596" Score="1" Text="I see how my original comment was misleading. “Qualis est natura [gen.]”" CreationDate="2021-08-11T15:18:34.733" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="34491" PostId="16596" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey Oh, I see. I interpreted that *qualis* would be in the genitive. A genitive to express whose nature is under discussion is indeed normal: Qualis est natura alicuius rei?" CreationDate="2021-08-11T16:00:24.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34498" PostId="16596" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thank you. The thinking was that the answer to &quot;What is something like?&quot; can only be couched in terms of what the questioner has already experienced. With war there has almost certainly been no such experience. Therefore, the only (non-) answer is &quot;Go and find out (by experiencing it--God help you).&quot;.  Courcey is not asking a direct Q., no answer is solicited; he has come for the experience. I burst out laughing when I watched this scene: it sounded so completely mad! An excellent film: no glory; no flag-waving; &quot;War without Fanfare&quot;;  Corporal Courcey achieved his ambition." CreationDate="2021-08-12T11:26:34.527" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34499" PostId="16596" Score="1" Text="@tony You're welcome! Nonetheless, when you have trouble finding an indirect question, form the direct one first. There really is no excuse not to, even if you are aiming for something indirect in the end. Stripping a question down to its essentials makes them far easier to ask and answer, and that's a good strategy for thinking. I should add that using a word like &quot;like&quot; in situations like this is an English idiom. Many other languages, including Latin, go about such questions, direct or indirect, differently." CreationDate="2021-08-12T11:48:59.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34507" PostId="16596" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Term &quot;like&quot; has a myriad of uses (Oxford). In Liverpool, it is used to end sentences: &quot;Do you know what I mean, like?&quot; . One final thing if I may, please, is the second example, &quot;se saepe rogabat quale bellum futurus fuisset.&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-08-12T15:44:59.673" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34509" PostId="16596" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, that seems to work well for your second example." CreationDate="2021-08-12T16:50:51.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34494" PostId="16599" Score="0" Text="I can see this in a dialogue of Cicero or Terence (cf. *Heaut* 503), but probably not Plautus. Given the movie's theme, too bad none of the old Roman tragedies survived intact." CreationDate="2021-08-11T22:10:23.920" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34501" PostId="16603" Score="4" Text="Unfortunately, a good tool doesn't exist. Check out our thread on [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for)." CreationDate="2021-08-12T14:30:17.920" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34535" PostId="16603" Score="0" Text="Just to have mentioned it: For Ancient Greek, there are (to the best of my knowledge) no tools at all." CreationDate="2021-08-13T10:01:34.257" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34508" PostId="16605" Score="1" Text="I can't answer the broader question, but I'll say that the adjectival translation makes no sense to me. Utique here means &quot;assuredly&quot; or &quot;by all means.&quot; It is OF COURSE because of virtue and good morals that life itself is a good. One could easily imagine quidem in its place." CreationDate="2021-08-12T16:24:31.893" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="34519" PostId="16605" Score="0" Text="That is what I thought as well, but when translating it to Norwegian, my head began wondering. And then of course there is the (generally) adjectival origin of adverbs which makes it interesting." CreationDate="2021-08-12T19:43:16.737" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34510" PostId="16606" Score="2" Text="This is the most natural explanation, but a tiny niggling part of me wonders if there was an intentional alteration to make a pun or something, considering this is &quot;Witty Jeeres.&quot; Probably not, and I cannot even make out what a pun this would be, so a transcription error is most probable." CreationDate="2021-08-12T17:10:38.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34511" PostId="16606" Score="2" Text="@cmw Many of the jokes in here are pretty weak, so even a hint is possible. Now that I have qwertxyz's reference, I suspect it's meant to be read without wordplay: A gentleman hopes to impress his companion with his knowledge of Latin and ability to pose intricate questions. But his sample text is from (what is a century later) an elementary primer, and he doesn't even get it right. The parson shows him that he knows full well how little Latin the gentleman knows by quoting the continuation of the passage. As an extra layer, the passage is itself about being a schoolboy learning Latin ..." CreationDate="2021-08-12T17:22:09.643" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="34512" PostId="16606" Score="0" Text="I notice that by this explanation, it's possible it could be a transcription error and still be the same joke (he just has to quote from school Latin, not get it wrong). But I am interested in any wordplay possibilities — if something about &quot;decipulus&quot; invited the parson's quoting the passage instead of replying..." CreationDate="2021-08-12T17:25:38.580" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="34517" PostId="16607" Score="1" Text="Actually, I would say my answer was just plain wrong, because I had simply overlooked the word *argumentum* in the question. I have deleted it." CreationDate="2021-08-12T18:09:07.920" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34518" PostId="16607" Score="0" Text="Just so this answer does not look completely out of context to readers who cannot see my deleted answer (that takes a certain reputation, I believe), I wrote that only *ex contrario* is correct. That is the case for the classical expression *e/ex contrario* which means &quot;on the contrary.&quot; But an *argumentum e/a contrario* is something completely different." CreationDate="2021-08-12T19:06:33.127" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34515" PostId="16608" Score="2" Text="Haha, you finally did it!" CreationDate="2021-08-12T17:52:15.563" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34527" PostId="16608" Score="0" Text="Shouldn't it be *instringibilia* (as in your original suggestion)?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T01:21:37.487" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34526" PostId="16611" Score="0" Text="The article mentioned by d_e seems very useful (Nutting, Herbert C. (1926). &quot;The Ablative Gerund as a Present Participle.&quot; _The Classical Journal_ 22.2: 131-134). Many thanks for your post, d_e! By the way, why did you decide to hide it? Like you, I did find it _dignum dictu_!" CreationDate="2021-08-12T23:56:33.120" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34531" PostId="16611" Score="0" Text="Glad you find it useful. I like it much better in a comment as you did. This is a short article; eventually I find I want to include the article in its entirety for otherwise it felt wrong for me and any 'summery' is doing injustice. I salute the author for this! My opinion of course." CreationDate="2021-08-13T06:35:14.020" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42483" PostId="16611" Score="0" Text="I'm not convinced you've analyzed this situation properly. Tacitus is commonly known to have utilized *inconcinnitas*, [especially in the *Annals*](https://epublications.marquette.edu/theses/1385/). You can do the same in English, e.g. &quot;Holding town halls and through the writing of many letters, I managed to galvanize the populace.&quot; It's probably a deliberate choice rather than indicative of some shift." CreationDate="2023-03-03T04:16:16.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42491" PostId="16611" Score="0" Text="@cmw As I see it, the issue here is not just a mere matter of &quot;style&quot;. E.g. cf. also Vester (1991: 305): &quot;In most grammars it is stated that there is a functional overlap between the present participle and the ablative of the gerund, at least **at a certain stage** in their development (…) it can be argued that in literary prose texts the present participle is not very desententialized; it has, in other words, a relatively low degree of embedding. The ablative of the gerund on the other hand is much more embedded. **But from Livy onwards**, and even in earlier non-literary texts..." CreationDate="2023-03-04T02:26:46.627" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42492" PostId="16611" Score="0" Text="**But from Livy onwards**, and even in earlier non-literary texts the ablative of gerund is clearly less embedded, at least in some cases; it often has no strict semantic function, but a (vague) circumstantial one, and this use simply increases in later vulgar texts. The implication of this fact is that **at a certain point in time** a rivalry between Praedicativum and ablative of the gerund comes into existence, since they do not differ any longer as far as embedding or clause linkage are concerned." CreationDate="2023-03-04T02:28:21.037" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42493" PostId="16611" Score="0" Text="This rivalry could have been the right moment for a redistribution of the present participle and gerund&quot; (Bold mine). As you can see, I'm interested in this _grammatical_ &quot;rivalry&quot; between these two categories (which, as noted above, does not exclude your correct _stylistic_ observations on Tacitus’s _inconcinnitas_. BTW, many thanks for this 1966 reference). Source: Vester, Elseline (1991). &quot;Reflections on the gerund and gerundive&quot;. In Robert Coleman (ed.). _New Studies in Latin Linguistics_. 295-310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins." CreationDate="2023-03-04T02:28:44.630" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34520" PostId="16613" Score="0" Text="The same entry in Short that you give cites taberna libraria in Cicero, just as I had guessed in my question." CreationDate="2021-08-12T21:30:24.923" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="34521" PostId="16613" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden Yep, you weren't wrong. I remember taking Rosetta Stone's Latin course sampler about 20 years ago. I wonder how it is now." CreationDate="2021-08-12T22:36:48.587" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34522" PostId="16614" Score="2" Text="Uhm, for English speakers, it's the difference between &quot;vacant&quot; and &quot;vagrant,&quot; no?" CreationDate="2021-08-12T23:01:13.757" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34523" PostId="16614" Score="2" Text="One is to be empty and the other is to wander. I really don't see the similarity." CreationDate="2021-08-12T23:31:23.513" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34524" PostId="16614" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Hmm, maybe I have made a mistake in using the dictionary. This is the entry I was relying on that says vaco means wander: https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=vaco . Is this wrong?" CreationDate="2021-08-12T23:38:05.247" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="34525" PostId="16614" Score="3" Text="[Yeah, that's just straight-up wrong.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vaco)" CreationDate="2021-08-12T23:42:56.653" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34529" PostId="16614" Score="3" Text="Best to go first to [Lewis and Short](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?), or at least double check with it." CreationDate="2021-08-13T02:23:20.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34534" PostId="16614" Score="2" Text="Could I perhaps suggest you include the dictionary entries you have used for the two words, to specify what it is that you take note of?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T07:17:19.800" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34528" PostId="16617" Score="1" Text="I agree with you (+1!). Luke Ranieri has lots of very interesting material to learn Latin (Irene Regini's _Satura Lanx_ is also an excellent source). Your final caveat is very appropriate: one should not put &quot;very fluent speakers&quot; on a par with &quot;native speakers&quot; nor even with &quot;proficient&quot; ones. For example, there are many people who are said to &quot;speak Latin very fluently&quot; and it is blatantly obvious that they often violate the information structure of this language when speaking it (and writing in it). This is not the case of Luke nor of the scholars mentioned by Joel Derfner in his post." CreationDate="2021-08-13T01:38:09.273" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34533" PostId="16617" Score="0" Text="To your final comment: Why do you think that is? What is it that these speakers do differently that make them stand out? Brute force memorisation + LLPSI, ɔ: Dowling method?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T07:01:59.393" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34541" PostId="16617" Score="1" Text="I guess the only one who learned Latin with the LLPSI method was Luke. The academic scholars mentioned in Joel's post learned this language differently and, of course, with a more solid philological basis. In spite of this, I'd dare to say that Luke has an advantage wrt the others: he seems to be very gifted for learning languages. In a sense, he reminds me of Ken Hale, a legendary polyglot who &quot;could converse in more than 50 languages, including Navajo, Hopi and the Australian aboriginal tongue of Warlpiri&quot; (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-oct-24-me-61058-story.html )." CreationDate="2021-08-13T15:59:25.443" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34552" PostId="16617" Score="0" Text="+1 for that very educational reply! He wasn’t by chance a missionary? (I will look at the link at a later time.)" CreationDate="2021-08-13T21:36:13.137" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34532" PostId="16619" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer! As so often, the native Latin speakers feel no need to express a noun in conjunction with the adjective, making it all the more difficult to reinterpret it for me (us?) poor non-native speakers. The usage of _in_ as _among_ I hadn’t considered at all. Checking my grammar is of not much help, and my dictionary (browsing through the different meanings) does not seem to include this. How common is this usage and meaning of _in_?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T06:59:14.223" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34546" PostId="16619" Score="2" Text="@CannedMan It's very common, see section I.A.2 of the L&amp;S entry: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Din1" CreationDate="2021-08-13T18:21:12.157" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34555" PostId="16622" Score="0" Text="Firstly, interesting that &quot;nocens&quot; (&quot;nostra nocens anima est&quot;) = &quot;hurting&quot; is synonymous with adjective, &quot;guilty&quot;, in Latin. Secondly, if the parts of &quot;esse&quot;, in all of the examples, had been omitted, wouldn't they simply have been understood e.g. &quot;puella matrem in horto (quae erat) ambulantem spectabat.&quot;, in which &quot;quae erat&quot; is understood?" CreationDate="2021-08-14T10:40:48.990" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34560" PostId="16622" Score="1" Text="@tony  I think that your example does not necessarily involve omission of &quot;quae erat&quot;. Perception verbs  can take the participle construction directly, i.e. without having to posit these empty elements. Furthermore, note that the construction _esse_ + a **verbal** present participle like _ambulans_ is very rare in Classical Latin (but cf. brianpck's comment on its use in the Vulgate). As noted, this construction is only typical when the present participle is **adjectival** like _nostra nocens anima est_ (you're right, the copula can be omitted in these cases)." CreationDate="2021-08-14T21:33:50.953" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34559" PostId="16624" Score="1" Text="According to Google, &quot;motor&quot; (mover) is Latin, and &quot;cyclus&quot; is Late Latin.  Thus, why wouldn't it be some derivative of motor+cyclus?" CreationDate="2021-08-14T21:11:39.743" UserId="9854" />
  <row Id="34574" PostId="16624" Score="0" Text="Certainly a valid question, @RonJohn. Were one to go for that solution, it would be more likely to be some derivative of motor + birota, as _cycle_ compares to _bicycle_ as _rota_ does to the already established _birota_. Now why not choose _motor_? Indeed why not? Cp. DE _auto_ with EN _car_ or _automobile_ to NO/DA/SV _bil_ and we can see how which new word for a new thing sticks, is quite unpredictable (_motorcycle_ is _motorsykkel_ in NO, despite automobile &gt; bil). Will the new word be built off an existing one, or be a translation? Cp. EN _computer_ to NO _datamaskin_ (data machine)." CreationDate="2021-08-16T07:29:28.573" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34575" PostId="16624" Score="0" Text="I suggest you write up an answer with your suggestion." CreationDate="2021-08-16T07:29:51.937" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34576" PostId="16624" Score="1" Text="The only Latin I know is the roots of English words,  (I had to verify that motorcycle didn't *only* have Greek origins before making the comment.)" CreationDate="2021-08-16T08:12:02.497" UserId="9854" />
  <row Id="34638" PostId="16624" Score="0" Text="Well, you already have the basics for you answer ready, so why not add it? You can tag one of us in a comment or in Conloqvivm, and we can have a quick look at it and see if there are any errors to correct. I feel it wrong to write up your suggestion as an answer and get the rumour points you would well deserve." CreationDate="2021-08-20T18:54:35.277" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="34540" PostId="16625" Score="1" Text="Here I am going off at a tangent, again: Are you sort-of remembering *'quam celerrime'* &quot;as quickly as possible&quot; ?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T14:43:22.377" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="34547" PostId="16625" Score="12" Text="Greetings to the fellow travelers from HNQ expecting something a little more spicy." CreationDate="2021-08-13T18:24:23.047" UserId="9996" />
  <row Id="34536" PostId="16626" Score="4" Text="This--well, actually *birota automata*, without the diminutive--is also what the [Neo-Latin Lexicon](https://neolatinlexicon.org/latin/) suggests, citing EGGER S.L. 29; and Bacci IOE 21." CreationDate="2021-08-13T12:12:12.447" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34537" PostId="16626" Score="3" Text="@brianpck And the Romans likely would have defaulted to just *birota* (or I suppose *birotula*, but maybe that for scooters). Can you imagine the Romans saying *currus quadrigarum* every time they referred to the *quadrigae*?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T12:36:05.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34538" PostId="16626" Score="2" Text="Maybe _birotula_ then could be a good word for a (motorised) scooter or a moped?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T12:36:21.760" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="35718" PostId="16628" Score="5" Text="The search form you linked to clearly just doesn't have this functionality. If you really want this, then you can always download their data and write your own offline search scripts. I've done this. Their file formats are somewhat of a pain to work with, and their licensing info is not as clear and consistent as one could wish." CreationDate="2021-11-08T16:43:07.943" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35728" PostId="16628" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I'm not sure you can do what you want. Try the Loeb site instead for English translations." CreationDate="2021-11-09T14:07:02.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35735" PostId="16628" Score="1" Text="@cmw: For the treebank, the license is CC-BY-SA, which is the same as wikipedia. See https://github.com/PerseusDL/treebank_data/issues/29" CreationDate="2021-11-10T01:31:32.140" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35751" PostId="16628" Score="0" Text="I sometimes Google the Perseus site: you won't get complete results, but you can use some Google logic." CreationDate="2021-11-12T00:54:57.337" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34551" PostId="16629" Score="0" Text="I remember this sentence but not what came before it. Was there a different comparison that came before these two sentences?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T19:45:06.317" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34542" PostId="16630" Score="7" Text="Because the boy doesn't have more milks and the woman doesn't have more dog " CreationDate="2021-08-13T16:52:55.463" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34545" PostId="16630" Score="2" Text="Why do you call these the &quot;objects&quot; of comparatives?" CreationDate="2021-08-13T18:13:15.737" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34561" PostId="16631" Score="7" Text="I didn't vote on this, but I'm guessing the downvotes come from the lack of exposition? Perhaps if you add some background/context/the definitions in question or show that you've read the relevant dictionaries, that might encourage others to post. See e.g. [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/70/difference-between-hiems-and-hībernum)." CreationDate="2021-08-14T21:36:59.773" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34543" PostId="16632" Score="0" Text="This does not clearly explain to me the difference between the two Latin sentences that I quoted." CreationDate="2021-08-13T17:04:51.383" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="34553" PostId="16632" Score="0" Text="&quot;The whole expression 'plus lactis' is accusative. The genitive portion is not inflected for the case of the whole expression because genitives can't be inflected any further for case in Latin&quot; ← I think Lutherans believe the accusative is present &quot;in, with and under the form&quot; of the genitive." CreationDate="2021-08-13T22:13:47.557" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34556" PostId="16632" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden Can you elaborate on what is still unclear? This is a good answer. It may have its shortcomings, but it's hard to tell how to make the answer more useful to you if you don't explain. (People also tend to be more willing to help when the OP comments shows more gratitude and manners.)" CreationDate="2021-08-14T12:26:18.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34558" PostId="16632" Score="2" Text="@Asteroides Fair enough, but the point stands that a more constructively toned comment would have been more beneficial to all parties involved. The edits certainly improved your answer, but the first one was a decent and helpful one already. (My comment was actually not about just this specific instance but in general as well.)" CreationDate="2021-08-14T20:53:25.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34544" PostId="16634" Score="1" Text="Thanks! Although Perseus lemmatizes the word as ῥᾴδιος, it looks like the forms that actually occur in Homer are ῥηΐδιον, ῥηΐδιόν, ῥηΐδι, ῥηΐτατ᾽, ῥηΐτεροι, and ῥηίστη. Cunliffe lists the word as ῥηΐδιος. That wasn't completely clear to me from the LSJ entry." CreationDate="2021-08-13T17:45:50.217" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34549" PostId="16634" Score="1" Text="And the reason, of course, is that the α is long and so regularly becomes η in Ionic even after ι, ε, or ρ, where it does not in Attic." CreationDate="2021-08-13T18:56:32.510" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35896" PostId="16634" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell ῥηϊδίως is just the adverb form of ῥηΐδιος, which in turn derives from the adverb ῥᾶ, which is where you'll get Beekes' discussion." CreationDate="2021-11-21T00:15:19.740" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34562" PostId="16641" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! What do you exactly mean by &quot;distinguish&quot;? Are you asking about how they could tell the difference when listening, or perhaps when speaking? Or is this about written instead of spoken language? Please edit your question to elaborate. (Edit, don't just comment.)" CreationDate="2021-08-15T14:02:39.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34564" PostId="16641" Score="2" Text="Assuming you're talking about writing (as opposed to speaking), this has actually been covered elsewhere. I'll close this for now and if you like you can edit it to differentiate this question from answers elsewhere." CreationDate="2021-08-15T19:14:05.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34567" PostId="16641" Score="0" Text="And feel free to ask if you have any questions!" CreationDate="2021-08-15T20:09:44.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34569" PostId="16641" Score="0" Text="Thank you but I can not feel myself free when &quot;somebody&quot; downvoting my question." CreationDate="2021-08-15T20:22:51.833" UserId="10009" />
  <row Id="34570" PostId="16641" Score="1" Text="I think the downvotes are due to the question being so short. If you show that you have searched and read past questions on similar topics and elaborate on what you want to know, our users tend to receive the question much better. The underlying question is good, I think, so the score is mostly due to presentation." CreationDate="2021-08-15T20:26:21.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34572" PostId="16641" Score="3" Text="If your question is whether there are general rules for predicting vowel length, the answer is no -- it has to be learned separately for each word/morpheme." CreationDate="2021-08-15T20:49:26.450" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34573" PostId="16645" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Tertullian is close enough to classical for my comfort." CreationDate="2021-08-15T21:58:29.243" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34568" PostId="16646" Score="0" Text="Thank you, I mean Old English also didn't distinguish long ī and short i in writing but this distinction could be defined by consonants i.e.  if &quot;i&quot; was followed by a consonant cluster it was always short i (at least this is true for verbs, class 3 strong verbs bindan, stincan) if &quot;i&quot; wasn't followed by a consonant cluster it was long ī class 1 strong verbs rīdan, slīdan)" CreationDate="2021-08-15T20:20:28.427" UserId="10009" />
  <row Id="34571" PostId="16646" Score="0" Text="In other words in my opinion the written distinction between long ī and short i in OE is redundant." CreationDate="2021-08-15T20:31:42.480" UserId="10009" />
  <row Id="34578" PostId="16649" Score="0" Text="P.S. I'm still trying to determine if _Qualis color est capillorum tuorum?_ is normal Latin. If you know, please add a comment (or post another answer)." CreationDate="2021-08-16T11:13:35.927" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34579" PostId="16649" Score="0" Text="I suggest you post that as a separate question. There are many grammatically sound ways to phrase that, but it's not clear which ones are idiomatic or common." CreationDate="2021-08-16T12:01:39.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34580" PostId="16650" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Just a heads up: I wouldn't [trust what Google Translate gives for Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for) 100%. Google Translate can struggle with Latin a lot more than other languages." CreationDate="2021-08-17T01:39:29.760" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34679" PostId="16650" Score="0" Text="Great to see someone else looking at astrological manuscripts, Nikki! Google Translate is hopeless for Latin; it's very clever in the way it works, because it searches billions of pages to find matches. Thus if you put in the first line of Caesar's Bello Gallico, you will get a perfect translation, because it's on so many web pages. If you put the much simpler &quot;puerum puella percussit&quot; (&quot;the girl hits the boy&quot;, in a slightly unusual but valid word order), or &quot;puella puerum percussit&quot;, it gets totally lost (&quot;the girl child struck&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-08-21T18:40:25.550" UserId="1639" />
  <row Id="34588" PostId="16652" Score="0" Text="Can you explain a little more of what you mean by &quot;I'm not fickle in being fickle&quot;? I promise not to get sidetracked from your main question, about &quot;in being _x._&quot; I'm having a hard time clearly understanding what the sentence means in English; more clarity about that might shed light on your main question." CreationDate="2021-08-17T19:05:16.803" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34589" PostId="16652" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz,  I'm probably not using the correct English word then... . At any case, the meaning intended is 'changing my mind'/'fluctuating between options', or rather more simply 'inconstant'. hence  it can be rendered &quot;I'm not inconstant in being inconstant&quot;. in other words, I'm stable in my erratic behavior/attitudes towards things. . But as you note this is not the main crux of the question." CreationDate="2021-08-17T20:32:20.287" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34591" PostId="16652" Score="0" Text="@d_e Thanks, that clarifies it." CreationDate="2021-08-17T22:59:52.353" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34616" PostId="16652" Score="0" Text="Well, both cnread and I have given you non-answer answers! This really is a very interesting question. I hope you get a real answer, even if it goes against the grain of Latin. It will certainly be educational. (_Certē docēbit_ —so much simpler! :)" CreationDate="2021-08-19T20:55:23.720" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34618" PostId="16652" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz. Actually I think they are both valid answers (the Q was open in its nature). The use of elegant and simple &quot;verb + adv&quot; that you suggested, didn't come up. Also cnread finds great example, and makes me re-consider -- or even re-wire my mind spontaneously towards seeing *in mea +abl* in a different light; maybe the possessive *mea/sua* does bring much color here indeed." CreationDate="2021-08-19T21:07:40.040" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34583" PostId="16653" Score="2" Text="In English, at least, this phenomenon would be unremarkable. Taking the first example (Caes. de Bello Gall. 7.26) = (either) &quot;they adopted the stratagem of fleeing from the town on the next day&quot; (genitive of gerund) or &quot;they adopted the (this) stratagem--to flee from the town on the next day (infinitive). This, latter, being Caeser's chosen option. Both work therefore it may well have been a case of which sounded better." CreationDate="2021-08-17T12:04:19.360" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34584" PostId="16653" Score="1" Text="@tony Thanks for your comment, So I understand you think that a unified explanation is not possible. For example, it's not obvious that the apposition analysis applies to Virgil's famous example (the last one above) and others. My intuition is that a sort of &quot;target&quot; meaning is involved in all of the examples above but perhaps I'm wrong. Hence my question. By the way, is it possible in non-standard (?) English to say &quot;It's time of going home&quot; (on a par with the usual one &quot;It's time to go home&quot;)? Thanks in advance." CreationDate="2021-08-17T13:03:59.033" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34585" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't say that a unified explanation is not possible. I sought a direct, perhaps, simplistic approach; expecting to be shot down, in flames. In English you could say &quot;It's the time for (not &quot;of&quot;) going home.&quot;. It's the sort of thing an elementary-school teacher might say to her young charges, when teaching the significant times of the working-day." CreationDate="2021-08-17T15:20:05.987" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34586" PostId="16653" Score="1" Text="@tony No, your point was not simplistic at all. In fact, some scholars have sometimes argued for the _apposition_ analysis for similar cases. However, note the parallelism that seems to exist between, e.g., _Avidi committere pugnam_ and Virgil's example above. Perhaps what is common with these and other examples of this use of the infinitive is what I refer above as to &quot;the target meaning&quot;, but I don't know..." CreationDate="2021-08-17T15:34:29.923" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34596" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="In those two examples, the infinitive seems to be the more natural: &quot;(they) anxious to commit to battle&quot; and &quot;but if (you have) so great a desire to learn (cognoscere)  our misfortunes and briefly to hear (audire) the last struggle of Troy...&quot;. In fact the gerunds, in Vergil, may not fit: &quot;but if (you have) so great a desire learning our misfortunes and briefly hearing the last struggle...&quot;; in English, the gerunds are less effective than the infinitives." CreationDate="2021-08-18T11:36:51.883" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34598" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="Since you brought it up, it's worth comparing to the Greek epexegetical infinitive (Smyth: 2001ff)" CreationDate="2021-08-18T14:37:04.803" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="34599" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey  Thanks for this useful reference. Concerning the most famous example (i.e. the last one from Virgil), it seems that scholars disagree on why a gerund(ive) is not used there (https://books.google.es/books?id=YAe7RcmW6dgC&amp;pg=PA175&amp;lpg=PA175&amp;dq=si+tantus+amor+casus+cognoscere+nostros+servius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Gs8Y7Pjjeb&amp;sig=ACfU3U2AU32L3n9NuyyGZtc4qyFGHlMDLg&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj-gZGF77ryAhXKDmMBHT-hDnUQ6AF6BAgQEAM#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false ) Some attribute the use of the infinitive to an analogical process with transitive verbs of desire, others, following Servius, to a grecism." CreationDate="2021-08-18T15:44:59.267" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34600" PostId="16653" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Probably, the grecism-based explanation is more plausible for Virgil’s example but the other explanation has the advantage of relating it with the reanalysis process also mentioned in my question, which can be useful when accounting for apparently different cases like the one involved in Caesar’s example: for example, it seems that Pinkster (2021: 212) attributes the presence of the infinitive _profugere_ to the reanalysis from _consilium capere_ to  _constituere_." CreationDate="2021-08-18T15:51:15.623" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34601" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="Cf. Pinkster (2021: 212):  https://books.google.es/books?id=vLklEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=postero+die+consilium+ceperunt+ex+oppido+profugere+Pinkster&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9skAK9CUp5&amp;sig=ACfU3U2cRwV5Bcs7S5eiU-oi9bUaDioC2Q&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjxs__u87ryAhXC8eAKHaBXDx0Q6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=postero%20die%20consilium%20ceperunt%20ex%20oppido%20profugere%20Pinkster&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-08-18T15:51:39.797" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34615" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: A better question is: &quot;What benefit is conferred, over and above the infinitive, by deploying the gerund(ive) in Vergil's example?&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-19T10:30:39.443" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34624" PostId="16653" Score="1" Text="@tony I don't know what the &quot;benefit&quot; (?) of using a gerundive should be but it's what one would expect. See https://books.google.es/books?id=YAe7RcmW6dgC&amp;pg=PA175&amp;lpg=PA175&amp;dq=si+tantus+amor+casus+cognoscere+nostros+servius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Gs8Y7Pjjeb&amp;sig=ACfU3U2AU32L3n9NuyyGZtc4qyFGHlMDLg&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj-gZGF77ryAhXKDmMBHT-hDnUQ6AF6BAgQEAM#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-08-19T22:53:52.943" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34654" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you for the link. That something is, or is not, borrowed from the Greek strikes me as irrelevant to the discussion. It is by such absorptions that languages evolve. Verb, &quot;studeo&quot;, naturally selects the infinitive (or the dative e.g. &quot;nec fuit quisquam, qui praedae studeret.&quot; [de Bell. Gall. 7.28] = &quot;There was not anyone who was striving for the plunder.&quot;); but noun, &quot;amor&quot; does not. In Vergil's example, with the gen. of g'dive: &quot;sed si tantus amor cognoscendorum casuum nostrorum&quot; = &quot;but if (you have) so great a desire of learning of our misfortunes&quot;, is the expected one." CreationDate="2021-08-21T11:06:03.167" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34655" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: In the footnote, Hofmann &amp; Szantyr (1965, 351) are proponents of &quot;amor habet + infinitive&quot;. Vergil did not use &quot;habere&quot; but it is understood, &quot;but if (you have)&quot;. Therefore, does the infinitive win (it still sounds better in contemporary English)?" CreationDate="2021-08-21T11:12:01.587" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34680" PostId="16653" Score="1" Text="@tony It's curious (and interesting!) that you like to consider the appearance of the infinitive vs. that of a gerundive as if these forms were &quot;competitors&quot;. I'm not used to seeing things this way in Latin syntax but perhaps the infinitive in Virgil's example &quot;wins&quot; here because of metrical reasons, because of euphony reasons (cf. your cacophonic _cognoscendorum casuum nostrorum_!), because of his preference for using graecisms, I don't know." CreationDate="2021-08-21T18:47:01.500" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34694" PostId="16653" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The nature of the question: is it this-or-that, generated the competitive spirit. If the gerundive alternative is &quot;cacophonic&quot;, this explains why Vergil didn't use it. The Question is answered." CreationDate="2021-08-23T08:21:41.143" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34695" PostId="16653" Score="1" Text="@tony Although the title of the present question is exemplified with an example from Caesar, note that this Q is not only motivated by one _particular_ example from this author or by one from Virgil. The question has been formulated in a more _general_ way deliberately but, this said, as noted above, one can also split it up and provide different reasons of the &quot;replacements&quot; for each (set of) example(s)." CreationDate="2021-08-23T15:47:14.410" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34587" PostId="16655" Score="5" Text="You were lied to. How they got away with it I do not know, as they must have diligently kept you away from anything by any real author like Caesar or Cicero. By the way, Latin's inability to distinguish subject and object unambiguously in AcI constructs (because word order just won't do it) was even in antiquity the subject of a well-known [anecdote](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14839/how-do-you-say-i-think-she-loves-me-in-latin/14842#14842)." CreationDate="2021-08-17T18:07:29.663" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34592" PostId="16656" Score="3" Text="*In scalis descendens* would mean 'climbing down *to* the stairs'. The bare ablative of *scalis descendens* is [perfectly fine](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=monte+descend) for 'climbing down the stairs', which is what is meant." CreationDate="2021-08-17T23:16:05.507" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34593" PostId="16656" Score="2" Text="The issue of climbing and stairs (in this case, up them) is addressed in [another question here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14227/cenacula-dicuntur-ad-quae-scalis-ascenditur-why-passive-singular-ascenditu). As Cairnarvon notes, the simple ablative appears to be fine. As for Ecce Eduardus...descendens, what Lenard is doing closely matches, e.g. Vergil Aeneid 7.706–9: ecce Sabinorum prisco de sanguine magnum / agmen agens Clausus....: 'Behold Clausus leading a great line.....,' where there's no expressed main verb." CreationDate="2021-08-18T00:06:10.167" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34594" PostId="16656" Score="0" Text="@cnread I never read the book,  but this answer is saying it doesn't work in the context. Would that matter here?" CreationDate="2021-08-18T04:57:04.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34595" PostId="16656" Score="2" Text="@cmw I don't think this answer is relevant to the question. It's a rant. But it could be reworked into an interesting question+answer, or maybe several, e.g. &quot;What does _Ecce…descendens_ mean?&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-18T10:51:28.753" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34597" PostId="16656" Score="2" Text="I'm also a bit confused by the criticism of the choice of *pulso*: it's pretty clear that the &quot;bumps&quot; in the original are the head hitting the stairs. I haven't read through the Latin translation, so it may well be terrible as you say, but I'm failing to see this as an illustration of that!" CreationDate="2021-08-18T12:53:05.137" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34602" PostId="16656" Score="1" Text="@cmw, Not really. Lenard is doing basically the same thing as Vergil: a sentence, w/o an expressed main verb, saying, 'Behold individual x doing y.' The original sentence is 'Here is Edward Bear, coming down-stairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin.' I myself (like, I assume, Laurent) would have used a relative clause instead of a participle; but since there's precedent for the participle, that comes down to stylistic choice. If there's a grammatical problem here, I think it's that 'tump-tump-tump' isn't grammatically tethered to the sentence in any way." CreationDate="2021-08-18T16:56:35.257" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34603" PostId="16658" Score="3" Text="Most of the translations I've seen translate κλισίη as &quot;tent,&quot; and LSJ even mentions how it is &quot;not common after Hom. (σκηνή being used).&quot; Though it doesn't *exclude* a rigid structure, I don't think it *only* includes them either." CreationDate="2021-08-18T20:16:02.217" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34605" PostId="16658" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: I think that should be an answer." CreationDate="2021-08-18T23:00:57.510" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34608" PostId="16660" Score="0" Text="*Tenaciter* has a good ring to it." CreationDate="2021-08-19T02:22:01.627" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="34611" PostId="16660" Score="3" Text="I find your 'constanter inconstans' a very elegant, very satisfying solution to the problem (+1)." CreationDate="2021-08-19T05:01:28.877" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34613" PostId="16660" Score="0" Text="@cnread I'm glad to hear that! I've been wondering why, when I compose a sentence in Latin, it usually sounds dull, while good Latin sounds snappy and succinct. I had dimly been supposing that it's because I'm still thinking in English patterns, but had gotten no further. d_e's question just crystallized an answer." CreationDate="2021-08-19T05:13:19.930" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34606" PostId="16661" Score="0" Text="Can you add a link to your question, leading to a passage containing _concepturus_ in this sense?" CreationDate="2021-08-18T23:21:06.833" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34626" PostId="16661" Score="2" Text="Regarding the edit, you might find the answers to some previous questions about *nasciturus* helpful: mine here ([What is the difference in meaning/usage between “nasciturus” and “nascendus”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10679/what-is-the-difference-in-meaning-usage-between-nasciturus-and-nascendus)) and k.stm's here ([Are future active participles of deponent verbs used in place of future passive participles? Why?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15147))" CreationDate="2021-08-20T00:37:31.193" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="34607" PostId="16662" Score="3" Text="It looks like the plain-text version was confusingly laid out. It actually says that _concipio_ is &quot;to conceive&quot; and _concipior_ is &quot;to be conceived&quot;. I updated the link to a format that's easier to read." CreationDate="2021-08-19T02:10:08.147" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34651" PostId="16664" Score="0" Text="Ah it seems this question doesn't die! This is a very interesting answer for which I've given an upvote. I am unfamiliar with both 'exocentric compound' and 'bahuvrihi' but you are quite bold in your answer. I will do more research. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-08-21T03:29:01.210" UserId="6743" />
  <row Id="34674" PostId="16664" Score="1" Text="So if I'm understanding your argument correctly, θάνατος is a noun and ἀθάνατος is an adjective. Therefore the construction ἀ-θάνατος is not endocentric, since it doesn't have a head. However, I don't see how this argues against a putative interpretation of the word as &quot;living.&quot; E.g., in English, we have &quot;no-account,&quot; which is exocentric by the same criterion, but only usage can tell us whether this should be interpreted as &quot;someone who has not yet been accounted for&quot; or &quot;someone who doesn't deserve to be accounted for.&quot; It seems to me that the answer to this question is all about usage." CreationDate="2021-08-21T16:28:59.540" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34678" PostId="16664" Score="0" Text="Also, θάνατος can also be used as a noun (&quot;an immortal,&quot; e.g., Iliad 1.265), so it's not so clear to me that we can say a priori that ἀθάνατος must be exocentric." CreationDate="2021-08-21T18:25:21.447" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34681" PostId="16664" Score="0" Text="*Contrary to what several respondents have written, θάνατος does not mean “dead”* I can't find any answers or comments that claim this." CreationDate="2021-08-21T19:26:12.613" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="34617" PostId="16665" Score="0" Text="That's fantastic find! thanks." CreationDate="2021-08-19T20:57:11.167" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34619" PostId="16666" Score="0" Text="Isn't the use of nasciturus (naturus) wrong? Shouldn't it too be nascendus instead? I never understood &quot;morituri te salutant&quot;. Why not moriendus? How can the future active participle be used in the place of future passive participle?" CreationDate="2021-08-19T21:29:02.607" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="34620" PostId="16666" Score="0" Text="No, it should not be *nascendus*! The gerundive retains its passive meaning even in deponent verbs. Thus it cannot be used with intransitive verbs, which *nasci* is (I cannot “be born my neighbour” etc.) except in impersonal use (*nunc est nascendum* = “it's time to be born” or whatever). As an aside, the gerundive has a rather tenuous connection with the future, plus it already has a perfectly nice name (gerundive), so I personally prefer not to call it a future passive participle." CreationDate="2021-08-19T22:02:09.810" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34622" PostId="16666" Score="0" Text="How does that work? What happens with deponent verbs? Active becomes Passive and Passibe become impersonal or unusable? How can I recognize a deponent verb? When I encounter the future active participle of a deponent verb will it always carry the meaning of a future passive participle? What happens with the gerundive and it's connection with the future; why is it tenuous?" CreationDate="2021-08-19T22:32:35.477" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="34627" PostId="16666" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos That sounds like several more questions. I especially like &quot;How can I recognize a deponent verb?&quot; The quick explanation of deponent verbs, though, is that they have passive form but active meaning; their participles all have active meaning (except the gerundive)." CreationDate="2021-08-20T00:58:52.293" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34635" PostId="16666" Score="0" Text="@GeorgeNtoulos Several good links regarding deponents habe already been given. As for the gerundive, well, take for example the sentence &quot;Scelera Catliniae non sunt ferenda&quot; -- what does this future active participle have to do with the future? But this is indeed a whole different can of worms..." CreationDate="2021-08-20T17:57:30.990" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34621" PostId="16667" Score="1" Text="A nice object lesson in the importance of context. Once the preceding sentences are provided, what seemed like a bizarre use of neque suddenly makes total sense." CreationDate="2021-08-19T22:02:20.213" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34634" PostId="16668" Score="0" Text="Maybe *illa*, like in *ille mi par*, or *haec*?" CreationDate="2021-08-20T16:03:53.887" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34623" PostId="16669" Score="1" Text="The claim is hedged a bit more: &quot;essentially all Latin **literary** texts.&quot; But this is a great question--I don't know if anything significant is being excluded! My first hunch was that some early Christian writings were missing, but Tertullian is the first major Christian to write in Latin--as far as I'm aware--and he died a couple decades after AD 200." CreationDate="2021-08-19T22:49:13.110" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34625" PostId="16669" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Do they have the Vetus Latina? (I'd search for myself but I'm not sure how.)" CreationDate="2021-08-20T00:25:57.557" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34630" PostId="16670" Score="10" Text="YOU'RE RIGHT!!! I DIDN'T SEE THAT CHECK BOX IN THE FAR RIGHT AND I HAD LOOKED AT THE SITE 20 TIMES!!! Massing oversite on part of the webdesigners." CreationDate="2021-08-20T03:01:30.680" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="34667" PostId="16670" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 I had a hunch that was it!" CreationDate="2021-08-21T14:24:56.717" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34670" PostId="16670" Score="1" Text="It boggles my mind that of this extraordinary civilization that so changed the world, in which our own languages and civilization are so deeply rooted, we possess works of only ~362 authors, and only 35 books of Livy." CreationDate="2021-08-21T15:41:19.847" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34671" PostId="16670" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Well, up to 200 AD. It went on longer than that. But yes, the enormous number of missing works from both Greece and Rome is a painful reminder of the fragility of our past." CreationDate="2021-08-21T15:46:32.033" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34628" PostId="16673" Score="1" Text="Hmm, doesn't this mean &quot;Now I have forgotten all my songs?&quot; But _oblita_ does modify _carmina_! &quot;Now, so many songs forgotten to me, the voice too flees Moeris.&quot; Hey, Moeris is talking about himself in the first person and the third person in the same sentence! I see that L&amp;S marks this with &quot;!*?&quot; This is indeed good evidence that the Romans felt my pain." CreationDate="2021-08-20T02:15:48.800" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34629" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I took the !*? to be marking the Plautus attestation, since the Plautus manuscripts are known for having many idiosyncrasies. But indeed; I'm not sure why Moeris uses his name there, but I suspect the meter had something to do with it." CreationDate="2021-08-20T02:48:54.100" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34632" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz You're right. This is an adjectival/resultative passive with a so-called (miscalled!) &quot;dative of agent&quot;. Verbal/eventive passives are different. The translation you've given is correct (NB: the resultative construction is more literally rendered as: 'I have all my songs forgotten'). Verbal passives typically express agents with a by-phrase: 'all songs have been/were forgotten by me'. Is this possible in Classical Latin? I don't think so." CreationDate="2021-08-20T03:56:39.630" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34633" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12836/1982, I had this problem, dealt with by TKR: passive, &quot;will be forgotten&quot;, became &quot;will fall out of memory&quot; = &quot;memoria excidet&quot;." CreationDate="2021-08-20T08:26:01.560" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34644" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Oops, indeed they marked Plautus. I guess I was stunned by L&amp;S's punctuational extravagance." CreationDate="2021-08-20T23:31:15.023" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34645" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino [Quaestionem novam](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16680/118) proponi aliquando oblituram…mm, oblitteraturam?…obliviscendam? Sententiam tuam de passivum resultativum audiendi studiosus sum." CreationDate="2021-08-20T23:47:10.553" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34646" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@tony That might be a winning answer!" CreationDate="2021-08-20T23:59:24.883" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34647" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@tony Wait, I just found a problem with _excidere_. I'll post it as answer myself right now." CreationDate="2021-08-21T00:00:52.807" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34649" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino &quot;Datives of agent&quot; aren't uncommon with finite verb forms in poetry, either: Aeneid I.440 _cernitur ulli_ &quot;is perceived by anyone&quot;." CreationDate="2021-08-21T01:20:54.043" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34658" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="The example _cernitur ulli_ is the typical one found in Latin grammars but is not as common as one could think (please see Section 5 of this paper: http://www.unioviedo.es/pmsuarez/Articulos_files/Le%20datif%20agent.pdf ). In any case, what is important here is to realize that the example in your answer is better understood as an adjectival/resultative passive rather than as a verbal passive (cf. _nunc_). Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly above: a clear(er) example of verbal passive with _obliviscor_ would be one having a by-phrase. As noted, I don't think this exists in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2021-08-21T12:19:22.653" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34669" PostId="16673" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Sententia tua de passivo resultativo dativoque auctoris nunc intellecta mihi fieri incipit. Proponas responsum in quaestione nova? Tum eam pertractam omnibus scribere potueris." CreationDate="2021-08-21T15:27:06.127" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34686" PostId="16674" Score="0" Text="[This older question on choosing indicative or subjunctive with *cum*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5675/79) might be of interest." CreationDate="2021-08-21T20:25:07.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34637" PostId="16676" Score="1" Text="Very instructive. Thank you so much!" CreationDate="2021-08-20T15:47:53.090" UserId="10034" />
  <row Id="34642" PostId="16676" Score="2" Text="@user10034 Please allow time for more answers. [_Carpe_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=carpo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means to pluck, as a fruit or a flower. It has many extended senses, but the famous line _Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero_ means, in clumsy but clear English, &quot;Enjoy the day (like a berry), trusting (gullibly) to the next day as little as possible.&quot; The [whole poem](https://thebookbindersdaughter.com/2018/04/30/may-you-strain-your-wine-horace-ode-1-11/) advises sweet pleasures over future concerns. Maybe not the tone you want." CreationDate="2021-08-20T21:12:51.870" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34653" PostId="16676" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz A good point! Perhaps 'capere' would be a more suitable choice; this has connotations of forceful taking if I am not mistaken. So maybe &quot;cape dicionem&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-08-21T06:55:04.073" UserId="9706" />
  <row Id="34676" PostId="16676" Score="0" Text="Yes, to me _cape_ sounds more in the spirit. I also wonder if the Latin mind might have a wholly different metaphor for this than speaking of control as an object that you can take (as excellent a metaphor as that is). Maybe there is even a proverbial expression for it. I'm thinking especially that since the main idea is action, Latin would express the main idea in a verb, making it stand out pretty forcefully, e.g. _Dūce, nōn dūcere._" CreationDate="2021-08-21T17:21:43.480" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34689" PostId="16676" Score="0" Text="What do you think of &quot;Imperare Sibi&quot; from &quot;Imperare sibi maximum imperium est&quot; (To rule yourself is the ultimate form of power), the quote by Seneca?" CreationDate="2021-08-22T15:33:31.467" UserId="10033" />
  <row Id="34692" PostId="16676" Score="0" Text="@InOmniaParatus Ille mihi videtur dignum est in alterum responsum proponere! Responsum a Seneca bonum semper est." CreationDate="2021-08-23T00:15:34.783" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34636" PostId="16677" Score="0" Text="Wow, you have my gratitude for such a detailed and helpful answer. It appears that the books I am using are in the habit of presenting reading material the grammar of which has not been taught." CreationDate="2021-08-20T17:58:34.620" UserId="9706" />
  <row Id="34639" PostId="16677" Score="0" Text="This is all quite correct and well explained, but I still feel the sentence is almost a textbook example for when one should use the subjunctive." CreationDate="2021-08-20T20:04:43.137" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34640" PostId="16677" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel - Thanks for the comment! But I'm wondering what would make it a textbook example. If I had to answer that question, I would say it depends on the author's intentions and on the context as far as being reasonably specific concerning the time when he learned about his death. If it is, in fact, sufficiently specific, it seems that would be well suited for defining the moment of his return. Am I thinking about this correctly?" CreationDate="2021-08-20T21:03:29.033" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="34641" PostId="16677" Score="1" Text="@ExpeditoBipes You are right, it ultimately depends on the author's intentions, but I think the example is very suggestive: The news of Caesar's death *prompts* the journey to Rome and does not just coincide with it. (For me the “litmus test” is: Could you add *eo tempore*? If yes, then use the indicative.)" CreationDate="2021-08-20T21:12:16.730" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34643" PostId="16679" Score="1" Text="plerumque vero non oblitteratum est bellum, sed oblitterator. :)" CreationDate="2021-08-20T21:17:23.997" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="36521" PostId="16679" Score="2" Text="@d_e Si quando agens neutrius est generis, *oblitteratrum* appellari potest. ([Hic tractata sunt nomina agentium omnium generum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79).)" CreationDate="2022-01-04T14:08:28.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34648" PostId="16680" Score="0" Text="Might it be a transferred epithet, 'forgetful songs,' like 'sleepless nights' or&#xA;'wide-eyed amazement'? 'Ibant *obscuri,* *sola* sub nocte per umbram...' under the lonely night." CreationDate="2021-08-21T00:32:48.313" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="34656" PostId="16680" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: In alternative 3., should &quot;by me&quot; be added to, &quot;Now so many songs (are) forgotten&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-08-21T11:50:04.723" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34657" PostId="16680" Score="0" Text="@tony Oops, you're right! I'll make it &quot;to me&quot; to render the dative." CreationDate="2021-08-21T12:02:31.000" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34668" PostId="16680" Score="0" Text="@Hugh Interesting idea—worthy of posting as an answer, IMO. I may have come across _oblitus_ used prosaically to mean &quot;forgetful&quot;. This might really explain it." CreationDate="2021-08-21T14:53:23.157" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34659" PostId="16682" Score="2" Text="The [source](https://books.google.com/books?id=2L1EAQAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=servius%20%22ninth%20eclogue%22%20moeris%20lycidas&amp;pg=PA107#v=onepage&amp;q=%22a%20rare%20use%22&amp;f=false) where I got &quot;the din of arms has silenced poetry&quot; says the same. But I'd like to understand the reasons, not just accept the conclusion directly." CreationDate="2021-08-21T12:33:01.190" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="34696" PostId="16697" Score="0" Text="Ah, that makes sense - thank you very much!" CreationDate="2021-08-23T21:18:28.513" UserId="1639" />
  <row Id="34702" PostId="16698" Score="1" Text="Have you looked up a Latin translation of Matthew 23:11 as a base to work from?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T09:33:55.673" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34729" PostId="16698" Score="1" Text="Yes - that translation is: qui maior est vestrum erit minister vester,   but that literally is &quot;[he] who is better than others will serve others&quot;. I want to include more of the subjunctive (I think) implying that if one wants to be great (not necessarily better than others) must serve." CreationDate="2021-08-25T10:31:41.953" UserId="10051" />
  <row Id="34709" PostId="16701" Score="0" Text="Seeing that the Latin and the Spanish version were apparently written by the same person, I am not sure how we can hope to improve upon the translation. Do you mean a more literal translation?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T18:02:50.103" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34704" PostId="16704" Score="2" Text="*Curarunt* isn't subjunctive (you may be thinking of *curarent*), it's a [contracted perfect indicative](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=curarunt&amp;la=la)." CreationDate="2021-08-24T15:03:01.183" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34710" PostId="16704" Score="1" Text="Uhm, MDLXVI is 1566 " CreationDate="2021-08-24T18:08:18.030" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34726" PostId="16704" Score="0" Text="lol the two things I was sure I knew" CreationDate="2021-08-25T02:27:45.643" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="34708" PostId="16705" Score="6" Text="Huh, I haven't come across that etymology before. Where have you seen it?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T17:26:18.753" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34780" PostId="16705" Score="2" Text="How do you get from &quot;three hands&quot; to &quot;eight&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-08-28T21:46:17.303" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="34781" PostId="16705" Score="0" Text="@fdb Three plus the number of fingers on a hand." CreationDate="2021-08-28T21:48:01.917" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34713" PostId="16706" Score="0" Text="[In classical Latin 'f' and 'ph' were not pronounced alike.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/647/79)" CreationDate="2021-08-24T19:45:41.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34714" PostId="16706" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta But, by the time of Jerome, they were, right?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T19:49:41.957" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34715" PostId="16706" Score="1" Text="I don't know the pronunciation history well enough. Maybe that should be looked into in more detail before diving into this question. That would make a good separate prequel question; pronunciation of the Vulgate hasn't been explored much here." CreationDate="2021-08-24T19:51:57.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34716" PostId="16706" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta This has been asked already: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/649/when-did-ph-start-to-be-pronounced-like-f" CreationDate="2021-08-24T19:53:15.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34717" PostId="16706" Score="0" Text="@cmw Besides, I do not think it is relevant. They were arguably the same sound given that Jerome was transliterating φ from the same Greek text two times." CreationDate="2021-08-24T19:56:22.107" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34719" PostId="16706" Score="1" Text="@cmw By myself, as it seems... Anyway, describing the pronunciation of both 'f' and 'ph' in Jerome's time would make at least a strong partial answer to this question. That is not explicitly anywhere on the site, even if it can be inferred from earlier posts." CreationDate="2021-08-24T20:05:45.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34720" PostId="16706" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta How would that be a strong partial answer, what do you mean? If they were both pronounced /f/, I'd expect both to be transliterated as /f/." CreationDate="2021-08-24T20:41:03.987" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34728" PostId="16706" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler If someone definitively answers whether the two pronunciations are equal, I consider it a significant step towards answering the question as you posed it. It's useful and interesting information but not a full answer, whence my choice of words." CreationDate="2021-08-25T08:25:18.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34722" PostId="16707" Score="0" Text="Why the downvotes?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T21:28:02.900" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34727" PostId="16707" Score="2" Text="It might have to do with using Google Translate. Or perhaps people just wanted to see more elaboration." CreationDate="2021-08-25T07:21:05.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34733" PostId="16707" Score="2" Text="I'm pretty sure the OP is just using Google Translate to show the meaning of the Latin phrase (Latin -&gt; English), not as the actual source of the translation. But regardless, it's notoriously bad so it actually *lessens* credibility. But the translation itself is grammatically correct, though a little too close to English syntax, at least to my ear!" CreationDate="2021-08-25T13:41:06.560" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34750" PostId="16707" Score="0" Text="&quot;Li&quot; isn't Latin, and using *futurus* to mean 'future' outside of grammatical jargon isn't Classical." CreationDate="2021-08-26T17:21:35.913" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34752" PostId="16707" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon It actually is &quot;ii&quot; (two *i*'s), which is a legitimate spelling of *ei* (sans serif fonts strike again!)" CreationDate="2021-08-26T19:19:23.493" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34753" PostId="16707" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I thought it was wrong to put &quot;ei&quot; here, because, well, &quot;ei&quot; is dative singular, rather than nominative plural." CreationDate="2021-08-26T19:46:23.087" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34754" PostId="16707" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler Both are acceptable. L&amp;S has a convoluted note about the masculine plural nominative: &quot;Plur. nom. m. ĕi, Plaut. Mil. 2, 4, 32; id. Stich. 1, 3, 47; Ter. Ad. prol. 23; but in the MSS. ii; Cic. de Or. 1, 19, 87 et saep.: “eei,” Inscr. Neap. 2423, 8: iei, C. I. L. 1, 185; Varr. L. L. 9, 1, 2 al.; “but ī,” Plaut. Trin. prol. 17; id. Mil. 3, 1, 158 al.; v. Ritschl prol. p. 98;&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-26T20:03:21.137" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34756" PostId="16707" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Oh, whoops. I thought it might have been contamination from Italian. It's still an incorrect use of *is*, though." CreationDate="2021-08-26T20:08:55.570" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34757" PostId="16707" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon It sounds a bit unidiomatic to me, but it [seems to have a decent amount of attestations](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ii+qui%23)." CreationDate="2021-08-26T20:12:03.783" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34765" PostId="16707" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Weird that almost all of those attestations are from Caesar." CreationDate="2021-08-27T12:41:36.707" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34740" PostId="16708" Score="1" Text="I [asked a question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/84664) on the Christianity Stack Exchange site about the type of miracles that occurred during the transferral of the relics to Rome." CreationDate="2021-08-25T17:14:20.220" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34741" PostId="16708" Score="0" Text="There is [another inscription below this one](https://c8.alamy.com/compes/2a3gy6r/italia-roma-basilica-de-sant-agostino-capilla-de-santa-monica-sarcofago-romano-la-parte-superior-fue-tallada-por-isaia-da-pisa-ad-1455-2a3gy6r.jpg), but sadly it does not appear to include details on the miracles.  It mainly repeats the bit about Pope Martin V transferring the relics in 1430." CreationDate="2021-08-26T01:59:59.090" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="34721" PostId="16709" Score="0" Text="Why wasn't the glotal stop in Hebrew &quot;ʔarpakšad&quot; transliterated as 'h', that is the closest sound both Latin and Greek had?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T21:02:34.967" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34723" PostId="16709" Score="1" Text="@FlatAssembler Neither Greek nor Latin ever really transcribed Semitic glottal stops. Presumably /ʔa/ sounded more like /∅a/ than /ha/ to them (as it does to most English-speakers)." CreationDate="2021-08-24T21:39:54.803" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34724" PostId="16709" Score="0" Text="And why wasn't the 'š' sound in Hebrew transliterated as 'si' before an 'a'? Wouldn't it sound closer?" CreationDate="2021-08-24T21:44:29.307" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="34725" PostId="16709" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler Hebrew shin is consistently transcribed as sigma in the LXX and S in the Vulgate (hence &quot;Jesus&quot;). The same may be true of Punic, or the Punic sibilants may just have merged before any Latin transcriptions happened." CreationDate="2021-08-24T23:11:18.777" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34735" PostId="16712" Score="1" Text="You know, you could just ask them? For example, Daniel Petterson regularly responds to comments on his [Youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxS3m8PITAWuADD9Nic1YOg)." CreationDate="2021-08-25T15:08:30.450" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34736" PostId="16712" Score="0" Text="Yea, but that wouldn't explain why more than 97% of the community is doing it." CreationDate="2021-08-25T15:33:25.440" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="34739" PostId="16712" Score="0" Text="&quot;This is a contradiction. If you admit that the final 'm' should be elided when followed by 'est', then you do so not because 'est' had some strange properties…&quot; I mean, est _did_ have some strange properties with regards to elision. Look up prodelision." CreationDate="2021-08-25T16:47:50.613" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34730" PostId="16713" Score="2" Text="Two things: (1) I think you want *magni* (nominative), since this isn't an ACI construction, and (2) I don't think the imperfect subjunctive works here, since the main verb is present." CreationDate="2021-08-25T12:52:14.443" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34731" PostId="16713" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Thank you. I thought &quot;would dare&quot; would require the subjunctive?" CreationDate="2021-08-25T13:30:58.953" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34732" PostId="16713" Score="3" Text="In this case I think you could use the present subjunctive (*audeant*). But doesn't *audeo* stray a bit from the OP's sentence?" CreationDate="2021-08-25T13:38:13.663" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34738" PostId="16713" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Yes, but I wasn't sure about &quot;would be great&quot;, &quot;magni sint/ essent&quot;; &quot;sunt&quot; would suggest that &quot;they&quot; are already great, without having served, wouldn't it?" CreationDate="2021-08-25T15:37:39.950" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34746" PostId="16718" Score="0" Text="Also, the *Via Latina* was the name of an important Roman road leading (approximately) east for 200km from Rome. However the Porta Capena area of Rome had become run-down and was demolished and rebuilt in the 2nd century, and the location was renamed the *Porta Appia*, which was the starting point of a different road, the Appian Way, connecting Rome to the coast at what is now Naples" CreationDate="2021-08-26T15:12:53.467" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="34747" PostId="16719" Score="3" Text="I have a lingering problem with &quot;serviendum est iis&quot; here and above: since *servire* takes the dative, it's inherently ambiguous in a pretty big way, allowing a reading that pretty much reverses the intended meaning." CreationDate="2021-08-26T16:03:00.333" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34748" PostId="16719" Score="1" Text="I have the same issue as brianpck. Even though I know what this is supposed to say, when I see it my brain wants to read it as 'One must serve those who want....' Perhaps ablative of agent would be preferable in this instance?" CreationDate="2021-08-26T16:25:47.487" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34749" PostId="16719" Score="1" Text="The same occurred to me, actually, on reading it again." CreationDate="2021-08-26T16:51:57.307" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34762" PostId="16719" Score="0" Text="@cnread: English impersonal pronoun &quot;one&quot; is a convenient English rendition of the Latin gerundive e.g. &quot;nunc est bibendum&quot; = &quot;now one must drink&quot;. To say the literal &quot;...it ought-to-be-drunk&quot; is clumsy &amp; jerky to English ears; but, to the Romans it was natural. If that is so, then &quot;serviendum est&quot; works here, despite the ambiguity with the dative case." CreationDate="2021-08-27T08:54:22.380" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34763" PostId="16719" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Please see comment to cnread." CreationDate="2021-08-27T08:59:24.507" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34764" PostId="16719" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Classical Latin was often ambiguous, often purposefully so. Some Romans might have preferred to avoid ambiguity if they felt it impeded understanding (a case can be made for that here), but ambiguity was not always avoided." CreationDate="2021-08-27T12:37:38.277" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34766" PostId="16719" Score="2" Text="@tony, Sorry, I don't understand your point. My reservation is precisely about the ambiguity of the dative case. I have no issue with the impersonal construction itself, which is the only one possible here if a gerundive is used." CreationDate="2021-08-27T16:13:11.647" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34773" PostId="16719" Score="0" Text="@cnread: I thought that yourself was agreeing with brianpck (&quot;allowing a reading that pretty much reverses the intended meaning&quot;) giving, as you said, &quot;One must serve those who want...&quot;. Thank you for the clarification." CreationDate="2021-08-28T08:12:29.607" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34755" PostId="16720" Score="9" Text="Just to be clear: Do you want to say &quot;we exist for a short time&quot; or &quot;to put it briefly, we exist&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-08-26T20:08:49.913" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34758" PostId="16720" Score="3" Text="Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking." CreationDate="2021-08-26T21:31:36.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="34759" PostId="16723" Score="2" Text="This isn't actually disagreeing with what I was saying. I mention the Aramaic option since it's relevant, but I really did mean to imply that Jerome is just being inconsistent. I hope I made that clear with my edits." CreationDate="2021-08-26T22:39:46.863" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34761" PostId="16724" Score="3" Text="This has actually been answered before: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/3050/78" CreationDate="2021-08-27T02:42:44.190" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34768" PostId="16725" Score="0" Text="By aspiration do you mean just the sound [h], or also the aspirated stops [tʰ pʰ kʰ]?" CreationDate="2021-08-27T16:16:04.567" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34771" PostId="16725" Score="0" Text="Depends on the language: look at how Punic generally lost /h/ under Latin influence." CreationDate="2021-08-27T19:30:14.107" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34777" PostId="16725" Score="0" Text="@TKR: foremost initial h.I consider evidence on the pronuntiation of the aspirated stops valid, but secondary." CreationDate="2021-08-28T17:57:12.637" UserId="52" />
  <row Id="34772" PostId="16726" Score="0" Text="Interestingly, from this educating question alone with its survey of options, I would vote for *caro molita*, since real ground meat does not really exist, hence it must refer to minced meat; I suppose, on the other hand, that *caro concisa* for example might also refer to something else than minced meat." CreationDate="2021-08-27T22:04:16.917" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34774" PostId="16726" Score="0" Text="@d_e I would certainly agree with *molae carnariae* for &quot;meat grinder.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-28T09:47:19.750" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34775" PostId="16726" Score="0" Text="Great question. Re your last suggestion, I've often heard *panis far[c]tus* used for &quot;sandwich.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-28T12:54:01.177" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34778" PostId="16726" Score="0" Text="Do you want something strictly Classical or can we play with coinages?" CreationDate="2021-08-28T18:48:58.967" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34779" PostId="16726" Score="0" Text="@cmw It does not need to be strictly classical." CreationDate="2021-08-28T19:05:26.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34783" PostId="16729" Score="2" Text="*Isicia* is a terrific find, even if it's &quot;very rare.&quot; And look, Diocletian's Big Book of Everything [has both](http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost04/Diocletianus/dio_ep04.html) *isicium porcinum* and *isicia bubula* (why the difference in number, I wonder). This also allows for *isicia mixta*. For understandability, it is probably better to say *bubula trita* etc., though." CreationDate="2021-08-29T07:21:29.683" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34785" PostId="16729" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Yeah, I take some of those pronouncements by Lewis and Short with a grain of salt. It's inclusion in Diocletian's edict seals the deal for its worth as a usable word. And Apicius uses it [plenty](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23isicia)." CreationDate="2021-08-29T16:12:18.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34784" PostId="16730" Score="2" Text="*Noli* is a simple imperative instruction &quot;Do not&quot;: [*Noli me tangere*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noli_me_tangere) = Don't touch me (as the question says)." CreationDate="2021-08-29T08:25:33.840" UserId="7451" />
  <row Id="34788" PostId="16730" Score="3" Text="@AndrewLeach: I think Figulus knows that, but he does not feel that using *noli* with a past infinitive would work (and I think I agree)." CreationDate="2021-08-30T00:46:54.583" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34826" PostId="16730" Score="1" Text="@AndrewLeach Indeed. *Noli illud dixisse* means literally, &quot;Do not want to have said that&quot;. It's perfectly good Latin grammar, just like my literal translation is perfectly good English grammar. But the English is rather clunky, and I suspect the Latin is clunky too. Dunno. But I do know that there are well attested ways of expressing the same thought, and I gave a couple of examples. I hope they help." CreationDate="2021-08-31T01:19:23.307" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="34786" PostId="16731" Score="2" Text="Good call! Unfortunately this might attract downvotes, since link-only answers tend not to preserve very well (links break easily and often), so I posted another answer with a summary of Lupercal's proposal. Feel free to edit that information into this answer if you prefer, and I can remove the other one." CreationDate="2021-08-29T16:59:27.787" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34820" PostId="16731" Score="2" Text="Is there any specific reason the fifth declension is used? It seems too feminine to be used for a gender-inclusive paradigm, seeing as there is only one masculine fifth declension noun, and it is sometimes feminine." CreationDate="2021-08-31T00:18:40.817" UserId="9790" />
  <row Id="34789" PostId="16732" Score="0" Text="I've never heard of the NCLG...does it actually have any clout? I also have never heard of Lupercal, and (from what I can tell) it seems to be just one of many Latin reading groups. I'm just skeptical of how much of an &quot;authority&quot; we ought to be giving to a proposal that (to my ear) sounds utterly bizarre and un-Latin." CreationDate="2021-08-30T02:11:12.297" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34790" PostId="16732" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I'm not sure, honestly; I'm not part of Lupercal or affiliated with them, but I've now seen the style guide discussed in multiple separate Latin composition-related groups, so I figured that was evidence enough to deserve an answer here. (I'm not really sure what the &quot;authorities&quot; are on neo-Latin in general, apart from the Vatican, but being discussed by people composing in Latin seems like a reasonable enough metric.)" CreationDate="2021-08-30T02:31:47.093" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34845" PostId="16734" Score="0" Text="Somewhat OT - but distinctions in the sort of the conflict between the &quot;heart&quot; and &quot;mind&quot;, such as you describe as an example, are likely to be found not between *anima* and *animus*, but rather between *animus* and *ego*. cf. Syrus: *&quot;Animo imperato ne tibi animus imperet&quot;*. and from Seneca: *&quot;Volo tibi multa alia scribere, sed totus animus in hac una contemplatione defixus est&quot;*. But this needs further investigation, as we may find expressions like *&quot;ex animo volo&quot;*" CreationDate="2021-08-31T09:18:36.690" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34847" PostId="16734" Score="0" Text="@d_e That sounds like a good starting point for a follow-up question. This topic has certainly not been exhausted." CreationDate="2021-08-31T10:10:08.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34865" PostId="16734" Score="1" Text="There are some really good examples in the TLL, https://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#8438 (s.v. animus), e.g." CreationDate="2021-08-31T18:08:23.610" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34885" PostId="16734" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. That looks very promising! If you or anyone else could post the relevant examples as an answer, even without any discussion, that'd be much appreciated." CreationDate="2021-09-01T07:06:00.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34792" PostId="16736" Score="1" Text="I have a faint recollection that Erkki Palmén's PhD thesis *De adverbiis pronominalibus localibus latinis: studia semantica et syntactica* from 1998 discusses verbless orders like *huc!* but I don't own a copy." CreationDate="2021-08-30T13:58:04.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34793" PostId="16737" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Does it make more sense to you if you use the passive participle form of _ducere_?" CreationDate="2021-08-30T14:25:15.220" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34794" PostId="16737" Score="0" Text="Is that the P.P.P form? Ok I think I get what you mean with the help of an example on my book, but is there a reason the form of the verb &quot;to be&quot; has to be added? Or is it just something that goes with the perfect passive tense?" CreationDate="2021-08-30T14:31:57.873" UserId="10074" />
  <row Id="34799" PostId="16737" Score="3" Text="This is the first question in the history of this site to be answered by all four moderators and nobody else." CreationDate="2021-08-30T18:28:44.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34818" PostId="16737" Score="0" Text="Wow very cool, but anyways thanks everyone! My question is solved :)" CreationDate="2021-08-31T00:04:35.193" UserId="10074" />
  <row Id="34822" PostId="16737" Score="1" Text="@sheepscholar If your question is solved, don't forget to upvote and mark as ✓ the one you feel answered it best." CreationDate="2021-08-31T00:33:04.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34827" PostId="16737" Score="4" Text="I've just seen that the author of the textbook you mention (_So you really want to learn Latin_) has some interesting material in youtube for learners of Latin. The particular sentence you're interested in is discussed at 11:06 in this videoclip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrG1DWrM5Xg  Don't miss his funny song at 4:49!" CreationDate="2021-08-31T01:39:16.707" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34846" PostId="16737" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I learned Latin from Nicholas-Oulton's series-of-three books and have quoted from them.  Most notably, his teachings on the gerund/ gerundive.  (On CHAT there has just been an interesting debate on active/ passive translations of gerundive &quot;serviendum&quot;, which might interest yourself.) Linked to  Mr. Oulton's three texts is &quot;Latin Translations&quot; by Betty Halifax. A delightful work in which tales from Roman mythology are written in elementary Latin." CreationDate="2021-08-31T09:38:00.277" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34959" PostId="16737" Score="0" Text="@tony Thanks for this information. Mr. Oulton seems to be a very motivated teacher (I took a look at some of his interesting videoclips at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5P-g7uXmTfMVWCxhzIZy_g ). It's very important to have teachers who really love their subject and he seems to be one of them. So I'm sure you made a very good decision in learning Latin from his books." CreationDate="2021-09-05T16:04:07.517" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34801" PostId="16738" Score="2" Text="Are you looking for a machine translation? Unfortunately, none exists that can produce a reliably good (or even decent) translation." CreationDate="2021-08-30T18:59:24.443" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34816" PostId="16738" Score="0" Text="ok I see...that is very sad." CreationDate="2021-08-31T00:03:16.727" UserId="10074" />
  <row Id="42916" PostId="16738" Score="0" Text="@brianpck   is http://latin-english.com/ created for the translation? I can't open it." CreationDate="2023-04-14T07:40:53.240" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="34878" PostId="16739" Score="1" Text="Thanks! And thanks also for an introduction ot your Collocation Tool." CreationDate="2021-08-31T20:42:17.030" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="34800" PostId="16740" Score="4" Text="It can be helpful to think of *ductus* as 'having-been-led' in English, so 'I am having-been-led' for 'I was led'." CreationDate="2021-08-30T18:35:43.767" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34853" PostId="16740" Score="0" Text="Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/129128/discussion-on-answer-by-cmw-why-is-est-added-to-the-end-of-this-sentence)." CreationDate="2021-08-31T15:03:20.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34884" PostId="16740" Score="2" Text="@dbmag9 I often find that it's very helpful to &quot;rationalize&quot; concepts from other languages in the way you just described. It helps me bridge the mental gap between how I express ideas and how a native speaker might express similar ideas." CreationDate="2021-09-01T01:02:57.797" UserId="111" />
  <row Id="34829" PostId="16741" Score="0" Text="A minor comment on your following statement, which, I think, is correct but can be qualified: &quot;you could actually form this sentence (sc. _Puella per portās urbis ducta est_) without the est&quot;. As pointed out in the comments in Joonas's answer, it seems that the omission of the copula in finite forms of passive constructions is not as typical as one could expect. Philologically speaking, it may also have some interest to study why this omission in this particular context is more typical in Varro, Vergil, Livy or Tacitus but much less so in Cicero." CreationDate="2021-08-31T02:05:34.487" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34830" PostId="16741" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: A simple answer might be: highly stylised, and metrically influenced, language tends to take more liberties with standard syntax?" CreationDate="2021-08-31T02:06:28.360" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34834" PostId="16741" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yes, I tend to agree with you. However, concerning this phenomenon, the notion of &quot;highly stylised&quot; should be made more precise. It seems that the omission of finite forms of auxiliary _esse_ becomes more frequent from Livy onwards. I'm not sure if that change is just a matter of stylistics." CreationDate="2021-08-31T03:30:54.070" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34840" PostId="16741" Score="1" Text="Draconis, it seems to me that your literal paraphrase of OP's example is very adequate: &quot;she is (_est_) in a state of having been led (_ducta_)&quot; (sc. by someone). This non-ambiguous example can be compared with the famous one _Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres_, which is, in principle, ambiguous between two readings: 'all Gaul is divided...' (&quot;adjectival passive&quot; reading; the preferred one; cf. past: _fuit divisa_) &amp; 'all Gaul {has been/was} divided...' (&quot;verbal passive&quot; reading; cf. present: _dividitur_).  Would you then give different paraphrases/analyses for each of these two readings?" CreationDate="2021-08-31T08:03:24.620" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34851" PostId="16741" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino &quot;Is divided&quot; vs &quot;has been divided&quot; seems like it captures the adjectival/verbal distinction well there, because &quot;divided&quot; is common adjectivally in English (&quot;divided highway&quot;) and isn't common in the present passive. But I don't know of a good general way to translate that distinction, because &quot;is ---ed&quot; can also be present passive with a verbal meaning (&quot;is led&quot; for example sounds verbal rather than adjectival to me)." CreationDate="2021-08-31T14:51:41.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34855" PostId="16741" Score="0" Text="From your interesting and indeed appropriate paraphrase above of OP's example, I'd expect that perhaps you'd assign these two different paraphrases to Caesar's famous example: 1) the adjectival passive reading (the preferred one): 'all Gaul is in a state of divided&quot; and 2) the verbal passive reading: 'all Gaul is in a state of having been divided' (sc. by someone).  As you probably already know, in Spanish this distinction is more transparently captured by the _estar/ser_ copular alternation: cf. &quot;La Galia {está dividida (adjectival passive)/ha sido dividida (verbal passive)}&quot;." CreationDate="2021-08-31T15:19:17.977" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34856" PostId="16741" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino The problem there is that &quot;in a state of divided&quot; doesn't sound grammatical to me; I'd say &quot;in a state of division&quot; which only works when the verb has a convenient derived noun." CreationDate="2021-08-31T15:31:01.710" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34862" PostId="16741" Score="2" Text="The informal semantic paraphrases aren't intended to sound natural (nor even grammatical) but to capture the abstract meanings involved. Adjectival passive = Gallia DIVISA est, where the state of 'divided' does not contain the agentivity layer. In contrast, verbal passive = Gallia DIVISA est, where the state of 'divided' does include causativity/agentivity. Crucially, a state 'divided' is involved in both cases, i.e. in both cases we have a participle (as you say, an &quot;adjective&quot;) but the &quot;verbal passive&quot; one is more complex. NB: the category of Aspect can be understood as a stativizer." CreationDate="2021-08-31T17:03:17.323" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34806" PostId="16742" Score="2" Text="Genuinely curious: do you know of any examples where the *est* is left implicit in a passive construction like this? The &quot;est&quot; stops me from reading it as a participial phrase. If I saw, &quot;frater ab hoste occisus,&quot; I can't help reading it as incomplete: &quot;My brother, who was killed by the enemy, ....&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-30T20:11:08.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34808" PostId="16742" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Good question! That has been extremely rare in my experience, limited to uses where succinctness is a stylistic choice. I gave the wrong impression in the answer; I'll try to retone it." CreationDate="2021-08-30T21:07:45.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34813" PostId="16742" Score="3" Text="@brianpck  These examples are not typical but can sometimes be found. Cf. the first sentence in https://latin.packhum.org/loc/684/2/82#82 As for subordination contexts, the omission of the copula in passive constructions is probably even less typical but can also be found: e.g., cf. https://latin.packhum.org/loc/690/3/0/23956-23972#0" CreationDate="2021-08-30T22:23:58.203" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34836" PostId="16742" Score="2" Text="Given the **different** copulas you've put in bold (Engl. **was** / Lat. **est**), I imagine that some beginners could wonder about the reason of this difference. In fact, it is quite probable that this point is the source of OP's question (the OP does not seem to understand the role of _est_ (PP) in a construction that is translated as _was_ (PP)). As for your interesting comment/reply to brianpck above, it could also be a good idea to advise the learners of Latin that the copula is more frequently omitted in infinitival subordinate clauses (_puellam per portās urbis ductam_ (_esse_))." CreationDate="2021-08-31T04:53:07.423" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34842" PostId="16742" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino True, the difference in copulas can cause confusion. I interpreted the question here as asking why a copula is there in the first place, so I took a simple approach to just that. The way I see it, the difference in tense is due to the English *led* being effectively a present passive participle but *ducta* being a past passive participle. I can't make sense of English passive syntax unless I allow the passive participles to be of the present tense at times. Perhaps this is due to Finnish having both past and present participles for both active and passive voice." CreationDate="2021-08-31T08:55:59.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34798" PostId="16743" Score="1" Text="Excellent point! The adjective *novum* is particularly prefixable, but that will certainly not be the case with all adjectives that can come as parts of geographic names. The genitive is an easy and safe bet." CreationDate="2021-08-30T18:04:01.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34815" PostId="16744" Score="0" Text="An orthogonal point on your &quot;particularly chosen&quot; examples (the ones in bold): in order to preserve the exact typological parallelism with the Dutch form _**af**geleid_ (cf. also the lexicalized form in Fr. _dé-rivé_), one would expect to find this prefix in Latin as well (_**de**ductum_)." CreationDate="2021-08-30T23:47:47.953" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34819" PostId="16744" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino: Indeed! Though then one no longer exactly has the participle *duct-* from the Question. To be quite honest, I mainly posted this answer because it was funny to have all moderators post somewhat equal answers." CreationDate="2021-08-31T00:05:44.943" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34823" PostId="16744" Score="0" Text="Yes, as noted/acknowledged, my comment above was orthogonal to the question at issue but, to tell you the truth, I couldn't help raising this point because of the very important typological parallelism between Latin and Germanic languages (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11083/are-latin-verbs-of-motion-satellite-framed-or-verb-framed )." CreationDate="2021-08-31T00:46:28.837" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34828" PostId="16744" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Noted, though I think that terminology is somewhat odd. I would rather say something like 'radical and extraradical directionality of verbs'? Then there is the matter of defining roots which is important..." CreationDate="2021-08-31T02:04:25.970" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34833" PostId="16744" Score="0" Text="Yes, you're right. Talmy's (1991, 2000) famous terminology (verb-framed vs. satellite-framed languages) is not only, as you say, &quot;somewhat odd&quot; but, what is worse, _can_ be quite misleading when dealing with Latin (or Slavic languages). However, his terminology is, _nolens volens_, the one that is by far (!) more widespread in the linguistic literature." CreationDate="2021-08-31T02:15:53.177" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34837" PostId="16744" Score="0" Text="Turning back to the issue, I was wondering if your two examples will be clear enough for the OP to understand what you mean: the two examples you've selected can (also) be interpreted as involving an **adjectival** passive, right? (cf. the OP's example, which _clearly/only_ involves a **verbal** passive). In order to clarify this issue, perhaps you could deal with the difference in English between &quot;This word is derived from...&quot; &amp; &quot;This word {was/has been} derived from...&quot;  and its connection with the potential ambiguity of _verbum est (de)ductum de_...  (its adjectival and verbal readings)." CreationDate="2021-08-31T06:29:09.560" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34839" PostId="16744" Score="0" Text="Cf. _Caesar mortuus est_ and/or _Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres_, which are, in principle, ambiguous between two readings: 'Caesar is dead' (adjectival reading) &amp; 'Caesar died' (verbal reading); 'all Gaul is divided...' (adjectival reading; the preferred one here) &amp; 'all Gaul {has been/was} divided...' (verbal reading). For related discussion, see  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/on-the-typical-ambiguity-of-porta-clausa-est  E.g., cf. the verbal passive _porta {clauditur/ **clausa est** } a Gaio_ with the adjectival passive _porta **clausa**  {**est** /fuit} (??a Gaio_)." CreationDate="2021-08-31T07:35:35.123" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34803" PostId="16745" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I hadn't considered a subjunctive. I also forgot that _domus_ is 2nd declension feminine. Every student should study. :P" CreationDate="2021-08-30T19:09:35.963" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34804" PostId="16745" Score="1" Text="@Adam Declension-wise, *domus* is a wild mix of 2nd and 4th declension forms ;-)" CreationDate="2021-08-30T19:18:58.590" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34863" PostId="16745" Score="0" Text="I agree with your suggestion. Given the marked modality of the sentence, I was wondering if the most natural word order would be the one you've given. By the way, do you know if there are any good materials/books/... to learn the **information structure** facts of Latin? I know there are some technical works (e.g. https://classics.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj10936/f/devine_cv.pdf ) on this very important issue, which is, by the way, often neglected by those who speak Latin, even by the ones who are considered to speak it &quot;fluently&quot;. I'd be happy to consult these materials if available." CreationDate="2021-08-31T17:33:13.917" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34871" PostId="16745" Score="0" Text="@Mitonimo I wanted to change as little as possible in the sentence; otherwise my intuition would be to put the *sit* at the beginning of the sentence, *memor* of examples like &quot;Sit venia verbo,&quot; &quot;Sit laus Deo patri,&quot; &quot;Sit terra tibi levis&quot; and others. Linguistic treatments of the subject are way above my pay grade..." CreationDate="2021-08-31T19:31:24.153" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34872" PostId="16745" Score="0" Text="I also thought the sentence would benefit from a little helping of *quisque*, but that is non-trivial and would need a complete overhaul of the structure, I think." CreationDate="2021-08-31T19:33:10.487" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34879" PostId="16745" Score="0" Text="Yes, to put the verb _sit_ at the beginning of the sentence seems a more natural option. BTW, I was not asking for theoretical &quot;linguistic treatments&quot; of information structure like the ones included in the link above but rather for more _applied_ materials, i.e. with a L2 learner-based perspective. I'd be interested in taking a look at _practical_ materials that help the learner to acquire Latin word order from general to more specific aspects (the materials I know of are too general and even quite vague and don't address the topic of Latin word order as its complexity would deserve)." CreationDate="2021-08-31T21:10:31.347" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34886" PostId="16745" Score="1" Text="@Mitonimo my go-to resource has lately been, mirabile dictu, the [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_word_order#Initial_verb) on Latin word order, which is amazingly detailed and seems to be well-researched and based, at least in part, on relatively recent research. Unfortunately it has little to say on the initial *sit* here." CreationDate="2021-09-01T07:27:32.170" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34888" PostId="16745" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel  Many thanks for providing me this link. I've taken a look at it and I've seen that it's quite detailed. BTW, please note that my nickname is Mitomino (not Mitonimo). I'm just pointing it out to you because if you've have replied to other comments of mine, I won't have received them in my inbox." CreationDate="2021-09-01T14:44:15.043" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="34892" PostId="16745" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino oops, I am quite sorry, for whatever reason the mobile version of SE offers no auto-completion, and for manual entry, eheu, farcimina pro digitis habere videor :/" CreationDate="2021-09-02T02:53:35.663" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34824" PostId="16746" Score="3" Text="Try the Loeb: &quot;But some of them have said that the heart is the local habitation of the soul, whilst others place it in the brain; others however identify soul and breath as we Romans practically do—the name explains this,for we speak of &quot;giving up the ghost&quot; and &quot;expiring&quot; and of &quot;spirited people&quot; and &quot;people of good spirit&quot; and &quot;to the best of one's belief&quot;.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-08-31T01:09:57.317" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34825" PostId="16746" Score="1" Text="Clearly, though, the English can't get Latin's nuance across!" CreationDate="2021-08-31T01:10:24.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34841" PostId="16746" Score="0" Text="There is some interpunction missing, a [dash](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0474,049:1:19) after *nostri*. That should clear the grammar up a bit. (In my opinion a full stop would work as well, but what do I know.)" CreationDate="2021-08-31T08:05:44.777" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34850" PostId="16748" Score="2" Text="I hate to tell you this, but it looks like the artist put *mature* instead of *mutare* in the fourth line." CreationDate="2021-08-31T13:16:21.457" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34877" PostId="16748" Score="1" Text="On the plus side, at least mature is an actual Latin word, so some sense can still be made of what's there: 'and the courage to change what I'm able [to change] in plenty of time.'" CreationDate="2021-08-31T20:28:10.173" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="34869" PostId="16749" Score="1" Text="Plato contrasted the &quot;reasoning part&quot; (λογιστικόν), spirit (θύμος), and desire (ἐπιθυμία), giving examples of how they come apart in the *Republic* (among other places). Aristotle also talks extensively about the relationship between reason and the passions, especially in *Nicomachean Ethics* VII. But perhaps you are looking for something in Latin?" CreationDate="2021-08-31T19:21:16.033" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34875" PostId="16749" Score="0" Text="@brianpck, thanks for that. well, I was more oriented in Latin (as I don't know any Greek), I wonder how those terms were translated in Latin of the classical period, but more interested in causal way of speaking rather than deep philosophical .  At any case this can constitute an answer." CreationDate="2021-08-31T20:07:08.097" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34861" PostId="16750" Score="0" Text="A very direct counterpart to the English 'everybody out!'." CreationDate="2021-08-31T17:02:49.893" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34883" PostId="16750" Score="0" Text="Interesting! I wonder how long that phrase has been used that way, and if it became commonly taken that way by use in the Church or if it already had that meaning." CreationDate="2021-09-01T00:57:47.307" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="34866" PostId="16751" Score="0" Text="The gerundive is *passive* so eundum doesn't mean `must go home`" CreationDate="2021-08-31T18:31:29.643" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="34867" PostId="16751" Score="0" Text="@eques I wondered that, but Googling 'eundum est' seems to give instances where it is used in the active sense. For example this Google Books link (*A Copious Latin Grammar, Volume 1*, p. 321) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VfCrpJDU2R4C&amp;pg=PA321&amp;lpg=PA321&amp;dq=eundum+est&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xb1DBMTGFf&amp;sig=ACfU3U1wS_5zZqoiOqqzGgOe6vIy3dobwg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwitr7Lj9NvyAhUTecAKHdmSDCsQ6AF6BAgiEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=eundum%20est&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-08-31T18:43:33.667" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34868" PostId="16751" Score="0" Text="interesting. I'm not sure what that author means by &quot;has the name of a gerund&quot; but it seems similar to using intransitive verbs as passive impersonal (ventum est - there was a coming)" CreationDate="2021-08-31T19:13:22.573" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="34870" PostId="16751" Score="0" Text="@eques this is an impersonal construction, which has active meaning. Note that *eundum* is neuter and agrees with nothing in the sentence. *Draco titilandus* is different because there the gerundive agrees with the noun, and thus you could not do it with an intransitive verb like *ire*." CreationDate="2021-08-31T19:26:01.320" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34873" PostId="16751" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel yes. I got that from the link. Impersonal gerundives of intransitive verbs are not a particularly common form as far as I've seen." CreationDate="2021-08-31T19:39:38.160" UserId="714" />
  <row Id="34876" PostId="16751" Score="1" Text="@eques Maybe so, although I can think of two famous Latin expressions: *de gustibus non est disputandum* and *nunc est bibendum* -- in both cases the verb is used intransitively." CreationDate="2021-08-31T20:20:42.153" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34874" PostId="16752" Score="1" Text="See L &amp; S [exigo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dexigo) II B 7: &quot;To treat, consult, deliberate respecting something, = considerare, deliberare (class. but not in Cic.)&quot; -- examples include *cum eo, cum aliqo, secum* -- would that make sense? (I suppose yes, if Socrates was in an argument with the nature of things.)" CreationDate="2021-08-31T20:01:40.130" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34880" PostId="16752" Score="0" Text="Thanks so much for the response; that's further than I got; but I think Kingshorsey has hit the nail on the head." CreationDate="2021-08-31T22:13:42.603" UserId="10079" />
  <row Id="34881" PostId="16753" Score="1" Text="Thanks so much for this response.  It solves the grammatical mystery, and you've helped me appreciate a nuance of Seneca's philosophical position that had escaped me.  My first time posting a question -- the bar has been set high!" CreationDate="2021-08-31T22:15:19.750" UserId="10079" />
  <row Id="34890" PostId="16755" Score="3" Text="Are you looking for an audio recording of someone reading it, or? FWIW, it sounds more like the groom('s father) is talking to the bride's father." CreationDate="2021-09-01T21:52:02.997" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34891" PostId="16755" Score="0" Text="Yes  looking for an audio recording of someone reading it!" CreationDate="2021-09-02T02:20:35.840" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="36373" PostId="16755" Score="1" Text="I might be willing to do it, but don't know an easy way of sharing a sound file." CreationDate="2021-12-21T17:45:18.973" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36387" PostId="16755" Score="1" Text="click play. https://translate.google.es/?hl=es&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;text=Spondesne%20Gaiam%2C%20tuam%20filiam%2C%20mihi%20uxorem%20dari%3F%20Di%20bene%20vortant!%20Spondeo%2C%20Di%20bene%20vortant!&amp;op=translate" CreationDate="2021-12-22T18:06:52.890" UserId="1784" />
  <row Id="34889" PostId="16757" Score="3" Text="Just as a note, you couldn't use *erat* in that sentence, because you already have a finite verb *veni*." CreationDate="2021-09-01T17:48:21.023" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34893" PostId="16757" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I wasn't sure about that hence the brackets, and separating the adverbs seemed like a good idea." CreationDate="2021-09-02T08:44:18.127" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="34899" PostId="16757" Score="1" Text="[nequiquam](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nequiquam) and [nequaquam](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nequaquam) are not so common, that you can look through every passage they appear in relatively easily." CreationDate="2021-09-02T12:22:09.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34900" PostId="16757" Score="1" Text="I don't see it placed next to *nullo modo* anywhere. Of course that doesn't mean it can't, just that it hadn't." CreationDate="2021-09-02T12:23:10.390" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34897" PostId="16761" Score="1" Text="Wouldn't *conari* be in indicative since that's what I'm *trying* to do?" CreationDate="2021-09-02T11:58:22.430" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34898" PostId="16761" Score="3" Text="@JohhanSantana If you want to say &quot;I am trying&quot;, then yes, *conor* (present indicative for present continuous) is appropriate. You asked about a sentence fragment in your title so I kept the main verb in the infinitive." CreationDate="2021-09-02T12:03:18.243" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="34901" PostId="16761" Score="2" Text="@JohhanSantana *Trying* buying itself would be a participle. *To try* is the infinitive. *I am trying* is different from *trying* in a sentence like, &quot;The parents, trying to get their child asleep, tried every trick in the book.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-02T12:40:59.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34902" PostId="16761" Score="0" Text="ahh sorry. Bad English habits. Updated title." CreationDate="2021-09-02T12:53:08.047" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34905" PostId="16761" Score="0" Text="&quot;it does have a 1sg facio, but it's irregular&quot; &lt;-- nothing irregular about that, though." CreationDate="2021-09-02T16:07:00.623" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34896" PostId="16763" Score="0" Text="Where is this plaque? The environment, coupled with the mostly German names suggests the Alps. Does googling the names on the plaque yield anything useful? Walter Hallauer seems to be a reasonably unusual name; currently I am finding https://www.esti.admin.ch/en/the-esti/organization/organization" CreationDate="2021-09-02T11:46:12.720" UserId="1659" />
  <row Id="34913" PostId="16765" Score="1" Text="&quot;If we don't remember it, we can look it up in the dictionary.&quot; Solid advice!" CreationDate="2021-09-03T00:10:51.763" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34908" PostId="16766" Score="1" Text="Could you explain the &quot;*nec non*&quot; bit?  As far as I can tell, it means &quot;nor not&quot;, which doesn't make much sense." CreationDate="2021-09-02T20:37:26.610" UserId="31" />
  <row Id="34909" PostId="16766" Score="3" Text="@jwodder it literally means &quot;and not not,&quot; a complicated way of saying &quot;and,&quot; I guess, but essentially it is a fixed expression. Lewis &amp; Short [translate](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dneque) it as: &quot;emphatically affirmative, *and also, and besides, and indeed, and*&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-02T20:47:39.613" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34920" PostId="16766" Score="0" Text="Aha, now it makes sense. 'Montes' is accusative, the subject of the sentence is implied. Thanks for the translation." CreationDate="2021-09-03T09:54:53.283" UserId="10086" />
  <row Id="34914" PostId="16768" Score="9" Text="where did you get the information that Google updated this?" CreationDate="2021-09-03T03:10:49.763" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="34915" PostId="16768" Score="1" Text="I had the project to build a machine translation system for Latin so I check GT quite regularly, there was also a post on r/latin." CreationDate="2021-09-03T08:00:25.083" UserDisplayName="user9785" />
  <row Id="34923" PostId="16768" Score="0" Text="@Discipulus, that's interesting. May I ask what tool did you use to lemmatize words (i.e., canem -&gt; canis, acc.)?" CreationDate="2021-09-03T11:11:51.090" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="34924" PostId="16768" Score="0" Text="Sure, I was planing to use a macroniser and then the wiktionnary API" CreationDate="2021-09-03T12:31:15.897" UserDisplayName="user9785" />
  <row Id="43612" PostId="16768" Score="0" Text="[See here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21048/translation-of-god-s-favorite-to-latin/21096#21096) for people continuing to get this _ventus_ nonsense from Google." CreationDate="2023-06-15T22:26:29.493" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="34912" PostId="16769" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer, it's very clear" CreationDate="2021-09-02T23:03:00.487" UserDisplayName="user9785" />
  <row Id="34926" PostId="16769" Score="3" Text="I wonder if your chosen example is giving an overly positive impression, since it is precisely this kind of text (i.e. one with an available parallel English translation) that it is trained on." CreationDate="2021-09-03T16:28:06.713" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34931" PostId="16769" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I am under the impression that the examples OP used are English to Latin of his own creation. Is that incorrect?" CreationDate="2021-09-03T22:01:10.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34936" PostId="16769" Score="0" Text="Note that Google Translate is intended (I believe) to translate foreign text into a language you know, so that you can correct any errors of case of preposition usage etc. Thus the sort of errors you have identified here are entirely to be expected — although as you say, there are fewer than there have been. It's not intended to be a professional translator and translate *your* text into a language you don't know." CreationDate="2021-09-04T08:14:37.557" UserId="7451" />
  <row Id="34938" PostId="16769" Score="1" Text="@AndrewLeach That's not Google's pitch anymore. They tout having a &quot;bilingual conversation&quot; on their website. Their [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5OPRKed9c) is all about translating into a language you *don't* know in order to facilitate communication." CreationDate="2021-09-04T12:12:54.100" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34960" PostId="16769" Score="0" Text="@cmw Oh, I was actually talking about the *Historia Augusta* quote in the second half of your post. I suspect that the correct treatment of the *iudicio* typo is precisely because it was already fed that passage in its training samples!" CreationDate="2021-09-05T17:41:17.190" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="34964" PostId="16769" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Ah! That's a real possibility. I'll play around with some E-to-L typos to see what comes of that, too." CreationDate="2021-09-05T17:48:12.403" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34927" PostId="16771" Score="3" Text="What is a PPA? Participle present active?" CreationDate="2021-09-03T19:40:22.780" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34928" PostId="16771" Score="1" Text="Yeah, can you clarify what you mean? Quick answer, though, is that no, these are not correct in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2021-09-03T19:57:16.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34929" PostId="16771" Score="1" Text="Johannes, we also have answered a question like this before. If you feel that thread doesn't answer your question fully, feel free to edit yours for clarity and to specify what further questions you might have." CreationDate="2021-09-03T20:48:57.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34930" PostId="16771" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I second the comment by @cmw and I added a number of similar questions to the list. I recommend that you take a look at those other questions and see whether they contain the answer to yours. If not, please edit to clarify your question in relation to the other ones and their answers. There can well be an excellent original question in there, but it needs some distilling." CreationDate="2021-09-03T20:53:45.230" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34932" PostId="16773" Score="1" Text="Are you sure that *sanguine multo* is not just the ablative of *sanguis multus*?" CreationDate="2021-09-04T02:09:18.603" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="34933" PostId="16773" Score="0" Text="o yea, I didn't see that. Thanks." CreationDate="2021-09-04T03:10:24.890" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="34934" PostId="16775" Score="0" Text="Cool, thanks..." CreationDate="2021-09-04T03:10:37.490" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="34935" PostId="16776" Score="4" Text="Any language will have different mandatory information: in Hebrew even first person verb forms are gendered (so 'I walk' is different for a male or female agent) while in English they are not, in Chinese verbs (as I understand it) do not have tense while in English tense is compulsory. Such differences are just something to get used to when learning a new language." CreationDate="2021-09-04T07:33:42.603" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="34943" PostId="16776" Score="1" Text="Also note that it would work differently in Latin anyway because it has grammatical gender. You can see that even in German, which is a (comparatively) close relative of English: &quot;Sie ist zu spät&quot; means &quot;she is too late,&quot; but it could also refer to a train (die Bahn), a delivery (die Lieferung) or basically any feminine noun that we could imagine being too late." CreationDate="2021-09-04T17:12:06.670" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34954" PostId="16780" Score="0" Text="*Illius* is indeed a strange choice, but *cuius* would also be a strange choice, since authors tend to shy away from having two different relative pronouns (*quo* and *cuius*) having the same antecedant. Would *eiusdem* have been better?" CreationDate="2021-09-05T03:08:10.480" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="34958" PostId="16780" Score="1" Text="@Figulus I wouldn't be so sure, e.g. Cicero: *... semper aliqui anquirendi sunt quos diligamus et a quibus diligamur; caritate enim benevolentiaque sublata omnis est e vita sublata iucunditas* (Laelius de amicita 102)." CreationDate="2021-09-05T16:02:31.287" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34973" PostId="16780" Score="0" Text="Obviously, you are right, and I misspoke. I should have said &quot;two relative pronouns *in the same relative clause*&quot;. Thanks for the correction." CreationDate="2021-09-06T01:52:43.420" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="34944" PostId="16781" Score="2" Text="I have read some of Plautus trying to find ambiguous cases of the 3rd person singular and have not found any. It seems that any time he uses the 3rd person singular, there is always an explicit subject of some kind with an explicit gender. Usually there will either be the name of the person doing the action (which is gendered) or he will use the words is, ea or id. So, maybe you could give examples of real Latin in the 3rd person singular where gender is ambiguous?" CreationDate="2021-09-04T17:14:01.443" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="34946" PostId="16781" Score="3" Text="*Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.* Cic. Cat. 2, 1 " CreationDate="2021-09-04T17:18:09.373" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="34947" PostId="16781" Score="3" Text="*Angelus Domini annuntiavit Mariae, et concepit de Spiritu Sancto*, &quot;The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary, and *she* conceived by the Holy Ghost&quot;. *Concepit* has no gender, so you need context to tell whether *he* conceived, or *she* conceived." CreationDate="2021-09-04T17:53:48.877" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35899" PostId="16781" Score="1" Text="@Figulus That example is not ambiguous because Mariae is feminine." CreationDate="2021-11-21T13:35:37.893" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35938" PostId="16781" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden, Indeed, but Angelus is masculine. You need to know who did the conceiving. That's what I mean by context." CreationDate="2021-11-23T03:58:19.510" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35015" PostId="16785" Score="1" Text="The discussion in the comments had taken an undesirable turn and the whole chain was deleted. I think this answer is correct and very close to the state of the art: Not enough is known about Etruscan to make a reliable and complete translation and the best resource for further details is the scientific literature on the matter. We discussed options between the moderators, and nuking the comments and leaving the answer struck us as the best solution." CreationDate="2021-09-08T15:07:03.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35016" PostId="16785" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta OK, I am sorry. Do you at least think the question I asked is good?" CreationDate="2021-09-08T18:30:14.910" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="35017" PostId="16785" Score="2" Text="Yes, I think the question is good. It is on-topic, the goal is clear, and you provide a good attempt of your own to reach that goal. What was lacking was modesty and openness in response to volunteered help from others. This answer presents the best of tools and conclusions available. Both can feel insufficient, but that is often just how things are. // To avoid derailing this comment chain from commenting on Alex's answer, please use [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) or meta if you want to discuss matters further. You are very welcome to do so!" CreationDate="2021-09-08T20:04:12.760" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40439" PostId="16785" Score="2" Text="Hi Alex, would it be possible to convince you to undelete this answer? It has interesting information that would be useful to people beyond the OP, whatever your opinion of him might be. I will understand if you refuse, but I thought to at least ask." CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:17:08.550" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40442" PostId="16785" Score="3" Text="@cmw of course, just undeleted." CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:46:11.683" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34961" PostId="16787" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, Aaron! Can you edit your question (not just leave a comment but actually edit the question) to explain what you want to mean by &quot;ludic cosmology&quot;? To get a good translation it's not enough to have the words but the intent behind them, and this is an issue with translating short phrases." CreationDate="2021-09-05T17:42:59.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34963" PostId="16787" Score="0" Text="I closed the question but it will certainly be reopened if you can elaborate on what you are after. This is a promising question but in need of a bit of polishing." CreationDate="2021-09-05T17:44:29.977" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34965" PostId="16787" Score="2" Text="Thanks! I reopened the question. It would help if you could explain what &quot;ludic cosmology&quot; means to you; this is the first time I've heard the word &quot;ludic&quot;, so I can offer no translation. But perhaps someone else can." CreationDate="2021-09-05T17:57:51.687" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34966" PostId="16787" Score="3" Text="Aaron, can you explain what exactly is ludic cosmology and where you found that term? We can't translate something if we don't know what it means!" CreationDate="2021-09-05T18:24:19.313" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34968" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I didn't realize this was a semi-deponent verb. Deponents (semi or otherwise) have tripped me up more than once, I'm still trying to get a solid handle on them." CreationDate="2021-09-06T00:51:13.263" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="34969" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="How do you know if a verb is a deponent verb? Is that just a vocabulary thing that you need to know which verbs are deponent or semi-deponent? I found this [this resource](https://thelatinlibrary.com/101/Deponent.pdf) which says there are only four semi-deponent verbs, which should be easy to remember, but still not sure how to identify deponent verbs." CreationDate="2021-09-06T00:53:09.893" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="34970" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="I've looked up a few deponent verbs in [The Bantam New College Latin &amp; English Dictionary](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7829750M/The_Bantam_New_College_Latin_English_Dictionary), and it seems that for deponent verbs it lists only three principal parts, and adds &quot; sum&quot; on the last principal part, e.g., `conor, -ari, -atus sum`, whereas with regular verbs, it excludes the sum, e.g., `amo, -are, -avi, atus`. Is this a standard way for a latin dictionary to designate deponent verbs?" CreationDate="2021-09-06T01:04:23.987" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="34972" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="@Josh: As you say, the semi-deponents are very limited and can be memorised as a list. Deponent verbs there are many; in a dictionary, you will see they always have the (passive) ending *-or* as their first principal part, instead of the normal (active) *-o*, since deponents have no active finite forms at all. That is how you can recognise them in a dictionary or vocabulary. As you get to know a certain verb better, you'll remember this per verb, just as you might remember whether it's an -e- or -a- verb. Adding *sum* is not universal practice, so I would not rely on that." CreationDate="2021-09-06T01:52:35.310" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34975" PostId="16789" Score="2" Text="*With many (semi-)deponent verbs, the perfect participle has a present meaning* -- is this right? I've only ever seen perfects with present meaning in the case of defective verbs like *odi, memini*, not with deponents." CreationDate="2021-09-06T03:53:01.540" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34976" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="Yes, I suspect this answer is confusing deponent verbs with defective verbs, which are a different thing." CreationDate="2021-09-06T11:32:11.437" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="34977" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="@TKR: It is right! I have added a description from the most authoritative source available (Kühner-Stegmann) with examples. It is less common with *esse*, but this is post-classical, so all bets are off. Of course it does not apply to active perfects, as (semi-)deponents do not have those." CreationDate="2021-09-06T13:11:21.247" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34978" PostId="16789" Score="1" Text="@KefSchecter: Not at all! I have added Kühner-Stegmann's description with many examples. I thought this was commonly known, but apparently not." CreationDate="2021-09-06T13:11:54.400" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34980" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="OK, I stand corrected!" CreationDate="2021-09-06T13:27:31.907" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="34983" PostId="16789" Score="1" Text="Interesting -- that usage does look familiar but I'd never thought of it in those terms. Do you know if there are actually examples of the full verbal form with *esse*?" CreationDate="2021-09-06T17:55:44.827" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="34985" PostId="16789" Score="0" Text="@TKR: In classical Latin? I expect there to be, especially in poetry, but I don't have any examples on hand...they might be rare, not sure." CreationDate="2021-09-06T18:09:24.690" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="34974" PostId="16790" Score="0" Text="In Classical Greek drama there's an occasional use of aorists of state-of-mind verbs expressing present meaning (&quot;dramatic aorist&quot;, see e.g. Smyth sec. 1937). An example with a similar verb (though in a very different context) is *Clouds* 174 ἥσθην γαλεώτῃ καταχέσαντι Σωκράτους &quot;I like it -- a lizard shitting on Socrates!&quot;. Whether this usage persisted into the Koine, I don't know. (I'm doubtful that &quot;now&quot; is meant to reflect δέ -- that's not a usual translation of this particle.)" CreationDate="2021-09-06T02:40:21.757" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35021" PostId="16790" Score="0" Text="I took the OP's question to be more about the translation choice of the Douay-Rheims. Given that the Greek has the aorist and the Latin has the perfect...why translate with the present?" CreationDate="2021-09-09T14:58:53.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35024" PostId="16790" Score="0" Text="@brianpck On that point I'm not sure. I don't see any reason in the original Greek for that choice, apart from the rare dramatic aorist TKR mentioned (which seems like a stretch)." CreationDate="2021-09-09T16:18:42.057" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34981" PostId="16793" Score="1" Text="You might find this useful https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7353/39" CreationDate="2021-09-06T15:47:53.227" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34982" PostId="16793" Score="1" Text="and you might learn something from https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7017/39" CreationDate="2021-09-06T15:57:06.990" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="34986" PostId="16793" Score="4" Text="I hope someone else will answer this very interesting question. Meanwhile, a somewhat cryptic note from Weiss 2020, &quot;In Greek and Latin, tree and plant names are regularly feminine, probably preserving an old pattern&quot; (p. 243)." CreationDate="2021-09-06T19:02:01.470" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36423" PostId="16793" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. it doesn't seem like this question is going to get an answer :( Do you think you could post one based on the points you've made above?" CreationDate="2021-12-28T11:13:59.250" UserId="3689" />
  <row Id="36436" PostId="16793" Score="0" Text="A related wordreference thread: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/gendering-trees.3361383/" CreationDate="2021-12-28T23:44:03.937" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="36437" PostId="16793" Score="1" Text="Also see https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10939/39" CreationDate="2021-12-29T03:20:13.193" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36439" PostId="16793" Score="0" Text="Grosheva 2005 (Грошева 2005) *Индоевропейское наследие в латинских названиях деревьев*, in *Hrda manasa*, pp. 252-272. This is a festschrift in honor of L.G. Herzenberg, a famous Russian linguist." CreationDate="2021-12-29T04:45:01.667" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36440" PostId="16793" Score="0" Text="@double-beep short answer: we don’t know. I might summarize some relevant info some time later, when I have free time" CreationDate="2021-12-29T04:53:46.890" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="38169" PostId="16793" Score="0" Text="I don't know either, but I wonder whether there is some conflation between these nouns and the feminine noun *arbor*, meaning &quot;tree&quot;." CreationDate="2022-04-30T04:09:42.853" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="34984" PostId="16795" Score="3" Text="Such actor nouns are common epithets if that counts: e.g. *Mars ultor*." CreationDate="2021-09-06T17:59:22.360" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34995" PostId="16795" Score="0" Text="Are you certain that *provincia Gallia* is similar enough to *musculus extensor*? To cite a parallel in German, in the phrase *Bundesrepublik Deutschland*, *Deutschland* is a nominative form placed after *Republik*, but *Bundes* is a genitive form placed before (and the genitive case doesn't denote possession here, just a way to used nouns attributively in German). Maybe it's possible that proper names aren't exactly &quot;attributive&quot;, *Gallia* doesn't exactly &quot;modify&quot; *provincia*." CreationDate="2021-09-07T02:03:19.383" UserId="1750" />
  <row Id="34996" PostId="16795" Score="0" Text="An English parallel would be something like *the noun phrase 'noun phrase'*, in which *noun* is attributive to *phrase* and placed before it, but *'noun phrase'* is not attributive, but some kind of &quot;name&quot;, and is placed after." CreationDate="2021-09-07T02:06:13.863" UserId="1750" />
  <row Id="34997" PostId="16795" Score="2" Text="@Vun-HughVaw The key is that both nouns refer to the same entity. The place is both _provincia_ and _Gallia_. The person is both _Gallus_ and _senator_. The muscle is both _musculus_ and _extensor_. (Joonas's example: the god is both _Mars_ and _ultor_.)" CreationDate="2021-09-07T02:21:57.947" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="34999" PostId="16795" Score="0" Text="Here's the thing about these examples, they don't seem generalized enough to draw a definitive conclusion from. All these contain proper names, and from what I've seen in Romance and Germanic languages, proper names in noun phrases don't function quite the same as attributive nouns and often have some distinct constructions for themselves like those I cited above. Could you find an example that only contains common nouns for a more convincing comparison?" CreationDate="2021-09-07T02:34:31.450" UserId="1750" />
  <row Id="35000" PostId="16795" Score="3" Text="@Vun-HughVaw See Allen and Greenough 282 for more examples. Names seem relevant here, imo, because you're asking about the name of a piece of anatomy." CreationDate="2021-09-07T02:52:38.633" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35524" PostId="16795" Score="0" Text="@Vun-HughVaw E.g. from A&amp;G: *omen equos vidi* (Aen. 3.537): &quot;I saw an omen of four horses.&quot; No proper name there." CreationDate="2021-10-20T19:17:15.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="34991" PostId="16798" Score="0" Text="(I only know a little Latin, so maybe that is why I dont understand what &quot;classically attested&quot; means.) Herbarium should be correct singular nominative. I got &quot;herbaria periculosa&quot; when I asked someone else, but is that not &quot;dangerous herbaria&quot;? I am content with plural &quot;Herbaria Periculorum&quot; as in English &quot;herbaria of danger&quot; but still I wonder if Herbaria pericula would be a correct compound word when meaning two equal nominatives, a compound word as in &quot;cat litter&quot;. If not, how about &quot;pericoherbaria&quot; as a new creative compound word?" CreationDate="2021-09-07T00:01:11.343" UserId="10100" />
  <row Id="34992" PostId="16798" Score="2" Text="Do you prefer the genitive over the adjective *periculosus*? It might be a choice worth giving and discussing." CreationDate="2021-09-07T00:02:11.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="34993" PostId="16798" Score="2" Text="Yes, genitive, since the herbaria or herbarium are/is not dangerous, but it is the herbaria of danger or danger herbaria. As in house of horror or horror house, not horrific house." CreationDate="2021-09-07T00:07:43.237" UserId="10100" />
  <row Id="35002" PostId="16798" Score="3" Text="&quot;but still I wonder if Herbaria pericula would be a correct compound word when meaning two equal nominatives, a compound word as in 'cat litter'&quot; &lt;-- absolutely not. Latin does not roll that way." CreationDate="2021-09-07T10:57:44.643" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35049" PostId="16798" Score="2" Text="@Adam the adjective *herbarius, -a, -um* is certainly classical. As a book of plants, *herbarium* occurs in the [*Institutiones*](https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/cassinst1.html) of Cassiodorus (died 585), which mentions (in chap. 31) a *Herbarium Dioscoridis*, which, however, seems to be a book *about* plants, with images, not a collection as we would understand the word today." CreationDate="2021-09-10T16:43:07.130" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35014" PostId="16803" Score="1" Text="Did you find good classical words for the rest? Please share your working title and the reasoning behind it. It will be of great help to anyone who might answer." CreationDate="2021-09-08T14:17:01.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35018" PostId="16805" Score="0" Text="I never heard of the great canon before today, but based on what I read from your links, it is taken from 9 Bible passages. All 9 of those passages can be found in the Vulgate. Am I missing something?" CreationDate="2021-09-09T03:42:54.827" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35020" PostId="16805" Score="2" Text="@Figulus Yes. It contain lots and lots of purposely-made prayers. Literal Bible quotes are the least of its content." CreationDate="2021-09-09T14:02:31.383" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="35019" PostId="16806" Score="3" Text="I actually parsed: (*perpetui mansurum*) continuously persisting; (*saecula mundi*) ages of the world. This differs from your parsing. Could you add a brief explanation how your parsing is motivated by the grammatical elements? I started with *Lacer* (nom.) ... *fecit* ... *pontem* (acc.), then started fitting in the other pieces. E.g. *nobilis* is nom.  so matches up with *Lacer*, thus *nobilis Lacer*." CreationDate="2021-09-09T06:09:47.437" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="35027" PostId="16806" Score="2" Text="@njuffa The only difference seems to be that you parsed *perpetui* as the adverb, which it is not. (The usual classical form is *perpetuo*; *perpetue* exists in Late Latin.) It can only be an adjective, so it stands to reason it modifies *mundi*." CreationDate="2021-09-09T17:33:08.160" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35040" PostId="16806" Score="2" Text="@njuffa As Sebastian pointed out, *perpetui* is an adjective. It looks like it might be a nominative masculine plural, but that can't be it because the only finite verb in the sentence, *fecit*, is singular. So it must be a genitive masculine or neuter. O look! There's a masculine genitive *mundi* right there in the sentence.  Maybe it modifies that noun. The only other option is that it's a neuter substantive (*perpetui* = of a perpetual thing), but I don't see anything that clues me in to what that &quot;perpetual thing&quot; may be. So I'm stuck with the genitive of *perpetuus mundus*." CreationDate="2021-09-10T02:45:50.713" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43303" PostId="16806" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Allow me to point out that connecting bridge building with the divine had a long tradition in the Roman world, thus the office of *pontifex maximus*, with many scholar opining that the word *pontifex* quite literally originated as &quot;bridge builder&quot;. That makes me somewhat doubtful of the alternate parsing you utilized for the update." CreationDate="2023-05-29T05:23:29.533" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="43309" PostId="16806" Score="0" Text="@njuffa Good point!" CreationDate="2023-05-29T22:23:35.627" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35022" PostId="16807" Score="1" Text="I know nothing of sundials so I don't want to post this as an answer, but is the I related to the display of time somehow? It doesn't quite seem to match the &quot;1&quot; marker on the lower half from this angle, but if it was added first, then maybe they didn't have room for the &quot;A&quot; in &quot;UMBRA&quot; because the I was already there." CreationDate="2021-09-09T15:46:10.917" UserId="9062" />
  <row Id="35023" PostId="16807" Score="1" Text="What a creative hypothesis, @Agnes! I haven’t thought about that. Could be. Although the angle of the stroke indeed does not quite match the one of the line marking the hour 1 on the clock (both on the photo and from what I remember looking at it with my own eyes); if it is aligned with any of those, it’s more the line marking the hour 2 than anything else (and that isn’t perfect either)." CreationDate="2021-09-09T15:53:16.207" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35045" PostId="16807" Score="1" Text="I don't know anything about this, but regarding you comment that no-one would misspell something like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24489512" CreationDate="2021-09-10T15:55:35.693" UserId="1853" />
  <row Id="35046" PostId="16807" Score="0" Text="@CarstenS: Gosh! I guess I’m very wrong, then. Thank you for such a glaring case in point. I’ll save it for the next time I’ll need to vindicate myself for a blatant mistake. :‍–‍)" CreationDate="2021-09-10T16:09:47.320" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35047" PostId="16807" Score="0" Text="It clearly looks like *UMBRA* to me (I upvoted cmw's answer). If there's a mystery here, it's what the second letter of *D?CLINAVERUNT* is supposed to be..." CreationDate="2021-09-10T16:11:01.997" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35048" PostId="16807" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Yeah, I agree, that letter looks more like a weird lower-case *e* that was vertically extruded (or maybe even like an upper-case *P* with an added horizontal stroke at the bottom) rather than an upper-case *E* it’s supposed to be. But at least it’s there." CreationDate="2021-09-10T16:25:25.610" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35025" PostId="16808" Score="0" Text="Could be. This was one of the first things I’d thought about. That “I” stroke is too vertical, though, to be a part of a letter “A”—at least, it looks that way if we compare it to the strokes comprising “A” in “DECLINAVERUNT” there." CreationDate="2021-09-09T17:08:11.233" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35026" PostId="16808" Score="2" Text="@ib. At that point, I might just chalk it up to some kind of mistake." CreationDate="2021-09-09T17:13:06.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35028" PostId="16808" Score="0" Text="It is only reasonable, yes. But I still cannot fathom how it could have happened." CreationDate="2021-09-09T18:23:25.330" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35029" PostId="16808" Score="0" Text="(a) It’s not a quick off-hand note; it’s rather something one inscribes on the wall to stay there for decades and decades (as it has), so I cannot imagine it being a slip of the pen.&#xA;(b) It’s a direct quote, and a quote from the scripture, for God’s sake! And it’s only three words, too!&#xA;(c) It has been made by the church for the church, so there must have been someone involved in the process (at the very least supervising it) who could read the scripture and understood the words.&#xA;(d) I believe it was made in the 19th century, when people were still quite diligent in matters like these." CreationDate="2021-09-09T18:23:36.057" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35033" PostId="16808" Score="1" Text="My only guess is that it’s a mistake that had been made during a major restoration of the thing, if there ever was one. But I also find it hard to believe, as they would be tracing over existing inscribed letters." CreationDate="2021-09-09T20:22:01.390" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35034" PostId="16808" Score="3" Text="@ib. It's a puzzle, for sure, but as far as I can tell, it's not due to Latin grammar." CreationDate="2021-09-09T20:38:24.107" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35042" PostId="16808" Score="0" Text="That’s exactly what I wanted to rule out (as I don’t know enough Latin to be sure in that myself). Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-09-10T03:43:46.043" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35072" PostId="16808" Score="2" Text="@ib.: I would say a hasty restoration seems most likely. The stroke is, to me, clearly that of an A, both qua position and qua angle and size. I think this is supported by the fact that the first E in declinaverunt is also botched up. Perhaps the colour had been washed again, and the grooves had eroded in places, such that the original strokes were no longer all clearly visible; if it was cheaply repainted by someone who was tired and only knew Cyrillic letters, perhaps this was the result." CreationDate="2021-09-12T15:11:06.420" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35036" PostId="16809" Score="0" Text="Good question. As to aspect, I think it probably tends towards aorist (non-durative). But I've honestly always just translated those participle rather freely..." CreationDate="2021-09-10T00:35:30.087" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35037" PostId="16809" Score="0" Text="Kühner-Stegmann mention a &quot;bereits eingetretener Zustand&quot;." CreationDate="2021-09-10T00:37:47.250" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35041" PostId="16809" Score="0" Text="What is &quot;commonly known&quot; is that the perfect participles of some deponent verbs can be (nearly) used as present participles. This remark is not only found in the academic &quot;bible&quot; (Kühner-Stegmann) but also in more basic textbooks of Latin Grammar (e.g. see section 491 in https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/tense-participles, which contains some examples of this phenomenon). For more examples and discussion, see the text from K&amp;S provided by Cerberus: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16788/why-is-gavisus-sum-translated-now-i-rejoice-instead-of-i-rejoiced/16789#16789" CreationDate="2021-09-10T02:51:01.887" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35032" PostId="16811" Score="1" Text="Amazing stuff!! Thanks! A shame the text is not available beyond the image. Would be good to have it as a standalone text. Can't find the file to download anywhere. Plus OCR is still terrible anyway." CreationDate="2021-09-09T19:57:33.973" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="35035" PostId="16811" Score="1" Text="@luchonacho. You're welcome." CreationDate="2021-09-09T20:55:32.353" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35038" PostId="16812" Score="8" Text="Not sure how it works as a pun if you have to rearrange the letters for it to work." CreationDate="2021-09-10T01:29:03.980" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35044" PostId="16813" Score="1" Text="Brilliant explanation! I find it rather plausible that the vertical stroke is a comma of sorts; at least, there is some semantic value in it, then. It still feels a bit weird that they had chosen to abbreviate the word *umbra* like that, but I can imagine how it could have happened, given the limited space for the quote selected." CreationDate="2021-09-10T11:59:33.263" UserId="10110" />
  <row Id="35054" PostId="16814" Score="2" Text="Excellent question. I feel there *must* be, if not a standing expression, then at least some example to adopt, be it in a comedy, in a letter, or elsewhere." CreationDate="2021-09-11T16:45:59.970" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35050" PostId="16815" Score="0" Text="I asked this question with an understanding that contemporary classical Greek writers recognised 3 conjugations, and the meaning of declinatio may have changed over time." CreationDate="2021-09-10T19:33:52.497" UserId="10106" />
  <row Id="35052" PostId="16815" Score="0" Text="I forgot to include that the reason for this question is because I wish to be able to replace all the Non Latin headings in a Latin reference grammar with Latin headings." CreationDate="2021-09-11T09:24:42.483" UserId="10106" />
  <row Id="35093" PostId="16816" Score="1" Text="Quick text searches within De Lingua Latina by Marcus Terentius Varro and Attic Nights by Aulus Gellius wasn't effective. Slowly making way through these texts commencing with Attic Nights. Book II XXV of Attic nights showed use of term inaequalitas declinationum in specific contrast to proportionem based on Greek terminology, but going to see if there is consistent and repeated usage of any terms." CreationDate="2021-09-14T02:06:00.893" UserId="10106" />
  <row Id="35051" PostId="16817" Score="2" Text="Thanks! I wasn't thinking of using the gerundive, I actually like prefer it over the imperative now. I'm not sure though *clarus* is quite accurate choice here - since the &quot;bright&quot; in the English phrase is rather in the sense of 'good'/'positive' and less 'clear'/'distinguishable'; also have my doubt of *latus* which scanning L&amp;S pertains more for a literal side, and less to &quot;face/respect/angle&quot;. If you could find some usages examples for those terms and others in your answer, it would be fantastic." CreationDate="2021-09-10T21:14:51.267" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35055" PostId="16817" Score="1" Text="This is a good literal translation of the English idiom, but do you have any examples of this being used by a Latin-speaker? (French and Spanish, for instance, tend to speak of the &quot;good&quot; side of things rather than the &quot;bright&quot; side of things.)" CreationDate="2021-09-11T18:27:02.163" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37087" PostId="16817" Score="2" Text="Translated back these mean &quot;the well-visible flank must come into view&quot;, which I'm afraid has nothing to do with the question." CreationDate="2022-02-08T17:01:19.327" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35057" PostId="16819" Score="2" Text="You seem to have two questions here. Both are interesting, but I recommend asking them separately. Can you edit this one to focus on just one? // I imagine I am not the only user here who has never studied Portuguese grammar but would probably get an idea pretty quickly if you could provide a couple of example sentences, possibly with both Latin and Portuguese versions. Examples will also clarify what the question is exactly." CreationDate="2021-09-11T21:37:53.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35058" PostId="16819" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta It is just one question. How did the perfect tense evolve in each romance language. The &quot;first one&quot; is only introductory and super-specific. Just an example." CreationDate="2021-09-11T22:00:58.043" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="35059" PostId="16819" Score="1" Text="Oh, I see. That wasn't clear to me from reading the question. Either way, the question could use some fleshing out and examples. I imagine a complete story of the evolution of the Romance perfect tense could fill a book." CreationDate="2021-09-11T22:03:46.503" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35061" PostId="16819" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Better now?" CreationDate="2021-09-11T22:31:53.113" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="35060" PostId="16821" Score="1" Text="*Sudus* doesn't really mean 'bright'. It's primary meaning is 'dry', and from there it also means 'clear' when applied to weather." CreationDate="2021-09-11T22:18:33.270" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35073" PostId="16823" Score="2" Text="Giannakis, Georgios. &quot;Homeric μίμνω, ἴσχω, ἴζω and πίπτω: A Semantic Approach.&quot; *Glotta* 69, no. 1/2 (1991): 48-76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266877" CreationDate="2021-09-12T16:02:48.937" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35076" PostId="16823" Score="0" Text="There is non-paywalled access to Giannakis at https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40266877 . This may be illegal under some countries' laws. The TL;DR is that he thinks μίμνω does differ somewhat in meaning, and it tends to mean something like &quot;hold fast,&quot; &quot;hang tough.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-12T21:10:58.153" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35077" PostId="16823" Score="0" Text="If I understand Giannakis 1991 and [1997](https://catalog.library.ucla.edu/vwebv/search?searchCode1=GKEY&amp;searchType=2&amp;searchArg1=ucoclc36424833) correctly, he argues that there is a clear aspectual distinction between these two verbs, μένω expressing &quot;the notion of staying or remaining as a general, unspecified, and unrestricted activity&quot; (Giannakis 1997: 127), whereas μίμνω is telic/bounded (?). We need to ask someone who can read his dissertation, perhaps @TKR" CreationDate="2021-09-12T22:56:43.363" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35086" PostId="16823" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. It looks like the dissertation is downloadable here: https://ca1lib.org/book/12118009/04371e?id=12118009&amp;secret=04371e" CreationDate="2021-09-13T21:34:21.030" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35064" PostId="16824" Score="0" Text="Asteroides just linked to his answer on the Graphic Design stack." CreationDate="2021-09-12T01:01:14.503" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35065" PostId="16824" Score="0" Text="@cmw Alas, I started writing this before that comment was posted. This answer is now somewhat redundant, since the same information is given on Graphic Design, but I'll leave it up here as long as the question is here too." CreationDate="2021-09-12T01:02:10.877" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35067" PostId="16824" Score="1" Text="I would say it's fine having both answers. I can't imagine the overlap between the two sites to be *that* great." CreationDate="2021-09-12T01:04:38.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35069" PostId="16825" Score="0" Text="So in summary, are you saying that you think μίμνω is an archaicism, but we can't be sure, and there is no difference in meaning?" CreationDate="2021-09-12T01:23:39.803" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35070" PostId="16825" Score="1" Text="@BenCrowell My answer to your question is my first paragraph (poetic reduplication, no difference in meaning), which is backed by L&amp;S. The rest is just me typing words, but I think they're plausible words." CreationDate="2021-09-12T01:28:04.823" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35071" PostId="16825" Score="2" Text="I'm not clear on what &quot;poetic reduplication&quot; actually implies. Does it just mean a reduplicated form that we only see occurring in poetry? Normally if there is a usage that only occurs in poetry, there is some reason for that -- some way in which the sound, rhythm, connotations, symbolism, ... fit the purposes of poetry. E.g., πεδίον is a poetic usage for the sea, and it makes sense because it evokes an interesting image of the sea as a plain. Would, e.g., Sophocles use μίμνω simply because an old word would project an elevated style?" CreationDate="2021-09-12T01:45:16.797" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35074" PostId="16825" Score="0" Text="Good answer. A small addition: I think in γίγν-/γεν- and μίμν-/μέν-, there is probably Ablaut in the root. So of the root μν-, there existed three basic variants (called grades): one with zero vowel (μν-), one with e (μέν-), and usually there is also one with o, though I'm not sure whether an o grade is attested for this root. I'm not sure which of those three grades is best considered the 'Ur'-variant of the root; possibly the zero grade. One tiny thing: wouldn't you say σκ- is a suffix, rather than an infix?" CreationDate="2021-09-12T16:34:47.827" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35078" PostId="16825" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yes, i-duplication entails putting the root in the zero-grade as a matter of course (γιγνώσκω *may* be an exception and reflect the e-grade, but Beekes says it isn't, so ). The e-grade is usually taken as the prototypical form of a PIE root, because it's not necessarily clear from the zero-grade where the vowel would go in other ablaut grades (it is for *\*mn-*, but not for e.g. *\*ǵnh₃-*, the zero-grade of *\*ǵneh₃-*, which could also be the zero-grade of *ˣǵenh₃-*). In Greek the o-grade of *\*men-* survives in the noun μονή 'stay', but not in a verb (Sanskrit has one, though)." CreationDate="2021-09-13T01:28:00.150" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35079" PostId="16825" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus And you're right, -sk- is a suffix, of course. That was a typo, amended." CreationDate="2021-09-13T01:29:49.097" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35084" PostId="16825" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: Ah, of course, I did know μονή, thanks. As to what you say about the position of the Ablaut vowel, that makes sense. I wonder, though, which grade is actually the oldest one. I also wonder whether there exist roots where the vowel can appear in different positions. I know this is possible between different Greek dialects with the vocalisation of nasals and liquids (one sees things like lo versus ol versus al, I believe); but that might be a good subject for a new question on the site." CreationDate="2021-09-13T19:30:55.747" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35085" PostId="16825" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The ablauting vowel appearing in different positions in a PIE root is the (controversial) phenomenon of *schwebeablaut*, but I'm not aware of any widely accepted examples; because of the constraints on root shapes a resonant is always involved in the metathesis, and early scholarship did often get confused by syllabic resonants in zero-grade roots. I think it makes sense to think of the e-grade as the oldest: the o-grade and lengthened grade(s) are highly marked/limited in scope, and if the zero-grade were primary I think we'd see a lot more schwebeablaut in the wild." CreationDate="2021-09-13T20:20:29.047" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35108" PostId="16825" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: OK interesting argumentation!" CreationDate="2021-09-14T13:49:43.020" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35089" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="Is τὰ an article? If so, could we translate τὰ ϕυσικά simply as 'the physical' (or 'the natural')? (Also @ben-crowell .)" CreationDate="2021-09-13T22:23:29.807" UserId="10116" />
  <row Id="35091" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="@linguisticturn Yes, it's the definite article. To my ears, &quot;the physical&quot; would be better represented as a singular in Greek. It's tricky to translate that Greek neuter plural correctly, but I wouldn't bat an eye if someone translated τὰ ϕυσικά as &quot;the physical&quot; without further qualifiers." CreationDate="2021-09-13T23:15:16.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35095" PostId="16827" Score="1" Text="The beauty of this answer is that it shows language developing in parallel with society and values. So much history is encoded in our everyday language." CreationDate="2021-09-14T06:12:10.440" UserId="321" />
  <row Id="35097" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="When you say that *τὰ ϕυσικά* could mean *the physical things*, [which meaning of *physical*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical) are you referring to?" CreationDate="2021-09-14T09:42:09.170" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="35100" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="@terdon That which is closest to *natural.* In Merriam-Webster's definition, the closest sense seems to be 2. a. 'having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature'" CreationDate="2021-09-14T11:57:43.690" UserId="10116" />
  <row Id="35101" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="@linguisticturn yes, that's how I read it which is why I was surprised. I don't know any Ancient Greek, so I'm sure you're right, but as a native speaker of _Modern_ Greek where the word only means _natural_ and never _physical_ (as in tangible, something with a physical manifestation) I was very surprised to learn that the word could have that meaning in Ancient Greek. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-09-14T12:01:19.577" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="35102" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="@terdon Yeah, physical as in &quot;physical science,&quot; not &quot;physical fitness.&quot; I edited it for clarity." CreationDate="2021-09-14T12:15:12.870" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35103" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="@terdon As far as I currently understand the ancient classical Greek meanings of ϕυσικά and φὺσις, the key part of that Merriam-Webster definition for our purposes is the last part: 'subject to the laws of nature'. Compare with [this entry](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=fusiko/s) for φυσικός: 'II. of or concerning the order of external nature, natural, physical'. Another hint as to how ancient Greeks would have understood these words (i.e. what connotations they had) is cnw's comment that φὺσις was often contrasted with νόμος, 'custom'." CreationDate="2021-09-14T12:31:52.287" UserId="10116" />
  <row Id="35104" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="@cmw you might want to have another look, I'm afraid I can't parse that. &quot; [. . . ] but might instead by translating [. . .]&quot;: should that be _be translated_? Also, now I'm a bit more confused. My modern Greek makes me parse the word as meaning &quot;of the natural world&quot; but your edit seems to say that in AG, _φυσικά_ could refer to something that has a physical manifestation, so _physical_ as opposed to _incorporeal_. Is that correct? (and sorry to badger you in the comments, please feel free to tell me to go an ask a new question if it gets too much)." CreationDate="2021-09-14T12:33:20.583" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="35105" PostId="16827" Score="2" Text="@terdon All I did in that edit was to change &quot;physical&quot; to &quot;natural.&quot; It is that which does things without human intervention. As far as I know, it was *not* used to mean &quot;corporeal.&quot; That's what I mean by &quot;physical science&quot; over &quot;physical fitness.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-14T12:38:19.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35106" PostId="16827" Score="0" Text="Thanks, all clear now! And my apologies for dragging this out in the comments. Ignorance and curiosity are a potent mix!" CreationDate="2021-09-14T12:48:00.860" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="35109" PostId="16827" Score="1" Text="@terdon It's no problem at all! Glad that it makes sense now. We definitely welcome questions here from everyone, so don't feel like you're imposing." CreationDate="2021-09-14T16:29:46.920" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35094" PostId="16829" Score="0" Text="See, that's the thing with Packhum: the world, and for that matter the Roman empire, did not end in the year 200. Both *schedula* and *horarium* are very much &quot;attested in Latin,&quot; but the first documented occurrences seem to be in Jerome and one 3rd century grammarian named Censorinus, respectively. Alas, the meanings are quite different (small leaf of paper and clock)." CreationDate="2021-09-14T05:36:31.240" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35080" PostId="16830" Score="1" Text="Suspicatus is not the participle of suspicere. It's the participle of suspicari (to form an idea, to suspect, to believe guilty of an offense). The participle of suspicere is suspectus; it's passive and would therefore mean 'looked up to' – that is, it's more like 'impressive' than 'impressed.'" CreationDate="2021-09-13T16:22:09.020" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35082" PostId="16830" Score="0" Text="thanks ........." CreationDate="2021-09-13T16:43:46.497" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35081" PostId="16831" Score="3" Text="Are you looking for interrogative uses only or also relative? It might also help if you have some concrete uses cases in mind. Depending on what you are after, the best option can be something not on your list (e.g. &quot;which one of these two things?&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-09-13T16:37:15.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35083" PostId="16831" Score="2" Text="Agreed. Which uses of 'which,' which are different from each other, did you have in mind?" CreationDate="2021-09-13T16:56:12.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35087" PostId="16831" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I am only asking about the differences between the words listed." CreationDate="2021-09-13T22:03:26.190" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35099" PostId="16831" Score="0" Text="I edited your title to better get across what you're asking, I believe (coming off your last comment)." CreationDate="2021-09-14T11:37:52.893" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35107" PostId="16833" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer! The 4th edition of Pharr doesn't seem to have the parenthetical ἔλυθεν you describe." CreationDate="2021-09-14T12:48:25.833" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35116" PostId="16833" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell Strange! They must have taken that out in one of the revisions. I have a digital copy of the first edition and it has it." CreationDate="2021-09-14T22:25:42.587" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35096" PostId="16834" Score="0" Text="The theta and alpha are completely lost to a blanked region of the papyrus. The final letter is a vertical line, so almost certainly an iota, though there is a depression in the papyrus to its left which could have been the diagonal stroke of an N, so a nu with its left leg on the edge of the blank is also possible. Eerthai was just something that came up in my mind. @NickNicholas comments my answer saying it's &quot;the Epic infinitive corresponding to ἔερμαι&quot;, which I assume is also what eersai is? Or is that the plural of eersa &quot;dew&quot;? You can see the image of this line in the question, btw." CreationDate="2021-09-14T08:50:08.610" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="35128" PostId="16834" Score="1" Text="@MickG I was thinking more in the sense that since εερθαι is unattested, what might you actually have come across in Homer. That's why I thought of ἐέρσαι. And yes, it is the plural of ἐέρση." CreationDate="2021-09-15T21:51:44.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35110" PostId="16836" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I've corrected the two typos you mentioned at the end. I usually don't accept an answer right away, to give people time to comment and such. If nothing surprising turns up in the discussions, I will accept." CreationDate="2021-09-14T17:08:35.153" UserId="10116" />
  <row Id="35111" PostId="16836" Score="2" Text="Is the acute agreed to be a _rising_ tone? I was taught that it was a _raised_ (i.e. high) tone when it appeared on a short vowel; rising was acute on a long vowel (low-high), and falling was circumflex on a long vowel (high-low)." CreationDate="2021-09-14T17:14:46.790" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35120" PostId="16836" Score="0" Text="Here's a discussion of the evidence on the pronunciation of the acute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_accent#Acute_accent . It seems pretty ambiguous, but it does seem to be widely accepted that the acute was not *always* a rising tone. I believe the accented vowels are all short here, so it seems unlikely that they would be rising themselves, but the preceding syllables may have had a ramping up of pitch or a plateau at the high pitch level." CreationDate="2021-09-15T12:52:53.627" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35171" PostId="16836" Score="0" Text="I am reluctant to accept this answer (which I did upvote) until these concerns raised by Draconis and Ben Crowell have been addressed." CreationDate="2021-09-18T23:07:48.647" UserId="10116" />
  <row Id="35187" PostId="16836" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I was waiting for my copy of Philomen Probert's *New Short Guide* to come in the mail. She points out that Aristoxenus says the spoken accent is continuous (i.e. not jumping from note to note, in contrast to music), suggesting rising rather than raised, but she also uses raised herself later. I think the real answer is still that we don't know, and that the use of rising vs. raised in modern authors is purely a conventional choice, not a meaningful contrast." CreationDate="2021-09-19T19:38:10.013" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35188" PostId="16836" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Fascinating! I'll probably ask another question about that; I'm curious what evidence we have for that, even if the answer is &quot;not much&quot;." CreationDate="2021-09-19T19:41:46.207" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35112" PostId="16837" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you explain what you want to mean by the phrase? Different languages rarely have exact equivalents, so what we need for a translation is not just the words but **the idea that you want to convey**. Context and nuance make a huge difference. Please edit your question to add details." CreationDate="2021-09-14T17:35:53.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35117" PostId="16837" Score="0" Text="Unrelated to the specific answer you seek, but &quot;clusterfucks&quot; is a hilarious name for a group." CreationDate="2021-09-15T01:59:49.440" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35133" PostId="16837" Score="0" Text="Downvote because the title is vague" CreationDate="2021-09-16T15:04:06.700" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35119" PostId="16838" Score="0" Text="I am asking specifically about the three words I listed, as it says in the question." CreationDate="2021-09-15T12:44:43.710" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35126" PostId="16838" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden I believe my answer has those three covered." CreationDate="2021-09-15T18:24:40.373" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35158" PostId="16840" Score="1" Text="But of course manus primarily means &quot;hand&quot;.  I don't really think this is what the question requires." CreationDate="2021-09-18T14:02:00.257" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35164" PostId="16840" Score="5" Text="The English term is (usually) a compound noun, not a noun+verb combination." CreationDate="2021-09-18T17:03:08.733" UserId="1923" />
  <row Id="35182" PostId="16840" Score="0" Text="@fdb: Noun, &quot;manus&quot;, has a number of meanings of which &quot;hand&quot; is but one. In English &quot;hand&quot; has a group-connotation e.g. &quot;The Black Hand&quot;, which had more than one member. This understanding appears to hold in Latin: &quot;manus&quot; = &quot;a hand&quot; &amp;  &quot;a band&quot;. Further, well-used in military matters e.g. &quot;exigua manus&quot; = &quot;a small force&quot;:  the noun has a group-identity, wouldn't you agree?" CreationDate="2021-09-19T10:20:10.367" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35183" PostId="16840" Score="0" Text="@rjpond: Given such circumstances, I've tried an alternative approach." CreationDate="2021-09-19T10:22:10.920" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35122" PostId="16842" Score="0" Text="Perhaps comparing this to the business of *arcibus/arcubus* would be useful?" CreationDate="2021-09-15T13:42:42.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35123" PostId="16842" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Good suggestion. I have to run at the moment, but I'll circle back to it later." CreationDate="2021-09-15T13:48:16.207" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35125" PostId="16842" Score="2" Text="Just one elaboration; animabus becomes a common though still not predominate form in later Latin. I got over 3,000 hits in the Corpus Corporum database." CreationDate="2021-09-15T17:41:20.620" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35131" PostId="16842" Score="1" Text="Re: _almost wholly confined to a single late Latin author_, it seems to me it escaped its confinement later on in ecclesiastical Latin , where _anima_ is a rather common topic. At least, _miserere clementer animabus parentum nostrorum_ in the _responsum_ is on top of my mind when the issue shows up." CreationDate="2021-09-16T10:12:36.387" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37986" PostId="16842" Score="0" Text="&quot;Famulabus&quot; does not appear in the classical corpus, but I came across it in an [anecdote recorded in a book from 1844](https://books.google.com/books?id=AdlUAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA136&amp;lpg=PA136&amp;dq=%22famulabus)." CreationDate="2022-04-16T03:50:54.887" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35132" PostId="16846" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for a nice question! I hope you'll stick around and ask more questions. Please take a look at our [tour] to see how to get the most out of your participation." CreationDate="2021-09-16T14:49:44.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35134" PostId="16846" Score="0" Text="This question has now earned you enough reputation points to be able to vote. Please go around the site and vote up any questions and answers you find useful! That is the best way to show gratitude for the content people have volunteered to create." CreationDate="2021-09-16T16:50:24.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35135" PostId="16847" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for the good explanation." CreationDate="2021-09-16T20:00:20.667" UserId="10134" />
  <row Id="35137" PostId="16847" Score="1" Text="@babelpoint Welcome to the site. If your question has been satisfactorily answered/your problem has been solved, don't forget to click on the checkmark to mark it &quot;solved.&quot; Let us know if you have any questions." CreationDate="2021-09-17T03:33:55.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35140" PostId="16848" Score="1" Text="Cool, I was getting a little worried that there might not be an answer." CreationDate="2021-09-17T07:39:19.533" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35136" PostId="16850" Score="1" Text="Please stop trying to get into Greek through Homeric Greek. It's a Frankenstein dialect of Aeolic, Ionian, and miscellaneous archaic forms, of course it's going to be weird, and of course you're going to be confused if you try to make sense of it through grammars of Attic Greek (i.e. the &quot;normal&quot; Ancient Greek). The behavior of Attic infinitives can be summed up in a few lines, and they're plenty regular; πολεμίζω isn't an Attic verb." CreationDate="2021-09-17T03:29:20.693" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35139" PostId="16850" Score="1" Text="As an addendum, it might be easier to break this up into several smaller questions: one on -ειν, one on the Homeric -έμεν, and one on a [tag:resource-request] for an overview of Greek infinitives. Something to bear in mind so an answer isn't too unwieldy." CreationDate="2021-09-17T06:34:16.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35141" PostId="16850" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Good suggestion, done. Spin-offs: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16852/resource-request-formation-of-the-greek-infinitive-including-homeric-greek https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16853/why-does-the-contraction-rule-%ce%b5%ce%b5%ce%bd-%ce%b5%ce%b9%ce%bd-apply-to-the-formation-of-%ce%bb%cf%8d%ce%b5%ce%b9%ce%bd" CreationDate="2021-09-17T13:09:28.840" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35142" PostId="16850" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: As described in the original version of the question (now split off into a resource request), I have been referring to Pharr, which contains a grammar of the Homeric dialect. I would be happy to know of other treatments of Homeric grammar, but have been resorting to Attic ones to supplement Pharr, because they're what seem to be mostly available. Guidance about what road to take into Greek would be of interest in some other forum, but is off topic here, and you are also guessing incorrectly what road I've actually taken (actually modern-&gt;koine-&gt;Homer)." CreationDate="2021-09-17T13:16:29.923" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35143" PostId="16850" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon. If you think that the Homeric poems are composed in a Frankenstein dialect you need to read the Rigveda and the Avesta. The ancient Indo-European languages have lots of unrelated forms for the infinitive, which get pared down in later forms of the language." CreationDate="2021-09-17T15:13:18.833" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35146" PostId="16850" Score="0" Text="@fdb I mean, that's a feature of the old artificial literary dialects pulling together features from a wide range of natural dialects (which had disparate ways of forming infinitives because PIE didn't have any), not of old Indo-European languages in general. Hittite only had two infinitives." CreationDate="2021-09-17T18:22:09.247" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35144" PostId="16852" Score="1" Text="a good place to start would be Chapitre XLII *Les infinifs* (pp. 469-476) in *Grammaire homérique. Tome I: Phonétique et morphologie* by Pierre Chantraine https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/2661-grammaire-homerique-tome-i-phonetique-et-morphologie" CreationDate="2021-09-17T15:39:17.070" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35145" PostId="16854" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that's very helpful. Is this usage of &quot;stem&quot; in contradistinction to &quot;root&quot; widely undertsood? E.g., this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_verbs WP article has stuff like &quot;athematic [verbs] (in which the endings are attached directly to the stem...)&quot; Are there other cases besides the infinitives in which, if we want to inflect verbs correctly, we need to be aware of this kind of prehistoric contraction?" CreationDate="2021-09-17T17:49:32.733" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35154" PostId="16855" Score="1" Text="Ducange has an interesting take on it here: http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/COMPANIUM" CreationDate="2021-09-18T04:47:59.730" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35155" PostId="16855" Score="3" Text="@Figulus That looks like the core of a good answer!" CreationDate="2021-09-18T05:11:35.100" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35148" PostId="16859" Score="1" Text="Is  ēdō from dare &quot;give&quot; (from PIE *deh₃-) or it is from *dʰeh₁-? I find the etymology of Latin -dō, -dere, -didī, -ditum verbs confusing. The reduplication of a non-initial syllable is somewhat unusual (verbs that reduplicate often lack reduplication when prefixed)" CreationDate="2021-09-17T22:02:54.350" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35149" PostId="16859" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides I thought it was *deh₃ but google is suggesting that, in fact, most prefixed verbs I thought were from *deh₃ are actually from *dheh₁. Fascinating. I'll have to ask a new question about that." CreationDate="2021-09-17T23:27:04.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35150" PostId="16860" Score="2" Text="[They did partially merge, yeah.](https://i.imgur.com/llP34HF.png) Latin doesn't have a simplex equivalent to τίθημι (which would start with *f-* anyway), but in compounds it's often not possible to tell whether it's *\*deh₃-* or *\*dʰeh₁-*. Don't have it in me to write a full answer (I'd check what Weiss has to say as well), but it wouldn't be much more than this anyway." CreationDate="2021-09-18T01:50:36.927" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35152" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Thanks for the reference! That's from de Vaan, I'm assuming? I'll see if I can find Weiss and write up a proper answer next week." CreationDate="2021-09-18T01:53:55.953" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35153" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="Yes, that's De Vaan." CreationDate="2021-09-18T01:59:51.923" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35198" PostId="16860" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon Isn't *facio* the simplex equivalent to τίθημι?" CreationDate="2021-09-20T22:05:50.433" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35199" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="@TKR Arguably, though it's badly mangled. I think it's pretty universally accepted that it contains *\*dʰh₁* and only marginally less universally that the *-k-* is from an old aorist or perfect, but I'm inclined to see the form as a deverbal (hence, then, the *-i-* &lt; *\*-ye-*, though that also just forms presents) of whatever the cognate of θῆκα (the Homeric aorist, not the noun) was at the time rather than a remodeling of that simplex itself, and that the simplex itself was subsequently lost. De Vaan doesn't discuss that possibility, though." CreationDate="2021-09-21T01:12:42.110" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35200" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly -- is what you're describing different from the usual theory that the *-k-* is from an old aorist cognate with ἔθηκα?" CreationDate="2021-09-21T01:43:35.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35201" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="@TKR I agree that's where the *-k-* ultimately comes from, I just think it's likely *facio* is a deverbal derived from that aorist of the simplex, not a remodelling of the simplex itself by generalising the aorist's *-k-* to the other tenses for whatever reason." CreationDate="2021-09-21T01:50:21.070" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35202" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Are there parallels for such a verb-to-verb derivation? It seems odd. And wouldn't you end up with *fēciō*? Analogical remodeling along the lines of *cēpī : capiō :: fēcī :: X* seems like an obvious source (and the reason would be that Italic was eliminating athematic verbs generally, and *fem* or whatever the reflex would be looked too weird)." CreationDate="2021-09-21T02:08:30.830" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38124" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="de Vaan is available here: https://fr.1lib.pl/book/1253470/cbca84" CreationDate="2022-04-26T11:46:14.470" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="40968" PostId="16860" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon See the Praeneste fibula, *med fhefhaked Numasioi* (which is a perfect, I know)." CreationDate="2023-01-13T00:21:41.897" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="35156" PostId="16862" Score="2" Text="One option is to use *tanto* + adv of the times. ***ter tanto** peior ipsa est quam illam tu esse vis.* (Pl.Per.153). Note that for twice, one can use *bis tanto*, but *altero tanto* is another option. I don't know if it was ever used to describe degrees of difficulty. One may find some value in [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4179/phrase-equivalent-to-its-a-piece-of-cake) question." CreationDate="2021-09-18T10:33:44.077" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35160" PostId="16862" Score="0" Text="Thanks ........." CreationDate="2021-09-18T14:30:42.437" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35163" PostId="16864" Score="1" Text="The [Lewis-Short dictionary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso) classifies *quaeso* as an old form of *quaero* and lists perfect and supine like for the “modern” form (I guess rhotacism had a role here)." CreationDate="2021-09-18T15:02:11.963" UserId="364" />
  <row Id="35159" PostId="16865" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I appreciate that." CreationDate="2021-09-18T14:30:28.797" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35161" PostId="16865" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 You're welcome! I'm glad to be able to help." CreationDate="2021-09-18T14:37:14.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35173" PostId="16869" Score="1" Text="Does this answer your question? [Genitive vs Ablative of Price](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1897/genitive-vs-ablative-of-price)" CreationDate="2021-09-19T00:33:25.837" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35174" PostId="16869" Score="0" Text="@brianpck No. It is not clear at all that the first sentence is an expression of &quot;value&quot; and the second is of price. Both appear to be of price only, so it is not clear what the difference is that two different cases would be used." CreationDate="2021-09-19T00:38:27.733" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35195" PostId="16869" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I was paying too much attention to the title of the question. In fact, the issue here is entirely different: as Sebastian points out, *both* sentences use the ablative of price, and the genitive in the first is something completely different, i.e. &quot;worth thousands (abl.) of coins (gen.).&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-20T18:55:25.590" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35165" PostId="16870" Score="4" Text="In other words, don't believe random internet websites." CreationDate="2021-09-18T18:06:17.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35166" PostId="16870" Score="1" Text="@cmw The big question is: Is this site a random internet website too? I sure hope not." CreationDate="2021-09-18T18:34:41.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35167" PostId="16870" Score="2" Text="@cmw I believe this is at least the third time that we have seen online-latin-dictionary.com confusing people with blatant errors. (Although in this case, I can see how one could take a comment like &quot;sustinui is commonly used in this sense&quot; the wrong way.)" CreationDate="2021-09-18T20:23:17.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35168" PostId="16870" Score="4" Text="@SebastianKoppehel This is the only place I've ever seen it mentioned. Why on earth would anyone use it over reputable sources is far beyond me. Even the site visually looks suspect." CreationDate="2021-09-18T20:25:45.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35179" PostId="16870" Score="1" Text="@cmw A well-chosen domain name makes all the difference, I suppose." CreationDate="2021-09-19T07:44:04.877" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35189" PostId="16871" Score="1" Text="According to Sihler § 485, there is no perfect or aorist form of **bher-*. So in that sense, *fero* didn't lose a perfect stem, it never had one to begin with!" CreationDate="2021-09-20T16:37:46.930" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35190" PostId="16871" Score="0" Text="@cmw Fascinating—how old does that lack of perfect/aorist seem to be? All the way back to PIE?" CreationDate="2021-09-20T16:45:00.640" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35191" PostId="16871" Score="1" Text="I was just looking into the same question as @cmw :) Apparently only Indo-Iranian has a reduplicated perfect from *bher-, and that's thought to be an innovation rather than a PIE inheritance (though I don't know why). LIV also lists possible aorists in Vedic and Old Irish, which may again be innovations." CreationDate="2021-09-20T16:51:44.927" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35192" PostId="16871" Score="0" Text="@TKR Very fascinating. I'm tempted to ask a new question about it, though between these two comments it's been answered pretty well already." CreationDate="2021-09-20T17:06:11.317" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35170" PostId="16873" Score="2" Text="Still, for the last point, Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge §293 gives the following example from Livy 22.7.3 that provides an exception to the usual rule: duo milia quingenti hostium. So the exercises that are referred to in the main question aren't totally wrong in the end – though I suspect this is just a happy accident." CreationDate="2021-09-18T23:06:11.553" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35169" PostId="16874" Score="2" Text="If your text has *reliquiis* rather than *reliquis* it's wrong." CreationDate="2021-09-18T21:58:40.933" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35185" PostId="16874" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon What is the difference? Is *reliquiis* a noun and *reliquis* an adjective, or?" CreationDate="2021-09-19T12:03:53.207" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="35186" PostId="16874" Score="3" Text="*Reliquis* is from the adjective *reliquus* 'remaining', *reliquiis* would have to be from the noun *reliquiae* 'remains' (a plurale tantum)." CreationDate="2021-09-19T14:40:39.407" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35176" PostId="16876" Score="0" Text="I guess I am asking situationally how the usage would be different. I doubt that the words have exact English equivalents, so just giving English words isn't very useful." CreationDate="2021-09-19T03:25:37.773" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35177" PostId="16876" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden Can you edit those details into the question?" CreationDate="2021-09-19T03:50:26.793" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35175" PostId="16877" Score="4" Text="If you know what *tamen* means why does it matter that a machine translation service that you know is bad at translating Latin doesn't translate it?" CreationDate="2021-09-19T02:46:51.113" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35180" PostId="16877" Score="1" Text="For Google Translate, make sure to end your sentences with a full stop. Without full stop: &quot;At first he ruled very badly&quot;. With full stop: &quot;At first, however, he ruled very badly.&quot; Please don't ask me why this is so." CreationDate="2021-09-19T07:47:46.633" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35181" PostId="16878" Score="3" Text="Now I want to know whether *optime* means &quot;bestly&quot; or &quot;wellest&quot; ;-)" CreationDate="2021-09-19T07:49:20.443" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35184" PostId="16878" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Wait, it's not &quot;goodestly&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-09-19T10:36:38.690" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35193" PostId="16880" Score="0" Text="Hmm, ok, so there is only a slight difference. I asked because it seems kind of redundant to have a bunch of different words all meaning exactly the same thing." CreationDate="2021-09-20T18:07:26.883" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35194" PostId="16880" Score="3" Text="@TylerDurden I mean, doesn't English have many, a lot, quite a few synonyms? But yeah, there are subtle distinctions in some contexts." CreationDate="2021-09-20T18:27:12.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35220" PostId="16882" Score="1" Text="out of interest, what are the websites where you found this translation?" CreationDate="2021-09-22T12:05:57.270" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="35205" PostId="16883" Score="0" Text="A great many websites claim &quot;scelerisque&quot; means &quot;chocolate,&quot; as I found by cross-referencing the terms in Google.  But here are a few examples (below). Note one of the examples is even a Latin-to-English book, as opposed to a website. Granted, none of these sites are particularly trustworthy, which in part spurred my skepticism. &#xA;&#xA;https://www.translate.com/dictionary/latin-english/scelerisque-5075523&#xA;&#xA;https://latin.english-dictionary.help/english-to-latin-meaning-chocolate&#xA;&#xA;https://tinyurl.com/3djyb7kb" CreationDate="2021-09-21T14:22:59.563" UserId="10151" />
  <row Id="35207" PostId="16883" Score="3" Text="@skb8721 The one thing you'll notice about all those sites is that they don't tell you how they got that information. Most likely it's actually just some bot code that created a site to get people to look at it for ad revenue or other quick monetary schemes. If you want something more reputable, try [any of these](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why/). In general, avoid getting any information from a website you cannot verify." CreationDate="2021-09-21T15:09:12.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35219" PostId="16883" Score="0" Text="@skb8721 It's just another example of internet nonsense. One of my peeves in my &quot;day job&quot; is the number of people who get confused by a near-meaningless term in mechanical engineering which appears on lots of reputable-looking websites. In fact they are all copy/pasted from one Wikipedia page which &quot;legitimizes&quot; the term with a reference to a single 19th-century book which is otherwise (and with good reason) completely forgotten." CreationDate="2021-09-21T23:25:03.913" UserId="1901" />
  <row Id="35206" PostId="16884" Score="0" Text="I think you found something with the imperial stout connection.  (While I knew the Romans were unaware of chocolate, I thought perhaps &quot;scelerisque&quot; might mean &quot;chocolate&quot; the same way &quot;Vulnus sclopetarium&quot; means &quot;gunshot wound&quot; -- when clearly the Romans didn't have guns (though of course they did have other tools for firing projectiles)." CreationDate="2021-09-21T14:36:30.233" UserId="10151" />
  <row Id="35210" PostId="16884" Score="5" Text="To me, it seems more likely that it's the other way around – i.e., that Google Translate is the source of the name of the stout from a single microbrewery. Just based on many of the translation requests that show up on Latin Language SE, it's easy to imagine that the brewers thought it would be cool and clever to name their product using the Latin for chocolate; but instead of consulting a knowledgeable source, they just plugged the word into GT." CreationDate="2021-09-21T16:43:03.037" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35211" PostId="16884" Score="2" Text="@cnread You're right, I hadn't realized GT actually translates &quot;chocolate&quot; as &quot;scelerisque&quot;! It sometimes seems like it must have been programmed by fans of the Monty Python Hungarian phrasebook sketch." CreationDate="2021-09-21T17:06:42.180" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35212" PostId="16884" Score="0" Text="@TKR Look at the other possible words for it, too: *eget* for &quot;chocolates&quot;, *scelerisque placenta* for &quot;chocolate cake&quot; (oh, my!), and *scelerisque &quot;*, complete with a spurious quote. What a travesty!" CreationDate="2021-09-21T17:11:06.750" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35217" PostId="16884" Score="3" Text="This is hilarious: &quot;i scelerisque sit amet&quot; = &quot;I like chocolate a lot.&quot; Perhaps the cautious praise of the updated Google Translate was too enthusiastic after all." CreationDate="2021-09-21T22:26:07.543" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35218" PostId="16884" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I updated my answer to include this information already. With your sentence, too, I'll update it again soon making it clear that it's still terrible to rely on!" CreationDate="2021-09-21T22:48:40.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35221" PostId="16884" Score="0" Text="Regarding Ode 1.22, GT actually gives, as the primary translation of integer vitae scelerisque purus, 'Full of pure chocolate' if the i of integer is uppercase or just 'pure chocolate' if the i is lowercase" CreationDate="2021-09-22T17:23:20.907" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35222" PostId="16884" Score="0" Text="End users can suggest edits to google translate, so it's likely someone tried to &quot;improve the translation&quot; with something flat-out wrong." CreationDate="2021-09-22T20:23:08.723" UserId="2960" />
  <row Id="35203" PostId="16885" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Who is serving the country in this case (you, me, or them), or is it more of an infinitive, _to serve_ and not anyone in specific?" CreationDate="2021-09-21T14:07:05.967" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35204" PostId="16885" Score="1" Text="Related question [translating in war and in peace](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13651/latin-for-in-war-and-in-peace)." CreationDate="2021-09-21T14:08:58.927" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35213" PostId="16885" Score="0" Text="Dear Adam, I'm looking to use &quot;to serve&quot; as an infinitive. &quot;Serving the country in War and Peace&quot; is a motto I'm using for my novel." CreationDate="2021-09-21T18:21:19.573" UserId="10152" />
  <row Id="35214" PostId="16886" Score="2" Text="Going off of Horace, I'd opt for *patria* for &quot;country.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-21T19:12:21.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35215" PostId="16886" Score="1" Text="@cmw Oh yes, that is also very good. A sweet and honourable suggestion from you." CreationDate="2021-09-21T19:17:48.757" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35216" PostId="16886" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much!" CreationDate="2021-09-21T19:58:50.853" UserId="10152" />
  <row Id="35227" PostId="16886" Score="1" Text="I'm curious about *navo* (which I didn't know about before!). Almost all the L&amp;S examples show it being used to &quot;exhibit&quot; or &quot;perform&quot; something, and the &quot;service&quot; meaning comes in (apparently) from the stock phrase *navare operam/opus*. The only exception that they cite (and which seems to motivate your example) is one example of *navare rem publicam*--but apparently that's a dubious reading!" CreationDate="2021-09-24T01:24:35.287" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35230" PostId="16886" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I was about to write *rei publicae operam navare*, but the *rem publicam* example jumped at me and looked very fitting. But you are right, usually the serviced party is in the dative and the direct object is the service rendered, or *operam*." CreationDate="2021-09-24T16:31:44.747" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35223" PostId="16892" Score="2" Text="But for &quot;how big/large,&quot; would we not usually use *quantus*? Would it be right to say &quot;Quanta est domus tua?&quot; or &quot;Quantus exercitus Caesaris erat?&quot; (Serious question. I cannot recall seeing *quantus* in simple *est* statements or questions, but I also couldn't say what's wrong with it or how else to phrase it, aside from *quam magnus*.)" CreationDate="2021-09-23T19:00:26.700" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35224" PostId="16892" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I generally think of _quantus_ as asking about quantity, not quality, so I would say _quam magnus_, but I'll have to do a corpus search later to check this. (Or perhaps ask another question.)" CreationDate="2021-09-23T19:04:46.583" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35236" PostId="16892" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel &amp; Draconis: This line from Plautus' *Rudens* might be of interest: &quot;Labr. Quam magnum vero? Daem. Quantum lenoni sat est.&quot; Compare that to Cicero's &quot;Immo vero quantus exercitus!&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-24T17:24:10.030" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35268" PostId="16892" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: In &quot;quam sis audax&quot; why &quot;sis&quot; and not &quot;es&quot;/ &quot;eras&quot;? Doesn't the present subjunctive imply some doubt--how brave you may be?" CreationDate="2021-09-28T08:35:30.760" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35271" PostId="16892" Score="2" Text="@tony Indirect question" CreationDate="2021-09-28T16:53:01.443" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35228" PostId="16893" Score="0" Text="*Umbraticola* seems to be the word for an effeminate man. *Umbraticus*, on the other hand, does not seem to have that particular meaning, but seems to refer to bookish types who stay indoors." CreationDate="2021-09-24T02:29:08.023" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35241" PostId="16893" Score="0" Text="Well, the word is only used 8 times in the packhum corpus.  Could you tell me what sentence(s) you're looking at that leads you to believe this? https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=umbratic" CreationDate="2021-09-25T03:10:07.090" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35288" PostId="16893" Score="0" Text="I wasn't looking at PHI, just Lewis and Short." CreationDate="2021-09-29T01:11:14.720" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35289" PostId="16893" Score="0" Text="You have to look at the actual Latin texts.  Just because L&amp;S says x does not mean that x is true." CreationDate="2021-09-29T04:38:34.327" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35328" PostId="16893" Score="0" Text="This is the answer I would have given. I find the others, while creative, unsatisfactory." CreationDate="2021-10-02T12:06:40.733" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="35330" PostId="16893" Score="0" Text="Do you mean that 'umbraticola' or 'umbratico' is how you would translate 'nerd'." CreationDate="2021-10-02T12:30:45.850" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35232" PostId="16894" Score="1" Text="I fail to see what Euclid has to do with any of this. If you want an overview of the usage of eis in early Christian-era texts the best place to look is Bauer &amp; al., in their dictionary of  New Testament and Patristic Greek." CreationDate="2021-09-24T16:36:23.353" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35233" PostId="16894" Score="2" Text="@fdb Greek grammars always contain a geometric diagram of a cube with arrows going in and out of it, in order to assist students to understand how Greek prepositions work. I am trying to find out if Euclid did the same (tangentially) by providing us with a valuable insight in his book _Elements_. I am aware of other references and I personally use Daniel B Wallace's _Beyond the Basics_.  But I am researching Euclid as well." CreationDate="2021-09-24T17:09:44.263" UserId="10163" />
  <row Id="35238" PostId="16897" Score="2" Text="What do you mean by lengthening a syllable? I would say that the syllables called long are the ones that have naturally longer duration due to containing more than single consonant and a short vowel. What is the difference, to you, between a short vowel and a long one?" CreationDate="2021-09-24T19:28:33.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35239" PostId="16898" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot, this was very helpful!" CreationDate="2021-09-24T20:56:38.607" UserId="7405" />
  <row Id="35277" PostId="16898" Score="0" Text="What's your evidence that the 'n' was rarely pronounced?" CreationDate="2021-09-28T18:04:26.253" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35279" PostId="16898" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 Epigraphic evidence (in the Old Latin period the *n* was often not written, with *cosol* and *cesor* being common for Classical *consul*, *censor*; in the Classical period spelling was less variable, but the *n* was still optional in e.g. *totie(n)s*, *vicie(n)s*), occasional non-etymological hypercorrections (*thensaurus*), the lack of reflexes in Romance languages (Vulgar Latin lost the nasalisation of vowels), and, for *consul* specifically, the explicit claim of Quintillian that the *n* was not pronounced (*et 'columna' et 'consules' exempta n littera legimus*)." CreationDate="2021-09-28T18:27:07.860" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35280" PostId="16898" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 Some educated speakers restored the pronunciation of the *n*s and some of those restorations possibly made their way to the general public, but Velius Longus claimed even Cicero said *foresia*, *Megalesia*, and *Hortesia* rather than *forensia*, *Megalensia*, and *Hortensia*." CreationDate="2021-09-28T18:28:46.897" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35281" PostId="16898" Score="0" Text="Cool, thanks for the answers." CreationDate="2021-09-28T18:29:38.533" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35240" PostId="16899" Score="1" Text="Good finding (+1)! It seems that there are 9 instantiations of the collocation _in amorem incidere_ (data from Baños (2018) through PHI corpus, up to Tacitus: cf. https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/56058/9/ANEXO3_COLAT_modelo%20de%20ficha%20de%20un%20verbo.pdf )." CreationDate="2021-09-25T02:54:38.117" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35246" PostId="16901" Score="2" Text="This answer could be improved: If &quot;saxonicus&quot; is wrong, does that mean &quot;saxonicum&quot; is right?" CreationDate="2021-09-26T17:17:09.427" UserId="2680" />
  <row Id="35249" PostId="16901" Score="0" Text="@Quuxplusone. Correct." CreationDate="2021-09-26T17:58:14.190" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35252" PostId="16901" Score="2" Text="Yes, this answer could be clearer. After all, not all neuter adjectives end in *-um* either (e.g. *litus Cantiense*), but *Saxonicus, -a, -um* does indeed." CreationDate="2021-09-26T19:47:36.737" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35244" PostId="16902" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the Latin Language Stack Exchange! Your question was migrated here, but you didn't automatically get an account. Please join this community too to be able to interact with anyone who might answer or comment." CreationDate="2021-09-26T12:08:31.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35243" PostId="16903" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you tell us where the phrase is from? Context helps, and in many cases there already is a good translation somewhere out there." CreationDate="2021-09-26T12:00:01.737" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35245" PostId="16903" Score="5" Text="I'm a bit confused by the question: the Spanish phrase is perfectly good and easily translated into English (Spanish-&gt;English). The Latin phrase is botched. Are you looking for a good Latin translation of the Spanish expression, or an English translation of the Spanish phrase?" CreationDate="2021-09-26T16:37:54.523" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35247" PostId="16903" Score="0" Text="Why are only moderators allowed to answer?" CreationDate="2021-09-26T17:28:44.890" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35248" PostId="16903" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon That opening probably has to do with the OP's answer with related content to another question. A moderator converted that answer into a comment." CreationDate="2021-09-26T17:32:06.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35250" PostId="16903" Score="5" Text="Hola! Bienvenido a Latín.SE! No se entiende muy bien lo que quieres preguntar. ¿Quieres validar la traducción al latín de esa frase en castellano? Yo te puedo ayudar a traducir al inglés sí ese es el problema. Por ejemplo, la oración en cuestión podría ser: _it's not bad to remember, but to live from memories is_. _Malo_ también puede ser _wrong_, si quieres enfatizar lo incorrecto: _it's not wrong to remember..._" CreationDate="2021-09-26T18:00:08.900" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35255" PostId="16903" Score="1" Text="Hello guys, Thanks for your replies. As Joonas mentioned, this question has to do with &quot;an answer with related content to another question. A moderator converted that answer into a comment.&quot; The whole thing has to do with the &quot;exact&quot; English definition of the word MEMINISSES (apreciaría mucho tu ayuda Rafael) I would very much appreciate your input guys. BTW, the phrase came from here: twitter.com/ssk_josue?lang=en Thanks" CreationDate="2021-09-26T20:52:56.333" UserId="10169" />
  <row Id="35256" PostId="16903" Score="2" Text="The Latin generally and the specific word *meminisses* are grammatically wrong, so they can't really be translated." CreationDate="2021-09-26T22:18:26.033" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35251" PostId="16904" Score="0" Text="But is that the same as being 'obsessed with an object and spend[ing] all day absorbed by it'? As far as I can see, the passage from Exodus refers to an isolated display of devotion as part of a single feast day that Aaron had proclaimed." CreationDate="2021-09-26T19:42:32.810" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35262" PostId="16907" Score="0" Text="Resumen: la gramática del latín está mal. P.ej. _meminisses_ es _hubieras recordado_ (no _recuerdos_). _Sed_ y _autem_ son mutuamente redundantes (y el segundo queda mal posicionado). En vez de _malus_ debe decir _malum_ (neutro en vez de m.) [Después vienen las dos propuestas de traducción al latín]." CreationDate="2021-09-27T10:49:21.987" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35263" PostId="16907" Score="2" Text="I'd prefer starting with the negation for emphasis, autem over sed, and omitting the second malum (but it's all a matter of taste): _non est malum meminisse, vivere autem in memoriis est_. [Prefiero comenzar con la negación para dar énfasis, autem más que sed y omitir el segundo malum, pero es cosa de gustos...]" CreationDate="2021-09-27T10:59:19.443" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35266" PostId="16908" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site! Please consider summarizing the linked page here in your question. I will not follow an external link to understand what a question is about, and many others will have similar reservations." CreationDate="2021-09-27T12:56:41.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35258" PostId="16910" Score="5" Text="This seems like an interesting and on-topic question to me. (It's borderline, but I think the connection to Latin is strong enough.)" CreationDate="2021-09-27T03:39:47.733" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35260" PostId="16910" Score="3" Text="Yeah, this is fine. I think you're more likely to get someone who knows this story from French.SE, but I'd say it's on topic here, too (and not just because it's interesting!)." CreationDate="2021-09-27T03:47:13.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35259" PostId="16911" Score="0" Text="Are there any other instances of eta to episolon made *metri causa*? I can think of a few instances of quantitative metathesis, but not like this (at least nothing is coming to mind)." CreationDate="2021-09-27T03:43:49.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35261" PostId="16911" Score="0" Text="@cmw I can't think of any offhand." CreationDate="2021-09-27T04:46:06.030" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35267" PostId="16911" Score="2" Text="Thanks! I put a summary it the wiktionary entry: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀτρύγετος" CreationDate="2021-09-27T15:38:27.613" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35264" PostId="16912" Score="0" Text="Perhaps a helpful clarification: By &quot;understandable Latin,&quot; do you mean Latin that is easily understandable to a Latin-learner, or to someone who speaks and writes Latin proficiently?" CreationDate="2021-09-27T12:50:41.040" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35265" PostId="16912" Score="0" Text="That's a good question.&#xA;I was thinking more of someone who reads Latin fluently, but such a style would probably be useful to those who are learning" CreationDate="2021-09-27T12:53:45.517" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35295" PostId="16912" Score="3" Text="There were literally hundreds of books written between the 18th and 20th centuries on prose composition, I'm not sure we should be so confident to say that all materials recommend classical authors. And I don't see what this has to do with being a native speaker." CreationDate="2021-09-29T19:28:21.080" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35343" PostId="16912" Score="0" Text="This is just a random idea on my part, but you might argue that in an era where literacy was extremely low that the latin _spoken_ by most people was equal to &quot;plain latin&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-04T02:40:38.760" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35275" PostId="16913" Score="3" Text="Well, if you're good with python.  There is a corpus that has the works divided into six or seven different eras.  See here: https://legacy.cltk.org/en/latest/latin.html" CreationDate="2021-09-28T18:00:23.107" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35276" PostId="16913" Score="0" Text="It's not easy however, so if you're able to use python let me know and i'll give more details" CreationDate="2021-09-28T18:00:43.503" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35282" PostId="16913" Score="2" Text="This is really two questions built into one. But this second question is already answered [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1854/where-to-find-an-online-latin-text-corpus-and-what-can-i-do-with-it?rq=1), so I'm going to roll back to your original question and open it back up. As always, adding more details about what you're looking for will yield better results. Feel free to come to chat and ping me (@cmw or any other mod that's on) if you have further questions." CreationDate="2021-09-28T21:38:07.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35269" PostId="16914" Score="3" Text="The answer might depend on your definition of a native speaker. If someone grows up in a bilingual home and speaks two languages with similar fluency, would they be considered native speakers of both? You seem to hint at defining a native language as the everyday social language, but that may change throughout a person's life. If I were to fully immerse myself in a Latin speaking environment for the next decade, would I become a native speaker? (Perhaps it is best to leave this undefined and let the answerers make reasonable judgement calls.)" CreationDate="2021-09-28T15:42:47.787" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35270" PostId="16914" Score="0" Text="Yes, I think it is best to leave it undefined.  It's not something that can easily be agreed on.  Just provide your candidates and the reasons and let the readers decide who they think is the last native speaker/author" CreationDate="2021-09-28T16:06:21.473" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35272" PostId="16914" Score="3" Text="It's also difficult to define what counts as a native speaker of _Latin_ in particular. The disconnect between Classical Latin and reconstructed Proto-Romance implies that from a relatively early date people weren't natively speaking like Cicero wrote. (And if you count Proto-Romance as Latin, which is a valid stance—then where's the cutoff point where Romance is no longer Latin?)" CreationDate="2021-09-28T17:20:18.663" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35274" PostId="16914" Score="1" Text="Just do the best you can.  Don't let the difficulty get in the way of making an attempt to offer a suggestion." CreationDate="2021-09-28T17:57:17.443" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35278" PostId="16914" Score="5" Text="This is like asking what was the last ancestor of Homo sapiens that was a quadruped. Bipedality evolved gradually. There was no last quadruped or first biped. There were  many generations of people who considered themselves to be speaking Latin, but who we might today describe as speaking early versions of Spanish, French, or Italian. A more meaningful historical question might be who was the first writer of Latin who, in writing, said, &quot;I am writing in Latin, which is a different language from Spanish.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-09-28T18:13:07.863" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35273" PostId="16915" Score="0" Text="Since this question is Greek-specific it seemed fitting here. But I can also move it to linguistics.SE, where the comments happened." CreationDate="2021-09-28T17:34:12.020" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35283" PostId="16916" Score="0" Text="You may want to read Salmons, J. C., &amp; Smith, L. C. (2005). On the status of the Indo-European labiovelar stops. Indogermanische Forschungen, 110, 86-96 and Szemerényi 1966. The Labiovelars in Mycenaean and Historical Greek" CreationDate="2021-09-28T23:21:43.533" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35285" PostId="16916" Score="0" Text="and I'm trying to find Woodard 2012 *Labiovelar development in Greek and an alphabetic repercussion* in http://lincom-shop.eu/epages/57709feb-b889-4707-b2ce-c666fc88085d.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/57709feb-b889-4707-b2ce-c666fc88085d/Products/%22ISBN%209783862883790%22" CreationDate="2021-09-28T23:41:17.023" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35286" PostId="16916" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. Would you be able to summarize some of those in an answer?" CreationDate="2021-09-28T23:47:08.257" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35291" PostId="16917" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site. What meaning are you trying to convey with that sentence, and what do you intend to do with the phrase once it is in Latin? This context can lead to a better translation. Word-for-word translations aren't always the best way to go from one language to another." CreationDate="2021-09-29T12:58:46.173" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35303" PostId="16917" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the response. I should have been clearer instead of just throwing the question up there like its reddit or something. I'm drawing a picture of a man being tossed into a Furnace by &quot;fate&quot; and I want those words or the meaning behind it above the drawing. Its done in ink so before I ruined it I wanted to be absolutely sure of the translation from English to Latin." CreationDate="2021-09-29T22:19:30.300" UserId="10182" />
  <row Id="35297" PostId="16918" Score="0" Text="You're right, I should have explained a bit more. Ive been a long time lover of the Poem O Fortuna. Well, the translation of it along with the other poems that went hand in hand. Ive been working on a drawing that I see in my mind when I hear or read the poem. I want to draw in those words, but I dont want to put the wrong words in. I really appreciate the detailed response. You have helped me more than you know!" CreationDate="2021-09-29T20:16:34.853" UserId="10182" />
  <row Id="35298" PostId="16918" Score="0" Text="@Sidious The *Carmina Burana's* 'O Fortuna'? If so, that line isn't in there. If you can locate what you're referring to, I can help further. But now I'm even more confused!" CreationDate="2021-09-29T20:19:32.547" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35299" PostId="16918" Score="0" Text="@Sidious Also, if you edit all that into the main questions, others will see the edit and may be able to offer further answers." CreationDate="2021-09-29T20:20:14.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35302" PostId="16918" Score="0" Text="Yes I know that line isn't in there. Its just part of my drawing. To be a little clearer, the drawing is of a man being tossed in a Furnace by &quot;Fate&quot;, the words are my own and I wanted to make sure I wasn't putting the wrong translation in. I appreciate your help! I do have one last question for you because you've went above and beyond to help me at this point. I know that the poem was a medieval Latin Goliardic poem written sometime in the 13th century. So was this an older version of Latin? Would it still translate the same to those that know Latin now?" CreationDate="2021-09-29T22:02:03.763" UserId="10182" />
  <row Id="35304" PostId="16918" Score="0" Text="@Sidious I'm no Medieval Latin expert, so I don't know which word for &quot;furnace&quot; would have been more common then. You could probably ask a new question based on that." CreationDate="2021-09-29T23:00:09.430" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35305" PostId="16918" Score="0" Text="Okay. Again, I appreciate all of your help. You've made this a bit easier and now I know not to put all my trust into translation tools. Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-09-29T23:13:51.053" UserId="10182" />
  <row Id="35306" PostId="16918" Score="2" Text="@Sidious No problem. Remember to upvote any answers (here and of course if you ask more) you find helpful and if an answer &quot;solves your problem&quot; make sure to check the green check mark to mark it solved. Let me know if you have any further questions on that." CreationDate="2021-09-29T23:33:57.607" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35290" PostId="16919" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you edit your question to elaborate on what you want that phrase to mean? Context can make a huge difference, so we can't often just translate. (To add information, please edit the question instead of writing comments.)" CreationDate="2021-09-29T09:04:27.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35293" PostId="16920" Score="0" Text="Could the downvoter explain the reason for the downvote?" CreationDate="2021-09-29T18:42:07.373" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35296" PostId="16920" Score="1" Text="I suspect that the reason for the downvote was simply Greek. It seems systematic that essentially all questions on Greek get one vote down, so someone is unhappy with the presence of the topic on the site. While I don't like that kind of voting, it's not against any rule as long as it is about the content and not the user. If this appears systematic, you can always start a meta discussion." CreationDate="2021-09-29T19:50:59.853" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35301" PostId="16921" Score="0" Text="But whats the difference between &quot;Sumne ego vere vivus?&quot; and &quot;Egone vere vivit?&quot;? Is it just more correct?" CreationDate="2021-09-29T21:05:18.327" UserId="10183" />
  <row Id="35307" PostId="16921" Score="0" Text="@CarlosAnti *Egone vere vivit* is ungrammatical. You could go with *Egone vero vivo* or *Vivone vero*. Hopefully the differences will be discussed here or in another answer." CreationDate="2021-09-30T04:59:25.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35319" PostId="16923" Score="0" Text="Why is Buck 1933 being cited ad Mycenaean?" CreationDate="2021-09-30T22:00:10.647" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35325" PostId="16923" Score="0" Text="@fdb TKR moved it to a separate post" CreationDate="2021-10-01T13:20:29.740" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35309" PostId="16924" Score="0" Text="Thanks for post, and for further confirming my opinion that Sihler should be avoided. Yes, the evidence is slim but how do *you* connect i-qo and ἵππος? Beek 2016  seems to go as far as to question the currently accepted etymology of ἵππος without offering anything new instead. What is your etymology of ἵππος then? I was taught in grad school that it's not enough to dismiss someone else's proposal without offering your own and showing how it could provide a better analysis of the relevant data. (very friendly here, fyi :)" CreationDate="2021-09-30T14:36:17.490" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35310" PostId="16924" Score="0" Text="@AlexB. I'm a fan of the idea that it's a hypocorism, as if &quot;horsie&quot; became the unmarked word in English, since geminates and vowel fronting are pretty common in hypocorisms. I'm aware that this is entirely unprovable, obviously. The boring answer is a borrowing from some unattested dialect or IE language; lexical replacement is much more likely than a one-off sound law, and not uncommon for prominent animal names. Either way, it's not a regular reflex of *\*h₁éḱwos* (+ whatever prefix)." CreationDate="2021-09-30T14:55:19.810" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="35311" PostId="16924" Score="0" Text="I see. Did I understand your comment correctly that under your proposal L. equus (+Vedic, Lithuanian etc.) and  G. ἵππος would **not** be related then?" CreationDate="2021-09-30T15:03:14.240" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35312" PostId="16924" Score="0" Text="Also, sorry for being annoyingly pedantic, but when you say the passage from Sihler  (section 160, pp. 159-160) is based on Buck's Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin, could you please also include the relevant page numbers from Buck, where he also questions Meillet's proposal? cf. what Buck 1933 says on pp. 127-128 (section 150) https://archive.org/details/BuckComparativeGrammer/page/n141/mode/2up" CreationDate="2021-09-30T15:06:59.633" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35313" PostId="16924" Score="0" Text="and I'd appreciate if you could add your thoughts on i-qo and ἵππος" CreationDate="2021-09-30T15:13:22.377" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35316" PostId="16924" Score="0" Text="The hypocorism idea is interesting and would explain the gemination, but are there cases of vowel fronting in Greek hypocorisms? And how does it account for the rough breathing?" CreationDate="2021-09-30T17:33:00.067" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35322" PostId="16925" Score="0" Text="Oh, I've never seen this ἵκκος before. Where's it attested?" CreationDate="2021-09-30T23:04:15.640" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35323" PostId="16925" Score="2" Text="@Draconis Apparently in the Etymologicum Magnum, and also in personal names, see this Ling SE question: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/34260/h%E2%82%81%C3%A9%E1%B8%B1wos-%E1%BC%B5%CF%80%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%82-aeolian-%E1%BC%B4%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82" CreationDate="2021-09-30T23:21:09.597" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35324" PostId="16925" Score="0" Text="@Draconis here's the link to the relevant part of the EM https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb10209806?page=729" CreationDate="2021-10-01T13:18:10.893" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35329" PostId="16927" Score="4" Text="Great to see you back on the site!" CreationDate="2021-10-02T12:22:40.203" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35331" PostId="16928" Score="0" Text="On the fly, a few words come to mind, but I'll need to verify/elaborate. If the personal flaw is a consequence of your poor choices, I'd say _peccatum_ or more symbolically _macula_. If you can't help it, _error_ comes to mind. But I think there are better, more specific, options I don't remember right now" CreationDate="2021-10-02T13:07:50.340" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35334" PostId="16928" Score="0" Text="&quot;Jerome translates 'plank' as 'trabea'&quot; -- actually he translates it as *trabs*. He should really have looked it up in Smith &amp; Hall, then he would have known that &quot;the word best suited for elegant prose&quot; is *tabula* ;-)" CreationDate="2021-10-02T19:12:16.907" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35341" PostId="16928" Score="0" Text="Should each &quot;▶&quot; start on a new line (the internal formatting suggests it)?" CreationDate="2021-10-03T22:45:47.803" UserId="2852" />
  <row Id="35333" PostId="16929" Score="3" Text="In my experience, *peccatum* (2nd decl.) is far more common than *peccatus* (4th decl.). It's also the word used in ecclesiastical Latin for &quot;sin.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-02T14:23:21.013" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35336" PostId="16929" Score="0" Text="+1. Note that a vitium is acquired in Aristotelianism" CreationDate="2021-10-02T22:58:08.457" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35344" PostId="16932" Score="1" Text="Are you looking for an English verb &quot;with similar meaning&quot;? Or will a noun do?" CreationDate="2021-10-04T11:32:52.873" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35345" PostId="16932" Score="2" Text="FWIW _tact_ / _tactful_ are from Latin _tango_ &quot;I touch&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-04T15:50:31.380" UserId="1756" />
  <row Id="35348" PostId="16932" Score="2" Text="@psmears You're right, although *tactics/tactical* is from τακτικός. It's somewhat of a coincidence that they have the same four initial letters as *tact/tactful*, though both sets are ultimately from the PIE **tag-* meaning &quot;to touch.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-04T19:07:41.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35356" PostId="16932" Score="0" Text="@psmears Hmm... - maybe this is an issue with Wiktionary then? They seem to have [it](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tactic#English) as coming from τακτικός." CreationDate="2021-10-05T11:15:34.563" UserId="8608" />
  <row Id="35359" PostId="16932" Score="0" Text="@GezaKerecsenyi: That link is to the definition for *tactic*, not *tact* / *tactful* ?" CreationDate="2021-10-05T13:00:43.617" UserId="1756" />
  <row Id="35372" PostId="16932" Score="1" Text="Is the word you are looking for, [cognates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate)? Are you looking for English cognates of the Greek word &quot;τάσσω&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-10-06T02:36:36.807" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="35346" PostId="16933" Score="2" Text="This is an interesting question. I don't think the Roman authors have much to say about such things. A good place to look is Gauss's  Disquisitiones Arithmeticae of 1801," CreationDate="2021-10-04T16:07:12.383" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35347" PostId="16934" Score="7" Text="Also &quot;taxon&quot;. ___" CreationDate="2021-10-04T16:55:35.833" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35355" PostId="16934" Score="3" Text="as a verb: &quot;taxonomize&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-05T10:01:03.637" UserId="6694" />
  <row Id="35357" PostId="16934" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I don't know how I forgot about this term/stem - I appreciate your help greatly in shaking up my memory." CreationDate="2021-10-05T11:19:01.843" UserId="8608" />
  <row Id="35360" PostId="16934" Score="0" Text="&quot;taxonomy&quot; derives from τάσσω and νόμος (usually meaning &quot;law&quot;, for example &quot;law and order&quot; is perfectly translated as &quot;νόμος και τάξη&quot;, although in this case it has a more abstract meaning closer to &quot;science&quot; or &quot;technique&quot;). The direct greek equivalent is &quot;ταξινόμηση&quot;, which means &quot;classification&quot; -- for example, a person sorting incoming mail for further processing is called ταξινόμος.&#xA;&#xA;Arranging things in a certain order is better expressed with συντάσσω, for example you would command troops to assume formation by saying &quot;συνταχθείτε&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-05T13:31:57.450" UserId="10200" />
  <row Id="35349" PostId="16936" Score="0" Text="A happy find. Is there any indication of who is the author of this primer?" CreationDate="2021-10-04T19:29:10.547" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35350" PostId="16936" Score="2" Text="@fdb A fellow named [Johann Conrad Blank](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Conrad_Blank), who sadly is not primarily remembered for his pedagogical works but for being the victim in a sensational murder case." CreationDate="2021-10-04T19:47:10.113" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43175" PostId="16936" Score="0" Text="I wonder if there may be circumstances where *quotus* (/ *quotiens*) will be mistaken as a ordinary interrogative word" CreationDate="2023-05-15T10:27:40.160" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="35371" PostId="16937" Score="1" Text="Another one to add to your list: *si me amas* does not mean &quot;if you love me,&quot; but &quot;if you are inclined / if you see me as a friend&quot; or something else in one of those general areas. But Cicero was not batting his eyes at Atticus when writing thus!" CreationDate="2021-10-06T02:31:49.333" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35352" PostId="16938" Score="2" Text="Good examples! About *task*, isn't that ultimately from Latin *tango*?" CreationDate="2021-10-05T04:19:03.137" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35358" PostId="16938" Score="0" Text="Good observation. As far as I could find:&#xA;- Task comes from the old French tasque from tasche (duty) from the Latin tasca (a duty, assessment) from taxa, which is relatedto the Greek verb tasso (put in order, evaluate; τάσσω). Source: https://ewonago.wordpress.com/tag/etymology-of-task/&#xA;- Tango is more related to the touch and movement." CreationDate="2021-10-05T11:41:16.060" UserId="6753" />
  <row Id="35363" PostId="16938" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: It seems like all of these are descendants of Latin tango, but tango is in turn cognate with τάσσω. So a word like taxi would be cognate with τάσσω, but not not a descendant of it." CreationDate="2021-10-05T18:55:53.480" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35366" PostId="16938" Score="2" Text="Just to clarify what Cerberus and @BenCrowell said, being &quot;related to&quot; τάσσω is not the same thing as descending from it. The Greek is more like the uncle of the English than the parent. See [Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/tax#etymonline_v_43945) for the direct relationship. So while &quot;taxology&quot; (and &quot;taxonomy&quot; work (and &quot;taxis&quot;, too), the others are more distantly related." CreationDate="2021-10-05T19:35:21.263" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35354" PostId="16940" Score="3" Text="&quot;He has put himself into an ablative absolute as a present participle&quot; -- immo dativus est." CreationDate="2021-10-05T07:12:49.453" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35365" PostId="16940" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Is it as if he had written _mihi circumspicienti_? Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen _mihi_ with an adjective." CreationDate="2021-10-05T19:24:52.823" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35367" PostId="16940" Score="0" Text="Yes, unless he's Caesar  I do remember &quot;mihi consuli designato, Catilina, insidiatus es&quot; (Cic. In Catilinam 1,11), so there is that, at least. (Also *mihi ipsi* here and there, but I guess that doesn't count.)" CreationDate="2021-10-05T20:29:05.227" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35368" PostId="16940" Score="3" Text="@BenKovitz, consider this: *Cogitanti mihi saepenumero et memoria vetera repetenti perbeati fuisse* (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16212/meaning-of-the-first-line-of-ciceros-de-oratore/16213)" CreationDate="2021-10-05T21:30:14.667" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35389" PostId="16940" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Gratias respondenti ago! Legenti tandem in mentem venit de caso recto. (I am still surprised by both the flexibility and ambiguity of Latin grammar.)" CreationDate="2021-10-07T11:37:25.563" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35574" PostId="16940" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: Isn't &quot;circumspicienti&quot; ablative--by looking around, it finally came into my mind...&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-10-26T13:10:59.750" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35577" PostId="16940" Score="0" Text="@tony That's what I thought until Sebastian Koppehel corrected me. The main form of the expression is _mihi tandem in mentem aliquid_, where _aliquid_ is the subject of the sentence. The dative indicates whose mind it came into. Erasmus has written _circumspicienti_ instead of _mihi_, leaving it to implication that the speaker is looking around." CreationDate="2021-10-26T19:40:09.413" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35364" PostId="16941" Score="1" Text="Can you add anything about why it makes sense to use _venire_ impersonally? Can you do this with any verb at all?" CreationDate="2021-10-05T19:24:39.927" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35369" PostId="16941" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I cannot offer any firm answer as to what licenses the use of this particular verb in this way. My best guess is that this construction, impersonal verb with a genitive complement, is employed with mental events that de-emphasize agent and emphasize experience. E.g., pudet, piget, taedet, paenitet. Of course, those verbs are all transitive, whereas venire here uses the dative to specify the experiencer." CreationDate="2021-10-05T23:09:25.067" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35390" PostId="16941" Score="0" Text="That sounds to me like a very good educated guess, at the very least. I took the liberty of copying it into your answer. It sheds some valuable light on why a fluent Latin speaker would find it reasonable to use _venit_ impersonally even if he hadn't encountered this construction before—exactly what I was hoping for in an answer. (Feel free to revert, of course.)" CreationDate="2021-10-07T11:46:38.597" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35362" PostId="16942" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your time and response. This is great I am still hoping to get something that is more futile (like shooting at the moon to get rid of it levels of futile). I reached out on other forums and got this as an answer -Āleam ūnō ēventū iacis- but I'm not sure this really works. What is your take?" CreationDate="2021-10-05T15:55:23.940" UserId="10198" />
  <row Id="35373" PostId="16943" Score="4" Text="Perhaps it is derived from the usually wishful Hebraic salutations? (peace be with you)" CreationDate="2021-10-06T11:16:52.867" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35370" PostId="16946" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your answer and time I think I like this one the best I think it would have made the most sense at the time even if it's not exactly what I was looking for (which is understandable considering I'm coming from a modern sense of humor and sarcasm.)" CreationDate="2021-10-06T01:09:41.590" UserId="10198" />
  <row Id="35376" PostId="16948" Score="1" Text="https://github.com/psb1558/Junicode-font" CreationDate="2021-10-06T19:07:35.533" UserId="10205" />
  <row Id="35397" PostId="16949" Score="0" Text="The word is present in Whitaker's Words without any problem... Not with the &quot;print&quot; translation, but it is there. http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=recusus" CreationDate="2021-10-07T20:36:17.537" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="35379" PostId="16950" Score="0" Text="Just barely beat me!" CreationDate="2021-10-06T21:42:30.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35398" PostId="16950" Score="1" Text="@cmw Numquam mihi in mentem venit ut te cudam " CreationDate="2021-10-07T21:20:22.967" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35403" PostId="16950" Score="1" Text="What's the Latin for &quot;good play on words&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-10-07T22:46:18.950" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35381" PostId="16951" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this!" CreationDate="2021-10-06T22:06:45.607" UserId="10206" />
  <row Id="35382" PostId="16952" Score="2" Text="I think the only person who can answer that question is whoever made those recordings." CreationDate="2021-10-07T01:35:21.250" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35384" PostId="16952" Score="0" Text="Just a note, these are more commonly called &quot;*Odes* 1.8&quot; (or sometimes *Carmina*) and the *Carmen Saeculare*. The [website](https://www.stilus.nl/horatius/) provides the first lines, but they're not the actual titles." CreationDate="2021-10-07T02:12:31.417" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35383" PostId="16953" Score="0" Text="Do you want an answer to cover just these examples, or in Dune more generally? The latter will yield fewer results without a fuller list." CreationDate="2021-10-07T01:41:37.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35385" PostId="16953" Score="1" Text="I'm not going to write up a full answer, but I think a lot of what you are looking for is already dispersed on Wikipedia, for example the etymology section of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit. It is also worth noting that a lot of the terms in Dune originate in Hebrew or Arabic words (for example 'Haderach', 'the way') rather than Latin or Greek." CreationDate="2021-10-07T08:07:26.080" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35386" PostId="16953" Score="0" Text="@cmw: I'm open to anything, but it would would be impractical to make an exhaustive list. The book has a *lot* of unusual or made up words in it -- it has a whole glossary in the back." CreationDate="2021-10-07T09:40:29.420" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35387" PostId="16953" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9: Interesting, thanks. It would seem not to make sense that gesserit is subjunctive." CreationDate="2021-10-07T10:06:31.010" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35400" PostId="16953" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 Wikipedia claims: &quot;The standalone Latin phrase *bene gesserit* translates as 'well done'.&quot; " CreationDate="2021-10-07T21:46:15.867" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35402" PostId="16953" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: But I think the meaning is like &quot;provided that it be done well,&quot; or &quot;provided that he behave well.&quot; In other words, the subjunctive really is part of the meaning. E.g., you can release a prisoner on parole, provided that he behave well." CreationDate="2021-10-07T22:36:23.997" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35392" PostId="16959" Score="0" Text="I'm glad this construction has received scholarly attention and isn't just my usual language learner's confusion! I took _de_ to invoke the notion of a topic (like &quot;about&quot; in English), i.e. Erasmus wasn't using _de_ as a generic or genitive preposition. Plausible?" CreationDate="2021-10-07T17:29:59.913" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35395" PostId="16959" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz  My hunch is that the genitive in this particular example/construction could not sound natural to Erasmus and he preferred using the PP &quot;de+abl.&quot; In this sense it is also interesting that, as you can see in the link below, Petrarch has been said to conjecture insertion of (nominative) _imago_ to account for the genitive in this example from Cicero, _Pro Sulla_, VI, 19 : _cum vestrorum periculorum, cum huius urbis, cum illorum delubrorum atque templorum, cum puerorum infantium, cum matronarum ac virginum veniebat in mentem_." CreationDate="2021-10-07T20:05:16.723" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35396" PostId="16959" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz See the comment in this link: https://books.google.es/books?id=rdBrV5_rxCYC&amp;pg=PA170&amp;dq=Petrarch+imago+veniebat+in+mentem&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjI6I7zjLnzAhWC8OAKHbGbA7YQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&amp;q=Petrarch%20imago%20veniebat%20in%20mentem&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-10-07T20:07:43.443" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35401" PostId="16959" Score="0" Text="An implied _imago_ is certainly an interesting idea. It would even explain Erasmus's _de_. Here, though, is a deep theoretical question: couldn't each impersonal _in mentem venit_ result not from a rule or implied subject, but each person making an analogy with other impersonal verbs anew?" CreationDate="2021-10-07T21:50:06.120" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35418" PostId="16959" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz Perhaps Petrarch did not consider the genitive in this construction as grammatically motivated, hence his conjecture of inserting _imago_ to justify this case. Linguistically speaking, what I think is interesting is that from this non-agentive collocation (_in mentem venire_) there is no way to obtain an impersonal passive. Note that the impersonal passive of _venire_ would only be possible if and only if the verb is agentive (e.g. _ubi eo ventum est_ ('when they arrived there', Caes. _BG._ 1.43.4)).  See the Latin section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice" CreationDate="2021-10-11T17:34:12.913" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35404" PostId="16961" Score="0" Text="It makes some intuitive sense to me as &quot;if, in retrospect from some future point, he has performed his duties well...&quot; -- though admittedly this kind of interpretation doesn't work as well with the Seneca quote." CreationDate="2021-10-07T22:54:45.100" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35406" PostId="16963" Score="1" Text="It is true that the phrase I specifically asked about is ambiguous. In the case of *vixero* we can rule out the subjunctive, though." CreationDate="2021-10-08T19:47:32.130" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35407" PostId="16966" Score="0" Text="This doesn't affect the overall argument, but I don't think it's clear whether there was really a palatal geminate stage: metathesis would yield the same results, and seems more plausible phonetically than depalatalization with compensatory lengthening." CreationDate="2021-10-08T21:26:54.127" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35408" PostId="16966" Score="0" Text="@TKR True, but (1) the other palatals often yielded geminates, (2) allegedly *ly &gt; most dialects λλ Arcadocypriot ιλ (though that could also be metathesis plus later assimilation), (3) *uny, *unr &gt; ῡν, ῡρ which implies some sort of compensatory lengthening." CreationDate="2021-10-08T21:48:28.147" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35409" PostId="16966" Score="0" Text="(1) I'm not sure we should expect stops and continuants to pattern together in this environment (and those geminates did not simplify). (2) I think the treatment of L is the strongest argument for gemination, but it's made difficult by the reflex you cite in Cyprian, a conservative dialect (though the difficulty can be avoided by saying that spelling is an attempt to represent a palatal). (3) CL yes, but do those imply a geminate stage? Cf. the 3CL type *ksenwos &gt; kse:nos where I don't think anyone posits a geminate. Not sure what's right, just saying gemination isn't the only possibility." CreationDate="2021-10-08T22:23:01.687" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35410" PostId="16966" Score="0" Text="@TKR Generally agreed, but what is CL? I don't recognize the abbreviation." CreationDate="2021-10-08T22:41:32.507" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35411" PostId="16966" Score="0" Text="Compensatory lengthening -- sorry, was running out of characters!" CreationDate="2021-10-08T22:46:25.097" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35412" PostId="16966" Score="0" Text="@TKR Ahh, of course. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-10-08T22:46:42.373" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35414" PostId="16966" Score="0" Text="Good answer. By the way, I always thought the α in Φαίνω was short: lengthened in the pseudo-sigmatic aorist to compensate for the -s-, but still short in the passive aorist and future." CreationDate="2021-10-10T20:42:11.163" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35415" PostId="16971" Score="0" Text="Thanks I appreciate that." CreationDate="2021-10-11T11:06:18.773" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35474" PostId="16972" Score="0" Text="I don't know what a love bite is, but I knew very young (50+ years ago) that sucking on my hand or arm very hard for a long time would leave a bruise, so the etymology makes sense to me." CreationDate="2021-10-16T20:39:57.510" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="35475" PostId="16972" Score="0" Text="I’ve added a link to the Wikipedia article on “love bite” (EN) or “hickey” (US)" CreationDate="2021-10-16T20:47:39.027" UserId="3271" />
  <row Id="35479" PostId="16972" Score="1" Text="There must be a word for love bite in classical Latin, e.g. in Martial or other erotic poets. But what is it?" CreationDate="2021-10-17T15:01:43.230" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35481" PostId="16972" Score="2" Text="@fdb e.g. Propertius 3.8.21-22&quot;in morso aequales videant **mea vulnera collo**: me doceat livor mecum habuisse meam.&quot; and 4.5.39-40 &quot;semper habe morsus circa tua colla recentis, dentibus alterius quos putet esse datos&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-17T17:54:05.823" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35482" PostId="16972" Score="2" Text="also Tibullus 1.16.13-14 &quot;tunc sucos herbasque dedi quis livor abiret quem facit impresso mutua dente venus.&quot; There are even more examples mentioned in Hutchinson 2006" CreationDate="2021-10-17T18:01:03.263" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35486" PostId="16972" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. ...sucos .... Is this a pun?" CreationDate="2021-10-17T21:36:13.833" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35492" PostId="16972" Score="1" Text="@fdb it could be, but I'm not so sure" CreationDate="2021-10-18T15:25:25.940" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35423" PostId="16973" Score="1" Text="Translation by John Selby Watson (London: George Bell and Sons, 1886). http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1360/" CreationDate="2021-10-12T05:14:14.337" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35421" PostId="16975" Score="3" Text="I wonder if this is a calque from Hebrew, where &quot;who will give that X?&quot; is a conventional way of saying &quot;I wish that X&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-12T00:18:48.637" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35422" PostId="16975" Score="1" Text="Seem likes the translator took too many liberties in my opinion.  Thanks for the answer. I appreciate it." CreationDate="2021-10-12T05:11:58.623" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35424" PostId="16975" Score="2" Text="@TKR I had the same thought. I checked and Psalm 54:7 is quite close: “et dixi quis dabit mihi pinnas columbae ut volem et requiescam”" CreationDate="2021-10-12T06:22:21.390" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="35427" PostId="16982" Score="1" Text="Possibly another case of [temporary insanity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Selby_Watson) on the part of the Reverend John Selby Watson " CreationDate="2021-10-12T16:10:18.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35431" PostId="16982" Score="1" Text="I blame the type setter or the person who transferred the text onto the internet." CreationDate="2021-10-12T18:08:40.383" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35430" PostId="16983" Score="1" Text="Cool, as is clear, a very hard answer." CreationDate="2021-10-12T18:07:35.973" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35432" PostId="16983" Score="1" Text="@bobsmith76 nutrientibus refers to wet-nurses. quod eis dabas is breast milk." CreationDate="2021-10-12T20:06:51.563" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35433" PostId="16983" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey I thought you were joking, but then I looked up the context. The subject of the text is indeed breastfeeding!" CreationDate="2021-10-12T20:43:12.150" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35434" PostId="16983" Score="0" Text="cool,............" CreationDate="2021-10-13T11:25:38.820" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35435" PostId="16985" Score="1" Text="When you rearranged the words, you reversed the meaning. What you've given actually means 'The better a good book, the larger it is.' Also, in your last paragraph, I think you must mean quidam instead of quidem?" CreationDate="2021-10-13T16:04:49.477" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35436" PostId="16985" Score="0" Text="Cool, thanks ..." CreationDate="2021-10-13T17:20:24.790" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35437" PostId="16985" Score="1" Text="Does [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14349) answer your question? Or almost seems like a duplicate.." CreationDate="2021-10-13T17:23:18.230" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35438" PostId="16985" Score="0" Text="yes ............" CreationDate="2021-10-13T17:39:37.297" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35441" PostId="16986" Score="3" Text="FWIW, there is the fixed latinism [_sic_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic)  (thus, this way, that way) used in writing after quoting something literally, especially to justify what you consider wrong or outdated orthography or grammar. It comes from _sic erat scriptum_, which could be (a bit freely) translated as 'this is how it was written'" CreationDate="2021-10-13T21:52:19.667" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35444" PostId="16986" Score="0" Text="I think you should write *stet* into its own answer, since I think it's a better option than any of the others (including the one you've accepted)." CreationDate="2021-10-14T10:10:11.003" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35445" PostId="16986" Score="5" Text="Some more context (like an example) would definitely help here." CreationDate="2021-10-14T12:36:04.297" UserId="1793" />
  <row Id="35450" PostId="16986" Score="1" Text="@chzzh Could you write an example of code annotation then? With the literal code and the comment you'd like to add to it. Make one up with a &quot;hello world&quot; if you haven't any real code at the moment." CreationDate="2021-10-15T12:09:00.843" UserId="1793" />
  <row Id="35534" PostId="16987" Score="0" Text="I'm struggling to imagine a context where this expression would be appropriate - even in English beauracratese the expression means &quot;left where found&quot;, eg. in archeology or criminalistics. This it's a description of fact, &quot;found this way&quot; or &quot;is currently in its proper place&quot;. I'm positive it can't be used to mean &quot;don't modify&quot; (situs is a description of location, not of quality) or as a command or suggestion, as can't noun phrases in Latin in general - you need a verb." CreationDate="2021-10-22T18:43:57.900" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35535" PostId="16987" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Not as a command on its own, but I'm sure I've seen instructions like &quot;leave in situ&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-22T18:58:29.740" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35536" PostId="16987" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Sure, that would be possible, but the meaning of that is &quot;don't move around&quot; while the OP is looking for a note meaning &quot;don't modify the contents&quot;. This requires a different verb entirely, *mūtāre,* or more preferrably something like *nē tangās,* or *sīc voluī/sīc estō* (the latter in fact already in use in the European tradition shortened as *sic*, which it only now occurs to me probably started out as a note to correctors)." CreationDate="2021-10-22T19:22:12.307" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35440" PostId="16989" Score="3" Text="Not the biggest fan of doing so, but this could potentially be made into a proper acronym: ISQA." CreationDate="2021-10-13T20:49:28.787" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35447" PostId="16992" Score="2" Text="I believe it's been proposed that the *dʰeh₁- of θήλυς and the *dʰeh₁- of τίθημι are actually the same PIE root (the semantics being &quot;place (at the breast)&quot; &gt; &quot;suckle&quot;), so it's possible though unprovable that the latter pair are related." CreationDate="2021-10-14T19:31:23.483" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35461" PostId="16992" Score="0" Text="@TKR Homophones in PIE always make me wonder if there's a connection. Do you know who published that? I didn't see it in Beekes." CreationDate="2021-10-15T23:24:41.403" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35463" PostId="16992" Score="0" Text="I don't, and Chantraine doesn't mention it either. Maybe someone here will know." CreationDate="2021-10-15T23:42:30.417" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35466" PostId="16992" Score="1" Text="@TKR Could be a good new question in itself." CreationDate="2021-10-16T15:08:59.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35448" PostId="16993" Score="1" Text="Posting a comment since you seem to want a single Greek-derived word, but in logic that would be best expressed as an 'axiomatic falsehood' or something similar. It would be equivalent to saying that the negation of the statement is an axiom." CreationDate="2021-10-15T08:22:33.440" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35451" PostId="16993" Score="3" Text="I don't have time to look now, but Aristotle's *Metaphysics* Γ (=bk. 4) dedicates a large section to showing the absurdity of those who deny the principle of non-contradiction. I'm sure &quot;atopon&quot; and &quot;geloion&quot; make several appearances." CreationDate="2021-10-15T12:23:53.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35452" PostId="16993" Score="1" Text="The Euclid term is [ἄτοπον  atopon](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄτοπος)   absurd, used in *reductio ad absurdum*  εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγή." CreationDate="2021-10-15T13:59:00.477" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="35453" PostId="16993" Score="0" Text="https://math.wikia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" CreationDate="2021-10-15T14:04:22.520" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="35454" PostId="16993" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 My question indeed derives from logic. The reason is there are weaker logics without negation / falsehoods. And similarly to declaring truths, in those logics it is necessary to declare falsehoods. Therefore and am indeed looking for a word that would sum up &quot;axiomatic falsehood&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-15T15:43:29.310" UserId="10248" />
  <row Id="35455" PostId="16993" Score="4" Text="BTW &quot;That which commends itself as evident&quot; isn't actually a very good translation of ἀξίωμα -- that word literally means &quot;something requested/demanded/expected&quot; (as opposed to something that has to be proved)." CreationDate="2021-10-15T16:45:21.320" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35458" PostId="16993" Score="0" Text="@TKR Though that's the literal meaning, it comes to have a more specific sense in logical works, at least as far back as Aristotle, e.g. *Posterior Analytics* A.2.72a16-18. In fact, it is precisely because an axiom *can't* be proved that it is &quot;demanded&quot; as evident. In Aristotle's terminology, it's &quot;immediate&quot; (ἄμεσον)." CreationDate="2021-10-15T20:21:57.503" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35456" PostId="16995" Score="0" Text="Cool, thanks your time." CreationDate="2021-10-15T18:46:34.577" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35459" PostId="16996" Score="0" Text="Curious, did you intend to make this community wiki?" CreationDate="2021-10-15T21:08:17.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35460" PostId="16996" Score="0" Text="@cmw It felt appropriate since it was the OP's answer, taken from where they edited into the question." CreationDate="2021-10-15T21:29:01.987" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35462" PostId="16996" Score="0" Text="It's up to you, but although the suggestion is OP's, the explanation is yours and so you deserve just as much credit. I can reverse the wiki-ization if you'd like, but as I said, up to you." CreationDate="2021-10-15T23:31:43.733" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35469" PostId="16996" Score="0" Text="@cmw Happy for you to reverse the CW-ization, thank you for offering. :)" CreationDate="2021-10-16T18:37:27.347" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35478" PostId="16997" Score="0" Text="Welcome to Latin.SE! Could you also provide the original Portuguese and a bit more context, for a better translation?" CreationDate="2021-10-17T10:47:12.043" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35484" PostId="16997" Score="1" Text="Thank you, @Rafael! I have included the original and a brief explanation." CreationDate="2021-10-17T20:06:11.463" UserId="10252" />
  <row Id="35464" PostId="16998" Score="2" Text="No, there isn't any." CreationDate="2021-10-16T09:00:04.797" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35472" PostId="17000" Score="0" Text="Two comments: (1) Ἀξίωμα comes most directly from ἀξιόω. I'm not sure if there is a deeper connection to ἄγω, but that isn't the verb that would first come to mind. (2) I don't really like &quot;impossibility&quot; as a translation of ἀπορία. In philosophical contexts, it means a &quot;puzzle&quot; or &quot;difficulty.&quot; (In fact, a huge point of Plato's *Meno* is that it *isn't* impossible to get past an ἀπορία.)" CreationDate="2021-10-16T20:25:54.513" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35473" PostId="17000" Score="0" Text="It also seems pretty evident to me that the OP *is* asking about a logical/mathematical context, so I'm confused by the resistance to his (pretty plausible) literal translation of ἀξίωμα to show how it came to mean &quot;axiom.&quot; LSJ lists this logical meaning and translates the parent meaning as &quot;that which is thought fit.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-16T20:30:31.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35485" PostId="17000" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Thanks for your comments. The etymology tracing back through ἄχιος  to ἄγω is from wiktionary. Beekes' entry for ἄχιος seems to confirm this is standard, although he suggests there is room for doubt." CreationDate="2021-10-17T21:20:58.087" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35465" PostId="17001" Score="2" Text="This is a great answer, thank you very much" CreationDate="2021-10-16T15:04:27.540" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35470" PostId="17001" Score="0" Text="Might you elaborate on &quot;the dilettantish and unencyclopedic nature of the Latin Wikipedia&quot;, just out of curiosity" CreationDate="2021-10-16T18:50:29.847" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35471" PostId="17001" Score="7" Text="@Laravel The purpose of Wikipedia was to gather what is known and accepted. Someone's amateur translation of the Gilgamesh epic into Latin doesn't fit those criteria. Much of Latin wiki feels like that - people who don't know Latin that well trying their hand at translating, but inevitably reproducing their own native speech patterns instead." CreationDate="2021-10-16T18:52:46.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35477" PostId="17001" Score="0" Text="I better understand what you meant, thank you" CreationDate="2021-10-17T09:16:42.193" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35480" PostId="17001" Score="1" Text="@Laravel, it could be worse :) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-us-teenager-wrote-huge-slice-of-scots-wikipedia" CreationDate="2021-10-17T17:12:14.413" UserId="1853" />
  <row Id="35483" PostId="17002" Score="3" Text="What meaning of &quot;feel&quot; are you going for?" CreationDate="2021-10-17T18:30:35.673" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35487" PostId="17002" Score="1" Text="To live through, to experience and to let yourself feel all things that happen/will happen. To fully sense everything." CreationDate="2021-10-18T07:33:29.187" UserId="10257" />
  <row Id="35490" PostId="17004" Score="0" Text="Genitive versus adjective?" CreationDate="2021-10-18T14:32:17.480" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35491" PostId="17004" Score="0" Text="That's an interesting suggestion but I feel like both the genitive and the adjective have the same ambiguous meaning, I might be wrong though" CreationDate="2021-10-18T14:43:11.893" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35488" PostId="17005" Score="6" Text="I would parse the word 'taste' in 'acquired taste' as having the meaning 'preference', not 'flavour'. It's confusing, of course, because if a food is an acquired taste that means you must acquire the preference (taste) for the food's flavour (taste). But this means using *sapor* feels off to me." CreationDate="2021-10-18T13:09:10.623" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35497" PostId="17005" Score="1" Text="The problem with *assuetus* is that it means &quot;customary, usual.&quot; Not exactly logical, given the meaning of *assuescere*, but that's what it means." CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:18:46.253" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35498" PostId="17005" Score="2" Text="@dbmag9 you're right, but who says we have to translate &quot;acquired taste&quot; literally? It is clearly the *sapor* we're really talking about." CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:27:28.153" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35499" PostId="17005" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel But to me, an 'acquired taste[/flavour]' would be a flavour that something has acquired. Perhaps soup might acquire a curry taste after being in the fridge next to some curry, or a person might acquire a taste after bathing in herbs!" CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:29:35.147" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35500" PostId="17005" Score="2" Text="@dbmag9 well, Tony made no attempts to translate &quot;acquire&quot; literally either. The English expression, e.g. &quot;oysters are an acquired taste&quot; really means &quot;oysters have a taste that one has to get used to.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:40:45.263" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35508" PostId="17005" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Maybe a gerundive is called for, then. Sapor adsuescendus? &quot;A taste that requires getting used to&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-18T20:48:37.750" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35513" PostId="17005" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9: Thank you. I'm not sure about &quot;preference&quot;; isn't this used to compare one thing with another: &quot;I prefer garum to ketchup.&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-10-19T11:08:41.347" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35514" PostId="17005" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. Oxford gives &quot;assuetus-a-um&quot; = &quot;accustomed&quot;, hence my confidence in using it. I thought that the Latin for &quot;acquire&quot;, &quot;acquiro&quot;, would mean &quot;to acquire&quot; in the sense of &quot;to receive/ get a letter&quot;. Do you have a thought on the AA, &quot;sapore assuefacto&quot;,  retaining the reflexive nature of the passive infinitive, &quot;assuefieri&quot; = &quot;to accustom oneself&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-10-19T11:25:47.937" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35515" PostId="17005" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey: Excellent. I didn't think about the gerundive, hoping that the AA would cover it." CreationDate="2021-10-19T11:30:14.190" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35521" PostId="17005" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9: In Gilbert &amp; Sullivans opera **The Mikado**, *acquired taste* is given a special meaning by Katisha, where she says about herself: &#xA;&quot;I am an acquired taste – only the educated palate can appreciate me. I was educating his palate when he left me. (...) It takes years to train a man to love me.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-20T16:10:52.517" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="35493" PostId="17006" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Incidentally, Latin has nasal infixes and lots of strong aorist-perfects. C.f. *tango*, perfect *tetigi*, supine *tactum*." CreationDate="2021-10-18T18:21:26.863" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35494" PostId="17006" Score="3" Text="I confess I'm baffled by a list which mentions a &quot;huge body of literature&quot; as something French has but doesn't mention it for Latin..." CreationDate="2021-10-18T18:30:46.810" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35495" PostId="17006" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9: Latin certainly has a huge body of literature, but it's fixed (except for the occasional translation of a Harry Potter novel or the Hobbit, papal declarations, etc.) What I was getting at is that I can walk into any French bookstore and find thousands of books, magazines, and papers that just came out this year and won't have a translation available for some time. (And, in fact, I've done exactly that for certain books I really wanted.) There are different English translations of Latin texts released frequently, but I don't think there are any completely new texts popping up." CreationDate="2021-10-18T18:37:15.817" UserId="10217" />
  <row Id="35496" PostId="17006" Score="0" Text="@anomaly I suppose so (but then what you really mean is that French has living and growing body of literature), which is a different thing to value." CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:09:27.117" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35505" PostId="17006" Score="4" Text="I also recommend the question [Why speak in Latin in 2020?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13391/why-speak-in-latin-in-2020), which I daresay is still worth reading in 2021." CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:59:39.920" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35721" PostId="17006" Score="2" Text="This is a good question! I'm sorry to see it voted down. It's a great opportunity to tell what is special about Latin, and what it has that makes the effort of learning it worth it, at least for many people. You can find a long, excellent, and yet still incomplete answer in the book [_Long Live Latin: The Pleasures of a Useless Language_](https://www.amazon.com/Long-Live-Latin-Pleasures-Language/dp/0374284520) by Nicola Gardini." CreationDate="2021-11-09T10:43:41.943" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35726" PostId="17006" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: Well, the reception here certainly hasn't increased my desire to learn Latin. Thanks for the tip, though. I actually just ordered a copy of it a week or so ago, and with your recommendation I'll move it to the top of my book queue. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-11-09T13:32:46.930" UserId="10217" />
  <row Id="35729" PostId="17006" Score="1" Text="@anomaly I upvoted, and I think it's a good question overall, but I also understand the reception given that you opened (while addressing an online community centred around Latin) by saying you didn't enjoy Latin and found it fussy and generic. From a tactfulness standpoint it might have been better to start the post the way you started your second paragraph. I hope you're enjoying your continuing studies." CreationDate="2021-11-09T16:06:35.130" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35506" PostId="17007" Score="1" Text="For what it is worth, the company was [apparently](https://youtu.be/5hz0Z2sblVQ?t=2m35s) named in 1982 after a fictional company called &quot;Intrum Art or something like that&quot; in &quot;some crime novel.&quot; Not kidding, that's how the person responsible tells it." CreationDate="2021-10-18T20:08:36.543" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35507" PostId="17007" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You should just make that an answer." CreationDate="2021-10-18T20:41:11.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35501" PostId="17008" Score="1" Text="This is a detailed answer, thank you." CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:44:58.243" UserId="10217" />
  <row Id="35502" PostId="17008" Score="1" Text="@anomaly You're welcome; I added a comment to recommend Googling 'why study Latin' for other perspectives." CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:47:38.960" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35503" PostId="17008" Score="4" Text="FWIW, Latin was the scholarly *lingua franca* until ~400 years ago, and even afterwards was extremely common. Want to read Descartes' original *Meditations* or Newton's *Principia* or Spinoza's *Ethics*? They're in Latin. Ancient Rome is just the tip of the iceberg!" CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:53:03.683" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35504" PostId="17008" Score="1" Text="Great answer, +1. There is probably more Latin that has never been and will never be translated from the 16th to 18th centuries than has survived from antiquity. For me personally, though, it's definitely those nasal infixes ;-)" CreationDate="2021-10-18T19:56:09.323" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35518" PostId="17014" Score="2" Text="There is a medieval Latin word *commensalis* (someone having meals with someone else), survived in the modern Italian word *commensale*. I would doubt it has anything to do with *commence* though." CreationDate="2021-10-20T11:07:13.700" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="35519" PostId="17014" Score="3" Text="@DenisNardin &quot;commensal&quot; even exists in English, though it's rare/technical." CreationDate="2021-10-20T13:41:25.633" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="35520" PostId="17014" Score="0" Text="And there is *commensalism* [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensalism): a long-term biological interaction (symbiosis) in which members of one species gain benefits while those of the other species neither benefit nor are harmed." CreationDate="2021-10-20T16:00:37.373" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="35522" PostId="17014" Score="0" Text="@hobbs Does that come from _mens_ (mind), _mensus_ (measurement), _mensa_ (table), or _mensis_ (month)‽" CreationDate="2021-10-20T18:03:43.013" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="35523" PostId="17014" Score="0" Text="@Geremia mensa, I believe. It's the adjectival form of the &quot;commensalism&quot; that JobRozemond just mentioned." CreationDate="2021-10-20T18:21:55.447" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="35525" PostId="17014" Score="0" Text="@hobbs Yes, based upon what it means in English." CreationDate="2021-10-20T19:59:26.907" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="35516" PostId="17015" Score="4" Text="Have you considered &quot;Mercurius imperia portat&quot; as the basic sentence?" CreationDate="2021-10-19T23:00:46.363" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="35517" PostId="17015" Score="5" Text="Note that the direct object of *portare* is the thing that's being carried. *Ad homines* means &quot;to the humans.&quot; That doesn't work." CreationDate="2021-10-19T23:04:41.443" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35528" PostId="17018" Score="3" Text="Then probably elechthrons!" CreationDate="2021-10-21T02:59:53.067" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35526" PostId="17020" Score="3" Text="Out of curiosity, which Romance language in particular?" CreationDate="2021-10-21T00:12:19.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35527" PostId="17020" Score="1" Text="My native language is Rumanian." CreationDate="2021-10-21T00:18:15.690" UserId="10180" />
  <row Id="35542" PostId="17020" Score="3" Text="/ki/ and /g/ followed by /i/ are palatalised in many languages, and in many languages they are not palatalised. What shall I say? Languages are different." CreationDate="2021-10-23T11:08:58.547" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35545" PostId="17020" Score="4" Text="It's just a question of what you're used to. If (like me) you natively spoke a language which doesn't palatalize velars before front vowels, you'd never think to palatalize these Latin sounds." CreationDate="2021-10-23T19:11:42.223" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35560" PostId="17020" Score="3" Text="I'd like to understand what exact pronunciation you're aiming at and what comes out - could you give examples from your native Rumanian, if not directly link to recordings at www.forvo.com? In particular, do you pronounce *digitus* with the Rumanian *gi* or *ghi*? Direct links would be especially useful if either your target or your result don't actually exist in Rumanian." CreationDate="2021-10-25T05:20:50.533" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35587" PostId="17020" Score="0" Text="Firstly, I have to admit that my knowledge in phonetics and linguistics is very limited, yet I am very passionate about this domain. I am trying to pronounce any latin word where /k/ or /g/ and /i/ are in the same syllabe, with the aim of doing it without assimilating one sound to the other. After numerous attempts, I feel like I no longer palatalize the /k/, but neither pronounce it like the velar /k/ I am used to. I am not sure how and if I should provide the recording of my attempt, but the group of sounds is definitely closer to the Rumanian &quot;chi/ghi&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-27T22:01:56.003" UserId="10180" />
  <row Id="35608" PostId="17020" Score="0" Text="This question would be more on-topic on Linguistics SE. If what you're asking is &quot;why do I as a Romanian speaker have difficulty pronouncing a velar before a front vowel without palatalizing&quot;, that's not Latin-specific but is a general question about phonetics/phonology." CreationDate="2021-10-30T22:45:29.803" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35642" PostId="17020" Score="0" Text="You can use audio recording sites like vocaroo.com or upload the audio to Google Drive or Dropbox. Alternatively links to forvo.com can serve for illustration. Meanwhile I've tried my best to elaborate on my previous answer - hopefully I understood the nature of your question correctly and managed to give a thorough explanation." CreationDate="2021-11-04T14:22:36.680" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35529" PostId="17023" Score="0" Text="Olsen mentions πτολίεθρον in 7.3.7 as &quot;quite obscure.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-21T14:32:13.827" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35531" PostId="17025" Score="1" Text="Which is the direct object of the main verb in your example _audīvī cum tībiā canerēs_?" CreationDate="2021-10-22T15:52:03.050" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35533" PostId="17025" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino There's no object at all - it's the intransitive &quot;I heard it when..., I was there listening&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-22T16:58:59.470" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35537" PostId="17029" Score="0" Text="The etymology of this word seems to be very unclear -- note that Beekes says &quot;no cognates outside Greek&quot;, which makes positing a PIE form rather pointless. But it pretty clearly doesn't contain the agent suffix, which wouldn't fit either formally or semantically." CreationDate="2021-10-22T20:47:55.340" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35538" PostId="17029" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Is the semantic fit really not good enough if we think of a wish as &quot;that which causes us to wish (for it)?&quot; I suppose there could also be some hypothetical form such as ἐλδήρ, which would then morph into ἔλδωρ by whatever process caused ἀνήρ -&gt; εὐνωρ." CreationDate="2021-10-22T21:40:49.643" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35539" PostId="17029" Score="0" Text="These  -τωρ / -τηρ nouns always refer to human agents (at least I can't think of any exception), and their semantics aren't causative, so the meaning in that case would have to be &quot;person who desires&quot;." CreationDate="2021-10-22T21:50:47.760" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35548" PostId="17031" Score="0" Text="How you say this might depend on how much you care about the idea that a curve is a point-set. There are foundational approaches like smooth infinitesimal analysis (SIA) in which the opposite is true: one can prove that a curve *can't* consist of a set of points. A phrasing like the one in Draconis's answer can be used if you're willing to sidestep that issue. I believe the symbol ∈ comes from Greek epsilon, as an abbreviation for ἐστι (is), the idea being that if a is blue, then we can express this as a∈B, where B is the set of blue things." CreationDate="2021-10-24T00:09:05.143" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35549" PostId="17031" Score="0" Text="I was thinking of the Euclidian definitions, a curve is basically an extended point" CreationDate="2021-10-24T08:33:25.167" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35546" PostId="17032" Score="0" Text="This could work, do you have any reference for it?" CreationDate="2021-10-23T19:28:38.960" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35547" PostId="17032" Score="0" Text="...or simply *sum*." CreationDate="2021-10-23T22:13:31.770" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35550" PostId="17037" Score="0" Text="Link to the appendix: https://archive.org/details/restoredpronunci00arnorich/page/20/mode/2up" CreationDate="2021-10-24T18:11:50.767" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35575" PostId="17037" Score="0" Text="I gather you follow [Luke R](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNPFzeeseXQ) ? Apologies for pushing [videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOqdrWlR4Gw)..." CreationDate="2021-10-26T17:43:45.483" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="35551" PostId="17038" Score="0" Text="I also looked for Euler's way to say it but didn't find this text, anyway this is a perfect answer! Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-10-24T18:24:41.923" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35552" PostId="17040" Score="3" Text="Lots of languages don't palatalize velars before front vowels to any significant degree. Sure, some degree of coarticulation may be inevitable, but that's a far cry from pronouncing palatal plosives or affricates as the question describes, which is clearly an L1 interference phenomenon." CreationDate="2021-10-24T21:55:30.703" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35553" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="@TKR I don't think the OP is talking affrication - Rum. has a distinction between ci and chi which = those of Italian. Just as in It. chi, Tur. ki, Ru. ки the velar is palatalised, which is just opposite to Tu. kı, Ru. кы where it's velar. The OP hears this palatalisation because in Rum. palatalisation is contrastive, though not for velar stops; almost the same is true of Russian, where кы, the equivalent of kı, exists only in loans, which is why I hear it. You don't hear this because in your native tongue it's non-contrastive and conditioned by human physiology." CreationDate="2021-10-24T22:58:19.083" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35554" PostId="17040" Score="2" Text="If I understand correctly OP is saying that they find it hard to pronounce Latin *ci gi* as [ki gi], but rather pronounce them &quot;as either palatal plosives [or] postalveolar affricates&quot;. Since [ki gi] are easily pronounceable sequences that are common in many languages, the obvious explanation would be L1 interference. But it might help to have more phonetic details." CreationDate="2021-10-24T23:55:29.837" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35558" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Regarding qui/ngui, the fact that it has a non-affricated outcome in many Romance languages makes it hard for me to accept Allen's statement that qu was palatalized as well as labialized before front vowels; do you have any thoughts on this?" CreationDate="2021-10-25T03:58:41.707" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35559" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides I disagree with his statement as well, for the same reason. His misinterpretation is due to the Romans' equating of the Greek Y with their VI in such a careless manner that Velius Longus even describes the correct pronunciation of /cui, hui/ as &quot;tenuitatem Y litterae custodire&quot; as opposed to /quoi, hoic/ which he describes as &quot;plena OI syllaba dicere&quot;. From this it appears that which one was syllabic didn't matter - both /wi/ and /uj/ were equated to the Greek Y.—But a palatalised /qui/ might be continued precisely in Rum. and S.It., the two areas of heavy Greek influence." CreationDate="2021-10-25T05:15:16.690" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35562" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="@TKR Judging by the fact that the *ghi* of Rumanian is the same as the Latin *gi*, as well as by the OP's &quot;a velar consonant is articulated in the back&quot;, I'm fairly certain they're attempting and failing to pronounce a velar /g/ before palatal vowels, which is again physically impossible. The English [ghee](https://forvo.com/word/ghee/) is minimally less palatalised than that of German, French and Portuguese, and all of them are barely distinguishable from the Ru. palatalised [ги](https://forvo.com/word/ги). What's easily noticeable is that it's voiceless in the English and German recordings." CreationDate="2021-10-25T06:36:28.647" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35563" PostId="17040" Score="1" Text="I can easily pronounce a velar [gi] with minimal fronting, and it seems implausible that the OP has the idea that the only correct Latin pronunciation involves no fronting at all, but I suppose it's possible that that's what's intended. We need more info." CreationDate="2021-10-25T06:57:00.370" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35564" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="@TKR I would like to hear your attempt. Again, the OP explicitly says &quot;velar consonant is articulated in the back&quot;, and to a Turkish or Russian speaker the question makes total sense because in these languages the two pronunciations contrast. I don't believe you'll find a single language worldwide where the default allophone of /k/ before /i/ is a velar stop unless that language has contrastive palatalisation and the vowel after the non-palatalised /k/ necessarily velarises." CreationDate="2021-10-25T07:22:02.220" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35566" PostId="17040" Score="3" Text="This discussion, and in fact this question, really belong on Linguistics SE, but: a slightly fronted velar is still a velar. There are languages that contrast [ki] and [ci], not to mention plenty of languages that have [qi] (which should be even more impossible by the theory you're describing)." CreationDate="2021-10-25T17:35:42.680" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35567" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="@TKR You're contesting my statement here, and in order to do so productively I will need you to 1) provide audio recordings illustrating the palatalised, non-p. and &quot;slightly fronted&quot; velars 2) comment on your perception the recordings I've linked 3) give concrete examples of the languages you've just mentioned including audio recordings and the reasoning for transcribing them this way.—You cannot determine which measurement is correct if you don't know which tool is miscalibrated, and you need to test them both using the same standard." CreationDate="2021-10-25T21:06:31.383" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35569" PostId="17040" Score="3" Text="I'm actually not sure how far recordings can take us here: if we're being technical, the difference between a velar and a palatal is whether the closure occurs on the soft or hard palate, and that's hard to tell from a recording. FWIW of your three recordings, the second (ghiveci) sounds least fronted to me, and I could probably find recordings with less fronting, but I couldn't tell you where the closure is happening without looking at a palatogram or the like. If you're saying that in every language in the world a sequence of velar plus front vowel is always fronted as far as the hard palate" CreationDate="2021-10-26T00:26:17.720" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35570" PostId="17040" Score="3" Text="...then that's a strong claim which needs some evidence (and raises more questions -- how front does the vowel have to be?). But again, it seems unlikely to me that the question is about these very fine phonetic contrasts." CreationDate="2021-10-26T00:27:17.833" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35571" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/130862/discussion-between-unbrutal-russian-and-tkr)." CreationDate="2021-10-26T09:32:14.897" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35644" PostId="17040" Score="1" Text="(FWIW, I did not downvote this answer.)" CreationDate="2021-11-04T16:29:16.080" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35645" PostId="17040" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks for letting me know - hopefully by reusing those observations from our discussion I didn't end up singling you out in an unfriendly way." CreationDate="2021-11-04T16:45:31.710" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35572" PostId="17044" Score="0" Text="+1, but is it common to use n. _sing._ in that way, as opposed to the plural? If so, is that late Latin?" CreationDate="2021-10-26T10:17:24.970" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35573" PostId="17044" Score="4" Text="@Rafael &quot;Varium et mutabile semper femina&quot; was fine with Vergil. It's not very common but it is certainly classical. The meaning is different in the two numbers: a singular neuter is a single object, a plural one is closer to a continuous mass." CreationDate="2021-10-26T10:29:34.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35576" PostId="17045" Score="1" Text="no, they come from three different proto-indo-european (PIE) roots" CreationDate="2021-10-26T19:23:33.483" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35578" PostId="17045" Score="1" Text="@Laravel Perhaps you can turn your comment into an answer. [de Vaan](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&amp;book_id=5930) p. 465 says &quot;The etymology [of _pignus_] is uncertain, since one can imagine a meaning 'pledge, surety' to have originated from many different concrete usages.&quot; Why couldn't &quot;fat&quot; be one of them?" CreationDate="2021-10-26T20:47:36.857" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="35582" PostId="17045" Score="3" Text="I'm not a downvoter, but I suspect those who did did so because you don't really give an indication *why* you think they might be related. Doing so should alleviate that concern, especially since you already hint at it in your above comment." CreationDate="2021-10-27T14:04:21.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35579" PostId="17046" Score="0" Text="You got a point:  ἄμυνα is defense, revenge, nothing close to aggression... Just like defense forces and departments of defense..." CreationDate="2021-10-27T01:12:28.387" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="35581" PostId="17046" Score="0" Text="I've edited the WP article." CreationDate="2021-10-27T13:34:32.960" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35580" PostId="17047" Score="2" Text="Oh, this would be really cool." CreationDate="2021-10-27T01:33:15.090" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35583" PostId="17047" Score="0" Text="Also, an electronic dictionary that would allow to search by heavy and light patterns. Looking words t fit into a metre shouldn't be this hard." CreationDate="2021-10-27T16:00:16.310" UserId="8955" />
  <row Id="35584" PostId="17047" Score="0" Text="@AlexanderZ. I was considering prose composition here but indeed creating such a lookup table for poetry is pretty easy" CreationDate="2021-10-27T16:09:28.797" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35590" PostId="17048" Score="2" Text="Upvoted for spanning five millennia with uncounted empires and federations in one question ;-). I'm looking forward to the first Klingon -&gt; Latin question!" CreationDate="2021-10-28T14:29:36.250" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="35585" PostId="17049" Score="9" Text="Also cf. Seneca min., [Epistulae morales 1,1,1](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/seneca.ep1.shtml): *Ita fac, mi Lucili: ...*" CreationDate="2021-10-27T17:43:15.073" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35589" PostId="17049" Score="2" Text="[*by fiat*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat) is still used in English and fits perfectly." CreationDate="2021-10-28T14:28:17.743" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="35599" PostId="17049" Score="0" Text="Would it depend on context/audience? Eg, &quot;Run, slave!&quot; but &quot;Please hurry,  my friend!&quot;" CreationDate="2021-10-29T19:35:08.807" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="35610" PostId="17049" Score="3" Text="@TheHonRose the impersonal form given here essentially translates to &quot;so let it be done.&quot; Unless you are a starship captain (or pharaoh) that's probably no way to talk to people. The ordinary imperative is pretty neutral, suitable for any recipient from slave to god, but for making polite entreaties, Latin offers a number of [more elaborate options](https://latinitium.com/how-to-ask-politely-in-latin/) as well." CreationDate="2021-10-31T20:48:58.337" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35628" PostId="17049" Score="1" Text="Is there any reason **Sic** wouldn't work? I feel like it carries most of the same meaning as **ita**." CreationDate="2021-11-02T04:30:05.337" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="35629" PostId="17049" Score="1" Text="@Nickimite: I agree. I came up with **ita** because of the parallel with Genesis. And I think the double vowel pair has a nice ring to it." CreationDate="2021-11-02T17:17:43.723" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="35630" PostId="17049" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel - thank you, that's interesting. :-)" CreationDate="2021-11-02T18:54:20.717" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="35588" PostId="17051" Score="0" Text="Do you have examples of φασίν as 3sg.? According to Smyth (783D) the only Homeric pres. ind. act. form in addition to the usual Attic ones is φῇσθα. (I don't think there are dozens of forms, unless you include φάσκω.)" CreationDate="2021-10-28T00:46:24.403" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35594" PostId="17051" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Your questions are good ones. Project Perseus's tree bank lists many uses of φασιν as singular, but I haven't tracked them down to see the context. Perhaps they're confined to a particular idiom such as ουκ φεμι for &quot;deny,&quot; or maybe they're arguably a plural verb used with a singular subject. Re dozens of forms, see https://logeion.uchicago.edu/morpho/%CF%86%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%AF , although many of these are just differences in accentuation or elision. U Chicago Morpho does also list φασιν as a singular form, although I don't know where they get their data -- possibly Perseus." CreationDate="2021-10-28T20:17:03.440" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35595" PostId="17051" Score="0" Text="Morpho lists 42 forms in the present indicative active. Ignoring differences in accentuation, and taking forms like φας'/φασι/φασιν to be the same when used for the same number and person, I count 14 forms, which is still a lot more than the expected number. Re φῇσθα, this is discussed in the answer." CreationDate="2021-10-28T21:39:24.900" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35596" PostId="17051" Score="0" Text="Some of those are Doric forms: φαμί, φατί, φαντί. Other than those, putting aside accent/elision/nu-mobile differences, I think there are only the seven you list in the answer (except that φῄς is sometimes written without iota subscript). BTW I haven't used the Perseus tree bank much -- is there a list somewhere of the purported 3sg. uses of φασιν?" CreationDate="2021-10-28T21:50:44.640" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35591" PostId="17052" Score="1" Text="Not exactly what I was looking for but still valuable, thank you!" CreationDate="2021-10-28T15:36:25.653" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35592" PostId="17052" Score="1" Text="Note: The [1910 Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1910) (German-Latin) is far superior to the online dictionaries from Langenscheidt and Pons." CreationDate="2021-10-28T18:31:54.937" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35607" PostId="17052" Score="0" Text="Agreed, this one is far better than Langenscheidt. Thanks for the link." CreationDate="2021-10-30T22:13:42.777" UserId="9610" />
  <row Id="35593" PostId="17053" Score="0" Text="Honourable mention for the [Orbis sensualium pictus](https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Orbis_sensualium_pictus) -- probably of little practical value, but I think the first book of this type." CreationDate="2021-10-28T18:50:07.913" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35597" PostId="17055" Score="5" Text="Does this name Gadiovala/Kadiofala appear somewhere in ancient literature?" CreationDate="2021-10-29T12:31:17.390" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35598" PostId="17055" Score="3" Text="FWIW, the place is also a Catholic titular see and as such is spelt *Gadiaufala*. Italian Wikipedia [says](https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocesi_di_Gadiaufala) (about the original, non-titular diocese): &quot;Il nome di *Augentius episcopus Gazaufalensis* si trova al 2º posto nella lista dei vescovi della Numidia convocati a Cartagine dal re vandalo Unerico nel 484&quot; ... probably [this list](https://books.google.de/books?id=F7oUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA64#v=onepage&amp;q=Augentius&amp;f=false)." CreationDate="2021-10-29T18:20:33.480" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47539" PostId="17055" Score="2" Text="very interesting your analyse, i am from the region (now named Ksar Sbahi) the Byzantine ruins located on a hill, on local language (tachaouit: berber language) phyla or Aphyla means &quot;high&quot; and i think this make sense. I am not sure about the first part of the name wich is différent from a source to another. Thank you" CreationDate="2024-02-15T22:42:42.453" UserId="14754" />
  <row Id="47540" PostId="17055" Score="0" Text="@ChibaneTariq This doesn't seem to answer the question but rather offers additional information on the answer given. I moved it to the comment section for now, but if you ping me (@cmw) I can move it elsewhere or help format it if you intended it as an answer." CreationDate="2024-02-16T18:58:51.843" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35603" PostId="17056" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! If you want to make sure that we interpret your question correctly, you can always edit it and add a version of the question (or some crucial parts of it) in your native language. There's a decent chance that someone here will understand and help get the English wording right." CreationDate="2021-10-29T22:06:22.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35620" PostId="17056" Score="0" Text="Do you mean the English uses such as &quot;the car won't start&quot;, &quot;she won't tell me the answer?&quot;, or &quot;it will only ring (= it only rings) if you turn it upside down?&quot; Or is there a different non-negative use you have in mind? I suggest always giving example sentences to illustrate what you mean." CreationDate="2021-11-01T12:30:59.167" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35600" PostId="17057" Score="1" Text="I think it's likely to be a name in a local language rather than Greek, given the variant spellings; and you can't really get -φύλοι from the root of φύλαξ." CreationDate="2021-10-29T20:38:14.153" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35601" PostId="17057" Score="0" Text="@TKR. I agree. Gazophyla is clearly a folk etymology." CreationDate="2021-10-29T20:39:44.257" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35606" PostId="17063" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot! Awesome answer, got it now." CreationDate="2021-10-30T19:41:50.703" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="36033" PostId="17064" Score="0" Text="Very thorough and detailed answer. I never got around to thanking you for your excellent response. Could I trouble you for a more accurate English translation of your chosen wording? I have to confess to a very rudimentary understanding of Latin, which is only one reason your response is invaluable." CreationDate="2021-11-27T21:39:52.887" UserId="10323" />
  <row Id="36038" PostId="17064" Score="0" Text="@Percandri - I believe what you requested is a pretty accurate translation of the Latin. *Ne destiteris … niti* means &quot;Don't stop fighting&quot;, and *ad quod maxime oportet* means &quot;for what is most necessary.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-28T01:27:19.043" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35609" PostId="17065" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your answer, it's perfectly clear" CreationDate="2021-10-31T08:38:37.630" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35617" PostId="17067" Score="1" Text="I would love to see this broken down by era/year, author, and medium/genre as well. Might be worth it to email Kantor outright and see if he has more specific data." CreationDate="2021-11-01T08:09:54.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35616" PostId="17069" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your help!" CreationDate="2021-11-01T04:24:08.420" UserId="10321" />
  <row Id="35611" PostId="17070" Score="0" Text="I wonder if what you want is [a Latin augmentative](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8804/what-augmentative-options-are-there-in-latin) rather than a compound word." CreationDate="2021-11-01T00:10:22.057" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35626" PostId="17070" Score="1" Text="_Macropus_? Oh, it's already taken..." CreationDate="2021-11-01T18:35:28.253" UserId="291" />
  <row Id="35625" PostId="17071" Score="2" Text="Given that a lot of bigfoot lore tends to imply that they are a related species of hominid, you might make the &quot;megalopus&quot; the species name instead, so they'd be &quot;*Homo megalopus*&quot; or something to that effect." CreationDate="2021-11-01T14:56:27.123" UserId="4715" />
  <row Id="35618" PostId="17072" Score="0" Text="I didn't consider that there should be a connecting vowel but it makes total sense. I would go with -o- though as suggested on p.760 (n19) of The International Code on Phytosociological Nomenclature https://www.geobotany.org/library/pubs/WeberHE2000_jvs_739-768.pdf" CreationDate="2021-11-01T09:52:01.730" UserId="10334" />
  <row Id="35619" PostId="17072" Score="0" Text="The book uses 'bigfoot' as metaphor. It's actually about sociology in the broadest sense, including phytosociology." CreationDate="2021-11-01T09:53:19.123" UserId="10334" />
  <row Id="35621" PostId="17072" Score="0" Text="@Joooeey: Is that the same as this: https://www.geobotany.uaf.edu/library/pubs/WeberHE2000_jvs_739-768.pdf? I'm getting a certificate error from the site at your link. That list seems to be designed to help find out which forms of a name to use if you don't know any Greek or Latin. But if you do know Greek or Latin, it's generally correct and simpler to follow the rule that Latin stems take -i- after them, Greek stems take -o-." CreationDate="2021-11-01T12:54:24.233" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35622" PostId="17072" Score="0" Text="@Joooeey: (Also, *magnus/magna/magnum* does not end in *n* as a whole word, so I think the relevant part of that table is instead &quot;73 (a) -us, (b) -(o)-, (c) -i, (d) -o&#xA;(a) Scleranthus, (b) Scleranth(o)-, (c) Scleranthi, (d) Sclerantho Most names ending in -us.&quot;) This also recommends the connecting vowel -o-, but the actual in linguistic terms for using -o- here is because the name Scleranthus is borrowed from Greek (σκληρός + ἄνθος)" CreationDate="2021-11-01T12:57:00.767" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35623" PostId="17072" Score="2" Text="@Joooeey: It looks like phytosociologists may have standardized the connecting vowel in some kinds of technical terms as -o- for nouns of the first and second declension whether from Latin or Greek, probably since such a large proportion of names in this field are Greek borrowings rather than originally Latin words. But regardless, to a Latinist's eye, the Greek connecting vowel -o- will look worse than -i- in a regular Latin compound word composed of two purely Latin stems." CreationDate="2021-11-01T13:12:50.340" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35627" PostId="17072" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides, yes that appears to be the same document." CreationDate="2021-11-01T19:22:44.083" UserId="10334" />
  <row Id="35632" PostId="17075" Score="4" Text="My understanding is that scientific names aren't really composed as grammatical Latin phrases so much as just strings of nouns or adjectives, with each additional word indicating greater specificity as to species. I don't know much about it, but as a layman I would assume that *Locusta hyacintho caelum* is a subspecies of *Locusta hyacintho* which doesn't sound like what you want." CreationDate="2021-11-03T11:51:42.597" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="35650" PostId="17075" Score="1" Text="@VladimirF Post that as an answer." CreationDate="2021-11-05T03:09:41.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35651" PostId="17077" Score="2" Text="Not quite the same, but I have certainly seen &quot;*professor emerita*&quot;, as the feminine version of *emiritus*." CreationDate="2021-11-05T04:28:49.750" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="35636" PostId="17078" Score="7" Text="But the fact that it may be possible to translate the Latin verb into idiomatic English as a passive doesn't mean that the Latin verb is passive." CreationDate="2021-11-03T16:23:32.240" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35657" PostId="17078" Score="0" Text="@cnread: I expected this Q. to be shot-down in flames. Nevertheless, the opportunity to challenge the established orthodoxy surrounding deponent verbs was too good to pass-up. Both Cicero &amp; Julius Caesar violated grammatical rules (ablative absolutes) when it suited. The essay, linked by Kingshorsey, includes examples of &quot;nitor&quot; used, in the passive sense. These from Quintillian and, inevitably, Cicero. For all his brilliance, was Cicero a grammatical-iconoclast, when it suited him?" CreationDate="2021-11-05T14:41:59.237" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35638" PostId="17079" Score="0" Text="Yes, the effort is called English." CreationDate="2021-11-03T20:02:02.200" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35639" PostId="17079" Score="2" Text="I translated my PhD's dissertation's abstract to Latin, does it count?" CreationDate="2021-11-04T02:08:15.857" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35641" PostId="17079" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: Excellent, what was it about?" CreationDate="2021-11-04T05:26:03.823" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35643" PostId="17079" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus a traffic flow model. I had to make a lot of technical terms up and it's probably full of mistakes (I didn't really want to spend a lot of time on it)." CreationDate="2021-11-04T15:12:46.293" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35658" PostId="17079" Score="2" Text="@Rafael: I like it!" CreationDate="2021-11-05T15:46:50.550" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35656" PostId="17080" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the essay. The section on the passive uses of &quot;nitor&quot;, with exs. from Cicero &amp; Quintillian, and some explanations: do these exs. affect the debate?" CreationDate="2021-11-05T14:34:21.820" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35640" PostId="17084" Score="1" Text="Such a pity the requirement has been lifted!" CreationDate="2021-11-04T05:25:52.130" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35647" PostId="17086" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much. The accusative illos is the subject of the infinitive verb coepisse. I did not see that it could be indirect speech." CreationDate="2021-11-04T20:01:18.797" UserId="9682" />
  <row Id="35662" PostId="17086" Score="0" Text="Good answer. I wonder about &quot;id quod&quot;: is it really &quot;because&quot;, or is it &quot;(that) which&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-11-05T18:11:06.950" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35664" PostId="17086" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus It never even came to my mind to interpret the *quod* as a causal conjunction, I was just translating the relative clause freely." CreationDate="2021-11-05T19:04:38.427" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35666" PostId="17086" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Ah, I see." CreationDate="2021-11-05T21:57:29.700" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35648" PostId="17088" Score="1" Text="Obviously meter will be part of the answer. For example, augmented ὠνόμαζε doesn't scan, nor unaugmented ὀνόμασε. And most augmented forms of ὀλέκω wouldn't scan because with most endings the third syllable is likely to be long." CreationDate="2021-11-05T01:48:54.323" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35649" PostId="17088" Score="0" Text="(BTW I'm guessing that ὀρούσας is a participle in all or most of its appearances, so wouldn't ever take the augment in any case.)" CreationDate="2021-11-05T02:30:17.393" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35653" PostId="17088" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Thanks for the correction re ὀρούσας being a participle. Re meter, I don't know, it may be part of the answer. But some of the verbs on the sometimes-augmented list look to me to be metrically the same as some on the never-augmented list. For example, ὁρμαίνω and ὀρούω look equivalent, as do ὁρμάω and ὀρύσσω, although there may be some intricacy of the metrical rules that I don't understand." CreationDate="2021-11-05T12:53:20.470" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35660" PostId="17088" Score="1" Text="Those pairs actually aren't equivalent, since the first in each has a heavy initial syllable (ὁρ-) and the second a light (ὀ-). (This means BTW that for ὁρμαίνω, ὁρμάω and other such verbs, the augmented and unaugmented forms will scan the same, so that variation can't be explained by meter.)" CreationDate="2021-11-05T18:00:41.753" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35672" PostId="17088" Score="0" Text="Relevant discussion here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8729/how-did-the-injunctive-work" CreationDate="2021-11-06T12:31:18.037" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35652" PostId="17089" Score="1" Text="Could you please refer me some grammar book on this agreement?" CreationDate="2021-11-05T08:50:45.770" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="35663" PostId="17089" Score="2" Text="@AliNikzad I'm not finding examples in Smyth or Goodwin for some reason, but here's a discussion in Thompson's *Syntax of Attic Greek* (p. 13, sec. 18): https://books.google.ca/books?id=GfEIAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-11-05T18:25:04.407" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35665" PostId="17089" Score="0" Text="(( παντὶ προσήκει ἄρχοντι φρονίμῳ εἶναι )). Exactly the same example. Thank you so much." CreationDate="2021-11-05T19:15:26.587" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="35655" PostId="17090" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Part of the motivation for asking this Q., was the struggle contributors have had with attempts to say &quot;(something) has been/ will be forgotten&quot;. The only verb, &quot;to forget&quot; is, of course, deponent, &quot;obliviscor&quot;, which cannot be translated passively. It was yourself who circumvented this in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12836/1982, astutely, with &quot;memoria excidet&quot; = &quot;will fall out of memory&quot;. Still, it would have been useful to translate &quot;obliviscor&quot; in the passive sense." CreationDate="2021-11-05T14:26:23.677" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35661" PostId="17090" Score="1" Text="@tony That case is different though because &quot;forget&quot; and &quot;be forgotten&quot; are different meanings, while &quot;rely on&quot; and &quot;be supported by&quot; are just different ways of expressing the same meaning. You definitely shouldn't conclude from this *nitor* example that *obliviscor* can mean &quot;be forgotten&quot;.  (BTW to your other comment, Cicero isn't breaking any rule here; to the extent that &quot;Latin deponents have active meanings in English&quot; is a rule, it's a rule about translating Latin into English, not about Latin usage itself -- there's nothing unusual about his use of *niatur*.)" CreationDate="2021-11-05T18:07:04.020" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35671" PostId="17092" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much! That was exactly the information I was looking for." CreationDate="2021-11-06T11:01:46.360" UserId="1305" />
  <row Id="35654" PostId="17093" Score="2" Text="In the original exercise, is it _videt_ instead of _video_? The sentence seems to make a lot more sense to me that way." CreationDate="2021-11-05T14:17:24.830" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35659" PostId="17093" Score="0" Text="No the sentence is correct as it is" CreationDate="2021-11-05T16:56:10.213" UserDisplayName="user10351" />
  <row Id="35667" PostId="17094" Score="2" Text="That list has another: [monstrigena](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=monstrigena&amp;la=la&amp;can=monstrigena0&amp;prior=Martigena), but it's so late that I'd chalk it up to a post-classical misinterpretation (along with Aquinas')." CreationDate="2021-11-05T23:38:44.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35668" PostId="17094" Score="0" Text="Cf. the Greek linking vowel -o-, which can also occur after stems from words of the 1st declension, wherein any 1st-declension -a- or -e- disappears." CreationDate="2021-11-06T02:43:32.340" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35678" PostId="17095" Score="0" Text="You're using Pharr, who says, &quot;Current practice is to ignore [an iota subscript] for purposes of pronunciation, although it was probably originally pronounced&quot; (4th ed., p. 8). I'm skeptical about whether it's realistic or desirable to try to divine a certain &quot;correct&quot; pronunciation for Homer. Just as a reality check, Greeks pronounce Homer as in modern Greek, which is radically different. As a native English speaker, I find it extremely difficult to hear or produce the historically restored consonants, so I'm perfectly happy using Erasmian values for χ et al." CreationDate="2021-11-06T21:03:23.880" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35685" PostId="17095" Score="0" Text="Yes, I am aware it is common for Greeks to read ancient Greek with modern Greek pronunciation; it is the same as Italians reading Cicero with modern Italian pronunciation. Anyone reading any classical language makes me happy, but for me, I find particular enjoyment in studying the development of phonology, and as is clearly established (Erasmus being key to this development!), we can tell quite a lot about how it actually sounded." CreationDate="2021-11-07T00:05:16.173" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="35684" PostId="17098" Score="0" Text="Your final rounding up of your points answers my question concisely and clearly: ‘you can either say that in this case the consonant no longer contributes a mora or that it does but the difference between a 2- and 3-mora syllable is of no practical consequence.’ Most excellent! I will leave this answer open for some more time, to encourage more (possible) answers, but as it stands, this seems to be a definitive answer to my question. The rare long diphthongs was completely new to me, so thank you for adding that!" CreationDate="2021-11-07T00:02:03.637" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="35675" PostId="17100" Score="3" Text="That is probably the intended meaning, but if that is the case, then the original word order is absurd. You could say: *quod ad matronam attinet, auguria video, et spem non habet*, fine. But as it is, I could be wrong and I can't quote chapter and verse to prove it, but it seems downright wrong to me; certainly in prose." CreationDate="2021-11-06T19:26:05.637" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35692" PostId="17100" Score="0" Text="This sounds probable, I will give an update as soon as I get an answer" CreationDate="2021-11-07T14:47:51.087" UserDisplayName="user10351" />
  <row Id="35677" PostId="17104" Score="0" Text="Strangely no &quot;Viventes invidebunt mortuis&quot; anywhere on the web " CreationDate="2021-11-06T20:49:21.163" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35679" PostId="17104" Score="0" Text="Thank you M Koppehel, I might have jumped too fast on my conclusion to use Dominari, hearing it often during the Novus Ordo : &quot;Domine&quot;. Imperare makes perfect sense, I hadn't thought of it. So it would be Mortui, not Mortuis, is it because it's considered a &quot;single group&quot; ?&#xA;I'm just stepping into Latin, excuse my ignorance." CreationDate="2021-11-06T21:20:35.073" UserId="10354" />
  <row Id="35690" PostId="17104" Score="2" Text="@Joseph the word *Domine* that you are liable to encounter frequently in Christian liturgy is the vocative of *Dominus*, i.e. Lord (le Seigneur), used when addressing God. A single dead is *mortuus*, multiple dead people are *mortui*, and *mortuis* is the same, but with a different case ending, which, however,  is not called for in this context. See them all [here](https://latin.cactus2000.de/noun/shownoun_en.php?n=mortuus)." CreationDate="2021-11-07T08:33:22.973" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35695" PostId="17104" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your patience, I've been doing much necessary reading since yesterday &amp; it makes more sense now - May I ask you why you would personally prefer that second form you suggested ? Is it more correct grammatically ?" CreationDate="2021-11-07T21:20:26.627" UserId="10354" />
  <row Id="35698" PostId="17104" Score="1" Text="@Joseph both are equally correct (otherwise I would of course have said so), it is just a matter of taste. I cannot exactly explain why, maybe because the &quot;surprise&quot; comes last. The first form is closer to Comte's original, though." CreationDate="2021-11-07T22:27:18.840" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35680" PostId="17106" Score="1" Text="Sorry if I'm being slow, but what is the sentence you are trying to translate? The question does not seem to contain anything to be translated. If this is in reference to [your earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/17099/79), please edit that post (there's a button under that post for doing so) to add details there." CreationDate="2021-11-06T21:34:21.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35681" PostId="17106" Score="0" Text="I am trying to get the correct translation from English to Latin of the sentence: &quot;I regret not telling you I love you.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-06T21:36:45.770" UserId="10353" />
  <row Id="35682" PostId="17106" Score="0" Text="My apologies! I'm new here and didn't realize the question wasn't showing in the heading and I did not repeat it in the body" CreationDate="2021-11-06T21:38:45.977" UserId="10353" />
  <row Id="35683" PostId="17106" Score="0" Text="Thanks! So this is indeed an improvement on the previous question you asked. I included this as an edit there and reformatted a bit. I'll mark this one as a duplicate. You can always edit that question further!" CreationDate="2021-11-06T21:51:40.313" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35686" PostId="17107" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that's super helpful! It's indeed a challenge to cook up appropriate drills like this in the Homeric dialect, but that's the only dialect I'm currently working on. My previous experience is with modern Greek and a little koine -- in terms of interest, Attic would be a distant fourth for me." CreationDate="2021-11-07T01:10:11.647" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35710" PostId="17108" Score="0" Text="This is an excellent example of how comparative linguistics can enlighten one’s study of a specific language. You provide a great selection of examples, and the way you approach it philosophically is very informative. Thank you, and welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2021-11-08T10:46:03.883" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="35689" PostId="17111" Score="3" Text="The short formulaic phrase can also be seen as punctuation, especially in speech; it indicates the end of a quote." CreationDate="2021-11-07T06:12:33.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35693" PostId="17111" Score="0" Text="“So much for X” is an idiom meaning “X has shown itself to be done/infeasible/not worth considering,” and applied to a person generally means “X is useless here” if not “X is dead, or as good as.” It’s *very* dismissive. I notice dictionaries indicating a secondary definition of the phrase meaning that “we’re finished discussing X,” but quite frankly that doesn’t match my experience (native AmE speaker in my 30s). It may be that this meaning of the phrase is dying out, which is why it might have been an appropriate translation for Mayer &amp; Muller, but seems less so to Sam and I." CreationDate="2021-11-07T18:47:51.143" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35694" PostId="17111" Score="1" Text="@KRyan I agree with that as a description of contemporary usage, but my sense is that the phrase didn't necessarily have that connotation in older English. I don't know the date of the translation in question, though." CreationDate="2021-11-07T19:20:48.023" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35703" PostId="17111" Score="1" Text="@KRyan I am also a native AmE speaker, and I understand &quot;So much for X&quot; both ways: as now giving up on X (because X is now expended either in useful life or in hope for being of use), and as indicating that X's speech or speech about X is now at end—though of course the former is now much more common. Both indicate completion and a transition to something new. [Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=iGFDAAAAcAAJ&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;dq=%22so%20much%20for%22&amp;pg=PA1030#v=onepage&amp;q=%22so%20much%20for%22&amp;f=false)'s a non-disparaging example from 1870 where X is a topic just completed." CreationDate="2021-11-08T00:32:36.703" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35699" PostId="17114" Score="0" Text="Cool, thanks ..." CreationDate="2021-11-07T23:00:30.113" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35691" PostId="17115" Score="0" Text="maybe related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15847/how-do-you-phrase-didactic-statements-in-latin (when I had read that question I had a passing thought that maybe acc. + infinitive  might work; but could not find evidence." CreationDate="2021-11-07T11:32:33.847" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35755" PostId="17118" Score="0" Text="For someone whose Latin is non-existent, you're doing pretty well! My Ancient Greek is non-existent, so I must ask: could Euclid's sentences be understood as clauses—big verbal nouns—that serve only as section headings, as in English we might title a section &quot;Constructing an equilateral triangle on a finite straight line&quot;? No assertion is made by such a clause, just as one expects in the absence of a finite verb (except the implicit assertion &quot;This section explains ____&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-11-12T10:48:40.747" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35696" PostId="17122" Score="0" Text="This is a perfect answer thank you" CreationDate="2021-11-07T21:44:16.473" UserDisplayName="user10351" />
  <row Id="35697" PostId="17124" Score="1" Text="I like the suggestion, but perhaps it's fair to add a reminder of the ambiguity between subjects and objects in an ACI." CreationDate="2021-11-07T22:22:48.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35701" PostId="17124" Score="1" Text="This is of course grammatically correct, but I think a Roman would have avoided the proliferation of pronouns by using a different construction, e.g. something along the lines of *quod amorem numquam aperui*." CreationDate="2021-11-07T23:51:04.400" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35704" PostId="17124" Score="1" Text="In this instance, the ambiguity is a non-issue, isn't it? to the point that explaining it just muddies the answer. After all, can you imagine any realistic situation in which you would ever say, 'I regret not telling you that you love me'? It rather defies logic." CreationDate="2021-11-08T05:50:26.393" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35706" PostId="17124" Score="0" Text="@TKR A favourite line from Plautus: *Scio quidem me te esse nunc et te esse me.* (Captivi 2, 2) ;-)" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:45:47.720" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35717" PostId="17124" Score="0" Text="A good find. But in that line the pronouns are emphatic and indispensable. It's the sequence of unemphatic Romance-like pronouns here that feels un-Latin to me." CreationDate="2021-11-08T16:27:50.650" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35700" PostId="17125" Score="2" Text="Stack Overflow warned me that &quot;the question you're asking appears subjective and is likely to be closed&quot; " CreationDate="2021-11-07T23:06:32.573" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35705" PostId="17125" Score="1" Text="I was going to ask if you rolled your eyes, but that emoji answers the question." CreationDate="2021-11-08T05:59:28.947" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35709" PostId="17125" Score="0" Text="*ad nauseam*? but apparently not classical" CreationDate="2021-11-08T10:22:32.180" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="35711" PostId="17126" Score="0" Text="As far as I can imagine, the contexts for the two senses &quot;godlike, divine&quot; and &quot;a star of entertainment&quot; are exactly the same - that's why when someone suggested backforming *divus* as a masculine equivalent to *diva* for use in English, I thought it wouldn't work." CreationDate="2021-11-08T10:48:10.533" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35713" PostId="17126" Score="1" Text="E.g. compare the metaphorical use of &quot;god&quot; in contexts like &quot;[The shy boy from Dublin who became a god of rock](https://www.smh.com.au/culture/music/the-shy-boy-from-dublin-who-became-a-god-of-rock-20210831-p58nj6.html)&quot; or &quot;[Kylie Minogue is a goddess of pop](https://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/222214/20150721/kylie-minogue-new-music-video-pop-goddess-covers-99-red.htm)&quot;." CreationDate="2021-11-08T10:55:12.140" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35714" PostId="17126" Score="0" Text="Of course we don't, just like we talk about metaphorical stardom without implying that people become astronomical objects. We constantly do talk about metaphorical deification, however; and I seriously doubt the educated ancients believed in literal deification either, or in any case I don't see the need to distinguish a 'literal metaphor' from a 'non-literal metaphor'. Both &quot;divine&quot; and &quot;a star&quot; are metaphors for excellence, fame and worship and thus are likely to appear in the exact same contexts with no possibility to distinguish them as far as I can see." CreationDate="2021-11-08T12:15:08.883" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35716" PostId="17126" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I'll think more about it and try to add some specific usage examples to this post later to try to address it. Thank you!" CreationDate="2021-11-08T15:17:40.320" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="35720" PostId="17128" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I'm happy to have this knowledge now ;)" CreationDate="2021-11-09T05:30:44.493" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="35723" PostId="17133" Score="1" Text="I almost included this information in my answer, but I ended up avoiding the problem altogether instead because I came up with one objection: is the supine actually attested for the majority of these words? I get it that it's the supine form, but it seems odd to me to use it when the perfect passive participle is more common. I wonder how that tradition even arose." CreationDate="2021-11-09T10:56:04.583" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35724" PostId="17133" Score="1" Text="Some dictionaries/glossaries I've seen though do `gradior, gradi, gressus sum` instead of just `gressus`, making it clear they're using the first person perfect instead of a participle. While the best Anglophone dictionaries do 4 principle parts and the 4th ends in -um, there is variation!" CreationDate="2021-11-09T11:00:14.903" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35725" PostId="17133" Score="0" Text="You're right, I actually never thought about the third form being the supine. I guess that's because in the 8 years of Latin I've had in school now we've never learned about the supine while the participles are part of the basic knowledge after a few years. I only learned about supine while developing an own Latin Vocabulary and Grammar app in German." CreationDate="2021-11-09T12:06:29.460" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="35738" PostId="17136" Score="0" Text="'Or' or 'and' ?" CreationDate="2021-11-10T16:19:48.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35740" PostId="17136" Score="0" Text="@cmw &quot;_[vel](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576)_&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-10T18:21:36.383" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="35742" PostId="17139" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure about the 'by virtue of which' part. Isn't quo just the object of potiatur?" CreationDate="2021-11-10T20:28:26.820" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35756" PostId="17139" Score="0" Text="@cnread: I did ask about this (Deponent verb &quot;potior&quot; selects the ablative, sometimes the genitive, according to context. Does this explain why the first relative pronoun, &quot;quo&quot;, is in the ablative; or, would &quot;quo&quot; have been used anyway because it fits?) then deleted it. The use of &quot;quo&quot; could be classed as both of these, couldn't it?" CreationDate="2021-11-12T13:35:11.407" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35757" PostId="17139" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey: I seem to have found this example, (18,) in Harm-Pinkster's notes on relative clauses: htttps://www.Harm Pinkster.nl/files/articles/Relative_clauses_in_Latin(2012).pdf: &quot;In ex. (18), &quot;quo&quot; is coreferential with &quot;bonum&quot;. It is governed by &quot;potiatur&quot;, which has &quot;qui&quot; as its subject. &quot;Quo qui potiatur&quot; is the subject of &quot;beatus sit&quot;, the combination of which in turn forms a sentence with &quot;necesse est&quot; in which it is the subject. The adnominal construction is incorporated  into the autonomous construction. Ex. (19) shows the same form of FUSION...&quot;." CreationDate="2021-11-12T14:04:04.557" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35758" PostId="17139" Score="0" Text="@Kingshosey: I cannot claim to understand all of this, yet. However erudite this analysis is, it does not explain the use of &quot;necesse est&quot;, which is what bothered me the most." CreationDate="2021-11-12T14:06:27.513" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35760" PostId="17139" Score="0" Text="@tony exactly how the cum clause and necesse est clause relate is a bit difficult to express in English, because the connector is &quot;buried&quot; in the subject clause, but the necesse est clause itself is normal. [that the one who possesses this thing is happy] is unavoidable." CreationDate="2021-11-12T16:32:57.170" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35762" PostId="17139" Score="3" Text="@tony If you look at Pinkster's ex. 19, you see that in translation, he made the relative clause into a new independent clause (and those...). That indicates to me that English has no direct analogy to this kind of linking construction." CreationDate="2021-11-12T16:45:19.943" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35750" PostId="17144" Score="0" Text="Thanks.  I forgot to google choliambic meter because Gareth Schmelling mentioned that in his commentary." CreationDate="2021-11-11T22:57:03.240" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35754" PostId="17151" Score="1" Text="In hoc enim fallimur, quod mortem prospicimus ...! " CreationDate="2021-11-12T08:17:40.030" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35763" PostId="17152" Score="1" Text="I think &quot;disce ut iuves&quot; would work pretty well" CreationDate="2021-11-12T18:31:39.900" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35765" PostId="17152" Score="1" Text="@Laravel &amp; Figulus: I didn't get the sense that op's statement was a purpose clause, though it does make for a better motto." CreationDate="2021-11-12T18:45:19.897" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35766" PostId="17152" Score="1" Text="Well its statement was &quot;Do A, do B&quot;, so I think the implied meaning was &quot;Do A so that you can do B&quot; but I could be wrong" CreationDate="2021-11-12T21:11:05.720" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="35761" PostId="17153" Score="2" Text="My guess is that it's marking possible caesura, since the program can't choose between them. The dotted line seems to indicate where the potential break would fall between feet rather than within them. I have no idea about the zigzag line." CreationDate="2021-11-12T16:40:54.810" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35792" PostId="17153" Score="1" Text="I am sure everyone has noticed that a macron is here used (wrongly) for short vowels in closed syllables." CreationDate="2021-11-13T12:14:02.043" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35794" PostId="17153" Score="0" Text="@fdb Using macrons to indicate the length of a syllable rather than a vowel is yet another thing that I hope to be clarified in a proper documentation. Their notation sure leaves room for improvement, but I chose to focus my answer on just the red marks." CreationDate="2021-11-13T12:47:13.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35897" PostId="17153" Score="0" Text="@fdb, I know.  It is extremely upsetting that pedecerto.eu decided to do that.  it took me about 2 months in my latin career to figure that out." CreationDate="2021-11-21T01:55:03.103" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35773" PostId="17156" Score="3" Text="Gildersleeve 211 says that agreement with the genitive is &quot;post-classic.&quot; Don't tell Pliny he's not classical! But I think the issue is that we're reasoning from extremely few instances. Word order might be a factor. In the Cicero example, &quot;Indus, qui ... maximus&quot;, the masculine noun was already mentioned before the adjective. In Pliny, the adjective comes first." CreationDate="2021-11-12T22:27:01.513" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35814" PostId="17156" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey: I think this is important, word order. When reading the Plinean passage, it did not strike me as odd, probably because one subconsciously takes the word in the beginning as the subject." CreationDate="2021-11-15T18:06:13.997" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35767" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="The broken bar is actually marking when there is a word break after the fourth foot. Additionally, it's only marking the caesura in the second, third, and fourth feet, which explains the lack of bars in other places." CreationDate="2021-11-12T21:32:02.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35768" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="@cmw Did you find those details somewhere in a documentation? It seems to me that the broken bar only comes at foot boundaries, but I could of course be misinterpreting the small sample." CreationDate="2021-11-12T21:46:25.030" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35769" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="Yes, it comes between feet, but only when the fifth foot starts with a new word. That's why it's there for `|pictor | equinam` but not `in|ducere | plumas`." CreationDate="2021-11-12T21:49:41.980" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35770" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="Look at this line: `Fḗrrō sḗ | cǣdī́ | quām dī́ctīs : hī́s tŏlĕrā́ret`. *Dictis* starts a new foot, but there's not broken bar before it." CreationDate="2021-11-12T21:54:28.073" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35771" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="(But no, there's no documentation that I could find.)" CreationDate="2021-11-12T21:54:49.487" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35772" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="@cmw Good point! I updated my description. I still don't know why they'd indicate a word break between the fourth and the fifth foot with a special symbol, but that's what they seem to be doing. Without documentation it's hard to tell, but I think it's pretty safe to ignore that one for the purpose of finding caesuras." CreationDate="2021-11-12T21:56:31.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35774" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="The broken bar seems to be marking a bucolic diaeresis (a word break or larger break between the fourth and fifth feet)." CreationDate="2021-11-12T22:37:50.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35775" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="Let me try to get in touch with the builder of the program.  I've gotten at least one email from him in the past.  Still, this raises a question.  For me, the caesura is part of the rhythm of the poem, though I admit other people might not see it that way.  I think the caesura should be at the end of a foot, never interrupting a foot.  I realize it's harder to understand that way, but if you already understand the poem then it doesn't matter.  I really only like to place caesuras at the end of lines because in that way the listener can start to develop a sense of the rhythm and know what to ex" CreationDate="2021-11-12T23:24:56.433" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35776" PostId="17157" Score="1" Text="@bobsmith76 By the usual definitions, a break at the end of a foot is called a diaresis; a caesura is defined as a break within the foot." CreationDate="2021-11-12T23:46:06.613" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35777" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 To help remember with that, *caesura* means a 'cutting,' as in you're cutting a foot into two. The splitting of a foot is by design." CreationDate="2021-11-13T00:32:34.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35779" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="ok, cool.  again i find caesuras to be too counterintuitive.  in music the rest note is part of the rhythm.  you can't just pause whenever you want to when playing a song.  maybe i'll open another thread on the issue." CreationDate="2021-11-13T01:58:01.727" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35790" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks! I had forgotten about the bucolic diaeresis, but now it all makes much more sense. I updated the answer to reflect that." CreationDate="2021-11-13T11:54:21.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35791" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 Yeah, it can be counter-intuitive that the main break of a verse is within a foot and not between them, although I do find caesuras more pleasing than diaereses. That's certainly worth exploring in other questions. Perhaps &quot;how do we know it's so?&quot; or something similar. Adding breaks when verses change is natural and certainly promotes the metric structure." CreationDate="2021-11-13T11:56:37.830" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35795" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="I do not see how you can pause after si or et." CreationDate="2021-11-13T15:51:26.727" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35796" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="@fdb The software that generates these potential pauses doesn't care about that, but we the readers certainly should. That's what I was getting at with my second last paragraph: These are the suggestions, and the reader is to pick what makes sense. It is a tool, not a definitive list of all actual pauses in a verse. I'll update to emphasize that." CreationDate="2021-11-13T16:05:31.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35818" PostId="17157" Score="0" Text="@fdb Consider &quot;do you want this or... that one?&quot; - such a pause creates a sense of expectation and... continuity, propelling the line forwards. This becomes especially important to indicate when movement renders most clauses non-continuous (hyperbaton) and the reader needs to know whether to expect the end of the clause or its continuation." CreationDate="2021-11-16T16:51:37.500" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="35782" PostId="17159" Score="4" Text="Why doesn't second person make sense in this context?" CreationDate="2021-11-13T04:39:38.160" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35783" PostId="17159" Score="3" Text="(For reference, it's second person singular. But if you tell us more about why it doesn't seem to fit as that, we can write a more useful answer.)" CreationDate="2021-11-13T04:40:30.613" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="35784" PostId="17159" Score="0" Text="Achilles is directly addressing his mother in this sentence. If Achilles is the one giving the command too his mother then that wouldn't make sense because in the past three lines, she's the one who's trying to motivate him. So the sentence &quot;O beata mater, bonum animum habe&quot; is obviously supposed to be a response from Achilles to what his mother said to him." CreationDate="2021-11-13T05:14:09.210" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="35787" PostId="17159" Score="1" Text="Here is the full dialogue between Achilles and Thetis . &quot;Itaque Achilles matrem suam vocavit: “Iuva me!” In mari Thetis eum audivit et ad eum cucurrit: Tuas sententias intellego, mi dulcis fili,” dixit. “Omnes Graeci te magno in honore habere debent; sine te enim Troianos vincere non possunt. Cogita haec: Si nunc hoc ex bello fugies, tibi erit parva gloria, sed vita longa; si autem hoc loco manebis, magnam gloriam invenies, sed tuam viam amittes.” “O beata mater, bonum animum habe!” dixit Achilles.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-13T05:32:57.030" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="35788" PostId="17159" Score="0" Text="Now that i think about it, its probably more likely that this is a typo." CreationDate="2021-11-13T05:37:04.260" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="35789" PostId="17159" Score="1" Text="I don't think _habē_ is a typo but is _viam_ a typo for _vītam_? _Viam_ is not &quot;life&quot;." CreationDate="2021-11-13T11:20:56.570" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="35797" PostId="17159" Score="0" Text="Thanks for answering my question,  I appreciate the help" CreationDate="2021-11-13T18:29:06.387" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="35806" PostId="17160" Score="0" Text="Perhaps &quot;undisputedly a very...&quot; or simply &quot;indisputably beautiful...&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-14T20:31:06.717" UserId="10397" />
  <row Id="35807" PostId="17160" Score="0" Text="@rkedge In any event, it's just not advisable to question the beauty of the Nereids. Ask any Ethiopian [what happens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_(mother_of_Andromeda)) if you do it." CreationDate="2021-11-14T21:17:52.950" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35808" PostId="17162" Score="0" Text="When you discuss Schrijver and the Celtic evidence, are you suggesting that ϝειδ- and ϝῃδ- are not metrically equivalent, or that there is no reason to believe that the ει would turn into ῃ?  To me, they do seem metrically equivalent." CreationDate="2021-11-15T00:52:05.733" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="35810" PostId="17162" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher They are metrically equivalent, yes. But I'm not seeing how we end up with a long diphthong in this form." CreationDate="2021-11-15T03:04:53.530" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35798" PostId="17163" Score="0" Text="I like these suggestions. One question though: Is *quaestio* a good choice here? It sounds more like &quot;search&quot; or &quot;investigation&quot; than &quot;question&quot; to me, but those ideas can work well in this context. Depends on what the OP is after." CreationDate="2021-11-13T21:16:34.773" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35799" PostId="17163" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta res ita mihi esse videtur: Si te rogaverim, quo modo stellae formentur, ad hoc **rogatum** meum tibi licuerit repondere; sin apud conventum astronomorum de stellarum formatione quaesitum sit, ad illam **quaestionem** astronomis licuerit respondere." CreationDate="2021-11-13T22:13:16.723" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35800" PostId="17163" Score="0" Text="Assentior! Fortasse vero quaestiones plus quam rogata ad vitam humanam eiusque problemata gravia attinent. De his credo rogatorem nobis scribentem cogitasse." CreationDate="2021-11-13T22:21:44.830" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35803" PostId="17166" Score="0" Text="Thanks, incidentally how is multos annos &quot;for many years&quot;? I would have expected &quot;in multis annis&quot; or something like that." CreationDate="2021-11-14T16:35:28.817" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35804" PostId="17166" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden It's called the accusative of duration (or acc. of time). No prepositions are necessary for it, though you will sometimes see *per*: https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/expressions-time" CreationDate="2021-11-14T18:02:18.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35832" PostId="17167" Score="1" Text="Did you read the study linked in Expedito's answer?" CreationDate="2021-11-17T01:02:53.930" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35805" PostId="17168" Score="1" Text="The intended meaning may be &quot;There is no knowing a non-thing.&quot; I.e., it is impossible to know the cause of a non-existent effect." CreationDate="2021-11-14T18:30:25.357" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35815" PostId="17172" Score="1" Text="It's worth noting that there is a Greek idiom at work here: ἔστι + inf. = &quot;it is possible to X&quot; (see meaning A.VI in the [LSJ entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dei\)mi%2F1))." CreationDate="2021-11-15T18:46:03.570" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="35816" PostId="17172" Score="0" Text="@brianpck. Thanks! I made a note of it." CreationDate="2021-11-15T19:21:51.647" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35821" PostId="17173" Score="0" Text="@Gail I think you mentioned English pronunciation of Latin words. So the development of c through the centuries was with events of the palatalization (I use only voiceless consonants as examples): the first palatalization in Late Latin maked /ts/ from Latin /t/(t), the second palatalization in Gallo-Romance makes /ts/ from /k/(c), then both new affricates become just /s/. And when geminated - in *cc* sequence only the second element becomes /s/. Then in Anglo-Roman this new /s/ becomes /ʃ/. For th' f-r inf, look @ this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin" CreationDate="2021-11-16T18:55:04.113" UserId="9174" />
  <row Id="35822" PostId="17174" Score="1" Text="That archive.org link seems to be broken." CreationDate="2021-11-16T19:48:26.207" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35835" PostId="17174" Score="0" Text="@TKR: It can be found at: &quot;The Declamations ascribed to Quintillian: Free&quot;. I had to join a &quot;book-club&quot; thing and the work is &quot;lent-out&quot; for an hour. The study notes are at the back. Why not just publish the translations side-by-side with the Latin? Many of these old works, for other writers, do exactly that?" CreationDate="2021-11-17T09:31:40.757" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35825" PostId="17175" Score="1" Text="*Niteretur* has to be subjunctive since it's in a *cum* clause, so I don't think it necessarily means &quot;could have&quot;." CreationDate="2021-11-16T20:08:24.910" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35828" PostId="17175" Score="1" Text="@TKR. I also didn't interpret it that way at first, but Nutting said, &quot;the man in question did *not* depend upon the sentiment in his favour&quot;. Besides that, I found a translation that had: &quot;although he *could rely* on your gratitude...&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-16T20:37:16.103" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35829" PostId="17175" Score="1" Text="I read it as meaning &quot;although he did rely to some extent on your gratitude, he couldn't depend on it wholly&quot;. The distinction is admittedly pretty slight, but I think &quot;could have relied (but didn't)&quot; would have been expressed with something more than a bare subjunctive, precisely because a subjunctive by itself wouldn't make the meaning clear. (In the translation &quot;could rely&quot; likely means &quot;was able to rely (and did)&quot;.)" CreationDate="2021-11-16T20:43:53.597" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35830" PostId="17178" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Thanks for the reference to Döderlein; I'd never heard of it before." CreationDate="2021-11-16T21:40:01.513" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="35831" PostId="17178" Score="0" Text="I'm not really sure Döderlein's delineation holds up in actual usage, even if that is the ultimate origin. Both ἡδύς and *suavis* can refer to taste, and Pliny Maior mentions the *dulcis odor* of Polycnemon. The OLD lists plenty of examples of each for both, too, and in fact places taste first for both." CreationDate="2021-11-17T00:33:44.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35833" PostId="17178" Score="1" Text="@cmw The distinction does seem a bit too neat; I was hesitant to challenge the authority of an illustrious 19C German, but your examples are convincing (and I find that the Britannica thought D's work was &quot;marred by over-subtlety&quot;). Adding a caveat." CreationDate="2021-11-17T02:11:35.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35823" PostId="17179" Score="1" Text="I considered that possibility, but I couldn't find any confirmation that _gratia_ + the genitive could mean &quot;gratitude for...&quot; Usually _gratia_ + the genitive means something like &quot;on account of...&quot; which doesn't seem to fit well with the adjective _recent_." CreationDate="2021-11-16T19:58:29.277" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35824" PostId="17179" Score="1" Text="@ExpeditoBipes I think this is a pretty common type of &quot;transferred epithet&quot; -- the gratitude on account of the services is recent, though (from an English perspective) we might more naturally expect the services themselves to be described as recent." CreationDate="2021-11-16T20:06:30.110" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35826" PostId="17179" Score="1" Text="OK. But with the genitive, I don't even see &quot;gratitude&quot; as one of the meanings listed. You're probably right, but I just don't find anything to the support the meaning you're attributing to it." CreationDate="2021-11-16T20:14:07.083" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35827" PostId="17179" Score="1" Text="@ExpeditoBipes I actually doubt that the dative can be used in the sense &quot;gratitude for something&quot;, as opposed to &quot;gratitude to someone&quot;. I don't have an example for the genitive use, but it seems natural." CreationDate="2021-11-16T20:24:40.050" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35834" PostId="17179" Score="2" Text="@ExpeditoBipes Livy has &quot;meritorum gratiam&quot;, and Suetonius has &quot;pro meritorum gratia&quot;, both of which seem to have a sense similar to Q.'s passage." CreationDate="2021-11-17T03:55:52.190" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35836" PostId="17179" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Thanks! It's nice to have something to confirm this question." CreationDate="2021-11-17T09:51:38.173" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35838" PostId="17179" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I think that he (&quot;ille&quot;, here, meaning &quot;the accused&quot;) confessed (the beginning, bracketed part of the translation which I included for context) which is the brave act for which he was commended (I think)." CreationDate="2021-11-17T13:28:53.610" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35839" PostId="17179" Score="0" Text="@Expedito Bipes: Thanks for looking at this. The translation: &quot;although he could rely on your gratitude&quot;, may I ask whence this came? I spent some time trying to find an English translation of Quintillian's Declamations. I liked your translation. Why delete the answer when it adds, constructively, to the debate?" CreationDate="2021-11-17T13:41:39.233" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35840" PostId="17179" Score="1" Text="@tony. Thanks for the positive comments! That translation is from [Loeb classics](https://books.google.com.br/books?id=fLIVqiP6seYC&amp;pg=PA56&amp;lpg=PA56&amp;dq=%22recenti+meritorum+gratia%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=NB4Dkk5GDp&amp;sig=ACfU3U0pe11pLOAhMNSj3A2ucanbxZqe0w&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiFhZDYx5_0AhW2ppUCHaz4DwkQ6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22recenti%20meritorum%20gratia%22&amp;f=false)." CreationDate="2021-11-17T14:03:19.293" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35841" PostId="17180" Score="0" Text="Re your example from Homer, my understanding is that the prepositions were originally adverbs, and during the Homeric period they were still in the process of becoming prepositions. For that reason, their position in the sentence was still very flexible." CreationDate="2021-11-17T15:10:16.257" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35846" PostId="17183" Score="1" Text="If it matters, I view abyss in this as a deep pit blackness and absence. Rather than being full of rage, it's like a black hole that could suck out the humanity in you." CreationDate="2021-11-17T21:51:06.677" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35847" PostId="17183" Score="1" Text="@Adam Then perhaps a different word might be better, but I can't resist pointing out that the actual black holes out in the universe are violent and surrounded by what one might call rage. I'd translate the concept as *gurges ater*, but I digress. Perhaps my top suggestion would then be *barathrum*, but all the dictionary entries are worth checking." CreationDate="2021-11-17T22:03:27.240" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35842" PostId="17185" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the correction re the French. I've edited the question accordingly. This doesn't really seem like an answer to the question. *and because preserving the length distinction seems important as you're reading metrical verse.* I'm not sure what you mean by this. Temporal length is independent of vowel quality." CreationDate="2021-11-17T20:10:47.433" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35843" PostId="17185" Score="1" Text="@BenCrowell True, it isn't an answer to the question, more a suggestion that the assumption that there's &quot;a truly vanilla choice for English-speaking students&quot; may not be right (or that there are many such choices). For length I meant that whatever vowel qualities you choose you might want to have the [:] in there for omega." CreationDate="2021-11-17T20:14:36.093" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35855" PostId="17188" Score="1" Text="Perhaps relevant is the fact that in sentences like &quot;I have been looking into the abyss for a long time&quot; Latin uses the present, rather than the perfect as one might expect from an English perspective." CreationDate="2021-11-18T20:25:28.437" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35851" PostId="17189" Score="2" Text="I assume the abyss can only stare back at you while you are still staring at it (if you stop and walk away, the abyss can hardly follow you around). Hence my doubts about the future perfect, and hence my cream-and-butter example, since I am sure we agree the cream does not turn to butter *after* you beat it." CreationDate="2021-11-18T18:44:33.090" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35857" PostId="17189" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: the point, I think, is that this harks back to Primeval fears and terrors/ superstitions: &quot;the abyss&quot;, the gateway to Hell; the forces of evil. That is, if a man is tempted by evil (looks into the abyss), it, evil, will look into him, seek his soul. Therefore, metaphorically, the &quot;abyss&quot; will follow you around. I thought your tense-choices were entirely correct." CreationDate="2021-11-18T23:48:14.347" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="35850" PostId="17190" Score="2" Text="Uhm, no, it says *ad conventus agendos*!" CreationDate="2021-11-18T18:33:46.950" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35858" PostId="17190" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I have corrected the text, but I don't understand how conventus, which appears to be nominative, can be the subject of &quot;ad&quot; which always takes the accusative." CreationDate="2021-11-19T01:54:16.327" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35859" PostId="17190" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden It's not nominative. It's 4th declension, the u-declension, the accusative plural of which is long -ūs. The ending for 2nd declension, the o-declension, is -us. Not the difference between the short vowel in the 2nd decl and the long vowel in the 4th decl." CreationDate="2021-11-19T05:02:26.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35860" PostId="17190" Score="0" Text="You can see the endings here: https://dcc.dickinson.edu/sites/default/files/4th_decl_nouns_0.jpg" CreationDate="2021-11-19T05:03:02.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35848" PostId="17191" Score="0" Text="I guess I don't understand 503 above. A gerund is a kind of a noun, so a gerund does not have an object, so what exactly is A&amp;G talking about? Also, objects are always in the accusative, so when would something not &quot;have an object in the accusative&quot; as it says in the paragraph?" CreationDate="2021-11-18T17:16:07.383" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="35849" PostId="17191" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden -But a gerund *may* take a direct object. In their words: &quot;502. The gerund expresses an action of the verb in the form of a verbal noun. As a noun the gerund is itself governed by other words; **as a verb** it may take an object in the proper case.&quot; To answer your second question, it wouldn't have an object when it's not actually a *gerund*, because it isn't. It's actually a *gerundive*, but it is interpreted as if it were a *gerund* with a direct object." CreationDate="2021-11-18T18:31:51.153" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35852" PostId="17191" Score="5" Text="@TylerDurden Gerunds in English can also take an object: *Running a business is hard.* 'Running' is the gerund, 'business' is its object." CreationDate="2021-11-18T18:50:05.833" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35871" PostId="17191" Score="0" Text="As for this well-known statement (&quot;when the gerund would have an object in the accusative, the Gerundive is generally used instead&quot;), note that an important distinction must be drawn between _omnia pericula subeundi_, which is not (as) ill-formed (as) compared to that of _*ad omnia pericula subeundum_ (see my comment above on Vegawatcher's post). The ultimate explanation of this difference is a bit mysterious to me..." CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:01:54.093" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35874" PostId="17191" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino - I don't understand what you're getting at. In the phrase *ad omnia perīcula subeunda*, do you agree that *subeunda* is a gerundive, and therefore doesn't actually have a direct object?" CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:35:28.203" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="35883" PostId="17191" Score="0" Text="@ExpeditoBipes Perhaps I didn't express myself clear when commenting on your statement from A&amp;G: what I don't understand is why a genitive gerund plus an acc. object (e.g. _omnia pericula subeundi_) sounded much better than a prepositional (accusative or ablative) gerund + acc. object (e.g. _*ad omnia pericula subeundum_ // _*in omnia pericula subeundo_). NB: the gerundive construction is just a (preferable) alternative to the former (e.g. _omnium periculorum subeundorum_) but is a compulsory replacement of the latter (e.g. _ad omnia pericula subeunda_ // _in omnibus periculis subeundis_)." CreationDate="2021-11-20T15:33:16.703" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35875" PostId="17193" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Googling finds painting(s) by that name, but it does not make much sense as Latin, at least not without context. &quot;Man with things&quot;? There is also the modern word *rebus*, which is a kind of picture-word puzzle." CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:38:38.497" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="35876" PostId="17193" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Thanks a lot!" CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:46:09.290" UserId="10409" />
  <row Id="39234" PostId="17193" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus somehow it sounds to me like man _for_ things, like made for stuff, or bound to care for stuff." CreationDate="2022-08-19T19:51:07.910" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39235" PostId="17193" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: I suppose that makes sense when you add *est*. I think *in rebus* is an expression, though, meaning something like &quot;rich&quot;? But perhaps I am confusing things between languages." CreationDate="2022-08-20T01:40:24.567" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39240" PostId="17193" Score="0" Text="I don't really know... but it's worth noting that Latin actually omits _est_." CreationDate="2022-08-20T17:22:26.610" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35869" PostId="17194" Score="0" Text="The construction _*ad conventus agendum_ can be said to be &quot;good Latin&quot; to us (e.g. as learners of Latin as L2) but the possibility that this was ungrammatical for some native speakers (and not just stylistically unacceptable) is not to be discarded. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that what was avoided was not &quot;a gerund with an accusative object&quot;, but crucially a **prepositional** gerund +acc. obj. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1144/when-can-the-gerund-take-an-object/14037#14037" CreationDate="2021-11-20T00:36:45.090" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35870" PostId="17194" Score="0" Text="I don't think you're right when saying &quot;speakers/writers thought it odd to have two different uses of the accusative right next to each other and with endings that did not agree&quot;. Note that the prepositional gerund in ablative + acc. obj. (e.g. _in conventus agendo_) was also avoided." CreationDate="2021-11-20T00:38:14.830" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35873" PostId="17194" Score="0" Text="You may be correct, but let me quote Woodcock: &quot;The gerund of a transitive verb governing an accusative object is rare in classical Latin, but common in early and colloquial Latin&quot; (p. 159). &quot;...in the literary language, from about the time of Cicero onwards, the gerundive in agreement almost completely ousted the gerund with an accusative object, except under special circumstances.  The gerund continued to be used, however, in the common language of the people and by less careful writers.&quot; (p. 161).  The special circumstances involve neuter pronouns and neuter adjectives." CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:31:29.520" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="35884" PostId="17194" Score="0" Text="Woodcock's (1959) handbook is indeed excellent (in fact, note I also recommended it in the link above). As for the comment &quot;The gerund of a transitive verb governing an accusative object is rare in classical Latin, but common in early and colloquial Latin&quot;, note that what was VERY rare in Classical Latin was a prepositional (accusative OR ablative) gerund + acc. object. The genitive gerund of a transitive verb governing an accusative object is not so rare (although the gerundive alternative is preferable)." CreationDate="2021-11-20T15:44:03.383" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="35900" PostId="17196" Score="0" Text="Amazing how @tony, you and I all have a totally different understanding of what this (not exactly very complicated) expression of Nietzsche's means." CreationDate="2021-11-21T14:35:22.487" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35901" PostId="17196" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Granted, I haven't read Nietzsche since college, and mein Deutsch ist eingerostet (is that a proper idiom?), but it seems like a plausible reading to me. But I yield to academic circumspection." CreationDate="2021-11-21T15:29:33.967" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35864" PostId="17197" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't say the possessor is omitted in the penultimate example, since the mother is the possessor of the body part. Possibly also in the last example χωομένοιο can be understood as a genitive possessor of &quot;shoulders&quot;, though that reading seems debatable." CreationDate="2021-11-19T21:52:57.910" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35867" PostId="17197" Score="0" Text="Right, the &quot;possessor&quot; of the mother is omitted, but not of the body part. (To what extent those semantic groups may be treated similarly is an interesting question.) χωομένοιο is definitely gen. sg. of the participle of χώομαι; it's singular because it refers to Apollo (&quot;of him being enraged&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-11-19T22:58:52.693" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35887" PostId="17197" Score="0" Text="&quot;it's not correct (or not fully idiomatic) to refer to a body part without explicitly attributing it to someone's body&quot; -- this needs some kind of qualification since there are lots of counterexamples: e.g. 4.123 νευρὴν μέν μαζῷ πέλασεν &quot;he brought the bowstring close to his chest&quot;, 5.345 χαλκὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι βαλών &quot;throwing a bronze [spear] into his chest&quot;. (BTW in your second example τοι may be the discourse particle rather than the dative pronoun.)" CreationDate="2021-11-20T18:43:35.247" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35890" PostId="17197" Score="0" Text="On χωομένοιο, a dative actually strikes me as unlikely in that sentence, since these &quot;ethical datives&quot; (to use the traditional term for convenience, though it's very broad and vague) imply that the action has an effect on the person referred to in the dative, which isn't the case here -- the clanging of the arrows doesn't affect Apollo, who may not even be aware of it." CreationDate="2021-11-20T19:24:20.103" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35877" PostId="17201" Score="1" Text="Tervetuloa mukaan!" CreationDate="2021-11-20T11:53:31.993" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35893" PostId="17201" Score="0" Text="ok, but for the sake of understanding the meaning of 'referre' is it the case that while speaking or writing Latin I should never use 'referre' when I intend to communicate celebrate?" CreationDate="2021-11-20T22:22:48.527" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="35898" PostId="17201" Score="1" Text="Other words are probably more appropriate in most cases." CreationDate="2021-11-21T11:55:21.350" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="35879" PostId="17202" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that's very helpful. In your French example, is &quot;me&quot; really an indirect object pronoun, or a reflexive pronoun? They happen to be the same for 1s, but for 3s, wouldn't you say &quot;Il se lave les mains&quot; (reflexive), rather than &quot;Il lui lave les mains&quot; (indirect object)? Your German example seems more analogous to Greek or Latin, since mir is unambiguously dative (or dative reflexive, which I guess is a thing in German). (Since I don't speak any German, I'm getting this just by looking up tables of pronouns, and I could be misunderstanding.)" CreationDate="2021-11-20T14:20:44.003" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35881" PostId="17202" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell. Il se lave les mains means ”He washes his (own) hands”;   il lui lave les mains means “he washes his (=someone else’s) hands”." CreationDate="2021-11-20T14:53:10.123" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35882" PostId="17202" Score="0" Text="Right, so my point is that it's not the dative (indirect object) form of the pronoun. And in any case, what's probably more relevant is that in these French and German constructions, &quot;me&quot; and &quot;mir&quot; aren't datives that modify &quot;hands,&quot; they're just quirky redundant reflexives that are required in these languages. So this is seemingly not analogous to Greek. (Re how to classify &quot;se,&quot; I asked my French professor wife, and she says that although the reflexive pronouns don't have different forms for dative and accusative, they are analyzed like &quot;indirect-object se,&quot; &quot;direct-object se,&quot; etc.)" CreationDate="2021-11-20T15:07:24.250" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35888" PostId="17202" Score="2" Text="@BenCrowell Can't speak for French, but German &quot;mir&quot; is most assuredly dative. The reflexive pronoun would be &quot;mich,&quot; and reflexive &quot;waschen&quot; is also quite common, but not used in this example." CreationDate="2021-11-20T18:47:00.890" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35889" PostId="17202" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell Even Latin occasionally uses the dative to signify the experiencer when something happens to a body part. Celsus: num per nares auresue sanguis ei fluxerit." CreationDate="2021-11-20T19:20:36.163" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="35892" PostId="17202" Score="2" Text="It is also clear from other structures that the French &quot;se&quot; is dative here, e.g., &quot;Je vais lui casser la tête&quot; (I'm going to break his head).  &quot;Lui&quot; can only be dative.  Spanish uses the same type of ethical dative&quot; in these situations.  It is clear to me that Ancient Greek is using the same style of expression.  English is actually the outlier in routinely using possessive pronouns with body parts, but even we have the alternative formula of having the person as the direct object ( and the body party in a dative espression, i.e., &quot;I hit him in the head&quot; or in the passive equivalent." CreationDate="2021-11-20T21:36:03.213" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="35903" PostId="17202" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: The point is that it's not a dative modifying another noun, it's reflexive. Using &quot;dative&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot; is just a matter of terminology." CreationDate="2021-11-21T19:03:03.583" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35958" PostId="17202" Score="0" Text="Downvoting because this answer is incorrect." CreationDate="2021-11-23T22:13:41.240" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35960" PostId="17202" Score="2" Text="@BenCrowell. No, it is not reflexive. Have a look at Sebastian's comment." CreationDate="2021-11-23T22:43:46.170" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35904" PostId="17203" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the response.  Would I be correct to assume, then, that &quot;usque&quot; does not need some sort of complement of place or time?  That is what it seems to say in Lewis &amp; Short under definition II.B,2 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=usque&amp;la=la#lexicon), where it even has my sentence as a reference.  I don't readily understand the examples, however." CreationDate="2021-11-21T19:33:48.117" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="35905" PostId="17203" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher That's right -- it usually does take such a complement, but there are occasional cases where it doesn't." CreationDate="2021-11-21T19:37:17.690" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35906" PostId="17205" Score="1" Text="Actually that would be *persaepe* (occasionally spelt *persepe* but not *persipe*), and it does indeed mean &quot;very often&quot; and definitely not &quot;forever.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-21T19:47:49.440" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35962" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure why you're saying that the dative modifies the noun -- the Greek and French constructions seem entirely analogous to me (as fdb says). The standalone noun phrase for e.g. &quot;my hands&quot; would be αἱ ἐμαὶ χεῖρες, not *αἱ χεῖρές μοι; for a dative to be used there has to be a verb in the sentence for it to depend on, as datives don't generally modify nouns." CreationDate="2021-11-24T00:02:15.073" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35965" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="BTW there is also a verb ἀλγέω &quot;suffer pain&quot;, e.g. *Iliad* 2.269 (Thersites) ἀλγήσας δ᾽ ἀχρεῖον ἰδὼν ἀπομόρξατο δάκρυ. It doesn't seem to be used with body parts in Homer, but that may just be accidental." CreationDate="2021-11-24T00:37:56.950" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35979" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="@TKR: *datives don't generally modify nouns.* See Smyth, p. 342, sec. 1480. *The standalone noun phrase for e.g. &quot;my hands&quot; would be αἱ ἐμαὶ χεῖρες, not *αἱ χεῖρές μοι* You seem to be claiming possessive pronoun is the only one that can occur in this context. That simply isn't true, as shown by the examples above." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:10:28.283" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35980" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="There are occasional exceptions (hence &quot;generally&quot;), but I don't think those apply here. To make the point using an English parallel: consider a sentence like *I'll punch his face for him*. The phrase *for him* does not modify the noun *face*, but is an adjunct of the verb. These Greek examples with dative are structurally the same, except that Greek can leave out the possessor *his*." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:14:58.520" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35981" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="@TKR: *There are occasional exceptions (hence &quot;generally&quot;), but I don't think those apply here.* I think between the two of us (thanks!), we've dug up examples of pretty much all the cases that can occur: body part with no possessor, possessor given with a dative pronoun, and possessor given with a possessive pronoun. I don't think there is much left to debate except possibly the relative frequencies of the different ones. I haven't attempted anything like a statistical sample, but it seems to from examples that the dative pronoun is, if anything, the most common of the three usages." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:21:03.277" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35982" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="*The phrase for him does not modify the noun face, but is an adjunct of the verb.* See Smyth, p. 342, sec. 1480, on the dative of the possessor. (The book is available online.) He gives a couple of examples in which a noun modifies a noun, forming a self-contained noun phrase, with no verb anywhere in sight." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:25:17.497" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35983" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="Well, we can still debate what the syntax of the construction is :) I'm not denying that the dative is the most common, I'm saying it's not a modifier of the noun (but is something more akin to an ethical dative). BTW to add to your categories, there are certainly examples where the possessor is not a pronoun but a noun phrase (whether dative or genitive)." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:26:02.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35984" PostId="17206" Score="0" Text="That Smyth example (τῶν ἑκατέροις ξυμμάχων) is what I meant by occasional exceptions which don't apply here -- notice that he specifically says this can happen not generally, but when the possessed noun is genitive; also ξύμμαχος is a noun derived from a verb that takes the dative (ξυμμάχομαι), and such nouns often inherit the argument structure of their parent verbs." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:30:12.277" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35936" PostId="17208" Score="0" Text="There's also αἰδοῖα &quot;genitals&quot; (of both sexes)." CreationDate="2021-11-23T03:17:44.287" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36027" PostId="17208" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Nice catch, thanks. According to Cunliffe, this occurs exactly once in Homer, in Iliad 13.568. &quot;Meriones, however, following him departing, smote him with his spear&#xA;between the private parts and the navel, where a wound is&#xA;particularly painful to miserable mortals.&quot; (Buckley) Ow!" CreationDate="2021-11-27T16:09:02.450" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35909" PostId="17209" Score="0" Text="Thanks for taking the time to write this up. *For omega, Lusching inexplicably seems to give two alternatives. He says omega should be pronounced as in &quot;go (or saw)!&quot;* I think here he means that go is the Erasmian pronunciation and saw is believed to be a more historically accurate reconstruction of Attic. Pharr gives the same two examples. I think this is a case where textbook authors and publishers want to broaden their market by pleasing every possible taste among professors who might adopt their books. It's still hard to guess what kind of English accent is intended for &quot;saw.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-21T23:12:57.967" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35910" PostId="17209" Score="0" Text="It was inexplicable for me, because I thought the original recommended pronunciation that came down from Erasmus was a close vowel for both eta and omega (as in Latin long e and long o) and a diphthong for the sequence ει like Latin /ei/.  I assumed Lusching used &quot;saw&quot; for his recommendation with the intent of referring to the General American /ɔ/ in the long version expected in an English monosyllable.  The words &quot;pot&quot; or German &quot;Gott&quot; would be inappropriate for a long vowel, even if the quality was right.  Lusching's choice seemed like a mishmash of three different approaches." CreationDate="2021-11-21T23:31:29.013" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="35908" PostId="17210" Score="3" Text="Merit comes from a Latin word, but it's not itself a Latin word." CreationDate="2021-11-21T21:43:14.610" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35930" PostId="17213" Score="6" Text="*Memoriis mori* sounds like &quot;to die from memories,&quot; I feel there needs to be a *cum*." CreationDate="2021-11-22T19:57:12.193" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35913" PostId="17214" Score="4" Text="To me, meritum, especially in the singular, would seem to refer to a (single) meritorious act. At the very least, I think you'd want to use the plural merita (and vincunt, of course). Alternatively, virtus is used by, e.g., Sallust, to express the idea of 'merit' in the sense of excellence of character, which is presumably what the original poster is going for. Nevertheless, its obvious links to the English word 'virtue' may be a disadvantage here." CreationDate="2021-11-22T05:32:08.597" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="35916" PostId="17214" Score="1" Text="@cnread I thought I saw *meritum* being used more abstractly before in the singular, but *merita* is better, you're right. I'll look later to see if I can find what I had in mind. Re: *virtus*, it's a great suggestion, too, you should post it as your own!" CreationDate="2021-11-22T12:00:12.793" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35985" PostId="17214" Score="1" Text="*Vires ex meritis* could also be an option, to get away from the often negative connotations of singular *vis*." CreationDate="2021-11-24T20:34:13.457" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35920" PostId="17218" Score="4" Text="I will say that the ligature is very frequent in church art, and so should probably be preserved if one is paying homage to that style." CreationDate="2021-11-22T15:46:26.953" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35925" PostId="17218" Score="2" Text="@cmw Thanks! Updated. I'm less familiar with church art, but my vague recollection agrees." CreationDate="2021-11-22T18:33:58.223" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="35918" PostId="17219" Score="0" Text="I’m going to need to see some kind of evidence for that, because while it’s entirely possible that the author just messed up an included two separate entries for the same thing, it seems hard to just assume that." CreationDate="2021-11-22T15:03:32.480" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35919" PostId="17219" Score="4" Text="&quot;Sine&quot;  would be followed by a noun in the ablative case. &quot;Acetum&quot; and &quot;vinum&quot; are in the nominative." CreationDate="2021-11-22T15:09:51.723" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35921" PostId="17219" Score="1" Text="@KRyan Cf. [this thread and its comments](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/278/78). It's a very standard abbreviation." CreationDate="2021-11-22T16:03:22.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35923" PostId="17219" Score="2" Text="@KRyan, it's arguably not just two separate entries for the _same thing_ if they're synonyms and the editor expects the user/reader to look for either form in a glossary. FWIW it also makes perfect sense to me the _sive_ reading. Moreover, dead wine, and fermented/expired wine (i.e., vinegar) look very close in meaning." CreationDate="2021-11-22T18:09:33.577" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35924" PostId="17219" Score="2" Text="@Rafael If the two entries were the same aside from the ordering/alphabetizing, yes, it would make sense. But the author lists _different symbols_ under each version, implying that “acetum ſ. vinum mortuum” and “vinum mortuum, ſ. acetum” refer to different things in the author’s mind. Perhaps the author just made a mistake, but I still find that very hard to believe since one would expect that if he had forgotten that he’d already done “acetum ſ. vinum mortuum,” he would include (at least some of) the same symbols under “vinum mortuum, ſ. acetum.” There is no overlap." CreationDate="2021-11-22T18:20:41.887" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35933" PostId="17219" Score="0" Text="@KRyan, good point" CreationDate="2021-11-22T20:15:47.390" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35934" PostId="17219" Score="4" Text="@KRyan But note that in both cases the German equivalent is _Essig_ (i.e., vinegar). I still find plausible that the lack of overlapping is simply due to a pre-scientific accuracy standard for the text." CreationDate="2021-11-22T20:21:56.643" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35926" PostId="17220" Score="1" Text="By the way, in other entries, &quot;siehe&quot; is written out." CreationDate="2021-11-22T18:47:00.057" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35927" PostId="17220" Score="0" Text="I _had_ noticed that the font seemed a bit different, interesting. Really appreciate this, it feels much more plausible to me than the claim of “sive,” so +1 for that. On the other hand, it still does not tell me what distinction the author was drawing between “acetum” and “vinum mortuum,” though I suppose that might just be unknown." CreationDate="2021-11-22T18:47:14.800" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35928" PostId="17220" Score="2" Text="@KRyan He translates both as &quot;Essig&quot; (vinegar), so probably his opinion is that they mean the same." CreationDate="2021-11-22T18:56:36.537" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35929" PostId="17220" Score="1" Text="I just noticed that, indeed. Bizarre choice then. Even if you were including duplicate entries for the sake of someone who looked up either term, you’d think you’d include the complete list in each place, particularly considering it’s only 4 symbols (1 line) total." CreationDate="2021-11-22T18:58:08.353" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35931" PostId="17220" Score="1" Text="Not Latin at all then! Incredible." CreationDate="2021-11-22T20:06:52.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35932" PostId="17220" Score="1" Text="Although, interestingly enough, if they're both translated as *Essig*, than the German *siehe* here could have been substituted with *sive* with no real change in meaning." CreationDate="2021-11-22T20:08:39.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35935" PostId="17220" Score="1" Text="@cmw Unless the author felt there was some distinction that was just lost in translation to German—but that distinction wasn’t important enough to capture, I guess? Anyway, ſiehe makes much more sense than sive for some of the other entries, such as “aurum, sol” vs. “sol, ſ. aurum,” since alchemists often used the same symbols for both the Sun and gold—but some symbols meant only one of the two, so the “sol, ſ. aurum” entry is “symbols that mean ‘sol’ _only_, but remember a lot of symbols could mean gold or sun and those are under ‘aurum’.” At least, this is my suspicion." CreationDate="2021-11-22T20:24:02.557" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35947" PostId="17220" Score="0" Text="Pet peeve: &quot;cf.&quot; is NOT synonymous to &quot;see&quot;. It should only be used for comparative purposes." CreationDate="2021-11-23T11:02:35.067" UserId="10431" />
  <row Id="35949" PostId="17220" Score="0" Text="@Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda I read this answer as saying that “siehe” means “see,” but at least in this context is used to mean specifically “check this for comparison,” very much as “cf.” is used. So the parenthetical here is further defining the meaning of the word, not simply restating it in other language, not making the claim that “see” and “cf.” are synonymous." CreationDate="2021-11-23T12:12:40.893" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35955" PostId="17220" Score="0" Text="@KRyan - &quot;acetum&quot; is clearly related to &quot;acetic acid&quot;, referring to the chemical composition of vinegar.  afaict &quot;vinum mortuum&quot; translates literally as &quot;dead wine&quot;, referring to the manufacturing process for vinegar." CreationDate="2021-11-23T20:41:27.053" UserId="10434" />
  <row Id="35959" PostId="17220" Score="0" Text="@TimSparkles Both phrases are translated as simply “vinegar” in every source I can find—including this work itself, where both are “Eſſig,” German for vinegar. I can speculate plenty of distinctions that the author _could have_ meant, but what I actually want is some documentation backing up a claim that a particular distinction _actually is_ the one the author meant." CreationDate="2021-11-23T22:23:40.633" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="35951" PostId="17221" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! What meaning did you want to convey with the phrase? Did you want to tell someone that they should forget death? Is it the personification of death, or just dying more generally?" CreationDate="2021-11-23T17:38:24.750" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="35948" PostId="17222" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Could you provide more context? _Mortem interfeci_ looks like a good literal translation. But it seems you are looking for a specific passage with that meaning. Christian literature has developed the image motivated by Christ's resurrection, e.g. in the Easter Sequence: _Mors et vita duello conflixere mirando/Dux vitae mortuus regnat vivus_" CreationDate="2021-11-23T12:12:30.143" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="35976" PostId="17223" Score="2" Text="Are the sources you're referring to texts by ancient Greek writers? If so, if you share them we can try to see what the original phrasing is." CreationDate="2021-11-24T18:56:46.250" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35986" PostId="17223" Score="2" Text="@TKR See this thread on Myth, too: https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/10240/how-would-ancient-greeks-call-the-egyptian-black-marble-that-robert-graves-say" CreationDate="2021-11-24T23:48:33.137" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35956" PostId="17224" Score="1" Text="&quot;Concessieciam&quot; -- this should perhaps be &quot;Concessi etiam&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-11-23T21:02:38.147" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35967" PostId="17224" Score="1" Text="Apologies, that was my mistake. The published text reads &quot;Concessi eciam&quot;. I edited the question." CreationDate="2021-11-24T09:07:18.363" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="35970" PostId="17225" Score="2" Text="You left out 'crescendo' and 'decrescendo,'  thus offending all musicians :-)" CreationDate="2021-11-24T12:32:05.717" UserId="2538" />
  <row Id="35973" PostId="17225" Score="0" Text="@CarlWitthoft BAM bah BAAAAHHHHMMM (ominous horn blast)" CreationDate="2021-11-24T16:49:18.740" UserId="10439" />
  <row Id="35940" PostId="17226" Score="1" Text="This really belongs more on linguistics.SE than here. Note also that ancient Greek is thought to have adopted many thousands of place names and proper names from an unknown pre-historic language that predated the coming of proto-Greek speakers." CreationDate="2021-11-22T10:26:16.743" UserDisplayName="Semaphore" />
  <row Id="35942" PostId="17226" Score="2" Text="Do you want it moved to Linguistics?" CreationDate="2021-11-22T10:29:48.630" UserDisplayName="Semaphore" />
  <row Id="35943" PostId="17226" Score="2" Text="@Semaphore If anything, it should go to Latin, which also covers ancient Greek. Send it over there and we'd be happy to adopt it." CreationDate="2021-11-22T13:14:56.910" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35990" PostId="17227" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer and for proposing the migration.  It was a mistake to assume that the *daemon* in *Lacedaemon* is the same as in *Eudaemonia*." CreationDate="2021-11-25T09:47:37.803" UserId="541" />
  <row Id="35992" PostId="17227" Score="1" Text="@RodrigodeAzevedo It's an easy association to make! I myself assumed so up until the time I looked it up. I'm still not sure why it can't be, but maybe someone will chime in with that." CreationDate="2021-11-25T13:30:21.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35998" PostId="17227" Score="0" Text="@cmw I don't think there's any specific reason it *can't* be δαίμων -- it's just unclear (as you say)." CreationDate="2021-11-25T21:00:54.217" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35957" PostId="17229" Score="3" Text="&quot;Compass and straightedge&quot; is a modern characterization of the constructive nature of Euclid's Elements. He doesn't actually speak in those terms in the text. For instance, he talks about straight lines (as opposed to &quot;lines&quot; meaning curves), but he doesn't talk about the actual physical, practical tool for drawing them." CreationDate="2021-11-23T21:58:06.277" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35994" PostId="17229" Score="1" Text="@BenCrowell. The question was not actually about Euclid’s usage (Euclid in any case discusses at a purely abstract level and does not talk about tools). The classical terms for “compass” and “straightedge” are well attested in ancient authors, as any dictionary will confirm." CreationDate="2021-11-25T16:18:21.303" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="35950" PostId="17230" Score="3" Text="Do you care from which period of Latin you want your translation to be? *Subtractio*, for example, is found throughout Renaissance math texts, but the Classical word doesn't seem to be used that way. Other words can be offered, but getting a sense of what you're after in that regard will be helpful." CreationDate="2021-11-23T14:38:29.767" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35963" PostId="17230" Score="0" Text="Thanks. No time period requirement. Just a general informed consensus." CreationDate="2021-11-24T00:25:12.803" UserId="10433" />
  <row Id="35972" PostId="17230" Score="0" Text="Am I correct in assuming that the title aims to evoke the Antoine de Saint-Exupéry quote &quot;A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.&quot; but applied to Art rather than simply Design?&#xA;&#xA;And, if so, are you looking to be as literal in translation as possible, or would something like &quot;Art is Distillation&quot; evoke the same feeling you are looking for?" CreationDate="2021-11-24T15:41:34.507" UserId="10437" />
  <row Id="35987" PostId="17230" Score="0" Text="Yes exactly!  What are your thoughts?  Thanks in advance." CreationDate="2021-11-25T00:26:47.973" UserId="10433" />
  <row Id="35988" PostId="17230" Score="0" Text="I definitely prefer to evoke subtraction rather than “nothing else to add”. The article lauds the less is more concept. Make sense?" CreationDate="2021-11-25T00:29:24.103" UserId="10433" />
  <row Id="35989" PostId="17230" Score="0" Text="By the way I think his original quote was as about perfection rather than design. But I believe art to be subjective where perfection seems to claim objectivity…I prefer to keep is subjective, no?" CreationDate="2021-11-25T00:35:09.807" UserId="10433" />
  <row Id="35952" PostId="17232" Score="1" Text="Cf. Cic. 1. Cat. 3, 6: *Muta iam istam mentem, mihi crede, obliviscere caedis atque incendiorum.*" CreationDate="2021-11-23T19:13:47.990" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="35964" PostId="17235" Score="0" Text="Great!  Thanks fire preventing me from embarrassing myself!  How can I repay the favor?" CreationDate="2021-11-24T00:27:12.757" UserId="10433" />
  <row Id="35966" PostId="17235" Score="0" Text="@ChuckFilliettaz If you like an answer or find it useful, remember to upvote it. When you find an answer that &quot;solves&quot; your question, you can also give it a check mark to mark the question as &quot;solved.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-24T04:12:17.963" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35969" PostId="17236" Score="1" Text="Sorry, I had a typo. Corrected in the question. I have a habit of making life harder than it needs to be... Thanks for your help!" CreationDate="2021-11-24T09:12:43.530" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="35968" PostId="17237" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much, that sems to be completely clear." CreationDate="2021-11-24T09:11:31.513" UserId="916" />
  <row Id="35975" PostId="17239" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure either of these options is syntactically sound -- the second seems to be missing a ὁ (ὁ μάρμαρος ὁ Αἰγύπτιος ὁ μέλας is presumably technically grammatical, if very clumsy), and I don't know if there are instances of the construction &quot;ὁ Adj Adj N&quot; as in the first. It's an interesting question how Greek would form definite NPs with more than one adjective, or if these are simply avoided." CreationDate="2021-11-24T18:45:14.640" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35977" PostId="17239" Score="1" Text="This seems such a simple thing that there should be a clear answer. I can't find one, though." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:02:28.983" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="35978" PostId="17239" Score="3" Text="FWIW, my sense is that if there are two adjectives in a definite NP the construction used would be to place one before the noun and one after, e.g. ὁ μέλας μάρμαρος ὁ Αἰγύπτιος. The other options feel wrong to me, but I don't have any evidence for this." CreationDate="2021-11-24T19:06:06.890" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35974" PostId="17241" Score="0" Text="All my grammars are quite reserved about the semantics of multiple adjective attributes." CreationDate="2021-11-24T18:44:57.073" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="35997" PostId="17242" Score="0" Text="BTW ἐκ doesn't (in standard spelling) change form depending on the following consonant, though it does become ἐξ before a vowel. It's just ἐν and σύν, plus irregularly and rarely ἀνά and κατά (e.g. ἀμβαίνω = ἀναβαίνω, καδδύω = καταδύω)." CreationDate="2021-11-25T19:37:51.453" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="35991" PostId="17243" Score="1" Text="Thanks. I feel really dumb :-)" CreationDate="2021-11-25T13:25:57.347" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="35993" PostId="17243" Score="1" Text="@BenCrowell Nah, it's all part of the learning process. Cheers." CreationDate="2021-11-25T15:07:41.110" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="35996" PostId="17243" Score="3" Text="It should be added that this restriction is probably mostly a spelling convention -- there are lots of inscriptional spellings where this happens with prepositions (e.g. ΕΜ ΒΟΛΕΙ)." CreationDate="2021-11-25T18:01:27.237" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42729" PostId="17244" Score="1" Text="The Wikipedia page lists _Monographia Apum Angliae_ as William Kirby's first major work, so maybe he did write in Latin." CreationDate="2023-03-28T08:48:02.160" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="42737" PostId="17244" Score="1" Text="I followed Wikipedia's link to the full work. Sadly, only the title is in Latin. The work itself is in English." CreationDate="2023-03-29T09:09:34.397" UserId="2728" />
  <row Id="35999" PostId="17246" Score="0" Text="I am probably going to accept this excellent answer as it details exactly what I was looking for and gives precedent for the original suffix’ use in Classical Latin. But I will wait for another day or two in order to leave opportunity for answers that find precedent of nouns suffixed with -idae in the modern sense being declined or given a discernible gender in scientific writing." CreationDate="2021-11-26T15:34:27.480" UserId="2728" />
  <row Id="36753" PostId="17247" Score="0" Text="Thank you all so much for taking the time to reply. You have inspired me to start learning Latin." CreationDate="2022-01-20T06:52:18.230" UserId="10680" />
  <row Id="36015" PostId="17249" Score="1" Text="This is called the e caudata." CreationDate="2021-11-27T00:19:25.407" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36004" PostId="17251" Score="1" Text="Wait, but why? The same text uses *quæ* a short while later." CreationDate="2021-11-26T18:16:44.903" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36005" PostId="17251" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. The typographer seems to use the shorter form in this already quite crowded line, and the longer form when the word-spacing is more generous. E.g. quae praeter a few lines further down." CreationDate="2021-11-26T18:28:37.957" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="36006" PostId="17254" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Both in Halporn and (more explicitly) in Pharr (sec. 524), this rule is stated such that it only applies within a single word. But it seems like the single-word condition has to be relaxed, or else words like βροτῶν and θρόνῳ would be impossible to set in verse -- you couldn't have anything before them, and you also couldn't have them at the beginning of a line." CreationDate="2021-11-26T18:46:28.263" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36008" PostId="17254" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell Added some more information for you." CreationDate="2021-11-26T19:31:13.997" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36009" PostId="17254" Score="0" Text="@BenCrowell If you want to search for more info a common term for this phenomenon is &quot;the mute and liquid rule&quot; or *muta cum liquida*. It applies in both Greek and Latin. See also https://books.google.ca/books?id=JuPiXNhC-fIC&amp;pg=PA220&amp;lpg=PA220&amp;dq=attic+correption&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=W-85YIr_Vd&amp;sig=ACfU3U32WPyPyQhSD8XT5gHPWVLLfzw23g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwikk_-z47b0AhU1On0KHbktBxsQ6AF6BAgkEAM#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2021-11-26T19:35:31.093" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36010" PostId="17254" Score="0" Text="@TKR West calls it &quot;Attic correption&quot; there. Not sure if you saw my answer's edits, but I included that, too. I think I remember mostly learning that term in Greek classes and the &quot;mute plus liquid&quot; term in Latin classes. Granted that was long ago." CreationDate="2021-11-26T19:41:56.733" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36011" PostId="17254" Score="0" Text="It's definitely used for Greek as well, e.g. https://brill.com/view/book/9789004469747/BP000006.xml" CreationDate="2021-11-26T19:50:32.467" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36012" PostId="17254" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks for the article (from the future!). It confirms my suspicion that there was something going on with δράκων and metathesis (cf. δέρκομαι), but I wasn't sure, and my memory of Greek metrical classes are hazy these days." CreationDate="2021-11-26T19:55:49.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36013" PostId="17255" Score="2" Text="It's not clear to me what the difference between the rhythms of the two English phrases is supposed to be -- can you clarify?" CreationDate="2021-11-26T19:57:21.417" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36016" PostId="17255" Score="0" Text="By coincidence, I came across the Golston-Riad paper this morning and was wondering some of the same kinds of things. BTW, it's online here: http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~chrisg/index_files/GreekMeter.pdf I was somewhat mystified by their terminology, what they were claiming, and whether this was controversial." CreationDate="2021-11-27T00:58:13.343" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36020" PostId="17255" Score="0" Text="Greek and Latin are not the only languages with a metrical system based entirely on syllable length (disregarding stress or pitch). This is also the case with Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and some others. If you want to hear how Greek poetry sounded, listen to an Arabic scholar reading classical Arabic poetry." CreationDate="2021-11-27T11:36:59.030" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="36029" PostId="17255" Score="1" Text="I will try to edit my question to clarify me meaning." CreationDate="2021-11-27T19:34:17.777" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36034" PostId="17255" Score="0" Text="To help hear the stress differences, try these phrases from the &quot;Geographical Fugue.&quot; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjTEmRZu0tc)  The 3/3 rhythm is &quot;the Popocatépetl is not in Canada rather in Mexico, Canada, Malaga, Rimini, Brindisi.&quot;  The 2/2 or 4/4 rhythm is  &quot;the big Mississippi and the town Honolulu and the lake Titicaca.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-27T22:55:40.740" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36037" PostId="17255" Score="0" Text="Dactyls certainly don't have that type of &quot;3/3&quot; rhythm, since by definition the first syllable of a dactyl is longer/heavier than the two shorts." CreationDate="2021-11-28T00:47:21.090" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36048" PostId="17255" Score="0" Text="Are you talking about classical dactyls or tradional English stress dactyls?" CreationDate="2021-11-28T16:51:20.307" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36051" PostId="17255" Score="0" Text="Classical dactyls." CreationDate="2021-11-28T18:21:39.637" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36014" PostId="17256" Score="3" Text="A while back, there was a question about Latin tongue-twisters; I was going to post this in an answer, but it was precisely the lack of any definite source that held me back. I tried to do some digging on my own but found nothing secure. I hope someone else has more success." CreationDate="2021-11-26T22:02:11.583" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36019" PostId="17257" Score="4" Text="Could you provide a bit more context? It would be easier to interpret the meaning from that." CreationDate="2021-11-27T08:16:25.970" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="36024" PostId="17257" Score="0" Text="@TuomoSipola I am asking about an idiom, not the translation of a specific passage. If you don't know the idiom, then you don't know it." CreationDate="2021-11-27T15:22:35.290" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="36188" PostId="17258" Score="1" Text="Thank you @cmw!" CreationDate="2021-12-08T01:46:49.660" UserId="10451" />
  <row Id="36021" PostId="17262" Score="1" Text="Yeah, that's the same as the third link I provided. It might be the earliest, but why on earth did it get attached to Caesar of all people? And I wonder how then it later got attributed to Alaric?" CreationDate="2021-11-27T14:01:21.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38273" PostId="17262" Score="1" Text="@cmw This is a comment and not an answer because I have no source, this is only a guess of mine: usually tongue-twisters are created putting together fitting words, regardless of meaning, and they are later attributed to people on the basis of the resulting meaning. Alaric, Hannibal and Caesar were all at war with Rome at a given moment, so they are good candidates. As can be read in the first source you link, Alaric was especially fit because he was a _barbarus_ in both senses, a _barbarian_ as well as a _stutterer,_ a wonderful suspect for a hostile statement made up of duplicated syllables." CreationDate="2022-05-08T17:37:12.023" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="36028" PostId="17269" Score="1" Text="I wonder if something like *quidnam* is what's intended by &quot;humility&quot;." CreationDate="2021-11-27T19:22:03.890" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36030" PostId="17269" Score="0" Text="I had the same thought of _**hoc tempore**_ (one more question about that: Isn’t the preposition _**in**_ needed?), but I thought _**tempus**_ would mean something more like a long period of time rather than an instance when a situation takes place. Thank you for your help!&#xA;And by ‘humility’ I mean that a person accepts they’re ready to be put to some test, but maybe it’s only me who understands _**just**_ this way." CreationDate="2021-11-27T19:56:23.377" UserId="10453" />
  <row Id="36032" PostId="17269" Score="0" Text="@BöseKirsche the ablative is enough for &quot;time when,&quot; no *in* needed (or allowed). *Tempus* is not restricted to long periods in general, but it is true that it does not mean &quot;time&quot; as in &quot;third time,&quot; etc. If &quot;just&quot; here means &quot;I'd just like to know,&quot; perhaps you could say something like *Modo scire velim, quid hoc tempore inventuri simus.*" CreationDate="2021-11-27T21:09:35.083" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36127" PostId="17269" Score="0" Text="@BöseKirsche I agree that *tempus* might be the wrong kind of “time”. I would like to suggest *vicis*. So, *hac vice* instead of *hoc tempore*." CreationDate="2021-12-04T07:48:21.543" UserId="2728" />
  <row Id="36035" PostId="17271" Score="0" Text="I see that the usage is noted in the grammar text, but they give no name for it." CreationDate="2021-11-27T23:37:44.553" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="36036" PostId="17271" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden Indeed, there doesn't seem to be a name. You could well call it &quot;possessive genitive with infinitive&quot;, and people would be likely to understand with some context and maybe an example." CreationDate="2021-11-27T23:45:18.813" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36039" PostId="17271" Score="0" Text="Is this usage of genitive used only in the context of describing an action as intrinsic to the subject? if it's limited to that, i could see it called something like &quot;genitive of nature&quot;." CreationDate="2021-11-28T02:43:41.720" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36043" PostId="17271" Score="0" Text="@Adam It's not necessarily about nature. It can also be about duty or other things, so at least that nature would need to be interpreted very broadly. And perhaps a genitive of nature is too easily confused with a genitive of quality. These objections don't mean that it couldn't be called so, though. I'd be happy to hear if it has been named anywhere." CreationDate="2021-11-28T06:23:02.833" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36044" PostId="17271" Score="0" Text="&quot;It's Not For Me To Say&quot; (a song sung by Johnny Mathis and others) uses an identical English construction, implying that it's &quot;for you to say,&quot; not me." CreationDate="2021-11-28T13:22:59.417" UserId="10458" />
  <row Id="36040" PostId="17274" Score="0" Text="Thank you, makes more sense than what I was thinking of. I was starting to think it was a nautical idiom, thinking the 'stegis' was referring to the deck and one were to walk on it. Your references were solid." CreationDate="2021-11-28T03:03:59.303" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="36041" PostId="17275" Score="0" Text="So it seems ultimately it is Greek in origin, and can't be native Latin terminology. I was thinking of a Latin origin in nautical idiomatic sayings: calco (I walk) + stegis (on the decks), sort of like an &quot;all hands on deck&quot; sort of idiomatic expression, but that's just working off that angle. Then again the entry isn't spaced either. The Greek seems more straightforward." CreationDate="2021-11-28T03:09:41.297" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="36042" PostId="17275" Score="0" Text="@VivatLinguaLatina Yeah, compounds joined by -o- are more likely Greek than Latin, at least in Classical times. (Not sure if more -o- compounds appeared later.) But then again, the more obscure words in the Appendix Probi have definitely been mangled by transmission, so that may or may not be meaningful." CreationDate="2021-11-28T03:22:09.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36052" PostId="17276" Score="3" Text="Note: before the invention of the letter G, the C also represented that sound, as attested in old inscriptions, and particularly in the abbreviations C. for Gaius and Cn. for Gnaeus." CreationDate="2021-11-28T19:40:17.370" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36087" PostId="17277" Score="1" Text="Related question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7502/what-was-the-sibilant-in-θάλασσα" CreationDate="2021-12-01T22:00:32.427" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="36049" PostId="17280" Score="1" Text="Your suggestion reads to me as a timeless statement, whereas the English idiom is used as an answer to particular questions." CreationDate="2021-11-28T18:04:57.863" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36050" PostId="17280" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey True, my suggestion is indeed timeless in nature. But I think if I make a formally timeless statement like this in a context, its implications on the present situation are pretty clear. Quoting an old wisdom is not exactly equivalent to a direct comment on a particular matter, but an option worth considering." CreationDate="2021-11-28T18:12:22.467" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36053" PostId="17281" Score="1" Text="I disagree that the missing word in Pliny is loqui. I would instead say that it's just the finite form loquor/dico (= 'But I'm speaking too soon about what happened only later' = 'But I'm getting ahead of myself'), which is often ellipsed in such cases (cf., e.g., Quid plura?). Such an epexegetic infinitive with nimis cito strikes me as a grecism/poetic, at best – which is not to say that it isn't possible; but I'd want to see some example that includes an explicit infinitive." CreationDate="2021-11-28T20:42:19.703" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36054" PostId="17281" Score="0" Text="@cnread - Of course I never claimed that *loqui* was the missing infinitive in Pliny's quote — that was my own addition. However, I thought it was justified considering that Cicero similarly used the combintation *sero* + the infinitive: &quot;Atque idem ego, cum iam opes omnis et suas et populi Romani Pompeius ad Caesarem detulisset **seroque ea sentire** coepisset&quot;" CreationDate="2021-11-28T20:51:28.603" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="36055" PostId="17281" Score="1" Text="Surely the infinitive in the Cicero is dependent on coepisset, not sero?" CreationDate="2021-11-28T21:11:04.290" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36064" PostId="17281" Score="1" Text="I would phrase this: Nimis cito loquerer  (&quot;I would be speaking too soon,&quot; with it understood, &quot;if I were answering your question&quot;)" CreationDate="2021-11-29T22:16:57.807" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36058" PostId="17288" Score="5" Text="Welcome to the site! This old question might contain what you are looking for: [What did the Romans use to close their letters?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/184/79) How does that compare to what you are after?" CreationDate="2021-11-29T13:56:59.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36092" PostId="17288" Score="1" Text="Adding to @JoonasIlmavirta excellent suggestion, let me also point to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13779/ending-a-letter-in-latin/13781#13781" CreationDate="2021-12-02T00:27:33.643" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="36062" PostId="17290" Score="0" Text="Nice suggestion. This simple example posits a syntactic puzzle to me. One could say that the dative _mihi_ can be a semantic argument of the verb _haerere_ or a dativus sympatheticus with respect to _animo_. An easy answer could be: it is both at the same time but, _stricto sensu_ (or should I say, syntactically speaking) I don't think this intuitive &quot;at the same time&quot; analysis is really possible. I'd go for the dativus sympatheticus reading first (it's the 1st analysis that comes to my mind here). The other analysis as verbal argument of _haerere_ is not excluded but it is more marked." CreationDate="2021-11-29T20:42:19.030" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36065" PostId="17290" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino - My guess would be that the dative goes with the verb, but maybe you're right." CreationDate="2021-11-30T00:45:43.010" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="36066" PostId="17290" Score="0" Text="It seems really fitting, but as I searched about it, I wondered if it was meant more for a romantic love ? It is hard to determine this as I do not understand Latin. But thank you very much nonetheless, in any case the dictionary may help!" CreationDate="2021-11-30T08:37:38.697" UserId="10466" />
  <row Id="36070" PostId="17290" Score="1" Text="@charon25 - I edited my answer to address your concerns." CreationDate="2021-11-30T12:46:42.300" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="36071" PostId="17290" Score="1" Text="@ExpeditoBipes - I guess this was exactly what I was looking for then, thank you!" CreationDate="2021-11-30T12:55:05.390" UserId="10466" />
  <row Id="36072" PostId="17290" Score="1" Text="@charon25 - You're welcome." CreationDate="2021-11-30T12:56:05.197" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="36075" PostId="17290" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S give this frequency note on the selection frame of the verb _haerere_: &quot;usually constr. with _in_, the simple abl. or absol., less freq. with dat., with _ad, sub, ex_, etc.&quot;. Assuming that the internal argument of the verb _haeres_ in your two examples is _in animo_ &amp; _in medullis_, the dative would not occupy the internal argument slot of the verb (already occupied by the prepositional ablative) but rather would be a dativus sympatheticus. So perhaps your intuition that &quot;the dative goes with the verb&quot; is an influence of your native language, where the prep. _to_ is used." CreationDate="2021-11-30T18:12:48.930" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36078" PostId="17290" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino - OK. Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-11-30T20:27:13.657" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="36060" PostId="17291" Score="1" Text="I agree with your appropriate suggestions. By the way, _miserantur_ in your last example should be replaced by _miserentur_ (2nd conj.).  As for the ellipsis, I agree that no verb is necessary in _Nulla misericordia a mortuis_ . I'd expect the elliptical verb there be a bit &quot;lighter&quot; (i.e. more &quot;copulative&quot;?) than _exoptatur_." CreationDate="2021-11-29T20:08:15.177" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36061" PostId="17291" Score="0" Text="There are two verbs *miseror* 1st conj. which my example uses, and *misereo* (whence *misereor*) 2nd conj. Is there a huge semantic difference between those two? I agree that *exoptatur* is a bit too bombastic for the occasion. Maybe *datur*?" CreationDate="2021-11-29T20:22:41.030" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="36063" PostId="17291" Score="1" Text="My intuition is that the use of _miserentur_ is more directly related to that of the previous example (_miseret_). So I'd go for _miserentur_ to express a more direct parallelism between _Mei mortuos non miseret_ and _Mortui non miserentur_: both are stative verbs with the resultative suffix _-e-_. Note also that _misereor_ is intransitive, whereas _miseror_ is transitive. Here is an article (in Spanish; NB: abstract in English) that deals with their syntactic and subtle semantic differences: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CFCL/article/view/43564/41196" CreationDate="2021-11-29T21:13:04.383" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36099" PostId="17294" Score="0" Text="Any decent translation should surely preserve the parallelism with Emil du Bois-Reymond's maxim &quot;[_ignoramus et ignorabimus_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoramus_et_ignorabimus)&quot;, to which Hilbert's remark was a direct response." CreationDate="2021-12-02T16:54:14.953" UserId="57" />
  <row Id="36073" PostId="17295" Score="1" Text="The meaning is slightly different but that's really interesting" CreationDate="2021-11-30T13:04:05.710" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36074" PostId="17295" Score="4" Text="+1. One can consider using also gerundive n. pl. which seems to be a little better. cf. *Cavebo quae sunt cavenda* (Cic.)" CreationDate="2021-11-30T13:44:13.797" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="36076" PostId="17298" Score="1" Text="I wouldn't have thought of it, you lose the repetition of the German sounds but it's probably the best one can do. Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2021-11-30T19:01:20.147" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36077" PostId="17299" Score="0" Text="I don't feel qualified to answer a poetry question (especially if my answer would amount to saying somebody should give this Ovid person a copy of Lewis &amp; Short so he'll learn proper Latin), but just looking at the [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deripio), I'd say in prose at least, I would certainly have expected the reflexive form *morsibus se eripit* (*morsibus* dative), and *eripi* very commonly stands for death (*morsibus* ablative)." CreationDate="2021-11-30T20:06:54.850" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36080" PostId="17300" Score="0" Text="Another thing struck me about the two phrases: the first, *eripitur* is passive, but *relinquit* is an active action by the hare. Being a very lowly Latinist I can't know whether the dual phrase &quot;it is delivered from the teeth and it leaves behind the touching mouth&quot; sounds as incongruous in Latin as it does in English. From my readings so far of Ovid, though, and as far as I can tell, his reputation as a poet seems well-deserved. It'd be nice to hear more from other proper Latinists." CreationDate="2021-12-01T11:34:42.013" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="36079" PostId="17303" Score="0" Text="The epitaph on his tombstone in Göttingen is in German, I don't know if he ever said it in Latin but this is the first time I've heard it. I'll do some research." CreationDate="2021-12-01T09:50:41.223" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36084" PostId="17303" Score="1" Text="But he did say it in German! It is quoted right at the start of the chapter on Hilbert in the book you linked. He may also have said *Nescimus, sed sciemus*, but that is not quite the same, is it?" CreationDate="2021-12-01T21:31:28.523" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36116" PostId="17303" Score="0" Text="He said it in German, correct. The question is if he said it in Latin *too*, and if he considered it as the fitting translation. (&quot;müssen&quot; is far more &quot;urgent&quot; than &quot;nescimus&quot;) My opinion is yes on both but I lack convincing primary sources." CreationDate="2021-12-03T12:14:35.223" UserId="10475" />
  <row Id="36082" PostId="17305" Score="2" Text="Nagy's etas are all over the place -- sometimes they're a very open [ɛ] / [æ], at other times they sound like the English diphthong [eɪ]. (BTW &quot;In the case of ο/ω, this seems to be exactly the opposite of the historical reconstruction&quot; -- also in the case of ε/η.)" CreationDate="2021-12-01T19:57:57.400" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36081" PostId="17306" Score="2" Text="Wouldn't *ordinem adhibe* mean something like &quot;apply order&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-12-01T19:48:50.417" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36083" PostId="17306" Score="1" Text="Exactly. If you say that angrily to a person jumping the queue, you are telling them to act in an orderly manner (cf. Cic. Off. 1,17). There's also the maybe even better fitting *ad ordinem te adhibe!* 'Devote attention to order (of things, especially the queue over here)!'" CreationDate="2021-12-01T20:31:12.837" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="36090" PostId="17306" Score="2" Text="@TuomoSipola Ordinem serva/conserva/observa also makes sense to me." CreationDate="2021-12-01T23:02:13.990" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36085" PostId="17307" Score="1" Text="I would, by the way, have thought it should be *ordine **eum** vocante*." CreationDate="2021-12-01T21:33:52.833" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36086" PostId="17307" Score="3" Text="Servius is the only subject that's been introduced so far, so *eum* would imply that the pronoun referred to someone else." CreationDate="2021-12-01T21:42:55.230" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36088" PostId="17307" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey surely *ordine* is the closest subject?" CreationDate="2021-12-01T22:26:58.417" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36089" PostId="17307" Score="3" Text="The use of reflexive pronouns is often pragmatic, referring to the subject under discussion, not literally the most proximal grammatical subject. Here, the ordo calling itself is pragmatically impossible, so the choice is between Servius (se) or someone else (eum)." CreationDate="2021-12-01T22:50:03.733" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36101" PostId="17307" Score="1" Text="Here's a good example of the principle I mentioned. Caesar statuit sibi Rhenum esse transeundum. Grammatically, Rhenum is the subject of the periphrastic gerundive on which sibi depends, but sibi clearly refers to Caesar." CreationDate="2021-12-02T17:53:05.673" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36106" PostId="17307" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey that is pretty common [if the subordinate clause expresses the words or thought of the subject of the main clause](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/reflexive-pronouns), but that's not the case with my ablative absolute." CreationDate="2021-12-02T21:04:50.120" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36097" PostId="17308" Score="4" Text="Are you asking where the stress would be if a Roman or Greek were saying it (not particularly useful in my opinion, but others may disagree), or what the norms for how medical professionals say it? For the latter, it could be worth listening to lectures online which might mention the words. If your tutors pronounce it in different ways it's a sign that you don't need to worry about it too much!" CreationDate="2021-12-02T14:34:30.383" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36114" PostId="17308" Score="0" Text="I am asking how a Roman or Greek would say it. I have listened to many medical professionals in person (some of them german, others bulgarian) and online (mostly british) and I hear vast differences every time. That's why I am interested in what it would Actually have sounded like." CreationDate="2021-12-03T09:30:54.957" UserId="10477" />
  <row Id="36115" PostId="17308" Score="0" Text="The reason I worry about it is that some of my tutors and even professors have a habbit of writing/saying the names of structures blatantly incorrectly, while at the same time aömost literally worshipping the &quot;Terminologia anatomica&quot; " CreationDate="2021-12-03T09:33:27.793" UserId="10477" />
  <row Id="36124" PostId="17308" Score="1" Text="You may want to take a look at section 3.4 in this textbook (p. 23). Medical Latin is not quite the same as Classical Latin. https://www.scribd.com/document/251246867/Medical-Latin" CreationDate="2021-12-03T22:51:39.840" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36100" PostId="17310" Score="4" Text="Welcome to latin.SE. I wasn't the downvoter, but it's possible that this was downvoted because it looked like homework, and they felt that was inappropriate. I don't know if the site has any formal policy on homework questions. The help page doesn't seem to address this. If, for example, you're self-studying Latin and need feedback on whether your work is correct, then you should say that." CreationDate="2021-12-02T17:01:00.260" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36103" PostId="17310" Score="3" Text="In addition to the comment by @BenCrowell: I closed the question for lack of details, but it can be reopened if you elaborate. Which direction are you translating to? Are the translations yours? Where are the sentences from? What makes you doubt the translations? Is there something specific you would like feedback on? A mere list of pairs of sentences isn't enough context." CreationDate="2021-12-02T19:03:19.793" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36104" PostId="17310" Score="0" Text="I am self studying Latin." CreationDate="2021-12-02T19:43:11.077" UserId="10480" />
  <row Id="36105" PostId="17310" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: Those are my sentences. I study alone Latin language. I am a beginner. Translation is from English to Latin, as tagged. Thank you." CreationDate="2021-12-02T20:04:47.120" UserId="10480" />
  <row Id="36107" PostId="17310" Score="0" Text="@Jan Thanks! Can you edit those details into the question? Please also consider adding details about what the specific question is. The users here typically want to see something more detailed than &quot;is this ok?&quot;, so any specific concerns about choice of words or forms or something would be a great addition." CreationDate="2021-12-02T21:37:49.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36108" PostId="17310" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I did the edit." CreationDate="2021-12-02T22:06:59.663" UserId="10480" />
  <row Id="36109" PostId="17310" Score="1" Text="I reopened the question." CreationDate="2021-12-02T22:08:24.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36098" PostId="17311" Score="2" Text="The apposition would indicate that the queen *is* snow." CreationDate="2021-12-02T16:21:19.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36122" PostId="17311" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the clarification! Actually, I want to name so a new species of a kind of a worm, new to science, being described from Svalbard :) With a clear allusion to Andersen." CreationDate="2021-12-03T18:01:23.943" UserId="10479" />
  <row Id="36123" PostId="17311" Score="1" Text="What about *Regina Nivalis*?" CreationDate="2021-12-03T21:49:52.183" UserId="2728" />
  <row Id="36110" PostId="17316" Score="0" Text="I should review pronoun declensions however :&lt;" CreationDate="2021-12-03T04:19:52.463" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="36111" PostId="17319" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer. I did the edit 2.0. Are they correct now? Thank you." CreationDate="2021-12-03T06:13:14.600" UserId="10480" />
  <row Id="36125" PostId="17322" Score="1" Text="similar but not identical: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16036/why-is-it-nomen-mihi-est-for-my-name-is-but-its-tibi-nomen-est-for-your" CreationDate="2021-12-03T23:18:33.177" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36126" PostId="17322" Score="1" Text="Related: [What word order resolves the ambiguity of two nominative nouns in a sentence?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/669)" CreationDate="2021-12-03T23:54:21.650" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="36129" PostId="17322" Score="0" Text="Do you mean mihi?" CreationDate="2021-12-04T14:50:03.233" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36138" PostId="17322" Score="1" Text="SVO/SOV isn't actually relevant here because *Jan* isn't an object, but a predicate nominative." CreationDate="2021-12-05T01:59:22.187" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36117" PostId="17324" Score="0" Text="Unrelated to the question itself: It appears that you have created two accounts. Please consider registering your account and [merging the two together following these instructions](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts). This site is much more flexible for a registered user, especially with the reputation and subsequent privileges you have earned." CreationDate="2021-12-03T15:36:36.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36118" PostId="17324" Score="0" Text="I have only one account. The other posts are associated with the same email address, but there it is not confirmed. Could we please start to talk about the initial question?" CreationDate="2021-12-03T15:43:16.037" UserId="10483" />
  <row Id="36119" PostId="17324" Score="2" Text="Are you using a textbook? What does the book say? Have you looked into this at all first and want clarification? There are also plenty of questions here before that talk about the subjunctive, like [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12814/subjunctive-mood-in-latin), [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10849/subjunctive-mood-in-comparison/10890#10890), and [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/when-to-use-cum-subjunctive-and-when-cum-indicative). Please read them over first and then we can help with any specific questions you might have." CreationDate="2021-12-03T15:46:00.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36120" PostId="17324" Score="0" Text="If you have any questions about how this works, feel free to inquire in our chatroom." CreationDate="2021-12-03T15:48:53.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36121" PostId="17324" Score="2" Text="@Jan As I pointed out, merging the two accounts has benefits to you: You get improved privileges and you can accept and vote on answers. My only point was to help. // We can start talking about the initial question, but you should start. Please take a look at the other questions and use the site's search tool to learn what's already been explained on the site. Elaborating on what is clear and what is still confusing after reading related posts makes for a good question." CreationDate="2021-12-03T15:56:20.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36134" PostId="17326" Score="0" Text="I want to thank you for the extensive and, honestly amazing answer to my question. Now I feel inspired to actually learn more about Greek and Latin inbetween and regardless of studying for exams." CreationDate="2021-12-04T20:03:09.087" UserId="10477" />
  <row Id="36170" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="I completely rewrote this answer to focus on the phrase in question, not abstract considerations of word order." CreationDate="2021-12-06T23:14:30.043" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36171" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="When you say &quot;using the genitive' do you mean a possessive pronoun?" CreationDate="2021-12-06T23:18:23.090" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36173" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="@TKR no, I mean something like *Mihi nomen est Iulii.*" CreationDate="2021-12-06T23:34:31.143" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36174" PostId="17329" Score="1" Text="Do you have an example of that usage? I'm surprised it's possible." CreationDate="2021-12-07T00:14:34.150" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36175" PostId="17329" Score="1" Text="@TKR The genitive is very rare in this usage but is sometimes attested: e.g. (...) _fuit interim effugium legionibus in castra quibus **Veterum** nomen est_. Tac. _Hist._ 4.18.3 (‘ and so the legions meanwhile were able to escape to the camp that was called Vetera.’). Cf. also Bassols de Climent's (1956: 68) _Sintaxis latina_: &quot;En el giro _mihi nomen est_ se puede expresar el nombre propio en nominativo (_Antonius_) o en genitivo (_Antonii_) o en dativo (_Antonio_)&quot;. However, your intuition is correct: the genitive _Antonii_ is indeed very rare (if not impossible!) in the Classical period." CreationDate="2021-12-07T03:11:26.170" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36176" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel By the way, I've realized that in your posts you typically write &quot;genetive&quot; instead of &quot;genitive&quot;. Is the former form also accepted in English or is this just a preference of yours?" CreationDate="2021-12-07T03:17:49.233" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36177" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Are we sure that the camp was not called *castra Veterum* (i.e. the genitive is part of the name)? It's hard to see where a genitive would come from in this construction." CreationDate="2021-12-07T03:20:58.913" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36180" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="@TKR This example is also given by Pinkster (2015: 1272) in parallel with the similar contrast between _Gelasimo nomen mi indidit parvo pater_ (Pl. _St._ 174) and _Q. Metellus praetor, cui ex virtute **Macedonici** nomen inditum erat_ (Vell. 1.11.2)." CreationDate="2021-12-07T03:49:26.603" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36185" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Thanks, I'd never encountered that usage before. (I can't see your Google Books link unfortunately.)" CreationDate="2021-12-07T21:21:22.477" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36192" PostId="17329" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Hm, I thought dictionaries would at least support &quot;genetive&quot; as an alternative spelling, but at least Merriam-Webster does not appear to do so. It is mostly a personal idiosyncrasy. I also prefer, in the context of studying Latin at least, the spelling &quot;condicional.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-08T19:50:51.410" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36132" PostId="17330" Score="0" Text="Also if anyone is willing to listen to the song, you can find it on your prefered app or streaming devise. Though I would warn you to skip the first minute of the song since it doesn't contain but instrumental and I wouldn't like it to be bothersome lol. Vocals start at exactly 0:59 seconds! Thanks!" CreationDate="2021-12-04T17:23:55.310" UserId="10491" />
  <row Id="36155" PostId="17330" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site, Diego! Going through the whole translation can be a bit much to ask for. You might get more useful responses if you ask a more focused question, picking a single sentence, posting both the original and your version (I won't follow a link in order to understand a question better, and I know I'm not alone), and making it clear what makes you doubt your own translation. Once you get some useful feedback, you can apply that to the rest of the project and then go and ask another question." CreationDate="2021-12-05T22:15:29.047" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36158" PostId="17330" Score="0" Text="Okay, Joonas, understood. Thank you very much! Will do." CreationDate="2021-12-06T01:10:52.427" UserId="10491" />
  <row Id="36133" PostId="17331" Score="2" Text="You might want to check out how awful [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for)." CreationDate="2021-12-04T18:54:53.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36135" PostId="17331" Score="1" Text="#2 would involve a visit to a person named Paris, but I assume you mean the city?" CreationDate="2021-12-04T20:33:29.047" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36136" PostId="17331" Score="0" Text="I am asking one person if they would like to travel to a city called Paris." CreationDate="2021-12-04T21:03:10.810" UserId="10492" />
  <row Id="36141" PostId="17331" Score="3" Text="Are the questions you're asking questions that you thought up yourself? Questions from Duolingo? Questions from a textbook? Your progress is going to be extremely slow if you have to depend on SE to check your sentences one at a time. You might want to get a textbook that includes answers." CreationDate="2021-12-05T14:31:33.137" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36137" PostId="17334" Score="2" Text="Hi and welcome! Your question has been put on hold for insufficient context. If you edit your question to elaborate on it, it can be reopened. Please consult [this meta page for instructions for asking a translation question if you don't know much Latin](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/79) and follow all the instructions given there. The more you add, the better we will be able to help you. Let me know if you have any questions." CreationDate="2021-12-05T01:27:12.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36145" PostId="17334" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! What kind o of intervention do you have in mind?" CreationDate="2021-12-05T17:12:23.827" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="36159" PostId="17334" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, &quot;financial&quot; intervention" CreationDate="2021-12-06T01:16:11.283" UserId="10494" />
  <row Id="36163" PostId="17334" Score="1" Text="Thanks! You may want to put that into the question's body. And a brief explanation, examples, and/or a link or two to definitions would also be welcome. It'll be reopen for sure! :) It's just that word-by-word translations are usually less correct than those made with the context in mind" CreationDate="2021-12-06T10:47:56.607" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="36142" PostId="17336" Score="2" Text="Hi GodonW and welcome. Do you have a citation for this usage? Adding one would make this a stronger answer." CreationDate="2021-12-05T14:59:40.357" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36144" PostId="17336" Score="2" Text="Could you give an example? I feel there is a difference between &quot;hardly a day went by when he didnt't write&quot; and &quot;an hour had hardly passed before the work was done.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-05T16:34:16.143" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36149" PostId="17339" Score="3" Text="I'm not sure visitare is the correct verb, at least if the target of the textbook that's being used is classical Latin (and indeed a sentence that talks about visiting Paris suggests a more modern, conversational target). According to OLD, although it can mean simply 'to visit' when the object is a person, it's otherwise a true frequentative, meaning 'to see frequently or habitually.' For just an isolated visit to a place, it appears to me that the verb should be visere instead." CreationDate="2021-12-05T20:46:20.537" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36153" PostId="17339" Score="1" Text="@cnread Huh, I didn't see that in L&amp;S. For sure *visere* (or even *invisere*) is the better verb. I'll have to see if anyone slipped and used it with a place, but it does strike me odd that it would be OK-ish with a person and incorrect with a place." CreationDate="2021-12-05T20:59:15.880" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36146" PostId="17340" Score="1" Text="Note: I had originally overlooked the fact that the narration is in the present/future. I edited the answer accordingly." CreationDate="2021-12-05T18:18:31.443" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36147" PostId="17341" Score="0" Text="Can you explain what you mean by the last sentence about δή (why it's harder to reconcile with Hartsock's reading)?" CreationDate="2021-12-05T18:36:33.340" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36148" PostId="17341" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I make some edits. Thanks for prodding me to clarify." CreationDate="2021-12-05T18:50:35.553" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36169" PostId="17346" Score="0" Text="The author is a Latin teacher, who, to my knowledge, is retired but still alive, so we can probably not chalk it up to the conventions of his time ..." CreationDate="2021-12-06T20:38:29.040" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36161" PostId="17347" Score="3" Text="Hey, it's very good that you have come up with several possible translations. What would be even better is if you could add your thoughts to those translations: how do you feel about them, or what are you uncertain about?" CreationDate="2021-12-06T05:05:05.590" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36162" PostId="17347" Score="0" Text="In some languages people say &quot;I am hungry.&quot; while in some other ones people say &quot;I have hunger.&quot;. In Latin there is even a verb - in sentence 4)." CreationDate="2021-12-06T06:05:28.957" UserId="10492" />
  <row Id="36187" PostId="17351" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for the detailed answer. I understood perfectly! I will go for the older classical Latin way of saying it. Thank you and have a blessed day." CreationDate="2021-12-08T01:42:22.807" UserId="10491" />
  <row Id="36165" PostId="17352" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Are you familiar with the adverbs *proprie, translate, generatim, speciatim, impersonaliter*? A monolingual dictionary is of no help if you don't know anything about the language yet. The connections within the vocabulary only make sense if you already know quite a bit. Can you elaborate on your background and what specifically makes you wonder here? (I'll close the question for now but can reopen if you elaborate.)" CreationDate="2021-12-06T16:04:26.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36166" PostId="17352" Score="3" Text="I'll be blunter: you clearly speak English, so **use one of the many, many English–Latin dictionaries available and aimed at learners**. (If you speak another language which also has readily available Latin dictionaries for learners, by all means use that instead.)" CreationDate="2021-12-06T17:40:29.330" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36168" PostId="17352" Score="4" Text="I would like to stick with monolingual dictionaries because not doing so  defeats the purpose of the natural method." CreationDate="2021-12-06T19:21:03.560" UserId="10501" />
  <row Id="36172" PostId="17352" Score="1" Text="I fail to see the point, but each to their own. I hope someone is able to give you a satisfactory answer in Latin so your natural method learning is not corrupted." CreationDate="2021-12-06T23:23:14.763" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36181" PostId="17352" Score="2" Text="In a way, though, doesn't any use of a dictionary defeat the purpose of the natural method?" CreationDate="2021-12-07T03:50:01.173" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="37608" PostId="17352" Score="0" Text="You might be interested in this post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17733/latin-to-latin-dictionary. Although, I think both your Latinity and dictionary skills would need to be quite good to use a monolingual Latin dictionary." CreationDate="2022-03-21T15:26:12.970" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="36167" PostId="17353" Score="5" Text="Why would one suspect a connection between kephalē and petros? They look totally different to me." CreationDate="2021-12-06T19:08:34.113" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36189" PostId="17358" Score="1" Text="You seem to have answered your own question? *capax* indeed does take the genitive..." CreationDate="2021-12-08T17:24:46.843" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36190" PostId="17358" Score="1" Text="The [L&amp;S entry for *quin*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquin) mentions *quin etiam*, translating it archaically as &quot;nay, even,&quot; i.e. &quot;...not only that, but even....&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-08T17:26:43.243" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36193" PostId="17358" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Well, sort of, the problem was I didnʼt understand how and why. The translation I ended up with was mostly Loeb." CreationDate="2021-12-08T23:13:04.767" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36191" PostId="17359" Score="1" Text="*Quin etiam* is also a common fixed expression, for which L&amp;S, firmly in the 19th century, [suggest](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquin): &quot;yea indeed, nay even.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-08T19:38:05.140" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36196" PostId="17359" Score="0" Text="Considering @SebastianKoppehel’s comment on *quīn etiam*, is there any way to know whether we are dealing with a fixed expression or whether they apply to different segments of a sentence as you explain? And is this description you provide a general rule of thumb? As the explanation reads now, it is not clear whether this is how it usually should be interpreted, or rather on a case by case basis." CreationDate="2021-12-09T14:45:16.947" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="44142" PostId="17359" Score="0" Text="@cnread: In the Livy example why would &quot;se (intulisset)&quot; and &quot;secum&quot; be in the same sentence: &quot;he carried himself (accusative, &quot;se&quot;) victory with him (&quot;secum&quot;)?" CreationDate="2023-07-19T10:21:37.320" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36198" PostId="17362" Score="2" Text="The vowel in the final syllable is short in both words, so it certainly qualifies in that sense. (Though since μή τις is transparently composed of two words and the ancient Greeks didn't use word spacing, it's hard to say if they would have considered it one word or two.)" CreationDate="2021-12-09T17:27:58.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36260" PostId="17362" Score="0" Text="Oh, it is‽ I assumed that when it was marked as short in one of the words and not the other, it was long. Are there any conventions I need to be aware of here that are at play?" CreationDate="2021-12-16T17:41:19.927" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36261" PostId="17362" Score="1" Text="There's a rule of Greek accentuation that says that when the vowel of a penult is long and accented, its accent depends on the length of the vowel in the ultima: if that's short, the penult is circumflexed; if it's long, the penult has an acute. So the circumflex in μῆτις suffices to show that the ι is short. μή-τις is an exception to the rule because it's really a sequence of two words, which is why the length of the ι has to be explicitly marked." CreationDate="2021-12-16T17:56:29.500" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36199" PostId="17365" Score="0" Text="Lots of interesting points in this answer! Btw I think you wrote Iliad in a couple of places where you meant Odyssey. On τ' άρ it's worth checking out Joshua Katz's article &quot;Epic Adventures of an Unknown Particle&quot; (on phone so hard to link atm)." CreationDate="2021-12-10T01:03:33.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36200" PostId="17365" Score="0" Text="Thanks for pointing out the mixup and for your other comments.  I have tried to make the appropriate edits and make it clearer which poem I am describing." CreationDate="2021-12-10T02:48:55.823" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36201" PostId="17365" Score="0" Text="Here's the Katz article; he argues (following Watkins and West) that there is no τε or ἄρ in τίς τ᾽ ἄρ, but that it's a single particle ταρ: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1426953" CreationDate="2021-12-10T04:42:19.110" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36203" PostId="17368" Score="1" Text="The languages that do have a H have a very different sound in comparison to the CH in loch. Modern greek may be missing the former so perhaps H sounds like a CH to you, but even in English H in humble is very diferent from CH in loch. In German hundert vs. dach. There are voiced and voiceless variants, but I think they are normally allophones. For example, Russians tens to pronounce ch where h is in order in foreign languages." CreationDate="2021-12-10T11:38:02.740" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="36204" PostId="17368" Score="2" Text="*Further, the consonant sounds, to the best of my knowledge, have remained exactly the same from ancient to modern Greek, which is what I base on my educated guess.* No, they've changed quite a bit." CreationDate="2021-12-10T14:07:49.013" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36209" PostId="17368" Score="1" Text="In Modern Greek δ does indeed sound like the *th* in *the*, but this wasn't the case in Ancient Greek, where it was pronounced [d]." CreationDate="2021-12-10T18:32:13.500" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36240" PostId="17368" Score="1" Text="@TKR and Ben Crowell: thanks for setting me straight." CreationDate="2021-12-14T15:54:34.360" UserId="10517" />
  <row Id="36241" PostId="17368" Score="0" Text="@VladimirF that's very interesting! To my ear, I don't hear much of a difference between huble and loch (other than people tending to &quot;stretch&quot; the ch in loch a bit)" CreationDate="2021-12-14T15:54:39.757" UserId="10517" />
  <row Id="36208" PostId="17369" Score="1" Text="Anthon's &quot;the deity&quot; is puzzling -- which deity? (Which is to say that I agree with your point, and don't know of any warrant for translating δῖος as &quot;boundless&quot;.)" CreationDate="2021-12-10T17:40:05.333" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36234" PostId="17369" Score="0" Text="If the deity is Poseidon, I think it is strange to describe the sea as one of his works.  As far as I recall, he did not create the sea." CreationDate="2021-12-13T23:27:37.387" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36235" PostId="17369" Score="0" Text="Boundless is a strange word for the ancient Greeks to apply to either the dawn or the sea.  The dawn disappeared every morning, and the seas they knew best were definitely bounded." CreationDate="2021-12-13T23:29:06.937" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36213" PostId="17370" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your excellent and comprehensive response.  I gather you are saying that the readings say that God tests, but does not tempt.  I read the section in James 1 in Greek and Latin, and think I understand the probable theology better, but am now confused about how semantically ἀπείραστός...κακῶν works in the verse and what nuance is intended by using  Ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, instead of Ὑπὸ Θεοῦ.  I may ask a follow up question." CreationDate="2021-12-10T23:03:14.463" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36216" PostId="17370" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher - You're welcome. I think asking another question about those points is a good idea." CreationDate="2021-12-11T01:47:33.577" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="36218" PostId="17371" Score="0" Text="You might find [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/696/what-is-the-distinction-between-gaudium-and-laetitia-when-both-denote-joy) useful." CreationDate="2021-12-11T15:24:27.050" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36228" PostId="17373" Score="1" Text="Many thanks Tuomo!" CreationDate="2021-12-13T00:16:28.273" UserId="10511" />
  <row Id="36460" PostId="17373" Score="0" Text="@Rob Remember to click the checkmark if this answer satisfies your question." CreationDate="2021-12-29T22:10:57.270" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36212" PostId="17374" Score="1" Text="I think *carpe!* would fit nicely here." CreationDate="2021-12-10T22:54:38.080" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="36214" PostId="17375" Score="6" Text="Isn't that just a **trill** ? See [this link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_trills)" CreationDate="2021-12-10T23:35:40.413" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="36217" PostId="17376" Score="0" Text="I like this one, too." CreationDate="2021-12-11T11:39:50.843" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="36230" PostId="17378" Score="1" Text="I can't tell you how many times I've had to remind people that there is no letter `t` after either `n` in the first syllable. :)" CreationDate="2021-12-13T06:31:58.883" UserId="262" />
  <row Id="36225" PostId="17379" Score="7" Text="Do I understand this correctly: Cunnilinctus was invented in modern times, probably by people who wanted to express the modern meaning of cunnilingus but objected to using a latin word in a way that doesn't match its latin grammar?" CreationDate="2021-12-12T19:03:54.473" UserId="6317" />
  <row Id="36229" PostId="17379" Score="6" Text="@Nobody that is a good summary, yes." CreationDate="2021-12-13T06:07:29.710" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36231" PostId="17379" Score="0" Text="Should we understand that there was no word at all in Latin for the act of pussy-licking, or was there some word formed in a totally different way ?" CreationDate="2021-12-13T09:14:34.713" UserId="9004" />
  <row Id="36232" PostId="17379" Score="1" Text="@Evargalo No, to my knowledge there is no dedicated word. See also [Wikipedia's entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_obscenity) on Latin obscenity. You can of course simply say *cunnum lingere*, as e.g. Martial does in Ep. 7,67: *Di mentem tibi dent tuam, Philaeni, cunnum lingere quae putas virile* (freely: &quot;May the gods give you some sense, Philaenis, if you think licking pussy is manly&quot;). The same epigram also offers the nigh untranslatable expression *medias puellas vorare* for the same act..." CreationDate="2021-12-13T18:12:48.310" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36239" PostId="17384" Score="0" Text="Thank you. In Allen &amp; Greenough section 470: &quot;The perfect would refer to some particular case and not a state of things.&quot;  I couldn't decide whether the disadvantages of supreme power represented &quot;a particular case&quot; or a permanent state-of-affairs--an accepted truth. In Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5598/1982, Tom Cotton advised that in the &quot;erat&quot;/ &quot;fuit&quot; conflict, it is largely a matter of what feels right." CreationDate="2021-12-14T15:29:06.993" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36242" PostId="17384" Score="0" Text="@tony The imperfect would place the narrative frame at some point in the past and say, &quot;at this point, it wasn't worth it.&quot; The perfect is a retrospective summary statement." CreationDate="2021-12-14T16:57:48.817" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36238" PostId="17385" Score="0" Text="Thank you. My understanding of the indefinite article is that &quot;could&quot;/ &quot;would&quot;/ &quot;should&quot; are of equal weight and are translated interchangeably, according to context. Are you sure about, &quot;I would have told you that&quot;? Taking your translation, it could have been a conditional sentence: &quot;si rogavisses, id tibi naravissem.&quot; = &quot;If you had asked, I would have told you that.&quot; Alternatively, &quot;si rogavisses&quot; could be deemed to have been understood--making it all correct. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2021-12-14T10:42:49.123" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36245" PostId="17385" Score="0" Text="@tony Well, how you translate it does depend on context, and the imperfect subjunctive can have the meaning &quot;should have,&quot; but, to my knowledge, not &quot;could have.&quot; Usually, possibility is expressed with *posse* in the indicative. See [Bradley's Arnold](https://books.google.com/books?id=4I8CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA142)." CreationDate="2021-12-14T17:59:29.160" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36252" PostId="17385" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the link to Bradley's. It is clear that &quot;posse&quot; is the way to go. What an interesting book. Are the answers to the exercises at the back?" CreationDate="2021-12-15T13:04:20.303" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36254" PostId="17385" Score="0" Text="@tony The answers were published in a separate volume, “supplied to Tutors only, on direct application to the publishers.” It does not appear to be on Google Books (viewable for free, at least), but you can buy a reprint, which does apparently [sell very well](https://cambridgelibrarycollection.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/an-unlikely-best-seller/)." CreationDate="2021-12-15T19:25:56.507" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36237" PostId="17386" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much." CreationDate="2021-12-14T02:08:50.247" UserId="10491" />
  <row Id="36250" PostId="17386" Score="0" Text="Unless I'm getting mixed up, &quot;unus&quot; is a cardinal number, &quot;vicesimus&quot; is ordinal. Can either be used in this construction?" CreationDate="2021-12-15T03:10:43.503" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36258" PostId="17386" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey oops, you're right, that Cicero quote is not the best example. But see e.g. ad fam. 15,14: *multi enim anni sunt, cum ille in aere meo est et a me diligitur*. Both are possible, but now I'm wondering if *vicesimus annus est* does not mean &quot;it has been **nineteen** years&quot;? And in this case we would have to say *secundus annus est*, which seems a little weird to me; for one year, I like the cardinal-number version better." CreationDate="2021-12-15T23:25:35.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36236" PostId="17387" Score="0" Text="Bringing up modern Greek to illuminate ancient Greek is certainly on topic here." CreationDate="2021-12-14T01:46:35.937" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36246" PostId="17387" Score="1" Text="Specifically on ἐρείομεν, verbs meaning &quot;ask&quot; in Greek often use the present stem when the aorist might be expected (not just in the imperative). I think this may be because the act of asking is conceived as part of a larger ask-answer exchange and is therefore in a sense open-ended (as long as the other person hasn't answered, you're still &quot;asking&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-12-14T18:40:11.700" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36243" PostId="17388" Score="1" Text="The usual present imperative 2sg of δίδωμι is δίδου, which occurs several times in Homer." CreationDate="2021-12-14T17:26:48.260" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36247" PostId="17388" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Thanks for pointing that out. Actually, it looks to me like almost all the uses of δίδου are the imperfect, not the imperative. Project Perseus seems to tag only one of these as an imperative (Odyssey 3.58)." CreationDate="2021-12-14T19:57:44.867" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36248" PostId="17388" Score="0" Text="That may well be right -- I hadn't looked at the examples in context." CreationDate="2021-12-14T21:12:53.060" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36290" PostId="17388" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the detailed response.  I had read the explanation in Wikipedia, but it did not seem satisfying to me.  How would you fit into that theory the use of ἔγειρε in Luke 5:24 and the use of Ἔρχου in Matthew 8:9.  These seem to be cases of &quot;urgency&quot; and yet the present is used." CreationDate="2021-12-17T23:51:37.590" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36291" PostId="17388" Score="0" Text="Other examples would be ἔννεπε in verse 1 of the Odyssey as opposed to εἰπὲ in verse 10, and ἄειδε in verse 1 of the Iliad and μή μ᾽ ἐρέθιζε in verse 32.  The change from ἔννεπε to εἰπὲ might convey increased &quot;urgency&quot; or pleading, but how do the others fit?" CreationDate="2021-12-17T23:59:37.993" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36255" PostId="17395" Score="0" Text="*in perpetuum* works as well." CreationDate="2021-12-15T19:29:50.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36256" PostId="17395" Score="2" Text="It is perhaps worth pointing out that *in saecula saeculorum* seems to be a bit of a Christian/biblical expression. That does not necessarily count against it, it is just something to be kept in mind. (I was going to suggest *in sempiternum*, but it is also biblical!)" CreationDate="2021-12-15T19:34:43.947" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36253" PostId="17397" Score="0" Text="I think this question has been answered here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5006/et-in-terra-pax-hominibus-bona-voluntas-sic?rq=1" CreationDate="2021-12-15T19:22:20.013" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="36257" PostId="17397" Score="0" Text="@fdb: that is about another variation in this sentence, nominative or genitive for “bona(e) volunta(ti)s”" CreationDate="2021-12-15T20:31:58.963" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="36321" PostId="17399" Score="0" Text="Your spell checker changed *gloriam* to *gloria*" CreationDate="2021-12-19T01:56:33.533" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="36322" PostId="17399" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Fixed, thanks, but it's more likely that my fingers are to blame!" CreationDate="2021-12-19T02:05:55.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36262" PostId="17403" Score="2" Text="Famulus makes me think of &quot;**fa**muli tuorum&quot;, the fourth line of the hymn in honor of John the Baptist that starts with [Ut quaeant laxis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ut_queant_laxis)." CreationDate="2021-12-16T19:08:43.760" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="36263" PostId="17403" Score="0" Text="This hymn is the basis of our do-re-mi system. Original **ut** was replaced by **do**." CreationDate="2021-12-16T19:20:12.067" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="36265" PostId="17403" Score="3" Text="In my highschool textbook (around age 12), *ancilla* and *servus* were indeed treated as aequivalents, mutatis mutandis." CreationDate="2021-12-17T05:26:29.070" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36293" PostId="17403" Score="0" Text="In LLPSI, Ørberg also uses _servus_ and _ancilla_ as equivalents." CreationDate="2021-12-18T02:44:56.467" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36273" PostId="17411" Score="0" Text="I edited the initial post proving examples supporting the hypothesis of two plural forms." CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:06:07.477" UserId="10538" />
  <row Id="36276" PostId="17411" Score="3" Text="Pretty sure *bureaux* isn't Latin!" CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:09:32.747" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36278" PostId="17411" Score="0" Text="And for the nouns ending with -um: @-um, plural -a or -ums&#xA;1) atrium, atria or atriums&#xA;2) maximum, maxima or maximums&#xA;3) malum, [mala or malums] ??" CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:12:57.520" UserId="10538" />
  <row Id="36279" PostId="17411" Score="0" Text="Here they say that the plural is malae: https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/noun/17795/?h=malum" CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:28:18.507" UserId="10538" />
  <row Id="36281" PostId="17411" Score="1" Text="@Jan that website contains utter nonsense. In fairness it says &quot;This word was edited by a user and has not been reviewed yet. There may be some mistakes.&quot; And boy does it not disappoint on that count." CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:36:11.217" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36282" PostId="17411" Score="4" Text="You will find the correct forms on [Wiktionary](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/malum#Etymology_2), it is generally very reliable. But the real answer is: Forget about dictionaries, buy a beginner's textbook or grammar and start learning about **declensions**. Latin has five or so of them (the exact counting depends on your textbook), and once you know them, you won't need a table for every single word (and the best dictionaries don't have such tables)." CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:43:21.213" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36284" PostId="17411" Score="1" Text="I can't second @SebastianKoppehel's opinion enough. Unverified online resources [range from misleading to outright fabrication](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16315/how-do-you-choose-the-correct-meaning-of-a-word-from-a-dictionary/16325#16325). You can't trust everything you read on the internet (like everything else!)." CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:52:54.697" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36285" PostId="17411" Score="2" Text="My favorite is &quot;malum, A declension, masculine gender.&quot; At this point I wonder if the site is a troll site deliberately set up to lead people astray." CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:54:10.257" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36286" PostId="17411" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary is not a good dictionary. Look: there are two ways how to say plural form of the word index in Latin: indexes and indices, however Wiktionary only lists one of them: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/index#Latin" CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:54:53.280" UserId="10538" />
  <row Id="36287" PostId="17411" Score="4" Text="@Jan Wiktionary is right and you are wrong. *Indexes* may happen in English but not in Latin." CreationDate="2021-12-17T21:04:38.800" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36288" PostId="17411" Score="0" Text="@Sebastan: and how about plural form of formula? In Latin it should be both &quot;formulas&quot; and &quot;formulae&quot;. However Wiktionary lists only one of them: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/formula#Latin" CreationDate="2021-12-17T21:13:43.013" UserId="10538" />
  <row Id="36297" PostId="17411" Score="3" Text="@Jan In *Latin*, the only nominative plural for *formula* is *formulae*. The accusative plural is *formulas*. Wiktionary does mention both." CreationDate="2021-12-18T14:12:16.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36274" PostId="17412" Score="0" Text="Thank you. But how do I know in general? Please have a look at the initial post. Is there a reliable dictionary?" CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:07:15.430" UserId="10538" />
  <row Id="36275" PostId="17412" Score="2" Text="Very likely an English dictionary that allows Latin and English forms for Latin loanwords." CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:08:39.140" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36277" PostId="17412" Score="4" Text="@Jan There sure are several: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why" CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:12:23.863" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36280" PostId="17412" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the link Sebastian." CreationDate="2021-12-17T20:28:41.157" UserId="10538" />
  <row Id="36326" PostId="17416" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your time" CreationDate="2021-12-19T10:04:45.240" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36303" PostId="17418" Score="1" Text="I think you would be better suited to ask this on the Philosophy StackExchange, as the main part of the question is the meaning of the philosophical term. If you question is about translations of the philosophical term into Greek, then it is a question about Modern Greek which isn't suited for this site." CreationDate="2021-12-18T15:36:15.577" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36323" PostId="17418" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 Thank you for your suggestion! My question is to avoid ambiguity between Kestler's term 'HOLON' and Greek word &quot;ὅλον'&quot;.  I think Kestler's 'HOLON' should be original term, but the English wikipedia page leads a confution that HOLON is &quot;ὅλον&quot; in Greek (= 'whole' ), but whole is apprently not HOLON, so I wonder how Kestler's HOLON is translated into Greek actually.  In this case, do you recommend Philosophy StackExchange is a better site?, Or, could you let me know where is Modern Greek Q&amp;A site (or my tag &quot;ancient-greek&quot; should be changed to &quot;greek&quot; or &quot;modern-greek&quot;)?" CreationDate="2021-12-19T08:55:02.273" UserId="10539" />
  <row Id="36324" PostId="17418" Score="0" Text="Are you seeking to write about this area of philosophy in Greek, or just interested in how to use the term in English?" CreationDate="2021-12-19T09:18:20.750" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36325" PostId="17418" Score="0" Text="I would like to correct wrong definition of HOLON(philosphy) page of Japanese wikipedia, which says HOLON = &quot;ὅλον'&quot;.  What I wrote at above my comment was wrong (English HOLON wikipedia page says holon  = Greek &quot;ὅλον&quot;).  Sorry for confusing you.  The English page actually says HOLON = whole + part (Greek:  &quot;ὅλον&quot; + &quot;ον&quot;).  I agree with this definition.  Now, I am curious that HOLON = &quot;ὅλονον&quot; in Greek If this English definition is right?  Why I'm confirming the meaning of HOLON in Greek is to correct Japanse wikipedia page." CreationDate="2021-12-19T10:00:24.023" UserId="10539" />
  <row Id="36301" PostId="17419" Score="2" Text="&quot;Pre-alert&quot; may be ugly, but it's perfectly logical. I can alert you to something that happened in the past, that is currently happening, or that will happen in the future. &quot;Pre-alert&quot; gives more precision in expressing the third of those meanings, although in some contexts there might be no ambiguity that needed to be resolved. From the wording of the question, it sounds like you're doing this from memory and don't have a copy of Fowler handy. I have the 2nd edition, and there is nothing like this in the entry for &quot;pre-,&quot; just a comment on hyphenation." CreationDate="2021-12-18T15:23:37.467" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36302" PostId="17419" Score="4" Text="Paro seems to have many meanings that don't include any implication of doing something beforehand. I arrange the books on my bookshelf in alphabetical order. I provide my dogs with food. I make friends with my neighbor. I adorn my apartment with posters. I assume that praeparo would be more specific. I prearrange my books in preparation for tomorrow's research. I adorn my apartment with posters so it will look good tomorrow when my old girlfriend visits." CreationDate="2021-12-18T15:26:08.670" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36315" PostId="17419" Score="0" Text="There does seem to have been a drift, though because the Vulgate has &quot;numquid poterit Deus parare mensam in deserto&quot; (Ps 78:19) which the Geneva version translates &quot;Can God prepare a table in the wilderness.&quot; Did praeparare displace parare in its meaning of &quot;prepare&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-12-18T21:20:43.190" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="36312" PostId="17420" Score="4" Text="Wouldn't be the first time philosophers took an ordinary word and gave it a technical meaning with only a tenuous connection to its everyday meaning. (Mathematicians are even worse about this.)" CreationDate="2021-12-18T19:09:50.973" UserId="7203" />
  <row Id="36318" PostId="17422" Score="4" Text="Intuitively I would say &quot;Qua parte corporis?&quot; Simply &quot;Quo?&quot; seems a pretty general question, especially since *aeger* also can have an abl. causae (*aeger morbo, vulnere, etc.*)." CreationDate="2021-12-18T22:57:51.457" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36319" PostId="17422" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That's a great approach! Can you write that in an answer? I have an upvote waiting with your name on it. A question that can only be interpreted to contain an ablative of respect is the best bet I can imagine." CreationDate="2021-12-18T23:04:36.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36320" PostId="17422" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree that &quot;qua parte corporis?&quot; would work for this exact question with this precise lexical content. But it doesn't generalize. Is there no generalizable formulation to ask for an ablative of respect? To put my question in perspective, if an adverbial is expressed through a prepositional phrase, converting a statement to a question is simple. The interrogative becomes the object of the preposition. But what about the case of a bare ablative?" CreationDate="2021-12-18T23:26:52.277" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36337" PostId="17424" Score="0" Text="There's also: “Latino Sine Flexione”, Law Latin, Hiberno-Latin, ..." CreationDate="2021-12-19T18:12:42.850" UserId="10544" />
  <row Id="36376" PostId="17425" Score="1" Text="Ecclesiastical vocabulary is also much more familiar to a present-day reader, so moving to it from Classical foundations is somewhat easy." CreationDate="2021-12-21T20:00:14.340" UserId="10414" />
  <row Id="36327" PostId="17426" Score="2" Text="I would assume the species name refers to someone with the surname Dohr, possibly the discoverer." CreationDate="2021-12-19T10:20:45.040" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36328" PostId="17426" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 If I understand this database correctly http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&amp;id=151801 it was discovered by Weismann" CreationDate="2021-12-19T10:24:10.167" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36329" PostId="17426" Score="1" Text="The specific name is very likely to honor [Anton Dohrn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Dohrn). It's common practice to name species and genera after prominent naturalists. Re: the genus, I have no clear idea yet." CreationDate="2021-12-19T11:03:26.013" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="36330" PostId="17426" Score="0" Text="@Rafael You must be right for that part of the name, thank you" CreationDate="2021-12-19T11:19:27.593" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36335" PostId="17427" Score="2" Text="I've edited the title so that it lets people see something less generic about the question. Please edit the question to tell us the source of the sentence." CreationDate="2021-12-19T17:25:01.857" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36343" PostId="17429" Score="0" Text="As far as I can tell that Latin site doesn't give principal parts, but the full conjugation of all possible verb forms. Is that what you're looking for in Greek?" CreationDate="2021-12-20T00:04:56.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36370" PostId="17429" Score="0" Text="It shows the principal parts as well." CreationDate="2021-12-21T16:50:21.720" UserId="7405" />
  <row Id="36331" PostId="17430" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I've thought about this association but I assumed they wouldn't mix Latin and Greek like that" CreationDate="2021-12-19T13:24:46.433" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36333" PostId="17430" Score="1" Text="@Laravel, they do mix both languages a lot, more so since the XX century, as Latin and Greek become less known" CreationDate="2021-12-19T14:16:18.977" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="36332" PostId="17431" Score="0" Text="The sources you have collected answer the question perfectly, thank you very much for your time" CreationDate="2021-12-19T14:11:44.490" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36342" PostId="17433" Score="2" Text="Can you give the preceding sentence? Is there a possible subject for *reliquit* in the previous context?" CreationDate="2021-12-19T23:30:49.333" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36350" PostId="17433" Score="0" Text="Sorry—the subject of the previous sentence is unclear: it could be David or it could be the Bible, or it could be quasi-impersonal: Pro domo Dei aedificanda omnes thesauros suos exposuit, nam aiebat: 'Domus....quam aedificari volo Domino, talis esse debet, ut in cunctis regionibus nominetur.' Ex hac igitur..." CreationDate="2021-12-20T19:32:32.817" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="36352" PostId="17433" Score="0" Text="I think the subject is clearly David: &quot;he left it to be understood...&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-20T19:38:12.147" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36358" PostId="17433" Score="0" Text="This does make the most sense to me, too—though I just didn't quite get the grammar." CreationDate="2021-12-21T12:24:52.383" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="36361" PostId="17433" Score="0" Text="Why can't the subject of &quot;reliquit&quot; be the clause &quot;quale esset tabernaculum quod preparaverat Domino talis ac tantus rex tali tantaeque Maiestati&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-12-21T13:56:20.597" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36389" PostId="17433" Score="0" Text="I don't quite see the sense there—could you elaborate?" CreationDate="2021-12-23T13:17:27.727" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="36338" PostId="17434" Score="2" Text="I think OP might be asking whether there's a particular term to describe the role of the infinitive in these NcI constructions. I would probably call it a subject complement, treating putaretur as a linking verb." CreationDate="2021-12-19T20:23:02.307" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36344" PostId="17434" Score="0" Text="You are right, Kingshorsey. Does this mean that &quot;inesse&quot; is also a subject complement?" CreationDate="2021-12-20T02:24:36.007" UserId="10543" />
  <row Id="36353" PostId="17434" Score="0" Text="@Something71 *Inesse* is the predicate of the subordinate clause." CreationDate="2021-12-20T20:14:46.693" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36336" PostId="17435" Score="1" Text="Welcome to latin.SE! I've edited the title so that it provides some text from the sentence. Please edit the question to tell us where this sentence is from. That would give context and information about the period and dialect. Is this a school assignment?" CreationDate="2021-12-19T17:25:38.717" UserDisplayName="user3597" />
  <row Id="36340" PostId="17435" Score="1" Text="Salve Something71, could you perhaps clarify what kind of answer you are looking for: do you have trouble understanding the passage? Or are you interested in grammatical theory/terminology?" CreationDate="2021-12-19T21:31:08.630" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36346" PostId="17440" Score="0" Text="Nice answer. It also might be worth mentioning that nescio + a question word is not a genuine question but an idiom meaning &quot;some [x] or other.&quot; Nescio quomodo means &quot;somehow or other.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-20T14:23:59.620" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36347" PostId="17440" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey True, *quomodo* is not to be read a s proper question. (But even if it is taken literally, it's only an indirect question embedded in a remark, so it doesn't really ask anything.) Many languages seem to have some idiomatic questions that don't expect an answer. Who knows how many English has!" CreationDate="2021-12-20T14:32:00.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36348" PostId="17440" Score="0" Text="The larger problem is that nescio+question idioms cannot be understood as parenthetical remarks or indirect questions, although they may have evolved from them. Rather, they are used as indefinite determiners. Nescio quomodo is semantically extremely similar to aliquo modo or quodammodo, which cannot be analyzed as parenthetical remarks or indirect questions. (For more info, see Oxford Latin Syntax 7.135 and 11.27.) In this sentence, nescio quomodo is a manner adverbial." CreationDate="2021-12-20T14:59:59.097" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36349" PostId="17440" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey We have the same thing in English: &quot;He did I don't even know what!&quot; = &quot;He did something crazy!&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-20T18:34:31.030" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36351" PostId="17440" Score="0" Text="@cmw Yes, and also in English, that's not a parenthetical remark. It's a clausal constituent." CreationDate="2021-12-20T19:33:06.013" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36359" PostId="17442" Score="0" Text="@cmwm thank you, that was very clarifying! But what about the sentence I wrote? Is it a right construction in latin?" CreationDate="2021-12-21T12:28:44.830" UserId="4754" />
  <row Id="36360" PostId="17442" Score="0" Text="@YetAnotherUsr No, it does not appear to be grammatical. What are you trying to say with it in English?" CreationDate="2021-12-21T13:53:53.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36354" PostId="17443" Score="0" Text="I changed the image to text to make it searchable. Feel free to a macron to the vowels if you wish." CreationDate="2021-12-21T00:48:50.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36355" PostId="17443" Score="0" Text="And I added the macrons back in. We don't usually edit people's questions multiple times in quick succession like this, but I just like having those." CreationDate="2021-12-21T00:53:38.207" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36385" PostId="17444" Score="0" Text="Interesting. I've never heard of the idea that one of the accusatives would be the object of the finite verb. It seems like the existence of AcIs used as subject clauses would immediately disprove that." CreationDate="2021-12-21T22:00:06.560" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36388" PostId="17444" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey As for your comment above (&quot;It seems like the existence of AcIs used as subject clauses would immediately disprove that&quot;), I think that Draconis's (initial) intuition (cf. supra &quot;that's how I've always thought of this construction&quot;) can be said to be plausible if it's supplemented with what I say in the penultimate &amp; last paragraphs of his second link above. Cf. what Draconis points out in the last paragraph above." CreationDate="2021-12-22T18:30:27.410" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36362" PostId="17445" Score="1" Text="Does anyone know if there are standard versions of this saying in other languages? That would provide some pointers as to whether this should be expected to exist in Latin. I can't think of anything in Finnish that parallels that, which I'll take as a weak sign that the English phrase is unlikely to have a Latin origin." CreationDate="2021-12-21T14:30:16.767" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36367" PostId="17445" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta In French we say &quot;les grands esprits se rencontrent&quot; literally &quot;great minds encounter each other&quot;. It's from a letter by Voltaire if I remember correctly" CreationDate="2021-12-21T15:58:30.587" UserDisplayName="user10176" />
  <row Id="36364" PostId="17446" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I think that the online dictionary you're using isn't the most solid reference as a Latin dictionary. Check out the recommendations in this question about [the best online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why) - there are a number of great choices." CreationDate="2021-12-21T14:47:56.470" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36366" PostId="17447" Score="0" Text="why then online dic. translate it six" CreationDate="2021-12-21T15:35:33.277" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="36368" PostId="17447" Score="5" Text="@AbhishekYadav. This &quot;Latin dictionary&quot; is rubbish. You should use a real dictionary like https://www.lexilogos.com/english/latin_dictionary.htm." CreationDate="2021-12-21T16:01:22.720" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="36369" PostId="17447" Score="0" Text="@Adam. Sexus means &quot;sex&quot; and genus means &quot;gender&quot;. These are not the same thing." CreationDate="2021-12-21T16:04:35.730" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="36371" PostId="17447" Score="1" Text="@fdb Do you have a link handy for a dictionary entry that lists a meaning of _sexus_ as &quot;sex&quot; in the sense of fornication? Every dictionary I've looked at so far gives the meaning as something like, &quot;the state of or spec. qualities assoc. w. being male or female, sex, gender.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-21T17:21:07.947" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36372" PostId="17447" Score="8" Text="@Adam [*Genus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=genus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means &quot;birth, descent, origin, race, stock&quot; and similar, whereas [*sexus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sexus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is &quot;sex (male or female)&quot;. They can both be translated as &quot;gender&quot; in some senses: *genus* for a word, *sexus* for a person. Neither can stand for &quot;sex&quot; in the sense of intercourse." CreationDate="2021-12-21T17:31:41.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36374" PostId="17448" Score="0" Text="I think this is a reasonable reconstruction of the author's intention, but the personal active use of this verb is very odd. There is a passage in Lucretius with a quasi-impersonal second-person subjunctive: quod cohibet solidum constare relinquas. There's also a generic pronominal subject in Celsus: illud non relinquit, ut... (that does not leave [ut-clause] as the conclusion). We have the same impersonal construction in English: &quot;I can rule out A, B, and C, so that leaves D as the correct answer.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-21T19:29:31.080" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36375" PostId="17448" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Why do you say it's odd? It looks to me like a normal use of the verb." CreationDate="2021-12-21T19:38:13.100" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36377" PostId="17448" Score="0" Text="This verb does not combine a personal active form with an object-clause. It usually uses an impersonal passive with a subject clause. And I gave the two passages I found where there's an impersonal active. See OLD, 14." CreationDate="2021-12-21T20:10:29.643" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36378" PostId="17448" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey I read it as having an implied *id*, with which the *quale* clause is in apposition: &quot;he left (this) to be understood, (namely)...&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-21T20:14:42.653" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36379" PostId="17448" Score="0" Text="Yes, that is exactly the kind of construction one does not find, so far as I can tell, with the personal active." CreationDate="2021-12-21T20:24:53.377" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36380" PostId="17448" Score="0" Text="Let me put it another way. In Cicero, we read: &quot;relinquitur ergo, ut omnia tria genera sint causarum.&quot; I don't believe there is any valid way of transforming this impersonal passive into a personal, active sentence with the same meaning: &quot;Cicero ergo relinquit omnia tria genera esse causarum.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-21T20:32:00.873" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36381" PostId="17448" Score="3" Text="@Kingshorsey Maybe there happen to be no exact parallels attested, but any transitive verb can take an *id* as object, so I'm not sure we need them. And the meaning here is different from your Cicero and Celsius examples (which are about options &quot;remaining&quot; rather than someone &quot;leaving behind&quot; something). LSJ has examples with an infinitival object clause: *Poet., with obj.-clause: “(metus) Omnia suffundens mortis nigrore, neque ullam Esse voluptatem liquidam puramque relinquit,” Lucr. 3, 40; 1, 703; Ov. M. 14, 100: “dum ex parvo nobis tantundem haurire relinquas,” Hor. S. 1, 1, 52*." CreationDate="2021-12-21T20:39:25.487" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36383" PostId="17448" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey Here's a parallel example: https://latin.packhum.org/loc/2349/5/1070/188-192,193-201#1070" CreationDate="2021-12-21T21:14:14.367" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36384" PostId="17448" Score="1" Text="In English, we can use &quot;leave&quot; with an AcI rather freely. &quot;You left me to die!&quot; &quot;Oh no, I left the cookies to burn in the oven!&quot; But classical Latin seems to avoid doing so. However, your examples from Horace (slightly different construction, but same principle) and Servius demonstrate that such a development did occur. Thanks for the discussion." CreationDate="2021-12-21T21:17:31.913" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36390" PostId="17448" Score="0" Text="The Servius to me (albeit my much lesser Latinitas) does seem like a clincher. But I should also note that the author, Lawrence of Brindisi, is by no means an orthodox Latinist, and sometimes does seem to be translating from Italian in his head." CreationDate="2021-12-23T13:21:30.903" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="36392" PostId="17450" Score="4" Text="There seems to be a vote to close for lack of clarity and a vote down. Perhaps the question would be received better if you removed the first paragraph entirely and focused solely on the sentence to be translated and your attempts and thoughts on it. If you want to give more context, you can give it after giving the core question." CreationDate="2021-12-23T17:25:13.590" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36396" PostId="17450" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thanks. The intro. has been shortened." CreationDate="2021-12-24T07:48:43.837" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36395" PostId="17451" Score="0" Text="Balsam Fir and Fraser Fir in my corner of the world :)" CreationDate="2021-12-24T05:08:21.393" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="36402" PostId="17451" Score="0" Text="Sorry for the late replay,&#xA;Can be used &quot;Picea&quot; for both spruce and pitch-pine?" CreationDate="2021-12-25T04:07:52.160" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="36393" PostId="17453" Score="4" Text="*uni qui* most certainly doesn't work. I think tony is translating &quot;one who&quot; overly literally." CreationDate="2021-12-23T20:58:54.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36397" PostId="17453" Score="0" Text="@cmw: The dative, &quot;uni&quot;, after &quot;adversam&quot; = &quot;opposite to the one&quot;; I was going to use &quot;rei&quot;, &quot;opposite to the matter&quot;; would that have been any better?" CreationDate="2021-12-24T09:21:16.843" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36398" PostId="17453" Score="0" Text="@sebastian Koppehel: I was going to use &quot;incendebatur&quot;; then I thought it should be the perfect tense; then the subjunctive-of-characteristic. Does &quot;destinatus esset&quot; at least nearly work?" CreationDate="2021-12-24T09:25:15.873" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36399" PostId="17453" Score="2" Text="@tony I think the intent is not really an event, but a (previously) existing state, which we might express with the pluperfect in English (&quot;to what they had intended&quot;), so this seems like a textbook situation for the imperfect to me. I also see no immediate reason for a subjunctive. But yes, I think you could indeed say something like: *rem effecit ei adversam, quae destinata erat*." CreationDate="2021-12-24T14:46:05.473" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36401" PostId="17454" Score="4" Text="It's been suggested that the ostraca of Bu Njem represent a Punic/Latin pidgin or creole. If you have JSTOR access [J.N. Adams has an overview](https://www.jstor.org/stable/300871) of the language used though he seems to (untenably) reject that it's a pidgin or creole on a dodgy technicality." CreationDate="2021-12-25T03:34:09.373" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="36403" PostId="17454" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon Sounds perfect! If someone can summarize that paper from the point of view of this question, that'd make a great answer. I don't have access now, but I might when I return from my holiday travels." CreationDate="2021-12-25T07:48:44.747" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36400" PostId="17456" Score="1" Text="Hopefully someone will let me know if my declensions are wrong. :)" CreationDate="2021-12-24T20:08:02.260" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36793" PostId="17456" Score="0" Text="The interjection *io!* isn't a generic celebratory interjection, but is strictly associated with the Sāturnālia. While there are many pre-Christian elements in Christmas, introducing new/old 'pagan' elements into Christmas intentionally would be an ideological move." CreationDate="2022-01-21T18:51:48.160" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36407" PostId="17457" Score="0" Text="&quot;NHG Acher&quot; -- ??" CreationDate="2021-12-25T19:07:35.347" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36408" PostId="17457" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Dialectical apparently; that's [De Vaan's claim](https://i.imgur.com/QS5PwMq.png). I just speak Dutch like a normal person." CreationDate="2021-12-25T19:12:06.357" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="36404" PostId="17458" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you edit your answer to elaborate on what this means more literally and where you found it? This is not the typical Saturnalia greeting I've seen." CreationDate="2021-12-25T09:02:50.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36405" PostId="17458" Score="6" Text="Even if Saturnalia eventually evolved into Christmas, it is still a different holiday, so I'm not sure this is such a good fit." CreationDate="2021-12-25T10:43:12.320" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36409" PostId="17458" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: god Jul!" CreationDate="2021-12-26T00:46:49.740" UserId="1760" />
  <row Id="36410" PostId="17458" Score="2" Text="I had learned in latin class (a long time ago), about the historical link between the modern Christmas celebration and the Roman Saturnalia holiday. `io saturnalia` was the phrase my teacher used in class." CreationDate="2021-12-26T10:05:37.740" UserId="10568" />
  <row Id="36792" PostId="17458" Score="1" Text="I'm afraid this reply is incorrect. *fruī* means &quot;to make use of, enjoy&quot; and isn't used in wishes; you put it in the infinitive, which isn't used in wishes - you need the 2p. imperative *fruere*; this verb commands its object in the ablative, so *sāturnāliīs*. Finally, as others have mentioned, the Sāturnaliā is a different holiday from Christmas and belongs to a different religion. It's never used to refer to the birth of Christ, and will be considered sacrilegious." CreationDate="2022-01-21T18:44:15.167" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36406" PostId="17459" Score="1" Text="These are interesting speculations...do you think they are more plausible than the above association with *Noel*? Some difficulties that come to mind: (1) I have trouble thinking that this is a nonce-interjection, especially since it only occurs in this specific context; (2) &quot;Euouae&quot; was used typographically to signify the corresponding syllables, but wasn't pronounced like a new word; (3) I can't think of a plausible corruption that fits in this context, e.g. &quot;Alleluia Noe&quot; surely doesn't mean &quot;Alleluia to us.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-25T18:30:16.900" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36411" PostId="17460" Score="5" Text="Hi again, Jan (I'm assuming this is the same Jan that has posted a few other questions). I strongly recommend [merging your profiles](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts) - it will make it much easier for you to find all the questions you've asked and any answers you've received." CreationDate="2021-12-26T17:21:38.717" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36412" PostId="17460" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I will consider that. Could we please have a look at the sentence?" CreationDate="2021-12-26T17:36:25.227" UserId="10571" />
  <row Id="36413" PostId="17460" Score="5" Text="Please consider that sooner rather than later. Regarding the sentence: Can you edit your question to elaborate on your own thoughts? Are you worried something in particular (e.g. choice of words or forms)? That way you'll get a more useful answer and probably a warmer reception, too." CreationDate="2021-12-26T17:54:16.003" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36417" PostId="17460" Score="0" Text="Related, and maybe a duplicate now that I've found it: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/669/what-word-order-resolves-the-ambiguity-of-two-nominative-nouns-in-a-sentence" CreationDate="2021-12-27T00:47:21.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36421" PostId="17460" Score="0" Text="Ok that's good way to become happy under nature" CreationDate="2021-12-27T09:45:33.273" UserId="10573" />
  <row Id="36418" PostId="17461" Score="2" Text="+1 for the word order explanations. In this case though I'd think the first one would be the natural choice -- the existence of the sky is a given, so I think Latin would be more likely to say &quot;the sky is blue&quot; than &quot;there is a blue sky&quot;." CreationDate="2021-12-27T00:57:27.713" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36419" PostId="17461" Score="0" Text="@TKR I think you're right, so I removed the recommendation until I have time to edit it." CreationDate="2021-12-27T01:06:04.287" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36420" PostId="17461" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your reply. The word order after &quot;quod&quot; in general is the same as if the word &quot;quod&quot; were not there? Thank you." CreationDate="2021-12-27T06:39:33.583" UserId="10571" />
  <row Id="36422" PostId="17461" Score="1" Text="&quot;Quod&quot; in this case means &quot;because,&quot; and like in English it introduces an independent clause." CreationDate="2021-12-27T17:36:25.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36434" PostId="17463" Score="2" Text="BTW the *cum ... tum* here is misleading: it looks like a &quot;not only but also&quot; construction, but actually the two aren't correlated -- the *cum* introduces a subordinate clause, while the *tum* goes with *demum* (&quot;then at last&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-12-28T19:29:03.407" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36433" PostId="17465" Score="1" Text="This probably is the intended meaning, but if so it feels wrong to add *in patriam suam* (&quot;to Argos to their homeland&quot;?), not to mention that not all the Greeks were sailing to Argos. The alternative is that *Argos* is supposed to mean *Argivos*, which doesn't seem too likely. Either way this seems like a badly composed sentence on Magister Ørberg's part." CreationDate="2021-12-28T19:26:54.710" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36441" PostId="17465" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks—I was wondering about the use of the accusative case there. I tried looking in Book II of the Aeneid (above my level) for the passage that Ørberg was simplifying, and the original seems to include no mention of Argos: _…nos abiisse rati et vento petiisse Mycenas…_ I hope someone posts another answer, which might provide some missing piece to the puzzle." CreationDate="2021-12-29T06:34:56.980" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36442" PostId="17465" Score="0" Text="@TKR Could _i​n_ +accusative here mean &quot;…the Greeks had sailed away to Argos _on their way to_ their homeland&quot;?" CreationDate="2021-12-29T06:56:37.820" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36445" PostId="17465" Score="0" Text="I don't think that's a possible reading of *in patriam suam* (and it still wouldn't make sense in terms of the story -- for a few of the Greeks Argos *is* their homeland, and the rest would have no reason to sail there)." CreationDate="2021-12-29T07:50:39.427" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36446" PostId="17465" Score="0" Text="@TKR Oh well! ......" CreationDate="2021-12-29T07:52:56.930" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36447" PostId="17465" Score="0" Text="@TKR There is a single passage in Plautus that Glare and Lewis and Short cite for *Argus, -a, -um* meaning &quot;Argive.&quot; Glare ignores the problem with that particular hapax, yet L&amp;S provide a much better reading, imo: &quot;So the much-contested passage seems to be better explained than when, with Gronov. Observv. 4, 298, Argo is considered as abl. from Argos, begotten of a father from Argos, to which Argis in the plur. does not correspond.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-29T08:37:30.813" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36448" PostId="17465" Score="0" Text="@TKR I wonder if Orberg saw *Argos* as a variant of *Argivos* and went with that. Not ideal, considering the tenuousness of the reading, but it at least would exculpate him of a poorly composed sentence." CreationDate="2021-12-29T08:38:52.473" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36449" PostId="17465" Score="0" Text="@cmw Ørberg has a marginal note on that line: &quot;Argī -ōrum _m_: urbs Peloponnēsī.&quot; So, unless it means that the Trojans thought &quot;the Greek city Argos had sailed away to its own country&quot;, I don't think Ørberg is getting an acquittal—unless there's some other basis for the accusative. I read the sentence as teaching the reader to avoid mischunking _Graecōs Argōs_ (and also to introduce _āvectōs_ before the line &quot;Crēditis āvectōs hostēs?&quot;, quoted from Vergil on the next page)." CreationDate="2021-12-29T09:12:51.283" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36430" PostId="17468" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! I thought this question seemed familiar and it turns out it is - I [asked the same thing](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12858/5056) when I reached that chapter in LLSPI. :)" CreationDate="2021-12-28T17:02:29.747" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36431" PostId="17468" Score="1" Text="@adam interesting;Thank you." CreationDate="2021-12-28T17:05:34.787" UserId="10579" />
  <row Id="36432" PostId="17468" Score="2" Text="Yes, you can say &quot;Quid est in saccis,&quot; but also &quot;Quid inest saccis?&quot; In that case it's the dative. The Romans used *inesse* in both ways." CreationDate="2021-12-28T17:11:59.430" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36435" PostId="17469" Score="6" Text="Can you add some clarification? Are you looking for mental images, or thought processes? Does it have to be visual? Example sentences, etc. would be useful. Keep in mind that the word *idea* in English can be represented by a range of different concepts in other languages, so specifying as much as possible is helpful." CreationDate="2021-12-28T23:19:12.703" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36444" PostId="17471" Score="0" Text="I just googled and I think the English sentence in the song is &quot;Destruction ain't a crime for those who find love _is_ a game like you and I.&quot; Some web sites have _as_ but that appears to be an error. _As_ instead of _is_ isn't ungrammatical, but it's not how to express what appears to be the meaning: &quot;…for those who find [that] love is a game like you and I.&quot;" CreationDate="2021-12-29T07:47:34.803" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36450" PostId="17472" Score="5" Text="Perhaps one might also say *putent* (“such people who,” subjunctive of characteristic)." CreationDate="2021-12-29T13:07:34.997" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36463" PostId="17472" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much! So it would have a sense closer to &quot;Destructium is suitable for those who find love as a game&quot;, wouldn't it? Again I appreciate your comment so much." CreationDate="2021-12-29T23:23:34.357" UserId="10491" />
  <row Id="36464" PostId="17472" Score="0" Text="@DiegoOjeda Yes. I find _decet_ impossible to translate into English. Let's just say that it means the opposite of a crime: something proper, dignified, honorable. The English word &quot;decent&quot; comes from _decet._" CreationDate="2021-12-30T01:43:42.557" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36467" PostId="17472" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: What do you think about the subjunctive-of-characteristic, here?" CreationDate="2021-12-30T17:42:56.010" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36453" PostId="17474" Score="1" Text="Do you have a link handy for the passage? It might help to have the source you're looking at in the event it's different for some reason." CreationDate="2021-12-29T16:56:33.057" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36454" PostId="17474" Score="2" Text="I edited your question a bit to give the passage at hand, but I do think we need more clarity from you, especially with regards to why you think it ought to be *reptiles animas*. Can you add in the additional details?" CreationDate="2021-12-29T17:03:55.523" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36455" PostId="17474" Score="0" Text="It seems that animae is the object of producant.   The translation is in the plural: animals.  &quot;animae&quot; is nominative plural, and accusative, animalas, seems better or animalis if we use a dative object of a compound verb.  The adjective reptile, which is in the ablative singular, modifies animae so it seems that the adjective and the noun it modifies do not agree in either number or case.        The quote, which is complete above (thanks), is from the Douay-Rheims version of the bible of 1609 published by Baronius Press in 2008." CreationDate="2021-12-29T19:05:50.683" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="36456" PostId="17474" Score="1" Text="@StephenPerencevich You seem to believe *anima* means &quot;animal,&quot; but it [doesn't](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Danima) (the Latin word for &quot;animal&quot; is, believe it or not, *animal*)." CreationDate="2021-12-29T19:12:09.693" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36459" PostId="17474" Score="0" Text="Just in case it isn't clear from the answers, *reptile* is a neuter accusative singular here, not an ablative." CreationDate="2021-12-29T20:03:02.973" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36451" PostId="17476" Score="4" Text="Why not just get a good dictionary? In general, any Latin or Ancient Greek word (or even words loaned from other languages) can be used in taxonomic names." CreationDate="2021-12-29T16:24:49.737" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36465" PostId="17479" Score="2" Text="Thanks, this is very illuminating." CreationDate="2021-12-30T12:50:03.413" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="36458" PostId="17480" Score="0" Text="Small correction: ψυχῶν ζωσῶν is &quot;of living souls&quot;; ζωσῶν is a present participle, and I don't think ψυχή ever literally means &quot;breath&quot; (though it's presumably related to ψύχω &quot;breathe, blow&quot;)." CreationDate="2021-12-29T19:48:38.023" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36461" PostId="17480" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the correction, but how is ζωσῶν present?  What is the stem?" CreationDate="2021-12-29T22:11:02.927" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36462" PostId="17480" Score="0" Text="The verb is ζάω, so the feminine present participle is ζάουσα, which contracts to ζῶσα ." CreationDate="2021-12-29T22:16:27.763" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36466" PostId="17480" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your thoughtful answer.  I learned a lot." CreationDate="2021-12-30T12:50:40.120" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="36468" PostId="17480" Score="0" Text="Thanks TKR.  It did seem strange to have a future participle there.  I will correct my post." CreationDate="2021-12-30T18:11:44.863" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36515" PostId="17482" Score="0" Text="Seb &amp; I have been chatting about the uses of &quot;frugi&quot; (below): how would you translate this in the second marginal note?" CreationDate="2022-01-04T11:34:17.987" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36524" PostId="17482" Score="0" Text="@tony frugi is a dative of purpose (in A&amp;G terms) that originally meant something like &quot;(good) for eating&quot; and then was applied more broadly to mean &quot;useful, serviceable, fit for some purpose.&quot; It is used like an adjective, but instead of declining to match the case of the head word, it always remains dative. homo frugi = good/useful/worthwhile person" CreationDate="2022-01-04T16:44:17.957" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36525" PostId="17482" Score="0" Text="@tony so I would translate something like &quot;By public edict the Ephesians ordered all the worthwhile people to leave their city.&quot; Just as, according to Busche, the university is driving out the humanists, the truly educated men." CreationDate="2022-01-04T17:14:47.613" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36470" PostId="17485" Score="3" Text="If it's an accusative of exclamation, what do you make of the nominative *isti*?" CreationDate="2021-12-30T22:41:52.147" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36473" PostId="17485" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good point, I overlooked that, but my best guess would be that it is a misprint." CreationDate="2021-12-31T14:31:04.477" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36477" PostId="17485" Score="1" Text="Eia does not call for an accusative of exclamation, so if it’s a misprint, I would be inclined to read it the other way: eia quales isti promotores studiorum. This accords nicely with the main text." CreationDate="2021-12-31T16:22:42.997" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36479" PostId="17485" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey OK, but then you need to emend two words instead of one..." CreationDate="2021-12-31T18:28:17.890" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36494" PostId="17485" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Xylander wrote, &quot;...addito, Nemo...&quot;, capital letter &quot;N&quot; after a comma? The dative, indeclinable adjective, &quot;frugi&quot; = &quot;worthy&quot;; &quot;useful&quot;, written twice, line 5. The first one is translated to, &quot;an honest citizen, a citizen distinguished for his virtues&quot;--isn't that over-doing it? The second one seems to mean, &quot;of such a kind that&quot;; therefore, wouldn't &quot;dignus est&quot; have been better? On line 3, &quot;Digni sunt&quot; was used to describe the Ephesians. How would you translate &quot;frugi&quot; in Kinghorsey's second marginal note?" CreationDate="2022-01-03T13:43:00.590" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36507" PostId="17485" Score="1" Text="@tony please note that these are two completely independent translations (into English and Latin, respectively) of the same Greek original, which as far as I'm concerned is an impenetrable wall of squiggly curls. In fact, they may even be based on different versions of the original, who knows. What I can see is that the key Greek word here is ὀνήιστος. Messrs. Hamilton and Falconer said &quot;honest,&quot; Xylander went with *frugi* (and not *honestus*), for which I would say &quot;honest&quot; or &quot;virtuous.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-03T20:34:37.740" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36514" PostId="17485" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In Kinghorsey's example I'm guessing that &quot;frugi&quot; = &quot;worthy&quot;, in the sense of &quot;deserving&quot;: the Ephesians expelled all those who deserved to be." CreationDate="2022-01-04T11:23:42.330" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36531" PostId="17485" Score="0" Text="@tony No, I believe that is a misinterpretation. The Ephesians didn't suffer a goody-two-shoes gladly. They didn't want to live next to Ned Flanders. So they said: Oh, you're so frugi? Well, be frugi somewhere else." CreationDate="2022-01-04T22:33:36.893" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36469" PostId="17486" Score="3" Text="Just as a starting point / terminus post quem, many now lost Greek texts and presumably some Latin ones are known to have been in existence until 1453, when the Ottomans conquered Byzantium." CreationDate="2021-12-30T22:37:09.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36471" PostId="17486" Score="2" Text="@TKR If you (or anyone else, of course) can find some specific examples lost at the Ottoman conquest, that'd make a nice first answer. I expect the true date is later than 1453, but a solid terminus post quem is always good and will likely be of interest to those who end up reading this question." CreationDate="2021-12-30T22:59:01.627" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36472" PostId="17486" Score="1" Text="I know many (most?) of the works of Plautus were recovered from a palimpsest, and a few are (at least partially) beyond comprehension." CreationDate="2021-12-31T01:39:54.173" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36512" PostId="17486" Score="0" Text="I think it will be difficult to find examples of legitimate works lost after the printing press. They were prolific in copying manuscripts after that point. I was digging through Reynolds and Wilson's *Text and Transmission*, but nothing immediately jumps out. That would be the place to find examples, though." CreationDate="2022-01-04T03:16:37.743" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36513" PostId="17486" Score="0" Text="@cmw If there's a point like that where loss of texts mostly stopped, that'd make a good answer too. It is hard to give guarantees that no text was lost later, but that examples should be rarer than before is certainly a worthwhile answer." CreationDate="2022-01-04T09:45:27.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36571" PostId="17486" Score="1" Text="[This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13348/which-ancient-latin-works-survived-into-the-middle-ages-or-later-but-are-now-los) might be relevant to you." CreationDate="2022-01-10T02:21:02.517" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36475" PostId="17487" Score="1" Text="Not sure I understand, but does *exuo* work in the right order for you? what examples did not work?. in [L&amp;S dictioanry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=exuo) many examples are to be found with the accusative as the direct object that from him something (in the ablative) is taken. like *hostem armis*" CreationDate="2021-12-31T15:06:33.933" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="36476" PostId="17487" Score="0" Text="I think 'exuo' could work, thank you. I was thinking originally of words like 'exhaurio' and 'perhaurio'." CreationDate="2021-12-31T15:27:44.703" UserId="10566" />
  <row Id="36478" PostId="17487" Score="1" Text="yes. I think there are better fits than *exuo* as I sense *to drain* has some little different nuances." CreationDate="2021-12-31T16:31:05.310" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="36480" PostId="17491" Score="0" Text="Is 'omnibus viribus' dative or ablative in your example with 'exspoliare'?" CreationDate="2022-01-01T16:29:44.727" UserId="10566" />
  <row Id="36481" PostId="17491" Score="1" Text="@outisnemo Ablative." CreationDate="2022-01-01T16:59:31.470" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36487" PostId="17494" Score="2" Text="Could we not just say &quot;Confluimus?&quot; It doesn't seem necessary to add the extra words." CreationDate="2022-01-02T19:23:57.600" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="37075" PostId="17494" Score="0" Text="@Nickimite While the title should be a simple *confluimus*, OP in the question expands on it. You don't get the &quot;while we touch&quot; part. As a simple motto, *confluimus* is fine." CreationDate="2022-02-07T04:41:10.943" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36482" PostId="17495" Score="1" Text="Should _portitorem_ be _portitori_?" CreationDate="2022-01-01T21:46:54.107" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36484" PostId="17495" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: It could be argued that paying the ferryman is a future event; he hasn't been paid yet. The payment should only take place when the boat arrives--simultaneous events. Alternatively, a conditional sentence: &quot;Not until the boat arrives, will  I pay.&quot; This requiring a  future perfect (advenerit) and a future (solvam), these preceded by &quot;non priusquam&quot;, I think." CreationDate="2022-01-02T09:50:17.583" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36485" PostId="17495" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz that would certainly not be wrong, but Georges also suggests *aliquem solvere* (and he's not talking about slaves)." CreationDate="2022-01-02T17:25:33.663" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37334" PostId="17499" Score="0" Text="I would certainly suggest _not_ to say «Et nōn …»; it is such a burdened phrase." CreationDate="2022-02-21T00:30:32.043" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36488" PostId="17500" Score="0" Text="By the way, you could also say: *Vere locuto tibi gratias ago*, or, if we want to get real fancy: *[Veridico](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dveridicus) tibi gratias ago.*" CreationDate="2022-01-02T19:45:02.240" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36537" PostId="17500" Score="0" Text="In &quot;gratias tibi ago, qui verum mihi dixeris&quot;, what benefit is conferred by using a subjunctive? Relatives usually take the indicative unless there is a specific need for a subj., at least, that's my understanding. I recall &quot;servum misit quem fidissimum haberet&quot;, TKR's translation of, &quot;He sent the most loyal slave whom he had.&quot; (North &amp; Hillard) and A &amp; G secct. 278 (b): &quot;servum misit quem secum habebat&quot; = &quot;He sent the slave whom he had with him.&quot;. I did ask if both subjunctive &amp; indicative uses were correct but didn't get a reply (2019). Any thoughts, please?" CreationDate="2022-01-05T13:07:29.593" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36542" PostId="17500" Score="0" Text="@tony The function of the subjunctive here is to confer a causal sense on the relative clause. (The subjunctive might just as well confer a concessive/adversary sense, e.g. *… qui numquam verum mihi dixeris* = “… **even though** you never told me the truth.” Which is it? You have to infer that from context. So really the function of the subjunctive in relative clauses is simply to say: “This clause does not just add some information about something in the main clause. There is some deeper connection, though you have to guess what it is!”)" CreationDate="2022-01-05T20:24:38.177" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41003" PostId="17500" Score="0" Text="In that 2019 Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11316/1982, referred to above, I tried, &quot;servum misit, qui fidissimus esset, quos possidebat (omnium servorum).&quot; = &quot;He sent the slave, who was the most faithful, (of all the slaves) whom he owned.&quot; I used &quot;possidebat&quot;, indicative, because it refers to the antecedent (the slave-owner), not the most faithful slave. In this dual relative-clause structure, is the subjunctive, &quot;esset&quot;, correct? What if indicative, &quot;fuit&quot;, had been used?" CreationDate="2023-01-16T14:23:18.340" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44946" PostId="17500" Score="0" Text="The subjunctive, &quot;esset&quot;, is required because it is a quality of the antecedent that is being described, A &amp; G section 535." CreationDate="2023-09-27T12:24:47.970" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36486" PostId="17501" Score="2" Text="What is *dictu* supposed to be? It looks like a supine, but that wouldn't exactly fit grammatically." CreationDate="2022-01-02T18:39:34.220" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36489" PostId="17501" Score="0" Text="Yes, &quot;dictu&quot; is a supine form, as in &quot;mirabile dictu&quot; - that last phrase is usually translated into English as &quot;wonderful to say&quot;. My old Latin text mentioned that a more literal translation might be &quot;wonderful in the saying&quot;, although it is awkward to express it that way in written or spoken English. I took the old textbook at its word in its explanation. So, a nearly verbatim translation - and following its word order from Latin, an awkward translation into English would be: &quot;In saying to me the truth, to you thanks I give.&quot; Again, awkward English, but I believe it is good Latin." CreationDate="2022-01-02T20:22:45.087" UserId="10597" />
  <row Id="36490" PostId="17501" Score="0" Text="I am also making the assumption that it's OK for the supine form &quot;dictu&quot; to have an object in the accusative case, namely &quot;veritatem&quot;. After more than 50 years, I do try to remember the correct vocabulary and grammar." CreationDate="2022-01-02T20:30:09.410" UserId="10597" />
  <row Id="36506" PostId="17501" Score="0" Text="I believe it cannot have an object, but the real problem is that the second supine is [extremely limited](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/supine) in how you can employ it, it is basically restricted to adjectives like your *mirabile dictu*, *turpe factu* etc., plus the nouns *fas*, *nefas* and *opus* (e.g. *fas est memoratu*, it is allowed to bring up)." CreationDate="2022-01-03T20:19:25.503" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36684" PostId="17501" Score="0" Text="*in saying* - you'd actually want a gerund for that, not the supine. That would make this grammatical." CreationDate="2022-01-17T01:55:30.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36547" PostId="17502" Score="2" Text="Uh oh, William Massey [does not approve](https://books.google.com/books?id=q55bAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;f=false&amp;dq=reprecor#v=onepage)." CreationDate="2022-01-07T15:21:57.177" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36567" PostId="17502" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Pro di immortales! In quo mundo vivimus, si ne Erasmum quidem barbarismos nobis pro exemplari Latinitate non offere confidere possumus?" CreationDate="2022-01-08T22:02:46.227" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36797" PostId="17502" Score="0" Text="I think *at* is out of place here as you aren't saying anything contrarian, but wishing the same, hence you want *et*. As for Erasmus, you can trust that his Latin is relatively more exemplary compared especially to what came before, but your own reply shows that he can't be uncritically taken as an example - he offers us seriously the same style as Plautus used for his gags :-)" CreationDate="2022-01-21T21:04:58.387" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36491" PostId="17503" Score="4" Text="I'd read it as a [Greek accusative](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/idiomatic-accusatives#three-nine-seven-b)." CreationDate="2022-01-03T00:06:49.017" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="36492" PostId="17504" Score="3" Text="Borne, not born, I would think?" CreationDate="2022-01-03T03:15:41.903" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36495" PostId="17504" Score="0" Text="OK, if you went to be technical about it: borne.   (Thanks)" CreationDate="2022-01-03T14:04:04.147" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="36493" PostId="17506" Score="1" Text="The Hebrew verb means &quot;hover&quot; (and isn't passive), so the LXX isn't translating very closely here." CreationDate="2022-01-03T04:58:12.913" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36496" PostId="17506" Score="0" Text="In this case, the form of the Hebrew verb probably implies some kind of repetitive motion.  Scholars are not in full agreement about its meaning, but &quot;hover&quot; has the most consensus.  It might also mean &quot;flit/flutter about&quot; or maybe even &quot;brood.&quot;  A form of this same word is also used in Deuteronomy 32:11, where the Latin translation is &quot;volitans&quot; (&quot;fly about/hasten/hover&quot;).  I don't understand the Septuagint Greek fully, but it seems to use a very liberal translation of the Hebrew, using ἐπεπόθησεν (&quot;yearned after&quot;) instead of a motion verb." CreationDate="2022-01-03T14:47:59.403" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36505" PostId="17507" Score="0" Text="The first phrase seems to be introduced by a few words in Dutch, and grammatically, the Latin is missing something at the beginning. Would you mind adding this to the question? It might help a lot with the translation." CreationDate="2022-01-03T20:16:31.543" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36510" PostId="17507" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I have double checked the phrases and removed a spurious hyphen. There's unfortunately nothing more in the transcription I have available." CreationDate="2022-01-03T23:50:59.140" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="36497" PostId="17508" Score="3" Text="[This answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/15969/81) links to a study on this subject, including words from various languages." CreationDate="2022-01-03T15:58:18.577" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="36520" PostId="17508" Score="0" Text="Do you still intend to exclude the Greek words?" CreationDate="2022-01-04T13:26:03.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36522" PostId="17508" Score="1" Text="No, Greek words are also welcome." CreationDate="2022-01-04T14:53:51.467" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36695" PostId="17508" Score="0" Text="You'll get a whole bunch with Greek. Mostly technical words." CreationDate="2022-01-18T06:26:40.357" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36501" PostId="17510" Score="5" Text="Welcome to studying Latin – a good place to start might be to invest in a dictionary! This website would be a good place to ask if you struggle to interpret what it tells you or you're interested in the specific nuances of the different words." CreationDate="2022-01-03T18:18:07.640" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36534" PostId="17510" Score="3" Text="Welcome! I agree with @dbmag9 that having a good Latin dictionary will be helpful. We also happen to have a great community wiki question with answers on [which Latin dictionary you should use](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why). There's also another question to help you find [Latin self-study tools](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own)." CreationDate="2022-01-05T02:38:55.210" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36543" PostId="17510" Score="0" Text="@Adam - many thanks Adam. I have just completed a book digitisation project of a PHD thesis on William Salesbury (1520), and I got the chance to learn about the roots of many Welsh words, most Latin, so I can apply my learning approach to languages and not worry too much about pronunciation. There's a great Patreon account I've signed up to as well, with seriously extensive learning resources, and your suggestions are as equally valuable to me. I'm basic/proficient in Italian, which helps of course." CreationDate="2022-01-05T21:02:10.740" UserDisplayName="user8844" />
  <row Id="36503" PostId="17512" Score="1" Text="It's also called the accusative of respect, following Smyth and other Greek grammarians." CreationDate="2022-01-03T19:21:19.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36509" PostId="17512" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks! I've just added this term &amp; related link. By the way, for some reason the late Harm Pinkster decided to separate the analysis of cases like _perculsi pectora Poeni_ (discussed in Section **5.7** &quot;Accusative constituents with true passive forms&quot;) from that of cases like _Non ego te indutum foras / exire vidi pallam?_ (discussed in Section **5.20** &quot;Verbs in the autocausative passive governing an accusative object&quot;). Following the tradition, I was wondering if it'd have not been more useful for the reader to find the discussion of these related (?) cases in **contiguous** sections." CreationDate="2022-01-03T20:59:42.253" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36517" PostId="17512" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Why do you describe Harm Pinkster as &quot;the late&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-01-04T12:03:10.070" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36519" PostId="17512" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino: I've just heard from Joonas (CHAT), Harm Pinkster died in December. A shock. It's only a few months since Vol. II was published--quite a legacy! RIP." CreationDate="2022-01-04T12:42:30.000" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36511" PostId="17515" Score="1" Text="See, that is what I thought at first, but then in the next sentence I see quod and I thought then it referred to a 'factum' the noun, perhaps I glossed over that word's conjunctive senses. :P" CreationDate="2022-01-04T02:38:40.367" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="36523" PostId="17516" Score="1" Text="Also see https://books.google.com/books?id=E2CTAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT285&amp;dq=petrarch+de+gloria+cicero+de+nolhac&amp;hl=en&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;source=gb_mobile_search&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwinh6GasZj1AhX_IzQIHQV-Cb0Q6AF6BAgGEAM" CreationDate="2022-01-04T15:14:43.280" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36530" PostId="17517" Score="3" Text="Rogō prius responsum accipiās tē 24 hōrās opperīrī ut aliī peritiōrēs alternātum prōpōnere possint—praesertim sī responsum illum ego scripsī. Latīnē tīrō sum; capitulum profectō idem Ørbergiī quod legis nunc legō!" CreationDate="2022-01-04T18:29:52.553" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36526" PostId="17518" Score="4" Text="Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that sustulit is also the perfect of tollere. I suspect that's actually the verb that's intended in the passage." CreationDate="2022-01-04T17:20:17.833" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36527" PostId="17518" Score="0" Text="@cnread Hmm, how would you like to post that as a separate answer? I had completely forgotten that _sustulit_ is also the perfect of _tollere_. I'll also post a comment suggesting waiting 24 hours before accepting an answer. Come to think of it, I don't think that Ørberg has introduced the verb _sufferō_ yet." CreationDate="2022-01-04T17:30:08.637" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36532" PostId="17520" Score="0" Text="Sānē responsum tuum rectius est. Auctor quaestiōnis mox regredi atque eum accipere spērēmus." CreationDate="2022-01-04T23:16:10.650" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36533" PostId="17521" Score="2" Text="OLD also lists hepatiarius, not hepatarius" CreationDate="2022-01-05T00:30:21.810" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36538" PostId="17521" Score="1" Text="Why not look it up in the TLL? https://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#46215 I’m still trying to encourage more folks here to use it (for academic reasons of course)" CreationDate="2022-01-05T14:53:40.970" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36540" PostId="17521" Score="1" Text="Also https://www.google.com/books/edition/T_Macci_Plauti_Comoediae_recensuit_instr/6FUKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en" CreationDate="2022-01-05T15:14:22.167" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36544" PostId="17521" Score="2" Text="@AlexB. Well, until you reach a word that begins with *rep-*... I had missed that they came out with new fascicles this year and last year and that it's all online for free now, so thanks for the heads up on both of those." CreationDate="2022-01-06T00:49:22.467" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36576" PostId="17525" Score="0" Text="And there's no word in latin for let say every object considered a toy? Like a generic term that encompases dolls, toy cars, teddy bears etc?" CreationDate="2022-01-10T14:50:15.697" UserId="10614" />
  <row Id="36604" PostId="17525" Score="0" Text="The romans didn't have a word for &quot;yes&quot; so it's possible their language just doesn't work that way." CreationDate="2022-01-11T04:09:40.970" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="36661" PostId="17525" Score="0" Text="But isn't true that modern latin is constantly updated with words because the Vatican uses it?" CreationDate="2022-01-14T12:16:42.160" UserId="10614" />
  <row Id="36546" PostId="17526" Score="4" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2121/descriptive-example-of-ciceros-style" CreationDate="2022-01-06T23:21:54.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36574" PostId="17527" Score="0" Text="Well, all toys in the setting are sentient. Of course they might consider each different kind of toy (dolls, cars, stuffed animals) different species of the same genus but that's a level of detail that I doubt I or the reader would want to know. The problem with ''pupus'' is that it sound to similar to a bad word in the language this book will be. Is there any alternative?" CreationDate="2022-01-10T14:48:46.567" UserId="10614" />
  <row Id="36802" PostId="17527" Score="0" Text="While *pupus sapiens* also seems fine to me, *sapipupus* would look monstrous even in a gag." CreationDate="2022-01-22T14:48:11.500" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36556" PostId="17528" Score="1" Text="Great answer. By the way, although Cicero did presumably dethrone Hortensius with his speech against Verres, he was not *that* persusasive that he won every case; in fact he lost quite a few too. I read an anecdote somewhere that Milo, in exile in Massilia, reportedly read *Pro Milone* and complained: “If Cicero had given *that* speech, perhaps I wouldn't be sitting here.”" CreationDate="2022-01-07T21:55:14.403" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36560" PostId="17528" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thanks! I wrote that up on the site I linked to as well (under the [Style and Legacy](https://ephor.us/epitome/cicero/) section), I just didn't include it in this answer. That's a great anecdote about Milo, though! I might have to include that in an update." CreationDate="2022-01-07T23:49:55.927" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36561" PostId="17528" Score="1" Text="I found the story, it is actually in [Dio 40, 54](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/40*.html). It's actually even better, as he said “that it was lucky for him those words had not been spoken in that form in the court; for he should not be eating such mullets in Massilia (where he was passing his exile), if any such defence had been made.” (He was being sarcastic, as Dio diligently points out.)" CreationDate="2022-01-08T00:22:18.417" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39070" PostId="17528" Score="0" Text="What do you mean by full of ornament?" CreationDate="2022-07-30T15:01:02.930" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="39071" PostId="17528" Score="3" Text="@AnaMaria Generally in rhetoric it means those literary figures which &quot;adorn&quot; the main argument. Similes, metaphors, analogies, unusual word choice, and other stylistic figures all are included under &quot;adornment.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-30T15:20:04.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36548" PostId="17531" Score="3" Text="The first fragment, 'caelum forte non animum mutaturus,' appears to be an allusion to Horace Epistulae 1.11.27: 'caelum, non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt.'" CreationDate="2022-01-07T17:57:28.820" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36549" PostId="17531" Score="0" Text="@cnread Good catch!" CreationDate="2022-01-07T18:40:43.853" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36550" PostId="17531" Score="0" Text="Excellent, many thanks both of you!" CreationDate="2022-01-07T19:26:58.490" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="36551" PostId="17531" Score="2" Text="One small emendation I'd suggest: I think *hebes* means &quot;dull/stupid,&quot; not &quot;youthful.&quot; I also think *ingenium* refers to mental faculties more than temperament." CreationDate="2022-01-07T19:30:29.197" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36552" PostId="17531" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Good suggestions. I thought *ingenium* would mean that, but was mislead by Hebe. Oops." CreationDate="2022-01-07T20:00:14.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43302" PostId="17532" Score="1" Text="Pliny, in Naturalis Historia 9.129.1., describes the *bucinum* as being a small *concha*. Perhaps Linnaeus has a *concha* in mind as he uses the word *arcularia*. In other words, *arcularia* (maybe) means *concha arcularia*, and it is being used as an appositive to *bucinum*, (or &quot;*buccinum*&quot;). The reference mentions something about an appositive too, I seem to recall." CreationDate="2023-05-29T00:21:07.700" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="36553" PostId="17533" Score="5" Text="I'd translate that as “You'll achieve great things in a single day.”" CreationDate="2022-01-07T20:13:52.287" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36554" PostId="17533" Score="1" Text="Modern Latin speakers of English would DEFINITELY understand. Modern Latin speakers in general would probably be able to understand it if they knew the author was a modern person -- that context would prime them to look for mistakes given that few people are truly fluent in Latin." CreationDate="2022-01-07T20:53:10.657" UserId="3153" />
  <row Id="36557" PostId="17533" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel What is &quot;that&quot; in your comment? If your &quot;that&quot; is &quot;magna uno die conficies&quot;, I agree with you. However, note that the sentence we're told that OP is trying to translate into Latin (&quot;One day you will achieve great things&quot;) does not exactly mean the same as yours &quot;You'll achieve great things in a single day&quot;." CreationDate="2022-01-07T22:16:22.913" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36558" PostId="17533" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino I meant “Magna uno die conficies.”" CreationDate="2022-01-07T22:18:05.373" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36568" PostId="17534" Score="0" Text="The phrase &quot;sooner-or-later&quot; would be &quot;quandoque&quot;, is that correct?" CreationDate="2022-01-09T11:30:17.787" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36569" PostId="17534" Score="0" Text="@tony yes, I think that works nicely." CreationDate="2022-01-09T14:55:44.767" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36563" PostId="17535" Score="3" Text="Good question! While the answers will be obvious (and even too many to list) to those working in the field, it's hard to tell from the outside. This kind of description of a field is hard to find." CreationDate="2022-01-08T03:14:37.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37609" PostId="17535" Score="0" Text="There's the *Thesaurus linguae Latinae* (https://thesaurus.badw.de/en/project.html), a monolingual Latin dictionary covering all surviving Latin text up to 600 AD. Last time I checked, they were up to *R*." CreationDate="2022-03-21T20:33:28.073" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="36570" PostId="17539" Score="2" Text="Possibly relevant: [What is Peniculus insinuating with his reference to Samian crockery?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15326/what-is-peniculus-insinuating-with-his-reference-to-samian-crockery)" CreationDate="2022-01-09T23:39:44.803" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36572" PostId="17539" Score="0" Text="@Adam: If &quot;scaurus&quot; means &quot;lame&quot;; &quot;club-footed&quot;, how did it work as a brand? Similarly, Marcus Licinius Crassus, of the First Triumvirate, so rich he was a &quot;celebrity&quot;-brand; nickname, &quot;dives&quot;. What about his real name? &quot;Ave Crassus.&quot; = &quot;Good morning, Stupid.&quot;--how did that work?" CreationDate="2022-01-10T11:43:39.303" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36575" PostId="17539" Score="0" Text="@tony I am sure the ancients were as capable as us of looking past the literal meanings of proper nouns. And I don't think you represented the literal meanings fairly." CreationDate="2022-01-10T14:49:41.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36578" PostId="17539" Score="0" Text="My last name is a proper noun in English and a registered trademark of a manufacturing company. If he was teased as a child for the name, I doubt that he was teased later. ;)" CreationDate="2022-01-10T15:12:55.037" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40212" PostId="17539" Score="1" Text="Well, there was Orange Julius smoothies, and Cornelian Flakes breakfast cereal and Et Tu Brute knives and Cato karate studios and the Nero torch and lighting company and the Claudian School of Speech franchise and Caesar Salads and Condiments and Progresso's 'INRI' brand of red wine vinegar and the Caligula shoe company among others." CreationDate="2022-10-29T20:45:26.233" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="36595" PostId="17541" Score="0" Text="Are you certain that you typed all the letters correctly? Because there are a lot of errors in here that could be typos. P.S. Don't 99 retellings of the same story get a bit boring?" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:26:08.720" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36596" PostId="17541" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus This is a copy and paste from the French Wikipedia page, I didn't check with a paper text.&#xA;I find it more amusing than boring given the brevity of the story" CreationDate="2022-01-10T19:32:40.550" UserDisplayName="user10593" />
  <row Id="36597" PostId="17541" Score="0" Text="Ahh then I wonder whether the editor of Wikipedia made a lot of typos. I am inclined to think so, because I wouldn't expect this many serious errors in a published text, especially if one is supposed to learn from it." CreationDate="2022-01-10T19:41:20.297" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36598" PostId="17541" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus As the title suggests, there's nothing to learn from it, it's just a stylistic game. I must have a hard copy somewhere to check" CreationDate="2022-01-10T20:00:37.690" UserDisplayName="user10593" />
  <row Id="36599" PostId="17541" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Here is the full story (from a rather serious website) http://www.arretetonchar.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/IMG/Latin%20macaronique%20-%20Queneau,%20exercices%20de%20style.pdf" CreationDate="2022-01-10T20:02:28.273" UserDisplayName="user10593" />
  <row Id="36600" PostId="17541" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I see *supradictis* instead of *supradicti*, so there is at least one typo in the Wikipedia version you quoted. But the other errors are also present in the PDF. I wonder whether the PDF was copied correctly from the original." CreationDate="2022-01-10T20:40:10.117" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36608" PostId="17541" Score="3" Text="For the record, as an author Queneau was very &quot;creative&quot; in his usage of of the French language: made-up words, weird spelling, etc. He was a member of [Oulipo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oulipo), a literary approach in which playfulness and enjoyment are more important than grammatical and lexical accuracy. In this context it's not very surprising that he would have made a lot of mistakes in this Latin text... the question is whether he made them on purpose or not!" CreationDate="2022-01-11T15:53:08.023" UserId="10631" />
  <row Id="36609" PostId="17541" Score="1" Text="The point of the story is that French expressions have been literally translated into Latin, resulting in a sort of pseudo or &quot;Dog Latin&quot;. A good &quot;translation&quot; of this story in e.g. English would use similar literal translations from English into Latin, creating an equally faulty - but convincing - Latin." CreationDate="2022-01-11T15:55:52.670" UserId="10632" />
  <row Id="47873" PostId="17541" Score="0" Text="This (*autobus, autobi*, m., 2nd declension: I think it should in fact be *ex supradictis autobis*, shouldn't it?) appears to spring from the same school as &quot;Romanes eunt domus&quot;. Or alternatively the school of &quot;Let's Parler Franglais&quot; (as doubly satirised by Private Eye in the UK). The point being to show, for the sake of raising a laugh in those who may be fellow-strugglers, how **bad** your proficiency in a foreign language can be, not how good." CreationDate="2024-03-28T07:15:11.907" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="36591" PostId="17543" Score="2" Text="Wow I missed a lot of things, thanks of lot for you detailed answer" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:01:15.667" UserDisplayName="user10593" />
  <row Id="36620" PostId="17543" Score="0" Text="cerclaro is related to the braid which encircles the hat. *Encercler* in French." CreationDate="2022-01-12T14:13:03.327" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="36581" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="If I only want &quot;Made in 2022&quot;, How about &quot;Hoc MMXXII AD factum est&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;ref. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4483/translation-of-since-1950-for-example" CreationDate="2022-01-10T16:59:59.057" UserId="10627" />
  <row Id="36582" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="@James Yeah, that works. AD is an abbreviation for *anno domini*, so feel free to spell that out in full instead of abbreviating, and place it before the numbers as well." CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:01:37.120" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36583" PostId="17544" Score="1" Text="Perhaps worth mentioning, anno MMXXII is actually *anno bis millesimo vicesimo secundo* = the two thousandth and twenty second year. Just in case you want to read it out ..." CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:08:36.317" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36584" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="Is it possible to make &quot;Hoc MMXXII AD factum est&quot; shorter?" CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:11:09.600" UserId="10627" />
  <row Id="36585" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="You can leave out *hoc* and *est* if you want." CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:14:48.460" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36586" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="So it can be &quot;MMXXII AD factum&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:16:00.790" UserId="10627" />
  <row Id="36587" PostId="17544" Score="1" Text="@James If you're going to do that, I would probably reorder the words: *Factum AD MMXXII.* AD goes before the date." CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:24:44.703" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36589" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="That's interesting.&#xA;&#xA;So with hoc and est, AD can go after the date, but without hoc and est, AD should go before date?" CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:27:20.207" UserId="10627" />
  <row Id="36590" PostId="17544" Score="1" Text="@James No, AD should go first regardless. This is true in English, too." CreationDate="2022-01-10T17:54:15.667" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36592" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks a lot!" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:02:31.673" UserId="10627" />
  <row Id="36593" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel Thank you also!" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:02:51.007" UserId="10627" />
  <row Id="36594" PostId="17544" Score="0" Text="@James You're welcome. If this answers your question completely, remember to vote up and select the green check mark to mark it answered." CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:04:04.043" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36607" PostId="17544" Score="1" Text="How about, *factum sum*?" CreationDate="2022-01-11T14:42:50.283" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36662" PostId="17545" Score="0" Text="That could work" CreationDate="2022-01-14T12:16:54.113" UserId="10614" />
  <row Id="36611" PostId="17547" Score="1" Text="Yes, and it is written in the question" CreationDate="2022-01-11T16:40:21.167" UserDisplayName="user10593" />
  <row Id="36622" PostId="17549" Score="2" Text="You may want to read this first https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2689/39 and then https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1498/39" CreationDate="2022-01-12T16:18:54.330" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="36624" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="@ Alex B, those URLs suggest (I havent completely scrutinised) that the overlines were used in classical text, and that it is entirely about length. The remaining question then is what the sound is of each vowel, and diphthong eg ae and ie, eg magnae and hodie. Dunno how to pronounce those!" CreationDate="2022-01-12T19:03:20.970" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36641" PostId="17549" Score="7" Text="I'm not sure what the purpose of the first paragraph is, but on my desktop screen in normal reading font size the height of the question (even without that first paragraph) is 30 cm. The screen has only 30 cm in total, and some of that is lost by the browser title bar, URL bar and SE's black top bar. (On my vertical screen it's 40 cm high, because the line lengths are shorter.)" CreationDate="2022-01-12T23:49:46.887" UserId="10637" />
  <row Id="36647" PostId="17549" Score="9" Text="Distinct from “length,” Stack Exchange works best (and usually enforces, though I’m not entirely sure of the norms on this particular site) one-question-per-Question. That allows answerers to cover each one fully, allows the best answer to each question to be voted on independently, and ultimately, gets you better answers sooner. You should consider splitting up the question on those grounds alone." CreationDate="2022-01-13T15:13:12.617" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="36648" PostId="17549" Score="1" Text="I consider posts long if they don't all fit on my quite reasonably sized monitor (this one doesn't)" CreationDate="2022-01-13T15:27:21.420" UserId="3510" />
  <row Id="36649" PostId="17549" Score="9" Text="There are some incorrect (and also irrelevant) assertions in the question, eg 1) Stress and time-length are different (though sometimes related) phenomena. 2) Ancient Hebrew *had* vowels, they just weren't written down (much like in modern Arabic). 3) 'hot' and 'hut' are not the same vowel in standard American English. Note the different transliterations in the Merriam-Webster (American) English dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hot vs https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hut. I think your question will be improved by removing these asides &amp; being more focused." CreationDate="2022-01-13T16:34:43.613" UserId="10642" />
  <row Id="36651" PostId="17549" Score="3" Text="I may pronounce Harry/hairy and merry/marry/Mary the same, but I certainly don't pronounce hot/hut the same." CreationDate="2022-01-13T18:22:32.163" UserId="7040" />
  <row Id="36652" PostId="17549" Score="1" Text="@WaterMolecule - &quot;I may pronounce Harry/hairy and merry/marry/Mary the same&quot; - do people really do this?" CreationDate="2022-01-13T21:19:57.730" UserId="7146" />
  <row Id="36658" PostId="17549" Score="1" Text="@MichaelHarvey I can confirm that. There is a slight difference between merry and marry/Mary for me, but that can be blurred in actual speech. Hot/hut are completely different, though." CreationDate="2022-01-14T01:08:06.110" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36667" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="Which Caesar are you referring to? Given the reference to the 1st century BC, I assume either Julius or Augustus..." CreationDate="2022-01-14T17:30:14.090" UserId="10646" />
  <row Id="36676" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="@DLosc When the name Caesar is alone, it almost always refers to Julius Caesar; Augustus only adopted the name Caesar later (and went against convention in doing so), so he is chiefly called Octavian or Augustus or Caesar Augustus (but Augustus Caesar is incorrect)." CreationDate="2022-01-16T06:22:22.597" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36776" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="@Tiercelet its much of a muchness the Merriam audios of hot and hut, which anyway are non human and thus fictional. According to this video the difference is just of time duration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgI3sa8NhFE  But I say &quot;not&quot; lasts longer because it is emphasized as an introducer of further words eg not &quot;this kind of idea&quot;, similarly always, never etc. If you listed &quot;not&quot; eg a list of words beginning with n: new, not, never, nice, the time duration is brief. So I think the distinction is bogus, and relates to superimposed time duration of words." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:12:58.753" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36777" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="@DLosc I didnt know there was more than one Caeser! I meant the one in the Asterix and Obelix books. Is that the same Caeser as in the gospels? if those are 2 different Caesers, then a fictional average of the 2." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:14:22.733" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36778" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="long ago I toyed around with the software used to create Stephen Hawkings voice, and wanted to make it speak with a british accent. And this was IMPOSSIBLE, I couldnt get anywhere near a british accent. That was where I realised american pronunciation is much sparser than british. The software used a system called ARPABET.  If I remember rightly I couldnt do a british o. The scheme's nearest letter is OH of border, and that is so off track that it is laughable. The other alternatives: bottle, ball, book. all no use. Try those on meriam's audio." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:19:55.723" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36779" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="their full list of vowels were with operative vowels capitalised where ambiguous: beet, bet, bOttle, ball, bird, About, bit, bat, but, book, bOrder, solId, and diphthongs: aid,  boy, boat, bIde, bound, brew.  I have identified 11 different direct vowel sounds of british english, where you can disregard duration ie different if you say em continually: hat, hut, hot, put, hoot, heat, hit, hem, her, harp, hawk." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:26:08.090" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36780" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="basically when speaking, you structure a sentence with varied time duration and prolonging a syllable whilst we think what to say next etc. eg WHY do you NEver Ever do what I say?" CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:34:47.487" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36782" PostId="17549" Score="1" Text="@Commenter Looks like the Caesar in Asterix is Julius Caesar, while two Caesars are mentioned in the gospels: [Augustus](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202%3A1&amp;version=NIV) and [Tiberius](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A1-2&amp;version=NIV). See also cmw's comment to me above--they know more about the nomenclature than I do." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:40:24.840" UserId="10646" />
  <row Id="36784" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="@DLosc all these years I was imagining the wrong Caeser! Is Julius the one who said &quot;veni vidi vici&quot; and &quot;et tu Brutus&quot;? In one asterix story, Brutus isnt applauding, and Caeser looks at him sternly and says &quot;et tu Brutus&quot;!" CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:48:52.233" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36785" PostId="17549" Score="1" Text="@Commenter [Let us continue this conversation in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/133409/room-for-dlosc-and-commenter)." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:56:13.537" UserId="10646" />
  <row Id="36942" PostId="17549" Score="0" Text="Also see: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4845/resources-for-pronouncing-latin" CreationDate="2022-01-31T15:13:43.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36653" PostId="17551" Score="0" Text="Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/133178/discussion-on-answer-by-draconis-how-did-caesar-pronounce-latin-overlined-vowels)." CreationDate="2022-01-13T21:20:01.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36654" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="if no vowel is marked long, the default one is long? eg the 3rd last. why is genitive plural of domus domuum? is uu different from u-macron? can a latin word be entirely short vowels, ie no stress at all?" CreationDate="2022-01-13T22:11:32.363" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36655" PostId="17552" Score="2" Text="@Commenter If no vowel is marked long, then no vowel is long. Double uu is indeed not the same as ū, *domuum* has three syllables. Lots of Latin words have only short vowels, but your conclusion &quot;ie no stress at all&quot; is wrong, because (a) stress does not depend on vowel length but on syllable length and (b) if all syllables are short, the third to last syllable is stressed." CreationDate="2022-01-13T22:49:26.703" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36659" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="as it might be different from english, what do you define as stress for latin? is it where the tone of the vowel is higher? with english, the stressed vowel seems to be at a raised tone, ie its more time and a higher note. with domuum, are the 2 u's pronounced identically without boundary? in what way is uu different from u-macron? eg length or tones. in english the word continuum (eg the continuum hypothesis) is pronounced kontinyoo-um, where the 2 u's are pronounced differently and I think the i is stressed, but the presumably latin word could be pronounced completely differently in latin." CreationDate="2022-01-14T10:18:34.183" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36663" PostId="17552" Score="1" Text="The ancient Romans did not use macrons, but they did sometimes use apices, which served the same function. Observe them on this monument; the apices are the thin accents over the long vowels (also note that capital &quot;i&quot; was made taller instead of using an apex): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inscription_displaying_apices_(from_the_shrine_of_the_Augustales_at_Herculaneum).jpg" CreationDate="2022-01-14T13:43:20.893" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="36664" PostId="17552" Score="2" Text="I'd also add that &quot;stress was completely disregarded&quot; is not quite true of Latin poetry. The poets did care which syllables were stressed; it's just that the stress did not define the meter and was a secondary concern. In particular, the stresses tend to coincide with long syllables at the end of a line of dactylic hexameter, giving a sense of resolution." CreationDate="2022-01-14T13:50:55.243" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="36665" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="but how is domuum different in pronunciation from domu'm where ' denotes a macron? is it that domuum has the o at a higher note, whereas domu'm has the u at a higher note? (where domu'm is a fictional word) or to avoid fictional words, how is the uu of domuum different from say the u' of domu's?" CreationDate="2022-01-14T14:39:24.263" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36666" PostId="17552" Score="1" Text="@Commenter: You misunderstood Sebastian's reply.  domuum does not have a &quot;uu&quot; sound.  It has three syllables: do-mu-um." CreationDate="2022-01-14T17:18:27.830" UserId="10647" />
  <row Id="36669" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="@Commenter How stress in classical Latin sounded is not exactly known; see [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6146) and [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15150) question for more. The exact pronunciation of *domuum* is an interesting question which I cannot answer; you may want to ask thst as a separate question." CreationDate="2022-01-14T21:13:53.507" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36673" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel it seems a quagmire! the one link says it could be loudness also. From a pragmatic point of view I think one needs enough attributes (eg length, tone, loudness, etc) to prevent ambiguities, attributes beyond disambiguation could be regarded as personality or aesthetics. And any tonal aspect needs to withstand music, ie linguistical tonal variation to not conflict with musical tonal variation. when one speaks with emotion, I think this alters the tones eg &quot;WHY do you want this?&quot; where WHY is altered, vs &quot;why do YOU want this?&quot; etc." CreationDate="2022-01-15T22:58:33.450" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36674" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I am at lesson 13 of a book course of Latin, and was disregarding the macrons as I thought this was just the author's opinion. I only realised it was necessary when I noticed the ambiguity of venit and venimus after buying the 555 verbs book, where the macrons disambiguate present versus perfect tense. I later realised say nominative + ablative of say magna also now disambiguated. I now have to revisit the 13 lessons and my vocab notes enforcing the macrons and eclipsing my former pronunciations! This is the problem with home study from books, you can stray from the path" CreationDate="2022-01-16T00:37:20.160" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36675" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel one other thing, I think perception is &quot;adaptive&quot;, eg if you buy a huge TV, at first it seems huge, but eventually it doesnt. If you keep listening to someone speaking with a quirk, your brain eventually filters out the quirk and even starts to expect the quirk. One question is whether a speculated way of speaking latin would be understood by say Caeser. eg someone completely book taught in english can be unintelligible. could native latin speakers of different eras understand each other? eg we can understand the King James bible, even though its an archaic form of english." CreationDate="2022-01-16T00:53:11.510" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36677" PostId="17552" Score="1" Text="@Commenter Lots of people say things that are incorrect. Just because a &quot;teach yourself&quot; course mentions something doesn't mean they're accurate. People can be wrong." CreationDate="2022-01-16T06:24:12.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36678" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="Also, of course those speaking Latin could understand other eras - anyone who has studied an inkling of those eras sees that the commonalities are great. What commentators had to resort to were glosses: explanations of individual words or phrases that were obscure. This is no different than Urban Dictionary today." CreationDate="2022-01-16T06:25:56.257" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36699" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="@cmw each language also has multiple forms,eg one form for poetry, one for theatre, one for officialdom, one for informal talk etc. eg british pop singers often sing in a fake american accent. poetry has exaggerated intonation, and consecutive rhyming sentences are often said with &quot;opposing&quot; intonation and there is a superimposed rythm. english stage actors have a &quot;luvvie&quot; accent,like Gielgud eg butler in the Arthur film or David Walliams (after ever after). some commentators could be describing public forms of speech eg oration which is quite different from unscripted real talk." CreationDate="2022-01-18T16:47:13.830" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36701" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="@cmw with the textbook I have, its pronunciation key suggests the macron versions are not just longer, but are different sounds. eg a=a of cat, but a-macron=a of father, and i=i of dip, i-macron=ee of deep, which isnt just longer but is a different sound. is this incorrect? it also gives u=u of put, u-macron=oo of food, etc." CreationDate="2022-01-18T18:27:59.553" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36702" PostId="17552" Score="0" Text="@cmw further to earlier, trying just now to relearn some of the forms of the verb &quot;to come&quot;, eg perfect and present, I find it easier for the macronned vowel to be identical sound but just lasting longer. using a different vowel is total mayhem! in Germany, a school teaching latin is called a &quot;gymnasium&quot;, I can see why! a lot of linguisitic gymnastics. In England such schools are called &quot;grammar schools&quot;." CreationDate="2022-01-18T19:40:43.427" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36707" PostId="17552" Score="1" Text="&quot;I find it easier&quot;.... &quot;is just mayhem&quot;.  That appears to be a consequence of having acquired a bad habit.  The longer you wait to break that habit and retrain your ear, the more difficult it will be to overcome." CreationDate="2022-01-18T23:40:01.860" UserId="10647" />
  <row Id="36679" PostId="17556" Score="1" Text="‘which was often cited by Roman legal writers’: How can we identify where he is being referenced?" CreationDate="2022-01-16T11:47:20.913" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36680" PostId="17556" Score="0" Text="Further, does this text exist reconstructed anywhere? I notice that there is no link to Julian on https://thelatinlibrary.com/indices.html." CreationDate="2022-01-16T11:55:33.450" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36681" PostId="17556" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan Mommsen published an edition of Iulianus. I don't know if that ever was supplanted by later efforts. I'm not sure what you mean by the first question." CreationDate="2022-01-16T20:08:26.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36682" PostId="17556" Score="0" Text="First question: When a jurist’s opinion is listed, that jurist’s name is what usually is listed; however, they will often reference someone else’s opinion, e.g. Dig. 2.1.15, where Ulpiānus is the reference, but he again references Salvius Jūliānus: ‘cum, ut **iulianus** scribit’. How can we identify when a jurist is referencing Emperor Julian? If he was ‘among the most highly appreciated’ jurists, one would assume numerous references to him, yet apart from your CT ref and some very few I have found, he seems to be almost non-existing as a legal source for ancient jurists." CreationDate="2022-01-16T20:50:41.583" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36683" PostId="17556" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan No, Salvius Iulianus is the &quot;highly appreciated jurist&quot; mentioned above, not the emperor Julian. And emperors usually have some clue, like in the other passage I cited, where the emperor Julian is called *Imp. Iulianus*." CreationDate="2022-01-16T21:15:10.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36656" PostId="17558" Score="0" Text="I think the first word is _baptisata_ (&quot;baptised&quot;). I guess the second must by _fuit_ &quot;was&quot;, but I don't know why there's a capital F. _Samuelis_ and _Mariae_ are genitive, and _coniugum_ genitive plural (&quot;of married couple Samuel Stringer(?) and Maria Smith&quot;), _Susceperunt_ is again a verb &quot;they undertook&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-13T22:54:40.883" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="37607" PostId="17561" Score="3" Text="I think Cicero uses *dicam*, the first person singular present active subjunctive,(let me say, may I say), in the Philippics. I think this could work the way you want." CreationDate="2022-03-21T15:14:31.770" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37615" PostId="17561" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6803/idiom-like-fair-enough" CreationDate="2022-03-22T03:14:29.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37640" PostId="17561" Score="1" Text="Could you provide some more English synonyms or at least sample context to help us better understand the intent?" CreationDate="2022-03-23T23:24:49.057" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36672" PostId="17562" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a nice answer and I look forward to seeing more from you." CreationDate="2022-01-15T11:35:52.197" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36685" PostId="17564" Score="1" Text="Welcome and thanks for the post. It is Greek indeed, but it's still good information to have." CreationDate="2022-01-17T13:16:44.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36692" PostId="17567" Score="0" Text="The third comment under the Wiki explains it, as TKR did below. It's just a mistake in the translation." CreationDate="2022-01-18T05:15:41.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36690" PostId="17568" Score="6" Text="+1. There's hardly a language crime worse than foolishly hypercorrecting Latin plurals." CreationDate="2022-01-18T02:19:08.353" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36696" PostId="17568" Score="7" Text="@cmw &quot;Eh, this Klemperer person is only&quot; (checks notes) &quot;professor of Romance languages, I'll make sure to double check his Latin when translating his book&quot; (checks notes) &quot;Lingua Tertii Imperii.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-18T11:07:18.777" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36720" PostId="17572" Score="0" Text="This has me wondering, were there any differences in pronunciation between ᾱ/ῑ/ῡ and α/ι/υ? I would assume they too could exist as compensatory lengthened vowels." CreationDate="2022-01-19T15:21:36.570" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36789" PostId="17572" Score="1" Text="There is not good evidence of a difference in quality between ᾱ/ῑ/ῡ and α/ι/υ in Attic and Koine Greek generally and synchronically, but the ᾱ of proto-Greek did sometimes develop differently and diacronically from short α as seen by the results in Ionic and Attic, indicating a difference in quality at that time and in those dialects at the beginning of the change and during it.  It is conjectured that long vowels in Indo-European were not originally phonemic, but developed through various processes of &quot;compensatory lengthening.&quot;  By the time of Greek, they were phonemic and unpredictable." CreationDate="2022-01-21T17:52:25.633" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36790" PostId="17572" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher There's also some evidence for a separate /æ:/ phoneme at some points, separate from both /a:/ and /ɛ:/, which I find really interesting. But yeah, I don't know of any evidence for a quality difference in those long vowels." CreationDate="2022-01-21T17:55:43.933" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36939" PostId="17572" Score="0" Text="By separate, do you mean existing as dialectical variants; or as a distinct phonemes carrying meaning, in other words that both /aː/, /ɛː/ and /æː/ existed simultaneously within the same area?" CreationDate="2022-01-31T13:24:53.830" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="36943" PostId="17572" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan The latter! For example we see ΚΑΣΙΓΝΗΤ (for κασιγνητη &quot;sister&quot;) in some Central Ionian inscriptions, with the &quot;open&quot; eta letter used to write inherited ē and the &quot;closed&quot; eta letter used for the result of ā &gt; ē. I haven't found a word with both of those and also a long alpha in it, since the inscriptional corpus is not huge, but the accusative plural would be expected to be ΚΑΣΙΓΝΗΤΑΣ with a long alpha in the ending (long ā created by compensatory lengthening is not affected by ā &gt; ē)." CreationDate="2022-01-31T16:49:02.300" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36703" PostId="17573" Score="2" Text="Potesne nobis exemplum dare illius &quot;causae&quot;? Si de sermone nimis longo loquimur, mihi videtur dici licere &quot;satis de&quot; (e.g. &quot;sed satis de Graecis&quot;, scilicet &quot;dictum est&quot; vel &quot;verborum&quot;). Sin alia loquimur de re, arbitror genetivum opus esse." CreationDate="2022-01-18T20:28:08.407" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36705" PostId="17573" Score="0" Text="Casus quem in mente haberam ut questionem istam fecissem est &quot;satis est de nugis tuis&quot; vs. &quot;satis est nugaram tuarum&quot;. Nescio vero utrum latinius sit." CreationDate="2022-01-18T20:56:25.943" UserId="2764" />
  <row Id="36710" PostId="17574" Score="0" Text="Q0: We have instructions on our meta for typing a [macron](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2/79) and a [breve](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/172/79). There are HTML entities and other solutions. You can also just go to those pages and copy and paste the letters in." CreationDate="2022-01-19T10:14:49.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36711" PostId="17574" Score="4" Text="Does your textbook not have a section on pronunciation? They're usually at the front (and usually very rudimentary, but almost always present, in my experience). You may be interested in picking up a copy of Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina* regardless." CreationDate="2022-01-19T11:19:24.633" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="36733" PostId="17574" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I will try and get the vox latina book." CreationDate="2022-01-19T17:41:18.603" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36737" PostId="17574" Score="0" Text="By the way, why not come to chat? That is a good place for discussions like this: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm" CreationDate="2022-01-19T18:51:36.693" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36738" PostId="17574" Score="4" Text="And I have another suggestion: people prefer reading one question at a time, not several about a similar theme put together into one 'question'. That's not what the format of Stack Exchange is built for. Next time, you might want to split a question like this up into three separate ones." CreationDate="2022-01-19T18:55:08.207" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36740" PostId="17574" Score="0" Text="the book is &quot;A New Approach to Latin&quot; by EG MacNaughton (M.A.) and TW McDougall (Ph.D). Have placed an order for Vox Latina, it will arrive next week. Have just completed my tax return, so am a bit stressed but will try to narrow down the question later. Earnings and tax both lower than usual! Will have a look at the chatroom." CreationDate="2022-01-19T20:14:58.823" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36747" PostId="17574" Score="0" Text="Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/133352/discussion-on-question-by-commenter-how-would-caeser-say-hodie-ianuae-domuum-su)." CreationDate="2022-01-19T22:00:54.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36708" PostId="17575" Score="1" Text="Hi Dan. Your question reminded me of the [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/403/ambiguitas-casus-genitivi), and I think its answer works as well for your question. Have a look and see if it does, and if you still have questions, feel free to edit your post to further elaborate on what questions might still linger. Let me know (@cmw) if you have any questions or concerns about this." CreationDate="2022-01-19T03:47:38.530" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36788" PostId="17575" Score="0" Text="I would vote to reopen this because I would answer this question differently from the answer to the associated question.  The associated question and answer dealt mostly with which semantics were more likely.  This question can be answered with more specifics about pragmatics in Latin and about how they could be disambiguated." CreationDate="2022-01-21T17:35:37.990" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36803" PostId="17575" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher: I'd be interested in reading an answer concerning the pragmatics!" CreationDate="2022-01-22T15:53:58.130" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36805" PostId="17575" Score="1" Text="&quot;which semantics are more likely&quot; is the question that pragmatics is concermed with, and the anwer given to [the previous such question](/questions/403/ambiguitas-casus-genitivi) was in essence that the main pragmatic factor involved was idiomaticity. I believe that the questions are duplicate - if one wants to expland on the pragmatic factors influencing the interpretation of genitives, I think it can be done while answering the previous question just as well.—[Here's another](/questions/15861/dealing-with-2-genitives-the-farmers-daughter-loves-the-wate), even more clearly duplicate question." CreationDate="2022-01-22T18:00:55.760" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36848" PostId="17575" Score="0" Text="Here's [another question about genitive ambiguity with _filiae_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11094/118), which does not yet have an answer." CreationDate="2022-01-27T07:12:29.300" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="36719" PostId="17576" Score="2" Text="Perhaps helpful: in the original Greek, &quot;ad Dominicum&quot; is &quot;εἰς τὸ Κυριακόν.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-19T15:07:54.310" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="36728" PostId="17576" Score="2" Text="@brianpck by the original you mean Athanasius' (PG) text? Right. So in Ancient Greek [it did](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD) mean church. In other word, the &quot;problem&quot; is the literal translation (and not idiomatic) from Ancient Greek to Latin. Or perhaps a brave Latinist who wanted to introduce the idiom to Latin, without success. The English one corrected the translation." CreationDate="2022-01-19T16:31:23.840" UserId="1459" />
  <row Id="36742" PostId="17576" Score="3" Text="I'll post an answer later, but it makes sense in Latin, too. *Dominicum* would be roughly &quot;something pertaining to *dominus*,' but in the neuter it often is tied to places. In English, it would be like saying, &quot;house of the Lord.&quot; Not the normal word for 'church', but it's not a leap, either." CreationDate="2022-01-19T20:24:34.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36748" PostId="17576" Score="0" Text="@luchonacho Yep, I was talking about Athanasius's text. The parallel translation in the *PG* also uses &quot;Dominicum.&quot; I thought it would be helpful, but I wasn't suggesting the Latin term was incorrect or unidiomatic!" CreationDate="2022-01-19T22:06:54.450" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37379" PostId="17576" Score="0" Text="Here is an entry for it in a few Latin dictionaries including L&amp;S and DMLBS: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/dominicus. It seems to not mean church exactly, but &quot;belonging to lord,&quot; &quot;Lord's Day&quot; (aka Sunday) when with *dies*, and &quot;divine.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-22T23:48:05.403" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="36746" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="it sounds plausible, and goes seamlessly from hodie to ianuae. playing it at 50% speed, the very end sounds like the ey of grey, whereas with ianuae, the ae sounds like the y of dry, ie an ai sound. what is your reason for these 2 ae's to be pronounced differently? how do you personally define a diphthong? the um of uum seems to have become om, are you saying the m is nasalising the preceding u? ie that the m doesnt occur after but is a modifier of the previous u?" CreationDate="2022-01-19T21:53:02.007" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36749" PostId="17577" Score="2" Text="@Commenter Any difference between the two ae's is due to one being absolute-final and the other not (the final one is smoother), but none of them sounds like the ey of grey to me. Could be that you're expecting the final /ay/ to sound closer to /ah/ as in English.—A diphthong is two vocalic segments inside one syllable nucleus.—Yes, final M in Latin isn't pronounced as [m] unless p/b/m follows - it spells a nasal without a definite place of articulation, realised as nasalisation when final. There should be a few discussions of this here (&quot;final m&quot;), and there's decent info on Wikipedia" CreationDate="2022-01-20T00:12:17.997" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36754" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="regarding whether it sounds like ey could be the accent you learnt, the ending sounds like tray to me,  but with a rolled r, where &quot;tray&quot; with standard british english rhymes with &quot;grey&quot;. a british accent transliteration of your audio would be &quot;hod ee yay yanoo why dom oo om soon tar tray&quot;, where hod rhymes with rod, ee rhymes with he, yay rhymes with may, the vowels of yanoo are the same as those of salute, dom rhymes with tom, oo rhymes with zoo, om like with tom. it may depend on how your ears are tuned. your brain rejigs your perceptions eg hypnosis can totally change perception." CreationDate="2022-01-20T20:24:42.403" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36755" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="if you looked at some chinese text, 附近的盒子里有免费的钱 you wouldnt perceive much, but a chinese person would perceive some information, and say open a nearby box, because the text said in chinese some money is available in the box for anyone to have. when you listen to a foreign language, you will perceive it relative to the languages you currently know." CreationDate="2022-01-20T20:29:46.243" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36756" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="@Commenter I can hear the a in the diphthong, though I will admit it's said more quickly. Note that it shouldn't be a full &quot;eye&quot; sound, unless perhaps this were oratory and the sound was enunciated very carefully for emphasis." CreationDate="2022-01-20T20:29:50.313" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36758" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="@Commenter I agree with your remarks. Myself I have a pretty good understanding - both intuitive and scientific - of how humans perceive language. I agree that it may sound closer to /ey/ than to /ay/, especially in those accents with a more open first part of the former diphthong. The first part of the English /ay/ also tends to be strictly back and much longer than the second, so [ɑːɪ]. This is especially noticeable in British English and in the stereotypical Chinese accent. The Latin /ae/ tends towards the vowel [ɛ], which is the vowel that begins /ey/. In Australia /ay/ is even rounded." CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:01:47.863" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36759" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian  learning a new language you typically have to retrain your ear and even your tongue, eg I am trying to both perceive and say the long versus short vowels, in particular words with 2 long vowels are a challenge eg vīdistī. It took me a long time to make sense of Berlin german r. I think it is said with the zone from the soft palette to the uvula depending on the person or word, approximated by say a british h sound, which is lighter than the russian kh sound (symbol x)." CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:14:08.647" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36760" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="one further thing, american phonetics is sparser than british. I had a computer with the speech program used by Stephen Hawkings, and wanted to make the program speak with a british accent. And it was IMPOSSIBLE! not even to come close to a british accent. british english has more and subtler vowels than american. I have enumerated 11 different unvarying british vowel sounds. I think this is why Hawkings speaks with an american accent via the program, despite being british!" CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:17:10.090" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36761" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="the 11 vowel sounds are of the following words: hat, hut, hot, put, hoot, heat, hit, hem, her, harp, hawk. If you say any 2 of those vowels the same, then you arent using a standard british accent. Americans for instance will say hut and hot the same. And people from the north of England will probably say hut and put the same vowel." CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:19:54.140" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36762" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian when I first got glasses, the image my left eye saw was much smaller than what the right eye saw, as my left eye is short sighted, right eye long sighted. I couldnt merge the images, was seeing double. The optician said I needed to keep wearing and it will eventually work. Eventually my brain merged the 2 images perfectly. With the glasses on, perfectly merged images despite different sizes. Take the glasses off also perfectly merged! And instantly perfectly merged, with or without glasses." CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:31:38.823" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36763" PostId="17577" Score="1" Text="@Commenter Yes, it's well-known that GenAmE makes relatively less contrasts, although it's distinguished by plenty of older and even new distinctions as well. I agree with and appreciate your remarks on human perception. But I think this is the right time to repeat something I repeat quite often: it's not very productive to try talking about Latin phonetics using American English equivalents, because GAE has at most one vowel that is exactly the same as in Latin, which is the vowel of *seed*, but even that isn't true on the /iy/ analysis (in AmE unlike BE it's not often audibly diphthongised)." CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:37:51.710" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36766" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="By the way, [positively no American accent](https://www.quora.com/Do-Americans-pronounce-pairs-of-words-like-hut-and-hot-differently) pronounces hut and hot the same." CreationDate="2022-01-20T22:03:10.830" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36770" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="I was thinking more of not and nut, but coz the main words begun with h, I put hot and hut. word order disambiguates such things. Youtube says its just a difference of length: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgI3sa8NhFE  so is same sound, just different length. speak fast and AmE not becomes nut! whereas british english a totally different sound" CreationDate="2022-01-21T11:49:53.707" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36771" PostId="17577" Score="0" Text="@Commenter The first consonant has no influence on this, -ot and -ut are distinguished in all varieties to my knowledge. In some AmE varieties it's only length, in others they vowel is completely different (those where the nut vowel is basically the schwa). Anyway, the fact that you didn't hear any difference between those two is a nice illustration of what you say about human perception - I doubt I could convince a monolingual Russian speaker that these two vowels were different even in a century." CreationDate="2022-01-21T12:00:41.037" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36752" PostId="17578" Score="1" Text="P.S. Did you know that *insignia* is plural? So *the insignia have*, not *has*. http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=insigne&amp;filter=CUTF8 The same applies to *regalia*." CreationDate="2022-01-20T00:40:19.633" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36750" PostId="17580" Score="0" Text="On meaning and intent, it describes the motivation for all the words and actions of the person ascribing to the motto. If someone were wearing this motto then it’s like they’re answering “to know God and to express the Word” of anyone were to ask them “Why are treating me this way?”" CreationDate="2022-01-20T00:25:29.393" UserId="10677" />
  <row Id="36751" PostId="17580" Score="2" Text="@Trindaz Got it! Yep, that's the purpose I mentioned above. It's an accurate translation, then." CreationDate="2022-01-20T00:27:20.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36774" PostId="17580" Score="1" Text="I agree with cmw.  In other words, the translation works well as a condensed translation of &quot;Act so as to know God and to express the Word.&quot;  Note, however, that the Latin is more specific than the English.  If you wanted the English to mean: &quot;The ideals to keep in mind are &quot;knowing God&quot; and &quot;expressing the Word,&quot; then you would probably express this in Latin with something a little different and broader in meaning, such as &quot;Deum scire, Verbum exprimere.&quot;  The first translation is explicitly about purpose; whereas the latter is all encompassing and vague about the context." CreationDate="2022-01-21T15:38:03.840" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36757" PostId="17583" Score="0" Text="[Related 1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5170/is-there-any-rule-to-the-length-of-e-in-ensis/5174#5174); [related 2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10903/are-there-specific-exceptions-to-the-rule-of-lengthening-a-vowel-before-ns-or)." CreationDate="2022-01-20T20:49:26.103" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36764" PostId="17583" Score="0" Text="If [this](https://www.amazon.com/Big-Gold-Book-Latin-Verbs/dp/0071417575) is the book you are talking about, it says on page 1 that &quot;the quantitiy of most vowels followed by two or more consonants cannot be decided from Latin verse and are [sic] not marked&quot;. I hope you didn't pay $190 for that thing; although with this habit it is in good company." CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:40:05.117" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36765" PostId="17583" Score="0" Text="ok, o before ns is always long. Practising long vowels I have wondered to what extent a long vowel is in fact time spent forming an adjacent consonant? eg with say sedēbit, I find myself spending more time on the d and b, than say the d with sedet. And with the 4 verbs where I have written out the 4 main tenses, the b is always preceded by a long e. another eg sēdī, I spend extra time on the s and d, like ssseeeddddeeee. versus sedet where minimal time on the s and d. But maybe I am not saying the sounds right! It would seem tricky to say the consonant short and the vowel long." CreationDate="2022-01-20T21:49:39.953" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36775" PostId="17583" Score="1" Text="Roughly speaking, there should be no change in the consonants, and the long vowel sound should be held for twice as long as the short ones.  I think all English speakers naturally do this in some environments, depending on dialect.  I as a speaker of American English with a fairly &quot;standard&quot; accent, pronounce &quot;bat&quot; with a short vowel and &quot;bath&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; with a long vowel of the same quality ([æ]).  If you can mimic this accent and you drop the final consonants, but retain the vowel sounds, you will hear the difference between a short and a long [æ]." CreationDate="2022-01-21T15:49:11.513" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36767" PostId="17584" Score="4" Text="The &quot;way&quot; in this sense is perhaps best rendered as *mos* (manner, custom). To the Romans, their revered national custom was the *mos maiorum*." CreationDate="2022-01-20T22:30:02.387" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36768" PostId="17584" Score="0" Text="Ironically, _mos_ was my initial choice but I swapped it out for _modus_. " CreationDate="2022-01-21T00:24:40.557" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36783" PostId="17584" Score="2" Text="I would lean more towards *via* myself, I feel like the choice of “way” in the Mandalorian script was meant to echo both the sense “a method, style, or manner of doing something” as well as “a road, track, path, or street for traveling along” (the latter in a more metaphorical sense)." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:41:11.337" UserId="8682" />
  <row Id="36800" PostId="17584" Score="2" Text="@D.A.Hosek That is the reasoning I gave for preferring *via* in my answer below." CreationDate="2022-01-22T14:38:12.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36769" PostId="17586" Score="0" Text="Looks like some English translations have also reproduced this: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/428410/has-doubling-of-prepositional-between-been-attested-among-native-english-speak/428429#428429" CreationDate="2022-01-21T04:19:42.483" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="36773" PostId="17586" Score="0" Text="The word &quot;between&quot; is unusual in that it requires two complements.  Prepositions in Semitic languages use a construction that is like a compounding between the preposition and its complement.  This is slightly awkward when there are two complements and so often the preposition was/is repeated.  This was/is the norm with the word meaning &quot;between,&quot; despite what seems to be an anomaly in the semantics, which prevents the possibility of this practice in idiomatic English and perhaps in idiomatic Latin." CreationDate="2022-01-21T15:24:31.787" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36781" PostId="17586" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher Interesting point. I looked back at the Hebrew of 9:12 and בֵּין is repeated there as well although in that case Jerome did not do the repetition." CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:36:12.080" UserId="8682" />
  <row Id="36786" PostId="17586" Score="0" Text="I have two guesses about the differences. 1. Perhaps the repetition of the preposition in &quot;inter me et inter terram&quot; was awkward, but marginally acceptable, in Latin; however,  the repetition in &quot;inter me et inter vos&quot; with two pronouns would perhaps just sound too strange." CreationDate="2022-01-21T17:16:32.270" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36787" PostId="17586" Score="1" Text="2. I don't think prepositions in biblical Hebrew can be used in their independent forms after a preposition.  That makes a repetition of the preposition obligatory for prepositions.  With nouns, that is not the case.  Jerome might have felt that the repetition in 9:13 with בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵ֥ין הָאָֽרֶץ (inter me et inter terram) was grammatically optional and therefore important to translate; whereas he might have felt that בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם (inter me et vos) in 9:12 was merely a quirk of Hebrew syntax and therefore not necessary to reflect in his translation." CreationDate="2022-01-21T17:23:06.820" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36795" PostId="17586" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher :  I don't understand your last comment as written, but I think that you're writing ‘prepositions’ when you really mean ‘pronouns’.  (That is, the two places in your comment where the words is plural should be ‘pronouns’, while the two places where it's singular are correctly ‘preoposition’.)  Have I got that right?  (And if so, then that's an insightful comment.)" CreationDate="2022-01-21T19:04:35.430" UserId="2830" />
  <row Id="36796" PostId="17586" Score="1" Text="Toby, I am embarrassed.  Of course you are right.  If you don't mind, I will edit my comment accordingly but will leave this comment here as a record so that your correction makes sense.  Oops, it appears I can no longer edit my comment, so just want to reaffirm that where I side &quot;prepositions&quot; above in the plural, I meant &quot;pronouns.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-21T20:10:52.223" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36794" PostId="17587" Score="1" Text="I wondered about *sic* 'thus' instead of *hic*, to convey 'thus' (i.e. 'this way') is the way." CreationDate="2022-01-21T19:00:27.380" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36799" PostId="17587" Score="2" Text="@dbmag9 I wondered about that too. The [L&amp;S entry for *sic*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sic&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is long and I didn't read every little bit, but I couldn't find precedent for such a pithy use of *sic*. It sounds idiomatic enough to me, but I'm still unsure. Do you happen to know an example from the literature or a dictionary that could serve as an example for *sic via* or something similar?" CreationDate="2022-01-22T14:37:04.810" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36801" PostId="17587" Score="0" Text="If there's an example of it being used that way I like it with _via_. It adds that touch of extra importance." CreationDate="2022-01-22T14:39:02.967" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36812" PostId="17587" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm way too amateur a Latinist to have a reference, I'm afraid, although I'm heartened that you thought of *sic* too. My 'no references only vibes' version would be *sic est via* or *sic est mos* (or, come to think of it, maybe even just a *sic est* 'so it is') but I don't have the weight of any meaningful expertise behind that." CreationDate="2022-01-23T09:52:43.033" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36808" PostId="17592" Score="1" Text="In English &quot;ask&quot; means both &quot;request&quot; (pedir) and &quot;inquire&quot; (preguntar) -- which meaning do you have in mind?" CreationDate="2022-01-22T20:15:51.677" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36810" PostId="17592" Score="0" Text="request probably." CreationDate="2022-01-22T20:51:06.210" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="36807" PostId="17593" Score="5" Text="In the interest of getting good answers I would recommend making your questions much more succinct -- personally I ended up skimming most of this." CreationDate="2022-01-22T20:09:05.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36811" PostId="17593" Score="1" Text="If Coptic counts for Egyptian then French counts for Latin, really." CreationDate="2022-01-22T23:25:06.410" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="36814" PostId="17593" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I dont have any info on coptic, but just heard in a documentary that its today's version, which may well be like latin to french. I have a book on ancient egyptian presented as a language but nothing on coptic. arabic is an imposed language, I think the original people were probably hamitic who allegedly are descended from Noah's son Ham." CreationDate="2022-01-23T15:14:27.320" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36818" PostId="17593" Score="0" Text="@TKR I put the main question at the top, as &quot;lineage&quot; can be interpreted many ways, I needed to explain the interpretation I meant, which can only be explained by orbitting the idea. If I expressed it precisely it would be incomprehensible, some things are best explained indirectly. So I gave things included, things excluded, and comparables. An expert could state in a few words, but such an expert doesnt need to ask the question!" CreationDate="2022-01-23T15:48:30.467" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36819" PostId="17593" Score="0" Text="@TKR I gave comparable of german to show classroom language notequals actual, eg the classroom learner wont be able to read handwritten german in Berlin. Also in Berlin, informally the people drop the initial vowel of &quot;diphthongs&quot; eg laufen becomes lufen, kaiser becomes kiser, a bit like some parts of northern Britain will say hoos instead of house ie essentially huse. These are salient things I gradually learnt from immersion, not in any book but directly from germans. Books may talk of stuff, but you can get quagmired by too much stuff." CreationDate="2022-01-23T15:55:19.460" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36826" PostId="17593" Score="1" Text="@Commenter If you start with a short main question and then proceed to explain it from different points of view, then it would greatly help the readers if you would structure your post with subtitles and such. To be honest, much of your question comes across as a rant rather than a question, so focusing on the core question and condensing your message is likely to lead to a better reception." CreationDate="2022-01-23T21:21:29.603" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36828" PostId="17593" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I have now structured and simplified it a bit, the rant aspect is to explain why I exclude certain things. I have put disclaimers also that some excluded things nonetheless are good." CreationDate="2022-01-24T13:32:42.683" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36813" PostId="17595" Score="1" Text="Would you accept a translation such as : &quot; duration is the *lasting* or permanence of things in  being/ essence &quot;?  . I cannot find any other equivalent, but this sounds a bit like a tautology." CreationDate="2022-01-23T10:47:34.027" UserId="10695" />
  <row Id="36817" PostId="17595" Score="0" Text="@TKR, do we have classical references for *mora* in this sense without *temporis* attached?" CreationDate="2022-01-23T15:48:03.237" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="36832" PostId="17595" Score="0" Text="@d_e Good question -- the L&amp;S entry seems to suggest not." CreationDate="2022-01-24T17:21:01.017" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36815" PostId="17598" Score="0" Text="when is the last trace of the unbroken lineage? Erasmus seems to be 1469-1536, after the unbroken lineage and before Erasmus what was happening? was he just tampering with what was already in use? I read the link about c, hadnt heard of Romanian in relation to latin, it does seem latinnic. so latin vanished by metamorphosing into the latinnic languages. what I need really is some audio of those phonetic codes, is there a URL which has these in a convenient format in one place?" CreationDate="2022-01-23T15:33:09.780" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36816" PostId="17598" Score="0" Text="when you say restored and traditional arent unbroken lineages, are you saying there is a continual lineage, and say the restored version is tampering with the unbroken lineage, and traditional is where someone in the lineage is pronouncing in their own way? by lineage here you are referring maybe to teacher to student lineage, where sufficiently far back in time it was an immersive lineage? because some people blatantly repronounce using say the phonetics of their own language something of other phonetics." CreationDate="2022-01-23T15:42:25.150" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36827" PostId="17598" Score="1" Text="@Commenter You could say that there is an unbroken lineage from Classical Latin, but it doesn't end up with modern Latin but the many modern Romance languages. There are certainly unbroken chains of language used as the main language of a community, but that language has evolved so much over the two millennia that it is regarded as several new languages instead of Latin itself. The divergence of this lineage from Latin did not happen at any sharp point in time." CreationDate="2022-01-23T21:28:00.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36829" PostId="17598" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta  would you say the written form of latin is mostly unchanged since classical latin?  standardised writing and literacy must slow down change, where change now has to conform to the standard, eg american jargon such as &quot;cancel culture&quot;. with the Romance languages, how much change occurred once spelling etc got standardised? how much literacy was there in ancient Rome, was it just the patricians, or were the plebs also literate?" CreationDate="2022-01-24T13:38:29.263" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36830" PostId="17598" Score="0" Text="@Commenter Some of those things have been covered on this site; try searching and browsing around. Yes, written Latin has changed very little, but spoken language drifted so far apart from it that it created new languages. Conservatism with Latin did conserve much of Latin but not as a language of daily use; slowing down change is hard. I recommend taking those new questions to separate new questions, but note that some of them will find a better home at other SE sites. Developments within Romance languages are mostly off topic here." CreationDate="2022-01-24T13:47:55.160" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36831" PostId="17598" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I have a conjecture that romans settled en masse in northern England, and still speak latin today, but as an underground language. They arent going to admit to it as it would blow their cover, the only way to prove it would be to plant bugs in lots of houses! Our latin teacher at school was from up north with Yorkshire accent and looked like a roman, I think he was a covert roman. A lot of placenames up north are blatantly roman, eg Doncaster, Lancaster, Manchester, Leicester, Chester, and south also eg Winchester, Gloucester. Dont know if Weston Super Mare is roman." CreationDate="2022-01-24T16:05:08.497" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36822" PostId="17603" Score="1" Text="That's right, the use in question developed medievally as a technical term; the closest meaning that existed in antiquity referred to syllabic length distinctions, which were also called *tempus (ūnum, duo tempora)*  - hence En. 'mora'." CreationDate="2022-01-23T18:25:49.713" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36823" PostId="17604" Score="2" Text="*I found a rule that says if you want to prohibit someone from doing something, you're supposed to use &quot;ne&quot; + conjunctive present tense?* &lt;-- where'd you find that, I wonder. It is usually taught to use the perfect tense." CreationDate="2022-01-23T19:20:52.457" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36824" PostId="17604" Score="0" Text="I don't have the book with me right now, maybe I misunderstood something. Do you have some tips for correcting the translation?" CreationDate="2022-01-23T20:31:38.673" UserId="10698" />
  <row Id="36825" PostId="17604" Score="0" Text="There's also &quot;noli&quot; + infinitive for telling someone not to do something. You can also probably miss out &quot;gladium&quot; the second time." CreationDate="2022-01-23T20:42:37.967" UserId="10566" />
  <row Id="36834" PostId="17606" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply! I really appreciate it. I love your translation, although I don't quite understand why it's &quot;eduxeris&quot; and &quot;recondideris&quot; (conjunctive perfect?)? And also, what would be the literal translation of your suggested translation? &quot;Do not casually draw the sword, nor sheathe it without (nisi?) honour&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-01-24T22:54:57.927" UserId="10698" />
  <row Id="36847" PostId="17606" Score="0" Text="@khai Yes, these should be the perfect conjunctive forms. *Nisi* = &quot;unless,&quot; so that literally translates as &quot;nor sheathe it unless honourably,&quot; i.e., &quot;and only sheathe it honourably.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-25T23:08:20.777" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36835" PostId="17608" Score="1" Text="Huh, were the contractions no longer productive in Attic? I thought e.g. the contracting verbs were still regular at that point." CreationDate="2022-01-25T00:52:58.450" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="36836" PostId="17608" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Yes, you're right; I meant to say that the dialectal difference long predates Koine, but stated it badly. Editing." CreationDate="2022-01-25T00:54:00.773" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36837" PostId="17608" Score="0" Text="Great explanation! Would you happen to know whether adding the suffix -τος to κλέω (to celebrate) would lead to κλει[τος] or κλη[τος] in Koine? Based on the φιλέω -&gt; Φίλητος example, I would guess the latter, but I'm seeing some conflicting info - Hesychius of Alexandria gives both words the same definition in his lexicon." CreationDate="2022-01-25T10:39:53.260" UserId="10703" />
  <row Id="36839" PostId="17608" Score="1" Text="@Pelle82 There are two different words here: κλητός &quot;invited, welcome&quot; from the root of καλέω &quot;call&quot;, and κλειτός &quot;renowned&quot;, from the root of κλέω &quot;celebrate&quot; and κλύω &quot;hear&quot;. The reason that κλέω~κλειτός don't follow the example of φιλέω~Φίλητος seems to be unclear: κλέω has a variant κλείω, and κλειτός may be formed from that; or it may be because there was originally a digamma in this root (ϝ, a &quot;w&quot; sound which existed in early Greek but was lost) and the suffix was a different variant -ετός, so the original form was κλεϝ-ετός, and after ϝ dropped the two εs contracted regularly into ει." CreationDate="2022-01-25T17:49:29.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36838" PostId="17609" Score="3" Text="In my view, this question is a duplicate, because the linked question gives the answer and also explains the logic for the shifting sequence." CreationDate="2022-01-25T17:41:55.643" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36840" PostId="17609" Score="1" Text="Closing for now as a duplicate. We can re-open this if we get additional clarification on how the other question doesn't answer this one." CreationDate="2022-01-25T18:57:21.250" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36843" PostId="17611" Score="0" Text="The question is only about nested subordination, where *ubi sis/esses* is subordinate to a subordinate clause. I agree that the phrasing is less than optimal, but the question is about the choice of tense in such subordination so I tried to strip my examples of other structure. The main question was: Which one of *scio* and *scripseris* is considered to govern *sis/esses* in such nested subordination from the point of view of choice of tense? On that question you seem to answer with the other answers." CreationDate="2022-01-25T20:25:52.977" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36844" PostId="17611" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, but the other answers seem to suggest that only one is grammatical, referring to a prescriptive consecutio temporum. I tried to highlight that both constructions are grammatical, that the last clause can be subordinated to either, and that the choice of tense determines meaning. In this I think the other answers are as unsatisfactory as answering &quot;which is correct *mālum dat* or *mālō dat*&quot; without mentioning that either is possible but expresses different meaning. I think grammar makes no sense when divorced from meaning and explaining meaning makes grammar self-evident." CreationDate="2022-01-25T20:32:05.100" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36845" PostId="17611" Score="0" Text="In general I agree, but here the meaning was fixed in the question. Perhaps my wording wasn't clear enough. The other meaning with the other form is an interesting side remark." CreationDate="2022-01-25T21:26:00.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36846" PostId="17611" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Don't you agree that your question is unlikely to be asked by someone who realises that the choice of tense is not arbitrary, prescriptive etc., and the governing verb isn't &quot;considered&quot; to be one or the other, but is chosen by the speaker based on the meaning they're trying to express? Just like asking the *mālum/mālō* question is predicated on not realising that the two express two different meanings. This is what I mean when I say that knowing the meaning is knowing the grammar, and conversely omitting reference to meaning cruicially obfuscates the whole issue" CreationDate="2022-01-25T22:37:26.697" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36865" PostId="17613" Score="0" Text="When declining nouns, different traditions of teaching Latin order the cases differently for different reasons.  Ordering them as N-V-Ac-G-D-Ab highlights the similarities between N-V-Ac (particularly for neuter nouns and plurals) and helps with memorization and reciting the declensions.  Other traditions would consider that this order places too much emphasis on the nominative form, leading to later confusion about the other forms.  That is what has happened in your case, as is explained in the answers below, which are informed by a more linguistic tradition." CreationDate="2022-01-27T18:00:04.133" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36872" PostId="17616" Score="1" Text="The relative pronoun would actually be *qui* here, since within the relative clause, it's the subject (&quot;*who* sought an end&quot;)." CreationDate="2022-01-28T01:17:24.760" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36876" PostId="17616" Score="0" Text="Thank you; I fixed it." CreationDate="2022-01-28T05:50:31.153" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="36866" PostId="17617" Score="2" Text="By the way, there is a famous proverb that goes: **Mors certa, hora incerta.** Which shows that even *mors* need not be repeated." CreationDate="2022-01-27T19:09:58.807" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36850" PostId="17618" Score="2" Text="&quot;Omitting a repeated word — verb or other — is a common stylistic choice but never a hard grammatical rule.&quot; &lt;-- Point in case, you could have repeated &quot;it is&quot; before &quot;never,&quot; but chose not to." CreationDate="2022-01-27T14:43:55.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36851" PostId="17618" Score="0" Text="@cmw Ha! That choice wasn't even conscious; I only notice it now that you point it out. I never knew how subtly clever I was." CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:08:12.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36858" PostId="17618" Score="0" Text="Better Latin style seems to be to omit a duplicated verb, but as others have said it is not mandatory.  I also think that 'dies mortis&quot; is distinctly better style than &quot;mortis dies.&quot;  In a genitive construction, the more informative word generally goes first, and in this case, the listener already knows that &quot;mors&quot; is under discussion and so it should be demoted to second place." CreationDate="2022-01-27T16:07:57.777" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36859" PostId="17618" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher I agree that at least in this specific case it would be better style to leave the duplicate verb out. If you want to say more on the matter, another answer with more nuance would be great. I only wanted to give the simple (and I think still correct) answer that both are fine. I was not sure if the OP was concerned at all with nuance or style, or just with grammatical validity." CreationDate="2022-01-27T16:37:45.873" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36861" PostId="17618" Score="0" Text="I did not mean to suggest your answer was wrong or even incomplete, or I would have not said what I did in a comment.  I should have first reaffirmed that your comment was accurate.  Why I added additional information is that I have been quite surprised the extent to which &quot;duplicate verbs&quot; are dropped in Latin style, even in complex constructions, compared to what we would do in English.  I wished I had been warned about that in my learning process.  If you think it is worth it for the level of this question, I could certainly give a full answer with more detail." CreationDate="2022-01-27T16:48:49.300" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36867" PostId="17618" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher Nor did I take your comment as such a suggestion! Indeed, different languages have very different preferences in many such matters when grammar does not dictate anything. Soft things like that are not often taught explicitly, and that is where this site finds a good niche. I think a more detailed answer would be useful – if not for the OP, perhaps to some other readers. But it's certainly up to you!" CreationDate="2022-01-27T19:30:30.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36880" PostId="17618" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher, I see. I chose 'mortis dies' because I thought the genitive should ideally go first, but now I understand why the book's author decided to put it after." CreationDate="2022-01-28T11:36:51.267" UserId="9084" />
  <row Id="36855" PostId="17619" Score="1" Text="Perhaps the first is a form of *vestiarius*, &quot;of or belonging to clothes&quot;, &quot;clothesdealer&quot;? In which case *sutor* may mean more generally &quot;a patcher up&quot; (repairer). So, then -- he was a tailor who fixed worn clothing?" CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:33:57.563" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="36857" PostId="17619" Score="1" Text="Could you translate the Danish as well? That might help.  I have no idea what language &quot;veye&quot; is or what it means.  &quot;Besoffued&quot; and &quot;Aar gammel&quot; also puzzling.  Do they mean &quot;made pregnant&quot; and &quot;old in years&quot;?  I think &quot;hydrope correptus exspiravit.  Sutor&quot; could mean &quot;he died having been stricken by dropsy.  A cobbler.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:58:59.813" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36868" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="@MPW &quot;patcher of clothes&quot; is interesting, there are many tailors in the family." CreationDate="2022-01-27T19:58:36.387" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="36869" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher I have included full English translations. I also thought something like &quot;corruptus&quot;, but other genealogists disagree, and it does seem there's a top-line to make it a T under the Fa of &quot;Fajdtzøns&quot; above. Compare &quot;Tørring&quot; top left same link, fourth line second to last word" CreationDate="2022-01-27T19:58:39.093" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="36870" PostId="17619" Score="1" Text="Just to be clear, &quot;correptus&quot; (&quot;snatched away)  is different from &quot;corruptus&quot; ( &quot;corrupted&quot;).  In either case, I cannot make a final &quot;i/j&quot; work grammatically.  Perhaps it is a Latinized masculine placename ending in a locative &quot;i/j&quot; like Tovrepti or Torrepti?  In that case, it would mean he died of dropsy in the town/city of XXXX." CreationDate="2022-01-27T20:20:08.307" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36871" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="It unfortunately doesn't fit with any known Danish place names, and -pt- is an extremely unusual combination that is nearly only seen in loan words. I have however now identified Veye as a farm nearby." CreationDate="2022-01-27T20:40:19.940" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="36874" PostId="17619" Score="1" Text="My best guess is &quot;hydrope conreptus/correptus&quot; or &quot;hydrope conrepto/correpto&quot; ((one) seized/attacked by dropsy, despite the possibility of an initial &quot;t.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-28T03:32:29.180" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36878" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="I agree that makes more sense, but I'm not happy about that line... there's no Latin word it could be with a T?  :-/" CreationDate="2022-01-28T07:04:37.710" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="37989" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="I agree with @MPW that the first is a form of *vestiarius*, specifically, the phrase is &quot;aff Anders [...] *sutore vestiario*&quot;, in the ablative. &quot;aff&quot; would be &quot;a/ab&quot; in Latin, which governs the ablative. Possibly, as suggested, a &quot;repairer&quot; of clothes, as opposed to shoes, leather or other objects." CreationDate="2022-04-16T11:53:04.910" UserId="10674" />
  <row Id="37992" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="@marquinho note: &quot;aff&quot; is a Danish word meaning &quot;of&quot; (as in he comes from this place), current spelling &quot;af&quot;. Repairer/patcher of clothes is as mentioned a very reasonable translation. I will update the transcription." CreationDate="2022-04-16T12:11:23.777" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="37993" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="An idea: Could it be &quot;hydrops conreptus&quot;, if the line below the above F is a curlicue of a final -s in hydrops?" CreationDate="2022-04-16T12:14:07.183" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="37997" PostId="17619" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the clarification :) This is how I parse and understand it: &quot;besoffued(?) / aff A.M. / paa Veye sutore vestiario&quot;. I take your word that &quot;besoffued&quot;(?) stands for &quot;impregnated&quot;. &quot;aff&quot; provides the agens: &quot;by A.M.&quot;, as you suggested (and therefore corresponds to a Latin &quot;ab&quot;-phrase). I understand this is one possible meaning of &quot;af&quot; in Danish? The rest provides the identifying data for A.M. that were customary in old registers, i.e. his profession and residence: &quot;mender/tailor at Veye&quot;; this is in the ablative, as required of an agens phrase in Latin. Hope this is of some use :)" CreationDate="2022-04-16T14:00:23.010" UserId="10674" />
  <row Id="38001" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="Right, sorry. The &quot;af&quot; is best translated as &quot;by&quot;, he is the actor responsible for impregnating her. The &quot;paa&quot; (literally &quot;on&quot;, curr. sp. &quot;på&quot;) is the location indicator. &quot;Besoffued&quot; would presently be spelled &quot;besoved&quot; (-ffu- was used for -v- before the latter became common in Danish)" CreationDate="2022-04-16T14:44:19.737" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="42593" PostId="17619" Score="0" Text="A thought, could the final letter on _corrept*_ be some kind of abbreviation sign for _-us_? I tried looking up some Tironian abbreviations but couldn't find a good list." CreationDate="2023-03-17T14:31:52.713" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="36849" PostId="17620" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2022-01-27T14:33:57.417" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36852" PostId="17621" Score="1" Text="+1 for this. Still, since OP's &quot;things&quot; are like artwork, paintings, architecture, etc., I suggest that *operibus* might be more appropriate than *rebus*." CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:26:48.090" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="36853" PostId="17621" Score="3" Text="@MPW I wasn't sure if OP was limiting it to those sorts of things, or just giving them as examples of what things are. I would agree that *operibus* is a better fit for &quot;works&quot; created by people. Hopefully he can clarify." CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:28:27.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36854" PostId="17621" Score="2" Text="cmw's answer is correct and excellent; however, I must say that the title &quot;Things and Places&quot; leaves me a little flat.  The suggested Latin answer also tends to suggest a global philosophical treatment, rather than just a semi-random list.  You might want to consider adding another word or two to peak interest more, such as &quot;Things and Places to Visit/View&quot; or &quot;Things and Places to Wonder at&quot; or &quot;Things and Places to Compare&quot;  The Latin for these could be &quot;Res/Opera et Loci Visendi&quot; or &quot;Res/Opera et Loci Mirandi&quot; or Res/Opera et Loci Comparandi.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:32:07.303" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36856" PostId="17621" Score="0" Text="@cmw : Agreed, details are scant here, so it's hard to say for sure. +1." CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:37:01.610" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="36860" PostId="17621" Score="0" Text="This answer nicely shirks the whole *loci* vs. *loca* business ;-)" CreationDate="2022-01-27T16:39:41.553" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36862" PostId="17621" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher I agree that narrowing it down by adding a word or two would be best if the purpose was to focus on a specific direction, in this case it is global approach (I used title and chapter as metaphors). The expression/title &quot;Things and places&quot; is to be seen an overarching phrase, like an umbrella, that enabling exploring many things within artwork, architecture and places (if this makes any sense). Will it then still leave you &quot;a little flat&quot;? Is it other expressions that might be better?" CreationDate="2022-01-27T16:59:23.297" UserId="10712" />
  <row Id="36863" PostId="17621" Score="0" Text="@MPW thank you, I'll keep operibus in mind." CreationDate="2022-01-27T16:59:31.360" UserId="10712" />
  <row Id="36864" PostId="17621" Score="1" Text="As a chapter title, using a vague word like &quot;things&quot; might be okay, because it would fit within a larger context.  Maybe one chapter is entitled &quot;People&quot;; another, &quot;Emotions&quot;, another &quot;Hearth and Home,&quot;  even so, all these are 'things&quot; as well in one sense of the word.  &quot;De operibus et locis&quot; tells me you are going to say something interesting about artwork/crafts and locations.   This would not include a discussion about some purely utilitarian object or some natural object too small to be thought of as a location, but would certainly cover paintings, statutes, and architecture." CreationDate="2022-01-27T17:44:37.327" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36877" PostId="17622" Score="1" Text="And Greek an even greater love of participles than Latin." CreationDate="2022-01-28T05:56:04.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36875" PostId="17628" Score="7" Text="More pointedly, &quot;thus it always was&quot; and &quot;this is always what it always was&quot; *mean* the same thing." CreationDate="2022-01-28T04:12:41.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36892" PostId="17628" Score="0" Text="I found out that the artist is South African. Perhaps that explains the wording &quot;This is what it always was,&quot; whereas I, an American, expect &quot;This is how it always was.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-29T16:07:30.577" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36879" PostId="17630" Score="2" Text="Maybe a good parallel is the infinitive: What would be the plural of *laudare*?" CreationDate="2022-01-28T09:11:46.190" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="36885" PostId="17632" Score="1" Text="I second Sebastian answer. I once had the energies to develop [a tool to practice noun declinations and gender](https://danelh.github.io/nouns/) which are based on Wiktionary.  The user might practice only the more common nouns (top 10%). Once a noun is displayed for the user the decline - it is clickable to reach Wiktionary." CreationDate="2022-01-28T22:01:10.923" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="36886" PostId="17632" Score="1" Text="If you look carefully, you'll see that the ablative of *corpus* is *corpor**e***, so *fluvius* can't follow that pattern." CreationDate="2022-01-29T01:51:21.420" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36888" PostId="17632" Score="1" Text="Before I answer, I just want to make sure I understand your questions. You just want a book that will show you declension paradigms and a list of words from which you can positively place in those paradigms, correct?" CreationDate="2022-01-29T02:26:25.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36898" PostId="17632" Score="0" Text="@d_e I checked the URL you gave, which does give fluvius. But when I test with fluvius and just nom_s and abl_s, it rejects fluviō when given with a macron yet gives the correct form with the macron in red, but accepts it without the macron. It would be nice if it could do a strict macron test, where all macrons have to be given. As I am trying to learn all macrons. I feel one should either show ALL macrons, or NONE, and not go for the middle ground. eg 2 options for the test, show all macrons or none." CreationDate="2022-01-30T00:30:04.277" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36899" PostId="17632" Score="0" Text="@cmw a list of nouns without definitions stating just nominitive singular and genitive singular plus gender and any irregular forms plus say some tables where one can determine the table for the noun would be the minimum. but a brief definition of the noun would also be useful. I realise translation of words is many to many, so in general definitions can get complicated, but I am thinking of the kind of nouns in an introductory course. So perhaps 2 recommendations, one for a list of nouns, with sufficient info for declensions, and another recommendation for a dictionary." CreationDate="2022-01-30T00:39:45.137" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36900" PostId="17632" Score="0" Text="@cmw I listed out the table endings from the 1425 book, and looking at that can see now that nominitive singular -us and ablative -ō is only possible for 2nd declension m+f, so fluvius magnum isnt possible, but potentially fluvius magna is possible? 1425 words just gives one 2nd declension feminine word with nom_s=-us, which is humus meaning ground. I just dont know if their table set is complete, or just complete for their 1425 words? they give 8 tables plus indeclinables, which is 5 declensions plus a 6th declension of indeclinables eg nihil. gen singular + gender would disambiguate fluvius" CreationDate="2022-01-30T00:45:39.163" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36902" PostId="17632" Score="0" Text="@cmw as a beginner, I prefer to see all the forms spelt out, possibly via a table, but I prefer to not learn tables, but to say use a table to compute the forms to then memorise the forms of specific words. I find that after memorising forms of many words, I eventually start to know automatically and dont need any table at all. when I learn a form, I memorise a fragment eg &quot;in agrō&quot; for abl_s and &quot;nōmen agrī&quot; for gen_s of ager. and eg &quot;saepe tū in agrō erās&quot; for imperfect, I dont just memorise &quot;eram, erās, erat, erāmus,...&quot;, but always a minimal encapsulated fragment. herī for perfect etc" CreationDate="2022-01-30T00:58:33.963" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36904" PostId="17632" Score="0" Text="@d_e in addition to a macron version, it would be nice also if your webpage could allow adjective+noun combinations for drills, eg magnus+fluvius, where the given combination might not agree as the student might not know, in order to learn genders as well. because one of the confusing things to master is eg &quot;sub corporibus magnīs&quot; where the adjective has different endings from the noun, which requires some gymnastics. Your site is a good idea, maybe you could make it open source so it can be developed collectively." CreationDate="2022-01-30T02:00:55.390" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36881" PostId="17634" Score="2" Text="*Principum et optimatium* only depends on *fidelitatis*, not on the entire phrase *solida fidelitatis pignora*, which is presumably why the author places it directly before *fidelitatis*. In your translation the sequence *principum et optimatium solida fidelitatis pignora* is the only part that strikes me as questionable Latin, since it intertwines two phrases in a way that makes it unclear what the genitive plurals go with. The other thing to note is that though Latin is generally verb-final, this doesn't apply as strongly to the copula as to other verbs, so *solida erant Caesari* is normal." CreationDate="2022-01-28T17:32:04.737" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36882" PostId="17634" Score="0" Text="I see. My first thought was indeed to write *solida principum et optimatium fidelitatis pignora*. What do you think?&#xA;Also, this *solida* before *erant* seems odd to me because *solida* belongs to the predicative." CreationDate="2022-01-28T17:46:32.223" UserId="9084" />
  <row Id="36883" PostId="17634" Score="2" Text="That order (*solida principum et optimatium fidelitatis pignora*) looks much more standard to me. As for *solida erant ... pignora*, this is a common type of hyperbaton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaton#Latin)." CreationDate="2022-01-28T18:00:55.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="36887" PostId="17635" Score="1" Text="Formal logic also has the common fixed phrase *[salva veritate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salva_veritate)* for describing the ability to always substitute identical terms in direct reference contexts within a proposition, &quot;the truth (value) being preserved.&quot; (So, for example, if `Paris`=`Alexander` then `Alexander is the Trojan prince who slew Achilles` has the same truth value as `Paris is the Trojan prince who slew Achillles`, etc. )" CreationDate="2022-01-29T01:56:05.827" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="36981" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="The meaning of _tonus_ in this document _is_ certainly the melody of the psalm tone and not a singular note pitch. Documents on music from the Carolingian era onward often mean this signification when they are talking about psalmody, some when talking about the church modes in general." CreationDate="2022-02-02T15:26:02.807" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="37102" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="@Coemgenus I think it's somewhat more complicated than that. From the wikipedia article: &quot;before returning to the **reciting tone** until the mediant. After the mediant, the second part of the psalm verse is sung on the **reciting tone** until the last few words, which are sung to a cadential formula called the termination.&quot; I think this is precisely what this sentence says - the *mediant* is the *pausa*, and the instruction is to continue the psalm &quot;on the same reciting tone = pitch&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-09T13:22:47.520" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37103" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="Admittedly it could be referring not to the entire second part but only to the &quot;termination&quot;. Do you know if a second pause is made in psalmody between the second part and the termination? This sounds unlikely; and if so, I don't see how it makes sense to instruct the singers to &quot;preserve the melody&quot; while already singing the termination of that melody. So I think that &quot;psalm tone&quot; here is the same as &quot;singular note pitch&quot; because psalm tones are built around a singular note pitch." CreationDate="2022-02-09T13:36:19.513" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37264" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian If your answer is correct, then the document is saying &quot;After the pause&quot; (the breath or beat rest after the mediant cadence) &quot;let the remainder of the verse be 'deposed' (dropped in pitch, mensurated downward, cadenced), with the tone preserved&quot;. Hmm ... what he means by &quot;with the tone preserved&quot; is still vague. He could mean keeping the cadence in the Psalm's Antiphon mode, but, given the rest of the paragraph, he more likely means keeping the cantors in rhythmical unison and not deviating. However ..." CreationDate="2022-02-18T02:56:50.473" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="37265" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="... I disagree with your interpretation of &quot;tonus&quot; for three reasons. 1) &quot;Deponere&quot; is not just underlay. In the Latin documents as a whole, it means to drop the pitch. That makes sense only on a cadence, not a reciting note. 2) &quot;Morosior&quot; refers to a protraction in tempo class from &quot;metrum&quot; to &quot;rhythmus&quot;, which happens between the reciting note and cadence, where &quot;metrum&quot; refers to the 2-by-2-beat meter of the cadences and &quot;rhythmus&quot; to the 1-by-1-beat meterless rhythm of the reciting note. But that is another topic. ..." CreationDate="2022-02-18T02:57:21.450" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="37266" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="... 3) The next paragraph (see the link) is clear that &quot;tonus&quot; is the cadence: &quot;Omnis tonorum depositio in finalibus, mediis vel ultimis, non est secundum accentum verbi, sed secundum musicalem melodiam toni facienda.&quot; There is no &quot;musicalis melodia&quot; in the reciting note. And again, &quot;Ideoque si tonaliter finis versuum deponitur, ... ut sunt sex syllabae 'Saeculorum Amen', ita sex conformentur notis toni in depositione verborum et syllabarum.&quot; The tenor, after all, does not define the &quot;notes of the tone&quot;. The cadence does." CreationDate="2022-02-18T02:57:41.450" UserId="2099" />
  <row Id="37273" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="I think you're drawing a false distinction. He means that the cadence, meaning the formulaic descending melody, should start at the same pitch as before the pause. Rhythmical unison has nothing to do with the meaning of 'tonus'. The reciting tone is what the psalm is defined around, including departures, and specifically &quot;lowering&quot;, the cadence. You &quot;lower the reciting tone down&quot;, and what reciting tone you start with defines the final cadence.—I'm totally unfamiliar with that distinction between metrum and rhytmus you're referring to so I don't see any special sense in that &quot;morosior&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-18T16:26:46.803" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37275" PostId="17635" Score="0" Text="I will recapitulate: there's no difference between *tonus* meaning &quot;reciting tone&quot; and it meaning &quot;cadence&quot; in this instance because there were 8 cadences, each defined around a single reciting tone, or as Wikipedia puts it, each **psalm tone** has its own associated **gregorian mode** which defines the **cadence** among other things. By saying *tonus* the writer instructs the singers to preserve the tone of the main psalm, the mode, and its particular type of cadence, as opposed to mixing and matching them." CreationDate="2022-02-18T16:37:24.437" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36884" PostId="17636" Score="2" Text="I think mottos usually hint at some principle or founding family events rather than just describe an object.  If you are talking about the origin of your family, couldn't you say at least something like &quot;From the windy hill&quot; or &quot;United by the windy hill&quot;?  If you like something like that, be clear about what noun should be understood in connection with the hill (e.g., &quot;people united&quot; or &quot;family united,&quot;) since that would change the Latin.   I am thinking about something like &quot;De colle ventorum familia unita&quot; (From the hill of winds, a united family), but others might have better suggestions." CreationDate="2022-01-28T19:38:57.780" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36980" PostId="17636" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the help @Vegawatcher. I am in the middle of designing a coat of arms. Trying to do as much research as possible to get it right." CreationDate="2022-02-02T13:08:36.713" UserId="10719" />
  <row Id="36897" PostId="17639" Score="0" Text="I couldnt find fluvius on this page of Wiktionary: https://la.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Categoria:Vocabulorum_lemmata_Latina&amp;from=F have I misunderstood?" CreationDate="2022-01-30T00:25:44.217" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36908" PostId="17639" Score="1" Text="@Commenter: That's the Latin Wiktionary. There are different Wiktionaries based on what language the definitions are written in. The English Wiktionary, which has entries written in English about Latin words, is larger and has an entry for fluvius which Sebastian Koppehel linked to" CreationDate="2022-01-30T06:44:22.237" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="36909" PostId="17639" Score="0" Text="The English Wiktionary even sometimes lists the locative forms of Latin words, which is only semi-predictable by the grammar rules for third declension nouns.  It also sometimes includes information on variants.  Look up &quot;rus&quot; and &quot;mare&quot; to get an idea." CreationDate="2022-01-30T07:12:30.547" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36922" PostId="17639" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides  how do I reach a word? do I just replace fluvius by whichever word in the URL of the link for fluvius?" CreationDate="2022-01-30T23:00:15.353" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36889" PostId="17640" Score="0" Text="I see. Thanks a lot for this extensive explanation. It was very insightful. I'm indeed at the begging of the book still, and the author has this way of explaining the generic rule first and presenting the exceptions chapters later. Maybe that's why I still didn't know these other reasons to change words order." CreationDate="2022-01-29T14:21:11.437" UserId="9084" />
  <row Id="36894" PostId="17640" Score="0" Text="I guess it could be useful for some readers if you include the references of those &quot;two works of Devine and Stephens on Latin word order and pragmatics&quot;. Cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9548/what-is-the-term-for-extremely-loose-latin-word-order/10549#10549" CreationDate="2022-01-29T18:45:08.303" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36907" PostId="17640" Score="0" Text="Mitomino, if you are suggesting I edit my response with clearer references, I can certainly do that; however, your link seems to accomplish that.  I also have a fairly strong interest in this subject without a firm linguistic grounding to distinguish what the various theoretical approaches assume.  Would you be interested in chatting about this, if I can figure out the chat function?  I can read French, and so have been curious what Spevak has to say, but have been wary of shelling out the money., except maybe for the cheaper Syntagme nominal en Latin.: nouvelle contributions." CreationDate="2022-01-30T04:06:01.420" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36890" PostId="17642" Score="3" Text="The neutrality of numquid is asserted by Rolando Ferri, &quot;Politeness in Roman Comedy&quot;: &quot;Num is frequently used in politeness contexts, not as a rhetorical interrogative, suggesting a negative answer, but as a dubious, open-answer particle, best translated with «perhaps, by any chance».&quot;" CreationDate="2022-01-29T15:43:51.570" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36926" PostId="17643" Score="1" Text="Isn't it _cujuslibet_, the genetive of _quilibet_ &quot;anyone&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-01-30T23:42:57.893" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="36938" PostId="17643" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine that could make more sense, especially when I compare the first letter with the first letter of consuet later on which I know is a c." CreationDate="2022-01-31T09:03:32.177" UserId="10717" />
  <row Id="36903" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="but is there a good paper dictionary, which I can access first, and then defer to an online dictionary? Because I often study without the computer or smartphone on. I can then check the dictionary, and if that fails, to boot up the computer. Preferably a dictionary with bigger font. Currently I dont have any latin dictionary. What would be nice is say something like 1425 words, but just for nouns, eg say 3000 nouns or something. Because the nouns of 1425 words are more or less a subvolume. nouns are a clearly delineated segment of latin, worthy of their own book like verbs have their 555 book." CreationDate="2022-01-30T01:36:57.423" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36905" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="@Commenter My recommendation would be Cassell's or Smith-Lockwood (aka Chamber Murray)." CreationDate="2022-01-30T02:19:18.980" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36925" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="have placed an order for both, getting a luxury thumb indexed version of Cassell's! The online reviews of Cassell's look good, there are no amazon reviews for Chamber Murray, maybe you can put a review?" CreationDate="2022-01-30T23:18:54.303" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36930" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="one further thing, as a beginner I need a Latin to english dictionary, and english to Latin, where Cassells hopefully is ideal. But for adept language learning, you need a native dictionary where you remove the scaffolding of the source language, and dwell entirely in the target language. eg for german I use the Duden german-german dictionary, in particular this evades the problem of language being many to many. As latin isnt native for anyone, I dont know whether any good latin to latin dictionaries have been done? When I have learnt much more, I would like to at least dabble with such." CreationDate="2022-01-31T02:02:19.030" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36948" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="but I would just look for a basic latin-latin dictionary. An example of the problem of many to many is english run translates to german laufen, but that can translate to walk, which can translate to gehen, which translates to go, etc. but if you just dwell in a german-german dictionary, and go round in circles with the definitions, you eventually realise the ideas which laufen encapsulates,which in a venn diagram overlaps with various english words and other german words, but doesnt equal any english word. perfect translation goes from words to idea, discard words, convert idea to fresh words" CreationDate="2022-01-31T17:40:56.990" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36949" PostId="17645" Score="1" Text="@Commenter Shouldn't you wait until you know Latin better before getting a Latin-Latin dictionary? But if you insist, check [this thread on Textkit](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=69087)." CreationDate="2022-01-31T18:01:13.487" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36975" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="one would need to reach a critical mass of understanding via say english,before one could properly utilise and probably the main knowledge base is via modern languages eg english,german as most scholars will look at Latin as an object rather than as a subject.But nonetheless it will be &quot;fun&quot; to look up words I already know in order to prep for properly using L-L. eg via your link I arrived at https://latin-dict.github.io/dictionaries/Appleton1914.html where those definitions given look quite fascinating. I tried to think up my own definitions of basic words and didnt have enough vocab" CreationDate="2022-02-01T23:35:47.090" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36976" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="at school we learnt german via translation to &amp; from english.so to say something in german,we'd first say it in english and then translate via vocab+grammar eg word order.The problem is the target language is then just a hollow mask for the source language &amp; you r stuck with the paradigms of the source language.each language has its own unusual liberties &amp; you cannot experience these properly via translation.if you use a native dictionary,you start to learn to effortlessly do things native which are work to translate.native dictionaries define via induction where you directly induce new words" CreationDate="2022-02-01T23:44:16.137" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36977" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="have now got the latin-latin dictionary installed and functioning from the above URL. I installed GoldenDict from http://goldendict.org/download.php which then needs the Stardict dictionary format from https://github.com/latin-dict/Appleton1914/releases . as examples it defines &quot;puella&quot; as &quot;Soror est puella, frāter puer.&quot; and &quot;fluvius&quot; as &quot;Flūmen.&quot; But it is missing lots of basic words, eg no &quot;ager&quot;, &quot;via&quot;, &quot;domus&quot;. I think a dictionary of basic words could be quite usable by beginners." CreationDate="2022-02-02T00:33:22.690" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="36978" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="as a beginner I could use a latin-english dictionary to help me use the latin-latin dictionary! eventually the L-L dictionary usage would be induced.the base language is scaffolding for the target language.the base language is also a non sequitur for native usage of the target language.a native speaker perhaps acquires mastery from age 25 onwards.The language student wants much faster progress eg a few months,so uses the base language as scaffolding,the way a spacecraft or glider can be launched from a plane,but at some point you need to go native,otherwise the base language is a fetter." CreationDate="2022-02-02T02:34:24.663" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="37072" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="the Appleton (1914) downloadable dictionary defines &quot;puella&quot; as &quot;Soror est puella, frāter puer&quot;. This is unsatisfactory, because a 15 year old could have a 9 year old &quot;frāter&quot; and a 24 year old &quot;soror&quot; who is a married woman with 5 kids. This hypothetical &quot;soror&quot; is hardly a &quot;puella&quot;. For a dictionary you need abstract explaining words eg &quot;thing&quot;, &quot;person&quot;, &quot;opposite&quot;, etc. 1425 words translates &quot;puella&quot; as &quot;girl; maiden&quot;.  latin-english dictionaries &quot;translate&quot;, whereas &quot;latin-latin&quot; would &quot;define&quot;. kids learn many words via explanations. Not got &quot;Victionarium&quot; working yet." CreationDate="2022-02-06T21:21:52.963" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="37073" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="people have been studying latin for centuries, I find it surprising noone has done a latin-latin dictionary! I checked the initial pages of amazon search for &quot;latin to latin dictionary&quot; without luck. With Berlitz language school, for an english person learning german, english is prohibited in the lessons right from the first lesson. Only the target language is referenced, the teacher will point and mime, or show a photo etc to get things started.I got an A in german at school, but I know someone who flunked school, learnt german at Berlitz and soon was speaking much better german than me!" CreationDate="2022-02-06T21:28:28.927" UserId="10634" />
  <row Id="37074" PostId="17645" Score="0" Text="@Commenter For chit-chat, try joining the [chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) instead. Comments are not supposed to be for extended discussion." CreationDate="2022-02-06T21:49:06.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36906" PostId="17646" Score="1" Text="Thanks for adding context. By the way, did you know that you can edit a question, when you want to change or add something? That way, you won't have to create an entirely new question next time." CreationDate="2022-01-30T03:47:50.133" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="36935" PostId="17646" Score="2" Text="by the way, I don't see any reason why you would put bounty hunter in quotes. It's a normal english word, with the exact same meaning outside the Star Wars universe" CreationDate="2022-01-31T07:40:04.180" UserId="10638" />
  <row Id="36917" PostId="17647" Score="1" Text="I had a question I was expecting to see in your list: are *calidum* and *frigidum* the right words for “warm” and ”cold” with regards to body temperature?" CreationDate="2022-01-30T19:15:22.240" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="36919" PostId="17647" Score="1" Text="I wondered about that too, based on different usages in Romance languages, but then realized we are not talking about how the victim feels about the ambient temperature, but about what is his actual body temperature will be.  You can feel cold, but still be warm to the touch.  As far as I understand, both &quot;cal(i)dus&quot; and &quot;frígidus&quot; can be applied to the temperature of water, for instance, and so should work for body temperature.  For completeness, I probably should have included it in my list." CreationDate="2022-01-30T19:31:30.187" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36920" PostId="17647" Score="1" Text="I now have changed my mind about the infinitive and think &quot;possum tradere&quot; is better than &quot;tradere possum&quot;.  Mando is stressing his abilities, not his action so: &quot;Vel calidum vel frīgidum tē possum tradere!&quot;  I have tried to edit my post accordingly." CreationDate="2022-01-30T20:03:02.523" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36950" PostId="17647" Score="0" Text="Wow, thank you so much for the explanation! As a native Spanish-speaker I tried syntactically arranging it similar to the spanish &quot;Te puedo traer frío o caliente&quot; but of course Latin doesn't work exactly the same as Spanish. Again; my appreciation!!  Have a great day." CreationDate="2022-01-31T20:24:40.070" UserId="10491" />
  <row Id="36974" PostId="17647" Score="0" Text="Your mention of the Spanish word &quot;traer&quot; raises another interesting point.  Is it a false friend of &quot;trado&quot; in this case? I know that &quot;traer&quot; translates &quot;bring,&quot; but is it enough to translate &quot;bring in&quot;?  It seems to me that &quot;bring in&quot; and &quot;trado&quot; refer to the second stage of what is to happen and &quot;traer&quot; only refers to the first stage and you would need a word like &quot;rendir&quot; to cover the ultimate result." CreationDate="2022-02-01T22:54:26.450" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36982" PostId="17649" Score="3" Text="I suspect that what you're hearing is still just Bervoets' attempt at a pitch accent, previously discussed [in your previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15150/changing-tones-in-classical-latin/). Bervoets is [wrongly convinced](https://www.stilus.nl/uitspraak-Latijn/index.htm#4) Classical Latin had a pitch accent rather than a stress accent." CreationDate="2022-02-02T16:10:40.197" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="37063" PostId="17649" Score="0" Text="If you listen to Thomas Bervoets reciting Ībis Liburnīs inter in my previous question, you will see that Bervoets knows how to do the pitch accent Here's the link to the recording! http://www.stilus.nl/horatius/HorEpod-1%20Ibis%20Liburnis%20inter.htm" CreationDate="2022-02-06T00:43:19.543" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="36913" PostId="17650" Score="0" Text="What little do we know about the delivery and intonational aspects of such poems? Before asking this question I presumed that the poems had the same delivery and intonational aspects that native Classical Latin speakers used! Wouldn't that make sense? Unless the delivery and intonational aspects that native Classical Latin speakers was different from the delivery and intonational aspects of such poems!" CreationDate="2022-01-30T18:04:10.733" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="36915" PostId="17650" Score="3" Text="We don't know if speakers paused at the end of all or any verse lines, and if so, how long was the pause?  Did they pause for caesuras?  In most varieties of Spanish, stressed syllables are said on a higher pitch; however, the last stressed syllable in a sentence is usually said with a drop in pitch from the previous level.  We don't know if such things applied to Latin.  Latin versification primarily takes into account syllable quantity, but also seems to care about word accents toward the ends of verse lines.  Did they mark the rhythm somehow in their speech, or did they just speak normally?" CreationDate="2022-01-30T18:55:17.140" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36916" PostId="17650" Score="4" Text="For an English comparison, read Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 (&quot;Shall I compare thee to a summer's day&quot;) .  The scansion suggests that each line contains five stressed syllables equally timed to the syllable-timed rhythm of the Italian that inspired Shakespeare's sonnet form.  Would you actually recite it that way for each line?  That rhythm feels artificial in modern English, and most people don't recite it that way.  Similarly, how can we know what Latin speakers did for Latin poetry based on Greek models?" CreationDate="2022-01-30T19:06:22.273" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36914" PostId="17651" Score="2" Text="&quot;Menander, bellis moribus, aeris assisbus II&quot; seems pretty euphemistc to me... by the way, I wonder if Nike used a nonstandard way to write Roman numerals, or increased her prices over time ;-)" CreationDate="2022-01-30T18:39:52.737" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="36918" PostId="17651" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I think it's obvious from the other examples that no pressure was felt to use euphemisms or avoid explicitness, and so I don't think the lack of mention of specific services should be interpreted in this manner.—There weren't standards as much as different writing conventions, and 4 is often spelled IIII, so I wouldn't read too much into this either. V for IIIII is a simplification that requires foresight; I've caught myself forgetting to do these sorts of convertions on many occasions." CreationDate="2022-01-30T19:17:13.477" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36923" PostId="17651" Score="4" Text="Your point about directness is important. However, although I could be wrong about this,  'For a good time, call [person x]' doesn't (necessarily?) mean that you'll have to pay for the sex; so I'm not sure that your examples are the best. I have an idea that there may be numerous graffiti of the type '[Person x] dat', where dat with no explicit dir. object. is equivalent to English 'puts out.' Certainly, such statements are found in Martial (e.g., Ep. 2.49: 'sed pueris dat Telesina.'). We also find graffiti like 'Narcissus fellator maximus' (CIL 4.1825a) that aren't overtly transactional." CreationDate="2022-01-30T23:00:38.963" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36927" PostId="17651" Score="0" Text="@cnread To me &quot;for a good time&quot; is reserved to sexual worker ads, and so I didn't think to mention non-transactional uses. But in such case the Plautus excerpt is a perfect correspondence and similar euphemisms can be used without reservation. I didn't think of *dare* possibility, but in [this collection](https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&amp;context=classicalstudies-faculty-publications) of 1113 inscriptions there's just one instance (.654). Might it have been too euphemistic? :-) Not in Russian, where this use is widespread." CreationDate="2022-01-30T23:49:28.053" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36933" PostId="17651" Score="4" Text="Interesting. All the 'For a good time, call...' graffiti that I've seen scrawled in men's bathroom stalls here in the U.S. were undoubtedly written by third parties as a way of demeaning specific women, in locations that are off limits to those women (therefore, they're powerless to do anything about the writing and, so the writer presumably imagines, will keep being harassed by calls from random men seeking sexual encounters). Certainly, I don't think anyone has ever – or at least not for many years – mistaken these as ads for sex workers. Perhaps the practice varies by region though." CreationDate="2022-01-31T04:36:24.933" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="36934" PostId="17651" Score="0" Text="@cnread This confirms my own impression - that the phrase is firmly associated with sex workers to the point of becoming little more than a bathroom stall insult. And I think every man reading it there understands this since no woman could have written it there. What this comes down to is that hardly anybody looking for a random, non-transactional sexual encounter would use the phrase that's a clichéd sex ad - which is also true of my Latin examples, and why I think they fit and are equivalent." CreationDate="2022-01-31T04:51:21.873" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36937" PostId="17651" Score="3" Text="Why is &quot;assibus&quot; being translated as &quot;pound&quot;? I know that at some point it weighed about as much as the measure (libra) that gave rise to the modern British pound, but it seems as if most people would think of the British pound before anything else. Not to mention that it has been some time since 2 to 5 pounds has been a going rate for sexual services. Why not &quot;bronze pieces&quot; instead (if they were made of bronze at that time) or just aes?" CreationDate="2022-01-31T08:40:06.950" UserId="3513" />
  <row Id="36953" PostId="17651" Score="0" Text="@Obie2.0 Both Latin and English use a single word to mean &quot;pound of weight&quot; and &quot;a unit of currency&quot;. In both languages the currency ended up being devalued way below a pound of copper. I express this parallel in my translation. I would prefer people think of the British pound and then have an a-ha moment than what they will think of were I to use the method of non-translation and write &quot;Maritimus licks pussy for 4 asses&quot; - even if I do love me some Monty Python. Currency depreciation isn't an abstacle to a translator, nor do historical writings convert historic pounds to modern ones." CreationDate="2022-02-01T06:23:33.027" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36954" PostId="17651" Score="1" Text="I do think &quot;copper pieces&quot; is a good option though, seeing as *ās (ass?)* also has the meaning of &quot;smallest unit&quot;. But then just saying &quot;copper&quot; is preferrable, and in both cases the aforemetioned parallel is entirely lost, and the back-translation becomes *aes* which was also used to mean &quot;copper coin&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-01T06:27:49.040" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36928" PostId="17652" Score="0" Text="You raise three interesting issues.  Can this quote from Perseus's John Conington, Commentary on Vergil's Aeneid, Volume 1 shed light on one:  &quot;Expediunt 1. 178. The meaning is simply that they get the pots boiled or get ready boiling water. The remainder of the line is from Enn. A. 3. fr. 8, “Tarcuini corpus bona femina lavit et unxit,” as Serv. remarks. ‘Frigentis corpus’ is more poetical than ‘mortui corpus’ or than ‘frigidum corpus.  ’http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0050%3Abook%3D6%3Acommline%3D219" CreationDate="2022-01-31T00:11:15.013" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36932" PostId="17652" Score="1" Text="I appreciate the comment, but I don't think either Servius' remark or Conington's addition is relevant ([the former mentions this passage 4 times](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=frigentis+%5BServ%5D)). The essence is that *corpus frīgidum = corpus frīgēns* but *homō frīgidus = homō īnsulsus, jeijūnus, ineptus.* Thus only *frīgēns* can mean *mortuus* both poetically and prosaically (outside maybe of some sort of criminal slang).—For a possible secondary problem with using the adjective [see this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8809/2389)." CreationDate="2022-01-31T04:28:33.540" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36960" PostId="17654" Score="0" Text="From what I recall, Vox Graeca is most informative about classical Attic pronunciation of the 5th and 4th century B.C., which is accepted as the standard for &quot;Classical Greek&quot;; however, the book does include much information about later sound changes and so is still somewhat useful for other periods.  It would not be as authoritative a source of pronunciation for someone specifically interested in Biblical Greek pronunciation and uninterested in earlier Greek." CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:27:41.187" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37214" PostId="17657" Score="0" Text="I came up with these translations: *Domine Deus benedicat eōrum spiritūs* or *Benedice, Domine Deus, eōrum spiritūs*. I am not sure whether one ought to do a prayer in the subjunctive, the former, or the imperative, the latter.You might also want to look at &quot;Benedicat tibi Dominus&quot; (let/may the lord bless you) from Ruth 2:4, although I don't know why the dative is used instead of the accusative." CreationDate="2022-02-14T23:29:08.407" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37013" PostId="17661" Score="0" Text="Have you consulted a standard dictionary? Nunc … nunc is explicitly addressed in L&amp;S and comparable works." CreationDate="2022-02-04T15:49:45.903" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37089" PostId="17661" Score="0" Text="I have The New College Dictionary and it's explanation is confusing to me when applied to the sentence I mentioned here." CreationDate="2022-02-08T17:15:22.590" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="36952" PostId="17663" Score="2" Text="I dunno, I don't buy the Z to alveolar approximant. I think Z to trill/flap makes much more sense to me." CreationDate="2022-02-01T03:34:10.750" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36959" PostId="17663" Score="2" Text="@cmw z &gt; ɹ just involves opening the closure a little, z &gt; r involves completely changing the articulation mechanism." CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:25:56.760" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="36961" PostId="17663" Score="1" Text="@Tristan I'm no phoneticist, so if you know of good research on this topic, feel free to share, but going from z &gt; ɹ involves a labial change, whereas z &gt; r doesn't. Painter's 2011 dissertation seems to argue for z &gt; r as well, though I haven't read it closely." CreationDate="2022-02-01T16:09:37.503" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="36966" PostId="17663" Score="2" Text="ɹ is not labialised. The English phoneme often transcribed as ɹ is, but ɹ as that symbol is actually defined has no labial element" CreationDate="2022-02-01T16:52:17.537" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="36979" PostId="17663" Score="3" Text="There are many examples of languages where the rhotacism z&gt;r occured, but I'm aware of no language for which it has been suggested that the main allophone had to pass through an approximant stage like in English. Sardinian is an example of a language where /s/ is realised as [r] before voiced consonants, and it has no approximant allophone at all. The rhotic phoneme is notorious for admitting of allophony, including fricative and approximant realisations, especially in the coda position or in gemination (Turkish, Egyptian Arabic, Sicilian), and this is clearly the simpler explanation." CreationDate="2022-02-02T09:09:55.027" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="36984" PostId="17663" Score="2" Text="I agree with @Unbrutal_Russian -- rhotacism doesn't require an English-style approximant rhotic (if it did, it would be much less common). [z] &gt; [ɾ] (i.e. to flap not trill) seems like an easy articulatory change -- basically you're just shortening the duration of alveolar constriction until you're tapping it." CreationDate="2022-02-02T18:17:57.010" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37023" PostId="17663" Score="1" Text="@Tristan My mistake then. What I had read indicated that ɹ was essential the English r. Do you have a better read?" CreationDate="2022-02-04T19:20:49.483" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37079" PostId="17663" Score="1" Text="@cmw the international phonetic association (the body which defines the IPA) has a handbook on their website: https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/handbook-ipa" CreationDate="2022-02-07T09:23:27.260" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="37090" PostId="17663" Score="1" Text="@cmw One must recall that IPA symbols are shorthands for phonetic descriptions. **ɹ** stands for &quot;Voiced alveolar or postalveolar approximant&quot;. Notice there's no mention of labialisation, which would be a secondary articulation indicated as **ɹʷ.** The degree and even presence of this labialisation varies between accents and position (syllable final isnt labialised in GAE). If you're from GB, your rhotic might not be that at all but **ɹ͡ʋ** or even just **ʋ** (stereotypical in Cockney but now a widespread feature in Estuary accents). That's a labiodental approximant." CreationDate="2022-02-08T17:18:13.047" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37091" PostId="17663" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I've seen ɹ used to transcribe the American r in words like &quot;[rhotic](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rhotic).&quot; To pronounce this word, you have to move your lips. If there is no lip movement with ɹ, then ɹ can't transcribe &quot;rhotic.&quot; Hence my confusion. I'm not sure what I'm missing here." CreationDate="2022-02-08T17:33:33.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37092" PostId="17663" Score="1" Text="@cmw It can transcribe it if the transcription is phonemic instead of phonetic; and also if the transcription is phonetic but the author isn't going for complete accuracy. IPA is a flexible system used with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the need. Much of the time its transcriptions aren't as accurate as it theoretically allows them to be. But even the most accurate ones are still extremely inaccurate in absolute terms - just look at all the empty space between the vowels in the IPA trapezoid. Linguists paint circles around those vowels and lump it all under the same transcription." CreationDate="2022-02-08T17:48:13.307" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37093" PostId="17663" Score="1" Text="@cmw Another way to answer. What you say may be true for physiological reasons: *ɹ = &quot;voiced alv...&quot;* and *all initial ɹ are necessarily labialised.* Or it can be true because all initial ɹ's are labialised in your variety. In the former case the transcription is sufficient; in the latter case it's only your variety that it can't transcribe if the aim of the transcription is to be as accurate as possible. Outside of this it can.—Also in the former case no change in labiality is involved in z&gt;ɹ (except trivially) since labiality is an automatic feature of every ɹ." CreationDate="2022-02-08T18:02:34.173" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="40437" PostId="17663" Score="0" Text="What did Persius say about littera canīna?" CreationDate="2022-11-13T20:46:55.360" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="36958" PostId="17664" Score="3" Text="I'm sure the fact that Lucian also works as a derivative of Luke's own name doesn't hurt when it comes to his advocacy for it :p" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:20:04.260" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="36972" PostId="17664" Score="0" Text="I also had my suspicions" CreationDate="2022-02-01T21:55:29.053" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36985" PostId="17664" Score="1" Text="Shouldn't a pronunciation inspired by Lucian be called the &quot;Lucianian pronunciation,&quot; miror..." CreationDate="2022-02-02T22:13:22.800" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40441" PostId="17664" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel All the reason to distrust it!" CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:24:47.750" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40663" PostId="17664" Score="0" Text="This idea of trying to choose a version which is &quot;not offensive&quot; to your average Greek person is ludicrous. Personally I'm trying to get the 5th century BC Attica pronunciation, replete with aspirated (not fricative) φ, θ and χ, and as close a stab as possible at the accentuation. Linguistics, like all areas of human knowledge, just gets better and better, and there's no reason we should stick with Allen's miserable advice to forget about accentuation (in *Vox Graeca*): it was clearly part of the spirit of the language, and to disregard it is surely a desecration." CreationDate="2022-12-16T19:47:14.750" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="36957" PostId="17666" Score="1" Text="There is a brief discussion of whether ancient soldiers suffered PTSD here: https://acoup.blog/2020/04/24/fireside-friday-april-24-2020/. This review discusses the story of how PTSD became recognised as a condition, which you might find interesting: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/12/book-review-the-body-keeps-the-score/" CreationDate="2022-02-01T14:58:18.257" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="36963" PostId="17666" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9: Both. Some psychologists opine that PTSD is a &quot;new&quot; phenomenon (circa 19th. Century); difficult to believe. The one question begets the other. Did the Romans suffer PTSD; if so what might they have called it? It may be the case is that generations of victims probably did not wish to discuss it, let alone give it a name." CreationDate="2022-02-01T16:23:38.497" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="36964" PostId="17667" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! It's good to question Google Translator as it historically has not been great at translating to and from Latin. What meaning to you want to convey with the phrase? Understanding that can affect which vocabulary best captures the meaning you want." CreationDate="2022-02-01T16:27:01.390" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="36965" PostId="17667" Score="1" Text="@Adam thank you for your response: I updated my question." CreationDate="2022-02-01T16:37:48.320" UserId="10738" />
  <row Id="36973" PostId="17667" Score="0" Text="*Repugnare* does indeed mean &quot;to be contradictory, inconsistent, incompatible&quot; (and so does the English word [repugnant](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repugnant)!), so *repugnantia* is probably not a bad choice. The problem with *contradictio* is that it means &quot;objection, counter-argument&quot; (but then so does the English word [contradiction](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction), but that's not the intended meaning here)." CreationDate="2022-02-01T22:12:46.867" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37026" PostId="17674" Score="1" Text="The distribution of sounds in Spanish is also a little screwy.  There is a morpheme /rr/ that contrasts with /r/ medially between vowels, but word initially, only /rr/ can appear and preconsonantally, either can appear optionally in the same word without any difference in meaning." CreationDate="2022-02-04T20:23:08.577" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37027" PostId="17674" Score="1" Text="Brazilian Portuguese is even screwier than Spanish.  It has the same phonemic differences as Spanish, but both /r/ and /rr/ have a dazzling number of alternative pronunciation based on dialect and position in the word, ranging over [r] , [ɾ], [ɹ̠], [χ], [h] or complete deletion." CreationDate="2022-02-04T20:35:44.683" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37030" PostId="17674" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher: Yes, Spanish has a distinction, although the behavior of Spanish -r- and -rr- is different from in Latin since adding a vowel-final prefix to an r-initial word in Spanish creates intervocalic -rr- while in Latin it creates intervocalic -r-" CreationDate="2022-02-04T20:49:33.807" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37032" PostId="17674" Score="1" Text="I think I know what you mean, but am not sure.  I would say that initial &quot;r&quot; in Spanish and Portuguese is spelled &quot;r,&quot; but always represents /rr/ (Adding a prefixed vowel just changes the spelling rules to double the letter, but does not change the pronunciation.  Something similar happens in Greek with initial &quot;r&quot; (ῥ), which after a vowel prefix turns into &quot;double&quot; ῤῥ as a spelling change, but perhaps not as a change in pronunciation.  I think in Italian, initial &quot;r&quot; always represents /r/, but am not as sure about Latin because of spelling conventions.  Could you give an unambiguous example?" CreationDate="2022-02-04T21:09:07.070" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37035" PostId="17674" Score="2" Text="@Vegawatcher: e.g. Spanish has *prerromano*, where the consonant after the prefix is spelled with  &quot;rr&quot; and pronounced with the same sound as the morpheme-internal &quot;rr&quot; in *tierra,*, whereas Latin has *derogat*, where the consonant after the prefix is spelled with single &quot;r&quot; and presumably pronounced differently from the morpheme-internal &quot;rr&quot; in Latin *terra.*" CreationDate="2022-02-04T21:22:34.840" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37036" PostId="17674" Score="1" Text="That example seems like strong evidence, but could represent a spelling tradition dating from when consonants were never doubled in spelling.  Could you or anyone else confirm that in Italian or another Romance language a derivative of &quot;dērogō&quot; could be pronounced only with a flap &quot;r&quot; and never with a trilled &quot;r&quot;?  I am still confused about how the morphemes and doubled morphemes line up in Romance languages and in Latin." CreationDate="2022-02-04T21:28:01.190" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37037" PostId="17674" Score="3" Text="@Vegawatcher: Another line of evidence for Latin pronunciation of &quot;r&quot; is scansion. There are lots of examples of a word-final short vowel before word-initial &quot;r&quot; scanning as a short syllable; it's harder to give examples word-internally since no monosyllabic prepositional prefix ends in a short vowel, but there are a couple of *bi-*prefixed words (biremis, birotus) and some compounds (semirasus, semireductus) where the intervocalic r should also show the same metrical behavior. I don't know how Romance lines up" CreationDate="2022-02-04T21:35:21.790" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37040" PostId="17674" Score="1" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/133864/discussion-between-vegawatcher-and-asteroides)." CreationDate="2022-02-04T22:28:51.260" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36988" PostId="17677" Score="0" Text="Thank you!  Could I ask you how you would translate it (up to carta man. Rodulfi)?  I think it is saying Borgo Santi Apostoli (a neighborhood) was destroyed and as a remedy Bishop Raniero (something something) near the church of Santi Apostoli?  Or should I put this in a new question?" CreationDate="2022-02-03T09:31:30.163" UserId="10743" />
  <row Id="36992" PostId="17677" Score="0" Text="The phrase is “pro remedio”" CreationDate="2022-02-03T16:59:40.083" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="36986" PostId="17678" Score="1" Text="+1! Thanks for this account based on Klein et al. (2001). As for Vmanner-Vresult compounds in Chinese, I recommend you Huang's (2006) work (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3353765/Huang_Resultatives.pdf) and, more particularly, Fan's (2014): see chap. 4 of https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/661950/fan_sheng_yang.pdf;sequence=1 Fan (2014) &amp; Acedo-Matellán (2010) (http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/42060/1/VAM_PhD_THESIS.pdf ) deal with Talmy's typology of motion events, which I consider fundamental to solve why Latin lacks complex resultative constructions." CreationDate="2022-02-03T02:21:26.053" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="36995" PostId="17678" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the references.  I am only a &quot;self-taught linguistic&quot; through exposure to a wide variety of languages and language families and so reading some of these works may be slow going with all the jargon and assumed knowledge of other linguistic frameworks.  I'll try to spend some time digesting them, since I am quite interested in the Latin, Chinese, and Spanish." CreationDate="2022-02-03T21:27:07.507" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="36999" PostId="17678" Score="1" Text="These three languages are very useful when studying Talmy's famous typology of lexicalization patterns (https://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/lexpat15.pdf ): Latin is a weak satellite-framed language (see Acedo-Matellán's work above), Chinese is a strong satellite-framed one (see Fan's work above; see also https://benjamins.com/catalog/cogls.3.2.03fon), and Spanish is a verb-framed one (NB: Spanish is taken by Talmy as a prototypical example of this class). These three languages offer different semantic construals of space &amp; aspect. So you made a very good choice!" CreationDate="2022-02-03T22:04:00.430" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37006" PostId="17678" Score="0" Text="I really enjoyed the insights of your answer, just like I enjoyed Mitomino's postings on this topic; I have only one question: *vacuafacio* ??))" CreationDate="2022-02-04T05:34:25.477" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37007" PostId="17678" Score="0" Text="I assume you are pointing out that vacuafacio doesn’t exist. I meant vacuefacio with an “e.”  My typing and editing is not always first rate, and I am only just now beginning to master typing in Chinese and typing Latin with the occasional macron or apex without having to go through Māori.  I’ll edit the typo accordingly." CreationDate="2022-02-04T10:11:30.777" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37011" PostId="17678" Score="0" Text="Even without the typo that this verb exists is news to me - I didn't think to search for that form. Having never seen it, I thought such a verb could only mean &quot;to render void of contents&quot; - you seem to have been trying to translate &quot;to leave empty&quot;, whose Latin in the OP is given as *inānem relinquere.* I also thought that *vacāre* could be used transitively (it cant) so was confused by your choice of verb. However I now see that it's apparently found in the same Cicero passage referring to *subsellia* - even though there's a chance it's a corruption and he originally wrote *vacua facta*." CreationDate="2022-02-04T12:41:50.850" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37076" PostId="17678" Score="0" Text="I think I've figured out why *subsellia vacuēfacere* sounds bad to me - these verbs are all terminative, telic causatives, or the Achievement Aktionsart, generally existing in relation to stative verbs (in this case *vacāre*). Thus *vacuēfacere* &quot;to bring to the state of being empty&quot; like *fervēfacere* &quot;to bring to a state of boiling&quot;. This necessarily involves a voluntary Agent role. Therefore *subsellia vacuēfacta* means &quot;emptied, vacated etc. seats&quot; like *domus vacuēfacta* &quot;a vacated house&quot; - the empty state of the house is the terminative goal." CreationDate="2022-02-07T08:31:26.783" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37078" PostId="17678" Score="0" Text="What makes the reading *vacuēfacta* possible, and even preferrable is the fact that an agent is actually present, though a metaphorical one *adventū tuō,* so there's a sort of anthropomorphism going on - &quot;your coming has emptied these seats&quot;. With *vacua facta* it would have to be a very awkward ablative absolute." CreationDate="2022-02-07T08:47:29.173" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37001" PostId="17680" Score="3" Text="I'm not at all sure there really are -as plurals attested in OL. Sihler says there are but gives no details, while all the other sources I've found -- Weiss, Palmer, and especially a recent comprehensive study by Galdi (&quot;Again on as-nominatives:&#xA;A New Approach to the Problem&quot;, in *Variation and Change in Greek and Latin*, ed. Martti Leiwo et al. 2012) -- say these forms aren't attested before the 1C BC." CreationDate="2022-02-03T23:38:56.730" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37005" PostId="17680" Score="3" Text="Digging a bit further, apparently there's one possible Old Latin example (if it isn't corrupt): Cat. Agr. 134.1 priusquam hasce fruges condantur. Not sure if Galdi mentions it." CreationDate="2022-02-04T03:50:16.167" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40664" PostId="17681" Score="0" Text="Thanks for bringing this one up. I see versions of it start from about £37 (new or secondhand) ... but then again it is (currently) Christmas: maybe I should treat myself.  Do you happen to know if they concentrate primarily on a particular time and location (e.g. 5th century BC Attica)?" CreationDate="2022-12-16T19:54:53.423" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="36990" PostId="17682" Score="1" Text="ἔρδω did originally have a digamma at the front, so it's not inherently surprising to see rough breathing there." CreationDate="2022-02-03T14:14:35.713" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="36991" PostId="17682" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon: That's interesting, thanks. Could you explain more? I didn't know that there was any connection between digamma and rough breathing, and I would have thought that this sort of thing would be deterministic rather than producing one weird form in certain manuscripts." CreationDate="2022-02-03T14:36:47.473" UserId="10749" />
  <row Id="36993" PostId="17682" Score="0" Text="Rough breathing resulting from the disappearance of \*w before a vowel at the start of a word is less common than with \*s, but it does happen, as in e.g. ἑστία, ἑκών, ὁράω, &amp;c. There are a lot of conceivable explanations for why a one-off form might show up, especially in Epic Greek, but my money in this case is actually on some kind of transmission error." CreationDate="2022-02-03T19:04:05.880" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="36996" PostId="17683" Score="1" Text="I assume that some forms must come from sedeo, but couldn't there be some contamination from the Latin subjunctive/optative forms of sum?  I had frankly assumed that &quot;sia&quot; and &quot;sit&quot; were related without really considering the issue." CreationDate="2022-02-03T21:36:07.320" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37000" PostId="17683" Score="0" Text="Maybe, they were similar enough. Although that could be a reason for sedeo to supplant rather than be conflated or contaminated." CreationDate="2022-02-03T22:13:48.087" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="36994" PostId="17684" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that's very clear and helpful. Because I don't have rep, I can accept but not upvote." CreationDate="2022-02-03T19:50:28.620" UserId="10749" />
  <row Id="37002" PostId="17685" Score="2" Text="Thanks but I'm more interested in whether or not he literally says '10' but means '10,000', as we do in English when I say that a certain car costs 15 when I mean 15,000" CreationDate="2022-02-03T23:49:11.957" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37004" PostId="17685" Score="0" Text="I personally would never use that idiom in English and don't remember hearing it outside of the talk of subcultures on TV.    I would more readily accept something like 15 G's  or 15 big ones to mean 15,000.  I also seem to recall that in countries where the value of the base currency is so low that everyday items cost thousands of the basic unit, people often refer to money with the thousands understood." CreationDate="2022-02-03T23:57:32.807" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37012" PostId="17685" Score="2" Text="The idiom is used all the time.  Just Google &quot;I paid 20 for it&quot;.  Here's an example https://www.cherokeesrt8.com/threads/has-anyone-sold-their-jeep-outright-to-carmax.66393/" CreationDate="2022-02-04T12:44:05.807" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37016" PostId="17685" Score="0" Text="Your link has examples that usually say things like 20k, not the number alone.  The reference to &quot;I paid 20 for it&quot; only comes after referring to &quot;22 k&quot; and so is justified as ellipsis." CreationDate="2022-02-04T16:53:37.020" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37041" PostId="17685" Score="1" Text="You misunderstood what I said.  I did not say that &quot;you can utter I paid 20 for it and mean 20,000 without giving the listener context,&quot; rather what I said was that such and such costs x number of dollars and the 'thousand' part can be left off.  The fact that it is an ellipsis proves my point." CreationDate="2022-02-04T23:36:06.360" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37042" PostId="17685" Score="2" Text="It's also true that usually people do say 20k or 20 dollars but that is because the Google search engine does not exactly search for the characters 'I paid 20 for it' but does near matching.  My assertion therefore stands that 20,000 can be expressed as 20 without harm to understanding." CreationDate="2022-02-04T23:37:44.553" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37014" PostId="17687" Score="0" Text="Do you have a link to the full manuscript?" CreationDate="2022-02-04T16:46:09.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37015" PostId="17687" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yes! Will add the link to the question." CreationDate="2022-02-04T16:51:44.003" UserId="10743" />
  <row Id="37020" PostId="17689" Score="2" Text="Perhaps the semantic value of ponere is more “to cause x to be located in place y” rather than “move x into place y.” Look at insula … in mari posita. In that usage, there’s no notion of movement at all, only location." CreationDate="2022-02-04T19:03:19.720" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37022" PostId="17689" Score="1" Text="As for your comment on an alleged &quot;lack of logic&quot; (&quot;I find it frankly embarrassing (...) that many expressions in Romance languages express place with some form of _ad_ plus a noun that is a descendant of a form with the accusative case (...)&quot;), some scholars like Antonio Fábregas (https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/110/103 ) have argued that, despite appearances, the Sp. preposition &quot;a&quot; in directional contexts like Sp. _correr a la casa_ (e.g. see ex. (52) on page 189) in the link above) encodes location (place) but not directionality (path). So Sp. dir. &quot;a&quot; is not &quot;to&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-04T19:19:05.943" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37024" PostId="17689" Score="1" Text="Cf. also the ambiguity shown in _John ran in the room_ (locative AND directional), compared to that in _John danced in the room_ (only locative). Run-verbs are directional manner verbs, compared to dance-verbs, which are non-directional manner ones.  As for related constructions like the ones discussed by you &amp; Kingshorsey (e.g. _quī in sēde ac domō collocāvit_), I’d recommend you the following work by Gehrke (2007) https://www.academia.edu/1224158/Putting_path_in_place." CreationDate="2022-02-04T19:20:53.260" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37025" PostId="17689" Score="0" Text="&quot;Some scholars like Antonio Fábregas  have argued that, despite appearances, the Sp. preposition &quot;a&quot; in directional contexts like Sp. correr a la casa...encodes location (place) but not directionality (path). So Sp. dir. 'a' is not 'to'.&quot;  That is an interesting idea.  There is also the issue that in some dialects (as in the one I try to mimic), I must say &quot;entrar a la casa&quot; for &quot;enter the house&quot; and &quot;quedar en la casa&quot; for &quot;staying in the house, using &quot;a&quot; or &quot;en&quot; according to whether the accompanying verb is a verb of movement or not.  I learned not to say &quot;entrar en la casa.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-04T20:03:31.693" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37029" PostId="17689" Score="0" Text="Nota bene: sub noctem does not mean nocte (during the night), it means &quot;around nightfall.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-04T20:43:50.813" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37031" PostId="17689" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher &quot;entrar en la casa&quot; is Peninsular Spanish, whereas you'll typically hear &quot;entrar a la casa&quot; in Latin America (e.g. the variant of Spanish used by Len Talmy in his characterization of Spanish as a v-framed language: &quot;entró **a** la cueva (flotando)&quot;)." CreationDate="2022-02-04T20:57:32.017" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37034" PostId="17689" Score="0" Text="That makes his hypothesis clearer.  I guess &quot;entrar&quot; might invoke the idea I mentioned of a contact between points, like &quot;al punto de dormirse,&quot; (&quot;at the point of falling asleep&quot;) which does not necessitate an idea of movement.  In either case, this is even better evidence that something is wrong with our core idea of the Latin accusative with prepositions.  I remember being stunned to learn that &quot;ad&quot; required the accusative in meanings like &quot;Hannibal ad portās!&quot; after first studying French and Spanish." CreationDate="2022-02-04T21:15:56.880" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37065" PostId="17689" Score="0" Text="I don't understand what you mean with &quot;In Russian, you have a still viable accusative case used with nouns&quot;. As to the second part of that sentence, the Russian Locative/Prepositional has merged into the Ablative in Latin, and about the same set of prepositions don't show the movement/location contrast in Russian as in Latin - so there's a perfect correspondence. The only difference is that Latin defaults to the Acc. where Russian defaults to the Loc. in these. The reason must be that the Abl. is already the most overused, most marked case in that language; the Russian Loc. is the most limited" CreationDate="2022-02-06T06:29:17.630" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37017" PostId="17690" Score="1" Text="Brilliant! Thank you!" CreationDate="2022-02-04T17:27:37.480" UserId="10743" />
  <row Id="37033" PostId="17690" Score="0" Text="Remember Durante is the name Dante Alighieri was baptised with." CreationDate="2022-02-04T21:13:31.333" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="37039" PostId="17690" Score="0" Text="Excellent response and interesting fact about Dante.  If I may ask a minor point, what day is meant by the &quot;5th day of the Kalends of May) (quīntā Kalendīs Maiī).  Does it mean the fifth day after the Kalends of May and therefore May 5th, or does it mean the fourth day before as in classical practice.  Or is there some aspect of  &quot;inclusive&quot; counting that is also throwing me off?" CreationDate="2022-02-04T21:39:04.283" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37044" PostId="17690" Score="0" Text="Good work! [_indictio_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=indict%C4%ADo&amp;la=la&amp;can=indict%C4%ADo0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=indictio&amp;i=1#lexicon) means &quot;[a] declaration&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-05T10:29:43.737" UserId="10759" />
  <row Id="37048" PostId="17690" Score="0" Text="@JesseBerry That's the usual classical meaning, but it has other pretty specific meanings later on, including simply &quot;a tax.&quot; In the entry I linked, look at the part beginning after *Constantinopolitana indictio*, which notes that the same usage occurred in Milan and Florence and gives some examples with dates. Unfortunately, I'm having a tough time figuring out what it means even with that context." CreationDate="2022-02-05T13:58:46.370" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37049" PostId="17690" Score="0" Text="@JesseBerry Actually, now that I look at the L&amp;S entry--it mentions a meaning of &quot;a space of 15 years.&quot; Perhaps it's a (redundant?) way of referring to a time-period, much like we could refer to a decade." CreationDate="2022-02-05T14:02:02.390" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37056" PostId="17690" Score="0" Text="Indictions are generally cycles of 15 years each, frequently used in dates, most especially in ecclesiastical documents. The number generally means &quot;the xth year of the (current) indiction&quot;. I think they were somewhat related to tax periods, which is why they were useful: people, and especially governments, would always know how many years it was since the last taxation." CreationDate="2022-02-05T21:44:06.103" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37050" PostId="17692" Score="1" Text="Minor note: There's no way to deduce all the forms of ferre, velle and ire by adding the second singular. There will still be irregularities." CreationDate="2022-02-05T14:11:28.740" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37070" PostId="17692" Score="0" Text="Good point, but then it would at least warn you that these verbs were irregular." CreationDate="2022-02-06T20:13:24.750" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37051" PostId="17693" Score="2" Text="The only difference between your two suggestions is the *est*, which can be left out, though in this particular phrase I would keep it in. But if you want better and more accurate answers, can you clarify what exactly you're looking for? What meaning do you want to get across? What context will this be used? You can edit the question to include additional information." CreationDate="2022-02-05T14:26:26.763" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37045" PostId="17694" Score="0" Text="Thank u for your answer! What if I want it not-so-religious, is ”non est malus” just ”there is no one bad”?" CreationDate="2022-02-05T11:52:51.173" UserId="10758" />
  <row Id="37046" PostId="17694" Score="0" Text="I believe the word _quisquam_ is added just to emphasize that there are no exceptions. It might also be translated &quot;There is no one at all...&quot; So, yes, you could leave it out if you want." CreationDate="2022-02-05T12:33:28.637" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="37047" PostId="17694" Score="0" Text="Okay, thank you very much, you helped a lot!" CreationDate="2022-02-05T13:58:21.277" UserId="10758" />
  <row Id="37052" PostId="17694" Score="2" Text="@user10758 To me a mere *non est malus* sounds like &quot;he is not bad&quot; or &quot;it is not an appletree&quot;. You should have a pronoun of some sort." CreationDate="2022-02-05T14:33:57.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37053" PostId="17694" Score="0" Text="Thank u for answering! Do you have a suggestion on how you would translate something like ”no one is bad”?" CreationDate="2022-02-05T14:43:23.647" UserId="10758" />
  <row Id="37064" PostId="17694" Score="0" Text="@user10758: I think *nemo* is fine; perhaps you just forgot that word in your comment here?" CreationDate="2022-02-06T04:53:42.520" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37081" PostId="17694" Score="0" Text="I would guess the translation in classical style would be: Malus est nemo, which seems to imply a reversal of expectations that matches the original question." CreationDate="2022-02-07T20:22:13.927" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37055" PostId="17695" Score="0" Text="I think the distinction you draw makes sense given the semantics of aorist vs. present, though there may be cases that are harder to account for in this way (e.g. Plato *Apology* 20e μὴ θορυβήσητε). In your first example BTW I don't think εἰπὲ  means &quot;bring us up to speed&quot; but rather &quot;tell the whole story&quot;. In #8 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή is a fixed expression which always takes the present imperative. (Also, terminologically I've never heard of an &quot;imperfect imperative&quot; in Greek -- the standard term is present imperative, likewise stem, infinitive etc.)" CreationDate="2022-02-05T21:14:44.623" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37057" PostId="17695" Score="0" Text="You're right about the terminology.  Even &quot;imperfective&quot; would have been better if I were going down that road.  I'll edit my answer.  As for μὴ θορυβήσητε, it reminds me of Matthew 3:9 μὴ δόξητε.  I think of both as saying &quot;don't get into such and such a state or have that result, i.e., &quot;don't start making an uproar&quot; or &quot;don't adopt the belief,&quot; respectively, as opposed to Luke 2:10 μὴ φοβεῖσθε &quot;Don't stand around afraid,&quot; which is like μή μ᾽ ἐρέθιζε. The first forms presuppose entering a new state (whether true or not); the latter, stopping a current state already begun." CreationDate="2022-02-05T22:58:46.507" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37058" PostId="17695" Score="0" Text="As for, ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή, wouldn't the analysis be the same whether or not it is a fixed expression?  I am assuming it can never express an &quot;aorist&quot; nuance.  The particles I do wonder about are δεῦρο and δεῦτε,, since I could not immediately discern if they carried any specific implication of aspect." CreationDate="2022-02-05T23:20:12.383" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37059" PostId="17695" Score="0" Text="I'm doubtful about reading μὴ θορυβήσητε with an inchoative sense. With epistemic verbs it makes sense to think of &quot;adopting a belief&quot; or &quot;realizing something&quot; as complete acts in themselves, but that doesn't really work for &quot;start making an uproar&quot; (if anything, the imperfect is what gets used for such inchoative meanings). But maybe the intended sense is something like &quot;don't shout me down&quot;, which is perfective in a different way." CreationDate="2022-02-05T23:23:07.620" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37060" PostId="17695" Score="0" Text="I don't think δεῦρο and δεῦτε can be said to have aspect at all, since they're not true verb forms. ἄγε &quot;come on&quot; is followed equally freely by present and aorist forms; its aspect meaning seems to have been bleached out of it." CreationDate="2022-02-05T23:37:40.157" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37054" PostId="17697" Score="1" Text="Very much related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/466/what-did-romans-call-their-language" CreationDate="2022-02-05T19:13:33.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37071" PostId="17697" Score="3" Text="Wouldn't they just call it Latin or use the same terms as the elite until they needed to specify the regional speech standard they were using to account for serious divergences in dialect?" CreationDate="2022-02-06T20:16:30.527" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37427" PostId="17697" Score="1" Text="Just came across an article in which you might be interested: https://latinitium.com/what-is-vulgar-latin/" CreationDate="2022-02-25T23:23:14.720" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37066" PostId="17698" Score="5" Text="Google Translate gave you gibberish. It is very bad for Latin, and here it does not produce a grammatical complete sentence. **videre** is the present active infinitive of [video](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/video#Latin), so, literally, &quot;to see.&quot; **mundum** is the accusative singular of [mundus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mundus#Latin), in this context &quot;world; universe.&quot; These words are not combined in a way that would make sense as a sentence; you'd have to conjugate the verb for it to do so." CreationDate="2022-02-06T14:17:25.440" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="37067" PostId="17698" Score="2" Text="`*I` at the front is not Latin at all, if it is supposed to be a word; the machine seems to be either (a) mistakenly treating it as an untranslated proper name, or possibly (b) mistakenly treating it as the Roman *numeral* I, i.e., 1 -- for reasons that I'm sure make sense inside a patchy computer model but don't make sense to me. Latin for &quot;I,&quot; the speaker (1st person pronoun in nominative singular), is [ego](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ego#Latin), but you usually wouldn't use this pronoun explicitly in a sentence if it is clear from the conjugation of the verb." CreationDate="2022-02-06T14:23:32.960" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="37069" PostId="17698" Score="4" Text="When I put &quot;I see the world into Google Translate, I get &quot;video mundum,&quot; which is a valid response, but not the most typical order of the words used in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2022-02-06T14:53:29.753" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37082" PostId="17703" Score="3" Text="Note that Psalms has &quot;quare me dereliquisti?&quot; instead." CreationDate="2022-02-08T05:33:45.387" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37084" PostId="17704" Score="1" Text="What does &quot;Quare id faciam fortasse requiris.&quot; mean? &quot;Maybe you are asking me why I did that.&quot;, or?" CreationDate="2022-02-08T10:56:38.773" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="37085" PostId="17704" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler yes https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_85" CreationDate="2022-02-08T13:22:28.500" UserId="652" />
  <row Id="37096" PostId="17704" Score="4" Text="Actually the Hebrew is more literally translated as &quot;for what&quot; or &quot;to what&quot;.  Despite it being only 3 letters, it is a compound word לָ = &quot;for&quot; +  מָ֣ה = what.   I think &quot;ut quid&quot; seems a more fitting translation than &quot;quare&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-09T01:52:09.483" UserId="10770" />
  <row Id="37097" PostId="17704" Score="2" Text="@JoelFan &quot;For what&quot; = &quot;why&quot; anyway. But *ut quid* isn't *quite* the same. *Ut quid* isn't an idiomatic way to express &quot;why&quot; in Latin. Jerome is just being overly literal in both places." CreationDate="2022-02-09T02:12:41.607" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37100" PostId="17704" Score="0" Text="‘Overly literal’ is a qualitative assessment of his chosen translation, but without considering whether that was consciously chosen, is it not? Translation is after all generally done in one out of three ways: Either as close to the original phrasing and syntax as possible, for the explicit purpose of reflecting that in the translation; or reinterpreted in the target language to optimise flow and permit a natural reading experience for those not fluent in the original language (e.g. The Lord of the Rings); or some un-/conscious in-between." CreationDate="2022-02-09T09:49:29.250" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37359" PostId="17705" Score="0" Text="You might be interested in this: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12628/did-roman-troops-suffer-from-ptsd" CreationDate="2022-02-21T23:11:16.680" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37086" PostId="17706" Score="4" Text="&quot;Best&quot; is subjective, but also really depends on the context. How will it be used? To whom will it be applied? What did that person do to earn that name? These questions are actually critical here precisely because there are so many words from which you can choose." CreationDate="2022-02-08T16:52:11.403" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37088" PostId="17706" Score="0" Text="Vastātor is another option.  You might also consider the present participle of a common verb, if you are talking about a particular situation: &quot;the one destroying.&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-08T17:14:33.123" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37094" PostId="17706" Score="0" Text="Good call, @cmw. The usage in this case is to describe the sun, which can give life but is also a destroyer of life." CreationDate="2022-02-08T18:20:16.280" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40247" PostId="17706" Score="0" Text="That comment should have gone in the body of the question, to prevent answers that do not fit the question." CreationDate="2022-11-01T14:52:28.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40257" PostId="17706" Score="0" Text="Good call. I updated the question." CreationDate="2022-11-02T00:46:12.817" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37098" PostId="17707" Score="0" Text="Can you explain any more on the Finnish sisu and how it might differ from e.g. perserverance?" CreationDate="2022-02-09T05:15:14.550" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37099" PostId="17707" Score="0" Text="As I understand it, though I am sure @JoonasIlmavirta can chip in, there is to _sisu_ a foundational understanding of _acting out the very idea of being Finnish_, amongst others due to the very rough winters and otherwise quite harsh climatic conditions in Finland." CreationDate="2022-02-09T09:27:07.850" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37104" PostId="17708" Score="1" Text="Is `deletor` a noun form of the verb, or a future passive imperative (or both)?" CreationDate="2022-02-09T13:38:21.213" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37108" PostId="17708" Score="0" Text="@Adam It is both." CreationDate="2022-02-09T17:31:44.380" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="37112" PostId="17708" Score="2" Text="Latin has [surprisingly many verbs](https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh6851) for &quot;destroy,&quot; actually." CreationDate="2022-02-09T20:49:19.597" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37113" PostId="17710" Score="0" Text="The underlying idea in the first chart is good, but doesn't account for other sound changes that occurred. *An Introduction to Ancient Greek*, by C. A. E.  Lusching, p 32, puts it this way: &quot;Note that the thematic vowel has been absorbed in the long endings, -ω, -εις, -ει, -ουσι.  Otherwise it can be seen quite clearly as an element used to join the endings to the stem.&#xA;&#xA;This explanation is a compromise approach.   He is saying: &quot;for endings starting with long vowels, just memorize them; but for endings beginning with short vowels, here is a pattern you can use and that may help later." CreationDate="2022-02-09T21:27:08.020" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37105" PostId="17711" Score="0" Text="Does that mean there was an older form where the expected form vowel existed?" CreationDate="2022-02-09T13:53:51.750" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37106" PostId="17711" Score="0" Text="The expected thematic vowel exists in all these forms except for 1st sing, where it is swallowed by the following ending." CreationDate="2022-02-09T13:56:42.367" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="37109" PostId="17712" Score="0" Text="Doric actually has -onti in 3rd pl. present active, even in &quot;Classical times&quot; (whatever that means)." CreationDate="2022-02-09T18:31:03.447" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="37110" PostId="17712" Score="0" Text="@fdb Fair, I should clarify that I mean in Attic there (and also Ionic and Aeolic I suppose). By &quot;Classical times&quot; I mean broadly the period from the introduction of alphabetic writing to, say the first couple centuries or so—the period that most &quot;ancient Greek&quot; literature comes from." CreationDate="2022-02-09T18:44:28.127" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37111" PostId="17715" Score="1" Text="I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder if this being Homeric complicates things. Since the accents are Alexandrian, who know if epic poetry hundreds of years earlier kept the circumflex or even pronounced it short (despite the meter)?" CreationDate="2022-02-09T20:28:17.587" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37114" PostId="17717" Score="0" Text="Well, if by object of a participle you mean that which is modified by a participle then the translation 'rolling sea' agrees with that assertion.  You haven't stated whether or not you think that both 'mare' and 'aestum' are both accusative and if they are how do we translate that into English?  I'm vaguely aware of a double accusative construction from the Greenough grammar but I think it is only used for making assertions of identity." CreationDate="2022-02-10T09:54:31.317" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37116" PostId="17717" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 *Mare* and *aestum* are both accusative." CreationDate="2022-02-10T14:11:44.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37117" PostId="17717" Score="1" Text="I don't think this a case of double accusative, because there are two different verbs.  &quot;Mare&quot; would be the direct object of &quot;volvens&quot; and &quot;aestum&quot; would be the direct object of &quot;misceat.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-10T17:09:09.897" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37129" PostId="17717" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides, thank you for your help.  Can you point me to the section in the Greenough grammar, if there is one, which discusses participles having accusative objects.  I remember that on some occasions the gerundives which are adjectives can sometimes cause nouns to be in the accusative case but I do not recall that happens for words in the present participle?  Thank you." CreationDate="2022-02-11T06:29:23.583" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37130" PostId="17717" Score="0" Text="This is a tough issue and one that requires a few examples." CreationDate="2022-02-11T06:30:03.083" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37133" PostId="17717" Score="0" Text="thanks i appreciate that." CreationDate="2022-02-11T07:04:35.620" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37118" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="While I like what I read, I'm surprised that you don't explore the question of whether the *σεῦ* in *σεῦ ὕστερος* (&quot;after you&quot;, right?) is accented at all. From all appearances it ought to be an unaccented clitic; even if it isn't, one would expect it to lose the accent altogether because of accent clash and no prior syllable to retract it onto." CreationDate="2022-02-10T19:51:45.557" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37121" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian The accent makes sense in context since there's some focus on *you*; in any case, since the Alexandrian editors wrote σεῦ and not σευ, they must have thought it was accented, so it's reasonable to ask how they would have pronounced it. I don't think you could have an enclitic right after a vocative in Greek (though I could be wrong about that), and the kind of retraction due to accent clash that you describe in the last sentence isn't something that happened in Greek, as far as is known." CreationDate="2022-02-11T00:14:08.380" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37122" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal_Russion, I am not following what you mean by accent clash.  Could you explain? I also agree with TKR that this seems to represent a phonetically stressed pronoun in context and that is the form that tradition handed down to us.  That is why it did not occur to me to discuss it." CreationDate="2022-02-11T00:43:59.487" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37123" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="I just recalled what is meant by accent retraction due to stress class.  I know this occurs in English.  I don't think this occurred in Greek, because of how they used the grave accent.  No retraction is represented.  I think in Modern Greek, stress class is handled by deleting the first stress, but without retraction." CreationDate="2022-02-11T00:53:03.300" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37124" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="If a drop in pitch was realized with σεῦ, then there would be no stress clash.  If there was no drop in pitch, the we have the γαλὴν' ὁρῶ situation I discussed, which does not seem to document retraction because of stress clash, but retraction because of the vowel deletion." CreationDate="2022-02-11T00:55:37.887" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37126" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian, now that I have a change to think about this better, I probably should have discussed the possibility of at least σὲ οὺύστερος (with a grave accent) and what pronunciation that might represent, since this is partly how Greek handled stress clashes.  I would have the same answer as for σέ οὺύστερος (with an acute accent), but I should have mentioned it.  I agree with TKR that stress retraction would not have been an answer." CreationDate="2022-02-11T02:18:05.160" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37136" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="If there's a drop in pitch on υ, then there's no stress clash, but considering that a high a tone involves a drop in pitch on the next syllable, it can't be immediately followed by another high tone, and this is accent clash. A grave accent would then represent the deletion of the high pitch. That said, it looks more probable that there was an actual drop in pitch on the υ unless that was deleted instead of starting the next syllable. @TKR Naturally it can't be **en**clitic to a vocative, I thought it was **pro**clitic to the adjective/adverbial which is its head." CreationDate="2022-02-11T09:21:34.120" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37141" PostId="17718" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Greek pronouns can be enclitic, but they don't appear ever to be proclitic (based on both accentuation and placement evidence)." CreationDate="2022-02-11T16:29:37.743" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37137" PostId="17719" Score="5" Text="A picture would be very helpful: as written these lines don't make syntactical sense, though some words in your transcription individually make sense." CreationDate="2022-02-11T13:58:46.460" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37149" PostId="17719" Score="1" Text="Are you at least confident of the word spacing?  Also, more context beyond a &quot;medical text&quot; might be helpful in guessing words.  Each of the words could be meaningful in Latin individually, but together they cannot even be translated because they do not hang together enough to come up with a subject and predicate that match or even make much sense individually outside of context." CreationDate="2022-02-11T18:28:51.260" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37144" PostId="17721" Score="2" Text="The concept of a &quot;generation&quot; -- if we're not talking about a single family, but mankind as a whole -- has always been a little unclear to me. When does one start, when does it end? In any case, I think *generatio* is not the right word here. Perhaps *saeculum* works better." CreationDate="2022-02-11T17:26:10.397" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37145" PostId="17721" Score="0" Text="Vicipaedia has a [fun list](https://la.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampyrus#Fontes) &quot;scientific&quot; treatises on vampires in Latin. They use terms like *homines post mortem sanguisugi, cadaveres sanguisuga,* etc. but also frequently *vampyri*." CreationDate="2022-02-11T17:38:17.080" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37146" PostId="17721" Score="0" Text="quaeque should be ablative to agree with generatione" CreationDate="2022-02-11T17:42:32.537" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="37147" PostId="17721" Score="0" Text="Oops.  Absolutely.  I'll correct the case mismatch." CreationDate="2022-02-11T18:07:04.763" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37148" PostId="17721" Score="0" Text="Sebastion, I see your point about saeculum, especially in the classical technical sense applicable to once in generation in events, but then was Jerome just following the Greek roots?   I'm not sure if the right word is &quot;saeculum,&quot; &quot;generātiō,&quot; or &quot;prōgeniēs.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-11T18:13:55.223" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37152" PostId="17721" Score="2" Text="Not sure what Jerome's inspiration was here (when in doubt, probably the source language), but I guess at some point we did arrive at the modern word &quot;generation.&quot; But at least classically I don't believe the word would have been used that way." CreationDate="2022-02-11T21:27:41.460" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37153" PostId="17725" Score="1" Text="You're right that *sol* is the exception, not the rule. Whoops." CreationDate="2022-02-12T00:59:20.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37154" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="The perfect (&quot;passive&quot;) participle _occasus_ seems to be lexicalized only in a &quot;dominant participle&quot; construction, perhaps by **analogy** with the **deponent** verb _orior_: e.g. cf. the expected _post solem **ortum**_ with the unexpected _post solem occasum_. So, rather than saying, as above, &quot;However, since it is an intransitive verb, it forms no personal passive&quot;, here I'd say: &quot;Since it is **not** a **deponent** intransitive verb, it is not expected to form a perfect (&quot;passive&quot;) participle&quot;. Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12529/ante-solem-occasum-vs-ante-diem-adventum" CreationDate="2022-02-12T03:57:52.793" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37155" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@cmw Your deleted statement is, linguistically speaking, very interesting (although it is wrong): “there's nothing wrong with _fratres occasi_ meaning ‘fallen brothers’”.  I find it VERY interesting since it shows that unaccusativity in Latin is not to be “equated” with unaccusativity in English and Romance languages (NB: interestingly, ‘fallen brothers’ is perfect in these languages but _fratres occasi_ is out in Latin).  So your statement seems to be motivated by a nice transposition of L1 (English) to L2 (Latin). That’s why I said that it is very interesting from a linguistic point of view." CreationDate="2022-02-12T04:00:19.160" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37156" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino It's not entirely alien to the Latin mindset, but it's odd enough that it warranted comment. The Twelve Tables (V?/IV?/III? s. BCE) and Lucilius (II s. BCE) both have *sol occasus* meaning &quot;setting sun&quot;, but that prompted questioning from Aulus Gellius (II s. CE). Because of the similarity with *occasus, -us*, it's difficult to pin down exactly the number of times it was used in this way, but it seems this is a singular usage. It's the only way *occaso* is used, for example, and there are no instances of *occasorum* or *occasis*." CreationDate="2022-02-12T04:41:35.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37157" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino But indeed, I had a linguistic lapse for a second. It actually caught me off guard, as I'm usually more careful than that! I'll chalk it up to a distraction and hope it doesn't recur." CreationDate="2022-02-12T04:42:37.073" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37158" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@cmw  Well, perhaps, as you say, it was a (mere) &quot;distraction&quot;, but, as noted above, I thought that it was due to a L1-to-L2 transfer, which is, linguistically speaking, more interesting. Yes, _sol occasus_ is a nice example of a dominant participle construction in subject position, which is, by the way, not a frequent position for this kind of participles. Finally, since, as pointed out by Sebastian, this participle is only applied to _sol_, it is not surprising that &quot;there are no instances of _occasorum_ or _occasis_&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-12T05:09:39.363" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37159" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino It indeed was a L1-toL2 transfer. What's more interesting is subjective, but as this is not the Linguistics stack, I was trying to keep it more on topic with Latin. What I find interesting is that there's an exception at all. Whence comes it?" CreationDate="2022-02-12T06:06:19.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37162" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@cmw You're right, &quot;what's more interesting is subjective&quot; but what I was just trying to say is that the transfer &quot;is, linguistically speaking, more interesting&quot; _than a mere distraction_ (sorry, I omitted this part in italics!). As for the issue that concerns us here, the existence of the participle _occasus_ is not unrelated to the lexical-semantic fact that the verb _occido_ also expresses a **change of state** _like_ the deponent verb _orior_. Otherwise, the participle _occasus_ would be impossible. See above for a &quot;like&quot;(analogy)-proposal. Construction Grammarians love these quirks!" CreationDate="2022-02-12T07:15:26.463" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37163" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I was fully expecting you to comment ;-) My wording was not very precise, to be sure. (Glaringly obvious example: One might write *fratres mortui*.) Veniam mihi dari posse spero. If I had written that these verbs are not expected to form passive participles at all, a pedant might have asked what about *huc ut perventum est* etc. …" CreationDate="2022-02-12T09:23:47.620" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37167" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Let me say I wouldn't think it is &quot;pedantic&quot; to comment on the fact that an intr. verb like _pervenio_ can enter into an impersonal passive but, probably (I'd say &quot;interestingly&quot;), the same cannot be said of the apparently similar intr. verb _occido_, the verb at issue (!) here. I'm aware I can often be regarded as a pedant. Sad but, given your comment, probably true... BTW: if I were you, I'd add a translation/gloss of _fratres occisi_ at the end of your answer. In the context of the question above, an inattentive reader could interpret/translate this example incorrectly." CreationDate="2022-02-12T14:54:17.823" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37172" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino It was not at all my intention to accuse you of pedantry. Your comments are always welcome, if on occasion perhaps a bit above my pay grade. I do think, by the way, that an impersonal passive like *postquam ad Cannas occasum est* would be possible, although unusual and perhaps not attested. But why not?" CreationDate="2022-02-12T17:04:18.720" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37174" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel  An important condition for an impersonal passive to be possible is that the verb must be agentive. That's why _occasum est_ would be unusual and, as you say, &quot;perhaps not attested&quot;. Probably, a similar semantic restriction is found in German." CreationDate="2022-02-12T17:13:01.413" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37178" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino that is a good question that I've never thought much about. The German Wikipedia happily claims that unaccusative intransitive verbs form no impersonal passive, and their first example is that &quot;Dann wurde eingeschlafen&quot; (Latin equivalent would be *tum obdormitum est*) is ungrammatical. I wonder how many speakers agree with that; I certainly don't. Another obvious counterexample is &quot;Gestorben wird immer&quot; (people will always die), title of countless books. So who knows ..." CreationDate="2022-02-12T19:41:16.800" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37179" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Yes, you'll also find this typical restriction not only in Wikipedia but also in the linguistic literature (e.g. cf. the unergative/agentive ex. (1b) and the unnaccusative/non-agentive ex. (2b) on page 317 of https://web.stanford.edu/~azaenen/publications/unaccusativesindutch.pdf ). However, when the verb &quot;fall&quot; is construed as agentive, the sentence is said to sound better (e.g. see ex. (41) on page 329 of this pdf)." CreationDate="2022-02-12T20:55:36.137" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37180" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="So, _mutatis mutandis_, one could entertain the hypothesis that _pugnatum est_ is perfect but _occasum est_, if possible, would sound as somewhat unnatural unless construed as agentive.  As far as I can tell, this hypothesis is borne out in Latin impersonal passives (e.g. _pugnatum est_ and _perventum est_ sound perfect because they contain agentive predicates)." CreationDate="2022-02-12T20:57:57.220" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37212" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: What does &quot;they contain agentive predicates&quot; mean--they are amenable to an agent e.g. &quot;pugnatum est a militibus&quot; = &quot;it has been fought by the soldiers&quot;. Is that correct?" CreationDate="2022-02-14T18:13:20.400" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37219" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@tony Yes, _pugnare_ is a prototypical example of agentive verbal predicate (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_(grammar)), whereby an impersonal passive construction like _pugnatum est_ is very natural. In contrast, the intr. verb _occidere_ does not involve an **agent** (i.e. **a participant who carries out an action deliberately or with volition/control**), whereby I don't think that an impersonal passive like _occasum est_ would sound natural (the reason is given in the comment that contains this link: https://web.stanford.edu/~azaenen/publications/unaccusativesindutch.pdf )." CreationDate="2022-02-15T01:13:29.247" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37222" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: If &quot;fratres occasi&quot; is translated as simple (aorist) past, as opposed to, perfect passive, then it's &quot;brothers (who have) fallen&quot; e.g. &quot;amatus sum&quot; = &quot;I have been loved&quot;; simple-past = &quot;I was loved&quot;. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2022-02-15T08:57:34.470" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37223" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you. In the light of this analysis how does, &quot;occasum est a gladio&quot; = &quot;one (impersonal pronoun) has been killed by the sword&quot;, work? I suppose, as you say, this does not sound very natural." CreationDate="2022-02-15T09:05:00.440" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37224" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@tony if you wanted to translate it as active, which, as I wrote, would be wrong, then the &quot;fallen brothers&quot; would seem fine, but it depends on context. It might also be a dominant participle. You usually don't translate *post solem occasum* as &quot;behind the set sun,&quot; but as &quot;after sunset.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-15T12:06:47.040" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37225" PostId="17725" Score="0" Text="@tony The instrumental ablative of your example should not be preceded by a preposition (cf. the ablative of agent _a militibus_ in your previous comment vs. the instrumental ablative _gladio_). Note also that your example contains the (non-relevant) verb _occīdere_ (with a long i; cf. Sebastian's answer), which means 'to kill'. The relevant verb that is at issue here is the **intransitive** _occidere_ (with a short i), which means &quot;to fall, to die&quot;. So note the difference between _occisum_ and _occasum_." CreationDate="2022-02-15T15:27:00.973" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37164" PostId="17727" Score="1" Text="I think the one who is *percussus* and whom you shouldn't *excitāre* is the same as the one who *requiēscit*, namely *amor*. The poem is autoreferential - Tibullus puts his love pains to sleep with wine." CreationDate="2022-02-12T10:04:02.707" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37165" PostId="17727" Score="2" Text="I do think grammatically multo is modifying Baccho. As a pure adverb, multum would be expected. Of course, there's a lot of freedom in how one renders that in English." CreationDate="2022-02-12T13:52:11.100" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37168" PostId="17727" Score="0" Text="Also, Baccho is ablative of instrument, not dative. Cf. Livy: [Hannibal] femur tragula	&#xA;grauiter ictus" CreationDate="2022-02-12T15:48:13.943" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37169" PostId="17727" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey: As to *multo*, I think it could be either the adverb *multo* (which I believe can be used instead of *multum*, but I do think you are right that this is uncommon), or an adjective modifying *Baccho* made countable. As to the case of *Baccho*, why do you think it should be ablative? A dative of agent is not so rare with past participles? An ablative of agent without a praepsition is rare with a person?" CreationDate="2022-02-12T15:57:23.630" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37171" PostId="17727" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus I don't think Tibullus is literally referring to Bacchus, but is using the name metaphorically, and therefore is treating it as an inanimate instrument. Cf. this other Tibullan passage: Care puer, madeant generoso pocula baccho&#xA;&#xA;He's talking about a hangover, which is caused by a lot of wine, i.e., multo Baccho. I cannot believe Tibullus wrote multo ... Baccho and didn't expect them to be read together." CreationDate="2022-02-12T16:25:52.343" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37176" PostId="17727" Score="0" Text="Wow, I totally missed that (probs bc. the entire translation as it was confused me). There's no shadow of a doubt that it goes with *Bacchō* - *multō* like other ablative-accusative quantifier pairs is never used adverbially to mean &quot;a lot&quot;, but only in comparisons: *multō citius, melius, pulchrius*. The singular use of quantity words is quite ordinary in Latin, granted it confers a poetic flair in many cases (such as here).—Incidentally you have two divine personifications here: Amor gets smacked across the side of the head by Bacchus. And yes, it's not grammatically personal so instrumental." CreationDate="2022-02-12T17:42:43.443" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37177" PostId="17727" Score="0" Text="Btw &quot;the dative of agent&quot; is a grossly misleading and erroneous traditional name for the specific case of the Dative expressing the theta role of Experiencer (*mihi placet*) being used with some deontic (modal) expressions: *mihi necesse est, mihi faciundum est* (&quot;the need to do exists in relation to me&quot;). The Agent is expressed with ā + Ablative: *ā mē faciundum est* (&quot;I am the one who must do&quot;). With past participles the Dative would mean &quot;as far as I'm concerned&quot; if it's adjectival: *ille est mihi perditus* - and if verbal with Dative verbs, &quot;to me&quot;: *ille est mihi restitūtus, dōnātus...*" CreationDate="2022-02-12T19:09:46.950" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37181" PostId="17727" Score="2" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian [Please review](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-agent), especially section 375a. The gerundive's dative of agent (about which I'm inclined to agree with you) is not identical with the dative of agent that goes with other verbal forms." CreationDate="2022-02-12T23:21:59.173" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="37182" PostId="17727" Score="2" Text="Additionally, *multo* as an adverb is indeed most common with comparatives, but [by no means restricted to them](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23multo%23). The use of *bacchus* to literally (as opposed to metaphorically) mean 'wine' is certainly considerably dodgier." CreationDate="2022-02-12T23:34:05.217" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="37205" PostId="17727" Score="0" Text="Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134094/discussion-on-answer-by-cairnarvon-tibullus-neu-quisquam-multo-percussum-tempor)." CreationDate="2022-02-13T20:41:47.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37191" PostId="17728" Score="0" Text="Thanks I appreciate the advice" CreationDate="2022-02-13T11:32:58.680" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="37193" PostId="17728" Score="0" Text="I would add form a literary point of view that you should consider whether the command should be singular or plural.  In reading the English, I first assumed this was a motto addressed to every individual in a general way and so should be in the singular.  The plural is fine, but conjures up the image of a shout on a battlefield from a soldier to their comrades or from a commander to troops: a different image." CreationDate="2022-02-13T12:44:37.197" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37186" PostId="17731" Score="0" Text="Thanks as always for your answer, Asteroides.  Maybe the two 'huncs' could be explained by the fact that it is not out of the realm of possibility in English to say: 'He saw him, and she him, meaning, he saw him, she saw him.'  Though admittedly wrong, you can sort of see what is going on.  But, 'he saw her, and she him' is a bonafide English sentence." CreationDate="2022-02-13T03:01:11.263" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37187" PostId="17733" Score="0" Text="There is the [Thesaurus linguae Latinae](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/16384/9), mentioned along with many other sorts of dictionaries in a prior question about &quot;Which online Latin dictionaries should I use and why&quot;. It's incomplete, but what's been done so far is highly scholarly. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for?" CreationDate="2022-02-13T03:52:44.327" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37189" PostId="17733" Score="0" Text="It seems good, but the incompleteness would really makes it frustrating to use I think." CreationDate="2022-02-13T11:23:04.743" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37299" PostId="17734" Score="2" Text="You've mixed up &quot;okay&quot; and &quot;yes&quot; here - what you write is the cookie-cutter answer to questions about saying &quot;yes&quot; in Latin. I think the mix-up is due to the fact that both &quot;ok&quot; and &quot;yes&quot; can be used in confirmation (though in different contexts) which you mistakenly extend to Latin; but the Latin reply purely confers new information to the listener asking either a yes-no or a &quot;what happened?&quot;-type question. Answering with this to a statement is the same as playfully or rhetorically parroting someone else's words in English, so if anybody feels this is strange, their intuition is on point." CreationDate="2022-02-19T21:47:03.217" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37190" PostId="17735" Score="0" Text="Thank you, this is helpful. I am just wondering whether there is a more modern one (like late 19th century and beyond)." CreationDate="2022-02-13T11:27:40.923" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37192" PostId="17735" Score="0" Text="@Vtex The Forcellini available at linguax is the 4th edition of 1864-1926, as seen on the [title page](http://linguax.com/lexica/Forcellini_others/cover-00.png). It's marginally more reliable than Lewis &amp; Short at any rate, granted that L&amp;S is the English branch of Forcellini and almost always distinguishes the same senses. But L&amp;S, unlike Forcellini, is vulnerable to misinterpretation and obsolete English." CreationDate="2022-02-13T12:40:35.960" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37194" PostId="17735" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Ok, thank you!" CreationDate="2022-02-13T13:21:59.567" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37206" PostId="17739" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I appreciate that." CreationDate="2022-02-13T21:59:46.400" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37333" PostId="17740" Score="2" Text="Clear and to the point." CreationDate="2022-02-20T23:47:56.183" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37515" PostId="17740" Score="0" Text="What Latin dialect did the Poor Ancient Roman people speak?" CreationDate="2022-03-13T01:59:53.167" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="37521" PostId="17740" Score="1" Text="@AnaMaria I do not think that there is much linguistical evidence related to the poorest Romans and slaves, but I think you might get a better and more complete answer if you ask this as a new question." CreationDate="2022-03-14T10:52:08.527" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37523" PostId="17740" Score="0" Text="Your original answer was on point, but your feb 25 edit **contradicts your original answer and is erroneous,** so I'd rather you removed it. Vulgar Latin does not refer to any language variety, and was not used by anyone. It's exactly like saying that Vulgar English is a dialect used all over the English speaking world by the middle class, and Military English a version of it. It's a corrupt, outdated term whose current use boils down to &quot;any deviation from the perceived Classical norm&quot;. The notion that a language norm in the modern sense existed in the classical times is also highly suspect." CreationDate="2022-03-14T13:10:16.237" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37527" PostId="17740" Score="2" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I do not agree that my edit contradicts my original answer as my original answer notes that &quot;Vulgar Latin&quot; and &quot;Classical Latin&quot; are different registers of speech, something that my edit elaborates on. My note on the *sermo castrensis* does not say that there was a different dialect in the military, but rather that the soldiers used a different register of speech when talking to other members of the military than they would outside of the military. But I do agree that it is an outdated term used to describe things not found in the classical authors. I will remove the edit." CreationDate="2022-03-15T14:16:26.433" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37539" PostId="17740" Score="0" Text="@Vtex Ah, so &quot;they had a different dialect&quot; was referring to the poor? I mean, if they did that would have to be a mix of Latin and Greek, but this is just a conjecture since we don't have direct or indirect evidence for any such dialect. Anyways, cheers for taking my advice!" CreationDate="2022-03-16T00:05:07.650" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37207" PostId="17741" Score="0" Text="I'm aware of 'modo ... modo', 'iterum iterumque', but I've never seen the pronoun repeated or maybe I have I just didn't notice it.  If it's not too much trouble are there any other examples?" CreationDate="2022-02-13T22:03:38.173" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37220" PostId="17741" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76: I agree with Kinghorsey, in that it is a kind of anaphora, a common little figure of speech in which a word or words can be repeated, often for emphasis. I also agree with him that it serves to suggest that boys and youths bump into him successively. If you are interested in repeated pronoun-like structures which indicate contrast, cf. *alius...alius*." CreationDate="2022-02-15T05:23:03.580" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37245" PostId="17741" Score="0" Text="cool, i'll take a look into it." CreationDate="2022-02-16T21:05:41.480" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37203" PostId="17742" Score="0" Text="I came up with an alternative translation, but again, I am not sure if it would be right. ; &quot;Postrēma opportūnitās tuī ab orbe exeundō haec erit&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-13T18:10:31.597" UserId="10491" />
  <row Id="37230" PostId="17742" Score="0" Text="Note that *tuī* is singular, but the citizens of the earth are plural." CreationDate="2022-02-15T22:28:59.500" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37213" PostId="17745" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! `de + ablative + cogitare` is indeed a pretty common construction." CreationDate="2022-02-14T19:46:29.170" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37215" PostId="17746" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site and thanks for the answer! Do you think the periphrastic future is necessary in indirect questions or optional? Or is it perhaps always an option but with indirect questions the only one?" CreationDate="2022-02-14T23:30:04.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37233" PostId="17746" Score="0" Text="I think it's a question of emphasis." CreationDate="2022-02-16T00:40:44.633" UserId="10795" />
  <row Id="37234" PostId="17746" Score="0" Text="me rogo quid cenae servet&#xA;I wonder what he might serve at dinner&#xA;me rogo quid cenae serviturus sit." CreationDate="2022-02-16T01:06:37.360" UserId="10795" />
  <row Id="37235" PostId="17746" Score="0" Text="I don't know if you could use either present subjunctive or future periphrastic. The fact that other clauses only use present tense for future in the subjunctive subordinate clause implies that you could use either. I will get back to you." CreationDate="2022-02-16T01:10:36.077" UserId="10795" />
  <row Id="37228" PostId="17748" Score="1" Text="Ahh so something like: &quot;cum dē tē cōgitō&quot; would mean &quot;when I think of you&quot;? - Also thanks. :)" CreationDate="2022-02-15T19:12:20.827" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="37229" PostId="17748" Score="1" Text="@Jacqueline Exactly! And you are most welcome." CreationDate="2022-02-15T20:45:12.360" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37227" PostId="17750" Score="0" Text="From your parallelism between Sanskrit and English it is not clear to me if you consider the role of unaccusativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb). The participial construction exemplified by _{fallen/departed} soldiers_ is only typical of a subtype of intransitive verbs (unaccusative ones like _{to fall/to depart}_) but not of the so-called unergative ones like e.g. _to fight/to work_ (cf. _{*fought/*worked} soldiers_). Is this difference based on so-called &quot;split intransitivity&quot; relevant to Sanskrit as well? Thanks in advance for the clarification." CreationDate="2022-02-15T16:01:10.593" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37237" PostId="17750" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino. I am not sure that I understand your objection. I have approached the problem from a morphological standpoint. sthā- / sthi-ta- is morphologically the exact equivalent of sto / sta-tus. But their usage diverges." CreationDate="2022-02-16T11:47:00.543" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="37238" PostId="17750" Score="0" Text="I was wondering if your &quot;other intransitive verbs&quot; (cf. &quot;What is surprising is not that Latin can say _post solem occasum_ but rather that it cannot use this inherited IE construction with other intransitive verbs&quot;) coincide with the set of (some) unaccusatives, unergatives being disallowed (_*post Caesarem pugnatum_). From what you say (&quot;Essentially what has happened is that this construction is no longer productive in Latin&quot;), it seems natural to infer that other (unaccusative?) verbs besides _occidere_ could enter into this construction before the fossilization of _post solem occasum_." CreationDate="2022-02-16T15:33:53.930" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37240" PostId="17750" Score="0" Text="My take is quite different: _post solem occasum_ is indeed an unexpected (or “surprising”, to put in your terms) pattern since only deponent intransitive verbs would be allowed to enter into it. Since _occido_ is not a deponent verb, my hunch is that the quirk _post solem occasum_ could only have been idiosincratically created by analogy with _post solem ortum_ on the basis of their related encyclopedic meaning (sunset and sunrise) and their shared structural lexical-semantic meaning as well (both _orior_ and _occido_ are change of state verbs)." CreationDate="2022-02-16T15:49:33.740" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37232" PostId="17754" Score="0" Text="This pool animals.. Stagni ranas ?" CreationDate="2022-02-15T23:59:08.103" UserId="9507" />
  <row Id="37236" PostId="17755" Score="1" Text="What about ad + gerund; &quot;ad fugiendum&quot; = &quot;for the purpose of escaping&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-02-16T09:31:00.670" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37243" PostId="17758" Score="1" Text="*Senatus* and *exercitus* also seems like useful words for the Latin classroom; *anus*, while wholesome and innocuous, is perhaps not recommended; nor, while fun to demonstrate, *ructus*." CreationDate="2022-02-16T19:42:30.620" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37244" PostId="17758" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel We definitely learned about *anus* in high school Latin, in particular with regards to Queen Elizabeth II's *annus horribilis* and some tabloid rag's misspelling of it as *anus horribilis*." CreationDate="2022-02-16T20:35:11.980" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37246" PostId="17758" Score="0" Text="@cmw now that's not nice! " CreationDate="2022-02-16T22:31:35.937" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37247" PostId="17758" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel It was not, in fact, nice. But to a bunch of high school students, it was a hilarious faux pas on the tabloid's part. It also served as a cautionary tale about the difference a single letter could make." CreationDate="2022-02-16T23:21:32.120" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37249" PostId="17758" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel could be a good way to teach vowel length distinctions" CreationDate="2022-02-17T11:23:41.947" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="37254" PostId="17758" Score="1" Text="@Tristan Especially because _anus_ and _ānus_ are different. It's a nice three-way minimal pair for vowel and consonant length." CreationDate="2022-02-17T19:48:14.850" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37255" PostId="17758" Score="0" Text="To this list I would add _ariēs_ &quot;ram&quot;, not least since it should be familiar from the zodiac." CreationDate="2022-02-17T20:57:07.983" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="37268" PostId="17758" Score="1" Text="@KefSchecter: That is of the third declension, isn't it? It might be instructional to also compare a list of words from the third declension on -es." CreationDate="2022-02-18T13:14:59.010" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37283" PostId="17758" Score="0" Text="Whoops! I stand corrected!" CreationDate="2022-02-19T04:10:28.823" UserId="6762" />
  <row Id="37241" PostId="17759" Score="3" Text="Are you looking for an established Latinism in English?" CreationDate="2022-02-16T17:34:29.340" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37267" PostId="17759" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian that would have been preferable." CreationDate="2022-02-18T08:22:06.063" UserId="10805" />
  <row Id="37272" PostId="17759" Score="1" Text="Well, in that case you're out of luck. All the suggestions here are Latin expressions intended to be integrated into a full Latin sentence. They require actual knowledge of the language from the reader and won't be comprehensible to most." CreationDate="2022-02-18T16:15:41.090" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37285" PostId="17759" Score="0" Text="Yes, I realized. In any case all the answers are super interesting. :)" CreationDate="2022-02-19T06:06:41.007" UserId="10805" />
  <row Id="37242" PostId="17760" Score="3" Text="I wonder how certum that anecdote est." CreationDate="2022-02-16T18:45:20.170" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37248" PostId="17761" Score="3" Text="Aquinas (following a pretty long tradition) refers to certain truths as &quot;self-evident&quot;: *per se notum*. He also talks about a given proposition can be *omnibus per se nota* (self-evident to all) or &quot;per se nota tantum apud sapientes* (self-evident only to the wise)." CreationDate="2022-02-17T02:21:15.080" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37276" PostId="17761" Score="0" Text="An established English expression for this idea is ‘common knowledge’. But unfortunately that's not Latin." CreationDate="2022-02-18T18:16:47.397" UserId="2830" />
  <row Id="37295" PostId="17762" Score="0" Text="I chose your answer by vox populi. :)" CreationDate="2022-02-19T17:58:23.367" UserId="10805" />
  <row Id="44273" PostId="17764" Score="0" Text="As for *lippis* a footnote in the Loeb edition of the text reads: &quot;The shops of apothecaries and barbers were favourite places of gossip.&quot; ." CreationDate="2023-07-30T11:08:37.707" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="37251" PostId="17765" Score="2" Text="Where's the indirect speech? &quot;They did what [= that which] everybody dreamt of&quot; is a simple relative clause, no?" CreationDate="2022-02-17T16:48:43.977" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37252" PostId="17765" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Well-spotted. How did I miss that?" CreationDate="2022-02-17T17:00:14.253" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37263" PostId="17765" Score="3" Text="@tony two comments: primum, for a relative clause, change &quot;quid&quot; to &quot;quod.&quot; secundum, I think either present or perfect tense makes more sense for a general statement." CreationDate="2022-02-18T00:35:08.693" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37257" PostId="17767" Score="0" Text="Constat in grammatica Latina saltem illud dogma se perraro praestare." CreationDate="2022-02-17T21:07:15.320" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37260" PostId="17767" Score="0" Text="Oh well, I had hoped that _simplex_ modified _sigillum._ But I'm glad to see that the simple interpretation, where the adjectives are used substantively, is perfectly good Latin. Perhaps the dictum is true after all." CreationDate="2022-02-17T22:28:57.750" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="37261" PostId="17767" Score="0" Text="Is the neuter adjective fully equivalent to an abstract noun? My understanding is that there's still a difference: veritas refers to the philosophical concept of truth or the character trait of truthfulness, whereas verum refers to what is true in regard to a certain situation or question. And there's probably some overlap: dic verum, ad veritatem loqui. But I don't feel comfortable saying that simplex is fully satisfactory as a substitute for simplicitas." CreationDate="2022-02-17T23:31:46.233" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37262" PostId="17767" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey I agree that *verum* and *veritas* are not the same, and neither *simplex* and *simplicitas*. You can say *sancta simplicitas* but not *sancta simplex* (well you can, but it's not the same). But of course in this case *simplex* and *verum* are no substitutes for anything -- the Latin is the original, presumably coined by Herman Boerhave, Hippocrates Bataviae." CreationDate="2022-02-17T23:58:52.103" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37259" PostId="17768" Score="1" Text="The answer to the general question in the title is, absolutely, e.g. *minimeque* Caes. BG 1,1. Whether the concrete example is idiomatic is a different question; examples like that are harder to find." CreationDate="2022-02-17T21:41:02.127" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37270" PostId="17769" Score="0" Text="I need to improve my search game. Thanks!" CreationDate="2022-02-18T13:51:45.473" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37269" PostId="17770" Score="0" Text="Oh, I forgot about double _et_. I like how that flows." CreationDate="2022-02-18T13:51:22.907" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37289" PostId="17771" Score="0" Text="re your last question: here is [a question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14152/semantic-difference-between-genitive-and-relational-belong-to-adjectives), about that that I asked once." CreationDate="2022-02-19T12:42:43.600" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="37277" PostId="17773" Score="0" Text="He used Deus as nominative so maybe Deus/Dea fieri, methinks." CreationDate="2022-02-18T21:06:59.370" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="37278" PostId="17773" Score="3" Text="@Jacqueline: The use of nominative vs. accusative depends completely on the grammatical context. &quot;Cupio deus/dea fieri&quot; = &quot;I desire to become (a) god&quot;, &quot; &quot;Cupio te deum/deam fieri&quot;, &quot;I desire for you to become (a) god&quot;. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/16250/9" CreationDate="2022-02-18T21:26:01.090" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37279" PostId="17773" Score="0" Text="The *real* question is, what kind of grammar is *puto, deus fio*, Mister Vespasian??" CreationDate="2022-02-18T21:32:53.863" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37280" PostId="17773" Score="2" Text="@Jacqueline like Asteroides said, it depends on context; I chose the accusative because that's what you can use when talking about &quot;becoming God&quot; abstractively, e.g. *haud facile est deum fieri*." CreationDate="2022-02-18T21:47:49.337" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37282" PostId="17773" Score="2" Text="Mister Vespasian's grammar is the canonical context where *deus* works, namely when this is the subject of the main clause. *putō* is interjectional here and doesn't govern, just like in English &quot;I guess, I think&quot;. When an actual object clause is present, the nominative can only appear with certain experiential verbs when it's raised out of the object-clause to become the subject of the main clause in the first person singular, that is *ego*: *ego volō [mē deum fierī] &gt; ego deus fierī volō.* See [the wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_(linguistics)) for English examples." CreationDate="2022-02-18T23:50:08.947" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37284" PostId="17773" Score="0" Text="Properly informative and specifically helpful, thanks everyone!" CreationDate="2022-02-19T03:00:19.793" UserId="10822" />
  <row Id="37294" PostId="17773" Score="3" Text="You have the same phrase in Seneca's *Apocolocyntosis*:  *&quot;Olim&quot; inquit &quot;magna res erat deum fieri.&quot;*" CreationDate="2022-02-19T17:41:23.387" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37303" PostId="17773" Score="0" Text="To correct my previous comment, the *deus* works just as well in 2nd and 3d p. singular, and *dī/diī/deī* in the plural. What I needed to say was that the subject of the main verb must be the same as the verb of the acc.-inf. clause (*ego mē, tū tē, ille sē deum &gt; ego, tū, ille deus*)." CreationDate="2022-02-20T00:51:02.940" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37290" PostId="17776" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!  The sense of the German also seems quite different to me, beside the specific question you posed.  The first three seem to be talking about everybody, and the German seems to be categorizing different types of people.  I am not familiar with the full context and so cannot give an informed opinion as to which is right." CreationDate="2022-02-19T14:32:05.767" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37309" PostId="17776" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher thanks! Yes, I noticed that too; Seneca is giving Lucilius advice on how best to use one’s time, and here he is warning him to see how others waste their time in life. I’m a bit rusty on my Latin, so I don’t know which of the two different interpretations is more accurate." CreationDate="2022-02-20T03:41:26.350" UserId="10675" />
  <row Id="37310" PostId="17776" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher: Hmm I would not read the German translation as referring to different groups/types of people any more than the other translations." CreationDate="2022-02-20T05:04:03.720" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37313" PostId="17776" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus:  I am not sure what particular nuance &quot;wenn&quot; has in these sentences (&quot;jedes mal, wenn&quot; or &quot;für den Fall, dass&quot;), but it seems to focus on three different potential situations that can happen to someone.  To me, the English and French seem to be talking about three things that always happen to everyone.  Out of context and without a clear antecedent I can see, the Latin seems also to be talking about three different types of &quot;agentibus,&quot; rather than three aspects of everyone's life." CreationDate="2022-02-20T11:09:25.067" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37316" PostId="17776" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher Neither the German nor the Latin is categorising - in the former &quot;den Menschen&quot; = &quot;uns &quot; and in the latter &quot;nōbīs X agentibus&quot; = &quot;dum nōs hominēs X agimus&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-20T15:36:37.813" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37297" PostId="17779" Score="1" Text="Must be intended to be a comment on the other answer..." CreationDate="2022-02-19T21:19:53.920" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="37292" PostId="17780" Score="5" Text="I should note that it's not a true alternate form. It's used only by the comic playwrights, and Festus says it's equivalent to *meo ipso*. Are you looking for every single difference, then? Like illum + est = illumst, too? Or only true alternate forms, like *deum* being a poetical form of *deorum*?" CreationDate="2022-02-19T16:33:17.747" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37293" PostId="17780" Score="0" Text="@cmw First of all I'm looking for something like the second example you mentioned." CreationDate="2022-02-19T17:05:08.643" UserId="7448" />
  <row Id="37328" PostId="17780" Score="0" Text="I would expect these things to appear in standard textbooks like Wheelock's or maybe somewhere in Allen and Greenough's, you might want to start there. Also, as was said before, your example *meopte* was not an alternative form, but a sort of compound form. You could have caught this by looking it up in a dictionary. You could try Logeion by the University of Chicago: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/meopte" CreationDate="2022-02-20T22:53:25.200" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37312" PostId="17783" Score="3" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16031/alternative-methods-of-ordering-declensions" CreationDate="2022-02-20T07:21:53.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37314" PostId="17783" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Your link leads to a discussion with a comment from Alex B. that links to https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0750-8069_1991_num_13_2_2334.  That link seems to explain that the numbering developed in fits and starts with detours from Varro, but finally lead to Charisius numbering declensions in alphabet order according to their genitives and with the late &quot;discovery&quot; of the fifth declension, since it shared aspects of the second and third." CreationDate="2022-02-20T11:58:20.993" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37323" PostId="17783" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher That link is what I had in mind. If you write it up, it would make for a good answer." CreationDate="2022-02-20T17:39:28.040" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37388" PostId="17784" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the helpful comments on my post and the information here. Do you have more information about the word order section? I found it curious that the example you found and the one I have found so far for definite/specific use of relational adjectives are in prenominal position." CreationDate="2022-02-23T19:28:08.393" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37390" PostId="17784" Score="1" Text="Are we sure relational As cannot refer to a particular individual ?&#xA;&#xA;It appears to me that, in numerous cases, relational As may refer to a precise person as well :&#xA;&#xA;*patriisque in vultibus haerens / aestuat* (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, X, 359–360)&#xA;&#xA;'and fixing her eyes upon her father's face she shivers'" CreationDate="2022-02-23T21:19:38.447" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="37392" PostId="17784" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides For Ovid, this is poetry, so we whouldn't draw any grammatical conclusions from word order. For Plautus, this is oral language, and the order is not standard here, it expresses some affective dimension: note that &quot;meam&quot;, as a possessive, should also preferably be located after the N. But more importantly, don't forget those are verses as well : Plautus puts a lot of care into obtaining the most expressive prosody in adequation with the spirit and state of mind of the speaking character (I wrote a mémoire about this, where I studied rare prosodic facts in the Miles Gloriosus)." CreationDate="2022-02-23T21:32:20.097" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="37317" PostId="17786" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Are you looking to keep it specific to just two words?" CreationDate="2022-02-20T16:08:12.093" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37342" PostId="17786" Score="0" Text="Thanks Adam. Doesn't have to be specific but I'd prefer to keep it at two words if I could as I don't want to have a lengthy Trust name. I'm just trying to find a cool sounding Latin name so it can sound original." CreationDate="2022-02-21T05:33:19.050" UserId="10830" />
  <row Id="37318" PostId="17787" Score="1" Text="&quot;Incidentally, all the translations apart from the Italian one appear to be mistaken when they say &quot;doing ill, mal faire, Schlechtes tun&quot; - this whole letter is not about doing good or bad deeds, but about wasting time by not putting enough thought into our actions. &quot;  I think that is an excellent point.  It is not doing ill/evil, that is the problem, but acting poorly, acting on nothing, or acting on the wrong thing." CreationDate="2022-02-20T16:26:34.083" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37327" PostId="17787" Score="0" Text="There is the curious case of [this side-by-side Latin/German edition](https://books.google.de/books?id=W8LmBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PP8#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) which has the magna/maxima/tota order in Latin, but translates it as größte/großer/ganze. The remarks section notes the sentence features a “Trikolon” but is otherwise silent. (Tusculum is a reputable series!)" CreationDate="2022-02-20T19:01:22.437" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37339" PostId="17787" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You know, after concluding that all the translators have misinterpreted the sentence in exactly the same way, it occurs to me that Latin translations were/are commonly done by translating mainly from a modern language and not from Latin, the latter being more for reference. A simple editorial mix-up would explain that German edition but not everything else. I wonder if anyone in the habit of comparing multilanguage translations like the OP does has seen more evidence for this." CreationDate="2022-02-21T02:50:32.033" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37340" PostId="17787" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian tibi multas gratias! I didn’t know there were two versions of the text. Your other remarks on the translation are also helpful." CreationDate="2022-02-21T03:31:46.493" UserId="10675" />
  <row Id="37369" PostId="17787" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Except for the Latin and German text, the others I’ve read use largest/large/all. I had also read the Spanish on wikisource, but then noticed that EN, ES, and FR, all from wikisource, had the same order and wondered if maybe they all copied each other (oddly enough, the Latin version on wikisource has magna/maxima/tota). I also have a pdf from an old German version, and also downloaded an ebook sample from a more recent English translation to check, and both have the wikisource sequence (though the English version has a footnote, which I can’t see unless I buy the book)." CreationDate="2022-02-22T17:40:00.900" UserId="10675" />
  <row Id="37370" PostId="17787" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I include here the two additional sources I consulted: “Take a close look, and you will see that when we are not doing well, most° of life slips away from us; when we are inactive, much of it—but when we are inattentive, we miss it all.” Letters on Ethics: To Lucilius (The Complete Works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca) (U Chicago Press, 2015)." CreationDate="2022-02-22T17:40:34.307" UserId="10675" />
  <row Id="37371" PostId="17787" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian and here the German: “und willst du die Sache genauer betrachten, so verfliest der größte Teil des Lebens [den Menschen], indem sie Böses tun, ein großer, indem sie Nichts tun, das ganze Leben aber, indem sie Anderes tun, [als was sie sollten].”&#xA;Ausgewählte Schriften des Philosophen Lucius Annaeus Seneca von Dr. Albert Forbiger, Stuttgart 1866" CreationDate="2022-02-22T17:42:15.943" UserId="10675" />
  <row Id="37372" PostId="17787" Score="0" Text="CORRECTION: I am mistaken about the Spanish wikisource version, which has something quite different than the rest. I must have confused myself with the other versions." CreationDate="2022-02-22T18:00:56.707" UserId="10675" />
  <row Id="37373" PostId="17787" Score="0" Text="@polygokko These are helpful, thanks. The footnote to your English quote says &quot;maxima ... magna&quot;. I think it's misinterpreting the passage similarly to the more modern translations, and &quot;not to be doing well&quot; is clearly poor as it refers to health in English; the German translation also misinterprets *male agere* as &quot;doing evil&quot;. Everyone seems to be confused by this passage, and to be honest probably independently so, so maybe I'm wrong to see interlanguage copying here (but then again who knows how those translators operate?)." CreationDate="2022-02-22T18:01:24.360" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37319" PostId="17788" Score="1" Text="I'd like to reciprocate and upvote your answer, but unfortunately your &quot;three different types of people&quot; interpretation cannot be correct. It took a mental backflip for me to even see how the sentence could be read this way - the backflip was out of Latin and into some modern language that doesn't use participles the way Latin does. In addition, that interpretation is only possible when the topic of the sentence is three different types of *vīta ēlāpsa* associated with some substantivised *agentēs*." CreationDate="2022-02-20T16:48:21.133" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37320" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: I agree with you that it should be about the same generalised person who may behave differently during his life, not three different types of person. But, if we did not have this strong semantic reason, I don't see why substantivised participles couldn't have been used in the way you exclude?" CreationDate="2022-02-20T17:11:20.363" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37321" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus When truly substantivised they can't take adverbs or complements like *male* and *nihil*. By taking these they're signalling being telescoped clauses, and these clauses express temporal states as opposed to being restrictive. I think even in Late Latin already you can find *agēns* used in the philosophical/linguistic substantive sense." CreationDate="2022-02-20T17:13:02.007" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37322" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Hmm well, I didn't mean the philosophical sense, just using them substantively, i.e. not modifying a head noun. E.g. *&quot;to those acting poorly, he gave twenty sesterces; to those doing nothing, he gave a young sparrow&quot;*. If this were semantically possible, would it sound impossible to you?" CreationDate="2022-02-20T17:20:25.007" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37325" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus It would be possible if the context first established there being a group of people (*X agentēs*) and then proceeded to list the correspondences in a typical subgroup 1 -&gt; life 1 topic-comment structure, simulatenously defining the groups. This order is reversed in our case and I'd say it's only possible if the three groups and the three types of living have been listed beforehand and established as given information, at which point the author specifies which group is associated with what type of living: &quot;the ones who lose the biggest part of their life is the act-poorly people&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-20T18:46:44.010" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37337" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: I'm not sure I follow, but what I think you're saying is that there are pragmatic an semantic issues, with which I agree. I just think it would be possible syntactically, i.e. in a different context." CreationDate="2022-02-21T02:21:04.800" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37338" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I'm just trying to say that the order of the sentence is reverted relative to the proposed meaning. The given sentence can only mean &quot;the ones who lose the biggest part of their life is the act-poorly people, the ones who lose a lot are...&quot; with the life part being the contrastive topic, and not &quot;do-things-badly people lose the biggest part of their life, fail-at-doing-anything people lose...&quot; with people being the topic. I don't know if you consider that syntactical or not, but I'm filing it under information structure." CreationDate="2022-02-21T02:38:43.873" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37341" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher thanks for the answer! In reading everyone’s responses, I now realize I should have given the previous sentence for more context. I apologize." CreationDate="2022-02-21T03:35:32.853" UserId="10675" />
  <row Id="37344" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Vegwatcher: In: &quot;quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam efluunt.&quot;, where is the Latin for &quot;gently&quot; &amp; &quot;our reach&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-02-21T12:33:26.413" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37348" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Then I think we are agreed." CreationDate="2022-02-21T15:09:56.530" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37356" PostId="17788" Score="0" Text="@Tony: The translation was not mine, but I think the connotation of subdūcō can imply something that is secretly taken from you, hence &quot;gently,&quot; and effluō can imply not just &quot;flow away,&quot; but &quot;escape,&quot; hence, &quot;glide beyond our reach.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-21T22:05:41.097" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37324" PostId="17790" Score="0" Text="Regarding the idea behind it, there is the famous saying: “Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler,” often attributed to Einstein, who in fact [did express the thought, but in (ironically) a rather convoluted way.](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/34599)" CreationDate="2022-02-20T18:31:26.307" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37326" PostId="17790" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You can go back even further to Okkham's razor and those influences, the Wiki on which cites Aristotle and Ptolemy for early examples." CreationDate="2022-02-20T18:48:05.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37349" PostId="17791" Score="0" Text="Could you provide a transcription of the two (and a bit) lines?" CreationDate="2022-02-21T16:22:18.720" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37361" PostId="17791" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan Done." CreationDate="2022-02-22T09:20:35.210" UserId="10717" />
  <row Id="37343" PostId="17792" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the thorough feedback Sebastian. That is really helpful :)" CreationDate="2022-02-21T05:34:43.977" UserId="10830" />
  <row Id="37345" PostId="17792" Score="0" Text="+1 to the Stranglers reference." CreationDate="2022-02-21T13:05:23.353" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37631" PostId="17793" Score="0" Text="*Eta seems to have developed from Alpha* -- some Attic-Ionic etas come from long alphas, but not all. I think we can be pretty confident that Solon would have pronounced eta as [ɛ:], since in his time it was clearly no longer [a:] and not yet [e:]." CreationDate="2022-03-23T07:58:29.370" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37636" PostId="17793" Score="0" Text="@TKR I read many different conflicting reconstructions; however, I would have thought that in Solon's time, the sound you reference would actually have been [æ:] in Attic and Ionic for descendants of alpha, while there was a different sound for long /e/.  At the same time, Aeolic would have had [ɛ:] for other phonemes.  Since the Iliad and Odyssey have a high number of both Ionic and Aeolic forms, this is part of the reason I think it is hard now to know what pronunciation to reconstruct for any particular 8th century performer of a word like Πηληϊάδεω, if it originally was Πηληϊάδᾱ(ο)." CreationDate="2022-03-23T14:35:01.603" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37331" PostId="17795" Score="0" Text="Check the dictionary or lexicons of its meaning, you will find many articles or work online with great detail. The word arsenkoi means homosexual - study this article https://bible.org/article/homosexuality-biblical-christian-view also see askdrbrown Michael Brown's work on this" CreationDate="2022-02-20T15:19:41.963" UserDisplayName="Michael16" />
  <row Id="37332" PostId="17795" Score="0" Text="@TWFJR I encourage you to sign up here and make an account. I've reached out to a friend who is an expert on this topic, and hopefully he will weigh in at some point in the near future." CreationDate="2022-02-20T23:45:42.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37347" PostId="17799" Score="0" Text="You can refer to this question for the grammatical point that gives a correct answer: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2781/where-to-put-the-enclitic-ne" CreationDate="2022-02-21T14:56:22.473" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="44002" PostId="17800" Score="0" Text="If this question is solved for you, make sure to mark the answer with the green check to indicate it so." CreationDate="2023-07-09T19:43:13.610" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37363" PostId="17802" Score="3" Text="Also simply *pretium minuere*, e.g. *pretiumque frumenti minutum usque ad ternos nummos* (Tacitus: [Annales, XV, 31](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ann15.shtml#39))" CreationDate="2022-02-22T12:14:07.833" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37365" PostId="17802" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I'm not 100% sure but I feel that *minuere* is about reducing the whole, as an intrinsic quality, and *imminuere* about reducing a part, as an extrinsic quality; an addition *minūtus* is an adjective meaning &quot;very small, petty&quot;. Thus one can say *pretiō aliquid imminūtō* to mean &quot;at a somewhat reduced price&quot;, but *pretiō aliquid minūtō* reads like the adjective to me, while *pretium aliquid minuere* sounds questionable, oxymoronic, like &quot;slash the price somewhat&quot;. Likewise **pretiō nihil/paulum minūtō* sounds hardly possible, while *imminūtō* works perfectly." CreationDate="2022-02-22T15:31:29.987" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38971" PostId="17805" Score="0" Text="Can you expand on this answer a bit?" CreationDate="2022-07-22T05:51:01.527" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37368" PostId="17808" Score="1" Text="What does &quot;ad&quot; mean in &quot;ad centiēs...&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-02-22T17:21:52.673" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37375" PostId="17808" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher Probably &quot;approximately&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-22T19:11:46.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37366" PostId="17809" Score="0" Text="I upvoted your answer for completeness and clarity.   However, after recently discovering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_numerals, I think it would be better to say that the question mentions four types of Latin numerals, rather than stating only four types exist in Latin." CreationDate="2022-02-22T16:21:01.490" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37367" PostId="17809" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher As far as I can tell, the tradition is to say that Latin has four kinds of numerals and treat the other things as derived adjectives. Such classifications are a matter of taste, of course." CreationDate="2022-02-22T16:42:58.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37374" PostId="17809" Score="0" Text="I confirmed the tradition of four kinds of numerals in materials I had handy and will post the question." CreationDate="2022-02-22T19:02:17.993" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37380" PostId="17810" Score="0" Text="It's ubiquitous in Caesar, to name just one author." CreationDate="2022-02-23T02:09:55.797" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="37381" PostId="17811" Score="0" Text="Whether by chance or design, all of these instances seem to be the kind of cases where the nouns could be treated as inanimate and similar to cases where the ablative of means is used with animates without the preposition *ab*.  Livy's use of masculine plural, though late of course, still makes me wonder whether Latin speakers did not  feel fully comfortable with neuter agreement with animates acting like animates." CreationDate="2022-02-23T14:49:02.417" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37382" PostId="17811" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher I'm not sure if it's a lack of comfort or an abundance of freedom. Hard to say, but that it occurs so frequently in the Classical period means it's certainly allowed. The Curtius Rufus one is *milia hominum*, which I think is hard to conceive as inanimate." CreationDate="2022-02-23T15:50:12.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37383" PostId="17811" Score="0" Text="But the Curtius Rufus example is talking about captured plunder, and that is why I see it as a &quot;comfortable usage.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-23T16:39:34.903" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37387" PostId="17811" Score="0" Text="A few weeks back there was a question about the lack of neuter nouns referring to people other than as commodities or things to be manipulated, and I was surprised at this fact.  The issue stuck in my head, since in Greek and German, neuter diminutives are normal, even though they cause problems for long-distance concord." CreationDate="2022-02-23T19:26:21.783" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37377" PostId="17812" Score="1" Text="I cannot write up a full answer, but I would like to add that fractions seem to be a category of itself." CreationDate="2022-02-22T21:48:52.730" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37482" PostId="17819" Score="0" Text="I don't think *impero* takes accusative + infinitive. It takes *ut* + subjunctive, so *duces mihi imperaverunt ut te rogarem...*, right?" CreationDate="2022-03-09T20:18:01.367" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="37501" PostId="17819" Score="0" Text="@MPW: You don't sound very sure; or, are you just being polite? Please advise." CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:40:52.650" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37506" PostId="17819" Score="1" Text="I am certain. See, e.g., [this link](https://gavirtual.instructure.com/courses/2699/pages/matrimonium-selenes-indirect-commands) and note in particular the two tables and the list of exceptions at the bottom. (The link explicitly is https://gavirtual.instructure.com/courses/2699/pages/matrimonium-selenes-indirect-commands)" CreationDate="2022-03-11T18:47:56.643" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="37511" PostId="17819" Score="0" Text="@MPW: Thank you. I've changed it. The quote was: &quot;The broadcasters have ordered me to ask you....&quot;; perfect tense with &quot;have&quot;--primary tense-- so is it present subjunctive, &quot;rogem&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-03-12T12:25:33.877" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37513" PostId="17819" Score="1" Text="“The Perfect Indicative is ordinarily a secondary tense, but allows the primary sequence when the present time is clearly in the writer’s mind” - A&amp;G 485 (New Latin Grammar).  So it’s up to you, depending on the shade of meaning you intend. For what it’s worth, N&amp;H(Latin Prose Composition) break it up as “Perfect *with ‘have’*” and “Perfect *without ‘have’* (Aorist)”, as you suggest. Bennett 268 (New Latin Grammar) says “The Perfect Indicative is usually an historical tense (even when translated in English as a Present Perfect), and so is followed by the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive”" CreationDate="2022-03-12T13:17:47.393" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="37410" PostId="17820" Score="1" Text="I am not an expert in this, but your last thought seems attractive to me, given the context.  In other words, he might be using *si vixero* to mean &quot;if I survive,&quot; especially because of his use of the future perfect." CreationDate="2022-02-24T19:05:31.827" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37386" PostId="17821" Score="0" Text="Conveni for “I fit” is probably stretching things for parallelism, but some construction with convenire probably works." CreationDate="2022-02-23T18:48:42.550" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37393" PostId="17821" Score="0" Text="Agreed. I would say it counts, agreeing with you." CreationDate="2022-02-23T23:28:11.090" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37403" PostId="17821" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey It works in Russian for what it's worth, but the meaning isn't exactly &quot;to occupy the space snugly&quot; centered on the object, but &quot;to be deemed fit&quot; centered on the person who passes the judgement, as in &quot;to suit&quot;. I think it's the same in Latin; I can only think of *quadrāre.*" CreationDate="2022-02-24T02:27:28.047" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37414" PostId="17822" Score="0" Text="A possessive adjective *tuum/meum* might be an option in this case, but genitive *tui/mei* would not. Genitives of personal pronouns don't have possessive semantics -- they only occur in the objective and partitive genitive uses." CreationDate="2022-02-24T22:06:19.570" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37394" PostId="17823" Score="0" Text="I take it then that _v_ is governed by the same rule as _f_ and that /z/ would cause the same lengthening, were it a phoneme in Latin?" CreationDate="2022-02-23T23:29:39.100" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37395" PostId="17823" Score="3" Text="@CannedMan: Lengthening of the vowel is not attested as far as I know before *v*: its original pronunciation was as a semivowel [w], and that is thought to have still been the general value during the &quot;Classical Latin&quot; period (1st century BC) and possibly persisted up through the 5th century AD (see [previous question on dating of the change from w](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/325))." CreationDate="2022-02-24T00:05:45.847" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37401" PostId="17823" Score="3" Text="@CannedMan V /w/ is a liquid and patterns with /j, l, r/, not with fricatives, so there was probably optional assimilation into /ww/ but no lengthening. /z/ is a Greek &quot;phonostyleme&quot;, but  this is either always double or an affricate, so /zz/ or /dz/. After /n/ it was almost certainly the latter (/ndz/) and didn't lengthen the vowel." CreationDate="2022-02-24T02:11:28.953" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37406" PostId="17823" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides: Yes, of course! (I speak with a Classical pronunciation myself, so I am not sure what I was thinking.) How about after the sound change? Did /v/ (not /w/) cause lengthening the same way /f/ did?" CreationDate="2022-02-24T16:03:42.857" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37402" PostId="17824" Score="0" Text="I've always found this use of the dative with *nomen* odd. After all, it hardly needs stating that one has a name, so it isn't really parallel with *Est mihi liber* in &quot;emphasizing the fact of possession&quot;." CreationDate="2022-02-24T02:14:00.993" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37408" PostId="17824" Score="0" Text="@TKR How about thinking of it as something like: &quot;Adam exists for me as a name.&quot;  In many languages across different language families (e.g., Russian, Arabic, Japanese), the concepts English expresses with &quot;to have&quot; are expressed with constructions indicating existence.  This is also apparent in the expressions for &quot;there is/are&quot; in French and Spanish which derive from *habēo*.  ASL can use one sign for both meanings with &quot;to have&quot; as the iconic meaning.  In such a case, using a possessive pronoun to say &quot;my name is X&quot; may not be good pragmatically, so you say: &quot;Adam exists for me as a name.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-02-24T18:35:01.177" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37412" PostId="17824" Score="0" Text="That may be right and I don't have a better account, but (a) the pragmatics of *Adam exists for me as a name* seem different in that (insofar as such an utterance is plausible) *Adam* seems to be topic rather than focus, and (b) existential *est* is normally clause-initial and that isn't usually the case in this construction. I may be biased though by being a speaker of a language of the type you describe (Hebrew), in which the equivalent of *Est mihi liber* is the standard way to say &quot;I have a book&quot; but which can definitely not say the equivalent of *Nomen mihi Adam est*." CreationDate="2022-02-24T21:44:15.273" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37413" PostId="17824" Score="0" Text="Thinking about this information-structurally, it seems that *Adam* has to be focused and either *mihi* or *nomen* can act as an introduced topic if it's clause-initial: so e.g. *Mihi Adam est nomen* &quot;As for me, the name to/for me is Adam&quot;; *Nomen mihi est Adam* &quot;As for a name, the one to/for me is Adam&quot;. Some other nouns enter into the same construction: e.g. Ovid *Met.* 3.582-3 *'nomen mihi' dixit 'Acoetes,	&#xA;patria Maeonia est'*. I don't think this has the same kind of existential semantics as *Est mihi liber*." CreationDate="2022-02-24T21:55:07.630" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37415" PostId="17824" Score="0" Text="@TKR  Woodcock in Section 63n lists a few examples of the name formula: Plautus: *nomen Arcturo est mihi*; Cicero: *duo isti sunt T. Roscii, quorum alteri Capitoni cognomen est* (There are two T. Roscii, one of whom has the surname &quot;Capito); Tacitus: castra quibus veterum nomen est.  I think you are right about the normal ordering of initial mihi or nomen, but the placement of est is tricky and based on other pragmatics.  I don't like the order &quot;Nomen mihi Adam est,&quot; but didn't want to complicate matters.  Some of this is probably worth its own question." CreationDate="2022-02-24T23:13:58.327" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37421" PostId="17824" Score="3" Text="@TKR the dative seems to be preferred with nouns that fall into the classes of relational or inalienable. Cf. Plautus: &quot;Ampsigura mater mihi fuit, Iahon pater.&quot; In this instance, the word &quot;nomen&quot; isn't used, but the function of the statement is to introduce the parents' names." CreationDate="2022-02-25T17:14:56.990" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37422" PostId="17824" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey I hadn't thought of this in terms of inalienable possession -- that does seem like a promising analysis!" CreationDate="2022-02-25T18:40:39.033" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37405" PostId="17827" Score="3" Text="It would be helpful for you to include a translation and any particular parts you weren't sure about. I definitely feel that *meum dorsum me occidit* is a very English-language idiom, so if you're trying to write something Classical in flavour (as opposed to leaving it as an inside joke for English-speaking Latin readers) I'd find another phrase." CreationDate="2022-02-24T14:34:26.520" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="37409" PostId="17827" Score="2" Text="I'll second @dbmag9's suggestion. Can you say what exactly we're supposed to be looking for? Mere grammar? Stylistic suggestions? Classical v. post-classical differences? It's definitely a pretty literal translation of the English." CreationDate="2022-02-24T19:02:47.333" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37411" PostId="17827" Score="3" Text="Generally, I commend the translation and the mostly very good Latin, but agree with the other commenters that with more guidance from you, someone could give a more helpful response, depending on what you might want from an answer and what period of Latin you are trying to emulate.   For instance, *quia* only works with later Latin.  As further examples, there are changes in word order that would be more normal for the classical period and changes in some of the word choices, such as *nōn realiter* for what is probably meant as &quot;not really, no&quot; or *prō* for *prō hāc inquīs[ī]tiōne*." CreationDate="2022-02-24T19:33:36.597" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37425" PostId="17827" Score="2" Text="I closed this question and [the other similar unanswered one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/17829/79) and [the answered one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/17818/79) for lack of details. See the comments above for details; they apply to all questions. Please edit to elaborate so that your question contains a clear question and goal!" CreationDate="2022-02-25T20:19:51.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37426" PostId="17827" Score="2" Text="Verba Latina intelligō, iocum vērō nōn. Quid technica electricitātis? Inest in fabellā paronomasia?" CreationDate="2022-02-25T21:53:25.127" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="37417" PostId="17828" Score="1" Text="What would lead you to think it's pronounced &quot;logeos&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-02-25T06:12:34.187" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37418" PostId="17828" Score="0" Text="@cmw From my Greek grammar, so far as I ascertained the pronunciation of the single words in Greek, I got “l-oa-ge-o-ss”.  Of course I’m a new learner with Greek; so it most likely can be understood as a mistake.  I’m not certain." CreationDate="2022-02-25T06:31:22.850" UserId="10845" />
  <row Id="37419" PostId="17828" Score="3" Text="Is the &quot;e&quot; in &quot;logeos&quot; supposed to mark a soft pronounciation of the &quot;g&quot; or a vowel &quot;e&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-02-25T11:12:14.363" UserId="9062" />
  <row Id="37420" PostId="17828" Score="0" Text="@Agnes According to my other Grammar, John D. Schwandt, he says Gamma is pronounced “Softer than English g, similar to a gargling sound.  If pronounced with a front vowel sound, it is like English y in “yet”. “.  I think maybe I misunderstood the “ge” sound with the difference of the guttural “g” sound?" CreationDate="2022-02-25T16:28:57.690" UserId="10845" />
  <row Id="37423" PostId="17829" Score="1" Text="I love it, but one small thing.  Should studēo take the dative and why not make it sentence final?" CreationDate="2022-02-25T18:52:07.893" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37449" PostId="17829" Score="2" Text="Are you able to include any of the information asked for by [these comments](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17827/check-my-latin-a-joke-about-academia)?" CreationDate="2022-03-04T01:21:34.393" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37431" PostId="17831" Score="1" Text="The article you linked says that &quot;[b]y the 1st century the voiced consonants β and γ became fricatives /β/ and /ɣ/&quot; (though I don't agree there's good evidence for that and I think you're probably right)." CreationDate="2022-02-26T01:31:08.033" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="37433" PostId="17832" Score="2" Text="Your guess is correct, they are both present participles forming parts of ablative absolutes." CreationDate="2022-02-26T17:38:08.337" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37435" PostId="17832" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! Inching forwards in knowledge." CreationDate="2022-02-26T19:44:42.277" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="37430" PostId="17833" Score="3" Text="There is nothing particularly polite about the subjunctive, and Christian prayers use the imperative quite frequently, e.g. *Rex tremendae maiestatis, qui salvandos salvas gratis: salva me, fons pietatis. // Recordare Iesu pie, quod sum causa tuae viae: ne me perdas illa die.*" CreationDate="2022-02-26T00:57:05.707" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37429" PostId="17835" Score="5" Text="A famous literal example is Cic. Cat. 1, 33: *Tu, Iuppiter ... hunc et huius socios ... vita fortunisque civium omnium arcebis ... etc.*" CreationDate="2022-02-26T00:49:42.100" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45362" PostId="17835" Score="1" Text="@Draconis: What a marvellous find this was! Do you know the time-period for this curse-tablet? Would it be written on a clay-tablet? I guess it must be--stone-cutters wrote in straight lines!" CreationDate="2023-11-03T09:41:46.893" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45369" PostId="17835" Score="1" Text="@tony Scratched into a thin sheet of lead, in this case!" CreationDate="2023-11-03T14:26:16.843" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37434" PostId="17838" Score="1" Text="I'm a bit surprised by this: did the Septuagint translators just get it wrong? Regarding the Vulgate, it's important to note that the current version of the Psalms is (essentially) a literal translation from the Septuagint. Jerome didn't do a *de novo* translation from the Hebrew until later, but that version was never much used. I noticed that the 1945 psaltery changes *cervis* to *ibicibus*." CreationDate="2022-02-26T17:49:15.537" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="37436" PostId="17838" Score="2" Text="@brianpck: Sure looks like it. But would αίγαγρος have been known to the Jewish community in Egypt?" CreationDate="2022-02-27T00:01:29.150" UserId="3345" />
  <row Id="37439" PostId="17838" Score="1" Text="@Joshua What Jewish community in Egypt?" CreationDate="2022-02-28T05:10:32.583" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="37440" PostId="17838" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler: According to https://www.thoughtco.com/the-story-of-the-septuagint-bible-119834 , the Septuagint was translated in Alexandria, which is in Egypt." CreationDate="2022-02-28T05:22:49.970" UserId="3345" />
  <row Id="37438" PostId="17839" Score="2" Text="I don't know about music in Ancient Rome, but one finds in poetry, I remember seeing this in the Aeneid, short syllables, particularly at the ends of words, scanning as long for the sake of the meter. I think this is called *irrational lengthening*." CreationDate="2022-02-27T23:12:46.647" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37451" PostId="17840" Score="0" Text="I think that ref. is Cic. pro Flacco, 12.28." CreationDate="2022-03-04T16:24:16.313" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37446" PostId="17843" Score="0" Text="What is the difference between &quot;prius&quot; = &quot;before&quot; and  &quot;prius&quot; &quot;quam&quot; (written, annoyingly, as two words) = &quot;before&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-03-02T16:44:36.633" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37447" PostId="17843" Score="0" Text="@tony &quot;prius&quot; by itself is an adverb. &quot;prius&quot; plus &quot;quam&quot; is a conjunction. &quot;Jim arrived earlier [in the day]&quot; vs. &quot;Jim arrived earlier than Bob [arrived]&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-03T00:02:11.450" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37443" PostId="17845" Score="0" Text="There's at least [one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/923/moving-the-stress-in-sung-latin) song sung in Classical Latin..." CreationDate="2022-03-02T04:22:06.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37453" PostId="17845" Score="0" Text="@cmw Aren't all the ones on your link modern musical settings of the liturgy and not music from the classical era?" CreationDate="2022-03-04T21:04:33.970" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37476" PostId="17845" Score="0" Text="Sorry, wrong link! [This](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16952/songs-being-sung-in-classical-latin-literature) is what I meant to post." CreationDate="2022-03-08T07:21:50.320" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37478" PostId="17845" Score="0" Text="@cmw I perused the links and do see lyrics, but I couldn't find any actual musical settings that would indicate whether vowel length was observed." CreationDate="2022-03-08T18:31:32.180" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37448" PostId="17851" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much! That makes so much more sense!" CreationDate="2022-03-03T23:33:35.290" UserId="10737" />
  <row Id="37444" PostId="17852" Score="2" Text="Might you be thinking of the French phrase _fait accompli_?" CreationDate="2022-03-02T12:06:32.847" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="37445" PostId="17853" Score="0" Text="I actually ended up remembering it: Fait accompli. I do, however, remember reading &quot;alea iacta est&quot; as well, so thank you for reminding me of it!" CreationDate="2022-03-02T16:28:22.070" UserId="10862" />
  <row Id="37617" PostId="17853" Score="0" Text="@AlexKukura “Fait accompli” is French" CreationDate="2022-03-22T11:20:48.007" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="37450" PostId="17855" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the info about the poetic plural, that part makes much more sense now. I know that *Veneres Cupidinesque* is vocative, but in English we can still address someone and make a comparison to them without using the nouns again: &quot;O Venuses and Cupids, and you men (however many there are of you) even more gracious [than they are].&quot; But Latin doesn't work that way?" CreationDate="2022-03-04T09:04:01.267" UserId="10869" />
  <row Id="37454" PostId="17855" Score="0" Text="@manthanomen Yes, you would need some sort of indication that they're being compared, typically *quam*. There's no implied comparison to other nouns here. This usage, btw, is very common." CreationDate="2022-03-05T02:00:03.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37452" PostId="17856" Score="2" Text="Have you looked up *oblivisci* in a dictionary? Does it perhaps say anything about the accusative?" CreationDate="2022-03-04T19:13:28.660" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37455" PostId="17860" Score="0" Text="thanks. now the word order makes more sense. I do find this a little different from other translations in meaning, but probably stylistic decision by the translator." CreationDate="2022-03-05T10:04:33.723" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="37477" PostId="17861" Score="1" Text="You may want to look at this article: https://latinitium.com/what-is-vulgar-latin/&#xA;&#xA;There are some notes about this under the pronunciation section." CreationDate="2022-03-08T17:35:55.687" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37459" PostId="17865" Score="2" Text="Sebastian, thank you so much for your response, this is very helpful! I wonder would there also be a more appropriate word to express ‘season’ of healing then, or does Tempus imply this also? Thanks for taking the time to respond - it’s appreciated:)" CreationDate="2022-03-06T13:30:44.870" UserId="10876" />
  <row Id="37461" PostId="17865" Score="1" Text="@amyelyn, tempus + gerundive definitely seems to be good choice here.  *Ecclesiastes* Chapter 3 mentions many *tempora*.  at verse 3 you can find also another option for &quot;time to heal&quot; which is &quot;tempus sanandi&quot; (but this is more like *medendi*)" CreationDate="2022-03-06T22:40:27.993" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="37465" PostId="17865" Score="0" Text="Ah, this is much clearer to me now. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge here.. Thank you!  :)" CreationDate="2022-03-07T16:28:20.570" UserId="10876" />
  <row Id="37468" PostId="17865" Score="1" Text="@d_e Ahaha, great find! [That passage](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecc+3&amp;version=VULGATE) is an absolute gerundium fest :)" CreationDate="2022-03-07T20:34:02.477" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37462" PostId="17867" Score="3" Text="Hi BiblioCase, I'm pausing this question temporarily, since as it's written in will be prone to more discussion-based responses. At StackExchange, at least at the main site, questions should be relatively narrow and answerable with a correct answer. In light of that, this question can be edited to elicit a more definitive response. Are you looking for scholarly treatment of the topic, examples of any type, specific kinds of examples, or something else? Answering these questions here in the comments will better help us understand what you're after." CreationDate="2022-03-07T05:36:58.680" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37463" PostId="17867" Score="0" Text="If you're unsure about this process, feel free to ping me in these comments (with `@cmw`)." CreationDate="2022-03-07T05:37:48.773" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37466" PostId="17867" Score="0" Text="You might want to give a look at [Plin. Nat. Hist. 8:80 ss](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/8*.html#80) re: wolves" CreationDate="2022-03-07T17:24:55.480" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37469" PostId="17867" Score="2" Text="Gee, Romans and wolves, I seem to recall there was something ..." CreationDate="2022-03-07T20:57:30.520" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37479" PostId="17868" Score="0" Text="Oh, thank you so very much for your invaluable help, and such informative answers. I am very much in awe of your knowledge...I did manage to attain an 'O' level in Latin but that was more than forty years ago. In the intervening years a lot of water has flowed under that particular bridge and washed away pretty much everything I ever knew!" CreationDate="2022-03-08T20:55:33.390" UserId="10882" />
  <row Id="37470" PostId="17871" Score="1" Text="Good point about canere vs cantare. For the curious, here's an entry that goes over the difference: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15950/differences-between-cano-and-canto" CreationDate="2022-03-08T03:47:06.857" UserId="10851" />
  <row Id="37480" PostId="17871" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134648/discussion-between-cmw-and-florianus)." CreationDate="2022-03-09T02:08:42.667" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37481" PostId="17872" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your fast reply and reference to Wikipedia.  This is great." CreationDate="2022-03-09T11:04:35.180" UserId="10883" />
  <row Id="37483" PostId="17880" Score="1" Text="There is no scholarly dispute about Latin vowel qualities, there is a reddit dispute. Calabrese's paper doesn't deal with Latin as such; it's a paper on rule-based phonology whose purpose is to introduce the operation of Negation which inverts the values of phonological features and serves to repair &quot;marked&quot; configurations such as [+high, -tense] vowels. Even worse, this paper is a mash-up of 3 different papers on different topics (which I haven't read). His overview of historical evidence is sloppy and his assertion is that Latin had an Italian-type 7 vowel system by the 1st century AD." CreationDate="2022-03-09T20:33:19.463" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="44176" PostId="17881" Score="0" Text="Could this be the so-called &quot;accusative of respect,&quot; borrowed from Greek, used instead of vocative to show respect?" CreationDate="2023-07-20T14:46:46.997" UserId="13780" />
  <row Id="44177" PostId="17881" Score="0" Text="The accusative of respect doesn't express respect, it denotes a thing *in respect to which* a verb (or noun) is limited; e.g. *caput nectentur* &quot;they will be bound in respect to their heads&quot; → &quot;their heads will be bound&quot;; *nuda genu* &quot;nude with respect to the knee&quot; → &quot;with her knee bare&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-20T15:14:59.683" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="37484" PostId="17883" Score="7" Text="Cicero's famous *o me miserum!* (Oh, poor me!)" CreationDate="2022-03-10T05:29:00.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37485" PostId="17883" Score="4" Text="@cmw and Cicero's infamous *o fortunatam natam me consule Romam*!" CreationDate="2022-03-10T08:50:16.917" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37486" PostId="17884" Score="0" Text="There _could_ be something written in Latin from authoritative sources in modern times re surgical masks. Is that Ok for you?" CreationDate="2022-03-10T16:49:35.493" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37488" PostId="17884" Score="0" Text="Yes, that would be fine" CreationDate="2022-03-10T22:02:57.520" UserId="10851" />
  <row Id="37518" PostId="17884" Score="1" Text="Germanic ***masca*** is used in Medieval Latin, which seems to mean a mask for air filtering" CreationDate="2022-03-13T07:20:14.287" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="37491" PostId="17885" Score="0" Text="Quaestio bona est—melior monstrans quod verbum plurale esset." CreationDate="2022-03-11T00:40:55.023" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37555" PostId="17886" Score="0" Text="Sic quoque opinio mea ." CreationDate="2022-03-17T16:54:55.007" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="37495" PostId="17889" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! If you add a bit more context to what you want to convey with that phrase it will help lead to more accurate suggestions." CreationDate="2022-03-11T14:56:32.930" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37522" PostId="17889" Score="3" Text="What do you exactly mean by &quot;for the many&quot;? Is this *for* in the sense of *on behalf of* or *for the sake of*, or is it in the sense of *to/for*. If it is the former, I think &quot;pro&quot; would be a good preposition to use, but, if the latter, maybe the dative. I assume you want the former. Also, can you be a bit more specific about &quot;the many.&quot; I guess that you want this to mean the Roman citizenry, but do you want a more literal translation which would render as *the many [men/people]*, or you do you want it as to represent the lower classes, or something else entirely? Gratiās tibi ago." CreationDate="2022-03-14T10:59:59.670" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37493" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="Thank you. An excellent answer, as always. Here, &quot;little&quot; isn't so much a comment on the magnitude of the conflict, but it's legitimacy. Further, by implication, the &quot;little men&quot; who start wars whose primary motivations tend to be money, land &amp; power. Thanks again." CreationDate="2022-03-11T12:03:29.207" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37494" PostId="17891" Score="1" Text="*impudēns* means &quot;cheeky, shameless&quot;, describing a mental attitude of throwing a challenge. Besides animate beings it can only refer to acts or attitudes by metonymy. *—quod nōn oportet* means &quot;something one shouldn't do&quot; (a generalising moral maxim). You need to supply a verb meaning &quot;happen&quot; and change the tense: *quod nōn oportēbat fierī.* But even this refers to an external obligation or necessity, while the English expression means &quot;it could have been prevented&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-11T13:16:29.050" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37496" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian In Cicero, *quod no oporteat* is definitely not a &quot;generalizing moral maxim.&quot; It's a very specific moral prohibition: &quot;It is our duty to not do that whether it's legal or not, and it's not legal, so we definitely shouldn't do it!&quot; Calling it a &quot;generalizing moral maxim&quot; is not doing Cicero or the phrase justice." CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:16:42.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37497" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I already said at the beginning that *turpis* is an excellent choice, but do note that &quot;dirty little&quot; already has the connotations of &quot;cheekiness&quot; in it. The diminutive negates the severity that *turpis* suggests. And it's not a light-hearted cheekiness, but one of fraud. For this reason Cicero twice uses it in the *In Verrem*, both times indicating Verres' (and his cohort's) swindling." CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:23:01.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37498" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="Would I use it to describe the actual conflict? No. But I would use it for what he wanted translated." CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:23:48.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37499" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="@tony That part should be in the OP. I read &quot;dirty little&quot; in the sense of &quot;our dirty little secret.&quot; To my ears, &quot;dirty little war&quot; would describe clandestine operations, not a 40 mile column of Russian soldiers and tanks!" CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:25:24.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37500" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="*impudēns* cannot translate &quot;dirty&quot; at all, it means &quot;challenging the norms of modesty and propriety, arrogant, disrepsectful, cheeky&quot;. *impudīcus* can translate &quot;dirty&quot; in the sense &quot;inappropriately sexually arousing&quot;, but not in the sense required. You might be trying to find a Latin equivalent for &quot;causing a feeling of shame&quot;, for example *pudendus* - but this one's about personal morals and other intimate things." CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:28:13.590" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37502" PostId="17891" Score="1" Text="As for *oporteat,* I think you misunderstand. I call it a generic moral maxim in the same sense as there's a generic &quot;you&quot;: *est enim aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet* means &quot;there are things that you (one) shouldn't do even if it's allowed.&quot; This is the generalising meaning of the present tense *quod oportet* &quot;what should be done&quot; just like in *quod licet (Jovī)* &quot;what is allowed.&quot; Your use of it in *quod numquam oporteat* is incorrect, it cannot express the objective &quot;that shouldn't happen&quot; because it means &quot;something one shouldn't do&quot; . This is why I called it a moral maxim." CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:41:57.167" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37503" PostId="17891" Score="1" Text="Moreover *bellum quod nōn oportet* is ungrammatical because *(id) quod (nōn) oportet* cannot be an adjectival clause but only a substantival one. It means &quot;what should be done&quot;, not &quot;of a kind that should be done&quot;. *quod nōn oportet/licet* can also be used parenthetically to qualify an entire clause, which is when it can be translated as &quot;something, which&quot;: *dulcia mea sūmpsit, quod nōn licet* &quot;she took my sweets, which isn't allowed...&quot;. But with *oportet* it would mean &quot;which isn't required, isn't the plan of action&quot;. In a restrictive adjectival subjuncitve clause it makes no sense." CreationDate="2022-03-11T16:50:49.747" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37504" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian We will have to agree to disagree on *impudens*. But do note that &quot;dirty&quot; is far more versatile in English that you give it credit. (E.g., dirty rotten scoundrel.). I do need to re-look at *oprtet*, but I wasn't making it a personal verb." CreationDate="2022-03-11T17:12:35.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37505" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="Its versatility in English is not in question. We aren't trying to establish the meaning of &quot;dirty&quot; in tony's original, we already know that it isn't &quot;challenging the norms of modesty and propriety, arrogant, disrepsectful, cheeky&quot;. The latter is the only thing *impudēns* can express - that the war is arrogant and disrespectful. This is a question of fact which is confirmed by consulting a dictionary. I'm sorry but I don't believe in saying &quot;let's agree to disagree&quot; to avoid admitting that facts aren't on one's side." CreationDate="2022-03-11T17:42:01.640" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37507" PostId="17891" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134714/discussion-between-cmw-and-unbrutal-russian)." CreationDate="2022-03-11T23:19:34.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37508" PostId="17893" Score="1" Text="It's not unmentioned. Grammatically, there's a single ut-clause starting in line 29. Delia is the subject of all the subjunctives." CreationDate="2022-03-11T23:34:38.707" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37509" PostId="17893" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Can you (or anyone else) write that up as an answer? Even if it doesn't address whether such constructions are possible, pointing out that this is not an instance does make it a useful answer." CreationDate="2022-03-12T00:33:07.583" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37510" PostId="17893" Score="2" Text="Possibly relevant: [Agreement in &quot;medio tutissimus ibis&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7038/agreement-in-medio-tutissimus-ibis)" CreationDate="2022-03-12T03:45:51.747" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="37517" PostId="17893" Score="0" Text="*Simplex* can only be nominative singular or accusative singular if it's neuter." CreationDate="2022-03-13T03:29:32.293" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37514" PostId="17894" Score="0" Text="Not only a great answer but also a great tip for the book that I didn't know about.  I love Latin grammar and the fact that it took me this long to discover Pinkster's book speaks volumes.  I've got to go out and get it right away." CreationDate="2022-03-12T22:18:12.173" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37516" PostId="17894" Score="1" Text="This use is fairly common in all Indo-European languages I know, including Latin, and it is often referred to as *praedicative*. So praedicative adjectives and participles modify a noun syntactically, but semantically they tell you something about both the status of the noun and the way in which it does something: *she cam home first; shaken, she closed the door; they had painted the door red; she lay in bed trembling*." CreationDate="2022-03-13T03:28:21.980" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37519" PostId="17895" Score="2" Text="I eagerly await your translation of &quot;Mr. Brightside&quot;" CreationDate="2022-03-13T15:54:24.507" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37520" PostId="17895" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Haha! Oh man, I love the entirety of that album!" CreationDate="2022-03-13T15:55:48.897" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38066" PostId="17895" Score="2" Text="Do you think some construction with &quot;boni consulere&quot; would work?" CreationDate="2022-04-22T17:03:47.733" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38067" PostId="17895" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey What do you know! I'm reading its example usages now like I've never seen it before; I'm almost sure I ended up confusing it with *sibi cōnsulere* recently - I'll call this active unlearning. Anyway, it seems to mean 'to receive favourably, to keep some good deed in mind'. R.M. Gummere translates the imp. *bonī cōnsule* in Seneca as 'put it to my credit', and R.A. Kaster as 'count it as a bonus' in Macrobius. Then there's *aequī bonīque faciō* 'I'm cool with that'.—So unless I've missed something it's just out of our semantic range; still, seriously appreciate you mentioning it" CreationDate="2022-04-22T19:15:46.507" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38068" PostId="17895" Score="0" Text="I’ve seen it recently in an early modern dedication, where the author acknowledges the limitations of his talents but then says, “quia tamen iubes, scribo, et uni tibi scribo, qui omnia boni consulere novit.” I’m tempted to render that something like “since you know how to see the good in everything.”" CreationDate="2022-04-22T19:33:39.897" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38070" PostId="17895" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey I think this is the same use as I mention, where the author expresses hope that their work will be received kindly, perhaps by overlooking its flaws. The antonym is *reprehendere, vituperāre.* What would be needed here is some intuitively undesirable situation being interpreted by either an onlooker or a participant, so that nothing is received and no recognition of merit is involved." CreationDate="2022-04-22T20:32:10.800" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37524" PostId="17897" Score="5" Text="Do you want to use that within a larger sentence or as a complete sentence in itself? It makes a difference. Or are you looking for a broader answer that describes both kinds of uses?" CreationDate="2022-03-14T21:48:30.507" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37528" PostId="17897" Score="0" Text="I guess a bit of both. Would the example be completed by adding *est*?" CreationDate="2022-03-15T14:18:42.903" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="37529" PostId="17897" Score="2" Text="Whether you want to add *est* or some other verb makes a big difference. The answer you already got explores the differences and similarities in different contexts, and the context truly matters." CreationDate="2022-03-15T14:40:29.560" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37536" PostId="17897" Score="1" Text="I've added some more examples and observations that you might be interested in." CreationDate="2022-03-15T23:34:57.077" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37525" PostId="17898" Score="4" Text="Given your six examples above, it seems that the ones that contain _meus_ involve a definite subject, whereas _mihi+esse_ is associated to an existential construction, whereby an indefinite interpretation of the subject is the typical one. Do you agree with this generalization? As for your first example (i.e. _fīlius decōrus mihi est_ 'I have a handsome son' OR 'my son is handsome'), I was wondering if there's a way of discriminating between your two readings/interpretations (perhaps via different word order/information structure)." CreationDate="2022-03-15T12:34:42.057" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37526" PostId="17898" Score="3" Text="A very literal translation of _filius decōrus_ ***mihi*** _est_ could be _to me my son is handsome_, correct? Would it have the same connotation as in English where you are demonstrating a comparison of opinion (&quot;to me he is handsome, but maybe not to others&quot;)?" CreationDate="2022-03-15T12:47:22.360" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37531" PostId="17898" Score="2" Text="&quot;To me, my son is handsome&quot; makes&quot; to me&quot; the topic and is not the equivalent of &quot;fīlius decōrus mihi est.&quot;  The latter introduces &quot;fīlius decōrus&quot; as a new topic.  The Latin,(as mentioned in the answer) means: &quot;I have a son.&quot;  Literally, it would be: &quot;There is a handsome son to me.&quot;  To translate &quot;To me, my son is handsome&quot; using one of the sentences in the answer, you would say: &quot;fīlius mihi decōrus [est].&quot;   If you wanted to capture the special emphasis of &quot;to me, my son..., you could say: &quot;Mihi decōrus est fīlius,&quot; which means &quot;in my view, my son is handsome.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-03-15T21:28:57.120" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37534" PostId="17898" Score="1" Text="@Adam I endorse Vegawatcher's answer, which boils down to the fact that it would be very awkward to intonationally focus *mihi* when sentence-final, you'd want to front it, and usually insert the focus marker *quidem: mihi quidem decōrus est fīlius (meus).* Note that if you don't add *meus,* it reads &quot;he's a handsome son if you ask me&quot;.—Likewise, unless *meus* is added, *fīlius mihi decōrus est* rather reads like &quot;I have a son and he's handsome&quot; (= indefinite) which seems to be an instance where it's almost interchangeable with the possessive. Without specific context interpretation is tricky." CreationDate="2022-03-15T22:53:38.733" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37535" PostId="17898" Score="2" Text="@Mitomino I agree with your generalisation, but this is a consequence of *mihi est* typically being the topic, and the correlation between comment and indefiniteness. I've checked Pinkster and he gives *Sunt tibi regna patris Dauni, sunt...* as an example of definite use (though just the one).—Your second question is what I wondered about myself while writing the answer. In general these two readings can be said to express the same thing, commenting on the son's looks. What's clearly separate is the presentational reading, which normally requires you to front *est mihi.*" CreationDate="2022-03-15T22:57:50.017" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37537" PostId="17898" Score="0" Text="Fascinating to see the influence of word order in Latin as an English speaker." CreationDate="2022-03-15T23:43:49.323" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37538" PostId="17898" Score="3" Text="@Adam It's fascinating even as a multilanguage speaker, Latin is pretty extreme in the variety of its syntactic movement rules, which to me is a clear indication of the relative simplicity of its intonation. By contrast English (at least RP and AmE) would surprise Latin speakers with the prominence and variety of its intonation. Where Latin typically moves focussed constituents, English focuses in-situ. Though Latin does still have the basic tool of intonationally breaking the sentence into several phrases to signal what's part of the topic and what of the comment." CreationDate="2022-03-15T23:52:53.180" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37553" PostId="17898" Score="1" Text="this also made me realize that word order really means a lot more than just emphasis." CreationDate="2022-03-17T16:11:08.473" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="37530" PostId="17900" Score="3" Text="Verbum &quot;pro&quot; adicere utrum rectum sit, pendet scilicet e contextu, quem ignoramus. Notabile autem mihi videtur &quot;plures&quot; pro iis, qui mortui sint, i.e. pro mortuis dicere licere, velut &quot;ad plures penetrare&quot; = mori (Plautus, Trinummus 2, 2)." CreationDate="2022-03-15T20:35:32.837" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37540" PostId="17900" Score="1" Text="Indeed, *pro* only works to mean &quot;on behalf of&quot;, which isn't the most likely interpretation of &quot;for the many&quot;. If the intention is &quot;for the benefit of&quot;, as in a donation, then you need the Dative." CreationDate="2022-03-16T01:20:35.570" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37541" PostId="17900" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Would &quot;pro illis&quot; or &quot;pro multis&quot; have been correct? The &quot;plures pro iis&quot; = &quot;The many, on behalf of these&quot;, is clumsy in English, what about Latin? Why did you change &quot;mortui sunt&quot; to perfect subjunctive, &quot;mortui sint&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-03-16T08:54:45.893" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37542" PostId="17900" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian &quot;To signify a standing before or in front of, for defence or protection; hence an **acting for, in behalf of, in favor of, for the benefit of**, on the side of (opp. contra, adversum): “veri inveniendi causā contra omnia dici oportere et pro omnibus,” Cic. Ac. 2, 18, 60;&quot; Straight from Lewis and Short." CreationDate="2022-03-16T12:12:07.897" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37543" PostId="17900" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, thanks for you feedbak, I updated my answer to take it into account, explaining also my choice of words, given the lack of context" CreationDate="2022-03-16T12:15:35.713" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37544" PostId="17900" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian, the last comment also applies to you. It is just that I think user tags don't work twice in a comment." CreationDate="2022-03-16T12:16:22.467" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37545" PostId="17900" Score="0" Text="@cmw It's often difficult to grasp what L&amp;S mean, esp. for a native speaker, so I'll illustrate: *prō multīs dōnāre* &quot;to give on behalf of many = the many give&quot;; *multīs dōnāre* &quot;to give to many = the many receive&quot;; *contrā plūribus dōnāre* - nonsensical. *prō plūribus pugnāre* &quot;to fight for the many&quot;, *contrā plūribus pugnāre* &quot;to fight against the many&quot;, *plūribus pugnāre* - nonsensical. *sanguīs prō plūribus effunditur* &quot;on behalf of, so that they don't have to&quot;, *plūribus* &quot;they receive it&quot;. So a dedicatory inscription will read *frātrī suō, plūribus, populō Rōmānō* etc., not *prō.*" CreationDate="2022-03-16T15:27:10.950" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37546" PostId="17900" Score="0" Text="@tony I was trying to express &quot;you can say 'plures' for those who died.&quot; I wanted to play around a bit with *pro*, not sure if it works. *sint* was subjunctive because of the indirect speech context, one might be able/ prefer to use the indicative here, again not sure. I'm not a Roman, don't take my little Latin exercises too seriously " CreationDate="2022-03-16T16:09:48.970" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37547" PostId="17900" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Where did OP say that it was a dedication? In any case, you might want to re-read that Cicero quote a little more carefully." CreationDate="2022-03-16T17:57:16.727" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37548" PostId="17900" Score="0" Text="@cmw I would ask for a less rhetorical tone. If you re-read my initial comment, you'll see that I didn't claim that the OP said anything of the sort - I said that a gift or dedication seemed to me as the most likely interpretation. I was pointing out that Latin makes a contrast that English doesn't. This is what you replied to, and I explained that your reply is not a counter-example to what I meant but an illustration.—Please take the time to explain what you think it is that I need to notice in the quote instead of suggesting a lack of attention on my part, which reads like a personal remark" CreationDate="2022-03-16T18:06:02.943" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37562" PostId="17906" Score="3" Text="+1 Nice answer. I'd only add that saying **meæ linguæ culpa** / _though my tongue's fault_ in Latin is not too far from the OP's intended meaning, and could still be in line with the original purpose (i.e., a title and an irony, admitting blame to some extent... perhaps prioritizing close reference to a well-known aphorism?)." CreationDate="2022-03-18T14:27:35.890" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37564" PostId="17906" Score="0" Text="@Rafael The thing is, I understood the OP to be referring to written speech, and in that case &quot;tongue&quot; sounds a bit too metaphorical, certainly to us who clearly distingish written and oral speech." CreationDate="2022-03-18T18:15:09.943" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37565" PostId="17906" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I don't see a tongue being at all overly metaphorical. I agree with Rafael, whether it's about written or spoken language." CreationDate="2022-03-18T18:21:02.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37570" PostId="17906" Score="0" Text="@cmw Not in *mea lingua,* because it refers to the tongue organ which is a synedoche (part-whole) for the actual culprit - the speaker and their neurological-articulatory state, which &quot;culminates&quot; in the tongue; language is not in a part-whole relationship with the speaker, has no agency, and cannot be assigned blame other than in personifying contexts (Marriage of Philology and Mercury). *lingua* &quot;language&quot; refers to the system of communication; *mea lingua* cannot mean &quot;my &lt;faulty&gt; neurological-articulatory state&quot;, but only &quot;my native system of communication&quot;. Hopefully I'm making sense." CreationDate="2022-03-18T23:08:33.720" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37572" PostId="17906" Score="0" Text="So e.g. if you and @JoonasIlmavirta are thinking of an English use such as &quot;the issue here is the language - it's too difficult&quot; where &quot;language&quot; means &quot;style&quot;, Latin *lingua* doesn't have such a use - it could only refer to an unfamiliar language. The &quot;culmination&quot; of speech production in the written mode of communication in Latin is the writing implement, which was prototypically *stylus.* Hence the written equivalent of the oral *meae linguae culpa* would be ***meī stylī culpa***. Which is precisely where we get &quot;(difficult) style&quot;.—So actually, tongue is probably seen as an instrument too." CreationDate="2022-03-18T23:25:56.873" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37574" PostId="17906" Score="1" Text="As @cmw says, the OP leaves room for interpretation. I see no obstruction for a lax understanding of &quot;language&quot; in use like this. Conflating written and spoken language isn't an odd or rare choice of words. // I don't understand what you mean by *lingua* only referring to an unfamiliar language." CreationDate="2022-03-18T23:34:35.397" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37575" PostId="17906" Score="0" Text="After a discussion in chat I've elaborated on some points that Joonas raised." CreationDate="2022-03-19T04:26:54.557" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37558" PostId="17907" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! When you say &quot;star&quot;, do you mean a literal star in the cosmos or star in the sense of a celebrity, musician, etc?" CreationDate="2022-03-17T22:07:33.010" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37559" PostId="17907" Score="0" Text="Thanks! I meant a star in the cosmos" CreationDate="2022-03-17T22:09:50.303" UserId="10916" />
  <row Id="37560" PostId="17907" Score="0" Text="Hi CharlyM, I'm still not quite sure what you mean. Can you expand on your question a bit? I have an idea, but clearer questions yield clearer answers. Thanks!" CreationDate="2022-03-18T00:07:13.120" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37561" PostId="17907" Score="0" Text="Hi, in school we once talked about a Latin word (or a sentence I can’t remember) that was about desire and meant something like the regret of a lost star or of loosing a star (the star in the cosmos). I sought on the internet and end up with « desiderus sideris » but I’m not sure it’s a grammatically correct sentence." CreationDate="2022-03-18T06:20:03.330" UserId="10916" />
  <row Id="37563" PostId="17907" Score="1" Text="Some etymologies connect *dēsīderō* (&quot;desire&quot;) with sīdus (&quot;heavenly body/star/constellation&quot;) in a perhaps plausible, but convoluted way.  Could that be the basis for your recollection of a link between &quot;desire&quot; and &quot;star&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-03-18T15:21:10.093" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37576" PostId="17907" Score="0" Text="Yes I think it could be that" CreationDate="2022-03-19T11:27:21.320" UserId="10916" />
  <row Id="37577" PostId="17907" Score="0" Text="I am almost sure when we talk about desire in philosophy class the teacher linked it with a Latin word (or a sentence) that could mean « the sorrow over a lost star ». So I guess « desire » and « star » are linked. &#xA;Could « desideratus sideris » be the right translation and a grammatically correct one ?" CreationDate="2022-03-19T13:52:15.537" UserId="10916" />
  <row Id="37567" PostId="17908" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, and very interesting question! I really hope someone knows or can find out..." CreationDate="2022-03-18T20:44:52.927" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37569" PostId="17908" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Unless I'm mistaken, it's a welcome back..." CreationDate="2022-03-18T22:58:48.703" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37581" PostId="17911" Score="4" Text="FWIW, Glare marks it long, too." CreationDate="2022-03-20T02:29:32.360" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37587" PostId="17911" Score="0" Text="cf. Pācŭvĭus http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Pacuvius" CreationDate="2022-03-20T21:41:07.557" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="37589" PostId="17911" Score="0" Text="Latin stresses the anti-penultimate syllable, the third to last syllable, which would be the &quot;tru&quot; (Vi-**tru**-vi-us). This may have something to do with it." CreationDate="2022-03-20T22:05:13.540" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37584" PostId="17915" Score="3" Text="The sheer number of passages you're asking about here makes me think this question is too broad, as it stands." CreationDate="2022-03-20T17:18:33.827" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37585" PostId="17915" Score="2" Text="Hi snemes2, I agree with Draconis that this question needs more focus. At StackExchange, questions do better when there's some specific answer that can be given. It operates a little bit differently from a discussion board. I'd recommend editing it to focus only on one aspect of your translation difficulties for now, and as that gets answered, more can be asked afterward." CreationDate="2022-03-20T17:50:46.677" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37583" PostId="17916" Score="7" Text="My results on this topic will hopefully be published soon, and then I'll have citable evidence for a proper answer; in the meantime, I can say it seems to have been spoken significantly slower than modern Romance languages, closer to English." CreationDate="2022-03-20T17:05:55.343" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37606" PostId="17916" Score="2" Text="The assumptions in this question seem unfounded. Speaking rate in all languages varies between speakers and situations. It's not at all clear to me either that one can meaningfully talk about the speaking rate of a language, or that the Romance languages are generally spoken faster than English in any sense." CreationDate="2022-03-21T14:24:53.637" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37613" PostId="17916" Score="4" Text="@TKR: one way of measuring speech rate is number of syllables/unit of time, and languages do have measurable differences on this metric (which is likely related a lot to the types of syllables that a language uses). Some relevant Language Log posts: &quot;[Speech rate and per-syllable information across languages](https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=22)&quot;, 2008, Mark Liberman, &quot;[Speed vs. efficiency in speech production and reception](https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=44386)&quot;, 2019, Victor Mair" CreationDate="2022-03-22T00:22:56.083" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37618" PostId="17916" Score="2" Text="@Asteroides Thanks, I hadn't seen that research. But syllables/time doesn't seem like a good metric here because as you say, syllable types vary across languages. (And from the LL posts it looks like those papers end up arguing for a similar overall &quot;rate&quot;.) Given the amount and more importantly the multiple dimensions of variation within any given language it seems like it would be hard even to define an &quot;average&quot;. FWIW subjectively I don't share the OP's impression that Romance languages are generally spoken faster than English in any sense, so I'd like to see some basis for that assumption." CreationDate="2022-03-22T15:48:39.207" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39698" PostId="17916" Score="0" Text="@Draconis When do you think your results on this topic will be published?" CreationDate="2022-09-26T01:02:40.467" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="39699" PostId="17916" Score="3" Text="@AnaMaria I sent my final revisions in to the editors yesterday, so hopefully soon!" CreationDate="2022-09-26T01:06:15.730" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42852" PostId="17916" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Has it been published yet? It would be a great piece to read indeed." CreationDate="2023-04-08T22:31:10.747" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42853" PostId="17916" Score="3" Text="@Jacqueline Indeed it has! I'd forgotten about this; let me add it as a new answer." CreationDate="2023-04-08T22:55:08.517" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37586" PostId="17917" Score="1" Text="&quot;Obviously, not a sentence you'd hear back in the days when Latin was widely spoken&quot; ← today, on everyone's lips?" CreationDate="2022-03-20T21:14:56.220" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37590" PostId="17917" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Well, not on everyone's lips, but it's well known as a [trope](https://tropedia.fandom.com/wiki/My_Hovercraft_Is_Full_of_Eels), and finding translations of it in many languages is [something people do](https://omniglot.com/language/phrases/hovercraft.htm), since that's the original point of the sketch." CreationDate="2022-03-20T22:16:55.547" UserId="10925" />
  <row Id="37592" PostId="17917" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel There's an old [Omniglot](https://omniglot.com/language/phrases/hovercraft.htm) page on it. The Latin is different!" CreationDate="2022-03-21T00:20:13.717" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37593" PostId="17917" Score="0" Text="...which I think is more accurate than Wikipedia: &quot;Navis volitans mihi anguillis plena est.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-03-21T00:21:03.067" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37604" PostId="17917" Score="0" Text="@cmw *navis volitans* seems quite a strange description for a hovercraft." CreationDate="2022-03-21T08:38:21.770" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37605" PostId="17917" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I'm not sure if *volitans* has ever been used as an adjective (rather than a participle), but it can mean 'hover / float about.' I'm only glancing at the passages mentioned in Lewis and Short, but some do seem more 'float' than 'flutter.'" CreationDate="2022-03-21T12:32:13.047" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37594" PostId="17919" Score="1" Text="*Rex* is different, but you will have seen the actual agentive noun: *rector*." CreationDate="2022-03-21T01:42:12.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37595" PostId="17921" Score="2" Text="To me, _aëricumbens_ looks like a transparent compound: it's a boat that rests (cumbere) on the air (aēr). Cumbere is an odd verb in that it's only normally found in compounds (recumbere, succumbere)." CreationDate="2022-03-21T02:18:35.347" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37596" PostId="17921" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Is *cumbere* actually attested? I don't see it in OLD, L&amp;S, or searching PHI." CreationDate="2022-03-21T03:01:51.870" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37597" PostId="17921" Score="1" Text="@cmw Not on its own, I don't think, but it appears in prefixed form often enough that I'm not surprised to see it in a compound. (I suppose _succuba_ and its ilk are evidence against that though.)" CreationDate="2022-03-21T03:19:54.723" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37598" PostId="17921" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Well, there's also [*cubare*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcubo)." CreationDate="2022-03-21T03:31:12.183" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37600" PostId="17921" Score="0" Text="@cmw Right; my understanding is that mostly displaced its cognate cumbo but didn't displace the compounds built off it." CreationDate="2022-03-21T03:46:52.583" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37601" PostId="17921" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Just a guess here, but might *cumbere* be an example of a present nasal infix? If *cubare* weren't first conjugation, it would like very similar to a past tense of *cumbere*, like *λαμβάνω / λαβόν*." CreationDate="2022-03-21T03:52:07.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37602" PostId="17921" Score="0" Text="(Not arguing with the displacement, just thinking about the history of both.)" CreationDate="2022-03-21T03:55:02.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37603" PostId="17921" Score="0" Text="@cmw That's my guess, though if we don't already have a question about that I should ask one." CreationDate="2022-03-21T03:56:12.750" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37612" PostId="17924" Score="1" Text="FWIW, I found [printable edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=rt8_AQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=totius+libri+Dantis+Aldigherii&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjGtdunndj2AhW28LsIHd1HB5EQ6wF6BAgFEAE#v=onepage&amp;q=In%20medio%20itineris&amp;f=false)  by the referred translator Giovanni de Serravalle. Note that it has *e* instead of *ae* at the end of words as many medieval text do." CreationDate="2022-03-21T22:25:10.547" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="37614" PostId="17924" Score="0" Text="Nice find! Swapping _e_ for _ae_ would definitely confuse me." CreationDate="2022-03-22T01:43:16.617" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37610" PostId="17926" Score="6" Text="We shouldn't really expect this level of dialogue to come out of Plautus. It should be noted that basic, reciprocal greetings aren't really a thing in drama, whether it's Latin, Greek, or English. Even in novels, repetitive behaviors are summarized or skipped over. &quot;After they greeted their guests, they directed everyone to the dining room... etc. etc.&quot; With comedy, the quick snappiness of it means there's even less room for formulaic trivialities." CreationDate="2022-03-21T21:25:48.200" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37611" PostId="17926" Score="2" Text="@cmw Very true. While Plautus might be a good insight to daily spoken language, it's certainly not what the actual daily language would have been. I would be thrilled to hear about a source for something more mundane if there is one." CreationDate="2022-03-21T21:39:41.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37665" PostId="17927" Score="0" Text="De Vaan also says: &quot;Because of *b and the restriction to Italo-Celtic, PIE origin of *kub is uncertain.  If PIE, the nasal present and class I conjugation point to a laryngeal-final root *kubH-.  However, -āre is strange for a stative meaning; for this reason, LIV considers *ḱubh₂-éh₁-i̯e- &gt; *kubā(i̯)e-.  (The first &quot;k&quot; has the accent in parentheses.  I don't know how to type that.)" CreationDate="2022-03-25T14:59:29.963" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37625" PostId="17930" Score="2" Text="I'm wondering why you say that *quid agis?* is clearly a reciprocal version of *ut valēs?* when the responses to each are clearly different and follow their literal meaning: the former receives *nōn male,* the latter a characteristically rhetorical *hominem optumum teneō* &quot;I’m holding the hand of an excellent fellow&quot;, flattering the addressee. Granius' rhetorical response fits perfectly into this pattern of unexpected but factual replies to *quid agis?* which Plautus is so fond of." CreationDate="2022-03-23T01:49:36.100" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37704" PostId="17930" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Yep, you're correct, but I am currently too lazy to improve my answer." CreationDate="2022-03-27T13:33:29.593" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37619" PostId="17933" Score="0" Text="Your Wiktionary link is to a different οἱ -- this isn't the nom. pl. of the definite article, but a dat. 3sg. personal pronoun." CreationDate="2022-03-22T18:20:06.943" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37621" PostId="17934" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your answer, it's a good idea indeed. I don't know if there is a purely Latin solution but if not I will use lemma" CreationDate="2022-03-22T18:44:23.730" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="37673" PostId="17934" Score="1" Text="The thing is, the use you're suggesting isn't found in Latin, [not even in New Latin](http://nlw.renaessancestudier.org/words/start.htm). You're backporting an international Graecism into Latin, but the word doesn't have that meaning even in Greek, and is already used in Latin with a different meaning, [including New Latin](http://mateo.uni-mannheim.de/camenaref/hofmann/hof2/s0780a.html). D. Morgan's Silva isn't a proper dictionary but an informal collection of translation ideas; it doesn't attest usage but gives tentative suggestions that don't find their way into the Adumbratio." CreationDate="2022-03-26T02:51:57.897" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37679" PostId="17934" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Interesting, I did not know that. What dictionary would you recommend  for Neo- and contemporary Latin? Is the *Adumbratio* reliable? What about, Traupman’s conversational Latin? I don’t think he gives sources." CreationDate="2022-03-26T13:37:49.637" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37681" PostId="17934" Score="0" Text="Turning that into a question was a good move, I'll write an answer there later if there will still be need for it. The bottom line is that none of them is fool-proof, and the only dictionary I trust is my own brain :-)))" CreationDate="2022-03-26T16:56:33.820" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37682" PostId="17934" Score="0" Text="Gratiās tibi agō" CreationDate="2022-03-26T16:59:25.043" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37789" PostId="17934" Score="1" Text="Lemma has its own meaning in multiple academic fields too. Mathematics (&quot;minor, easily proven thing, used in more comolex proofs&quot;) and botany (some kind of plant part if I recall correctly) come to mind." CreationDate="2022-04-01T06:04:19.483" UserId="10961" />
  <row Id="37620" PostId="17935" Score="1" Text="Yes, I agree.  I didn't think closely enough about the Greek to realize it was the third person pronoun." CreationDate="2022-03-22T18:26:14.040" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37622" PostId="17936" Score="1" Text="We've also had the question about [what to call motorcycles](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16621/whats-the-latin-for-motorcycle)." CreationDate="2022-03-22T19:03:11.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37623" PostId="17937" Score="2" Text="Specifically on οἱ, what I think makes a reconstruction with [w:-] conceivable is the fact that οἱ is (usually) enclitic, so that the geminate would not be word-initial at the prosodic-word level." CreationDate="2022-03-22T19:57:49.403" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37663" PostId="17937" Score="0" Text="Wikipedia, under Ancient Greek Phonology, has this in regards to the pronunciation of liquids: &quot;At the beginning of a word, it was pronounced as a voiceless alveolar trill [r̥]. In some cases, initial ⟨ρ⟩ in poetry was pronounced as a geminate (phonemically /rr/, phonetically [r̥ː]), shown by the fact that the previous syllable is counted as heavy: for instance τίνι ῥυθμῷ must be pronounced as τίνι ρρυθμῷ in Euripides, Electra 772, τὰ ῥήματα as τὰ ρρήματα w/ Aristophanes in his play The Frogs 1059, and βέλεα ῥέον as βέλεα ρρέον in Iliad 12.159.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-03-25T14:33:07.450" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37624" PostId="17939" Score="0" Text="LSJ: 3. of Qualities, τὰ μεταξὺ intermediate, i.e. neither good nor bad, Pl.Grg.468a.&#xA;Here, it is not functioning as a noun, too? In Metaphysics, however, it does not have an article." CreationDate="2022-03-22T21:18:50.390" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="37630" PostId="17939" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad The article is required for it to function as a noun. Or put otherwise, with a phrase like τὰ μεταξὺ there's an implied generic noun, &quot;the (things) between&quot;, but that's not the case when the article is absent." CreationDate="2022-03-23T06:41:22.317" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37632" PostId="17939" Score="0" Text="I think &quot;ἐπὶ τὸ κάτω&quot; follows the same rule. Could you please mention an entry in grammar books about the composition of article and adverb?" CreationDate="2022-03-23T09:51:51.647" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="37633" PostId="17939" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad Sure, see Smyth 1153 on the substantival use of the article: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D1153" CreationDate="2022-03-23T10:27:53.637" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37635" PostId="17939" Score="0" Text="I appreciate your consideration." CreationDate="2022-03-23T12:50:50.613" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="38903" PostId="17939" Score="0" Text="How do you search greek text? I cannot search Greek phrases at all on perseus." CreationDate="2022-07-17T15:41:22.763" UserId="11299" />
  <row Id="38906" PostId="17939" Score="1" Text="@Michael16 That's worth a separate question as it's not really related to this one, but the TLG is a good resource: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/" CreationDate="2022-07-17T17:45:20.817" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37634" PostId="17940" Score="0" Text="Thank you. The abbreviation does indeed seem to be well attested but the word itself, in the dictionaries I have, only refers to &quot;voice&quot; or &quot;saying&quot;. This is an interesting case" CreationDate="2022-03-23T11:46:16.697" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="37638" PostId="17940" Score="0" Text="@Laravel The Oxford Latin Dictionary lists it as meaning 10 (gram.) A word." CreationDate="2022-03-23T20:01:41.397" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37884" PostId="17940" Score="0" Text="@Laravel Hey, I've edited my answer to add some ancient support for this usage of *vōx* and to contrast it with its theoretical alternative, *verbum.* If this ends up reassuring you that this is *the* expression to use, please consider accepting my answer. It seems to be well-established in New Latin lexicography and I don't believe there exist any alternatives for it, for what it's worth." CreationDate="2022-04-08T21:50:40.530" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37627" PostId="17941" Score="1" Text="A&amp;G 372: &quot;Intransitive verbs that govern the dative are used _impersonally_ in the passive (§ 208.d). The dative is retained (cf. § 365) (...). Note: In poetry the personal construction is sometimes found: _Cūr invideor_? (Hor. A. P. 56)&quot;. Cf. the more usual impersonal passive construction: _cur invidetur mihi_?&quot; (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D372 )." CreationDate="2022-03-23T03:15:53.093" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37628" PostId="17941" Score="2" Text="Aliqua ēmendābō: nōn *quaestiō mihi fuit* &quot;I had an investigation, inquiry&quot; sed *dubium mihi fuit, dubitābam, mē interrogābam, mīrātus sum* etc. Nōn *sī vērō* &quot;but if&quot; sed *sī rē vērā, sī vērum est.*" CreationDate="2022-03-23T03:29:31.510" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37637" PostId="17946" Score="0" Text="Hah, yep luman vs lunam was indeed a typo, and the text does have lunam.  Also looking back at the context, it does appear that &quot;they&quot; are some form of spirits.  Getting the right base words sure makes declining easier.  Well done on seeing through my mistake!" CreationDate="2022-03-23T18:21:46.863" UserId="3515" />
  <row Id="37639" PostId="17946" Score="0" Text="@Indigenuity I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly, but there are no &quot;they&quot; in this sentence and no spirits are involved. Mitomino meant that your original incorrect sentence created that impression (which seems totally random to me tbh). The actual sentence says *carmina possunt* &quot;songs/poetry can&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-23T21:02:37.170" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37641" PostId="17946" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I assumed, perhaps incorrectly (see my question mark at the end of my answer), that the &quot;piece of fiction&quot; referred to by Indigenuity in the first line of his question is &quot;The stolen child&quot; by Keith Donohue (see the link at the end of my answer). Here is the relevant fragment from chapter 1: &quot;There exist in this world a range of **sublunary spirits** that _carminibus coelo possunt deducere lunam_, and they have been divided since ancient times into six kinds: fiery, aerial, terrestrial, watery, subterranean, and the whole class of fairies and nymphs&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-24T02:22:54.063" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37642" PostId="17946" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Oh I see, I hadn't opened the link - but then the subject is not elliptical and the example introduced with &quot;e.g.&quot; isn't random but almost certainly the one. I think it's best to include such assumptions in the reply so that the readers can understand the rationale behind your answer; and for the OP to include the source, which would show us the subject of the sentence, explain why it differs from Virgil's original and just generally allow us to make sense of the whole question. Otherwise this Q-A gets a bit too subliminal :-)" CreationDate="2022-03-24T07:33:04.943" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37644" PostId="17946" Score="0" Text="Btw I've found at least two previous uses of this exact expression in occult literature, by the 16th century writers Robert Burton and Jean Riolan, but I doubt that's what the OP was reading)) At least the expression is good Latin and has good pedigree." CreationDate="2022-03-24T07:44:05.403" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37647" PostId="17946" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Ok. Thanks. I've just revised it. Now I hope it's less subliminal. ;-)" CreationDate="2022-03-24T15:29:58.897" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47465" PostId="17946" Score="0" Text="The ‘piece of fiction’ may be referring to ‘The Recognitions’ by William Gaddis Pg 232" CreationDate="2024-02-03T17:01:13.720" UserId="14713" />
  <row Id="37645" PostId="17948" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! You can also include a French version of your question if you are at all unsure about the wording in English. Just edit your question and put the French one at the end. Many of us know enough French for that to be useful." CreationDate="2022-03-24T08:34:10.800" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37646" PostId="17948" Score="3" Text="Not an answer, but a written thought from the guts: I think cor,-dis needs ablative here: **discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde** ([Mt 11:29](https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#11)). Hence probably **nobilis corde**. Not sure about the figurative meaning of _nobilis_ though." CreationDate="2022-03-24T11:51:49.097" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37674" PostId="17948" Score="0" Text="Done, I put the original french version :)" CreationDate="2022-03-26T08:26:17.840" UserId="10935" />
  <row Id="37675" PostId="17948" Score="0" Text="Ok I guess you're right for corde and not cordis" CreationDate="2022-03-26T08:26:41.960" UserId="10935" />
  <row Id="37649" PostId="17950" Score="0" Text="This is a good answer and I agree. In particular, you'd use **corde** because this is a situation for the [ablative of specification](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-specification), no?" CreationDate="2022-03-24T19:25:11.093" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="37650" PostId="17950" Score="1" Text="@AlabamaScholiast Ita vero, tametsi illam sententiam apud Allen &amp; Greenough corde assentior, “As the Romans had no such categories as we make, it is impossible to classify all uses of the Ablative.” " CreationDate="2022-03-24T20:11:48.440" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37657" PostId="17950" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: What about the nominative: &quot;longe cor nobilissimum&quot; = &quot;by far the most noble heart&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-03-25T09:11:39.417" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37668" PostId="17950" Score="0" Text="@tony no objection from me, but that's not exactly the idea the OP is trying to convey, I believe." CreationDate="2022-03-25T20:30:13.837" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37676" PostId="17950" Score="0" Text="I don't know what to say, it's just a full clever answer. I didn't know there were such latin experts here :o&#xA;&#xA;Ok for corde and not cordis. Now I have to choose between Nobilis and generosa. I guess I want to say &quot;generous, worker, empathetic, self-sacrifice, etc.&quot; &#xA;&#xA;In opposite to money or blood descent. I hope I was clearer.&#xA;&#xA;According to this, do you think generosa will fit better ? I'm going to make some research about this. I already saw animus, it seems OK but I don't have the opposition with noble of blood descent." CreationDate="2022-03-26T08:39:38.387" UserId="10935" />
  <row Id="37716" PostId="17950" Score="0" Text="@Francky with this in mind, I think *generosa* would be the better fit, but don't overthink it, both are fine. For example, you are thinking of French &quot;noble,&quot; and if you write *generosa*, French readers may associate that with &quot;généreux,&quot; which you may like or dislike, or you may not care..." CreationDate="2022-03-27T20:52:03.537" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37718" PostId="17950" Score="0" Text="My $0.02: go with generosus, rather than nobilis if you are talking about aristocracy. Nobilis, to me more like &quot;famous&quot; or &quot;a celebrity&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-28T01:33:40.873" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="37870" PostId="17950" Score="0" Text="So, if I understood well, it would be &quot;Nobilis Corde&quot; or &quot;Generosa corde&quot;, depending of what I choose for the meaning. Are these two sentences correct ?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks all for the contributions" CreationDate="2022-04-08T11:42:44.603" UserId="10935" />
  <row Id="37658" PostId="17952" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and very nice question!" CreationDate="2022-03-25T11:39:53.963" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37734" PostId="17953" Score="1" Text="You missed &quot;innocent.&quot; [Innocens](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=innocent&amp;version=VULGATE&amp;filter=ALL&amp;resultspp=25) does work, but [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=innocent&amp;version=NIV) is everywhere the NIV uses the word &quot;innocent&quot; to translate the Hebrew or Greek. Might be useful for cross-referencing." CreationDate="2022-03-29T03:06:58.480" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37659" PostId="17954" Score="0" Text="Nice answer! I think in your point 4 _sunt_ is optional: _tam fortis sum quam decem viri_ or even _tam fortis quam decem viri sum_ do the trick as well. Totally agree with you about word order in no. 3 (unless the verse or other reason suggests otherwise)." CreationDate="2022-03-25T11:42:39.873" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37683" PostId="17954" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much cmw, this is super helpful! Would idem quod, the same as, also work instead of tamquam? I agree it does seem off." CreationDate="2022-03-25T02:20:44.330" UserId="10937" />
  <row Id="37684" PostId="17954" Score="0" Text="No, *id est* wouldn't make sense at all. You could reword it still but the construction I gave is standard." CreationDate="2022-03-25T03:31:48.070" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37686" PostId="17954" Score="0" Text="Oh, and if you find an answer helpful, remember to upvote and (if it solves the question) check mark it." CreationDate="2022-03-25T03:47:59.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37687" PostId="17954" Score="0" Text="Thanks again for the help! Sadly I cannot as I lack the reputation to upvote or comment. I also was for some reason locked out of the original account. I asked a question as a guest (user10936) and when I went to finish account creation in the email it created a different account (Prime Paladin). I have no way to access the original account as it redirects me to this one, I deeply apologize and have attempted to upvote your very useful answer!" CreationDate="2022-03-25T04:12:07.423" UserId="10937" />
  <row Id="37688" PostId="17954" Score="0" Text="Interesting. Let me see if I can figure out how to help. Hang tight." CreationDate="2022-03-25T04:56:45.993" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37689" PostId="17954" Score="0" Text="@PrimePaladin [Here are instructions for merging two accounts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts), which is what we recommend. It solves problems like this. We moderators can't do it ourselves, so you have to follow the instructions and then wait. Let us know if you have any questions." CreationDate="2022-03-25T14:53:50.930" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37698" PostId="17964" Score="0" Text="I was wondering if your understanding of this example (and/or the &quot;confusion&quot; referred to above) was influenced by a translation like the one that can be found in Perseus (see the one by C. D. Yonge (1903): &quot;No one in Agrigentum was either so advanced in age, or so infirm in strength...&quot;). Be this as it may, your question is a very good one. +1!" CreationDate="2022-03-27T05:01:42.093" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37702" PostId="17965" Score="0" Text="Germans say &quot;you can tell that to your grandmother&quot; (i.e., but not to me), apparently predicated on the premise that mild-mannered grandmothers are unlikely to call out tall tales told by their own grandchildren. So maybe *Avia credat tua* ..." CreationDate="2022-03-27T12:13:30.427" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37703" PostId="17965" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Heh, Russian has this exact expression too: *расскажи это своей бабушке.* It's strictly for calling out lies, however. I don't think it's about mild manners as much as about old people's credulity." CreationDate="2022-03-27T12:34:10.453" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37711" PostId="17965" Score="0" Text="For the origin of the name Apella, see this article from the Jewish encyclopaedia:- https//www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1629-apella" CreationDate="2022-03-27T19:08:31.930" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="37767" PostId="17965" Score="1" Text="As to the gullibility of grandmothers in Latin, there is a reference to this in Persius, Satires 5, 91-92: disce, sed ira cadat naso rugosaque sanna,&#xA;dum veteres avias tibi de pulmone revello ‘while I tear out the old grandmothers (i.e. old wives’ fables) from your lung." CreationDate="2022-03-30T10:27:25.903" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38103" PostId="17965" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: How does &quot;di vostram fidem&quot; (= &quot;the gods to your faith&quot;), translate to such awful expletives?" CreationDate="2022-04-25T13:34:00.240" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38104" PostId="17965" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm sure you see that &quot;the gods to your faith&quot; is not an expression that makes sense, so the Latin clearly can't mean that. It means &quot;gods! [I call upon] your guarantee/assurance/protection etc.&quot;. None of them are particularly awful (&quot;for God's sake&quot; is full-on BBC English bordering on euphemistic); they're equivalent because all of them are typical strong expletives in their respective cultures that invoke something sacred, respected. You understand that curses and expletives aren't translated using literal equivalents, but functional ones. Russian cursing is sexual, Roman was religious" CreationDate="2022-04-25T15:11:26.660" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37706" PostId="17966" Score="0" Text="I don't think there is a difference between Silva and Adumbria, both were just abandoned projects.  So one was the start of a project, then they got a better format and tried to put everything in the new format, then they gave up on that project too.  There really isn't a good neo-latin dictionary out there." CreationDate="2022-03-27T15:31:24.433" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37733" PostId="17966" Score="0" Text="Hi Vtex. We typically make resource request CW threads, since you can't really have a &quot;right answer&quot; for most of them. See [this meta thread](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/188/request-for-most-needed-resource-questions) for the process (we'll skip it this time!) and [this thread](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/188/request-for-most-needed-resource-questions) for an example." CreationDate="2022-03-29T02:56:20.773" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37690" PostId="17967" Score="3" Text="A small, irrelevant note: I believe *infirmis* can also sometimes be nominative singular. I doubt whether Cicero uses this form, though. And of course *nemo* cannot be feminine, so *affecta* must be ablative." CreationDate="2022-03-27T00:06:34.997" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37692" PostId="17967" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus Yes, _infirmis_ can also be nominative singular but this form is more typical of Late Latin, right? Anyway, good point!" CreationDate="2022-03-27T00:39:09.980" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37699" PostId="17967" Score="0" Text="This helps a lot.  Thanks for your thoughtful answer." CreationDate="2022-03-27T09:59:20.743" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="37700" PostId="17967" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I've been studying the uses of &quot;iste&quot;, often glossed-over by translators. In Cic. ad Att. 15.20: &quot;iste qui umbras timet&quot;; easily translated as &quot;he who fears (is frightened of the) shadows&quot;. What exactly is &quot;iste&quot; doing; couldn't it be omitted? Similarly, your first example, Cic. Cat. 2.20: the role of &quot;iste&quot;; if &quot;iste&quot; is omitted the sense would still be, &quot;who are from the genre of...&quot; = &quot;quo ex genere...&quot;. How would you translate &quot;iste&quot; in these examples? Thank you." CreationDate="2022-03-27T10:25:35.887" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37705" PostId="17967" Score="2" Text="@tony: This could be a great question: what is the role and function of *iste* in Cicero's orations? It has to do with the location of the person, and negativity." CreationDate="2022-03-27T14:15:47.713" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="37708" PostId="17967" Score="1" Text="@tony I've just taken a look at some English translations of _quo ex genere iste est Manlius cui nunc Catilina succedit_. You're right: all of them I've consulted seem to lack the pejorative meaning associated to _iste_ in this context. In my native language (Catalan) one can translate the pejorative meaning associated to _iste Manlius_ as &quot;aquest tal Manlius&quot;, literally: &quot;this such Manlius&quot;. Is there any similar expression in your native language? How about &quot;this Manlius guy&quot;? By the way, I agree with Cerberus' suggestion above!" CreationDate="2022-03-27T18:06:41.903" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37722" PostId="17967" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I've found a better translation of Cic. Cat. 2.20: &quot;...of (from) which class (genre) is Manlius himself; whom Catiline is now succeeding.&quot; (Perseus). Verb &quot;succedo&quot; selecting the dative (&quot;cui&quot;) for the thing/ person (Manlius) being succeeded. A footnote (1): &quot;iste est&quot; = &quot;est ipse&quot;. I thought there might be a link between &quot;iste&quot; &amp; intensifier, &quot;ipse&quot;. An extra layer to this: Wiktionary, &quot;iste&quot;: &quot;In classical usage 'iste' frequently has a secondary, pejorative usage of casting the referent in a negative light.&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-28T13:20:17.603" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37723" PostId="17967" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Cicero had no love for Manlius. The use of &quot;iste&quot;, therefore: (i) = &quot;ipse&quot;; (ii) Cicero expresses his contempt for Manlius (&amp; Catiline, by association). With Cic. ad Att. 15.20.4; is this the same? Here, &quot;qui&quot; = &quot;he who&quot;; + &quot;iste&quot; = &quot;he, that bad man&quot;--put together, this does not fit. Any thoughts? I'd ask a new Q., but, slowly this is being solved, possibly. (The &quot;bad man&quot; is Mark Antony, pretending to fear Brutus &amp; Cassius. Cicero had no love for MA, either." CreationDate="2022-03-28T13:29:05.663" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37770" PostId="17967" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: In Gell. 3.16.19, I thought that &quot;deductaue&quot; included a typo, &quot;u&quot;, but it's written like this in the literature. Therefore, what is &quot;deductaue&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-03-30T12:40:19.683" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37777" PostId="17967" Score="0" Text="@tony  &quot;deductaue&quot; can also be written as &quot;deducta**ve**&quot;. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/40/whats-the-difference-between-vel-aut-ve-et-cetera" CreationDate="2022-03-30T20:58:25.720" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37694" PostId="17968" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you post a few lines of the passage so that we see at least the whole sentence? More context without having to look it up would be nice." CreationDate="2022-03-27T03:31:55.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37709" PostId="17971" Score="0" Text="I see, duplices also happens to be the 2nd person present subjunctive from of duplico. I think thats where my issue lied." CreationDate="2022-03-27T18:17:45.550" UserId="10948" />
  <row Id="37726" PostId="17972" Score="0" Text="I don't quite understand the problem you are stating.  There are two verbs and two parts to the verse.  Why do you posit a third missing verb?  Also, why move &quot;Martia&quot; to the fist part instead of leaving it in the second part to modify &quot;classica&quot;?  Try analyzing the text in this order: &quot;quem assiduus labor, vicino hoste, terreat; cui Martia classica pulsa somnos fugent.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-03-28T17:54:46.510" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37731" PostId="17972" Score="0" Text="I think Martia modifies 'labor', but if it modifies classica then I still can't understand the sentence.  What the subject of the main clause?  I think 'labor' what is its verb?  I think 'terreat' what is the nominative subjective of the clause subordinated by 'quem'?  I don't know.  What is the verb of the clause subordinated by 'quem'?  I don't know.  What is the subject and verb of the clause subordinated by 'cui'?  Probably 'classica' and 'fugent'." CreationDate="2022-03-28T20:47:49.410" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37732" PostId="17972" Score="0" Text="Let me try to response with an actual answer." CreationDate="2022-03-28T20:54:12.487" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37737" PostId="17972" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 &quot;I think Martia modifies 'labor'&quot; -- note that this cannot be the case, as *labor* is masculine." CreationDate="2022-03-29T07:07:25.540" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37710" PostId="17974" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2022-03-27T18:46:40.383" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37725" PostId="17974" Score="1" Text="If one looks for something more poetical, this motto from Tycho Brahe's tomb is an option: **Non fasces nec opes sola artis sceptra perennant** (Neither power nor wealth, only the authority of science endures)" CreationDate="2022-03-28T15:39:49.873" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="37730" PostId="17974" Score="1" Text="@d_e Very nice!" CreationDate="2022-03-28T19:59:22.253" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37715" PostId="17977" Score="2" Text="Fun fact: The coat of arms of West Ham in London (of West Ham United fame) bears the Latin motto: *Deo confidimus*." CreationDate="2022-03-27T20:45:32.190" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37717" PostId="17977" Score="1" Text="Psalm 56 in the Vulgate similarly says &quot;miserere mei Deus miserere mei quoniam **in te confidit anima mea**." CreationDate="2022-03-27T20:55:42.283" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="37727" PostId="17977" Score="0" Text="As the OP certainly consciously evokes religious language, that seems relevant indeed; however, to be pedantic, I believe *in* + abl. with *confidere* would be unclassical." CreationDate="2022-03-28T17:59:29.717" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37720" PostId="17979" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the detailed answer" CreationDate="2022-03-28T09:01:03.003" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="37721" PostId="17979" Score="0" Text="‘better’: I think what most people mean by this, is ‘attested’." CreationDate="2022-03-28T10:46:03.007" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37728" PostId="17981" Score="0" Text="If one is open to using a German-Latin dictionary, I heartily recommend [Lexicon Hodiernum](http://www.lateinlexikon.com/download.htm), which is (a) available online and for free and (b) incorporates coinages from the Lexicon Auxiliare which you mention, from the German translation of the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis (Neues Latein-Lexikon) and various others." CreationDate="2022-03-28T18:07:29.913" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37729" PostId="17981" Score="0" Text="More information on German resources of this sort (including a rather lukewarm review of the Lexicon Auxiliare) can be found [here](https://stroh.userweb.mwn.de/bibl/lat_sprechen.html) (German only; the author, Wilfried Stroh, is one of the more proficient Latin speakers of our time)." CreationDate="2022-03-28T18:13:24.743" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37762" PostId="17991" Score="0" Text="Great answer. On Martiana classica pulsa, I think we can also take this as a dominant participle construction: the sounding of martial trumpets" CreationDate="2022-03-30T00:50:09.213" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37764" PostId="17991" Score="0" Text="Great answer, I really appreciate it." CreationDate="2022-03-30T07:16:02.140" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37738" PostId="17994" Score="1" Text="Unrelated to the pronoun problem: The translation of the second part seems to be a little off. There is a *nominativus cum infinitivo*, namely *iste videtur spectare*, saying &quot;he seems to look&quot;. Or perhaps there is more context that would suggest a different translation. Are the translations your own or did you find them somewhere?" CreationDate="2022-03-29T10:33:24.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37739" PostId="17994" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I didn't like the Perseus translation: &quot;the fact is that though that trembler at shadows appears to me to have his eye on massacre,&quot;, so I amended it, a little.  Is it the case that &quot;he who (&quot;qui&quot;) fears&quot; &amp; &quot;he (&quot;iste&quot;) seems to look&quot; require two different pronouns for &quot;he&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-03-29T10:52:33.210" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37740" PostId="17994" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I've changed it." CreationDate="2022-03-29T11:00:17.567" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37741" PostId="17994" Score="1" Text="The Perseus translation sounds good to me; it renders in idiomatic English what was originally in idiomatic Latin, and the factual accuracy is excellent. For example, switching between participles and relative clauses gives flexibility in translation. // I don't think *iste* was strictly necessary in that sentence, but language isn't all about necessity. I'm not sure if an NCI with the N being a relative clause without an explicit *is/iste/ille* or something is attested, but it would sound sensible enough to me. // The new translation works well." CreationDate="2022-03-29T11:15:48.067" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37742" PostId="17994" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thanks. When I presented these examples to Mitomino in Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/17967/1982, I asked what would have happened if &quot;iste&quot; had been omitted. He agreed that in a number of alternative translations, translators had ignored it and suggested that a new Q. be asked. Cerberus also made this recommendation." CreationDate="2022-03-29T15:56:22.270" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37753" PostId="17997" Score="1" Text="The occasional &quot;pejorative&quot; use of *ese* in Spanish is will established.  Etymologically, it descends from *ipse* but semantically is almost identical to *iste*.   Here is one definition from the online dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy : &quot;3. adj. dem. coloq. Indica menosprecio respecto de algo o alguien. U. m. pospuesto. Las máquinas **esas** no sirven para nada. No conozco al hombre **ese.**&quot;  (&quot;3. adj. dem. colog. It indicates scorn in regards to someone or something.  Used more after the noun.  Those (darn) machines are useless.  I don't know that (darn) guy.&quot;)" CreationDate="2022-03-29T20:06:47.420" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37754" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="I like the reference to &quot;mental files,&quot; which I tried to grope at in my answer.  I also find interesting that the position of postpositive *ille* in Latin (and in *furor iste*) and postpositive *ese* in Spanish match." CreationDate="2022-03-29T20:20:07.757" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37756" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher Thanks for that, that's an important qualification. I actually think *menosprecio* is exactly the right word (I think it's equivalent to Ru. *пренебрежение*, &quot;an aloof neglect but not quite disdain&quot;), but the English &quot;pejorative&quot; is quite a bit stronger than that. I don't expect this meaning is as stressed by Spanish teachers, or results in students who are reluctant to use the word unless abusively. Nevertheless, articles on Spanish might be a good avenue of investigation to confirm or refute my intuition of how this negative use developed." CreationDate="2022-03-29T20:25:03.183" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37757" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="Your comment sent me looking through Wiktionary and Wikipedia in English, Spanish, and Russian.  I only know a tiny bit of Russian, however.  I can't find any significant difference between &quot;pejorative,&quot; *menospreciar*, and пренебрежение, especially in linguistic contexts.  There is an article in Wikipedia entitled *Пейоратив* that includes *презрение* in its definition.  I think the word &quot;derogatory&quot; is stronger and is used often used for slurs and abusive language that go beyond &quot;pejorative.&quot;  In any case, I agree that none of these terms rise to what &quot;f*cking&quot; represents." CreationDate="2022-03-29T20:54:01.080" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37759" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher Another thing that occurs to me: the fact that esto &lt; iste has no such meaning but eso &lt; ipse does demonstrates that iste didn't possess this meaning **lexically;** instead it's consistent with my contention that we're dealing with a **pragmatically-determined** interpretation which arises in discourse.—As for &quot;pejorative&quot;, I think the difference I feel is bc. the English word is a learned, specialised Latinism that has no formal semantic motivation, no cognate words in the language. пренебрежение is about as ordinary and motivated as &quot;unbecoming&quot;.—&quot;pejorative&quot; ≈ презрительный." CreationDate="2022-03-29T21:08:02.980" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37760" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="&quot;ille would imply that centurion what's-his-name (ah yes, Manlius) should somehow be known to everyone present&quot; -- what's-his-name should at least be what's-his-name-again ;-)" CreationDate="2022-03-29T21:10:45.107" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37761" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Suggestion implemented! :D" CreationDate="2022-03-29T22:47:29.823" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37779" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Thank you. The expression &quot;mihi videretur qui...&quot; or &quot;...ille qui...&quot; = &quot;it seems to me (such) a man fears the shadows&quot;, answers the question I put to both Mitomino (earlier Q.) &amp; Joonas--&quot;What would have happened if 'iste' had been omitted?&quot;.  Excellent is: &quot;ille Lucius, non iste!&quot;, putting so much understanding &quot;into a nutshell&quot;. The correct translation is: &quot;...that (&quot;iste&quot; [= &quot;MA&quot;]) trembler at shadows who (&quot;qui&quot;) seems to me to seek slaughter,&quot;. Is that correct? Thanks again." CreationDate="2022-03-31T11:38:54.090" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37781" PostId="17997" Score="0" Text="@tony No, not quite: *quī umbrās timet* in its entirety stands for the modifier &quot;trembler-at-shadows&quot;, and *iste* makes the reference definite and links it to the discourse - &quot;that one who you and I have been talking about lately&quot;. *quī* doesn't function as a correlative here, it's simply the subject pronoun that introduces the modifier/adjectival clause. The subject of *vidētur* is *iste* (***iste** mihi vidētur ad caedem spectāre*) and this subject (&quot;that one&quot;) is being modified by the *quī* clause (&quot;who trembles at shadows&quot;). The moniker helps identify *iste* as referring to Mark Antony." CreationDate="2022-03-31T12:49:40.310" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37752" PostId="17998" Score="0" Text="Nice answer - a comparison with Spanish gives a really useful perspective (I don't speak it myself). Also your observation on &quot;such a X&quot; - I never considered translating it like that (thats what I get for not consulting L&amp;S while answering!). That said, while I agree with that interpretation elsewhere I'm not sure it works as well with Manlius. He's a temporary discourse-fixed reference that &quot;belongs&quot; to the party Cicero's arguing against (2nd person). But I will grant it has that &quot;generic indefiniteness&quot; vibe to it - C. doesn't know him personally after all." CreationDate="2022-03-29T20:01:53.913" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37755" PostId="17998" Score="0" Text="It just occurred to me that another way of capturing the derivation of the Latin sense is to use an expression like &quot;that Manlius (you know the type).&quot;  The second person reference brings out the entailment of using *iste* to retrieve a mental version of Manlius that has unpleasant characteristics." CreationDate="2022-03-29T20:24:06.013" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37765" PostId="17998" Score="0" Text="@Vegwatcher: Thank you. A most comprehensive answer! I like the translation: &quot;...it seems to me that such a one (&quot;iste&quot;) as ['he, who' = 'qui'] fears shadows...&quot;. This [ ] incorporates &quot;qui&quot;, as well as &quot;iste&quot;, which soothes my literal mind. My first comment to Joonas, above, attempted to translate both pronouns. Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2022-03-30T08:55:56.800" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37773" PostId="17998" Score="0" Text="@Tony I think saying &quot;such a one as he who fears...&quot; is fine for the literal meaning.  You could also say &quot;that type who fears&quot; to get the same nuance across." CreationDate="2022-03-30T18:30:31.323" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37776" PostId="17998" Score="0" Text="@tony Again, I think this interpretation is incorrect. *iste* is specifically the only 3p pronoun that cannot be correlative as in &quot;he who&quot;. The translation &quot;such a&quot; is in the definite demonstrative sense of &quot;this [exact kind of]&quot;, not the indefinite correlative &quot;any such one as&quot;. *iste* directly points at Mark Antony and can be swapped for the name, while the *quī*-clause is &quot;adjectival&quot;, non-restrictive or appositive: *MA quī umbrās timet* &quot;Mark Antony who trembles at shadows.&quot; It can be put in the 1st person: *ego quī umbrās timeō* &quot;I (Mark) who tremble at shadows&quot;, not &quot;such a me who...&quot;." CreationDate="2022-03-30T20:01:34.377" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37763" PostId="17999" Score="1" Text="Interesting question(s)! +1!" CreationDate="2022-03-30T02:01:42.850" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37768" PostId="18000" Score="0" Text="Great. I appreciate your help." CreationDate="2022-03-30T11:33:03.953" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="37769" PostId="18000" Score="0" Text="I could find the parallel constructions in Greek." CreationDate="2022-03-30T11:37:24.990" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="37787" PostId="18000" Score="0" Text="@TKR The several translations I consulted are quite different from your interpretation (&quot;from which being first corrupted something came&quot;), which is based on the quasi-adverbial reading of _primo_ modifying _corrupto_. The translations I checked are _all_ coherent with the following reconstructed structure whereby _primum_ (i.e. τὸ πρῶτον) would be the antecedent and the true subject of the infinitival clause: _necesse (est) [primum [ex quo corrupto aliquid factum est] non sempiternum esse]_. That's why I advocated for an incorporated antecedent analysis (_primum&gt;primo_)." CreationDate="2022-04-01T01:00:15.383" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37788" PostId="18000" Score="0" Text="This said, I do agree that this particular sentence in Medieval Latin can be said to sound forced or unnatural in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2022-04-01T01:00:24.627" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37790" PostId="18000" Score="0" Text="After reading the context I tend to agree (so deleted my comment) -- Aristotle seems to be using τὸ πρῶτον in a technical sense." CreationDate="2022-04-01T13:06:48.010" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37771" PostId="18001" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! What do you want this new phrase to mean? For example, I could well interpret the English &quot;remember to die and live again&quot; two ways: you have to remember both things, or you have to remember and live. In Latin these would look different. Please explain what the desired meaning is and is not. The correct extension depends on what you want to achieve." CreationDate="2022-03-30T17:51:03.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37772" PostId="18001" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta thank you for the welcome! I actually was looking for this kind of ambiguity, as it works in English &quot;remember death and life&quot;, as in: remember death as an inevitable thing, but embrace life before OR embrace that there is life after death (either in Heaven, Hell, Hél, Hades, whatever your belief is, or as in reincarnation as in living again). If that does make sense. So I'm looking for each if those, in case they are different? But the meaning of &quot;live/rise again&quot; is my main focus." CreationDate="2022-03-30T18:27:39.117" UserId="10961" />
  <row Id="37774" PostId="18001" Score="2" Text="Can you edit a more detailed description of your goal into your question? If you want a specific ambiguity, it might be that there simply is none or Latin has to take a very different route to it. Elaboration on the desired meaning or nuance helps a lot, especially with Latin which doesn't have as nice a one-to-one correspondence with English vocabulary as some modern languages do." CreationDate="2022-03-30T18:40:08.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37778" PostId="18001" Score="0" Text="I closed the question for lack of detail. It can certainly be reopened once edited." CreationDate="2022-03-31T05:45:43.637" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37783" PostId="18001" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I have updated the question as you suggested. In case still not sufficient, I can try and update again, otherwise please consider reopening." CreationDate="2022-03-31T15:50:24.070" UserId="10961" />
  <row Id="37784" PostId="18001" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Reopened." CreationDate="2022-03-31T18:45:36.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37780" PostId="18002" Score="1" Text="I actually just got a copy of Pharr! I haven't read it yet, but I definitely recommend it as a fellow student. I had the same concern about only including books I-VI, though (and this is totally subjective) the first six are the better part of the story." CreationDate="2022-03-31T12:47:43.880" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37795" PostId="18005" Score="0" Text="Oh, *brevis* is not really a translation for “temporary.” The latter (although technically you could say *temporarius*) is often expressed as *ad tempus*; so “short and temporary” would be *brevis et ad tempus* ([Cic. De officiis 1, 8, 27](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/off1.shtml#27))." CreationDate="2022-04-01T22:08:37.183" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37791" PostId="18006" Score="0" Text="Well edited and comprehensive answer. How about if I want to specifically use the word &quot;temporalis&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-01T14:03:28.470" UserId="10965" />
  <row Id="37792" PostId="18006" Score="8" Text="@SampoKaarenmaa The Latin [*temporalis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=temporalis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is more &quot;related to time&quot; than &quot;of limited time&quot; and appears not to be a very classical word. I like Adam's suggestion of *brevis* much more than *temporalis* for a use like this. Adam didn't directly comment on this, but I also strongly agree with leaving *est* out." CreationDate="2022-04-01T14:10:46.133" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37793" PostId="18007" Score="1" Text="As with all translation, the context matters; I can think of 'good vibes' being used to describe a coffee shop, a bar, an album of music, a person, a party, a novel, a film and more, and while the connotations overlap the meaning isn't the same. I also suspect that what I (a British adult) understand by 'good vibes' is probably different to what an American teenager might, with subtle distinctions I'm not cool enough to get." CreationDate="2022-04-01T16:22:40.560" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="37800" PostId="18007" Score="0" Text="I am also a British adult and, I think that ‘good vibes’ or indeed ‘bad vibes’ in the sense you pertinently cite might be something straightforward as, e.g. bonos (or ‘malos’ ) mihi parit/excitat sensus hic locus’. – &#xA;Jonathan Hadfield&#xA; 15 hours ago    Delete" CreationDate="2022-04-02T10:53:39.803" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="37796" PostId="18009" Score="2" Text="With this approach I would be tempted to do something chiastic. How would you feel about, say, *dolor transit, manet gloria*, making the contrast of the two verbs sharper? For this purpose I do like something pithy in four words." CreationDate="2022-04-01T22:15:05.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37797" PostId="18009" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The thought crossed my mind, but I like it better as it is." CreationDate="2022-04-01T22:39:25.830" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37801" PostId="18011" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the information. These names are specifically being used for cultivars, not species - the ICNCP for cultivated plants is more lenient than the ICN and it does allow multi-word and hyphenated names (as well as names in languages other than Latin).The main specific rule it has for names in Latin form is that they must match the gender of the genus. So I'm trying to figure out the minimal changes that would be required to make these names correct according to the ICNCP, but not necessarily the ICN." CreationDate="2022-04-02T11:21:41.670" UserId="10967" />
  <row Id="37802" PostId="18011" Score="0" Text="@Avery in that case I would still suggest that you go with 'Albilineata', but as you have more freedom, you could also say 'Alba Lineata' (but it means white, striped) or 'Albo Lineata' (strikes me as good, but *Albo* is no adjective here, it means &quot;white colour&quot;). As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter grammatically whether you write a compound word with our without hyphen." CreationDate="2022-04-02T22:11:14.170" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37803" PostId="18011" Score="0" Text="Thank you! So 'Alba lineata' would mean roughly &quot;white and striped&quot;, and 'Albo lineata' would mean more like &quot;white which is striped&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-03T07:21:19.923" UserId="10967" />
  <row Id="37805" PostId="18013" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Take a look at these two questions and comments under them: [one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10939/79) and [two](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16793/79). Unfortunately neither has received an answer." CreationDate="2022-04-03T14:14:34.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37806" PostId="18013" Score="0" Text="Thanks, it seems that it is more interesting than I originally thought." CreationDate="2022-04-03T15:32:17.553" UserId="8815" />
  <row Id="37808" PostId="18013" Score="0" Text="Hi Petr. We'll close this for now since it's a duplicate of the other two. Not sure which of the other two are the best to keep open. It is an interesting question (which I suppose is why it keeps getting asked!), so I hope someone attempts at least a partial answer soon. Let me know if you have any questions about this process." CreationDate="2022-04-03T18:52:23.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37818" PostId="18013" Score="1" Text="I'll just add that the exceptions are false positives: *sambūcus* the m. means &quot;sambuca player&quot;, and *acer* is almost certainly a lexicographical error due to misinterpretation - the neuter usage in Ovid refers to maple wood the material; in Pliny the neuter adjectives modify *genus* &quot;kind, type&quot; and not the tree-name." CreationDate="2022-04-04T10:15:40.693" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37819" PostId="18013" Score="0" Text="thanks for the explanation." CreationDate="2022-04-04T12:04:23.250" UserId="8815" />
  <row Id="37820" PostId="18015" Score="0" Text="Today, the Wikipedia page you link says: &quot;He is commemorated in the names of several plants, including [Engelmann Oak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_engelmannii) (_Quercus engelmannii_), [Engelmann Spruce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelmann_Spruce) (_Picea engelmannii_), [Apache Pine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Pine) (_Pinus engelmannii_), [Engelmann's quillwort or Appalachian quillwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoetes_engelmannii) (_Isoetes engelmannii_), and [Engelmann's Prickly-pear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opuntia_engelmannii) (_Opuntia engelmannii_).&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-04T14:33:29.957" UserId="1451" />
  <row Id="37823" PostId="18015" Score="2" Text="+1. I was thinking of writing an answer to say basically the same, before yours arrived. I'd only add that: 1) it is common practice in biological Latin for species naming to honor important naturalists this way, and 2) unlike everywhere else, in biology it is _always_ accepted to regularly Latinize names (especially last names) by appending -us or -ius. (This gives place to strange cases of Romance names irregularly Latinized, like [Chelonoidis niger donfaustoi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelonoidis_niger_donfaustoi) instead of, say, C. n. domnifausti.)" CreationDate="2022-04-04T15:28:09.540" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37814" PostId="18016" Score="1" Text="Which meaning of &quot;reflex&quot; are you looking for, specifically? I may be biased as a linguist but my first thought was that you were looking for a word for &quot;descendant&quot; before I thought of the other meaning &quot;instinctive response&quot;." CreationDate="2022-04-03T23:25:50.770" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37815" PostId="18016" Score="1" Text="In this case I'm thinking of an instinctive response, the kind you do in an almost automated manner." CreationDate="2022-04-03T23:49:56.647" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37807" PostId="18018" Score="0" Text="I think you got the usage of *quidem* the other way around, I'm afraid. It introduces the first, affirmative (possibly reservational) part, not the second, contrasting (it can't be reservational): see [Danckaert 2012](https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01527599/document). This makes your example sentence unfinished - the reader is left waiting for the second part." CreationDate="2022-04-03T17:05:00.140" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37811" PostId="18018" Score="3" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I was thinking of something like: *Nam causa cognita possunt multi absolvi, incognita quidem condemnari nemo potest.* (Cic. Verr. II.1, 25) or: *et ego feci, qui litteras Graecas senex didici; quas quidem sic avide arripui, quasi diuturnam sitim explere cupiens* (id. Sen. 8, 26), etc." CreationDate="2022-04-03T19:50:56.593" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37812" PostId="18018" Score="1" Text="Mhm, but this is two other uses. The first is on the noun-phrase level, with narrow scope over constituent: the NPs are *causa cognita, [causa] incognita;* it's = to *certē quidem* serving for emphatic affirmation. If your example is to be read like that, the effect will be corroboration (&quot;good and damn pricey too&quot;).—In the second, it serves to pick up the contrastive topic: *litterās ... quās **quidem** litterās.* This use is very similar to &quot;epitaxis&quot; as in *Dēcessit Corellius Rūfus **et quidem** sponte* &quot;and did so willingly&quot;. No additional meaning beyond topic-comment management." CreationDate="2022-04-03T22:39:22.770" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37813" PostId="18019" Score="0" Text="I'm most familiar with consecutio temporum being a rule about the _tense_ of a subordinate verb, not its mood. But it sounds like you're asking about the mood instead, whether a verb should be indicative or subjunctive. Is that correct? (If so, I'm going to edit the title of the question to better reflect that.)" CreationDate="2022-04-03T23:23:59.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37816" PostId="18019" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the reply. This is from Wheelock's book: &quot;a primary tense of the indicative must be followed by a primary tense of the subjunctive, and an indicative historical tense must be followed by a historical subjunctive tense&quot; - since in these books they are putting the emphasis on the moods, I think consecutio relates to both tense and mood, but I'm not sure about this. That is why I ask. You can edit the title, no problem with that." CreationDate="2022-04-04T00:43:08.310" UserId="7405" />
  <row Id="37817" PostId="18019" Score="0" Text="Ah, I think I understand now." CreationDate="2022-04-04T00:53:56.193" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38074" PostId="18021" Score="1" Text="According to Georges, yes, it could be used metonically for “fire.” To write a proper answer, I feel I should look up at least a few of these locos, which I cannot do now, but here's what he writes (none of the reassuring “oft bei Cic. u.a.” I'm afraid): **Prop. 4, 9, 10 u. 11, 52. Vulc. Gall. Avid. Cass. 4, 3. Oribas. fr. 1, 35 H.: focum facere, Schol. Iuven. 3, 214; 7, 24: sine foco coxerunt, Marc. Emp. 21. *Vgl. Haase* Greg. Tur. de curs. stell. 31. p. 39.**" CreationDate="2022-04-23T11:13:17.973" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37821" PostId="18025" Score="2" Text="I think that it could be relevant to clarify why you say that &quot;the first word (...) functionally _can_ be an adverb&quot; (italics mine). I think this point is not obvious if it is not exemplified." CreationDate="2022-04-04T15:11:19.510" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37822" PostId="18025" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Is the illustration and explanation I added sufficient? I mean, it's a general fact about Latin adjectives that they can be used adverbially at will." CreationDate="2022-04-04T15:20:05.880" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37840" PostId="18025" Score="0" Text="Thanks to the illustration &amp; explanation you provided, now I see your point. I do agree that _mirabile visu_ can function as a parenthetical &quot;disjunct&quot;, which is, by the way, different from the adverbial &quot;adjunct&quot; _mirabile_ in _mirabile sonare_. Furthermore, it is clear that this expression (_mirabile visu_) can appear in other contexts: e.g. _id uero horrendum ac uisu mirabile ferri_ (Verg. _Aen._ VII, 78). When referring to the disjunct use, you say &quot;this is also the case here&quot;. Here? Well, the OP does not provide any context where this expression is inserted." CreationDate="2022-04-05T18:57:09.297" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37841" PostId="18025" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Yes, I noticed it was different as a parenthetical disjunct and as a manner adjunct during my latest edit.—The phrase in question is almost universally adduced in the neuter, and not the m/f as is usual with adjectives intended to agree in gender, the reason evidently being that it's precisely the parenthetical use that is meant, seen as more common or interesting I suppose. I try to allow for its use as an adjective in other contexts by saying that the neuter form *can* be used as an adverb. Maybe I should also say &quot;is often used as a disjunct&quot;." CreationDate="2022-04-05T19:08:33.087" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37824" PostId="18026" Score="2" Text="I like the last option best, but *iterum īre* sounds a bit tautological and cacaphonic; also I think the perfect in the second clause gives a different meaning from just simple causal regularity - it's explicitly iterative (or even referring to some definite events) as well as temporally anterior. I think the original intent is rather to express concurrency without repetition.—I don't understand that *vincens* - surely *vincentem?* Anyway, I prefer this as a relative clause." CreationDate="2022-04-04T16:47:05.797" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37825" PostId="18026" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian yes, clearly vincentem." CreationDate="2022-04-04T17:34:26.463" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37834" PostId="18030" Score="1" Text="I merged the other question's edits into this one, since this is the one with upvotes." CreationDate="2022-04-05T14:37:35.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37852" PostId="18030" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the edit. I wanted to delete the shorter version of the question but was unable." CreationDate="2022-04-06T14:18:32.023" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="37860" PostId="18032" Score="0" Text="I think most authorities state that some long diphthongs were viable during most of Ancient/Classical Greek.  According to Sydney Allen, the changes to monophthongs started at least by the 4th century BC (with ῃ) but were not complete until the 2nd century BC during Koine times.  Τhe change can be seen in the different treatment in Latin borrowings of Greek words including ᾠδή.  Early borrowings (*tragoedia* and *comoedia*) show the diphthong.  Later borrowings (*rhapsodia* and *melodia*) do not." CreationDate="2022-04-07T17:38:57.830" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37836" PostId="18033" Score="1" Text="Your point on analyzing diphthongs argues circularly from improperly describing the phenomenon to im-ly generalising the definition and back to the underlying phonology. The data indicateds a loss of semivowels only when in the onset of a syllable, and a fronting of /u/ only when it was syllabic. As soon as we realise we're dealing with a conditioned sound change, there's no necessity to postulate an ontological difference just like loss of final vowels doesn't warrant postulating that they were segmentally different from other vowels. *αυ* is now VC /av/, and /i~j/ was cond. lost in /V:i/" CreationDate="2022-04-05T17:09:52.160" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37837" PostId="18033" Score="2" Text="This comment does appear to have a very strong answer within it, though in the obviously condensed form of a comment, it is—let us agree—quite compact. May I suggest you elaborate on this and provide us with another answer? The more the merrier, after all!" CreationDate="2022-04-05T17:46:40.013" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37838" PostId="18033" Score="4" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Sure, you can analyze it as a conditioned change rather than an actual segmental difference. But then how do you deal with αϋ αϊ etc? There needs to be some difference between αι and αϊ on the segmental level—so you need a difference between /ai/ and /aj/ either way. And at that point I don't see a major difference between analyzing /aj/ as a single unit and analyzing /j/ as a special phoneme that can only ever appear after /a/, /o/, and /y/." CreationDate="2022-04-05T18:35:18.917" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37839" PostId="18033" Score="1" Text="Nevertheless you affirmed that difference in your answer and that difference (the nature and definition of diphthongs) interests me personally; which is why I decided to remark on your reasoning, that I dont think it stands. /j/ does appear after /e/ in ειV - ostensibly the ambisyllabic /j/ ensured it didn't shift to /i:/ at least until the 1st century AD. αϋ αϊ don't fall under the &quot;syllable initial semivowel deletion&quot; b/c they don't contain semivowels which don't start any syllables. There are two syllabic elements which don't disappear in Greek." CreationDate="2022-04-05T18:52:07.003" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37844" PostId="18033" Score="2" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian If you analyze αυ as /av/ (short vowel + consonant), how do you account for the fact that it can be circumflexed?" CreationDate="2022-04-06T08:42:12.177" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37845" PostId="18033" Score="1" Text="(Though one might perhaps make an argument for /j/ in the case of (most) final -αι -οι, as that would make sense of the fact that these count as short syllables for accent purposes.)" CreationDate="2022-04-06T11:21:32.423" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37848" PostId="18033" Score="1" Text="@TKR αυ is /av/ in MoGr, naturally, but anyway: Lithuanian has the so-called 'semi-diphthongs' which only differ from regular ones in that they end in a resonant /n, m, l, r/ (and like in the regular ones, they occur as falling **or rising!**). Slovak has long and short syllabic /l/ and /r/. And English diphthongs are commonly analysed and transcribed as VC sequences /aw/, /uw/, /ey/. Resonants and semivowels therefore form a class called sonorants which share a number of properties with vowels, including the ability to bear accent and tone, then called 'moraic sonorants'." CreationDate="2022-04-06T13:27:15.877" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37849" PostId="18033" Score="3" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian It's true that you can describe the facts by saying that Greek has consonants /w j/ that have a very limited distribution and differ from all other consonants in that they can bear tone. But I'm curious why you prefer that to the simpler conventional analysis of these sequences as diphthongs." CreationDate="2022-04-06T13:27:22.387" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37850" PostId="18033" Score="1" Text="@TKR The question is precisely one level deeper - it's about what a diphthong is, and what relation vowel-semivowel/sonorant sequences bear to diphthongs. The impression from my reading so far is that in most cases it makes sense to talk about diphthongs on the phonetic level, but I'm doubtful that this translates to the segmental (phonemic) level since two-segment descriptions work just as well - and this is also true here. Therefore I think it's the latter that's the simpler, more economical analysis of AGr; Draconis has explicitly gone for the &quot;atomic&quot; analysis, I think on poor evidence" CreationDate="2022-04-06T13:35:34.357" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37851" PostId="18033" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/135348/discussion-between-tkr-and-unbrutal-russian)." CreationDate="2022-04-06T13:48:39.333" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37853" PostId="18033" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian It appears that Slovak /l/ and /r/ can be treated as vowels, as they are the only ‘consonants’ that can take the vowel lengthening accent." CreationDate="2022-04-06T16:24:29.517" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37854" PostId="18033" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan That's right, they're like vowels in being able to form the main part of a syllable (the nucleus), but they're still produced in the same way as your typical /l/ and /r/ by occluding the airstream. Phonetically they have a light schwa before or after them. English and German has these as well by the way, as well as the syllabic /n/ and /m/, but only when unstressed, unlike the Slovak liquids." CreationDate="2022-04-06T16:33:09.833" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37855" PostId="18033" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian AmEng does have stressed syllabic /r/, as in *bird*." CreationDate="2022-04-06T16:38:31.730" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37856" PostId="18033" Score="0" Text="@TKR You mean it can be analysed in this way :-) But it doesn't have to, and to my understanding its more common analysis is as a rhotic vowel, an r-coloured schwa." CreationDate="2022-04-06T16:46:22.713" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37857" PostId="18033" Score="2" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Fair enough, but presumably that analysis would extend to the unstressed instances too." CreationDate="2022-04-06T16:56:49.033" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37858" PostId="18033" Score="0" Text="@TKR Personally I think it should be analysed in the same way as the traditional diphthongs - unlike the actual schwa these are clearly bimoraic, so &quot;rhotic diphthongs&quot; if you will. But again, that is a phonetic description - phonemically I don't see a reason to treat that /r/ differently from the onset of *rut,* parallel to how the semivowel in /aw/ is the same segment as in *wacky.*" CreationDate="2022-04-06T17:42:42.360" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37842" PostId="18035" Score="0" Text="cool, i like that" CreationDate="2022-04-05T23:43:34.050" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="37847" PostId="18036" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2022-04-06T12:35:43.113" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37880" PostId="18038" Score="1" Text="@JonathanHadfield Thanks for the praise, I'm glad you liked the answer - I've just added some further improvements. I see what you mean about that phrase and I agree it sounds unspecific if one doesn't add an appointed date, which was the use I had in mind - I've fixed that. If you don't think the current answer needs further improvement, you can put my mind at ease by accepting it :-)" CreationDate="2022-04-08T19:13:41.777" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37889" PostId="18038" Score="0" Text="QIn the sentence ‘I am supposed to meet her’, it seems to me that convenire debemus is too unspecific to for ‘I am supposed to meet her’. Perhaps in the sense of a rendezvous, an improvement on the lines of ‘constitutum est ut conveniamus’ contains the notion of an appointed date. I owe this suggestion to a friend to whom I had earlier asked for how he would translate it. See also L&amp;S II, D, b. a). for diem constituere. Otherwise, this answer is fully comprehensive, excellently arranged and fully answers all my queries." CreationDate="2022-04-09T09:57:49.073" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="37890" PostId="18038" Score="1" Text="tranquillo animo esto, Scytha humanissime! nunc responsum tuum sine ulla exceptione libenter accipio!" CreationDate="2022-04-09T09:59:28.890" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="37898" PostId="18038" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Beās iterum verbīs tam benignīs! Atquī adest in hāc sēde rētiālī et alia facultās respōnsiōnis accipiundae - dīcō aviculae illud signum (✓) quod rēctā sub suffrāgandī īnstrūmentō inveniēs, in respōnsī capite ad laevam - [hīc fūsius Anglicē](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work). Quam aviculam sī premis, tē eō respōnsō satis factum esse cum cēterīs tum respondentī dēclārās (quīn et exīstumātiōnem illam viridem numeriam augēs). Sed bene est tamen tē verbīs ea significāsse: nimis pol placuit istaec nōminis mei interpretātiō! =)" CreationDate="2022-04-09T20:44:23.630" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37901" PostId="18038" Score="1" Text="IOHANNES MAGISTRO SVO PRAECLARO S P D  me iuvat te interpretatione mea nominis tui gavisum esse. ut scis, vocabulum humanitas Ciceroni nostro gratum acceptumque erat, quapropter est translatio aptissima, ut mihi videtur, verbi ‘unbrutal’ ac ‘Scytha’ antiquitus idem propemodum quod ‘Ruthenicus’ valet. praeterea, egi verbatim ad praescripta tua istam aviculam premendo et ecce! avicula viridis est facta, auctus quoque numerus. cura ut valeas." CreationDate="2022-04-10T10:21:22.063" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="37869" PostId="18039" Score="4" Text="More context might help. As you say *gravis* (or the **adverb**  *graviter*) might mean few things, but so is the case with *fero* which is very popular verb in Latin, and can clearly mean other things than the literal carrying." CreationDate="2022-04-08T11:36:50.027" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="37899" PostId="18040" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! +1!" CreationDate="2022-04-09T22:34:15.253" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37879" PostId="18044" Score="1" Text="If you want a non-Eccl. reference, you can add [*Gradus ad Parnassum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradus_ad_Parnassum)." CreationDate="2022-04-08T17:55:05.830" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37891" PostId="18044" Score="1" Text="Possibly of note, the modern usage of ‘degree’ as an indication of academic qualification derives from this usage, as does the usage of the term ‘degree’ in Freemasonry." CreationDate="2022-04-09T12:11:22.330" UserId="2342" />
  <row Id="37877" PostId="18045" Score="0" Text="Ah, he's talking about Caesar -- thanks, hadn't looked at the context enough." CreationDate="2022-04-08T17:45:00.750" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37878" PostId="18045" Score="1" Text="@TKR Right! Caesar is the dead one, Antonius is still alive at this point." CreationDate="2022-04-08T17:45:33.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37886" PostId="18045" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Thank you. I was wondering how far back I would have to read in order to identify  &quot;the dead man.&quot;. The &quot;ad&quot;-thing: I meant that &quot;the meddling&quot; was &quot;directed towards&quot; Buthrotum." CreationDate="2022-04-09T07:58:50.357" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37892" PostId="18048" Score="1" Text="Of course, productive pendere makes sense. Medieval orthography can be very inconsistent regarding compound words. Sometimes you even see enclitics like ne and ve written separately." CreationDate="2022-04-09T13:06:18.943" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="37895" PostId="18048" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Very much so, but enclitics and proclitics (prepositions) are spaced arbitrarily based on whether the writer considers phonetic or lexical word as the basis - this ambiguity was no different with the Romans and the same goes for modern languages. But separating the elements of lexical+lexical compounds means the writer considers it a syntactic phrase with the first word a standalone lexeme. And it seems to me this is only possible when they erroneously analyse *vili* as the ablative of *vīlis;* you wouldn't expect a separate *privi legium* or *primo genitus.* Hence I say &quot;mistake&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-09T19:39:14.653" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37885" PostId="18050" Score="0" Text="Your interpretation is surely correct. Would it salve your conscience to consider *divisibilis* a form of *dividere* (and the whole thing is presumably based on the usage *aliquem numerum per alterum numerum dividere*)?" CreationDate="2022-04-08T22:34:40.450" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37937" PostId="18050" Score="0" Text="Say, can you tell us where you read that prepositional phrases in Latin must be bound to verbs, not nouns? I've never heard this before, and to me it sounds very strange, but perhaps it's something I've completely missed." CreationDate="2022-04-13T15:11:27.727" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="37893" PostId="18052" Score="3" Text="I'm not aware of a pre-existing word in Latin even for a magician as an artist as opposed to someone with real magical powers. I don't think the distinction between a mentalist and a psychic can be made without elaboration in Latin. Thus going through a list of words for different kinds of magicians and picking the aptest ones strikes me as the most reasonable approach. (I'm not even very convinced that most speakers of English are able to make a clear distinction the way professionals like Penn and Teller do.)" CreationDate="2022-04-09T14:38:44.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37894" PostId="18052" Score="0" Text="That's definitely fair. I'm really open to whatever is closest, whether it's an existing word that approaches the meaning or simply borrowing the word like any other foreign word." CreationDate="2022-04-09T15:02:20.220" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37914" PostId="18052" Score="0" Text="@Adam: The description, in your intro, would apply equally well to a successful confidence-trickster: psychology, cold-reading....In  Latin, &quot;fraudator&quot;. This may not be what you seek--that guy in the TV-prog who became a complete bore--but it's another angle. The same skills are required; and for (some) politicians, often called &quot;con-men&quot;!" CreationDate="2022-04-12T10:34:46.157" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37917" PostId="18052" Score="0" Text="For some practitioners, that's probably not that far from the truth depending on what their goal is (to entertain vs just get people to hand over money)." CreationDate="2022-04-12T12:26:53.457" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="38023" PostId="18052" Score="1" Text="After reading the wikipedia entry, about it, I'm still, somewhat, in the dark, to what a &quot;mentalist&quot; be, but here's my humble guess for a latin (invented) word for it: something from the miniscor family, something with mentor... dēmentor?&#xA;Or, you just do, what people do, with living languages, and, simply, adopt the new word: mentalista!" CreationDate="2022-04-17T10:04:50.630" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="38027" PostId="18052" Score="0" Text="Adopting a new word is a totally acceptable approach in my case, and it avoids the whole issue of what a mentalist actually is. Feel free to leave that as an answer if you have a moment. :)" CreationDate="2022-04-17T12:35:38.940" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37941" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="I think this answer would benefit from replacing the Spanish text with the Latin, in the same format supplying the omitted Latin verbs. I don't think the Spanish adds anything to the answer given the English translation, but the absence of the actual language for which the phenomenon is being illustrated is crucial.—Concerning mind-reading, I think this misses the point that the elision was highly idiomatic, especially with religious oaths and taboo swearing. Given enough frequency no definite verb is any longer felt to be omitted; in essence what one gets is a lexicalised minced oath." CreationDate="2022-04-13T20:39:34.010" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37944" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I gave Cabrillana's (2007) Spanish translation because I considered it interesting that she selected the very same fragment (what a coincidence!) to show that the verbal ellipsis is not only reduced to the copulative verb _sum_ but can also involve predicative verbs. Cabrillana &amp; De Carvalho did not provide the elliptical words in Latin and I can imagine why two Latinist linguists like them decided not to do so. Purely speculative interpretations (made in their languages) aside, who knows which particular Latin verb could be made explicit in, e.g., _qui umquam Buthrotum_?" CreationDate="2022-04-14T02:13:33.463" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37978" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="I understand that Cabrillana's choice of fragment is interesting, but the Spanish itself is not interesting to me who's interested in understanding the Latin phenomenon. The Spanish gives the same information as its English translation; what's being commented on is missing. One could give the Latin text with the &quot;missing&quot; verbs given in English.—Again, your question misses the fact that the verb is missing because it was idiomatic for it to be missing. Either everyone knew what the verb was, or it was entirely irrelevant. Compare *dī vostram fidem!* and Ru. *твою мать!* 'mātrem tuam'." CreationDate="2022-04-15T19:10:52.343" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37979" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="Additionally I've just checked that Quintilian passage and what he's referring to is not grammatical ellipsis, but the explicit refusal to say something with the use of *nōn dīcam* and *nōn audeō dīcere,* or an abrupt pause mid-sentence 'Cominius autem—tametsi ignoscite mihi, iudices.'—Furthermore, I think the case in the OP are examples of taboo-related ellipsis like with the curses above; I think it should be separated from what's going on in the rest of Cicero's letter and especially in that passage, which may have different explanations, none of them likely to do with verbal taboos." CreationDate="2022-04-15T19:18:10.303" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37983" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian As for the OP's fragment _di illi mortuo qui umquam Buthrotum!_ it seems clear the 1st case can be regarded as a more idiomatic ellipsis. In my opinion, the presence of the dative can naturally lead one to posit a sort of ellipsis like _male faciant_ (cf. TKR's answer). As for the verbal ellipsis involved in _qui umquam Buthrotum_, it seems to me this 2nd case is different since it is not idiomatic nor frequent nor lexicalized, at least compared to the 1st case. So I don't see what is gained by simply saying that both are examples of taboo-related ellipsis." CreationDate="2022-04-15T22:35:57.363" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="37984" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="The 2nd ellipsis isn't necessarily tabooistic, but it's clearly related to the first because both are used in the same phrase. This is a call for divine retribution and both actions must be of an unpleasant nature. This is what sets this phrase apart from all the other ellipses in this fragment." CreationDate="2022-04-15T23:47:21.950" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38020" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: The long passage: &quot;Institutio Oratoria&quot; 9.2 is long. The Perseus (English) translation finishes at 9.2.40; &quot;cominus autem--tametsi ignoscite mihi, iudices&quot; is 9.2.55! On Lacus Curtis, the so-called translation simply states that this is an example of &quot;aposiopesis&quot;. It's easy to translate the words: &quot;close-at-hand however--even though--forgive me--the judges&quot;. The context: &quot;vel alio transeundi gratia&quot; = &quot;or for another the purpose of passing through/ over&quot;. What was Quintillian saying in 9.2.55?" CreationDate="2022-04-17T08:44:51.003" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38025" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Thinking further: if &quot;iudices&quot; is a present subjunctive, then: &quot;....even though you may judge, forgive me!&quot;. This makes sense; but, this quote involves aposiopesis; therefore, it cannot translate so smoothly, can it?" CreationDate="2022-04-17T10:22:08.540" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38026" PostId="18053" Score="0" Text="@tony It can't be a verb, no, it's an address; the meaning is 'But Cominius - although nevermind this, honourable judges'. *aliō trānseundī grātiā* 'for the sake of passing over to another topic'." CreationDate="2022-04-17T11:07:34.703" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37904" PostId="18058" Score="3" Text="Are you asking this question for a friend?" CreationDate="2022-04-11T20:04:58.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37909" PostId="18058" Score="1" Text="How did you know?" CreationDate="2022-04-11T20:48:50.600" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="37905" PostId="18060" Score="0" Text="Ah, interesting. So a better translation might be &quot;heroic&quot; or &quot;of the heroic race&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-11T20:24:58.360" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="37906" PostId="18060" Score="0" Text="Aside from the tradition, is there any way to know which of Ζεύς and δῖος is actually the first member of the compound?" CreationDate="2022-04-11T20:26:30.467" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37907" PostId="18060" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher I'm not sure. My initial inclination is to say no, but perhaps this is some rule I'm not aware of." CreationDate="2022-04-11T20:38:51.697" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37908" PostId="18060" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I wouldn't necessarily translate it that way, but &quot;heroic&quot; (in the proper Greek sense) does seem to be the implication." CreationDate="2022-04-11T20:42:00.907" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37913" PostId="18060" Score="0" Text="@Vegawatcher The long vowel in the first syllable would point to δῖος." CreationDate="2022-04-12T08:47:57.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37915" PostId="18060" Score="1" Text="N.B.: according to Homeric genealogy, Odysseus is not himself the son of a god, but he is the grandson of [Autolykos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autolycus) (his mother's father, who named him, who gave him a significant boar's-tusk helmet, and who informs his character as a trickster and a thief). In Homer Autolykos in turn is the son of Hermes and (therefore) the grandson of Zeus, so Odysseus would not be the son but the great-great-grandson of Zeus, on his mother's side." CreationDate="2022-04-12T11:07:19.853" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="37918" PostId="18060" Score="0" Text="@TKR The length of the iota of διογενὲς is a good point; however, when I look in LSJ, it says that the iota is always long in Homer, apparently obliterating whatever difference there might have been between Διός and δῖος used in the compound." CreationDate="2022-04-12T13:54:53.023" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37927" PostId="18060" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher True, this is the kind of case where metrical lengthening would be expected as otherwise the word wouldn't scan. BTW there's an odd usage δῖον γένος ἰοχέαιρα in Iliad 9.538, describing Artemis so presumably meaning &quot;child of Zeus&quot;, which seems to suggest δῖος was sometimes taken as an adjective form of Ζεύς." CreationDate="2022-04-12T20:14:43.260" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="37910" PostId="18061" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, *cui verum, is robustior* is very close to the Russian from Vegawatcher's post." CreationDate="2022-04-11T21:44:20.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37912" PostId="18061" Score="1" Text="I think Google's interpretation is by far the default because *vērō* appears in the adversative adverb's usual, unstressed position. To force its reading as a noun under nuclear sentence stress, one has to fill in this unstressed position with something actually unstressed - *enim* is the automatic choice. Without this your reading seems all but impossible; if you want to have *vērō* stressed, the only other option to signal this in writing is to front it to be sentence-initial: *vērō quis est rōbustior?*" CreationDate="2022-04-12T01:13:07.593" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37919" PostId="18061" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian How about *Vero vero quis robustior?* " CreationDate="2022-04-12T16:41:27.773" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37922" PostId="18061" Score="0" Text="Thanks Sebastian. The phrase does seem to be a mis-translation from Russian into Latin. So, what @Unbrutal_Russian said makes more sense: _vero quis est robustior_. He knows better ;) :P Thank you guys, this was very helpful." CreationDate="2022-04-12T18:42:12.220" UserId="6391" />
  <row Id="37926" PostId="18061" Score="0" Text="Sebastian: As an editor, the diplomatic term for this is &quot;haplology&quot;; as myself, I can think of some less diplomatic ones xD @InnocentBystander Hehe, but keep in mind that even that word order is still pretty bad because it confusingly switches from *vēritās* to *vērum* and starts talking about physical strength, so you start thinking that *vērō* is a guy's name or means &quot;the correct guy&quot; rather than &quot;the true thing&quot;." CreationDate="2022-04-12T19:04:54.487" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37911" PostId="18062" Score="1" Text="Good find. You can tell the Latin is a bad translation of the Russian. They probably should have translated it as &quot;qui verum habet fortior.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-11T21:44:51.443" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37920" PostId="18062" Score="0" Text="I think you are right. The guy who tried to explain the meaning to me sounded Russian." CreationDate="2022-04-12T18:22:22.197" UserId="6391" />
  <row Id="37923" PostId="18062" Score="1" Text="I wonder if they thought *quis vero robustior* could be translated as something like &quot;he who is with the truth is stronger.&quot;  You could twist descriptions of the various uses of these words  and their endings to fit that the theory, but these words would never be used together with those meanings" CreationDate="2022-04-12T18:44:51.643" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37916" PostId="18063" Score="3" Text="Cicero's &quot;Orator&quot; &amp; &quot;de Oratore&quot; are two different works. Are you aware of this?" CreationDate="2022-04-12T11:14:39.113" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37921" PostId="18063" Score="1" Text="@tony Nope, I wasn't - thanks!" CreationDate="2022-04-12T18:35:57.090" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37924" PostId="18064" Score="0" Text="Do you mean &quot;and vice versa&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-12T18:47:13.693" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="37930" PostId="18064" Score="0" Text="The problem with &quot;and the reverse case is also true&quot; is exactly the same as with *vice versā* - the most obvious way to understand it is by flipping around the causal relationship (B&gt;A), and not reverting the polarity of the action (increase&gt;decrease). Compare [this question](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/390591) on the English SE, where the OP distinguishes between &quot;converse&quot; and &quot;reverse&quot; only to receive an answer that &quot;conversely&quot; is exactly what they're looking for. I think therefore the problem is logical rather than linguistic. Moreover, your question may be about English not Latin" CreationDate="2022-04-12T21:27:28.527" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37942" PostId="18069" Score="1" Text="I love how &quot;Latin is simple&quot; offers several example sentences, none of which have anything to do with &quot;private parts&quot; (*verendum nobis erit*, etc)." CreationDate="2022-04-13T20:57:08.140" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="37945" PostId="18071" Score="0" Text="Translators can be highly skilled in the &quot;massaging&quot; of meanings; of standard dictionary definitions. These can be baffling; but, as with cryptic-crossword clues, a logic can be discerned. If something was &quot;desirable&quot; (&quot;optabilis&quot;); then, perhaps someone was inclined to choose it i.e. &quot;they set their hearts on....&quot;, (Davie). Just a thought." CreationDate="2022-04-14T07:41:55.297" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37946" PostId="18071" Score="1" Text="@tony Standard dictionary definitions are not the full truth, and ancient authors are certainly not bound by the dictionaries we modern people write. Sometimes a broader and deeper look will point to a very different result than a simple consultation of a dictionary. The interpretation by the translators is reasonable and doesn't require suspicious massaging. You're right to think of *optabilis*. See my answer below." CreationDate="2022-04-14T10:46:54.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37947" PostId="18071" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I don't know why you have selected &quot;suspicious&quot;: is a student-thwarting conspiracy  afoot?  Seriously, thinking &quot;outside-the-box&quot; is required. I recall perfect-subjunctive, &quot;viderit&quot;, translated to &quot;he should've had more sense&quot;--which, at first glance, looked mental. Digging (thinking) this could be construed as, &quot;he should have seen i.e. understood&quot;, &quot;massaged&quot; to the above. When the clues are cryptic the student must don his thinking-cap." CreationDate="2022-04-14T11:17:25.410" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="37948" PostId="18071" Score="1" Text="@tony I got the impression that you used the expression &quot;massaging of meanings&quot; in a very pejorative fashion, so I didn't find adding an additional &quot;suspicious&quot; to change the tone. My point was just that this translation task doesn't require supplying something that isn't there or any other suspicious steps. But it is true that this is tricky. And often there simply isn't a unique interpretation of what's being said. No conspiracies here." CreationDate="2022-04-14T11:25:36.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37950" PostId="18074" Score="0" Text="Thank you, now it is clear! Also I completely agree with the approach you described, therefore I've chosen this textbook. But one question still bothers me. It seems like sometimes the &quot;wrong approach&quot; gives a correct result:&#xA;&#xA;Iulius a servis portatur - Julius is transported by the slaves.&#xA;&#xA;Nummi a domino numerantur - Coins are counted by the master, etc. &#xA;&#xA;So in the case of timere, did this approach to passive voice fail because this verb falls into some kind of special group? If so, are there other verbs of this kind? Or it is a complete random with no underlying system?" CreationDate="2022-04-14T12:41:17.303" UserId="11002" />
  <row Id="37962" PostId="18074" Score="4" Text="@АндрейКокорев I'll put this a bit differently than the other reply - the Latin is totally regular here, it's English and Russian that are irregular because they use formally passive verbs to *be frightened, бояться* as normal verbs; there's no active **боять* at all, though there is *to frighten, страшить.* You'll see verbs like *бояться* in Latin further down the line, for example *loquī* 'to speak'.—Trying to understand how all these verbs match to each other between the languages can be fun, but you need to natively understand how they work from each language's POV." CreationDate="2022-04-14T22:20:34.613" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37969" PostId="18075" Score="0" Text="The best part of this answer is the explanation of why and how they might have reached such a conclusion; it will serve me well in the future to consider this when I am doing more of my own translations." CreationDate="2022-04-15T08:24:28.477" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="37973" PostId="18075" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan That kind of generalizability was what I aimed at. I'm glad if it's helpful!" CreationDate="2022-04-15T11:43:53.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37961" PostId="18076" Score="2" Text="The comment box placeholder warns me against it, but still, thanks:) Your answer clarifies the question I stated in the comment to Unbrutal_Russian's answer." CreationDate="2022-04-14T17:24:52.810" UserId="11002" />
  <row Id="37951" PostId="18077" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! What languages do you speak, if I may ask? English isn't a great match with Latin in terms of sounds, so some other language might serve better as a point of reference." CreationDate="2022-04-14T15:02:53.977" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="37953" PostId="18077" Score="2" Text="Long story short: whoever it is that you're listening to might be inaccurate." CreationDate="2022-04-14T15:23:12.107" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37956" PostId="18077" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I only speak English, but I am taking a Spanish class as well (the reason I can roll my rs.) My goal in life is to learn, so I decided that I can take Spanish at school and Latin in my free time, if that helps." CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:08:15.050" UserId="11005" />
  <row Id="37957" PostId="18077" Score="1" Text="Hi Jack, welcome to the site! That's an admirable goal. If it helps at all, I will say that when looking at Latin vowels and Latin spelling, the sounds you have learned in Spanish class will almost always be a more useful starting point for comparison than the sounds you use for the same letters in English. Spanish is much more closely related to Latin, indeed directly descended from it, and its spelling system is a direct descendant of Latin's spelling. Not everything in Spanish is pronounced or spelled the same in Latin, but it will require much less of a shift to get from one to the other." CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:18:57.687" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="37959" PostId="18077" Score="0" Text="I'll make sure to utilize Spanish pronunciation then. Thanks! I do have a habit of setting goals that are way too big, but this one I think I'll follow through on - I've always loved languages and the idea of being a polyglot" CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:45:47.150" UserId="11005" />
  <row Id="37952" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="+1. I wonder if the OP is also concerned about the quantity difference between Latin &quot;u&quot; [u] and English &quot;oo&quot; [u:]." CreationDate="2022-04-14T15:19:12.940" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37954" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="So, to clarify, the short/long vowel distinction applies more to the length of the vowel than to the vowel sound itself, though the short/long distinction DOEs still correlate with the vowel? Secondly, does that mean that every vowel before a long vowel should be pronounced as long, and are there other rules like this in a well-thought-out list or something like that? Finally, should I just keep learning how words are pronounced with google translate until I get vowels and diphthongs down?" CreationDate="2022-04-14T15:57:27.773" UserId="11005" />
  <row Id="37955" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="@JackWilliam: The long/short distinction in Latin is primarily about duration. For e i o u, there might also have been a secondary difference in the vowel quality. Allen says short e i before another vowel have the same quality as long e i. It probably makes sense to extend that to u as well, and to o (although o before a vowel is extremely rare in Latin). I will edit this answer a bit later with links to audio. Google translate is not the best" CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:06:33.350" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37958" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="So in general, I should pronounce a short vowel followed by a long vowel as a long vowel, correct?" CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:44:38.343" UserId="11005" />
  <row Id="37960" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="@JackWilliam: More specifically, a short “e i o u” followed by any other vowel (the following vowel can be long or short, its length doesn’t matter) can be pronounced with the same quality as long “e i o u”. Short and long “a” have the same quality, so it’s not relevant to “a”" CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:49:39.337" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37964" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="@JackWilliam Google Translate for Latin uses Google's Italian pronunciation of Italian, it has little correlation even with how Italians pronounce Latin. You'll have to get much more serious than that if you want to be successful with Latin :-) There are very few shortcuts available, and even GT itself was 95% useless at translating it up until recently. Your best tool for hearing Latin pronounced is forvo.com, but it's difficult to know whether what you're hearing is correct, or what type of pronunciation it is. You'll probs need to learn the International Phonetic Alphabet yourself" CreationDate="2022-04-14T22:48:16.517" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37966" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="You know, that in itself would probably be a very fun challenge. If I were to learn it, is there any particular resource you would recommend that has pronunciations of Latin words using the IPA?" CreationDate="2022-04-15T01:54:04.423" UserId="11005" />
  <row Id="37971" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides I am genuinely curious, is there any other distinction of long/short than duration? Intuitively, when someone says to me: this vowel (let's say u) is short u, I would pronounce it fast (you know, short), and if he says that is long u, I would pronounce the same sound just longer." CreationDate="2022-04-15T09:39:56.393" UserId="11009" />
  <row Id="37972" PostId="18078" Score="1" Text="@dosvarog: For historical reasons, when speaking of *English* specifically, &quot;long&quot; is often used to refers to a set of **diphthongized** vowels (&quot;long i&quot; = the diphthong /aɪ/, vs &quot;short i&quot; = /ɪ/)." CreationDate="2022-04-15T09:47:21.177" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="37981" PostId="18078" Score="0" Text="@JackWilliam The English wiktionary is one such resource; the wikipedia article on the pronunciation of Latin should serve as a good training ground, it's really comprehensive and even has a few audio recordings. Conversely, a good way to learn the IPA is by reading a wikipedia article on the phonology of a language you already know (such as English), though there probably are more friendly resources out there. Practical application is king.—I feel it needs to be added to my previous comment and stressed: the word *teneō* is not pronounced anything like what you hear from Google Translate." CreationDate="2022-04-15T21:07:25.320" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37965" PostId="18080" Score="0" Text="Your approach would be unadvisable enough if this etymology was correct but the word barely attesed; but this etymology is [surely incorrect](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/park#Etymology) while the word is [not attested](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/particus) - *pund*brech refers to the **animal pound.** It isn't in Niermeyer either." CreationDate="2022-04-15T00:00:04.680" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37974" PostId="18080" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian. There are better sources than wiktionary. I have consulted CNRTL and DWDS." CreationDate="2022-04-15T13:43:39.597" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="37977" PostId="18080" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure how this is possible. CNRTL [correctly gives](https://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/parc) the same etymology as wiktionary. DWDS [doesn't say anything](https://www.dwds.de/wb/Park#etymwb-1) on the origin of the Latin word. Wiktionary uses these sources and more in giving its etymologies; they're more detailed when it comes to individual language histories, but not more factually correct." CreationDate="2022-04-15T17:00:15.970" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="37976" PostId="18083" Score="0" Text="I'm making this a CW, as I feel this was too much material for a comment, but I can contribute too little in the way of translation to write up my own answer. Especially as I don't have a medical background. Hopefully others can pick it up from here!" CreationDate="2022-04-15T15:37:10.973" UserId="10674" />
  <row Id="37987" PostId="18083" Score="0" Text="thank you, I have incorporated the corrections into the transcription :)" CreationDate="2022-04-16T08:47:24.247" UserId="4877" />
  <row Id="37988" PostId="18085" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Are you absolutely sure about the spelling of the third word? If you have a picture of the crest where you saw the motto, that'd be a great addition to the question." CreationDate="2022-04-16T10:16:48.123" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41000" PostId="18085" Score="1" Text="ut vivas vigila! Thanks to all of you for the help!" CreationDate="2023-01-15T05:40:31.013" UserId="12020" />
  <row Id="37994" PostId="18087" Score="2" Text="Welcome yo te site! We usually don't do such long translations in a single question, though in this case it seems like a standard Holy See legislative text about vacant sees and the appointing of bishops, that maybe has an official translation. Are you able to provide a source? Do you have a specific question about the issue that may help narrow the question down? I'm certain some of us here are willing to help" CreationDate="2022-04-16T13:37:18.420" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37995" PostId="18087" Score="0" Text="Update: the source is the bull Licet ecclesiarum, from XIII century Pope [Clement IV](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_IV)" CreationDate="2022-04-16T13:44:29.320" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="37996" PostId="18087" Score="0" Text="Hi Rafael, no, I can't find any translation.&#xA;If you would be so kind I would like to know this part.&#xA;For I have the doubt if Clement IV says that in vacant sees yes or no bishops can be appointed.&#xA;&#xA;If you want you can answer me in Sapnish&#xA;&#xA;Could you translate this part &#xA; (nisi ei sit super conferendis eisdem in Curia Romana vacantibus specialis et expressa ab ipso Pontifice auctoritas attributa)" CreationDate="2022-04-16T13:58:26.883" UserId="11016" />
  <row Id="37998" PostId="18087" Score="2" Text="If that one phrase is all you need, edit the question to reflect that. People would be much more willing to translate a single sentence or two for free than a whole wall of text." CreationDate="2022-04-16T14:01:06.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="37999" PostId="18087" Score="0" Text="Thanks cmw, I would need everything to be able to refute a Christian sect that wants to look for a loophole in some consecrations during the vacancy of the Papacy for their own illicitities.&#xA;But I would settle for that part.&#xA;Sorry for the inconvenience." CreationDate="2022-04-16T14:05:49.680" UserId="11016" />
  <row Id="38017" PostId="18089" Score="3" Text="Apparently inspired by Hor. Sat. II, 3, 152: *Ut vivas igitur, vigila.*" CreationDate="2022-04-16T21:34:49.540" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38003" PostId="18090" Score="1" Text="Just those two words, no other context?" CreationDate="2022-04-16T17:08:45.423" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38005" PostId="18090" Score="1" Text="This is on signboard for a bar, a taberna. Moreover it appears several times in the book, so I think it's not a typo." CreationDate="2022-04-16T17:25:36.833" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="38010" PostId="18090" Score="0" Text="What book is this, if I may ask?" CreationDate="2022-04-16T18:12:43.777" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38012" PostId="18090" Score="1" Text="The book is &quot;Falx aurea&quot; - translated into latin by Rubricastellanus" CreationDate="2022-04-16T18:40:08.903" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="38014" PostId="18090" Score="0" Text="@cnread Quite the translation of &quot;Chez le joyeux Arverne&quot;  The lettering is off, this word belongs on the upper line written in larger letters, see [the original](https://img.ricardostatic.ch/t_1000x750/pl/1192805892/0/4/)." CreationDate="2022-04-16T21:03:42.863" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38033" PostId="18095" Score="4" Text="Please note that Vittinghoff rejects &quot;memoria damnata&quot; just like &quot;damnatio memoriae&quot; as erroneus and says Roman historians either talked about individual sanctions or talked about the decision to condemn the name or image in general." CreationDate="2022-04-17T18:34:52.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38054" PostId="18095" Score="0" Text="Thanks much pápilió for the excellent summary! I see a lot of paper digging coming my way! :-) Would you mind incorporating the Sebastian's note into to the answer? The comments are fleeting, and his seems to add a very useful bit of information. As part of your welcome to SO, a tidbit: If you want to link to a comment, it is the comment's _date_  (&quot;N hours/days ago&quot; or a real date after a few days) that is a hyperlink to it. This isn't intuitive and hard to find at first." CreationDate="2022-04-20T06:01:47.030" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="38038" PostId="18103" Score="0" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: The title, &quot;For Barbarians&quot;, would certainly attract attention and generate some jokes. In the contemporary (English) mind it would conjure-up fierce imagery: everything from smelly, hairy, hysterical German tribesmen charging a Roman phalanx, to hordes of rampaging football hooligans. And to the Roman mind? Are you sure about this? I thought Joonas's, &quot;tironibus&quot;, was a good one: in the dat. pl. it's not necessarily neuter. There are other, gentler, ways of saying &quot;for the inexperienced&quot; e.g. &quot;imperitis&quot;; &quot;inexpertis&quot;; &quot;inscitis&quot; (Oxford)." CreationDate="2022-04-19T09:12:23.870" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38039" PostId="18103" Score="1" Text="One can read a lot about the Romano-Greek concept of foreigners, but 'forgeigners' is essentially what *barbarī* refers to, only less in reference to ethnicity (as in our nationalist age) and more in reference to (literary) culture. The imagery that the word conjures up for us rather speaks about our own conceptions of all the ancient peoples who weren't Roman or Greek. There's been a lot of effort in the academia to modify these conceptions.—The &quot;gentler&quot; ways have the problems that I describe - they're too circumspect and involve no humour or double take; the latter is what makes the English" CreationDate="2022-04-19T09:40:20.767" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38040" PostId="18103" Score="2" Text="As I say, the bare dative is not used in Latin book titles, and would look like clumsy translationese. Someone who's translating a book title into Latin has the luxury of having unlimited access to the vast early printed book output in Latin, and there's no excuse for not knowing how the target audience is expressed in the language.—There's no neuter *tīrō,* it's an animate noun, so it's not the gender that's the problem, it's that the bare dative gives an abruptly unfinished book title." CreationDate="2022-04-19T09:48:44.967" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38041" PostId="18103" Score="1" Text="Unbrutal_Russian: Understood. Someone's given a &quot;-1&quot;; I've put it back to zero--best I can do." CreationDate="2022-04-19T09:48:52.987" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38042" PostId="18103" Score="0" Text="@tony Yep, I've noticed that - thank you. If the person who's downvoted it is reading, I'm always interested in and open to receiving suggestions on how my answers can be improved, or what statements may require elaboration, illustration or any other support." CreationDate="2022-04-19T09:55:00.507" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38044" PostId="18103" Score="3" Text="I personally would not be able to resist idiota, since the goal is to produce a parody book in the modern context.  Bringing to mind &quot;idiot&quot; is an advantage, a nod to the original &quot;For Dummies,&quot; even though the words aren't real synonyms. I also like your suggestion of barbarus, though." CreationDate="2022-04-19T11:21:47.423" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38045" PostId="18103" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey It didn't occur to me at all how the modern context actually does tip the balance towards *idiōta* - that's a very neat observation! I think part of this is that I always try and proactively avoid false friends with modern languages, and this one's notorious. Which makes me be overly cautious and overlook instances like these where in fact the &quot;stupid&quot; association is welcome.—Still, I have to say that in my opinion 95% of the eventual audience will not understand it the way we do, as an interlanguage pun, but will think the meaning proper to the Latin word." CreationDate="2022-04-19T11:32:36.250" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38046" PostId="18103" Score="1" Text="Quick note modern connotations of ***idiōta*** / Eng. &quot;idiot&quot; in *this specific context*, i.e., a parody of the [IDG Books / Wiley Publishing *... For Dummies* reference books franchise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Dummies). The books actually have a fairly successful, imitative competitor, the [*Complete Idiot's Guide To...* series by Alpha Books / DK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Idiot%27s_Guides). It's not unlikely someone looking at ***idiōta*** might think of the orange books as quickly as the *For Dummies* books." CreationDate="2022-04-19T14:48:40.483" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="38047" PostId="18103" Score="0" Text="This *may* be a problem or it may just as easily being an advantage, depending on the details, on your purposes in the parody, etc." CreationDate="2022-04-19T14:49:02.437" UserId="10486" />
  <row Id="38048" PostId="18103" Score="0" Text="@AlabamaScholiast Thanks for mentioning this - I think they might in a great majority of cases (given they're familiar with the competing series), but at that point it will hardly be relevant; in both cases they will be attributing the same non-existent meaning to the Latin word, but the type of book will be clear, which seems to be the main communicative intent. If one has a wide audience in mind, misinterpretation is unavoidable, and one will probably opt to avoid the use of the lookalike word altogether." CreationDate="2022-04-19T15:10:19.623" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38049" PostId="18106" Score="1" Text="IMHO, the concept was as meaningless as it can be before Turing coined and defined it. A literal translation isn't far off." CreationDate="2022-04-19T17:30:46.667" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38057" PostId="18106" Score="1" Text="Machine intelligence might be a better way to say it" CreationDate="2022-04-21T18:59:27.710" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38051" PostId="18107" Score="3" Text="By &quot;voiced&quot; do you mean &quot;pronounced out loud&quot;? Voicing is a term for a specific kind of pronunciation." CreationDate="2022-04-19T19:10:57.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38052" PostId="18107" Score="3" Text="Pronouncing &quot;pterodactyl&quot; without a &quot;p&quot; sound is actually something particular to English, not Latin! In French, the corresponding word starts with an audible /p/ sound (ptérodactyle), and the source language for words starting with these kinds of clusters, Ancient Greek, is thought to have likewise prononuced both consonants in words starting with these kinds of clusters. See the Linguistics post [Are syllable initial consonant clusters pronounced in Ancient Greek?](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/21306) for some discussion." CreationDate="2022-04-19T21:36:10.263" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38053" PostId="18107" Score="1" Text="There are also some English SE questions about the history of words starting like this: [History and Explanation of Scientific English Pronunciation Convention: PS, PN, PT](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/359101), [Pterodactyl and Archeopteryx: Silent P vs Voiced P](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/103014)" CreationDate="2022-04-19T21:59:29.973" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38060" PostId="18115" Score="0" Text="Ok, I'm dying to know. What book is it?" CreationDate="2022-04-22T11:54:23.083" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="38062" PostId="18115" Score="1" Text="@Adam, some niche old book: https://www.amazon.com/Composition-Keplers-Astronomia-nova/dp/0691007381/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 ; though I see this from time time that a digital costs more, but not that much." CreationDate="2022-04-22T13:41:36.740" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38061" PostId="18119" Score="0" Text="Do you think *mihi* in the last verse, can be interpreted as: &quot;as for me&quot;; rather than &quot;free to myself&quot;. its like: &quot;you dog, go enjoy those things you so praise, as for me, I rather be free than to be happy slave&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-22T13:32:36.650" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38063" PostId="18119" Score="2" Text="@d_e No, it's a respect adjunct to *līber* - 'free with respect to myself', like for example in *rēx cēterīs* 'a king to others'. This is clear because of its sentence-final position which cannot express contrastive topic; cf. [my answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/17898/2389). The wolf doesn't want to be a king with respect to others only to be a slave with respect to himself." CreationDate="2022-04-22T13:41:53.433" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38083" PostId="18122" Score="0" Text="Tony was trying to find ‘ a Latin one-word equivalent of the German word’ and i think malevolentia according to Cicero’s definition fitted the bill. In fact Aristotle’s term is closer to Schadenfreude. malevolentia too has overtones of malice, which is somewhat stronger than ‘ill will’, for whereas Ill will means not caring about other people, malice implies a desire to do harm (expressed/implied). In the letter quoted Shackleton Bailey translates the phrase as ‘ You will counter the world’s malice towards me if you can’.&#xA;Jonathan Hadfield" CreationDate="2022-04-23T15:50:59.933" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38086" PostId="18122" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: The (English) similar word, &quot;gloat&quot;, has a German derivation, &quot;glotzen&quot;: the online German dictionary gave it as &quot;stare like a cow or a madman&quot;...Is that accurate? If so it provides the possible evolution to &quot;feasting the eyes&quot;. Then, there's the &quot;mad&quot;element, adding a possible extra dimension for those who may delight in the downfall of others. All these words seem to be related, somehow: a point that I should have emphasised." CreationDate="2022-04-24T10:43:36.583" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38225" PostId="18122" Score="0" Text="@tony *oculōs pāscere* is like the German word but not the English one; the former two make reference to the physical action of staring (dumbly in German, joyfully in Latin), while there's no such meaning in English, which is entirely about the emotion of malignant joy." CreationDate="2022-05-04T18:28:53.557" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38071" PostId="18123" Score="0" Text="gratias tibi, mi amice Scytha humanissime. quae proposuisti mihi praegrata sunt. interjectionem 'bae' tamen non intellexi. 'babae' dicere voluisti? mihi semper placent ea quae in hac pagina electronica scripsisti. gratias quoque d-e." CreationDate="2022-04-22T20:40:26.017" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38072" PostId="18123" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Victor Iōhannō salūtem. *bae!* illō puerum linguam exserentem significāre voluī. Namque quā interjectiōne puerī Rōmānī ūsī sint, īnfēliciter nōn trāditum est nōbīs, ergō conjectūram fēcī ex ipsō sonō :-) —Grātiās autem libenter accipiō libenterque opem ferre pergō! Cēterum, quod veniā tuā dictum sit, nōlī oblīvīscī sagittulam sūrsum premere, namque aliōquīn dubium restat et nōbīs quī respondimus et aliīs legentibus." CreationDate="2022-04-22T20:54:09.720" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38073" PostId="18123" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Invēnī vōcem similem in Britanniā dīcī ut &quot;nyah-nyah&quot; et in Italia &quot;gnee-gnee-gnee&quot;, vērum nōn compertum habeō utrum id puerī dīcant aliquid negantēs sē datūrum vel factūrum, ac linguam ostendentēs. crēdō magis lacessantēs irritantēsque; at ego aliud quaesīvī." CreationDate="2022-04-22T21:30:51.253" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38101" PostId="18126" Score="0" Text="Do you have an example of this expression being used only when someone's fortunes improve? If you deploy this then the natural response could be: &quot;The last laugh over whom or what?&quot;. Is it vindictive or simply a case of &quot;schadenfreude&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-25T12:19:36.120" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38088" PostId="18127" Score="0" Text="*duplum* as a word is a good mention, but I think you aren't using it correctly with *plūris*. It already means *bis tantum* 'twice **as much**', so when you join it with *cārius* or *plūris* you get 'twice as much more (expensive)'. Neither *duplō* nor *bis tantō* need any more specification with prices - you just say *duplō ēmī/vēndidī,* although *duplō cārus = bis tam cārus* 'twice as expensive* is fine.—Besides, I don't see *duplō* used with *cōnstāre* - I guess it should have been the gen. *duplī* like *quantī,* but in fact it's only found in legal actions: *duplī āctiō, poena, damnum.*" CreationDate="2022-04-24T12:13:40.933" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38089" PostId="18127" Score="0" Text="Another questionable choice is the use of *liber trālāticius* - this is most readily interpretable as 'pass-down book, a book received as heritage or legacy'. In fact it might seem you're contrasting a new book with a second-hand one. In the sense 'usual, ordinary, typical' it contrasts with *novus* 'novel, unusual, atypical', but here you have a much more concrete distinction. To me, understanding your choice requires back-translating it into something like 'traditional book' and understanding the much more concrete and limited English use instead of the Latin." CreationDate="2022-04-24T12:22:22.863" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38095" PostId="18127" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian It may seem that *duplo pluris* should logically mean 300%, but it is not so. See grammars such as [this one](https://books.google.de/books?id=QPZMAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage), or e.g. the L&amp;S entry for *triplus*, which translates *triplo plus scortorum* as &quot;three times as many.&quot; Interestingly a similar quirk exists in English and is quite [controversial](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/7894)." CreationDate="2022-04-24T20:37:47.763" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38096" PostId="18127" Score="0" Text="The interpretation of *liber tralaticius* as an inherited or second-hand book to me seems unsupported by the actual usage of this word. And maybe I'm old, but an ebook is (a) a novel thing and (b) cannot be &quot;new&quot; like a printed book." CreationDate="2022-04-24T20:42:20.287" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38109" PostId="18127" Score="0" Text="It didn't seem to me to mean 300%, it seemed unncesessary because tautological. *triplō plūs scortōrum* is necessary because *triplō scortōrum* doesn't mean much on its own, and *triplum scortōrum* means 'a triple(t) of'. But with prices, *duplō vēndere* already means *to sell **for a double.***" CreationDate="2022-04-25T16:11:51.520" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38110" PostId="18127" Score="0" Text="I don't understand your remark on [*trālāticius*](http://lexica.linguax.com/forc2.php?searchedLG=TRANSLATICIUS) - surely you understand that it derives from *trānslātus* 'carry-over, passed over or down' with an adjectival suffix, and is definted by Asconius ad Cic. as *qui crebro ex uno in alium locum transfertur: atque adeo non nuper inventus aut novus, sed aliunde sumptus.* It's your usage that is clearly modelled after English, which is where the opposition 'traditional, analogue, old-timey &lt;&gt; innovative, digital, techy' is found. Or am I wrong?" CreationDate="2022-04-25T16:19:17.080" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38197" PostId="18127" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian that is difficult to argue with, because I did in this case use a dictionary, but, with all respect to Asconius, the word is quite frequently simply used like *consuetus, usitatus*, etc. Although it is true that the sense generally seems to be “the usual thing as opposed to an ad-hoc creation” and not “the usual thing as opposed to a newer thing.”" CreationDate="2022-05-02T19:24:49.493" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38084" PostId="18128" Score="0" Text="Are you looking for a specific era? It sounds like you'd dislike an ecclesiastical word. There might not be good fits in the classical vocabulary." CreationDate="2022-04-23T16:33:39.957" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38085" PostId="18128" Score="0" Text="I would prefer a term used in classical Latin, but if there is no good fit, a later word would do, thanks" CreationDate="2022-04-23T16:46:34.747" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38077" PostId="18129" Score="1" Text="Could you provide an example sentence where there would a problem distinguishing between the two meanings? Such as both in one sentence or one sentence where it's unclear what *locus* means. In particular I'm wondering what use you have in mind for 'location of the passage'." CreationDate="2022-04-23T15:33:46.263" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38080" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="For example in a database, with one column for the text of the passage and one column for the location of the passage (page or chapter number, etc.). As far as I know the best headings would be locus for each" CreationDate="2022-04-23T15:49:40.673" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38102" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="@Laravel That's not an example sentence. Can you edit your question to include a specific sentence (e.g. a sentence written by Cicero) with the ambiguity described by @Unbrutal_Russian?" CreationDate="2022-04-25T13:05:26.073" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38105" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="Were pagination and books things that Cicero would have used, instead of scrolls with different line breaks in each handmade copy?  I think they numbered scrolls/books for some works and maybe verse lines, but was this done for short prose works?" CreationDate="2022-04-25T15:16:16.023" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38106" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz I actually think this is sufficient context - judging by Laravel's profile he's using Latin in a programming context, here for a UI column. The short answer is that Latin isn't hot on analytically precise terminology, maybe with the exception of scholastic Latin, a whole different beast that many would exclude from consideration. Honestly I don't even know the term English or Russian would use to indicate location without specifying type: by page, line, chapter etc. As such it's difficult to approach answering this definitely." CreationDate="2022-04-25T15:24:10.890" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38107" PostId="18129" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher [I've recently researched this](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/44343/24673) and it seems that chapter references first appeared in Greek Bible scholarship around the 3th century. But prose lines or pages in codices - that would simply be inapplicable before printing where for the most part, each book was unique; although I think there did exist standardised scribal runs so to say, but rather of scrolls and not codices, and I'm not sure if they were ever as standardised so that all the lines matched up." CreationDate="2022-04-25T15:27:54.473" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38113" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian The temporary solution I have found is to use verba for the passage and locus for its position in the work" CreationDate="2022-04-25T18:07:27.927" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38114" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="This probably works, but the thing is you can just as well call the passage *locus* and the address *index* or some such. In fact it seems to correspond better to the Latin usage because I haven't seen *locus* used to express precise location, coordinates or address, it's a much more general word." CreationDate="2022-04-25T18:23:59.813" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38117" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I did not know this subtlety, your proposal seems better then, thank you. Maybe I should use verba and index and forget about locus?" CreationDate="2022-04-25T19:12:45.920" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38118" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian situs might be better than index if I get the meaning correctly" CreationDate="2022-04-25T19:36:35.013" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38119" PostId="18129" Score="0" Text="No, *situs* is a very general, geographic location, situation in relation to other things - you use it in descriptions of cities and islands. It's even used of geographical or compass direction." CreationDate="2022-04-25T19:45:26.103" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38121" PostId="18132" Score="0" Text="A scholarly and interesting comment, thank you.  It was the gender of φως that led Jerome to the famous error in the opening of John's gospel, where he took φῶς as the subject in:&#xA;Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον&#xA;&#xA;But I don't really see that the rules of a source language should influence the target text of a translator.  His job is to work out the actual meaning, and then express it correctly.  Do you not think so?" CreationDate="2022-04-26T05:09:06.887" UserId="1970" />
  <row Id="38122" PostId="18132" Score="0" Text="@JohnWhite That is ideal, but that does not what Jerome do, especially with the first translation. Even in the New Testament, he is prone to Graecism and un-idiomatic phrasing. I'll track down a source for you when I have time - remind me if I don't in the next couple of days." CreationDate="2022-04-26T05:18:02.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38092" PostId="18133" Score="1" Text="At neque 'in *diem* ingredī' potest neque 'ex *missā* ēgredī' - quae praetereā utraque fēminīnī generis sunt. Hīc manufestē aedēs significantur, quod et interpretātiō anglica probat, et praesertim ipsum illud Graecum 'το Κυριακόν' unde Latīnē versum est." CreationDate="2022-04-24T12:31:08.450" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38097" PostId="18133" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian &quot;missa&quot; is definitely used in Christian Latin as an event occurring in a place, which one could enter or exit. From the Concilia Galliae: &quot;Ut populus ante benedictionem sacerdotis de missa non egrediatur&quot;. From the Vita S. Gregorii: &quot;[eum] de Missa nondum finita violentis manibus abstraxerunt&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-24T20:47:18.747" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38098" PostId="18133" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian though, rereading your comment, I think you meant only that such an expression (ex missa egredi) is impossible here, not in general. So, disregard my previous comment, I suppose." CreationDate="2022-04-24T23:55:30.477" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38108" PostId="18133" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey The crucial difference here is that *ex* 'out of' is used with the **space-as-container** metaphor while *dē* 'down/away from' doesn't conceive of the Mass as a space at all, but as you say, an event. Thus you can drag someone away from a Mass, but hardly out of it. It's true that *Dominicum* [is used both](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/dominicum) of the place and of the service - I'm using the choice of preposition as a means to decide which it is." CreationDate="2022-04-25T15:37:19.823" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38296" PostId="18135" Score="0" Text="I just noticed that all edible-fruit-bearing trees and shrubs that are native to temperate Europe are feminine in Polish, with exception of _orzech_ &quot;walnut&quot; (not exactly a typical fruit) and _agrest_ &quot;gooseberry&quot; (a loan from Latin, so it probably doesn't count; also, it has multiple native synonyms that are feminine, like _kosmatka_).  So there might be something to it." CreationDate="2022-05-10T11:17:56.357" UserId="11104" />
  <row Id="38111" PostId="18139" Score="0" Text="Perfect, thanks! I seem to have had forgotten this pair. It's good to have it recorded." CreationDate="2022-04-25T17:54:08.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38123" PostId="18140" Score="2" Text="It's not like Attic Greek had a short /u/ to use instead of long ου." CreationDate="2022-04-26T05:30:17.097" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="38125" PostId="18140" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Indeed, but for this reason the La /u/ was expressed also as ο and mor rarely υ, at least in non-litearary writings. But I guess here we're dealing with straightforward transliteration instead of sound approximation. Also I was confused about the cirmcumflex at first, but of course this is a straight case of the *σωτῆρα*-rule, only the circumflex is possible on a long penult followed by a short vowel, even if the 'long' in our case is graphic-only." CreationDate="2022-04-26T14:31:47.010" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38129" PostId="18141" Score="2" Text="&quot;Web site&quot; has pretty common term in contemporary Latin: [_situs interretialis_](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22situs+interretialis%22)" CreationDate="2022-04-27T11:03:01.327" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38130" PostId="18141" Score="0" Text="I guess that might make us _Situs Interretialis Linguae Latinae_." CreationDate="2022-04-27T11:27:51.867" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="38131" PostId="18141" Score="4" Text="@Adam That'd be &quot;The Latin language website&quot;. Our site is not the only thing that could be described so. Describing pros and cons of different suggestions is what I'm mostly looking forward to here." CreationDate="2022-04-27T11:36:01.460" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38132" PostId="18141" Score="3" Text="Idea: stackexchange comes from a computer's memory stack, which takes its name from its analogy in structure/functioning to a stack/pile, hence [strues](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dstrues) could be a good word for the _stack_ part (though maybe too unspecific?). Something in the line of strue commutatio?" CreationDate="2022-04-27T12:22:06.257" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38126" PostId="18150" Score="0" Text="Perhaps a moderator could lay out this answer in a better format, since I only have an ipad and in any case am not au fait with how to present a document like this!" CreationDate="2022-04-27T09:39:50.173" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38127" PostId="18150" Score="1" Text="I have submitted an edit to improve the formatting" CreationDate="2022-04-27T10:08:11.763" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38133" PostId="18150" Score="1" Text="Thanks, Laravel, for your efforts on my behalf!" CreationDate="2022-04-27T14:44:26.033" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38135" PostId="18151" Score="1" Text="I agree that it is better not to translate the name. But some languages didn't have computing terms and translated them. Spanish from Spain (not the Latin American dialects) translates many terms preserving the original metaphors. Indeed _stack_ as a data structure is translated as [_pila_](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pila_(inform%C3%A1tica))." CreationDate="2022-04-27T17:35:34.670" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38136" PostId="18151" Score="1" Text="@Rafael The fact that direct translation is a possible way of adapting specialised (including computing) foreign-language terms in any language is not in question to anyone familiar with any foreign language. Russian computer jargon is full of translated terms that feel totally native.—What would not be acceptable, in any language, is inventing a translation for a term for which no translation is in use, for the sole purpose of coming up with literal translation of some random website's name. Such inside jokes are possible on a personal website, but never when aiming at a general audience" CreationDate="2022-04-27T18:46:39.420" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38137" PostId="18152" Score="0" Text="I'd like to point out that *situs* is not a possible translation of En. 'website', but a bad piece of translationese – the word means 'situation in relation to other things, locality, esp. geographical; a region (of the world)' and in conjunction with *(inter)rētiālis* would mean 'a being situated in-between nets'. Worse still, it also means 'rust, dust and cobwebs, a state of mouldy decrepitude'.—One extant translation that is possible is *sēdēs* 'the proper place where something is situated or someone lives, a seat, abode', and I recommend using that." CreationDate="2022-04-27T18:54:30.880" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38138" PostId="18152" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian It appears that *situs* has a firm foothold in contemporary Latin as a translation of &quot;(web)site&quot;. Such tradition, albeit far more modern than classical Latin, is not to be ignored, nor is analogy to other languages. If Latin words are to be used for modern concepts, they have to be adapted; they cannot be wholly faithful to their older meanings. This happens in all languages as new technology replaces old and old words are repurposed for new uses. From the point of view of an ancient Roman these new meanings might be nonsensical, but so might be our whole modern world." CreationDate="2022-04-27T19:29:43.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38139" PostId="18152" Score="0" Text="I don't think you get my meaning. I'm saying that the Latin word *situs* posesses no such meaning that would allow it to serve as a translation of &quot;website&quot;, just like the English word *bone* has no meaning that would allow it to serve as a translation for, say, &quot;balalaika&quot;. No amount of analogy with other languages can change this fact. This is not a question of being wholly faithful and has nothing to do with new technology, and there's no need for calling on slippery slopes. If a bone and a balalaika have nothing in common, one cannot be repurposed as a translation of the other" CreationDate="2022-04-27T19:53:32.037" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38140" PostId="18152" Score="0" Text="The word *situs* used as a translation for &quot;website&quot; is the result of someone who didn't know the actual meaning of the Latin word looking up a translation for &quot;site&quot; in some dictionary that failed to explain its actual meaning. They saw it as a suggestion in something [Smith&amp;Hall](https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh23142), which translates a wholly different meaning of English &quot;site&quot;, i.e. &quot;location, geographical surroundings&quot; and then decided that since the English word can mean both that and refer to a building site, so can Latin, incorrectly. *sēdēs* is the proper word for that" CreationDate="2022-04-27T19:58:07.147" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38141" PostId="18152" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Whether the classical meaning of *situs* is suitable for this use is not very important in my opinion. My point is that the word is well recognizable (by analogy to English and other languages) and well established (whether originally by mistake or not), and therefore it makes for good communication. My approach here is descriptive rather than prescriptive; I care more about how the word is actually used than what it should mean. That said, the leap from *situs* as geographical location to a website is not big at all. *Sedes* is a good word too, but not the only one." CreationDate="2022-04-27T20:06:27.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38142" PostId="18152" Score="1" Text="I don't think we'll reach agreement on this as we're clearly coming from very different directions. Therefore I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on, not least because the word *situs* is just a quick example and in no way essential to my answer." CreationDate="2022-04-27T20:07:47.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38143" PostId="18152" Score="3" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian You've failed to say why *situs* is a bad translation of website. You never actually explain your understanding of what a website actually is and why the English word &quot;site&quot; was chosen for it. Your objection is incoherent without that vital piece of information." CreationDate="2022-04-27T20:16:25.550" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38144" PostId="18152" Score="2" Text="Moreover, it's dubious to object to one definition by means of a secondary development. *Sanguineus* can mean both &quot;bloodthirsty&quot; *and* just &quot;red&quot;. We cannot exclude *sanguineus* as an appropriate translation for &quot;red&quot; just because it *can* mean &quot;bloodthirsty.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-04-27T20:21:29.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38145" PostId="18152" Score="0" Text="@cmw I sure haven't - I've provided definitions of what *situs* actually means, and I did the same for *sēdēs,* which I went on to recommend as the proper translation. This latter translation is the definition that underlies En. 'website' - cf. all those &quot;site under construction&quot; banners. Conversely, to understand why *situs* doesn't work just use the definitions I provided to form some English example sentences.—The *sanguineus* example is in no way similar - the two metaphors &quot;bloody &gt; red&quot; and &quot;bloody &gt; bloodthirsty&quot; not only don't conflict, both are actually attested for this Latin word." CreationDate="2022-04-27T20:37:38.040" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38146" PostId="18152" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Again, you cannot say that word X cannot translate word Y until you define both word X and word Y. There's some underlying logic that might be missing in your analysis. Moreover, you've shifted goalposts in your second point. You mentioned cobwebs, not regions, as a secondary definition. It is to that point I mentioned *sanguineus*." CreationDate="2022-04-27T20:42:12.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38147" PostId="18152" Score="0" Text="@cmw Your accusation is in bad faith. I did not move any goalposts, because I mentioned regions as well as cobwebs in my comment, and you mentioned neither. You failed to specify in reference to which one you mentioned *sanguineus,* and the accusation of moving goalposts that you level at me is intended to transfer blame for your oversight to me. Please be more careful.—Again, I defined the word Y indirectly by defining the Latin word that I think can serve as its translation. This is fully sufficient for a comment thread; the latter is not a proper place for extended logical expositions." CreationDate="2022-04-27T20:50:25.087" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38148" PostId="18152" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian The only time you mention a secondary development is when you mention cobwebs. I would have thought that was obvious, but I suppose not. I can edit that to make it clearer if you wish.  The original point still stands." CreationDate="2022-04-27T21:24:12.673" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38150" PostId="18152" Score="0" Text="@cmw That is not a secondary development, but an accidental homonym, etymologyically unrelated from the looks of things; I mentioned it as a further negative factor. In any case there is no way it can be due to a metaphorical extension or other change of meaning; the only metaphorical extension of meaning that can be mentioned in relation to *situs* is its use for cardinal regions of the world/wind directions. This serves to underline just how far the word's meaning and metaphors are from something like &quot;construction, archeological site&quot;. In fact it describes everything but the site itself" CreationDate="2022-04-28T00:13:46.603" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38152" PostId="18152" Score="0" Text="Let's end this discussion here. If anyone wants to discuss *situs* further, please start a new question or post an answer here about that word. The situation seems to be that I and cmw do not find Unbrutal Russian's arguments convincing enough, but arguing is unlikely to change that. Everyone has made their points, and now we should move forward with or without closure on this." CreationDate="2022-04-28T05:34:39.527" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38134" PostId="18153" Score="2" Text="What do you mean by &quot;possible&quot;? Like, alternate reality possible, consistent with the evidence if we didn't know the answer possible, or a possibility that we should consider now possible?" CreationDate="2022-04-27T17:31:54.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38151" PostId="18157" Score="0" Text="So my confusion is actually associated with the discrepancy between the adverbial definition (finely, subtly) as compared to your response. I should have been more specific when posing what appeared an obvious anachronism. Can you shed some further light on this ? Thank you by the way for your very prompt response. I’m new to the forum but already feeling greatly pleased by the experience." CreationDate="2022-04-28T03:37:34.710" UserId="11057" />
  <row Id="38153" PostId="18157" Score="1" Text="@David Updated the response accordingly. Can you add all that to the question body?" CreationDate="2022-04-28T12:19:29.920" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38158" PostId="18157" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your insights !!" CreationDate="2022-04-28T16:02:09.070" UserId="11057" />
  <row Id="38173" PostId="18157" Score="0" Text="@David If this question solves your query, make sure to click the check mark to mark it solved. Let me know if you have any questions on how to do that, and welcome to Latin StackExchange." CreationDate="2022-04-30T17:46:00.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38250" PostId="18160" Score="0" Text="Hey, do you have any thoughts regarding my answer? I was hoping it would exhaustively answer your question, and so I'm wondering if you think it's missing something." CreationDate="2022-05-07T00:55:05.173" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38285" PostId="18160" Score="1" Text="Hello, there! I read your answer today, and it appears to be very thoroughly researched. Apologies for my late update here; it has been quite buzy. I will have to reread it to make sure I follow all of it, but as it looks, it is decisive and covers everything that might be relevant to answering the question. Thank you very much for taking the time! This will be enjoyable reading when heading home after a long day on campus." CreationDate="2022-05-09T15:31:45.283" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="38292" PostId="18160" Score="1" Text="I'm glad I've been able to help! I'll just add that you can check for editions that use this mixed-up prosodisation by Googling &quot;Νάϊος καὶ Πόπλιος&quot; (with quotes), and it turns out one of these editions is Scheid's, where the all-caps image is from - he also supplies lowercase prosodised parallel version of the text. I wonder if it's down to the editors or the correctors." CreationDate="2022-05-10T00:49:56.477" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38154" PostId="18161" Score="1" Text="mansura in vestigio suo → are to remain on their track. Is that what you are asking?" CreationDate="2022-04-28T12:40:31.340" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38155" PostId="18161" Score="3" Text="I agree with Rafael. Caesar uses the phrase eodem remanere vestigio, meaning ‘to remain in the same place’. Here the phrase, referring to the foundations, expresses Augustus’s hope that ‘the foundations he has laid will remain in their place’, i.e. unalterable." CreationDate="2022-04-28T13:16:48.093" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38156" PostId="18161" Score="0" Text="@Rafael: Being &quot;on track&quot; may provide guidance for future direction but is it synonymous with &quot;firm&quot;/ &quot;stable&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-28T15:23:57.967" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38157" PostId="18161" Score="0" Text="@Jonathan Hadfield: If it is simply a matter of remaining in the same place why not just say, &quot;in suo loco&quot;? I am going to annotate my copy of the OLD with your interpretation. Interesting that dictionaries do not recognise this." CreationDate="2022-04-28T15:34:01.213" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38159" PostId="18161" Score="0" Text="I guess it's just free (as opposed to literal) translation" CreationDate="2022-04-28T22:04:24.080" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38161" PostId="18161" Score="1" Text="in suo vestigio is different from in suo loco since it means ‘in the place where they stood’ cf. in suo vestigio mori ‘to die in the spot on which they stand’. Livy 28, 22:- neminem cedere atque obstinatos mori in vestigio quemque suo vidit’ ‘when they [vetus miles= collective subject] no-one giving way and resolutely dying in their tracks’ i.e. exactly where they stood. vestigio as opposed to loco means exactly where they stood." CreationDate="2022-04-29T09:31:32.503" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38162" PostId="18164" Score="0" Text="Could it have been written as, &quot;in statu quo&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-04-29T11:48:11.043" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38163" PostId="18164" Score="0" Text="See the OED:- As the Oxford English Dictionary explains, ‘status quo (Latin for the state in which) showed up in the fifth century in the writings of Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine), and was “probably extrapolated from in statu quo” (in the state in which)." CreationDate="2022-04-29T14:17:14.787" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38164" PostId="18164" Score="0" Text="@tony “in statu suo” with a similar meaning: in their current place/condition" CreationDate="2022-04-29T16:00:45.077" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38165" PostId="18170" Score="1" Text="How about _caso ignis_ or _caso igne_?" CreationDate="2022-04-29T19:25:34.677" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38166" PostId="18170" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Isn't *casus* fourth rather than second declension? That's certainly a word worth exploring in this context." CreationDate="2022-04-29T20:47:59.293" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38167" PostId="18170" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz No, these are something about a torch falling somewhere :-) the 4th declension *cāsus* refers to an unforeseen event, a misfortune that &quot;befalls&quot;, and there's no way to use it in provisions; poetically it's used for 'an allowing event, opportunity' on a couple of *occasions.*" CreationDate="2022-04-29T21:02:44.503" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38168" PostId="18170" Score="1" Text="Oops, _cāsū_! But probably still wrong, for the reasons @Unbrutal_Russian gave." CreationDate="2022-04-30T03:11:49.970" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38251" PostId="18170" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Would ''igne accidente'' or ''igne contingente'' work?" CreationDate="2022-05-07T03:18:37.110" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38252" PostId="18170" Score="1" Text="@Figulus *accidēns* and *contingēns* are philosophical terms translating Greek (see L&amp;S for details), 'the non-substantial, extraneous circumstance' and 'the contingent, present or absent by chance'. They have no use in the ordinary language. Even in technical use the PHI corpus only has [1 suitable occurrence](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=contingente%23) ('accidental, extrajudicial servitude'). Though there are a few more in folks like Boetius. *contingēns* also means 'a composite body'. —And it's not *igne* (see my answer)." CreationDate="2022-05-07T05:58:30.833" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38174" PostId="18171" Score="0" Text="very clear, thanks!" CreationDate="2022-04-30T18:22:09.113" UserId="11063" />
  <row Id="38175" PostId="18171" Score="0" Text="I just came across this construction in Petrarch, but I can't figure out why it's imperfect subjunctive, unless it's iterative? Petrarch is asking a friend to send out people to search for classical manuscripts: Etruriam perquirant, religiosorum armaria evolvant ceterorumque studiosorum hominum, si quid usquam emergeret leniende dicam an irritande siti mee ydoneum." CreationDate="2022-04-30T20:27:41.647" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38176" PostId="18171" Score="2" Text="@Kingshorsey This seems in line with the medieval/renaissance use of the impf. as a reservation and politeness marker, basically a downstep in the degree of certainty compared with the present one. It may be more common when subordinated to another subjunctive, as if to better distinguish the two levels syntactically. I don't find many examples after some random searches (really just one), but I remember remarking on this on several occasions (also when asked about it while reading with others); cf. [this article](https://www.njrs.dk/7_2011/06_plesner_horster_perotti_subjunctive.pdf)." CreationDate="2022-04-30T22:05:36.080" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38177" PostId="18171" Score="1" Text="@humanissime Scytha. optimum et subtile responsum, ut semper." CreationDate="2022-05-01T08:34:50.140" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38179" PostId="18171" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey: May we have the ref. on Petrarch? Thank you." CreationDate="2022-05-01T08:48:32.860" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38180" PostId="18171" Score="2" Text="@tony:- LETTERA (III, 18)      A GIOVANNI ANCHISEO. See http://www.cassiciaco.it/navigazione/scriptorium/testi%20medioevo/petrarca/familiares/lettera_III_18.html" CreationDate="2022-05-01T09:39:17.090" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38206" PostId="18171" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Literally, &quot;si quo (should it be 'quis' from plural 'alii') usus operae sit&quot; = &quot;if from whom experience may be of help&quot;; what is the function of &quot;quid&quot; in &quot;si quid consulere velint&quot;. I keep wanting to write, &quot;quem&quot;; &quot;if they want to consult 'them'/ it/ the Senate&quot;--masculine, singular, accusative relative pronoun. Obviously, it isn't &quot;quem&quot;!" CreationDate="2022-05-03T08:53:13.787" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38219" PostId="18171" Score="1" Text="@tony *quō* is directional, 'if there's need of their service anywhere', you can even delete the *sī* to get *offerunt sē quō...*.  Why not *ubi?* Because when volunteering you ask 'where to', not 'where is it'. *quid* is naturally the object of the verb, 'to get advice on anything'. Additionaly *sī quid* is used as an internal accusative even with intransitive verbs, comparable to 'somewhat' in English but more often equivalent to 'a bit, for some time, any etc.'" CreationDate="2022-05-03T18:27:28.040" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38182" PostId="18176" Score="6" Text="I refrained with difficulty from titling this 'How do you solve a problem like Maria'?" CreationDate="2022-05-01T11:33:49.360" UserId="10717" />
  <row Id="38183" PostId="18176" Score="0" Text="Maybe you can update it once it's established what the convention is. ;)" CreationDate="2022-05-01T13:36:09.203" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="38184" PostId="18176" Score="0" Text="The issue is there are several accepted conventions. Some belong to different points in history, some belong to different Latin contexts, some have coexisted. For transcribing, though, I believe it's better to follow the writer's choice, though I'm no scholar to say it for sure" CreationDate="2022-05-01T15:12:59.373" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38185" PostId="18178" Score="0" Text="Those look like useful resources. I must be careful not to vanish down a rabbit hole exploring every nook cranny and link!" CreationDate="2022-05-01T15:32:05.677" UserId="10717" />
  <row Id="38186" PostId="18179" Score="6" Text="Out of curiosity, where did you see this rule?" CreationDate="2022-05-02T03:29:03.280" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38189" PostId="18179" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! FWIW, I also saw a XXI century translation following this convention in the text, namely [Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis](https://www.amazon.com/Harrius-Potter-Philosophi-Lapis-Philosophers/dp/1582348251)" CreationDate="2022-05-02T12:38:57.687" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38190" PostId="18179" Score="0" Text="If you follow the link, you'll notice the book has a preview. You need to skip to the main text and avoid the first sentences starting with Dominus and Dursley." CreationDate="2022-05-02T12:52:01.257" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38196" PostId="18180" Score="0" Text="It is notable that even editors that generally start every sentence with a capital letter will occasionally not do this after question and exclamation marks, especially when the effect is that of a series of questions, e.g. *Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium …* etc. (Bibliotheca Teubneriana)" CreationDate="2022-05-02T18:47:10.400" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38222" PostId="18180" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You see that in English texts, too, and not just after question marks, but also exclamation points. You can see it e.g. [Pilgrim's Progress](https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_pilgrim_s_progress/5AADAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=pilgrim%27s+progress+original+text&amp;printsec=frontcover) (check pages 4, 6, and 8 for examples)." CreationDate="2022-05-04T04:32:15.113" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38253" PostId="18180" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel And actually, it's also found in more recent texts. Duff's translation of Lucan in the Loeb has the following: &quot;Who knows not how...astonished jurors? how the warrior dared...dock? &quot;" CreationDate="2022-05-07T07:04:22.140" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38193" PostId="18183" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer I guess I'll just have to find a better dictionary in my language" CreationDate="2022-05-02T16:24:28.433" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38194" PostId="18183" Score="0" Text="@Laravel Which dictionary do you use?" CreationDate="2022-05-02T16:59:28.667" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38195" PostId="18183" Score="0" Text="Mainly https://gaffiot.org (the original paper version), which gives quotations but no indication of frequency for the words you mentioned" CreationDate="2022-05-02T17:32:00.053" UserDisplayName="user10919" />
  <row Id="38198" PostId="18183" Score="1" Text="@Laravel, maybe it is option to read the quotations and in case a word you don't know in a quotation look it up." CreationDate="2022-05-02T20:19:55.297" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38200" PostId="18185" Score="0" Text="Just noting the previous discussions [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16320/why-is-the-pluperfect-subjunctive-used-to-represent-the-future-in-ciceros-in-v) and [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17188/if-you-do-something-long-enough/)." CreationDate="2022-05-02T21:23:30.903" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38201" PostId="18185" Score="2" Text="The term 'future less vivid' has long bothered me, so I'm grateful for the OSU link that you provided. The very first words of Cicero's Pro Caelio make clear that the term is flawed: si quis, iudices, forte nunc adsit... miretur..., 'If by chance anyone should happen now to be present...he would wonder...' Cicero isn't imagining a future attendee but someone who's right there as he's delivering the speech." CreationDate="2022-05-02T23:10:28.410" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38202" PostId="18185" Score="0" Text="@cnread Do you know of another term that's used? It's unfortunately also prevalent in Greek grammars with the same issue." CreationDate="2022-05-03T01:27:35.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38203" PostId="18185" Score="0" Text="@cmw. One of the grammars – I don't remember whether it's Allen &amp; Greenough, Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, or even Bennett – uses 'real' (or maybe 'logical'), 'ideal,' and 'unreal' for the 3 main categories, which seems to me to get to the essential distinction. Otherwise, I think some people refer to them as 'should-would conditions.'" CreationDate="2022-05-03T06:22:19.910" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38215" PostId="18185" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In North &amp; Hillard p.156, it states: &quot;Conditions in which it is implied that the fulfillment of the condition is improbable but possible. Present (or perfect) subjunctive in both clauses.&quot; N &amp; H neglected to provide an example of the perf. subj. in both clauses. I haven't seen one. If you find such, please advise." CreationDate="2022-05-03T12:01:35.163" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38220" PostId="18185" Score="0" Text="@tony but interestingly, North &amp; Hillard offer this example (p. 157): *Nonne sapiens, si fame conficiatur,* [protasis pres.] *abstulerit* [apodosis perf.] *cibum alteri?* – which is easily recognised (well, easily in the age of Google) as an excerpt from Cicero's [*De officiis*, 3,29](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0474,055:3:29)." CreationDate="2022-05-03T19:44:15.647" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38217" PostId="18186" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer! I'll make sporadic use of that uncommon type of elision. I can't seem to find anything on the web that thoroughly describes the phenomenon of &quot;diastole&quot;, so do you know of any sources that do? Furthermore, could it be that it is a case of either &quot;brevis in longo&quot; or &quot;anceps&quot;? That seems to come quite close to this phenomenon." CreationDate="2022-05-03T13:47:48.937" UserId="11067" />
  <row Id="38261" PostId="18186" Score="0" Text="I edited my answer to clarify that _diastole_ only means _(irregular) lengthening_ and you will find it mentioned in any metrics manual under the latter name.  _Diastole_ is basically irregular (see [here](https://www.britannica.com/art/systole-prosody)) while _brevis in longo_ and _anceps_ are regular phenomena and therefore different. Feel free to ask questions about them." CreationDate="2022-05-07T21:29:17.733" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="38204" PostId="18187" Score="0" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione ?" CreationDate="2022-05-03T07:47:32.057" UserId="8955" />
  <row Id="38205" PostId="18187" Score="2" Text="Am not so sure about *Latino sine flexione*. Simple English is still English. Latino sine flexione looks like Latin's pidgin. I was rather looking for a *Core Latin* with a core vocabulary, and simplified syntax, ex. subject-object-verb only, but all necessary inflection to make it latin would be there" CreationDate="2022-05-03T08:00:10.953" UserId="10971" />
  <row Id="38208" PostId="18187" Score="4" Text="Simple English is useful because knowing it helps people communicate and understand one another, but people typically learn Latin to engage with the existing Latin literature (with communication as a fun side-effect). I can't see what the point would be. An individual course will employ restricted grammars/vocabulary lists as the course progresses but that isn't really the same thing." CreationDate="2022-05-03T09:57:27.297" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38221" PostId="18187" Score="2" Text="I believe the Latin of [Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ritchie.html) is a sort of controlled language with a limited vocabulary and grammar. It gets more complex as the book runs on, but at the beginning, for example, the subjunctive is not used, with the consequence that it uses *ubi* instead of *cum* all over the place, which is not very idiomatic but &quot;correct&quot; Latin." CreationDate="2022-05-03T20:24:12.763" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38210" PostId="18191" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta thanks. The context: abstracting in a philosophical manner, on the model of the &quot;res cogitans&quot; vs the &quot;res extensa&quot;, the fight-or-fly behavior of an animal. So, I assume you propose the &quot;res pugnans&quot; vs the &quot;res fugiens&quot;, correct?" CreationDate="2022-05-03T10:51:59.277" UserId="11073" />
  <row Id="38212" PostId="18191" Score="0" Text="@AnsonīBōdo Yes, in that case *res pugnans/fugiens* sounds reasonable. There might be somewhat better verbs, but that choice is certainly reasonable and understandable." CreationDate="2022-05-03T10:53:46.717" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38213" PostId="18191" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta If you can propose an array of better verbs and their participles, I would be grateful." CreationDate="2022-05-03T10:55:42.083" UserId="11073" />
  <row Id="38214" PostId="18191" Score="0" Text="@AnsonīBōdo Nothing better comes to mind now, but perhaps others can chime in. I just wanted to warn that there is no such thing as the one and absolute truth when it comes to translation and terminology. If these are not pre-existing terms, you have to define and describe them anyway and have some freedom of naming. My proposals are certainly within reason, but are easily trumped if there is precedent for other choices." CreationDate="2022-05-03T10:59:03.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38223" PostId="18192" Score="4" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5349/what-would-be-a-night-owl-in-latin/5351#5351" CreationDate="2022-05-04T05:06:10.383" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38224" PostId="18193" Score="1" Text="_Myctophum lychnobium_ is a species of lanternfish, known for their  photophores, glowing dots arranged in patterns around their bodies.  Seems apt." CreationDate="2022-05-04T18:18:40.263" UserId="2688" />
  <row Id="38246" PostId="18193" Score="0" Text="*lūcifuga* corresponds to (potential) Greek *ἡλιοφόβος,* **heliophobe**, though of course it wouldn't have been understood as a medical pathology." CreationDate="2022-05-06T21:40:52.150" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38272" PostId="18195" Score="1" Text="obiter, mi Scytha, modus imperativus nominis mei Iohannes Latine, ut compertum tibi est, vel Iohannēs est vel Iohannē." CreationDate="2022-05-08T15:58:07.427" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38275" PostId="18195" Score="1" Text="scripsisti, mi Scytha, optimum ad hoc rogatum est responsum quippe quod tractatum sit ‘sine ira et studio’ et quidem fructus sit maturae et aequabilis ponderationis. praeterea, omni acerbitate atque asperis solutum facetiis, specimen omnibus exstat academicae doctrinae et antiquitatis exemplar. maximas tibi gratias." CreationDate="2022-05-08T19:46:26.103" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38237" PostId="18199" Score="2" Text="responsum perfectum atque eruditissimum a viro datum qui litteris Latinis penitus imbutus est." CreationDate="2022-05-06T10:01:20.077" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38245" PostId="18199" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Beātus sum, benigne Iōhannē, quī laudēs tuās meruerim! operamque dabō ut eās laudēs et porrō ratās faciam!" CreationDate="2022-05-06T20:09:57.763" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38262" PostId="18199" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Iohanne? " CreationDate="2022-05-07T21:40:39.500" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38263" PostId="18199" Score="1" Text="Speaking of the Roman Missal, it has also the Good Friday liturgy with its *Oremus pro ecclesia sancta Dei* and various other beneficiaries, including the notorious *Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis*, which has caused so much controversy. But of course the first thing I would expect a Latin-minded Catholic to think of would be &quot;ora pro nobis&quot; in the Ave Maria (and many other places)." CreationDate="2022-05-07T22:06:04.733" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38265" PostId="18199" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel There's a crucial distinction that the OP seems to have stumbled on when searching for a translation. These are all personal-substituting, 'on behalf, in defence' uses, which are not the same as the 'bringing about' meaning of ”for” found with real and abstact things. Granted many European languages seem to use the same preposition for both, and you could say you're praying 'on behalf of peace', and with a certain stretch, 'on behalf of averting the plague' (though not 'in defence'); but *ōrāre prō parentibus* has nothing to do with wanting to see your parents." CreationDate="2022-05-07T23:41:44.053" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38270" PostId="18199" Score="0" Text="The vocative of Pericles in Latin is either Periclēs or Periclē. See Traupman New College Dictionary p.11." CreationDate="2022-05-08T15:41:29.680" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38230" PostId="18202" Score="1" Text="I am unsure if I am allowed to say thank you per the regulation: &quot;Comments are used to ask for clarification or to point out problems in the post. Outdated comments may get deleted&quot; so I am sorry if I am not allowed to do reply in such a way. &#xA;&#xA;Anyhow,  thank you ! that makes sense and I feel silly now. I didn't even think to think the solution was another use of the verb. thanks again !" CreationDate="2022-05-06T03:36:28.823" UserId="11079" />
  <row Id="38233" PostId="18202" Score="0" Text="got it, thank you again!" CreationDate="2022-05-06T06:02:43.270" UserId="11079" />
  <row Id="38231" PostId="18203" Score="0" Text="I am unsure if I am allowed to say thank you per the regulation: &quot;Comments are used to ask for clarification or to point out problems in the post. Outdated comments may get deleted&quot; so I am sorry if I am not allowed to do reply in such a way.&#xA;Anyhow, thank you ! that makes sense and I feel silly now. I did indeed understand the verb that way at first, and am glad to be corrected. thank you for your help." CreationDate="2022-05-06T03:38:25.260" UserId="11079" />
  <row Id="38234" PostId="18203" Score="0" Text="@fdvries You're not the only one—I was very confused by this, posted an entirely different answer that turned out to be completely wrong, and consulted some colleagues about it before I discovered that other meaning of _tolerāre_!" CreationDate="2022-05-06T07:13:25.207" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38256" PostId="18204" Score="0" Text="Why the downvotes?" CreationDate="2022-05-07T14:54:15.723" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="38238" PostId="18205" Score="2" Text="If possible, please include a link or image of the exact edition you're using. That way we can verify &quot;libur&quot; for &quot;liber.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-05-06T16:28:58.767" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38239" PostId="18205" Score="0" Text="Given other spelling oddities, like foelix for (presumably) fēlix, I wouldn't be too surprised if libur and imitere were similarly unorthodox spellings." CreationDate="2022-05-06T16:42:13.540" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38240" PostId="18205" Score="0" Text="Link to page added." CreationDate="2022-05-06T16:52:24.080" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="38241" PostId="18205" Score="3" Text="@Draconis, foelix is a common early modern hypercorrection. Authors of this time were aware that in many words, classical &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; had been contracted to &quot;e&quot; in the middle ages. Sometimes they incorrectly &quot;restored&quot; a longer reading. &quot;Caeterum&quot; is another common hypercorrection." CreationDate="2022-05-06T17:01:53.937" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38243" PostId="18205" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Also, if I remember right, hasn't &quot;coeli&quot; (for caelī) become standard in some of the liturgy?" CreationDate="2022-05-06T17:10:37.927" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38244" PostId="18205" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yep, you even see it in 18th century texts every so often." CreationDate="2022-05-06T19:58:56.170" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38242" PostId="18206" Score="0" Text="Thanks for explaining all 4 points. Wow." CreationDate="2022-05-06T17:02:30.683" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="38247" PostId="18206" Score="0" Text="I'd only add that *mystam* does go with *quemvīs,* but the latter isn't masculine, it's common gender, non-exclusive. Why he chose the common gender pronoun when the Muses are all female is another question. One good possibility is to avoid confusion with *quamvīs* 'however much; albeit'." CreationDate="2022-05-06T21:48:45.797" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38248" PostId="18206" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I interpreted mystam Musarum as someone who cultivates or is devoted to good literature, i.e., a learned person, whom Burton hopes will be a reader of this book. Humanists invented all kinds of congratulatory titles for their readers. BTW Anatomy of Melancholy is absolutely wild in its freeform adoption of classical literature into an almost stream-of-consciousness narrative." CreationDate="2022-05-06T22:31:30.767" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38249" PostId="18206" Score="0" Text="Oh, right, of course it's *mysta Mūsārum* - I thought it referred to the Muses appositionally, probably due to the line-break/syntax." CreationDate="2022-05-06T22:58:42.563" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38257" PostId="18208" Score="0" Text="Note that if it were an ablative singular, the final vowel would be long." CreationDate="2022-05-07T16:23:48.443" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38258" PostId="18208" Score="1" Text="I put in the long vowels myself, I left out iucunda since I'm unsure. I took the text from Loeb Classical Library which doesn't incorporate vowel length." CreationDate="2022-05-07T16:28:03.237" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="38259" PostId="18208" Score="0" Text="Also check [Shuckburgh's translation](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Att.+1.5&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0008). I think he makes it clearer." CreationDate="2022-05-07T17:00:59.073" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38260" PostId="18208" Score="0" Text="@cmw I would not recommend this particular translation to clarify the OP's question since an inattentive reader could misidentify &quot;kindly&quot; with _iucunda_. This does not mean, of course, that I consider it a bad translation." CreationDate="2022-05-07T18:43:46.737" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38264" PostId="18208" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Good point. It clarifies it for a careful reader, but I do suppose an inattentive one would be led astray." CreationDate="2022-05-07T23:03:25.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38266" PostId="18210" Score="0" Text="The same effect is possible in English: &quot;I trust no one who, being rich, is lavishly kind to a poor man.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-05-08T01:00:00.720" UserId="1875" />
  <row Id="38267" PostId="18211" Score="7" Text="Can you explain more about what the grammar is doing in the title? Are you issuing someone commands? Multiple people commands? Is it more of an infinitive phrase (e.g. &quot;to see Naples and die is the best adventure&quot;)?" CreationDate="2022-05-08T05:50:41.103" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38274" PostId="18213" Score="0" Text="&quot;precedence in time is not expressed by a finite verb&quot; -- well, this is just wrong, words like *deinde* and temporal clauses exist, no? (By the way, it's the *ablativus*, sc. *casus*.)" CreationDate="2022-05-08T19:04:35.330" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38277" PostId="18213" Score="0" Text="You are right on both counts. Corrected. However, do you agree with me that an _ablativus absolutus_ is the best solution solution in such a short sentence?" CreationDate="2022-05-08T21:31:37.860" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="38293" PostId="18213" Score="2" Text="I agree with your interpretation of the phrase but I'm not sure the choice of the future tense is the best way to capture it -- the Latin sentence sounds to me more like a prediction or prophecy." CreationDate="2022-05-10T05:11:34.707" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38297" PostId="18213" Score="1" Text="I wrote my answer in order to provide a detailed analysis of the original Italian. The translation is the best I can come up with, but I agree it has shortcomings and I will be happy to upvote better translations if anybody provides them. The actual meanings of _conspicio_ and the uses of future tense in Latin deserve separate questions. I’ll probably post them myself in the following days." CreationDate="2022-05-10T12:31:39.907" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="38298" PostId="18213" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure I understand why the future tense is a bad choice.  Doesn't a prophecy/instruction/warning best capture the ambiguity of the Italian by obscuring whether this is an instruction or a prophetic warning?" CreationDate="2022-05-10T14:21:18.163" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38299" PostId="18213" Score="1" Text="Another option for the translation of &quot;die&quot;/&quot;muori&quot; might be using the present subjunctive to indicate a command to an indefinite second person.  This might also carry some useful ambiguity, since the subjunctive might also be one of the other kinds, such as possibility.  I think the form could be along the lines of Neapolī vīsā moriāre.  Using vīsā also might give some useful ambiguity, since it could be the participle corresponding to vīdeō or vīsō and thus perhaps more fully capture the possible range of meanings of &quot;vedi.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-05-10T14:40:37.943" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38301" PostId="18213" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher The future is bad because the Italian is neither an instruction nor a prophetic warning.— *vīsā* is of course the best unmarked translation but there is no ambiguity because the causative *vīsere* has no past participle of its own, it simply means *vīsum facere* 'to go see,' a factitive 'see,' the resulting state being the same old *vīsus* 'seen', not something like 'having been seen by going to see'." CreationDate="2022-05-10T18:05:06.550" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38311" PostId="18213" Score="0" Text="As a reminder, remember to be respectful of others even if you disagree. Let's keep comments civil, please." CreationDate="2022-05-12T02:09:01.803" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38279" PostId="18214" Score="2" Text="I completely agree with your (and cnread’s) analysis. Only, according to my sources (e.g. A. Ernout, _Morphologie historique du latin,_ Klincksieck, Paris, 1974, pg.  66-67) the older dative form is _luxui &lt; *louksouei,_ and that dative _luxū_ is an analogic innovation (used also by Caesar, Vergil and others); it isn’t an archaic form. This, I believe, strengthens our point." CreationDate="2022-05-08T23:41:38.867" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="38300" PostId="18214" Score="0" Text="@Dario  Thanks for this relevant point. I've just included your comment in a revised version of my question." CreationDate="2022-05-10T16:54:59.360" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38278" PostId="18216" Score="0" Text="Glad to know we agree. It seems to me that some commentators based their (wrong) analysis of _luxu_ and _inertiae_ on the (irrelevant) fact that in many (most of!) translations these datives are made to depend on _corrumpendum_. BTW, G&amp;L attribute the introduction of a predicative gerundive with _suscipere_ to Livy but what about Nepos' ex. above? The issue of {whether/how} one should distinguish their example from Plautus from the (trickier) one by Nepos was raised in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la" CreationDate="2022-05-08T23:21:54.960" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38280" PostId="18216" Score="0" Text="I was wondering if one could give a natural translation of this sentence without making the datives depend on _corrumpendum_ (cf. the translations you can have at hand).  I'm not a native speaker of English but I guess your translation like mine above ('He did not give himself over to luxury or to indolence to be corrupted/to corrupt') sounds too stilted, right?" CreationDate="2022-05-09T03:33:49.600" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38287" PostId="18216" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino, Yes, much too stilted. I would find it difficult to translate without making the datives somehow depend on corrumpendum. My translation would be something like 'he didn't surrender to the corrupting influence of luxury or indolence.'" CreationDate="2022-05-09T16:20:30.360" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38289" PostId="18216" Score="0" Text="Ok. Thanks for letting me know what seems to me a very original translation!" CreationDate="2022-05-09T17:35:39.213" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38276" PostId="18217" Score="2" Text="Thank you, I appreciate the help! Ornati sounds like what I'm looking for." CreationDate="2022-05-08T20:46:42.460" UserId="11093" />
  <row Id="38288" PostId="18217" Score="3" Text="@Coyoteskip given that your English idea is &quot;adorned,&quot; you could also say *adornati*." CreationDate="2022-05-09T16:21:35.183" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38281" PostId="18220" Score="6" Text="Yes, *quae* is nom. sing. f. and its antecedent is *Venus*" CreationDate="2022-05-09T10:48:33.970" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="38282" PostId="18220" Score="1" Text="There's [an older unanswered question on second person verbs in relative clauses](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6271/79) that seems related." CreationDate="2022-05-09T11:01:06.367" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38283" PostId="18220" Score="0" Text="@Ben Kovitz: Context? It may be &quot;these things which you gave me as gifts&quot;; &quot;these things&quot; could be feminine." CreationDate="2022-05-09T11:15:39.020" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38284" PostId="18220" Score="3" Text="@tony If *quae* is an object, it has to be neuter plural. If it's nominative, then it can be feminine (singular or plural) or neuter (plural). If the gifts are feminine, then it's *quas*." CreationDate="2022-05-09T11:52:54.547" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38290" PostId="18221" Score="0" Text="Typo: summittatis from the verb summitto (sub-mitto)." CreationDate="2022-05-09T19:58:12.220" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38303" PostId="18226" Score="3" Text="It's Latin, but I wouldn't necessarily call it &quot;good.&quot; What sort of style are you going for? Is this your translation? Are you aiming for something idiomatic or just a close rendering of the English?" CreationDate="2022-05-11T01:10:48.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38304" PostId="18226" Score="1" Text="&quot;as many ... as there are stars in the sky&quot; made me think of Catullus 7: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Poetry_of_Gaius_Valerius_Catullus/7" CreationDate="2022-05-11T11:51:23.230" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38306" PostId="18226" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I didn't know there was a word &quot;tam&quot;. So, what is the difference between &quot;tot&quot; and &quot;tam&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-05-11T16:17:20.783" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="38307" PostId="18226" Score="1" Text="@FlatAssembler My Latin isn't good enough to tell you more than a dictionary could on that question, although I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will come along soon." CreationDate="2022-05-11T17:04:32.960" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38305" PostId="18227" Score="0" Text="The Gaffiot dictionary does give &quot;chapter&quot; as a possible translation for capitulum: https://gaffiot.fr/#1%20capitulum" CreationDate="2022-05-11T15:50:49.977" UserId="10851" />
  <row Id="38308" PostId="18227" Score="2" Text="@Florianus yes, and their reference is the Codex Iustinianus (6th century)." CreationDate="2022-05-11T17:19:41.483" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38326" PostId="18227" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel but isn't capitulum just the diminutive of caput? In that case, it could sound a bit weird, but pretty understandable..." CreationDate="2022-05-16T12:51:49.203" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38327" PostId="18227" Score="0" Text="(but still)...." CreationDate="2022-05-16T12:59:00.190" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38319" PostId="18229" Score="2" Text="Preference for first or second person in relative clauses is so strong, it occurs even when the relative clause modifies a third-person pronoun or noun that is the predicate complement of a first or second person pronoun. Cicero: Ego &lt;sum&gt; is consul qui contionem metuam. Cicero: Non sum autem ego is consul qui, ut plerique, nefas esse arbitrer Gracchos laudare." CreationDate="2022-05-13T18:48:35.247" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38317" PostId="18231" Score="5" Text="No time to write an answer, but: it is part of the ne clause, which is a negative command -- the order is &quot;don't withdraw from Capua until you've taken it&quot;." CreationDate="2022-05-13T15:55:36.213" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38321" PostId="18231" Score="1" Text="@TKR: Thank you. I've been trying to find examples of negative commands with multiple verbs. A &amp; G only give one ex. (of a single-verb): &quot;ne perturbarentur&quot; = &quot;Do not (he said) be troubled&quot;; Caes. de Bello Gallico 7.29. On the net, so far, just: &quot;exercitui imperavit ne iniussu suo concurrerent&quot; = &quot;He ordered the army not to start fighting without his permission.&quot;. This topic does not appear to be well-covered. Therefore, I don't feel quite as stupid as I felt last night. Thanks again." CreationDate="2022-05-14T10:16:46.073" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38322" PostId="18231" Score="2" Text="From the speakers' POV, the taking of the city is still anticipated, dependent upon the army complying with the order, not an established fact." CreationDate="2022-05-14T13:31:37.653" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38323" PostId="18231" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey: The lack of an established fact: is that why &quot;expugno&quot; is in the subjunctive--not because of particle,&quot;ne&quot;, which is (mainly) governing &quot;abscederent&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-05-14T13:49:50.637" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38318" PostId="18234" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I had been thinking of this question for a long period now. At some point I thought of including the partiture too, but I forgot. The first time I learned about the Veni Creator, it was sung as in.fun.de.a.mo.rem and di.gi.tus.pa.ter.næ thus breaking the clivis (a term I didn't know until now, thank you BTW.) The partiture is why I assumed that rendering was wrong." CreationDate="2022-05-13T17:22:53.120" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38330" PostId="18237" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I still don't know why &quot;expugno&quot; is in the subjunctive. It is not a command, c/f &quot;abscedo&quot;, but a framework-condition of the negative-command, &quot;Don't withdraw&quot;; framework--&quot;until it's taken&quot;. Kingshorsey suggested, but did not confirm, that the unfinished action of the taking of the city requires a subjunctive. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2022-05-16T13:31:18.030" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38331" PostId="18237" Score="1" Text="Allen &amp; Greenough 551.b, Note 1 says: &quot;The Pluperfect Subjunctive is rare, except in Indirect Discourse by sequence of tenses for the Future Perfect Indicative (§ 484. c): as, “—antequam hominēs nefāriī dē meō adventū audīre potuissent, in Macedoniam perrēxī” (Planc. 98) , before those evil men could learn of my coming, I arrived in Macedonia.&quot;  To me, this is a long way of saying what Kingshorsey said or implied.  Since the taking of the city is not presented as factual, the subjunctive is necessary.  As Sebastian Koppehel described, the tense comes from the underlying statement." CreationDate="2022-05-16T14:34:09.300" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38334" PostId="18237" Score="2" Text="@tony it is subjunctive because it's indirect speech. Whether it's a &quot;framework-conditon&quot; or whether it's an established fact or not is moot. The new consuls told the old ones: &quot;Don't do this before you do that.&quot; Did they use the subjunctive? We may never know: if Livy had quoted them directly, we would know, but he reported their instructions indirectly, so he had to use the subjunctive no matter what." CreationDate="2022-05-16T21:03:10.433" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38324" PostId="18239" Score="0" Text="thnx, I appreciate that." CreationDate="2022-05-15T21:53:31.143" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38328" PostId="18241" Score="1" Text="That sounds to my ear like something you'd say at the point of death (*morituri te salutant* sprang to mind), whereas I understood the OP's intention as being about an aspiration for when they eventually (not any time soon) die." CreationDate="2022-05-16T13:17:45.023" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38329" PostId="18241" Score="0" Text="to me it also sounds like the memories are bad and that person is somewhat  relieved to finally die and free himself from the bad memories. But this probably because I recelty read this quote from Ovid:  *sed nocet esse deum, praeclusaque ianua leti&#xA;aeternum nostros luctus extendit in aevum.* (It is a dreadful thing to be a god, for the door of death is shut to me, and my grief must go on without end. Loeb translation)" CreationDate="2022-05-16T13:23:10.150" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38332" PostId="18241" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 Thanks, and changed some things around." CreationDate="2022-05-16T17:08:29.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38333" PostId="18241" Score="0" Text="(@de  and you too)" CreationDate="2022-05-16T17:08:34.970" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38335" PostId="18243" Score="0" Text="Now there's a blast from the past! I remember it as a program that ran with the MS-DOS-style command-line interface." CreationDate="2022-05-17T11:05:33.373" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38336" PostId="18243" Score="6" Text="I don't know where it went, but here is a digitized version of Smith &amp; Hall's English to Latin dictionary, which is more reliable than Whiticar's for English–Latin: https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/" CreationDate="2022-05-17T12:15:00.297" UserId="10689" />
  <row Id="38368" PostId="18243" Score="3" Text="I say good riddance - Whitaker's words was one of the most egregious examples of context-free gloss-translation, whose result, especially in the case of Latin, is constant misinterpretation of both the English and the Latin, and I'm certain this website is responsible for a good deal of bad Latin out there. It was conceived as a translation bank for **automatic machine translation,** and every time a learner mentions it, I feel it's imperative to warn against its use unless one is already experienced and can avoid its pitfalls. Smith &amp; Hall is an example of how this should be done properly." CreationDate="2022-05-23T20:18:55.377" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38340" PostId="18245" Score="0" Text="What is &quot;the LASLA database&quot; and what bearing does it have whether a word form appears in it? *Exter* is rare and unclassical, but it is attested." CreationDate="2022-05-18T19:24:23.390" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38344" PostId="18245" Score="0" Text="https://classicalstudies.org/scs-blog/patrick-j-burns/review-opera-latina" CreationDate="2022-05-19T00:43:42.857" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38337" PostId="18246" Score="3" Text="If the LSJ entries are correct (and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be – they generally are), it would be declined… exactly as it says. Nom.sg. would be _λόρδων_, acc.sg. _λόρδω(να)_, gen.sg. _λόρδωνος_, dat.sg. _λόρδωνι_, voc.sg. _λόρδον_; nom.pl. _λόρδωνες_, acc.pl. _λόρδωνας_, gen.pl. _λορδώνων_, dat.pl. _λόρδωσι_. But a simple lookup of Greek declension types could tell you that, so what is the actual question, then? (Also _λοδρός_ isn’t a verb, did you mean to write _λορδόω_.)" CreationDate="2022-05-17T23:24:19.100" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="38338" PostId="18246" Score="2" Text="the LSJ and Perseus entries look entirely consistent to me. For resources on Greek denclensions, the wikipedia page for &quot;ancient greek nouns&quot; has tables for the relevant noun classes. In this case it mostly looks like a double stem in on, with the length on the o outside the nominative singular either being generalised by analogy, or due to contraction with an underlying stem-final a" CreationDate="2022-05-18T08:58:52.743" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="38345" PostId="18247" Score="0" Text="Thank you once again, Vegawatcher, your answers are quite simply amazing!" CreationDate="2022-05-19T08:08:52.643" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38346" PostId="18250" Score="3" Text="Some spell it *cotidianum*, some spell it *quotidianum*, but the weirdest people are those who spell it *supersubstantialem* " CreationDate="2022-05-19T21:41:18.613" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38348" PostId="18250" Score="1" Text="cum and quam are not &quot;the same word&quot;." CreationDate="2022-05-20T15:10:13.123" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="38349" PostId="18250" Score="2" Text="@fdb: the answer says “quom”, not “quam”." CreationDate="2022-05-20T16:23:36.117" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38875" PostId="18250" Score="0" Text="@fdb It's interesting that it was fashionable in certain pedagogical circles in the 19th and 20th centuries to distinguish between *cum* and *quom*, with *cum* being the preposition and *quom* being the conjunction. Woodcock says the distinction was not ancient." CreationDate="2022-07-14T22:32:11.147" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38353" PostId="18252" Score="1" Text="Different languages can be much more or less compact than others, but it would be a pretty impressive language indeed that had a specific word *Seneca* for 'speak louder than words'. (Short answer: no, *Seneca* is the name of a Roman philosopher and statesman, Google Translate has given a particularly terrible piece of nonsense in this case.)" CreationDate="2022-05-20T21:36:54.703" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38354" PostId="18252" Score="0" Text="Other websites that translate gave the exact same answer so thank you so much for saving me from a lifetime of embarrasment!! Very grateful here :)" CreationDate="2022-05-20T22:25:23.067" UserId="11121" />
  <row Id="38357" PostId="18252" Score="1" Text="It is an expression that my recently late father used to say to us all the time and it is what my siblings and I live by. It means words have no value without the actions to back them up. I wanted to translate it into Latin to make it more interesting for a memorial tattoo, so it does have to be literal. I want it to be my father's words. So I am very grateful to dbmag9 for saving me from making a terrible mistake. I will stick to the saying in English. :)" CreationDate="2022-05-20T22:47:36.960" UserId="11121" />
  <row Id="38358" PostId="18253" Score="0" Text="&quot;Clarius facta quam verba loquuntur&quot; is the literal translation of &quot;Actions speak louder than words&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-05-20T23:04:04.740" UserId="11121" />
  <row Id="38359" PostId="18253" Score="0" Text="@Noa &quot;More clearly&quot; rather than &quot;louder&quot;, but otherwise yes." CreationDate="2022-05-21T01:30:54.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38367" PostId="18253" Score="1" Text="@cmw *clārius* refers to the force and loudness of one's voice and is thus a direct translation of 'louder'. 'more clearly, more distinctly, more comprehensibly' would call for various other translations such as *liquidius* (of sound), *articulātius* (of diction), *plānius* (of sense)." CreationDate="2022-05-23T20:11:24.057" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38369" PostId="18253" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian The [dictionary](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dclarus) does not agree with your disagreement." CreationDate="2022-05-23T21:20:56.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38371" PostId="18253" Score="0" Text="@cmw Please offer what you think is the Latin equivalent of 'to speak louder'." CreationDate="2022-05-24T00:32:17.137" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38372" PostId="18253" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Please don't put words in my mouth. I think this word is fine for that, and I never said otherwise. That's why I upvoted this answer." CreationDate="2022-05-24T01:19:14.363" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38373" PostId="18253" Score="0" Text="@cmw Please be assured that I never meant to put any words in your mouth. You've corrected &quot;louder&quot; to &quot;more clearly&quot;, and I don't understand why. I think *clārius loquī* is a direct equivalent of 'to speak louder', and part of the reason is that I'm not aware of a better equivalent. The dictionary entry you linked also agrees with me, offering 'loud' as a translation, and [Smith &amp; Hall translates](https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh15274) 'loud' as *clārus*. Would you be so kind and explain the reason for your correction if there's no better equivalent for 'louder' than *clārius?*" CreationDate="2022-05-24T01:45:40.627" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38374" PostId="18253" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I did not correct anything. I responded to Noa about what the words &quot;literally&quot; mean. I have no problem with Sebastian's answer." CreationDate="2022-05-24T02:05:37.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38377" PostId="18253" Score="0" Text="I agree with @cmw: This answer is good and *clarius* is very suitable, and the most literal translation of it is perhaps indeed &quot;more clearly&quot; rather than &quot;louder&quot;, but the difference is not of much relevance right here. If someone not familiar with Latin wants a literal translation, the word &quot;clearer&quot; is certainly worth a mention." CreationDate="2022-05-24T21:24:02.183" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38404" PostId="18255" Score="0" Text="me valde delectant epigrammata duorum Jesuitarum!" CreationDate="2022-05-26T17:14:38.600" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38410" PostId="18255" Score="1" Text="pergratum est responsum tuum ad rogatum meum, mi Scytha, quod quidem perfectum est et ex more tuo penitus edissertum. tibi excuso longam, ut videtur, tardationem responsi mei sed nuperrime e valetudinario dismissus sum ubi subeunda totius genus renovatio ac reformatio. magnos movit mihi scalpellum dolores, etiam maiores movet recreatio. minime efficacia sunt anodyna, exeritationes molestae. sed ne putes me in memoriam reducere Ovidium in Ponto exsulantem, sicut Catullus obdurabo. –" CreationDate="2022-05-27T07:33:05.733" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38459" PostId="18255" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Salvus sīs mī Jōhannē! hoc dīcō tam et sī legō tē haud optimā salūte fruī. quod utinam secus esset – pauca enim in vītā magis fēlīcitātī officiunt quam mala valētūdō. optumē tamen narrās tē dē valētūdināriō dīmissum et nunc recreātiōnem subīre, quamquam nōn sine molestiā. namque ad meliōrem val-nem nunc scīs tē contendere, quā spē nīsus animum rōborāre potes et recreāre, quod ut opīnor maxumum·st. Catullī exemplum bene memorās sed eundem tibi superandum prōpōnō. nam ego dolōrem nōn modo obdūrandum putō sed ei plānē medium unguem ostendendum – sī vērus nōn crēditur nōn nocēbit" CreationDate="2022-05-30T23:09:27.707" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38508" PostId="18255" Score="1" Text="maximas tibi gratias, mi Scytha! dehinc dolori numquam desinam impudicum ostendere digitum donec prorsus convaluero!" CreationDate="2022-06-03T10:50:10.220" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38383" PostId="18257" Score="0" Text="So I guess i confused copia with culpa, thanks for the help." CreationDate="2022-05-25T16:05:46.750" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="38384" PostId="18257" Score="0" Text="@Hydrolox3552 Easy mistake to make! Let me know if still need further help." CreationDate="2022-05-25T16:14:46.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38360" PostId="18258" Score="8" Text="I'm not sure what you're asking here. Why would it be uppercase or lowercase? That's not really a language thing, but solely down to style and aesthetic preference. Similarly, the network ABC's logo is all lowercase, but NBC's is all uppercase." CreationDate="2022-05-22T15:08:29.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38361" PostId="18258" Score="0" Text="@cmw well it's not a logo or a company or item like iPhone, AoT (shortcut for Attack on Titan), etc. It's the name of a person...?" CreationDate="2022-05-22T16:03:53.307" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="38362" PostId="18258" Score="5" Text="If it's their name, then you would spell it out like any other name: Lambdadelta. It's a fictional name, though. Go with the author's representation." CreationDate="2022-05-22T16:25:18.923" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38364" PostId="18258" Score="3" Text="In the light of the comments and votes, I'll have to close this question as unclear. It can be reopened once you edit to clarify what it is that someone familiar with Greek or Latin but not the fictional character could give you." CreationDate="2022-05-23T07:57:21.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38365" PostId="18258" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides oh lol thanks it's supposed to be 'but probably not' instead of just 'but probably'" CreationDate="2022-05-23T12:31:50.880" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="38366" PostId="18258" Score="1" Text="&quot;The Witch of Certainty, who has lived for a thousand years.&quot; ← cute, but, I'm afraid, not old enough for Ancient Greek by a lot ;-)" CreationDate="2022-05-23T19:29:58.277" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38375" PostId="18258" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel LOL NICE" CreationDate="2022-05-24T14:57:55.470" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="38379" PostId="18258" Score="1" Text="To stir up the apophenia, the transpose, Δλ, Delta-lambda,  is a finite increment to the quantity λ, the number 30 in Greek." CreationDate="2022-05-24T22:28:48.263" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38382" PostId="18258" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos Interesting. Thanks. Maybe that's some symbolism in the series. I believe the point of the name is to be like '34' or '3, then 4' and then a lot of other characters associated with ΛΔ are related to the numbers 3 and 4. Interesting..." CreationDate="2022-05-25T15:27:16.827" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="38370" PostId="18259" Score="2" Text="It actually is sometimes written IIX: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Irregular_subtractive_notation" CreationDate="2022-05-23T23:13:59.680" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38378" PostId="18259" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thank you, I did not know that that was a way in which it was written. Just musing: if that is acceptable, why is the given spelling VIII?" CreationDate="2022-05-24T21:48:45.867" UserId="11126" />
  <row Id="38376" PostId="18262" Score="3" Text="Hello! While we don't have a way of checking your identity, this is an interesting comment. The area where further elaboration would be helpful is the following: &quot;'tantibus' (one spelling of a latin word for 'nightmare', specifically one caused by a demon that causes sleep-paralysis)&quot;. As fdb said, the latin word for &quot;nightmare&quot;/&quot;demon that causes sleep paralysis&quot; is *incubus.* There's quite a difference between &quot;incu&quot; and &quot;tanti&quot;, and I've never seen &quot;tantibus&quot; with this sense before; do you remember where you encountered or heard of it?" CreationDate="2022-05-24T18:55:03.080" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38490" PostId="18262" Score="1" Text="I had two general ways of finding words:&#xA;1.  I ask my brother for a few words that mean something. He's a historian with a PhD in Ancient Roman something-or-other, and can speak Latin&#xA;2.  If I was in a hurry, or my brother wasn't available... Google Translate. I'd find some Latin words and use those. However, since I don't see &quot;tantibus&quot; (or &quot;tantabus&quot;) on Google Translate, I may have been using another site.&#xA;&#xA;It was years ago, so I don't remember which of the two it was. If it's a word no one's heard of, probably just something I found on Google Translate." CreationDate="2022-06-02T00:00:10.600" UserId="11131" />
  <row Id="38491" PostId="18262" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I've edited my answer to update it based on that information. It looks like in the present day, Google Translate does not offer &quot;tantibus&quot; as a Latin translation for &quot;nightmare&quot;, but it is possible that it did in the past. It does translate &quot;tantibus&quot; into English as &quot;nightmare&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-02T00:52:51.623" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38492" PostId="18262" Score="0" Text="It gets trotted around a bit, but in general [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for) is not good for Latin. Sadly, [mistakes](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16882/the-meaning-of-scelerisque) [abound](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15648/what-is-the-best-worst-translation-of-latin-from-google-translate)." CreationDate="2022-06-02T02:11:19.210" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38505" PostId="18262" Score="0" Text="Ya... it's not great, but we didn't have the funding for an on-call/consulting Latin speaker back then. Sorry if it bothers people  :-|" CreationDate="2022-06-02T23:35:59.890" UserId="11131" />
  <row Id="38493" PostId="18263" Score="0" Text="This really isn't a surprise. The same nonsense happened with [scelerisque](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16882/the-meaning-of-scelerisque). Google Translate is garbage when it comes to Latin, and the whole company should be embarrassed by just how bad it was." CreationDate="2022-06-02T02:13:28.287" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38494" PostId="18263" Score="1" Text="@cmw: The remaining puzzling question is how someone at the USGS/(EROS) Center got the idea that &quot;tantibus&quot; is Latin for &quot;nighmare&quot; in 2000. I was considering trying to contact them, but it seems like the chances are slim that anyone would have a record of the process used to create that image's title and caption" CreationDate="2022-06-02T02:20:06.903" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38495" PostId="18263" Score="0" Text="Did Babelfish have a Latin translator?" CreationDate="2022-06-02T02:30:42.340" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38496" PostId="18263" Score="0" Text="@cmw: It doesn't look like it (here's an archive of [babelfish.yahoo.com from 2006](https://web.archive.org/web/20060511184417/http://babelfish.yahoo.com/)" CreationDate="2022-06-02T02:41:52.683" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38380" PostId="18264" Score="4" Text="Can you split this up in several questions so that there is one passage per question? It's ok to have small questions. It's better if they are focused, as it also helps answers you." CreationDate="2022-05-25T11:16:35.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38395" PostId="18264" Score="0" Text="I have done that now." CreationDate="2022-05-26T08:55:28.893" UserId="10543" />
  <row Id="38385" PostId="18266" Score="2" Text="Since this text shows macrons, &quot;nātūra&quot; cannot be ablative.  Given that habētur is passive, there cannot be a direct object.  Habeō has other usages than as an equivalent of &quot;hold&quot; or &quot;have.&quot;  Try using the meaning &quot;consider.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-05-25T16:28:40.297" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38386" PostId="18267" Score="0" Text="So &quot;Since the nature of the mortal mind is considered&quot;, considering what you told me that seems correct." CreationDate="2022-05-25T16:51:27.607" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="38387" PostId="18267" Score="1" Text="Hmm, I think the answer is still missing a roundup sentence to put it all together. Very comprehensive BTW!" CreationDate="2022-05-25T17:42:58.950" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38388" PostId="18267" Score="2" Text="@Hydrolox3552 &quot;since the nature of the mind is considered mortal&quot;, I think" CreationDate="2022-05-25T17:44:57.523" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38389" PostId="18267" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. This is exactly why I wanted to go back and translate these sentences, I had forgotten most of what I learned about passive verbs." CreationDate="2022-05-25T17:55:42.083" UserId="10390" />
  <row Id="38390" PostId="18268" Score="0" Text="Very informative answer! +1! As you correctly point out, there is an interesting parallelism with English phrasal verbs, which is not surprising since both Latin and English have been classified as &quot;satellite-framed languages&quot; in Talmy's typology. Given this parallelism, one could expect to find prefixed counterparts of semi-idiomatic constructions like the ones exemplified [here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11118/laughing-our-heads-off-in-latin], which also involve an intensive meaning ('a lot'). However, it seems that these constructions are not found in Latin..." CreationDate="2022-05-25T22:48:39.050" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38391" PostId="18268" Score="0" Text="I also agree with you that so-called &quot;conceptual metaphors&quot; are relevant to explain the intensive meaning of the Latin prefixes at issue here. Same with English verb particle constructions like &quot;John laughed **his butt off**&quot;, i.e. 'John laughed **a lot**' (e.g. cf. the conceptual metaphor A EXTREME INTENSITY IS AN EXCESSIVE DETACHMENT OF A BODY PART)." CreationDate="2022-05-25T22:57:58.763" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38392" PostId="18270" Score="0" Text="The latin-words.com site doesn't seem to do English-to-Latin lookup, which Whitaker's Words notably did." CreationDate="2022-05-25T23:14:42.067" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38418" PostId="18270" Score="0" Text="Wow, that is unfortunate. On the usual version a ~E switches mode to ENGLISH_TO_LATIN, apparently the people at latin-words.com did not do that.  I use a full command line version.  I also have the app on my Android phone, and that does support both modes." CreationDate="2022-05-27T16:05:14.577" UserId="6592" />
  <row Id="38419" PostId="18270" Score="0" Text="Is the command line version still available anywhere? The site I once got it at seems to be gone." CreationDate="2022-05-27T16:25:50.727" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38474" PostId="18270" Score="0" Text="I am running Ubuntu linux, the last time I got Whitakers words I downloaded the source" CreationDate="2022-05-31T20:28:00.020" UserId="6592" />
  <row Id="38475" PostId="18270" Score="0" Text="I am running Ubuntu linux, the last time I got Whitakers words I downloaded the source code and built it myself.  I am running Version 1.97FC, (1993-2006 copyright). The website that I downloaded from does not seem to exist anymore.  Closest thing I found today was on github.com, the link is https://github.com/mk270/whitakers-words. The source code is there and there are instructions for building the software executable for Linux.  Hope this helps." CreationDate="2022-05-31T20:36:47.600" UserId="6592" />
  <row Id="38394" PostId="18271" Score="2" Text="*Sic* and *si* are not the same word." CreationDate="2022-05-26T05:50:35.807" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="38397" PostId="18271" Score="1" Text="Right, *Sic semper erat = Siempre ha sido así.*" CreationDate="2022-05-26T10:38:03.100" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38435" PostId="18273" Score="0" Text="Perhaps *(in cogitatione defixus) inanes/ineptas formas chartis illinere* (with apologies to Hor. Sat. 1, 4, 36)?" CreationDate="2022-05-29T21:05:44.927" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38461" PostId="18273" Score="0" Text="I like your suggestion, Sebastian! The modification of Horace is inspired. What might the noun be, based on  your answer? forma quasi. gallina illita?" CreationDate="2022-05-31T09:26:03.793" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38412" PostId="18277" Score="0" Text="Thanks Draconis♦! I found the same answer on reddit. I posted it just now." CreationDate="2022-05-27T11:26:27.177" UserId="2848" />
  <row Id="38411" PostId="18279" Score="2" Text="What do you mean by computer analysis? But good chances you are referring to: https://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/Main_Page" CreationDate="2022-05-27T09:39:18.217" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38424" PostId="18279" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I thinks that's the site.  By computer analysis, I mean something that analyzes text using computers, I'm joking but I just couldn't resist." CreationDate="2022-05-27T22:41:59.013" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38458" PostId="18279" Score="0" Text="@d_e You should post that as an answer (and bobsmith76 should accept it using the tick button) so the question can be marked as resolved." CreationDate="2022-05-30T14:59:01.030" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38434" PostId="18281" Score="1" Text="Perhaps: *de quo quando quidem admonitus sum, …*, or: *quorum quoniam me admonuisti, …*?" CreationDate="2022-05-29T20:29:39.107" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38484" PostId="18281" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for your answer! admoneo is spot on for this context, and quando quidem perhaps has more of a colloquial flavour than quoniam. Moreover, I think that in addition quandoquidem signifies realisation not just explanation i.e. it includes some sense of understanding the situation. A question: might de quo and quorum be ambiguous—‘about whom/ of whom’ or does the construction after admoneo [aliquem alicuius rei] preclude the alternative? But your translation of both of these idioms (including two other similar ones like ‘speaking of which/ talking of which) covers all the alternatives." CreationDate="2022-06-01T17:38:49.363" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38415" PostId="18282" Score="3" Text="Hey, these are some interesting sentences. And it is great that you explain your thoughts on them, what puzzles you about them. However, Stack Exchange is intended also as a repository of questions future readers might also have or be interested in. For that reason, the following two points are important: 1. a question should be about one specific thing, not several things that could be asked as separate questions; 2. a title should be as specific as possible, so that future readers can immediately see what a question is about." CreationDate="2022-05-27T14:10:58.607" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38416" PostId="18282" Score="2" Text="So I would ask you the following. 1. **Split your question into three separate ones.** That way, people won't see a text wall with several different questions, but a shorter question that is to the point. As a bonus to you, people are more likely to answer specific questions than text walls! 2. **Give each question a very specific title.** Example: ***Is 'optatis nuptiis' adverb or indirect object in Theodoricus Monachus?*** P.S. I don't know if this is practical, but a link to the source text might also be helpful, and some line and/or section numbers." CreationDate="2022-05-27T14:15:38.593" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38417" PostId="18282" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the info." CreationDate="2022-05-27T14:43:19.673" UserId="10543" />
  <row Id="38420" PostId="18282" Score="0" Text="Excellent, thank you!" CreationDate="2022-05-27T17:58:06.653" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38426" PostId="18286" Score="0" Text="I think that *Thurones*, like *Ligerim fluvium* is an object, meaning the city of the Turones. Whether it's an object of *intraverunt* or *usque pervenerunt* I don't know, both maybe. I think that *Northmanni* is the subject of both verbs. They came laying waste to everything all the way to Turones." CreationDate="2022-05-29T02:01:39.487" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38464" PostId="18286" Score="1" Text="@Figulus When I peruse through the citations in Lewis &amp; Short, it seems almost all the examples use *perveniō* with a preposition, except that it does say: &quot;for which poet. with simple acc.: “verba aures non pervenientia nostras,” Ov. M. 3, 462.&quot;  Given this data, I assume that Turonēs is a town or city displaying an accusative of the goal with a verb of motion.  The verb intrō, however, seems to have more citations with a bare accusative." CreationDate="2022-05-31T13:32:01.263" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38422" PostId="18287" Score="0" Text="Question for clarification. if the verb *invenerunt* referes to the names/nouns that just mentioned why would it count as implicit? Note sure I understand at what case they are implicit?" CreationDate="2022-05-27T20:07:07.673" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38423" PostId="18287" Score="0" Text="Actually, *Sueino* **does** look like a name in the nominative case, like Cicero, Naso or Varro. Now, the genetive *Tryggua* is another matter..." CreationDate="2022-05-27T22:30:04.847" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38425" PostId="18292" Score="2" Text="It isn't correct to say that quo has no antecedent. The antecedent is eo." CreationDate="2022-05-28T19:07:50.967" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38429" PostId="18294" Score="0" Text="Don't get tattoos in languages you don't understand, especially based on free advice from strangers. If what you want on your skin is 'forgive but never forget', just get that." CreationDate="2022-05-29T15:38:17.117" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38430" PostId="18294" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Although it's [improved some](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16768/how-good-is-the-new-version-of-google-translate), It's wise to [not trust Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for)." CreationDate="2022-05-29T16:13:28.157" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="38431" PostId="18294" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with getting something tattooed in a language you don't know as long as you get help from someone who does. I would also make an exception with Latin because in English (which the poster clearly knows) we have so many words of Latin origin. The chances of misunderstanding are not as high as with other languages." CreationDate="2022-05-29T16:16:21.513" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="38433" PostId="18294" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 Not really a helpful comment. I could imagine any number of reasons, e.g. not wanting to write a special sentiment in the language of everyday speech, or liking the mystery that it's a meaningful inscription, but most people won't be able to read it, or loving the nimbus of a language that's 26 centuries old, or whatever. Personally, I don't understand why people get tattoos at all, but it's not really my business, is it?" CreationDate="2022-05-29T18:20:40.547" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38436" PostId="18295" Score="0" Text="Could  illam superiorem be a single noun phrase? &quot;doubtless wishing that upper region of Scythia to be understood [rather than what he said]&quot;" CreationDate="2022-05-29T21:07:07.220" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38437" PostId="18295" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Intuitively it seems more plausible to me to have the relative clause without a demonstrative antecedent than to have no demonstrative connection to the quoted text. Ultimately it makes no real difference in meaning anyway,  right?" CreationDate="2022-05-29T21:15:47.633" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38438" PostId="18295" Score="0" Text="Sure, it's pretty similar. I was just imagining how I would use this construction (an admittedly dangerous exercise), and I thought I would use it without a double accusative. If I saw a picture of a dog with the caption &quot;felis latrat&quot;, I might comment &quot;procul dubio volens canem intelligi&quot; as a parenthetical." CreationDate="2022-05-29T21:24:57.960" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38439" PostId="18295" Score="0" Text="Also, I think ille [adjective] ... qui is such a common and natural construction that if the author didn't want it to be understood [intelligi!] correlatively, he almost needed a second demonstrative to break it up. Something like: illam volens intellegi hanc superiorem, quam" CreationDate="2022-05-29T21:29:18.850" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38440" PostId="18295" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey ah, now I understand, and I think you are right. It makes much more sense that way, because the *velle* then describes something Hugo actually wants and not something he should have said. And of course it makes a big difference, because the Northmanni in that case did not come from Suethia." CreationDate="2022-05-29T22:04:30.390" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38441" PostId="18295" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey I've updated my answer, although in hindsight I'm not sure my new interpretation is what you actually had in mind. But it makes the most sense to me." CreationDate="2022-05-29T22:17:25.767" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38443" PostId="18295" Score="0" Text="How you have it now is how I initially read it. Though, to be honest, I am no longer sure if that's the best reading." CreationDate="2022-05-30T00:42:00.600" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38442" PostId="18297" Score="0" Text="Thanks I really appreciate that.  I wonder why my question was downmarked." CreationDate="2022-05-29T23:59:49.603" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38444" PostId="18297" Score="2" Text="@bobsmith76 My guess is the combative tone you took against a commentary. I should add that indeed, the purpose of the commentary is *not* to for students, but for Classical scholars, virtually all of whom know both Greek and Latin. Editing that part out might yield a more positive response." CreationDate="2022-05-30T03:24:24.710" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38446" PostId="18297" Score="0" Text="@bobsmith76 I haven't been around here for a while, so things may have lightened up a bit since then, but back when I was a regular, questions about Greek seemed to really bother some people and both questions and answers pertaining to Greek would sometimes get voted down simply to make a point." CreationDate="2022-05-30T05:36:37.363" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38449" PostId="18297" Score="0" Text="@Penelope I still see that sometimes, but (thankfully!) that attitude seems to be dying down a bit. For the better, if you ask me." CreationDate="2022-05-30T06:17:01.463" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38451" PostId="18297" Score="0" Text="What a difference 5 years makes, pretty weird considering Greek is 2800 years old if you start it with Homer." CreationDate="2022-05-30T07:45:16.040" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38445" PostId="18299" Score="1" Text="&quot;the difference between the two seems slight to me&quot; I'm not sure Brink is right to note a difference at all. Sure, Lucian *says* something a bit different than Horace, but all of his examples (gold helmet and wicket shield; head of Colossus and body of dwarf) parallel Horace's usage. If you see a gold helmet, you expect the rest to be gold; if you see the head of the Colossus, you expect the rest of the body to be immense. Likewise, authoring a mouse isn't bad, but don't promise a mountain ahead of time." CreationDate="2022-05-30T03:31:14.427" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38447" PostId="18299" Score="3" Text="@cmw True enough. But I do think Lucian's illustration of the child wearing a mask to masquerade as Hercules, at which sight the audience yells &quot;a mountain is in labour&quot;, suggests that it's not that they were expecting more and were let down, but rather that they can immediately see a lightweight trying to be something he isn't. There's no sequence of events, it's the overall impression of a lack of consistency or authenticity." CreationDate="2022-05-30T05:59:12.793" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38448" PostId="18299" Score="0" Text="I can concede that the origin of the complaint differs, although if I do think there is an expectation that a strong person ought to play Hercules. In that case, then, it's the promise that there is Hercules in a play, but it's played by a child, whence the disappointment stems. It's all splitting hairs, though (which, I guess, a commentary is useful for!)." CreationDate="2022-05-30T06:15:58.817" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44301" PostId="18300" Score="0" Text="To say, &quot;the less said the better&quot;, would this be, &quot;quo minus dictum eo melius&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-07-31T12:45:27.227" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44330" PostId="18300" Score="0" Text="@tony That would sound good to me." CreationDate="2023-08-01T23:24:38.587" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38452" PostId="18303" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much!" CreationDate="2022-05-30T12:55:46.857" UserId="11149" />
  <row Id="38453" PostId="18303" Score="1" Text="Shouldn't it be *filios* in both of your suggestions? The examples you quote are passive but the suggestions are active. Otherwise I agree completely." CreationDate="2022-05-30T13:41:43.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38455" PostId="18303" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, thank you - I've changed it. I'm a bit out of practice after such a long break and wasn't paying attention." CreationDate="2022-05-30T13:52:22.417" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38457" PostId="18303" Score="3" Text="@user11149 I made a mistake in the translation - it should be _filios_, not _filii_. If you use the alternative, it would be _liberos_. I just wanted to bring it to your attention." CreationDate="2022-05-30T13:57:33.690" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38456" PostId="18304" Score="2" Text="Thank you so much. You guys are great. I just found this site and will be sticking around here for awhile I think. I really want to learn Ecclesiastical Latin." CreationDate="2022-05-30T13:55:37.390" UserId="11149" />
  <row Id="38460" PostId="18309" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This sounds reasonable, but do you happen to have a reference (such as a book or an article) to back it up? That would make the case much stronger." CreationDate="2022-05-31T09:16:45.927" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38462" PostId="18310" Score="0" Text="Interesting question. 1) Could you provide a source? 2) Re: the first passage, I think _habitus ac positio_ is part of the subject. The way in which the whiteness is set [in this sprout] _is_ like light" CreationDate="2022-05-31T12:30:46.357" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38463" PostId="18310" Score="0" Text="Re: _de proximo_, I think I need more context. It could be referring to a _neighbor_ in the Christian sense: love thy neighbor = dilige proximum tuum. Hence _what has to be done about the neighbor_, etc." CreationDate="2022-05-31T12:44:17.527" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38466" PostId="18310" Score="0" Text="I don't quite follow your interpretation of the first passage: wouldn't we expect the words to then be in an oblique case (e.g. accusative of respect)?" CreationDate="2022-05-31T14:02:17.040" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="38467" PostId="18310" Score="0" Text="Context for the second: https://imgur.com/a/KmYkhE2" CreationDate="2022-05-31T14:02:38.953" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="38470" PostId="18310" Score="0" Text="@omniamutantur1 they could be in apposition, though I'm not sure such an apposition would be grammatical. Now that I re-read, I think your reading is more reasonable." CreationDate="2022-05-31T16:11:25.857" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38481" PostId="18312" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much—I am glad to see that this generally aligns with how I had read the passage." CreationDate="2022-06-01T13:39:12.617" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="38482" PostId="18313" Score="0" Text="Maybe this is supposed to mean &quot;one less of them, one more of us&quot;? Although it clearly doesn't..." CreationDate="2022-06-01T16:05:06.277" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38483" PostId="18313" Score="1" Text="By the way, if you are wondering why you got a downvote, it's because I apparently have thick fingers and &quot;my vote is now locked.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-01T16:06:21.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38501" PostId="18313" Score="0" Text="Where is this picture from? Knowing what the local language is might help." CreationDate="2022-06-02T13:27:50.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38510" PostId="18313" Score="0" Text="It's a canalboat on the Lancaster canal in England - so English." CreationDate="2022-06-03T15:05:39.027" UserId="6839" />
  <row Id="38511" PostId="18313" Score="0" Text="The quote in the title and the text are different.  The title has *major,* but the quote has *magis*.  To me, this does some like made-up for many reasons.  My best guess at the intended sense of it would be: &quot;Hemma, younger than some and older than some of us.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-03T18:13:43.620" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38480" PostId="18314" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for this extremely informative response." CreationDate="2022-06-01T13:38:51.630" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="38499" PostId="18314" Score="1" Text="@omniamutantur1 My pleasure - and thank you for the interesting question! I happened to be reading a bit of Aristotle lately (in Russian and Latin rather than Greek) but hadn't reached these concepts yet, so they were also new for me, as is most of ancient philosophy in general. I doubt I would have come across that article otherwise, and it looks like it might be very helpful to me down the line. —(If you think my answer fully covers your question, please consider accepting it and ticking my mental box :D)" CreationDate="2022-06-02T05:12:23.207" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38488" PostId="18319" Score="1" Text="Thanks a lot, this is very interesting! :) Indeed, the text continues with the academic title after my name. I edited the question to include the full text. I am not a Divinitatis Doctor, so the D.D. probably stands for &quot;de dato&quot; as you suspect." CreationDate="2022-06-01T21:03:42.250" UserId="8653" />
  <row Id="38500" PostId="18319" Score="1" Text="@a20 I'm glad to be able to help. I updated my translation to include the rest." CreationDate="2022-06-02T06:45:15.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38509" PostId="18323" Score="1" Text="mi Scytha, ex more tuo quod mihi tam diligenter, tam accurate, tam subtiliter respondistti valde gratum est. magno cum gaudio semper exspecto responsa tua quae omnes fere optiones quasi considerant atque commentantur. praeterea, sententiis aliorum trbuis laudem, etiam cum fortasse aliqua parte vitiosae vel in erratis esse videntur." CreationDate="2022-06-03T14:42:40.670" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38512" PostId="18323" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Grātō animō legō quae scrībis, mī Jōhannē, praesertim quod et dē aliōrum sententiīs nihil laudis dētrahere videar, nam sānē difficile fit istud per scrīpta rētiālia significāre, respōnsa autem scrībere nūllā praestō sententiā, unde cōgitātiōne proficīscāris, difficilius.—Ceterum hīc nōn aliēnum vidētur adicere mē nescioan ob hanc ipsam causam īs quae quaeris rogāsque tam cupidē ac dīligenter respondēre. nam quōdam modō vidēris ea quaerere quae vel egomet in mediō quaererem sī modo spērāre audērem aliquem mē satis adjūtūrum. quod quidem maxumē tibi invicem praestāre nītor" CreationDate="2022-06-03T19:46:16.593" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38516" PostId="18323" Score="1" Text="pro ope tua, pro responso tuo,, pro inmerita mei laude, maximas tibi gratias." CreationDate="2022-06-04T12:08:26.850" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38503" PostId="18324" Score="0" Text="To clarify, is this a passive transformation of a double accusative construction? Cum manent ea in eo, quod Deus ea fecit." CreationDate="2022-06-02T18:03:48.090" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38504" PostId="18324" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Yep, we're thinking of the same thing: *quae Deus fēcit, **quod** ea fēcit, **in eō** manent.*" CreationDate="2022-06-02T18:19:12.760" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38514" PostId="18326" Score="1" Text="Are you sure you are not confusing &quot;causa&quot; with &quot;gratia&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-06-04T04:53:12.253" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="38515" PostId="18326" Score="3" Text="@FlatAssembler yes, pretty sure, although *causa* is indeed similar to *gratia* in this regard. De quo quidem non rogavisti." CreationDate="2022-06-04T10:34:10.240" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38506" PostId="18328" Score="2" Text="related and worth considering: *Faber est quisque fortunae suae.* (Every man is the maker of his own fortune.)" CreationDate="2022-06-03T09:39:31.933" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38517" PostId="18331" Score="0" Text="Apparently Gaul was not a core Roman province?" CreationDate="2022-06-04T14:41:06.130" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38526" PostId="18331" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Gaul does have *si*, though! It's just less common than oïl/oc (with a somewhat different role)." CreationDate="2022-06-04T23:44:38.417" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38535" PostId="18331" Score="1" Text="You may want to see this: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/3017/78](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/3017/78). Also, Draconis mentions Classical Latin in particular, not Latin from any time period, so unless you can demonstrate that sic/non were 'yes/no' in Classical Latin, I'm not sure how this answers the question." CreationDate="2022-06-06T17:13:38.203" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38518" PostId="18332" Score="1" Text="What I find interesting is that there is no attestation for *eamusne* in PHI. The only place we get -iamusne is in a -ne...an construction, and looking through -amusne and -emusne I don't see a plethora of subjunctives that fit the bill." CreationDate="2022-06-04T15:55:17.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38523" PostId="18332" Score="0" Text="@cmw but note A&amp;G's example *Etiamne eam salūtem?* from Plautus." CreationDate="2022-06-04T20:54:18.500" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38525" PostId="18332" Score="0" Text="I found another with Pliny *NH*: *dubitemusne*. First person, plural, subjunctive + ne still seems surprisingly rare, and nothing that that I see would constitute hortatory over deliberative." CreationDate="2022-06-04T22:10:47.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38524" PostId="18333" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question!" CreationDate="2022-06-04T22:09:55.030" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38522" PostId="18335" Score="1" Text="Nonne *futura* aptius videtur? (Quamquam conicio si *futurum* dicis, *tempus* esse subaudiendum, sed res, non tempus condimus.)" CreationDate="2022-06-04T20:12:16.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38519" PostId="18336" Score="0" Text="I'm not quite I understand your first paragraph. Do you think you could clarify it a bit, perhaps with some examples? Thanks!" CreationDate="2022-06-04T17:13:21.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38520" PostId="18336" Score="1" Text="I was thinking of *missa brevis* versus *missa &lt;hic nomen&gt;.* Though on further looking I found adding a name to the *brevis* was in fact not unheard of. Haydn for instance called his short mass *Missa brevis Sancti Joannis de Deo,* so there is a pattern to follow. I've amended the original answer." CreationDate="2022-06-04T17:44:35.507" UserId="9569" />
  <row Id="38521" PostId="18336" Score="1" Text="I edited your post to include this information." CreationDate="2022-06-04T20:06:27.463" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38530" PostId="18337" Score="3" Text="Couple of observations: 1) it's strange to offer Duolinguo as an example of learning vowels from audio when its speakers don't distinguish vowel length (unless they re-recorded everything since the beta); 2) when one is only just learning the quantities, one is unable to tell whether a recording is using them or not. Most recordings that attempt it still make many mistakes, and thus it seems best to advise against this learning strategy unless one is sure about the speaker (eg. ScorpioMartianus); 3) -tiō is a long ending, with a possibility of shortening if it would result in a dactylic word." CreationDate="2022-06-05T07:01:47.413" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38531" PostId="18337" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I hope it's better now." CreationDate="2022-06-05T21:46:25.427" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38534" PostId="18337" Score="3" Text="It is – thanks for considering my corrections!" CreationDate="2022-06-06T08:13:22.800" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38536" PostId="18340" Score="1" Text="Really helpful (+1). It does strike me as jarring--do you know of any good articles that lay out the debate? Clearly enough scholars thought there were good enough reasons to break the prior consensus." CreationDate="2022-06-06T18:00:22.680" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="38537" PostId="18340" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I didn't see any immediately, but I can keep looking for it. I *should* expect there to be something somewhere!" CreationDate="2022-06-06T21:03:00.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38539" PostId="18342" Score="2" Text="But the English says &quot;strong, sustained storm&quot; not &quot;strong, sustained wind.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-07T12:18:54.200" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38540" PostId="18342" Score="1" Text="Point taken. procella would’nt do since that is a squall. Perhaps then ningor violenta impulsus tempestate." CreationDate="2022-06-07T14:15:39.397" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38542" PostId="18342" Score="0" Text="I need a moderatot to alter the title to ‘a strong sustained storm’" CreationDate="2022-06-07T14:17:51.567" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38543" PostId="18342" Score="2" Text="I think cmw is referring to ‘a strong sustained wind‘ in the body of the post, which *ningor* doesn't seem to imply; your title appears to be correct (except for a typo).—I went ahead and fixed both." CreationDate="2022-06-07T14:43:46.413" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38545" PostId="18342" Score="1" Text="Thanks, Unbrutal Russian, on both counts!" CreationDate="2022-06-07T15:48:54.277" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38551" PostId="18343" Score="1" Text="in errorem inductus sum (proh dolor!) parvo lexico vetusto in quo sub titulo ‘snowstorm’ ‘ningor/ ninguor’ datus est. ipsa vocabuli raritas ‘ningor’ me monere debuit. ‘ningor’, ut nunc intellexi, est vocabulum quod Latinorum auctorum Aevi Aurei aures respuerent, cum ipsis in thesauro verborum praesto essent ea vocabula quae in responso tuo praebuisti, mi Scytha, neglectis alienis vocabulis. me praecipue delectant cum exempla tua, tum dicta de usu hiemis, additis adiectivis propriis. ad summam, responsum viridi avicula dignum." CreationDate="2022-06-08T16:10:11.087" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38552" PostId="18343" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Nunc intelligō mē aliquid et dē istō vocābulō dīcere dēbuisse! nam plānē respuendum equidem nōn dūcō, neque dīxerim id apud Aetātis Aureae aureōs auctōrēs proptereā nōn invenīrī quod plānē respuerint, vērum ipsam rem rārius dēscrībendam illīs fuisse. namque saepe sōlā *nive* contentī fuērunt; similiter et Anglicē 'snow' prō 'snowfall' saepe sufficit; neque *ninguor* aliud sibi velle vidētur quam 'snowfall, [снегопад](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Снегопад)'. vērum et hoc aliquandō ūsuī·st, praesertim sī maijōrem cōpiam nivis significāre necesse·st. quippe et 'vocāmus' dīxit!" CreationDate="2022-06-08T20:39:04.050" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38553" PostId="18343" Score="1" Text="Haec, putō, et responsō meō adiciam quō rem accūrātius explōrātam faciam, ut magis et tibi, benigne Jōhanne, serviat et lēctōrī futūrō!" CreationDate="2022-06-08T20:47:56.513" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38556" PostId="18343" Score="1" Text="de adnotationibus tuis te multum te amo, mi Scytha. post quas adiectas,  inveni apud Lucretium vocabulum ‘ningues’ et apud Livium  ‘casus nivis.’ tamen alii editores legunt ‘nives’ pro ‘ningues’. fortasse hic difficilior lectio potior. illius lectionis autem veri simile te non inscium esse. sus Minervam!" CreationDate="2022-06-09T14:53:32.887" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38568" PostId="18343" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Immō istud vocābulum ignōrāveram! eam autem lēctiōnem [jam Servius trādit](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=ningue); adeō et carminis numerīs *ninguēs* tantum convenit. et hoc *ninguēs* rem indicat, particulās nivis sīve aggerem eijusdem; illud *ninguor* vērō ninguendī āctiōnem, nivis nempe cāsum, quae jūnctūra [etiam apud Plīnium](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23casu+~+%23nivi) legitur. cēterum invicem tē amō quod haec scrībis eōque ecficis ut rem suptīlius explōrandō ūnā discāmus!" CreationDate="2022-06-10T21:03:55.747" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38628" PostId="18343" Score="1" Text="mi Scytha, multas tibi gratias ago quod in omnibus responsis tuis videris omnes optiones amplecti et quidem, quod ad me pertinet conata mea, quamvis levia videantur, magni aestimare atque in serium convertere. praeterea, omnes in hoc situ collatores  semper colis observantia et tractas honore. – &#xA;Jonathan Hadfield&#xA; 56 mins ago   Delete" CreationDate="2022-06-16T15:48:27.780" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38550" PostId="18344" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! By faith you mean trust in someone else, or in God? Who is the oath-breaker, the one trusting or the one being trusted?" CreationDate="2022-06-08T15:49:36.077" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38554" PostId="18344" Score="0" Text="And what does losing one's faith have to do with breaking an oath? I'm not seeing the connection here. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you have in mind?" CreationDate="2022-06-09T02:59:39.970" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38548" PostId="18345" Score="1" Text="Is it possible that Brink meant to say, Horace rarely elides a final long vowel before a short vowel? This as opposed to, or distinct from, Latin poetry in general." CreationDate="2022-06-08T03:02:33.900" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38547" PostId="18347" Score="0" Text="Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to point this out." CreationDate="2022-06-08T01:04:04.647" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38557" PostId="18351" Score="2" Text="I can't find anything similar in the TLG, and honestly this doesn't make any sense to me. Are you sure this is the complete quote? I've never seen &quot;ούδὲν οὐ μὴν.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-09T16:19:08.127" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="38558" PostId="18351" Score="0" Text="This is all I could find. That's why I am asking here. &quot;Nothing but&quot;. Sounds right." CreationDate="2022-06-09T16:23:07.410" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38559" PostId="18351" Score="2" Text="My question was whether you are *sure* this is the complete motto: that's not the usual way of saying &quot;nothing but,&quot; and in fact those three words are never used as a continuous particle phrase in the whole corpus of ancient Greek..." CreationDate="2022-06-09T16:31:03.560" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="38560" PostId="18351" Score="0" Text="I'm sure I copied what I saw. I have, of course, replicated your searches, with no better results." CreationDate="2022-06-09T16:35:01.693" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38562" PostId="18351" Score="0" Text="The high school is in Oak Park, Illinois. But it was introduced in 1908, so nobody can tell..." CreationDate="2022-06-09T23:44:31.320" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38563" PostId="18351" Score="3" Text="Wiki has nothing on the second half of the phrase. Everything I've seen online suggest it's only *Τὰ γ᾽ ἄριστα*. Can you get a picture or *anything* that shows it in its entirety?" CreationDate="2022-06-10T02:32:01.493" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38564" PostId="18351" Score="0" Text="Alas, not. Indeed, the stone carvings skip the rest of the phrase, which was in the local press years ago…" CreationDate="2022-06-10T02:46:16.030" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38569" PostId="18351" Score="0" Text="Where and how did you find that motto yourself? If you have any sources, pictures, links or similar details, please edit them in. Without them I fear the question is unanswerable. Please also edit your previous comments into the question to tell a fuller story; it seems that you know much more about the quote than your question suggests." CreationDate="2022-06-10T23:16:03.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38570" PostId="18351" Score="1" Text="As I suggested, the quote I am providing is what I copied off the local newspaper a few years ago, and I have failed to even locate that paper. I have done all the TLG searches and googlings, etc, searches the commenters appear to be doing, myself, chopping up the quote, using capitals, etc... but nothing suggestive came of it. The first word is carved in stone all over that high-school, but it is a bland excellence meme, not the offerings or provisions woven in... That's the point of my asking, hoping it might ring a bell, and I could better understand it,  which it clearly didn't." CreationDate="2022-06-11T00:31:24.050" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38571" PostId="18353" Score="0" Text="Hah! You seem to explain the madness! I can picture a journalist belting the song  to a UC classicist who struggled to reconstruct it…" CreationDate="2022-06-11T09:45:14.597" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38573" PostId="18353" Score="5" Text="Impressive find!" CreationDate="2022-06-11T15:22:31.663" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38574" PostId="18353" Score="3" Text="@cmw I was looking for information about the principal who coined the motto, on the assumption that he must have intended it to make sense so hoped to find _his_ explanation of what it meant. I'm not quite sure how I found the scrapbook but you wouldn't believe my excitement when I flipped through it and found that booklet!!!" CreationDate="2022-06-12T08:07:54.867" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38579" PostId="18353" Score="0" Text="Indeed, the syntax sounds tortured to my amateur ear... &quot;οὐδὲν ἀμείνονα τὰ ἄριστα&quot; ? Adverbial &quot;οὐδὲν ~ in no way&quot;, but... –" CreationDate="2022-06-12T18:17:52.887" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38576" PostId="18356" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I understand your answer. I have only one question. How can &quot;ἐν τῷ σώματι&quot; be a substantive noun in its own right?" CreationDate="2022-06-12T17:48:04.430" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="38577" PostId="18356" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad It isn't -- it's an adverbial prepositional phrase: &quot;that (part) in/of the body in which heat arises...&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-12T17:55:04.883" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38578" PostId="18356" Score="0" Text="&quot; ((that)) (part) in/of the body in which heat arises...&quot;&#xA;So, where is this ((that)) in the Greek sentence?" CreationDate="2022-06-12T17:57:18.593" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="38580" PostId="18356" Score="0" Text="Maybe, this translation can be more appropriate: &quot;Every (ἂν) thing in the case of which heat arises in its (τῷ) body, will be hot.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-12T18:55:57.797" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="38581" PostId="18356" Score="0" Text="https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Phaedo-Cambridge-Greek-Classics/dp/052131318X , p. 260: &quot;b9 ᾧ ἂν … ἔσται: lit. ‘in whichever [thing], in the [i.e. its?] body, what comes to be, it [the thing] will be hot’.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-12T19:07:49.833" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="38582" PostId="18356" Score="2" Text="@AliNikzad There isn't an explicit &quot;that&quot; in the Greek because the relative clause has no antecedent. Both of your translations seem to capture the sense. I'll restructure the English translations to hopefully make clearer where &quot;in the body&quot; fits." CreationDate="2022-06-12T20:06:38.190" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38589" PostId="18357" Score="0" Text="Perhaps &quot;solo&quot; ?" CreationDate="2022-06-13T21:45:38.663" UserId="10647" />
  <row Id="38591" PostId="18357" Score="0" Text="@BenVoigt — Interesting! And apparently it's a Latin word: https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=SOLO100" CreationDate="2022-06-14T02:24:51.603" UserId="11193" />
  <row Id="38593" PostId="18357" Score="0" Text="Wrong word, you're looking for [this one](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=SOLUS100), an adjective meaning &quot;unaccompanied&quot;.  It becomes &quot;soli&quot; in the dative case where you're most likely using it, but does decline to &quot;solo&quot; in the ablative case." CreationDate="2022-06-14T15:05:10.383" UserId="10647" />
  <row Id="38594" PostId="18357" Score="0" Text="@BenVoigt — Interesting. So would it be (a) recto/verso/soli or (b) recto/verso/solo?" CreationDate="2022-06-14T20:54:28.047" UserId="11193" />
  <row Id="38596" PostId="18357" Score="0" Text="You need to know the context, in Latin adjectives get declined to match the noun that they modify, and the declension of the noun depends on its role in the sentence.  Are you thinking of a prepositional construction such as *in folio verso*?  Then yes, *soli* would correspond." CreationDate="2022-06-14T21:47:26.240" UserId="10647" />
  <row Id="38616" PostId="18357" Score="0" Text="@BenVoigt — Actually, I'm just thinking of a construction where the words stand alone. This is for a small computer programming project that does page layout, and the layers of the software need to communicate with each other about how to align the content. So for now I have `recto`, `verso`, and `solo` as keywords in the enumeration of possibilities (internal strings, labels, variable names, and enumerations), but will change that to `soli` if the latter is a better parallel construct with the first two." CreationDate="2022-06-15T20:08:29.030" UserId="11193" />
  <row Id="38617" PostId="18357" Score="1" Text="The base form (nominative) of these words is [&quot;rectus&quot;](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=RECTUS100), [&quot;versus&quot;](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=VERSUS300), [&quot;solus&quot;](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=SOLUS100)" CreationDate="2022-06-15T20:53:50.753" UserId="10647" />
  <row Id="38584" PostId="18358" Score="0" Text="Apparently I have been doing it wrong all those years, because I always read the left page first and then the right." CreationDate="2022-06-13T18:00:53.257" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38585" PostId="18358" Score="3" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Just in case you're being serious: It is very common for rightward-reading books to start on the right page.  The inside title is on the right page, chapter titles (or story titles, in the case of anthologies) will be on the right page, story titles (e.g., in anythologies) tend to be on right pages, etc.  This means either leaving a page blank or intentionally tweaking chapter length so that things line up to end on the left page.  In my reference books, all the chapters start on odd-numbered (i.e., right) pages." CreationDate="2022-06-13T18:14:58.920" UserId="11196" />
  <row Id="38586" PostId="18358" Score="0" Text="That's interesting; thanks. I still have a practical problem, though: In a simple page-layout system I'm putting together for myself, I need three unique words to distinguish among the three cases (front side [recto], back side [verso], only side [?]), so I can't use recto for the latter case, as it would ambiguously refer to two cases. Do you know if there is a Latin word for &quot;the only side of the paper&quot; or &quot;no particular side of the paper&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-06-13T20:06:34.117" UserId="11193" />
  <row Id="38587" PostId="18358" Score="2" Text="@ToddLehman. Why not just folio? Recto and verso are added for differentiation; if such differentiation isn't required, neither are the adjectives. Though someone could likely coin a Latin phrase for 'the only side of the paper', that phrase, unlike recto/verso, would have no force of tradition behind it (plus, though Latin in origin, recto and verso have become adopted as English words); so, absent an *established* Latin term for what you want, and assuming that your system won't be used solely by Latin speakers, why bother? Why not just say something like 'single-page' or 'undifferentiated'?" CreationDate="2022-06-13T21:15:50.693" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38588" PostId="18358" Score="2" Text="(The issue with using just 'folio' would be that the word 'folio' is traditionally used by typographers to refer to page numbers; but I don't think most people are aware of this technical use of the term.)" CreationDate="2022-06-13T21:18:46.810" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38590" PostId="18358" Score="0" Text="@ToddLehman The thing is, the pages in your single-page layout system will still have front and back sides, i.e. *recto* and *verso.* There are two separate concepts: 1) front/back side of the page, and 2) page layout. Your main concern however seems to be neither of these, but right/left **alignment of page content.** The terms *recto* and *verso* are only roundabout ways to get to this (typically *verso* is left-aligned). I don't see a good reason for this other than to add mystery. Using the terms left, right and center for left, right and center-aligned pages looks to me the way to go." CreationDate="2022-06-13T22:56:51.100" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38592" PostId="18358" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian — Well, actually, there aren't any front and back sides in my usage, because it's a purely digtal format. The solo pages are for stepping through the pages one at a time, and the verso-recto pairs are for stepping through the pages two at a time. The reader can choose 1-up or 2-up." CreationDate="2022-06-14T02:28:40.467" UserId="11193" />
  <row Id="38597" PostId="18358" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: I think the point is that the alignment of page content is determined by the placement of the book binding -- online there is no binding, so the placement is different from either a bound left (rear-facing) leaf or a bound right (front-facing) leaf." CreationDate="2022-06-14T21:49:50.743" UserId="10647" />
  <row Id="38611" PostId="18358" Score="0" Text="@ToddLehman I had this possibility in mind, but properly speaking it's still idependent of page layout. One can print-bind center-aligned pages, which will end up being recto or verso, or display right/left-aligned pages one page at a time in an unbound digital format. The independence of all these variables is what I'm getting at, and my suggestion is that it would be incorrect to describe page alignment using terms that specify whether it's the front or the back part of the leaf of paper that's being printed on." CreationDate="2022-06-15T17:25:29.657" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38615" PostId="18358" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian — I completely agree in the case of printed materials. However, in my case, this is purely digital. There's no paper and no front/back side. Only left/right pages in the case of a 2-up display or centered pages in the case of a 1-up (single-page) display." CreationDate="2022-06-15T20:05:42.593" UserId="11193" />
  <row Id="38619" PostId="18358" Score="1" Text="@ToddLehman So you still have page alignment separately from page presentation, only you happen to make one dependent on the other. If your medium has no front and back sides, then as I say, using these concepts as roundabout ways to get at page alignment seems at best like unnecessary mystification. More importantly, there's no third, neither-nor term to use for the center alignment in a roundabout way, since the physical reality of print books has no space for it. Therefore my suggestion remains to use the straightforward aligment terms &quot;left&quot;, &quot;right&quot; and &quot;center&quot;." CreationDate="2022-06-15T21:59:45.330" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38583" PostId="18359" Score="2" Text="Sebastian's question is difficult to answer comprehensively, so your answer is already appreciated. It gives me food for thought, even though as a result I disagree. Namely, replacing *dederit* with *det* might not change the English translation, but it results in a different meaning in Latin. While Pr.Subj. extends from the moment of speaking into the indefinite future (as you say), the Perf.Subj. extends from the past to the moment of speaking, by which point the action must be completed. Therefore *det* cannot refer to the historical Cicero who can no longer receive any money" CreationDate="2022-06-13T15:44:20.500" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38614" PostId="18359" Score="2" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian the Cicero example is quite strange. On the surface it is only about the conditions under which someone would give Cicero money in the present day and age. But it could not possibly be in the indicative, because Cicero died long ago. So it feels like there is an unwritten protasis *si adhuc vixerit* or something like that. But whether the pr. subj. would also be allowable then, is unclear to me." CreationDate="2022-06-15T18:00:07.147" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38660" PostId="18359" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Is the ex. from &quot;Gymnasium&quot; attested?" CreationDate="2022-06-20T12:17:21.060" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38662" PostId="18359" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian: Given those conditions it only makes grammatical sense if Seb's unwritten protasis is included: &quot;si adhuc vixerit&quot; = &quot;if he had lived up to that point&quot; (perfect subjunctive); followed by, &quot;no-one would have given&quot; (perfect subjunctive, &quot;dederit&quot;). Confusing then is &quot;fulserit&quot;: the ring glitters independently of any other circumstances; neither beginning nor ending relative to something else. I found a better translation: &quot;...unless first a huge ring would have glittered&quot;; so the placing of the ring on the finger (&quot;first&quot;) is significant, not the glittering? Do you agree?" CreationDate="2022-06-20T12:39:08.833" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38668" PostId="18359" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: The perfect subjunctive, in a main clause, used to describe a future potential result: &quot;si nunc me suspendam, meis inimicis voluptatem creaverim.&quot; (Plautus, Casina 424) = &quot;If I were to hang myself now, I would have given pleasure to my enemies.&quot;. The perfect subjunctive, &quot;suspenderim&quot;, could have been used instead giving, &quot;if I would have hanged myself&quot;. Similarly, Brut. 192: perf. subj., &quot;quierim&quot;, instead of present subj., &quot;queam&quot; giving, &quot;I wouldn't have been able&quot;. Thus, two examples of the perf. subj. in both clauses. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2022-06-20T13:42:32.870" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38674" PostId="18359" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel In the previous message I say that *det* wouldn't have made sense there. Your *vīxerit* observation is right on the mark! —tony: partly it's as you say, there would have been no temporal sequence and the sentence would have been incoherent if *fulgeat* was used. *dederit* is to up-to-now, *fulgeat* would have been from-now-on. But more fundamentally it's a simple transformation contrasting fact and reality: *nōn vīxit &gt; sī vīxerit; aliquis nummōs dedit &gt; nēmō nummōs dederit; et sī ānulus nōn fulsit &gt; nisi ānulus fulserit.* “Alt-historical” seems an apt description." CreationDate="2022-06-20T20:30:18.827" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38595" PostId="18363" Score="2" Text="Can you post the full sentence?" CreationDate="2022-06-14T21:31:01.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38607" PostId="18363" Score="0" Text="Tum clavum, qui detrahentem secutus cum camella lignea fuerat, fumoso parieti reddidit." CreationDate="2022-06-15T03:15:31.327" UserId="10893" />
  <row Id="38606" PostId="18365" Score="0" Text="I like this. Thanks." CreationDate="2022-06-15T02:45:02.930" UserId="10893" />
  <row Id="38608" PostId="18365" Score="1" Text="@StephenBryant If this answered your question, you can click the green check mark to the left, which will mark it as &quot;accepted&quot;." CreationDate="2022-06-15T03:58:19.693" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38624" PostId="18365" Score="0" Text="Done. Interum tibi gratias ago." CreationDate="2022-06-16T02:30:41.083" UserId="10893" />
  <row Id="38602" PostId="18366" Score="1" Text="You've written &quot;splendidōrēs&quot; four times. I was wondering why you prefer this form to &quot;splendid**i**ōrēs&quot;." CreationDate="2022-06-15T01:56:04.100" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38609" PostId="18366" Score="0" Text="Whoops!  Thanks for subtly pointing out the typo.  I'm glad I didn't make a big deal about &quot;speldidores&quot; and then still misspell it myself.  I'll edit and correct it." CreationDate="2022-06-15T13:53:32.507" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38622" PostId="18369" Score="1" Text="For anyone who can't read Hebrew, that's _gzūztrā_, possibly with a schwa or two between the consonants. (I'm still not good at figuring out which ones are pronounced and which aren't.)" CreationDate="2022-06-16T01:50:01.843" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38626" PostId="18369" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I'd bet on a short u. The vav is probably there only as an aid to reading, not to indicate a long vowel. So, perhaps: gəzuzṭərā." CreationDate="2022-06-16T14:02:21.767" UserId="11200" />
  <row Id="38620" PostId="18370" Score="0" Text="This makes sense, thank you. Do you have suggestion of somewhere where I can read about -τρα? I am familiar with -τρον, but not with -τρα." CreationDate="2022-06-16T00:09:51.037" UserId="11200" />
  <row Id="38621" PostId="18370" Score="3" Text="@magicker72 There's a very short (half page) discussion in Chantraine's *Formation des noms en grec ancien*. I don't know of anything more detailed, but maybe someone here will." CreationDate="2022-06-16T00:51:38.670" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38625" PostId="18370" Score="2" Text="Awesome, thanks. It's §267, for future reference, and it gives my word as an example! Probably worth noting the reference in the body of your answer, and I'll mark it correct." CreationDate="2022-06-16T03:58:15.357" UserId="11200" />
  <row Id="38629" PostId="18373" Score="0" Text="In *indirect* questions, multiple *-ne* can stand instead of *-ne an*, e.g. *monstrumne deusne ille sit ignorans* (Ov. Met. 13, 912)." CreationDate="2022-06-16T20:39:26.793" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38631" PostId="18374" Score="3" Text="“In elit semper ius” is so alien (from Latin) that it's even difficult to understand how a software might have obtained it (apart for “right” misinterpreted as a noun). “Romanes eunt domus” was Cicero at his best, in comparison." CreationDate="2022-06-16T23:14:24.443" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="38633" PostId="18374" Score="0" Text="Emptor rex est? ;-)" CreationDate="2022-06-17T00:52:36.740" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="38636" PostId="18374" Score="2" Text="@DaG It seems to believe that *elit* means 'movie' (which appears to be in a few online dictionaries that have no doubt been automatically generated), but it starts to use it here once you get past 'the customer is'. Initially it gives *Lorem &quot;* (including the quotation mark) for just 'the customer'. *semper ius* for 'is always right' seems more understandable to me if you think of 'right' like a legal right, with omission of 'est' because it's imitating the style of a motto. [...]" CreationDate="2022-06-17T11:09:37.063" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38637" PostId="18374" Score="2" Text="[...] I think this is a case of an AI model that has seen instances of *lorem ipsum* filler text next to generic English sentences and thought that one was a translation of the other. *elit* comes up there and perhaps English filler texts sometimes mention movies or customers. Genuine Latin/English translated texts presumably use the word 'customer' so rarely that it hasn't learned the correct word." CreationDate="2022-06-17T11:13:13.927" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38638" PostId="18374" Score="2" Text="@dbmag9: Nice analysis! The ius/right part was the only one I had guessed." CreationDate="2022-06-17T12:43:16.483" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="38632" PostId="18376" Score="1" Text="Was this phrase [originally sarcastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right)?" CreationDate="2022-06-17T00:46:56.147" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38640" PostId="18376" Score="0" Text="I'm sure the Romans were capable of understanding irony, and FWIW I don't think the phrase in English is necessarily more ironic than any translation would be. It's only ironic in certain contexts and I think the same would be true in any language. The above answer about &quot;the king can do no wrong&quot; similarly seems like it can be taken ironically much of the time. The final part of this answer, &quot;Whatever the customer demands, that is obviously demanded rightly and justly&quot; is *way* more over-the-top than the English phrase." CreationDate="2022-06-17T12:57:46.010" UserId="1898" />
  <row Id="38645" PostId="18376" Score="0" Text="I like Sebastian’s version but perhaps might modify it and write ‘quidquid poscit emptor, iure/recte poscit’. If we prefer something briefer why not say numquam fallitur emptor? The heroic clausula of fallitur emptor  can add to the tone of mockery and indeed indicate humour, irony or sardonicism." CreationDate="2022-06-18T08:42:34.810" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38652" PostId="18376" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Kingshorsey's answer got me to the idea *Emptor non errat*. Strange how I did not think of that; in any event, the OP cannot complain about a lack of options..." CreationDate="2022-06-19T09:27:25.720" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38630" PostId="18377" Score="1" Text="I reformatted slightly. You can break a line by adding a double space to the end of a line. This looks way better for poetry than breaking a paragraph with an empty line. Feel free to re-edit or roll back!" CreationDate="2022-06-16T21:20:03.243" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38643" PostId="18377" Score="1" Text="So did I. You can use the \ symbol as an escape, to stop the website from converting the next symbol into formatting." CreationDate="2022-06-17T20:19:26.283" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38692" PostId="18377" Score="0" Text="Hey, please let me know if you think my answer requires any further clarficiation or elaboration before you would be willing to accept it." CreationDate="2022-06-23T08:21:01.073" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38634" PostId="18380" Score="6" Text="What do you mean by &quot;modern-day&quot;? English-speaking lawyers reading legal terms, Catholic priests reading the liturgy, and classicists reading ancient poetry all pronounce these things differently." CreationDate="2022-06-17T01:01:29.003" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38635" PostId="18380" Score="4" Text="To clarify: for many languages there's a &quot;standard&quot; pronunciation that native speakers consider the best. But there are no native Latin-speakers nowadays who could weigh in on something like that. I can give you my answer as a classicist (or tell you what a lawyer or a priest would say), but it would help if you clarify what particular usage you're asking about." CreationDate="2022-06-17T01:03:12.777" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38641" PostId="18380" Score="1" Text="I agree with the comments above; however, I can add that modern-day enthusiasts generally try to conform to one of two standards.  In other settings, other pronunciations might be used, since different countries and regions inherited different pronunciation traditions.  For instance, an English-speaking choir singing a song in Latin composed by a German composer might pronounce the Latin according to the traditional German conventions." CreationDate="2022-06-17T13:40:37.450" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38731" PostId="18380" Score="0" Text="A fairly fun discussion on here. https://youtu.be/_enn7NIo-S0" CreationDate="2022-06-27T05:28:53.750" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="38646" PostId="18385" Score="0" Text="This is exactly what I was looking for!  I was aware of the declensions, but I'd heard someone else suggest to leave them as they were for more dramatic effect (&quot;he _is_ night, not just the lord of night&quot;).  Thanks for the context!" CreationDate="2022-06-18T15:07:23.620" UserId="11209" />
  <row Id="38648" PostId="18385" Score="8" Text="If you want to say that he is night, it is possible (this is called apposition in Latin) but you will still need to use the vocative *Ave Domine Nox!*" CreationDate="2022-06-18T17:59:34.770" UserDisplayName="user11203" />
  <row Id="38655" PostId="18385" Score="1" Text="Of course the master of the doctrine is to be admired, but I think we want the one over the night there too!" CreationDate="2022-06-19T19:25:17.710" UserId="11216" />
  <row Id="38686" PostId="18385" Score="1" Text="Regarding your latest edit and following up on the discussion in the comments to my own answer to this question. It appears that your edit gets the distinction I point out the other way around. *Dominus* is a honorific in your **original** translation, *domine nocturne* (“Mister/Lord Nightly“ ), and this is exactly what I thought should be corrected. The *nocturne domine* in your latest edit is the grammatically correct translation of OP's request, with *dominus* as a common noun (“Night Master/Lord“). The *honorific* is **preposed,** the *generic noun* is **postponed** – exactly as in English" CreationDate="2022-06-22T05:14:45.117" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38688" PostId="18385" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I'm reading *nocturnus* as an adjective, not a name. I imagine that makes a difference. There is room for so many interpretations here." CreationDate="2022-06-22T06:31:44.117" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38691" PostId="18385" Score="0" Text="What I mean is that when *dominus* is preposed, it functions as a honorific. *nocturnus* ends up being an adjective and a name at the same time, i.e. it's a talking name. That combination reads as “Mister Little”, and in order to get a noun + noun instead of honorific + name, the word order has to be changed. The difference in word order is tied to the difference in lemma in this case (*dominus* the honorific and *dominus* the noun are two different lemmas with two different grammars)." CreationDate="2022-06-23T08:12:51.303" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38694" PostId="18385" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian Can you cite any of your claims? You keep saying that *dominus* means Mr., but you haven't provided anything to back that up." CreationDate="2022-06-23T14:15:54.473" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38714" PostId="18385" Score="0" Text="@cmw That *dominus* is a honorific address is well-known to most learnerss and **Joonas** in his edit **makes it perfectly clear** that it's known to him. I therefore find it difficult to understand the nature of your request. I leave it to the doubtful reader to consult any basic dictionary like L&amp;S, Gaffiot, or DMLBS for medieval Latin, all of which an can be found on logeion.com." CreationDate="2022-06-26T11:18:03.560" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38715" PostId="18385" Score="0" Text="To Joonas: your answer in its present state continues to get the distinction in the word order the wrong way around. If *dominus* is used as a honorific, it should precede the noun, so *domine Nocturne.* Correspondingly, “If the lord in question is a nocturnal one” the translation should rather be *nocturne domine.* Would you mind revising your answer to correct this?" CreationDate="2022-06-26T11:22:43.003" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38716" PostId="18385" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian It's a simple request. If you can't cite your sources, how do you know you're correct? I checked Lewis and Short before asking this, by the way, and it never says that it functions equivalently to Mr. But the purpose of citing something like this, mind you, as *all* good scholars know, is to establish not only the existence of something, but also show it's development. If this is a later Latin or Medieval development, it undermines your argument completely. In fact, as we have it, both Gaffiot and L&amp;S cite nothing earlier than Seneca. Does it ever appear earlier? Do you know?" CreationDate="2022-06-26T13:29:57.843" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38717" PostId="18385" Score="1" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian The late development means that your statement is chronologically unjustified. Would Cato or Cicero have understood *dominus* to mean Mr.? And, if you look carefully, even the Silver Latin citations of L&amp;S do not support your claim. They don't mean &quot;Mr.&quot; as we native speakers use it. It wasn't regularly given to every male. It's truly honorific, something that was used with people of importance. That's why it's given to the emperors first. So it's not like *Mr.*, but *Sir*, as Lewis and Short says. But we can only have this type of discussion if you actually do the work." CreationDate="2022-06-26T13:34:24.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38718" PostId="18385" Score="0" Text="@cmw Neither the OP's question nor Joonas' answer is chronologically limited. Likewise, I have made no chronologically unjustified statements. If the chronology interests you, you have the option of opening a question or doing the work yourself. Please notice that this comment thread is not the right place for establishing this, nor to discuss how closely its usage resembles that of En. *Mr.* My exchange with Joonas concerns only the syntax, and  your comments do not seem pertinent to this purpose. I would greatly appreciate it if our discussion with Joonas is permitted without interference" CreationDate="2022-06-26T14:07:27.397" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38724" PostId="18385" Score="0" Text="@Unbrutal_Russian I edited my answer a bit, making it more ambivalent to the various options of reading here. It may or may not be optimal. I do not plan to edit it further; I will let this post be and move on. // The comments from cmw are not rude or unrelated interference. I was planning to make very similar remarks, as I felt (like cmw) that you were pushing a too black and white conclusion without clear evidence. I have seen no sources discussing word order and honorifics. Many aspects of the question are related, but I have no interest in discussing any of those aspects any further." CreationDate="2022-06-26T18:53:44.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38649" PostId="18386" Score="4" Text="&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestion ave domine nocturne is unfortunately less successful – it reads as “Hail Lord/mister Nightly”, where domine is a honorific and nocturne is an adjective-derived personal name, instead of an adjective modifying the common noun dominus.&quot; &lt;- This works better than you might think. See Plautus *Amphityo* 1.270." CreationDate="2022-06-18T20:49:23.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38650" PostId="18386" Score="0" Text="@cmw Amphitryo 272 has the personal name *Nocturnus.* I have no issue with using that as a personal name. The issue is with Joonas' placing *dominus* before *nocturnus* which turns the latter into a personal name prefixed with a honorific, when we need *nocturnus* **not** to be a personal name, but an adjective modifying the common noun *dominus.*" CreationDate="2022-06-18T22:08:31.037" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38651" PostId="18386" Score="1" Text="I meant that it works as a name, too. *Domine Nocturne*: Oh Lord Nocturne! This is precisely parallel with *Domine Jesu*. In other words: yes, it would sound like a name, but that could still work." CreationDate="2022-06-18T22:18:50.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38653" PostId="18386" Score="0" Text="@cmw &quot;Hail Lord Nightly&quot; doesn't work as an equivalent of &quot;Hail to the Lord of Night&quot;." CreationDate="2022-06-19T14:39:43.387" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38654" PostId="18386" Score="2" Text="Except proper names are not analyzed etymologically. I'm talking about making Nocturnus the addressee, **not** using it as an adjective." CreationDate="2022-06-19T15:21:50.427" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38675" PostId="18386" Score="0" Text="@cmw I pointed out that in translating &quot;Lord of Night&quot; Joonas mistakenly ended up with &quot;Lord/Mister Nightly&quot;. Most Latin proper names **are** transparent etymologically, they're talking names, originally nicknames. *Caelus Nocturnus* is 100% lexical, Night Sky personified. It's similar to conventionalised divine epithets like *Capitōlīnus, Monēta,* but *nocturnus* is a much more generic adjective and so much less conventionalised; it reads as an ellipsis ”the nocturnal one”. In other contexts it could refer to a nocturnal animal, human, night pot. Tellingly it's a hapax in the classical corpus" CreationDate="2022-06-20T20:46:46.540" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38682" PostId="18386" Score="1" Text="I originally read *dominus* not as a title as a part of a name as in Lord Halifax but as a regular noun. Both readings make sense to me, and I updated my answer to discuss the distinction. I don't think this is quite as black and white as you make it sound, but I do appreciate the reminder on the word order." CreationDate="2022-06-21T16:44:18.317" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38687" PostId="18386" Score="0" Text="I reply to Joonas' last comment under his own answer." CreationDate="2022-06-22T05:17:46.103" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38656" PostId="18388" Score="2" Text="Have you considered ancient Greek instead of Latin? Latin would have translated Hermes' name to Mercurius instead." CreationDate="2022-06-20T03:36:25.583" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38658" PostId="18388" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This is a nice idea for your paper. To put cmw's question above another way, would you be okay with a translation that had Mercurius (i.e. Mercury), instead of Hermes? If &quot;magnum opus&quot; is important to your quote, then I guess you need it to be in Latin. But is the name &quot;Hermes&quot; also important?" CreationDate="2022-06-20T06:33:09.787" UserId="867" />
  <row Id="38669" PostId="18388" Score="0" Text="Thank you cmw, Penelope for your comments.&#xA;&#xA;To answer your comment, cmw, I would like to go with Latin for the Magnum opus part.&#xA;&#xA;For Penelope, thanks for your welcome. indeed I'm new to this community. Yes, I would be good with a translation with Mercurius, as long as Mercurius refers to the god of language and/or communication. As my paper is about communication.&#xA;&#xA;Hope I answered your comments properly. Thank you" CreationDate="2022-06-20T13:50:37.360" UserId="11218" />
  <row Id="38672" PostId="18388" Score="0" Text="Pinging @Penelope so she can see this. Xygo: when replying to a person, they won't be able to see that you left a comment unless you put the @ sign in front of their name." CreationDate="2022-06-20T17:30:04.170" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38657" PostId="18389" Score="0" Text="Think of *Senatus Populusque Romanus* (SPQR)." CreationDate="2022-06-20T06:11:42.760" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38676" PostId="18389" Score="0" Text="Yes. _-que_ is what modern grammarians call a [clitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic): it attaches to whichever word is in its favoured position, irrespective of the grammatical function of the word. An example in English is the possessive _'s_, which attaches to the last word in a noun phrase. Typically this will be a noun (_the man's hat_), but it can be a noun which is not the possessor (_the king of Spain's daughter_) and at least for some speakers it can be a word in the phrase which is not  a noun (_the guy I used to work with's hat_ - awkward in writing, but people say it)" CreationDate="2022-06-20T22:32:20.043" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="38663" PostId="18391" Score="4" Text="Just to be clear, are you chiefly asking why the -n- is found in *caro, carnis*, or why many such third declension nouns' stems have a letter not found in the nominative? They're very different questions." CreationDate="2022-06-20T12:42:04.057" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38664" PostId="18391" Score="1" Text="I like the idea of writing a question in English (child/children, dwarf/dwarves, man/men, fish/fish...) but finding the variation in *Latin* noun declension 'disturbing'!" CreationDate="2022-06-20T12:48:02.593" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38666" PostId="18391" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 all your examples of English words have perfectly unsurprising etymological explanations" CreationDate="2022-06-20T13:21:14.703" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="38667" PostId="18391" Score="1" Text="@cmw I am asking the first question, why *caro* has a phantom *n*. But I am expecting that the answer is relevant to the fact some other 3rd declension nouns have some similar kind of funk going on." CreationDate="2022-06-20T13:25:07.230" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="38677" PostId="18391" Score="4" Text="The *n* is regular; what's irregular is the fact that it disappears from the nominative. In general, the stem and the expected endings can be used to form the oblique cases. The nominative, though, has to be learned, which is why 3rd-declension nouns are typically presented with both the nominative and genitive cases." CreationDate="2022-06-20T23:15:34.083" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="38679" PostId="18391" Score="0" Text="The 'n' even disappears in 'Plato' (from Ancient Greek: Πλάτων (Plátōn)) and 'leo' (from  Ancient Greek λέων (léōn))" CreationDate="2022-06-21T10:59:14.770" UserId="11225" />
  <row Id="40583" PostId="18392" Score="0" Text="Could it not be from the omitted nominative -n being due to loss of nasalisation?" CreationDate="2022-12-09T13:16:47.027" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="38670" PostId="18393" Score="2" Text="A laryngeal seems to be needed at the end of the root to account for the a-vocalism: *krH-on-m &gt; *karonem by Lindemann's Law, with -a- then generalized from the accusative, and syncope (thus de Vaan)." CreationDate="2022-06-20T17:13:40.030" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38671" PostId="18393" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good point. I'm writing the laryngeal as part of the suffix for now until I can check a good etymological dictionary, because Wiktionary says *_(s)ker_ has no laryngeal, but I want to check a better source on that." CreationDate="2022-06-20T17:27:33.980" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38673" PostId="18393" Score="0" Text="Ah, yep, de Vaan puts the laryngeal in the root as you say. Will update." CreationDate="2022-06-20T17:32:43.793" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38678" PostId="18393" Score="0" Text="Oh I've calmed down a bit now. You're saying it's inherited from PIE, which would make it the same thing as what Russian's got going on with имя and вымя and several other neuter nouns. When I looked up the Latin cognates for these, *nomen* and *uber*, lo and behold, they are third declension nouns. This has probably got something to do with it." CreationDate="2022-06-21T08:18:38.347" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="38690" PostId="18393" Score="2" Text="@Draconis I am out of my depth at this level of etymology, but this cite: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-968X.12058 seems to say that body parts may have taken an &quot;n&quot; suffix originally indicating a &quot;singulative function.&quot;  If *kérH- was originally a verbal root meaning to cut (and an ancestor of English &quot;shear&quot;), perhaps *kérH-Vn started off life as implying a single&quot; cut&quot; of a body part." CreationDate="2022-06-22T21:26:54.593" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="40584" PostId="18393" Score="1" Text="Tends to end in -ō, -onis, not -ō, -ōnis?" CreationDate="2022-12-09T13:18:39.327" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="38683" PostId="18396" Score="0" Text="Thanks Sebastian. Follow up, when you say &quot;you take in visum to answer the question 'where'... that is more or less the textbook definition of what in + accusative does not mean&quot; do you mean that in+accusative is not used for saying e.g. &quot;within the eyes&quot; like my translation? Or that the author used it in the other way, to imply directed action, despite the classical usage being different? I ask because I thought that with accusative &quot;in&quot; meant &quot;into, toward, within&quot;, while in+abl can mean &quot;upon&quot; or &quot;onto&quot;." CreationDate="2022-06-21T19:45:28.487" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="38684" PostId="18396" Score="0" Text="Also, of course English words aren't the best for describing Latin prepositions (or foreign prepositions in general) so I might have misinterpreted. Probably time for me to review LLPSI again and look for examples of both" CreationDate="2022-06-21T19:46:19.927" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="38685" PostId="18396" Score="0" Text="@SamGallagher the accusative denotes motion/direction (to/into), the ablative rest (in). So you say *in Italiam venire* but *in Italia habitare*. *In* (with both accusative and ablative) is frequently used where you would use “on(to)” in English." CreationDate="2022-06-21T21:35:12.400" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38689" PostId="18397" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question! Just to be clear, is the emphasis of your question in grammar in general (Does one speak of predicate nouns... etc.) or how to render the &quot;demonstrative als&quot; in Latin? FWIW, I think [_ut_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dut) applies here." CreationDate="2022-06-22T13:34:52.487" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38696" PostId="18397" Score="2" Text="@Rafael it is relating to the demonstrative &quot;als&quot; in German or &quot;as&quot; in English into Latin. As far as I understand it is treated like an apposition but that is not what it can be: The Bible verse I mentioned in Gothic and German: 1 Corinthians 7, 21: goth. &quot;skalks galaþôþs vast, ni karôs&quot;; lat. &quot;servus vocatus es, non sit tibi curae&quot;; early high german: &quot;bistu ein knecht berufen, sorge dir nicht&quot; literally &quot;slave called (you were), do not care.&quot;; An apposition would mean he is already a slave, but not his calling was to be a slave." CreationDate="2022-06-23T18:28:53.360" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="38698" PostId="18397" Score="1" Text="&quot;would mean he is already a slave&quot; ... which is exactly what this Bible verse means, as should be clear from the next line: *Qui enim in Domino vocatus est servus, libertus est Domini: similiter qui liber vocatus est, servus est Christi.*" CreationDate="2022-06-23T19:37:24.117" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38695" PostId="18398" Score="1" Text="Sebastian thank you. I do not see how your remark of the lexic unfitness resolves the issue. Indeed it is my extemporaneous literal translation. Take a sentence like &quot;Patrem deum putat.&quot; which I think can reasonably translated to &quot;He sees the father as a god.&quot;. Perhaps something like &quot;Feminas deas colit.&quot; &quot;he venereates women as godesses&quot;. It cannot be appositional as it would mean something different. Consider this Bible verse: &quot;servus vocatus es, non sit tibi curae&quot;.  For he who is called by the Lord as a slave is the Lord's freedman&quot; according to Holman. Not you, the slave are called ..." CreationDate="2022-06-23T16:50:05.983" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="38699" PostId="18398" Score="1" Text="@RuhMuhaccer But these are very different constructions, and surely none would fit the description &quot;double subject&quot; (but the passive &quot;pater deus putatur&quot; would). *Putare* is a copulative verb, the *feminas* example seems incorrect to me (should be *ut deas*), and the bible verse is a simple noun + verb." CreationDate="2022-06-23T19:49:34.760" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38693" PostId="18399" Score="1" Text="You might have more luck searching dictionaries for 'flirt' or even 'woo' to get likely contenders." CreationDate="2022-06-23T10:10:53.327" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38697" PostId="18399" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I was a little surprised to see Smith &amp; Hall had an entry for &quot;flirt&quot;; whether it's helpful, well, [see for yourself](https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh10046) ..." CreationDate="2022-06-23T18:41:51.873" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39774" PostId="18399" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel This is one entry where I also would disagree with Smith &amp; Hall. It's a rather loose translation that makes that &quot;flirt.&quot; But the way the Romans categorized these interactions do seem to be different from how we do. (I'm guessing that German and English have very similar categories here.)" CreationDate="2022-10-02T04:56:46.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38700" PostId="18400" Score="0" Text="It would help greatly if you have a source from literature at the time?" CreationDate="2022-06-24T14:27:42.283" UserId="11237" />
  <row Id="38702" PostId="18403" Score="0" Text="In case you'd prefer it, [there is a table formatting option](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/356997/321340). But that's not the only option on the table, of course." CreationDate="2022-06-25T13:31:25.323" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38703" PostId="18403" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I tried doing it, and it rendered it perfectly in the preview, but when I posted it, I only saw the markup instead." CreationDate="2022-06-25T14:39:32.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38704" PostId="18403" Score="0" Text="I tried to put it in a table, and it worked. I must have sacrificed to the right god... Feel free to re-edit or roll back." CreationDate="2022-06-25T20:36:37.343" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38707" PostId="18406" Score="1" Text="A somewhat free translation is found [here](https://books.google.de/books?id=ze6DDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA248&amp;lpg=PA248#v=onepage)." CreationDate="2022-06-25T21:58:34.983" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38708" PostId="18406" Score="0" Text="Cool, how did you find that?" CreationDate="2022-06-25T22:18:03.707" UserId="9685" />
  <row Id="38713" PostId="18406" Score="0" Text="If you search for the title *Carmen navale* or the *Heia* line, you mostly find a different song, attributed to Columbanus, the Irish missionary. So I searched for the line *Arbiter effusi* etc., and then it was among the first Google Books hits." CreationDate="2022-06-26T07:32:42.517" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38710" PostId="18409" Score="2" Text="The original poster wasn't asking for examples of utterances from beyond the grave, but wanted to know how to render the phrase 'from beyond the grave' in Latin. Therefore, I don't see how this answers the question. Or can you point to any specific phrases in the poem that you quoted to provide this information?" CreationDate="2022-06-26T00:40:46.747" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38711" PostId="18409" Score="0" Text="@cnread I had my doubts about it at first, so I left a comment whether this would fit their requirements. They said they would be interested in having it fleshed out as an answer, so I did. I wouldn't have written it otherwise." CreationDate="2022-06-26T07:05:33.357" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="38719" PostId="18409" Score="0" Text="I've had a glimpse at all the comments made from your profile, and I can't seem to find the comment you're referring to. Regardless, unfortunately like cnread I also think that your answer doesn't attempt to answer the question, which is the main requirement for answers on this website. —On a different note, *sunt aliquid mānēs* doesn't talk about the existence of ghosts or spirits, but states that they have some substance (they aren't nothing), and since they aren't nothing, something remains of a dead person after death, so death isn't the ultimate end - ***lētum nōn omnia fīnit.***" CreationDate="2022-06-26T14:19:24.197" UserId="2389" />
  <row Id="38721" PostId="18409" Score="1" Text="@cnread and Unbrutal_Russian: I commented under my question here that any example of speaking from beyond the grave even without that specific phrase is a welcome answer, given how long the question has been unanswered. In the absence of a head-on hit, pointers to similar things are useful. I will not mark this answer accepted but I did vote it up. Maybe this answer can stimulate someone to find a better hit." CreationDate="2022-06-26T17:48:25.797" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38722" PostId="18409" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I sincerely hope this will spawn a more complete answer as well." CreationDate="2022-06-26T18:10:09.237" UserId="441" />
  <row Id="38709" PostId="18410" Score="2" Text="It's used as a mass noun." CreationDate="2022-06-26T00:22:36.563" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="38712" PostId="18410" Score="2" Text="Note that the subject of *differunt* is *hi* = Belgae, Aquitani, Celtae. The ablatives only specify how/in which aspects they differ among each other, one aspect being language." CreationDate="2022-06-26T07:28:10.187" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38792" PostId="18412" Score="0" Text="How would this variation of the original post be translated: “Merciful Jesus, I place all my trust in You.”" CreationDate="2022-07-06T00:37:01.490" UserId="11149" />
  <row Id="38760" PostId="18413" Score="2" Text="Whenever I see &quot;Pie Iesu,&quot; I think &quot;Pie Iesu Domine, dona eis requiem&quot;" CreationDate="2022-06-30T00:45:37.303" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="38765" PostId="18413" Score="2" Text="*Cor Jesu sacratissimum et misericors, miserere nobis* means &quot;Heart of Jesus most sacred and merciful, have mercy on us&quot;. It's a common and very short Latin prayer, for what it's worth." CreationDate="2022-07-01T01:49:14.900" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38736" PostId="18416" Score="0" Text="fyi, at certain zoom levels firefox (on my ubuntu laptop at least) renders ă &amp; ā identically (both represented with a horizontal overline, as if with a macron). For this reason, and to avoid clutter, I'd typically advocate marking only long vowels and leaving short vowels unmarked in the vast majority of cases" CreationDate="2022-06-27T16:15:11.213" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="38737" PostId="18416" Score="0" Text="@Tristan Thanks for pointing that out! They render properly to me. Do any of the [methods for producing a breve on our meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/172/79) render correctly to you? I can switch to something more universal if I know what it is. // In this specific case I felt I should mark both lengths explicitly, so I went to the trouble of including breves. In general marking long ones is enough, but not always." CreationDate="2022-06-27T20:13:25.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38738" PostId="18416" Score="0" Text="hmm, looks like it's more complicated than I'd thought. In a code block they all display correctly (so it seems to be font-related), but outside the code block capital letters and ў display correctly" CreationDate="2022-06-28T07:34:47.147" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="38793" PostId="18416" Score="0" Text="I really appreciate your answer, thank a lot!!. I´ve followed your advice about mark stress and vowel length. I have learned a lot, but now I have a new doubt. Some dictionaries use more marks stress that others, for example, in the &quot;Diccionario Ilustrado de latín de VOX&quot; the word &quot;woman&quot; is written as fēmina, but in others dictionaries is written as &quot;fēmĭna&quot;. Even, there are words that in a dictionary have marks but in anothers don't. Why does this happen? In Spanish, if we ignore an accent mark, it could be considered as a grammatical error. (I hope you understand my basic English). Thanks!" CreationDate="2022-07-06T19:34:45.357" UserId="11246" />
  <row Id="38794" PostId="18416" Score="1" Text="@DiegoVelasco There are many conventions out there. In my answer I used the least ambiguous one where I marked the length of every vowel. A more common convention is to only mark the long ones, which means that unmarked vowels are all short. (This has some issues concerning diphthongs.) A third option is to mark no lengths at all, and a fourth one is to mark only the stress but not the length. This can be quite confusing, but it certainly helps to know that different sources write the same thing differently." CreationDate="2022-07-06T19:47:24.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38795" PostId="18416" Score="0" Text="I should add that there are many situations in Latin where two words look alike and have the stress in the same place but still have a difference in some vowel's length and thus mean different things. That's one reason to stress that stress is not enough! (Your English is very clear, so don't worry about that. If all this brings a new question to your mind, feel free to ask a separate question about it. Add a link here if it gives context.)" CreationDate="2022-07-06T19:50:11.033" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43836" PostId="18421" Score="0" Text="Very nice and succinct. I'd recomment put a *te* in there as the direct object of *irritans*, although Latin often enough leaves out such an obvious object." CreationDate="2023-06-26T22:26:48.320" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38743" PostId="18422" Score="2" Text="Hey, Rafael, I'm also adding the Greek tag, since you do mention the Greek, even if it's not the primary focus of the question." CreationDate="2022-06-28T20:39:52.483" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38750" PostId="18422" Score="0" Text="A good day to be asking this question!" CreationDate="2022-06-29T14:26:01.470" UserId="9128" />
  <row Id="38751" PostId="18422" Score="0" Text="@JamesMartin, in fact, it was not by chance that I found that yesterday in the afternoon ;)" CreationDate="2022-06-29T14:38:12.180" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38741" PostId="18423" Score="3" Text="Also see the L&amp;S entry on, well, [*adversus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dadversus3)." CreationDate="2022-06-28T20:35:38.373" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38745" PostId="18424" Score="1" Text="Thank you! So both are equally correct and interchangeable, and the change was probably just a matter of taste?" CreationDate="2022-06-28T21:54:17.903" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38766" PostId="18424" Score="1" Text="@Rafael As far as I know, they're interchangeable, but I'll do some digging and see if anyone suggested something. Asteroides' citation of A&amp;G is interesting in this regard." CreationDate="2022-07-01T03:20:56.753" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38759" PostId="18425" Score="2" Text="I think your question would be helped by explaining what the title is supposed to mean!" CreationDate="2022-06-30T00:28:59.003" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38747" PostId="18427" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Now that you mention it, I agree that *inferi* is a great starting point. I'm not sure what to best do with it. *Ex inferis*? I would imagine such a phrase is used somewhere in the literature." CreationDate="2022-06-29T09:45:17.653" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38749" PostId="18427" Score="0" Text="I have found the phrase ab inferis but not yet ex inferis. In the Pro Milone Cicero uses the words Etiam si propter amicitiam vellet illum ab inferis evocare. I added e regione to inferorum to give the phrase a nuance of solemnity, as in the English ‘from beyond the grave’ rather than ‘from the Underworld’. It is also possible to use the phrase e regno Orci/ Plutonis/ Ditis." CreationDate="2022-06-29T14:18:02.200" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38769" PostId="18427" Score="0" Text="I have seen also *e regno mortuorum*, which is also a possible translation of ‘from beyond the grave’." CreationDate="2022-07-02T09:34:49.033" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="38771" PostId="18427" Score="0" Text="That *e regno mortuorum* sounds like a very good fit! If you can locate a passage using it, it would make a fine answer! You can well post several answers, especially if they are independent ideas." CreationDate="2022-07-02T14:16:49.480" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38754" PostId="18428" Score="0" Text="Thank you again, Sebastian." CreationDate="2022-06-29T18:43:57.583" UserId="11252" />
  <row Id="39565" PostId="18429" Score="0" Text="What a through, well researched anwswer. I ask pardon for the rather late reply, but I wanted to do some further research. The term &quot;demonstrative als&quot; ist not my terminology but the way Jacob Grimm named it in his &quot;Deutsches Wörterbuch&quot;. If you like you can have a look under the respective article for &quot;als&quot;. He mentions that as most languages and classical ones, German used to abstain from it. He cites examples like &quot;Des starb er mensche niht got.&quot; - &quot;Thereof he (Jesus) died a man and not (as) a god&quot;. As you alluded, we can say &quot;He was elected king.&quot; in English instead of &quot;... as a king&quot;." CreationDate="2022-09-16T02:33:19.537" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="39566" PostId="18429" Score="0" Text="Another one is: &quot;Gott sitzt König immerdar.&quot;, &quot;God sits (as) king always.&quot;. When it comes to its grammatical evaluation he seems to consider it an elliptic aposition of &quot;substantive + seiend&quot;. Turkish for example expresses all of those &quot;as&quot;-instances  whith &quot;olarak&quot; - &quot;being&quot;. The Herbert Weir Smyth seems to indicate the same conception of Grimm for Greek saying &quot;ὤν must be used when it has the force of in the capacity of.&quot;. Although the examples he mentions are primary, most just plain double accusatives fortified by the ὤν. Like ὁρῶ μέγαν (ὄντα) τὸν ἀγῶνα." CreationDate="2022-09-16T03:03:23.437" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="39568" PostId="18429" Score="0" Text="So I wonder whether there is some analogus phrase to our matter at hand i.e. like &quot;sedetis ultores ...&quot;. Perhaps as an insight tpwhat brought this to my attention is my comparison of Italian and Arabic in that regard. In Italian it really struck me because &quot;come&quot; does both of what the distinction of &quot;as, like&quot; does where &quot;lavoro come dottore&quot; might mean &quot;He works like a doctor.&quot; or &quot;He works as a doctor.&quot;. One expressing similarity one actuality. This distinction is of course new and partial since &quot;as&quot; has preserved something of its likening function &quot;He eats as his father&quot;, i.e like him." CreationDate="2022-09-16T04:06:20.890" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="39569" PostId="18429" Score="0" Text="Which is rather similar to what evolved in German &quot;als, wie&quot;, with the simple form of &quot;als(o)&quot; which is a shortened combination of &quot;all+so&quot; having survived in poetic, elevated speech. &quot;Er lebt so ein Gott.&quot;, &quot;He lives as, like a God.&quot;. This is distinction is why I dismissed Sebastians comment below because &quot;Feminas ut deas colit.&quot; would mean he worships them likened unto Gods and not actually as Gods and it seems a bit literally translated to me." CreationDate="2022-09-16T04:14:59.983" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="39570" PostId="18429" Score="0" Text="Finally in Arabic: In classical language either a simple nominative is used or an adverbial accusative stemming from the same ellipsis of &quot;kâinun&quot; the participle for thecopulative verb &quot;kâna&quot; meaning &quot;to be&quot; whhich governs the accusative for the predicate. In summary it seems the most prevalent mode of expression in most tongues, especially in antiquity. I suspect that the Western European languages helped each other conflate these. Naming it &quot;secondary ppredicate&quot; I found enlightening and am currently investigating Grimm's terminology, searching what he drew on when naming it demonstrative." CreationDate="2022-09-16T04:29:06.477" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="38761" PostId="18430" Score="1" Text="Though, I wouldn't be surprised to see _fantasia_ as a variant spelling (albeit probably post-Classical)." CreationDate="2022-06-30T05:36:14.820" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38764" PostId="18430" Score="1" Text="It might be worth stating explicitly something hidden in the L&amp;S entry: *phantasia* (along with *phantasma*) is a loan-word from Greek, and has [very few, post-Augustinian citations](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23phantasi). The Cicero citation is of the *Greek* word, in fact, and is translated *into* Latin." CreationDate="2022-07-01T01:33:30.387" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="38767" PostId="18430" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Check the TLL, which lists many more sources! [Have to run, will expand on this later.]" CreationDate="2022-07-01T17:07:51.910" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38756" PostId="18432" Score="1" Text="I'll let another answer the question, but I do want to point out that the infinitive/gerund distinction you outlined isn't quite correct. The gerund is very often seen in the accusative (chiefly with *ad*). I also don't think it's really relevant to your actual question, so it might make for a less distracting question if that part is removed (or brought up separately!)." CreationDate="2022-06-29T21:43:41.563" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38757" PostId="18432" Score="3" Text="@cmw It is also news to me that the accusative is not an oblique case, but the core question is a good one." CreationDate="2022-06-29T22:29:34.107" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38758" PostId="18432" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site, interesting question. (The infinitive is used in the 'bare' accusative, i.e. without a praeposition, whereas the gerund is used after a praeposition.) As to your question, I suspect there is no direct way to translate that, using a passive verbal noun." CreationDate="2022-06-30T00:24:15.563" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38762" PostId="18433" Score="0" Text="Could you edit in the Latin text?" CreationDate="2022-06-30T07:56:26.390" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="38763" PostId="18433" Score="2" Text="@dbmag9 I have edited" CreationDate="2022-06-30T08:21:14.853" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="38790" PostId="18433" Score="0" Text="I replaced the image with text, copied from LacusCurtius; the only difference, as far as I can see, is that it has *XII* instead of *duodecim*. Note that *Naturalis Historia* is generally translated as “Natural History” and not “History of Nature,” although that would probably be equally correct (and equally misleading, as *historia* is not used in the usual (even in Latin) sense of “past events” here)." CreationDate="2022-07-05T19:00:13.633" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38772" PostId="18434" Score="1" Text="OK.... it can't just be me..right?" CreationDate="2022-07-02T19:27:53.473" UserId="11263" />
  <row Id="38774" PostId="18439" Score="3" Text="Are there attested examples of *ars ad/de* with a noun in the classical or other eras? That would help sell your last suggestion." CreationDate="2022-07-04T02:32:26.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38786" PostId="18439" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I want to say I've seen *ars de* [subject matter] before, but any I may have seen have been lost to memory. A google search turns up *ars de statica medicina*, a 17th century tome, and a few other hits. A corpus search turns up basically nothing." CreationDate="2022-07-04T21:51:48.723" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38787" PostId="18439" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I do not recall ever reading *ars ad* before, but once again that may be fault of my memory. Google turns up many interesting hits from neo-Latin and scholastic writers, including even a 1960 book review in Time magazine called *Ars ad deorum gloriam*. There's also *Ars ad faciendum et solvendum quaestiones*, and *ars ad speculum* (another book)." CreationDate="2022-07-04T22:06:33.093" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38856" PostId="18439" Score="1" Text="The preposition + infinitive construction is interesting. It feels wrong, but perhaps only in the prescriptive sense. I wonder how an ancient person would have understood it. Perhaps an informal thing? I'm less sold on *ad + gerund* though as a substitute for the genitive. &quot;The art of loving&quot; and &quot;Art for the purpose of loving&quot; are completely different things, and I think the same would be true for *ars amandi* and *ars ad armandum*. The Romans of course just said *ars amatoria*!" CreationDate="2022-07-12T18:18:24.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38863" PostId="18439" Score="0" Text="@cmw I wonder the same thing." CreationDate="2022-07-13T03:00:12.737" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38775" PostId="18440" Score="5" Text="A quick search suggests that *essendum &amp; possendum &amp; potendum* were in use but *endum* probably not. These would be my four guesses for candidates. I have limited computer access now, so I'll just record these here in the hope that someone (perhaps a later me) picks them up and writes an answer." CreationDate="2022-07-04T10:12:08.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38776" PostId="18440" Score="1" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: There are similar problems with present participles. In Oulton's Book III, p.6: &quot;sum: no (present) participle exists. There is, thus, no Latin word for &quot;being&quot;. I wondered about &quot;consto&quot;, among many definitions, &quot;exist&quot; or &quot;be&quot; (Oxford); therefore, what would &quot;constans&quot; mean? This was years ago and I never thought to ask anyone about it. A Latin word for &quot;being&quot; which would have to describe what a noun, with which it agrees, is doing. Any thoughts?" CreationDate="2022-07-04T11:48:57.543" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38778" PostId="18440" Score="2" Text="@tony There's certainly no single Latin word for &quot;being&quot;. I suppose most English uses have a natural translation to Latin, but they're all different. Asking about a specific case is a good first step towards translating &quot;being&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-04T18:02:44.170" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38779" PostId="18442" Score="1" Text="For why gemina instead of geminī, look at the next line: it agrees with either lumina or nocte." CreationDate="2022-07-04T19:59:28.607" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38780" PostId="18442" Score="3" Text="Gemina describes nocte, ablative feminine singular. I guess you could call it a transferred epithet." CreationDate="2022-07-04T20:15:16.970" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="38781" PostId="18443" Score="0" Text="Is there some expression, some dual meaning, to _gemina nox_? I was thinking something along the lines of ‘the night of the sun’ and ‘the night of life’." CreationDate="2022-07-04T20:36:59.383" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="38782" PostId="18443" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan It's not any idiom I'm aware of, but poets invent new metaphors all the time." CreationDate="2022-07-04T20:42:08.330" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38783" PostId="18443" Score="3" Text="Thomson (who I think still has the definitive commentary on Catullus) goes with the transferred epithet and lists some more examples (though they don't parallel perfectly). There's no manuscript variation here." CreationDate="2022-07-04T20:49:25.710" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38784" PostId="18443" Score="0" Text="@cmw should he have anything to say about that as an expression, that would be a worthwhile addition here. Thank you both! And the tip about reading lines 3 and 4 as a unit was very helpful; I did not know that. Also, does that only commonly apply to lines 3 and 4?" CreationDate="2022-07-04T20:53:54.133" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="38785" PostId="18443" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan I think that (re lines 3 and 4) deserves a new question of its own, but the short answer is yes, it's specifically those two." CreationDate="2022-07-04T20:56:43.320" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38837" PostId="18446" Score="1" Text="Did you mean to use the pluperfect in the *cum* clause and the perfect in the *postquam clause*? The pluperfect implies that some definite space of time passed between the coming and the learning." CreationDate="2022-07-11T04:28:25.223" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38851" PostId="18446" Score="1" Text="I mean is, can cum pluperfect and postquam perfect be synonymous like the example above" CreationDate="2022-07-12T05:16:25.827" UserId="10195" />
  <row Id="40319" PostId="18449" Score="2" Text="I think a relative clause of characteristic would have been more appropriate than using *rem*." CreationDate="2022-11-03T13:07:22.277" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40506" PostId="18449" Score="1" Text="I think you want *peiorem* rather than *peiorum*, and *cui* not *quo*." CreationDate="2022-11-19T22:19:28.083" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40507" PostId="18449" Score="1" Text="I would contrast *peiorem* with *melius* rather than *magnum*. Or, if you really want *magnum*, I would contrast it with *minorem*, rather then *peiorem*." CreationDate="2022-11-19T22:22:13.587" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40509" PostId="18449" Score="1" Text="@Figulus: Thanks. Because these are exact opposites? Understood. TKR has come up with a most succinct interpretation of Buchan's original sentence." CreationDate="2022-11-20T11:21:18.173" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40510" PostId="18449" Score="1" Text="Because they form natural pairs. *First rate* and *second rate* are a natural pair, so are *peior* and *melior*, *minor* and *maior*, *parvus* and *magnus*, and *primus* and *secundus* (or *alter*). I guess you could use a genitive: *gradus primi* and *gradus secundi*, instead of these adjectives." CreationDate="2022-11-21T04:11:06.957" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38803" PostId="18450" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site, and nice question!" CreationDate="2022-07-08T00:20:28.000" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38796" PostId="18452" Score="2" Text="For *I am nothing* part, related questions: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5314/how-would-you-say-we-are-no-one and https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14023/can-sum-and-nemo-work-together-to-create-a-phrase-meaning-i-am-no-one&#xA;&#xA;;;; Other than that, one can consider using the dative *soli* instead of the adverbial *solum*. I believe there is a subtle difference between them." CreationDate="2022-07-07T20:44:27.243" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38797" PostId="18452" Score="0" Text="@d_e Thank you for the reference. I could be wrong but I have the impression that using the dative can have a connotation of &quot;to you who are alone&quot; which is not desirable here" CreationDate="2022-07-07T20:51:59.330" UserDisplayName="user11203" />
  <row Id="38799" PostId="18452" Score="0" Text="I see what you are saying, but the same can be said about *solum*. to mean &quot;I don't do other things, I only trust you &quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-07T21:11:37.593" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38800" PostId="18452" Score="1" Text="Shouldn't *misericordis* be in vocative rather than dative here? It's an address, not grammatically linked with the dative that follows." CreationDate="2022-07-07T21:36:03.057" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38801" PostId="18452" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta If I hadn't added a comma I think it would have been acceptable (&quot;you the merciful&quot;) but in this case the vocative works better, thanks!" CreationDate="2022-07-07T21:44:46.097" UserDisplayName="user11203" />
  <row Id="38802" PostId="18452" Score="1" Text="@d_e That's a good point, so I don't know if one version is better than the other" CreationDate="2022-07-07T21:45:25.530" UserDisplayName="user11203" />
  <row Id="38806" PostId="18452" Score="0" Text="I feel this is better as I expected &quot;misericordia&quot; or &quot;misere&quot; to appear somewhere in the translation." CreationDate="2022-07-08T08:29:49.560" UserId="134" />
  <row Id="38804" PostId="18454" Score="1" Text="We came up with a close translation but your description is much more detailed than mine, I upvoted your answer." CreationDate="2022-07-08T06:39:11.290" UserDisplayName="user11203" />
  <row Id="38805" PostId="18454" Score="1" Text="FWIW, I found an [example](https://books.google.com/books?id=N9Y8AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA224&amp;lpg=PA224&amp;dq=%22tibi+soli+confido%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uTzvtkDux0&amp;sig=ACfU3U2fAaBLcagl6N9hoXKZ1Fq95N1QYw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi__r3X3ef4AhWrnf0HHeaTAygQ6AF6BAgSEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tibi%20soli%20confido%22&amp;f=false) (no idea what is the context) for *spes* noun which very close to what the OP is after: &quot;*tibi soli confido, spem meam omnem in te colloco*" CreationDate="2022-07-08T06:41:49.293" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38807" PostId="18454" Score="0" Text="Thank you both! // @d_e what an interesting book you've found! I reworded a little to better express that" CreationDate="2022-07-08T13:19:07.467" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38829" PostId="18457" Score="0" Text="Why the downvotes?" CreationDate="2022-07-10T08:16:24.943" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="38808" PostId="18458" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Interesting quotation. Can you explain it a little more? What metaphor does the author use, and what is his deeper message here? Those can be important in translation. Basically give readers as much information as possible that could help with a good translation." CreationDate="2022-07-08T13:48:35.400" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38809" PostId="18458" Score="2" Text="This is the full quote “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”" CreationDate="2022-07-08T14:48:38.390" UserId="11272" />
  <row Id="38813" PostId="18461" Score="3" Text="I would add a couple of things.   First, the word order is too close to English word order.  This doesn't effect the literal syntax, but would render the pragmatics very strange.  I am not sure that &quot;ōva&quot; specifically presumes chicken eggs, as it does in contemporary English.  It might be better to specify &quot;chicken eggs.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-08T16:40:36.337" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38821" PostId="18461" Score="1" Text="I’m not sure about Latin, but for a lot of modern languages, I wouldn’t translate “…goes to…” literally here — something closer to “…is given to…” would be more natural." CreationDate="2022-07-09T17:06:39.850" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="38847" PostId="18464" Score="1" Text="See also: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/196/latin-word-for-code-or-program-the-verb" CreationDate="2022-07-11T18:40:55.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38848" PostId="18464" Score="0" Text="@cmw, thanks. maybe indeed there are better options then. though, in principle, I'm not against multiple meanings for the same word." CreationDate="2022-07-11T19:34:41.360" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38849" PostId="18464" Score="0" Text="I'm not 100% certain in English there's a historical difference between program, application, and software." CreationDate="2022-07-11T19:53:39.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38843" PostId="18469" Score="0" Text="I thought &quot;hāc&quot; and the similar correlatives indicated &quot;method, path and (general) place, so that often it means something like &quot;this way&quot; or &quot;hereabouts.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-11T15:10:51.277" UserId="10357" />
  <row Id="38844" PostId="18469" Score="1" Text="@Vegawatcher Pretty much. My understanding is that it doesn't have any special meaning, it is really just a demonstrative ablative, so it can be used in the ways any other ablative could." CreationDate="2022-07-11T16:32:57.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38822" PostId="18470" Score="0" Text="I should have made it clear the original script just has &quot;geren&quot; as a contracted word, so the ending is left to the transcriber - hence the query." CreationDate="2022-07-09T18:22:49.160" UserId="10732" />
  <row Id="38823" PostId="18470" Score="0" Text="You say _you_ used accusative—are you composing these sentences or finding them in a source from c 1700? That'll affect the answers we give." CreationDate="2022-07-09T18:22:59.980" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38824" PostId="18470" Score="0" Text="Oh, well, that answers that. Mind if I edit it into the question?" CreationDate="2022-07-09T18:23:17.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38825" PostId="18470" Score="0" Text="Feel free to improve." CreationDate="2022-07-09T18:25:18.497" UserId="10732" />
  <row Id="38826" PostId="18470" Score="0" Text="Nope, your clarification is good, the question makes perfect sense to me now. Unfortunately I can't offer a good answer because this depends on the exact semantics of _copia_, and the word meant something very different in 1700 than in the first century CE." CreationDate="2022-07-09T19:00:05.830" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38834" PostId="18470" Score="0" Text="All I can add is (at this period) tenancy changes were recorded by a local Manorial Court and a (physical) copy of the Court record was given to the new tenant as proof of his right to tenure. In some Court entries I have &quot;copia facta&quot; (which I believe is copy made)." CreationDate="2022-07-10T20:50:02.607" UserId="10732" />
  <row Id="38835" PostId="18472" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5703/latin-for-one-who-doesnt-believe-in-unicorns" CreationDate="2022-07-10T22:32:03.320" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38832" PostId="18473" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your reply, I'll wait and see if there are any other suggestions, but it looks fine to me." CreationDate="2022-07-10T15:20:42.960" UserDisplayName="user11274" />
  <row Id="38833" PostId="18473" Score="1" Text="Do you know if -ismicus is attested? It seems to be a better fit to me" CreationDate="2022-07-10T17:46:28.613" UserDisplayName="user11274" />
  <row Id="38838" PostId="18473" Score="0" Text="@Anserin, a search on the suffix *-ismicus* gets no hits at Perseus, so it does not seem to be classical. And I cannot think of any neo-Latin words ending in *-ismicus* either, although that means very little." CreationDate="2022-07-11T04:42:36.767" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38839" PostId="18474" Score="1" Text="Where have you ever seen *subeor*? I can't find it at Perseus." CreationDate="2022-07-11T04:49:17.517" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38850" PostId="18474" Score="2" Text="Yeah, [these](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23subeor%23%7C%23subiris%23%7C%23subitur%23%7C%23subimur%23%7C%23subimini%23%7C%23subeuntur%23) all look like genuine passives to me. Where are you getting deponent *subeor*?" CreationDate="2022-07-11T21:51:30.640" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="38836" PostId="18476" Score="0" Text="I think you're on the right track for a Classical rendition, although I wonder if there is a step missing with 'pacifist' that isn't present with 'fascist' or 'revolutionary.' Namely, a revolutionary is someone who has a positive relationship with revolution, whereas a pacifist is defined more by their unwillingness to participate in war. It's less that they're about peace (*studium paci*) and more that they refuse to fight (*odium belli*, or via Horace, who might be called a pacifist of sorts, *leti fuga*)." CreationDate="2022-07-10T22:41:21.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38840" PostId="18476" Score="1" Text="I wouldn’t have thought of this structure, I’ll think about it but it does sound more classical" CreationDate="2022-07-11T08:18:34.123" UserDisplayName="user11274" />
  <row Id="38841" PostId="18476" Score="0" Text="I think the book you are talking about is “Sprechen Sie Lateinisch”." CreationDate="2022-07-11T08:20:24.087" UserDisplayName="user11274" />
  <row Id="38845" PostId="18476" Score="0" Text="@Anserin the very same; however, the politics/society chapters, which run quite contrary to the book's original spirit, were a latter addition and lean heavily on Antonio Bacci's *Lexicon eorum vocabulorum, quae difficilius latine redduntur* (according to the preface of the 13th edition). This and a Google Books hit lead me to assume it was Bacci who came up with that translation. Now Bacci was a Latin writer of the first order, and as an Italian living when he did surely also knew what fascism was; still, it is a problematic translation." CreationDate="2022-07-11T18:30:59.550" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38859" PostId="18478" Score="0" Text="*Duae legiones* looks like a subject, but I see no plural verb anywhere in the sentence. What am I missing?" CreationDate="2022-07-12T22:08:19.173" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38865" PostId="18478" Score="1" Text="@Figulus: Livy used the  perfect passive, &quot;decretae (sunt)&quot; = &quot;have been assigned&quot;; or, it could be translated as simple past, &quot;were assigned&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-13T08:27:49.667" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38900" PostId="18479" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Concerning the contradictory instructions from A &amp; G: do you have any thoughts on this? It's the same with regular-- accusative-infinitive--indirect speech. Section 580; &quot;All subordinate clauses take the subjunctive...&quot;; section 583: exceptions are given: truth; an explanation; worthy of emphasis--indicatives. (Wouldn't any writer say that his material is true; explaining something; worthy of emphasis; combinations thereof?) Finally, top of p. 378: &quot;..but it often depends upon the feeling of the writer whether he uses the indicative or the subjunctive.&quot; Confused? I am." CreationDate="2022-07-17T10:26:18.307" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38855" PostId="18480" Score="4" Text="I would not characterize this image as &quot;ancient&quot;, Kircher's work was published in 1652–54." CreationDate="2022-07-12T16:03:51.113" UserId="4847" />
  <row Id="38945" PostId="18480" Score="1" Text="The image is much older than the publication." CreationDate="2022-07-19T21:27:20.403" UserId="11280" />
  <row Id="38852" PostId="18481" Score="1" Text="According to LSJ, [_παντόμορφος_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpanto%2Fmorfos) is either an alternate form of [_πάμμορφος_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpa%2Fmmorfos) meaning ‘assuming all forms’ (that fits with a god); or an adjective or noun meaning ‘(relating to) the Universe’, which also fits fairly well with a good." CreationDate="2022-07-12T10:51:35.350" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="38861" PostId="18481" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet It doesn't mean &quot;relating to the Universe,&quot; but it is an adjective that is applied to the universe, which contains within it all forms...or something like that." CreationDate="2022-07-13T02:32:02.780" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38864" PostId="18481" Score="0" Text="Yes, Kircher tried to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs; [here](https://web.stanford.edu/group/kircher/cgi-bin/site/?attachment_id=757) is his translation of the Minervan obelisk (in Rome), starting with: &quot;Hemphta Numen supremum...&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-13T07:47:16.207" UserId="11283" />
  <row Id="38944" PostId="18481" Score="0" Text="Yes, I found it! The rest of the page reads,&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Are you afraid of the zodiac hieroglyphics of Hermes?&#xA;&#xA;Indeed, neither have I until now, met or imagined anyone of my own genius, would bring into this place a hieroglyphic fragment from Gazus, outside the phylactery [a small leather box] of Francis Cardinal Barberinus [the The nephew of Pope Urban VIII], in which whatsoever things concerning the twelve Genius of the Zodiac are discernible, as if looking at a mirror.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-19T21:26:23.523" UserId="11280" />
  <row Id="38857" PostId="18482" Score="2" Text="I was thinking of the same Augustinus quote. Since the stress (according to the question poster) is to do what *you* want, not what others want, I think one might also say *quod tu vis fac*." CreationDate="2022-07-12T19:06:37.017" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38862" PostId="18482" Score="0" Text="@Azhar I'd definitely go with the imperative *fac*, like Anserin said, and not the infinitive, *facere* that Google suggested. I'm not entirely sure what *vis quod facere* would mean." CreationDate="2022-07-13T02:58:49.743" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38866" PostId="18485" Score="1" Text="Hey! It is a neuter plural accusative, in Latin the masculine is used for non-specific persons, and the neuter for non-specific things." CreationDate="2022-07-13T11:52:03.360" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="38867" PostId="18486" Score="1" Text="+1. But If I may confuse a little. the other day we had a [question here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18451/how-would-you-translate-r%c5%8dm%c4%81n%c4%ab-put%c4%81v%c4%93runt-de%c5%8ds-immort%c4%81l%c4%93s-pl%c5%abrimum-posse-from) , about the so called &quot; accusative of degree&quot; (there was *posse multum*); is *multum audiveramus* grammatical here? what would it mean?" CreationDate="2022-07-13T12:22:52.507" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38868" PostId="18486" Score="0" Text="Of course, makes sense. Thank you." CreationDate="2022-07-13T12:31:39.800" UserId="11285" />
  <row Id="38869" PostId="18486" Score="3" Text="@d_e The option with *multum* is grammatical but less idiomatic and means something slightly different. It does indeed have a double meaning, either as a simple accusative object or as an accusative of degree. Context makes a big difference here, and I would dismiss the adverbial reading without another object, whether explicit or implicit. Perhaps &quot;we had heard greatly&quot; would be a reasonable counterpart in English, making little sense in isolation." CreationDate="2022-07-13T14:35:29.187" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38872" PostId="18487" Score="0" Text="[Related](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12746/can-you-split-natus-sum), though imo not a duplicate; the answers there are helpful for this situation but the questions themselves focus on different aspects." CreationDate="2022-07-14T19:17:34.487" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38877" PostId="18492" Score="1" Text="Is there any specific reason for the &quot;almost&quot; in &quot;almost exclusively have an -r in the masculine&quot;, or just cautious wording? As far as I know,  this pattern for three-termination third declension adjectives is without exception." CreationDate="2022-07-15T03:19:16.450" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="38878" PostId="18492" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides Just being cautious. I don't know any that don't end in -er but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some irregular adjective that technically belongs to the third declension but doesn't follow the normal pattern." CreationDate="2022-07-15T04:02:32.953" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38876" PostId="18495" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! There are often several ways to Latinise a name. Could you tell us anything about the origin of the name? Is it based on the name of a location, something else? &quot;De&quot; suggests a location in Italian, but I'm no expert." CreationDate="2022-07-15T01:14:09.687" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38879" PostId="18495" Score="2" Text="Also, are you looking for Classical, Medieval, or Neo-Latin ways of Latinizing? Would you prefer an etymological rendering, or just how a person might do it in one of the aforementioned periods. Do note that, as Cerberus says, there were more than one way to do this." CreationDate="2022-07-15T04:09:17.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38896" PostId="18495" Score="0" Text="Yes the name is Italian, and I would like the Classical way of Latinizing. If you need any more info, let me know! Thanks." CreationDate="2022-07-16T02:15:01.240" UserId="11291" />
  <row Id="38882" PostId="18496" Score="2" Text="I edited your post to clarify what you mean, given your comments to Joonas." CreationDate="2022-07-15T13:53:36.540" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38883" PostId="18496" Score="3" Text="Um, &quot;by default&quot; does not mean &quot;since always&quot; or &quot;it just is that way.&quot; &quot;They are mortal enemies by default&quot; means &quot;they are mortal enemies unless certain circumstances dictate otherwise&quot; or something to that effect." CreationDate="2022-07-15T17:04:38.997" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38965" PostId="18496" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I am aware of that. English is not my first language so I tried to explain what I mean with few expanded examples." CreationDate="2022-07-21T12:10:55.060" UserId="11009" />
  <row Id="38892" PostId="18497" Score="3" Text="But wait, what does it actually mean, &quot;to lose land by default&quot;? Does it not have something to do with failure to meet certain obligations? In any case, would *inimicissimi sunt per defaltam* make any sense?" CreationDate="2022-07-15T22:59:36.843" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39045" PostId="18497" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Indeed. I'd interpret &quot;he likes fruits *per defaltam* to mean &quot;he likes fruits because he did not do what he was supposed to do.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-28T03:45:14.447" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="38880" PostId="18498" Score="0" Text="I am more interested in just a phrase (not whole translation) which you would use in everyday language as it is case with phrases &quot;de jure&quot; and &quot;de facto&quot;. Something like Anserin proposed in his answer." CreationDate="2022-07-15T11:46:19.917" UserId="11009" />
  <row Id="38881" PostId="18498" Score="1" Text="@dosvarog Do you mean you want something that you'd use within a sentence in English? If so, please edit it into your question. My answer concerns writing in or otherwise using Latin, as is the default on the site." CreationDate="2022-07-15T12:47:03.510" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38964" PostId="18498" Score="0" Text="Yes, that is precisely what I mean. I thought my intentions were clear when I wrote examples in English with a star (*) and wrote that star would be Latin phrase (and rest of sentence is in English)." CreationDate="2022-07-21T12:08:50.993" UserId="11009" />
  <row Id="38891" PostId="18499" Score="1" Text="&quot;To love the memory ...&quot; isn't really a complete sentence. What is the context here? E.g. &quot;We are gathered here *to love*&quot; or &quot;It is not hard *to love*&quot; etc., these would result in different Latin renderings. Generally, the part before *quis* is grammatically sound, the rest not." CreationDate="2022-07-15T22:47:23.903" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38895" PostId="18499" Score="0" Text="As I tried different English expressions like &quot;In loving memory of...&quot;, the back-translation &quot;To love the memory of him&quot; seemed the most profound. It is the special, individual memory of his relationship with each person attending the memorial service that will never be forgotten. Can you suggest a different phrase?" CreationDate="2022-07-16T01:12:31.717" UserId="11293" />
  <row Id="38897" PostId="18499" Score="0" Text="To love the memory of the one who is so loved that it may never be forgotten, and who will live forever in our hearts." CreationDate="2022-07-16T02:36:17.147" UserId="11293" />
  <row Id="38925" PostId="18499" Score="0" Text="Would this be more acceptable: &quot;amabimus eum habentes memoriam eius qui  amatur profunde ut memoria eius deleatur,  numquam oblivione sit sed semper in cordibus nostrils vivet&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-18T16:39:16.587" UserId="11293" />
  <row Id="38884" PostId="18500" Score="5" Text="(Obligatory not my downvote, but...) I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you reword your question to clarify what you mean?" CreationDate="2022-07-15T17:42:41.617" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38885" PostId="18500" Score="4" Text="In particular, what does &quot;the pronunciation that the tongue does&quot; mean? The tongue is involved in most pronunciation." CreationDate="2022-07-15T17:58:47.080" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38886" PostId="18500" Score="0" Text="The vibrations that the tongue does!" CreationDate="2022-07-15T18:10:40.777" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="38887" PostId="18500" Score="1" Text="I'm still not sure what you mean. When you say &quot;On what letter&quot;, well, it starts on the first letter of the word, so it starts on C. Are you asking about the pronunciation of C? Or about the syllable?" CreationDate="2022-07-15T19:30:08.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38888" PostId="18500" Score="0" Text="The word starts on the letter C but the vibrations that the tongue doesn't start on the letter C!" CreationDate="2022-07-15T19:44:48.490" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="38889" PostId="18500" Score="5" Text="With all respect, you've asked basically this same question several times both here and on Linguistics, and the answer we can give is the same as always: the &quot;tongue vibrations&quot; are the alveolar trill /r/, represented by the letter R in Latin. If that's not the answer you're looking for (which it seemingly isn't because you're asking again), you need to clarify _why_ that doesn't answer your question, and what exactly you're looking for." CreationDate="2022-07-15T20:23:00.417" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38893" PostId="18500" Score="1" Text="Ana Maria: I edited your post as to what I think you're asking. Please let us know if that's not quite what you're asking. Thanks." CreationDate="2022-07-16T00:20:52.490" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38894" PostId="18500" Score="0" Text="Yes, That's what I'm asking! Bervoets doesn't just trills both R's but the letters near the two R's! too! I've noticed the same thing in a non Bervoets recording in which the word has two R's that aren't next to each other: when Ben Johnson of LatinTutorial when he says the word Februarius for the last time! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6dU98dXhkA&amp;t=138s" CreationDate="2022-07-16T00:55:03.260" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="38898" PostId="18500" Score="2" Text="Can you please edit the details of your last comment into the question itself? As it stands, the question gives a very different impression of what you want than your comments below. Everyone should be able to understand your question without reading comments." CreationDate="2022-07-16T08:41:41.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38890" PostId="18501" Score="0" Text="Your title said *logista* but the text said *logicista*. I took the liberty to conform the title to the text. Feel free to edit if I got it the wrong way around!" CreationDate="2022-07-15T21:21:12.667" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38921" PostId="18512" Score="2" Text="Welcome, Michael16, and thanks for the information on *a capella*. I wasn't aware of its history." CreationDate="2022-07-18T14:13:30.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39058" PostId="18512" Score="2" Text="The modern meaning of the word is what it is. There are many words (especially those originally technical in some field) which have acquired their meanings through misunderstanding or ignorance - two that grate with me as a musician are _crescendo_ and _downbeat_. But it makes no sense to describe the meaning as &quot;a myth&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-29T17:47:52.097" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="38901" PostId="18513" Score="2" Text="Writing one's own name in the vocative would seem really strange to me, like addressing oneself" CreationDate="2022-07-17T12:27:41.747" UserDisplayName="user11274" />
  <row Id="38902" PostId="18513" Score="2" Text="you might close with the vocative if your name is *Valus* :)" CreationDate="2022-07-17T12:51:26.633" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38905" PostId="18514" Score="0" Text="Why do you use “jubet” rather than “jubeo” (where the name would be in apposition with the implicit “ego”)?" CreationDate="2022-07-17T16:40:20.940" UserDisplayName="user11274" />
  <row Id="38907" PostId="18514" Score="0" Text="@Anserin It's just like my example &quot;Ben wishes good health&quot; (not &quot;I, Ben, wish good health&quot;). It is phrased in the third person, not the first, and it sounds more natural to me that way. If you read Caesar, it will be clear that such a phrasing was not alien to the Romans." CreationDate="2022-07-17T18:36:21.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38908" PostId="18514" Score="1" Text="@Anserin While the first person is found in some authors (Ammianus Marcellinus quotes a letter of Sapor which beings with *Rex regum Sapor...salutem plurimam dico*), it seems in the earlier eras the salutation isn't seen as a personal touch, but rather more like an address. I think even in modernity we do this unconsciously. &quot;Sincerely, Ben&quot; is third person, and there is no &quot;I&quot; involved." CreationDate="2022-07-17T18:40:30.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38909" PostId="18514" Score="0" Text="@Anserin See also [this thread](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/858/meaning-of-s-p-d-in-letters)." CreationDate="2022-07-17T18:44:22.853" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38976" PostId="18518" Score="1" Text="Yonge's interpretation seems correct to me, see the parallelism: *magnum est praesidium, quod mihi comparatum est, magna dignitas, quae me defendet, etc.* But what I'd like to know is what &quot;context&quot; supposedly shows that this is not right." CreationDate="2022-07-22T20:30:54.320" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38983" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Thanks for your comment. As I see it, the sentence has three possible readings: 1) eventive/verbal participle + beneficiary dative ('the protection {has been/was} procured for me for ever'); 2) adjectival participle + the dative typically associated to this kind of stative participle ('I have a protection procured for ever'; cf. the miscalled &quot;dative of agent&quot;); 3) stative/adjectival participle + beneficiary dative ('the protection is procured for me for ever'). I think Serbat is right when saying that, _grammatically speaking_, one cannot mix readings 2) &amp; 3), as K&amp;S do." CreationDate="2022-07-23T00:12:47.203" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38985" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="This said, most of (Romance) translations I've checked make this kind of mix criticized by Serbat by translating the sentence as lit. '(a protection) that **I** have procured **for myself** for ever' (cf. Yonge's alternative translation above, which seems to be more compatible with reading 3 above). I don't know why Serbat criticizes the following interpretation: «une protection m’a été procurée», related to reading 1) above. Hence, in part, my question." CreationDate="2022-07-23T00:22:29.940" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39008" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="It took me a while, but I think I now understand your point: If the *dativus auctoris* with *comparatum* is truly the, shall we say, perfect counterpart to the one with *comparandum* (primum praesidium mihi comparandum erat, comparavi, nunc mihi comparatum est), then where does the beneficiary aspect come from? I also now see why Serbat thinks &quot;la deuxième interprétation est la bonne&quot; : an impersonal passive with a beneficiary dative suggests someone else actively procured a protection for Cicero, but nobody did such a thing (for as we know, Cicero is the only person [of the good guys] who ..." CreationDate="2022-07-24T21:06:57.187" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39009" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="... every does anything in the Catilinarian conspiracy). Mr Yonge apparently used a stative form (&quot;is procured&quot;), which is less suggestive of a second acting party than a real impersonal passive (&quot;has been procured&quot;), but here we are in danger of getting mired in the finer points of *English*. Your Romance translations do indeed mix, but it is difficult to condemn them, as Cicero *was* undoubtedly the beneficiary. So the big question is: Do we have unequivocal examples for the *dativus auctoris* where the agent is unequivocally not the beneficiary?" CreationDate="2022-07-24T21:14:32.583" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39010" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="By the way, if such examples exist, they open up the fun possibility of double datives: *Gallia Caesari Romae conciliata est.* This goes very much against my gut feeling." CreationDate="2022-07-24T21:19:43.303" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39011" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Re. your question (&quot;Do we have unequivocal examples for the _dativus auctoris_ where the agent is unequivocally not the beneficiary?&quot;), exs. like _Mihi erat pugnandum patri_ are ok, although a possible ambiguity (who is &quot;the dative of agent&quot; and who is the beneficiary?) can make the relevant author use another (more marked) construction: e.g. cf. _Pugnandum habebam non imperatori tantum sed patri_ (Seneca _Con._ 10.2.4). NB: in my invented example above word order can be said to favor _mihi_ as the dative of agent (+prominent) and _patri_ as the beneficiary (-prominent)." CreationDate="2022-07-24T22:25:45.977" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39013" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You could convert your following interesting comment into an answer: _I also now see why Serbat thinks &quot;la deuxième interprétation est la bonne&quot;: a_ [short (NB: don't say &quot;impersonal&quot;, which means another thing) verbal _passive with a beneficiary dative suggests someone else actively procured a protection for Cicero, but nobody did such a thing (for as we know, Cicero is the only person [of the good guys] who_ [does everything] _in the Catilinarian conspiracy)_ NB: short passive= without by-phrase. https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/passives-the-long-and-the-short-of-it" CreationDate="2022-07-24T22:50:33.377" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39014" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: As I struggle to understand all of this there is something that is easy to understand: &quot;the preparation of a defense is, for me, (a/the) thing done&quot; --nobody (native English speaker) would say it like this.  Similarly, &quot;procure&quot; is little-used now: &quot;a defense has been acquired/ obtained/ bought for me&quot; would be the most comfortable, contemporary expression of this passive statement. Does this answer your question: the interpretation of &quot;mihi&quot; only works in one direction; even if (even if) the other is grammatically correct?" CreationDate="2022-07-25T09:24:10.017" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39015" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Sorry. I meant an example with the PPP! E.g. one supposed example I found was: *Iam explorata nobis sunt ea, quae ad domos nostras* [⋯] *pertineant?* (Cic. Rep.. 1, 11) Fine, but it would not be a stretch to read this as a *dativus commodi*." CreationDate="2022-07-25T11:41:56.450" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39019" PostId="18518" Score="1" Text="@tony  «la mise en place d’une défense est, pour moi, chose faite» is just a semantic paraphrase used by Serbat to express HIS particular understanding of this dative. This paraphrase sounds very stilted/unnatural in French (and in English, as you rightly note), but this is not the point. The point is how one should understand this dative here: e.g. as a mere beneficiary dative (see Yonge's transl.) or as a &quot;dative of agent&quot;, etc.  Cf. the typical parallelism between _Mihi est hoc comparatum_ &amp; _Habeo hoc comparatum_;see also **Section 375** https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-agent" CreationDate="2022-07-25T15:50:09.407" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39020" PostId="18518" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel  As you know, the range of PPP's associated to this construction is very limited, whereby it may be difficult to find/invent similar examples like _Mihi erat pugnandum patri_ but with a PPP.  As Serbat points out (correctly, in my view), the beneficiary dative and the miscalled dative of agent should be grammatically distinguished: the former depends on the lexical basis of the verbal predicate, whereas the latter doesn't (see the last paragraph of my question above)." CreationDate="2022-07-25T15:58:43.843" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38918" PostId="18519" Score="0" Text="Is [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15303/79) the same as yours? If not, how does it differ from what you're after?" CreationDate="2022-07-18T04:02:09.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38915" PostId="18520" Score="1" Text="Why _agere_ for &quot;go&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-07-18T01:37:24.407" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38916" PostId="18520" Score="0" Text="@Draconis That is the word Romans used in that situation. For example, in Plautus when one character wants to ask another where is he going, he says &quot;Quo te agis?&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-18T01:43:28.193" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39310" PostId="18520" Score="0" Text="L&amp;S lists this meaning under [ago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dago): &quot;se agere, to betake one's self, i. e. to go, to come.&quot; You need the reflexive pronoun for this to work though, so you should have &quot;**me** agam.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-26T21:13:04.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="38913" PostId="18521" Score="0" Text="Where are you getting these forms *vadas, vadabis*?" CreationDate="2022-07-18T01:14:10.843" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38914" PostId="18521" Score="2" Text="Also, why _vadandum es_? Surely a finite verb works just fine without periphrasis?" CreationDate="2022-07-18T01:36:49.087" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="38917" PostId="18521" Score="0" Text="@TKR Looks like I was looking at the wrong word. I was reading the paradigm for vado, vadare to wade or ford a river." CreationDate="2022-07-18T01:52:12.127" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="38946" PostId="18524" Score="1" Text="A&amp;G aren't contradictory, at least according to their own definitions. They say that all subordinate clauses in indirect speech take the subjunctive, and that the clauses in the indicative are not part of indirect speech, i.e. are statements from the perspective of the writer rather than part of the speech/thought/etc. being reported." CreationDate="2022-07-19T22:48:39.990" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38922" PostId="18525" Score="0" Text="I feel the discussion is not fulfilled here. For two reasons: (1) *curo* is a special verb that occasionally  takes the gerundive.  I'm not sure this is shared by the verb *trado* (2) If we intperet *ad* as prepositional phrase, I don't see how the relation to *tradit* is established. it is like &quot;*... victum, [**qui**] ad regem ducendum, tradit...* - this *qui* clause is standalone and not related to tradit." CreationDate="2022-07-18T16:09:10.793" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38923" PostId="18525" Score="2" Text="@d_e Bellum alexandrinum: [Cassius] Minucium libertis tradit excruciandum. &#xA;&#xA;Bellum civile: [Caesar] diripiendas his [militibus] civitates dedit." CreationDate="2022-07-18T16:26:17.083" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38924" PostId="18525" Score="0" Text="Ha. some good examples you have found. thanks. For some reason, I marked *curo* as a special verb in that respect." CreationDate="2022-07-18T16:36:12.440" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38953" PostId="18525" Score="1" Text="NB: _ut pons facietur_ &gt; _ut pons faciatur_ / _factus sit_; vid.  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5851/regular-passive-forms-of-facere" CreationDate="2022-07-20T15:45:17.310" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38986" PostId="18525" Score="0" Text="By the way, I was wondering to what extent the following reading is grammatically preferred, the one where _vinctum_ is to be analyzed as a predicative complement of _ducendum_, which is, in turn, a predicative complement of _tradit_ (cf. OP's translation above and 'Datames handed this man over to Mithridates for him to be led to the King in chains'). This said, I must say that only one translation I've checked is compatible with this alternative reading. Most translations are more compatible with the one provided by JMC/wikipedia article." CreationDate="2022-07-23T00:42:26.573" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38931" PostId="18526" Score="0" Text="After re-reading the linked thread, I agree that one can (should?) distinguish between predicative gerundive as argument and as adjunct." CreationDate="2022-07-18T20:37:10.943" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38936" PostId="18526" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Thanks for your re-reading my second link above. A clarification: for “the lumpers&quot; _all_ predicative gerundives can in fact/in the end be shown to share a parallelism with so-called &quot;dominant participles&quot;. At first sight, this proposal can be regarded as too strong (specially when dealing with apparently “non-dominant”/adjunct cases like the one in OP’s question) but think about what it really means to say what you and many of us have been taught: &quot;the gerundive as object complement of _hunc_ is **equivalent to** a purpose clause&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-19T04:02:10.127" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38937" PostId="18526" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey How syntactically real is this &quot;equivalence&quot;? See also Vester’s conclusion (1991: 303) of her Section 3.1.1 “The syntactic behaviour of participles and gerundives: distribution”, which is also relevant here: “so there is a correspondence between participle and gerundive **only** in their use in the dominant construction” (bold mine; see my first link above for this reference). Important conclusion, indeed! In my opinion, that of a hesitant splitter, here is where &quot;the lumpers&quot; begin to win the game." CreationDate="2022-07-19T04:04:04.443" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="38926" PostId="18527" Score="0" Text="Why would we have the first *ad*? I'd think it would be *Iulia epistulam mittendam tradit*." CreationDate="2022-07-18T20:04:53.627" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38927" PostId="18527" Score="0" Text="@TKR, that's what the linked question and answers show - that the proposed *ad* is unnecessary. But my current understanding is it is optional to have one. just as the other example from Wiki: *L. Septimium tribūnum militum ad interficiendum Pompeium mīsērunt*. Specifically, From my experience (which prone to many biases)  - the propose *ad* almost always seen (unless it is the with the verb *curo*)" CreationDate="2022-07-18T20:12:04.077" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38928" PostId="18527" Score="2" Text="@d_e they are two completely separate constructions. In your example, ad is necessary, because the object of the verb (tribunum) and the object of the gerundival purpose clause (Pompeium) are different. If the object of both the main verb and the purpose clause are the same, and the purpose clause would be passive, the bare gerundive is used as an object complement." CreationDate="2022-07-18T20:17:11.677" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="38929" PostId="18527" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey, you are right. and that was careless response from my side indeed. However, my core essence point holds well. we can change the last sentence as such: *tribunum ad epistulam mittendam ad regem miserunt*. Apparently it was spared only because *trado* might take the dative." CreationDate="2022-07-18T20:23:45.443" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="38938" PostId="18528" Score="0" Text="Apparently there is a late Latin (“lat[ino] tardo”) form _volator_, -_oris_: https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/volatore/" CreationDate="2022-07-19T13:59:16.567" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="38939" PostId="18528" Score="0" Text="It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are two verbs *volo*: *velle* (want) and *volare* (fly). This question only concerns the latter one, but I'd be happy to see a separate question on the former one, too." CreationDate="2022-07-19T14:50:28.917" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="38940" PostId="18528" Score="0" Text="I'd be curious to see that as well. I updated the question just to make it clearer which verb this is, though." CreationDate="2022-07-19T15:43:10.847" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="38955" PostId="18530" Score="1" Text="Would you mind adding a link/reference that explains who Beekes is, and some translations for &quot;πόλις/πτολίεθρον&quot; and what I presume is an extract from a (Christian) bible?" CreationDate="2022-07-20T17:34:39.987" UserId="2762" />
  <row Id="38957" PostId="18530" Score="0" Text="For the Gospel of Mathew in Greek, see [this](https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/mattwgrk.pdf), covering the star of Bethlehem.  The [Etymological Dictionary of Greek](https://www.amazon.com/Etymological-Dictionary-Leiden-Indo-European-English/dp/9004174184) is by R Beekes, the preeminent authority in the field.You can chase  [πτολίεθρον](https://www.amazon.com/Etymological-Dictionary-Leiden-Indo-European-English/dp/9004174184) by following its links..." CreationDate="2022-07-20T18:19:25.680" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="38954" PostId="18532" Score="1" Text="This makes sense overall, so I'm likely to accept this answer, not just for the extra context but the fact this answer adds the caveat of 'some authors do X' to signify that it's not necessarily widespread. Before I accept though, I'd like to clarify a few things... Firstly, are Aristotle and Stobæus referring to the geocentric model of the universe, in which the stars were believed to be carried around the earth on hollow spheres? Secondly, if so, would you mind if I edited in some context to explain the difference between 'fixed star' and 'wandering star'? Finally, what is 'LSJ' short for?" CreationDate="2022-07-20T17:30:25.500" UserId="2762" />
  <row Id="38956" PostId="18532" Score="0" Text="Also, feel free to disregard my percent-encoding edit, it seems @cmw managed to fix the problem seconds before I finished my edit, albeit with a slightly different technique (escape characters)." CreationDate="2022-07-20T17:38:22.013" UserId="2762" />
  <row Id="38958" PostId="18532" Score="2" Text="@Pharap I'll let TKR answer about the stars, but the LSJ is the standard Classics abbreviation for the [Greek-English Lexicon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Greek%E2%80%93English_Lexicon) compiled and edited by Liddell, Scott, and Jones. You can find it in a variety of places online, but the one perhaps most often used is [Perseus](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*a)." CreationDate="2022-07-20T19:10:38.187" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38959" PostId="18532" Score="1" Text="@Pharap Aristotle and Stobaeus would both have believed in a geocentric model in which at least the fixed stars were carried around on the celestial sphere; Stobaeus's wording seems to imply that the planets are hanging in space, but I don't know enough about ancient astronomy to say more. Please feel free to edit as you see fit." CreationDate="2022-07-20T19:59:00.043" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38961" PostId="18532" Score="0" Text="I have added some more context in regards to Ancient Greek astrology, as well as various extra links. Upon the resolution of the edit (acceptance, further editing, rejection) I shall accept this as the answer. I must confess that most of what I know about the Ancient Greek geocentric model comes from an educational game titled &quot;Odyssey - The Story of Science&quot;, but based on a quick search it seems to have been reasonably accurate. Ultimately it's only the difference between &quot;fixed star&quot; and &quot;wandering star&quot; that is relevant to answering the question." CreationDate="2022-07-20T20:47:48.653" UserId="2762" />
  <row Id="38962" PostId="18532" Score="1" Text="@Pharap I've accepted your edit, only leaving out ἀστήρ from the part about Aristotle, since I don't know if he actually uses that anywhere to mean specifically &quot;planet&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-20T22:57:34.920" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38948" PostId="18535" Score="0" Text="This is basically what I was going to write, except I'd offer *profectus sum* or even *fugi* instead of *ii*." CreationDate="2022-07-19T23:28:42.283" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38949" PostId="18536" Score="2" Text="Not worth repeating in an answer, but remember you can also use the present participle." CreationDate="2022-07-19T23:35:42.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38947" PostId="18539" Score="1" Text="I don't think I agree with your interpretations of *Dīxit Brutum esse quī Caesarem occīdīsset* and *Brutum esse quī Caesarem occīdit dīxit*. The first means &quot;He said that someone killed Caesar and that it was Brutus [but I, the writer, don't vouch for either statement]&quot;. The latter means &quot;He said that someone killed Caesar and that it was Brutus [and I vouch for the former statement, but not necessarily for the latter]&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-19T22:54:33.917" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38950" PostId="18539" Score="0" Text="@TKR: Considering, &quot;dixit Brutum esse qui Caesarem occidisset&quot; = &quot;He said someone killed Caesar and that it was Brutus.&quot;. From where does &quot;someone&quot; come? If your translation is correct, how is, &quot;He said that Brutus is he who (is the one) who has killed Caesar.&quot;, to be expressed in Latin?" CreationDate="2022-07-20T08:35:01.853" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38960" PostId="18539" Score="0" Text="@tony I was paraphrasing to capture the information structure. A focalizing construction like &quot;It was Brutus who killed Caesar&quot; (in English or Latin) implies that &quot;X killed Caesar&quot; is already shared knowledge but &quot;X = Brutus&quot; is not, so in that sense it contains two propositions. To your second question, both the Latin sentences could mean that, the choice depending on whether the assertion that Caesar was killed is the writer's or the speaker's." CreationDate="2022-07-20T20:04:05.613" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="38967" PostId="18545" Score="0" Text="A Google search shows a surprising number of people misquoting this line. How on earth did that happen?" CreationDate="2022-07-21T14:45:59.537" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38966" PostId="18546" Score="2" Text="For others who hadn't heard of these, the Wikipedia article has a photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%27_Club_(amulet)" CreationDate="2022-07-21T14:14:39.497" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39098" PostId="18547" Score="0" Text="So could amuletum clavae Herculis be used if you wanted to highlight the religious aspect of the pendent? Insigne has more of a military badge aspect from the searches I've done." CreationDate="2022-08-01T15:29:11.190" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39004" PostId="18548" Score="0" Text="Your answer was extremely helpful! It pointed me in a new directions, and I've come across the term panchálkeon (παγχάλκεον), which is either a bronze club or a club with bronze bands wrapped around it. Herakles is attributed with two different clubs, a wood one he made himself, and a bronze one gifted from Hephaistos. would Hērakléous panchálkeon (Ἡρακλέους παγχάλκεον) be accurate way to describe the gift from Hephaistos?" CreationDate="2022-07-24T16:03:13.953" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39005" PostId="18548" Score="0" Text="It appears I am mistaken. panchálkeon (παγχάλκεον) is an adjective meaning made of bronze. rópalon panchálkeon (ῥόπαλον παγχάλκεον) is a bronze club. So would Hērakléous rópalon panchálkeon (Ἡρακλέους ῥόπαλον παγχάλκεον) be correct?" CreationDate="2022-07-24T16:21:42.147" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39007" PostId="18548" Score="1" Text="@Walter παγχάλκεον means &quot;all-bronze, completely bronze&quot;; the normal word for &quot;(made of) bronze&quot; is χάλκεον or (in Attic) χαλκοῦν. So &quot;the bronze club of Heracles&quot; could be τὸ χαλκοῦν ῥόπαλον Ἡρακλέους, though other word orders are possible too." CreationDate="2022-07-24T18:29:04.063" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39018" PostId="18549" Score="0" Text="What info do you have on the etymology of your surname?" CreationDate="2022-07-25T15:15:38.880" UserId="11321" />
  <row Id="38990" PostId="18550" Score="0" Text="It may be interesting to know that Homo superior has an entry in Vicipaedia (https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_superior)" CreationDate="2022-07-23T09:29:50.450" UserId="2116" />
  <row Id="38995" PostId="18550" Score="0" Text="Have a look at my answer." CreationDate="2022-07-23T14:29:03.747" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="38972" PostId="18557" Score="0" Text="Maybe it has to do with habeo=taking part in possessing an abstract, uncountable quality rather than holding/owning sth in exclusivity?" CreationDate="2022-07-22T18:59:03.733" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="38973" PostId="18557" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Ah, maybe the genitive here simply denotes possession: _habent_ c _ejusdem potestatis esse._ Or maybe we could even say _Latine_ c _est ejusdem potestatis._" CreationDate="2022-07-22T19:05:08.683" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38975" PostId="18558" Score="1" Text="You don't even need to point out Google Books, since sui generis [has its own Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis)." CreationDate="2022-07-22T20:14:10.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38977" PostId="18558" Score="2" Text="Yes, although I think it's rare to use *suus* for yourself. Perhaps [*mei*] *proprii generis*?" CreationDate="2022-07-22T20:52:43.890" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38978" PostId="18558" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Hmm, good point. That might make a good competing answer. _Sui generis_ has the advantage that English speakers will recognize it, but it might be inferior Latin. _In alia manu (manu nostri),_ maybe the third person makes sense here, as if one has been stamped (by the tattooist?) with the label &quot;of her own kind&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-22T20:59:47.047" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38982" PostId="18558" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel [Turbae rettulī](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/18562/118)." CreationDate="2022-07-22T23:25:36.720" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38987" PostId="18558" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz what would &quot;of her own kind&quot; in latin be?" CreationDate="2022-07-23T02:40:58.483" UserId="11318" />
  <row Id="38991" PostId="18558" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I would have understood it as &quot;[hoc corpus] sui generis&quot; *vel sim*." CreationDate="2022-07-23T12:39:52.387" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38992" PostId="18558" Score="1" Text="@julia *sui generis* is the right one for &quot;of her own kind.&quot; The Latin reflexive pronoun *sui* doesn't change for a male or female antecedent." CreationDate="2022-07-23T13:55:54.263" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39000" PostId="18558" Score="1" Text="@julia As cmw said, _sui_ is the same for male, female, and neuter. The literal meaning of _sui generis_ is &quot;of its/his/her own kind&quot;, but it's the idiomatic way in Latin to say &quot;one of a kind&quot;, &quot;in a class of her own&quot;, &quot;unlike any other&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-23T20:08:26.753" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38974" PostId="18559" Score="2" Text="Novācula Occamī sānē concurrit! Quōmodō Latīnē &quot;Oh, duh, of course&quot; dīcitur?" CreationDate="2022-07-22T19:18:05.463" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="38988" PostId="18559" Score="1" Text="I would call that a genitivus qualitatis, which I think is more restricted than an ablativus qualitatis (I thought it had something to do with the ablative being more common when it was adjective + substantive, whereas, the genitive is more common with a mere noun substantive)." CreationDate="2022-07-23T04:07:15.130" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="38997" PostId="18560" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. Yes, Frederick the Fair is an historic figure, and indeed the founder auf Mauerbach Charterhouse (even though the inscription was done much later than 1313. The “handsome” byname wasn't even used before 1600 or so.) That said, he's usually (in Latin) referred to as “(Rex) Fridericus Pulcher”, i.e. without the “nomine”, which threw me. But any proximity of words here seems to be coincidental and not give any indication of logical groups anyway." CreationDate="2022-07-23T18:56:38.860" UserId="6622" />
  <row Id="38998" PostId="18560" Score="1" Text="@Ingmar My biggest weakness with Latin is scansion, but I have a hunch this is a distich. Others of the good people on this website can maybe tell; but if true, this may account for some of the weirdness, inlcuding the word (dis-)order." CreationDate="2022-07-23T19:26:15.753" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38981" PostId="18561" Score="2" Text="Then the OP would have to get a tattoo saying simply *una*, but would anybody really translate that back as &quot;one of a kind&quot;? Similarly, I was thinking of suggesting *unicus/unica*, but I feel that it would sound unnatural without modifying a noun (e.g. *unica indole* or what have you)." CreationDate="2022-07-22T22:16:57.650" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="38989" PostId="18561" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: How many translations have you seen that massage meanings way beyond their dictionary-definitions? The Oxford-things here are a reasonable fit; &quot;ad unum&quot; being the most appropriate, I think." CreationDate="2022-07-23T08:05:18.517" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="38993" PostId="18561" Score="2" Text="@tony I think not: &quot;a. Ad unum, all together, unanimously, to a man, without exception:&quot; It means &quot;each and every one&quot;, not &quot;unique.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-23T13:57:52.583" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39002" PostId="18561" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Yes, of course &quot;ad unum&quot; = &quot;without exception&quot;. This was in my original answer--a close fit to the OP's request. It was Seb who introduced, &quot;unicus/a&quot;. He declined to post this as an answer. Finding an application of &quot;unicus&quot; in a quote from Ovid, the EDIT provides an improvement." CreationDate="2022-07-23T23:24:28.433" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39040" PostId="18563" Score="0" Text="Issues with which term is best aside, I'm not sure that Hercules is a good example of an Übermensch. The Übermensch is the next generation, whereas Hercules is the previous generation (going by Hesiod's &quot;Ages of Man&quot; myth, which Ovid knew). I'm also not satisfied with *maior* as a noun in this sense. I am curious though to know what Protestant writings mention it before Nietzsche. I'm unfamiliar with its pre-Nietzschean history." CreationDate="2022-07-27T04:05:34.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="38999" PostId="18564" Score="0" Text="Ah, I'd never heard that Caesar's use of the third person was because the text was written by an amanuensis. Is Caesar's famous spare, clear style also due to the amanuensis? (Maybe this should be a separate question.)" CreationDate="2022-07-23T20:04:35.103" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39006" PostId="18564" Score="2" Text="We don't know the exact process by which BG/BC was composed, it is very much possible that Caesar dictated it all word by word. But even if it was all written by some sort of ghostwriter, that person could easily have written it in Caesar's voice; it was, after all, published under his name. So whatever the editorial process, the third-person narrative was a conscious decision and fully intended the effect of the great general writing about himself in the third person." CreationDate="2022-07-24T17:49:06.500" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39024" PostId="18573" Score="3" Text="I'm still not sure I follow, but to address the edit -- the Greek means neither of those things: not &quot;he who knows anything perceived [in the past] that thing which he knows&quot;, nor &quot;he who knows anything perceives the fact that he knows&quot;, but &quot;he who knows anything perceives [in the present] that thing which he knows&quot;." CreationDate="2022-07-25T18:41:00.943" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39027" PostId="18573" Score="1" Text="Yes, using the tenses was a bit overstating the thin nuance. But taking your last sentence : &quot;he who knows anything perceives [in the present] that thing which he knows&quot; : does he perceives it outside, that thing as an object - or does he perceives it inside his consciousness, that thing as a knowledge ?" CreationDate="2022-07-25T19:02:59.037" UserId="11304" />
  <row Id="39030" PostId="18573" Score="1" Text="@Johan I'm possibly misunderstanding you, but I don't think 'perceive' is the right word for what you're getting it. Might that be the issue?" CreationDate="2022-07-25T19:37:56.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39031" PostId="18573" Score="1" Text="@cmw It absolutely is a bit of stretch in english to use 'perceive' for such an inner-'perception', but that's exactly what I wanted to understand : whether in greek, αἰσθάνομαι can be used for such an inner-perception (my dictionary says that it can already express 'perceiving through intelligence')." CreationDate="2022-07-25T19:56:56.597" UserId="11304" />
  <row Id="39032" PostId="18573" Score="1" Text="But as I think more about it and read everyone's explanation, I doubt that Plato would have used such a word to mean an inner perception so early in the dialogue ; moreover in the first hypothesis of Theatetus." CreationDate="2022-07-25T20:00:58.803" UserId="11304" />
  <row Id="39021" PostId="18574" Score="0" Text="Ah, you just beat me out!" CreationDate="2022-07-25T17:58:00.257" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39023" PostId="18574" Score="0" Text="I edited the question to reflect better the crux of, what I think, is an ambiguity. Your answers helped me put the right words on it, but obviously, I may just be missing something." CreationDate="2022-07-25T18:07:37.810" UserId="11304" />
  <row Id="39022" PostId="18575" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer. My explication of the ambiguity was certainly lacking as both interpretation hold on a demonstrative &quot;that&quot;. It boils down to a temporality question. Does he who knows, knows because in the past, he perceived something ? Or does he who knows, in the present, perceives his knowledge ?" CreationDate="2022-07-25T18:03:03.847" UserId="11304" />
  <row Id="39025" PostId="18576" Score="0" Text="Yes it really is plays on the &quot;inside my head&quot; thing - using the tenses was overstating it to make it clearer. In your example, the two formulation would be : 1) I know it's raining outside (because) I perceive the rain outside, and 2) I know it's raining outside (hence) I perceive that, in my head, I know it's raining outside" CreationDate="2022-07-25T19:00:03.947" UserId="11304" />
  <row Id="39026" PostId="18576" Score="1" Text="@Johan On that topic, the Greek is unambiguous: you perceive the rain." CreationDate="2022-07-25T19:01:48.917" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39028" PostId="18576" Score="0" Text="Ah alright, thank you for your time and coping with those painful explanations!" CreationDate="2022-07-25T19:03:55.207" UserId="11304" />
  <row Id="39033" PostId="18578" Score="1" Text="Is it an a in the first image though? It looks more like an er to me, as though the writer accidentally used the vernacular abbreviation (of, for example, premier if these records are from a French-speaking region)." CreationDate="2022-07-26T17:50:49.620" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="39034" PostId="18578" Score="1" Text="@cnread It could be; I figured an _a_ by comparison to the second image, which has a similar tail and an un-closed top." CreationDate="2022-07-26T18:02:50.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39035" PostId="18578" Score="1" Text="Thank you, both! My apologies that I wasn't able to provide a higher resolution image, as the photo was taken with a smart phone. @cnread, I believe the letter in the first image is an _a_, but am not certain. The document was written in Minnesota and from a predominantly Italian-speaking Catholic Church." CreationDate="2022-07-26T19:21:48.200" UserId="11325" />
  <row Id="39041" PostId="18578" Score="2" Text="@cnread '1er' was my first thought, too, but then the second example would have been '18e', so that didn't work. I also wouldn't have seen the 'a' in the first one except that it has the same pen stroke pattern as the second, which is more clearly (though not perfectly!) an 'a.' (Can't write in superscript in comments, I think.)" CreationDate="2022-07-27T20:54:17.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39038" PostId="18579" Score="1" Text="[Related 1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17141/how-do-you-say-live-life-in-latin); [related 2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14916/how-do-i-say-remember-death-but-do-not-forget-to-live-in-latin)." CreationDate="2022-07-26T20:32:23.050" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39039" PostId="18580" Score="1" Text="+1 for the very root of 'tutelary.' I think this certainly works despite the passive meaning, since the passive sense is only found in Augustan poets (and one iffy use in Cicero), at least as far as I can tell from Lewis and Short." CreationDate="2022-07-27T03:57:10.350" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39042" PostId="18582" Score="1" Text="I really like the alternative suggestions. I do think *carpe diem* is a bit unfairly sneered at for being overused (not its fault!), but then again, the context of the poem would make people think twice about using it." CreationDate="2022-07-28T02:12:06.247" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39044" PostId="18582" Score="0" Text="I really like your first suggestion. Do you think that *quare* is the best option here, or are there better ones?" CreationDate="2022-07-28T03:22:49.297" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39048" PostId="18585" Score="1" Text="Benveniste makes a very compelling argument. And yet, if a thing can be most *sacrum*, then it can also surely be more *sacrum* than its alternatives. Can't it?" CreationDate="2022-07-28T22:24:33.683" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39067" PostId="18585" Score="2" Text="@Figulus Logically, of course it can, just like one person can perfectly logically be more pregnant than another in English (despite what many armchair pedants will claim). That doesn’t necessarily mean that it would be normal or common to actually _use_ the term comparatively. The whole reason why people are up in arms over ‘more pregnant’ in English is that such usage is (and especially _was_ previously) very rare. The same could easily be true of _sacer_ in Latin." CreationDate="2022-07-30T10:47:30.377" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="39046" PostId="18586" Score="3" Text="Are you looking for, specifically, terms that were used to describe a place in the Underworld? Or just general terms for a bunch of pomegranate trees?" CreationDate="2022-07-28T16:30:46.460" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39047" PostId="18586" Score="4" Text="FWIW, there appears to be a rare word ῥοών meaning &quot;pomegranate orchard&quot;, but it's only attested in the Septuagint: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dr(ow%2Fn" CreationDate="2022-07-28T19:23:00.280" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39051" PostId="18586" Score="3" Text="Can you cite the source you used that mentions this grove?" CreationDate="2022-07-29T00:26:16.997" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39052" PostId="18586" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I read that Haides had fed a pomegranate seed to Persephone, to ensure that she would return to him after her time on Earth, and that the pomegranate had come from an orchard. If there is a specific name for the orchard, I would definitely want that, but I would be just fine with the term for a pomagranate orchard. I can not find the specific source that mentions this grove right now. I have to backtrack through my research." CreationDate="2022-07-29T02:31:32.657" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39053" PostId="18586" Score="2" Text="@cmw I found the source! https://www.theoi.com/Khthonios/HaidesTreasures.html" CreationDate="2022-07-29T02:34:41.617" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39050" PostId="18587" Score="5" Text="Is this a word that's attested anywhere?" CreationDate="2022-07-28T23:18:25.810" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39059" PostId="18587" Score="2" Text="@Draconis. Nope. I just made it up. I think, however, that given how common the *-etum* suffix is, that that the meaning is obvious." CreationDate="2022-07-29T21:22:31.093" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39066" PostId="18587" Score="2" Text="_Punicetum_ on its own would presumably be a garden of Phoenicians, since _malum punicum_ is literally just ‘Punic apple’." CreationDate="2022-07-30T10:02:06.723" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="39082" PostId="18587" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet You are on the right track. But the issue is Phoenician whats. Not Phoenician people, since that is not what an *-etum* is, but Phoenician trees (or woody shrubs). How many such *punicae* were there? L&amp;S says *punica* refers to a pomegranate tree &quot;saep&quot;, which I take to mean &quot;often&quot;: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DPoeni" CreationDate="2022-07-31T04:33:39.067" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39055" PostId="18588" Score="1" Text="Nice question! But beware, arguably every language and dialect sounds 'like singing' to some degree to foreign listeners: one just doesn't realize it in her own mother dialect. And, well, some languages' songs sound rougher, yet you can hear their intonation if you listen to expressive people, trained journalists, etc." CreationDate="2022-07-29T11:42:53.413" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39064" PostId="18590" Score="0" Text="So what would the orchard of Hades be called then? hortis Haidos?" CreationDate="2022-07-30T01:58:54.313" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39065" PostId="18590" Score="1" Text="*Could*, rather than *would.* I don't see where it was ever given a very specific name, but sure, *Hortus Plutonius* in Latin or perhaps *κῆπος Ἄϊδος* in epic Greek." CreationDate="2022-07-30T02:15:50.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39069" PostId="18590" Score="0" Text="Ok. Thank you very much! This corrects the erroneous information I found, that it was just an orchard of pomegranate trees, and gives me an even better answer than I was looking for." CreationDate="2022-07-30T14:48:31.597" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39072" PostId="18594" Score="1" Text="Minor quibble: the *Bibliotheca* is just a compendium of myths, so the story doesn't &quot;come from&quot; there. The same is mostly true for Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, but at least he does add his own flair and twist every once in a while. The earliest surviving text for this myth is the *Hymn to Demeter* (where an also is also not mentioned). But given that it's missing in the *Bibliotheca*, that's a good reason to assume it wasn't a key component of the myth in its retellings." CreationDate="2022-07-30T18:54:08.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39068" PostId="18595" Score="8" Text="A machine translation question where the robot actually produces correct Latin! That almost never happens." CreationDate="2022-07-30T14:21:44.630" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39080" PostId="18595" Score="1" Text="Edi, dormivi, saltavi, iteravi." CreationDate="2022-07-31T00:12:17.363" UserId="1582" />
  <row Id="39091" PostId="18595" Score="2" Text="The lack of commas in the translation may not be a surprise. We should be glad that there are spaces as word boundaries." CreationDate="2022-07-31T15:12:46.413" UserId="2916" />
  <row Id="39073" PostId="18596" Score="3" Text="(Actually, there is a word oblidi; but it's the present passive infinitive of oblidere and therefore means 'to be squeezed' or 'to be crushed.')" CreationDate="2022-07-30T19:32:30.627" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="39074" PostId="18596" Score="1" Text="@cnread Thanks! If I ever had come across that word, I had since forgotten it." CreationDate="2022-07-30T19:38:59.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39078" PostId="18596" Score="9" Text="It's not just Latin. If you make a mistake in verb forms in Google translate in the original language, it will translate it without any reference to the mistake. *I have taken, I has taken, I have took, I has took, I took, I taken* all translate to *j'ai pris* in French." CreationDate="2022-07-30T23:24:46.267" UserId="6293" />
  <row Id="39087" PostId="18596" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much for the answers and all the comments. So can we say that &quot;Veni, bibi, oblitus sum&quot; is the correct translation for &quot;I came, I drank, I forgot&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-07-31T11:50:28.553" UserId="926" />
  <row Id="39088" PostId="18596" Score="3" Text="@pdeli Yeah, `oblitus sum` is the correct translation, although if the speaker is a woman, it would be `oblita sum`." CreationDate="2022-07-31T12:32:46.570" UserId="11230" />
  <row Id="39090" PostId="18596" Score="1" Text="@McKinley Gratias tibi valde!" CreationDate="2022-07-31T13:37:20.580" UserId="926" />
  <row Id="39077" PostId="18599" Score="4" Text="As a Finn, I agree that your suggestions are good for expressing *sisu* in Latin and I tend to think that the word simply has no good translation to most other languages. If one needs the specific concept of *sisu* with all its national connotations, the Finnish word should be used as is, but if it is something else, then reexpressing the thought in new words is the way to go." CreationDate="2022-07-30T23:20:19.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39081" PostId="18599" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think eccl. Latin [fortitudo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues#Four_cardinal_virtues) is a prety close match, isn't it?" CreationDate="2022-07-31T01:27:52.507" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39089" PostId="18599" Score="1" Text="@Rafael That's indeed a good match! The best choice will depend on context, but that's certainly a very good overall translation." CreationDate="2022-07-31T12:46:23.403" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39086" PostId="18600" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! This question is all links and I have difficulties parsing the train of thought. What are your own thoughts on it and what is *your* question? Please edit to add your own perspective and consider reducing the fraction of text that is a link. What do the links tell you and what's missing?" CreationDate="2022-07-31T10:51:24.673" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39092" PostId="18600" Score="1" Text="But I guess we can answer the titular question: *Libra* does not mean &quot;weight.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-31T17:40:33.170" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39094" PostId="18600" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I wrote my question in the title — &quot;Isn't lībra pondō pleonastic?&quot;" CreationDate="2022-07-31T21:50:22.107" UserDisplayName="user11340" />
  <row Id="39096" PostId="18600" Score="2" Text="I'd like to see an answer! The question seems clear enough to me: What's the story behind _lībra pondō_? Is it redundant? If not, how does it make grammatical and semantic sense?" CreationDate="2022-07-31T23:32:56.857" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39099" PostId="18600" Score="4" Text="I re-opened the questions since at least 3 users seem to want that. I should point out though that in OP answers his own question: &quot;It was thought to represent scales or a balance, the main sense of *libra* in Latin, which is why it is often accompanied by the image of a pair of scales.&quot; This is one of the reasons why the actual question is unclear. But I'll leave the answering to others." CreationDate="2022-08-01T17:08:42.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39097" PostId="18603" Score="0" Text="Hi Ben, I believe the above links answer your question already." CreationDate="2022-08-01T14:44:27.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39102" PostId="18603" Score="1" Text="@cmw Well, how about that! An answer to my question is in the middle of [this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/17794/118). Very interesting!" CreationDate="2022-08-01T19:30:33.220" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39103" PostId="18603" Score="0" Text="I wonder if you read that before and just forgot. I know that happens to me!" CreationDate="2022-08-01T20:09:38.790" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39104" PostId="18603" Score="0" Text="@cmw I think I was thrown by the title, emphasizing who numbered them rather than the basis of the numbers. I hadn't noticed until today that the answer also answers my question." CreationDate="2022-08-01T20:44:20.933" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39105" PostId="18606" Score="2" Text="If it's an adverb it must go with *exhibens*, I guess." CreationDate="2022-08-01T21:58:34.587" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39113" PostId="18606" Score="2" Text="&quot;absolutely true, &quot; maybe?" CreationDate="2022-08-03T00:47:48.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39117" PostId="18606" Score="0" Text="Looks like the English title is a rather loose translation. Unless you are taking &quot;scientia vera&quot; to mean &quot;science&quot;, a more literal translation of the portion before the colon is &quot;Showing that the science of space is absolutely true&quot;. You have also left off the initial portion of the title (&quot;Ioannis Bolyai de Bolya Appendix&quot;); the word &quot;exhibens&quot; evidently modifies &quot;appendix&quot;. The work is &quot;An appendix of I. B. de B. showing that the science of space is absolutely true...&quot; etc. EDIT: per @Cairnarvon, one could also have &quot;absolutely showing that the science of space is true.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-04T13:37:27.330" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="39118" PostId="18606" Score="0" Text="Also: thanks for this question -- I'm a mathematician by training, and that looks like a very interesting book! I've downloaded the PDF and intend to read it." CreationDate="2022-08-04T13:41:57.910" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="39119" PostId="18606" Score="0" Text="@MPW Oh, I left out the &quot;Appendix&quot; part because it seems common enough for book titles to leave the noun implicit. For example, Caesar's books on the Gallic Wars are often cited as De Bello Gallico, leaving out the Commentarii. But if it's important to the translation to have an explicit noun there, I can edit it in." CreationDate="2022-08-04T16:41:26.547" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39154" PostId="18606" Score="0" Text="I rescind my earlier comment. If you read the introduction, it really ought to be something like *scientiam spatii absolutam esse veram*. I'm not a mathematician, so I could be wrong on this, but it seems the translator was saying that Bolyai's work differs from Euclidean space by allowing human imperfection. Is that right? I know post-Classical writers are a bit more carefree in word order, but it still feels a bit more like a mistake (outside poetry)." CreationDate="2022-08-08T02:25:45.083" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39116" PostId="18608" Score="0" Text="I would be curious to hear our resident Finn comment on this suggestion; it has not popped up in previous replies or comments here." CreationDate="2022-08-04T11:15:35.837" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="39571" PostId="18608" Score="1" Text="@CannedMan I think *firmitas* is a better fit of these two. I find it to be a very good translation. There is no perfect match, but *firmitas* certainly earns its place on the list of good options." CreationDate="2022-09-16T10:03:54.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39114" PostId="18611" Score="0" Text="If you assume that any prefix in Latin (or, probably, any other language) means **solely** this or that, you are going to be disappointed. Languages are not designed: they just happen." CreationDate="2022-08-03T19:13:36.517" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="39115" PostId="18612" Score="0" Text="Latin prefixes? What about &quot;ir-&quot; = &quot;in-&quot; on verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;, e.g. &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem.&quot; = &quot;If he had not mocked me, I might have forgiven him.&quot;, in https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/13073/1982? This directional prefix (See the comments from Mitomino.) not only focuses (the ridicule--the direct object) it requires a dative indirect-object (&quot;mihi&quot;--the ridicule is directed to me); unlike parent verb, &quot;rideo&quot;, which selects the expected accusative direct-object. What a prefix! How can you be so dismissive?" CreationDate="2022-08-04T07:51:48.393" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39120" PostId="18612" Score="0" Text="@tony I do not understand what part of my answer you take issue with. *Irridere* takes accusative objects all the time, by the way, as any dictionary should tell you." CreationDate="2022-08-04T17:13:48.690" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39127" PostId="18612" Score="0" Text="It was, &quot;Latin prefixes have no precisely defined meanings.&quot;, that seemed over-dismissive. In 2019 I sweated blood in order to determine why &quot;irrideo&quot; was selecting dative, &quot;mihi&quot;, instead of the expected accusative, &quot;me&quot;. In examples of &quot;irrideo&quot; + accusative (Lewis &amp; Short) it could just be written as parent verb, &quot;rideo&quot;, couldn't it? This illogical approach to the application of prefixes may explain your own lack of faith in these things. In which case your introduction was a fair one. Voting-up the answer to +7." CreationDate="2022-08-05T09:42:07.330" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39112" PostId="18613" Score="2" Text="+1, despite the physicist in me wanting to correct that kilogram is a unit of mass rather than weight. That's not a distinction worth making in this context, but I can't help bringing it up... // I'd go a step further and say that redundancy is not only common but also very useful. One should indeed not be surprised to see it in Latin." CreationDate="2022-08-02T19:40:19.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39132" PostId="18615" Score="1" Text="The 'non' that you're asking about (before 'suum') wasn't visible in your original question, because it's enclosed inside angle brackets and was therefore being interpreted as a markup (HTML) tag. I edited your question to make the conjectural addition of 'non' (and 're') visible to people you look at the emended passage." CreationDate="2022-08-05T16:06:47.767" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="39131" PostId="18616" Score="0" Text="@cmw If read sentence without interpolation can it be read it &quot;the moon has its own light but also serves as a mirror...&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-05T15:46:57.873" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="39138" PostId="18616" Score="0" Text="@AbhishekYadav It can't read that, because there's no &quot;also&quot; (*etiam*) in there." CreationDate="2022-08-05T20:26:17.570" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39141" PostId="18616" Score="0" Text="&quot;sed&quot; also means &quot;but also&quot; I looked at the LSJ dictionary, and it says that sed also means but also, does grammar allow this?" CreationDate="2022-08-07T07:01:48.187" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="39144" PostId="18616" Score="0" Text="@AbhishekYadav In certain contexts. You'll notice that it says &quot;but also&quot; or &quot;but even&quot; when it's in an ascending list or &quot;[after] negative clauses, to limit the negative statement&quot;. You don't really have that here. *Sed* is contrastive, and there is no contrast in your reading." CreationDate="2022-08-07T14:20:44.843" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39139" PostId="18619" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site, interesting question! I have added the text, in order to make it easier for people to investigate. Could you perhaps explain a bit more about what you know about the epode? E.g. what is this incident? In what way does Greek lyric treat past, present, and future as a continuum? That can help readers, and possibly also enthuse respondents." CreationDate="2022-08-07T02:24:01.167" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39140" PostId="18619" Score="2" Text="&quot;Is this the influence of Greek Lyric, where the Past, Present and Future are seen as a continuum&quot; I'll second Cerberus' questions. It seems as if statements like the above are provided in a learning context, perhaps a prompt by a professor, and therefore in a context that's specific to that class. If you can provide any more context, that would be immensely helpful, not only in providing a general answer to the main question, but to tailor it to the scholarship behind the way the body of the question is formulated." CreationDate="2022-08-07T02:47:27.813" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39143" PostId="18622" Score="2" Text="The way Vitruvius mentioned this ( mentioning this explanation as second, and using *non enim latet* (translated there: &quot;indeed it is no secret&quot; - or even stronger: [Samus explanation cannot be right  (hence it urged another explanation) ] for it is clear that ...   ) is strongly suggestive (IMO) that that was the prevalent explanation in his time. Now, V clearly described two opposing views. (&quot;rationes varietatis disciplinis de eadem reliquit&quot; [Aristarchus] ); the first was that Luna has its own light (only half of the ball though) and this of Aristarchus." CreationDate="2022-08-07T08:09:17.177" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39146" PostId="18622" Score="0" Text="Abhishek: To add on to d_e, you can read more about Aristarchus's views here: https://www.worldhistory.org/Aristarchus_of_Samos/" CreationDate="2022-08-07T14:30:38.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39147" PostId="18622" Score="1" Text="Also, the manuscript of Vitruvius is **not** the original text. It's a much, much later copy of a copy of a copy." CreationDate="2022-08-07T14:31:32.753" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39148" PostId="18622" Score="0" Text="I meant *Berosus* explanation cannot be right" CreationDate="2022-08-07T14:53:29.613" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39150" PostId="18622" Score="0" Text="@d_e: Hey, what you say is very interesting! It is a bit hard to follow in the format of a comment, though. If you ever find the way to put it into an answer, I will surely vote for it." CreationDate="2022-08-07T17:38:17.950" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39151" PostId="18622" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, thanks. OP is interested is Latin writers (other than Vit, and Cic) that speaks about the Moon light. I don't know one hence I don't think it should be regarded as an answer. I just noted that by my guess (based on the text) that the knowledge of the Moon reflecting the Sun's light was strongly there in the classical era. I also provided some argument that despite the missing *non* in Vit, the context makes it pretty much very clear what Vit. means even without the need to resort to reading Aristarchus." CreationDate="2022-08-07T17:53:29.033" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39152" PostId="18622" Score="1" Text="@d_e: OK, interesting. I do think Cicero and Vitruvius could constitute a good answer. What the asker wants is not always the only way in which an answer can be good! Besides, he may very well be interested in this if you make a case that Cicero and/or Vitruvius are indeed good sources saying that the moon's light is reflective." CreationDate="2022-08-07T18:16:10.613" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39149" PostId="18624" Score="3" Text="My initial guess is that it's by analogy with the *-er* nouns (which, unlike *vir*, are a regular development) to avoid homophony with *virus*, but I'm not sure off the top of my head if that works out historically. (I guess *virus* has a long *i*, though.)" CreationDate="2022-08-07T15:02:22.623" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45133" PostId="18624" Score="0" Text="The gaelic word for man is &quot;fir&quot; which is essentially the same word. In the usual case when a foreign word is adopted it takes the third declension. Other Gaelic words that may have come into Latin are aer (&quot;air&quot;) and vatis (&quot;fate&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-10-17T04:09:23.567" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39155" PostId="18626" Score="0" Text="This doesn't work, because if you take *tantum* to mean &quot;only,&quot; it would have to be *mala* instead of *malorum*. Also, where do you take &quot;of such magnitude&quot; from then?" CreationDate="2022-08-08T07:59:06.990" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39156" PostId="18632" Score="1" Text="What about &quot;canite una&quot; = &quot;(All) sing at the same time&quot;/ &quot;in one company&quot;/ &quot;together&quot;, where &quot;una&quot; is an adverb?" CreationDate="2022-08-08T13:12:52.433" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39157" PostId="18632" Score="0" Text="@tony Sounds valid and correct, but I would say I prefer _omnes_ for practical reasons, given that it is shorter and more discrete. Thanks, though!" CreationDate="2022-08-08T14:55:39.760" UserId="11360" />
  <row Id="39289" PostId="18632" Score="0" Text="I like *omnes*, or maybe *omnes una*, which is almost a calque of the English phrase." CreationDate="2022-08-24T00:49:39.080" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42851" PostId="18634" Score="0" Text="`redī` can also be used." CreationDate="2023-04-08T22:28:55.957" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="39163" PostId="18635" Score="0" Text="Not bad.  Thank you. :)" CreationDate="2022-08-10T20:25:44.770" UserId="11360" />
  <row Id="40438" PostId="18635" Score="1" Text="I think this is the best answer. It would be immediately obvious to me, but perhaps that's from listening to classical music." CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:15:22.800" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39158" PostId="18636" Score="2" Text="Uhhm, surely it is related to *lego, -avi, -atum*, as is *ablego, -avi, -atum*. What does *legere* have to do with anything, or with banishing, for that matter?" CreationDate="2022-08-09T19:45:52.530" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39165" PostId="18639" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your response! You are quite right, it should have been Old Latin cursive, which contradicts the tag classical-Latin. &#xA;&#xA;But your sense of &quot;What do you achieve through hate, what by persisting in anger?&quot; is exactly what I was looking for. Really thank you!" CreationDate="2022-08-11T07:11:15.597" UserId="11370" />
  <row Id="39171" PostId="18639" Score="0" Text="@AxelKok no contradiction at all, because the so-called &quot;Old Cursive&quot; was used throughout the classical era as the primary form of handwriting (including all those graffiti in Pompeii). Unfortunately, I'm not particularly proficient in it." CreationDate="2022-08-11T17:28:27.107" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39199" PostId="18639" Score="0" Text="For an Old Latin version of Article 1 of the UN bill of human rights with a transcription and Classical Latin equivalent, you might be interested to see:-  https://omniglot.com/writing/latin.htm." CreationDate="2022-08-14T11:33:29.043" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39159" PostId="18640" Score="0" Text="Haven't we said it all before?" CreationDate="2022-08-09T22:04:49.657" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="39160" PostId="18640" Score="2" Text="@fdb It's definitely come up before, but I saw this question in the sidebar of another question I just answered and the accepted answer is wrong, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to repeat it." CreationDate="2022-08-09T22:09:46.737" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39194" PostId="18640" Score="0" Text="Is it really wrong so much as outdated and generally less accepted hypothesis? It's not like we know *for sure* that the Phoenician hypothesis is for sure what happened, even if it's most likely. Or has there been some recent advancement that made this all but certain?" CreationDate="2022-08-13T04:29:21.717" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39175" PostId="18642" Score="1" Text="For those intrigued by the odd syntax of the phrase, it's likely a calque (loan translation) from either a Chinese phrase or possibly one in a Native American language." CreationDate="2022-08-11T19:51:17.180" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39161" PostId="18644" Score="2" Text="It's probably worth pointing out that the familiar &quot;millennium&quot; is from that same series of words, although probably not an ancient coinage." CreationDate="2022-08-10T19:44:21.740" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39162" PostId="18644" Score="2" Text="Also of note, apparently [Semiquincentennial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Semiquincentennial) was coined at some point." CreationDate="2022-08-10T20:14:45.947" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39169" PostId="18644" Score="1" Text="Sesquicentennial is also frequently used for 150 years. From etymonline: sesqui-, sesque- &quot;one and a half; one-half more,&quot; contraction of *semis-que- &quot;a half in addition,&quot; from *semis &quot;a half&quot; (see semi-) + -que &quot;and&quot;. Latin semi- had a tendency to get partly swallowed in compounds; [...] selibra &quot;half a libra,&quot; semodius &quot;half a modius,&quot; sestertius &quot;having the value of two-and-a-half&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-11T14:21:39.710" UserId="11377" />
  <row Id="39170" PostId="18644" Score="0" Text="@NickT That's a good one, too. I hadn't thought about sesqui, so I might adopt that in a revision." CreationDate="2022-08-11T15:53:26.237" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39173" PostId="18644" Score="2" Text="&quot;bicentetvigintiquinquennial&quot; -- Gesundheit!" CreationDate="2022-08-11T18:06:24.170" UserId="10431" />
  <row Id="39174" PostId="18644" Score="0" Text="I don't get 'sestertius' being 2.5, as I see it as semi-tertius, which could either be 1.5 or 3.5. Anyways, torturing [quasquicentennial](https://www.jstor.org/stable/454178) into such a format you could get quassecuntennial? Quasbicentennial? Ick. From the man who coined quasquicentennial: &quot;Of course, you may decide you do not really want or need a new word. There is no point in proliferating them needlessly.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-11T19:16:43.073" UserId="11377" />
  <row Id="39176" PostId="18644" Score="0" Text="@NickT Yes! Yes! He echoes my thoughts precisely." CreationDate="2022-08-11T19:59:41.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39180" PostId="18644" Score="1" Text="@cmw also Fowler's dictionary, as in the definition of centenary/centennial: &quot;shots made at [...] higher names often [result] in monstrosities&quot; (added more of the quote in my answer)" CreationDate="2022-08-11T21:03:09.223" UserId="11377" />
  <row Id="39181" PostId="18644" Score="0" Text="&quot;so you could theoretically have the monstrous **bicentetvigintiquinquennial** [...]&quot; → _Laughs in Spanish_" CreationDate="2022-08-12T07:28:42.347" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="39182" PostId="18644" Score="1" Text="(PS: in Spanish, 225th **is** said &quot;bicentesimovigesimoquinto&quot; -- though it is written as separate words: &quot;bicentésimo vigésimo quinto&quot;.)" CreationDate="2022-08-12T07:40:57.787" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="39190" PostId="18644" Score="0" Text="@walen Yeah, even in English, the number itself is a cumbersome &quot;two hundred and twenty-five.&quot; I think it's the compounding that makes it truly unwieldy." CreationDate="2022-08-12T13:20:22.607" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39210" PostId="18644" Score="0" Text="@cmw My &quot;laugh&quot; came from the fact that, in Spanish, an event that happens once every 225 years would actually be, _I think_, a &quot;**bicentevicequinquenal**&quot; event -- no spaces. Pretty close to the &quot;monstrous&quot; English version! That was meant to be my original PS... but then I realized that 1) rules for the formation of this type of words in Spanish are not as clear cut as for everything else (might make for a good question @ [spanish.se]), and 2) OP didn't really ask about the word for something that _repeats_ every 225 years, they just wanted to know the (more boring) ordinal number for 225 :(" CreationDate="2022-08-16T07:45:00.230" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="39177" PostId="18645" Score="0" Text="Good find! I still hate all these words, but this one looks like it has some common currency." CreationDate="2022-08-11T20:00:51.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39178" PostId="18645" Score="1" Text="But a quarter of 200 is 50..." CreationDate="2022-08-11T20:14:32.350" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39179" PostId="18645" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I think if quasquicentennial is &quot;a quarter and one centennial&quot;, &quot;quasquibicentennial&quot; can be &quot;a quarter and two centennials&quot;, or would you suggest &quot;quastercentennial&quot; by way of &quot;sestersi&quot; (2.5), &quot;quasterci&quot; (2.25, or should it be 2.75)? In any event, we're not really talking Latin, but Latinate as Chapman mentions." CreationDate="2022-08-11T20:49:55.633" UserId="11377" />
  <row Id="43588" PostId="18645" Score="0" Text="Yeah, @SebastianKoppehel, the discussion above was lovely but slightly off. It's not multiplication. It's addition: &quot;one half and a ~&quot;. 225% is a weird fraction to be looking for but the classical model would be to use &quot;one quarter and two ~&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-15T14:23:30.133" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="39184" PostId="18647" Score="1" Text="Any ideas what &quot;Co:&quot; might mean?" CreationDate="2022-08-12T09:37:19.143" UserId="6503" />
  <row Id="39185" PostId="18647" Score="0" Text="[This page](https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/detail.php?id=16912) lists potential meanings of &quot;co&quot;, of which the most common is _coniugi_ which Google tells me means &quot;spouse&quot;. If the subject of the painting is a woman, could it be the wife of Christophorus? Perhaps painted (by someone unknown) in 1778?" CreationDate="2022-08-12T11:16:58.033" UserId="6157" />
  <row Id="39186" PostId="18647" Score="0" Text="@TripeHound Presumably then you'd need the genitive *Christophori* to give 'wife of Christopher', though." CreationDate="2022-08-12T12:17:31.777" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39187" PostId="18647" Score="0" Text="@Tripehound Good find. It's probably the dative instead. He painted it *for his wife*." CreationDate="2022-08-12T13:13:55.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39188" PostId="18647" Score="0" Text="Except... the book you refer to was published in 1584 if I read it right, so they cant be the same person" CreationDate="2022-08-12T10:44:00.930" UserId="11380" />
  <row Id="39189" PostId="18647" Score="2" Text="@anguscrossley Sorry if I was unclear. I meant it more that the name is attested, not that the two were the same person. I edited my post for clarity." CreationDate="2022-08-12T13:18:21.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39198" PostId="18651" Score="3" Text="You've asked a lot of questions in one here. I'd recommend more specificity: pick one of your questions, ideally one that's specifically about Latin and Greek rather than about the English descendants, and narrow your focus to that one." CreationDate="2022-08-14T00:33:04.230" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39209" PostId="18651" Score="2" Text="The list wasn't clearly seen. I didn't notice that. Basically I am asking for a greek world for government for, by, from those 6 things. With 5 I already have a good guess but I think it's better that it's all in one question so people can see the answer to all 6" CreationDate="2022-08-16T07:34:56.323" UserId="11385" />
  <row Id="39196" PostId="18653" Score="1" Text="See [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/466/what-did-romans-call-their-language/469#469): &quot;Instead, the adverbial form was preferred: *latine loquor*...&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-13T22:43:27.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39197" PostId="18653" Score="4" Text="Related: [How to speak a language with a third declension adjective?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6631)" CreationDate="2022-08-13T23:10:26.420" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39208" PostId="18655" Score="0" Text="@Florianus The adverbial ending is used in some other contexts, and I usually interpret it to mean &quot;in Latin&quot;. For instance, Kurt and Barbara Aland's edition of the New Testament, *Novum Testamentum Latine*." CreationDate="2022-08-16T00:09:27.393" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39200" PostId="18658" Score="2" Text="I would call it a _uculele_, personally, but I'm guessing you specifically want to use only classical words rather than loans?" CreationDate="2022-08-14T16:24:34.447" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39201" PostId="18658" Score="0" Text="Yes indeed, primarily classical Latin, why not a word of later use, but definitely not a neologism" CreationDate="2022-08-14T17:23:42.830" UserId="11381" />
  <row Id="39202" PostId="18660" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your answer, I will think about the different options&#xA;It seems to me that for the second proposal, the third declination is more natural" CreationDate="2022-08-15T11:04:33.470" UserId="11381" />
  <row Id="39203" PostId="18660" Score="0" Text="Good rundown, although Wikipedia says the ukulele is a lute-class instrument, so I imagine *testudo* should actually be the right one. *Citharae* are closer to lyres, as far as I can tell." CreationDate="2022-08-15T13:38:32.353" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39204" PostId="18660" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks! I updated the answer. I'm far from an expert on musical instruments, so not messing it up at all would have been a surprise..." CreationDate="2022-08-15T13:49:05.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39205" PostId="18660" Score="2" Text="If it's seen as a foreign word, I could also see _uculelē_ alternating with _uculela_, like _nymphē~nympha_." CreationDate="2022-08-15T15:41:54.077" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39206" PostId="18660" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I considered that, and I wouldn't be surprised of that use either. But I decided not to bring it up, as I don't remember that Greek version being used with words of non-Greek origin. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though." CreationDate="2022-08-15T16:27:09.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39207" PostId="18660" Score="0" Text="If they learned it via writing, *uculele* works, but if they learned it from speech, they might tack on a Latin ending, yielding something like *uculelis* or *iuculela* (or some other combination)." CreationDate="2022-08-15T16:49:10.637" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39211" PostId="18666" Score="0" Text="Thanks, d_e, This is a very useful idiom and I shall learn it forthwith. I wondered whether something like lupus inter oves is an idea worth working on but it does not seem to be used proverbially and in any event signifies carnage rather than universal disorder." CreationDate="2022-08-16T14:22:56.420" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39229" PostId="18666" Score="1" Text="Perhaps a lower register idiom, which is metaphorical, might be plaustrum perculi. Thanks d_e." CreationDate="2022-08-19T10:26:53.400" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39214" PostId="18668" Score="0" Text="For some reason, the Gutenberg link isn't working for me." CreationDate="2022-08-16T16:35:45.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39215" PostId="18668" Score="0" Text="@cmw wiki provides the  link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius#:~:text=Strasbourg%3A%20Georg%20Messerschmidt&#xA;page 216" CreationDate="2022-08-16T16:49:15.510" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="39212" PostId="18669" Score="1" Text="A quibble: it's actually a printed edition, not a manuscript (= Giovanni Giocondo's Florence edition)." CreationDate="2022-08-16T16:20:37.620" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="39213" PostId="18669" Score="0" Text="@cnread Thanks. I was too hasty. Should be accurate now." CreationDate="2022-08-16T16:31:45.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39218" PostId="18672" Score="1" Text="I'd suggest the following replacement: demonstrative pronoun + relative clause + antecedent noun &gt; demonstrative _determiner_ (traditionally, &quot;demonstrative _adjective_&quot;) + relative clause + _postcedent_ noun" CreationDate="2022-08-17T05:55:51.533" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39221" PostId="18672" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Shouldn't it be *succedent noun*?" CreationDate="2022-08-17T19:00:32.253" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39227" PostId="18672" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel In my opinion, both terms (&quot;postcedent&quot; and &quot;succedent&quot;) are appropriate here. I'm not sure about the English grammatical tradition but it seems that the term that is more often used is &quot;postcedent&quot; (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar)#Postcedents )." CreationDate="2022-08-18T15:11:46.110" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39228" PostId="18672" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I am being a little facetiously over-pedantic, but the problem with *postcedent* is that there's no such verb as *postcedere*." CreationDate="2022-08-18T18:15:25.297" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39219" PostId="18673" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure if I'd qualify this case as an example of hyperbaton. BTW, the link to this Austrian website is very useful! _Longum iter per praecepta, breve et eficax per exempla_." CreationDate="2022-08-17T06:04:32.790" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39246" PostId="18673" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In Cicero's &quot;de Officiis&quot; 1.69; looking at the whole (long) sentence, why deploy (perfect) subjunctives, &quot;removerint&quot; &amp; &quot;perfugerint&quot;, as opposed to indicative verbs?" CreationDate="2022-08-21T08:52:26.403" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39256" PostId="18673" Score="0" Text="@tony I'd say subjunctive of characteristic, common with *multi sunt* and similar phrases." CreationDate="2022-08-21T20:22:28.077" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39220" PostId="18674" Score="0" Text="I had tried to find this structure in Pinkster 2021 but I had not succeeded. Thanks a lot." CreationDate="2022-08-17T09:16:31.943" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="39222" PostId="18674" Score="0" Text="Very nice. Pinkster (or perhaps Hofmann-Szantyr) is indeed the sort of unordinary, or even extraordinary grammar book I had in mind when I wrote that." CreationDate="2022-08-17T19:05:37.617" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39230" PostId="18683" Score="1" Text="*portendi* is infinitive. So either the question got reversed or you have your answer." CreationDate="2022-08-19T11:45:07.743" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39231" PostId="18683" Score="1" Text="@d_e Aha! So it is - passive infinitive. I just saw the '-di' and assumed a genitive gerund. Thanks so much." CreationDate="2022-08-19T12:04:36.733" UserId="11219" />
  <row Id="39232" PostId="18683" Score="0" Text="yeah. That's confusing indeed. the gerundive would be *portendendi*" CreationDate="2022-08-19T12:13:58.387" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39239" PostId="18683" Score="1" Text="@d_e I recommend you turn your comment into an answer. Nice work." CreationDate="2022-08-20T16:50:10.493" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39233" PostId="18685" Score="10" Text="Welcome to the site! What general meaning are you trying to convey with the phrase? Context can be really helpful when translating." CreationDate="2022-08-19T13:30:46.933" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39238" PostId="18686" Score="2" Text="I remember you posting this passage a couple years ago. From which work does it come?" CreationDate="2022-08-20T13:51:01.967" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39241" PostId="18686" Score="1" Text="It comes from the Acta Et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Ministrorum Remonstrantium." CreationDate="2022-08-20T18:26:22.653" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="39244" PostId="18687" Score="0" Text="I'm sure there's an equivalent Roman or Greek expression for this couched in more metaphorical language, which I think suits it better than the chosen words. Think along the lines of Aesop's *Fables*. I'll keep looking, though so far I haven't found the right one yet." CreationDate="2022-08-21T02:57:32.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39242" PostId="18688" Score="0" Text="For a semantic pair, perhaps nodus and solutio?" CreationDate="2022-08-20T20:04:14.993" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="39251" PostId="18688" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey, interesting suggestion." CreationDate="2022-08-21T13:50:45.320" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39263" PostId="18689" Score="2" Text="`I have come across the term dilitiriasméno belos δηλητηριασμένο βέλος but am uncertain if it is modern Greek or ancient.` It's modern Greek." CreationDate="2022-08-22T17:02:09.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39243" PostId="18693" Score="0" Text="I'd imagine τόξα is a collective construction, not a genuine plural." CreationDate="2022-08-21T01:39:50.190" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39245" PostId="18693" Score="1" Text="After seeing your answer, I poked around the internet, and found two words τοξικός and βέλος. τοξικός can mean a poison to be smeared on an arrow, and βέλος means arrow/dart/missle. So could τοξικός βέλος be a possible answer in ancient Greek?" CreationDate="2022-08-21T06:08:43.223" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39247" PostId="18693" Score="1" Text="@Walter: I'm not sure; unfortunately, I have some familiarity with Latin but not with Greek. I included Greek in this answer because you asked about it, but for Greek I'm completely reliant on looking things up in reference materials. τοξικός, which as you can see is related to τόξα, does seem like a likely word for describing poisoned arrows" CreationDate="2022-08-21T09:06:15.080" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39248" PostId="18693" Score="2" Text="For what it's worth, Modern Greek has both τοξικός (toxic) and _τόξο_ (bow). I had never connected the two before, both are as common in Modern Greek as their English equivalents are in English and I now wonder if the etymology of _toxic_ can be traced to Hercules' poisoned arrows." CreationDate="2022-08-21T10:49:50.597" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="39249" PostId="18693" Score="2" Text="If I came across τοξικόν βέλος (βέλος is an s-stem neuter) in a text I think I'd read it as 'bow projectile' i.e. 'arrow'. You can find substantivised τοξικόν elliptically for τοξικόν φάρμακον ('bow poison' i.e. 'poison for poisoning arrows') sometimes, but it seems weird to me to read it that way as a regular adjective classically." CreationDate="2022-08-21T12:13:50.043" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39250" PostId="18693" Score="1" Text="@Walter In ancient Greek, τοξικός meant something related to bows or for bows (or if used to describe a person, meant they were a skilled archer). The modern usage meaning ‘toxic’ appears to be a reverse loan from Latin (‘toxicum’ is ‘poison’ in Latin, but seems to be derived from the Greek τοξικόν φάρμακον, which described poison used on arrows (with τοξικόν being the part referring to the bow/arrows))." CreationDate="2022-08-21T12:29:19.287" UserId="2342" />
  <row Id="39252" PostId="18693" Score="0" Text="I tried another go at google again. I think this is a modern greek term, but got dilitiriasméno belos δηλητηριασμένο βέλος. Is there an ancient greek term similar to δηλητηριασμένο?" CreationDate="2022-08-21T14:18:35.257" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39254" PostId="18694" Score="5" Text="You ask what the best use of your time is (implicitly: your Latin study time), and the answers are answering that.  But another important question is: What do you *enjoy?*  If you enjoy reading things like Winnie Ille Pu more than “serious” texts, then don’t discount that — finding things that motivate you to spend time on a subject is often more effective than using that time in the most efficient way." CreationDate="2022-08-21T17:08:18.393" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="39255" PostId="18695" Score="0" Text="Question from an interested bystander: How error-free are the native texts? I mean, even Shakespeare has mistakes, and Latin grammar is hard, so wouldn't we expect a few errors? I'm wondering if we might even mistakenly codify errors as correct Latin and say &quot;this is an exception to the rule&quot; where actually the author just made a mistake?" CreationDate="2022-08-21T19:34:57.963" UserId="9141" />
  <row Id="39257" PostId="18695" Score="3" Text="@AdamChalcraft That's a big can of worms, and I'm afraid it's too big to explain everything by comments. The gist of it though is that due to the unavailability of original texts, we have no idea what was a mistake by an author (unless called out by other authors) and what was introduced by copyists. Then you have literary v. non-standard constructions, which is a whole other can of worms. I wouldn't say that Latin grammar is hard, though. In many senses I find it much easier than English, though that's a low bar to clear!" CreationDate="2022-08-21T20:35:31.057" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39258" PostId="18695" Score="1" Text="@AdamChalcraft This sounds like an interesting new question. Please post it!" CreationDate="2022-08-21T22:36:02.657" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39253" PostId="18701" Score="3" Text="It's an impersonal passive. See the end of [this section](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/impersonal-verbs)." CreationDate="2022-08-21T15:44:33.353" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39259" PostId="18703" Score="0" Text="What's your current understanding of this sentence? That will help us in answering." CreationDate="2022-08-22T00:28:42.297" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39260" PostId="18703" Score="0" Text="My understanding is Harvard Prof. G. Schmeling's translation: &quot;For with a great song and dance a dirge was being sung.&quot; That would make &quot;nenia&quot; the nom. sing. subject of &quot;cantabatur&quot;. But ingenti is probably abl. so....." CreationDate="2022-08-22T00:43:45.270" UserId="10893" />
  <row Id="39261" PostId="18703" Score="1" Text="I've edited that information into the question. If my edits don't properly reflect your intent, feel free to re-edit to correct that." CreationDate="2022-08-22T00:51:54.597" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39262" PostId="18703" Score="0" Text="Thank you, Draconis." CreationDate="2022-08-22T01:03:20.123" UserId="10893" />
  <row Id="39306" PostId="18707" Score="3" Text="Your question &quot;Why are we even bothering&quot; makes no sense. _Patio_ exists because Latin writers used it. Lewis &amp; Short say &quot;act. archaic collat. form patiunto, Cic. Leg. 3, 4,11: patias, Naev. ap. Diom. p. 395 P.&quot; which I take to mean that the active form was used in those instances. Its defectiveness may simply mean that it doesn't happen to have been used in a past tense in the instances that survive. As to why it might have  been used: deponents are odd things, and it is conceivable that some speakers got confused." CreationDate="2022-08-25T22:44:36.503" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="45159" PostId="18707" Score="2" Text="“Why even bother.” I have thought the same thing many times.  At lower levels language is rules and exceptions to rules.  Sometimes you, sadly, just have to memorize the forms and get used to them. If it’s any consolation, it’s just as bad, maybe even worse in other ancient languages. There’s none of us who hasn’t been where you are." CreationDate="2023-10-18T13:56:50.587" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="39264" PostId="18709" Score="4" Text="Where is this passage from?" CreationDate="2022-08-22T18:01:42.853" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39265" PostId="18712" Score="3" Text="I guess I'd expect the genitive, *Christophori* and not *Christophorus*. Also, what is the subject of *pinxit* if not *Christophorus*?" CreationDate="2022-08-23T00:09:44.303" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39266" PostId="18712" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Laffranchini was a collector, not a painter. Maybe it would have been more grammatically correct to write &quot;pictus est&quot; or something like that, but you have to remember we are talking about very casual Latin here." CreationDate="2022-08-23T00:14:46.273" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39267" PostId="18712" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden Do you have sources for that? I couldn't find anything with an admittedly rudimentary Google search." CreationDate="2022-08-23T03:46:41.830" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39268" PostId="18712" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden What do you mean by this being very casual? Isn't a painting an expensive item with which one might want to be careful? I wouldn't dismiss such a discrepancy between the original and your translation so quickly." CreationDate="2022-08-23T05:43:18.307" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39269" PostId="18712" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Look, if you want to believe that Laffranchini painted it for his wife, fine. I am just telling you that is totally wrong." CreationDate="2022-08-23T06:42:20.983" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39270" PostId="18712" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden I have no strong opinion. It's just that if you are telling that something is totally correct and something else is totally wrong, I would expect a stronger argument. If you can add some reasoning to your answer for why it has to be that way, that'd be great." CreationDate="2022-08-23T06:47:00.487" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39272" PostId="18712" Score="3" Text="@TylerDurden, can you provide a name of one of those dozens of paintings in his collocation? I seem to be unable to find any information about this." CreationDate="2022-08-23T09:56:46.503" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39273" PostId="18712" Score="2" Text="I didn't ask for a source because I think you're wrong, I asked for a source because, like @d_e, I cannot find anything about this online. A search on the name comes up empty. Can you point to a museum page, a book, some source from which we can gather more information?" CreationDate="2022-08-23T12:30:33.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39274" PostId="18712" Score="1" Text="@cmw &quot;Atti e memorie dell'Accademia di Agricoltura Scienze e Lettere di Verona&quot; v172 p. 417. &quot;Istoria della vita e delle opere di Raffaello Sanzio de Urbino,&quot; p. 329. &quot;Le fanciulle celebri e l'infanzia delle donne illustri d'Italia antiche e Moderne&quot; p. 269." CreationDate="2022-08-23T13:59:57.223" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39275" PostId="18712" Score="0" Text="@d_e &quot;La Fornarina&quot; (possibly) by Raphael which now hangs in the Borghese gallery originally came from the Laffranchini collection. That's one painting." CreationDate="2022-08-23T14:10:41.637" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39276" PostId="18712" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden Grazie molte." CreationDate="2022-08-23T14:19:29.473" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39277" PostId="18712" Score="3" Text="I'm downvoting, not because I don't think &quot;co.&quot; means &quot;collectio[ne]&quot; (in fact, that seems more probable than *coniugi*), but because &quot;Christoforus&quot; is clearly the grammatical subject of *pinxit*. The provided translation simply ignores the nominative." CreationDate="2022-08-23T14:52:41.573" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39278" PostId="18712" Score="1" Text="@brianpck, just was about to write something similar. despite the reference given, I still believe Christopher Laffranchini was the painter. In one reference I saw a ref of &quot;heir of Laffranchini from 1829&quot; also he was operating in Verona. I find it more probable that  Laffranchini painted this in 1779 Verona. It is hard to find information about this man online; it might be he was a collector indeed (in which case his collected works were painted much earlier than 1772 Verona); + it is what written *pinixt* it is a known formula.  why would C.L use this formula *on* a painting not his?" CreationDate="2022-08-23T15:01:31.177" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39282" PostId="18714" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your answer, just to clear the ellipsis is just a punctuation part of the original. I did not get that &quot;loca nocte tacentia late&quot; was a vocative, now it is a bit more clear to me, thanks" CreationDate="2022-08-23T16:11:38.980" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="39288" PostId="18716" Score="2" Text="So you're asking how to translate something which iw not English into something which is not Latin, right?" CreationDate="2022-08-23T22:23:51.070" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="39283" PostId="18717" Score="1" Text="Good find! The book I saw didn't say he was a count, so that threw me off. I did see that he was noble though (one book says [&quot;nobile Sig. Cristoforo Laffranchini&quot;](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Istoria_della_Vita_e_delle_Opere_di_Raff/6SA6AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22cristoforo+laffranchini%22&amp;pg=PA329&amp;printsec=frontcover), while someone below him was &quot;sig. Conte&quot;)." CreationDate="2022-08-23T17:17:17.833" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39291" PostId="18717" Score="0" Text="Yes, you cracked it." CreationDate="2022-08-24T10:48:59.447" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="39286" PostId="18718" Score="4" Text="Can you give an example of where you found postid? Searching Plautus, I'm only seeing postidea, not postid on its own." CreationDate="2022-08-23T18:51:35.277" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39294" PostId="18718" Score="1" Text="Sure, I encountered it in the prologue of Casina, lines 32-34: Deiphilus hanc graece scripsit, postid rursum denuo latine Plautus cum latranti nomine. (Text from Loeb Classical Library)" CreationDate="2022-08-24T16:36:02.953" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="39295" PostId="18718" Score="1" Text="Interesting! I don't have a proper answer yet, but I do want to note that other editions have _post id_ there." CreationDate="2022-08-24T17:06:59.083" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39303" PostId="18718" Score="0" Text="Ah! It mostly looks like a typo! I ran the form, postid, in the Latin concordance tool and found no match, but did find plenty of the form, post id, with that space. But this does beg an additional question: How does postea become generally a compound and not post id?" CreationDate="2022-08-25T17:50:47.823" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="39293" PostId="18719" Score="0" Text="Any chance you have the Greek, Egyptian, and Sanskrit translations?" CreationDate="2022-08-24T15:03:38.373" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39297" PostId="18719" Score="2" Text="@cmw Sure, I added them to the question" CreationDate="2022-08-24T18:18:19.660" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="39299" PostId="18719" Score="0" Text="Thanks! It's interesting to see what they opted for." CreationDate="2022-08-24T18:57:39.270" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39371" PostId="18724" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Is the &quot;so much more&quot; other languages, information about peoples, history, and culture related to Latin, or all of the above?" CreationDate="2022-09-01T02:33:39.560" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39307" PostId="18726" Score="1" Text="Interesting! Do you have an example where it doesn't form a valid onset?" CreationDate="2022-08-26T15:46:20.737" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39309" PostId="18727" Score="0" Text="Relevant: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1309/how-to-resolve-ambiguity-with-reflexive-pronouns" CreationDate="2022-08-26T20:02:36.877" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="39325" PostId="18727" Score="3" Text="In (at least some) Slavonic languages these &quot;reflexive possessive pronouns are used in first and second person as well as third, i.e. if I am reading my book, it is &quot;svoju knigu&quot; in Russian rather than &quot;moju knigu&quot;." CreationDate="2022-08-28T22:47:16.967" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="39335" PostId="18727" Score="0" Text="So almost like saying _\*mesuum librum legō_?" CreationDate="2022-08-29T10:17:47.390" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="39336" PostId="18727" Score="0" Text="No, more like saying _suum librum legō_" CreationDate="2022-08-29T10:43:20.457" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="39337" PostId="18727" Score="3" Text="1) Colloquial German (and Dutch, as pointed out by Cerberus in Conloqvivm) works like English, not Norwegian. GER _sein_ is like ENG _his,_  not like NOR _sin,_ despite the similarity. 2) A correct German translation of your example would be _Wir sahen ihn mit seinem Hund spazieren (gehen):_ the verb _gehen_ is intransitive. 3) Similarly, _ambulō_ can only be made transitive with objects of place, as in _ambulō iter_ ( = **to walk a path**). _Ambulo canem_ is impossible. _Educo canem ambulatum_ would be possible, but my translation is _vidimus/videbamus eum cum cane suo ambulantem_" CreationDate="2022-08-29T13:37:06.283" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="40558" PostId="18727" Score="0" Text="@Dario Thank you for this feedback. The German I was not aware of at all. The Latin: My dictionary agrees then with what you say, with the following entry (translated: ‘**ambulō,** _1. walk up and down, around, stroll; travel, march;_ fessus a-ndo; in sole, in litore a.; bene a-a: (safe travels! good luck on your journey!), Pt.; Caesar eo modo a-t ut _marches; w._ object: maria a-avit Xerxes, terram navigavit, Ov.’ The sole example of object does use an object of place. Perhaps vādō can do the job?" CreationDate="2022-12-07T11:40:34.230" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="40559" PostId="18727" Score="0" Text="@Dario I forgot to mention you in the above edit, so allow me to make mention of your contribution here in the comments." CreationDate="2022-12-07T11:51:11.043" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="39312" PostId="18728" Score="2" Text="Does your dictionary ever use macrons to indicate syllable weight instead of vowel length?" CreationDate="2022-08-26T23:08:55.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39313" PostId="18728" Score="0" Text="Not that I am aware of. Can you think of any words I can look up to check for this?" CreationDate="2022-08-27T00:17:46.753" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="39314" PostId="18730" Score="1" Text="I was under the impression (following Calabrese) that the /iː/–/ɪ/ distinction proposed by Allen was an anglophone interpretation of Latin phonology. Italian, for instance, though having no distinction between long and short vowels, only has /i/; Spanish the same; Portuguese the same, if you consider unstressed e to not be the same as stressed/unstressed i." CreationDate="2022-08-27T11:03:02.523" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="39316" PostId="18730" Score="2" Text="@CannedMan: The five-quality system outlined in Calabrese's paper is popular online, but I don't believe it has displaced the general consensus in academia in favor of a system with qualitative differences between short and long **i u e o** (described but not invented by Allen). Allen, who was writing an introductory guide for English speakers, certainly takes an anglophone angle on describing those qualitative differences, but that isn't an inherent part of the model. Modern German vowel qualities are probably a bit closer to what Latin is thought to have possessed." CreationDate="2022-08-27T13:09:02.753" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39317" PostId="18731" Score="1" Text="You can omit *discere* as a subject in the second clause, since it can likely be understood as the subject of *sit*. Is that what you are asking? Because I don't get that impression when I read your title question. I also do not see one clause clause with multiple subjects, but I see two clauses with one subject each: 1) implicit *ego* and 2) implicit or explicit *discere*." CreationDate="2022-08-27T14:25:16.437" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39321" PostId="18733" Score="0" Text="Are you sure Giraud is a form of Gerald? And not Gerard?" CreationDate="2022-08-28T16:11:28.820" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39322" PostId="18733" Score="2" Text="@Figulus l-vocalisation is a regular phenomenon in French, r-vocalisation is not. No doubt the two names got confused in practice, though." CreationDate="2022-08-28T17:39:01.693" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39323" PostId="18733" Score="2" Text="@Figulus I think Gérard and Giraud aren't etymologically related" CreationDate="2022-08-28T18:06:18.483" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="39326" PostId="18734" Score="1" Text="Doesn't your Wikipedia link go to Gerard? What has that got to do with Giraud?" CreationDate="2022-08-29T00:19:16.340" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39327" PostId="18734" Score="2" Text="@Asteroides That article says that Giraud comes from Gerard and that Gerald is unrelated. However, there are no citations for those sections. Worse still that under the Giraud article, it cites some random &quot;behind the name&quot; website, and that also lacks any sources." CreationDate="2022-08-29T00:38:11.343" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39328" PostId="18734" Score="1" Text="Oh, yeah, I missed that it describes it in the section on &quot;patronymic surnames&quot;" CreationDate="2022-08-29T00:45:08.353" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39329" PostId="18734" Score="1" Text="Nitpick about the last paragraph: wouldn't an attestation for &quot;Giraudi&quot; be equivalent to an attestation for &quot;Giraudus&quot;? After all you cite the Vita Sancti _Geraldi_ for Geraldus." CreationDate="2022-08-29T03:37:30.023" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39331" PostId="18734" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Sorry, I accidentally copied the wrong link. Fixed. Though, as cmw says, Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source in this case, and I don't see why Giraud could not just as well derive from Gerald." CreationDate="2022-08-29T06:20:19.277" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39332" PostId="18734" Score="0" Text="@Draconis It's mostly Italians named Giraudi, though. Besides, you will find other forms, including the nominative, *inside* the *Vita s. Geraldi* " CreationDate="2022-08-29T06:32:30.357" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39333" PostId="18734" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer, I will create another question for the Latinisation of Giraud" CreationDate="2022-08-29T07:04:21.763" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="39330" PostId="18735" Score="0" Text="You didn’t ask, and I’m not expert enough, but myself I’d have saved chisels and said πολυώνυμον το μόνον. But don’t trust me on this." CreationDate="2022-08-29T05:29:44.143" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="39341" PostId="18736" Score="0" Text="I don't know, but congratulations!" CreationDate="2022-08-29T20:36:46.230" UserId="203" />
  <row Id="39370" PostId="18736" Score="2" Text="I'd say the Latin is correct, and the sentiment is delightful!" CreationDate="2022-09-01T02:03:49.030" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39340" PostId="18737" Score="4" Text="Rimbaud might provide an analogy. The French adjective for Rimbaud is “rimbaldien”. This is some evidence for correlation between “aud” in French and “ald” in Latin." CreationDate="2022-08-29T20:23:58.907" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="39361" PostId="18739" Score="2" Text="I have to say, they did a much better job than most people inventing Latin text for movies." CreationDate="2022-08-31T01:17:39.113" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40365" PostId="18740" Score="0" Text="Very few people are able to understand Latin intuitively. Most understand it in terms of their native language. A trick for acquiring a native understanding is to read extremely fast. If you read so fast that you do not have time to translate, then only what you natively understand will be absorbed. The drawback to this is that you will understand only bits and pieces of what you are reading, especially in the beginning. Another trick is to write your vocabulary in sentences. If your definitions are long sentences, then there is less possibility of doing word-for-word substitutions." CreationDate="2022-11-04T00:32:48.500" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39369" PostId="18741" Score="0" Text="I would think that *velavit* would mean &quot;cover&quot; and not &quot;uncover&quot;." CreationDate="2022-09-01T02:00:07.770" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39387" PostId="18741" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Figulus! Of course you are correct. To keep the metre I suggest ‘nudavit’." CreationDate="2022-09-02T08:57:23.047" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39362" PostId="18742" Score="2" Text="Roughly speaking, your noun can act as a modifier if in [genitive](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/genitive#genitive-material): _lapidis mensa_ or you can get an adjective derived from the noun through suffixes: _[lapidea](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlapideus) mensa_." CreationDate="2022-08-31T15:46:00.827" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39363" PostId="18742" Score="1" Text="I took the liberty to reformat your question a bit, and correct *petivit* to the plural *petiverunt* to agree with *Romani*. It's irrelevant for the question, though. Feel free to roll back or edit further." CreationDate="2022-08-31T16:15:14.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39378" PostId="18742" Score="0" Text="For some related questions &amp; answers see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7298/noun-adjuncts-in-latin &amp; https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12684/substantivization-of-continuum" CreationDate="2022-09-01T14:43:22.833" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39366" PostId="18743" Score="3" Text="+1. I insist in adding the genitive of material, which works like in English: table of stone, _lapidis mensa_" CreationDate="2022-08-31T17:24:38.517" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39367" PostId="18743" Score="2" Text="@Rafael I considered that but felt unsure and left it out. The examples given by A&amp;G (your link under the question) did feel slightly different than a construction material, but I agree that it sounds natural is easily understood. I'll edit it in." CreationDate="2022-08-31T17:52:28.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39379" PostId="18743" Score="0" Text="Perhaps you would like to link your present answer to a previous one of yours (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7298/noun-adjuncts-in-latin/7300#7300 ).  See also my comment above." CreationDate="2022-09-01T14:45:44.447" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39380" PostId="18743" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Thanks! I thought that the topic must have been covered before but I couldn't find a suitable question. I added a link. The one on the continuum hypothesis is interesting too and certainly part of the same phenomenon, but feels a bit like a sidetrack from the point of view of construction material. I try to gauge (to varying degrees of success) the level of the asker's Latin proficiency and adjust the level of my answer to that." CreationDate="2022-09-01T17:34:05.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39365" PostId="18744" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2022-08-31T17:12:47.563" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39372" PostId="18745" Score="3" Text="I believe they did, and they called them *actus*. And I believe five was already common. L&amp;S: *Hence, also, a larger division of a play, an act: &quot;primo actu placeo&quot;, Ter. Hec. prol. 31; &quot;neque minor quinto, nec sit productior actu Fabula&quot;, Hor. A. P. 189* (&quot;and let a play be neither shorter nor longer than the fifth act&quot;)." CreationDate="2022-09-01T02:51:58.720" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39375" PostId="18746" Score="0" Text="I've never been a dog-owner, but my impression was that any dog needs to be exercised (both physically and mentally) regularly by going for a walk or similar, far beyond the mere necessity of 'doing their business'. I can't imagine that being any different for Roman dogs." CreationDate="2022-09-01T12:51:58.853" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39377" PostId="18746" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I've had dogs and I agree. I didn't want to assume too much in the question, but I do expect Roman dogs to have had a variety of daily activities." CreationDate="2022-09-01T14:00:40.543" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39383" PostId="18746" Score="0" Text="Were dogs kept as pets, or only as working animals?" CreationDate="2022-09-01T23:08:57.697" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="39384" PostId="18746" Score="2" Text="A dog on a leash, how offensive. This must have been Photomosaicked." CreationDate="2022-09-02T01:21:12.520" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39385" PostId="18746" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus Did you mean Mosaicshopped? I agree that this was probably produced by a skilled mosaic shop." CreationDate="2022-09-02T07:18:27.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39386" PostId="18746" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: We know that the Romans had guard-dogs (Pompeii: the &quot;CAVE CANEM&quot; mosaic.). Guard dogs, at night, would be living inside the house. As dbmag9 has said, dogs must be exercised; formally (daily ritual with owner) or informally (given space to run wild). Without this dogs become frustrated and start gnawing the furniture, which nobody wants. Roman cities had their traffic problems: delivery carts, chariots, horses with impatient riders. Putting dogs on a lead would have been as sensible then, as it is now. We just need confirmation from the literature." CreationDate="2022-09-02T08:23:05.467" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39389" PostId="18746" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: I suppose that would be more correct. But it doesn't change the offence." CreationDate="2022-09-02T16:21:06.180" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39373" PostId="18747" Score="0" Text="I ment decimum." CreationDate="2022-09-01T11:23:40.323" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="39374" PostId="18747" Score="2" Text="You can edit your post using the 'Edit' button: https://latin.stackexchange.com/posts/18747/edit" CreationDate="2022-09-01T12:49:18.183" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39381" PostId="18747" Score="1" Text="I did not know that.  Thanks." CreationDate="2022-09-01T19:35:42.187" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="39388" PostId="18749" Score="0" Text="Thank you.  This helps a lot." CreationDate="2022-09-02T11:24:45.597" UserId="10586" />
  <row Id="39391" PostId="18750" Score="3" Text="Not really a full answer, but my impression of that website has been that the Latinity, as far as I can judge, is usually so good that if something gives me pause, my default assumption is that they know something I don't. In your example, I find the last sentence a little irritating: Is *hoc ast est* really idiomatic? I would have written *At hoc est*. Also, passive *recordari* is attested, but quite unusual." CreationDate="2022-09-02T18:24:07.437" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39393" PostId="18750" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your insight" CreationDate="2022-09-02T18:53:55.933" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="40512" PostId="18753" Score="0" Text="Sorry for the late reply, ignoring what type of category use Theophrastus or Pliny, do we know which tree is mentioned by them?" CreationDate="2022-11-21T15:05:48.320" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="40515" PostId="18753" Score="0" Text="@AbhishekYadav Well, you can't really separate the type of tree from the category. We define types of trees by how we categorize them." CreationDate="2022-11-21T19:26:05.657" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39390" PostId="18754" Score="0" Text="I think additionally those emojis and tags aren't language-specific, but are used by any group that regularly communicates via the internet. It isn't inherently part of the language, per se, but rather of a culture's non-verbal expression." CreationDate="2022-09-02T17:51:39.367" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39392" PostId="18754" Score="0" Text="Looking at playwrights is a very good idea, I didn't think about it, thanks. Emoji aren't part of any language, but I think one can argue than the tags are (hj = half joking is part of English even borrowed to other Langs)" CreationDate="2022-09-02T18:51:02.593" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="39394" PostId="18757" Score="2" Text="Another option could be: read with a translation on the side. That can really help you speed up." CreationDate="2022-09-03T04:07:25.103" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39444" PostId="18757" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Cicero's &quot;quae cum ita sint&quot;; literally, &quot;when these things are thus/ may be so&quot;, is this equivalent to the English, &quot;with all things being equal&quot;? An alternative way of saying, &quot;if events unfold as expected&quot;; &quot;if things go according to plan&quot;. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2022-09-07T08:33:05.637" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39454" PostId="18757" Score="1" Text="@tony No, like I wrote it roughly corresponds to “this being so.” It is just a rhetorical throat-clearing." CreationDate="2022-09-07T19:16:55.330" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39436" PostId="18758" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! I couldn't have asked for a better explanation. Thank you." CreationDate="2022-09-06T14:49:40.853" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="39398" PostId="18762" Score="1" Text="So, to make sure I'm reading this correctly: *ἑκάς + τις became ἕκαστος, which was retro-analyzed as a superlative, making the comparative  ἑκάτερος? If so, that's fascinating!" CreationDate="2022-09-03T17:33:57.180" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39680" PostId="18762" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yeah, that's how I read it, too. Good intuition on your part!" CreationDate="2022-09-24T18:14:24.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39399" PostId="18764" Score="3" Text="[Related question.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14983/latin-for-choose)" CreationDate="2022-09-03T20:26:38.653" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39400" PostId="18765" Score="1" Text="Doesn't seem to be: https://www.etymonline.com/word/broil#etymonline_v_17148" CreationDate="2022-09-03T20:31:47.787" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39401" PostId="18765" Score="2" Text="@cmw It draws a comparison to Italian *imbroglio*. Is it possible that *proelium* derives from the same PIE root, namely *bhreu-*?" CreationDate="2022-09-03T20:38:59.077" UserId="11497" />
  <row Id="39427" PostId="18773" Score="3" Text="To summarise your answer - spatio pollicarir emotius makes no sense, moving the “r” to just after the space makes *spatio pollicari remotius* which makes perfect sense." CreationDate="2022-09-05T07:14:47.973" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="39428" PostId="18777" Score="0" Text="The Latin means pretty much literally what the English says: to distance oneself from one's friends. Are you asking if it also had a separate, idiomatic usage in Latin, meaning something like suicide?" CreationDate="2022-09-05T15:19:22.313" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39429" PostId="18777" Score="0" Text="Yes, or some other form of separating oneself from society" CreationDate="2022-09-05T15:28:14.770" UserId="11505" />
  <row Id="39431" PostId="18778" Score="0" Text="I'm sorry: Sirex (as it results in Spanish &quot;Sîrice&quot;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirex" CreationDate="2022-09-05T17:58:18.160" UserId="9507" />
  <row Id="39432" PostId="18778" Score="0" Text="Thank you VERY MUCH ;)" CreationDate="2022-09-05T18:41:49.647" UserId="9507" />
  <row Id="39445" PostId="18778" Score="0" Text="BTW, the correct Italian spelling is _elica_ (_èlica_ only in teaching material) and it doesn’t come directly from _helĭce(m)_ but from a secondary form _(h)elĭca(m)_ which, being a feminine, had made into the first declension." CreationDate="2022-09-07T08:53:01.100" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="39435" PostId="18780" Score="2" Text="FWIW, there is a nice expression from Terence *Fallacia alia aliam trudit* - which is basically the same but about lies." CreationDate="2022-09-06T09:46:01.000" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39459" PostId="18780" Score="1" Text="@d_e … and easily adopted for other purposes." CreationDate="2022-09-07T19:45:07.447" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39451" PostId="18782" Score="1" Text="Varro used *colonia* for bee colonies, so there's precedent for extending it to industrious insects. *Nidus* strikes me as weird." CreationDate="2022-09-07T17:24:27.517" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39457" PostId="18782" Score="0" Text="According to [Köbler](http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Mittellatein-HP/VorwortMlat-HP.htm), all three: *formicarius, formicaria, formicarium* can be used for an ant nest/hill. *Formicarius* (ant hill) is also the title of an [incunable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formicarius) ([read it here](https://www.ub.uni-koeln.de/cdm/compoundobject/collection/inkunabeln/id/125979/rec/1)); according to Wikipedia an allusion to Proverbs 6:6, where sadly it only says *Vade ad formicam, o piger, et considera vias ejus, et disce sapientiam.*" CreationDate="2022-09-07T19:39:59.190" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39458" PostId="18782" Score="0" Text="… but none of these is classical, of course!" CreationDate="2022-09-07T19:43:35.750" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39465" PostId="18782" Score="0" Text="Those were all helpful.  Does anyone find fault with:                         laborat formica ad bonum coloniae" CreationDate="2022-09-08T03:51:25.990" UserId="11509" />
  <row Id="39484" PostId="18782" Score="1" Text="@Caw That will be understood, but I think it could be made more idiomatic. See my answer. (By the way, this was a very nice question. I hope you'll stick around and ask more!)" CreationDate="2022-09-09T14:40:07.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39491" PostId="18782" Score="0" Text="Q2: _labor_ si uerbum malueris Horatium illum non plus tenuiter commemorabis quem in saturorum iis libris praeclarissime: _magna formica laboris_ (S.1.1.33). confer itidem (Ov.Met.7.656)." CreationDate="2022-09-10T18:38:52.490" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="39446" PostId="18783" Score="2" Text="The 'would' in the English there is part of the grammatical construction (direct: *he will give*, indirect: *he would give*). It's not being used here to describe wanting (for example in the archaic English *I would speak with him* for *I want to speak with him*)." CreationDate="2022-09-07T11:50:28.820" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39455" PostId="18785" Score="2" Text="Just a side remark: It appears the accusative of *Neapolis* is *Neapolin* or *Neapolim* (because of λε γρεεκ)." CreationDate="2022-09-07T19:25:27.123" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39461" PostId="18785" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. I've just looked on Wiki: &quot;i-stem, Greek type&quot;." CreationDate="2022-09-07T22:05:25.323" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39466" PostId="18785" Score="1" Text="Google Translate (yeah, yeah, I know) does use *circumvenire* but also suggests *fraudare,* which is a bit of a surprise." CreationDate="2022-09-08T06:37:27.587" UserId="7451" />
  <row Id="39468" PostId="18785" Score="0" Text="@Andrew Leach: Lewis &amp; Short gives  good accounts of the two verbs." CreationDate="2022-09-08T09:06:32.827" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39481" PostId="18785" Score="1" Text="You can also use *circumscribere*." CreationDate="2022-09-08T19:20:41.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39449" PostId="18786" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! I think this is a fine question, and I as a Latinist and a professional mathematician would be happy to see it undeleted and answered." CreationDate="2022-09-07T17:02:51.547" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39452" PostId="18787" Score="1" Text="Thank you for your answer, I think you are right, the nature of prime numbers is clear, but the law they obey is obscure. It could probably have been more explicit but so be it." CreationDate="2022-09-07T17:56:17.267" UserDisplayName="user11510" />
  <row Id="39453" PostId="18787" Score="1" Text="@Victor I agree, it could have been more explicit. Euler could have written less and made the point more transparent. I think I wouldn't have arrived at my conclusion without earlier subject knowledge. Oddities like this make great questions!" CreationDate="2022-09-07T18:07:25.757" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39456" PostId="18788" Score="3" Text="+1! This leads to the question: How many infinitives did the Romans stack at most? Do we have something like *dixit se velle posse audere venire*? (This needs a separate question.)" CreationDate="2022-09-07T19:29:55.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39531" PostId="18788" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Having read everything I still don't know why Joonas's answer &quot;does not answer the actual question&quot;. Unless. looking at JC, you want to say,&quot;he would be able to give&quot;. There doesn't appear to be a future-infinitive for &quot;possum&quot;. Therefore it's the present-as-future: &quot;rex Fabricio dixit se ei quartum partem regni dare posse.&quot; = &quot;The King told Fabricius that he would be able to give him....&quot;. Is this it? Are you going to ask a new question?" CreationDate="2022-09-13T12:44:59.590" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39536" PostId="18788" Score="1" Text="@tony the OP had neither the future tense in mind, nor &quot;being able,&quot; just &quot;wanting to give.&quot; And by the way, I am no expert on English grammar, but isn't that a valid (if unusual) interpretation of the original sentence too?" CreationDate="2022-09-13T15:44:29.223" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39539" PostId="18788" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Then it's, &quot;...dare cupere.&quot;? If this is not correct then how would yourself translate the OP's request? The present-as-future is more of an English thing (What happens in German?) but there are examples in Latin: A &amp; G section 468; p.295." CreationDate="2022-09-14T07:52:44.503" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39558" PostId="18788" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: In languages there isn't always a rock-solid correct answer. The two treatments ending: &quot;.....daturum esse.&quot;; and, &quot;....dare cupere.&quot; are both correct, aren't they? Then, there's A &amp; G massaging tenses: section 468; p.295." CreationDate="2022-09-15T09:26:17.417" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39559" PostId="18788" Score="1" Text="@tony As I said in my updated answer, it depends on how you interpret the original. Both options are valid Latin but they mean different things. Context will determine what is correct. Perhaps Sebastian's reading is indeed more likely to be accurate than mine, but speculating too far is pointless without actual context. (If you are commenting about my answer, consider leaving your comment under it instead of another one.)" CreationDate="2022-09-15T10:51:20.007" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39562" PostId="18788" Score="1" Text="@tony The point of this question, as I understood it, was whether stacked infinitives are allowed, and I wanted to clarify that they are indeed (and are, in fact, quite common). I do think that Joonas' translation is the likelier reading of the English original, but it sidesteps this core question." CreationDate="2022-09-15T19:54:38.453" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39462" PostId="18790" Score="3" Text="I suspect this has a lot to do with the fact that *ignoscant* is already subjunctive: it would be very weird to have an indicative verb in a clause that is subordinate to one with a subjunctive verb, though I can't quite justify that intuition with a grammar reference. See Plautus, though: &quot;...ut istuc insipienter factum sapienter feras, mihique **ignoscas** quod animi impos vini vitio **fecerim**.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-09-07T22:19:23.120" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39463" PostId="18790" Score="1" Text="Two examples from Cicero seem to bear this out: (1) indicatives: &quot;quod non fecisti, ignosco&quot;; (2) subjunctives: &quot; id velim mihi ignoscas quod invita socru tua fecerim.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-09-07T22:23:15.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39470" PostId="18790" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: In Cicero's, &quot;id velim mihi ignoscas quod invita socru tua fecerim&quot; = &quot;I would like you to forgive me this (id), because I did (this) to your unwilling mother-in-law.&quot;, why is &quot;socru tua&quot; in the ablative; not the dative, &quot;socrui tuae&quot;, &quot;I did this to...&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-09-08T10:55:21.993" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39473" PostId="18790" Score="2" Text="@tony I read it as an ablative absolute. Assuming it has concessive force: &quot;...that I did this though your mother-in-law was unwilling.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-09-08T12:15:42.703" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39577" PostId="18790" Score="0" Text="@Laravel: You might be interested in this answer from Vegwatcher: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/18539/1982." CreationDate="2022-09-17T09:14:29.120" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39472" PostId="18791" Score="0" Text="I looked at my text again and believe it is promiscue; I incorrectly resolved the abbreviation.&#xA;Mostly I wasn’t sure whether promiscue combined with esse should be taken primarily as referring to the  poets (they, without distinguishing between them) or to the poet-pig connection (they are so thoroughly pigs that there’s no distinguishing between a poet and a pig)." CreationDate="2022-09-08T12:03:06.913" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="39474" PostId="18791" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey: Ah, OK. Hmm the former sounds much more logical to me." CreationDate="2022-09-08T13:05:37.380" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39467" PostId="18792" Score="0" Text="I read that Plautus' Latin was a bit archaic and should not be taken as a model, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. Thanks for the references" CreationDate="2022-09-08T08:30:38.840" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="39485" PostId="18792" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Is your paper available on the net?" CreationDate="2022-09-09T14:59:04.430" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39486" PostId="18792" Score="0" Text="@tony: Ah, no, I just wrote it at university in some Tacitus course, I think." CreationDate="2022-09-09T15:11:04.907" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39469" PostId="18793" Score="0" Text="Have you checked this word in any [online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)? Many of them indicate vowel length, and you can check several if you want more certainty." CreationDate="2022-09-08T09:13:09.457" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39471" PostId="18793" Score="8" Text="The pronunciation of an English word derived from a Latin one is not, in general, relevant evidence for the pronunciation of the Latin word." CreationDate="2022-09-08T11:04:06.607" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39475" PostId="18793" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 Well, if somebody does research and finds out that in the 17th century, it was common for Catholic prelates to pronounce sedes as SEE-DEES and English people--hearing them say that--then used the word &quot;see&quot;, then you would be wrong about that wouldn't you?" CreationDate="2022-09-08T13:07:40.253" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39476" PostId="18793" Score="4" Text="You piqued my curiosity enough to open [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/see#Etymology_2), where I found that the English *see* comes from Old French *sie*, from the Latin *sedes*. So my point that the English pronunciation is not relevant evidence for the Latin pronunciation does seem to apply in this case." CreationDate="2022-09-08T13:22:16.980" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39478" PostId="18793" Score="0" Text="+1, but I think you could elaborate more. For Sancta Sedes I automatically assume Ecclesiastical pronunciation (approximately ['se.des], SED-ays), but you could be thinking about [_traditional English pronunciation_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin) which was common until about one century ago and is kind of reviving e.g. in legal contexts." CreationDate="2022-09-08T14:40:35.750" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39483" PostId="18796" Score="0" Text="Thank you. What a cadre of scoundrels stalking the streets of Roman cities. Little wonder that decent citizens were reluctant (terrified) to go out after dark. Carpocino's &quot;Daily lLife in Ancient Rome&quot;, p.60 &quot;...night fell over the city like the shadow of a great danger, diffused, sinister, menacing. Everyone fled to his home, shut himself in, and barricaded the entrance. [...] Juvenal sighs that to go out to supper without having made your will was to expose yourself to the reproach of carelessness;&quot;." CreationDate="2022-09-09T09:06:12.773" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39501" PostId="18800" Score="1" Text="Your suggestions were most helpful. I have decided to use Formica Pro Bono Coloniae Laborat, for these reasons: since the ant represents me myself, I feel justified in using pro bono rather than what might be the more technically correct pro uso; Laborat rather than operatur for the menial slave-labor connotation; and pro bono rather than just pro so that it doesn't read like merely &quot;for the colony&quot;. Thanks to all for your comments and please forgive my boorish formatting." CreationDate="2022-09-11T02:48:38.660" UserId="11509" />
  <row Id="39507" PostId="18800" Score="1" Text="@Caw I'm glad to have been able to help! If you think the matter is settled, please accept one of the answers. That marks it as correct or most useful and indicates that the case is closed. (You can accept an answer using the little green checkmark near the upper left corner. There you can also vote. Please vote up any posts you like, including other questions and their answers!)" CreationDate="2022-09-11T05:49:39.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39488" PostId="18801" Score="0" Text="Can you explain any more the context in which this passage occurs?" CreationDate="2022-09-10T12:15:46.713" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39490" PostId="18801" Score="0" Text="Close match: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18298/trying-to-translate-blessed-be-god-who-calls-us-his-children" CreationDate="2022-09-10T13:33:41.580" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39508" PostId="18802" Score="0" Text="If this is indirect speech then &quot;child&quot; is being treated as a separate person from &quot;you&quot;; &quot;child&quot; is then the third party; &quot;you&quot;, the second party; the writer/ speaker, the first. Is that correct?" CreationDate="2022-09-11T08:38:20.020" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39522" PostId="18802" Score="0" Text="I have to say, at the risk of refusing to answer the original question, that *memento te filium Dei esse* flows better, or even *memento semper te filium esse Dei*. But this is a question of “playing it by ear” and there is no reason to suppose my ears are better than someone else’s." CreationDate="2022-09-11T21:39:28.850" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="39535" PostId="18802" Score="2" Text="@tony That is not correct. *te* is the subject of the indirect statement, and *filium* is the &quot;predicate.&quot; In direct speech, you'd get: *Tu es filius dei.*" CreationDate="2022-09-13T15:34:33.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39492" PostId="18804" Score="1" Text="You actually do need to render the idea of &quot;that&quot;, and in your example *quoniam* does that. Your translation is misleading; that line is more properly rendered &quot;Now by this I know *that* you are a man of God, and the word &amp;c.&quot;, which is also how the KJV and the NIV have it. If the meaning were as in your translation, the *es* should be *sis* and there should be another conjunction in the second object sentence (or it should be an ACI)." CreationDate="2022-09-10T20:08:03.553" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39496" PostId="18804" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I added to my answer gave another example of the appositive construction I am recommending from Psalms. As you can see, when a full sentence is the object of abjuration, it is treated as an independent clause, so &quot;voces&quot; for example is nominative plural, not genitive." CreationDate="2022-09-10T22:16:54.777" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39497" PostId="18804" Score="2" Text="*Voces* is an accusative plural, in fact, because it's the direct object of *obliviscaris* (*obliviscor* can go with acc. or gen. for the thing forgotten). Your ellipsis obscures an actual colon: &quot;Ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum: superbia eorum qui te oderunt ascendit semper.&quot; That is to say, *ascendit semper* does not depend syntactically on *obliviscaris* at all, it's just two separate sentences." CreationDate="2022-09-10T22:32:51.197" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39493" PostId="18808" Score="0" Text="Walde-Hoffmann and  Ernout-Meillet of course." CreationDate="2022-09-10T20:41:21.407" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="39494" PostId="18808" Score="0" Text="@fdb I was planning to add some more detail about those etymological dictionaries but I realize that's probably better served by a different question that someone other than me can answer. I've never actually used 'em myself (only seen them as sources for other things) so I've just expanded the abbreviations for now." CreationDate="2022-09-10T22:03:11.250" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39503" PostId="18808" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Just curious, if you didn't use either of those, what did you use? I mean before De Vaan." CreationDate="2022-09-11T04:21:05.343" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39504" PostId="18808" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus De Vaan's the main source I've ever used; I wasn't really doing anything with etymology before 2011. There was another book focusing on all the Italic languages (so still like 90% Latin) that I'm trying to find again, but I never had specifically an etymological dictionary before De Vaan." CreationDate="2022-09-11T04:24:18.660" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39505" PostId="18808" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Ah, OK, I understand." CreationDate="2022-09-11T04:25:07.127" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39506" PostId="18808" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus That said, I know others in the field are less than satisfied with De Vaan overall, so I'm definitely interested in [learning more about these other works](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/18809/406)!" CreationDate="2022-09-11T04:36:28.297" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39521" PostId="18808" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Good idea, I didn't know we didn't have a question like that." CreationDate="2022-09-11T15:02:24.933" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39520" PostId="18809" Score="4" Text="Now I'm curious, what are the main points of criticism on De Vaan? I cannot access this critique." CreationDate="2022-09-11T15:00:23.470" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39509" PostId="18810" Score="0" Text="My instinct wouldn't have been that it has anything to do with grammar per se, but rather that it's just to distinguish titles/alternative titles, subtitles, additional information etc. I'm sure it owes more to contemporary trends in English book publishing than anything Latin-specific." CreationDate="2022-09-11T09:53:18.620" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39512" PostId="18810" Score="0" Text="I don't get why you are referring to English trends, it's a book from 1731" CreationDate="2022-09-11T10:11:47.917" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="39514" PostId="18810" Score="1" Text="My mistake, I hadn't read the cover, I should have referred to French trends as the book was published in France. My point stands though." CreationDate="2022-09-11T11:17:25.497" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39537" PostId="18816" Score="0" Text="Can you provide any book on this topic?" CreationDate="2022-09-13T18:55:21.627" UserId="10551" />
  <row Id="39523" PostId="18817" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the great, great question. I don't remember how it is in the Lysistrata specifically, but, in general, one way in which a switch to another speaker is marked is in the text itself, e.g. by a name in the vocative: &quot;You must be correct, Socrates&quot; — here we know the dialogue has switched away from Socrates who had just been speaking. Something like, &quot;I agree&quot;, can also serve this purpose. Etc." CreationDate="2022-09-11T22:39:41.020" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39524" PostId="18819" Score="4" Text="Welcome to the site! Your question sounds like a duplicate of [how can I study Latin on my own](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own) which includes different book series in each answer. If you're looking for something a bit more specific let us know, though!" CreationDate="2022-09-12T13:53:39.727" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39527" PostId="18819" Score="2" Text="It seems to me that what you are looking for can be found in the question that @Adam links to, so we have marked this as a duplicate. If you don't find what you are looking for, please edit your question (using the &quot;edit&quot; button under it) to describe in more detail what you would like to have and how the resources listed in the linked question fall short of that. In that case this question can be reopened. // Also: Welcome to the site! If you have any questions while you're learning Latin, I hope you ask some of them here on our site." CreationDate="2022-09-12T17:11:10.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39526" PostId="18822" Score="6" Text="Can you post the passage?" CreationDate="2022-09-12T17:03:58.760" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39530" PostId="18822" Score="0" Text="@TKR Updated to include the passage" CreationDate="2022-09-13T11:08:00.073" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="39538" PostId="18825" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this answer. So is there no ambiguity that he's referring to weather, and not a &quot;proper mixture of things&quot;? Or at least, the weather reading is most natural?" CreationDate="2022-09-13T23:25:13.103" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="39540" PostId="18825" Score="0" Text="@SamGallagher I don’t see any mixture in the context, so I would expect at least a genitive to clarify what kind of mixture. temperies by itself quite naturally in neo-Latin refers to weather conditions, and you yourself mentioned that the weather effects these experiments." CreationDate="2022-09-14T10:26:08.253" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="39534" PostId="18826" Score="0" Text="Thanks, and I learned about a new dictionary, very useful!" CreationDate="2022-09-13T15:27:54.343" UserId="8704" />
  <row Id="39572" PostId="18834" Score="1" Text="I would expect at least three to be possible. By the way, do you count a.c.i.?" CreationDate="2022-09-16T22:16:05.093" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39573" PostId="18834" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Yeah, ACI is fine and maybe even the historical infinitive. It's hard to draw clear boundaries." CreationDate="2022-09-16T22:29:35.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39574" PostId="18835" Score="0" Text="It looks like there's exactly one active form of *polliceor* in the corpus, in Varro (pre-Classical, obviously): *ne dares, ne polliceres quid datum est*. Nussbaum mentions it along with an instance of a passive meaning [in this article](https://www.academia.edu/1147444/Five_Latin_verbs_from_a_root_leik) (p. 170) discussing *polliceor*. The significance is up for debate." CreationDate="2022-09-17T00:09:44.763" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39575" PostId="18835" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: Good find! I'll add this, unless you were going to post an answer of your own?" CreationDate="2022-09-17T03:11:27.190" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="39576" PostId="18835" Score="0" Text="No, I have nothing to add." CreationDate="2022-09-17T03:22:48.453" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39787" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="There is a Greek expression, which has been Latinized as ***Cous ad Chium*** (comparing the islands of Cous and Chium)." CreationDate="2022-09-18T15:48:49.663" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39789" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="The variant *Chius ad Coum* gets its own entry as Adagium 1668 in Erasmus's *Colloquia Familiaria Et Encomium Moriae*. He goes on to say, *De comparatione vehementer inaequali dicebatur.* Link:  http://ihrim.huma-num.fr/nmh/Erasmus/Proverbia/Adagium_1668.html" CreationDate="2022-09-18T16:59:24.727" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39790" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="@Figulus Any idea when the phrase originates?" CreationDate="2022-09-18T19:49:14.640" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39791" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="Other than what Erasmus tells me in the link above, namely Zenodotus, Hesychius and Suidas, no, I'm afraid I don't." CreationDate="2022-09-18T22:02:08.420" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39792" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much everyone!" CreationDate="2022-09-18T23:17:40.273" UserId="14821" />
  <row Id="39794" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="According to [a note to Erasmus's *Colloquia*](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Pagina:Erasmi_Colloquia_Familiaria_Et_Encomium_Moriae.djvu/542): &quot;Chius et Cous iactus fuere talorum, Cous iactus felix, continens sex; Chius vero infelix, habens unum tantum, unde et infelix canis dictus.&quot; My translation: &quot;Chius and Cous were dice rolls: Cous was a good roll having six, and Chius was a bad roll, having only one, so it was also called a 'sad dog.'&quot; So, the comparison seems to be between the rolls, not the islands--even if the rolls were named after the islands originally." CreationDate="2022-09-19T23:25:09.447" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39795" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="I actually think this is a great candidate translation (+1), but it would be good to add some of these authorities dug up in the comments, otherwise you're just asking the OP to trust your own authority--which, given your track-record on answers like [the one here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4212/why-does-latin-have-five-different-noun-declensions), is a lot to ask." CreationDate="2022-09-19T23:28:59.397" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39796" PostId="18839" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That source in and of itself would also make a great answer!" CreationDate="2022-10-02T20:05:40.613" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39600" PostId="18846" Score="0" Text="My comments on this Quora post relate to this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-proof-of-f-dp-dt" CreationDate="2022-09-19T00:20:08.693" UserId="11548" />
  <row Id="39602" PostId="18846" Score="1" Text="The Latin word *vis* means force and *vi* is the ablative form of *vis*." CreationDate="2022-09-19T02:36:26.700" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39612" PostId="18846" Score="1" Text="“*essive* meaning *being alive*” ← in what language? Certainly not Latin …" CreationDate="2022-09-19T19:41:12.473" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39893" PostId="18846" Score="0" Text="The &quot;vi&quot; can also mean &quot;vigor&quot; as with the well known phrase &quot;vim and vigor&quot;,  and &quot;esse&quot; means &quot;to be&quot;. Motrici is often said to be related to &quot;motrix&quot; which is the female case of &quot;an instigator&quot; (eg. &quot;flexion&quot;: &quot;bending&quot;) - a mover is an instigator and &quot;-i&quot; indicates a plural, so it's &quot;movers&quot;. Also, &quot;mutationem&quot; could mean &quot;muta&quot; (&quot;mute&quot;) + &quot;-tion&quot;= &quot;mute action&quot; which to me implies a decay of motion, i.e &quot;damping&quot;, so maybe it's really:                         &#xA;               Damping of motion is proportional to the vigor of movers impressed." CreationDate="2022-10-09T09:15:36.273" UserId="11548" />
  <row Id="39894" PostId="18846" Score="0" Text="&quot;vi&quot; might be from a root word &quot;ve-&quot; (&quot;out of-&quot;) https://www.wordsense.eu/vemens/#Latin https://www.wordsense.eu/vehemens/ https://www.wordsense.eu/vehement/" CreationDate="2022-10-09T09:38:05.890" UserId="11548" />
  <row Id="39925" PostId="18846" Score="0" Text="&quot;Damping of motion is proportional to the alternation of movers impressed.&quot; - using &quot;vicis&quot; instead of &quot;vigor&quot;. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin" CreationDate="2022-10-12T06:01:21.580" UserId="11548" />
  <row Id="39601" PostId="18847" Score="1" Text="[Related](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2040/how-to-translate-the-force-from-star-wars/2043#2043). (And a good reminder to fix that post.)" CreationDate="2022-09-19T02:16:54.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39604" PostId="18847" Score="3" Text="It should be noted that the word *motrix* was used before by Newtown - for example by Kepler. Specifically, it was not *vi motrix* but *anima motrix* a &quot;soul&quot; that resides in the plants or even vacant point. It was necessary to have an *anima motrix* in the absent of the solid orbs. Kepler later also used specifically the term *vis motrix*, brilliantly realizing that it must originate from the Sun (*fons virtutis motricis ex jam demonstratis in Solem competet*).  Having said that, I don't make the claim that Newton's *vis motrix* comes directly (or even indirectly)  from Kepler's *vis motrix*." CreationDate="2022-09-19T08:15:00.767" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39609" PostId="18847" Score="2" Text="@d_e Very interesting, I didn't know _vis motrix_ existed prior to Newton! Even if the usage is different that's cool to know. Removed the sentence attributing it only to Newton." CreationDate="2022-09-19T16:50:02.923" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39611" PostId="18847" Score="0" Text="[Also related](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17115) (as the OP seems to have been confused by *esse*)." CreationDate="2022-09-19T19:38:46.570" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39603" PostId="18848" Score="3" Text="Can you give more examples? You say that Vergil has forms both ways, but I'm not sure what forms you mean. Examples would clarify the question, at least to me." CreationDate="2022-09-19T03:25:57.337" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39623" PostId="18849" Score="0" Text="the figurative use of *aer* might not be classical, but of *odor* (small) certainly is. Lewis and Short [reads](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=odor) (II): &quot;a scent, inkling, hint, presentiment, suggestion&quot;" CreationDate="2022-09-20T10:42:22.213" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39636" PostId="18850" Score="1" Text="&quot;Ex-anguis&quot; would be the natural word to use to describe a Gorgon with alopecia." CreationDate="2022-09-21T07:46:20.573" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="39616" PostId="18854" Score="3" Text="*Cuiquam* is a dative of reference (or a dative of (dis)advantage, if you prefer), not an agent, and *ambitus* just meant 'vanity' in Classical Latin as well—your attempt to connect it to the cosmos is unnecessary (and you yourself must realise that it's unsupportable). It's not really pride as a cardinal sin (typically *superbia*), but it's similar, obviously. I'd say you've basically got it otherwise." CreationDate="2022-09-20T04:46:14.620" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39618" PostId="18854" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I did not mean to imply that *cuiquam* was Dative of Agent, I simply said &quot;agent of flebilis&quot; meaning the one doing the lamenting. I know that *ambitus* could mean vanity in the classical period, but my understanding is that extending its use for Pride, specifically, was an invention of Erasmus. The difference between pride and vanity is that vanity is caring what other people think of you, but pride is what you think of yourself. In the theology of Erasmus, Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, but vanitas is only a secondary sin." CreationDate="2022-09-20T07:30:54.943" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39619" PostId="18854" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Concerning the use of *ambitus* to signify the sin of Pride specifically as terminology, see commentaries on the *Paean Divae Mariae* for example." CreationDate="2022-09-20T07:42:28.930" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39620" PostId="18854" Score="0" Text="Thanks. that's helpful. I got *occidit* wrong (thinking it comes from the real active occīdō). also this *sacrarunt* just after *inter* was a source of confusion to me.  About the influence from Erasmus, it should be noted this poem was probably written between 1500-1507 when Erasmus was in his 30s.  It makes the Erasmus connection less plausible." CreationDate="2022-09-20T07:59:16.043" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39621" PostId="18854" Score="0" Text="@d_e It is possible that the idea of Pride as a cardinal sin predates him. I am just trying to give a sense for some of the theology involved. The key thing is to reallze that in this context, *ambitus* refers to *superbia* rather than *vanitas*." CreationDate="2022-09-20T08:04:36.693" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39622" PostId="18854" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden, It is just the case that strong claims/assertions deserve strong evidence. To say that &quot;ambitus signifies the cardinal sin of Pride&quot; is a strong claim. On the face of it, I would say the term *ambitus gravis* is rare, and I do find the adjective *gravis* makes it much less probable that *ambitus*  in this context is a specific refence to something." CreationDate="2022-09-20T08:24:42.897" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39624" PostId="18854" Score="0" Text="@d_e I already cited evidence above: commentaries on the Paean Divae Mariae. Also, you can read other scholars who specialize in Erasmus or 15th century Catholic theology in general, especially with respect to the cardinal sins. Also, as I wrote early Erasmus specifically calls Satan &quot;auctor ambitus iniqui&quot; and this can only mean superbia, because that is Satan's sin, not vanitas." CreationDate="2022-09-20T12:33:56.063" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39626" PostId="18854" Score="4" Text="*Caelitum* is genitive plural. The phrase *numina caelitum* is much more a callback to classical imagery (typical of the Renaissance) than traditionally Christian imagery. I would also translate *expers* in a less strong way, e.g. &quot;who had no part in grave ambition.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-09-20T13:30:58.880" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39627" PostId="18854" Score="4" Text="I can't find the commentary you're referring to, but *superbia* has always been the traditional word for pride (Cassian, Aquinas, Dante, every stained-glass window I've seen--to name a few). Erasmus himself uses *ambitus/ambire* in the &quot;ambition&quot; sense in his *Encomium Moriae*, where he also uses *superbia* to mean pride. Point being: if you think it specifically means pride, I'd appreciate a quote that shows that. Otherwise, great translation" CreationDate="2022-09-20T13:32:16.543" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39628" PostId="18856" Score="0" Text="One issue that's not addressed, and I think was addressed elsewhere before, is that we have Classical attestations of *musculus* and *paterculus* that don't go off the genitive. Perhaps if not here then your other post could account for the former two?" CreationDate="2022-09-21T00:06:17.100" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39629" PostId="18856" Score="1" Text="@cmw: A complete description of Latin diminutive formation would be pretty long (as the linked guide by Miller seems to indicate). I tried to avoid outright saying here that diminutives are always built on the stem found in the genitive singular form, since as you say that's not true. But I don't know of any simple way to describe which stem they are built on." CreationDate="2022-09-21T00:15:13.353" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39632" PostId="18856" Score="0" Text="I don't think anyone does! It perhaps even changed over the years (my guess, but I don't think we can get that from textual information). Just thought it was worth mentioning considering they both had a particular kind of diminutive ending." CreationDate="2022-09-21T03:03:59.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39630" PostId="18857" Score="2" Text="I don't have access to a modern critical edition of Phaedrus' fables right now, but it would be very surprising to me if the Codex Pithoeanus used *vulpiculus*; Pithou's own editio princeps certainly doesn't—it has *vulpecula*. Can you provide some evidence? *Vulpiculus* was certainly in use in some variety of Vulgar Latin at some point post-classically (it's the reconstructed ancestor of French *goupil*), but I've never seen it without an asterisk before it. (Also the genitive of *vulpes* is *vulpis*.)" CreationDate="2022-09-21T02:15:41.490" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39631" PostId="18857" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon The Codex Pithoeanus has vulpiculus, but don't let that stop you from downvoting me." CreationDate="2022-09-21T02:35:15.600" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39633" PostId="18857" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon FWIW, Holder's edition of Pomponius Poryphyrio's commentary on Horace's *Epsistulae* has [*vulpiculae*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=vulpic). I don't have a critical edition of that text, though, so I can't say what he's basing that off. Certainly Guaglianone has *vulpec-* in Phaedrus." CreationDate="2022-09-21T03:07:58.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39634" PostId="18857" Score="1" Text="TD: Not everyone who asks for evidence is downvoting you. I didn't, but I doubt C. did here, either, considering it was downvoted long before his comment. C.'s question is valid: I too wonder why it's *vulpiculus* in the *Codex Pithoeanus* if Pithou's *editio princeps* has *vulpecula*. I don't have an apparatus criticus for Phaedrus' text handy, so I can't say, but it is surprising." CreationDate="2022-09-21T03:12:59.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39641" PostId="18858" Score="4" Text="Hi, Shiny, and welcome to the site! Would you mind elaborating more on your answer, and why you think this is the best translation?" CreationDate="2022-09-21T17:49:54.667" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39648" PostId="18860" Score="0" Text="Several linguistics dictionaries call apposition 'juxtaposition'. For example, the Oxford Companion to the English Language says: &quot;Two consecutive, juxtaposed nouns or noun phrases are in apposition when they refer to the same person or thing, and when either can be omitted without seriously changing the meaning or the grammar of a sentence&quot;. While we are considering Greek, I also have a Greek grammar which speaks of the apposition two accusatives as being juxtaposed." CreationDate="2022-09-23T03:31:15.390" UserId="6426" />
  <row Id="39649" PostId="18860" Score="0" Text="Further, the Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics by Keith Brown and John Miller defines apposition as: &quot;A relation between two phrases, especially noun phrases, in which the two phrases are simply juxtaposed. The second noun phrase refers to the same entity as the ﬁrst one and merely adds extra information.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-09-23T03:32:04.550" UserId="6426" />
  <row Id="39642" PostId="18863" Score="3" Text="You might want to mention vowel quantities: _malus_ and _mālus_ were as distinct as _anus_ and _annus_ (i.e. similar but not identical)." CreationDate="2022-09-22T02:03:52.047" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39681" PostId="18865" Score="2" Text="Neo-Latin went with *vaccinum* for vaccine, which I think is fine; you can read it as short for a historically transparent *medicamentum vaccinum* 'cow-derived medicine', with a perfectly natural generalisation to all vaccines. *Inoculo*, *insero*, and *immunus* all come with baggage of their own, and the connection from tree grafts or exemption from public service to vaccination feels a lot less obvious to me. I would actually read *immunificatus sum* as 'I have had my gifts taken away', even." CreationDate="2022-09-25T02:28:28.663" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39684" PostId="18865" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon As I disclaimed above, it can be made an issue of personal preference and if we were to dive deeper into the etymology of certain words. we would see that there are generalisations here, specifications there etc. pp. &quot;Neo-Latin&quot; is a hint with too prescriptive an undertone for my taste. Who cares? Who is Neo-Latin? Can you bring me to his office for me to object to his descions? Am I a writer and speaker of Neolatin not entitled to bring in my view being a part of it?  My demur is that &quot;immunis&quot; already had the meanings of being &quot;free and exempt, unsharing&quot; etc. not just giftless." CreationDate="2022-09-25T13:06:04.923" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="39685" PostId="18865" Score="0" Text="If thefore the only way you read &quot;immunifcatus sum&quot; that way it is your bias that excludes most other early meanings. As apparently you do with &quot;insero&quot; which already had gained more general meanings of injection beside planting. I however have declared my bias openly namely that &quot;vaccinus&quot; just meant &quot;cowly, of cows&quot; for centuries. It is known that the initial vaccine was equuine in origin now. Is it &quot;fine&quot; to allow vaccinus/-um to acquire the new meaning? Of course, I did not say otherwise. I just find it too casual as I said to relatinize thus, for mentioned reasons. It was just a proposal." CreationDate="2022-09-25T13:11:53.240" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="39646" PostId="18866" Score="1" Text="*Coronat Virtus In Corde Mea* means my strength is wreathing in the heart, which is probably not what you're trying to say." CreationDate="2022-09-23T00:20:01.827" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39668" PostId="18866" Score="3" Text="Glancing at the title I read &quot;Corona Virus...&quot;." CreationDate="2022-09-23T16:57:44.803" UserId="9360" />
  <row Id="39644" PostId="18867" Score="0" Text="So a good translation not too far apart from the OP's would be **Regnat virtus in cor meum**? Trying to remember examples, _super_ cor meum sounds good enough." CreationDate="2022-09-22T20:51:33.840" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="39645" PostId="18867" Score="5" Text="@Rafael *in corde meo*, I'd say." CreationDate="2022-09-22T21:47:34.577" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39663" PostId="18867" Score="0" Text="This is great, thank you!!" CreationDate="2022-09-23T16:14:20.303" UserId="11556" />
  <row Id="39659" PostId="18868" Score="0" Text="This is great, I love it! So animi is like the emotional soul / heart? This is the concept I was going for. Do I need to change the form of animi mei to reflect that I am female?" CreationDate="2022-09-23T15:09:38.983" UserId="11556" />
  <row Id="39660" PostId="18868" Score="1" Text="Mei is both masculine and female. The animus is the seat of the intellect in Roman thought, and in situations like this it is the most common word. Pectoris is sometimes found and cor is found less often. Cor has a more of an anatomical sense in Latin. Animus can either be the source of rational thought, but it can also be the source of antipathy, courage, love and other emotions. It has sort of the meaning of the mind. By contrast, the anima (feminine) is the soul, the life force." CreationDate="2022-09-23T15:17:30.193" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39662" PostId="18868" Score="0" Text="So why animi? Out of curiosity, can you also say Coronot virtus animi pura or virtus coronot animi pura? Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge." CreationDate="2022-09-23T16:11:15.150" UserId="11556" />
  <row Id="39666" PostId="18868" Score="1" Text="@user11556 animi is the genitive form (&quot;of the heart/mind&quot;) . Corono is transitive, so you need to have an object that is being wreathed." CreationDate="2022-09-23T16:38:46.707" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39675" PostId="18868" Score="0" Text="Ah ok, thank you!! This is perfect." CreationDate="2022-09-24T11:59:40.500" UserId="11556" />
  <row Id="39677" PostId="18868" Score="1" Text="@user11556 If you like the answer, then it is normal to accept it. You can always unaccept it later if you want to." CreationDate="2022-09-24T13:37:27.750" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39647" PostId="18870" Score="2" Text="Rather than &quot;possessive&quot;, I would usually call that a _subjective_ genitive indicating the subject. Or are you going for a different meaning here?" CreationDate="2022-09-23T01:32:23.300" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39650" PostId="18870" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I mean subjective genitive." CreationDate="2022-09-23T03:55:35.693" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="39656" PostId="18870" Score="0" Text="As far as general ideas go, we've covered this ground before. See [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7622/differentiating-possessive-and-non-possessive-uses-of-the-genitive/9179#9179) and [that](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17004/how-to-distinguish-anthropology-from-human-knowledge-in-latin/17068#17068)." CreationDate="2022-09-23T13:24:40.830" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39810" PostId="18870" Score="0" Text="The text linked to doesn’t read _*feminae,_ but rather _feminea,_ which is a neuter plural adjective modifying _blandimenta,_ making the phrase _blandimenta feminea_ grammatically parallel to _animum virile,_ the phrase which with it is semantically contrasted.  Forming an adjective out of a noun like this, _femineus_ from _femina,_ is a common way Latin has to avoid the very ambiguity between subjective and objective genitives that is under discussion." CreationDate="2022-10-03T19:24:20.083" UserId="11592" />
  <row Id="39812" PostId="18870" Score="0" Text="@Patricius Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, _feminea_ is much clearer, but I wonder if it's a typo or authentically what St. Augustine wrote." CreationDate="2022-10-04T02:34:25.297" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="39651" PostId="18874" Score="0" Text="can you comment on *quo* instead of *quibus*? I know sometimes a singular verb is used where the subject is plural, but also relative pronoun?" CreationDate="2022-09-23T08:22:33.953" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39652" PostId="18874" Score="0" Text="@d_e I believe the antecedent is *eventum*, which is singular." CreationDate="2022-09-23T08:31:17.193" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39653" PostId="18874" Score="0" Text="i.e., &quot;the event by which the [same] event was done&quot;? I seem to be missing something. If *quo* refers to the *eventum*, then what is the subject of *factum est*?" CreationDate="2022-09-23T08:40:37.923" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39654" PostId="18874" Score="0" Text="@d_e something previously mentioned. As usual, Michael Yoo has dug up some arcane Latin that Google Books doesn't find, so that's my best guess." CreationDate="2022-09-23T08:43:47.213" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39655" PostId="18874" Score="0" Text="I found it (probably). several parts were omitted in the question : https://books.google.es/books?id=twRlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA69&amp;lpg=RA1-PA69&amp;dq=%22ut+id+quod+ad+intelligendum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1KKZjjvLPU&amp;sig=ACfU3U3d3dgRNo6NTSXzCUoAnM2B8PqfBg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjR75DMwar6AhUYhv0HHRQFAAgQ6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ut%20id%20quod%20ad%20intelligendum%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2022-09-23T08:47:19.450" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39671" PostId="18880" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Interesting question. I wonder if _terra_ could work here, even though it's not specifically about rock." CreationDate="2022-09-23T19:22:55.160" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39673" PostId="18880" Score="0" Text="*terra*'s not a bad choice. Without any context I would probably read *in terra* as &quot;underground, but that's less relevant since I am defining the context" CreationDate="2022-09-23T20:00:47.303" UserId="11565" />
  <row Id="39674" PostId="18881" Score="1" Text="all good suggestions! I like *petra* since most educated readers could guess at the meaning even without context" CreationDate="2022-09-23T21:44:20.930" UserId="11565" />
  <row Id="39708" PostId="18881" Score="0" Text="from your last edit I think I'll go with *saxum* even though I initially rejected it since there is clear usage in exactly the connotation I need" CreationDate="2022-09-26T18:30:28.933" UserId="11565" />
  <row Id="39676" PostId="18884" Score="2" Text="One can also use Perseus' [Morphological tool](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph) to quickly see the available grammatical options." CreationDate="2022-09-24T12:23:51.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39696" PostId="18884" Score="0" Text="I also find [latin-english.com](https://www.latin-english.com/) useful when I have a conjugation or declension and I'm not sure what the dictionary entry is. It was made by a member of the site. I don't recall which dictionary it searches, though. For reference, [here is what you get](https://www.latin-english.com/latin/itis/) when you search for _itis_." CreationDate="2022-09-25T20:25:37.347" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39686" PostId="18886" Score="2" Text="Why do you assume it doesn't change anymore? If you have an operating system language 'Latin', as used in actual ATMs in that funny little enclave, , with _that_ language, regular radio broadcasts, new _Vicipaedia_ pages written, and ample active users (although relatively 'few' 'native speakers'?) then change _is_ happening? Like coining of new words, importing/borrowing words etc. Seems not so dead after all? As long as there is active use, change is inevitable?" CreationDate="2022-09-24T20:21:50.690" UserId="2072" />
  <row Id="39689" PostId="18886" Score="1" Text="It didn't. But at some point they started calling it &quot;French&quot;, &quot;Spanish&quot;, &quot;Italian&quot;, or &quot;Romanian&quot;, depending on where you live. Still changing though." CreationDate="2022-09-24T21:49:10.637" UserDisplayName="T.E.D." />
  <row Id="39690" PostId="18886" Score="1" Text="Related: [Why did Latin language stop being in use in the 18th century?](https://history.stackexchange.com/q/69549/26786)" CreationDate="2022-09-24T22:04:20.120" UserId="2072" />
  <row Id="39691" PostId="18886" Score="0" Text="I think this question is too vague to be answerable." CreationDate="2022-09-25T18:26:25.840" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39692" PostId="18886" Score="5" Text="A good answer would explain how Latin became somewhat codified in late antiquity, and then its adoption by Charlemagne in 800 as the common language of the Holy Roman Empire, and its use since then in scholarship and administration. While of course Latin hasn't stopped evolving, it became remarkably stabilized, so Erasmus could read Cicero and probably _vice versa_. The story of how this happened would make a great answer—one that I'm not up to writing." CreationDate="2022-09-25T18:34:22.357" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39693" PostId="18886" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! (I hope you register your account here as well.) It might be more fruitful to compare the speed of changing to other languages rather than ask whether it was zero (which it still isn't). How about a rephrasing, e.g.: &quot;Did Latin change slower than the Romance languages? If yes, why is it so and how does it manifest?&quot;? That would make the question easier to answer. At the moment it might not be quite concrete enough." CreationDate="2022-09-25T18:40:17.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39694" PostId="18886" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I rather like that the question has a false premise. Then the answer makes this page a good resource for the many people who share that false premise." CreationDate="2022-09-25T19:11:24.957" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39695" PostId="18886" Score="1" Text="@BenKovitz Fair enough. Editing that (probably common) false premise out of the question would make it less genuine. A nice answer could start by reformulating the question (to my suggestion or anything else) and arguing why it has to be so. I don't think we have a good answer to &quot;Exactly how dead is Latin?&quot; on the site yet, but I think we should certainly cover stuff like that." CreationDate="2022-09-25T19:38:23.117" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39707" PostId="18886" Score="1" Text="Have you looked at Wikipedia - [History of Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin)?" CreationDate="2022-09-26T16:10:21.157" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39700" PostId="18887" Score="1" Text="*De quo* works for me. *De quid* is ungrammatical." CreationDate="2022-09-26T01:21:59.190" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39702" PostId="18889" Score="3" Text="Quick, off-the-cuff answer: make a comparison by combining a negative with diutius quam.  x no longer than y [verb]." CreationDate="2022-09-26T14:54:19.137" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="39720" PostId="18891" Score="0" Text="In few decades, the TLL (https://thesaurus.badw.de/en/project.html) may reach its goal." CreationDate="2022-09-27T20:04:51.130" UserId="11591" />
  <row Id="39709" PostId="18893" Score="2" Text="Mature approbas, Antoni, responsa. Cur non diem noctemque manes; forsitan meliorem scribet quispiam responsum?" CreationDate="2022-09-26T23:26:22.557" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39711" PostId="18893" Score="1" Text="tibi gratias ago. manere diem noctemque non necesse est. quare non? quis meliorem responsum scribere potest quam Seb? cur tu scribebas noctu (2a.m.)?" CreationDate="2022-09-27T11:55:05.413" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39714" PostId="18893" Score="1" Text="Well-spotted on the incorrect declension of &quot;rex&quot;. The best example is the last one: &quot;hoc auxilium regis (this help of/ from the king) nequiit (was unable) permanere (to remain) diutius (any longer) quam rex. (than the king.)&quot;. Thanks again." CreationDate="2022-09-27T13:34:29.723" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39716" PostId="18893" Score="2" Text="@tony Ideo quod nocticola sum, atque optime mihi cedere solet, quod opus lucubrans aggredior." CreationDate="2022-09-27T16:54:57.670" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39730" PostId="18893" Score="1" Text="‘meliorem responsum’ ‘melius responsum’ esse debet. nonne ‘responsum’ est nomen neutri [sic semper apud grammaticos]. generis?" CreationDate="2022-09-28T13:41:02.100" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39735" PostId="18893" Score="1" Text="@JonathanHadfield Nullum mendum est, quod acres oculos tuos evadat." CreationDate="2022-09-28T23:16:28.263" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39739" PostId="18893" Score="2" Text="benigne dicis, Sebastiane. in hoc situ alter alterum adiuvamus." CreationDate="2022-09-29T10:08:05.193" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39710" PostId="18894" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the first point, it answers my question perfectly. But the second point I am only talking of grammatical mistakes, obviously word choice and idiom are fundamental elements of composition" CreationDate="2022-09-27T10:57:31.017" UserDisplayName="user11587" />
  <row Id="39712" PostId="18894" Score="2" Text="@user989070 You might be surprised at how much overlap there is between grammar and style. I've seen this a lot among people learning English as a second language: they put getting correct grammar above learning to communicate, and consequently they they don't master the grammar—which is just how you put words together to communicate." CreationDate="2022-09-27T13:10:55.607" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39719" PostId="18894" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz It's quite funny, because I happened to learn English as a second language" CreationDate="2022-09-27T19:02:27.750" UserDisplayName="user11587" />
  <row Id="39713" PostId="18896" Score="0" Text="Might _ut_ have been unnecessary here, so you can omit it entirely in the English translation?" CreationDate="2022-09-27T13:31:19.960" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39715" PostId="18896" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz It's possible. However, the phrase ut in revertione crops up dozens of times in a set of 17 court rolls so it isn't a one-off scribal mistak." CreationDate="2022-09-27T14:17:31.873" UserId="10717" />
  <row Id="39717" PostId="18896" Score="2" Text="*sic ... ut* = &quot;so ... as&quot; seems to be the construction here, i.e., &quot;so admitted as in reversion,&quot; though I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean..." CreationDate="2022-09-27T17:06:02.473" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39722" PostId="18899" Score="2" Text="Since *latuit* can take an accusative in Classical Latin, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to in Medieval Latin. Do you have a question implicit in your post?" CreationDate="2022-09-27T21:55:40.403" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39723" PostId="18899" Score="3" Text="Figulo assentior, proprium medii aevi non est, quamquam insolita erat constructio apud scriptores classicos, et haud vane dicunt Lewis &amp; Short apud Ciceronem eam numquam inveniri (&quot;mostly poet. and in post-Aug. prose; not in Cic.&quot;)." CreationDate="2022-09-27T22:19:52.157" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39731" PostId="18899" Score="1" Text="Thanks Figulus and Mr. Koppehel. I would be happy to credit your answers if you posted them as such. Sincerely," CreationDate="2022-09-28T18:19:30.650" UserId="10893" />
  <row Id="39725" PostId="18900" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the answer and welcome to the site. Why does Hercules deploy an imperative, &quot;vince&quot;? It sounds like Hercules is telling Achelous that he must win by talking; as opposed to advising him that he's just all-talk." CreationDate="2022-09-28T08:20:54.970" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39732" PostId="18900" Score="2" Text="Hercules is being very terse and sarcastic here.  If you expand on his meaning, it’s something like, “You go ahead and win this part of the contest, when we’re just talking, as long as I win the next part, when we’re fighting.  You win the talk, I’ll win the fight.”" CreationDate="2022-09-28T18:37:17.477" UserId="11592" />
  <row Id="39726" PostId="18901" Score="0" Text="Beyond changing the ending as a concession to grammar, I don't think there's any reason to pronounce it differently to the German. The sounds are not that alien to Latin (compared to, say, a tonal language like Mandarin), and anything else would just cause confusion for (to my mind) no obvious benefit. Unless you're writing a story in which Einstein goes back in time and the Romans Romanize his name, I suppose..." CreationDate="2022-09-28T09:00:55.713" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39727" PostId="18901" Score="0" Text="I don't want to change the name at all, I am just asking if I should write einsteiniānus or ēinsteiniānus or something else to keep the German pronunciation. Since, IIRC, the ei diphthong does not exist in Classical Latin" CreationDate="2022-09-28T09:04:05.503" UserDisplayName="user11587" />
  <row Id="39728" PostId="18901" Score="1" Text="I see; I don't think of macrons as part of the language (this is not an opinion I will defend, just a product of my own education) so this feels like a non-issue to me. Or are you putting the word into verse?" CreationDate="2022-09-28T09:17:06.407" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39729" PostId="18901" Score="0" Text="I usually learn macrons along with the words, and I came across this one while reading Wikipedia in Latin. If I ever write poetry, I'll be glad to know the vowel quantities (like you I don't argue, it's just how I do it)" CreationDate="2022-09-28T09:21:34.490" UserDisplayName="user11587" />
  <row Id="39741" PostId="18901" Score="1" Text="For a poetic form you might want to adopt einstinianus. The opening dactyl is more tractable and the shortening of a stressed second syllable is not unheard of (though I’ll leave it to the learned to cite examples)." CreationDate="2022-09-29T14:56:58.707" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="39736" PostId="18902" Score="0" Text="I say what you wrote is correct. I'm not sure why the commenter put the subject in the accusative." CreationDate="2022-09-29T04:26:26.103" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39737" PostId="18902" Score="3" Text="I believe Vulgar Latin is generally called *sermo vulgaris*. Also, *accentus* does not mean &quot;accent&quot; in the sense of a regional variation; Smith &amp; Hall suggest *sonus* for that (e.g. *sonus subrusticus*), but I would perhaps prefer *more Italico* in this context." CreationDate="2022-09-29T07:18:58.960" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39759" PostId="18902" Score="0" Text="When I said what you wrote was correct, I meant grammatically, syntactically, and understandably. I wasn't referring to the opinion expressed, about which I have no opinion." CreationDate="2022-09-30T23:25:43.263" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39733" PostId="18905" Score="0" Text="Can you provide an example sentence? This may be the wrong construction." CreationDate="2022-09-28T19:10:27.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39734" PostId="18905" Score="0" Text="This is a scientific name to be used mostly in English sentences. It is very common for viruses and parasites in general to have species epithets formed as host names in genitive. It is also not uncommon for specific epithets to be composite: https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/specific-epithetcomposite-name.html, although they are in a minority." CreationDate="2022-09-28T19:52:57.510" UserId="11597" />
  <row Id="39738" PostId="18907" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Figulus. A good start!" CreationDate="2022-09-29T09:52:48.423" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39740" PostId="18907" Score="0" Text="[This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4996/79) seems relevant." CreationDate="2022-09-29T11:09:42.683" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39779" PostId="18907" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Jonas. Very relevant!" CreationDate="2022-10-02T16:06:20.717" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39757" PostId="18911" Score="2" Text="As a native speaker of English, *I* find Romance languages much easier to learn than Latin. With just a little study of Italian, I can often guess my way through written Italian. Latin has required much more study, and I still get lost in the grammar of a native sentence much more easily. I await with interest an answer to your question!" CreationDate="2022-09-30T20:47:41.627" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39758" PostId="18911" Score="3" Text="What divides the Romance languages from each other? Porous national borders, a few hundred kilometres here or there. What unites them? A shared history, cultural and religious context, trade and travel, etc. (This is particularly true for the Western group, to a lesser degree for Romanian; but Romanian consciously oriented itself towards French &amp; Italian in the 19th century and imported a great deal of vocabulary.) What divides the Romance languages from Latin? *Twenty centuries.* I see no reason to expect them to be closer to Latin than to each other!" CreationDate="2022-09-30T22:20:58.450" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39760" PostId="18911" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel - do you really think that &quot;travel&quot; and &quot;porous borders&quot; had an impact on the familiarity between for example the languages of Sardinia and  mountains of South Italy and the rest? (And about Romanian I can say that the French &amp; Italian impact in the 19th century is still limited to a great extent to the periphery of the vocabulary of rural populations who's current orientation of work-migration towards Italy and Spain is very language-dependent). I agree about the 20 centuries: but do we know the decisive steps/factors - considering my sub-questions?" CreationDate="2022-10-01T02:46:02.327" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39761" PostId="18911" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel - 20 centuries have fractured enormously the Romance area, the uniformity is recent, and still the closeness between them all is great. Why didn't local diversity made them more foreign to each other and what is the common ground for that if not Latin itself which seems rather foreign (within the explanation of the question)? The 20 centuries is a long enough time to bring huge divergence (Germanic, Slavic, Arab impact could have made them drift apart more): what factors kept so close the idioms of shepherds of Moldavia and ...Sicily? (not travel, commerce or religion!)" CreationDate="2022-10-01T03:00:59.803" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39762" PostId="18911" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel - see [here](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/34250/27251) how much of the basic Romanian Latin vocabulary has nothing to do with 19th century." CreationDate="2022-10-01T03:06:10.973" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39763" PostId="18911" Score="2" Text="I don't know about that. There was plenty of cross-border movement in Spain, France, Italy, and England since the High Middle Ages. As far as those locales in Sardinia, this can all be graphed out with network theory to see just how far distant antiquity is from modernity. I think you'll find that we're far closer today than back then. We've actually discussed this a bit in chat before. Like Sebastian, I think a shared experience and familiarity with other languages shapes our cognitive processes in ways that are alien to the ancient Romans." CreationDate="2022-10-01T03:54:04.603" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39764" PostId="18911" Score="1" Text="You can follow the conversation a little bit [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/59649916#59649916) and later a link to a controversial idea by Whorf [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European)." CreationDate="2022-10-01T03:59:26.840" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39765" PostId="18911" Score="1" Text="@cmw I don't know that SAE is controversial. It's a pretty commonly used term and is largely descriptive." CreationDate="2022-10-01T04:09:43.583" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39766" PostId="18911" Score="0" Text="@cmw - The answer would be then that the Romance languages have indeed *converged* within a larger European Sprachbund the origins of which are too complex to discern." CreationDate="2022-10-01T04:12:53.440" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39767" PostId="18911" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's good to know! I know Whorf is controversial. I think I assumed SAE would be, too. But I buy into it." CreationDate="2022-10-01T04:15:46.673" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39847" PostId="18911" Score="1" Text="&quot;Montaigne and Leopardi&quot; I think this is the crux of the matter. You're comparing TV speech to high literature. They're incomparable. Not to mention that there are infinitely more resources for modern languages (because new texts are being created daily) than dead ones. Have you tried other dead languages with a long and highly developed literary history?" CreationDate="2022-10-06T14:06:32.713" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39768" PostId="18913" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you [edit] and add more context, please? For example, who are the people or things that are together? Latin cares about gender." CreationDate="2022-10-01T09:31:08.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39770" PostId="18914" Score="2" Text="Hi Valens, and welcome to the site! Could you explain more why this answers the question? Why is _conjugemus_ the best choice for &quot;together&quot;, for example?" CreationDate="2022-10-01T17:18:46.490" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39771" PostId="18914" Score="2" Text="Did you perhaps rather mean to use the verb *coniungere* instead of the pretty rare *coniugare*? (Even so, I would have used a passive form.)" CreationDate="2022-10-01T18:58:11.913" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39773" PostId="18914" Score="1" Text="As Simon mentions its the ring that he wants to engrave. I think it's for his marriage. I think of word 'coniūnx' but want to pick the verb. And yes, coniungere' should be more commonly used. Somehow the word 'coniugō' was reflected in my mind. Perhaps the passive form is more suitable. (I may be too ambitious to give my first answer :p)" CreationDate="2022-10-02T02:09:36.957" UserId="11598" />
  <row Id="39776" PostId="18914" Score="3" Text="Feel free to edit your post and add this information in. It's fine to offer an imperfect translation, but a good answer explains why you have translated it that way. (You can also tweak it as necessary!)" CreationDate="2022-10-02T13:51:05.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39772" PostId="18915" Score="2" Text="Good post! For *rogare*, you also see this in Catullus 8: &quot;Vale puella, iam Catullus obdurat, /  &#xA;nec te requiret nec rogabit invitam. /  &#xA;At tu dolebis, cum rogaberis nulla.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-01T21:43:15.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39786" PostId="18916" Score="1" Text="Related: [Why is the prefix con- sometimes short, sometimes long?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17821)" CreationDate="2022-10-03T00:13:42.787" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39777" PostId="18917" Score="0" Text="In your second paragraph you mean any syllable ending in N *before S or F*, right? There is some evidence of the N being restored in educated speech in at least some words in Classical times (so that e.g. *consul* becomes /ˈkoːn.sul/, still with a long O but also with N), but AFAIK that's all just Roman-quality &quot;grammarians&quot; reporting long after the fact and the vowel would be long either way." CreationDate="2022-10-02T15:11:33.017" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39780" PostId="18917" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I updated the answer a bit. I'm trying not to go into details, as they seem to be beyond the scope of this question, so the second paragraph is intended to be a vague pointer more than a hard fact. There's certainly room for a follow-up question or two." CreationDate="2022-10-02T18:39:25.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39781" PostId="18917" Score="2" Text="I definitely think that part of what makes this such a good answer is that it doesn't go into great detail, especially about corner cases and exceptions." CreationDate="2022-10-02T19:39:13.427" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39778" PostId="18918" Score="1" Text="Good note! That must be from the 7th edition, right? I never taught from that edition. I know some years back Rick was on the internet asking about corrections. He's probably receptive to an email to fix that point." CreationDate="2022-10-02T15:41:27.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39784" PostId="18921" Score="0" Text="I deleted my other comment, since I didn't read your parallels carefully enough...the analogy with fortuna/fortunatus is helpful. I guess usage just tips the balance of a neutral word in one direction!" CreationDate="2022-10-02T21:22:20.813" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39785" PostId="18921" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Yeah, I could be wrong, but I do believe it's only usage. I guess the unusual thing is why συμφορά became so negative when most of these words become positive instead. I can't think of a direct parallel with it off the top of my head." CreationDate="2022-10-02T21:31:58.567" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39799" PostId="18921" Score="0" Text="also the English words with positive meaning: fortune and fortunately" CreationDate="2022-10-03T11:59:50.500" UserId="9124" />
  <row Id="39823" PostId="18921" Score="0" Text="@ypercubeᵀᴹ Although in the case of the English *fortune*, I don't think it's ever used in a negative sense. It's always *misfortune* and *unfortunately*. Meanwhile, luck can be good or bad, even if it often is good." CreationDate="2022-10-05T13:28:31.673" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39825" PostId="18921" Score="0" Text="I agree  but fortune is used in a neutral way as well. I mainly meant that you can expand on the comparison with the original fortuna in Latin: &quot;However, fortunatus in Latin chiefly (only?) has positive connotations *and similarly the derived English words fortune and fortunately*&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-05T16:21:42.020" UserId="9124" />
  <row Id="39797" PostId="18922" Score="0" Text="Thanks I like the translation. Yeah, even the English translation speaks of *being* rather than *doing*. Maybe I took too much liberty generally in the translation.  *That's it* - well admittedly I missed the correct interpretation. What  *without volition*/*willfully* mean in this context? alluding to the notion that the plant has no &quot;will&quot; while we humans have?" CreationDate="2022-10-03T05:51:55.530" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39798" PostId="18922" Score="1" Text="@d_e That is my understanding at least. By the way, I added an *ea* to make the sentence clearer." CreationDate="2022-10-03T08:19:16.423" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39800" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="Surely Vulgar Latin still had a length contrast in consonants?" CreationDate="2022-10-03T16:38:47.050" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39802" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="Also, I haven't seen confirmation for Sardinian *piticcu*, it's *pithinnu* (cf. Corominas). The most important Latin reconstruction in the matter seems to be [pittus/piccus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/pittus)." CreationDate="2022-10-03T16:56:46.590" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39803" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="@Draconis - Most probably all that Wiktionary page is bad. But I read in a good dictionary (Corominas - added in my question a bit later) about a Vulgar Latin term *pitinnus* and a Sardinian *pithinnu*." CreationDate="2022-10-03T17:06:09.377" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39805" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="Misled by a dubious source (that quoted Corominas) I have initially said that *pitinnus* was a Medieval attested term, when in fact it's Vulgar Latin. I have corrected but I don't know yet if it's attested or reconstructed." CreationDate="2022-10-03T17:22:00.897" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39806" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="I read about a Sardinian *piticu* [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/432937#metadata_info_tab_contents). Anyway, if Vulgar Latin *pitinnus* is well attested, the Wiktionary page is probably just making a confusion or a misspelling, given it doesn't mention *pitinnus* at all: or rather they do mention it but write it wrongly. Which confirms your answer." CreationDate="2022-10-03T17:36:36.533" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39807" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yes, sorry, I meant specifically using double K as opposed to double C." CreationDate="2022-10-03T17:39:04.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39808" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="@cipricus I don't know the specifics myself, I was purely referring to what's intended by the Wiktionary entry. Maybe someone else can chime in if they know more about that particular reconstruction." CreationDate="2022-10-03T17:39:48.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39809" PostId="18924" Score="0" Text="*pitikkus* is not attested not because it is just reconstructed: it is not even reconstructed!" CreationDate="2022-10-03T17:42:15.483" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39815" PostId="18925" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Is this &quot;No to war!&quot; or &quot;I don't want a war.&quot;? The latter is easy to translate; the former could be &quot;nullum bellum&quot; = &quot;no (not any) war&quot;. There is the model (of a warning) from the House of the Tragic Poet&quot; (Pompeii), &quot;CAVE CANEM&quot;; therefore, &quot;cave bellum&quot; = &quot;beware war&quot;.  Alternatively, there are standard prohibitions: &quot;noli/ ite belligerare!&quot; = &quot;Be unwilling to make war!&quot;;  &quot;ne belligeraveritis milites!&quot; = &quot;Don't make war, soldiers!&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-04T10:41:16.690" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39816" PostId="18925" Score="1" Text="@tony The English (and Russian and Finnish and so on) &quot;No to war!&quot; has many possible interpretations, especially about whether it is specific or general. Either one is fine with me; I'm just looking for something concise and idiomatic in this direction and asking if I can do a simple negation with a dative like in other languages. // Your suggestions sound like they are in a slightly different direction, but they might well turn out to be the best thing available. Are they attested and idiomatic? I imagine there might be graffiti attestations of an anti-war sentiment." CreationDate="2022-10-04T10:51:13.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39817" PostId="18925" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: There may not be an exact fit for, &quot;No to war!&quot;? We'll see. The examples aren't attested or I'd have put them in an answer. But, if they obey grammatical rules they might well have been said. (The idea of soldiers being told not to make war was just my little joke.)" CreationDate="2022-10-04T12:58:31.797" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39824" PostId="18925" Score="0" Text="I'd be very surprised if there were anti-war graffiti in antiquity. I know the sentiment isn't old, but the way it is conveyed feels decidedly modern to me." CreationDate="2022-10-05T15:38:38.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39826" PostId="18925" Score="0" Text="@cmw Perhaps that calls for a follow-up question: How were anti-war sentiments expressed in antiquity? I'm not a good judge on how modern the &quot;no to war&quot; approach is, and I think you're right. I know ancient graffiti can be pithy (e.g. the ones with *καλός*), but that's only a small part of the puzzle." CreationDate="2022-10-05T17:56:51.327" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39811" PostId="18926" Score="6" Text="What's the intended meaning here?" CreationDate="2022-10-03T21:23:59.870" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39813" PostId="18928" Score="5" Text="Bare infinitive or ablative?" CreationDate="2022-10-04T06:14:50.080" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39821" PostId="18928" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Doh! Many thanks." CreationDate="2022-10-05T03:55:09.763" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39814" PostId="18931" Score="1" Text="I like this suggestion a lot. I'd only add a note on gender: If the people being united are all female, it's the feminine *coniunctae*, but if there's at least one male, it's the masculine *coniuncti*, and neuter is an option only if it's not about people." CreationDate="2022-10-04T08:12:10.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39863" PostId="18932" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for your reply. I'm painting an ancient mariners Compass with a background ribbon saying 'tene cursum'. Thank you for the help." CreationDate="2022-10-07T15:15:58.503" UserId="11618" />
  <row Id="39864" PostId="18932" Score="2" Text="@SteveThorsson On StackExchange sites like this, the best way to thank someone for their help is to click the green checkmark to the left of their answer. That marks it as &quot;accepted&quot; and gives the answerer a reputation bonus." CreationDate="2022-10-07T18:42:02.910" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39843" PostId="18935" Score="0" Text="The exhortation, &quot;bellum pereat&quot; = &quot;Let war die, instead of the unwilling participants (by implication)&quot;, is a great answer." CreationDate="2022-10-06T10:09:37.433" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39828" PostId="18936" Score="0" Text="The later (popular and simplified) form of Latin inherited by all Romance languages seems to be common to them, covering the whole empire, and thus seems to be rather old itself. My impression is that it &quot;emerged&quot; as such a unitary phenomenon after the fall of the empire that it must have been well established by then, only it was recorded in writing much later. Can we imagine that the Classical Latin was already during Roman times mostly a written and elitist language, and that the common base of modern Romance goes deeper in the past?" CreationDate="2022-10-05T18:55:04.247" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39833" PostId="18936" Score="1" Text="It's certainly an interesting thought, it's one I had thought of for a long time. Latin probably was a rather homogeneous language by the Western Roman Empire's end, and seemed to have splintered off shortly thereafter due to the shift from a central empire to separate feudal systems. There is an interesting webpage about how Latin was already changing by the time of Constantine the Great and how Christianity played a part in Late Latin." CreationDate="2022-10-05T23:24:35.610" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="39844" PostId="18936" Score="0" Text="I think the splint was much early, not after the fall of the Romans, but with the very establishment of the classic Latin spoken by the elites and transmitted by writing (what we call Latin - mostly continued in Medieval Latin) which was never that of the 99% of the people. I see this popular Latin even more homogeneous than just the Western empire: covering also the lands between Italy and Romania (and part of Greece where until recently there were many East Romance speakers) but absent in lands of older culture: Africa and the Middle East. Regional differences must have existed though." CreationDate="2022-10-06T10:16:23.750" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39845" PostId="18936" Score="0" Text="It is incredible that most of the map of the Roman Empire in Europe is still Romance speaking, excepting marginal Germanic lands and the Slavic land in the Balkans - which was very different until ([more](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language) or [less](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs_in_medieval_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Herzegovinian_Vlachs)) recently." CreationDate="2022-10-06T10:26:50.007" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="39827" PostId="18938" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I know that it is agreeing with θεῶν, but ὁμιλούντων came after both &quot;πρὸς ἀλλήλους&quot; and &quot;πρὸς ἀνθρώπους&quot;. I wonder why it is not following: περὶ θεῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμιλούντων καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ὡς ὁμιλοῦσι" CreationDate="2022-10-05T18:54:47.587" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="39829" PostId="18938" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad Why would you expect that order? The sense is &quot;how gods interact with each other and with people&quot;, so it makes sense to keep the two πρός phrases together." CreationDate="2022-10-05T19:01:08.177" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39830" PostId="18938" Score="0" Text="Because in the current order, it seems to me that we can eliminate &quot;ὁμιλούντων&quot; and keep &quot;ὡς ὁμιλοῦσι&quot; or eliminate &quot;ὡς ὁμιλοῦσι&quot; and keep &quot;ὁμιλούντων&quot;." CreationDate="2022-10-05T19:08:13.070" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="39831" PostId="18938" Score="0" Text="@AliNikzad I don't think I follow -- isn't the same true of the ordering you propose?" CreationDate="2022-10-05T19:19:08.947" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39832" PostId="18938" Score="0" Text="I don't insist on that order. I must reflect more on your answer. Thank you." CreationDate="2022-10-05T19:31:34.813" UserId="3645" />
  <row Id="39835" PostId="18938" Score="2" Text="@AliNikzad: I would say the redundancy is indeed odd looking, but I praesume it is just something the Greeks would do." CreationDate="2022-10-06T01:21:14.697" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40560" PostId="18941" Score="0" Text="I added the tag [tag:font] as this appears to be one of the key focuses of the question." CreationDate="2022-12-07T12:44:40.573" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="39850" PostId="18942" Score="2" Text="Short-alpha nouns in the first declension don't result from shortening -- they're mostly descended from forms with the suffix *-ih2, which (anomalously) gives Proto-Greek *-ya." CreationDate="2022-10-06T18:49:15.987" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39851" PostId="18942" Score="0" Text="Thanks, this really clarifies things. And I assume I shall therefore have henceforth to write out all vocab entries twice: once with the pitch and once with the lengths/quantities (when given). NB writing lists in a Word document seems to help me, not least because I look back at past exercises, but also because certain words and expressions keep cropping up repeatedly (τις, ὁς, οὑτω(ς), τοιαδε and a million more)." CreationDate="2022-10-06T19:03:51.847" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="39852" PostId="18942" Score="0" Text="... I suppose I could just write out a phonetic rendering (using a Latin keyboard for example) with the sole purpose of showing vowel lengths. Would probably be less laborious than redoing the Greek + diacritics each time." CreationDate="2022-10-06T19:14:43.787" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="39853" PostId="18942" Score="1" Text="@mikerodent There should be a way to combine the accents, but unfortunately I'm not sure how to do it on that keyboard. On the plus side, circumflexes only ever go on long vowels, so you don't need to combine them with macrons—it's only the acute that will ever have that problem." CreationDate="2022-10-06T19:27:31.647" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39854" PostId="18942" Score="0" Text="@TKR Good to know! Fixed." CreationDate="2022-10-06T19:28:52.327" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39859" PostId="18942" Score="0" Text="@Drakonis these &quot;long&quot; and &quot;short&quot; symbols might look nicer below the letters, if there is a way to add them there." CreationDate="2022-10-07T09:11:19.970" UserId="9124" />
  <row Id="39857" PostId="18943" Score="0" Text="Good point, indeed. I believe it's also true that, even in those cases where a different accentuation (for same spelling) *does* in fact result in a different meaning, the grammatical context will almost always prevent any ambiguity. The situation seems slightly akin to Arabic: what makes reading Arabic very difficult for a learner is that most of the vowels are omitted, because readers are assumed to know this. Aristotle would I assume be wetting himself with how both ancient and modern Greek are pronounced now, including by Greeks, so I'm not overly bothered about ridicule." CreationDate="2022-10-07T08:09:26.990" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="39858" PostId="18943" Score="2" Text="&quot;Greek defaced with them is as distractingly illegible as Latin is when pockmarked with macrons&quot; remember that the Romans did in fact generally mark long vowels (albeit with apices rather than macrons), even in handwriting. It's just that as the apex was generally written with a much narrower stroke than the letters themselves it's easily missed in inscriptions in stone (the notable exception being i, which when it received an apex became the i-longa rather than having a separate diacritic)" CreationDate="2022-10-07T09:00:45.673" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="39860" PostId="18943" Score="0" Text="@Tristan: Apices are common in Latin inscriptions, but but almost no inscriptions use them consistently to mark all long vowels the way that macrons are typically used today." CreationDate="2022-10-07T15:11:43.773" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39861" PostId="18943" Score="0" Text="@Tristan &quot;the Romans did in fact generally mark long vowels (albeit with apices rather than macrons)&quot; -- hic est error pervagatus (atque a Vicipaedia latius disseminatus), a quo ut revocaris, suadeo ut [hoc responsum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5882/did-the-romans-ever-distinguish-long-vowels-in-writing/5889#5889) prius in hoc situ datum legas." CreationDate="2022-10-07T16:57:00.113" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39866" PostId="18943" Score="2" Text="The fact that diacritics were not printed does not mean that they are unimportant or that ignoring them in pronunciation does not produce gibberish. In Czech many people informally omit diacritics (e.g. long wovels) in e-mails and text messages. The point is that you normally know perfectly well what diacritics mark would be there if you did bother to put them there and the reader knows it as well. But trying to read the text as if they did not matter just produces gibberish. The Greek and the Romans knew very well how to pronounce their words." CreationDate="2022-10-07T21:36:14.103" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="39867" PostId="18943" Score="2" Text="But the vowel length must be pronounced correctly in Czech or Hungarian or similar and had to be in classical Greek or Latin even if modern Romance or Greek languages do not have phonemic length." CreationDate="2022-10-07T21:37:15.810" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="39865" PostId="18944" Score="3" Text="Note that &quot;in the first place&quot; to the extent I know English, is not by itself restricted to be after &quot;a mistake&quot; or with negative. We can say for example. &quot;Cool. But how did she figure it out in the first place?&quot; . Not sure all the suggestions fit those kind of cases, like *omnino*." CreationDate="2022-10-07T21:28:39.843" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39869" PostId="18944" Score="2" Text="@d_e: I wanted to keep to one context." CreationDate="2022-10-08T07:51:03.987" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="39884" PostId="18946" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Is there anything you want to convey with the phrase? Additional context can help make sure that it really means what you want in Latin." CreationDate="2022-10-08T20:48:46.733" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39868" PostId="18947" Score="2" Text="I once developed a [tool](https://www.res-latinae.com/verbs/) for training on verbs.  I personally found it very helpful in getting grip on ppp and indicative perfect stems which ultimately should be known/memorized. For some bad reason I omitted the macrons in the answers so it should be kept in mind." CreationDate="2022-10-08T07:26:48.990" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39871" PostId="18947" Score="0" Text="@d_e Thanks a lot that will be of much help." CreationDate="2022-10-08T12:13:52.313" UserId="11632" />
  <row Id="39870" PostId="18948" Score="1" Text="A very thorough answer -- welcome to the site! As a small quibble, long alpha does occur elsewhere than after ρ ε ι, by compensatory lengthening or analogy (as in the first-declension accusative plural ending you cite)." CreationDate="2022-10-08T12:02:52.030" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39895" PostId="18948" Score="0" Text="Thanks. After reading *Vox Graeca* I do in fact have a beginner's understanding of length. I used the term &quot;accent&quot; in the question because I wasn't entirely sure of the right word to use (technically) to encompass all the various squiggles which you find in a comprehensively annotated Ancient Greek lexicon. As mentioned by Draconis, macrons and breves are later additions which don't appear even in fully annotated texts (only in dictionaries). Is the all-encompassing term &quot;diacritics&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-10-09T09:44:09.277" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="39872" PostId="18949" Score="3" Text="Can you give examples of what you mean? I'm not sure if I follow you, and if this is hyperbaton or something else." CreationDate="2022-10-08T12:26:07.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39875" PostId="18949" Score="0" Text="I don't have access now, and the question should be understandable without following any links and without reading comments. Can you add [edit] to add examples to the question and describe how what you are looking for relates to hyperbaton? Your comment clarifies the situation, but it'd be better to have that written and formatted in the question itself." CreationDate="2022-10-08T15:40:58.077" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39876" PostId="18949" Score="1" Text="Sorry for the confusion and I should have explained fully what I meant but in the world of pedagogy I wrongly assumed it was a literary term familiar to all.  Apologies." CreationDate="2022-10-08T16:11:07.070" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39877" PostId="18949" Score="2" Text="Thanks! Very few terms are known to all, so it's almost always a good idea to give a few examples or a link to a Wikipedia page. Comparison to and disambiguation from related terms is another good habit that helps get everyone on the same page. We all misjudge these things occasionally, so don't worry too much about a confusing first version." CreationDate="2022-10-08T16:21:20.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40048" PostId="18949" Score="0" Text="What is the question? I don't understand what is being asked." CreationDate="2022-10-19T14:54:43.070" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40081" PostId="18949" Score="0" Text="The question I am asking  is for a neat translation into Latin of the common use of this term used in literary criticism: ‘the enclosing order of words’. It is a kind of very ‘tight’ and nuanced  hyperbaton. Look at the example I have given above from Horace and note how in line 1  puer and gracilis entwine te; multa and rosa entwine them both. This is the glory of Latin word order. This ‘entwining’ here in not only in the word order but in actual fact. The courtesan, Pyrrha, lies between the boy astride her, while the many rose petals enclose both. This is known as ‘enclosing word order." CreationDate="2022-10-21T11:58:47.263" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="39878" PostId="18951" Score="1" Text="Nothing, because *signī* is not a Latin word  More seriously, the question is too general. Depending on context, the phrase could mean all kinds of things. And changing the case of a word would obviously change the meaning drastically." CreationDate="2022-10-08T17:07:18.183" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39879" PostId="18951" Score="0" Text="Well that's frustrating but not too surprising.  I took it from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/signum#Latin - where it is listed as singular, genitive case. Is that table just plain wrong, or...?" CreationDate="2022-10-08T18:28:40.130" UserId="11635" />
  <row Id="39880" PostId="18951" Score="1" Text="Also - I'm fine with there being multiple interpretations, and yes, there is a lack of context. A little ambiguity is intentional for my use case. But my Latin is basically non existent, so curious to see what interpretations people make, and whether they're even in the same ballpark as the interpretations I intend." CreationDate="2022-10-08T18:31:02.943" UserId="11635" />
  <row Id="39889" PostId="18951" Score="1" Text="I was just kidding, the Wiktionary table is fine, it should be written *sīgnī*, but apparently Wiktionary considers this redundant (because vowels before *gn* are always long). I'm personally not a great fan of “guess what I meant by this” questions, but if that's what you're after, okay…" CreationDate="2022-10-08T21:19:59.553" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39890" PostId="18951" Score="2" Text="Noted, thanks! Case in point, I don't know enough of the language to know you were just kidding. :)&#xA;&#xA;I promise this isn't a &quot;guess what this means, look how clever I am&quot;. I *think* I've translated a particular phrase, but I have no idea whether I've done it correctly or not. In use it'll appear without (written) context - think a crest or family motto kind of thing.&#xA;&#xA;What I *think* I've translated is &quot;for the love of signals&quot; - but I have no idea how close I've got, or what other potential translations back into English would be." CreationDate="2022-10-08T21:33:21.287" UserId="11635" />
  <row Id="39896" PostId="18951" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel A vowel with no macron on Wiktionary sīgnifies a short vowel. The pronunciation given also specifies a short vowel. I just looked in LLPSI and it also writes _signum_ (no macron). Now I'm puzzled. Maybe you have a new answer to add [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/787/118)?" CreationDate="2022-10-09T15:57:10.827" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40242" PostId="18951" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: The most relevant question to Sebastian's comment is the following: [What is the correct vowel quantity for words formed from sĭ̄gn-?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18728)" CreationDate="2022-11-01T07:48:11.587" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="39881" PostId="18953" Score="0" Text="So here it would be duodēvīgīnti? That makes sense thank you for your answer" CreationDate="2022-10-08T18:48:23.527" UserDisplayName="user11587" />
  <row Id="39882" PostId="18953" Score="0" Text="@user989070 I would say _duodēvīgintī_." CreationDate="2022-10-08T18:53:43.773" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39883" PostId="18953" Score="0" Text="Yes long i as you explained with adjectives sorry" CreationDate="2022-10-08T19:38:25.810" UserDisplayName="user11587" />
  <row Id="39885" PostId="18953" Score="1" Text="Out of curiosity, does OLD also follow the same macron convention?" CreationDate="2022-10-08T20:52:12.917" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39887" PostId="18953" Score="0" Text="@Adam I believe the OLD uses macrons even in closed syllables, but I'll have to get it out and check." CreationDate="2022-10-08T21:03:21.203" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39891" PostId="18955" Score="0" Text="Thank you: that's actually the conclusion I reached myself." CreationDate="2022-10-08T22:14:49.630" UserId="9711" />
  <row Id="39897" PostId="18956" Score="1" Text="Thanks! That is as intended, so I'm not a million miles away. The primary meaning I have in mind is &quot;signal&quot; in the sense of &quot;message&quot; or &quot;sequence of information&quot;, but other interpretations are welcome and ambiguity is a feature, not a bug, for my use case. I suppose follow up questions (if you don't mind) would be: is the meaning I gave a valid possible interpretation of &quot;signum&quot;, and is my use of the genitive singular correct, or would another be more appropriate?" CreationDate="2022-10-09T17:10:34.927" UserId="11635" />
  <row Id="39942" PostId="18958" Score="2" Text="Thank you all so much. I loved my (very) long ago latin studies, and your talking about these delicate uses of words made me very happy. Victoria." CreationDate="2022-10-13T06:33:23.730" UserId="11637" />
  <row Id="39900" PostId="18959" Score="0" Text="How about:&#xA;&#xA;Cui faciendi potestas, eidem faciendum est." CreationDate="2022-10-10T10:31:25.400" UserId="11592" />
  <row Id="39901" PostId="18959" Score="0" Text="@Patricius That's certainly possible, but I aimed at something shorter. Can you write that up as a separate answer?" CreationDate="2022-10-10T13:04:25.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39903" PostId="18959" Score="0" Text="The problem with the second option is English, where it sounds like it should mean “Whoever protests owes money”.   How about _qui potest, faciat_?  The subjunctive is not quite right (it covers potential action, but not moral duty, I don’t think), but it avoids the loaded word _debit_." CreationDate="2022-10-10T16:50:32.770" UserId="2688" />
  <row Id="39905" PostId="18959" Score="1" Text="@MichaelLorton The Latin *debere* means a number of things, including both &quot;must&quot; and &quot;owe money&quot;. Ambiguity is pretty much inevitable in a concise motto. You could use the third person future imperative: *qui potest, facito*. I'll add a third option to my answer and a comment on ambiguity." CreationDate="2022-10-10T19:52:47.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39899" PostId="18962" Score="9" Text="The *Vulgate* is arguably the most influential translation ever made in history. If you want to read the Bible in Latin to &quot;broaden historical background,&quot; you need to start there." CreationDate="2022-10-10T02:42:34.023" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39934" PostId="18962" Score="3" Text="@brianpck Can you convert that comment into an answer? It may be short, but I think it's perfectly sufficient for an answer." CreationDate="2022-10-12T22:32:49.087" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39935" PostId="18962" Score="3" Text="I'd like just a bit more information. &quot;Improve reading skills&quot; and &quot;broaden historical background&quot; is very vague, and honestly choosing which Latin translation of the Bible won't change on that front. But maybe you have something more specific in mind in what you want to accomplish and why you think a translation would alter that?" CreationDate="2022-10-12T22:58:34.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39944" PostId="18962" Score="0" Text="I think this question is rather off-topic, for the same reason questions about which framework programmers recommend are off-topic on StackOverflow." CreationDate="2022-10-13T06:51:56.747" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="39904" PostId="18963" Score="1" Text="Excellent answer, Horace 1, 9 also came to my mind. With help from 1, 13 we can also suggest *ne quaesieris* (also *nec desperaveris* found in Seneca ad Lucilium 25)." CreationDate="2022-10-10T19:47:55.240" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39902" PostId="18964" Score="3" Text="That literal translation would be my interpretation too. Is there a reason to think it's less straightforward than that?" CreationDate="2022-10-10T16:15:10.257" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="39916" PostId="18966" Score="1" Text="To me it looks like their motto should rather be: *Russiam ingenti gladio pulsare volumus* " CreationDate="2022-10-11T19:10:11.120" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39907" PostId="18968" Score="1" Text="Very good answer: +1! However, let me make a remark on your point 1, when saying that &quot;extended discussions&quot; on the meaning of deponent verbs &quot;are not very helpful from a practical point of view&quot;. This can be true but note that some linguistic analysis can also be helpful when trying to work out why _dominor_ 'I rule' (from _dominus_ 'master') is deponent. Probably, the same linguistic (sub)generalization accounts for other similar denominal verbs like _ancillor_ ‘I serve’ (from _ancilla_ ‘servant’), _famulor_ ‘I serve’ (from _famulus_ ‘servant’), or _furor_ ‘I steal’ (from _fur_ ‘stealer’)." CreationDate="2022-10-11T00:13:11.937" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39908" PostId="18968" Score="1" Text="In the examples above note that the following descriptive subgeneralization relating form with meaning applies: the nominative argument acquires the characteristics of the nominal element, i.e., it is _identified_ with the nominal root. This descriptive (sub)generalization can be formulated in a more explanatory/technical way but I agree that this could not be helpful from a practical point of view... However, note that the non-technical descriptive subgeneralization can be helpful even &quot;from a practical point of view&quot;." CreationDate="2022-10-11T00:24:01.463" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="39910" PostId="18970" Score="2" Text="How about reading *mihi in manu est* as &quot;is to me in hand&quot; instead of &quot;[is] in the hand which is belonging to me&quot;? I always thought of datives like this expressing benefit morning than possession." CreationDate="2022-10-11T14:39:43.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39911" PostId="18970" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think that is fine. The problematic thing is that we don't really have an equivalent thought pattern in English, so any rendering tends to be an approximation at best." CreationDate="2022-10-11T14:54:45.057" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39912" PostId="18970" Score="3" Text="I don't think I've heard of *noster* as an &quot;emphatic&quot; version of *meus*, but if it was used, I would think that *mihi* would also become plural *nobis*. Without context though the default reading would be a true plural &quot;ours&quot;, so it's probably better avoided in this case." CreationDate="2022-10-11T16:51:54.860" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39913" PostId="18970" Score="0" Text="@TKR When speaking emphatically of personal possessions, it normal to use noster. Hae nuces nostrae sunt!!! (These toys are mine!!!) It is somewhat colloquial, but in the situation of a motto, as we have here, this would the most apropos way to say it for a real Roman." CreationDate="2022-10-11T17:02:47.410" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39926" PostId="18970" Score="2" Text="Do you have any classical examples of this emphatic use? BTW note that since *penates* is plural, it would be *penates nostri*." CreationDate="2022-10-12T06:54:12.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39947" PostId="18970" Score="0" Text="@TKR when penates is used to mean the household, it treated as a collective plural and so singular adjectives are used. As just one example of using noster, in the &quot;Hercules&quot; of Seneca, at one point Hercules gives a speech beginning &quot;Miserere genitor...&quot; (Have pity father) and at the end of the speech, talking about his guilt for his transgressions, he says, &quot;Tacuere, nostrum est&quot; (They are silent, it is mine.) meaning the guilt for killing Eunomus is his alone (nostrum est = it is mine). That is just one example, I could cite many others, it is a normal and common usage." CreationDate="2022-10-13T21:23:51.940" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39961" PostId="18970" Score="2" Text="&quot;when penates is used to mean the household, it treated as a collective plural and so singular adjectives are used.&quot; Not actually true, of course." CreationDate="2022-10-14T02:57:49.593" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39966" PostId="18970" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I switched to the plural adjective because it seems that the standard practice was to treat it as plural, even when used to mean a home." CreationDate="2022-10-14T03:38:23.427" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39971" PostId="18970" Score="2" Text="Yes, the usage of *nos* with a singular reference is common, but I don't think it's emphatic in any sense." CreationDate="2022-10-14T08:21:40.257" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="39917" PostId="18972" Score="3" Text="Note that in the same sentence, *presenti* has undergone the same medieval make-over (as has “medieval,” by the way)." CreationDate="2022-10-11T19:45:56.737" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39914" PostId="18973" Score="1" Text="Isn't the OP asking about memorizing verb *conjugations*?" CreationDate="2022-10-11T18:18:04.910" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="39915" PostId="18973" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Hmm, maybe. I guess it wasn't clear to me from the question. So, he is asking about learning the paradigms, not the vocabulary?" CreationDate="2022-10-11T18:26:41.083" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39918" PostId="18973" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden The key is in his sentence: &quot;have thus far memorised all the noun and adjective **declensions**.&quot; He learned the declensions, but verbs are more difficult. Clearly OP is asking about conjugations, the verbal analogue to declensions, and not every verb ever." CreationDate="2022-10-11T22:05:18.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39919" PostId="18975" Score="6" Text="Can you add which versions these two are? Thanks." CreationDate="2022-10-12T02:29:53.113" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39920" PostId="18975" Score="0" Text="@cmw The second version is from the Loeb library. I don't know where the first is from because it is in transcribed notes. Does it really matter where they are from? Either there are different manuscript versions, or there are not. What if I didn't even give examples and just asked whether there were substantially different mss traditions?" CreationDate="2022-10-12T02:48:45.653" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39921" PostId="18975" Score="7" Text="It helps the one giving you an answer by pointing them directly to your problem, instead of them guessing where you got information from. Maybe there are different manuscript versions. Knowing for sure would take some investigation. Basically, help us help you get the most accurate information. // But also, perhaps there is some reason you have transcribed notes that don't match the Loeb that have nothing to do with the mss tradition. In that case, we can then further comment and potentially shine light on that problem as well." CreationDate="2022-10-12T03:27:42.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39946" PostId="18975" Score="2" Text="[The Loeb's introduction](https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L072.pdf) briefly discusses the manuscript tradition (pp. 26-27 in this public domain one). For a more detailed account and the provenance of any given piece of text you'll have to consult a critical edition." CreationDate="2022-10-13T11:00:06.327" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="39941" PostId="18982" Score="3" Text="What do you mean by looking up words by definition? An English-to-Latin dictionary? Perhaps an example would illuminate the concept if it's hard to describe." CreationDate="2022-10-13T03:56:14.060" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="39974" PostId="18982" Score="0" Text="If you are specifically looking for an online dictionary of Latin, you might want the Latin Wiktionary, e.g. https://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/bird_(en) gives a Latin definition for the English word 'bird'. Not sure how complete or user-friendly it is." CreationDate="2022-10-14T17:25:31.113" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="39943" PostId="18984" Score="1" Text="Just to add. I've read *Genesis* of both *Vulgate* and *Castillio*. **Personally** I've found *Vulgate* easier to understand but/because it is less classical in its style. It is  Castillio's version which tried to use the classical Ciceronian style." CreationDate="2022-10-13T06:44:14.427" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39970" PostId="18984" Score="1" Text="I don't know how true this is, but I have read that Jerome's Vulgate was not written in classical Latin since Jerome used Hebraism and Grecism." CreationDate="2022-10-14T08:05:07.750" UserDisplayName="user11587" />
  <row Id="39979" PostId="18984" Score="2" Text="@user989070 Jerome's *style* is not a classical golden-age style, but his language is (mostly) compatable with classical grammar. Classical Latin does contain Hellenisms and also influences from Phoenician (similar to Hebrew). So it's not the Hebraisms and Hellenisms per se which make it non-classical. Saying that would be like saying the Hebraisms and Hellenisms of the King James bible mean is not an English classic." CreationDate="2022-10-15T04:09:59.650" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39980" PostId="18984" Score="0" Text="@user989070 Plater and White in their *Grammar of the Vulgate* do a pretty thorough job of describing the &quot;foreign element&quot; in the Vulgate. It's a great resource for anyone enterested in this sort of thing. But in my experience, newbies don't need to worry about being corrupted by Greek or Hebrew. Their main source of corruption is their native language." CreationDate="2022-10-15T04:16:18.453" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="39948" PostId="18985" Score="1" Text="I think you mean Latin &quot;rites&quot; not &quot;rights&quot;." CreationDate="2022-10-13T21:30:27.750" UserId="7329" />
  <row Id="39949" PostId="18985" Score="0" Text="@MTA No, I did mean rights. There were certain legal rights that originated in the Latin culture specifically, and they were handed down into Roman laws and traditions. There was even legal terminology for it, they were called the &quot;ius Latini&quot; or something like that, I forget the exact wording." CreationDate="2022-10-13T21:34:46.400" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39964" PostId="18985" Score="0" Text="@MTA [Here's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_rights) the Wiki on the topic." CreationDate="2022-10-14T03:17:26.643" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="39967" PostId="18985" Score="2" Text="That's why I love SE: learn something every day!" CreationDate="2022-10-14T04:03:20.970" UserId="7329" />
  <row Id="39972" PostId="18991" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Was there any special meaning you wanted to convey with this statement, or were you looking for a very literal translation?" CreationDate="2022-10-14T13:02:28.127" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="39976" PostId="18991" Score="1" Text="Thank you! I was thinking of it in the &quot;this too shall pass&quot; concept. The idea that whether good or bad, everything is only temporary. Let me know if that makes sense!" CreationDate="2022-10-14T23:19:00.363" UserId="11655" />
  <row Id="39977" PostId="18992" Score="0" Text="Thank you! That is a great explanation." CreationDate="2022-10-14T23:23:09.367" UserId="11655" />
  <row Id="39978" PostId="18992" Score="1" Text="@Lilith This is indeed a good answer, but I hope you will allow time for more answers, too. Often we get several good answers to this kind of question." CreationDate="2022-10-15T00:26:39.630" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="39986" PostId="18993" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much. In fact this is the prayer that I'm trying to translate into latin, but the problem is that the latin text you give is not the original, but a very recent translation, and I am unsure whether that is correct." CreationDate="2022-10-15T12:06:44.850" UserId="11653" />
  <row Id="39984" PostId="18994" Score="0" Text="*Praeparatio ad solutionem* is the heading of the next paragraph and not a part of this sentence. For *visum est*, see the very end of the [L &amp; S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvideo)." CreationDate="2022-10-15T11:26:50.257" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="39985" PostId="18994" Score="0" Text="I thought like you at first, but the fact that it was placed after a comma confused me. I will look at your link, thanks" CreationDate="2022-10-15T11:29:36.523" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="40001" PostId="18994" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Any idea why there is a comma after &quot;visum est&quot;? Your reading is the only one that makes sense, but I don't see how the punctuation supports it." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:42:48.513" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40031" PostId="18994" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I do not know why the comma is there, but I gather it must be a typographical mistake. There is no comma, but the expected full stop instead, in the [Opera Omnia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Omnia_Leonhard_Euler), see [here](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6952c/f264.item) (published Lipsiae &amp; Berolini by Latin's own B. G. Teubner, go figure!)." CreationDate="2022-10-17T20:03:49.523" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40032" PostId="18994" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Good catch!" CreationDate="2022-10-17T20:06:51.397" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="40044" PostId="18995" Score="0" Text="&quot;Ferendo&quot; in the sentence &quot;Superanda omnis fortuna ferendo est. (every fortune is to be subdued by/with endurance)&quot; does not have passive meaning. The implied subject is not &quot;fortuna&quot; but the agent of the subduing. Gerund in ablative expresses a way or manner how an action is performed. You could translate it as &quot;Every fortune is to be overcome by enduring it&quot; -- notice the active form of the verb &quot;endure&quot;." CreationDate="2022-10-19T09:07:48.933" UserId="2922" />
  <row Id="40045" PostId="18995" Score="0" Text="@Nolmendil, I agree, I gave this as an example to an active meaning. Then my example invented example of *ferendeo* with passive meaning: &quot;by being carried&quot; or &quot;by carrying [them]&quot; though I'm not sure if valid." CreationDate="2022-10-19T10:00:52.793" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="39993" PostId="18997" Score="4" Text="Sequentes is accusative, modifying solutiones. [sequentes … solutiones affere] visum est." CreationDate="2022-10-16T19:58:03.797" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="39994" PostId="18997" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if that were true for two reasons. First of all, saying &quot;Concerning these problems, the next solutions&quot; does not make sense. Secondly, if sequentes was intended to modify solutiones, it would be normal to put it in the same clause with solutiones. If you have a different translation where you can make your idea work, I suggest you create an answer showing how that could make sense." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:00:37.263" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39995" PostId="18997" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey  I suppose you could have &quot;to report the following solutions publicly&quot;, but in that case, as I said, I would expect sequentes to be in the same clause with solutiones. There is a certain amount of ambiguity because sequentes can be either nominative or accusative. We could probably figure out the intent if looked at how Euler used the word elsewhere." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:06:58.033" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39996" PostId="18997" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey After thinking about it some more, I guess your reading does make sense, even though the separation between the two words seems unnatural. So, I changed my translation to prefer that reading." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:17:50.400" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39997" PostId="18997" Score="0" Text="What is making you make *huius problematis* plural?" CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:19:41.843" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="39998" PostId="18997" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski Well, solutions is plural, so it seemed to read more naturally that way, but I guess literally it is singular. So, I changed it to the literal singular, even though it does sound a little weird, I guess it is better to error on the side of literal. So, I guess we have multiple solutions to a single problem?" CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:22:36.000" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="39999" PostId="18997" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden it’s not that uncommon in neo-Latin (nor impossible in classical) to have a relative clause between a modifier and noun. Petrarch, for one, preferred that ordering." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:36:22.237" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40000" PostId="18997" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Yes, noted. Also, I looked up the text and apparently it was a notation by Fermat, so being a casual notation, it would not be unusual to have a distant modifier as you have suggested." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:38:45.627" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40002" PostId="18997" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden Re your last edit: a cursory glance at the headings in the text shows multiple solutions: *solutio prima/secunda/tertia* and finally *generalis*." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:44:36.080" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40003" PostId="18997" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Aha, so that would explain it. I did not see that part of the text. It does say &quot;Preparatio ad solutionem&quot; which is singular which is confusing. In any case, it is irrelevant to the main question which is about visum est." CreationDate="2022-10-16T20:45:06.817" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40007" PostId="18998" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this answer, I am rather convinced but I will wait if there are other objections" CreationDate="2022-10-16T21:38:21.020" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="40018" PostId="18998" Score="0" Text="Obviously I disagree with this translation. For one thing, ergo does not mean &quot;therefore&quot; and that is clear from the context even disregarding the grammar. The context is that Euler writes (paraphrasing) &quot;Fermat posed the following difficult problem: the triangle etc etc&quot; then he says: &quot;Huius ergo problematis&quot; which means &quot;Concerning this problem...&quot; It makes no sense in the context to render ergo as &quot;Therefore&quot;." CreationDate="2022-10-17T14:14:47.473" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40021" PostId="18998" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden You're missing the context of the intro. Euler just finished saying that a certain class of problems (Diophantine equations, as far as I can tell from my limited mathematical knowledge) has been neglected by analysis, despite enormous progress in other areas. &quot;Therefore I thought it would be good to publish my solutions&quot; to those problems." CreationDate="2022-10-17T15:32:04.710" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40022" PostId="18998" Score="0" Text="I'm curious what else you disagree with: the only other substantial difference in my translation is the object of *elicere*, which is just an obvious (pardon me--but the context of our earlier interactions forces me to be blunt) point of syntax." CreationDate="2022-10-17T15:34:24.080" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40023" PostId="18998" Score="1" Text="Ok, I will accept that as a reasonable interpretation." CreationDate="2022-10-17T15:59:49.633" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40026" PostId="19000" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much. But wouldn't &quot;Desiderium ad me amandum&quot; mean &quot;the desire of loving myself&quot;? The subject of &quot;amandum&quot; wouls still be the one who desires." CreationDate="2022-10-17T17:04:54.617" UserId="11653" />
  <row Id="40036" PostId="19000" Score="0" Text="@JuanG.C. An interesting point. Perhaps we are going about this all wrong and should try an approach which does not need *desiderio*. Would *ab desiderando amari* be at all idiomatic?" CreationDate="2022-10-18T04:07:45.933" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40042" PostId="19000" Score="1" Text="You are probably right. I can't see anything wrong with that construction, but I want to be sure. Perhaps I will create another question about it." CreationDate="2022-10-18T17:50:52.023" UserId="11653" />
  <row Id="40076" PostId="19001" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer! I'd also like to add that the Alands published a New Testament with the Greek and Latin side by side. The Greek was a critical edition, and the Latin was the Nova Vulgata. *Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine*." CreationDate="2022-10-21T03:37:05.030" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40027" PostId="19002" Score="0" Text="Are you familiar with the verb *renasci*?" CreationDate="2022-10-17T19:27:17.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40028" PostId="19002" Score="0" Text="No, although that seems pretty close. L&amp;S say to compare it to _regeneror_, but I didn't find a dictionary entry for that to compare." CreationDate="2022-10-17T19:34:34.970" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40033" PostId="19002" Score="1" Text="If you are willing to entertain Neo-Latin expressions, both *resurrectio* or *transmigratio* would be possible. (Of these, *transmigratio* exists in the Vulgate, but means something different.)" CreationDate="2022-10-17T20:25:26.537" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40035" PostId="19002" Score="0" Text="While I prefer Classical, I'm open to any era of Latin including Neo-Latin. It does look like the English word originates from the Ecclesiastical Latin [incarnatus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incarnatus#Latin)." CreationDate="2022-10-17T21:41:56.100" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40039" PostId="19003" Score="0" Text="I'm surprised that _palingenesia_ wasn't brought over as a loan word if it was known  as a word for it." CreationDate="2022-10-18T12:58:42.670" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40038" PostId="19009" Score="1" Text="Interestingly, Caesar [talks about the concept](http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.perseus-lat1:6.14) but doesn't use the word either." CreationDate="2022-10-18T12:57:07.140" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40060" PostId="19014" Score="4" Text="I don't see any instances in the corpus, but I have to wonder if this is an actual rule or just an accidental gap." CreationDate="2022-10-20T03:17:33.773" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40046" PostId="19016" Score="3" Text="Good answer (+1). I disagree with the implication that *sapio* isn't appropriate, though: the intellectual sense comes from the &quot;gustatory&quot; sense. I think *pullum sapit* and *resipit* are equally appropriate." CreationDate="2022-10-19T12:41:31.193" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40047" PostId="19016" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Can you find an example where sapit refers to the flavor of a food item? When I see sapit used in practice, it is almost invariably used in an intellectual context. Even in rare cases where it means to taste food, the cases I have seen are all transitive." CreationDate="2022-10-19T14:25:45.420" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40049" PostId="19016" Score="2" Text="Here's one example from Pliny: &quot;...cum in Hispaniā multa mella herbam eam sapiunt,”" CreationDate="2022-10-19T16:11:21.933" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40052" PostId="19016" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Ok, I see that. I have updated my answer." CreationDate="2022-10-19T16:43:35.227" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40050" PostId="19017" Score="3" Text="I would say that the *quodque* is an essential part of the phrase here. A form of *quisque* with 2 superlatives (including *primus*), one of which agrees with the form of *quisque*, is used to convey the idea of proportionality. Cicero means that the more recent a thing is, the closer to being mentioned first it will be. The example given in Allen &amp; Greenough §313.b is from Cicero, *De senectute* 83: *sapientissimus quisque aequissimo animo moritur,  stultissimus iniquissimo*, by which he means that the wiser a man is, the more equanimity he dies with; the more foolish, the less." CreationDate="2022-10-19T16:14:45.497" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40051" PostId="19017" Score="0" Text="@cnread In your example, quisque agrees in number with sapientissimus (every of the wisest). In the example I cited, I read quodque as agreeing in both case and number with recentissimum (each of the most recent)." CreationDate="2022-10-19T16:37:41.260" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40067" PostId="19017" Score="0" Text="Quite right. My example is talking about a person, so masculine; whereas yours is talking about a thing, so neuter. I don't think I get your point. For the record, I think the example that you found provides the/a correct answer to the question, but only because of the quodque; it's the quodque that adds the idea of proportionality, suggesting not just that the first item in the list is most recent but that, as you go down the list, items become progressively less recent." CreationDate="2022-10-20T16:01:23.683" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40068" PostId="19017" Score="0" Text="@cnread Regardless of how you want to intepret the passage, the bottom line is that it makes clear the basics of how Cicero discussed temporal order, including the type of order which the OP is asking about." CreationDate="2022-10-20T16:17:16.423" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40061" PostId="19019" Score="2" Text="I've never seen *ne* used like in your first example: wouldn't it need to be coordinated with *quidem* or with a subjunctive verb? Also: *duas* is an archaic form. *des* is much more standard." CreationDate="2022-10-20T12:55:41.840" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40065" PostId="19019" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Well, I have only found &quot;ne des&quot; only in Plautus and he uses all three expressions &quot;ne des&quot;, &quot;ne duis&quot; and &quot;ne duas&quot; equally, and all in very colloquial situations. So, my presumption is that all three are colloquial language, which is why the expression is not found in literary works. As I said in my answer, it is vulgar." CreationDate="2022-10-20T15:27:52.760" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40976" PostId="19019" Score="0" Text="I upvoted your excellent answer. Just one remark though, I don't endorse your particular insistance on using *at* instead of *sed*, while this seems to represent the exact canonical case to use *sed*: some restoring of the right thing after a negation. That is, if it means &quot;give me the book instead of the sword&quot;; for &quot;give me the book, but do not give me the sword as well&quot;, then I agree, *at* is better: *da mihi not ensem*, sed librum; *da mihi librum, at non ensem*. NB : *non* is perfectly grammatical here, since it negates a NP, not a subjunctive; takes narrow scope (*constituent negation*)." CreationDate="2023-01-13T11:56:07.877" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40978" PostId="19019" Score="0" Text="Examples of constituent negation after *at*:&#xA;*ut ad hostes transire turpe videatur esse, at non illo animo quo Ulixes transiit*&#xA;(Cicero, *De Inventione*, II)&#xA;*Illi vero nimis etiam obscurus Euphorion; at non Homerus.*&#xA;(Cicero, *De divinatione*, II)" CreationDate="2023-01-13T12:26:07.140" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40194" PostId="19020" Score="0" Text="Could you provide more exact references, please?" CreationDate="2022-10-29T09:06:04.737" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40196" PostId="19020" Score="0" Text="@tony You mean like the exact book and line of the Satyricon?" CreationDate="2022-10-29T10:56:47.707" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40198" PostId="19020" Score="1" Text="Yes please; it saves a lot of time and if you're looking at that line it's no trouble, is it? Congratulations on 16-upvotes! (I'll find this one but for future ref. Thanks.)" CreationDate="2022-10-29T11:33:46.667" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40200" PostId="19020" Score="0" Text="@tony I did that." CreationDate="2022-10-29T12:04:06.547" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40072" PostId="19021" Score="0" Text="The Seneca example is no “slam-dunk” case, as this can be simply a regular use of the future perfect, seeing that the not-wanting is a precondition to not-doing. If this seems ridiculous to you, then compare [Cic. Mil. 93](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0011%3Atext%3DMil.%3Asection%3D93): *si mihi bona re publica frui non licuerit, at carebo mala*." CreationDate="2022-10-20T19:29:42.063" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40074" PostId="19021" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That is true, it may be happenstance. I could not find any cases where the author was saying &quot;I will prefer&quot; in the simple future." CreationDate="2022-10-20T19:38:15.170" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40062" PostId="19024" Score="3" Text="Are these your own coined terms? Your example with the laws of nature seems really unnatural to me (and &quot;whichness&quot; has almost no Google results). Aristotle famously divides (in *Posterior Analytics* B.1) the questions we inquire about into four basic types: &quot;if it is,&quot; &quot;what it is,&quot; &quot;that it is,&quot; &quot;why it is.&quot; He later maintains that the first/third and second/fourth collapse together." CreationDate="2022-10-20T15:00:28.073" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40063" PostId="19025" Score="1" Text="&quot;When asking philosophically about the nature of physical things in general, or a definition for example, then quid is used with the subjunctive.&quot; What makes you say this? Perhaps you're thinking of indirect questions?" CreationDate="2022-10-20T15:07:37.860" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40066" PostId="19025" Score="1" Text="The Quintilian quote is an indirect question, &quot;[we must define] what is *clarigatio*...&quot;. The indicative is standard in direct questions, see e.g. the many authors listed here, none of whom have to my knowledge been accused of writing the Latin of street slaves: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quid+est" CreationDate="2022-10-20T15:59:50.807" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40069" PostId="19025" Score="0" Text="@tkr alright I will eliminate this element of the answer" CreationDate="2022-10-20T16:19:27.100" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40078" PostId="19025" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the genitive: it is indeed one of the joys of an inflected language." CreationDate="2022-10-21T07:06:32.943" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="40071" PostId="19028" Score="1" Text="This is much better than my suggestion!" CreationDate="2022-10-20T19:22:24.440" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40075" PostId="19028" Score="1" Text="I actually like having both answers! With both I could say something _Iulius multiformis versipellis est / Many-shaped Julius is a shapeshifter._" CreationDate="2022-10-21T01:20:41.397" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40079" PostId="19028" Score="2" Text="This word is also discussed in the following question: [What does a versipellis turn into?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7446)" CreationDate="2022-10-21T09:35:26.750" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40103" PostId="19029" Score="0" Text="What exactly does &quot;in&quot; mean in &quot;in penem&quot;? To fit the translation it would have to be something like &quot;from&quot;: &quot;...if you do whatever comes to you from/ through your penis? These aren't usually listed meanings for &quot;in&quot; + accusative." CreationDate="2022-10-22T08:03:58.557" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40070" PostId="19030" Score="1" Text="I would suggest that this question be migrated to https://law.stackexchange.com/ – but in short, yes, translations are copyrighted works, and the NV is so recent that the copyright has certainly not expired. The use of excerpts that you have in mind does probably not require the Holy See's approval either way, but that may depend on your local law." CreationDate="2022-10-20T19:12:02.673" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40073" PostId="19030" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I mean, some recent work are released under more permissive licences, the European law applies in my case. I will ask on the other site, thanks for the answer" CreationDate="2022-10-20T19:30:58.657" UserDisplayName="user11510" />
  <row Id="40083" PostId="19034" Score="0" Text="&quot;So, for example, Cicero describes Catiline as having twisting eyes.&quot; Huh, where does he do that?" CreationDate="2022-10-21T18:05:53.090" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40084" PostId="19034" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Catiline 2.2 &quot;retorquet oculos profecto saepe ad hanc urbem&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-21T18:18:37.680" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40085" PostId="19034" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Also, from Apuleius re the twisting eyes of the insane Thallus: &quot;Atqui contende, si vis, furorem tuum cum Thalli furore: invenies non permultum interesse, nisi quod Thallus sibi, tu etiam aliis furis. Ceterum Thallus oculos torquet, tu veritatem; Thallus manus contrahit, tu patronos; Thallus pavimentis illiditur, tu tribunalibus.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-21T18:25:27.743" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40109" PostId="19034" Score="1" Text="I would read the Cicero quote simply as Catiline looking wistfully back at Rome, whence he was evicted, although it is a curious way to phrase it (“bending back his eyes”) indeed. The Apuleius quote is also quite intriguing, not sure how to picture this … anyway, the slapping of the forehead is a good find and may be the best approach we have." CreationDate="2022-10-22T23:03:44.297" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40245" PostId="19034" Score="0" Text="@Tyler Durden: In &quot;dicitur secum ipse multum agitavisse,&quot; = &quot;it is reported that he had many internal battles with himself,&quot;; how does &quot;ipse&quot; come into it?" CreationDate="2022-11-01T14:05:09.590" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40246" PostId="19034" Score="1" Text="I believe that *ipse* refers to Bocchus himself as the subject of *agitavisse*." CreationDate="2022-11-01T14:45:58.033" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40087" PostId="19037" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! What regular dictionary did you use? Translating to Latin requires more than a dictionary; you need the right forms of the words." CreationDate="2022-10-21T19:01:50.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40095" PostId="19041" Score="2" Text="Why do you say that the object should go first? It certainly can go there, but I don't see that as a necessity." CreationDate="2022-10-21T21:31:44.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40097" PostId="19041" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta In my view, normal Latin order is subject-object-verb. The reason for this is that meaning in Latin, unlike barbaric languages, is primarily conveyed by inflections on the object. For this reason, and because the Romans tended to list things in order of importance, the objects of the sentence are ordinarily listed before the verb, which was construed to convey less meaning than the inflected objects. For this reason objects are found before verbs unless there is some reason for the verb to come first, such as an unusual emphasis." CreationDate="2022-10-21T21:42:36.703" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40098" PostId="19041" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta There is a secondary reason why verbs are placed last, and that is that they sometimes function like periods, indicating the end of a clause or sentence. A sentence can have many objects, but usually just has one verb, so when the verb is given, the listener knows the sentence is complete." CreationDate="2022-10-21T21:47:41.250" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40100" PostId="19041" Score="2" Text="&quot;Barbaric languages&quot;?!" CreationDate="2022-10-22T03:07:10.110" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40104" PostId="19041" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Does the votedown mean that &quot;fines non habemus&quot; is incorrect?" CreationDate="2022-10-22T08:06:07.887" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40105" PostId="19041" Score="1" Text="@tony Everyone is free to vote as they see fit, so I can't tell. The suggestion is valid, but not as uniquely so as the answer suggests. This wouldn't be an unusual reason for protest." CreationDate="2022-10-22T12:41:18.173" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40110" PostId="19044" Score="0" Text="I wonder if *amicum* could be fronted out of the relative clause (*quem speraveram amicum mi esse*), and *hunc* then attracted to it and/or to *quem*." CreationDate="2022-10-23T19:00:30.397" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40118" PostId="19044" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thank you. I first looked at this in 2009, long before LSE., and I sought help from Nicholas Oulton, author of &quot;So You Really Want to Learn Latin?&quot;. He sent me the AWH-effort; and, like yourself, he commented on the bizarre syntax. I thought that &quot;hunc&quot; = &quot;that man&quot; &amp; &quot;amicum&quot; were accusative for the same reason that &quot;quem&quot; is accusative--the relative clause? Obviously not? How do you understand, &quot;mi&quot;? I've seen three things: (i) a contraction of &quot;mihi&quot; (poetic) e.g. &quot;da mi(hi) basia mille, deinde centum.&quot; (Catallus 5); but &quot;mihi&quot; is already there." CreationDate="2022-10-24T08:32:23.110" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40119" PostId="19044" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: (ii) The vocative singular of &quot;meus&quot;, which cannot apply, here; and (iii) an adjective, &quot;my&quot;, &quot;mine&quot; (WordHippo). The latter source may lack credibility but this meaning (&quot;my&quot;) appears to fit. Please confirm. Thanks again." CreationDate="2022-10-24T08:37:33.207" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40134" PostId="19044" Score="0" Text="@tony Aren't (ii) and (iii) the same thing (which I would agree cannot apply here)? In my opinion, it is clearly *mihi*, i.e., *mi est* = belongs to me, or indeed *amicus mi est* = is a friend to me, if *amicum* is part of the relative clause." CreationDate="2022-10-25T00:25:13.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40137" PostId="19044" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Yes, but if it is &quot;mi&quot; = &quot;mihi&quot;, then &quot;mihi&quot; is used twice in line 4! Wouldn't just one have been deployed with a dual purpose? There are examples, in Latin, of a single word having a dual role in a sentence. Naturally, I cannot remember an example now that I need one. A question I've often asked, on the site: what if &quot;mi&quot; had been omitted--wouldn't &quot;my&quot; (friend) have been understood--as, &quot;I am forsaking&quot;, may be understood?" CreationDate="2022-10-25T08:00:37.353" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40140" PostId="19044" Score="0" Text="@tony They are in different sentences and play different roles, though: *(amicum) quem speraveram mi esse* and *ab eo mihi accusatores subiecti* [sunt]. If you assume *amicum* is part of the relative clause, then it seems quite obvious to me that you can leave *mi* out without changing the meaning significantly, i.e. *speraveram eum mihi amicum esse* vs. *speraveram eum amicum esse*, in English: “I had hoped he was a friend to me” vs. “I had hoped he was a friend.”" CreationDate="2022-10-25T17:50:55.387" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40122" PostId="19046" Score="3" Text="You are probably aware of that, but &quot;crucigrama&quot; is already a Spanish word for crossword puzzles." CreationDate="2022-10-24T13:43:14.273" UserId="11683" />
  <row Id="40124" PostId="19046" Score="1" Text="And &quot;cruciverba&quot; is how we call crossword in Italian" CreationDate="2022-10-24T15:56:11.453" UserId="11684" />
  <row Id="40127" PostId="19046" Score="0" Text="Why are you looking even for a term, let alone a single word using Latin or  Greek roots for a concept which did not exist until centuries after both Greek and Latin ceased to be linguas franca?" CreationDate="2022-10-24T20:21:07.067" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="40128" PostId="19046" Score="0" Text="@RobbieGoodwin 1. Curiosity 2. Because I want to write about that in Latin" CreationDate="2022-10-24T20:26:22.720" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="40129" PostId="19046" Score="0" Text="@Laravel Great and even in English, is it correctly &quot;cross word&quot; or &quot;cross-word&quot; or something else?&#xA;&#xA;Translating modern English into ancient Latin is bound to be a fraught journey, because linguistic development over time matters; now is not the same as then.&#xA;&#xA;If your knowledge of Latin is good enough to accommodate this at all, why are you not able to make the translation yourself… and vice versa?" CreationDate="2022-10-24T20:47:09.890" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="40111" PostId="19047" Score="2" Text="[*tullianus*](https://www.google.de/books/edition/D_Erasmi_Dialogus_Ciceronianus_sive_de_o/LBRmAAAAcAAJ?hl=de&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=tulliana&amp;pg=PA199&amp;printsec=frontcover) &lt; Marcus Tullius Cicero. (By the way, the title of this work is “Ciceronianus” )." CreationDate="2022-10-23T19:48:12.270" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40113" PostId="19047" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Well that's confusing" CreationDate="2022-10-23T20:00:19.363" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="40114" PostId="19048" Score="3" Text="Is *cruciverbium* better than *verbicrucium*? It's not obvious which way it should go." CreationDate="2022-10-24T02:48:14.227" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40116" PostId="19048" Score="0" Text="I wasn't aware of those examples thank you, I am also interested in your answer to Joonas' question" CreationDate="2022-10-24T07:43:57.887" UserDisplayName="user11281" />
  <row Id="40121" PostId="19048" Score="4" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta An advantage of a word beginning *cruciverb*- is that we already have the word *cruciverbalist* for someone who constructs or solves crosswords." CreationDate="2022-10-24T11:05:46.847" UserId="3127" />
  <row Id="40123" PostId="19048" Score="1" Text="@RosieF That is indeed a notable benefit, but this is the first time I've heard of the word &quot;cruciverbalist&quot;. I'm curious how the choice of order compares to other two-noun compounds." CreationDate="2022-10-24T14:43:48.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40131" PostId="19048" Score="0" Text="Cross is functioning a bit like an adjective in that it's describing something about the words, right? That would make me want verbicrucium even though that order isn't exactly strict. I guess a related question would be, is there a word-order convention for compound words?" CreationDate="2022-10-24T21:18:30.783" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40132" PostId="19048" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Or simply *verbicrux*?" CreationDate="2022-10-24T21:27:59.513" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40125" PostId="19049" Score="0" Text="Why dative instead of εἰς + acc., as in the Plato example? I'm tempted to read your proposal as &quot;looking at you deeply *with my eyes*.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-24T16:41:56.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40126" PostId="19049" Score="0" Text="βλέπω ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαμοῖς : The active preposition is the  ἐν attaching to the verb." CreationDate="2022-10-24T17:21:35.230" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="40130" PostId="19049" Score="0" Text="I don't think verb prefixes generally work like that (e.g. in many cases, at least in Ancient Greek, the preposition is repeated) but I see now that the L&amp;S entry you linked does list the dative usage with the same meaning, so this works! But I'd definitely recommend using an example that has the same construction as your proposed translation, so that the parallel is clearer!" CreationDate="2022-10-24T20:48:15.020" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40133" PostId="19049" Score="0" Text="I think you are right. I misread the instrumental in Charmides, Pl,  and, indeed, my reading of the entry was fanciful... Thanks." CreationDate="2022-10-24T21:36:41.740" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="40115" PostId="19051" Score="3" Text="FWIW, Weiss's historical grammar of Latin (p. 301) says the etymology is unclear. (*Tēla* doesn't contain this suffix, but a different suffix -*la*.)" CreationDate="2022-10-24T03:07:03.117" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40117" PostId="19051" Score="0" Text="potentially a link to the -l- past participle? It's passive in Armenian which could explain its use with deponents in Latin" CreationDate="2022-10-24T08:07:14.530" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40135" PostId="19052" Score="1" Text="Thank you. Does supra work?" CreationDate="2022-10-25T00:39:50.247" UserId="11676" />
  <row Id="40136" PostId="19052" Score="2" Text="This definitely sounds right to my ear" CreationDate="2022-10-25T02:04:13.210" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40138" PostId="19052" Score="2" Text="Some relevant classical citations: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=super+omnia" CreationDate="2022-10-25T16:14:19.740" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40139" PostId="19052" Score="1" Text="@A.J. That might work, but it would be a bit of a stretch. I find *super* to be the superior choice. The classical attestations linked to in the previous comment seem to suggest this too." CreationDate="2022-10-25T17:33:39.577" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40142" PostId="19052" Score="1" Text="*Ave regina cælorum* has *super omnes speciosa*. The trouble with *supra* is that it usually means “on top of” and even a more extended meaning tends to be on top of something else in a stack or hierarchy." CreationDate="2022-10-25T21:39:30.010" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="40153" PostId="19052" Score="0" Text="@A.J. I don't see why supra would not work. *Supra omnia* is classically attested. Of the top of my head though, I can't think of a prayer that uses  *supra omnia*, but several that use *super* plus the accusative." CreationDate="2022-10-26T21:20:29.187" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40143" PostId="19053" Score="1" Text="So is your question, what the word _niger_ means when applied to a person?" CreationDate="2022-10-26T01:03:18.040" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40144" PostId="19053" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Yes, thats basically my question. The bible states that it is a surname for Simon and I was wondering if him being called Niger was due to his skin tone or does the word mean something else?" CreationDate="2022-10-26T01:08:08.507" UserId="11690" />
  <row Id="40145" PostId="19053" Score="2" Text="@Servant I added that last comment into the question itself, as it seems to be the main question at hand." CreationDate="2022-10-26T04:26:48.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40147" PostId="19053" Score="0" Text="There are many Englishpersons people called Black, Germans called Schwartz and so on... Mostly ordinary Caucasians." CreationDate="2022-10-26T15:52:51.463" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="45683" PostId="19053" Score="0" Text="There was a Roman Emperor called Gaius pescennius Niger 194bc" CreationDate="2023-11-28T02:57:28.710" UserId="14426" />
  <row Id="45684" PostId="19053" Score="0" Text="A Roman emperor in 194 BCE?" CreationDate="2023-11-28T04:33:19.903" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45685" PostId="19053" Score="0" Text="@Linford He died in AD 194 / 194 CE, not BC, but yes, there was such an emperor." CreationDate="2023-11-28T05:09:45.100" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40146" PostId="19054" Score="1" Text="also worth noting that most Africans in the Roman Empire were North African and so to modern Americans would likely appear Middle Eastern rather than Black (although there likely would be some people who would be perceived today as Black, from Nubia or Ethiopia)" CreationDate="2022-10-26T10:59:10.580" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40149" PostId="19054" Score="2" Text="Worth noting for analogy: *Black* is [a common and very traditional British surname](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_(surname)); it has no particular associations of complexion or race today, and may have come from [several possible origins](https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=black), including either an ancestor of the modern word *black*, referring to dark hair or complexion, or (confusingly!) an ancestor/cognate of the modern words *bleak/bleach*, referring to pale hair or complexion." CreationDate="2022-10-26T18:26:53.330" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="40151" PostId="19054" Score="1" Text="While it doesn't really affect the correctness of f the answer, there are some seeming anachronistic statements here. There were no 'Spaniards' in the early Roman Republic. The people in what we now call Spain at that time were mostly Celts and similar tribes mixed with some Greek and Carthaginian colonies." CreationDate="2022-10-26T20:29:46.583" UserId="11693" />
  <row Id="40152" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="@Tristan These are [murky waters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy) to wade into." CreationDate="2022-10-26T20:32:49.650" UserId="11693" />
  <row Id="40158" PostId="19054" Score="2" Text="@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine for more analogy, in many other languages there are relatively common surnames derived form the word meaning &quot;black/dark&quot; (for example, German *Schwarz*, French *Lenoir*, Czech *Černý*, Russian *Chernov*)." CreationDate="2022-10-27T08:39:03.620" UserId="11698" />
  <row Id="40159" PostId="19054" Score="1" Text="@JimmyJames not especially, as that very article says, whilst scholarship generally rejects the notion that modern racial terms can be applied to Ancient Egypt (which is why I phrased it as &quot;to modern Americans would likely appear&quot; rather than &quot;were&quot;), the Egyptian population likely had a typical appearance similar to that of Modern Egyptians (i.e. the Muslim invasion did not result in widespread population replacement, as often claimed by black nationalists). It follows that they would appear to modern people as Middle Eastern" CreationDate="2022-10-27T08:54:54.747" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40160" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="similar arguments apply to the Libyan population of Egypt. The Nubian population certainly had darker skin, and based on their portrayal in artwork would probably be perceived as Black by modern American standards (although as East Africans, do not conform perfectly to the American prototype which is, for obvious reasons, based on the populations of West and Central Africa), and they were certainly present throughout Egypt (especially in Upper Egypt). There is no particular controversy about the Greek or Asiatic populations" CreationDate="2022-10-27T09:00:24.027" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40161" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="@Tristan: Just curious, but why is this about America?" CreationDate="2022-10-27T15:24:04.077" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40162" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus mostly because the way race is perceived and functions varies in different countries. The US's system is the one which is known across the widest area (especially in the English-speaking world) as even those outside the US are exposed to huge amounts of US media so when one needs to refer to some particular modern conception of race, the US is the obvious one to go for (especially in an Anglophone context). I myself am British so this isn't just US-chauvinism" CreationDate="2022-10-27T15:26:43.150" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40164" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="@Tristan Hmm.  Here's a statue of [Sneferu](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/87/3f/0a/873f0ae65921e0bdb88f4412dc12cf67.jpg).  I personally think that there's pernicious pattern of behavior to denying the achievements of black Africans.  Anyone who is interested can take a look and see if they agree with your assertions and we can leave it at that." CreationDate="2022-10-27T21:17:37.640" UserId="11693" />
  <row Id="40165" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="Here's another statue (head) of [Sneferu](https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/og-sneferu-6396.jpg).  Yes, there's a stylized aspect of ancient Egyptian art but at the same time, we can infer a context from the whole of what we have." CreationDate="2022-10-27T21:30:49.917" UserId="11693" />
  <row Id="40169" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="@Tristan: OK I see. It seemed a bit unsual to me in the context of Latin." CreationDate="2022-10-27T23:31:43.717" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40227" PostId="19054" Score="0" Text="@JimmyJames sure, many dynasties (especially the 25th) do seem to have been ruled by people we'd now describe as Black and parts of the population were too. The evidence suggests that the majority population is largely continued in the present population of Egypt and so the average Egyptian under the fourth dynasty likely resembled a modern Egyptian more than they would the average African-American. Note of course that the modern population of Egypt is also diverse, and much (most?) of the population in the far south would be considered Black by US standards" CreationDate="2022-10-31T09:29:53.180" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40155" PostId="19056" Score="1" Text="Related: [Forms of 2nd Declension Neuter Nouns ending in -ium](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2007). Side note: in Indo-European comparative etymology, second-declension nouns ending in *-ius* and *-ium* are categorized as o-stems and considered to have stems ending in *-io-* (whereas *i*-stem nouns are nouns in the third declension that take endings like *-ium* in the genitive plural or *-ia* in the neuter nominative/accusative plural)." CreationDate="2022-10-26T23:08:54.767" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40148" PostId="19057" Score="0" Text="Hard not to think of the possible [connection between *mentula* and *mens*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/does-mentula-penis-derive-from-the-same-root-as-mens-mind-and-if-so-why); But then, why Horace didn't use here *mentula*? Maybe its the meter in verse" CreationDate="2022-10-26T16:23:43.800" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40171" PostId="19057" Score="3" Text="@d_e Horace *never* uses *mentula*. It's a naughty word, one that Cicero was too embarrassed to explicitly use even though he alludes to it. You get it in Catullus, the Priapeia, and then Martial, not hardly anyone before, at least in the surviving corpus." CreationDate="2022-10-28T11:10:39.793" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40166" PostId="19061" Score="2" Text="The lemma form of δόλωνα is δόλων (δόλωνα is the accusative); the Latin loan *dolō* isn't common but Livy and Vergil both use it. The etymology of the Greek isn't clear, but if it's related to δόλος 'deceit' then its resemblance to the Latin verb *dolō* is coincidental. *Xiphiās* (and the Greek original ξιφίας) is a sword*fish*; it's derived from ξίφος, which obviously does mean 'sword', but I'm not aware of that making it into Latin. *Gladius* absolutely is a neutral word for sword, but *ensis* is more poetic so I agree it's probably the better choice for something like this." CreationDate="2022-10-27T22:53:38.953" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40167" PostId="19061" Score="2" Text="Definitely not a fan of your compounds, though; you can't just stick a substantive and a modifying adjective together like that in Latin, and *murelegus* isn't that kind of compound." CreationDate="2022-10-27T22:55:54.997" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40168" PostId="19061" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Well, when it comes to neologisms, there are a lot of schools of thought. As I wrote in my answer, perhaps the most direct solution is simply to transverbalize court sword, so you have &quot;ensis aulicus&quot;. For a formal situation, like an academic ceremonial description, this kind of neutral and direct translation seems entirely appropriate and reasonable to me." CreationDate="2022-10-27T23:08:51.153" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40170" PostId="19061" Score="1" Text="Sure. *Aulicus* is felicitous in that *aula* now means 'lecture hall' or 'classroom' in a lot of languages, too." CreationDate="2022-10-27T23:32:18.077" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40199" PostId="19061" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I refined the objectionable compound by making it clear that it is an objective compound (noun + verb) and also converting it to be neuter." CreationDate="2022-10-29T11:45:39.907" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40180" PostId="19062" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Can you [edit] to add details, like a link to where we can find more information or perhaps even watch it?" CreationDate="2022-10-28T15:45:28.600" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40181" PostId="19063" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure about *iisque salubrioribus* = &quot;including the more wholesome ones&quot;; wouldn't we expect something like *etiam (ex) salubrioribus*, and wouldn't the implication that the unwholesome winds also have the run of the house be out of place? I wonder if it's intended as an ablative absolute: &quot;none among all the winds -- and they are quite wholesome --...&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-28T19:19:30.443" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40182" PostId="19063" Score="0" Text="That reading of libere makes sense to me: the builders were not miserly or overly utilitarian in their work. I think I was trying too hard to connect libere to the following sic ut clause." CreationDate="2022-10-28T20:33:50.053" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40203" PostId="19063" Score="0" Text="@TKR Well, I don't quite know what to make of this insertion, it seems strange as an ablative too. I guess it depends on what Bullinger thought about the overall quality of winds..." CreationDate="2022-10-29T13:04:42.687" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40213" PostId="19063" Score="0" Text="@TKR I don’t know if I would call that an ablative absolute, but I am interpreting it along the lines you suggested, as an almost parenthetical specifier: — and these winds are of the healthier variety. This seems to me in keeping with how “id” + adjective/adverb often functions when appended to a statement." CreationDate="2022-10-29T21:08:13.030" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40193" PostId="19064" Score="3" Text="Thanks. Good find. FWIW, the other day, I tried to look in PHI for all the occurrences of *cupido + gerund*: and indeed, as far as I could tell, all of them had an active meaning." CreationDate="2022-10-29T08:22:51.743" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40208" PostId="19067" Score="2" Text="This is actually a lot better than I would expect from online translators, especially for something so thoroughly non-classical. &quot;Holy sticky fire, its particles are split by heat&quot;. Which dictionaries were you drawing on for this?" CreationDate="2022-10-29T16:28:40.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40209" PostId="19067" Score="5" Text="Also, when I saw this question in the list I was expecting it to be about profanity. &quot;Holy thermonuclear napalm, Batman!&quot;" CreationDate="2022-10-29T16:29:21.593" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40211" PostId="19067" Score="1" Text="A Roman would have undoubtedly used a Greek word for this, especially because the Greeks already had this technology called &quot;sticky fire&quot; (πῦρ κολλητικόν), but your phrase seems fine to me if you want pure Latin. The Vatican stopped using Latin internally over 50 years ago, by the way. They speak Italian there now." CreationDate="2022-10-29T17:21:17.943" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40214" PostId="19067" Score="0" Text="@Draconis google translate, translate.com and something called Yandex.Translate. In fact, neither of them had words for &quot;thermonuclear&quot; or &quot;napalm&quot;... They did advise to use &quot;nuclearibus&quot; as &quot;related to the nucleus of an atom&quot; but that didn't sound right to me, so I played around with words and came up with this! :) I learned some Latin 25 years ago so I can understand most of it, but won't be able to form a grammatical sentence without the help of translators!&#xA;&#xA;Hahaha love that &quot;... Batman&quot;, makes perfect sense, I might even include that sentence in my book, thanks :)))" CreationDate="2022-10-29T23:28:21.010" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40215" PostId="19067" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden Thank you so much for your input. Yes, I also thought about &quot;Greek fire&quot;, but Classical Latin would fit the story much better." CreationDate="2022-10-29T23:29:42.890" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40216" PostId="19067" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I've just added an item to the question, maybe you can help with that? &#xA;Q.2. Since the story is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, would you be so kind as to suggest changes/additions to my translation to make it sound ever more &quot;Classical&quot;? The phrase is being translated word-by-word in the text for a comical effect." CreationDate="2022-10-29T23:33:34.820" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40217" PostId="19067" Score="1" Text="Would it fit the tone of your work if the choice of words was even more silly in English? Like, if you were to imagine a Latin construction that translates back into English as something like &quot;giant holy mushroom cloud of sticky and divine flame&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-10-30T00:25:37.990" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40218" PostId="19067" Score="0" Text="Yes @Adam, thanks, that'd be okay... but maybe there's something more Classical?.. C'mon hasn't Vergil written about &quot;holy sticky fire&quot;?! :))" CreationDate="2022-10-30T01:05:04.470" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40221" PostId="19067" Score="3" Text="Strictly in terms of grammatical/morphological correctness of what you've come up with, the relative pronoun cujus would work better than ejus, I think; and dividintur should be dividuntur." CreationDate="2022-10-30T19:40:04.120" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40223" PostId="19067" Score="2" Text="Strictly in terms of physics, thermonuclear reactions are fusion and not fission reactions, so rather than correcting the spelling of dividintur, I'd suggest replacing the word with something more apt (*conglutinant* maybe? Also, anything wrong with just plain *thermonuclearis*?) But I love *ignis glutinosus* for napalm." CreationDate="2022-10-31T00:46:43.653" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40224" PostId="19067" Score="1" Text="*Particulae* is fine, but *atomi* might be better." CreationDate="2022-10-31T01:08:05.413" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40241" PostId="19067" Score="1" Text="@Figulus you're absolutely right about fusion, how stupid of me!!!" CreationDate="2022-10-31T23:43:43.470" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40210" PostId="19069" Score="1" Text="Ah, I have finally been bitten by one of those ambiguities that I thought of when looking over the grammar tables but never actually encountered in a real sentence. :)" CreationDate="2022-10-29T17:18:42.197" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40226" PostId="19075" Score="1" Text="This answer is far superior to mine, especially in explaining the requested terms, so I deleted my answer." CreationDate="2022-10-31T06:36:09.177" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40239" PostId="19077" Score="0" Text="Love your answer Sebastian, thank you for your effort! Yes, of course, dividuntur, I just made a typo while typing the text from memory (it was written correctly in my text). &quot;Cujus&quot;! right. I can feel the difference between &quot;ejus&quot; and &quot;cujus&quot;. Regarding fission vs. fusion... oh my God... how stupid of me!!! I don't know why I thought about &quot;diving atoms&quot; instead of &quot;fusing them&quot;. &quot;Thermonuclearis&quot;... uhm, no... it sounds almost like English, I might have as well resorted to pythonesque faux Latin (&quot;A roman senator called Biggus Dickus... his wife's name was Incontinentia... Buttocks!&quot;)" CreationDate="2022-10-31T23:39:01.173" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40240" PostId="19077" Score="0" Text="Vatican's &quot;Lexicon&quot;... hmmmm... I DO love their rendition of H-Bomb... And it's &quot;official&quot;! :) However, the wordier, artificial version would sound funnier. I LOVE your &quot;cujus elementa suo calore ipsa impulsa in unum confunduntur&quot;! That'll be the final version." CreationDate="2022-10-31T23:41:49.020" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40248" PostId="19078" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. The first example you give from Juvenal is interesting (cf. this similar example from Martialis: _Cum coloephia sedecim comedit_ (M. VII, 67, 12)). You say: &quot;I see no reason to assume a definite subject if comedo is used&quot;. As pointed out in my question above, note that it is the nature of the direct object what is relevant (rather than the type of subject). This said, your example is interesting. As for the second example from HA, note that it is from Late Latin, when the aspectual difference between pairs like _edere_ and _comedere_ becomes blurred (see my NB I above)." CreationDate="2022-11-01T15:33:39.023" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="40249" PostId="19078" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Well, I think you will find it easy to find many examples of indefinite uses of comedo in the classical period. For example, in a letter of Seneca he writes &quot;Multi bona comedunt&quot; (Many men consume their goods = waste their inheritance). And we have from Quintilian: Plane immanis belua [qui] ... comederit hominem. (Plainly it is an inhuman beast ...  [who] has eaten human flesh)." CreationDate="2022-11-01T15:50:49.533" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40252" PostId="19078" Score="0" Text="Note that your example from Seneca does not contain an indefinite/non-specific object: your correct translation/interpretation ('their goods') is clearly definite and specific. Your second example from Quintilian is more interesting but is not clear for a different reason: _Declamationes_ have often been attributed to Pseudo-Quintilian, perhaps collected by the time of Late Latin. So, as I emphasized in NB I in my question above, I think it would be better for us to find/discuss examples that clearly come from Early &amp; Classical Latin." CreationDate="2022-11-01T18:04:37.333" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="40250" PostId="19084" Score="5" Text="Lee's commentary adds some parallels: *Met.* 4.10 *telasque calathosque*, 5.484 *sideraque ventique*, Verg. *Aen.* 3.91 *liminaque laurusque dei*." CreationDate="2022-11-01T16:04:01.383" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40251" PostId="19084" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks! I didn't have a good commentary available, but I'll incorporate that into the answer soon." CreationDate="2022-11-01T16:11:02.870" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40258" PostId="19084" Score="0" Text="That's very interesting, I had no idea τε could be long. I will look out for it." CreationDate="2022-11-02T00:46:14.653" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40286" PostId="19084" Score="0" Text="In this particular line it doesn't matter because of elision, but if the first -que is long, is the second usually also?" CreationDate="2022-11-02T19:16:29.550" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40287" PostId="19084" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey In 5.484 and Verg. Aen. 3.91 the second e is short. In 4.10, it's elided into the next word (telasque calathosque infectaque pensa reponunt)." CreationDate="2022-11-02T19:52:09.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40253" PostId="19086" Score="3" Text="The question seems to be mainly about parsing the Latin grammar, not formulating a fluent English sentence. Can you comment on the Latin syntax?" CreationDate="2022-11-01T18:47:28.730" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40254" PostId="19087" Score="1" Text="Indeed, in that Acts passage the middle reading &quot;they placed them in custody&quot; strikes me as more natural. Omission of the repeated object in such contexts is normal." CreationDate="2022-11-01T19:14:37.043" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40256" PostId="19088" Score="3" Text="Your friend just gave you the output of Google Translator, which is [*fimus bovinus*](https://tinyurl.com/2nejhmc4) as usual." CreationDate="2022-11-01T20:38:21.927" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40295" PostId="19090" Score="3" Text="*Vero* in the sense that can sometimes be translated as 'but' is an adverb, not a conjunction, and isn't used like that. It's more helpful to think of it as 'however'; it's effectively a postpositive particle." CreationDate="2022-11-02T21:12:55.450" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40298" PostId="19090" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon In mottoes and short sayings in modern Latin sometimes vero is not postpositive, but treated as a more normal conjunction. Although it could be argued it is improper, in mottoes it is not unusual for the rules to be bent. I added a couple of examples to my answer." CreationDate="2022-11-02T22:21:47.177" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40300" PostId="19090" Score="4" Text="*Innixus vero validus* means 'supported by truth, strong'; *vero* is an instrumental ablative of the noun *verum* and the *in-* isn't privative. *Spiritus promptus vero caro infirma* is wrong; the actual phrase (and the title of the Dali painting) is *Spiritus promptus est, caro vero infirma*, with *vero* in the correct position." CreationDate="2022-11-02T22:31:19.320" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40303" PostId="19090" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Hmm, ok, would you rather her tatoo read Paulum Sinu Meo Aetas Vero Corde Meo?" CreationDate="2022-11-02T22:40:35.577" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40304" PostId="19090" Score="3" Text="No, it's too strongly adversative and you really don't need it at all. I'd personally go asyndetically with *Paulisper in sinu / perpetuo in pectore*, probably; *paulum* without further determiners means 'a little' in terms of quantity, not time, and *aetas* is just a noun in the nominative (*aetatem*, as an accusative of duration, would be better, but I'd read it as 'for a lifetime' rather than 'forever' first). I'd omit the *meo* as implied but not the *in* for clarity." CreationDate="2022-11-02T22:57:13.037" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40309" PostId="19090" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon You should post that as an answer." CreationDate="2022-11-03T00:46:23.613" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40264" PostId="19094" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! To make it specifically refer to the shirt someone is wearing, you might want something more explicit in Latin like &quot;burn your shirt&quot; rather than &quot;burn this shirt&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-02T13:39:44.640" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40265" PostId="19094" Score="0" Text="Latin also has a number of verbs that might work depending on the context of &quot;burn&quot;, i.e. simply setting it on fire, burning it completely to ashes, just being affected by heat, etc. Did you have a more specific thought about what &quot;burn&quot; means in this context?" CreationDate="2022-11-02T13:42:04.577" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40272" PostId="19094" Score="0" Text="Thank you Adam for welcoming me!  &quot;Burn your Shirt&quot; would be perfect. And burn meaning catching the shirt on fire to the point of only ashes are left.  No harm to any person, just the shirt is burned to ashes." CreationDate="2022-11-02T15:19:14.950" UserId="11730" />
  <row Id="40281" PostId="19095" Score="0" Text="Thanks, @Sebastian_Koppehel for your very comprehensive explanation for this motto.  It's exactly what I was looking for on this site." CreationDate="2022-11-02T18:14:07.523" UserId="11730" />
  <row Id="40292" PostId="19095" Score="2" Text="@Greg Glad to help. Note *comburo* is the root of our modern “combustion.” I also like to joke that *uro* is the root word of “urology,” but sadly, that's not really true …" CreationDate="2022-11-02T20:28:14.847" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40278" PostId="19096" Score="0" Text="In Latin, its all about what agrees with what. You can almost think of cadere not as a verb but almost as a noun that &quot;agrees&quot; with the accusative Quintum: &quot;Quintus falling to the ground&quot;, so it is conceptually not a separate clause but more of what we would call a noun phrase in English." CreationDate="2022-11-02T16:46:38.430" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40279" PostId="19096" Score="0" Text="Unlike English Latin often has a multiple objects which can make things hard. For example, imagine it also said &quot;caput percutere genu infringere&quot;, then it would be &quot;falling to the ground, hitting his head, and bruising his knee&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-02T16:56:12.557" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40277" PostId="19097" Score="2" Text="(As mentioned in that other answer and the links from it, the accusative might be coming from the infinitive itself, not from the matrix verb. But I find it easier to explain like this in general, and then get into the edge cases later.)" CreationDate="2022-11-02T16:11:33.707" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40280" PostId="19097" Score="2" Text="The explanation of the infinitival subject being in the accusative because it is the object of the main verb is incorrect. Infinitival subjects are still in the accusative even when the infinitival phrase occupies a non-object syntactical role. For instance, as the subject of an impersonal verb: filium bonum patri esse oportet (Plautus). Or the predicate of esse, which would usually be nominative: tempus est subducere hinc me. (Plautus)" CreationDate="2022-11-02T17:40:52.853" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40284" PostId="19097" Score="0" Text="Oops, the subducere me example doesn't work (reflexive, not intransitive), but this sentence from Cicero has an infinitival phrase as the subject of a personal verb: iuvitque me tibi cum summam humanitatem tum etiam tuas litteras profuisse. Also several instances of constructions like tempus est me... And an infinitival phrase as the subject of esse: Non est igitur amici talem esse in eum, qualis ille in se est (Cicero)." CreationDate="2022-11-02T19:01:28.423" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40293" PostId="19097" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Yep, that's what I'm referring to in the comment. But I've found &quot;it's the object of the main verb&quot; is an easier way for newcomers to build an intuition for the most common usage of the construction (and of course is probably how the construction originated), even if it's not entirely correct." CreationDate="2022-11-02T20:35:15.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40289" PostId="19098" Score="1" Text="Are you looking for specifically if there was Roman legal terminology that is analogous to these terms (since these come from Roman legal language) or are you ok with coining a neologism if nothing already is comparable?" CreationDate="2022-11-02T20:05:34.287" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40291" PostId="19098" Score="0" Text="Note that while *ante* and *post* are real words, *ex ante* and *ex post* are not actual Latin." CreationDate="2022-11-02T20:25:33.997" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40294" PostId="19098" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I thought the same at first, but both are amply attested, the former in Justinian's Digest ([ex post fact*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ex%20post%20fact)) and the latter in Cicero ([ex ante fact*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ex%20ante%20fact))." CreationDate="2022-11-02T21:09:35.753" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40296" PostId="19098" Score="2" Text="@cmw I was obviously not suggesting the words *ex ante* cannot stand in this order in Latin. All three Cicero loci refer to someone's *ante facta (aut dicta)* = previous actions (and statements). You can say *ex ante factis lucet XYZ* but not *ex ante videtur XYZ*." CreationDate="2022-11-02T21:41:47.727" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40299" PostId="19100" Score="0" Text="Thank you Joonas!  As a motto or slogan for a team, it sounds like fortitudo operando would be the best fit?  With the students we talk a lot about effort brings results, resilience, and strength (not just physical, but mental, emotional, even spiritual). We want to call it out in Latin to make it more &quot;hip&quot;.  It would be a tag line that we use to recognize that strength, or even success, comes through effort or work.  Thank you for your consideration and suggestion!" CreationDate="2022-11-02T22:22:53.660" UserId="11724" />
  <row Id="40302" PostId="19100" Score="0" Text="@jon I'm glad to be able to help! There are certainly many ways to phrase this in Latin, with different nuances and emphases. If you follow the links in my answer, you can see the various translations in a reputable dictionary. I tried to compose a suggestion that is concise, grammatical, does not specify gender, and sounds appealing. One choice is whether you want the implicit verb to be passive (&quot;strength is reached...&quot;) or active (&quot;we reach strength...&quot;), and I chose the passive to give focus on the strength." CreationDate="2022-11-02T22:38:08.100" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40305" PostId="19100" Score="0" Text="I also like *laborando*, if you want to emphasize the bustle and toil." CreationDate="2022-11-02T23:02:07.453" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40317" PostId="19101" Score="1" Text="I would still add an *ista* to make it clear that the shirt is not referring to some other shirt. Also it has a nicer metre." CreationDate="2022-11-03T12:40:32.960" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="40318" PostId="19101" Score="0" Text="Or just `Tunica comburenda`" CreationDate="2022-11-03T12:43:29.947" UserId="11736" />
  <row Id="40324" PostId="19101" Score="0" Text="I am amazed at the helpfulness of this community.  Thank you, everyone, so much for your thorough assistance on this project.  &#xA;&#xA;This is the design so far:  [link](https://bit.ly/3T5foK1)" CreationDate="2022-11-03T16:51:06.367" UserId="11730" />
  <row Id="40326" PostId="19101" Score="3" Text="@Greg Note though that the verb should be *combure*, not *combuste*." CreationDate="2022-11-03T17:40:30.673" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40385" PostId="19101" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thanks!  Noted &amp; changed." CreationDate="2022-11-04T18:38:45.610" UserId="11730" />
  <row Id="40386" PostId="19101" Score="0" Text="+1, even though the other answer is a more literal translation, the passive periphrastic (formal name for this construction) is immediately recognizable to folks who forgot 90% of the Latin they used to know.  To that end, may I also suggest &quot;inflammanda&quot; (meaning &quot;set on fire&quot; rather than &quot;burn up&quot;) since the root is more recognizable" CreationDate="2022-11-04T18:55:54.473" UserId="11565" />
  <row Id="40312" PostId="19104" Score="1" Text="This is a modern concept which is only relevant to banking systems where the contents of bank accounts are being scrutinized." CreationDate="2022-11-03T04:00:26.307" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40313" PostId="19104" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden I doubt the concept is modern. Banking isn't modern. The Knights Templar, for example, ran an international banking system for funding the crusades." CreationDate="2022-11-03T04:20:37.473" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="40314" PostId="19104" Score="3" Text="Roads and lanterns aren't modern but the Romans still didn't have a word for traffic lights. Money laundering as a concept was invented in the 20th century. *Lavatio pecuniae* has some currency in Neo-Latin." CreationDate="2022-11-03T06:46:20.680" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40316" PostId="19104" Score="0" Text="Cicero has a proverb, [ill-gotten grains soon waste](https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh12841). Perhaps you could base it on that with the meaning being something like &quot;ill-gotten money made true/legitimate&quot;, or something along those lines." CreationDate="2022-11-03T11:59:56.880" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40315" PostId="19105" Score="0" Text="&quot;After&quot; does not imply a logical relationship, only a temporal one." CreationDate="2022-11-03T07:02:44.507" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40320" PostId="19105" Score="0" Text="I think an ablative absolute with a perfect participle is a great fit. It has both temporal and causal flavours, which works well here." CreationDate="2022-11-03T13:19:46.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40321" PostId="19107" Score="4" Text="I'm pretty confused by this question. &quot;Also&quot; plays the same function in all three examples: you're just talking about a difference in the predicate (&quot;happening&quot; vs. &quot;being sick&quot;). As a side note, *sim paratus etiam fore te eris* makes no syntactical sense." CreationDate="2022-11-03T16:07:37.217" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40322" PostId="19107" Score="0" Text="@brianpck There is a difference between one thing happening and also another (different) thing happening (we captured the fort and also the town), and between two things being in the same condition (I am young and my friend is also young)." CreationDate="2022-11-03T16:23:44.543" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40323" PostId="19107" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Even you disagree with this basic premise, you cannot disagree that there are multiple words in Latin for also (etiam, quoque and et, among others), so the question can be answered simply by explaining how these words should be situationally used or why one should be preferred in a given context like the English sentence I gave  (I am ready if you are (also) ready). So, you don't need to have some kind of dogmatic agreement with everything in the question in order to answer it." CreationDate="2022-11-03T16:27:42.903" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40325" PostId="19107" Score="1" Text="@Tyler Durden: In, &quot;sim paratus etiam fore te eris&quot;, why deploy a subjunctive (&quot;sim&quot;)?" CreationDate="2022-11-03T17:29:23.180" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40327" PostId="19107" Score="1" Text="@tony That seems to be a practice when talking about hypothetical situations. For example, this line from Apuleis: &quot;cum sim paratus vel uno saviolo interim recreatus super istum ignem porrectus assari&quot; (&quot;I am prepared, if you will revive me now with one little kiss, to be stretched out over your fire and barbecued.&quot;) Notice how Lucius says &quot;sim paratus&quot;, not &quot;sum paratus&quot;. I think this is because the whole sentence is hypothetical. In English we only make the conditional part qualified, but the Romans seemed to want to make the entirety subjunctive if it involved a hypothetical scenario." CreationDate="2022-11-03T19:54:32.460" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40329" PostId="19107" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden in your Apuleius quote, isn’t the subjunctive to be attributed to the cum?" CreationDate="2022-11-03T20:10:17.233" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40330" PostId="19107" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Ah ha, I was not aware of that. I guess so. I edited my sentence to use the plain present. I did not know about that use of cum." CreationDate="2022-11-03T20:37:42.770" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40374" PostId="19107" Score="0" Text="Where is &quot;also&quot; in the sentence &quot;I am ready if you are&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-11-04T13:36:51.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40375" PostId="19107" Score="0" Text="@cmw The phrase can be thought of as meaning &quot;I am ready if you are also&quot;; it can also be phrased &quot;I am ready if you are too&quot;. I suppose &quot;too&quot; is very close to meaning &quot;also&quot; in this usage." CreationDate="2022-11-04T13:44:21.580" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40367" PostId="19108" Score="1" Text="Update of interest: Augustine makes a similar remark in his polemic against Faustus of Mileve but spells the word slightly differently: &quot;Quid est enim aliud hodieque gens ipsa nisi quaedam scriniaria Christianorum&quot; https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Contra_Faustum_Manichaeum/XII" CreationDate="2022-11-04T02:23:32.373" UserId="11740" />
  <row Id="40368" PostId="19108" Score="0" Text="For the Contra Faustum 'scriniaria Christianorum', the Christian Literature Company translation renders 'a desk for the Christians' https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_IV/Manichaean_Controversy/Reply_to_Faustus_the_Manichaean/Chapter_12 ." CreationDate="2022-11-04T02:42:41.667" UserId="11740" />
  <row Id="40369" PostId="19108" Score="0" Text="In an earlier version of this question I erroneously attributed the 'scrinaria' quotation to Augustine of Hippo. My apologies." CreationDate="2022-11-04T03:14:20.400" UserId="11740" />
  <row Id="40370" PostId="19108" Score="0" Text="Regarding the edit, the quote you're asking about is not from Augustine of Hippo's [*Contra Faustum,* book 12](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/contro_fausto/libro_12_testo.htm)? It looks like the sentences are exactly the same, so I'd assume the later of the two is copied from the earlier" CreationDate="2022-11-04T03:49:32.907" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40371" PostId="19108" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides My question is about an anonymous commentary on Genesis which borrows Augustine's image but changes Augustine's 'scriniaria' to 'scrinaria.' I confused the anonymous author with his source." CreationDate="2022-11-04T03:54:06.857" UserId="11740" />
  <row Id="40372" PostId="19108" Score="1" Text="I think the difference between &quot;scriniaria&quot; and &quot;scrinaria&quot; is just a textual variant ... I wouldn't be surprised if different manuscripts of the same text might differ on this point. It's hard to see these as different words rather than different spellings of the same word" CreationDate="2022-11-04T03:55:27.563" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40332" PostId="19110" Score="0" Text="Where are you getting &quot;shrine&quot;? I don't see any such sense in L&amp;S, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=scrinium&amp;la=la#lexicon" CreationDate="2022-11-03T20:57:43.457" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40334" PostId="19110" Score="1" Text="I mistakenly wrote that the original source had the spelling *scriniaria*, in fact even the printed edition of Migne's *Patrologia Latina* [says *scrinaria*.](https://www.google.de/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus_seu_bibliot/Nd562MqmkUsC?hl=de&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA935&amp;printsec=frontcover) I don't know why, my best guess is it is a spelling mistake." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:03:14.320" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40338" PostId="19110" Score="0" Text="@TKR I wrote “shrine” on the basis that (a) it is clearly the English descendant of *scrinium*, and (b) it technically has [the same meaning](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shrine), although this is admittedly probably not what the modern reader thinks of first." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:11:10.087" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40339" PostId="19110" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel you mentioned a spelling mistake. If there is a spelling mistake what is the correct spelling?" CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:15:23.750" UserId="11740" />
  <row Id="40342" PostId="19110" Score="1" Text="I'm hesitant to upvote this answer only because of the &quot;shrine&quot; gloss -- I think few English speakers are familiar with the simple &quot;box&quot; sense (at least I wasn't), and the Latin word doesn't appear to have meant &quot;shrine&quot; in the more obvious sense, so it seems misleading." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:29:35.507" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40346" PostId="19110" Score="1" Text="@TKR I suppose you are right; I have edited the answer to use the Latin word as-is, as in the question." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:37:58.227" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40348" PostId="19110" Score="2" Text="@MosheWise The correct spelling would have to be *scrin**i**aria*, as you cannot really derive *scrinaria* from *scrinium*." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:38:50.327" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40366" PostId="19110" Score="0" Text="@TKR Relics of saints were often contained in *scrinia*, so the word *scrinium* came to mean reliquary, and then shrine. Kind of like *capella*, a short cape, came to mean chapel. Anyway, *scrinium* and *capella* are how you say &quot;shrine&quot; and &quot;chapel&quot; in modern Ecclesiastical Latin." CreationDate="2022-11-04T01:23:12.467" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40331" PostId="19111" Score="4" Text="The plural of *scrinium* is *scrinia*." CreationDate="2022-11-03T20:50:32.490" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40333" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Yes, I know. I am not responsible for St. Augustine's mistakes. I will quote from Reyher+Junker p. 2052: &quot;Scriniarius, vulgo, qui scrinia conficit, ein Schreiner.&quot; I presume this means that common speakers of Latin frequently confused the two terms and wrote scrinaria when they should have written scrinia." CreationDate="2022-11-03T20:59:44.570" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40335" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Notice how in the text, it apparently says &quot;scrinaria&quot;, not &quot;scriniaria&quot;, that is double the reason to suspect it is an error along the lines specified in Reyher and Juncker." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:06:25.747" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40336" PostId="19111" Score="1" Text="I can hardly fault you for that line of reasoning, as my competing answer also has to assume an unusual/wrong word form, but I will note that Andreas Reyher apparently [wrote](https://www.google.de/books/edition/ANDREAE_REYHERI_LEXICON_LATINO_GERMANICV/jbA86zSmatcC?hl=de&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA2287&amp;printsec=frontcover) *scrin**i**arius* …" CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:09:01.453" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40337" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Well, either way, the nature of the error is clear. Also, I have Gaussen to back me up." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:10:04.250" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40340" PostId="19111" Score="2" Text="The meaning of the Reyher-Juncker quote is that *scriniarius* is the common word for someone who makes *scrinia*, not that the two words are confused. Here clearly the first is intended, since the Jews are not being likened to letter-cases but to the keepers of letter-cases, as you say. It's a feminine rather than a neuter plural, as shown by *bajulans* which agrees with it." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:27:26.310" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40341" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@TKR I see, ok. How does bajulans agree with a feminine exclusively? I thought bajulans was the singular for all genders." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:28:13.490" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40343" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Oh, a deskmaker, I see. Scrinarius is someone who makes desks, my mistake." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:32:32.197" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40344" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel However, my main point is still outstanding: if the author intended to use the occupational word, scriniarius, then why didn't he write scriniarii, which is obvious? I guess in your answer you suggest it is a noun being treated like an adjective to be in agreement with gens, but it seems to me far more likely it is intended to be a neuter plural." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:35:55.933" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40345" PostId="19111" Score="5" Text="This answer seems to have some useful information, but &quot;It is the plural of scrinium&quot; just seems to be incorrect. &quot;qui scrinia conficit&quot; is a definition/gloss of what &quot;scriniarius&quot; means; it isn't saying that &quot;scriniaria = scrinia&quot;. The derivational suffix -arius agrees well with the translation of the term as &quot;**keeper of** the records&quot;" CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:36:15.380" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40347" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Right, that is clear, but scrinaria cannot be the plural of scriniarius because that is scriniarii.  It seems to me the author is declining it as scrinarium (singular), scrinaria (plural) where scrinarium is an error for scrinium." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:37:59.340" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40349" PostId="19111" Score="2" Text="As Sebastian said in his answer, &quot;scrinaria&quot; makes sense as a feminine singular form" CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:39:06.440" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40350" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="You're right that *bajulans* is singular for all genders, but it can't agree with a neuter plural so we're left with *-a* being the feminine singular ending. Though admittedly it might be taken as going with *gens* instead of *scrinaria*, so this doesn't quite resolve the issue." CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:45:02.090" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40351" PostId="19111" Score="2" Text="The translation makes it clearer, as it uses the same grammatical number: &quot;**the nation** (*gens*) **of the Jews** (*Judaeorum*) even in our day but as it were **a keeper of the records** (*scrinaria*) **for Christians** (*Christianorum*). &quot;scrinaria&quot; = &quot;a keeper of the records&quot; (feminine singular), agreeing with &quot;bajulans&quot; = &quot;carrying&quot; (feminine singular)" CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:45:04.910" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40352" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides So, is the idea that scriniarius is being treated as an adjective? Or are you suggesting that St. Augustine is inventing a new noun, &quot;scriniaria&quot;? If he is inventing a new occupational noun, then why did he write &quot;scrinaria&quot; rather than &quot;scriniaria&quot; with an &quot;I&quot; as we would expect?" CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:49:32.640" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40353" PostId="19111" Score="3" Text="It's common for masculine occupational nouns in the second declension to have first-declension feminine versions. This can be viewed either as inflection (treating the occupation name like an adjective) or derivation; either way, it is a productive process, so it doesn't take much inventiveness to create these forms as needed. (We can refer to the prior [question about sagittarius](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/)). The omission of &quot;i&quot; is a separate issue that just seems to be a variant or misspelling" CreationDate="2022-11-03T21:54:28.297" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40355" PostId="19111" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Well, I will leave the question open for now and I edited the my answer to include the possibility that it is a feminine singular, but as you say this depends on assuming a typo in the text. I read some other published commentaries on the passage, but those authors seem to have uncertainty about the intended meaning just like we do." CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:19:10.963" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40376" PostId="19112" Score="0" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea) has some interesting info, claiming that the &quot;root&quot; of the name is the same as the Iranian city of Qazvin. I don't enough about Semitic languages to pursue that lead further." CreationDate="2022-11-04T15:31:37.117" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40377" PostId="19112" Score="0" Text="relevant to note that the Caspi, the Caspian Sea, and silver are all spelt in Hebrew with a kaf, not with a qof. Typically kaf is borrowed into Greek as chi, with qof borrowed as kappa (likewise for borrowings in the other direction). This pattern also holds with most borrowings up until late antiquity from or to most Semitic languages (I'm not sure about Akkadian though) with the notable exception of the alphabet itself which has them reversed (likewise tau~tet and theta~tav). Seems suggestive to me that this isn't a borrowing, but a phonosemantic match into Semitic" CreationDate="2022-11-04T15:39:42.163" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40378" PostId="19112" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thanks! I overlooked that in the article. Seems though that the influence is unidirectional: Qazvin, founded in the 3rd century CE, must have taken its name from the sea, if they are indeed related." CreationDate="2022-11-04T15:40:43.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40379" PostId="19112" Score="0" Text="@Tristan That's a good point, and expanding that note would make a good answer, although it's not definitive, I guess, because Greek could have gotten the name not from Semitic, but from locals who got their name from a Semitic language. (That's my original hypothesis anyway, not that the borrowing came directly from a Semitic language.)" CreationDate="2022-11-04T15:52:30.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40380" PostId="19112" Score="0" Text="there are plenty of borrowings counter to the rule, and it could have gone via an intermediary so I don't think it's conclusive, but I'll write something up in a bit" CreationDate="2022-11-04T15:53:24.800" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40381" PostId="19112" Score="0" Text="@Tristan Ha, looks like we overlapped in comments. That information is still useful though!" CreationDate="2022-11-04T15:54:54.910" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40356" PostId="19113" Score="0" Text="I definitely think there is merit here in your third idea here, which is that the word is essentially invented and meant to mean a receptacle like an auraria. In that case no typo is present and we can just envision a new word &quot;scrinaria&quot; meaning a &quot;a container where records are kept&quot;. Of course, in this instance we have to accept that a new word is being coined. However, if we are accepting this as a new word, I think the meaning should be a &quot;container for records&quot; not &quot;a collection of records&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:24:54.767" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40357" PostId="19113" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden: There is a typo in either case: the &quot;i&quot; after the &quot;n&quot; in the base word *scrinium* would not be expected to be lost whether the derivative refers to a person or an abstract collection of things" CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:27:05.017" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40358" PostId="19113" Score="0" Text="Right, no matter what there is a typo, unless we assume a new word like &quot;aulularia&quot; means a pot of gold, then we have a &quot;scrinaria&quot; which is a chest of records." CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:31:59.200" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40359" PostId="19113" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden: aulalaria = aula + -ula + -aria. There is no i before the -aria in that case because there is no i there in the base word. But &quot;scrinium + -aria&quot; should yield &quot;scriniaria&quot;, regardless of whether &quot;-aria&quot; means &quot;-eress&quot; or &quot;-ary&quot;; we would only expect &quot;scrinaria&quot; as an outcome if the base were *&quot;scrinum&quot;, but it isn't." CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:33:27.567" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40360" PostId="19113" Score="0" Text="Right I agree, if we take it to be a container, then there is no need for an I, so no typo." CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:34:04.183" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="40361" PostId="19113" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden: No, I disagree: there is no rule that words for containers delete &quot;i&quot; in a base. Compare &quot;[miniaria](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/miniaria)&quot; from &quot;minium&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-03T22:36:39.320" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40362" PostId="19113" Score="2" Text="I think *baiulans* would be a difficulty for the &quot;collection of records&quot; idea -- that verb seems to be used of people or animals rather than objects or places." CreationDate="2022-11-03T23:03:25.117" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40373" PostId="19113" Score="2" Text="In Fredriksen's book 'Augustine &amp; the Jews', the word 'sciniaria' is rendered 'a guardian of the books' (https://books.google.ca/books?id=EQXDlzVSigQC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;hl=iw&amp;pg=PA276#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)" CreationDate="2022-11-04T04:11:17.560" UserId="11740" />
  <row Id="40363" PostId="19114" Score="3" Text="cogito isn't first person singular present indicative active of cogito, cogitare. Look at the verbs in surrounding sentences: iungunto, colunto, esto, sanciunto. You're dealing with imperatives. Cogito is therefore imperative of cogo, cogere. You're right that quis is indefinite (= aliquis)." CreationDate="2022-11-04T00:00:08.000" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40364" PostId="19114" Score="0" Text="thank you. I have checked and cogito is a futuro imperative.(I am not familiar with them). Is Quis the subject and is the sentence negative ? I have read that imperative sentences can not be negative. A correct translation would be &quot;let no one collect alms expect ...&quot; ?" CreationDate="2022-11-04T00:13:25.790" UserId="9682" />
  <row Id="40391" PostId="19116" Score="0" Text="I admit I'm not too sure about the view of such things in traditional English grammar, or modern linguistics, but personally I think we do have a third-person imperative in English. Consider 'thy kingdom *come*, thy will *be done*'. Granted this is almost the definition of 'rather archaic and formal', but being from The Lord's Prayer it's something that most native speakers of English will have encountered. Just a comment, if nothing else, it's always helped me understand the 3rd IMP and may help the OP" CreationDate="2022-11-05T00:29:45.083" UserId="803" />
  <row Id="40390" PostId="19119" Score="4" Text="The obvious very serious formal problem is the unexplained *-k-* in *calx*, which is lacking in *callis* and *callum*. The semantic connection between the three words isn't necessarily a point in favour of a joint origin—they might have converged in appearance due to folk etymology." CreationDate="2022-11-05T00:19:47.920" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40393" PostId="19119" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon - Convergence cannot be ruled out in such cases I think, but: (1) convergence is not mentioned in etymological dictionaries, although it may impact the development and thus the &quot;etymology&quot; and (2) *calx* is often given with unknown origin, which may give a bit more space for speculations like the above.." CreationDate="2022-11-05T19:41:16.917" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="40382" PostId="19120" Score="1" Text="Also worth noting that Wiki mentions a 5C BC Aramaic reference to *kspy*, which is presumably too early for Greek influence." CreationDate="2022-11-04T17:45:28.077" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40384" PostId="19120" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the fuller write up! That last line is what I was wondering if possible, which I guess still is. I.e., Aramaic -&gt; Iranic peoples in the area -&gt; Greek. Certainly though it would not have come through Hebrew." CreationDate="2022-11-04T18:19:32.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40387" PostId="19120" Score="1" Text="Chaspioi or Chasp**h**ioi? Does Grassmann apply to Semitic loans?" CreationDate="2022-11-04T20:16:07.717" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40553" PostId="19121" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Joonas! Apologies for my absence from the site but I have been recovering from a leg operation. Two comments: I would prefer non vise to invise, since invisus very rarely means ‘unseen’ but ‘looked at askance/ hateful/ detested/ hostile’. Second, Though longē can be used in a temporal sence, I would prefer the briefer diu: Marce, tam diu non vise!" CreationDate="2022-12-06T12:26:41.697" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40554" PostId="19121" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield Variations like that sound good to me. Taste and context will say what's best, but *tam diu non vise* is very good. I'll add a note to my answer on variations." CreationDate="2022-12-06T19:18:25.283" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40556" PostId="19121" Score="0" Text="Thanks, Joonas. I’m glad you think that my variations on your answer are acceptable." CreationDate="2022-12-06T21:33:15.067" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40394" PostId="19122" Score="1" Text="I'd look into paradoxes: [you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6TpSnkOu18&amp;t=175s)" CreationDate="2022-11-05T23:02:47.570" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45452" PostId="19122" Score="1" Text="In Spanish you would say entre la espada y la pared. Thus maybe inter gladium et moenia?" CreationDate="2023-11-13T07:36:43.397" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45548" PostId="19122" Score="0" Text="Also this is not just zugswang?" CreationDate="2023-11-18T21:39:32.227" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="40398" PostId="19125" Score="0" Text="The asymmetry of understanding between Romanian and Italian can be explained by the very development of the two languages: Italian contains enough &quot;Romanian&quot; elements that make Italian accessible to Romanians (and very few elements unfamilar in Romanian), but Romanian contains enough &quot;non-Italian&quot; elements for it to be less accessible to Italians. As for cultural exposure, I don't understand what exactly do you mean. What exposure to Italian had Romanians until recently?" CreationDate="2022-11-06T18:14:56.660" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="40407" PostId="19125" Score="0" Text="There is asymetry between Romanian and all the rest, not just Italian, and the reason is this: &#xA;&#xA;All Romance languages have non-Latin words, but in the West many of these are common too all (as most have been taken by all the rest, including Romanian, from French), while in the East, in Romanian (Aromanian, etc) most non-Latin words are of Slavic origin and are absent in the rest of Romance." CreationDate="2022-11-08T18:31:32.717" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="40395" PostId="19127" Score="0" Text="phero takes the infinitive so the subject of this infinitive is omitted but if it were there it would be masucline accusative singular so the gignosko is modified according to this imaginary declension?" CreationDate="2022-11-06T15:28:29.913" UserId="8882" />
  <row Id="40396" PostId="19127" Score="0" Text="@user21669 The subject of φέρειν is in the accusative because this is implicitly an *accusativus cum infinitivo* construction after χρή: &quot;It is necessary to bear (= that I bear) τὴν πεπρωμένην αἶσαν ὡς ῥᾷστα, knowing &amp;c.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-11-06T16:09:49.843" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40397" PostId="19128" Score="3" Text="Jacobi was born in 1938 and will have received his Latin education in the early '50s; the reconstructed pronunciation was universal at that point." CreationDate="2022-11-06T16:18:05.173" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40399" PostId="19128" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon I see. I’d been under the impression that the traditional pronunciation endured long past the point where we knew better, so to speak, but I don’t know where I get that notion! *I* certainly didn’t learn Latin at school, so that can’t be it. (John Cleese’s Latin schoolmaster bit comes to mind, with *Romanes* /ɹoʊmaːniːz/ et cetera, but I don’t think I can blame him either. Also I don’t know if I’m violating some unwritten rule of Latin SE by mentioning that…!)" CreationDate="2022-11-07T08:51:46.390" UserId="1248" />
  <row Id="40401" PostId="19128" Score="2" Text="@TimPederick I hear JC saying /ɹoʊmaːnejz/ in that scene, which is just the reconstructed classical pronunciation being mapped onto English phonemes" CreationDate="2022-11-07T13:46:57.073" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="40413" PostId="19128" Score="0" Text="@Tristan Quite right. Not sure how or why I turned /-ejz/ into /-iːz/ in my head!" CreationDate="2022-11-09T08:35:56.373" UserId="1248" />
  <row Id="40400" PostId="19129" Score="3" Text="I can confirm that this is at least the ecclesiastical English pronunciation of the apocryphal name &quot;Dives&quot; from the Biblical parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In some early translations from Latin, the rich man was given the name Dives based on a misreading of the Vulgate texts (_dives_ should have been translated as &quot;rich man&quot; and is so translated in more recent translations, but the name stuck, since when discussing the parable it's more convenient for the character to have a name), so the etymology is sound." CreationDate="2022-11-07T12:59:51.023" UserId="11753" />
  <row Id="40402" PostId="19130" Score="2" Text="Short look: Gleichung = equatio; Gleichungen = aequationes; gliedern = formam; Größe = magnitudine; Größe = parilitas … *uhhhh*" CreationDate="2022-11-07T20:15:12.083" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40403" PostId="19135" Score="1" Text="Zeus doesn't control what is fated. Lattimore's translation makes the only sensible intended meaning explicit." CreationDate="2022-11-08T13:41:00.357" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40404" PostId="19135" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Is it possible to reach the same conclusion only based on Hesiod, without prior assertion of what Zeus can do? Since people who made the claim also claim that Zeus is omnipotent, here is the related question: https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/10555/whats-with-this-religion-of-zeus-being-one-and-only-omnipotent-god" CreationDate="2022-11-08T14:15:29.230" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="40405" PostId="19135" Score="2" Text="What makes the passage seem odd is that *child* and *Zeus* are different words, but they are supposed to refer to the same person, even though no specific construction is used to make this clear, such as &quot;namely&quot;, or some apposition. In normal language, this might suggest that two different agents are referred to, different capacities of the god: one as the overthrower, the other as the designer of fate. But this is poetry, which could explain such odd referencing. And it would seem rather outlandish to me for a god to act before he was born, in Greek mythology." CreationDate="2022-11-08T17:13:39.313" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40406" PostId="19135" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus It may have to do with the fact that Διὸς μεγάλου διὰ βουλάς is a quasi-formula, cf.  Διὸς δ' ετελεύσατο βουλή in the proem to the Iliad." CreationDate="2022-11-08T17:35:26.147" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40408" PostId="19135" Score="1" Text="BTW it looks like the same question was already asked in antiquity, see fn. 2 here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0130%3Acard%3D453#note2" CreationDate="2022-11-08T19:34:44.643" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40409" PostId="19135" Score="1" Text="@TKR: Right, and I think I even saw the exact same phrase in Homer, too. // From your link, it seems some reject the entire line: *&quot;The whole line may well be spurious, and is rejected by Heyne, Wolf, Gaisford and Guyet.&quot;*" CreationDate="2022-11-08T20:06:07.880" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40411" PostId="19135" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus You're right, looks like the exact phrase is in Odyssey 8.82: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0012,002:8:82" CreationDate="2022-11-08T20:21:12.900" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40412" PostId="19135" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I wonder if that's the reason why Norman O. Brown's translation is in the footnotes of omitted lines." CreationDate="2022-11-09T03:38:38.510" UserId="9170" />
  <row Id="40410" PostId="19136" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure whether girls went to school." CreationDate="2022-11-08T20:20:44.747" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40414" PostId="19136" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: No, I don't believe they did. I searched for an equivalent of &quot;teenager&quot; which would have been better. How about &quot;adulescentes&quot;? The age-range in this term is approx. 14-21 (Wiki) which covers some, if not all of the sentiment." CreationDate="2022-11-09T09:19:26.333" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40416" PostId="19136" Score="1" Text="you can have a look at [Orbis Pictoris](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28299/28299-h/28299-h.htm) p.45 (picture 37), it seems you should go for *puella* if I to judge by the picture" CreationDate="2022-11-09T12:05:09.653" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40415" PostId="19137" Score="1" Text="Is the reflexive expected in this context in Latin? I've noticed modern languages with reflexive possessive pronouns seem to prefer to translate the phrase &quot;his/her highness&quot; to non-reflexive possessive pronouns in general, unless there's a specific grammatical context requiring it (&quot;she picked up her highness from the ground&quot;)." CreationDate="2022-11-09T10:40:50.910" UserId="9062" />
  <row Id="40419" PostId="19137" Score="0" Text="@Agnes If you look on Google Books, you will find that both forms were in actual historical use, i.e. *Sua Celsitudo (Maiestas, etc.)* as well as *Eius Celsitudo*. I'm not sure what modern languages you have in mind, but I would in any event judge this from an inner-Latin point of view. So if the *princeps* in question is the subject, use *sua*, otherwise *eius*. Or don't you think *Eius Celsitudo, Serenissimus Princeps Austriae, veniet* sounds weird and prompts the question *cuius?* But admittedly, *Sua Celsitudo veniet* could be translated as &quot;Its own Highness will come.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-11-10T07:09:18.260" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40422" PostId="19139" Score="0" Text="Welcome to latin.stackexchange.com. This is exactly the kind of question that we made this site for!" CreationDate="2022-11-10T09:21:30.243" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40423" PostId="19139" Score="0" Text="It appears that this question implies a new answer to the question &quot;[The logical 'then'](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2865/118)&quot;: _tunc._" CreationDate="2022-11-10T09:23:11.617" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40417" PostId="19141" Score="3" Text="I've never seen *proximo* used to mean &quot;by consequence&quot; in medieval Latin. My intuition is that this is an ablative of means having to do with a syllogism (something like &quot;virtually, through a proximate [term]&quot;), but I'm not positive." CreationDate="2022-11-10T01:38:38.397" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40418" PostId="19141" Score="1" Text="@brianpck: I do think it is syllogism-ish, however it is analysed syntactically: if it is not x virtually, then it certainly cannot be x formally. I'm not sure about any specific adverbial translation, but I don't really know how to interpret your &quot;through a proximate term&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-10T06:29:31.227" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40421" PostId="19142" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site. In &quot;Be remembered for nothing,&quot; are you inviting people to be non-achievers? Therefore, is to be remembered for nothing a good thing? It may be that non-achievers will only be remembered by their friends/ relationships: which can last only as long as they do. Are you sure you want this?" CreationDate="2022-11-10T08:52:20.350" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40501" PostId="19142" Score="0" Text="Thanks for posting this, Michael. But I really do need more info to translate this. Can you tell us what you mean by this line? Can you post a the whole poem, or at least a larger part of it, which contains this line?" CreationDate="2022-11-19T06:12:23.900" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40424" PostId="19143" Score="1" Text="Your interpretation of *recamatis* as a variant of *ricamatis* and *ricamatis* as an Italianism is probably right, but also be aware the Latin mashes together two separate Hebrew sentences. *Tota gloriosa filia regis intrinsecus propter intertexturas auro* renders כָּל־כְּבוּדָּה בַת־מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה מִמִּשְׁבְּצוֹת זָהָב לְבוּשָׁהּ׃ ([Psalms 45:14](https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2645.htm) in the MT, 45:13 in most Christian Bibles for some reason),  *Induta in recamatis* is the start of the next verse." CreationDate="2022-11-11T02:21:05.293" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40425" PostId="19143" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon It looks like *recamatis* renders *riqmot* from the next verse (and is maybe just an attempt to Latinize that Hebrew word?). *Induta auro* renders זָהָב לְבוּשָׁהּ (syntactically inaccurately as that is not a constituent in the Hebrew)." CreationDate="2022-11-11T18:30:59.573" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40426" PostId="19143" Score="1" Text="@TKR Oh, you're right, and that's an interesting point. Apparently רִקמָה and Italian *ricamare* are ~cognate: the Italian is a loan from Arabic رقم *raqm* (I can't read Arabic). Presumably it came through Spanish *recamar*, which could explain the vowel used. To what extent Lawrence of Brindisi will have been aware of that (and whether he even knew Latin never had that word) is another matter." CreationDate="2022-11-11T23:16:23.347" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40431" PostId="19146" Score="0" Text="Thank you!  I remember &quot;cocam colam&quot; now, too.  The title is cringe-worthy, and the reviewers didn't like it, but that must be what we had.  (In my searches, 'picus' generated lots of hits for Pediatric-ICU.)" CreationDate="2022-11-13T04:14:31.663" UserId="11772" />
  <row Id="40427" PostId="19148" Score="1" Text="What's the word you're censoring? I can think of a few different offensive nouns that start with F and end with S, and they would be translated differently. If your intended translation is &quot;unlawfully born&quot;, then why include the offensive word just to censor it? Just put that into your English translation instead, maybe in brackets." CreationDate="2022-11-12T23:06:31.643" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40428" PostId="19148" Score="0" Text="Hi again @Draconis, I just wasn't sure my question wouldn't be deleted if I used swear words... The original English motto is &quot;Let the fuckers rot&quot;. But the &quot;fuckers&quot; is just an offensive word, it doesn't have to be translated literally :)" CreationDate="2022-11-12T23:09:29.957" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40429" PostId="19148" Score="7" Text="I can't speak for the whole site, but I don't have an issue with &quot;fuckers&quot; in the body of the question (I wouldn't use it in the title). We answer questions about Martial and Catullus here after all. The only words I'd have an issue with anywhere in a question are slurs of various sorts, which this isn't." CreationDate="2022-11-12T23:11:30.213" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40430" PostId="19148" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your input @Draconis, updated my question!" CreationDate="2022-11-12T23:13:10.693" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40460" PostId="19148" Score="1" Text="There is some ambiguity in the English that seems to be affecting answers: is the sentence an order to someone to allow the fuckers to rot, or is the sentence expressing a wish or hope that they would? Either of these meanings would be written in the same way in English (and indeed, English speakers would probably make little distinction between them), but Latin would say each differently and so answers need to know which one is more your intention." CreationDate="2022-11-14T19:05:56.660" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="40492" PostId="19148" Score="0" Text="Uhm yes @KRyan, you're right... I had the same impression after I saw the answers... still, I got great advices :)" CreationDate="2022-11-17T20:36:33.627" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40502" PostId="19148" Score="1" Text="@KRyan My impression of &quot;let them ____&quot; in this context is neither a wish nor a hope, maybe more along the lines of  &quot;for all I care, they can ____&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-19T12:43:07.203" UserId="11795" />
  <row Id="40503" PostId="19148" Score="1" Text="@Alexander I have a request, if the site will allow it: If you publish your story, come back and note the title so people get to see the results in context. :)" CreationDate="2022-11-19T12:48:06.360" UserId="11795" />
  <row Id="40504" PostId="19148" Score="1" Text="@AikenDrum: &quot;for all I care, they can ____&quot; — yes, that was EXACTLY what I wanted to convey! As for the title of the story... I actually thought about it as well... and I'd thank the people who answered in my book! :)" CreationDate="2022-11-19T18:00:59.550" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40495" PostId="19149" Score="0" Text="That's a very good answer Draconis, it gave me an inspiration to play around with words... still, &quot;intereunto&quot; sounded a bit tame for my purposes ;)" CreationDate="2022-11-17T20:43:50.337" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40432" PostId="19150" Score="0" Text="I've seen imperative, &quot;perite&quot;, (literally, &quot;[go and] die&quot;) translated as &quot;fuck off&quot; (profanity sites). Would you agree with this? On another point: if sex is a pleasure why tell someone to &quot;fuck off&quot;...I've never understood that one? How are these sentiments expressed in German?" CreationDate="2022-11-13T09:05:37.063" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40433" PostId="19150" Score="5" Text="@tony I think telling someone to “get lost” would rather be *abi in malam rem (in maximam malam rem, in malam crucem, in malum cruciatum, etc)*. Romans tended to speak of gallows and torture where English uses sexual words." CreationDate="2022-11-13T10:03:46.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40434" PostId="19150" Score="4" Text="@tony Profanity comes from whatever is taboo in a particular culture, the things you're not supposed to talk about in polite company. For us right now that's sex and bodily functions. Thus, words for sex get repurposed as a general sort of impolite emphatic." CreationDate="2022-11-13T17:18:37.133" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40444" PostId="19150" Score="1" Text="This is the most correct answer for me. Noun and verb choice aside, subjunctive present tense is the correct choice for a conditional or wishful statement. You wouldn't use imperative because the subject is not speaking directly to the direct object of the sentence." CreationDate="2022-11-14T10:34:16.543" UserId="11794" />
  <row Id="40450" PostId="19150" Score="1" Text="@tony Throughout history and across all cultures, it seems one of the most common insults a man can make to another man is to suggest that he fucks things that it would be immoral, illegal, unhealthy, or in some other way deserving of ridicule, to fuck. Mothers, dogs, pigs, sheep, uncles, etc. That being said, the specific variants are generally extremely insulting and possibly dangerously to one's own health if uttered in the wrong company, so I think people simply took the pattern and removed the specificity without removing the insult to produce a more generic, toned-down, _safer_ version." CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:37:26.537" UserId="11795" />
  <row Id="40464" PostId="19150" Score="1" Text="@CalebFaruki in fairness, Latin had this funny little thing called the third-person imperative, which Draconis used in his answer, but it is archaic and mostly used in legal provisions. In normal prose, one would use the hortatory subjunctive." CreationDate="2022-11-14T22:16:49.797" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40493" PostId="19150" Score="1" Text="Hi @SebastianKoppehel, thank you for your detailed answer. I LOVE your &quot;Pereant impuri&quot;... Classical, short, phonetically and prosodically beautiful... might be a motto of a real military unit... but it's a bit too &quot;tame&quot; for my purposes, not enough emotions (that's how I feel)... Oh and thanks for &quot;bis zur Erschöpfung genotzüchtigt&quot;, this is EXACTLY how I understood &quot;defututus&quot;... and that's what I wanted to convey! :)" CreationDate="2022-11-17T20:40:30.337" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40445" PostId="19151" Score="1" Text="I’m voting to close this question because it is just a random etymology question based on very, very superficial similarity. Unfortunately, there are potentially a lot of such questions and there are low-quality correspondence lists circulating on the internet." CreationDate="2022-11-14T13:17:09.977" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="40448" PostId="19151" Score="0" Text="Feel free to do so.  My question was answered.  First time in this group so just learning. Sorry if it is to superficial I understand you reasoning now." CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:07:43.553" UserId="11789" />
  <row Id="40458" PostId="19151" Score="1" Text="Thank you all. My question is answered. I apologize if it was to superficial for this cite. I am certainly no linguist but am trying to learn." CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:06:23.933" UserId="11789" />
  <row Id="40459" PostId="19151" Score="1" Text="Hi Larry, glad we can be of help. If you find that your question answered to your satisfaction, make sure to upvote it and click the green check mark indicating that your problem is now solved. Let me know if you have further questions about that." CreationDate="2022-11-14T17:22:40.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40443" PostId="19152" Score="1" Text="The latin expression &quot;relata refero&quot; is a good compact example: re+latus re+fero, &quot;I tell what I've been told&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-14T08:41:43.997" UserId="11792" />
  <row Id="40449" PostId="19152" Score="1" Text="Very helpful.  I know just enough about several languages to be dangerous (i.e. ask questions that can be annoying.)  Thank you for your kind response." CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:13:34.330" UserId="11789" />
  <row Id="40435" PostId="19153" Score="0" Text="It doesn't sound right to say *there are no past-tense forms of &quot;go&quot;.* &quot;Went&quot; is the past tense form of &quot;go&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-13T17:54:22.427" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40436" PostId="19153" Score="0" Text="@TKR Rephrased: &quot;there are no past-tense forms of the _root_ 'go'.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-11-13T18:14:38.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40451" PostId="19154" Score="0" Text="I like this one but it would work better if you specifically pointed out that telling someone to &quot;rot&quot; in English is an abbreviation of &quot;rot in hell&quot; that has, over the years, been used so much that it took on its own, more-generic meaning of just going away somewhere distant and staying there until you die and decompose so the speaker doesn't have to deal with you anymore. With the &quot;in hell&quot; remembered, your answer fits the real intent of the phrase much better." CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:45:38.540" UserId="11795" />
  <row Id="40452" PostId="19154" Score="1" Text="Mind you I think the choice of _fellatores_ might come across as homophobic in the context of modern fiction written by a person aware of current social mores. I'd probably advise against actually using it, even though it's a good fit otherwise." CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:49:42.040" UserId="11795" />
  <row Id="40494" PostId="19154" Score="0" Text="@AikenDrum that's a very interesting observation. Honestly, I don't feel &quot;fellatores&quot; to be homophobic (cinaedus and pathicus are much worse, in my opinion)... but anyway, I'd replace it with &quot;defututi&quot; :)" CreationDate="2022-11-17T20:42:41.993" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40496" PostId="19154" Score="1" Text="I LOVE THIS!!! Very Classical and very strong and obscene, just what I needed! :) Except that I'd rather replace &quot;fellatores&quot;, not because it might cause offence, but because it sounds like an English word. So.... my version would be: &quot;Defututi in malam crucem&quot;! Inspired by your answer, of course!" CreationDate="2022-11-17T20:46:03.660" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40497" PostId="19154" Score="0" Text="Oh an by the way... I might be bad with my Google-Fu but I wasn't able to find exact references to Plautus's works using &quot;in malam crucem&quot;... do you have an example?" CreationDate="2022-11-17T20:51:08.827" UserId="11711" />
  <row Id="40498" PostId="19154" Score="2" Text="@Alexander No need to use Google, PHI is where it's at! Here's a search on the phrase: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in+malam+crucem" CreationDate="2022-11-17T21:21:48.797" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40499" PostId="19154" Score="2" Text="@Alexander The second one down, for example, that *I* is the imperative of &quot;go.&quot; It's one of the cleanest parallels we have to &quot;go to hell.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-11-17T21:23:44.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40446" PostId="19155" Score="3" Text="I don't know the full history and can't look into it at the moment, but Etymonline [confirms](https://www.etymonline.com/word/Muscovy#etymonline_v_19291) that. I had never heard of the caricature usage, and I think you must have accidentally pasted the same link twice instead of providing the second one." CreationDate="2022-11-14T14:27:43.403" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40447" PostId="19155" Score="0" Text="@cmw The link was merely to the relevant WIkipedia entry ([Here is another Wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow) that also suggests that Moscovia is a Latin form). What I meant by *caricaturing/mimicking* is that *Moscovia* is not an official name used for Moscow, Russia or any region of Russia anywhere (though Vatican might be using it?). Interesting modern word is [*moscovite*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovite) - perhaps also a derivative from Latin." CreationDate="2022-11-14T14:38:16.430" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="40453" PostId="19155" Score="7" Text="Have you checked the Wiki page for Moscow itself? Note this line: &quot;the first written mentions in the 12th century were Московь, Moskovĭ&quot;." CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:54:17.020" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40454" PostId="19155" Score="0" Text="(It goes on, but lacks adequate citations. That's something someone will have to dig up.)" CreationDate="2022-11-14T15:55:09.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40462" PostId="19155" Score="2" Text="Your link doesn't support the assertion &quot;Moskovia&quot; is used that way. i certainly never have heard it used that way." CreationDate="2022-11-14T21:08:35.247" UserId="3510" />
  <row Id="40468" PostId="19155" Score="1" Text="Have you heard of the [Muscovy Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy_Company)?  There is also [Muscovy Street](https://www.streetlist.co.uk/ec/ec3n/ec3n-4/muscovy-street) in the City of London." CreationDate="2022-11-15T08:56:09.903" UserId="541" />
  <row Id="40469" PostId="19155" Score="0" Text="@RodrigodeAzevedo So you confirm that the work exists in English. The question is: was it invented by the Latinists? (or was it adopted from Russian or was it simply mispronunciation?)" CreationDate="2022-11-15T09:06:33.353" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="40470" PostId="19155" Score="1" Text="@RogerVadim I cannot answer that.  I am just sharing evidence that the word existed in 16th century England, which may be useful (or not)." CreationDate="2022-11-15T09:15:51.763" UserId="541" />
  <row Id="40471" PostId="19155" Score="1" Text="@RodrigodeAzevedo it is useful in the sense that it predates the Latin work cited in the OP. Thanks." CreationDate="2022-11-15T09:16:58.080" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="42556" PostId="19155" Score="0" Text="@AzorAhai-him- regarding the use of *moscovia* in derogatory sense, see here: https://m.jpost.com/international/article-733997/amp" CreationDate="2023-03-11T15:49:23.777" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="40461" PostId="19157" Score="0" Text="Was the capital ‘O’ in MOschovia a common practice with drop caps at the time? I see lower-case ‘o’ in other places, so it isn’t a matter of the printer not having one..." CreationDate="2022-11-14T19:50:20.717" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="40465" PostId="19157" Score="2" Text="Russian [history books](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Stat%CA%B9i_po_russko%C4%AD_istorii/tpoTAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8C%22&amp;pg=PA99&amp;printsec=frontcover) note that Moscow was referred to as Moskovi in old chronicles: &quot;Въ слѣдующемъ 1177 ( 6685 ) г. лѣтопись прямо называетъ Москву городомъ въ разсказѣ о нападенiи Гльба Рязанскаго на князя Всеволода : Глѣбъ же на ту осень приѣха на Московь ( въ другихъ спискахъ : Москву ) и пожже городъ весь и села ...&quot;" CreationDate="2022-11-14T22:25:29.200" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="40466" PostId="19157" Score="0" Text="@KRyan the whole word is printed in small caps. The first O is just a little less small than the others. *Probably* a deliberate style choice for initials in this particular printing." CreationDate="2022-11-15T03:36:56.413" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="40467" PostId="19157" Score="1" Text="@hobbs Right, but it’s nearly twice the size of the other ‘o’ in literally the same word." CreationDate="2022-11-15T04:00:20.293" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="40472" PostId="19157" Score="2" Text="The rule is “second letter is a standard capital letter” - the rest of the word then being small-cap or lower-case, according to context. I’ve added an image to show this." CreationDate="2022-11-15T09:17:35.643" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="40473" PostId="19157" Score="0" Text="@njuffa At that time the short yer was long gone and it was no longer the (ultra-short anyway)  ĭ but it just marked palatalization. So just Moskov'. Even in Church Slavic the no longer counted as the original yers. Rus' is also Rus' and not Rusĭ." CreationDate="2022-11-15T09:19:08.370" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="40474" PostId="19157" Score="3" Text="@VladimirFГероямслава It is still somewhat unclear to me whether *-ovia* was adopted from the old Russian or whether it was introduced to adapt the name to the Latin grammar. There is a three century gap between the document in the answer and the quote by at_njuffa." CreationDate="2022-11-15T09:30:37.400" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="40475" PostId="19157" Score="1" Text="The oldest relevant [book](https://www.google.com/books/edition/De_Moscovia/islUAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22moscovia%22&amp;printsec=frontcover) scanned by Google is Albertus Pighius, *DE MOSCOVIA*, Venice 1543. Pighius also refers to the *city* (as opposed to the *region*) as &quot;Moscua Metropoli&quot;. Keep in mind that at the time 'u' and 'v' were not differentiated, so printers often used uppercase 'V' for modern-day 'U' or 'V', and lowercase 'u' for modern-day 'u' or 'v'. I don't know where one would find the oldest Latin reference to Moscow, but it presumably precedes printed books." CreationDate="2022-11-15T10:53:46.233" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="40476" PostId="19157" Score="2" Text="@RogerVadim The latin ending could easilly be derived from an oblique case or from an adjective. E.g., моско́вскій. Also check the etymology in wiktionary Поздне-др.-русск. на МосквѢ (Аввакум, Котошихин), др.-польск. родр.-дат.-местн. п. ед. ч. Мoskwi. Таким образом, первонач. основа на -і *Москы (род. п. *Москъв), откуда тур., алб. Моskоv «Россия», тур. Моskоv šähri «Москва»." CreationDate="2022-11-15T12:54:31.407" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="40477" PostId="19157" Score="3" Text="But anyway, adding -ia is just an extremely common form of latinization when speaking about some area. When you have local vernacular Moskov', it is extremely straightforward to call the area Moskovia. There is no need to search where the -ia exactly was added, it is completely normal and omnipresent. Bohemani -&gt; Bohemia, Frank -&gt; Francia, Germani -&gt; Germania." CreationDate="2022-11-15T12:59:12.187" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="40478" PostId="19157" Score="0" Text="@VladimirFГероямслава I hadn't realized that latinists might take a non-nominative form or an adjective as the basis. Thanks." CreationDate="2022-11-15T12:59:37.597" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="40480" PostId="19160" Score="3" Text="How does this answer the question?" CreationDate="2022-11-16T13:59:21.410" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40483" PostId="19160" Score="0" Text="It answers it in multiple ways, but should better be read as an addendum to the answer by Martin Kochanski and the comments under that answer.&#xA;&#xA;_&quot;Moscovia is usually used nowadays as and old-fashioned reference to Russia&quot;_&#xA;&#xA;My point is that &quot;Moscovia&quot; is not just an old-fashioned reference to &quot;Russia&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Moscov-ia means a territory or political power with its seat in Moscow.&#xA;Russ-ia no less obviously refers to the same thing but implies that it is &quot;Rus&quot;. Which it is not." CreationDate="2022-11-16T21:14:10.143" UserId="11798" />
  <row Id="40484" PostId="19160" Score="0" Text="_&quot;the term might originate not from any old Russian use&quot;_&#xA;&#xA;The suffix &quot;-ia&quot; is a popular suffix in Latin names like Germania (as mentioned by others in the comments).&#xA;The people called their capital &quot;Moskva&quot;, but in other grammatical cases it sounds differently. One of the forms was &quot;Moskov&quot; (with a soft &quot;v&quot;).&#xA;It is not difficult to see how &quot;Moscovia&quot; had appeared out of that.&#xA;&#xA;_&quot;not even from non-Russians incorrectly pronouncing a Russian word, but from a deliberate attempt to latinize the term&quot;_&#xA;&#xA;Sorry, which term?" CreationDate="2022-11-16T21:14:25.520" UserId="11798" />
  <row Id="40486" PostId="19160" Score="1" Text="Hi, Denys. It was a little unclear to me too what angle you were adopting to answer the question, but your comments clarify that confusion. Can you add the above information from the comments into the answer as well?" CreationDate="2022-11-16T21:54:57.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40488" PostId="19160" Score="1" Text="@cmw I think the answer was made in good faith, but the angle taken has nothing to do with Latin language. If the question were posted in History or Politics SE, it would be a different story. I admit though that my formulation was unfortunate in the sense that multiple users (e.g., in the comments) have focused on the second paragraph, discussing the meaning of the term and how it is used nowadays. Part of the problem is that the question was advertised among the *Hot network questions*, attracting SE users with no particular interest in Latin." CreationDate="2022-11-17T08:24:57.030" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="40489" PostId="19166" Score="3" Text="To my language sense (which I'll grant may be experiencing interference from my native Dutch) diminutives express that a thing is small but keep the focus on the thing rather than the smallness. *Magna in sarcinulis* feels to me like &quot;big things in *packs* (that happen to be small)&quot; rather than &quot;... in *small* packs&quot; like the English, which has a stronger focus on the smallness than a bare diminutive; to keep the contrast between the bigness of the thing and the smallness of the package I feel you do need the adjective, though I'd also keep the diminutive." CreationDate="2022-11-17T16:15:29.170" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40490" PostId="19166" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon You're right, that makes sense. Plus you lose the parallelism if you drop the adjective." CreationDate="2022-11-17T16:35:06.257" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40487" PostId="19167" Score="5" Text="Hi John, and welcome. At StackExchange, we operate a bit differently from regular discussion boards. Answers should be complete and offer up more information than a mere link. They should endeavor to answer the question in full. Usually, if it's just a link someone has to share, we can convert it to a comment on the question. But if you like, you can also [edit] your answer to fill in additional details. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about this process (Type `@cmw` to ping me.)" CreationDate="2022-11-17T03:41:07.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40732" PostId="19170" Score="1" Text="Do you know the copyright status of this? Last time this was posted here, it was eventually deleted for copyright violation." CreationDate="2022-12-25T18:54:45.397" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40505" PostId="19173" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much!" CreationDate="2022-11-19T19:28:45.103" UserId="1508" />
  <row Id="40513" PostId="19173" Score="0" Text="As for the example _Videō fēminās lacrimantēs_, I was wondering why you decided to give the translation of the **attributive** reading of _lacrimantes_ ('I see the crying women').  In the context of the OP's question, I understand that the (more) relevant reading of _lacrimantes_ is rather the **predicative** one ('I see the women crying'). It could then be useful to point out that this example is ambiguous in this sense." CreationDate="2022-11-21T15:07:03.500" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="40514" PostId="19173" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Mostly because I wanted to emphasize the differences in syntax in the English translations. But that's a fair thing to note." CreationDate="2022-11-21T19:25:04.573" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40516" PostId="19176" Score="2" Text="The Greeks, of course, wrote on pieces of broken clay pottery (ostraca) I would be surprised if the Romans never followed them in this." CreationDate="2022-11-21T21:11:53.433" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="40517" PostId="19176" Score="0" Text="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316278008_1-17_Latin_ostraca_from_Vandal_North_Africa" CreationDate="2022-11-21T21:21:02.147" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="40518" PostId="19176" Score="3" Text="@fdb True. I figured the asker meant _inscribed_ clay tablets, as found in Mesopotamia, rather than using ink or a stylus on pieces of pottery. But I'll be more explicit about that." CreationDate="2022-11-21T22:33:04.377" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40519" PostId="19178" Score="3" Text="ἓνεκα is postpositive and belongs with ἀγαθῶν; if it were introducing a clause of purpose the οὐ would be μή. I don't think ἀγαθῶν is a form of ἀγαθόω, but just a genitive plural of ἀγαθός (governed by ἓνεκα)." CreationDate="2022-11-24T16:16:26.610" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40520" PostId="19178" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon - OK. That makes more sense. So it would mean something like [The civil law] does not arise on account of those that are good." CreationDate="2022-11-24T16:24:10.843" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="40523" PostId="19179" Score="2" Text="If it's Socrates, it might not have come from Plato, but a lost work of Xenophon or the other disciples whose works are no longer extant." CreationDate="2022-11-24T17:26:04.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40525" PostId="19181" Score="5" Text="Can you [edit] your question and add the translations that you found?" CreationDate="2022-11-25T22:37:00.587" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40526" PostId="19185" Score="1" Text="Do you know a suitable umbrella term in any other language?" CreationDate="2022-11-29T07:22:34.517" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40527" PostId="19185" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta No. I was hoping there was one in Latin/Greek." CreationDate="2022-11-29T07:25:46.340" UserId="428" />
  <row Id="40529" PostId="19185" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta submonthly is an English word apparently" CreationDate="2022-11-29T14:12:31.150" UserDisplayName="user11849" />
  <row Id="40538" PostId="19191" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that makes sense! The photo is from an edition that we have lying around at school: I will consult it again on Tuesday. Another example, Odyssey I.99: εἵλετο δ᾽ ἄλκιμον ἔγχος, ἀκαχμένον ὀξέι χαλκῷ, from the Perseus text. It does have one on δαΐφρονι, or you wouldn't be able to tell in any other way, as you said." CreationDate="2022-12-03T18:12:09.123" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40539" PostId="19191" Score="2" Text="*doesn't have the ictus on the first element* -- do you mean &quot;accent&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-12-03T18:24:10.993" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40540" PostId="19191" Score="0" Text="@TKR Yes, but I've heard ictus used specifically for the thing that falls on a certain mora, as opposed to the accent which falls on a certain syllable." CreationDate="2022-12-03T22:16:03.850" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40541" PostId="19191" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus On δαΐφρονι, I mean—the places where it's needed to avoid ambiguity. Edited to make that clear." CreationDate="2022-12-03T22:16:40.373" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40542" PostId="19191" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: Clear now!" CreationDate="2022-12-03T22:32:19.733" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40543" PostId="19192" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! See this [similar older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4334/79). Is it the same as yours?" CreationDate="2022-12-03T22:52:41.707" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40545" PostId="19192" Score="0" Text="Yes, it is basically the same. I didn't find that question in my (very quick) search. However, I like Draconis' answer better - I can understand it easily." CreationDate="2022-12-04T04:32:58.533" UserId="11863" />
  <row Id="40544" PostId="19193" Score="1" Text="I think *nd* works like *nt*. (I wonder if this is a duplicate of the question and answer I linked to. Very similar at least.)" CreationDate="2022-12-03T22:54:13.353" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41302" PostId="19195" Score="1" Text="Have you found it? I'm trying to find out thas for years. Anyway,  there's a similar question about  &quot;in case of&quot; the answers are pretty good." CreationDate="2023-02-09T19:31:07.493" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41321" PostId="19195" Score="2" Text="At present, Manuel, I can find no better suggestions than the two I have suggested  above, of which I now prefer ‘ ne quid improvisi accidat’." CreationDate="2023-02-11T14:54:19.190" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40557" PostId="19198" Score="1" Text="Is `piticheddu` a diminutive? Romanian has `pitic`=dwarf, but it can still get the diminutive form `piticuț` (`ț` is pronounced `ts`, like `z` in `calzone`)." CreationDate="2022-12-06T22:45:46.833" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="40562" PostId="19199" Score="2" Text="Have you checked the etymologies of both words from Wiktionary or some other source? A quick search would pretty easily give a starting point for others to build on." CreationDate="2022-12-07T13:17:33.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40563" PostId="19202" Score="10" Text="What, you're suggesting a Roman orator _wouldn't_ use a tricolon when one was available? :P" CreationDate="2022-12-07T18:28:23.950" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40565" PostId="19202" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: The priority, in this Q., is not the drama; but, the Latin. The final offering, &quot;Amici, Romani, Cives,...&quot;, retains the tripartite power of which you appear to be a proponent. Do you like it?" CreationDate="2022-12-08T00:20:16.467" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40593" PostId="19202" Score="0" Text="I like *concives* for countrymen." CreationDate="2022-12-10T00:28:29.183" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40564" PostId="19206" Score="0" Text="Another issue with saying *Romani* is that it could then read &quot;Roman friends and citizens,&quot; which would also have the effect of making *amici* and *cives* different groups (difficult without a conjunction, but not impossible). *Quirites* is indeed best here." CreationDate="2022-12-07T23:47:48.070" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40569" PostId="19206" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In this answer, https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/796/1982, Joel Derfner located a translation which incorporates, &quot;Romani&quot;. How does that one work?" CreationDate="2022-12-08T09:58:22.703" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40570" PostId="19206" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Please see comment to Seb, above." CreationDate="2022-12-08T10:00:34.380" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40571" PostId="19206" Score="0" Text="@tony See my answer below which shows why *Quirites* is preferred to *Romani* as a vocative." CreationDate="2022-12-08T16:53:07.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40581" PostId="19206" Score="2" Text="This speech struck me a very powerful when I first heard it at the age of 10, I have just realized that the syllable counts in the first line are &quot;Friends&quot; (1), &quot;Romans&quot;(2), &quot;Countrymen&quot; (3), &quot;lend me your ears&quot;(4). I think this is what helps make it punchy. Any translation loses this." CreationDate="2022-12-09T00:14:57.830" UserId="11240" />
  <row Id="45822" PostId="19206" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Therefore, the &quot;Q&quot; in &quot;SPQR&quot; definitely (?) stands for, &quot;Quirities&quot;, not the enclitic, &quot;-que&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-12-08T09:58:25.977" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45823" PostId="19206" Score="1" Text="@tony That does not follow in any way from anything I wrote, but it is not inconceivable, although it would more likely be *Quiritium*, as *Populus Romanus Quiritium* is a common formula -- but then so is *Senatus Populusque Romanus*." CreationDate="2023-12-08T11:18:17.727" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40566" PostId="19207" Score="2" Text="Minor quibble: I doubt that Marcus Antonius was heavily influenced by Cicero. Not only were they contemporaries (the former was only 20 years the latter's junior), but Caesar was the other big rhetorician at that time, and so he would be more attached to Caesar's style, not Cicero's. But most damning is that Antony is the one who ordered that Cicero be killed and, according to Cassius Dio (so who knows the authenticity of it!), Antony's wife Fulvia stabbed dead Cicero's tongue with her hairpin for his haranguing of Antony in the *Philippics*." CreationDate="2022-12-08T02:43:14.317" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40567" PostId="19207" Score="1" Text="That said, Antony still would likely have been familiar with tricolon, since it's adoption as a standard tool of rhetoric precedes Cicero." CreationDate="2022-12-08T02:48:29.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40568" PostId="19207" Score="5" Text="@cmw True. I'm somewhat using Cicero as a standin for the whole rhetorical tradition, since his writings are one of the main surviving sources for it, but of course Caesar and their predecessors also favored tricola." CreationDate="2022-12-08T03:28:47.137" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40574" PostId="19208" Score="1" Text="&quot;He adopted what was called the Asiatic style of oratory, which was at the height of its popularity in those days and bore a strong resemblance to his own life, which was swashbuckling and boastful, full of empty exultation and distorted ambition.&quot; -- Plutarch: [*Marcus Antonius* 2, 5](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html)." CreationDate="2022-12-08T20:19:20.633" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40598" PostId="19208" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for the edit Cairnarvon!" CreationDate="2022-12-10T10:15:09.553" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40600" PostId="19208" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for the edit Cairnarvon! Also, to Sebastian for his apt note from Plutarch. I wasn’t aware of Antony’s admiration for the Asiatic style. It was a mere surmise but now this surmise has been verified." CreationDate="2022-12-10T10:28:01.057" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40572" PostId="19209" Score="1" Text="Eng. *bear* may also be cognate with *ferus*, if one accepts the controversial change PIE *gʷʰ-/*ǵʰw- &gt; PGm. *b-." CreationDate="2022-12-08T17:11:31.070" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40576" PostId="19210" Score="0" Text="I quoted Nairn’s translation, which has Populus Romanus Quiritum, not Romani.See L&amp;S:- ‘Joined with populus Romanus, the technical expression is usually POPVLVS ROMANVS QVIRITIVM, qs. the Roman commonwealth of Quirite citizens, the Roman nation of Quirites’. And I think the comment of Sebastian from Plutarch is straight to the point. Cicero also uses the vocative popule Romane, not Romani. These seem to be the facts of the matter, pace cmw." CreationDate="2022-12-08T20:41:27.507" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40578" PostId="19210" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield I'm responding to tony's question at the end of his OP and asked under Sebastian's answer about why Quirites is chosen over Romani. He quotes Denison, not Nairn." CreationDate="2022-12-08T20:57:01.813" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40599" PostId="19210" Score="0" Text="Apologies, cmw. That wasn’t clear to me. By the way, to meet partly the observation made by Simon, one could begin with ‘Cives, amici, populus Romanus Quiritum…" CreationDate="2022-12-10T10:21:26.020" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40573" PostId="19212" Score="1" Text="Is this an alternative form or is it the only ablative singular for vocalis?" CreationDate="2022-12-08T20:09:17.680" UserId="7122" />
  <row Id="40577" PostId="19212" Score="1" Text="@ThomasWening In this case, I don't believe *vocale* as a singular ablative exists in Classical Latin. You can see the attestations through [PHI](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=vocale%23)." CreationDate="2022-12-08T20:54:50.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40579" PostId="19213" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure about this passage, but as a general rule, literally any other author will be easier than Livy." CreationDate="2022-12-08T21:55:54.477" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40580" PostId="19213" Score="1" Text="[Compare](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/eutropius/eutropius1.shtml#9) for yourself …" CreationDate="2022-12-08T23:14:51.870" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40587" PostId="19214" Score="0" Text="You can see the Latin word for Russian and other countries [in this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1328/what-are-the-latin-names-for-modern-countries/1330#1330)." CreationDate="2022-12-09T19:59:32.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40588" PostId="19214" Score="0" Text="Ursus Rusicus then?  Ursus Russia is kinda jarring as it *looks* half Latin half English.  Or Ursus Russi, but that needs that special accented character to work." CreationDate="2022-12-09T20:22:14.490" UserId="11877" />
  <row Id="40589" PostId="19214" Score="1" Text="So, Russia is the country, Russicus is the adjective, and Russi are the people. *Ursus russicus* is right. You don't actually need the macron either. They're there to show pronunciation in Classical Latin." CreationDate="2022-12-09T20:26:14.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40592" PostId="19214" Score="0" Text="Note there is an extinct species of bears called [*Ursus rossicus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursus_rossicus)." CreationDate="2022-12-10T00:12:38.857" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40622" PostId="19214" Score="0" Text="The word for “Russian” in mediaeval and modern Latin is russicus. I do not see anything wrong with “ursus russicus”." CreationDate="2022-12-12T18:23:39.657" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="40585" PostId="19216" Score="0" Text="Thanks a lot for replying! I feel much more confident now so that I know that &quot;Grande Malum&quot; is the way to go. But I want to know aswell how &quot;Unspeakable Evil&quot; could get translated into Medieval Latin, as it may sound a bit better in the context." CreationDate="2022-12-09T18:17:34.390" UserId="11879" />
  <row Id="40586" PostId="19216" Score="1" Text="@Zomblad You might want to go with the *nefas* option (like [*magnum nefas*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=magnum+nefas)), since *nefas* is etymologically &quot;unspeakable.&quot; That said, I'm not overly familiar with Medieval literature, so I don't know how well that word is represented there. I can take a look sometime later on that." CreationDate="2022-12-09T18:22:10.780" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40590" PostId="19216" Score="0" Text="I see. Thank you. It was really helpful!" CreationDate="2022-12-09T20:53:19.273" UserId="11879" />
  <row Id="40591" PostId="19216" Score="1" Text="@cmw *Infandum malum* perhaps? It does not seem to be a particularly common medieval expression, though." CreationDate="2022-12-09T22:22:58.127" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40597" PostId="19216" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I don't know how common that is in medieval Latin, but Seneca has it, so presumably it wasn't unknown. It's certainly a good suggestion for &quot;unspeakable evil&quot;." CreationDate="2022-12-10T03:32:50.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40606" PostId="19218" Score="0" Text="What is this supposed to mean? There is a big difference between, for example, “thinking for myself” and “a gift for myself,” etc. Very simply, you could say *pro me* (or *pro me ipso/ipsa*)." CreationDate="2022-12-10T21:35:33.063" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40609" PostId="19218" Score="0" Text="It’s supposed to be “for myself” as in everything I do I do for myself. If that makes sense." CreationDate="2022-12-11T03:50:36.677" UserId="11885" />
  <row Id="40603" PostId="19220" Score="2" Text="It makes perfect sense now that I hear you explain it. Thank you!" CreationDate="2022-12-10T16:22:23.160" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="40605" PostId="19221" Score="1" Text="Lots of good recommendations in [this previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8956) (I would especially recommend [Ad Alpes](https://latinitium.com/ad-alpes/) in your situation, for which a complete audio book read by Daniel Petterson is also available)." CreationDate="2022-12-10T21:06:42.067" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40608" PostId="19221" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2022-12-11T00:56:21.427" UserId="11571" />
  <row Id="40615" PostId="19221" Score="1" Text="Hi MathandPhysics. I'm going to close this as it does seem to be essentially a duplicate of that other thread. I do want to issue a note of caution, though. I did not find that Duolingo gets even close what you're taught in fundamental Latin in school. You might actually benefit from a more traditional beginner's text, and just breezing through the first few chapters. And vocabulary will be important, too, for the reading of advanced texts." CreationDate="2022-12-11T16:30:22.453" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40616" PostId="19221" Score="1" Text="I recommend also looking at our question on [self-learning](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own) for additional resources and grammars." CreationDate="2022-12-11T16:31:50.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40610" PostId="19229" Score="1" Text="Just an additional note: the &quot;full of life and vitality&quot; is a metaphorical understanding based on the ideas that younger plants are greener than aged plants. It's not the primary meaning." CreationDate="2022-12-11T04:20:23.507" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40613" PostId="19229" Score="0" Text="Primary meaning would be &quot;is green&quot; then?" CreationDate="2022-12-11T12:54:48.860" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="40614" PostId="19229" Score="0" Text="Yes, that's right." CreationDate="2022-12-11T15:31:07.457" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40618" PostId="19231" Score="1" Text="Hi Josh and welcome. The main thrust of your question has been answered before, so I'm closing this and linking to those questions. Also, the site is set up in a way to basically function as a Q&amp;A with one main question per topic. I think you have an interesting question with focusing on the change, so if you'd like, after reading the other threads, you can edit it to focus only on that aspect, which I do not believe has been asked and answered before. (Or you can edit to focus on something else that isn't fully covered by the linked questions, whichever you like.)" CreationDate="2022-12-11T20:29:26.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40619" PostId="19231" Score="0" Text="Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any questions about this or how our works (just saw that you're not new to SE, just Latin!). Feel free to ping me with &quot;@cmw&quot; to get my attention or join us in the chatroom CONLOQVIVM." CreationDate="2022-12-11T20:30:10.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40621" PostId="19231" Score="0" Text="Got it. Thanks for the links! I did try and search but didn't find these questions, thank you for providing the links." CreationDate="2022-12-12T13:42:34.773" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="40620" PostId="19232" Score="2" Text="*Malum* is a noun in this case (a substantivised adjective), you can't freely change its gender like that; if it were an adjective still, *grande* would have to be an adverb to modify it." CreationDate="2022-12-12T12:42:13.047" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40623" PostId="19234" Score="0" Text="I'd be fine with _torta_ in a context like this; modern cakes are sufficiently different from ancient Roman _placentae_ that a loanword from Spanish would make sense." CreationDate="2022-12-12T20:14:09.563" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40644" PostId="19234" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Here, &quot;da mihi&quot; = &quot;give (to) me&quot; &amp; &quot;quaeso&quot; = &quot;I ask (for)&quot;, why use both? Is there a role for &quot;sodes&quot; [&quot;si audes&quot; = &quot;if you dare/ venture&quot;] = please? In films Roman soldiers and politicians are often portrayed as terse, peremptory or just plain rude. The media are not to be automatically believed but these traits tally with the attitudes of (some) exponents of power, in an autocracy. Would &quot;please&quot; &amp; &quot;thank you&quot; have had much currency in the Roman world?" CreationDate="2022-12-15T09:59:45.603" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40650" PostId="19234" Score="0" Text="@tony *Quaeso* is a set phrase to mark a polite question and is not otherwise connected to the sentence (as the commas suggest). I believe *sodes* can be used in a similar way. The Romans certainly could ask politely if they had to, not least because very few of them were actually particularly powerful." CreationDate="2022-12-15T20:39:15.707" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40651" PostId="19234" Score="0" Text="@tony But if you read Cicero's letters, you can see that even the senatorial class had ample occasion for genial and deferential language to cultivate friendships and political alliances. By the way, liber X of Pliny's letters contains numerous responses from emperor Trajan. [See for yourself](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/pliny.ep10.html) how the most powerful man in the world talked to a particularly inept provincial legate, a.k.a. *mi Secunde carissime* ;-)" CreationDate="2022-12-15T20:58:21.187" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40624" PostId="19236" Score="0" Text="I'll accept first beyond the goal post lest I be blamed of multiple questions in one and hope somebody can offer a medieval euphemism." CreationDate="2022-12-14T04:08:50.487" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="40639" PostId="19236" Score="3" Text="Note: While *discedere* is generally not used as an euphemism for dying, the similar sounding *decedere* is, and frequently; however, it is normally used absolutely and apparently never with *ab*. However, interestingly one example is *pater nobis decessit* (Cic. Att. 1, 6)." CreationDate="2022-12-14T22:02:55.623" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40629" PostId="19238" Score="2" Text="I suspect metrical reasons." CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:40:49.863" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40626" PostId="19239" Score="2" Text="These are not incompatible definitions." CreationDate="2022-12-14T15:18:51.723" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40636" PostId="19240" Score="1" Text="[Lindsay's OCT](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Pagina:T._Macci_Plauti_Comoediae,_II.djvu/55) (line 696) doesn't even mention *toraria* (or *gerula*); it has *ceriaria* and the apparatus criticus only has *ceraria* as an alternative." CreationDate="2022-12-14T20:43:54.557" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40638" PostId="19240" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Ah, nice! I didn't know the OCT was online. That'll be helpful." CreationDate="2022-12-14T21:52:55.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40627" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="Many thanks! Would it be too much to ask for help parsing the Greek?" CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:27:06.537" UserId="499" />
  <row Id="40628" PostId="19242" Score="1" Text="@Aryeh Sure, is there something in particular you have trouble with, or just to see what matches with what? It's in indirect speech coming off ἔλεγε, if that makes it clearer." CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:34:17.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40630" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="I think it makes sense now. I was expecting πόρνη, the word ἑταίρα was new to me. Also expected &quot;honey&quot; rather than &quot;honeyed&quot;; μελικράτος is very nice!" CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:41:42.637" UserId="499" />
  <row Id="40631" PostId="19242" Score="1" Text="@Aryeh I went ahead and added a short grammatical commentary on the line, but glad you got it. Feel free to ask if any further questions arise." CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:44:58.613" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40632" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for the edited expanded explanation, would upvote once more if I could!" CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:45:14.070" UserId="499" />
  <row Id="40633" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="Any idea why Diogenes used the more euphemistic ἑταίρα rather than the more direct  πόρνη, as would seem to be more fitting with his style?" CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:52:24.087" UserId="499" />
  <row Id="40634" PostId="19242" Score="1" Text="@Aryeh I have a meeting in a minute, but I'll respond soon. But the short of it is that there's nothing unusual about it." CreationDate="2022-12-14T17:58:10.723" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40635" PostId="19242" Score="1" Text="Just to clarify, the subject here is Diogenes the Cynic, not the author Diogenes Laertius." CreationDate="2022-12-14T19:15:26.233" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40637" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="Curiously similar to the Book of Proverbs V, 3:-For the lips of a strange woman (= harlot) drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:&#xA;But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword." CreationDate="2022-12-14T21:32:41.003" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40640" PostId="19242" Score="1" Text="@Aryeh On second thought, it might make for an interesting follow up question if you ask about the differences between porne and hetaira." CreationDate="2022-12-14T22:39:49.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40641" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield I think &quot;honeyed-words&quot; and &quot;sweet-talking&quot; are pretty common idioms. I don't know the origin, but to &quot;sweet-talk&quot; in Thai has a Lothario connotation, i.e. &quot;you're just buttering me up to get in my pants.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-12-14T22:41:15.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40642" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield indeed! Here's the original, in case anyone is curious:&#xA;&#xA;כִּי נֹפֶת תִּטֹּפְנָה שִׂפְתֵי זָרָה וְחָלָק מִשֶּׁמֶן חִכָּהּ:" CreationDate="2022-12-15T08:16:25.647" UserId="499" />
  <row Id="40643" PostId="19242" Score="0" Text="@JonathanHadfield It's actually 2 verses (3-4). That was 3, here's 4:&#xA;&#xA;וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ מָרָה כַלַּעֲנָה חַדָּה כְּחֶרֶב פִּיּוֹת:" CreationDate="2022-12-15T08:17:40.827" UserId="499" />
  <row Id="40646" PostId="19242" Score="1" Text="Thank you, Aryeh, (whose common Hebrew name means ‘lion’for those who are interested). I should have checked the Hebrew original, which is not really a parallel, by looking it it up in  Mishlei. Again for those who are interested, the Hebrew, fairly literally translated, means -&#xA;Pvbs. 5, 3. the lips of a strange woman drip (as) an honey(comb) and her mouth (is) smoother than oil; 4. Her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5. But her feet go down to death; her steps grasp [take hold on] Sheol. יוֹנָתָן" CreationDate="2022-12-15T11:54:53.247" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="40647" PostId="19243" Score="1" Text="Hi Eric, and welcome to Latin.SE! Did you mean _accent_ on the first syllable?" CreationDate="2022-12-15T15:20:35.323" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="40665" PostId="19247" Score="1" Text="You should probably mention the vocative, which aside from a certain class of words is *always* identical to the nominative in form. (Without that exception, wouldn't we just say the nominative subsumed the vocative, just as the ablative subsumed the instrumental case?)" CreationDate="2022-12-16T20:09:33.580" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="40668" PostId="19247" Score="2" Text="@chepner It is however notable, mi astutissime Hepnere, that that little exception happens to encompass a great deal of male names, plus masculine adjectives, so the distinctive vocative is actually all over the place ;-)" CreationDate="2022-12-17T01:03:37.317" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40674" PostId="19247" Score="1" Text="True. I guess I'm just not weighting by vocabulary size :)" CreationDate="2022-12-17T13:03:31.560" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="40649" PostId="19248" Score="3" Text="*Servo* is from *servare*, not *servire*." CreationDate="2022-12-15T18:51:39.253" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40680" PostId="19248" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon What's the difference between &quot;servare&quot; and &quot;servire&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-12-17T21:30:26.077" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="40681" PostId="19248" Score="3" Text="@FlatAssembler They're different verbs? *Servare* means 'to protect' or 'to maintain' (cf. English *preserve*, *conserve*), *servire* is 'to serve'." CreationDate="2022-12-17T21:36:55.463" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40669" PostId="19251" Score="0" Text="With *domus*, you never know which ending it will be, so it's good to have an attestation. No *dome* in the Packhum corpus, unless I'm mistaken." CreationDate="2022-12-17T01:07:19.753" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40652" PostId="19253" Score="0" Text="Hmmm, it's not on [The Locative List](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4626/which-common-nouns-have-a-locative)." CreationDate="2022-12-15T21:45:18.537" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40653" PostId="19253" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Ha! Well, I'll have to update that now." CreationDate="2022-12-15T21:58:49.187" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40654" PostId="19253" Score="2" Text="FWIW, here is a relevant entry in [A&amp;G (358)](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/genitive-special-verbs). &quot;The apparent genitive animī (really locative)&quot;. in which it lists also *mentis* as a locative." CreationDate="2022-12-15T22:05:12.027" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40656" PostId="19253" Score="2" Text="@d_e I wonder if *mentis* was modeled after *animi*? Needs more study, as my old professor used to say." CreationDate="2022-12-15T22:09:51.527" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40661" PostId="19253" Score="0" Text="@cmw, I've just looked-up *De Rerum Natura* commentary by William Leonard on 1.36, He seems to have *animi* as genitive &quot;to specify a respect in which the action of the verb is true&quot;. and gives also *mentis* -- but also *sermonis* in &quot;sermonis fallebar&quot; in Plautus. Frankly I can't see how *sermonis* be taken as locative;; those *animi*, *mentis*, *sermonis* seem to be instrumental." CreationDate="2022-12-16T17:58:37.423" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40662" PostId="19253" Score="2" Text="@d_e The standard locative would be with an -i (like *Carthagini*), so neither *mentis* or *sermonis* should work. It could be some confusion of the forms with the other forms created on a mistaken analogy. Or perhaps the *animi* is really a genitive after all." CreationDate="2022-12-16T19:07:58.403" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40657" PostId="19254" Score="2" Text="I was trying to think of a second-declension city that fit this criteria, but Corinth didn't spring to mind. Good one!" CreationDate="2022-12-15T22:46:04.843" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40658" PostId="19255" Score="2" Text="If you want it to include words like &quot;cyborg&quot;, are you really looking for a taxonomic dictionary, or just a modern Latin dictionary in general? I can't imagine many biologists are naming cyborgs." CreationDate="2022-12-16T00:47:26.407" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40676" PostId="19255" Score="0" Text="@rolodexter I believe the link above answers your question. If not and taking Draconis' comment into account, feel free to edit it to explain more why it's not what you're looking for." CreationDate="2022-12-17T16:35:40.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40666" PostId="19258" Score="3" Text="I agree with this analysis; I would add that (a) since *reri* means “believe,” the perfect tense may raise our eyebrows, but in reality that is a very frequent construction (probably stemming from the original meaning, which is more akin to “reckon, judge, conclude”), whereas the present participle seems to be basically non-existent; and (b) I think “fate” is a really strange translation here; what is meant is “rank” or “sort.”" CreationDate="2022-12-16T21:18:19.440" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40667" PostId="19258" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, thanks. I modified the translation." CreationDate="2022-12-16T21:46:04.990" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40719" PostId="19258" Score="0" Text="@d_e: In Seneca's first sentence he is speaking to a second person about Plato, hence indirect speech, &quot;(eum) contigisse&quot;. The same sentence continues with Plato's behaviour, &quot;decessit&quot; &amp; &quot;inplevit&quot;, written directly. Shouldn't it be all direct or all indirect; Seneca is still talking to this second person?" CreationDate="2022-12-22T12:37:57.630" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40721" PostId="19258" Score="0" Text="@tony, it might be that he says that the lister knew of Plato; but then go on adding details he did not think the listener knows." CreationDate="2022-12-22T14:35:50.720" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40670" PostId="19259" Score="0" Text="I read up that an 8th century manuscript of the Salic Law has attestations of this kind, any earlier ones are welcome." CreationDate="2022-12-17T07:23:43.807" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="40671" PostId="19259" Score="1" Text="Can you add a link or some other reference to the thing you read to your question?" CreationDate="2022-12-17T11:43:49.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40703" PostId="19259" Score="1" Text="Apparently there's a 4th-century inscription from Algeria (CIL 8.19525b) containing the phrase *VT FACIA LVM MORTV* &quot;to make him dead&quot;, with a reduced pronominal form *lum* &lt; *illum*. Not yet a definite-article usage, but probably relevant." CreationDate="2022-12-19T18:54:57.473" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40723" PostId="19259" Score="1" Text="'ipsa cuppa frangant la tota, ad illo botiliario frangant lo cabo, at illo scanciono tollant lis potionis' https://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin_Medieval/Dag_Norberg/02.html" CreationDate="2022-12-22T17:01:11.113" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="40672" PostId="19260" Score="0" Text="If you want indirect speech, I recommend including some kind of a governing structure like &quot;he said that&quot;. Indirect speech doesn't stand well on its own, but this quote is isolated. I'm not sure why you don't want normal direct speech; converting it to be indirect in a given context should be straightforward." CreationDate="2022-12-17T11:55:40.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40673" PostId="19260" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: I wasn't sure about this which is why I asked the question. Talking about someone else doing/ being something else is still direct speech? Thanks. Is it better now?" CreationDate="2022-12-17T12:43:50.520" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40677" PostId="19264" Score="0" Text="It mentions that in the paragraph, but more forcefully put by Smyth: &quot;In general the subject of the infinitive, if expressed at all, stands in the accusative.&quot; Which TY Greek book are you using?" CreationDate="2022-12-17T18:28:25.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40678" PostId="19264" Score="0" Text="Thanks. *Teach Yourself Greek*, Kinchin Smith and Melluish, first published ... 1947. But I don't quite understand why ἀλγησαντα would be the subject/object (surely object??) of the infinitive εὐφραινεσθαι. Unless the latter were to mean something more like &quot;to experience&quot;..." CreationDate="2022-12-17T18:43:09.727" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="40679" PostId="19264" Score="0" Text="ἀλγησαντα being the subject of εὐφραινεσθαι doesn't mean that suffering is what is being enjoyed (especially since ἀλγησαντα is in the aorist and therefore prior to the enjoying); εὐδοκιμουντα is what (or really *how*) is being enjoyed. The translation is a very close match to the Greek." CreationDate="2022-12-17T20:54:57.700" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40685" PostId="19264" Score="0" Text="Ah, **aorist**! The thing is, I can't find this verb, or this inflection of it, anywhere in Wiktionary (or a verb table for it anywhere on the Net). So I had surmised that it was in fact a **future** participle, due to the presence of the σ. Not that I understood what a future participle would be doing there... If it is aorist that changes quite a bit." CreationDate="2022-12-18T08:33:52.503" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="40711" PostId="19264" Score="1" Text="If you don't know about it yet, the Perseus morphological analyser is very useful: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph" CreationDate="2022-12-20T12:56:42.127" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40712" PostId="19264" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Wow very useful... and it indeed gets ἀλγησαντα. Bookmarked!" CreationDate="2022-12-20T17:44:42.937" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="40695" PostId="19265" Score="0" Text="Thank you: &quot;as befitting the brothel it cost a certain (amount) and in the strivings for every (penny) Diogenes was saying: a beautiful whore was like poisoned honey. The prostitutes, to whom, naturally, these words were displeasing, in order to achieve peace, they threw coins to the the cynic. Who, when he had received enough money, entered the brothel without delay&quot;. How does, &quot;simulat&quot; = &quot;he pretends&quot;, come into it? How are you translating, &quot;appetentibus singulis&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-12-19T10:10:57.620" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40696" PostId="19265" Score="0" Text="In addressing me directly, person-to-person, you have chosen indirect speech: &quot;te [...] referre&quot;: why indirectly? Shouldn't &quot;delectabit&quot; be a future infinitive, then? tibi gratias ago pro tota re." CreationDate="2022-12-19T10:24:11.530" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40699" PostId="19265" Score="0" Text="Would Diogenes' ruse have worked on the Reeperbahn? I suppose, there, the pimps would emerge throwing things other than money? These &quot;carers&quot; take a big slice of the girls' earnings and sometimes treat them badly; but, they do protect them from perverts and dangerous nut-cases. Brutal sex-crimes are nothing new (St. Jerome's comments in the 4th C); who protected Rome's &quot;princesses-of-the-streets&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-12-19T13:10:25.317" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40705" PostId="19265" Score="1" Text="@tony I was trying to say: One time Diogenes stood in front of a brothel and told every single person who approached: […] *simulatque = simul atque* = “as soon as.” And it was the johns (scortatores) not the prostitutes (scorta) who gave him money, although I guess that would make the story even better. *Te* is just the object of *delectare*, which goes with an AcI; I could also have written: *te delectabit si … rem referam*." CreationDate="2022-12-19T19:51:37.813" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40706" PostId="19265" Score="0" Text="@tony I for one am not volunteering to find out how this would go down in a modern red-light district. As for the question under what “protection” the Roman lupae, or in case of Diogenes, the pornai of Athens or Corinth stood, I do not know." CreationDate="2022-12-19T19:57:42.480" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40709" PostId="19265" Score="0" Text="I thought it was &quot;and he pretends&quot;; an allusion to the hypocrisy of Diogenes. The Reeperbahn thing was a joke: (English) humour does not travel! A contemporary crime-industry would not welcome Diogenes and his methods. Apologies for any offence given." CreationDate="2022-12-20T09:17:00.270" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40687" PostId="19267" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I find the original, as explained by you, a little easier to get my head around than the Greek version given by the author of my book. The original seems to say &quot;to show that preferring (βουλόμενος) that ... having suffered for a short time ... &quot;. Though I still find the whole thing quite challenging. As is a frequent occurrence at my level." CreationDate="2022-12-18T08:52:06.387" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="40688" PostId="19269" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I was referring to  [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concelebras#Latin) where it is marked with a macron. Also in *celebro* the second *e* is marked with macron and dictates the accent there." CreationDate="2022-12-18T13:55:30.850" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40689" PostId="19269" Score="3" Text="@d_e: The ē in that Wiktionary entry is a mistake, probably caused by misreading Lewis and Short (who chose the unfortunate convention of using a macron-breve, rendered in the online version like &quot;ē^&quot;, to mark short vowels that come before muta cum liquida clusters)." CreationDate="2022-12-18T13:57:52.537" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40690" PostId="19269" Score="2" Text="Gaffiot marks the correct, short length of the vowel: http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/concelebro" CreationDate="2022-12-18T13:59:17.547" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40693" PostId="19269" Score="0" Text="Just to be sure, 'accent' here means word accent, not ictus?" CreationDate="2022-12-18T22:35:46.693" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="40720" PostId="19271" Score="0" Text="Are present participles able to stand alone; don't they describe what the nouns, they agree with, are doing?" CreationDate="2022-12-22T12:46:22.637" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40722" PostId="19271" Score="0" Text="@tony If it makes you feel better you can imagine these participles as part of a construction like &quot;ego sum lusitans&quot; (i.e. agreeing with &quot;ego&quot;) expressed elliptically, but there is absolutely nothing remarkable about using participles non-adjectivally." CreationDate="2022-12-22T15:30:33.650" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40704" PostId="19272" Score="3" Text="Learned a new word today: [calque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque)." CreationDate="2022-12-19T19:01:38.433" UserId="6659" />
  <row Id="40707" PostId="19272" Score="0" Text="I wonder why the Greek word is feminine, since *ἄρκτος* and *ursus* are cognate" CreationDate="2022-12-20T03:46:37.483" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40708" PostId="19272" Score="3" Text="@chux-ReinstateMonica Did you also notice that *calque* is a loanword and *loanword* is a calque? ;-)" CreationDate="2022-12-20T04:44:20.993" UserId="3587" />
  <row Id="40710" PostId="19272" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides. ursus implies IE  *Hrtƙo- but arktos implies metathesized *Hrƙto-. So they are cognates, but not identical." CreationDate="2022-12-20T12:36:15.710" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="40713" PostId="19272" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Actually ἄρκτος is given with both genders, depending of the sex of the animal. Considering the declension, it was originally masculine, which is the default gender I guess." CreationDate="2022-12-21T13:35:45.840" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40716" PostId="19272" Score="0" Text="@Vincent: In Greek, the default and perhaps even only gender of ἄρκτος was feminine according to the discussion here: [Why is ἄρκτος always feminine?](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=68449), *Textkit Greek and Latin Forums*" CreationDate="2022-12-22T02:09:07.160" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40717" PostId="19272" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides May very well be so. Although both the Bailly and Magnien-Lacroix give both genders, Chantraine, who is a very reliable source, states that the examples in the masculine are &quot;dubious&quot;. Still, this is the masculine declension, so who knows..." CreationDate="2022-12-22T04:30:08.833" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40701" PostId="19273" Score="0" Text="&quot;ubi hae sollicitudines discessere, Liv. 4, 52 fin.—&quot; (Lewis &amp; Short). Very good, thank you very much." CreationDate="2022-12-19T17:17:58.867" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="40729" PostId="19278" Score="1" Text="The first thing that comes to mind about this translation might not be the &quot;within&quot; or &quot;with&quot; but rather the *and* here, which in the Latin the *et* might be (and this is my guess) an adverb, so it can be more accurately translated &quot;also/too&quot;. If this *et* is indeed a conjunction (meaning *and*) we would naturally expect the *et* to come before the *nos* (&quot;we&quot;), but I think this would break the meter so maybe it is indeed *and*." CreationDate="2022-12-24T22:11:09.320" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40734" PostId="19278" Score="1" Text="@d_e But cf. *Omnia vincit amor, et nos cedamus amori*. I'm thoroughly out of my depth with this sort of prosodic details, but [Wikipedia cites](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora_mutantur) this as an example why *et nos* would be defensible, and it is indeed also found here and there." CreationDate="2022-12-25T22:41:48.760" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40730" PostId="19280" Score="0" Text="Why *quid* instead of *quod*?" CreationDate="2022-12-25T16:35:41.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40731" PostId="19280" Score="1" Text="@cmw Good point, _quod_ is probably better here." CreationDate="2022-12-25T17:31:16.987" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40735" PostId="19280" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I am very happy with this answer! I am, however, still curious how this might be rendered if we did choose to use the less fancy phrasing. As I wrote above, the neuter in Latin is super confusing to me and I was hoping to see some examples. :) /grateful /friendly" CreationDate="2022-12-26T07:01:26.863" UserId="2640" />
  <row Id="40738" PostId="19284" Score="1" Text="One option that comes to mind but sounds difficult to prove is that the unusual scansion gives the word *amor* more weight. (I'm not sure how much we can really say from a sample of one; more similar examples might shed more light on this.)" CreationDate="2022-12-26T19:30:11.993" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40743" PostId="19284" Score="1" Text="*Amо̆r* is a development from earlier *\*amōr* (long vowel before word-final *r* shortens in polysyllabic words), and the long *ō* is still there in the rest of its paradigm. There's no way this is a stretching of the *r* instead of either a poetic retention or an analogical restoration of the older vowel length." CreationDate="2022-12-27T03:25:15.527" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40760" PostId="19284" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon It isn't necessarily either; lengthening in arsis is not that uncommon in Vergil and more often than not involves vowels that were never etymologically long: https://brill.com/view/journals/mnem/73/4/article-p577_3.xml" CreationDate="2022-12-28T19:17:05.340" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40831" PostId="19284" Score="2" Text="FWIW, I'm not finding any verse instances of *nos et* in the sense &quot;we too&quot; on PHI -- that order may not be very natural." CreationDate="2023-01-05T21:31:32.703" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40835" PostId="19284" Score="0" Text="@TKR, Yes. I think this is probably this. this intuition about the word order is probably simply wrong. Not sure where I brought this out from." CreationDate="2023-01-05T22:17:30.967" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40837" PostId="19284" Score="1" Text="@TKR, due to more search, but tried to make several searches on poetry. it seems there is no &quot;nos et&quot; unless it is something like &quot;nos et vos&quot; or &quot;nos et id facimus et id2 facimus&quot;. The only exception (apart from the trigger &quot;Tempora muntantur nos et mutamur in illis&quot;), is also not classical &quot;carmina dant Musae, nos et modulamur avena&quot; from Nemesianus. There the *et* is simply in the regular meaning of &quot;and&quot;; and it was impossible to have &quot;et nos&quot; because it would be eliided with the &quot;ae&quot;. All in, it seems having &quot;nos et&quot; makes the reader expect two actions &quot;nos&quot; is doing.  *nos et ... et*" CreationDate="2023-01-05T23:20:26.137" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40736" PostId="19285" Score="1" Text="&quot;Tad less than accurate&quot; is [understating it](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for) a tad bit. ;)" CreationDate="2022-12-26T15:28:55.727" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40744" PostId="19285" Score="0" Text="I see what you did there lol :D" CreationDate="2022-12-27T10:16:03.500" UserId="11885" />
  <row Id="40737" PostId="19287" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Any special meanings you want to convey with this? Does &quot;sun&quot; here mean the literal sun, or is it more metaphorical?" CreationDate="2022-12-26T17:19:11.943" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40739" PostId="19287" Score="1" Text="@Adam Thank you for welcoming me. Well it supposed to mean something like I’m the center of my world and I’m shining." CreationDate="2022-12-26T20:23:11.930" UserId="11939" />
  <row Id="40740" PostId="19289" Score="0" Text="Many thanks. That clears up the meaning nicely. The term 'alienation' is actually very common in that period of Scottish history because there was such widespread alienation of church property. But, as with many Scottish legal terms, I am not exactly sure what it means." CreationDate="2022-12-26T23:10:42.427" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="40741" PostId="19289" Score="1" Text="@user558840 Is the form correct? Not *alienatis* or perhaps *alienitatis*?" CreationDate="2022-12-26T23:18:22.530" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40742" PostId="19289" Score="1" Text="@cmw Yes, it is is correctly copied from my source, but I have not checked the original MS." CreationDate="2022-12-26T23:36:35.943" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="40765" PostId="19290" Score="0" Text="Wonderful! Many thanks.&#xA;&#xA;If using second personal imperative makes it sound more like an advice, what about using first personal plural imperative like (I guess) &quot;Nodosa subtilitate tractamus&quot;? Would it sound more like a motto?" CreationDate="2022-12-28T22:19:28.590" UserId="11927" />
  <row Id="40745" PostId="19292" Score="0" Text="I greatly appreciate it! I literally can’t say thank you enough!" CreationDate="2022-12-27T10:18:19.197" UserId="11885" />
  <row Id="40758" PostId="19292" Score="0" Text="There seems to be a contrast between &quot;they&quot; and &quot;we&quot; here, so you might add *Illi* at the beginning to capture that. (And I think *tibi* would normally be omitted as understood.)" CreationDate="2022-12-28T18:59:11.990" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40762" PostId="19292" Score="0" Text="@TKR Agreed on both counts. Changed." CreationDate="2022-12-28T19:38:44.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41121" PostId="19292" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Where is Caesar using &quot;tibi&quot; insteasd of &quot;in + acc.&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-01-26T13:29:55.690" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40748" PostId="19294" Score="0" Text="Although the broader view in this question would technicly qualify for linguistics.SE, the core of the question concerns Greek and the usual contributors frequent either site, so I chose to post it here." CreationDate="2022-12-27T17:48:13.227" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="40749" PostId="19294" Score="0" Text="This means that &quot;Also regular in Egyptian ‹ḫ›&quot; has to be taken with a pinch of hals. Although an answer would benefit from detailed information, I am not going to ask for an up to date introduction to Aegyptology on either stack and I don't expect that Wiktionary could deliver any time soon." CreationDate="2022-12-27T17:59:50.163" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="40751" PostId="19295" Score="2" Text="This is a fascinating answer, and one I would not have considered—the Egyptian and Greek words look so different I would have left it with a &quot;no, there's no evidence of relationship&quot;." CreationDate="2022-12-27T23:37:16.330" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40753" PostId="19295" Score="4" Text="@vectory You would probably receive more pertinent answers—and, I would guess, fewer downvotes—if you treated language as a tool for communication instead of just vibes. I was aware of the supposed בְּהֵמוֹת‎/ἱπποπόταμος connection from elsewhere, so I assumed that was what you were asking about; I could not gather from your question that you were actually connecting ḫꜣb with ἵππ-. (But the point remains: we understand the etymology of ἱπποπόταμος, and ḫꜣb does not actually solve the superficial weirdness with the word order.)" CreationDate="2022-12-28T00:28:19.670" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40754" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much. Being completely illiterate in latin,     I assume the original quote referred here is based on one of the versions where the emphasis is on the soul being Jewish. I am looking for the generic version. Does this makes sense &quot;qui servet unam anima, totum mundum servet&quot;? Thanks again" CreationDate="2022-12-28T18:06:08.707" UserId="11943" />
  <row Id="40756" PostId="19297" Score="1" Text="@Anon_user, thanks for accepting the answer, but you might want to wait some time to see if other answers/comments come along." CreationDate="2022-12-28T18:36:01.763" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40757" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="good idea, removing the accepted answer for now, although looks pretty good to my very naive eyes." CreationDate="2022-12-28T18:39:05.853" UserId="11943" />
  <row Id="40759" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="I think the subjunctive is probably right here -- this is a relative clause of characteristic, rather than one with a definite antecedent." CreationDate="2022-12-28T19:07:56.963" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40761" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="@TKR, maybe, what would be the constract for the indicative (someone specifit)? I think I saw several instances when the simple indicative was used in mottos. like  *qui nescit tacere, nescit et loqui*" CreationDate="2022-12-28T19:31:21.830" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40763" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="Hmm, looking into it further it looks like both moods do get used after *quicumque*, with the contrast being something like that between a present general and a future less vivid condition, so possibly either is OK here." CreationDate="2022-12-28T20:10:41.483" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40764" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="@TKR, Something elusive there for me. Sometimes I think I get hold of that, and then it disappears. I've just read [A&amp;G](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/clauses-characteristic) on this. It seems quite subtle. From what I understand in our case the indicative is a little better because &quot;who saves life&quot; is a matter of fact. That man who saves life, etc. Not That man &quot;of such a character to save life&quot;.  It is not defining the man, it states what one does. But again not sure. very confusing." CreationDate="2022-12-28T21:27:00.047" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40769" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="@d_e: Verb &quot;conservaset&quot; doesn't appear in the conjugation table for &quot;conservo&quot;: is it a short-form version of &quot;conservavisset&quot;? Is this similar to a mixed-conditional sentence: &quot;if he saves the one, it's as if he would have saved the whole world&quot;?" CreationDate="2022-12-29T14:20:26.623" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40770" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="@tony it’s a typo: the correct form is conservasset. Yes, it’s a syncopated form. Yes, it’s a contrary-to-fact conditional working with quasi." CreationDate="2022-12-29T14:32:12.740" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40771" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey, thanks. my typo. fixed this now." CreationDate="2022-12-29T15:24:44.050" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40772" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="@d_e, I think I can now safely go with&#xA;&quot;quicumque unam animam servat, totum mundum servat.&quot;" CreationDate="2022-12-29T18:00:00.213" UserId="11943" />
  <row Id="41120" PostId="19297" Score="0" Text="@d_e: The unidentified, mythical person, in the quote, hasn't yet done anything. There is only the potential consequence of a possible action. Given these vagaries, what can the verbs be but subjunctive?" CreationDate="2023-01-26T11:04:02.987" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40768" PostId="19298" Score="4" Text="At the linked website, under the the tab DuCange (my bolding): &quot;Junior Clericus, vel **Puer Choralis**.&quot; So choir boy appears to be one possible translation. I checked Albert Sleumer, *Kirchenlateinisches Wörtberbuch*: it doesn't have an entry for clericulus." CreationDate="2022-12-29T09:59:26.180" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="40773" PostId="19298" Score="2" Text="Considering that the contrast is made with *pueri* right there, I wouldn't use a translation that has &quot;boy&quot; in it. It's just the diminutive of *clericus*, the intention is not to be as specific as &quot;altar boy&quot; or &quot;choir boy&quot; are anyway." CreationDate="2022-12-29T18:49:32.217" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40774" PostId="19298" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon In French, altar boy = _enfant de chœur_…" CreationDate="2022-12-29T22:07:54.597" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="40781" PostId="19301" Score="1" Text="This is an even better translation considering the actual quote is supposed to be: &quot;May the bridges I burn light the way&quot; (aka, them needing to still be on fire, as you pointed out)." CreationDate="2022-12-30T23:55:25.500" UserId="11951" />
  <row Id="40778" PostId="19302" Score="1" Text="What does the phrase even mean here? How is it positive? Can you provide any more information on what the English means?" CreationDate="2022-12-30T19:17:08.537" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40779" PostId="19302" Score="0" Text="@cmw My first guess was that it was a sarcastic way to point out bad cooking, but Googling suggests it is a genuine (somewhat old-fashioned/regional US) complimentary phrase, of uncertain origin. The word 'scald' normally refers to a burn in English (related to Latin *calidus*)." CreationDate="2022-12-30T19:20:37.977" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="40780" PostId="19302" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9 That's why I was confused. Especially since EB used the word &quot;compliment&quot; in describing it. Still not sure what it really means with chicken, though." CreationDate="2022-12-30T19:24:40.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40782" PostId="19303" Score="1" Text="It's not exactly the same phrase, but am I the only person that immediately thought of [Columbo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo)?" CreationDate="2022-12-31T15:27:41.020" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40783" PostId="19303" Score="1" Text="@Adam I took it from the Duck Song. &quot;*One more question for you. Got any grapes?*&quot;" CreationDate="2022-12-31T17:47:17.457" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="40786" PostId="19306" Score="2" Text="Can you explain what you think the line means, and can you link to the song as well? I don't think you have the right construction here, but I would need to see the song to verify that." CreationDate="2023-01-01T15:08:53.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40788" PostId="19306" Score="0" Text="I think the person wants his/her day to end up because he/she is wasting it. https://youtu.be/H79HSI_yVKo" CreationDate="2023-01-01T21:14:06.920" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="40790" PostId="19307" Score="2" Text="Or as a substantive in general, for that matter. I'd never given this much thought before." CreationDate="2023-01-02T04:03:17.337" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="40792" PostId="19307" Score="2" Text="It's not genitive, but the Wikipedia entry for [The Seven Against Thebes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Against_Thebes_(play)) uses _Septem_ alone. I'm unsure of the origin of that translation or if this is the convention or something special to reflect the Greek." CreationDate="2023-01-02T05:17:30.620" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40789" PostId="19308" Score="2" Text="It also has the benefit of not translating the noun &quot;question&quot; which, innocent as it is, posses some troubles. I've heard *quaestio*, *rogatum* and I think even *rogandum*. But none really work well as far as I can tell." CreationDate="2023-01-01T21:46:55.587" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40795" PostId="19308" Score="0" Text="I find this answer fully satisfactory, but what do you think about this alternative: “et unum quod te rogem habeo”?" CreationDate="2023-01-02T15:19:13.550" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40796" PostId="19308" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Studemus ut satisfaciamus. Your alternative sounds also very good to me, but it seems to me there should be a *iam* somewhere to indicate there is *still* one last question." CreationDate="2023-01-02T20:56:56.130" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40826" PostId="19308" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: A similar Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14365/1982, has been asked before. This may be of interest to yourself." CreationDate="2023-01-05T18:07:47.187" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40791" PostId="19310" Score="1" Text="Thank you so much, that is exactly what I was looking for! Now that I consulted Meiser under the keyword of Osthoff shortening, I also found some more information on it there; in particular, Meiser situates Osthoff shortening in Proto-Italic as well as as a recurring sound change in the history of Latin, explaining forms like _undecim_ (which is also mentioned in the chronology section of the paper you linked). Interestingly enough, the expected mid-syllable weakening prevented by analogy does occur in the isolated form of _kalendae_ (&lt; _calāre_)." CreationDate="2023-01-02T04:11:41.413" UserId="11957" />
  <row Id="40870" PostId="19310" Score="0" Text="Plautus does not always shorten the vowel before *-t*, however. The *Miles* arguably features the following occurrences of a long vowel: *abducat* (770), *abduceret* (1208), *potuit* (1076), *segregat* (1232), *desideret* (1244), *exeat* (1249), *fecit* (1257), *careat* (1033)." CreationDate="2023-01-08T02:52:22.083" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40997" PostId="19311" Score="1" Text="Unio unionis, binio binionis, trinio, quaternio, quinio, senio, septenio, octonio, **novenio**, denio, undenio, duodenio. Thirteen would be, hmmm, not sure. Terni-denio? Just a thought..." CreationDate="2023-01-14T22:44:28.527" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40998" PostId="19311" Score="1" Text="Good idea! Can you please post that as a separate answer?" CreationDate="2023-01-15T02:44:58.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40797" PostId="19312" Score="1" Text="The group has to consist of people, right? If it's three dogs or twelve gods or five cities, I don't think the *-viri* option works anymore. Does the group need to hold a shared public office, or would any group do? I took the question more generally, but I agree that for groups of people this is a good option to keep in mind." CreationDate="2023-01-03T04:31:54.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40798" PostId="19312" Score="1" Text="Yes, just people for this one, which is the sense I got from the opening question. I think most often we'd instead see *domus deorum novem*, etc." CreationDate="2023-01-03T04:39:15.703" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40802" PostId="19312" Score="1" Text="It is people in my example, but I am curious either way in how it can be used to represent any kind of group." CreationDate="2023-01-03T15:44:57.617" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40803" PostId="19312" Score="1" Text="I actually completely forgot about this construction, even though I'm making use of it in lore. Both are really great answers - thank you!" CreationDate="2023-01-03T15:47:21.427" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40807" PostId="19313" Score="1" Text="[Ex gratia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_gratia) (as in non-prescribed compensation) on its lonesome." CreationDate="2023-01-04T08:15:04.123" UserId="9452" />
  <row Id="40799" PostId="19314" Score="2" Text="Boy, that first example gives me headaches, and it does not exactly help that what L &amp; S translate as &quot;on account of&quot; here is actually *propter*, whereas they translate *ejus gratia* as &quot;to embellish the style &quot; ‍" CreationDate="2023-01-03T07:36:50.003" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40800" PostId="19314" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel My eyes glossed right over that example to the easier ones below!" CreationDate="2023-01-03T07:43:51.123" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40808" PostId="19314" Score="1" Text="@cmw: In the Quintillian quote L&amp;S didn't translate the first line, &quot;sed neque longioribus quam oportet hyperbatis&quot; = &quot;but don't you exaggerate for longer than is necessary&quot;--is that correct? Why is &quot;longer&quot; in the plural?" CreationDate="2023-01-04T09:57:44.487" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40804" PostId="19317" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! I'll point you to two older questions for starters, on [Google Translate with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) and [online text corpus options](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79). I'll also have to mention that translations are not unique, so you should build in the option to have multiple translations of the same sentence. And also that sentences in isolation tend to get translated surprisingly differently than in context." CreationDate="2023-01-03T16:37:30.733" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40996" PostId="19317" Score="0" Text="The Latin Vulgate is pretty cleanly divided into verses, although there are far fewer than 140,000 of them. There are English translations of the Vulgate freely available, but they in Elizabethan English, not 21st century English." CreationDate="2023-01-14T22:35:01.217" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="40805" PostId="19318" Score="3" Text="Maybe *felecula* on the (non-Classical) analogy of *moles : molecula*?" CreationDate="2023-01-03T18:04:03.770" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42828" PostId="19318" Score="0" Text="Ah let me introduce you to a very cute [video](https://youtu.be/8hq0LCHGcQE) where I heard of the word kitty the first time." CreationDate="2023-04-04T07:26:24.090" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="40851" PostId="19322" Score="1" Text="Not enough for a full answer just yet, but for what it's worth, Apicius has *gallina* for &quot;hen&quot; and *pullus* for &quot;chicken.&quot; See my [earlier answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16726/latin-for-ground-meat/16729#16729) for more on that. I think your earlier answer on the other question is fine." CreationDate="2023-01-06T18:35:52.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40810" PostId="19325" Score="0" Text="_Nulla_ and _nihil_ look like good candidates in Latin. [This wp article and section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0#Classical_antiquity) suggests where to look for a Greek name too. Apparently there _could_ have been a classical word for the concept, even if it was just a novel meaning for an already existent word." CreationDate="2023-01-04T18:53:55.963" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="40811" PostId="19325" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Those are good words to start from, but the analogy to the listed words starting at *monas* is far from clear to a reader. Something like _*nullăs_ or _*nihilăs_ would be more recognizable as a continuation of the pattern. If *trias* means &quot;a group of three&quot; instead of &quot;three&quot;, I'm looking for something that means &quot;a group with no members&quot; instead of &quot;nothing&quot;. Different answers exploring different options would be very welcome; there's room for several takes on this." CreationDate="2023-01-04T21:12:52.890" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40812" PostId="19325" Score="0" Text="Yes, I know my comment is far from a complete answer. BTW: I was writing something different at first. The fact that zero was adopted in classical times was a complete surprise to me." CreationDate="2023-01-05T12:39:20.437" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="40891" PostId="19325" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos I would actually be happy to see that as an answer. It might not be very pretty, but it might still be the best option. Exploring the options, even if the conclusion ends up being &quot;please no&quot;, is very welcome." CreationDate="2023-01-09T12:20:14.923" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40814" PostId="19328" Score="2" Text="&quot;I wanted the Latin to translate into English in a way that I spoke&quot; – how about *errare humanum est*, 'making mistakes is human'?" CreationDate="2023-01-05T15:18:01.977" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="40813" PostId="19330" Score="3" Text="In the light of [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1877/79) and its answer, I'm not sure if you should have *errare est esse humanum* instead." CreationDate="2023-01-05T15:06:53.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40815" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I was wondering about that myself, and looked it up to check my intuition that the subject complement of _esse_ should be nominative since it doesn't modify anything in the sentence. I understand it to be like _vis beatus esse_ mentioned [here](https://latindiscussion.org/threads/accusative-and-infinitive-clauses.33681/) (not covered by Asteroides, I think). I could be wrong, of course. I was hoping to avoid this much trickier subtlety, but I suppose there's no escape!" CreationDate="2023-01-05T15:28:37.017" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40818" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="I don't think there's an escape from the subtlety unless you recast the sentence somehow, and I keep being confused by this. My intuition agrees with yours and wants to go with the nominative, but the answer by Asteroides proves my intuition wrong in many cases." CreationDate="2023-01-05T15:43:21.617" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40820" PostId="19330" Score="2" Text="The accusative is necessary unless the infinitive is complementary." CreationDate="2023-01-05T15:51:25.440" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40821" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Thanks. Can you point me to a good resource to read further about this? I had thought that the n.c.i. in complements like _vis beatus esse_ was explained by some deeper principle, perhaps the infinitive's lack of its own grammatical subject. That principle would then carry over to a situation like the present one, where _esse_ is a subject complement." CreationDate="2023-01-05T16:00:25.703" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40822" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz: my interpretation of *vis beatus esse* is that *beatus* agrees there with the understood nominative subject of the entire clause (*tu*). But there is no understood nominative subject of *esse* in a sentence like &quot;Errare est esse humanu[s/m]&quot;. I would put it as &quot;errare est esse humanum.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-05T16:13:12.440" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40823" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="Regarding my answer there, I think &quot;Hercules fortis esse vult&quot; is the same kind of sentence as &quot;vis beatus esse&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-05T16:17:22.093" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="40824" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="@BenKovitz this is not as thorough as I’d like, but it is addressed in A&amp;G 452.3, note 2. The example there is non esse cupidum pecunia est." CreationDate="2023-01-05T16:35:57.180" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40825" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Asteroides Thanks! I will check out the A&amp;G section when I have time. For now, I will defer to your well-studied advice and change it to _humanum._ The OP has plenty of easier topics to be confused about already. :)" CreationDate="2023-01-05T17:51:25.387" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40830" PostId="19330" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz In *Vis beatus esse* the infinitive is not the subject; that is a very different case. Another example is *didici industrius esse*. But it is not an NcI, because an NcI is, by definition, a passive construction of a verb that in the active would take an AcI." CreationDate="2023-01-05T20:45:28.393" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40843" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey AGS 452.3, note 2 seems to settle it! I am still puzzled by the principle and will probably ask a new question about it." CreationDate="2023-01-06T05:58:37.213" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40844" PostId="19330" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Mihi nunc vidētur mē nōminātīvum cum īnfīnītīvō numquam intellēxisse." CreationDate="2023-01-06T05:59:01.210" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40846" PostId="19330" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz the principle seems to be that the subject of an infinitive is an accusative. Therefore, the predicate of an infinitive is an accusative. The only exception is the complementary infinitive, in which case the finite verb and infinitive work together like a single finite linking verb." CreationDate="2023-01-06T12:42:48.733" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40828" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I understand that the last syllable can be lengthened as in our verse. However, The crux of the question was why it was necessary in this specific verse where the verse could be written without this lengthening (using &quot;*nos et*&quot; instead of &quot;*et nos*&quot;). Was that regular to lengthen final -r in this position in Virgil or the exception?" CreationDate="2023-01-05T19:02:36.783" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40829" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="Just edited my answer--he does it here because he usually puts a caesura in the middle of the third foot." CreationDate="2023-01-05T20:09:21.530" UserId="11971" />
  <row Id="40834" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="Not just he, but with hendecasyllabics as a whole. But, the caesura can go in the fourth foot sometimes. There may be more to it than that. (Upvoted.)" CreationDate="2023-01-05T22:00:50.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40836" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="hmmm. I think in both cases the scan would be exactly the same. Or caesura is not only technical meter stuff, but also should fit the content itself?" CreationDate="2023-01-05T22:19:33.700" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40838" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="@cmw Virgil prefers to put it in the 3rd foot; other authors vary." CreationDate="2023-01-05T23:20:51.113" UserId="11971" />
  <row Id="40839" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="@d_e The caesura does not affect the scansion." CreationDate="2023-01-05T23:23:53.740" UserId="11971" />
  <row Id="40840" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="@alphabet, I meant in both cases *amor* is in the same side of the same ceasura. the only difference is the word in the other side of the caesura; it is not that having &quot;nos et&quot; changes the foot so that *amor* will finish in the foot. Is Having *nos* instead of *et* will ruin the caesura because *nos* is not &quot;natural break&quot; like &quot;et&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-01-05T23:33:08.120" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40841" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="@d_e Exactly! As it stands, &quot;et&quot; divides the sentence neatly into two separate pieces and creates a natural break within the line, making it a proper caesura." CreationDate="2023-01-06T00:39:44.023" UserId="11971" />
  <row Id="40845" PostId="19334" Score="0" Text="@alphabet, I see, thanks." CreationDate="2023-01-06T08:03:18.037" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40919" PostId="19342" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Now I can do it." CreationDate="2023-01-11T00:05:40.120" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="40849" PostId="19343" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for this very fine answer." CreationDate="2023-01-06T17:59:17.187" UserId="14793" />
  <row Id="40862" PostId="19345" Score="2" Text="Would that all translation requests were so reasonable and diligent!" CreationDate="2023-01-07T19:55:45.243" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="40893" PostId="19345" Score="0" Text="I am not sure if I am allowed to comment such things, if not, it can be deleted: Thank you very much! I just didn't want to take too much of the experts' time." CreationDate="2023-01-09T14:11:42.403" UserId="11989" />
  <row Id="40892" PostId="19346" Score="0" Text="To be pedantically clear (apologies), I can go with &quot;Patri carissimo. Requiescat in pace.&quot; correct? Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2023-01-09T14:08:31.293" UserId="11989" />
  <row Id="40894" PostId="19346" Score="1" Text="@KindDude. you can." CreationDate="2023-01-09T16:49:53.753" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="40925" PostId="19346" Score="0" Text="Ok, thank you again!" CreationDate="2023-01-11T11:21:33.250" UserId="11989" />
  <row Id="40854" PostId="19347" Score="1" Text="Are you sure it's meant to be singular? *Dicentis* is a valid alternative for the plural accusative, if that makes any sense in the context." CreationDate="2023-01-07T16:42:31.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40855" PostId="19347" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Definitely singular: it refers to [Kevin McCarthy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64193932), elected after many rounds of voting, as often happens when Cardinals choose a Pope." CreationDate="2023-01-07T16:53:13.803" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40860" PostId="19347" Score="1" Text="Seems a few people are running with the joke, but whoever came up with it should really be educated about how piss poor Google translate functions." CreationDate="2023-01-07T18:09:14.217" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40876" PostId="19347" Score="2" Text="*Habemus dicentem*: &quot;Hey, we have someone here who can actually talk!&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-08T15:10:50.533" UserId="11995" />
  <row Id="40856" PostId="19348" Score="4" Text="The Finnish *Nuntii Latini* had the convention that the chairman of any committee or similar is *praeses* and the president as the head of a republic is *praesidens*." CreationDate="2023-01-07T16:55:26.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40857" PostId="19348" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'll update--that removes the ambiguity!" CreationDate="2023-01-07T16:56:57.787" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="40858" PostId="19348" Score="2" Text="And if you end the English sentence with a full stop, you get the perfectly grammatical *Oratorem habemus.* Google Translate is curiously sensitive to capitalization and interpunction." CreationDate="2023-01-07T17:23:08.960" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="40918" PostId="19349" Score="1" Text="Thank you. They make sense now." CreationDate="2023-01-11T00:03:47.800" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="45729" PostId="19349" Score="0" Text="What about with the using the latin equivalents of *encender* and *apagar* of the Spanish?" CreationDate="2023-12-01T16:08:37.540" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45740" PostId="19349" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus With *incendere* you bring the notion of &quot;burning&quot;, which could be confusing. The etymology of apagar is unclear and I do not speak Spanish so I couldn't tell." CreationDate="2023-12-02T17:10:23.767" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="45741" PostId="19349" Score="0" Text="In Spanish for say burn you would say quemar. [apagar comes from the Latin pacāre](https://dle.rae.es/apagar)" CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:08:36.523" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45742" PostId="19349" Score="0" Text="an what about the Deutsche weg with an and aus wich is like in and out?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:20:20.140" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="40881" PostId="19351" Score="0" Text="For those confused by the link, you need an account to access the information. And in English, we call the *mémoire de maîtrise* a &quot;Master's thesis.&quot; (And it can also be downloaded from Academia.edu!)" CreationDate="2023-01-08T19:14:10.477" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40882" PostId="19351" Score="0" Text="@cmw I made it public, so now the link works without an account, thanks for telling me." CreationDate="2023-01-08T19:15:02.807" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40883" PostId="19351" Score="1" Text="Ah, great, thanks! I just figured it was some institutional block, but this is easier than dealing with that other site." CreationDate="2023-01-08T19:18:13.467" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40884" PostId="19351" Score="1" Text="@cmw I think there is no way to generate a direct download link with *Academia.edu*, this is why I created the OSF project, just for you guys ;)" CreationDate="2023-01-08T19:19:10.360" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40886" PostId="19351" Score="2" Text="It's appreciated!" CreationDate="2023-01-08T21:11:23.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40878" PostId="19353" Score="2" Text="+1. I wonder how would you render &quot;Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus&quot; back into Latin? Would you use the AA construction for this? This question since I'm not sure it is that the construction not common English that made this translated as active, but rather that this not really *absolute* meaning-wise. Had it was really absolute, there are several construction in English that could be used." CreationDate="2023-01-08T18:42:11.443" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40879" PostId="19353" Score="2" Text="@d_e&#xA;*Paulus, superiores partes transgressus, Ephesum venit.*&#xA;The reason why it works here with an active meaning, is that *-gredior* compounds are deponent, i.e. their form is passive (except in the present participle and the gerund), but their meaning is active." CreationDate="2023-01-08T19:09:56.627" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40887" PostId="19353" Score="4" Text="@d_e While *transgressus* works well for this verb, in general the construction as it is now is exactly as it would be. The relative would put too much emphasis on describing what Paul had done, while the action here is more temporal, which is one of the chief uses of the ablative absolute. I wouldn't try to fit Latin's square grammar into (e.g. Greek's or English's) round hole." CreationDate="2023-01-08T21:35:36.903" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40895" PostId="19355" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Feel free to include your own attempt, as it can be helpful in developing a translation that captures what you want to express." CreationDate="2023-01-09T17:27:51.503" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="40914" PostId="19355" Score="2" Text="The reason the online translators don't do a good job is that &quot;we shall want for nothing&quot; is not idiomatic modern English. Start by finding an equivalent more colloquial phrase, for example &quot;we'll have everything we need&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-10T15:03:41.440" UserId="2362" />
  <row Id="40896" PostId="19358" Score="0" Text="Sure enough, Cairnarvon found a well known sentence in the literature to echo. That might be the better choice, depending on exactly what meaning you want to convey." CreationDate="2023-01-09T19:59:10.557" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40897" PostId="19358" Score="0" Text="FWIW your translation looks perfectly acceptable to me, and I upvoted it." CreationDate="2023-01-09T20:16:56.387" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40899" PostId="19358" Score="0" Text="The only quibble I have is that I don't see *nihilo* used as an object of *careo* (did a quick PHI search, so perhaps there's something later?). Even in that Cicero passage I cited, he uses *nulla re* with *egeo* instead of *nihilo* (despite using *nihil* for the other three verbs). For some reason, it just feels off to me to have the ablative of *nihilo* here in this way, but I can't quite say why." CreationDate="2023-01-09T20:56:52.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40903" PostId="19358" Score="0" Text="@cmw I have much less experience with Latin, and I have the same feeling: that _nihilo_ is probably somehow unidiomatic. My intuitions have been wrong before, though (including [just a few days ago](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/19328/in-regards-to-est-and-errare-humanum-est#comment40813_19330))." CreationDate="2023-01-09T21:36:33.427" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="40900" PostId="19361" Score="0" Text="Fantastic answer. thanks. Is Bailey David Roy Shackleton Bailey?" CreationDate="2023-01-09T21:28:23.280" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40901" PostId="19361" Score="1" Text="@d_e Apologies for the lack of citation! It's Cyril Bailey, whose massive 3 voll. edition and commentary on Lucretius was published by Oxford in 1947. I haven't checked newer commentaries yet." CreationDate="2023-01-09T21:30:38.067" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40902" PostId="19362" Score="1" Text="What do you mean by 'be of highest value'? It is grammatical but unusual English, and I can imagine various different possible interpretations. It could also be helpful if you mentioned the Italian phrase you have in mind, if that's what you started with." CreationDate="2023-01-09T21:32:59.693" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="40904" PostId="19362" Score="1" Text="@dbmag9 I updated the post with answers to your questions." CreationDate="2023-01-09T22:03:30.717" UserId="11999" />
  <row Id="40912" PostId="19365" Score="0" Text="Intentionally mangled Latin for comedic effect or to signal the limited education of the speaker is found in other early modern English plays. See the play Ignoramus by George Ruggle. Also, a lot of occult works produced in the middle ages and early modern period use language rather haphazardly, so Marlowe may be giving a historically accurate representation of occultism by butchering the incantation." CreationDate="2023-01-10T01:00:14.227" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="40913" PostId="19365" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey And it even has classical precedent with Petronius' *Satyricon*. Others have noted that Marlowe intentionally has comedic scenes throughout the play, but I'm no Marlowe scholar, so I can't opine on their legitimacy." CreationDate="2023-01-10T01:38:15.883" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40920" PostId="19372" Score="3" Text="*Ephēmeros* isn't Latin, it's Greek (ἐφήμερος, from ἐπί 'on' + ἡμέρα 'day' + -(ι)ος); it was borrowed into Neo-Latin as  *ephemerus*, seemingly with a short *e*. There's a structurally parallel word ἐπινύκτιος (which could be latinised as *epinyktius*, I guess), but in practice it just means 'by night, nightly'." CreationDate="2023-01-11T02:15:31.110" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40947" PostId="19372" Score="3" Text="While the etymology may refer to one day, the word now means &quot;lasting for a very short time&quot;. There's no specific time period implied. The example sentence in my dictionary is &quot;Fashions are ephemeral&quot;, meaning a few months." CreationDate="2023-01-11T17:16:06.253" UserId="4720" />
  <row Id="40955" PostId="19372" Score="3" Text="@Barmar Metaphorical usage was already [common in antiquity](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%90%CF%86%CE%AE%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82)." CreationDate="2023-01-11T20:53:13.713" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40924" PostId="19374" Score="1" Text="This is amazing that a word exists with the exact fine-grained denotation that `lemonlemon` was looking for. What a cool language!" CreationDate="2023-01-11T07:56:52.483" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40949" PostId="19374" Score="6" Text="@VincentKrebs I think the denotation is actually the opposite of *ephemerus*, as Draconis says in his answer: *pernox* doesn't mean &quot;lasting *only* one night&quot;, but &quot;lasting *all* night&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-11T18:20:13.030" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40951" PostId="19374" Score="0" Text="@TKR Yes I know, as it can be easily deduced from the meaning of *per*. But still ;)" CreationDate="2023-01-11T18:21:45.487" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40926" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="**(1/2)** Thanks for your answer. I'm afraid my question was not clear enough I also afraid I don't quite understand several terms in the answer such &quot;consecutive/circumstantial nuances&quot;. I think the best way to succinctly to express what is meant is by considering what question does the clause answer:  *what type/kind* or *who/which/what*. that is why in the last example &quot;Non audivit qui ad convivium venirent&quot; I was not thinking of interrogative clause at all, but something like &quot;he did not hear those who were coming (because they were coming, otherwise he would heard them)&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-11T11:55:56.520" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40927" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="**(2/2)** . I basically said in OP that this *nisi qui* clause answers what type of *nemo* hence I naturally expected the subjunctive. in this sense it is not &quot;substantive relative&quot; ( If I got this term right) . It was pointed out that using the indicative for general type takes away the indicative to express specific entities who actually qualify the condition. just as &quot;sunt qui + indicative&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-11T12:04:30.613" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40930" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="I'm sorry, I felt your question was very clear. But I do not understand your comment. And about interrogatives, I only mentioned them so that there be no confusion, I didn't say you mentioned them in the OP. The subjunctive in relatives always expresses consequence or opposition, anything that is not strictly a description of the reality but brings some virtuality or subjectivity. And again, free relatives may express either generic or specific reference, the subjunctive has nothing to do with this opposition that you mention, which  to the best of my knowledge is not syntactically encoded." CreationDate="2023-01-11T14:51:49.433" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40931" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="@Vincet, I think I see what you are saying, After re-reading the answer it makes more sense. If I got this right I didn't understand the function of *qui* which I now understand to be substantive and re-state the nemo. i.e., qui=nemo. Theoretically, I assume this *qui* can be removed altogether and indeed there are some examples for this." CreationDate="2023-01-11T15:20:49.783" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40933" PostId="19376" Score="1" Text="If I understand you correctly, you thought that *qui* had *nemo* as its antecedent. Actually, *qui apros non putat sues vocari* is actually a substantive which is in the dative case, only, clauses cannot receive flexion so it's invisible." CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:30:44.077" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40952" PostId="19376" Score="1" Text="*In est/ sunt qui..., the subjunctive mood is mandatory* -- what about the example in the post *est qui non curat habere*?" CreationDate="2023-01-11T18:26:39.463" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40953" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="@TKR Sorry, I was referring to the special meaning &quot;there is someone such that...&quot;, *est qui non curat...* means *there is one (specific) individual who (actually) cares...*" CreationDate="2023-01-11T18:30:31.783" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40960" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="@Vincent Krebs: Here are a couple of examples: (i) North &amp; Hillard p. 152 (N&amp;H gave the English only): &quot;He sent the most faithful slave whom he had&quot; = &quot;misit servum quem fidissimum haberet.&quot;; or, &quot;.....habebat.&quot;? Which is it? In A&amp;G, a similar example; section 278, 2[b[: &quot;He sent the slave whom he had with him.&quot; = &quot;servum misit quem secum habebat.&quot; Another nightmare: subordinate (&quot;qui&quot;) clauses in indirect speech: taking the subjunctive; but, there are exceptions: the statement is true; it's an explanation of something; it's deemed worthy of emphasis--all require the indicative." CreationDate="2023-01-12T12:42:24.437" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40961" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="@Vincent Krebs: Colouring the landscape: if the subordinate clause is part of the indirect speech, on the authority of the writer--subjunctive; if the authority lies with a third-party interventionist--indicative. After much study &amp; much confusion I think that the student may select subjunctive or indicative, as he pleases, as long as he can justify it with a logical, coherent argument." CreationDate="2023-01-12T12:47:54.293" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40963" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="About *He sent the most faithful slave whom he had.*, this is not really a problem for me as a French speaker as we also put the subjunctive preferentially; the indicative is odd. About indirect speech, yes, if this is an absolute, objective truth, the indicative is sometimes used. I would compare this issue with tense concordance: &quot;He told me his brother **was** sick, but I don't know if it's true.&quot;; &quot;My teacher told to me that grammar **is** easy.&quot; This is why I was giving as a principle in another comment, that the subjunctive is required when subjectivity is involved." CreationDate="2023-01-12T14:21:30.807" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40970" PostId="19376" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs How similar is French and Latin usage with regard to mood in relative clauses with a superlative? Intuitively *haberet* in the Latin sentence sounds right to me too, but I can't cite grammatical chapter and verse for the intuition and there are also examples with indicative, e.g. Caesar BG 5.49 *quam aequissimo loco potest castra communit*." CreationDate="2023-01-13T02:53:52.837" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="40971" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="@tkr In French you could also say &quot;construit son camp sur un sol (aussi/le plus) égal qu'il le peut&quot;, although &quot;que possible&quot; would be  much better. The indicative indists on the actuality of the event, making the reader live it in real time." CreationDate="2023-01-13T06:32:25.460" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40980" PostId="19376" Score="0" Text="@TKR: I think it was yourself who gave me the &quot;haberet&quot; translation when I was frustrated that N&amp;H hadn't provided it. The A&amp;G ex. gives &quot;habebat&quot; in a similar sentence. Both can be justified, therefore both can be correct (context, rules, instinct) I think/ I hope. In preferring, &quot;haberet&quot;, I am gratified at your consistency." CreationDate="2023-01-13T13:15:28.047" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="40981" PostId="19376" Score="1" Text="@tony Yes, same after &quot;the only&quot; or &quot;the last&quot;. *Solum/ultimum librum mihi dedit quem haberet/habebat.*" CreationDate="2023-01-13T13:26:49.193" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40934" PostId="19379" Score="0" Text="You got it wrong, *qui* does not &quot;point to *nemo*&quot;. And it is not &quot;removed&quot;... Just, you can have whatever referential group you want after *nisi*: any other kind of pronoun, a noun... : *neminem vidi nisi dominum* &quot;I saw nobody except the master&quot;. Also, in your first example, *qui* is here in the shape of the accusative *quem*..." CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:36:15.530" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40935" PostId="19379" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs, I'll delete the answer to consider more. But not sure: &quot;nisi eruditus&quot; is not like &quot;nisi qui eruditus est&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:38:35.820" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40937" PostId="19379" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs, what is the different between &quot;nisi eruditus&quot; and &quot;nisi qui eruditus est&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:40:59.220" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40938" PostId="19379" Score="1" Text="*Qui eruditus est* would refer to someone precise who is actually *eruditus*. *eruditus* alone is just a substantivization of the past participle (or just, *est* remains implicit, *nisi eruditus est*, &quot;unless he is eruditus&quot;) just more concise. *Qui eruditus sit* would refer to anyone such that they were *eruditus*." CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:43:38.877" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40939" PostId="19379" Score="0" Text="*Nisi* either can be constructed with a noun phrase, the verb being implicitly the same as in the matrix, or it can act as an actual complementizer, introducing its own different explicit verb. Note that technically, *si* is really the adverbial relative pronoun corresponding to the deictic *ita*: it represents the truth value of a full predication; then conditional clauses in *si* can be regarded as adverbial substantive clauses. The conditional *si* and the interrogative one are one and the same word." CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:50:13.763" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40940" PostId="19379" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs, I have no problem with *neminem vidi nisi [vidi] dominum*. the issue is with the *qui*. I don't understand.  can we have *nisi putat apros...* without the *qui*?" CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:58:11.650" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40941" PostId="19379" Score="0" Text="No, *putat* needs a subject." CreationDate="2023-01-11T16:58:57.583" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40942" PostId="19379" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs, okay. that's what I thought. Now, where is the subject here: *nisi quem contempsit tali iniuria notat*? it is not *quem*." CreationDate="2023-01-11T17:01:28.110" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40943" PostId="19379" Score="0" Text="This is *nemo*, minus the negation I guess: non **ullus**... nisi **is**... &quot;not **anyone** does this, unless **he**...&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-11T17:06:26.917" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40944" PostId="19379" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs, ahhh I think I got this now, thanks for your time. really helpful. I delete this answer now. so probably no comments can be added." CreationDate="2023-01-11T17:07:45.933" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="40945" PostId="19379" Score="0" Text="Difficult issue, and interesting." CreationDate="2023-01-11T17:08:34.987" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40948" PostId="19379" Score="0" Text="Thank you for restoring your post, very useful for other people." CreationDate="2023-01-11T18:16:31.440" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40950" PostId="19380" Score="1" Text="Thanks fort those precisions. Still you can admit, this is the closest we could find to what the op wanted, beautiful word. @Manuel You found it so quickly lol..." CreationDate="2023-01-11T18:20:29.923" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40954" PostId="19380" Score="0" Text="I was looking for &quot;nightly&quot; last week, And I saw a lot of word about night." CreationDate="2023-01-11T19:45:51.960" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="40956" PostId="19380" Score="0" Text="Seems ἐφήμερος also had that meaning, as indicated by section II in the LSJ. Clearest example is &quot;γυμνασία Ascl. Tact. 1.4.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-11T20:55:56.050" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40957" PostId="19380" Score="1" Text="Thank you for that delightful information about the spider's eyes :)" CreationDate="2023-01-12T01:45:30.970" UserId="2662" />
  <row Id="40964" PostId="19380" Score="2" Text="To clarify about the eyes of the ogre-faced spider, which is something I hadn’t known about before and did some digging on—thank your for that reference it’s great—the entire eye doesn’t burn away, but a highly-photosensitive layer, I guess analogous to our retinas, _does_ burn away each morning and have to be regrown each night." CreationDate="2023-01-12T15:01:22.467" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="40958" PostId="19382" Score="1" Text="Is it possible that he's giving the derivation of the title without actually naming it, saying something like 'the one whose title comes from breaches (that the makes)'? I'm not sure why Frontinus would write in this oblique way – unless there were originally 2 words beginning with punct near each other, and one dropped out during transmission. Does the Latin text that you're using have an apparatus criticus?" CreationDate="2023-01-12T04:53:09.753" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40959" PostId="19382" Score="6" Text="“Ab + ablative plural” is a standard job title. The Secretary of State for correspondence is the *ab epistulis*, the person in charge of petitions is the *a litbellis*, and so on. So *a punctis* follows this pattern exactly." CreationDate="2023-01-12T08:18:36.117" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="40962" PostId="19382" Score="0" Text="@cnread PHI uses Kunderewicz's edition, which has what Sebastian has above." CreationDate="2023-01-12T13:22:39.880" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="40966" PostId="19382" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski. Interesting. I don't remember ever encountering such a thing, not even in Pliny the Younger. Do you know the grammar/logic behind this naming system? I assume some word or words have been ellipsed." CreationDate="2023-01-12T16:55:10.713" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="40967" PostId="19382" Score="3" Text="@MartinKochanski That comment would make a good answer." CreationDate="2023-01-12T19:13:03.767" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41052" PostId="19382" Score="0" Text="@cnread The genitive would have hard times being substantivized. It is easier to use the phrasal equivalent &quot;*ab/de* + N&quot;. So, the &quot;*ab epistulis* (guy)&quot; is the one &quot;of the letters&quot;, it's just an empty *ab* whose function is merely relational. *appellare* is here constructed with a double object, &quot;the one who was called a &lt;name of the job&gt;&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-19T22:23:14.370" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41053" PostId="19382" Score="0" Text="@VincentKrebs I fail to see how *ab epistulis* lends itself better to being substantivized than anything else. And *magister epistularum* is proper Latin; *magister ab epistulis*, unless I am mistaken, is not." CreationDate="2023-01-19T22:28:02.057" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41054" PostId="19382" Score="0" Text="It's just the way they refer to some administrative functions. When the head N e.g. *magister* is present, yes, the genitive is used. But when it is implied, try saying *epistularum lectus est*, it's not intelligible; while *ab epistulis lectus est* means &quot;he was elected letter-guy&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-19T22:34:19.553" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41055" PostId="19382" Score="0" Text="@VincentKrebs *Ab epistulis lectus est* means &quot;he was elected **by** the letters,&quot; why that should be considered the more intellegible option is a mystery to me." CreationDate="2023-01-19T22:39:17.913" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41059" PostId="19382" Score="0" Text="Have you ever seen a non-human *ab*-introduced agent? Just read *Ab epistulis &lt;vir&gt; lectus est.* To make it simple, *ab* with an object-referring N can never be interpreted as agentive. It denotes the origin, just like *de*. &quot;the guy from the X department&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-19T23:07:22.007" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="40965" PostId="19383" Score="5" Text="Related: [Good examples of common gender nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2948/79) and [Which animal names have grammatical gender, and which have common gender?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1410/79)" CreationDate="2023-01-12T16:49:10.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="40991" PostId="19389" Score="2" Text="Could you provide some context for your suggestions? What do they mean and why do you feel they're good options?" CreationDate="2023-01-14T14:15:26.297" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40992" PostId="19389" Score="0" Text="I just translated from my language. &quot;Transmissão ao vivo&quot; &quot;ao vivo&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-14T16:15:23.727" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="40993" PostId="19389" Score="1" Text="Neither of your suggestions actually translates either of those directly. Why is &quot;imagine vivida&quot; in the ablative? Presumably it's an instrumental, but this should be explained in your answer." CreationDate="2023-01-14T20:00:13.133" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40994" PostId="19389" Score="0" Text="Why not?&#xA;Livestream in my language is a &quot;transmission in real time&quot; there's nothing to do with a stream or river. I said I translated from my language, not from English. If you want something that makes sense in English, just wait for an English native. Neo-latin is really hard to translate." CreationDate="2023-01-14T21:03:51.670" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="40995" PostId="19389" Score="2" Text="Neo-Latin is hard to translate when you use machine translation without understanding what you're doing, sure." CreationDate="2023-01-14T22:12:19.807" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="40999" PostId="19389" Score="0" Text="Leave me alone, man!" CreationDate="2023-01-15T04:42:03.243" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41002" PostId="19389" Score="1" Text="I have to second Cairnarvon on this. Can you please add more context to your answer in the answer itself? The comments are meant for clarification, but anything showing your reasoning and process is helpful. One line suggestions are liable to be converted to comments instead." CreationDate="2023-01-15T16:52:17.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41021" PostId="19395" Score="3" Text="With the imperfect, more like &quot;I was always thinking about you&quot; or &quot;I constantly kept thinking of you&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-17T14:36:45.617" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="41004" PostId="19398" Score="4" Text="It's worth noting that there's an even more explicit statement of this earlier in the *Politics* in 1153a1-3: &quot;ἐκ τούτων οὖν φανερὸν . . . ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον. . . .&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-16T16:26:08.620" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41005" PostId="19398" Score="1" Text="@brianpck May you type the English translation?" CreationDate="2023-01-16T16:27:40.307" UserId="12022" />
  <row Id="41006" PostId="19398" Score="5" Text="&quot;From these things it is clear . . . that man is by nature a political/social animal.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-01-16T17:16:51.803" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41009" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="Why would ἄνθρωπος be _man_ instead of _human_? As you point out, it is not about being male, so I was surprised that you chose a gendered term, thereby necessitating your disclaimer. Wouldn't it be simpler to say it's _human_?" CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:34:42.453" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="41010" PostId="19398" Score="1" Text="@terdon: *Man* is normally used in the genderless sense in such contexts, not referring to a masculine human. As in *mankind*, etc. *Human* is i.m.o. not a felicitous translation, but it would be technically correct, certainly." CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:39:27.977" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="41011" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="The linguistic shift to use of nongendered terms is quite recent. Before that shift, the disclaimer was commonly understood, but after that shift has become more necessary. @terdon" CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:41:45.930" UserId="9562" />
  <row Id="41012" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="Yes, I know the ungendered meaning of _man_, but it just seemed like a poor choice here as it introduces ambiguity not present in the original Greek (to my, admittedly limited, knowledge) or with the term _human_. Why do you say it would not be a felicitous translation? I may be getting swayed by my knowledge of Modern Greek where άνθρωπος is the 100% direct translation of _human_ for me (I'm a native speaker of Greek and English)." CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:41:58.490" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="41013" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="On the other hand I believe use of the English phrase &quot;man is a political animal&quot; as the translation of that Greek phrase goes quite far back; it might be interesting to know how far." CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:46:43.533" UserId="9562" />
  <row Id="41014" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="Oh indeed, and I'm not advocating changing the actual expression! I was just wondering why cmw, who I am sure knows a _lot_ more than I do about both Ancient Greek and most likely English, chose to write &quot;ὁ ἄνθρωπος is &quot;man&quot; (as in person, human being, not particular a male)&quot; instead of just saying &quot;ὁ ἄνθρωπος is 'human'&quot;. I now see it was probably simply to keep consistency with the idiomatic expression, but I was wondering if there may have been a deeper etymological reason." CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:51:41.053" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="41015" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus sorry, I didn't realize you had commented, so I didn't ping you. Please see my comment above asking about why it would not be a felicitous translation and delete this one. Your knowledge of both English and Ancient Greek far outstrips mine so I'm sure you have a point." CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:53:45.743" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="41016" PostId="19398" Score="3" Text="@terdon To my ear, *man* without an article and in the singular always refers to humans as a whole and not specifically to males. If I said &quot;men are political animals&quot; or &quot;the man is a political animal&quot;, I'd hear that, in Modern, as specifically referring to males. But in the singular and without an article it's gender neutral to me." CreationDate="2023-01-17T13:43:55.390" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41017" PostId="19398" Score="2" Text="I'm also a fan of etymology, and etymologically speaking, *man* used to be that gender-neutral term for both *weras* and *wīf* in Old English. An alternative approach to shunning it and using a Latin borrowing is to reclaim it in its original sense and argue for it. That aside, it's also fairly standard in other sentences, too, such as &quot;man is the measure of all things&quot; (πάντων χρημάτων **ἄνθρωπον** μέτρον εἶναι)." CreationDate="2023-01-17T13:44:08.787" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41018" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="That said, I'm not insensitive to gendered language, so thanks for bringing it up. I also wonder if my ears might not lean archaic, and perhaps a younger crowd wouldn't hear it the same way, but that's why I put that disclaimer in afterwards. Just in case." CreationDate="2023-01-17T13:45:23.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41020" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="Guys, Aristotle would have indeed lost his mind and go full crazy before writing something like “man and woman are by nature political animals.” Or probably ended up as Socrates did, had he proposed universal suffrage in Athens. As  L. P. Hartley opened his _The Go-Between:_ “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” He was talking about the 50-some year past of the good old Britain. Athens _was_ a foreign country, and Aristotle wrote 2500 year ago, give or take. Politically correcting his thought _du jour_ would make it a deleteriously disastrous disservice." CreationDate="2023-01-17T14:27:20.893" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="41022" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="@cmw I am not arguing that _man is a social animal_ should be changed (eek!) nor even that it is ambiguous. I'm not even arguing at all, just hoping to learn something. My question is why you chose the word _man_ instead of _human_ for your own translation of the standalone Ancient Greek word _ἄνθρωπος_. If it was just a question of personal stylistic choice, I have no issue whatsoever. I was just curious whether there was a deeper etymological reason, that's all. Since in modern Greek, one would never use man (άνδρας) in a gender neutral way, translating it as _man_ struck me as odd." CreationDate="2023-01-17T14:48:48.223" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="41023" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="@kkm I will definitely never deny Aristotle's misogyny (it's as clear as day!), but on the other hand, he did use ἄνθρωπος and not ἀνήρ. And moreover, the masculine aspect isn't being emphasized here. Men and women live in πολεῖς, not only men. It's not politics he's talking about, but our gregarious nature. But certainly your point about Aristotle's distance from us is not inaccurate in general." CreationDate="2023-01-17T14:55:19.553" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41024" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="@terdon All good! Not arguing either, just trying to flesh out some reasons for the choice. By the way, I believe άνδρας actually comes from ἀνήρ, not ἄνθρωπος. I think there's a good question to be asked on the topic, though. It would certainly get more exposure from others who could chime in." CreationDate="2023-01-17T14:58:46.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41025" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="(Or feel free to stop by the chat if these comments become too unwieldy.)" CreationDate="2023-01-17T16:35:40.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41046" PostId="19398" Score="0" Text="It seems to me that the very concept of gendered language as we see it haven't existed at his time. Even less did the _inverted_ Sapir-Worfian belief that language must be changed to reflect modern equality of the sexes. It's notable that while some English speakers are trying to invent non-gendered pronouns, the speakers of e.g. Slavic languages, where nouns are gendered, who are acting in the same vein, are insisting on creating gendered counterparts to non-matching e.g. profession names, like “She is a doctoress,” since “doctor” is masc. Both efforts are linguistically futile, indeed." CreationDate="2023-01-19T04:45:20.453" UserId="172" />
  <row Id="41045" PostId="19399" Score="2" Text="Just a quick note: the fourth hour is *not* the same as our 4 o'clock. The Romans did not start counting at midnight. Here's a link on Roman timekeeping: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Hora.html" CreationDate="2023-01-18T22:45:04.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41060" PostId="19399" Score="0" Text="As Sebastian Koppehel says in his answer, you should use the plural with quattuor, so *in quattuor horis*" CreationDate="2023-01-19T23:41:29.217" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41064" PostId="19399" Score="0" Text="Also it's worth remembering that cardinal numbers are also adjectives, and while quattuor, like most, happens to be undeclined, *unus, duo* and *tres* are not, so it's *unam horam, duabus/tribus horis*, etc." CreationDate="2023-01-20T21:52:26.087" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41066" PostId="19400" Score="0" Text="*libris* is not an argument of *aptatur* but a free dative. &#xA;*libris aptatur*: &quot;**for** books, it gets bound&quot;, i.e. &quot;to make books, one binds it&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-21T02:17:40.213" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41007" PostId="19401" Score="2" Text="Great points! I had completely forgotten about *unio* et co." CreationDate="2023-01-17T00:56:59.440" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41008" PostId="19401" Score="1" Text="A tiny correction: The first one is not from the distributive *singuli* but from *unus*." CreationDate="2023-01-17T07:28:25.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41019" PostId="19401" Score="1" Text="Oh, nice! I like the flavor of the other answers and also like the straightforwardness of this option." CreationDate="2023-01-17T14:05:16.927" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41042" PostId="19401" Score="0" Text="@Joonas Thanks! I have corrected this." CreationDate="2023-01-17T23:09:27.927" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41026" PostId="19402" Score="15" Text="At the risk of stating the obvious, the Latin reflex of *\*dyḗws ph₂tḗr* is *Iuppiter*." CreationDate="2023-01-17T21:20:25.917" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41027" PostId="19402" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Yes of course! But I would prefer a two-words solution, unless there is also a one-word version for earth mother, just to keep symmetry" CreationDate="2023-01-17T21:22:55.297" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41029" PostId="19402" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides I got &quot;dius&quot; from this entry https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dies#Latin &quot;The original nominative survives as *diūs in two fossilised phrases&quot;. But it is wrong, then I guess there is no solution using existing words" CreationDate="2023-01-17T21:29:08.900" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41031" PostId="19402" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides Sure, thank you for your time. I edited my question to add this clarification" CreationDate="2023-01-17T21:33:18.330" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41035" PostId="19402" Score="1" Text="As for calques with the same root and approximately the same meaning, I think the closest you can get is Deus Pater and Humus Mater. Humus is the right word. Deus means god —not sky—. But is at the same time i) attested paired with pater, ii) with the same meaning as a pair , and iii) a valid derived from the root." CreationDate="2023-01-17T21:52:56.107" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="41036" PostId="19402" Score="1" Text="@Rafael Since both deus and humus are nouns, it is a great suggestion in term of structure, I will think about it" CreationDate="2023-01-17T21:55:26.640" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41038" PostId="19404" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your detailed answer, I will consult the Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages and think about all that" CreationDate="2023-01-17T22:06:09.220" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41039" PostId="19404" Score="0" Text="I have one last question about that if you don't mind, if we consider the two-words version (even if I got that Iuppiter in one-word was probably the best choice and I am going to use that) doesn't dius have the advantage of coming from *dyḗws while deus and divus come from *deywós?" CreationDate="2023-01-17T22:26:10.483" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41040" PostId="19404" Score="1" Text="@SkyFather: Yes, that's what I meant to say in the last paragraph about the Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr name. But I think *Iovis* might be better than *dius* since it fits more regularly with the other inflected forms like *Iovem,* etc. However, a problem with *Iovis* is that it is also the genitive form, so *Iovis pater* probably can be easily misunderstood as &quot;Jupiter's father&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-17T22:28:23.560" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="41041" PostId="19404" Score="0" Text="Oh yes, I've just noticed that you've edited your answer. I think you're right about the difficulty of finding a way to decline it, like domus, deus, manus...? there's a lot I need to think about, thanks again." CreationDate="2023-01-17T22:33:42.250" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41043" PostId="19404" Score="0" Text="@SkyFather: Diūs can't really be compared to any of those: in terms of etymology, it would best be thought of as third-declension, and possibly we could treat it as an irregular nominative corresponding to oblique Jovis/Jovem or Diovis/Diovem etc. By the way, I have edited my answer again to suggest an alternative to using words from these roots: if you find it acceptable, I think &quot;Caelus pater&quot; and &quot;Terra/Tellus mater&quot; are a symmetrical pair of names that do a good job of conveying the same sense as English &quot;Father Sky&quot; and &quot;Mother Earth&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-18T10:05:10.753" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="41044" PostId="19404" Score="0" Text="I don't think I can find a more complete answer than yours. Thank you very much, I will think about which of my constraints I will put aside" CreationDate="2023-01-18T11:00:18.867" UserId="12028" />
  <row Id="41047" PostId="19405" Score="0" Text="Let's assume &quot;in 4 hours&quot; means 4 hours from now (e.g. it is quarter past two, then that would be quarter past six). How would you translate that?" CreationDate="2023-01-19T06:33:51.063" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41048" PostId="19405" Score="0" Text="Hora sexta et quadrans est. I hate to suggest that,  but you can whatch the Scorpio martianus video a about telling time, or just Google telling time in latin." CreationDate="2023-01-19T13:14:14.517" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41061" PostId="19409" Score="1" Text="Wiktionary says _stella_ and _ἀστήρ_  are from [the same PIE root](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82st%E1%B8%97r)" CreationDate="2023-01-20T19:29:40.247" UserId="652" />
  <row Id="41062" PostId="19409" Score="7" Text="@AakashM Yes, that is what I mean by &quot;cognate.&quot; I believe *stella* is actually a diminutive form; *ἄστρον* is also from the same root, but neuter." CreationDate="2023-01-20T19:57:40.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41063" PostId="19409" Score="5" Text="*Sidera* and *stellae* can also refer to planets, *planetae*, and the planets in classical times included the sun and the moon. This too can cause confusion among those of us who can be misled by our knowlege of modern astronomy." CreationDate="2023-01-20T21:11:33.087" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41065" PostId="19410" Score="1" Text="(Just to prevent possible confusion, Döderlein seems to suggest that *sidus* is cognate with or derived from εἶδος -- this is not the case.)" CreationDate="2023-01-21T00:45:19.523" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41069" PostId="19410" Score="1" Text="This fits quite well with the fact that Herschel, the discoverer of the first planet beyond Saturn, named it “Georgium **sidus**”. “Stella” would have meant a star and only a star." CreationDate="2023-01-21T13:22:40.143" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="41079" PostId="19410" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski I don't know why Herschel picked *sidus* over *stella*, but he could have picked *stella* if he wanted to. A corpus search on *planeta* turns up plenty of pairings with *stella*." CreationDate="2023-01-22T00:03:03.577" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41082" PostId="19413" Score="0" Text="As for your examples *maior*, *cuius*, *eius*, can we say it's geminate because it belongs to both syllables?" CreationDate="2023-01-22T14:37:38.747" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="41087" PostId="19413" Score="1" Text="@Героямслава: Yes, it's usually interpreted in that context as belonging to both syllables, so a geminate consonant [j.j] like the geminate [m.m] found in *flamma*." CreationDate="2023-01-22T18:43:27.700" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="41071" PostId="19414" Score="2" Text="Something like *(dixit se) amare* or *(puto te) amare*?" CreationDate="2023-01-21T16:42:24.827" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41072" PostId="19414" Score="0" Text="That may work. Those sentences convey the idea &quot;I tell myself to love&quot; or &quot;I think to myself to love&quot;, right?" CreationDate="2023-01-21T17:21:15.910" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41073" PostId="19414" Score="2" Text="@Josh Not really. Rather it's reported speech: &quot;He said that he loved&quot; and &quot;I think that you love.&quot; My 2c would use *volo* instead: (*volo*) *amare* / &quot;(I want) to love&quot;." CreationDate="2023-01-21T17:29:28.917" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41076" PostId="19415" Score="0" Text="Yes, much nicer than the indirect speech variant." CreationDate="2023-01-21T20:23:36.313" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41084" PostId="19415" Score="1" Text="Regarding your addendum (or rather additum, I guess), compare how people learning German are encouraged not to memorize *Haus, n.*, but rather *das Haus*. In reality it does not always come with a definitive article in the nominative, obviously, but you learn an *in-language* association determining its usage, like native speakers have, not some meta-data. Likewise, maybe we would profit too from memorizing *illa domus* or *ampla domus* instead of *domus, f.*" CreationDate="2023-01-22T15:27:24.083" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41085" PostId="19415" Score="0" Text="Compare [these examples](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13994/is-any-animal-neuter-in-latin/13996#13996) from ancient grammarians: ***Haec ostrea** feminino genere singulari numero an **hoc ostreum** neutrali dicendum sit quaeritur.* And: *ostreum dicendum est neutro genere et ad secundam declinationem, ut sit **huius ostrei, huic ostreo***" CreationDate="2023-01-22T15:30:15.060" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41099" PostId="19416" Score="1" Text="This is a very interesting question. When I first read *quid aliud edam* I read it as, &quot;what else would I eat?&quot; As in, &quot;of course it's food! What else would I eat?&quot; But you want it to mean, &quot;what else is there to eat?&quot; I'm not sure it can mean that, but I'm also not sure it can't either. Very thought provoking." CreationDate="2023-01-24T00:33:37.013" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41101" PostId="19416" Score="1" Text="Thanks @Figulus, you're confirming my suspicion that _quid aliud_ may be read as a rhetorical question. Here I am definitely looking for a true question, as you understood well." CreationDate="2023-01-24T11:44:41.630" UserId="11981" />
  <row Id="41119" PostId="19416" Score="0" Text="I still can't say that *quid aliud edam* is wrong, but I wonder whether *quid plus edam* might be better, or *quae plura edam*?" CreationDate="2023-01-26T04:33:10.853" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41145" PostId="19416" Score="0" Text="Caseum Hollandicum edam, nonne?" CreationDate="2023-01-29T18:07:42.347" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="41081" PostId="19418" Score="4" Text="Interesting question! There is a construction in Latin *suum cuique* (to everyone his own). it shows that the *suus* is not necessarily bound to the grammatical subject. In the [corpus](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=suum+cuique), there is even one example with the gerund: *suum cuique incommodum ferendum est potius quam de alterius commodis detrahendum*. But actually, unsure the *cuique* is the dative for the gerund; So the point in this comment  is not that *suum cuique* is an option, but rather that *suum* may be perhaps used more freely." CreationDate="2023-01-22T09:59:24.957" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41083" PostId="19418" Score="2" Text="Feels uncomfortable to me (but then Latin isn’t my 1st language). I’d be happier with _oportet_ + infinitive." CreationDate="2023-01-22T15:00:34.847" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="41086" PostId="19419" Score="3" Text="I think you're spot on in saying this isn't the most idiomatic way. I think the Romans would have actually just left *suum* off here. It's necessary in Plautus (which king?), but here it's obvious that the heart belongs to the *puer*." CreationDate="2023-01-22T18:23:36.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41268" PostId="19419" Score="0" Text="@cmw Doing that would sort of sidestep the OP's question, but then, maybe sidestepping it (in this case) is the way to go. Why not make this into a question? You've already got my upvote." CreationDate="2023-02-08T03:10:49.653" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41269" PostId="19419" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure it's enough as an answer on its own, but feel free to incorporate that into your own answer. Or it can stand as a comment until I get around to writing something up. Either way is good." CreationDate="2023-02-08T04:19:12.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41088" PostId="19420" Score="1" Text="Three answers all within a minute of each other! What are the odds?" CreationDate="2023-01-23T00:39:19.173" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41089" PostId="19420" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Removed mine as both of yours put it better and more accurate." CreationDate="2023-01-23T01:51:46.600" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41102" PostId="19424" Score="0" Text="I know almost nothing of Latin and less about phonetics or Romanian but as a shop-worker who happens to have met Romanian customers every six weeks or so for years, I notice that they pronounce 'mulțumesc' like 'multo mutz' which sounds like Italian 'many' followed by Spanish 'much'.&#xA;&#xA;I don't suggest those sounds are exclusive to Spanish or Italian and I do notice, eg, nytimes.com (no spamming here) 1995/06/17/opinion/l-romania-s-name-reflects-true-roman-origins-955295.html tells us 'Romanians are descendants of the Romans and Dacians and do speak a romance language similar to Italian'" CreationDate="2023-01-24T19:44:08.837" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="44904" PostId="19424" Score="0" Text="why `mult sum` and not `multum est`?" CreationDate="2023-09-21T17:05:29.227" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="44905" PostId="19424" Score="0" Text="@RobbieGoodwin - Maybe you refer to a popular or regional form of &quot;thank you&quot; [`mulțam`](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mulțam) instead of `mulțumesc` (see my comments under answer),  where `u` is pronounced like `o` in `do` an `a` like `u` in `cut`, otherwise I cannot imagine what that is you heard." CreationDate="2023-09-21T17:10:43.297" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="44911" PostId="19424" Score="0" Text="@cipricus Maybe I do, and I suggest nothing beyond what I actually Posted." CreationDate="2023-09-21T20:56:00.227" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="41094" PostId="19425" Score="4" Text="Perhaps an even closer equivalent is [*ad multos annos*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_multos_annos)." CreationDate="2023-01-23T16:18:52.033" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41095" PostId="19425" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Ha, that's what I had at first (though with a typo). I'll add that back in and credit you for finding that." CreationDate="2023-01-23T17:00:35.237" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44900" PostId="19425" Score="0" Text="Is there any chance that the expression &quot;multum est&quot; (meaning &quot;that is very satisfactory&quot;) could have been used for thanking? - like in the proverb &quot;Si satis est, multum est&quot;. Note that ”mulțumi” (to say thanks) also means transitively ”to satisfy”, &quot;mulțumit”, past participle of *mulțumi* never means &quot;(one that was) thanked&quot;, but just &quot;satisfied&quot;,  &quot;mulțumitor”, apparently meaning ”the one that thanks” in fact means &quot;satisfactory&quot;, while &quot;mulțumire” rather rarely and only in plural (”mulțumiri”) means ”thank-you(-s)”, in most cases meaning ”satisfaction”." CreationDate="2023-09-21T16:01:59.303" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="44901" PostId="19425" Score="0" Text="I feel that the basic meaning of the verb *mulțumi* is ”to satisfy” and only secondarily ”to thank”." CreationDate="2023-09-21T16:12:10.643" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="44902" PostId="19425" Score="0" Text="@cipricus I think that's distinct enough that it warrants a question of its own." CreationDate="2023-09-21T16:34:17.077" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44903" PostId="19425" Score="0" Text="My impression may be misleading though, as the idea of &quot;mulți ani&quot; having precedence seems supported by the older/regional forms &quot;mulțămi” (instead of ”mulțumi”) and ”mulțam” (instead of ”mulțumesc”). Also, `-um` in `multum` being transmitted to Romanian would be a notable exception I guess. - On the other hand the n&gt;m translation isn't expected either I guess. (Not sure of either in fact.)" CreationDate="2023-09-21T17:01:36.337" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="41097" PostId="19426" Score="0" Text="[This thread](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5091/how-to-say-time-the-devourer?rq=1) might be related." CreationDate="2023-01-23T22:45:35.527" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41109" PostId="19429" Score="1" Text="? *Sapiens senex vir* is acceptable on the verge if *senex vir* is taken as a whole. Since *senex* may be substantivized, *sapiens senex* would be said instead, the AP being directly dominated by DP (instead of implying a silent N head &lt;vir&gt;). Note that here, the two As would not be juxtaposed, but embedded; so this does not contradict the rule." CreationDate="2023-01-24T22:56:07.930" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41103" PostId="19430" Score="0" Text="If you're familiar with Python, I believe the [cltk](http://cltk.org/) library can do a lot of these things" CreationDate="2023-01-24T21:56:09.897" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41104" PostId="19430" Score="0" Text="I've thought about rolling mine own, but it just seemed like something that might exist out there already." CreationDate="2023-01-24T21:56:44.617" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41105" PostId="19430" Score="0" Text="If you're willing to settle for a naïve word counter even just `grep -io '[a-z]*' | sort -f | uniq -ci | sort -n` works if you're not on Windows. Otherwise e.g. [Voyant](https://voyant-tools.org/) can do it (but it's not Latin-aware)." CreationDate="2023-01-24T22:23:31.567" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41108" PostId="19431" Score="0" Text="Excellent answer. This is really as in French, *un gros et hideux bonhomme* vs *un gros hideux bonhomme*. You can say *pulchra navis longa* because *navis longa* is taken as a whole, *longa* being determinative and thus, located after the N. But aside from such cases, you need to coordinate the last two terms. In English, I believe it is somehow easier to say *a fat ugly man*." CreationDate="2023-01-24T22:46:27.503" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41115" PostId="19431" Score="0" Text="@VincentKrebs That's strange to my ears. I would always say 'an ugly fat man', and there's a &quot;rule&quot; for it, too: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/sentence-order-adjectives-rule-elements-of-eloquence-dictionary" CreationDate="2023-01-26T01:00:46.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41116" PostId="19431" Score="0" Text="@cmw Ok well, I'm not native but anyway, substantially it doesn't change anything, i.e. juxtaposition and embedding should not be mixed up." CreationDate="2023-01-26T01:12:56.387" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41117" PostId="19431" Score="1" Text="@VincentKrebs Oh, I was only commenting on just that last sentence, not anything before it." CreationDate="2023-01-26T01:18:02.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41118" PostId="19431" Score="0" Text="@cmw Sure :) Thanks for the link." CreationDate="2023-01-26T02:06:51.380" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41111" PostId="19432" Score="1" Text="Are you open to collaboration and others maintaining it?" CreationDate="2023-01-25T00:30:19.350" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41113" PostId="19432" Score="1" Text="Can you add a link to the GitHub repo?" CreationDate="2023-01-25T02:00:21.200" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41114" PostId="19432" Score="0" Text="As far as features, I think a great one would be an ignored words list. You could paste in a comma delimited list of words you want to exclude, certain conjunctions in prepositions tend to float to the top of most frequency lists. And maybe even have a checkbox labeled &quot;ignore common conjunctions and prepositions&quot; and when you click it it automatically sticks those in the ignore list." CreationDate="2023-01-25T13:34:39.053" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41395" PostId="19432" Score="0" Text="Can you add a link to the Git repo?" CreationDate="2023-02-19T16:22:11.870" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="43821" PostId="19432" Score="0" Text="The &quot;generate&quot; button is now disabled. @d_e, did you take this tool offline? I found it quite useful." CreationDate="2023-06-25T15:48:47.920" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="43822" PostId="19432" Score="0" Text="@Josh, it is not disabled. it just takes 2-3 seconds to get enabled." CreationDate="2023-06-25T17:55:39.460" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43823" PostId="19432" Score="0" Text="Interesting. I waited several minutes with that page open and it never turned on earlier today, and I tried loading the page and waiting several times. But now it seems to be working." CreationDate="2023-06-25T19:16:15.713" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41125" PostId="19436" Score="2" Text="I agree with this, with the elaboration that &quot;quid amplius&quot; means &quot;what in addition&quot;, whereas &quot;quid aliud&quot; means &quot;what other than [some contextually understood reference point]&quot;. Either could be correct for a given context, but quid amplius sounds right here." CreationDate="2023-01-27T21:35:33.523" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="41151" PostId="19436" Score="1" Text="@Figulus: Is &quot;quid amplius edam&quot; an indirect question? For, &quot;What is there to eat?&quot;, a present subjunctive passive, giving: &quot;quid aliud edatur?&quot; = &quot;What else may be eaten?&quot;. Is this correct?" CreationDate="2023-01-31T09:04:17.853" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="41167" PostId="19436" Score="0" Text="@tony I'm not sure the subjunctive is an indirect question, I'd rather call it a deliberative. But then I'm not so sure the line between deliberatives and indirect questions is necessarily very thick." CreationDate="2023-02-02T01:43:38.020" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41122" PostId="19438" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately the dictionary is wrong.  What is strange.  It is the best latin-portuguese dictionary." CreationDate="2023-01-27T16:38:58.043" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41126" PostId="19438" Score="2" Text="Which dictionary was it? Might be good to note for anyone else who has it." CreationDate="2023-01-28T01:12:38.183" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41127" PostId="19438" Score="0" Text="Dicionário latino-português &#xA;F. R. dos Santos Saraiva @Adam" CreationDate="2023-01-28T01:52:21.880" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41124" PostId="19439" Score="0" Text="This looks similar to how Philumenus uses it. I wonder if it's a Graecism that only shows up with medicine. That would make sense since most doctors were Greek, not Roman. Edited: Also, that would explain the mistaken attribution to Celsus - perhaps the Portuguese dictionary thought that this Vegetius text was actually of Celsus." CreationDate="2023-01-27T17:48:04.280" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41128" PostId="19441" Score="1" Text="According to Perseus, this reference is Catil. 3.5." CreationDate="2023-01-28T09:34:16.103" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="41136" PostId="19441" Score="1" Text="@tony You'll see some people quoting it as &quot;Cat(il). 3.5.10&quot; but I prefer doing it following the standard guidelines provided by the _Thesaurus Linguae Latinae_: https://thesaurus.badw.de/en/tll-digital/index/a.html .  Cf. also: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cat3.shtml   and https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=conscientia%7Erepente%7Econticuit , where the line 15 is added to facilitate the search in PHI Latin Texts." CreationDate="2023-01-28T16:17:28.903" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="41137" PostId="19441" Score="1" Text="@tony  I've just taken a look at the translation by C.D.Yonge in the Perseus site: 'Cethegus...being stricken down and dejected at the reading of his letters, convicted by his own conscience, became suddenly silent'. Note that his translation is more in tune with my option 2) above. However, it is based on the addition of the participle _convictus_ (please see note 6 on the Latin text). In addition to the two analyses above, the analysis (the third one!) involved in C.D. Yonge's translation would be [_recitatis litteris debilitatus atque abiectus] [conscientia convictus] repente conticuit._" CreationDate="2023-01-28T18:14:06.833" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47824" PostId="19441" Score="0" Text="Since both are possible, would a Roman have necessarily felt the difference here? Or might they also have teased out which was meant? If listening to this speech, would they have re-analyzed an ablative absolute upon hearing *debilitatus*, which follows it?" CreationDate="2024-03-25T11:06:09.153" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47826" PostId="19441" Score="0" Text="In A&amp;G the first example of AA is *Caesar, acceptīs litterīs, nūntium mittit* -- which already makes clear that AA is is perhaps ablative indeed, but absolute not so much (per my definition) - in particular it is many times more than &quot;temporal&quot; but it provides the *relevant* context which is very close to casual. (i.e, whithout this AA happening it is clear the next action would also not happen). In other words, even if theoretically /syntactically AA is temporal is to be understood as casual." CreationDate="2024-03-25T13:31:01.593" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47827" PostId="19441" Score="0" Text="@@cmw In my opinion, the particular syntactic context and the stylistic parallelism with _abiectus conscientia_ makes the 2nd option more natural than the 1st one. NB: _recitatis litteris_ is a typical example of AA found in some important textbooks of Latin syntax: e.g. Woodcock 1959 and Pinkster 2021. As noted above, this example is mentioned MANY times by Pinkster. Perhaps he just followed Woodcock (1959: 34-35), who also omits the particular syntactic context involved but I don’t know if there is a better reason for choosing the 1st option, the one selected by the Loeb translator." CreationDate="2024-03-25T13:51:40.963" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47828" PostId="19441" Score="0" Text="@d_e Why do you say that _acceptīs litterīs_ is not an AA &quot;per your definition&quot;? Cf.  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15055/grammatical-structure-of-obsidibus-imperatis-centum-hos-haeduis-custodiendos-tr/15058#15058 for some apparently &quot;problematic&quot; examples from a classical author like Caesar (!)." CreationDate="2024-03-25T13:58:37.903" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47833" PostId="19441" Score="0" Text="@d_e What do you mean when saying that &quot;even if theoretically/syntactically AA is temporal&quot;? In my opinion, from a &quot;syntactic/theoretical&quot; point of view, the AA is not basically temporal: i.e. theoretically speaking, AAs do _not_ have semantic interpretations that are inherently associated to them. Rather the temporal and causal interpretations, i.a., are to be drawn from each particular context." CreationDate="2024-03-25T16:10:58.777" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47834" PostId="19441" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, in short I don't see how we can distinguish between the two readings suggested. I say AA (despite its name) has semi-causal attributes." CreationDate="2024-03-25T16:23:15.903" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47835" PostId="19441" Score="0" Text="@d_e Just to clarify the point, the two readings suggested in my question have to do with two different syntactic environments. The 2nd option above is _not_ an AA. So I understand that what you mean is that, within the 1st option above, one cannot in principle (cf. your &quot;theoretically/syntactically&quot; above) distinguish between the temporal &amp; the causal interpretations of the AA. Yes, I agree with you in this respect but I don't agree with you when saying that the &quot;AA has semi-causal attributes&quot;. As noted, these &quot;attributes&quot; are external to the AA: i.e. they are given by the particular context." CreationDate="2024-03-25T16:43:35.903" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="41130" PostId="19442" Score="6" Text="The idea of language families dates to like the 17th century." CreationDate="2023-01-28T11:15:19.623" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41131" PostId="19442" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Similarities between Hebrew and Arabic were noted in the Middle Ages (and possibly before)." CreationDate="2023-01-28T12:58:14.833" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="41132" PostId="19442" Score="2" Text="Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages thought all languages descended from Hebrew, but that doesn't translate to having a conception of distinct language families. Van Boxhorn in the 17th century seems to have been the first to posit a grouping of languages descended from a common ancestor (&quot;Scythian&quot;) based on similarities between languages while also *excluding* other languages from that group (Hebrew, specifically)." CreationDate="2023-01-28T13:40:10.373" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41133" PostId="19442" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Even if this were true, I fail to see how this world view would prevent the existence of a certain word to refer to some related languages/peoples. Thanks." CreationDate="2023-01-28T13:55:01.853" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="41134" PostId="19442" Score="3" Text="@Cairnarvon Christians yes (maybe), Muslims no. Muslims believe that God spoke Arabic." CreationDate="2023-01-28T14:01:37.947" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="41135" PostId="19442" Score="0" Text="@Victor If they didn't realize they were related, how could they have a name for them?" CreationDate="2023-01-28T16:11:04.033" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41139" PostId="19442" Score="2" Text="@fdb - Medieval Muslims believed that God spoke Arabic *while transmitting the Quran*, or that Arabic was the first, divinely appointed language? I have trouble believing the latter: Islam is largely built on Judaism and the Jewish Tanach, so they would have had some idea of people from long ago speaking Hebrew." CreationDate="2023-01-28T23:15:57.747" UserId="3513" />
  <row Id="41144" PostId="19442" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon and it took until the 19th century until there was a systematic comparison between Latin and the Germanic languages (German, English, etc.). This is all old hat today but was a real area of inquiry a few hundred years ago." CreationDate="2023-01-29T15:24:01.503" UserId="1174" />
  <row Id="41148" PostId="19442" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon whilst it is true that the idea of language families as we understand them today wasn't recognised, there was a recognition that some peoples spoke languages that were similar but not the same. In most cases though they seem to have just said things along the lines of &quot;they spoke a language like that of the X&quot; where X is a better known people speaking a related language. In this case I suspect &quot;like the language of the Syrians&quot; would probably be the closest to a term for the Semitic languages" CreationDate="2023-01-30T09:26:04.080" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41149" PostId="19442" Score="0" Text="@Obie2.0 iirc the Qur'an states that each prophet received their revelation (which was functionally equivalent to Islam) in their native language. Whilst there is some latitude to assume their native languages were all Arabic I believe those prophets who were Jews were generally assumed to have received their revelation in Hebrew instead. The idea that Arabic is the unique language of revelation (and therefore of Allah) appears to be a more recent innovation" CreationDate="2023-01-30T09:30:48.877" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41138" PostId="19444" Score="4" Text="Cf. [*Asianus* v. *Asiaticus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/what-is-the-difference-between-asianus-and-asiaticus/4473#4473). I'd say the average Roman could handle either just fine, though." CreationDate="2023-01-28T18:44:42.680" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41147" PostId="19445" Score="0" Text="That jibes with my experience. I've read *generatio* as meaning begetting, bearing, and birthing, but not as educating." CreationDate="2023-01-30T00:28:57.540" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41142" PostId="19448" Score="2" Text="The intransitive use of *moveo* is very rare classically. *Moveo* is a good choice otherwise because it does occur as a synonym for *muto*." CreationDate="2023-01-29T13:34:56.403" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41143" PostId="19448" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Yep! I distinctly remember getting marks off in early poetry composition because I used *moveo* without an object. Even if it occurs rarely, it would be very unusual to see in a motto. I would only go with the transitive passive here." CreationDate="2023-01-29T14:37:51.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41146" PostId="19449" Score="0" Text="Thank you, Sebastian." CreationDate="2023-01-29T21:40:20.133" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41150" PostId="19450" Score="0" Text="Especially since Punic had by then lost many of the distinctive sounds that might be recognized in the other languages, like emphatic consonants, pharyngeals, and a lot of sibilants." CreationDate="2023-01-30T16:59:36.767" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41152" PostId="19450" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Punic did retain distinct emphatics (represented in Latin Neo-Punic as t &amp; c, where the voiceless stops were represented ph, th, &amp; ch). The lack of aspiration seems to be what Greeks and (educated) Romans considered distinctive of the emphatics anyway so a lack of glottalisation/pharyngealisation (which is far from certain) isn't especially relevant. I'm skeptical of the common claim that the sibilants had merged, from what I can see Punic was reasonably consistent in spelling these in Punic characters, it just didn't always agree with Hebrew" CreationDate="2023-01-31T09:42:22.900" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41153" PostId="19450" Score="0" Text="the loss of gutturals is more significant, and might make it trickier to recognise the similarity. I thought the similarity would still be recognised because the native Punic orthography was still conservative and extremely similar to that of Hebrew. I guess once Latin script displace Punic that would be less significant though and the similarity may no longer have been as obvious" CreationDate="2023-01-31T09:43:42.427" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41154" PostId="19450" Score="0" Text="so overall I think Hebrew's similarity to Punic would have been clear (St Augustine certainly seems to rely on his native Punic in understanding Hebrew). Aramaic might have been a little less obvious, but the similarity between Aramaic &amp; Hebrew would probably also have been clear. They may have incorrectly assumed Hebrew was similarly close to both Aramaic &amp; Punic, but I do think both similarities would have been obvious" CreationDate="2023-01-31T09:46:08.027" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41155" PostId="19450" Score="0" Text="I'll add some discussion of this to the answer" CreationDate="2023-01-31T09:46:48.497" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41156" PostId="19450" Score="0" Text="This really deserves its own question, so I'll go ask that in a minute, but in brief: as you said, the native orthography was very conservative, so the distinction between the sibilant letters could have been a fossil like the use of the various gutturals." CreationDate="2023-01-31T16:56:48.820" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41159" PostId="19450" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure there's a good site for it as an alternative question. I don't the orthography is as consistently conservative as you suggest. Whilst the conservative spellings are (for the most part) the most common, there is frequent confusion between the laryngeals that isn't seen in the sibilants, and later on the definite article starts being spelt with an aleph most of the time" CreationDate="2023-02-01T09:43:48.590" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41157" PostId="19451" Score="3" Text="What would the masculine nominative singular agree with, though?" CreationDate="2023-01-31T18:01:58.443" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="41162" PostId="19451" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I presume that, if it is correct, it will depend on the context, who or what is being referred to." CreationDate="2023-02-01T19:03:02.093" UserId="11886" />
  <row Id="41158" PostId="19454" Score="0" Text="Sanchez: Welcome to the site. You need, &quot;Conversational Latin&quot; by Traupmann. It's freely available on the net. Lucky you!" CreationDate="2023-02-01T08:32:38.617" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="41168" PostId="19454" Score="1" Text="Latin didn't have the T-V distinction of most later Romance languages, so you'd just use *tu* with everyone. I suspect people are reluctant to post answers because there really isn't much more to say than that." CreationDate="2023-02-02T02:33:23.300" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41234" PostId="19455" Score="0" Text="Thank you all. I think Libricola at the moment is my favorite. I also found litteratus. But to call yourself learned, erudite.. I don't know. Any thoughts on that? Much appreciated!&#xA;Enya" CreationDate="2023-02-06T11:43:31.553" UserId="12088" />
  <row Id="41235" PostId="19455" Score="0" Text="@Enya I'm glad to hear the answers have been of use! The best way to reward those you help you on this site is to vote their answers up and to accept one of the answers. You'll be able to do those if you register your account. (I agree on *litteratus*: it is more &quot;better than others because of books&quot; than &quot;lover of books&quot;. Also, that one needs to switched to *litterata* if you want a feminine form.)" CreationDate="2023-02-06T11:56:53.220" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41161" PostId="19456" Score="0" Text="Hi Sean. It looks like we already answered that question, but in an extended form. Have a look at the linked question, and if you still have questions, feel free to ping me (@cmw) or edit the question to explain why the above question doesn't give you a complete answer." CreationDate="2023-02-01T18:35:37.183" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41160" PostId="19457" Score="1" Text="Probably should mention that the first one is a clear allusion to the classic *dum spiro spero*. Also, I think in this case, for the second suggestion, the indicative is indeed better. The subjunctive would more easily read &quot;let the kind of person who breathes fight.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-01T18:33:42.900" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41163" PostId="19457" Score="0" Text="Dum spiro, pugno sounds good but I'm not sure if reflects the meaning of what I'm trying to say. I want it to feel more desperate...not just like everyone who is breathing is fighting.. more in the sense of, you've been fighting, you want to quit but you can always fight if you can breathe." CreationDate="2023-02-01T19:46:44.407" UserId="12073" />
  <row Id="41171" PostId="19457" Score="1" Text="@Sean I think *dum spiro pugno* accomplishes that more than *qui spirat pugnet*. The latter could mean &quot;everyone who is breathing should fight&quot;, but the former is more in line with what you want. The linked answer I gave you above has more options, too." CreationDate="2023-02-02T15:37:21.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41169" PostId="19460" Score="1" Text="I wonder if one could add Maximus to the above? What would the greatest book lover of all be called?" CreationDate="2023-02-02T09:24:38.703" UserId="12076" />
  <row Id="41200" PostId="19460" Score="1" Text="I follow @Sebastian on *librorum studiosus*. Cicero, Verr., 4, 13: *qui studiosi sunt harum rerum* &quot;those who are fond of those objects&quot;." CreationDate="2023-02-05T03:59:55.743" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41296" PostId="19460" Score="0" Text="@user1095108 in the case of *helluo librorum*, you absolutely can add *maximus*, as Erasmus did when he wrote: *Lucernula conueniet Chrysoglotto, anagnostae insatiabili, et, ut M. Tullius inquit, librorum helluoni maximo* = &quot;The little lamp will be welcomed by Chrysoglottus, the insatiable reader and, as M. Tullius [Cicero] puts it, greatest glutton for books.&quot; But in the case of *amans* and *studiosus*, the superlatives I mentioned would be used instead." CreationDate="2023-02-09T01:34:07.450" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41170" PostId="19463" Score="1" Text="Is &quot;I know, right&quot; substantially different from &quot;I agree&quot; or &quot;Indeed&quot; or the many other similar phrases? I'm not sure if you're looking for a general statement to indicate agreement or something that matches your chosen phrase specifically in some respect. If you mean the latter, can you elaborate on what aspects of a Latin phrase are most important?" CreationDate="2023-02-02T14:29:06.567" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41172" PostId="19463" Score="0" Text="I think the meaning is the same but the level of formality is different. &quot;I agree&quot; works in just about any circumstance, while &quot;I know, right&quot; might raise eyebrows if it was used in a congressional hearing or other place of high formality. So I guess in what I'm wondering is, is there a Latin phrase that expresses the idea of agreement in a very informal way?" CreationDate="2023-02-02T17:06:32.773" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41173" PostId="19463" Score="2" Text="I don't know if that's what you asked, but the verb &quot;teneo&quot; is a synonym for &quot;to know&quot;  Trop.&#xA;      1. In gen., to hold, contain in the mind, to conceive, comprehend, know (syn.: &#xA;        “percipio, intellego): nunc ego teneo, nunc scio, Quid sit hoc negotii,” Plaut. Capt. 3, 5, 39: tenes Quorsum haec tendant quae loquor, id. Ps. 1, 2, 81: &#xA;        “tenes, quid dicam?” Ter. Heaut. 4, 3, 22&#xA;        “teneo,” I understand, id. And. 1, 1, 59" CreationDate="2023-02-02T18:40:59.177" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41183" PostId="19463" Score="1" Text="This seems like a good answer to me." CreationDate="2023-02-03T20:42:01.863" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41201" PostId="19464" Score="1" Text="Your answer is nice, I voted up. Just, if we are to nitpick, *to cultivate books* is not exactly *to love books*. But it has the advantage of suggesting a synthetic compound, contrary to *librorum studiosus* and similar glosses." CreationDate="2023-02-05T04:05:02.863" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41174" PostId="19465" Score="2" Text="*Legenda* is actually plural neuter here. It's not bad, very readable, but a few mistakes (and barbarisms) in the first response. It's immediately clear this is not actual Latin." CreationDate="2023-02-02T22:54:21.777" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41175" PostId="19465" Score="1" Text="@cmw but the word GPT is looking for here is *legenda, -ae, f* (not classical, probably mediaeval and later), so this is plain wrong." CreationDate="2023-02-03T08:32:07.370" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41176" PostId="19465" Score="0" Text="... or it is the ablative, and ferunt is impersonal: &quot;they say, by way of a legend ...&quot; this could make sense." CreationDate="2023-02-03T08:35:16.237" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41177" PostId="19465" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Ah, I never dug too deeply into Medieval Latin, so I didn't know that was fem. sing." CreationDate="2023-02-03T14:07:19.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41295" PostId="19465" Score="0" Text="@cmw Far be it from me to claim a particular familiarity with (or affinity for) mediaeval Latin, but speaking a gendered language like French (la légende) or German (die Legende) also helps ;-)" CreationDate="2023-02-09T01:28:20.783" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41297" PostId="19465" Score="0" Text="I didn't even think to connect it to French or German. Très intelligent." CreationDate="2023-02-09T01:34:42.990" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41178" PostId="19466" Score="0" Text="This is the correct answer. You could even quote Lewis and Short: &quot;Subst.: prae-tĕrĭta , ōrum, n., things gone by, the **past**.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-03T16:31:09.390" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41179" PostId="19466" Score="0" Text="Welcome, by the way. And great user name!" CreationDate="2023-02-03T16:32:04.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41184" PostId="19466" Score="0" Text="Thanks! Good catch on Lewis and Short." CreationDate="2023-02-04T00:37:54.800" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="41232" PostId="19466" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer. _Exsurgant_ has a nice feel in the sense that it feels more &quot;energized&quot; than simply saying it's alive." CreationDate="2023-02-06T06:06:26.527" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41238" PostId="19466" Score="0" Text="If you want &quot;shall live,&quot; use *exsurgent*. *exsurgant* is subjunctive, which would mean &quot;may the past rise up.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-06T17:23:27.350" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="41181" PostId="19467" Score="0" Text="@d_e You were right! It's the same as that other question." CreationDate="2023-02-03T20:32:18.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41182" PostId="19467" Score="0" Text="@cmw, yeah, but I saw you've already answered, so deleted it." CreationDate="2023-02-03T20:35:29.120" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41190" PostId="19467" Score="1" Text="The plural replacing the singular is very common in poetry, for example in Catullo *Fulsere vere tibi candidi soles.*" CreationDate="2023-02-04T16:37:52.823" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41197" PostId="19467" Score="2" Text="@VincentKrebs Yep, and it's often referred to as the poetic plural. Nathaniel cites [G&amp;L here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/614/78)." CreationDate="2023-02-05T01:25:06.130" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41198" PostId="19467" Score="0" Text="@cmw Yes, exactly." CreationDate="2023-02-05T01:26:29.400" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41194" PostId="19468" Score="0" Text="Another semi-literal translation could be “He is starred on the/his body”." CreationDate="2023-02-04T20:57:33.557" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="41217" PostId="19468" Score="0" Text="Thanks, one thing I've appreciated as I grind my way through Ovidius is how often some nouns, occasional accusatives, proper/place names, etc. are influenced by Greek. I've been aware for a long time that all cultured Romans knew Greek. And fortunately I'm also learning (Ancient) Greek. This is the first time I've seen a grammatical usage which appears to be a Hellenic innovation in Latin (your link says &quot;... Greek Accusative, found in poetry and later Latin&quot;). Does anyone know whether Ovidius was himself responsible for introducing it?" CreationDate="2023-02-05T15:53:29.243" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="41219" PostId="19468" Score="1" Text="@mikerodent Nope, but not too far off. Apparently, [Sallust](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA215#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) was the first to do so. Gildersleeve notes a parallel construction (which he labels the &quot;indefinite&quot; type of Accusative of Respect) with *cetera* and cites Cicero for it, though it must be even earlier. But that seems different from the &quot;definite&quot; type found here in Ovid, which is rare until Vergil (and chiefly in poetry)." CreationDate="2023-02-05T16:09:07.060" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41248" PostId="19468" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent, I think we have this example in Lucretius:&#xA;&#xA;*Volucres ... perculsae corda tuа̄ vi*" CreationDate="2023-02-07T12:09:47.117" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41186" PostId="19471" Score="1" Text="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gallus#Latin" CreationDate="2023-02-04T04:31:05.957" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41187" PostId="19471" Score="2" Text="I think the reason this is getting downvotes is that you seem to be just asking about the meaning of a Latin noun. Did you check a Latin dictionary? If so, what further questions remained for you?" CreationDate="2023-02-04T14:54:16.597" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41188" PostId="19472" Score="3" Text="Have you tried using a dictionary like [Lewis and Short](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l) instead of Google Translate? Google Translate is [not good](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for)." CreationDate="2023-02-04T15:57:21.820" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41199" PostId="19472" Score="0" Text="@cmw I'm not professional enough to use a Latin dictionary." CreationDate="2023-02-05T03:21:20.760" UserId="4693" />
  <row Id="41223" PostId="19472" Score="1" Text="@zzzgoo I disagree! They don't require you to know any Latin. We have a [long list of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79), and trying out a couple of them should lead you to a tool that you're comfortable using." CreationDate="2023-02-05T21:44:14.290" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41218" PostId="19473" Score="0" Text="&quot;Theoretically, the bird could have been denominated 'the Gaulish one' (Gallus), but &#xA;there are no indications that chicken were regarded as having come from Gaul.&quot; (de Vaan)" CreationDate="2023-02-05T16:06:47.007" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="41189" PostId="19474" Score="0" Text="Could we just say &quot;I don't care.&quot; &quot;Who cares? The verb &quot;refert&quot; means something like this:" CreationDate="2023-02-04T15:59:51.807" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41191" PostId="19474" Score="1" Text="‘Who cares?’’ means something like ‘so what’ rather than ‘so there’. The first idiom indicates indifference, whereas ‘so there’ which is defiant." CreationDate="2023-02-04T20:30:00.063" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="41193" PostId="19474" Score="0" Text="I guess only a native will be able to help you. I never heard of &quot;so there&quot; I had to google it and the meaning in Portuguese is like &quot;have in mind!&quot; &quot;Did you understand that?&quot; I just suggest that because the thesaurus says it's a way of saying that you don't care." CreationDate="2023-02-04T20:51:01.023" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41196" PostId="19474" Score="0" Text="If I understand well, it substantially means something like *Make your peace with it!* (French &quot;Prends-en ton parti!&quot;) I believe this very concise expression, formed out of two extremely common grammatical words, could correspond to French *c'est comme ça* &quot;it is what it is&quot;. *Ita est.* could be what you are looking for." CreationDate="2023-02-04T22:04:18.697" UserId="5038" />
  <row Id="41214" PostId="19474" Score="1" Text="Thank you , Manuel and Vincent! The expression in an  earlier form was ‘so put that in your pipe and smoke it!’  Maybe it is similar to, but not identical with, the Latin ‘velis, nolis (with corresponding change of person):- ‘like it or not!’ A French equivalent is si ça ne te plaît pas, c'est le même prix. In Spanish it is ¡chúpate esa! or ‘ si quieres créetelo, si no quieres no’. Three German equivalents  can be found at https://en.pons.com/translate/english-german/put+that+in+your+pipe+and+smoke+it. It has an offensive nuance, absent from ‘that’s the way it is’." CreationDate="2023-02-05T15:07:36.193" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="41208" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="I saw the exchange in the other question, and was going to suggest this very thing! Curious though, why did you answer it as a community wiki answer?" CreationDate="2023-02-05T06:30:00.393" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41210" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="&quot;In vulgar Latin *mulier* alone had the role of neutral term until much later&quot; - I think this quote is important for the overall thesis. I also wonder, as I haven't read the article yet, how he deals with Cic. *DND* 2.128.1?" CreationDate="2023-02-05T06:33:16.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41211" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="@cmw: it looks to me like that is case of &quot;femina&quot; in the sense &quot;female&quot; rather than &quot;woman&quot;: it's used in coordination with *mas* &quot;male&quot;. When speaking of physical sex in animals (or plants), only &quot;femina&quot; is possible and it doesn't have a respectful connotation in that context." CreationDate="2023-02-05T06:42:34.633" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="41222" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="Right. It seems strange to me that the &quot;respectful&quot; word for people is the neutral one for animals. It makes me think something more is going on with these words than a simple dichotomy, especially since much of this interpretation is coming from Cicero's philosophical works." CreationDate="2023-02-05T18:52:09.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41231" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="Fun fact: even in modern Romanian, &quot;femeie&quot; is the commonly used word for &quot;woman&quot;, while &quot;muiere&quot; sounds both old-fashioned and offensive." CreationDate="2023-02-06T05:32:57.660" UserId="1549" />
  <row Id="41233" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="@vsz: Oddly enough, &quot;femeie&quot; is supposed to have a separate etymology from Latin  *familia.* It's hard to believe, but it doesn't come from *fēmina*!" CreationDate="2023-02-06T11:16:01.677" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="41237" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="@cmw my first thought was that it's an example of reverse Euphemism Treadmill—the more &quot;proper&quot; term was used in more &quot;proper&quot; or academic contexts, and eventually became more and more associated with stuffy/academic/scientific usages and the more vulgar term, combined with English's gradual loss of formality distinguishers (you/thou, etc) took over common usage. That's entirely conjecture on my part, however." CreationDate="2023-02-06T15:10:42.720" UserId="12090" />
  <row Id="41241" PostId="19477" Score="0" Text="I removed CW status. What's a shame is that you don't get points for the upvotes! If this turns into a long-standing, much edited post, we can go back there, but I think in the meantime you should get the credit for doing this work." CreationDate="2023-02-06T18:05:46.673" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41254" PostId="19479" Score="0" Text="Hey, welcome to the site, hard text! I probably won't have a solution, but I have some thoughts that I'll post later. I'll keep the tab open." CreationDate="2023-02-07T16:14:22.523" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="41316" PostId="19479" Score="0" Text="Thank you for taking a look." CreationDate="2023-02-10T21:04:22.960" UserId="12085" />
  <row Id="41226" PostId="19480" Score="0" Text="Note that the English sounds slightly odd to me as well, *anyone of the members*." CreationDate="2023-02-05T22:52:42.313" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="41224" PostId="19485" Score="0" Text="I think I understand now. Can you comment on the verb, and how &quot;aliquem&quot; and &quot;aliquid&quot; are being used alongside &quot;nude&quot; there?" CreationDate="2023-02-05T22:29:54.887" UserId="9960" />
  <row Id="41225" PostId="19485" Score="0" Text="@Josh &quot;Someone&quot; and &quot;something&quot;—that is, it can be used with either a person or a thing (or neither, _nude_)." CreationDate="2023-02-05T22:48:47.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41227" PostId="19485" Score="0" Text="This is somewhat, though not quite, similar to how we can use the word *bare* in English. A bare ablative is one without a praeposition, for examp.e" CreationDate="2023-02-05T23:22:35.923" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="41228" PostId="19485" Score="0" Text="One would perhaps say *absol[utely]* in a modern dictionary." CreationDate="2023-02-05T23:29:12.593" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41242" PostId="19485" Score="0" Text="It's perhaps worth stating the obvious and adding macrons: the word here is *nūdē*, the adverb of *nūdus* ([Lewis &amp; Short II.B.2](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/nudus)) (&quot;nakedly, simply&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-02-06T18:09:38.737" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="41229" PostId="19486" Score="1" Text="*Studium* can mean the *act* of studying in some contexts, but not a *field* of study. It's in the semantic field of expending effort towards something, English &quot;study&quot; is now a false friend." CreationDate="2023-02-06T00:57:28.110" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41230" PostId="19489" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Now I'm gonna chew this. I've always found the nominative case so simple. But this was really challenging." CreationDate="2023-02-06T04:09:50.630" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41236" PostId="19489" Score="0" Text="Might be worth adding that the quotation is from Ovid  M. 3, 137." CreationDate="2023-02-06T13:01:59.910" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="41239" PostId="19491" Score="0" Text="Does this exist also in the reversed order? Some modern languages seem to have words like the English 'bibliophile'." CreationDate="2023-02-06T17:39:44.150" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41240" PostId="19491" Score="2" Text="In Greek, reversing the order would change the meaning. βιβλόφιλος is not attested, but it would mean something like &quot;a friend of books&quot; or &quot;loved by books.&quot; Compare φιλόλογος &quot;lover of words&quot; and λογόφιλος &quot;friend of words,&quot; or φιλόθεος &quot;pious, lover of the divine&quot; and θεόφιλος &quot;loved by the gods, a friend of the gods.&quot; The attested compounds seem to indicate that &quot;lover of X&quot; should be φιλο-X rather than X-φιλος." CreationDate="2023-02-06T18:02:20.183" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="41243" PostId="19491" Score="0" Text="Thanks! That clarifies it a lot. Can you edit that into the answer itself, too?" CreationDate="2023-02-06T19:11:39.017" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41244" PostId="19491" Score="0" Text="Okay, I've done that." CreationDate="2023-02-06T19:22:27.233" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="41253" PostId="19492" Score="1" Text="Neither παρηγορία nor ἀνακούφισις has any kind of association with homes, and neither primarily means 'solace'." CreationDate="2023-02-07T15:03:20.290" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41255" PostId="19492" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Hey Cairnarvon, I was unsure about that but what does then? The Latin-Greek lexicon gives: solatium: paramythion. But latter is evidently verbal solace only. The other ones might have the menaing secondarily but they seemed to me to be more general." CreationDate="2023-02-07T20:30:21.510" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="41256" PostId="19492" Score="0" Text="παρηγορία is built on ἀγορεύω, when it's about consolation it's about verbal consolation as well. ἀνακούφισις is generic relief (κοῦφος 'light' → κουφίζω 'to be light; to lighten' →ἀνακουφίζω 'to lift up, lighten'), so if anything it's too general, which I think is a problem you'll have no matter what you pick in this general area. I'd look to words meaning 'home' specifically, though I don't think this is really a separable idea from νοσταλγία generally (νόστος 'return home')." CreationDate="2023-02-07T20:59:41.513" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41271" PostId="19492" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Thank you for clearing up. However I do not understand why I should look for a word meaning home. Because said feeling is about the relief one feels at home that is then lost and pained for. So it is not really about the home itself anymore then. It appears to me that solacium is no less general than anakouphisis, although I get your point hat the base meaning is sensual and could mean multiple things. Another proposition could be &quot;παραψυχαλγια&quot; from &quot;παραψυχη&quot;same. &quot;Cooling the pain&quot;. Same generality problem? Question is also whether my compoundings are morohologiclly correct." CreationDate="2023-02-08T09:42:51.207" UserId="11228" />
  <row Id="41245" PostId="19493" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! When you get an answer, please wait a few days to see if you get competing ones or if other users see any issues. I assume you want the tattoo design to be good instead of barely sensical, so give it some time." CreationDate="2023-02-06T23:00:49.153" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41246" PostId="19493" Score="2" Text="Can you also explain what you mean? These words don't have one single meaning and usage in English, so explaining what you want the tattoo to convey is really important." CreationDate="2023-02-06T23:06:40.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41251" PostId="19493" Score="1" Text="Yes, I want the words to convey &quot;to dominate through the use of shadows&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-07T14:04:48.200" UserId="12092" />
  <row Id="41270" PostId="19493" Score="1" Text="Dominate doesn't have one single meaning. What do you mean by it? And by shadows you do you literally mean people's shadows? Dark places in general? Shades of the underworld? What does it mean to &quot;dominate through the use of shadows&quot;? Using shadows as a means to control what, the world? To excel in life? The more specific you are, the better others can give you a more accurate response." CreationDate="2023-02-08T05:29:37.623" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41305" PostId="19493" Score="0" Text="*Dominentur in tenebris* can mean &quot;let them dominate in the dark&quot;, and *dominari in tenebris* can mean &quot;to dominate in the dark&quot;. But note that the bare infinitive *dominari* does not mean &quot;in order to dominate&quot;, but simply &quot;to dominate&quot; (as in &quot;to dominate is one way to think about governing&quot;). In English &quot;to&quot; can imply &quot;in order to&quot;, but that won't usually work in Latin. If you want the &quot;in order to&quot; sense, you'll need to say it some other way." CreationDate="2023-02-09T22:57:07.897" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41265" PostId="19496" Score="0" Text="When you say 'to seek', do you mean that as a plain infinitive or as a purpose clause (&quot;I got this tattoo to seek (~to remind me to seek?) joy and meaning in my life&quot;)?" CreationDate="2023-02-08T01:44:16.807" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41249" PostId="19497" Score="0" Text="That's a great answer thank you! Are you sure scientia civilis is not attested?" CreationDate="2023-02-07T12:35:31.700" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="41252" PostId="19497" Score="1" Text="@Victor As far as I know the term was coined by Thomas Hobbes." CreationDate="2023-02-07T14:53:35.477" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41264" PostId="19499" Score="0" Text="An English word can be derived from Latin (through some loan) or it can be cognate with a Latin word (i.e. both inherited from a common ancestor in Proto-Indo-European), but not both. There actually probably is a true cognate: [*cost*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cost#Etymology_3) 'manner, way' (not the normal *cost*). Incidentally, note that English *much* and Spanish *mucho* are not related; *mucho* is from Latin *multus*, which doesn't have cognates in Germanic." CreationDate="2023-02-08T01:34:48.943" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41272" PostId="19500" Score="0" Text="The word also exists in an obsolete form [without the -o](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gust), a homonym to the burst of wind which has different roots." CreationDate="2023-02-08T10:20:30.770" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="41259" PostId="19501" Score="4" Text="Do you mean *mirari*?" CreationDate="2023-02-07T22:13:15.167" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41267" PostId="19502" Score="0" Text="A very handy and useful summary, thank you. Where might *quisquis* fit into these? *Quisquis membrorum* was my first thought upon reading this question, although I like *quodvis membrum* better." CreationDate="2023-02-08T02:56:28.550" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41294" PostId="19502" Score="1" Text="@Figulus For one thing, *quisquis* is a relative pronoun (as is *quicumque*, which basically means the same but can also be used adjectively, which quisquis is only very rarely), so it would require a different construction than what the English original suggests here." CreationDate="2023-02-09T01:25:31.917" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41266" PostId="19503" Score="1" Text="It's unclear from the OP, but going based on his other question, I wonder if he might exclude *miracle* since it comes directly from *miracula*, not *mirari*. (I guess technically *admire* comes from a prefixed form, too, but at least it's the same verb.) Maybe he'll clarify what he means." CreationDate="2023-02-08T01:48:43.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41276" PostId="19504" Score="1" Text="Are you looking for a verb? &quot;Volo&quot; and &quot;significo&quot; are some equivalent. You can download the Lewis and Short app, even the Scriba." CreationDate="2023-02-08T16:38:51.627" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41282" PostId="19504" Score="0" Text="@Manuel *Volo* is absolutely not an appropriate translation for 'mean' in the sense of 'signify'. Please actually read the entry instead of just searching for a word." CreationDate="2023-02-08T17:57:09.180" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41283" PostId="19504" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon &quot;Quid sibi vult&quot; is actually a pretty standard way of saying &quot;signify/mean,&quot; but you're right that it rarely means this when used alone." CreationDate="2023-02-08T18:01:14.733" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41303" PostId="19504" Score="0" Text="Not sure why this question got so many down votes. Speak up in the comments, anyone, if you see a problem with it. Thanks." CreationDate="2023-02-09T21:13:36.323" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41277" PostId="19506" Score="0" Text="I like &quot;Cur lingua latina discenda est?&quot; YouTube is full of &quot;Why should learn(such language)?&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-08T16:50:04.323" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41278" PostId="19506" Score="1" Text="@Manuel Thanks for your comment, I was afraid a direct question as a title didn't sound great in Latin" CreationDate="2023-02-08T16:57:16.447" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="41279" PostId="19506" Score="0" Text="I should note though that Youtube is not particularly Ciceronian..." CreationDate="2023-02-08T17:29:50.877" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41288" PostId="19506" Score="1" Text="I tend to see indirect questions rather than direct questions as section headings, so I'd recommend *Cur lingua latina discenda sit* over *est*. I think there's an implied *tractatur* or *rogabitur* vel sim." CreationDate="2023-02-08T19:45:25.723" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="41290" PostId="19506" Score="2" Text="*De utilitate linguae Latinae* sounds perfectly good and *satis tullianum* to me; you would [not be the first](https://www.google.de/books/edition/De_latin%C3%A6_lingu%C3%A6_utilitate_oratio/YM9lAAAAcAAJ?hl=de&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PP5&amp;printsec=frontcover) to use that title, though." CreationDate="2023-02-08T20:03:36.943" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41292" PostId="19506" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel If you want to write that up as an answer, I have an upvote waiting. That's exactly the way I'd phrase it." CreationDate="2023-02-08T20:50:12.140" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41280" PostId="19509" Score="2" Text="The downvote isn't mine, but: this question is easily answered with a dictionary. If you looked it up and are still puzzled, you should explain what research you've done and why you're not satisfied with what you found." CreationDate="2023-02-08T17:49:01.537" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41281" PostId="19510" Score="1" Text="Latin does use the nominative here (as does old-fashioned / highly formal English)." CreationDate="2023-02-08T17:52:37.037" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41284" PostId="19510" Score="0" Text="Am I misremembering? I thought comparatives always took the ablative in this construction." CreationDate="2023-02-08T18:02:11.483" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41286" PostId="19510" Score="0" Text="I am in fact misremembering." CreationDate="2023-02-08T18:03:15.310" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41287" PostId="19510" Score="1" Text="There are two options, ablative of comparison without *quam*, or *quam* with the same case as the other comparandum." CreationDate="2023-02-08T18:03:33.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41289" PostId="19510" Score="0" Text="Sticklers might bristle at &quot;him.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-08T19:46:02.393" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41293" PostId="19511" Score="2" Text="Well, the answer to &quot;How do you say that two words have the same meaning?&quot; is: *Duo verba idem significant.*" CreationDate="2023-02-08T21:39:51.857" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41291" PostId="19512" Score="0" Text="*Sempre* is [Italian](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H43yDAdYOY) ;-)" CreationDate="2023-02-08T20:18:23.427" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41309" PostId="19513" Score="0" Text="Servandis or Serviendis?" CreationDate="2023-02-10T12:14:42.647" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="41313" PostId="19513" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey *serviendis* of course, I edited the answer. I had checked on Google Books for examples and found the usual theological examples which had *servandis*, so this somehow stuck in my head ..." CreationDate="2023-02-10T18:20:31.857" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41300" PostId="19515" Score="0" Text="Thanks,  Sebastian. I don't care about the word being classical. Actually,  I don't even like classical Latin." CreationDate="2023-02-09T16:54:07.670" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41304" PostId="19518" Score="1" Text="For what it's worth, Traupman has *maizium inflatum* for popcorn. I suppose it's plausible pipoca could have entered Portuguese from neo-Latin, which would have got from the Tupi, but I don't see why Portuguese couldn't have borrowed it direct from Old Tupi." CreationDate="2023-02-09T22:44:28.773" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41306" PostId="19518" Score="0" Text="Traupman? I pass. They say &quot;Pipoca&quot; even in Portugal. Wouldn't it be easier just to latinize a foreign term?" CreationDate="2023-02-10T00:01:46.990" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41307" PostId="19518" Score="3" Text="Random idea, but what if you coined something using _nux_? My thinking is the Romans, not being familiar with corn, might have thought of the kernel as a nut." CreationDate="2023-02-10T01:36:11.663" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41308" PostId="19518" Score="2" Text="They knew the millet(milium)its grains can be poped. I used to eat it when my father worked on a farm. It's like a tiny popcorn. And a funny fact: the Portuguese word for corn  is &quot;milho&quot; wich came from &quot;milium&quot; perhaps the romans never imagined that if the heat a grian in oil, it could be popped." CreationDate="2023-02-10T01:58:16.487" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41345" PostId="19518" Score="2" Text="From the Morgan-Owens Neo-Latin Lexicon: &quot;343 corn: popcorn  maizium* inflâtum (HELFER)  ► maizium displôsum  ►► LRL: maizae grana tosta.  EL: pop-corn, maïs éclaté; pop corn; palomitas, alborotos, cabritas; Popcorn&quot; (https://neolatinlexicon.org/adumbratio-old/)" CreationDate="2023-02-12T23:27:04.737" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="41362" PostId="19518" Score="0" Text="@Herodotean Your comment is the beginning of great answer." CreationDate="2023-02-14T00:43:21.250" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41312" PostId="19522" Score="3" Text="The *Patrologia Graeca* includes a Latin translation of all Greek works, and it appears that this reference is to a [spurious work by St. Hippolytus](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus_series_grae/74S3-ku1oc4C?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA921&amp;printsec=frontcover). It appears to be an inexact paraphrase taken from the end of XIX and XXII. Is it just a translation exercise to make it Latin?" CreationDate="2023-02-10T16:31:07.347" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41311" PostId="19524" Score="1" Text="&quot;Based on my research&quot;. Can you share that research? Also despite asking about Vulgar Latin, this might be better on the Linguistics site instead." CreationDate="2023-02-10T14:37:39.577" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41317" PostId="19524" Score="2" Text="Some of the Western Romance languages lost the second consonant in *dicere* (hence French *dire*) but the entire Eastern Romance preserved it (as /tʃ/), so even without knowing anything else about the history of the Romance languages the connection of Dir to *dico* is already questionable." CreationDate="2023-02-11T05:26:57.903" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41314" PostId="19525" Score="0" Text="In my reading, &quot;will be filled with&quot; describes not an action but a state, so I would prefer *repleta* or *plena* (ideally the latter to draw a contrast with the Virgin Mary, who is famously *gratia plena*), such as: *quae plena erit quoque vitio ac diabolicis sordibus*." CreationDate="2023-02-10T18:40:19.733" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41315" PostId="19525" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, I guess you are right. Luckily, I have no experience (or simply unaware) on how the Satan operates." CreationDate="2023-02-10T21:03:16.723" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41329" PostId="19529" Score="0" Text="Today I learned hapax legomenon (a word that only appears once). I can't help but ask if there is a elegant way of saying &quot;a word that is not real.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-12T16:45:10.017" UserId="10458" />
  <row Id="41331" PostId="19529" Score="2" Text="@Wastrel Whether there is a scholarly term for unreal words similar to *hapax legomenon* would make a nice question for the site. Just bear in mind that there can be many ways to be not real and in many cases there there is no reason to speak of such words. A word worth looking into and comparing to is &quot;unattested&quot;, as it gets pretty close." CreationDate="2023-02-12T17:10:55.610" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41355" PostId="19529" Score="2" Text="@Wastrel &quot;Ghost word&quot; is sometimes used for this." CreationDate="2023-02-13T17:14:20.800" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41357" PostId="19529" Score="0" Text="@TKR Thank you. The wikipedia article for &quot;ghost word&quot; has several amusing examples of words being invented accidentally, by typographical error or a mistaken translation, and then being published in dictionaries." CreationDate="2023-02-13T17:29:17.800" UserId="10458" />
  <row Id="41340" PostId="19532" Score="1" Text="Nice question, but it would not be my first question with that sentence. What, eruditissimi fratres sororesque, would we answer to someone who came to this website and said: Hey, I wrote a sentence that goes: *Vocatis Paulus discipulis, et exhortatus eos, valedixit* – is this good Latin?" CreationDate="2023-02-12T21:31:36.723" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41342" PostId="19532" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, is that the position of *Paulus* in the middle of Ablative Absolute?" CreationDate="2023-02-12T21:54:30.397" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41343" PostId="19532" Score="3" Text="@d_e Not just that; imagine if we sorted out the word order: *Discipulis vocatis, Paulus et exhortatus eos valedixit.* – the *et* is hanging in the air and the *eos* refers to the object of the AA, which is a no-no; I could be wrong here, but that does not look good to me." CreationDate="2023-02-12T21:55:06.543" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41344" PostId="19532" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel There's an odd discrepancy between the Latin and the Greek. Even the Greek is different between the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort." CreationDate="2023-02-12T22:21:24.740" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41347" PostId="19532" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I read *et* as a cooperating conjunction with *postquam*. &quot;Afterwards, the tumult ceased. And Paul...&quot; But perhaps I'm all wet. Can *postquam* mean adverbial *post* in biblical Latin? I don't think it can in classical Latin." CreationDate="2023-02-13T03:01:33.667" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41332" PostId="19534" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the suggestion, but according to Meissner's Phraséologie, sanare is used for diseases and curare for people, I don't know if this is correct" CreationDate="2023-02-12T17:45:02.910" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="41333" PostId="19534" Score="3" Text="@Victor I'm not sure that's correct, at least not absolutely so. Just quickly looking at Lewis and Short, I already see exceptions, e.g. from Ovid: &quot;corpora vix ferro sanantur.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-02-12T17:46:59.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41338" PostId="19535" Score="2" Text="It is remarkable that in the Nova Vulgata, the text [was changed](https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_actus-apostolorum_lt.html#20) to *accersitis Paulus discipulis*. The creators of the N. V. apparently thought that *vocare* did not express the Greek ideally." CreationDate="2023-02-12T21:23:18.790" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41352" PostId="19536" Score="0" Text="I use the Scriba Latin Dictionary. It's an app." CreationDate="2023-02-13T12:58:46.297" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41353" PostId="19536" Score="0" Text="The imparisyllabic nouns make the genitive plural with &quot;ium&quot;(Dens, dentis/ Dentes, dentium)&#xA;And the parisyllac nouns make the genitive plural with &quot;um&quot;(Canis, canis/Canes, canum)" CreationDate="2023-02-13T13:22:59.687" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41354" PostId="19536" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças What about turris, turrium, nāvis, nāvium, etc?" CreationDate="2023-02-13T16:30:34.203" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41356" PostId="19536" Score="0" Text="Something called Exception?" CreationDate="2023-02-13T17:14:52.750" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41359" PostId="19536" Score="5" Text="I don't think those are exception. See [Allan and Greenough, especially 78](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-summary-i-stem-forms) for more rules." CreationDate="2023-02-13T17:44:45.303" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41360" PostId="19536" Score="0" Text="(Or rather, it's far more complicated than just that.)" CreationDate="2023-02-13T17:45:24.303" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41361" PostId="19537" Score="1" Text="Yes. Someone showed the Thesaurus linguae latinae.  See An answer in my question about a celtic word in latin." CreationDate="2023-02-13T22:44:30.610" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41363" PostId="19537" Score="1" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças Manuel's question can be found https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/19528/the-celtic-word-al-in-latin   and the TLL can be found here: https://thesaurus.badw.de/tll-digital/tll-open-access.html Manuel's comment would make a great answer." CreationDate="2023-02-14T00:47:42.240" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41365" PostId="19538" Score="1" Text="And then there’s also Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina Online (institutional subscription only)" CreationDate="2023-02-14T22:18:40.633" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="41367" PostId="19538" Score="1" Text="@AlexB. Ah, I no longer have any institutional access, so I can't check it out. Does it replicate the TLG experience, or is it more like PHI?" CreationDate="2023-02-14T23:57:37.610" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41369" PostId="19538" Score="0" Text="It is rather limited in what you can do there now, take a look at the search options https://www.degruyter.com/database/btl/html?lang=en (at the very top) But it’s a step in the right direction, I hope one day we’ll get something similar to TLG for Latin" CreationDate="2023-02-15T14:23:52.923" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="43287" PostId="19540" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary is a good, yet not always reliable source. Check it." CreationDate="2023-05-27T03:33:29.843" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41364" PostId="19542" Score="2" Text="Thanks a lot for the anwser! What I meant by &quot;Gentes Italicae&quot; was &quot;Italic tribes&quot;, tribes of a certain ethnolinguistic group, not &quot;tribes of Italy&quot;, as in geographic Italy. In that case, would it be the right formulation?" CreationDate="2023-02-14T21:59:14.033" UserId="12126" />
  <row Id="41368" PostId="19542" Score="1" Text="@MMastro1610: Yes. Lewis &amp; Short even cite &quot;Italica oppida&quot; from Tacitus. http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=italia&amp;filter=CUTF8" CreationDate="2023-02-15T04:09:20.797" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="41380" PostId="19542" Score="1" Text="@MMastro1610 well, *Italicus, -a, -um* means not much more than &quot;of or belonging to Italy,&quot; in other words, &quot;Italian,&quot; so it does not make much of a difference. But yes, you can say that." CreationDate="2023-02-16T11:32:20.760" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41366" PostId="19543" Score="4" Text="I'm not sure what your sentence is intended to mean. Can you edit your question to explain what exactly the phrase means, as well as a little bit of its context. Are you looking for a motto? A grammatical relationship? What kind of people? Like &quot;the Roman people&quot; or &quot;people in general&quot; or &quot;persons&quot;? The more information you give us, the more accurate the answers will be!" CreationDate="2023-02-14T22:28:18.577" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41370" PostId="19545" Score="3" Text="Just a quick note: &quot;to be alive&quot; isn't a passive at all. It's really just the verb &quot;to be&quot; with the adjective &quot;alive&quot; (although originally &quot;alive&quot; was prepositional phrase in Old English)." CreationDate="2023-02-15T14:45:52.883" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41374" PostId="19545" Score="2" Text="My first thought is an ablative absoute like *morieris nulla vita acta*, but there are probably better solutions." CreationDate="2023-02-15T18:59:55.553" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41375" PostId="19546" Score="5" Text="Not sure, but *in ultimo die* for “on the last day” does not look right to me. (There are some Neo-Latin (Catholic) hits on Google Books, but I suspect them to be barbarisms.) By the way, the Romans often used the “last day” as a euphemism for dying anyway, e.g. with *obire* (apparently a favourite phrase of Nepos), so you could say: *Scito … te diem supremum … obiturum*." CreationDate="2023-02-15T21:34:42.453" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41377" PostId="19546" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Yes! *Supremus dies* is much better. I've emended it, thanks! That redundant phrasing in Nepos is so strange. He's really the only one who likes it. I think the more euphemistic language of Lucan (which is hilarious) might be a better way to go." CreationDate="2023-02-15T22:42:12.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41378" PostId="19546" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Thank you. Excellent answer: so that was it? On Wiki, &quot;Octavius&quot; is the Roman name, &quot;Octavian&quot;; vocative, &quot;Octavi&quot;. Do you agree?" CreationDate="2023-02-16T08:55:48.677" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="41379" PostId="19546" Score="0" Text="@cmw my doubts concerned more the temporal expression *in die* in general. Is that how you say it?" CreationDate="2023-02-16T11:24:37.773" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41382" PostId="19546" Score="3" Text="@tony When Gaius Octavius was adopted by Caesar, his name changed to Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus. Thus Octavius and Octavianus are both his name, just at different times of life. The vocative of Octavius is Octavi, of Octavianus is Octaviane." CreationDate="2023-02-16T14:03:50.200" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41383" PostId="19546" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You're right. The *in* is unnecessary. That was indeed my native tongue bleeding through. Instead, the ablative, especially with a demonstrative, is more normal." CreationDate="2023-02-16T15:20:12.073" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41384" PostId="19546" Score="4" Text="_supremo die_ is &quot;better&quot; (e.g. the one used by Cicero) but _ultimo die_ is also attested: cf. _Etiamsi adtenderemus, tamen nos vita praecurreret; nunc vero cunctantes quasi aliena transcurrit et **ultimo die** finitur, omni perit_ (Sen. Epist. 45, 13)." CreationDate="2023-02-16T16:45:16.017" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="41393" PostId="19546" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In CHAT Joonas suggested, &quot;tua die&quot; = &quot;on your (last) day&quot;, after I'd offered, &quot;constituta die&quot; = &quot;on the appointed (last) day&quot;. What about Mitomino's example of the use of &quot;ultimo die&quot; (vs. cmw's, &quot;eo die&quot;)?" CreationDate="2023-02-18T10:30:56.693" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="41408" PostId="19546" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Given Mitomino's example, did &quot;ultimo die&quot; need to be changed to &quot;eo die&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-02-21T09:46:12.447" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="41409" PostId="19546" Score="1" Text="@tony It's not *eo die*, but *eo die supremo*, and the *eo* is a demonstrative: &quot;On *that* final day [of yours]...&quot; The choice of *supremus* over *ultimus* is not one of necessity, but idiom. I *could* have used *ultimus* still, but Sebastian is right that *supremus* is better." CreationDate="2023-02-21T12:50:12.983" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41385" PostId="19549" Score="4" Text="If you look, it seems it links to a Medieval Latin name. It's perhaps just been re-analyzed as a normal Latin 3rd-declension noun instead of a proper Greek patronymic." CreationDate="2023-02-16T23:37:01.550" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41386" PostId="19549" Score="2" Text="I have not done an exhaustive search, but all of the *-ides* nouns with an *-idae* genitive which I have seen, like *achillides*, had had a long i. Is there a distinction to be made between long and short i in *-ides*?" CreationDate="2023-02-17T04:30:53.047" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41407" PostId="19549" Score="1" Text="Often times, names of Greek origin could be used with either Latin or (approximate) Greek endings, in Latin. So I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see this. But I don't know more about this particular suffix." CreationDate="2023-02-21T02:43:50.127" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42498" PostId="19549" Score="1" Text="I couldn't come to a firm answer, but here is a relevant previous question: [What is the gender and singular declension of the scientific Latin suffix -idae?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17244)" CreationDate="2023-03-04T08:02:57.780" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="41398" PostId="19550" Score="0" Text="Cicero’s letters were extremely influential in the Renaissance, precisely because they modeled an alternative to his grand rhetoric. Petrarch imitated them in his own Ad Familiares, and from there it became a matter of course for influential humanists to curate collections of correspondence." CreationDate="2023-02-19T19:27:14.753" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="41400" PostId="19550" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey No doubt they were influential, and I hinted at their importance when I mentioned Pliny above, who copied Cicero (though less in style than in purpose) over a millennium before Petrarch. Their style is usually not what is meant though by rhetoricians and stylists when they exalt (or denigrate!) Cicero's Latinity (thus my phrasing: &quot;not seen as...Cicero's style&quot;). But yours is a point well made." CreationDate="2023-02-19T20:46:10.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41392" PostId="19553" Score="4" Text="Related question: [Do any Latin authors mention other Italic languages?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10877)" CreationDate="2023-02-18T02:40:13.343" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="41394" PostId="19555" Score="0" Text="I learnd that the verb &quot;sum&quot; + gerund may be something like &quot;to be able to&quot; but I never understood this well." CreationDate="2023-02-19T00:58:48.693" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41396" PostId="19555" Score="1" Text="I read it as (not tired *indefessus*) (of acting *agendo*). Am I missing something?" CreationDate="2023-02-19T17:33:57.697" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41397" PostId="19555" Score="1" Text="@Figulus, if *defessa jubendo* means that giving orders causes her to be tired, then *indefessus agendo* means that acting causes him to not be tired. ;;; in other words, it implies he would have been tried without acting. ;;;; In English the distinction is best illustrated by saying &quot;no tired of acting&quot; and &quot;energized of/by acting&quot;." CreationDate="2023-02-19T18:46:44.707" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41399" PostId="19556" Score="0" Text="Despite having its own beautiful charm, I agree that one interpretation is less reasonable by &quot;common sense&quot; (noted that in OP by &quot;oxymoronic&quot;). but then this one interpretation is what the words say. this to the degree I could not see any other interpretation before reading the translation. probably the question could be &quot;is there ambiguity here at all?&quot; which I'm not convinced. In my turn to confess (not being an English native speaker), to my mind, the English &quot;Unwearied by acting&quot; cannot be understood in two ways; But only now that it is pointed out in this Answer, I'll have to accept it." CreationDate="2023-02-19T20:08:15.580" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41405" PostId="19556" Score="1" Text="Not sure why you don't see the parallel: &quot;unwearied by acting&quot; *could* mean &quot;I was weary, but acting has unwearied me.&quot; It's just a silly interpretation. Likewise for the Latin phrase." CreationDate="2023-02-20T17:03:39.593" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="41418" PostId="19562" Score="0" Text="Thank you!  I feel dumb, but also less so after reading your answer.&#xA;&#xA;The stress/thesis coincidence doesn't appear with proper scansion, but that also makes more sense based on what I understand the line to be conveying." CreationDate="2023-02-22T19:24:10.530" UserId="12154" />
  <row Id="42462" PostId="19562" Score="0" Text="@Sura If you've found that this answers your question, make sure to click on the check mark to mark it &quot;answered.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-03-02T03:38:35.643" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44219" PostId="19567" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the response, &amp; for your translation to go with it." CreationDate="2023-07-24T15:27:16.373" UserId="589" />
  <row Id="41421" PostId="19568" Score="0" Text="Hi, Katie. Well, you'll have to learn the cases and be familiar with them. It's not too hard to learn them." CreationDate="2023-02-23T15:29:39.040" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="41423" PostId="19569" Score="2" Text="I'd also add my usual recommendation of [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page): Just type any word form in the search mask, and it will tell you which form of which word it could be, with a link to the word's main entry." CreationDate="2023-02-23T21:20:55.107" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41427" PostId="19569" Score="0" Text="I have found in lieu of good paper when on the go Whitaker's Words is very serviceable. It is available offline for mobile devices and as an online lookup tool. https://latin-words.com/" CreationDate="2023-02-26T19:12:24.143" UserId="10273" />
  <row Id="41422" PostId="19570" Score="0" Text="Each example you gave were verbs.  Grow think etc.    I have gotten pretty good at recognizing the verbs from the conjugation…. My problem is there are potential 98 suffix for a noun … trying to figure out the genitive for a word I see written in a sentence.   I expect for a long while I will be learning new words…so I have to look them up" CreationDate="2023-02-23T17:47:36.207" UserId="12161" />
  <row Id="41424" PostId="19570" Score="3" Text="Yes, this problem does not occur with nouns in English: I was giving it as an analogy. _You_ may have no problem recognizing the verb classes in English, but many learners do. I gave examples of some of the patterns that occur much of the time, but you need to learn each of the patterns, and the exceptions. It's the same learning many languages, particularly in Europe: you try learning the gender of nouns in German, Swedish, or Irish, or the plural of nouns in Irish." CreationDate="2023-02-23T21:21:26.983" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="41457" PostId="19573" Score="0" Text="So something like *vir qui de omni re scibili colloqui potuit*?" CreationDate="2023-02-28T20:11:41.687" UserId="12162" />
  <row Id="41429" PostId="19574" Score="0" Text="Hmm. Man is a *res cogitans*, so apparently a thing, a man, can think. Are you being thrown off by the English definition of thing, which often exclude animals? I do not think that *res* excludes animals. Animals, and even robots, can fight and flee." CreationDate="2023-02-27T00:55:16.010" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="41428" PostId="19576" Score="3" Text="&gt; Maybe marking where the accent falls is a better option?&#xA;&#xA;Then there would be no difference between &quot;fama&quot; (the nominative) and &quot;fama&quot; (the ablative). I am not sure that's a good idea." CreationDate="2023-02-26T19:16:01.717" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="41461" PostId="19576" Score="0" Text="I use macrons when I want to mark all long vowels, but graves (à) when there are long-short pairs (e.g. 1st. decl. nom. and abl.)" CreationDate="2023-03-01T03:47:14.543" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="42592" PostId="19577" Score="1" Text="Those orders aren't all equivalent in meaning -- the first and third mean &quot;The cross stands while the world turns&quot;, the second means &quot;While the cross stands, the world turns&quot;." CreationDate="2023-03-17T01:56:25.633" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="41435" PostId="19581" Score="11" Text="Latin is really less inflectionally complex than Proto-Indo-European, not more; it has fewer noun cases, a much simpler verbal system, and probably a lot less freedom in word derivation. PIE didn't have as many declension and conjugation classes (which are pretty trivial in Latin anyway), but that's just because the suffixes and stem-final sounds that mixed in with the endings to create them in Latin were still transparent at the time." CreationDate="2023-02-27T15:36:24.400" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="41436" PostId="19581" Score="6" Text="It seems to me there are two good questions here but the combination is making it seem muddled: (1) How do inflections and other 'sophisticated' properties arise in a language when precursors didn't have them? (2) How did Latin emerge from its precursor languages?" CreationDate="2023-02-27T16:39:32.557" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="41438" PostId="19581" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I agree, but I'm not a frequent enough contributor here to feel comfortable enough to separate them into 2 questions.  Would the OP or someone else like to give it a try?" CreationDate="2023-02-27T21:26:21.417" UserId="262" />
  <row Id="41446" PostId="19581" Score="0" Text="As the first question doesn't fit on this site, the easiest solution is to just remove it and leave this question asking about the origin of Latin." CreationDate="2023-02-28T10:12:45.783" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="41447" PostId="19581" Score="0" Text="But then both parts are also based on a false premise, so not really answerable as written anyway." CreationDate="2023-02-28T10:13:41.157" UserId="368" />
  <row Id="41450" PostId="19581" Score="0" Text="@0rangeDog - if the question is unanswerable, you mean the answer given is wrong ?" CreationDate="2023-02-28T12:20:59.890" UserId="816" />
  <row Id="41451" PostId="19581" Score="0" Text="I made some edits and format changes so the first question is less of a statement and more of a pure question." CreationDate="2023-02-28T14:14:57.803" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41452" PostId="19581" Score="0" Text="We could still split this into two separate questions, although I think the second question is just a more detailed way of asking the same as the first." CreationDate="2023-02-28T14:17:50.003" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41453" PostId="19581" Score="2" Text="Honestly, I thought, despite the mistaken premise, it was fine as it was. This is clearer, though, if it asks what the op really wanted to ask. I would vote leaving it as it is now." CreationDate="2023-02-28T15:37:53.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41455" PostId="19581" Score="4" Text="PIE was inflectionally more complex than Latin (as various reconstructions used to explain different inflectional systems in the various IE daughter languages and families attest). But where did the inflections come from originally? One theory (I think) is that PIE evolved from an earlier, isolating language in which function words eventually became dependent on the context in which they were used, and slowly fused with nearby words to become affixes rather than standalone words." CreationDate="2023-02-28T16:13:46.533" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="41456" PostId="19581" Score="7" Text="(The overall theory, one that is nearly untestable due to the lack of attested protolanguages, is that languages drift back and forth, with inflections disappearing and being replaced with function words and complex grammar, and then back as the function words are reassimilated into inflections. Maybe linguists in 20,000 years or so can confirm or refute this theory of language evolution :) )" CreationDate="2023-02-28T16:17:36.927" UserId="413" />
  <row Id="41466" PostId="19581" Score="2" Text="@chepner An answer that reiterates those comments, perhaps with an indication of where to read more, would be a valuable contribution and would get my upvote." CreationDate="2023-03-01T10:45:33.323" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="41437" PostId="19582" Score="6" Text="I believe I remember you mentioning this paper in a different answer - thanks for sharing. Fascinating read!" CreationDate="2023-02-27T18:33:35.363" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41439" PostId="19582" Score="2" Text="Yes, &quot;more efficient&quot; language is inevitably less error-correcting, so more fragile, especially on noisy channels. &quot;Information theory&quot; is a good way to view some of this. :)" CreationDate="2023-02-27T21:43:36.363" UserId="7068" />
  <row Id="41440" PostId="19582" Score="8" Text="@paulgarrett, On this already Horace said: *brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio* (I try to be brief, but end up being obscure)." CreationDate="2023-02-27T22:59:11.930" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="41443" PostId="19582" Score="2" Text="All *mature* languages may be equally expressive, but developing languages such as pidgins aren't." CreationDate="2023-02-28T04:06:49.790" UserId="1797" />
  <row Id="41444" PostId="19582" Score="0" Text="@Mark True. That's partially what I mean with &quot;naturally-evolved&quot;, as opposed to languages still developing to full maturity (or conlangs)." CreationDate="2023-02-28T04:09:45.377" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="41445" PostId="19582" Score="2" Text="@Draconis to that last parenthetical, it'd be interesting to compare the bit rate of Esperanto speech from the earliest recordings we have to modern Nth-generation native speakers (and to see if 1st generation native speakers are different from 2nd or 3rd, and how they all compare to modern non-native fluent Esperantists)" CreationDate="2023-02-28T09:30:12.180" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="41468" PostId="19582" Score="1" Text="There are some exceptions to this: for descriptions of spatial information, signed languages are faster than spoken ones. (The test I read about had one person with a doll's house and furniture, and another person with a drawing of the house showing the furniture in place. The person with the drawing had to explain to the other where all the furniture went. A sign language can usually indicate position and orientation simultaneously, making it much faster in practice.)" CreationDate="2023-03-01T15:25:50.990" UserId="159" />
  <row Id="41449" PostId="19583" Score="4" Text="&quot;Back then&quot;?? [Lingua latina vivit!](https://youtu.be/xj-zCfVC2Zg?t=3)" CreationDate="2023-02-28T10:53:31.100" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="41454" PostId="19583" Score="0" Text="sorry, I mean when the latin language was at its peak. Not sure when that was but I’m assuming the Roman Empire era." CreationDate="2023-02-28T15:42:45.910" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="41441" PostId="19584" Score="0" Text="Thank you. And yeah, I guess it falls in with video games more than anything. Do you think with better context it would make sense with `lusor studiosissimus` referring to video game player?" CreationDate="2023-02-28T02:08:42.080" UserId="9285" />
  <row Id="41442" PostId="19584" Score="1" Text="@JohhanSantana I added a sentence to clarify. It makes perfect sense to use the phrase for video games. It's broader than the English phrase but certainly includes video games." CreationDate="2023-02-28T02:17:11.410" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41458" PostId="19584" Score="0" Text="There seems to be a neo-Latin word, _Videolusis_ for video games, though I can't find an originating source outside of its usage on some internet forums. Maybe that could be used to construct a more specific phrase?" CreationDate="2023-02-28T20:42:26.310" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="41460" PostId="19584" Score="1" Text="@Adam You can always replace my *lusor* with *videolusor*, but it depends on context whether it will be necessary. My translation has the same denotation but a different connotation than the English when it comes to including specific game types, so no translation will be perfect. I'm not sure I buy *lusis*, but I'd be happy to see an answer elaborating on that or other options." CreationDate="2023-03-01T02:34:15.973" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="41462" PostId="19584" Score="0" Text="Perhaps we could coin a new word, _videolusor_; one who plays video games?" CreationDate="2023-03-01T04:05:47.823" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="43561" PostId="19584" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure that would be a good idea. I'm reminded of A. W. Potts in &quot;Hints Towards Latin Prose Composition&quot; that advocates quite strongly against composite words in Latin for the most part. Looking around I managed to find the passage in question: (continuing)" CreationDate="2023-06-14T17:14:18.687" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43562" PostId="19584" Score="0" Text="&quot;Lucretius endeavoured to enrich the vocabulary available for the high purposes of poetry by coining compound words such as *aedituentes*, *frugiferentes*, *navigerus*, *primigenus*, *silvifragus*, *suavidicus*, *tripectorus*, but neither his authority nor their sonorous dignity sufficed to recommend to his successors formations unsuited to the genius of the Latin tongue.&quot;, p. 13. (Continuing)" CreationDate="2023-06-14T17:14:35.970" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43563" PostId="19584" Score="0" Text="I think this advises at least caution that using compound words should be avoided for proper Latinitas. Maybe an adjective would be better suited for clarity? Maybe *lusor electronicorum studiosissimus*. A &quot;devout player of electronic [games]&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-14T17:14:45.780" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43564" PostId="19584" Score="1" Text="@VictorBC I wouldn't use anything with *video-* in Latin unless I had the urgent need to be very specific and avoid the slightest misinterpretation. Usually just &quot;gamer&quot; will do, just like in English. Indeed, the best style to specify the matter in Latin would be to use an adjective. My first reaction would be *lusor computatralis*, which works at least if it's about computer games rather than console games. And that brings me to my recurring point: The best translation of a given phrase depends on context, not just the original phrase." CreationDate="2023-06-14T17:46:13.953" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43565" PostId="19584" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Very well said, I agree with you entirely. When I was an English teacher, whenever someone asked me what was the translation of X word in English, I invariably asked &quot;What's the context?&quot; because very frequently if I simply gave an answer, my students managed to find an application for it that made absolutely no sense in English but did make sense in Portuguese lol" CreationDate="2023-06-14T19:05:27.373" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="41459" PostId="19586" Score="2" Text="Those are prefixes, not suffixes, and they're actually both Greek." CreationDate="2023-02-28T21:10:59.480" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42461" PostId="19586" Score="0" Text="Cf. *metamorphosis*, i.e. what is made after you change." CreationDate="2023-03-02T02:41:00.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41472" PostId="19589" Score="3" Text="finalis is closer to bounded than to final, I suggest index auctorum" CreationDate="2023-03-01T22:04:58.333" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42463" PostId="19589" Score="0" Text="@John I need to emphasize the &quot;final&quot; meaning here, how about ***postremus*** or ***extremus***?" CreationDate="2023-03-02T05:34:00.440" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="41463" PostId="19591" Score="1" Text="Hi and welcome to Language Learning Stack Exchange. This is a site for questions about methods and hard-to-find resources for learning to teaching languages. Questions about features of specific languages or their development are off topic here. If you want, I can migrate your question to a site where it is on topic." CreationDate="2023-03-01T10:17:25.493" UserId="840" />
  <row Id="41464" PostId="19591" Score="0" Text="Then migrate it" CreationDate="2023-03-01T10:32:16.673" UserDisplayName="Bogdan Floareș" />
  <row Id="41465" PostId="19591" Score="2" Text="FWIW, I did actually learn to say, &quot;Weni, Wedee, Wici&quot; at school." CreationDate="2023-03-01T10:42:42.067" UserId="840" />
  <row Id="42670" PostId="19592" Score="0" Text="[Linked](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3220/linguistic-or-etymological-relationship-between-the-words-sabbath-and-seven)." CreationDate="2023-03-22T16:30:41.713" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42484" PostId="19593" Score="3" Text="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html ... googled what you wrote about the `hot pants` and there it was" CreationDate="2023-03-03T04:44:37.573" UserId="13192" />
  <row Id="42485" PostId="19593" Score="0" Text="@jsotola Hah, wow, that’s the exact list I remember; the tacky paper texture background and everything. Odd that it didn’t come up for me... Oh well, neat to see it. Doesn’t give “chocolate” though." CreationDate="2023-03-03T05:08:40.357" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="42488" PostId="19593" Score="1" Text="@KRyan: Not that that Vatican page is necessarily the best source (some of their Latin translations are debatable), but “chocolate” is there: “cioccolato	socolāta; socolatae pótio”." CreationDate="2023-03-03T13:22:40.247" UserId="297" />
  <row Id="41469" PostId="19594" Score="0" Text="Very nice! Gonna just go ahead and accept—I’ll still read answers and I can swap the checkmark if I feel it’s appropriate, but as of this moment I feel this has well answered my curiosity! (And yeah, I wasn’t sure “past its heyday” was the best description of ecclesiastical Latin at the time, but my thinking was that the rise of chocolate in Europe coincided with the beginning of the end for widespread Latin use.)" CreationDate="2023-03-01T18:15:31.293" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="41473" PostId="19594" Score="0" Text="I was doing some more reading and found something that might suggest a possible origin for an initial sibilant. There is a common (but dubious, apparently) etymology for _chocolate_ that claims it comes from a Nahuatl word _xocolātl_ that starts with /ʃ/. It seems that _xocolātl_ is unattested in Nahuatl until the 19th century (meaning its origin may well be Spanish claims for the etymology of their word), but it is conceivable that Vicipaedia based it on how they imagine the Romans would latinize it, with /ʃ/ becoming /s/ instead of /tʃ/?" CreationDate="2023-03-01T23:29:46.180" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="41475" PostId="19594" Score="0" Text="@KRyan Well, that and the word for chocolate being pronounced with /ʃ/ in certain European languages, like French and German, I suppose. By the way, “my thinking was that the rise of chocolate in Europe coincided with the beginning of the end for widespread Latin use” ← that is actually pretty accurate, but that “end” still took a few centuries time." CreationDate="2023-03-01T23:35:48.030" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41476" PostId="19594" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Sure, I know—it just felt like justification enough to claim it was “past its heyday” by the time the word came into use in Europe." CreationDate="2023-03-01T23:38:37.287" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="42466" PostId="19594" Score="0" Text="@KRyan - The etymology of  xococ + atl (bitter water) seems eminently plausible. After all, one of the earliest Spanish attestations of cacao, from *Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España*, goes into detail about drinks that the Mexica made from cacao and water. Doesn't it seem more likely that the Spanish colonists would have adopted an autocthonous word or at least, description of the new substance? If they had come up with a Spanish word, wouldn't it have been something like the case of *pavo*, i.e. naming by analogy, rather some complete neologism without any clear Hispanic root?" CreationDate="2023-03-02T18:34:17.077" UserId="3513" />
  <row Id="42467" PostId="19594" Score="1" Text="@Obie2.0 I am really just parroting what I have read, which included statements that the **xocolātl* etymology is in doubt." CreationDate="2023-03-02T18:54:36.880" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="42468" PostId="19594" Score="0" Text="The alternative, as far as I know, is that it comes from *cacahuatl*, but this is going beyond Latin at this point. People over at Linguistics might know better." CreationDate="2023-03-02T18:55:46.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42469" PostId="19594" Score="2" Text="@KRyan &quot;[is it] conceivable that Vicipaedia based it on how they imagine the Romans would latinize it, with /ʃ/ becoming /s/ instead of /tʃ/?&quot; --- Perhaps, but they're not the only ones to use that form. Seems it might pre-date Vicipaedia by a few years: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socolata" CreationDate="2023-03-02T18:59:38.060" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="41474" PostId="19596" Score="1" Text="&quot;She isn't stationary when she *omnia lustrat*&quot; ← true enough, although *lustrare* already pretty unequivocally implies wandering around, so I feel *lustrat eundo* is indeed somewhat redundant." CreationDate="2023-03-01T23:32:06.367" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="41477" PostId="19596" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Fair enough, but just dropping *eundo* would mess up the meter. :)" CreationDate="2023-03-02T01:12:16.453" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42464" PostId="19596" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks. Sorry, I confused gerund and gerundive. The reason was Wiktionary which says &quot;eundo&quot; comes from the gerundive, saying nothing about the gerund. But on the substantive issue I'm still not clear (disregarding all questions arising from metrical demands) a) how would you characterise what is actually added to the phrase by adding this word? As has been said, *lustro* (at least the meaning used here, &quot;wander over&quot;) is necessarily a verb of motion; and b) why are gerunds in the neuter? (possibly this is unanswerable and just a feature of the language)." CreationDate="2023-03-02T07:04:14.250" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="42465" PostId="19596" Score="1" Text="@mikerodent a) Similarly, &quot;he went to look around&quot; is technically redundant, but redundancy in language isn't bad. It helps clarify, especially since *lustrat* can mean other things besides &quot;wander&quot;; b) it's just the way it is, but why would it be anything besides neuter?" CreationDate="2023-03-02T18:04:32.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42470" PostId="19596" Score="0" Text="OK, thanks for the insight. Thought there might be more to it!" CreationDate="2023-03-02T19:52:46.687" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="42471" PostId="19596" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent I'm not sure! The usual answer to &quot;why&quot; questions is almost always &quot;that's just the way it is with languages,&quot; but you could probably ask a question about the origin of the gerund and how it came to be neuter. I haven't looked more deeply into it." CreationDate="2023-03-02T20:21:33.633" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42473" PostId="19596" Score="0" Text="Absolutely. I just looked up the pres. part. of *eo*... so (metrical requirements apart), why not *dumque omnia lustrat iens*? Actually I'd say it's my responsibility rather than yours to look into what the grammar books say about the difference between pres. part. and gerund! *iens* feels slightly nicer because it agrees with the subject. The gerund is currently an alien country to me." CreationDate="2023-03-02T20:39:26.133" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="42481" PostId="19596" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent In my opinion, it is interesting to see how, in the history of Latin, the ablative gerund became a sort of &quot;invader&quot; of the domain initially assigned to the nominative present participle. E.g. cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16611/on-the-syntactic-distribution-of-ablative-gerund-and-nominative-present-particip" CreationDate="2023-03-03T04:01:55.877" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42482" PostId="19596" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I don't think you've analyzed that situation properly. Tacitus was a big fan of *inconcinnitas*, [especially in the *Annals*](https://epublications.marquette.edu/theses/1385/), which you cite. You can do the same in English, e.g. &quot;Holding town halls and through the writing of many letters, I managed to galvanize the populace.&quot; It's probably a deliberate choice rather than indicative of some shift." CreationDate="2023-03-03T04:14:40.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42479" PostId="20592" Score="1" Text="Welcome to this site, Ivan, and thanks for your information on how this construction can be nicely translated into Croatian. I've been able to infer the grammar of _ono što treba promijeniti_ (which is, by the way, not so different from Catalan, my native language: 'allò (_ono_) que (_što_) caldria (_treba_) canviar (_promijeniti_)) but could you please tell me if &quot;promijenivši&quot; means '(by) changing' or rather '(by) having changed'? What grammatical form is &quot;promijenivši&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-03-03T03:04:20.223" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42501" PostId="20595" Score="2" Text="This manuscript looks like it's actually unusually good about distinguishing [long s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s) (ſ) from f (and I don't see why you find it difficult to distinguish t from r). ⁊ is a [Tironian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes) *et*, which is still used in Ireland today. What you call a macron in *bonū* for *bonum* is actually a tilde (even if it's written as a straight line), and is extremely common in manuscripts of almost all periods to indicate unwritten *n* or *m* (Spanish *ñ* actually reflects earlier *nn*)." CreationDate="2023-03-05T22:11:37.533" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42502" PostId="20595" Score="1" Text="And ꝫ after *e* stands for *m*, not *s*. Paleography is a big field and the conventions of Latin manuscripts are non-trivial. This one looks friendly, though." CreationDate="2023-03-05T22:17:02.190" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42515" PostId="20595" Score="2" Text="You have transcribed the letters correctly. I agree with you that *id est* is odd. Do you have a link to the full text? More context always helps, to compare this line with others." CreationDate="2023-03-08T00:53:12.540" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42517" PostId="20595" Score="0" Text="I have yet to find a line that uses `id est` that way https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-9412012-bk" CreationDate="2023-03-08T13:46:32.947" UserId="13196" />
  <row Id="42523" PostId="20595" Score="0" Text="It looks like there's a capital the manuscript owner neglected to have painted in and maybe the word should actually be *bagno*. It's not consistent with the start of the As but the line is definitely in with the Bs (the previous line definitely has *baculum*). Obviously *bagno* isn't Latin, and neither is *bannare* on the next line (*annare* is, but it doesn't seem to work)." CreationDate="2023-03-08T22:21:59.730" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42530" PostId="20595" Score="0" Text="annare means to swim, from anno https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/annare#Latin" CreationDate="2023-03-09T09:01:32.753" UserId="13196" />
  <row Id="42512" PostId="20598" Score="2" Text="I think offering a drink really bridges both sides of the Atlantic. &quot;Would you care for a cup of coffee&quot; when coming to someone's home has the same ring (although if it's at evening asking &quot;can I get you a drink&quot; instead is more normal). I don't know the exact wording, but offering food is very common in Russia and Ukraine (as well as offering a drink). I'm not immediately sure if we know an idiom for it in ancient Rome, but maybe someone will be able to find something suitable. You might have a few options." CreationDate="2023-03-06T17:16:19.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42504" PostId="20600" Score="2" Text="[Related answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/16016/5056) showing the usage of _auscultō, -āre_." CreationDate="2023-03-06T04:52:36.857" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="42505" PostId="20600" Score="3" Text="Lewis and Short on the chronological distribution of *ausculto*: &quot;in the anteclass. per. freq., but not in Lucr.; in the class. per. rare&quot;" CreationDate="2023-03-06T05:22:18.700" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="42506" PostId="20600" Score="4" Text="@Herodotean: Interesting that it had declined in frequency in the classical period, but presumably then revived at at some stage, since its descendants are common words in several modern romance languages — *écouter* in French, *ascoltare* in Italian…" CreationDate="2023-03-06T11:11:24.427" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="42507" PostId="20600" Score="3" Text="In French we have both *écouter* (listen) and *ausculter* (for a physician: auscultate, examine, listen to the patient's chest)" CreationDate="2023-03-06T12:35:17.787" UserId="13202" />
  <row Id="42513" PostId="20600" Score="1" Text="@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine: some other ante-classical words also disappear, or almost disappear, during (part of) the classical period only to resurface later. *caballus* comes to mind: it appears in Lucilius, resurfaces in Horace and Petronius, and then of course becomes *cavallo*, *caballo*, and *cheval.*" CreationDate="2023-03-07T20:11:38.890" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="42508" PostId="20601" Score="1" Text="The verb &quot;cherish&quot; may mean this? The latin verb &quot;foveo&quot; can be translated thus." CreationDate="2023-03-06T13:43:28.630" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="42509" PostId="20601" Score="1" Text="Do you want to specifically speak about the blue sky or just good weather? In English they can well be phrased indistinguishably, but in Latin you might need to decide. Too literal a translation can end up meaning something like &quot;take control of the heaven&quot;." CreationDate="2023-03-06T15:35:37.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42510" PostId="20601" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks, I think that &quot;don't waste such a beautiful-looking day by staying indoors&quot; where it's the exhilarating feeling of being outdoors under such a clear, crisp blue sky that one should not waste. One should stop everything else and take full advantage of the opportunity that's been presented." CreationDate="2023-03-06T16:06:01.883" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="42511" PostId="20601" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças see above, yes I think that that could work." CreationDate="2023-03-06T16:12:32.907" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="42519" PostId="20607" Score="6" Text="Anecdotally, as someone who started with Latin before looking at other languages, it has changed how I approach learning modern languages. I find I want that same &quot;head-on attack&quot; with mechanics in addition to simply learning colloquial and everyday language." CreationDate="2023-03-08T16:08:45.853" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="42520" PostId="20607" Score="5" Text="I agree. I took Latin and some French in high school, and I learned more Latin in one month than I did in one year of French. After two years of high school Latin, one can read original texts. Meanwhile, in French class, they were still doing silly songs. Even now, I'm immediately turned off of any language learning materials that don't immediately get down and dirty with the actual mechanics of the language." CreationDate="2023-03-08T16:35:07.507" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42521" PostId="20607" Score="5" Text="It's important to note that you *can* study modern languages using a 'head-on' method (explicit, extensive focus on grammar and vocabulary as opposed to practical speech), but such materials/courses are less popular so harder to find. Older textbooks, and materials for those like linguists who have the same priorities, are a good place to start." CreationDate="2023-03-08T21:49:54.607" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="42522" PostId="20607" Score="1" Text="There are a number of specific and interesting points about Latin grammar learning and its relation to other languages in this answer: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/17129/1439" CreationDate="2023-03-08T22:12:04.863" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="42524" PostId="20607" Score="1" Text="One should not discount etymology as a benefit, as it can have interesting secondary benefits. For example, I learned Latin at an intermediate level in high school, and I find that has helped me a _lot_ when it comes to memorizing noun genders in modern Italic languages, because they largely map directly to the genders of their etymological ancestors in Latin (though this is not always a 1:1 mapping)." CreationDate="2023-03-09T01:37:35.543" UserId="2342" />
  <row Id="42534" PostId="20607" Score="1" Text="Just a comment, depending on the language the classical version might still be useable or it may be used in education (for example. if you mean by classical Arabic الفصحى then you can use this).  The benefit of doing الفصحى instead of a spoken dialect is there are many, many resources for learning it, novels are written in it etc." CreationDate="2023-03-09T18:34:44.053" UserId="13221" />
  <row Id="42539" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="I hope I have misread something: your post seems to say that *intellectual curiosity* ... is not a serious claim." CreationDate="2023-03-09T21:25:59.043" UserId="9562" />
  <row Id="42540" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="@LeeMosher let's not pick words out of context - I have explained what I mean." CreationDate="2023-03-09T21:36:55.507" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="42542" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="I picked no words out of context, I just wanted to verify whether I was misled by the wording of those two sentences in close conjunction." CreationDate="2023-03-09T21:44:47.917" UserId="9562" />
  <row Id="42543" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="@LeeMosher Einstein said that genius is 1% of talent and 99% of hard work - intellectual curiosity alone doesn't take one too far... (or takes one too far away.)" CreationDate="2023-03-09T21:52:53.093" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="42549" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't extrapolate from Einstein's words (if they are in fact his) a general condition about how all people's minds work." CreationDate="2023-03-10T14:43:16.550" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42551" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="@cmw I was simply taken aback by an attack about my supposed disrespect for *intellectual curiosity* - after all, I spent a couple of decades in academia, before moving on - because I am too curious to confine my curiosity to a research on a narrow field :). But I can give a more serious follow-up to LeeMosher's comment: language is not like math or physics, where you read a book about a new field and can readily attack new problems. Sure - a grammar book can be read in a few weeks, but then it will take months (more likely years) of learning and practicing to achieve fluency [contd.]" CreationDate="2023-03-10T15:13:30.767" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="42552" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="@cmw It is estimated that one needs to know about 1500-2000 word families for speaking and about 4000-10000 word families for comfortably reading in a language (exact number is langauge-specific). Those of us who tried to learn a language know that this is quite a few words. It takes a lot more than simple curiosity - it requires working regularly, despite being interested in other things (other languages among them) and simply having life to live. See, I am not talking about making a 5-minute Youtube video where one repeats &quot;My name is Roger.&quot; in 10 different languages." CreationDate="2023-03-10T15:18:49.737" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="42553" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="@RogerVadim No doubt that for the majority of people, mastering a language takes years of dedicated effort. I'm not arguing that (or arguing anything, really!). But some people do have a better short-term memory for vocabulary, and some really struggle. I saw that first when I taught Latin: some were &quot;gifted&quot; and quickly picked up the language, and some struggled to remember anything without considerable effort." CreationDate="2023-03-10T16:15:02.377" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42554" PostId="20607" Score="0" Text="Having moved into psychometrics, I now know that we can actually measure such a thing. But getting into all that from just an off-hand and jocular comment might be wading into off-topic territory and instead confined to the chatrooms." CreationDate="2023-03-10T16:16:52.810" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42535" PostId="20608" Score="1" Text="Not only are 'head-on' resources harder to find, if you haven't already used similar resources before, you likely won't even know they exist." CreationDate="2023-03-09T19:37:31.980" UserId="3515" />
  <row Id="42536" PostId="20608" Score="2" Text="+1 for the last paragraph. It's the learning process itself that's important -- you're rewiring your brain, training it to think in new ways. This question is akin to what is often asked in many math classes I've taught -- &quot;Why do we have to know this? We'll never use it in the real world.&quot; That's true, but your brain has been trained how to solve problems in a new way, and it's *that* which is the benefit, not the problem itself." CreationDate="2023-03-09T19:46:14.557" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="42537" PostId="20608" Score="3" Text="While this isn’t specific to classical languages, learning another language *also* helps a student better understand their acquired (AKA &quot;native&quot;) language. For example, 80%-90% of the English grammar I know, I learned in Latin class." CreationDate="2023-03-09T19:57:05.067" UserId="3587" />
  <row Id="42532" PostId="20609" Score="0" Text="I would recommend *extensive reading* as a possible approach. Though it works better for live languages, where one can choose reading more suitable for one's level (classics might be hard, but junk literature - like detective novels, love stories, fantasy or whatever one likes is abundant and accessible.)" CreationDate="2023-03-09T10:09:19.213" UserId="6674" />
  <row Id="42561" PostId="20616" Score="1" Text="It's an interesting idea but how would one rigorously define a largely subjective concept like &quot;difficulty&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-03-13T17:24:53.953" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42562" PostId="20616" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's what I was hoping someone came up with! I can think of a few things, though: length of sentences, hypotaxis v. parataxis, amount of unusual words, and anastrophe immediately come to mind." CreationDate="2023-03-13T17:58:19.393" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42564" PostId="20616" Score="1" Text="Another measure of difficulty which might be even more objective is to try to estimate the variability *within* each author. i.e., how many different words, or &quot;structures&quot; one uses. For example *Digesta Iustiniani* can feature some fancy words and structures to a new reader of that work, however, if this work uses time and again the same structure and style with little variability it will ultimately render itself very readable." CreationDate="2023-03-13T20:44:50.143" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42566" PostId="20616" Score="0" Text="I feel like you could do like @cmw suggests and mathematically rank based on sentence length and the number of common words versus uncommon." CreationDate="2023-03-13T23:51:30.967" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="42559" PostId="20617" Score="0" Text="Are there corresponding terms in other languages?" CreationDate="2023-03-13T15:42:52.693" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42560" PostId="20617" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I think I read something like &quot;littérature vivante&quot; or something in French" CreationDate="2023-03-13T15:58:22.130" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42563" PostId="20617" Score="1" Text="Dialogue isn't really a genre in Latin literature, and the few dialogues that did exist won't have been seen as particularly close to the various kinds of drama (which were all in verse)." CreationDate="2023-03-13T20:20:45.113" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42565" PostId="20617" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Weren't most of Cicero's philosophical works dialogues?" CreationDate="2023-03-13T22:22:05.590" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42567" PostId="20617" Score="1" Text="@John Yes, and he's very nearly the only Roman who wrote any. To the extent that they would have been seen as any genre at all, they would likely have been considered philosophical tracts rather than dialogues as a distinct thing." CreationDate="2023-03-13T23:56:04.247" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42574" PostId="20618" Score="0" Text="Beekes is a valuable resource, but I think many people would quibble with describing it as &quot;the best etymological dictionary&quot; -- it has its flaws, most notoriously its Pre-Greek obsession, but also the fact that it sometimes presents idiosyncratic or Leiden-school-specific ideas as if they were communis opinio, and the entries can be overly brief. I always use it in conjuction with Chantraine's older dictionary." CreationDate="2023-03-14T16:46:53.783" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42577" PostId="20618" Score="0" Text="That's fair. I was hasty in that remark. Certainly Chantraine is not replaced. I was just surprised Beekes (and Chantraine) were not mentioned here. Or Buck, for that matter." CreationDate="2023-03-14T17:59:37.440" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42570" PostId="20620" Score="4" Text="Please note that English *insect* comes straight from Latin *(animal) insectum*, from *insecare* (to cut in, quia corpora horum animalium insecta videntur). It is completely unrelated to *insector*." CreationDate="2023-03-14T14:20:49.827" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42571" PostId="20620" Score="4" Text="Note also that in *vitae honestas*, the *honestas* is not a form of *honestus*, but a third-declension noun *honestas, -tatis, f.*" CreationDate="2023-03-14T14:21:48.383" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42580" PostId="20620" Score="2" Text="Serious question: if you don't trust the standard dictionaries why would you trust us?" CreationDate="2023-03-15T20:37:04.020" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42596" PostId="20620" Score="0" Text="I think Tyler's translation is accurate enough. You could argue that &quot;honorability of life&quot; would be more accurate, but it does not sound idiomatic to me." CreationDate="2023-03-17T20:47:34.227" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42600" PostId="20620" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thanks for clearing these things up. The Q. was predicated on the (potential) confusion for (native) English-speakers generated by English-sounding words, hence the inclusion of, &quot;insecto&quot;. I wondered why TD had used a feminine, accusative plural (honestas). It was almost my next Q!" CreationDate="2023-03-18T09:19:41.117" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42601" PostId="20620" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: Of course I trust dictionaries; but, apart from L&amp;S, they don't always provide context. Therefore, students sometimes choose the wrong word for a given circumstance. Dictionaries provide guidance and the student still needs to think." CreationDate="2023-03-18T09:24:33.383" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42572" PostId="20621" Score="4" Text="Yep, an &quot;honest living&quot; is a respectable living, not one free of lies, although the two ideas are related." CreationDate="2023-03-14T15:20:25.587" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42584" PostId="20621" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: If we wish to say that someone tells the truth we state it: &quot;He tells the truth/ doesn't tell lies,&quot;; similarly, with the others, &quot;He is respectable,&quot;, not, &quot;He is honest,&quot; in the forlorn hope that this whole string of adjectives will be understood. Use of &quot;honest&quot;: this person won't steal your possessions; will keep promises/ deals; will honour contractual obligations, even when it may be inconvenient to do so (&quot;He has integriity,&quot; would be far better for these; &quot;honourable&quot; = Latin, &quot;honestus&quot;." CreationDate="2023-03-16T10:19:19.287" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42585" PostId="20621" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Consider: criminals have codes of honour: silence, loyalty; but, they are not honest. It is possible to be honourable without being honest. Is this why Latin, &quot;honestus&quot; does not mean &quot;honest&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-03-16T10:24:45.070" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42575" PostId="20622" Score="2" Text="I need to find references for this, but I believe earlier vu &gt; u, which means all instances of initial vu in Classical come from a later change of o &gt; u / _ l which only happened in certain dialects (and thus you also see unaffected forms that didn't go through this change)." CreationDate="2023-03-14T17:19:44.710" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42576" PostId="20622" Score="0" Text="(I'm posting this as a comment so others can chime in and say if this is nonsense while I'm searching for references.)" CreationDate="2023-03-14T17:20:03.973" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42578" PostId="20623" Score="1" Text="Eg Vort- to vert-. Do you have any indication why what changed to what? I'm seeing of course vol- change to vul-, was vor- to ver- standard? Was there some linguistic process at play?" CreationDate="2023-03-15T06:34:28.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42579" PostId="20623" Score="1" Text="@cmw The vo- &gt; ve- dissimilation seems to be conditioned by a following dental (other than /l/)." CreationDate="2023-03-15T18:22:46.123" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42586" PostId="20623" Score="1" Text="vort vs vert is IE ablaut. @cmw" CreationDate="2023-03-16T13:22:53.327" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42581" PostId="20626" Score="0" Text="Just a note, the forms *dixerim, ceciderim* are perfect subjunctives, not imperfect." CreationDate="2023-03-15T23:29:03.870" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42582" PostId="20626" Score="0" Text="Yup. Malus meus." CreationDate="2023-03-16T09:41:12.947" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="42598" PostId="20626" Score="0" Text="*Dicerem nihil* or *Non dicerem ullum*, but don't use a double negative." CreationDate="2023-03-17T21:01:57.360" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42599" PostId="20626" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Thanks, I'm very low level in Latin so would have not confidence about that kind of thing: useful to be pointed in the right direction." CreationDate="2023-03-17T22:57:46.997" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="42588" PostId="20628" Score="0" Text="I think I get the gist, and it also seems to be logical, although ever so slightly odd to be using the perfect &quot;I may have fallen&quot; for a future event in a Latin language (I tend to think of French, Italian, etc. as less permissive in this regard than say English, although they obviously have nice, fit-for-purpose conditionals). By some unlikely fluke, I therefore put the right inflection for the protasis even though, as you pointed out, I failed to use the imperfect (which seemed to be my intention). There's probably a fitting Latin expression covering that sort of thing." CreationDate="2023-03-16T19:20:36.937" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="42589" PostId="20628" Score="2" Text="See also my [previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18185) on the use of present vs. perfect subjunctive." CreationDate="2023-03-16T20:36:00.143" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42590" PostId="20629" Score="4" Text="It looks terrible, but aside from that, one gets the impression that a text is first composed in English and then turned into Latin by a bad translation software. E.g. could *Curavit pontes et viarum stratorum aedificia* mean something like “he took care of the building of bridges and paved roads”?" CreationDate="2023-03-16T22:34:02.327" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42594" PostId="20629" Score="0" Text="If one were to ask it the same question in English, we could put that through some translators and probably deduce which one was used. *cough* Google Translate *cough*" CreationDate="2023-03-17T16:50:51.030" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="42595" PostId="20629" Score="0" Text="@Adam No translator was used, GPT is a language model. But what's funny is that if the training data contains a lot of content translated by Google (as you may know, numerous websites translate all their pages into all possible languages to reach a wider audience), then it will learn to imitate Google Translate more than classical authors" CreationDate="2023-03-17T17:21:04.217" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42591" PostId="20630" Score="3" Text="To tack on to Sebastian's answer, you can't really translate prepositions from language to language. The Latin *in* can mean &quot;in, on, into, onto, against, at, etc&quot; depending on context and the form of the noun following it. Instead, you need to translate from idiom to idiom, i.e. &quot;what preposition should I use in this instance.&quot; You won't get a one size that fits all." CreationDate="2023-03-17T00:43:43.217" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42602" PostId="20634" Score="2" Text="Please provide a meaningful and specific title to your question, so that people, now as well as in a few years’ time, can decide whether them reading it and trying to understand it is valuable to them and to you." CreationDate="2023-03-18T11:33:20.193" UserId="2112" />
  <row Id="42605" PostId="20634" Score="1" Text="@Philippe-AndréLorin It's now been edited. In cases like this you can well suggest and edit yourself. It doesn't have to be perfect; any improvements to posts are welcome." CreationDate="2023-03-18T20:49:42.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42615" PostId="20634" Score="1" Text="I removed the third question, because it really deserves a question of its own. Feel free to ask a new question about print dictionaries, and you can follow [this thread](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why) as a guide on how to do so." CreationDate="2023-03-19T08:05:46.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42604" PostId="20638" Score="0" Text="This could really be its own question, but I wonder if that could be simplified to something like _sanguis meus, tuus, noster_." CreationDate="2023-03-18T18:49:19.987" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="42740" PostId="20638" Score="0" Text="No answer after ten days... The translation you provide is formally correct, but it doesn’t sound good Latin, and I don‘t know exactly why... I would express the same concept by complete different proposals that wouldn’t qualify as _translations_ of the title sentence. I suppose most experts here have the same doubts." CreationDate="2023-03-29T17:15:10.477" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="42613" PostId="20640" Score="0" Text="I agree it's the right choice of verb, but I question your word order and explicit pronoun." CreationDate="2023-03-19T05:15:12.957" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42616" PostId="20640" Score="0" Text="The Latin language has been spoken and written for over two thousand years, and many styles have been employed in that time. We can look at texts from Ovid, St. Augustine, and the Vulgate Bible, and see that many different word orders are used. In these texts we can find examples of the SOV, SVO, VSO, VOS word orders, where S stands for subject, O stands for object, and V stands for verb. I think it is safe to say that word order in Latin is very flexible, and that Latin authors have used many word orders and styles over time." CreationDate="2023-03-19T08:12:19.493" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="42617" PostId="20640" Score="0" Text="You can find all kinds of word orders in the corpus, but they're not all unmarked and equivalent in meaning. You can't just mindlessly copy the English word order and think you've written idiomatic Latin." CreationDate="2023-03-19T16:06:21.933" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42646" PostId="20641" Score="4" Text="There is a generation difference in &quot;Modern Greek&quot;. The official, formal &quot;καθαρεύουσα&quot; language taught in school and used in the law a generation or two ago was patterned after Koine, which, of course, is still used in church. Turn of the (previous) century literature (Βιζυηνός, Ροΐδης, Παπαδιαμάντης) is quite close to Koine, ἵνα and all. However, ironically, these authors are &quot;translated&quot; to colloquial Greek today, and I have to &quot;translate&quot; maxims we used at home in the 60s to the younger generations..." CreationDate="2023-03-20T22:45:44.937" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42690" PostId="20641" Score="0" Text="[Linked](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12739/is-this-bible-in-koine-greek)." CreationDate="2023-03-23T22:03:56.983" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42606" PostId="20642" Score="0" Text="If the Koine speaker learned modern pronunciation and used it, would they be able to talk to each other?" CreationDate="2023-03-19T01:51:49.727" UserId="13258" />
  <row Id="42607" PostId="20642" Score="2" Text="Potentially, but learning to adapt the pronunciation is far from trivial! I know the main rules for it in theory, what sounds turned into what other sounds, and I still can't understand if someone cites a word to me in Modern pronunciation." CreationDate="2023-03-19T01:54:04.003" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42608" PostId="20642" Score="2" Text="Thank you! How difficult would written communication be?" CreationDate="2023-03-19T02:41:32.847" UserId="13258" />
  <row Id="42610" PostId="20642" Score="2" Text="@Someone Many words are spelled the same way, but the way the letters are drawn has changed significantly. If the Koine speaker learned in the modern day, this isn't an issue: modern classes use the modern shapes of the letters. But if they're a time-traveller, they'll need to figure out some way of writing that's intelligible to both of them. Modern capital letters are based on ancient monumental inscriptions, so that should be recognizable enough to both of them (even if it's not what they're most used to)." CreationDate="2023-03-19T03:08:30.963" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42618" PostId="20642" Score="0" Text="I'd be curious to how it compares to say, modern and old English, which are so far apart other germanic languages have more mutual intelligibility than modern English does to old English." CreationDate="2023-03-19T19:27:13.860" UserId="13263" />
  <row Id="42619" PostId="20642" Score="7" Text="@Crazymoomin Old English to Modern English will definitely be harder, because of the vast influx of Romance vocabulary displacing the inherited Germanic words. Greek never had such a big change to its lexicon (especially since Ancient Greek always had a certain level of prestige to it that Old English didn't)." CreationDate="2023-03-19T19:30:41.377" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42647" PostId="20642" Score="1" Text="@Crazymoomin  Testament Koine is to modern Newspaper Greek like Chaucer is to NYT english. A lawyer in both cases needs no special training to read the older form. Homer, on the other hand, is not much closer than Old English..." CreationDate="2023-03-20T23:07:43.970" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42648" PostId="20642" Score="6" Text="The classic example I learnt at uni to illustrate the difference between Classical and Modern Greek pronunciation is the (Ancient Greek) phrase _οἱ υἱοἰ Ὑγιείης_ ‘the sons of Hygeia [goddes of health]’. As Classical Greek, it’s read [hoi̯ hyːˈoi̯ hyːgiˈei̯ɛːs] and is perfectly understandable; as Modern Greek, it’s read [i iˈi iˈi.is] and is perfectly incomprehensible gibberish." CreationDate="2023-03-21T00:46:24.757" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="42658" PostId="20642" Score="0" Text="@Janus ... but the inept palatalization of γι by foreign speakers is The test modern Greeks use to catch non-native speakers, today!" CreationDate="2023-03-21T13:18:18.347" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42660" PostId="20642" Score="0" Text="@Janus If you wished to track the phonological shifts in proper order, [Luke Ranieri's summary](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fv46XgPPJy-ky9FUSApiemOVmtc8i6q7ZL5XkqtmMWA/edit#gid=1919026778) is useful indeed." CreationDate="2023-03-21T14:18:42.507" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42609" PostId="20643" Score="2" Text="The differences in grammar seem less significant, honestly—Romance grammar has changed a lot from Latin, but I can understand the basic gist of a Romance text by recognizing content words from Latin." CreationDate="2023-03-19T03:05:25.193" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42611" PostId="20643" Score="3" Text="@Draconis I guess it depends on what exactly was being communicated. I would suspect than an ancient Roman wouldn't even begin to comprehend that *je veux aller au supermarché puis à la plage* is somehow descended from Latin. I'm sure they could get some of the gist, but probably not to a high degree of accuracy. Stuff like είχα γράψει would be too enigmatic, I imagine." CreationDate="2023-03-19T03:14:46.730" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42612" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="(That said, I did find French much, much easier to learn *because* I knew some Latin before taking a class. And even now plenty of Spanish is comprehensible. Some Italian or Romanian dialects still throw me for a loop. And Modern Greek isn't really easy, either!)" CreationDate="2023-03-19T03:26:12.050" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42625" PostId="20643" Score="1" Text="I've always heard that Koine Greek is closer to Modern Greek than to Ancient Greek, so I'm not sure this answer, which related to Ancient Greek, really answers the question about Koine Greek." CreationDate="2023-03-20T03:58:56.267" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="42626" PostId="20643" Score="2" Text="@Nacht Koine Greek is still ancient Greek, and everything I said is true about Koine as well as Classical Greek." CreationDate="2023-03-20T04:31:28.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42629" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="@cmw the pronunciation differences aren't really so relevant for Koine and that is worth noting explicitly (especially if you were teaching Ancient Greek with Classical Attic pronunciation)" CreationDate="2023-03-20T14:37:27.223" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="42641" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="@Tristan Edited." CreationDate="2023-03-20T18:14:17.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42642" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="(Completely agree with this answer but I think there's a fair chance a Koine speaker might recognize να as ἵνα, especially since that conjunction was already moving towards being an all-purpose complementizer in Koine. )" CreationDate="2023-03-20T18:51:12.957" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42643" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="What do they do without infinitives??" CreationDate="2023-03-20T21:08:50.497" UserId="1798" />
  <row Id="42645" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="@TKR I didn't consider that. That's a great point!" CreationDate="2023-03-20T21:26:17.687" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42649" PostId="20643" Score="1" Text="@DavidConrad Having read this answer, it shouldn’t surprise you to know that… they use _να_! Infinitives are replaced by something akin to a declarative content clause headed by _να_ and with the verb in a form sometimes called the ‘subjunctive’ (though its use is quite different from Germano-Romance subjunctives). So ‘I want to go’ is _θέλω να πάω_ ‘I want that I go’." CreationDate="2023-03-21T00:55:40.780" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="42650" PostId="20643" Score="1" Text="@cmw Minor niggle: Modern Greek doesn’t use _θέλει να_ for future constructions. They use _θα_, which _originates_ as a contraction of _θέλει να_ for future constructions, but the uncontracted form is used for literal desiderative constructions. There’s a big difference between _που θα πας;_ ‘where will you go/where are you going?’ and _που θέλεις να πας;_ ‘where do you want to go?’." CreationDate="2023-03-21T01:00:11.367" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="42651" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet Thanks and edited." CreationDate="2023-03-21T01:06:58.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42661" PostId="20643" Score="1" Text="@DavidConrad The infinitive is supplanted by να + verb (subjunctive), or noun: ήλθα να φάω ~ ήλθα γιά φαΐ. ετοιμάζομαι να κυνηγήσω ~ ετοιμάζομαι για κυνήγι ... etc." CreationDate="2023-03-21T14:44:57.137" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42663" PostId="20643" Score="0" Text="I'm trying to understand why I'm getting surprise answers, then I find &quot;Koine Greek is closer to modern Greek than ancient Greek.&quot; This leads to me concluding that ancient greek needs a better definition in the question. I would ask, what is ancient Greek and how does it relate to the Greek that the works of Socrates is written in." CreationDate="2023-03-21T18:06:26.090" UserId="3345" />
  <row Id="42621" PostId="20644" Score="0" Text="I've updated my translation to specify the agent." CreationDate="2023-03-19T23:34:36.553" UserId="11219" />
  <row Id="42622" PostId="20644" Score="0" Text="thanks for adding that!" CreationDate="2023-03-19T23:34:58.920" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42628" PostId="20644" Score="0" Text="@William: Is it, &quot;he incited them to desiring ('ad cupiditatem'...continuing with the accusative...) a greater measure ('amplum modum') of the hoping (genitive gerund, 'sperandi') [of the land] would be understood?" CreationDate="2023-03-20T09:23:10.123" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42666" PostId="20648" Score="2" Text="That first entry should read &quot;ambulo, ambulare, ambulavi, ambulatum&quot;." CreationDate="2023-03-22T11:58:13.283" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43057" PostId="20648" Score="1" Text="If your question is solved, don't forget to click on the check mark to indicate it as such." CreationDate="2023-05-02T21:24:41.843" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42631" PostId="20651" Score="1" Text="To be fair, Homer is difficult to read even for people comfortable with Koine. How clear is [the Septuagint](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/gen/1/1/s_1001), for example? I can sight-read this but certainly can't sight-read Homer." CreationDate="2023-03-20T15:28:16.530" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42632" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="Oh. OK, wow @Draconis, yes, that is much, much clearer. To my, deeply ignorant eye, that looks more like archaic modern Greek ([katharevousa/καθαρεύουσα](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharevousa)) than Ancient Greek. I can read this almost as easily as Modern Greek. What dialect is this? This is circa ~350 AD right? So it's Koine presumably? If _this_ is what the OP meant by Ancient Greek, then that completely invalidates my answer." CreationDate="2023-03-20T15:34:00.220" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="42640" PostId="20651" Score="2" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/144742/discussion-between-terdon-and-cmw)." CreationDate="2023-03-20T17:53:43.800" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="42652" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="Try this 19th century novel, http://www.snhell.gr/anthology/content.asp?id=481&amp;author_id=73 , a witty one…" CreationDate="2023-03-21T02:34:15.957" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42653" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos that's easy enough to read, but surely something from the 19th century can't be written in Koine, right?" CreationDate="2023-03-21T10:06:31.630" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="42654" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="That is the point: καθαρεύουσα is patterned after Koine and overlaps it hugely!" CreationDate="2023-03-21T10:41:55.917" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42655" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos ah yes, of course, but while it can act as a bridge between MG and Koine, I would argue that MG itself (Dimotiki, that is) is still sufficiently far from Koine as to not be mutually intelligible. While an especially erudite MG speaker might understand more Koine, your average speaker of the modern language wouldn't understand much and I would guess that an average speaker of Koine would understand even less MG (MG speakers are likely to have had some contact with more archaic forms)." CreationDate="2023-03-21T10:44:48.023" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="42656" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="I can't disagree, but even though  καθαρεύουσα has been harshly suppressed, and you never hear it on the phone, for example, it has a second life in underlying scholarly conversations... change a few endings and you really have simple  καθαρεύουσα ... Essentially all scholarly texts from 1790 to 1950 were written in it, so it underlies most careful well-constructed sentences..." CreationDate="2023-03-21T10:58:37.367" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42730" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: If I may offer a small correction, I would say that there's nothing intrinsically difficult about reading Homeric Greek, if that's the Greek that you started with (which was my case)." CreationDate="2023-03-28T14:34:48.367" UserId="9562" />
  <row Id="42734" PostId="20651" Score="0" Text="@LeeMosher of course not. Everything seems easier if that's what you start with, that's a bit of a tautology. But modern Greeks don't start with homeric so that doesn't seem relevant." CreationDate="2023-03-28T21:59:52.133" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="42644" PostId="20652" Score="3" Text="If you (or others) are searching for such a word, you might find it helpful to look for terms like 'summary', 'precis' or 'abstract' rather than 'reading sheet', which doesn't seem to be widely-used." CreationDate="2023-03-20T21:11:04.253" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="42657" PostId="20653" Score="0" Text="I thought of using epitome (as in Epitome Historiae Graecae) but was not sure, thanks" CreationDate="2023-03-21T11:15:22.993" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42659" PostId="20654" Score="1" Text="related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14134/translating-a-short-sentence-to-latin" CreationDate="2023-03-21T14:15:52.980" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42699" PostId="20654" Score="1" Text="*Sic finit*. Thus it ends." CreationDate="2023-03-26T16:04:33.993" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42665" PostId="20656" Score="1" Text="Thanks, is there a difference between caput and capitulum?" CreationDate="2023-03-22T06:32:44.277" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42672" PostId="20656" Score="0" Text="Capitulum is a diminutive of caput." CreationDate="2023-03-22T17:40:38.037" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42673" PostId="20660" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Take a look at this related question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7298/noun-adjuncts-in-latin" CreationDate="2023-03-22T19:04:28.180" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42668" PostId="20661" Score="2" Text="lol well that's egg on my face, I didn't notice when I clicked on civitatis that it took me to civitas.  Thank you!  I thought I was going crazy.&#xA;&#xA;Now I'm debating on leaving this question up or not.  Maybe it'll help someone else out, but it's also now a testament to my lack of attention to detail." CreationDate="2023-03-22T15:26:05.263" UserId="13278" />
  <row Id="42669" PostId="20661" Score="3" Text="Hey, you never know whom it might help in the future! I hope you stick around and ask more questions as you progress in Latin!" CreationDate="2023-03-22T15:27:13.340" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42671" PostId="20661" Score="0" Text="The &quot;rule&quot; that the first component must be a case form is not correct." CreationDate="2023-03-22T16:35:53.810" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42677" PostId="20661" Score="2" Text="@fdb : I don't see any mention here of such a &quot;rule&quot;. Was it mentioned in a comment that has been deleted?" CreationDate="2023-03-23T13:24:30.643" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="42678" PostId="20661" Score="0" Text="@MPW: see the answer by cmw." CreationDate="2023-03-23T15:33:55.313" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42680" PostId="20661" Score="2" Text="@fdb that rule doesn't say the first component must be a case form though. It just states that case forms and derived adjectives are generally used instead of noun adjuncts. Chicken going into the genitive is just an example, and the rule as given by Jack gives no explanation as to why chicken and not soup is the one to go in the genitive; the idea that it must be the first component is nowhere mentioned" CreationDate="2023-03-23T15:52:47.270" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="42686" PostId="20661" Score="0" Text="@Tristan thank you.  Yes, I'm far from any kind of expert so if anyone reads my question as I asked it, I state what I do understand, and not that it should be considered a comprehensive explanation of the rules. In my example, to explain the rules as I understand them, I suggested chicken would go into the genitive only because the translation into English works well, &quot;soup of chicken.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-03-23T17:47:15.540" UserId="13278" />
  <row Id="42687" PostId="20661" Score="2" Text="@JackPliskin You are correct. Chicken would go into the gentive here or made into an adjective. You wouldn't see the kind of compounding that fdb mentions, which is rare to begin with and not the same phenomenon." CreationDate="2023-03-23T18:25:14.923" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42688" PostId="20661" Score="4" Text="@fdb *Civitatis* is not a bare stem and follows *defensor*. I don't think what you've mentioned is what the original question was talking about." CreationDate="2023-03-23T18:29:21.590" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42674" PostId="20662" Score="1" Text="There are also cases where a kind of connective vowel is used like in Greek, such as sacrilegium, parricida, pontifex, but perhaps those are considered to be based on verbal stems?" CreationDate="2023-03-22T23:49:58.960" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42675" PostId="20662" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus More likely analogy to -i stems." CreationDate="2023-03-23T00:07:12.267" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42676" PostId="20662" Score="1" Text="Oh, really. I wonder, then, how many i-nouns were used in this way to give rise to the analogy." CreationDate="2023-03-23T01:32:47.973" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42679" PostId="20662" Score="1" Text="@fdb I don't see why we'd need to invoke analogy. This would be the expected reflex of an *e in this position, and not unexpected even for an *o, so having it just be the regular thematic vowel (or, for coinings that obviously postdate vowel reduction, analogy to compounds of thematic stems) seems more parsimonious" CreationDate="2023-03-23T15:50:15.757" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="42681" PostId="20662" Score="0" Text="@Tristan. See Buck “Comparative grammar” par. 520, where both possibilities are mentioned." CreationDate="2023-03-23T16:01:49.667" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42682" PostId="20662" Score="0" Text="@fdb Buck is quite old and outdated these days. Do you know if it's also addressed in more recent works? I don't remember noticing it in Sihler, but I may have just missed it" CreationDate="2023-03-23T16:16:45.203" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="42683" PostId="20662" Score="0" Text="@Tristan. For some reason Sihler decided not to update Buck's section on compounds." CreationDate="2023-03-23T16:59:00.817" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42685" PostId="20662" Score="0" Text="@fdb well, I wasn't asking about compound words initially.  I wasn't trying to understand how to create the word, &quot;chickensoup,&quot; but rather, I was trying to better understand the rules for creating the word, &quot;chicken soup.&quot; Anyway, I have been super curious about how to create compound words, actually.  Do you have any online resources I could read?" CreationDate="2023-03-23T17:44:18.783" UserId="13278" />
  <row Id="42689" PostId="20662" Score="4" Text="@Tristan Weiss's discussion is a bit vague but FWIW (p. 264): &quot;In some cases the *i* could theoreticaly continue an old Proto-Italic *i* ... But in most cases *i* is the weakening product of some other vowel ... *In some cases the vowel *-i-* has been generalized to form an interfix between consonant-final first members and consonant-initial second members.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-03-23T19:32:30.777" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42692" PostId="20662" Score="0" Text="@TKR which book is that?" CreationDate="2023-03-24T09:42:09.370" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="42694" PostId="20662" Score="2" Text="@Tristan Michael Weiss, Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin." CreationDate="2023-03-24T16:38:19.517" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42697" PostId="20662" Score="1" Text="@JackPliskin I'm sure there are non-SE resources out there on this topic, but it was also covered here. [Here's a good question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7035/what-cases-were-used-in-compounds) in which TKR provides some nice rules. You can see further discussions [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4073/forming-a-compound-with-the-second-word-starting-with-a-vowel) and [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16593/what-is-the-best-way-to-invent-compound-words-in-latin)." CreationDate="2023-03-24T19:57:02.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42693" PostId="20666" Score="2" Text="I'd already suspected this would be a special case. So basically, in Latin the present tense is not the norm when writing a letter but the author writes it from the perspective of the reader receiving the letter in the future? But then, why is the imperfect used here and not the perfect? Or is 'historical perfect' another word for imperfect in this particular situation?" CreationDate="2023-03-24T16:31:12.570" UserId="7122" />
  <row Id="42695" PostId="20666" Score="2" Text="@ThomasWening Because it describes ongoing action. As the author is writing it, it isn't finished yet. If it were not a letter, the force would be a present progressive: &quot;I am writing you.&quot; Even though the letter is finished, continuous action in the past can still go into the imperfect, even if it is completely finished. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Spanish imperfect, but the Latin imperfect is quite versatile." CreationDate="2023-03-24T16:48:02.397" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42722" PostId="20668" Score="0" Text="Probably worth noting that the standard edition is [Tarrant's 2004 OCT](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/metamorphoses-9780198146667). PHI uses Miller and Goold's Loeb (1977-84) and Perseus uses Magnus (1892). I have no idea by how much the total verse count might vary between those three." CreationDate="2023-03-27T19:55:18.430" UserId="12079" />
  <row Id="42726" PostId="20668" Score="0" Text="@Herodotean I quickly glanced at Tarrant, but didn't tally it all up. It also has funky numbering, though (e.g. in book I it goes 544-545 in brackets and then 544A outside brackets)." CreationDate="2023-03-27T23:24:19.970" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42833" PostId="20668" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I had the pleasure of seeing a 17th century copy of operum ovidii nasonis. Heinsius 2nd edition. It exactly had v. 546 in brackets." CreationDate="2023-04-05T06:04:00.590" UserId="13286" />
  <row Id="42698" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="*interesse putavit* &quot;he thought it important&quot;, *rationem notam fieri* &quot;that the reason become known&quot;. I think that *fieri* and its accusatives are the predicate (or are they the subject?) of *interesse*." CreationDate="2023-03-26T16:02:21.327" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42701" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="Thanks, @Figulus. I share your puzzlement about the subject of interesse. To put the matter semantically, I might ask what Bacon thinks is &quot;of great importance&quot;? (1) The method or (2) That the method be known. I recognize that these two thoughts are hard to distinguish, but, again, my question is pretty strictly grammatical." CreationDate="2023-03-26T17:03:06.770" UserId="13292" />
  <row Id="42702" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="It worth adding the full sentence: *FRANCISCUS de Verulamio sic cogitavit: talemque apud se rationem instituit, quam Viventibus et Posteris notam fieri ipsorum interesse putavit.* . I don't see it, but In theory *quam* could be a correlative of *talem* or even something like a correlative to oppose &quot;apud se&quot;:  *[tam] apud se quam viventibus*." CreationDate="2023-03-26T17:16:00.257" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42703" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your comment and for including the full sentence. I am pretty certain quam is correlative with talem, but I still don't see how that helps account for fieri (unless, as @Figulus suggested in the first comment, it -- fieri, I mean -- is governed by interesse)." CreationDate="2023-03-26T17:36:11.503" UserId="13292" />
  <row Id="42704" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="@BrendanBoyle This usage of *interesse* is impersonal, so *quam* alone cannot be the subject, because it has none. But it can stand, among other things, with an AcI, which grammars irritatingly call a &quot;subject clause.&quot; So – semantically speaking – he must have thought it of importance that the method become known. I wouldn't know what *notam fieri* would be doing in the sentence otherwise." CreationDate="2023-03-26T21:26:15.000" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42705" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree with you that it is strange to classify a verb as impersonal and then speak of its subject clauses, but I don’t have a better terminology everybody can understand. How do you call those AcI’s with which _interesse_ can stand, if not _subject clauses?_" CreationDate="2023-03-26T22:05:49.547" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="42706" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="@Dario I have no better terminology either; plus, *interest* can also stand with neutr. pron. like *hoc* (and also with *nihil*), so its impersonality is somewhat iffy anyway." CreationDate="2023-03-26T22:17:41.807" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42708" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Many thanks for (1) the reminder that this usage of interesse is impersonal and (2) that quam...fieri can (must!) stand as its subject. I appreciate all the help. (First time user of LSE -- forgive any errors I made in formatting or the like! I'll be back!)" CreationDate="2023-03-27T00:15:00.847" UserId="13292" />
  <row Id="42709" PostId="20672" Score="0" Text="@dario Thanks for your help." CreationDate="2023-03-27T00:15:22.517" UserId="13292" />
  <row Id="42711" PostId="20676" Score="0" Text="Apologies, I edited my question to clarify that I meant embedding Latin in an English sentence." CreationDate="2023-03-27T15:05:09.783" UserId="9490" />
  <row Id="42712" PostId="20676" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure [&quot;personae non gratae&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22personae+non+gratae%22) is unused in English." CreationDate="2023-03-27T15:05:57.280" UserId="9490" />
  <row Id="42713" PostId="20676" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure if it's considered pretentious, but doesn't German often decline Latin nouns? It seems to me that English uses the nominative not because it's non-Latin but because it's non-inflected." CreationDate="2023-03-27T15:15:20.000" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="42715" PostId="20676" Score="1" Text="@brianpck Right; I'm saying we don't inflect the words for gender or case in English, because English doesn't have those features on nouns, but often do inflect them for number, which English does have (one alumnus, several alumni)." CreationDate="2023-03-27T16:30:41.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42716" PostId="20676" Score="0" Text="@user570286 As plural (which English has), not as genitive (which it doesn't, as an inflectional marking on nouns)." CreationDate="2023-03-27T16:31:50.933" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42723" PostId="20676" Score="0" Text="The iWeb corpus has the same number (2 each) of _dei ex machinis_ and _dei ex machinae_. The latter are presumably perpetrated by people who sort of know that Latin words in _-a_ form their plurals in _-ae_, but have no clue about Latin accidence." CreationDate="2023-03-27T20:52:21.057" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="42728" PostId="20676" Score="0" Text="@brianpck &quot;Considered pretentious&quot; is putting it mildly. Declining Latin nouns in German is very rare. Try telling a German &quot;Im ausgeschalteten Statui verbraucht der Fernseher kaum Strom&quot; and enjoy the look on his face ;-) But yes, historically, especially among *Altphilologen* (classical philologists), this was sometimes done." CreationDate="2023-03-28T07:52:08.290" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42829" PostId="20676" Score="0" Text="@brianpck For number, German typically does inflect Latin nouns, but for case this is done only with a few names, and then nowadays only for the genitive (&quot;zur Zeit Jesu&quot;, &quot;auf dem Stuhle Petri&quot;); for other cases, it is rather archaic (you'll find it almost exclusively in the lyrics of old hymns, such as &quot;meinen Jesum lass' ich nicht&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-04-04T11:49:59.160" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="42725" PostId="20677" Score="1" Text="No, it didn't. See Asteroides' answer." CreationDate="2023-03-27T20:58:47.337" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="42733" PostId="20677" Score="0" Text="He is wrong! Tell that to his answer" CreationDate="2023-03-28T18:27:40.167" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="42765" PostId="20677" Score="1" Text="What I said is &quot;Interlingua seems to use the value [ts] or [s] for C before e, i, y and for T before i followed by another vowel.&quot; You wrote &quot;T makes the tsy sound when it is used in ti followed by vowel and C makes a ts sound.&quot; I would consider the &quot;y&quot; in the sound that you write as &quot;tsy&quot; to be represented by the following letter I, but I don't think it matters either way." CreationDate="2023-03-31T13:08:32.187" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="42721" PostId="20678" Score="1" Text="Related: [What's the deal with Q?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5378/79)" CreationDate="2023-03-27T19:05:50.623" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42719" PostId="20679" Score="4" Text="Why do you think you need to?" CreationDate="2023-03-27T18:20:01.413" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42718" PostId="20681" Score="1" Text="Isn't the caesura in that line after _canō_ (penthemimeral)?" CreationDate="2023-03-27T17:49:12.040" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42720" PostId="20684" Score="0" Text="Ah yes! It makes sense, a partitive was my second guess, but I totally forgot that it would be &quot;quae&quot; if &quot;manticam&quot; was the object! Thank you!" CreationDate="2023-03-27T18:54:34.497" UserId="3318" />
  <row Id="42727" PostId="20685" Score="1" Text="It does not quite carry the authority of a John Wick movie, but note that there's also: *Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur* (Ennius apud Ciceronem: Laelius de Amicita 1, 64)." CreationDate="2023-03-28T07:35:06.860" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42731" PostId="20688" Score="0" Text="I would say there is no limit. I have seen plenty of sentences beginning with an object and ending with the verb. They didn't seem to care about our poor brain's overload!" CreationDate="2023-03-28T16:10:08.647" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42732" PostId="20688" Score="1" Text="The sentences people will _write_ can be very different from the sentences they'll _say_. I suspect you'll find a much higher distance in writing." CreationDate="2023-03-28T17:15:26.273" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42735" PostId="20691" Score="1" Text="As for your last sentence with the prepositional gerund (_Amicae meae libros dedi ad legendum_), I'd say that in Classical Latin it is more idiomatic to use the gerundive here: cf. _Amicae meae libros dedi legendos_." CreationDate="2023-03-29T00:22:22.440" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42736" PostId="20691" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, is it because *do* and *curo* are kind of special verbs in that regard? If we have *habeo* or *emo* instead of *do* will it sound better?" CreationDate="2023-03-29T08:09:45.167" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42738" PostId="20691" Score="0" Text="@mitomino does the gerundive not get translated as 'books which are to be read' as in you HAVE to read them, same like 'karthago delenda est'. But I want to state the prupose of the books, like 'the books which are for reading'. Its a clear difference. Maybe this is a bad example for a real world case but there is a difference." CreationDate="2023-03-29T15:38:32.223" UserId="11254" />
  <row Id="42741" PostId="20691" Score="1" Text="Yes, _do_ and _curo_ are two verbs that are typically found in this kind of predicative gerundive construction. Take a look at the following question for additional examples with verbs that typically enter into this construction (NB: one example includes _habeo_): https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la" CreationDate="2023-03-29T18:17:41.950" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42742" PostId="20691" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, thanks, I fixed it to a more idiomatic example." CreationDate="2023-03-29T18:59:13.143" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42744" PostId="20693" Score="2" Text="Yes, it must be the future tense. English often uses the present continuous tense for future plans (and English isn't the worst offender in this regard – in colloquial German the future tense is downright rare), but Latin generally insists on the future." CreationDate="2023-03-29T20:57:57.977" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42752" PostId="20693" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: What does &quot;generally&quot; mean, here? Allen &amp; Greenough section 468: &quot;The Present, especially in colloquial language and poetry is often used for the Future e.g. &quot;imusne sessum&quot; (De Or. 3.17) = &quot;Shall we take a seat?&quot; = &quot;Are we going to sit?&quot;. A catchphrase could be construed as a colloquialism--why not? Therefore, &quot;ego revenio&quot; = &quot;I am coming back&quot; = &quot;I'll be back!&quot;. (I need the present tense to achieve the rhyming rhetorical force.)." CreationDate="2023-03-30T08:31:45.653" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42755" PostId="20693" Score="1" Text="I was not aware that this is &quot;often&quot; the case, and some of A&amp;G's examples seem somewhat &quot;special&quot; to me (e.g. a sentence that literally begins with *hodie*). But okay. Still, the Terminator's vow to return seems not particularly colloquial to me. Personally, I would stick to the future tense." CreationDate="2023-03-30T11:46:25.137" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42759" PostId="20693" Score="1" Text="I agree with @SebastianKoppehel. I believe the immediate future can be replaced by a present, but when it's about a future promise, I don't think I've ever seen it in the present." CreationDate="2023-03-30T17:51:26.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42761" PostId="20693" Score="0" Text="@cmw: A &amp; G: &quot;hodie uxorem ducis?&quot; (Ter. And. 321) = &quot;Are you to be married today?&quot;. The wedding, presumably, in two- or three-hours time. The Terminator returned to the police-house, as promised, within a minute-or-so--therefore, &quot;I am coming back!&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-03-31T01:06:25.663" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42762" PostId="20693" Score="0" Text="@tony You have the same thing in English. &quot;Is the wedding today/Are you to be married today?&quot; If the Terminator had left and said &quot;I am returning today&quot;, a present tense could be acceptable (although it's iffy to extrapolate anything from the comic playwrights---just like we don't think Shakespeare wrote in a normal speaking voice). But &quot;I'll be back&quot; doesn't specify *hodie*, and leaves the timeframe open. That's what necessitates a future, I feel." CreationDate="2023-03-31T01:29:40.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42766" PostId="20693" Score="1" Text="given the English's use of a contraction (albeit one that is almost required to avoid emphasis), and Latin's general pro-drop tendencies, I'd definitely drop the &quot;ego&quot; and just leave the verb on its own" CreationDate="2023-03-31T14:05:14.560" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="42739" PostId="20694" Score="0" Text="Not an answer to the question itself, but the exact phrase shows up [nine times](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=&amp;phrase=semel+iterumque&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search) via a Perseus corpus search. It likely shows up as other variations, too." CreationDate="2023-03-29T17:12:39.263" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="42747" PostId="20696" Score="1" Text="Given that &quot;geometria&quot; is a Greek borrowing already, are you opposed to borrowing &quot;ageometretus&quot; too?" CreationDate="2023-03-30T00:17:41.707" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42748" PostId="20696" Score="0" Text="@Draconis *Geometria* was borrowed by the Romans, but I don't think *ageometr-* anything was. I'm also surprised this wasn't already translated into Latin at some point. Perhaps some medieval philosopher?" CreationDate="2023-03-30T00:22:10.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42749" PostId="20696" Score="0" Text="I think you want the singular *geometres* rather than the plural *geometrae* in your second option. Other than that, I think both your translations are good." CreationDate="2023-03-30T04:30:06.367" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42753" PostId="20696" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I have mixed feelings about &quot;ageometretus&quot; since AFAIK it is not attested in classical Latin, but it might be a good reference to the original, what would be the complete phrase?" CreationDate="2023-03-30T11:39:54.747" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42754" PostId="20696" Score="0" Text="@cmw I was also surprised to find nothing online!" CreationDate="2023-03-30T11:40:22.627" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42757" PostId="20697" Score="0" Text="I don't think I'd ever translate that phrase &quot;more than once.&quot; If the intention is to communicate exactly twice, &quot;more than once&quot; fails completely. If the intention is to communicate &quot;repeatedly,&quot; I find &quot;more than once&quot; too weak. Generally, &quot;more than once&quot; means only a few times, like three or four, and doesn't have the desired connotation of dogged persistance." CreationDate="2023-03-30T14:08:20.913" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="42760" PostId="20697" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Intuitively, I would think the difference between *semel atque iterum* and *iterum atque iterum* would be that the former does not express something like &quot;dogged persistence&quot; as much as the latter." CreationDate="2023-03-30T22:51:32.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42771" PostId="20697" Score="0" Text="That sounds reasonable" CreationDate="2023-03-31T21:26:17.423" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="42746" PostId="20698" Score="2" Text="Are those grave inscriptions in Latin?" CreationDate="2023-03-29T21:52:50.020" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42782" PostId="20698" Score="0" Text="Like Draconis mentioned below, they are &quot;inventions&quot; of late in Latin. People use those different versions in order to distinguish the sounds they make : v when the letter is pronounced as w in English, and u like the sound in &quot;put&quot; (think of it like writing put and fun in different ways -like IPA- in English) same for i when it is voiced as &quot;ee&quot; and &quot;j&quot; like &quot;y&quot; in &quot;you&quot;." CreationDate="2023-03-31T23:28:29.677" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42745" PostId="20699" Score="0" Text="Both graves I have seen were of people who died in the 20th century. Also, I have just found a river &quot;JLL&quot;, that in German is read as the word &quot;ill&quot; in English. A question can be when was the river named.." CreationDate="2023-03-29T21:36:20.263" UserId="13308" />
  <row Id="42756" PostId="20701" Score="2" Text="For clarity, the examples given in the second paragraph translate as *Charles the Great, king of the Franks; Frederick the Great, king of the Prussians, etc.*. The terms of address in the third paragraph translate as *Most serene, highest, most powerful king/prince/emperor* as used in direct address." CreationDate="2023-03-30T13:00:14.570" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="42764" PostId="20701" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 if we're adding clarifications, specifying that Charles the Great, king of the Franks is better known as Charlemagne (from the French reflex of Carolus Magnus)" CreationDate="2023-03-31T08:58:54.293" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="42758" PostId="20703" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure why they say that. The vast majority of prefixes (in terms of usage) come from prepositions, not adverbs. Maybe they're talking about how many Latin prepositions seem to go back to PIE adverbs? But that's certainly not true within Latin itself." CreationDate="2023-03-30T16:20:38.163" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42767" PostId="20707" Score="1" Text="I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge than me to answer about the Latin (I'm confident the Google Translate version doesn't work, but I expect there's a nice authentic construction suitable here) – what I would note is that if you're writing any kind of historical fiction, you should remember that notions like authorising a specific degree of violence are based within a modern conception of warfare, and wouldn't necessarily make sense to the Romans." CreationDate="2023-03-31T16:10:54.840" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="42775" PostId="20707" Score="2" Text="Actually I think Google's *lethalis vis* is fine per se and seems to have been used for the toxicity of pharmaceutical substances/plants, it's just that as a military term it would be a pretty blatant anglicism. Commanders in antiquity ordering their underlings to use force if necessary but *not* to kill certain people also seems not beyond the pale; actually I'm rather frustrated that I cannot find an example at the moment." CreationDate="2023-03-31T22:25:19.623" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42776" PostId="20707" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I would reverse the order and drop the spurious 'h' in *letalis* (which I believe is a Late Latin adoption based on the misconception that the word comes from the Greek *Lethe*), but it's not too off base here." CreationDate="2023-03-31T22:26:58.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42777" PostId="20707" Score="1" Text="Also, re: non-lethal force, what of Caesar ordering the maiming of rebellious Gauls, such as after the [Siege of Uxellodunum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Uxellodunum)?" CreationDate="2023-03-31T22:30:00.920" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42779" PostId="20707" Score="1" Text="@cmw Agreed on word order and spelling." CreationDate="2023-03-31T23:03:56.657" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42784" PostId="20707" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your much-needed and incredibly helpful advice. &#xA;&#xA;Some further context: I am writing a fictional piece, but it isn't historical or medieval. It's far more modern. But it is based in Italy (mostly Rome) and I wanted each chapter title to be in Latin. &#xA;&#xA;Would you suggest _vis letalis_ instead?" CreationDate="2023-04-01T10:23:32.737" UserId="13315" />
  <row Id="42768" PostId="20709" Score="1" Text="It's interesting that you say they need *either* the laver of regeneration or the desire for one. Shouldn't sine apply to both voto and lavacro, since both are ablative and therefore the statement is equivavalent to &quot;...sine lavacro regenerationis aut sine eius voto...&quot; Meaning if either one is missing -&gt; &quot;translatio fieri non potest&quot;? The expert opinion of Carolinne White, PhD, Oxford Latin, is that the statement could be read both ways needing to be disambiguated by the context. The context is &quot;sicut scriptum est Jo 3, 5&quot; and a reference to canon 5 de baptismo, necessitating an inclusive or." CreationDate="2023-03-31T18:42:29.053" UserId="13317" />
  <row Id="42769" PostId="20709" Score="1" Text="@Glorius That's entirely possible. I've never known as much about Catholic doctrine as I was supposed to, but I think both readings are possible; the one that seems more intuitively sensible to me is needing either, rather than needing both." CreationDate="2023-03-31T18:56:51.493" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42772" PostId="20710" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Is the phrase meant to be something only one person is wishing to do, or is this a sentiment that is meant to be from multiple people?" CreationDate="2023-03-31T21:45:06.067" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="42774" PostId="20711" Score="3" Text="I like the overall construction, but I believe &quot;threat&quot; in the original English essentially means &quot;danger,&quot; whereas *minatio* is a threat as an action. Possibly something like *paci detrimento esse* would work better." CreationDate="2023-03-31T22:11:01.037" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42778" PostId="20711" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I see what you mean, but since &quot;thinking&quot; is an action, I believe it is still compliant - like the difference between an act `actus` and action`actio`.  Hmm, something to search about. Thank you for your addition!" CreationDate="2023-03-31T22:32:44.407" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42783" PostId="20711" Score="0" Text="Also to consider using *alicujus* instead of *aliquem*. Like the English, I guess in the Latin the genitive is to be preferred here. though I could not find classical examples of *existentia*" CreationDate="2023-04-01T08:36:49.097" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42795" PostId="20711" Score="0" Text="@d_e I was going for &quot;to be an existence&quot; like: aliquem esse existentiam. In terms of existentia being derived from existens: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existentia" CreationDate="2023-04-02T11:44:18.863" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42780" PostId="20712" Score="2" Text="I *think* you meant *lētālis* here instead of *lētālēs* so I took the liberty of correcting what I think was a typo. Let me know if that's not the case, though." CreationDate="2023-03-31T23:14:35.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42781" PostId="20712" Score="2" Text="Ah yes, I was copy-pasting as I was adding it after I typed the whole thing. - Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-03-31T23:16:06.730" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42785" PostId="20712" Score="0" Text="This is incredibly helpful. Thank you. &#xA;&#xA;I'm not sure 'military force' has the same connotation as 'lethal force'. 'Military force' conveys an army of thousands.&#xA;&#xA;'Lethal force' is a commander indicating rules of engagement and specifying that the soldiers may 'shoot to kill'. Given that the piece I'm writing is not based in medieval times (set in early 2000s) this may have no true translation into Latin.&#xA;&#xA;Would _fatalis vis_, or _vis fatalis_ as someone mentioned above that the wording was the wrong way around, translate more to 'fatal force' rather than 'lethal force'?" CreationDate="2023-04-01T10:31:49.313" UserId="13315" />
  <row Id="42786" PostId="20712" Score="0" Text="@SnakeDoctor The definition of &quot;Lethal Force&quot; is: An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. But you can also call a special group of troops as &quot;Lethal Force&quot; just like &quot;Air Force&quot; or &quot;Ground Force&quot; - so that they are deadly; then = vīrēs/cōpiae.&#xA;But if you mean &quot;Lethal Force&quot; like a &quot;Deadly Blow (to the enemy) = vīs.&#xA;&#xA;And in terms of letalis/fatalis, they are (basing my opinion on Latinitium) interchangeable just like in English: https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh14889" CreationDate="2023-04-01T14:17:41.113" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42799" PostId="20713" Score="1" Text="This may be useful for you, even though there were no references pertaining to his claims other than the pun Catullus made: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/7do69p/how_did_romans_really_pronounce_greek_sounds/" CreationDate="2023-04-02T12:14:41.347" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42800" PostId="20713" Score="1" Text="Thanks, that's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to hear about. Both Greek- and Latin-speakers seem to have written quite a bit about both languages, pronunciation, etc." CreationDate="2023-04-02T12:22:07.087" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="42801" PostId="20713" Score="0" Text="Happy to be of help!" CreationDate="2023-04-02T12:28:03.840" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42787" PostId="20716" Score="1" Text="I think I would've preferred insurgere instead of oriri, so something like: `īnsurgit ē cinere`." CreationDate="2023-04-01T14:31:55.083" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42788" PostId="20716" Score="0" Text="Why not use the same verb as in the motto, *resurgo*?" CreationDate="2023-04-01T18:12:03.760" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42789" PostId="20716" Score="0" Text="@Jacqueline being someone not terribly familiar with Latin, I would love for you to post an answer telling me why you prefer insurgere." CreationDate="2023-04-01T23:57:59.787" UserId="13319" />
  <row Id="42790" PostId="20716" Score="0" Text="@TKR I would love it if you'd post your idea, and an explanation for a non-Latin scholar, as an answer." CreationDate="2023-04-02T00:05:30.190" UserId="13319" />
  <row Id="42794" PostId="20717" Score="1" Text="What do you mean by &quot;O Little Town of Hicksville&quot;? Is that the name of your town?" CreationDate="2023-04-02T11:00:07.000" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42796" PostId="20717" Score="0" Text="yes, that was a humorous take on &quot;O Little Town of Bethlehem&quot; (Christmans hymn) and Hicksville (NY) where church is" CreationDate="2023-04-02T11:51:22.177" UserId="13323" />
  <row Id="42797" PostId="20717" Score="0" Text="What do you mean by &quot;Russian sweets&quot; ?" CreationDate="2023-04-02T11:55:37.690" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="42802" PostId="20717" Score="0" Text="I am giving him a gift of Russian sweets for Easter" CreationDate="2023-04-02T13:38:04.127" UserId="13323" />
  <row Id="42803" PostId="20717" Score="1" Text="@John It means Russian candies." CreationDate="2023-04-02T13:40:40.607" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="42804" PostId="20717" Score="0" Text="What is &quot;Russian Latin mass&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-04-02T13:44:42.613" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="42806" PostId="20717" Score="0" Text="A Latin/Tridentine Catholic mass is pretty much never ENTIRELY in Latin. The homily/announcements prior to mass are always in whatever is the vernacular. The Russian part is a joke on the vernacular being Russian" CreationDate="2023-04-02T14:51:02.013" UserId="13323" />
  <row Id="42811" PostId="20717" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I look forward to seeing how you decline &quot;O Little Town of Hicksville&quot;. The problem is similar to what I asked [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1220/118)." CreationDate="2023-04-02T17:12:18.877" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="42827" PostId="20717" Score="2" Text="@BenKovitz Sometimes the only winning move is not to play..." CreationDate="2023-04-04T05:56:05.717" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42791" PostId="20718" Score="1" Text="And a queen would be _magna regina._" CreationDate="2023-04-02T05:04:59.437" UserId="9680" />
  <row Id="43548" PostId="20718" Score="1" Text="I have now after a rather lengthy thought process, simply renamed the Empire from &quot;Magna Rex&quot; to &quot;Terra Regis&quot;, The King's Land. It felt okay." CreationDate="2023-06-12T20:45:53.740" UserId="13309" />
  <row Id="42792" PostId="20719" Score="2" Text="Isn't *reminisci* a deponent?" CreationDate="2023-04-02T07:26:34.013" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42793" PostId="20719" Score="0" Text="Shoot! Yes - how about commonētur instead?" CreationDate="2023-04-02T10:47:49.877" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42810" PostId="20721" Score="2" Text="&quot;flumunculum, i, n.&quot; if we are to follow the example &quot;pecten,tinis,m.&quot; mentioned in [The_Formation_of_Latin_Diminutives_of_Nouns_and_Adjectives](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323534846_The_Formation_of_Latin_Diminutives_of_Nouns_and_Adjectives) , methinks." CreationDate="2023-04-02T16:57:09.620" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42812" PostId="20721" Score="3" Text="Apart from what Jacqueline says, [flumicellum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dflumicellum) apparently has one or two late Latin attestations." CreationDate="2023-04-02T17:12:29.543" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42813" PostId="20721" Score="1" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2967/constructing-latin-diminutives" CreationDate="2023-04-02T18:58:35.247" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="42805" PostId="20722" Score="14" Text="The Roman numeric sytstem is definitely not base 12, but I wonder if the particular set, if there really is no XIII, is for clocks, who need squished up letters. There's no real reason not to just use regular Latin letters for Roman numerals (and I don't know why Unicode decided to adopt different but identical letters for them)." CreationDate="2023-04-02T14:44:09.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42814" PostId="20722" Score="2" Text="In the last paragraph, you repeat `x` and `iii` twice. Should the second one probably be `xii` and `i`?" CreationDate="2023-04-03T08:20:30.747" UserId="7002" />
  <row Id="42815" PostId="20722" Score="5" Text="This question would be improved if the question title included &quot;unicode&quot;, e.g: &quot;How to write 13 in Roman Numerals using unicode?&quot;" CreationDate="2023-04-03T10:48:54.453" UserId="13331" />
  <row Id="42816" PostId="20722" Score="1" Text="@ToivoSäwén Feel free to suggest an edit! For simple things like adding a crucial bit of information in the title, don't worry about stepping on anyone's toes." CreationDate="2023-04-03T12:32:52.147" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42821" PostId="20722" Score="0" Text="Hi, @RichardHardy Thanks for mentioning my error, someone edited it for good. :D" CreationDate="2023-04-03T19:45:36.007" UserId="9327" />
  <row Id="42822" PostId="20722" Score="0" Text="Hi, @ToivoSäwén Thanks for the suggestion!" CreationDate="2023-04-03T19:46:01.283" UserId="9327" />
  <row Id="42823" PostId="20722" Score="0" Text="This question has nothing to do with the Latin language." CreationDate="2023-04-03T21:15:45.010" UserId="13261" />
  <row Id="42826" PostId="20722" Score="0" Text="@cmw I don't think the set is for clocks specifically. Clocks traditionally write four as `IIII`, not `IV`." CreationDate="2023-04-04T03:52:48.010" UserId="13339" />
  <row Id="42836" PostId="20722" Score="1" Text="Related question on Graphic Design: [Why should I ever use Unicode’s special characters for Roman numerals?](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/q/49265/19174)" CreationDate="2023-04-05T15:02:12.633" UserId="49" />
  <row Id="42807" PostId="20723" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the answer. One reason to use precomposed characters instead of alphabetic characters is the TTS engines that sometimes read the precomposed characters more correctly." CreationDate="2023-04-02T15:42:58.620" UserId="9327" />
  <row Id="42808" PostId="20723" Score="0" Text="@MehdiAbbassi But in that case I'm afraid you're out of luck too, because the text-to-speech engine would read &quot;ten three&quot; or &quot;twelve one.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-04-02T15:58:47.990" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42809" PostId="20723" Score="1" Text="The engine could be a bit &quot;smarter&quot; and read &quot;thirteen&quot; but for example when it arrives in `XI` maybe it is just the Chinese president in uppercase or it could be eleven." CreationDate="2023-04-02T16:03:37.380" UserId="9327" />
  <row Id="42824" PostId="20723" Score="2" Text="@MehdiAbbassi See https://stackoverflow.com/a/28788246/3527940" CreationDate="2023-04-03T22:44:38.657" UserId="9164" />
  <row Id="42818" PostId="20726" Score="1" Text="@Joonas why did you tag my post with pronouns? They are adjectives, mentioned in the quote." CreationDate="2023-04-03T13:33:43.500" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42819" PostId="20726" Score="2" Text="I would say that both *idem* and *is* are pronouns. The boundary between the two concepts isn't always clear, and there are different conventions. Feel free to add a tag for adjectives if you think that is a more apt name, but do keep the pronoun tag as many will see those words as pronouns." CreationDate="2023-04-03T14:05:18.943" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42817" PostId="20728" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I can't visit Wiktionary, due to the Great Firewall. Could you copy and paste here  from Wiktionary? I can't see screenshot hosted on imgur either, because imgur is blocked." CreationDate="2023-04-03T13:32:01.320" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42820" PostId="20728" Score="0" Text="@Tim Wiktionary says: &quot;Misinterpretation of *-em*. When the old ablative cases of *is, eōd, eād*, became *eō, eā*, the true forms *eōd-em, eād-em* were interpreted as *eō-dem, eā-dem*. The neuter nominative singular *id-em* is natural and gives earlier *emem* (= later *eundem*). The new marker *-dem* then served to create *totidem, tantumdem, ibīdem*, etc. Compare *tam-en* with its later doublet: *tan-dem* (← *_tam-dem_).&quot; But as I said, whether that is a good description should be explained someone more etymologically qualified than me." CreationDate="2023-04-03T14:06:45.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42825" PostId="20729" Score="1" Text="I think more likely would be ὑπερ-, as in ὑπερεσθίω &quot;overeat&quot;." CreationDate="2023-04-03T23:15:01.583" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42830" PostId="20733" Score="1" Text="You can use [Perseus' morphological analysis tool](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph) to look up *rem*." CreationDate="2023-04-04T12:00:57.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42849" PostId="20733" Score="0" Text="Are you looking for an explanation of &quot;quam ob rem&quot; or &quot;quam&quot; in general?" CreationDate="2023-04-08T19:32:28.260" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42856" PostId="20733" Score="0" Text="former...................... @Jacqueline" CreationDate="2023-04-09T08:26:52.803" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42835" PostId="20736" Score="0" Text="Indeed, I always forget about the emphasis." CreationDate="2023-04-05T08:38:19.007" UserId="9084" />
  <row Id="42831" PostId="20738" Score="0" Text="I wouldn't have batted an eye at *altos ad montes* and see that construction all the time. Is the *ad* there really intrusive here?" CreationDate="2023-04-05T03:30:27.610" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42832" PostId="20738" Score="0" Text="Similarly, *mecum* and *secum* aren't really hyperbaton." CreationDate="2023-04-05T03:31:51.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42834" PostId="20738" Score="2" Text="@cmw I would say that the *ad* is indeed intrusive, but only slightly. So maybe not a hyperbaton but just a baton?" CreationDate="2023-04-05T07:52:55.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42837" PostId="20739" Score="0" Text="Cheers for the detail! I was trawling through some lexicons and academic papers, and I wonder if these would be candidates:&#xA;παραφθείρω (to wear out to a greater extent)&#xA;παράφερνα (extra dowry)&#xA;παραγηράω (to age excessively)" CreationDate="2023-04-05T19:44:32.343" UserId="10703" />
  <row Id="42838" PostId="20739" Score="1" Text="No, in all three cases παρά is for propinquity... so you *almost* destroy by corrupting; the dowry stuff is *on the side*, even though dictionaries present it as extra; the last one is interesting, and you need an expert... but to me it's about the decline that comes *with* age, a consequence or effect of  age, not an excess..." CreationDate="2023-04-05T20:59:09.390" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42839" PostId="20739" Score="1" Text="1)French (Bailly abrégé): corrompre légèrement ou *en partie* : παραφθαρεὶς τὴν φώνην PLUT qui a une altération de la voix, qui balbutie; 2)German (Pape)&#xA;  τά, das was die Braut *neben od. außer* der eigentlichen Mitgabe, προΐξ, empfängt u. mitbringt; 3) French (Bailly abrégé) -ῶ : déraisonner comme un vieillard en enfance, radoter." CreationDate="2023-04-06T16:40:13.187" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42840" PostId="20741" Score="1" Text="A terminological note: on the relevant reading (the one you give), _custos_ in _Prosum tibi custos_ is not just an &quot;apposition&quot; but a &quot;praedicativum&quot; (aka &quot;secondary predicate&quot;).  The non-predicative appositive reading (what is often referred to as &quot;apposition&quot; tout court) would be something like 'I, the guard, am useful to you'.  This said, it should be noted that this grammatical distinction is not always found in Latin grammars." CreationDate="2023-04-06T17:26:34.117" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42841" PostId="20741" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Fair enough, I was indeed loose in my terminology here. I often try to gauge the level of the asker's Latin proficiency and choose the level of terminological accuracy accordingly. Too much detail can be distracting early on in one's studies. But then again, these posts are read by people with wildly different backgrounds, so it's useful have also the more precise version recorded. // Your comment also highlights an ambiguity in *Prosum tibi custos* which can be eliminated by a different wording." CreationDate="2023-04-06T18:54:29.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42842" PostId="20741" Score="1" Text="Yes, I agree. My note was just for those readers (perhaps some basic/intermediate learners included) who could be a bit embarrassed when reading that the term &quot;apposition&quot; is equally appropriate for typical cases of this construction (say, _Gallos ab Aquitanis_ Garumna flumen _dividit_) and your example ([ego] _prosum tibi_ custos)." CreationDate="2023-04-06T19:22:15.140" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="42919" PostId="20741" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Students are warned not to attempt to use gerunds and present-participles interchangeably, though they both translate to English, &quot;-ing&quot; words. In your last ex., &quot;custodiendo tibi prosum&quot; = &quot;I am useful to you by the guarding.&quot;, a verbal noun--gerund-all well and good. Then, &quot;custodiens tibi prosum.&quot; = &quot;Guarding I am useful to you.&quot;. In English, we wouldn't say it like this; is it good in Latin? Further, shouldn't &quot;custodiens&quot; be agreeing with something? This ex. must be correct but it doesn't look it." CreationDate="2023-04-14T13:30:04.250" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="42920" PostId="20741" Score="0" Text="@tony The two constructions are indeed not equivalent but they end up meaning the same in this context. You could say that one is &quot;through the act of guarding&quot; and the other is &quot;by being a guard&quot;. It helps a lot if you make a clear distinction in English between the present participle and the gerund; they look alike but mean different things. // Yes, using a participle like this is valid Latin. You can use adjectives like this too. The participle here agrees with the implicit subject *ego*, just like *custos* did." CreationDate="2023-04-14T14:17:26.040" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42847" PostId="20742" Score="2" Text="I can see why one would be interested in the difference between *natio, populus* and *vulgus*, but what do *cultus* and *societas* have to do with these three?" CreationDate="2023-04-08T00:14:28.370" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42848" PostId="20745" Score="0" Text="It can also mean *sancti, sanctorum*, &quot;the saints&quot;, although that is not what is means in this case. But generally, it means either the superlative or the plural of *S*, *sanctus*." CreationDate="2023-04-08T15:27:10.570" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="42857" PostId="20749" Score="0" Text="Heavily related: [Nihil vs. nihilum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2645/1088)" CreationDate="2023-04-09T21:38:35.713" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="42864" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="Can you re-phrase that? Can you explain your idea of 'context' which, here, seems to be quite different from most people's? &#xA;&#xA;Take 'N_X', which is an example, not a context.&#xA;&#xA;When there's no word 'nax' to complete the set, how could that matter at all, let alone present any 'context'??&#xA;&#xA;When there's no '**nax…' what are those '**…' stars for, please?" CreationDate="2023-04-11T19:45:20.523" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42865" PostId="20750" Score="1" Text="@RobbieGoodwin In linguistics, the &quot;context&quot; for a sound is the arrangement of sounds that appear around it. For example, the sound /e/ can appear in the context n\_x, in the word _nex_. The stars indicate a form that does not exist; in historical linguistics, it's common to use one star for a form that isn't attested, but probably did exist, and two stars for a form that probably never existed at all. For example, the word _major_ seems to have come from earlier \*_mag-ior_, but there are no surviving attestations of that earlier form. Meanwhile \*\*_nax_ is simply not a word." CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:01:16.337" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42866" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="Really? Where is that written and in any case, why are you trying to force Latin into SE Linguistics?" CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:01:59.757" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42867" PostId="20750" Score="1" Text="@RobbieGoodwin It's standard terminology that you can find in most historical linguistics textbooks. I apologize if you find it confusing, but given the upvotes and answers to this question, I don't think the stack in general has an issue with it. If you're worried about the moderators &quot;forcing&quot; things onto the site, I recommend posting about it on [Meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com), where other users will see it and weigh in." CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:07:32.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42868" PostId="20750" Score="1" Text="@RobbieGoodwin As for why I use this terminology, though: linguistics terminology is generally useful for talking about language, and historical linguistics terminology especially useful for talking about dead languages. The difference between &quot;this is an attested word&quot;, &quot;this is a word that's not attested but probably existed&quot;, and &quot;this is a word that probably never existed at all&quot; is an important one for talking about Latin vocabulary." CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:09:36.360" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42869" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="Good for you and why not express that in SE Linguistics, rather than any specific language, including Latin?" CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:11:35.710" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42870" PostId="20750" Score="1" Text="@RobbieGoodwin The question is specifically about Latin, not about language in general. Again, if you have concerns about the moderators forcing their views on the Stack, I recommend bringing them up on Meta, which will bring it to more people's attention." CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:23:07.560" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42871" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="Yes, the Question is specifically about Latin. Meanwhile, what you're saying is all about language in general…" CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:24:59.560" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42872" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="@RobbieGoodwin Latin is a language, so using the tools of linguistics to discuss Latin makes perfect sense. If anything, using the same terminology for all languages makes life easier. I really don't see an issue here. But if you think this is something that needs to be fixed, please bring it up on meta." CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:41:45.273" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42873" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="Good for you. Of course the same terminology for all languages makes life easier and so what? If Draconis was asking about some kind of quiz-game, that should have been specified. Otherwise, why not just be more realistic?" CreationDate="2023-04-11T20:45:21.670" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42875" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="@RobbieGoodwin I'm sorry, I can't figure out the actual objection here. What specifically are you objecting to in this question?" CreationDate="2023-04-11T22:18:03.427" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42899" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="@cmw If you must make it so simple, may we go back to that schoolroom in which you first met Latin? What did your earliest teacher have to say about the idea that there might be a context in which every vowel made a valid word?" CreationDate="2023-04-12T21:25:27.593" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42900" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="@RobbieGoodwin I don't find answering a question with a question very helpful. This isn't a Socratic experience, or even a classroom, and nuance can get lost in comments." CreationDate="2023-04-12T21:54:57.347" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42901" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="@cmw It might be fine to hide behind all or any part of 'I don't find answering a question with a question very helpful. This isn't a Socratic experience, or even a classroom, and nuance can get lost in comments…'&#xA;&#xA;If all your doubts were valid, I'd still see your use of them as constructions to hide behind.&#xA;&#xA;Could you get back to the Question?" CreationDate="2023-04-12T22:03:45.517" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42903" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="The question is: what is your objection? I legitimately don't understand your objection here. I'm trying to figure it out, but it's not clear." CreationDate="2023-04-12T23:13:51.743" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42991" PostId="20750" Score="0" Text="Actually, the Question is what could you mean by 'Is there a context where every vowel makes a valid word…'?&#xA;&#xA;If you 'legitimately don't understand…' that, what do you understand?&#xA;&#xA;Does 'every vowel made a valid word' mean 'any change of vowel necessarily changes the meaning of the word' or what else?&#xA;&#xA;Why not Post examples, illustrating your suggestion? A negative example might be 'Veni, vidi, vici' but that could only show what you did not mean…&#xA;&#xA;What examples can you offer, please?" CreationDate="2023-04-25T21:37:18.560" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="42850" PostId="20751" Score="2" Text="Thank you, Draconis, that is a fine and sensitive reply which understands the context of the question." CreationDate="2023-04-08T21:54:06.173" UserId="13359" />
  <row Id="42855" PostId="20752" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides Oops, I wasn't clear. I only meant that it wasn't amply attested. Just twice if I remember right." CreationDate="2023-04-09T04:51:24.723" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42957" PostId="20753" Score="0" Text="Did the speech rate stay the same when reciting poetry, making speeches, and reading letters?" CreationDate="2023-04-21T21:50:53.667" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="42961" PostId="20753" Score="1" Text="@AnaMaria Good question! It _probably_ didn't—generally poetry and speeches come a bit slower, to make sure the audience understands them, while reading a letter happens a bit faster, since the words are already prepared for you. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with any studies on this but it seems like a fertile area for further research!" CreationDate="2023-04-21T23:36:42.757" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43279" PostId="20753" Score="0" Text="I remember now that there was a rhythmic figure in Classical Latin speeches called Clausula, used to add finality to the end of a sentence or phrase, which also existed in letters! The fact that there was rhythm implies that Clausula was fast spoken, and Wikipedia says that there is no doubt that the skilful use of clausulae was one of the techniques which an orator used to excite an audience. Cicero writes of one occasion when the use of a certain clausula (a dichoreus or double trochee – u – x) by the orator Carbo the Younger was so effective that the audience all gave a shout!" CreationDate="2023-05-24T20:00:49.017" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="43280" PostId="20753" Score="0" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausula_(rhetoric)" CreationDate="2023-05-24T20:01:14.210" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="42862" PostId="20754" Score="1" Text="D'oh! Good call on the supine/PPP. It seems so obvious in retrospect, yet I didn't consider it at all." CreationDate="2023-04-10T21:26:19.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42858" PostId="20756" Score="0" Text="Thanks. (1) Which meaning in the dictionary is for the suffix -ter in praeter?See https://i.stack.imgur.com/aQPtF.png (ironically, I can only upload the screenshot but can't see it, because it is hosted at imgur) (2) Can the meaning of praeter be understood from the meanings of prae- and -ter?" CreationDate="2023-04-09T23:21:25.680" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42859" PostId="20756" Score="4" Text="@Tim The screenshot does not give any &quot;meaning&quot; as such of the word &quot;ter,&quot; but insofar as it suggests the suffix is &quot;often used to form opposing pairs&quot; of words, I would venture that *praeter* and *propter* can be viewed as such a pair. The Early Latin phrase *praeter propter* (&quot;more or less, roundabout&quot;) certainly suggests so." CreationDate="2023-04-10T06:44:21.180" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42860" PostId="20757" Score="0" Text="Strangely enough, this site has [already known](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18458/how-would-i-translate-i-went-to-the-woods-so-that-when-i-came-to-die-i-did-not) a request to translate that opening line but specifically with &quot;*Live Deliberately*&quot; part omitted." CreationDate="2023-04-10T11:00:34.990" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42863" PostId="20757" Score="0" Text="Haha I hadn't come across that... I feel demand to &quot;Live Deliberately&quot; is the most important part!" CreationDate="2023-04-11T01:53:07.523" UserId="13360" />
  <row Id="42890" PostId="20760" Score="1" Text="I think &quot;Tua Mater Semper Tecum&quot; reads really nicely. How legit/illegitimate would it be to leave off the &quot;est&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-04-12T17:03:48.633" UserId="13366" />
  <row Id="42896" PostId="20760" Score="0" Text="@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC I think removing &quot;est&quot; would make it unclear whether there should be &quot;est&quot; or &quot;sit&quot;." CreationDate="2023-04-12T18:22:02.030" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="42897" PostId="20760" Score="1" Text="Sorry, I'm a Latin dummy who stumbled in here from Hot Network Questions. What would it mean with _sit_ instead of _est_?" CreationDate="2023-04-12T18:49:40.263" UserId="13366" />
  <row Id="42898" PostId="20760" Score="2" Text="@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC Roughly: With *est* it's a statement (your mother is) and with *sit* it's a wish (may your mother be). Leaving either form of the verb implicit is fine if you're okay with the slight ambiguity." CreationDate="2023-04-12T20:55:36.647" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42891" PostId="20761" Score="1" Text="I'm sure your dactyls are much better Latin than any trochees I'm about to offer, but I think &quot;Amor matris semper tecum&quot; would work really well for a tattoo. Is the rearranged word order within the realm of &quot;sensible&quot; Latin?" CreationDate="2023-04-12T17:08:00.117" UserId="13366" />
  <row Id="42892" PostId="20761" Score="0" Text="And to the OP, I'm intending for that to translate to &quot;A mother's love is always with you&quot;, which I'm hoping works for you." CreationDate="2023-04-12T17:09:51.947" UserId="13366" />
  <row Id="42893" PostId="20761" Score="1" Text="@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC Yes, *amor matris semper tecum* is perfectly valid Latin. That is a nice phrasing option to have, so do write it up as an answer!" CreationDate="2023-04-12T17:22:30.093" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42894" PostId="20761" Score="0" Text="Done, and thanks. Hope you don't mind that I relied on your imprimatur in the answer." CreationDate="2023-04-12T17:33:37.000" UserId="13366" />
  <row Id="42895" PostId="20761" Score="1" Text="@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC Not at all! I just gave your answer a vote." CreationDate="2023-04-12T17:50:45.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44750" PostId="20762" Score="0" Text="Ancient Romans would probably not even understand you had you used &quot;penis&quot; to refer to male genitals or &quot;vagina&quot; to refer to female genitals. &quot;Penis&quot; meant &quot;tail&quot;, and &quot;vagina&quot; meant &quot;sword sheath&quot;." CreationDate="2023-04-17T16:05:29.090" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44751" PostId="20762" Score="2" Text="According to Lewis and Short, *penis* does have the modern meaning as well in many classical authors. The Romans would be unlikely to struggle with that word. *Vagina* is only mentioned as a single attestation in Plautus." CreationDate="2023-04-17T17:17:54.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44752" PostId="20762" Score="1" Text="Cicero famously complained that *hodie penis est in obscenis* in one of his Epistulae ad familiares as if that was a recent development at the time, but the modern meaning is actually much older than the meaning 'tail'." CreationDate="2023-04-17T17:37:14.923" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44753" PostId="20762" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon What makes you think that the modern meaning is actually much older than the meaning &quot;tail&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-04-17T18:21:44.293" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44754" PostId="20762" Score="2" Text="Cognates in other languages. Greek πέος, Sanskrit *pasas*, both 'penis'; Hittite *pešnaš* 'man, husband'; Old English *fæsl*, OHG *fasal* 'offspring'; Modern German *Fasel* 'breeding cow/pig'. Latin is the only language in which the meaning 'tail' is attested, and while the shift 'tail → penis' is more probable than 'penis → tail', that must be what happened. (De Vaan suggests Lat. *penis* could be related to *penna* 'feather' instead and not cognate with these other words at all, but that doesn't strike me as semantically any easier.)" CreationDate="2023-04-17T20:02:13.563" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44755" PostId="20762" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon You could easily go from feather -&gt; tail of a bird (full of feathers) -&gt; tail in general -&gt; thing that looks like a tail (i.e. penis). Someone else also made a good argument that *penis* is unrelated to *peos* or *pasas*, but I can't remember who now." CreationDate="2023-04-18T02:40:49.143" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44756" PostId="20762" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon (That said, they are attested slang for genitals, so this answer isn't right.)" CreationDate="2023-04-19T00:34:59.233" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44757" PostId="20762" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler Since your post didn't actually answer the question, I moved it to the comments instead." CreationDate="2023-09-08T16:17:52.120" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42876" PostId="20763" Score="1" Text="What about the doctors? Didn't they use a special word form them?" CreationDate="2023-04-11T23:58:44.087" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="42877" PostId="20763" Score="6" Text="No. Doctors in antiquity weren't like doctors that you're familiar with today. They didn't have charts and special terms for every single organ. That's something that didn't really develop until the Renaissance." CreationDate="2023-04-12T00:19:54.607" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44749" PostId="20763" Score="1" Text="It's even more like &quot;shaft/shaft,&quot; if you pardon my homonyms. Doctors did too have charts and terminology (even anatomical models as teaching aids!), but all that was mainly directed at extracting omens and signs from entrails and suchlike. Anatomical knowledge as we think of it developed almost incidentally as a side product of the pursuit of quite different concerns and interests." CreationDate="2023-09-08T16:16:27.103" UserId="14017" />
  <row Id="42878" PostId="20765" Score="0" Text="This is *not* an answer (but possibly a useful a pointer) because I cannot argue the pros and cons, as my memory is hazy more than forty years after taking five years of Latin classes. If I recall correctly we followed up *De Bello Gallico*, with Sallust's *De Catilinae coniuratione*, which is also a work of high cultural significance. As I recall the degree of difficulty was noticeably higher compared to Caesar." CreationDate="2023-04-12T02:28:32.310" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="42886" PostId="20765" Score="0" Text="[Related 1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14964/set-of-texts-of-increasing-difficulty) and [related 2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/20616/ranking-the-difficulty-of-latin-authors)." CreationDate="2023-04-12T13:03:58.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42880" PostId="20766" Score="1" Text="What would the nom. sg. of gen. pl. *juridicum* be?" CreationDate="2023-04-12T05:22:23.047" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42881" PostId="20766" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I assume *iuridicus*. It sounds more plausible to me to take the short variant of the second declension plural genitive ending than to assume an unattested *iuridex* or similar." CreationDate="2023-04-12T05:50:42.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42882" PostId="20766" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta hm, it seems *iuridicus* for &quot;judge&quot; is even attested in the Digests. That said, I note there is not a single Google hit for &quot;dies non (j/i)uridicorum&quot; and lots of high-quality hits for &quot;dies non juridicus&quot;, so I would put this down as a way to salvage the expression as technically correct Latin, but it's likely still an honest mistake." CreationDate="2023-04-12T06:47:03.627" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42883" PostId="20766" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree, this is about salvaging something as technically valid. It often makes for an interesting answer when an honest mistake is salvageable like this." CreationDate="2023-04-12T08:32:31.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42930" PostId="20766" Score="0" Text="Another way of &quot;salvaging&quot; the phrase is by saying it could be a part of a bigger phrase... perhaps something like &quot;dies non juridicum conventum habens&quot;? &quot;dies non juridicum congressum habens&quot;? etc. (I realize these do sound unnatural and unidiomatic.)" CreationDate="2023-04-16T01:27:48.237" UserId="13364" />
  <row Id="42884" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="The point is just that you can spell it either *quare* or *qua re* (but not *quire*), and the second spelling as the ablative of *quae res* should make the original meaning clearer." CreationDate="2023-04-12T11:20:02.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42885" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I was asking about qua in quare, as mentioned in the quote" CreationDate="2023-04-12T11:59:41.007" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42888" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="Do you have a physical copy? I think you might have some typos." CreationDate="2023-04-12T13:53:31.913" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42889" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="@cmw I have a scanned copy, which is clear to me. If I could access Google Books, I would verify that there. If you suspect there is a typo, please point it out." CreationDate="2023-04-12T14:39:25.183" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42924" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="If you are wondering why this question scores so badly, I'll offer my thoughts. First, try to avoid using pictures, especially pictures of text. Instead, please insert the text as text. If there is too much text to transcribe, then you probably have too much text and should cut it down. Second, make sure your transcription is correct. Don't rely on OCR but actually read the text yourself and type it in. In this question the OCR mistook *quare* for *quire*, but you should have been able to fix that error." CreationDate="2023-04-15T16:02:09.883" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42925" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="Third, if you get a useful answer, please accept it usng the little check mark. You have never done it despite asking several questions, and that comes across as ungrateful. Fourth, please keep an open mind. For example, it makes sense to see an ablative or accusative form of a pronoun as an adverb. Trying to make a clear distinction been pronouns and adjectives and adverbs isn't very useful. I encourage you to postpone questions of fine distinctions until you have learned to actually read and write Latin with some fluency." CreationDate="2023-04-15T16:02:21.300" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42926" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="Fifth, if you have restrictions like not having access to Google services or anything blocked in China, please state so. It can be frustrating to offer you help and then hear that you can't accept it because of such limitations. Sixth, if you need help with asking questions that are received better by the community, consider asking for help on our [meta site](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/)." CreationDate="2023-04-15T16:03:07.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42929" PostId="20767" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta thanks. if you don't mind me pointing out, the third and fourth equally apply outside question askers. It has become my personal choice to not to accept a reply easily, but to upvote it almost always. It has nothing to do with not being grateful as you described. I am more used to downvotes than you may probably think." CreationDate="2023-04-16T00:29:45.330" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42887" PostId="20768" Score="1" Text="In some circles today people are using *macte!* or *mirabile!*. If it not merely cool or excellent but more surprising they might use *Papae!* / *Babae!* though I believe the later can be used also for bad news." CreationDate="2023-04-12T13:24:20.870" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="42904" PostId="20769" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Sorry for the typo quire. I meant to type quare. My question still holds. Is qua an adv or adj?" CreationDate="2023-04-13T00:26:07.987" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42905" PostId="20769" Score="1" Text="@Tim I answered that. It *was* an adjective. It's now, together with *re*, functionally an adverb. But it's a single unit now." CreationDate="2023-04-13T00:27:00.697" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42908" PostId="20769" Score="0" Text="Thanks.  (1) The Oxford Latin Dictionary lists qua as an interr., rel., or indefinite **adv.** [abl. sg. f. of qui^1] , and also lists qui^1 as an interr., rel., or indefinite **adj.**. How can qua, as qui's abl. sg. f., an interr., rel., or indefinite **adv.** but not an interr., rel., or indefinite **adj.**?  (2) In the meanings of qui^1 listed in the Oxford  Latin Dictionary, which one does qua (&quot;because of which &quot;) come from? I can provide the screenshots of the meanings of qui^1 (in three pages), if you don't have access to it." CreationDate="2023-04-13T09:18:11.230" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42909" PostId="20769" Score="2" Text="@Tim *qui* is just a relative pronoun, that's all! &quot;because of which&quot; is not its meaning, it's an attempt to capture its grammatical function in English, in this particular context (*quare*). In a different context it might mean &quot;than which&quot; or just &quot;which&quot; (e.g. *qua in re qua arte usus sit, memorabile est* -- random Google Books hit). There are countless possibilities, because the ablative is so versatile." CreationDate="2023-04-13T12:08:41.807" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42910" PostId="20769" Score="1" Text="We meet the same grammatical function (whichever it is) in *ea re* or *quibus rebus*, so there is no point in looking up *qua* in the dictionary. Just skip ahead to the point where your book treats of relative clauses, and everything will become clear." CreationDate="2023-04-13T12:11:12.707" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42902" PostId="20771" Score="1" Text="It's interesting to consider that Plautus died ~80 years before Cicero was born. Do we know how much Latin colloquial usage might have shifted in that time?" CreationDate="2023-04-12T22:51:02.840" UserId="111" />
  <row Id="42911" PostId="20772" Score="3" Text="You might need a better grammar. It's not a hard and fast rule." CreationDate="2023-04-13T12:50:30.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42912" PostId="20772" Score="2" Text="what is a better grammar?" CreationDate="2023-04-13T14:44:43.800" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="42913" PostId="20772" Score="2" Text="There are plenty of primers available, but for questions of this depth, it's good to cross check with Gildersleeve and Lodge or Allen and Greenough. If you want to look more deeply at semantics, you could also check out Woodcock's A New Latin Syntax." CreationDate="2023-04-13T14:58:35.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42914" PostId="20772" Score="2" Text="I do want to point out though that a careful reading of the above text shows your mistake, not Keller's. These prepositions *emphasize*, not indicate, motion. And I don't have this textbook, but I don't presume he (they?) states that this as a hard and fast rule, but rather gives a general indication, right?" CreationDate="2023-04-13T14:59:51.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42927" PostId="20775" Score="1" Text="Or `iuste` to say 'lawfully'." CreationDate="2023-04-15T16:27:47.513" UserId="9846" />
  <row Id="42928" PostId="20775" Score="1" Text="Maybe the adverbs &quot;recte&quot; and &quot;rite&quot;." CreationDate="2023-04-15T22:13:37.257" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="42931" PostId="20775" Score="1" Text="*iuste et legitime* and *recte et ordine* are also common pairings; I do however think that they do not quite capture the sense of &quot;by the book,&quot; which tends to emphasize an (often overly) strict adherence to the written rules, and not just that everything is done right and properly." CreationDate="2023-04-16T15:30:45.873" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44152" PostId="20775" Score="0" Text="Unfortunately this English idiom does not have one sense but two, and they are antonyms. 1. **Justly** fulfilling every rule (not skipping any, not cutting corners). 2. **unjustly** fulfilling every rule (losing sight of the just outcome “the book” was intended to serve). The answers so far appear to be inclining towards the first rather than the second sense. Sticking a comparative in might tend towards the second sense (*iustius*?). With verbal forms a frequentative might do it. But as for a single verbal form which covers both meanings: there may not be one. Latin does not sit on fences." CreationDate="2023-07-20T07:10:58.440" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="44155" PostId="20775" Score="0" Text="Good point @MartinKochanski! The second sense is captured in &quot;following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-20T16:07:04.217" UserId="13371" />
  <row Id="42921" PostId="20778" Score="1" Text="While this is a duplicate of the Mythology question, I think it's a better fit here than on the Mythology site." CreationDate="2023-04-14T16:51:36.353" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42922" PostId="20779" Score="2" Text="Might be worth mentioning that in Homer the two materials are in the dative, i.e. &quot;fashioned **from horn**.&quot; (It might be possible to misunderstand your point about Homer calling them &quot;the horn.&quot;)" CreationDate="2023-04-14T17:02:06.473" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="42944" PostId="20781" Score="0" Text="Total noob here. He was exiled according to the wikipedia entry for &quot;Lapo da Castiglionchio&quot; so something along the lines of &quot;delivered into exile and destroyed by envy&quot;. The first few words dealing with country and virtue (basic translation) but likely a way of eulogizing the deceased (Lapa Maxima Faces)." CreationDate="2023-04-17T18:41:16.230" UserId="13378" />
  <row Id="42932" PostId="20782" Score="1" Text="And *fasces* = political power, public offices. (By the way, it took me a while to understand that the text addresses someone called Lapus. That was the crucial information for me.)" CreationDate="2023-04-17T06:28:11.940" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42933" PostId="20783" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Take a look at [this older question about why *Christus* wasn't translated to Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2743/79). Do you think it answers your question? If not, can you [edit] your question to specify what is missing in those answers?" CreationDate="2023-04-17T07:38:08.483" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42938" PostId="20785" Score="3" Text="σοφία doesn't really mean knowledge so much as wisdom. Something like ἐπιστήμη or γνῶσις might be a better choice ([cf.](https://artflsrv03.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/efts/sqldbs/WOODHOUSE/woodhouse.py?&amp;pagenumber=472&amp;qtype=page))." CreationDate="2023-04-17T15:18:24.607" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42939" PostId="20785" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Those are good options too, but σοφία can refer to knowledge, especially practical knowledge of some specific skill or domain (https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis-web/?lemma=sofia&amp;dict=LSJ)." CreationDate="2023-04-17T16:36:59.563" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42940" PostId="20785" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the Latin site, Etienne! Your account doesn't get automatically migrated with your question, so you need to extend your Stack Exchange account to this site as well to be able to interact with others. That should be possible with one or two clicks." CreationDate="2023-04-17T17:14:05.537" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42946" PostId="20785" Score="0" Text="Thank you @Joonas!" CreationDate="2023-04-17T22:46:21.823" UserId="13379" />
  <row Id="42947" PostId="20785" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon It seems epistemogenesis is established jargon in the field of psychology. It might be a possible avenue though I'm unsure if it fits my use-case exactly. (I would elucidate on my use case but it's a self-learning mathematical agent and I think it'd be too long and too off-topic for this conversation, I'm not sure myself what fits best given the agent's conception of &quot;knowledge&quot;/&quot;wisdom&quot;.)" CreationDate="2023-04-17T22:47:23.650" UserId="13379" />
  <row Id="42948" PostId="20785" Score="0" Text="@TKR Having read the definitions of those three terms I am unsure which fits my use-case. This document is also quite interesting on the subject and the potential overlap and differences between the two terms https://sites.temple.edu/dwolf/files/2020/06/Sophia-and-episteme.pdf&#xA;If I were to go with sophia, would the compound be as simple as sophiagenesis?" CreationDate="2023-04-17T22:48:38.007" UserId="13379" />
  <row Id="42949" PostId="20785" Score="4" Text="@Etienne *Sophiagenesis* sounds a bit odd because nouns in -ia don't often appear as the first part of a compound, but it appears there are a handful of such words so it's not unprecedented. I think *sophogenesis* doesn't fit as it would mean &quot;creation/birth of a wise man&quot;." CreationDate="2023-04-18T00:49:22.977" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42951" PostId="20785" Score="2" Text="Stretch/analogize   μυθοπλασία  to    γνωσιπλασία ? Sounds like a neologism from hell, and does not appear attested...." CreationDate="2023-04-18T19:21:51.073" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="42976" PostId="20785" Score="1" Text="@Etienne _Gnoseogenesis_ is another option" CreationDate="2023-04-24T15:21:43.123" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="43033" PostId="20785" Score="1" Text="John of Damascus (7th century CE) in Against the Jacobites  attests [μυθοπλαστία](https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?query=μυθοπλαστία&amp;docId=%2FFathers-OR%2FJohn_of_Damascus__Contra_Jacobitas.gr.html&amp;chunk.id=00000015), so you might try γνωσιπλαστία..." CreationDate="2023-04-30T15:17:08.613" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="43007" PostId="20789" Score="0" Text="http://latin-dictionary.net/search/english/failure i add falsum, culpa, peccatum." CreationDate="2023-04-19T03:12:45.690" UserId="7475" />
  <row Id="42953" PostId="20792" Score="2" Text="Can you add details and cite a source? A quick look at Lewis and Short suggests that there is more to it than what you write." CreationDate="2023-04-19T06:27:40.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="42955" PostId="20792" Score="1" Text="&quot;Racial&quot; is a charged and misleading term to use in the context of classical antiquity without a good bit of extra explanation, even if certain dictionaries have been pretty cavalier about it." CreationDate="2023-04-19T11:20:50.483" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42967" PostId="20796" Score="0" Text="Google books is a good source for those questions. Give it a try." CreationDate="2023-04-23T00:14:29.107" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43121" PostId="20799" Score="0" Text="is this &quot;do you remember the good times?&quot; or &quot;I command you to remember the good times.&quot; can also be &quot;I remember the good times&quot; it matters. why? cause Latin is a mood language." CreationDate="2023-05-11T20:46:56.930" UserId="9052" />
  <row Id="42964" PostId="20800" Score="1" Text="Please don't translate idioms word-for-word. :(" CreationDate="2023-04-22T15:00:55.117" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42965" PostId="20800" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon How do you recognize when something is an idiom?" CreationDate="2023-04-22T15:50:22.623" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="42966" PostId="20801" Score="1" Text="Hi Marina, we already have a question on &quot;favorite&quot; in Latin. Have you looked at it yet? If you still have questions after reading it, feel free to edit your question and flag it for re-opening once you've distinguished it further." CreationDate="2023-04-22T17:59:53.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42971" PostId="20802" Score="1" Text="latin-is-simple.com is not a serious dictionary, but it does have the nifty feature that it automatically lists example sentences, and when I view the entry, it shows three examples that all refer to infants." CreationDate="2023-04-23T18:42:44.920" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42968" PostId="20803" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer, so what remains to be understood is why the term, adopted not only in English but also in Italian and French for instance,  happened to be used specifically for newborns, but that is a  question for those respective sites." CreationDate="2023-04-23T17:51:54.133" UserId="12175" />
  <row Id="42969" PostId="20803" Score="1" Text="@Lingo The Latin word _was_ used mostly for the crying of a newborn, so that's not unexpected." CreationDate="2023-04-23T18:02:52.120" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="42970" PostId="20803" Score="1" Text="@Lingo But is that [even true](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vagitus)?" CreationDate="2023-04-23T18:39:06.560" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="42973" PostId="20804" Score="0" Text="Normally, We'd translate such sentences with the conjunction 'quod' &quot;gratias tibi ago quod me adiuves&quot;" CreationDate="2023-04-23T23:05:48.980" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="42974" PostId="20804" Score="0" Text="@Kai: Literally: &quot;I give thanks to you for the helping to/ for me.&quot; Do you think it works?" CreationDate="2023-04-24T08:37:44.060" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43442" PostId="20804" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças If you cite some sources on that, you could make that an answer." CreationDate="2023-06-06T04:55:28.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43471" PostId="20804" Score="0" Text="@cmw There's a quote like this in Cicero. I think it's &quot;liberas&quot; I once saw it in the grammar I use." CreationDate="2023-06-07T22:43:53.870" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="42977" PostId="20809" Score="2" Text="My sense is that an interrogative reading is unlikely here, both because the interrogative use of οἷος (as against (ὁ)ποῖος) is less common and especially because of περ, which I don't think is normal in interrogative contexts." CreationDate="2023-04-24T16:37:39.123" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="42978" PostId="20809" Score="0" Text="@TKR you are right on both counts. However, I have seen (mistaken?) translations with indirect interrogatives... Most translations avoid the problem altogether, like Dodds 1933 cited by OP, writing something like _the character/nature of their properties is/can be known_ I think that this is the best approach." CreationDate="2023-04-24T18:29:25.887" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="42981" PostId="20811" Score="2" Text="Not an answer to the question. I prefer &quot;programmatare&quot; for &quot;to program&quot; because &quot;programma&quot; has a 't' in its stem (&quot;programmat-is&quot;), instead of &quot;programmare&quot; derived perhaps from Italian. Some argue that &quot;programmatare&quot; is also weird, though." CreationDate="2023-04-25T10:26:20.690" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="42983" PostId="20811" Score="2" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian I wonder if a better coinage would be something like *praescribo*, but that has other connotations!" CreationDate="2023-04-25T13:27:49.733" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42980" PostId="20812" Score="1" Text="The title of the work is *Algoritm**i** de numero indorum*, and the word corresponding to *al-ḥisāb* is just *numero*. *Algoritmi* is just the author's name in the genitive, as is common (and in this case also necessary to distinguish it from several other works by the same title, e.g. by Kushyar Gilani). You had it right the first time." CreationDate="2023-04-25T05:16:47.857" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="42988" PostId="20812" Score="1" Text="One noun in the construct state, one noun in the genitive case, one adjective." CreationDate="2023-04-25T16:29:02.597" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="42982" PostId="20813" Score="1" Text="Can you post more of the context? Having especially the sentence before or afterwards would be helpful. Not everyone has access to the book." CreationDate="2023-04-25T12:29:25.970" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42992" PostId="20813" Score="1" Text="@cmw Not much context to add I think since it's basically a standalone statement however here is the full preceding sentence:&#xA;Arachne vero primum imaginibus illustrat quomodo Europa apud maris litus tauro erepta sit: verus taurus, verae maris undae esse videbantur.&#xA;Europa ipsa e dorso tauri in mari natantis terras spectans relictas atque suas amicas, quae in litore manserant, invocans et ab iis auxilium petens cemitur: **diceres vocem eius audiri posse**." CreationDate="2023-04-26T02:12:08.293" UserId="13393" />
  <row Id="42984" PostId="20814" Score="1" Text="Not that I will defend the Latinity of the choice per se, but programming has been covered [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/196/latin-word-for-code-or-program-the-verb) and [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17963/how-to-say-programming-language-in-latin)." CreationDate="2023-04-25T13:29:08.040" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42985" PostId="20814" Score="1" Text="@cmw Yes, you are right. I have changed my answer from _programmatatio_ to _programmatura,_ according to the useful links you give." CreationDate="2023-04-25T13:53:36.433" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="42986" PostId="20814" Score="1" Text="I should have done more research before answering." CreationDate="2023-04-25T14:00:53.500" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="42987" PostId="20814" Score="2" Text="Well, &quot;object-oriented&quot; hasn't been covered yet, so you're in the clear there, and it's not like my answers are absolutely definitive. It's a modern tech, there will likely be no definitive answer. I'm also not in love with the term in English. Even &quot;object&quot; is not really descriptive. A philologist did not coin the term, that's for sure." CreationDate="2023-04-25T16:10:35.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42997" PostId="20814" Score="0" Text="@cmw I also think &quot;object-oriented&quot; is not a good term. I posted an anecdote about it on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/zu7qj0/a_joke_about_the_name_objectoriented_programming/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x&amp;context=3" CreationDate="2023-04-26T14:23:49.237" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="42993" PostId="20815" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the citations!" CreationDate="2023-04-26T02:33:21.323" UserId="13393" />
  <row Id="43123" PostId="20816" Score="4" Text="Not a bad translation, but instead of *directe*, I'd opt for *prorsus*." CreationDate="2023-05-12T03:19:15.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42995" PostId="20819" Score="2" Text="You beat me to the punch, but for those looking, the published Supplement to the LSJ corrects the error and rightly has &quot;zebra&quot; as the definition. Likewise, Montanari's recent Greek English dictionary (Brill, 2015) has &quot;zebra&quot;, too." CreationDate="2023-04-26T02:48:01.860" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="42996" PostId="20819" Score="5" Text="My vote is with *hippotigris* as the better Latin term, since it's attested, and therefore no new, modern words need to be coined over it." CreationDate="2023-04-26T02:49:50.983" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43056" PostId="20821" Score="0" Text="&quot;I'm actually not entirely sure whether a future works here &lt; _certum est Iphigeniam morituram esse_ &gt;, but that is not relevant to the point&quot;. It is not relevant here but it would be nice for you to convert this interesting point into a new question." CreationDate="2023-05-02T17:46:31.803" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43058" PostId="20821" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Hah, maybe, but feel free to 'steal' the idea for a question of your own, if you're interested!" CreationDate="2023-05-03T00:08:07.643" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43125" PostId="20821" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: In &quot;magno argumento esse debeat causam...&quot;, what is the role of present subjunctive, &quot;debeat&quot;--is it an iussive--&quot;it may be obliged that&quot; = &quot;it must be that&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-05-12T10:45:36.567" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43137" PostId="20821" Score="0" Text="@tony: The subjunctive is compulsory after *ut* &quot;that&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-14T00:13:55.490" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="42999" PostId="20822" Score="2" Text="I think this is an interesting question. Could you elaborate more on the similarities you find?" CreationDate="2023-04-27T21:00:12.713" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="43001" PostId="20822" Score="0" Text="@CannedMan If you think my question is interesting, why don't you upvote it?" CreationDate="2023-04-27T21:40:06.077" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43008" PostId="20822" Score="5" Text="Interesting does not grant upvotes; research effort does. My intention was perhaps not clear, so allow me to elaborate. I find the question interesting in and of itself: If there is a connection between the two words, seeing this proven would allow me to learn more. However, given the state of your question as is, it doesn’t really show ‘research effort’ making it ‘useful and clear’, as the balloon tip for the upvote arrow suggests. Your final point, though I haven’t checked it, could be correct (but no source is provided). But what exactly is it that makes them sound alike to you?" CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:15:44.370" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="43009" PostId="20822" Score="3" Text="In other words, I am requesting that you demonstrate more clearly what similarities it is that you actually see, as to me, it is not immediately clear. If there _are_ similarities to be found, that would be interesting indeed." CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:16:27.717" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="43000" PostId="20823" Score="0" Text="If one consonant and the exact same meaning isn't enough to make a cognate, why are English &quot;tooth&quot; and German &quot;Zahn&quot; considered cognates?" CreationDate="2023-04-27T21:17:40.347" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43002" PostId="20823" Score="6" Text="@FlatAssembler Because we see systematic correspondences between the other parts as well. German /an/ regularly corresponds to (pre-GVS) English /o:/, for example." CreationDate="2023-04-27T21:52:04.780" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43004" PostId="20825" Score="1" Text="And yet, I don't think this is what's happening here? I looked through PHI and I don't see anything related to this. I would have marked this as incorrect on my students' homework, because *pastore et ove* are not forming a syntactic unit, but rather are individual, and thus the plural verb and adjective are needed." CreationDate="2023-04-27T23:34:36.907" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43044" PostId="20825" Score="0" Text="What is happening here is that Ørberg implies the two words __casus verbi__ before 6, 12 and 13, and __casus verborum__ before the other ones. Even with this correction, the resulting Latin is very different from Servius’ perfect example cited by Asteroides." CreationDate="2023-05-01T15:12:31.357" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="43003" PostId="20826" Score="0" Text="I think *\*h₁sh₂-en-ǵʰu̯-n̥-s* would yield ἤμφας in Attic FWIW." CreationDate="2023-04-27T22:42:09.277" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43006" PostId="20826" Score="0" Text="&quot;... *assyr*, an unusually spelled word that only shows up in Paul the Deacon's epitome of Festus' mostly lost epitome of Verrius Flaccus' lost *De verborum significatione*&quot; — I love this." CreationDate="2023-04-28T02:50:46.750" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43010" PostId="20826" Score="0" Text="Could you add a parenthetical remark explaining what zero-grade is?" CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:17:51.263" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="43016" PostId="20826" Score="3" Text="@CannedMan While I always try to provide googleable keywords, answers like this are by their nature never going to be perfectly accessible to everyone. If someone doesn't know what a zero-grade is in the context of PIE (and I fully accept that obviously most people don't), they lack so much relevant background that just explaining that little thing really isn't going to make a meaningful difference for them." CreationDate="2023-04-28T18:10:46.790" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43017" PostId="20827" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the answer and terminology correction. Yes, the dative is a predicate. I guess I was really asking whether argumento as a predicate could take an infinitive clause as an argument. The examples from Roby answer that definitively." CreationDate="2023-04-28T19:25:42.313" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="43020" PostId="20827" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey Note that *argumentum* can also have an indirect question: *Adfers haec omnia argumenta, cur dii sint* (Cic. ND 4, 10). By the way, the sentence goes on: *remque mea sententia minime dubiam argumentando dubiam facis* – many such cases." CreationDate="2023-04-28T21:36:19.507" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43127" PostId="20827" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: What point are you making with the second part of this quote: &quot;remque mea...&quot;--it does not include a subjunctive for an indirect question--many such cases of what? In &quot;...argumento homines scire pleraque ante quam nati sint,&quot; does &quot;sint&quot; give an indirect question, here? Indirect Qs. are disturbing when they don't sound like questions." CreationDate="2023-05-12T12:21:56.420" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43134" PostId="20827" Score="1" Text="@tony I am making no particular point, just noting that Cicero's observation (that an uncontroversial point can be made suspicious when one starts to try to support it with logical arguments) seems familiar. “Many such cases” is a fashionable expression, going back, I believe, to Donald Trump. Mitomino's second example is also an AcI, not an indirect question, but it contains a subordinate clause with *ante quam*. Mood after *ante quam* is a whole other can of worms, but in this case it must be subjunctive because of the indirect speech context alone. Therefore *sint*." CreationDate="2023-05-12T22:58:13.860" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43018" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="How would you phrase &quot;I'm glad it's Friday&quot; using an ACI? Or would you use a causal solution instead? I agree with the answer, but I'm not sure what it entails for the specific example sentence." CreationDate="2023-04-28T19:54:36.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43019" PostId="20829" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta I'm not sure about &quot;it's Friday&quot;, but I took these as illustrative examples, rather than a desire to know the specifics of these examples. I gave a concrete example though using the construction in the title." CreationDate="2023-04-28T20:28:25.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43021" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="This answer is of course correct, but I believe it so happens that (personal) verbs expressing an emotion often do so by means of a *quod* clause, like *gaudeo quod* (though an a.c.i. is also possible): &quot;I am glad (about the fact) that&quot;. This may be where Mediaeval Latin got its general use of *quod* for the a.c.i. In addition, some verbs (sometimes or normally) use *ut* &quot;that&quot; instead of an a.c.i., like various verbs of asking/demanding, happening: *peto ut, accidit ut*. And of course verbs of fear or prohibition usually use *ne* for &quot;that&quot;." CreationDate="2023-04-29T00:06:16.843" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43022" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus I edited it some more. I think the ut clauses after words like *peto* are often considered purpose clauses. You can also have *fac ut*. Simply put, there's no one single way to translate that word. One has to do the heavy lifting of actually learning the grammar *in toto*." CreationDate="2023-04-29T00:42:10.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43023" PostId="20829" Score="0" Text="Thanks for this breakdown, it makes a lot of sense. There is a lot about languages that is generally idiomatic that I don't notice until I look between them, I find it pretty interesting. I find myself wanting to write subordinate clauses in sentences often and was wondering what that would look like in Latin, this is a great help." CreationDate="2023-04-29T01:27:24.250" UserId="13404" />
  <row Id="43025" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus, to add the discussion. Before edit, I actually started writing an answer discuss this issue where *ut* is an idiomatic choice. like *spero ut* or *vellim ut* or the &quot;impersonal&quot; as  *evenit ut* or *fit ut*. However, as cmw, I feel it is closer to purpose clause or simply a correlative to sometime implied *id* or *hoc* (see elusive example: [&quot;lex ut&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14892/does-ita-have-two-roles-part-of-construction-ut-ita-functioning-as-an-i/14894#14894).) *placere ut* is attested but seems only as propose (&quot;resolved to&quot; as opposed to &quot;pleased that&quot;)" CreationDate="2023-04-29T08:24:17.477" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43075" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Is it, &quot;mihi placet nunc diem Veneris esse.&quot;? (I've avoided using &quot;hodie&quot; = &quot;on this day&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-05-05T13:01:53.007" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43110" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus: Is it: &quot;gaudeo diem Veneris adesse.&quot;? Alternatively, &quot;gaudeo quod dies Veneris adest.&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-05-10T08:00:42.353" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43116" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="@tony: Yes, I think so." CreationDate="2023-05-11T00:33:38.800" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43431" PostId="20829" Score="0" Text="Factual *quod* after verba affectus is a regular occurrence, and A &amp; G (on the page you linked) translate *gaudeo quod* as &quot;I am glad that.&quot; I believe any reservations around this usage (or it's classical character) are unnecessary." CreationDate="2023-06-05T05:21:04.720" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43437" PostId="20829" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I was speaking more to its historical development. I wasn't limiting this to certain types of verbs because that would be taking the OP too literally. I wasn't aiming at a translation, but to explain that in general you wouldn't use *quod* to translate &quot;that&quot; in any given indirect statement, not only verbs of feeling." CreationDate="2023-06-05T12:49:37.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43439" PostId="20829" Score="0" Text="(In other words, I'm not disagreeing, just making a different point.)" CreationDate="2023-06-05T14:03:04.467" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43011" PostId="20830" Score="0" Text="_Vēnī, vīdī_ is the same as Caesar's Latin for &quot;I came, I saw&quot;. &quot;I wept&quot; would be _flēvī_. The final ī marks the first person singular perfect tense." CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:28:08.440" UserId="4927" />
  <row Id="43012" PostId="20830" Score="0" Text="[_Fleō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fleo#Latin) is definitely one of the numerous verbs mean ‘cry, weep, lament, keen’. [_Lūgeō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lugeo#Latin) is another one, well-known as the very first word in [Catullus 3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_3) (“Lūgēte, O Venerēs Cupīdinēsque”). Your question isn’t actually on topic here on the Linguistics site, but it would be on [latin.se], so I’ve pinged the moderators to request that it be migrated there." CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:28:35.030" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43013" PostId="20830" Score="0" Text="Sorry for that. For lūgeō, is the perfect form &quot;luxī&quot;? I am checking in parallel with a dictionnary, but I'd rather be sure." CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:32:37.143" UserDisplayName="Juju1234" />
  <row Id="43014" PostId="20830" Score="0" Text="@Juju1234 That is correct. You could also do *lacrimavi*, but I think *flevi* is best." CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:39:45.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43015" PostId="20830" Score="1" Text="Thanks! Could one of you just write an answer so I can confirm it?" CreationDate="2023-04-28T16:47:20.503" UserId="13405" />
  <row Id="43042" PostId="20831" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet It was a typo. Fixed." CreationDate="2023-05-01T12:39:24.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43030" PostId="20834" Score="0" Text="I had thought along these lines as well. That makes sense! Thank you for the response." CreationDate="2023-04-30T11:03:22.933" UserId="7075" />
  <row Id="43029" PostId="20835" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the detailed comment! I think this makes sense, as with the previous comment. Regarding the other ratios, I believe Beneditti is using &quot;sesqui&quot; in the sense of &quot;one more unit than the whole&quot;. So &quot;sesquiquintumdecimum&quot; for the &quot;minimal semitone&quot; is &quot;one more unit than 15&quot;, i.e. 16/15 and so on. With that logic, all of the ratios make sense...25/24 for sesquivigesimumquartum, and so on..." CreationDate="2023-04-30T11:02:23.110" UserId="7075" />
  <row Id="43034" PostId="20838" Score="3" Text="Your sentences are grammatical, and your word order is correct, but their meaning is not really correct, because, well, *puellae sunt feminae*, girls are female. If I want to make a distinction between women and girls, I use *mulieres*, not *feminae*." CreationDate="2023-04-30T15:56:17.420" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43079" PostId="20840" Score="0" Text="So that's not a problem?" CreationDate="2023-05-05T23:54:03.160" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="43035" PostId="20841" Score="2" Text="Any basic resource will tell you the answer to this. The letter &lt;c&gt; represents /k/, while &lt;qu&gt; represents /kʷ/ (&lt;q&gt; is not used on its own in Latin, except in abbreviations). The difference is the same as between _kick_ and _quick_ in English, do those sound the same to you as well?" CreationDate="2023-04-30T16:08:59.327" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43036" PostId="20841" Score="4" Text="What about the answers to your previous question about this isn't clear to you?" CreationDate="2023-04-30T17:42:54.060" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43040" PostId="20841" Score="4" Text="I agree with @Cairnarvon. If you engage with us in the comments, we can better help you clarify what's left unclear to you. But so far it looks like you're asking the same type of questions: why do we have C and Q, and (now) what can we do about it? The former has been answered before, and the latter is off-topic on StackExchange, since it's an opinion question." CreationDate="2023-04-30T18:38:35.533" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43038" PostId="20842" Score="4" Text="And let's not forget the difference between *qui*, pronounced /kʷi/ and *cui*, pronounced /'kuj/." CreationDate="2023-04-30T18:26:11.590" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="43045" PostId="20845" Score="3" Text="Have you checked a dictionary? [adeo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adeo#Latin) and [advenio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advenio#Latin) don't both mean &quot;go to&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-01T16:37:14.523" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43046" PostId="20845" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon When I was reading LLPSI, I never checked a dictionary for any word in the book. I gradually found out that my interpretations of words were wrong sometimes, but my memory of every word is well anchored in context! I recommend it, especially if supplemented by asking people when you can't unravel a confusion on your own." CreationDate="2023-05-01T18:05:23.547" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="43047" PostId="20845" Score="3" Text="@BenKovitz I cannot recommend that at all. Not checking a dictionary is a recipe for trouble in *any* language, but especially one that you're learning. How many people misunderstand the word &quot;morbid&quot; or &quot;travesty&quot;? Suggesting to forego a dictionary is intentionally handicapping yourself with zero benefit." CreationDate="2023-05-01T21:51:34.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43052" PostId="20845" Score="0" Text="@cmw When reading words without a context that makes their meanings clear, yes. LLPSI, though, is thoughtfully designed to bring you every new word in a context that makes it clear. This is the main idea of Ørberg's &quot;natural method&quot;. Going without a dictionary keeps you from grounding your understanding of the words in your native language. BTW, I never _needed_ to check a dictionary while reading _Familia Romana_ (though a few words had me puzzled for a day or two)." CreationDate="2023-05-02T07:59:32.367" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="43049" PostId="20846" Score="1" Text="Are you asking about Latin, or English?" CreationDate="2023-05-02T05:27:28.123" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43050" PostId="20846" Score="1" Text="Either way, you'll need to be more specific about what counts as the &quot;same&quot; word. Are _amō_ and _amat_ different words? How about _sum_ and _esse_? _Ferre_ and _tulī_? _Fiō_ and _faciō_?" CreationDate="2023-05-02T05:28:20.410" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43053" PostId="20846" Score="2" Text="This might be better suited to Linguistics. But there's no answer here, as it could be either depending on one's interpretation. It's completely subjective. I will say though that usually when the comparative form (or other forms) come from a different root (like the English &quot;good&quot; and &quot;better&quot;), they're seen as two different words, with the latter taking the role of the missing form of the former." CreationDate="2023-05-02T12:07:52.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43060" PostId="20846" Score="2" Text="@cmw Lexicographers mostly treat them as the same word, i.e., there is no separate entry for *melior* or *optimus*, etc." CreationDate="2023-05-03T16:03:28.947" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43065" PostId="20846" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Traditional lexicography, yes, although some dictionaries do have separate entries (with a note saying &quot;see *X*). I understood the question in light of linguistics, but certainly a lexicographic approach is equally valid." CreationDate="2023-05-03T20:47:05.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43054" PostId="20847" Score="1" Text="My first impression, strengthened by the longer passage found at https://edition-open-sources.org/sources/2/14/47.html#transcription , is that _pina_ is used here as a synonym of _lignum tangens,_ both meaning _key._ I might be wrong.I’ll do some research and post an answer when I stand on firmer ground" CreationDate="2023-05-02T14:25:51.057" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="43055" PostId="20847" Score="1" Text="That seems quite plausible, &quot;pinnula&quot; is often used in instrument building to refer to the keys / keylevers, e.g. multiple times in these transcripts: http://www.peter-bavington.co.uk/Mersennepaper.pdf (cf. appendix 2). And the use of “seu” would seem to support more the idea of a synonym." CreationDate="2023-05-02T15:15:50.343" UserId="7075" />
  <row Id="43059" PostId="20851" Score="1" Text="The future participle builds on the stem of the perfect participle often [but not always](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6442/79). It's useful to give both forms in a vocabulary, especially when there's a stem surprise." CreationDate="2023-05-03T04:30:12.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43061" PostId="20852" Score="0" Text="Searching that phrase on YouTube, I find dozens of different clips—could you post a link to the particular one you're asking about?" CreationDate="2023-05-03T20:17:25.600" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43062" PostId="20852" Score="0" Text="Of course, it's this one. I wasn't sure if the link would be displayed in my post :)&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghEu0hlPBjw" CreationDate="2023-05-03T20:19:25.237" UserId="13417" />
  <row Id="43063" PostId="20852" Score="1" Text="I've edited that into the question; I'm not actually sure if new users can post links in their first questions or not. Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2023-05-03T20:21:51.730" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43064" PostId="20852" Score="1" Text="Thank you for the warm welcome Draconis!" CreationDate="2023-05-03T20:22:26.323" UserId="13417" />
  <row Id="43073" PostId="20853" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much njuffa! I knew it had to be scripture, but my own search gave no results! You're absolutely right, I did catch the &quot;false prophets&quot; but it seems my spelling let me down as I used an 'i' in place of the 'e' :D&#xA;I need to brush up on my Latin, it seems I have a terrible ear for it, judging by my own transcription, so I'll be sure to explore this Stack Exchange and pick up what I can. Thanks again!" CreationDate="2023-05-04T05:37:59.243" UserId="13417" />
  <row Id="43067" PostId="20854" Score="2" Text="Initial *h-* is expected but initial *h-* is unstable in Latin at the best of times and happens to have disappeared. Please don't write palatovelars like that." CreationDate="2023-05-03T23:02:00.663" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43068" PostId="20854" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Then how should I write palatovelars?" CreationDate="2023-05-03T23:24:59.237" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43069" PostId="20854" Score="2" Text="The way literally everyone else does and the way you've certainly seen them written, as \*ǵ or \*g̑. \*gʲ gives too much weight to their pronunciation as palatalised velars, which is not at all a given (they're *called* palatovelars effectively *faute de mieux*)." CreationDate="2023-05-03T23:29:56.200" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43070" PostId="20854" Score="1" Text="@FlatAssembler There are a frustrating number of different conventions for writing PIE, but most of them agree on writing the &quot;palatovelars&quot; with the letters K and G, plus some sort of accent mark (most commonly the acute). An alternative I've warmed to is using C and J instead, which makes typing far easier, but I only use it in my own notes and casual conversations." CreationDate="2023-05-03T23:50:46.347" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43071" PostId="20855" Score="2" Text="Is it exceptional that of these words *anser* alone doesn't have a form with the initial h-? You see *harena* plenty early, but never, as far as I can tell, *hanser*." CreationDate="2023-05-04T00:58:41.290" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43072" PostId="20855" Score="3" Text="@cmw Since this process was happening so early on, I'm guessing there are a bunch of other vowel-initial words that originally had *h but lost it before Classical times (to the point that the educated Romans didn't know they were supposed to insert an /h/ there)." CreationDate="2023-05-04T01:11:17.753" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43074" PostId="20855" Score="1" Text="It is probably relevant that _anser_ belongs to the rural vocabluary. Snobbish urbanites willing not to drop their h’s were less likely to use it" CreationDate="2023-05-05T09:01:20.007" UserId="1304" />
  <row Id="43076" PostId="20855" Score="0" Text="@Dario Is that true, though? I don't think *hanser* is ever attested, so how do we know for sure? (Not disputing the etymology, just find it strange it sticks out. More parallels would be helpful.)" CreationDate="2023-05-05T16:29:54.490" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43078" PostId="20856" Score="1" Text="I like the 3rd translation. &quot;Et viride gramen tegit eum sepulcrum&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-05T23:50:26.327" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43082" PostId="20858" Score="1" Text="In Tacitus VI, 33, Arsaces happens not to be “the Parthian king,” but a son of latter-day Parthian king Artabanus, who was made king of Armenia by his father. Also note that the nom.sg. of *Arsacidae* seems to be *Arsacides*, although that's not found in Tacitus (but the acc. *Arsaciden* is, which has apparently escaped the keen eye of the OP)." CreationDate="2023-05-06T15:19:25.410" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43083" PostId="20858" Score="0" Text="Linguistically, is it possible &quot;genus Arsacis&quot; (Arsaces) and &quot;gens Arsacidarum&quot; (Arsacid) refer to two different houses within the Arsacid dynasty? (see: Olbrycht, Marek. 2012. The Political-Military Strategy of Artabanos/Ardawān II in AD 34-37, p220)" CreationDate="2023-05-06T15:25:28.263" UserId="13430" />
  <row Id="43084" PostId="20858" Score="1" Text="@user64617 “Linguistically” these are different things. See how the two terms in Tac. VI, 33 are rendered in the [Loeb translation](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/6B*.html) by J. Jackson: “as they were unable to bestow the crown on a **scion of the Arsacidae**” (*neminem gentis Arsacidarum*); “a **descendant of Arsaces** should be seen upon the bank of Euphrates” (*genus Arsacis*). Of course in this context these two expressions mean essentially the same thing, not two different houses." CreationDate="2023-05-06T16:20:16.433" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43085" PostId="20860" Score="1" Text="I went through all the PIE lemmas on Wiktionary starting with  *\*ǵʰ-* or *\*gʰ-* and I additionally found  [*ēr*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/er#Latin) 'hedgehog' (Greek χήρ 'hedgehog' (Hesychius), χοῖρος 'porcupine'), but I've never seen that in the wild (so to speak) so it might just be very rare." CreationDate="2023-05-06T19:28:33.403" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43086" PostId="20860" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Thanks! I didn't think to look there. The word is in Plautus' *Captivi*. Though some editors prefer *ictim* instead, Codex Vetus (*B*), apparently the best of the mss., has *irim*, assuming it's an alternate form of the late Latin *eres*. That's definitely a possible answer, although its rarity and the uncertainty in the manuscripts means I can't really use it to draw too many conclusions." CreationDate="2023-05-06T20:27:50.843" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43087" PostId="20861" Score="1" Text="There's a verb πενθέω &quot;bewail, lament&quot;, so the first part could also be from that." CreationDate="2023-05-06T22:30:23.547" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43092" PostId="20861" Score="1" Text="It seems the etymology of *basileia/basileus* is uncertain. Wikipedia says some suspect a pre-Greek substrate language. But I don't know whether this could be relevant to Penthesileia at all. I do seem to remember that -nth- was sometimes from a pre-Greek substrate, like hyacinthos? Then the 'Greek' etymology could be folk etymology." CreationDate="2023-05-07T06:34:13.960" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43088" PostId="20862" Score="0" Text="What about &quot;litterarum formae&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-05-06T23:11:59.377" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43090" PostId="20863" Score="3" Text="On my phone right now but it's definitely still considered as a possibility today -- Nagy argues for it if memory serves -- but there's no consensus on the name's etymology." CreationDate="2023-05-07T03:05:49.810" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43093" PostId="20865" Score="0" Text="Presumably Penthesileia etc. are terpsimbrotos compounds; what exactly the first element of such compounds represents is a longstanding problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terpsimbrotos" CreationDate="2023-05-08T00:23:57.177" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43094" PostId="20865" Score="0" Text="@TKR That would make a good answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/20861/how-is-the-name-penthesilea-formed)!" CreationDate="2023-05-08T00:32:11.620" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43098" PostId="20868" Score="1" Text="For whatever it's worth, LSJ think that &quot;the name may be a corruption of *Πορθεσίλαος, cf. Cret. Πορθεσίλας and Πορτεσίλας&quot;. Seems implausible but maybe worth mentioning." CreationDate="2023-05-08T02:19:38.893" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43099" PostId="20868" Score="1" Text="@TKR Interesting, so &quot;pillager of the people&quot;? I guess I could see it, though I agree it seems implausible." CreationDate="2023-05-08T02:37:14.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43100" PostId="20870" Score="1" Text="The outcome of *\*kw* is exactly the same as that of *\*kʷ* in all instances; people who see ἵππος as a regular reflex of *\*h₁éḱwos* blame the palatovelar." CreationDate="2023-05-08T21:21:22.433" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43101" PostId="20870" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon I don't think anyone argues for a distinct treatment of palatovelar+w vs. plain velar+w, since the two series merged in Greek. I don't think we have evidence for the plain velar in this environment anyway except possibly πελεκκον. Relevant question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16915/what-is-the-evidence-for-%e1%b8%b1w-k%ca%b7%cb%90-in-greek" CreationDate="2023-05-08T22:04:12.360" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43102" PostId="20870" Score="1" Text="That's exactly what people—at the very least Buck and a few Leidenaars—are explicitly arguing, at least in part on the basis of  Myc. *i-qo* being written with *qo* vs. (secondary) *kw* being written *ko-wo* or similar elsewhere (though the example Buck actually gives, *te-tu-ko-wo-a₂* (*tetukʰwoha*, from τεύχω), has aspiration interfering). It's all nonsense." CreationDate="2023-05-08T23:07:50.510" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43103" PostId="20870" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon As far as I know the standard account is that monomorphemic *-ḱw- &lt; -ππ- and presumably the same would hold for *-kw- if we had any examples; it doesn't seem to necessitate any difference in treatment between palatovelars and plain velars, unless there's some example of the latter I'm unaware of that gives something other than -ππ-." CreationDate="2023-05-09T00:13:42.667" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43111" PostId="20870" Score="0" Text="@TKR _Πᾶμα_ (and related forms) is the only potential example of _*ku̯-_ I’m aware of as well, and that’s … well, circumstantial at best. If you believe van Beek’s derivation from _*peh₂s-_ ‘pasture, guard’, then it’s obviously quite useless here. But even if not, it’s only relevant if not connected to the ‘swell’ root (which doesn’t seem to be generally accepted anymore), ’cause that has _*k̑_. And if that’s the case, then the root is only attested in Greek, so we’re back to having no idea if it has _*k_, _*ku̯-_ or _*p_." CreationDate="2023-05-10T15:43:53.393" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43112" PostId="20870" Score="0" Text="@TKR I read this post on a lark, and if I might impose on you for a remedy for my ignorance, for mathematics, we use various markups like TeX in posts that are interpreted, and when I took a look at your comment's source, there's unicode encoding directly entered into the post. How do you generate those characters when you want to write words in Ancient Greek presuming you don't have an Ancient Greek keyboard? : )" CreationDate="2023-05-10T18:42:39.430" UserId="12123" />
  <row Id="43113" PostId="20870" Score="1" Text="@JD Depends on the OS, but I simply use the Greek Polytonic keyboard on Mac OS." CreationDate="2023-05-10T18:52:20.617" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43104" PostId="20873" Score="1" Text="I'm afraid I don't know enough about robotics to understand that explanation. Can you explain what sense of the word &quot;root&quot; is involved?" CreationDate="2023-05-09T02:20:13.900" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43105" PostId="20873" Score="4" Text="Is this the same sense of &quot;locus&quot; that is used in geometry (close to &quot;set&quot;), as in e.g. &quot;conjugate locus&quot;? I imagine that to be attested in Gauss or Riemann or at least Euler or Newton." CreationDate="2023-05-09T06:11:17.850" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43106" PostId="20873" Score="0" Text="@Draconis &quot;Root&quot; as in &quot;the value for which a polynomial is equal to zero&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-09T10:44:19.437" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43107" PostId="20873" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, it is a curve." CreationDate="2023-05-09T10:56:31.407" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43108" PostId="20873" Score="2" Text="Since you're talking about polynomials, I added the `mathematics` and `new-latin` tags. I'm afraid I still don't quite get it, but maybe someone else will." CreationDate="2023-05-09T13:22:14.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43109" PostId="20873" Score="2" Text="I think I recall root being _radix_ in the algebraic sense/s" CreationDate="2023-05-09T19:07:44.043" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="43114" PostId="20876" Score="1" Text="Yes, my error: it's &quot;prosta ac vince&quot;.  I'll edit the initial posting. Also, it was a newspaper put together by children between the ages of five and about twelve, so I don't think there was a risqué pun intended. Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-05-10T21:07:18.327" UserId="10151" />
  <row Id="43115" PostId="20876" Score="1" Text="@skb8721 Updated the answer, too, and removed the risqué part, but that information could also be added to your question, so no one else reading it has the same idea I had." CreationDate="2023-05-10T21:39:47.080" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43117" PostId="20877" Score="6" Text="Where are they shown as being adverbs, and why do you think they should be conjunctions? More detail will help you get a useful answer." CreationDate="2023-05-11T03:37:44.317" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43118" PostId="20877" Score="1" Text="The dictionaries I use. Lewis and Short, some latin-portuguese dictionaries. I don't know if they should. Their translations from Latin show the meanings of conjuctions in Portuguese.  Quapropter in Portuguese, sometimes has the meaning of &quot;therefore&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-11T03:41:09.443" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43122" PostId="20878" Score="1" Text="Thanks. Now i have to find out if this exexists in Portuguese" CreationDate="2023-05-11T21:31:10.957" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43120" PostId="20879" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure that root was used at all in Classical Latin. The native word _fabula_ was much more common." CreationDate="2023-05-11T19:57:04.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43126" PostId="20879" Score="0" Text="What's the need to force that root?" CreationDate="2023-05-12T11:11:08.813" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43128" PostId="20881" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Did you really mean &quot;rea&quot; or is it a typo?" CreationDate="2023-05-12T15:08:22.260" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43132" PostId="20881" Score="1" Text="The sentence of which *fuerant* is the verb is subordinate to *statu* in this construction, so this is wrong." CreationDate="2023-05-12T18:28:14.310" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43133" PostId="20881" Score="1" Text="But why would a writer not have the liberty of isolating the *status* from the original expression? Why would we not be allowed to talk about &quot;preserving the status&quot;? It would certainly be possible in Latin. Actually, you can even get on people's nerves by saying *status qui* (short for *status rerum qui ante erat*)." CreationDate="2023-05-12T20:15:53.653" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43129" PostId="20883" Score="0" Text="&quot;Some intransitive verbs can be used in the passive with an impersonal sense.&quot;. How would you classify these intransitive verbs? E.g. as those of the so-called &quot;unergative&quot; class? Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice#Latin with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice#Test_of_unergative_verbs" CreationDate="2023-05-12T16:21:44.110" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43130" PostId="20883" Score="2" Text="@Mitomino: That I don't know. I was just reading your interesting answer to [&quot;Casus&quot;: an active perfect participle from a non-deponent verb?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16686/), but these kinds of distinctions are beyond me. Perhaps you could write an answer with some information about this?" CreationDate="2023-05-12T16:23:04.613" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="43135" PostId="20886" Score="2" Text="Your own quote and screenshot say that the infinitive is a neuter noun and that the participles in the periphrastic infinitives are declined for gender. What isn't clear about it?" CreationDate="2023-05-13T07:45:17.967" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43136" PostId="20886" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon It's clearly confusing for the OP that there are two genders in play, and indeed, when the infinitive is used as a subject or object, it's not a trivial question what the gender of the declined part should be." CreationDate="2023-05-13T12:20:16.093" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43138" PostId="20890" Score="2" Text="What do you mean by &quot;line&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-05-14T00:19:06.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43139" PostId="20890" Score="0" Text="I was thinking in Portuguese. Maybe in English the word doesn't work as the same way. When we write something, we write it in lines(the lines on the paper) a letter or anything. The latin word Linea doesn't have the meaning of something you wrote, it's more like a mark. So when I say that I write lines whose verses I want someone to see, I wonder how can I use these two words in latin since they are translated only as &quot;versus&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-14T00:58:15.107" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43140" PostId="20890" Score="1" Text="Since the Romans didn't have line paper, they don't have a word specifically for that. I think perhaps you might want something like *sententiae* or *scriptiones* or even just *scripta*. But there's something for localization that's just missing here." CreationDate="2023-05-14T01:33:49.953" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43141" PostId="20890" Score="0" Text="I think I can use &quot;litteras&quot; in that case. We use words in lines. I recall Cicero saying &quot;pauca ad tuas litteras rescribam&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-14T02:18:51.503" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43142" PostId="20890" Score="1" Text="Yes, *litterae* would be fine, too." CreationDate="2023-05-14T02:20:33.647" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43144" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="I also learned that *iri* comes from *eo, ire*. Given the existence of passive intransitive in Latin, is there a reason to doubt that derivation?" CreationDate="2023-05-14T06:30:06.260" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43151" PostId="20891" Score="1" Text="@cmw  Like cmw, I'm curious about the reason of your doubts (cf. above: &quot;Perhaps this _iri_ may be from _eo_ &quot;go&quot;, which normally doesn't have any passive infinitive, but I don't know about that&quot;). It seems quite clear that _iri_ is an impersonal passive of the verb _eo_. In my opinion, what can be said to be debatable is its grammaticalization degree when used periphrastically (e.g. _necatum iri_) but not its existence." CreationDate="2023-05-14T15:31:28.703" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43152" PostId="20891" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus As for &quot;_regendus_ is a gerundive. It is a passive verbal form, and it is somewhat like a participle in meaning, which is why I have occasionally heard it described as the future passive participle&quot;, it's useful to remind these words from Pinkster's (2015) OLS: “The gerundive (...) was indeed described as a future passive participle by Latin grammarians but was not used as such before the third century AD&quot; (p. 62); &quot;interpretation of a gerundive as passive or (**more frequently) active** depends on contextual and sometimes on extralinguistic information&quot; (p.295-bold mine: Mitomino)." CreationDate="2023-05-14T15:44:16.190" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43153" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Oh, well, it's just that I don't remember ever reading about it, nor did I look it up, so I didn't want to assume. Who knows, it could have been from some archaic form of *esse*. But, yeah, passive forms of *eo* are common enough in impersonal usage. If both of you have learned that it is indeed from *eo*, then I have now learned this too." CreationDate="2023-05-14T15:48:41.747" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43154" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: I didn't know Latin grammarians of the third century already described it as a participle. It's just not common in modern parlance, as far as I know. I'm not sure what he means by &quot;active&quot;, though: if he is thinking of dominant gerundive constructions, surely those have a passive origin as well? The same applies to the impersonal gerundive (which I think you yourself analyse as a gerund btw.)." CreationDate="2023-05-14T15:52:54.423" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43165" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus If you're interested in knowing more about the origin and disappearance of the passive future infinitive _iri_, you can take a look at this article (it is written in Spanish): click on &quot;texto completo&quot; and a pdf copy will show up: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=165899" CreationDate="2023-05-14T18:08:37.840" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43166" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus The issue of when the gerundive has a passive or active meaning is quite complex. E.g. it has a clear passive meaning in _De provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis…_ (Cic. Fam. 12, 22, 1). I think Pinkster (2015: 294-295) is right when saying that it has an active meaning in exs. like _His enim ipsis legendis in memoriam redeo mortuorum_ (Cic. Sen. 21). There is debate when dealing with apparently simple examples like _Mater mihi laudanda est_. For many years, following the tradition, I thought the gerundive here is passive. Recently I've also changed my mind here." CreationDate="2023-05-14T18:21:42.587" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43181" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: In Q: &quot;https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15229/1982, and the linked Q., we discussed the the gerundive, in the oblique cases, losing its deontic &amp; passive qualities (&quot;omittendis&quot; &amp; &quot;inflammandam&quot;). In this Pinkster ex., &quot;legendis&quot;, is another such. I'm confused about the gerundive-of-obligation: &quot;mater mihi laudanda est.&quot; = &quot;Mother ought-to-be-praised by me.&quot;, why have you changed your mind on the passive nature, here?" CreationDate="2023-05-16T08:57:03.033" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43182" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@tony If you're interested in the complex issue of why the gerundive in this construction with the so-called &quot;dative of agent&quot; is not passive (despite the traditional analysis: cf. &quot;the periphrastic passive&quot;), I recommend you to take a look at this very descriptive (i.e. non-technical and hence, I think, quite readable) work, which is downloadable at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320958533_Between_the_Historical_Languages_and_the_Reconstructed_Language_An_Alternative_Approach_to_the_Gerundive_Dative_of_Agent_Construction_in_Indo-European" CreationDate="2023-05-16T16:21:21.640" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43187" PostId="20891" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino fascinating paper. The concept of oblique subjects and nominative objects will take me some time to internalize." CreationDate="2023-05-16T21:38:14.517" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="43188" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey: I haven't read the paper, but that sounds like someone wanted to change the essential meanings of subject and object. As in some recent Anglo-Saxon schools of linguistics." CreationDate="2023-05-16T21:54:04.750" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43190" PostId="20891" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus yeah the same author works in both fields. It’s definitely a different approach. And I’m not sure I like the terminology of oblique subjects. But there are some interesting cross-linguistic data being explained in a parsimonious way." CreationDate="2023-05-16T22:27:32.777" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="43145" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="&quot;without there being any primary argument for the participle to agree with, I believe the participle will normally be neuter (victum)&quot; -- I'm pretty certain it's acc. masc. It is an angels-on-a-pinhead question as we will never be able to tell the difference in case of a particle, but we *can* tell the difference with other predicates, as in *Turpe est crudelem esse* &amp;c." CreationDate="2023-05-14T06:41:48.937" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43148" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Two related points: (i) unlike _ventum esse_, note that _crudelem esse_ is not an impersonal construction; (ii) unfortunately (at least for you), Cerberus exemplified the (intended) impersonal construction with an ambiguous example _victum esse bonum est_ (he intended _victum esse_ to be impersonal: “when the infinitive is meant in the general sense, without there being any primary argument for the participle to agree with”). His last example is ambiguous since _victum esse_, unlike _ventum esse_, can be a personal passive or an impersonal one." CreationDate="2023-05-14T14:41:15.447" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43149" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel The ambiguity is due to the fact that one can use the verb _vincere_ as transitive or intransitive (Cerberus intended it as intransitive here: _Deam victuram esse bonum est_ &quot;that the goddess will win is good&quot;).&#xA;So, on the relevant (i.e. impersonal) reading of _victum esse_, i.e. on the same reading that an unambiguously impersonal passive has (e.g. _ventum esse ad castra_), Cerberus is right when saying that the participle is neuter. It's just the case he used an unfortunate example (his last one is ambiguous) to exemplify his point." CreationDate="2023-05-14T14:42:41.183" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43158" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: That does look good to me as well, you're probably right, then. I tried to keep it a bit vague, was planning to look it up. I wonder now: does it perhaps also depend on the meaning of the word? *Iphigeniae placuit ?nuptum esse*? *Scripsit libro tertio de constructione magni referre ?stabilem esse*? Perhaps I feel that, when a certain type of entity comes to mind, the adjective or participle naturally attracts to it?" CreationDate="2023-05-14T16:38:36.267" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43159" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: You've seen through my ploy, I guess I was kind of deliberately ambiguous, seeming to illustrate both the impersonal infinitive and the gender of an infinitive without agreement, within the same example, which is not really possible. I must confess I just hadn't looked it up yet but simply chose an example that sounded good to me. What Sebastian suggested does mostly look good to me as well. (Now I wonder: what term should we use for periphrastic infinitives where the participle doesn't agree with anything, but isn't impersonal, i.e. the kind of construction I was supposed to show?)" CreationDate="2023-05-14T16:50:06.517" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43160" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="I will improve my answer later." CreationDate="2023-05-14T16:50:14.877" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43162" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Given the context you provided (&quot;In impersonal constructions, the neuter singular participle is used... without there being any primary argument for the participle to agree with, I believe the participle will normally be neuter&quot;), I interpreted your last example as an impersonal construction: cf. also _ventum esse ad castra bonum est_. On THIS reading the participle of intransitive verbs (_venire_) or transitive verbs used as intransitives/unergatives (_vincere_) is neuter in the **impersonal** construction. Cf. _Pugnatum esse acriter bonum est_, where _pugnatum_ is neuter as well." CreationDate="2023-05-14T17:14:57.740" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43164" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="To both of you (Sebastian &amp; Cerberus): The **impersonal** passive construction (again: only formed by intransitive/unergative verbs and transitive ones crucially used as intransitives) should not be mixed with the **personal** one _{victum/victam/victum} esse bonum est_ where the participle of a transitive (!) verb is masc., fem. neut., respectively. BTW, note that using a(n elliptical) indefinite pronoun as subject of the personal construction: _(quemdam) victum esse bonum est_ does not make it syntactically impersonal as _{ventum esse ad castra/pugnatum esse acriter} bonum est_." CreationDate="2023-05-14T17:46:23.417" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43167" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino the translation supplied by Cerberus himself made it clear that the personal construction was intended. Maybe you overlooked the &quot;been.&quot; But in Latin alone, to be sure, it is ambiguous, and the question whether it is neut. or masc., like I said, is purely academic." CreationDate="2023-05-14T19:00:06.717" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43168" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Yes, it's pretty obvious that the participle is masculine on the personal reading of _{quemdam/Caesarem/masc. elliptical subject} victum esse bonum est_. But this obvious point is not the one at issue here nor, probably, the one Cerberus wanted to make (in spite of his Engl. translation). I'm saying this because of what Cerberus says: &quot;As in the last example, when the infinitive is meant in the general sense, without there being any primary argument for the participle to agree with&quot;, which clearly points to the impersonal/subjectless reading of _victum esse_." CreationDate="2023-05-14T20:15:29.897" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43169" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I’m sorry but I don't understand your second point: &quot;the question whether it is neut. or masc., like I said, is purely academic&quot;. As I noted above, _victum_ is masculine on the personal reading of _{quemdam/Caesarem/masc. elliptical subject/...} victum esse bonum est_ and is neuter on the impersonal reading, where the subordinate clause lacks a subject (i.e. in Cerberus’s words:  “when the infinitive is meant in the general sense, without there being any primary argument for the participle to agree with&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-05-14T20:18:02.573" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43170" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="Of course, the participle can also be neuter in the personal construction when the elliptical subject of the infinitival clause _victum esse_ refers to _oppidum_ or a neuter noun. But, again, this obvious point is irrelevant here." CreationDate="2023-05-14T20:27:49.927" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43185" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Well, what can I do if you insist (and far beyond the requirements of clarity reiterate), in the face of clear evidence to the contrary and on the basis of a vague description that contains neither the word &quot;impersonal&quot; nor &quot;passive,&quot; that this is clearly about the impersonal passive and my remarks are &quot;irrelevant&quot;? I'd just ask you to consider that the infinitive as a verbal noun offers its own mode of &quot;impersonality&quot; – both in the active and in the passive. Because when we say *errare humanum est*, we talk about the *concept* of erring, not about an actual instance where someone …" CreationDate="2023-05-16T20:54:01.860" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43186" PostId="20892" Score="1" Text="… errs. And why should we not extend this idea to an example like *nihil umquam ausum esse signum vitae futilis est* or something? It is, of course, not grammatically impersonal, but it would not be idiomatic to supply a subject for the infinitive." CreationDate="2023-05-16T21:17:05.127" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43191" PostId="20892" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Many thanks for your last clarification/comment &amp; illuminating example. Now I see your relevant point and I realize that we've been talking at cross-purposes." CreationDate="2023-05-17T00:11:38.223" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43163" PostId="20895" Score="1" Text="I googled this last year, and I saw that around 2,000 people speak latin fluently and 10,000 speak speranto. I don't know if there are natives of latin nowadays." CreationDate="2023-05-14T17:31:00.060" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43172" PostId="20898" Score="4" Text="We use the imperfect. We can also use the verbs &quot;soleo&quot; and &quot;assuesco&quot; to express the same meaning of &quot;used to&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-15T03:07:14.210" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43173" PostId="20898" Score="1" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças So, &quot;Is hic veniebat quemque vesperem.&quot; is correct?" CreationDate="2023-05-15T03:24:53.373" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43174" PostId="20898" Score="3" Text="Yea. But I think we should use &quot;huc&quot; with verbs of motion." CreationDate="2023-05-15T03:40:37.857" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43176" PostId="20898" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler: The present-tense version would mean that he used to come here and still does e.g. &quot;de die Martis pluit&quot; = &quot;it has been raining since Tuesday (and still is)&quot;. The imperfect, &quot;pluebat&quot; = &quot;it has been raining (but is no longer)&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-15T13:13:28.650" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43180" PostId="20899" Score="4" Text="This seems unlikely to me because (even assuming the *(s)penh₁- etymology, which the dictionaries are doubtful about) none of the Greek words from this root has anything to do with weaving or twisting, and πονηρός is clearly a Greek-internal derivative from πόνος. The earliest sense seems to be &quot;oppressed by toils&quot;, from which it's pretty easy to get to &quot;base, knavish&quot; given Greek social ideology." CreationDate="2023-05-16T02:50:37.047" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43214" PostId="20899" Score="1" Text="στενός 'narrow' and στένω 'to groan' are almost certainly unrelated to each other, and Russian стена and стон definitely are; the latter is cognate to Greek στένω, but the former is a different root altogether, related to στία 'pebble'. ἐλεύθερος isn't from ἐλεύσομαι either, though they did come from the same PIE root meaning 'to come out' (with a complicated semantic history)." CreationDate="2023-05-19T13:49:44.637" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43215" PostId="20899" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon, not sure what you base your statements on. Maybe you could add links to your sources? I’m using LSJ and more specifically e.g. French „Bailly abrégé“ which points to the said etymology. (All linked in my answer)" CreationDate="2023-05-19T15:18:54.633" UserId="13464" />
  <row Id="43216" PostId="20899" Score="1" Text="*Pendejo* also is not from *(s)penh₁- but from Lat. pecten (at least thus Wiktionary)." CreationDate="2023-05-19T16:12:06.557" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43217" PostId="20899" Score="0" Text="@TKR thanks that you have found some time to read my answer and post this comment, did you also have time to read the linked article on Pendejo?" CreationDate="2023-05-19T17:45:40.730" UserId="13464" />
  <row Id="43218" PostId="20899" Score="2" Text="The LSJ is from 1843 and the Bailly from 1895, and neither is more than incidentally concerned with etymology. For modern and rigorous work, the first port of call is [Beekes](http://koen.readsicp.org/leiden/10_Beekes__Etymological_Dictionary_of_Greek_I_and_II.pdf)." CreationDate="2023-05-19T17:46:43.323" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43219" PostId="20899" Score="1" Text="The linked article also says that *pendejo* is from *pecten* &quot;comb&quot;, which comes from the same PIE root *peḱ- as Greek πέκω and various other words; it's not related to πόνος." CreationDate="2023-05-19T18:36:51.533" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43226" PostId="20899" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon thank you for the link, most appreciated!" CreationDate="2023-05-20T13:09:59.857" UserId="13464" />
  <row Id="43177" PostId="20900" Score="1" Text="Sigma specifically, or all the &quot;capital&quot; letters? The standard form of e.g. alpha also shifted from Α to α over that time period." CreationDate="2023-05-15T17:00:33.117" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43178" PostId="20900" Score="3" Text="@Draconis Wikipedia talks about Σ being replaced by C here. This is what my question is about." CreationDate="2023-05-15T20:37:33.873" UserId="13465" />
  <row Id="43189" PostId="20901" Score="0" Text="...while mid-16th century [manuscripts](https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/a-greek-bestiary) continued using the lunate C, in contrast to printed books..." CreationDate="2023-05-16T22:01:33.777" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="43183" PostId="20902" Score="1" Text="*&quot;special letters&quot;* -- I've seen a few papyri from around 1st and 2nd century, and I've never seen a &quot;Σ&quot; there. Only &quot;C&quot;. Have you seen a &quot;Σ&quot; on a papyrus from that period, or are you talking about engravings only? Can you post a link or a picture so that it's clearer what you are talking about?" CreationDate="2023-05-16T19:36:56.577" UserId="13465" />
  <row Id="43184" PostId="20902" Score="1" Text="@MWB The tradition of using inscriptional forms for emphasized letters happened mostly in the Latin alphabet, and was then borrowed into Greek with the advent of the printing press, though I wouldn't be surprised if these emphasized letters also appeared in Greek manuscripts from the time. &quot;The time&quot; here being around the 1400s, well after the second century papyri." CreationDate="2023-05-16T19:50:03.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43192" PostId="20904" Score="0" Text="Those are two really good suggestions, thank you.  I’m going to incorporate both of them." CreationDate="2023-05-17T07:18:41.980" UserId="11592" />
  <row Id="43212" PostId="20904" Score="0" Text="Or how about simply, *...dilaniavit, conculcataque obtrivit*?" CreationDate="2023-05-18T20:07:27.377" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43225" PostId="20904" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Giving: &quot;(having been) crushed she broke into pieces (obtrivit) and rent asunder  (dilaniavit)&quot;; potent imagery! You must be familiar with the river Cocytus (Gk. &quot;lamentation&quot;) which flows into the river Acheron? Is this, latter, then the (Roman) river Styx, on the other side of which lies the Underworld?" CreationDate="2023-05-20T11:35:57.783" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43234" PostId="20904" Score="0" Text="@tony: Oh, I'm terrible with directions, I just run around wildly most of the time. I believe Cocytus and Styx are commonly said to be two of the five main rivers of the underworld, but their exact courses and significance vary depending on whom you ask. They are all Greek." CreationDate="2023-05-21T01:50:04.097" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43271" PostId="20904" Score="0" Text="@Patricius: Are lines 3-5 to be backtranslated to: &quot;Menthe, angry and (having been) enraged by grief, dared to put herself in the form of Proserpina, and shouted at Pluto, with the love of his wife having been put aside, Proserpina, emerging from her temples, about to hear these things again, on her couch.&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-05-23T07:57:22.420" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43281" PostId="20904" Score="0" Text="@tony: Menthe, driven mad by anger and grief, dared to place herself before Proserpina in beauty, and cried out that Pluto was going to reject his wife’s love, drive Proserpina out of his chambers, and again welcome her herself [Menthe] into his bed." CreationDate="2023-05-24T22:21:22.890" UserId="11592" />
  <row Id="43193" PostId="20906" Score="1" Text="Uhh... *memento*? (See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/memini for example.)" CreationDate="2023-05-17T16:13:14.840" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43194" PostId="20906" Score="1" Text="Also I think you mean *desistere*." CreationDate="2023-05-17T16:24:11.673" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43195" PostId="20906" Score="1" Text="And *hunc diem* (sorry...)" CreationDate="2023-05-17T17:23:00.080" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43196" PostId="20906" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel when I chose to include &quot;memine&quot;, it was because I was looking for a second person present imperative; however, none was listed. I formed my own present stem through inferences (verb is 3rd conjugation, aka -ere ending, remove -re to get a possible present stem). This is likely bad practice, which is why I chose to include &quot;recall&quot; as an option." CreationDate="2023-05-17T18:38:02.857" UserId="13473" />
  <row Id="43197" PostId="20906" Score="1" Text="@gingerwitch64 *Memini* doesn't work like that, but it's also unnecessary, as the ancients used *memento(te)* as the imperative. Think e.g. *memento mori*." CreationDate="2023-05-17T19:14:32.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43198" PostId="20906" Score="0" Text="@cmw thank you for that, that makes sense now. I will update my post." CreationDate="2023-05-17T20:06:17.750" UserId="13473" />
  <row Id="43199" PostId="20906" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel two things; first, I have corrected my spelling of &quot;desistere&quot;. Second, I used &quot;hoc&quot; as indicated on this page, under etymology: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hodie#Latin however forgot that I did indeed need the accusative masculine. I will update my answer accordingly." CreationDate="2023-05-17T20:33:23.820" UserId="13473" />
  <row Id="43200" PostId="20906" Score="1" Text="@gingerwitch64 Oops, I thought I'd catch that last error before I saw your answer. Feel free to save over it in case you were going for something different. One final remark: While pro + acc is found in some Late sources, &quot;on behalf of&quot;, in Classical Latin it chiefly takes the ablative." CreationDate="2023-05-17T20:35:24.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43201" PostId="20906" Score="1" Text="@cmw ah, I see; I will update my answer based on that and will assume that Classical Latin is probably what op was looking for. I appreciate the pointers (again, I am an avid learner) and thank you for your help." CreationDate="2023-05-17T20:59:31.690" UserId="13473" />
  <row Id="43222" PostId="20911" Score="0" Text="That's a fine translation, but you could also drop the indirect question if you wanted to, *Quis mures in granariis prohibere potest?*" CreationDate="2023-05-20T03:06:10.887" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43224" PostId="20911" Score="1" Text="Figulus: Therefore, this can be both a direct and an indirect question (interrogative + subjunctive)? How can it be both?" CreationDate="2023-05-20T09:02:43.013" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43311" PostId="20911" Score="1" Text="It can be a direct question with an indirect question within it. There is a difference between asking *who can keep mice from a granary* and *who is it (who can keep mice from a granary)*. The indirect question is in parentheses here, and it is inside a direct question question, *who is it?*" CreationDate="2023-05-29T22:29:49.447" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43211" PostId="20912" Score="4" Text="As in, &quot;one who wishes for things&quot; (via what &quot;make a wish&quot; means in English)?" CreationDate="2023-05-18T19:47:34.713" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43213" PostId="20912" Score="0" Text="@Adam: A &quot;wishmaker&quot; is clearly a dreamer, in Latin, &quot;somniator&quot; (m), which also means, &quot;one who puts faith in dreams&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-19T08:56:48.423" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43228" PostId="20912" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Good question! I'd be interested to see both &quot;one who wishes for things&quot; and also &quot;one who makes wishes come true.&quot; It's okay if these are separate words, but it would be interesting if that ambiguity could be preserved." CreationDate="2023-05-20T17:03:18.277" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="43232" PostId="20915" Score="1" Text="Regarding *irrumo*, join the [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/irrumo?hl=irrumo) side of the force. No German knowledge necessary, as this entry contains (almost) no German ;-)" CreationDate="2023-05-20T23:48:03.263" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43233" PostId="20915" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Ha! That certainly is a concise (and useful) explanation." CreationDate="2023-05-21T00:03:29.847" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44938" PostId="20915" Score="0" Text="It's the verb &quot;patro&quot;.&#xA;We can find these words in the &quot;glossarium eroticum linguae latinae&quot;; the only problem is that it's all written in Latin, yet the context helps us to understand every single world." CreationDate="2023-05-19T01:08:52.313" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43223" PostId="20919" Score="0" Text="Also worth noting, &quot;mus&quot; = &quot;rat&quot; is a Latin pejorative: &quot;videbo te in publicum, mus. immo terrae tuber,&quot; (Petronius, Satyricon 58) = &quot;I shall meet you somewhere in public, you rat, in reality (you are) a tumour of the earth,&quot;. I didn't like Michael-Heseltine's translation (Perseus), &quot;immo terrae tuber&quot; = &quot;puff-ball&quot;; therefore, I've changed it. And &quot;mus&quot; = &quot;mouse&quot;,  a term of endearment, &quot;cum me murem dicis&quot; (Mart. 11.29.3) = &quot;You talk together with me my little mouse.&quot; Why is &quot;mus&quot; in the accusative, here?" CreationDate="2023-05-20T08:57:40.170" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43229" PostId="20919" Score="0" Text="@tony well, for one thing it means that that translation can't be right. The other hint is that &quot;with me&quot; is always *mecum*, not *cum me*. So what Martial is saying is &quot;when you call me 'mouse'.&quot; By the way, according to Lewis &amp; Short and Georges, *terrae tuber* means &quot;molehill&quot; in this instance." CreationDate="2023-05-20T18:09:41.643" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43238" PostId="20919" Score="0" Text="A molehill? In English this is not a pejorative, so, from the various lump-like definitions of &quot;tuber&quot;, I chose the most unpleasant, &quot;tumour&quot;.  Thanks for explaining the &quot;mecum&quot; thing." CreationDate="2023-05-21T07:49:50.747" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43220" PostId="20920" Score="1" Text="Maybe you should ask your friend. We can't read his mind any more than you can." CreationDate="2023-05-20T02:16:16.143" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43221" PostId="20920" Score="0" Text="I really asked him, but he told me &quot;think whatever you want.&quot;Maybe I should edit and ask if &quot;fallar&quot; makes any sense." CreationDate="2023-05-20T02:24:45.090" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43235" PostId="20921" Score="1" Text="I've seen this exact sentence in Portuguese.Where is that from? The subject, at least, in Portuguese is &quot;fundamentum&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-21T03:51:55.280" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43237" PostId="20921" Score="1" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças *Fundamentum autem est iustitiae fides* – Cic. [De officiis 1, 23](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/off1.shtml#23)." CreationDate="2023-05-21T07:06:54.677" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43253" PostId="20921" Score="0" Text="So if it's a reference to &quot;Fundamentum autem est iustitiae fides&quot;, we can point out that the word &quot;autem&quot; is really a postpositive particle that is used to show the beginning of the sentence. Thus &quot;autem&quot; clearly indicates that &quot;Fundamentum&quot; is the first word of a sentence, and might imply that &quot;Fundamentum&quot; is the subject. In short, I think that a postpositive particle like &quot;autem&quot; can be used to mark the subject of a sentence." CreationDate="2023-05-21T21:20:26.823" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="43255" PostId="20921" Score="2" Text="@ktm5124 *Fundamentum* is indeed the first word of the sentence, but if course that does not mean it is necessarily the subject." CreationDate="2023-05-21T23:08:28.617" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43257" PostId="20921" Score="1" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças, it's on lesson 23, exercise 27, in Napoleão Mendes de Almeida's Gramática Latina." CreationDate="2023-05-22T10:14:10.130" UserId="9084" />
  <row Id="43265" PostId="20921" Score="0" Text="@sidney do you speak portuguese?" CreationDate="2023-05-22T23:10:10.823" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43266" PostId="20921" Score="1" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças, yes, I do." CreationDate="2023-05-22T23:26:36.830" UserId="9084" />
  <row Id="43236" PostId="20923" Score="0" Text="Sebastian, I believe you understood him better the me! This verb has very distinctive meanings. Since I was trying to find an equivalent in Portuguese, I couldn’t see. The problem is the passive voice! I'm really sure he used &quot;fallar &quot; as a deponent verb. He will be(come)unseen. I'm gonna beg him to tell the real meaning!" CreationDate="2023-05-21T04:01:59.910" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43240" PostId="20924" Score="4" Text="Did you try looking it up?" CreationDate="2023-05-21T15:25:46.810" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43239" PostId="20925" Score="2" Text="Latin *boreas* is a borrowing from Greek Βορέας. SBC *bura* is certainly a native word, though it's conceivably cognate to Βορέας. Wiktionary is generally confused about whether to attribute it to the etymon of Latin *fero* or *furo*." CreationDate="2023-05-21T15:24:51.480" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43241" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I don't think SBC &quot;bura&quot; is a native word. SBC 'u' comes either from Proto-Slavic syllabic 'l' or from Proto-Slavic nasal 'a'. Proto-Slavic phonology didn't allow for -ḷr-, so the Proto-Slavic root would have to be *bãra. Is there a similar word in other Slavic languages?" CreationDate="2023-05-21T17:32:01.310" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43242" PostId="20925" Score="2" Text="Russian буря, Czech *bouře*, Polish *burza*, Bulgarian бура, all meaning 'storm'. It's possible the Latin contaminated the preëxisting BSC word and gave it a secondary meaning 'north wind', but it's not a simple loan." CreationDate="2023-05-21T17:47:47.090" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43243" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Why would you assume Polish &quot;burza&quot; is a cognate? Polish preserved nasal vowels, Proto-Slavic nasal 'a' turned to nasal 'o' in Polish." CreationDate="2023-05-21T18:03:57.817" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43244" PostId="20925" Score="1" Text="I don't know where you're seeing a nasal. [Here's Derksen on the subject.](https://i.imgur.com/c7LKSQZ.png)" CreationDate="2023-05-21T19:28:08.347" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43245" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Which sound does 'u' denote there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_language#Vowel_notation" CreationDate="2023-05-21T19:33:26.227" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43246" PostId="20925" Score="1" Text="Only one of the two systems uses *u*. Derksen is an Indo-Europeanist." CreationDate="2023-05-21T19:40:57.190" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43247" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Oh, how come you don't see the problem?! If it was the /u:/ sound, why didn't it turn into 'i' in Croatian? You know, as in &quot;dim&quot; (from Proto-Slavic *du:mu)?" CreationDate="2023-05-21T19:44:20.207" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43248" PostId="20925" Score="1" Text="... Because it wasn't /u:/. Are you reading the accent sign as a macron? It's not a macron, it's just the accent." CreationDate="2023-05-21T19:48:10.067" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43249" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon So, it was a short 'u' (also known as back yer)? Then why didn't it disappear on its way to SBC due to the Havlik's Law?" CreationDate="2023-05-21T19:52:42.597" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43250" PostId="20925" Score="2" Text="Are you sure you understand Havlík's law?" CreationDate="2023-05-21T19:55:43.583" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43251" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Now you are being slightly insulting. Also, a back yer (short 'u') that didn't disappear due to the Havlik's Law turned into 'a' in the SBC language (or 'e' in the Kaikavian dialect), it didn't get preserved as 'u'." CreationDate="2023-05-21T20:19:55.653" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43252" PostId="20925" Score="2" Text="There are scores of instances of *u* in Croatian that correspond to *u* in other Slavic languages. Where do you think those all came from? There's something wrong with your understanding of the development of the Slavic languages. Please understand that Derksen is one of the world's foremost experts on Balto-Slavic and that his [etymological dictionary](http://koen.readsicp.org/leiden/04_Derksen__Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_Slavic_Inherited_Lexicon.pdf) is peer-reviewed." CreationDate="2023-05-21T20:47:19.987" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43254" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Where do you think those all came from?*&#xA;&#xA;Well, keep in mind that Proto-Slavic nasal 'a' turned into 'u' in most Slavic languages.&#xA;&#xA;A fact of the SBC historical phonology is that Proto-Slavic 'u' does not regularly give 'u'. See [what Dubravka Ivšić said about the river name &quot;Mura&quot;](https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/231278): &quot;*Uz to, od vlat. -u- pravilnim glasovnim razvojem ne bismo dobili -u- (v. Schramm 1981: 299, Snoj 2009: 275)*&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-21T22:01:52.137" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43391" PostId="20925" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon Derksen is an Indo-Europeanist, but he is reconstructing Late Proto-Slavic, and the Indo-European/Balto-Slavic system is not used for that, even by Indo-Europeanists, because the IE/BS system represents the vowel inventory of Proto-Balto-Slavic. The Slavic system, which represents the (later) Proto-Slavic vowel inventory, uses _*u_ as well (for the outcome of PBS _*au_), it’s just not included in that list since it doesn’t correspond to a single vowel in PBS." CreationDate="2023-06-02T19:40:25.243" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43421" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="Italian dictionaries say Venetian &quot;bora&quot; (typically, the very strong wind in Trieste) comes from Latin &quot;boreas&quot;: can't &quot;bura&quot; just be the Croatian rendering of &quot;bora&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-04T02:48:01.243" UserId="13562" />
  <row Id="43422" PostId="20925" Score="0" Text="Well, that's made complicated by the fact that there are words similar to &quot;bura&quot; meaning &quot;storm&quot; in other Slavic languages." CreationDate="2023-06-04T10:14:36.440" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43256" PostId="20928" Score="5" Text="Nobody really doubts that *iustitiae* modifies *fundamentum*. But either (as you say) the subject is *fundamentum iustitiae*, or it is *fides*. You do not really discuss the latter possibility." CreationDate="2023-05-21T23:14:19.547" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43258" PostId="20932" Score="1" Text="Thanks. What are the definitions of non-finite formations and finite ones?" CreationDate="2023-05-22T17:09:46.673" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43259" PostId="20932" Score="1" Text="@Tim: In Latin, you can recognize a finite verb form by how it inflects for both the person and number of the subject, like &quot;amo&quot;, &quot;amas&quot;, &quot;amat, amamus, amatis, amant&quot; or &quot;amavi, amavisti, amavit, amavimus, amavistis, amaverunt&quot;. The other verb forms are called non-finite, and tend to act similarly to nouns or adjectives; e.g. the infinitives and participles are considered non-finite verb forms." CreationDate="2023-05-22T17:13:25.593" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="43260" PostId="20932" Score="1" Text="why is it called finite?" CreationDate="2023-05-22T17:16:02.093" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43262" PostId="20932" Score="2" Text="@Tim Because it's bound by person and number." CreationDate="2023-05-22T18:08:42.063" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43270" PostId="20934" Score="3" Text="I'm with Cairnarvon on this. Can you explain how these two questions differ?" CreationDate="2023-05-23T02:11:27.657" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43275" PostId="20934" Score="1" Text="I agree with the above. Your question is not asking about these two words specifically, but about general rules, and that to me appears to be well covered by the linked question. If, however, you are more interested in specifics about cēpī and dedī, try rephrasing your question. Presently that does not appear to be what you are asking, though." CreationDate="2023-05-24T18:11:40.210" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="43291" PostId="20936" Score="1" Text="Hmm I would say, why not? When someone is welcome to a place, that really means the people of the place feel that he is welcome there. Being accepted (in)to a place, that sounds fine and pretty much aequivalent to me. But I don't have any quotations on hand. Is there a specific context in which you wanted to use this? As an invitation, perhaps something like &quot;intra!&quot; or &quot;veni!&quot; might be good?" CreationDate="2023-05-27T23:42:23.583" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43292" PostId="20936" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I just wanted to know &quot;welcome to&quot; we can say &quot;welcome to my house&quot;(a place)&quot;welcome to my life&quot;(not a place)etc. When we're talking about places, I believe we can use the accusative+ad,in or absolute, even though I can't see any motion in &quot;welcome to&quot;. I saw &quot;salvus(a) sis&quot; as &quot;welcome!&quot;[and this is very similar to the portuguese expression &quot;Seja bem-vindo(a)]in the only English-latin dictionary I have, but nothing about &quot;welcome to&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-28T00:06:07.860" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43293" PostId="20936" Score="1" Text="I think &quot;welcome to&quot; is an idiomatic expression that exists in the modern languages, but which would probably be expressed by a different idiom in Latin anyway. So I don't think there is a need to focus on this particular phrase: just think about the purpose of the statement, and then think about how that could be expressed without this particular idiom." CreationDate="2023-05-28T00:47:41.663" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43294" PostId="20936" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Since I speak portuguese, and there's the &quot;salvus(as) sis&quot; which is very similar to the portuguese expression, I believe I can use that. Now I have to unbrush my knowledge of the accusative case. :)" CreationDate="2023-05-28T01:17:01.127" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43295" PostId="20936" Score="1" Text="Sounds good to me. Note that *salvus* means &quot;healthy&quot;, so the origin of the expression is, &quot;may you be healthy/well&quot;." CreationDate="2023-05-28T01:24:18.847" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43296" PostId="20936" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I see some sense in this. Haha" CreationDate="2023-05-28T01:53:27.087" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43273" PostId="20937" Score="0" Text="Note that the actual Latin title is *Arithmetica*." CreationDate="2023-05-24T16:35:38.127" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43274" PostId="20937" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I implied &quot;libri&quot;, see the edit" CreationDate="2023-05-24T17:05:19.143" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="43282" PostId="20938" Score="0" Text="I'd  change these:&#xA;Quare a me te celas?&#xA;Somne, pater clemens&#xA;Involve me  amplexu amanti tuo&#xA;Et trade me in mundum somniorum" CreationDate="2023-05-25T00:17:36.330" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43283" PostId="20938" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças can you explain why?" CreationDate="2023-05-25T20:12:59.073" UserId="189" />
  <row Id="43284" PostId="20938" Score="2" Text="Basically, I only know &quot;hide from&quot; as &quot;celare ab&quot; Somnus is a male noun, so to say &quot;matercula&quot; sounds wrong and wierd. &quot;Wrap&quot; I believe that's an imperative. Normally we don't need to say the preposition &quot;in+ablative&quot;(in amplexu amanti). And &quot;trade&quot; another imperative, since it indicates motion, we use the in+accusative. English, isn't my first language,  so I'm afraid that can't be much help." CreationDate="2023-05-25T23:24:07.650" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43332" PostId="20938" Score="1" Text="*delibera* for &quot;deliver&quot; is tricky... but doesn't seem to work. *deliberare* is much akin to the English *deliberate* (though one could expect *delibrare* and not *delib**e**rare*)." CreationDate="2023-05-30T20:08:15.727" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43378" PostId="20938" Score="0" Text="@d_e What word would you suggest instead?" CreationDate="2023-06-02T04:40:53.430" UserId="189" />
  <row Id="43299" PostId="20944" Score="0" Text="Interestingly, there is only one recorded instance from antiquity where this famous phrase was uttered, technically not by gladiators in the arena but by naumachiarii forced to take part in a mock (but, for them, deadly) sea battle. Suetonius records it as cited here. However, Cassius Dio, narrating the same instance, writes: οἱ ἀπολούμενοί σε **ἀσπαζόμεθα** -- which is in the first person." CreationDate="2023-05-28T12:25:54.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43300" PostId="20944" Score="0" Text="[Vita Divi Claudii 21](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html#21), I should add." CreationDate="2023-05-28T12:36:08.750" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43328" PostId="20944" Score="0" Text="So even the ancients thought that would be a good way to translate the Latin. Interesting." CreationDate="2023-05-30T15:15:02.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43285" PostId="20947" Score="0" Text="Good point....." CreationDate="2023-05-26T20:32:44.847" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="43289" PostId="20948" Score="0" Text="Can you clarify if you're looking for an answer that specifically touches upon only these obligations, or what the historical Latin obligations are for the Knights? It's a deep rabbit hole, apparently." CreationDate="2023-05-27T15:41:49.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43290" PostId="20948" Score="2" Text="@cmw, I believe he wants to know if this looks like ecclesiastic latin, or if this looks like an official document written in the Church's Latin." CreationDate="2023-05-27T23:25:10.813" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43297" PostId="20948" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças, Yes, that's what I want!" CreationDate="2023-05-28T10:48:26.063" UserId="13529" />
  <row Id="43298" PostId="20948" Score="0" Text="Given the quality and type of sources for the &quot;obligations or aspirations of a knight&quot; that Google returns, I doubt a medieval origin. However, the Order of Malta itself [lists](https://www.orderofmalta.int/history/the-eight-pointed-cross/) &quot;eight virtues that a member of the Order must possess.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-28T12:13:13.993" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43368" PostId="20951" Score="0" Text="Good question. *Omne quod dat mihi Pater, ad me veniet : et eum qui venit ad me, non ejiciam foras* from John 6:37 has a similar use of neuter for a masculine antecedent." CreationDate="2023-06-01T03:21:33.743" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43375" PostId="20952" Score="0" Text="I think you mean there is no _determinate_ antecedent." CreationDate="2023-06-02T00:05:31.723" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43377" PostId="20952" Score="0" Text="@Geremia: I prefer to say there isn't one because I would reserve the term &quot;antecedent&quot; in the context of grammar for a word or phrase that meets all of the folllowing criteria: it precedes the pronoun, is coreferential with it, and is grammatically linked to it. In this case, even if &quot;spiritus Domini&quot; (or alternatively, &quot;orbem terrarum&quot;) is coreferential with &quot;hoc&quot;, it is not grammatically linked with that preceding phrase, as shown by the lack of grammatical agreement in gender." CreationDate="2023-06-02T00:08:45.790" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="43314" PostId="20954" Score="0" Text="Latin tutorial(YouTube)has a video about that." CreationDate="2023-05-30T00:46:57.053" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43319" PostId="20954" Score="0" Text="could you summarize it here? Thanks" CreationDate="2023-05-30T06:45:50.540" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43336" PostId="20954" Score="0" Text="My grammar basically says(about the conjunctions Dum/dummodo and modo)hat the  proviso clause introduces a conditional clause of final value. I didn't understand at all, but, woud be a conditional that has a meaning of a final clause. It's the first time i hear abou that." CreationDate="2023-05-30T23:10:24.057" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43304" PostId="20955" Score="0" Text="Thanks. What kind of clause does it lead?  Does it lead a conditional clause or a concession one?" CreationDate="2023-05-29T10:06:39.923" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43305" PostId="20955" Score="0" Text="@Tim *quodsi* and *quod nisi* always introduce a conditional clause." CreationDate="2023-05-29T11:41:53.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43306" PostId="20955" Score="0" Text="does &quot;but&quot; not mean opposition between the main and conditional subordinate clauses?" CreationDate="2023-05-29T12:30:23.157" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43307" PostId="20955" Score="0" Text="@Tim In the case of &quot;but if,&quot; it means opposition between the whole conditional construction and the preceding text." CreationDate="2023-05-29T20:43:29.893" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43426" PostId="20957" Score="0" Text="Nice English connotation." CreationDate="2023-06-04T23:17:02.193" UserId="13569" />
  <row Id="43308" PostId="20958" Score="2" Text="I feel there's a glimmer of merit in the suggestion that 1. Ἀχιλλεύς is a non-Greek name and 2. the first element is related to *Achaea* (I'd look to Hittite *Ahhiyā* rather than anything in Greek, especially since you also seem to want to connect λαίλας, which Hesychius claims is Lydian, and Ἀχαΐα has too many syllables), but as usual your impenetrable personal style makes it unnecessarily difficult to extract your argument from your answer. The connection to Egyptian is nonsensical in every detail." CreationDate="2023-05-29T22:15:21.407" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43312" PostId="20958" Score="0" Text="Yes. A few grave typos commited before I was done." CreationDate="2023-05-29T22:43:37.930" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="43318" PostId="20959" Score="1" Text="Ignore Google Translate. That it continues to be used for Latin is criminal." CreationDate="2023-05-30T02:42:12.827" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43310" PostId="20960" Score="0" Text="The verb &quot;teneo&quot; may be used like this." CreationDate="2023-05-29T22:25:46.550" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43317" PostId="20960" Score="2" Text="You mean like &quot;understand&quot; or &quot;perceive&quot;? Have you thought to just look up translations for those words? Otherwise, what you're asking isn't clear to me." CreationDate="2023-05-30T02:35:12.567" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43342" PostId="20960" Score="0" Text="@cmw &quot;_Have you thought to just look up translations for those words?_&quot; I understand that &quot;_video_&quot;, for example, can encompass both the bodily act of seeing and the intellectual act of perceiving what is seen, but I'm wondering if Latin also has different verbs describing the bodily act and the corresponding intellectual act. See my edits to my question." CreationDate="2023-05-31T03:58:00.623" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43343" PostId="20960" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;corresponding intellectual act&quot;. The meanings in the second column are metaphorical -- are you asking whether Latin uses the same metaphors as English?" CreationDate="2023-05-31T04:38:01.877" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43344" PostId="20960" Score="1" Text="I agree with @TKR. I think you're confusing metaphor with some aspect of the verb." CreationDate="2023-05-31T05:24:08.780" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43363" PostId="20960" Score="0" Text="@cmw In my examples, the verbs in the second column are the figurative sense of the verb in the 1st column; but I'm asking if Latin has two separate, literal sense verbs." CreationDate="2023-05-31T23:41:32.077" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43364" PostId="20960" Score="0" Text="@TKR When we see something, a body organ (our eyes) interact with light. You can easily look at a picture like [this one](https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5639/2020/1600/whatb1.gif), but but you really see (perceive) it (unless I taught you what to look for)? I'm asking if Latin makes a look vs. see distinction (and similarly for the other 4 senses)." CreationDate="2023-05-31T23:48:22.833" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43370" PostId="20960" Score="1" Text="I'm confused by your last comment. It seems to me that you are asking about metaphorical uses of &quot;see&quot;, not the distinction between &quot;see&quot; and &quot;look&quot;, and similarly for other senses." CreationDate="2023-06-01T09:18:24.940" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43376" PostId="20960" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta How do you explain the distinction between &quot;see&quot; and &quot;look&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-02T00:07:49.447" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43397" PostId="20960" Score="1" Text="@Geremia I'd say that looking means pointing your eyes at something, and seeing means noticing or becoming aware of something that you are looking at. While seeing does involve the brain, it is about the brain interpreting what the eye sees. In phrases like &quot;I see your point&quot; the meaning is different, as it is not about actually perceiving something through vision. The verb &quot;see&quot; is used metaphorically. The question as it now stands is about the literal/metaphorical distinction, not about the look/see (or listen/hear or any other) distinction." CreationDate="2023-06-03T00:45:16.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43400" PostId="20960" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks for the clarification. I'm not wanting to speak of metaphors; my examples weren't correct. I've edited my question." CreationDate="2023-06-03T03:28:43.137" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43401" PostId="20960" Score="0" Text="@Geremia Excellent! Much clearer now. Now I, and judging by the comments and votes, others understand what you are after. Take a look at [this question on the hear/listen distinction](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/20599/79). Does it answer your question?" CreationDate="2023-06-03T15:29:23.663" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43412" PostId="20960" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Very similar, but I'd like to know the pairs for all 5 senses, if they exist." CreationDate="2023-06-03T21:22:12.777" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43313" PostId="20961" Score="0" Text="… unless I'm misreading this, and *hoc quod omnia continet* is just a circumlocution for *orbis terrarum* " CreationDate="2023-05-29T23:30:44.667" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43341" PostId="20961" Score="0" Text="&quot;_the neutral subject stands for any thing, concrete or abstract, but usually not a person_&quot; is exactly what I was wondering. If you could substantiate this from a Latin grammar book, I'll accept your answer. _Gratias ago tibi._" CreationDate="2023-05-31T03:40:09.957" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="43315" PostId="20962" Score="2" Text="As a hard and fast rule, [never](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15648/what-is-the-best-worst-translation-of-latin-from-google-translate) [trust](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16882/the-meaning-of-scelerisque) [Google](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4349/what-is-google-translate-good-for) [Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16768/how-good-is-the-new-version-of-google-translate). It's complete garbage for Latin." CreationDate="2023-05-30T02:28:40.313" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43316" PostId="20962" Score="2" Text="If you want to know an equivalent to &quot;championship&quot;, you'll have to define it better, first, because there are [different meanings in English](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/championship), each which would translate to a different Latin word." CreationDate="2023-05-30T02:31:59.823" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43367" PostId="20962" Score="1" Text="@cmw Agree regarding Google Translate, which is why I always reverse the search as a rule... and also why I came to Stack ;)  I've added context, hopefully that helps! Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-06-01T00:53:09.810" UserId="13541" />
  <row Id="43346" PostId="20963" Score="0" Text="This is perfect, thanks so much!" CreationDate="2023-05-31T12:24:55.193" UserId="13508" />
  <row Id="43322" PostId="20964" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, by &quot;accents&quot; you mean the stress patterns, where the accent falls within each word?" CreationDate="2023-05-30T13:44:27.540" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43324" PostId="20964" Score="0" Text="@Draconis - I have used the term &quot;accent&quot; as per [Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accent): `effort in speech to stress one syllable over adjacent syllables`. Sorry if this is not the scientific term. It is maybe [&quot;stress&quot;](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stress): `a syllable having relative force or prominence`." CreationDate="2023-05-30T15:01:48.083" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="43326" PostId="20964" Score="0" Text="@cmw - I definitely don't mean the general manner of expression, but the stress put on a sylable. I have tried to underline the main vowel." CreationDate="2023-05-30T15:03:23.750" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="43327" PostId="20964" Score="0" Text="@cmw Now that I've read this more carefully, you're right, it's clear. Sorry. The reference to French threw me off." CreationDate="2023-05-30T15:14:01.320" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43379" PostId="20964" Score="0" Text="Stress in Classical Latin is well-understood (it's almost perfectly predictable) and generally taught correctly, but as French doesn't have lexical stress anymore it's not surprising francophones would struggle with it and generally ignore it, in the same way that everyone replaces Greek's pitch accent with a stress accent because almost no European languages have a pitch accent." CreationDate="2023-06-02T06:29:49.353" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43380" PostId="20964" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon - But given that `French doesn't have lexical stress anymore`: (1) what should we call the very characteristically French phenomenon of the last syllable or vowel being emphasized? Is that not &quot;accent&quot; or &quot;stress&quot;? And isn't it because of its importance (not the absence thereof) that French speakers use it in Latin as if Latin words were French words? (2) is that a negligible effect on the quality of Latin pronunciation?  find it intolerable myself! (Those people are language specialists after all!) (3) did French language had that &quot;lexical stress&quot; in the past?" CreationDate="2023-06-02T11:53:58.237" UserId="3284" />
  <row Id="43381" PostId="20964" Score="2" Text="French does have prosodic (i.e. phrase-level) stress that manifests itself as stress on the final syllables of words in certain positions. Of course it used to have lexical stress: Latin did, and French descends from Latin. Whether or not the difference is negligible depends on your point of view: it's not how Latin was pronounced, but because Latin stress is (almost) perfectly regular it also won't ever lead to confusion in meaning the way it would in e.g. Greek, where the location of the accent is phonemic and τόμος and τομός are different words." CreationDate="2023-06-02T15:02:46.707" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43325" PostId="20967" Score="2" Text="Thanks; that's useful. It occurs to me to wonder if in 1910 when it was published, with Latin being still a core subject in aristocratic schools, it might even have been a grammar exercise or familiar phrase in a copybook. It wouldn't be far from Forster to mock the bourgeois gentilhomme that is Mr. Wilcox by describing his situation in schoolboy prose, as [Archie Armstrong mocked a gentleman](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16604/qui-mihi-decipulus)..." CreationDate="2023-05-30T15:02:31.623" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="43334" PostId="20971" Score="0" Text="Nerd *is* tough. Traupman had *inconcinnus*. For bookworm, StackExchange has some suggestions: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/19455/booklover-in-latin" CreationDate="2023-05-30T22:26:20.693" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43335" PostId="20971" Score="0" Text="*pro dolor* might work for &quot;oh no!&quot;. I'm not at all sure about &quot;oh non&quot; :)" CreationDate="2023-05-30T22:27:42.697" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43483" PostId="20971" Score="0" Text="I know a Latin teacher who likes to use *umbraticus* (someone who loves to stay in the shade, idly) for 'nerd' - at the very least a funny word choice" CreationDate="2023-06-08T20:22:33.690" UserId="6396" />
  <row Id="43348" PostId="20973" Score="1" Text="Can you please explain why is it a &quot;He&quot; instead of &quot;She&quot; ?" CreationDate="2023-05-31T13:09:09.493" UserId="13544" />
  <row Id="43362" PostId="20973" Score="1" Text="It is not a he. It is not a she either. It is neither. (Let me think, what's the Latin word for *neither*?) It means *these things*. I'll add an explanation of how I know it's neuter to my answer." CreationDate="2023-05-31T22:42:05.587" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43347" PostId="20974" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your answer. So, can it be concluded that the use of &quot;He&quot; in the Latin Vulgate for this sentence is wrong ?" CreationDate="2023-05-31T13:07:34.283" UserId="13544" />
  <row Id="43357" PostId="20974" Score="0" Text="@LanguageEnthusiast It's hard to see what the antecedent would be if the subject were masculine." CreationDate="2023-05-31T18:07:50.643" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43358" PostId="20974" Score="0" Text="Okay. Since I am completely new to Latin I have difficulty wrapping my head around the language and its grammatical rules. So kindly excuse me if I sound repetitive &quot; Will it be a mistake if this sentence (&quot;post haec in terris visus est et cum hominibus conversatus est&quot;) is transliterated as  &quot;After these things she appeared on earth and dwelt with men&quot; ?" CreationDate="2023-05-31T19:15:23.410" UserId="13544" />
  <row Id="43359" PostId="20974" Score="1" Text="@LanguageEnthusiast Yes. That's unambiguously not what the Latin says; in the Latin the subject is inescapably masculine." CreationDate="2023-05-31T19:40:12.713" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43360" PostId="20974" Score="0" Text="Okay. Thank you. And, what is the subject in this verse? &quot;post haec in terris visus est et cum hominibus conversatus est&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-31T19:52:58.057" UserId="13544" />
  <row Id="43361" PostId="20974" Score="1" Text="@LanguageEnthusiast No subject is explicitly expressed. Going by the previous verses, presumably God (*deus noster*, 'our god', masculine, in Baruch 38:6, who is also the implicit subject of at least *tradidit* in Baruch 38:7) rather than wisdom (*viam disciplinae*, lit. 'the way of instruction', in Baruch 38:7; both *via* and *disciplina* are feminine)." CreationDate="2023-05-31T20:39:39.267" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43338" PostId="20975" Score="1" Text="As a result of this, I'm also curious whether _virēs_ makes a good translation for &quot;permissions&quot; in the technical sense, like an account having the right permissions to make files, or a StackExchange user having access to close votes. But that's a separate question." CreationDate="2023-05-31T01:39:13.910" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43339" PostId="20975" Score="0" Text="What about &quot;absque permissu&quot;? Absque can be used like a juridic formula to express &quot;without." CreationDate="2023-05-31T01:49:02.573" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43340" PostId="20975" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças It's post-classical, but you do get that exact phrase a couple times, once in Justinian's Code and once in Bede. *Sine permissu* is much better attested, even if still rather late (middle 2nd century CE in Gaius' *Institutiones*)." CreationDate="2023-05-31T02:36:47.933" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43345" PostId="20975" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: There is a linkage between &quot;beyond one's powers&quot; &amp; &quot;without permission&quot;. He who lacks the power/ authority, to do this-or-that, may also lack the permission from his bosses/ his electorate. I've seen translations in which the translator has pushed the barriers of credulity to breaking point. At least this one has a logical sequence to it." CreationDate="2023-05-31T08:25:53.680" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43350" PostId="20975" Score="0" Text="@tony Yeah, I definitely see the logic to it; I'm just not sure if it's the proper idiom for this, or if the Romans (or post-Classical authors) would have used some other term for, say, a son doing something without his paterfamilias's permission." CreationDate="2023-05-31T15:24:49.983" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43349" PostId="20978" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! What context or era do you have in mind? Classical and ecclesiastical Latin might disagree." CreationDate="2023-05-31T15:13:22.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43351" PostId="20978" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Classical I would say." CreationDate="2023-05-31T15:28:11.450" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="43352" PostId="20978" Score="3" Text="You threw Google Translate a half-baked sentence fragment and got a decent translation. Count it among your blessings. It could have answered &quot;carota&quot; and if you added a full stop &quot;Omnia Gallia est divisa&quot; and still have been at its usual game." CreationDate="2023-05-31T15:33:58.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43353" PostId="20978" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel the sentence looks half-baked, but this is the literal piece I want translated. I am glad the result is decent as you say." CreationDate="2023-05-31T15:41:27.943" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="43354" PostId="20978" Score="1" Text="Decent, but not entirely correct, but we'll need more information about how you'll be using it to know for sure. You know how &quot;killing&quot; has multiple synonyms (slay, murder, put an end to, euthanize, etc.), the same is true in Latin, but even more so." CreationDate="2023-05-31T15:59:26.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43355" PostId="20978" Score="0" Text="@cmw it will be used in a tattoo, where the sentence would be followed by a symbol, so killing here refers to the act of slaying/murder. So it would go something like &quot;killing in the name of [what the symbol represents]&quot;" CreationDate="2023-05-31T16:02:26.003" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="43356" PostId="20978" Score="1" Text="I have edited the question to better explain context" CreationDate="2023-05-31T16:35:07.517" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="43371" PostId="20978" Score="0" Text="And what part of speech is *killing*? Present participle (&quot;I am killing in the name...&quot;)? Gerund (&quot;**My** killing in the name of X **is** [something]&quot;)?" CreationDate="2023-06-01T10:58:06.013" UserId="7451" />
  <row Id="43372" PostId="20978" Score="0" Text="@AndrewLeach it is like &quot;The killing is done in the name of [this symbol]&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-01T14:28:38.240" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="43365" PostId="20979" Score="2" Text="I think that that English word has several meanings, and different ones will call for different translations in Latin. For example, there's the informal &quot;yes&quot; and expressions like &quot;oh yeah&quot;. Are you interested in a specific song or context or meaning?" CreationDate="2023-05-31T23:51:07.723" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43366" PostId="20979" Score="1" Text="I believe it's more the meaning. Some songs start with &quot;yeah! Yeah! Yeah!&quot; Others have it in the middle &quot;yeahhhhh!&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-01T00:22:04.767" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43374" PostId="20981" Score="0" Text="This is really interesting because Portuguese has this interjection, as well. I never thought about it. I'm gonna check my latin-portuguese dictionaries. Thanks" CreationDate="2023-06-01T21:57:23.940" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43373" PostId="20982" Score="2" Text="Why do you think the distinction matters?" CreationDate="2023-06-01T15:08:46.990" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43385" PostId="20984" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Appreciate all the help." CreationDate="2023-06-02T15:44:14.873" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="43382" PostId="20985" Score="4" Text="Πρωτάθλημα is modern Greek, not Ancient." CreationDate="2023-06-02T15:12:16.637" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43506" PostId="20987" Score="1" Text="I'd quibble slightly with calling '-ere' archaic or poetic. Granted it's more often used in poetry (metrical flexibility) but it's still reasonably common in Classical prose. It's worth noting that the colloquial form was '-ĕrunt'; Kennedy §15 suggests that '-ērunt' was a compromise between that and '-ēre'." CreationDate="2023-06-10T11:08:28.967" UserId="13543" />
  <row Id="43417" PostId="20988" Score="2" Text="A similar example in a modern Slavic poetry:  Řekni mu, stříbrný měsíčku / *mé že* jej obímá rámě / ... (Kvapil, _Rusalka_)" CreationDate="2023-06-04T12:54:11.517" UserId="13564" />
  <row Id="43419" PostId="20988" Score="0" Text="@Pteromys What does that mean? &quot;Rekni mu&quot; presumably means &quot;tell him&quot;, but I cannot decypher the rest." CreationDate="2023-06-04T13:45:45.603" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43433" PostId="20988" Score="3" Text="*Tell him, silver moon / that it's my arm that is embracing him*. But the specific order of words is more like *Tell him, silver moon, mine is embracing him arm*." CreationDate="2023-06-05T09:27:54.743" UserId="11683" />
  <row Id="43687" PostId="20988" Score="1" Text="@FlatAssembler my point is that the word for &quot;my&quot; jumps over &quot;that.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-19T13:20:46.033" UserId="13564" />
  <row Id="43388" PostId="20989" Score="1" Text="What is false about such cognates?" CreationDate="2023-06-02T19:02:27.370" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43389" PostId="20989" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Well, they are false cognates in the same way Latin &quot;dies&quot; and English &quot;day&quot; are: they are coincidentally similar, they don't come from the same root." CreationDate="2023-06-02T19:03:37.470" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43390" PostId="20989" Score="1" Text="I see. But I am not so sure thay sound alike enough for one to be confused with the other. But maybe I'm not understanding the OP." CreationDate="2023-06-02T19:08:15.200" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43392" PostId="20989" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Draconis' comment under the OP explains a bit more. The first might be a bit of a stretch, but the second seems to fit well (unless I'm also misunderstanding something)." CreationDate="2023-06-02T19:45:44.847" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43393" PostId="20991" Score="10" Text="&quot;It's almost as if the ancient Romans didn't consider English grammar when they invented Latin.&quot; That got a hearty chuckle from me." CreationDate="2023-06-02T19:47:24.817" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43394" PostId="20991" Score="2" Text="I do wonder if it suggests anything, though. Is it poetic / loftier? Nepos isn't the most talented prose writer, but he's not averse to rhetorical flourishes every now and then. I believe we've also had this discussion about inverted prepositions (like *magna cum laude* or (*de rerum natura*). I don't have my Woodcock handy to see what he says about it, though." CreationDate="2023-06-02T19:50:21.790" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43395" PostId="20991" Score="2" Text="@cmw Hard to say, but I believe there is a tendency for the sentence's topic to precede the conjunction (hence all the *quae cum ita sint, id si factum esset, &amp;c.*), often picking up something from the previous text, which is also the case in the Nepos example. But in the song it's the focus, and I believe this lends it an extra emphasis. This opinion is sponsored by one of my favourite Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_word_order#Topic_and_focus" CreationDate="2023-06-02T20:39:19.717" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43396" PostId="20991" Score="0" Text="There's a lot of controversy over topicality in Latin (as there is in English), but it's on my mind recently after digging into Japanese and the strange (from an IE perspective) way it treats it. I'm sure there's also caution to be had in reading too much into it, forming rules when it might just be style. Hard to tell with a dead language." CreationDate="2023-06-02T21:11:20.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43418" PostId="20991" Score="0" Text="I'd say stress aside, it's just nicer to have the three syllables match across two single words (gau-de-amus, iu-ve-nes), rather than forcing it across multiple words (gau-de-amus, dum-iu-ve). And, of course, as you say, Latin simply didn't care about order the way we speaking English might, as far as we know." CreationDate="2023-06-04T13:07:19.997" UserId="13565" />
  <row Id="43398" PostId="20993" Score="2" Text="Is that 40 000 the number of attested words in the extant literature or an estimate of the number of words spoken Latin is thought to have contained? Our picture of Latin is not as complete as that of many modern languages, so I'm not sure the comparison works." CreationDate="2023-06-03T01:14:27.833" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43399" PostId="20993" Score="1" Text="Actually, the Oxford Latin dictionary says that Latin has approximately 40.000 entries for distinct words." CreationDate="2023-06-03T01:28:40.423" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43403" PostId="20993" Score="1" Text="There are actually a ton of studies on this for other languages. It's a combination of rarity and complexity. I'll try to dig up some studies later, but this is not as straightforward as it would seem, nor is it limited to Latin." CreationDate="2023-06-03T17:37:03.373" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43404" PostId="20993" Score="0" Text="For a Latin-specific answer I'd look into Asianism vs. Atticism and the use of Greek loans, but that requires reviewing more Cicero than I want to." CreationDate="2023-06-03T17:42:48.617" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43402" PostId="20994" Score="0" Text="Thank you, I think it makes most sense to leave it as occisio pro [symbol]." CreationDate="2023-06-03T16:46:45.143" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="43405" PostId="20997" Score="1" Text="How would _ssm_ be perceived as having anything to do with ἵππος? Your explanation is that velar fricatives get palatalized in the history of Egyptian, and then you cite two words which don't contain any velar fricatives or palatalized sounds." CreationDate="2023-06-03T19:04:04.110" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43407" PostId="20997" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: My intention wasn't to summarize Peust, but see p. 82 following Schenkel *d* developed into *ʕ* and p. 116 cp. *desert* vs. *sahara* where *s* compares to *h* from a pharyngeal fricative. Yes, I know some of these words." CreationDate="2023-06-03T19:31:22.707" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="43408" PostId="20997" Score="1" Text="&quot;χ stands for ḫ in Ptolemaic Greek.&quot; That's certainly not true. There's even some evidence that the spirantisation of the aspirated stops happened especially *late* in Egypt; there's a Demotic text from the 2nd century CE that uses φ/θ/χ to represent sequences of stops + h, and that's also what the Coptic alphabet's ⲫ/ⲑ/ⲭ represent." CreationDate="2023-06-03T19:37:04.457" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43410" PostId="20997" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I thought that's the least controversial part, cf. Egyptian Language in Greek sources, ed. Clarysse, Blasco Torres, specifically pg. 45, 163, 175, e.g. Χεντσανισ ~ *ḫmt-sn*. Maybe I am simply mistaken about &quot;Ptolemaic&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-03T20:36:50.680" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="43411" PostId="20997" Score="1" Text="Oh, you mean that Egyptian *ḫ* becomes χ when borrowed into Greek and not that Greek χ sounds like *ḫ* (i.e. is already /χ/ or /x/ or whatever at this stage); I don't disagree in that case. This is what I mean when I say you garner downvotes at least as much for the confusing way in which you choose to express yourself as for what you actually mean to say, though." CreationDate="2023-06-03T20:58:48.473" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43413" PostId="20997" Score="0" Text="I think it's weird they are quoting ḫ in angle brackets as a kind of anachronism, left as exercise to the reader anyway." CreationDate="2023-06-03T21:38:04.260" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="43427" PostId="21000" Score="0" Text="Hey Paul, the linked question should also provide an answer to this one. Also, read the comments too for the fuller discussion. If you still feel you have lingering questions, feel free to edit your question and mention what still doesn't make sense." CreationDate="2023-06-05T00:52:09.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43428" PostId="21000" Score="0" Text="Shorter cmw: Subordinate clauses in Latin generally prefer to use the infinitive (_to see_) rather than the active participle / gerund (_seeing_). You could do it several ways but the most idiomatic would be &quot;to see you once more was such a pleasure&quot; if you truly mean taking the person in by the eyes was what you most enjoyed. If you're actually talking about the conversation, the meeting, or the time spent with the person, _you'd actually say that_: &quot;time spent with you is always a pleasure&quot; &amp;c." CreationDate="2023-06-05T01:30:16.273" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43432" PostId="21000" Score="0" Text="Note that (a) &quot;I enjoyed&quot; would be *fructus sum*, and (b) *frui* does not take either an AcI or a *quod* clause, and generally asthma seems unsuited for your purpose." CreationDate="2023-06-05T07:33:56.013" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43429" PostId="21001" Score="3" Text="I'm not certain enough to make this an answer, but I suspect it's ℨ, a symbol for drams (fractions of an ounce)." CreationDate="2023-06-05T02:28:28.183" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43430" PostId="21001" Score="0" Text="If the density makes any difference, the British Museum says the remaining copies are copper alloy and 5-10 cm tall. A 4 inch tall (10 cm) copper statue shouldn't only weigh 4/16 oz. (7 grams), should it?" CreationDate="2023-06-05T03:16:06.667" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43519" PostId="21005" Score="2" Text="Since &quot;ethical hacker&quot; is specifically a subversion of the malicious kind of hacker and not &quot;hacker&quot; in the neutral sense of programmer, I actually think *effractarius electronicus* is perfectly cromulent as a base for that." CreationDate="2023-06-10T22:23:18.913" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43525" PostId="21005" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon but &quot;unethical hacker&quot; isn't actually the complete definition of default &quot;hacker&quot; either. That's why Victor BC was right to consider it a hyponym instead of a proper complete translation of the idea. Standard hacking is an entirely amoral idea of passion and capability. Even w/r/t unauthorized entry into systems, it's mostly about the _ability_ to do so and not necessary bad intentions. The Romans were pretty heavy on authority, though, so that would be an argument for treating it all as illicit/ill-intentioned." CreationDate="2023-06-11T12:41:35.973" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43554" PostId="21005" Score="1" Text="I like the *irruptor* suggestion. The noun for the action would be *irruptio*." CreationDate="2023-06-13T14:24:39.153" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43434" PostId="21006" Score="3" Text="You have the relationship between the tenses wrong: pluperfect precedes perfect/imperfect temporally. As for Cain, it's indeclinable like many foreign names in Latin." CreationDate="2023-06-05T12:26:32.170" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43435" PostId="21006" Score="1" Text="@TKR Do you want to write that as an answer? It's short, but I think it is a full answer." CreationDate="2023-06-05T12:33:01.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43443" PostId="21007" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Originally, I was going to ask about the relationship between the &quot;ut&quot;-clause and relative pronoun, &quot;qui&quot;. The latter selecting the subjunctive in indirect speech; without any ACI it might have been informal indirect speech, interpreted as an indirect command. Therefore, in an &quot;ut&quot;-clause, &quot;qui&quot; has no grammatical influence, only its translation, &quot;he&quot;/ &quot;he who&quot;--is that correct?" CreationDate="2023-06-06T08:00:09.193" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43445" PostId="21007" Score="0" Text="Do you think &quot;interficeret&quot; is imperfect rather than present because it's anchored to &quot;posuit&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-06T14:31:22.243" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="43468" PostId="21007" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey: Verb, &quot;interficeret&quot; is imperfect, though it was translated as a present, &quot;..kill him,&quot;. Having found Cain, the killing will take place in the future--just to add to the confusion--it would still be given as imperfect. In indirect speech, the future can be represented by the pluperfect subjunctive e.g. &quot;nisi statuas restituissent, vehementer minatur,&quot; =  &quot;he threatens them vigorously, unless the statues are restored,&quot; (Cic, ad Verrem 2.2.162). Cicero uses an historic present, &quot;minatur&quot;, which could be construed as the future, though it's all in the past. Confused? Please advise." CreationDate="2023-06-07T08:54:10.690" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43444" PostId="21009" Score="1" Text="+1. Of interest might be the derivation noted in the link, which connects *exterminare* to *terminus* in the meaning of &quot;boundaries&quot;: &quot;terminus; qs. to drive beyond the boundaries&quot;. Also, the synonyms noted there: *expello, eicio, proicio*, all of them certainly leaning more towards &quot;throwing someone out&quot; than &quot;killing&quot;. However, note III refers to the Vulgate, which presumably was more present to 13th century clerics than Cicero, where the meaning is apparently much closer to &quot;destroy&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-06T08:45:03.090" UserId="3330" />
  <row Id="43446" PostId="21009" Score="0" Text="I'm a little unsatisfied with this answer: it seems to boil down to, &quot;I'm not sure of the original intended meaning, but maybe it means both&quot;--but shouldn't it in theory be possible to track down how *exterminare* is used at the time? That is, after all, exactly what the OP is asking. @StephanKolassa mentions that the etymology clearly means &quot;expel,&quot; and the L&amp;S entry also says that meaning is &quot;ecclesiastical.&quot; I even tracked down a few letters from the same time that explicitly say, &quot;exterminare *a terra*.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-06T15:28:37.263" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="43459" PostId="21009" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I don't find it satisfactory either. Hopefully someone else can post a more illuminating answer!" CreationDate="2023-06-07T00:27:33.380" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="43462" PostId="21011" Score="2" Text="There is a famous inscription in St Paul's Cathedral in London which says, *Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice*. It is a play on the double meaning of *monumentum*. The tomb is Christopher Wren's, who lies below the inscription. The monument too is Wren's, which is all around you; it is the cathedral which he designed." CreationDate="2023-06-07T04:08:53.493" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43440" PostId="21013" Score="1" Text="Is your question specifically about the two *non*s? I would recommend replacing the first one with a _nonne_ at which point you don't have a double negative at all, but if your question is about the double negative rather than this specific sentence, that won't be very helpful to you." CreationDate="2023-06-06T01:38:48.473" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43441" PostId="21013" Score="0" Text="It's about the two &quot;nons&quot;. So, I just replace the &quot;nonne&quot;, right?" CreationDate="2023-06-06T01:47:27.953" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43488" PostId="21016" Score="0" Text="How about  the verb &quot;coaduno&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-09T01:11:43.027" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43494" PostId="21016" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças Well, for one thing, &quot;coaduno&quot; is Late Latin. Is there really no way of saying &quot;Come and join us!&quot; in the Classical Latin? Google Translate says it is &quot;Coniunge nobis!&quot;, and that seems plausible to me. What do you think, is that correct?" CreationDate="2023-06-09T13:53:16.420" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43498" PostId="21016" Score="0" Text="Do you know/have the English-latin dictionary by William Smith and Theophilus? It's the only English-latin dictionary I know." CreationDate="2023-06-09T22:02:14.457" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43499" PostId="21016" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças Never heard of it." CreationDate="2023-06-09T22:13:51.790" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43500" PostId="21016" Score="1" Text="https://books.google.com.br/books?id=AWDuuiDEXOQC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=english-latin+dictionary+by+william+Smith+and+Theophilus&amp;hl=pt-BR&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;source=gb_mobile_search&amp;ovdme=1&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=english-latin%20dictionary%20by%20william%20Smith%20and%20Theophilus&amp;f=false   I hope it helps you. It has helped me for years" CreationDate="2023-06-09T22:41:46.420" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43522" PostId="21016" Score="0" Text="There are tons of different ways to translate it. Most Latin equivalents of English _join_ are going to lean very hard on literal _binding_ and _yoking_, which I assume is not actually the feeling you're going for. Is there an image you're trying to capture with more detail than just _were added to_ (_addere_)?" CreationDate="2023-06-11T11:11:29.440" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43453" PostId="21021" Score="2" Text="Wouldn't they just be the plural and singular form?" CreationDate="2023-06-06T23:40:47.977" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43454" PostId="21021" Score="0" Text="if so, why does the book list pauci as the first form of the word?" CreationDate="2023-06-06T23:49:55.133" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43457" PostId="21021" Score="2" Text="Are you talking about the order? They're male,female and neuter adjectives." CreationDate="2023-06-07T00:03:27.960" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43458" PostId="21021" Score="1" Text="Related: [Can the adjective &quot;paucus&quot; carry this meaning?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7320)" CreationDate="2023-06-07T00:22:13.337" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="43461" PostId="21023" Score="0" Text="Is derivative the adj of derivation in English for the usage here? Can I use derivational to modify relationship?" CreationDate="2023-06-07T03:15:39.940" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43463" PostId="21027" Score="0" Text="Thanks. Which Latin word has all the words listed in the post as derivatives? How are par and pars related within Latin?" CreationDate="2023-06-07T05:07:15.463" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43464" PostId="21027" Score="1" Text="@Tim No Latin word has all of those as derivatives. Their common ancestor lies prior to Latin." CreationDate="2023-06-07T05:12:35.887" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43465" PostId="21028" Score="0" Text="My answer [to this older question on derivatives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16018/79) gives examples of all the nine options of derivations {noun, verb, adjective} -&gt; {noun, verb, adjective}." CreationDate="2023-06-07T07:29:51.257" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43466" PostId="21028" Score="0" Text="most likely, which is more fundamental and therefore more important in terms of derivative relationship. @JoonasIlmavirta and Sebastian" CreationDate="2023-06-07T07:44:58.240" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="43467" PostId="21028" Score="1" Text="@Tim I wouldn't fully agree. It seems to depend on the language which one of a pair of related concepts is the basic one and which is derived. For example, we have *pulcher &gt; pulchritudo* and *beautiful &lt; beauty*. It's in broad strokes true that derivation goes from more to less fundamental, but the selection of words one can start with varies between languages." CreationDate="2023-06-07T08:42:09.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43473" PostId="21030" Score="0" Text="This is very helpful! I was waiting for someone to give a positive use of the term. I think *investigator securitatis computatralis* sounds good. But what would you call the art of &quot;hacking&quot; itself?" CreationDate="2023-06-08T02:22:14.280" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43472" PostId="21031" Score="0" Text="Those make s lot of sense, especially *praedo*, but would you have any suggestions for s positive use of the term Hacker?" CreationDate="2023-06-08T02:20:04.320" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43475" PostId="21031" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC I'm still thinking about that. I don't have the time at the moment, but I'm not sure off the tip of my head either, so I need some time to come up with something for that, too. I think it would be something completely different." CreationDate="2023-06-08T04:41:42.953" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43486" PostId="21031" Score="0" Text="I'll await your suggestion when you can then, thank you! From then we can think up an expression also for &quot;hacking&quot; itself." CreationDate="2023-06-09T00:37:44.870" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43532" PostId="21031" Score="0" Text="Just saw your edit. I think your answer is currently the more complete one. I think that for malicious hacking, *praedatio electronica* sounds very good! Would you care to try a swing at the concept of ethical hacking? FlatAssembler suggested *investigator securitatis computatrorum* for an ethical hacker but he failed to provide a term for ethical hacking itself as a discipline. Also I would prefer it to stay in the two words range, as your answer did, which I find very good." CreationDate="2023-06-12T01:10:31.597" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43535" PostId="21031" Score="1" Text="@VictorBC If you like *investigator*, the corresponding noun is *investigatio*. However, it doesn't sound much like hacking to me. That said, I think at some point we're going to run up against anachronism no matter how rooted the word is. Ultimately to get a better term you would need to define the word better, including what the basic mechanism you want translated. There is not always a simple one-to-one correspondence." CreationDate="2023-06-12T04:24:13.877" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43544" PostId="21031" Score="0" Text="True. I'm going to write a definition in the OP to make this easier. So far your answer is the most complete and useful. If you can find a good answer for ethical hacker and ethical hacking in general by the end of the bounty, I'd be grateful! Either way, your answer is the best so far!" CreationDate="2023-06-12T15:14:43.597" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43474" PostId="21032" Score="5" Text="So your question is: in Christian Latin, is the term _adorō_ ever used for anything other than &quot;worship&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-08T04:38:30.217" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43477" PostId="21035" Score="5" Text="I see. So it's like saying &quot;Scissors are a tool (singular)&quot; or &quot;Trousers are a garment (singular)&quot; in English." CreationDate="2023-06-08T13:16:53.457" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="43478" PostId="21035" Score="3" Text="@NicolasMiari Yep!" CreationDate="2023-06-08T15:38:05.127" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43489" PostId="21035" Score="1" Text="You should mention like _glasses (for the optic instrument)_. Otherwise, it is quite confusing as one could very well have a single glass of water." CreationDate="2023-06-09T01:21:29.027" UserId="13592" />
  <row Id="43622" PostId="21035" Score="0" Text="Oddly enough, Spanish uses _cuna_ (in the singular) to refer to a single crib; I guess that's what threw me off." CreationDate="2023-06-16T04:58:11.687" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="43479" PostId="21039" Score="1" Text="If it's a plurale tantum presumably a single one would be *ūnī mānēs*, with the plurale tantum numeral." CreationDate="2023-06-08T19:27:23.823" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43481" PostId="21039" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon I really can't tell whether it's a *plurale tantum* word or whether I should think that the *manes* always come in groups. The interpretation on that has an effect on what the singular is, and I'd be happy to see an argument either way. My reading, admittedly based on only a gut feeling, is that it's not a *plurale tantum* word. I find it plausible that a Roman would say that Anchises had several spirits where a modern person might say that he has only one." CreationDate="2023-06-08T19:44:26.593" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43509" PostId="21039" Score="4" Text="For analogy, in English we talk can call a corpse the *remains* of a person, which acts syntactically as plural (e.g. “…his remains *were* moved to a new grave…”, not “…was…”)" CreationDate="2023-06-10T13:16:38.920" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="43484" PostId="21040" Score="0" Text="A quick pointer: [Google Translate is horribly unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and the two translations you mention are along the usual lines of gibberish." CreationDate="2023-06-08T20:48:45.630" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43490" PostId="21040" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta okay thanks, that’s what I thought too. Can you help me do the proper translation?" CreationDate="2023-06-09T08:08:32.447" UserId="13577" />
  <row Id="43517" PostId="21043" Score="2" Text="Hmm, apparently two hypotheses have been proposed, short u (e.g. Pedro Manuel Suárez-Martínez) and long u (e.g. Levente László), e.g. https://akjournals.com/view/journals/068/42/1-4/article-p133.xml I haven't read any of those though, so no opinion yet" CreationDate="2023-06-10T21:44:04.487" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="43492" PostId="21045" Score="5" Text="I can almost guarantee it doesn't say that." CreationDate="2023-06-09T11:28:35.523" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43493" PostId="21045" Score="2" Text="Yeah, you're misreading something." CreationDate="2023-06-09T12:14:12.083" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43495" PostId="21045" Score="5" Text="On the page in question (322 in my edition), *rego* is in bold (unlike all the other clearly English words), and the *o* has a macron; both of which would seem to indicate that *rego* is in this case the Latin verb meaning 'to keep straight/guide/direct' and not the English word that means 'registration'. OLD does suggest that the Latin verbs *rogo* and *rego* are cognates, though others here can speak to that point better than I." CreationDate="2023-06-09T15:36:38.950" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="43505" PostId="21048" Score="0" Text="I think the question &quot;How do you say 'favourite' in Latin?&quot; has been answered at least twice on Latin StackExchange." CreationDate="2023-06-10T11:07:30.493" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43605" PostId="21048" Score="0" Text="It was answered [once](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15000/how-do-you-say-favorite-in-latin) and then just [shut down the second time](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/20801/favorite-in-latin). Now'll be the third." CreationDate="2023-06-15T20:50:45.313" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43606" PostId="21048" Score="0" Text="In any case, yes, _[ventus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ventus#Latin) Dei_ would tend to be read as _God's wind_, not anything to do with most beloved." CreationDate="2023-06-15T21:11:55.327" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43611" PostId="21048" Score="0" Text="Found it. [See here for the discussion of why _ventus_ is so wrong but shows up for such an important word on Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16768/how-good-is-the-new-version-of-google-translate/16769#16769)." CreationDate="2023-06-15T22:25:23.083" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43529" PostId="21050" Score="0" Text="Thank you, this was very helpful." CreationDate="2023-06-11T21:07:19.153" UserId="13579" />
  <row Id="43511" PostId="21051" Score="0" Text="*Pecū* is also somewhat common." CreationDate="2023-06-10T13:37:50.867" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43518" PostId="21053" Score="2" Text="&quot;Noli nimis accedere!&quot; Sounds good." CreationDate="2023-06-10T22:01:25.953" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43553" PostId="21053" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças What is the difference between &quot;accedere&quot; and &quot;approximare&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-13T12:23:29.633" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43557" PostId="21053" Score="1" Text="I know &quot;approximare&quot; as &quot;to be near&quot; &quot;approach&quot; and &quot;accedere&quot; as &quot;to come near to&quot; You were asking about &quot;to get close&quot; I just find &quot;accedere&quot; better in the context." CreationDate="2023-06-13T21:27:37.877" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43520" PostId="21055" Score="5" Text="My immediate reaction is that ne+subjunctive or noli+infinitive would be used to form a negative command (prohibition), and then umquam would be used; but I haven't confirmed this." CreationDate="2023-06-10T23:40:17.237" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="43521" PostId="21055" Score="3" Text="My intuition, similarly, is that you could use numquam with a subjunctive or noli + umquam, but not numquam with an imperative; I'll need to find some actual confirmation before making this an answer, though." CreationDate="2023-06-10T23:42:34.640" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43526" PostId="21057" Score="0" Text="For the curious, Vicipaedia's current crutch for this is to [just redirect discussion](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROM_hacking) to their [their Hacker News article](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News), which includes a gloss. In other words, currently on the main modern platform for living Latin, the preferred term is _hacker_ with an asterisk. xD" CreationDate="2023-06-11T12:50:14.453" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43531" PostId="21057" Score="1" Text="This is a very good and well thought out answer, thank you! My main worry with words like Pirataria is that it is also used to talk about pirated online content like movies for example. If I were trying to speak of the discipline of hacking (be it maliciously exercised or not), pirataria might obscure more than elucidate." CreationDate="2023-06-12T01:07:06.800" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43537" PostId="21057" Score="0" Text="I appreciate that. It shouldn't be _pirataria_ (I just made that up I thought) but there's definitely that association... Pretty accurate for _hacker_ though too and the _trying but dealing with bad associations in general culture_ seems dead on to me. If you're really only going for 'skillful' there's some of the other avenues of attack though." CreationDate="2023-06-12T08:23:46.327" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43545" PostId="21057" Score="0" Text="I edited the OP to include a definition of the word Hacking. I hope this helps. I should have done so from the start!" CreationDate="2023-06-12T15:19:20.970" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43552" PostId="21057" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC Sure, I still like _pirata_ and _facinator_ for the reasons above; the actual current terms are _hacker_ (with gloss) or _effractarius electronicus_; and your _invasor_ (_invasatrix_?) _computatralis_ should be fine for what you need if you have an issue with those but want to limit the sense to digital intruders. Hacking would then be _invasio electronica_." CreationDate="2023-06-13T05:17:51.267" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43530" PostId="21058" Score="0" Text="Very helpful. Thank you for the suggestions for further research." CreationDate="2023-06-11T21:08:10.063" UserId="13579" />
  <row Id="43638" PostId="21060" Score="1" Text="In French we *do* say &quot;googler&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-17T11:40:56.680" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="43528" PostId="21062" Score="1" Text="Wow. [Zoom in very closely at the end of the first paragraph on the left page that started this off](https://archive.org/details/b30538014_0001/page/134/mode/2up?view=theater) and, yup, it's a mix of printer and OCR errors there too. Thanks so much!" CreationDate="2023-06-11T14:33:21.067" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43533" PostId="21063" Score="1" Text="Why would you think a random Modern Greek speaker would have a better handle on what an Ancient Greek word used by a Latin speaker means than a Latin dictionary?" CreationDate="2023-06-12T01:42:38.630" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43551" PostId="21063" Score="0" Text="She's a greek teacher." CreationDate="2023-06-12T23:36:50.117" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43559" PostId="21063" Score="1" Text="He means more: if she teaches modern Greek, that doesn't necessarily make her an expert on ancient Greek. The words change." CreationDate="2023-06-14T03:42:34.930" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43684" PostId="21063" Score="0" Text="Ancient Greek philology is, of course, part of any paedagogical study at Greek universities, because the Katarevusa is based on it and still in use in many branches, prominently the law. But its not presented as a scientific course and most students hate it. Similar to math for engineering, business and biology." CreationDate="2023-06-19T07:12:23.280" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="43534" PostId="21064" Score="1" Text="I don't know anything about Greek. The dictionary didn't help by saying &quot;fictive&quot;. I thought it was like a fairy tale place, Narnia. I'd never imagine it was about topography. " CreationDate="2023-06-12T01:44:43.590" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43911" PostId="21064" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças Does this answer your question, or are you looking for something further?" CreationDate="2023-06-30T23:51:24.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43540" PostId="21065" Score="3" Text="It's not *virtis* but *virtus*." CreationDate="2023-06-12T11:56:47.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43539" PostId="21066" Score="2" Text="As far as I know, usual words for &quot;husband&quot; and &quot;wife&quot; are &quot;maritus&quot; and &quot;uxor&quot;, respectively." CreationDate="2023-06-12T11:46:06.433" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43550" PostId="21066" Score="0" Text="Well, there's *virgo*, though it definitely doesn't mean &quot;wife&quot; ..." CreationDate="2023-06-12T22:36:03.423" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43546" PostId="21068" Score="0" Text="I REALLY like this suggestion, it is very neutral regarding the intentions of the user! How would you call the art of hacking, then?" CreationDate="2023-06-12T18:18:05.133" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43547" PostId="21068" Score="0" Text="Maybe *Ars Perfodiendi Computatrorum*" CreationDate="2023-06-12T19:01:17.307" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43558" PostId="21068" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC to be grammatical, it needs to be either perfodiendorum computatrorum or perfodiendi computatra." CreationDate="2023-06-13T21:36:06.650" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="43556" PostId="21072" Score="0" Text="Thanks a ton for helping out and for the translation. That quote should suffice to document it as a longstanding tradition:)" CreationDate="2023-06-13T19:50:17.293" UserId="13612" />
  <row Id="43600" PostId="21073" Score="0" Text="I do kinda want a Latin edition of _Neuromancer_ now. Maybe once generative AI has improved a bit..." CreationDate="2023-06-15T20:28:12.247" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43586" PostId="21075" Score="0" Text="What if &quot;suus&quot; was omitted? Is there a case for dative, &quot;cui&quot;, instead of accusative, &quot;quem&quot;: &quot;for the ignorant, for he who seeks a port, there is no wind (of his own)&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-15T08:05:16.830" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43590" PostId="21075" Score="0" Text="@tony That would change the meaning somewhat, wouldn't it? It would no longer specify what they're ignorant _of_, just saying they're ignorant in general." CreationDate="2023-06-15T15:58:33.823" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43663" PostId="21075" Score="0" Text="Yes, quite; in the Seneca there is an indirect question - 'ignorant of which port he is headed to'. If he were simply talking about the ignorant in general, the mention of ports would be somewhat strange." CreationDate="2023-06-18T16:44:45.580" UserId="13543" />
  <row Id="43599" PostId="21077" Score="1" Text="Like Mr Koppehel said at Philosophy, then, the original comment seemed to misunderstand Cicero. He's not saying breath or punctuation shouldn't be used at all. He's just saying that the ideas should be well formed to begin with and that's where the speaker/writer's focus should lie." CreationDate="2023-06-15T20:20:51.213" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43566" PostId="21079" Score="3" Text="If I heard _Smith Doe pulsat_ I would assume the first is the subject and the second is the object, which is the default word order in Latin even if other options are possible." CreationDate="2023-06-14T21:31:17.297" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43567" PostId="21079" Score="1" Text="That is the more likely word order, yes, so I would also probably go that route if I ever saw that in the wild, but it seems like horrible Latin, because it forces the reader to assume a rigid order that is far from universal as &quot;the&quot; order for undeclinables. Any nuance of emphasis that you might wish to convey then is not accessible in these situations." CreationDate="2023-06-14T21:33:11.550" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43568" PostId="21079" Score="0" Text="Very true. Indeclinables are unfortunate like that. In Greek you can use articles to disambiguate but in Latin you can't." CreationDate="2023-06-14T21:40:53.110" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43569" PostId="21079" Score="0" Text="Given their proliferation in modern topics (because of the standard of Indeclinable surnames), I was wondering if there are any modern standards of style and strategies used and agreed upon to deal with this situation." CreationDate="2023-06-14T21:44:46.767" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43623" PostId="21079" Score="0" Text="Related: [Nominative-accusative ambiguity](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4364). Also, note that Russian speakers seem to get by with the increased number of indeclinable nouns that have apparently come to be in the language, and German has fairly free word order compared to English even though it only has distinct nominative and accusative forms for masculine words." CreationDate="2023-06-16T05:57:16.573" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="43635" PostId="21079" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides German tends to use definite articles with personal names, though, and those decline quite clearly (“Der Michael schlägt dem Simon” – though I don’t think it would be done if using family names only). If you go further north, to Scandinavian languages, they all have no cases at all, and while their word order is quite rigid, they make heavy use of topic fronting, through which SVO can become OSV (like in German, but without case markers). In Swedish, _mamma slog pappa_ can mean both ‘mum hit dad’ and ‘dad hit mum’. Doesn’t usually cause any trouble there either." CreationDate="2023-06-17T01:29:53.120" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43570" PostId="21080" Score="1" Text="I used a very simple example just to showcase the idea of ambiguity caused by not having declensions. I didn't mean it as a puzzle that in itself had to be found a solution. My question was specifically regarding standards, as in, what is the agreed upon or prescribed way of dealing with ambiguities when indeclinables are very common in a text. I am aware that in the Bible they deal with it mostly with a rigid word order and context, but I wanted to know if that was still the current strategy or if others were devised and currently employed. If not, then I'll mark your answer as the right one." CreationDate="2023-06-14T21:57:05.060" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43571" PostId="21080" Score="2" Text="I'm sure you can find *someone* doing *something*, but word order tends to be default. Feel free to wait days, weeks, or months for others to chime in before marking it solved, though, to encourage other ideas." CreationDate="2023-06-14T22:01:33.720" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43572" PostId="21080" Score="0" Text="Yeah, I know there were some people who were, shall we say, creative, like for example the weird custom of using Greek articles to fix the ambiguity (in the Latin text!). Those sort of monstrosities don't interest me though, of course. I was more hoping that some prose composition manual might be showed to give clear instructions on how this *ought* to he delt with. But that might not exist :/ either way, I'll leave this up for a week or so just in case." CreationDate="2023-06-14T22:05:29.020" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43573" PostId="21081" Score="3" Text="Does that also explain partially why prepositions exploded in later periods of Latin? The Vulgate being full of undeclinable names kinda forcing the use of prepositions where otherwise mere declensions would have done the job?" CreationDate="2023-06-14T22:44:42.003" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43574" PostId="21081" Score="4" Text="@VictorBC Very much so! Sound changes eroded the case distinctions away, and word order can take care of nom vs acc, but not so much for the others. So _de_ and _ad_ started taking over genitive and dative." CreationDate="2023-06-14T23:15:13.573" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43791" PostId="21081" Score="0" Text="I marked yours as correct because your response was more detailed" CreationDate="2023-06-23T00:29:28.127" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43575" PostId="21082" Score="1" Text="Isidore's source in this case is likely Festus, who is fractionally more credible, but all the same *vira* looks to be [a grammarian concoction](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23viras%23)." CreationDate="2023-06-15T01:32:23.817" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43576" PostId="21082" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: thank you for the pointer! I was just working my way though the reference in De Vaan but didn't think to simply do a PHI search, haha." CreationDate="2023-06-15T01:33:49.413" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="43615" PostId="21084" Score="0" Text="From [this source](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1714.0065) it looks like that Iscanus might be specifically talking about Exeter College at Oxford and _G. F._ means something regarding Musgrave's fellowship there. [This post uses the Royal Society _sodalis_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14470/what-to-call-an-academy-research-fellow) but only as a guess. Any ideas?" CreationDate="2023-06-16T00:34:26.717" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43582" PostId="21085" Score="0" Text="I'll go ahead and check this for hitting all the most important points. Any idea why delicium is plural here? or what the G. F. is doing?" CreationDate="2023-06-15T07:39:43.807" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43583" PostId="21085" Score="1" Text="@lly unfortunately not. Musgrave's father was called Richard, so the most obvious idea falls flat." CreationDate="2023-06-15T07:40:57.393" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43584" PostId="21085" Score="3" Text="@lly the word is *deliciae, -arum*, f, a plurale tantum." CreationDate="2023-06-15T07:42:08.450" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43585" PostId="21085" Score="2" Text="(Actually, if you look it up, it's not so *tantum* after all, and *delicium, -ii*, n also exists, but it's a good, classical habit to use *deliciae*.)" CreationDate="2023-06-15T07:49:17.303" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43727" PostId="21086" Score="0" Text="This is a really good question! Thank you for your excellent posts on Latin StackExchange." CreationDate="2023-06-21T02:08:13.403" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="43601" PostId="21087" Score="0" Text="It's a minor nitpick but śunya should be śūnya (vowel length is phonemic in Sanskrit and traditionally always marked). Śunya is listed in Monier-Williams' dictionary as a variant but quotable only from Sanskrit dictionaries and word lists" CreationDate="2023-06-15T20:28:38.547" UserId="803" />
  <row Id="43610" PostId="21087" Score="0" Text="@Au101. Thanks. Typo corrected." CreationDate="2023-06-15T21:50:57.467" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="43616" PostId="21087" Score="3" Text="*Zephirum*, of course, eventually entered English as *cypher*." CreationDate="2023-06-16T01:09:16.153" UserId="1174" />
  <row Id="43587" PostId="21088" Score="3" Text="Please do not include text in the form of a picture, especially an illegible picture. Write the text as text yourself. If you use OCR, check that the spellings are as in the original. There are Latin grammars online (e.g. [A&amp;G](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/alphabet)) and you can add tables to your questions. I voted down on this question for a serious lack in formatting effort." CreationDate="2023-06-15T13:53:23.383" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43592" PostId="21088" Score="3" Text="Why are 21-29 expressed as &quot;twenty-something&quot; in English while 13-19 are &quot;something-teen&quot;? There's the seed of a good question here, but it could do with some revision." CreationDate="2023-06-15T17:01:34.790" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43602" PostId="21088" Score="1" Text="The question is perfectly valid, the page isn't the best but that's not an 'insult' from the OP, and I have no idea why people are downvoting it and being so unwelcoming. There are historical reasons for German counting treating 11 and 12 oddly that _do_ inform how the language developed; there may be sth similar here; and the three commentators above are able to edit the original question more to their liking if they really feel the project as a whole needs it to be 'better'." CreationDate="2023-06-15T20:32:18.783" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43607" PostId="21088" Score="1" Text="@lly There's a bit of a history that you've missed. This is an ongoing problem with zero response or reflection from OP. I didn't vote down, but just asking &quot;why&quot; without at least pausing to reflect why you're asking why does not make for a good question in my opinion, and I bet that + the image of text (about which other users have complained before) most likely leads to a negative response." CreationDate="2023-06-15T21:32:04.340" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43609" PostId="21088" Score="4" Text="@lly Editing the question to be more what I would consider nice would be a lot of work; formatting a table and typing up its contents takes quite a while. Putting effort into formatting the question to be easily legible is required of all questions. As cmw mentions, this OP has a history of ignoring feedback, so I worded my recommendation or instruction more sternly and clearly than I normally would. The question would benefit greatly (in terms of attracting answers and votes) from better formatting and maybe some more justification. Making such updates would help Tim get what he wants." CreationDate="2023-06-15T21:50:22.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43604" PostId="21089" Score="1" Text="It's a good question and glad you're here but __downvote for citing anything made by ChatGPT without having bothered to confirm that it even exists__. No, you can't trust it and, no, you shouldn't spread its nonsense as if it could be trusted without any checking. If any of this comes up again, take the citation and check it against the texts at (eg) the Perseus project." CreationDate="2023-06-15T20:48:03.813" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43698" PostId="21090" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/146775/discussion-between-cmw-and-lly)." CreationDate="2023-06-19T16:01:02.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43706" PostId="21090" Score="0" Text="There are options A, B, C, D. There is also option E... if you want for something to happen. That thing... you might want to happen... is _zero_ showing up as the _Latin_ dative and ablative." CreationDate="2023-06-19T16:32:26.857" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43709" PostId="21090" Score="2" Text="@cmw To me &quot;the form _zerō_ shows up in the paradigm of _zerum_&quot; vel sim is entirely fine. (Similarly, as your example, &quot;this form shows up in Vergil&quot; or &quot;this form shows up in Late Latin&quot;.)" CreationDate="2023-06-19T16:51:29.147" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43710" PostId="21090" Score="0" Text="@Draconis If only that was said, there'd be no confusion!" CreationDate="2023-06-19T16:52:10.263" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43711" PostId="21090" Score="2" Text="@Draconis: I didn't quite understand the sentence as it was phrased at first, so I had the same question as CMW. I now understand it, and so I have edited it for clarity, pace Ily." CreationDate="2023-06-19T17:41:43.113" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43732" PostId="21090" Score="0" Text="Latin Wikipedia uses the masculine &quot;zerus&quot;, attested in some technical contexts" CreationDate="2023-06-21T08:24:32.003" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="43738" PostId="21090" Score="0" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian Fwiw, [it's not on the English](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zerus) or [Latin Wiktionary](https://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/zerus). [The Vicapaedia entry on _zero_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/0) does use it as the _main_ form of the name with two 18th century cites but that seems more like amplifying a mistake than anything else. (Then again... sure... The word was originally borrowed from Arabic anyway. Why _not_ reborrow it from English too?)" CreationDate="2023-06-21T11:53:28.440" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43739" PostId="21090" Score="1" Text="Seems like it was originally _cifra_ but [this editor changed it with a cite](https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=0&amp;direction=next&amp;oldid=2828001) and then no one ever changed it back. It has been left alone for 8 years now. Maybe this discussion will inspire someone to go fix it. xD Good catch." CreationDate="2023-06-21T11:57:04.743" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43594" PostId="21093" Score="3" Text="My go-to example for this is Regiomontanus for Königsberg, which was coined by Philippus Melanchthon, aka Philipp Schwartzerdt." CreationDate="2023-06-15T17:41:51.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43595" PostId="21093" Score="1" Text="I know, and I find that the best way of doing things, frankly. I am extremely perplexed by the modern tendency of leaving indeclinable surnames. It reeks of decadence, taking on the custom of a period in which Latinity was losing space for the vernacular. There are few arguments to be made in favor of it, none of them convincing. It attacks the virility of the language and I hope one day this unfortunate tendency is completely reversed. But given that it is so, the question was not related to changing the paradigm, but what authoritative sources say are good strategies to navigate the paradigm" CreationDate="2023-06-15T17:46:21.873" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43597" PostId="21094" Score="1" Text="That's an elegant solution in case you want to change the usual order of the phrase for the purpose of emphasis!" CreationDate="2023-06-15T19:11:51.107" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43608" PostId="21095" Score="3" Text="Better with a cite if you can add one but cool that you remember the Etruscan off the top of your head and that there's a history there. =)" CreationDate="2023-06-15T21:33:58.677" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43613" PostId="21095" Score="1" Text="Yeah that's very interesting. Could this also be related to why the Romans write IV and IX etc.? I agree with Ily that naming a source would make this answer even better." CreationDate="2023-06-15T22:56:14.437" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43625" PostId="21095" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus No, the Etruscan word for 4 for &quot;huth&quot; (not &quot;thun-em-mach&quot;), and the Etruscan word for 9 is &quot;nurph&quot; (not &quot;thun-em-śar&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-06-16T09:57:00.373" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43628" PostId="21095" Score="3" Text="I'll second @lly's request. I'm no expert in Etruscan, so if you have sources, that would be very much appreciated." CreationDate="2023-06-16T14:43:18.443" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43631" PostId="21098" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I think my translations will be more &quot;vulgar&quot; now." CreationDate="2023-06-16T23:20:36.687" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43632" PostId="21099" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the edit. I think &quot;as far as I see&quot; and &quot;as far as I can tell&quot; are the same. It's the &quot;as far as I know&quot; that I was hoping to get an example of." CreationDate="2023-06-17T00:25:32.693" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43634" PostId="21099" Score="0" Text="@cmw So, how would you say &quot;*as far as he can tell*&quot;? Would it be &quot;*quantum ab eius loco*&quot;, or?" CreationDate="2023-06-17T01:21:46.990" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43636" PostId="21101" Score="0" Text="So the thing that makes this descriptive of Cicero's style is the use of the sound *-br-*?" CreationDate="2023-06-17T08:27:56.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43640" PostId="21101" Score="1" Text="I think this answer is pointing out the assonance. Am I reading that right?" CreationDate="2023-06-17T16:02:53.557" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43646" PostId="21101" Score="0" Text="I think that's what it is!" CreationDate="2023-06-17T21:58:06.243" UserId="8517" />
  <row Id="43665" PostId="21109" Score="0" Text="Better than looking up the dictionary is to read the answer: the author provides here the distinction between the two terms. The second (also refers as *illud*)  I get is more about &quot;abstract&quot;  time; time as a unit of measurement etc. (dont understand *nocet* in this context) whereas the first (also refered as *hoc*) is rather eventful;; That last paragraph seems to be addition to his main argument.  His main argument, as I understand, is that the comma-argument proves nothing as it happens also in sleep that we dream yet do not remember. So lets have comma as a long dream we don't recall." CreationDate="2023-06-18T20:48:55.613" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43667" PostId="21109" Score="0" Text="His second paragraph, if I get, he shares the observation that even when we are awake we don't perceive time! what we really have is the concrete eventful memory of events while we are awake, as opposed to &quot;abstract&quot; time measurement. We don't perceive time any more that we perceive that Roma is the capital of Italia:" CreationDate="2023-06-18T21:08:28.527" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43682" PostId="21109" Score="0" Text="@d_e So, do you think his argument essentially boils down to &quot;*Maybe everybody whose brain wasn't working for some time had a near-death experience, but the vast majority of people just don't remember it.*&quot;? If so, that's definitely a weird assertion and an ad-hoc hypothesis. Of course, you can defend almost any empirical claim with ad-hoc hypotheses, even Flat Earth or, in this case, the brain being merely an antenna for the soul." CreationDate="2023-06-19T06:34:04.183" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43664" PostId="21111" Score="0" Text="So, can you make some sense of the Andreas Alcor's argument?" CreationDate="2023-06-18T17:50:39.090" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43669" PostId="21112" Score="5" Text="Which meaning of &quot;after all&quot; are you trying to convey? It can be used as an idiom, but also for its literal meaning (&quot;after all these things&quot;), and the translation will be different." CreationDate="2023-06-18T22:11:14.063" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43670" PostId="21112" Score="0" Text="The literal meaning.  I'm able to understand the others meanings if I read them with time." CreationDate="2023-06-18T22:24:56.630" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43685" PostId="21112" Score="1" Text="Since an adverbial phrase is one that functions as an adverb and a prepositional phrase is one that consists of a preposition and its object, the two are not mutually exclusive.  For example, consider &quot;those translations don't seem to fit in Latin,&quot; where the phrase &quot;in Latin&quot; is both adverbial and prepositional." CreationDate="2023-06-19T11:05:55.290" UserId="6736" />
  <row Id="43686" PostId="21112" Score="1" Text="You've mis-parsed the English. &quot;after&quot; modifies &quot;all I've been through&quot; as a clause; &quot;after all&quot; is not itself a clause (in that sentence). It's like asking what the translation of &quot;me the&quot; is, in the sentence &quot;pass me the salt&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-19T12:38:43.787" UserId="1727" />
  <row Id="43671" PostId="21113" Score="3" Text="We can answer questions about the meanings of Greek words here, but once this starts getting into theology, I think you'll get better answers on Christianity.SE instead." CreationDate="2023-06-18T22:26:15.677" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43675" PostId="21113" Score="0" Text="Or Hermeneutics.SE, though I think if you get the Greek you'll have half your answer at least." CreationDate="2023-06-19T01:08:01.493" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43724" PostId="21113" Score="0" Text="ἐκ  and   [παρά](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=para/) are *not* equivalent, as the latter denotes  motion *from the side of, from beside* .  The Nicene creed indicates true emanation &quot;out of&quot; and alliterates with ἐκπορευόμενον...  But people went to prison for arguing on the wrong side of such hair-splits, and, as you are evidently studying, thousands lost their lives for parsing the words the wrong way, so... the wise in this SE desist..." CreationDate="2023-06-20T19:31:46.037" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="43725" PostId="21113" Score="0" Text="Hello David, as you note in your question, the Nicene Creed is written in Greek. This is a *Latin* forum.  I think it'd be best to re-ask the question in the Biblical Hermeneutics site.  But, note that you might even have to split the question into two questions: 1) your theological one. 2) your creedal Greek question." CreationDate="2023-06-20T21:29:15.380" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="43748" PostId="21113" Score="2" Text="@Epimanes  ...but this SE has a Greek tag in the penumbra of Greco-Roman culture.... The problem is the OP is trying to base theology on a subtle point of Greek usage, predicated on missing the difference between παρά  and ἐξ... Beware [1182](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins)..." CreationDate="2023-06-21T14:10:59.953" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="43749" PostId="21113" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos Indeed, just this morning I was caught up to speed that, yes, evidently this forum tackles both the Latin &amp; Greek questions.  Thanks for the update too." CreationDate="2023-06-21T14:17:59.103" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="43752" PostId="21113" Score="2" Text="@Epimanes Small niggle: StackExchange (and StackOverflow) really shy away from the label &quot;forum.&quot; It's really meant as a pure Q&amp;A site. General discussions e.g. are not really allowed here. It might seem like an odd distinction, but it does explain some peculiar rules (such as removing &quot;Thank you&quot; type posts)." CreationDate="2023-06-21T16:58:54.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43728" PostId="21122" Score="1" Text="Your copying of the entry is fine, but did you realize that the Greek you're using to introduce the entry (&quot;ⲡⲁⲓⲥ&quot;) isn't actually Greek at all, but Coptic?" CreationDate="2023-06-21T02:54:52.597" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43735" PostId="21122" Score="0" Text="Of course it's Greek. It's uncial/Majuscule Greek as the early documents were written in." CreationDate="2023-06-21T09:51:03.323" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="43757" PostId="21124" Score="1" Text="**Comments about the Coptic letters have been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/146816/discussion-on-answer-by-epimanes--a-matter-of-power-or-authority).**" CreationDate="2023-06-21T21:39:52.383" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43731" PostId="21125" Score="1" Text="καινός just means 'new', it's not inherently a time word." CreationDate="2023-06-21T07:43:04.647" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43734" PostId="21125" Score="0" Text="...except when it's used in a time word context (as in the works cited)" CreationDate="2023-06-21T09:49:20.130" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="43736" PostId="21125" Score="1" Text="You might as well add μακρός and βραχύς, then, since those are also used in that context." CreationDate="2023-06-21T11:47:13.333" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43742" PostId="21125" Score="0" Text="correction: when I said &quot;as in the works cited&quot;, I mean the works *I* cited (Jer. 31 &amp; Matt. 26). I wasn't clear in my comment." CreationDate="2023-06-21T12:14:09.823" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="43803" PostId="21125" Score="0" Text="ⲉⲕ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲥⲓⲛⲁ ⲧⲁ ⲭⲉⲓⲣⲱ..." CreationDate="2023-06-23T14:08:46.340" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="43729" PostId="21126" Score="0" Text="Can you clarify what the problem you're having is exactly? What are you expecting to see that you aren't seeing in terms of tenses?" CreationDate="2023-06-21T07:16:35.667" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43780" PostId="21126" Score="0" Text="I just found the answer. The problem was the secondary tense in the first clause with a perfect subjuntive in the subordinated one. But I read in the Companion to Romae Aeterna that this construction emphasizes the result (the imperfect would emphasize just the tendency). Regarding the Callistum puniendam (instead of Callisto), I could not found the answer, but that is not so important as the question about the sequence of tenses. Thank you" CreationDate="2023-06-22T19:58:11.733" UserId="13649" />
  <row Id="43740" PostId="21127" Score="1" Text="Which profession (or language) uses &quot;N&quot; regularly to mean zero?" CreationDate="2023-06-21T11:59:01.340" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43759" PostId="21127" Score="1" Text="Neither WIktionary nor the OED acknowledge such an abbreviation." CreationDate="2023-06-21T22:10:52.890" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="43755" PostId="21129" Score="1" Text="This answer has very good information. I have two more questions: *&quot;Latin dis- prefix may come from PIE \*dwís&quot;* : does that mean &quot;it is possible that it came&quot;, or &quot;although it came&quot;? 2. Could you confirm or deny that all three morphemes are ultimately from the same Indo-European root?" CreationDate="2023-06-21T19:08:43.907" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43760" PostId="21129" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus: Dictionaries say that they are ultimately from the same root, however they present different paths for *dis-*. Wiktionary says that Latin [dis-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dis-#Latin) developed from Proto-Italic ＊dwis-, while Etymonline says that [dis-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis-) prefix existed already in PIE: 「The Latin prefix is from PIE ＊dis- &quot;apart, asunder&quot; (source also of Old English te-, Old Saxon ti-, Old High German ze-, German zer-). The PIE root is a secondary form of ＊dwis-」. I am undecided about which path is more probable." CreationDate="2023-06-21T23:53:45.720" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="43761" PostId="21129" Score="0" Text="Old Latin initial /dw/ supposedly [regularly changed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin#Other_sequences) to /b/, so *＊dwis* -&gt; *bis* is regular, while *＊dwis-* -&gt; *dis-* seems less regular..." CreationDate="2023-06-21T23:58:56.250" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="43762" PostId="21129" Score="0" Text="Ok very interesting. Maybe add some of that to your answer?" CreationDate="2023-06-22T00:56:58.170" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43763" PostId="21129" Score="0" Text="Have you checked De Vaan? `Pit. *dis- 'in two, apart'; *dus- 'bad' (in difficilis); PIE *dus 'into two &gt; bad', *dui- 'two, into two'.`" CreationDate="2023-06-22T02:55:13.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43764" PostId="21129" Score="0" Text="I checked it later. I now added full quote to my answer." CreationDate="2023-06-22T03:09:51.220" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="43750" PostId="21131" Score="4" Text="Is there a reason to keep writing Greek words with Coptic letters instead of Greek ones?" CreationDate="2023-06-21T16:15:41.753" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43751" PostId="21131" Score="1" Text="I answer that in the comments to this SE question:  https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8933/παντοκράτωρ-a-matter-of-power-or-authority/21124?noredirect=1#comment43737_21124" CreationDate="2023-06-21T16:42:48.350" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="43758" PostId="21132" Score="1" Text="But “sovereign” isn't giving you any trouble…?" CreationDate="2023-06-21T21:41:52.927" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43766" PostId="21132" Score="0" Text="“Soberanus”, isn’t it? Being a native speaker of Portuguese helps a little… In Portuguese, it’s “Soberano”. I think that’s it." CreationDate="2023-06-22T10:00:47.227" UserId="13654" />
  <row Id="43767" PostId="21132" Score="1" Text="@DanielSister *Soberano* comes from the vulgar Latin *superanus*. All the Romance languages, Portuguese included, changed quite a bit from Latin. Moreover, since you marked it `classical-latin`, *superanus* wouldn't be the right word anyway." CreationDate="2023-06-22T13:36:44.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43828" PostId="21132" Score="0" Text="Daniel, I think the verb &quot;praesse&quot; would sound better. You're talking about rule over someone. &quot;Praesse princeps/dominator/dux&quot;.  &quot;Potestas&quot; is a good word for power. I didn't understand the 2nd phrase. I speak portuguese as well. You can tell me in portuguese what you're exactly looking for." CreationDate="2023-06-26T03:08:43.547" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43765" PostId="21133" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site, Jane! A similar combination was suggested in [Tom Cotton's commend under fdb's answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7243/tantibus-genuine-latin-word-or-made-up#comment15869_7260). Do you have any sources that support your suggestion, or is it more of a guess?" CreationDate="2023-06-22T06:23:24.450" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43768" PostId="21135" Score="0" Text="Are you really asking for every possible tense corresponding with every possible time every possible action might end? or did you have any more specific request? As it stands, the answer is &quot;all of them, depending&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-22T14:31:47.667" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43770" PostId="21135" Score="2" Text="@lly, I ask if *iamdiu flebam donec(?) te vidi* is valid. If so, I would like to know what might be the difference between using *video*.(*... sed nunc te video*) According to A&amp;G 66, if we use the present tense instead of the imperfect *iamdiu fleo* it means that the action still happening and haven't stopped yet. But if we use the imperfect it suggests I believe the action has already stopped: I ask can it be stopped in the past? (we might not even provide additional verbs.); or merely using this construction implies this stopped only now?" CreationDate="2023-06-22T15:35:13.253" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43771" PostId="21135" Score="4" Text="If you look at more of the the Ovid passage, you'll see that those present tense verbs are the 'historical present,' representing the perfect. Practically speaking, the imperfect in both examples is followed by a perfect." CreationDate="2023-06-22T15:43:33.627" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="43772" PostId="21135" Score="0" Text="@cnread, interesting. But now we are left with the question of if the imperfect *felbam* is not &quot;historical imperfect&quot; (if there is such a thing) representing the pluperfect? :)" CreationDate="2023-06-22T15:50:35.833" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43809" PostId="21135" Score="0" Text="@cnread: In this answer from Seb, =https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/16328/1982, should (historical) present, &quot;minatur&quot;, be seen as a perfect tense? The complementary verb, &quot;restituissent&quot;, is a pluperfect-subjunctive being used to represent the future. The anteriority, Seb describes, is perfect then pluperfect (originally future-perfect), is that correct?" CreationDate="2023-06-24T11:54:06.637" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43813" PostId="21135" Score="0" Text="@tony, I'm not seeing what that has to do with the current question, which involves no subjunctives; so sequence of tenses and the behavior of conditions in complex constructions don't apply at all. Maybe your comment would be better as a separate question?" CreationDate="2023-06-24T18:27:58.250" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="43818" PostId="21135" Score="0" Text="@cnread: It was the point about the historic present representing the perfect. The pluperfect-subjunctive being used to represent the future, in indirect speech, takes a bit of understanding (the OP, here, is also concerned about timings). That historic present, &quot;minatur&quot;, should be seen as a perfect makes Seb's analysis of anteriority much clearer." CreationDate="2023-06-25T08:05:22.743" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43773" PostId="21136" Score="0" Text="I thought &quot;tisś&quot; was a hapax legomenon." CreationDate="2023-06-22T17:41:10.940" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43779" PostId="21136" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler I'm not sure how often it's attested on its own but compounds do seem to exist." CreationDate="2023-06-22T19:40:20.113" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43775" PostId="21137" Score="0" Text="Why the downvotes?" CreationDate="2023-06-22T18:39:51.477" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43776" PostId="21137" Score="3" Text="Perhaps some feel that not much can be said about Etruscan etymology and therefore find most such questions overly speculative." CreationDate="2023-06-22T19:19:50.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43785" PostId="21137" Score="1" Text="I'm going to reopen this after the edits." CreationDate="2023-06-22T21:58:56.847" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43774" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="Thank you! Some places I've read that /gn/ might have first evolved into /ŋn/, then /ɲn/, and finally /ɲɲ/. Do you believe this is supported?" CreationDate="2023-06-22T18:04:02.543" UserId="13658" />
  <row Id="43778" PostId="21139" Score="1" Text="@Lind That seems very reasonable; I'm not sure if there's any direct evidence for how the path went, though." CreationDate="2023-06-22T19:39:23.793" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43787" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="I find this latin digraph weird, because in Portuguese it became &quot;nh&quot; (it sounds exactly like the Spanish &quot;ñ&quot;) in some words like &quot;lenha/lignum, but ligneo/ligneus, it kept the &quot;gn&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-22T23:05:02.113" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43788" PostId="21139" Score="3" Text="@Lind: Hmm I'm having trouble pronouncing /ɲn/, is that really a thing?" CreationDate="2023-06-23T00:04:22.493" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43789" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças: Perhaps some words were later borrowings from Latin?" CreationDate="2023-06-23T00:05:00.157" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43792" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="Cerberus, actually, a few words wich latin roots changed the &quot;gn&quot; to &quot;nh&quot; in Portuguese. I never learnt why." CreationDate="2023-06-23T01:12:16.793" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43797" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="@Manuel /ɲ/ (that is, ⟨nh⟩) is the regular outcome. If a word has ⟨gn⟩, such as _ígneo_, that means it’s a later (≈ Mediaeval or later) re-borrowing from Classical Latin." CreationDate="2023-06-23T03:33:56.987" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43798" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I recall seeing a suggestion (though I don’t recall the evidence for it) that it went /ɡn/ &gt; /ŋn/ &gt; /ŋɲ/ (i.e., dorsal velar + laminal alveolar/dental assimilated to dorsal velar + dorsal palatal) &gt; /ɲɲ/." CreationDate="2023-06-23T03:36:31.383" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43799" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet: That sounds far more plausible to me. Except that I cannot understand the last one, with the same consonant twice?" CreationDate="2023-06-23T04:17:06.973" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43800" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus That’s just the more-or-less end result, /ɲː/, as still found in Italian (later shortened in Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc.)." CreationDate="2023-06-23T09:21:04.370" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="43802" PostId="21139" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet: Ahh so the same symbol twice doesn't mean the same sound twice, but just a lengthening, OK, then it makes sense." CreationDate="2023-06-23T14:04:55.693" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43781" PostId="21141" Score="0" Text="Does &quot;*negator*&quot; have the same connotations as &quot;*denier*&quot; does in English?" CreationDate="2023-06-22T20:24:34.107" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43783" PostId="21141" Score="5" Text="I think that it is rather modern political concept. Regardless of whether such connotations existed in antiquity, I think that you could add them in Neo-Latin usage..." CreationDate="2023-06-22T21:42:23.787" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="43790" PostId="21141" Score="1" Text="I'd use *negationista*, because that's the same as our Portuguese Negacionista" CreationDate="2023-06-23T00:28:37.730" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43805" PostId="21141" Score="0" Text="@Arfrever Seriously? It's a modern concept? There were no deniers in Ancient Rome?" CreationDate="2023-06-23T17:08:02.347" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43806" PostId="21141" Score="0" Text="I'd *not* use *negationista* because it is a barbarism of the worst order. (Specifically a gallicism, I believe – *négationniste* – and that word usually refers to holocaust deniers.)" CreationDate="2023-06-23T23:53:50.307" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43846" PostId="21144" Score="0" Text="cf. Wiese 1904 *Altitalienisches Elementarbuch*, who also explains it with analogy but from the cases with ad-, con-, in- and sub-, &quot;Durch Einfluß der unter 2. besprochenen Assimilationen bei Worten, die mit a-, co-, i- beginnen: *ammen, commedia, immagine*; hierher gehört auch *ommettere* durch Einfluß von *commettere*.&quot; (pp. 60-61) https://archive.org/details/altitalienisches00wiesuoft/page/60/mode/2up" CreationDate="2023-06-27T15:24:12.610" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="43793" PostId="21145" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/20616/ranking-the-difficulty-of-latin-authors" CreationDate="2023-06-23T01:33:22.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43794" PostId="21145" Score="0" Text="Yes, although it seems to be focused more on classical authors, it is a similar problem. Reading through the comments, it seems people were a bit too focused on being objective and ended up not answering him lol I'd be very much grateful with any list. I don't think we can be over scientific about it. I'd be content with a list that a Latin speaker feels best ranks these books in difficulty, even if his explanation to why be no more sophisticated than &quot;this book is harder to read than that&quot; or &quot;this book uses weird sentence structure/vocabulary&quot; etc. Anything really." CreationDate="2023-06-23T01:39:37.887" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43795" PostId="21145" Score="1" Text="That &quot;him&quot; is me! I'm looking for something more &quot;objective&quot;, but if you're wanting someone's experience, definitely add that to the question, as some people might not catch on to that." CreationDate="2023-06-23T01:56:41.193" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43796" PostId="21145" Score="1" Text="I will say that I found Mark easiest, but otherwise all the NT seemed pretty easy, especially if you already know Classical Latin." CreationDate="2023-06-23T02:00:35.350" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43801" PostId="21145" Score="0" Text="That's very helpful @cmw. I'll start with Mark then! I edited the question. If you can try your hand on answering it, I'd be grateful!" CreationDate="2023-06-23T12:13:14.540" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43956" PostId="21148" Score="0" Text="*Ad veritatem* is mentioned in the question. Can you elaborate on why you think it's the best choice? Bare answers are liable to be turned into comments." CreationDate="2023-07-04T03:20:46.603" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43807" PostId="21149" Score="2" Text="This is generally in line with words like ἄθεος. I think &quot;refuse&quot; might even be a better translation, except that *negare* can mean &quot;to deny [the fact that]&quot;, so I could see *negator* being a potential possibility. However, your formulation is much more in line with how the Romans actually spoke, so it gets my vote for best answer." CreationDate="2023-06-24T00:13:12.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43810" PostId="21150" Score="1" Text="This is very useful, thank you! Have you read also the Old Testament?" CreationDate="2023-06-24T13:49:57.227" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43811" PostId="21150" Score="2" Text="I've only read small samples of a wide range of books in the OT. I don't remember anything specific about the difficulty level of any specific book." CreationDate="2023-06-24T15:46:33.527" UserId="13661" />
  <row Id="43812" PostId="21151" Score="3" Text="Why not just use the superlative adverb diutissime (or the adverbial phrase quam diutissime, 'for the longest possible time')?" CreationDate="2023-06-24T18:16:32.110" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="43814" PostId="21151" Score="0" Text="@cnread Never heard of &quot;*diutissime*&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-24T18:35:02.913" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43815" PostId="21151" Score="2" Text="[Try PHI](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quam+diutissime)." CreationDate="2023-06-24T21:42:36.830" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43887" PostId="21151" Score="0" Text="@cnread, please post this as an answer. You got my vote." CreationDate="2023-06-29T02:09:20.120" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43882" PostId="21152" Score="2" Text="I don't think that the style is clumsy. However this line is very awkward(book 1,15 line 3.)&quot;caederem te, nisi irascerer&quot; I'd beat you, if I wasn't angry&quot; If I'm angry at someone, I'd beat him. I don't know if you ever read him, even in French, In the Site Latin Libary you can find it all in latin." CreationDate="2023-06-29T00:45:13.040" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43817" PostId="21154" Score="1" Text="Gratias, I guess all of this matches the thought I reached as I was finishing my answer! Nice to have the quotations." CreationDate="2023-06-25T02:54:12.433" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43819" PostId="21156" Score="2" Text="Are *in modum* and *in modo* both valid? If yes, is there a difference?" CreationDate="2023-06-25T12:43:49.617" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43826" PostId="21156" Score="3" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Smith &amp; Hall explicitly [warn](https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh15620) against *in modo*, but simple *modo* would be fine, and apparently more or less interchangeable. (I guess similar to how &quot;in the fashion of/after the fashion of&quot; in English basically means the same.)" CreationDate="2023-06-25T22:28:24.677" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43833" PostId="21156" Score="0" Text="And, what do you think, is the sentence telling the truth?" CreationDate="2023-06-26T16:16:18.570" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43839" PostId="21156" Score="1" Text="@FlatAssembler I doubt it :)" CreationDate="2023-06-26T23:21:22.733" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43843" PostId="21156" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I also think that rabbits don't actually love their owners." CreationDate="2023-06-27T09:12:46.077" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43860" PostId="21156" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Could, &quot;The more democracies are threatened, the more they behave like tyrannies.&quot;, be translated analogously e.g. &quot;quo quique liber-populus impendetur, eo magis in modum tyrannidis se agit.&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-28T11:19:41.210" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43921" PostId="21156" Score="1" Text="@tony That sounds good to me, only *liber populus* (a free people) is perhaps not the most obvious translation for &quot;democracy.&quot; But then, there probably isn't a very good one. Georges gives the rather cumbersome *civitas populari imperio utens*." CreationDate="2023-07-01T00:50:21.360" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43933" PostId="21156" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Thanks. One thing disturbs me: all the examples, here, and in your older answer, all have a comparative in both clauses. I omitted a &quot;magis&quot; in the &quot;quo&quot;-clause (Cicero had a comparative in the &quot;quo&quot;-clause); now, I'm not so sure--please advise. Thanks again." CreationDate="2023-07-01T12:19:40.590" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43934" PostId="21156" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Oxford gives a shorter, &quot;civitas popularis&quot;, as well as &quot;liber populus&quot;. I don't think that the Romans appreciated democracy, in the sense that we do; if they did, they weren't interested. The Romans didn't even bother to adopt the Greek word for it." CreationDate="2023-07-01T12:28:40.917" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43935" PostId="21156" Score="1" Text="@tony Oops, you're right, there should be some comparative in your first part. Say, *quo quaeque civitas est infestior, eo …*" CreationDate="2023-07-01T12:28:58.543" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43824" PostId="21157" Score="0" Text="I think *ita est* or something with *sic* is the more normal way to go for that." CreationDate="2023-06-25T22:07:54.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43825" PostId="21157" Score="0" Text="Licet? (Aliquot verba hic addo, ut flagitatur.)" CreationDate="2023-06-25T22:24:47.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43829" PostId="21158" Score="3" Text="It's an adjective from the 3rd declension. The male and female are the same." CreationDate="2023-06-26T04:42:02.067" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43830" PostId="21158" Score="0" Text="@ManuelCauãRebouças: Even as a nickname?" CreationDate="2023-06-26T05:13:56.413" UserId="13665" />
  <row Id="43838" PostId="21158" Score="2" Text="@Ricky Sure. But *pinguis* just means “fat” anyway. You want a diminutive, and those generally happen to have unabiguous female forms. Figulus gives two examples for diminutives based on *pinguis*." CreationDate="2023-06-26T23:20:40.673" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43834" PostId="21160" Score="0" Text="Why the downvotes?" CreationDate="2023-06-26T21:03:37.010" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43835" PostId="21160" Score="4" Text="This question seems lacking in effort. Did you consult any resource at all for how Latin was pronounced before asking here?" CreationDate="2023-06-26T21:16:41.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43844" PostId="21160" Score="0" Text="@cmw Sure, I've read about how Latin was pronounced in my textbook Hereditas Linguae Latinae. I have even made a few YouTube videos where I speak Latin, the [latest one](https://youtube.com/watch?v=gx1hhczsdAE&amp;feature=share) being about afterlife." CreationDate="2023-06-27T09:20:37.373" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43845" PostId="21160" Score="2" Text="Relevant information about that should be included in the question. Adding in just that plus why you think it might be this way would alleviate you from downvotes." CreationDate="2023-06-27T12:03:02.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43837" PostId="21162" Score="3" Text="Very nice. Not classically attested, but used here and there in Neo-Latin (plus a number of scientific species names): *obesula*." CreationDate="2023-06-26T23:03:11.267" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43840" PostId="21162" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel: Doesn't &quot;obesula&quot; mean obese rather than just chubby?" CreationDate="2023-06-27T00:17:43.800" UserId="13665" />
  <row Id="43841" PostId="21162" Score="2" Text="@Ricky it's also a diminutive, in this case of *obesa* (well nourished, stout, fat)." CreationDate="2023-06-27T00:33:03.987" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43842" PostId="21162" Score="2" Text="@Ricky Obesity is a modern concept that doesn't translate over well to the ancient Romans. Both words mean &quot;fat,&quot; and the Romans never developed a BMI index to distinguish between a bit chubbiness and obesity. For other words, you also have *opima*, but there's no classically attested diminutives, as far as I can tell." CreationDate="2023-06-27T01:59:31.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43848" PostId="21162" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel *Obesula* is a great find. It would make a great answer." CreationDate="2023-06-27T18:29:36.183" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43849" PostId="21162" Score="1" Text="@cmw *Opima* is a great suggestion. It hardly needs a dimimutive. It already comes with such pleasant associations. It too would make a great answer." CreationDate="2023-06-27T18:34:24.887" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43850" PostId="21162" Score="1" Text="@cmw the Romans may not have calculated BMIs, but see Mart. Ep. 11, 100 " CreationDate="2023-06-27T18:46:54.663" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43851" PostId="21162" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Excellent find, and it gives me an idea for an answer!" CreationDate="2023-06-27T18:55:01.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43856" PostId="21162" Score="0" Text="@cmw, I await your answer on tenterhooks!" CreationDate="2023-06-28T02:35:57.790" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43852" PostId="21165" Score="3" Text="By the way, I don't know how it works in Croatian, but a German speaker would not bat an eye at the dative *Romano*; however, English speakers are possibly scratching their heads why I translated this as &quot;the Roman's.&quot; Think like, &quot;it happened to the Roman that a raven sat on the [= his] helmet.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-27T21:07:47.633" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43853" PostId="21165" Score="0" Text="Well, it's possible that the dialectal Croatian word in that song comes from French. The city of Split, where Oliver Dragojević lived, was under the French occupation for much of the 19th century. No wonder some words in that dialect come from French." CreationDate="2023-06-27T21:43:29.560" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="43858" PostId="21165" Score="1" Text="One could also consider the influence on Croatian of the Italian *atterrare* (itself a calque from the French)," CreationDate="2023-06-28T09:21:48.007" UserId="3185" />
  <row Id="43859" PostId="21165" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Could &quot;in Romano galea&quot; be translated as (ablative) = &quot;on the Roman helmet&quot;? Would your choice be called a &quot;dative-of-possession&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-28T10:59:51.557" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43861" PostId="21165" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel The dative is probably good here for all Slavic languages, definitely for Czech." CreationDate="2023-06-28T14:28:59.117" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="43862" PostId="21165" Score="2" Text="@tony At least in the modern languages I know the word in dative is not bound directly to the noun helmet, it is bound directly to the verb. Similarly in German &quot;Er ist mir auf den Fuß getreten.&quot; The collocation is https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/jemandem_auf_die_F%C3%BC%C3%9Fe_treten &quot;Literally, he stepped on the foot *to me*.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-28T14:38:22.077" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="43880" PostId="21165" Score="0" Text="Would *in florem* work better than *in flore*?" CreationDate="2023-06-29T00:28:16.997" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43892" PostId="21165" Score="1" Text="@Figulus: Is that because &quot;in florem&quot; = &quot;into the flower&quot;, giving: &quot;The butterfly lands inside the flower.&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-06-29T11:18:17.277" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43896" PostId="21165" Score="1" Text="@tony Well, *Romano galea* wouldn't work, would it? I believe this is called the dative of reference, by the way. (The distinction from an &quot;indirect object&quot; is not clear cut.)" CreationDate="2023-06-29T16:20:25.810" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43897" PostId="21165" Score="1" Text="@Figulus No, these words are generally constructed with a place where. See L &amp; S ..." CreationDate="2023-06-29T16:32:30.097" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43908" PostId="21165" Score="0" Text="@tony Not really. I was just thinking that the English verb *landing* is a verb of motion, so I wrongly assumed the same for its Latin counterpart. After studying the examples Sebastian gave us, I can see that is not exactly right. I still can't claim to understand why not, though." CreationDate="2023-06-30T04:07:07.103" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43857" PostId="21167" Score="2" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6137/what-is-the-meaning-and-history-of-the-word-imperator?rq=1" CreationDate="2023-06-28T03:49:41.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43864" PostId="21167" Score="3" Text="I find the premise of this question a little confusing: English &quot;emperor&quot; *comes from* Latin &quot;imperator&quot; (as I'm sure you know). Are you looking for a translation for the English word &quot;emperor&quot; (which *already has* a connection to the Romans) or do you want a word that means something similar? My simple point is that Warhammer *already has* a reference to Romans built in by using the English word &quot;emperor.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-06-28T19:22:36.370" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="43866" PostId="21167" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Emperor comes from *imperator* yes, but Humanity also comes from *humanitas*, but *humanitas* is considered a bad Latin translation for Humanity, something like *gens humana* being preferred. I don't think English equivalences are good enough to settle such things. We'd need to see what is the established way of translating expressions and when it comes to the title of Emperor the dictionaries seem to give a lot of options without giving a *most used* one." CreationDate="2023-06-28T19:43:11.083" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43865" PostId="21168" Score="0" Text="This seems like a pretty solid option. I think there are problems with it tho that maybe you can walk me through. In the case of Japan today it has an Emperor, who's title is considered superior to European Kings. That is shown by the fact he has precedence for his title in official royal encounters. There are no other kings or even any nobility at all under the Japanese emperors today. So translating it as *rex regum* seems inaccurate, and using just *rex* also doesn't reflect real relations between titles that transcend English. What are modern precedents for this? And how can we solve this?" CreationDate="2023-06-28T19:39:47.557" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43868" PostId="21168" Score="2" Text="@VictorBC I don't think it's right to go through English here. The Japanese terms (for which 天皇 doesn't *reeally* mean 'emperor') don't neatly map onto the English, because they're specific to Japan, not anywhere else. They certainly don't map onto Latin neatly. But also, the emperor was indeed theoretically above the shogun and daimyos. In translating, you'll never get a one-to-one correspondence here because they're completely different traditions." CreationDate="2023-06-28T19:50:35.543" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43869" PostId="21168" Score="3" Text="If a Roman were to write about the situation in Medieval Japan, *rex* would likely be the person at the top, as that's the person at the top in societies they're familiar with. The shogun maybe would be the *imperator*, the daimyo could be *domini*, etc." CreationDate="2023-06-28T19:51:36.560" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43870" PostId="21168" Score="2" Text="In Medieval Europe, whose Latin is a second language, and who were more familiar with Medieval feudalism, they would choose different words still." CreationDate="2023-06-28T19:52:05.503" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43871" PostId="21168" Score="0" Text="Hum... So maybe for good Latinity one would call the Japanese Emperor a *rex* and just live with the loss of information (because he does have more precedence in royal gatherings because of the imperial title, but that would just not be evident in Latin). I find this solution sits very well for me regarding Warhammer 40K because it doesn't actually have kings, so *rex* seems perfectly suitable for translating the Emperor's title. The Japanese case doesn't sit that well for me, but it might just be the only proper answer in relation to good Latinity." CreationDate="2023-06-28T19:57:48.533" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43872" PostId="21168" Score="3" Text="@VictorBC Well, individual cases will vary. You may want to bring up a new question targeting Japanese specifically from a modern or medieval perspective, as that will alter things. It should be helpful to keep in mind that Jupiter, that king of all gods and everything, is *rex*, as is the Persian king, who ruled over many minor rulers in an empire that dwarfs Japan, so if the title is lacking, it's not because of the word &quot;emperor,&quot; but because the Japanese system is sui generis." CreationDate="2023-06-28T20:18:30.063" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43876" PostId="21168" Score="0" Text="Yes, that makes sense. I wasn't really looking for a specific Japanese answer so I won't be making a specific question in that regard. I wanted a generalistic rule of thumb translation for the term that is of good Latinity, with sources and good reasoning and you gave all of that. I will wait a few more days just to give people time to answer but if they don't I'll mark yours as the correct answer." CreationDate="2023-06-28T21:02:36.610" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43877" PostId="21168" Score="2" Text="@VictorBC I can also add in later about *imperator* (used for Roman emperors) and *caesar* (used in Kaiser, Tsar) if no one gets to talking about that part. Explaining it might help illuminate my choice for *rex*. I can think up a few additional adjectives that might be helpful as well." CreationDate="2023-06-28T21:07:43.213" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43878" PostId="21168" Score="0" Text="If you could I'd be very grateful, because it would make the answer more complete for anyone who happens to see it and additional adjectives would help translators that need to make the distinction somehow without compromising Latinity." CreationDate="2023-06-28T21:33:40.053" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="44092" PostId="21168" Score="1" Text="@VictorBC Yes, *imperator* is fine if you want a word divorced of its ancient context. It's fine for a post-Medieval world. But the Achaemenids and the Seleucids after them, who were high kings who ruled over other kinds, would have simply used the word *rex*. This will color whatever context you use the word in. One co-opting Latin for the modern world, one rooted in its ancient usage." CreationDate="2023-07-14T03:18:37.567" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44093" PostId="21168" Score="1" Text="(I could have also suggested *princeps*, the title Augustus actually adopted. That had a shorter lifespan than *rex* and would conflict with &quot;prince&quot; in a modern, &quot;Latin&quot; setting.)" CreationDate="2023-07-14T03:19:39.190" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43893" PostId="21169" Score="2" Text="Interestingly enough, this subject has been touched on in [Latin.SE] before but I didn't catch it: [What does the &quot;Roman&quot; numeral Ɔ represent?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14697/what-does-the-roman-numeral-%c6%86-represent), [Which Roman Numerals were used for large numbers?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/641/which-roman-numerals-were-used-to-express-extremely-large-numbers-in-classical-l). But this question and its answer gives new information." CreationDate="2023-06-29T12:51:21.717" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="43954" PostId="21169" Score="0" Text="Related question asking about the 'other' systems: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21175/what-other-numeral-systems-were-used-in-classical-rome" CreationDate="2023-07-03T22:22:10.070" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="43873" PostId="21170" Score="12" Text="Excellent answer... but &quot;accountants doing math with big numbers would have alternate systems &quot;? Alternate systems? You can't tantalize us with that and walk away. Any ideas?" CreationDate="2023-06-28T20:44:31.360" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="43874" PostId="21170" Score="5" Text="@Mitch Unfortunately I don't know the full details of that, though I'll look into it!" CreationDate="2023-06-28T20:49:18.137" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43875" PostId="21170" Score="8" Text="@Mitch: Could be a nice follow-up question!" CreationDate="2023-06-28T20:49:38.757" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43888" PostId="21170" Score="2" Text="How did they write about army numbers in big battles? They had extensive records of wars and battles, many of which included tens or even hundreds of thousands of soldiers. The Punic war involved about half a million troops. How did they record that number?" CreationDate="2023-06-29T04:10:40.413" UserId="1549" />
  <row Id="43889" PostId="21170" Score="2" Text="@vsz One immediate possibility but an absolute guess is they wrote them the same way you just did. If the Latin translator I just used is accurate, they could have written *quingenta* for &quot;half a million&quot;. Even if the translator is not accurate, they did have a naming convention for numbers so they could have always spelled things out in words." CreationDate="2023-06-29T06:04:19.650" UserId="3587" />
  <row Id="43890" PostId="21170" Score="9" Text="@vsz: The Roman army is a clear example where they use strict unit size ([first hit on Google](http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/romans/legion.html)). By having such a clear unit system and scoping the general logistics to those unit sizes, it means that the numbers themselves are kept low. Half a million soldiers would've been expressed as 100 legions. It not quite the metric system but the factor sizes between units are 8, 10, 6, 10 respectively; which is pretty close and effectively means that you never have to count more than 10 of anything (as you'd then move up to the bigger unit)" CreationDate="2023-06-29T06:28:13.867" UserId="13677" />
  <row Id="43902" PostId="21170" Score="1" Text="The church sign says 1580 - correct ?" CreationDate="2023-06-29T23:19:24.840" UserId="6510" />
  <row Id="43906" PostId="21170" Score="3" Text="Or it says 1630." CreationDate="2023-06-30T00:15:04.173" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="43915" PostId="21170" Score="2" Text="@vsz Larger numbers in prose are usually expressed by words or Roman numerals or a mixture (I suspect we can't know for sure which it was originally, as this is the sort of thing that might easily change during manuscript tradition). For thousands of people, the word *mille* was used, e. g. 20,000 would be milia XX. So for example, in Caesar's *Bellum Gallicum* (1, 29), I have one version that reads, *summa erat capitum Helvetiorum milia ducenta sexaginta tria, Tulingorum milia XXXVI, Latobrigorum XIII, Rauracorum XXIII, Boiorum XXXII*, while another version writes the number of Helvetians ..." CreationDate="2023-07-01T00:25:34.607" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43919" PostId="21170" Score="2" Text="... in numerals too, saying *Helvetiorum milium CCLXIII* (263,000 Helvetians). Another occasion to write about large numbers were distances, as Romans usually based distance measurement on paces (*passus*), which is something like 1.5 metres, so there was ample occasion to talk about so-and-so many *milia passuum* (thousands of paces), from which the word &quot;mile&quot; is ultimately derived." CreationDate="2023-07-01T00:33:35.150" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43955" PostId="21170" Score="1" Text="[Followup question about 'other' numeral systems in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21175/what-other-numeral-systems-were-used-in-classical-rome)" CreationDate="2023-07-03T22:23:44.253" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="44026" PostId="21170" Score="0" Text="For what it's worth, &quot;year numbers past 1000 weren't a concern&quot; isn't actually true. Most Romans didn't use the Dionysian era, sure, but (a) there were plenty of Jews running around and some were antiquarians or interested in the Anno Mundi, (b) there were Greek philosophers who thought about this stuff as a hobby, and (c) the AUC era -- although never so common as we're usually taught when it's taught -- hit 1000 in the late Classical period." CreationDate="2023-07-11T15:12:07.960" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44030" PostId="21170" Score="0" Text="@lly True, but the Jews and Greeks had other numbering systems. My understanding is that the vinculum was much more common in Greek than Roman numerals for example." CreationDate="2023-07-11T16:57:23.233" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44094" PostId="21170" Score="0" Text="[I know it's a 'me' problem but randos are now downvoting my answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21175/what-other-numeral-systems-were-used-in-classical-rome/21230#21230) presumably based on _someone_ misunderstanding what you've posted here. I'd be nice if you stopped by and settled Mitch's continuing confusion one way or the other." CreationDate="2023-07-14T04:35:21.877" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="43879" PostId="21171" Score="0" Text="I couldn't ever find an equivalent in latin for that. The closer I always got was &quot;propositum&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-28T22:52:44.903" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43883" PostId="21172" Score="0" Text="Keep in mind that &quot;my type&quot; is idiomatic English that usually means &quot;the type of person I like&quot; rather than literally &quot;the same type of person as I am&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-29T00:45:23.300" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="43884" PostId="21172" Score="0" Text="This word has the same meaning in Portuguese, as well. &quot;Tipo&quot; That's why I thought about the latin word with gave us &quot;type&quot; and &quot;tipo&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-29T00:48:22.367" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43929" PostId="21172" Score="0" Text="The ancients had their four temperaments, but for men only." CreationDate="2023-07-01T08:58:05.323" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="43938" PostId="21172" Score="0" Text="Latin typically likes to use relative conjunctions and their correlatives: *qualis talis* or even more commonly *cuiusmodi eiusmodi*. Do you really need a noun?" CreationDate="2023-07-01T16:27:09.703" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43885" PostId="21173" Score="1" Text="Your answer is very good because it cites Neo-Latin sources. Is there an actual preference for *imperator* in contrast with *caesar* and *augustus* in neo-latin documents?" CreationDate="2023-06-29T01:10:13.500" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43886" PostId="21173" Score="0" Text="I haven't seen *caesar* nor *augustus* used so in neo-latin documents, but then I have not seen all neo-latin documents. You can look up on Wikipedia articles about Holy Roman Empire, or Emperor of India, or indeed &quot;Maria Teresa&quot; to find examples of *imperator*." CreationDate="2023-06-29T01:55:06.370" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43898" PostId="21173" Score="0" Text="@cmw would you like to interact with this? I think Figulus made a very good argument for a modern translation being *imperator*, given it seems to be the go to translation for this modern concept of someone who is hierarchically superior to a King&quot; in a peerage system." CreationDate="2023-06-29T16:40:23.393" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43910" PostId="21173" Score="1" Text="@VictorBC I think it's fine if you want an ordinary word to translate &quot;emperor,&quot; but I thought you specifically wanted one &quot;that is completely detached from the historical Roman equivalent.&quot; The Holy Roman emperor was seen as a continuation of the Roman emperor, and therefore it is not detached from the historical Roman equivalent. That's why I want back to the Persian empire (and the Persian &quot;emperors&quot; did rule over minor rulers, but they were still called kings). If you want something Medieval, by all means, *imperator* is fine." CreationDate="2023-06-30T23:50:13.907" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43912" PostId="21173" Score="0" Text="What I meant was a word that was generic, not something related to Rome in itself. Like if you were talking about some random unrelated emperor (as with my example of the Emperor beyond the Sea in Narnia). Given that the British Empire seems to have used Imperator, and from what I see other Empires were described with imperator in Latin, it seems it's a good neo-Latin expression for it." CreationDate="2023-07-01T00:01:34.383" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43928" PostId="21173" Score="0" Text="@VictorBC I misunderstood what you wanted then. If you wanted a generic word for emperor in Neo-Latin, then *imperator* is the right word for you. Someone in Cicero's time would balk at the usage, but I gather you're not aiming for fidelity." CreationDate="2023-07-01T04:40:17.547" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43930" PostId="21173" Score="0" Text="@cmw yeah, I imagine Cicero wouldn't understand a lot of modern terms. My main concern was to use a term that was considered of good Latinity to translate the concept itself. As in, I didn't want to use *augustus* if that wasn't considered a common neo-Latin expression for Emperor. It's why I tagged it with new-latin." CreationDate="2023-07-01T10:57:20.620" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43932" PostId="21173" Score="0" Text="Basically I was wondering if a renaissance humanist with good Latin would approve of the expression I used." CreationDate="2023-07-01T11:16:19.680" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43900" PostId="21176" Score="1" Text="Wouldn't &quot;humanitas&quot; work?" CreationDate="2023-06-29T21:46:59.443" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43899" PostId="21177" Score="0" Text="Great I will take a look at Pfennig!" CreationDate="2023-06-29T21:32:54.623" UserDisplayName="user12055" />
  <row Id="43903" PostId="21177" Score="0" Text="@John It seems that some stylistic problems have to do with the composition and structure of this work. However, there are some scholars (e.g. Coccia, Michele (1958). _I problemi del_ De ira _di Seneca alla luce dell'analisi stilistica_&quot;. Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo), who have argued against this view." CreationDate="2023-06-29T23:40:18.927" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43905" PostId="21177" Score="0" Text="For example, in a review of Coccia's (1958) work published in _The Classical Journal_, Berthe M. Marti (1961: 128 ) says the following: &quot;His &lt;Coccia's&gt; searching examination of its style enables him to demonstrate that the three books are stylistically consistent and to argue convincingly against the scholars who believe either that the _De ira_ consists of two treatises unsuccessfully fused or that a long interval separated the composition of the third book from that of the first two&quot;." CreationDate="2023-06-29T23:49:01.593" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43909" PostId="21180" Score="1" Text="From what I remember, using humanitas for humanity isn't considered good Latin. Things like gens humana or genus humanum or even universitas humana. That would make humanism seem like a pretty good primary meaning of humanitas, with parallels in things like romanitas and latinitas." CreationDate="2023-06-30T15:52:18.450" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43926" PostId="21186" Score="1" Text="Oh, man, Betts and Chambers-Murray, that takes it back. Are you me? (Though I quickly moved on from Betts; fortunately I found better, but I still have a real soft spot for Chambers-Murray.)" CreationDate="2023-07-01T02:42:59.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43927" PostId="21186" Score="0" Text="@cmw I'm not you! But yes, I bought Chambers-Murray because I could not afford Lewis and Short. I eventually bought Lewis and Short (I was single then.), and do not regret it. I graduated from Betts to Woodcock. I still love Betts and consult on occasion." CreationDate="2023-07-01T03:09:36.010" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43931" PostId="21186" Score="1" Text="I'll choose your answer because it's more detailed!" CreationDate="2023-07-01T11:01:58.577" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43966" PostId="21186" Score="1" Text="By the way, you might appreciate [this site](http://tylatin.org/intro.shtml)." CreationDate="2023-07-05T05:15:53.497" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43984" PostId="21186" Score="0" Text="@cmw Many thanks for that! I had not realized he passed away. Another hero of mine I will never meet in this life." CreationDate="2023-07-07T02:32:22.757" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43941" PostId="21190" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much." CreationDate="2023-07-02T14:52:21.177" UserId="13696" />
  <row Id="43942" PostId="21190" Score="2" Text="Good point about the lack of distinction between predicate and attributive, but I wonder whether *ut fiat mundus melior* might lean more one way, and *ut sit mundus melior* more the other way." CreationDate="2023-07-02T17:34:14.443" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43944" PostId="21195" Score="3" Text="@Asteroides It works when the adjective is in the predicate, but for attributive adjectives you're right. I was thinking word order would indicate which is which, but I'll make it clearer." CreationDate="2023-07-02T19:42:37.070" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43960" PostId="21197" Score="2" Text="A correction about the source: 'Mart.' doesn't refer here to Martial. Instead, according to the key to abbreviations at the front of Lewis &amp; Short, 'Mart. Cap.' = the 5th century satirist Martianus Minneus Felix Capella." CreationDate="2023-07-04T20:03:52.300" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="43964" PostId="21197" Score="1" Text="Ahh, my mistake - thanks for catching! I edited my answer." CreationDate="2023-07-05T00:33:52.647" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="43968" PostId="21197" Score="3" Text="It might be worth mentioning that there are adjectives like *mathematicus* which mean both &quot;mathematical&quot; and &quot;mathematician&quot;. That supports using an adjective similarly for &quot;semantician&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-05T08:37:13.920" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43970" PostId="21197" Score="2" Text="Oh, good idea, @JoonasIlmavirta. I edited and added - thanks!" CreationDate="2023-07-05T23:34:09.120" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="43952" PostId="21199" Score="0" Text="The verb *mutare* can be used in the sense &quot;to put in place of another, to substitute, replace&quot;. Try looking that up to see some examples of usage" CreationDate="2023-07-03T16:35:22.217" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="43953" PostId="21200" Score="0" Text="So for example if I wanted to say a sentence like &quot;Switch to the sword&quot;, would I just say &quot;Muta gladio&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-07-03T21:31:14.703" UserId="13674" />
  <row Id="43957" PostId="21200" Score="0" Text="@Nomad1004 you could, though it should be clear from context that you're talking about the weapon. Or you could just say *utere gladio* or even *sume gladium* (cf. [Ez. 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ez+5&amp;version=VULGATE)). I mean, &quot;switch to the sword&quot; sounds not exactly like something from Shakespeare, it's video-game language ..." CreationDate="2023-07-04T16:55:13.943" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43958" PostId="21201" Score="1" Text="But would *equidem* work for &quot;as far as he can tell&quot;? Quod equidem sciam, it implies the first person." CreationDate="2023-07-04T17:22:54.807" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43959" PostId="21201" Score="0" Text="@TKR, Good point. I've just skimmed the PHI and could not find *equidem* with other body but the first person singular. So I guess it won't work." CreationDate="2023-07-04T18:32:42.780" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43961" PostId="21203" Score="3" Text="Do you happen to know if this phrase is attested in the literature? I can well imagine Plautus using it." CreationDate="2023-07-04T21:11:57.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43962" PostId="21203" Score="0" Text="If isn’t, the OLD is a bad dictionary. I found that use of &quot;quid&quot; there. I'm not sure, but one of the authors who was cited as source was Cicero." CreationDate="2023-07-04T22:41:56.903" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="43967" PostId="21203" Score="3" Text="I see. Can you edit it into your answer that OLD gives this phrase under *quid*? Mentioning that is perfectly enough; that's indeed a trustworthy dictionary." CreationDate="2023-07-05T08:10:08.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43974" PostId="21204" Score="0" Text="Note that you could also say *fiet*, in this letter from Cicero the periphrastic conjugation is required grammatically in both instances (indirect speech/question), but I think it sounds good in direct speech too." CreationDate="2023-07-06T06:47:27.247" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43963" PostId="21205" Score="3" Text="It would help your question if you edited it to include a strict definition of &quot;set&quot; and contrast it with the definition for &quot;union&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-05T00:20:46.423" UserId="6230" />
  <row Id="43965" PostId="21205" Score="0" Text="Latin Wikipedia uses [theoria copiarum](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria_copiarum) for 'set theory'." CreationDate="2023-07-05T04:11:58.370" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43969" PostId="21207" Score="1" Text="Gratias ago! I had never heard of a bare conjunctive taking a concessive force and least of all in a main clause. I learned that the Hortatory conjunctive only applies to the first person plural and that the Optative conjunctive is used to express wishes. So maybe my German Latin book wasn't quite up to speed." CreationDate="2023-07-05T15:49:30.723" UserId="13208" />
  <row Id="43971" PostId="21207" Score="1" Text="@Moguntius: *&quot;Das Quorum kann im Verlauf der Tagung nicht nur wegen einer – **sei** es auch nur vorübergehenden – physischen Abwesenheit eines Vertreters, sondern auch (bei unveränderter physischer Anwesenheit der Vertreter) je nach Gegenstand der Beratung wechseln, ...&quot;*" CreationDate="2023-07-06T00:00:25.867" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43976" PostId="21207" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I am sorry, I do not follow or understand what you are trying to tell me." CreationDate="2023-07-06T13:50:59.097" UserId="13208" />
  <row Id="43978" PostId="21207" Score="2" Text="@Moguntius: I thought the subjunctive could also be used concessively in other languages, like English and German. How would you feel about this one?" CreationDate="2023-07-06T17:14:41.190" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44082" PostId="21207" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, I am not sure about your example. The conjunctive is somehow sequestered from the main clause. And if I were to include, I would characterise it as a subordinate clause at which point I wouldn't be surprised anymore because I knew that the conjunctive can be concessive in subordinate clauses." CreationDate="2023-07-13T13:49:54.873" UserId="13208" />
  <row Id="44083" PostId="21207" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus, although, now that I think about it, you could insert the highlighted part with a &quot;und&quot; and then I'd interpret it as a main clause. Do you have an example for English or another one for German?" CreationDate="2023-07-13T13:56:34.113" UserId="13208" />
  <row Id="44087" PostId="21207" Score="1" Text="@Moguntius: It took me quite a bit of time to find a real example from German that was 100% unambiguous. As to feeling 'subordinate': I think that is pretty normal for a concessive? A concessive is used to say, &quot;I concede this minor thing, but the major thing is...&quot;. So it naturally has a subordinate degree of importance, as opposed to normal opposition/adversion. Here is an example from English: [Finally! An update.. be it small](https://old.reddit.com/r/Target/comments/vfavri/finally_an_update_be_it_small/). *Albeit* is also concessive (though *al* is concessive itself)." CreationDate="2023-07-13T22:28:29.603" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="43977" PostId="21208" Score="2" Text="Set theory was almost single-handedly invented by one man, Georg Cantor. He did write a few papers in Latin, but unfortunately none of them on set theory, it seems. Interestingly he vacillated on what to call sets in German, using the term *Mannigfaltigkeit* (varietas) for quite some time, but changing to *Menge* later. *Copia* seems like a pretty literal translation of *Menge*." CreationDate="2023-07-06T16:56:56.283" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="43982" PostId="21208" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Interestingly, [the other word](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannigfaltigkeit) seems to have found another technical meaning in modern usage, one that I get to play with every day." CreationDate="2023-07-06T21:16:15.103" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43992" PostId="21208" Score="0" Text="I wonder who came up for the words for &quot;set&quot; in the various Romance languages. I know in Spanish it is &quot;conjunto&quot;, which looks like it _could_ be &quot;back-ported&quot; to Latin...? Not sure what the benefits would be if _copia_ is a better map of _Menge_." CreationDate="2023-07-08T13:09:45.503" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="44025" PostId="21208" Score="1" Text="@NicolasMiari The words in different Romance languages point to different Latin choices. In addition to those, German points to *copia* and Finnish points to *grex* and there are probably many other Latin translations suggested by the established term in various languages. My whole point here is that there is no good reason for preference among the various translation options. The translations between languages with established mathematical terminology appear quite illogical, so applying logic to Latin isn't useful. There is no official translation but there are many sound translations." CreationDate="2023-07-10T23:38:28.433" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="43973" PostId="21211" Score="3" Text="This is synizesis, and it's a common phenomenon in dactylic hexameter, even in Greek; the opening line of the Iliad famously has an instance of it." CreationDate="2023-07-06T02:42:58.720" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="43980" PostId="21211" Score="3" Text="Worth noting that there's an alternate reading *Lavinaque* which avoids the problem: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0050:book=1:commline=2" CreationDate="2023-07-06T17:41:29.757" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43985" PostId="21211" Score="0" Text="@TKR Lectio difficilior potior." CreationDate="2023-07-07T14:21:05.453" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="43987" PostId="21211" Score="0" Text="@fdb True, but I'm not sure what the lectio difficilior is in this case, since the adjective for &quot;of Lavinium&quot; would naturally be *Lavinius*, not *Lavinus*." CreationDate="2023-07-07T17:20:22.797" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43979" PostId="21212" Score="3" Text="For *aries* you might be remembering 7.175 *hae sacris sedes epulis, hic ariete caeso*. Greek influence does seem possible but it should be noted that synizesis where the first vowel is ι is rare (https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/monro/elision-crasis-synizesis)." CreationDate="2023-07-06T17:40:11.530" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="43983" PostId="21212" Score="0" Text="@TKR That's the one!" CreationDate="2023-07-07T02:30:49.993" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="43986" PostId="21214" Score="2" Text="I changed the title to better reflect the question." CreationDate="2023-07-07T16:09:21.197" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="43988" PostId="21214" Score="4" Text="Döderlein’s *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes* has an entry for it: &quot;**Vindicta** is an act of justice, like avenging: **ultio**, an act of anger, like revenge...&quot; The book is not always correct, just for reference." CreationDate="2023-07-07T18:16:48.563" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="43989" PostId="21216" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure what &quot;trust all is well or all is well&quot; might mean in English. Can you explain this sentence." CreationDate="2023-07-08T03:43:25.137" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="43990" PostId="21216" Score="1" Text="Oh I was saying translate both. They are separate. So what is the English translation for “trust all is well” and “all is well”. My apologies I can see how that can be confusing." CreationDate="2023-07-08T03:47:04.607" UserId="13731" />
  <row Id="43991" PostId="21216" Score="0" Text="user 13731: Take a look at this answer from cnread: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4449/1982." CreationDate="2023-07-08T07:54:46.670" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43993" PostId="21221" Score="1" Text="As a learner, I have found the term (rather than the definition ) of AA misleading.  many times there is hardly anything *absolute* about it meaning-wise. Which caused me confusions (see for example the last paragraph in my [old question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15013/the-difference-between-ablative-absolute-and-a-participle-coniunctum)." CreationDate="2023-07-09T09:14:33.100" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43994" PostId="21221" Score="0" Text="@d_e  Yes, when trying to define an AA, I think that perhaps too much focus has been put on discussing apparently problematic examples like _Obsidibus imperatis centum hos Haeduis custodiendos tradit_. (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15055/grammatical-structure-of-obsidibus-imperatis-centum-hos-haeduis-custodiendos-tr/15058#15058 ). In my opinion, this example is an AA like _Urbe capta, hostes fugerunt_. Both examples are AAs since both are sentential modifiers." CreationDate="2023-07-09T13:20:17.843" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44022" PostId="21222" Score="0" Text="in this older question:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/15229/1982 and the linked Q., &quot;nasciturus....&quot;, some of the above has been covered in the comments we exchanged e.g. gerundives in the oblique cases lose their passive &amp; deontic properties--effectively becoming gerunds (active); though, they must still agree in number, case &amp; gender. I won't repeat everything but I enjoyed reading them all again. I recall the blood, sweat &amp; tears in all the thinking I had to do, at the time--the nature of your questions!!" CreationDate="2023-07-10T13:35:04.647" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="43997" PostId="21224" Score="0" Text="@Mitomo thanks for the alternative translation and the answer. It is helpful. I did remove the link though as I'm unsure about the link credibility." CreationDate="2023-07-09T18:33:36.300" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="43998" PostId="21224" Score="0" Text="@d_e Yes, please feel free to edit my answer. By the way, I think it would also be convenient to add the second author/translator: &quot;A. A. Long&quot;. As for the link credibility, I don't have any idea. So please let me know if you think I should also eliminate the link to their book in my first comment above. Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-07-09T18:42:07.227" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="43999" PostId="21224" Score="1" Text="That site provides access to a full content of  a recently published work (so by default this work should not be on the public domain). They note: &quot;This document was uploaded by our user. The uploader already confirmed that they had the permission to publish it. If you are author/publisher or own the copyright of this documents, please report to us by using this DMCA report form&quot;. ; It seems the site did not obtain direct consent from the book publisher.  Anyway, I can't speak about this site specifically as I have no knowledge but I would personally try to avoid this kind of sites." CreationDate="2023-07-09T18:58:10.777" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44000" PostId="21224" Score="0" Text="@d_e Ok! Link &amp; comment eliminated! Thanks for letting me know!" CreationDate="2023-07-09T19:03:48.410" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44133" PostId="21224" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The translations seem to be very long, &amp; convoluted, relative to the original Latin. How about: &quot;Threats, which, prior to death are to be feared, are (now) of no consequence.&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-07-18T09:38:38.073" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44139" PostId="21224" Score="1" Text="@tony Please feel free to suggest your favorite translation to d_e. As for your translation above, note that the antecedent of the relative pronoun _quibus_ is not _minas_ but _eorum_ (NB: unfortunately, the title of the present question does not contain _eorum_, which is found in the text provided above by d_e)." CreationDate="2023-07-19T01:33:53.343" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44001" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="Upon reading the previous thread, I'm not sure I'm understanding the distinction you make here. Can you clarify what's so special about those particular examples? The Ovid example is a fairly straight gerundive of obligation, is it not?" CreationDate="2023-07-09T19:22:11.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44003" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thanks. Yes, the relevant context is provided in the related Q&amp;A, which are too long to be summarized here: hence the link. Basically, the point is that datives of agent are _typically_ found in contexts with the verb _esse_ (e.g. _Mihi hoc est deliberatum_ // _Carthago nobis delenda est_). Many/some of the examples that do not fall under this &quot;typical&quot; pattern (e.g. the ones included in the present post) are found in poetry and are probably influenced by Greek (v. previous linked Answer).  Here I wonder if these &quot;atypical&quot; cases can also be found in Latin classical prose." CreationDate="2023-07-09T19:45:50.037" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44004" PostId="21225" Score="1" Text="Got it, so just that third example I provided then. You can find it edited now having gotten rid of the extraneous bits." CreationDate="2023-07-09T19:49:31.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44012" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="Hmm in what way are the datives you provided different from the normal Latin dativus auctoris, why suppose a Greek influence? https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10584/ne-paelici-suspectaretur-tacitus" CreationDate="2023-07-09T22:30:26.000" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44013" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus Thanks for the link, which contains an interesting case of &quot;dative of agent&quot;. What is a &quot;normal&quot; dative of agent? Well, if by &quot;normal&quot;, one means &quot;any dative whose meaning can be related to agency&quot;, the ones above are &quot;normal&quot;. But that is not the point made here. Again, &quot;normal&quot;/typical datives of agent are those ones included in my reply to cmw's comment above. Are they different from the Greek ones exemplified in the Q above? Yes, probably they are. Please take a look at the link I provided in my Q above and read the previous post (both Q &amp; A) to follow the thread. Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-07-09T23:40:26.717" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44014" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: It's just that, in your question, I don't see any explanation of why they should not be 'normal', so I just didn't understand it. I don't have time at the moment to read another post behind a link which is several screens long..." CreationDate="2023-07-10T00:17:12.257" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44015" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I understand. Basically, my point is that we should not classify all &quot;datives of agent&quot; into the same syntactic &amp; semantic class. E.g. your example from Cicero in your link (_Sumatur nobis quidam praestans vir_ (Cic. Tusc. 5.68)) is to be classified into the set of acquisition verbs (_expetere, quaerere, conciliare, emere_, etc.) which crucially can also take a dative in the active. These datives are different from the typical datives of agent (_Carthago nobis delenda est_) and from the Greek ones above (_carmina scribuntur aquae potoribus_). We should not mix them in a list." CreationDate="2023-07-10T01:17:09.773" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44016" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="Does the Tacitus quote not suffice? Or are you for some reason creating a distinction between Tacitus and Cicero?" CreationDate="2023-07-10T02:39:01.317" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44019" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@cmw Since your interesting example from Tacitus is (probably) not due to an influence from Greek (cf. Hor. _carmina ... quae scribuntur aquae potoribus_), I understand that, in order to check your answer as valid, I should modify the title of the present post (e.g. eliminate &quot;Greek&quot; from it and replace it by &quot;non-canonical&quot; or something similar). This said, yes, as you note, I deliberately included Caesar &amp; Cicero in the Q to restrict the classical period a bit since later &quot;datives of agent&quot; can be found depending on non-verbal adjectives or even on active (!) verbs (Pinkster 2015: 248/9)." CreationDate="2023-07-10T03:14:42.933" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44020" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you for adding more of an explanation to the question. It is an interesting analysis, distinguishing between these different kinds of dative (which shall not be named agentive). I will study your distinction some more." CreationDate="2023-07-10T03:36:10.953" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44021" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino One issue in restricting it so it is that the distinction isn't well grounded. I don't think there's any good reason to separate Tacitus and Suetonius from Caesar and Cicero, except to remark the language in general shifts ever so slightly. But they're close enough together that they're not two different dialects. And Caesar's and Cicero's language is bound by their own genres and learning, so there may be further contexts to take into account than simple development." CreationDate="2023-07-10T03:51:46.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44081" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: The quote, Cicero Arch. 22, is given as Arch. 10 in Perseus; but, &quot;22&quot; in the Latin Library. Also, Perseus gives &quot;eiciemus&quot; as &quot;eiciamus&quot;; back to &quot;eiciemus&quot; in Lat. Lib." CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:41:18.897" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44086" PostId="21225" Score="0" Text="@tony yes, you're right. I guess that the use of subjunctive can also be explained by the marked modality involved here ('_Should_ we expel this citizen from our city....')." CreationDate="2023-07-13T15:19:17.623" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44005" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the answer! Note that the dative of your example is different from that of _carmina scribuntur aquae potoribus_ (see ex. above). Verbs like _quaero_ or _expeto_ can take a dative in their active variants: _mihi aliquid expeto/quaero_, whereby in the passive _aliquid mihi expetitur/quaeritur_ the dative can be preserved (an example similar to yours is: _nos hunc Heracliensem multis civitatibus expetitum de nostra civitate eiciemus?_ (Cic. Arch. 22))." CreationDate="2023-07-09T20:07:48.627" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44006" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I don't think this is the correct assessment. In the active, you have three nouns (nominative, included in the verb, accusative as a direct object, and dative of interest), but in the passive you only have two. The subject and the dative of interest merge, as they're the same, leaving behind the expected direct object to become the subject of the passive verb." CreationDate="2023-07-09T20:15:54.420" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44007" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="What you say &quot;the subject and the dative of interest merge, as they're the same&quot; can be said to be a good intuition but, believe me, this kind of &quot;merge&quot; is syntactically impossible. Anyway, your point goes well with Kühner &amp; Stegmann's (II 1, 324-325) descriptive proposal that datives like this express, at the same time, the agent (Germ. «Urheber») and the beneficiary. For a criticism of this &quot;blending/mixing&quot; view, see the one by Serbat (1996) included in this post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18518/on-the-analysis-of-mihi-in-praesidium-mihi-in-perpetuum-comparatum-est-cic" CreationDate="2023-07-09T20:35:14.553" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44008" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I remember that question. I haven't read Serbat in full, but no real evidence is provided for those assertions. I remember not being convinced, at least by what you presented. Maybe I'll come across an example in Tacitus at some point and revisit it then." CreationDate="2023-07-09T20:40:35.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44009" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="Ok. Many thanks for the discussion! Yes, Tacitus is a very good source to find many interesting innovations. As for Serbat's point, I agree with him in that we should not mix/blend &quot;agent&quot; and &quot;beneficiary&quot; in our definition of &quot;dative of agent&quot; but I don't agree with his proposal that this dative syntactically depends on the participial morpheme -t- or on the -nd- morpheme, basically because (true) datives of agent are not typically found in non-verbal contexts (except in poetry; cf. the first two exs. above and the related post linked in my question above)." CreationDate="2023-07-09T20:51:55.473" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44011" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="In any case, let me clarify that the alleged dative of agent that appears with infectum and perfectum forms of verbs like _expetere_, _quaerere_, _conciliare_, _comparare_, etc., which can indeed be found in Cicero, is not influenced by Greek and is in fact very different from the Greek dative of agent found e.g. in _carmina scribuntur aquae potoribus_. My specific question here is if we can find &quot;Greek dative of agents&quot; like this one in Latin classical prose. So note that the descriptive term &quot;dative of agent&quot; applies to a very heterogeneous set of datives, whereby it's easy to get lost." CreationDate="2023-07-09T21:22:08.617" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44017" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="Many thanks, cmw, for this interesting example from Tacitus. Do you know if this dative construction is an evolution from the dative structure that we've commented above with acquistion verbs (_quaerere, accipere, expetere, etc_), which is a genuinely Latin pattern, or is rather an influence from Greek or from poetry? Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-07-10T02:40:26.887" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44018" PostId="21226" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Most commentators that I've read do not treat any of this as influenced from the Greek, but rather as the natural development and expansion of Latin, so I cannot answer your question." CreationDate="2023-07-10T02:44:13.257" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44024" PostId="21227" Score="2" Text="Do you mean vocabulary? I suggest you get a dictionary. Lewis and Short is available as app  and PDF." CreationDate="2023-07-10T22:49:18.770" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="44033" PostId="21227" Score="0" Text="Actually in a sense, yes. I want to be able to read the book with a little need to take a look upon dictionary or grammar." CreationDate="2023-07-11T20:03:07.180" UserId="7126" />
  <row Id="44049" PostId="21227" Score="1" Text="Nabla: No. Those two alone won't set you up for reading fluently." CreationDate="2023-07-12T03:40:33.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44055" PostId="21227" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your comment. So what other sources should i use?" CreationDate="2023-07-12T08:38:26.927" UserId="7126" />
  <row Id="44023" PostId="21228" Score="3" Text="On potuero and ornabo, I imagine an elided verb such as parare or collocare. Gathering the resources logically proceeds the outfitting. &quot;I will outfit this army with whatever resources I will have been able (to amass).&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-10T17:26:55.363" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="44027" PostId="21230" Score="4" Text="Draconis said &quot;&quot;accountants doing math with big numbers would have alternate systems&quot;. I inferred from that that he knew that other systems existed which he had not explained. Are you saying that he -did- explain them? Which one was the 'accounting' method?" CreationDate="2023-07-11T15:40:41.103" UserId="4718" />
  <row Id="44415" PostId="21230" Score="0" Text="Would anyone downvoting like to point out what is actually _wrong_ in the answer or could stand improvement? Mitch's second guessing Draconis's wording seems a fairly obnoxious reason on its own for a downvote, given Draconis having months to clarify if he was misunderstood." CreationDate="2023-08-12T10:07:44.170" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44435" PostId="21230" Score="3" Text="@lly Perhaps some have felt that you don't quite address explicitly the main question (in bold in the original post). I got the impression from the comment that led to this question that there were systems other than the usual Roman numerals. To me ↂ and X̄ are symbol variants within a system, not a different system." CreationDate="2023-08-13T12:32:18.113" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44485" PostId="21230" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta __The question _does_ explicitly answer the bolded question__, which is why the downvotes without comment make no sense. Otherwise people are just penalizing me for OP's poor reading, when __Draconis has been separately messaged and apparently doesn't feel there's anything to add to the current question__. Meanwhile people feel 'the Romans used Babylonian numbers. trust me.' is _more_ helpful?" CreationDate="2023-08-16T04:48:34.723" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44486" PostId="21230" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta As far as 'those different systems don't count because I mean something else when I think about systems'... well, then start your own question on what you wish you could read about. Reread OP: He's specifically talking about the ways of _writing_ numbers. As far as your answer (although it's covered by my link), the Roman used decimals for integers but duodecimals for fractions, marking them with S for half or dots for each 1/12. Nox Hor XIIIS would be 13½ hours of night. Nox Hor XIIIS⋮ or XIIIS:· would be 13¾." CreationDate="2023-08-16T04:59:10.870" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44487" PostId="21230" Score="0" Text="That said, even if it's frustrating to get penalized for an accurate answer to the actual question being asked because people wish the question or the answer were different than they are, yes, thank you for at least saying _something_." CreationDate="2023-08-16T05:04:50.187" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44029" PostId="21231" Score="2" Text="To clarify, are you only looking for constructions using *porta* and *aperire*? There might be other words that behave differently, but I get the feeling that hunting for alternative vocabulary is not what you are after here." CreationDate="2023-07-11T16:50:42.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44031" PostId="21231" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Here I'm interested in a _morphosyntactic_ issue, rather than in a lexical one: please feel free to replace _porta_ by another noun or _aperire_ by another verb (NB: typically, non-agentive change of state verbs enter into this construction: cf.  ok&quot;The door opened&quot; &amp; &quot;*The cart pushed&quot;). Importantly, here I'm interested in the perfective forms of &quot;The door opened&quot;, not in their imperfective counterparts: e.g. _Porta se aperit_, _Porta aperit_ or the mediopassive _Porta aperitur_ are all attested (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin )." CreationDate="2023-07-11T17:10:05.743" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44032" PostId="21231" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta According to some authors, a mediopassive construction with a verb like _aperire_  is possible in the infectum (_Porta aperitur_ 'The door opens') but not in the perfectum (see pages 5 &amp; 6 of this work https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282299215_Semantic_and_morphosyntactic_constraints_on_anticausativization_Evidence_from_Latin_and_Old_Norse-Icelandic]&quot;). I do NOT understand why they exclude the perfective form of the mediopassive: for me, _Porta aperta est_, on one of its 3 possible readings, can also express &quot;The door opened&quot; but perhaps I'm wrong. Hence my question." CreationDate="2023-07-11T18:11:26.800" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44091" PostId="21231" Score="0" Text="Actually, in [one of the attached posts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/13139/4796), you bring an example of a perfect medio-passive (If I get this right!): *prius circumactus est annus quam ...*" CreationDate="2023-07-14T00:26:35.983" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44103" PostId="21231" Score="0" Text="@d_e Yes, in my opinion, this is another good example of a perfect medio-passive. Hence, again, it seems logical to conclude that Cennamo et al. (2015: pages 5-6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282299215_Semantic_and_morphosyntactic_constraints_on_anticausativization_Evidence_from_Latin_and_Old_Norse-Icelandic ) are wrong when saying that mediopassives, when expressing anticausativization, are only to be found in the infectum. Why did these authors conclude this? I don't know (and I'd like to know it, since, as noted, Cennamo is regarded as a worldwide expert on this topic)." CreationDate="2023-07-14T15:49:00.053" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44034" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="You're right, here the adjectival reading of the participle is, unfortunately (for me!), not excluded, whereby I'm afraid this is not a good example of what I'm looking for... As for what you say at the end of your answer, some grammars do offer some relevant evidence for the different nature of verbal and adjectival readings of a perfect participle. E.g, if _clausa_ has an adjectival reading, the perfective verbal form is _fuit_ (e.g. cf. _Livia aegrota fuit_ &amp; _Ianua clausa fuit_, which correspond to the following present constructions _L. aegrota est_ and _Ianua clausa est_, respectively)." CreationDate="2023-07-11T20:16:57.790" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44036" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="E.g. my highly recommended French textbook _VSVS_ by Lavency  (1985:165)  says: “On notera la différence entre _Mihi consilium captum est_ (présent correspondant à: _Mihi consilium captum **fuit**_) et _A me (ab+Abl) consilium captum est_  (passé correspondant à:  _A me consilium capitur_)&quot;. (bold mine)." CreationDate="2023-07-11T20:26:08.100" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44037" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I agree that with *fuit* one is forced to an adjectival reading. But the question here should rather be: Is there a situation that is unambiguously verbal? With *est* you can conceivably read it as a present adjectival or a perfect verbal interpretation, and I can't see a way to tell them reliably apart. It might of course just be my failure to see! It would help if you could provide an artificial example where the adjectival reading is excluded." CreationDate="2023-07-11T20:39:27.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44038" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="To be honest, my answer was partially supposed to be a counterquestion to gauge with a concrete example what a complete answer might look like. I find your question interesting but I'm not quite sure yet that it's answerable in principle." CreationDate="2023-07-11T20:43:22.620" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44039" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify/amplify Lavency's French quote above: in the (present) resultative construction _Mihi consilium captum est_ , the participle has adjectival nature (the same adjectival nature is involved in its paraphrase _Habeo consilium captum_), whereas in the (past) eventive passive construction _A me consilium captum est_ ('A decision {has been/was} taken by me') the participle has a verbal nature." CreationDate="2023-07-11T20:52:27.210" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44040" PostId="21232" Score="2" Text="I guess with the right adverb the ambiguity can be resolved. (something like *ter porta aperta est*) and @Mitomino, if you can provide list of relevant p.p.p. like *apertum*/*fractum*, corpus search be done more efficiently." CreationDate="2023-07-11T21:55:12.457" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44041" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="@d_e Your very interesting example _ter porta aperta est_ can have a verbal passive reading (&quot;the door {has been/was} opened thrice&quot;) and, in my opinion (pace Cennamo et al.?) can _also_ have a verbal mediopassive reading (&quot;the door opened by itself thrice&quot;). Crucially, _ter porta aperta est_ (in this tense) cannot have an adjectival reading (cf. ??&quot;The door is open thrice&quot;). So it's a good reply to Joonas’s question above (“Is there a situation that is unambiguously verbal?”). But note that this adjectival reading is correct in past tense: _Ter porta aperta fuit_ (&quot;the door was open thrice”)." CreationDate="2023-07-12T00:46:31.400" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44084" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="I was wondering what you mean when saying that &quot;I'm not quite sure yet that it's answerable in principle&quot;. I agree that the perfect participle plus the verb _esse_ have the same _surface_ form in all the three readings (verbal passive, verbal mediopassive, and adjectival) but this does not mean that we cannot ascertain, at least in some cases, each of the readings in a non-ambiguous way (e.g. thanks to the modifiers: as noted above, the presence of agentive adverbs or a purpose clause is only compatible with a verbal passive reading)." CreationDate="2023-07-13T14:42:08.303" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44085" PostId="21232" Score="0" Text="Similarly, as noted for English, the presence of &quot;by itself&quot; is only compatible with anticausatives: ok &quot;the door opened by itself&quot; // ?? &quot;The door was opened by itself&quot; // ?? &quot;The door was open by itself&quot; . In a comment to your answer, d_e also provides a nice example that is compatible with the anticausative (and with the verbal passive) but is incompatible with the adjectival reading. So what do you mean when saying that you &quot;can't see a way to tell them reliably apart&quot;. Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-07-13T14:43:55.600" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44080" PostId="21235" Score="0" Text="**Comments have been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/147198/discussion-on-answer-by-d-e-how-one-can-say-the-door-opened-in-latin).**" CreationDate="2023-07-13T01:51:38.500" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44060" PostId="21238" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your answer. I'd say that the reflexive construction _Porta se aperuit_ is ok but I'm not so sure about its _labile use_ (in the perfect form): _porta aperuit_. Do you have any preference for one of the two?  You're right: the issue whether Latin has a middle voice is a bit tricky. For me one of the best recent works on this topic is this doctoral dissertation by Pinzin: http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/12877/956151-1197504.pdf" CreationDate="2023-07-12T17:42:10.800" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44061" PostId="21238" Score="1" Text="By the way, let me tell you that I found your example _Porta aperta, gavisus est_ interesting from a syntactic point of view. With the comma, the Ablative Absolute can be claimed to have two possible readings, i.e. depending on the verbal or adjectival nature of the participle (cf. the verbal reading: 'once the door was opened' with the adjectival reading: 'with the door opened'). See this post for discussion: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13356/is-an-ablative-absolute-construction-like-port%C4%81-claus%C4%81-ambiguous-in-early-lati" CreationDate="2023-07-12T18:07:20.197" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44062" PostId="21238" Score="1" Text="Without the comma, a third reading is also possible: i.e. to analyze _porta aperta_ as a selected dominant participle construction ('he rejoiced from the fact that the door {has been/was} opened'). On this reading, this example would be similar to the attested one _absoluto Scaevola gauderet_ 'he'd delighted by Scaevola’s acquittal' (Cic. Orat. 2.281)" CreationDate="2023-07-12T18:09:02.027" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44088" PostId="21238" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Hello! Thank you for your excellent question and for your comments to my response. I have done a little research and I have many things to add. Where to begin? First, let's start with the Spanish strategy. How do we say something in Spanish? After putting the sentence &quot;The door opens&quot; into Google Translate, we get a Spanish translation, &quot;La puerta se abre.&quot; And if we use the past tense we get the translation, &quot;La puerta se abrio&quot;. So perhaps there is a way of translating sentences like &quot;The door opens&quot; and &quot;The door opened&quot; into Latin, using the active voice and a reflexive pronoun." CreationDate="2023-07-13T22:52:30.943" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="44089" PostId="21238" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I would also like to add another finding from my research. A lot of passive verb forms in Latin are reflexive in meaning. A lot of passive verb forms in Latin correspond to the middle voice. Some examples are &quot;Vertor&quot; (I turn) and &quot;Induor vestem&quot; (I dress or put on clothes). In these examples, the actor (subject) is also the acted upon, and while the reflexive pronoun might be added, it can also be omitted. We can find many examples of this among deponent verbs. See https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/deponent-verbs and https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/verb-conjugations." CreationDate="2023-07-13T23:46:20.333" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="44090" PostId="21238" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Regarding the translation of &quot;The door opened&quot; into Latin, it seems that the perfect passive forms &quot;Aperta est&quot; and &quot;Apertus est&quot; are attested in classical literature. These forms can be used in combination with the nouns &quot;Porta&quot; or &quot;Ianua&quot;, which both mean &quot;door&quot;. For example, &quot;Porta aperta est&quot; (The door opened / The door was opened) and &quot;Ianua aperta est&quot; (The door opened / The door was opened). Since passive verb forms are often reflexive (middle) in meaning, I think these sentences can be translated either way. And there might be other verbs that can be used in place of aperio." CreationDate="2023-07-13T23:53:44.580" UserId="235" />
  <row Id="44102" PostId="21238" Score="1" Text="Yes, you're right. Assuming that, as we have seen, _Porta aperta est_, on one of its three readings (i.e. the anticausative/mediopassive), can be interpreted as _The door opened_, the remaining issue is to work out whether _Porta aperta est_ (on the anticausative/mediopassive reading) and _Porta (se) aperuit_ mean exactly the same or involve different (though subtle) nuances. See my previous question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" CreationDate="2023-07-14T15:40:18.333" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44059" PostId="21239" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. By the way, are you sure that _porta_ is a good subject for this verb? What do you think about _Porta aperuit_? I'd say that the reflexive construction _Porta se aperuit_ is ok but I'm not sure about its _labile_ use (in the perfect form): _porta aperuit_ (v. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labile_verb )." CreationDate="2023-07-12T17:32:44.343" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44099" PostId="21239" Score="0" Text="Bizarre choice of verb. [*Hio*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hio) is almost exclusively stative, not fientive (medial or not), and it doesn't seem to occur classically in the literal general meaning &quot;open&quot; at all." CreationDate="2023-07-14T10:40:16.127" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44122" PostId="21239" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon : To be honest, I had *hiasco* in mind originally, but it doesn't exhibit a perfect stem. Perhaps *Porta hiascebat* would do." CreationDate="2023-07-17T20:41:02.643" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="44095" PostId="21242" Score="2" Text="It says &quot;Mathematici Graeci saepe lunam **astraque** intuiti sunt&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-14T10:24:19.230" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44096" PostId="21242" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: That's true, but &quot;asteaque&quot; is &quot;astra&quot; + the conjunction &quot;-que&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-14T10:36:48.643" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44097" PostId="21242" Score="3" Text="Yes, but that means *astra* doesn't refer to *lunam*; it's the moon *and* stars. (Remember *astra* is neuter, so the accusative and nominative look the same.)" CreationDate="2023-07-14T10:39:02.967" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44100" PostId="21243" Score="2" Text="For what it's worth, one reason they may have used _astrum_ instead of _stella_ is that stella is the native Latin word for star and astrum was borrowed from Greek. I can't speak to this directly but [per Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD#Ancient_Greek) it looks like they may have felt the need for that because stellae and Greek aster should properly just be stars and ἄστρον and astrum seem to be more inclusive of the other heavenly bodies like the planets, comets, &amp;c." CreationDate="2023-07-14T13:22:38.507" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44101" PostId="21244" Score="3" Text="Depends on context. Finnish, for example, is a modern language that has no exact equivalent of the English &quot;FYI&quot; across all use contexts. (And it wouldn't get abbreviated the same way.) Did you have a specific context in mind?" CreationDate="2023-07-14T13:23:39.607" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44104" PostId="21245" Score="1" Text="&quot;The Romans weren't big on acronyms&quot; ... say what??" CreationDate="2023-07-14T19:42:47.610" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44105" PostId="21245" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You have a few examples, but nothing even close to getting to USDA / USAF / FBI / FDA / ttyl / tmi / lmao, etc. I say that more to temper expectations that they would have had any sort of acronym for what we have. NB this is different from inscriptions' abbreviations!" CreationDate="2023-07-14T19:47:36.340" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44106" PostId="21245" Score="1" Text="That makes sense, it's just a little strange to read the Romans weren't big on acronyms when the average Roman coin reads something like *TI CLAVD CAESAR AVG P M TR P XI IMP P P COS V* etc. ;-)" CreationDate="2023-07-14T22:05:24.527" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44107" PostId="21245" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I think most distinguish between those types and acronyms proper. They definitely abbreviate their words (mostly in inscriptions and on coins), but you don't really see that in a literary text. The most is perhaps S. P. D. with letters (which is often written out in some way) and of course SQPR. The beginnings were there, but I just can't picture Cicero writing, &quot;Oh, and [FYI], Caesar is way over the line here [imvho], but [ig] we gotta go with it anyway [iykwim].&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-14T23:50:29.897" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44119" PostId="21245" Score="0" Text="Note that FYI is used to show that information is simply being presented and that no response or action is requested or expected. That is *not* what &quot;N.B.&quot; means." CreationDate="2023-07-17T03:05:57.087" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44108" PostId="21247" Score="0" Text="A great link there, Thanks! Interestingly, the article states that hyperbaton emphasizes the first of the two parts of the split. If I read that right, that means that it's *vitam* which is being emphasized, rather than *aeternam*, may he lead us to eternal *life* (and not death)." CreationDate="2023-07-16T01:48:37.900" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44109" PostId="21247" Score="1" Text="@Figulus I've just seen that Pinkster (2021: 1098; _The Oxford Latin Syntax_ vol.II) also analyzes the very same example from Cicero and concludes: &quot;the emphatic modifier _optatos_ ends up in the final position of the clause, a common place for focus constituents&quot;. Devine &amp; Stephens's (2019: 200) also analyze the very same example and say the same: the adjective has strong focus here. But you say that Agbayani &amp; Golston arrive at a different conclusion in their alternative approach based on prosodic movement. Are you sure? If so, I don't agree with them but with Pinkster and Devine &amp; Stephens." CreationDate="2023-07-16T03:23:04.987" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44113" PostId="21247" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, the link I was referring to was the wikipedia article. *Cum grano salis*... so no, I'm not really sure." CreationDate="2023-07-16T14:11:53.547" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44114" PostId="21253" Score="0" Text="I read somewhere that it came from Saint Thomas Aquinas, so not exactly ancient, as the word is used around here. I heard it as *qui distinguit bene docet.*" CreationDate="2023-07-16T14:18:21.967" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44115" PostId="21253" Score="1" Text="According to [this book](https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Collection_of_Legal_Maxims_in_Law_and/qMkEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22bene+docet%22&amp;pg=PA243&amp;printsec=frontcover)  this is from the &quot;Institutes of Lord Coke. &quot; (or maybe Justinian). According to google books the first occurrence I saw is London 1665 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Flora_Seu_De_Florum_Cultura_Or_A_Complet/PMZDAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22bene+docet,+qui+bene+distinguit%22+google+books&amp;pg=PP24&amp;printsec=frontcover )" CreationDate="2023-07-16T14:28:32.073" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44118" PostId="21253" Score="0" Text="@Figulus Yes, I've heard it in various word orders, e.g., &quot;_bene docet qui distinguit_&quot; etc." CreationDate="2023-07-17T00:04:38.637" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="44120" PostId="21259" Score="3" Text="Good thing the magic spells in your fantasy world are in Latin, not in German, is all I'm saying..." CreationDate="2023-07-17T06:59:21.750" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44121" PostId="21259" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, the pointing gesture would of course involve holding one's arm high with the palm facing downward toward the sick person, as if one is blessing them with the power radiating from the hand." CreationDate="2023-07-17T13:06:54.217" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44123" PostId="21263" Score="0" Text="This expression means &quot;to do something in order to gain more time&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-07-18T00:39:23.040" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="44129" PostId="21264" Score="0" Text="Aren't these imperatives? You have used the third-person. If this is counsel for others then should it be second, or second-person plural?" CreationDate="2023-07-18T08:54:18.583" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44136" PostId="21264" Score="0" Text="Yes, but I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) that negative imperatives weren't common or something along those lines. I decided to avoid that and go third person so it's more one, &quot;one should not follow in fear, but lead with light.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-18T15:45:51.367" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44140" PostId="21264" Score="1" Text="@Adam, what about the imperative future? You can keep the third person" CreationDate="2023-07-19T01:58:24.480" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="44144" PostId="21264" Score="0" Text="That would be fine with me - I'm really open to different forms of this." CreationDate="2023-07-19T15:11:31.487" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44124" PostId="21265" Score="2" Text="It should be noted that the correct pronunciation of a text in classical music may be different from that of an ordinary text. In English opera, you will often hear the r pronounced with the tongue, e.g. https://youtu.be/jOIAi2XwuWo?t=77" CreationDate="2023-07-18T01:56:21.117" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44126" PostId="21267" Score="1" Text="Don’t forget that the genitive form _θύρᾱς_ has a long _ᾱ_, even though the underlying ending is _-ες_ (or _-ος_) – the two get mashed together into one vowel. Contractions like this can often make it tricky to untangle stems from endings. (Your question isn’t really about linguistics as such, but questions about Ancient Greek are considered on-topic over at [latin.se], so I’ve flagged it to be migrated there.)" CreationDate="2023-07-17T20:19:13.153" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="44127" PostId="21267" Score="1" Text="Linguistically speaking this is a matter of opinion. τῑμή could be the stem, or it could be τῑμ, or maybe τῑμα. Each decision entails a different answer to the question &quot;what is the case ending?&quot;. Your question is really not about the linguistic analysis of Greek, it is about the nomenclature of traditional Greek grammar." CreationDate="2023-07-17T21:58:22.017" UserDisplayName="user6726" />
  <row Id="44130" PostId="21268" Score="4" Text="Note that the Vulgate expression is a literal translation from Aramaic, not idiomatic Latin. (It is obviously also the origin of the English idiom.)" CreationDate="2023-07-18T08:55:50.413" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44131" PostId="21268" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon: Does this invalidate ktm's answer?" CreationDate="2023-07-18T09:25:10.500" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44132" PostId="21268" Score="1" Text="@tony Depends on the context; at my university you'd lose points on an exam over this if you were a philology major, but maybe not if you were a theology major—it's definitely not Classical Latin, but it would obviously be understood by Neo-Latinists. It's just something to be aware of." CreationDate="2023-07-18T09:33:36.377" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44134" PostId="21268" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon, FWIW, I consulted S. Castellio idiomatic-Ciceronian translation [it reads](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Biblia_sacra/xmlCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22Tum+rex:+Enimvero%22&amp;pg=PA1195&amp;printsec=frontcover): *Tum Rex: Enimvero intellego ego vos inde **occasionem aucupari**, quod mihi rem videtis excidisse* ; quite frankly, it seems to be missing something. especially when *tempusque aucupentur* [is attested](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+S.+Rosc.+8.22&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0018) to mean seize your chance/time." CreationDate="2023-07-18T11:04:52.470" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44135" PostId="21269" Score="4" Text="*Advocatus* seems to cover at least a subset of this, but L&amp;S are terse about it." CreationDate="2023-07-18T11:51:09.847" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44141" PostId="21269" Score="4" Text="*Defensor* and *accusator* also quite literally mean &quot;defense attorney&quot; and &quot;prosecutor,&quot; at least in the context of legal proceedings." CreationDate="2023-07-19T06:38:06.827" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44128" PostId="21270" Score="1" Text="You can also explain why -η, when this is called **a-declension**. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_Greek#Long_a)" CreationDate="2023-07-18T07:51:48.290" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44137" PostId="21272" Score="1" Text="You could save readers the trouble of looking up how online Latin dictionaries define those three words by including their definitions in the question.  (But +1, because I found it an interesting question.)" CreationDate="2023-07-19T00:26:10.520" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44138" PostId="21273" Score="0" Text="Anyone that has marked exams will immediately understand it. Most answers fall into two categories: this looks like garbage, so I'll look through it to see what I can give points for; and this looks impressive, so I'll look through it to see if there is anything I can deduct points for. &quot;de bene esse&quot; describes the latter category." CreationDate="2023-07-19T00:32:20.077" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44143" PostId="21276" Score="3" Text="I can see the connection with stars being made in folk etymology, given *catastrophe*'s similarity to *disaster*." CreationDate="2023-07-19T14:13:16.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44149" PostId="21276" Score="0" Text="The reason *catastrophe* and *atrophy* have different endings is because the nouns they were based on have different endings (καταστροφή → *catastrophe*; ἀτροφία → Latin *atrophia* → French *atrophie* → *atrophy*), not because they're used differently in English." CreationDate="2023-07-19T18:20:19.187" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44146" PostId="21277" Score="0" Text="Strictly speaking, reductio ad absurdum doesn't refer to any sort of indirect proof, but specifically to a proof by contradiction. (Unless that's what &quot;indirect&quot; means in philosophy?)" CreationDate="2023-07-19T16:48:09.213" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44147" PostId="21277" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure this is even the best place for this question. This might be better on the philosophy stack, since it's asking about a specific philosophy term. Thoughts, @Draconis?" CreationDate="2023-07-19T17:09:05.440" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44148" PostId="21277" Score="0" Text="@cmw I was on the fence, but I think it fits better here because we have a long history of answering questions about Latin terminology in various fields (medicine, law, etc)." CreationDate="2023-07-19T17:29:33.613" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44151" PostId="21277" Score="1" Text="Can you define what you mean by direct and indirect proof and why *reductio ad absurdum* is right term for *indirect argument*?" CreationDate="2023-07-20T00:50:08.893" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44157" PostId="21277" Score="0" Text="@cmw If I were to write about modern mathematics (including mathematical logic) in Latin, I wouldn't use *reductio ad absurdum* for indirect proof. Instead, I'd go with *demonstratio recta/obliqua*. I have no clue whether these are attested. In the context of mathematics the answer might be different than in philosophy." CreationDate="2023-07-20T19:55:55.267" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44150" PostId="21278" Score="1" Text="Can you expand on this at all? Why are those terms used for &quot;direct arguments&quot;? How can you be confident in suggesting them if you're not sure what indirect and direct arguments are? Or are you only unsure of the indirect proof? Is there a difference between proof and argument?" CreationDate="2023-07-20T00:49:28.833" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44153" PostId="21280" Score="0" Text="The two categories of first-declension nouns people tend to distinguish are the long-α stems (-ᾱ(ς), which includes -η(ς) because long α regularly becomes η in Attic except after ι, ε, and ρ; θύρα is in this category) and the short-α stems (-ᾰ; e.g. Μοῦσα). Either way, you *cannot* write ᾶ for ᾱ—the circumflex accent is not interchangeable with the macron." CreationDate="2023-07-20T07:32:49.420" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44158" PostId="21284" Score="0" Text="As a native of Portuguese, I don't find Latin imprecise. It is more precise than its &quot;daughters&quot;, Actually, I do find Latin obvious. When I read something in Latin, I think with myself &quot;OMG! This is exactly the same in Portuguese!&quot; Maybe a non native of a romance language may find Latin weird, difficult, hard, but for me it's the same as Portuguese. I find the Latin rules easier than the Portuguese grammer." CreationDate="2023-07-21T01:56:59.103" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="44159" PostId="21284" Score="1" Text="**(1)** @ManuelCauãRebouças, maybe. that's why I ask for any &quot;objective&quot; measures; To clarify, I'm not referring to the grammar or inflexion itself which might make a language littler *harder* to learn, but not *imprecise* . Not unfrequently I encounter a Latin sentence where I know each and every word (at least that what I thought)  but I can't make sense of the sentence nevertheless .sometimes it is because lack of a particular sense of word. e.g *acies* can mean sight/eyes which is far from the military connotation I had in mind,  or *clamores* to applause rather than  shout/protest." CreationDate="2023-07-21T07:03:15.990" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44160" PostId="21284" Score="1" Text="**(2)** @ManuelCauãRebouças, Also some really monstrous verbs in Latin that can mean many things.  Maybe this is shared also in other languages, and I'm little bitter on Latin (thought this makes it attractive if I can use that term)  just because. Also while writing the question, I had in mind that Lucretius also complain on Latin (and Asteroides now adds many others!) to which I'll add Kepler that also complained about Latin thus: &quot;*lectio efficitur morosissima, praesertim in Latina lingua, quae caret articulis, et illa gratia quam habet graeca, cum per signa literaria loquitur.*&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-21T07:11:48.227" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44161" PostId="21284" Score="1" Text="**(3)** @ManuelCauãRebouças that said, there are aspects where Latin can be seem more precise indeed. for example the distinction between *suum* and *ejus* which is missing in some languages." CreationDate="2023-07-21T07:15:57.957" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44165" PostId="21284" Score="1" Text="How does one objectively measure whether any language is ‘precise’ or ‘imprecise’? All languages are essentially capable of expressing the same things in the same level of detail, just using different tools." CreationDate="2023-07-21T20:08:01.613" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="44170" PostId="21284" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet, well, that's true I guess. but it might be much less efficient to express the same thing in one language compared to another. Maybe &quot;precise&quot; is not the right word in the academic terminology - but probably simply nothing exists and I find that surprising. One can for example try to measure the &quot;sematic space&quot; of a word by inquiring which and what words it surrounds.  Or one can come up with a way to measure the susceptibility to ambiguity for each sentence pattern." CreationDate="2023-07-21T22:04:59.990" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44203" PostId="21284" Score="1" Text="Just personal opinions. I think the better interpretation of &quot;Latin is imprecise&quot; is &quot;Latin is not a completely precise language&quot; instead of &quot;Latin is more imprecise than other languages&quot;. Many people (according to my own observation) with no knowledge of Latin believe that Latin is a perfect standard without any ambiguity, whereas it is not." CreationDate="2023-07-23T10:41:37.890" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44213" PostId="21284" Score="0" Text="@d_e regarding (2) Have you ever looked up &quot;to set&quot; in an English dictionary? :)" CreationDate="2023-07-24T09:48:18.737" UserId="1756" />
  <row Id="44163" PostId="21285" Score="0" Text="Thanks for an interesting answer. Vocabulary size can perhaps be a rough gauge, but I maintain it is better not to be taken alone without frequency.  As Latin might have &quot;longer tail&quot; (i.e., many words with very few occurrences - this in natural in every language of course, but it might be more pronounced in Latin) . I would ask how many words suffice to cover, say, 80% of the classical corpus text?" CreationDate="2023-07-21T11:01:45.510" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44164" PostId="21285" Score="0" Text="&quot;*The Oxford Latin Dictionary has about 40,000 entries*&quot;.  By comparison the [Oxford English Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) has &quot;*approximately 301,100 main entries. Supplementing the entry headwords, there are 157,000 bold-type combinations and derivatives; 169,000 italicized-bold phrases and combinations; **616,500 word-forms in total**, including 137,000 pronunciations; 249,300 etymologies; 577,000 cross-references; and 2,412,400 usage quotations*&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-21T12:30:07.497" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44166" PostId="21285" Score="0" Text="@d_e I don't see any reason why Latin would have a longer tail" CreationDate="2023-07-21T20:24:39.660" UserId="3510" />
  <row Id="44168" PostId="21286" Score="2" Text="The term you're looking for is *minced oath*. (&quot;Gee whiz&quot; and its variants are also from Jesus, not Jerusalem.)" CreationDate="2023-07-21T21:51:59.840" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44173" PostId="21286" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Thank you. That term is more precise." CreationDate="2023-07-21T23:34:24.130" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="44167" PostId="21287" Score="5" Text="Is there a reason to think any words were &quot;born dual to them&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-07-21T21:50:23.047" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44169" PostId="21288" Score="1" Text="Reading *mehercle* as an ellipsis always felt like folk etymology to me, especially since the supposed full phrase is completely unattested. I'm inclined to compare it to Greek [μά](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%AC#Ancient_Greek), either as a loan (given that it's only ever used with a Greek god; μὰ Ἡρακλέα could be borrowed wholesale) or a true cognate." CreationDate="2023-07-21T22:02:42.913" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44171" PostId="21288" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon Yeah, I have my doubts, too. That's why I defaulted to just quoting Wiktionary. At least it fits for the purpose of the question (because of *mercle*). (Well, at least what the OP thought it was --- they're probably not minced oaths, but more in line with something like &quot;good-bye&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-07-21T22:09:46.827" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44179" PostId="21288" Score="0" Text="I'm sure the &quot;Graeco-Roman religion&quot; didn't tolerate disrespecting their gods (blasphemy), else why did they martyr Christians?" CreationDate="2023-07-22T04:51:33.800" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="44180" PostId="21288" Score="2" Text="@Geremia This is drastically oversimplifying things, but to a certain extent the Roman religion and the Roman state were one and the same, so the Christians saying &quot;hey join us and reject the old ways&quot; were undermining the state. But poking fun at Jupiter or using his name in jest wasn't a problem." CreationDate="2023-07-22T05:05:32.457" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44181" PostId="21288" Score="0" Text="@Geremia The ancient Greeks and Romans didn't hold such beliefs (which they deemed superstitions) that merely saying a name was blasphemy. That came later from outsiders." CreationDate="2023-07-22T05:39:42.580" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44190" PostId="21288" Score="0" Text="@cmw &quot;merely saying a name&quot; of a god wouldn't constitute blasphemy. Blasphemy would be using the name in a disrespectful or vulgar way." CreationDate="2023-07-22T17:59:36.517" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="44192" PostId="21288" Score="0" Text="@Geremia I think you're taking a modern stance [at odds with antiquity](https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2018-10-10/ty-article-magazine/.premium/we-shouldnt-take-gods-name-in-vain-but-what-is-it/). The Greeks and Romans put on irreverent comedies and wrote parodies about the gods all the time." CreationDate="2023-07-22T19:01:44.160" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44194" PostId="21288" Score="0" Text="@cmw If that's the case, then it seems minced oaths wouldn't exist among the pagan Romans. What about among the Christian Romans?" CreationDate="2023-07-22T19:40:42.280" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="44172" PostId="21289" Score="0" Text="Thanks. How would you rephrase &quot;born dual to&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-07-21T23:29:36.407" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="44182" PostId="21289" Score="3" Text="@Tim Well, what is it supposed to mean?" CreationDate="2023-07-22T07:01:01.993" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44215" PostId="21291" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Thank you. In that section of L&amp;S there is this ex., &quot;(visa) sed vi quadam sua inferunt sese hominibus noscitanda,&quot; = &quot;but through a certain power of their own they force their recognition upon men,&quot;. Is this a gerundive-of-obligation? The gerundive, &quot;noscitanda&quot;, appears to agree with ablative, &quot;sua&quot;. A gerundive, in an oblique case (ablative) can be translated as a gerund, giving: &quot;but with a certain power of their own (seen), they force their recognising upon men,&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-24T12:43:21.323" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44216" PostId="21291" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Tricky; those upon whom the obligation falls go into the dative; but, &quot;upon/ on&quot; require an ablative. Fortuitously, &quot;hominibus&quot;, is the same for both cases. Do you have a thought on this confusion? (I know that you are not keen on translating literally; but, I don't think the gerundive should just be glossed-over.) (Gellius 19.1.15)" CreationDate="2023-07-24T12:49:13.303" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44218" PostId="21291" Score="2" Text="@tony noscitanda modifies vi. They impose themselves upon people by a certain force that must be recognized. The hyperbaton makes it more emphatic." CreationDate="2023-07-24T14:45:53.300" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="44183" PostId="21292" Score="5" Text="To me, this quote sounds like it's talking specifically about the tradition based on imitating a fixed Classical style, rather than the language as a whole. Certainly &quot;authors of inferior Latinity&quot; were still speaking Latin, even if Cicero would disapprove of their word choices." CreationDate="2023-07-22T16:30:28.120" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44184" PostId="21292" Score="0" Text="True. I wonder if Adams' *Anthology of Informal Latin* has anything about this." CreationDate="2023-07-22T16:32:53.133" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44187" PostId="21292" Score="2" Text="As Draconis said, Cooper is talking there specifically about a conservative literary register of Latin, which he believes was distinct from popular speech. The whole book can be read here, if further context is helpful: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021614775/" CreationDate="2023-07-22T16:55:57.647" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="44191" PostId="21292" Score="0" Text="Also worth noting that lexical change is just one aspect of language change, and that in terms of sound changes and attendant levelling processes Latin was notably *much* less conservative than many of its neighbours." CreationDate="2023-07-22T18:19:31.910" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44214" PostId="21292" Score="0" Text="It seems to me that Latin did change over time, it's just that we call the modern, widely spoken version of Latin, Italian rather than Latin." CreationDate="2023-07-24T10:41:50.373" UserId="3550" />
  <row Id="44188" PostId="21293" Score="14" Text="It should be noted, though, that this &quot;types per tokens&quot; measure should be be taken with some sort of caution. Be sure that if Cicero's corpus was double the size the number of different types won't double - it would go up but not doubled. In other words, your suggested test of taking 1000 random words actually sounds better and solves this issue." CreationDate="2023-07-22T17:15:15.043" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44189" PostId="21293" Score="6" Text="@d_e True! I should try doing that experiment." CreationDate="2023-07-22T17:21:46.623" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44193" PostId="21293" Score="2" Text="I love to see what you find if you do that experiment. Great answer, by the way!" CreationDate="2023-07-22T19:32:19.267" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44211" PostId="21293" Score="2" Text="Wouldn't you expect the ratio of types:tokens to decrease as tokens increase? Is there a logarithmic graph of different authors for a visual comparison?" CreationDate="2023-07-24T03:42:05.977" UserId="1582" />
  <row Id="44393" PostId="21293" Score="0" Text="[1/2] I think d_e's comment isn't just a caveat, but a pretty fatal flaw with this answer. The type:token ratio of the sentence, &quot;I ate my hat&quot; is 1.00, but that tells me absolutely nothing about my vocabulary. I'm also skeptical of Stelzer's standing as a judge of Ciceronian style: he wrongly attributes the quote about &quot;extremely poor vocabulary&quot; to Albrecht, when in fact Albrecht (pg. 136) is quoting *and criticizing* Norden's characterization of &quot;literary Latin.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-10T05:23:57.803" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44394" PostId="21293" Score="0" Text="[2/2] Even Stelzer makes the decision to *include* Cicero as a representative author, rather than exclude him as an outlier (as he does for Justinian). The point about finding twice as many tokens in &quot;a thousand random words&quot; isn't right: this would only be true if every word was uniformly distributed, which is obviously not the case." CreationDate="2023-08-10T05:24:00.563" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44404" PostId="21293" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oops, the misquoting Albrecht is on me; the paper cites Albrecht for the claim that &quot;some&quot; call it that, and I missed that Albrecht wasn't actually the one espousing that viewpoint. I'll fix that. But you're right, this really should be using _normalized_ type-token ratios of some sort. When I have some time I'll go through and test that, and probably replace this answer with a new one. I have to confess the problem didn't occur to me until d_e pointed it out." CreationDate="2023-08-10T15:36:42.773" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44195" PostId="21295" Score="1" Text="It's in the accusative case. If you want a general meaning, we can say &quot;peccator perditus&quot;" CreationDate="2023-07-23T03:09:07.803" UserDisplayName="user11898" />
  <row Id="44196" PostId="21295" Score="1" Text="As Manuel implies, more context is needed. How will you use this? What do you mean by &quot;lost sinner&quot;? Lost as in you can't find them? Lost as in completely separated from god (but....you *can* see them*)? Lost as in *temporarily* separated? You need more information to get an appropriate translation, otherwise you might end up saying the wrong thing." CreationDate="2023-07-23T03:27:34.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44199" PostId="21295" Score="0" Text="@cmw I have edited and clarified. Thanks" CreationDate="2023-07-23T03:30:32.497" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="44200" PostId="21295" Score="1" Text="@lvdp Thanks for editing it. I'm still a bit confused, though. Lost to god? Lost can mean a couple different things, including lost = perished (gone forever) and lost = misplaced (hopefully soon will be found). Which definition are you going for here?" CreationDate="2023-07-23T04:53:47.537" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44201" PostId="21295" Score="0" Text="@cmw lost as in lost in ways, example: I am lost without you." CreationDate="2023-07-23T05:08:18.310" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="44208" PostId="21295" Score="0" Text="@lvdp Thanks for the context. Re-opened." CreationDate="2023-07-23T17:20:40.390" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44209" PostId="21295" Score="0" Text="Thank you, @cmw" CreationDate="2023-07-23T20:20:13.480" UserId="13547" />
  <row Id="44250" PostId="21296" Score="2" Text="in what location? By this point, Latin had significant regional diversity" CreationDate="2023-07-28T15:30:40.080" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44289" PostId="21296" Score="0" Text="Spain personally." CreationDate="2023-07-30T18:47:24.917" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="44204" PostId="21298" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16273/just-how-out-of-date-are-the-major-19th-early-20th-century-english-grammars-of-l" CreationDate="2023-07-23T12:31:25.373" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44210" PostId="21301" Score="0" Text="Thanks very much, were there any others you can list? :)" CreationDate="2023-07-24T02:32:55.137" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="44212" PostId="21301" Score="1" Text="@VivatLinguaLatina&#xA;You can review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_changes_from_Classical_Latin_to_Proto-Romance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Romance_language" CreationDate="2023-07-24T07:39:46.110" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44291" PostId="21301" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the resources" CreationDate="2023-07-30T23:58:50.537" UserId="10455" />
  <row Id="44217" PostId="21304" Score="2" Text="ob- was derived from ob, so has meanings inherited" CreationDate="2023-07-24T14:21:16.123" UserId="1100" />
  <row Id="44220" PostId="21304" Score="2" Text="@Tim Original meaning of this preposition is [reconstructed](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/op) to be the first one of meanings which you listed, i.e. &quot;in the direction of, towards&quot;. It is quite likely that this meaning was used for derivation of all these verbs, but meanings of verbs could have changed over time, and new meanings could have developed." CreationDate="2023-07-24T17:04:22.227" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44240" PostId="21304" Score="2" Text="Isn't your comment above more relevant as an answer than the body of your answer? I don't think the premise of this question is utterly misguided, despite the reception. The meaning of &quot;de-&quot; as a verb prefix can't be fully derived from the meaning of &quot;de&quot; the preposition, but they're not unrelated!" CreationDate="2023-07-26T19:33:16.467" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44242" PostId="21304" Score="2" Text="+1 That last point is most salient and one of the biggest misunderstandings of language learners. In the phrase, &quot;I'm watching you, &quot; does *watch* mean &quot;to spy on&quot;, &quot;to view&quot;, &quot;to spot check&quot;, or &quot;to protect&quot;? The answer is &quot;yes.&quot; And no English speaker will divide it up so nicely. So it's a mistake to think that one &quot;definition&quot; of that prefix is what those words are utilizing." CreationDate="2023-07-26T23:48:53.313" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44221" PostId="21306" Score="0" Text="OK, thanks for all this information, but is there any specific reason to transcribe  as &quot;ch&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-07-24T20:18:50.593" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44222" PostId="21306" Score="2" Text="@Charo Because it (probably) represented an aspirated velar stop, and the unaspirated velar stop in Etruscan is transcribed as _c_." CreationDate="2023-07-24T20:30:49.787" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44223" PostId="21306" Score="0" Text="Ah, OK, I now see." CreationDate="2023-07-24T20:41:14.563" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44224" PostId="21306" Score="0" Text="@Charo Or in other words—it probably represented something close to the sound of _c_ plus the sound of _h_. That's the same reason the Romans transcribed Greek chi and Punic kaph as _ch_, since the Latin alphabet didn't have a convenient letter for an aspirated stop. (I can edit this info into the answer if it's useful.)" CreationDate="2023-07-24T21:11:35.460" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44225" PostId="21306" Score="2" Text="Yes, please, @Draconis, I think it would be useful to add this info to your answer." CreationDate="2023-07-24T22:31:44.373" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44226" PostId="21308" Score="0" Text="Note the English phrase is ambiguous (are the guardians the mentors, or are they being mentored?). By chance, your Latin version (which is grammatically correct) has the same ambiguity." CreationDate="2023-07-25T17:54:02.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44227" PostId="21308" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel&#xA;For &quot;being mentored&quot;, would you not have to use passive participle *doctus* instead of active participle *docēns*?" CreationDate="2023-07-25T18:07:46.580" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44228" PostId="21308" Score="0" Text="@Arfrever Not with an implied subject and *custodes* being the object, e.g. in *hi doctores docentes illos custodes pacis*, etc." CreationDate="2023-07-25T18:18:04.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44300" PostId="21308" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel would changing the English version to &quot;Mentoring the guardians of peace&quot; or &quot;Teaching those who guard peace&quot; facilitate the translation to something less ambiguous?" CreationDate="2023-07-31T12:35:33.693" UserId="13800" />
  <row Id="44229" PostId="21309" Score="1" Text="due to further research, but one can consider other options than *consumere*. it seems to somewhat implying a deliberate action that was taken to *invest* (or sometimes even worse in negative connotation to *waste*); note that even in English the voice is passive/impersonal.  maybe something *prius circumactus est annus quam potest convalescere ...* ; or something like &quot;she needed a year to recover&quot;; Anyway, if *consumere* is used not sure the infinitive after is the most classical choice. One can also consider *(se/animum) colligo* instead of *convalesco* which tends to be more of the psychi." CreationDate="2023-07-25T20:14:58.557" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44235" PostId="21309" Score="0" Text="@d_e: Is there something missing? What came before, &quot;...due to further research,&quot;? Verb, &quot;consumere&quot;, was featured in this answer, Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6851/1982, for &quot;time taken&quot;. Thanks for the alternative translations: &quot;until a year has been turned around that she is able to recover&quot;. Verb, &quot;convalesco, tends to be more of the psychic&quot;, Oxford gives: &quot;recover&quot;; &quot;get better&quot;; &quot;grow strong&quot;; these, of course, may also apply to matters of the mind." CreationDate="2023-07-26T11:43:56.380" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44236" PostId="21309" Score="1" Text="sorry for bad phrasing. the linked answer there has *spend*  for active *consemere*. Is there a diff between &quot;it had taken her a year ..&quot; and &quot;She spent a year&quot;? that's what I was alluding to. But not sure the point holds hence &quot;due to further research&quot;;;; Now, I believe *convalescere* is completely okay (though I yet to see one example where the recovery is psychological after shock), so here I just wanted to add another option which is more particular for things of the mind than a general *convalesco* ." CreationDate="2023-07-26T12:18:08.740" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44237" PostId="21309" Score="1" Text="What I meant with &quot;Anyway, if *consumere* is used not sure the infinitive after is the most classical choice&quot;; is not agaisnt the verb *convalescere* itself (which as I said  is probably very good) but the very usage of the infinitive  *form*." CreationDate="2023-07-26T13:47:18.407" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44239" PostId="21309" Score="0" Text="@d_e: How about, &quot;...consumpsisse ut convalescere possit ex morte...&quot;; a result clause with a present subjunctive (historic-present consequence of the recovery--in the past; not violating sequence-of-tense). I wasn't sure about &quot;ex morte&quot; or just, &quot;morte&quot;--does it make a difference? Thanks again." CreationDate="2023-07-26T15:51:20.697" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44241" PostId="21309" Score="1" Text="I guess that's better but don;t know. in [L&amp;S dictionary](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=consumo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) there are examples with &quot;in + abl&quot; so maybe *in convalescendo* will also work." CreationDate="2023-07-26T20:54:18.800" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44253" PostId="21310" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Seb has said that the OP's offer, &quot;docentes custodes pacis&quot; is grammatically correct. Arfrever claims that this means, &quot;guardians (who are) teaching,&quot; not, &quot;teaching of guardians&quot;. Given that a present-participle must agree with the noun it's describing, are both versions correct? To eliminate the ambiguity is the infinitive, &quot;docere&quot;, the correct choice?" CreationDate="2023-07-29T08:16:41.747" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44254" PostId="21310" Score="0" Text="@tony &quot;*Docentēs custōdēs pācis*&quot; has 2 possible meanings: (1) &quot;guardians of peace, who are teaching&quot; (when *docentēs* is nominative and *custōdēs* is nominative); (2) &quot;some other persons are teaching guardians of peace&quot; (when *docentēs* is nominative and *custōdēs* is accusative). (If both are treated as accusatives, or as vocatives, then it will be some variation of first meaning.) (You can check their declension tables in Wiktionary if you want. They show that some level of syncretism is present here.) Meaning &quot;teaching of guardians&quot; is not possible for this sentence." CreationDate="2023-07-29T10:24:28.910" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44255" PostId="21310" Score="0" Text="@tony&#xA;Original question contains 「We are looking to create a motto for a training group for public servants. The motto in English would be &quot;Mentoring guardians of peace&quot;.」. With the most likely meaning of English sentence, this means that neither of meanings of &quot;*Docentēs custōdēs pācis*&quot; matches desired meaning." CreationDate="2023-07-29T10:29:07.013" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44256" PostId="21310" Score="0" Text="@tony For action noun with meaning &quot;(act of) teaching&quot;, either infinitive or a real noun (e.g. [*doctrīna*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doctrina#Latin)) is needed. Latin noun *doctrīna* can have neutral meaning, but I would avoid it in English community to avoid confusion with English noun [*doctrine*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doctrine#English) which has strong philosophical / theological / ideological / political connotations." CreationDate="2023-07-29T10:30:48.477" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44323" PostId="21310" Score="0" Text="@tony so then the proper grammatical form would be &quot;Doctrīna custōdēs pācis&quot;? I'm not clear on why there would be an aversion to using this. Can you expand further as to why it should be avoided? I commented above that it might serve better to change the English version of the motto to &quot;Mentoring the guardians of peace&quot; or &quot;Teaching those who guard peace&quot;. Would we end up with the same result?" CreationDate="2023-08-01T14:48:16.280" UserId="13800" />
  <row Id="44324" PostId="21310" Score="0" Text="@Pete&#xA;And what exactly are you trying to do with that no longer ambiguous English sentence? E.g. Google Translate is probably quite good for translations between English, French, Spanish, German etc., but for rarer languages like Latin it mostly produces garbage." CreationDate="2023-08-01T15:55:41.897" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44325" PostId="21310" Score="0" Text="@Pete For Latin sentence with noun *doctrīna*, use form of genitive (and plural here) of noun [*custōs*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/custos#Latin): &quot;*Doctrīna custōdum pācis*&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-01T16:06:11.300" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44233" PostId="21313" Score="1" Text="If only &quot;submit&quot; wasn't associated with the meaning &quot;upload&quot; in English... I think using &quot;summitto&quot; for &quot;to download&quot; can easily lead to a confusion." CreationDate="2023-07-26T09:49:19.023" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44234" PostId="21313" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler&#xA;I added alternative idea with *ferō*. Let's suffer more :) ." CreationDate="2023-07-26T10:07:23.973" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44251" PostId="21313" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler One issue with that though is that Latin can easily be confused with English already. Think about the meanings of *sententia* or the difference between *opportunitas* and *occasio*. There's no good reason to let English dictate what the Latin ought to be." CreationDate="2023-07-28T20:09:54.420" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44244" PostId="21316" Score="1" Text="If it's reconstructed as a fricative trill that would also explain the transcription ř, which is used for that (afaik) unique sound in Czech." CreationDate="2023-07-27T16:12:35.347" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44249" PostId="21316" Score="0" Text="All your references are really very interesting: thanks a lot! It's a curious thing to observe how Poultney translation sometimes differs from that of Ancillotti and Cerri. Even **habina** (acc. pl.) is understood as &quot;lamb&quot; by Tikkanen, who cites Untermann's *Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen* (2000), whereas in Ancillotti and Cerri it's &quot;scrofe da monta&quot;, that is, &quot;breeding sows&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-28T14:53:06.713" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44245" PostId="21320" Score="0" Text="That's why I put an asterisk before _Eius videt_; I wasn't implying it is grammatical." CreationDate="2023-07-27T23:17:47.693" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="44246" PostId="21320" Score="0" Text="Also, there is no example that is actually &quot;He sees his&quot; (period); you need to skip the part in parentheses and read to the end: &quot;He sees his dog&quot;." CreationDate="2023-07-27T23:19:28.497" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="44247" PostId="21320" Score="0" Text="But thanks for the detailed answer!" CreationDate="2023-07-27T23:20:24.153" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="44381" PostId="21321" Score="0" Text="My intention is not to provide an answer per se, but rather [this interesting source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfB9mX5UUNU) on the letter &quot;j&quot; and its relation to &quot;i&quot; in the Latin language thoughout the centuries." CreationDate="2023-08-08T20:52:25.607" UserId="13843" />
  <row Id="44320" PostId="21322" Score="2" Text="I'm not sure that the examples &quot;Flaccus Claudi&quot; and &quot;Hectoris Andromache&quot; need to be analyzed as elliptical constructions, but &quot;ad Opis&quot; is certainly relevant" CreationDate="2023-08-01T02:07:55.640" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="44252" PostId="21325" Score="0" Text="However, even when writers generally use U and V, they would apparently spell /su̯/ with SU, not SV. So there is still no consistency. Example: [suāvis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suavis#Latin). Or do you actually spell it as *svavis* / *svāvis*?" CreationDate="2023-07-29T06:42:12.027" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44258" PostId="21325" Score="0" Text="@Arfrever It varies a lot by publisher; I used to even use _qv_ and _ngv_ for labiovelars in my notes but nobody else does that so I ended up dropping it." CreationDate="2023-07-29T15:31:58.143" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44261" PostId="21325" Score="2" Text="@Arfrever: Note that su-, qu- and -gu- never ended up developing into clusters ending with [v] in Romance languages, and thus aren't pronounced with [v] in the Italian (or &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;) pronunciation of Latin. The pattern to the usual use of -V- and -U- is consistent; it just isn't as simple as &quot;U is always syllabic, V is always non-syllabic.&quot; (Other systems [have been used in the past](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/16277/9).)" CreationDate="2023-07-29T19:00:17.383" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="44299" PostId="21327" Score="0" Text="d_e asked why &quot;vinum&quot; &amp; &quot;sermonem&quot; are in the accusative and conjectured that this is a consequence of indirect speech (accusative-infinitive [&quot;credi&quot;] construction). If so, then why is this indirect speech a part of the subordinate &quot;qui&quot;-clause? Usually, the &quot;qui&quot;-clause is subordinate to the indirect speech with its verb in the subjunctive." CreationDate="2023-07-31T12:25:47.883" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44317" PostId="21327" Score="1" Text="@tony Well, it is this way around because of what Seneca is trying to say. There is no &quot;qui&quot; clause subordinate to the AcI because there's nothing in the AcI that the author wants to qualify further. And in any event, there's no rule saying relative clauses cannot contain indirect speech; in fact, this is more common than you seem to think. Just take the very first example Allen &amp; Greenough give in their [chapter on relative pronouns](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/relative-pronouns)." CreationDate="2023-07-31T21:54:41.997" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44257" PostId="21328" Score="1" Text="At the following link, you can find a copy of the [*Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages*](https://www.academia.edu/42457799/The_Cambridge_Encyclopedia_of_the_World_s_Ancient_Languages_Cambridge_University_Press_2004_)." CreationDate="2023-07-29T14:40:25.843" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44268" PostId="21329" Score="0" Text="Sorry: I've now realized that my previous comment was wrong. The word **treplanu** from tablet I b 9 contains also the suffix -ano-, so it seems to be the same adjective in another case. In fact, both **verufe treplanu** (I b 9) and **uerisco treblanir** (VI a 19, your previous example) are translated in Italian by Ancillotti and Cerri as &quot;porta Trebulana&quot;, that's is &quot;Trebulana door&quot;, where I think &quot;Trebulana&quot; can be consider an adjective. The translation in my book is a little difficult to follow because I have the whole translated text without any reference to number lines of the original." CreationDate="2023-07-29T22:40:58.643" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44269" PostId="21329" Score="0" Text="Anyway, your answer is now much more interesting." CreationDate="2023-07-29T22:41:11.573" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44270" PostId="21329" Score="0" Text="@Charo No worries, I misunderstood what you were going for, which accounted for why I included the other examples." CreationDate="2023-07-29T22:52:25.737" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44277" PostId="21329" Score="0" Text="I was under the impression that I was being misunderstood. For this reason, I decided to add the case of the imperative verb form *pihatu*, that I now see neither appears outside the Iguvine tablets in the *Titus database* nor in Donald O'Brien's collection of minor Umbrian inscriptions. So it seems that in Wallace chapter about &quot;Sabellian languages&quot; there are more errors than the ones mentioned in Klein's review." CreationDate="2023-07-30T14:42:29.137" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44278" PostId="21329" Score="1" Text="By the way, I have found this [Umbrian lexicon from Iguvine tablets](http://www.tavoleeugubine.it/public/file/tavole_eugubine/Vocabolario%20umbro.pdf), which seems to correspond to the contents of [section 12](https://teca.bncf.firenze.sbn.it/ImageViewer/servlet/ImageViewer?idr=BNCF0002763109) of [*Le tavole di Gubbio e la civiltà degli Umbri*](https://books.google.es/books?redir_esc=y&amp;hl=fr&amp;id=YYoZAQAAMAAJ&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=%22aplenia+%28II.a.23%29%22) by Ancillotti and Cerri. I find it very useful." CreationDate="2023-07-30T14:44:38.007" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44279" PostId="21329" Score="0" Text="@Charo That's the ticket! You can clearly see both words in italics instead of bold." CreationDate="2023-07-30T14:47:48.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44284" PostId="21329" Score="0" Text="By the way, your first examples had the spelling **treplanes**: I have now seen it's the same abl. pl. case as *treblanir* and *treblaneir*." CreationDate="2023-07-30T17:21:35.203" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44285" PostId="21329" Score="0" Text="@Charo Yep, this is due to rhotacism. Wallace mentions it on p. 821 (3.3.1)." CreationDate="2023-07-30T17:41:10.340" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44266" PostId="21330" Score="2" Text="I believe that dividing the question into several and ask one at at time as well as being more precise with the thing that make it hard to translate, has better chances in receiving constructive responses." CreationDate="2023-07-29T20:40:15.260" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44350" PostId="21330" Score="0" Text="It would be nice to know the source of this text, so we could find some context." CreationDate="2023-08-03T23:36:57.780" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44354" PostId="21330" Score="0" Text="It's from the Acta Et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Ministrorum Remonstrantium. It's a theological text, the defense of the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619)." CreationDate="2023-08-04T07:50:31.530" UserId="4985" />
  <row Id="44267" PostId="21332" Score="4" Text="The usual Latin adverb for &quot;numerous times&quot; is *saepe*, which in Croatian, if the Internet is not lying to me, is *često*." CreationDate="2023-07-29T22:09:20.433" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44360" PostId="21332" Score="1" Text="There is also [**aliquotiens**](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=aliquotiens)" CreationDate="2023-08-05T10:41:10.203" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44274" PostId="21333" Score="2" Text="You'll find [this thread](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2430/why-ex-nihilo-instead-of-e-nihilo) helpful. Basically, the only difference between those two sentences is the word order. The first is more in line with English, the second is better Latin." CreationDate="2023-07-30T13:54:58.410" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44275" PostId="21333" Score="0" Text="@cmw Thank you for that. Would you replace all U with V?" CreationDate="2023-07-30T14:36:08.103" UserId="13810" />
  <row Id="44276" PostId="21333" Score="2" Text="No, that's only a stylistic preference. See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6341/why-do-many-write-latin-words-with-both-letters-v-u/). I'd only do that if you were writing in caps." CreationDate="2023-07-30T14:42:15.973" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44282" PostId="21333" Score="0" Text="Is *factus* the best choice for *made* here? I think it implies a creative/agentic act of *making*, whereas I naturally interpret the English as being about material composition." CreationDate="2023-07-30T16:03:18.873" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="44290" PostId="21333" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I think it is based on what you said. It is more poetic." CreationDate="2023-07-30T21:29:52.373" UserId="13810" />
  <row Id="44286" PostId="21334" Score="2" Text="Even among the classical writers (though perhaps mainly later ones), the ablative is sometimes found instead of an accusative to express duration/extent of time. I've definitely seen examples in the letters of Pliny the Younger and possibly Seneca the Younger." CreationDate="2023-07-30T17:41:57.313" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44287" PostId="21334" Score="3" Text="Pliny 4.13: *ipse **pauculis** adhuc **diebus** in Tusculano commorabor, ut opusculum quod est in manibus absolvam.*" CreationDate="2023-07-30T17:52:44.637" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44288" PostId="21334" Score="3" Text="It's interesting that the [Greek](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/20-4.htm) does have an accusative there." CreationDate="2023-07-30T18:40:01.703" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44283" PostId="21335" Score="4" Text="The Bible is the single most frequently translated document in human history. Have you considered checking what other people made of it?" CreationDate="2023-07-30T17:15:59.103" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44408" PostId="21336" Score="2" Text="For Alice's Adventures in Wonderland translation into Latin the title set was &quot;Alicia in Terra Mirabili&quot; without a literal translation of the word adventure.  Translations of titles have many different reasons for taking their final form in another language, though might adventure be best expressed and the words of the title read better in Latin, by having the word adventure made implicit with the story taking place in a wonderland?" CreationDate="2023-08-11T01:45:58.173" UserId="10106" />
  <row Id="44414" PostId="21336" Score="3" Text="@Kotoba Trily Ngian: You might need to define the nature of the &quot;adventure&quot;. The &quot;Alice-in-Wonderland&quot; thing is a fantasy (Latin, &quot;phantasia&quot;); &quot;looking for adventure&quot; could mean anything: a war, a Virgin-Atlantic flight into space, a walk through the Amazon jungle (&quot;iter&quot; = &quot;journey&quot;, might be a good one); &quot;working with children&quot; is hard work which can be rewarding (&quot;praemium&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-08-12T08:19:41.937" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44448" PostId="21336" Score="2" Text="I doubt whether the various senses of English *adventure* could be captured in a single Latin word. What comes to mind: *acta, iter, Odyssia, excursio*." CreationDate="2023-08-13T23:48:16.170" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44293" PostId="21337" Score="2" Text="I don't think the Hebrew is ambiguous, actually: [every other instance of זֵכֶר](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_2143.htm) plus a possessive suffix in the Bible pretty clearly seems to have the objective reading (and from context so does this one, really), and whenever it talks about blotting out the memory *from* something it always uses a construction with the preposition מִן. (It's also perfectly possible to preserve that sort of ambiguity in English by just saying &quot;their memory&quot; instead of &quot;the memory of them&quot;, and the fact that translators don't is a choice.)" CreationDate="2023-07-31T02:23:22.260" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44294" PostId="21337" Score="2" Text="Actually, rereading, are you saying some of those English translations are going for the subjective reading? They're literally all objective." CreationDate="2023-07-31T02:29:41.130" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44302" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon, there's no min in this verse at all. linking together this verse (contextually) with others that contain a min is arriving at a conclusion that is not tenable." CreationDate="2023-07-31T12:53:58.590" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44304" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon &quot;memory of them&quot; is somewhat ambiguous.  The NIV &amp; NLT definitely go objective though: “and even their name is forgotten.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5 NIV11-GKE); “They have no further reward, nor are they remembered.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5 NLT-SE)" CreationDate="2023-07-31T13:02:53.813" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44306" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon The examples you list show the weakness of using a concordance, rather than plowing with one's own heifer and looking at the verses in in context. In Psa. 9:7, &quot;אָבַד זִכְרָם הֵמָּה&quot;, it is not provable in context whether it's subjective or objective. Likewise, in Psalm 30:5, the subject of &quot;לְזֵכֶר קָדְשׁוֹ&quot; is not known. Yes, the people thank God, but is it for him making his holiness known, or for them making his holiness known?  In that compressed poetry it's difficult to tell.  Your evidence is not convincing." CreationDate="2023-07-31T13:58:50.607" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44308" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="The thing about this concordance is that you can just click through to the context. Are you sure you understand the difference between the meaning of an objective and a subjective genitive construction? If you want to read לְזֵכֶר קָדְשׁוֹ in Psalm 30:4 subjectively the abstract holiness of YHWH itself must be doing the remembering (it's not about making known), and in Psalm 9:6 a subjective reading of &quot;you have destroyed their cities and their memory has perished&quot; necessitates positing an outbreak of dementia among the enemies, which clearly isn't the intended reading." CreationDate="2023-07-31T15:23:24.680" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44309" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon, or, in Psalm 9:6 it could just simply mean, that when they die, and their brain cells are decomposing, their decomposing brains have a hard time keeping their thoughts in long-term memory." CreationDate="2023-07-31T16:42:31.503" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44310" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon As to Psalm 30:4, cp Psa. 114:4, where &quot;זֵכֶר עָשָׂה לְנִפְלְאֹתָיו&quot; is clearly used in a causative sense.  Sure, &quot;עָשָׂה&quot; is added pleonastically. But the usage of &quot;זֵכֶר&quot; is clearly causative." CreationDate="2023-07-31T16:59:05.093" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44312" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="Re: Psalm 9:6, that's a joke, right? As for the rest, you're misunderstanding the structure of Psalm 11**1**:4 as well: עָשָׂה is the verb and not used &quot;pleonastically&quot;, זֵכֶר is a noun and the object of that verb, and none of it is relevant to this discussion." CreationDate="2023-07-31T17:26:35.190" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44313" PostId="21337" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/147587/discussion-between-epimanes-and-cairnarvon)." CreationDate="2023-07-31T17:34:27.550" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44295" PostId="21338" Score="1" Text="Are you learning Latin formally? Have you yet to come across an indirect statement?" CreationDate="2023-07-31T06:10:12.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44296" PostId="21338" Score="5" Text="People always worry about the wrong things. The real difficulty in &quot;I am happy to still be a child&quot; is how to translate &quot;child&quot; :-)" CreationDate="2023-07-31T06:44:11.680" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44297" PostId="21338" Score="0" Text="@cmw Are you telling me that should be translated as indirect speech, with accusative with infinitive? &quot;*Felix sum me etiamnunc liberum esse.*&quot;? I've studied Latin for two years in high-school." CreationDate="2023-07-31T07:41:15.300" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44303" PostId="21338" Score="2" Text="In &quot;*happy to still be a child*&quot;, &quot;to&quot; isn't really a word by itself that can be translated. This is an example of where the &quot;don't split an infinitive&quot; rule really should be applied: &quot;*happy to be still a child*&quot;, with &quot;to be&quot; treated as a single word, the infinitive form of the verb." CreationDate="2023-07-31T12:59:01.463" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44305" PostId="21338" Score="2" Text="https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/how-to-say-that-as-a-conjunction-as-in-im-pleased-that-it-is-friday/" CreationDate="2023-07-31T13:43:36.643" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44353" PostId="21338" Score="0" Text="In the given examples, my first intuition would be to use *quod*, when the main predicate expresses an emotion/sentiment about / caused by some fact." CreationDate="2023-08-04T01:47:06.813" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44358" PostId="21338" Score="0" Text="Obviously you want to get a t(o) in there, so *fēlīcitātem* rather than *felix*. Sounds like Polandball a bit, I am *of happy* to see you :D" CreationDate="2023-08-05T07:02:02.640" UserId="3576" />
  <row Id="44298" PostId="21339" Score="0" Text="I thought that, in the spoken language at the time of Jerome, it is the ablative that was going lost, not the accusative." CreationDate="2023-07-31T11:01:29.610" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44315" PostId="21339" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler That's a little later." CreationDate="2023-07-31T18:32:07.460" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44316" PostId="21339" Score="0" Text="@cmw What do you mean?" CreationDate="2023-07-31T18:49:47.170" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44311" PostId="21340" Score="0" Text="Related question on [pronunciation of H (η)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15002/the-pronunciation-of-eta-η)." CreationDate="2023-07-31T17:11:19.663" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44321" PostId="21340" Score="1" Text="For you, the main difference will in the quality, because your mother language does not distinguish the vowel length. For me it will be the opposite, for me certainly the main difference is in the quantity because in my language the length is phonemic and we happily treat our short and long i  as the versions of the same vowel even if they are actually different in the quality on the IPA chart. I can also see that in the Draconis' answer that concentrates solely on the quality aspect." CreationDate="2023-08-01T14:03:01.867" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="44314" PostId="21341" Score="1" Text="Would it be accurate to say that `[e]` is further back on the tongue than `[ɛ]` (&quot;bed&quot;), but not as far back as `[ɪ]` (&quot;pit&quot;)? The [IPA chart of vowels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Vowels) seems to indicate this." CreationDate="2023-07-31T18:08:27.137" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="47159" PostId="21341" Score="1" Text="@Adam – `[e]` is closer to `[i]` than `[ɛ]`. The best thing is to listen to French, German or Italian as they all have the pure `[e]` in their vowel repertoire – cf *l'été*, *Besen*, *bolognese*." CreationDate="2024-01-11T23:01:23.697" UserId="14621" />
  <row Id="44326" PostId="21342" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this. I will likely have it all in caps, as follows: EX STELLARVM PVLVERE FACTVS SVM. Just out of curiosity, do you have any favourite typeet that resembles old Latin? I am aware that any roman alphabet font will do, just curious!" CreationDate="2023-08-01T16:32:10.087" UserId="13810" />
  <row Id="44327" PostId="21342" Score="0" Text="@pmdci In the case of all caps, then yes, V not U is standard. I don't have a font in particular, sorry. I think there is a graphic design site on StackExchange that might be able to help with that, though." CreationDate="2023-08-01T18:01:38.877" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44334" PostId="21344" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your comprehensive and helpful answer CMW. Eucharistia Oedipodionia" CreationDate="2023-08-02T08:21:14.100" UserId="13828" />
  <row Id="44335" PostId="21344" Score="1" Text="@user13828 If you find that this answers your question completely, remember to click on the green tick to mark it completed. Happy to help!" CreationDate="2023-08-02T13:36:41.640" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44331" PostId="21347" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, the main question is &quot;can we use in +abl or +acc instead?&quot; Right?" CreationDate="2023-08-02T01:57:30.170" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44333" PostId="21347" Score="0" Text="@cmw, Well, I guess there are several questions there... as I say in the edit, I think we can use in+acc. But let me edit the question to be more precise later on" CreationDate="2023-08-02T08:26:42.090" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44336" PostId="21349" Score="0" Text="For a simple point, the original title was in the Greek language and the Greek alphabet, which have long been less accessible than their Latin counterparts in the west. But perhaps there's more to it." CreationDate="2023-08-02T14:56:54.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44337" PostId="21349" Score="1" Text="This question isn't really about Latin language, as I see it. It's about why a work of literature happens to be popularly known by a particular title among English speakers (granted that that title happens to include a Latin word). I think Literature Stack Exchange would be a better fit." CreationDate="2023-08-02T15:41:40.913" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44338" PostId="21349" Score="0" Text="@cnread This particular case is much more than that. There is something to be said about the Latinization of Greek names in general, but with this in particular, early (Renaissance) editions used both Oedipus Tyrannus and Oedipus Rex. I can see an answer coming from that angle to be particularly fruitful. But it's an arduous slog through all the different names." CreationDate="2023-08-02T16:20:16.367" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44339" PostId="21349" Score="1" Text="It could be relevant here if the reason for the name change was because of the meaning of _tyrannus_ itself, particularly if it was also influenced by updates to the myth by Latin-language writers (I'm thinking of Seneca's play _Oedipus_, which used neither _tyrannus_ nor _rex_ in the title)." CreationDate="2023-08-02T18:37:43.587" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44352" PostId="21349" Score="2" Text="Cf. *Iphigenia in Aulide*. I believe many Greek plays are (now) alternatively referred to by their Latin titles." CreationDate="2023-08-04T01:37:53.543" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44380" PostId="21349" Score="1" Text="@Adam yeah, I'd definitely think the connotation of injustice associated with tyrannus in most modern languages (but not so much in Ancient Greek) could easily motivate the preference" CreationDate="2023-08-08T14:29:31.067" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44341" PostId="21350" Score="2" Text="Remember that *facilis* can also take the infinitive (just like English) and also the gerund preceded by *ad*." CreationDate="2023-08-03T00:21:19.863" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44344" PostId="21350" Score="2" Text="@Figulus You're right but I guess the point here is try to find constructions that resemble the pattern &quot;X is easy to remember&quot; and sound idiomatic. For example, on the basis of attested exs. like _quod non modo facile ad credendum	&#xA;est_ (Cic. _Tusc_. 1,78), one could say things like _facile ad {reminiscendum/tenendum memoria}_, which are grammatical but do not sound fully idiomatic, right? One can indeed say _Hoc {recordari/memoria tenere/...} facile est_ but I guess the interesting point here is how to say _Hoc memoria facile tentu est_ (see Cairnarvon's answer below) in an idiomatic way." CreationDate="2023-08-03T03:02:42.733" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44438" PostId="21350" Score="2" Text="Wiltionary lists _memorō_ as one of the &quot;synonyms&quot; of _meminī_... perhaps it's not the same? It **does** have supines..." CreationDate="2023-08-13T13:38:22.647" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="44343" PostId="21351" Score="1" Text="I was wondering whether one could find any example where _memorabilis_ can be interpreted as '_easy_ to remember' (cf. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=memorabilis )." CreationDate="2023-08-03T00:49:42.117" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44345" PostId="21351" Score="1" Text="Since my answer below is not, properly speaking, an answer, I was wondering if I should rather convert it into a comment on your answer. The problem is that it's too long for a comment, right?" CreationDate="2023-08-03T03:06:06.860" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44346" PostId="21351" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino It's a bit unorthodox, but (personally speaking, as a user of the site) I'd say it contributes enough to understanding the question that it should stay. The alternative is to create a separate chatroom for discussing this more." CreationDate="2023-08-03T03:17:33.937" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44340" PostId="21352" Score="1" Text="_memoria tenere_ is indeed an idiomatic expression, but note it is _not_ idiomatic to use a predicate like 'X has Y in Z (e.g. in memory)' in the second supine construction. In fact, note that three-place predicates are not found in this construction (e.g. ?? _in navibus faciles collocatu_). It is very important to _bear in mind_ that the second supine construction never developed into a common expression type comparable to the English &quot;Tough Construction&quot; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tough_movement ). For more discussion, take a look at this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40266836" CreationDate="2023-08-02T23:18:08.203" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44347" PostId="21352" Score="0" Text="This might be better discussed off this answer, but that Wiki article is suspect. &quot;This problem is tough to solve&quot; is *not* equivalent to &quot;To solve this problem is tough.&quot; The latter finds a nice parallel with &quot;To think up solutions is easy.&quot; But that doesn't mean the solutions are easy; it is the &quot;thinking up&quot; of them that's easy. Likewise, the &quot;solving&quot; is what's tough. In that one case they're identical, but to equate them is to badly misunderstand the syntax here. I see it's all unsourced, but I thought that line of inquiry had been abandoned (or problemtaized?) decades ago." CreationDate="2023-08-03T03:30:09.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44348" PostId="21352" Score="1" Text="@cmw Just a clarification: I decided to include that Wiki article on the so-called &quot;tough construction&quot; (aka &quot;easy-to-please construction&quot;) basically for those people who do not know what this famous construction refers to. Unfortunately, I'm afraid this is the only Wiki article on this construction. Its inclusion above does _not_ mean that I agree with what is written there: e.g. I'm skeptical about the famous proposal that both examples are derivationally related in the syntax, basically because, as you rightly point out, there are meaning differences between the two alleged &quot;variants&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-03T04:14:21.593" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44351" PostId="21352" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I once read that the old passive and active English infinitives 'merged' in a way, long ago, as a result of which we have both  active &quot;she was the first poetess to win eternal renown&quot; and passive &quot;the prize to win was a talent of silver [= to be won]&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-04T01:27:55.453" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44349" PostId="21354" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2023-08-03T20:24:48.833" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44364" PostId="21355" Score="2" Text="Like almost all diagnoses of clinical psychology, these are very modern categories that weren't distinguished and/or didn't meaningfully exist before the 20th century. You aren't going to find contemporary Roman terminology for them." CreationDate="2023-08-05T22:10:53.217" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44372" PostId="21355" Score="0" Text="The study of the brain/psychology in any serious way is about 100 years old. The ancients likely just called these types of people crazy or dumb." CreationDate="2023-08-07T01:08:11.850" UserId="13849" />
  <row Id="44379" PostId="21355" Score="0" Text="depending on the specific individual being referred to and their relationship with the writer there's a good chance you'd see words whose translation would now be considered offensive. It is occasionally suggested that schizophrenia and related illnesses might be connected to ancient accounts of prophecy etc so it's possible they might be described as a *propheta*, *vates*, *fatidicus*,  etc" CreationDate="2023-08-08T14:23:02.740" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44359" PostId="21356" Score="3" Text="Question is if *non semel* can mean not (even) once - i.e., never." CreationDate="2023-08-05T10:32:04.083" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44361" PostId="21356" Score="0" Text="I like it! Could *nonnumquam* work too, here?" CreationDate="2023-08-05T11:35:39.470" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44362" PostId="21356" Score="3" Text="@d_e not as far as I know. I have seen non plus quam semel to mean “only once”" CreationDate="2023-08-05T18:46:49.507" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="44363" PostId="21356" Score="2" Text="@Figulus I think nonnumquam would work" CreationDate="2023-08-05T18:49:51.053" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="44456" PostId="21356" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel  I thought of *pluries*, which is attested, but not classically. Lewis and Short recommend using *saepius* or *identidem* rather than *pluries*, reminding me of SebastianKoppehel's note above about using *saepe*." CreationDate="2023-08-14T01:11:19.550" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44365" PostId="21360" Score="1" Text="What is &quot;ad&quot; doing here? What if it was omitted?" CreationDate="2023-08-06T09:07:17.763" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44376" PostId="21360" Score="1" Text="@tony *ad* connects the verb *venire* with its indirect object. According to L&amp;S the pure accusative would also possible, but they only have one dubious attestation for that and Georges doesn't mention it at all, so I would say if the *ad* were omitted, the sentence woule be more or less ungrammatical." CreationDate="2023-08-07T19:59:44.750" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44375" PostId="21363" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Many of your answers seem to have accumulated votes down and comments pointing out issues. If need any help figuring out what to do, consider asking a question on [our meta site](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/) and we can help you find the most productive ways to use this site. I hope you'll stick around and spend time learning Latin with the rest of us, and also remember to [vote up](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up) any posts you find useful." CreationDate="2023-08-07T13:16:36.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44366" PostId="21366" Score="5" Text="[*numerose*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23numerose%23) is quite rare and seems to be used mostly for rhythm, not frequency. Do you have any examples in mind that make you think this is the best suggestion?" CreationDate="2023-08-06T23:17:56.490" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44367" PostId="21366" Score="0" Text="The connotation of rhythm is listed under Roman numeral 2 (II) in Lewis and Short. The examples under Roman numeral 1 (I) seem closer to frequency. I liked numerōsē because it keeps the spirit of the original English sentence since the English word “numerous” derives from numerōsus, -a, -um (granted “saepe” is likely a better Latin word for “numerous times” as mentioned by someone else above)." CreationDate="2023-08-07T00:45:23.363" UserId="13849" />
  <row Id="44370" PostId="21366" Score="5" Text="I was actually referring to the occurrences of *numerose* (the adverb) in the link in my comment. It's worth noting that the L&amp;S entry has a section at the end for the adverb, and none of the given meanings is &quot;frequently.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-07T03:48:29.740" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44373" PostId="21371" Score="5" Text="Can you add to your answer a discussion on how well this works for the three examples in the question?" CreationDate="2023-08-07T06:06:45.053" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44377" PostId="21374" Score="1" Text="*Ordinata sint* would be &quot;have been arranged&quot;; it's *ordinentur* that would in fact mean &quot;are (being) arranged&quot;. The Loeb translation seems too free, though." CreationDate="2023-08-07T21:56:40.317" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44378" PostId="21374" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon, missing an explicit agent, I opted/forced for a stative reading which is manifestly wrong  . on a second reading it just  seems like *ordinari* can mean something like &quot;to make sense&quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-07T22:19:12.237" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44382" PostId="21376" Score="2" Text="Wonderful. Thank you so much for your help - that is really really great. I really appreciate it." CreationDate="2023-08-08T23:31:28.477" UserId="13856" />
  <row Id="44383" PostId="21376" Score="1" Text="@Kim Happy to help. Once you've chosen a translation, remember to click the check mark, which will mark it solved." CreationDate="2023-08-09T12:01:56.043" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44384" PostId="21378" Score="7" Text="There is, at any rate, a typo in the original as you've given it: alae ('wing') should be aleae ('game of chance', 'die'). Can you explain why you think the accusative form aleam is more correct than the genitive form al(e)ae?" CreationDate="2023-08-09T16:01:31.270" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44385" PostId="21379" Score="1" Text="&quot;skill will make something of the worst throws&quot; is loosely translated, but contains the same idea. It just doesn't express it in obligation, but possibility. (But I agree with the rest and of course +1.)" CreationDate="2023-08-09T20:20:47.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44387" PostId="21379" Score="3" Text="@cmw To be sure, but it is a bit like saying: Cato periodically reminded the Romans that Carthage could be defeated ;-)" CreationDate="2023-08-09T21:52:07.473" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44388" PostId="21379" Score="0" Text="Ha, I see. Fair point!" CreationDate="2023-08-09T21:53:48.833" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44503" PostId="21379" Score="0" Text="Indeed, re: corrigenda. Perhaps you should use &quot;shall&quot; instead of &quot;will&quot; to convey the sense of obligation -- if anyone makes that distinction anymore. &quot;Must&quot; would be clearer. As it stands, it's not a loose but a a mistranslation." CreationDate="2023-08-19T14:59:51.437" UserId="2915" />
  <row Id="44386" PostId="21380" Score="3" Text="The &quot;he said&quot; is just a bit of slightly free interpretation on the part of the translator, it's not strictly literally in the text. ἂν goes with περιγενόμενος; see what your link has to say about ἂν + the sort of verbal form περιγενόμενος is (though you really want to consult a grammar for this, not a dictionary)." CreationDate="2023-08-09T21:10:44.210" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44389" PostId="21380" Score="1" Text="The &quot;he said&quot; isn't related to ἄν but it is related to ὡς. See the LSJ entry, section C.I, &quot;with Participles in the case of the Subject, to mark the reason or motive of the action&quot;: that is, it implies that this is Aristippus's stated justification for the request, rather than the author's or someone else's." CreationDate="2023-08-09T22:58:19.850" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="44391" PostId="21380" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Thanks. περιγενόμενος appears to be an aorist middle participle, but of a deponent verb. I just had another look at the LSJ entry and I couldn't see anything which corresponded: care to say which section is involved, bearing in mind also that we're talking about a following ἂν... ?" CreationDate="2023-08-09T23:25:41.103" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="44392" PostId="21380" Score="2" Text="@mikerodent A. VI. 2 b, &quot;representing aor. opt.&quot;. It's the &quot;would enable him to&quot; in the translation that corresponds. Liddle and Scott both overcomplicate and underexplain things, though; just remember a participle + ἄν in any tense has the force of either a potential optative or a counterfactual indicative." CreationDate="2023-08-10T01:40:40.470" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44397" PostId="21380" Score="0" Text="Got it, thanks." CreationDate="2023-08-10T06:18:34.533" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="44398" PostId="21381" Score="1" Text="Ha! thanks for the intensive research. I've just looked the Loeb's Latin and it indeed reads *ordinent* - I should be more careful next time (though usually they put a footnote when there are several versions - this time it was missing.) . I don't see how the passive can mean &quot;are ordered well enough&quot; since it is present subjective it implies action happening right now/tomorrow but the *scripta* are already done." CreationDate="2023-08-10T08:30:06.423" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44399" PostId="21381" Score="0" Text="I also find the active *ordinent* strange. I've once read somewhere that netural nouns do not usually function as agents, but since then I've encountered dozens examples of this type, and yet I don't remember ever seeing ppp substantive being an agent for such real active verb such as *ordo*.  Maybe this is a subject to another question though." CreationDate="2023-08-10T08:33:51.900" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44400" PostId="21381" Score="1" Text="@d_e My &quot;the writings are ordered&quot; is supposed to be present tense, but I guess the English would be clearer if I wrote: &quot;Are **being** ordered well enough.&quot; The idea being that readers out there can constantly be observed putting the writings in order for their reading. I also find the *ordinent* strange; you can imagine the subject being anonymous people, but this is also quite unusual (except in words like *dicunt*). And why is the order that important at all? Overall this remains a dark passage." CreationDate="2023-08-10T08:39:26.237" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44401" PostId="21381" Score="0" Text="I see. Yeah... somewhat obscure passage indeed." CreationDate="2023-08-10T08:45:51.197" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44396" PostId="21382" Score="0" Text="Thanks. &quot;Could have&quot; seems to say that they didn't in fact overcome... is this the sense of the Ancient Greek? Or is it, as per the translation in my bilingual text &quot;... he pleads with him to give him X in order that he *could* do Y&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-08-10T06:17:08.827" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="44403" PostId="21382" Score="0" Text="It's the latter: Potentiality:  ⲱⲥ = &quot;so as to/so that...&quot;; ⲟⲩⲧⲱⲥ = &quot;in this way&quot;; ⲁⲛ = &quot;possibly be able to.&quot; Cairnarvon is right. The tricky part is what to do with &quot;περιγῑ́νομαι&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-10T13:04:53.553" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44407" PostId="21385" Score="5" Text="Do you have any references in support of the statement that the Romans used Babylonian or Greek number systems in contexts where Roman numerals were too clumsy? And what were the use contexts like? The word &quot;sciences&quot; isn't very clear to me here." CreationDate="2023-08-10T22:21:43.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44410" PostId="21385" Score="0" Text="I am a reasonable source, having teached such things a life long. Just take it for granted or open any book on history of Mathematics. Or delete it." CreationDate="2023-08-11T06:31:17.870" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="44494" PostId="21385" Score="4" Text="@RolandF: Did the request for a published source offend you, do you think it is unreasonable? You may very well be an expert on the topic, but how could strangers on the Internet know this?" CreationDate="2023-08-17T01:48:13.440" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="44409" PostId="21386" Score="2" Text="A suggestion for a starting point: *Academia Latinitati Fovendae*. I don't have the time to write up an answer, but perhaps someone can expand on this." CreationDate="2023-08-11T06:28:26.447" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44411" PostId="21387" Score="2" Text="Isn't the present active participle of &quot;esse&quot; &quot;essens&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-08-11T14:59:08.727" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44412" PostId="21387" Score="6" Text="@FlatAssembler Absolutely not. The expected participle is *sōns* (still preserved as an adjective with a different meaning), and *ēns* was coined in the classical period but never widely used." CreationDate="2023-08-11T15:25:41.280" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44413" PostId="21387" Score="8" Text="You also have *praesens*." CreationDate="2023-08-11T17:59:58.113" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44418" PostId="21392" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/667/did-ancient-romans-develop-cryptography-for-latin" CreationDate="2023-08-12T19:17:39.400" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44423" PostId="21394" Score="0" Text="Nice. It also suggests *investigare* to decipher" CreationDate="2023-08-12T20:46:15.650" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44431" PostId="21394" Score="0" Text="I'm guessing that &quot;rot-III&quot; wasn't in common usage." CreationDate="2023-08-13T00:43:38.073" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="45833" PostId="21394" Score="0" Text="Worth noting (haha) that Suetonius uses the same expression describing Augustus' even simpler cipher ([*Div. Aug.* 88](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/suetonius/suet.aug.html#88))." CreationDate="2023-12-09T22:20:47.920" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44424" PostId="21395" Score="1" Text="Very thought-provoking statements about language evolution here (or should we say devolution); Do words disappear because they are &quot;not needed&quot;? maybe there is chicken-egg issue involved here. I say that if *sons* was used, then a &quot;need&quot; would have been &quot;found&quot; to &quot;justify&quot; its existence. (I know how odd this sounds, but the point is there are many words in every language that are &quot;not needed&quot; yet still with us). Other than that, one can see a usage for this participle is AA constructions that is simply being omitted; e.g. &quot;caesare duce&quot; ." CreationDate="2023-08-12T21:14:13.833" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44425" PostId="21395" Score="2" Text="@d_e Well, if a word _does_ get used, presumably its users found it useful! Since we can say from the surviving corpus that people _didn't_ use sōns to mean &quot;being&quot; very often, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say they weren't finding it very useful for that purpose." CreationDate="2023-08-12T21:36:13.347" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44426" PostId="21395" Score="0" Text="right. The crux question then moves to &quot;usage&quot;. For some reason *sons* was not used -- but is it because it was not useful? If we look at many of distinct words in English - there are clearly useful - I once encountered the dying word *malapert* in some old text (I think one Loeb translation :) ) and found that word useful and handy. then finding out it was marked as *archaic* by Wiktionary (and indeed many native speakers are not familiar with that word) - one step before &quot;obsolete.&quot; why is that?" CreationDate="2023-08-12T21:48:01.950" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44427" PostId="21395" Score="0" Text="@d_e If nobody will understand you when you say it, is it really useful?" CreationDate="2023-08-12T22:22:15.647" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44428" PostId="21395" Score="1" Text="I see [Wiktionary gives the same explanation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sons#Latin), but I don't think vowel reduction would actually result in sons/sont- changing to sens/sent- in a non-initial syllable. The usual reduction outcome of -o- in a closed medial or final syllable is -u-, as in the third-declension present 3rd person plural endings -unt, -untur or the [old gerundive ending -undus](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4807). Sont- vs. -sent- look more like ablaut variants (I don't know the reason for that, but it could be as simple as analogy with other participles)." CreationDate="2023-08-12T23:14:18.850" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="44430" PostId="21395" Score="0" Text="If a world celeb, or be it Cicero, start using the word *malapert* would  not the word be used then?  I say that in the ecosystem of a living language there are several factors determining the fate of a word. I venture to baseless guess that chaotic factors are there. Surely *malapert* was and still is an *intrinsically* useful word - it was just replaced by other almost synonym word(s).  The diminishing *intrinsic* value of words does count but only a small factor in language evolution: such as some specific agriculture words that surely now gone. All I offer is a point for thought." CreationDate="2023-08-12T23:30:58.517" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44443" PostId="21395" Score="0" Text="That was insightful, thanks." CreationDate="2023-08-13T17:43:39.590" UserId="13844" />
  <row Id="44461" PostId="21395" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure this answers the question so much as replacing it with a different question: if the pres. ppl. of &quot;be&quot; really was so infrequent in Latin that it was lost, why was that? The corresponding form in Greek is very frequent, and it's not clear to me what syntactic differences between the two languages would account for the discrepancy." CreationDate="2023-08-14T17:19:44.363" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="44462" PostId="21395" Score="0" Text="@TKR If I had to guess, I'd say Greek loves its participles much more than Latin does, with a much more thorough complement of them; as a result, participles for &quot;function&quot; verbs end up getting more use than in Latin." CreationDate="2023-08-14T18:46:54.200" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44457" PostId="21399" Score="3" Text="Can you explain how this answers the question?" CreationDate="2023-08-14T03:16:50.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44458" PostId="21399" Score="0" Text="Difficult, similarly difficult as explaining how such a question is arising for Latin, a Language incapable to cope with philosophy at the classical level. Confer Shakespeare, Descartes or Heidegger for the reivival of all the ancient questions of &quot;To be&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-14T04:27:03.960" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="44444" PostId="21401" Score="0" Text="I’m glad I’m not the only one to be confounded by the bare dative in their name." CreationDate="2023-08-13T21:56:51.653" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="44445" PostId="21401" Score="0" Text="I suppose A&amp;G 505b offers some precedent." CreationDate="2023-08-13T21:59:25.217" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="44455" PostId="21401" Score="0" Text="This is great, thank you Sebastian. I'll have some stickers printed right away :)" CreationDate="2023-08-14T00:41:40.057" UserId="13872" />
  <row Id="44454" PostId="21402" Score="0" Text="Hey @cmw, thank you for your thoughtful response! In a vacuum I think I would use your approach because now that you mention it, I am reminded of the French _&quot;société&quot;_ which indeed translates as &quot;company&quot;.  However I think for aesthetic reasons I'll stick with the less-accurate &quot;societas&quot;, just because it'll hopefully remind my (non-Latin) audience of a &quot;society&quot; and perhaps sound less like something from a university than the more accurate &quot;collegium&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-14T00:40:17.807" UserId="13872" />
  <row Id="44463" PostId="21403" Score="1" Text="Are you asking specifically for humorous purposes, or just in general?" CreationDate="2023-08-14T19:26:55.020" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44464" PostId="21403" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I updated it for clarity." CreationDate="2023-08-14T19:29:31.873" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44465" PostId="21404" Score="1" Text="The Catullus example is great! Thank you for information." CreationDate="2023-08-14T20:41:33.610" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44466" PostId="21405" Score="1" Text="Do you think that the _inner_ syntactic structure of _mihi puero_ is different from that of the so-called Ablative Absolute (AA) _me puero_? I'm raising this point since there is an interesting debate in the literature on Latin syntax as to whether the AA is an expanded Nominal Phrase (e.g. Ruppel 2013: p. 10, i.a.) or is a subordinate clause (e.g. Pinkster 2021: p. 5, i.a.)." CreationDate="2023-08-14T22:07:49.020" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44468" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I don't have the numbers on me, but aren't phrases like *me puero*, where the subject of the ablative absolute is the same as the subject of the sentence, relatively rare, especially compared to ones where the ablative absolute does not relate to the subject (e.g. *Caesare consule Cicero ad me scripsit*)?" CreationDate="2023-08-14T23:40:11.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44469" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@cmw Yes, examples with this subject coreferentiality are very rare in Classical Latin (e.g. _Coactis equitum milibus VIII...haec... recensebantur_ (Caes. _Gall_. VII, 76, 3); e.g. according to Tarriño (2000: 60), &quot;La proporción en el libro &lt;VII Bell. Gall.&gt; de César es por tanto de 1/290, mientras que en G(regory of)T(ours) ha aumentado a 1/55&quot;: https://gredos.usal.es/bitstream/handle/10366/55584/978-84-7800-902-2.pdf?sequence=1). In contrast, it seems that this subject coreferentiality is frequent in inscriptions (e.g.  _/monumentum/me vivo aedific/avi_ . . .  CIL I.1251.3–5 (Rome, Rep.)))." CreationDate="2023-08-15T00:45:06.923" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44470" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino That makes me thinks it's a matter of formality rather than grammar." CreationDate="2023-08-15T01:10:30.013" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44471" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@cmw Formality/genre/style/... is indeed relevant (e.g. Classical Latin prose vs. inscriptions) but at the same time grammar (in this case, syntax and its connection with information structure) is also relevant when accounting for why the abovementioned example that involves subject coreferentiality is so infrequent compared to another examples that are also said to violate the typical AA rule (for more discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15055/grammatical-structure-of-obsidibus-imperatis-centum-hos-haeduis-custodiendos-tr/15058#15058 )." CreationDate="2023-08-15T02:04:38.250" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44472" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: How are you translating, &quot;me puero&quot; = &quot;with me having been a boy&quot;; rendered to, &quot;when I was a boy&quot;? Did the Romans say it like this?" CreationDate="2023-08-15T07:57:32.790" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44473" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@cmw: In &quot;Caesare consule Cicero ad me scripsit&quot; = &quot;with Caesar having been Consul, Cicero wrote to me&quot;, is it rendered to &quot;when Caesar was Consul...&quot; or, &quot;when Caesar was made Consul...&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-08-15T08:04:47.557" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44474" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@tony The former. You would see a verb if it were the latter." CreationDate="2023-08-15T10:42:00.170" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44479" PostId="21405" Score="0" Text="@tony Note that one thing is how we translate it into English (e.g. 'when I (was) a child') and a very different one is how we analyze the Latin expression. One should not mix _translation_ to his language with _analysis_ of the original language. I'm saying this because your &quot;with me having been a boy&quot; seems a mix of translation and analysis. I disagree with those who think that there is an elliptical participle in AA's like _me puero_ (cf. its presence in Ancient Greek). In my view, the constituent _Cicerone consule_ has the same analysis as _Ciceronem consulem_ in _post Ciceronem consulem_." CreationDate="2023-08-15T17:51:38.750" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="44476" PostId="21407" Score="1" Text="Does Wikipedia say something specific about Plutarch or Augustine? Any numbers and words like book and chapter help immensely. You could at least link to the Wikipedia page to make it easier to start tracking it down." CreationDate="2023-08-15T12:40:15.907" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44477" PostId="21407" Score="0" Text="Indeed, here you go:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundus_vult_decipi,_ergo_decipiatur#:~:text=Attributions,world%20loves%20to%20be%20deceived.%22" CreationDate="2023-08-15T14:54:49.933" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44478" PostId="21407" Score="2" Text="Obviously Wikipedia does *not* attribute it to Augustine or Plutarch, but there *is* a passage in *De civitate Dei* in which similar thoughts, but *not* this particular expression, are attributed to Q. Mucius Scaevola and Varro." CreationDate="2023-08-15T15:01:34.610" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44480" PostId="21408" Score="1" Text="Fascinating (!)" CreationDate="2023-08-15T21:29:00.370" UserId="13648" />
  <row Id="44481" PostId="21408" Score="0" Text="[LEO](https://dict.leo.org/german-english/%C3%A4ffen) has an archaic verb *äffen* meaning deceive/mislead, with the perfect geäfft. Probably it's related to Affe and nachäffen somehow, but it doesn't mean the same as nachäffen." CreationDate="2023-08-16T02:06:15.893" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="44482" PostId="21408" Score="2" Text="*mundus vult decipi* has [earlier appearance](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sermones_quadragesimales_Sermones_de_san/KdSwQzpTKawC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22Mundus+vult+decipi%22+Barletta&amp;pg=PA102-IA1&amp;printsec=frontcover)  (1497) in *Sermones quadragesimales; Sermones de sanctis* by Gabriel Barletta. It reads: &quot;Si quis vult esse amicus huius mundi: vadat cum collo torto. Iste mundus vult decipi.&quot;;;; Not sure that's related though. Then you can find it in Marthin Luther and Calvin (not sure if earlier than Sebastian Franck);" CreationDate="2023-08-16T02:49:29.667" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44483" PostId="21408" Score="1" Text="Re Calvin: a closer phrase is found in [one of his works](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Praelectiones_in_librum_prophetiarum_Jer/PcQy8nIjhh0C?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22Mundus+vult+decipi%22+calvin&amp;pg=PA47&amp;printsec=frontcover), it reads:  &quot;quemadmodum etiam monachis fuit in ore, Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur in nomine Diaboli.&quot; (probably later than Sebastian Franck but contains also *decipiatur*.)" CreationDate="2023-08-16T03:03:50.200" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44484" PostId="21408" Score="2" Text="Finally, *Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur ergo*  [can be found in 1524](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sammlung_selten_gewordener_p%C3%A4dagogische/tvnVHOu-sw8C?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22Mundus+vult+decipi+decipiatur%22&amp;pg=RA1-PA40&amp;printsec=frontcover) I believe this is earlier than Frank. Unfortunately I can't understand the surrended text there." CreationDate="2023-08-16T03:23:25.667" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44489" PostId="21408" Score="2" Text="@d_e The year must be an error on Google's part, given that the book is called &quot;A collection of rare educational treatises from the 16th and 17th century&quot;. The overview page has an entry that suggests 1879 as earliest publishing date. The surrounding text (if you scroll up the date given for this part of the collection is 1693) complains that modern academics defraud students of a proper education because these days they subscribe to the secular Zeitgeist. The German sounds modern even for 1693, so I wonder if this has been edited from the original." CreationDate="2023-08-16T10:35:56.620" UserId="13895" />
  <row Id="44490" PostId="21408" Score="0" Text="@EikePierstorff, thanks for noting. I guess then, I was, too, deceived. A computer user that I am." CreationDate="2023-08-16T10:45:19.783" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44590" PostId="21411" Score="1" Text="Yep, as a motto of sorts, you can reverse them with no other change in grammar." CreationDate="2023-08-27T23:14:05.817" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44639" PostId="21411" Score="1" Text="The quote of Horace is the beginning of De arte poetica v. 361; the scansion is: - x - uu - u (where &quot;x&quot; is the replacement of an uu by an -). The reversement of the word order wpuld destroy the hexameter. BTW, the length of the e in poesis is due to the Eta in the underlying greek word ποίησις." CreationDate="2023-08-27T18:15:50.653" UserId="13962" />
  <row Id="44495" PostId="21412" Score="3" Text="Related: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/11658/natura-non-facit-saltus-nature-does-not-make-jumps-who-said-that" CreationDate="2023-08-17T20:23:38.370" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44498" PostId="21412" Score="0" Text="Complete account in German in  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_non_facit_saltus. The philosophical axiom is ancient Greek with a plural by the Eleates. Confer Zenon paradox.    Newton and Leibniz  meaning is the plural form saltus because it means continuity of movement everywhere along a mechanical point trajectory. In biology it sometimes  used in the singular, saltum, because, per se, the reproduction process is discountinous with conjectured  large single steps of fundamental changes occurring  at random very rarely and possibly a a single event ." CreationDate="2023-08-19T09:35:22.327" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="44522" PostId="21412" Score="0" Text="@RolandF: Thanks for your comment.  Unfortunately my German is not up to par.  What do you mean by &quot;Confer Zenon paradox&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-08-20T06:27:28.477" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="44523" PostId="21412" Score="0" Text="The ancient mathematics knew numbers by fractions only. So if Achilleus is trying to pass the turtle running at speed 1 by speed 100 per minute, he has to half the distance infinitely often. The Eleate Zenon from Italy conjectured that this process needs infinite time, buffling the Athenian  philosophers  with his theorem, that motion is impossible (to describe by numbers  without implied 'saltus'). The modern form is Quantum Zenon paradox; an  electron under constant recorded measurement of its position cannot move. Even the eye-brain-system interpolates movement as series of still pictures." CreationDate="2023-08-20T07:01:43.433" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="44524" PostId="21412" Score="0" Text="@RolandF, that's an interesting analysis of Zeno's paradox.  The usual version I am familiar with concludes that &quot;motion is impossible&quot; or &quot;motion is an illusion&quot;, rather than that &quot;motion is impossible without jumps&quot;.  In other words, the connection between Zeno's paradox and this *question* is a novelty to me.  Do you have any sources for this analysis of Zeno's paradox?  According to you, he did *not* prove that motion is impossible, but rather that &quot;motion is impossible without jumps&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-20T07:15:34.267" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="44535" PostId="21412" Score="0" Text="It is the ancient precursor of the modern two paradimata of physics: Human motion with time in space  against a momentous look at a space-time continuum  with all its history, like the gods. The incomplete Greek  mathematics, that sought absolute truth by logical proof, an therefore discarded all attempts to introduce the field of real numbers on an axiomatic basis, could produce paradoxes to common sense easily. Archimedes around 250 BC would have laughed at these discussions in old Athens: He had an idea of continuity, filling gaps between rational numbers by inifinite approximates." CreationDate="2023-08-21T12:32:18.293" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="44496" PostId="21415" Score="0" Text="This link also gives &quot;incipit&quot; as an example for [ɪ], surely that's a lot more dubious?&#xA;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Latin" CreationDate="2023-08-18T03:07:22.860" UserId="13674" />
  <row Id="44497" PostId="21415" Score="3" Text="@Nomad1004 Just as _ō_ and _u_ merged in Romance, so did _ē_ and _i_, in fact! So it seems short _i_ was also closer to _ē_ in quality than to _ī_." CreationDate="2023-08-18T03:14:23.277" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44499" PostId="21419" Score="1" Text="I think we'll need more context to be able to translate that. For example, do you mean to say that light is dead and is to be buried like a corpse or that the light should be hidden thoroughly? And does light mean literal light or something spiritual? Please [edit] to add details of the context." CreationDate="2023-08-19T12:03:26.650" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44500" PostId="21419" Score="1" Text="If you want to produce a physical item tomorrow, asking today is a bit late. You may well get an answer within a day, but don't count on that, or on the first answer being the best one. Waiting a bit longer is likely to reward you with a better translation." CreationDate="2023-08-19T12:05:31.860" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44502" PostId="21419" Score="0" Text="Yes I mean that the light is dead. Thanks so much! I would be interested to know both versions though." CreationDate="2023-08-19T13:46:43.440" UserId="11885" />
  <row Id="44501" PostId="21420" Score="3" Text="Note that *sino* is quite unnatural choice. even if it can mean *to put* when in active, this is most certainly not the main use of that verb. It reads more like: let the light be in the cave - i.e., let it go, leave it, allow it. Also, the present subjective is little surprising  - but it might be defended if OP provides more context." CreationDate="2023-08-19T12:43:12.507" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44504" PostId="21421" Score="4" Text="No, it's not a good translation. But in order to help you best, can you edit your question to explain why you chose the words you chose and what you are trying to convey? Something you'll learn as you get deeper in Latin is that you can't just do a word-for-word translation." CreationDate="2023-08-19T16:31:40.063" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44505" PostId="21421" Score="0" Text="I guess what I would be trying to convey is a type of “superiority” in a way. Almost like “I am the one”, how I use it in this context would have a bigger emphasis on “him” so it would be “I am HIM”. I hope that makes sense." CreationDate="2023-08-19T17:26:53.290" UserId="11885" />
  <row Id="44506" PostId="21421" Score="5" Text="Google Translate fun again: &quot;I am him&quot; (without full stop) translates to &quot;ego sum illi&quot;, but &quot;I am him.&quot; (with full stop) to &quot;Eum ego.&quot; Just to be clear, both are gibberish." CreationDate="2023-08-19T19:28:14.730" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44512" PostId="21421" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Technically, *ego sum illi* could mean &quot;I am his&quot; with a dative of possession. Not sure I've ever seen that with *sum*, though. Doubtful Google is doing that anyway." CreationDate="2023-08-19T23:41:41.760" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44528" PostId="21421" Score="0" Text="I would suggest *ipse sum*, ‘I am that same one’." CreationDate="2023-08-20T18:02:15.170" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="44530" PostId="21422" Score="2" Text="A Petrarchan passage (Contra medicum quendam, Bk. 1) that corroborates your answer: si es ille quem puto (if you are the man I think you are)." CreationDate="2023-08-20T22:34:41.963" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="44531" PostId="21422" Score="1" Text="Also corroborating is the foreword to Virgil's Aeneid, *Ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus avena&#xA;Carmen et egressus silvis vicina coegi&#xA;Ut quamvis avido parerent arva colono,&#xA;Gratum opus agricolis: at nunc horrentia Martis Arma virumque cano..." CreationDate="2023-08-21T00:05:56.383" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44784" PostId="21422" Score="0" Text="&quot;ego tu sum, tu es ego, unianimi sumus&quot; - This is the Beatles, right? What's the Latin word for walrus?" CreationDate="2023-09-10T04:52:34.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44509" PostId="21423" Score="1" Text="For one, it should be *duo **iuncti***. Also you might perhaps prefer *coniungere* over *iungere* as it is more frequently used for marriage (cf. *coniunx* = spouse). More stylistically, why the past tense on an engagement ring? And *sub Deo* is correct grammatically, but to the best of my knowledge a completely unusual expression in Christianity. Something more traditional like *Deo benedicente* might be preferrable." CreationDate="2023-08-19T22:55:00.350" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44513" PostId="21423" Score="3" Text="Are you going for a Christian angle? You seem to be riffing off of Mark 10:8-9 (&quot;et erunt duo in carne una. Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet.&quot;) Might be a good idea to incorporate that. I also second Sebastian's worry about the wording: In the (old) Catholic ceremony for betrothals, the future tense is used for all the vows, so it's a bit strange to treat an engagement ring as a wedding band." CreationDate="2023-08-20T01:33:00.057" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44514" PostId="21423" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel &quot;two things have been joined into one under God&quot;. I think this could work. It is not so rude in Latin to refer to people as things as it is in English. But I agree that *juncti* is more what I would expect. I also think that the past tense could work if you think of the ring as a reminder, but maybe the past tense is more appropriate for a wedding ring than for an engagement ring." CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:53:53.167" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44507" PostId="21424" Score="0" Text="Can you add links so people can see what you're looking at? I don't see see it on [Cactus](https://latin.cactus2000.de/showverb.en.php?verb=esse&amp;form=esse), whatever that is, and Wiktionary says &quot;edit, ēst&quot;, not &quot;ēs&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-19T21:57:43.283" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44508" PostId="21424" Score="4" Text="@cmw &quot;Cactus2000&quot; actually [gives](https://latin.cactus2000.de/showverb.en.php?verb=edere&amp;vr=1&amp;form=edo) the form *edēst*, which to the best of my knowledge is completely fictional. Beneath the botched quoting and the matter of the disutility of &quot;Cactus2000&quot; lies an interesting question about the irregular forms of *edo*." CreationDate="2023-08-19T22:35:21.733" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44510" PostId="21424" Score="0" Text="@cmw, yes ēst, I corrected it, I will also add links." CreationDate="2023-08-19T22:56:00.033" UserId="13844" />
  <row Id="44511" PostId="21424" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, If cactus2000 is not that trustworthy, would you please recommend a source for conjugation training? Is wiktionary accurate in this regard? So far, I was using Cactus2000 to build anki decks for conjugation training." CreationDate="2023-08-19T23:22:04.763" UserId="13844" />
  <row Id="44532" PostId="21424" Score="1" Text="It looks like the title of your question has a mistake as well; *edire* is not a valid form of the infinitive &quot;to eat&quot;, but *edere* is." CreationDate="2023-08-21T03:27:39.570" UserId="11995" />
  <row Id="44520" PostId="21425" Score="3" Text="Still, if the original poster wants full charts, it has been my experience that the Barron's *501 Verbs* book series is reliably accurate, and I believe there's one for Latin. I would certainly be inclined to trust it more than whatever Cactus2000 is – or any site beginning with 'wik(i),' for that matter" CreationDate="2023-08-20T04:15:46.597" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44521" PostId="21425" Score="3" Text="General skepticism toward Wikis not withstanding, I have found the English Wiktionary's Latin declension and conjugation tables very reliable; I have yet to find a mistake in them. Other than that, it's not a very useful dictionary." CreationDate="2023-08-20T05:23:11.767" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44525" PostId="21425" Score="1" Text="@cnread, The book you recommend (Barron's 501) is available online. Thanks for the refrence. I will certainly be using  that instead." CreationDate="2023-08-20T09:19:23.353" UserId="13844" />
  <row Id="44529" PostId="21425" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Tables are good if good parametres have been specified for templates. Some weeks ago I happened to find a mistake for noun *pār, paris* and [corrected](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=par&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=75512882) it. ([Previously](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=par&amp;oldid=75409612) *par, pāris* was generated.)" CreationDate="2023-08-20T20:42:45.133" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44526" PostId="21427" Score="0" Text="That makes sense. This can happen, you're saying, with any two vowels that aren't diphthongs?&#xA;Also, why is the 'i' in 'venit' short? I thought that the last foot was always a spondee in Dactylic Hexameter." CreationDate="2023-08-20T14:49:50.590" UserId="13911" />
  <row Id="44527" PostId="21427" Score="0" Text="@Eli Regarding _venit_, I'd recommend asking that as another question, because it deserves more than just a comment! But yes, it can theoretically happen with any vowels; some combinations are much more frequent than others, and synizesis is rare enough that I'm guessing some pairs are entirely unattested, but I'm not aware of any combinations being actually _forbidden_." CreationDate="2023-08-20T15:58:46.627" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44539" PostId="21428" Score="1" Text="This is probably an opinion-based question. Note that, for example, the translations by Avellanus are almost certainly excellent (I haven't read any of them, but he was an outstanding Latinist), but were criticized for being not classical enough in style (to which he gave a [spirited reply](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadius_Avellanus#Publications)). *Hobbitus Ille* (the title should be warning enough) on the other hand just seems to be a bad translation." CreationDate="2023-08-21T21:52:39.263" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44542" PostId="21428" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, who are the &quot;quattuor primores auctores Romanos&quot; Avellanus is talking about?" CreationDate="2023-08-21T22:46:02.187" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44545" PostId="21428" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Isn't the honorific use of &quot;ille&quot; classical?" CreationDate="2023-08-22T07:34:13.617" UserDisplayName="user13912" />
  <row Id="44552" PostId="21428" Score="1" Text="@d_e What do you think? I know of exactly one author that never verged from the true Ciceronian style :P" CreationDate="2023-08-22T20:40:43.947" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44553" PostId="21428" Score="0" Text="@John Not sure what you mean by honorific use of *ille*, but if you mean something like *Xenophon, Socraticus ille* (that well-known Socratic, X.), that's classical enough, but is that what we have here? The English title is not “That well-known Hobbit.”" CreationDate="2023-08-22T20:45:57.923" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44554" PostId="21428" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I think we do, the title is not &quot;A Hobbit&quot; but &quot;THE Hobbit&quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-23T08:13:35.840" UserDisplayName="user13912" />
  <row Id="44558" PostId="21428" Score="0" Text="@John now I shudder to think how our translator would translate &quot;THE History of THE Decline and Fall of THE Roman Empire&quot; ... it's just a definitive article, English has them, Latin doesn't." CreationDate="2023-08-23T16:16:46.460" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44536" PostId="21430" Score="0" Text="It depends what you mean by &quot;correct&quot;. There was a _very_ long period where most people didn't pronounce the `/h/` but educated speakers tried to preserve it—all the way into Romance!" CreationDate="2023-08-21T16:27:10.567" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44537" PostId="21430" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Fair point! I guess I should re-frame my question... to when did the silencing start. I'll edit the question." CreationDate="2023-08-21T16:37:24.487" UserId="13915" />
  <row Id="44538" PostId="21430" Score="0" Text="I did hear (although I cannot remember where, to give proper attribution) that the _opposite_ phenomenon occurred for a long time, with aspiration inserted in words that did not have it, generally causing the confusion of the two classes of words." CreationDate="2023-08-21T18:09:41.653" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="44540" PostId="21433" Score="2" Text="Do you think *superior* always refer to the year before the narrative present, or can its meaning shift depending on context? I came across this passage from Cicero's oration *In Verrem*: &quot;labefactarat enim vehementer aratores iam superior annus, proximus vero funditus everterat.&quot; It seems to mean, &quot;The year before last crippled the farmers; last year completely destroyed them.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-21T22:07:25.483" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44547" PostId="21433" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for this." CreationDate="2023-08-22T16:05:10.947" UserId="7309" />
  <row Id="44549" PostId="21433" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I take it for granted that the reference point must be inferred from context and cannot always simply be assumed to be the narrative present. In the example from the Scottish annals, this would appear to be *hoc anno* – whatever year that is." CreationDate="2023-08-22T19:50:46.913" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44560" PostId="21434" Score="0" Text="Did this journalist explain what the uniqueness indicated?" CreationDate="2023-08-23T17:53:57.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44543" PostId="21435" Score="0" Text="I should have guessed that there is an online repository of ancient Latin texts :-)" CreationDate="2023-08-22T01:51:24.670" UserId="13917" />
  <row Id="44544" PostId="21435" Score="1" Text="@Latino Freely available, too!" CreationDate="2023-08-22T02:11:14.797" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44546" PostId="21436" Score="2" Text="**pignerā** is the ablative of noun **pignus**. I think the perfect participle **pignerāta** (from verb **pignerō**) should be used here instead." CreationDate="2023-08-22T15:11:30.267" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44548" PostId="21436" Score="4" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian The long -a seems to be a mistake, since *pignus* is neuter. *pignera* (with a short -a) would be neuter nominative/accusative." CreationDate="2023-08-22T16:05:20.540" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44550" PostId="21436" Score="2" Text="The three other suggestions linked by the OP are all imperatives. I take it he tried to find out what form *iacta* is, found the imperative *iactā* (from *iactare*, which is not the word Caesar used), and thought the form required an imperative." CreationDate="2023-08-22T19:56:30.427" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44551" PostId="21436" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh, I had a senior moment when I wrote this comment. **pignerā** is indeed an ungrammatical form." CreationDate="2023-08-22T20:20:40.903" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44555" PostId="21436" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel that is exactly what I did" CreationDate="2023-08-23T11:09:36.520" UserId="727" />
  <row Id="44556" PostId="21440" Score="1" Text="it's also worth noting that what counts as &quot;the same&quot; is not completely clear cut. Does a difference in size count (e.g. C &amp; c)? British English joined-up handwriting typically teaches not to join capital letters up (unlike US cursive), does that count as a difference (this would also distinguish C &amp; c)? Does raising or lowering count as difference (e.g. Ψ &amp; ψ)? Does drawing it a little more curvily count (e.g. Ρ &amp; ρ)? Etc etc etc" CreationDate="2023-08-23T14:49:09.797" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44557" PostId="21440" Score="1" Text="I might add the capitals are not easier to carve on stone, only; they are easier to scratch on waxed tablets, on shards of pottery (the &quot;ballots&quot; of their world), sheets of lead, etc... anything but papyrus or vellum. Think runes." CreationDate="2023-08-23T16:03:02.193" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="44566" PostId="21440" Score="1" Text="@Draconis Many thanks for your informative answer.  Has research been done on the sequence of adaptation, for example the progression from Σ to σ as I would imagine it never happened overnight?" CreationDate="2023-08-24T08:27:53.700" UserId="13920" />
  <row Id="44567" PostId="21440" Score="2" Text="@Farcher in that particular case the missing link is the lunate sigma Ϲϲ, which appeared in both carved inscriptions and written papyri throughout the Hellenistic &amp; Byzantine periods. The modern lower case sigma evolved from this by closing the loop (or adding a serif down at the end of a word), whilst the modern upper case sigma is an archaism" CreationDate="2023-08-24T09:34:59.077" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44559" PostId="21442" Score="0" Text="Cf. Catullan v. Catullian; I'm actually not 100% sure why Senecan is *wrong*. I have seen Senecean/Senecaeanus before, but on the other hand, we have the infamous *Sullani* attested in Cicero, so perhaps it has to do with the root?" CreationDate="2023-08-23T17:52:06.707" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44561" PostId="21442" Score="2" Text="I think that *Senecānus* is good. Cf. *Āfrica*, *āfricānus* (used e.g. in name of Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō Āfricānus)." CreationDate="2023-08-23T17:59:28.750" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44563" PostId="21442" Score="1" Text="@Arfrever, Wiktionary (not sure what the source) does distinguish between [-ianus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ianus#Latin), and [-anus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-anus#Latin). The former is said to be &quot;especially frequent in adjectives formed from proper names.&quot;; while the later &quot;usually indicates a relationship of position, possession, or origin.&quot;. So there is perhaps basis for *africanus* as opposed to *Senecanus*. (though it seems Wiktionary -anus encapsulates also --ianus); If there is a person name the same as a place we could put the theory into test." CreationDate="2023-08-23T20:55:26.293" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44564" PostId="21442" Score="0" Text="@d_e But that wouldn't explain *Sullanus*." CreationDate="2023-08-23T21:18:10.827" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44565" PostId="21442" Score="0" Text="*-iānus* is probably result of [rebracketing](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#rebracketing) of adjectives with *-ānus* following stems ending in *-i*, *-io*, *-ia* etc. (e.g. *Marius* +‎ *-ānus* → *Mariānus*). Compare etymology of suffix [*-ellus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ellus#Latin)." CreationDate="2023-08-23T22:04:33.080" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44568" PostId="21444" Score="0" Text="You're right this is strange! I've found a few sources (like [this one](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5717872c/texteBrut)) that have &quot;ut illi complaceam&quot; in this line, which makes a lot more sense." CreationDate="2023-08-24T16:21:51.537" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44571" PostId="21444" Score="0" Text="Looking through Google Books, it appears that (a) a number of people have been irritated by this over the years, and (b) explanations are along the lines of (1) the author was Italian, (b) *sibi* for *ei* or *ipsi* is often seen in Medieaval Latin (really?), or (3) *sibi* for *ei* or *ipsi* is often seen in Late Latin and the Vulgate (really???)." CreationDate="2023-08-24T20:35:18.550" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44574" PostId="21444" Score="2" Text="I. J. G. Scheller (tr. George Walker), *A Copious Latin Grammar, 2nd ed.*, Vol. 1, London: J. Murray 1838, [pp. 278-279](https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Copious_Latin_Grammar/8u8do2JNVLUC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA278&amp;printsec=frontcover): &quot;This is the rule to which the learner should be accustomed before he notices the exceptions in the ancients. When for instance no obscurity is likely to arise, sui, sibi, &amp;c. may be used for eius, ei, &amp;c.: [...] Examples of this kind are innumerable in the ancients, e.g. [*many examples*] On the contrary ei &amp;c. are used for sibi &amp;c.: [*a few examples*] &quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-24T23:48:15.127" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="44576" PostId="21444" Score="1" Text="@njuffa Looks like the beginning of an answer." CreationDate="2023-08-25T01:04:56.307" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44578" PostId="21444" Score="1" Text="I came across a claim that in the High Middle Ages / Late Middle Ages (so around the time *Stabat Mater* originated in the 13th century) &quot;sibi&quot; came to be used freely in place of &quot;ei&quot;, citing [Stotz 4 IX § 38.5], which apparently is volume 4 of Peter Stotz, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, C. H. Beck 1996. Does anyone here have access to this comprehensive (five volume) work on medieval Latin?" CreationDate="2023-08-25T05:16:48.990" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="44569" PostId="21445" Score="2" Text="There are a few relevant examples from the Appendix Probi, though they don't have full context, e.g. &quot;baculus non uaclus,&quot; &quot;uapulo non baplo.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-24T17:24:03.333" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44570" PostId="21446" Score="1" Text="Now I wonder if the shift from ουαλεριος to βαλεριος in Greek transliteration is recording a Greek phenomenon or a Latin one." CreationDate="2023-08-24T18:10:21.187" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44579" PostId="21446" Score="0" Text="@cmw Probably a Greek phenomenon according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacism#Greek" CreationDate="2023-08-25T06:52:19.483" UserId="13939" />
  <row Id="44580" PostId="21450" Score="4" Text="Note, however, that *reapse* in this verse is an emendation by Joachim Camerarius; the codices have *re ab*. I don't think we have any metrical evidence one way or the other." CreationDate="2023-08-25T13:55:38.423" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44581" PostId="21450" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon: Oh, thanks! Yeah, in that case, it's not really independent evidence." CreationDate="2023-08-25T14:04:08.397" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="44582" PostId="21451" Score="2" Text="*Memento homo, quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris*, remember man, that thou art dust, an to dust thou shalt return. In a Christian context, *pulvis est*, &quot;he or she is dust&quot;, will mean exactly that. Riffing on Matthew 26.41 you could also make something of *Caro vero infirma*, &quot;but the flesh is weak&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-26T14:24:18.190" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44615" PostId="21452" Score="0" Text="What an awesome aspiration. It makes me want to ask a similar questiona about Italian, or Ancient Greek." CreationDate="2023-08-29T22:52:07.140" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44617" PostId="21452" Score="0" Text="Under the same link that you provided in your question you should see (if you scroll down) [Латинско-Русский Словарь](https://archive.org/details/LATINSKORUSSKIJSLOVARI.DVORENTSKIJ). As a general comment, though: the grammar books, etc do, of course, exist but naturally they are meant to help Russian speakers learn Latin, not the other way round." CreationDate="2023-08-30T08:45:13.233" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="44620" PostId="21452" Score="0" Text="As a simple demo: if you copy &amp; paste &quot;книги латинский и русский&quot; into Google search and select 'Images' button you should see a bunch of pictures to get the idea of what's available..." CreationDate="2023-08-30T09:44:34.050" UserId="6177" />
  <row Id="44583" PostId="21453" Score="1" Text="Perhaps *tondere* in some construction?" CreationDate="2023-08-27T11:40:43.930" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="44600" PostId="21453" Score="1" Text="While @cmw gives the most appropriate answer for the particular case of having one's hair cut, it is worth noting that for more “heavy-weight” examples, like “the emperor had all his enemies crucified,” there are more explicit expressions, in particular *iubere*, e.g. *omnes hostes in crucem figi iussit*." CreationDate="2023-08-28T21:30:48.120" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44585" PostId="21454" Score="0" Text="You could potentially do &quot;bury the lamp.&quot; It's not an attested idiom, but it wouldn't be impossible to figure out. I agree though that using *lumen* or *lux* here sounds odd." CreationDate="2023-08-27T18:21:21.137" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44602" PostId="21454" Score="1" Text="It's not exactly an idiom in English either, so looking for strictly attested parallels is the wrong way to go about it." CreationDate="2023-08-29T00:53:15.363" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44587" PostId="21457" Score="0" Text="What's the difference between **secare** and **resecare**? Smith &amp; Hall's dictionary gives &quot;**capillos secare** (Sen.)&quot; in the entry &quot;cut&quot;, but I can't find the original text. What nuance does prefix **re-** have? (I also found **rescindere**)" CreationDate="2023-08-27T21:39:45.170" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44588" PostId="21457" Score="1" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian Smith's isn't clear here, but it's *comas recidere* that Seneca has, which is printed right before *capillum secare*. You can see it [here](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1017/9/28/992-996,1066-1070,1086-1091@1#28). As far as *secare* v. *resecare*, I imagine the *re-* prefix indicates that the hair is being cut *back*. You can find both in use in the Classical period." CreationDate="2023-08-27T22:02:17.203" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44591" PostId="21458" Score="3" Text="A famous such word is &quot;altus&quot;, which can mean both &quot;high&quot; (of a mountain) and &quot;deep&quot; (of a sea)." CreationDate="2023-08-28T12:20:12.380" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44592" PostId="21458" Score="2" Text="[There's a separate question on the ambiguity of the prefix *in-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11348/79)." CreationDate="2023-08-28T12:43:02.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44593" PostId="21458" Score="2" Text="@FlatAssembler If you read *altus* as &quot;far in altitude&quot;, then it makes sense to be far in either direction (positive or negative altitude for a mountain or a sea) and the conflict is resolved. Some apparent conflicts from an English point of view are due differences in the logic of the two languages." CreationDate="2023-08-28T12:46:41.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44594" PostId="21458" Score="2" Text="&quot;*to make sth. dusty (although tagged as &quot;archaic&quot; in the dictionary)*&quot; is still used in some senses. When dusting something for fingerprints, the object ends up covered in dust. And there are products, such as [*Fairy Dust* | Dusting Powder](https://www.lush.ca/en/fairy-dust/9999906460.html): &quot;*This sweet-smelling, post-shower powder is the perfect finishing touch to keep your skin feeling light, fresh and fragrant.*&quot;." CreationDate="2023-08-28T13:13:45.050" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44596" PostId="21458" Score="1" Text="@FlatAssembler **altus** can be classified in 4. above. It is common for some languages to use a non-directional word for bi-directional meanings while others use different words for each direction. Before learning English, I didn't think *to lend* and *to borrow* are different things because we use a single word for both. And I think it's how Romans thought about height and depth." CreationDate="2023-08-28T15:27:29.713" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44597" PostId="21458" Score="1" Text="I once asked here about [**donec**](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10782/the-opposing-meanings-of-the-word-donec); in the comments I've added *recingo*; Generally, I guess many verbs with *re-* prefix are good candidates also like *retexo*." CreationDate="2023-08-28T17:43:51.450" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44598" PostId="21458" Score="2" Text="for cat. 4 we can add *clamor*  that can be used both in negative (protest) and positive (applause)  senses." CreationDate="2023-08-28T17:49:08.557" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44599" PostId="21460" Score="0" Text="Are there Latin translations of &quot;purpose&quot; or &quot;purposeful&quot; that you find appropriate for your needs? That'd be a very helpful starting point." CreationDate="2023-08-28T20:07:41.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44606" PostId="21462" Score="0" Text="Thank you for this detailed reply, it has been most illuminating and informative. I am still new to learning Latin and this has helped a lot. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Based on the feedback, the updated translation would read, &quot;Noli consumere vitam tuam exspectans vivere&quot; Though you mention exspectans may not be the correct choice. If you were writing this phrase, how would you write it?" CreationDate="2023-08-29T13:57:35.180" UserId="13966" />
  <row Id="44603" PostId="21463" Score="1" Text="The Italian *-one* does seem to come from the Latin *-o*, but did it have an augmentative sense in Latin? See [this question on augmentatives in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8804/79) for details." CreationDate="2023-08-29T02:42:50.980" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44607" PostId="21463" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Well there's the bignosed poet Publius Ovidius Naso.  As a student I took that as ablative “with the nose” … unfortunately Latin Wikipedia does not provide stems for its lemmata :(" CreationDate="2023-08-29T15:43:27.910" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="44635" PostId="21465" Score="2" Text="The second quote seems to be, Cic. ad Atticum 12.27.2." CreationDate="2023-08-31T10:55:37.833" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44609" PostId="21466" Score="2" Text="Thanks! This is a useful circumlocution for some contexts, but in physics a &quot;particle of electricity&quot; would be ambiguous. When there is an electric current, the particles that move are not always electrons, and in my first reaction to the term would be a photon, the carrier of the electromagnetic force. But I know full well that I'm biased as a physicist, and many others will react to the term differently." CreationDate="2023-08-29T17:08:46.743" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44611" PostId="21467" Score="2" Text="The literal meaning of this phrase is what Google Translate gave you, but it does not make sense to me. Where does this Latin phrase come from?" CreationDate="2023-08-29T20:26:26.183" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44614" PostId="21467" Score="0" Text="my father in law who turns 100 is a lover of latin phrases . So we were looking for a phrase signifying a life well spent or lived.  to be included in a magazine published to mark the occasion. so we google translated it.  Is it incorrect to use it  ? Or Do you know of  any other phrases which can be used in this instance ? much appreciated. many thanks" CreationDate="2023-08-29T22:00:37.633" UserId="13969" />
  <row Id="44616" PostId="21467" Score="2" Text="You might want to read this about Google Translate: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4353/78" CreationDate="2023-08-30T02:45:20.273" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44627" PostId="21468" Score="0" Text="many thanks .appreciated" CreationDate="2023-08-30T18:29:41.883" UserId="13969" />
  <row Id="44613" PostId="21469" Score="2" Text="Nice answer, and welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2023-08-29T21:59:38.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44623" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="Note the vowel quantity differs between *vīcta* (from *vīvō*, &quot;I live&quot;) and *victa* (from *vincō*, &quot;I conquer)" CreationDate="2023-08-30T15:12:18.017" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="44624" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="great explanation. many thanks" CreationDate="2023-08-30T17:43:14.880" UserId="13969" />
  <row Id="44625" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="we want to add a caption to the magazine we are going to publish to mark my father in law's 100 birthday ma. He loves Latin phrases  If so, can we use 'vita quae bene vivitur ' What do you mean by  'vita bene consumpta '  . many thanks for your suggestion" CreationDate="2023-08-30T17:47:02.950" UserId="13969" />
  <row Id="44632" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="&quot;Victa assumes that the life has already been lived and is therefore no longer being lived&quot; -- how so? See @cnread's Cicero example for *vita bene acta*, where the context implies that the person not only is alive, but happy in the knowledge of a life well lived. At 100, it is probably safe to say most people will not resent the notion of drawing a certain bottom line already." CreationDate="2023-08-31T06:52:09.147" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44633" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="@lukman *Consumpta* is also fine, although personally I'd avoid it in an English speaking seeing, because I think that the English idea of &quot;consume,&quot; i.e., to use up something, would interfere; plus of course the unpleasant association of *consumption*." CreationDate="2023-08-31T07:00:36.517" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44638" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel But that's *acta*, not *victa*. Re: *consumpta*, perhaps they're [Callatians](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0016,001:3:38)?" CreationDate="2023-08-31T13:11:08.770" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44640" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="Quae mutatio morum apud Indos! Well, I recommend *acta* then to be on the safe side, although it is not clear to me that *vivere* should take on such a final meaning in the perfect. Although I do recall (as you do no doubt as well) a certain famous use of the perfect of *vivere* with a decidedly final meaning..." CreationDate="2023-08-31T16:09:34.583" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44646" PostId="21469" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Your point is valid. The perfect by definition has a sense of completion and, by extension, of finality, but this extension is not always and everywhere. I still advise against _victa,_ however, if only because the perfect of _vivere_ is a common euphemism for having died." CreationDate="2023-09-01T07:18:12.067" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44619" PostId="21471" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site. It is customary to provide at least one attestation. Credibility, for the answer." CreationDate="2023-08-30T09:18:58.580" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44637" PostId="21472" Score="0" Text="The ending *-on* (and especially the inflected forms) in the Greek words *Platon* and *electron* are different. If I'm interpreting your answer correctly (which may or may not be the case), you seem to be conflating the two *-on* endings. How would you decline the word *electron* in Latin? *Electri* or *electronis* in the genitive?" CreationDate="2023-08-31T11:25:42.903" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44650" PostId="21472" Score="0" Text="In quantum statistics all elementary particles of the same 'name' are indistinguishable. Any of those invisible little entities called elementary particle has a counterpart, its antiparticle. Feynman ascribed to them that they move backwards in time, perhaps a mathematical trick. So he proposed, that there is only one single electron and one single proton in the whole universe of which we observe different parts of its trace. Conclusion: the electron as a name may be different from its greek origin, a silver-gold gold mixture, that would translate into electronium by Latin writing chemists." CreationDate="2023-09-01T08:06:46.053" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="44626" PostId="21474" Score="0" Text="Your remark on television reminds me of when I had an etymology class I taught [read this article](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/09/06/tv-greek/) and try to come up with a better word using only Latin or only Greek roots." CreationDate="2023-08-30T17:54:46.513" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44629" PostId="21474" Score="1" Text="I agree with you. The word &quot;television&quot; is horrible. Unfortunately, the language is not made up only by etymology, but also by usage. The word &quot;televisio&quot; is just an example of latinization of an Italian word. I have no idea about a substituting word for English. Perhaps you would like the Latin  &quot;remotaevisio&quot;, remotaevisionis   3rd decl. Feminine, which could correspond to the Italian word &quot;remotavisione&quot;" CreationDate="2023-08-30T19:51:00.573" UserId="13972" />
  <row Id="44630" PostId="21474" Score="1" Text="I liked the suggestion of *telopticy* (from the article) personally. I wish I could remember other words my students had come up with." CreationDate="2023-08-30T21:43:43.990" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44634" PostId="21475" Score="1" Text="*Ad multos annos* is indeed a traditional toast, but I'm not sure I'd use it for a centenary... in my opinion, if you really want to say &quot;A life well lived,&quot; and you want to say it in Latin, cnread's answer to your other question is your best bet." CreationDate="2023-08-31T07:06:57.100" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44664" PostId="21475" Score="0" Text="This question would be better served if you just edited it into your original, especially since, as Sebastian points out, you have a good answer for it." CreationDate="2023-09-04T01:54:15.010" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44631" PostId="21476" Score="0" Text="This is the best answer IMHO. My first idea was *... peracta*, and I found a few Neo-Latin examples for that, but the Cicero example is perfect." CreationDate="2023-08-31T06:44:11.090" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44642" PostId="21476" Score="0" Text="Many thanks . We have decided to use vita bene acta.. It is really appreciated" CreationDate="2023-08-31T19:24:18.650" UserId="13969" />
  <row Id="44647" PostId="21476" Score="0" Text="This is a good answer. It also implies both _activity_ and _agency_ in the living of said life, rather than the simple living of it; that is, a life lived deliberately. @lukman , if you've decided on this answer, you might consider formally 'accepting' it, so that the user can receive internet points and the question can be marked as answered." CreationDate="2023-09-01T07:23:42.540" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44667" PostId="21477" Score="2" Text="Using images instead of text makes it impossible to search for specific words, impossible to copy specific parts, unindexable by search engines, and totally useless for people that rely on text-to-voice translation to read the question. There is also no citation for where the image was copied from." CreationDate="2023-09-04T13:10:00.443" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44636" PostId="21478" Score="3" Text="Learning vowel lengths correctly applies to both vocabulary and morphology. To work out the vowel lengths of a given word, one needs to check both a dictionary for the word and a grammar for the ending." CreationDate="2023-08-31T11:18:42.013" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44649" PostId="21478" Score="0" Text="Long-o _malum_ means 'apple'; it's long-o _malus_ that means 'apple tree'." CreationDate="2023-09-01T07:37:31.533" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44670" PostId="21478" Score="0" Text="@gaufridus long-a, rather, but the point is a good one. Also it's convenient to mention that _mālus_ (and _pirus_ and other names of trees ending in _-us_) are all feminine, unlike most other words in their declension." CreationDate="2023-09-05T00:09:14.433" UserId="1369" />
  <row Id="44811" PostId="21478" Score="0" Text="@Wtrmute Well, that's a somewhat embarrassing error; thanks for pointing it out." CreationDate="2023-09-11T23:17:04.463" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44641" PostId="21479" Score="2" Text="You can do a [corpus search for the obvious candidate *discere de*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23disc%7E%23de%23) and see if something relevant comes up. I don't have the time to type up an answer now, so I don't mind if someone turns this thought into an answer." CreationDate="2023-08-31T17:05:07.857" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44648" PostId="21479" Score="2" Text="_Plautus, Stichus, line 400_ and _Terentius, Eunuchus, line 262_ both look promising, from the link commented by @JoonasIlmavirta ." CreationDate="2023-09-01T07:34:51.847" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44651" PostId="21479" Score="0" Text="That does look very promising. I'd forgotten that de's primary sense was &quot;concerning&quot; rather than &quot;from&quot; (which makes sense seeing as that one's somewhat redundant with the ablative). If I get a chance I may self-answer on that basis, but if someone else writes it up first I'll happily accept it" CreationDate="2023-09-01T08:54:17.693" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44652" PostId="21481" Score="2" Text="Not exactly the same, but for some cases *quod periit, periit* might be nice choice." CreationDate="2023-09-01T17:52:38.460" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44658" PostId="21481" Score="2" Text="Not the same either, but *dura lex, sed lex* comes to mind. “The law is hard/rough, but it is the law.”" CreationDate="2023-09-02T21:38:55.593" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="44655" PostId="21482" Score="1" Text="Thanks, this is an interesting review of the first edition" CreationDate="2023-09-02T12:32:35.580" UserDisplayName="user13971" />
  <row Id="44661" PostId="21482" Score="1" Text="It seems like they are up to 4th edition now; I wonder if they improved upon some of the criticisms of the first edition." CreationDate="2023-09-03T19:05:37.350" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44653" PostId="21484" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much, I bet you are correct that this was what he said!" CreationDate="2023-09-01T23:09:51.357" UserId="13979" />
  <row Id="44657" PostId="21486" Score="2" Text="If, on the other hand, &quot;learn about&quot; is used in the sense of being informed about something, finding out about something, e.g. &quot;When the Helvetii learned about Caesar's arrival&quot; etc., then *certior fieri de alqa re* or *alqam rem cognoscere* would be more appropriate." CreationDate="2023-09-02T21:23:26.540" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44659" PostId="21488" Score="0" Text="Just to be sure: Is a third declension version of the original Greek *electron* attested? It does make some sense to divorce from etymology in favor of unified and practical particle names, but maybe that statement should be made explicit." CreationDate="2023-09-03T10:54:18.987" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44660" PostId="21488" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta: As fdb said, the particle name &quot;electron&quot; seems to not have any original Ancient Greek form, because it was coined in the modern era as a blend of &quot;electric&quot; and &quot;ion&quot;. The Oxford English Dictionary actually has two separate entries for *electron* n² (the particle name) and *electron* n¹ (electrum, the mix of gold and silver = ἤλεκτρον)." CreationDate="2023-09-03T11:42:31.863" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="44678" PostId="21492" Score="0" Text="Nimium valedixit omits the subject but I think it's a relevant part of the original phrase - we are talking about &quot;she&quot;. So perhaps illa nimium valedixit is more accurate? Or if not, can you perhaps expand to explain why we would omit the subject?" CreationDate="2023-09-06T12:35:01.840" UserId="72" />
  <row Id="44679" PostId="21492" Score="4" Text="@Sklivvz it's not uncommon to omit words if they can be inferred from the sentence (ie through verbs). Saves valuable chisel time." CreationDate="2023-09-06T12:47:24.410" UserId="13994" />
  <row Id="44680" PostId="21492" Score="0" Text="@Sklivvz Latin is what's called a &quot;pro-drop&quot; language, meaning that subject pronouns usually aren't written. The ending of the verb indicates who's doing the action instead. Including a pronoun for the subject puts a lot of emphasis on it: &quot;_she_ was the one who said goodbye&quot;." CreationDate="2023-09-06T15:29:19.940" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44682" PostId="21492" Score="0" Text="I know a little bit of Latin, I know you can drop the subject, but that's understood. However, the sentence as you wrote equally applies to both genders. The original English one only applies to a person with feminine pronouns." CreationDate="2023-09-06T17:58:47.867" UserId="72" />
  <row Id="44683" PostId="21492" Score="2" Text="@Sklivvz Ah, but if the context refers to this person enough to make it clear who &quot;she&quot; is, it should also make it clear who &quot;he/she/it/they&quot; is. I don't know the song, but I doubt losing the gender marking will actually create any ambiguity; imo, adding an emphatic _illa_ changes the meaning significantly more." CreationDate="2023-09-06T18:04:57.580" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44691" PostId="21492" Score="0" Text="Forcing a choice of gender might be seen as a limitation of the English language that could be profitably left behind during transition." CreationDate="2023-09-06T22:36:02.090" UserId="13366" />
  <row Id="44692" PostId="21492" Score="0" Text="Including &quot;illa&quot; is helpful if you are trying to sing a Latin language cover of the song and need the syllables to make the original melody work. The original phrase has ten syllables, so &quot;illa nimium valedixit&quot; comes close. That said, the last word &quot;before&quot; is sung as a melisma covering six notes in the original song, so I suppose you could always &quot;Gregorian chant&quot; it." CreationDate="2023-09-06T23:52:35.127" UserId="14011" />
  <row Id="44671" PostId="21494" Score="0" Text="My only nitpick is that I wouldn't use that Catullus line as an example, since it's a fairly faithful translation of a Greek poem that uses a pronoun there. (I do think _illa_ is potentially a good choice here though.)" CreationDate="2023-09-05T00:42:59.737" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44672" PostId="21494" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Yes, very true, but it was the first thing that came to mind. If I think of a better example, I'll swap it out." CreationDate="2023-09-05T02:12:01.417" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44674" PostId="21494" Score="0" Text="While the discussion of how to translate parts of the sentence is very interesting, to properly answer the question, the final sentence combining those parts really should be in it. _Illa nimium saepe valedixit,_ then?" CreationDate="2023-09-05T23:54:10.787" UserId="1088" />
  <row Id="44675" PostId="21494" Score="0" Text="I don’t really think the contrast works in this particular context. There isn’t an actual contrast between ‘this love’ and ‘she’ in the English (along with the person singing, ‘she’ _is_ the other half of ‘this love’, after all). Going a bit freer, I think I would leave out _illa_, but add in the object, which is implicit in the English original, and instead saying _mihi nimium valedixit_, or perhaps even _a me totiens abiit_ (‘she has left/abandoned me so many times’)." CreationDate="2023-09-06T01:34:39.787" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="44676" PostId="21494" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet You are free to write your own answer." CreationDate="2023-09-06T02:51:31.653" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44673" PostId="21496" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your example. Polysemy seems potential in some prefixed verbs. I can think of verbs with **re-**, which means undoing or doing again." CreationDate="2023-09-05T22:13:17.500" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44681" PostId="21498" Score="1" Text="*Liberī*=masculine, *vocabula*=neuter, fluvii=masculine&#xA;so &#xA;&quot;Quot liberi in familia sunt? Tres[III] liberi.&quot; &#xA;&quot;Vir, puer, puella tria[III] vocabula sunt.&quot; &quot;Rhenus et Danuvius et Tiberis tres[III] fluvii sunt.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-06T15:46:20.073" UserId="13999" />
  <row Id="44694" PostId="21500" Score="0" Text="A conundrum, no? With the pun-like interpretation I feel it falls into a true &quot;double entendre&quot;, &quot;it is better to have a sweet rose than fame&quot;, along with &quot;their fame is sweeter than (the fame of a) white rose&quot;, or &quot;peerless to&quot; ... I'm interested if other interpretations come through?" CreationDate="2023-09-07T00:27:23.833" UserId="14001" />
  <row Id="44695" PostId="21500" Score="0" Text="Or: &quot;sweet fame, but a roses is sweeter&quot; ...since the words &quot;agree&quot; in so many places it feels like there's a few layers of meaning." CreationDate="2023-09-07T00:33:26.003" UserId="14001" />
  <row Id="44701" PostId="21500" Score="1" Text="The &quot;white rose&quot; could possibly also be an allusion to the House of York (although Wikipedia says the White Rose of York is Latinized as *rosa alba*)." CreationDate="2023-09-07T07:31:03.250" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44685" PostId="21501" Score="0" Text="I take it you don't want to do the classic &quot;treat it as a technical term and translate it with a cognate or not at all&quot; maneuver?" CreationDate="2023-09-06T18:43:28.083" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44686" PostId="21501" Score="0" Text="@Draconis, I thought that there might be an established term in logic which is more accurate." CreationDate="2023-09-06T18:53:01.327" UserId="14005" />
  <row Id="44693" PostId="21501" Score="1" Text="Aren't those [logical propositions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition)? At least _enunciado_, a Spanish cognate for _enunciatio_ is used as a synonym for _proposición_." CreationDate="2023-09-06T23:56:38.757" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="44697" PostId="21501" Score="1" Text="@Rafael, thanks! You was right! I've reread the sources: there was two versions of &quot;Dialectica&quot;. In one of them (made by teacher himself) author uses term _&quot;propositio&quot;_ for propositions, in other one (made by his student) he writes _&quot;enunciatio&quot;_. I'm sure now that these terms are synonyms, because both of them located in the same part titled _&quot;De secunda mentis operatione&quot;_ which means proposition in formal logic." CreationDate="2023-09-07T03:03:59.460" UserId="14005" />
  <row Id="44699" PostId="21502" Score="17" Text="No offense, but this is truly a new record in the discipline of &quot;I had Latin in school, but have forgotten most of it&quot; " CreationDate="2023-09-07T07:05:46.870" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44709" PostId="21502" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel it was a veeeery long time ago" CreationDate="2023-09-07T18:59:20.873" UserId="14007" />
  <row Id="44726" PostId="21502" Score="1" Text="Is your question whether both Spanish and Latin have noun genders?&#xA;Or is it about whether popular words like (say) &quot;water&quot; are of the same gender in Spanish and Latin?" CreationDate="2023-09-08T07:48:47.210" UserId="1145" />
  <row Id="44803" PostId="21502" Score="0" Text="Does [this](https://dannybate.com/2021/03/15/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-latin-neuter/) comprehensive introduction to differences between Latin and Romance languages grammatical gender answer what you actually want to know?" CreationDate="2023-09-11T17:06:30.297" UserId="14049" />
  <row Id="44814" PostId="21502" Score="0" Text="[Dyirbal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyirbal_language#Grammar) has a system of 4 noun classes that are analogous to gender. **1. most animate objects, men 2. women, water, fire, violence, and exceptional animals 3. edible fruit and vegetables 4. everything else.** If you combine this with some of the other answers, it seems clear that gendered nouns are widespread." CreationDate="2023-09-07T23:38:34.927" UserId="11240" />
  <row Id="44700" PostId="21503" Score="6" Text="To be even more explicit, [Quintilian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilian) used expressions like *masculinum nomen* (masculine noun) and *masculinum genus* (masculine gender). Interestingly, though, *masculinum* does not appear to be attested in this sense before him." CreationDate="2023-09-07T07:10:50.057" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44702" PostId="21503" Score="4" Text="@SebastianKoppehel True! Though of course the terminology doesn't start with him; he's calquing the Greek names used by Dionysius Thrax." CreationDate="2023-09-07T13:56:58.153" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44710" PostId="21503" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel that's actually the answer I was looking for. Many thanks" CreationDate="2023-09-07T19:00:10.797" UserId="14007" />
  <row Id="44717" PostId="21503" Score="0" Text="I can’t remember where I’ve read it, so I might misremember it (please correct me then; also if you know sources I’d be grateful if you provided them), but isn’t there a theory that the inanimate split into neuter and feminine, the latter being the collective and/or abstract version of the neuter? I think it shows in how neutral plural coincides with feminine singular. Also neuter being the same in nominative and accusative in IE languages seems to come from the fact that the inanimate could not be the subject of a sentence in the beginning." CreationDate="2023-09-07T21:30:26.510" UserId="14025" />
  <row Id="44718" PostId="21503" Score="2" Text="@dlrlc It's possible; what we see in Anatolian is an animate-inanimate split (though the labels aren't entirely accurate there either—grain is animate) where animate nouns have nominative and accusative cases and neuter nouns have ergative and absolutive instead. If this reflects an earlier state in IE, that would explain why neuter nouns' nominatives and accusatives always look the same. But even if this does indicate that the feminine was a later development (and it may not; some people argue that Anatolian merged m-f due to sound change) it's hard to pinpoint how exactly it arose." CreationDate="2023-09-07T21:57:30.183" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44721" PostId="21503" Score="1" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals#Gender says &quot;The feminine ending is thought to have developed from a collective/abstract suffix \**-h₂* that also gave rise to the neuter collective.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-07T23:33:10.407" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="44725" PostId="21503" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Japanese does not have strongly gendered adjectives (in the sense of being very highly marked when used by a particular group and much less marked when used by another), but うまい &quot;tasty&quot; is probably more common in masculine speech (or at least connotes a kind of roughness or informality more associated with men)." CreationDate="2023-09-08T03:05:10.263" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="44731" PostId="21503" Score="2" Text="@jogloran That's very different from grammatical gender, though. Even English has that: women are &quot;beautiful&quot; and men are &quot;handsome&quot;, for example. Grammatical gender is merely a categorization of words, though, and there's no special relationship between it and sex. The German word for &quot;young woman&quot; is Mädchen, which is neuter, not feminine." CreationDate="2023-09-08T13:21:21.100" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44763" PostId="21503" Score="0" Text="Draconis appears to have deleted the comment I was responding to. They were asking about whether Japanese has gendered adjectives — I assumed they did not mean grammatical gender, as it's well known that Japanese doesn't have that." CreationDate="2023-09-08T19:42:02.017" UserId="225" />
  <row Id="44764" PostId="21503" Score="0" Text="@jogloran Another moderator deleted the whole exchange; someone referenced Japanese having gender on adjectives, I asked what they were referring to, and they clarified they misspoke and were referring to gendered pronouns." CreationDate="2023-09-08T20:48:45.193" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44852" PostId="21503" Score="0" Text="_Homo_ can indeed take feminine agreement, especially if the referent is a real person known to be female; but, as I understand it, the usage is uncommon." CreationDate="2023-09-14T00:53:47.403" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44703" PostId="21505" Score="0" Text="Is &quot; French &quot;quis&quot; &quot; a reference to some Old French word I don't know about, or a mistake for the modern French &quot;qui&quot; ?" CreationDate="2023-09-07T14:36:24.650" UserId="9004" />
  <row Id="44704" PostId="21505" Score="1" Text="They’re [cognates.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate)" CreationDate="2023-09-07T17:27:13.200" UserId="3544" />
  <row Id="44791" PostId="21505" Score="0" Text="@Evargalo it was the latter, edited." CreationDate="2023-09-10T20:46:53.680" UserId="14008" />
  <row Id="44706" PostId="21510" Score="5" Text="As an aside, κῆπος is in no sense the etymon of *hortus*. Greek has a *cognate* of Latin *hortus* in χόρτος 'feeding place; fodder' (which is not used for the pudenda muliebria), but not an *etymon*; the Latin is not derived from the Greek." CreationDate="2023-09-07T17:43:11.960" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44729" PostId="21510" Score="6" Text="These kinds of metaphors are quite common even in folklore songs in modern langauges. In Czech and Moravian folklore songs a garden can often mean the female crotch area or female virginity. Often young ladies protect their gardens, sometimes there is a flower inside that must not be picked by anyone. But often enough only the garden is mentioned." CreationDate="2023-09-08T12:30:12.987" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="44734" PostId="21510" Score="2" Text="@VladimirFГероямслава &quot;lady garden&quot; is a somewhat twee euphemism not infrequently made fun of in English-language comedy today" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:21:27.347" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44735" PostId="21510" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I don't see κῆπος mentioned in this question, only in cmw's answer which doesn't refer to it as an etymon. The rest of your comment is good, but I'm confused about the start of it, is there another comment that has been hidden or deleted?" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:22:33.303" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44736" PostId="21510" Score="1" Text="@Tristan It's mentioned in the linked text (fourth line of the left column)." CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:28:57.380" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44737" PostId="21510" Score="0" Text="thanks, I hadn't clicked through before, and can't read the Hebrew regardless (so can't give tell the context)" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:32:35.480" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44748" PostId="21510" Score="2" Text="&quot;My garden has not been plowed of late.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-08T16:13:17.067" UserId="14017" />
  <row Id="44773" PostId="21510" Score="0" Text="Note that &quot;vagina&quot; itself is often used as a euphemism in English. Strictly speaking, the term refers to the internal part, while &quot;vulva&quot; refers to the externally visible features. (The same as calling one's belly a &quot;stomach&quot;.)" CreationDate="2023-09-09T13:14:38.577" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44779" PostId="21510" Score="1" Text="@RayButterworth I don't think that's euphemism, just metonymy. And whilst it is true that in technical language the vagina is only the internal canal, from a descriptive POV it's clear that in informal speech the word refers to the vulva and vagina together" CreationDate="2023-09-09T21:07:00.143" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44739" PostId="21511" Score="1" Text="Is the answer yes or no?" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:35:01.957" UserId="7337" />
  <row Id="44742" PostId="21511" Score="4" Text="@user1271772 does it need to be one or the other? Which it should be depends on where you draw the line between ad-hoc euphemistic metaphor and established sense, which different people can disagree with. Providing all the facts, as this answer does allows the reader to make that judgement themselves which is much more useful than a yes or no would be" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:48:41.340" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44744" PostId="21511" Score="0" Text="@Tristan I disagree with you. While this answer is better than the other one, because it says what *Pudendum muliebre* means, it does not make the answer to the question clear." CreationDate="2023-09-08T15:03:15.613" UserId="7337" />
  <row Id="44758" PostId="21511" Score="3" Text="@user1271772 The answer is yes: &quot;both Latin hortus and Greek κῆπος can be used as euphemisms for the vagina&quot;." CreationDate="2023-09-08T16:45:56.387" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44766" PostId="21511" Score="4" Text="@user1271772 Did you actually read the answer? It says quite plainly that the answer is yes. Answers don’t have to have a huge, bold ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at the top to be adequate answers to a question." CreationDate="2023-09-09T01:59:18.233" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="44768" PostId="21511" Score="0" Text="After the author's most recent comment I gave a +1 because the answer became a clear &quot;yes&quot;. That comment wouldn't have been necessary or even sensible, if it was that clear in the original post." CreationDate="2023-09-09T03:25:29.897" UserId="7337" />
  <row Id="44769" PostId="21511" Score="0" Text="@user1271772 I apologize if it didn't come across clearly. That comment was a quote from the original answer." CreationDate="2023-09-09T03:41:07.160" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44770" PostId="21511" Score="0" Text="But not entirely." CreationDate="2023-09-09T03:57:37.693" UserId="7337" />
  <row Id="44797" PostId="21511" Score="0" Text="@user1271772 Let's say Draconis stays in the tradition of the old linguists when he is  a bit circumspect in his wording ;-)." CreationDate="2023-09-11T08:48:01.413" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="44719" PostId="21512" Score="4" Text="Nathan Bailey, *An Universal Etymological English Dictionary, 8th ed.* London 1737, [p. 18](https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_universal_etymological_English_dictio/VuYIAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA18-IA61&amp;printsec=frontcover) &#xA;&quot; HORTUS [by some *Writers*] the privy Parts of a Woman. &quot; Also, in Shakespeare's [Sonnet 16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet_16) one finds: &quot; Now stand you on the top of happy hours, And many maiden gardens, yet unset, &quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-07T22:40:27.973" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="44722" PostId="21512" Score="13" Text="The dividing line between an established meaning and occasional metaphorical use is hard to draw even for current language.  Take e.g. “My anaconda don’t want none unless you got buns, hun.” The euphemistic intent of *anaconda* is clear, but only as a metaphor in context; in itself, we’d usually think of *anaconda* as just meaning the actual large reptile. On the other hand the euphemistic sense of *buns* is well-established enough that we’d expect a good dictionary to list it.  Shakespeare’s *maiden gardens* seems nearer the contextual-only end of this spectrum; where does *hortus* fall?" CreationDate="2023-09-07T23:43:24.657" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="44738" PostId="21512" Score="0" Text="Is the answer yes or no?" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:34:59.413" UserId="7337" />
  <row Id="44740" PostId="21512" Score="2" Text="@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine You can use almost any word as a euphemism for genitalia, it's the context that often makes it obvious. &quot;Did you see that guy in his speedo? He obviously has a huge frog.&quot;:" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:36:49.770" UserId="4720" />
  <row Id="44741" PostId="21512" Score="5" Text="@user1271772 does it need to be one or the other? Which it should be depends on where you draw the line between ad-hoc euphemistic metaphor and established sense, which different people can disagree with. Providing all the facts, as this answer does allows the reader to make that judgement themselves which is much more useful than a yes or no would be" CreationDate="2023-09-08T14:48:26.440" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="44743" PostId="21512" Score="0" Text="@Tristan I disagree with you. This post does not answer the question in the title." CreationDate="2023-09-08T15:01:10.717" UserId="7337" />
  <row Id="44745" PostId="21512" Score="4" Text="@user1271772 I thought the answer was understood from context, but hopefully my edit made it clearer." CreationDate="2023-09-08T15:08:32.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44761" PostId="21512" Score="3" Text="@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine it is worth mentioning that there is a line in Plautus' Pseudolus where someone says: &quot;When the soldier went on his watch at night and you went with him, did his sword fit in your scabbard?&quot; and that is apparently the *only* evidence anywhere that the word *vagina* (scabbard) had a sexual meaning in pre-medieval Latin (and even then, the person this is addressed to appears to be male)." CreationDate="2023-09-08T18:33:42.477" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44765" PostId="21512" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That reminds me of [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/20762/what-where-the-formal-words-in-rome-for-human-genitals-i-have-heard-that-penis)." CreationDate="2023-09-08T22:37:22.297" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44767" PostId="21512" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Interesting! I didn't know that!" CreationDate="2023-09-09T02:39:25.707" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="44777" PostId="21512" Score="0" Text="@cmw thanks, the edit makes it a lot clearer!" CreationDate="2023-09-09T17:22:51.463" UserId="7337" />
  <row Id="44705" PostId="21513" Score="2" Text="I found a few sources (including [this one](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41036756)) that think this refers to *square* feet, generally of a mosaic. I'm not sure if that's universal, but it makes more sense to me than talking about length." CreationDate="2023-09-07T17:39:55.957" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44707" PostId="21513" Score="8" Text="'among certain primitive peoples it still is', hahaha, I'd +1'd just for that" CreationDate="2023-09-07T18:22:25.093" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="44715" PostId="21513" Score="1" Text="@brianpck True, it does appear to refer to mosaic area, so it should probably be read as &quot;square feet&quot;. Here are the mosaics from Grado: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cathedral_of_St_Eufemia_(Grado)_-_Mosaics" CreationDate="2023-09-07T21:19:14.233" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44727" PostId="21513" Score="0" Text="I'd say the fact that he said &quot;and sons&quot; instead of &quot;and children&quot;, potentially excluding any daughters adds weight to the probability that a man and his grown sons did in fact build that section, which is a model established in the Bible in Nehemiah 3: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Nehemiah-Chapter-3/ And funnily enough it even mentions where one man did the work with his daughters, perhaps indicating an assumption that the sons always helped with all the others. So what is &quot;unrealistic&quot; by today's communities standards is probably not a good yard stick. We live in degenerate times." CreationDate="2023-09-08T09:36:46.010" UserId="14028" />
  <row Id="44746" PostId="21513" Score="0" Text="If the width was standard, its possible that &quot;100 feet&quot; means &quot;100 feet x the standard width&quot;. I know that in Guernsey greenhouses were measured this way: &quot;100 feet of glass&quot; meant a greenhouse 100 feet long by a locally standard width (33 ft IIRC)" CreationDate="2023-09-08T15:15:08.860" UserId="8579" />
  <row Id="44747" PostId="21513" Score="1" Text="@NeilG Interestingly, while *filii* technically means &quot;sons,&quot; it is sometimes used for children in general; and the ablative plural *filiis* used here is ambiguous and could just straight away mean &quot;daughters&quot; anyway. I should add that contracting out the work of decorating churches to professional artisans gave us some of the very finest art in Christendom and does not seem particularly unmanly to me. In any event, the [website of the city of Grado](https://grado.it/en/what-to-do/art-history-and-culture/basilica-of-santeufemia/) says &quot;inscriptions commemorating the benefactors.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-08T16:07:32.407" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44762" PostId="21513" Score="0" Text="Wait... the Romans were &quot;primitive&quot;?!" CreationDate="2023-09-08T19:27:09.030" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="44772" PostId="21513" Score="0" Text="There are missing comments it seems @LarsH (I don't criticise, I've thought better of my words at times and deleted them since) which I'm guessing from the use of &quot;still is&quot; referred to a modern people, perhaps still using the foot as a measure. That is a slur on a definitely previous great people and the state of their nation today no longer reflects on the people since the nation they live in is no longer theirs. I don't think anyone here  would even remotely imply the Roman Empire was primitive, even when (or especially when) compared to modern times." CreationDate="2023-09-09T13:10:57.877" UserId="14028" />
  <row Id="44808" PostId="21513" Score="1" Text="@NeilG You're right, Sebastian referred to a modern people (e.g. Americans). I was responding to his joke by jokingly pointing out that if using the foot as a unit of length meant people were primitive (as his comment suggested), then that would imply that the Romans were primitive too. (Same could be said of the Greeks and many others.)" CreationDate="2023-09-11T21:02:37.597" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="44828" PostId="21513" Score="0" Text="+1 for the Americans @LarsH but not necessarily for America" CreationDate="2023-09-13T01:05:12.723" UserId="14028" />
  <row Id="44760" PostId="21515" Score="2" Text="While the original title was unclear, I believe (and OP seems to confirm in comments) that he's looking more about the terminology of gendered nouns in Latin and Romance languages." CreationDate="2023-09-08T17:05:29.647" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44782" PostId="21517" Score="2" Text="It was more of a gut feeling than a statement of rule (thus the language used), but I can try to find some examples for you later." CreationDate="2023-09-10T02:17:41.253" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44732" PostId="21518" Score="0" Text="Hi John, we just had this question last year. See the notice above for the link. Does that answer your question?" CreationDate="2023-09-08T13:31:48.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44733" PostId="21518" Score="0" Text="@cmw yes thanks" CreationDate="2023-09-08T13:44:20.080" UserDisplayName="user13971" />
  <row Id="44855" PostId="21519" Score="2" Text="It seems that lilacs weren't known to the ancient world, but the name (*syringa*) comes from the word for pipe/hollow-reed, cf. the story of Syrinx and Pan in the *Metamorphoses*." CreationDate="2023-09-14T18:06:32.280" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44858" PostId="21519" Score="2" Text="Can you explain what meaning you have in mind when you say &quot;smells of lilacs&quot;? This isn't an idiom that everyone would be familiar with." CreationDate="2023-09-16T22:41:58.173" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44875" PostId="21519" Score="0" Text="I‘m not sure either if that idiom is  widely known, because my mother tongue isn’t English. I looked it up, but the source may not be reliable. I am sorry for any confusion!&#xA;An example I found was in the song “fall in love with a girl“ by cavetown, a line that goes “The first time that you kiss, you‘ll smell lilacs on her lips”. I am searching for a translation of lilacs in this context, i.e. a poetic and romantic compliment. &#xA;I hope this is clearer!" CreationDate="2023-09-18T13:11:48.783" UserId="13861" />
  <row Id="44933" PostId="21519" Score="1" Text="Hi Samuelis: I only just now saw this. You'd have better luck attracting an answer if you add this information to your question. And in comments, if you reply to someone, make sure you ping them (by placing @ in front of their name). Because you need that, I didn't see your comment until now." CreationDate="2023-09-23T22:11:13.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44934" PostId="21519" Score="0" Text="Also, if you can give the idiom from your mother tongue, that might help. It's still not precisely clear, but I have some ideas now." CreationDate="2023-09-23T22:12:30.207" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44776" PostId="21521" Score="1" Text="The same thing happens with &quot;Qui Paraclitus diceris&quot; in the Veni Creator Spiritus." CreationDate="2023-09-09T15:23:19.417" UserId="2764" />
  <row Id="44771" PostId="21522" Score="0" Text="Your edited answer is far more convincing thank you" CreationDate="2023-09-09T08:38:12.160" UserDisplayName="user13971" />
  <row Id="44774" PostId="21524" Score="0" Text="You described my concern to a T. Reality, as a concept, is kind of hard to translate. I was hoping it was just me and my lack of practice." CreationDate="2023-09-09T15:12:04.920" UserId="14037" />
  <row Id="44775" PostId="21524" Score="0" Text="Much appreciated though." CreationDate="2023-09-09T15:12:42.053" UserId="14037" />
  <row Id="44778" PostId="21525" Score="0" Text="I don't read Levy referring to any &quot;immediate past&quot;; rather, it seems to be precisely that if the preset tense would have been frequented for &quot;immediate past&quot;, then the note by Levy would lose its force.  In other words, as I see it, the point that if present tense is &quot;jarring to you&quot; than the poet made a good job; Levy, then, is merely helping the readers who seamlessly read the present test and notes its significance." CreationDate="2023-09-09T20:19:49.897" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44781" PostId="21525" Score="0" Text="@d_e If Claudian meant the line to be read as Levy translates it, then I agree that Claudian did an excellent job. I'm curious if there are any parallels to support translating &quot;possidet&quot; as &quot;until this moment possesses&quot;. In his translation Levy adds the words &quot;until this moment&quot; to give a past force to the present verb in English. So it surprises me that &quot;possidet&quot; by itself (without an adverb, for example) can have the meaning Levy gives it." CreationDate="2023-09-09T22:22:30.893" UserId="14040" />
  <row Id="44857" PostId="21525" Score="0" Text="I think this is what the grammar books call the historic present, or the dramatic present, or the narrative present. It seems to be more common in some writers than in others." CreationDate="2023-09-16T22:27:43.930" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44785" PostId="21526" Score="2" Text="Nouns whose stem ends in -r, take **-culus/a/um** for their diminutives. e.g. **uxor** → **uxorcula**, **soror** → **sororcula**, **pater** → **paterculus**, and for agent nouns, I found **amātor** → **amātorculus**" CreationDate="2023-09-10T08:57:02.223" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44787" PostId="21526" Score="0" Text="Does the link answer your question?" CreationDate="2023-09-10T13:35:15.897" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44788" PostId="21526" Score="2" Text="@cmw frankly, yes, and I didn't see it before I posted. I'll keep this up though, to make looking for that one easier. The outside resources I found suggested a completely different pattern, which is why I had trouble" CreationDate="2023-09-10T13:43:43.820" UserId="14043" />
  <row Id="44789" PostId="21528" Score="1" Text="I doubt it still exists." CreationDate="2023-09-10T16:13:40.440" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="44796" PostId="21528" Score="10" Text="A number of publications in the field of classical philology explicitly accept contributions in Latin, e.g. *Gnomon*. Journals in this field are often traditionally multilingual and frequently feature a mix of English, German, Italian and French. Latin contributions are extremely rare, but Terrence Tunberg, for example, published a few articles in *Humanistica Lovaniensia* (which does not officially list Latin as a publication language)." CreationDate="2023-09-11T07:10:08.363" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44799" PostId="21528" Score="3" Text="In case anyone has the same idea I did: it looks like the scientific publications of the Vatican don't do Latin. The (quite new) Vatican Library Review &quot; welcomes submissions written in English, German, French and Italian&quot;, and clicking through the Pontifical Academy of Sciences' publications (which aren't really a standard journal anyway), I didn't see anything in Latin: https://www.pas.va/en/publications.html" CreationDate="2023-09-11T14:24:20.610" UserId="14047" />
  <row Id="44800" PostId="21528" Score="4" Text="But generally this is to be expected. The point of publishing a scientific paper is to communicate something primarily to people in the relevant field, and a wider audience if possible. Doing so in Latin in the 21st century is a very ineffective means of achieving this since almost no one in any field knows more than a few words of Latin." CreationDate="2023-09-11T14:34:49.617" UserId="14047" />
  <row Id="44801" PostId="21528" Score="1" Text="Other negatives: The Journal of Latin Linguistics is English-only, the Journal of Medieval Latin is English and French, the Journal of Latin Cosmopolitanism and European Literatures states &quot;English is preferable, although we also admit French, Italian, Spanish and German contributions.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-11T14:39:33.427" UserId="14047" />
  <row Id="44854" PostId="21528" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel _Gnomon_ was exactly the one that sprang to my mind as well! I actually thought _Classica et Mediaevalia_ still allowed Latin as well, but it looks like it’s been taken off the list in recent years (I’m pretty sure they still allowed it about ten years ago)." CreationDate="2023-09-14T12:53:07.690" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="44793" PostId="21529" Score="1" Text="Are you looking specifically for ancient conventions or modern works that create works in Latin anew?" CreationDate="2023-09-10T21:03:14.313" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44802" PostId="21529" Score="0" Text="@cmw I am working on a personal project in which I want to refer Idyll III in such a way that, if Theocritus himself were to read it, he would think, &quot;Ah that makes sense&quot;, or, even better, &quot;That's always how I have always referred to each of my *Idylls* individually.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-11T15:52:29.977" UserId="7268" />
  <row Id="44795" PostId="21531" Score="1" Text="This makes sense, thank you" CreationDate="2023-09-10T21:31:42.033" UserDisplayName="user13971" />
  <row Id="44812" PostId="21532" Score="4" Text="There's only one solution to this! We must start a Latin-only mathematics journal." CreationDate="2023-09-11T23:57:53.817" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="44822" PostId="21532" Score="0" Text="Following the hints in your thesis, could you describe what *Melissa* is? Is it relevant to this discussion?" CreationDate="2023-09-12T15:59:23.707" UserId="612" />
  <row Id="44824" PostId="21532" Score="0" Text="@svavil [Melissa](https://www.fundatiomelissa.org/fundatiomelissa/Periodicum.html) is a magazine appearing in Latin, which, judging by their website, has since been discontinued." CreationDate="2023-09-12T17:21:53.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44830" PostId="21532" Score="1" Text="Not really relevant to the question, but: the claim that publishing mathematical research in non-English languages &quot;would be unwise, as the vast majority of the audience will skip anything not in English&quot; is **definitely false** – there are large amounts of really first-rate mathematical research being published in French, enough that it's a professional necessity for a working researcher (in some mathematical fields at least) to be able to read it. However, the claim does hold (AFAIK) for other languages except English and French." CreationDate="2023-09-13T05:41:41.863" UserId="14054" />
  <row Id="44831" PostId="21532" Score="0" Text="@DavidLoeffler That depends on the subfield; I have never encountered anything recent and relevant to my work in French, but I can well imagine that other mathematicians have different experiences. I can't say that I fully represent all of mathematics, but I wanted to share my view of it as it is not something most of our users are familiar with. But the main point here is that trying to publish mathematics in Latin wouldn't be seen as professional and it hasn't been done at all in ages." CreationDate="2023-09-13T07:50:16.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44832" PostId="21532" Score="0" Text="Indeed, it depends on the subfield, and I think my comment made that clear whereas your original post did not :-). In any case, the original question was about Latin, and it's beyond dispute that no substantial mathematics has been published in Latin for a very long time (probably since the mid-19th century)." CreationDate="2023-09-13T07:59:03.030" UserId="14054" />
  <row Id="44835" PostId="21532" Score="0" Text="@DavidLoeffler Fair enough! I edited to add a short note that I only speak for some subfields." CreationDate="2023-09-13T09:06:44.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44829" PostId="21533" Score="0" Text="The question should explain the meaning of the expression. E.g. were you expecting to be frightened? Or were you expecting something to happen but when it did it frightening you? Or what?" CreationDate="2023-09-13T02:15:55.680" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="44853" PostId="21533" Score="0" Text="Thanks Ray, i added some extra detail." CreationDate="2023-09-14T11:25:00.537" UserId="293" />
  <row Id="44805" PostId="21535" Score="1" Text="I'm pretty sure Theocritus would not have called them idylls, but we also don't really know what Theocritus would have called them. Perhaps ᾠδή? And I agree, you can't do &quot;Idylls 3&quot; like you can (but shouldn't) in English." CreationDate="2023-09-11T18:51:04.683" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44806" PostId="21535" Score="1" Text="I am always astonished and humbled by the scholarship and generosity displayed on Latin SE. Thank you." CreationDate="2023-09-11T18:58:27.877" UserId="7268" />
  <row Id="44807" PostId="21535" Score="4" Text="@TomHosker Dissertation procrastination is a powerful motivator :)" CreationDate="2023-09-11T18:58:55.260" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44817" PostId="21537" Score="4" Text="I don't have a critical edition handy, but I'd be willing to bet that there are recorded variations on your first sentence." CreationDate="2023-09-12T14:40:05.070" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44818" PostId="21537" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Therefore, these variations are entirely legitimate? Well, if they are then it's good to be made aware of it." CreationDate="2023-09-12T15:30:15.203" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44819" PostId="21537" Score="4" Text="Even if to this specific example there are recorded variations, it is still a common practice for L&amp;S to trim and modify sentences like converting ACl and removing many &quot;irrelevant&quot; words. Sometimes in the digital (maybe even the printed) there are simply typos (I should have kept record of those); Lastly, note that in this particular case they don't make it accusative but genitive plural (to contrast with *Gallorum*); I believe they did it to save place; but as it is already so big a book, some would say making it double the size won't matter anyway." CreationDate="2023-09-12T15:51:00.453" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44820" PostId="21537" Score="2" Text="@brianpck I checked Du Pontet, and he has nothing recorded here." CreationDate="2023-09-12T15:53:14.250" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44821" PostId="21537" Score="3" Text="@d_e You should make that an answer. Lewis and Short basically &quot;trim&quot; the examples so that they get the usage across. Sometimes they trim too much or change it too much. It happens." CreationDate="2023-09-12T15:55:27.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44823" PostId="21537" Score="0" Text="@cmw I found [one 18th c. version](https://www.google.com/books/edition/C_Julii_Caesaris_De_bellis_Gallico_et_ci/VrcpAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22legionariorum+periclitaretur%22&amp;pg=PA332&amp;printsec=frontcover) that lists *legioniariorum periclitaretur*  as a *varia lectio*, though I'm not sure what &quot;vulgo&quot; means in this context. Perhaps it's a bad manuscript that Du Pontet rejected entirely." CreationDate="2023-09-12T17:20:18.793" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44827" PostId="21537" Score="3" Text="@brianpck I wonder if there's a list of the editions that Lewis and Short (or Andrews) used? That might solve some of the cruces." CreationDate="2023-09-12T19:52:17.887" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44834" PostId="21537" Score="1" Text="@cmw: Any thoughts on the translation of &quot;summa&quot; to &quot;safety&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-09-13T08:39:33.397" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44851" PostId="21537" Score="1" Text="Regarding _summa_ translated to 'safety', I imagine they wished to take somewhat figurative language whose intended meaning would be obvious to a Roman but less obvious to an Anglophone and render it in more idiomatic English: 'lest [they] be imperiled with regard to the height of the empire' feels ambiguous, since the concern is actually not about its _height_ but about its potential _fall_ therefrom; in English, the word _safety_ better conveys the notion, even if the focus is somewhat adulterated." CreationDate="2023-09-14T00:26:42.907" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44816" PostId="21538" Score="4" Text="I think the difference is roughly equivalent to the difference of these two sentences in English: &#xA;* Neither of the two boys now sleep.&#xA;* Neither boy now sleeps." CreationDate="2023-09-12T13:31:19.890" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="44825" PostId="21538" Score="1" Text="@Adam Would you mind converting that into an answer?" CreationDate="2023-09-12T17:30:46.583" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44826" PostId="21538" Score="1" Text="Technically, it's redundant to say neuter e duobus pueris, since neuter already makes clear that there are exactly two. So, yes, that phrase is equivalent to neuter puer, which could be used instead with no real difference in meaning (though with some loss of emphasis). I would attribute the fuller expression to the personal style of the authors of LLPSI and note that the (admittedly cursory) corpus search I did turned up very few instances of forms of neuter + ex/e or de + duobus/duabus. So I'd go so far as to say that neuter puer is better classical style." CreationDate="2023-09-12T19:08:30.720" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44838" PostId="21541" Score="3" Text="If the action is concurrent with another, then the imperfect would be normal. Is there more to this sentence?" CreationDate="2023-09-13T13:41:34.483" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44839" PostId="21541" Score="1" Text="@gaufridus Can you elaborate? Here is roughly the context &quot;Ariadna descendit et currens scindebat etc.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-13T15:03:54.317" UserDisplayName="user13971" />
  <row Id="44848" PostId="21541" Score="0" Text="Ah, that's easy, then: _currens scindebat_ can be translated as 'as she ran, she tore [at her hair and her clothes]'. The running takes time and the tearing takes the same time allotment; that is, each of them is a continuous event rather than a momentary action, and _in context_ the meaning requires an imperfect." CreationDate="2023-09-14T00:00:49.010" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44849" PostId="21541" Score="0" Text="I say 'in context' because someone, having seen the event, might report the action with a perfect verb, but he would do so in the assumption that, relative to the present, the action were complete (_perfectum_ means 'finished'). But at the time of your quote, the action is both continuous and ongoing, and so it requires an imperfect verb." CreationDate="2023-09-14T00:08:11.923" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44850" PostId="21541" Score="0" Text="You can think of the primitive (but not only) distinction between imperfective tenses (1. present, 2. imperfect, 3. future) and perfective tenses (1. perfect, 2. pluperfect, 3. future perfect) as being between ongoing action and completed action, relative to the temporal point of reference (1. = present, 2. = past, 3. = future). If it has 'perfect' in the name, then it (primitively, anyways) represents a completed action; if it doesn't, then an ongoing one. But this is a bit confounded by the perfect also being aoristic (that is, simple past) and the pluperfect also being a past in the past." CreationDate="2023-09-14T00:13:52.653" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="45451" PostId="21545" Score="0" Text="Sorpresa is Spanish for surprise" CreationDate="2023-11-13T07:31:12.037" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="44860" PostId="21546" Score="3" Text="Anecdotally, I've only ever seen quotations formatted as in English, but I've seen both British and American styles in Latin. I would be curious to know when quotation marks started to be used at all in Latin. This is a good question!" CreationDate="2023-09-17T04:20:08.407" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="44864" PostId="21548" Score="0" Text="It would help if you could list the substitutions. Right now I fail to see how one is to deduce t -&gt; f. Does f -&gt; t imply t -&gt; f? Generally &quot;-iensis&quot; indicates &quot;of&quot; in the sense of being from some place. E.g. floresiensis = of Flores (an island in Indonesia). So &quot;Foh&quot; would be the place name in this case, however I am not aware of any locality by that name in Worcestershire." CreationDate="2023-09-18T06:39:01.180" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="44866" PostId="21548" Score="0" Text="&quot;Potochoterophii&quot; has a Greek feel to it. &quot;Ptochotrophii&quot;, perhaps. ptóchos: (of one who crouches and cowers, hence) beggarly, poor; trophé: nourishment, food. Correction to previous comments: Fohs-iensis -&gt; &quot;of Fohs&quot;. Which does not make any sense either." CreationDate="2023-09-18T07:07:01.277" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="44874" PostId="21548" Score="2" Text="@njuffa Sorry about that. I didn't list the substitutions because I didn't think they were germane: I was asking a question about Latin, not cryptography, and didn't want to clutter up my question. The substitutions are:&#xA;&#xA;B=Z C=X D=W F=T G=S H=R L=P M=N N=M P=L R=H S=G T=F W=D X=C Z=B&#xA;&#xA;You are correct that F=T implies T=F.&#xA;&#xA;A,E,I,J,K,Q and Y are as written" CreationDate="2023-09-18T09:24:01.797" UserId="14078" />
  <row Id="44868" PostId="21549" Score="3" Text="I found a [scan](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cocker_s_Decimal_Arithmetick_wherein_is/fmdnAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PP19&amp;printsec=frontcover) of an edition from 1685, and it has &quot;Tor**p**iemgig&quot; (or possibly even &quot;T**e**r**p**iemgig&quot;). Thus &quot;Foh**l**iensis&quot;." CreationDate="2023-09-18T08:27:32.347" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="44872" PostId="21549" Score="1" Text="This older edition also has &quot;Lòfoxrofèholrii&quot;  and &quot;Lèpeag&quot;, so perhaps accented letters were supposed to be omitted (so &quot;Lèpeag&quot; turns into &quot;Pleas&quot;), something that later typesetters overlooked. Also &quot;roughèg&quot; and  &quot;fèheafige&quot; (the accent on this last one is faint but does seem to be there)." CreationDate="2023-09-18T08:41:14.870" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="44880" PostId="21549" Score="4" Text="@Cairnarvon I suspected the text was corrupted, because I had noticed the same spelling mistakes that you described in the decoded text, and I tend to agree that they are transmission errors. With your corrections, the text roughly translates to:  “_To his dearest friend_ John Perkes _of Foley’s Poorhouse in County Worcestershire Schoolmaster._” I believe “Foley’s Poorhouse” may be a reference to Oldwinsford Hospital, which is a school initially for poor children founded in 1667 by Thomas Foley, and which still exists to this day." CreationDate="2023-09-18T20:36:29.323" UserId="14078" />
  <row Id="44876" PostId="21550" Score="2" Text="I have never seen a gerund used with *sine*, and a quick search seems to confirm my intuition. Here is [Allen &amp; Greenough &amp;sect; 307](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/gerund-and-gerundive): &quot;The ablative of the gerund and gerundive is used (1) to express manner, means, cause, etc.; (2) after comparatives; and (3) after the propositions ab, dē, ex, in, and (rarely) prō.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-18T14:59:36.647" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44877" PostId="21550" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Thank you. Is it certain then that &quot;sine&quot; is disqualified, in this context? I'll change the answer." CreationDate="2023-09-18T15:46:42.483" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44878" PostId="21550" Score="2" Text="Just realized that I asked a [somewhat similar question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2419/approaches-to-translating-without-verb) a while back. @cnread pointed out that another grammar points to only two extant places where sine+gerund is used: so I suppose it isn't impossible, but I think other constructions are far more common." CreationDate="2023-09-18T16:28:15.830" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44879" PostId="21550" Score="2" Text="Surely it would have to be *... sed non deprehendi*? (But I think this word would more readily be understood as &quot;being caught&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-09-18T20:09:20.323" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44881" PostId="21550" Score="1" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In the OP's request &quot;the fearing&quot; and &quot;the surprising&quot; seemed to be concomitant. When I read your answer I began looking for verbs &quot;to surprise&quot;; just like verbs, &quot;to forget&quot;, there aren't many!" CreationDate="2023-09-18T21:58:21.563" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44885" PostId="21550" Score="1" Text="@tony I agree it's a problem. That's also why my translation isn't very literal and doesn't actually say &quot;surprised.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-19T07:25:51.823" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44886" PostId="21550" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Of course. I wondered why you hadn't used &quot;surprised&quot;, until I tried to find a Latin equivalent." CreationDate="2023-09-19T07:45:19.067" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44888" PostId="21553" Score="3" Text="Re-opened following the edit. Just to clarify something that Joonas said, a question *in* Latin is acceptable, so long as it's also *about* Latin. The way I read the original is that it seemed more like it was asking an opinion about cats. That's why it was closed (and, I presume, why someone downvoted it)." CreationDate="2023-09-19T13:26:42.407" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44889" PostId="21553" Score="0" Text="What I've seen some people do in other questions is to have a parallel text with Latin and a translation, in case the Latin fails to convey the question properly. You still could translate your above question to Latin for practice, so long as you're not also asking for help on that (you would ask about that separately)." CreationDate="2023-09-19T13:28:12.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44893" PostId="21560" Score="3" Text="It might be useful to include the second part: *... quam Judaeorum turbae fallaci*; from there it is natural to see the contrast between *turbae* and *soli* (though one is adjective another is noun)" CreationDate="2023-09-21T04:21:25.177" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44894" PostId="21560" Score="0" Text="I thought this part *quam Judaeorum turbae fallaci* was irrelevant. Thank you for pointing this out!&#xA;Since your comment already states the relevance, and since there is already an answer, I guess I'll leave the question itself unamended." CreationDate="2023-09-21T07:08:51.800" UserId="7018" />
  <row Id="44895" PostId="21564" Score="0" Text="I interpreted Asteroides' translation exactly the same way you pointed out (*they &quot;only&quot; believe in Mary*), thank you!" CreationDate="2023-09-21T12:22:38.610" UserId="7018" />
  <row Id="44910" PostId="21564" Score="0" Text="To me the most natural sense of *soli* is not that she was alone at the time but that her testimony alone, since she is truthful, outweighs that of the *fallax turba*." CreationDate="2023-09-21T20:35:51.630" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="44912" PostId="21564" Score="0" Text="@TKR I think that reading is permissible, but it would lose the contrast between &quot;solus&quot; and &quot;turba&quot; (as d_e notes above). The juxtaposition of &quot;sola verax&quot; and &quot;turba fallax&quot; strongly recommends my reading, I think." CreationDate="2023-09-21T21:09:49.853" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44913" PostId="21564" Score="0" Text="I don't see how it loses the contrast: the idea is that a single truthful person is more to be believed than a whole crowd of liars." CreationDate="2023-09-22T00:06:19.060" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="44940" PostId="21564" Score="1" Text="@TKR Ah, I was missing the contrast you were underlining. I was reading your &quot;alone&quot; as &quot;only,&quot; i.e. &quot;we should only believe Mary's testimony,&quot; but I think you're saying--and I agree--that &quot;we should believe in the testimony of one person, Mary.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-09-25T20:56:11.063" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44950" PostId="21564" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: Therefore, does &quot;soli&quot; have two functions: Mary was &quot;by herself&quot; and &quot;alone&quot; in being truthful?" CreationDate="2023-09-28T08:55:30.863" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44925" PostId="21566" Score="3" Text="Kotoba Trily Ngian: My school motto was, &quot;ex leonibus virtus&quot;; therefore, &quot;virtus&quot;, could be used for lions (and lionesses): renowned for their bravery rather than their virtue. This may be irrelevant to your question, but is interesting nevertheless." CreationDate="2023-09-22T15:28:29.490" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="44930" PostId="21574" Score="1" Text="Are you sure *stimulus* ever meant 'beesting' or similar? It's certainly not its primary meaning." CreationDate="2023-09-23T18:15:25.657" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44931" PostId="21574" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stimulus#Latin" CreationDate="2023-09-23T18:55:19.193" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44932" PostId="21574" Score="1" Text="It says 'sting' but it means that in a broad sense, not idiomatically an insect's sting; click through to Lewis and Short." CreationDate="2023-09-23T18:57:41.110" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44937" PostId="21575" Score="1" Text="This would be a stronger answer if you cited the sources you've come across that argue for this." CreationDate="2023-09-24T21:06:10.360" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44939" PostId="21576" Score="0" Text="I think it would be very hard, without more context, not to read this as: &quot;The strength of the wolf is the flock [of sheep it eats].&quot; I did a [proximity search](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23lup+%7E+%23gre) of *grex* and *lupus* and each time the *grex* was what was being preyed upon by the wolf." CreationDate="2023-09-25T15:50:37.680" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44943" PostId="21576" Score="2" Text="I agree that *grex* seems inappropriate, like saying &quot;a herd of wolves&quot; in English. Instead I would  suggest *agmen*, used for [Actaeon's hounds](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Actaeon_Caserta_(cropped).jpg) by Ovid (Metamorphoses 3, 242)." CreationDate="2023-09-25T22:07:18.993" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44947" PostId="21576" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Oh, that's a good find. I saw that he used *turba* earlier and rejected that as having undesirable baggage, but then I didn't keep looking." CreationDate="2023-09-27T19:04:41.160" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44948" PostId="21576" Score="2" Text="I do think reading *grex* as 'herd' is just interference from English translation dictionaries, though, and while I acknowledge @brianpck's point I think that says more about the nature of people's concerns about wolves than about the appropriateness of *grex* itself; it was a very broad term." CreationDate="2023-09-27T19:07:37.550" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="44955" PostId="21576" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel That deserves an answer in itself." CreationDate="2023-09-28T15:11:28.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45838" PostId="21576" Score="0" Text="Another option is *caterva*. Ovid was using it for group of dogs. However L&amp;S the usage of *caterva* for animals is poetical." CreationDate="2023-12-10T12:24:55.777" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44944" PostId="21584" Score="10" Text="Don't these mean exactly the same thing?" CreationDate="2023-09-26T13:23:57.653" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="44945" PostId="21584" Score="0" Text="@MPW They are perfect synonyms, yes. I'm not even sure if they differ all that much in register" CreationDate="2023-09-27T04:10:51.027" UserId="14043" />
  <row Id="44956" PostId="21587" Score="2" Text="This may be way off, and I haven't looked anything up, but I *believe* the Veneti were one of the racing 'teams' in the circus. Each had a different color, and perhaps the Veneti were blue?" CreationDate="2023-09-28T16:21:37.143" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44957" PostId="21587" Score="2" Text="Comes from the colour of blood vessels vena, also used for flowing waters, same sense as  φλεψ Greek." CreationDate="2023-09-28T17:34:12.097" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="44958" PostId="21587" Score="3" Text="Lewis &amp; Short [think](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DVeneti) “Perh. taken from the color of the sea on the coast.”" CreationDate="2023-09-28T21:36:08.693" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44959" PostId="21587" Score="3" Text="@cnread They were blue! But if I read L &amp; S correctly, they were called Veneti because of that, not because they were from Venetia." CreationDate="2023-09-28T22:06:06.283" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44960" PostId="21587" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, Yes, in retrospect, it's obvious that the name would have derived from the color and not the other way, esp. given the names of the other teams. It was early when I wrote that comment..." CreationDate="2023-09-29T05:05:39.507" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="44962" PostId="21587" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Do you want to turn your comments into an answer?" CreationDate="2023-09-30T11:00:27.660" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47671" PostId="21587" Score="0" Text="@RolandF That makes more apparent sense than derivation from a not-yet-extant Venice's not-yet-apparent connection to maritime trade. Is the answer below actually wrong? Where would the _-et-_ bit have come from, in your version?" CreationDate="2024-03-05T15:18:03.983" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="44951" PostId="21589" Score="1" Text="So *is*, *ea*, *id* can work as demonstrative adjectives?" CreationDate="2023-09-28T12:59:15.567" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44952" PostId="21589" Score="3" Text="@Charo [Correct](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/demonstrative-pronouns-paradigms). Demonstrative pronouns in Latin are also equally demonstrative adjectives." CreationDate="2023-09-28T13:24:09.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44953" PostId="21589" Score="0" Text="@Charo, not only **is/ea/id**, but also **ille/-a/-ud**, **iste/-a/-ud**, **hic/haec/hoc**, etc." CreationDate="2023-09-28T14:09:52.673" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44954" PostId="21589" Score="1" Text="Yes, of course, @KotobaTrilyNgian: I knew the demonstrative adjectives-pronouns you mention. But I didn't know that *is, ea, id* can also be used as demonstrative adjectives. I'm a beginner in Latin." CreationDate="2023-09-28T14:19:59.217" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44973" PostId="21593" Score="1" Text="*Doesn't &quot;id est&quot; translate to &quot;it is&quot;?* No it doesn't? Any useful Latin dictionary will translate *is, ea, id* as “he, she, it, this, that.” (But of course the real answer, as given below, is that we use *id* because the ancient Romans used *id*, and they used *id* because they couldn't know (and wouldn't have cared) what English speakers say.)" CreationDate="2023-10-01T18:33:42.760" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44971" PostId="21594" Score="0" Text="@Alexa Not all translation is [literal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_translation) because idiom occurs in language which means that much language has meaning that is more-than-the-sum-of-the-parts." CreationDate="2023-10-01T15:31:43.267" UserId="12123" />
  <row Id="44966" PostId="21595" Score="1" Text="Adverbial accusative is used for measuring length" CreationDate="2023-10-01T07:18:26.283" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44967" PostId="21595" Score="0" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian: But I would say this is distance." CreationDate="2023-10-01T12:22:30.433" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44972" PostId="21596" Score="0" Text="For my question, a relevant piece of information in your source is: &quot;Distance when considered as extent of space is put in the accusative&quot; (it's below the excerpt you have reported). The example given, also from Caesar *B. G* (&quot;Mīlia passuum tria ab eōrum castrīs castra pōnit&quot;), is somewhat confusing because of the presence of the word &quot;mīlia&quot;, which is [always accompanied by a plural genitive](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1989/). But I suppose &quot;tria&quot; should be interpreted as accusative plural neuter. Anyway, for completeness, can you please add this to your answer?" CreationDate="2023-10-01T15:59:18.643" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45048" PostId="21596" Score="0" Text="[Here](https://www.culturaclasica.com/lingualatina/valores.de.los.casos.pdf) one can find a good explanation in Spanish (section 3.4)." CreationDate="2023-10-10T12:55:08.617" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44970" PostId="21597" Score="2" Text="Great suggestion. And it has the added benefit of being a recognizable motto. +1." CreationDate="2023-10-01T14:39:16.977" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45605" PostId="21598" Score="0" Text="That's an interesting distinction. I'd be interested in seeing some examples taken from literature, ancient, medieval, or modern." CreationDate="2023-11-21T21:55:31.223" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="44974" PostId="21599" Score="1" Text="different but related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14238/distinguishing-house-from-home" CreationDate="2023-10-01T21:51:02.543" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="44975" PostId="21601" Score="0" Text="I forgot about the verb in my question that, with a plural subject, should also be in plural (that is, *nōmināntur*." CreationDate="2023-10-02T09:23:32.790" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44990" PostId="21601" Score="0" Text="Here's a related question, but with the numbers switched: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21034/why-is-this-noun-in-the-singular/" CreationDate="2023-10-03T17:06:37.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44991" PostId="21601" Score="0" Text="Yes, @cmw: it's included in the anwser." CreationDate="2023-10-03T20:30:01.693" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44992" PostId="21601" Score="0" Text="Oops, didn't see that edit at first. I'll delete it then." CreationDate="2023-10-03T20:44:59.050" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44976" PostId="21602" Score="1" Text="So, the reason why the subject and the verb are singular is that *kalendae* is a plurale tantum noun? Is this kind of construction usual with other pluralia tantum nouns?" CreationDate="2023-10-02T09:31:16.273" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44977" PostId="21602" Score="2" Text="The form of &quot;dies mensis primus [...] nominatur&quot; isn't really affected by what is on the other end of the verb. With that said, I am having a hard time imagining why a plural noun or name would be on the other end of that construction if it's not a plurale tantum, so yes and no to your question." CreationDate="2023-10-02T09:36:28.737" UserId="9062" />
  <row Id="44979" PostId="21602" Score="1" Text="The sentence in the other question is indeed a good example for the question in my previous comment." CreationDate="2023-10-02T13:35:12.290" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="44981" PostId="21605" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! Where did you read this?" CreationDate="2023-10-02T15:40:25.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="44982" PostId="21605" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I read this in a book about Old English that contained a section about Grimm's law." CreationDate="2023-10-02T16:50:05.937" UserId="14150" />
  <row Id="44985" PostId="21605" Score="1" Text="Grimm's law is a sound law in Germanic, it does not apply to Latin." CreationDate="2023-10-02T17:23:06.243" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45006" PostId="21606" Score="0" Text="Indeed, rare in plain English, but see [pedion](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pedion), [pedosphere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedosphere), [pedotope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedotope)." CreationDate="2023-10-06T14:18:05.193" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="44983" PostId="21607" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer, this is very much appreciated. I just couldn't work out where the f came from." CreationDate="2023-10-02T16:53:21.320" UserId="14150" />
  <row Id="44984" PostId="21607" Score="0" Text="Any comment on the mechanism of f &lt; dh?" CreationDate="2023-10-02T17:00:47.440" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44986" PostId="21608" Score="2" Text="If he's *Patricius conscriptus*, he can go around mocking the plebs." CreationDate="2023-10-02T18:49:43.440" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="44995" PostId="21612" Score="3" Text="Do you have an edition that prints *nescito* instead of [*noscito*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnoscito)? Based on your comments I assume it's just a typo, but I don't want to edit if that's part of your question." CreationDate="2023-10-05T13:32:16.163" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45000" PostId="21612" Score="0" Text="@brianpck it's a typo and I corrected it" CreationDate="2023-10-06T04:12:05.677" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="44997" PostId="21613" Score="2" Text="The big L &amp; S entry starts out, by the way, with the definition: “The time designated by cum being indefinite, when, if, whenever, always with indic. [⋯] cum with pres. indic., often equivalent to si” (I. A. 1. a.) – which in my opinion would also fit this context." CreationDate="2023-10-05T20:26:35.590" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="44999" PostId="21613" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You're right--I skipped too quickly through the &quot;temporal&quot; senses. I think that meaning is even more appropriate and have changed my answer to reflect that. Thanks!" CreationDate="2023-10-06T02:59:14.100" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="44996" PostId="21614" Score="1" Text="How do you know it is the accusative and not the ablative?" CreationDate="2023-10-05T18:14:06.027" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="44998" PostId="21614" Score="3" Text="@FlatAssembler It's not like the ablative would be any easier to make sense of – quite to the contrary …" CreationDate="2023-10-05T20:32:20.173" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45002" PostId="21615" Score="0" Text="Can you explain a bit more about *te dormire* with the accusative *te* as an object of the verb? Looking in a few online dictionaries, the senses they give of the verb *dormire* are all intransitive, and I couldn't find examples of the verb used in a transitive or reflexive way. Like the OP, I would not have thought of this as a possible parsing." CreationDate="2023-10-06T11:03:37.173" UserId="9128" />
  <row Id="45003" PostId="21615" Score="1" Text="@JamesMartin  Note that _te_ is not the object of _dormire_ but its subject (NB: in Latin subjects of infinitival clauses are often marked with the accusative case). Note also that _te dormire_ is not the direct object but the subject of _necesse est_. For related discussion, see my previous question (please take a look at the last link provided by the OP): https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16256/accusative-case-marking-of-subjects-in-infinitival-clauses?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1" CreationDate="2023-10-06T11:46:10.110" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45004" PostId="21615" Score="0" Text="I agree with @JamesMartin that it would be a good idea to add the contents of your comment to the answer. Would you please do it?" CreationDate="2023-10-06T11:56:27.630" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45005" PostId="21615" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino: What if it had been written: &quot;iam necesse est tibi dormire&quot; = &quot;now it is necessary for you to sleep&quot;?  Here's one from Cicero, &quot;de Senectute 30): &quot;nihil necesse est mihi de me ipso dicere,&quot; = &quot;it is not necessary for me to say anything concerning myself,&quot;. Given the inclusion of both &quot;mihi&quot; &amp; &quot;me&quot;, why did Cicero feel the need to include the intensifier, &quot;ipso&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-10-06T13:40:43.690" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45007" PostId="21615" Score="2" Text="@Mitomino thanks, that's illuminating. That does sound like it belongs in the answer to the question of why *te* is in the accusative case in this sentence (although indeed, thanks, now I see that the OP was definitely aware of more than I was). What is a good reference to learn more about these accusative + infinitive constructions?" CreationDate="2023-10-06T15:13:02.747" UserId="9128" />
  <row Id="45009" PostId="21615" Score="0" Text="@JamesMartin In the following link you'll find some relevant references that contain an _introductory_ discussion of the accusative marking of the subject of infinitival clauses: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11201/please-recommend-reference-grammar-for-someone-with-an-undergraduate-degree-in-l  For some _more advanced_ textbooks, see the comment of my answer in the previous post (e.g. take a look at Pinkster's _The Oxford Latin Syntax_, published by Oxford University Press)." CreationDate="2023-10-06T21:37:55.227" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45013" PostId="21615" Score="1" Text="This is a really good answer. A lot of the trickiness here is in English marking the subject of an infinitive with the preposition *for,* so that both *te* and *tibi* look the same in translation. Recast with a gerund, the sentences seem more obviously distinct: *necesse est te dormire* 'your sleeping is necessary' and *necesse est tibi dormire* 'sleeping is necessary for you' (even if the sense is somewhat changed, it makes the difference more obvious to an Anglophone)." CreationDate="2023-10-07T00:58:10.810" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="45014" PostId="21615" Score="1" Text="@gaufridus  Yes, I agree with you. Concerning the English translation of an Acc. cum Inf. construction like _Necesse est te dormire_ as 'It is necessary for you to sleep', it is worth noting that some scholars have claimed that the assignment of the accusative case _te_ in this sentence is carried out by a null (prepositional-like?) complementizer similar to &quot;for&quot; in English constructions like _**For** him to invite Mary would be stupid_: see page 25 of their paper https://www.academia.edu/3199346/Consequences_of_the_Analysis_of_Latin_infinitival_Clauses_for_the_Theory_of_Case_and_Control" CreationDate="2023-10-07T01:33:13.960" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45015" PostId="21615" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Interesting, that fits well with my own less formal analysis." CreationDate="2023-10-07T01:58:18.877" UserId="13970" />
  <row Id="45016" PostId="21615" Score="0" Text="@gaufridus  I've just incorporated your relevant comment on English gerunds in my EDIT above. I'm not a native speaker of English but my intuition is that your interesting parallelism with gerunds also holds for the following pair: cf. _For him to invite Mary would be stupid_ &amp; _His inviting Mary would be stupid_." CreationDate="2023-10-07T02:08:08.407" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45017" PostId="21615" Score="0" Text="@Charo: Please share your thoughts on Mitomino's answer." CreationDate="2023-10-07T08:50:59.907" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45019" PostId="21615" Score="0" Text="@tony:  Now I found it much more complete: in my opinion, it's an excellent answer. Maybe it would be worth asking a new question about the usages of the *accusativus cum infinito*: in other sources, I have only seen such construction associated to indirect speech." CreationDate="2023-10-07T09:17:26.617" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45071" PostId="21618" Score="0" Text="You could say *firmissimus* (&quot;most / extremely determined&quot;) or use obstino / obstinatus &quot;resolute&quot;." CreationDate="2023-10-12T11:38:37.913" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45008" PostId="21619" Score="2" Text="There is a relevant discussion [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=1Ki9YSZw3YMC&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109&amp;dq=quisquis+quicumque&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=61M30TyMq4&amp;sig=ACfU3U2DG6eig5CsUeSy2tawULB0185FdQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjWrpX6p-KBAxVaV6QEHWrRCBI4FBDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&amp;q=quisquis%20quicumque&amp;f=false) ; starts p.102.  skimming, it seems that in the pre-classical they used to be more distinct in meaning. where *quisquis* hints to irrelevance: &quot;no matter what&quot;; the diff was blurred later but maybe maintained in the plural - where *quaecumque* has &quot;quantitative sense&quot; (not sure what it means though)" CreationDate="2023-10-06T21:16:36.790" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45011" PostId="21619" Score="2" Text="It is interesting to see how this sentence from *Soliloquia animae ad Deum* (Augustine? probably not but was later 12th century) was translated: *Fateor equidem, quia quidquid facio, quaecumque facio, ante te facio*" CreationDate="2023-10-06T23:09:45.237" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45012" PostId="21619" Score="0" Text="@d_e, nice hints! My underlying question goes precisely in this sense: does a sentence like _quidquid facio, quaecumque facio_ add some meaning or is it just redundant?" CreationDate="2023-10-07T00:31:48.377" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45020" PostId="21620" Score="3" Text="You used more words to ask your question than strictly logically necessary. Why did you do that?" CreationDate="2023-10-07T13:36:26.777" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45024" PostId="21620" Score="2" Text="I think you mean, &quot;Why did you, yourself, do that?&quot;." CreationDate="2023-10-07T14:31:49.403" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="45025" PostId="21620" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Most of the words, here, are Cicero's and the translation: I accept that, &quot;in this connexion&quot; could be deleted." CreationDate="2023-10-07T17:19:51.827" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45026" PostId="21620" Score="0" Text="@Adam: Most amusing!" CreationDate="2023-10-07T17:20:52.963" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45027" PostId="21620" Score="3" Text="@tony You miss my point. Cicero doesn't use the bare minimum to convey his message, and neither do you. Language is not a logic puzzle to be solved but a tool to be used. I just got the feeling that some of this question comes from an unjustified premise of minimality." CreationDate="2023-10-07T18:02:08.297" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45028" PostId="21620" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: I see. Cicero had already used &quot;mihi&quot; &amp; &quot;me&quot;; I just wondered how the &quot;ipso&quot; came into it--it could've been a point of which I was unaware. Therefore, do you believe that Cicero was simply being verbose--over-egging the pudding?" CreationDate="2023-10-07T20:50:43.103" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45029" PostId="21620" Score="0" Text="What is the context for the quote? It is possible that Cicero wanted to really emphasize that it was he, himself." CreationDate="2023-10-07T23:18:13.007" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="45030" PostId="21620" Score="0" Text="@Adam: Hadn't he already done that: &quot;mihi&quot; &amp; &quot;me&quot;? Your joke, above, includes a valid point: would you say, &quot;Me, myself &amp; I are going for a walk.&quot;? Why did Cicero?" CreationDate="2023-10-08T07:32:06.837" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45035" PostId="21620" Score="0" Text="This is not Cicero, its the elder Cato, a very different and difficult character." CreationDate="2023-10-09T17:25:01.223" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="45021" PostId="21621" Score="4" Text="You're asking for a broad explanation for a major grammatical construction. Such an explanation might be better suited to a chapter of a Latin grammar than a QA site. I think it would be better if you asked for reading recommendations for a grammar that does justice to ACI or if you asked a specific single question about it." CreationDate="2023-10-07T13:46:58.570" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45023" PostId="21621" Score="0" Text="OK, @JoonasIlmavirta: I've changed my question to ask for reading resources." CreationDate="2023-10-07T14:05:06.467" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45031" PostId="21623" Score="4" Text="What are the genders of those gods? All male, all female, or mixed?" CreationDate="2023-10-08T16:29:57.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45287" PostId="21623" Score="0" Text="I'm sorry for the late response, what would the difference be in each of the three cases?" CreationDate="2023-10-28T23:29:55.977" UserId="14185" />
  <row Id="45342" PostId="21623" Score="0" Text="I wrote up an answer to address that." CreationDate="2023-11-01T07:27:37.217" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45032" PostId="21624" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the help, I appricate it" CreationDate="2023-10-08T17:11:48.447" UserId="14185" />
  <row Id="45033" PostId="21625" Score="2" Text="Welcome to Latin.SE! Please, have a look to [How do I ask a good question?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask)." CreationDate="2023-10-08T19:58:33.883" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45043" PostId="21625" Score="0" Text="Polo was popular in the middle ages, so there must have been a Latin word for it. In Greek it was τζυκάνιον, so *tzycanio*? Trapman has *alsulegia equestris*. *Alsulegia* is all over the internet, meaning &quot;hockey&quot; apparently." CreationDate="2023-10-09T22:18:19.423" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45160" PostId="21625" Score="1" Text="@Figulus By the way, polo is called &quot;horse-ball&quot; in Chinese, so I would make a calque **pila equestris** for it if there is no better extant word" CreationDate="2023-10-18T14:25:09.153" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="45034" PostId="21628" Score="2" Text="Dativus est! Eae, quae Latine discere vult, liber oerbergensis iucundus erit (erit = futurus est). &quot;Dative of reference,&quot; ut nuncupant Allen &amp; Greenough, quodammodo generaliter." CreationDate="2023-10-09T17:23:35.893" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45036" PostId="21628" Score="0" Text="OK, @SebastianKoppehel, I suppose it corresponds to [378.2](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-reference), since it's used to define a direction (to those who seal to the North, ...). But in this case, the person is denoted by a pronoun in the dative plural and not by a participle, as in the examples of Allen and Greenough." CreationDate="2023-10-09T17:53:29.663" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45037" PostId="21628" Score="3" Text="Yes, this is often called the **Dative of the Person Judging**, which can be connected to the &quot;Dative of Relation&quot; (e.g. see https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D378 ).  An example that is typically found in many Latin textbooks is the following one: _oppidum prīmum Thessaliae venientibus ab Ēpīrō_ (Caes. _civ_. 3. 80). The typical participle used in the dative is replaced here, in your example, by a dative pronoun (_Iīs_) plus a relative clause (_quī ad septentriōnēs nāvigant_). This is not surprising since they function similarly." CreationDate="2023-10-09T17:55:00.067" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45038" PostId="21628" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino This would have been (and in fact still is) a fine answer." CreationDate="2023-10-09T17:56:30.390" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45047" PostId="21631" Score="1" Text="The document in Spanish is really useful!" CreationDate="2023-10-10T07:34:55.540" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45041" PostId="21632" Score="2" Text="People can take a guess, but to save us wasted efforts, can you edit your question so that you provide a meaning and some additional context as to what &quot;influenced thinking&quot; surrounding this term?" CreationDate="2023-10-09T21:46:13.660" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45042" PostId="21632" Score="1" Text="@cmw, I have added the context in my post, thank you for pointing this out!" CreationDate="2023-10-09T22:14:39.543" UserId="14190" />
  <row Id="45044" PostId="21632" Score="3" Text="Having read your edited question and the context that you've provided, I'm not at all sure why the phrase you're asking for is 'influenced thinking' (that is, thinking that is influenced by something/someone) rather than 'influencing thinking' (that is, thinking that influences something/someone)." CreationDate="2023-10-10T00:54:06.730" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45045" PostId="21632" Score="0" Text="@cnread - The reason is that what I plan to write is a product of the influences that have affected my thinking. It *may* influence others, but that is not the objective." CreationDate="2023-10-10T01:08:56.287" UserId="14190" />
  <row Id="45046" PostId="21632" Score="2" Text="Are you looking for a verb (to think in a way that's influenced), or a noun (a method or pattern of thinking that has been influenced)?" CreationDate="2023-10-10T03:26:48.300" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45049" PostId="21632" Score="0" Text="@Draconis - I think a noun would be a better fit!" CreationDate="2023-10-10T13:34:49.007" UserId="14190" />
  <row Id="45050" PostId="21632" Score="3" Text="Fair enough, but that isn't what you say in the edited portion of your question. Please update the question so that it *accurately* describes what you're after. Otherwise, it's very difficult to offer meaningful help." CreationDate="2023-10-10T15:48:58.573" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45070" PostId="21634" Score="1" Text="Seems accurate to me. The &quot;these&quot; seems to refer to something discussed previously." CreationDate="2023-10-12T11:11:00.783" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45065" PostId="21636" Score="1" Text="In a better world (where the Normans never invaded England), we might today say *tale* and *tell* ..." CreationDate="2023-10-11T21:49:19.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45057" PostId="21637" Score="0" Text="“ You could turn the question on its head and ask &quot;Why does Turkish not have a separate word for counting that doesn't derive from number?&quot;” This observation turn out to be relevant. In the book I’m translating, I encountered “enumerate” several times and there is no single word for it in Turkish. I assume enumerate is not a synonym for counting." CreationDate="2023-10-11T15:18:31.627" UserId="14196" />
  <row Id="45058" PostId="21637" Score="0" Text="At some point, this might cross over into English's territory, but essentially the prefix e- alters the meaning here. The word *enumerate* means &quot;to count out a list of some things.&quot; Count, by the way, also has this meaning, such as in Barrett Browning's sonnet 43: &quot;How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.&quot; She doesn't actually mention any numbers in that poem, but instead lists various ways in which the speaker loves the addressee. *Enumerate* usually (but not always) has a more formal connotation, though, such as creating a numbered list or a list used for some technical purpose." CreationDate="2023-10-11T17:18:35.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45069" PostId="21637" Score="0" Text="Math is specialist knowledge, always introduced  by trade or by teaching the next barabarian tribe of conquestors by the enslaved group of mathematicians.  This scheme is comparable to melting mothers language of the conquested people with the mens vocabulary of the barbarian fathers. Enumerate,  count and compute are three completely different areas of the use of numerical symbols, that, for the Greeks and Romans, all were normal characters. The Normans of Sicily were the first Europeans to switch from greek and latin characters to arabic ciphers, learning from all the three key cultures." CreationDate="2023-10-12T10:37:07.130" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="47700" PostId="21638" Score="0" Text="&quot;neque enim nautae satis multum aquae haurīre possunt.&quot;&#xA;I was confused, too, but after reading the above I believe that 'multum' is used for emphasis. 'satis aquae' would be 'enough water' but 'satis multum aquae' I believe means 'a great enough amount of water.' However, I am stil not sure what part of speech 'multum' is. Is it a noun or an adverb; although I am leaning towards 'adverb'. Can anyone enlighten me?" CreationDate="2024-03-06T19:40:06.933" UserId="14842" />
  <row Id="47701" PostId="21638" Score="0" Text="Welcome to the site! If you want to ask a follow-up question, please write a new question (with a link to the appropriate old one) instead of writing an answer. We really stick to answers being about answering the question, not about continuing a discussion." CreationDate="2024-03-06T20:13:53.657" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45059" PostId="21642" Score="2" Text="I also saw *amor complacentia* in the Google Boosk snippet preview and interpreted it as an ablative. But in light of the passage by Bonaventura you cite, it seems also plausible that Mr. Wojtyla's translators knew Polish better than Latin and a letter was accidentally lost." CreationDate="2023-10-11T18:36:47.600" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45064" PostId="21642" Score="1" Text="It is worth noting that *complacentia* is very different from the English term *complacency*, at least as it is nowadays commonly understood, i.e., “self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies” (Merriam-Webster); *complacentia* is more akin to *pleasure, satisfaction* &amp;c. The term *complacency* is rarely used in this sense anymore, which may have added to the OP's confusion." CreationDate="2023-10-11T21:05:06.410" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45060" PostId="21643" Score="1" Text="I understand. Is there any difference in meaning between *satis multum aquae* and *satis aquae*?" CreationDate="2023-10-11T18:46:29.683" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45061" PostId="21643" Score="5" Text="FWIW, *satis multum* only appears [once](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=satis+multum) in PHI. I think *satis aquae* would be more normal." CreationDate="2023-10-11T18:51:30.167" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45062" PostId="21643" Score="0" Text="@TKR *Satis aquae* would have been my intuition as well. Curious choice on Ørberg's part, then." CreationDate="2023-10-11T20:54:04.227" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45063" PostId="21643" Score="0" Text="@Charo I cannot really see a real difference in meaning, no." CreationDate="2023-10-11T20:54:55.670" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45066" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="Do you think it's possible to read &quot;contemni spinam&quot; with *moneo*, i.e. &quot;she warns that the thorn is despised...&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-10-12T04:39:42.557" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45067" PostId="21645" Score="1" Text="I don't think it means 'she warns that the thorn should be despised' in the same way that the first part means 'she warns that (one?) should use beauty,' if that's what you're asking. It's indirect statement, indicating something she says in the course of issuing her warning; it's separate from the infinitive (uti) that gives the actual substance of the warning and is equivalent to ut utatur (or utaris, utamur/, or whatever is meant to be extrapolated from context as the subject). Caesar, e.g., does this sort of thing all the time, but usually with a verb of ordering instead of warning." CreationDate="2023-10-12T05:29:55.743" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45068" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="Wait, why is *cecidere* indicative, though?" CreationDate="2023-10-12T07:28:25.277" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45074" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Were you expecting the imperfect subjunctive? I think it's one of those historical-present things; axiomatic, accepted truths, written in the present. Therefore, for the present (and future) cum = &quot;when&quot; selects the indicative. Most interesting, yesterday, Allen &amp; Greenough section 463 on the  &quot;Historical Infinitive&quot;--just to add to the confusion!!" CreationDate="2023-10-12T13:26:35.237" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45080" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="@tony I was expecting a subjunctive because it's indirect speech. Neither the historical present nor the historical infinitive seem pertinent, seeing that *cecidere* is neither present nor an infinitive." CreationDate="2023-10-12T19:16:21.727" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45086" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: The infinitive is &quot;caedere&quot;, I should have checked. Allen &amp; Greenough section 545: &quot;A temporal clause with 'cum', 'when' and some past tense of the indicative dates or defines the time at which the action of the main verb occurred.&quot; e.g. &quot;et [lituo] regiones direxit cum urbem condidit&quot; (Div. 1. 30) = &quot;he traced with it the quarters [of the sky] at the time he founded the city&quot;." CreationDate="2023-10-13T08:25:54.700" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45104" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="@tony I believe the infinite is *cadere*. I'm sure *cum* often stands with the indicative, but not in indirect speech. Maybe I'll ask a question about this passage." CreationDate="2023-10-14T18:28:33.663" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45141" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: Is it a metre thing; perfect subjunctive, &quot;ceciderint&quot;, wouldn't have scanned? Therefore, a grammatical violation is allowed." CreationDate="2023-10-17T08:52:45.500" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45227" PostId="21645" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: In A &amp; G section 583, subordinate clauses in indirect speech take the indicative if the clause is true; an explanation of something; worthy of emphasis (all of which may cover almost everything). Is this the answer; if not, are you still going to ask a supplementary question?" CreationDate="2023-10-26T15:10:53.077" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45078" PostId="21646" Score="0" Text="It's a bit of a difficult question to answer, because it's not clear if you have a correct conception of what constitutes a conjunction. -que, for one thing, most definitely is a conjunction in all its uses and any dictionary should tell you. I think most linguists would be very reluctant to let punctuation have any say in how to determine parts of speech. Pragmatics like your examples with 'unde' doesn't always rule the case either. A conjunction isn't just any linker word. I don't feel quite confident enough to write a proper answer, however." CreationDate="2023-10-12T17:11:56.483" UserId="14138" />
  <row Id="45079" PostId="21646" Score="0" Text="@consistebat Maybe it's just a meaningless distinction. E.g. if I wrote the sentence with unde then maybe the reaction would be: &quot;the sentence is correct... but we put a period before the unde&quot; ... thus sort of de-conjunctifying it by form rather than meaning." CreationDate="2023-10-12T18:04:01.170" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45073" PostId="21647" Score="2" Text="You can find it [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=nosco&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059). I think it's a contracted form of *novisse*." CreationDate="2023-10-12T12:30:04.057" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45082" PostId="21647" Score="3" Text="Note: Both [Collatinus](https://outils.biblissima.fr/en/collatinus-web/index.php) and [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nosse#Latin) will point you to the underlying verb *nosco* if you just enter *nosse*." CreationDate="2023-10-12T20:54:56.323" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45075" PostId="21648" Score="1" Text="I think they could be downvoting you b/c [future perfect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_tenses#Future_perfect_indicative) is a standard tense in Latin, so you could be asking a grammar question one could easily find in reference books. In this case it would be [**finiverit**](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finiverit#Latin)." CreationDate="2023-10-12T15:43:32.083" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45077" PostId="21648" Score="0" Text="Re: the reminder of the translation, _non finiverit [priusquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=prior&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) hora undecima_ sounds better to me, but I'm not sure about what would be the most idiomatic choice." CreationDate="2023-10-12T15:48:07.697" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45085" PostId="21648" Score="0" Text="@Rafael Priusquam goes with ablative?" CreationDate="2023-10-13T05:31:52.320" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="45101" PostId="21648" Score="0" Text="Quam is an adverb, not a preposition. Hence _priusquam_ goes with whatever case is needed." CreationDate="2023-10-13T22:16:08.083" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45107" PostId="21653" Score="0" Text="Is it *undecima*?" CreationDate="2023-10-15T01:51:56.353" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="45112" PostId="21653" Score="0" Text="@Cerberus I fixed that." CreationDate="2023-10-15T04:48:52.103" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45115" PostId="21655" Score="1" Text="Apparently a lot of unrelated things, also including (off the top of my memory) fabrics, a rose variety and a type of steel have names related to Damascus in most modern European languages. Being an important trade center has long-lasting effects." CreationDate="2023-10-15T14:20:35.887" UserId="6954" />
  <row Id="45090" PostId="21656" Score="2" Text="I see, but could &quot;eius&quot; also be used in this case?" CreationDate="2023-10-13T14:42:56.347" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45091" PostId="21656" Score="1" Text="@Charo: I'm not sure. In the PHI corpus, &quot;[suam cuique](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=suam+cuique)&quot; seems to occur more than a couple times (I haven't checked the context of these), whereas &quot;eius cuique&quot; doesn't occur at all, so at minimum it might require some restructuring of the sentence to use &quot;eius&quot; instead." CreationDate="2023-10-13T14:45:33.187" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="45098" PostId="21656" Score="1" Text="So, I suppose that the answer is that *suus*, *sua*, *suum* are generally used with *quisque* to convey the idea of distribution. I've found this other [example by Cicero](http://google.cat/books?id=VycRAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA304&amp;vq=reddebant&amp;dq=editions:UOM39015009157747&amp;output=html_text&amp;source=gbs_search_r&amp;cad=1): *homines nobiles [...] atque ornamenta sua cuique reddebant*." CreationDate="2023-10-13T18:28:53.520" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45143" PostId="21656" Score="0" Text="@Asteroides: In the Livy quote why was &quot;ad&quot; + gerundive = &quot;for the purpose of&quot; used? The second part is then: &quot;partly by edicts delivered even against the stubborn ones, for the purpose of obtaining unjustly, he restored...&quot;, which doesn't fit?" CreationDate="2023-10-17T13:02:52.180" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45144" PostId="21656" Score="0" Text="@tony: I'm not sure! That seems worthy of a separate question." CreationDate="2023-10-17T13:57:21.490" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="45092" PostId="21657" Score="2" Text="I don't understand why *eius* should refer to someone outside of the sentence. This example comes from my book: *Filium meum et eius amicos agnovi*. In this case *eius* refers to *filium*, that is, they are the friends of the son of the person who is the subject of the sentence." CreationDate="2023-10-13T15:04:57.150" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45095" PostId="21657" Score="0" Text="@Charo Well, you can, but there might be an ambiguity because eius could refer to some other person previously mentioned. Since you said the passage came from lines 63-70 it is clear that there is a lot of text and for all I knew, there could have been some other man or boy mentioned elsewhere which eius could refer to. I looked up this passage and see that an idiom is involved so I have edited my answer to make everything more clear." CreationDate="2023-10-13T16:38:27.120" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45099" PostId="21659" Score="0" Text="I think *a multitudine enixi fructus* is &quot;from the quantity of the fruit brought forth&quot; ([*enitor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=enixa&amp;la=la#lexicon) IIA)." CreationDate="2023-10-13T18:50:36.960" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45100" PostId="21659" Score="1" Text="Please, feel free to improve my translation from Latin to English." CreationDate="2023-10-13T18:58:10.300" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45106" PostId="21659" Score="1" Text="What color is prunum?" CreationDate="2023-10-14T22:16:13.610" UserId="9103" />
  <row Id="45114" PostId="21659" Score="0" Text="@SnackExchange Two guesses spring to mind: (1) It has been speculated that *brunus* (of course, a word of Germanic origin) might have already been in use in 7th century Visigothic Spain, and indeed, once Isidore has a discussion of the colors of horses, one of which is &quot;Mannus [...] quem vulgo *brunicum* vocant&quot; (Etym. XII, i, 55: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore/12.shtml). (2) By Isidore's lax standards, *purpureus* might be close enough to *prunus*, I guess." CreationDate="2023-10-15T13:57:01.547" UserId="10674" />
  <row Id="45102" PostId="21661" Score="2" Text="So, why not *ad se*?" CreationDate="2023-10-14T14:22:54.287" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45103" PostId="21661" Score="3" Text="@Figulus Why *would* it be *ad se*? Is the subject writing letters to himself? There's no reflexive action here." CreationDate="2023-10-14T14:45:47.947" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45108" PostId="21662" Score="1" Text="I think the action with *litterae* is what is causing this. For example, *do dare* also switches to *ad aliquem* when the direct object is *litteras*: see [Lewis and Short](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddo1) on that. (I haven't done a study or looked at Pinkster on this, so I don't know if it was modeled on something else, served as a model for other things, or was fit to a particular paradigm.)" CreationDate="2023-10-15T01:57:03.107" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45110" PostId="21662" Score="1" Text="@cmw Thanks for your comment. Here is a paper on the specific collocation _dare litteras_: https://www.academia.edu/35148051/El_proceso_intersubjetivo_de_dare_litteras I've not been able to read it yet but I've seen it contains interesting examples where a dative and an ad+acc. PP coappear, which shows they have a different function:  _scripsi et dedi litteras ad te Philogono, liberto tuo_ (Cic. Q.fr. 1.3.4). Note that _ad te_ expresses what I've called &quot;the final destination of the path&quot;, whereas the dative _Philogono_ expresses the circumstantial (but not final!) recipient of the letter." CreationDate="2023-10-15T03:08:14.567" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45178" PostId="21662" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: When a letter is sent it is being directed to the receiver; therefore, should the verb have a directional prefix c/f &quot;rideo&quot;/ &quot;irrideo&quot; in https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12993/1982? When the letter arrives there is &quot;transfer of ownership&quot;. Then &quot;direction &quot; &amp; &quot;transfer of ownership&quot; occur together. Therefore can &quot;ad eum&quot; &amp; &quot;sibi&quot; be used interchangeably? In contemporary English law, the  copyright, on a letter, remains with the sender; strictly speaking, the sender remains the owner--he could demand its return and take legal action to secure this." CreationDate="2023-10-21T09:06:02.737" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45195" PostId="21662" Score="0" Text="@tony  Yes, a prefix like /in-/ in _irrideo_ typically (but not always) appears when the meaning of the verb is not directional. As for the alternation (i) ad+acc. and (ii) dat. with _epistulas scribere_ in classical authors like Cicero, the direction argument _ad + acc._ is the favorite one, the dative being rather associated to a beneficiary reading (cf. Baños's interpretation in the link above). However, this explanation can be said to hold for Cicero but not necessarily so for later authors like Pliny or Seneca, who use dative in cases where Cicero used _ad +acc_ (cf. Pinkster's remark)." CreationDate="2023-10-22T13:05:09.477" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45122" PostId="21663" Score="0" Text="The motto of Paris is laconically short 'heels but does not sink'. The 'waves belong to the image  with a ship  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Paris" CreationDate="2023-10-16T10:46:59.707" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="45388" PostId="21667" Score="0" Text="Very clever. I wish I could check multiple answers." CreationDate="2023-11-06T14:08:53.380" UserId="2274" />
  <row Id="45121" PostId="21668" Score="0" Text="cmw: The OP has translated eleven words of English into five words of Latin; therefore, why do you describe this as &quot;a bit clumsy&quot;? What should it be? What's the difference between &quot;power of will&quot; &amp; &quot;force of will&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-10-16T08:29:05.843" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45123" PostId="21668" Score="1" Text="@tony I meant the English is clumsy. Not overly so." CreationDate="2023-10-16T12:47:35.097" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45126" PostId="21668" Score="0" Text="With 4 hours of work I changed the original quote in two different ways: (I conquered the universe by my will) and (I conquered the universe by the power of my will) because it is simpler and easier to understand.&#xA;First quote translation = (Voluntate mea universum vici) &#xA;Second quoted translation = (Universum vi voluntatis meae vici.) &#xA;Do you think there is a better translation or is there something wrong with my translation?&#xA;note: i am a beginner in latin language" CreationDate="2023-10-16T20:43:24.090" UserId="14218" />
  <row Id="45127" PostId="21668" Score="0" Text="@efmh You don't really need to add *mea/meae*; it could be understood from context. You get the all Vs if you drop it. You've got the grammar of the Latin exactly right. No need to change that." CreationDate="2023-10-16T20:51:44.110" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45128" PostId="21671" Score="1" Text="υ and ου are evil twins in both [ancient Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_phonology#Vowel_raising_and_fronting) and dialectal modern greek (e.g., άγκυρα  pronounced as άγκουρα in several dialects), so these shifts are not altogether surprising..." CreationDate="2023-10-16T20:58:57.393" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="45129" PostId="21671" Score="1" Text="More υ and ου confusion in [modern Greek dialects](https://www.lit.auth.gr/sites/default/files/documents/corpus_simeiwsewn_ellinikis_glwssas_ii.pdf): άχυρα &gt; άχουρα, λύκος&gt; λούκο." CreationDate="2023-10-16T21:10:05.063" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="45153" PostId="21673" Score="0" Text="Well, first of all thank you, maybe we r misunderstanding each other or it's my english.. But I called it a &quot;latin motto used by the city of paris. I get you with the length, it was one thing I did not really liked about it. Thank you very much for your time and recommandations as well!" CreationDate="2023-10-17T19:20:14.427" UserId="14229" />
  <row Id="45158" PostId="21673" Score="0" Text="@ChantalHill No, you called it &quot;the French motto&quot;, as can be readily checked in the edit history of your question. The current (correct) wording of the question was added by Segorian." CreationDate="2023-10-18T06:12:07.893" UserId="7455" />
  <row Id="45151" PostId="21674" Score="0" Text="Hey, first of all many thanks for your well-thought suggestions! I really like both of them! Ill probably go with rocked or tossed by waves... It makes the sentence shorter and therefore easier to read in a &quot;flow&quot;. One more thing I now have to ask is if the part &quot;but never sunk&quot; directly refers to the past. Bc I kind of want it to be present, always. Would &quot;Tossed/Rocked by waves but never sinking&quot; be correct too? Thank you very much, I really appreciated your answer and it helped me very much already!" CreationDate="2023-10-17T19:16:25.860" UserId="14229" />
  <row Id="45156" PostId="21674" Score="0" Text="“Never sinking” would also be correct, and I've seen translations that use those words. However, because *sunk* is here not the past tense, but (just like *tossed*) the past participle of the verb, I feel that “never sunk” refers more to the present than to the past.&#xA;The implied meaning is in fact “(Has been) **tossed by the waves but** (has) **never** (been) **sunk**.” In other words, “We’re still floating!”" CreationDate="2023-10-17T22:44:34.570" UserId="12057" />
  <row Id="45171" PostId="21674" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much again!" CreationDate="2023-10-20T17:10:29.943" UserId="14229" />
  <row Id="45172" PostId="21674" Score="1" Text="You're very welcome! It seems to me you have a few things to choose from now." CreationDate="2023-10-20T17:26:49.473" UserId="12057" />
  <row Id="45125" PostId="21676" Score="2" Text="Welcome to Latin.SE! Thanks for your answer, but I would prefer an explanation that does not refers to English." CreationDate="2023-10-16T20:38:52.383" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45139" PostId="21677" Score="1" Text="What is &quot;dative of advantage&quot;? Can you elaborate on this?" CreationDate="2023-10-17T05:50:13.653" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45142" PostId="21677" Score="1" Text="That is the name for the most common use of the Dative. It expresses the person (or thing) for whose benefit or disadvantage an action is performed. It indicates the person or thing for whom or to whom something is done or a situation exists. In essence it answers the question &quot;To whose benefit is this?&quot; For example: mihi est librum (literally &quot;there is a book to me&quot;, ie I have a book.)" CreationDate="2023-10-17T12:53:03.903" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45131" PostId="21678" Score="4" Text="I don't believe a satisfactory answer has ever been found, but see [Smyth 1005](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D1005): &quot;Names of towns and parts of the body are sometimes plural: Ἀθῆναι Athens, Θῆβαι Thebes, στήθη and στέρνα breast (chiefly poetic). The name of the inhabitants is often used for the name of a city: Δελφοί D. 5.25.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-10-17T03:49:55.893" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45132" PostId="21678" Score="0" Text="@cmw So it is kind of an anomaly then, that has no regular explanation?" CreationDate="2023-10-17T03:59:02.840" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45135" PostId="21678" Score="0" Text="People have posited various reasons, but *Athenae* isn't an anomaly. Many cities (Syracusae, Thebae, Veii) were plural, not just Athens." CreationDate="2023-10-17T05:09:32.280" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45137" PostId="21678" Score="0" Text="@cmw I mean anomaly in the sense that it is unexplained, not in that it is unique." CreationDate="2023-10-17T05:18:48.027" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45148" PostId="21678" Score="0" Text="There are explanations, just none that have become consensus." CreationDate="2023-10-17T18:33:22.883" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45154" PostId="21678" Score="0" Text="Most prominent 	The  Peloponnesus (auch: Peloponnese, Peloponnesos) [GEOG.]		&#xA;der   (fachspr.: die) Peloponnes  that finally in German with a quite different gender system got its regular Greek genus. Generally names of places, rivers, islands are constant over many changes of the populations language, except by brute force sometimes. Eg Constantinople was renamed to 'eis tin poly' (Greek: into the town) in order to end the use of the Greek name, accomplished  by a multilingual officer, renamed Atatürk later." CreationDate="2023-10-17T20:45:27.017" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="45134" PostId="21679" Score="4" Text="Direct objects aren't necessarily &quot;acted upon&quot;—take amāre for example. If I love someone, is that affecting them directly?" CreationDate="2023-10-17T04:17:56.217" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45145" PostId="21679" Score="0" Text="You might find [this question about dictionary abbreviations](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2292/abbreviations-in-latin-dictionaries-especially-lewis-and-short) helpful. In this case, these abbreviations are at the listed towards the end of [this page](https://latinlexicon.org/LNS_abbreviations.php)." CreationDate="2023-10-17T15:14:50.463" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45146" PostId="21679" Score="0" Text="(Though now that I look more closely, n(eutr). is unhelpfully listed as &quot;neuter.&quot;)" CreationDate="2023-10-17T15:19:40.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45136" PostId="21680" Score="1" Text="*Bemoan*, *begrudge*, *besmirch*, *betroth*, etc." CreationDate="2023-10-17T05:11:51.337" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45138" PostId="21680" Score="0" Text="@cmw Multa talia, to quote the 45th president of the United States ;)" CreationDate="2023-10-17T05:41:53.940" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45140" PostId="21680" Score="1" Text="Everything really does sound more sophisticated when translated into Latin!" CreationDate="2023-10-17T06:05:42.620" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45147" PostId="21680" Score="1" Text="I'm interested to know if in Latin, which has been said to be a &quot;weak satellite-framed language&quot; similar to Slavic ones (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-morphosyntax-of-transitions-9780198733287?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;# ), it would be possible to find a prefixed verb like _Džon vyplakal svoi glaza_ (Russian), whose gloss is &quot;John **out-cried** poss. eyes&quot; and its translation is ‘John cried his eyes out’, i.e. 'He cried a lot'. Probably, you have a similar particle verb in German. BTW, in Eng. something like _John outcried Mary_ means 'John surpassed Mary crying&quot; or something similar, right?" CreationDate="2023-10-17T15:19:44.710" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45163" PostId="21684" Score="2" Text="When first reading this, I was going to make a comment about how there's no difference between Mentu and Montu, there's just a convention to add spurious E's and O's to make the words pronounceable in conversation (unless we have a Greek transcription to use, as in jmn &gt; Amon). But you clearly have experience with Egyptian so I think it's me who's missing something. So: why put the epsilon in there?" CreationDate="2023-10-18T20:42:24.730" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45164" PostId="21684" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I'm not sure I'm on the surest ground with this thinking, but I was thinking analogically with Amoun/Amen- that there might be some sort of vowel weakening. We know that the Egyptians (in Plutarch's day, so quite a bit later than Manetho) pronounced Amun &quot;Αμουν&quot; (though the Greeks wrote it differently), yet with names like jmn-htp, we get &quot;Ἀμένωφις&quot;, not &quot;Αμουνωφις&quot; or &quot;Αμμωνωφις&quot;. I thought perhaps something might be going on with Montu. As for the actual vowel there, it's an omega in the city name Ἕρμωνθις, which I assume was a Hellenized form combining Hermes and Montu." CreationDate="2023-10-18T23:12:29.567" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45165" PostId="21684" Score="0" Text="I'm no expert in Egyptian, so maybe I'm missing something in the logic." CreationDate="2023-10-18T23:13:21.300" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45167" PostId="21685" Score="0" Text="Link to the relevant page in Ausonius: https://books.google.cl/books?id=rtKwEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PR340&amp;lpg=PR340&amp;dq=O+digno+coniuncta+viro,+gratissima+coniunx,+sis+felix,+primos+Lucinae+experta+labores+et+mater&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=z4HbL9bxkI&amp;sig=ACfU3U1Z-IZG8DWkCGWqe6na549wvfktlA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiL1Lf_moKCAxVfhIkEHRSkCnUQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=O%20digno%20coniuncta%20viro%2C%20gratissima%20coniunx%2C%20sis%20felix%2C%20primos%20Lucinae%20experta%20labores%20et%20mater&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2023-10-19T13:26:59.967" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45168" PostId="21685" Score="1" Text="The work is called [Cento Nuptialis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aus.%20Cent.%20Nupt.%206), and the full citation is Aus. Cent. Nupt. 6." CreationDate="2023-10-19T13:33:09.200" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45170" PostId="21685" Score="3" Text="@Rafael There is a chapter of that work that is named the Cena Nuptualis, but I have changed the title to that of the overall work." CreationDate="2023-10-19T15:39:26.197" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45174" PostId="21688" Score="1" Text="Welcome back! Where is that sentence from?" CreationDate="2023-10-21T00:37:29.867" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45175" PostId="21688" Score="2" Text="it is an isolated sentence from an exercise. The book is &quot;Gramática Latina Napoleão Mendes de Almeida&quot; p.308 first exercise." CreationDate="2023-10-21T00:57:51.897" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="45190" PostId="21688" Score="2" Text="It’s a good sign that you’ve been working too long and should go to bed when you start reading _pullos_ as _pueros_ and wonder why Claudius was drowning sacred boys…" CreationDate="2023-10-21T21:51:25.230" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="45176" PostId="21689" Score="1" Text="do you happen to know why subjunctive instead of indicative in biberent?" CreationDate="2023-10-21T07:35:29.303" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="45177" PostId="21689" Score="2" Text="@hellofriends [**ut** + *subj.*] is a called a clause of purpose, **ut biberent** = *in order that they drink*, whereas [**ut** + *ind.*] means *when*" CreationDate="2023-10-21T08:25:23.500" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="45179" PostId="21689" Score="0" Text="thanks, I suppose something similar happens with nollent" CreationDate="2023-10-21T14:57:14.120" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="45180" PostId="21689" Score="3" Text="@hellofriends: No, nollent is likely subjunctive to make clear that this is the reason that exists in the mind of the person who is doing the action in the sentence (Claudius) and not a reason that the narrator/speaker is providing to explain Claudius's action." CreationDate="2023-10-21T17:33:49.100" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45185" PostId="21689" Score="0" Text="you guys are the best" CreationDate="2023-10-21T20:38:17.830" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="45204" PostId="21691" Score="2" Text="The oldest edition I could find a scan of: *Epigrammaticum* Joannis Owen, Cambrobrittani, Oxoniensis. Leipzig: Thomas Schürer 1615. [Liber Tertius](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Epigrammatum_Joannis_Owen_qu%C3%A6_hactenus/ZNMJRKgh2KYC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA333-IA18&amp;printsec=frontcover): 14. Horologium vitæ. Ad D. Joannem Weſt, amicum suum. *Latus ad Occaſum, numquam rediturus ad Ortum,  Vivo hodie, moriar cras, here natus eram.*" CreationDate="2023-10-22T22:09:35.910" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="45205" PostId="21691" Score="1" Text="**Correction**: The title of the 1615 book printed by Thomas Schürer (1563-1615) in Leipzig is *Epigrammatum*, of course." CreationDate="2023-10-22T22:30:20.207" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="45183" PostId="21693" Score="2" Text="Prudenti is ablative, modifying consilio." CreationDate="2023-10-21T18:05:40.647" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="45186" PostId="21693" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey That's not what Ørberg thinks." CreationDate="2023-10-21T20:53:49.867" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45187" PostId="21693" Score="1" Text="*quod prudenti vitam consilio monet* seems to have confused people throughout the ages, if Google Books is any indication. Many think it should be *prudentis*, some think *monet* should be a different word altogether (e.g. *regit*), some think *vita* stands for *homines viventes*, i.e., society or some such." CreationDate="2023-10-21T21:14:09.377" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45191" PostId="21696" Score="1" Text="Can you comment on that word order? I think *de lingua Latina* should go outside the relative clause: &quot;What is there about Latin that...&quot; Also, you might want another dative here, like *alicui* or *nobis* etc." CreationDate="2023-10-22T00:47:03.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45194" PostId="21696" Score="0" Text="@cmw I don't see why that should be necessary. For example: da pellere luctus,&#xA;nec tibi de tantis placeat me fluctibus unum litus. (Statius) Do you mean replace tibi with nobis? It already says &quot;What is there to displease you about the Latin language?&quot; How does nobis add to that?" CreationDate="2023-10-22T11:41:40.463" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45196" PostId="21696" Score="0" Text="@cmw I elaborated on the word order" CreationDate="2023-10-22T14:06:03.810" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45192" PostId="21697" Score="1" Text="*Dos* might primarily mean 'dowry', but the idea that that meaning is older than the meaning 'gift' is pretty silly." CreationDate="2023-10-22T03:57:22.110" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45193" PostId="21697" Score="0" Text="Is **quod** of indirect speech and an object clause interchangeable (**calumniari arbores loqui**)?" CreationDate="2023-10-22T04:32:37.413" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="45198" PostId="21697" Score="0" Text="I'm still a bit confused. Which definition of **quod** in L&amp;S matches the **quod** (with **calumniari**) here? I can't find a matching entry in Allen &amp; Greenough's, either." CreationDate="2023-10-22T15:29:31.627" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="45199" PostId="21697" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Well, if you put it like that ... but L&amp;S are referring to &quot;gift&quot; in a translated sense, i.e. &quot;talent, advantageous property&quot; &amp;c. Incidentally, the English term &quot;endowed&quot; has come to be used almost exclusively in this sense ;-)" CreationDate="2023-10-22T16:10:26.860" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45201" PostId="21697" Score="1" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian This is a completely normal causal *quod* like you've seen a hundred times before, meaning “because.” *Calumniari* is not the verbum dicendi; in fact, there isn't any. If you want, you can imagine something like: *Calumniari si quis autem voluerit, dicens id se facere quod [vel quia] arbores loquantur &amp;c.* That should make clear why you see the subjunctive, but note that it is different from what is actually written – no explicit mention of a causal relationship is put in the critics' mouths by the author." CreationDate="2023-10-22T18:40:15.883" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45197" PostId="21699" Score="1" Text="I think you have it backwards. In scholastic Latin, sempiternal describes something with an infinite future, but a finite past. Eternal describes something with an infinite past as well. So far as I know, the scholastics were the first to distinguish these terms. In earlier times, they were mere synonyms." CreationDate="2023-10-22T15:17:21.707" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45200" PostId="21699" Score="1" Text="@Figulus Why not &quot;_semiternus_&quot; (_semi-_ = half), then?" CreationDate="2023-10-22T18:35:40.253" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="45202" PostId="21699" Score="0" Text="Obviously, I'm just speculating, but *semiternus* does not seem to be a pre-existing word, whereas *sempeternus* is classical." CreationDate="2023-10-22T18:43:36.350" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45203" PostId="21699" Score="1" Text="@Figulus I mean: Why isn't _sempiternus_'s etymology _semi-_ + eternal?" CreationDate="2023-10-22T19:42:47.347" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="45206" PostId="21699" Score="3" Text="Aquinas doesn't seem to distinguish *sempiternus* and *aeternus* in a principled way, as far as I can tell from a corpus search: both can be used to describe God. He does have an interesting article in *Summa Theologiae* I, q. 10, a. 5 that goes into the difference between &quot;aevum,&quot; &quot;tempus,&quot; and &quot;aeternitas.&quot; There, he uses the term *aeviternus*, and I've frequently heard &quot;aeviternity&quot; brought up--less so &quot;sempiternity.&quot; But perhaps it's a later distinction." CreationDate="2023-10-23T16:40:57.137" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45209" PostId="21699" Score="0" Text="@brianpck [_Summa Theologica_ I q. 10 a. 5](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP010.html#FPQ10A5THEP1) &quot;The difference of aeviternity (_ævum_) and time&quot;" CreationDate="2023-10-23T20:15:34.480" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="45213" PostId="21699" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Ah! I had forgotten *aeviternus*. Perhaps my faulty memory has confused *aeviternus* with *sempiternus*. That would explain why I can't find a reference to back up my comment. I hereby retract it." CreationDate="2023-10-23T21:46:35.117" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45214" PostId="21699" Score="1" Text="The etymology of these words is interesting. Judging from what I can find in the dictionaries, *aeternus* seems to be a contraction of *aeviternus*. *Aeviternus* is from *aevitas* plus the *-rnus* suffix (*hodiernus*, *hesternus*, etc.) *Sempiternus* is a compound of *semper* + *aeternus*. So if *aeternus* means forever, does *sempiternus* mean forever and ever? An intensified synonym? Seems likely. I'm not sure that such antique etymologies have much bearing on much later developments of technical jargon, though." CreationDate="2023-10-23T22:02:33.567" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45208" PostId="21703" Score="1" Text="If that is how you read the passage (and I am inclined to agree), then Ørberg's explanation is not simply misleading, but wrong. A Google Books search will soon reveal, however, that widely varying interpretations existed long before Ørberg came along. It's a good question why, though, since as you say there is nothing special about *monere* without an explicit recipient." CreationDate="2023-10-23T19:54:23.873" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45210" PostId="21705" Score="1" Text="Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2023-10-23T20:31:35.740" UserId="14249" />
  <row Id="45211" PostId="21706" Score="3" Text="I didn't downvote, but I think you need to provide more evidence. Obviously it is not always the case that X and Y are synonyms if &quot;S is X&quot; and &quot;S is Y' are both true: it's necessary but insufficient. I think you are also not answering your own question as stated: it's quite possible that there is a difference in other authors." CreationDate="2023-10-23T20:54:04.287" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45212" PostId="21706" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Yes, I agree. The first quote in context is &quot;_si Deus sempiternus est_&quot; (conditional, so perhaps noncommittal)." CreationDate="2023-10-23T21:45:27.680" UserId="576" />
  <row Id="45220" PostId="21707" Score="4" Text="Since heaven and hell in the quote are the Christian ideas, would the quote be better translated into Latin as used by the Catholic Church, instead of the Romans?  I'm wondering if the Roman translations can be read more as &quot;No tree, it is said, can grow to the sky unless its roots reach down to the underworld&quot;, which wouldn't have quite the same connotations of paradise and suffering?" CreationDate="2023-10-25T16:41:21.637" UserId="9662" />
  <row Id="45223" PostId="21707" Score="0" Text="In the Vulgate you find 'cælum' for heaven and 'gehenna' for hell." CreationDate="2023-10-26T03:12:53.593" UserId="598" />
  <row Id="45225" PostId="21707" Score="1" Text="do you want the insert &quot;it is said&quot; to be part of the tatto ?" CreationDate="2023-10-26T14:01:17.370" UserId="9004" />
  <row Id="45231" PostId="21707" Score="2" Text="Have you considered leaving it in its original language? If it means that much to you, why sully it with an imperfect (no matter what choice is made) translation? That seems to be fashion now anyway. There's a bartender at my local dive who has a tattoo in cuneiform. (IIRC, its a copy of the [world's oldest joke](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-joke-odd/worlds-oldest-joke-traced-back-to-1900-bc-idUSKUA14785120080801)" CreationDate="2023-10-26T18:38:06.897" UserId="14024" />
  <row Id="45221" PostId="21709" Score="0" Text="These are interesting options. I do think the &quot;ut traditur&quot; makes more sense near the beginning, where it more clearly applies to the whole sentence. I think putting it later suggests that it's meant to qualify a particular part of the sentence." CreationDate="2023-10-25T18:47:19.067" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="45228" PostId="21709" Score="1" Text="In the first sentence I would think *potest* should be subjunctive *possit*, since this is a relative clause of characteristic. Also *desidat* has to be plural (*radices*)." CreationDate="2023-10-26T16:17:04.180" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45229" PostId="21709" Score="0" Text="@TKR Yes thanks for the corrections." CreationDate="2023-10-26T16:28:11.890" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45230" PostId="21709" Score="0" Text="Apparently [*ut/quod aiunt* can be used](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=aio) for a proverbial phrase." CreationDate="2023-10-26T18:34:43.167" UserId="468" />
  <row Id="45224" PostId="21715" Score="1" Text="Is there a reason you're checking online translators but not online dictionaries?" CreationDate="2023-10-26T03:26:17.070" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45234" PostId="21715" Score="2" Text="A really comprehensive reply to the question exists here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24886600 I don't have time to read through it now." CreationDate="2023-10-26T20:39:30.460" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45235" PostId="21715" Score="3" Text="The not-so-subtle difference is that *itis* is plural and *vadis* is singular." CreationDate="2023-10-26T21:40:05.033" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45239" PostId="21715" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon which dictionary you would propose?" CreationDate="2023-10-27T02:32:25.713" UserId="14263" />
  <row Id="45241" PostId="21715" Score="2" Text="Wiktionary is a good first stop and it has links to L&amp;S ([eo](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=eo1), [vado](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvado1)), which typically has enough examples to give an impression of the uses. In particular, the entry for *vado* has &quot;esp. *to go hastily* or *rapidly, to rush*&quot;." CreationDate="2023-10-27T07:36:17.407" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45264" PostId="21715" Score="2" Text="We have a [list of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) which gives several nice proposals." CreationDate="2023-10-28T12:04:41.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45233" PostId="21717" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure why this answer is getting a lot of hate: it certainly seems true that *vado* has a connotation of &quot;rushing.&quot; Perhaps you should add some sources." CreationDate="2023-10-26T20:38:55.207" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45236" PostId="21717" Score="2" Text="@brianpck It is true that *vado* often has a connotation of rushing, but that's not what this answer says?" CreationDate="2023-10-26T22:14:53.083" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45237" PostId="21717" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon That's how I took &quot;emphasizes physical movement&quot; and &quot;struts&quot; and &quot;advanced&quot; in the examples, but perhaps that was too charitable an interpretation." CreationDate="2023-10-26T22:26:37.720" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45238" PostId="21717" Score="0" Text="@brianpck It's a complex issue. Unfortunately a lot of voters don't like subjective opinions or going outside of what is in a common grammar book. Defective verbs are sometimes thought to be that way because they express so-called &quot;instantaneous actions&quot; and vado is in that class. However, I thought my way of explaining was clearer than what I have read elsewhere. Unfortunately, the whole subject is a little abstract which makes it unappealing for a lot of people probably." CreationDate="2023-10-27T00:42:32.670" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45240" PostId="21717" Score="1" Text="Wow. Such a rich answer! Thank you for the effort! I will wait for more answers - is they come. I know a priest who speaks Latin so I will ask him, too" CreationDate="2023-10-27T02:35:24.743" UserId="14263" />
  <row Id="45242" PostId="21717" Score="0" Text="@Grzegorz: Why not invite the priest to join the site?" CreationDate="2023-10-27T08:23:14.063" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45243" PostId="21717" Score="1" Text="@Tyler Durden: What about &quot;quo vadis, Domine?&quot; Isn't this also in the Bible? The Catholic Church has a long pedigree with the Latin language--I'd hesitate to challenge them." CreationDate="2023-10-27T08:36:28.647" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45244" PostId="21717" Score="1" Text="@tony In the medieval period people began using vado as a synonym for eo, but you have to remember these are people for whom Latin was a second language." CreationDate="2023-10-27T12:20:15.763" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45245" PostId="21717" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden It's not a matter of abstraction but of accuracy. I assume many checked the entry in L&amp;S or some such dictionary and found that they don't say *vado* emphasizes bodily motion. If you found a dictionary that says so, a reference would be useful. What I checked disagrees with your answer, but I didn't check everything, and I'd be happy learn of a source that explains this verb better." CreationDate="2023-10-27T15:25:42.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45246" PostId="21717" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Dictionaries don't go into metaphysical descriptions of words. If you just look at how the Romans used the word, you can clearly see usage is different than eo in that it emphasizes movement, not the getting from one place to another. In fact, in many instances, no destination is mentioned at all, like in the example from Virgil or Cicero's &quot;cras mane vadit&quot; (He is taking off tomorrow&quot;). Also, one can compare pereo which means to go until nothing is left, to perish or go to waste (over time), whereas pervado means to intrude, a much more instantaneous and physical idea." CreationDate="2023-10-27T17:19:55.267" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45253" PostId="21717" Score="2" Text="Aside from the absent source, I feel that the citations (which I haven't checked) don't really support the position well. E.g. a tremor is not really 'moving the body forwards'? My gut feeling would be that *eo* is more likely to be used in abstract senses than *vado*, although the reverse also occurs; and that *vado* can be more forceful. But I'd love to see some source or strong parallel citations to support that, also because these things are often less clear than our instincts would tell us." CreationDate="2023-10-27T22:18:28.710" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="45258" PostId="21717" Score="0" Text="@cerebus In the quote from the play, the sense is that the tremor is moving physically through the body." CreationDate="2023-10-27T23:20:22.147" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45232" PostId="21718" Score="3" Text="I'm somewhat confused by this answer. Could you explain, to take the first example that comes to mind, how the sentence: *Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?* is a bracket for an often complex attributional construction of the reflexive action, that translates into subordinate dependent clauses?" CreationDate="2023-10-26T19:16:29.117" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45262" PostId="21718" Score="0" Text="I try to remember with the help of the 'DUDEN' online: In the medial modus Latin doesn't need reflexive pronomina, except for emphasis. 'Se' as the object case is indispensable if the object is not determined otherwise. The clause 'se (extended attribute)  verbal form' seems to be  an ACI or AUC, where the infinitive or participal form does not imply modus of action.  Not quite sure of my English Latin grammar terms and definitions." CreationDate="2023-10-28T07:34:51.243" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="46885" PostId="21718" Score="0" Text="@RolandF What do &quot;ACI&quot; and &quot;AUC&quot; stand for?" CreationDate="2023-12-15T04:13:37.830" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="46886" PostId="21718" Score="0" Text="ACI = accusativus cum infinitivo&#xA;&#xA;AUC=ab urbe condita, Other names: dominant participle or gerundive; participial noun clause; (as accusative object:) ACP" CreationDate="2023-12-15T06:24:07.057" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="45247" PostId="21722" Score="1" Text="*Socius* is a Latin word, so would *socialismus* do?" CreationDate="2023-10-27T20:14:12.910" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45248" PostId="21722" Score="1" Text="@TKR And there's some support online for it: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialismus#Latin" CreationDate="2023-10-27T20:24:19.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45267" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="@TKR No because ismus is a greek affix" CreationDate="2023-10-28T16:15:17.190" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45268" PostId="21722" Score="3" Text="The Romans certainly weren't averse to using Greek morphemes, especially for technical terms." CreationDate="2023-10-28T16:39:44.463" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45269" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="@Draconis How would I do it with a latin affix?" CreationDate="2023-10-28T16:42:04.193" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45273" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="I would be more concerned with modern French/English terms *socialism(e)*, *social* having somehow different meanings from Latin *socius* (&quot;companion, ally&quot;), *sociālis* (&quot;pertaining to companionship, allies&quot;), than with Greek-origin suffix." CreationDate="2023-10-28T20:32:04.740" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45274" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="Some native Latin suffixes to form abstract nouns from adjectives are *-ia* (genitive *-iae*) and *-tūs* (genitive *-tūtis*)." CreationDate="2023-10-28T20:51:15.343" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45285" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="@Arfrever some another hidden meanings with latin socialismus und commúnismus?" CreationDate="2023-10-28T22:24:33.667" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45288" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="Anyway these terms are already used in Latin Wikipedia: [Socialismus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismus), [Communismus vel coenonismus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismus)." CreationDate="2023-10-28T23:36:23.400" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45293" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="@Arfrever I whan the hidden meanings anyway, specially considering, that I don't take seriously wikipedia in any measure." CreationDate="2023-10-29T03:51:54.247" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45295" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="In his Politeia, Aristotle mocks Plato for his idea of an oligarchy in which, in addition to land, cattle and silver, women, craftsmen, children and slaves are common property, too. As an example he cites the poleis in Dorian Crete. There are no 1:1 maps of modern political terms back to communities in the time of the Pharaohs. They split up into elements mapped to innumerable systems of local constitutions with fast changes over a millenium." CreationDate="2023-10-29T04:01:40.173" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="45296" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="@RolandF It don't exactly care details of the word for the doctrine of public of the means of production, just that platon's oligarchy, the SDP, Democrats, the central planing board, the Soviet Union, all of them are included. Don't ever mention that I am willing to blend the term in this case." CreationDate="2023-10-29T04:07:55.337" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45299" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="When deriving words (here deriving noun with suffix *-ia*), inflectional ending from base word would be removed, and there is possibility that at least part of derivational suffix from base word would be removed. *sociālis* = *soci-āli-s* = *socio-* + [*-āli-*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-alis#Latin) (derivational suffix) + *-s* (nominative singular ending). So the longest possibility is *sociālis* + *-ia* → *sociālia*. Analogically *sociālis* + *-tūs* → *sociālitūs*, *commūnis* + *-ia* → *commūnia*, *commūnis* + *-tūs* → *commūnitūs*." CreationDate="2023-10-29T11:32:59.907" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45303" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="[*-ismus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ismus#Latin) would be divisible as *-ismu-* (or rather *-ismo-*) + *-s*, and its *is* is not Latin *-is* suffix. More etymology [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ισμός#Ancient_Greek) and [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ίζω#Ancient_Greek). So this *is* in *-ismus* is ultimately from PIE \**idi̯* (= \**idj*; I dislike IPA-incompatible usage of letter *y* for [palatal approximant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_palatal_approximant)). (As [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel) says, diacritic ̯ is generic marker of semivowels.)" CreationDate="2023-10-29T11:54:05.537" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45305" PostId="21722" Score="0" Text="@Arfrever don't understand your comment about -ismus." CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:38:04.427" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45250" PostId="21723" Score="1" Text="Although most of the Vulgate's translation was from the Hebrew, pretty much none of its *transliteration* was from the Hebrew. Jerome took most all of his transliteration of names from the Greek." CreationDate="2023-10-27T21:29:39.330" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45251" PostId="21723" Score="0" Text="One question, why would BR ever be pronounced [βɾ] in Latin? &#xA;It's Greeks who suffered from betacism, pronouncing beta (β) as /v/, not the other way around." CreationDate="2023-10-27T21:46:55.793" UserId="14271" />
  <row Id="45254" PostId="21723" Score="0" Text="@Dan: All Romance languages show a shift of Latin intervocalic single -b- to a fricative: thus habēre &gt; Italian *avere,* Romanian *avea*, French *avoir*, Spanish *haber* pronounced [aˈβ̞eɾ]. In principle, this could have been in progress as early as the 1st-century spelling confusion between B and V mentioned in Nathaniel's answer; it is even possible that [β] existed earlier in Latin but was not confused with V due to the latter being [w]." CreationDate="2023-10-27T22:55:30.943" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="45255" PostId="21723" Score="1" Text="In the specific context of the cluster -BR- (where B is not intervocalic) some Romance languages show a weakened pronunciation of B, while others like Italian show strengthening (Italian fabbro from Latin fabrum)." CreationDate="2023-10-27T22:55:50.277" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="45261" PostId="21724" Score="0" Text="Relacionado: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/19482/14272" CreationDate="2023-10-28T07:28:38.187" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45286" PostId="21724" Score="1" Text="I think that I will chosse either the latin aestimatio or the greek import axia." CreationDate="2023-10-28T22:29:35.890" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45249" PostId="21726" Score="1" Text="I think &quot;upwards&quot; in this sense does not indicate motion, and there's some support for translating *excelsior* thus, in that it's the official translation of the [motto of New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_New_York_(state))." CreationDate="2023-10-27T20:29:07.967" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45252" PostId="21728" Score="1" Text="The full phrases I've heard are *pars minuta* &amp; *pars minuta secunda*, which are mostly shortened to what you cite." CreationDate="2023-10-27T22:07:01.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45256" PostId="21729" Score="0" Text="(1) I don't think that habits would make a great use of value in the latin translation of Human Action by Mises.&#xA;(2) The circulality of Fructus fructús actús (valuation of the gains of the activiy) does scare me away of fructus. &#xA;(3) Pretium huius réí est quod putás pretium eius réí esse also scares me away from pretium, or in general its money implications.&#xA;(4) Meritum vitae tuae est quod pútas vita tua habere, scare me away of meritum." CreationDate="2023-10-27T23:15:34.937" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45257" PostId="21729" Score="0" Text="Do you think that a greek word import could work?" CreationDate="2023-10-27T23:20:10.860" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45259" PostId="21731" Score="1" Text="Does it mean &quot;value&quot; like &quot;I value you&quot;? At least, that's how I'm interpreting the question." CreationDate="2023-10-28T04:38:54.697" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45260" PostId="21731" Score="1" Text="@cmw I value you, I value thiat thing, I don't see aestetic value in this paint, and every imaginable use of value." CreationDate="2023-10-28T05:49:43.253" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45289" PostId="21731" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus I didn't realize you also wanted a verb. BTW, the question you link seems to suggest a better option: **æestimatio/-onis**, and the verb **æstimo** fit most of the meaning you want to convey, if I get it right." CreationDate="2023-10-29T00:57:00.930" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45292" PostId="21731" Score="1" Text="@Rafael I think that neither I realized that I wanted a verb." CreationDate="2023-10-29T02:41:51.270" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45361" PostId="21731" Score="0" Text="Just how I would write, that has no value, and it has a lot of value with eastimatio?" CreationDate="2023-11-02T23:21:09.073" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45364" PostId="21731" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus I think you might need more than one word, in that case. Adjectives like [pretiosus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpretiosus) and [nequam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnequam) also have some figurative value, and keep continuity with the general idea" CreationDate="2023-11-03T11:41:36.173" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45365" PostId="21731" Score="2" Text="@Dolphínus BTW, I appraise your curiosity, but the idea of StackExchange is to serve as a knowledge base for future visitors. This suggests that you either edit the question into having more detail, or add a separate question for further inquiries, rather than the intuitive way of commenting those in. SE is not like your regular forum. (I'm struggling not to write to you in Spanish, for the same reason.)" CreationDate="2023-11-03T11:48:07.940" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45263" PostId="21732" Score="0" Text="Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/21621/." CreationDate="2023-10-28T10:21:09.717" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45304" PostId="21732" Score="1" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet: Is the copy of the book on archive.org really unauthorised? I will accept your edit just in case it's that way." CreationDate="2023-10-29T16:07:43.317" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45327" PostId="21732" Score="1" Text="Yes, it is; I happen to know this because I work with the publisher that published the first version of the series with Hans Ørberg back in the ’80s and now function as distributors in the Nordics. I wrote to the US publisher (whose digital version had been uploaded) yesterday to notify them, and they wrote back to say they’ve sent a cease and desist to Archive.org for it. (Incidentally, your mention didn’t generate a notification for me, though it ought to, since I’d edited the question. Perhaps it only works _after_ the edit has been approved.)" CreationDate="2023-10-30T21:07:01.293" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="45265" PostId="21733" Score="0" Text="Joonas, I downvoted your answer accidentally (I was reading it from my mobile and it slipped off my hands and I clicked on the down arrow by mistake). I've tried to solve my error but this message has shown up: &quot;You last voted on this answer 1 hour ago. Your vote is now locked in unless this answer is edited.&quot; Could you then please edit your answer? For example, here is a suggestion for editing: your statement &quot;In an ACI the infinitive is (a part of) the object&quot; is not correct for all the cases: e.g. cf. Charo's ex. _necesse est_: note that in _Necesse est te abire_ the ACI is the subject." CreationDate="2023-10-28T14:34:33.297" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45266" PostId="21733" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Thanks! I made a quick edit (ACI is often but not always the object) that should allow you to undo your vote. I am on my phone too, and will try to edit a bit more when I get to my computer." CreationDate="2023-10-28T15:22:59.270" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45270" PostId="21733" Score="0" Text="OK! Vote undone!" CreationDate="2023-10-28T17:49:57.643" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45271" PostId="21737" Score="2" Text="You can't translate idioms word-for-word and hope to preserve the meaning. If you still want to do it that can be a reasonable choice, but it has to be deliberate and explicit." CreationDate="2023-10-28T17:54:46.107" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45282" PostId="21737" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon What is the problem? vita in some expression like this (always with their delusional connotations) basically implies that without the activity or practice in question one is no different that dead. Certainly the literal Pila equestris est vita captures the meaning of the original sentence, and giving that my Spanish-Latin dictionary does not mention another word for lives, I don't understand where can be a problem with the translation." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:47:12.573" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45290" PostId="21737" Score="2" Text="&quot;[x] is life&quot; is an idiomatic expression in English. It is not an idiomatic expression in Latin." CreationDate="2023-10-29T01:50:46.467" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45294" PostId="21737" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Is an Idiom for what? I just read it as being a delusional claim that life is the same as [x] and or is required to life." CreationDate="2023-10-29T03:56:11.247" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45314" PostId="21737" Score="1" Text="That isn''t what the English means *at all*." CreationDate="2023-10-29T18:34:55.387" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45317" PostId="21737" Score="0" Text="@cmw What it means then?" CreationDate="2023-10-29T22:05:31.323" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45318" PostId="21737" Score="1" Text="It's a phrase used to indicate devotion to something, but in a lighthearted manner. &quot;Polo is life&quot; means &quot;Polo is a big part of who I am.&quot; The connotations are personal: no one is saying that that person *needs* polo to live, or that everyone must have polo to live. There's no delusion at all." CreationDate="2023-10-29T22:09:52.613" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45319" PostId="21737" Score="0" Text="@cmw As a native Spanish speaker with a very literal way of thought, I consider If you want to say &quot;Polo is a big part of who I am&quot;, then &quot;Polo is my life&quot; would be more proper." CreationDate="2023-10-29T22:16:58.027" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45320" PostId="21737" Score="1" Text="While that may be, English isn't the same as Spanish. Languages are not, and cannot, be purely literal. Even the word &quot;literal&quot; is figurative." CreationDate="2023-10-29T22:49:36.337" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45275" PostId="21738" Score="1" Text="You claim 'hic fuit triumphus means &quot;There was a triumph here.&quot; ' is categorically wrong. My latin grammar manual says that hic/haec/hoc are the latin version of esto (they are written in spanish), remarking that hic/haec/hoc remarks the nearnest deictic zone, making the mandatory translation of spanish's esto to latin, and the english this is another one-to-one equivalent translation to my native Sprachen." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:02:18.237" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45276" PostId="21738" Score="0" Text="Also I am a very literal being." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:03:00.740" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45277" PostId="21738" Score="0" Text="Also 'Estoy tomando una nota aquí' is also a prettry 1-to-1 translation of the english 'I am making a note here'. And I feel like the latinisation of the spanish terms are perfectly fine." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:04:51.680" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45278" PostId="21738" Score="1" Text="@Elelphantus The problem is that hic is not just a pronoun, it is also an adverb meaning &quot;here&quot; and in the sentence you constructed a Roman would most likely treat it as the adverb, not the pronoun." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:16:36.837" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45279" PostId="21738" Score="0" Text="WRONG. I used hic, not híc, Note the importance of being attend to the macrons." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:21:41.723" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45280" PostId="21738" Score="3" Text="@Elelphantus My main problem with *hic* there is the gender, and fixing that would remove the ambiguity (on which point I agree with @TylerDurden). It's natural to want to make it agree with *triumphus* as it is a copular sentence, but it's actually elliptical for &quot;this situation&quot; or &quot;this thing&quot; or similar; *Haec erat triumphus* would look better IMO. As for the rest, the idea that literally translating Spanish will generally yield acceptable Latin is wrong." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:21:54.633" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45281" PostId="21738" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon As I said, there is no ambiguity because I used hic and not híc. And what as wrong with my translation?" CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:34:47.767" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45283" PostId="21738" Score="0" Text="@Elelphantus Nothing is wrong with it, it is just that there are some transverbalizations. If you are happy with a literal transverbalized then it should do fine." CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:50:23.100" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45284" PostId="21738" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden What do you mean with transverbalized?" CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:52:12.050" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45297" PostId="21739" Score="1" Text="Thank you for explaining the importance of macros to us. Unfortunately I can't use them, IT Security told us to always disable macros." CreationDate="2023-10-29T07:05:41.830" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45306" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="(1) The original for Sentiens, Feeling, also does not make anysense." CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:39:41.767" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45307" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="(2) Quó appellás domus?, I am no sure how to do it neither." CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:41:41.607" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45308" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="(3) My dictionary has for trap assequor -cutus sum. 3 dep. tr." CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:48:44.987" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45309" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="(4) I am having problems with adjective declination." CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:49:27.823" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45310" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="(5) Tace? Upps." CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:49:56.017" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45311" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="(6) I am not using sufficiens as an abverb" CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:57:40.750" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45312" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="Nóli diruere té is fine?" CreationDate="2023-10-29T18:03:15.923" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45313" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="Also you neither checked the original, or you would note my error with the link or you already know the song, but not comment about the lines that I requested assistance." CreationDate="2023-10-29T18:05:01.420" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45315" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="@Elelphantus. In fact, I looked quite closely at the original – the link worked just fine when I clicked it." CreationDate="2023-10-29T20:13:04.367" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45316" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="It sended you to lyrics of still alive, and not of alright." CreationDate="2023-10-29T22:04:33.003" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45322" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="@Elephantus: No, when I clicked, it sent me to a youtube video page for 'Alright' with the lyrics in the description. Period. That's how I knew that, e.g., mane pugnam was meant to translate 'Keep the fight.'" CreationDate="2023-10-30T01:34:13.000" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45323" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="That is because I mixed and by accident put the lyrics lyric in the macros reference link and you take the &quot;incorrect&quot; here." CreationDate="2023-10-30T04:36:01.707" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45324" PostId="21740" Score="0" Text="Anyway, you still have not commented in the notes that put in the translation." CreationDate="2023-10-30T04:36:24.687" UserId="14278" />
  <row Id="45325" PostId="21740" Score="1" Text="@Elephantus. No, nor will I. You'll find that people here are much more inclined to help if you're less openly hostile and argumentative, and show a bit more graciousness and gratitude for any assistance that they do offer, even if it doesn't cover every single part of your question." CreationDate="2023-10-30T04:42:32.927" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45803" PostId="21746" Score="0" Text="[*Desinere*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddesino) + inf. is quite similar to Spanish *dejar de* + inf." CreationDate="2023-12-06T16:25:23.370" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45809" PostId="21746" Score="1" Text="What does &quot;I had stopped to walk in the sideway&quot; and &quot;I had leave to walk in the sideway&quot; mean?" CreationDate="2023-12-06T19:49:24.127" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45811" PostId="21746" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I cannot the use of something like &quot;No longer&quot; instead of something like &quot;dejar de&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-06T20:41:05.007" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45813" PostId="21746" Score="2" Text="@Dolphínus In English, &quot;stopped to walk&quot; means &quot;stopped doing something else in order to walk&quot;, and &quot;leave to walk&quot; means &quot;permission from an authority to walk&quot;. Neither of them means anything close to &quot;no longer&quot;, so I'm not sure what you're asking for in a translation." CreationDate="2023-12-06T21:34:15.283" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45814" PostId="21746" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I prefer some form of verbal like &quot;dejar de&quot;, rather that something (adverbial?, or phrasal like kind of thing) like &quot;ya no&quot;." CreationDate="2023-12-06T23:14:08.650" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45816" PostId="21746" Score="1" Text="@Dolphínus I'm still not sure what you're asking. You're saying you want this English phrase translated, but you don't want the translation to follow the English phrase, and to say something else instead?" CreationDate="2023-12-07T00:07:09.093" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45817" PostId="21746" Score="0" Text="@Draconis I want to follow the meaning, but I want to use an verbal style like does the Spanish than that adverbial style like does the English." CreationDate="2023-12-07T00:16:36.607" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45332" PostId="21748" Score="2" Text="I'd think you want either future or future perfect in the *cum* clause of the second sentence, and a subjunctive in the protasis of the first." CreationDate="2023-10-30T22:44:03.037" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45372" PostId="21748" Score="4" Text="*Si una die* strikes me as a bit strange in the first sentence. I'd recommend something like *si quando* instead." CreationDate="2023-11-05T05:16:20.810" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45328" PostId="21751" Score="3" Text="You're considering *lectio* and *electio* but you've ruled out *selectio*?" CreationDate="2023-10-30T21:40:27.097" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45333" PostId="21751" Score="1" Text="FWIW, Vicipaedia says [*Selectio naturalis*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectio_naturalis)." CreationDate="2023-10-30T22:49:07.940" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45334" PostId="21753" Score="0" Text="I was typing up my edit on my way home when you beat me to it! I didn't even think about looking at *inrobor-*." CreationDate="2023-10-31T00:30:14.563" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45354" PostId="21753" Score="0" Text="@cmw To be honest, I can't say I was familiar with this word before either ;-)" CreationDate="2023-11-02T04:22:39.653" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45340" PostId="21757" Score="1" Text="Does this answer your question? https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1943/how-do-you-write-dates-in-latin" CreationDate="2023-10-31T19:57:42.630" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45335" PostId="21762" Score="4" Text="It’s sharing the esse at the end with latam." CreationDate="2023-10-31T17:07:47.287" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="45336" PostId="21762" Score="3" Text="@Kingshorsey Should just go ahead and make that an answer." CreationDate="2023-10-31T17:26:21.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45339" PostId="21762" Score="1" Text="@Kingshorsey: I agree with cmw. Could you please write an answer?" CreationDate="2023-10-31T18:12:42.803" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45341" PostId="21763" Score="1" Text="This sure answers the question *I* would have about this passage, but, it seems to me, not the one that was actually asked here." CreationDate="2023-10-31T20:00:36.040" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45351" PostId="21763" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel. Upon rereading the question and my answer, I see that this is a very fair criticism. I'll work on an expanded/edited answer. Thanks." CreationDate="2023-11-02T01:48:54.897" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45345" PostId="21767" Score="2" Text="I'll leave this question to some of the actual linguistics experts on this site, but you're almost certainly recalling something about the conjectured PIE (=Proto-Indo-European) link between *ph₂tḗr (-&gt;pater, father) and [*peh₂-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/peh%E2%82%82-) (&quot;protect, shepherd,&quot; cf. pāscō, ποιμήν). This is a PIE thing, though, not Latin." CreationDate="2023-11-01T15:00:45.703" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45346" PostId="21770" Score="0" Text="I see... So, but if *hoc* is the subject of the passive construction *hoc ā meō filiō factum esse*, shouldn't be *hoc* in the nominative case?" CreationDate="2023-11-01T18:09:47.207" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45347" PostId="21770" Score="0" Text="And, in your example *Non te pudet hoc?*, shouldn't genitive *huius* be used instead of *hoc*? I have the same problem with the example by Terence." CreationDate="2023-11-01T18:10:01.257" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45349" PostId="21770" Score="0" Text="@Charo As noted above, _hoc_ is the subject of the infinitival subordinate clause in _Profectō mē pudet hoc ā meō filiō factum esse_. However, note that _hoc_ in this example is in the accusative case, i.e. note that the subordinate clause _hoc ā meō filiō factum esse_ can be considered a nice example of an _Accusativus cum Infinitivo_ construction. In contrast, note that _hoc_ can indeed be in the nominative case in another example (in the personal infinitive construction) _Hoc ā meō filiō factum esse videtur_ but not in your example where the infinitival clause depends on the verb _pudet_." CreationDate="2023-11-01T20:26:20.577" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45350" PostId="21770" Score="0" Text="@Charo _in your example Non te pudet hoc?, shouldn't genitive huius be used instead of hoc?_ It's a very good question, Charo! As noted at the end of the post of mine you have linked, the stimulus of _pudet_-type verbs is in the nominative case iff this is a neuter pronoun. Note that something similar happens when the stimulus is the infinitive: _Me, mi Pomponi, valde paenitet vivere_ (Cic. Att. 3,4), instead of _Me paenitet vivendi_ (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12655/gerundial-arguments-selected-by-verbs-taking-genitive-e-g-memento-moriendi?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1 )." CreationDate="2023-11-01T20:27:51.243" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45348" PostId="21771" Score="2" Text="Is this an assignment for a class, or just curiosity? The way it's phrased, this sounds like a historical linguistics assignment, and just giving you the answer won't necessarily help you with further work in that class." CreationDate="2023-11-01T20:16:58.883" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="45358" PostId="21771" Score="0" Text="Just to clarify, this seems to be from the [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi), which prescribes the Classical Latin form *lanius* &quot;butcher&quot; instead of the Vulgar Latin *laneo*." CreationDate="2023-11-02T16:21:28.000" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45359" PostId="21771" Score="0" Text="I don't need the answer I just need help. I am doing a lot of evolution work form Appendix Probi and this one is just a little bit hard for me cause I don't see really well the changes. Thanks" CreationDate="2023-11-02T17:49:04.437" UserId="14314" />
  <row Id="45353" PostId="21774" Score="2" Text="Cicero has an essay about artificial memory? Which essay is that?" CreationDate="2023-11-02T04:20:29.287" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45355" PostId="21774" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Oh, I am thinking of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, so it is actually just attributed to him, but probably not by him. However, he does use the word artificiosa in other essays. For example: &quot;Quae vero aut coniectura explicantur aut eventis animadversa ac notata sunt, ea genera divinandi, ut supra dixi, non naturalia, sed artificiosa dicuntur&quot;. De Divitatione." CreationDate="2023-11-02T05:30:07.590" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45357" PostId="21774" Score="2" Text="Tyler, I upvoted, but I'd really appreciate (and I think others would, too) that you took the time to add links to source your answers." CreationDate="2023-11-02T13:11:15.353" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45368" PostId="21774" Score="0" Text="Ad Herennium, 3, 16-24. See https://www.laits.utexas.edu/memoria/Ad_Herennium_Passages.html. “&#xA;Sunt igitur duae memoriae: una naturalis, altera artificiosa.  Naturalis est ea, quae nostris animis insita est et simul cum cogitatione nata; artificiosa est ea, quam confirmat inductio quaedam et ratio praeceptionis.” Translation into English ibid. by Harry Caplan." CreationDate="2023-11-03T13:50:43.707" UserId="6218" />
  <row Id="45370" PostId="21778" Score="1" Text="In this particular case you could use a supine for the second clause since &quot;go&quot; is a verb of motion. But it's a good question more generally." CreationDate="2023-11-03T18:23:12.727" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45371" PostId="21782" Score="3" Text="If you can swallow the idea that you're addressing a dead person as though they can hear you, you might reconsider how logical what you say has to be :) But anyway, many languages have no better word for &quot;goodbye&quot; than well-wishing (or even for &quot;hello&quot;; some use the same words whether someone is coming or going). In English we have &quot;may God be with you&quot; (by Shakespeare's time &quot;God be w'ye&quot;, a.k.a. &quot;goodbye&quot;)  and &quot;may you fare well&quot; (a.k.a. &quot;farewell&quot;). We can also give our &quot;salutations&quot;, from Latin *salus* &quot;healthy&quot;. All sound fine at a funeral despite being logically out of place." CreationDate="2023-11-04T23:27:44.787" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="45386" PostId="21782" Score="0" Text="@LukeSawczak sometimes we're busy swallowing something else while addressing a (recently) dead person, and need something to say - some kind of goodby or farewell - almost anything - to justify it :-)" CreationDate="2023-11-06T02:50:42.417" UserId="6850" />
  <row Id="45382" PostId="21784" Score="0" Text="Out of curiosity, what movie is this from?" CreationDate="2023-11-05T18:56:56.200" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45432" PostId="21784" Score="0" Text="Robin Hood (2010) :)" CreationDate="2023-11-11T16:45:25.433" UserId="13754" />
  <row Id="45374" PostId="21786" Score="0" Text="Related questions [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/20665/use-of-imperfect-in-a-letter) &amp; [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16320/why-is-the-pluperfect-subjunctive-used-to-represent-the-future-in-ciceros-in-v)." CreationDate="2023-11-05T14:40:13.040" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45375" PostId="21787" Score="0" Text="In that case what would Cicero have written if had already sent the courier?" CreationDate="2023-11-05T14:58:28.003" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45378" PostId="21787" Score="1" Text="In other words, in the situation where we would write &quot;I sent a courier to Cumanus today&quot;, how would he have expressed the verb." CreationDate="2023-11-05T16:57:34.757" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45379" PostId="21787" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden In that case he would have used the pluperfect. The tenses just shift back in time (mostly)." CreationDate="2023-11-05T17:09:46.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45385" PostId="21787" Score="0" Text="Boy, grammarians have pretty words for everything." CreationDate="2023-11-06T00:24:26.797" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45389" PostId="21789" Score="0" Text="Might be worth a note that Columella is writing some time after Cicero, and is specifically concerned with farm life. It could be a difference between ordinary usage and specialized usage." CreationDate="2023-11-06T17:23:19.593" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45394" PostId="21792" Score="0" Text="The pupils are apparently making a collective promise. *ea promissa* would also be possible." CreationDate="2023-11-07T08:27:37.380" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45390" PostId="21793" Score="1" Text="Good find! I wasn't aware of the alternative spelling when I did a corpus search. I would be careful, though, since L&amp;S cites the passage immediately preceding (in 3.11) as an example of the meaning [&quot;polecat&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_polecat), and that meaning seems to carry over here. I think it would be surprising in a context like this to refer to a domesticated cat or dog as a *bestia* (though the Herodotus parallel might also be a counterexample)." CreationDate="2023-11-07T04:37:45.940" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45391" PostId="21793" Score="0" Text="I looked up two translations online: one has &quot;polecat&quot; and &quot;wild cat&quot; for the two occurrences; the other has &quot;weasel&quot; for both." CreationDate="2023-11-07T04:40:57.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45392" PostId="21793" Score="1" Text="@brianpck In the context it is probably as I have it. Some of the translations of that passage are &quot;dictionary&quot; translations by an academic with no experience on a farm. You do not need a high wall to keep out a weasel. Weasels are 6&quot; tall. Also, I saw a translation that rendered maelis as &quot;badger&quot;--once again betraying a total ignorance of the rural environment and its animals." CreationDate="2023-11-07T04:50:20.553" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45393" PostId="21793" Score="1" Text="I don't know much about European animals myself, but badgers and polecats certainly eat young rabbits, and polecats can get up to 18&quot; (if Wiki informs me correctly). But the bigger point is that it's generally not a good idea to be dismissive of expert opinions. Translations are often wrong, but some presumption of competence is generally a good idea." CreationDate="2023-11-07T05:23:28.020" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45399" PostId="21795" Score="1" Text="When I read this sentence I see the _hostis armatus_ as the subject of _accurrere_. I don’t claim any grand authority for this but it does seem to make the sentence make more sense." CreationDate="2023-11-08T07:51:00.837" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="45401" PostId="21795" Score="0" Text="&quot;My understanding of active infinitive verbs informs that the subject of 'accurrere' is 'Mīles Rōmānus'&quot; -- what, pray, do you think this sentence actually means?" CreationDate="2023-11-08T21:49:12.427" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45427" PostId="21795" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel I am of the opinion that the sentence informs that a Roman soldier does not flee but defends himself with arms. The object of the initial consternation if it had to be defined might concern the function of an object in relation to a verb phrase, however the question was answered well by cmw, and given extra light by Mitomino." CreationDate="2023-11-10T18:15:31.893" UserId="10273" />
  <row Id="45396" PostId="21796" Score="1" Text="Perhaps a relevant point to be noted is that in the OP's question _armatum_ can be an attributive modifier ([NP _hostem armatum_]) or a predicative one ([NP _hostem_] [_armatum_]). Perhaps the OP's question is whether the subject of an AcI construction can be modified by a predicative adjective, which is of course possible. Perhaps the question is whether _quī hostem armātum accurrere uidet_ can be understood as a sort of an extension of _quī hostem armātum uidet_. It's really difficult to find a sense to the question above..." CreationDate="2023-11-07T20:05:34.703" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45397" PostId="21796" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I would not have read that much into the question. I suppose we should wait until the OP clarifies." CreationDate="2023-11-07T20:14:52.093" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45398" PostId="21796" Score="0" Text="I am here inclined to read 'armātum' as an attributive modifier for its simplicity despite its locality, however as a predicative adjective I think it affords a richer sense for 'uidet' within the whole sentence and I appreciate the food for thought." CreationDate="2023-11-08T02:02:11.837" UserId="10273" />
  <row Id="45411" PostId="21796" Score="0" Text="@Mr.Blythe Did this answer your question, or was it something else you were looking for?" CreationDate="2023-11-09T17:10:16.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45426" PostId="21796" Score="0" Text="@cmw Yes and I found your rationale particularly helpful. The comment by Mitomino added a facet to adjectival phrases that I had not previously considered." CreationDate="2023-11-10T18:08:00.607" UserId="10273" />
  <row Id="45405" PostId="21802" Score="1" Text="We might add that there are plenty of other Latin place-names with a genitive plural suffix, such as *Lutetia Parisiorum*, the muddy place of the tribe *Parisii*." CreationDate="2023-11-09T14:09:39.870" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="45424" PostId="21802" Score="1" Text="@AntonSherwood Indeed, but this is a different construction. Quite a few towns simply have plural names in Latin, the most famous probably being *Athenae* and *Pompeii*." CreationDate="2023-11-10T17:32:43.310" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45412" PostId="21809" Score="3" Text="In my opinion, the margin note _haec (n pl) = hae rēs_, which is associated to the example _Mārcus ipse haec scripsit et ā magistrō laudātus est_, is a bit misleading since here the direct object _haec_ (n. pl. acc.) can be replaced by _**has** rēs_ (but not by _hae res_ = fem. pl. nom.)." CreationDate="2023-11-09T18:00:01.293" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45435" PostId="21809" Score="0" Text="In fact, after rereading your question, I realize that the first margin note can also be misleading (at least for you) given your conclusion (&quot;This explanation is written in the margin of the book: _haec locūta_ = _postquam haec locūta est_. This clarifies the meaning of the expression _haec locūta_. In addition, since it says _est_, I see that _haec locūta_ must be singular&quot;). Perhaps a less misleading margin note would have been: _haec locūta_ = _postquam has res locūta est_. Cf. my comment above on the second margin note)." CreationDate="2023-11-11T18:27:12.953" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45408" PostId="21810" Score="1" Text="I see. So *Ariadna* is the subject of the verb *locūta est*. That is, the meaning is *postquam haec locūta est Ariadna* = &quot;after Ariadna has said these things&quot;." CreationDate="2023-11-09T16:50:53.677" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45409" PostId="21810" Score="0" Text="@Charo Yes, but you don't need to repeat the subject twice, which is why it wasn't spelled out explicitly." CreationDate="2023-11-09T17:00:22.943" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45413" PostId="21810" Score="1" Text="@Charo I think it would be more accurate to say that *locuta* is a perfect participle that agrees with the subject *Ariadna*. In deponent verbs, past participles have an active meaning, as cmw's translation shows. In other words, it's syntactically similar to a sentence like, &quot;haec dicens Ariadna filum Theseo dat.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-09T18:37:37.147" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45414" PostId="21810" Score="3" Text="@brianpck I thought she meant in the gloss *postquam haec locuta est*. In the actual sentence (*locuta est Ariadna...*), you're right, but in the gloss, *Ariadna* is the subject and *locuta est* is the verb." CreationDate="2023-11-09T19:46:57.627" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45429" PostId="21811" Score="0" Text="Can you explain what you want the idiom to mean? I've never heard that English one." CreationDate="2023-11-10T21:15:03.887" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45430" PostId="21811" Score="1" Text="Used as an adjective, *quisque* means &quot;whichever&quot;, not &quot;each&quot;. *Quisque* only means &quot;each one&quot; when it's a substantive." CreationDate="2023-11-10T21:19:32.053" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45431" PostId="21811" Score="1" Text="The Croatian just means &quot;same story every day.&quot; The English is a pretty uncommon idiom. Are you looking to translate the meaning (as in the Croatian) or find an analogous idiom? Honestly I'd just translate the Croatian part into English--I'm not sure what it adds beyond a literal translation." CreationDate="2023-11-10T22:51:37.580" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45518" PostId="21813" Score="0" Text="Great answer, but a bit surprising to me. Could you add a reference? Thanks." CreationDate="2023-11-16T22:31:12.520" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45543" PostId="21813" Score="0" Text="Sure, you can check thic thread https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11024/dies-and-the-fifth-declension where you can find an explanation of the common origin of the words Deus, Zeus and Dies." CreationDate="2023-11-18T12:36:27.670" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="45544" PostId="21813" Score="0" Text="In here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjC1snMys2CAxWpqf0HHWWRDEUQFnoECBUQAQ&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.classics.unibo.it%2FDidattica%2FLatBC%2FPlauto_vari.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1YFraeveAH_s2OROSgOURr&amp;opi=89978449 (it is a webiste from the University of Bologna, Italy): Plauto, Anfitrione, arg. II. It is in italian: Page 6 the note explaining &quot;hac noctu&quot; mentions that noctu is the analogic form from diu, old locative of dies" CreationDate="2023-11-18T12:54:22.880" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="45433" PostId="21817" Score="1" Text="As for your term &quot;joint participle&quot;, I'd say that the one that is (more) often used in Latin grammars written in English is the Latin one: i.e. _participium coniunctum_ (in Sp. and in Cat. we say &quot;participio concertado&quot; and &quot;participi concertat&quot;, respectively). Note also that the term that is often used for the other type of construction is &quot;ablative absolute&quot; rather than &quot;absolute ablative&quot;. Your word order could be said to make sense but &quot;ablative absolute&quot; is the preferred one in Latin grammars written in English." CreationDate="2023-11-11T18:16:21.543" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45434" PostId="21817" Score="1" Text="As for the typical rule of the ablative absolute you mention in your answer, it is worth pointing out that even in very classical authors like Caesar, some exceptions can be found: e.g. see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15055/grammatical-structure-of-obsidibus-imperatis-centum-hos-haeduis-custodiendos-tr/15058#15058" CreationDate="2023-11-11T18:18:19.530" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45541" PostId="21817" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the details and the link to the thread about the AA exception. In my own language (Italian), I also say the equivalent of participium coniunctum (participio congiunto), but I was unsure about english." CreationDate="2023-11-18T10:17:43.750" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="45437" PostId="21822" Score="1" Text="By the way, if you are interested in Dolphins, you might enjoy Pliny the Younger's Dolphin Story ([Ep. 9, 33](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/pliny.ep9.html)), which is an easy read and a masterfully told tale with one hell of a plot twist. Also features the historical infinitive." CreationDate="2023-11-12T14:17:35.300" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45438" PostId="21822" Score="0" Text="I'm afraid the second question (that which was added in a later edit) is unrelated to the first one. Clearly some context is missing in the quote (like who is the the subject of *abirent*) - at any case it is most probably case of indirect speech as *vivere* and *fuisse* hint." CreationDate="2023-11-12T14:54:57.403" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45440" PostId="21822" Score="0" Text="@d_e The context is *Nautae, interrogati, num scirent ubi esset Arion, responderunt hominem, cum inde abirent, in terra Italia fuisse &amp;c.*, in other words, yes, it is indirect speech (although Ørberg has the habit of putting indirect speech in quotation marks)." CreationDate="2023-11-12T17:11:16.287" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45442" PostId="21822" Score="0" Text="Very stupid question by me." CreationDate="2023-11-12T20:15:41.337" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45449" PostId="21828" Score="0" Text="Aliquid here is an adverb. “Somewhat” in modern English (in rather older English “something” was used in the same sense). Interestingly “algo” in Spanish also has an adverbial meaning as well as a “something” one." CreationDate="2023-11-13T06:57:43.793" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="45450" PostId="21828" Score="0" Text="@MartinKochanski I prefer the suggestions in Spanish given that I am a native Spanish Speaker" CreationDate="2023-11-13T07:24:16.627" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45458" PostId="21830" Score="0" Text="I'm guessing _alea iacta est_ is out for not involving the gods?" CreationDate="2023-11-13T17:00:51.013" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45460" PostId="21830" Score="0" Text="My first loose association was Vergil's *fato profugus*, though in that case *profugus* is much more literal." CreationDate="2023-11-13T17:26:16.573" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45462" PostId="21830" Score="0" Text="@Rafael That could have worked, but the context negates it. It's the opposite viewpoint as what I was looking for, i.e. the mortals deciding the fate, rather than seeing the gods arrive/take action." CreationDate="2023-11-13T19:19:54.200" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45463" PostId="21830" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That's a great one, too. Not quite hitting the mark, but close." CreationDate="2023-11-13T19:22:34.233" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45461" PostId="21832" Score="0" Text="Thanks. These are good. Not quite exactly what I was looking for, but good quotes. It doesn't have to be pessimistic, but fatalistic. The element missing though is the recognition in the *change*, as if someone were on a path, but *now* their choices no longer matter. I'm going to edit the question to make that clear." CreationDate="2023-11-13T19:18:36.343" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45464" PostId="21832" Score="0" Text="@cmw I added another." CreationDate="2023-11-13T20:04:32.457" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45466" PostId="21834" Score="2" Text="Scansion helps making the distinction. The final *-e* is short in the vocative and long in the adverb." CreationDate="2023-11-14T11:58:27.213" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45469" PostId="21836" Score="0" Text="In Caesar de B. G. 1.8, the use of pluperfect, &quot;convenerant&quot;, to indicate a completed action in the past; why not use the perfect tense for this? On this theme, Plautus, Poenulus, 655-58, the use of perfect, &quot;adduximus&quot;, to establish the end of the story--everything completed, in the past. What is the difference between these two sets of 'completed action/s'?" CreationDate="2023-11-15T08:53:51.360" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45470" PostId="21836" Score="1" Text="@tony Caesar is using the pluperfect (*convenerant*=&quot;had assembled&quot;) for a completed action in the **past** (i.e. before the narration) and the perfect (*adduximus*=&quot;have brought&quot;) for a completed action in the **present** (i.e. part of the narration). The point is that the &quot;historical present&quot; functions as if it were a past tense with respect to which completed actions can still be in the pluperfect." CreationDate="2023-11-15T14:12:13.923" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45472" PostId="21838" Score="0" Text="I see... So, in some sense, *cum* introduces the verb *cognoscunt* and has nothing to do with the *accusativus cum infinitivo*." CreationDate="2023-11-15T15:04:19.273" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45475" PostId="21838" Score="0" Text="@Charo Right, it is simply a conjunction like the English &quot;when&quot; is used conjunctively." CreationDate="2023-11-15T15:48:53.187" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45473" PostId="21839" Score="2" Text="Just as a quick note, it's not that *et* means &quot;near&quot;, it's that *temperatis* and *maritimis* both modify *locis*. It's *maritimis* that means &quot;near the sea.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-15T15:14:18.783" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45474" PostId="21839" Score="0" Text="@cmw If that were the case, then it could just read &quot;locis temperatis maritimis&quot; which means &quot;temperate places near the sea&quot;. There would be no need for &quot;et&quot; at all. I guess I am completely confused whether it is talking about temperate and maritime places separately or whether maritime is qualifying the temperate places (which is how the Loeb translator has it)." CreationDate="2023-11-15T15:47:33.873" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45476" PostId="21839" Score="1" Text="@cmw I have changed the title of the question to make the question more clear" CreationDate="2023-11-15T15:53:37.783" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45477" PostId="21839" Score="1" Text="It's possible, but it would be a stylistic choice. Latin more commonly adds a conjunction between two adjectives that describe the same noun (as does English). Do note though that &quot;near the sea&quot; in English is a prepositional phrase, and so is grammatically different from *maritimus*, which is an we just don't have a great word that corresponds with *maritimus* directly (except, of course, for &quot;maritime&quot;, which we borrowed from Latin)." CreationDate="2023-11-15T15:54:57.003" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45478" PostId="21839" Score="0" Text="I thought the question was clear! I just wanted to add that little note about the meaning of *et*." CreationDate="2023-11-15T15:55:50.333" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45479" PostId="21839" Score="2" Text="The quotation is from Columella, *De re rustica* 11.2.54. Please cite sources." CreationDate="2023-11-15T16:55:17.560" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45505" PostId="21841" Score="0" Text="As for the 1st example from Caesar, are you suggesting that the infinitive _profugere_ is the direct object of the present participles _hortante et iubente_ rather than the complement of _consilium (ceperunt)_? Cf. any academic translation you may have of this example and you'll realize that this is not the correct analysis. See also Pinkster (2021: 212) on this ex. As for my 2nd example, see pages XVI and 123 (note 12) of this book: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/sallustsjugurthi00sa/sallustsjugurthi00sa.pdf Finally, note that my 3rd and 4th examples are similar." CreationDate="2023-11-16T15:53:14.227" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45506" PostId="21841" Score="0" Text="As for the first example (the one in the title of the question), see also pages 109-110 of this book: https://books.google.es/books?id=VYzZO2U3BNkC&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109&amp;dq=gerund+%22postero+die+consilium+ceperunt+ex+oppido+profugere%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_23pH_N9ft&amp;sig=ACfU3U07AtvEzVpWD6m9YyCrR611bmhUhg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiAr_u098iCAxW5RaQEHelUBDAQ6AF6BAgfEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=gerund%20%22postero%20die%20consilium%20ceperunt%20ex%20oppido%20profugere%22&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2023-11-16T16:34:01.583" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45507" PostId="21841" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Whether profugere is the object of hortante directly or whether you equate consilium to profugere, then either way it is an object. For example, if it were a gerund, then it would I guess have to be in the accusative, so that would make it an object, which is definitively not preferred according to PInkster. as he writes &quot;gerunds CANNOT function as subject or object&quot;. That seems pretty clear to me and in that sentence profugere is functioning as an object." CreationDate="2023-11-16T16:38:21.470" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45511" PostId="21841" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I expanded my answer to discuss the use of profugiendi" CreationDate="2023-11-16T17:13:02.083" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45513" PostId="21841" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Another thing to keep in mind is that gerunds are fairly rare in Latin in general. For example, I could find only three examples of profugiendi in the entire classical corpus, but I found eighteen examples of profugere." CreationDate="2023-11-16T17:57:44.417" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45514" PostId="21841" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden A search for [fugiend](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=fugiend) brings up many more examples, with some going back to Ennius and Plautus. Infinitives might be older, but I don't think that's a factor here." CreationDate="2023-11-16T20:51:46.950" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45482" PostId="21842" Score="0" Text="Are questions in Spanish (or any other non-classical language, for that matter) allowed? I'm not sure if this merits a Meta question" CreationDate="2023-11-15T23:16:21.953" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45483" PostId="21842" Score="3" Text="I think the question answers itself if you change the word order: &quot;así pues, puesto que...&quot; (English: &quot;and so, given that...&quot;) But you'd need to give more context for the original quote." CreationDate="2023-11-15T23:20:00.343" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45486" PostId="21842" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Quoniam igitur propter vim atque multitūdinem&#xA;praedōnum nē mare Tuscum quidem tutum erat, pa­&#xA;rum frūmentl ex Siciliā et ex Āfricā Rōmam advehēbā­&#xA;tur." CreationDate="2023-11-16T04:12:58.207" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45487" PostId="21842" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Suena también a sinsentido en español." CreationDate="2023-11-16T04:14:28.983" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45488" PostId="21842" Score="0" Text="@brianpck That'd be a very reasonable meta question. I tried to look it up and it seems we don't have a discussion or policy about that. I have thoughts but I'd rather not discuss general matters here in comments." CreationDate="2023-11-16T07:36:01.070" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45491" PostId="21842" Score="1" Text="Sorry, @Dolphínus: I don't think it's a good idea to create new tags in Spanish." CreationDate="2023-11-16T09:50:54.227" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45492" PostId="21842" Score="0" Text="@Charo I am sure I am no the one you want or should to apologize." CreationDate="2023-11-16T10:04:02.070" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45515" PostId="21842" Score="1" Text="I fully agree with @Charo: We should not have tags in Spanish, not even synonyms. Our main operating language is English and a far second is Latin. All other languages can play a minor role at best. If there's a need to discuss details, take it to [meta]." CreationDate="2023-11-16T22:11:08.193" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45497" PostId="21845" Score="0" Text="Then *quoniam* is not a plonasm with *propter*?" CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:45:54.517" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45503" PostId="21845" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus:   En español sería algo así: &quot;puesto que a causa de la potencia y la gran cantidad de piratas ni siquiera el mar Toscano era seguro&quot; (*quoniam* = &quot;puesto que&quot;, *propter* = &quot;a causa de&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-11-16T15:18:10.710" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45504" PostId="21845" Score="0" Text="poder*, no potencia" CreationDate="2023-11-16T15:23:04.550" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45495" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="The suggested alternative is for *haud sciō an dīxerim*, not for *Haud sciō an ego ita dīxerim*" CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:41:36.973" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45498" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus I know, and my point is that it could have been either way, depending on how the rest of it was to be structured. That alternative is not to be taken as an absolute truth but as a hint. I added a sentence to clarify what I mean by the optionality of &quot;so&quot; or *ita*." CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:46:28.303" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45499" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="And do you know some grammar textbook?" CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:54:54.920" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45500" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="Preferibly in Spanish" CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:56:56.633" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45501" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus In English there's for example [Allen and Greenough (free online edition)](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/alphabet). I don't know of anything in Spanish, but just about any Latin grammar will get you started." CreationDate="2023-11-16T14:01:22.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45516" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="The subject is not needed in Spanish either; it is less emphatic than in Latin (in the process of moving towards the French system), but it is still optional unless for emphasis. (@Dolphínus The most verbatim Spanish translaton I can think of would be, “Apenas sé si yo así dijera…”, which doesn’t flow very well, but should be at least intelligible.)" CreationDate="2023-11-16T22:17:00.560" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="45517" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="Also, if you’re comfortable reading Italian, the _Lingva Latina per se illvstrata_ series has a short grammar volume as well. In the original version, this was in Latin only, like the rest of the series, but the current primary publisher, Vivarium Novum, have changed it to an Italian version titled _Grammatica di Consultazione_. It’s available [through their website here](https://vivariumnovum.it/scolastica/latino/corso-base/grammatica-di-consultazione)." CreationDate="2023-11-16T22:19:20.500" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="45521" PostId="21846" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus:    In Spanish, I've just discovered [*Latine disco*](https://www.amazon.es/Latine-disco-lingua-latina-illustrata/dp/8493579815#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div)." CreationDate="2023-11-17T11:40:14.857" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45493" PostId="21847" Score="3" Text="For an answer within classical Latin, [consulting a dictionary entry on *audio*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=audio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a good starting point. There are [several good online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:18:49.970" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45494" PostId="21847" Score="0" Text="C. To hear, to listen to, to obey, heed; orig. and class. only with acc., but also with dat.—     so &quot;I attend&quot; is not correct?" CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:37:32.710" UserId="14093" />
  <row Id="45496" PostId="21847" Score="0" Text="Wiktionary: to attend Plato's lectures: audire Platonem, auditorem esse Platonis" CreationDate="2023-11-16T13:44:09.817" UserId="14093" />
  <row Id="45502" PostId="21847" Score="1" Text="@harryjansson What are you doing when you attend someone lectures? You're *listening* to them speak." CreationDate="2023-11-16T14:04:02.087" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45519" PostId="21847" Score="0" Text="Latin aside, the precept of the Church certainly means more than _to hear_. You cannot fulfill it by listening to a radio or even a video/TV/YouTube transmission. (Cf. CCC 1389; 2042.)" CreationDate="2023-11-16T22:57:12.237" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45520" PostId="21847" Score="1" Text="Can you not first Posts what three or four dictionaries said, and what collectively they left unclear?" CreationDate="2023-11-16T23:47:41.783" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="45523" PostId="21853" Score="1" Text="And while the stem might be *anno-* in some modern grammars (especially if they have a diachronic or comparative slant), it absolutely would have been perceived as being *ann-*." CreationDate="2023-11-17T16:03:05.537" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45529" PostId="21855" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2023-11-17T20:01:39.513" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45530" PostId="21856" Score="3" Text="Shakleton Bailey's translation in the Loeb edition agrees: &quot;If you have a kitchen garden in your library we shall lack for nothing.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-17T20:08:05.413" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45536" PostId="21857" Score="1" Text="Welcome to this site.  interesting input from N&amp;H. FWIW, **(1)** PHI has more [*et numquam*](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23et+numquam) than [*neque umquam*](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=neque+umquam); **(2)** Not particular to this answer but virtually to every suggestion in this page: It is not so clear that *numquam* can be used with imperative as in English. Still waiting for a classical example. A question [was asked](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21055/can-we-use-numquam-with-a-imperative) here about this." CreationDate="2023-11-17T22:25:13.637" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45537" PostId="21857" Score="0" Text="Yes, this is right." CreationDate="2023-11-17T22:27:53.733" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45547" PostId="21857" Score="0" Text="Thanks! And you're right: &quot;et numquam&quot; does exist. I am trying to figure what N&amp;H had in mind. Rubenbauer-Hoffmann §224a has a parallel example: &quot;Neque&quot; is used to bind sentences together; &quot;et non&quot; is ONLY used when a single word or entity of words is negated (or so they say). I think this might be true for &quot;et numquam&quot;, which is perhaps more often used to combine words than sentences. PHI gives three instances in Cicero for ”et numquam” (words negated, not sentences), thirteen for ”neque umquam”.&#xA;But the important thing is ”numquam / ne umquam” + imperative. I’ll look out for that." CreationDate="2023-11-18T20:39:45.047" UserId="14388" />
  <row Id="45557" PostId="21857" Score="1" Text="What a delightful forum! Enlightened by  d_e above (thanks) and the discussion here about the problems of ”numquam” + imperative I now suggest:&#xA;Abi nec umquam redieris !" CreationDate="2023-11-19T12:39:57.843" UserId="14388" />
  <row Id="45549" PostId="21859" Score="0" Text="Greek has traces of both aorists in ἐλέγην (passive; the active voice would have been formally identical to the imperfect, I expect) and ἔλεξα respectively in Homer and Attic preserves the sigmatic aorist in some compounds (bare λέγω is suppletive in the aorist), so this multitude of perfective forms as well as the inconsistent levelling is not unique to Latin. It might be interesting to see what Albanian does as the only other language to have reflexes of *\*leǵ-* (probably nothing visible)." CreationDate="2023-11-18T22:12:18.500" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45555" PostId="21859" Score="1" Text="Apparently it has been suggested that *diligo* as well as *intellego* and *neglego*, which also have *-lexi*, are from a different root *\*h₂leg-* 'to care for' (as supposedly in Greek ἀλέγω but not much else) that just had a sigmatic perfective, but De Vaan rejects that. If nothing else, the *-e-* in the *-lego* of the latter two suggests they're recent formations and uncompounded  *lego* 'to care for' is unattested." CreationDate="2023-11-19T05:39:26.553" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45545" PostId="21861" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2023-11-18T17:21:55.900" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45552" PostId="21862" Score="1" Text="Surely the *imperfect subjunctive* isn't random in the sentences you mentioned?" CreationDate="2023-11-19T04:45:55.803" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45553" PostId="21862" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The imperfect subjunctive is used more consistently." CreationDate="2023-11-19T04:59:16.850" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45559" PostId="21862" Score="0" Text="See also [this link](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5449/tense-fluctuation-in-latin-narrative), which, if you look again, does have an answer, one that is upvoted and accepted." CreationDate="2023-11-19T16:14:26.530" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45558" PostId="21864" Score="2" Text="That paragraph from A&amp;G does of course *not* explain the subjunctive of *diceret*." CreationDate="2023-11-19T15:48:53.023" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45560" PostId="21864" Score="0" Text="I see, so the interpretation is &quot;he said himself (to have forgotten) (I-know-not-what)&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-11-19T16:38:24.093" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45561" PostId="21864" Score="0" Text="[Also relevant for nescio quid](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7725/present-subjunctive-passive/8726#8726)" CreationDate="2023-11-19T20:21:44.130" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45563" PostId="21864" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel You are right! Thanks for pointing it out. But then what does explain it? Perhaps there is something in the larger context (the sentences before)." CreationDate="2023-11-20T06:37:55.870" UserId="14138" />
  <row Id="45565" PostId="21867" Score="0" Text="Perhaps the word *dissimiliter* is worth looking into for related uses. At leas L&amp;S lists it under *dissimilis*." CreationDate="2023-11-20T18:00:53.073" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45562" PostId="21870" Score="1" Text="What would make you think that *audimus* is an error?" CreationDate="2023-11-20T03:21:51.650" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45564" PostId="21872" Score="1" Text="There are different ways to say this, but the pertinent verb is &quot;impedior&quot;." CreationDate="2023-11-20T15:38:03.880" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45574" PostId="21872" Score="3" Text="I think *fungor* with ablative is going to be better than *ago* with accusative." CreationDate="2023-11-21T08:10:03.750" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45607" PostId="21872" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: There are exs., from early Latin, of &quot;fungor&quot; taking the accusative: &quot;tu tibi istos habeas tutures piscis, avis, sine me alioto fungi fortunas meas.&quot;--&quot;You just keep those swabs of yours and your fish and your game for yourself, and leave me to my garlic and my lot,&quot; (Plaut. Most. 45). I haven't seen &quot;tu tibi istos&quot; altogether before! This, from the 3rd.C BC." CreationDate="2023-11-22T09:57:41.730" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45608" PostId="21872" Score="2" Text="@tony True, the accusative seems possible too. My main point was that *agere* doesn't fit the job nearly as well as *fungi*." CreationDate="2023-11-22T10:08:06.587" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45576" PostId="21874" Score="0" Text="I'd say _bitumen_ had little to do with actual motor oil, the former being black and untuous (although it can be liquid when hot), while the latter is transparent/translucent and definitely not black unless it's already burned. I'm not saying that _you_ said they were the same, but the answer reads as if your proposed word for &quot;motor oil&quot; was _bitumen_ (even after reading the last paraghraph)." CreationDate="2023-11-21T12:43:21.027" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="45579" PostId="21874" Score="1" Text="@walen The modern idea of bitumen differs from the sense of the Roman word." CreationDate="2023-11-21T13:25:13.343" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45609" PostId="21874" Score="0" Text="In Spanish, [_bitumen_](https://dle.rae.es/bet%C3%BAn#ReHD2EF) means &quot;Derived from tar, black and amorphous, which softens with heat and is used as waterproofing and paving&quot; and we can trace this meaning all the way back to Alfonso X the Wise (1200s), who was way closer to Vitruvius' Latin than we'll ever be. And Vitruvius's _bitumen_ was floating in Asphalt Lake and it was also used for construction. I may not understand what &quot;bitumen&quot; means in today's English, but I'm 100% sure it meant exactly the same for Vitruvius @ 30 BC than for me today -- and it has nothing to do with motor oil." CreationDate="2023-11-22T10:18:33.167" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="45610" PostId="21874" Score="0" Text="Your (indirect) proposal of just using _petroleum_ or _unguen_, or making a new word like _motoroleum_, they all seem like better options to me than focusing on _bitumen_. They would convey the idea of &quot;lubrication&quot; way better than _bitumen_ and are also closer to what modern motor oil (which didn't exist in 30 BC btw) would look like." CreationDate="2023-11-22T10:24:59.870" UserId="2647" />
  <row Id="45567" PostId="21875" Score="1" Text="Or, of course, the famous *Nos Póloni non cúramus quantítatem syllábarum* ;-)" CreationDate="2023-11-20T21:33:23.650" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45566" PostId="21876" Score="1" Text="The closest counterpart that springs to mind is [*homo novus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_homo). It won't work for your purpose as such, but perhaps there's a variation on the theme?" CreationDate="2023-11-20T20:29:12.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45568" PostId="21876" Score="0" Text="It should definitely include novus/a/um in the concept, as in _ars nova_ or, as Joonas says, _homo novus_. A superlative, (_res novissima_?) could help, too" CreationDate="2023-11-20T23:03:08.053" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45569" PostId="21876" Score="0" Text="What about do it in like spanish: revolucionario (revolutionary)." CreationDate="2023-11-20T23:10:27.970" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45573" PostId="21878" Score="4" Text="It would be helpful if you could tell us what it means in English. To get a good translation of a motto it is necessary to unpack its exact meaning and implications in the original language and then, using that knowledge, to pack it up in Latin. Translating the “packed” version literally word for word without unpacking never really works." CreationDate="2023-11-21T08:07:10.997" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="45602" PostId="21879" Score="1" Text="May not be irrelevant that the σ in Ἀκσάφ renders Hebrew שׁ /ʃ/, not שׂ or ס (both /s/); σ is the closest match but not necessarily a great one, so maybe it was a deliberate decision to leave it marked like that. I don't know about Ἀκσεΐρ, though—this thread is the only Google hit for it." CreationDate="2023-11-21T19:05:26.163" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45603" PostId="21879" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon On closer inspection, Ἀκσεΐρ was found in an 18th century text written by Dapontes, so it's not the Greek in question after all." CreationDate="2023-11-21T19:15:00.140" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45575" PostId="21880" Score="0" Text="Of  the European languages, its a problem in Englisch, Dutch and Low German, reduced set of constructions. But substantivation of whole phrases are now common at least in modern American (Bloomberg) English. In German it simply translates into &quot;What was  the to be made visible&quot;. Funnily, it is a religous fomula, to make the monster visible down here. In a sense, the Romans, like many ancient and some modern philologists,  thought about (Greek) mathemata as a form of black magic." CreationDate="2023-11-21T12:20:49.447" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="45577" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="Thanks!  That's very helpful.  You write that other gerundives &quot;do not necessarily bear the 'necessity' sense.&quot;  I am specifically interested in a comment by Leibniz where the gerundive &quot;Aliter&quot; is used.  Leibniz writes: &quot;Aliter demonstrandum quod neque majus quia non potest inveniri pars ejus finita aequalis.&quot; et cetera.  Would one expect &quot;Aliter&quot; to have the &quot;necessity&quot; sense here?" CreationDate="2023-11-21T13:09:28.647" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45580" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="@MikhailKatz, Not sure I get what it means the adverb &quot;&quot;Aliter&quot; to have the &quot;necessity&quot; sense here?. Do you ask if &quot;Aliter demostrandum&quot; means &quot;it must be shows in another way?&quot; Also note that &quot;demostrandum&quot; here is probably not gerundive but rather gerund (though still bears the necessary sense); My remark was about constructions where gerundive can use to signal &quot;purpose&quot;, and not such as given by this Leibniz quote.  You might try post here another question about this specific quote." CreationDate="2023-11-21T13:58:29.617" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45581" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="Yes, sorry, I was referring to &quot;Aliter demonstrandum&quot;." CreationDate="2023-11-21T14:01:52.210" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45582" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="@MikhailKatz, I can't find this quote in context in GoogleBooks. At any case, this is basically another question about a particular quote and hence I suggest to be dealt in a new question here." CreationDate="2023-11-21T14:10:38.697" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45584" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="I included such details in https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/21884/13902" CreationDate="2023-11-21T14:13:46.053" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45589" PostId="21881" Score="1" Text="Your initial statement &quot;In _Quod erat demonstrandum_ the sense of necessity can be attributed completely to the gerundive&quot; is not evident. I'd rather say that this meaning is a property of the construction _esse_ +gerundive and related ones rather than a property of the verbal adjective. See also Danesi et al (2017: 148) for a similar view: &quot;The locus of deontic modality is not attributable to any specific lexical item or category found in the construction, but rather must be attributed to the construction as a whole. That is, the GER+(NOM+)DAT construction is semantically non-compositional&quot;." CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:24:33.830" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45590" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="Here is the relevant link to Danesi et al. (2017) paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320958533_Between_the_Historical_Languages_and_the_Reconstructed_Language_An_Alternative_Approach_to_the_Gerundive_Dative_of_Agent_Construction_in_Indo-European" CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:25:00.617" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45591" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, I've included example (but then removed it from my answer) from Ovid : *cura fuit partes velare tegendas* there you have *velare partes tegendas* (*partes* cannot be in the subject because then we would expect the passive *velari*). there is no *esse* here" CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:30:25.500" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45593" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="As pointed out by Pinkster (2015: 288-290; 298-305) and Danesi et al. (2017), i.a., the deontic value cannot be assigned to the gerundive. Otherwise, one won't be able to explain why _ars carminis cantandi_ and many other examples with gerundives lack this meaning. Pinkster does not attribute this meaning to the gerundive but to _contextual_ factors: this meaning can be attributed to _esse_ +gerundive AND related constructions (see my qualification above!) like the attributive one without _esse_ (see Pinkster (2015: 289) for examples of attributive use of gerundives with deontic meaning)." CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:52:00.557" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45596" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, thanks for the references, However I'm not linguistic and hence are difficult for me. Feel free to edit my answer or post a new one. I've shown two constructions with gerundives that show the &quot;necessity&quot; lies in the gerundive and not with *esse*. Now you seem to say there are other construction with the gerundive without &quot;necessity&quot; and that points that the &quot;necessity&quot; is born of the construction. I've distinctively implied that in my my answer that the gerundive is &quot;a must&quot; but not enough by saying that &quot; This does not mean, however, that a gerundive forces a necessity&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-21T17:06:11.967" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45598" PostId="21881" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino, I created a relevant [question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21887/can-we-substantivate-gerundives)  to our discussion:" CreationDate="2023-11-21T17:52:20.450" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45599" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="I've realized that you included a link to an interesting question about when gerundives are &quot;used adjectively&quot;, i.e. attributively (I also included an answer to it). This set is not productive and, importantly for our present purposes, the gerundive _demonstrandum_  would not be included in it. Following Pinkster (2015), it makes sense to attribute the deontic value of the example at issue here to contextual factors (cf. also his ex. _mihi cautio est ne nucifrangibula excussit ex malis meis_ ‘I have to be careful that he doesn’t knock my nutcrackers out of my jaws.’ (Plaut. _Bac._ 597–8)" CreationDate="2023-11-21T18:17:45.170" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45613" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, thanks for your comments on necessity.  Perhaps you would have some insight on this related question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/21884/13902" CreationDate="2023-11-22T14:06:53.287" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45720" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="Gerundives in an attributive position don't necessarily denote necessity, so I don't think the pronounced statement is right. However, gerundives + esse do denote some type of obligation. Woodcock goes into more details and has more examples, but essentially *castris capiendis* is equal in force to *castra capiendo*, with *capiendo* being the gerund. No necessity necessary." CreationDate="2023-12-01T00:37:09.340" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45721" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Does Pinkster at all comment on the confusion between gerunds and gerundives, which historically came from two separate sources?" CreationDate="2023-12-01T00:38:15.867" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45722" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="Edit: Oh, you probably did already see [this thread](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15229/what-benefit-is-conferred-by-the-inclusion-of-a-gerundive-in-an-ablative-absolut), right?" CreationDate="2023-12-01T00:39:48.873" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45732" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="@cmw Pinkster (2015: 64) says the following: &quot;There is much discussion about the relationship between the gerund and the gerundive and about which of the two was the oldest form (see also Section 5.42). They are both found from the earliest preserved texts onwards, in varying frequency. In speculations about their prehistorical development some scholars take the gerundive as the original form, others the gerund. On the whole, the latter position seems stronger.&quot;  Unfortunately, Pinkster (2015) neglects Miller's (2000) important contribution: https://benjamins.com/catalog/dia.17.2.03mil" CreationDate="2023-12-01T21:20:42.420" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45733" PostId="21881" Score="0" Text="Bookmarking that for later. Thanks." CreationDate="2023-12-01T21:42:23.183" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45614" PostId="21882" Score="1" Text="compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum" CreationDate="2023-11-22T14:52:12.697" UserId="652" />
  <row Id="45633" PostId="21882" Score="2" Text="@AakashM Note that while that is a very famous quote, and (since we are on Stack Exchange after all) the form *nil* has found favour with various programming language designers, it's quite rare in actual Latin, and if your model is good classical prose, it's probably best to avoid it completely (in favour of *nihil*). Meaning-wise it makes no difference." CreationDate="2023-11-24T08:34:11.883" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45583" PostId="21884" Score="0" Text="This is a follow-up to a discussion here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/21880/13902" CreationDate="2023-11-21T14:11:08.957" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45588" PostId="21884" Score="2" Text="Having the complete passage or at least the surrounding sentences would be useful here." CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:17:30.950" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45594" PostId="21884" Score="0" Text="I'm not sure why you're saying (here and in your comment to Tyler's answer) that il faudrait démontrer has no aspect of necessity. It has been a number of years since I studied French, but I doubt the language has changed so much as to strip falloir of all meaning. Can you explain?" CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:58:50.710" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45597" PostId="21884" Score="0" Text="The clarification at the end seems to be asking a different question: translations (A) and (B) both have the gerundive sense, but the difference is whether *aliter* is parsed with the gerundive or not." CreationDate="2023-11-21T17:16:30.180" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45611" PostId="21884" Score="0" Text="@cnread, indeed *faudrait* has an aspect of necessity, but the question is whether the necessity is absolute or relative (to a desire to find an alternative proof).  I modified the *question* accordingly." CreationDate="2023-11-22T11:27:11.713" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45592" PostId="21885" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I saw that on the Wiki, but I'm still unsure. Might it rather be the opposite, that the longer name Hellenized the odd one? Or corrected based on the Coptic? Does the Coptic pre-date the Greek? Even if it is corrupted, it still seems fishy. Separately, I checked TLG, and Ὑξώς doesn't appear there." CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:44:10.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45643" PostId="21885" Score="1" Text="Hyksos is the name of some of the Pharao dynasties after their conquest int h17th century BC.  In the times of Herodotthe replacement of ks by  xi was not yet well established. By the total corruption of names of all the barbarians, of course, the copists didn't change a iota.  After Alexander the Hellenistc Egypt of the Ptolemaians, the county being bilingual, biliteral and  bireligous, writers had to be very careful in citing names" CreationDate="2023-11-24T23:54:50.153" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="47656" PostId="21885" Score="0" Text="Returning to this, I should also note that the Coptic's transliteration is *hekšosi*, and despite the protests of that one user, I don't see how it's closer to Ὑκουσσώς than Ὑκσώς, with the exception of the double sigma. But there's no vowel between the ⲕ and ϣ in the Coptic word. Any further thoughts on this?" CreationDate="2024-03-03T04:45:52.727" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47679" PostId="21885" Score="0" Text="@cmw: Unfortunately, I don't think I know enough about this to say anything useful." CreationDate="2024-03-05T19:54:40.637" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="45585" PostId="21886" Score="0" Text="Your answer seems to be based on your interpretation on the passage, rather than on phenomena related to gerundives.  Note that Parmentier provides a *different* translation where there is no implied necessity; I will include a quotation in my *question*." CreationDate="2023-11-21T15:49:25.550" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45586" PostId="21886" Score="1" Text="@MikhailKatz I don't speak French, but just looking at it naively the translation seems to imply necessity. Doesn't &quot;faudrait démontrer&quot; mean &quot;it should be demonstrated&quot; in French? I have added additional information on discriminating gerunds and gerundives to my answer." CreationDate="2023-11-21T16:10:53.317" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45595" PostId="21886" Score="3" Text="A quibble: the subject of the sentence is the quod clause, not the gerundive. The gerundive is in the predicate, as always for the passive periphrastic. But you're still basically correct (mutatis mutandis), in that an infinitive would be used instead of a gerund after a copula (even when, as here, that copula is ellipsed)." CreationDate="2023-11-21T17:02:25.637" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45612" PostId="21886" Score="2" Text="@cnread, you seem to have provided a summary of an answer.  Could you develop your *comment* into an *answer*?" CreationDate="2023-11-22T11:28:00.850" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45615" PostId="21886" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden,  indeed *faudrait* has an aspect of necessity, but the question is whether the necessity is absolute or relative (to a desire to find an alternative proof). I modified the question to clarify this point." CreationDate="2023-11-22T15:43:28.883" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45665" PostId="21886" Score="0" Text="@MikhailKatz, I don't think the distinction between absolute or relative necessity matters here. The gerundive can be used either way." CreationDate="2023-11-26T00:56:09.400" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="45667" PostId="21886" Score="0" Text="@Figulus, agreed, but did Leibniz mean to say that an alternative proof was necessary, or merely that, *if* one wanted an alternative proof, it would be necessary to do such-and-such?  Initially I didn't make this sufficiently clear, but the current version of the *question* does." CreationDate="2023-11-26T11:24:12.593" UserId="13902" />
  <row Id="45601" PostId="21887" Score="7" Text="Gerundives can be substantivized: e.g. _mutandis_ in the Ablative Absolute (AA) expression _mutatis mutandis_ (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15476/on-the-alleged-ambiguity-of-the-ablative-absolute-mutatis-mutandis ).  So I guess a relevant clarification here is what one should understand by &quot;we&quot; in your question (e.g. could Cicero accept _mutatis mutandis_ as an AA or, for that matter, would _cavebo cavenda_ be an acceptable shortening of _cavebo quae sunt cavenda_ for him?). Interesting question! +1!" CreationDate="2023-11-21T18:44:33.827" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45724" PostId="21887" Score="1" Text="Would you considered a periphrastic expression to be substantive? For example &quot;pradendum est&quot; (it is time for lunch)" CreationDate="2023-12-01T10:00:29.110" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45725" PostId="21887" Score="1" Text="@TylerDurden, well, I'm not sure if that technically counts, but even if it does is not quite what I'm seeking here." CreationDate="2023-12-01T11:56:20.543" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45604" PostId="21888" Score="0" Text="Often consonants like that get elided. For example, instead of adsumo sometimes you see assumo." CreationDate="2023-11-21T21:31:17.253" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45606" PostId="21888" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden That's not elision but assimilation." CreationDate="2023-11-21T22:23:27.373" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45620" PostId="21888" Score="1" Text="Also Proto-Indo-European is not reconstructed to have infinitive form of verbs. Infinitives in daughter languages developed from various nouns or adjectives (participles) related to verbs. E.g. Proto-Germanic [\*-ną](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-aną) developed from PIE \*-nóm (accusative of [\*-nós](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-nós) adjective)," CreationDate="2023-11-23T00:51:54.333" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45621" PostId="21888" Score="0" Text="Proto-Slavic [\*-ti](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/-ti) developed from PIE \*-téi̯ (dative or locative of [\*-tis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-tis) noun), Latin [*-ere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ere#Latin) (Old Latin *-esi* [-ɛzi]) and Ancient Greek [*-ειν*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ειν#Ancient_Greek) developed from variants of locative of PIE athematic [\*-os](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-os) noun," CreationDate="2023-11-23T00:53:07.533" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45623" PostId="21888" Score="0" Text="and Sanskrit [*-तुम्* (*-tum*)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-तुम्#Sanskrit) developed from PIE \*-tum (accusative of [\*-tus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-tus) noun; also ancestor of Latin *supīnum*)." CreationDate="2023-11-23T00:58:11.637" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="45616" PostId="21892" Score="1" Text="Maybe use licet instead of potest? This sounds to me like it's saying that it's impossible for anyone to interfere." CreationDate="2023-11-22T18:03:34.063" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="45617" PostId="21892" Score="1" Text="@TKR Good point! I took the original as meaning that nobody would be physically able to resist, so I went with a stronger wording. I added a note on that and a second formulation option with *licere* at the end." CreationDate="2023-11-22T21:00:26.540" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45624" PostId="21892" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: Thank you. You have used the adjective!! In my very first attempt at this I wrote, &quot;rem imperialem facio...&quot;--&quot;I'm doing/on imperial business...&quot;; then, thinking about e.g. &quot;his friend&quot;, expreesed with a genitive, &quot;amicus eius&quot;--&quot;friend of him&quot;, I plumped for genitive-of-noun, &quot;imperii&quot;." CreationDate="2023-11-23T08:36:52.193" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45625" PostId="21892" Score="2" Text="@tony As a broad rule, I would say that Latin uses an adjective rather than a genitive more often than English whenever such an adjective exists. In some situations there's no adjective (like your *eius*). The verb *facio* doesn't work either. I haven't thought of anything better than *fungor*. The *negotium* could well be *munus* instead." CreationDate="2023-11-23T10:37:09.380" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45632" PostId="21892" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Georges has no better ideas than *res, negotium* and *causa*. *Res* is boring and *causa* too suggestive of legal proceedings, so I think *negotium* really fits best here." CreationDate="2023-11-24T08:20:58.737" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45626" PostId="21893" Score="0" Text="Maybe something like _esse scribens_? I'm not sure if that's grammatical or idiomatic, though." CreationDate="2023-11-23T16:06:23.127" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="45627" PostId="21893" Score="1" Text="I'm not native in English, but this, I think, is not just an infinitive. Here, _`to'_ works alone as a preposition: music to be written. I think what you need is a [gerundive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive). Perhaps something in the line of **erit adhuc scribenda musica**." CreationDate="2023-11-23T18:56:59.377" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45628" PostId="21893" Score="0" Text="@Rafael, it is interesting suggestion, but I'm not sure it is accurate. gerundives usually have the sense of obligation, and one could hence interpret this as &quot;music that should/must be written&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-23T19:57:34.573" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45629" PostId="21893" Score="2" Text="@Rafael: I'd do it much like that but using supererit instead of erit (cf. Lucan BC 2.656–8: sed Caesar in omnia praeceps, / nil actum credens cum quid superesset agendum, / instat atrox..., '...believing nothing done when something still remains to be done....'). The use of the compound of esse would make it clear that the construction isn't passive periphrastic." CreationDate="2023-11-23T23:28:53.993" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45631" PostId="21893" Score="0" Text="I think the answer will depend on how one interprets the lyrics. It could also be &quot;I would still have music that I could write,&quot; and I'd lean towards that interpretation (even though the song goes on &quot;what else could I do&quot; ). In that case, maybe one could write &quot;iam restet musica, quam scribam&quot;? Not sure if that works." CreationDate="2023-11-24T08:09:13.723" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47100" PostId="21893" Score="0" Text="I doubt if **musica** is appropriate for *music* in this sentence. **Musica** means the art of music, according to dictionaries I have, instead of musical works which can be left to *write*" CreationDate="2024-01-06T03:21:56.257" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="45630" PostId="21896" Score="2" Text="Is something like *scribenda supersunt* attested? The gerundive sounds like the best option, but I don't recall seeing it with verbs like this." CreationDate="2023-11-24T05:59:29.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45648" PostId="21896" Score="0" Text="Draconis, I don't think you are right when saying that the gerundive literally means &quot;that needs to be written&quot;. The deontic value is not associated to the verbal adjective and much less in these cases, i.e. when the gerundive is a predicative one (see Pinkster 2015: 298-300, 1st volume of his Oxford Latin Syntax). The deontic value is associated to the construction with _sum_ (see Danesi et al 2017) and to some of its non-productive attributive uses (but not to its predicative uses, except with _habere_)." CreationDate="2023-11-25T12:56:27.700" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45649" PostId="21896" Score="1" Text="For example, see Danesi et al (2017: 148): &quot;The locus of deontic modality is not attributable to any specific lexical item or category found in the construction, but rather must be attributed to the  construction as a whole. That is, the GER+(NOM+)DAT construction is semantically non-compositional&quot; &#xA;Cf. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320958533_Between_the_Historical_Languages_and_the_Reconstructed_Language_An_Alternative_Approach_to_the_Gerundive_Dative_of_Agent_Construction_in_Indo-European" CreationDate="2023-11-25T13:04:02.517" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45634" PostId="21898" Score="0" Text="Hi Charo, I think the above linked question suffices as an answer also to your question. If you don't think so, let us know why not. We technically have a formal process to go through for resource requests." CreationDate="2023-11-24T15:28:56.830" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45635" PostId="21898" Score="0" Text="@cmw:  I've seen this question and its answers, but the level of knowledge of Latin I'm asking it's not the same. In addition, some of the links in the websites linked in its answers doesn't work." CreationDate="2023-11-24T15:56:47.250" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45636" PostId="21898" Score="0" Text="Can you explain why? The more details you have, the better. Resource requests typically go through [this meta thread](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/188/request-for-most-needed-resource-questions), since otherwise opinion answers are off-topic on StackExchange." CreationDate="2023-11-24T15:58:26.293" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45637" PostId="21898" Score="0" Text="OK, @cmw: I've edited my question." CreationDate="2023-11-24T16:17:30.033" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45652" PostId="21898" Score="0" Text="I've kicked it to the other moderators to weigh in. It still feels niche and opinion-based to me, but let's see what others say." CreationDate="2023-11-25T15:58:43.927" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45700" PostId="21898" Score="1" Text="@Charo This question seems to ask for a long list of recommendations, as there is no unique answer. For list questions like this, the procedure is to propose it in the meta question cmw linked to. In it's current form the question can be reopened by users voting to reopen but the moderators will probably not vote either way. // Also, I recommend being flexible with your material. Now that you've advanced a bit, you should try different things, like grammars and original texts and stuff that may turn out a little too challenging. I wouldn't keep it too rigid." CreationDate="2023-11-30T05:37:52.137" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45638" PostId="21899" Score="2" Text="Typically Latin seems to use phrases with, for example, *solutus, vacuus, expers* or *carens*." CreationDate="2023-11-24T18:15:17.667" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45639" PostId="21899" Score="2" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Care to write that into an answer? It'd make a useful one, even without expanding." CreationDate="2023-11-24T18:26:44.863" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45641" PostId="21899" Score="3" Text="As a sort of follow-up to Sebastian Koppehel's suggestion, the phrasing in *In Verrem* actio 2, 4.148 suggests that Cicero would use *nudus ac desertus* for this: ecce autem nova turba atque rixa, ne tamen istum omnino Syracusis sine amicis, sine hospitibus, plane nudum esse ac desertum putetis!" CreationDate="2023-11-24T22:48:32.710" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45644" PostId="21899" Score="0" Text="@cnread Like Spaniards whould use *sin amigos* for this?" CreationDate="2023-11-25T06:16:31.953" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45661" PostId="21899" Score="0" Text="I think that *inemicus* may work" CreationDate="2023-11-25T22:57:50.740" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45662" PostId="21899" Score="0" Text="@Dolphínus If you can argue why (is it attested, is there a good analogy to support it, is there a risk if confusion, and so on), that'd make an answer. My first reaction is that I would badly misinterpret that word if it came without explanation." CreationDate="2023-11-25T23:00:41.090" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45663" PostId="21899" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta my analogy is inermis, everything else I have no idea. Which actually makes my suggestion in inemicis" CreationDate="2023-11-25T23:01:36.820" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45664" PostId="21899" Score="1" Text="@Dolphínus See the discussion about *inimicus* in the question. The risk of confusion is pretty bad. But the example of *inermis* would make a good addition to the list of prefixes." CreationDate="2023-11-25T23:04:28.207" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45666" PostId="21899" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta So do yo think that Spaniards shoud not have both the words *Invisible* and *Invencible*? they get confounded a lot by children." CreationDate="2023-11-26T05:24:14.770" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45642" PostId="21900" Score="3" Text="Just a linguistic comment on your interesting question. Verb particle constructions like the one exemplified in the title are typically found in Germanic languages (in contrast, Romance languages typically lack them). Unlike Romance languages, Germanic languages and Latin typically (but not always!) express directionality/result not in the verbal root but in the &quot;satellite&quot;, i.e. a particle in English and a prefix in Latin (both languages are classified as &quot;satellite-framed languages&quot;). For a related question, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11118/laughing-our-heads-off-in-latin" CreationDate="2023-11-24T22:56:22.430" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45645" PostId="21900" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Therefore, will this translation require a directional prefix e.g. &quot;-in&quot; (&quot;-ir&quot;) and a requisite dative indirect object? Something like, &quot;tuo oculo inperdes&quot;--&quot;you will direct loss/destruction to your eye&quot;, Is this correct?" CreationDate="2023-11-25T09:44:27.867" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45646" PostId="21900" Score="0" Text="@tony To the extent that Talmy's typology applies here (which could not be the case. Same for my examples in the link above), the expected pattern in Latin would be something like &quot;Subject _ex_-verb Direct Object&quot;. Cf. _[Serpentes] putamina ex-tussiunt_ ‘Snakes cough the egg shells out.’ (Plin. Nat. 10, 197). Your connection between preverbs and datives is relevant for other cases (cf. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds ). So the literal translation given by the OP is more relevant. However, his pertinent point is whether a more idiomatic counterpart can exist in Latin." CreationDate="2023-11-25T12:09:21.157" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45651" PostId="21903" Score="1" Text="I see... I thought that the meaning of &quot;tantum&quot; was &quot;only&quot; and qualified &quot;octō sēstertiīs&quot;." CreationDate="2023-11-25T15:11:33.833" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45654" PostId="21903" Score="3" Text="@Charo That seems to be the key to the confusion, then. Here *tantum* is masculine singular accusative of an adjective." CreationDate="2023-11-25T16:04:33.233" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45676" PostId="21903" Score="1" Text="@Charo **Tantum** for *only* usually goes right behind the phrase expressing the limit (here **octo sestertiis**), or at least close to it, if in a non-poetic context." CreationDate="2023-11-27T13:25:52.300" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="45653" PostId="21904" Score="4" Text="*Res* is feminine, *impossibile* is neuter. Other than that, though, I don't think it's a meaningful distinction to make in general." CreationDate="2023-11-25T16:02:25.383" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45655" PostId="21904" Score="1" Text="Agree with @Cairnarvon -- what difference does it make whether we call it a substantivized adjective or an adjective used substantively?" CreationDate="2023-11-25T16:40:56.973" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45658" PostId="21905" Score="3" Text="Perhaps I'm wrong--but I would read your sample sentence as a pretty standard predicative adjective, not a substantivized adjective." CreationDate="2023-11-25T17:45:22.033" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45659" PostId="21905" Score="1" Text="@brianpck maybe there is a better example" CreationDate="2023-11-25T17:47:52.367" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45677" PostId="21905" Score="0" Text="I would hesitate to say it is either one of the OP's alternatives, though. A substantivized adjective is arguably not a derivative but the adjective itself, and it could also be seen as having an omitted noun (not _res_ but a neuter one)..." CreationDate="2023-11-27T13:31:52.270" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45656" PostId="21907" Score="2" Text="[This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) explains the counting and month naming issues if anyone is confused." CreationDate="2023-11-25T17:42:22.617" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45657" PostId="21907" Score="2" Text="So, would that be the fifth or the sixth day before the Kalends?" CreationDate="2023-11-25T17:42:24.060" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45660" PostId="21907" Score="2" Text="@TylerDurden the fourth: 31 (pridie) - 30 (a. d. III.) - 29 (IV) - 28 (V)." CreationDate="2023-11-25T17:57:38.830" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45671" PostId="21908" Score="1" Text="Related: [Both &quot;fēmina&quot; and &quot;mulier&quot; mean &quot;woman&quot;: what's the difference?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/19476/11674)" CreationDate="2023-11-26T23:49:52.650" UserId="11674" />
  <row Id="45668" PostId="21909" Score="5" Text="Would it be fair to say that the difference between _masculus_ and _vir_ is similar to the difference between the English words _male_ and _man_?" CreationDate="2023-11-26T15:34:17.850" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="45681" PostId="21909" Score="2" Text="@Adam that's along the right lines, though &quot;man&quot; has too many shades of meaning in English to really highlight the difference. However the adjective &quot;manly&quot; and phrases like &quot;real man&quot; still carry the sense intended by &quot;vir&quot;." CreationDate="2023-11-27T16:17:17.383" UserId="14424" />
  <row Id="45673" PostId="21910" Score="1" Text="Graves stated that Claudius wrote the two books through him (Graves). It's hard to believe but considering the detail and the powerful pro-Claudius narrative (politician; statesman; judge; historian; war-leader) one wonders." CreationDate="2023-11-27T09:31:21.843" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45670" PostId="21911" Score="1" Text="Smith &amp; Hall actually has an entry for &quot;bookish,&quot; though I doubt you'll [find it helpful] (https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh2814)." CreationDate="2023-11-26T23:16:39.070" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45672" PostId="21911" Score="3" Text="I don't think it's exactly what you're looking for, since it doesn't cover the lack of social skills aspect of bookishness, but one place to look may be the speech that Sallust has Marius deliver in §85 or thereabouts of the Bellum Jugurthinum. There's definitely a contrast drawn at some point between the corrupt and feckless nobles, who have fancy book learning, and Marius, who has practical knowledge of military affairs, born of experience. Whether he uses, in a negative way, any of the exact adjectives that Asteroides has identified below – or others – I don't recall. Just a thought." CreationDate="2023-11-27T05:33:40.080" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45678" PostId="21911" Score="1" Text="Perhaps related: a question about the translation of [nerd](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1600/was-there-a-word-which-meant-roughly-the-same-thing-as-nerd-or-geek-does-tod). *graeculus* and *inconcinnus* were two of the top options." CreationDate="2023-11-27T15:23:59.540" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45686" PostId="21914" Score="3" Text="Note that if it were not neuter, it would be *vellerem* (e.g. *Romani Venerem colebant*)." CreationDate="2023-11-28T09:42:42.223" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45688" PostId="21914" Score="0" Text="Follow up question to that comment: Are there third declension masculine or feminine nouns (_not_ neuter) with nom. sing. ending in _-us_?" CreationDate="2023-11-29T07:24:37.283" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="45693" PostId="21914" Score="2" Text="@NicolasMiari Sebastian lists one: *Venus*." CreationDate="2023-11-29T13:43:04.457" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45712" PostId="21914" Score="0" Text="Shouldn’t Colchidae in the second to last sentence be Colcihdis?" CreationDate="2023-11-30T22:34:29.200" UserId="11592" />
  <row Id="45713" PostId="21914" Score="0" Text="@Patricius It does seem to be an error. Google Books doesn't allow me to access the link, so I don't know if it's Munguía's error or what." CreationDate="2023-11-30T22:48:16.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45699" PostId="21919" Score="0" Text="My error with this sentence came from the thought that hōc was a pronoun before an antecedent without the notion that it could be a demonstrative adjective before tempore." CreationDate="2023-11-30T05:30:40.033" UserId="10273" />
  <row Id="45706" PostId="21925" Score="3" Text="not relevant to the Q, but *paucorum* probably goes not with *decus* but with the dative *potentiae* (to the power of few): =&gt; *gratificari libertatem suam potentiae paucorum* = to surrender/sacrifice one's freedom to the power of a few;; Loeb reads: &quot;Moreover, to struggle in vain and to gain nothing by wearisome exertion except hatred is the height of insanity—unless, by chance, one is possessed by a dishonorable and pernicious passion to put one’s honor and personal freedom at the service of a few powerful men&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-30T16:32:20.987" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45775" PostId="21925" Score="1" Text="Interesting question! +1! I've just revised my answer to a related question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1144/when-can-the-gerund-take-an-object/14037#14037 ). As noted by Sebastian Koppehel, it's very difficult to determine whether we have a Gerund+reflexive accusative or a Gerundive in Ablative. Considering the statistics shown in my answer (see the Sal(lustius) column in the figure copied there), if I was forced to choose, I'd go for the former here." CreationDate="2023-12-03T21:32:19.713" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45826" PostId="21925" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Thank you. I found this quote, &quot;...fatigando...&quot;, in your Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/16653/1982." CreationDate="2023-12-09T12:11:49.277" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="46889" PostId="21925" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Here's an example of a gerundive functioning as a gerund, in the accusative, while still agreeing...&quot;habendam fortunae gratiam&quot; = &quot;having the friendship of fortune&quot;, (Caes. de Bel. Civili 3.73.3)." CreationDate="2023-12-15T09:41:10.797" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="46895" PostId="21925" Score="0" Text="@tony I've just taken a look at this text from Caesar. Here _habendam_ is not functioning as a gerund but rather as a gerundive plus _esse_ (cf. the so-called &quot;passive periphrastic&quot; with the gerundive): i.e. _gratiam_ is the subject of _habendam (esse)_." CreationDate="2023-12-15T19:11:35.633" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45705" PostId="21926" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I was expecting to be shot down in flames on this one: something like--I should know how to distinguish between these two species, by now! If yourself cannot be definite about it, I feel a whole lot better!" CreationDate="2023-11-30T16:20:26.697" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45707" PostId="21926" Score="3" Text="Yes, I think there's no way to say for sure. Just a sampling of the surrounding few paragraphs turned up 'studium meum laudando' (4.2) and 'ostentando virtutem' (7.2), two gerunds + acc. object; but also 'ad explendam animi cupidinem' (6.3) and 'de administrando imperio' (11.5), two gerundives. I'm not aware of any systematic analysis of Sallust's use of gerunds/gerundives, though I wouldn't be suprised to learn that someone did one at some point. Perhaps the gerundive is more common when prepositions are involved? Yet it wouldn't surprise me to find that Sallust dashes even that expectation." CreationDate="2023-11-30T17:16:24.090" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45714" PostId="21926" Score="2" Text="@cnread Allen &amp; Greenough write: “The gerund with a direct object is practically limited to the genitive and the ablative (without a preposition); even in these cases the gerundive is commoner.” Assuming Sallust knew his A &amp; G, his gerundives could not have been gerunds. Put differently, one could say in the surrounding text Sallust used a gerund + acc. (as opposed to a gerundive) *wherever possible*, which is remarkable." CreationDate="2023-11-30T23:05:33.657" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45776" PostId="21926" Score="0" Text="@cnread As for your questions, I hope you will find this answer useful: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1144/when-can-the-gerund-take-an-object/14037#14037 In fact, I've just decided to revise it, in part after reading the present question, answer, and comments. By the way, this sentence from Sallust is also interesting for the use of the infinitive _gratificari_ (cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16653/why-is-the-infinitive-used-instead-of-a-genitive-gerund-e-g-consilium-ceperun )." CreationDate="2023-12-03T21:47:50.833" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45778" PostId="21926" Score="0" Text="Somehow, *se* pushes me into gerund territory, but I don't know why." CreationDate="2023-12-05T00:22:22.790" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="45708" PostId="21928" Score="0" Text="Still does not solve my problem with *esse bonus*" CreationDate="2023-11-30T18:32:22.767" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45709" PostId="21928" Score="2" Text="@Dolphínus I'm not sure how much more explicit he can be than by telling you than *audes esse* means &quot;dare to be&quot;" CreationDate="2023-11-30T18:36:55.610" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45710" PostId="21928" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I am a true idiot" CreationDate="2023-11-30T19:58:38.860" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45711" PostId="21928" Score="0" Text="This adapted form of the sentence is from Wheelock's Latin (just FYI)." CreationDate="2023-11-30T21:39:46.650" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45734" PostId="21932" Score="0" Text="It seems to me that the clause about Averroes is given as an example of one who might dare, rather than he being the subject itself. &quot;There is he who might dare to say something more amazing, as our leader Averroes when he asserts...&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-02T00:05:09.433" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45735" PostId="21932" Score="0" Text="There is also tense-change to imperfect from present. However the subjunctive remains, not sure about Mediaeval Latin, but in classical I think if the statement refers to a known entity, it should use the indicative... though maybe subj is rhetoric?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T09:06:16.730" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45743" PostId="21933" Score="0" Text="The tags on this site should be in English or Latin. You seem to have created a new tag which is neither. Can you switch it to English, or, preferably, replace it with an existing tag?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:30:42.960" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45745" PostId="21933" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta how you say technik in latin?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:41:31.117" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45746" PostId="21933" Score="0" Text="And by the way it is preexisting tag, not existing tag." CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:43:12.600" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45750" PostId="21933" Score="0" Text="Put it in English, not Latin. English is our primary language and Latin is the secondary one." CreationDate="2023-12-02T19:33:17.363" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45751" PostId="21933" Score="1" Text="Could you also edit the question to explain what the German word means? Not everyone here speaks German. You don't need an English translation if one doesn't exist, but you can always explain the meaning in English. Is it &quot;fellow mathematician&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T19:34:18.463" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45744" PostId="21936" Score="3" Text="It's a deponens." CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:36:36.000" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45757" PostId="21936" Score="0" Text="Thank you! Just this afternoon I was wondering whether there are any deponent verbs that have accusative objects, and I couldn't immediately think of an example :)" CreationDate="2023-12-02T22:37:16.330" UserId="14448" />
  <row Id="45747" PostId="21937" Score="0" Text="I thought populo populare was a transitive verb. But I guess there is a deponent form." CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:47:26.863" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="45748" PostId="21937" Score="0" Text="@TylerDurden I added a comment: some authors (including Vergil!) also use the corresponding non-deponent form for this verb." CreationDate="2023-12-02T18:54:25.700" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45749" PostId="21938" Score="2" Text="Note that &quot;stehet&quot; for &quot;steht&quot; is technically not wrong, only poetic ;-) But are you learning German and Latin in parallel?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T19:27:34.920" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45752" PostId="21940" Score="1" Text="I don't think that I get the tense of *iunxerunt* wrong, but I get the tense of *had joined* wrong. Check my original attempt in Spanish. That aside what is not *Cireronem* an genitive?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T21:02:04.943" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45753" PostId="21940" Score="1" Text="@Dolphínus *Ciceronem* is accusative: *Ciceronis* is genitive. Concerning your translation, &quot;han juntado&quot; is equivalent to English &quot;*have* (not *had*) joined.&quot; You should have &quot;habían apreciado&quot; (=&quot;had appreciated&quot;) for the pluperfect." CreationDate="2023-12-02T21:10:25.183" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45754" PostId="21940" Score="0" Text="*dilexerunt* = &quot;han apreciado&quot;; *dilexerant* = &quot;habían apreciado&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-02T21:13:00.277" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45755" PostId="21940" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Can made it in an answer?" CreationDate="2023-12-02T21:14:44.440" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45756" PostId="21940" Score="0" Text="@brianpck also, I am sure that a verbatim translation of *dilexerant* would make it an Spanish sentence with a clear meaning that they stopped to appreciate Cicero in the past." CreationDate="2023-12-02T21:19:12.290" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45759" PostId="21942" Score="0" Text="My worries was in it being a nested genitive." CreationDate="2023-12-03T12:29:25.740" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45758" PostId="21943" Score="0" Text="ars means everything, artistic and technical." CreationDate="2023-12-03T12:16:32.250" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45760" PostId="21943" Score="3" Text="Your link doesn't say *musica* was a branch of mathematics, but it does say it's one of the liberal **arts**. It doesn't use the actual Latin term *artes liberales*, but the linked article for [liberal arts education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education) does. That said, your definition of *scientia* isn't Classical but Medieval; I actually don't know if your opposition between *ars* and *scientia* is even Medieval. Where did you get it?" CreationDate="2023-12-03T12:54:32.363" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45761" PostId="21943" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon I can't remember the first time I encountered it, but &quot;artes et scientias&quot; has about 10k hits in Latin on Google" CreationDate="2023-12-03T13:03:17.410" UserDisplayName="user13971" />
  <row Id="45763" PostId="21943" Score="2" Text="One important point that Cairnarvon makes that renders this question impossible to answer is that you didn't narrow down your time: are you talking about Classical Latin or Medieval Latin? An answer one gives for one won't necessarily be the same for the other. If you thinking purely of &quot;artes et scientiae&quot;, that could apply to people who don't know any Latin at all just using the terms because of the modern English &quot;arts and sciences&quot; in the US university system." CreationDate="2023-12-03T16:40:00.227" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45765" PostId="21944" Score="0" Text="The interesting translation you give of _populabantur_ 'they were engaged in devastating' has reminded me of Francesco Pinzin's (2018) definition/classification of this denominal verb (his  PhD thesis is downloadable at http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/12877/956151-1197504.pdf ). See page 121: The nominative argument is in control of the event (it is a 'doer') but, in order to justify the middle morphology, Pinzin _adds_ the following: this nominative argument is _also_ &quot;the benefactive of a stative event in which another argument (marked by Accusative case) is involved&quot;." CreationDate="2023-12-03T18:10:09.257" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45766" PostId="21944" Score="0" Text="By the way, when dealing with Latin deponent verbs, one thing I've always found intriguing is why the most productive set of them consists of denominal and deadjectival verbs (see page 119 and passim)." CreationDate="2023-12-03T18:13:56.473" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45769" PostId="21944" Score="2" Text="Surely the Loeb translation is merely rendering the imperfective aspect of the tense, and it has nothing to do with the verb's being deponent? There are different ways of rendering this aspect for a past imperfect verb form: 'they were xing,' 'they were in the process of xing,' 'they xed (regularly/habitually),' and even 'they began xing' and 'they tried xing.' Your translation is just a variant of the 'they were in the process of xing' pattern. After all, I could just as easily – and, I would maintain, validly – translate the nondeponent populabant as 'They were engaged in devastating.'" CreationDate="2023-12-03T20:15:51.737" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45772" PostId="21944" Score="0" Text="@cnread  You're quite right but don't get me wrong. I've just noted that this translation (&quot;engaged in&quot;) has _reminded_ me of Pinzin's (2018: 121) classification of the verb _populor_, in particular his non-trivial/non-obvious point: &quot;_the benefactive of a stative event_ in which another argument (marked by Accusative case) is involved&quot; (italics mine)." CreationDate="2023-12-03T20:25:13.560" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45773" PostId="21944" Score="0" Text="@cnread This clarified, it is indeed interesting to see how different languages use _locative_ structures to express progressive aspect (e.g. see Section 1 of this article: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cwpil/1132256Xv7/1132256Xv7p159.pdf )." CreationDate="2023-12-03T20:31:23.903" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45777" PostId="21944" Score="2" Text="&quot;To prove otherwise, you would have to show an example of populo used passively, which I could not find.&quot; -- Lewis &amp; Short list several instances (no finite forms, mostly part. perf., which is typical, e.g. *commentus* = &quot;invented&quot;). I do think the whole example &quot;agros populabantur&quot; is a good demonstration of the truth in the formula &quot;active meaning, passive form.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-03T23:52:12.210" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45768" PostId="21946" Score="1" Text="&quot;Themself have not been able&quot; This isn't grammatical in English." CreationDate="2023-12-03T20:05:47.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45770" PostId="21946" Score="0" Text="@cmw That is my English, very basic." CreationDate="2023-12-03T20:18:11.113" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45780" PostId="21950" Score="1" Text="Why use both, &quot;per se&quot; = &quot;through themselves&quot; and &quot;sibi&quot; = &quot;for themselves&quot;, in the same clause?" CreationDate="2023-12-05T09:42:29.083" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45781" PostId="21950" Score="1" Text="@tony I'm lacking technical terminology, but _per se_ = for who they are, and _sibi carus_ = esteemed to themselves. **Carus** is an adjective, and in you are **carus** (~loved) _to_ someone, since love is subjective." CreationDate="2023-12-05T11:33:16.817" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45792" PostId="21950" Score="0" Text="@Rafael I think that's right. Aristotle discusses this when he talks about friendship (*philia*). Someone can be &quot;dear to me&quot; because of their utility or pleasure. In that case they would be dear to me, but not *for their own sake*." CreationDate="2023-12-05T17:27:56.180" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45795" PostId="21950" Score="0" Text="@brianpck and all: I messed up writing that comment. I meant &quot;in _Latin_ you _can be_ carus _to_ someone&quot;. I was correcting a previous version and left it unfinished." CreationDate="2023-12-05T20:02:10.060" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45782" PostId="21953" Score="2" Text="Two questions: (1) Why this list of six? You're missing, for instance, &quot;NOR,&quot; and you mix 1-input (NOT) and 2-input (the rest) logic gates; (2) Are you looking for Latin-derived names that would be used in an English textbook? Your final question about Caesar makes me think that you want a translation into Latin of the whole concept--but your attempts include an English word (&quot;gate&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-12-05T14:19:53.417" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45783" PostId="21953" Score="0" Text="@brianpck (1) nor is just a multi entry not, and of the 8 possible symmetric two-entry gates, only 6 are meaningful the other two are the always on and the always off. (2) I did not take the time to translate the gate part." CreationDate="2023-12-05T15:31:53.577" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="46938" PostId="21953" Score="0" Text="The N in NAND just stands for NOT, so NAND is just NOT AND.  The same goes for NOR and NXOR. So I want to suggest you use &quot;porta negata&quot; or something for all of these functions." CreationDate="2023-12-19T10:40:04.333" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="45788" PostId="21954" Score="0" Text="I have a secondary goal of establish the technical names in a more well seen language (at least for me) than english" CreationDate="2023-12-05T15:59:02.790" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45789" PostId="21954" Score="1" Text="@Dolphínus For a point of comparison, Finnish is way further from English than Spanish is, and we still use the English gate names. The abbreviations don't even have to mean anything to a Finn; **they are names rather than words**. As a scientist, I think it makes for genuinely better communication to not change the names. Many readers will encounter these things in many languages and universal notation helps a lot. Also, establishing new nomenclature is very, very hard; it's unlikely to stick." CreationDate="2023-12-05T16:05:18.250" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45790" PostId="21954" Score="1" Text="It sticks in someone that hates English like me." CreationDate="2023-12-05T16:13:03.403" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45797" PostId="21954" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Well, let me introduce you to [Fonction ET](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonction_ET), Fonction OU and all their cousins ;-)" CreationDate="2023-12-06T00:22:40.320" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45798" PostId="21954" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Intéressant ! The different language options on Wikipedia are about half English and half other. But I'm sure the choice depends on context; I tend to see more scientific than popular presentations, and that probably biases me towards Anglicisms." CreationDate="2023-12-06T02:52:42.807" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45799" PostId="21954" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta And by the way I hate ad infinitum anglicisms." CreationDate="2023-12-06T03:44:43.527" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45802" PostId="21954" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, Joonas, Dolphínus: FWIW in Spanish I've seen them taught in English and Spanish, depending on context. In electrical engineering they are nearly always in English, in mathematics/logic their equivalent is more prone to Spanish or maybe to both languages." CreationDate="2023-12-06T14:54:27.550" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="46937" PostId="21954" Score="0" Text="Also in Soviet-era literature, the names of these functions are so far as I've seen normally in Russian. They are called ИЛИ, И, НЕ, and so on. And they have native-language names for other national languages of the USSR like Estonian, but of course I can't say which is more common in Estonian." CreationDate="2023-12-19T10:30:32.187" UserId="1577" />
  <row Id="45791" PostId="21955" Score="3" Text="Is your question about the difference between *stagnum* and *lacuna* (in your title) or the most appropriate Latin term for the pools in your photos? I haven't thought too hard about it but it may well be those questions have different answers (especially for an obviously man-made pool like in your first photo)." CreationDate="2023-12-05T17:12:42.230" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45804" PostId="21955" Score="1" Text="Well, knowing the difference between both terms requires a prior definition of both nouns, which allows to infer the appropriate noun for the image." CreationDate="2023-12-06T17:34:07.313" UserId="9507" />
  <row Id="45805" PostId="21959" Score="0" Text="Two things: (1) Are you sure *amplius* has a temporal sense? I read *non amplius* as saying that they won't go any further than they currently do--not that they will cease altogether. (2) I think *misereatur* should take the genitive: *misereatur tui*." CreationDate="2023-12-06T18:54:05.833" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45807" PostId="21959" Score="0" Text="@brianpck (1) &quot;Comp.: amplĭus , more, longer, further, besides (syn.: ultra, praeterea); of time, number, and action&quot; (L&amp;S), cf. Act 13:34 &quot;Quod autem suscitavit eum a mortuis, amplius jam non reversurum in corruptionem&quot;, Hbr 10:17 &quot;iniquitatum eorum jam non recordabor amplius&quot;. (2) You're right, gen. is the best case. Fixed. I think this is not the first time I do this. L&amp;S cites the use with _acc._ as _dub._, FWIW, the CVG has instances of [misereor] + in + abl., and of course there is _miserere nobis_. (L&amp;S also cites the use of abl.)" CreationDate="2023-12-06T19:30:05.203" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45808" PostId="21959" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the references! Now I'm curious. Regarding the Vulgate references, it's interesting that Jerome also adds *iam*: it wouldn't sound quite right without the extra adverb (and in Greek it's just *[mek]eti*). Regarding L&amp;S, it's true that *amplius* can mean &quot;for more time,&quot; but I'm not sure what the force of *non amplius* is: it sounds strange to say, &quot;Caesar non amplius est in Gallia.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-06T19:43:30.773" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="45810" PostId="21959" Score="1" Text="@brianpck I see your point. I felt *iam* didn't sound just right with the si+subj. clause (I know, this is absolutely opinion-based). Besides, iam seems optional (emphatic?). There are instances in the CVG w/o iam: e.g., Gn 44:23, &quot;Nisi venerit frater vester minimus vobiscum, non videbitis amplius faciem meam&quot;, Act 8:39 &quot;Cum autem ascendissent de aqua, Spiritus Domini rapuit Philippum, et amplius non vidit eum eunuchus&quot;, Ps 87:6 &quot;sicut vulnerati dormientes in sepulchris, quorum non es memor amplius&quot;. See [my CVG search](https://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch?searchtext=amplius)" CreationDate="2023-12-06T20:02:28.317" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45812" PostId="21959" Score="0" Text="It seems to me that when people say 'God help you' in such contexts, they typically mean just, in archaic terms, 'woe to you.' I can't feeling that the use of auxiliare or adiuvare here is unnecessary, and that a simple vae tibi or the like would be more appropriate. Though perhaps OP wants something more literal." CreationDate="2023-12-06T21:18:20.977" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45815" PostId="21959" Score="0" Text="@cnread væ tibi (Sp. _¡ay de ti!_) is actually a good alternative if the reference to good is just rhetoric." CreationDate="2023-12-06T23:51:08.270" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="45818" PostId="21961" Score="0" Text="forgot, god in singular must be perserved" CreationDate="2023-12-07T05:02:42.240" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45819" PostId="21961" Score="2" Text="@Dolphínus That requirement is already fulfilled by the first variation offered in this answer. Also, I have to add: Please put more thought into your questions. I've seen it happen several times that someone answers your question and then you comment saying that there was another constraint that you didn't mention in the original question. Moving targets are very frustrating to those who try to help." CreationDate="2023-12-07T14:55:31.320" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45834" PostId="21964" Score="1" Text="These examples are really interesting! By the way, did you find similar examples in Cicero? For example, Pinkster, in his _Oxford Latin Syntax_ (see p. 1258, vol. I, 2015), gives this example from this author: _Stultitiam autem et timiditatem et iniustitiam et intemperantiam cum dicimus esse fugienda_ (Cic. _Fin._ 3.39). Pinkster states that in this example &quot;_fugienda_ is substantival: ‘things to be avoided’&quot; (p. 1258) but I do not think this is a good example of substantivation of a gerundive. Your examples are indeed clearer." CreationDate="2023-12-09T23:53:27.190" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45836" PostId="21964" Score="1" Text="@Mitomino, I didn't find from Cicero. there were two examples that I rejected: 1) *ut duo genera propter se expetendorum reperiantur*.(I think *expetendorum* is masculine look at context from above. 2) *sed et alia timenda sunt ab aliisque et ab hoc ipso quae dantur* (here I think *alia* is the subs.)... But I merely skimmed the results I could have missed many but I don't think I missed too much. I hoped to find example from Cicero but didn;t." CreationDate="2023-12-10T06:27:57.390" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45837" PostId="21964" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, I can't see why Pinkster says this *fugienda* is &quot;substantival&quot; (maybe I have in mind another definition of substantival), it really looks that *stultita, et... et intemperantia* are the subjects... i.e., those are the things to be avoided." CreationDate="2023-12-10T06:36:06.167" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45846" PostId="21964" Score="0" Text="Many thanks for this interesting example from Cicero: _ut duo genera propter se expetendorum reperiantur_.  As for Pinkster's example, there's some debate in the literature as to how one must understand cases that involve, e.g., a coordination of feminine subjects having a neuter predicate. The easy/traditional explanation is to say the the latter is substantival. Cf. also _Ni virtus fidesque vostra satis spectata mihi forent, nequiquam opportuna res cecidisset_ (Sall. _Cat._ 20.2).  Cf. the somewhat unexpected pl. neuter form _spectata_ with the expected pl. fem. form _spectatae_." CreationDate="2023-12-10T20:11:40.883" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="46903" PostId="21964" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino: Why do you dislike, &quot;fugienda&quot;, in this context: &quot;things-to-be-avoided&quot;, reads as valid as the other examples e.g. &quot;skilled in the avoiding and the seeking&quot; = &quot;peritus fugiendorum ac petendorum&quot;--gerundives (in oblique cases functioning as gerunds i.e. as verbal-nouns i.e. substantives [nouns)]. I was uncomfortable with, &quot;fortitudo contemptrix timendorum est&quot; = &quot;strength despises fear&quot;; lit. &quot;the despiser of the fearings by strength&quot;. Is &quot;the fearings&quot; a good example of a substantive?" CreationDate="2023-12-16T10:20:32.540" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="46908" PostId="21964" Score="1" Text="@tony Yes, I think that _timendorum_ in Seneca's example is a very good example of a substantivation of a gerundive. In contrast, _fugienda_ in Pinkster's (2015: 1258) example does not necessarily involve substantivation since its neuter gender could be attributed to the following semantic agreement rule pointed out by Dirk Panhuis (2006: 102): &quot;Inanimate subjects with various abstract feminine subjects may have a neuter plural predicate&quot; (cf. also Sallust's example above)." CreationDate="2023-12-16T16:59:15.363" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="46909" PostId="21964" Score="0" Text="@tony See the relevant rule in Panhuis (2006: 102): https://books.google.es/books?id=mM9A9S9KDFoC&amp;pg=PA102&amp;lpg=PA102&amp;dq=%22virtus+fidesque+vostra%22+panhuis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YOIqi-6ybu&amp;sig=ACfU3U3QcPheIplq6aRokNyF_O-SqxVRxQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjz_4aQtZSDAxUqdqQEHXkmBlIQ6AF6BAgREAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22virtus%20fidesque%20vostra%22%20panhuis&amp;f=false" CreationDate="2023-12-16T17:00:17.487" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="45827" PostId="21966" Score="0" Text="You beat me by less than a minute. :/" CreationDate="2023-12-09T17:21:12.980" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45829" PostId="21966" Score="0" Text="@cmw The internet connection on the train I wrote this on was spotty, so it was a matter of luck that I wasn't delayed by a couple of minutes." CreationDate="2023-12-09T18:09:06.837" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45830" PostId="21966" Score="1" Text="IMHO it is best to think of the supines as weird things of their own right. Thinking of the *-um* supine as an accusative form of a verbal noun may be etymologically justified, but tells you little about what it means and how it is used. In particular, in the example sentence, Caesar could not have used an actual accusative of a verbal noun." CreationDate="2023-12-09T18:22:41.907" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="45831" PostId="21966" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I added a note explaining what I meant with &quot;verbal noun&quot;, which to me is very different from a noun derived from a verb. I agree that thinking of a supine as a noun is not great; I just wanted to make the point that it behaves ina sentence far more like an inflected noun than as an adjective." CreationDate="2023-12-09T20:25:31.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45832" PostId="21969" Score="1" Text="I closed your question as a duplicate of [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/21392/79). If you feel it doesn't satisfy you, please edit your question in relation to the older one. I know the questions are not identical, but they are very closely related." CreationDate="2023-12-09T21:15:55.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45856" PostId="21971" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much. Robert" CreationDate="2023-12-11T08:07:41.447" UserId="14474" />
  <row Id="45835" PostId="21972" Score="0" Text="Add to that you could also just be *Hispanus Hispaniae Novae*, much like a Greek from Magna Graeca is still a Greek." CreationDate="2023-12-10T02:07:43.813" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45859" PostId="21974" Score="1" Text="Analogous to 'navy' blue (the colour of one of our military factions) in English." CreationDate="2023-12-11T17:51:38.090" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="47672" PostId="21974" Score="0" Text="@dbmag9 I mean, maybe. _Navy blue_ has its name from its use by the Royal Navy. _Venetus_ would be analogous if it were derived from the Veneti's _use_ of the color in their own clothing but that isn't what Charo actually wrote. I had the same feeling: I upvoted before realizing that this answer is entirely circular, saying it's named that because it seems to be named that and then supposing the two names are identical... for some reason, but without saying what. It's just a mirror of the original question, presented as an answer." CreationDate="2024-03-05T16:03:51.507" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="45852" PostId="21975" Score="0" Text="&quot;nutricati (sumus)&quot; will always mean &quot;we were raised&quot; or &quot;fed&quot; – that sounds weird in a purpose clause, in my opinion" CreationDate="2023-12-10T22:52:21.903" UserId="14448" />
  <row Id="45854" PostId="21975" Score="0" Text="So the correct unique translation would be &quot;We born so that we were fed by truth&quot; or also possibly &quot;We born to (be) fed by truth&quot;? And also is &quot;veritate&quot; ablative case used correctly, or should be used more properly another case? Thanks." CreationDate="2023-12-10T23:58:57.747" UserId="14476" />
  <row Id="45858" PostId="21975" Score="4" Text="&quot;We born so that we were fed by truth&quot; is not grammatical English and it's difficult to know what is intended. Did you mean &quot;we are born to be fed by truth&quot;? Or &quot;we were born so that we would be fed by truth&quot;? Something else? Without knowing what meaning you intended a translation is impossible" CreationDate="2023-12-11T14:31:36.883" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="46910" PostId="21975" Score="0" Text="Basically both &quot;we are born to be fed by truth&quot; and &quot;&quot;we were born so that we would be fed by truth&quot; would fit. It is important by the way that the sentence contain  the term &quot;nutricati&quot; or &quot;nuticato&quot;, so if the sentence is correct in latin I would like to know the correct translation. P.S. I apologize for my english." CreationDate="2023-12-16T19:26:48.210" UserId="14476" />
  <row Id="45847" PostId="21976" Score="1" Text="Unrelated but interesting. If I read Loeb correctly they interpret this differently from Ørberg in two respects. First, *domini* is objective genitive, not subjective, and, Second, *pro* is not *quia* but rather *quasi* / like. yielding &quot;As if in fact he knew the owner&quot;. To be fair, not sure how this Loeb interoperation works grammatically. Or I completely misread the Loeb English." CreationDate="2023-12-10T20:51:02.683" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="45853" PostId="21976" Score="0" Text="@d_e Perhaps &quot;in place of acquaintance of the master of the house&quot;? It's clumsy, but it gets the idea across that he doesn't actually know the master. It's an interesting passage." CreationDate="2023-12-10T23:07:44.610" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="45855" PostId="21976" Score="0" Text="@d_e I actually noticed that, but I think the translation is different from what Ørberg thinks so I put it aside. However I think the *as if* version is better for the context." CreationDate="2023-12-11T04:33:47.193" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="45850" PostId="21978" Score="0" Text="Why is it surprising to you that a construction that literally means &quot;preceding, bring&quot; is translated as &quot;precede and bring&quot;?" CreationDate="2023-12-10T21:33:04.823" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45851" PostId="21978" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon:  My native languages are not English. English present participle roughly corresponds to gerund in my own languages. But often Latin present participle doesn't translate as gerund in my own languages." CreationDate="2023-12-10T22:21:27.157" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45861" PostId="21978" Score="0" Text="@Charo: If the &quot;Morning Star&quot; (&quot;Lucifer&quot;) is being told to rise, why isn't &quot;Lucifer&quot; in the accusative?" CreationDate="2023-12-12T09:28:29.817" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45864" PostId="21978" Score="0" Text="@tony: *Lucifer* (the Morning Star) is clearly a vocative." CreationDate="2023-12-12T10:24:55.737" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="45863" PostId="21980" Score="0" Text="Is it the case that &quot;prae&quot; has been has been omitted from &quot;veniens&quot; because it already occurs in &quot;praeque&quot;, preventing clumsy repetition?" CreationDate="2023-12-12T09:48:22.930" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45867" PostId="21980" Score="0" Text="@tony No! It's really *praeveniens* but the prefix has been separated from the main verb. It still functions as a prefix, not as a proper preposition. It's odd and rare that you can add words between a verb and its prefix, but you can." CreationDate="2023-12-12T15:44:10.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="45869" PostId="21980" Score="0" Text="llmavirta: Then, I'm not sure why the &quot;prae&quot; has been omitted? How does the student know that it's supposed to be there--intuition? I wondered from where, &quot;precede&quot; had come from, in Charo's translation. Seb explains it well." CreationDate="2023-12-12T16:20:05.583" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="45873" PostId="21980" Score="0" Text="@tony It's not been omitted. It's just been separated: *praeveniens &gt; prae veniens*. This is something you might indeed not guess, so this is a feature that's specifically taught to students, but not in your introductory class. To parse a line like this, just switch *praeque X veniens* to *et X praeveniens*. This is just an exotic case of the shuffling of words that you get in Latin poetry." CreationDate="2023-12-12T20:35:13.880" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="46912" PostId="21982" Score="0" Text="I know that &quot;nutricare&quot; is an unusual verb, but it is essential for the &quot;project&quot;.  Is it possible to avoid the problem you mentioned with a sentence like &quot;we were born so that we would be fed by truth&quot;? So to obtain a latin sentence with &quot;nutricati&quot; or &quot;nutricato&quot; word inside it?" CreationDate="2023-12-16T19:40:01.970" UserId="14476" />
  <row Id="46917" PostId="21982" Score="0" Text="@RickFeed 'We were born so that we would be fed by the truth' is already one way of translating it. As I said, you can't make a grammatically correct sentence with that meaning by using nutricati/nutricato." CreationDate="2023-12-17T01:56:40.490" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="46919" PostId="21982" Score="1" Text="@RickFeed I think that the only way to include *nutricati* would be to do something like *veritate nutricati sumus, quem ad finem nati eramus*, 'We have been fed by truth, for which purpose (or 'the purpose for which') we had been born.' It hardly has quite the same force as the English that you're trying to capture, or the Latin versions given above and in Sebastian's answer." CreationDate="2023-12-17T04:36:05.750" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="46969" PostId="21982" Score="0" Text="Indeed it seems a good solution.  Does exist a way to express the second part of the sentence (quem ad finem nati eramus) in a shorter way? Is &quot;Veritate&quot; ablative case the correct one to be used in this case?" CreationDate="2023-12-23T15:35:16.967" UserId="14476" />
  <row Id="46911" PostId="21983" Score="0" Text="Indeed as you say the result is quite near to the objective. It lack the word &quot;nutricati&quot; or &quot;nutricato&quot; which is quite important eventhough. Is it possible to build a latin sentence that can match both the meaning (or at least close to it) and the required word? Thank you very much for the help." CreationDate="2023-12-16T19:37:10.987" UserId="14476" />
  <row Id="46897" PostId="21985" Score="0" Text="extrañar?, extraneo?" CreationDate="2023-12-15T21:04:51.960" UserId="14272" />
  <row Id="45871" PostId="21991" Score="1" Text="Prologue? πρόλογος is certainly interpretable as before-story." CreationDate="2023-12-12T18:19:44.370" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="45872" PostId="21991" Score="2" Text="@Cairnarvon And it's found in Latin with *prologus*." CreationDate="2023-12-12T18:42:53.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46877" PostId="21991" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon &amp; cmw: That word would make a fine answer, even if it's not a perfect fit. Someone else looking for something similar and stumbling upon this question can well have use for that." CreationDate="2023-12-13T14:09:19.780" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="46891" PostId="21991" Score="0" Text="Perhaps some form of *praecedit*?" CreationDate="2023-12-15T13:33:36.443" UserId="13663" />
  <row Id="46878" PostId="21993" Score="1" Text="Why do you think the cohortatus est clause is indirect speech? If the sentence before the one that you quoted provides that context, you should quote it too. Otherwise, it appears to be a simple declarative statement that triggers indirect command." CreationDate="2023-12-13T16:36:51.550" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="45874" PostId="21994" Score="0" Text="commands go to the imperative, right? Yeah I think that is it, thanks!" CreationDate="2023-12-13T04:20:15.023" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="46874" PostId="21994" Score="2" Text="All true, but isn’t the question about est?" CreationDate="2023-12-13T04:41:51.727" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="46875" PostId="22993" Score="5" Text="*Cognitio* isn't a verb. If you meant to say *cognosco* instead, I would read this sentence as &quot;I know a small woman from Latium&quot;." CreationDate="2023-12-13T11:45:46.940" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="46876" PostId="22993" Score="0" Text="Oh, yeah, scio or gnosco might work." CreationDate="2023-12-13T12:38:51.127" UserId="14499" />
  <row Id="46881" PostId="22993" Score="2" Text="Re your recent edit: be careful of &quot;calquing.&quot; Just because *latina* can refer to the &quot;Latin language&quot; doesn't mean that *scio latinam* is an idiomatic translation of &quot;I know Latin.&quot; Did you see @cmw's answer, which shows that the common form is *scio latine* (with an adverb)?" CreationDate="2023-12-14T16:33:06.407" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="46887" PostId="22993" Score="0" Text="Taking about idiomatic translation, the answer has such unaddressed concern. &quot;Latine&quot; as an adverb means &quot;in the latin language.&quot; Since the source of usage of latine is tranlated as speak in latin, or know to speak in latin, but the required original version, and the verb used is &quot;to know&quot;, hard to say such alternation makes it still fluent (to know in latin), or idiomatic, anyway such answer is not cited in whole piece of it." CreationDate="2023-12-15T06:48:57.010" UserId="14499" />
  <row Id="46879" PostId="22994" Score="0" Text="ah good catch, thanks" CreationDate="2023-12-13T17:03:17.480" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="46880" PostId="22996" Score="2" Text="Welcome. For listening, There are some Latin sources. Few of them can be found in [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2027/how-to-practice-speaking-latin/6567). Ceterum, for all practical intents and purposes, Latin is spoken today." CreationDate="2023-12-14T14:20:26.323" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="46882" PostId="22996" Score="1" Text="&gt; &gt; the latter being almost nonexistent since there are no materials out there with recordings in Latin. &lt; &lt; Oh, but there are. There are Latin YouTubers today. I have made some YouTube videos in Latin, [the latest one being about afterlife](https://youtube.com/watch?v=gx1hhczsdAE&amp;feature=share). And there is [a transcript of that video](https://flatassembler.github.io/Afterlife.rtf)." CreationDate="2023-12-14T17:03:03.380" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="46883" PostId="22996" Score="1" Text="&quot;...the materials are scarce...&quot; Are they really, though? I don't think so." CreationDate="2023-12-14T17:18:47.780" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46884" PostId="22996" Score="2" Text="I once told a Latin professor of mine that I was struggling, and his advice was &quot;well you know how to speak English, right? Just do that but in Latin.&quot; Whatever the answer to your question is, it's _not_ that. :-p" CreationDate="2023-12-14T22:43:09.680" UserId="13339" />
  <row Id="46888" PostId="22996" Score="0" Text="You mean *efficient*, not *effective*. A method is either effective or it is not, i.e. either it makes you learn Latin or it does not." CreationDate="2023-12-15T08:01:50.003" UserId="10431" />
  <row Id="46898" PostId="22996" Score="0" Text="@Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda Some methods help you learn _some_ Latin, but not _all_ of it – for instance, memorising a dictionary. That would be a partially-effective method, since you would not learn grammar (or meaning, depending on the dictionary)." CreationDate="2023-12-15T22:50:32.963" UserId="11674" />
  <row Id="46900" PostId="22998" Score="2" Text="Hi historylover, and welcome to the site! This is the seed of a good answer, but more detail would make it even better. How well did this work for you? Are there particular points you struggled with?" CreationDate="2023-12-16T04:12:54.830" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="46902" PostId="23000" Score="1" Text="I think it's clear that the oblique forms are suppletive, but the question of why still remains. However, that might not be answerable." CreationDate="2023-12-16T05:55:48.150" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46933" PostId="23004" Score="0" Text="Do you know any versions of this in other languages than English?" CreationDate="2023-12-18T08:01:41.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47042" PostId="23004" Score="0" Text="The &quot;idiom&quot; goes in Spanish for the imperative for *supera lo*, my guess is that Latin version of this *superà id* can do the work." CreationDate="2023-12-21T04:42:54.907" UserId="14537" />
  <row Id="47043" PostId="23004" Score="0" Text="@RomRom the grave accent is not part of any Latin orthography or normalisation scheme I'm aware of. Did you mean _superā_ (the 2nd person singular present imperative of _superō_ &quot;I go over&quot;) with a macron instead?" CreationDate="2023-12-21T14:51:15.113" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="46904" PostId="23005" Score="2" Text="You might find these other question relevant: [one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1966/why-hippopotamus-instead-of-potamohippus) &amp; [two](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5596/rules-to-constructing-a-proper-compound-noun-in-ancient-greek)." CreationDate="2023-12-16T15:42:59.690" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46905" PostId="23005" Score="2" Text="This doesn't quite answer the question, but it's worth noting that this formation is also common in Greek. See, for instance (with a bunch of false positives), [this list of Greek verbs beginning with *miso-*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=miso&amp;lang=greek). (You can find a similar list for *philo-*.) It's still an interesting question, but I don't think the problem has to do with etymology from Greek." CreationDate="2023-12-16T15:49:03.973" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="46907" PostId="23005" Score="4" Text="Note also philosophy (and philology etc) rather than \*\*sophophilia." CreationDate="2023-12-16T16:56:41.027" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="46935" PostId="23005" Score="1" Text="If you imagined the verb formed before the noun, however, as in φιλοσοφεῖν &gt; φιλοσοφία, φιλαδελφεῖν &gt; φιλαδελφία, φιλομανθάνειν &gt; φιλομάθεια...? Just a thought, perhaps to tack onto the question..." CreationDate="2023-12-18T17:33:54.257" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="46977" PostId="23005" Score="1" Text="In Greek, a compound noun/adjective formed by a verb and its object sometimes has the verb part in the front. (Almost) all nouns with *-phobia* and *-philia* are post-Greek, and therefore do not follow the pattern." CreationDate="2023-12-24T08:05:24.890" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47612" PostId="23005" Score="0" Text="Why do we call him Phillip, and not Hippophile?" CreationDate="2024-02-26T18:04:43.683" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="46913" PostId="23009" Score="0" Text="Thank you - interestingly, I dug and dug and found the date on a document from the university, and the date shows May 26, 1974. Odd..." CreationDate="2023-12-16T19:49:36.320" UserId="14513" />
  <row Id="46914" PostId="23009" Score="0" Text="@WD Might have been a mistake or a discrepancy, but with inclusively counting May 26th should have been A.D. VII KAL. IVN. [Here's a calendar](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/juliancalendar.html) so you can see how it's all laid out." CreationDate="2023-12-16T19:53:14.023" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46915" PostId="23009" Score="1" Text="Thank you - just shows how much more I don't know! Is there a way I can send a jpg to you so you can see it in actual print on the diploma?" CreationDate="2023-12-16T20:41:07.340" UserId="14513" />
  <row Id="46916" PostId="23009" Score="2" Text="There should be a way to edit your question and include an uploaded image - I think it uploads it to Imgur." CreationDate="2023-12-16T21:04:09.730" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46927" PostId="23009" Score="0" Text="+1, but note that the way of counting days is part and parcel of the notation, so if they mean May 24, or – *di averruncent* – write something like *a.d. II Kal. …*, they are simply making a mistake." CreationDate="2023-12-17T19:18:42.577" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="46929" PostId="23009" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I agree! My note wasn't meant to indicate they had a legitimate option, but merely that it's possible a mistake was made." CreationDate="2023-12-17T22:36:22.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46925" PostId="23010" Score="1" Text="Note that a syntactic variant of your interesting AcI construction could be a &quot;dominant participle&quot; construction: &quot;M. Cato Censorius, _qui natus_ tam e re publica fuit quam Scipio...&quot; (see this link [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8839/subject-verb-agreement-when-the-subject-is-a-dominant-participle-construction]). E.g. cf. the typical ex. of a dominant participle construction &quot;_occisus dictator_ facinus videbatur&quot; with the AcI construction &quot;_dictatorem occisum esse_ facinus videbatur&quot; (cf. also the nominalization variant: &quot;_Occisio dictatoris_ facinus videbatur&quot;)." CreationDate="2023-12-17T18:00:49.940" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="46926" PostId="23010" Score="1" Text="BTW, a great latinist who was very supportive of using (in this case, syntactic) synonyms for a better learning of Latin was Rev. Reginald Foster [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Foster_(Latinist)." CreationDate="2023-12-17T18:10:13.250" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="46928" PostId="23010" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino, interesting construction. Yeah, I guess Seneca had alternatives... I still find his choice somewhat odd when it could be expressed more directly like *qui juvat rem publicam*. I guess it put emphasis somewhere or simply because the idiomatic *e re publica*" CreationDate="2023-12-17T21:54:26.127" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="46918" PostId="23011" Score="1" Text="Hmm yes, this seems to be the only possible analysis. I don't remember seeing an a.c.i. as the subject of *sum* elsewhere: do you think it is common? I have seen an a.c.i. as the primary argument of an ablativus absolutus, though.." CreationDate="2023-12-17T04:08:46.947" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="46920" PostId="23011" Score="4" Text="@Cerberus, where an infinitive clause is the subject, then the subject of the infinitive should be in the accusative case.  This example is very like *necesse est me abire* (*e re publica* functions like *necesse* here). I've encountered this several times (but never with *quem* as the subject of the infinitive).  Mitomino in a [question about this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/16256/accusative-case-marking-of-subjects-in-infinitival-clauses)  says those &quot;are not rare at all!&quot; -- which says, well, they are quite rare lol :) at least rare enough to note they are not rare." CreationDate="2023-12-17T07:01:55.943" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="46922" PostId="23011" Score="3" Text="@d_e I agree: the syntax of the ex. is similar to that of _necesse est me abire_ in the sense that the acc. case of the subject of the infinitive is not assigned by the verb. As I noted in your link, this acc. case assignment pattern is _not_ rare (although it is not the prototypical one). The apparent &quot;rarity&quot; of the example can be related to the combination of this non-prototypical pattern with two additional facts: the subject of the infinitive clause is a relative pronoun and the predicate of the copular construction has an idiomatic interpretation (cf. supra: 'for the benefit of')." CreationDate="2023-12-17T17:41:27.470" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="46930" PostId="23011" Score="2" Text="@d_e: Ah, right, when *e republica fuit* is seen as a kind of phrasal verb, then suddenly it looks far more 'normal', your comparison with *necesse est* is apt. Mitomino: Well said." CreationDate="2023-12-17T22:47:35.473" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="46921" PostId="23012" Score="1" Text="Does [this question on an idiom for disgrace](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/972/79) help?" CreationDate="2023-12-17T13:09:58.990" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="46931" PostId="23012" Score="1" Text="I added a better definition from M-W." CreationDate="2023-12-17T22:53:10.073" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46932" PostId="23014" Score="3" Text="For most of Roman history, the paterfamilias (at least in theory) had the right and the responsibility to keep his family strong by killing unsuitable children. Is that the sort of &quot;you're a mistake that should be killed&quot; you're looking for?" CreationDate="2023-12-18T03:58:21.390" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="46934" PostId="23014" Score="1" Text="Does [this thread](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/972/what-is-a-black-sheep-in-latin) answer your question?" CreationDate="2023-12-18T11:33:22.223" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46965" PostId="23016" Score="0" Text="A clarification to step 2: compare the genitive, rather than the nominative, because the genitive is a surer indicator of the declension and the stem." CreationDate="2023-12-22T20:53:49.063" UserId="664" />
  <row Id="46939" PostId="23017" Score="0" Text="As far as I can see, the linked document doesn't at all help answer the question here, which is specifically about quotation marks from the Renaissance onward, and which of the various possible styles to use. The article describes what earlier Latin used in the absence of quotation marks." CreationDate="2023-12-19T21:24:19.397" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="46945" PostId="23022" Score="1" Text="Welcome back...!" CreationDate="2023-12-20T16:59:35.290" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="46946" PostId="23022" Score="1" Text="well, thank you" CreationDate="2023-12-20T17:00:54.283" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="46953" PostId="23024" Score="0" Text="I read the dative as a *dativus commodi* (dative of advantage) rather than an uncommon substitute for *ex* or *ab*. *Ex* indicates what something is released *from*, but here the dative indicates *for whom* the thing is released." CreationDate="2023-12-21T15:03:37.060" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="46954" PostId="23024" Score="0" Text="(Though I think you're right it's mostly imitating the Greek: the LSJ entry for ἀφίημι specifically lists a legal sense with the dative.)" CreationDate="2023-12-21T15:06:08.157" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="46955" PostId="23024" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Oh, yes, advantage makes sense here." CreationDate="2023-12-21T15:36:19.433" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46947" PostId="23025" Score="2" Text="In fact, one way or another, **all** neuters have a plural ending in *-a* " CreationDate="2023-12-20T20:19:40.017" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47000" PostId="23030" Score="1" Text="&quot;Heia age, rumpe moras&quot; may not be exactly the same idea as &quot;get it over with&quot;, but it's pretty close, and attested in both Vergil and Martial. I give this as merely one possible example of how &quot;age&quot; might be deployed." CreationDate="2023-12-26T11:39:56.573" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="46956" PostId="23031" Score="0" Text="Iirc pulcher is actually pulcer from an etymological point of view" CreationDate="2023-12-21T17:19:39.140" UserDisplayName="user14544" />
  <row Id="46959" PostId="23031" Score="3" Text="Note that German *ch* is very often the result of the High German sound shift *k* -&gt; *ch*, and so it is here. So this question is equivalent to asking if &quot;machine&quot; and &quot;make&quot; are related in English." CreationDate="2023-12-21T18:59:03.647" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="46958" PostId="23032" Score="0" Text="Hidden info in this answer: &quot;machine&quot; is related to &quot;mechanic.&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-21T18:43:03.983" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="46960" PostId="23032" Score="2" Text="μαχανά is attested in Doric lyric (and maybe prose, not sure) and in Attic choral odes, e.g. Aesch. *Seven against Thebes* 131 ἰχθυβόλῳ μαχανᾷ." CreationDate="2023-12-21T19:45:17.480" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="46961" PostId="23033" Score="2" Text="What may have confused you is that, in English, *to open* can exist as both a transitive verb (&quot;he opened his eyes&quot;) and an intransitive verb (&quot;his eyes opened&quot;). I think *aperio* &quot;uncover, open&quot; is only used transitively." CreationDate="2023-12-22T05:12:43.053" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="46962" PostId="23033" Score="2" Text="@Cerberus Well, not really: e.g. _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" CreationDate="2023-12-22T08:00:18.290" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="46966" PostId="23037" Score="2" Text="You mean for pronouncing modern Romance languages, not for Latin? No, those are different languages that work differently." CreationDate="2023-12-23T01:49:09.527" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="46967" PostId="23037" Score="4" Text="The Romance languages do not descend from Ecclesiastical Latin." CreationDate="2023-12-23T02:15:55.127" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="46970" PostId="23037" Score="0" Text="Note: I just edited my question" CreationDate="2023-12-23T20:37:01.497" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="46972" PostId="23037" Score="3" Text="I just undid your edit. Please don't change your question entirely. A moving target is frustrating to the volunteers helping you and invalidates existing answers. Feel free to improve a question through editing, but don't change it. Ask a new question instead." CreationDate="2023-12-23T21:49:06.897" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47021" PostId="23037" Score="0" Text="Given the edits and the confusion in the comments, I'm closing this for now, especially since you've asked another question along these same lines in its wake. If you could clarify a bit more what exactly you're wanting to know, we can open it back up." CreationDate="2023-12-27T20:22:03.737" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46968" PostId="23038" Score="0" Text="However I think that reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation can be used for Latin phrases (like *et cētera*, *exemplī grātiā*, *curriculum vītae*) used inside sentences in some other language (English, French, Spanish etc.)." CreationDate="2023-12-23T06:52:29.330" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="46971" PostId="23042" Score="2" Text="You understand Latin was a real language that was spoken by people in the same way English is, right? The Romance languages developed in regions where Latin was spoken as an actual, normal, natural language, and they developed out of the Latin that was spoken there." CreationDate="2023-12-23T20:49:39.367" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="46973" PostId="23042" Score="0" Text="My question is why is Vulgar Latin known to be colloquiall version of Classical Latin. Was it a reconstructed version?" CreationDate="2023-12-23T23:08:32.490" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="46974" PostId="23042" Score="1" Text="It's really not clear what you're asking." CreationDate="2023-12-24T04:25:36.093" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="46975" PostId="23042" Score="0" Text="The question I'm asking is, why is Vulgar Latin known to be informal Latin Or colloquial version of classical Latin? Was it just a reconstruction of original Latin with some differences? That's why?" CreationDate="2023-12-24T04:43:19.973" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="46976" PostId="23042" Score="2" Text="Personally, I think this is a fine question. It's based on a misunderstanding of what &quot;Vulgar Latin&quot; or &quot;Colloquial Latin&quot; means, but explaining that terminology is a reasonable use of this site." CreationDate="2023-12-24T05:11:08.483" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="46979" PostId="23042" Score="0" Text="@AkshatGoswami Maybe you only know English word [*vulgar*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulgar#English) as &quot;debased, uncouth, distasteful, obscene&quot;. Then check definitions of Latin words [*vulgus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulgus#Latin), [*vulgāris*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulgaris#Latin). Meaning of *vulgar* in *Vulgar Latin* is &quot;related to common, ordinary people&quot;. It is unfortunate that English has developed the new meaning (&quot;debased, uncouth, distasteful, obscene&quot;) of this adjective..." CreationDate="2023-12-24T14:33:40.463" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="46984" PostId="23042" Score="1" Text="Quite the reverse! Vulgar Latin was the natural mother tongue of many people. Classical Latin was, if not &quot;constructed&quot;, at least codified and given a formal structure." CreationDate="2023-12-24T22:19:03.583" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="47017" PostId="23042" Score="0" Text="Oh really? Well that's interesting!" CreationDate="2023-12-27T14:30:03.590" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="46982" PostId="23046" Score="2" Text="If you're struggling with declensions and real-world texts really are *way* too difficult I'd honestly suggest doing Cambridge Latin again." CreationDate="2023-12-24T18:26:54.867" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="46986" PostId="23046" Score="2" Text="I suggest spending time on drilling the declensions and conjugations into your head. With the amount of texts you've read and the difficulty you describe, I think focusing on grammar and inflections a more productive way to go than trying more texts. You can have texts on the side, but not only texts." CreationDate="2023-12-24T22:50:12.263" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="46988" PostId="23046" Score="1" Text="@Cairnarvon Agreed, and diligently going through it as well. Is also recommend dropping Duolingo, Lingua Latina, and other distractions. By the end of any introductory series you should know all the basic morphology." CreationDate="2023-12-25T04:31:09.370" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="46989" PostId="23046" Score="3" Text="I agree with the others you may want to revisit Cambridge Latin. When you say you completed Lingua Latina, did you complete both books? _Roma Aeterna_ is more advanced and will help prepare you for real works." CreationDate="2023-12-25T14:21:48.267" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="46990" PostId="23046" Score="3" Text="Also, are you simply reading these or doing all the exercises? It makes a huge difference to do those in addition to just reading." CreationDate="2023-12-25T14:22:47.633" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="47077" PostId="23046" Score="0" Text="I do feel like declensions are my main issue, I have not made an attempt to memorize any, I got first and second down thanks to HiPaws songs getting stuck in my head." CreationDate="2024-01-04T14:28:17.257" UserId="14554" />
  <row Id="47078" PostId="23046" Score="0" Text="I did not do Roma Aeterna, I can try that one next and do Cambridge again. Thanks everyone." CreationDate="2024-01-04T14:29:01.840" UserId="14554" />
  <row Id="46985" PostId="23047" Score="1" Text="Most of the daughter languages do _not_ use anything like _octodecim_ and _novemnecim_, but have replaced seventeen onwards with the reverse structure, derived from _decim-septem_, _decim-octo_,  decim_novem_." CreationDate="2023-12-24T22:26:33.803" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="46987" PostId="23047" Score="2" Text="Accuracy aside, I think there's a good question here: if you want to figure out where a particular word is used, how do you find that? I've given one answer (a corpus search) but someone explaining how to consult Lewis and Short would also be good." CreationDate="2023-12-25T02:05:59.937" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="46998" PostId="23047" Score="0" Text="@ColinFine yeah, that's a good point. Sorry for the incorrect generalization. Still, none of them use anything like &quot;two from twenty&quot;" CreationDate="2023-12-26T01:45:32.160" UserId="14043" />
  <row Id="47001" PostId="23047" Score="1" Text="You're right, none of them use those forms. But I find it interesting that so many languages &quot;change gear&quot; somewhere in the teens: Classical Latin changed at 18, most Romance languages change at 16 or 17, Germanic languages change at 13, and traditional Welsh changes at 15, with an outlier for 18." CreationDate="2023-12-26T12:06:52.897" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="46983" PostId="23049" Score="6" Text="[There are 36 results](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=undevi&amp;first=21) if you allow for adjective/adverb forms like *undevice(n)simus*, *undevicie(n)s*, and *undeviceni*" CreationDate="2023-12-24T20:09:06.143" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="46999" PostId="23049" Score="0" Text="Thanks for the resource. I'll wait another day and a few cursory experiments of my own before accepting. Once I'm back in front of a proper computer I'll definitely be adding this tool to my bookmarks." CreationDate="2023-12-26T01:52:49.687" UserId="14043" />
  <row Id="46991" PostId="23050" Score="2" Text="Please note that Caesar's personal writing style (together with a few others, naturally) more or less defines what is and isn't “good, classical Latin.” Doesn't mean he doesn't have distinctive personal habits (like his extensive use of the ablative absolute), but this isn't one of them." CreationDate="2023-12-25T15:55:22.060" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="46992" PostId="23050" Score="1" Text="On another note: There is absolutely no reason to think that “in English, it's supposed to be in a single sentence,” and the fact that it's two sentences in Latin indicates it's *probably* a good idea to make it two sentences in English as well. It may be a little more idiomatic in English to start the second sentence with “For this reason” and not “For which reason,” but that isn't Caesar's problem." CreationDate="2023-12-25T15:59:13.857" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="46995" PostId="23051" Score="0" Text="I was contemplating writing this same answer, but then I failed to find any examples of such a use of *fiat*. Have you seen or found any attestations?" CreationDate="2023-12-25T18:10:05.913" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47003" PostId="23051" Score="0" Text="Joonas llmavirta: The only example I found was: &quot;maledictus qui indivisiam deitatem Patris, et Filii et Sancti Spiritus non confitetur, fiat, fiat.&quot; --&quot;Accused be he who does not confess the undivided godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, let it be, let it be.&quot; (Vigilius of Thapsus, &quot;de Trinitate&quot; 6.255). Hopefully, &quot;done&quot; is understood after &quot;let it be&quot;. This is from the 5th.C., so I wasn't sure that it should be included in the answer." CreationDate="2023-12-26T14:08:51.867" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47049" PostId="23051" Score="1" Text="And the Lord said, let's get this light over with..." CreationDate="2023-12-31T13:48:43.193" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47306" PostId="23051" Score="0" Text="The meaning of *fiat* doesn't match what was asked for. It's more &quot;so be it&quot; than &quot;get it over with&quot;. It's not an incitement to action but an acceptance of the circumstances or (as in the Vulgate example) a wish. If we stay with this verb, in my opinion *fac* is closer to the desired spirit than *fiat*. But still, attestation is the key to translating idioms; reason alone is an insufficient argument." CreationDate="2024-01-18T15:05:56.063" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47309" PostId="23051" Score="0" Text="@Joonas llmavirta: The iussive subjunctive can be construed as a command. The Vulgate ex. may be a wish but I wanted an attested piece of Latin. The last time I tried the unattested (the gerundive ex.) it received an anonymous downvote. Does the Vulgate ex. work as an order (in a different context)?" CreationDate="2024-01-18T17:30:03.730" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47310" PostId="23051" Score="0" Text="@tony I wouldn't take it as an order. The two issues are that it's not personal and that it's passive. Compare &quot;may you do it&quot; and &quot;may it be done&quot;; the second is a passive request aimed at something impersonal, whereas the first is a wish directly aimed at another person. It's not entirely unlike &quot;go!&quot; and &quot;someone should go&quot;, one of which is much more like an order than the other." CreationDate="2024-01-18T19:21:51.827" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="46993" PostId="23052" Score="2" Text="Worth mentioning that the Romans did not usually mark sentence ends, so the distinction between such a “relative continuation” and a run-on sentence was presumably rather murky." CreationDate="2023-12-25T15:59:59.137" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="46994" PostId="23052" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Good point! I added a paragraph." CreationDate="2023-12-25T16:34:05.310" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="46996" PostId="23053" Score="1" Text="The dominant participle construction (or whatever each one prefers to call it) is indeed common and unfamiliarity with it is a good sign of being a bit of a novice. It's also been discussed on this site numerous times." CreationDate="2023-12-25T19:57:08.377" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="46997" PostId="23053" Score="0" Text="Indeed! I did not put those comments into my answer for your benefit, Joonas! Merely to forestall the all too inevitable arguments which will soon pop up. This is not the first time I posted a comment like this to the ether, so it was with some trepidation that I have a placed it here.  (I don't think I mentioned it on SE before, though.) I like the term *dominant participle*. That is new to me, and it is a keeper." CreationDate="2023-12-25T22:23:58.837" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47013" PostId="23055" Score="2" Text="Why, please? Why not say when or why you got stuck?" CreationDate="2023-12-26T22:23:43.970" UserId="8570" />
  <row Id="47002" PostId="23056" Score="2" Text="This probably comes closest, but in itself it's a meaningless expression, and in context it could mean all kinds of thing. E.g. *non Anglorum pristiniae virtutis immemor* or whatever." CreationDate="2023-12-26T13:55:49.833" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47004" PostId="23057" Score="0" Text="It's often possible to rephrase using a different part of speech, e.g. *celeritas*. But it's not always available or flexible, so your question is good even I there's a workaround for the specific example." CreationDate="2023-12-26T16:11:52.550" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47005" PostId="23057" Score="3" Text="The construction is indirect question, so subjunctive moveatur is needed." CreationDate="2023-12-26T17:01:47.350" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47007" PostId="23059" Score="4" Text="Since it's a very literal translation of an English idiom I would guess that it's modern." CreationDate="2023-12-26T20:11:11.387" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47010" PostId="23059" Score="3" Text="The question is, is this even really grammatical? *Cavere* with an indirect question is certainly unusual." CreationDate="2023-12-26T20:27:32.573" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47012" PostId="23059" Score="0" Text="Cave quid optes is the normal form of the idiom though, isn't it? Is there a more familiar way of expressing &quot;Be careful what you wish for&quot;? Not necessarily more correct but more familiar." CreationDate="2023-12-26T21:36:01.687" UserId="14566" />
  <row Id="47035" PostId="23066" Score="1" Text="could we also use just the ablative _morte_ instead of the prepositional phrases _per mortem_/_in morte_?" CreationDate="2023-12-29T15:07:12.147" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="47036" PostId="23066" Score="1" Text="@Tristan Yep. I didn't include it because it could be more ambiguous, but it would be a simple ablative of means. You could also use *ex* + ablative, come to think of it. All change the meaning slightly, but the English is also ambiguous enough that any work fine." CreationDate="2023-12-29T16:18:03.037" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47023" PostId="23067" Score="1" Text="Yep, (potentially) ancient Greek is [on topic](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/358/policy-on-greek-questions) here, and [Gallus](https://ephor.us/epitome/gallus/), after all, was a Roman." CreationDate="2023-12-28T14:34:06.543" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47032" PostId="23068" Score="2" Text="Good question, especially since this immediately follows a paragraph where he makes essentially the same argument in French." CreationDate="2023-12-28T21:59:22.903" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47033" PostId="23068" Score="3" Text="FWIW, when talking about computer science or computing in general, I tend to dislike using literal translations of concepts to my native Spanish (this is not universal to Spanish speakers, but does happen in other languages too, e.g. Italian). Maybe because in a technical context, English words have effectively become loanwords with far less ambiguous meanings. Think _mouse_ (non-existent in Spanish for any other meaning than the input device) vs _ratón_, _stack_ vs _pila_, etc. There is a subjective feeling that the foreign _scientific_ language is far more precise." CreationDate="2023-12-29T11:28:18.170" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="47034" PostId="23068" Score="1" Text="@Rafael And, funny enough, in English too those words feel technical in a way. Intuitively we *never* conflate the two senses of &quot;mouse&quot;, for example. But French has taken the opposite route with *souris* and so forth, which makes it hard for me not to picture the rodent." CreationDate="2023-12-29T13:27:21.223" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="47037" PostId="23068" Score="1" Text="I don't think Latin was considered by Pascal a better language than French specifically for writing mathematics but that it was considered better for writing anything important and rigorous that could be shared with scholars all over Europe. Vernacular languages didn't have the prestige associated with Latin. They were evolving, less standardized while Latin, stricter and stable, was the language of knowledge." CreationDate="2023-12-29T21:18:08.470" UserId="14575" />
  <row Id="47038" PostId="23071" Score="0" Text="Important for the answer: are you familiar with deponent verbs?" CreationDate="2023-12-29T21:56:20.250" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47039" PostId="23071" Score="0" Text="Yes indeed! ..." CreationDate="2023-12-29T22:20:51.320" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="47040" PostId="23071" Score="1" Text="Short answer: many verbs become deponent only in the future." CreationDate="2023-12-30T05:15:40.280" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="47041" PostId="23071" Score="1" Text="@Cerberus That's not an explanation so much as just a differently worded statement of the phenomenon, though. The likely reason for it is that the Greek sigmatic future (probably) continues a PIE desiderative, which semantically goes well with a middle voice. A proper answer is beyond me at this time, though." CreationDate="2023-12-30T06:26:57.730" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47045" PostId="23071" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: Well, the question asks about the translation and function of the middle voice in the future synchronically, not about its history. I agree that a good, full answer would include history, which I should also like to read." CreationDate="2023-12-30T17:07:51.317" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="47051" PostId="23077" Score="0" Text="Classical Latin had no soft C or G." CreationDate="2023-12-31T15:44:59.327" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="47052" PostId="23077" Score="7" Text="@AkshatGoswami I didn't claim it had. I said the form of Latin taught in Croatian high-schools has a soft 'c' but no soft 'g'." CreationDate="2023-12-31T16:02:41.347" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="47054" PostId="23077" Score="0" Text="I have a recollection of hearing that the Jesuits have (or had) there own pronunciation. See [this article](https://wdtprs.com/2011/02/quaeritur-do-i-have-to-use-ecclesiastical-pronunciation-of-latin/) - Daniel Latinus's comment about half way down the blog page." CreationDate="2024-01-01T06:39:45.217" UserId="11240" />
  <row Id="47058" PostId="23077" Score="2" Text="&quot;When you talk in Latin internationally, you are using some semi-classical pronunciation....&quot; This feels vague and mostly untrue: ecclesiastical Latin *is* international, albeit (usually) used only in certain liturgical contexts. I think you're right, though, that classical pronunciation is more common, particularly in secular contexts." CreationDate="2024-01-01T22:59:53.020" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47059" PostId="23079" Score="2" Text="*his sex annis = abhinc sex annos* – this is well attested (e.g. Plin. Nat. hist. 14, 43: *septem his annis in Narbonensis provinciae Alba Helvia inventa est vitis uno die deflorescens*), although somewhat unclear in this context. It is at least strongly suggested by the perfect *jacui*, though. There are [two translations](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/616) of the book; the one by Franz Schlosser is allegedly better. I wonder how he rendered this." CreationDate="2024-01-01T23:33:47.953" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47064" PostId="23079" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel, thanks. fixed that." CreationDate="2024-01-02T18:43:44.410" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47056" PostId="23080" Score="1" Text="This answer is a bit like: Who sells more cars, BMW or Toyota? — Depends on where exactly you are buying your car. At a BMW dealership, you are almost certainly buying a BMW." CreationDate="2024-01-01T21:47:10.650" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47060" PostId="23080" Score="0" Text="@SK: Not really." CreationDate="2024-01-02T03:33:33.603" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="47063" PostId="23081" Score="1" Text="I'm not sure if this is the actual reason, but fourth-declension neuter nouns are very close to being indeclinable, which means the case system isn't very useful for them. I'd expect the less common ones to either become indeclinable, or get reanalyzed as fourth masculine or second neuter." CreationDate="2024-01-02T16:45:00.133" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47065" PostId="23081" Score="0" Text="[There are lists in Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_fourth_declension_nouns) . They reject *tonitru* but add *seru* (which is &quot;special&quot; since genitive might be *seru*). Note that there are also not many pure f. (they say 40 but many are names, Greeks or &quot;specials&quot; in one respect or another. Also note they have 500+ m. but again, many are derivation from ppp or suffix -atus. Not sure how many &quot;native&quot;/&quot;pure&quot;" CreationDate="2024-01-02T19:20:21.240" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47067" PostId="23081" Score="0" Text="@Draconis thank you, I thought about that and I always thought that in a way fourth and fifth declension were in someway &quot;unnecessary&quot; (my current understanding is that they are latin inventions, while the others were born from the PIE. Probably their origin is a topic for anohter question)." CreationDate="2024-01-03T10:50:00.350" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47068" PostId="23081" Score="0" Text="@d_e Thanks, I was not aware of this resource in the Wiktionary. Seru has also a second declension counterpart serum, -i. Regarding Tonitru I attache some reference where I found it mentioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQCKBfZsRa0 (at 3:47), https://classicalliberalarts.com/classical-trivium/latin-grammar/latin-grammar-i-lesson-19-the-fourth-declension-of-nouns/ and http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/regole/regole.htm (searching &quot;tonitru&quot; in the webpage)." CreationDate="2024-01-03T10:55:56.987" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47066" PostId="23082" Score="0" Text="Classical Latin is actually the most common version of Latin." CreationDate="2024-01-03T00:04:04.550" UserId="11854" />
  <row Id="47074" PostId="23086" Score="0" Text="The Tattoo is a tribute piece for my best friend who passed away a yr ago.I have his paw print and now would like to add a phrase along side it.So arms as in a embrace would be correct." CreationDate="2024-01-03T17:48:36.463" UserId="14585" />
  <row Id="47069" PostId="23089" Score="4" Text="You don't need the backdrop of denying a massacre to ask this question. Come up with a grammatically comparable situation and ask about it. If the question is about &quot;go&quot; and the surrounding construction, condense the question. For example, ask for a translation of &quot;Water can't hurt you? Go tell that to Noah!&quot;. Once you figure that one out, you can easily modify it to any need you may have. Some will find your specific context offending and it certainly takes focus away from your grammatical question." CreationDate="2024-01-03T13:18:44.083" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47071" PostId="23089" Score="2" Text="FlatAssembler: You asked this question before and it was downvoted and deleted back then. Please refrain from such incendiary revisionism, which is actually against StackExchange's ToC." CreationDate="2024-01-03T14:04:56.850" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47072" PostId="23089" Score="0" Text="@cmw How is that against the Terms of Service? As far as I know, it's the **genocide** denial that's against the Terms of Service, and no country recognizes Vukovar as genocide." CreationDate="2024-01-03T14:29:20.413" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="47073" PostId="23089" Score="3" Text="@FlatAssembler It falls under the [Misleading Information](https://meta.stackexchange.com/conduct/misleading-information) policy. Note in particular: &quot;Misrepresents, denies, or makes unsubstantiated claims about historical or newsworthy events or the people involved in them.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-01-03T17:01:26.140" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47075" PostId="23090" Score="0" Text="There are several examples in Plautus of *i* + imperative, though the meaning is a bit more literal, e.g. *i adfer X* = &quot;Leave the room and bring X.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-01-03T19:24:42.150" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47076" PostId="23090" Score="0" Text="@brianpck I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere imitated the Greek use of φέρε and ἄγε in that way, too. Surely at some point the &quot;go&quot; in constructions like &quot;go tell&quot; was also literal, even if isn't always so (compared with &quot;go and do&quot;, which is always two commands)." CreationDate="2024-01-04T05:57:43.310" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47528" PostId="23094" Score="0" Text="[λυκόφως is Ancient.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dluko%2Ffws) It does not mean &quot;wolf's light&quot;." CreationDate="2024-02-14T12:58:22.543" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47529" PostId="23094" Score="0" Text="The reference from Aelian, a late  Roman writer, reads  (my translation) 'This time of night is called twilight (λυκοφως), when only natural light and shadows remain.&#xA;   Homer also teaches me that they say that on a dark night, only wolves go for a walk with their special ability to see." CreationDate="2024-02-14T13:39:53.270" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="47530" PostId="23094" Score="1" Text="The actual translation of those two sentences is more like &quot;Hence that time of night in which only it [i.e. the wolf] has the light provided by nature is called λυκόφως. I also think Homer calls the night in which wolves can see and move about ἀμφιλύκη.&quot; (You're confusing, among other things, δοκέω with Latin *doceo*.) Regardless, that's folk etymology; \*λύκη in both of those compounds is related to Latin *lux*, not λύκος." CreationDate="2024-02-14T14:41:49.540" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47088" PostId="23096" Score="2" Text="ὥρα seems unlikely as we'd expect -χ-; maybe rather ὄρος &quot;mountain&quot;. And λύκος strikes me as more plausible for the first element, so the placename would be &quot;Wolf Mountain&quot;." CreationDate="2024-01-04T23:45:15.010" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47090" PostId="23096" Score="1" Text="@TKR Oh, I guess Lycoreia spoke Doric, not Aeolic. Yes, that's probably more plausible, then, especially given the terrain." CreationDate="2024-01-05T00:19:14.877" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47504" PostId="23096" Score="0" Text="Peoples etymology of geographical names by similarities with classical Greek words is considered to produce nonsense, generally." CreationDate="2024-02-12T02:20:55.167" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="47509" PostId="23096" Score="0" Text="@RolandF Only when you do it. Most toponyms in Ancient Greece are Pre-Greek and folk etymology is always a danger, but there is no shortage of genuinely Greek ones." CreationDate="2024-02-12T22:14:49.067" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47526" PostId="23096" Score="0" Text="Add the impossibility of the Greek speaking people to even make a try to pronounce and transliterate foreign language words from the Pelasgians or Helladian precursors, let alone the barabaricum. I needed a year to get clue of the term 'Γουεστερν' on cinema posters  in Athens. Genuine Greek names of places are a hint for a time of founding after invention of script." CreationDate="2024-02-14T11:38:19.380" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="47092" PostId="23097" Score="1" Text="As far as I know, Cornacum was the ancient name for Sotin near Vukovar. The ancient name for Vukovar itself was Leutuoanum." CreationDate="2024-01-05T09:33:50.123" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="47102" PostId="23097" Score="0" Text="@FlatAssembler. Many thanks! I made the change." CreationDate="2024-01-06T19:05:59.633" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47103" PostId="23097" Score="1" Text="Recently, an example [from this site](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21978/meaning-of-a-present-participle-in-a-verse-of-vergils-eclogue-8) for singular imperative + participle: *Nāscere, prāēque diem veniēns age, Lūcifer, ālmum*" CreationDate="2024-01-06T21:09:45.627" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47177" PostId="23099" Score="0" Text="I'm curious about this as well. If you end up finding it, please do let us know!" CreationDate="2024-01-13T06:32:25.470" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47101" PostId="23100" Score="1" Text="Not your question, but &quot;for the last time&quot; is &quot;postremum&quot; or &quot;extremum&quot; or &quot;ultimum&quot;. &quot;Ultimo tempore&quot; means something like &quot;at the final moment&quot;." CreationDate="2024-01-06T15:06:25.797" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47107" PostId="23100" Score="0" Text="Why *plenitas*? To my ear it sounds as awkward as English &quot;about which I know a plenitude.&quot; It's a rare, post-Augustinian word. Latin tends to favor the concrete over the abstract, and *a fortiori* in a case like this." CreationDate="2024-01-07T15:54:56.790" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47112" PostId="23102" Score="1" Text="*Dies* can also be masculine, and is in this case. It's a very elliptical sentence any way you interpret it, but neither *primus* can modify or agree with *causa* regardless; how would you translate this passage?" CreationDate="2024-01-08T11:20:01.300" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47113" PostId="23102" Score="0" Text="Williams has, “Such was that day of death, the source and spring&#xA;of many a woe.” More directly I would translate, “That was the first day of death, and was the first cause of evils.” (Could also be “That day was the first [day] of death”)" CreationDate="2024-01-08T12:04:19.980" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="47116" PostId="23102" Score="0" Text="I've added my (tentative) translation to the question now." CreationDate="2024-01-08T12:24:56.647" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="47114" PostId="23103" Score="1" Text="I don't understand the paragraph beginning “The structure of the sentence...”. Are you saying that the genitives are modifying causa? i.e., causa leti, causa malorum?" CreationDate="2024-01-08T12:11:51.863" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="47115" PostId="23103" Score="0" Text="@adam.baker I added a clarification to that paragraph and an additional paragraph. Break the thing down and start simple to see the core structure. And at least I need more context to judge where *malorum* goes. Could go with *causa* (seems most likely) but might also go with the second *primus*." CreationDate="2024-01-08T12:20:43.803" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47117" PostId="23103" Score="0" Text="I've added a link to the passage, but the preceding and following context don't help much, I think. I'm still stuck on the reason for the second primus being in the masculine. (Is there an implied ”dies”?)" CreationDate="2024-01-08T12:38:36.057" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="47120" PostId="23103" Score="0" Text="@adam.baker Yes, another *dies* seems to be implied. Or you could take it as referring to the same *dies* so that it's the first in two different ways. It's very elliptical so there's room for several interpretations." CreationDate="2024-01-08T13:29:28.533" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47129" PostId="23103" Score="3" Text="Keeping in mind @TKR’s point about how _primus_ works, I don’t think there’s actually much ellipsis going on here. Using square brackets to show constituent grouping and curly braces to show elliptically elided elements, I’d say it’s just: _ille [dies primus] [leti {causa}] {fuit} primusque [malorum causa] fuit_ ‘that day first {was} [{the cause of} death] and first was the cause of evil’. Both instances of _primus_ are restrictive appositives to _dies_, while _{causa} leti/malorum_ are predicative complements." CreationDate="2024-01-09T15:18:00.647" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="47130" PostId="23103" Score="2" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet That strikes me as the most sensible reading. My answer ended up being imperfect in many respects, but my main point about either *primus* not modifying *causa* stands. I would much like to see an answer that offers that translation and explanation; it makes the situation much clearer than the other descriptions offered so far. Would you mind turning that comment into an answer?" CreationDate="2024-01-09T15:47:11.037" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47118" PostId="23104" Score="0" Text="I added the Conington quote to my question, and when the page refreshed I saw your answer. I see now that the first primus can be modifying dies. Are you saying that the second primus is short for “primus dies”?" CreationDate="2024-01-08T12:41:28.527" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="47119" PostId="23104" Score="0" Text="Yes, I think the second primus also agrees with `dies`. I don't see another possibility. Adverbial &quot;For the first time&quot; would be `primum` or `primo`, and it doesn't agree with `causa`." CreationDate="2024-01-08T12:51:13.320" UserId="986" />
  <row Id="47134" PostId="23105" Score="0" Text="This is good. I wonder whether constructions with the sympathetic dative could fill a similar role." CreationDate="2024-01-09T18:49:26.393" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47132" PostId="23106" Score="0" Text="This really is the crux of the matter to me: the way _primus_ works in Latin is the primary stumbling block for an English speaker to understand the quote, since it creates a syntactic construction here which just isn’t possible in English. I don’t think you’re right in calling _primus_ a _predicative_ adjective, though, since there’s no predicate – rather, it’s an ***appositive*** to _dies_." CreationDate="2024-01-09T16:45:34.223" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="47133" PostId="23106" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet I agree about the terminology, but &quot;predicative&quot; is the term traditionally used for this in Latin and Greek grammars (e.g. Smyth 1042 for Greek). I've always found it inaccurate too. Allen and Greenough (282) use &quot;predicate apposition&quot; to describe a similar example, *Litteras Graecas senex didici*." CreationDate="2024-01-09T17:46:44.313" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47131" PostId="23108" Score="2" Text="Erasmus [commendat](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Colloquia_familiaria/Salutandi_formulae): *Sit faustum ac felix. Servet te Deus. Sit saluti ferum.* [???] *Bene vertat Deus.*" CreationDate="2024-01-09T16:44:25.207" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47135" PostId="23108" Score="0" Text="Whoa! Nice finding, @SebastianKoppehel!" CreationDate="2024-01-09T20:39:55.727" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="47178" PostId="23108" Score="0" Text="The accusative/dative aspect of the question probably comes from simultaneously thinking of the verb as adverb+verb *bene dicere*, taking an indirect object, and an unanalysable single transitive verb *benedicere*, which logically takes a direct object. If you ask a native speaker which of the two is correct, he will probably answer “Yes”." CreationDate="2024-01-13T10:28:29.423" UserId="831" />
  <row Id="47136" PostId="23110" Score="4" Text="Could you make it more explicit what you're trying to say here? How does this answer the question?" CreationDate="2024-01-10T08:39:13.983" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47138" PostId="23112" Score="1" Text="And using &quot;fortia&quot; for &quot;force&quot; is... incorrect, or?" CreationDate="2024-01-10T10:45:17.323" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="47139" PostId="23112" Score="10" Text="@FlatAssembler As you can see, Newton uses *vis*. I haven't come across *fortia* for &quot;force&quot; and it does strike me as odd." CreationDate="2024-01-10T11:35:00.937" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47153" PostId="23112" Score="2" Text="I would venture that _corpus_ be also correct when talking about **fields and skew fileds** in abstract algebra." CreationDate="2024-01-11T03:25:56.680" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="47154" PostId="23112" Score="3" Text="@NicolasMiari I wouldn't use *corpus* for that, but figuring out the correct translation should be taken to a separate question." CreationDate="2024-01-11T06:39:17.727" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47161" PostId="23112" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta The concept itself is from the 19th century if I'm not mistaken, so defintiely not the same era as Newton... But the original is German _Körper_, and all romance languages seem to use a descendant of _corpus_ as well (English seems to be the outlier)... Acknowledging the derailing the discussion, and out of curiosity: What would you use instead?" CreationDate="2024-01-12T03:50:55.087" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="47163" PostId="23112" Score="0" Text="@NicolasMiari I'm not going to derail this conversation. It should be taken either to a new question or to [the site's chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm)." CreationDate="2024-01-12T09:52:58.493" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47155" PostId="23113" Score="0" Text="If you're writing macrons, *vīta* should be *vītā* (and *pugna* *pugnā*), since the ablative has a long *a*. The *i* in *doctrīnae* is also long." CreationDate="2024-01-11T08:38:30.413" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47151" PostId="23114" Score="2" Text="I wonder if plural *difficultates* might not be better here, since there would be many different types throughout life." CreationDate="2024-01-10T18:17:48.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47152" PostId="23114" Score="1" Text="@cmw In vita, difficultates; in difficultatibus, doctrina. It could be an interesting option." CreationDate="2024-01-10T18:26:39.753" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47158" PostId="23116" Score="9" Text="Where would the *s* in *anser* come from? The *s* in *anas* is the nominative ending; the stem is *anat-*." CreationDate="2024-01-11T15:46:34.057" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47164" PostId="23116" Score="1" Text="more critically, anser has a long a in the first syllable, where anas has a short one" CreationDate="2024-01-12T10:30:38.847" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="47165" PostId="23116" Score="1" Text="(although a suffix beginning with t, and then loss of the medial a could potentially explain both issues, but that requires just as many unexplained irregularities than linking anser to goose does)" CreationDate="2024-01-12T10:32:33.373" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="47169" PostId="23116" Score="1" Text="@Tristan A vowel before *-ns-* is always long (and probably nasalized)." CreationDate="2024-01-12T15:24:23.713" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47170" PostId="23116" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon ah yep, good point" CreationDate="2024-01-12T15:29:15.850" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="47160" PostId="23117" Score="5" Text="The first type is generally called a _cognate_, the second type is a _calque_." CreationDate="2024-01-12T00:00:31.117" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47162" PostId="23117" Score="1" Text="The etymology of *norma* is in dispute, but it definitely cannot be the same word as νόμος." CreationDate="2024-01-12T09:02:11.727" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47171" PostId="23117" Score="1" Text="You're asking for two quite different things here. Cognates between Greek and Latin are very numerous and hard to list exhaustively, and calques wouldn't belong in the same list." CreationDate="2024-01-12T17:45:03.107" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47173" PostId="23117" Score="0" Text="@TKR – The distinction you're making is certainly valid but doesn't make much of a difference in terms of practical usefulness for a learner of Greek and/or Latin. Exhaustiveness is not a criterium as the most used or relevant words are also the most useful ones. I thought such lists would certainly exist but maybe the desire to see that kind of connection is not as wide-spread among learners and teachers as I thought. You can certainly build your own list over time, but if something is already in existence, why not take that as a starting point?" CreationDate="2024-01-12T22:25:30.030" UserId="14621" />
  <row Id="47168" PostId="23119" Score="4" Text="*Carassius* is Linnaeus' latinisation of German *Karausche* and was never real Latin. *Karausche* might be a borrowing from Latin *coracinus*, itself certainly from Greek κορακῖνος 'young raven; some Nile fish'. The PIE root *\*(s)ker-* 'to cut' underlying that, or the homonymous one 'to bend', could conceivably have yielded lexical items related to rivers flowing, maybe, but none seem to survive in Albanian. Either way, you'd still have to explain the *p* in *carpa*." CreationDate="2024-01-12T15:17:18.657" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47172" PostId="23120" Score="2" Text="It is a type of [instrumental ablative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Instrumental_ablative), possibly ablative of agent, though I'm not confident enough to classify it and write an answer. Houses were filled _with_ bodies and streets _with_ (by?) funerals. In that case you can use ablative." CreationDate="2024-01-12T18:31:33.197" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="47174" PostId="23121" Score="0" Text="A&amp;G class this as ablative of means: 409a. I had a professor who insisted on “ablative of content” since what something is filled with is logically distinct from the means of filling." CreationDate="2024-01-13T02:22:09.210" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47175" PostId="23121" Score="0" Text="@Kingshorsey Yeah, I disagree with means and agree with your professor that material/content (same basic idea) is more likely here, as Lewis and Short state." CreationDate="2024-01-13T02:31:52.267" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47176" PostId="23121" Score="0" Text="As an addendum, it seems to me that ablative of means would be the way in which the material filled in location, not the material/content itself." CreationDate="2024-01-13T02:49:31.987" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47190" PostId="23121" Score="0" Text="That's why &quot;content&quot; is better than both material and means. If I fill a metal bucket with water using a hose, I have metal as the bucket material, water as the content, and hose as the means." CreationDate="2024-01-13T19:15:13.683" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47191" PostId="23121" Score="0" Text="Also, I don't really care much about how we label it, but your answer points to the wrong section in A&amp;G. Verbs of filling are discussed in 409a." CreationDate="2024-01-13T19:16:25.707" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47179" PostId="23122" Score="3" Text="Welcome to the site! Do you have a picture of the inscription? You can add one to your question if you [edit] it." CreationDate="2024-01-13T10:51:12.370" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47189" PostId="23122" Score="0" Text="*Modestus* is likely the name of the dedicator. *Lari* and *bus* go together to form *laribus*, 'to the household gods.' *VSL* appears on other altars and is an abbreviation for *votum solvit libens*, 'willing(ly) fulfilled a vow.' One sometimes aso finds *VASL* and *VSLA*, where the A is short for *animo*; so it's possible that *AVSL* is another variation. In this case, those 4 letters means 'willing(ly) in mind fulfilled a vow.' Otherwise, perhaps the *a* is short for *aram*, 'altar'? (I don't recall seeing that before though.) That leaves just *cal* and *uti*, which possibly go together." CreationDate="2024-01-13T19:12:05.170" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47195" PostId="23122" Score="0" Text="Actually, I think *Caluti* may be a form of *Calutium*, which is a place name. Depending on the date of the altar, I suppose the *a* could conceivably be short for *Augustiis*, modifying *laribus*, 'the Augustan lares.' I'm not sure how common it is to abbreviate that as just *a* though. I agree that a photo will be helpful, as will any other information that you can provide (e.g., a date)." CreationDate="2024-01-13T19:28:45.203" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47181" PostId="23125" Score="4" Text="Looks like a typo; the actual word is πατρῴα. If it were a case of crasis you'd still expect to see an accent somewhere." CreationDate="2024-01-13T11:45:22.503" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47182" PostId="23125" Score="0" Text="Thanks. I should have added that I did a bit of googling before adding the question, and this passage, with this word, comes up... maybe they're all getting it from the same source which originally misspelled it..." CreationDate="2024-01-13T11:47:28.900" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="47184" PostId="23125" Score="3" Text="The [Greek Wikisource](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82/%CE%91) has the error, and it claims to be based on Marchant's OCT, [which does not](https://archive.org/details/xenophontisopera03xeno/page/n43/mode/2up) (and also nothing in the critical apparatus, so it's not a manuscript issue). Probably their fault." CreationDate="2024-01-13T12:32:19.177" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47187" PostId="23125" Score="3" Text="Yeah, my guess is that it's an OCR error that no one proofread. If you Google the words right before it, you'll see that the more respectable sites have πατρῴα and the ones with the error are regular people's sites. They probably never even noticed the mistake. @Cairnarvon, you should make that an answer." CreationDate="2024-01-13T14:36:55.423" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47185" PostId="23126" Score="1" Text="Are the dative and ablative forms unattested for just *Dido* or all Greek names of this type?" CreationDate="2024-01-13T13:29:27.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47186" PostId="23126" Score="2" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta According to L&amp;S Pliny has an [ablative *Sappho*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Sappho) and Dido herself has a [*disputed* dative *Dido*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Dido2), but not, AFAIK, anything else. The dative is an interesting question because *-oi* should be phonotactically disallowed in Latin; you probably would expect *-ō* actually (or *-ī* for old words), and that might be the source of Pliny's ablative." CreationDate="2024-01-13T14:00:40.247" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47240" PostId="23126" Score="1" Text="Why not a theoretical -oe for the dative, which Latin did use for some words they borrowed with -οι- in it (e.g. *oeconomia*)?" CreationDate="2024-01-14T21:36:28.883" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47251" PostId="23126" Score="0" Text="@cmw I guess this is hard to prove, but Latin is more constrained in word-final sounds than medial ones, and original medial and final *oi* developed differently (*-oi-* became *-ū-* but was sometimes preserved, *-oi* became *-ī* and never was, though obviously the morphology interferes) so it feels wrong to me. But I went and checked and nearly all the [*-oe* words in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=oe&amp;lang=la) have a long *-ē* and reflect Greek -οη or -ωη (*Noe* reflects Νῶε). One *does* reflect Greek -οι, and that's the interjection *euhoe* (εύοί) ..." CreationDate="2024-01-15T08:06:51.510" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47252" PostId="23126" Score="0" Text="... (Terence also has an interjection [oi](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=oi&amp;lang=la).) The Salian fragment *pilumnoe poploe* presumably also reflects Old Latin *-oi*. None of these are especially integrated into the language even when compared to these forms of *Dido*, of course. It's all interesting but not especially conclusive." CreationDate="2024-01-15T08:10:10.523" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47205" PostId="23132" Score="1" Text="It's the exact same situation as in [your previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/23120/why-ablative-corporibus-and-funeribus-are-used-in-this-excerpt-from-tacitus)." CreationDate="2024-01-14T15:08:22.920" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47206" PostId="23132" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon: So it's also an ablative of material?" CreationDate="2024-01-14T15:32:36.947" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="47214" PostId="23132" Score="2" Text="@Charo, did you understand *pulvere* and *sudore* goes with *perfusum*? How would you render this in English?" CreationDate="2024-01-14T17:57:42.213" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47236" PostId="23132" Score="0" Text="@d_e: Yes, I understand that *pulvere* and *sudore* goes with *perfusum*. The translation in Catalan is &quot;cobert de pols i ensems de suor&quot;. In Spanish would be &quot;cubierto a la vez de polvo y de sudor&quot; and in Italian &quot;coperto contemporaneamente di polvere e di sudore&quot;. I'm not sure in English, I believe it may be something like &quot;covered at the same time with dust and sweat&quot;." CreationDate="2024-01-14T20:10:30.457" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="47237" PostId="23132" Score="0" Text="Should I improve something in this question?" CreationDate="2024-01-14T20:37:44.897" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="47242" PostId="23132" Score="0" Text="@Charo, perhaps some users thought that yes the question could be improved by providing additional details as to why the *genitive* is to be expected. Did you encountered some other examples with genitive for similar verbs, etc. Or it might be that some users thought another question is too close to this one -- this, however, is inherently harsh requirement for the asker as sometimes we just don't know that (or what) we don't know - in order to see a connection between question." CreationDate="2024-01-14T21:49:08.203" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47211" PostId="23134" Score="0" Text="*Partis* is also an alternative form of the accusative plural, but it doesn't seem to lead to anything more sensible unless we are to understand a suitable word left out." CreationDate="2024-01-14T17:50:40.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47213" PostId="23134" Score="0" Text="Do you have access to a zoomable picture of the entire map? Perhaps we can glean some hints by other texts in this map." CreationDate="2024-01-14T17:56:02.493" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47216" PostId="23134" Score="0" Text="@d_e You would not really find much, as the section I presented gives all the information relative to that section, but since you asked, here it is https://www.faena.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/cart1090222.jpg . It makes me imagine that Waldseemuller was not so good at Latin, but that is hard to believe." CreationDate="2024-01-14T18:07:54.200" UserId="14628" />
  <row Id="47217" PostId="23134" Score="1" Text="If we allow a bit of mixing between classic latin and post-medieval latin we could say that &quot;partis&quot; (gen. sing.) relates to &quot;de cuba&quot; (intended as Cubae) in terms of adposition, so that the translation Land of Cuba, part of Asia makes a bit more sense. I have nothing to support this though." CreationDate="2024-01-14T18:14:12.370" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47225" PostId="23134" Score="1" Text="I wonder if *Asiae* here is equal to *Asianae*, so meaning something like &quot;The Land of Cuba of the Asian part&quot; (i.e. land of a part of Asia)." CreationDate="2024-01-14T19:08:29.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47268" PostId="23134" Score="0" Text="Both Davide and cmw bring up good points. It is fine that it is written de Cuba instead of Cuba, as perhaps the cartographist did not feel it appropriate to declinate a new word that is foreign; that aside, it is strange if &quot;Cuba, part of Asia&quot; is meant, as &quot;Asia&quot; is written before partis and closer to &quot;Cuba&quot;, which renders it &quot;Land of Cuba, of part of Asia&quot;. And even if it does mean &quot;Land of Cuba, of part of Asia&quot;, it is still strange, as it would imply that there is a part of Cuba that is not in Asia.&#xA;Continues" CreationDate="2024-01-15T14:28:21.707" UserId="14628" />
  <row Id="47269" PostId="23134" Score="0" Text="For cmw, it is true Asie could be genitive female of asius (Asian), but then we would have &quot;Land of Cuba, of Asian part&quot;. Possible, though still weird." CreationDate="2024-01-15T14:36:43.213" UserId="14628" />
  <row Id="47373" PostId="23134" Score="0" Text="It's most definitely *asiae*, of that there is no doubt. It does still sound weird to me, though, as if something else is missing. The Asian part *of what* (for example)?" CreationDate="2024-01-24T03:31:47.387" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47374" PostId="23134" Score="0" Text="By the way, to ping a user, you'll have to add the @ sign in front of their name, like @Davide, which means Davide is now pinged, and will now see that you replied to his comment." CreationDate="2024-01-24T03:32:37.813" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47204" PostId="23135" Score="0" Text="In which sense are these ablatives of cause?" CreationDate="2024-01-14T14:53:36.297" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="47207" PostId="23135" Score="0" Text="Sorry I meant ablative of (inanimate) agent (in my language, italian, it is called &quot;efficient cause&quot;) and it is the agent of the passive meaning of profusus: &quot;covered by dust and sweat&quot;. In other languages including mine, &quot;covered with dust and sweat&quot; or &quot;covered of dust and sweat&quot; would make more sense as translation (not in English probably." CreationDate="2024-01-14T15:52:43.473" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47208" PostId="23135" Score="1" Text="Here https://quintushoratiusflaccus.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/od-i-5-la-tempesta-pirra-e-passata/, you can find &quot;perfusus liquidis odoribus&quot; and the explanation that &quot;liquidis odoribus&quot; is an abaltive of agent (&quot;causa efficiente&quot; in the explanation)." CreationDate="2024-01-14T15:55:22.840" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47209" PostId="23135" Score="1" Text="How do you explain *auro tecta perfudimus* (Sen. Ep. 115 (lib. XIX))?" CreationDate="2024-01-14T16:38:03.993" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47212" PostId="23135" Score="0" Text="I would consider it as ablative of means (instrumental) as ablative of material would need a preposition. &quot;we cover (or we covered) the roofs with gold (using gold)&quot;" CreationDate="2024-01-14T17:54:02.883" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47247" PostId="23135" Score="0" Text="@Davide Surely this analysis would also apply in the passive: *tecta (a Seneca) auro perfusa*. And also in the Curtius sentence. Gold is not the agent here, and neither are dust and sweat." CreationDate="2024-01-15T00:03:44.860" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47250" PostId="23135" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I see your point, although I still believe that an ablative of agent could be an option in general with a passive form." CreationDate="2024-01-15T07:24:09.327" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47253" PostId="23135" Score="0" Text="An ablative of agent requires the preposition *a/ab*. That's a defining feature of the ablative of agent." CreationDate="2024-01-15T08:14:27.740" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47255" PostId="23135" Score="0" Text="If the agent is an inanimate object, the preposition is not necessary. This is what I knew and studied at school and what I found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)). I understand from your comments that this distinction is wrong and that is an instrumental ablative. Thanks for the clarification." CreationDate="2024-01-15T08:58:26.080" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47270" PostId="23135" Score="1" Text="@Davide I believe all the &quot;ablative of such-and-such&quot; titles (there are many) are a bit of a language game. I hadn't heard the name &quot;ablative of material&quot; until now. My point was only that there could be an agent in addition to the material in this case." CreationDate="2024-01-15T20:38:10.660" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47244" PostId="23136" Score="2" Text="re: ORFEVS - ORPEUS this proposal goes back to **Mommsen 1879** (p. 70) - Th. Mommsen. “Die Wiedergabe Des Griechischen Φ in Lateinischer Schrift.” Hermes 14, no. 1 (1879): 65–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4471609" CreationDate="2024-01-14T23:06:16.423" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="47245" PostId="23136" Score="1" Text="re: HELIOFO,  see http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/buchseite/520721" CreationDate="2024-01-14T23:12:21.490" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="47275" PostId="23136" Score="1" Text="The third one is Fedra, CIL I 2 1413" CreationDate="2024-01-16T02:04:06.877" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="47259" PostId="23137" Score="0" Text="I see, @d_e: unfortunately, any of my dictionaries don't specify which case is used with the verb *perfundo*." CreationDate="2024-01-15T10:22:09.627" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="47271" PostId="23137" Score="1" Text="@Charo Some dictionary authors do not specify this explicitly, but through the examples they list, such as [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperfundo), who say: *To scatter or sprinkle over, to besprinkle, bestrew (poet.): “canitiem immundo perfusam pulvere turpans,” Verg. A. 12, 611: “sanguine currum,” Verg. A. 11, 88: “penates sanguine,” Ov. M. 5, 155* etc." CreationDate="2024-01-15T20:40:56.240" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47243" PostId="23138" Score="2" Text="[Vergil uses the word four times](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23septim+%5Bverg%5D), unambiguously with a short vowel. I can write an answer collecting metric evidence for the quantity if you want, but I feel that your main focus is elsewhere." CreationDate="2024-01-14T22:49:43.127" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47246" PostId="23138" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Much appreciated, but indeed, my question is less &quot;how do we know&quot; and more &quot;how do we square the Romance evidence with the Classical evidence&quot;." CreationDate="2024-01-14T23:40:37.610" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47276" PostId="23141" Score="6" Text="Welcome to the site! This kind of an answer is found in conjugation tables that come with many books and websites. What material are you using to learn Latin? Are you struggling to interpret a table?" CreationDate="2024-01-16T08:52:20.413" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47282" PostId="23146" Score="2" Text="In μέχρι δεῦρο τοῦ λόγου I'd say μέχρι is a preposition rather than an adverb (*until* this point in the speech). Adverbial μέχρι seems to be rare, but LSJ does give an example ἐς γόνυ μέχρι χιτῶνα ζώννυσθαι." CreationDate="2024-01-16T21:57:26.847" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47283" PostId="23146" Score="0" Text="Also, welcome to the site!" CreationDate="2024-01-16T23:41:38.183" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47285" PostId="23146" Score="0" Text="Thank you! I think that the adverbial interpretation of μέχρι in μέχρι δεῦρο is more convincing (an adverb determines an adverb); besides the fact that we have a complete meaning, we can also consider the primordial adverbial nature of prepositions, which survives even later. Finally, in my opinion it makes more sense the above approach than the (rare as well) determination of an adverb  (pure; not an adverb with article) by a preposition (like ἀπὸ τότε). I think the conversation is fruitful. Thanks again." CreationDate="2024-01-17T09:38:19.243" UserId="14637" />
  <row Id="47286" PostId="23146" Score="1" Text="I think the issue is that adverbs don't generally govern other words, and μέχρι is clearly governing δεῦρο, just like in ἀπὸ τότε. If it were an adverb you'd expect it to be omissible." CreationDate="2024-01-17T17:33:23.963" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47294" PostId="23146" Score="0" Text="&quot;Prepositions define the relations of a substantival notion to the predicate. All prepositions seem to have been adverbs originally [...]&quot; (Smyth, 1636). Hence ἀπὸ τότε is a great example of an adverb governing another adverb just like μέχρι δεῦρο or μέχρι(ς) ἐκεῖ or μέχρι(ς) ἐδῶ . Besides an adverb of place is a suitable choice for a semantic argument of μέχρι as an adverb." CreationDate="2024-01-17T21:11:01.907" UserId="14637" />
  <row Id="47295" PostId="23146" Score="1" Text="But synchrony isn't diachrony, and the reason Greek prepositions are said to have once been adverbs, rather than to still be adverbs, is precisely the change in syntactic behavior by which they came to take complements. ἀπὸ isn't an adverb in ἀπὸ τότε, unless we call all Greek prepositions adverbs." CreationDate="2024-01-17T21:35:00.533" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47297" PostId="23146" Score="0" Text="Of course I do not confirm anachronism. Preposositions as adverbs e.g. in a 400 B.C. text is a διασωθὲν ἐν χρόνῳ φαινόμενον. If you agree with Smyth 's definition (I agree), you cannot call ἀπὸ a preposition in ἀπὸ τότε; it is an adverb for Homer and it is a residue of its adverbial nature e.g. for Plato." CreationDate="2024-01-17T22:10:14.037" UserId="14637" />
  <row Id="47298" PostId="23146" Score="1" Text="I'd say τότε and δεῦρο are acting substantivally in those phrases, or else that prepositions can take adverbs as complements. It seems arbitrary to me to say that the same word is an adverb if its complement is an adverb but otherwise a preposition; it's clearer to distinguish between prepositional uses and adverbial ones based on presence or absence of a complement. This is obviously a question of terminological preference, but I think the position I'm describing is conventional, see e.g. LSJ s.v. ἀπό which regards it as a preposition in all cases." CreationDate="2024-01-17T22:19:58.607" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47299" PostId="23146" Score="1" Text="Anyway, whatever definitions one uses, in the context of this question the crux is whether μέχρι and ἄχρι have different meanings when used in the same syntactic environment, i.e. whether μέχρι δεῦρο means something different from ἄχρι δεῦρο. I don't think that's the case, but I could be wrong." CreationDate="2024-01-17T22:35:33.567" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47300" PostId="23146" Score="0" Text="In Beekes' and Frisk 's Etymological you will find ἀπὸ as adverb and preposition.  As you understand, I cannot think that ἀπὸ here is not an adverb: βούλεται ἀντιάσας ἡμῖν ἀπὸ λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι (A 67)." CreationDate="2024-01-17T23:03:47.297" UserId="14637" />
  <row Id="47301" PostId="23146" Score="1" Text="Yes, I agree that in that example it's an adverb in tmesis (precisely because there is no complement)." CreationDate="2024-01-17T23:07:31.210" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47293" PostId="23149" Score="2" Text="it should be *distinendae* not *distendae*" CreationDate="2024-01-17T19:25:04.470" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47296" PostId="23149" Score="2" Text="*constrata navis* = a covered ship, i.e., one with a deck" CreationDate="2024-01-17T21:35:51.343" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47302" PostId="23149" Score="0" Text="cnread: Thanks. The Wiki translation: &quot;...at the same time to create a diversion he attacked it (the island) on the other (side) with his fleet&quot;. Therefore, &quot;create a diversion&quot; vs. &quot;extending his forces&quot;. I have more faith in your version." CreationDate="2024-01-18T00:03:04.207" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47303" PostId="23149" Score="0" Text="@Sebastian Koppehel: I came across this (&quot;constratum&quot; = &quot;deck&quot;) but as ships tend to have decks it wouldn't be mentioned; so, it cannot be the correct translation, in this context, was my thinking." CreationDate="2024-01-18T00:06:55.927" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47304" PostId="23149" Score="0" Text="@d_e: Well-spotted! I've changed it." CreationDate="2024-01-18T09:47:29.183" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47305" PostId="23149" Score="0" Text="@tony, I should have noted it makes the verb *distineo* (instead of *distendo*). it would make the Wiki translation a reasonable one. to *manūs* we should supply *hostium* rather than *nostrae*" CreationDate="2024-01-18T11:22:47.167" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47322" PostId="23149" Score="0" Text="@d_e: Then is, &quot;distendae manus hostium causa&quot;, &quot;for the purpose of the dividing of the forces of the enemy&quot;?" CreationDate="2024-01-19T10:22:57.553" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47314" PostId="23154" Score="1" Text="It seems to have been a common expression in English law. [Edward Coke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Coke) explains it in the [Third Book of his Institutes of the Laws of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEdward_Coke%2C_The_Third_Part_of_the_Institutes_of_the_Laws_of_England_(1st_ed%2C_1644).pdf&amp;page=82), p. 63, citing two examples from “the raigne of E. I.,” i.e., the 13th century. (This book is apparently cited by English jurists as “Inst.,” LOL.)" CreationDate="2024-01-18T22:00:45.263" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47324" PostId="23154" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Just for curiosity's sake, what's the joke?" CreationDate="2024-01-19T14:01:13.670" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="47352" PostId="23154" Score="0" Text="@lly &quot;Inst.&quot; or even just &quot;I.&quot; usually stands for *Institutiones Iustiniani*, an extremely well known 6th-century Roman legal text – certainly in philological writing, and I would have thought also in legal scholarship." CreationDate="2024-01-21T14:40:59.933" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47357" PostId="23154" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Oh, ok. [Wiki seems right that it wasn't as important](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_(Justinian)) as the other bits of the [_Body of Civil Law_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis), particularly in the bit where the Brits still cared about Romans, before moving on to focus on the Common Law, before then turning their back on most of it in favor of modern reforms." CreationDate="2024-01-22T03:52:37.160" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="47358" PostId="23154" Score="0" Text="I could see how that'd be weird from a European perspective, tho'" CreationDate="2024-01-22T04:01:17.240" UserId="2733" />
  <row Id="47315" PostId="23155" Score="2" Text="Can you add more details on what you are after? Is there something in the right direction that falls short somehow? Are there similar things for other pairs of languages?" CreationDate="2024-01-18T22:14:22.500" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47316" PostId="23155" Score="0" Text="I do not know similar books in english. I am just talking about books containing e.g. latin texts' fragments translated in ancient greek with comparative analysis of syntax and grammar and vice versa." CreationDate="2024-01-18T22:23:29.337" UserId="14637" />
  <row Id="47317" PostId="23155" Score="0" Text="In other words I mean a method of parallel learning." CreationDate="2024-01-18T22:24:15.360" UserId="14637" />
  <row Id="47318" PostId="23155" Score="4" Text="You might want to add that information to the body of the question so it's more visible. I don't know of any textbooks of this nature, but I'd be interested in learning if they do exist." CreationDate="2024-01-18T22:45:38.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47326" PostId="23157" Score="0" Text="Thank you for a very well thought out answer! I take you think I was basically right, as compared to the book I googled up? The only thing that doesn't match my interpretation is *nulla*. I understood it to agree with *acu*. Is that less tenable?" CreationDate="2024-01-19T17:00:51.063" UserId="14138" />
  <row Id="47328" PostId="23157" Score="0" Text="@consistebat I'm glad to be able to help! That's a good question, and I added a discussion to the bullet point on *a nulla*. How would you read *a nulla acu*?" CreationDate="2024-01-19T17:35:07.200" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47336" PostId="23157" Score="0" Text="I think I agree with the points you make. I was probably misled by Ørberg's rephrasing of the verse, which put &quot;a nulla&quot; and &quot;acu&quot; right next to each other. Your interpretation makes more sense grammatically and in context!" CreationDate="2024-01-20T06:46:00.370" UserId="14138" />
  <row Id="47330" PostId="23161" Score="1" Text="'Lux sit' is actually the Latin motto of my graduate school alma mater, the University of Washington, Seattle (which I believe you visited several years ago)." CreationDate="2024-01-19T19:33:57.650" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47331" PostId="23161" Score="1" Text="@cnread Interesting! I have indeed been at UW a couple of times. To me that sounds like a wish for light to continue to exist rather than the creation of light in the famous Genesis scene. If there is a story to what the motto tries to signal, that might make a nice answer." CreationDate="2024-01-19T19:36:14.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47332" PostId="23161" Score="0" Text="Well, I had heard of and read some very creative attempts to justify it during my time there; but the general agreement, I think, is that it was just sloppy Latin and should have used fiat instead of sit. Still, it does sort of works for that university, its location/climate, and student body (especially if the subjunctive is read as potential instead of jussive). Maybe there's something about it on the university's website. I'll take a look later." CreationDate="2024-01-19T19:40:22.600" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47333" PostId="23161" Score="2" Text="@cnread Maybe it's pejorative: &quot;There *might* be &quot;light&quot; here, but then again, given the Latin skills, there might not!&quot; (Teasing, teasing!)" CreationDate="2024-01-19T19:45:56.943" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47353" PostId="23162" Score="1" Text="&quot;his choice of fiat is almost certainly a conscious decision&quot; – yes, but it's worth mentioning that the author of the Vetus Latina had made [the same decision.](https://books.google.de/books?id=IsZ4ayaer-QC&amp;pg=PA7)" CreationDate="2024-01-21T15:28:45.273" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47356" PostId="23162" Score="0" Text="Wait… “ĕlohîm” translates to “gods,” plural, no?" CreationDate="2024-01-22T03:29:25.793" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47359" PostId="23162" Score="1" Text="@PierrePaquette It's a form that looks plural but is used for the singular God (with singular verbs etc.)." CreationDate="2024-01-22T06:39:33.827" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="47361" PostId="23162" Score="1" Text="@PierrePaquette Yes, it's a *pluralis maiestatis/excellentiae*." CreationDate="2024-01-22T10:08:38.717" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47339" PostId="23164" Score="0" Text="Do you have any additional context (e.g. a picture of the record) that you could add? Are you sure, for instance, that nothing precedes &quot;gratus erat&quot;?" CreationDate="2024-01-20T16:30:51.443" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47351" PostId="23164" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Image added." CreationDate="2024-01-21T13:45:37.433" UserId="10717" />
  <row Id="47354" PostId="23164" Score="1" Text="well, from context it seems to mean something like he was &quot;freed from the obligation&quot; to attend or &quot;was allowed/agreed not to attend&quot; because of sickness. though, I don't think this will work in classical Latin." CreationDate="2024-01-21T15:46:26.540" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47338" PostId="23165" Score="1" Text="Seems to be this (though there's no preview available): https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sancti_Vincentii_Lirinensis_Commonitoriu/1E3nvQEACAAJ?hl=en" CreationDate="2024-01-20T14:01:05.637" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47363" PostId="23165" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Thank you for providing this link." CreationDate="2024-01-22T11:57:12.957" UserId="14793" />
  <row Id="47342" PostId="23167" Score="1" Text="The English translation certainly captures the sense, but reverses the modifiers. The French literally means &quot;So I fumble around thus and thus, [doing] well as often as poorly.&quot; Whereas Woods has put the &quot;good/bad&quot; first and the &quot;so-so&quot; second. (And of course inserted &quot;as best I can&quot; and &quot;I hope generally&quot; to glue the parts together, I think a little gratuitously.)" CreationDate="2024-01-20T17:59:34.783" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="47347" PostId="23168" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your detailed explanation." CreationDate="2024-01-21T07:09:44.117" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47346" PostId="23169" Score="1" Text="Thanks for your answer. I haven't ever noticed this -as form so I considered it a regular -a declension word." CreationDate="2024-01-21T07:09:23.230" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47340" PostId="23170" Score="0" Text="Thanks, that is helpful - I'm not going to change the name of the company, but it is good to now how the correct way to express this correctly" CreationDate="2024-01-20T17:35:55.077" UserId="14653" />
  <row Id="47341" PostId="23170" Score="1" Text="@Stefan I don't think anyone expects modern company names to be grammatically correct phrases, so I think you're all good there!" CreationDate="2024-01-20T17:36:45.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47343" PostId="23170" Score="0" Text="Although in fairness, *fluctus scientiae* means something closer to &quot;knowledge wave.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-01-20T18:27:09.953" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47344" PostId="23170" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Which is even cooler. ;) But *fluctus* can also be used for flood/flowing out, which is the more etymological meaning, as opposed to *unda*." CreationDate="2024-01-20T18:34:07.090" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47350" PostId="23171" Score="6" Text="That text was definitely not correctly transcribed. For one, the last word should obviously be *gloriare*. The part before it is likely *si vis esse* (if you want to be). There rest is a bit mysterious. It would be very helpful to have a picture." CreationDate="2024-01-21T09:40:12.773" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47355" PostId="23171" Score="0" Text="Thanks, suspected as much- then it is a trip overseas for the snapshot." CreationDate="2024-01-21T16:26:26.677" UserId="14656" />
  <row Id="47368" PostId="23171" Score="0" Text="*Tune desinis esse? Noli gloriari*. Maybe. Still seems like it's missing something." CreationDate="2024-01-23T02:05:44.397" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47513" PostId="23171" Score="0" Text="Update: Google translate now has &quot;Tune Desuius Esse Noli Gloiare&quot; as _Don't Be Alone Don't Be Glorious_, whereas &quot;Tune Desuius Esse Noli **Gloriare**&quot; comes back as _Don't Be Afraid To Be Normal_. Beginning to make some sense." CreationDate="2024-02-13T14:22:27.533" UserId="14656" />
  <row Id="47365" PostId="23172" Score="0" Text="Just for your information, there is also a neologistic word for a robot, **robotum**, directly Latinized from English. But such words are avoided, I think, by many modern Latin users of good Latinity, however." CreationDate="2024-01-22T19:57:38.330" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47360" PostId="23174" Score="6" Text="Change the ch to a g (both consonants in a similar part of the mouth), the -os to -a (probably just to make it a more natural ending for the new language) and then change the vowels a little, and the only 'big' difference is gaining the f at the start." CreationDate="2024-01-22T07:25:59.220" UserId="1439" />
  <row Id="47367" PostId="23174" Score="0" Text="I immediately thought of the digamma ('ϝ'), which had the sound /w/, but was lost in most Greek dialects before the Classical period. I can't find anything that suggests that it survived in Cypriot Greek, though, so it is probably not relevant." CreationDate="2024-01-22T21:58:04.657" UserId="2767" />
  <row Id="47372" PostId="23174" Score="0" Text="I'm finding a few sources online (e.g. [this old geographical dictionary](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionnaire_de_g%C3%A9ographie_ancienne_et/LXtWAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;pg=PA57)) that give *Fama Augusta* as an alternative name. I can't find anything reputable (much less classical) that attests this." CreationDate="2024-01-23T03:34:17.173" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47399" PostId="23174" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos  What about Fama Augusta?" CreationDate="2024-01-26T17:24:51.473" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="47400" PostId="23174" Score="2" Text="Stems don't lie. Looks like  fanciful folk etymology.  Cartographers and Geographers  indulged in it a lot. May not have visited the places they depict." CreationDate="2024-01-26T17:29:39.877" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47401" PostId="23174" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos But It wasn't Greek Folk who wrote this https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionnaire_de_g%C3%A9ographie_ancienne_et/LXtWAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;pg=PA57" CreationDate="2024-01-26T17:38:04.527" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="47403" PostId="23174" Score="3" Text="I don't get you. The  French authors, reflecting a helper's corrupted pronunciation &quot;Famagusta&quot;, possibly parsed it, erroneously, as Fama Augusta. Are you referring to the giving or the taking, an aside setting the stage? It is significant that one of the alternate names, &quot;Amagusta&quot; misses the F!" CreationDate="2024-01-26T17:49:25.630" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47405" PostId="23174" Score="1" Text="You might appreciate [this](https://famagusta.news/local/ammochostos/apo-pou-proerchetai-to-ammochostos-kai-to-varosi-poio-einai-to-sosto). Note in it the Arabic corruption al-Makhusah,  and the  1573 (Etienne de Lusignan):  “So then Famagosta got its name. In Roman times some say it was called in Greek Amochusta, which means in Latin &quot;hidden in the sand&quot;, because there is nothing but sand around, but the word has been corrupted into Famagosta. It developed with the destruction of Salamis.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-01-26T19:51:57.393" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47417" PostId="23174" Score="0" Text="Fancy might well fly to &quot;άπ᾽Ἀμμοχώστου&quot; analogous to Istanbul from &quot;εἰς τήν Πόλιν&quot;, but wouldn't perch there..." CreationDate="2024-01-27T20:19:46.683" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47435" PostId="23174" Score="0" Text="[This](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/48244/25191) subsequent answer in the Linguistics SE suggests the initial F is just folk etymology, as mentioned above, peculiar to Latin languages." CreationDate="2024-01-28T17:46:30.700" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47375" PostId="23179" Score="3" Text="Specifically that is the case for the fourth-declension noun, not the second-declension one meaning 'son' or the PPP of *nascor*, both of which are also *nātus*." CreationDate="2024-01-24T10:46:50.303" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47376" PostId="23179" Score="0" Text="I see: I thought it was the adjective *nātus*." CreationDate="2024-01-24T12:01:36.490" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="47377" PostId="23179" Score="2" Text="@Charo It's worth checking your declension tables carefully when confused. The participle or adjective *natus* does not have a form *natu*; its ablative is *nato/nata*." CreationDate="2024-01-24T16:30:39.157" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47380" PostId="23179" Score="1" Text="Some more details in the answer here https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11054/the-purpose-of-natu" CreationDate="2024-01-25T11:07:25.910" UserId="14354" />
  <row Id="47378" PostId="23180" Score="4" Text="Are you studying Latin? Do you have a Latin grammar or textbook? This is basic Latin grammar (*case* changing the meaning and function of pronouns)." CreationDate="2024-01-25T03:35:00.663" UserId="75" />
  <row Id="47381" PostId="23182" Score="0" Text="Thank you! Is there somewhere on the site (or elsewhere) I can learn more about the name Jesus? You've piqued my interest :)" CreationDate="2024-01-25T14:56:06.477" UserId="14672" />
  <row Id="47382" PostId="23182" Score="2" Text="@Loani: A previous question about the name &quot;Jesus&quot; on this site: [Why is Jesus inflected in such a way?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/620)" CreationDate="2024-01-25T15:05:50.740" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47385" PostId="23182" Score="4" Text="Not just Romance languages, but pretty much all languages with a concept of grammatical gender (including a significant majority of the Indo-European languages outside of the Indo-Aryan and Germanic families) match gender for personal names. This is in fact _why_ it’s called grammatical gender, the noun classes of personal names match up with gender (mostly), so that’s what linguists decided to call it." CreationDate="2024-01-26T03:07:32.277" UserId="2342" />
  <row Id="47386" PostId="23182" Score="0" Text="@AustinHemmelgarn : Not sure what you're saying about Germanic languages, but standard modern German distinguishes among masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns, pronouns, adjectives, articles, and demonstratives, when they are singular. But none of the above kinds of words distinguish different genders from each other when they are plural. And also among nominative, genitive, dative, and accusatives cases (ablative and vocative and other cases besides those four do not exist in modern German)." CreationDate="2024-01-26T03:59:11.993" UserId="1584" />
  <row Id="47389" PostId="23182" Score="2" Text="OP: If you're curious for a bit more: Asteroides hit everything on the head, but there are actually _two_ forms of nouns that define them: the subject case that Asteroides mentioned, and then another that you can basically think of as &quot;apostrophe-s&quot;: &quot;Tit**i**&quot; that Asteroides mentioned is &quot;Titus's&quot;. It's this second form that more often gets borrowed in English. For -us nouns, it doesn't matter, because both cases have the same root: but for other kinds of nouns, it does. For example, &quot;peace&quot; is &quot;pax&quot;, and &quot;peace's&quot; is &quot;pacis&quot;. It's that second form that we recognize in words like &quot;pacify&quot;." CreationDate="2024-01-26T08:12:08.113" UserId="13339" />
  <row Id="47390" PostId="23182" Score="1" Text="Thanks @yshavit" CreationDate="2024-01-26T12:53:14.977" UserId="14672" />
  <row Id="47391" PostId="23182" Score="0" Text="@MichaelHardy A number of Germanic languages either have lost all grammatical gender outside of pronouns (English, Afrikaans, Modern Scots), or have merged the masculine and feminine forms (Frisian, Danish, most dialects of Swedish, some dialects of Dutch and Norwegian)." CreationDate="2024-01-26T13:39:48.263" UserId="2342" />
  <row Id="47392" PostId="23182" Score="0" Text="@AustinHemmelgarn: When I asked about the female name [&quot;Gretchen&quot; on the German SE](https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/50463), both of the speakers who answered said they would use a neuter article with the name based on the rule for the suffix -chen, despite it being a proper name for a woman/girl. But names/nicknames formed like this do not seem to be either usual or productive in modern standard German." CreationDate="2024-01-26T13:46:56.137" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47411" PostId="23182" Score="0" Text="@AustinHemmelgarn Not sure about all Slavic languages, but certainly Czech certainly uses the masculine for male surnames (and nicknames in the old times before surname formalization) even if they directly come from feminine words. Smetana is a famous composer. The word smetana=cream is feminine. The surname is masculine. Its female counterpart is derived from this masculine form as Smetanová. Similarly for Mucha (mucha= a fly)." CreationDate="2024-01-27T09:17:13.670" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="47412" PostId="23182" Score="0" Text="An exception to that is the modern practice used by women marrying foreigners and in addition to that mainly feminists, who keep the male form of the surname even when accepting the husband's name. So one TV journalist is named Smetana even though she is female. This is a total exception, though, and it is unclear whether her surname should be declined as the original feminine word *smetana*, or just not declined at all." CreationDate="2024-01-27T12:27:19.570" UserId="947" />
  <row Id="47432" PostId="23182" Score="0" Text="&quot;There are some exceptions to -us being a masculine ending (...) that actually end in (...) -us.&quot; - and there are also exceptions the other way around: masculine nouns that do not end in &quot;-us&quot;, such as &quot;poeta&quot; or &quot;argicola&quot;." CreationDate="2024-01-28T15:40:03.727" UserId="291" />
  <row Id="47387" PostId="23187" Score="1" Text="But *sub umbrā* is valid form for singular number (&quot;beneath shadow&quot;), while *sub umbrīs* is form for plural number (&quot;beneath shadows&quot;)... (I think that you can just update English translation.)" CreationDate="2024-01-26T06:51:36.620" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="47398" PostId="23187" Score="0" Text="@Arfrever Ahh, of course. I was thinking _sub umbris_ is more common, so they must have changed the case; I completely missed that they could have just changed the number." CreationDate="2024-01-26T17:18:55.970" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47443" PostId="23187" Score="0" Text="Of possible interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodens (note there are several inscriptions to Nodens cited there)." CreationDate="2024-01-29T15:35:55.323" UserId="1141" />
  <row Id="47404" PostId="23188" Score="3" Text="Aside: This reason is also why many Sanskrit male names end in *-a* (Rama, Krishna, Shiva, etc): it's the same cognate *-as* ending, with the &quot;s&quot; interpreted/changed to [visarga](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visarga&amp;oldid=1162406556) at the end of the word in Sanskrit, and dropped entirely when considering the &quot;base&quot; (nominal stem, *prātipadika*) form." CreationDate="2024-01-26T19:22:23.477" UserId="1118" />
  <row Id="47393" PostId="23189" Score="3" Text="I wouldn't lengthen the R of *arma* at all. The syllable is long, it doesn't have to be made long. The length as measured in (milli)seconds is composed of the length of the individual sounds that make up the syllable, and the whole thing can well be pretty long if it's made of many short parts. Apart from rare exceptions, I don't see a reason to do anything unusual. I might be confused, but why pronounce a vowel or a consonant with anything other than their natural quantity?" CreationDate="2024-01-26T15:16:01.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47407" PostId="23189" Score="1" Text="found later. related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17095/syllable-and-mora-count-for-long-vowel-with-iota-subscript" CreationDate="2024-01-26T21:03:30.203" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47413" PostId="23191" Score="1" Text="I would be happy to post a question in the Linguistics SE but I am afraid it would be considered a duplicate." CreationDate="2024-01-27T16:29:51.783" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="47414" PostId="23191" Score="0" Text="Suitably adapted and linking to this one, I think it would be legitimate, if it emphasizes the mysterious initial ***F*** tacked on. It's hard to imagine this is an isolated phenomenon, and, as admitted, I have failed to track it down anywhere except here. The reason I brought up Spanish is because its sounds and consonant transitions really echo those of post-classical Greek..." CreationDate="2024-01-27T16:53:18.637" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47415" PostId="23191" Score="1" Text="I think it's fine here. We do have some linguists here as well." CreationDate="2024-01-27T19:18:15.940" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47431" PostId="23191" Score="0" Text="Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/151139/discussion-between-george-ntoulos-and-cmw)." CreationDate="2024-01-28T12:08:49.953" UserId="5064" />
  <row Id="47428" PostId="23192" Score="0" Text="These are an interesting feature! They come from Greek diminutives with the suffix -ion, which are regularly neuter in Greek. Allen and Greenough is using kind of tricky wording where it says that these names are “neuter in form”: despite ending in -um, they take masculine and feminine agreement." CreationDate="2024-01-28T01:13:05.933" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47429" PostId="23192" Score="0" Text="I asked a few questions about them that you can see here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9388, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9389 https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380" CreationDate="2024-01-28T01:15:29.953" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47434" PostId="23194" Score="0" Text="A quick search found this in Smith and Hall, but it seems more specific than just &quot;pet&quot;: &#xA;_cătŭlus, f. cătŭla (strictly, a young d., a whelp, q. v.): trusty d.s, c. fideles, Hor. Dimin. cătellus, f. cătella, esp. a pet dog, Pl.: Hor._" CreationDate="2024-01-28T16:59:48.503" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="47436" PostId="23194" Score="4" Text="Delicia? It's used in a few places (e.g. Catullus, Martial) in reference specifically to animals. In fact, OLD gives 'pet animal' as definition 3b." CreationDate="2024-01-28T18:54:34.363" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47437" PostId="23194" Score="3" Text="@cnread That sounds like a good answer!" CreationDate="2024-01-28T19:11:42.883" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47446" PostId="23194" Score="0" Text="@cnread That's spot on. Seneca has *subalbam canem in deliciis habere adsueuerat*. Go ahead and answer." CreationDate="2024-01-30T03:35:08.480" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47438" PostId="23195" Score="4" Text="Can you add what you think *sanguis ipso loquitur* (not *loquitor*) is supposed to mean?" CreationDate="2024-01-28T23:43:03.520" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47444" PostId="23196" Score="2" Text="Can you expand on this, specifically with regard to Latin's conditional sentence structure and sequence of tenses?" CreationDate="2024-01-29T17:37:50.040" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47455" PostId="23199" Score="0" Text="it looks good but the use of the acronym like that looks a bit off, as anyone from SPQR could tell you" CreationDate="2024-01-31T18:25:33.960" UserId="109" />
  <row Id="47553" PostId="23199" Score="0" Text="@MichaelWolf Hmm, maybe [Wiktionary](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidum_desoxyribonucleicum) can help here. For _acidum deoxyribonucleicum_ it suggests either DNA or ADN." CreationDate="2024-02-18T18:28:29.610" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="47452" PostId="23200" Score="1" Text="Meaning both with her I have the world, but also my intent is to see the world with her, in both cases my wife. We travel extensively." CreationDate="2024-01-31T04:41:02.900" UserId="14695" />
  <row Id="47459" PostId="23200" Score="1" Text="What comes to my mind is something like /Cum illa orbem video/ (With her I see the world). Waiting for criticism and more idiomatic expression." CreationDate="2024-02-02T01:13:29.770" UserId="11598" />
  <row Id="47460" PostId="23200" Score="0" Text="@ValentineVincent That works. You might want to consider *hac* (the woman here) or *ista* (the woman there by you) instead of *illa* (the woman over there, yonder, away from you and me). You also have alternatives to *orbem*, if you want them, although I think *orbem* works fine. I wonder, though, whether there might be a better word than *video*. I suspect there is..." CreationDate="2024-02-02T02:20:26.080" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47466" PostId="23200" Score="0" Text="You are all so very helpful! I love the different ways this can be expressed." CreationDate="2024-02-04T01:11:27.430" UserId="14695" />
  <row Id="47453" PostId="23201" Score="2" Text="One thing to note, though, is that εύγε is an exclamation, like bravo! so it might appear as a note by a teacher, but not as a grade." CreationDate="2024-01-31T13:08:28.213" UserId="14698" />
  <row Id="47458" PostId="23201" Score="0" Text="Well it would likely have been delivered orally, right? ;-)" CreationDate="2024-02-01T06:11:28.710" UserId="10223" />
  <row Id="47456" PostId="23204" Score="0" Text="These are great suggestions, but I would suggest linking to a more reputable source." CreationDate="2024-01-31T20:18:01.713" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47475" PostId="23207" Score="0" Text="See also [this question on *umbrae*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2843/meaning-of-umbra) and [this one on skeletons](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/3025/what-is-a-skeleton-called/)." CreationDate="2024-02-05T17:27:51.837" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47474" PostId="23214" Score="2" Text="[Related!](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2843/meaning-of-umbra)." CreationDate="2024-02-05T17:27:15.053" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47476" PostId="23216" Score="0" Text="Note that the Stuttgart includes the Galicanum as well as the juxta hebraeos." CreationDate="2024-02-06T03:34:30.377" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47477" PostId="23216" Score="0" Text="@Figulus What's that?" CreationDate="2024-02-06T04:26:54.953" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="47485" PostId="23216" Score="1" Text="The Galicanum is the standard Vulgate psalter used in the Clementine. It was Jerome's earlier version. The juxta hebraeos came later." CreationDate="2024-02-08T01:43:43.327" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47478" PostId="23217" Score="5" Text="Are you looking for a Latin word, or an English word of Latin origin? If it's the latter, I can move this to the English site where they would better be able to help." CreationDate="2024-02-06T18:53:47.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47479" PostId="23217" Score="1" Text="@cmw Right now I am looking for a Latin word. If I want to ask about an English word of Latin origin, I will ask that as a separate question on https://english.stackexchange.com/." CreationDate="2024-02-06T19:26:48.353" UserId="6941" />
  <row Id="47480" PostId="23217" Score="5" Text="I asked because a word like &quot;carnitarian&quot;, your example, would be English, not Latin." CreationDate="2024-02-06T19:30:11.157" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47518" PostId="23217" Score="5" Text="Modern concepts like this usually don't have a direct translation in Latin. They are typically expressed using a periphrasis, such as &quot;qui/quae solum carnem edit&quot; (he/she who only eats meat)." CreationDate="2024-02-13T17:52:22.443" UserId="14744" />
  <row Id="47694" PostId="23217" Score="3" Text="Here's Pomponius Mela describing what we would call a &quot;pescatarian&quot;: &quot;quidam nullum animal occidere, nulla carne vesci optimum existimant, quosdam tantum pisces alunt.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-03-08T18:01:42.360" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47482" PostId="23219" Score="1" Text="[q.v.](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*x%3Aentry+group%3D39%3Aentry%3Dxrushla%2Fkatos)" CreationDate="2024-02-07T19:43:53.480" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47483" PostId="23219" Score="1" Text="On the other hand, some translate Hom Il 20.70: Ἥρῃ δ᾽ ἀντέστη χρυσηλάκατος κελαδεινὴ Ἄρτεμις ἰοχέαιρα κασιγνήτη ἑκάτοιο as  &quot;the archer-goddess Artemis with her golden arrows, sister of far-darting Apollo, stood to face Hera&quot;. Have you tried a Latin translation of the Iliad?" CreationDate="2024-02-07T20:01:16.620" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47484" PostId="23219" Score="2" Text="A ἠλακάτη is specifically and unambiguously a distaff, but the arrow interpretation is due to the scholia; the Souda glosses χρυσηλάκατος as 'ἡ καλλίτοξος, ἡ χρυσότοξος'." CreationDate="2024-02-07T23:22:45.467" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47500" PostId="23219" Score="1" Text="The word *harundo* is a somewhat technical term that does not normally appear in poetic contexts, at least that I have seen. Normally classical authors refer to arrows as *sagittae* or generically as *tela*. However, as Cosmas points out, that epithet refers to her distaff, not to her arrows, so the whole question is moot." CreationDate="2024-02-11T14:00:08.293" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="47488" PostId="23222" Score="2" Text="*we simply need to replace &quot;nobis&quot; with &quot;me&quot;* – we don't even strictly need to ;-)" CreationDate="2024-02-08T21:01:20.617" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47490" PostId="23224" Score="3" Text="What do you think the sentence means? Why do you think *adducti* should agree with *hac oratione*?" CreationDate="2024-02-09T22:05:13.177" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47491" PostId="23224" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon the verb of &quot;hac oratione&quot; should be either &quot;posse&quot; or &quot;potiri&quot;, but I can't make sense of it. Is there a hidden &quot;esse&quot;?" CreationDate="2024-02-09T22:10:33.033" UserId="13342" />
  <row Id="47506" PostId="23225" Score="0" Text="I like the spoilers." CreationDate="2024-02-12T19:36:10.067" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="47493" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="Thank you. Truth be told, there seems no semantic rationale that should prohibit so doing. I asked this question , however, because I had thought that I remembered reading that these particular adverbs, “always” and “never”, require the present tense. I pored over my books, but could not find where I might have read that. As it stands, I have no idea where I got that idea from. Can you think of any additional examples using the future?" CreationDate="2024-02-10T11:20:10.360" UserId="14735" />
  <row Id="47494" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="I often wish there was such a wonderful online resource for Greek as “PHI texts” provides for Latin, allowing word searches of the entire corpus. I mean, you have Strong’s online, but that only deals with Koine Greek, and of course with Biblical literature." CreationDate="2024-02-10T11:32:56.287" UserId="14735" />
  <row Id="47495" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="@Mike It's definitely not the case that it requires the present. It could be past or future as well. If you want to do a search, you could use [Scaife](https://scaife.perseus.org/search/?q=%CE%B1%CE%B5%CE%AF&amp;kind=lemma&amp;format=instances&amp;p=1). It's not as good as the TLG (which is *far* better than PHI) nor as complete, but it's still very useful for searching Greek texts." CreationDate="2024-02-10T14:17:28.027" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47498" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="One potential reason why it wouldn’t apply to the future would be if Greek had different words for ‘always/never [in the past/present]’ and ‘always/never [in the future]’. That’s not unheard of; for example, Irish has multiple words meaning ‘always’ (or ‘never’ in negative contexts), and while some of them are time-indifferent, _go deo_ is only used for the present and future, while _(a)riamh_ is only used for the past. Ἀεί happens not to work like that, but there’s no inherent reason why it couldn’t have." CreationDate="2024-02-10T19:26:28.393" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="47499" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet True, but that kind of information would have been necessary to be included in the opening question, thus my clarifying question. I think what prompts a question can be even more useful than the question itself." CreationDate="2024-02-10T20:11:20.167" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47501" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="Thank you all so much, especially to Cairnavon for all the examples that you provided. I don’t understand how I got this idea in my mind, but I did have the distinct idea that these adverbs introduced the continuous aspect, and that the continuous aspect required the verb in the present tense. Thank you for disabusing me of that misconception." CreationDate="2024-02-11T22:06:17.253" UserId="14735" />
  <row Id="47502" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="@Mike No worries! Glad we can clear that up for you." CreationDate="2024-02-11T22:34:08.220" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47503" PostId="23227" Score="0" Text="@Mike Don't forget to mark one of the answer solved (probably Cairnarvon's in this since it answers your question more completely than mine)." CreationDate="2024-02-11T23:43:35.067" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47497" PostId="23228" Score="0" Text="I completely overlooked &quot;epic&quot; in the original question; my eyes jumped straight to Classical Greek. Good post." CreationDate="2024-02-10T16:37:30.353" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47507" PostId="23231" Score="1" Text="The Herodotus is perfect. With a bit of luck that'll keep me out of mischief for a while. I think the WCA (Worldwide Classics Authority) should use some of its vast financial resources to produce such bilingual online texts in table form for ALL classical texts since the dawn of writing, e.g. at Gutenberg, if only for the good of humanity." CreationDate="2024-02-12T20:12:24.757" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="47508" PostId="23231" Score="1" Text="@mikerodent Check my edit - you might find Scaife useful. I don't love the site and so I don't use it frequently, but it should also scratch your itch." CreationDate="2024-02-12T20:17:43.517" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47512" PostId="23231" Score="0" Text="Scaife looks like a pretty good project ... I just looked at Pindar in Greek with English pretty much aligned. And a useful automated word list. And massive amounts of texts. Good resource for the future." CreationDate="2024-02-13T12:25:22.877" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="47519" PostId="23234" Score="1" Text="I see that &quot;datum&quot; has been changed with &quot;donatum&quot;. However, in my edition (by the Italian publisher Rusconi), in the passage in question, it reads &quot;datum,&quot; not &quot;donatum.&quot; I do not know if there are other philologically more accurate variants, based on which the correction &quot;donatum&quot; has been suggested." CreationDate="2024-02-13T17:58:32.453" UserId="14744" />
  <row Id="47520" PostId="23234" Score="2" Text="Here's a [critical edition from 1938](https://archive.org/details/MN40033ucmf_1/page/n147/mode/2up) that opts for the *datum* reading, though it lists the variant readings!" CreationDate="2024-02-13T18:11:37.750" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47521" PostId="23234" Score="2" Text="In the original quote you had *donatum* but said *datum* in your explanation. I just changed one for consistency's sake, but both could be *datum* without affecting the meaning. Barlow (and the Italian editor of yours) might have preferred *datum* since Vergil has *dabitur*, but, from the principle of *lectio difficilior*, that could easily work against it as well." CreationDate="2024-02-13T18:20:34.447" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47524" PostId="23234" Score="0" Text="As the reference to Virgil was evidently in the forger's mind, I believe it would be more appropriate to change it to 'datum.' ('Donatum' was my mistake: I copied and pasted the passage from the internet to save time instead of transcribing it from my print copy. I apologize for my inaccuracy)." CreationDate="2024-02-13T19:07:56.407" UserId="14744" />
  <row Id="47514" PostId="23236" Score="0" Text="But how do you get the active &quot;has sacrificed&quot; from *donatum est*?" CreationDate="2024-02-13T17:19:19.543" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47516" PostId="23236" Score="0" Text="@TKR I read the question too quickly. Mea culpa. Rereading and rewriting this answer anon." CreationDate="2024-02-13T17:31:36.630" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47515" PostId="23237" Score="0" Text="It makes sense. So, you assume that &quot;velim&quot; governs both sentences. Do you think it's a type of syntactic structure that could be suitable for classical Latin (or, given that we're talking about Seneca, for Silver Age Latin)? Or does it betray a later syntactic organization (considering the historical forgery was likely composed in the 4th century)?" CreationDate="2024-02-13T17:29:56.600" UserId="14744" />
  <row Id="47517" PostId="23237" Score="0" Text="Also, where would you put that &quot;apud te&quot; in the first part of the sentence? With &quot;meus&quot; or &quot;tuus&quot;?" CreationDate="2024-02-13T17:36:28.297" UserId="14744" />
  <row Id="47522" PostId="23237" Score="1" Text="Yes, having the verb in the second clause only is [very much Classical](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/17617/omitting-a-verb-when-it-is-the-same-for-both-parts-of-the-sentence). What is less Classical in style is the omission of any *sit*, at least according to [Allen and Greenough](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/verbs-and-subjects). (You should be able to find better links about when to omit the verb; these are just the first I found)." CreationDate="2024-02-13T18:26:37.133" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47527" PostId="23237" Score="0" Text="@FerdinandBardamu Oh, and to answer your second question, I think most translators keep it with *tuus*, &quot;your situation with you.&quot; That would make an implied *apud me* in the parallel clause." CreationDate="2024-02-14T12:58:09.700" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47525" PostId="23238" Score="1" Text="Did you check any of the [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) for *largitio* or related words?" CreationDate="2024-02-14T08:04:43.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47531" PostId="23238" Score="1" Text="Since you tagged your question ecclesiastical, Mt 28:12-13 comes to mind, but the bribery is implied: _Et congregati cum senioribus, consilio accepto, pecuniam copiosam dederunt militibus dicentes: “ Dicite: “Discipuli eius nocte venerunt et furati sunt eum, nobis dormientibus&quot;_" CreationDate="2024-02-14T14:50:16.797" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="47536" PostId="23241" Score="0" Text="Is it the case in Modern Greek that both η and ει are /iː/, while ι is /i/? I have not noted that in hearing Greeks speak, but I’m sure the difference is subtle…minimized…in colloquial speech." CreationDate="2024-02-14T23:43:16.607" UserId="14747" />
  <row Id="47537" PostId="23241" Score="1" Text="@Zwing I don't speak Modern Greek, but as far as I'm aware, there's no length distinction left. They're all just `/i/`." CreationDate="2024-02-15T00:09:00.340" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47549" PostId="23241" Score="0" Text="Go to [Ranieri](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fv46XgPPJy-ky9FUSApiemOVmtc8i6q7ZL5XkqtmMWA/edit?pli=1#gid=1919026778) : past the 7th century, it's just plain /i/.  Triumphant iotakism, as in Bavarian. In Modern mainstream Greek, in contrast to dialects, ι, η, υ, ει, οι sound the same." CreationDate="2024-02-17T22:25:29.883" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47538" PostId="23244" Score="1" Text="For what it's worth, _soborno_ means bribe in modern Spanish." CreationDate="2024-02-15T09:19:25.177" UserId="4882" />
  <row Id="47545" PostId="23248" Score="2" Text="The Vulgate has a singular because the Greek has a singular (καρπὸν). I don't know why Castellio has a plural, but the KJV does as well." CreationDate="2024-02-17T14:29:57.287" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47551" PostId="23249" Score="0" Text="Doesn't really align with the usage OP is asking for though, does it? It does translate as &quot;for posterity&quot; but literally it's something like &quot;for the everlasting memory of this (the subject being written about)&quot;. Nothing about safeguarding the descendants, just &quot;don't forget&quot;." CreationDate="2024-02-18T02:53:04.900" UserId="955" />
  <row Id="47546" PostId="23251" Score="0" Text="Thanks for your answer. Is there any purpose for the bar on the **h** of **coch**?" CreationDate="2024-02-17T20:13:28.513" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47547" PostId="23251" Score="1" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian That's the more straightforward use of the bar: *-ensis* is omitted." CreationDate="2024-02-17T20:19:40.453" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47565" PostId="23256" Score="1" Text="In a more meaningful way, without the macron it could also be ‘tyranny is always thus’ (_sic [est] semper tyrannĭs_), with a nominative rather than vocative." CreationDate="2024-02-20T13:37:00.587" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="47555" PostId="23257" Score="0" Text="I wonder if this *h₁y- &gt; h pattern appears in anything _not_ from \*h₁yeh₂ǵ-. I certainly can't think of any other examples." CreationDate="2024-02-19T23:41:44.097" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47557" PostId="23257" Score="2" Text="@Draconis ἧπαρ &lt; *\*Hi̯ekʷr̥* and ἵημι &lt; *\*(H)i̯eh₁-* come to mind. ὑσμίνη &lt; *\*Hi̯udʰ-* possibly as well, if that reconstruction is right, though obviously words starting with υ always have rough breathing." CreationDate="2024-02-20T04:02:56.123" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47556" PostId="23258" Score="3" Text="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viridis" CreationDate="2024-02-20T03:54:04.893" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="47559" PostId="23260" Score="0" Text="So in a sense, it is preservation of initial laryngeal? Or would it be heresy? :)" CreationDate="2024-02-20T07:52:52.263" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="47560" PostId="23260" Score="0" Text="(I will accept this answer in several days if there is no other answer.)" CreationDate="2024-02-20T07:56:20.647" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="47564" PostId="23260" Score="1" Text="+1 – though I think you copied in the wrong García Ramón reference – it’s [García Ramón (1999)](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/greek/D7ECB74210D90E01F00D41B9930BC70A#REFe-r-11025), not 2017." CreationDate="2024-02-20T13:03:48.317" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="47566" PostId="23260" Score="0" Text="@JanusBahsJacquet: Thanks, you're right!" CreationDate="2024-02-20T13:59:54.620" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47561" PostId="23261" Score="3" Text="Are you asking about *dum* or *cum*?" CreationDate="2024-02-20T10:23:02.293" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47562" PostId="23261" Score="1" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Funnily enough, I think that was just a typo on their part. I linked the source, which does have &quot;dum cecidissent.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-02-20T11:38:29.017" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47563" PostId="23261" Score="2" Text="Then this is a good question. I believe in classical Latin this is generally avoided..." CreationDate="2024-02-20T12:36:14.773" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47574" PostId="23261" Score="1" Text="Woodcock (#218-#224) says that when *dum* means &quot;as long as&quot; the use of pluperfect and future perfect are ruled out by the sense. When *dum* means &quot;during the time that&quot; or &quot;until&quot; it can take the pluperfect in certain situations, but I'm not sure that those situations apply in your text. He goes on to say that from the time of Livy and later, the subjunctive pluperfect becomes common to refer to repeated action." CreationDate="2024-02-23T01:20:27.660" UserId="2724" />
  <row Id="47567" PostId="23262" Score="0" Text="Hi Antônio, this question appears to be a near-duplicate. I think the answer in the linked question should also provide an answer for you here. If you don't find that your questions has been answered in full, feel free to edit your question indicating what you're still confused and we can open the question back up then. Ping me (by typing &quot;@cmw&quot; at the start of your comment) if you have concerns about this process or are unsure of what to do." CreationDate="2024-02-20T23:43:38.560" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47568" PostId="23262" Score="1" Text="@cmt that helped me." CreationDate="2024-02-21T00:51:24.967" UserId="14777" />
  <row Id="47569" PostId="23262" Score="0" Text="Great and welcome! I hope you stick around and ask more Latin questions!" CreationDate="2024-02-21T01:10:45.877" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47570" PostId="23263" Score="1" Text="I'm not positive, but the &quot;te&quot; seems like a typo, which would be hilarious on a replica piece. There are a lot more Google hits for &quot;HISPAN ET IND&quot;" CreationDate="2024-02-21T17:10:58.770" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47576" PostId="23266" Score="0" Text="You said you pieced this together from the internet. Can you show that process? What sites did you use? What was your logic? That might help people in giving some feedback." CreationDate="2024-02-23T03:49:40.933" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47573" PostId="23267" Score="0" Text="Thank you so much for your answer !" CreationDate="2024-02-22T12:17:45.680" UserId="14779" />
  <row Id="47571" PostId="23268" Score="6" Text="Don't use ⅻⅰ (SMALL ROMAN NUMERAL TWELVE + SMALL ROMAN NUMERAL ONE), use ⅹⅲ (SMALL ROMAN NUMERAL TEN + SMALL ROMAN NUMERAL THREE), and ⅹⅳ (SMALL ROMAN NUMERAL TEN + SMALL ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR) will sort correctly after it. ⅺ and ⅻ as single characters are (I would guess) just for clocks." CreationDate="2024-02-22T03:35:53.430" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47572" PostId="23268" Score="5" Text="@Cairnarvon That would make a good answer!" CreationDate="2024-02-22T03:45:28.207" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47577" PostId="23272" Score="0" Text="I'm glad a point of interest emerged which your expertise solved. I had a complete blind spot over χώρας, assuming it could only be acc. pl.. Isn't it nonetheless strange that he switches to the singular of &quot;country&quot; despite the facts that 1) τὰς χώρας is used earlier and 2) these &quot;rulers&quot; are obviously plural. Having said that, in English &quot;country&quot; has that same capability of meaning (countable) regions and/or something vaguer. Maybe that's the explanation here in the Greek ...?" CreationDate="2024-02-23T12:22:49.410" UserId="9367" />
  <row Id="47579" PostId="23272" Score="0" Text="@mikerodent Yeah, I do think it's a case of multiple χώραι adding up to one χώρα. The ἧς actually signals χώρας must be singular in this instance, but that obviously doesn't help if the construction isn't transparent to the reader." CreationDate="2024-02-23T15:56:55.953" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47578" PostId="23273" Score="2" Text="Welcome to this site! I don't think I get the meaning of your question, but you are right that **suus** doesn't always refer to the subject, but also to the direct/indirect object, and sometimes even to something not syntactically expressed. See the Lewis &amp; Short's dictionary entry (https://logeion.uchicago.edu/suus) for details" CreationDate="2024-02-23T14:14:14.867" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47580" PostId="23274" Score="0" Text="What does 'higher than light' even mean? What's the context? It's hard to tell whether you're saying it correctly when the English itself doesn't make very much obvious sense." CreationDate="2024-02-23T21:07:09.853" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47591" PostId="23277" Score="0" Text="I’m a mere beginner in Latin, but I think there’s something missing in each sentence. The first one doesn’t seem to have translated the part “must,” whereas the second one seems to be missing “by the.” I think the second one should be “ Spiritus Sancti…” But that’s only my opinion." CreationDate="2024-02-25T11:14:14.373" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47611" PostId="23277" Score="1" Text="Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I am going to wait for some more feedback before making a decision. But I appreciate your insight nonetheless." CreationDate="2024-02-26T16:00:51.590" UserId="14787" />
  <row Id="47619" PostId="23277" Score="0" Text="Wise course of action, considering I’m just a newbie." CreationDate="2024-02-26T19:12:31.840" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47593" PostId="23279" Score="1" Text="(Small correction, χρυσόλογχος is a bahuvrihi rather than a tatpuruṣa.)" CreationDate="2024-02-25T18:27:47.560" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47594" PostId="23279" Score="1" Text="@TKR Goddammit." CreationDate="2024-02-25T19:03:11.250" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47599" PostId="23279" Score="0" Text="Thank you for your answer and the steps you used to get to it. I've asked this same question in Reddit, and got a different answer. enkhos chrýseon Athinás (ἔγχος χρύσεον Ἀθηνᾶς) They said the same thing as you, that the dory refers more to the wooden staff of the spear, than the spear itself and that enkhos more accurately means spear." CreationDate="2024-02-26T06:55:20.840" UserId="6626" />
  <row Id="47609" PostId="23279" Score="1" Text="@Walter δόρυ originally did mean 'wood(en pole)', but it does also just mean 'spear' as early as Homer; ἔγχος does typically mean 'spear' in Homer, but later it became a generic word for just about any weapon. The problem with χρύσεον and Ἀθηνᾶς is that one is an Ionic form (χρύσεον would be χρυσοῦν in Attic, with contraction and different accentuation) and the other is Attic (Ἀθηνᾶ would be Ἀθήνη in Ionic). /r/ancientgreek is pretty abysmal in my experience." CreationDate="2024-02-26T12:53:04.937" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47581" PostId="23281" Score="2" Text="What's the bigger context? Based off the small snippet *secundum* could definitely fit in: &quot;...to each other according to the aforementioned art...&quot;" CreationDate="2024-02-24T20:44:34.743" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47582" PostId="23282" Score="1" Text="@Pierre Paquette An annotated French translation of the Alphonsine tables appears to be available: Emmanuel Poulle, *Les tables alphonsines avec les canons de Jean de Saxe. Édition, traduction et commentaire.* Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1984. 246 pp." CreationDate="2024-02-24T22:21:51.457" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="47585" PostId="23282" Score="0" Text="I know about it. I have found a copy of it yesterday and have ordered it, with delivery expected in a few weeks. I will definitely understand better then!" CreationDate="2024-02-24T23:29:57.557" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47586" PostId="23282" Score="1" Text="@Pierre Paquette In the meantime, this (legitimate, best I can tell) [online version](https://www.persee.fr/doc/sohim_0398-3811_1984_edc_16_1) should do?" CreationDate="2024-02-24T23:31:52.083" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="47587" PostId="23282" Score="0" Text="Absolutely! I must have overlooked it, as I was looking for a PDF of it and couldn’t find one. THANK YOU!" CreationDate="2024-02-24T23:34:59.647" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47588" PostId="23282" Score="0" Text="Actually, it fits does so well, that I cancelled my book order!" CreationDate="2024-02-24T23:36:20.440" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47589" PostId="23282" Score="1" Text="@Pierre Paquette I am pleased I could be of help. Asking on Latin Stackexchange was OK, but in the future you might also want to consider asking such questions on History of Science and Mathematics Stackexchange, assuming the book in question has a science context. There might even be participants there who are familiar with the domain-specifics aspects of the computation discussed in the book. It would also help to identify the sources you are referring to with as much detail as possible (and ideally, include a link to a scan). In this case I spent ten minutes tracking down the likely source." CreationDate="2024-02-24T23:46:31.167" UserId="10109" />
  <row Id="47590" PostId="23282" Score="0" Text="Well, I was really just asking about the character itself, which I found pertained more to Latin than to the history of science and mathematics or astronomy…" CreationDate="2024-02-25T00:42:01.260" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47592" PostId="23283" Score="2" Text="Can you tell us some more context? That might help us understand what distinctions you have in mind among those phrases." CreationDate="2024-02-25T18:12:25.603" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="47597" PostId="23283" Score="0" Text="Sure. Q: What have you been doing? A: Thinking continuously. Q: How did you come to this solution? A: By thinking on the problem continuously. Hopefully that clarifies what is denoted by 'thinking' and 'continuously'." CreationDate="2024-02-26T00:31:59.980" UserId="14798" />
  <row Id="47607" PostId="23283" Score="0" Text="That definitely helps. Could you tell us some more context, like what leads you to ask the question? Are you trying to answer a theoretical question about linguistics, compose a tattoo, write dialogue for a character in a novel, write a sign for your office door, …? (BTW, Google Translate is probably wrong for all of those.)" CreationDate="2024-02-26T12:16:43.843" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="47606" PostId="23287" Score="2" Text="How do you know that the missing word is *esse* rather than *est*? It helps if you can provide the context that suggests that." CreationDate="2024-02-26T09:53:06.680" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47601" PostId="23289" Score="0" Text="Oh! Great! Thank you. I was thrown off by the large spacing before, by the fact that I didn’t know this word, by the fact that I didn’t even think that a word could begin by two successive “i”s, and by the fact that the top left of the first “I” seems to be missing." CreationDate="2024-02-26T07:34:20.907" UserId="12039" />
  <row Id="47604" PostId="23289" Score="2" Text="@PierrePaquette yes, a part of the 'I' appears to be missing from the print or scan." CreationDate="2024-02-26T07:53:24.620" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47603" PostId="23290" Score="1" Text="There is indeed a verb in the main clause &quot;exīstimāvit&quot;, but I omitted it since I wanted to focus on &quot;verbs that take dative cases&quot;. And thanks for explanations on passive periphrastic, but that kind of deviates from what I inteded to ask. I see in your last paragraph that you mention there is no subject, and this is what I have been confused with. For example, converting the simple sentence &quot;rei frumentariae prospicio&quot; into passive, which I guess could be &quot;rei frumentariae prospicitur a me&quot;. So according to your answers, this sentence has no subject, and should be in singular. Is that right?" CreationDate="2024-02-26T07:51:22.160" UserId="14558" />
  <row Id="47605" PostId="23290" Score="2" Text="This situation is a good example why calling it the &quot;passive periphrastic&quot; is inadvisable. It would probably clarify matters much more for the OP to say that there is no passive in this sentence." CreationDate="2024-02-26T08:00:43.570" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47617" PostId="23291" Score="1" Text="I agree. As for your final statement (&quot;even though the &quot;passive&quot; morphology is used, there is no passive semantically. This is similar to...&quot;), I'm not sure if it is clear enough: e.g. note that impersonal passive constructions like _pugnatum est_ do have a passive semantics (unlike the impersonal -nd- example at issue here)." CreationDate="2024-02-26T18:37:30.167" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47618" PostId="23292" Score="0" Text="I agree. As for your final statement/&quot;preference&quot; (&quot;I prefer not to mix the two&quot;), the thing is that both constructions can be found with such a &quot;mixing&quot;: e.g. see my ex. (1), which is a _deontic_ impersonal _passive_ construction: _...quibus est a vobis... consulendum_. (Cic. _Manil_. 6). It is often said that the ablative of agent is used there to avoid the ambiguity with the other dative (_quibus_) but the thing is that passive gerundi(v)al constructions do exist (typically, in Cicero: e.g. _Sed tamen et Crassus a consulibus meam causam suscipiendam esse dicebat_. (Cic. _Sest_. 41))." CreationDate="2024-02-26T19:10:52.847" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47621" PostId="23297" Score="0" Text="Thank you. I especially appreciate knowing the source." CreationDate="2024-02-27T12:07:30.370" UserId="299" />
  <row Id="47624" PostId="23298" Score="1" Text="Welcome to the site! Have you found any candidates yourself? We can help you verify a case." CreationDate="2024-02-27T16:25:58.420" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47625" PostId="23298" Score="0" Text="I edited your post, but one thing I wasn't too sure on: you only want direct objects, right? I ask this because several prepositions and other adverbial uses can cause a noun to go into the accusative as well." CreationDate="2024-02-27T20:22:08.450" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47626" PostId="23298" Score="0" Text="Thankyou for your kindness. I would appreciate having examples of direct objects in the first instance, but the other examples you mention would be most welcome as well." CreationDate="2024-02-28T00:12:16.983" UserId="14803" />
  <row Id="47627" PostId="23298" Score="0" Text="Joonas, thankyou for your kind offer. No, I haven't yet found any examples. I have been looking mainly in Cicero's letters." CreationDate="2024-02-28T00:14:49.710" UserId="14803" />
  <row Id="47628" PostId="23301" Score="2" Text="A great answer that shows not just what the asker wanted but also how to find it. I would not have thought of that trick of searching near nt#!" CreationDate="2024-02-28T03:38:18.090" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47629" PostId="23301" Score="1" Text="I am very grateful to you and I sincerely thank you. I am new to this discipline (and to the Latin Stack Exchange) and am unfamiliar with PHI Latin texts (I was using Perseus, but fumbling about). You have given me a head start which will help me to find exactly what I need to find. Thankyou very much! Harry." CreationDate="2024-02-28T07:39:10.793" UserId="14803" />
  <row Id="47630" PostId="23304" Score="1" Text="Nice &amp; clear answer! Cf. the same dative associated to a gerundival form of this verb: _ad eorum voluntatem mihi conciliandam maximo te mihi usui fore video_  (Cic. _Att._ 1.2). One could say that _mihi_ is a &quot;dative of agent&quot; in this gerundival context, but it is not. Here _mihi_ is, as you rightly note, the beneficiary dative argument selected by the verb. (Context of the discussion: (typical) &quot;datives of agent&quot; cannot depend on the gerundive form. Cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12844/can-a-dative-of-agent-appear-in-an-ablative-absolute-construction-and-more-g/21220#21220 )." CreationDate="2024-02-28T17:38:29.443" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47632" PostId="23309" Score="1" Text="Agreed. Taking a Latin course, whether from a textbook or a teacher, is the tested and existing solution. Trying to reinvent the wheel is to waste effort and to build a wobbly square that doesn't quite roll." CreationDate="2024-02-28T22:12:53.333" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47633" PostId="23309" Score="1" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ideally, of course, a textbook *and* a teacher. Most textbooks are designed to be used in a classroom with a knowledgeable teacher who'll answer your questions. *Contra vulgatam opinionem,* this also applies to LLPSI." CreationDate="2024-02-28T22:30:18.027" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47635" PostId="23309" Score="0" Text="One comment on Ranieri. He didn't learn via his own &quot;Ranieri-Dowling&quot; method. He was already a somewhat experienced Latinist before he did the Dowling brute force memorization. He thinks it helped him. I can see that; consolidating phenomena that you've already experienced is often a good thing. But it's an enormous leap to recommend that to beginners. It makes way more sense to just memorize as you go." CreationDate="2024-02-29T14:49:14.843" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47645" PostId="23311" Score="1" Text="Thanks a TON for your input and informative answer. After looking at the alternative words you suggested I think what best fits what I am going for is &quot;Magisterio&quot; so after making the edit the final phasing would come out to &quot;Spiritus Sancti ductu et magisterio Bibliorum&quot;. I really appreciate the assistance." CreationDate="2024-03-01T22:16:15.913" UserId="14787" />
  <row Id="47636" PostId="23312" Score="2" Text="Interesting. Do you have a link to these translations and any information about who translated them?" CreationDate="2024-03-01T02:37:30.763" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47647" PostId="23313" Score="0" Text="Man, that sentence gives me flashbacks to my first reading of BG." CreationDate="2024-03-01T23:04:38.987" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47646" PostId="23314" Score="3" Text="I seem to recall that the OP has been confused by wrong information from that website several times before and was made aware of its quality." CreationDate="2024-03-01T23:03:35.427" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47649" PostId="23314" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel I concur. I just hope this time some learning happens and a better reference material is converted to." CreationDate="2024-03-02T16:33:04.430" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47637" PostId="23315" Score="0" Text="In the previous sentence (&quot;eo gravius ferre, quo minus merito populi Romani accidissent: qui si alicuius iniuriae sibi conscius fuisset, non fuisse difficile cavere; sed eo deceptum, quod neque commissum a se intellegeret quare timeret, neque sine causa timendum putaret.&quot;) populi Romani is plural, so if deceptus refers to Romani then it should be decepti not deceptum." CreationDate="2024-03-01T13:56:30.120" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="47639" PostId="23315" Score="0" Text="So, what is deceptus -a -um modifying then? Is it a neuter singular nominative being used substantively? The problem with this is then intellegeret, because deceptum cannot be the subject of intellegeret as far as I can see. In fact, I cannot even see what the subject of intellegeret is because populi is plural." CreationDate="2024-03-01T14:00:25.247" UserId="1495" />
  <row Id="47640" PostId="23315" Score="1" Text="It is a verb in indirect discourse: Romanum populum deceptum esse/fuisse." CreationDate="2024-03-01T14:02:45.850" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47642" PostId="23315" Score="1" Text="@Asteroides no I just had a brain fart and wrote the wrong word. Yes, it's clearly genitive, modifying merito." CreationDate="2024-03-01T15:35:05.647" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47643" PostId="23315" Score="2" Text="I think the only way to read it is with *merito*, i.e. &quot;by the merit of the Roman people&quot;" CreationDate="2024-03-01T15:37:54.600" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47644" PostId="23316" Score="3" Text="populum Romanum is the elliptical subject of deceptum (esse). In direct speech, the sentence would read &quot;populus Romanus deceptus est.&quot; Note that the subject is also elliptical in the previous clause: (se) cavere" CreationDate="2024-03-01T15:52:45.983" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="47669" PostId="23321" Score="0" Text="Edit: Wrong link! I originally linked to [this resero](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dresero1), but that's a 3rd conjugation verb. The right one is [this resero (reserare)](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DR%3Aentry+group%3D21%3Aentry%3Dresero2)." CreationDate="2024-03-05T03:17:06.960" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47692" PostId="23321" Score="0" Text="Great thanks for your help" CreationDate="2024-03-06T22:55:27.383" UserId="14827" />
  <row Id="47663" PostId="23322" Score="1" Text="Welcome to Latin Language Stack Exchange! Your question was migrated here as it's mostly about the Greek language (which is also within our scope), but your account was not migrated automatically. There's a button you need to click. If you extend your account to our site, you'll be notified of all answers and such and you'll be able to respond and accept an answer." CreationDate="2024-03-04T05:43:00.823" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47670" PostId="23322" Score="0" Text="Detailed discussion here (also from me): https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15658/in-john-1923-was-jesus-crucified-naked" CreationDate="2024-03-05T14:29:23.453" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="47664" PostId="23323" Score="2" Text="Welcome to the site! Take a look at [this old question on comparing *forem* and *essem*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1315/79). Does it, with its answer, answer your question?" CreationDate="2024-03-04T05:45:59.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47665" PostId="23323" Score="0" Text="I closed your question as a duplicate, but it can be reopened if you [edit] to describe what's missing. Don't worry; this linking of questions is just to make our database of questions and answers more useful. Your question is good and I hope you'll stick around and ask more." CreationDate="2024-03-04T07:39:55.513" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47680" PostId="23323" Score="0" Text="Thank you for the reference to the article on esse and fore.  It leaves open the possibility that fore is, in fact, being used with future reference, or is deliberately ambiguous, and also suggests stylistic considerations." CreationDate="2024-03-05T20:33:00.293" UserId="14099" />
  <row Id="47690" PostId="23323" Score="1" Text="It's hard to tell: does your last comment indicate you have further questions about this? If so, make sure you [edit] your question to take into account the new information and we can evaluate it again afterward." CreationDate="2024-03-06T17:46:39.000" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47674" PostId="23328" Score="2" Text="Use *y* if you're a Roman writer borrowing a Greek word into Latin and *u* in every other situation." CreationDate="2024-03-05T18:52:16.983" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47676" PostId="23328" Score="3" Text="Are you only looking for transliterations for use in English? In Finnish, for example, &quot;y&quot; seems to be the only option outside diphthongs, which probably has to do with the Finnish pronunciation of these sounds." CreationDate="2024-03-05T19:37:32.817" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47678" PostId="23328" Score="1" Text="@Joonas I added a note to clarify that I'm interested in English, though that's certainly interesting as well!" CreationDate="2024-03-05T19:40:01.323" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47677" PostId="23329" Score="1" Text="Related: [Where did the missing forms of *nemo* go?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1334/79)" CreationDate="2024-03-05T19:38:23.820" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47673" PostId="23330" Score="1" Text="Thank you. So, it changed through history and, for some reason, neminis and nemine stopped being used. Is there any historical reference of why this happened?" CreationDate="2024-03-05T18:38:11.377" UserId="14838" />
  <row Id="47675" PostId="23330" Score="5" Text="@user I don't think I've seen anyone try to explain why, just merely note that it happened. I'm not sure there's any real reason at all except that languages often change." CreationDate="2024-03-05T19:11:55.180" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47682" PostId="23331" Score="2" Text="I feel like this answer is confusing transliteration, which the *hupolēpsis* &amp;c. examples certainly are, with adaptation, as in *hypochondriac* and the loans into Latin." CreationDate="2024-03-05T23:02:07.283" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47685" PostId="23331" Score="1" Text="Surely this is not recent at all, in fact it seems to me like it would derive from Erasmian Pronunciation. The Biblical academic community has been transliterating &quot;πρεσβύτερος&quot; as &quot;presbuteros&quot; for at least a couple hundred years, I'm pretty sure" CreationDate="2024-03-06T02:12:56.273" UserId="6447" />
  <row Id="47693" PostId="23335" Score="0" Text="(This question is partly inspired by [an answer I saw on the Biblical Hermeneutics site](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/92836/prunes-or-cleanses-in-john-151-4-esv/92845#92845) arguing about the meaning of one verb based on the other's.)" CreationDate="2024-03-07T19:23:10.133" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47695" PostId="23339" Score="2" Text="I wonder to what extent this is in fact due to the Catholic Church. &quot;Flesh-meat&quot; meant (and still means) &quot;all meat except seafood.&quot; I noticed that Thomas Aquinas *sometimes* uses *caro* to the exclusion of *piscis* and *sometimes* talks about *caro piscium*." CreationDate="2024-03-08T18:58:46.260" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47699" PostId="23341" Score="0" Text="Smith and Hall provide the relevant attestation: [Cic. *Att*. 1.16.5 (it says 2, but PHI has 5)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/57/15/4356-4361,4365-4374@1#15). This (and the others it recommends) feel like &quot;introduce&quot; in the networking sense, as in the English &quot;to make an introduction.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-03-08T22:13:20.583" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47703" PostId="23343" Score="2" Text="Romae (locativo casu utimur) si eris, quaere modice, quaeso, et invenies. Deinde, si tibi placet, nos certiores facies respondendo hic (vel potius, mea sentetnia, in Meta). Sed nobis cavendum est ne temere credituri simus quiquid sensibus nostris patet et pro veritate tota statim habeamus. nam si et hiemaveris illic fortasse alia experieris." CreationDate="2024-03-09T21:29:25.587" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47707" PostId="23343" Score="1" Text="@d_e Et, dum Romae sum, possumne uti lingua Latina? Aut discenda est mihi lingua Italica hodierna?" CreationDate="2024-03-10T19:38:03.520" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="47706" PostId="23344" Score="3" Text="I think the reason you got a couple downvotes (although I didn't vote myself yet) is because it's a pretty barebones answers. Do you think you could flesh this answer out a bit more, especially explaining why Latin would prefer a conditional instead of the adverbial &quot;just in case&quot;? I think you're on the right track, personally, but more explanation would be helpful to others evaluating this answer." CreationDate="2024-03-10T14:45:41.443" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47708" PostId="23347" Score="2" Text="Beta code is a romanization scheme, but it isn't meant to &quot;transcribe&quot; in the way that the OP seems to be looking for." CreationDate="2024-03-11T04:00:52.420" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47715" PostId="23350" Score="1" Text="Thanks for that, actually this was a question from my mum that I offered to post to StackExchange for her (check out my last name and the last name of the reference you cited). She worked it out in the end with help from someone else. :)" CreationDate="2024-03-12T17:40:16.957" UserId="2403" />
  <row Id="47716" PostId="23350" Score="0" Text="@F.Tyers Hilarious!" CreationDate="2024-03-12T18:18:20.343" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47717" PostId="23353" Score="0" Text="Wonderful finds!" CreationDate="2024-03-12T18:19:40.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47719" PostId="23356" Score="0" Text="Relatedly, the three infinitival phrases denote actions, while the finite verbs denote states; and the actions (unlike the states) are ones that immediately threaten the republic, which helps explain the pragmatic importance of *video*: &quot;Look, his soldiers are right there, I can see them now!&quot; It would be less rhetorically appropriate to say &quot;I see them shining and glittering&quot;, as the &quot;here and now&quot; aspect of those states is not situationally relevant in the same way." CreationDate="2024-03-13T18:52:38.313" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47721" PostId="23356" Score="0" Text="@TKR I agree. BTW, I deliberately avoided discussing the complex issue of their Aktionsart properties since _volitare_ &amp; _venire_ are more dynamic than _stare_ (NB: 'stand' has been (mis)described as a stative verb). As for the stativity of _nitere_ and _fulgere_ (and other similar verbs: cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8848/aret-aridus-est ), they express D(avidsonian)-states, i.e. those states that have an event argument:  Cf. &quot;I see them _shining_&quot; (D-state) vs. * &quot;I see them _being tall_&quot; (Kimian state). See https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_4" CreationDate="2024-03-13T20:20:07.303" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47722" PostId="23356" Score="0" Text="@TKR So note that from a lexical-aspectual perspective, it could be the case that, to the extent that _stare_ is also a Davidsonian state (see the 2nd link above for Maienborn's (2008) claim that &quot;stand&quot; is a D-state), it would go with _nitere_ and _fulgere_ rather than with _vol(it)are_ and _venire_, which express proper events (cf. your descriptive term &quot;action&quot;)." CreationDate="2024-03-13T21:00:11.743" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47718" PostId="23357" Score="1" Text="I did some further digging: I'm pretty sure the note in the apparatus criticus means that Ca (=Codex Laurentianus) and &quot;Guilelmus&quot; (probably the Latin translation of William of Moerbeke) have θλυπίς, and that it is ommitted entirely in Aa (=Codex Marcianus)." CreationDate="2024-03-13T16:12:43.443" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47720" PostId="23359" Score="0" Text="My attempt (to either build an answer on or be corrected as an amateur myself!): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J0_yzt0NRa8YrCpJoMdqTHpEYMi50Fw5alYpEoGwgHs/edit?usp=sharing" CreationDate="2024-03-13T20:06:36.170" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="47732" PostId="23359" Score="3" Text="The [original](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL063.317.xml) doesn't include _me_ (although of course it's implied)." CreationDate="2024-03-14T15:11:49.840" UserId="14862" />
  <row Id="47723" PostId="23360" Score="0" Text="Also, the ending of *infandum* would have to be different if it were agreeing with *me* in this syntactic role, right? (Or does *iubeo* treat the one receiving the command as an accusative?)" CreationDate="2024-03-13T21:19:26.713" UserId="1484" />
  <row Id="47724" PostId="23360" Score="1" Text="@LukeSawczak Nope, although not as common among commands, *iubeo* can indeed take the one receiving the command as an accusative. It wouldn't be ablative (the only other option)." CreationDate="2024-03-13T21:51:09.670" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47733" PostId="23360" Score="1" Text="One small thing about wording: it's *Vergil* (not Kierkegaard) (in *Aeneid* II.3) who opts for the chiastic placement of *infandum...dolorem*. It *is* strange to me why Kierkegaard decides to add *me* and to transpose *regina* and *iubes*." CreationDate="2024-03-14T18:42:02.153" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47735" PostId="23360" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Of course it is! I knew it sounded familiar. That's almost an embarrassing lapsus memoriae." CreationDate="2024-03-14T19:29:39.230" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47726" PostId="23361" Score="0" Text="Gratias ago for your answer. Perhaps I am misled by some random materials which state plural genitive is better." CreationDate="2024-03-14T04:30:31.733" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47727" PostId="23361" Score="0" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian: If these materials are online, it would be interesting to see a link." CreationDate="2024-03-14T07:09:37.590" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47725" PostId="23362" Score="3" Text="It seems that form which would have been expected in classical times would be *computāculum*. Read notes in [-culum](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-culum#Latin), [-trum](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-trum#Latin), [-torium](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-torium#Latin)." CreationDate="2024-03-14T03:26:13.077" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="47728" PostId="23362" Score="1" Text="*Computatorium* sounds like a place where people gather to compute… anyway, why don't you ask him, he has comments allowed on his video." CreationDate="2024-03-14T07:13:09.347" UserId="6567" />
  <row Id="47730" PostId="23362" Score="0" Text="@SebastianKoppehel Because the way he was talking about it made it sound as if it was a common stance/consensus, not just something he alone says." CreationDate="2024-03-14T08:08:50.663" UserId="13674" />
  <row Id="47731" PostId="23364" Score="2" Text="Possible ambiguity: an enclitic word *can* have an accent, particularly (only?) in cases where there are more than one together." CreationDate="2024-03-14T13:02:56.337" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47744" PostId="23371" Score="1" Text="The *e* in *Neāpolis* is short." CreationDate="2024-03-16T18:37:32.040" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47742" PostId="23373" Score="4" Text="I'm not sure about other Greek adjectives, but Latin *multus* and *melior* seem to share a PIE origin. Obviously, μᾶλλον and μάλιστα are different degrees of the same adverb." CreationDate="2024-03-16T15:58:43.133" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47749" PostId="23374" Score="2" Text="I'm pretty sure your final comment about comets and meteors is incorrect: the ancients knew about them but didn't think of them as planets (at least universally). The very name &quot;meteor&quot; comes from the fact that it was viewed as an atmospheric (ie sublunar) phenomenon, not an astronomical one." CreationDate="2024-03-17T00:47:14.443" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47752" PostId="23374" Score="0" Text="@brianpck You are right. I have cut the bit about  comets and meteors." CreationDate="2024-03-17T09:46:15.730" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="47753" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="Would it be sufficient to have a dictionary that indicates whether the *ae* is a diphthong or not? Presumably you are using a dictionary to look up words anyway, so that'd be a natural place for such details." CreationDate="2024-03-17T12:26:58.520" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47754" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Yes, this could work, but having a list would be helpful for me to know how many words are involved, are they common ones, is there any chance of just learning the list so as not to have to check the dictionary every time, etc.?" CreationDate="2024-03-17T12:47:32.250" UserId="14839" />
  <row Id="47788" PostId="23378" Score="2" Text="I can only think of **Israel** (Isrāēl)" CreationDate="2024-03-20T07:59:40.083" UserId="10328" />
  <row Id="47793" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@KotobaTrilyNgian There are a lot of such proper names: Michael, Aerope, etc." CreationDate="2024-03-20T14:32:00.070" UserId="14839" />
  <row Id="47794" PostId="23378" Score="2" Text="@richardIII It's worth noting that *aer* was a transliterated borrowing from Greek ἀήρ: I'm curious now if there are native Latin words that have a dieresis." CreationDate="2024-03-20T15:00:21.270" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47795" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@brianpck There are forms of *inchoare* and *boare/boere*, but the first seems to be a variation of *incohare* and the second seems to come from from *βοάω* (if it's not a cognate). These are not very satisfying contenders, so I'd be happy to see that as a separate question." CreationDate="2024-03-20T15:41:45.117" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47802" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Those wouldn't count anyway since oa isn't a diphthong. There are plenty of Latin words where two vowels side by side do not form a diphthong." CreationDate="2024-03-21T20:48:23.957" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47803" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@brianpck Does [aeneus](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D25%3Aentry%3Daeneus) count?" CreationDate="2024-03-21T20:48:52.603" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47804" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@cmw That's a great example! I notice that there is a spelling with h (ahen-), so perhaps that is what leads to such pronunciations." CreationDate="2024-03-21T20:51:09.990" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47805" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@brianpck De Vaan has some interesting things to say about this, including that it might be an Umbrian loan or the -h- might be spurious. I'm no expert on this, though, so I can't weigh the options." CreationDate="2024-03-21T21:06:34.857" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47806" PostId="23378" Score="1" Text="@cmw I meant that those verbs have inflected froms with an *oe* but no diphthong, such as *inchoes*. My point was just that verb inflection produces situations where one might want to use a dieresis to guide pronunciation." CreationDate="2024-03-21T21:56:12.867" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47807" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta Ah, gotcha. I wasn't thinking about endings." CreationDate="2024-03-21T22:15:04.330" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47810" PostId="23378" Score="0" Text="For those that are interested in the pronunciation as vocalised, this is a nice video: [Latin AE: What's the right pronunciation?](https://youtu.be/PbYH5YJT0rI?si=m_BntspFj29vTWfd)." CreationDate="2024-03-22T17:20:01.970" UserId="11748" />
  <row Id="47755" PostId="23380" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much for your very clear and structured answer." CreationDate="2024-03-17T16:36:24.360" UserId="14867" />
  <row Id="47756" PostId="23381" Score="0" Text="&quot;*In/at his/her/its place it is made.&quot;. It's hard to tell what's it supposed to mean without context." CreationDate="2024-03-17T17:41:53.377" UserId="8533" />
  <row Id="47758" PostId="23384" Score="1" Text="Did you check a dictionary? *Studeo* usually takes a dative in any era." CreationDate="2024-03-17T19:09:59.527" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47759" PostId="23384" Score="0" Text="I checked [studeo in L&amp;S](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=studeo&amp;la=la&amp;can=studeo0#lexicon), but the dative seemed only to be called out in specific with the classical meaning. That might be my misreading of the dictionary entry, though." CreationDate="2024-03-17T19:14:16.037" UserId="5056" />
  <row Id="47766" PostId="23385" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2024-03-18T09:28:13.920" UserId="14867" />
  <row Id="47762" PostId="23386" Score="0" Text="This is helpful thank you!" CreationDate="2024-03-18T04:55:35.217" UserId="14869" />
  <row Id="47767" PostId="23388" Score="0" Text="Thank you very much!" CreationDate="2024-03-18T09:28:49.133" UserId="14867" />
  <row Id="47763" PostId="23390" Score="1" Text="seeing as the question also covers Y, Z, E, P, z, &amp; y this answer can be significantly improved by addressing those as well" CreationDate="2024-03-18T08:39:33.413" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="47773" PostId="23390" Score="0" Text="@Tristan Fair enough! I added a note on them. I didn't find anything addressing them, but I addressed the matter explicitly. There's certainly room for new answers if someone has something to add." CreationDate="2024-03-18T20:07:35.237" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47782" PostId="23390" Score="0" Text="Both &quot;yotta&quot; and &quot;zetta&quot; are also phonetic transcriptions of Greek letter names. The Greek `i/I` (`ι/Ι`) is called γιώτα (yota) in Modern Greek and ιώτα (iota, which is where the English word _iota_ comes from) in Ancient Greek, and the Greek `z/Z` (`ζ/Ζ`) is ζήτα (zeta of the zeta functions). I suspect that had something  to do with their usage here. (and sorry, I realize I am not telling you anything you don't know here Joonas, I just thought it might be worth mentioning)." CreationDate="2024-03-19T19:16:55.017" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="47783" PostId="23390" Score="0" Text="@terdon That's ok! I know full well that a comment on my post is not always a comment to me. // To my ear the difference between zeta and zetta (and iota and yotta) is substantial, so the connection is less than obvious. But the average American ear will probably disagree with me." CreationDate="2024-03-19T20:33:16.557" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47784" PostId="23390" Score="0" Text="That's interesting. Based on your profile, I guess you're a native Finnish speaker and I believe Finnish has a lot of cases where repeated letters change in pronunciation (my friend Janne took great pains to teach me!). As a native speaker of Greek and English, I don't read _yotta_ and _yota_ differently. Maybe, with my English only hat on, I would assume the former had a &quot;short&quot; `o`  (like _shot_) and the latter a &quot;long&quot; one (like _moan_ or _lone_), but I hadn't even noticed it before." CreationDate="2024-03-19T20:59:27.950" UserId="965" />
  <row Id="47764" PostId="23391" Score="0" Text="Interesting. This text has one instance of such usage: &quot;[...], et inde totum per mediam uallem **ipsam**, qua iacet in longo, rediremus ad iter cum hominibus Dei, qui nobis singula loca, quae scripta sunt, per ipsam uiallem ostendebant, sicut et factum est&quot;. Are there other texts whith some more instances?" CreationDate="2024-03-18T08:53:40.573" UserId="6540" />
  <row Id="47768" PostId="23392" Score="1" Text="I found [at least one example](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Law_Lexicon_Or_Dictionary_of_Jurispruden/pwtLAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22rei+credendum+esse%22&amp;pg=PA10&amp;printsec=frontcover) of *rei credendum esse*, which makes a lot more sense to my ear." CreationDate="2024-03-18T15:19:03.040" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47789" PostId="23392" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I was wondering why, for the gerundive-of-obligation, the ablative, &quot;re&quot; was used; yourself has corrected it to, &quot;rei&quot;. Why is &quot;iudici&quot; in the genitive? Why not use a passive infinitive giving: &quot;It is absurd that the matter should be believed and is not to be judged/ considered,&quot;?" CreationDate="2024-03-20T09:06:18.287" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47790" PostId="23392" Score="0" Text="@tony I interpret both as dative, i.e. &quot;It is absurd to affirm that we should believe in a thing, not in a judge.&quot;" CreationDate="2024-03-20T12:40:01.997" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47797" PostId="23392" Score="0" Text="@brianpck: I thought it was &quot;iudicium&quot;--&quot;judgement&quot;; not &quot;iudex&quot;--&quot;judge&quot;. Thanks." CreationDate="2024-03-21T08:19:51.773" UserId="1982" />
  <row Id="47821" PostId="23392" Score="0" Text="Could *re* not simply mean something like, &quot;in a case&quot;: &quot;It is absurd, that one ought not to trust the judge in a case*?" CreationDate="2024-03-24T01:59:06.993" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="47778" PostId="23395" Score="1" Text="I don't think it's possible to use *fors* in the accusative like that (except perhaps if it is personified). That's at least how I interpret the [L&amp;S](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/fors) entry." CreationDate="2024-03-19T16:16:50.670" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47774" PostId="23396" Score="4" Text="Side comment, given that you are asking a lot of questions about ancient Greek: I would recommend putting transliterations in parentheses and using the actual Greek letters." CreationDate="2024-03-19T03:08:20.817" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47792" PostId="23396" Score="1" Text="Most dictionaries will point out compound words. And since [LSJ](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=osos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) is easily accessible, you can just use that." CreationDate="2024-03-20T14:27:13.120" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47775" PostId="23397" Score="2" Text="+1 for giving the correspondence between the prefixes and the Greek/Latin numbers.  But it’s not quite accurate to call the SI prefixes “corruptions” of the Greek/Latin numbers — as explained in [Joonas Ilmavirta’s answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/23390/445), they’re deliberate neologisms, chosen to loosely echo the Greek/Latin numbers." CreationDate="2024-03-19T13:39:36.880" UserId="445" />
  <row Id="47776" PostId="23398" Score="1" Text="Are you looking for technical usages (e.g. Aristotle's) or the common usage? Even philosophers have their own conventions: Aristotle uses φρόνησις for &quot;practical reason&quot; (sometimes translated &quot;prudence&quot;) whereas νοῦς can refer either to &quot;intellect&quot; in general or the grasp of immediate principles. Plato doesn't seem to have the same &quot;practical&quot; restriction on φρόνησις." CreationDate="2024-03-19T14:38:44.773" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47777" PostId="23398" Score="0" Text="Common usage, but I imagine the philosophical use is informed by or helps inform the common usage." CreationDate="2024-03-19T15:40:12.557" UserId="2931" />
  <row Id="47779" PostId="23398" Score="3" Text="[Here](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*f%3Aentry+group%3D47%3Aentry%3Dfrone%2Fw) &amp; [there](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*n%3Aentry+group%3D26%3Aentry%3Dnoe%2Fw), with usage illustrations." CreationDate="2024-03-19T16:47:35.173" UserId="4991" />
  <row Id="47785" PostId="23398" Score="0" Text="@CosmasZachos I already checked LSJ... I made my post because LSJ (and other resources) don't clarify the actual difference between these two words... I also realized my question also relates to νοος and φρην. I think these need to be properly understood to understand the verbs." CreationDate="2024-03-20T02:48:19.403" UserId="2931" />
  <row Id="47786" PostId="23398" Score="0" Text="LSJ just lists the same glosses. That's the point of making this post. It says &quot;to be minded&quot; or &quot;to think&quot; for both of them. Okay... but what does that actually mean? What is the ancient Greek understanding of these words?" CreationDate="2024-03-20T02:49:47.777" UserId="2931" />
  <row Id="47787" PostId="23398" Score="1" Text="As I understand it now... φρονεω is the action of using the φρην, which is the mind located in the midriff/diaphragm/stomach. It involves a kind of thinking that comes from oneself, from the soul or will. Whereas νοεω is from the νοος, which is the mind located in the ητορ/καρδια, and is a kind of intellectual/reasoning. Taking outside thoughts in and reasoning with them. Thoughts?" CreationDate="2024-03-20T02:54:19.323" UserId="2931" />
  <row Id="47791" PostId="23398" Score="3" Text="@Phillip That's generally correct. It can take some times to write up a careful analysis, but considering the verbs in terms of φρήν or νόος is good for understanding their origin, less so for understanding their later development. Ancient Greek of course recorded well over a thousand years of literary history, so it can be difficult to disentangle all the various meanings inherent in the word to their metaphorical developments later on." CreationDate="2024-03-20T13:54:51.537" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47801" PostId="23404" Score="1" Text="I completely forgot about sampi while writing this, but it fits into this story as well." CreationDate="2024-03-21T19:25:15.803" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47860" PostId="23406" Score="0" Text="It is gorgeous. Thanks for sharing!" CreationDate="2024-03-27T11:13:16.530" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="47861" PostId="23406" Score="0" Text="I added a hyperlink to your post and a sample image." CreationDate="2024-03-27T12:52:13.430" UserId="2532" />
  <row Id="47808" PostId="23407" Score="1" Text="I focused on ae here since that's the question in the title, but as pointed out in the comments, oe not being a diphthong is somewhat more common in native Latin words." CreationDate="2024-03-22T15:45:47.563" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47812" PostId="23408" Score="1" Text="What is &quot;one&quot; referring to? Ancient Greek has grammatical gender, so the form will depend on what word is implied" CreationDate="2024-03-23T02:07:33.603" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47818" PostId="23408" Score="0" Text="@TKR &quot;one&quot; as in beer. (I'm the one who asked the question, I'm still new here... Thanks!)" CreationDate="2024-03-23T22:38:10.967" UserId="14893" />
  <row Id="47819" PostId="23408" Score="1" Text="@Vuk Please see [these instructions for merging your registered account with the unregistered one that owns this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts). That will give you better access to things like writing comments and marking an answer as accepted when you get a good one." CreationDate="2024-03-23T23:47:32.877" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47814" PostId="23410" Score="0" Text="I'm confused by your first sentence: &quot;Dogs are animals&quot; has two nouns but no determiners. Is capitalizing &quot;Fate&quot; an example of a determiner?" CreationDate="2024-03-23T04:19:52.910" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47815" PostId="23410" Score="0" Text="@brianpck The &quot;practically&quot; there is meant to exclude proper nouns and generic plurals, the two big exceptions." CreationDate="2024-03-23T05:18:55.883" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47816" PostId="23410" Score="0" Text="So you're saying it *can* mean &quot;its fate,&quot; but it doesn't explicitly have to? That was the effect I was going for! Do you have any imput about the other translations? I know they aren't grammar related, sorry." CreationDate="2024-03-23T09:26:39.763" UserId="14875" />
  <row Id="47817" PostId="23410" Score="0" Text="Oh I'm so sorry, I neglected to say thank you for your response! Taking the time to pass on your knowledge is much appreciated." CreationDate="2024-03-23T09:41:13.387" UserId="14875" />
  <row Id="47831" PostId="23410" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Gotcha. The wording at the beginning (&quot;You can't just know fate; you have to know *Fate*&quot;) made it sound like the proper name counted as a determiner." CreationDate="2024-03-25T15:38:05.647" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47820" PostId="23412" Score="1" Text="F probably not to phi but to archaic Greek wau/digamma. H to eta. J to I and iota. O to omicron. U, V, W, Y: I believe all to upsilon. Z to zeta. I think X is complicated, probably related to chi and xi but not sure. Q probably not related, maybe to phi? Phi and psi may be ultimately related to rho and or P, but not sure. Omega probably to omicron. W is a post-Roman invention based on U/V, just as J on I. Q is probably related to archaic Latin qoppa, not sure where that came from." CreationDate="2024-03-24T01:36:27.807" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="47822" PostId="23412" Score="1" Text="There were several [variants of Greek alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greek_alphabets). Letter Χ meant [kʰ] in Eastern Greek alphabets, and [ks] in Western Greek alphabet. [Italic alphabets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_scripts) (including Latin alphabet) were based on Western Greek alphabet." CreationDate="2024-03-24T07:16:20.930" UserId="13608" />
  <row Id="47844" PostId="23415" Score="0" Text="Seeing as you trace back to Phoenician for h, it may be worth noting that whilst distinct in Greek, digamma (whence f) and upsilon (whence u, v, w, &amp; y) come from the same Phoenician letter waw." CreationDate="2024-03-26T15:35:40.153" UserId="6853" />
  <row Id="47838" PostId="23417" Score="5" Text="Your first option sounds very natural, compared to the second one, which involves a marked simultaneous combination of two _ut_-clauses that are grammatically different." CreationDate="2024-03-25T18:33:47.237" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47836" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="I agree that a relevant virtue of your option is that it is more concise than _necesse est alterum mori ut alter vivat_. However, a virtue of the latter is that it is not ambiguous compared to your option: grammatically speaking, _alteri_ can be a dative of agent (intended reading) but could also be a beneficiary dative. Cf. the less classical construction _Pugnandum habebam non imperatori tantum sed patri_ (Sen. _Con._ 10.2.4), which was probably used by Seneca to avoid the ambiguity of the more classical construction _(Mihi) pugnandum erat non imperatori tantum sed patri_." CreationDate="2024-03-25T17:49:58.273" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47839" PostId="23419" Score="2" Text="I do like the chiasm in your second option." CreationDate="2024-03-25T20:26:45.323" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47840" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Syntactically ambiguous, perhaps, but what would *alicui morior* actually mean?" CreationDate="2024-03-25T21:08:10.980" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47842" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="The ambiguity could arise in cases where _mori_ + dative is used agentively, like _pugnare_ + dative above: 'to die/to fight for someone', e.g. for the emperor." CreationDate="2024-03-25T21:43:42.873" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47845" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino But are there such cases of *mori* + dat.? I'd expect *mori pro* + abl. instead. I doubt it would occur to any Classical Latin speaker to read *alteri* as anything other than a dative of agent." CreationDate="2024-03-26T16:24:39.853" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47846" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="@TKR Both patterns (beneficiary dative and  _pro_ + ablative) can alternate to express the same content: e.g. cf. _qui sciret sibi pro omnibus suis pugnandum_ (Frontin. _strat._ 1.11.5) and _Pugnandum habebam non imperatori tantum sed patri_ (Sen. _Con._ 10.2.4). Is this alternation possible with _pugnandum_ but not with _moriendum_? Or, to be more precise, is _Pugnandum est imperatori_ ambiguous, whereas _Moriendum est imperatori_ is not? Well, I don't think so (as noted, for me both are ambiguous). Was there variation on this point among native speakers? Well, perhaps, but we'll never know." CreationDate="2024-03-26T17:36:49.273" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47848" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="The fact that _pugnare_ but not _mori_ can be easily found with a beneficiary dative is because the former is an agentive unergative verb, whereas the latter is a non-agentive unaccusative verb. However, as noted above, _mori_ can also be used agentively (not only in Latin but also in other languages) and it is only in this non-prototypical usage when this verb can be expected to coappear with a beneficiary dative (hence your correct impression above concerning the rarity of this pattern). So _imperatori_ can be a beneficiary dative in _Moriendum est imperatori_ if _mori_ is used agentively." CreationDate="2024-03-26T19:20:47.353" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47849" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino Well, maybe it's not impossible (though I'd like to see attestations), but pragmatically speaking the beneficiary reading seems pretty unlikely -- &quot;(some unspecified person) must die for one so that the other will live&quot;? Lots of theoretical ambiguities are visible only to syntacticians. *Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana*." CreationDate="2024-03-26T19:44:05.293" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47851" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="To avoid this problem with pragmatics, I deliberately changed your example into another one where both readings of the dative (agent and benef.) can sound natural: _Moriendum est imperatori_. According to you, this example is NOT ambiguous (unlike _Pugnandum est imperatori_), right? On second thought, perhaps you're right &amp; I'm wrong: the lack of ambiguity of _Moriendum est imperatori_ would be coherent with the ungrammaticality of _Moriendum est ab omnibus_, discussed in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21222/on-the-alleged-passive-meaning-of-so-called-miscalled-passive-periphrastic" CreationDate="2024-03-26T20:49:34.633" UserId="3248" />
  <row Id="47852" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="@Mitomino I don't have a clear sense of whether *Moriendum est imperatori* can have a beneficiary reading; I'd want to do a corpus search for examples of *mori* + dat. with such a reading. (If there are none, of course that wouldn't be probative, but it would be suggestive.)" CreationDate="2024-03-26T21:22:57.707" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47863" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="I like Alteri moriendum ut vivat alter. Beautiful.&#xA;And while we're being linguistically finicky, I wish people would stop saying &quot;compared to&quot; when they mean &quot;compared with.&quot; The first marks a similarity, as in &quot;Shall I compare thee to a summer's day,&quot; the second a difference." CreationDate="2024-03-27T10:07:25.370" UserId="14904" />
  <row Id="47864" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="@user14904 This does not add anything to existing answers, except a prescriptivist claim about an artificial difference between two English structures that are not relevant to the question at all." CreationDate="2024-03-27T10:33:29.470" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="47865" PostId="23419" Score="0" Text="@user14904 If you're taking about Mitomono's comment, do bear in mind that English isn't everyone's first language, and languages change all the time. For what it's worth, that's how I would use those two." CreationDate="2024-03-27T16:07:54.933" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47882" PostId="23420" Score="1" Text="The question asking about I want/need a 1000 more soliders, struck a chord in me with &quot;Give me back my legions' or in the Latin from a google search  'Quintili Vare, legiones redde. So if has the authority, perhaps not as the request &quot;I want&quot; but perhaps as the command give me? da (do, dare)." CreationDate="2024-03-30T03:03:17.793" UserId="10106" />
  <row Id="47843" PostId="23421" Score="6" Text="Or _mors alterius, vita alterius_, which has a nice parallelism to it." CreationDate="2024-03-26T12:40:49.673" UserId="1196" />
  <row Id="47847" PostId="23422" Score="0" Text="Apparently ζῦθος has some attestations for &quot;beer&quot; in ancient Greek." CreationDate="2024-03-26T18:39:42.350" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="47850" PostId="23422" Score="0" Text="@brianpck True, but I avoided that because I'm not sure it could be treated as a count noun." CreationDate="2024-03-26T19:46:52.273" UserId="40" />
  <row Id="47866" PostId="23425" Score="2" Text="It worth noting the context (as revealed by the text before ). If I get this right, Kummer says that the fundamental theorem of arithmetic does not hold in the complex world. That is: it is the case that the same complex number can be written as the product of different &quot;simple factors&quot; (which I guess it the prime equivalent in the complex?); then appears the Q's  quoted part in another wording. Google Translate superficially looks okay. I think it is better to replace *that every time it is* with *that every time **that** it is*. i.e., however often that happens that..." CreationDate="2024-03-27T20:33:41.090" UserId="4796" />
  <row Id="47867" PostId="23425" Score="0" Text="You are entirely correct, the &quot;simple factors&quot; in question are prime elements. I shall update the question to include the previous sentence. Are you some kind of mathematician yourself, or are you just a well-read layman? :)" CreationDate="2024-03-27T20:43:48.377" UserId="14905" />
  <row Id="47869" PostId="23425" Score="3" Text="Is it possible that quotiens is a noun meaning 'quotient' here, not the adverb, so that it means 'If a complex number can be divided by another complex number in such a way that the quotient is a complex integer'? Would that make mathematical sense? Otherwise, the sentence seems to be missing a clause somewhere." CreationDate="2024-03-27T21:12:37.447" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="47871" PostId="23425" Score="0" Text="@cnread That would actually make perfect sense. If one then translates *ubique* a bit more liberally to mean &quot;always&quot; as opposed to &quot;everywhere&quot;, more akin to the English *ubiquitous*, in fact, then the sentence could be translated as &quot;If a complex number can be divided by another complex number in such a way that the quotient is a complex integer, then it is not ubiquitous that the prime factors of the divisor can be compensated for by the prime factors of the dividend.&quot; At first glance, the sentence would look more like a blind idiot's translation, but mathematically it makes perfect sense." CreationDate="2024-03-27T21:50:57.867" UserId="14905" />
  <row Id="47878" PostId="23425" Score="2" Text="Even though Google quite reasonably translates &quot;compensari&quot; as &quot;to be compensated&quot;, I think the mathematical intent is rather &quot;to be matched up with&quot; or &quot;to be found among&quot;. The point of the whole passage  is that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic&quot; can fail in the complex  case, and this last sentence should therefore be about the uniqueness of the prime factorization (up to order and unit factors)." CreationDate="2024-03-28T17:41:14.487" UserId="9372" />
  <row Id="47872" PostId="23426" Score="2" Text="Anserin, you're either a true gentleman or a true gentlewoman! I might have some further questions later down the line, so I'm very happy to have you around. My university webpage is here: https://www.math.hhu.de/lehrstuehle-/-personen-/-ansprechpartner/innen/lehrstuehle-des-mathematischen-instituts/lehrstuhl-fuer-algebraische-geometrie/team/max-lindh in case you want to send me a quick e-mail so I can properly credit you for the translation when it comes to writing the thesis!" CreationDate="2024-03-27T23:13:04.650" UserId="14905" />
  <row Id="47874" PostId="23426" Score="1" Text="Best todays approximation to 'non ubique' in the mathematical universe is 'not in the general case', meaning, the trick often works, but one cannot prove it for all possible cases.  Kummer references the logical fault in Cauchys (and others) attempts to find a proof of Fermats famous theorem by extending natural integer divisibilty arguments into the domain of complex integers, a field absolutely not understood before the 1920ties without modern algebra." CreationDate="2024-03-28T08:52:48.433" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="47875" PostId="23426" Score="0" Text="@RolandF I don't know whether Kummer means &quot;in each position&quot; (if you consider that the factors are written one above the other, for example) or &quot;in all cases&quot; (I would have expected *non semper*), which is why I've kept the English ambiguous. One probably have to look at the rest of the article to find out" CreationDate="2024-03-28T09:15:39.657" UserId="14825" />
  <row Id="47877" PostId="23426" Score="1" Text="@Anserin Kummer uses ubiquitious in the sense of his German Latin slang of mathematicians, coined by Euler and Gauss as &quot;willkürlich, beliebig, frei wählbar&quot; to denote a symbol as a free variable in a given set of numbers. Wiktionary yields arbitrary, random, haphazard, any, whichever as english synonyms. For the specialists see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/85520/fermats-last-theorem-and-kummers-objection" CreationDate="2024-03-28T13:18:53.270" UserId="13518" />
  <row Id="47883" PostId="23429" Score="1" Text="If you drop the second R in the word, you get a lot of modern organizations/groups/etc who use the word &quot;interanima.&quot; It still doesn't mean &quot;inner soul,&quot; but maybe the double R is a typo?" CreationDate="2024-03-30T14:09:30.883" UserId="78" />
  <row Id="47885" PostId="23432" Score="2" Text="Please don't ever use ꜷ unless you're specifically transcribing a Medieval document that uses it. It's not meant to be used in normal text. The only reason æ and œ sometimes are is because they were read as simple vowels in Medieval and later Latin." CreationDate="2024-03-31T20:56:13.773" UserId="6109" />
  <row Id="47886" PostId="23432" Score="0" Text="If you want to indicate a diphthong, there are other means than using ligatures. We might already have a question on that, and I'd welcome one if we don't. But do bear in mind that the best solution depends on your goal." CreationDate="2024-03-31T20:59:20.580" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="47887" PostId="23432" Score="0" Text="@Cairnarvon Why not? according to the Unicode standard, ꜷ is &quot;LATIN SMALL LETTER AU&quot;, and æ is &quot;LATIN SMALL LETTER AE&quot;, so I am not using a weird thing, and I don't think anyone would get mad" CreationDate="2024-03-31T21:07:12.540" UserId="14839" />
  <row Id="47891" PostId="23432" Score="3" Text="@richardIII LATIN in the Unicode standard means it's part of the Latin alphabet, as opposed to e.g. Arabic or Cyrillic. But that doesn't mean it's used for the Latin language. I don't think I've ever seen ꜷ used in a Latin text, ever." CreationDate="2024-03-31T21:25:37.713" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47888" PostId="23433" Score="0" Text="Does aü ever appear in native Latin words? I guess you could use it for Greek but that's more often written aÿ." CreationDate="2024-03-31T21:15:40.640" UserId="406" />
  <row Id="47889" PostId="23433" Score="0" Text="@Draconis: the main case where aü occurs is adaptations of Greek names ending in -aos such as Menelaus Μενέλαος." CreationDate="2024-03-31T21:17:14.650" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="47890" PostId="23433" Score="0" Text="@Draconis Ēsāus in the Bible" CreationDate="2024-03-31T21:17:41.467" UserId="14839" />
</comments>